Chandrasekhar limit equation/white dwarf mass-radius relation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Monkey Face
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Relation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Chandrasekhar limit and the mass-radius relation for white dwarfs, specifically addressing the confusion surrounding the equations that describe these concepts. The participants clarify that the mass-radius relationship indicates that a more massive white dwarf has a smaller radius, which contradicts the user's interpretation of the equation from the Astrophysics Spectator website. The correct mass-radius relation is provided as R_{\ast} = \left( \frac{3}{2} \right)^{4/3} \frac{\pi^{2/3} \hbar^2}{G m_e (\mu_e m_p)^{5/3} M_{\ast}^{1/3}}, emphasizing the inverse relationship between mass and radius.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Chandrasekhar limit
  • Familiarity with white dwarf physics
  • Basic knowledge of astrophysical equations
  • Concept of degeneracy pressure
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Chandrasekhar limit equation
  • Explore the implications of degeneracy pressure in stellar evolution
  • Learn about numerical integration techniques in astrophysics
  • Investigate the role of quantum mechanics in white dwarf structure
USEFUL FOR

Astronomy students, astrophysicists, and anyone interested in stellar physics and the properties of white dwarfs will benefit from this discussion.

Monkey Face
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hey there,

I have a couple of questions that may seem a little stupid, but anyway:

I've been a bit of research into the Chandrasekhar limit and have unsuccessfully tried to find an equation/estimation that sums it up as I have seen so many floating around on the internet. Variations from the one found on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit ) seem to be used a lot but I know wiki isn't exactly the most reliable of sources. If anyone could clarify this for me, that would be great :)

Another thing I wanted to ask was about the equation found on this page: http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/degeneracy/DegeneracyPressureRadius.html

I've been recommended this as a reasonably good source (by my teacher at school) but I've a problem with the equation on that page specifically; the mass-radius relationship for a white dwarf is, as I understand it, such that the more massive it is, the smaller it is. Rearranging that equation for the radius seems to show that the radius is proportional to the mass (as opposed to inversely).

Any help would be great, thanks in advance! :)
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Monkey Face said:
Rearranging that equation for the radius seems to show that the radius is proportional to the mass (as opposed to inversely).

Which equation did you start from? Perhaps you would like to show us your working?
 
yenchin said:
Which equation did you start from? Perhaps you would like to show us your working?

I literally used what they gave on that link I put above.
 
Monkey Face said:
I literally used what they gave on that link I put above.

Yes. But *which* equation? There are a few of them. And the page explicitly says that "Equating these two relationships shows that the radius is proportional to M^(-1/3)". The reason I asked is that if you don't show us your working then it is hard for anyone here to point out what could have gone wrong. The wikipedia page looks fine by the way.
 

The best white dwarf mass-radius relation that I have numerically integrated is:
R_{\ast} = \frac{(9 \pi)^{2/3} \hbar^2}{8 G m_e m_p^{5/3} M_{\ast}^{1/3}} \; \; \; \; \; \; \mu_e = 2

The white dwarf mass-radius relation equation solution that I derived is:
\boxed{R_{\ast} = \left( \frac{3}{2} \right)^{4/3} \frac{\pi^{2/3} \hbar^2}{G m_e (\mu_e m_p)^{5/3} M_{\ast}^{1/3}}}
[/Color]
Reference:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node87.html"
 

Attachments

  • wdMR01.jpg
    wdMR01.jpg
    7 KB · Views: 715
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K