Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2016 / iii / Paper 317 / 1

Write $\mathcal{R}=k/(\mu m_H)$ for the specific gas constant, with the printed $m_H$ denoting the atomic mass unit, and $a_{\mathrm{r}}=4\sigma /c$ for the radiation constant. In the low-mass envelope the enclosed mass is approximately $M$ and the outward luminosity is approximately $L$. The stellar hydrostatic equation, stellar radiative diffusion, and ideal gas equation giveThe Kramers' opacity law becomes $\kappa =({\kappa }_0/\mathcal{R})P{T}^{-9/2}$. Dividing the two differential equations eliminates radius and mass density:Integrating from a surface matching point $(P_s,T_s)$ givesDeep compared with the photosphere, the surface terms are negligible. The radiative-zero white-dwarf envelope therefore hasThis is the leading envelope approximation used in the later parts, rather than an exact atmospheric boundary condition at $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$.

At the base, temperature, mass density and pressure match the isothermal degenerate core. Let $K_{\mathrm{NR}}=K_1{\mu }_e^{-5/3}$, where ${\mu }_e$ is the mean molecular weight per electron. Equating the gas and electron degeneracy pressure givesHence $P_b={\mu }_e^{5/2}{\mathcal{R}}^{5/2}{K}_1^{-3/2}{T}_c^{5/2}$. Substituting this into the envelope relation at $T=T_c$ yieldsThe matching of a white-dwarf envelope to a degenerate core thus gives $L/M\propto T_c^{7/2}$, the envelope relation underlying Mestel's cooling law. It depends on pressure as well as mass density continuity at the interface; otherwise the supplied core equation would not determine the matching mass density.

In the radiative-zero white-dwarf envelope, $dP/dT=(17/4)P/T=(17/4)\mathcal{R}\rho$. Substitute this derivative into the stellar hydrostatic equation:Integrating from the idealized zero-temperature surface at $R$ givesThis also gives $d\log T/d\log P=4/17$. A finite surface temperature adds $T_s$ to the integrated profile if the pure power-law pressure relation is retained locally. Near the actual photosphere, the integration constant in the pressure law also matters; the displayed expression is the radiative-zero limit implicit in the printed result and accurate in the deep envelope when $T_c\gg T_{\mathrm{eff}}$.

Apply the preceding temperature profile at the envelope base. Introduce the dimensionless parameterThen $R/r_b-1=q$, so the geometrical thickness of a white-dwarf radiative envelope isThe smallness to be established is therefore $\mathcal{R}{T}_c\ll GM/R$, up to the numerical factor $17/4$.

That ordering follows from the cold, strongly electron-degenerate white dwarf model. Throughout the mass-bearing core, $k{T}_c\ll E_F$, where $E_F$ is the Fermi energy. For nonrelativistic electron degeneracy pressure,The stellar hydrostatic equation gives a characteristic core $P_{\mathrm{deg}}/\rho$ of order $GM/R$. Consequentlyfor fixed composition with order-one molecular-weight ratios, and $s\ll R$. Equivalently, the matched base mass density is much lower than a characteristic core mass density, since ${\rho }_b/{\rho }_{\mathrm{core}}\sim [\mathcal{R}{T}_c/(GM/R){]}^{3/2}$. The degeneracy ordering applies in the bulk core; at the matching point degeneracy is becoming marginal.

The inequalities $T_c\gg T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and $k{T}_c\ll E_F$ express different facts. The first justifies ignoring surface-temperature terms, while the second makes the envelope geometrically thin. If the core were hot enough that $q$ were not small, the exact expression $s/R=q/(1+q)$ would not justify a thin-layer approximation.

Compare two cooling states of the same white dwarf, holding its mass, nearly temperature-independent degenerate radius and composition fixed. The matching of a white-dwarf envelope to a degenerate core gives $L\propto T_c^{7/2}$, while the geometrical thickness of a white-dwarf radiative envelope gives $s\propto T_c$ at leading thin-layer order. Eliminate $T_c$:Thus a luminosity drop makes the envelope thinner, with $s_2/s_1=(L_2/L_1{)}^{2/7}$. This is the white-dwarf envelope thickness-luminosity relation. Retaining finite thickness in the radiative-zero model gives the correctionwhich reduces to the boxed result for $q_1,q_2\ll 1$.