Paper detail

The composition of massive white dwarfs and their dependence on the C-burning modeling

Recent computations of the interior composition of ultra-massive white dwarfs (WD) have suggested that some white dwarfs could be composed of neon (Ne)-dominated cores. This result is at variance with our previous understanding of the chemical structure of massive white dwarfs, where oxygen is the predominant element. In addition, it is not clear whether some hybrid carbon (C) oxygen (O)-Ne white dwarfs might form when convective boundary mixing is accounted for during the propagation of the C-flame, in the C-burning stage. Both Ne-dominated and hybrid CO-Ne core would have measurable consequences for asteroseismological studies based on evolutionary models. In this work we explore in detail to which extent differences in the adopted micro- and macro-physics can explain the different final white dwarf compositions that have been found by different authors. Additionally, we explored the impact of such differences in the cooling times, crystallization and pulsational properties of pulsating WDs. We explore the impact of the intensity of convective boundary mixing during the C-flash, extreme mass-loss rates, and the size of the adopted nuclear networks on the final composition, age, crystallization and pulsational properties of white dwarfs. Based on the insight coming from 3D hydro-dynamical simulations, we expect that the very slow propagation of the carbon flame will be altered by turbulent entrainment affecting the inward propagation of the flame. Also, we find that Ne-dominated chemical profiles of massive WDs recently reported appear in their modeling due to the overlooking of a key nuclear reaction. We find that the inaccuracies in the chemical composition of ultra-massive white dwarfs recently reported lead to differences of 10% in the cooling times and degree of crystallization and about 8% in the period spacing of the models once they reach the ZZ Ceti instability strip.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.