Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:47:21.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wind anisotropy and stellar evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

Cyril Georgy
Affiliation:
Geneva Observatory, University of Geneva, Maillettes 51 - CH 1290 Sauverny, Switzerland
Georges Meynet
Affiliation:
Geneva Observatory, University of Geneva, Maillettes 51 - CH 1290 Sauverny, Switzerland
André Maeder
Affiliation:
Geneva Observatory, University of Geneva, Maillettes 51 - CH 1290 Sauverny, Switzerland
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.

Mass loss is a determinant factor which strongly affects the evolution and the fate of massive stars. At low metallicity, stars are supposed to rotate faster than at the solar one. This favors the existence of stars near the critical velocity. In this rotation regime, the deformation of the stellar surface becomes important, and wind anisotropy develops. Polar winds are expected to be dominant for fast rotating hot stars.

These polar winds allow the star to lose large quantities of mass and still retain a high angular momentum, and they modify the evolution of the surface velocity and the final angular momentum retained in the star's core. We show here how these winds affect the final stages of massive stars, according to our knowledge about Gamma Ray Bursts. Computation of theoretical Gamma Ray Bursts rate indicates that our models have too fast rotating cores, and that we need to include an additional effect to spin them down. Magnetic fields in stars act in this direction, and we show how they modify the evolution of massive star up to the final stages.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2008

References

Hirschi, R., Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2005, A&A 443, 581Google Scholar
Maeder, A. 1999, A&A 347, 185Google Scholar
Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2000, A&A 361, 159Google Scholar
Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2007, A&A 464, L11Google Scholar
Modjaz, M., Kewley, L., Kirshner, R. P., Stanek, K. Z., Challis, P., Garnavich, P. M., Greene, J. E., Kelly, P. L. & Prieto, J. L. 2008, AJ 135, 1136Google Scholar
Podsiadlowski, P., Mazzali, P. A., Nomoto, K., Lazzati, D. & Cappellaro, E. 2004, ApJL 607, L17Google Scholar
Prieto, J. L., Stanek, K. Z. & Beacom, J. F. 2008, ApJ 673, 999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spruit, H. C. 2002, A&A 381, 923Google Scholar
von Zeipel, H. 1924, MNRAS 84, 665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ 405, 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woosley, S. E. & Bloom, J. S. 2006, ARAA 44, 507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woosley, S. E. & Heger, A. 2006, ApJ 637, 914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, S.-C. & Langer, N. 2005, A&A 443, 643Google Scholar
Zahn, J.-P. 1992, A&A 265, 115Google Scholar