format: text

text:
# Origin of Neutrino Masses and Mixings

## 1 INTRODUCTION

There is now strong evidence for neutrino masses and mixings from the solar and atmospheric neutrino observations. The simplest way to understand the deficits in neutrino fluxes observed in the above experiments is to assume that the incident neutrinos oscillate into another species which cannot be detected. For neutrino oscillations to take place, they must have mass and mix among themselves, with appropriate mass differences and mixing angles. As far as the accelerator searches for such oscillation effects go, with the exception of the Los Alamos experiment (LSND), all others have yielded negative results. These are of course not in contradiction with the solar and atmospheric data since they probe different ranges of masses and mixings. In fact, the negative results from the two experiments, CHOOZ and PALO VERDE provide upper limits on one of the mixing angles that has interesting interesting implications for theories of neutrino masses. In this brief overview, I wish to draw attention to the theoretical progress in understanding mass and mixing patterns in extensions of the standard model, specifically the ones based on the seesaw mechanism that seems to provide the simplest way to understand small neutrino masses. Due to space limitations, this exposition will be brief, specially with respect to references and we refer the reader to a recent review by the author on the subject.

### 1.1 Four major theoretical issues in neutrino physics:

The major issues of interest in neutrino theory are driven by the following experimental results and conclusions derived from them. We will use the notation, where the flavor or weak eigen states $`\nu _\alpha `$ (with $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$) are expressed in terms of the mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ ($`i=1,2,3)`$ as $`\nu _\alpha =_iU_{\alpha i}^{MNS}\nu _i`$. The $`U_{\alpha i}^{MNS}`$, the elements of the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix represent the observable mixing angles if the basis is such that the charged lepton masses are diagonal. In any other basis, one has $`U^{MNS}=U_{\mathrm{}}^{}U_\nu `$, where the matrices on the right hand side are the ones that diagonalize the charged lepton and neutrino mass matrices. For simplicity, we will drop the superscript MNS in what follows.

#### 1.1.1 Solar neutrinos:

There is no clear winner among the various possible oscillation solutions to the solar neutrino puzzle. In our discussion below, we will consider the small angle MSW solution, specially in the case when we want to understand the LSND results in the framework of a four neutrino picture. Of particular interest now is the large angle MSW solution, since it provides one way to understand the reported flat energy distribution in the data. Vacuum oscillation requires very small mass differences and we will not discuss it here, even though it also can a viable possibility. Typical mass difference required is: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\nu _e\nu _X}^210^5`$ eV2, with mixing angles either maximal or small.

#### 1.1.2  Atmospheric neutrinos:

Here evidence appears very convincing that the likely explanation involves oscillation of $`\nu _\mu `$ to $`\nu _\tau `$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^23\times 10^3`$ eV2 and maximal mixing.

#### 1.1.3  LSND:

The evidence for $`\nu _\mu `$ to $`\nu _e`$ oscillation from LSND needs to be confirmed by another experiment. The KARMEN experiment has eliminated part of the original LSND allowed domain. The MiniBOONE at Fermilab will either confirm or refute these observations more definitively. But taking what we have at present seriously, requires $`\nu _\mu `$ to $`\nu _e`$ mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }^20.22`$ eV2 with points around $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^26`$ eV2 also allowed with a small mixing (few percent level).

#### 1.1.4  Neutrinoless double beta decay:

The most stringent limits here are from the enriched 76Ge experiment by the Heidelberg-Moscow collaboration and leads to a constraint on masses and mixing angles as: $`_iU_{ei}^2m_i0.3`$ eV, with an uncertainty of a factor of 2 due to nuclear matrix elements.

#### 1.1.5  $`U_{e3}`$:

The reactor experiments CHOOZ and PALO VERDE experiments imply that $`U_{e3}0.16`$.

The four major issues in neutrino physics can now be stated as follows:

* How does one understand the extreme smallness of the neutrino masses ?
* How does one understand the maximal mixing angles among neutrinos given that there is so much similarity between quarks and leptons and that the quark mixings are small?
* Could the neutrino masses (all or some) be degenerate ?
* If LSND is confirmed, the only way to reconcile all data seems to be to postulate the existence of a sterile neutrino. The question then is: how does one understand the ultralightness of the sterile neutrino ? Note that since it is an electroweak singlet, its mass could take any value.

## 2 SMALL NEUTRINO MASSES

It is well known that in the standard model the neutrino is massless due to a combination of two reasons: (i) one, its righthanded partner ($`\nu _R`$) is absent and (ii) the model has exact global $`BL`$ symmetry. Clearly, to understand a nonzero neutrino mass, one must give up one of the above assumptions. If one blindly included a $`\nu _R`$ to the standard model as a singlet, the status of neutrino would be parallel to all other fermions in the model and one would be hard put to understand why its mass is so much smaller than that of other fermions. On the other hand, instead of adding the $`\nu _R`$, one might exploit a prevailing lore that gravity breaks all global symmetries and include in the Lagrangian Planck mass suppressed higher dimensional operators of the form $`LHLH/M_P\mathrm{}`$ (where $`L`$ is a lepton doublet and $`H`$ is the Higgs doublet). These in general lead to masses for neutrinos of order $`10^5`$ eV or less and are therefore not adequate for understanding observations. Thus a nontrivial extension of the standard model is called for.

### 2.1 Does $`m_\nu `$ necessarily imply a right handed neutrino ?

An interesting class of models were proposed in the 80’s where one extends the stanadrd model without adding right handed neutrinos but extra Higgs bosons to understand small $`m_\nu `$. In one class of models, one adds a Higgs triplet with $`BL=2`$ with a large mass $`MM_W`$. The triplet field acquires small vev of order $`v_T\frac{M_W^2}{M}`$ via the type II seesaw mechanism. Thus, modulo the unknown origin of $`MM_W`$, this provides an understanding of the small $`m_\nu `$. There is however one problem with this mechanism: to generate the baryon asymmetry of the universe, one has to employ the triplet decay and out of equilibrium decay condition of Sakharov then implies that $`M10^{13}`$ GeV. This scale is much higher than the conventional reheating temperature in inflation models with supersymmetry. Thus while this mechanism may prove adequate for neutrino physics, it falls short of expectations within a broader picture where one attempts a unifiied understanding of different aspects of particle physics and cosmology.

A second approach is to attempt an understanding of small $`m_\nu `$ using only electroweak scale physics and radiative corrections. There are generic one loop  and two loop one type models. The idea is to extend the standard model by adding $`SU(2)_L`$ singlet, electrically charged fields: $`\eta (1,2)`$ in the first case and $`\eta ^+`$ and $`h^{++}`$ in the second case. The two loop mechanism has the advantage that it requires less of a fine tuning to get the desired smallness for $`m_\nu `$. However, both these approaches suffer from the difficulty that it is not easy to understand the origin of baryons in the universe. The reason for that is that they necessarily involve $`BL`$ violating interactions at the weak scale which will necessarily erase any baryons produced.

