- #1
Monkey Face
- 11
- 0
Hey there,
I have a couple of questions that may seem a little stupid, but anyway:
I've been a bit of research into the Chandrasekhar limit and have unsuccessfully tried to find an equation/estimation that sums it up as I have seen so many floating around on the internet. Variations from the one found on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit ) seem to be used a lot but I know wiki isn't exactly the most reliable of sources. If anyone could clarify this for me, that would be great :)
Another thing I wanted to ask was about the equation found on this page: http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/degeneracy/DegeneracyPressureRadius.html
I've been recommended this as a reasonably good source (by my teacher at school) but I've a problem with the equation on that page specifically; the mass-radius relationship for a white dwarf is, as I understand it, such that the more massive it is, the smaller it is. Rearranging that equation for the radius seems to show that the radius is proportional to the mass (as opposed to inversely).
Any help would be great, thanks in advance! :)
I have a couple of questions that may seem a little stupid, but anyway:
I've been a bit of research into the Chandrasekhar limit and have unsuccessfully tried to find an equation/estimation that sums it up as I have seen so many floating around on the internet. Variations from the one found on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit ) seem to be used a lot but I know wiki isn't exactly the most reliable of sources. If anyone could clarify this for me, that would be great :)
Another thing I wanted to ask was about the equation found on this page: http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/degeneracy/DegeneracyPressureRadius.html
I've been recommended this as a reasonably good source (by my teacher at school) but I've a problem with the equation on that page specifically; the mass-radius relationship for a white dwarf is, as I understand it, such that the more massive it is, the smaller it is. Rearranging that equation for the radius seems to show that the radius is proportional to the mass (as opposed to inversely).
Any help would be great, thanks in advance! :)