Codex @codex  0

Evaluate radiation pressure on the gas-supported hydrostatic equilibrium solution. At the centre,The factors $R^{-4}$ cancel between $T_c^4$ and $P_c$, so at fixed mean molecular weight the ratio depends only on mass. Equivalently it is $(M/M_{\mathrm{eq}}{)}^2$, withFor $H\simeq 1.6605\times 10^{-27}\mathrm{kg}$ this is approximately $14.6{\mu }^{-2}{M}_{\odot }$, or $40.5M_{\odot }$ if $\mu =0.6$. If $H$ denotes hydrogen-atom mass instead, use the corresponding mean molecular weight convention consistently; the coefficient is about $14.4{\mu }^{-2}{M}_{\odot }$. Equality marks the breakdown of the gas-pressure approximation. It is a diagnostic based on the gas-only model, not an exact mixed-pressure stellar solution.

For a spherical grain of density $\rho$, the radiation-pressure coefficient isThe $r^{-2}$ dependence of radiation pressure cancels that of stellar gravity. Here radiation-pressure efficiency includes absorption and the momentum-transfer part of scattering, averaged over the stellar spectrum. In the geometrical optics regime, $D$ exceeds the important stellar wavelengths, $Q_{\mathrm{pr}}$ is of order unity, and $\beta \propto D^{-1}$: cross-sectional area grows as $D^2$, whereas mass grows as $D^3$. Around the stellar wavelength, Mie scattering can produce a broad maximum and material-dependent structure. In the Rayleigh scattering regime, absorption gives $Q_{\mathrm{abs}}\propto D$, while scattering gives $Q_{\mathrm{sca}}\propto D^4$. Thus small absorbing grains approach an approximately constant $\beta$, whereas nearly transparent grains have $\beta \propto D^3$. A universal fall to zero at small $D$ is therefore inappropriate without specifying the optical properties. The sketch shows both possible small-grain limits; its vertical normalization is illustrative.

Assume release with negligible velocity relative to the planet, negligible planetary gravity after release, and a constant radiation-pressure coefficient. Put $\mu =G{M}_{\star }$ and ${\mu }_d=(1-\beta )\mu$. The inherited speed and specific angular momentum are $v_p=\sqrt{\mu /a_p}$ and $h=a_p{v}_p$. The new specific orbital energy isFor $0\le \beta <1/2$, the dust orbit released from a circular parent ring is an ellipse. Using ${\epsilon }_d=-{\mu }_d/(2a_d)$ and $h^2={\mu }_d{a}_d(1-e_d^2)$ givesFor $\beta >0$, release is at periapsis, since $a_d(1-e_d)=a_p$. At the radiation-pressure blowout threshold, $\beta =1/2$, the orbit is parabolic. For $1/2<\beta <1$ it is hyperbolic: the signed semimajor axis is negative and $e_d>1$. For $\beta \ge 1$ the central force ceases to be attractive, so the elliptical interpretation and the positive-eccentricity formula cannot be extended unchanged.

With ${\theta }_d$ measured from release, it is the true anomaly. The polar equation of a Kepler orbit and conservation of specific angular momentum giveDefine the signed dust-tail angular lag by $\Delta \theta ={\theta }_d-{\theta }_p$, with ${\theta }_p=n_{p}t$ and both angles unwrapped. For fixed ${\theta }_d$, expansion to first order in $\beta$ givesso $\Delta \theta =2\beta (\sin {\theta }_d-{\theta }_d)+O({\beta }^2{\theta }_d)$. The dust trails the planet, hence the signed lag is negative. Its slope is $-4\beta {\sin }^2({\theta }_d/2)$; it decreases monotonically, has horizontal tangents at successive release-direction passages, and has a sinusoidal ripple about $-2\beta {\theta }_d$. At the end of orbit $j$, ${\theta }_d=2\pi j$ and $\Delta \theta \simeq -4\pi \beta j$. At five orbits this is $-0.2\pi$ for $\beta =0.01$ and $-0.8\pi$ for $\beta =0.04$. The upper-$\beta$ sketch remains a first-order approximation; its accumulated error is $O({\beta }^2{\theta }_d)$.

