text:
# The broken light curves of gamma-ray bursts GRB 990123 and GRB 990510

## 1 Introduction

In the first few months of 1999 bright optical afterglows (OAs) were observed for two gamma-ray bursts (GRBs): GRB~990123 and GRB~990510. Extensive follow-up observations were made at optical wavelengths for both GRBs, so it was possible to follow their light curves down to $`V28`$, with the deepest photometry being done with the *Hubble Space Telescope* (*HST*). These data, when put onto a common photometric system, can be used to constrain the shape of each burst’s light curve. The resulting shape parameters (the time of the break, and the slopes before and after the break) can be used to constrain physical models of the OA, and the interaction of the relativistic ejecta from the initial blast with the surrounding medium.

At 9:46:56.12 UT on 1999 January 23 the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) detectors on the *Compton Gamma Ray Observatory* satellite detected GRB~990123 in the constellation Boötes. $`X`$-ray observations from the Dutch–Italian satellite *BeppoSAX* localized the position of the burst to within $`5\mathrm{}`$ (Piro P99 (1999)) and the Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment (Akerlof & McKay AM99 (1999); Akerlof et al. ABB1999 (1999)) detected an OA that reached a peak magnitude of $`V=8.86\pm 0.02`$ just 47 seconds after the BATSE trigger. Further optical observations constrained the redshift to between $`1.60z<2.04`$ (Andersen et al. AC99 (1999); Kulkarni et al. 1999a ), and images taken with the *HST* Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) revealed a host galaxy with $`V_0=24.25`$ (Holland & Hjorth HH99 (1999)). The burst had a peak fluence of $`(5.09\pm 0.02)\times 10^4`$ erg cm-2 (Kippen 1999a ), which places it in the top 0.3% of the BATSE fluence distribution. This corresponds to a total energy release, assuming isotropy and depending on the details of the adopted cosmology, of between $`3\times 10^{54}`$ and $`4.5\times 10^{54}`$ erg, which is approximately the rest-mass energy of two neutron stars. This amount of energy is difficult to explain using merging compact objects since it would require that the entire rest mass of both objects be converted to gamma radiation with an efficiency of nearly 100%.

GRB~990510 (the Anja burst) was detected by both the *Compton Gamma Ray Observatory* and *BeppoSAX* in the constellation Octans at 8:49:05.95 UT on 1999 May 10. Optical follow-up observations 3.5 hours after the burst revealed an OA with $`R17.5`$ (Axelrod et al. AMS99 (1999)). Vreeswijk et al. (VG1999 (1999)) found a lower limit for the redshift of $`z=1.619`$. A faint galaxy ($`V=28.5\pm 0.5`$) has been detected $`0\stackrel{}{.}066\pm 0\stackrel{}{.}009`$ from the GRB (Bloom B2000 (2000); Fruchter et al FHP2000 (2000)). The burst had a peak fluence of $`(2.56\pm 0.09)\times 10^5`$ erg cm-2 (Kippen 1999b ), which places it in the top 9% of the BATSE fluence distribution. This corresponds to a total isotropic energy release, depending on the details of the cosmology, of at least $`10^{53}`$ erg, approximately one order of magnitude less than the energy released in GRB~990123.

The light curve for GRB~990123 became steeper approximately two days after the burst (Castro-Tirado et al. CT99 (1999), Kulkarni et al. 1999a ), while Harrison et al. (HB99 (1999)), Israel et al. (IMC1999 (1999)), and Stanek et al. (SGK1999 (1999)) found that the light curve of GRB~990510 became significantly steeper approximately 1.5 days after the burst. These breaks have been interpreted as evidence that the outflows from the bursts are collimated with opening angles of approximately $`5\mathrm{°}`$$`10\mathrm{°}`$ (Sari et al. SP99 (1999), Castro-Tirado et al. CT99 (1999)). Such models provide a solution to the so-called “energy crisis” of GRBs since, if GRBs are collimated outflows, the total energy requirement drops by factor of between approximately 100 and 1000. This makes the energetics of GRBs consistent with the energetics of supernovae and merging compact objects.

Before GRB~990123 GRB light curves were usually fit by power laws of the form $`f_\nu (t)=kt^\alpha `$ where $`k`$ is a normalization constant and $`\alpha `$ is between approximately $`1`$ and $`2`$. The steepest temporal decay was $`\alpha =2.5`$ for the OA associated with GRB~971227 (Djorgovski et al. D98 (1998)). The first evidence that the decay of the optical light curve from an OA varies with time came from GRB~990123, where $`\alpha `$ rapidly steepened from $`1.10\pm 0.03`$ to $`1.65\pm 0.06`$ with the break occurring $`2.04\pm 0.46`$ days after the burst (Kulkarni et al. 1999a ). Harrison et al. (HB99 (1999)), Israel et al. (IMC1999 (1999)), and Stanek et al. (SGK1999 (1999)) found that the optical light curve for GRB~9900510 exhibited a similar behavior, but with a slow transition between the two regimes. Harrison et al. (HB99 (1999)) used a four-parameter fitting function to find slopes of $`0.82\pm 0.02`$ before the break and $`2.18\pm 0.05`$ after the break with the break occurring $`1.20\pm 0.08`$ days after the burst. However, Stanek et al. (SGK1999 (1999)) found slopes of $`0.76\pm 0.01`$ before and $`2.40\pm 0.02`$ the break with the break occurring $`1.57\pm 0.03`$ days after the burst; and Israel et al. (IMC1999 (1999)) found $`0.88\pm 0.03`$ before and $`2.68\pm 0.13`$ after with a break at $`1.8\pm 0.2`$. The latter two groups used a different four-parameter fitting function from Harrison et al. (HB99 (1999)), and the fits formally disagree with each other.

In this paper we collect the published photometry for the OAs associated with GRB~990123 and GRB~990510, examine three fitting functions for broken light curves, and use these fits to constrain physical models for the burst. We investigate the effects of using different fitting functions on determining the time of the break and the slope of the light curve before and after the break. Our goal is to determine reliable light curve parameters for each GRB and to use these parameters to distinguish between different physical models for the nature of each OA. Sect. 2 discusses the three fitting functions that we used to determine the break time, and the slopes of each light curve. Sect. 3 presents our fits to the light curve of GRB~990123’s OA and an estimate of the slope of the optical spectrum of the OA. Sect. 4 presents our fits to the light curve of GRB~990510’s OA and an estimate of the slope of its optical spectrum. We discuss the effects of the choice of the fitting function on the determination of the break time and slopes of the light curves for each burst. In Sect. 5 we discuss various models for the decay of the light curves, and in Sect. 6 we derive some physical properties for the bursts based on our fits to the light curves. We have written these sections in such a way that they can be used with data from other GRBs.

We have adopted a cosmology with a Hubble parameter of $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, and assumed a density parameter of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.2`$ and no cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) throughout this paper.

## 2 Fitting the Light Curves

The choice of fitting function is arbitrary, but that choice can affect the determination of the slopes and break time, and thus can influence the interpretation of the light curve. For example, Jensen et al. (JFG2000 (2000)) find different break times and slopes for the decay of the optical light curve of GRB~000301C depending on whether a broken power law or the continuous function of Stanek et al. (SGK1999 (1999)) is fit to the data. We have chosen to fit the light curves for the OAs associated with GRB~990123 and GRB~990510 with three fitting functions. The first of these is a broken power law,

$$f_\nu (t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}f_\nu (t_b)(t/t_b)^{\alpha _1},\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & tt_b\hfill \\ f_\nu (t_b)(t/t_b)^{\alpha _2},\hfill & \mathrm{if}\hfill & t>t_b,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`f_\nu (t)`$ is the flux in $`\mu `$Jy $`t`$ days after the burst, and $`t_b`$ is the time that the light curve made the transition from a slope of $`\alpha _1`$ to a slope of $`\alpha _2`$. The slope goes as $`f_\nu t^{\alpha _1}`$ before the break and $`f_\nu t^{\alpha _2}`$ after the break with an instantaneous transition between the two slopes. This is the simplest form that can be fit to the data, and it can be reduced to two linear functions (i.e., $`\mathrm{ln}\left(f_\nu (t)\right)=\alpha _1(t/t_b)+\mathrm{ln}\left(f_\nu (t_b)\right)`$ before the break and $`\mathrm{ln}\left(f_\nu (t)\right)=\alpha _2(t/t_b)+\mathrm{ln}\left(f_\nu (t_b)\right)`$ after the break), which simplifies the fitting process.

The second fitting function is,

$$f_\nu (t)=\frac{f_\nu (t_b)}{1e^1}\left(\frac{t}{t_b}\right)^{\alpha _1}\frac{\left[1e^J\right]}{J},$$
(2)
where $`J=(t/t_b)^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}`$. This is the continuous function used by Harrison et al. (HB99 (1999)). It is differentiable at $`t=t_b`$, and is generally more flexible than Eq. (1) is. It is able to model the slow transition between the $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ regimes, which may be more physically realistic than the instantaneous transition that is assumed by the broken power law.

The third fitting function is,

$$f_\nu (t)=\frac{2f_\nu (t_b)(t/t_b)^{\alpha _2}}{1+(t/t_b)^{\alpha _2\alpha _1}},$$
(3)
which is the same as that used by Stanek et al. (SGK1999 (1999)) and Israel et al. (IMC1999 (1999)), except that we have redefined $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ to be consistent with our Eqs. (1) and (2). This function has the same advantages over Eq. (1) that Eq. (2) does.