### 2.2 Right handed neutrino, seesaw mechanism and neutrino mass

It seems rather compelling from the above reasoning that the small mass of neutrinos provides a strong reason to believe in the existence of an additional fermion state in nature i.e. the right handed neutrino, one per generation. The inclusion of the $`\nu _R`$ expands the gauge symmetry of the electroweak interactions to $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ symmetry with fermion doublets $`(u,d)_{L,R}`$ and $`(\nu ,e)_{L,R}`$ assigned to the left-right gauge group in a parity symmetric manner; furthermore the model has quark-lepton symmetry. More importantly, the elctric charge formula for the model takes a very interesting form: $`Q=I_{3L}+I_{3R}+\frac{BL}{2}`$. It can be concluded from this that below the scale $`v_R`$ where the $`SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ symmetry breaks down to the standard model and above the scale of $`M_W`$, one has the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_{3R}=\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{BL}{2}`$. This relation has the profound consequence that neutrino must be a Majorana particle and that there must be lepton number violating interactions in nature. In particular, the $`\nu _L\nu _R`$ mass matrix for three generations takes the form:

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{LL}& M_{LR}\\ M_{LR}^T& M_{RR}\end{array}\right)`$ (3)
where $`M_{RR}=𝐟v_R`$ is the Majorana mass matrix of the right handed neutrinos, ($`𝐟`$ is the new Yukawa coupling that determines the right handed neutrino masses); $`M_{LL}𝐟\frac{v_{wk}^2}{v_R}`$ is the induced Majorana mass matrix for the left handed neutrinos; $`M_{LR}M_D=𝐘v_{wk}`$ is the Dirac mass matrix connecting the left and the right handed neutrinos. The diagonalization of this mass matrix leads to following form for the light neutrino masses:

$`M_\nu 𝐟{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda v_{wk}^2}{v_R}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_R}}M_D^T𝐟^1M_D;`$ (4)
$`𝐟`$, the Yukawa coupling matrix that is responsible for the mass matrix of the heavy right handed neutrinos characterizes the high scale physics, whereas all other parameters denote physics at the weak scale. We have called this generalized formula for neutrino masses, the type II seesaw formula to distinguish it from the one that is commonly used in literature where the first term of Eq. (2) is absent. Important feature of this formula is that both terms vanish as $`v_R\mathrm{}`$ and since $`v_Rv_{wk}`$, the smallness of the neutrino mass is much smaller than the charged fermion masses. As was particularly emphasized in the third paper of ref., the dominance of V-A interaction in the low energy weak processes is now connected to smallness of neutrino masses.

If in the above seesaw formula, the second term dominates, this leads to the canonical type I seesaw formula and leads to the often discussed hierarchical neutrino masses, which in the approximation of small mixings lead to $`m_{\nu _i}m_{f_i}^2/v_R`$, where $`f_i`$ is either a charged lepton or a quark depending on the kind of model for neutrinos.

On the other hand, in models where the first term dominates, the neutrino masses are almost generation independent. Therefore, if there is indication for neutrinos being degenerate in mass  from observations, one will have to resort to type II seesaw mechanism for its understanding.

A further advantage of the right handed neutrino and seesaw mechanism is that it fits in very nicely into grand unified frameworks based on SO(10) models. The coupling constant unification then provides a theoretical justification for the high seesaw scale and hemnce the small neutrino masses. Furthermore, the 16-dim. spinor representation of SO(10) has just the right quantum numbers to fit the $`\nu _R`$ in addition to the standard model particles of each generation.

## 3 BARYOGENESIS CONSTRAINTS

In the models with a heavy right handed neutrino, there is a definite mechanism for baryogenesis via leptogenesis, which has been well discussed in the literature. It is the decay of the right handed neutrinos (denoted by $`N_R`$) $`N_R\nu \mathrm{}`$ that in conjunction with the CP violation in leptonic couplings generates lepton asymmetry. The lepton asymmetry is subsequently converted to baryon asymmetry via the sphaleron interactions, associated with the electroweak physics. An essential prerequisite for leptogenesis is that the interactions involving the $`N_R`$ must be out of equilibrium i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_R}H`$ (H is Hubble parameter at the relevant epoch). This equation roughly translates into $`\frac{h^2}{12\pi }\frac{10M_{N_R}}{M_P\mathrm{}}`$, $`h`$ being the Yukawa couplings of the relevant $`N_R`$, expected to be roughly of the same order of magnitude as the quark or lepton Yukawa couplings. It is not very hard to see that only the lightest of the three righthanded neutrinos (which in a hierarchical picture is predominantly of electron type i.e. $`N_{eR}`$) will have the smallest coupling $`h`$ and will satisfy the out of equilibrium condition. However since all the $`N_R`$’s are mixed among each other, the same condition also implies that $`N_{eR}`$ mixing with $`N_{\mu ,\tau R}`$ determined by the $`𝐟`$ matrix better be very small. In quantitative terms, this means that $`𝐟_{e\mu }\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }`$ and $`𝐟_{e\tau }\frac{m_e}{m_\tau }`$ or so. To see the kind of constraints they imply on the neutrino masses and mixings, let us assume type I seesaw and that in analogy with the quark sector, the mixings in the Dirac neutrino mass matrix are negligible. One then gets:

$`v_R^1M_e^DM_\mu ^D{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}U_{ei}U_{\mu i}m_i^15\times 10^3`$ (5)
$`v_R^1M_e^DM_\tau ^D{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}U_{ei}U_{\tau i}m_i^12.5\times 10^4.`$ (6)
These in turn can put severe constraints on models for neutrino masses. In fact, there are interesting examples neutrino mass models in the literature which have difficulty satisfying Eq. (3).

## 4 MAXIMAL MIXING IN GAUGE MODELS

Let us consider only the three neutrino case, which is sufficient to understand data if LSND results are not included. There are in general two types mixing matrices that can fit data: Case (i): Unimaximal mixing

$`U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& ϵ& 0\\ ϵ/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ ϵ/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).`$ (10)
Case (ii): Bimaximal mixing

$`U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
Clearly, the neutrino mixing patterns described in the abive equations bear no resemblace to that in the quark sector, in spite of the fact that at the fundamental level there is complete quark lepton symmetry. The difference must therefore be accounted for by whatever mechanism makes the neutrinos Majorana particle e.g. seesaw mechanism. Below we explore several ideas that are being explored in the literature to gain an insight into the maximal mixing. Looking at the formula for $`U^{MNS}=U_{\mathrm{}}^{}U_\nu `$, one can think of three ways: (i) $`U_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ but $`U_\nu `$ intrinsically different; (ii) at the seesaw scale, both $`U_{\mathrm{},\nu }\mathrm{𝟏}`$ but dynamics of renormalization group extrapolation generates the maximal mixing; (iii) $`U_\nu \mathrm{𝟏}`$ but $`U_{\mathrm{}}`$ has the maximal mixing pattern. Let us briefly describe each one and discuss their relative merits.

