Difference between revisions of "User:Tohline/Apps/OstrikerBodenheimerLyndenBell66"
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
This set of simplified governing relations must then be supplemented by a specification of: (a) a barotropic equation of state, <math>~P(\rho)</math>; and (b) the equilibrium configurations's radial specific angular momentum profile <math>~j(\varpi)</math>. How does this recommended modeling approach compare to the approach outlined by Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966 | This set of simplified governing relations must then be supplemented by a specification of: (a) a barotropic equation of state, <math>~P(\rho)</math>; and (b) the equilibrium configurations's radial specific angular momentum profile <math>~j(\varpi)</math>. How does this recommended modeling approach compare to the approach outlined by [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966PhRvL..17..816O/abstract Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966]? | ||
===Approach Outlined by Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966)=== | ===Approach Outlined by Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966)=== | ||
One can immediately appreciate that, independent of the chosen coordinate base, the first expression listed among our trio of | ====Their Equation (4)==== | ||
One can immediately appreciate that, independent of the chosen coordinate base, the first expression listed among our trio of governing PDEs derives from the ''differential representation'' of the Poisson equation as [[User:Tohline/AxisymmetricConfigurations/PoissonEq#Overview|discussed elsewhere]] and as has been reprinted here as Table 1. | |||
<div align="center"> | <div align="center"> | ||
Line 214: | Line 216: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
</table> | </table> | ||
(Note that, in defining <math>~\Phi_g</math>, OBLB66 have adopted a sign convention for the gravitational that is the opposite of ours.) | (Note that, in defining <math>~\Phi_g</math>, OBLB66 have adopted a sign convention for the gravitational potential that is the opposite of ours; that is, <math>~\Phi_g = - \Phi</math>.) | ||
====Their Equations (3) & (5)==== | |||
The two relevant components of the Euler equation that are identified, above, result from imposing a ''steady-state'' condition on the, | The two relevant components of the Euler equation that are identified, above, result from imposing a ''steady-state'' condition on the, | ||
Line 239: | Line 242: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<!-- {{User:Tohline/Math/EQ_Euler02}} --> | <!-- {{User:Tohline/Math/EQ_Euler02}} --> | ||
and adopting a steady-state rotational velocity field in which the angular velocity is either constant or is only a function of <math>~\varpi</math> | and adopting a steady-state rotational velocity field in which the angular velocity is either constant or is only a function of the cylindrical-coordinate radius, <math>~\varpi</math>; that is, | ||
<div align="center"> | <div align="center"> | ||
<math>~\vec{v} = \hat{e}_\varphi [\varpi \dot\varphi (\varpi)] \, .</math> | <math>~\vec{v} = \hat{e}_\varphi [v_\varphi] = \hat{e}_\varphi [\varpi \dot\varphi (\varpi)] \, .</math> | ||
</div> | |||
As we have demonstrated in [[User:Tohline/AxisymmetricConfigurations/SolutionStrategies#Axisymmetric_Configurations_.28Solution_Strategies.29|an accompanying discussion]], for any of a number of astrophysically relevant [[User:Tohline/AxisymmetricConfigurations/SolutionStrategies#Simple_Rotation_Profile_and_Centrifugal_Potential|''simple rotation profiles'']] of this form, the [[User:Tohline/AxisymmetricConfigurations/PGE#CYLconvectiveOperator|convective operator]] on the left-hand side of this steady-state Euler equation gives (most conveniently written here in a cylindrical-coordinate base), | |||
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" align="center"> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td align="right"> | |||
<math>~(\vec{v} \cdot \nabla)\vec{v}</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<math>~=</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="left"> | |||
<math>~-~\hat{e}_\varpi \biggl[\frac{v_\varphi^2}{\varpi} \biggr] = -~\hat{e}_\varpi \biggl[ \varpi {\dot\varphi}^2(\varpi) \biggr] = -~\hat{e}_\varpi \biggl[\frac{j^2(\varpi)}{\varpi^3} \biggr] \, ,</math> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
</table> | |||
where, <math>~j \equiv \varpi^2 \dot\varphi</math> is the (radially dependent) specific angular momentum measured relative to the symmetry (rotation) axis. As we have pointed out in an [[User:Tohline/AxisymmetricConfigurations/SolutionStrategies#Axisymmetric_Configurations_.28Solution_Strategies.29|accompanying discussion]], this last expression can be rewritten in terms of the gradient of a scalar (centrifugal) potential; specifically, | |||
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" align="center"> | |||
<tr> | |||
<td align="right"> | |||
<math>~(\vec{v} \cdot \nabla) \vec{v}</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<math>~\rightarrow</math> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="left"> | |||
<math>~\nabla \Psi \, ,</math> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
</table> | |||
if the centrifugal potential is defined such that, | |||
<div align="center"> | |||
<math> | |||
\Psi \equiv - \int \frac{j^2(\varpi)}{\varpi^3} d\varpi ~. | |||
</math> | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
Revision as of 22:36, 8 August 2019
Rotationally Flattened White Dwarfs
| Tiled Menu | Tables of Content | Banner Video | Tohline Home Page | |
Introduction
As we have reviewed in an accompanying discussion, Chandrasekhar (1935) was the first to construct models of spherically symmetric stars using the barotropic equation of state appropriate for a degenerate electron gas. In so doing, he demonstrated that the maximum mass of an isolated, nonrotating white dwarf is <math>M_3 = 1.44 (\mu_e/2)M_\odot</math>. A concise derivation of <math>~M_3</math> is presented in Chapter XI of Chandrasekhar (1967).
