Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Mass luminosity relation — where it appears

The main-sequence relation by which luminosity rises as roughly the three-and-a-half power of mass, steeper than any mass function is. It is what makes the initial mass function's light and its mass come from opposite ends of the same distribution.

Named by 4 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Luminosity against mass, against a slope of 3.5. Main-sequence luminosity against mass, both in solar units, on logarithmic axes, over the range 0.079 to 63 solar masses. The measured curve comes from the eclipsing binaries and is the same in every drawing of it; what changes here is what it is compared against. The dashed line is a pure power law of exponent 3.5, and the curve crosses it rather than following it — the local slope runs from about 2.3 at the bottom of the range, where the interiors are convective, through nearly 4 near a solar mass where bound-free opacity dominates, to about 3 among the massive stars where electron scattering does. Quoting one exponent across the whole sequence is a convenience and the places it fails are the places the interior physics changes. Because the slope is between three and four across most of the range, a small spread in mass becomes an enormous spread in output: the 63-solar-mass end is 3.0e+9 times brighter than the 0.079-solar-mass end.

Mass decides everything, by a power of three and a half

Two stars of the same mass are almost the same star. Double the mass and the output multiplies by eleven — which is why a modest range of masses produces a colossal range of stars.

stars · The mass–luminosity relation One population, three integrals, two ends. The same mass function weighted three ways, each normalised so that the area under it is one, against mass on a logarithmic axis — so a share of the page is a share of the total. The light is a zero-age population's, every star still on the main sequence, which is the only age at which the top of the range is present at all. The steep curve on the left is the number of stars, which peaks at 0.08 M☉ and falls away because the function is steeper than m⁻¹; the middle one is the mass they carry; the one on the right is the light they emit, computed from this file's own main-sequence relation and peaking at 55.0 M☉ — 682 times further up the axis. The population that is counted and the population that is seen are two different populations. Above 8 M☉ there are 0.63% of the stars, 21% of the mass and 99% of the light. The slopes are α = 1.3 above 0.08 M☉, α = 2.3 above 0.5 M☉, and the low-mass end is where the honesty runs out: it has never been measured in another galaxy, and every mass inferred from a luminosity assumes it.

Most stars are small, and most of the light is not

The mass function is steep and the mass–luminosity relation is steeper, so counting stars and measuring their output are integrals of the same function dominated by opposite ends of it. Every mass inferred from a brightness passes through that mismatch.

stars · Initial mass function An exponent between 2.3 and 4, not a number. The local logarithmic slope of the mass–luminosity relation against mass — the exponent that "L ∝ M^3.5" stands in for — read off the same fit to eclipsing binaries that the relation itself is drawn from. It is a step function with two corners, and the steps are 2.3 below 0.43 M☉, 4 0.43 to 2 M☉, 3.5 2 to 55 M☉. The horizontal lines are what homology predicts: a star in radiative equilibrium has L ∝ μ⁴M³/κ̄, which gives an exponent of 3 when the opacity is electron scattering and a constant, 5.5 when it is Kramers and depends on density and temperature, and 1 where radiation pressure holds the star up and the luminosity is pinned to the Eddington value. The measured steps sit between those predictions rather than on them, which is what a real star does — no star is homologous, the low-mass ones are convective throughout and the heavy ones have convective cores, and the fitted exponents are what is left after all of that. The useful statement is not that the exponent is 3.5 but that it is between 2 and 5 everywhere and 4 in the middle, and that the reason it moves is a change of which opacity is carrying the energy out.

An exponent that is a slope, not a law

The phrase “L goes as M to the three and a half” stands in for a curve with three straight pieces and two corners. The exponent is 2.3 below half a solar mass, 4 in the middle and falls towards 1 at the top — and each change of exponent is a change in which opacity is carrying the energy out.

stars · The mass–luminosity relation Where photoevaporation puts the valley, round stars of different mass. The radius of the largest core stripped bare, against orbital period, round stars of 0.5 M☉, 0.75 M☉, 1 M☉, 1.25 M☉, in the same energy-limited model, with each star's luminosity taken as its mass to the fourth power and its saturated phase lengthened for smaller stars as the mass to the −1.5, 100 Myr for the Sun. At ten days the valley is at 1.22 Earth radii round the 0.5 M☉ star, 1.38 Earth radii round the 0.75 M☉ star, 1.50 Earth radii round the 1 M☉ star, 1.60 Earth radii round the 1.25 M☉ star, and every one of them tilts as the −0.176 power of the orbital period, because the tilt comes from the exponents of the escape law and the interior fit, which do not depend on the star. A lower-mass star is far fainter, so at a given period its planets receive much less light, and even its longer active phase does not make up the difference: this model puts the valley at smaller radii round smaller stars while keeping the same sign of tilt. The stellar scalings are rough, and they are the least certain part of the calculation; what is robust is that photoevaporation ties the valley to the XUV energy a planet received, which falls with the star's mass at fixed period, and a mechanism tied to something else would tie it differently.

A smaller star puts the valley lower

Round stars of half the Sun's mass, the gap between bare rocky cores and sub-Neptunes should sit at a smaller radius than round the Sun, because at the same orbital period their planets receive a tenth of the light. Their stars also stay young and active far longer, which pushes the other way. Photoevaporation weighs those two against each other in a definite proportion, and the answer is a valley that scales as the star's mass to about the power three tenths.

exoplanets · Radius valley

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Brown dwarfEddington limitMain sequenceConvectionCore-powered mass lossEclipsing binaryElectron scatteringHomologyHost star massHydrostatic equilibriumInitial mass functionInsolation

All concepts