[PPT] - The Impact of Mass Loss Bin C osmos on the Final Structure PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Binary Stars in Cambridge

The Impact of Mass Loss

n the Final

Structure and Fate of Massive Stars

Mathieu Renzo

PhD in Amsterdam Collaborators: C. D. Ott, S. N. Shore, S. E. de Mink, E. Zapartas,

Y. G¨
tberg, C. J. Neijssel, A. Piro, V. Morozova

1 / 18

Bin

C

smos

SLIDE 2

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Outline

Possible Mass Loss Channels

Radiatively Driven Stellar Winds
Roche Lobe Overflow
Impulsive Events

Effect of Winds on the Late Stellar Structure

pre-SN Mass
Core Structure & “Explodability”

Light Curves from post-Impulsive Mass Loss

Numerical Experiment of Stripping
Pre-SN Stripped Structures
Resulting Lightcurves

Conclusions

2 / 18

SLIDE 3

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Radiatively Driven Winds in One Slide

fcl

def

= ρ2

ρ2=1 ⇒Inhomogeneities⇒ ˙

M<4πr 2ρv(r) Problems: High Non-Linearity and Clumpiness:

3 / 18

SLIDE 4

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Massive Stars Come in Binaries

Up to ∼70% of Massive Stars will interact with their companion

(e.g. Mason et al. ’09, Sana & Evans ’12, Sana et al. ’12, Kobulnicky et al. ’14)

4 / 18

SLIDE 5

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Impulsive Mass Loss Event

“Dynamical Instabilities”

⇐

LBVs, Pulsations, Super-Eddington Winds, Centrifugal Disk Shedding, Common Envelope Ejection

(Possibly triggered by Mass Accretion in a Binary)

η Car, Credits: NASA/ESA

5 / 18

SLIDE 6

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Outline

Possible Mass Loss Channels

Radiatively Driven Stellar Winds
Roche Lobe Overflow
Impulsive Events

Effect of Winds on the Late Stellar Structure

pre-SN Mass
Core Structure & “Explodability”

Light Curves from post-Impulsive Mass Loss

Numerical Experiment of Stripping
Pre-SN Stripped Structures
Resulting Lightcurves

Conclusions

6 / 18

SLIDE 7

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Impact on the Final Mass

Legend:

η = 0.1

x η = 0.33 + η = 1.0 η → largest uncertainty

7 / 18

Renzo et al., in prep.

SLIDE 8

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Impact on the Final Mass

Impossible to map: Mf ≡ Mf(MZAMS) Just because of winds!

Legend:

η = 0.1

x η = 0.33 + η = 1.0 η → largest uncertainty

7 / 18

Renzo et al., in prep.

SLIDE 9

Anton Pannekoek Institute

“Explodability” & Compactness Parameter ξM(t)

def

=

M/M⊙

R(M)/1000 km

“Large” ξ2.5 ⇒ harder to explode ⇒ BH formation
“Small” ξ2.5 ⇒ easier to explode ⇒ NS formation

(e.g. O’Connor & Ott 2011, Ugliano et al. 2012, Sukhbold & Woosley 2014)

R(M) M = 2. 5M ⊙

8 / 18

not to scale! R(M)

SLIDE 10

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Core Structure @ O depletion

MZAMS = 25 M⊙ models Critical point: Ne core burning/C shell burning Challenges: Nuclear Network & Spatial Resolution

9 / 18

Renzo et al., in prep.

SLIDE 11

Anton Pannekoek Institute

ξ2.5 @ Oxygen Depletion

10 / 18

Renzo et al., in prep.

SLIDE 12

Anton Pannekoek Institute

ξ2.5 @ Oxygen Depletion

Legend:

η = 0.1

x η = 0.33 + η = 1.0 Post O burning evolution ⇐ Core contraction ⇐ Amplification of the differences.

11 / 18

Renzo et al., in prep.

