Apply the preceding temperature profile at the envelope base. Introduce the dimensionless parameter
Then , so the geometrical thickness of a white-dwarf radiative envelope is
The smallness to be established is therefore , up to the numerical factor .
That ordering follows from the cold, strongly electron-degenerate white dwarf model. Throughout the mass-bearing core, , where is the Fermi energy. For nonrelativistic electron degeneracy pressure,
The stellar hydrostatic equation gives a characteristic core of order . Consequently
for fixed composition with order-one molecular-weight ratios, and . Equivalently, the matched base mass density is much lower than a characteristic core mass density, since . The degeneracy ordering applies in the bulk core; at the matching point degeneracy is becoming marginal.
The inequalities and express different facts. The first justifies ignoring surface-temperature terms, while the second makes the envelope geometrically thin. If the core were hot enough that were not small, the exact expression would not justify a thin-layer approximation.
Compare two cooling states of the same white dwarf, holding its mass, nearly temperature-independent degenerate radius and composition fixed. The matching of a white-dwarf envelope to a degenerate core gives , while the geometrical thickness of a white-dwarf radiative envelope gives at leading thin-layer order. Eliminate :
Thus a luminosity drop makes the envelope thinner, with . This is the white-dwarf envelope thickness-luminosity relation. Retaining finite thickness in the radiative-zero model gives the correction
which reduces to the boxed result for .
For fixed mass, degenerate radius and composition, the matching of a white-dwarf envelope to a degenerate core gives , while the geometrical thickness of a white-dwarf radiative envelope gives to leading thin-layer order. Cooling therefore thins this idealized envelope. At finite thickness the ratio additionally contains .