text:
# Comment on Inflation and Alternative Cosmology

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper , we argued that inflation does not provide a satisfactory explanation of the “special state” (i.e., homogeneity, isotropy, and flatness) of our universe. We then noted that the fundamental mechanism by which inflationary models produce cosmologically significant departures from homogeneity and isotropy involves the evolutionary behavior of modes whose proper wavelength is larger than the Hubble radius. Since this evolutionary behavior will occur whether or not inflation took place, we raised the possibility that one could account for the departures from homogeneity and isotropy in our universe via the same basic mechanism as in inflationary models, but without postulating that the universe actually underwent an era of inflation. We then identified a set of assumptions concerning initial conditions that would be sufficient to produce a perturbation spectrum of the same nature as that of inflationary models. Finally, we provided an explicit model in which these assumptions were made, and we carried out the calculations to show that a perturbation spectrum similar to that of inflationary models does, indeed, result.

Our arguments and conclusions have recently been criticized on a variety of grounds by Kofman, Linde, and Mukhanov . The main purpose of the present paper is to respond to these criticisms and to add some general comments on irreversibility and on the use of probabilistic arguments.

## 2 Pre-Planckian Initial Conditions

Inflationary models have the feature that, at sufficiently early times, the modes of cosmological interest had proper wavelength much smaller than the Hubble radius. Therefore, it seems natural to postulate that these modes were “born” in their ground state. In addition, on account of adiabatic evolution during the era when their wavelength is much smaller than the Hubble radius, the precise time at which they were “born” should not be important. In fact, upon closer inspection, these assumptions are seen to be far from obvious: In inflationary models, the modes of cosmological interest actually had wavelength very much smaller than the Planck scale at the onset of inflation. Therefore, if sub-Planckian physics deviates substantially from extrapolations of physics at scales larger than the Planck scale, the validity of inflationary models would be in doubt111However, investigations of some simple modifications of sub-Planckian physics indicates that inflationary models are not very sensitive to such modifications .. Nevertheless, inflationary models provide a simple “default assumption” concerning the initial state of modes of cosmological interest.

By contrast, in non-inflationary models, the modes of cosmological interest have proper wavelength much larger than the Hubble radius throughout the entire early evolutionary history of the universe. Therefore, one must directly confront the issue of the initial state of such modes. There is no theory presently capable of “predicting” the initial state of these modes, so one can only make hypotheses and assumptions. In , we put forward the hypothesis that a semiclassical description of physics may be possible at arbitrarily early times on length scales larger than some fundamental scale $`l_0`$. As we explained in footnote 7 of , we do not suggest that an accurate semiclassical description would be obtained by a naive extrapolation of a semiclassical solution to Einstein’s equation to times earlier than the Planck time, $`t_P`$. Rather, we proposed that some suitable “coarse graining” of the degrees of freedom of quantum gravity over length scales smaller than $`l_0`$ could yield an accurate (but, as yet, unknown to us) semiclassical description of nature. We further proposed that when modes of the quantum field “emerge from the spacetime foam” at lengthscale $`l_0`$, they do so in their ground state.

Our above assumptions concerning the initial state of the cosmologically relevant modes was criticized in  on the grounds that they do not follow from quantum field theory in curved spacetime. This criticism is, of course, entirely valid, since as already noted above, at the present time there does not exist any theory that is capable of predicting the initial state of these modes. Our assumptions were also criticized in  on the grounds that our assumed initial state depends only on $`l_0`$ whereas there are other scales present—in particular, the Hubble radius—that are dynamically more important in the evolution of these modes. This criticism is a more significant one. The only scale that directly enters the Lagrangian of a massless mode (see eq. (4) of ) is the proper wavelength of that mode, which by our assumptions is equal to $`l_0`$ at the semiclassical “birth” of the mode. Thus, we feel that our assumption that the modes are “born” in their ground state is not entirely unreasonable or unnatural—at least as an initial hypothesis. Nevertheless, we have no argument that other dynamically relevant scales could not enter their initial state. Clearly, the general issue of when modes can be treated semiclassically and in what state they are “born” is a deep issue, about which very little is known at present.

In , we also presented an explicit model—involving quantized sound waves of a perfect fluid—in which a perturbation spectrum was obtained that is of the same nature as occurs in inflationary models. As we stated very explicitly in the paper, we do not expect this model to be a realistic description of nature in the very early universe (particularly at times earlier than the Planck time). Rather, the purpose of presenting this model was to simply to illustrate how the “overdamped” evolution of modes with wavelength larger than the Hubble radius could produce cosmologically relevant perturbations in a context that is very different from inflationary models—thereby providing an “existence proof” of alternative models to inflationary ones. This model was sharply criticized in  for its unrealistic properties. We, of course, agree that the model we presented is not realistic, but this does not mean that there could not exist more realistic models that share its basic features.

The criticisms of  very nicely emphasize the point (which we also made in our paper) that in non-inflationary models, the time at which the cosmologically relevant modes have proper wavelength equal to $`l_0`$ occurs at times much earlier than the Planck time (or, more precisely, in a region of spacetime corresponding to times much earlier than the Planck time in naive extrapolations of classical or semiclassical models). Consequently, it is not likely that any reliable calculations can be done for non-inflationary models until our understanding of quantum gravitational physics improves significantly. However, we strongly disagree with the assertion of  that this fact provides an additional argument in favor of inflation. More precisely, it provides an argument in favor of inflation only in the sense that the (true) statement “If you are going to find your keys tonight, then you must have dropped them under the lamppost” provides an argument that you actually dropped your keys under the lamppost. We believe that the keys to understanding the origin of structure in our universe are likely to lie in the pre-Planckian era.

## 3 Irreversible Processes and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is clear that the present state of our universe is very “special” in the sense that its entropy is very much less than that of corresponding universes that are similar on large (i.e., Hubble) scales but are much more gravitationally clumped on small (e.g., galactic) scales. It is this “specialness” of our present universe—i.e., the fact that its entropy is very far from its maximum possible value—that gives rise to the second law of thermodynamics. In , we argued—following arguments previously given in —that rather than seeking to use the second law of thermodynamics or other dynamical arguments to explain how the universe arrived at its current state starting from arbitrary initial conditions, we should be seeking to use the (as yet to be developed) theory of initial conditions of the universe to explain how the second law of thermodynamics came into being. We argued further that inflationary models do not avoid the necessity of assuming “special” initial conditions for our universe. Indeed, we argued that if an expanding universe generically undergoes an era of inflation, then—unless one introduces assumptions that break time reversal invariance—a collapsing universe must generically undergo an era of “deflation”. We view this result as a reducto ad absurdum for the claim that special initial conditions are not needed for inflation to occur.