SLIDE 13

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Outline

Possible Mass Loss Channels

Radiatively Driven Stellar Winds
Roche Lobe Overflow
Impulsive Events

Effect of Winds on the Late Stellar Structure

pre-SN Mass
Core Structure & “Explodability”

Light Curves from post-Impulsive Mass Loss

Numerical Experiment of Stripping
Pre-SN Stripped Structures
Resulting Lightcurves

Conclusions

12 / 18

SLIDE 14

Anton Pannekoek Institute

The Stripping Process

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 log10(Teff/[K]) 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 log10(L/L⊙) mSGB hMR MCE M = 15M⊙, Z = Z⊙ unstripped

Remove mass in steps of 1M⊙, max{∆Mimpulsive} = 7M⊙.

Morozova et al. 2015 – ApJ,814,63M

13 / 18

SLIDE 15

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Pre-SN Stripped Structures

Morozova et al. 2015 – ApJ,814,63M

14 / 18

SLIDE 16

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Pre-SN Stripped Structures

Morozova et al. 2015 – ApJ,814,63M

15 / 18

SLIDE 17

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Light Curves from Stripped Models

50 100 42 43

Comparison of three progenitor grids

1 M⊙ stripped 2 M⊙ stripped 3 M⊙ stripped 4 M⊙ stripped 5 M⊙ stripped 6 M⊙ stripped 7 M⊙ stripped

Time [days] log10 L [erg s−1]

mSGB hMR MCE Morozova et al. 2015 – ApJ,814,63M

16 / 18

SNEC

SLIDE 18

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Outline

Possible Mass Loss Channels

Radiatively Driven Stellar Winds
Roche Lobe Overflow
Impulsive Events

Effect of Winds on the Late Stellar Structure

pre-SN Mass
Core Structure & “Explodability”

Light Curves from post-Impulsive Mass Loss

Numerical Experiment of Stripping
Pre-SN Stripped Structures
Resulting Lightcurves

Conclusions

17 / 18

SLIDE 19

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Summary

Systematic uncertainties in modeling mass loss:

– pre-explosion mass ⇒ no Mf ≡ Mf(MZAMS) map; – core density profile ⇒ “explodability”; – surface abundances ⇒ SN spectrum and type.

Role of Binaries:

Observational constraints ⇒ colliding winds;
Possibly cause of mass loss (RLOF, CE, accretor);
RLOF can leave some H-rich material ⇒ role in SNIIL?

18 / 18

SLIDE 20

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Summary

Systematic uncertainties in modeling mass loss:

– pre-explosion mass ⇒ no Mf ≡ Mf(MZAMS) map; – core density profile ⇒ “explodability”; – surface abundances ⇒ SN spectrum and type.

Role of Binaries:

Observational constraints ⇒ colliding winds;
Possibly cause of mass loss (RLOF, CE, accretor);
RLOF can leave some H-rich material ⇒ role in SNIIL?

Thank you!

18 / 18

SLIDE 21

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Outline

Backup slides

19 / 18

SLIDE 22

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Mass Loss in

Figure: From Smith 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487S

(Semi–)Empirical parametric models. Uncertainties encapsulated in efficiency factor: ˙ M(L, Teff, Z, R, M, ...)

⇐

η ˙ M(L, Teff, Z, R, M, ...)

η is a free parameter:

η ∈ [0, +∞)

20 / 18

SLIDE 23

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Different dM/dt algorithms with

Grid of Z⊙ ≃ 0.019, non-rotating stellar models:

Initial mass:

MZAMS = {15, 20, 25, 30, 35} M⊙;

Efficiency:

η ≡ √ fcl = {1, 1

3, 1 10} ;

Different combinations of wind mass loss rates for

“hot” (Teff ≥ 15 [kK]), “cool” (Teff < 15 [kK]) and WR stars: Kudritzki et al. ’89; Vink et al. ’00, ’01; Van Loon et al. ’05; Nieuwenhuijzen et al. ’90; De Jager et al. ’88; Nugis & Lamers ’00; Hamann et al. ’98.

21 / 18

SLIDE 24

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Core Structure @ O depletion

MZAMS = 25 M⊙ models Critical point: Ne core burning/C shell burning

22 / 18

SLIDE 25

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Wind Oservational Diagnostics

Back

P Cygni line profiles
Optical and near UV lines (e.g. Hα)
Radio and IR continuum excess
IR spectrum of molecules (e.g. CO)
Maser lines (for low density winds)

Assumptions commonly needed:

Velocity structure: v(r) ≃
1 − r

R∗

β with β ≃ 1

Chemical composition and ionization fraction
Spherical symmetry: ˙

M = 4πr 2ρv(r)

Steadiness and (often) homogeneity

˙ M derived from fit of (a few) spectral lines. No theoretical guaranties coefficients are constant.