We wish to stress that none of these functional forms have been derived from any physical principles, and that they are *not* based on any model for the GRB or its OA. The three forms were selected solely because they allow us to parameterize the observed light curves for GRB~990123 and GRB~990510. We used CERN’s Minuit function minimization package, and a chi-square minimization scheme, to simultaneously solve for the four free parameters ($`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$, $`t_b`$, and $`f_\nu (t_b)`$) and to compute the formal 1$`\sigma `$ errors in the fit for each parameter.

## 3 GRB 990123 Data

### 3.1 The Photometry

We collected the published optical observations of the OA associated with GRB~990123 from six sources: Castro-Tirado et al. (CT99 (1999)), Fruchter et al. (1999b ), Galama et al. (1999a ), Holland & Hjorth (HH99 (1999)), Kulkarni et al. (1999a ), and Fruchter et al. (1999c ). These data consists of 88 observations in the Johnson $`B`$-, and $`V`$-bands, Kron-Cousins $`R`$-, and $`I`$-bands, and Gunn $`r`$-band. The observations were taken at 19 telescopes over a two month period after the burst. In cases where the same observation was reported in two or more sources, and the quoted magnitudes disagreed with each other, we discarded both observations. This was done because we had no reason to favour one source over the other. In cases where a Gunn $`r`$-band magnitude was derived from an $`R`$-band magnitude we discarded the derived Gunn $`r`$-band data and kept the original $`R`$-band data.

We converted the published magnitudes to fluxes using the photometric zero points, $`f_{\nu ,0}`$ from Fukugita et al. (FS95 (1995)). These zero points, and the central wavelengths for each band pass, are listed in Table 1. In order to convert the published photometry to a uniform set of fluxes we applied our own corrections for the light of the probable host galaxy (Holland & Hjorth HH99 (1999)). In cases where the light from the galaxy had already been subtracted in the published photometry we added it back using the magnitude for the galaxy that was given in the source then subtracted a uniform estimate of the light from the galaxy based on the data of Holland & Hjorth (HH99 (1999)) ($`V_0=24.25\pm 0.07`$, see Table 2). Castro-Tirado et al. (CT99 (1999)) used $`UBVRI`$ photometry to determine a spectral energy distribution of $`f_\nu \nu ^{\beta _{\mathrm{gal}}}=\mathrm{constant}`$, i.e., $`\beta _{\mathrm{gal}}0`$, for the host galaxy. Therefore, we converted the Holland & Hjorth (HH99 (1999)) $`V`$-band flux for the galaxy to the other band passes using $`\mathrm{mag}=V+K_{\mathrm{mag}}K_V2.5\beta \mathrm{log}_{10}(\nu _{\mathrm{mag}}/\nu _V)`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{gal}}=0`$ where $`K_V`$ and $`K_{\mathrm{mag}}`$ are the photometric zero points of the two band passes. The Castro-Tirado et al. (CT99 (1999)) photometry, and our adopted (dereddened) magnitudes and fluxes for the probable host galaxy, are listed in Table 2. A flat spectrum is consistent with the probable host galaxy being a starburst galaxy.

The Galactic reddening in the direction of GRB~990123 is $`E_{BV}=0.016\pm 0.020`$ (Schlegel et al. SF98 (1998)). We assumed that there is no extinction in the host galaxy, but this is probably not a good assumption since it is unlikely that a starburst galaxy is devoid of dust. Reddening due to dust in the host galaxy may result in us underestimating the flux from the host galaxy, and thus overestimating the flux from the OA. To avoid this uncertainty we have fit light curves to each band pass separately since the systematic error in the flux introduced by the unknown extinction will only affect the zero-point of the flux in each bandpass, not the slopes of the light curves.

The fits for each band pass, and each fitting function, are given in Table 3. The uncertainties in the parameters are the formal 1$`\sigma `$ errors in the fit and do not include contributions from the covariance between the parameters. The slopes are not strongly correlated with each other, but they are moderately correlated with the location of the break. None of the residuals show any time dependence.

The weighted mean values for each parameter, their standard errors (SE), and the $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom ($`\chi _{\mathrm{DOF}}^2`$) values, are listed in Table 4, for each fitting function. The $`BVrRI`$ data was used to compute the mean values of the fits to the broken power-law (Eq. (1)) and the $`BVrR`$ data was used to compute the mean values of the fits to the two continuous functions (Eqs. (2) and (3)). The $`I`$-band data were not used when computing the latter two sets of mean values because the fits to the $`I`$-band data were not reliable for $`t<t_b`$. The mean values of $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ agree to within one $`\sigma `$ regardless of which function is fit to the data, but the mean value of $`t_b`$ is significantly smaller for Eq. (2) (Harrison’s function) than it is for the other two fitting functions. However, the broken power law (Eq. (1)) gives considerably less scatter in the values of each parameter, particularly $`t_b`$, for different band passes than the other two fitting functions do. Therefore, we conclude that the broken power law gives a better fit to the GRB~990123 light curves than either of the continuous functions do. This suggests that the break in the light curve may have been very rapid. The 1$`\sigma `$ error in the break time for a broken power law is 0.19 days (see Table 4), which suggests that the break may have occurred over a period of only a few hours. Figs. 15 show the data for each band pass with the best-fitting broken power laws superimposed.

To test if the break time depends on the wavelength we computed the probabilities that the break times in each band pass are consistent with the mean break time. If the individual break times are not consistent with the mean then this would suggest that the break between the $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ regimes depends on wavelength, which would be inconsistent with the predictions of the relativistic fireball model. This method makes no assumptions about the physical origin of the light curve. We checked if the break time was dependent on wavelength by evaluating the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic for the weighted mean value of $`t_b`$. The $`\chi _{\mathrm{DOF}}^2`$ value, and $`P`$, the probability that we can reject the null hypothesis that the break time seen in each band pass is consistent with the mean break time (i.e. $`P`$ is the probability that the break time changes with wavelength), are listed in Table 4. Similar calculations were done for the slopes $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$. The $`P`$ values are all less than 0.9, so we conclude that there is no evidence that the break time, or the slopes, vary with wavelength.

### 3.2 The Spectrum of the Optical Transient

We have assumed that the OA for GRB~990123 has a power-law spectrum of the form

$$f_\nu (\nu )=f_\nu (10^{15}\mathrm{Hz})\left(\frac{\nu }{10^{15}\mathrm{Hz}}\right)^{\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}},$$
(4)
where $`f_\nu (\nu )`$ is the flux, in $`\mu `$Jy, at the frequency $`\nu `$, and $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}`$ is the spectral index. The choice of $`10^{15}`$ Hz as a reference frequency is arbitrary, but this value gives $`\nu /10^{15}1`$, which results in stable fits of the flux data to Eq. (4).

We estimated the spectrum at a series of times by taking the $`B`$-, $`V`$-, $`R`$-, and $`I`$-band data in 0.1-day intervals and fitting it to Eq. (4). Only intervals that contained at least three observations spanning two or more filters were considered. Fig. 6 shows the values of $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}`$ determined this way. The weighted mean spectral index is $`\overline{\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}}=0.750\pm 0.068`$ (SE) with $`\chi _7^2=0.4711`$. The low $`\chi _{\mathrm{DOF}}^2`$ value suggests that we can reject the null hypothesis, that the spectral index is constant with time, at the 17% confidence level. This is too low to be able to reject the null hypothesis, so we conclude that there is no evidence for a variable $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}`$. Our value of $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}`$ is consistent with the direct measurement of Andersen et al. (AC99 (1999)). They found $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}=0.69\pm 0.10`$ between 4000 Å $`\lambda `$ 5700 Å from a spectrum of the OA that was taken 0.8 hours after the burst.

## 4 GRB 990510 Data

### 4.1 The Photometry

We collected the published optical observations of the OA associated with GRB~990510 from eleven sources: Beuermann et al. (BH99 (1999)), Covino et al. (CL99 (1999)), Fruchter et al. (1999a ), Galama et al. (1999b ), Harrison et al. (HB99 (1999)), Marconi et al. (1999a 1999b ), Pietrzyński & Udalski (1999a 1999b 1999c ), and Stanek et al. (SGK1999 (1999)). These data consists of 182 observations in the Johnson $`V`$-band, and in the Kron-Cousins $`R`$-, and $`I`$-bands. The observations were taken at seven telescopes up to 40 days after the burst. The published magnitudes were converted to fluxes in the same manner as described in Sect. 3.1. No corrections were made for a host galaxy since no host galaxy has been observed for this burst to a limiting magnitude of $`R=27.6`$ (Beuermann et al. BH99 (1999))111Recently Bloom (B2000 (2000)) and Fruchter et al (FHP2000 (2000)) reported evidence for a faint ($`V=28.5\pm 0.5`$) host galaxy. This corresponds to a flux of $`0.014`$ $`\mu `$Jy in the V band, which is not sufficient to affect the results of our fits.. The Galactic reddening in the direction of GRB~990510 is $`E_{BV}=0.203\pm 0.020`$ (Schlegel et al. SF98 (1998)). We assumed that the extinction in the host galaxy was $`A_V=0`$.