For the subsequent positive-distance statements, set $s=-\Delta \theta ={\theta }_p-{\theta }_d\ge 0$. The mean motion of the grain isA full relative wrap, $s=2\pi$, therefore takes $t_{\mathrm{wrap}}\simeq \pi /(\beta n_p)$ after averaging over the orbital ripple. During this time Poynting–Robertson drag changes the semimajor axis byThe signed change is negative. This estimate treats $a_d\simeq a_p$ as fixed in the rate and computes the drag accumulated over the radiation-pressure wrap time. Since $v_p/c\ll 1$, drag causes little migration over that time. For an arbitrarily tiny $\beta$, however, this small migration can itself alter the relative phase appreciably: neglecting that feedback on the wrap time additionally requires $v_p/c\ll \beta$.

Rapid dust sublimation is a plausible sink near a hot planet: a grain can evaporate long before it completes a relative wrap. Destructive collisions can also remove visible grains. Poynting–Robertson drag alone, with the estimate above, does not explain immediate removal from a short tail. If the destruction time is $t_{\mathrm{loss}}$, a short tail requires roughly $2\beta n_p{t}_{\mathrm{loss}}\ll 2\pi$.

For a steady dust-tail continuity equation, assume a constant injection rate $\dot{N}$, grains with the same fixed $\beta$, negligible release-speed dispersion, and negligible destruction within the segment being calculated. A finite destruction lifetime can terminate that segment, or multiply its density by a survival probability. To first order,To obtain the explicit trigonometric profile, make the additional secular phase approximation for a dust tail, $s\simeq 2\beta {\theta }_d$, discarding the bounded $-2\beta \sin {\theta }_d$ term in the angle-to-age map while retaining the periodic instantaneous drift speed. ThenSince the square is even, the same written profile applies to the signed $\Delta \theta$ if number intervals are interpreted with positive orientation. The result is an approximate phase-substitution profile, not a uniformly valid consequence of $\beta \ll 1$. The consistent first-order description is instead parametric:In particular, immediately after release, $s\sim \beta {\theta }_d^3/3$ and $n\propto s^{-2/3}$, whereas the phase-substitution expression would give $s^{-2}$. Nor does $s\ll 2\pi$ by itself justify neglecting the orbital ripple. The formal enhancements where $\dot{s}=0$ are dust-tail caustics; a spread of radiation-pressure coefficients, finite release velocities, and destruction smooth them. With constant lifetime $\tau$, the parametric profile acquires $\exp [-t({\theta }_d)/\tau ]$. These qualifications state precisely the extra assumptions behind the explicit profile.

Use characteristic, vertically averaged quantities at fixed radius. Let $H$ be a disk thickness, $\rho \sim \Sigma /H$, and let the alpha disk prescription give $\mu \sim \alpha p/\Omega$, up to a convention-dependent constant. From the preceding radiation pressure and constant-opacity balance, $\mu \sim c/\kappa$ is independent of $\Sigma$; thusVertical hydrostatic equilibrium gives $p\sim \rho {\Omega }^2{H}^2\sim \Sigma {\Omega }^{2}H$, henceThe vertically averaged kinematic viscosity satisfies $\bar{\nu }\Sigma =\int \mu dz\sim \mu H$. ConsequentlyAt fixed radius the omitted factors are independent of $\Sigma$, so this is the requested inverse-density scaling of the viscous torque in an accretion disk.

This is an order-of-magnitude vertical model, as requested. Imposing both exact pointwise $\mu =\text{constant}$ and exact pointwise $\mu \propto p(z)$ would force $p$ to be constant, contrary to nontrivial vertical hydrostatic equilibrium. The characteristic-pressure prescription supplies a scaling, not an exact simultaneous vertical solution to all those idealized equations.

The four equations describe, respectively, vertical hydrostatic equilibrium in the central object's gravity, the vertical divergence of radiative flux balancing viscous dissipation, optically thick radiative diffusion, and the equation of state combining ideal gas gas pressure with radiation pressure. Here $\mu$ is dynamic viscosity, not the mean molecular weight ${\mu }_m$; $\kappa$ is the opacity, $\sigma$ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and $\Omega$ the local orbital frequency.