Something catastrophic should happen if mass is greater than <math>~M_3</math>. What will rotation do? Presumably it can increase the limiting mass.
- J. P. Ostriker, P. Bodenheimer & D. Lynden-Bell (1966), Phys. Rev. Letters, 17, 816: Equilibrium Models of Differentially Rotating Zero-Temperature Stars
… work by Roxburgh (1965, Z. Astrophys., 62, 134), Anand (1965, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S., 54, 23), and James (1964, ApJ, 140, 552) shows that the [Chandrasekhar (1931, ApJ, 74, 81)] mass limit <math>~M_3</math> is increased by only a few percent when uniform rotation is included in the models, … In this Letter we demonstrate that white-dwarf models with masses considerably greater than <math>~M_3</math> are possible if differential rotation is allowed … models are based on the physical assumption of an axially symmetric, completely degenerate, self-gravitating fluid, in which the effects of viscosity, magnetic fields, meridional circulation, and relativistic terms in the hydrodynamical equations have been neglected. |
Solution Strategy
Our Approach
When the stated objective is to construct steady-state equilibrium models of rotationally flattened, axisymmetric configurations, the accompanying introductory chapter shows how the overarching set of principal governing equations can be reduced in form to the following set of three coupled PDEs (expressed either in terms of cylindrical or spherical coordinates):
Cylindrical Coordinate Base | Spherical Coordinate Base | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poisson Equation
The Two Relevant Components of the
|
Poisson Equation
The Two Relevant Components of the
|
This set of simplified governing relations must then be supplemented by a specification of: (a) a barotropic equation of state, <math>~P(\rho)</math>; and (b) the equilibrium configurations's radial specific angular momentum profile <math>~j(\varpi)</math>. How does this recommended modeling approach compare to the approach outlined by Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966?
Approach Outlined by Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966)
Their Equation (4)
One can immediately appreciate that, independent of the chosen coordinate base, the first expression listed among our trio of governing PDEs derives from the differential representation of the Poisson equation as discussed elsewhere and as has been reprinted here as Table 1.
Table 1: Poisson Equation | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Integral Representation | Differential Representation | |||||
|
|
Ostriker, Bodenheimer & Lynden-Bell (1966; hereafter, OBLB66) chose, instead, to use the integral representation of the Poisson equation to evaluate the gravitational potential; specifically, they write,
<math>~ \Phi_g(\vec{x})</math> |
<math>~=</math> |
<math>~ G \int \frac{\rho(\vec{x}^{~'})}{|\vec{x}^{~'} - \vec{x}|} d^3x^' \, .</math> |
OBLB66, p. 817, Eq. (4) |
(Note that, in defining <math>~\Phi_g</math>, OBLB66 have adopted a sign convention for the gravitational potential that is the opposite of ours; that is, <math>~\Phi_g = - \Phi</math>.)
Their Equations (3) & (5)
The two relevant components of the Euler equation that are identified, above, result from imposing a steady-state condition on the,
Eulerian Representation
of the Euler Equation,
<math>~\cancel{\frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} } + (\vec{v} \cdot \nabla)\vec{v}</math> |
<math>~=</math> |
<math>~ - \frac{1}{\rho} \nabla P - \nabla \Phi \, , </math> |
and adopting a steady-state rotational velocity field in which the angular velocity is either constant or is only a function of the cylindrical-coordinate radius, <math>~\varpi</math>; that is,
<math>~\vec{v} = \hat{e}_\varphi [v_\varphi] = \hat{e}_\varphi [\varpi \dot\varphi (\varpi)] \, .</math>
As we have demonstrated in an accompanying discussion, for any of a number of astrophysically relevant simple rotation profiles of this form, the convective operator on the left-hand side of this steady-state Euler equation gives (most conveniently written here in a cylindrical-coordinate base),
<math>~(\vec{v} \cdot \nabla)\vec{v}</math> |
<math>~=</math> |
<math>~-~\hat{e}_\varpi \biggl[\frac{v_\varphi^2}{\varpi} \biggr] = -~\hat{e}_\varpi \biggl[ \varpi {\dot\varphi}^2(\varpi) \biggr] = -~\hat{e}_\varpi \biggl[\frac{j^2(\varpi)}{\varpi^3} \biggr] \, ,</math> |
where, <math>~j \equiv \varpi^2 \dot\varphi</math> is the (radially dependent) specific angular momentum measured relative to the symmetry (rotation) axis. As we have pointed out in an accompanying discussion, this last expression can be rewritten in terms of the gradient of a scalar (centrifugal) potential; specifically,
<math>~(\vec{v} \cdot \nabla) \vec{v}</math> |
<math>~\rightarrow</math> |
<math>~\nabla \Psi \, ,</math> |
if the centrifugal potential is defined such that,
<math> \Psi \equiv - \int \frac{j^2(\varpi)}{\varpi^3} d\varpi ~. </math>
See Also
© 2014 - 2021 by Joel E. Tohline |