The post-main sequence evolution of stars of intermediate or large masses is
notoriously complex. In the recent past, a number of workshops and meetings
have focused on either the Asymptotic Giant Branch of intermediate mass stars,
or the evolution of massive stars. But how well defined is the boundary between
these categories of objects defined? How would an observer proceed to classify
stars into one or the other category? How do objects near the boundary evolve,
die, and contribute to the chemical evolution of their environment? During this
3-day international workshop, 26 high quality presentations were given by
specialists in the relevant fields of astrophysics, and stimulating discussions
followed. It is technically impossible to provide an exhaustive census of the
results and ideas that emerged. In this brief article, we choose to point to
key elements of the workshop, some of which are now the topic of new
collaborations and will lead to publications elsewhere. For the sake of
brevity, we deliberately cite only the contributors to the workshop and no
external references. Many bibliographic references can be found in the original
presentations, which can be retrieved through:
http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/observatoire/obs/stars2009/stars2009.html The
programme workshop, which includes the titles of the individual contributions,
is provided as an appendix.Comment: 8 pages, 4 figure

Josselin, Eric

Lançon, Ariane

English

arXiv

8 pages, 4 figuresWorkshop summaryThe post-main sequence evolution of stars of intermediate or large masses is notoriously complex. In the recent past, a number of workshops and meetings have focused on either the Asymptotic Giant Branch of intermediate mass stars, or the evolution of massive stars. But how well defined is the boundary between these categories of objects defined? How would an observer proceed to classify stars into one or the other category? How do objects near the boundary evolve, die, and contribute to the chemical evolution of their environment? During this 3-day international workshop, 26 high quality presentations were given by specialists in the relevant fields of astrophysics, and stimulating discussions followed. It is technically impossible to provide an exhaustive census of the results and ideas that emerged. In this brief article, we choose to point to key elements of the workshop, some of which are now the topic of new collaborations and will lead to publications elsewhere. For the sake of brevity, we deliberately cite only the contributors to the workshop and no external references. Many bibliographic references can be found in the original presentations, which can be retrieved through: http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/observatoire/obs/stars2009/stars2009.html The programme workshop, which includes the titles of the individual contributions, is provided as an appendix

HAL Descartes

Intermediate Mass Stars <--> Massive Stars. A workshop around causes and consequences of differing evolutionary paths