In the radiation-pressure limit, $p=4\sigma T^4/(3c)$, so radiative diffusion givesCompare this with vertical hydrostatic equilibrium. Wherever $\rho \ne 0$,At fixed radius, constant opacity makes $dF/dz=c{\Omega }^2/\kappa$. The viscous dissipation equation therefore yieldsindependent of height within the optically thick radiation-supported layer. The result assumes the supplied gravity, heating and diffusion equations; optically thin surface corrections are outside that approximation.

Use a local orthonormal tetrad and units in which the speed of light is one. A particle has four-momentum $p^{\hat{a}}=E(1,\mathbf{e})$ and moves with velocity $\mathbf{e}$. Thus its energy density contributes $E$, its momentum density contributes $E{e}^i$, and its momentum flux contributes $E{e}^i{e}^j$. Integrating the phase-space distribution function gives the kinetic stress-energy tensor. The measure $d^{3}p/E$ is the future mass-shell Lorentz-invariant phase-space measure, so the same expression transforms as a spacetime stress-energy tensor; fixed state-counting or polarization factors are understood to be included in $f$.

Define $⟨F{⟩}_{\Omega }=(4\pi {)}^{-1}\int Fd\Omega$. The photon momentum measure is $d^{3}p=E^{2}dEd\Omega$, so every component of the kinetic stress-energy tensor has a radial factor $E^{3}dE=a^{-4}{ϵ}^{3}dϵ$. An isotropic background has $⟨e^i{⟩}_{\Omega }=0$ and $⟨e^i{e}^j{⟩}_{\Omega }={\delta }^{ij}/3$. HenceThis radiation pressure equation of state requires isotropy and masslessness, not a thermal spectrum.

The distribution perturbation is $\delta f=-ϵ{\bar{f}}^{\prime }(ϵ)\Theta$. Assume finite energy density and endpoint behavior ${ϵ}^4\bar{f}(ϵ)\to 0$ at zero and infinity, as for the Planck photon distribution. Integration by parts then givesConsequently the perturbed energy density and momentum density areSince $q^i=(\bar{\rho }+\bar{P})v^i=(4\bar{\rho }/3)v^i$, the photon angular temperature moments give $\delta =4⟨\Theta {⟩}_{\Omega }$ and $v^i=3⟨\Theta e^i{⟩}_{\Omega }$.

The sign of anisotropic stress must be specified. Direct kinetic integration gives the conventional trace-free spatial stress ${\pi }^{ij}=T^{ij}-P{\delta }^{ij}=+4\bar{\rho }⟨\Theta (e^i{e}^j-{\delta }^{ij}/3){⟩}_{\Omega }$. The PDF uses the opposite sign, ${\Pi }^{ij}=-{\pi }^{ij}$, equivalently $T^{ij}=P{\delta }^{ij}-{\Pi }^{ij}$. With that convention, all requested moments areTaking the spatial trace also givesThe angular temperature description assumes $\Theta$ is independent of photon energy; independent spectral distortions would require additional energy-dependent moments.

Three physically distinct mechanisms are as follows.

Thermal-tail escape, a bulk hydrodynamic wind, and nonthermal particle energization are three distinct channels; a detected tail need not distinguish them alone. Jeans escape and hydrodynamic atmospheric escape are both thermal mechanisms in the broad sense, but have different distribution functions and dynamical assumptions.

In the collisionless exosphere, an atom escapes if its outward trajectory has positive total mechanical energy. Neglect tides and stellar forces and use Newtonian gravity at exobase radius $r_e$:With thermal speed $v_{\mathrm{th}}=\sqrt{2k_B{T}_e/m}$, the Jeans escape parameter isA thermal distribution always has an escaping tail; Jeans escape is exponentially suppressed for ${\lambda }_e\gg 1$, with Jeans escape flux proportional to $(1+{\lambda }_e)e^{-{\lambda }_e}$. Efficient escape requires ${\lambda }_e$ of order a few or smaller, with an order-unity energetic estimate $k_B{T}_e\sim G{M}_{p}m/r_e$.

