Virial Q convention¶
The virial Q parameter pins the dynamical state of an N-body initial condition. progenax adopts the convention
where is the total kinetic energy of the particles and is the total gravitational potential energy. This page documents the convention, justifies the choice, and lists the call sites.
Three conventions in the literature¶
Three definitions appear in the literature; readers should not assume any value without checking which is in use:
Convention | Equilibrium value | Reference | Used by |
|---|---|---|---|
0.5 | Aarseth et al. (1974) | progenax (this work), McLuster Küpper et al., 2011 | |
1.0 | Direct virial-theorem statement | Some textbook derivations; older N-body papers | |
1.0 | Federrath & Klessen (2012) for clouds | Cloud / GMC literature |
The Aarseth et al. (1974) form is the dominant convention in star-cluster N-body work and is what every progenax convenience function expects. The factor-of-2 forms appear when the virial theorem is quoted directly from .
Why is equilibrium¶
The scalar virial theorem for a gravitationally bound system in steady state reads
Substituting (gravitational potential energy is negative) and solving for :
A system at is in dynamical equilibrium: the kinetic energy is exactly the value that balances the gravitational self-binding. Departures from 0.5 are physically meaningful:
progenax interpretation of .
State | Astrophysical interpretation | |
|---|---|---|
Subvirial (cold) | Collapsing system. Used to seed primordial mass-segregation studies Allison et al., 2009; cluster contracts on a crossing time before bouncing. | |
0.5 | Virial equilibrium | Stable steady-state. Default for production ICs unless an out-of-equilibrium starting condition is needed. |
Supervirial (hot) | Expanding/unbound. Used to model post-gas-expulsion clusters where rapid mass loss leaves stars on hyperbolic-like orbits Goodwin & Whitworth, 2004. |
The subvirial regime is particularly important for fractal-substructure
work: Allison et al. (2009) showed that cool () clumpy initial conditions produce dynamical mass segregation on
Myr timescales — much faster than the classical relaxation
time. Reproducing that result therefore requires the ability to seed
explicitly, which is what virial_scale provides.
Implementation¶
Every velocity DF in progenax produces velocities at exactly by construction (the equilibrium DFs of Plummer (1911), King (1966), and EFF). To reach a target , progenax rescales the velocities by
The factor of 2 converts from the equilibrium baseline. The
rescaling is implemented in progenax.builders.virial_scale:
@jax.jit
def virial_scale(positions, velocities, masses, Q_target, G, softening=0.0):
T = compute_kinetic_energy(velocities, masses)
V = compute_potential_energy(positions, masses, G=G, softening=softening)
Q_current = T / jnp.abs(V)
scale = jnp.sqrt(Q_target / Q_current)
return velocities * scale # only velocities are rescaledThree properties hold by construction:
Energy ratio is enforced exactly (to floating-point precision). Tests in
tests/integration/test_physics_validation.py::test_virial_scalingverify for .Spatial structure is preserved. Only velocities scale; positions are untouched. The density profile, half-mass radius, and any substructure are unchanged.
Differentiable.
virial_scaleis JIT-compatible and survivesjax.grad, so it can sit inside a posterior-evaluation chain.
Call sites and contract¶
All progenax IC builders accept Q_target and pipe it through
virial_scale:
Function | Default | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | Mass-first API; explicit |
| 0.5 by construction | Shared-potential equilibrium; no external rescale — global and per-component |
| 0.5 | IMF + Plummer composition |
| explicit | Bare rescaling utility |
Validation¶
The progenax test suite includes physics-anchored regressions for the virial Q convention:
tests/validation/test_plummer_physics.py::test_virial_ratio— sample Plummer particles, measure Q post-rescaling, assert agreement to (statistical from finite-N kinetic-energy noise).tests/integration/test_physics_validation.py::test_virial_scaling— parametrise , assert Q recovered to 10-12.See Plummer equilibrium for the rendered test results.
Why not ?¶
The cloud-evolution literature uses for GMC virial parameters, where is the gravitational binding energy Federrath & Klessen, 2012. progenax does not mirror that convention because the IC builders operate on point-mass particle distributions, not continuous gas. Using the cluster-N-body convention keeps consistency with Aarseth et al. (1974), McLuster Küpper et al., 2011, NBODY6, and the rest of the star-cluster N-body ecosystem.
When converting between conventions: . Equilibrium is in cloud notation, in the progenax notation.
References¶
The convention follows Aarseth et al. (1974)’s star-cluster N-body tradition and matches McLuster Küpper et al., 2011. The out-of-equilibrium use cases are Allison et al. (2009) (subvirial cold collapse for primordial segregation) and Goodwin & Whitworth (2004) (supervirial post-gas-expulsion). For the substructure Q parameter that shares the letter, see JAX-native CW04 substructure Q parameter.
- Cartwright, A., & Whitworth, A. P. (2004). The statistical analysis of star clusters. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 348, 589–598. 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07360.x
- Aarseth, S. J., Henon, M., & Wielen, R. (1974). A comparison of numerical methods for the study of star cluster dynamics. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 37, 183–187.
- Küpper, A. H. W., Maschberger, T., Kroupa, P., & Baumgardt, H. (2011). Mass segregation and fractal substructure in young massive clusters. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 2300–2317. 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19412.x
- Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. (2012). The star formation rate of turbulent magnetized clouds. The Astrophysical Journal, 761, 156. 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156
- Allison, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., Parker, R. J., Portegies Zwart, S. F., de Grijs, R., & Kouwenhoven, M. B. N. (2009). Using the minimum spanning tree to trace mass segregation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 1449–1454. 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14508.x
- Goodwin, S. P., & Whitworth, A. P. (2004). The dynamical evolution of fractal star clusters: The survival of substructure. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 413, 929–937. 10.1051/0004-6361:20031529
- Plummer, H. C. (1911). On the problem of distribution in globular star clusters. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 71, 460–470. 10.1093/mnras/71.5.460
- King, I. R. (1966). The structure of star clusters. III. Some simple dynamical models. The Astronomical Journal, 71, 64–75. 10.1086/109857