Our arguments and conclusions were criticized in  on a number of grounds. In particular, the simple model of a homogeneous scalar field in a flat Robertson-Walker universe was analyzed, and it was claimed that—in contradiction with our conclusions—in this model, inflation is an “attractor” whereas deflation is not. The analysis of this model given in  relies heavily on assumptions concerning the probability measure on initial conditions, so we will defer our discussion of this model to the next section. In the present section, we will comment on some of the other arguments concerning irreversibility given in .

We agree with the claims of  that many “irreversible processes” have occurred in the evolutionary history of our universe; indeed, the fact that irreversible processes have occurred is the main basis of our claim that the initial entropy of our universe was very low, i.e., that the universe began in a very “special” initial state. We also agree with their assertion that if one time-reversed \[a very slight modification of\] the initial conditions representing the present state of our universe, the subsequent evolution would not produce anything similar to the (time reverse of) the initial conditions that our universe started with. Indeed, the initial state of our universe appears to have been quite “smooth”, whereas the generic final state of a collapsing universe would be expected to be extremely “messy”, with numerous black holes forming and merging, etc. In particular, we certainly would not expect an era of deflation to occur just prior to the “big crunch”. But this is just our point: Why should not the initial state of the universe have been correspondingly messy? Why should there not have been many regions of “delayed big bang singularities” (i.e., white holes) filling the early universe, and, indeed, filling the present universe as well? We believe that the answer to these questions is that the initial state of the universe was very “special”.

We strongly disagree with the claim in  that particle production changes the number of degrees of freedom of a system222We note however that, while particle production does not change the number of degrees of freedom, the expansion of the universe does produce an effective change in the number of semiclassical degrees of freedom in the universe, since new semiclassical modes presumably “emerge from the spacetime foam” as the universe expands. In both inflationary models and in our proposal, these modes are assumed to emerge in their ground state and, hence, their emergence is not associated with particle creation. However, it is possible that this phenomenon may play a key role in accounting for the thermodynamic arrow of time.. Fundamentally, in quantum field theory the degrees of freedom reside in the field and are present whether or not the modes of the field are in their ground state or in excited states. The process of particle creation in the early universe is irreversible only in the same sense as the breaking of an egg, but not in any more fundamental sense. Contrary to the claim in , such “irreversible” dynamics in classical statistical physics is associated with a measure preserving flow on phase space.

## 4 The Probability of Inflation

We begin this section with two completely general remarks concerning the use of probabilistic arguments. First, probabilistic arguments can be used reliably when one completely understands both the nature of the underlying dynamics of the system and the source of its “randomness”. Thus, for example, probabilistic arguments are very successful in predicting the (likely) outcomes of a series of coin tosses. Conversely, probabilistic arguments are notoriously unreliable when one does not understand the underlying nature of the system and/or the source of its randomness. For example, if asked to estimate the conditional probability that if cows were to be discovered on a distant planet, then their color would be green, a physicist might proceed by taking the frequency bandwidth of the green part of the visible spectrum and dividing this by the bandwidth of the entire visible spectrum. By contrast, a chemist might take the number of common chemical compounds that are green and then divide this quantity by the total number of common chemical compounds. On the other hand, a biologist might first estimate the likelihood of the color of the planet itself by methods similar to that of the chemist, and then take camouflage and other survival factors into account to estimate the probability of the cow being green. Although each of these methods of estimation is arguably reasonable, it is not likely that any of them is reliable, particularly if the planet and the cows living on it are very different from anything we have experienced.

The second comment concerns the general situation where one has a manifold $`M`$ representing the possible states of a system, on which there is defined a measure $`\mu `$ such that $`\mu (M)=\mathrm{}`$. Consider a property, $`Q`$, of the system that corresponds to a (measureable) subset, $`S`$, of $`M`$. Suppose that we wish to know the probability, $`p(Q)`$, that property $`Q`$ holds. Then there are precisely three possibilities:

* $`\mu (S)<\mathrm{}`$. In this case, $`p(Q)=0`$.
* $`\mu (MS)<\mathrm{}`$. In this case $`p(Q)=1`$.
* $`\mu (S)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu (MS)=\mathrm{}`$. In this case $`p(Q)`$ is undefined.

In the last case, one might be tempted to define $`p(Q)`$ by considering a nested family of sets, $`K_n`$, of finite measure whose union is $`M`$, and considering the limit as $`n\mathrm{}`$ of $`\mu (SK_n)/\mu (K_n)`$. In practice, this might be done by introducing coordinates on $`M`$ and taking $`K_n`$ to be the coordinate ball of radius $`n`$. However, it is easy to see that one can get any answer for $`p(Q)`$ that one wishes by making a suitable choice of the sets $`K_n`$ or, equivalently, by a suitable choice of coordinates on $`M`$.

In , the model of a homogeneous scalar field in a spatially flat ($`k=0`$) Robertson-Walker universe was considered, and it was claimed that this model provides a counterexample to our claim that the probability of inflation should equal the probability of deflation. In fact, this model—including its generalization to the $`k=\pm 1`$ cases—was previously analyzed in detail by Hawking and Page . The $`k=+1`$ case is particularly relevant, since in this case all (or essentially all) solutions should start from a “big bang” singularity and end in a “big crunch” singularity, so the probabilities of inflation and deflation can be compared.

The model of  and  is a constrained Hamiltonian system on a 4-dimensional phase space, $`M`$. We choose as coordinates on $`M`$ the Robertson-Walker scale factor, $`a`$, the value of the scalar field, $`\varphi `$, and the canonically conjugate momenta, $`p_a=a\dot{a}`$ and $`p_\varphi =a^3\dot{\varphi }`$, respectively, where the overdot denotes the derivative with respect to proper time. The Hamiltonian of this system is given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}(a^1p_a^2+a^3p_\varphi ^2ka+m^2a^3\varphi ^2)$$
(1)
and the constraint hypersurface, $`𝒞`$, is given by $`=0`$.

As is well known, the Liouville measure, defined by the volume element

$${}_{}{}^{(4)}ϵ=dp_adadp_\varphi d\varphi ,$$
(2)
is invariant under dynamical evolution. It seems to be much less widely known that this measure induces a natural invariant measure, $`\mu `$, on on the constraint hypersurface, $`𝒞`$. This measure is given by the volume element $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}ϵ`$ on $`𝒞`$ that is determined by the condition that on $`𝒞`$ we have

$$d{}_{}{}^{(3)}ϵ={}_{}{}^{(4)}ϵ$$
(3)
(see, e.g., section 7 of ). Consequently, one way of defining the “probability of inflation”, $`p(I)`$, that appears to be very natural at least from a mathematical point of view would be to set $`p(I)=\mu ()/\mu (𝒞)`$, where $``$ denotes the region of $`𝒞`$ that is occupied by dynamical orbits that undergo an era of inflation. It is obvious that with this definition, we have $`p(I)=p(D)`$, where $`p(D)`$ denotes the similarly defined probability of deflation. However, by an analysis similar to that given in , it is not difficult to show that $`\mu (𝒞)=\mathrm{}`$, $`\mu ()=\mathrm{}`$, and $`\mu (𝒞)=\mathrm{}`$, so, by our general remarks above, the probabilities of inflation and deflation are not defined.

