1: %Uses AASTeX v5.0
2: %
3: % The porous atmosphere of eta-Carinae / Nir Shaviv
4: %
5:
6:
7: \documentclass[preprint,11pt]{aastex}
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9:
10: %----------------------------- My definitions
11:
12: %
13: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\bt}{\begin{table} \begin{center}}
16: \newcommand{\et}{\end{center} \end{table}}
17: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
18: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
19: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.~}}
20: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.~}}
21: %
22: \newcommand{\citenp}[1]{\citeauthor{#1}~\citeyear{#1}}
23: \newcommand{\sch}{Schwarzchild~}
24: \newcommand{\BV}{Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a~}
25: \newcommand{\mt}{\mathit}
26: %
27: \newcommand{\ms}{{\cal M}_\odot}
28: \newcommand{\ls}{{\cal L}_\odot}
29:
30:
31: % ---- For some reason the AAS definitions for <~ and >~ do
32: % not work properly, so they are defined.
33:
34: \def\lesssim{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil
35: $\displaystyle##$\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}
36: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\textstyle##$\hfil\cr
37: <\cr\sim\cr}}}
38: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptstyle##$\hfil\cr
39: <\cr\sim\cr}}}
40: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptscriptstyle##$\hfil\cr
41: <\cr\sim\cr}}}}}
42: \def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil
43: $\displaystyle##$\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}
44: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\textstyle##$\hfil\cr
45: >\cr\sim\cr}}}
46: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptstyle##$\hfil\cr
47: >\cr\sim\cr}}}
48: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptscriptstyle##$\hfil\cr
49: >\cr\sim\cr}}}}}
50:
51:
52: %---------------------------- End of definitions
53:
54: \begin{document}
55:
56: %\def\temp{
57: \title{The porous atmosphere of $\eta$-Carinae}
58: \author{Nir J. Shaviv}
59: \affil{Canadian Institute for Theoretical
60: Astrophysics, University of Toronto \\ 60 St. George St.,
61: Toronto, ON M5S 3H8, Canada}
62: %}
63:
64: \begin{abstract}
65:
66: We analyze the wind generated by the great 20 year long
67: super-Eddington outburst of $\eta$-Carinae. We show that using
68: classical stellar atmospheres and winds theory, it is impossible to
69: construct a consistent wind model in which a sufficiently {\em
70: small} amount of mass, like the one observed, is shed. One expects
71: the super-Eddington luminosity to drive a thick wind with a mass
72: loss rate substantially higher than the observed one. The easiest
73: way to resolve the inconsistency is if we alleviate the implicit
74: notion that atmospheres are homogeneous. An inhomogeneous
75: atmosphere, or ``porous", allows more radiation to escape while
76: exerting a smaller average force. Consequently, such an atmosphere
77: yields a considerably lower mass loss rate for the same total
78: luminosity. Moreover, all the applications of the Eddington
79: Luminosity as a strict luminosity limit should be revised, or at
80: least reanalyzed carefully.
81:
82: \vskip 0.5cm
83: \centerline{\em To appear in the Astrophysical Journal Letters}
84: \vskip 0.5cm
85:
86: \end{abstract}
87:
88: \keywords{
89: Radiative transfer --- hydrodynamics --- instabilities --- stars:
90: atmospheres --- stars: individual ($\eta$ Carinae) }
91: % to find at:http://www.noao.edu/apj/keywords96.html
92:
93: %------------------------------------------------------
94:
95:
96: \section{Introduction}
97:
98: $\eta$-Carinae is probably one of the most remarkable stellar object
99: to have ever been documented. About 150 years ago, the star began a
100: 20 year long giant eruption during which it radiated a
101: supernova-like energy of roughly $3 \times 10^{49}~ergs$~
102: (\citenp{DH97}). Throughout the eruption it also shed some
103: $1-2~\ms$ of material carrying approximately $6\times 10^{48}~ergs$
104: as kinetic energy (\citenp{DH97}), while expanding at a velocity of
105: $650~km/sec$ (\citenp{HA92}, \citenp{C96}). $\eta$-Carinae can
106: therefore serve as a good laboratory for the study of atmospheres
107: at extreme luminosity conditions.
