Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2014 / iii / Paper 55 (Structure and Evolution of Stars)

For a spherical stellar polytrope in hydrostatic equilibrium, combine $d{m}_r/dr=4\pi r^2\rho$ with $dP/dr=-G{m}_r\rho /r^2$ to eliminate the enclosed mass:For $n>0$, put $P=K{\rho }^{1+1/n}$, $\rho ={\rho }_c{\theta }^n$, $P=P_c{\theta }^{n+1}$ and $r=a\xi$. Since ${\rho }^{-1}dP/dr=(n+1)P_c{\theta }^{\prime }/(a{\rho }_c)$, chooseThe Lane-Emden equation is thenA regular center requires $\theta (0)=1$ and ${\theta }^{\prime }(0)=0$, with positive chosen central mass density and pressure. Locally $\theta =1-{\xi }^2/6+n{\xi }^4/120+\cdots$. The stellar surface is the first positive zero ${\xi }_1$, where the idealized external pressure is zero; retain the positive solution before it. Thus $R=a{\xi }_1$ and the Lane-Emden mass formula isThe surface condition selects where to stop a centrally regular solution, rather than replacing its central regularity conditions.

For a polytrope of index zero, the density is constant and $({\xi }^2{\theta }^{\prime }{)}^{\prime }=-{\xi }^2$. Regularity givesThe pressure is $P_c{\theta }_0$ and $a^2=P_c/(4\pi G{\rho }_c^2)$, so $R^2=3P_c/(2\pi G{\rho }_c^2)$. Index zero is the structural incompressible limit: the expression $K{\rho }^{1+1/n}$ is not itself defined at $n=0$.

For a polytrope of index one, set $u=\xi \theta$. The equation becomes $u^{\prime \prime }+u=0$, while central regularity requires $u(0)=0$, $u^{\prime }(0)=1$. HenceThe mass is $4{\pi }^2{a}^3{\rho }_c$, so it can change with central mass density while the radius stays fixed.

The moment of inertia of a polytropic star about any axis through its center follows by integrating $r^2{\sin }^2\vartheta$ over spherical shells:For constant mass density this gives $I_0=2M{R}^2/5$. For index one, integration by parts gives ${\int }_0^{\pi }{\xi }^3\sin \xi d\xi =\pi ({\pi }^2-6)$, and thereforeThese are axial moments of inertia, not the scalar second mass moment $\int r^{2}dm$.

For a finite-radius centrally regular stellar polytrope with $0<n<5$ and $n\ne 1$, eliminate ${\rho }_c$ from $R=a{\xi }_1$ and $M=4\pi a^3{\rho }_c{\omega }_n$. The resulting polytropic mass-radius relation isHere ${\xi }_1,{\omega }_n$ are dimensionless functions of $n$. At $n=1$ no such single-valued mass-as-a-power-of-radius relation exists at fixed $K$: the radius is fixed instead. At $n=3$ the exponent is zero and $M=4\pi {\omega }_3(K/(\pi G){)}^{3/2}$ is independent of central mass density. For the incompressible case, $M=(4\pi {\rho }_c/3)R^3$ at fixed mass density. Regular $n\ge 5$ solutions have no finite zero-pressure surface, so the finite-radius formula does not apply to them.

In stellar homology, the dimensionless radial profiles are the same after scaling radius, enclosed mass, pressure, temperature and luminosity. At corresponding radii let $r^{\prime }=\xi r$, $m_r^{\prime }=m{m}_r$, $T^{\prime }=tT$, $P^{\prime }=pP$ and $L_r^{\prime }=l{L}_r$. The printed $R^{\prime }=\xi r$ is understood as this local radial scaling, with surface radius $R^{\prime }=\xi R$.

Let $q={\rho }^{\prime }/\rho$ and keep composition, opacity coefficient and nuclear coefficient fixed first. Mass conservation gives $q=m/{\xi }^3$, and hydrostatic equilibrium gives $p=mq/\xi =m^2/{\xi }^4$. The ideal gas law then gives $t=p/q=m/\xi$. Scaling the stellar energy-generation rate equation and the stellar radiative temperature gradient gives respectivelyThe second follows from $dT/dr\propto -\kappa \rho L_r/(r^2{T}^3)$, not from energy production. Equating the two luminosity scalings givesThis assumes the denominator is nonzero and a consistent homologous family exists. If the mean molecular weight differs by $u={\mu }^{\prime }/\mu$, then $t=um/\xi$ andRatios of the opacity and energy-generation coefficients multiply the right-hand side. Thus fixed composition is a real restriction, not an automatic property of every stellar sequence.

