Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Stellar mergers and common-envelope evolution

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This review argues that binary-star cataclysms follow from entropy sorting and the energy formalism, completed by 3D simulations.

desk verdict A careful, useful encyclopedia review of mergers and common envelopes; the only real blemish is a botched scaling relation in Eq. (4). read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00111 v1 pith:E623C7HR submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Fabian R. N. Schneider , Mike Y. M. Lau , Friedrich K. Roepke This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords stellarmergerscommon-envelopeevolutionentropysortingenergyformalismmagnetohydrodynamicsimulationsbluestragglersmagneticfieldsluminousrednovae
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This chapter argues that the fast, dynamical-timescale reshaping of binary stars—two stars fusing into one, or a giant's envelope being ejected while its core and companion spiral together—is not a collection of unrelated accidents but follows from a few physical principles. For mergers, the key claim is entropy sorting: after the collision, low-entropy material sinks to the center and high-entropy material floats up, so the structure of the merged star can be predicted from the parent stars' entropy profiles. For common envelopes, the key claim is the energy formalism: orbital energy released during the spiral-in is converted into mechanical work that unbinds the envelope, with an efficiency parameter $\alpha_{\mathrm{CE}}$. The chapter adds that 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations are now revealing what the simplified pictures miss: torus formation and angular-momentum loss in mergers, and recombination energy, magnetic field amplification, and jet-like outflows in common envelopes. A sympathetic reader would take away that these two families of events share a common explanatory skeleton, even though many details remain unsettled.

