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

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.

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]

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.

On Friday, November 29, 2013 7:26:30 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

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.
----------------------------------------------------------

Well, I would urge open-minded readers to look at the multiple samples
of published white dwarf mass distributions that I have put at
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw in the page entitled "Stellar
Scale Discreteness?". If you do not see peaks at the predicted mass
multiples, then there must be something obscuring your vision.

Sure the analyses are a bit old and amateurish, but the non-uniform
distribution and evidence for my hypothesis cannot be hand-waved away
completely.

I have also analyzed much larger white dwarf samples from SDSS DR4 and
DR7, among other new samples (and there are several good ones). The
same pattern of peaks at 0.4 - 0.45 solar mass; 0.55 - 0.60 solar
mass; and 0.82 - 0.90 solar mass are present at highly significant
levels.

[Mod. note: please describe the statistical tests that you've done to
reach this conclusion -- mjh]

I will not respond to insulting and ad hominem comments that indicate
unquestioned faith in a negative result and a denial of the existence
of positive results.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

Well, I would urge open-minded readers to look at the multiple samples
of published white dwarf mass distributions that I have put at
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw in the page entitled "Stellar
Scale Discreteness?". If you do not see peaks at the predicted mass
multiples, then there must be something obscuring your vision.

Your bins are much wider than 0.0145, so the fact that a multiple of
this occurs in a bin with a large number of objects is no surprise.

IIRC, someone (Martin?) did an analysis of the rawer data and found
nothing. So, why you are still making this claim?

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:57:51 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

[Mod. note: please describe the statistical tests that you've done to

reach this conclusion -- mjh]

-------------------------------------------------

To be completely honest I have mostly relied on the statistical
analyses of the professional astrophysicists doing the actual research
and analyses.

For example when they say they see a definite peak in the 0.4 to 0.45
solar mass bin, in the 0.55 to 0.6 solar mass bin and the 0.82 to 0.9
solar mass bin, and when these reported peaks continue to show up in
different samples, and when no other extraneous peaks show up
prominently, then I take them at their word. The fact that their
conclusions seem intuitively obvious to me also gives me confidence.

[Mod. note: if a professional astrophysicist has made the claims that
you were making, please give references to the relevant publication in
a refereed journal -- mjh]

On Sunday, December 1, 2013 3:57:51 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

Well, I would urge open-minded readers to look at the multiple samples
of published white dwarf mass distributions that I have put at
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw in the page entitled "Stellar
Scale Discreteness?". If you do not see peaks at the predicted mass
multiples, then there must be something obscuring your vision.

The mass distribution of main-sequence stars is extremely well modeled
by a continuous power-law. However, Robert is correct that the white
dwarf mass distribution shows peaks at certain masses. The strong peak
at 0.6 solar masses (Msun) has been understood for more than 50 years,
while possible weak peaks around 0.4 and 0.8 Msun may be understood
with the development of binary evolution population synthesis models.

White dwarfs are the endpoints of stellar evolution. Because of mass
loss during the red giant phases, white dwarfs are expected to have
significantly less mass than their progenitor star. For example, the
Sun is expected to end up as a white dwarf with a mass of 0.6 Msun.
Astronomers use a initial-mass - final mass relation (determined by
observations of open clusters) to predict the final white dwarf mass
for stars of different initial masses.

So here are some factors that determine the strange shape of the white
dwarf mass function.

1. The white dwarf mass distribution is truncated at both ends. Above
1.4 Msun, the electron degeneracy pressure in a white dwarf cannot
support itself against collapse to a neutron star. Below about 0.53
Msun, the progenitor stars have not had sufficient time to evolve off
of the main-sequence (via single star evolution) within the age of the
Galaxy.

2. White dwarfs passively cool and become dimmer with age until they
become undetectable. An optical survey like SDSS preferentially
detects the younger and brighter white dwarfs, which have spent much
less time as a white dwarf ( 100 Myr) than they did as a main
sequence star. Thus the white dwarf mass function is not only related
to the main-sequence mass function but also to the star formation
history. If there was a burst of star formation 2 Gyr ago, then we
would see a peak in the white dwarf mass distribution for progenitor
stars with a 2 Gyr lifetime. In open clusters (with all stars the same
age) all the white dwarfs have the same mass..

3. Stars less than 2.5 Msun develop a degenerate helium core. When
this core mass exceeds about 0.5 Msun, the helium core flash occurs,
removing the degeneracy and yielding a core helium burning star. This
core eventually becomes the white dwarf (with an additional ~0.1 Msun
of mass added from the product of subsequent shell burning.) The core
mass at the helium flash depends only weakly on the total mass of the
star, so all stars less than 2.5 Msun become ~0.6 Msun white dwarfs.
This is one of the factors explaining the strong peak at 0.6 Msun for
white dwarf masses.

4. White dwarfs with a mass less than 0.5 Msun have *only* been
found in binary systems. When a red giant expands it can lose mass to
its companion, never reach the helium core flash, and become a core
helium white dwarf (as opposed to the usual carbon/oxygen white
dwarf). Subsequent evolution of the binary can result in the merger of
two white dwarf yielding high mass white dwarfs 0f 0.8 Msun or higher.
Binary population synthesis models suggest that there may be peaks at
certain masses (Isern et al.
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ASPC..469...711) although it is not clear
if such peaks are present in the observations. (There are a lot of
selection effect I haven't mentioned here.)

[Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh]

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.

In article ,
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
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.

Here is the figure (for the 2012 and 2013 data):

http://www.extragalactic.info/~mjh/hist-new.png

This shows the deviation of the total masses from the closest multiple
of 0.145 solar masses, for only the objects published in 2012 and
2013. It doesn't look particularly interesting to me.

Moreover, since we have the error bars, we can do the same test I told
you how to do last time we had this thread. Take the quantity plotted,
divide by the error bars, square the result, add them all together,
and look up in a table of chi^2 significances. The idea that this
histogram shows data all consistent with zero is rejected at better
than the 99.999% confidence level (chi^2 = 562.8 for 32 objects).

Here's how to do it in a few lines of python (astropy is good!):

from astropy.table import Table
t=Table.read('debs.dat',format='ascii')
m1=10.0**t['col7']
m2=10.0**t['col9']
e1=(10.0**t['col8']-1.0)*m1
e2=(10.0**t['col10']-1.0)*m2
m=m1+m2
e=sqrt(e1**2.0+e2**2.0)
d=m % 0.145
d-=0.145*(d0.0725)
chi2=(d/e)**2.0
print chi2.sum()

(restricting to the newer data left as an exercise for the reader)

For the benefit of anyone else reading, just to note that picking a
subset of the data because you happen to like the way it looks, and
without any reason to reject the other data (note: 'it's old' is not a
valid reason), is a deeply unscientific procedure. However, in this
case, it doesn't seem to help you. In fact, the full dataset is a
better fit to your model, though it is still rejected at a very high
confidence level, presumably because the error bars are higher.

That may be an
unreasonable dream, but I have endless hope, plenty of time and the
perseverance of a mule.

Unfortunately, you don't appear to be able to carry out simple
statistical tests or accept the results when others do them for you.
These are far more useful qualities in a scientist than 'the
perseverance of a mule'. Mules are notorious for going in the wrong
direction in spite of all efforts to correct them.

Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle
School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with herts.ac.uk to mail me