Common envelope evolution: where we stand and how we can move forward

By Natalia Ivanova, Stephen Justham, Xuefei Chen, O. De Marco, Chris L. Fryer, E. Gaburov, H. Ge, E. Glebbeek, Zhanwen Han, Xiang-dong Li and 10 more. The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 2012

732 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This work aims to present our current best physical understanding of common-envelope evolution (CEE). We highlight areas of consensus and disagreement, and stress ideas which should point the way forward for progress in this important but long-standing and largely unconquered problem. Unusually for CEE-related work, we mostly try to avoid relying on results from population synthesis or observations, in order to avoid potentially being misled by previous misunderstandings. As far as possible we debate all the relevant issues starting from physics alone, all the way from the evolution of the binary system immediately before CEE begins to the processes which might occur just after the ejection of the envelope. In particular, we include extensive discussion about the energy sources and sinks operating in CEE, and hence examine the foundations of the standard energy formalism. Special attention is also given to comparing the results of hydrodynamic simulations from different groups and to discussing the potential effect of initial conditions on the differences in the outcomes. We compare current numerical techniques for the problem of CEE and also whether more appropriate tools could and should be produced (including new formulations of computational hydrodynamics, and attempts to include 3D processes within 1D codes). Finally we explore new ways to link CEE with observations. We compare previous simulations of CEE to the recent outburst from V1309 Sco, and discuss to what extent post-common-envelope binaries and nebulae can provide information, e.g. from binary eccentricities, which is not currently being fully exploited.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a36be0fde8c2c045543d63b0a6e100331570d893

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

Hierarchical analysis of gravitational-wave measurements of binary black hole spin–orbit misalignments (2017, background): “…the effect of rotation of massive stars on stellar evolution (de Mink et al. 2013; Ramı́rez-Agudelo et al. 2015), the natal kicks (if any) given to BHs (Repetto et al. 2012; Mandel 2016; Mirabel 2016; Repetto et al. 2017) and the efficiency of the CE (Ivanova et al. 2013; Kruckow et al. 2016).”
Forming short-period Wolf–Rayet X-ray binaries and double black holes through stable mass transfer (2017, background): “There are many factors that influence the precise value of the product αCEλ, such as energy sources like recombination energy and accretion energy release (e.g. see the discussion in Tauris & van den Heuvel 2006; Portegies Zwart 2013, and in Ivanova et al. 2013; Kruckow et al. 2016).”
Merging Binaries in the Galactic Center: The eccentric Kozai-Lidov mechanism with stellar evolution (2016, background): “…000, 1–12 (2016) observations of dusty binary mergers (e.g., Tylenda et al. 2011a,b, 2013; Nicholls et al. 2013) and the current state of common envelope evolution theory (see for review Ivanova et al. 2013), that they will harbor extended gas and dust envelopes, which match G2 observations.”
Massive runaway and walkaway stars (2018, background): “It is unknown what fraction of that internal energy is useful in unbinding the envelope (see, e.g., Dewi & Tauris 2000; Ivanova et al. 2013, and references therein).”
Merging black hole binaries with the SEVN code (2018, methodology): “This formalism is based on two parameters (Webbink 1984; de Kool 1992; Ivanova et al. 2013): α is the fraction of the orbital energy released during the spiral-in phase and converted into kinetic energy of the envelope, and λ is a structural parameter used to define the binding energy of the…”
One Channel to Rule Them All? Constraining the Origins of Binary Black Holes Using Multiple Formation Pathways (2020, background): “…efficient CE evolution) mean that there is an energy source in addition to the orbital energy of the binary acting to remove the envelope (e.g., Ivanova et al. 2013; Nandez & Ivanova 2016), or that some of the envelope material remains bound to the stellar core after the successful ejection…”
GW190521: Orbital Eccentricity and Signatures of Dynamical Formation in a Binary Black Hole Merger Signal (2020, background): “…two stars evolve side-by-side until they form black holes and coalesce (see, e.g., Livio & Soker 1988; Bethe & Brown 1998; de Mink et al. 2010; Ivanova et al. 2013; Kruckow et al. 2016; de Mink & Mandel 2016), and dynamical, in which two black holes become bound due to gravitationally driven…”
Binary Population and Spectral Synthesis Version 2.1: Construction, Observational Verification, and New Results (2017, background): “At this point, we switch the orbital evolution to a formalism based on the typical population synthesis model where the result of CEE is determined from comparing the binding energy of the envelope with the orbital energy (Ivanova et al. 2013).”
The progenitors of compact-object binaries: impact of metallicity, common envelope and natal kicks (2018, methodology): “To describe the CE phase, we adopt the αλ formalism (see Webbink 1984; Ivanova et al. 2013), where α quantifies the energy available to unbind the envelope, and λ measures the concentration of the envelope.”
Delay-time distribution of core-collapse supernovae with late events resulting from binary interaction (2017, background): “Finally, the merger events themselves may constitute a subset of the rich and diverse class of the observed red intermediate luminosity transients or of gap transients, as has been pointed out by Ivanova et al. (2013a).”
The cosmic merger rate of neutron stars and black holes (2018, background): “We stress that our understanding of CE is still far from satisfactory and there is still a large uncertainty on CE (see Ivanova et al. 2013; Tauris et al. 2017 for a review).”
The effect of the metallicity-specific star formation history on double compact object mergers (2019, methodology): “This is a complex phase and we parametrize it in the so-called ‘α–λ’ formalism (see Ivanova et al. 2013 for a 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.”
Unveiling the gravitational universe at μ-Hz frequencies (2019, background): “angular momentum loss and binary merger products [143, 176, 276].”