108:
109: At first glance, it appears that the star shed a large amount of
110: material. Indeed, the inferred mass loss rate during the great
111: eruption of $\sim 0.1~\ms/yr$ is significantly larger than the mass
112: loss rate inferred for the star today ($\lesssim 10^{-3}~\ms/yr$,
113: \citenp{DH97} and references therein). However, considering that the
114: luminosity during the great eruption is estimated to be
115: significantly above the Eddington limit, we shall show that the star
116: should have had a much higher mass loss rate. In fact, it should
117: have lost during the 20 year eruption more mass than its total mass,
118: giving rise to an obvious discrepancy.
119:
120: A review of our current knowledge of $\eta$ Car can be found in
121: \cite{DH97}. In section \ref{sec:wind} we summarize how a wind
122: solution for the star $\eta$ Car should be constructed. Since the
123: luminosity is very high, the effects of convection must be taken
124: into account. In section \ref{sec:discrepancy} we integrate the wind
125: equations to show that no consistent solution for $\eta$ Car exists
126: within the possible range of observed parameters. Section
127: \ref{sec:bad} is devoted to possible classical solutions to the
128: discrepancy, showing that no such possibility exists. In section
129: \ref{sec:good}, we show that a porous atmosphere is a simple and
130: viable solution to the wind discrepancy.
131:
132: \section{Solving for the Wind}
133: \label{sec:wind}
134:
135: Since the mass of $\eta$-Car is estimated to be of order
136: $100-120~\ms$ (\citenp{DH97}), the average luminosity in the great
137: eruption was clearly super-Eddington (of the order of 5 times the
138: Eddington limit). That is to say, the radiative force upwards,
139: assuming the smallest possible opacity (for ionized matter) given by
140: Thomson scattering, was significantly larger than the gravitational
141: pull downwards. Optically thin winds formally diverge at the
142: Eddington limit (e.g., \citenp{Puls} and references therein).
143: Consequently, a consistent wind solution requires an optically thick
144: wind. We thus look for a wind in which the sonic point (which is the
145: point at which the local speed of the outflow equals the speed of
146: sound) is below the photosphere. Moreover, since the duration of
147: the eruption is longer than the sound crossing time of the star by
148: about a factor of 50, a stationary wind appears to be a good
149: approximation.
150:
151: In practically all super-sonic wind theories which describe
152: super-sonic outflows from an object at rest, a consistent stationary
153: solution is obtained only when the net driving force of the wind
154: (excluding the pressure gradient) vanishes at the sonic
155: point\footnote{ The exception is line driven winds in which the
156: force is explicitly a function of $dv/dr$ which is actually an
157: approximation to the line transfer equations. If we had written the
158: proper radiation transfer equations for this case which only {\em
159: implicitly} depend on $dv/dr$, we would have recovered that the
160: sonic point coincides with the point at which the total force
161: vanishes (cf \citenp{MWM84} \S107). Moreover, line driven winds are
162: important only under optically thin conditions while we describe the
163: optically thick part of the wind. }. Thus, material experiencing a
164: super-Eddington flux necessarily has to be above the sonic point.
165: If most of the envelope carries a super Eddington flux, then no
166: consistent stationary wind solution can be obtained and in fact, the
167: object will evaporate on a dynamical time scale. In most systems
168: however, this need not be the case. For example, in very hot systems
169: (e.g., hot neutron stars during strong X-ray bursts, \citenp{QP85}),
170: the opacity in the deep layers is reduced due the reduced
171: Klein-Nishina opacity for Compton scattering at high
172: temperatures. Thus, the sonic point in these objects is found where
173: the temperature is high enough to reduce the opacity to the point
174: where the flux corresponds to the local Eddington limit.