Alternatively, following , one could choose an initial data surface, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`𝒞`$—i.e., a two-dimensional surface on $`𝒞`$ that is intersected transversely by all (or almost all) of the dynamical orbits on $`𝒞`$—and try to define a measure directly on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. As noted in , the pullback of the symplectic form, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=dp_ada+dp_\varphi d\varphi `$, to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ yields a mathematically natural volume element on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that is invariant under dynamical evolution. One could then set $`p^{}(I)=\mu ^{}()/\mu ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ where $`\mu ^{}`$ denotes the measure on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ associated with the pullback of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $``$ now denotes the region of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ corresponding to initial data for inflationary solutions. In contrast to the probability $`p(I)`$ defined in the previous paragraph, the probability $`p^{}(I)`$ will depend upon the choice of initial data surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$—although it will be invariant under dynamical evolution of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For a choice of initial data surface of the form $`f(\varphi )=\mathrm{const}.`$, it was shown in  that $`\mu ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\mathrm{}`$, $`\mu ^{}()=\mathrm{}`$, and $`\mu ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\mathrm{}`$. Thus, for the measure $`\mu ^{}`$, as with the measure $`\mu `$ above, the probability of inflation is not defined. Indeed, section 5 of  provides a nice illustration of the above general point that if one attempts to define $`p^{}(I)`$ by a limiting procedure, the answer one obtains will depend upon how the limit is taken.

Alternatively, following , if one restricts attention to the case $`k=0`$, then—after taking the constraint $`=0`$ into account—the dynamical evolution equations for $`\varphi `$ can be expressed in terms of $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ alone, i.e., they do not depend upon $`a`$. One may then (arbitrarily) ignore the coordinate $`a`$ on the constraint hypersurface $`𝒞`$ and work in a new two dimensional space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$ parametrized by $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$. (This cannot be done for the cases $`k=\pm 1`$ since the dynamics of $`\varphi `$ in these cases depends on $`a`$, so this procedure is very special to the case $`k=0`$.) One may then (arbitrarily) define a Euclidean metric, $`g`$, on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$ by treating $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ as though they were Cartesian coordinates. If one then chooses an initial data surface $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$, this Euclidean metric $`g`$ will induce a Riemannian metric $`h`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and, thereby, a measure, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$, on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. This measure will not be preserved under dynamical evolution. One could then set $`\stackrel{~}{p}(I)=\stackrel{~}{\mu }()/\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ where $``$ now denotes the region of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ corresponding to initial data for inflationary solutions. This is precisely what was done in , with the initial data surface chosen to be $`H=l_P^1`$, where $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ denotes the Hubble constant (which is related to $`\varphi `$ and $`\dot{\varphi }`$ by the constraint). In this case, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})<\mathrm{}`$, so a well defined result for $`\stackrel{~}{p}(I)`$ is obtained. The numerical investigations of  establish that $`\stackrel{~}{p}(I)`$ is nearly $`1`$ if $`mm_P`$ (with most of the initial data giving rise to inflation satisfying $`\varphi m_P`$). However, since the measure used in  is not preserved under dynamical evolution, a different answer will be obtained if one uses the same procedure to calculate probabilities on a time evolved initial data surface. It was shown in  that a very small value would be obtained for the probability, $`\stackrel{~}{p}(I)`$, that inflation occurred in the early universe if one were to do the corresponding calculations using a late time initial data surface. This was interpreted in  as showing that the probability for deflation is small.

Clearly, many other possible choices of measure could be made and, correspondingly, many other conclusions of all varieties could be drawn. Indeed, the situation becomes even more murky when one considers more general, inhomogeneous models. In our view, the probability of inflation cannot be reliably estimated until one has some understanding of the physical processes that determine the initial state of our universe.

This research was supported in part by NSF grant PHY00-90138 to the University of Chicago.


format: text

text:
# Molecular gas freeze-out in the pre-stellar core L1689B

## 1 Introduction

Molecular line profiles from pre-stellar and protostellar objects potentially offer the best opportunity to extract dynamical information about the collapse process that leads to the formation of stars. However, it is becoming clear that the interpretation of these line profiles can be fraught with difficulty. Rawlings & Yates (2001) used a self-consistent chemical and dynamical model of collapsing star-forming cores to explore the effects of abundance variations. They showed that the line profiles can be very sensitive to the assumed values of the free parameters in the chemical models. The depletion of molecular species due to freeze-out can have a profound influence on the line profiles. Accurate abundances are required deep within these cores in order that any freeze-out is characterised properly.

The widely used tracer of molecular hydrogen, CO, is so abundant that, in the cold dark clouds in which stars are forming, it has a large optical depth and thus cannot trace the densest material. Very rare CO isotopomers are therefore used and in order of decreasing abundance these are 13CO, C18O, C17O, 13C18O and $`{}_{}{}^{13}\mathrm{C}_{}^{17}\mathrm{O}`$, recently discovered by Bensch et al. (2001) toward the $`\rho `$ Ophiuchi molecular cloud. Measuring abundances is not straightforward however because even some of the rare isotopes are mildly optically thick and the very rare isotopes can require impractically large integration times. C18O is often selected as a result of these conflicting demands but the analysis can be complicated by the lack of an optical depth estimate. In contrast, C17O is slightly less abundant than C18O and has a complex hyperfine structure revealed in several distinct line components. For a well detected line the hyperfine structure can be used to identify whether optical depth effects are present and hence abundances can confidently be calculated.

Of course, in order to calculate hydrogen column densities, abundance ratios between the different isotopomers are required. Bensch et al. (2001) demonstrated how by using several different isotopes of CO, the optical depths could be cross-checked and the abundance ratios measured. Effects such as isotope-selective photo-dissociation and chemical fractionation can be important in translucent clouds but are not thought to be significant in the cold dense environments considered here (Bensch et al., 2001).