The fits for each band pass, and each fitting function, are given in Table 5. The uncertainties in the parameters are the formal 1$`\sigma `$ errors in the fits and do not include contributions from the covariance between the parameters. The residuals for all three fitting functions show some structure near the location of the break. This suggests that none of the three fitting functions which we used in this paper accurately reproduce the temporal behavior of the light curve during the transition from the $`\alpha _1`$ regime to the $`\alpha _2`$ regime. The last two $`V`$-band observations, and the last $`R`$-band observation, were derived from images taken with the *HST*/STIS and were transformed from the 50CCD (clear) aperture to the $`V`$ and $`R`$ bands assuming a spectral index of $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}=0.6`$ (Fruchter et al. 1999a ). These observations were taken approximately one month after the other observations, so the large residuals for these three data points may be due to a change in the shape of the OA’s spectrum during that period, or systematic uncertainties in transforming the 50CCD magnitudes to $`VR`$ magnitudes.

The weighted mean values for each parameter, their standard errors, and the $`\chi _{\mathrm{DOF}}^2`$ values are listed in Table 6 for the fits to each fitting function. The mean values of $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$, and $`t_b`$ agree to within approximately $`1.5\sigma `$ regardless of which function is fit to the data. However, there are systematic variations in the residuals of the fits of Eq. (1) (the broken power law) to the $`V`$\- and $`R`$-band data. This indicates that one of the continuous functions (Eq. (2) or (3)) provides a better fit to the data than the broken power law (Eq. (1)) does, which in turn suggests that the break in the light curve was not nearly instantaneous as was the case with GRB~990123, but may have occurred over a period of approximately one day. Eq. (2) (Harrison’s function) gives the smallest residuals, and the least scatter in the values of the parameters in different band passes, so we have adopted it as the best fitting function. The $`P`$ values in Table 6 are all less than 0.7, so we conclude that there is no evidence for any variation in $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$, or $`t_b`$ with wavelength. Figs. 79 show the data for each band pass with the best-fitting continuous functions superimposed.

### 4.2 The Spectrum of the Optical Transient

We estimated the spectral index for the OA associated with GRB~990510 in the same way as we did for the OA associated with GRB~990123 (see Sect. 3.2). Fig. 10 shows the values of $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}`$ that were determined in this manner. The weighted mean spectral index is $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}=0.531\pm 0.019`$ (SE) with $`\chi _{14}^2=1.6598`$, which suggests that we can reject the hypothesis that the spectral index is constant with time at the 95% confidence level. Our mean value for $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}`$ is consistent (within $`1.5\sigma `$) with the value obtained by Beuermann et al. (BH99 (1999)) using long-slit spectrophotometry 3.9 days after the burst. They found $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}=0.55\pm 0.10`$ in the interval 4900 Å $`\lambda `$ 9000 Å.

Our result is consistent with the spectral index increasing from $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}0`$ at the time of the burst to $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}0.6`$ at the time of the break in the light curve ($`t_b=0.82\pm 0.28`$ days after the burst). After the break the spectral index stays constant at $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}`$ of $`0.62\pm 0.06`$, which is consistent with the Beuermann et al. (BH99 (1999)) result. We find $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}=1.29\pm 0.23`$ 3.6 days after the burst. This is inconsistent with the Beuermann et al. (BH99 (1999)) data, but is consistent with the spectral index continuing to increase after the break in the light curve occurred. However, we believe that the direct measurement of Beuermann et al. (BH99 (1999)) is more reliable than our indirect measurements of $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}`$ so we conclude that it is unlikely that the spectral index continues to increase after the break.

## 5 Models

The generic model for an OA associated with a GRB is a fireball expanding relativistically into an ambient medium of number density $`n`$, and decelerating as it sweeps up matter. The shock between the fireball and the medium accelerates electrons to relativistic energies, and gives them a power-law distribution of energies, $`N(\gamma )\gamma ^p`$. The total energy in the electrons is parameterized by $`ϵ_e`$, the ratio between the energy in electrons and the energy in nucleons. Similarly, the magnetic field strength is parameterized by $`ϵ_B`$, the ratio of the comoving field energy density and the post-shock nucleon energy density (e.g. Wijers & Galama WG1998 (1998)).

At a given instant in the fireball evolution the instantaneous spectrum of the OA is determined by the local conditions in the shock region. In particular, the electron energy index $`p`$ determines the spectral slope of the synchrotron emission $`f_\nu t^\alpha \nu ^\beta `$, e.g., through the relation $`\beta =(p1)/2`$. Following Sari et al. (SP98 (1998)), we have, for the fast cooling regime,

$$f_\nu =\{\begin{array}{cc}(\nu /\nu _c)^{1/2}f_{\nu _m},\hfill & \nu _c<\nu <\nu _m,\hfill \\ (\nu _m/\nu _c)^{1/2}(\nu /\nu _m)^{p/2}f_{\nu _m},\hfill & \nu >\nu _c,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
while in the slow cooling regime we have

$$f_\nu =\{\begin{array}{cc}(\nu /\nu _m)^{(p1)/2}f_{\nu _m},\hfill & \nu _m<\nu <\nu _c,\hfill \\ (\nu _c/\nu _m)^{(p1)/2}(\nu /\nu _c)^{p/2}f_{\nu _m},\hfill & \nu _c<\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The synchrotron peak frequency, $`\nu _m`$, the flux at that frequency $`f_{\nu _m}`$, and the frequency $`\nu _c`$ corresponding to the electron Lorentz factor that separates the fast cooling electrons from the slow cooling ones, all depend on the model parameters and the fireball geometry (spherical or collimated). Explicit expression for these cases can be found in Sari et al. (SP98 (1998)), Wijers & Galama (WG1998 (1998)) (spherical), and Rhoads (Rh99 (1999)) (jet). We do not consider the spectrum below $`\nu _c`$ and $`\nu _m`$ in the fast and slow cooling regimes, respectively, as this is not of interest in the present discussion. The time dependence of $`\nu _m`$, $`\nu _c`$, and $`f_{\nu _m}`$ is different in spherical and collimated models and has been discussed by e.g. Rhoads (Rh99 (1999); see also Sari et al. SPH99 (1999)).

For a collimated outflow in an ambient medium of constant number density $`n`$, we have (Rhoads Rh99 (1999))

$$\nu _m=3.6610^{16}x_pϵ_e^2ϵ_B^{1/2}\left(\frac{E_{52}}{\theta _0}\right)^{1/2}\frac{(1+z)^{1/2}}{t_d^{3/2}}\mathrm{Hz},$$
(7)
$$\nu _c=1.0410^{11}ϵ_B^{3/2}E_{52}^{2/3}n^{5/6}\mathrm{Hz},\mathrm{and}$$
(8)
$$f_{\nu _m}=1.810^2(1+z)ϵ_B^{1/2}\varphi _p\left(\frac{E_{52}}{\theta _0^2}\right)n^{1/2}\frac{d_L}{4.82\mathrm{Gpc}}\mathrm{Jy}.$$
(9)
Here, $`x_p`$ is the dimensionless frequency at maximum flux and $`\varphi _p`$ is the dimensionless flux at that frequency (Wijers & Galama WG1998 (1998)). These are determined by the index $`p`$ of the electron energy distribution. The burst energy in units of $`10^{52}`$ erg is denoted by $`E_{52}`$, $`\theta _0`$ is the half angle of the collimated jet, $`t_d`$ is the time in days, and $`d_L`$ is the luminosity distance to the burst.

To connect the optical observations in a given band pass directly to the model parameters we rewrite, for example, Eq. (6) as

$$\nu ^{(p1)/2}f_\nu =\nu _m^{(p1)/2}f_{\nu _m}$$
(10)
for $`\nu _m<\nu <\nu _c`$ in the slow cooling regime, while for $`\nu >\nu _c`$ we would have

$$\nu ^{p/2}f_\nu =\left(\frac{\nu _m}{\nu _c}\right)^{(p1)/2}\nu _c^{p/2}f_{\nu _m}.$$
(11)
Similar expression may be obtained in the fast cooling regime. Combining $`\nu _m`$ and $`f_{\nu _m}`$ according to Eq. (10), or $`\nu _m`$, $`\nu _c`$, and $`f_{\nu _m}`$ according to Eq. (11), depending on the frequency range of interest, allows us to directly connect the observations at a given frequency to the model parameters. The general formula that is obtained this way is complicated but may be simplified in specific cases (see Eq. (15)).

The properties of the observed light curve of the OA, such as the rate of decay $`\alpha `$, are primarily determined by the hydrodynamic evolution of the fireball. In particular, spherical and collimated bursts give rise to different forms of light curves. The adiabatic evolution of the Lorentz factor, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, of the fireball is given by (Sari et al. SP98 (1998); Sari & Piran SP99 (1999))

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=6.65\left(\frac{E_{52}}{n}\right)^{1/8}t_d^{3/8},$$
(12)
A spherical outflow generally results in a uniformly decaying light curve that can have modest breaks which are due to the different time evolution of the characteristic frequencies $`\nu _m`$ and $`\nu _c`$ (Sari et al. SP98 (1998)). A pronounced break in the light curve may be observed in a spherical outflow that becomes non-relativistic, but requires the ambient medium to be denser, by several orders of magnitude, than generally expected (Wijers et al. WRM1997 (1997); Dai & Lu DL99 (1999)). The steepening of the light curve in the case of a spherical fireball entering a non-relativistic phase can be shown to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =(\alpha _1\alpha _2)=(\alpha _1+3/5)`$.