What carries the argument

Entropy sorting (the chapter's central organizing idea for mergers) applies Archimedes' principle to stellar fluid: a star is buoyantly stable when specific entropy increases outward, $ds/dr>0$, so after an adiabatic merger the lowest-entropy material sinks to the center and the highest-entropy material rises. It predicts the layered structure of the merged star and which merger products resemble genuine single stars. The energy formalism (the chapter's central organizing idea for common envelopes) writes $E_{\mathrm{bind}}=-\alpha_{\mathrm{CE}}\Delta E_{\mathrm{orb}}$, where $\Delta E_{\mathrm{orb}}$ is the change in orbital energy during the spiral-in and $\alpha_{\mathrm{CE}}$ is the common-envelope efficiency; internal and recombination energy can be folded into $E_{\mathrm{bind}}$. Gravitational drag, parametrized through the Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton radius, supplies the mechanism that transfers orbital energy to the envelope and sets the inspiral on the dynamical timescale. The 3D (magneto)hydrodynamic simulations—the chapter's chosen exemplars are a 9+8 solar-mass main-sequence merger and a 12 solar-mass red supergiant common envelope with a 3 solar-mass companion—add what the simplified principles miss: a massive torus carrying most of the angular momentum, magnetic amplification saturating near turbulent equipartition, recombination-assisted envelope ejection, and magnetically launched jet-like outflows.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to rerun the 12 solar-mass red supergiant common-envelope setup at twice the spatial resolution and with the companion released from genuine Roche-lobe overflow; if the final orbital separation or the unbound envelope fraction shifts by more than the scatter allowed by observed post-common-envelope binaries, the energy-formalism picture anchored to current simulations would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The chapter's central claim is synthetic rather than new: the violent dynamical interactions that reshape close binaries are governed by two complementary principles. In stellar mergers, entropy sorting—buoyancy acting on fluid elements of different specific entropy—determines the layered structure of the remnant, because low-entropy core material sinks and high-entropy envelope material floats. In common-envelope evolution, the energy formalism equates the envelope's binding energy to the orbital energy lost during the spiral-in, $E_{\mathrm{bind}}=-\alpha_{\mathrm{CE}}\Delta E_{\mathrm{orb}}$, with the efficiency $\alpha_{\mathrm{CE}}$ absorbing all uncertainties. The chapter argues that 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations now complete these simplified pictures: they show that a merger remnant is a central spherically symmetric object surrounded by a massive torus, that magnetic fields are amplified to a saturation set by turbulent equipartition, and that common-envelope ejection succeeds through recombination energy and is shaped by magnetically launched bipolar jets. On these grounds the chapter maps merger products to blue stragglers, blue supergiants, magnetic stars, luminous red novae, some supernovae, and black-hole mergers, and maps common-envelope products to cataclysmic variables, X-ray binaries, planetary nebulae, and gravitational-wave sources.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a handful of 3D simulations—most prominently a 9+8 solar-mass main-sequence merger and a 12 solar-mass red supergiant common envelope—are representative of real stellar interactions; the authors admit in Section 4.6 that these runs begin with the companion already near the donor's surface and that convergence of the unbound mass and final separation has not been demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If entropy sorting is right, most main-sequence-plus-main-sequence mergers relax into objects that mimic genuine single stars of the same mass, while post-main-sequence-plus-main-sequence mergers retain smaller helium cores and thicker hydrogen envelopes and evolve as long-lived blue supergiants.
  • If the energy formalism with $\alpha_{\mathrm{CE}}\approx1$ is right, the observed separations of post-common-envelope binaries and the roughly 20% binary fraction among planetary-nebula central stars are natural consequences of envelope ejection.
  • If magnetic amplification saturates at turbulent equipartition, mergers and common-envelope phases should leave behind magnetized remnants—magnetic massive stars, highly magnetic white dwarfs, and magnetars—with roughly constant magnetic flux per unit mass, as the chapter derives from Eq. (4).
  • If recombination energy thermalizes in the expanding envelope, common-envelope ejection can succeed even when pure-hydrodynamics simulations leave the envelope bound, and the ejected material is expected to form tori, bipolar nebulae, and planetary nebulae with jet-shaped morphology.
  • If luminous red novae are merger and common-envelope transients, the simple orbital-energy estimate of Eq. (12) explains their plateau luminosities across the observed range from roughly $10^{36}$ to $10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the chapter itself notes in Section 4.6 that common-envelope simulations are not numerically converged and start with the companion already at the donor's surface, a reader should treat the quantitative predictions of current 3D runs—unbound envelope mass, final orbital separation, and the implied $\alpha_{\mathrm{CE}}$—as provisional rather than calibrated.
  • The entropy-sorting framework suggests a testable population-level prediction: merger products should show asteroseismic fingerprints (small cores, thick hydrogen-burning shells, unusual chemical gradients) that single-star models cannot reproduce, and observations of such pulsators could discriminate mergers from genuine single stars.
  • If magnetically launched bipolar outflows are a generic feature of common-envelope interactions, the fraction and morphology of bipolar planetary nebulae could serve as a quantitative diagnostic of the magnetic field strengths reached during the spiral-in—a diagnostic the chapter does not itself construct.
  • The chapter's own distinction between mergers and common envelopes is one of degree, so observers might expect a continuum of transients between luminous red novae from mergers and envelope-ejection events, rather than two cleanly separated families.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This encyclopedia chapter reviews the physics of stellar mergers and common-envelope evolution, covering the evolutionary pathways that lead to these dynamical interactions, the simplified analytical frameworks (entropy sorting for mergers and the energy formalism for common envelopes), the insights from 3D (magneto)hydrodynamic simulations, and the observed products and transients. The review places particular emphasis on magnetic field amplification in merger and common-envelope events, connecting these to magnetic massive stars, magnetic white dwarfs, and magnetars. It concludes with open questions and future directions. The manuscript is a comprehensive, well-referenced review that explicitly acknowledges many limitations of current simulations in Section 4.6.

