Common Envelope Evolution of Massive Binary Stars

By R. Taam, E. Sandquist. 2000

229 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6a38f1d645c726be023fcf710ad75710ded57855

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

Citations in the corpus

The Interaction of Stellar Objects within a Common Envelope (2007, background): “It is generally accepted that such an evolutionary stage is essential for the formation of short-period binarysystems containing compact objects (see, e.g., Iben & Livio 1993 and Taam & Sandquist 2000).”
Common envelope evolution: where we stand and how we can move forward (2012, background): “However, models show that spiral shocks produced by the cores are responsible for depositing much of the angular momentum (Taam and Sandquist 2000) so it seems more sensible to choose a smoother function.”
The gravitational wave background from cosmological compact binaries (2003, background): “The basic idea of the common envelope phase is well accepted and observationally motivated, though not well simulated (see e.g. Livio & Soker 1988; Iben & Livio 1993; Taam & Sandquist 2000).”
Progenitors of gravitational wave mergers: binary evolution with the stellar grid-based code ComBinE (2018, background): “Nevertheless, studies in this direction still have difficulties ejecting the envelope and securing deep in-spiral (Taam & Sandquist 2000; Passy et al. 2012; Ricker & Taam 2012; Nandez et al. 2014; Ohlmann et al. 2016).”
Post common envelope binaries from SDSS - XI. The white dwarf mass distributions of CVs and pre-CVs (2011, background): “…envelope, angular momentum and orbital energy are transferred from the binary orbit to the CE, and the separation between the primary core and the secondary star decreases in a spiralling-in process until the envelope is expelled, which is thought to happen in ∼ 10 3 yr (Taam & Sandquist 2000).”
Doing Science with eLISA: Astrophysics and Cosmology in the Millihertz Regime (2012, background): “Theoretical progress to understand the phase from first physical principles is slow (e.g. Taam and Ricker, 2010, Taam and Sandquist, 2000) and the standard formalism described above has been challenged by observational tests (De Marco et al., 2011, Nelemans and Tout, 2005).”
Luminous supersoft X-ray sources (2004, background): “Note that much higher mass-loss rates for CE of the order 10 − 1 M (cid:2) yr − 1 are expected (Reg¨os & Tout 1995; Taam & Sandquist 2000) but after a set of numerical experiments, we found that ˙ M w = M d / t KH does not disturb the physics of the CE.”
Galactic distribution of merging neutron stars and black holes – prospects for short gamma-ray burst progenitors and LIGO/VIRGO (2003, background): “Even though the spiral-in time-scale is very short ( 1000 yr) for common-envelope evolution (Taam & Sandquist 2000), and the accretion rate is limited by the photon radiation pressure (the Eddington limit), the gravitational potential energy release from the ∼10−5-”
High-mass X-ray binaries in the Milky Way (2013, background): “If the compact object orbits in the external regions of that disk, the system may end up in a BH/NS binary (Taam and Sandquist, 2000).”
Dawes Review 6: The Impact of Companions on Stellar Evolution (2016, background): “See also Iben & Livio (1993), Livio & Soker (1988) and Taam & Sandquist (2000).”
AN AMR STUDY OF THE COMMON-ENVELOPE PHASE OF BINARY EVOLUTION (2011, background): “Although the specific model that we have adopted here contains a low-mass helium degenerate core and will not produce a planetary nebula, the morphology of the outflowing matter from our simulation is generic to outflows resulting from the CE phase (see Taam & Sandquist 2000).”
The origin of subdwarf B stars – I. The formation channels (2002, methodology): “This is consistent with theoretical CE ejection simulations (Taam & Sandquist 2000; Podsiadlowski 2001) and independent constraints from BPS studies of other post-CE binaries with relatively long orbital periods (e.g. certain symbiotic stars and barium stars; see Han et al. 1995), which require…”
On the formation and evolution of black hole binaries (2002, background): “…systems, the core–envelope separation may not be distinct enough to allow envelope ejection even if enough energy is available in principle (see e.g. Taam & Sandquist 2000; and Kalogera, private communication); hence a value of αCE ∼ 1 may not be an appropriate one for systems that experience a CE…”
Double neutron stars: merger rates revisited (2017, background): “The common envelope (CE) phase is probably the most problematic stage of the binary evolution, as the criteria for the formation and ejection of the envelope are very uncertain (see e.g. Taam & Sandquist 2000; Ivanova et al. 2013, for the review).”
Formation of Double Neutron Star Systems (2017, background): “CE evolution A CE phase (see Taam & Sandquist 2000; Ivanova et al. 2013, for reviews) develops when the donor star in a HMXB fills its Roche lobe.”
THE EFFECT OF STARBURST METALLICITY ON BRIGHT X-RAY BINARY FORMATION PATHWAYS (2010, background): “Hertzsprung gap (HG) stars have not yet fully formed clear core-envelope structure and the inspiral process in the CE phase is very likely to lead to a binary merger (Taam & Sandquist 2000).”
A circumbinary disc in the final stages of common envelope and the core-degenerate scenario for Type Ia supernovae (2011, background): “The 35 years old (Paczynski 1976) common envelope (CE) model is in the heart of the formation of many close binary systems (e.g., Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister 1979; Iben & Livio 1993; Taam & Sandquist 2000; Podsiadlowski 2001; Webbink 2008; Taam & Ricker 2010).”