HAL-INSU

Intermediate Mass Stars Massive Stars. A workshoparound causes and consequences of differing evolutionarypathsEric Josselin, Ariane Lanc¸onTo cite this version:Eric Josselin, Ariane Lanc¸on. Intermediate Mass Stars Massive Stars. A workshop aroundcauses and consequences of differing evolutionary paths. Workshop summary. 2009. <hal-00428518>HAL Id: hal-00428518https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00428518Submitted on 28 Oct 2009HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestine´e au de´poˆt et a` la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publie´s ou non,e´manant des e´tablissements d’enseignement et derecherche franc¸ais ou e´trangers, des laboratoirespublics ou prive´s.Intermediate Mass Stars ↔ Massive Stars.A workshop around causes and consequences of differing evolutionary pathsE. Josselin1, A. Lanc¸on21 GRAAL, Universite´ Montpellier II & CNRS, 34095 Montpellier, France2 Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg, Universite´ Louis Pasteur & CNRS, Strasbourg, FranceStrasbourg (France), February 9-11, 2009ForewordThe post-main sequence evolution of stars of intermediate or large masses is notoriously complex. Inthe recent past, a number of workshops and meetings have focused on either the Asymptotic GiantBranch of intermediate mass stars, or the evolution of massive stars. But how well defined is theboundary between these categories of objects defined? How would an observer proceed to classifystars into one or the other category? How do objects near the boundary evolve, die, and contributeto the chemical evolution of their environment?During this 3-day international workshop1, 26 high quality presentations were given by special-ists in the relevant fields of astrophysics, and stimulating discussions followed. It is technicallyimpossible to provide an exhaustive census of the results and ideas that emerged. In this briefarticle, we choose to point to key elements of the workshop, some of which are now the topic ofnew collaborations and will lead to publications elsewhere. For the sake of brevity, we deliberatelycite only the contributors to the workshop and no external references. Many bibliographic refer-ences can be found in the original presentations, which can be retrieved through: http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/observatoire/obs/stars2009/stars2009.html The programme workshop, which includes thetitles of the individual contributions, is provided as an appendix.Figure 1: Evolutionary tracks from the STAREVOL code (from Siess & Palacios).1Supported by the PNPS (Programme National de Physique Stellaire, CNRS, France) and ANR (Agence Nationalede la Recherche, France).11 Definition, mass and impact of super-AGB stars1.1 The mass domain“Low-mass” stars end as CO white dwarfs, “massive” stars, which are at the origin of core-collapsetype II supernovae (SNe), go through all the nuclear burnings, from H to Si (see Fig. 2 for the fateof massive stars, and Limongi for a detailed discussion). In between, one meets a domain of stellarmasses, which evolve through the super asymptotic giant branch (super-AGB) phase and will end aseither ONe white dwarfs or electron capture SNe.Figure 2: Fate of massive stars (from Limongi).What defines super-AGB stars is what happens in the core. Three critical masses thus have tobe determined: the minimum initial stellar mass (referred hereafter as Mup) which will allow carbonignition in the core, the minimum mass Mn for neutron star formation and the limit Mmas for type IISN (we adopt here the notation proposed by Siess & Palacios; see Fig. 3).The value of the core mass corresponding these different transition masses seems rather well de-termined by theory: 1.05 Modot is the minimum core mass for carbon ignition, above 1.37 Modot the(degenerate) neon-oxygen core is massive enough to activate electron capture (EC) reactions leadingto the formation of a neutron star and if the core mass at the end of He-burning exceeds the Chan-drasekhar mass (1.44 Modot), then the star will proceed through all nuclear burning stage and end upas a core collapse SN (SNII or SNIbc depending on the initial mass and mass loss). But going back toinitial masses is more problematic. Treatment of (semi-)convection (and associated overshooting anddredge-up), mass loss and carbon burning are among the most influential ingredients. While the dif-ferences between critical masses are reasonably robust against the input physics (e.g. adopted nuclearrates) and models, at least for single star evolution (Mmas −Mup ≈ 2 M⊙, Mmas −Mn ≈ 0.25 M⊙ atsolar metallicity; Weiss, Pols), their absolute values are quite controversial.Straniero presented a new study of the 12C(12C, p)23Na rate (with the discovery of two new res-onances) which reduces Mup by 2 M⊙, from 8 to 6 M⊙. Taking into account overshooting has a asimilar