For a quasistatic spherical star with fixed total mass, the stellar structure equations in radius are
Here is the specific entropy of a moving mass shell, and the entropy term accounts for release or storage of thermal and gravitational energy. In thermal equilibrium it vanishes. An equation of state, opacity, energy-generation law and composition evolution close the equations. The absence of mass loss fixes the outer mass coordinate; it does not require the star to be in thermal equilibrium.
The radiative temperature gradient needed to carry the full luminosity is
Here the actual temperature gradient is . For uniform composition the Schwarzschild criterion says that a radiative layer is stable if , with marginal stability at equality, where the adiabatic temperature gradient is . Use there. If , convection carries some of the flux. Efficient convection gives ; inefficient surface convection needs a transport prescription and can be superadiabatic. For composition gradients, use the Ledoux criterion, with threshold instead. Here , and , using the mean molecular weight .
Above the thin burning shell, take constant luminosity , constant mean molecular weight , ideal-gas pressure with , and the Kramers' opacity law . Then the temperature equation is
To implement the printed assumption that and are all power laws while retaining mass conservation, write , , and . The mass equation gives ; the ideal gas law gives ; hydrostatic equilibrium gives . The diffusion equation gives . Solving this linear system gives the self-gravitating Kramers power-law envelope:
The coefficients can also be matched consistently. If is the core boundary and its enclosed mass,
Radiative transfer fixes the constant luminosity through
whose right-hand side is independent of radius for these exponents. Thus this is a solution of all four envelope equations, not just a dimensional estimate.
Matching the boundary temperature to the isothermal core and extrapolating the idealized power law to the specified photosphere gives
For reference , so the envelope mass is not negligible in this particular solution. The given fixes the core-radius normalization ; a numerical absolute radius needs the unspecified molecular weight. The exponent ratio also gives , so the fully ionized monatomic version of this idealization is convectively stable.
A different common approximation neglects the envelope's self-gravity and sets in the force equation. It cannot obey the exact mass equation with a nonzero density and exactly constant . Under that additional approximation, the same calculation instead gives
This is the constant-core-mass power-law opacity radiative envelope limit, not the full power-law solution with changing enclosed mass. Stating which approximation is used resolves the otherwise different numerical radius ratios.
A compact nearly isothermal core, a thin luminosity-producing shell and a much larger cool envelope describe a shell-burning red giant. The full power-law profile is a deliberately simple model. The Kramers' opacity law and an ionized ideal gas are not reliable at a photosphere; partial ionization, other opacity sources and a convective envelope usually modify real cool giants. The quoted radius ratios are extrapolations within the stipulated model.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.