175:
176: Another important effect, which should be taken into account, is
177: convection. Deep inside the atmosphere, convection can carry a
178: significant part (or almost all) of the energy flux, thus reducing
179: the radiative pressure to a sub-Eddington value. In fact, as the
180: radiative flux approaches the Eddington limit, convection generally
181: arises and carries the lion share of the total energy flux (if it
182: can) to keep the system at a sub-Eddington level
183: (\citenp{JSO73}). Although the total flux in the entire envelope (or
184: almost all of it) can be equivalent to a super-Eddington flux, up to
185: some depth below the photosphere, convection carries most of the
186: flux so as to reduce the radiative flux alone into a sub-Eddington
187: value. A consistent wind solution should therefore, have its sonic
188: point at the location where the most efficient convection cannot
189: carry enough flux any more. As we shall soon see, the problem in
190: $\eta$-Car is that this point is relatively deep within the
191: atmosphere, where the density is so high that the expected mass loss
192: is significantly {\it higher} than the observed one.
193:
194: To see this in a robust way we integrated numerically the wind
195: equations starting from the photosphere inwards. The equations are
196: those that describe optically thick spherically symmetric winds
197: (\citenp{QP85}; \citenp{Z73}; \citenp{KH94}). The equations of mass
198: conservation, momentum conservation and temperature gradient are
199: \begin{equation}
200: 4 \pi r^2 \rho v = \dot{M} = {\rm const}
201: \end{equation}
202: \begin{equation}
203: v {d v\over dr} + {GM\over r^2} +{1\over \rho}{dP_{g} \over dr} -
204: {\chi {\cal L}_r \over 4 \pi r^2 c} = 0
205: \end{equation}
206: \begin{equation}
207: {d T \over dr} = - {3 \chi \rho {\cal L}_r \over 16 \pi r^2 c a T^3} (1 +
208: {2 \over 3 \chi \rho r}),
209: \end{equation}
210: with standard notation. The parenthesized term in the last equation
211: is a simple approximate interpolation that has the correct asymptotic
212: limits for optical depths much larger and much smaller than unity
213: (\citenp{QP85}). The last equation is the integrated form of the
214: energy conservation equation. Unlike the aforementioned references, we
215: specifically include advection by a maximally efficient convection.
216: Thus, the integrated form of the energy conservation equation becomes
217: \begin{eqnarray}
218: {\cal L}_r + \dot{M}\left({v^2 \over 2} + w - {GM\over
219: r}\right) + {\cal L}_{conv} &\equiv& \\ {\cal L}_r -{GM \dot{M} \over r} +
220: {\cal L}_{adv}+{\cal L}_{conv} &=& \Lambda_{tot} = {\cal L}_{obs}+
221: {\cal L}_{kin,\infty},
222: \label{eq:fluxes}
223: \end{eqnarray}
224: were $\Lambda_{tot}$, $\dot{M}$, ${\cal L}_{obs}$ and ${\cal
225: L}_{kin,\infty}$ are the total energy output of the star, the wind
226: mass loss rate, the observed luminosity at infinity and the kinetic
227: energy flux at infinity. On the other hand, ${\cal L}_r, v, w, {\cal
228: L}_{conv}, {\cal L}_{adv}$ are respectively, the local radiative
229: luminosity, velocity, enthalpy, convective flux and advected flux
230: (as internal and kinetic energies). The expression adopted for
231: ${\cal L}_{conv}$ is $4 \pi r^2 u v_{s}$ where $u$ is the internal
232: energy per unit volume and $v_s$ is the speed of sound. By no means
233: can convection be more efficient than this expression since highly
234: dissipative shocks are unavoidable at higher speeds. It is likely
235: that the maximally efficient convection is somewhat less efficient
236: than this expression, but this will only aggravate the problem that
237: we shall soon expose. Detailed calculations of the wind were
238: carried out. The calculations include the latest version of the
239: OPAL opacities (\citenp{IR96}). It is found that the total opacity
240: below the photosphere has comparable contributions from Thomson
241: scattering and absorption processes. This implies that the {\em
242: modified} Eddington limit, in which the Thomson opacity is replaced
243: by the local total opacity, is somewhat lower than the classical
244: Eddington limit.
