Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Mass radius relation — where it appears

The relation between an object's mass and its radius, whose slope says what supports it. It is positive for a gas planet accumulating material, flat where electron degeneracy takes over, and negative for a cold degenerate star approaching its limiting mass.

Named by 7 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Radius against mass for a degenerate star. The mass–radius relation for electron-degenerate matter. More mass gives a smaller star, and the radius reaches zero at 1.46 solar masses — the Chandrasekhar limit, solved from the same expression that draws the curve rather than quoted alongside it.

A star held up by a rule about counting

A white dwarf makes no energy and does not collapse. What holds it up is not heat or pressure in any ordinary sense — it is a quantum rule forbidding two electrons from occupying the same state.

stars · Degeneracy The light curve of AI Phoenicis, computed from its elements. Total light against orbital phase, computed by overlapping two discs of radius 1.805 and 2.9303 solar radii at an inclination of 88.5°, each weighted by its own surface brightness. The two eclipses hide the same area of sky and have different depths — 48.0 and 19.1 per cent — because what is lost is the light of whichever star is behind, and the ratio of the depths is therefore the ratio of the two surface brightnesses. Two things are left out and both matter to a real solution: this is the bolometric light rather than the light in a filter, and the discs are uniform, where a real one is limb-darkened and so has a deeper, rounder eclipse than the flat-bottomed one drawn here.

Two radii, from a light curve alone

The radius of a star is not measured. It is inferred, from a temperature and a luminosity, through a model. There is one exception — a pair of stars that eclipse each other, whose light curve and velocity curves between them give both radii, both masses and the ratio of temperatures with no model of a stellar interior anywhere in the chain.

stars · Binary stars Mass against radius, and what lies between the curves. Planetary radius against mass on logarithmic axes, in Earth units, with composition curves computed from interior models rather than drawn through the points. The solid-planet curves are R ∝ M^(1/3.7) — flatter than a constant density because a heavier planet compresses itself — and the hydrogen curve turns over near three Jupiter masses, where degeneracy pressure takes over and adding mass makes the planet smaller. A mass alone or a radius alone places a planet on a line; only both together place it between two curves, and that is the whole argument for measuring a planet twice.

Two methods, and one density

A transit gives a radius. A wobble gives a mass. Neither says what a planet is made of, and the two together say it in one number — which is the only reason both are worth doing on the same object.

exoplanets · Planet composition Lane–Emden solutions for n = 0, 1, 1.5, 3, 4.5, 5, and the one that has no surface. The dimensionless density θ against the dimensionless radius ξ, for polytropic indices 0, 1, 1.5, 3, 4.5, 5. Each curve is the whole structure of a star whose pressure is K times its density to the power 1 + 1/n: the equation of state and hydrostatic equilibrium leave one second-order differential equation, and this is its solution. Every curve starts at θ = 1 with zero slope, because the density is greatest at the centre and has no cusp there. What separates them is where they end. At n = 0 the density is uniform and the surface is at ξ₁ = 2.4495; by n = 3 it has moved out to 6.8968 and the central density is 54.2 times the mean. At n = 5 the curve reaches zero only at infinity — a configuration of infinite radius and, remarkably, finite mass — and every index above it has neither. The three curves that have closed forms, n = 0, 1 and 5, are drawn from the same numerical integration as the rest and agree with those forms to better than two parts in a million, which is what licenses reading the others off the picture. What the figure cannot show is the scale: ξ is radius divided by a length that depends on the central density and on K, so two stars of the same index and wildly different sizes have the same curve here.

An equation of state is already a star

Write down how a gas's pressure depends on its density, insist that the pressure hold the weight up, and everything else follows — the run of density, the fraction of the mass inside each radius, and, at one particular index, a mass that does not care what the radius is.

stars · Polytropes Mestel cooling for white dwarfs of 0.4 to 1 solar masses. Luminosity against age for white dwarfs of 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1 solar masses, both axes logarithmic. Each line is the whole of the star's later life: there is no nuclear source, so what is radiated is the thermal energy the ions had when the star was made, leaking out through a thin envelope whose opacity is Kramers'. That one sentence gives L ∝ t^(−7/5), and the lines are straight here because a power law is straight on these axes — the slope is the exponent and can be measured off the picture. Two features are worth more than the numbers. The first is how flat the sequence becomes: a factor of ten in luminosity costs a factor of 5.2 in age, so a white dwarf spends most of its existence faint, and any population of them piles up at the bottom. The second is that the heavier tracks lie above the lighter ones. A heavier white dwarf is smaller, so it has more ions to cool and less surface to lose them through, and at a given age it is the brighter object. The picture does not show what happens at the faint end, where the ions crystallise and the heat capacity stops being constant; that is a separate figure, and it is where this law stops being enough.