Significance. The chapter provides a current and authoritative overview of a mature field, synthesizing a large body of literature and usefully connecting simulations, theory, and observations. Its balanced treatment and explicit listing of simulation shortcomings (Section 4.6) are strengths. However, the internal inconsistency in the magnetic-field scaling (Equation 4) undermines one of the chapter's emphasized quantitative claims, specifically the connection between merger simulations and observed magnetic field strengths. This issue needs to be corrected for the review to be reliable.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3.5, Eq. (4)] The magnetic-field scaling printed in Eq. (4), B ~ 10^3 G (M/5 M_sun)^3 (R/R_sun)^(-2), does not follow from the stated assumptions of energy equipartition (Eq. 3) with v_turb ~ v_Kep = (GM/R)^(1/2) and rho ~ M/R^3. Those assumptions give B = sqrt(4*pi*G) M/R^2, i.e., B proportional to (M/5 M_sun)^1 (R/R_sun)^(-2), with a prefactor of order 2 x 10^8 G at M = 5 M_sun, R = 3 R_sun. Moreover, the immediately following claim that the model predicts a constant magnetic flux per unit mass (BR^2/M = const.) is inconsistent with the printed M^3 dependence, which would give BR^2/M proportional to M^2. Because this equation is used to connect merger products to observed field strengths in magnetic massive stars, magnetic white dwarfs, and magnetars, the quantitative support for that connection is currently invalid. The authors should correct the exponent and prefactor (or state the additional assumptions that yield the printed scaling) and then re-evaluate the claimed agreement with observations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, Fig. 3] The text states that in the 3D MHD merger the ejecta mass is 'smaller by about a factor of 10' and 'only about 1% of the total binary mass is lost'; for the HAMS fit at q ~ 0.9, the ejecta fraction is about 6%, so a factor of 10 would give roughly 0.6%, which is inconsistent with the stated 1%. Please reconcile the numbers.
  2. [Section 4.5] There is an extra closing parenthesis in the phrase 'of the order of 10 km s−1)'.
  3. [Section 4.7] The text contains the typo 'steller mergers' where 'stellar mergers' is intended.
  4. [Figure 7 caption] The density units and exponent appear as 'g cm□3' and '10□10', indicating formatting problems; please ensure that the superscripts (g cm^-3 and 10^-10) are displayed properly.
  5. [Glossary] The abbreviation 'c.f.' should be 'cf.' for consistency with standard usage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a review chapter summarizing independently published results; the Eq. (4) magnetic-field scaling mismatch is a non-circular typo or derivation error.

full rationale

Circularity analysis: This is a review chapter with no original derivation or parameter-fitting claim presented as a new prediction. The organizing principles—entropy sorting for mergers and the energy formalism for common-envelope evolution—are introduced as established concepts with independent literature citations, and the chapter explicitly notes their limitations, including that entropy sorting gives a qualitatively wrong result for the 9+8 M_sun merger (Section 3.2) and that the energy formalism is 'rudimentary but instructive' (Section 4.1). The illustrative scalings, such as the ejecta-fraction fit of Eq. (2) from Glebbeek et al. (2013), the drag-timescale estimates of Eqs. (8)-(10), and the luminous-red-nova luminosity estimate of Eq. (12), are order-of-magnitude summaries of prior simulation and analytic work, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. Self-citations (e.g., Schneider et al. 2019, 2020, 2024; Lau et al. 2022b; Ondratschek et al. 2022) are used to summarize published simulations that are externally anchored to observables such as magnetic massive stars, blue stragglers, and planetary nebulae, and the chapter also cites independent groups for analogous processes (e.g., Pakmor et al. 2024; Kiuchi et al. 2024; Glebbeek et al. 2013). No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to foreclose alternatives; the chapter repeatedly lists open questions and shortcomings, and Section 4.6 states that 'Numerical convergence of key quantities like the amount of unbound envelope mass and final orbital separation have yet to be demonstrated.' One non-circular internal inconsistency should be flagged for the correctness pass: in Section 3.5, Eq. (4) as printed gives B proportional to (M/5 M_sun)^3 (R/R_sun)^(-2), but the equipartition equation (3) with v_turb ~ v_Kep = sqrt(GM/R) and rho ~ M/R^3 yields B proportional to M/R^2. The immediately following claim of constant magnetic flux per unit mass, BR^2/M = const., follows only from B proportional to M/R^2; with the printed M^3 scaling it would scale as M^2. This is a mathematical typo or derivation error in a supporting estimate, not a circular reduction: the 'constant flux' statement is a dimensional consequence of the assumed scalings rather than a quantity fitted from the same observations, so the review's derivational chain remains non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review and introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or entities. It reports parameters and assumptions from the cited literature. We list the most prominent fitted parameters and domain assumptions that the review's narrative relies on, drawn from its own equations and sections.

