|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
Here is something potentially interesting.
Discrete Scale Relativity says that stellar masses should have preferred peaks at: 0.145 solar masses, and roughly integral masses thereof, i.e., (n)(0.145 solar masses). One of the predicted mass peaks comes at 1.99184 x 10^33 g, which is close to the Sun's mass of 1.98892 x 10^33 g. But it is higher by about 2.8 x 10^30 g. However, when you add the mass of the planetary system and get a total system mass, the value is 1.99158 x 10^33 g. This agrees with one of the predicted peaks at the 99.987% level. So I tried the same idea with a few low-mass binaries. 1. V405 Andromeda: 0.51 solar masses (too low) + 0.21 solar masses (too high). But together their total mass = 0.725 solar masses (right on!) 2. Eclips. binary HAT-TR-205-013: 1.04 solar masses (too high) + 0.124 solar masses (too low). But together their total mass = 1.164 solar masses (right on!) 3. Eclips. binary SDSSJ 121010.1+334722.9: 0.415 s.m.(too low) + 0.158 s.m. (too high). But together their total mass = 0.573 (98.8% agreement) This leads to the following definitive prediction. If one could find a sizeable sample of low-mass eclipsing binaries with masses known to better than say 5%, and hopefuly better than 3%, then the total masses for the binary systems should have definite peaks at the preferred peaks definitively predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity. If DSR is correct, stellar systems have at least approximately quantized masses. Research ongoing, but participation of others would be much welcomed. RLO Fractal Cosmology |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
In article ,
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: This leads to the following definitive prediction. If one could find a sizeable sample of low-mass eclipsing binaries with masses known to better than say 5%, and hopefuly better than 3%, then the total masses for the binary systems should have definite peaks at the preferred peaks definitively predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity. And such samples exist; for example, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.4295v3 95 systems, observed with Kepler, and it doesn't have definite peaks at the preferred peaks. Tom |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Sep 7, 5:13*pm, Thomas Womack
wrote: 95 systems, observed with Kepler, and it doesn't have definite peaks at the preferred peaks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks for alerting me to this sample. However, there are two problems with your bottom line. 1. The mass values for individual stars are only given to 2 decimal places. We would like at least 3, and ideally 4 decimal places, as is the case for the Solar System and its planetary system. 2. To my knowledge (and certainly not in the paper), no one has added the M1 and M2 masses and compared the resulting combined mass spectrum with the predicted spectrum. 3. I believe the Kepler mission focuses on solar mass stars, and the predicted discretiation shows up most readily for systems in the 0.1 to 1.0 solar mass range. We need a broader range of stellar masses for a really definitive test, I think. 4. We want the masses determined dynamically. Not extrapolated from temperature or luminosity heuristics. It's fine to use T or L to aid in the mass determination as a check, but it should not be the primary method. Too prone to errors. So let's not rush to judgement. Rather, let's be scientific . Step 1 is to do the analysis suggested in #2 above. Then we need to look for higher accuracy dynamical mass estimates for low-mass systems. The latter may require building the sample one-at-a-time from very careful experimental work on individual systems, rather than more crude survey efforts. Best, RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:52:09 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
If DSR is correct, stellar systems have at least approximately quantized masses. Um, have you ever looked at the color-magnitude diagram of a globular cluster? There are some spectacular ones now, such as the HST observations of NGC 6397 reported in Richer et al. (2008, http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4030 ) which reaches from the turnoff mass at ~0.8 solar masses down to the hydrogen burning limit at ~0.08 solar masses. Any mass quantization would lead to preferred luminosities (via the main-sequence mass-luminosity relation), which are not seen. Astronomers can successfully model the mass function of such stellar systems with a continuous function, typically a power-law. --Wayne |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Sep 8, 3:22*am, wlandsman wrote:
On Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:52:09 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: If DSR is correct, stellar systems have at least approximately quantized masses. Um, have you ever looked at the color-magnitude diagram of a globular cluster? * There are some spectacular ones now, such as the HST observations of NGC 6397 reported in Richer et al. (2008,http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.4030) which reaches from the turnoff mass at ~0.8 solar masses down to the hydrogen burning limit at ~0.08 solar masses. * Any mass quantization would lead to preferred luminosities (via the main-sequence mass-luminosity relation), which are not seen. * * *Astronomers can successfully model the mass function of such stellar systems with a continuous function, typically a power-law. * --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, again, I think you have to be more aware of the fact that the masses used to determine the mass function are not determined with the accuracy and precision needed to really test the prediction. The main sequence mass-luminosity relation is just a rough, heuristic guide to stellar masses. Maybe it is good to the 10% level, but I think we would need mass data at the 3% level, and probably at the 1-2% level. See my 9/8 response to TW. Bottom line: if you do not have dynamically determined masses at the highest levels of accuracy and resolution currently available, then you cannot test the prediction adequately. Also, one would need to consider the binning of the luminosity distribution quite carefully before one ruled out anything. If your binning is too crude and luminosity is a less-tan-perfect measure of total system mass, then you would not expect to see the predicted quantization. Right? RLO Discrete Scale Relativity |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: [...] So let's not rush to judgement. Rather, let's be scientific . Step 1 is to do the analysis suggested in #2 above. Then we need to look for higher accuracy dynamical mass estimates for low-mass systems. The latter may require building the sample one-at-a-time from very careful experimental work on individual systems, rather than more crude survey efforts. Best, RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw So we are clear, you are not arguing that your theory is one that ALSO explains stellar lifecycles? Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself? You were just arguing a week or two ago that another 'definitive prediction' was a specific mass range for neutron stars which turned out to be wrong. You seem to have forgotten all about that. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Sep 7, 5:13 pm, Thomas