Collimated outflows, on the other hand, give rise to a light curve that resembles a broken power-law which becomes steeper between several hours and several days after the gamma-ray event. There are two general possibilities.

1. There is a collimated outflow with a fixed opening angle $`\theta _0`$. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1/\theta _0`$, the light curve steepens. This steepening occurs because after the outflow has decelerated the observer only receives radiation emitted within the collimated beam (Mészáros & Rees MR2000 (2000); Kulkarni et al. 1999a ). The amount of steepening is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =3/4`$. This is a purely geometrical effect, so the intrinsic properties of the fireball are not affected by the transition to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<1/\theta _0`$ regime.
2. The collimated outflow may expand sideways as well as radially (e.g. Rhoads Rh99 (1999); Panaitescu & Mészáros PM98 (1998)). Initially, the relativistic beaming dominates over the sideways expansion, but when sideways expansion sets in, the radial expansion essentially comes to a halt, which results in a steepening of the light curve. Simple analytic estimates show that this steepening is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =1\alpha _1/3`$ (Rhoads Rh99 (1999)), while detailed numerical simulations show that the steepening is expected to be more gradual both in time and slope (Moderski et al. MS99 (2000)).

## 6 Interpretation

### 6.1 GRB 990123

The synchrotron peak frequency, $`\nu _m`$, was most likely in the radio already on 1999 January 24.65 (Galama et al. 1999a ), implying that the electrons were already in the slow cooling regime. The flux at frequency $`\nu `$ would then be given by Eq. (10). The isotropic energy of the burst, $`E_{52}`$, that was estimated from the gamma-ray data, is $`E_{52}=338\pm 1`$ at the observed redshift of $`z=1.6`$.

The spectral index that we determined for GRB~990123, $`\beta =0.750\pm 0.068`$, corresponds to an electron index of $`p=2.500\pm 0.136`$. There is no evidence for variations in $`\beta `$ across the break in the light curve, so we can conclude that $`p`$ is constant during the observed evolution of the light curve. The reliability of $`\beta `$ and $`p`$ obtained in this way is questionable, however, as the effect of extinction on $`\beta `$ is unknown. The light curve decay indices, $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, on the other hand, are also a function of $`p`$, and are not affected by extinction. Therefore, we have elected to use our fits to the measured light curves to obtain the electron index, and use that to infer the spectral index.

In Table 7 we compare the electron energy index that we calculate from the light curve indices using three different models and assuming that the ambient medium has a constant density. During the initial phase, all models look spherical to the observer, hence $`p`$ is the same for all of them. After the break in the light curve, different models give different relationship between the light curve decay rate and $`p`$, as indicated in Table 7. The last line in Table 7 gives the size of the break that is predicted by each model and should be compared to the observed size of the break, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.57\pm 0.10`$. A spherically expanding fireball entering a non-relativistic regime at the time of light curve break gives the best overall agreement with the data (see also Dai & Lu DL99 (1999); Wang et al. WDL2000 (2000)). That interpretation, however, does have problems in accounting simultaneously for the optical and radio properties of the burst (Kulkarni et al. 1999b ). It is worth noting that the sideways expanding jet predicts a break in the light curve of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =1.37`$, which is more than twice the size of the observed break.

Our preferred model in interpreting this burst is that of a collimated outflow of a fixed opening angle. The main reason for this choice is the model’s ability to self-consistently account for the observations at *all* wavelengths. If we accept the constant $`\theta _0`$ model as the best description of GRB~990123, we can deduce the remaining model parameters. Evaluating Eq. (12) at $`t_d=t_b=1.68`$, and using $`E_{52}=338`$, we find that the Lorentz factor of the fireball at the time of the break is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=5.47\left(\frac{E_{52}}{n}\right)^{1/8}11n^{1/8}.$$
(13)
Therefore, interpreting the break in the light curve as a geometrical effect, we find the opening angle of the collimated outflow to be

$$\theta _0\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{1}{11}n^{1/8}5^{}n^{1/8},$$
(14)
which enables us to eliminate the opening angle from the expressions for $`\nu _m`$ and $`f_{\nu _m}`$ (Eqs. (7) and (9)). The opening angle is weakly dependent on the number density of the medium where the burst occurred. Typical number densities in star-forming regions, for example, can vary from $`n1`$ to $`n1000`$. However, this range of number densities corresponds to opening angles of $`5\mathrm{°}\theta _012\mathrm{°}`$, so the amount of collimation does not depend strongly on the density of the ambient medium.

The fireball evolution is independent of colour, so observations in different bands passes should give identical results when evaluating the left hand side of Eq. (10). Using the data for Eq. (1) (the broken power law) in Table 3 at the time of the break in the corresponding light curve, averaging over all five band passes, and rearranging, we obtain

$$ϵ_e^{p1}ϵ_B^{(p+1)/4}E_{52}^{(p+1)/4}n^{(p9)/32}1.3410^2.$$
(15)
We have retained $`p`$ in the exponents of the model parameters to show their explicit appearance, but used $`p=2.37`$ (the mean of $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ for the constant $`\theta _0`$ model), to evaluate the right hand side. Note that the above equation constrains four independent model parameters, but the isotropic energy of the burst, $`E_{52}=338\pm 1`$, can be determined directly from observations, so only three parameters remain undetermined.

An additional expression can be obtained using the $`210`$ keV $`X`$-ray data obtained on 1999 January 24.2(Heise et al. HD99 (1999)). At that time the cooling frequency was less than the frequency of the $`X`$-rays ($`\nu >\nu _c`$), so Eq. (11) applies. Evaluating the left-hand side of Eq. (11) using the $`X`$-ray observations we find

$$ϵ_e^{p1}ϵ_B^{(p5)/4}n^{(p9)/325/6}E_{52}^{(3p5)/12}=2089,$$
(16)
and combining the optical and $`X`$-ray results gives

$$ϵ_B^{3/2}n^{5/6}1.3310^7.$$
(17)
This gives $`ϵ_B2.610^5`$ and $`ϵ_e0.79`$ if $`n=1`$ cm-3, or $`ϵ_B5.610^7`$ and $`ϵ_e2.94`$ if $`n=1000`$ cm-3. An additional relation is needed in order to determine $`n`$ independently.

An alternative, but related interpretation is collimated outflow in an ambient medium with a number density distribution of the form $`n(r)r^\delta `$ (see Panaitescu et al. PMR98 (1998), Mészáros et al. MRW98 (1998)). Here, $`\delta =0`$ represents a homogeneous distribution, while $`\delta =2`$ represents a distribution characteristic of a pre-existing stellar wind. The light curve decay rates will be steeper in a wind distribution than if the density is constant, and the break in the light curve will be less pronounced. In general $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =(3\delta )/(4\delta )`$. This reproduces $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =3/4`$ when $`\delta =0`$, as discussed above, but gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.5`$ for a stellar wind density distribution ($`\delta =2`$).

Interpreting the burst using this model we obtain $`\delta =1.67\pm 0.54`$, which is consistent with a stellar wind density distribution. This model adds $`\delta `$ as a new parameter, but constrains $`\beta `$, since the spectral index is now fixed by the light curve decay rates ($`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$) and $`\delta `$. We obtain $`\beta =0.51\pm 0.14`$, which is marginally consistent with the spectral index inferred from the data, resulting in $`p=2.02\pm 0.28`$. The other model parameters, discussed above are similar to what is found in the $`\delta =0`$ case.

### 6.2 GRB 990510

GRB~990510 was a strong burst, although none of its observed properties were extraordinary in any way (Wijers et al WVG1999 (1999)). The lower limit to its redshift is $`z=1.619\pm 0.002`$ (Vreeswijk et al. VG1999 (1999)), and the isotropic energy release was $`E_{52}=17\pm 1`$. The afterglow was the first to show a smooth break in the light curve rather than a sharp break at a fixed point in observer time.

The measured light curve decay index before the break, $`\alpha _1=0.54\pm 0.14`$, is too small to be explained by adiabatic fireball scenarios as it leads to a value for the electron energy index, $`p<2`$, that is too small. It is, however, consistent with a radiative fireball (e.g. Sari et al. SP98 (1998)). In that case the light curve is predicted to decay as $`t^{4/7}`$ with a corresponding spectral index of $`\beta =1/2`$. These values are both independent of $`p`$, and are in good agreement with the observed value of $`\alpha _1`$, and the value of $`\beta `$ that we inferred from the light curves. After the initial radiative stage, the fireball evolves to the more commonly observed adiabatic phase.

In Table 8 we compare the electron energy index, $`p`$, calculated from the observed value of $`\alpha _1`$ for the three models considered in the previous section. As already mentioned the initial slow decay is incompatible with the requirement that the electron population have a finite energy, i.e., electron energy indices of $`p<2`$ correspond to infinite energy, and only the sideways expanding jet model is consistent with the behavior of the light curve at late time. This model also gives good agreement for the size of the break in the observed light curve, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =1.44\pm 0.17`$. The smooth break in the light curve (see also Stanek et al. SGK1999 (1999), Israel et al. (IMC1999 (1999)), and Harrison et al. HB99 (1999)), further supports that interpretation (Moderski et al. MS99 (2000)). The late time spectral index, calculated from $`p_2`$, is $`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}=0.49\pm 0.10`$. This is in good agreement with the value determine from spectrophotometry ($`\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}=0.55\pm 0.10`$, Beuermann et al. BH99 (1999)), and the mean value that we calculated from the light curve ($`\overline{\beta _{\mathrm{OA}}}=0.53\pm 0.02`$). Therefore, the sideways expanding jet, with a radiative initial phase, is our preferred model.

