<p>I had a look at <em>the original source</em> of the measurements quoted on the Wikipedia page (<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.05256" rel="noreferrer">Zhang et al. 2021</a>) and the problem is simply systematic errors in the models that are being used to infer the fundamental parameters. I.e, the masses and radii (and ages) of the brown dwarfs in that paper are systematically in error, which is a clear conclusion of the paper.</p>
<p>The paper is about modelling the infrared spectra and trying to determine the parameters of the brown dwarfs using a suite of theoretical models generated over a grid of surface gravities, effective temperatures and metallicities. The radii basically come from the &quot;luminosity&quot; of the spectrum combined with an effective temperature (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law" rel="noreferrer">Stefan's law</a>) and the mass then arises from the surface gravity and radius.</p>
<p>The conclusion of the paper, which comes from considering the properties of a population of late T-dwarfs that were modelled in this way, is that the radii are systematically underestimated and that the masses are &quot;unphysically&quot; small - thanks to the underestimated radius and an underestimated gravity. I.e., they should not be used or quoted as <em>the</em> masses and radii of these objects. The problem is almost certainly the assumptions that go into the atmospheric models being used to fit the brown dwarf spectra.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-09T12:18:47.853Z
Ah that makes much more sense. Turns out wikipedia was just grabbing form the paper in a misleading way. Thank you for clearing this up! :D
Max0815
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-13T12:49:18.113Z
If people can make such mistakes (and they do), imagine the chaos ChatGBT could cause if it was allowed to update wikipedia articles.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-02T06:03:01.500Z
ChatGBT????????
Harrychink
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-09T09:31:16.533Z
2023-01-09T15:57:06.807Z
2023-01-09T15:57:06.807Z
ProfRob
<p>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISEPA_J174124.26%2B255319.5" rel="noreferrer">this Wikipedia article</a>, it details about a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification#Class_T:_methane_dwarfs" rel="noreferrer">T9  class</a> brown dwarf named WISEPA J174124.26+255319.5.</p>
<p>Apparently, this brown dwarf has 0.95 Jupiter masses, and 0.4 Jupiter radii (with rather low error). Its mass is already weird in the first place, clearly violating the 13 Jupiter mass boundary massively, and furthermore I calculated based on these measurements that it apparently has a density about twice that of earth's.</p>
<p>For something made majorly of hydrogen and helium, I find this extremely, extremely odd.</p>
<p>What is going on with this brown dwarf? Is this a misclassification, or am I just missing something?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-09T06:20:48.120Z
The paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.05256.pdf
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-13T12:47:56.093Z
The wikipedia article in question has been modified thanks to this Q&A. The mass, radius, and age estimates were removed shortly after @ProfRob provided his answer. The talk page links to ProfRob's answer.
David Hammen
<mass><brown-dwarf><stellar-classification><radius>
What is going on with this (sub?) brown dwarf WISEPA J174124.26+255319.5?
Max0815
# What is going on with this (sub?) brown dwarf WISEPA J174124.26+255319.5?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-01-08)

In [this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISEPA_J174124.26%2B255319.5), it details about a [T9 class](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification#Class_T:_methane_dwarfs) brown dwarf named WISEPA J174124.26+255319.5.

Apparently, this brown dwarf has 0.95 Jupiter masses, and 0.4 Jupiter radii (with rather low error). Its mass is already weird in the first place, clearly violating the 13 Jupiter mass boundary massively, and furthermore I calculated based on these measurements that it apparently has a density about twice that of earth's.

For something made majorly of hydrogen and helium, I find this extremely, extremely odd.

What is going on with this brown dwarf? Is this a misclassification, or am I just missing something?

**Tags:** mass, brown-dwarf, stellar-classification, radius
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.05256.pdf  
> **username_2**: The wikipedia article in question has been modified thanks to this Q&A. The mass, radius, and age estimates were removed shortly after @ProfRob provided his answer. The talk page links to ProfRob's answer.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2023-01-09. Score: 21 | Accepted answer

I had a look at *the original source* of the measurements quoted on the Wikipedia page ([Zhang et al. 2021](https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.05256)) and the problem is simply systematic errors in the models that are being used to infer the fundamental parameters. I.e, the masses and radii (and ages) of the brown dwarfs in that paper are systematically in error, which is a clear conclusion of the paper.

The paper is about modelling the infrared spectra and trying to determine the parameters of the brown dwarfs using a suite of theoretical models generated over a grid of surface gravities, effective temperatures and metallicities. The radii basically come from the "luminosity" of the spectrum combined with an effective temperature ([Stefan's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law)) and the mass then arises from the surface gravity and radius.

The conclusion of the paper, which comes from considering the properties of a population of late T-dwarfs that were modelled in this way, is that the radii are systematically underestimated and that the masses are "unphysically" small - thanks to the underestimated radius and an underestimated gravity. I.e., they should not be used or quoted as *the* masses and radii of these objects. The problem is almost certainly the assumptions that go into the atmospheric models being used to fit the brown dwarf spectra.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Ah that makes much more sense. Turns out wikipedia was just grabbing form the paper in a misleading way. Thank you for clearing this up! :D  
> **username_2**: If people can make such mistakes (and they do), imagine the chaos ChatGBT could cause if it was allowed to update wikipedia articles.  
> **username_4**: ChatGBT????????  

---

