Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 3 down vote favorite

From http://www.spacetimetravel.org/ssm/ssm.html :

A mass of 1.78 [in geometric units] corresponds to a ratio of radius to Schwarzschild radius of 9/8. Theory predicts that a smaller ratio is not possible for a stable star.

What causes this cutoff? Is this the TOV limit or something else?

share|improve this question
1  
Far outside my competence, but I'll bet dollars to donuts it is related to the lack of stable orbits inside $3/2 r_0$. Things are just goofy when the curvature of space gets that high. – dmckee♦ Dec 10 '11 at 0:02
@dmckee: Perhaps, but 9/8 isn't that close to 3/2, so something else would have to be at work as well. – Charles Dec 10 '11 at 0:16

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

TOV limit is related to maximum mass that can be supported by the neutron degeneracy pressure. The $9/8$ ratio comes from General Relativistic arguments which state that any star that fills the Schwarzschild volume any more than $88\%$ will collapse under its gravitational field to end up as a Black Hole.

The $88\%$ limit ultimately comes from stellar stability to radial oscillations. The stability under these oscillations can be measured using the adiabatic exponent $\Gamma$ which is $\frac{\Delta P/P}{\Delta \rho/\rho}$. This would be in Newtonian dynamics. However, when dealing with General Relativity, we know that anything compactified to a radius less than its $R_S$ will collapse to a Black Hole. So even if $\Gamma\rightarrow \infty$, a star can still collapse. Interestingly, $\Gamma\rightarrow \infty$ corresponds to $R/R_S > 9/8$.

share|improve this answer
2  
Can you explain this further? I don't understand why it would collapse at this particular size. – Charles Dec 10 '11 at 0:15
Yes, of course. I've just expanded the original answer. – Omar Dec 10 '11 at 0:33
In case it's not clear from this answer, the 9/8 value is unrelated to the TOV limit. – Peter Shor Dec 10 '11 at 17:16
2  
This answer basically explains it. The relevant reference is Chandrasekhar, ApJ 140, 417 (1964). – Warrick May 4 '12 at 10:21

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.