Paper detail

Post-common-envelope binaries from SDSS. XI: The white dwarf mass distributions of CVs and pre-CVs

We have known for a long time that many of the measured white dwarf (WD) masses in cataclysmic variables (CVs) significantly exceed the mean mass of single WDs. This was thought to be related to observational biases, but recent high-precision measurements of WD masses in a great number of CVs are challenging this interpretation. We review the measured WD masses of CVs, determine the WD-mass distribution of an extensive sample of post-common-envelope binaries (PCEBs) that are representative for the progenitors of the current CV population (pre-CVs) and compare both distributions. We calculate the CV formation time of the PCEBs in our sample by determining the post common-envelope (CE) and the main-sequence evolution of the binary systems and define a pre-CV to be a PCEB that evolves into a semi-detached configuration with stable mass transfer within less than the age of the Galaxy. Possible observational biases affecting the WD-mass distribution for the pre-CV and the CV samples are discussed. The mean WD mass among CVs is <Mwd>=0.83\pm0.23 Msun, much larger than that found for pre-CVs, <Mwd>=0.67\pm0.21 Msun. Selection effects cannot explain the high WD masses observed in CVs and we here suggest two possible explanations, both of which imply substantial revisions to the standard model of CV evolution: either most CVs have formed above the orbital-period gap (which requires a high WD mass to initiate stable mass transfer or a previous phase of thermal-timescale mass transfer), or the mass of the WDs in CVs grows through accretion (which strongly disagrees with the predictions of classical nova models). Both options may imply that CVs contribute to the single-degenerate progenitors of Type Ia supernovae. The number of He-core WDs found in CVs (<=10%) is roughly consistent with the number of He-core WDs in pre-CVs (<=17+-8%), which indicates a low value of the CE efficiency.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.