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

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

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

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

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

"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.

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.

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

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

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