Dust emission measurements can be used to calculate dust column densities and using a dust to gas ratio, a second estimate for the column density of hydrogen can be made. If this exceeds the hydrogen column density as traced by CO then it is possible that the CO is depleted from the gas-phase. The most probable reason for this is that the CO has frozen onto the surfaces of grains. Gibb & Little (1998) find CO abundances reduced by a factor of at least 10 towards the HH24-26 molecular cloud core by this method. They also carefully consider alternative explanations that do not require abundance differences such as optical depth and beam filling effects and show them to be unlikely. Recently Bergin et al. (2002) have found that not only CO but N2H+ is depleted in the Bok globule B68. This raises the possibility that in some cores there will be very few available infall tracers. Two very recent papers have invesitgated CO depletion. Bacmann et al. (2002) have investigated seven pre-stellar cores and find CO to be underabundant by factors of 4-15 amongst the cores. Jørgensen et al. (2002) modelled 18 pre-stellar cores and found that the class 0 sources in their sample are depleted in CO by an order of magnitude.

L1689B is a pre-stellar core located in Ophiuchus. Gregersen & Evans (2000) have observed L1689B in the lines of $`\mathrm{HCO}^+J=32`$ and $`\mathrm{H}^{13}\mathrm{CO}^+J=32`$. Their multipoint data seemed to indicate that the $`\mathrm{HCO}^+J=32`$ emission was double-peaked and blue-skewed, indicative of infall. This is supported by the single point $`\mathrm{CS}J=21`$ observations by Lee et al. (1999) which show a clear blue-peak asymmetry. Jessop & Ward-Thompson (2001) observed L1689B in C18O and although they did not have optical depth measurements and thus column densities for C18O they explored the dust density and temperature parameter space and argued that the CO has to be depleted in order to be compatible with the continuum data.

In this paper, observations of the rare $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}`$ isotope are presented and column densities derived and analysed in an attempt to quantify any depletion that is taking place. These data are discussed in terms of current models for pre-stellar cores in general and L1689B in particular.

## 2 Observations

The observations were carried out at the James Clark Maxwell Telescope (JCMT), Mauna Kea, Hawaii on the night of 2001 August 19. The $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ (224.714368 GHz) rotational transition was observed using the the heterodyne receiver RxA3. The JCMT half-power beam width (HPBW) is 19 arcsec at these frequencies. Typical system temperatures were 325 K. Five pointings at 20 arcsecond offsets at (-40,0), (-20,0), (0,0), (20,0), (40,0) were obtained for $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}J=21`$, centred at the epoch 1950 position (16:31:46.90, -24:31:55.98). Jessop & Ward-Thompson (2001) and Gregersen & Evans (2000) used a pointing position of (16:31:46.98, -24:31:45.00) while Lee et al. (1999) used a pointing position of (16:31:43.6,-24:31:40). The data were reduced in the standard manner using specx and the resulting spectra are displayed in Figure 1

## 3 Results

Due to the spin of the $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}`$ nucleus, $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ is composed of nine hyperfine components. Figure 2 depicts these components and their relative strengths (from the tabulation of Ladd et al. 1998). The hyperfine components are shown with very narrow line widths and also with a broadening of $`0.35\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ to illustrate the typical line shape that can be expected to be observed in cold quiescent cores. Since the stronger components will be affected relatively more by non-negligible optical depths, the shape of the blended line can be used to verify that the emission is optically thin in this line and transition. Figure 3 depicts an overlay of the data from the central position of L1689B with the expected optically thin line shape. We can conclude from the close fit that the line does not display any significant saturation effects and is thus of low optical depth. A detailed fit, using the HFS routine in the CLASS software package gives optical depths in the range $`0.51.5`$. For such low optical depths, the actual value obtained from the software should be treated with some caution as the deviations from an optically thin line shape are very small (for example, the fit in Fig. 3 is for very low optical depth) and likely to be strongly affected by the noise. In our later analysis, we adopt an optical depth of $`0.7`$ for all positions because this is consistent with other recent measurements (N.J. Evans ii, 2002 private communication). The results of the fit are given in Table 1 which also lists the line centre, line widths and optical depths obtained.

The net broadening (due to turbulent and instrumental broadening), $`V_{\mathrm{broad}}0.37\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This is smaller than the $`\mathrm{C}^{18}0`$ line width than measured by Jessop & Ward-Thompson (2001) who find $`V_{\mathrm{FWHM}}0.60.8\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for their singly peaked and gaussian line profiles (though as discussed below, this line is actually optically thick).

### 3.1 CO column densities

If it is assumed that the optical depth is small, local thermodynamic equilibrium holds, and the excitation temperature $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}>>T_{\mathrm{cmb}}`$ then the total column density of a species is given by

$$N_{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{3k}{8\pi ^3\nu }\frac{Q(T_{\mathrm{ex}})}{\mu ^2S}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E_u}{kT_{\mathrm{ex}}}\right)T_{\mathrm{mb}}dV.$$
(1)
where $`T_{\mathrm{mb}}dVT_\mathrm{A}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }V/\eta _\mathrm{B}`$, the integrated line intensity. If the integrated line strength is measured in $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, frequency in GHz, $`\mu `$ in debye ($`1\mathrm{debye}=(1/3)\times 10^{29}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{m}`$) and if an SI to CGS conversion factor of $`4\pi ϵ_0`$ is used then the column density is

$`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.67\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^2{\displaystyle \frac{Q(T_{\mathrm{ex}})}{\nu \mu ^2S}}`$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_u}{kT_{\mathrm{ex}}}}\right){\displaystyle T_{\mathrm{mb}}dV}.`$
The excitation temperature is taken to be 12K, as inferred by Jessop & Ward-Thompson (2001). The rotational energy levels are assumed to be thermalized at $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ and the partition function $`Q(T_{\mathrm{ex}})`$ for each species is evaluated by interpolating between values obtained from the JPL molecular line database (Pickett et al., 1998) and these are also listed in Table 2. Calculating a hydrogen column density from the $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}`$ emission requires knowledge of three conversion factors: the $`\mathrm{H}_2/\mathrm{CO}`$ abundance ratio, which we take to be $`3700`$ (Lacy et al., 1994); the oxygen isotope ratios $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}/{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}`$, taken to be 560 (Wilson & Rood, 1994) and $`{}_{}{}^{18}\mathrm{O}/{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{O}`$, taken to be 3.65 (Ladd et al., 1998; Penzias, 1981). The final conversion factor from $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}`$ to $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ is $`7.56\times 10^6`$.

Column densities are also calculated using archive $`\mathrm{C}^{18}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ data of Jessop & Ward-Thompson (2001). This is possible since the $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ line is optically thin and so the optical depth of the $`\mathrm{C}^{18}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ line can be calculated. Ladd et al. (1998) show that simply using the ratio of the peaks in these lines to calculate the optical depth is unsuitable. This is because the closely spaced fine structure of the $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ line means that the peak in this transition is very sensitive to the turbulent velocity. The integrated intensities are much more robust and the ratio of these are compared with figure 1 of Ladd et al. (1998) to infer that the optical depth in the $`\mathrm{C}^{18}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ line is $`\tau _{C18O}2`$. When the optical depth is moderate as in this case, Eqn (1) multiplied by a correction factor of $`\tau /(1\mathrm{exp}\tau )`$ can be used to calculate column density.