Applying an analysis similar to the one that we did for GRB~990123, we obtain an opening angle of $`\theta _05\mathrm{°}n^{1/8}`$, which is consistent with the opening angle derived by Harrison et al. (HB99 (1999)) for GRB~990510 and the opening angle that we derived for GRB~990123. In principle it is possible to derive $`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$ in the same manner that we did for GRB~990123. However, to do this we need an observation of the flux at $`\nu >\nu _c`$, and, unfortunately, there are no observations in the literature at these frequencies. Therefore, we are not able to break the degeneracy between $`ϵ_e`$, $`ϵ_B`$, and $`n`$ that is seen in Eq. (15).

## 7 Conclusions

It is possible to learn a great deal about the nature of a GRB, and the environment where the burst occurred, from the optical light curve of the burst’s OA. However, it is important that the decaying light curve be well-sampled in order to accurately determine the time and shape of the break, as well as the slope of the light curve before and after the break.

GRB~990123 and GRB~990510 are the first two GRBs for which breaks have been observed in their optical light curves. We have collected all of the published photometry for these two bursts and determined the time of the break and the slopes of these light curves before and after the break using three different fitting functions. We also estimated the spectral indices of each OA from near-simultaneous broad-band photometry. These parameters were used to constrain models for the nature of each burst. Our results suggest the following.

1. Both GRB~990123 and GRB~990510 exhibit breaks in their optical light curves at times between approximately one and two days after the bursts. There is no evidence that the time of the break depends on frequency. The break in GRB~990123’s optical light curve appears to have occurred very fast, perhaps over a period of less than five hours. This is in sharp contrast to the break in the optical light curve for GRB~990510, which appears to have occurred slowly over approximately one day.
2. Unlike GRB~000301C (Jensen et al. JFG2000 (2000)) the parameters of the light curve ($`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$, and $`t_b`$) for GRB~990123 and GRB~990510 are not strongly dependent on the fitting function. This means that our interpretations are not strongly dependent on the type of fitting function used to derive the slopes and break time. However, the choice of fitting function can influence the interpretation of the light curve for some GRBs.
3. Our favoured interpretation for the optical light curve of GRB~990123 is that the afterglow was collimated with a fixed opening angle of $`\theta _05\mathrm{°}`$. Therefore, the observed break in the light curve is a geometric effect that occurs when the relativistic expansion of the fireball slows to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1/\theta _0`$. This model reduces the energy released by the GRB by a factor of $`300`$ to $`E_{52}=1.1`$, which corresponds to the conversion of $`0.01`$ Solar masses of material to gamma radiation. The magnetic field strength is $`ϵ_B2.6\times 10^7`$ if the local number density is $`1`$ cm-3 and $`ϵ_B5.6\times 10^5`$ if the local number density is $`1000`$ cm-3. This is well below the equipartition energy.
4. The OA’s light curve for GRB~990510 is consistent with a collimated outflow that is initially radiative. The transition to an adiabatic phase, and the onset of a sideways expansion of the jet, occurred near the time of the break. The opening angle was $`\theta _05\mathrm{°}`$ at that time, the same as GRB~990123. We are unable to estimate reliably the magnetic field strength because no measurements are available of the flux at frequencies above $`\nu _c`$, the electron cooling frequency.

We have investigated several models for GRB~990123 and GRB~990510 and find that the OAs for these two bursts can not be explained with a single model. This suggests that the local environment where a GRB occurs plays an important role in determining the evolution of the fireball, and the observed light curve of the OA. We note, however, that the uncertainties in determining the break time and slopes of the light curves make it difficult to unambiguously determine the physics of the optical afterglow and its environment.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by the Danish Natural Science Research Council (SNF), the Icelandic Research Council and the University of Iceland Research Fund. We wish to thank the referee for several useful comments that allowed us to improve the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Truncations in stellar disks

## 1. Background.

Stellar disks in edge-on spiral galaxies have been known to have –at least in some cases– rather sharp edges or truncations (van der Kruit 1979). These are obvious when examining isophote maps in which the outer isophotes in the radial direction come suddenly much closer together (see Fig. 1). The reality of the truncations can also be inferred from the fact that the fainter isophotes of bright stars and along directions perpendicular to the galaxy plane in Fig.1 do not show the decrease in spacing.

Truncations can also be inferred from the fact that often diameters of edge-on galaxies appear not to be growing between early sky surveys (using IIa-emulsions) and later, deeper surveys (IIIa-emulsions). Bosma & Freeman (1993) compared diameters of galaxies on the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey prints with those on the SRC-J Survey. About a quarter of the galaxies showed no significant increase in diameter, suggesting a cutoff in the outer disks. They calibrated their SRC limiting isophotes as about 25.5 B-mag arcsec-2, which is at about the level where often the truncations become visible in edge-on galaxies (but not in more moderately inclined ones).

Van der Kruit & Searle (1981a,b, 1982) found in a sample of 7 edge-on spirals that the truncations occured at a galactocentric distance of 4.2 $`\pm `$ 0.5 exponential scalelengths $`h_\mathrm{R}`$ of the surface brightness distribution. Many moderately inclined spiral galaxies have a (face-on) central surface brightness of about 21.7 B-mag arcsec-2 (Freeman 1970). Considering that the limiting surface brightness in many photometric studies is about 26 to 27 B-mag arcsec-2 and that the truncations occur at 4 or 5 radial scalelengths, it would be very difficult to see the cutoffs in face-on galaxies. Furthermore, it would be misleading to look for these in published radial surface brightness profiles, since these are usually produced by azimuthally averaging the observed surface brightness maps; this procedure smoothes out truncations when these are not exactly circular.

Van der Kruit (1988) examined the isophote maps of the Wevers et al. (1986) sample and found that in most systems the outer contours were more closely spaced than the inner ones, suggesting a drop in scalelength by at least a factor two (see Fig. 2). Four systems did not show this effect and the disks seemed to extend out to 6 or 7 scalelengths; interestingly, these were all of early type. The remaining 16 systems did show the effect and this suggested a truncation at $`R_{\mathrm{max}}=4.5\pm 1.0h_\mathrm{R}`$. Isophote maps of Roelof de Jong’s sample (de Jong & van der Kruit 1994) show the effect also in many cases.

Evidently, the stellar material moving near these cutoffs constitutes that with the highest specific angular momentum in the disk and it is not unreasonable to expect that the distribution of specific angular momentum should have a reasonably well-defined upper limit. Mestel (1963) has shown that the distribution of specific angular momentum in disks of spiral galaxies closely resembles that of a uniformly rotating, uniform density sphere.

If $`h_\mathrm{s}`$ is the specific angular momentum and $`M(h_\mathrm{s})/M`$ the fraction of the mass with specific angular momentum less than or equal to $`h_\mathrm{s}`$, then this distribution for the uniformly rotating, uniform density “Mestel” sphere is

$$\frac{M(h_\mathrm{s})}{M}=1\left(1\frac{h_\mathrm{s}}{h_{\mathrm{max}}}\right)^{3/2},$$

where $`h_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum specific angular momentum at the “equator” of the surface of the sphere. If this sets in a flat disk with a flat rotation curve with rotation velocity $`V_\mathrm{m}`$ with detailed conservation of angular momentum (Fall & Efstathiou 1980), then the resulting surface density distribution is close to an exponential (Gunn 1982) and van der Kruit (1987) showed that the scalelength $`h_\mathrm{R}`$ of this distribution is

$$h_\mathrm{R}\frac{h_{\mathrm{max}}}{4.5V_\mathrm{m}}.$$

This implies that the maximum radius of the disk (where the specific angular momentum equals $`h_{\mathrm{max}}`$) is $`R4.5h_\mathrm{R}`$ and a sharp truncation occurs there. Crucial in this description is of course that the disk settles with detailed conservation of angular momentum.

## 2. Recent developments.

Recently, surface photometry in the optical and near-infrared for a complete sample of edge-on galaxies has become available in the thesis of Richard de Grijs (de Grijs & van der Kruit 1996; de Grijs 1998). Kregel, van der Kruit & de Grijs (in preparation; see also the poster by Kregel & van der Kruit in this volume) are in the process of re-analysing these data. At this time only the disk scale parameters have been rederived. De Grijs, Kregel & Wesson (2000) have done a first analysis looking for possible truncations in four of these systems. They find that all four have truncations in their disks and at least three are very symmetric on both sides (see Fig. 3).

The truncations are not very sharp; the scalelengths drop to about 2 to 3 kpc. The values for the truncation radii in terms of the radial scalelengths $`R_{\mathrm{max}}/h_\mathrm{R}`$ are 4.3, 3.8, 4.5 and 2.4. There is very little dependence of the truncation radius itself on color (in $`B`$, $`V`$ and $`I`$). However, scalelengths are known to vary with wavelength (de Jong 1996a,b) and the ratio $`R_{\mathrm{max}}/h_\mathrm{R}`$ then remains color dependent.