impact (Siess & Palacios). And the uncertainty on the evolution of massive stars is still largelydominated by the poor kowledge of the 12C(α, γ)16O cross section (Limongi).1.2 Constraints from white dwarfs and supernovaeObservational constraints on the limiting masses are thus required. In principle, they can be obtainedfrom the observation of white dwarfs (WD) in open clusters (Meynet, Kalirai, Williams). This methodgoes through several steps: based on atmosphere models, determination of WD effective temperatureand gravity; from a mass-radius relation, estimation of WD masses; from theoretical isochrones,estimation of the age of the cluster. Since the age of the cluster is also the sum of nuclear lifetime of2Figure 3: Definition of the threshold masses (from Siess & Palacios).the progenitor of the white dwarf and its cooling age, one deduces the nuclear lifetime of the progenitor,and thus its initial mass. Obviously, all these steps require theoretical inputs ... so the results aremodel dependent! Given the Main Sequence lifetime of a 8 M⊙ (∼ 40 Myrs), this method requiresthe study of open clusters with an age of a few 10 Myrs. Williams obtained a lower limit on Mmas of6.3-7.1 M⊙.The knowledge of the chemical composition of white dwarfs is crucial for determining the coolingrate and the progenitor mass. Strong mass loss on the red giant branch may lead to a bypass of theAGB, and thus the formation of a He white dwarf, which will cool 3 times more slowly than a COwhite dwarf. This could explain the apparent discrepancy between Main Sequence turnoff age andwhite dwarf cooling age for some clusters (Kalirai). Hot DQ white dwarfs may be the progeny of 9-11M⊙ stars, and thus have a ONe core. This could be tested with asteroseismology (Williams).The study of type II-P SNe and the identification of their progenitors (mostly red supergiantstars) should constrain Mmas (Smartt, Eldridge). A lower limit of 8.5 (+1/-1.5) M⊙ is found. Recentobservations of possible electron-capture supernovae such as supernova 2008S and the WD masses ofKurtis et al. Eldridge estimated that Mmas −Mn = 1.1M⊙.Combining these theoretical and “observational” results may lead to inconsistencies. Apart fromimprovements in models and interpretation of observations, one should consider the possible effectsof binarity. Indeed, as emphasised by Pols, merging in close binaries leads to a decrease of effectivemass limit.Finally, one should keep in mind that these threshold masses depend on metallicity, as illustratedin Fig. 4 (extracted from Siess & Palacios).1.3 Stellar populations and yieldsHow important are super-AGB stars for stellar populations and Galactic chemical evolution?Most evolutionary tracks available for population synthesis purposes are still incomplete at themasses relevant to super-AGB stars, lacking the latest, reddest and also brightest phases of evolution.This may lead to unrealistically blue colours for synthetic populations at ages around 100 Myr.Despite the relatively narrow mass interval (∆M = 2 M⊙), a Salpeter-like Initial Mass Functiongives a number of stars with Mup < M < Mmas which is about 2/3 that of the stars with M > Mmas(the progenitors of core collapse SNe), and these may thus play an important role in chemical evolution.Super-AGB stars are the most massive stars which experience the second dredge-up (Siess &Palacios), but maybe no third dredge-up. Hot Bottom Burning is thus a key-ingredient in determiningthe super-AGB yields and these stars may be strong contributors of early 14N and13C enrichment (upto Z = 10−4; Chiappini). Such yields may explain the chemically anomalous second generation of stars3Figure 4: Evolution of threshold masses as a function of metallicity (from Siess & Palacios).in globular clusters (d’Antona), although this remains a matter of debate, and more massive rotatingstars are an alternative favoured by some (Decressin).Concerning elements heavier than Fe, the timescale and importance of neutron exposure in super-AGB stars are small, and the main neutron source is 22Ne(α,n)25Mg. This leads to significant pro-duction of a limited number of elements, around Z=40, such as Rb (Straniero, Frishknecht).Many open questions remain. In particular, what are the final C/O ratio in super-AGB stars. Isit possible to find carbon-rich super-AGB stars ? If yes, at which metallicities ?2 Identification of super-AGB stars: atmospheric properties2.1 Atmospheres and spectral classificationIf one excepts asteroseismology, still applicable to a limited number of stars, only the atmosphereof stars are observable, so diagnostics on their nature rely on our ability to interpret their spectra.The most widely used models (e.g. MARCS or PHOENIX) are based on “classical” approximations:1D, static atmospheres, LTE, mixing length theory for convection, a depth-independant microtur-bulent velocity. From such models, it is noticeable that red supergiant stars and AGB stars withsame luminosity and temperature, thus differing only by their masses (and thus their surface grav-ity), have a different thermal structure, and different emerging spectra (Plez). However, pulsationsand/or convection, probed by photometric and line profile variability, make the validity of the clas-sical approximations questionable. 