Am I allowed to provide a critique for this paper by S.E. Thorsett: The Gravitational Constant, The Chandrasekhar Mass Limit, and Neutron Star Masses?
The answer is NO.
This is the article:
arXiv:astro-ph/9607003v1
That is my experience with editors. That said, there is something obviously wrong with this otherwise nice work. What is wrong is the assumption that Neutron Star Masses don't depend upon G and you can use the local Neutron Stars Average Mass without accommodating the hypothesis you want to test, namely The Variability of G.
The error is obvious because everything we see in the sky depends not on Massese but on the product G x Masses.
The paper mentions the Chandrasekhar Mass limit where the mass of the White Dwarf (precursor to the Supernova) is G-dependent. The limit is the result of a tug-of-war between Electronic Exchange Energy and the Gravitational Pressure inside the hydrostatic column of the star.
A neutron star mass is also defined by a limit: The limit due to the Neutron Exchange Energy. Above that mass, the neutron star is not formed and a Black Hole (which I say contains Flat Hydrogen) is formed.
Of course, the Supernova that gives rise to the Neutron Star (its compression capacity) is sensitive to the same laws as the White Dwarf in SN1a. In other words, there is absolutely no reason that would support the hypothesis made in this article.
There is certainly no evidence that the average mass has changed by more than a few tenths of a solar mass in the last 12 Gyr.
This is the assumption used in the work. Nothing we observe in the sky doesn't depend just upon the masses. It always depends upon G * Mass. In addition, a neutron star has a precursor (White Dwarf) that depends upon G*M as already established by Chandrasekhar.
IN SUMMARY
This is yet another example of scientists "testing a model" without adjusting the model-dependent observations to the model to be tested.
The same happened in the case of SN1a.
Here is another peer review of the work by Mould, Jeremy, and Uddin, Syed A.
Constraining a possible variation of G with type Ia supernovae
arXiv:1402.1534
The problem is the same. The authors simply kept the White Dwarf Masses precursor G-independent, despite knowing about the Chandrasekhar Mass Limit.
The error is exposed in the Abstract of the Article:
An important caveat is that it rests on the assumption that the same mass of
56Ni is burned to create the standard candle regardless of redshift.
I derived the G-dependence of the SN1a Absolute Luminosity to be G^{-3.33} and the 4D radius of the Universe to be 14.04 billion light-years. That corresponds to H0= 69.69 km/(s.Mpc)
The second and third figure contains the adjusted SN1a distances (to accommodate the epoch-dependent G) normalized to the 4D radius of the Universe. The parameterless prediction uses:
d(z) = R0 * z/(1+z)
In other words, the Supernova Data is consistent with epoch-dependent G of my model and I am sure, the same can be said about the Masses of Neutron Stars.
By the way, I have a lot to say and it is a waste of time the censorship of my work.
- Badges
- Science topic