Strong magnetic fields of old white dwarfs are symmetric about the stellar rotation axes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many magnetic white dwarfs exhibit a polarised spectrum that periodically varies as the star rotates because the magnetic field is not symmetric about the rotation axis. In this work, we report the discovery that while weakly magnetic white dwarfs of all ages with M ≤ 1 M⊙ show polarimetric variability with a period between hours and several days, the large majority of magnetic white dwarfs in the same mass range with cooling ages older than 2 Gyr and field strengths ≥ 10 MG show little or no polarimetric variability. This could be interpreted as extremely slow rotation, but a lack of known white dwarfs with measured periods longer than two weeks means that we do not see white dwarfs slowing their rotation. We therefore suggest a different interpretation: old strongly magnetic white dwarfs do not vary because their fields are roughly symmetric about the rotation axes. Symmetry may either be a consequence of field evolution or a physical characteristic intrinsic to the way strong fields are generated in older stars. Specifically, a strong magnetic field could distort the shape of a star, forcing the principal axis of maximum inertia away from the spin axis. Eventually, as a result of energy dissipation, the magnetic axis will align with the angular momentum axis. We also find that the higher-mass strongly magnetised white dwarfs, which are likely the products of the merging of two white dwarfs, may appear as either polarimetrically variable or constant. This may be the symptom of two different formation channels or the consequence of the fact that a dynamo operating during a merger may produce diverse magnetic configurations. Alternatively, the massive white dwarfs with constant polarisation may be rotating with periods much shorter than the typical exposure times of the observations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".