Pohlen, Dettmar & Lütticke (2000) and Pohlen et al. (2000) have recently analysed a sample of 31 edge-on galaxies. They fitted three-dimensional one-component models to the observed surface brightness distributions. Then all have sharp truncations (their algorithm always fits a truncation to the data, although in principle its radius could become infinite). These occur at $`R_{\mathrm{max}}=2.9\pm 0.7h_\mathrm{R}`$, significantly less then 4.5. They argue that dust absorption could raise this value by 0.5 at most. Although this ratio does not correlate with Hubble type, it does become on average smaller with increasing scalelength. The Kregel et al. and the Pohlen et al. samples have three galaxies in common. For two the determined scalelengths agree at a satisfactory level.

The sample of Pohlen et al. is not complete in a statistical sense; rather it is weighted heavily in favour of large scalelengths. In Table 1 I compare the distribution of $`R_{\mathrm{max}}/h_\mathrm{R}`$ in the three available samples of edge-on galaxies.

The results of de Grijs et al. and of Pohlen et al. for a large part concern galaxies with very large disk scalelengths (even larger than in our Galaxy or M31). From de Jong (1996) we can estimate that in a volume-complete sample of disk galaxies somewhat less than 1% has a scalelength larger than 6 kpc.

So we may conclude:
$``$ Truncations indeed occur in many stellar disks, are often symmetric and seem not dependent upon color.
$``$ The ratio $`R_{\mathrm{max}}/h_\mathrm{R}`$ appears often less then 4.5. This would imply that truncations should be more easily observable in moderately inclined systems.
$``$ Current samples may not be representative and very strongly biased towards disks with the largest scalelengths.
$``$ The value for the scalelength is crucial (and color-dependent) and it is important to compare the fitting techniques that are being used.

The situation in our Galaxy is at present unclear. On the basis of the distribution of OB-stars and HII-regions, one would expect the truncation radius to be 20–25 kpc. The value for the disk scalelength in the Galaxy is still under discussion. Recent analyses of the near-IR and COBE data seem to suggest a disk scalelength of order 2.5 kpc (e.g. Freudenreich 1996, 1998), while the truncation radius of the disk would occur at about 12 kpc. The latter seems at variance with the occurence of HII-regions at much larger radii. Also note that for a galaxy with a rotation velocity of about 220 km/s, the expected value for the disk scalelength would be about 4–5 kpc. For a fuller and more detailed discussion see van der Kruit (2000).

## 3. Beyond the edge

Various studies (Sánchez-Saavreda et al. 1990; Florido et al. 1991, de Grijs 1997) have indicated that warps exist in most stellar disks. However, these constitute a maximum excursion from the plane of the disk of a only few percent.

Warps in the HI layer are much larger and extend much further out. The archetypical example is NGC 4013 (Bottema, Shostak, & van der Kruit 1987; Bottema 1995,1996). The HI warp starts at about the truncation of the stellar disk and is accompanied by a significant drop in rotation velocity. The latter suggests a truncation in the disk mass distribution as well as in the light. Also the HI surface density drops at the start of the warp and abruptly flattens off.

A face-on spiral with an HI-warp is NGC 628 (Shostak & van der Kruit 1984; Kamphuis & Briggs 1992). The velocity field suggest a warp in the HI, starting at the edge of the optical disk. There is no clear feature in the rotation curve there (but it might be difficult to observe at NGC 628’s small inclination), but again the HI surface density distribution suddenly flattens off. Note that also the spiral structure in the gas is continuing right through the onset of the warp. Kamphuis and Briggs argue for a recent accretion event as the cause of the warp on the basis of the motions in the gas becoming more chaotic with increasing galactocentric radius.

Ferguson et al. (1998) find evidence for faint HII-regions in the extreme outer parts of three spiral galaxies, among which NGC 628. In the latter H$`\alpha `$ is observed out to twice the optical radius. So, some star formation seems to be going on there. Interestingly, also a sharp drop is seen in the azimuthally averaged H$`\alpha `$ surface brightness exactly at the edge of the disk. Abundance determinations in these extreme outer regions indicate values of order 10 to 15% of solar in O/H and 20 to 25% in N/O abundance. Also, the Balmer decrements provide clear evidence that the internal extinction in these outer parts is very low ($`A_V00.2`$ mag), indicating dinimished dust contents. So, outer disks appear relatively unevolved compared to inner disks.

I have discussed only two clear examples here. However, many of these features are found also in other galaxies. I conclude:
$``$ Stellar disks are usually warped, but only moderately so.
$``$ Many spiral galaxies have HI warps and these generally start near the truncation radius of the stellar disk. The HI surface surface density suddenly becomes much flatter with radius.
$``$ In some galaxies (notably NGC 4013, 891, 5907) there is a drop in the rotation curve at the edges of the stellar disks.
$``$ Some star formation goes on in the extreme outer regions, but the heavy element abundance and dust content are very low.
$``$ All evidence is consistent with the notion that the outer gaseous parts of the disks constitute recently accreted material,at least accreted after the formation of what is now the stellar thin disk.

## 4. The origin of the truncations

The origin of the truncations in stellar disks is still unclear. Originally Fall & Efstathiou (1980) and van der Kruit & Searle (1982) suggested, that the edges correspond to the positions where differential rotation becomes able to stabilize the gas layer (according to the Goldreich & Lynden-Bell  criterion), so that star formation is prohibited beyond that radius. Kennicutt (1989) and others have argued that the truncation radius is the position where the gas density drops below a critical value for star formation. This is then regulated by the Toomre (1964) stability parameter $`Q`$. These two hypotheses are not made compatible easily with the sudden drop in the rotation curves at $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

The notion that the truncation radius results from the maximum specific angular momentum present in the material from which the (presently stellar) disks formed is in itself straightforward. The paradigm, where the initial material resembles a Mestel sphere with uniform density and uniform rotation, and where the collapse into a disk occurs with detailed conservation of angular momentum (even if it occurs at a slow rate), provides a good explanation for the exponential nature of the disk surface brightness (and density). However, it also predicts a definite position for the truncation at $`R_{\mathrm{max}}/h_\mathrm{R}4.5`$, and that seems higher than is observed. This model would require therefore some redistribution of angular momentum.

Another possibility is very slow disk formation, where the truncation radius would then be the extent out to which the disk has presently formed. This and models of viscous processes regulating star formation (e.g. Lin & Pringle 1987; Yoshii & Sommer-Larsen 1989) predict no particular value for the truncation radius in terms of the disk scalelength. Tidal interactions are only a possibility in some systems; truncations exist in galaxies independent of their environment.

## References

Bosma, A., & Freeman, K.C. 1993, AJ, 106, 1394

Bottema, R. 1995, A&A, 295, 605

Bottema, R. 1996, A&A, 306, 345

Bottema, R., Shostak, G.S., & van der Kruit, P.C. 1987, Nature, 328, 401

de Grijs, R. 1997, Ph.D. Thesis (University of Groningen), Ch. 9

de Grijs, R. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 595

de Grijs, R., Kregel, M., & Wesson, K.H. 2000, MNRAS, (astro-ph/0002523)

de Grijs, R., & van der Kruit, P.C. 1996, A&AS, 117, 19

de Jong, R.S. 1996a, MNRAS, 313, 45

de Jong, R.S. 1996b, MNRAS, 313, 377

de Jong, R.S., & van der Kruit, P.C. 1994, A&AS, 106, 405

Fall, S.M., & Efstathiou, G, 1980, MNRAS, 193, 189

Ferguson, A.M., Wyse, R.F.G., Gallagher, J.S., & Hunter, D. 1998, ApJ, 506, L19

Ferguson, A.M., Gallagher, J.S., & Wyse, R.F.G. 1998, AJ, 116, 673

Florido, E., Prieto, M., Battaner, E., Mediavilla, E., & Sánchez-Saavedra, M.L. 1991, A&A, 242, 301

Freeman, K.C. 1970, ApJ, 160, 811

Freudenreich, H.T. 1996, ApJ, 468, 663

Freudenreich, H.T. 1998, ApJ, 492, 495

Goldreich, R., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1965, MNRAS, 130, 125

Gunn, J.E. 1982, in Astrophysical Cosmology, eds. H.A. Brück, G.V. Coyne & M.S. Longair, 233

Kamphuis, J., & Briggs, F. 1992, A&A, 253, 335

Kennicutt, R.C. 1989, ApJ, 344, 685

Lin, D.N.C., & Pringle, J.E. 1987, ApJ,320, L87

Mestel, L. 1963, MNRAS, 126, 553

Pohlen, M., Dettmar, R.-J., & Lütticke, R. 2000, A&A, 357, 1P

Pohlen, M., Dettmar, R.-J., Lütticke, R., & Schwarzkopf, U. 2000, A&AS, 144, 405

Sánchez-Saavreda, M.L., Battaner, E., & Florido, E. 1990, MNRAS, 246, 458

Shostak, G.S., & van der Kruit, P.C. 1984, A&A, 132, 20

Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217

van der Kruit, P.C. 1979, A&AS, 38, 15

van der Kruit, P.C. 1987, A&A, 173, 59

van der Kruit, P.C. 1988, A&A, 192, 117

van der Kruit, P.C. 2000, in: The Legacy of J.C. Kapteyn, ed. P.C. van der Kruit and K. van Berkel, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 299

van der Kruit, P.C. & Searle, L. 1981a, A&A, 95, 105

van der Kruit, P.C. & Searle, L. 1981b, A&A, 95, 116

van der Kruit, P.C. & Searle, L. 1982, A&A, 110, 61

Wevers, B.M.H.R., van der Kruit, P.C. & Allen, R.J. 1986, A&AS, 66, 505

Yoshii, Y., & Sommer-Larsen, J. 1989, MNRAS, 236, 779


text:
# Spatially modulated magnetic structures in thin films

## References


text:
# The Range of Validity for the Kelvin Force

In a recent Letter , Luo, Du and Huang reported a novel convective instability driven by a force rarely studied before – that exerted by an external magnetic field on a strongly magnetizable liquid. The associated physics is surprisingly rich and promises many more interesting results for the future. Unfortunately, the analysis starts from a misconception and employs the Kelvin force outside its range of validity. Since few would recognize this as a mistake, and since its consequence in the given experiment is particularly direct and critical, this is a point well worth being clarified, and clearly understood.

