Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Magnetic dynamos powered by white dwarf superficial convection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Cooling white dwarfs should spend about a gigayear magnetized by a surface dynamo.

desk verdict Clean scaling analysis, but the kG numbers rest on an unmodeled dynamo; the paper honestly says so. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18257 v2 pith:27MJR3OY submitted 2025-05-23 astro-ph.SR

Rom Yaakovyan , Sivan Ginzburg , Jim Fuller , Nicholas Z. Rui This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfmagneticdynamosurfaceconvectionkGfieldscoolingcrystallizationspectropolarimetrystellarevolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

When a cooling white dwarf's effective temperature drops low enough for its outer hydrogen to recombine, a thin surface convection zone forms. The authors argue that this convection zone powers a magnetic dynamo, so every DA white dwarf between about 0.5 and 0.9 solar masses should pass through a phase with a few-kG surface field. The field peaks at the onset of convection and then declines as $B\propto T_{\rm eff}\propto t^{-7/20}$ until the convection zone reaches the degenerate core; because $t_{\rm conv}

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the equipartition relation $B\sim \rho_{\rm conv}^{1/6}F^{1/3}$ between magnetic and kinetic energy densities at the base of the surface convection zone, where the flux $F$ is carried by mixing-length convective eddies. It converts the standard degenerate-core cooling law $T_{\rm eff}\propto M^{5/12}t^{-7/20}$ and the inward growth of the convection zone $\rho_{\rm conv}\propto t^{7/10}$ into a predicted field that tracks the effective temperature, $B\propto T_{\rm eff}\propto t^{-7/20}$. The timing argument rests on comparing three power-law clocks: the onset of convection $t_{\rm conv}\propto M^{25/21}$, core crystallization $t_{\rm cryst}\propto M^{-5/3}$, and convective coupling to the degenerate core $t_{\rm coup}\propto M^0$; their ordering isolates a clean, roughly Gyr-long dynamo epoch that precedes the breakout of any crystallization dynamo field.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a spectropolarimetric and Zeeman-broadening survey of a dozen cool DA white dwarfs with $T_{\rm eff}$ between roughly 8,000 and 10,000 K and masses 0.5-0.9 $M_\odot$: the predicted few-kG fields should appear with $B\propto T_{\rm eff}$ in stars older than $t_{\rm conv}$ and younger than the crystallization-dynamo breakout time. Alternatively, a direct magnetohydrodynamic simulation of the surface convection zone that shows no dynamo amplification (subcritical behaviour) would falsify the mechanism; the paper explicitly leaves that dynamo question open.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that surface convection dynamos producing kG-strength magnetic fields are a likely by-product of ordinary white dwarf cooling. Convection begins when $T_{\rm eff}$ falls below the ionization temperature; the partial-ionization opacity change creates a thin, inward-expanding convection zone whose base density grows as $\rho_{\rm conv}\propto t^{7/10}$. In that zone, the convective flux is carried by fluid motions with velocity $v_{\rm conv}\sim (F/\rho)^{1/3}$ from mixing-length theory, and the dynamo-saturated field is set by equipartition between kinetic and magnetic energy densities, $B^2/8\pi \sim \tfrac12 \rho v_{\rm conv}^2$, giving $B\sim \rho_{\rm conv}^{1/6}F^{1/3}$. Because the flux is roughly uniform through the envelope, the strongest field sits at the base of the convection zone; it reaches several kG just after $t_{\rm conv}$ and then declines as $B\propto T_{\rm eff}\propto t^{-7/20}$, refining the older $B\propto T_{\rm eff}^{4/3}$ prediction of Fontaine et al. (1973) that neglected the zone's expansion. Comparing the three clock times, $t_{\rm conv}\propto M^{25/21}$, $t_{\rm cryst}\propto M^{-5/3}$, and $t_{\rm coup}\propto M^0$, the authors find $t_{\rm conv}<t_{\rm cryst}<t_{\rm coup}$ for $0.5\,M_\odot<M<0.9\,M_\odot$, so the surface dynamo always has a window of about a gigayear before the crystallization dynamo field can reach the surface.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the thin surface convection zone actually operates as a dynamo and reaches equipartition field strengths; the paper does not model the dynamo or check whether conditions such as magnetic Reynolds number are met.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every DA white dwarf in the $0.5\text{--}0.9\,M_\odot$ range should exhibit a weakly magnetized phase lasting roughly $\Delta t \approx t_{\rm cryst}-t_{\rm conv}\sim 1\,\text{Gyr}$, with shorter durations at higher mass.
  • During this phase the surface field should track effective temperature linearly, $B\propto T_{\rm eff}$, so a measurable prediction is that kG fields are confined to the coolest, oldest white dwarfs and fade smoothly as the white dwarf cools.
  • The surface dynamo always precedes the crystallization dynamo, so the two mechanisms predict distinct epochs: kG fields first, then stronger fields after crystallization and field breakout.
  • Hydrogen-atmosphere (DA) and helium-atmosphere (DB) white dwarfs both show the ordering $t_{\rm conv}<t_{\rm cryst}<t_{\rm coup}$, with DB stars producing stronger maximal fields around $3\times 10^4$ G because their convection begins at $T_{\rm eff}\approx 3\times 10^4$ K.
  • If these fields exist, they are strong enough to affect white dwarf accretion and pulsation seismology, and may erase weaker fossil fields before the crystallization dynamo takes over.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that a small-scale, tangled field would make polarimetry systematically miss the true field; if the eddy scale is much smaller than the stellar radius, the expected true $B\sim 5\,\text{kG}$ could coexist with longitudinal measurements $B_l\ll B$, which may explain why no unambiguous candidate has been found.
  • Extending the same equipartition argument to magnetic F stars, which have similar convective depth and Rossby number, suggests a common dynamo threshold; checking whether F-star activity follows the same $B\propto T_{\rm eff}$ track would provide an independent test while white dwarf samples grow.
  • A testable extension is to target ZZ Ceti stars near the blue edge of the instability strip, where the dynamo is freshly activated and the field is maximal; pulsation mode splittings there should reveal the field before the long decline sets in.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the idea that cooling white dwarfs develop surface convection zones that power magnetic dynamos, and derives a simple analytical scaling for the resulting field strength together with MESA stellar evolution models. For DA (hydrogen-atmosphere) white dwarfs in the 0.5-0.9 Msun mass range, the authors find that once a surface convection zone appears at a cooling time t_conv, an equipartition magnetic field reaches a maximum of several kG and then declines as B proportional to T_eff proportional to t^{-7/20} until the convective envelope couples to the degenerate core at t_coup. They also compare t_conv with the crystallization time t_cryst and find t_conv < t_cryst < t_coup across this mass range, implying a surface-dynamo phase lasting roughly a Gyr before any crystallization-dynamo field reaches the surface. The observational comparison identifies two tentative candidates among weakly magnetized white dwarfs but concludes that both are probably ruled out by stronger total fields inferred from spectroscopy, so no confirmed empirical support is found. The paper concludes that surface convection dynamos generating kG fields are a likely by-product of white dwarf cooling.