245:
246:
247: Since $T_{\mathit{eff}} \sim 9000^{\circ}$K\footnote{This is the
248: typical observed effective temperature for LBV's during outbursts
249: (\citenp{HD94}). If the temperature is higher than this value, the
250: inferred bolometric magnitude of $\eta$ Car during the eruption
251: would be more negative, increasing the Eddington factor. If the
252: temperature is lower than $\sim 7000^\circ$K, the opacity at the
253: photosphere and outwards rises abruptly (\citenp{D87}), thus
254: reducing the modified Eddington limit. In both cases, the
255: discrepancy will be aggravated.}, the average luminosity implies a
256: photospheric radius of $10^{14}~cm$. Note that since it is a thick
257: wind, the exact definition of the photosphere is ambiguous.
258: Nevertheless, different definitions do not change the results by
259: more than $10-20\%$. Knowing that the observed mass loss rate is
260: roughly $0.1~\ms/yr$ (which gives the observed $2~\ms$ of shed
261: material in 20 years, \citenp{DH97}), a specified flow speed at the
262: photosphere can be translated to a required density. We can
263: therefore integrate the wind equations inwards. If a consistent
264: wind solution can be obtained for some value of the imposed velocity
265: in the photosphere (which has to be between $v_s$ and $v_{\infty}$),
266: then the integration inwards should reach a sonic point at which the
267: total force on the gas vanishes. This will be attained if the
268: convective and advective fluxes can carry a significant amount of
269: the total flux so as to reduce the residual radiative flux to a
270: sub-Eddington one.
271:
272: \section{The Discrepancy}
273: \label{sec:discrepancy}
274:
275: We define the luminosity needed to be carried by convection and
276: advection in order to bring about the vanishing of the total local
277: force as ${\cal L}_{crit}$. If enough energy is advected and
278: convected then ${\cal L}_r$ will be reduced to the local modified
279: Eddington flux:
280: \begin{equation}
281: {\cal L}_{Edd,mod}={4 \pi c G M\over \chi}
282: \end{equation}
283: with $\chi$ the local opacity which can be larger than the Thomson
284: opacity. Thus, from eq.~(\ref{eq:fluxes}), the critical
285: advective+convective flux can be written as
286: \begin{equation}
287: {\cal L}_{crit} = \Lambda_{tot} + {G M {\dot M}\over r}-{\cal L}_{Edd,mod}.
288: \end{equation}
289:
290: Figure \ref{fig_1} shows the fraction $\eta\equiv({\cal
291: L}_{adv}+{\cal L}_{conv})/{\cal L}_{crit}$ at the sonic point. A
292: consistent solution can be found only if $\eta=1$ at the sonic
293: point.
294:
295: Inspection of the figure clearly shows that the space of possible
296: observed values does not contain a viable and consistent solution.
297: This is of course irrespective of whether a solution from the
298: photosphere outward can or cannot be obtained. The discrepancy
299: arises because a wind corresponding to the observed low mass loss
300: rate necessarily has a sonic point that is not deep enough to have
301: either convection or advection as an efficient mean of transporting
302: energy. This can be seen from the optical depth at which the sonic
303: point is obtained. In all cases, $1 \lesssim \tau < 300$. However,
304: convection is efficient only up to an optical depth of $\tau \sim c/
305: v_s \gg 300$ for $p_{rad} \sim p_{gas}$ (\citenp{S00b}), or even
306: deeper for larger radiation pressures (i.e., when close to the
307: Eddington limit).