### 4.1 Maximal mixing due to $`\nu _R`$ texture

From the type I seesaw formula, $`M_\nu M_D^T𝐟^1M_D/v_R`$, we see that this case is very generic to grand unified theories where, one may expect to have $`M_{\mathrm{},\nu }M_q`$ so that the entire mixing angle pattern arises from texture in the right handed neutrino mass matrix. There is something natural about it since the origin of the right handed neutrino mass matrix owes its origin to a different source than the quark and lepton masses. There exist examples in literature where this case is realized using symmetries or specific ansatz for the right handed neutrino mass matrix.

### 4.2  Radiative magnification of mixing angles

This is a very interesting where dynamics plays an essential role in understanding the maximal mixings. The basic idea is that at the seesaw scale, all mixings angles are small, a situation is quite natural if the pattern of $`𝐟`$ Yukawa coupling is similar to the usual standard model ones. Since the observed neutrino mixings are weak scale observables, one must extrapolate the seesaw scale mass matrices to the weak scale and recalculate the mixing angles.

The extrapolation formula is

$`_\nu (M_Z)=𝐈_\nu (v_R)𝐈`$ (15)
$`where𝐈_{\alpha \alpha }=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{h_\alpha ^2}{16\pi ^2}}\right)`$ (16)
Note that since $`h_\alpha =\sqrt{2}m_\alpha /v_{wk}`$ ($`\alpha `$ being the charged lepton index), in the extrapolation only the $`\tau `$-lepton makes a difference. In the MSSM, this increases the $`_{\tau \tau }`$ entry of the neutrino mass matrix and essentially leaves the others unchanged. It was shown in a recent paper that if the muon and the tau neutrinos are nearly degenerate in mass at the seesaw scale, and in supersymmetric theories, the $`tan\beta 5`$, the radiative corrections can become large enough so that at the weak scale the two diagonal elements of $`_\nu `$ which were nearly equal but different at the seesaw scale become so degenerate that the mixing angle becomes maximal and a solution to the atmospheric neutrino deficit emerges even though at the seesaw scale, the mixing angles were small. This happens only if the experimental observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^20`$ i.e. the usual hierarchical pattern. This possibility can be tested in experiments such as the ones being contemplated in future neutrino factories. This mechanism will become more compelling if the LSND results are confirmed since in that case the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ are nearly degenerate or evidence for a small neutrino hot dark matter component emerges.

An interesting question is whether this mechanism can be extaended to the case of three generations and whether it can explain the bimaximal pattern also. This question was investigated in the ref. and it was found that the answer to the first question is yes and to the second, it is “no”. Furthermore for the first case to work, one must explain the solar neutrino puzzle by the small angle MSW mechanism if one has to be consistent with the CHOOZ-PALO-VERDE constraint.

### 4.3  Lopsided unification

This basic idea of this class of models is that in the seesaw formula, $`M^D`$ and $`M_{RR}`$ are generic with very little generation mixing but $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is special. The reason this is consistent with grand unification of quarks and leptons is that in some GUT theories such as $`SU(5)`$, one has the relation $`M_d=M_{\mathrm{}}^T`$. What this means is that the lepton mixings are related to mixings among the right handed down quarks, which are not observable and thus need not be small. As a result, the $`U_{\mathrm{}}`$ could harbor large mixing angles without contradicting quark-lepton unification. If fermion masses are asymmetric as in SU(5) theories or in $`SO(10)`$ theories with 120 type Higgs bosons, then one could realize this scheme. Of course, the largeness of the mixing angles must be put in by hand.

### 4.4 Bimaximal mixing

In this subsection, let us briefly discuss the bimaximal mixing and their theoretical origin. It has been realized that the neutrino mass matrix that leads to bimaximal mixing pattern is:

$`_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta & F& F\\ F& A& A\\ F& A& A\end{array}\right)`$ (20)
There are two subcases of this mass matrix with very different experimental tests; case (i) $`\delta AF`$: In this case, the neutrino mass hierarchy is inverted i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^20`$. On the other hand, there is another case, i.e. case (ii) where $`\delta FA`$. In this case, the mass pattern has normal hierarchy i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^20`$. Clearly, experiments such as the ones contemplated using long baseline using nutrino factories can decide between these two very important cases.

As far as the theoretical origin of these mass patterns is concerned, several interesting directions have been pursued. One way which quite appealing is to use a $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry to restrict the mass matrix. This is however a weak scale theory and does not possess the advantages of seesaw type models. There have been attempts to derive these patterns from grand unified theories.

## 5 Sterile neutrinos

If the existence of the sterile neutrino becomes confirmed say, by a confirmation of the LSND observation of $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation or directly by SNO neutral current data, a key theoretical challenge will be to construct an underlying theory that embeds the sterile neutrino along with the others with appropriate mixing pattern, while naturally explaining its ultralightness.

If a sterile neutrino was introduced into the standard model, the gauge symmetry would not forbid its bare mass, implying that there would be no reason for it mass to be small. It is a common experience in physics that if a particle has mass lighter than normally expected on the basis of known symmetries, then it is an indication for the existence of newsymmetries. This line of reasoning has been pursued in recent literature to understand the ultralightness of the sterile neutrino by using new symmetries beyond the standard model.

There are several suggestions for this new symmetry that might help us to accomodate an ultralight $`\nu _s`$ and in the process lead us to new classes of extensions of physics beyond the standard model. Two examples are: (i) one based on the $`E_6`$ grand unification model, where the 27-dim. representation which is used to represent the quarks and leptons has a standard model singlet neutrino, which could then be a candidate for the sterile neutrino and (ii) another based on the possible existence of mirror matter in the universe, that we discuss later.

A completely different way to understand the ultralightness of the sterile neutrino is to introduce large extra dimensions in a Kaluza-Klein framework and not rely on any symmetries. In these models, the sterile neutrino is supposed to live in the bulk; therefore if the bulk size is of order milli-eV-1 as is generally contemplated, the sterile neutrino can be identified as one of the KK excitations of a massless bulk neutrino. For a discussion of this approach, see .