Significance. The analytical scaling is clean, parameter-free in its exponents, and independently reproduced by the MESA models, which is a genuine strength; if the underlying dynamo operates at equipartition, the paper provides a useful and falsifiable prediction for the time-dependence and mass-dependence of weak magnetic fields in cooling white dwarfs, with potential implications for accretion and seismology. The paper is also admirably honest about the lack of confirmed observational candidates and about the limits of its model. The significance is nevertheless conditional, because the central quantitative claim rests on an unmodeled equipartition assumption: the paper does not compute magnetic Reynolds numbers, dynamo numbers, or saturation mechanisms, and its own introduction states that determining whether white dwarfs satisfy the conditions for any of these dynamos is beyond the scope of the work. Thus the main contribution is a robust scaling law for an upper-limit field, not a demonstration that the dynamo operates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (8)] The entire kG normalization of the field prediction is set by the assumed equipartition between magnetic and kinetic energy density, B^2/8pi ~ (1/2) rho v_conv^2. The paper explicitly states in the Introduction that determining whether white dwarfs satisfy the conditions for dynamo action is beyond its scope, and no induction equation, magnetic Reynolds number, dynamo number, or saturation mechanism is computed. The MESA simulations therefore verify the scaling of an assumed equipartition formula, not the existence of a dynamo. Since the surface convection zone is thin and partially ionized, the magnetic diffusivity may be large enough that a plausible dynamo is subcritical or saturates at a small fraction of equipartition, in which case the predicted fields would fall far below kG. I recommend either tempering the conclusion that surface dynamos are a 'likely by-product' to a conditional statement, or adding a quantitative dynamo-viability estimate (e.g., a mixing-length-based magnetic Reynolds number and a discussion of saturation fractions) to support the kG normalization.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4] There is an internal inconsistency about how long the surface dynamo remains active. The abstract states that surface dynamos are active for a period Delta t approximately t_cryst - t_conv, and the conclusions repeat that the convection zone is overrun by a crystallization dynamo field after t_cryst. However, Section 4 treats WD 2359-434, whose age satisfies t > t_cryst, as a viable surface-dynamo candidate precisely because the crystallization dynamo field remains buried until a breakout time t_break approximately 3 Gyr, and the body (Section 3, Figs. 3-4) describes the field evolution as continuing until t_coup. If the crystallization field reaches the surface only at t_break, then the surface dynamo's active lifetime is not set by t_cryst, and the 'about a Gyr' interval in the abstract needs to be reconciled with the t_break argument or explicitly redefined.
  3. [Section 3, Figs. 3-4] The numerical 'verification' of the power laws is obtained by evaluating Eq. (8) in every convective cell of the MESA model, i.e., by post-processing the assumed equipartition relation rather than by simulating a dynamo. The agreement between MESA and the analytical scaling therefore confirms the exponents of the assumed relation and the time-evolution of the convection zone, but it cannot validate the kG normalization or the claim that a dynamo actually operates. This distinction should be stated prominently in the text and conclusions, because the current phrasing ('MESA simulations reproduce the power laws' together with 'surface dynamos are a likely by-product') may be read as stronger evidence than the simulations actually provide.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] In the sentence 'Assuming that heat is transported trough the ideal gas envelope', 'trough' should be 'through'.
  2. [Section 4] The terms 'two candidates' and 'probably ruled out' are used in close succession. Consider calling them 'tentative candidates' or restructuring the text so that the abstract's statement that no observed candidates fit the theory is clearly reflected in the section.
  3. [Equation (12)] Equation (12) is garbled in the preprint typesetting; it should read B(T_eff) proportional to M^{5/36} T_eff, with B_max evaluated at T_eff = T_0. Please correct the displayed formula.
  4. [Section 3, Fig. 5] The text notes that t_coup deviates from the analytical estimate t_coup proportional to M^0 but does not quantify or explain the deviation. A brief comment on the physical reason would help readers understand the limits of the analytical model.
  5. [Appendix A] The appendix mentions non-monotonic jumps at low T_eff that are probably numerical artifacts. It would be helpful to mark the affected range in Fig. A1 or state explicitly which portions should not be interpreted physically.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kG-field scaling is derived from an explicit equipartition ansatz plus independently computed stellar structures, not from fitted data or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The magnetic-field scaling B ~ rho_conv^{1/6} F^{1/3} follows directly from the mixing-length flux relation (Eq. 7) and the equipartition assumption (Eq. 8), and the exponents are propagated through the Mestel cooling scalings (Eqs. 1-6) to obtain B ~ t^{-7/20} and B ~ T_eff. The MESA simulations compute the stellar structure (rho_conv, F) and then evaluate the same equipartition relation ("we compute the magnetic field B in each convective cell in the simulation using equation (8)"), so they are not an independent measurement of B, but they do independently verify the analytical exponents against a detailed numerical model rather than being fitted to observed fields. The observational comparison finds no candidates that fit the theory, so the prediction is not reverse-engineered from data. The cited same-group works (Blatman & Ginzburg 2024 for crystallization scaling and breakout, Rui et al. 2025 for seismology upper limits, Ginzburg 2024 for convective coupling) are auxiliary inputs or checks, and the decisive ordering t_conv < t_cryst < t_coup is also evaluated directly in MESA via Gamma > 200; none of these self-citations carries the central claim by itself. The main weakness—that dynamo action is assumed rather than demonstrated, as the authors state explicitly ("Determining whether white dwarfs satisfy the conditions for any of these dynamos to operate is beyond the scope of this work")—is a modeling assumption and correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling derivation rests on standard cooling and mixing-length theory, plus the crucial assumption that a dynamo operates and reaches equipartition. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The equipartition coefficient is an order-unity hand-chosen constant.