308:
309: \section{Unfeasible Solutions to the Discrepancy}
310: \label{sec:bad}
311:
312: Can the discrepancy be resolve with a classical assumption? Since
313: the discrepancy is rather large, assuming the wind to emerge from an
314: angular fraction $f$ from the star does not relax the problem (it
315: actually aggravates the problem because more material will be blown
316: away from the higher luminosity regions). Another possibility that
317: fails is having a higher velocity in the photosphere than the one
318: observed today for the shed material. This might be the case if the
319: wind collides with previously ejected slow moving material. Even if
320: such material did exist, the necessarily reduced mass loss rate
321: inferred from the present day observed momentum aggravates the
322: problem.
323:
324: The problem is not mitigated if we relax the assumption that the mass
325: loss rate and the luminosity are assumed to be constant in time
326: throughout the eruption.
327:
328: If one wishes to solve the problem using magnetic fields, then a
329: solution can be found only if the magnetic energy density at the
330: photosphere is significantly larger (by several orders of magnitude)
331: then the equipartition value with the gas pressure. This of course
332: seems unlikely.
333:
334: Another option is to have the distance estimate to $\eta$-Car be
335: three times smaller than $2300~pc$. A shorter distance will remove
336: $\eta$-Car out of the cluster Tr16 of massive stars inside which it
337: is observed and leave it instead roaming the inter galactic arm
338: space. Considering the short lifetime of the star, just a few
339: million years, this possibility appears as very unlikely.
340:
341: The problem can be solved if the mass of the star corresponds to a
342: sub-Eddington luminosity. This proposed solution requires $\eta$-Car
343: to be at least a $\sim 1000~\ms$ star. However, this suggestion is
344: at variance with much lower estimates (see for instance
345: \citenp{DH97} and references therein). Nevertheless, having such a
346: massive star is in fact not completely unrealistic and would have
347: far reaching consequences if found to be true.
348:
349: \section{A Viable Solution to the Discrepancy}
350: \label{sec:good}
351:
352: As the title suggests, there is a clear solution to the
353: discrepancy. As the results show, the sonic point appears to be
354: between the optical depths of $\sim 1$ and $\sim 300$. The exact
355: value cannot be obtained since it requires the integration outward
356: from the photosphere, which owing to the relatively inaccurate
357: effective temperature and therefore opacity, yields a wide range of
358: results. If the {\it mean} radiative force between the point $\eta=1$
359: and the above found optical depth, is smaller than classically
360: estimated, then a solution to the discrepancy can be found. Such a
361: reduction in the mean radiative force is a natural result if the
362: atmosphere is inhomogeneous.
363:
364: \cite{S98} has shown that in an inhomogeneous atmosphere, the
365: effective opacity used to calculate the average force is reduced
366: relative to the effective opacity used for the radiation transfer in
367: a homogeneous medium. The effective opacity used for the average
368: force should be a volume {\em flux weighted} average of the opacity
369: per unit volume\footnote{When the flux is frequency dependant, a
370: similar average should be taken in order to find the radiative
371: force. However, one then takes a flux weighted mean over {\em
372: frequency space}.} $\chi_v \equiv \chi \rho$. Namely,
373: \begin{equation}
374: \chi_{\mt{eff}} = {\left< \chi \rho F\right> \over \left< F \right>
375: \left<\rho\right>}.
376: \end{equation}
377:
378: The effect is universal and arises in inhomogeneous systems that
379: conduct heat or electricity. Extensive discussions exist in the
380: literature under a different terminology (\citenp{I92}). The only
381: requirement is therefore, that close to the Eddington limit the star
382: develop inhomogeneities. The transformation from an homogeneous to
383: an inhomogeneous atmosphere at luminosities close to but below
384: Eddington luminosities, was recently found to take place generically
385: even in Thomson scattering atmospheres (\citenp{S99}; \citenp{ST99};
386: \citenp{S00}).