Let us now briefly touch on the mirror universe model for the ultralight neutrino since the idea has implications far beyond the domain of neutrino physics. The basic idea is that there is a complete duplication of matter and forces in the universe (i.e. two sectors in the universe with matter and gauge forces identical prior to symmetry breaking) as suggested , say by the string theories. The mirror sector of the model will then have three light neutrinos which will not couple to the Z-boson and would not therefore have been seen at LEP. Denoting the fields in the mirror sector by a prime over the standard model fields, the $`\nu _i^{}`$ can qualify as the sterile neutrinos of which we now have three. The lightness of $`\nu _i^{}`$ is dictated by the mirror $`B^{}L^{}`$ symmetry in a manner parallel to what happens in the standard model. Thus the ultralightness of the sterile neutrinos is understood in a most “painless” way.

The two “universes” are assumed to communicate only via gravity or other forces that are equally weak. This leads to a mixing between the neutrinos of the two universes and can cause oscillations between $`\nu _e`$ of our universe to $`\nu _e^{}`$ of the parallel one in order to explain for example the solar neutrino deficit. The atmospheric neutrino deficit in this case can be explained by using the usual $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillation.

There are two versions of this model: one where the masses in both sectors are identical for corresponding particles. This is called the symmetric miror model. On the other hand, one can envision a scenario where after symmetry breaking all masses scale by a common factor. The second one has certain cosmological advantages, that mirror matter can become the dark matter of the universe.

## 6 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the seesaw mechanism appears by far to be the simplest way to understand the small neutrino masses. A grand unified framework such as the one based on the SO(10) can then help us to understand the high seesaw scale as a consequence of gauge coupling unification. This also provides a way to understand the origin of baryons in the universe. Our understanding of mixings on the other hand, is at a preliminary level. A particular challenge to theorists is to understand the so called bimaximal mixing pattern, which will emerge as the favorite, if the solar neutrino deficit is to be solved via the large angle MSW or the vacuum oscillation. Finally we comment on the status of the sterile neutrino and understanding of its tiny mass in a “natural” framework.


text:
# Disk Formation by AGB Winds in Dipole Magnetic Fields

## 1 Introduction

Asymmetry presents one of the greatest challenges to our understanding of stellar outflows. Planetary nebulae (PNe) comprise a fairly well studied set of objects of which more than 80% are axisymmetric (Zuckerman & Aller, 1986; Balick, 1987; Stanghellini et al., 1993). Although the statistics for proto-PNe are limited (Sahai & Trauger, 1998), the morphological statistics seen in PNe appear to apply. For this reason, and because they are generally bright and easily studied observationally, PNe are an attractive set of objects to study if we are to gain insight into the physical mechanisms producing aspherical outflows.

In the past, the properties of PNe have been explained by an interacting stellar winds model (Kwok et al., 1978; Kahn & West, 1985; Balick, 1987). This holds that a fast, tenuous wind ($`v`$1000 km s-1, $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}10^7`$ M yr-1) from a PNe central star encounters an older, slower wind ($`v`$10 km s-1, M $`0.1`$ M). The slow material was expelled earlier ($`\dot{\mathrm{M}}10^5`$ M yr-1), while the central star was on the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) or in the post-AGB phase. The shocked region between the two winds produces an expanding, wind-blown bubble (WBB) that is visible due to radiative cooling. To produce axisymmetric WBB’s, the model assumes that the slow wind is aspherically distributed so that it is densest in the equatorial plane. Direct observational evidence for dynamically important disks, tori, and their remnants in the environment of PNe is clear at visible, infrared, and radio wavelengths (Huggins, 2000; Meixner, 2000; Balick, 1987).

The central astronomical issue is how and why the slow winds can be equatorially concentrated. Physically, what processes are at work to build a disk? Winds from normal AGB and post-AGB stars are expected to be largely spherical, since the stellar surface is spherical and the wind driving force, radiation (Steffen et al., 1997; Habing et al., 1994), is isotropic. Thus, as the star evolves from the AGB into a white dwarf, the wind geometry is expected to remain symmetric.

However, as noted above, most PNe and proto-PNe show strong axisymmetries. Proposed mechanisms that might produce outflowing disks (see, e.g., Frank 1999 for a review) require reserves of angular momentum far in excess of that in the sun (Soker, 1997). While some PNe may have formed from stars with companions close enough to transfer orbital angular momentum into the outer layers of a fully distended AGB star (Soker, 1998a; Livio, 1982), a mechanism that accounts for the nearly ubiquitous incidence of aspherical PNe is necessary. In addition, bipolar nebulae have a low galactic scale height and, consequently, are believed to evolve from relatively massive progenitors (Corradi & Schwarz, 1995; Zuckerman & Gatley, 1988). If so, a mechanism that produces stronger collimation exclusively around massive stars is needed.

Recently, several authors have discussed magnetic shaping mechanisms. Chevalier & Luo (1994) developed an analytical model in which a toroidal magnetic field carried in a fast wind produces prolate and bipolar WBB morphologies, even if the slow wind is spherically symmetric. Różsyczka & Franco (1996), García-Segura (1997), and García-Segura et al. (1999) confirmed this model via numerical magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations, demonstrating that toroidal magnetic fields carried in fast winds can constrain WBB outflow along the equator, producing a wide variety of polar flows. Their magnetic field topology is derived from what is expected in the solar wind, where the poloidal field lines connecting the outflowing wind to the solar surface are wound up due to the rotation of the sun. However, these and other (Pascoli, 1992; Pascoli et al., 1992) models have only considered the effect of toroidal magnetic fields. The influence of poloidal magnetic fields on AGB winds is yet unexplored.

The sun has poloidal magnetic field that is dynamically important to the solar wind, as evidenced by streamers and coronal mass ejections. In fact, the sun’s magnetic field is dominated by the (global) dipole component outside a few solar radii throughout most of the magnetic cycle (Bravo et al., 1998). Several authors (Mestel, 1968; Pneuman & Kopp, 1971; Washimi et al., 1987; Mestel & Spruit, 1987; Washimi, 1990; Washimi & Shibata, 1993; Banaszkiewicz et al., 1998; Keppens & Goedbloed, 1999, 2000) have shown that the dipole field has a significant influence on the solar wind. Washimi et al. (1987) and Keppens & Goedbloed (1999) reported an equatorial density enhancement in the solar wind, due to the poloidal field (in the absence of rotation). It therefore may be insufficient to consider the effects of toroidal magnetic fields alone on stellar winds without including the effects of the poloidal fields.