free parameters (1)
  • Equipartition coefficient C_eq = ~1 (order unity)
    Sets the absolute magnetic field scale in B^2/(8 pi) = C_eq (1/2) rho v^2 (equation 8); not fitted to data, but chosen by hand from standard equipartition arguments.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A dynamo operates in the surface convection zone and reaches equipartition field strength.
    Invoked in Section 2.2, equation (8); the paper does not model the dynamo mechanism or verify its conditions, yet the entire prediction depends on it.
  • standard math Convective flux follows mixing-length theory: F ~ rho v^3.
    Used in equation (7) to relate convective velocity to flux and density.
  • standard math The Mestel (1952) cooling model describes the white dwarf core and envelope.
    Used in Section 2.1 to derive the flux, effective temperature, and cooling time scalings.
  • domain assumption Ionization temperature T_0 is approximately constant and the recombination front is sharp.
    Assumed in Section 2.1; the numerical results show T_eff at onset is similar across masses, but the base temperature differs from T_0, so this is an approximation.
  • standard math Kramer's opacity law kappa proportional to rho T^{-7/2} holds in the envelope.
    Used in Section 2.1 to relate optical depth, density, and temperature.
  • domain assumption Convection zone thickness is set by the pressure scale height.
    Used in the footnote and Section 2.2 to relate the eddy size to local scale height, which affects the magnetic field geometry and detection prospects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic dynamos powered by white dwarf superficial convection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27MJR3OY

