Paper detail

The ionised and molecular mass of post-common-envelope planetary nebulae. The missing mass problem

Most planetary nebulae (PNe) show beautiful, axisymmetric morphologies despite their progenitor stars being essentially spherical. Close binarity is widely invoked to help eject an axisymmetric nebula, after a brief phase of engulfment of the secondary within the envelope of the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) star, known as the common envelope (CE). The evolution of the AGB would thus be interrupted abruptly, its envelope being rapidly ejected to form the PN, which a priori would be more massive than a PN coming from the same star, were it single. We aim at testing this hypothesis by investigating the mass of a sample of 21 post-CE PNe, ~1/5th of the known total population, and comparing them to a large sample of `regular' (i.e. not known to host close binaries) PNe. We have gathered data on the ionised and molecular content of our sample and carried out new molecular observations. We derive the ionised and molecular masses of the sample by means of a systematic approach, using tabulated, dereddened H-beta fluxes for finding the ionised mass, and CO 2-1 and 3-2 observations for the molecular mass. There is a general lack of molecular content in post-CE PNe, with few exceptions. Once we derive the ionised and molecular masses, we find that post-CE PNe arising from Single-Degenerate (SD) systems are just as massive, on average, as `regular' PNe, whereas post-CE PNe arising from Double-Degenerate (DD) systems are considerably more massive, and show larger linear momenta and kinetic energy than SD systems and `regular' PNe. Reconstruction of the CE of four objects suggests that the mass of SD nebulae actually amounts to a very small fraction of the envelope of their progenitor stars. This leads to the uncomfortable question of where the rest of the envelope is and why we cannot detect it in the stars' vicinity, thus raising serious doubts on our understanding of these intriguing objects.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.