Assume a Neptune-like mass and radius, $r_e\simeq R_p$, and atomic hydrogen. Using the supplied rounded constants givesHenceUsing the mean kinetic energy $3k_{B}T/2$ instead gives an order-unity coefficient and $T\simeq 2.3\times 10^4\mathrm{K}$. An expanded exobase has weaker binding and lowers the estimate by $R_p/r_e$. A comet-like tail can also be shaped by radiation pressure and stellar-wind interactions; it does not by itself measure $T_e$ or prove that a hydrostatic Jeans model is valid. At ${\lambda }_e\sim 1$, $H/r_e\sim 1$ and hydrostatic equilibrium fails as a global description: substantial mass loss must usually be treated as hydrodynamic atmospheric escape.

The exobase is defined by mean free path $\ell \sim H$, not by a universal pressure. For a neutral hydrostatic gas with collision cross-section ${\sigma }_c$,For example, explicitly assuming ${\sigma }_c\sim 10^{-19}\text{–}10^{-20}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ gives $P_e\sim 2\times 10^{-7}\text{–}2\times 10^{-6}\mathrm{Pa}$, or $2\times 10^{-12}\text{–}2\times 10^{-11}\mathrm{bar}$. These are representative extremely dilute neutral-exobase pressures, with orders of magnitude varying with composition, cross-sections and expansion. The supplied constants contain no collision information, so they cannot uniquely determine an exobase pressure; ionization or a non-hydrostatic density profile changes this estimate.

Put $A=\beta \mu /c$. The Poynting–Robertson drag acceleration has $\bar{R}=-2A\dot{r}/r^2$ and $\bar{T}=-A{v}_{\theta }/r^2$. Its work is strictly dissipative:For an unperturbed elliptic orbit, use $dt=r^{2}df/h$, $\dot{r}=(\mu /h)e\sin f$ and $v_{\theta }=(\mu /h)(1+e\cos f)$. Averaging over its orbital period $P$ givesSince $\dot{a}=2a^2\dot{\epsilon }/\mu$, $P=2\pi a^{3/2}/\sqrt{\mu }$ and $h^3={\mu }^{3/2}{a}^{3/2}(1-e^2{)}^{3/2}$, the Poynting–Robertson decay of a circumstellar orbit isFor a circular Kepler orbit this becomes $-2A/a$. This is a secular first-order average, not an exact instantaneous decay law. If static radiation pressure is appreciable, use a bound conservative orbit with central parameter ${\mu }_{\mathrm{eff}}=(1-\beta )\mu$, requiring $0\le \beta <1$, and define its orbital elements accordingly; repeating the work calculation cancels ${\mu }_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and leaves the same coefficient $A=\beta G{M}_{\star }/c$.

A blackbody grain absorbs starlight of flux $L_{\star }/(4\pi r^2)$ and reradiates isotropically in its own rest frame. Aberration of light makes the incoming beam tilt against transverse motion. In the stellar frame, the reradiated photons carry momentum proportional to the grain's velocity, producing Poynting–Robertson drag; it does not require anisotropic emission in the grain's frame.

Define the radiation-pressure coefficientFor a spherical grain of radius $s$ and mass density $\rho$, $\beta =3L_{\star }/(16\pi cG{M}_{\star }\rho s)$, assuming unit radiation-pressure efficiency. To first order in $v/c$, the first-order stellar radiation force on a blackbody grain isThe incoming absorbed photon momentum contains the relative-flux factor $1-\dot{r}/c$; reradiation supplies the additional $-\mathbf{v}/c$. Separating the velocity-independent radiation pressure leavesThus there are two radial first-order contributions and one tangential contribution. The approximation assumes $v\ll c$, steady absorption/reradiation and constant grain properties; a non-blackbody requires its actual optical efficiencies.