The column densities derived from the two lines are plotted as a function of offset in Figure 4. The agreement is excellent and both datasets show that the column density is remarkably flat across the face of the core.

### 3.2 Dust column densities

Evans et al. (2001) obtained SCUBA maps of L1689B and carried out a detailed radiative transfer analysis of the dust emission which enable them to place constraints on the temperature and density distribution in the envelope. The gas density distribution was well fitted by a Bonner-Ebert sphere with a central density of $`n_\mathrm{c}=1\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and outer radius of $`3\times 10^4\mathrm{AU}`$. The dust opacities used were from Ossenkopf & Henning (1994). Using the azimuthally averaged results of Evans et al. (2001), and their dust opacity, we calculate dust column densities, based on an assumed gas to dust mass ratio of 100 according to the usual formula

$$N=S_{850}/[\mathrm{\Omega }\kappa _{850}\mu m_\mathrm{H}B_{850}(T)]$$
(3)
where $`S_{850}=0.7\mathrm{Jy}`$ is the flux at 850 microns within a $`33\mathrm{}`$ beam, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle subtended by the beam, $`\kappa _{850\mu \mathrm{m}}=0.018\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{g}^1`$ is the dust opacity, $`\mu =2.2`$ is the mean molecular weight, $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ is the mass of hydrogen and $`B_{850\mu \mathrm{m}}(T)`$ is the Planck function at $`T=12\mathrm{K}`$. The dust column densities are plotted in Figure 4 and are consistent with those obtained by Bacmann et al. (2000, 2002) (who use a different opacity to calculate their column densities) and Ward-Thompson et al. (2002).

### 3.3 Depletion of CO

It is clear from Figure 4 that the two independent techniques for measuring the column density produce results that differ both in magnitude and distribution. As inferred by the above discussions, the exact normalisations of the curves in Figure 4 are subject to variation depending on the adopted values of dust opacity, isotopic ratios and molecular abundances. The most important aspect of Figure 4 is the flatness of the column density plot from CO compared with the centrally peaked dust measurements. This strongly indicates that depletion is occurring because the column density should rise for positions that approach the dense centre of the object. The most likely reason for this depletion is that the CO has frozen to the surface of the dust grains deep within the core. The best fit dust models of Evans et al. (2001) have a dust temperature profile that drops from $`12\mathrm{K}`$ at the edge of this pre-stellar core down to a temperature of $`7\mathrm{K}`$ at the centre. The combination of the higher gas density and the lower dust temperature is the likely reason for a substantial freeze-out of CO in the central regions of L1689B. An alternative explanation for these data is that the CO lies along the line of sight and is not actually part of the L1689B core. This can be ruled out since this would require the core to be completely depleted of CO in order that the column density remains roughly constant across the face of it.

Jessop & Ward-Thompson (2001) compared their $`\mathrm{C}^{18}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ data with earlier mm continuum data of André et al. (1996). Using a model for L1689B with power law profiles for the density, temperature and CO abundance, they explored the parameter space that would be consistent with both datasets. They conclude that the CO could be depleted by up to $`95\%`$ but they did not have an optical depth measurement for their $`\mathrm{C}^{18}\mathrm{O}`$ data. In contrast, our results indicate that the ratio of the column densities towards the centre is only around a factor of 3 or so. Of course, the CO is unlikely to be uniformly depleted and this factor of 3 represents the column depletion. The local depletion is likely to be much higher. This can be investigated by plotting the column densities that result from models where the radial density profile, abundance and temperature are all varied. To illustrate this in a very simple case, we use a constant temperature model and vary the abundance such that interior to a certain radius $`R_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ the CO is depleted by a factor 0.95 due to freeze-out. Instead of using the Bonner-Ebert density distributions which are inconvenient to work with, we use the parameters of the fit of Evans et al. (2001) in an equivalent Plummer-like sphere which has a density profile of the form (see, e.g. Whitworth & Ward-Thompson 2001; Whitworth & Bate 2001)

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\rho _0R_0^2}{(R_0^2+r^2)}$$
(4)
where $`\rho _0=1.0\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$ is the central density and $`R_0=750\mathrm{AU}`$ is an inner radius within which the density is approximately $`\rho _0`$. For the purposes here, the difference between the Bonner-Ebert and Plummer density distributions are of little consequence - both approximate $`\rho r^2`$ in the envelope and are roughly constant close to the centre. Figure 5 shows the column density that results from this simple Plummer sphere model for a range of values of $`R_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ with the top curve showing the underlying density distribution. Comparison with Figure 4 shows clearly that values of $`R_{\mathrm{freeze}}`$ of about $`40\mathrm{}5000\mathrm{AU}`$ would be able to reproduce the approximately flat CO abundance with a column depletion factor of about the correct degree. One could of course investigate the parameter space fully and include realistic variations in the freeze-out and temperature but we defer that to a later paper.

The close fit of the $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ lines by a model with only turbulent velocities (i.e. with no infall or outflow) indicates that the CO emitting material is static. In contrast, the $`\mathrm{HCO}^+J=32`$ and $`\mathrm{H}^{13}\mathrm{CO}^+J=32`$ data of Gregersen & Evans (2000) show double peaked line profiles indicating both that the HCO+ is self-absorbed and that the gas is undergoing bulk gas motions. These emissions are likely to originate from within the denser regions of the core. The flatness of the abundance points across the core measured using $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ (Figure 4) indicates that the CO is depleted from the central regions. Thus one can picture that L1689B is composed of a dynamical dense core which is depleted in CO but in which HCO+ is present. This is surrounded by a quiescent surrounding region where both CO and HCO+ are present.

## 4 Conclusions

Rare isotopes of CO have been observed towards the pre-stellar core L1689B. By using the hyperfine structure of $`\mathrm{C}^{17}\mathrm{O}J=21`$ the transition is confirmed to be optically thin and emitted by quiescent gas. This allows an estimate of the total column density as traced by this molecule to be made. A comparison of this value with that inferred by SCUBA dust emission measurements reveal the CO to be depleted in the central regions of this object. The magnitude and extent of the depletion is estimated by comparison with a simple model of a pre-stellar core with an inner depleted region. We estimate that within 5000 AU of the centre of L1689B, around 90% of the CO has frozen onto grains. The dust temperature at this radius is $`10\mathrm{K}`$ (from figure 5 of Evans et al. 2001). The sublimation temperature of CO is $`20\mathrm{K}`$ so potentially freeze-out could occur in the outer regions of the cloud. In practice of course, the timescale for freeze-out in the low density outer regions is long and freeze-out will occur only in those portions of the cloud with a high local density and low dust temperature.