Our main goal is to show that a simple poloidal magnetic field, a dipole, can be dynamically important in stellar winds. We propose and justify a simple mechanism that might form strongly axisymmetric winds in isolated AGB or post-AGB stars without the need for large amounts of rotation. In the presence of a dipole field, wind plasma is deflected toward the equator, and a disk can be produced. We detail the qualitative aspects of the model in §2 and present numerical magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations that confirm the conceptual model in §3. A discussion of some of the implications of this work is included in §4.

## 2 The Conceptual Model

Consider a wind from a spherical star. In the absence of rotation and magnetic fields, the launching of the wind is completely isotropic if the wind is driven by radiation pressure on dust or thermal pressure. The wind accelerates to a terminal velocity within several stellar radii (Lamers & Cassinelli, 1999). However, if the star initially has a dipole magnetic field on the surface, we demonstrate that the end result is an outflow that is densest in the magnetic equatorial plane.

For this to occur, the wind must be sufficiently ionized so that the magnetic field is frozen into the plasma. If the total (thermal plus kinetic) energy of the wind is much greater than the magnetic energy, the magnetic field is carried radially outward in the wind. The magnetic field topology becomes radial everywhere. The field direction is inherited from the dipole in that the field lines are oppositely directed above and below the equator. This can be understood if one considers one end of each field line to be “anchored” to the surface of the star while the other end is stretched radially outward in the wind. In this case (very weak field), the wind will be isotropic. Figure 1 illustrates the approximate topology of a weak magnetic field. In order to maintain a radial magnetic field (with an equatorial direction reversal), an azimuthally directed current sheet must exist in the equatorial plane. As shown in Figure 1, the resulting magnetic force ($`𝑱\times 𝑩`$, where $`𝑱`$ is the volume current and $`𝑩`$ the magnetic field) is directed toward the equator.

If the magnetic field energy on the surface of the star is comparable to or greater than the energy in the wind, this $`𝑱\times 𝑩`$ force will be strong enough to redirect the wind. In other words, plasma will be forced to flow along the dipole field lines near the star. Since the plasma is frozen-in to the magnetic field, continuity requires that the wind momentum is proportional to $`r^3`$, since $`𝑩r^3`$ for a dipole. For an accelerating wind, the kinetic energy will therefore decrease more slowly than $`r^3`$, while the dipole magnetic energy decreases as $`r^6`$. Hence, the magnetic field is only effective near the star. So no matter how strong the field is, there will always be an exterior region of the outflow that is dominated by the kinetic energy of the wind (and where the field lines become radial). Numerical simulations presented in §3.3 and done by others (Pneuman & Kopp, 1971; Washimi & Shibata, 1993; Keppens & Goedbloed, 1999, 2000) confirm this idea.

For very strong magnetic fields, the wind may be completely quenched near the equator (Keppens & Goedbloed, 2000). In this case the low-latitude magnetic field lines remain closed (each end attached to the star at equal but opposite latitudes, forming a static loop), and no ionized particles can flow from this region (ignoring diffusive effects). However, the high-latitude magnetic field lines would still open (tending toward radial at large radii), but the plasma leaving at these high latitudes will first be forced toward the equator (Pneuman & Kopp, 1971; Washimi et al., 1987; Keppens & Goedbloed, 1999).

The two insets in Figure 1 show the approximate magnetic field topology in the wind near a star with a moderate (magnetic and wind energy comparable) and strong (magnetic energy dominates) initial dipole magnetic field. As shown, plasma flowing along open field lines is first directed more toward the equator than radial lines and eventually tend toward radial. The net effect of this flow pattern is an increase of the wind density and thermal pressure near the equator, and a decrease near the poles. This is similar to what happens in solar coronal streamers. Open streamers have all open field lines, helmet streamers have some closed loops, and both types show density enhancements along radial lines through their centers. The model presented here can superficially be thought of as a star with an axisymmetric, global streamer encircling its equator, thus forming a disk. It is this concept that we propose may be responsible for forming outflowing disks from AGB or post-AGB stars.

In addition to having a density anisotropy, the redistribution of gas pressure can affect, via $`\mathbf{}P`$ forces, the radial force on the wind such that the wind on the equator is accelerated more slowly than the wind on the poles. This leads to a wind that is slowest near the equator. In many astrophysical winds, gas pressure gradients are negligible, and so the wind velocity may be unaffected by this. Such winds, however, would still be deflected toward the equator as discussed above.

It is instructive to note that the strength of a dipole magnetic field falls off as $`r^3`$, while a radial field goes as $`r^2`$. This means that there is more total magnetic energy in the radial field than in the dipole field. This energy is added by the wind as it does work to stretch out the field lines. In other words, no magnetic flux is carried off of the surface of the star (once the wind is established), though the stretched field remains anchored on the star, and the axisymmetric density distribution remains intact. This is because the $`𝑱\times 𝑩`$ forces balance the gas and dynamic pressure gradient forces, and the plasma flow is parallel to the magnetic field. Hence, the star does not need to continue to produce any new magnetic energy (after the initial dipole is produced), provided the diffusion timescale is significantly longer than the dynamical timescale of the outflow. However, observations of PNe progenitors and central stars show that the wind speed increases from $`10`$ km s-1 to $`1000`$ km s-1 as the star evolves while $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}`$ decreases from $`10^4\mathrm{M}_{}`$ yr-1 to $`10^8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ yr-1 (Frank, 1999). The stellar surface temperature, radius, gravity, and luminosity all evolve rapidly. It is therefore plausible that the magnetic field is only of transient importance in structuring the wind geometry of these stars.

## 3 MHD Simulations

Here we present numerical MHD simulations testing this model in the context of winds from the surface of an AGB star. The simulations are simplified in that they do not include the effects of rotation, gravity, or radiative cooling, they are carried out in two dimensions, and the wind is driven radially by thermal pressure at the star’s surface. They are meant to serve only as a demonstration of feasibility for the MHD model, and to investigate the types of results that can be expected for more sophisticated computational models.

We have neglected rotation to study winds from isolated stars (that is, they are not spun-up). A giant star with solar angular momentum is expected to rotate very slowly relative to its breakup velocity (Pascoli, 1987; Soker, 1997). Presumably, a star must have some amount of rotation in order to generate a magnetic field, via a stellar dynamo (Parker, 1979), but if the rotation velocity on the surface is much less than the outflow velocity of the wind, we assume that rotational influence on the isotropy of the wind is negligible.

A more realistic treatment would include the effects of gravity. This would affect the details of the acceleration of the wind, but would not change the results of the qualitative model. The simulations presented here are most applicable to stars in which the radiation pressure balances gravity above the surface so that only pressure and magnetic forces are important. We want to stress, however, that the model is not dependent on the wind driving mechanism.

Below, we discuss the code and boundary conditions (§3.1), initial conditions (§3.2), and simulation results for various magnetic field strengths (§3.3).

