Message from discussion White Dwarf Mass Spectrum: New Evidence
Received: by 10.180.74.74 with SMTP id r10mr867840wiv.3.1353230759240;
Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:25:59 -0800 (PST)
From: "craig.markwa...@gmail.com" <craig.markwa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: White Dwarf Mass Spectrum: New Evidence
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 12 07:24:04 GMT
Approved: sci.astro.research-requ...@slimy.greenend.org.uk (mjh)
X-Trace: chiark.greenend.org.uk 1352964265 4225 22.214.171.124 (15 Nov 2012 07:24:25 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:24:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Posting-Tool: modtool v2.0
Originator: @hydra.herts.ac.uk ([126.96.36.199])
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:00:37 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:58:47 AM UTC-5, craig.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This is not data. This is a simple stellar population synthesis model, with no observed data.
> Correct. That specific paper is based mainly around a "toy model" of the white dwarf mass spectrum where you consider single star masses and the total masses of binary white dwarf systems.
> However, it is self-evident that the model is based on the authors considerable experience with actual mass data, and elementary logic is all that is needed to convince oneself that the peaks in the toy model correspond to peaks in the total mass spectrum.
You are making unsubstantiated assumptions. If you read the paper in detail, you would find that the authors are investigating the mass distribution near and just below 1 Msun, and are largely unconcerned with the distribution far below 1 Msun. The authors admit that the model is quite simplistic and may not represent reality.
It's vitally important to note that the sharp peak at ~0.7 Msun in the author's distributions are due to double white dwarf systems. In other words, two white dwarfs in one binary system. It is not some special quantization of the individual masses. As the authors point out, the sharpness of the distribution at ~0.3 and ~0.7 Msun is probably due to the artificial simplicity of their model.
[ As a side note, you often criticize other results for making unexplained assumptions. Why don't you hold this paper to the same standards? ]
The model is the result of the stellar evolution codes described in the paper. In other words, basic mass distributions, white dwarf equation of state, stellar physics, binary evolution, and so on.
"Discrete scale relativity" has no place in those results, because it never entered in as one of the inputs.
P.S. Bear in mind also that this is a conference proceedings paper, which means the standard of review and completeness are usually not the same as for formally reviewed journal articles.