For the physical parameters of L1689B, the rate of freeze-out of CO is given by (Rawlings et al., 1992)

$$\dot{n}_{\mathrm{CO}}=4.57\times 10^4d_\mathrm{g}a^2T^{1/2}Cn_\mathrm{H}S_{\mathrm{CO}}m_{\mathrm{CO}}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1$$
(5)
where $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{CO}}`$ are the hydrogen nucleon and CO densities respectively, $`m_{\mathrm{CO}}=28\mathrm{amu}`$ is the molecular mass of CO, $`d_\mathrm{g}`$ is the ratio of the number density of grains to CO molecules, $`a`$ is the grain radius, $`C`$ is a factor which accounts for electrostatic effects, $`S_{\mathrm{CO}}=1`$ is the assumed sticking co-efficient for CO. Using $`<d_\mathrm{g}a^2>2.2\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and $`T10\mathrm{K}`$ yields

$$\dot{n}_{\mathrm{CO}}=6.0\times 10^{18}n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{CO}}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1$$
(6)
Using a value of $`n_\mathrm{H}=2.8\times 10^5`$cm-3 for L1689B (Bacmann et al., 2000) we find that in the absence of other CO formation and destruction mechanisms, 90% depletion of CO is achieved after $``$43,400 years. This is approximately half of the nominal free-fall timescale (97,400 years) for the value of $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ quoted above, but we should be aware that the freeze-out timescale is a lower limit and would be larger if the sticking coefficient were less than unity, or if (as would seem likely) the cores have condensed from a less dense state. We may therefore conclude that the level of CO depletion may provide a sensitive indicator of the age of cores relative to their free-fall times and that a C17O survey of sources at various (early) stages of evolution could provide a powerful diagnostic of their dynamical status.

## Acknowledgements

We thank the referee for a prompt report that led to an improved paper. We thank W-F.D. Thi for useful discussions. MPR and DJN are supported by PPARC. We thank the staff of the JCMT for their excellent assistance during the observations. The JCMT is operated by the JAC, Hawaii, on behalf of the UK PPARC, the Netherlands NWO, and the Canadian NRC. We have made use of the JCMT data archive at the CADC, which is operated by the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory for the National Research Council of Canada’s Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics.


text:
# Main-sequence stellar eruption model for V838 Mon

## 1 Introduction

V838 Mon (Munari et al. 2002, hereafter MHK (02); Kimeswenger et al. kls (2002)), V4332 Sgr (Martini et al. mwt (1999)), and most probably M31 RV (M31 Red Variable – Mould et al. mcg (1990)), form a peculiar and mysterious group of erupting stellar objects. They do not fit to any known class of stellar outbursts. Just from the light curve they can be classified as slow novae but their spectral evolution clearly shows that they are not. After developing a K-type giant-supergiant spectrum near maximum they evolve to lower effective temperature and fade as very late M-type giants or supergiants. The bolometric fading at a very low effective temperature has undoubtly been observed for V4332 Sgr (Martini et al. mwt (1999)) and M31 RV (Mould et al. mcg (1990)). It seems that also V838 Mon is evolving in the same direction (e.g. Osiwała et al. omt (2002)). No hot phase, as e.g. nebular stage in classical novae, has been observed in any of the three objects. These observational facts almost certainly exclude any kind of thermonuclear event models, such as runaway models for classical novae (see e.g. that proposed for M31 RV by Iben & Tutukov it (1991)) or a late post-AGB He-shell flash (born-again AGB), which are usually discussed while trying to interpret the above variables (MHK (02); Kimesweneger et al. kls (2002)). The point is that the thermonuclear models after relatively cool phase at (visual) maximum always evolve to higher and higher effective temperature before they star fading in luminosity. The reason is that the stellar envelope, inflated by the initial thermonuclear outburst, starts shrinking well before the nuclear reactions start declining.

As usually in discussions of nature of a stellar outburst the observational data on the pre-outburst object are very important. Unfortunantely they are very scant in our case. Photometric data for V838 Mon in pre-outburst are consistent with an F-type main sequence star (MHK (02); Kimesweneger et al. kls (2002)), althought observational uncertainities are important. For V4332 Sgr a K-type star is suggested as a progenitor (Martini et al., mwt (1999)). There are no data on the pre-outburst state of M31 RV.

If a thermonuclear event is excluded as argued above, the next energy source that comes to mind is an accretion (or merging) event. We therefore investigate in this paper a scenario in which a $``$1.5 M (F-type) main sequence star accretes a less massive objects. Given the energy liberated during the observed outbursts it is clear that accretion of at least a massive planet onto the main sequence star has to be involved.

While constraining our model we use the results from observations of V838 Mon, as this is the best observed object from the three (e.g. MHK (02), Kimesweneger et al. kls (2002), Kolev et al. kmt (2002), Osiwała et al. omt (2002)). This star erupted in the begining of 2002, first by $``$6 mag. (in V) and as a K-type star it reached a luminosity of $`500(D/1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})^2\text{L}_{}`$, and a radius of $`55(D/1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})\text{R}_{}`$, where $`D`$ is the distance to V838 Mon. Next, after a month of a slow decline and cooling it had another brightning by $``$4.5 mag. and reached a luminosity of $`1.0\times 10^4(D/1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})^2\text{L}_{}`$, and a radius of $`120(D/1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})\text{R}_{}`$. Subsequent evolution can be described as a more or less horizontal evolution on the H-R diagram towards lower and lower effective temperatures somewhat interupted by a minor brightnening a month after the second outburst. The effective radius has countinuously been increasing and in April reached a value of $`400(D/1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})\text{R}_{}`$ (MHK (02)). Numerous spectral lines have been observed to show P-Cyg profiles during the outburst indicating an outflow with a velocity of 200-500 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$, but no mass loss rate estimate is available. Lines of LiI and BaII have been observed, but no analysis of the element abundances has been done. In mid April the star started a rapid decline in V accompanied by the spectral evolution to late M-types (Osiwała et al. omt (2002)).

A scattered light echo have been detected around V838 Mon and it was used to drive its distance. While MHK (02) derive a distance of $`D=0.79`$ kpc and Kimeswenger et al. (kls (2002)) derive a distance of $`D=0.66`$ kpc, a calcualtion by Bond et al. (bps (2002); H.E. Bond, private communication) yields a much larger distance of $`D3`$ kpc. Above, and in the rest of the paper, we scale the properties of V838 Mon with the distance, such that our model covers this entire distance scale. Indeed, one of the adavantages of our proposed model, is that it can account for a large range of luminosities, because the luminosity is fixed by the type and mass of the merging stars. Thus we can also account for M31 RV, which was significantly more luminous than the other two objects and reached $`10^6\text{L}_{}`$

Our paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we estimate the general properties of a main sequence star, the primary, which accretes mass from a destructed main sequence companion. These results are used in Sect. 3 to proposed a scenario to the eruption of V838 Mon. Our discussion and summary are in Sect. 4.