### 3.1 Simulation Code

The simulation code uses a two-step Lax-Wendroff (finite difference) scheme (Richtmyer & Morton, 1967) to simultaneously solve the single-fluid, ideal MHD equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}(\rho 𝒗)`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho 𝒗)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}(\rho 𝒗^2+P)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{c}}}(𝑱\times 𝑩)`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathbf{}[𝒗(e+P)]+𝑱𝑬`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑩}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{c}(\mathbf{}\times 𝑬)`$ (4)
in two dimensions, and uses

$`𝑬`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{c}}}(𝒗\times 𝑩)`$ (5)
$`𝑱`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{c}}{4\pi }}(\mathbf{}\times 𝑩)`$ (6)
$`e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho 𝒗^2+{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\gamma 1}}`$ (7)
where $`\rho `$ is the density, $`𝒗`$ the velocity, $`P`$ the scalar gas pressure, $`e`$ the internal energy density, $`𝑩`$ the magnetic field, $`𝑱`$ the volume current, $`𝑬`$ the electric field, c the speed of light, and $`\gamma `$ the ratio of specific heats (we used $`\gamma `$ = 1.4 in our simulations).

We employ a three-layer boundary condition at the base of the wind to avoid complications introduced by the finite-difference scheme that numerically violate $`\mathbf{}𝑩=0`$ near fixed boundaries. On the innermost boundary, all plasma quantities ($`P`$, $`\rho `$, $`𝒗`$) are constant (in time) and $`𝑩`$ is held at the dipole value. The intermediate boundary is the same as the inner boundary except that $`𝑩`$ is time-dependent. The outer boundary is the same as the inner boundary except that both $`𝑩`$ and $`𝒗`$ are time-dependent. We consider the intermediate boundary to be the “surface” of the star, though the density and pressure are constant on the outer-most layer. These boundary conditions allow the magnetic field on the stellar surface to be carried outward in the wind in a manner that preserves $`\mathbf{}𝑩=0`$. Outside the star, all quantities are time-dependent. The large-scale results are not sensitive to the details of these boundary conditions.

The simulations use a $`500\times 500`$ point Cartesian grid and a “star” with a radius of six gridpoints at the center. If we assume the star has a radius of $`R_{}=1.5\times 10^{13}`$ cm, this corresponds to a total “field of view” of $`83\times 83`$ AU with a “resolution” of 1/6 AU. The calculations are strictly 2-D, and no symmetry constraint is imposed.

The 2-D dipole equation is given in polar coordinates as

$`B_r`$ $`=`$ $`M\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{}}{r}}\right)^2\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`B_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`M\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{}}{r}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ (8)
where $`M`$ is the field strength at the surface, $`R_{}`$ is the radius of the object, and $`\theta `$ is the angle from the magnetic pole. This field satisfies $`\mathbf{}𝑩=0`$ and $`\mathbf{}\times 𝑩=0`$ (the dipole is current-free) in two dimensions. It is different from a 3-D dipole in that the field strength at the poles is equal to (instead of twice) that at the equator, and the 2-D dipole falls off as $`r^2`$ (instead of $`r^3`$).

### 3.2 Initial Conditions

While these simulations apply to a family of systems (i.e. they are scalable), we report numerical parameters and results for a system in which the star has a radius of 1 AU. If the physical values of $`𝒗`$, $`\rho `$, $`P`$, and $`𝑩`$ remain unchanged, the results apply to a star of arbitrary radius, distances and times scale with $`R_{}`$, and $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}`$ with $`R_{}^2`$. In this way, we can superficially consider outflow from an AGB and post-AGB star simultaneously.

Before the simulations begin, the star has a constant density of $`n=3.4\times 10^{11}`$ cm-3 and a pressure such that the sound speed is 5.9 km s-1 on its three-layer boundary. These conditions lead to a mass flux and outflow velocity (see §3.3) that are reasonable for a wind from a cool AGB star. The star also has a dipole magnetic field (Eqn. 3.1) initialized everywhere in the simulation region. The velocity of the plasma is initially zero everywhere.

When the simulation begins, the difference between the stellar surface pressure and that of the surrounding ambient material leads to an outward acceleration of gas, which plows the ambient material ahead of it. After the ambient gas is completely swept off of the simulation grid, a steady-state outflow is established whose properties only depend on the conditions on the surface of the star. In fact, provided that the outflow becomes supersonic, the results are insensitive to the initial conditions of the ambient gas. Since we were only interested in the characteristics of the steady-state outflow, we chose the density and sound speed of the ambient gas ($`1.0\times 10^9`$ cm-3 and 11.8 km s-1, respectively) so that it is efficiently cleared out of the simulation region. It should be noted that the steady state of the outflow is due to the unchanging (in time) boundary conditions on the surface of the star. On real stars, dynamic surface processes and stellar evolution require that winds are time-dependent (on long enough timescales). We are, however, only currently interested in determining the properties of the wind while the star satisfies the conditions outlined above.

In order to determine whether the magnetic field might influence the wind, one can use the ratio of the wind energy density to the magnetic energy density. This ratio increases with distance from the star (see §2), so the magnetic field will be most effective near the surface. If the wind has a constant energy from the stellar surface outward, this ratio on the surface ($`r=0`$) is given by $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}v_\mathrm{f}R_{}^2𝑩_0^2`$, assuming that thermal pressure is negligible far from the star and where $`v_\mathrm{f}`$ is the terminal velocity of the wind. If energy is added to the wind above the surface (e.g., via radiation pressure or magnetic effects), this is an upper limit.

This formula for the ratio of wind to magnetic energy is convenient because it gives the relative importance of a hypothetical or measured magnetic field using measured wind parameters. By setting it equal to unity, one obtains (roughly) a minimum magnetic field strength capable of deflecting the stellar wind. Note that this formula determines whether the magnetic field is important, while the topology of the field determines how the wind is affected. For an AGB star with $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}10^5\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, $`v_\mathrm{f}10`$ km s-1, and $`R_{}1.5\times 10^{13}`$ cm, this implies that the wind and magnetic energy densities are comparable for a magnetic field strength of 1.7 Gauss on the surface. For this reason, we ran seven different simulations with surface magnetic field strengths bracketing this value.

In the simulations, the outflow is pressure-driven, so the total energy in the wind as it accelerates outward is equal to its thermal energy on the surface (where $`𝒗=0`$). For the simulations, then, the key parameter (the ratio of wind to magnetic energy densities) is simply

$$\beta =\frac{8\pi P_0}{𝑩_0^2}=\frac{\mathrm{thermal}\mathrm{energy}}{\mathrm{magnetic}\mathrm{energy}}$$
(9)
where the subscript 0 denotes quantities initially on the stellar surface. In all of the simulations, the initial gas properties are constant and only the strength of the magnetic field varies.