A clock with no fuel in it

A white dwarf has nothing left to burn, so its brightness is a record of how long it has been cooling. The faintest ones in the Galaxy are not faint because they are small — they are as faint as anything has had time to become, and the place where they stop is a date.

stars · White dwarf cooling One mass and one radius, and every composition that gives them. A planet of 5 Earth masses and 1.6 Earth radii, and the compositions consistent with it. The horizontal axis is the fraction of the planet's mass in an iron core and the vertical axis the fraction in a water layer outside the rock; the heavy curve is every pair that reproduces the measurement exactly, and the band around it is what the 0.05 Earth-radius uncertainty allows. The answer is a curve, not a point, and that is not a failure of precision. Two numbers cannot determine three components: a planet can be made denser by adding iron or lighter by adding water, and along this locus the two changes cancel exactly. The ends of it are not small variations on one planet. At the left is a body with no iron at all and 0 per cent of its mass in water; at the right, one with an iron core like Mercury's and 23 per cent water. Those have different formation histories, different interiors, different everything, and the same mass and radius to the precision anybody can measure them. Breaking the degeneracy needs an observation that is neither a mass nor a radius. The usual one is a transmission spectrum, which measures the atmosphere's scale height and so its mean molecular weight — a hydrogen envelope and a steam envelope differ by a factor of nine in that, and the corresponding factor in the size of the spectral features. What the picture assumes is that the planet is differentiated into clean layers, which is the standard assumption and is false in detail: water dissolves into silicate melt at these pressures, and a mixed interior sits at neither end of this curve.

One density, and every planet that has it

A mass and a radius are two numbers, and a differentiated planet has at least three components. The set of compositions matching a measurement is therefore a curve rather than a point — and its two ends are a body with no iron and half its mass in water, and a body with a Mercury-like core.

exoplanets · Planet composition The inflation threshold at 2·10⁵ W m⁻², and the 0.69 R_J above it. Radius against the starlight received, for a population of Jupiter-mass planets. The horizontal line is what a structural model gives for a cold, old, Jupiter-mass ball of hydrogen and helium: 1.06 Jupiter radii, and it hardly depends on mass at all in this range, because degeneracy is beginning to set in and the mass–radius relation is flattening toward its turnover. Planets receiving less than about 2·10⁵ watts per square metre sit on that line, with a median of 1.06, which is the control the rest of the figure depends on: the models are not wrong in general. Above the threshold the radii climb, reaching a median of 1.75 — half again the size a cold planet of the same mass can be — and the onset is sharp enough to be called a threshold rather than a trend. Starlight by itself will not do this. Irradiation is absorbed high in the atmosphere and re-emitted from there; it slows the escape of heat from below, which delays contraction, but it cannot deposit energy beneath the radiative–convective boundary, and it is the interior entropy that sets the radius. So the excess is evidence for a mechanism that carries roughly half a per cent of the incident flux down to pressures of tens of bars — ohmic dissipation of currents driven through a partly ionised atmosphere, breaking gravity waves, and tidally forced turbulence are the candidates, and the threshold is the number each of them has to reproduce. The points are a synthetic population from a seeded generator, not a catalogue; what is real is the threshold, the size of the excess, and the fact that the un-irradiated planets sit exactly where they should.

A radius no cold planet is allowed

A Jupiter-mass ball of hydrogen has a maximum size, and it is about 1.06 Jupiter radii however old or young it is. Hundreds of hot Jupiters are half again that, and the excess switches on sharply above a threshold in the starlight they receive — which means something is putting energy in deep.

exoplanets · Planet composition

Named alongside it

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

Degeneracy pressureBulk densityChandrasekhar limitCore mass fractionEquation of stateHot jupiterInflated radiusPolytropeSub neptuneSuper-EarthWhite dwarfApsidal motion

All concepts