## 2 Accreting main sequence stars

Accreting main sequence stars were found to expand to giant dimensions in several different kind of calculations. These include the merger of two main sequence stars, in studying the formation of blue straggler stars (e.g. Sills et al. slb (1997)), mass accretion by a main sequence companion inside an envelope of a giant (Hjellming & Taam 1991, hereafter HT (91)), and an accreting low mass main sequence star (Prialnik & Livio 1985, hereafter PL (85)).

PL85 calculate the outcome of an accreting fully convective $`0.2M_{}`$ main sequence star. When a large fraction of the free fall energy of the accreted matter is retained, they find the star to expand. PL (85) parametrized the fraction of energy retain by a parameter $`\alpha `$,

$$U=\alpha GM_{}M_{\mathrm{acc}}/R_{},$$
(1)
where $`M_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$ are the mass and redius of the accreting main sequence star, respectively, and $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ is the accreted mass to the envelope. For an orbiting companion that is being destructed and accreted, the maximum available energy has $`\alpha =0.5`$. Not all this energy will be retain by the accreted matter which build the envelope in our model. Large fraction of the energy goes to radiaton and mass loss observed in the eruption of V838 Mon and the other objects. PL (85) calculate the accretion of mass up to $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=2.5\times 10^3M_{}`$, and find that when $`\alpha `$ is not too small the star expands. A good fit to their results of $`\alpha =0.1`$ and an accretion rate of $`\dot{M}_{acc}=10^2M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, and when the accreted mass is $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}>0.5\times 10^3M_{}`$, gives for the radius of the star

$$\frac{R_{}}{R_{}}2.2\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{acc}}}{10^3M_{}}\right)+0.5.$$
(2)
Extrapolating this fit to much higher accreted mass and radii, we find that to obtain a radius of $`R_{}50150R_{}`$ (characteristic fro the first brightening of V838 Mon), the accreted mass should be $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}0.020.07M_{}`$. With higher accretion rate and higher values of $`\alpha `$, PL (85) find larger radii.

In the calculations of HT (91), a $`1.25M_{}`$ main sequence star accretes from a giant up to $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}=0.115M_{}`$, at an increasing rate up to $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{acc}}10^2M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. The final radius of the accreting star depends on the entropy of the accreted gas, being lower for lower-entropy accreted gas. We take the higher entropy case; we later take the low entropy-high density gas to be accreted into the primary star. In this case (HT (91)’s model 2c), a good fit to figures 1a and 3a of HT (91) is

$$\frac{R_{}}{R_{}}1.4\times 10^{17(M_{\mathrm{acc}}/M_{})}.$$
(3)
This is a much stronger dependence than that found by PL (85), and cannot be extrapolated to much larger accreted mass since then the radius becomes too large. However, this formula does demonstrate that a small accreted mass can cause a large expansion when the star is already a giant. By the last fit, to obtain a radius of $`R3001500R_{}`$ (characteristic for the second, major outburst of V838 Mon), the accreted mass should be $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}0.140.2M_{}`$. The strong dependance in the last equation, suggests that with more energy supplied, as in the cores merger we discussed later, less mass can be inflated to large radii. Despite the large differences between the two works cited above, and the very different fits to PL (85) and HT (91), the amount of accreted mass, required to inflate a giant to $`R_{}300R_{}`$ is similar, and amounts to $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}0.15M_{}`$. In the proposed scenario, two main sequence stars merge on a dynamical scale, following dynamical instability (Rasio & Shapiro rs (1995)) and the accretion rate can be as high as $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{acc}}0.03M_{}/1\mathrm{day}=10M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. At such a high accretion rate, and with most energy deposited in the accreted mass, an accreted mass lower than $`0.15M_{}`$ can be inflated to giant dimensions. Therefore, for our scenario we take the inflated envelope mass to be $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}0.050.3M_{}`$.

In the calculations cited above the accreted mass was added to the outer layers of the inflated star. In our scenario, the mass is added at the base of the inflated envelope, at the surface of the original primary star. A somewhat different treatment of the energy budget is required. Let the destructed companion be split into low entropy-high density gas of mass $`M_c`$, i.e., the core of the companion, which is accreted and sinks into the core of the primary star, down to a radius $`r_f<R_1`$ (where $`R_1`$ is the initial radius of the accreting primary star) and a high entropy mass $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ which goes into the inflated envelope. This assumption is based on the numerical calculations of Sandquist, Bolte & Hernquist (sbh (1997)). The total energy of this structure is

$$E_g\frac{GM_1M_c}{r_f}+E_{\mathrm{env}},$$
(4)
where $`E_{\mathrm{env}}`$ is the gravitational energy of the envelope. For an envelope having a density profile of $`\rho =Kr^{2.5}`$ from $`R_1`$ to $`R_{}`$, where $`K`$ is a constant, which crudely fits the envelope found by PL (85) for the model cited above, the envelope energy has a simple approximated form for $`R_{}R_1`$, given by

$$E_{\mathrm{env}}\frac{G(M_1+M_c)M_{\mathrm{acc}}}{R_1}\left(\frac{R_1}{R_{}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(5)
The original energy of the binary system is

$$E_00.5\frac{GM_1M_2}{a},$$
(6)
where $`a`$ is the orbital separation at destruction. In addition, an energy $`E_2>0`$ should be supplied to destruct the companion. The condition to inflate the envelope becomes

$$E_0>E_g+E_2.$$
(7)
If $`M_c=0`$, this condition can be met only if $`a>0.5R_1(R_{}/R_1)^{1/2}`$. For $`R_{}/R_1500`$, this condition reads $`a>10R_1`$. However, we do expect the destruction to occur when $`a<2R_1`$. We conclude that a large fraction of the destructed companion in our scenario must be accreted as a low entropy mass into the companion.

