Generator

The spin-evolution generator

Four different beginnings and one ending

Four different beginnings and one ending. Rotation period against age for four stars born turning at 0.3, 1, 3, 8 days, integrated under a braking law that goes as the cube of the rotation rate below a saturation period of 3.4 days and linearly above it. Both axes are logarithmic. The tracks span a factor of 25.7 at ten million years, 1.93 at six hundred million, and 1.09 at the age of the Sun — the initial condition is not merely diluted, it is erased, because the solution Ω = Ω₀(1 + 2KΩ₀²t)^(−1/2) tends to (2Kt)^(−1/2) with no Ω₀ left in it. The late slope measured off the drawn curve is 0.500 against the one half the law demands. The single constant K is fixed by one requirement, that the attractor pass through the Sun at 25.4 days and 4.57 billion years, and the track drawn for the slowest starter arrives at 26.6 days. What the figure cannot show is the saturated branch's physical cause: above a few days' rotation the dynamo stops responding to faster rotation, and that plateau is measured rather than derived.

Rotation period against age for four stars born turning at 0.3, 1, 3, 8 days, integrated under a braking law that goes as the cube of the rotation rate below a saturation period of 3.4 days and linearly above it. Both axes are logarithmic. The tracks span a factor of 25.7 at ten million years, 1.93 at six hundred million, and 1.09 at the age of the Sun — the initial condition is not merely diluted, it is erased, because the solution Ω = Ω₀(1 + 2KΩ₀²t)^(−1/2) tends to (2Kt)^(−1/2) with no Ω₀ left in it. The late slope measured off the drawn curve is 0.500 against the one half the law demands. The single constant K is fixed by one requirement, that the attractor pass through the Sun at 25.4 days and 4.57 billion years, and the track drawn for the slowest starter arrives at 26.6 days. What the figure cannot show is the saturated branch's physical cause: above a few days' rotation the dynamo stops responding to faster rotation, and that plateau is measured rather than derived.

9 essays call spin-evolution. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Every figure listed here is the same construction drawn at different numbers, so a correction to one is a correction to all of them.

$A lever 12 radii long, and the spin it removes. A magnetised stellar wind, drawn with the Alfvén surface at 12 stellar radii — the schematic distance at which the wind's inertia finally beats the field. Inside it the gas is forced to turn with the star, so every gram that leaves carries the specific angular momentum of the radius at which it broke free rather than of the surface it came from, and the lever squares: J̇ = (2/3) Ṁ Ω r_A². Beyond the surface the streamlines curve backwards, because angular momentum conservation makes the azimuthal speed fall as 1/r while the radial speed does not. With a moment of inertia coefficient of 0.073 and a mass loss of 2.3·10⁻¹⁴ solar masses a year, the star loses a fraction 2.3·10⁻¹⁴ of its mass and a fraction 3·10⁻¹¹ of its angular momentum in the same year — a ratio of 1,315, which is (2/3)(r_A/R)²/k² and nothing else. The e-folding time for the spin is 3.3·10¹⁰ years against 4.3·10¹³ years for the mass. Nothing here is to scale in one respect that matters: the wind's density falls by more than ten orders of magnitude across the drawn region, so the streamlines are drawn as though the flow were visible when almost none of it is.$ Stars

A wind that takes no mass and all the spin

The Sun loses about a ten-thousandth of itself to its own wind over its whole life. It loses most of its rotation to the same wind, and the whole of that asymmetry is one geometric factor — the gas is forced to keep turning with the star until it is a dozen or more radii out from the surface it left.

The clock that starts by forgetting

An ordinary star tells nothing about its age. It sits on the main sequence for billions of years at almost fixed brightness and colour, and the one property that changes monotonically is how fast it turns — but only because the braking law destroys the initial condition first, and only until it stops.

$A star 1.24 times wider than it is tall, and 19 per cent brighter pole-on. Left, the meridional section of a star rotating at ω = 0.9257 of its critical angular velocity, computed from the Roche potential rather than sketched: the equator sits at 1.245 polar radii, and at the critical rate that ratio is exactly 1.5 whatever the star is made of. The same rotation expressed as a fraction of the critical equatorial speed is 0.768, and the two conventions differ by the distortion itself — a figure that prints one under the other's name is wrong by an amount that looks like rounding. Effective gravity at the equator is 0.329 of its polar value, so von Zeipel's flux law makes the pole hotter than the equator by a factor 1.320 at the theoretical exponent 0.25 and 1.232 at the 0.188 that interferometric imaging actually fits. Right, the apparent bolometric brightness against viewing inclination, integrated over the visible gravity-darkened surface: pole-on the star is 1.19 times brighter than edge-on, and the apparent temperature falls with it. The consequence is that a rapid rotator's place on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram is partly a statement about the observer's position, which no spectrum taken alone can undo.$ Starlight

A temperature that depends on where the observer stands

A star turning near its break-up rate is half again as wide as it is tall, and its equator is thousands of degrees cooler than its poles. Neither of those is a small correction to a spectrum — the effective temperature and the luminosity such a star appears to have are partly statements about which way its axis happens to point.