23 / 18

SLIDE 26

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Wolf-Rayet Stars

Observational Definition: Based on spectral features indicating a Strong Wind:

Hydrogen Depletion (= Lack of Hydrogen)
Broad Emission Lines
Steep Velocity Gradients

Sub-categories: WN,WC,WO,WNL, etc. Computational Definition ( ):

Xs < 0.4

Impossible to distinguish sub-categories without spectra!

Back

24 / 18

SLIDE 27

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Chosen Stripping Points

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 log10(Teff/[K]) 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 log10(L/L⊙) mSGB hMR MCE M = 15M⊙, Z = Z⊙ unstripped

t(MCE) − t(mSGB) ≃ 104 [yr] ≪ 14.13 × 106 [yr]

25 / 18

SLIDE 28

Anton Pannekoek Institute

nearly super-Eddington Regime

LEdd

def

= 4πGM(R)c κ(r) , dPgas dr = dPrad dr LEdd Lrad − 1

5.0

5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 log10(T/[K]) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 κ [cm2 g−1] OPAL: X = 0.7, log(ρ/T63) = −5 Z=0.02 Z=0.01 Z=0.004 Z=0.001 Z=0.0001

MZAMS 20M⊙ ⇒ insufficient F MLT

conv

MLT++:

∇T − ∇ad → α∇f∇(∇T − ∇ad)

α∇ ≡ α∇(β, ΓEdd), f∇ ≪ 1

r/R⊙

log (ρ)

70 M⊙, Teff = 5000 K

a)

−10.1 −10.0 −9.9 log

P

gas

b)

2.31 2.38 log (P)

c)

2.7 3.0 3.3 S/ (N

AkB) d)

1000 1100 1200 1300 60 80

Figure: From Paxton et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 5p

26 / 18

SLIDE 29

Anton Pannekoek Institute

P Cygni Line Profiles

Back

Blue shifted Absorption

Component

Red shifted Emission

Component

Broadening from scattering

into the line of sight ˙ M = 4πρv(r) Assuming: Chemical composition Velocity Structure the fit of the line profile gives ρ

Figure: 34 Cyg or P Cygni, first star to show the eponymous profile.

27 / 18

SLIDE 30

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Why Impulsive Mass Loss?

Observational Evidence:

LBVs
Progenitors of H-poor core

collapse SNe (∼ 30%)

Dense CSM for Type IIn SNe

Theory: Dynamical Events ⇒ not ready

Pulsational Instabilities
Roche Lobe Overflow

in binaries

Catastrophic Eruption(s)

∆Mwind ≪ ∆Mimpulsive (?)

28 / 18

SLIDE 31

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Stripped series on the HR diagram

3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 log10(L/L⊙) mSGB 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 log10(Teff/[K]) hMR 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 MCE

Evolutionary tracks depend only on ∆Mimpulsive

29 / 18

SLIDE 32

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Evolution toward Higher Teff

3.55 3.60 3.65 3.70 3.75 log10(Teff/[K]) 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 log10(L/L⊙) A B C D E F G unstripped MCE 7M⊙ MCE 7M⊙, η = 0

Impulsive + wind mass loss drives blueward evolution

30 / 18

SLIDE 33

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Why are Massive Stars Important?

Nucleosynthesis & Chemical Evolution Star Formation Ionizing Radiation Supernovae Explosions

31 / 18

SLIDE 34

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Why are Massive Stars Important?

Nucleosynthesis & Chemical Evolution Star Formation Ionizing Radiation Supernovae Explosions

31 / 18

Mass loss for the environment:

Pollution of ISM
Tailoring of CSM
Trigger for Star Formation

Mass loss for the star

Evolutionary Timescales
Appearance &

Classification (e.g. WR)

Light Curve and

Explosion Spectrum

Final Fate: BH, NS or

WD?