### 3.3 Simulation Results

The simulations comprise seven different cases spanning $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$ to 0.1, corresponding to $`𝑩_0=0`$ and 6.0 Gauss on the surface of the star, respectively. The first two columns of Table 1 list the values of $`\beta `$ for all cases and the corresponding dipole magnetic field strength initially on the surface of the star.

The $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$ case is mainly used as a reference to which we compare the cases that include magnetic fields. Figure 2 shows the density and velocity profile of this non-magnetic case in steady-state. The wind accelerates to $`11`$ km s-1 within 10$`R_{}`$ (becoming supersonic) and increases very little as it travels further from the star. Using the density and velocity just outside the surface of the star, the calculated 2-D mass flux is $`2.8\times 10^6`$ M yr-1 AU-1 ($`=2\pi \rho 𝒗r`$) for pure hydrogen. This quantity is the mass flux per length normal to the 2-D plane. The equivalent mass flux for a 3-D system would be $`\dot{\mathrm{M}}=5.6\times 10^6`$ M yr-1, assuming the star is spherical. The velocity and mass flux of this outflow are consistent with assumed properties in the winds of AGB stars (Frank, 1999).

All of the cases established steady-state outflows in the entire simulation region in less than 200 years, comparable to the time needed to clear out the initial ambient gas. Figure 3 shows the magnetic field lines and gas pressure contours overplotting a grey-scale image of the current density for the case with $`\beta =0.2`$. A comparison with Figure 1 indicates a confirmation of the qualitative model (§2). The current and magnetic field lines in the simulation are oriented in the same direction as predicted by the model. The pressure gradient is significantly anisotropic such that it is steeper on the poles than on the equator (near the star), as expected.

An interesting feature of Figure 3 is that the magnetic field lines are not perfectly radial. Far from the star, the lines tend toward radial, but near the star, they are directed more toward the equator than radial lines. This result is expected since, in this case, the magnetic energy is greater than the wind energy on the stellar surface (see §2). The dependence of magnetic field topology on field strength is even more apparent in Figure 4, which shows the density and field lines for the $`\beta =5.0`$ and $`0.1`$ cases. The lines are almost completely radial in the weak field case (left panel), while for the stronger field (right panel), they retain much of their original (dipole) structure near the star. A comparison of Figures 4 and 1 suggests that our simulation with the strongest magnetic field should still be considered to have a “moderate” field strength, since their are no large closed field lines. Since the flows are in steady-state, the magnetic field lines are in the same direction as streamlines for wind particles. With this in mind, it is easier to understand the equatorial density enhancement visible in the right panel of Figure 4.

Figure 5 shows the density distribution in the outflow for six cases. As $`\beta `$ decreases, the density contours become less circular, having a major axis along the equator and a minor axis along the poles. This indicates a correlation between the equatorial concentration of the wind and the magnetic field strength. For the weak-field cases ($`\beta >1`$, top row of Fig. 5), the density contours are only slightly different (by a few tenths or less) from circles. For smaller $`\beta `$, however, the magnetic field has a stronger influence on the outflow properties, and the density contours are much more disk-like.

This trend is more apparent in the left panel of Figure 6, a plot of density as a function of latitude at $`3.3R_{}`$ for all cases. The non-magnetic case (thick line) is isotropic, but for decreasing $`\beta `$, the outflow is denser near the equator and more tenuous near the poles. This illustrates that the wind plasma at high latitudes is moved toward lower latitudes by magnetic forces. For $`\beta 1.0`$, steep density profiles indicate the presence of an outflowing disk that is fed by high latitude material. For the $`\beta =0.1`$ and 0.2 cases, the flatness of the disk is unresolved on the simulation grid near the star. This is evident in the left panel of Figure 6, as these two density profiles display a sharp point (cusp) at the equator. A velocity trend is evident in the right panel of Figure 6 where the wind speed is shown as a function of latitude at a radius of $`3.3R_{}`$. Here, it is evident that the wind is slower near the equator and faster near the poles for decreasing $`\beta `$.

The outflow in the non-magnetic case deviates slightly from purely isotropic due to grid orientation effects that arise from placing a round star in a Cartesian grid, coupled with difficulties of the numerical scheme on the “stair-step” corners of the gridded stellar surface. This is apparent in the upper left panel of Figure 5 and the thick line in both panels of Figure 6. The very slight anisotropy of the non-magnetic outflow represents an uncertainty in the results for all cases, due to these gridding effects. At any radius, the outflow properties ($`\rho `$, $`𝒗`$, $`P`$) of the non-magnetic case vary by less than 10%. It is also important to note that the outflow properties on the poles of the non-magnetic flow are identical to those on the equator.

The equator-to-pole density ratio, $`q`$ (the “density contrast”), is a useful way to characterize the axisymmetric inertial properties of the wind. Figure 7 shows the density contrast as a function of distance from the star. The correlation between $`q`$ and magnetic field strength is valid for all radii, though $`q`$ is not constant everywhere. For the cases with $`\beta 1.0`$, $`q`$ reaches a maximum inside $`r=5R_{}`$, then decreases for increasing $`r`$. This can be understood if we note that the magnetic energy becomes much weaker than total wind energy outside a few stellar radii for all cases. When $`q`$ is large, there are pressure gradients directed away from the equator (i.e., the disk is compressed by the field, evident in Fig. 3). As the wind moves outward to the region where the wind energy dominates, it can expand away from the equator, causing a decrease in $`q`$ (the densities in Fig. 6 are plotted near where the maximum contrast occurs in all cases). Here, of course, we have ignored radiative cooling in the disk, which may be unrealistic.

The last two columns of Table 1 summarize the simulation results of Figure 7. The maximum value of $`q`$ for each $`\beta `$ and the values at $`40R_{}`$ are listed. For the $`\beta =0.1`$ and 0.2 cases, we can only place lower limits on the maximum $`q`$ because the resulting disk is unresolved in our simulations near the star (as discussed above).