In the experiment, ferrofluid is exposed to a constant $`𝐁`$-field. Yet, since the temperature $`T`$ and the density $`\rho `$ of magnetic particles vary, so does the magnetic field $`𝐇=𝐁/[1+\chi (T,\rho )]`$, giving rise to a finite Kelvin force. With $`\chi `$ the magnetic susceptibility and $`𝐌=\chi 𝐇`$ the magnetization, this force is given as

$$𝐟=M_i\mathbf{}H_i=(M_iB_i)\mathbf{}\frac{1}{1+\chi }=\frac{(\chi B)^2}{(1+\chi )^3}\frac{\mathbf{}\chi }{\chi }.$$
(1)
(Summation over the index $`i`$ is implied.) Eq (1) may be derived from the more general Helmholtz force ,

$$𝐟=+\mathbf{}(\frac{1}{2}H^2\rho \chi /\rho )\frac{1}{2}H^2\mathbf{}\chi ,$$
(2)
by considering a dilute ferrofluid, and taking $`\chi `$ as proportional to the particle density $`\rho `$, or $`\rho \chi /\rho =\chi `$. Then Eq (2) clearly reduces to $`𝐟=\frac{1}{2}\chi \mathbf{}(H^2)=M_i\mathbf{}H_i`$.

All this seems rather convincing, but in fact hides a pitfall. Closer scrutiny reveals that $`𝐟=M_i\mathbf{}H_i`$ is only valid to linear order in $`\chi `$. (Except in unconventional systems of more recent dates, the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$ is usually much smaller than 1, so terms of higher order in $`\chi `$ have always been negligible. This may well be the reason why the confined range of validity of the Kelvin force has been such a well kept secret.) If true, the expressions of Eq (1) merely states that the force vanishes – to linear order in $`\chi `$. No result derived from Eq (1) is then trustworthy.

To qualitatively understand this restriction, define a different susceptibility, $`𝐌=\stackrel{~}{\chi }𝐁`$. With the permeability given as $`\mu =1+\chi =(1\stackrel{~}{\chi })^1`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\chi /(1+\chi )`$. Both susceptibilities are clearly physically equivalent, and we have no a priori reason to prefer either. Employing $`\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\mathrm{d}\chi /(1+\chi )^2`$, we may rewrite Eq (2) as

$$𝐟=+\mathbf{}(\frac{1}{2}B^2\rho _\alpha \stackrel{~}{\chi }/\rho _\alpha )\frac{1}{2}B^2\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }.$$
(3)
This time, assuming $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ as proportional to $`\rho `$, we obtain

$$𝐟=M_i\mathbf{}B_i,$$
(4)
a result obviously different from Eq (1) – but one that also vanishes for uniform $`B`$-fields, so there is no disagreement to $`𝐟=M_i\mathbf{}H_i`$ in linear order.

Now, since Eqs (2) and (3) are algebraically equivalent, the difference must lie between the two seemingly innocuous assumptions, $`\chi `$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\rho `$. Reviewing the above derivations, it is obvious that if one of the two assumptions were strictly correct, the other would be wrong, and only the associated force expression is applicable.

Generically, on the other hand, both $`\chi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ are power series of $`\rho `$. So we are simply approximating, discarding quadratic and higher order terms, when we assume that either is linear in $`\rho `$. The consistent dilute limit is given when all terms $`\rho ^2`$ (and higher) are discarded. With $`\chi \rho `$, this necessarily implies that we must also discard all terms $`\chi ^2`$. As a result, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\chi /(1+\chi )\chi `$ and $`M_i\mathbf{}B_iM_i\mathbf{}H_i`$. We conclude: The Kelvin force is valid to linear order in the density $`\rho `$ and the susceptibility $`\chi `$ (or magnetization $`M_i`$). Especially, both $`M_i\mathbf{}B_i`$ and $`M_i\mathbf{}H_i`$ are valid expressions for the Kelvin force.

The force in the experiment of  is of course finite. A proper, quantitative evaluation is given by including terms of higher order in $`\rho `$. As a first-step, we consider the next order terms:

$`\chi =\alpha \rho (1+\beta \alpha \rho +\mathrm{}),`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\alpha \rho [1+(\beta 1)\alpha \rho +\mathrm{}].`$ (6)
(Note that with $`\chi ,\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\alpha \rho `$ in the dilute limit, $`\alpha \rho `$ is simply the sum of single particle contributions, from non-interacting dipoles.) Inserting these expansions into Eq (2) or (3), we find, for a constant $`B`$-field,

$$𝐟=\frac{1}{2}B^2\mathbf{}[(\beta 1)(\alpha \rho )^2].$$
(7)
There are four different microscopic models usually employed to calculate the temperature and concentration dependence of the susceptibility of ferrofluids: Weiss, Onsager, mean-spherical, and high-temperature. Though different in details, all provide the same value $`\beta =1/3`$, in good agreement with experimental data .

Assuming $`\chi \rho `$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\rho `$ to hold strictly is respectively equivalent to $`\beta =0`$ and $`\beta =1`$, with additional restrictions for the yet higher order terms. Both assumptions are arbitrary, and in stark contrast to our microscopic understanding of magnetism.

Mario Liu, Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Hannover, 30167 Hannover, Germany


text:
# PLANETS AND AXISYMMETRIC MASS LOSS

## 1  Introduction

### 1.1 Bipolar PNe: binary system progenitors (closed case)

I distinguish two main groups of nonspherical planetary nebulae (PNe): bipolar and elliptical. Bipolar (also called “bilobal” and “butterfly”) PNe are defined (Schwarz, Corradi & Stanghellini 1992) as axially symmetric PNe having two lobes with an ‘equatorial’ waist between them; while elliptical PNe have a general elliptical shape. Bipolar PNe amount to $`1015\%`$ of all PNe (Corradi & Schwarz 1995). The only physical property for which the difference between elliptical and bipolar PNe is larger than the dispersion within each group is the expansion velocity, which is much faster for bipolars. It is almost certain that bipolar PNe are formed from binary systems. In most cases the stellar companion stays outside the mass losing star for the entire evolution, and in the rest it forms a common envelope late in the evolution (Soker 1998a). I think that the observations, e.g., the similarity of bipolar PNe to many symbiotic nebulae, and the theoretical arguments, e.g., mechanism for blowing winds at several$`\times 100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which support the binary model for the formation of bipolar PNe, are extremely strong (see summary in Table 1 by Soker 1998a). Some of the arguments can be found in Corradi (1995), Corradi & Schwarz (1995), Corradi et al. (1999, 2000), Morris (1987, 1990), Mastrodemos & Morris (1999), Soker (1997, 1998a), Soker & Rappaport (2000), and Miranda et al. (2000). Several scenarios were proposed for the formation of bipolar PNe from the evolution of single stars. I criticized these scenarios in different papers in the past, and showed that they fail to explain basic facts, and/or they suffer from unphysical arguments. I find the new paper by Matt et al. (2000) to fail on the same main points. Some problems with these single star models are: (1) These models do not distinguish elliptical and bipolar PNe, e.g., they can’t account for the similarity of bipolar PNe and symbiotic nebulae. (2) The amount of angular momentum they require is much too large for a single star, whether angular momentum directly to influence the wind, or angular momentum required to amplify strong magnetic activity. (3) The single star models contradict the finding that most of the 16 known PNe with central binary systems (Bond 2000) possess an extreme elliptical shape, rather than a bipolar shape. Namely, if single stars can form bipolar PNe, how come AGB stars which go through a common envelope phase, and hence rotate much faster, form “only” elliptical PNe? These 16 PNe by themselves constitute very strong support for the binary model for the formation of both bipolar and extreme elliptical PNe (Bond & Livio 1990; Soker 1997).

### 1.2 Elliptical PNe: open questions

In addition to the $`1015\%`$ of all PNe which are bipolar, and formed from binary systems, there are $`2030\%`$ elliptical PNe formed from binary systems (Yungelson, Tutukov & Livio 1993; Han, Podsiadlowski & Eggleton 1995; Soker 1997). Most of these went through a common envelope phase and have extreme structures (Bond & Livio 1990; Bond 2000). By extreme structure I refer to a large concentration of mass in the equatorial plane, i.e., a torus, but there are no polar lobes, hence the PN is not a bipolar PN. The AGB progenitors of the PNe were spun up by their stellar companions to very high velocities, which led to high mass concentration in the equatorial plane. The relevant axisymmetric mass loss mechanisms for a common envelope evolution are summarized by Iben & Livio (1993) and Rasio & Livio (1996), while axisymmetric mass loss mechanisms for stellar companions outside the AGB envelope are listed in Soker (1998a).