@misc{pith2026250518257,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic dynamos powered by white dwarf superficial convection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27MJR3OY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18257}
}
abstract

When the effective temperature of a cooling white dwarf $T_{\rm eff}$ drops below the ionization limit, it develops a surface convection zone that may generate a magnetic field $B$ through one of several dynamo mechanisms. We revisit this possibility systematically using detailed stellar evolution computations, as well as a simple analytical model that tracks the expansion of the convection zone. The magnetic field reaches a maximum of several kG (for a hydrogen atmosphere) shortly after a convection zone is established at a cooling time $t=t_{\rm conv}$. The field then declines as $B\propto T_{\rm eff}\propto t^{-7/20}$ until the convective envelope couples to the degenerate core at $t=t_{\rm coup}$. We compare the onset of convection $t_{\rm conv}\propto M^{25/21}$ to the crystallization of the white dwarf's core $t_{\rm cryst}\propto M^{-5/3}$, and find that in the mass range $0.5\,{\rm M}_\odot<M<0.9\,{\rm M}_\odot$ the order of events is $t_{\rm conv}<t_{\rm cryst}<t_{\rm coup}$. Specifically, surface dynamos are active for a period $\Delta t\approx t_{\rm cryst}-t_{\rm conv}$ of about a Gyr (shorter for higher masses), before the convection zone is overrun by a stronger magnetic field emanating from the crystallizing core. Our predicted magnetic fields are at the current detection limit, and we do not find any observed candidates that fit the theory. None the less, surface dynamos may be an inevitable outcome of white dwarf cooling, significantly affecting white dwarf accretion and seismology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18257 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The magnetic field profile as a function of density inside a 0.6 M⊙ white dwarf at different (colour coded) cooling times , between the onset of the convection and the convective-coupling time (conv < < coup). The approximately uniform flux through the white dwarf’s convective envelope implies ∝ 1/6 according to equation (9). 104 105 106 T [K] 103 104 B [G] 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 t [Gyr] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The maximal magnetic field as a function of the white dwarf’s cooling time for different white dwarf masses. Markers indicate the estab￾lishment of a convection zone conv, the core crystallization time cryst, and the convective-coupling time coup. During times conv . . coup, the field’s evolution is described well by equation (10): ∝ −7/20 . Tremblay et al. 2015).3 The dependence on the mass () is some￾what steeper … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The onset of convection conv, crystallization cryst, and convective￾coupling coup times in carbon–oxygen white dwarfs with different masses . The convection time fits equation (3): conv ∝ 25/21, whereas the crystallization time fits cryst ∝ −5/3 (Blatman & Ginzburg 202…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Seismology and diffusion of ultramassive white dwarf magnetic fields