$The Sun's internal rotation: differential above 0.693 R, rigid below, and the 15 nHz between two modes. Angular velocity against fractional radius, in nanohertz, from the inversion of hundreds of thousands of measured rotational splittings. Two features had to be discovered rather than deduced. The convection zone rotates differentially in latitude — 473 nanohertz at the equator, 330 at sixty degrees — and that latitude dependence persists all the way down through it, in surfaces that are very nearly radial rather than the cylinders a rotating convective fluid was expected to produce. And below about 0.693 of the radius the latitude dependence stops: the radiative interior turns as a single rigid body at 430 nanohertz, which is a remarkable thing for a fluid with no strength to do, and requires something — most likely a weak internal magnetic field — to be enforcing it. The two regimes are joined by a shear layer a few per cent of the radius thick, the tachocline, and it is where the solar magnetic cycle is generally thought to be generated, because it is the only place in the Sun with the shear a dynamo of that strength needs. The horizontal marks are what individual modes would report: the rotation averaged over the cavity each one occupies, weighted by the time the wave spends at each radius. A mode of degree 100 is trapped near the surface and reports 473 nanohertz; one of degree 1 passes through the deep interior and reports 458. The 15-nanohertz difference between them is the measurement, and splittings are measured to about a nanohertz — which is why the profile can be resolved at all. The kernels used here have the right support and the right sense; a real inversion uses computed eigenfunctions, and its resolution below 0.2 R is poor for the reason the previous figure gives.$ Stars

A shear layer that should have spread

The Sun's convection zone turns differentially — its equator laps its poles about once every three months — and the radiative interior below turns as one rigid piece. Between them is a transition four per cent of the radius thick. Nothing in hydrodynamics keeps a velocity discontinuity that thin for four and a half billion years.

Two measured numbers, and everything else on the page derived from them. 25 pulsars in the plane of period against period derivative, at their catalogued values. Only the two axes are measurements; the three families of contour are models. Constant surface field runs at slope −1 because B ∝ √(PṖ), constant characteristic age at slope +1 because τ = P/2Ṗ, and the two families cross the population at right angles — which is why a single dot fixes both. The Crab sits at 3.8·10¹² G and 1257 years, and its true age is 972; the millisecond pulsars at the lower left have fields ten thousand times weaker and characteristic ages of billions of years, because they were spun back up by a companion long after they died. The line at the lower right is the death line, B/P² below which the model says no pair production and therefore no radio emission — and J2144−3933 is drawn below it, an 8.5-second pulsar that is radiating anyway.

A neutron star born turning too slowly

Collapse an iron core a few thousand kilometres across down to twelve, and conservation of angular momentum multiplies its rotation rate by about eighteen thousand. A model with no transport in it delivers a newborn pulsar at the break-up limit; the ones that are observed turn twenty times slower, which is a measurement of the core before it fell.

A surface that slowed because the star grew

A star leaving the main sequence expands by a factor of a hundred. Conserve its angular momentum and its equator slows by four orders of magnitude, which is why every red giant is a slow rotator. One or two per cent are not, and a giant turning at fifty kilometres a second has to have been given the angular momentum by something else.

A formula everyone uses, and the number no pulsar has. Above: the braking index measured for the 4 pulsars whose spin-down has been followed long enough to give a second derivative, against the value a magnetic dipole rotating in vacuum requires. That value is exactly 3, and it is what every catalogued field strength and every characteristic age assumes. Not one measurement reaches it: they run from 1.4 to 2.839, and all of them fall short in the same direction, which is the signature of a systematic rather than of noise. Below: what that costs. The age a spin-down history gives is the period divided by (n − 1) times its derivative, so the ratio to the quoted characteristic age is 2/(n − 1) — 5.00 for Vela. The numbers are not thereby useless: an exponent recovered from the data is exactly the kind of correction a measurement can absorb. What has gone is the claim that the field strength printed beside a pulsar is a measurement of a field. It is a measurement of a spin-down rate, read through a model the same pulsar refutes.

The exponent no pulsar has

Every field strength in the pulsar catalogue comes from one formula, which assumes the star is a magnetic dipole rotating in a vacuum and therefore that its spin-down obeys an exponent of exactly three. Where that exponent has been measured it is 2.51, 2.84, 1.4 — never three, and always short.

The pole-on stars a brightness limit prefers

A rapidly rotating star looks brighter and hotter from its pole than from its equator, so a survey that picks stars by how bright they look should pick more of them pole-on. It does — and the surprise is how little. Averaged over random orientations, a gravity-darkened star's apparent luminosity is exactly its true one, because every photon goes somewhere; a brightness limit restores only a fraction of a per cent of bias, while the error in any single star is ten times larger and of either sign.

$How fast the circulation a rotating star drives would stir it, against its lifetime. The classical Eddington–Sweet circulation time — the star's Kelvin–Helmholtz time divided by the ratio of centrifugal to gravitational acceleration at its surface — as a multiple of its main-sequence lifetime, against rotation rate as a fraction of critical, for stars of 2, 5, 15 solar masses, on logarithmic axes. Below the line at one, the circulation would turn the star over within its life. For 2 solar masses that happens above 0.101 of critical; for 5 solar masses that happens above 0.123 of critical; for 15 solar masses that happens above 0.115 of critical. The dot is the Sun, turning at 0.0084 of its critical rate, whose circulation would take 150 times its main-sequence life. By this estimate almost every star turning at more than a tenth of its critical rate should be stirred from core to surface; the measured surface compositions of such stars show that it is not, because the composition gradient left by core burning resists the circulation, and how strongly it resists is what the nitrogen at their surfaces measures.$ Starlight

The circulation that should have stirred every fast rotator

A rotating star in radiative equilibrium cannot be balanced in pressure and in heat at the same time, and the mismatch drives a slow circulation from pole to equator. The classical estimate of its speed says that any star turning at more than a tenth of its break-up rate should be stirred from core to surface within its life, bringing the nitrogen of hydrogen burning up with it. Some fast rotators show that nitrogen and some do not, and some slow rotators show it when they should not — including more than the angle of their axes can explain.

The whole library · All essays