Use the Stefan–Boltzmann law $L=4\pi R^2\sigma T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4$ to locate the family on a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. It implies $T_{\mathrm{eff}}\propto M^{(Y-2X)/4}$ andFor proton–proton chain burning take the usual local approximation $\eta =4$, with Kramers opacity law $\lambda =1$, $\nu =-7/2$. ThenFor the CNO cycle with electron-scattering opacity, $\lambda =\nu =0$, soA conventional local choice $\eta =16$ gives $R\propto M^{15/19}$ and slope $76/9\simeq 8.44$. Choosing $\eta =17$ instead gives slope $60/7\simeq 8.57$. The source specifies no numerical nuclear exponents, and the effective exponent changes with temperature; the general expression is the unambiguous answer.

The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram places hotter stars to the left. Its branches rise toward higher luminosity and mass, and the CNO cycle/electron-scattering opacity branch has the steeper logarithmic slope. Their illustrative joining point and normalization are arbitrary because the proportional opacity and reaction laws do not specify absolute stellar scales. These are the fully radiative ideal-gas homology predictions, not exact observed main sequence relations: convection and increasing radiation support limit those assumptions in real stars.

Radiative transport supplies the temperature gradient used below. A purely radiative equilibrium model also needs stellar convective stability; the transport assumption alone is not a general proof of stability.

The total pressure is the sum of ideal gas and radiation pressure contributions. The gas fraction and its complement will be obtained from the structure equations, rather than prescribed independently at each radius.

Chemical homogeneity makes the mean molecular weight spatially constant. This is what allows the pressure-density coefficient derived below to be a single polytropic constant.

The chosen opacity law makes $\kappa L_r/m_r=\alpha L/M$ spatially constant. This closes the Eddington standard model relation between its radiation-pressure and total-pressure gradients. The four roman-numbered proofs use the whole model, not only this opacity assumption.

Divide the radiation-pressure gradient by the total-pressure gradient. Radiative diffusion in a star and hydrostatic equilibrium giveThis last quantity is independent of radius under the specified opacity assumption. Integration gives $P_r=fP+C$. With the standard idealized zero-pressure outer boundary, where both components vanish, $C=0$. The stellar gas-pressure fraction is thereforeconstant throughout the model. This is the Eddington standard model idealization. A finite photospheric pressure offset would need its boundary treatment; the differential relation alone does not set the integration constant to zero.

Both gas and radiation pressures are nonnegative, so $0\le \beta \le 1$. Rearranging the constant-fraction result givesThis is the Eddington luminosity for the effective opacity constant of this model. Positive gas support gives a strict inequality, with equality only in the radiation-only limiting case. Exceeding the limit would require a negative gas-pressure fraction, which is incompatible with the assumed equation of state.

Put $\mathcal{R}=k_B/m_u$, with $m_u$ the atomic mass constant and $a_r$ the radiation energy-density constant. The ideal gas and radiation pressure contributions obey $P_g=\rho \mathcal{R}T/\mu$ and $P_r=a_r{T}^4/3$. With the constant stellar gas-pressure fraction, eliminate $T=\mu \beta P/(\mathcal{R}\rho )$ to getHenceSince $\mu$ and $\beta$ are spatially constant, so is $K$. Comparing with $P=K{\rho }^{1+1/n}$ gives polytropic index $n=3$. This structural stellar polytrope relation does not assert that every perturbed fluid parcel has stellar adiabatic exponent $4/3$.

For polytropic index three, the Lane-Emden mass formula cancels the central mass density:Substituting the preceding constant $K$ givesFor fixed composition this is $M\propto \sqrt{1-\beta }/{\beta }^2$, as required. Squaring and rearranging yields the Eddington quartic relation, $(1-\beta )/{\beta }^4\propto {\mu }^4{M}^2$. The larger masses in this model have smaller gas fractions and relatively more radiation support.

A stellar equation of state supplies pressure and internal energy as functions of density, temperature and composition, together with thermodynamic derivatives needed for stability and transport. Hydrostatic equilibrium fixes the pressure gradient, but does not determine which microscopic components provide the pressure. In ordinary dense interiors local thermodynamic equilibrium is a useful starting point. A consistent mixture iswhere ions, Electrons, radiation and interaction corrections are distinguished. The classical Electron pressure and electron degeneracy pressure are two limits of the same Electron contribution, and must not be added as if they belonged to different particles. The finite-temperature electron equation of state interpolates between them.

In a fully ionized, nondegenerate, nonrelativistic gas, $P_g=\rho k_{B}T/(\mu m_u)$ and specific thermal energy is $u_g=3k_{B}T/(2\mu m_u)$. With nuclear mass fractions $X_A$, charges $Z_A$ and mass numbers $A_A$, the mean molecular weight satisfies ${\mu }^{-1}={\sum }_A{X}_A(1+Z_A)/A_A$, and ${\mu }_e^{-1}={\sum }_A{X}_A{Z}_A/A_A$ is the mean molecular weight per electron. This regime describes much of an ordinary main sequence interior. Toward cooler layers, ionization and molecular dissociation change particle numbers and consume heat. The Saha equation relates ionization to both temperature and Electron density: there is no universal horizontal ionization boundary. These regions have larger heat capacity and can have a reduced stellar adiabatic exponent. The simple fully ionized formula is then insufficient.