wrote: 95 systems, observed with Kepler, and it doesn't have definite peaks at the preferred peaks. The authors themselves say that their mass estimates are quite shaky. They say (page 11) quote Comparison to the theoretical mass-radius relation models for stars below 1.0 M_solar by Baraffe et al. (1998) show preliminary evidence for better agreement with the models at longer periods, where the rotation rate of the stars is not expected to be spun-up by tidal locking, al- though, in the absence of radial-velocity measurements, the errors on the estimated mass and radius are still quite large. For systems with P 1.0 days, the average radius discrepancy is 13.0%, whereas for 1.0 P 10.0 days and P 10.0 days, the average radius discrepancy is 7.5% and 2.0%, respectively. Ground-based follow-up, in the form of radial velocity and multi-wavelength light curves, is needed to derive the mass and radius of each star in each system to ~1-2%, which we have already begun to acquire. With accurate masses and radii for multiple long-period systems, we should be able to defini- tively test the hypothesis that inflated radii in low-mass binaries are principally due to enhanced rotation rates. end quote In other words, their mass-radius estimates disagree with what the theory (of Baraffe) expects and they have started refining their data. We should follow those authors and when they publish their corrected data (they aim for 1-2% precision) we will know for sure. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Sep 8, 4:03*pm, eric gisse wrote:
So we are clear, you are not arguing that your theory is one that ALSO explains stellar lifecycles? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ At this point, I am specifically discussing preferred/quantized stellar masses. This is a manageable topic and involves testable predictions Let's stick to it so that we might make some positive progress. This thread is not a debate. It is intended as a scientific disucssion. Aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself? You were just arguing a week or two ago that another 'definitive prediction' was a specific mass range for neutron stars which turned out to be wrong. You seem to have forgotten all about that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No, wrong again! I was discussing a definitive prediction about the RADIUS range of neutron stars. That was the discussion in which you were telling us about the "175,000 fermi" uranium nucleus radius, I believe. Remember? Just because you say something is wrong does not make it wrong. If you have unbiased scientific arguments that refer specifically to the topic of this thread, and they are backed up by empirical evidence, let's hear about it. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Sep 7, 1:52*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: Here is something potentially interesting. Discrete Scale Relativity says that stellar masses should have preferred peaks at: 0.145 solar masses, and roughly integral masses thereof, i.e., (n)(0.145 solar masses). One of the predicted mass peaks comes at 1.99184 x 10^33 g, which is close to the Sun's mass of 1.98892 x 10^33 g. *But it is higher by about 2.8 x 10^30 g. However, when you add the mass of the planetary system and get a total system mass, the value is 1.99158 x 10^33 g. This agrees with one of the predicted peaks at the 99.987% level. I wonder what difference it makes to you that the sun has spent ~ 5 billion years radiating mass. Brad |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Preferred Stellar Masses?
On Thursday, September 8, 2011 11:31:20 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
The main sequence mass-luminosity relation is just a rough, heuristic guide to stellar masses. Maybe it is good to the 10% level, but I think we would need mass data at the 3% level, and probably at the 1-2% level. See my 9/8 response to TW. You don't need to know the masses to figure out that the stellar mass function is *continuous*. Suppose there was a peak in the stellar mass function at 0.145 Solar masses. We may not exactly know the luminosity corresponding to that mass, but somewhere in the color-magnitude diagram there should be a peak corresponding to the enhanced number of stars of 0.145 solar masses. But there are no such peaks evident, and Richer et al. find that a single power-law mass function fits the all the data between 0.1 and 0.8 solar masses. There are similar color magnitude diagrams for other nearby globular c lusters. Also, one would need to consider the binning of the luminosity distribution quite carefully before one ruled out anything. If your binning is too crude and luminosity is a less-tan-perfect measure of total system mass, then you would not expect to see the predicted quantization. There are 8,537 stars in their "cleaned" color-magnitude diagram (Figure 3), and 2,317 stars in the amazing proper motion cleaned data in Figure 5. These numbers are large enough that one need not worry about the details of luminosity binning. Of course, one cannot rule out mass quantization at very low levels, and perhaps you wish to modify your theory to predict that "there is a 1% larger number of stars at 0.145 solar masses and multiples thereof" to keep it consistent with existing data. --Wayne |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
When is manned spaceflight preferred? | [email protected] | Space Science Misc | 15 | August 13th 13 06:28 PM |
Metal deposit discovered: 30 million solar masses of chromium, 8million solar masses of manganese | Yousuf Khan[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 6 | December 10th 09 05:45 PM |
dealing decorates but the preferred version | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 22nd 07 08:24 AM |
sacrifice behind preferred injection | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 19th 07 05:48 AM |
can someone supply some info on stellar masses of stars? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | September 4th 06 06:55 AM |