free parameters (3)
  • C (ejecta fraction coefficient) = 0.240 +/- 0.012 (HAMS), 0.331 +/- 0.011 (TAMS), 0.332 +/- 0.010 (CHEX)
    In Eq. (2), Phi = C q/(1+q)^2, fitted to head-on collision simulations of Glebbeek et al. (2013); the review reports these fits and uses them to discuss mass loss in mergers.
  • alpha_CE (common-envelope efficiency) = ~1 (order unity, uncertain)
    In Eq. (5), alpha_CE parametrizes efficiency of orbital energy use in envelope ejection; inferred from post-common-envelope binaries (Zorotovic et al. 2010) and discussed in Sect. 4.1.
  • alpha_th (internal energy efficiency) = uncertain
    In Eq. (7), alpha_th weights the internal energy term in envelope binding energy; the review notes its value is uncertain and affects alpha_CE.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Schwarzschild criterion for convective stability (ds/dr > 0)
    Used in Sect. 3.1 to justify entropy sorting; standard stellar structure result (Landau & Lifshitz 1959).
  • ad hoc to paper Equipartition between turbulent and magnetic energy densities (e_turb ~ e_B)
    Assumed in Sect. 3.5 to derive Eq. (4) for magnetic field strengths; the review calls it a simplified phenomenological model.
  • domain assumption Point-particle representation of stellar cores with softened gravity is adequate for global common-envelope dynamics
    Stated in Sect. 4.6 as a limitation; the review acknowledges it prevents modeling core response and accretion.
  • domain assumption The 9+8 solar mass main-sequence merger simulation is representative of typical stellar mergers
    Used throughout Sect. 3 as the exemplary case; the review notes entropy sorting fails in near-equal-mass mergers, so generalization to unequal masses is based on other simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar mergers and common-envelope evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E623C7HR

@misc{pith2026250200111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar mergers and common-envelope evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E623C7HR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00111}
}
read the original abstract

Stellar mergers and common-envelope evolution are fast (dynamical-timescale) interactions in binary stars that drastically alter their evolution. They are key to understanding a plethora of astrophysical phenomena. Stellar mergers are thought to produce blue straggler stars, blue supergiants, and stars with peculiar rotation and surface chemical abundances. Common-envelope evolution is proposed as a key stage in the formation of gravitational wave sources, X-ray binaries, type Ia supernovae, cataclysmic variables, and other systems. A significant fraction (tens of percent) of binary stars undergo such a phase during their evolution. In this chapter, we first discuss processes leading to a stellar merger or common-envelope phase. We then explain these complex interactions, starting from underlying physical principles like entropy sorting in stellar mergers and the energy formalism in common envelopes. This is followed by a more complete picture revealed by three-dimensional (magneto)hydrodynamical simulations. The outcomes of these interactions are discussed comprehensively and special emphasis is given to the role of magnetic fields. Both stellar mergers and common-envelope evolution remain far from fully understood, and we conclude by highlighting open questions in their study.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Framework for Linking Pre- and Post-Common Envelope Binary Properties with Star Clusters: The First Demonstration with a Massive White Dwarf+M Dwarf Binary in Alessi 12

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A cluster white-dwarf/M-dwarf binary with a 6.99-hour orbit provides the first precise pre/post-common-envelope benchmark, implying a 5.4-solar-mass progenitor and a common-envelope efficiency of either ≈0.99 (mid-AGB...

  2. Magnetic field generation in mergers of massive main-sequence stars

    astro-ph.SR 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 3D MHD simulation of a 9+8 solar-mass main-sequence star merger amplifies magnetic fields into a large-scale, mostly toroidal configuration, supporting mergers as a source of magnetic massive stars.

  3. A blue-straggler merger scenario origin for the $\gamma$~Persei binary system

    astro-ph.SR 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    γ Persei's primary likely formed from the merger of two main-sequence stars, explaining why it appears younger than its binary companion.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    General local stability criteria for stratified, weakly magnetized rotating systems.Astrophysical Journal 453:

    Balbus SA (1995), Nov. General local stability criteria for stratified, weakly magnetized rotating systems.Astrophysical Journal 453:

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Common-envelope evolution with an asymptotic giant branch star

