Talk:WD 0343+247
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
More Info
[edit]Could someone who is a better writer than I am please add some of the information found here?[1]
A mass of 0.15?
[edit]The article lists the mass for this white dwarf as being 0.15 (+- 0.02) solar-masses.
However, I'm currently reading an article on white dwarfs here: [1]
And it says this (in the third paragraph after the linked position): "In particular, the dotted curves illustrate quite well a known result: the fact that single star evolution theory does not allow the formation of white dwarfs less massive than about ~0.45 M⊙ within a Hubble time. What are then the objects with apparently lower masses than this in Figure 8? [...] According to BLR, most of these data points correspond to unresolved double degenerate stars that are interpreted as single overluminous objects."
Isn't this saying that white dwarfs are always at least 0.45 solar-masses? How then does this particular white dwarf have a solar-mass of 0.15? (note that I'm new to reading these research papers, so I may be misinterpreting the statements -- hence the question) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venryx (talk • contribs) 04:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
EDIT
Also, I just now followed the reference for the 0.15 solar-mass designation, and it links to an astronomy newsletter; however, it is brief, and contains no reference to the star's mass. It may just be a mistaken entry, then.
Who knows where it came from... Just kidding! We can check that.
Apparently it was added in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WD_0346%2B246&diff=649099613&oldid=573942559
Note that the mass-designation was added at the same time as the reference was added. In other words, there has never been a reference provided which gives the current 0.15 mass designation.
I'm guessing it was just a mistaken entry, then. (though will wait for someone else's input, or a reference to the correct mass) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venryx (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
EDIT
Okay, I found a paper which gives the mass for the star: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2570v1.pdf
On page 4, it states: "Similary, WD0346 is a 3650K, 0.77 M⊙ star with a WD cooling age of 11.2+0.3−1.6 Gyr. The progenitor star was a 3.1-3.3 M⊙ main-sequence star with a main-sequence lifetime of 240-270 Myr (Marigo et al. 2008). The uncertainty in main-sequence age is larger than the range given here. However, this uncertainty is insignificant compared to the total age of the WD, which is 11.5 Gyr for WD0346."
I'm going to go ahead and add this to the main page. If I'm mistaken, of course, please revert it. (still not used to making changes to publicly-visible content) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venryx (talk • contribs) 05:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Temperature of WD 0346+246 being 3700 - 3800 K
[edit]"'Based on the optical and infrared observations of these stars and our analysis, these stars are about 3700 and 3800 degrees on the surface,' said co-author Piotr Kowalski of Helmholtz Center Potsdam in Germany." So it is estimated that the temperature of WD 0346+246 is 3700 - 3800 K. Is it really true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.2.153 (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)