3D models are under development, but still need improvements(temperature profiles are too shallow, velocity fields are too small; Plez). In parallel, progress in fullNLTE 3D radiative transfer aims at producing more reliable diagnostics (Hauschildt).Meanwhile, the use of classical models encountered success, such as the new determination of effec-tive temperatures of red supergiant stars for different metallicities (Levesque). Remarkably, this newcalibration agrees well with independent determinations, based e.g. on interferometric measurements(Gray). It also shows a better agreement with evolutionary tracks (Geneva model) ... which maybe partly fortuitous. (The end points of the STARS models extend to cooler temperatures than theGeneva models and also the observed positions of Galactic RSGs. However it is important to comparemodels which end at the same burning stage to ensure reliable physical comparisons. Also modelsspend more time at the bottom of their RSG track and accelerate up it, spending more time in theregion of the HR diagram inhabited by observed RSGs; Smartt & Eldridge). Let us recall that theeffective temperature at the red supergiant stage depends on the ratio of the mixing length to thepressure scale height, which is a free parameter in general adjusted using solar models. Combina-tion of realistic stellar atmospheres and evolutionary models, to obtain reliable predictions of effective4temperatures, are needed, but this is far from being an easy task... Another improvement of bothatmospheric and evolutionary models would concern the treatment of convection, based in both caseson the mixing length theory (MLT). The used α parameter is widely that calibrated with the Sun. Towhat extent is it applicable to red (super-)giant stars? Is MLT itself appropriate?The spectral classification of M-type stars relies on the absolute strength of TiO bands, and arethus metallicity dependent (Gray). To overcome this problem and obtain a univocal correspondencebetween spectral type and effective temperature, a possibility could be to define a spectral classificationbased on atomic line or molecular band ratios. Is such a revision in spectral classification desirable?In the context of (super-)AGB stars, an extension of the calibration of effective temperatures towardlower mass/luminosity, longer wavelengths (infrared) and lower metallicities is highly desirable. Staticmodels seem to reproduce satisfactorily the spectra of the warmer stars (Teff >∼3500 K) but, as onegoes toward lower temperatures, one is confronted with inconsistencies between the visible and theinfrared parts of the spectra (Lanc¸on). Finally, the link between the empirical concept of luminosityclass and stellar mass or evolutionary models is pending.As mentioned above, another approach to determine fundamental stellar parameters consists inthe interpretation of interferometric observations. Realistic (1D) hydrodynamic models now allowto interpret consistently such observations, without invoking ad-hoc structures such as “molspheres”(Wittkowski, Sacuto). They indeed show how extended the atmospheres of (super-)giant stars are.In return, this renders the concept of effective temperature less clear for observers, as it cannot beconsidered as a “surface” temperature.2.2 Pulsations, mass loss and circumstellar envelopesApart from complicating the building of reliable stellar atmosphere models, stellar pulsations areinteresting for themselves. In particular, the apparent universality (i.e. metallicity independent) ofthe period-luminosity relations is remarkable (Schultheis). There remains work to do. The originof the variability of some classes of objects (in particular the sequence “D”) remain mysterious. Acomplete census of semi-regular variables in the solar neighbourhood is still missing, and would bringimportant constraints for stellar evolution models.Pulsation is a key-ingredient in the mass-loss process of AGB stars, together with radiation ondust. From Hydrodynamical Dust driven wind models, it appears that abundances are also important.As metallicity increases, similar mass-loss rate, larger wind velocity and dust-to-gas ratio are predictedfor a given C/O value, while mass-loss rate, wind velocity and dust-to-gas ratio all increase with C/O(Groenewegen). High angular resolution observations also point toward the need of 3D models, as itappears that asymmetries in the wind of AGB stars develop very early (Chesneau).A good