Observations vs Theory JETS AND TORI IN PROTO-PNE Patrick Huggins New York University.
-
Upload
nickolas-wilson -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Observations vs Theory JETS AND TORI IN PROTO-PNE Patrick Huggins New York University.
Observations vs TheoryObservations vs Theory
JETS AND TORI IN
PROTO-PNE
JETS AND TORI IN
PROTO-PNE
Patrick Huggins New York UniversityPatrick Huggins New York University
Outline: two questions
Part I. Observations: Are jets and tori related ? examine time domain find evidence for a torus-jet sequence
Part II. What are the implications for jet formation scenarios ?
Jets and tori are traumatic events in the AGB—PN transition Example: AFGL 618 (Trammell & Goodrich 2002)High velocity jets, well-defined tips plus a dense torus – the last major mass ejectionHow do we investigate the ejection sequence ? Determine the age of each component
Expansion Ages
Expansion age of jets t jet = r / V optical or molecular lines
need tilt or from optical proper motions of tip
Expansion age of torus t torus = r / V molecular* lines
need high resolution & tilt use peak or mean for r
*important
Note: The tori in some cases may be more spherical with the holes pierced by the jets. Soker & Rappaport (2000) argued that the tori are formed by jets snow-plowing the AGB wind: but the high masses and high mass-loss rates argue for something different.
100” x 60” M 1-16KjPn 8
40” x 40”
H Lopez 97
HSchwarz 92
CO 2-1
900” x 360”
12” x 12”
Huggins et al. 04 CO 1-0
Forveille et al. 98
Name V torus V jets t torus t jets
km/s km/s yr yr
KjPn 8 5.9 314 5040 3380
M 1-16 9.8 350 2000 1610
M 2-9 7.0 164 1300 1170
M 1-92 5.5 69 1520 1010
M 2-56 8.0 128 1750 1060
He 3-1475 14 530 878 611
V Hya 16 161 543 254
AFGL 618 12 222 422 139
1 Gru 11 55 354 54
DATA: Forveille et al. 1998, Meaburn 1997, Huggins et al. 2000, Schwarz 1992, Zweigle et al. 1997, Schwarz et al. 1997, Bujarrabal et al. 1998, Alcolea et al. 2007, Castro-Carrizo et al. 2002, Huggins et al. 2004, Riera et al. 2003, Hirano et al. 2004, Cox et al. 2003, Trammell & Goodrich 2002, Sanchez Contreras et al. 2004, Chiu et al. 2006
Summary of Observations
low V torus
young PN
AGB
Expansion Ages of Jets and Tori
Jets & tori nearly simultaneous
Jets appear slightly younger
t tori & t jets likely* ~ true ages
If so, jets occur later jet-lag ~ 300 yr
power-up or accretion time?
If jets accelerate: look younger could be simul. – not likely for ensemble
If jets decelerate: look older jet-lag is longer
error bars: inclinations, proper motions, or resolution* Tori are massive with low velocities
Well-studied jets typically exhibit Hubble flows
Evolutionary Sequence
now
jets
tori
t ~ r / Vtorus
All cases are similar: jets are launched with or shortly after torus ejection
Part II: Implications of These Results for Theory
Each scenario has specific implications for torus formation That we can test
Current popular theoretical ingredients mhd jets – disks primary/secondary – common envelopes
Lead to four basic jet formation scenarios: mhd winds of single stars binary accretion disks winds/explosions of spun-up stars disks around the primary cores
1. Magnetic winds from single stars?
Current models can produce jets unclear if they can produce sudden jets recent models* do not produce co-ordinated jets and tori
— dense equators are input independently
evaluation: do not adequately produce jet-torus relations found here
*Garcia-Segura et al. (2005)
Natural mechanism for the mass in equatorial plane
Natural causal and temporal relation of torus to jets: enhanced mass-loss feeds accretion disk: disk makes jets
Natural explanation of jet-lag time to spiral into companion reasonable parameters give ~ 100 yr
Q: No general explanation for onset of discrete torus could be tidal spin-up of the primary – needs futher study
2. Accretion disks of binary companions?
22/1
2
2/31
1.0
/
111.0160
RH
M
M
AU
Ryrt
o
Morris (1987), Soker & Rappaport (2000)
?
viscous accretion time
3. Magnetic/hydro effects in common envelopes?
MHD wind from spin-up + CE ejection expect short time scales: can it produce jet-lag ? can CE ejection produce low velocity tori ?
Variation: CE MHD explosion for jets and torus
expect short time scales: can it produce jet-lag ? can explosions produce low velocity tori ?
Hybrid: companion accretion disk CE ejection
wrong sequence !
Nordhaus & Blackman (2006), Matt et al. (2006)
?
?
(Low mass comp.) CE primary accretion disk later nebula ejection jets and tori un-coordinated ! wrong sequence !
(Intermed. mass comp.) CE ejection primary accretion disk correct sequence short time scale: jet-lag ?
CE ejection RLOF of secondary to form primary accretion disk correct sequence expected time scale too long !
4. Accretion disks around the primary?
Soker & Livio (1994), Soker (1996), Reyes-Ruiz & Lopez (1999), Nordhaus & Blackman (2006)
?
Jets and tori are nearly simultaneous Evidence for a torus-jet sequence with jet-lag Results constrain scenarios
Question: can CE ejection/explosions explain low velocity of tori ?
scenario rating comments
Magnetic wind from single star — jets and torus?
Companion accretion disk discrete torus ejection?
Companion accretion disk + CE ejection — wrong sequence
CE ejection + magnetic polar wind jet-lag?
(CE) mag. polar + equatorial ejection jet-lag?
(CE) primary accretion disk + late neb. ejection — wrong sequence
CE partial ejection + primary accretion disk jet-lag?
Post CE primary accretion disk (from RLOF) — time scale too long?
Summary