Let ${\mu }_p=G{M}_p$, $A=\beta G{M}_{\star }/c$ and $\kappa =A/a_p^2$. A tightly bound circumplanetary orbit lies well inside the Hill sphere, so $a/a_p\ll 1$ and its orbital period is short compared with the planet's year. Treat the stellar flux and stellar direction $\hat{\mathbf{R}}$ as constant during one dust orbit. With stellar-frame velocity ${\mathbf{V}}_p+\mathbf{u}$, the velocity-dependent acceleration isThe terms independent of $\mathbf{u}$, including the leading static radiation pressure, do no net work on an unperturbed closed circular orbit. HenceFor a coplanar circular orbit, $u^2={\mu }_p/a$ and the component along the stellar direction has mean square $u^2/2$. Thus $\dot{a}=2a^2{\dot{\epsilon }}_p/{\mu }_p$ yields the Poynting–Robertson decay of a circumplanetary orbitThe coefficient three assumes coplanarity, which the PDF does not state. For orbital normal $\hat{\mathbf{k}}$, the general circular covariance is $⟨u_i{u}_j⟩=(u^2/2)({\delta }_{ij}-k_i{k}_j)$, givingAn orbital plane normal to the stellar radial direction has coefficient two during that orbit, a counterexample to an orientation-independent coefficient three. Averaging also over the planet's circular stellar orbit, with fixed dust-plane orbital inclination $I$ to it, gives coefficient $3-\frac{1}{2}{\sin }^{2}I$. The conservative forces must be weak enough for the assumed approximately circular, planet-bound orbit to persist; the small planet-to-star mass ratio alone does not ensure this for arbitrary grain $\beta$.

Let $f(\mathbf{p})d^{3}p$ be particle number per unit volume in a momentum element, including the spin-state count in $f$. This is the local momentum part of a phase-space distribution function, normalized by the number density $n=\int f(\mathbf{p})d^{3}p$. For an isotropic distribution with particle energy $E(p)=\sqrt{m^2{c}^4+p^2{c}^2}$, the kinetic pressure of an isotropic gas is the average momentum flux:The kinetic energy density, explicitly excluding rest mass, isFor $p\ll mc$, $E-m{c}^2=p^2/(2m)$ and $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{p}/m$, giving $P=2u_{\mathrm{kin}}/3$. For $p\gg mc$, $E\simeq pc$ and $v\simeq c$, giving $P\simeq u_{\mathrm{kin}}/3$. ThusNeither relation assumes a Maxwellian distribution. At intermediate momenta neither constant ratio is exact, and anisotropic distributions require a pressure tensor rather than this scalar pressure.

For a classical Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, $f=n(2\pi m{k}_{B}T{)}^{-3/2}\exp [-p^2/(2m{k}_{B}T)]$. Three Gaussian component integrals give $⟨p^2⟩=3m{k}_{B}T$, so the ideal gas hasIn a fully ionized mixture, sum over independent species to obtain $P_{\mathrm{gas}}=\rho k_{B}T/({\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}{m}_u)$, where the mean molecular weight counts ions and free Electrons. This excludes partial-ionization and interaction corrections. A dilute classical ultrarelativistic gas still has $P=n{k}_{B}T$ but $u_{\mathrm{kin}}\simeq 3n{k}_{B}T$; its momentum distribution is proportional to $e^{-pc/(k_{B}T)}$ instead of the nonrelativistic Gaussian.

For a thermal photon gas, the two polarization states and zero photon chemical potential give the Planck photon distributionUse $x=pc/(k_{B}T)$ and ${\int }_0^{\infty }{x}^3/(e^x-1)dx={\pi }^4/15$. The radiation constant and photon equation of state are thereforeLikewise $n_{\gamma }=2\zeta (3)(k_{B}T/\hslash c{)}^3/{\pi }^2$. Unlike a gas with a fixed particle number, photons do not have pressure proportional to baryonic mass density.

For fully degenerate Electrons, the Fermi-Dirac distribution becomes a filled momentum sphere with two spin states. Counting them gives the Fermi momentumHere ${\mu }_e$ is the mean molecular weight per electron. The equation of state of a cold electron gas follows by integrating momentum flux up to $p_F$:Its two limits areThe corresponding kinetic energy densities are $3n_e[p_F^2/(2m_e)]/5$ and $3n_e{p}_{F}c/4$, respectively. Thus in the high-density relativistic limit the Electron pressure scales as ${\rho }^{4/3}$ and is nearly independent of temperature. This is the ideal noninteracting, fixed-composition Electron result, not a universal equation of state at nuclear densities where captures, interactions and the composition change.

The boundaries on a stellar equation-of-state regime diagram concern the Electron component. Define the electron relativistic density threshold and thermal electron relativistic threshold byA degenerate Electron gas is nonrelativistic well below ${\rho }_{\ast }$ and ultrarelativistic well above it: this is an approximately vertical division on a log-density plot. A nondegenerate Electron gas instead becomes thermally relativistic near $T_{\ast }$: this is an approximately horizontal division. The regimes have broad crossovers rather than a discontinuity at either line.

