Issue 
A&A
Volume 620, December 2018



Article Number  A42  
Number of page(s)  10  
Section  Astrophysical processes  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/00046361/201833506  
Published online  29 November 2018 
Physics of the Applegate mechanism: Eclipsing time variations from magnetic activity
^{1}
Hamburger Sternwarte, Universität Hamburg, Gojenbergsweg 112, 21029 Hamburg, Germany
email: marcel.voelschow@hs.unihamburg.de
^{2}
Departamento de Astronomía, Facultad Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Concepción, Av. Esteban Iturra s/n Barrio Universitario, Casilla 160C, Concepción, Chile
Received:
26
May
2018
Accepted:
4
September
2018
Since its proposal in 1992, the Applegate mechanism has been discussed as a potential intrinsical mechanism to explain transittiming variations in various types of close binary systems. Most analytical arguments presented so far focused on the energetic feasibility of the mechanism while applying rather crude one or twozone prescriptions to describe the exchange of angular momentum within the star. In this paper, we present the most detailed approach to date to describe the physics giving rise to the modulation period from kinetic and magnetic fluctuations. Assuming moderate levels of stellar parameter fluctuations, we find that the resulting binary period variations are one or two orders of magnitude lower than the observed values in RSCVn like systems, supporting the conclusion of existing theoretical work that the Applegate mechanism may not suffice to produce the observed variations in these systems. The most promising Applegate candidates are lowmass postcommonenvelope binaries with binary separations ≲1 R_{⊙} and secondary masses in the range of 0.30 M_{⊙} and 0.36 M_{⊙}.
Key words: stars: activity / stars: interiors / stars: AGB and postAGB / binaries: eclipsing
© ESO 2018
1. Introduction
Precise timing measurements in close binaries routinely reveal variations in the eclipse timings. While for binaries with very short periods of less than three hours gravitational wave emission is the dominating means of angular momentum loss, magnetic braking can account for such effects in binaries with longer periods (see, e.g., Kraft et al. 1962; Faulkner 1971; Verbunt & Zwaan 1981; Parsons et al. 2013). A subclass of close binaries, mainly RS Canum Venaticorum (RS CVn) and postcommon envelope binary (PCEB) systems, feature cyclic or nearlyperiodic orbital period variations on timescales of a few years to decades that are incompatible with classical gravitational wave or magnetic braking models (see, e.g., Lanza et al. 1998; Brinkworth et al. 2006; Zorotovic & Schreiber 2013). For some systems, planetary companions may explain these variations (see, e.g., Qian et al. 2011; Beuermann et al. 2013; Nasiroglu et al. 2017; Han et al. 2017), while some of the planetary solutions were found to be dynamically unstable (Horner et al. 2013) or have been proven incorrect observationally (Hardy et al. 2015). On the other hand, the period variations in other systems such as QS Vir are still not well understood (Parsons et al. 2010).
Based on and inspired by earlier work by Matese & Whitmire (1983) and Applegate & Patterson (1987), Applegate (1992) proposed a new mechanism to explain cyclic orbital period variations in close binaries. The author assumed a timedependent gravitational quadrupole moment modulated by the stellar activity cycle. Given a constant orbital angular momentum, an increasing quadrupole moment results in a stronger gravitational field and finally in a decreasing orbital radius and increasing orbital velocity, which can be observed as a reduction of the binary period.
To calculate the required energy as well as the expected quadrupole changes, Applegate (1992) considered a thin shell rotating in a point mass potential representing the rest of the star. The author assumed that the torque necessary to perform the angular momentum exchange is provided by subsurface magnetic fields of a few kG. Given such a field, luminosity variations on the 10% level and angular velocity variations on the 1% level are expected, leading to binary period variations compatible with the observed values in RS CVn systems (ΔP/P ∼ 10^{−5}). Applegate (1992) made a number of testable predictions, which included significant period luminosity changes due to temperature variations and a 1:1 relation between the modulation period and the stellar activity cycle. Both processes have been observed in systems such as CG Cygni, accompanied by orbital period variations (Hall 1991), while luminosity variations can be observed by studying photospheric temperatures (see, e.g., Gray & Baliunas 1994).
Lanza et al. (1998) generalized the magnetohydrodynamic aspects of the pioneering work of Applegate (1992), included the effects of internal magnetic fields, and elaborated on the connection between the Applegate mechanism and different types of dynamo models, emphasizing that a careful study of the Applegate mechanism may allow distinguishing between them. The improved Lanza et al. (1998) model is based on the momentum balance equation and assumes a uniform ratio of plasma pressure to magnetic pressure over the star. Expansion of the gravitational potential in spherical harmonics allowed Lanza et al. (1998) to calculate the quadrupole potential at the surface of the star, finding that the angular velocity changes required to produce a certain amount of period variation are reduced by a factor of 2 compared to the original Applegate (1992) approach.
Furthermore, Lanza et al. (1998) found that the driver of the period variations is the magnetic dynamo of the active component, which can effectively transform kinetic energy from nuclear reactions into magnetic energy and is more likely to be an α^{2}Ω dynamo, introducing a further observational aspect. Lanza & Rodonò (1999) stressed that the original Applegate (1992) ansatz may systematically overestimate the energies required to power the quadrupole moment variations as the exchanges between kinetic and magnetic energy are cyclic and partially reversible processes. Therefore, the authors concluded that the original model only provides upper limits for the required energy.
Lanza (2005) revisited the original work by Applegate (1992) and introduced an entirely new approach. Assuming that the angular velocity of the active component is only a function of the distance from its rotation axis, Lanza (2005) considered angular momentum redistributions not only between two layers, but rather general radial transport and redistribution modes within the convection zone. Imposing a strictly adiabatic convection zone and neglecting density perturbations, the author considered the equations of mass continuity and angular momentum conservation within a meanfield framework. Solving the angular momentum equation, Lanza (2005) calculated individual angular momentum redistribution modes from which he derived both the amplitude of the quadrupole moment change and the kinetic energy dissipated during the redistribution processes. Contrary to prior works, Lanza (2005) found that the power required to drive the observed levels of binary period variation in HR 1099 exceeds the luminosity provided by the active component by one or two orders of magnitude. Lanza (2006) extended the Lanza (2005) approach to angular velocity distributions that are functions of both radius and latitude, finding that the Applegate effect is still not a viable option in the case of HR 1099 and RS CVn systems in general.
Another route has been taken by Brinkworth et al. (2006), who generalized the original Applegate (1992) thinshell ansatz to angular momentum exchanges between a finite core and a finite shell, including the core backreaction to oblateness changes of the surrounding shell. Völschow et al. (2016) extended the Brinkworth et al. (2006) model to realistic stellar density profiles, derived analytic expressions to estimate the energy required to produce a certain level of period variation in a given system, and applied their full model to a set of 16 close binary systems, including 11 PCEBs. In line with previous works, the authors found that the Applegate effect cannot uniquely explain period variations in close binaries, and only 4 of the 16 systems were identified as potential Applegate candidates. Most recently, Navarrete et al. (2018) employed the analytic twozone model by Völschow et al. (2016) to investigate how rotation affects the energetic feasibility of the Applegate effect and on which scale the activity cycle matches the observed modulation period, noting that the systems with the highest rotation rates are the most likely Applegate candidates. However, one critical simplification of both the Brinkworth et al. (2006) and Völschow et al. (2016) models is that the authors set the coreshell transition where it minimizes the energy necessary to power the Applegate effect.
In this paper, we extend the Lanza (2006) model by assuming a timedependent magnetic field, velocity field fluctuations, and magnetic field fluctuations in the convection zone from which we can explicitly calculate the temporal evolution of the dissipated energy as well as the binary period variation. In addition, we consider superpositions of angular momentum redistribution modes instead of calculating the quadrupole moment changes caused by individual modes, as previously done by Lanza (2005, 2006). For the sake of consistency, we first apply our model to HR 1099 and use the system as an illustrative example for the basic predictions we make, before we extend our analysis to PCEB systems and identify the most likely Applegate mechanism candidates.
2. Model description
The formalism we employed is based on Lanza (2006). Sections 2.1 and 2.2.1 closely follow the author’s description, but our presentation puts an emphasis on a more algorithmic description. Starting from Sect. 2.3.1, we extend on the crucial aspects of the calculation by making an ansatz for the stellar parameter fluctuations, explicitly solving the temporal part of the underlying differential equation (see Sect. 2.2.1), elaborating on the evolution of the mechanism, and presenting an approach for describing superpositions of angular momentum redistribution modes.
2.1. Setup
Lanza (2006) assumed an inertial reference frame originating at the barycenter of the active component star, with the zaxis pointing in the direction of the stellar rotation axis. In line with Lanza (2006), we employ a spherical coordinate system where r is the distance from the origin, the colatitude θ is measured from the north pole and the azimuthal angle is ϕ, and we impose that all variables are independent of ϕ. The hydrodynamics of the turbulent convection zone are described employing a meanfield approach with mean velocity and mean value fluctuation v′. Furthermore, we neglect the effect of meridional circulations inside the star by assuming that the mean velocity field arises purely from stellar rotation (Lanza 2006). The equation for the angular velocity ω = v_{ϕ}/(r sin θ) reads (see, e.g., Lanza 2005, 2006)
Here, η_{t} = η_{t}(r) is the turbulent dynamical viscosity, μ = cosθ. S(r, μ, t) is a source term that controls the temporal evolution of the angular momentum redistribution and is specified in Sect. 2.3.1. Equation (1) is solved assuming a stressfree boundary condition
r_{b} denotes the base of the stellar convection zone, and R is the radius of the star (Lanza 2006).
2.2. Angular momentum equation
2.2.1. Model framework
Introducing the state of rigid rotation Ω_{0}, the angular velocity of the star can be written as
where ω(r, μ, t) describes the deviation from rigid rotation (Lanza 2006). According to Lanza (2006), solutions of the angular velocity Eq. (1) have the form
where are Jacobian polynomials and the index n is referred to as angular order. Furthermore, following Lanza (2006), the source term S (r, μ, t) can be developed into
Based on the angular momentum conservation equation and using the properties of the Jacobian polynomials, Lanza (2006) derived a partial differential equation for the α_{n}, β_{n}, and ζ_{n} functions that can be separated into two equations. They can be solved independently from each other, namely
which we refer to as temporal equation, as well as
which we refer to as the radial equation, and λ_{n} are eigenvalues of Eq. (7). The radial Eq. (7) together with the boundary conditions (2) define a regular Sturm–Liouville problem in the interval [r_{b}, R] for r_{b} > 0 (Lanza 2006).
2.2.2. Properties of the radial equation
For any given n, an infinite number of eigenvalues exist. Therefore, Lanza (2006) introduced a new index k (radial order) and denominated as λ_{nk} the kth eigenvalue of the nth radial equation. The first eigenvalue λ_{00} is zero, the associated eigenfunction ζ_{00} vanishes, and all eigenvalues are positive (see Lanza 2006).
Accounting for the radial order k, Eq. (4) can be recast into
and the radial Eq. (7) now reads
Imposing ω ≪ Ω_{0} (cf. Eq. (3)) and employing a linear approximation for the variation of the gravitational quadrupole moment (see Sect. 2.5), we only have to consider the cases n = 0 and n = 2 (Lanza 2006). Strictly speaking, in the case of a convective zone that spans the entire star (r_{b} = 0), the regular Sturm–Liouville problem turns into a singular Sturm–Liouville problem. The boundary condition at the lower end of the domain must be replaced by a regularity condition, and a different treatment of Eq. (9) is required to deal with singularities at r = 0. However, the stellar structure models we employ (see Sect. 3) all start at some radial coordinate r > 0, which ensures r_{b} > 0 even for fully convective stars.
2.2.3. Solving the radial equation
The most essential input to solve the radial equations is a stellar structure model that provides the mass distribution within the star M(r), the luminosity L(r), the density ρ(r), the temperature T(r), and the mean molecular weight m_{μ}(r). Based on this input, we can derive the gravitational acceleration
and the convective velocity employing mixing length theory u_{c}
where we use a mixing length parameter α_{ml} = 1.5 (Lanza 2005). The pressure scale height h_{p} is given by
with Boltzmann’s constant k_{B} and the hydrogen mass m_{H} (Lanza 2005). Finally, we can calculate the turbulent viscosity from
The stressfree boundary condition specified by Eq. (2) implies at r = r_{b} and r = R as boundary conditions for ζ_{nk}. We assume that ζ_{nk} vanishes outside [r_{b}, R], that is, angular velocity variations only occur in the convection zone. Intermediate stellar structure values are calculated by a linear interpolation scheme. Solutions for ζ_{0k} and ζ_{2k} are computed with a shooting method (see, e.g., Fehlberg 1987; Press et al. 1992). While the boundary conditions imply , the eigenfunction normalization at the bottom of the convective zone ζ_{nk}(r_{b}) can be regarded as a free parameter of the model only restricted by ζ_{nk}(r_{b}) ≪ Ω_{0}. The effect of this parameter is addressed in Sect. 3.
Lanza (2006) adopted ζ_{nk}(r_{b}) = 0.01Ω_{0} throughout his calculations, that is to say, he normalized individual angular momentum redistribution modes to some level. In contrast, we solve the full temporal equation to find solutions for the α_{nk}(t) and β_{nk}(t) functions, which allows us to calculate the evolution of the redistribution processes and consider superpositions of the elemental redistribution functions ζ_{nk}(r).
2.3. Temporal equation
2.3.1. Framework
Following Lanza (2006), solutions for the temporal Eq. (6) are
where β_{nk} is calculated from
E_{nk} is a normalization constant^{1} given by
The integral involving the Jacobian polynomials simplifies to
In a linear approximation for the quadrupole moment variation, we only have to consider the angular orders n = 0 and n = 2 (see Sect. 2.5) for which the term on the righthand side can be evaluated as 4/3 for n = 0 and 6/7 for n = 2.
The source term S in Eq. (1) describes angular momentum transfer by Reynolds stresses and magnetic torques and takes the form
The vector τ_{i} has the components
(19) is the Reynolds stress tensor, is the magnetic permeability, B is the mean magnetic field, and is the Maxwell stress tensor (Lanza 2005). Finally, we arrive at the expression
to calculate the β_{nk} functions from which we can then calculate the α_{nk} functions necessary to describe the temporal evolution of the star’s angular momentum distribution.
2.3.2. Stellar parameter fluctuations
As the Applegate mechanism is linked to and triggered by magnetic activity, we impose a phase factor of the form
with ω_{act} = 2π/P_{act} to describe the fluctuations of all involved quantities where P_{act} is the activity cycle period (see, e.g., Rüdiger et al. 2002). For the magnetic field, we assume a simple azimuthal structure with B_{r} = 0, B_{θ} = 0 and
accompanied by magnetic field fluctuations of the form
and velocity field fluctuations in the convection zone
where A_{B} and A_{v} are amplification coefficients and B_{surf} is the surface magnetic field amplitude. Assuming that these equations describe proper longterm ensemble means and imposing that both and are independent statistics for i ≠ j, we can make an ansatz for the Reynolds tensor
as well as the Maxwell stress tensor:
The effect of a constant phase lag Δϕ between the phase factor of different coordinates is addressed in Sect. 3.5. We note that the stellar parameter fluctuation description we adopt for our model does not come from dynamo theory or hydrodynamic calculation, but is rather a simplified ad hoc approach to generate cyclic Maxwell and Reynolds stresses.
2.3.3. Solution of the temporal equation
We can now evaluate the source term S(r, μ, t). For a vector field F(r, θ, ϕ) in spherical coordinates, the divergence takes the form
For our given magnetic field configuration and fluctuation setup, the divergence of the vector τ can be calculated as
where we defined
Using this, the function β_{nk}(t) can be evaluated as
The second term from div τ vanishes because of the symmetry of the μ integral. The remaining Jacobian polynomial integral can be evaluated analytically. First, we substitute μ = sinu and use the identity sin^{2}u + cos^{2}u = 1, which yields
Next, can be written as
and for (μ − 1)^{m}, we have
Using
the integrals in Eq. (31) are given by
as well as
Because of the symmetry of the integrand, the integral vanishes for odd values of n, implying β_{nk} = 0 and α_{nk} = 0. Using Eq. (35) and Eq. (36) allows us to explicitly calculate the Jacobian integral Eq. (31) (see Table 1). In order to normalize and calculate α_{nk}, we have to make use of the initial conditions, which correspond to the state of rigid rotation. Formally, we have
which implies
and can be satisfied by demanding α_{nk}(0) = 0.
2.4. Energy dissipation
According to Lanza (2006), the variation of the rotational kinetic energy can be calculated from
with a kinetic energy dissipation rate P_{diss} given by
2.5. Gravitational quadrupole moment variation
According to Ulrich & Hawkins (1981) and Lanza (2006), the variation of the quadrupole moment potential ΔΦ_{12} can be calculated by solving
where M(r) is the integrated star mass up to a given radius r. The Lebovitz (1970) coefficients a_{2} and b_{2} are calculated from the radial eigenfunctions ζ_{nk}
and
Solutions for Eq. (41) must verify the condition
to match the outer gravitational potential (Lanza 2006).
In order to solve Eq. (41) with the boundary condition Eq. (44), we perform a shootingmethod search and convert this boundary value problem into an initial value problem. The initial conditions are given by ΔΦ_{12}(r) = C r^{2} and for r → 0. By performing subsequent integrations of the quadrupole moment Eq. (41) for varying trial constants C, we find a trial constant C for which condition (44) holds.
From ΔΦ_{12}(R), we can calculate the quadrupole moment variation ΔQ via (Lanza 2006)
giving a relative orbital period variation of Applegate (1992)
where a is the semimajor axis of the binary and M is the mass of the active component.
3. Results
We applied the formalism described in Sect. 2 to an EZAMS^{2} model of HR 1099^{3} (M = 1.3 M_{⊙}, solar metallicity, time step 426, t = 4.48 Gyr, R ∼ 4.05 R_{⊙}, L = 8.62 L_{⊙}, Ω_{0} = 2.569 ⋅ 10^{−5} s^{−1}, and depth of the convection zone r_{b}/R = 0.1968), which provides the necessary stellar data: radial mass profile M(r), luminosity profile L(r), density profile ρ(r), temperature profile T(r), and mean molecular weight m_{μ}(r), as well as the base of the convection zone r_{b}. Using this, we can calculate derived quantities such as the radial gravitational acceleration profile g(r), convective velocity u_{c}(r), pressure scale height h_{p}(r), and turbulent viscosity η_{t}(r), for which we employ mixing length theory with a mixing length parameter α_{ml} = 1.5. We plot the radial profiles of u_{c}(r), h_{p}(r) and η_{t}(r) in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Convective velocity profile u_{c}, pressure scale height h_{p}, and turbulent dynamical viscosity η_{t} calculated using an EZAMS model of HR 1099 and mixing length theory. 

Open with DEXTER 
For the surface magnetic flux density, we assume B_{surf} = 1 kG. Details on the calculation of the Maxwell stress tensor and Reynolds stress tensor are described in Sect. 2. We adopt A_{v} = A_{B} = 0.1 as relative oscillation amplitudes for the velocity field and magnetic field inside the star.
3.1. Analytical approach
In order to understand the temporal evolution of the Applegate effect in the model presented here, we start with an analytical approach toward the most fundamental quantities involved in the mechanism. For a given set of functions that describe the oscillation of stellar parameters, the mechanism is controlled by the functions β_{nk} and α_{nk}, which can be calculated from the source term S(r, μ, t), which is in turn controlled by the function as given by Eq. (29). consists of three terms:

a magnetic field term B_{i}B_{ϕ}(r, t) that controls the mean magnetic field,

the Reynolds tensor Λ_{iϕ}(r, t) that describes the velocity field fluctuations, and

the Maxwell tensor M_{iϕ}(r, t) that describes the magnetic field fluctuations.
Finally, we arrive at
The main insight of this exercise is the change in periodicity: In case of sinusoidal variations with period P_{act} in the magnetic field and the velocity field fluctuations, α_{nk}, β_{nk}, and P_{diss} oscillate with half of the activity period to the leading order^{4} which is the observed binary modulation period P_{mod} as the quadrupole moment variation closely follows the dissipated energy (see following subsections). Another interesting result can be found by calculating the dimensionless quantity
which compares the Reynolds tensor integral with the Maxwell tensor integral, quantifying the relative strength of the velocity field fluctuation amplitude versus the magnetic field fluctuation amplitude. Given A_{v} = A_{B} = 0.1, a surface magnetic field of B_{surf} = 1 kG, and our EZAMS model of HR 1099, we have , implying that the velocity fluctuations dominate the magnetic field fluctuations. The same holds for the zeroage mainsequence stars investigated in the parameter study in Sect. 3.6. As a result, the choice of B_{surf} and A_{B} does not significantly alter our results.
3.2. Eigenvalues and radial eigenfunctions
Figures 2 and 3 show the first four eigenfunctions ζ_{0k}(r) and ζ_{2k}(r) associated with the first four eigenvalues of λ_{0k} and λ_{2k} (see Table 2). A radial eigenfunction of order k has k nodes in [r_{b}, R] (see, e.g., Lanza 2006).
Fig. 2. Eigenfunctions ζ_{0k} associated with the first four eigenvalues λ_{0k} calculated for HR 1099 (see Sect. 3.2). These functions represent elemental angular momentum redistribution modes. 

Open with DEXTER 
Fig. 3. Eigenfunctions ζ_{2k} associated with the first four eigenvalues λ_{2k} calculated for HR 1099 (see Sect. 3.2). These functions represent elemental angular momentum redistribution modes. 

Open with DEXTER 
Summary of the first ten eigenvalues of the radial equation for n = 0 and n = 2.
3.3. Eigenfunction normalization and k cutoff
For a fixed r_{b} and assuming that all radial eigenfunction ζ_{nk} share one normalization parameter ζ_{nk}(r_{b}), we find that the scaling relations ω ∝ ζ_{nk}(r_{b}) and P_{diss} ∝ ζ_{nk}(r_{b})^{2} hold. Consider ζ_{nk}(r) = ζ_{nk}(r_{b}) ξ_{nk}(r) with dimensionless functions ξ_{nk}(r). Plugging into Eq. (9) and making use of the linearity of differentials yields
which is equivalent to Eq. (9). This implies that for a fixed value of r_{b}, n, and k, solutions for ζ_{nk}(r) with varying normalizations ζ_{nk}(r_{b}) are multiples of one another. In particular, the eigenvalues λ_{nk} are constant. With this, we obtain for the dissipated energy
and the kinetic energy dissipation rate becomes
as the eigenvalues λ_{nk} are independent of the normalization chosen. In an analogous way, we can write
for the angular velocity variation inside the star, which indeed implies ω(r, μ, t) ∝ ζ_{nk}(r_{b}) because the functions α_{nk} are invariant under variations of ζ_{nk}(r_{b}).
As we investigate the question whether the Applegate effect – if operative – can explain the observed period variations in close binaries, we choose the following normalization strategy: First, we start with ζ_{nk}(r_{b}) = 1 and calculate the eigenvalues λ_{nk} and the functions ζ_{nk}, β_{nk} and α_{nk} for n = 0 and n = 2 up to some maximum order k_{max}. The maximum order is determined by the eigenvalues, which have the dimension of inverse time and are associated with angular momentum redistributions on a timescale of 1/λ_{nk} (see Lanza 2005; Lanza 2006). For increasing orders of n and k, these timescales gradually shrink until they fall below the typical travel time of a soundwave when crosses the convection zone, which we calculate from
where the speed of sound is
assuming monoatomic gas. From this point, we therefore assume that higher orders are not able to contribute to the global angular momentum redistribution process. Depending on the details of the stellar interior, typicalk cutoffs range between 50 for evolved subgiants and >100 for red dwarfs. Given a k cutoff and the eigenfunctions ζ_{nk} (starting with ζ_{nk}(r_{b}) = 1), β_{nk} as well as α_{nk}, we calculate the total energy dissipation P_{diss}(t) and locate its maximum P_{diss, max}. Given this, we adjust the eigenfunction normalization factor ζ_{nk}(r_{b}) in order to have a maximum dissipated power equal to A_{P} L_{HR1099}. Using this normalization, the kinetic energy dissipation rate is limited to some fraction A_{P} of the stellar power output L_{HR1099}, which is typically on the order of 10%, and we can finally calculate the corresponding angular velocity variations inside the star.
3.4. Angular velocity variation and energy dissipation
The dissipated energy is calculated from Eq. (51) up to some radial order k. For k = 48, the timescale associated with the respective angular momentum redistribution mode is shorter than the calculated soundwave travel time. We fix the kinetic energy fluctuation limit to A_{P} = 0.1 as described in the previous subsection. When α_{nk} and ζ_{nk} are determined and our normalization to limit the kinetic energy dissipation is applied, we can calculate the effective angular velocity variation inside the star as functions of both time and stellar radius. In Fig. 4 we present the angular velocity changes inside the star for three different times between t = 0.05P_{mod} and t = 0.25P_{mod}. Starting from the state of rigid rotation at t = 0, the angular velocity variation builds up continuously with peak fluctuations of a few percent in the outermost layers of the star.