As an example, consider the case of $`M_c=kM_2`$, hence $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}=(1k)M_2`$, $`r_f0.25R_1`$, as the size of the solar core, $`R_{}>300R_1`$, and $`a=2R_1`$. We also take the destruction energy of the companion to be

$$E_2=\beta \frac{GM_cM_{\mathrm{acc}}}{R_2}.$$
(8)
The envelope of the companion before destruction, of mass $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}`$, has a smaller average radius than $`R_2`$. On the other hand, there is thermal energy of the companion. Hence $`\beta 23`$. Another energy source not considered here is the rotation energy of each of the two stars, which are likely to corotate in our scenario (see next section). Condition (7) becomes then

$$1<16k4\beta k(1k)\frac{R_1M_2}{R_2M_1}+4(1k)\left(1+k\frac{M_2}{M_1}\right)\left(\frac{R_1}{R_{}}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(9)
From this condition it is clearly seen that when $`k=0`$, the envelope can be inflated only to $`R_{}<16R_1`$. For $`k0.3`$ and $`R_{}R_1`$, the last term, which is the energy of the inflated envelope can be neglected. Taking also $`R_1M_2R_2M_1`$, the last condition is simplified to

$$1<4k[4\beta (1k)]$$
(10)
for the assumed parameters here, the last condition is met by a large margin for $`k0.3`$. This means that even by relaxing some of the assumptions used here, a giant may still be formed from such a process.

Not all the energy will be retain by the accreted matter which build the envelope in our model. Some fraction of the energy goes to the fast wind and radiation as observed in the eruptions. It is interesting to note that the radiation requires only small amount of mass to be accreted on the surface of the original primary star. Taking the energy of the effective-accreted mass that goes to radiation to be that of a Keplerian disk, we find this effective mass accretion rate to be

$$\dot{M}_{\mathrm{rad}}6\times 10^4\left(\frac{L}{10^4L_{}}\right)\left(\frac{R_1}{R_{}}\right)\left(\frac{M_{}}{M_{}}\right)^1M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(11)
For a distance to V838 Mon of $`D=3`$ kpc, the luminosity is $`L10^5\text{L}_{}`$, and the accreted mass over several years is still very small.

## 3 The proposed scenario

Based on the previous section, in particular on our estimate that a mass of $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}0.050.3`$ is required to inflate the envelope to $`5001500\text{R}_{}`$, we proposed the following general scenario for the eruption of V838 Mon. The progenitor was a close binary system composed of two main sequence stars: a primary with $`M_11.5M_{}`$, and a companion with a mass $`0.1\text{M}_{}\text{M}_20.5\text{M}_{}`$. The small orbital separation implies that the spins of both stars were synchronized with the orbital period, and the orbit was circular. Due to evolution, mainly magnetic winds, possibly from both stars, the system lost angular momentum at a relatively fast rate, and the orbital separation decreased. One of the stars filled its Roche lobe, and transferred mass to the other. For main sequence stars, the increase of stellar radius with the stellar mass is steeper that the increase of the average Roche lobe size with mass (e.g., see formula by Eggleton egg (1983)), and the more massive primary star is likely to fill its Roche lobe first. At about the same time as Roche lobe overflow occurs, a binary system of two low mass main sequence stars becomes dynamically unstable (Rasio & Shapiro rs (1995)). This implies a very fast merger and mass transfer of the outer layers of the stars. It is possible that the mass transfer of the outer layer of the primary star onto the secondary caused the envelope to be first inflated around the secondary star. In any case, mass transfer of the outer layers of the primary or of both stars, we propose, caused the first burst in luminosity, when V838 Mon reached a radius of $`50R_{}`$. Then, the secondary was accreted onto the primary, in particular the core of the secondary merged with the core of the primary, a process that released much more energy. We proposed that this caused the second burst after about a month.

The merging process is likely to be complicated, with different epochs of variation in the luminosity, as parcells of gas being accreted and the merged stars, both envelope and the merging cores, are settled to a new equilibrium. As noted in equation (11), a very small amount of accreted mass can lead to a relatively strong burst. Such a variation could cause the third outburst, which occurred about a month after the second burst, and which required, if lasted one month, only $`5\times 10^5M_{}(D/1\mathrm{kpc})^2`$ to be accreted on the initial surface of the primary star.

## 4 Discussion and Summary

Our main goal is to point out that the energy source of the outburst of V838 Mon was, and still is, an accretion event, i.e., gravitational energy, rather than thermonuclear runaway. We considered the merger of two main sequence stars, of masses $`M_11.5M_{}`$, and $`M_20.10.5M_{}`$. In our proposed scenario, the first outburst, with a luminosity of $`L_{}500(D/1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})^2\text{L}_{}`$ and an envelope radius of $`R_{}55(D/1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})R_{}`$, was caused by the merger of the outer layers of the two stars, via dynamical instability. First mass was transfered from the more massive primary to the secondary; most likely the envelope was first inflated around the secondary. Then, after about a months, the cores of the two stars collided, releasing more energy, this led to the expansion of V838 Mon to $`R_{}400(D/1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})R_{}`$, and its luminosity to reache $`L_{}1.0\times 10^4(D/1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c})^2L_{}`$. Equation (11) shows that a small amount of accreted mass can lead to large luminoisty variations. As the two merged stars settled to equilibrium, the luminoisty varies; such a process caused the third outburst as well.

As mentioned in Sect. 1 a light echo have been detected around V838 Mon during outburst. MHK (02) and Kimeswenger et al. (kls (2002)) interpret this as due to scattering on circumstellar dust. This obviously rises a question about the origin of the circumstellar dust. In our scenario the dust would reside in remains of a protostellar cloud from which the V838 Mon binary system has been formed. This would imply a relatively young age of V838 Mon which is consistent with its low distance ($``$13 pc) from the Galactic plane (MHK (02)). It is, however, also possible that the echo is due to interestellar dust, as suggested by Bond et al. (bps (2002)), and then obviously it has nothing to do with the nature of V838 Mon.

In principle, mergers of other types of stars is possible. We note that the possible locations of the progenitor of V838 Mon on the HR-diagram (MHK (02)), intersects the location of a zero-age horizontal branch (HB) star which lost most of its envelope on the RGB (D’Cruz et al. cdr (1996)). Merger of such an HB star with a low mass main sequence star may leed to an inflated envelope around the HB star, similar in many respects to the scenario proposed in the previous section. The HB star lost most of its envelope because of the interaction with the low mass main sequence companion via a common envelope evolution, which started when the HB progenitor was on the upper red ginat branch. In this scenario the dust-halo can be attributed to the high mass loss rate on the red giant branch.

Finally it is worth of noting that the effective photosphere of the three objects seems to increase more or less steadilly with time during outburst. In the case of M31 RV it expanded up to $`8000\mathrm{R}_{}`$ (Mould et al. mcg (1990)). This would imply that the observed photospheric regions are not in hydrostatic equillibrium. The models of HT (91) and PL (85), on which our considerations in Sect. 2 are based, are in hydrostatic equillibrium. Slowly expanding envelopes would probably require less mass and thus lower $`M_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ than hydrostatic envelopes inflated to large radii. Thus accretion of an object of even lower mass then estimated in Sect. 2 could give origin to the observed outbursts.

This work has partly been supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research through the grant No. 2.P03D.020.17. N. S. has also been supported by a grant from the USA-Israel Binational Science Foundation and the Israel Science Foundation.