Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:15:33.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The missing mass conundrum of post-common-envelope planetary nebulae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2019

Miguel Santander-García ,
David Jones ,
Javier Alcolea ,
Roger Wesson Open the ORCID record for Roger Wesson [Opens in a new window]  and
Valentín Bujarrabal
Miguel Santander-García
Affiliation:
Observatorio Astronómico Nacional, Alfonso XII, 3, 28014, Madrid, Spain email: m.santander@oan.es
David Jones
Affiliation:
Instituto de Astrofí-sica de Canarias, E-38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain Departamento de Astrofí-sica, Universidad de La Laguna, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
Javier Alcolea
Affiliation:
Observatorio Astronómico Nacional, Alfonso XII, 3, 28014, Madrid, Spain email: m.santander@oan.es
Roger Wesson
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower St, London, UK European Southern Observatory, Alonso de Córdova 3107, Casilla 19001, Santiago, Chile
Valentín Bujarrabal
Affiliation:
Observatorio Astronómico Nacional, Alfonso XII, 3, 28014, Madrid, Spain email: m.santander@oan.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Most planetary nebulae (PNe) show beautiful, axisymmetric morphologies despite their progenitor stars being essentially spherical. Angular momentum provided by a close binary companion is widely invoked as the main agent that would help eject an axisymmetric nebula, after a brief phase of engulfment of the secondary within the envelope of the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) star, known as a common envelope (CE). The evolution on the AGB would thus be interrupted abruptly, its (still quite) massive envelope fully ejected to form the PN, which should be more massive than a PN coming from the same star were it single. We test this hypothesis by deriving the ionised+molecular masses of a pilot sample of post-CE PNe and comparing them to a regular PNe sample. We find the mass of post-CE PNe to be actually lower, on average, than their regular counterparts, raising some doubts on our understanding of these intriguing objects.

Keywords

(ISM:) planetary nebulae: general(stars:) binaries: closeISM: jets and outflows
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 14 , Symposium S343: Why Galaxies Care About AGB Stars: A Continuing Challenge through Cosmic Time , August 2018 , pp. 239 - 243
Copyright
© International Astronomical Union 2019 

References

Bachiller, R., Planesas, P., Martín-Pintado, J., et al. 1989, A&A, 210, 366 Google Scholar
Balick, B. & Frank, A. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 439 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boffi, F. R., & Stanghellini, L. 1994, A&A, 284, 248 Google Scholar
Corradi, R. L. M., Sabin, L., Miszalski, B., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1349 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17523.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corradi, R. L. M., García-Rojas, J., Jones, D., Rodríguez-Gil, P. 2015, ApJ, 803, 99 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Segura, G.; Ricker, P. M.; Taam, R. E. 2018, ApJ, 860, 19 10.3847/1538-4357/aac08cCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, M. A., & Miranda, L. F. 2012, A&A, 539, 47 Google Scholar
Huarte-Espinosa, M., Frank, A., Balick, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2055 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21348.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggins, P. J., & Healy, A. P. 1989, ApJ, 346, 201 10.1086/168001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggins, P. J., Bachiller, R., Cox, P., et al. 1996, A&A, 315, 284 Google Scholar
Hillwig, T. C., Jones, D., de Marco, O., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 125 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höfner, S.; Olofsson, H. 2018, A&AR, 26, 1 Google Scholar
Jones, D., & Boffin, H. M. J. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 117 10.1038/s41550-017-0117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, M., Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012, ApJ, 757, 134 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohlmann, S. T.; Röpke, F. K.; Pakmor, R.; Springel, V.; Müller, E. 2016, MNRAS, 462, L121 10.1093/mnrasl/slw144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichardt, T. A., De Marco, O., Iaconi, R. 2018, MNRAS, submitted (arXiv:1809.02297)Google Scholar
Soker, N. 2015, ApJ, 800, 114 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiber, Sagiv; Kashi, Amit; Soker, Noam 2017, MNRAS, 465, L54 10.1093/mnrasl/slw208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesson, R., Barlow, M. J., Corradi, R. L. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 688, L21 10.1086/594366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesson, R., Jones, D., García-Rojas, J., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4589 10.1093/mnras/sty1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar