Chandrasekhar limit equation/white dwarf mass-radius relation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monkey Face
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Relation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Chandrasekhar limit and the mass-radius relationship of white dwarfs, with a focus on finding a reliable equation. Participants express confusion over various equations found online, particularly regarding the relationship where increased mass leads to a smaller radius, contrary to some interpretations. Clarification is sought on the specific equations used, as well as their derivations, to resolve misunderstandings. A participant shares their derived mass-radius relation, emphasizing the inverse relationship between mass and radius. The conversation highlights the importance of accurate equations in astrophysics for understanding white dwarf characteristics.
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: 704
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Today at about 4:30 am I saw the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, where they were about the width of the full moon, or one half degree apart. Did anyone else see it? Edit: The moon is 2,200 miles in diameter and at a distance of 240,000 miles. Thereby it subtends an angle in radians of 2,200/240,000=.01 (approximately). With pi radians being 180 degrees, one radian is 57.3 degrees, so that .01 radians is about .50 degrees (angle subtended by the moon). (.57 to be more exact, but with...
Back
Top