The exact electron Fermi temperature, subtracting Electron rest energy, isFor Electrons with negligible thermal pairs, strong degeneracy requires $T\ll T_F$, whereas $T\gg T_F$ gives a nondegenerate gas. In the pair-rich regime the actual Electron and Positron distributions must instead be treated with their chemical potentials, as discussed below. The two limiting degeneracy boundaries areThese slopes $2/3$ and $1/3$ explain the bent degeneracy boundary on the logarithmic graph. A thermal-wavelength test $n_e[2\pi {\hslash }^2/(m_e{k}_{B}T){]}^{3/2}\sim 2$ gives the same nonrelativistic density/temperature scaling, with an order-one definition of the crossover.

The radiation-to-gas pressure boundary in the nondegenerate fully ionized regime isRadiation dominates above this line. Once Electrons are strongly degenerate, compare radiation pressure with $P_e(\rho )$ instead of continuing the ideal-gas comparison into that regime. The radiation-to-degeneracy pressure boundary is $T=[3P_e(\rho )/a_{\mathrm{rad}}{]}^{1/4}$, with logarithmic slopes $5/12$ and $1/3$ in the nonrelativistic and ultrarelativistic limits. Degeneracy of the Electrons and dominance of their pressure are distinct criteria.

For the pair curve, distinguish baryonic net Electrons from thermally created Electrons and Positrons. Chemical equilibrium with photons requires opposite Electron/Positron chemical potentials when the one-particle energy includes rest energy, as in the distributions below. At low temperature and low degeneracy the zero-chemical-potential density per charge species isCharge neutrality gives $n_{-}-n_{+}=n_b=\rho /({\mu }_e{m}_u)$, while the nondegenerate equilibrium product is $n_{-}{n}_{+}=n_0^2$. HencePairs become important when $n_0$ is comparable with or exceeds $n_b$, approximately the electron-positron thermal pair abundance curve ${\rho }_{\mathrm{pair}}(T)={\mu }_e{m}_u{n}_0(T)$. Below its density at a fixed temperature, pairs dominate over the net charge Electrons. The exponential makes the low-temperature portion steep in a log-log plot. For ${\mu }_e=2$, the full zero-potential integral gives approximate pair-marker densities $1.80\times 10^3\mathrm{g}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ at $10^9\mathrm{K}$ and $7.52\times 10^5\mathrm{g}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ at $3\times 10^9\mathrm{K}$. At relativistic temperature use the full zero-chemical-potential Fermi-Dirac distribution instead; it gives $n_0\to [3\zeta (3)/(2{\pi }^2)](k_{B}T/\hslash c{)}^3$, so the high-temperature pair curve approaches slope three in log-density versus log-temperature. Strong net-electron degeneracy suppresses Positrons and requires the full chemical-potential-dependent distribution.

The original diagram uses fully ionized helium, ${\mu }_e=2$ and ${\mu }_{\mathrm{mol}}=4/3$, only to set numerical locations. It plots the full $T_F$ curve and the zero-chemical-potential pair integral, rather than extending their asymptotes into the crossover. The pair boundary is deliberately an approximate abundance marker, not a phase transition; at high temperature the nonrelativistic ion approximation and fixed-composition model also have limits. For $T\gg T_{\ast }$ with abundant nondegenerate pairs, the combined Electron/Positron energy density is $7a_{\mathrm{rad}}{T}^4/4$, so photons plus pairs have $u=11a_{\mathrm{rad}}{T}^4/4$ and $P=u/3$. Real stellar matter adds Coulomb effects, partial ionization, nuclear reactions and, at sufficiently high density, nuclear-matter physics beyond the ideal regime map.