Equilibrium photons give radiation pressure $P_{\gamma }=a_r{T}^4/3$ and energy per volume $a_r{T}^4$, or specific energy $u_{\gamma }=a_r{T}^4/\rho$. In the nondegenerate gas regime, equality with gas pressure gives the radiation-to-gas pressure boundarya line of slope $1/3$ on a $(\log \rho ,\log T)$ plot. Higher temperatures at fixed mass density favor photon support. A monatomic gas has stellar adiabatic exponent $5/3$, while radiation alone has $4/3$; their adiabatic exponents of a monatomic gas-radiation mixture are not obtained by assuming a fixed pressure fraction during compression. Radiation support is particularly important in massive stars.

For Electrons, Pauli exclusion principle and the Fermi-Dirac distribution determine occupation numbers. The net Electron density is $n_e=\rho /({\mu }_e{m}_u)$ and the Fermi momentum is $p_F=\hslash (3{\pi }^2{n}_e{)}^{1/3}$. Define the kinetic electron Fermi temperatureFor $T\gg T_F$ the Electrons are nearly classical; for $T\ll T_F$ they are strongly degenerate and their pressure depends primarily on density. The intermediate region requires finite-temperature electron equation of state integrals, not a discontinuous switch of formulas.

The equation of state of a cold electron gas gives, in its two limits,These are respectively the $n=3/2$ and $n=3$ pressure-density powers, explaining the approximate white dwarf polytropic mass-radius relation sequence and the Chandrasekhar limit. The kinetic energy per volume is $3P_e/2$ in the nonrelativistic limit and $3P_e$ in the ultrarelativistic limit. Ions can still supply much of the heat capacity even when the Electron pressure supplies the mechanical support.

The Electron degeneracy crossover $T\sim T_F$ has slope $2/3$ at low mass density and $1/3$ at high mass density. The electron relativistic density threshold isa vertical marker where $p_F=m_{e}c$. It is different from the thermal electron relativistic threshold $k_{B}T\sim m_e{c}^2$, near $5.93\times 10^9\mathrm{K}$, a horizontal temperature scale. Hot dilute matter can have relativistic thermal Electrons without degeneracy; cold dense matter can have relativistic degenerate Electrons without reaching that temperature.

Electron degeneracy also does not automatically imply that Electrons dominate the total pressure. Comparing the cold Electron limit with radiation gives the radiation-to-degeneracy pressure boundaryIts logarithmic slopes are $5/12$ for nonrelativistic Electrons and $1/3$ for ultrarelativistic Electrons. One must compare the pressures separately from the degeneracy criterion; extrapolating the classical gas-radiation line into a degenerate region is incorrect.

The stellar equation-of-state regime diagram uses an illustrative fully ionized carbon composition, ${\mu }_e=2$, $\mu =12/7$. It displays the electron-degeneracy crossover, both radiation-pressure comparisons, and distinct thermal and density-driven relativity scales. The curves are limiting-model comparisons, not sharp phase boundaries or a calibrated complete equation of state. Partial ionization, molecular physics and interactions modify the low-temperature regions indicated on the plot.

At sufficiently high temperature, electron-positron thermal pair abundance can become important. The pair abundance depends on density and chemical potential as well as temperature; $k_{B}T=m_e{c}^2$ is not a universal onset line. In the dilute ultrarelativistic limit, both pair species together add energy density $7a_r{T}^4/4$ to the photons' $a_r{T}^4$, and have pressure one third of their energy density. While pairs are being created, thermal energy is spent on rest mass, which can reduce the stellar adiabatic exponent below $4/3$ and contribute to pair-instability supernova physics.

At high mass density and low temperature, Interactions governed by Coulomb's law invalidate the noninteracting-ion approximation. The ionic Coulomb coupling parameter $\Gamma =Z^2{e}^2/(4\pi {ϵ}_0{a}_i{k}_{B}T)$, where $a_i=(3/(4\pi n_i){)}^{1/3}$, grows as ${\rho }^{1/3}/T$. Corrections become significant when $\Gamma$ is of order one, and a sufficiently strongly coupled plasma can crystallize. At still greater mass density, electron capture alters ${\mu }_e$ and nuclear matter replaces the ideal electron-ion model; neutron star interiors require strong-interaction and relativistic equations of state. These further regimes lie beyond the simple pressure curves plotted here. A useful stellar EOS is thermodynamically consistent across the crossovers, rather than just the maximum of unrelated pressure laws.