In general, density contrasts of roughly less than 2 in the slow AGB wind may lead to elliptical PNe, while larger contrasts probably produce bipolars (Frank, 1999). However, the density contrast is not solely responsible for determining the shape of PNe, and the distribution of mass is also important. In order to superficially test the inertial properties of the slow outflows produced in our simulations, we ran another simulation that included a fast wind. For the initial conditions of this simulation, we used the end result of the $`\beta =0.5`$ simulation (see the bottom middle panel of Fig. 5). We then adjusted the pressure (increased by a factor of 10) and density (decreased by a factor of 1000) on the surface of the star so that a fast ($`v1000`$ km s$`{}_{}{}^{}1`$), tenuous ($`\dot{\mathrm{M}}6\times 10^7\mathrm{M}_{}`$ yr-1) wind blew from the star and collided with the slow-moving disk, producing a shocked, wind-blown bubble. On the surface of the fast wind producing star, $`\beta `$ = 5.0, so the fast wind is affected very little by the magnetic field on the surface. Figure 8 shows the density and velocity vectors on the simulation grid 2 years after the onset of the fast wind. The darkest region in the figure corresponds to shocked, slow-wind material that has been swept up in the fast wind. While this simulation is too simple (e.g., radiative cooling is ignored) to compare to real objects, Figure 8 demonstrates that disks formed by outflows from stars with dipole fields can be dynamically important for shaping PNe.

## 4 Discussion

We have presented a simple mechanism for producing an equatorially concentrated wind from an isolated star. The wind is isotropic in the absence of magnetic effects. In the presence of a dipole magnetic field, however, the self-consistent interaction between the wind plasma and the magnetic field causes the wind to become denser along the magnetic equator and less dense near the poles. The outflow model is valid for very slowly rotating stars. In fact, the model itself requires no rotation, other than that necessary for generating the magnetic field.

In the steady-state, the magnetic field retains much of its dipole shape near the star, but becomes mostly radial outside a few stellar radii and is oppositely directed above and below the magnetic equator. This resembles the magnetic field configuration expected in the solar wind (Altschuler & Newkirk, 1969; Washimi & Shibata, 1993; Parks, 1991) with two major exceptions: 1) Solar rotation adds an azimuthal (toroidal) component to otherwise radial field lines, and 2) higher-order (though only important very near the sun) and time-dependent magnetic fields (Bravo et al., 1998) are important on the sun and further complicate the magnetic structure.

Our MHD simulations suggest that large equator-to-pole density contrasts can be produced near an AGB star with a dipole magnetic field strength of only a few Gauss on the surface. Stronger fields produce larger contrasts. In addition to being denser, the wind near the star is somewhat slower on the equator than along the poles.

As a simple test of validity, this model can be applied to the sun. If we apply the argument given in §3.2 to the solar wind ($`\dot{\mathrm{M}}10^{13}\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, $`v_\mathrm{f}400`$ km s-1, $`R_{}7\times 10^{10}`$ cm), we find that the wind and magnetic energy densities are comparable for a magnetic field strength of 0.23 Gauss on the surface of the sun. This implies that the global average dipole field on the sun (often 1-2 Gauss) may have a significant effect on the isotropy of the solar wind via the mechanism discussed here. This is not surprising. Mestel (1968) and Pneuman & Kopp (1971), for example, demonstrated that the solar dipole is strong enough to retain closed field loops (see §2) in the equatorial region. The models of Washimi et al. (1987) and Keppens & Goedbloed (1999) indicated that such a field can lead to an equatorial density enhancement in the solar wind. On the observational front, Ulysses measurements (Goldstein et al., 1996) indicate the solar wind is denser within 20 degrees of the solar equator than at high latitudes by a factor of roughly 2. We should note that the solar wind is very complex, and the equatorial density enhancement in the solar wind may have other or multiple origins.

According to the currently popular paradigm (Balick, 1987), PNe may be the result of a fast stellar wind colliding with a slower, denser wind, producing an expanding shock front. If the slow wind is produced by the mechanism presented here, it will be denser and slower in the equatorial plane. These properties define an aspherical inertial barrier (a nozzle) that would allow the PN to expand more freely along the poles. The extremity of this effect varies with the strength of the star’s dipole magnetic field while it is near the end of its slow wind-producing phase. Spherical PNe should result from stars that had fields weaker than $`0.5`$ Gauss on the surface, while stronger fields might lead to elliptical and bipolar PNe shapes.

We propose that sometime prior to the formation of the bright cores of PNe, dipole magnetic fields are generated (via a dynamo) or exposed (as winds remove the outer layers) on the surface of the star. The wind and field construct a toroidal circumstellar environment (or outflowing disk) as described above. Even if the subsequent fast winds become isotropic, this disk can collimate the outflow until instabilities or ablation destroy the disk. We shall explore this further in subsequent papers. If the magnetic field is systematically stronger for more massive stars, the observed correlation between bipolarity and large progenitor mass (Zuckerman & Gatley, 1988; Corradi & Schwarz, 1995) is nicely explained.

The development of the disk is essentially instantaneous with the emergence of the magnetic field. Thus, if the magnetic field were to appear abruptly, one might expect mass loss to be initially isotropic in character, followed by an abrupt change in geometry. There is observational evidence for such a “mode change” in AGB winds for several objects (Hajian et al., 1997; Terzian & Hajian, 2000; Balick & Wilson, 2000). How such a change in the magnetic field could occur in an AGB star is outside the scope of this paper, since it implies a significant evolutionary change in the star.

The simplicity of the mechanism presented here makes it appealing, but real stars are much more complicated. More work is necessary to apply the model to real stars. For example, AGB winds are not likely to be primarily pressure-driven as we have considered here. A more realistic treatment of the model should include the influence of radiation pressure on dust grains (Habing et al., 1994; Steffen et al., 1997), radiative cooling, simulations in 3-D, the effects of higher-order magnetic fields and fields with other symmetries (e.g. toroidal fields produced by a dynamo or rotation), and the effects of stellar rotation (Bjorkman & Cassinelli, 1993; Washimi & Shibata, 1993). Also, the fact that our model reaches a steady-state results from our assumption that the surface properties do not change. In real AGB stars, pulsations may affect the wind (though if they are isotropic, they can’t effect the isotropy of the flow). In the presence of magnetic fields, convection and differential rotation probably leads to more dynamic processes such as flares, coronal mass ejections, spots (Frank, 1995; Soker, 1998b), magnetic cycles (Soker, 2000), etc., as occur on the sun.

In winds where pressure gradient forces are less important (e.g., for radiation pressure-driven or radiatively cooled winds), the outflow should behave differently. For example, in our adiabatic simulations the density contrast in the wind reached a peak and then decreased in value further from the star (see Fig. 7). This is probably due to pressure gradient forces directed away from the equator (see Fig. 3). If these forces are small, the disk material may not expand as much (the disk will remain flatter), leading to larger density contrasts than reported here.

While a more realistic approach than we have taken will affect the details of the outflow, the qualitative model should apply to all stars that have dipole magnetic fields of moderate strength (magnetic energy comparable to the wind energy near the surface).

The authors would like to thank Adam Frank, Andrew Markiel, and Stacy Palen for insightful discussion of many aspects of this work. We are also grateful to the referee, whose detailed comments led to significant improvement of the paper. This research was supported by NSF grant AST-9729096.