SLIDE 35

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Supernova Taxonomy

Back

32 / 18

SLIDE 36

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Roche Lobe OverFlow

Back

Mass Transfer in Binaries

33 / 18

SLIDE 37

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Evolution of a Massive Star in one Slide

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 log10(Teff/[K]) 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 log10(L/L⊙) M =15M⊙, Z = Z⊙ MS ∆tMS ∼ 1.3 · 108 yr OC ∆tOC ∼ 7.9 · 105 yr SGB ∆tSGB ∼ 1.8 · 105 yr R S G ∆ t

R S G

∼ 1 . 2 · 1

7

y r Vink et al., de Jager et al.

34 / 18

SLIDE 38

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Evolution of a Massive Star in one Slide

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 log10(Teff/[K]) 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 log10(L/L⊙) M =15M⊙, Z = Z⊙ MS ∆tMS ∼ 1.3 · 108 yr OC ∆tOC ∼ 7.9 · 105 yr SGB ∆tSGB ∼ 1.8 · 105 yr R S G ∆ t

R S G

∼ 1 . 2 · 1

7

y r Vink et al., de Jager et al.

34 / 18

SLIDE 39

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Evolution of a Massive Star in one Slide

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 log10(Teff/[K]) 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 log10(L/L⊙) M =15M⊙, Z = Z⊙ MS ∆tMS ∼ 1.3 · 108 yr OC ∆tOC ∼ 7.9 · 105 yr SGB ∆tSGB ∼ 1.8 · 105 yr R S G ∆ t

R S G

∼ 1 . 2 · 1

7

y r Vink et al., de Jager et al.

34 / 18

SLIDE 40

Anton Pannekoek Institute

Evolution of a Massive Star in one Slide

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 log10(Teff/[K]) 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 log10(L/L⊙) M =15M⊙, Z = Z⊙ MS ∆tMS ∼ 1.3 · 108 yr OC ∆tOC ∼ 7.9 · 105 yr SGB ∆tSGB ∼ 1.8 · 105 yr R S G ∆ t

R S G

∼ 1 . 2 · 1

7

y r Vink et al., de Jager et al.

34 / 18

SLIDE 41

Anton Pannekoek Institute

End of the hot evolutionary phase

Vink et al. only: Tjump ∼ 25 [kK] ⇒ Fe3+ → Fe2+

35 / 18

SLIDE 42

Anton Pannekoek Institute

M(t) for MZAMS = 20M⊙ with with

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 t [Myr] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 M [M⊙] TAMS MZAMS = 20M⊙

Vink et al., de Jager et al. Kudritzki et al., Nieuwenhuijzen et al. Kudritzki et al., de Jager et al. Vink et al., Nieuwenhuijzen et al. Kudritzki et al., van Loon et al. Vink et al., van Loon et al. η = 1.0 η = 0.33 η = 0.1

36 / 18

SLIDE 43

Anton Pannekoek Institute

M(t) for MZAMS = 25M⊙ with with

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 t [Myr] 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 M [M⊙] TAMS MZAMS = 25M⊙

Vink et al., de Jager et al. Kudritzki et al., de Jager et al., Hamman et al. Kudritzki et al., Nieuwenhuijzen et al. Kudritzki et al., de Jager et al. Vink et al., Nieuwenhuijzen et al. Kudritzki et al., Nieuwenhuijzen et al., Hamman et al. Kudritzki et al., van Loon et al. Vink et al., van Loon et al. η = 1.0 η = 0.33 η = 0.1

37 / 18

SLIDE 44

Anton Pannekoek Institute

M(t) for MZAMS = 30M⊙ with with

1 2 3 4 5 6 t [Myr] 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 M [M⊙] TAMS MZAMS = 30M⊙

Vink et al., de Jager et al. Kudritzki et al., de Jager et al., Hamman et al. Kudritzki et al., Nieuwenhuijzen et al. Kudritzki et al., de Jager et al. Vink et al., Nieuwenhuijzen et al. Kudritzki et al., Nieuwenhuijzen et al., Hamman et al. Kudritzki et al., van Loon et al. Vink et al., van Loon et al. η = 1.0 η = 0.33 η = 0.1

38 / 18