1. Beyond the Textbook: Why Planetary Nebula are the Most Exciting Problem in Astrophysics. Adam Frank University of Rochester

2. A Cast of Many Eric Blackman (UR), Orsola De Marco, Bruce Balick Sean Matt (UV) Jason Nordhaus (UR), T. Dennis (UR) AstroBEAR AMR MHD Andrew Cunningham (UR) Kris Yirak (UR)

3. The Story PNe are penultimate evolutionary stage of low/intermediate mass stars. PNe are penultimate evolutionary stage of low/intermediate mass stars. Some view field as mostly “done.” Some view field as mostly “done.” New observational/theoretical studies show both PNe and late stages of stellar evolution NOT UNDERSTOOD. New observational/theoretical studies show both PNe and late stages of stellar evolution NOT UNDERSTOOD. New models invoke processes at frontiers of modern astrophysics (magnetic fields, jets, accretion disk) New models invoke processes at frontiers of modern astrophysics (magnetic fields, jets, accretion disk) Strong Lab Astro connection Strong Lab Astro connection

4. Stellar and PNe Evolution: The Textbook Picture AGB -> pPNe-> PNe -> WD ‘Proven” evolutionary Tracks Locus of evolution vs. temporal sequence.

6. PNe Shapes; Solution circa 1992: Planetary Nebula as Wind Blown Bubbles White dwarf fast wind sweeps up Red Giant slow wind. Dense shell of snowplowed gas becomes nebula

7. Bipolar PNe Planetary Nebulae: Modern View Narrow Waist Bipolar Outflows Point symmetry

8. Aspherical Bubbles? Generalized Wind Model Imagine slow wind emerges with a doughnut shape. Imagine slow wind emerges with a doughnut shape. “Inertial Confinement” “Inertial Confinement” Fast wind escapes through doughnut holes. Fast wind escapes through doughnut holes.

9. Shaping Starts Early! Aspherical proto-Planetary Nebulae

10. Multi-Polar Outflows “Young PNe” T* ~ 30000 K Ionization fronts just Beginning to break out. “Starfish” phase

11. Momentum Excess in pPNe Bujarrabal et al 2001 Outflow shaping begins during proto-PNe stage Outflow shaping begins during proto-PNe stage –Acceleration time short (< 100 y?) pPNe show pronounced momentum excess! pPNe show pronounced momentum excess! –Radiation driving can not account for outflows nameMass M sol P = MV (gm cm s -1 ) E(erg)P/(L/c) CRL 618.65 2.1 10 39 1.8 10 45 1.8 10 4 CRL 2688.69 2.2 10 39 1.7 10 45 2.2 10 4 M2-56.01 3.0 10 37 2.0 10 44 3.3 10 3 Frosty Leo.36 8.0 10 38 4.5 10 44 7.0 10 4

12. Need a New Paradigm MHD MHD Binary Stars Binary Stars

13. Why MHD for PNe? Hydrodynamic Models can not recover morphologies. Hydrodynamic Models can not recover morphologies. –(Garcia-Segura, Lopez etc) !! Fields observed in PNe !! !! Fields observed in PNe !! –Nebular gas (B ~ mG) (Miranda et al 2001, Herpin 2004) (Miranda et al 2001, Herpin 2004) –Central star (B ~ kG) (Jordan et al 2004) (Jordan et al 2004) Central stars -> hard X-rays Central stars -> hard X-rays (Kastner et al, Chu et al) (Kastner et al, Chu et al) PN masers (Miranda et al) PN X-rays ( Chu et al)

15. MHD and Outflows: Magneto-Rotational Launching (MRL) * GRAND CHALLENGE PROBLEM –MRL -> EVERY COLLIMATED OUTFLOW ENVIRONMENT! YSOs, AGN, micro-Quasars: GRBs, SNe YSOs, AGN, micro-Quasars: GRBs, SNe Many forms of theory (Blandford & Payne 1985, Shu et al 1994) Many forms of theory (Blandford & Payne 1985, Shu et al 1994) –Theory/Simulation – “Fling” (B p ) vs. “Spring” (B  ) Theory of jet launching and collimation Theory of jet launching and collimation Mature Paradigm – Ex. HH jet rotation -> disk footpoints (Cabrit et al 2006) Mature Paradigm – Ex. HH jet rotation -> disk footpoints (Cabrit et al 2006)

16. MRL Basics Magneto-centrifugal Models “Fling” (Tsinganos et al) Magnetic Tower Models “Spring” (Kato et al) Disk-Star Models (Ferreria et al)

18. Binary Stars: Common Envelope Evolution Two (+) evolutionary channels 1.Mass transfer binary 2.Merger -> Rapidly spinning object 3 Secondary break-up Disk around primary

19. Binary Stars Disk & Jets Link to other Astro systems! Link to other Astro systems! Disks+Jets Disks+Jets –Young Stars –AGN Binary+Jets+Disks Binary+Jets+Disks –CVs –Micro-quasars

20. Our Proposal Part 1 2 Flavors of MHD Launching 2 Flavors of MHD Launching Explosive or Continious Explosive or Continious

21. The Tool: AstroBEAR AMR Code “Block” AMR Choice of solvers/integrators Parallel – load balance Multi-physics modules: Ionization and H 2 Chemistry heat conduction *self-gravity *rad trans (diff limit)  MHD Flux conservation via CT Cunningham, Frank, Varniere & Mitran 2007*

