4.6 Article

On the wavelength drift of spectral features from structured hot star winds

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 378, 期 3, 页码 946-953

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011253

关键词

stars : early-type; stars : winds, outflows; stars : mass-loss; stars : atmospheres; line : profiles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spectral lines formed in stellar winds from OB stars are observed to exhibit profile variations. Discrete Absorption Components (DACs) show a remarkably slow wavelength drift with time. In a straightforward interpretation, this is in sharp contradiction to the steep velocity law predicted by the radiation-driven wind theory, and by semi-empirical profile fitting. In the present paper we re-discuss the interpretation of the drift rate. We show that the Co-rotating Interaction Region (CIR) model for the formation of DACs does not explain their slow drift rate as a consequence of rotation. On the contrary, the apparent acceleration of a spectral CIR feature is even higher than for the corresponding kinematical model without rotation. However, the observations can be understood by distinguishing between the velocity field of the matter ow, and the velocity law for the motion of the patterns in which the DAC features are formed. If the latter propagate upstream against the matter ow, the resulting wavelength drift mimics a much slower acceleration although the matter is moving fast. Additional to the DACs, a second type of recurrent structures is present in observed OB star spectra, the so-called modulations. In contrast to the DACs, these structures show a steep acceleration compatible with the theoretically predicted velocity law. We see only two possible consistent scenarios. Either, the wind is accelerated fast, and the modulations are formed in advected structures, while the DACs come from structures which are propagating upstream. Or, alternatively, steep and shallow velocity laws may co-exist at the same time in different spatial regions or directions of the wind.

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

4.6
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