REVIEW 3 cited by
Evolutionary Period Changes For 52 Cataclysmic Variables, and the Failure For the Most Fundamental Prediction of the Magnetic Braking Model
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Evolutionary Period Changes For 52 Cataclysmic Variables, and the Failure For the Most Fundamental Prediction of the Magnetic Braking Model
read the original abstract
The evolution of Cataclysmic Variables (CVs) is driven by period-changes ($\dot{P}$), for which the long-venerable consensus is the Magnetic Braking Model (MBM). The MBM has its only distinctive assumption being a power-law `recipe' describing the angular momentum loss (AML) in the binary, producing a single unique evolutionary track with $\dot{P}$ as a function of the orbital period. This required prediction can be used to test the most-fundamental assumption of MBM, but it has never been tested previously. In this paper, I collect $\dot{P}$ measures for 52 CVs of all types. First, 44 per cent of the CVs have positive-$\dot{P}$, with such being impossible in MBM. Second, even amongst the CVs with negative-$\dot{P}$, their $\dot{P}$ measures are always more-negative than required by MBM, with an average deviation of 110$\times$. Third, three CVs have large chaotic variations in $\dot{P}$ that are impossible for MBM, proving that some unknown mechanism exists and is operating that dominates for these systems. Fourth, the MBM does not account for the long-term effects on evolution arising from the large sudden period decreases seen across many nova events, with this unaccounted effect dominating for the majority of nova systems and changing the sign of the overall evolutionary $\dot{P}$. Fifth, three recurrent novae are observed to suddenly change $\dot{P}$ by an order-of-magnitude across a nova event, with this being impossible in the MBM. In all, the required MBM $\dot{P}$ predictions all fail for my 52 CVs, usually by orders-of-magnitude, so the MBM AML-recipe is wrong by orders-of-magnitude.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Cataclysmic Variables Photometric Periods from TESS
TESS data give photometric periods for 1362 cataclysmic variables (hundreds new), confirming the 2–3 h gap, a sample median of 3.68 h, and spin periods for 83 intermediate polars.
-
Cataclysmic Variables Photometric Periods from TESS
TESS photometry yields coherent periods for 1,362 CVs, including roughly 465–565 first determinations, and confirms the 2–3 h period gap with a median period near 3.68 h.
-
Cataclysmic Variables Photometric Periods from TESS
TESS photometry of 1,362 cataclysmic variables yields 565 new period measurements, confirms the 2–3 h period gap, and finds a median CV photometric period of 3.681 h.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.