|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
I found a very good catalog of detached eclipsing binary stars with
mass determinations "accurate to 2%". It is an ongoing catalog with new systems being added as they are published. http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/jkt/debcat/ This would appear to offer a good preliminary sample with which to test my hypothesis that the total masses of binary star systems (and single white dwarfs) have distributions that are characterized by preferred masses that are integer multiples of 0.145 solar mass. Taking only 2012 and 2013 data from Southworth's catalog (I am only interested in new mass determinations), I find a sample of 36 systems with sufficiently narrow error bars for an adequate preliminary test of the hypothesis. Of the 36 test systems, 77% are located at 0.04 solar mass from one of the predicted preferred masses. Roughly 22% are located at =/ 0.04 solar mass. The total masses for the EcB systems cluster around the predicted masses. A histogram of the + and - deviations is centrally peaked at the generic multiple value. These results seem much better than the results for the small sample of neutron star binary systems, with the previously noted heterogeneity in error estimates. I am of course wondering if I have something to write home about yet, and I am hoping that the readers of SAR will have some constructive criticism. Perhaps I might also get some advice on the best way to analyze the data so as to clearly demonstrate what the data say, and what they do not say. RLO Fractal Cosmology/Discrete Scale Relativity |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: This would appear to offer a good preliminary sample with which to test my hypothesis that the total masses of binary star systems (and single white dwarfs) have distributions that are characterized by preferred masses that are integer multiples of 0.145 solar mass. Get out the envelope so that we can write on the back. Taking only 2012 and 2013 data from Southworth's catalog (I am only interested in new mass determinations), I find a sample of 36 systems with sufficiently narrow error bars for an adequate preliminary test of the hypothesis. It's not clear how you use the error bars, unless you mean that they are appreciably smaller than 0.145 solar mass. Of the 36 test systems, 77% are located at 0.04 solar mass from one of the predicted preferred masses. Roughly 22% are located at =/ 0.04 solar mass. 1/3 of .145 is about 0.048, close enough to 0.04. Let | be one of your integral multiples and - denote 1/3 of this, roughly your 0.04. If the masses are distributed uniformly, then you would expect 2/3 of them to be located within 1/3 of the distance between two points. In other words, these are those marked with ! below and the 1/3 are marked with dots. !.! !.! !.! !.! !.! !.! !.! ---|---|---|---|---|---|--- So your numbers indicate that the masses are consistent with a uniform distribution. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 3:25:10 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
I found a very good catalog of detached eclipsing binary stars with mass determinations "accurate to 2%". It is an ongoing catalog with new systems being added as they are published. ..... Perhaps I might also get some advice on the best way to analyze the data so as to clearly demonstrate what the data say, and what they do not say. I took a look at the M1 and M2 values. I used only the values which had error bars smaller than 20% of 0.145, which yielded 112 and 120 samples (M1 and M2 respectively). I made a histogram of M1 and M2, modulo 0.145 Msun, with 20 bins in each. If the mass values were clustered at multiples of 0.145 Msun, then one would expected a peaked distribution at either end of the histogram, and a trough in the middle of the histogram. In actuality, there are no significant peaks or troughs. The distributions are approximately flat to within the (Poisson) errors, indicating no clustering of masses. This can be quantified. I presupposed a hypothesis that there is no clustering of mass values, i.e. flat distribution, and I can test that hypothesis using a chi-square statistical test. I found chi-square values of 23.4 (M1) and 20.5 (M2), for 20 degrees of freedom. Given these values, the no-clustering hypothesis cannot be rejected (significance values 23% & 43%). I.e. there is no support in this data for clustered masses of either M1 or M2 at multiples of 0.145. There are perhaps better ways to quantify this. I used a frequentist approach, which is quick and dirty. CM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 4:08:37 AM UTC-5, wrote:
There are perhaps better ways to quantify this. I used a frequentist approach, which is quick and dirty. --------------------------------------------------- Just a quick comment before I get back to Thanksgiving activities. If you have samples of over 100 systems then you are NOT using only 2012 and 2013 data. I do not trust the 1990s Anderson data or even the newer Torres et al data. [Mod. note: because they disagree with you, or for some objective reason? -- mjh] I am ONLY interested in 2012, 2013 and future analyses. This makes the progress in testing the hypothesis much slower, but I think much more trustworthy. I do not want to discuss this decision of mine, which is based on studying the empirical data for over 30 years. It is my choice and I think it is a very wise one. I will read your post more carefully when time permits. Happy Thanksgiving! RLO Fractal Cosmology [Mod. note: reformatted and entire quoted article trimmed -- mjh] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 4:08:37 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 3:25:10 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: Given these values, the no-clustering hypothesis cannot be rejected (significance values 23% & 43%). I.e. there is no support in this data for clustered masses of either M1 or M2 at multiples of 0.145. There are perhaps better ways to quantify this. I used a frequentist approach, which is quick and dirty. ---------------------------------------------------- WHOA!!! I just noticed that you are testing M1 and M2 SEPERATELY!!! My hypothesis is that it is the TOTAL SYSTEM MASS that shows indications of preferred masses that are integer multiples of 0.145 solar mass. I would be delighted if you would check M1+M2 values for ONLY 2012 and 2013 systems. Then we would be on the same page (in the same book?). Best, RLO |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:06:17 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