understanding of the mass-loss process, and a proper determination of the total mass-lossrate, is fundamental to predict initial-final mass relations. Intermediate-mass stars are supposed toexperience stronger winds and have thus larger amounts of circumstellar material, compared to moremassive stars. Then how many evolved intermediate mass stars are missed because of extinction?What place do OH/IR stars occupy in the context of intermediate mass star and super-AGB evolution?3 The futureSuper-AGB stars represent a real challenge for stellar physics. More generally, intermediate massstars, and super-AGB stars in particular, play an important role in “the Bigger Picture” (Kalirai).The evolution in different environments, such as the correlation between mass loss and metallicity(i.e. how extinct extra-galactic super-AGB stars may be?), the metallicity of bulge stars, are key-ingredients for the interpretation of light from distant galaxies, or our understanding of the MilkyWay formation.From an observer’s point of view, upcoming facilities will help clarify some of the questions raisedabove. Important projects mentioned during this workshop include: the LSST (Large Synoptic Survey5Telescope, e.g. HR diagrams of clusters), ALMA (Atacama Large Millimetre Array, mass loss in theMagellanic Clouds as a test dust driven wind theory), second generation of VLTI instrumentation(wind aymmetries), GAIA (survey of long period variables to constrain pulsation properties in theMilky Way better).We thus hope and believe that this workshop will be followed by other ones. Keep in touch!6Programme of the workshopDay 1 - Monday, February 9, 2009:Topics:- AGB stars, super-AGB stars and related objects. Definitions. Which evolutionary path to each ofthese categories?- Predicted properties from evolutionary models. Model assumptions and their effects.• Achim Weiss - Review about location in the theoretical diagram, lifetimes, surface abundancesand the like• Oscar Straniero - Around Mup : energy generation, energy sink and nucleosynthesis• Ana Palacios - Nucleosynthesis and the fate of super-AGB stars• Georges Meynet - Mass transition between white dwarf progenitors and neutron stars progenitors- Present status and perspectives• Onno Pols - Effects of binaries on the transition mass and on the occurrence of electron-capturesupernovae• Steve Smartt - Observational constraints on the progenitors of type II-P supernovae• J. Eldridge - Constraints from combining SN-progenitors, white dwarf masses & stellar models• Workshops and discussion1. Comparisons between spectral models2. Spectral typing of model spectra3. Do we know the mass-cut between WD and NS progenitors?4. Comparisons between evolutionary models• Marco Limongi - massive stars : pre-SN evolution, explosion, nucleosynthesis• Jason Kalirai - Initial-final mass relations• Kurtis A. Williams - Observations of white dwarf remnants of intermediate mass starsDay 2 - Tuesday, February 10, 2009:Topics:- Predicted and observed atmospheric properties. Comparisons with observations.• Bertrand Plez - Differences between atmospheres of intermediate mass stars and of massive stars,recent model developments• Richard Gray - Spectral types in the upper right of the HR diagram known relations to physicalproperties, known problems; the future of spectral types• Peter Hauschildt - Lessons from 3D simulations, views on micro/macroturbulence• Workshops and discussion• Emily Levesque - Modelling the physical properties of red supergiants7• Ariane Lanc¸on - Near-IR spectra of luminous red stars. Data versus models.• Eric Josselin - Water and other molecules. Observational evidence for molecular layers.• Mathias Schultheis - Period-luminosity relations on the AGB• Markus Wittkowski - Interferometric data compared to model atmospheres• Olivier Chesneau - Constraints from interferometry in the mass range of interest to the workshop• Se´phane Sacuto - Hydrodynamic interpretation of AGB stars observed at high angular resolution.Day 3 - Wednesday, February 11, 2009:Topics:- Chemistry, yields, contributions to the chemical evolution of galaxies- Summary of the sub-workshops• Martin Groenewegen - Mass loss from AGB stars and red supergiants in the Magellanic Clouds.• Cristina Chiappini - Chemical evolution of galaxies with and without AGB stars or super-AGBstars• Thibaut Decressin - The role of super-AGB stars and related objects in the self-enrichment ofstar clusters.• Francesca D’Antona - A dynamical model for the formation of multiple populations in globularclusters, and the role of super-AGBs.8

http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/observatoire/obs/stars2009/stars2009.html

Intermediate Mass Stars <--> Massive Stars. A workshop around causes and consequences of differing evolutionary paths

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

HAL Descartes

HAL-INSU