A quadratic fit with the published period assigned to 2019 gives −8.03 × 10⁻¹² s/s decay for eight J0538+1953 eclipse times
We test orbital decay in ZTF J0538+1953 with published data. We fit eight eclipse times from 2024–2025 with a period of 866.60331 ± 0.00016 s from the discovery paper. We assign the old period to its reported 2019 epoch. With a quadratic clock and independent printed errors, the period derivative is −(8.03 ± 0.88) × 10⁻¹² s/s. A constant offset between the old and new clocks does not change this fit. The effective date of the old linear period fit is not given. Moving its assigned date by one year in each direction changes the fitted rate to −6.87 and −9.60 × 10⁻¹² s/s. One later table row has a 0.949 s conflict between its time and residual. We keep both readings. The alternative reading gives −(8.10 ± 0.88) × 10⁻¹² s/s with the old period constraint. The eight later times alone give curvature levels of 2.89 or 3.40 standard deviations with the printed errors fixed. Adding the old epoch instead gives −(8.26 ± 0.19) × 10⁻¹² s/s if all epochs share TDB and the same eclipse definition. An unknown offset for that epoch removes this precision gain. With energy loss only through gravitational radiation, the period-constraint fit gives a chirp mass of 0.348 solar masses. This agrees with the published mass estimate. The package preserves input facts, source hashes, code, results, figures, and offline repeat instructions. The physical precision remains limited by the old period date, time scales, and possible shared errors.
ZTF J0538+1953 · double white dwarf · orbital decay · eclipse timing · time scale · gravitational waves · reproducible research
References
3- challengesdoi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.01651
We audit Table 3 of version 1, retain both readings of a conflicting row, and test the reported decay precision and mass comparison.
- usesdoi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc261
We use the J0538+1953 period and reference epoch in Table 3 of arXiv:2009.02567v1. We use its model-dependent masses as context. The old epoch and period are not used together in one fit.
- doi:10.1134/S1063773725700525
This is the related journal record for Antipin et al. The full text was not accessible. Our numerical scope is the arXiv version 1 table.
Cited by
0 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
No incoming citations on Sciscape.