Assume negligible fragment release speed relative to a circular parent planetesimal. Its initial speed is $v_b=\sqrt{G{M}_{\star }/r_b}$, but radiation pressure reduces the grain's gravitational parameter to $(1-\beta )G{M}_{\star }$. Its specific orbital energy and specific angular momentum areFor $0\le \beta <1/2$, the resulting dust orbit released from a circular parent ring hasRelease is at periapsis: the inherited tangential speed exceeds the new circular speed. Low-$\beta$ grains remain near the dust birth ring; higher bound $\beta$ gives increasingly eccentric orbits extending well outside it. Uniform release longitude produces an approximately axisymmetric dust halo, with long residence times near apoapsis. At $\beta =1/2$ the conservative release orbit is parabolic; above this radiation-pressure blowout threshold it is initially unbound. For $\beta \ge 1$, zero or repulsive effective gravity also prevents a bound ellipse.

The left panel shows one release longitude; rotating it around the ring fills the halo. At longer times Poynting–Robertson drag also carries bound grains inward, so an initially outward-spanning release distribution does not imply an empty inner region in a continuously supplied, collision-free population.

For an ideal gas with constant specific-heat ratio $\gamma$, the specific internal energy is $u=c_{V}T$ and $P=\rho (c_P-c_V)T=(\gamma -1)\rho u$. HenceThe stellar virial theorem consequently reads $\ddot{I}/2=2\mathcal{T}+3(\gamma -1)U-3P_{S}V+\Omega$. For a static nonrotating star with negligible surface pressure, $\mathcal{T}=\ddot{I}=P_S=0$, so $\Omega =-3(\gamma -1)U$.

Fully ionized nonrelativistic ions and electrons form a monatomic ideal gas, with $\gamma =5/3$, provided electron degeneracy pressure and radiation pressure are negligible. ThusBeing steady alone does not eliminate rotation or other macroscopic kinetic energy; those are additional assumptions needed for this relation.

The outward radiative flux is $F=L/(4\pi r^2)$. A photon of energy $E$ carries momentum $E/c$, so the momentum transferred per unit volume and time to matter is $\kappa \rho F/c$, when $\kappa$ is the appropriate transport opacity. Momentum conservation makes the radiation stress decrease outward by this amount. In the thin atmosphere, where the radiation stress is treated by its scalar radiation pressure,This is the first moment of the radiative transfer equation. The grey atmosphere approximation uses a frequency-independent transport opacity; in an optically thick diffusion regime it becomes the Rosseland mean opacity. Near the surface the plane-parallel atmosphere approximation removes geometric stress-divergence corrections.

The specific angular momentum is $h=\sqrt{G{M}_{\star }a(1-e^2)}$, so the periapsis angular speed isAt the exterior mean-motion resonance, neglecting radiation pressure, $n/n_p=p/(p+q)$. Thus at the limiting orbital eccentricity $e=\sqrt{2q/(5p-q)}$,The condition for overtaking the planet in angle isFor the formal second-order equilibrium, it holds for every physical bound value $0<q<5p/3$. To see this, rewrite $q/p=5e^2/(2+e^2)$, so $p/(p+q)=(2+e^2)/(2+6e^2)$. For $0<e<1$, $\sqrt{1+e}/(1-e{)}^{3/2}>1+2e$, whileThe instantaneous angular motion is therefore prograde relative to the planet near periapsis, although its mean relative motion is retrograde. The range $q\ll p$ is the regime where the eccentricity expansion is most reliable.

Assume stellar homology: fixed dimensionless profiles, uniform fixed composition, negligible radiation pressure, ideal gas support, and radiative transport throughout the model. Mass conservation gives ${\rho }_c\propto M/R^3$. The hydrostatic pressure support equation gives $P_c\propto G{M}^2/R^4$; combining with $P\propto \rho T$ gives $T_c\propto M/R$.

Integrating specific proton–proton chain energy generation over mass givesFor radiative diffusion in a star, $T_c/R\propto {\kappa }_c{\rho }_{c}L/(R^2{T}_c^3)$, hence $L_{\mathrm{rad}}\propto R{T}_c^4/({\kappa }_c{\rho }_c)$. With the Kramers' opacity law ${\kappa }_c\propto {\rho }_c{T}_c^{-7/2}$,Equating generated and transported luminosity gives $M^{1/2}\propto R^{13/2}$, so the radiative homology with proton-proton burning and Kramers opacity relation isThe proportionality constants are fixed only within the adopted homologous family, not for arbitrary evolving stars.