How is the density of a white dwarf star calculated?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the density of a white dwarf star, exploring the underlying principles of hydrostatic equilibrium, gravitational forces, and observational methods. Participants delve into theoretical frameworks, mathematical derivations, and practical approaches to understanding the properties of white dwarfs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the density of a white dwarf can be derived by balancing the outward pressure from atomic forces against the inward gravitational pull.
  • Questions arise about the methods used to calculate the inward pull of gravity, with some proposing the use of the law of gravitation or integral calculus involving mass shells.
  • One participant expresses interest in understanding the Chandrasekhar limit and its relation to white dwarf density.
  • Another participant describes hydrostatic equilibrium as a differential equation that relates pressure changes with radius within the star, indicating that pressure must increase with depth to balance gravitational forces.
  • A detailed mathematical expression for hydrostatic equilibrium is provided, illustrating how pressure varies with radius and leading to a formula for central pressure in a white dwarf.
  • Some participants discuss observational methods for determining the average density of a white dwarf, noting the importance of mass, radius, and surface gravity, particularly in binary systems.
  • There is a suggestion that rough density estimates could be made using only two of the variables related to mass and radius.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views on the methods for calculating density and pressure in white dwarfs, with no consensus reached on the best approach or the implications of the Chandrasekhar limit.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the calculations often rely on assumptions such as uniform density and may vary in accuracy depending on the methods used. The discussion also highlights the complexity of the equations involved and the need for numerical integration in more precise calculations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying astrophysics, particularly in the areas of stellar evolution, white dwarf characteristics, and the mathematical modeling of stellar structures.

JJ
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
I have no idea. And how is the pressure/force/intensity of gravitational collapse known?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Basically its just a case with balancing the outward pressure due to the forces between atoms and molecule and the inward pull of the gravity on the mass of all those atoms. Once you equate them you can gain the radius of the star and therefore the density and internal pressure etc.
 
How is the inward pull of gravity calculated?
 
The self gravitation of a star can be approximated by ust using the normal law for two bodies attracting to one another through gravity or you can set up an integral using shells of the star as differential elements of mass.
 
JJ,

Are you asking to see derivation of hydrostatic equlilbrium, the Chandrasekhar limit, and so on?

- Warren
 
I don't know what half of those things are, but I was looking to be able to understand the Chandrasekhar limit better. I think I'll google it.
 
By observing a star we notice that it has a constant surface temperature (T)and radiates a constant amount of energy into space (L-luminosity). From the equation:

L = 4*pi*R^2 * T^4 * a constant

We can assume that the radius must remain constant as well. The fact that there is no overall accelerations upon any individual shell of matter within the star tells us that it is in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium. Otherwise matter could drift outward or inward causing the radius to change, which we know cannot happen.

Hydrostatic equilibrium is also a differential equation that states how pressure changes with radius within the star. As you go deeper into the star the pressure force must increase to balance the increasing weight above.

A rough calculation can be obtained by integrating the equation using the radius at the surface and radius at the centre (0) as endpoints of analytic integration. To be more exact you need to write a computer program and perform numerical integration with many more equations and steps, taking into account the unusual conditions within a star of that kind.

Don't know if that's any help. Good luck on your search
 
Borrowing heavily from Carroll and Ostlie's "Intro to Modern Astrophysics"...

The differential equation describing hydrostatic equilibrium is

[tex]\frac{dP}{dr} = -G\frac{M_r \rho}{r^2} = -\rho g[/tex]

where [itex]M_r[/itex] is the mass interior to radius [itex]r[/itex] and [itex]\rho[/itex] is the density.

This equation "clearly indicates that in order for a star to be static, a pressure gradient [itex]dP/dr[/itex] must exist to counteract the force of gravity. It is not the pressure that supports the star, but the change in pressure with radius."

Assuming that the star (a white dwarf) has a uniform density (this is an approximation, but it's close to being correct),

[tex]\frac{dP}{dr} = -G \frac{(\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3 \rho) \rho}{r^2} = -\frac{4}{3} \pi G \rho^2 r[/tex]

Solving the integral to find the pressure as a function of radius, using P=0 at the surface, one obtains

[tex]P(r) = \frac{2}{3} \pi G \rho^2 (R^2-r^2)[/tex]

You can use this expression to find the pressure at the center of a white dwarf star by setting r=0:

[tex]P_c = \frac{2}{3} \pi G \rho^2 R^2[/tex]

In the extreme relativistic limit (i.e. when degenerate electrons are moving in the limit of v->c), the electron degeneracy pressure can be shown to be

[tex]P = \frac{(3 \pi^2)^{1/3}}{4} \hbar c \left[ \left(\frac{Z}{A}\right) \frac{\rho}{m_H} \right]^{4/3}[/tex]

where [itex]m_H[/itex] is the mass of a hydrogen atom, Z is the number of protons, and A is the number of total nucleons.

Now, equating the central pressure as derived from hydostatic equlibrium arguments with the pressure at the extreme limit of electron degeneracy let's us calculate the maximum permissable mass of a white dwarf star. This is only an estimate, however, because it again assumes that [itex]\rho[/itex] is uniform.

[tex]M_{Ch} \approx \frac{3 \sqrt{2 \pi}}{8} \left( \frac{\hbar c}{G} \right)^{3/2} \left[ \left( \frac{Z}{A} \right) \frac{1}{m_H} \right]^2[/tex]

This winds up being [itex]0.44 M_{\odot}[/itex].

A more precise calculation, with the density modeled more accurately, produces the accepted value [itex]M_{Ch} = 1.44 M_\odot[/itex].

- Warren
 
Although this doesn't seem to be directly relevant to your question JJ, you may be interested to to know how the average density of a white dwarf star is determined observationally. In a few words: from its mass, radius (diameter), and surface gravity! The first two can be found (with varing degrees of accuracy) for white dwarfs in binaries (esp eclipsing binaries); the last from analysis of the spectral lines.
 
  • #10
Warren, that's nuts, something I was wondering about. And Nereid, I hadn't approached the problem from such a simple direction. Though couldn't you know the rough density from only two of those variables?

Thanks for a thread with a goldmine of information I'll take a week to decode.
 
  • #11
JJ said:
*SNIP
And Nereid, I hadn't approached the problem from such a simple direction. Though couldn't you know the rough density from only two of those variables?
Forget not the magic words "with varing degrees of accuracy" :wink:

The more methods, the merrier. :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K