But what about the rest of the axisymmetric PNe, which amount to $`50\%`$ of all PNe? They were not spun up by a stellar companion, either because the progenitor did not have a stellar companion, or the companion is at a very large orbital separation. The open questions are therefore:
(1) What is the mechanism by which slowly rotating AGB stars can blow axisymmetric winds? Clearly centrifugal forces are unimportant.
(2) Why do many of the elliptical PNe have an outer spherical halo while the inner region is elliptical? Put another way, why does the mass loss geometry change from spherical to axisymmetric only during the very end of the AGB and/or during the early post-AGB phase? (This question, and the answer given later, is the connection of my paper to the title of the meeting.)
(3) Can a single star blow an axisymmetric wind during its final AGB phase and/or post AGB phase, hence forming an elliptical PN?

## 2 Slowly rotating AGB stars

I now give my answers to the questions raised in the previous section.

The axisymmetric mass loss mechanism, was proposed several years ago (Soker 1998b) and was further developed by Soker & Clayton (1999) and Soker & Harpaz (1999). It is assumed that a weak magnetic field forms cool stellar spots, which facilitate the formation of dust closer to the stellar surface, hence enhancing the mass loss rate there. If spots due to the dynamo activity are formed mainly near the equatorial plane, then the degree of deviation from sphericity increases. Based on a crude estimate I claimed (Soker 1998b) that this mechanism operates for slowly rotating AGB stars, having angular velocities of $`\omega >10^4\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$, where $`\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$ is the equatorial Keplerian angular velocity. I would like to stress that I do not propose a new mass loss mechanism. I accept that pulsations coupled with radiation pressure on dust is the mechanism for mass loss (e.g., Bowen 1988), and that the luminosity, radius, and mass of the AGB star are the main factors which determine the mass loss rate (e.g., Höfner & Dorfi 1997). I only suggest that cool magnetic spots facilitate the formation of dust, and that their concentration near the equator causes the mass loss geometry to deviate from sphericity (Soker 1998b; Soker & Clayton 1999). It should also be noted that the required magnetic field is very weak, has no direct dynamic effect, and is expected to form only a very weak X-ray emission. Models based on strong magnetic fields (e.g., Matt et al. 2000) are in contradiction with observations that AGB stars are weak X-ray sources.

The transition to axisymmetric mass loss geometry, in the cool magnetic spots model, is attributed to the shielding of radiation by dust during the superwind phase (Soker 2000). Soker (2000) proposed that dust which is formed very close to the surface of a cool spot, practically at its surface, during a high mass loss rate phase (superwind), has a large optical depth, and it shields the region above it from the stellar radiation. As a result the temperature in the shaded region decreases rapidly relative to the surrounding temperature. This leads to further dust formation in the shaded region. Without the formation of dust close to the surface of the spot and the shielding, only large spots, with radii $`b_s>0.3R_{}`$, allow enhanced dust formation (Frank 1995). This process is effective for small cool spots, but only when mass loss rate is high, as in the superwind phase, hence optical depth is large. Therefore, the equatorial enhanced mass loss rate occurs mainly during the superwind phase at the end of the AGB. Another mechanism for the transition to axisymmetric mass loss, which can operate in parallel to the the shielding of radiation, is a more effective magnetic activity at the end of the AGB (Soker & Harpaz 1999). In addition to the formation of elliptical PNe, the local enhanced dust formation may lead to the formation of filaments, loops, and arcs, as observed in many PNe.

Most single stars rotate too slowly for the amplification of even the weak magnetic field required by the cool magnetic spots model. I argue that most are spun up by planets. This is the subject of the next section.

## 3 The role of Planets

This section summarizes my recent paper (Soker 2001) in which I examine the implications of the recently found extrasolar planets on the planet-induced axisymmetric mass loss model for the formation of elliptical PNe. I first show that single stars rotate very slowly as they reach the upper AGB. I concentrate on stars with main sequence mass in the range of $`1.3M_{}<M_{\mathrm{ms}}<2.4M_{}`$. In this mass range the transition from slow main sequence rotators to fast rotators occurs (e.g., Wolff & Simon 1997), hence these stars will clearly demonstrate the evolution of angular momentum, while avoiding some uncertainties with lower mass stars, e.g., the total mass they lose prior to the upper AGB is not well known. I assume that the star rotates as a solid body (i.e., the angular velocity is constant with radius inside the star) along its entire evolution, and that the wind carries specific angular momentum equal to that on the surface of the star. The average initial angular momentum on the main sequence is taken from Wolf & Simon (1997). For the stars considered here, most of the mass loss occurs on the AGB, when the mass of the core is $`0.6M_{}`$. Under these assumptions an analytical expression can be obtained for the angular momentum (and angular velocity) on the upper AGB as a function of the envelope mass retained by the star as it loses mass (Soker 2001). As an example I present the result for a single star evolving on the upper AGB, and which had a mass of $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}=1.8M_{}`$ on the main sequence. The figure shows the evolution of the angular velocity (solid line), in units of $`\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$, and the angular momentum (dashed line), in units of the orbital angular momentum of Jupiter $`J_J`$, as a function of the envelope mass left in the envelope. We note the fast decrease of the angular velocity as envelope mass decreases due to mass loss.

In the cool magnetic spots model the role of the rotation is mainly to shape the magnetic field into an axisymmetric configuration (on average), and it may operate efficiently even for an envelope rotating as slowly as $`\omega 10^4\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$ (Soker & Harpaz 1999). From the figure we see that single stars will not possess the required angular velocity when the envelope mass decreases below $`0.3M_{}`$. However, very low mass planets, down to $`0.01M_J`$, where $`M_J`$ is Jupiter’s mass, are sufficient, if they enter the AGB envelope at late stages. For example, a planet of mass $`0.01M_J`$ at an orbital separation of $`2\mathrm{AU}`$ has an angular momentum about equal to that of an AGB star with envelope mass of $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.4M_{}`$ which had a main sequence mass of $`M_{\mathrm{ms}}=1.8M_{}`$. If such a planet enters the envelope when $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.2M_{}`$, for example, it will increase the AGB envelope angular momentum by a factor of $`30`$. Taking the solar evolution to the AGB (see Soker 2001) I find that when the envelope mass becomes $`0.15M_{}`$, the angular momentum of the AGB sun is $`10^4J_J`$, or $`0.1`$ the angular momentum of Earth. By that time the orbital separation will be $`1.33\mathrm{AU}`$ (or $`290R_{}`$). If the sun at this stage goes through a helium shell flash, so that the radius increases, say, to $`1.3\mathrm{AU}`$ then another $`10\%`$ increase during the maximum radius in the pulsation cycles may reach the location of Earth, causing the Earth to spiral inside the solar envelope. A detailed analysis of the evolution of the Earth-sun system, until the sun leaves the AGB, for different assumptions and models, is given by Rybicki & Denis (2000). As a result of the deposition of the Earth’s orbital momentum, the solar envelope will rotate $`10`$ times faster, or at $`\omega 10^4\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$. If this occurs indeed in about 7 billion years, then the Earth may be responsible for the PN of the sun being elliptical rather than spherical. However, it is not clear that the sun will engulf the Earth, or that it will form a PN at all (Rybicki & Denis 2000).

For a high probability that a planet will enter the AGB envelope at late stages, i.e., for it to occur in many stars, two things should happen. First, on average there should be several planets around each star (as is the case in the solar system), and second, there should be a fast and significant increase of the stellar radius on the upper AGB. Numerical simulations of AGB stars show that after thermal pulses (helium shell flashes) on the upper AGB, the envelope increases by $`2030\%`$. This is in addition to the increase in the average AGB stellar radius as the core mass increases. So the second condition is fulfilled for upper AGB stars. The first condition is a requirement, hence a prediction, of the planet-induced axisymmetric mass loss model for the formation of elliptical PNe. The new addition of the present paper is the relaxation of the minimum mass demand on planets from $`1M_J`$ (Soker 1996) to $`0.01M_J`$. The motivations for reducing the lower mass limit are the new finding that only $`5\%`$ of sun-like stars have Jupiter-like planets around them, and a new model for axisymmetric mass loss, the cool magnetic spots model, which was constructed to work for very slowly rotating AGB stars, as discussed above.

Finally, note that many of the known sun-like stars that have planets around them will not form PNe at all. This is because their orbiting planet will spin-up the envelope and deposit energy already on the stellar red giant branch (RGB), hence mass loss on the RGB is expected to be high, and most of the stellar envelope will be lost already on the RGB. No observable nebula will be formed. So, while in most cases planet companions will lead to the formation of an elliptical rather than a spherical PN, in some cases Jupiter-like planets in close orbits around low mass stars will prevent the stars from forming a PN.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by grants from the Israel Science Foundation and the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation.

Figure 1:
Evolution of the angular momentum and angular velocity as a function of the mass left in the AGB stellar envelope of a star which had a mass of $`1.8M_{}`$ on the main sequence (for details see Soker 2001). Angular momentum is in units of Jupiter’s orbital angular momentum, and angular velocity in units of the Keplerian angular velocity on the stellar equator.