387:
388: It was found that two different types of instabilities arise
389: naturally when the luminosity approaches the Eddington limit
390: (\citenp{S00}). One instability is of a phase transition into a {\em
391: stationary} nonlinear pattern of ``fingers" that facilitate the
392: escape of the radiation. The second type of instability allows the
393: growth of a propagating wave, from which one expects a {\em
394: propagating} nonlinear pattern to form. The two possibilities are
395: summarized in figure \ref{fig_2}. Both instabilities bring about a
396: reduction of the average radiative force on the matter and a
397: significant reduction of the mass loss rate since the sonic surface
398: can sit near (or not much below) the photosphere. In both cases, the
399: nonlinear pattern is necessarily expected to form in the region
400: between the radius $r_{conv}$ at which $\eta=1$, or in other words,
401: that ${\cal L}_{conv} + {\cal L}_{adv}$ is large enough to have
402: ${\cal L}_r \lesssim {\cal L}_{Edd,mod}$, and the photosphere. When
403: the pattern is stationary, the rarefied regions have a larger than
404: Eddington flux and the sonic surface in these regions is near
405: $r_{conv}$. On the other hand, if the pattern is propagating, the
406: flux may be larger locally than the Eddington limit but the time
407: average of the force on a mass element is less than Eddington. Since
408: the instability does not occur above the photosphere, it should be
409: homogeneous and hence super-Eddington with a super-sonic flow.
410:
411: Further analysis of the instabilities is needed to know which
412: instability will dominate though it is more likely to be the phase
413: transition since it is dynamically more important.
414:
415: \section{Summary}
416: \label{sec:summary}
417:
418: To summarize, the super-Eddington luminosity emitted by $\eta$-Car
419: should have generated a much thicker wind with a sonic point placed
420: significantly deeper than what can be directly inferred from the
421: observations. A solution which lives in harmony with observations
422: and theoretical modeling is a porous atmosphere, which allows more
423: radiation to escape while exerting a smaller average force. It also
424: means that the Eddington limit is not as destructive as one would a
425: priori think it must be, even in a globally spherically symmetric
426: case. Namely, all astrophysical analyses that employ the Eddington
427: limit as a strict limit should be reconsidered carefully, even if
428: they involve only unmagnetized Thomson scattering material. If
429: $\eta$-Carinae could have been super-Eddington for such a long
430: duration without ``evaporating'', other systems can display a
431: similar behavior.
432:
433:
434: \begin{thebibliography}{ll}
435:
436: \bibitem[Currie et al.(1996)]{C96} Currie, D. G., Dowling, D. M.,
437: Shaya, E. J., Hester, J., Scowen, P., Groth, E. J., Lynds, R. O., \&
438: Earl, J. Jr Wide Field/Planetary Camera Instrument Definition Team,
439: 1996, \apj, 112, 1115
440:
441: \bibitem[Davidson(1987)]{D87} Davidson, K. 1987, \apj, 317, 760
442:
443: \bibitem[Davidson \& Humphreys(1997)]{DH97} Davidson, K. \&
444: Humphreys, R. M., 1997, \araa, 35, 1
445:
446: \bibitem[Hiller \& Allen(1992)]{HA92} Hillier, D. J. \& Allen,
447: D. A. 1992, \aap, 262, 153
448:
449: \bibitem[Humphreys \& Davidson(1994)]{HD94} Humphreys,
450: R. M. \& Davidson, K. 1994, \pasp, 106, 1025
451:
452: \bibitem[Iglesias \& Rogers(1996)]{IR96} Iglesias, C. A. \& Rogers,
453: F. J. 1996, \apj, 464, 943
454:
455: \bibitem[Isichenko(1992)]{I92} Isichenko, M. B. 1992,
456: {Rev. Mod. Phys.}, 64, 961.
