White dwarf pollution in wide binaries I: the effects of stellar evolution

Context. Atmospheric pollution in white dwarfs is interpreted as evidence for the accretion of rocky material from remnant planetary systems. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

It matters because astrophysics becomes persuasive only when an observed signal can be tied to a physically defensible explanation. Compact objects such as neutron stars and black holes are natural laboratories for extreme physics, but the distance and complexity of these systems make interpretation difficult without multi-wavelength coverage and careful modeling. A detection without a mechanism is only half a result. the other half comes from showing that the signal fits quantitatively inside a coherent physical picture rather than merely being consistent with a broad family of models. Atmospheric pollution in white dwarfs is interpreted as evidence for the accretion of rocky material from remnant planetary systems. Wide binary companions can influence the delivery of planetary material onto white dwarfs, making it essential to understand the interplay between stellar evolution and binary.

We investigate how uncertainties in stellar mass-loss histories affect the dynamical evolution of remnant planetary systems in wide binaries, and assess their relative importance. We perform REBOUND N-body simulations incorporating time-dependent stellar parameters interpolated from MESA evolutionary tracks and tidal interactions, following the dynamical.

We explore two stellar-evolution models with distinct mass-loss histories for wide binary systems hosting a Jupiter-mass planet and a planetesimal disc, spanning a range of binary. The adopted stellar-evolution model has only a minor effect on the survival of the planet, mainly affecting the timing and efficiency of planetesimal delivery during the white.

Instead, the architecture of the binary primarily controls the pollution outcome: wider binaries produce the highest rates of accretion onto the white dwarf, consistent with the. Moreover, planetesimal reservoirs remain long-lived, with survival times increasing with binary separation, enabling Gyr-long metal pollution.

The broader interest lies in turning an observational clue into something that can be weighed against competing models of the underlying physics. Astrophysics does not have the luxury of controlled experiments; everything is inferred from radiation that traveled across cosmic distances under conditions that cannot be reproduced in a terrestrial laboratory. This makes the interpretation chain longer and more uncertain than in bench science, but it also means that a well-constrained measurement of an extreme object carries theoretical information that no earthbound experiment can provide.

Our results suggest that the architecture of wide binaries, rather than uncertainties in stellar evolution, is the dominant factor controlling the dynamical delivery of rocky. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to see whether independent datasets and physical modeling converge on the same interpretation. Multi-wavelength follow-up, combining X-ray, radio and optical data where possible, is typically what separates a compelling detection from a robust physical characterization. In high-energy astrophysics, results that initially looked definitive have been revised when data from a second messenger arrived; the current result should be read with that history in mind. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source