Paper detail

Stochastic accretion of planetesimals onto white dwarfs: constraints on the mass distribution of accreted material from atmospheric pollution

This paper explores how the stochastic accretion of planetesimals onto white dwarfs would be manifested in observations of their atmospheric pollution. Archival observations of pollution levels for unbiased samples of DA and non-DA white dwarfs are used to derive the distribution of accretion rates, confirming that rates become systematically lower as sinking time is decreased, with no discernable dependence on cooling age. The accretion rates expected from planetesimals that are all the same mass (ie, a mono-mass distribution) are explored both analytically and using a Monte Carlo model, quantifying how measured accretion rates inevitably depend on sinking time, since different sinking times probe different times since the last accretion event. However, that dependence is so dramatic that a mono-mass distribution can be excluded. Consideration of accretion from a broad distribution of planetesimal masses uncovers an important conceptual difference: accretion is continuous (rather than stochastic) for planetesimals below a certain mass, and the accretion of such planetesimals determines the rate typically inferred from observations; smaller planetesimals dominate the rates for shorter sinking times. A reasonable fit to the observationally inferred accretion rate distributions is found with model parameters consistent with a collisionally evolved mass distribution up to Pluto-mass, and an underlying accretion rate distribution consistent with that expected from descendants of debris discs of main sequence A stars. With these parameters, while both DA and non-DA white dwarfs accrete from the same broad planetesimal distribution, this model predicts that the pollution seen in DAs is dominated by the continuous accretion of <35km objects, and that in non-DAs by >35km objects (though the dominant size varies between stars by around an order of magnitude from this value)...

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.