457:
458: \bibitem[Joss et al.(1973)]{JSO73} Joss, P. C., Salpeter, E. E. \& Ostriker,
459: J. P. 1973, 181, 429
460:
461: \bibitem[Kato \& Hachisu(1994)]{KH94} Kato, M., \& Hachisu, I. 1994,
462: \apj, 437, 802
463:
464: \bibitem[Kudritzki et al.(1989)]{Puls} Kudritzki, R. P., Pauldrach,
465: A., Puls, J. \& Abbott, D. C. 1989 \aap, 219, 205
466:
467: \bibitem[Mihalas \& Weibel Mihalas(1984)]{MWM84} Mihalas D., \& Weibel
468: Mihalas B. 1984, Foundations of radiation hydrodynamics, Oxford univ.
469: press, Oxford
470:
471: \bibitem[Quinn \& Paczynski(1985)]{QP85} Quinn, T. \& Paczynski, B.
472: 1985, \apj, 289, 634
473:
474: \bibitem[Shaviv(1998)]{S98} Shaviv, N. J. 1998, \apj, 494, L193
475:
476: \bibitem[Shaviv(1999)]{S99} Shaviv, N. J. 1999, in {\it Variable and
477: Non-spherical Stellar Winds in Luminous Hot Stars, IAU Colloquium
478: 169}, ed.~B.~Wolf, O.~Stahl,~A.~W.~Fullerton, Springer, p. 155
479:
480: \bibitem[Shaviv(2000a)]{S00} Shaviv, N. J. 2000a, {submitted to
481: \apj}
482: \bibitem[Shaviv(2000b)]{S00b} Shaviv, N. J. 2000b, {submitted to
483: \apj}
484:
485: \bibitem[Spiegel \& Tao(1999)]{ST99} Spiegel, E. A., \& Tao L. 1999,
486: {Physics Reports}, 311, 163
487:
488: \bibitem[\.{Z}ytkow(1972)]{Z73} \.{Z}ytkow, A. 1972, {Acta
489: Astronomica}, 22, 103
490:
491: \end{thebibliography}
492:
493: \begin{figure}[p]
494: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig1.eps,width=4in,angle=-90}}
495: \caption{
496: The fraction $\eta = ({\cal L}_{adv}+ {\cal L}_{conv})/{\cal
497: L}_{crit}$ as a function of the photospheric velocity $v_{ph}$. A
498: consistent wind solution requires (a) that the velocity at the
499: photosphere $v_{ph}$ satisfy: $v_s \le v_{ph}
500: \le v_\infty$, and
501: (b) , $\eta(v=v_{s})=1$. The thick line corresponds to the nominal
502: observed and inferred values ($M_\star=100~\ms$,
503: $T_{\mathit{eff}}=9000^\circ$K, $\dot{M}=0.1~\ms/yr$, $\int{\cal
504: L}_{obs}dt = 3\times 10^{49}~erg$) while the additional lines depict
505: the result when the values are changed to their reasonable limits
506: (and even beyond). Clearly, no reasonable choice of parameters can
507: result with a sonic point that is consistent with a wind solution
508: (namely, we always find $\eta(v=v_s)\ll 1$). Basically, the
509: discrepancy arises because the mass loss rate observed is too small
510: to have the sonic point deep enough in the atmosphere where
511: convection can be an efficient mean of energy transport. }
512: \label{fig_1}
513: \end{figure}
514:
515: \begin{figure}[p]
516: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig2a.eps,width=3.5in}}
517: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig2b.eps,width=3.5in}}
518: \caption{
519: The proposed atmospheric structure of $\eta$ Carinae during its great
520: eruption. A homogeneous atmosphere is unstable as a result of two
521: generic instabilities that take place even in Thomson atmospheres
522: when close to the Eddington limit (\citenp{S00}). The effective
523: opacity is therefore reduced (\citenp{S98}) and with it the average
524: radiative force. The two panels describe the two types of
525: possibilities for having a `porous' atmosphere according to the
526: characteristics of the instability that arises. An instability could
527: produce a stationary pattern (first panel) if it originates from the
528: phase transition instability and a moving pattern if it originates
529: from the finite speed of light instability (second panel). See
530: details in the text.}
531: \label{fig_2}
532: \end{figure}
533:
534: \end{document}
535:
536:
537: