# ROTATION, PLANETS, AND THE “SECOND PARAMETER” OF THE HORIZONTAL BRANCH

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In recent years $`20`$ Jupiter-like planets have been discovered around main sequence stars. This further increased the great interest in the mechanisms for planet formation, in particular at close orbital separations. Another aspect of the presence of planets is their influence on the central star and its evolution. The processes, some of which were studied before the discovery of extrasolar planets, include the transfer of a massive planet into a star through the accretion from the envelope of a giant star (Eggleton 1978; Livio 1982; Livio & Soker 1984; Soker, Harpaz, & Livio 1984), formation of SiO masers in the magnetospheres of several gas-giant planets around Mira-stars (Struck-Marcell 1988), formation of R Coronae Borealis stars through enhanced mass loss rate caused by a planet inside the envelope of an evolved star (Whitney, Soker, & Clayton 1991), the formation of elliptical planetary nebulae by planets spiraling-in inside the envelop of AGB stars (Soker 1992; 1996; 1997), evaporation of planets deep in the envelopes of giants (Harpaz & Soker 1994; Siess & Livio 1999a,b), and enhancing metallicity by planet evaporation inside main sequence stars (Sandquist et al. 1998).

In this paper we examine the evolution of angular momentum of stars evolving from the RGB to the HB, after being spun-up on the RGB by planets. To account for fast rotating HB stars Peterson, Tarbell & Carney (1983) already mentioned the possibility that planets can spin-up RGB stars, though later they abandoned this idea. Following the reasons given by Soker (1998), we think that planets are required to account for the fast rotating HB stars. Pinsonneault, Deliyannis, & Demarque (1991) argue that single stars can account for the fast HB rotators. We disagree with them on two points. First, they require that the cores of main sequence stars rotate much faster than the envelopes. Soker (1998; also Behr et al. 1999) brings causes to question this assumption. Second, they require the core of the RGB star to possess higher angular momentum than the envelope. Since the core of RGB stars is very small this seems to us an unreasonable assumption. Possible support for our claim is the rotation velocity plot of the globular cluster M13 presented by Peterson, Rood, & Crocker (1995) and Behr et al. (1999), which show that hotter HB ($`10,500T_{\mathrm{eff}}20,000\mathrm{K}`$) stars have lower rotation velocities than cooler ($`8,000T_{\mathrm{eff}}10,000\mathrm{K}`$) stars. Not only do the hotter HB stars in these sample rotate slower, they are also smaller and less massive than the cooler stars, hence they have much less angular momentum than the cooler HB stars. If the angular momentum comes from the core after most of the envelope has been lost on the RGB, we would expect to find the same angular momentum distribution along the HB. This problem with a single star evolution was noted by Behr et al. (1999) as well. We attribute the much lower angular momentum of hotter HB stars to angular momentum loss on the RGB, and possibly during the contraction toward the HB and on the HB. In our proposed scenario, stars which do not interact with any massive planet, brown dwarf, or a low-mass main sequence star rotate very slowly and do not lose much mass on the RGB. Such are, for example, the slowly rotating RR Lyrae variables (Peterson, Carney, & Latham 1996).

We also accept the scenario proposed by Soker (1998) to account for some anomalies on the HB, and the view that the presence of planets and brown dwarfs is one of the factors which determine the “second parameter” (see also Siess & Livio 1999b). The HB morphologies, i.e., the distribution of stars on the HB of a stellar system, differ substantially from one globular cluster to another. It has long been known that metallicity is the main factor which determines the location of HB stars on the HR diagram. For more than 30 years, though, it has been clear that another factor is required to explain the variation in HB morphologies among globular clusters with similar metallicity (Sandage & Wildey 1967; van den Bergh 1967; see reviews by Fusi Pecci & Bellazzini 1997; Rood, Whitney, & D’Cruz 1997; Rood 1998; de Boer 1998). This factor is termed the second parameter of the HB. It seems that stellar companions alone cannot be the second parameter (e.g., Rich et al. 1997), nor any other single factor which has been examined (e.g., Ferraro et al. 1997 and references therein). We think that the presence of low mass stars and of planets (or brown dwarfs) is the main second parameter factor (but probably not the only one), with planets occurring more frequently.

The main role, but not the only one, of the planets is the spinning-up of the RGB envelope. It is commonly accepted now that rotation has a connection with the second parameter, probably through its role in determining the mass loss on the RGB, directly or indirectly. We agree with this assertion, and further claim that the source of angular momentum in many cases is the interaction with a planet. The arguments to support this claim, the scenario proposed by Soker (1998), and the aim of the present work are summarized in $`\mathrm{\S }2`$. In $`\mathrm{\S }3`$ we follow the evolution of angular momentum from the RGB to the HB and along the HB, and apply the results to the stars of the globular cluster M13. Our summary is in $`\mathrm{\S }4`$.

## 2 PLANETS, ROTATION, AND MASS LOSS

In recent years it has become a common view that the second parameter determines the HB morphology by regulating the mass loss on the RGB (e.g., Dorman, Rood, & O’Connell 1993; D’Cruz et al. 1996; Whitney et al. 1998; D’Cruz et al. 2000; Catelan 2000). According to this view, the extreme HB (EHB) stars for example, lose almost all their envelope while still on the RGB (Dorman et al. 1993; D’Cruz et al. 1996). On the RGB, which is the stage prior to the HB and before core helium ignition, the star is large and luminous and has a high mass loss rate. Sweigart & Catelan (1998; also Sweigart 2000 and Moehler, Sweigart, & Catelan 1999) claim that mass loss on the RGB by itself cannot be the second parameter, and it should be supplied by another process, e.g., rotation, or helium mixing, which requires rotation as well. They term the addition of such a process a “noncanonical scenario”. Behr et al. (1999) find the second parameter problem to be connected with rotation, and note that single star evolution cannot explain the observed rotation of HB stars, even when fast core rotations are considered. The rich variety of HB morphologies (e.g., Catelan et al. 1998) suggests that there is a rich spectrum in the factor(s) behind the second parameter.

We argue, following Soker (1998), that these factors are the masses and orbital separations of the companions, which in most cases are planets and brown dwarfs, and in the remaining cases they are low mass main sequence stars. That is, we claim, like Siess & Livio (1999b), that the “noncanonical scenarios” (e.g., Sweigart & Catelan 1998; Sweigart 2000), involves interaction with planets. There is no reason to reject the idea that planets similar to those discovered recently in the solar neighborhood exist in old star clusters (Ford et al. 1999). Ford et al. (1999) argue for the presence of a primordial star-planet system in the PSR B1620-26 system in the globular cluster M4, holding that this finding may hint at the presence of many planets in globular cluster. The companions can influence the mass loss rate in several ways (Soker 1998; Siess & Livio 1999b). First, as the companion spirals-in inside the RGB stellar envelope it deposits (positive) gravitational energy which can remove part of the envelope. Second, the companion spins-up the envelope. Angular momentum may enhance mass loss rate, mainly near the equator, by, e.g., enhancing magnetic activity. Third, the rotation may mix helium to the envelope (Sweigart 1997a,b; Sweigart & Catelan 1998). The higher helium abundance increases the RGB tip luminosity, hence total mass loss on the RGB, leading to the formation of blue HB stars. Sweigart (1997a,b) suggests that this can explain the second parameter, though he does not mention the required angular velocity and how his model accounts for the different groups on the HB. Whitney et al. (1998) show that the mixing mechanism of Sweigart cannot explain the data presented in their paper, while Ferraro et al. (1997), Grundahl et al. (2000), and Charbonnel, Denissenkov, & Weiss (2000) discuss other difficulties with the mixing mechanism proposed by Sweigart being always important. In the scenario proposed by Soker (1998), helium mixing is only one of several processes caused by planets, so the comments raised by these works do not contradict the model.

In the scenario proposed by Soker (1998), the planets which enter the envelope of RGB stars can end in one of three ways (Livio & Soker 1984; also Seiss & Livio 1999b): ($`i`$) evaporation of the planet in the envelope, before the entire envelope is lost; ($`ii`$) collision of the planet with the core, i.e., the planet overflows its Roche lobe, before the entire envelope is lost (a planet of radius $`0.1R_{}`$ and a mass of $`0.01M_{}`$ will overflow its Roche lobe when at $`1R_{}`$ from the core); and ($`iii`$) expelling the envelope while the planet survives the common envelope evolution. Soker suggests that these three routes may explain the three subgroups found by Sosin et al. (1997) in the blue HB of the globular cluster 2808. In the original scenario, the three routes were determined mainly by the secondary mass $`M_s`$. The first route, evaporation, occurs for $`M_s1M_J`$, where $`M_J`$ is Jupiter’s mass; the second route, of core collision, occurs for $`1M_jM_s10M_J`$, while the third route, of surviving companions, occurs for $`M_s10M_J`$.

Soker claims also that: “It is clear that not only planets play a role in the proposed second parameter mechanism due to companions, since, for example, stellar binary companions and occasional collisions with passing stars can also influence the mass loss on the RGB”. Soker (1998) estimates that in $`40\%`$ of the cases the interaction of the RGB star is with a stellar companion rather than with a planet. When publishing the model Soker (1997; 1998) was not aware of a new class of objects named EC14026 (e.g., Kilkenny et al. 1997; Koen et al. 1997; Koen et al. 1998, and references therein) and their relation to EHB stars (Bono & Cassisi 1999). The EC14026 stars are sdB stars which have very rapid light variations, resulting from pulsation in several modes. Low mass binary companions have been detected in several of these stars. PG 1336-018, for example, has a secondary of mass $`0.15M_{}`$ with an orbital period of $`0.1`$ days (Kilkenny et al. 1998). Maxted et al. (2000) find the orbital periods and minimum companion masses of two sdB stars: $`0.63M_{}`$ and $`8.33`$ days for PG 0940+068, and $`0.09M_{}`$ and $`0.599`$ days for PG 1247+554. For others, the companion, if it exists, is limited to spectral type M0 or later (e.g., PG 1605+072, Koen et al. 1998; PG 1047+003, O’Donoghue et al. 1998). For these systems, we suggest that the companion may be a brown dwarf or a massive planet as well. Allard et al. (1994) estimate that $`60\%`$ of hot B subdwarfs have binary stellar companions. Here again, the stars with no stellar companion may have a substellar companion. Green et al. (1998) argue that their “investigations in open clusters and the field strongly suggest that most metal-rich BHB \[blue HB\] stars are in binaries”. The EC14026 members with surviving low mass stellar companions support the scenario proposed by Soker (1997, 1998), and suggest that this scenario can be extended to include low-mass main sequence stars. Therefore, the third route, where the companions survive at small orbital separations, should include low-mass stars, as well as massive planets and brown dwarfs. When low mass stellar companions are included, the lower limit on the mass of surviving secondaries can be raised, without causing difficulties to the model, from $`10M_J`$ to several$`\times 10M_J`$. This enriches the varieties of HB stars that can be formed from binary interactions.

The main effects of a binary companion as it spirals-in inside the envelope, or at an earlier phase outside the envelope through tidal interaction, are the deposition of gravitational energy and angular momentum (Soker 1998). The RGB star, now rotating faster, is likely to increase its mass loss rate, lose more mass on the RGB, and hence turn into a bluer HB star. But many blue HB stars retain some of the envelope mass, which means that the RGB star does not lose its entire envelope. In this paper we examine the evolution of the angular momentum in these stars, which possess high angular momentum, as they contract and evolve toward and on the HB.

Before turning to the calculation of angular momentum evolution we estimate the angular momentum deposited by a low-mass companion (Soker 1998). When the star evolves along the RGB it expands slowly. When its radius $`R`$ becomes $`20\%`$ of the orbital separation $`a_0`$, tidal forces will cause the substellar companion orbit to decay in a time shorter than the evolutionary time (Soker 1996), thus forming a common envelope phase. The angular velocity of the envelope $`\omega `$ can be estimated as follows. The envelope’s moment of inertia is $`I_{\mathrm{env}}=\alpha M_{\mathrm{env}}R^2`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{env}}`$ is the envelope’s mass and $`R`$ is the stellar radius (we neglect the core’s moment of inertia since it is very small), and $`\alpha 0.1`$ for upper RGB stars (see next section). The final envelope angular momentum $`I\omega `$ is equal to the planet’s initial orbital angular momentum $`J_p=M_p(GM_1a_0)^{1/2}=M_p\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}(a_0R^3)^{1/2}`$, where $`\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$ is the Keplerian angular velocity on the RGB star’s surface, $`M_p`$ is the planet’s mass and $`M_1`$ is the primary’s total mass. The envelope angular velocity is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}}}=0.1\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_p}{0.01M_{\mathrm{env}}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{R}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{0.1}}\right)^1.`$ (1)   
Wide stellar companions ($`a_05\mathrm{AU}`$) can deposit angular momentum via tidal interaction, leading to similar effects as those of planets.

## 3 ANGULAR MOMENTUM EVOLUTION

### 3.1 Angular Momentum Loss

Not considering magnetic influence beyond the stellar surface, and assuming a solid body rotation through the stellar envelope, the angular momentum loss rate from stars is

$`\dot{J}_{\mathrm{wind}}=\beta \omega R^2\dot{M},`$ (2)   
where $`\omega ,J,R,M`$ are the stellar angular velocity, angular momentum, radius, and mass, respectively, and $`\beta `$ depends on the mass loss geometry. For a constant mass loss rate per unit area on the surface $`\beta =2/3`$, while for an equatorial mass loss $`\beta =1`$. The angular momentum of the star is $`J_{\mathrm{env}}=I\omega `$, where $`I`$ is the moment of inertia given by

$`I=\alpha M_{\mathrm{env}}R^2,`$ (3)   
where $`M_{\mathrm{env}}`$ is the envelope mass, and we neglect the core’s moment of inertia relative to that of the envelop and the change in the core mass at late RGB stages. The change of envelope’s angular momentum with time is given by

$`\dot{J}_{\mathrm{env}}=\dot{I}\omega +I\dot{\omega }={\displaystyle \frac{dI}{dM_{\mathrm{env}}}}\dot{M}\omega +I\dot{\omega }.`$ (4)   
Dividing equation (2) by equation (3) multiplied by $`\omega `$, gives also

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}J_{\mathrm{env}}}{d\mathrm{ln}M_{\mathrm{env}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\omega }{d\mathrm{ln}M_{\mathrm{env}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}I}{d\mathrm{ln}M_{\mathrm{env}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha (M_{\mathrm{env}})}}\delta .`$ (5)   
If the structure of the atmosphere does not change much with mass loss, and the density is given by $`\rho r^2`$, then $`\alpha =2/9`$ and $`d\mathrm{ln}I/d\mathrm{ln}M_{\mathrm{env}}=1`$, for which we find $`d\mathrm{ln}\omega /d\mathrm{ln}M_{\mathrm{env}}=2`$, for $`\beta =2/3`$ (Harpaz & Soker 1994). This case is appropriate for the upper AGB. On the RGB, if the envelope mass is not too low, we can take $`\alpha 0.1`$ (see below), for which we find from equation (5) that the total envelope angular momentum decreases as (neglecting changes in the core mass) $`J_{\mathrm{env}}M_{\mathrm{env}}^\delta `$, where $`\delta \beta /\alpha 67`$.

### 3.2 The Angular Momentum of Stars in M13

We now analyze the rotation velocities of HB stars in the globular cluster M13, as presented by Behr et al. (1999), with the goal of finding the total angular momentum each star had on the RGB. For the purpose of this simple analysis, we can make the following simplifying assumptions:

(1) We assume that the angular momentum was deposited to the RGB star before it had lost much of its envelope (or if no interaction with a stellar or substellar companion occurred, then the angular momentum is that which the star had on the main sequence). We take the envelope mass prior to the intensive mass loss episode to be $`M_0=0.3M_{}`$, as appropriate for a well developed core on the upper RGB. For the situation where the deposition of angular momentum occurred after the envelope mass was already reduced to $`M_0=0.2M_{}`$, for example, the angular momentum in each case will be reduced by $`(2/3)^\delta =0.2`$ (0.07), for $`\delta =4`$ (6.5).

(2) We neglect core evolution during the intense mass loss rate. This is reasonable, as most of the mass is lost on the upper RGB.

(3) We assume that the angular momentum evolves according to equation (5), with a constant value of $`\alpha `$, and with $`\beta =2/3`$.

(4) For the envelope mass and luminosity of the HB stars in the interesting region $`7,000<T_{\mathrm{eff}}<20,000\mathrm{K}`$, we approximate the models of Dorman et al. (1993) and D’Cruz et al. (1996) for \[Fe/H\]=-1.5, by taking for the envelope mass (in $`M_{}`$)

$`M_{\mathrm{HBe}}=1.370.31\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}},`$ (6)   
and for the luminosity (in $`L_{}`$)

$`\mathrm{log}L=5.140.9\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}},`$ (7)   
where $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective temperature (in K). The stellar radius is calculated from $`L`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

(5) Like Pinsonneault et al. (1991) we neglect structural changes along the considered segment of the HB, and take the moment of inertia of all HB models to be $`I_{\mathrm{HB}}=0.01M_{\mathrm{HBe}}R^2`$, i.e., $`\alpha _{\mathrm{HB}}=0.01`$. Any relative change in the value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{HB}}`$ is much smaller than the uncertainties in the values of $`\alpha `$ on the RGB, hence of $`\delta `$.

These assumptions allow us to find the present angular momentum of the HB stars,

$`J_{\mathrm{HB}}=0.01M_{\mathrm{HBe}}Rv_r,`$ (8)   
where $`v_r`$ is the rotation velocity. The rotation velocity is taken to be the value of $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$, as given for M13 by Behr et al. (13 stars) and Peterson et al. (1995) (25 stars; for the 4 stars common to these two works we take values from Behr et al.). From equation (5), the total angular momentum that the RGB progenitor had before the intensive mass loss started is, with assumption (1) above,

$`J_0=J_{\mathrm{HB}}(M_{\mathrm{HBe}}/M_0)^\delta .`$ (9)   
To find the value of $`\alpha `$ on the RGB we evolved an RGB model. The model was based on a previous work by one of us (Harpaz & Shaviv 1992), hence we used a solar composition. However, since we are interested in the value of $`\alpha `$, which is the ratio of the envelope moment of inertia to $`M_{\mathrm{env}}R^2`$, the exact values of the RGB radius, luminosity, and core mass are not so important. Indeed, the value of $`\alpha `$ changes only little for different radii in the range $`90120R_{}`$, core masses of $`>0.4M_{}`$, and envelope masses in the range $`0.050.3M_{}`$, and its value on the upper RGB is $`\alpha 0.1`$. More accurately, we can approximate the value of $`\alpha `$ in the range of $`0.03M_{\mathrm{env}}0.3M_{}`$ by $`\alpha =0.1+1.1\times 10^4(M_{\mathrm{env}}/M_{})^{1.6}`$. As the envelope mass decreases below $`0.03M_{}`$, the RGB envelope shrinks, and $`\alpha `$ increases on a slower rate, becoming only $`\alpha 0.16`$ for $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.01M_{}`$. We find that an appropriate average value is $`\alpha =0.103`$, which gives $`\delta (RGB)=\beta /\alpha 6.5`$ (for $`\beta =2/3`$). We use this value for $`\delta `$ even though it decreases (since $`\alpha `$ increases) for very low envelope masses, e.g., $`\delta 5.9`$ for $`M_{\mathrm{env}}=0.05M_{}`$, since for the blue HB stars in the sample used here the required angular momentum is very large, and the evolution is more complicated. That is, other uncertainties in the interaction process of the more massive companion with the RGB envelope dominate, as we discuss later. For example, angular momentum loss may be even larger, since $`\beta >2/3`$, at early stage for the RGB progenitors of the blue HB stars in the sample.

In Figure 1 we plot the RGB angular momentum for $`M_0=0.3M_{}`$, and for $`\delta =4`$ (Fig. 1a; upper panel) and $`\delta =6.5`$ (Fig. 1b; lower panel). We present the results for $`\delta =4`$ as well as the expected value of $`\delta 6.5`$, since we find a uniform (more or less) distribution in $`J_0`$ (see Fig. 1a). The large symbol in the right-hand side of Figure 1b stands for a star which had $`J_0=6.05\times 10^{51}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, hence it was reduced by a factor of 10 to fit into the graph. The value of $`J_0`$ will be reduced by a factor of 10 if we take $`M_0=0.17M_{}`$ and $`0.21M_{}`$, for $`\delta =4`$ and $`\delta =6.5`$, respectively. Of course, the mass of the envelope when angular momentum was deposited to it changes from one star to another, but we have no way of telling the value of $`M_0`$ from the properties of the star on the HB.

Although the angular momentum on the HB is $`J_{\mathrm{HB}}J_{}`$, where $`J_{}`$ is the angular momentum of the sun, as noted already by Pinsonneault et al. (1991), the angular momentum required on the RGB for our preferred scenario ($`\delta =6.5`$ and $`M_0=0.3M_{}`$) is up to three orders of magnitude higher. Even if we take $`M_0=0.2M_{}`$ and $`\delta =4`$, the required angular momentum is up to $`5J_{}`$. As noted by Peterson et al. (1983), the angular momentum requires a planet to spin-up the RGB envelopes. The orbital angular momentum of a planet (or any other companion of mass $`M_p`$) is

$`J_p=8\times 10^{49}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_p}{M_J}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{10}}{0.9M_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{1\mathrm{AU}}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (10)   
where $`M_J`$ is Jupiter’s mass, $`M_{10}`$ is the initial stellar mass, and $`a`$ is the initial orbital separation. Jupiter like planets or lighter planets at orbital separations of $`1\mathrm{AU}`$ can account for the angular momentum of $`30\%`$ of the stars in Figure 1b. Allowing planet masses up to $`5M_J`$ and orbital separation up to $`2\mathrm{AU}`$, 34 out of the 38 stars in the sample can be accounted for.

The most extreme case, with $`J_0=6\times 10^{51}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, requires a companion of mass $`0.07M_{}`$ ($`0.22M_{}`$) at an orbital separation of $`1\mathrm{AU}`$ ($`0.1\mathrm{AU}`$), by our calculations. However, in our calculations we assumed that the deposition of angular momentum occurs within a short period, after which mass loss is a continuous process. The situation is more complicated when the angular momentum is large. This is seen by calculating the angular velocity of the RGB star after an angular momentum of $`J_p`$ is deposited to its envelope

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}}}=0.06\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{0.8M_{}}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{env}}}{0.3M_{}}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{100R_{}}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{0.1}}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{J_p}{10^{50}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)^1.`$ (11)   
Several things should be noted. First, when $`J_p3\times 10^{50}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{cm}^1`$ the angular velocity is $`\omega 0.2\omega _{\mathrm{Kep}}`$, and mass loss is expected to be concentrated toward the equatorial plane. This means that $`\beta >2/3`$ (see eq. 2), and $`\delta >6.5`$ at early stages. Second, for a required angular momentum of $`J_010\times 10^{51}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{cm}^1`$, as for two stars in Figure 1b, the companion may bring the envelope to synchronization with the orbital motion before it enters the envelope. This means that the wind may carry even more angular momentum, since the companion keeps the envelope at a more or less constant angular velocity even after substantial mass has been lost. Third, if the companion keeps the envelope rotation synchronized with the orbital motion until the star goes through a helium flash and starts its contraction to the HB, the star will reach the HB with very high angular velocity (because of the contraction). This must result in a substantial mass loss during the contraction phase, which will slow down the star by orders of magnitude (see next subsection). These three points show that the evolution of precursors of rotating blue HB stars maybe very complicated. In any case, we conclude that low-mass main sequence stars, or even brown dwarfs and planets can explain the angular momentum of all stars in this sample. Models based on single stars cannot account for the fast rotators on the HB.

The main factor that determines the mass loss during a common envelope evolution is the mass of the companion, while the angular momentum is determined by the orbital separation as well. Assuming that the distributions of initial orbital separations and initial masses of the companions are independent, we expect that the most massive companions will cause higher mass loss rate as well as deposit more angular momentum. This is compatible with the distribution on Figure 1b, where the RGB progenitor of HB stars which have less envelope mass had more angular momentum.

### 3.3 Angular Velocity Evolution along the HB

An HB star slows down very fast with mass loss on the HB, since $`\alpha 0.01`$ on the HB. For example, for $`\alpha =0.01`$ the star will slow down by a factor of 2 (30) by losing only $`1\%`$ ($`5\%`$) of its envelope mass. Therefore, envelope rotation on the HB, even if enhancing the mass loss rate, will not change the evolution on the HB much since the star will slow down before losing much mass. As an example let us examine the rotation velocities of M13 (Fig. 7b of Peterson et al. 1995). Hot stars ($`10,500T_{\mathrm{eff}}13,000\mathrm{K}`$) have rotation velocities of $`10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. They cannot be the descendants of the cooler ($`8,000T_{\mathrm{eff}}10,000\mathrm{K}`$) fast rotating, $`40\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, stars. To move by $`2000\mathrm{K}`$ to the left on the HR diagram (becoming hotter) on this part of the HB requires the envelope to lose $`20\%`$ of its mass \[e.g., D’Cruz et al. 1996; eq. (6) above\]. For $`\alpha 0.01`$ on this part of the HB (Pinsonneault et al. 1991), such a mass loss will reduce the angular velocity almost to zero.