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Seismic non-detection of magnetic g-mode suppression in WD J0135+5722 limits its internal magnetic field to below 0.6 MG (CO core) or below 7 kG (ONe core), disfavoring an ONe composition or an intense crystallization dynamo.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Angel J. R. P., Borra E. F., Landstreet J. D., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJS...45..457A 45, 457

    doi:10.1086/190720 1981

  2. [2]

    C., Brun A

    Augustson K. C., Brun A. S., Toomre J., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/92 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829...92A 829, 92

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/2/92 2016

  3. [3]

    C., Brun A

    Augustson K. C., Brun A. S., Toomre J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab14ea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876...83A 876, 83

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab14ea 2019

  4. [4]

    M., Solanki S

    Aznar Cuadrado R., Jordan S., Napiwotzki R., Schmid H. M., Solanki S. K., Mathys G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040355 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...423.1081A 423, 1081

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040355 2004

  5. [5]

    D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A.113B 618, A113

    Bagnulo S., Landstreet J. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A.113B 618, A113

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833235 2018

  6. [6]

    D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630A..65B 630, A65

    Bagnulo S., Landstreet J. D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630A..65B 630, A65

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936068 2019

  7. [7]

    D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935L..12B 935, L12

    Bagnulo S., Landstreet J. D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935L..12B 935, L12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3 2022

  8. [8]

    Blatman D., Ginzburg S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.3153B 528, 3153

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae222 2024

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    B \"o hm K.-H., 1968, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00650915 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968Ap&SS...2..375B 2, 375

    1968 doi

  2. [10]

    C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature02934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.431..819B 431, 819

    Braithwaite J., Spruit H. C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature02934 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.431..819B 431, 819

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    Brandenburg A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A.117B 598, A117

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Schreiber M

    Camisassa M., Fuentes J. R., Schreiber M. R., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Torres S., Raddi R., Dominguez I., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452539 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691L..21C 691, L21

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4529C 519, 4529

    Caron A., Bergeron P., Blouin S., Leggett S. K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4529C 519, 4529

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    R., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969...10C 969, 10

    Castro-Tapia M., Cumming A., Fuentes J. R., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...969...10C 969, 10

    doi

  7. [15]

    Castro-Tapia M., Zhang S., Cumming A., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975...63C 975, 63

    doi

  8. [16]

    Cattaneo F., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311962 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...515L..39C 515, L39

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    Charpinet S., Fontaine G., Brassard P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature08307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.461..501C 461, 501

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    R., Holzwarth V., Reiners A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature07626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.457..167C 457, 167

    Christensen U. R., Holzwarth V., Reiners A., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature07626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.457..167C 457, 167

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    H., Althaus L

    C \'o rsico A. H., Althaus L. G., Kawaler S. D., Miller Bertolami M. M., Garc \' a-Berro E., Kepler S. O., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19642.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.418.2519C 418, 2519

    2011

  12. [20]

    H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A..30C 659, A30

    C \'o rsico A. H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A..30C 659, A30

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Cunningham T., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab553 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.1646C 503, 1646

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Gaensicke B., Marsh T., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Dufour P., Blouin S., Coutu S., Fortin-Archambault M., Thibeault C., Bergeron P., Fontaine G., 2017, in Tremblay P. E., Gaensicke B., Marsh T., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 509, 20th European White Dwarf Workshop. p. 3 ( @eprint arXiv 1610.00...