I just noticed that you are testing M1 and M2 SEPERATELY!!! My hypothesis is that it is the TOTAL SYSTEM MASS that shows indications of preferred masses that are integer multiples of 0.145 solar mass. I would be delighted if you would check M1+M2 values for ONLY 2012 and 2013 systems. Then we would be on the same page (in the same book?). I used the full table for M1+M2 (with error bars 0.2*0.145) yielding a sample of 110. I also binned (M1+M2) modulo 0.145 into 20 histogram bins. Again, no evidence of any clustering near 0.145 Msun (chi square value of 25 for 20 degrees of freedom, significance level of 20% for null hypothesis). I don't really have the time to apply your arbitrary selection criteria (systems measured years 2012 & 2013 only). I'm not aware of any magical change that allowed researchers to suddenly determine masses more reliably or accurately starting in 2012. I chose criteria I could apply quickly and objectively. The error bars need to be significantly less than your chosen multiple of 0.145 Msun, which is why I chose 20%. You are welcome to apply other more stringent selection criteria, but beware you would be getting into the regime of very low counts where significance would need to be assessed carefully (as well as number of trials perhaps). CM |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 4:07:30 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
I answered this once, but the post did not appear. Here is a brief summary. If the distribution was "uniform" for the +/- deviations away from a predicted value, then the 0.01-sized bins between -0.07 solar mass to +0.07 solar mass, with 0.00 as a predicted multiple of 0.145 solar mass, would contain statistically equal numbers of "hits" - i.e., a flat distribution. This is NOT observed. The distribution of +/- deviations is CENTRALLY-PEAKED. So it is your hypothesis of a uniform distribution that is at odds with the data. [Mod. note: why not show us a figure? -- mjh] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: If the distribution was "uniform" for the +/- deviations away from a predicted value, then the 0.01-sized bins between -0.07 solar mass to +0.07 solar mass, with 0.00 as a predicted multiple of 0.145 solar mass, would contain statistically equal numbers of "hits" - i.e., a flat distribution. This is NOT observed. First, the expectation is not flat, but Poisson. The distribution of +/- deviations is CENTRALLY-PEAKED. So it is your hypothesis of a uniform distribution that is at odds with the data. Second: Other posters and I have shown, based on your numbers, that there is no evidence for the fact that the UNDERLYING distribution is flat (the OBSERVED distribution will not be flat, due to small-number statistics) and there is no evidence for your peaks at integer multiples of 0.0145 solar masses. [Mod. note: why not show us a figure? -- mjh] Third: Indeed. The fact is that no-one except you sees any evidence at all for these peaks. Even you see them only by cherry-picking the data (which you are "not willing to discuss") and by changing the criteria with time (now it is the total mass; it used to be the individual masses). Put all of this together and the result is that you have convinced no-one. In fact, what has probably happened is that your unsupported claims have made people even more sceptical of DSR. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Friday, November 29, 2013 2:45:33 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 3:06:17 PM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ I don't know how many times I have to say it. I am justified in defining a hypothesis and identifying a proper test of it, as long as I am not engaging in some sort of biased manipulation of the data. Choosing only to allow data published from 2012 and into the open-ended future seems scientifically to valid to me. I have good scientific reasons to make this choice but it is a separate discussion and I do not want to get bogged down in this issue BEFORE we establish what the hypothesis and test I have chosen tells us. This would just be avoiding the crux of the matter. If you do not want to put in the effort required to analyze my more constrained sample, fine. Just don't tell me you know the correctness/incorrectness of the hypothesis before you do a fair test with the BEST data available, and excluding decades-old data that is suspect. I an not saying it is proven wrong; I am saying it cannot be trusted for such an important hypothesis. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Southworth Det Eclips Binary Catalog
On Friday, November 29, 2013 2:46:35 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Thursday, November 28, 2013 4:07:30 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: [Mod. note: why not show us a figure? -- mjh] ----------------------------------------------------- Martin, I can assure you that I have plans to write up and publish a substantial paper on preferred stellar masses that includes the eclipsing binary data, the white dwarf data, the planetary nebula nuclei data, the exoplanet system data, and the neutron star data. But don't hold your breath. I am one modestly skilled person working in a less than encouraging environment. This thread is a test of how much opposition I can expect in doing research on this very radical hypothesis. I am also wondering if anyone will say: "That looks interesting and worthy of being pursued further". I would ideally like to get those with more advanced skills in statistics and data presentation to participate in this research. That may be an unreasonable dream, but I have endless hope, plenty of time and the perseverance of a mule. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASTRO: Lunar eclips too | TheCroW | Astro Pictures | 0 | March 4th 07 02:31 PM |
ASTRO: Live online streams of total lunar eclips | TheCroW | Astro Pictures | 1 | March 4th 07 05:35 AM |
Binary Star catalog | John Oliver | Research | 1 | March 24th 05 10:52 AM |
Which catalog is best? | Lucy | Research | 5 | April 27th 04 03:49 PM |
Which catalog is best? | Lucy | Misc | 5 | April 27th 04 03:49 PM |