There are no observations to indicate the mass loss rate of HB stars. The Reimers (1975) formula is not a good estimate for the mass loss of HB stars (Koopmann et al. 1994). Instead, Koopmann et al., as well as Demarque & Eder (1985) take a mass loss rate up to $`10^9M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. A higher upper mass loss rate of $`3\times 10^9M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ was assumed for HB stars by Yong & Demarque (1997). Following these uncertainties, we stay with the Reimers (1975) mass loss rate

$`\dot{M}2\times 10^{11}\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{30L_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{R_{}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{0.5M_{}}}\right)^1M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1,`$ (12)   
where $`L,R,M`$ are the stellar luminosity, radius, and mass, respectively, and $`\eta `$ is a constant of order unity. The lifetime on the HB is $`10^8\mathrm{yr}`$. According to the above mass loss rate, HB stars will lose $`2\%`$ of their envelope mass during their lifetime on the HB. This will not change the location on the HB much, but by taking $`\alpha =0.01`$ in equation (5), we find that the mass loss will slow down the stellar rotation by a factor of $`4`$.

## 4 SUMMARY

Rotation along the RGB may increase the total mass loss, increase the core mass at helium flash (Mengel & Gross 1976), and mix helium to the envelope (Sweigart & Catelan 1998, and references therein). Mengel & Gross (1976) find that the rotation velocity of the core should be $`\omega _{\mathrm{core}}>2\times 10^4\mathrm{s}^1`$, i.e., two orders of magnitude faster than the solar rotation velocity, in order to substantially influence the evolution along the RGB. We think that such high rotation velocities, even of the core alone, can be attained only via the interaction with a gas giant planet, a brown dwarf, or a low-mass main sequence star. This led us, following Soker (1998; also Siess & Livio 1999b), to propose that planets are the main “second parameter” factor of the HB, although planets alone cannot explain all blue HB stars. Extreme HB stars seem to require the interaction with a low-mass stellar companion, through a common envelope evolution or via tidal interaction with the companion outside the envelope. That stellar companions can lead to the formation of sdB stars was suggested by Mengel, Norris, & Gross (1976), through mass transfer. We here invoke different processes, namely tidal spin-up or common envelope evolution. Support for the common envelope evolution is the sdB star PG 1336-018 which has a secondary of mass $`0.15M_{}`$ with an orbital period of $`0.1`$ days (Kilkenny et al. 1998; see also Maxted et al.  for the sdB binary system PG 1247+554).

In this paper we analyze the angular momentum evolution from the RGB ro the HB and along the HB. Using rotation velocities for stars in the globular cluster M13, we find that the required angular momentum for the fast rotators is up to $`13`$ orders of magnitude (depending on some assumptions) larger than that of the sun. On the other hand, planets of masses up to five times Jupiter’s mass and up to an initial orbital separation of $`2\mathrm{AU}`$ are sufficient to spin-up the RGB progenitors of most of these fast rotators (other had been spun-up by brown dwarfs or low-mass main sequence stars). Our results show that the fast rotating HB stars must have been spun-up by companions, planets, brown dwarfs, and low-mass main sequence stars, while they evolve on the RGB.

We argue that the angular momentum considerations presented in this paper further support the “planet second parameter” model. In this model, the “second parameter” process of the HB is interaction with low-mass companions, in most cases gas giant planets, and in a minority of the cases with brown dwarfs or low-mass main sequence stars. The masses and initial orbital separations of the planets (or brown dwarfs or low-mass main sequence stars) form a rich spectrum of different physical parameters, which manifests itself in the rich varieties of HB morphologies observed in the different globular clusters and elliptical galaxies.

###### Acknowledgements.

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

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1: The total angular momentum of the progenitor RGB star prior to the intensive mass loss vs. effective temperature of the descendant HB star. The total angular momentum for each RGB star is calculated by equation (9) with $`M_0=0.3M_{}`$ and a constant value of $`\delta `$. (a) For $`\delta =4`$ (upper panel). (b) For $`\delta =6.5`$ (lower panel). The large symbol in the right-hand side stands for a star which had $`J_0=6.05\times 10^{50}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, hence it was reduced by a factor of 10 to fit into the graph.