Late Stages of the Evolution of Close Binaries
Close binaries can evolve through various ways of interaction into compact objects (white dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes). Massive binary systems (mass of the primary M 1 larger than 14 to 15 M 0) are expected to leave, after the first stage of mass transfer a compact component orbiting a massive star. These systems evolve during subsequent stages into massive X-ray binaries. Systems with initial large periode evolve into Be X-ray binaries.
Low mass X-ray sources are probably descendants of lower mass stars, and various channels for their production are indicated. The evolution of massive close binaries is examined in detail and different X-ray stages are discussed. It is argued that a first X-ray stage is followed by a reverse extensive mass transfer, leading to systems like SS 433, Cir X1. During further evolution these systems would become Wolf-Rayet runaways. Due to spiral in these system would then further evolve into ultra short X-ray binaries like Cyg X-3.
Finally the explosion of the secondary will in most cases disrupt the system. In an exceptional case the system remains bound, leading to binary pulsars like PSR 1913 + 16. In such systems the orbit will shrink due to gravitational radiation and finally the two neutron stars will coalesce. It is argued that the millisecond pulsar PSR 1937 + 214 could be formed in this way.
A complete scheme starting from two massive ZAMS stars, ending with a millisecond pulsar is presented.
KeywordsNeutron Star Mass Loss Rate Stellar Wind Gravitational Radiation Supernova Explosion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Arnett, W. D.: 1978, in R. Giacconi and R. Ruffini (eds.), Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars and Black Holes, North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam, p. 356.Google Scholar
- Conti, P. S., Garmany, C., de Loore, C., and Vanbeveren, D.: 1983, Astrophys. J. (in press).Google Scholar
- Cowley, A. P.: 1980, in P. Sandford (ed.), Compact Galactic X-Ray Sources, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- De Cuyper, J. P.: 1981, in W. Sieber and R. Wielebinsky (eds.), ‘Pulsars’, IAU Symp. 95, 399.Google Scholar
- Delgado, A. and Thomas, H. C.: 1980, Astron. Astrophys. 36, 142.Google Scholar
- Firmani, C. and Bisiacchi, F.: 1980, Proc. 5th IAU Reg. Meeting, Liège, Belgium.Google Scholar
- Jedrzejec, E.: 1969, M. S. Thesis, Univ. of Warsaw.Google Scholar
- Massevich, A. G., Tutukov, A. V., and Yungelson, L. R.: 1981, in D. Sugimoto, D. Schramm, and D. Lamb (eds.), ‘Fundamental Problems in the Theory of Stellar Evolution’, IAU Symp. 93, 185.Google Scholar
- Miller, J. S., Krzeminsky, W., and Priedhorsky, W.: 1976, IAU Circ., No. 2974.Google Scholar
- Nomoto, K.: 1980, Proc. Workshop ‘Type I Supernovae’, Univ. of Texas.Google Scholar
- Paczynski, B.: 1976, in P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, and J. Whelan (eds.), ‘Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems’, IAU Symp. 73, 75.Google Scholar
- Shklovski, I. S.: 1981, Proc. 5th IAU Regional Meeting, Liège, Belgium.Google Scholar
- Tutukov, A. V.: 1981, in D. Sugimoto, D. Schramm, and D. Lamb (eds.), ‘Fundamental Problems in the Theory of Stellar Evolution’, IAU Symp. 93, 137.Google Scholar
- van den Heuvel, E. P. J.: 1976, in J. Whelan and S. Mitton (eds.), ‘Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems’, IAU Symp. 73, 35.Google Scholar
- van den Heuvel, E. P. J.: 1980, in R. Giacconi and G. Sctti (eds.), X-Ray Astronomy, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, p. 115.Google Scholar
- van den Heuvel, E. P. J.: 1981, in D. Sugimoto, D. Lamb, and D. Schramm (eds.), ‘Fundamental Problems in the Theory of Stellar Evolution’, IAU Symp. 93, 115.Google Scholar
- van den Heuvel, E. P. J. and Heise, J.: 1972, Nat. Sci. 239, 67.Google Scholar
- Vanderlinden, T.: 1982, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Van Paradijs, J.: 1980, IAU Cire., No. 3487.Google Scholar
- Webbink, R. F.: 1975, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Webbink, R. F.: 1979, in F. M. Bateson, J. Smak, and I. H. Urch (eds.), ‘Changing Trends in Variable Stars Research’, IAU Colloq. 49, 102.Google Scholar