![]() | ![]() |
Astron. Astrophys. 334, 181-187 (1998) 3. The
|
![]() |
Fig. 4. Rotational period versus surface gravity. Full symbols represent stars with a reliable period, open symbols are for possibly ambiguous periods. Round dots (and triangles) represent stars with a spectroscopic value of ![]() ![]() ![]() |
It is interesting to consider the case of CU Vir or HD 124224,
because in the literature a very small is
sometimes quoted: for instance, Hiesberger et al. (1995) quote values
as small as 3.45 to 3.60 (obtained from spectrophotometric scans), but
also 4.2 and 3.71. The latter two values come from the same
photometric indices but through two different
calibrations. The Hipparcos data, together with
K obtained from Geneva photometry, point to
, i.e. the star is very close to the ZAMS. If a
higher effective temperature is adopted, like
K, the result becomes worse, with
(the
error on
was computed assuming an error of only
400 K on
). The conclusion that CU Vir is
unevolved seems unescapable and is coherent with the fact that no Bp
or Ap star has a rotational period significantly shorter than 0.5 days
(the record is held by HD 60431, with
days, see North et al. 1988). This may bear some importance in
view of the fact that CU Vir is the only Ap star for which a period
change has been unambiguously identified (Pyper et al. 1998). Any
explanation for this intriguing discovery will have to take into
account the unevolved state of the star.
The full and broken lines drawn in Fig. 4 are kinds of
evolutionary tracks: assuming an initial period of 0.5 days
(respectively 4.0 days), they show how a star rotating as a rigid
body will evolve, if no loss of angular momentum occurs. These lines
essentially reflect how the moment of inertia changes with evolution
for stars having 2.5 and . They depend in a
negligible way on the mass and are entirely compatible with the
observations. They were established starting from the conservation of
angular momentum:
where is the star's angular velocity,
I the moment of inertia and the subscript 0 indicates initial
value (i.e. on the ZAMS). For the period, one has
How the moment of inertia changes with evolution is provided by the models of Schaller et al. (1992), through a code kindly provided by Dr. Georges Meynet.
The two steep, straight dotted lines illustrate the extreme case of
conservation of angular momentum in concentric shells which would
rotate rigidly but glide one over the other without any viscosity,
i.e. without the least radial exchange of angular momentum. In such a
case, the moment of inertia of each shell of mass
and radius r reads
and in particular, the outermost shell having
and being the only one observed, one gets
Surely this case is an ideal and not very realistic one, but it is shown for illustrative purpose.
Do Si stars undergo any rotational braking during their life on the
Main Sequence? Because of the decreasing number of stars with
decreasing , the statistics remains a bit small,
and doubling the number of stars in the range
would be very useful. Nevertheless, the data are entirely compatible
with nothing more than conservation of angular momentum for a rigidly
rotating star. They may be marginally consistent with the dotted lines
whose slope is 1 (conservation of angular momentum for independent
spherical shells): if these lines are interpreted as betraying some
loss of angular momentum through some braking mechanism yet to
be understood, then this loss cannot increase the period by more than
about
meaning a relative increase of no more than 82 percent during the whole Main Sequence lifetime. This is only a fraction of the increase due to angular momentum conservation alone (for a rigid sphere).
The whole reasoning has been applied to a mix of stars with various
masses (between 2.2 and ), but if any magnetic
breaking exists, its efficiency might well be a sensitive function of
mass. Then, one would need a larger sample, allowing
vs
diagrams to be built
separately for stars in narrow mass ranges. The sample as a whole
would not need to be enlarged in an unrealistic way: it is especially
the evolved stars which are crucial for the test, so increasing their
number from 13 (for
) to about 50 or 70 would
probably be enough to answer the question on firmer grounds.
Spectroscopic observations would be needed to estimate
(and hopefully
!) and
photometric ones to determine the periods.
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1998
Online publication: May 12, 1998
helpdesk.link@springer.de