    Sand C, Ohlmann ST, Schneider FRN, Pakmor R and R¨opke FK (2020), Dec. Common-envelope evolution with an asymptotic giant branch star. Astronomy and Astrophysics 644: A60. Schneider FRN, Izzard RG, de Mink SE, Langer N, Stolte A, de Koter A, Gvaramadze VV, Hußmann B, Liermann A and Sana H (2014), Jan. Ages of young star clusters, massive blue stragglers, ...

    work page 2020

  3. [5]

    The quest for blue supergiants: binary merger models for the evolution of the progenitor of SN 1987A

    Menon A and Heger A (2017), Aug. The quest for blue supergiants: binary merger models for the evolution of the progenitor of SN 1987A. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 469: 4649–4664. Menon A, Ercolino A, Urbaneja MA, Lennon DJ, Herrero A, Hirai R, Langer N, Schootemeijer A, Chatzopoulos E, Frank J and Shiber S (2024), Mar. Evidence for E...

    work page 2017

  4. [13]

    Luminous blue variables and superluminous supernovae from binary mergers

    Justham S, Podsiadlowski P and Vink JS (2014), Dec. Luminous blue variables and superluminous supernovae from binary mergers. Astrophysical Journal 796:

    work page 2014

  5. [15]

    From 3D hydrodynamic simulations of common-envelope interaction to gravitational-wave mergers.Astronomy and Astrophysics 667: A72

    Moreno MM, Schneider FRN, R¨opke FK, Ohlmann ST, Pakmor R, Podsiadlowski P and Sand C (2022), Nov. From 3D hydrodynamic simulations of common-envelope interaction to gravitational-wave mergers.Astronomy and Astrophysics 667: A72. Munari U, Henden A, Kiyota S, Laney D, Marang F , Zwitter T, Corradi RLM, Desidera S, Marrese PM, Giro E, Boschi F and Schwartz...

    work page 2022

  6. [20]

    JC (2014), May

    Nandez JLA, Ivanova N and Lombardi Jr. JC (2014), May. V1309 Sco – understanding a merger.Astrophysical Journal 786:

    work page 2014

  7. [28]

    Rejuvenation of stellar mergers and the origin of magnetic fields in massive stars

    Schneider FRN, Podsiadlowski P , Langer N, Castro N and Fossati L (2016), Apr. Rejuvenation of stellar mergers and the origin of magnetic fields in massive stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 457: 2355–2365. Schneider FRN, Ohlmann ST, Podsiadlowski P , R¨opke FK, Balbus SA, Pakmor R and Springel V (2019), Oct. Stellar mergers as the o...

    work page 2016

  8. [35]

    Blue supergiant progenitor models of type II supernovae

    Vanbeveren D, Mennekens N, Van Rensbergen W and De Loore C (2013), Apr. Blue supergiant progenitor models of type II supernovae. Astronomy and Astrophysics 552: A105. Vetter M, R¨opke FK, Schneider FRN, Pakmor R, Ohlmann ST, Lau MYM and Andrassy R (2024), Nov. From spherical stars to disk-like structures: 3D common-envelope evolution of massive binaries b...

    work page 2013

Show all 33 references
  1. [39]

    Offner SSR, Moe M, Kratter KM, Sadavoy SI, Jensen ELN and Tobin JJ (2023), Jul., The origin and evolution of multiple star systems, Inutsuka S, Aikawa Y , Muto T, Tomida K and Tamura M, (Eds.), Protostars and planets VII, Astronomical society of the pacific conference series, 534, pp

    2023

  2. [52]

    Luminous red novae: Stellar mergers or giant eruptions? Astronomy and Astrophysics 630: A75

    Pastorello A, Mason E, Taubenberger S, Fraser M, Cortini G, Tomasella L, Botticella MT, Elias-Rosa N, Kotak R, Smartt SJ, Benetti S, Cappellaro E, Turatto M, Tartaglia L, Djorgovski SG, Drake AJ, Berton M, Briganti F , Brimacombe J, Bufano F , Cai YZ, Chen S, Christensen EJ, C...

    2019

  3. [74]

    Asteroseismic fingerprints of stellar mergers

    Rui NZ and Fuller J (2021), Dec. Asteroseismic fingerprints of stellar mergers. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 508 (2): 1618–1631. R¨opke FK and De Marco O (2023), Dec. Simulations of common-envelope evolution in binary stellar systems: physical models and n...

