English

A new mass-loss rate prescription for red supergiants

Solar and Stellar Astrophysics 2020-02-12 v1 Astrophysics of Galaxies

Abstract

Evolutionary models have shown the substantial effect that strong mass-loss rates (M˙\dot{M}) can have on the fate of massive stars. Red supergiant (RSG) mass-loss is poorly understood theoretically, and so stellar models rely on purely empirical \mdot-luminosity relations to calculate evolution. Empirical prescriptions usually scale with luminosity and effective temperature, but M˙\dot{M} should also depend on the current mass and hence the surface gravity of the star, yielding more than one possible M˙\dot{M} for the same position on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. One can solve this degeneracy by measuring M˙\dot{M} for RSGs that reside in clusters, where age and initial mass (MinitM_{\rm init}) are known. In this paper we derive M˙\dot{M} values and luminosities for RSGs in two clusters, NGC 2004 and RSGC1. Using newly derived MinitM_{\rm init} measurements, we combine the results with those of clusters with a range of ages and derive an MinitM_{\rm init}-dependent M˙\dot{M}-prescription. When comparing this new prescription to the treatment of mass-loss currently implemented in evolutionary models, we find models drastically over-predict the total mass-loss, by up to a factor of 20. Importantly, the most massive RSGs experience the largest downward revision in their mass-loss rates, drastically changing the impact of wind mass-loss on their evolution. Our results suggest that for most initial masses of RSG progenitors, quiescent mass-loss during the RSG phase is not effective at removing a significant fraction of the H-envelope prior to core-collapse, and we discuss the implications of this for stellar evolution and observations of SNe and SN progenitors.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2001.07222,
  title  = {A new mass-loss rate prescription for red supergiants},
  author = {Emma R. Beasor and Ben Davies and Nathan Smith and Jacco Th. van Loon and Robert D. Gehrz and Donald F. Figer},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07222},
  year   = {2020}
}

Comments

13 pages, accepted to MNRAS