22. Radiative Outflows in Heterogeneous Media Cunningham, Frank, Varniere & Mitran 2007*

23. MRL Model 1: Fling Blackman, Frank & Welch 01 Both Star and Disk create MRL outflows –Disk forms via disruption of companion (Soker, Livio, Reyes-Ruiz & Lopez) (Soker, Livio, Reyes-Ruiz & Lopez) –Star and Accretion Disk each produce wind (need binary). –Explain multi-polar flows –Scaling Argument fulfills power requirements Energy requirement of Bujarrabal et al 2001

24. MRL Model 1: Nested Wind Simulations Dennis, Yirak & Frank 2007* (AstroBEAR AMR MHD Code) Slow Inner Wind Fast Inner Wind

25. MRL Model 1: Fling Detailed Disk Models Calculate “Full” MRL Disk Solutions Calculate “Full” MRL Disk Solutions –Frank & Blackman 2004 ii) Disk Around Companion i)Disk Around Primary (companion disrupted) Garica-Arrendondo & Frank 04 Frank & Blackman 04

26. MRL Model 2: Spring Blackman, Frank, Thomas & Van Horn 2001 Nature Use model (Kawaler) Single Star (!) – Use model (Kawaler) Single Star (!) – Derive  (r) profile Derive  (r) profile –Assume MS rotation profile –Evolve via r 2  conservation on cylinders Use calibrated dynamo to calculate field  2  Use calibrated dynamo to calculate field  2  When AGB “atmosphere” peels off, dynamo field (B = B  ) “unwinds” When AGB “atmosphere” peels off, dynamo field (B = B  ) “unwinds” Outflow generated with E ~ E pPNe (Bujarrabal) Outflow generated with E ~ E pPNe (Bujarrabal)

27. MRL Model 2: Spring Magnetized Rotating Cores Matt, Frank & Blackman 2004, 2006 Attempt to simplify and simulate problem. Attempt to simplify and simulate problem. Initial conditions: Initial conditions: –Massive, magnetized ball, initiate rotation t = 0. –  axis aligned with dipole or monopole –no inflow/outflow –Initially stagnant hydrostatic envelope M b >> M e

28. RESULTS: – small scales  -> B  B  pressure drives outflow B p lines opened

29. RESULTS : Field Geometry and Morphology Dipole Field Split Monopole Field Small Scale Large Scale

30. RESULTS: Acceleration and Energetics Polar shell exceeds local escape speed after 6 t rot Polar and equatorial shells KE dominated, Polar interior Poynting Flux dominated. (GRBs)

31. SNe/GRB Magnetic Models Wheeler et al 2007

32. pPNe as Explosions: CRL 618 CRL 618: pPN CRL 618: pPN –“pure” Shock excitation –No photo-ionization Multiple “lobes” Multiple “lobes” –Jets or Bullets Hint: “Rings” via vortex shedding. Hint: “Rings” via vortex shedding.

33. pPN as Explositions Bullets vs. Jets: (Dennis, Frank & Balick 2007) Run 2 and 3D sims of single jet or bullet. Compare emission maps Compare PV diagrams Bullets vortex shedding events match CRL 618 better Bullet PV diagram better fit as well.

34. MRL Models and Evolved Stars Conclusion MRL works for both pPNe and PNe MRL works for both pPNe and PNe Rich morphological potential Rich morphological potential Tie Star(s) to Nebula Tie Star(s) to Nebula

35. Magnetic Tower Models need Magnetic Fields Our proposal: Part II Questions: How do we get magnetic fields in an AGB star? How do we get magnetic fields in an AGB star?

36. Dynamo Problems Compare E rot with E mag E rot << E mag Don’t have L mag needed at end of AGB Need source of differential rotation - binary Dynamos turn  into B Dynamo cycle should operate throughout AGB Need L mag at end of AGB

37. Binaries and Dynamos: CE Evolution Nordhaus & Blackman 2006 Nordhaus, Blackman & Frank 2006 Calculate fraction of the orbital energy released by the companion and used for envelope ejection. Secondary produces drag luminosity. Balance via change in gravitational energy companion. Calculate end states,  (r) Use mean field dynamo equations to calculate AGB fields

38. Dynamos in AGB Stars Nordhaus, Blackman & Frank 2006 No companion Case 1.Dynamo dies after t < 50 years 2.Can maintain with convective reseeding but only with special conditions.

39. Dynamos in AGB Stars Nordhaus, Blackman & Frank 2006 With Companion Case 1.CE evolution stirs inner regions.  re-supplied. 3.Magnetic or Thermal Outflow.

40. Direct Envelope Ejection Outflow is predominately equatorial. Dynamo Driven Ejection Outflow is aligned around the rotation axis and is magnetically collimated. Disk Driven Ejection Shred Secondary Outflow is aligned with rotation axis.

41. Varniere, Quillen & Frank 2005 Disks and pAGB stars Nordhaus et al 2007 “Transitional Disks” with inner holes common in YSOs “Transitional Disks” with inner holes common in YSOs –Origin: Planets, evaporation SEDs yield properies SEDs yield properies Disks in pAGB stars also appear common Disks in pAGB stars also appear common –>25% van Winkle et al pAGB stars SEDs also show holes. pAGB stars SEDs also show holes. D’Alessio et al 2005HD179821

42. Dynamo Models and Binary Stars Conclusion Single stars dynamos can’t work Single stars dynamos can’t work Binary star dynamos can generate needed fields to power explosive outflows Binary star dynamos can generate needed fields to power explosive outflows

43. Conclusions Magneto-rotational models promising for PNe/pPNe. Magneto-rotational models promising for PNe/pPNe. physics applicable to variety of objects (GRB/SNe, YSOs) physics applicable to variety of objects (GRB/SNe, YSOs) Binary Stars must play critical role. Binary Stars must play critical role. Accretion disks also likely to be present Accretion disks also likely to be present