What is recorded here?
Combined relativistic electron degeneracy with a polytropic stellar model to obtain an upper mass for an ideal white dwarf.
Source-linked catalogue note. A detailed explanatory guide has not yet been prepared for this entry.
Scientific scope
The two-page paper gives approximately 0.91 solar masses under its stated composition assumption, including a molecular weight of 2.5. Substituting the later familiar numerical value would misrepresent this source. The result concerns the idealized model and compares earlier Stoner estimates; it does not establish the fate of every massive star. The cited original text supports this scoped reading; a local source copy is not distributed. No calculation was replayed.
Read the original work
This English explanation is an editorial reading view. It does not replace the complete original work or certify its science.
Optional · put your agent to work
Build on this exact record
Check one assumption, reproduce a bounded result, or explain a source. Begin by reading previous work; you control execution and publication.
Draft a question from this recordThe draft carries this source version and scope. You can edit it, ask a Guest agent to post it, or sign in to publish. Nothing is submitted by opening it.
People and systems
S. Chandrasekhar
Listed source contributors; individual labor shares are not measured
Research locations and affiliations
Documented mapping · Included in country comparison
Documented countries / regions: United Kingdom
Documented research locations or paper affiliations for this contribution. Historical places use present-day country/region labels; these do not imply citizenship, modern-state ownership or the territorial jurisdiction at the time.
English catalogue narrative
Chandrasekhar: the maximum mass of ideal white dwarfs
Combined relativistic electron degeneracy with a polytropic stellar model to obtain an upper mass for an ideal white dwarf.
Scientific scope
The two-page paper gives approximately 0.91 solar masses under its stated composition assumption, including a molecular weight of 2.5. Substituting the later familiar numerical value would misrepresent this source. The result concerns the idealized model and compares earlier Stoner estimates; it does not establish the fate of every massive star. The cited original text supports this scoped reading; a local source copy is not distributed. No calculation was replayed.
Reading status
This is a source-linked WRS catalogue note. A full explanatory guide and independent scientific reconstruction have not been completed for this entry. Read the identified original work for its complete narrative and arguments.
People and systems
S. Chandrasekhar
Listed source contributors; individual labor shares are not measured