    2017 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Farihi J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2664 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.474..947F 474, 947

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..111F 191, 111

    Ferrario L., de Martino D., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..111F 191, 111

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Ferrario L., Wickramasinghe D., Kawka A., 2020, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AdSpR..66.1025F 66, 1025

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Fontaine G., Brassard P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PASP..120.1043F 120, 1043

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    H., van Horn H

    Fontaine G., Thomas J. H., van Horn H. M., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...184..911F 184, 911

    1973 doi

  20. [28]

    Fontaine G., Brassard P., Bergeron P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113..409F 113, 409

    2001 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Reifenstein S

    Fraser A. E., Reifenstein S. A., Garaud P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad26fe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964..184F 964, 184

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Cumming A., Castro-Tapia M., Anders E

    Fuentes J. R., Cumming A., Castro-Tapia M., Anders E. H., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accb56 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...73F 950, 73

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Castro-Tapia M., Cumming A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964L..15F 964, L15

    Fuentes J. R., Castro-Tapia M., Cumming A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964L..15F 964, L15

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Jermyn A

    Fuller J., Piro A. L., Jermyn A. S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3661F 485, 3661

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Garc \' a-Berro E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...749...25G 749, 25

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    Giammichele N., Fontaine G., Brassard P., Charpinet S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/223/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..223...10G 223, 10

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Giammichele N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature25136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.554...73G 554, 73

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Ginzburg S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slae082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534L..65G 534, L65

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Ginzburg S., Fuller J., Kawka A., Caiazzo I., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.4111G 514, 4111

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Z., Garaud P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf812 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870L...5H 870, L5

    Harrington P. Z., Garaud P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf812 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...870L...5H 870, L5

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8bb5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..232...23H 232, 23

    Hermes J. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8bb5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..232...23H 232, 23

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    Isern J., Garc \' a-Berro E., K \"u lebi B., Lor \'e n-Aguilar P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836L..28I 836, L28

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    S., Schwab J., Bauer E., Timmes F

    Jermyn A. S., Schwab J., Bauer E., Timmes F. X., Potekhin A. Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf48e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913...72J 913, 72

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    Jermyn A. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Solanki S

    Jordan S., Aznar Cuadrado R., Napiwotzki R., Schmid H. M., Solanki S. K., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...462.1097J 462, 1097

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Sekii T., Gough D., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...516..349K 516, 349

    Kawaler S. D., Sekii T., Gough D., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...516..349K 516, 349

    1999 doi

  37. [46]

    Springer, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn R., Weigert A., Weiss A., 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution . Springer, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2012 doi

  38. [47]

    F., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...338..612K 338, 612

    Koester D., Dreizler S., Weidemann V., Allard N. F., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...338..612K 338, 612

    1998

  39. [48]

    Koester D., Voss B., Napiwotzki R., Christlieb N., Homeier D., Lisker T., Reimers D., Heber U., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912531 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...505..441K 505, 441

    2009 doi

  40. [49]

    D., Bagnulo S., Valyavin G

    Landstreet J. D., Bagnulo S., Valyavin G. G., Fossati L., Jordan S., Monin D., Wade G. A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...545A..30L 545, A30

    2012 doi

  41. [50]

    D., Bagnulo S., Valyavin G

    Landstreet J. D., Bagnulo S., Valyavin G. G., Gadelshin D., Martin A. J., Galazutdinov G., Semenko E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...580A.120L 580, A120

    2015 doi

  42. [51]

    D., Bagnulo S., Valyavin G., Valeev A

    Landstreet J. D., Bagnulo S., Valyavin G., Valeev A. F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...607A..92L 607, A92

    2017 doi

  43. [52]

    H., Rose W

    Levy E. H., Rose W. K., 1974, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...193..419L 193, 419

    1974 doi

  44. [53]

    A., Thomas J

    Markiel J. A., Thomas J. H., van Horn H. M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...430..834M 430, 834

    1994 doi

  45. [54]

    Mathur S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A.124M 562, A124

    2014 doi

  46. [55]

    Mestel L., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/112.6.583 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952MNRAS.112..583M 112, 583

    1952 doi

  47. [56]

    D., Rafikov R

    Metzger B. D., Rafikov R. R., Bochkarev K. V., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20895.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423..505M 423, 505

    2012

  48. [57]

    u ller W. C., Sch \

    Moll R., Pietarila Graham J., Pratt J., Cameron R. H., M \"u ller W. C., Sch \"u ssler M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736...36M 736, 36

    2011 doi

  49. [58]

