Amazing things about Chandrasekhar's white dwarf mass limit

This is ultra-condensed matter physics!

In 1931, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar published a seminal paper, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1983. He showed that a white dwarf star must have a mass less than 1.4 solar masses, otherwise it will collapse under gravity. White dwarfs are compact stars for which the nuclear fuel is spent and electron degeneracy pressure prevents gravitational collapse. 

The blog Galileo unbound has a nice post about the history and the essential physics behind the paper.

There are a several things I find quite amazing about Chandrasekhar's derivation  and the expression for the maximum possible mass. 

m_H is the mass of a proton. M_P is the Planck mass. The value of the mass limit is about 1.4 solar masses.

Relativity matters

If the electrons are treated non-relativistically then there is no mass limit. However, when the star becomes dense enough the Fermi velocity of the electrons approaches the speed of light. Then relativistic effects must be included.

A macroscopic quantum effect

Degeneracy pressure is a macroscopic quantum effect. The expression above involves Planck's constant.

Quantum gravity

The mass formula involves the Planck mass, M_P.  On the one hand, this phenomena does not involve quantum gravity because there is no quantisation of the gravitational field. On the other hand, the effect does involve the interplay of gravity and quantum physics.

A "natural" scale

Formula that involve Planck scales usually represent scales of length, energy, mass, time, and temperature that are "unreal", i.e., they are vastly different from terrestial and astrophysical phenomena. For example, the temperature of the Hawking radiation from a black hole of one solar mass is 60 nanoKelvin. 

In contrast, the limiting mass is on the same scale as that of our own sun!

It agrees with astronomical observations

Determinations of the masses of hundreds of white dwarfs show most have a mass of about 0.5 solar masses and the highest observed value is 1.3 solar masses.


Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 21, 2023 at 12:32 AM

    While most of the Planck units are indeed very far from terrestrial or astrophysical scales, the Planck mass is around 20 micrograms. While small, it is not unfathomably so. Humans can see objects of such size (and even smaller) with the naked eye. It's about the weight of an eyelash for example. There are many living creatures whose mass is well below this mass scale (not to mention microscopic cells and whatnot).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ross H. McKenzieSeptember 25, 2023 at 8:41 PM

      Thanks for the comment. That is helpful. I should have known that but did not.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Herzberg-Teller coupling?

Image
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thrown around. Google scholar yields more than 3000 hits. But I have found its precise meaning and the relevant physics hard to pin down. Quantum mechanics in chemistry by Schatz and Ratner is an excellent book , but the discussion on page 204 did not help me. "Herzberg-Teller" never appears in Atkins' Molecular quantum mechanics. So here is my limited understanding. Herzberg and Teller wanted to understand why one observed certain vibronic (combined electronic and vibrational) transitions that were not expected, particularly some that were expected to be forbidden on symmetry grounds. " Intensity borrowing " occurred. Herzberg and Teller pointed out that his could be understood if the dipole transition moment for the electronic transition depended on the nuclear co-ordinate associated with the vibration. In the Franck-Condo
Read more

Is it an Unidentified Superconducting Object (USO)?

If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new material. There is a long history of this and it is worth considering the wise observations of Robert Cava , back in 1997, contained in a tutorial lecture. It would have been useful indeed in the early days of the field [cuprate superconductors] to have set up a "commission" to set some minimum standard of data quality and reproducibility for reporting new superconductors. An almost countless number of "false alarms" have been reported in the past decade, some truly spectacular. Koichi Kitazawa from the University of Tokyo coined these reports "USOs", for Unidentified Superconducting Objects , in a clever cross-cultural double entendre likening them to UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects, which certainly are their equivalent in many ways) and to "lies" in the Japanese translation of USO.   These have caused g
Read more

What should be the order of authors on a conference poster or talk?

I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With regard to paper authorship my general rule is that the person who does the bulk of the work, including actually writing the paper should be the first author. Doug Natelson has a good post on co-authorship , that I largely agree with. My only difference is that I am not really convinced that good practice prevails in the majority of circumstances. I fear there are increasing numbers of co-authors, particularly senior ones, with marginal contributions. But, what about conference talks and posters? Many of these are based on work that is already or about to be published. Should the author order be identical as the associated papers? I am not sure it should necessarily be. My tentative view is that the person who writes and submits the abstract and actually prepares and presents the post/talk should be the first author. Perhaps they should also highlig
Read more