    2021

  4. [75]

    Large-scale ordered magnetic fields generated in mergers of helium white dwarfs

    Pakmor R, Pelisoli I, Justham S, Rajamuthukumar AS, R ¨opke FK, Schneider FRN, de Mink SE, Ohlmann ST, Podsiadlowski P , Mor ´an-Fraile J, Vetter M and Andrassy R (2024), Nov. Large-scale ordered magnetic fields generated in mergers of helium white dwarfs. Astronomy and Astrop...

    2024

  5. [87]

    Simulating the formation of η Carinae’s surrounding nebula through unstable triple evolution and stellar merger-induced eruption

    Hirai R, Podsiadlowski P , Owocki SP , Schneider FRN and Smith N (2021), May. Simulating the formation of η Carinae’s surrounding nebula through unstable triple evolution and stellar merger-induced eruption. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 503 (3): 4276–

    2021

  6. [114]

    On the evolution of galactic nuclei.Astrophysical Journal 143:

    Spitzer Lyman J and Saslaw WC (1966), Feb. On the evolution of galactic nuclei.Astrophysical Journal 143:

    1966

  7. [117]

    Evolution of mass functions of coeval stars through wind mass loss and binary interactions

    Schneider FRN, Izzard RG, Langer N and de Mink SE (2015), May. Evolution of mass functions of coeval stars through wind mass loss and binary interactions. Astrophysical Journal 805 (1):

    2015

  8. [121]

    Dynamical friction of a circular-orbit perturber in a gaseous medium

    Kim H and Kim WT (2007), Aug. Dynamical friction of a circular-orbit perturber in a gaseous medium. Astrophysical Journal 665 (1): 432–444. Kippenhahn R and Meyer-Hofmeister E (1977), Jan. On the radii of accreting main sequence stars. Astronomy and Astrophysics 54: 539–542. K...

    2007 doi arXiv

  9. [163]

    Formation of black holes in the pair-instability mass gap: Evolution of a post-collision star

    Costa G, Ballone A, Mapelli M and Bressan A (2022), Oct. Formation of black holes in the pair-instability mass gap: Evolution of a post-collision star. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 516 (1): 1072–1080. Darwin GH (1879). The determination of the secular effe...

    2022

  10. [180]

    Binary evolution in stellar dynamics

    Heggie DC (1975), Dec. Binary evolution in stellar dynamics. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 173: 729–787. Hellings P (1983), Oct. Phenomenological study of massive accretion stars. Astrophysics and Space Science 96 (1): 37–54. Henneco J, Schneider FRN, Hekke...

    1975

  11. [195]

    Braun H and Langer N (1995), May. Effects of accretion onto massive main sequence stars.Astronomy and Astrophysics Britavskiy N, Lennon DJ, Patrick LR, Evans CJ, Herrero A, Langer N, van Loon JT, Clark JS, Schneider FRN and Almeida LA (2019), Apr. The VLT-FLAMES tarantula surv...

    1995

  12. [255]

    Binary progenitor models of type IIb supernovae

    Claeys JSW, de Mink SE, Pols OR, Eldridge JJ and Baes M (2011), Apr. Binary progenitor models of type IIb supernovae. Astronomy and Astrophysics 528: A131. Stellar mergers and common-envelope evolution 19 Clayton M, Podsiadlowski P , Ivanova N and Justham S (2017), Sep. Episod...

    2011

  13. [275]

    Hydrodynamic moving-mesh simulations of the common envelope phase in binary stellar systems

    Ohlmann ST, R¨opke FK, Pakmor R and Springel V (2016a). Hydrodynamic moving-mesh simulations of the common envelope phase in binary stellar systems. Astrophysical Journal, Letters 816 (1): L9. Ohlmann ST, R¨opke FK, Pakmor R, Springel V and M¨uller E (2016b). Magnetic field am...

    2016

  14. [290]

    Light echoes from the plateau in Eta Carinae’s Great Eruption reveal a two-stage shock-powered event.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480: 1466–1498

    Smith N, Andrews JE, Rest A, Bianco FB, Prieto JL, Matheson T, James DJ, Smith RC, Strampelli GM and Zenteno A (2018), Oct. Light echoes from the plateau in Eta Carinae’s Great Eruption reveal a two-stage shock-powered event.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 48...