    H., Dunlap B

    Montgomery M. H., Dunlap B. H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad16dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..197M 961, 197

    2024 doi

  50. [59]

    S., Metzger B

    Nordhaus J., Wellons S., Spiegel D. S., Metzger B. D., Blackman E. G., 2011, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1015005108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PNAS..108.3135N 108, 3135

    2011 doi

  51. [60]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8687O 527, 8687

    O'Brien M. W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.8687O 527, 8687

    2024 doi

  52. [61]

    O., Soethe L

    Oliveira da Rosa G., Kepler S. O., Soethe L. T. T., Romero A. D., Bell K. J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6987 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974..314O 974, 314

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    N., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...122..293P 122, 293

    Parker E. N., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146087 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...122..293P 122, 293

    1955 doi

  54. [63]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....3P 192, 3

    2011 doi

  55. [64]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    2013 doi

  56. [65]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    2015 doi

  57. [66]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    H., 1980, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.2103010302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980AN....301..101R 301, 101

    Raedler K. H., 1980, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.2103010302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980AN....301..101R 301, 101

    1980 doi

  60. [69]

    A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.1.146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273..146R 273, 146

    Reg o s E., Tout C. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.1.146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273..146R 273, 146

    1995 doi

  61. [70]

    Z., Fuller J., Hermes J

    Rui N. Z., Fuller J., Hermes J. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adaf9e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...981...72R 981, 72

    2025 doi

  62. [71]

    R., Belloni D., G \"a nsicke B

    Schreiber M. R., Belloni D., G \"a nsicke B. T., Parsons S. G., Zorotovic M., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01346-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..648S 5, 648

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    M., Marsden S

    Seach J. M., Marsden S. C., Carter B. D., Neiner C., Folsom C. P., Mengel M. W., Oksala M. E., Buysschaert B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.5682S 494, 5682

    2020 doi

  64. [73]

    C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...381..923S 381, 923

    Spruit H. C., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011465 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...381..923S 381, 923

    2002 doi

  65. [74]

    Steenbeck M., Krause F., 1969a, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.19692910201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969AN....291...49S 291, 49

    doi

  66. [75]

    Steenbeck M., Krause F., 1969b, Astronomische Nachrichten, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969AN....291..271S 291, 271

  67. [76]

    H., Markiel J

    Thomas J. H., Markiel J. A., van Horn H. M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176400 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...453..403T 453, 403

    1995 doi

  68. [78]

    A., Wickramasinghe D

    Tout C. A., Wickramasinghe D. T., Liebert J., Ferrario L., Pringle J. E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13291.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.387..897T 387, 897

    2008

  69. [79]

    E., Fontaine G., Freytag B., Steiner O., Ludwig H

    Tremblay P. E., Fontaine G., Freytag B., Steiner O., Ludwig H. G., Steffen M., Wedemeyer S., Brassard P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812...19T 812, 19

    2015 doi

  70. [80]

    M., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...160L..53V 160, L53

    Van Horn van Horn van Horn H. M., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1086/180523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970ApJ...160L..53V 160, L53

    1970 doi

  71. [81]

    M., 1971, in Luyten W

    Van Horn van Horn van Horn H. M., 1971, in Luyten W. J., ed., IAU Symp. Vol. 42, White Dwarfs. p. 97

    1971

  72. [82]

    A., Jordan S., Mander C., Bergeron P., Dufour P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A...5V 682, A5

    Vincent O., Barstow M. A., Jordan S., Mander C., Bergeron P., Dufour P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A...5V 682, A5

    2024 doi

  73. [83]

    o gler A., Sch \

    V \"o gler A., Sch \"u ssler M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...465L..43V 465, L43

    2007 doi

  74. [84]

    T., Ferrario L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08603.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356.1576W 356, 1576

    Wickramasinghe D. T., Ferrario L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08603.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.356.1576W 356, 1576

    2005

  75. [85]

    E., Kepler S

    Winget D. E., Kepler S. O., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA&A..46..157W 46, 157

    2008

  76. [86]

    E., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...430..839W 430, 839

    Winget D. E., et al., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...430..839W 430, 839

    1994 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.