4.0 Article

Possible scenarios for the formation of Ap/Bp stars

期刊

ASTRONOMY REPORTS
卷 54, 期 2, 页码 156-162

出版社

PLEIADES PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1134/S1063772910020083

关键词

-

资金

  1. Russian Academy of Sciences
  2. Russian Federation [NSh-4354.2008.2]
  3. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [07-02-00454, 08-02-00371]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Possible paths for the formation of Ap/Bp stars-massive main-sequence stars with strong magnetic fields-are analyzed based on modern theories for the evolution of single and binary stars. Assuming that the strong magnetic fields of these stars are the main reason for their comparatively slow axial rotation and the observed anomalies in the chemical compositions of their atmospheres, possible origins for these high magnetic fields are considered. Analysis of several possible scenarios for the formation of these stars leads to the conclusion that their surface magnetic fields are probably generated in the convective envelopes of the precursor stars. These precursors may be young, single stars with masses 1.5-3 M (aS (TM)) that formed at the peripheries of forming star clusters and ended their accretion at the Hayashi boundary, or alternatively close binaries whose components have convective envelopes, whose merger leads to the formation of an Ap/Bp star. Arguments are presented supporting the view that the merger of close binaries is the main channel for the formation of Ap/Bp stars, and a detailed analysis of this scenario is presented. The initial major axes of the merging binary systems must be in the range 6-12 R (aS (TM)), and the masses of their components in the range 0.7-1.5 M (aS (TM)). When the merging components possess developed convective envelopes and fairly strong initial magnetic fields, these can generate powerful magnetic fields inherited by the products of the merger-Ap/Bp stars. The reason the components of the close binaries merge is a loss of angular momentum via the magnetic stellar winds of the components.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据