    2018

  15. [345]

    The asteroseismic imprints of mass transfer

    Wagg T, Johnston C, Bellinger EP , Renzo M, Townsend R and de Mink SE (2024), Jul. The asteroseismic imprints of mass transfer. A case study of a binary mass-gainer in the SPB instability strip. Astronomy and Astrophysics 687: A222. Wang C, Langer N, Schootemeijer A, Milone A,...

    2024

  16. [380]

    A powerful local shear instability in weakly magnetized disks

    Balbus SA and Hawley JF (1991), Jul. A powerful local shear instability in weakly magnetized disks. I - Linear analysis. II - Nonlinear evolution. Astrophysical Journal 376: 214–233. Bellinger EP , de Mink SE, van Rossem WE and Justham S (2024), Jun. The Potential of Asterosei...

    1991

  17. [400]

    Hydrodynamic simulations of the interaction between giant stars and planets

    Staff JE, De Marco O, Wood P , Galaviz P and Passy JC (2016), May. Hydrodynamic simulations of the interaction between giant stars and planets. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 458: 832–844. Taam RE (1979), Jan. Double core evolution and X-ray binaries.Astroph...

    2016

  18. [433]

    Binary central stars of planetary nebulae identified with Kepler/K2

    Jacoby GH, Hillwig TC, Jones D, Martin K, De Marco O, Kronberger M, Hurowitz JL, Crocker AF and Dey J (2021), Oct. Binary central stars of planetary nebulae identified with Kepler/K2. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 506 (4): 5223–5246. Joss PC, Rappaport S an...

    2021

  19. [633]

    Seismic signature of electron degeneracy in the core of red giants: Hints for mass transfer between close red-giant companions

    Deheuvels S, Ballot J, Gehan C and Mosser B (2022), Mar. Seismic signature of electron degeneracy in the core of red giants: Hints for mass transfer between close red-giant companions. Astronomy and Astrophysics 659: A106. Di Carlo UN, Giacobbo N, Mapelli M, Pasquato M, Spera ...

    2022

  20. [797]

    JC, Warren JS, Rasio FA, Sills A and Warren AR (2002), Apr

    Lombardi Jr. JC, Warren JS, Rasio FA, Sills A and Warren AR (2002), Apr. Stellar collisions and the interior structure of blue stragglers. Astrophysical Journal 568: 939–953. Marchant P and Bodensteiner J (2024), Sep. The Evolution of Massive Binary Stars. Annual Review of Ast...

    2002

  21. [1050]

    Light-curve model for luminous red novae and inferences about the ejecta of stellar mergers

    Matsumoto T and Metzger BD (2022), Oct. Light-curve model for luminous red novae and inferences about the ejecta of stellar mergers. Astrophysical Journal 938 (1):

    2022

  22. [2008]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics 516: A108

    A candidate twin of V838 Monocerotis. Astronomy and Astrophysics 516: A108. Mathis JS (1967), Mar. Nuclear reactions during stellar collisions. Astrophysical Journal 147:

    1967

  23. [2584]

    A comprehensive set of simulations of high-velocity collisions between main-sequence stars.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 358: 1133–1158

    Freitag M and Benz W (2005), Apr. A comprehensive set of simulations of high-velocity collisions between main-sequence stars.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 358: 1133–1158. Frost AJ, Sana H, Mahy L, Wade G, Barron J, Bouquin JBL, M ´erand A, Schneider FRN, Sh...

    2005

  24. [4296]

    Luminous Red Novae: population models and future prospects

    Howitt G, Stevenson S, Vigna-G ´omez Ar, Justham S, Ivanova N, Woods TE, Neijssel CJ and Mandel I (2020), Mar. Luminous Red Novae: population models and future prospects. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 492 (3): 3229–3240. Humphreys RM and Davidson K (1979), ...

    2020

  25. [5263]

    Accretion onto pre-main-sequence stars

    Hartmann L, Herczeg G and Calvet N (2016), Sep. Accretion onto pre-main-sequence stars. Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys 54: 135–

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.