1. Observations vs Theory JETS AND TORI IN PROTO-PNE Patrick Huggins New York University

2. Outline: two questions  Part I. Observations: Are jets and tori related ?  examine time domain  find evidence for a torus-jet sequence  Part II. What are the implications for jet formation scenarios ?

3. Jets and tori are traumatic events in the AGB—PN transition Example: AFGL 618 (Trammell & Goodrich 2002) High velocity jets, well-defined tips plus a dense torus – the last major mass ejection How do we investigate the ejection sequence ? Determine the age of each component

4. Expansion Ages  Expansion age of jets  t jet = r / V optical or molecular lines need tilt  or from optical proper motions of tip  Expansion age of torus  t torus = r / V molecular* lines need high resolution & tilt use peak or mean for r *important Note: The tori in some cases may be more spherical with the holes pierced by the jets. Soker & Rappaport (2000) argued that the tori are formed by jets snow-plowing the AGB wind: but the high masses and high mass-loss rates argue for something different.

5. 100” x 60” M 1-16 KjPn 8 40” x 40” H  Lopez 97 H  Schwarz 92 CO 2-1 900” x 360” 12” x 12” Huggins et al. 04 CO 1-0 Forveille et al. 98

6. NameV torus V jets t torus t jets km/s yr KjPn 85.931450403380 M 1-169.835020001610 M 2-97.016413001170 M 1-925.56915201010 M 2-568.012817501060 He 3-147514530878611 V Hya16161543254 AFGL 61812222422139  1 Gru 115535454 DATA: Forveille et al. 1998, Meaburn 1997, Huggins et al. 2000, Schwarz 1992, Zweigle et al. 1997, Schwarz et al. 1997, Bujarrabal et al. 1998, Alcolea et al. 2007, Castro-Carrizo et al. 2002, Huggins et al. 2004, Riera et al. 2003, Hirano et al. 2004, Cox et al. 2003, Trammell & Goodrich 2002, Sanchez Contreras et al. 2004, Chiu et al. 2006 Summary of Observations low V torus young PN AGB

7. Expansion Ages of Jets and Tori  Jets & tori nearly simultaneous  Jets appear slightly younger  t tori & t jets likely* ~ true ages If so, jets occur later jet-lag ~ 300 yr power-up or accretion time?  If jets accelerate: look younger could be simul. – not likely for ensemble  If jets decelerate: look older jet-lag is longer error bars: inclinations, proper motions, or resolution * Tori are massive with low velocities Well-studied jets typically exhibit Hubble flows

8. Evolutionary Sequence now jets tori  t ~  r / V torus All cases are similar: jets are launched with or shortly after torus ejection

9. Part II: Implications of These Results for Theory Each scenario has specific implications for torus formation That we can test  Current popular theoretical ingredients  mhd jets – disks primary/secondary – common envelopes  Lead to four basic jet formation scenarios:  mhd winds of single stars  binary accretion disks  winds/explosions of spun-up stars  disks around the primary cores

10. 1. Magnetic winds from single stars?  Current models  can produce jets  unclear if they can produce sudden jets  recent models* do not produce co-ordinated jets and tori — dense equators are input independently  evaluation: do not adequately produce jet-torus relations found here *Garcia-Segura et al. (2005)

11.  Natural mechanism for the mass in equatorial plane  Natural causal and temporal relation of torus to jets:  enhanced mass-loss feeds accretion disk: disk makes jets  Natural explanation of jet-lag  time to spiral into companion  reasonable parameters give ~ 100 yr  Q: No general explanation for onset of discrete torus  could be tidal spin-up of the primary – needs futher study 2. Accretion disks of binary companions? Morris (1987), Soker & Rappaport (2000) ? viscous accretion time

12. 3. Magnetic/hydro effects in common envelopes?  MHD wind from spin-up + CE ejection  expect short time scales: can it produce jet-lag ?  can CE ejection produce low velocity tori ?  Variation: CE MHD explosion for jets and torus  expect short time scales: can it produce jet-lag ?  can explosions produce low velocity tori ?  Hybrid: companion accretion disk CE ejection  wrong sequence ! Nordhaus & Blackman (2006), Matt et al. (2006) ? ?

13.  (Low mass comp.) CE primary accretion disk later nebula ejection  jets and tori un-coordinated !  wrong sequence !  (Intermed. mass comp.) CE ejection primary accretion disk  correct sequence  short time scale: jet-lag ?  CE ejection RLOF of secondary to form primary accretion disk  correct sequence  expected time scale too long ! 4. Accretion disks around the primary? Soker & Livio (1994), Soker (1996), Reyes-Ruiz & Lopez (1999), Nordhaus & Blackman (2006) ?

14.  Jets and tori are nearly simultaneous  Evidence for a torus-jet sequence with jet-lag  Results constrain scenarios  Question: can CE ejection/explosions explain low velocity of tori ? scenarioratingcomments Magnetic wind from single star—jets and torus? Companion accretion diskdiscrete torus ejection? Companion accretion disk + CE ejection—wrong sequence CE ejection + magnetic polar windjet-lag? (CE) mag. polar + equatorial ejectionjet-lag? (CE) primary accretion disk + late neb. ejection—wrong sequence CE partial ejection + primary accretion diskjet-lag? Post CE primary accretion disk (from RLOF)—time scale too long? Summary