Fig. 4. Evolution of the equatorial angular velocity variation inside HR 1099 computed for three different times. 

Open with DEXTER 
3.5. Period modulation
In Fig. 5 we plot the calculated period variation in HR 1099 for B_{surf} = 1 kG, a cycle length of P_{act} = 2 P_{mod}, a magnetic field fluctuation amplitude of A_{B} = 0.1, and a velocity field fluctuation amplitude A_{V} = 0.1 for three different cases of phase lag Δϕ between the radial and the azimuthal velocity and magnetic field fluctuations. The dissipated energy is limited to A_{P} = 0.1 of the star’s luminosity. For Δϕ = 0, the oscillation is purely negative, that is, the quadrupole moment changes have a positive sign. On the other hand, for Δϕ = π/2, the period modulation oscillates between the positive and the negative regime, which is indicative of a cyclic transition between an oblate and a prolate state. Figure 6 shows the expected level of period variation in case of a surface magnetic field of 1 kG and varying fluctuation parameters A_{V}, A_{B}, and A_{P} (see Sect. 2.2.1). Even with fluctuation amplitudes as high as A_{V} = A_{B} = A_{P} = 0.5, which are not observed in HR 1099 (see Frasca & Lanza 2005), the resulting binary period variation amplitudes are still off by two orders of magnitude; no physically reasonable parameter range yields period variations as high as those observed in the system (9.0 × 10^{−5}, Frasca & Lanza 2005). Given that the redistribution processes are almost entirely governed by convection (see Sect. 3.1), the only degree of freedom left to produce larger period variations is the convective velocity inside the star, for instance, through the mixinglength parameter α_{ml}. Reproduction of the observed modulation period of 35 yr imposes an activity cycle length of twice that value as the model predicts a 2:1 relation between the observed binary modulation period and the activity cycle length. Therefore, if the observed period variations are energetically and mechanically feasible, we would expect an activity cycle in HR 1099 of roughly 70 yr, while several authors claim to have found cycle lengths between 14.1 ± 0.3 yr and 19.5 ± 2 yr (see Lanza et al. 2006; Muneer et al. 2010; Perdelwitz et al. 2018, and references therein).
Fig. 5. Binary period variation amplitude calculated for a surface magnetic field of 1 kG, a cycle length of P_{act} = 2 P_{mod}, a magnetic field fluctuation amplitude of A_{B} = 0.1, and a velocity field fluctuation amplitude A_{V} = 0.1 for three different cases of phase shift Δϕ between the radial and azimuthal fluctuations. 

Open with DEXTER 
Fig. 6. Binary period variation in HR 1099 calculated for a surface magnetic field of 1 kG, a cycle length of P_{act} = 2 P_{mod}, no phase shift, and varying fluctuation parameters A_{V}, A_{B}, and A_{P}. In a conservative scenario with A_{P} = A_{V} = A_{B} = 0.1, the calculated binary period modulation amplitude is two orders of magnitude below the observed values (∼10^{−4}). Increasing the velocity field fluctuation amplitude to A_{V} = 0.3 at constant power dissipation A_{P} = 0.1 only results in a slight increase of ΔP/P. Even for the rather extreme case of A_{P} = A_{V} = A_{B} = 0.5, the produced period variations disagree with observations (see Frasca & Lanza 2005). 

Open with DEXTER 
3.6. Active component mass parameter study
We showed in the previous sections that RS CVns such as HR 1099 are not expected to produce significant levels of period modulation. We now expand our analysis to precataclysmic PCEB systems (see, e.g., Zorotovic & Schreiber 2013), which have been proposed as potential Applegate systems by Völschow et al. (2016).
Consider a tidally locked binary system with a = 1 R_{⊙}, consisting of a typical white dwarf primary with M_{WD} = 0.5 M_{⊙} and a zeroage mainsequence secondary with varying mass. Just as in the previous sections, we assume a constant magnetic field of B_{surf} = 1 kG and fix the fluctuation parameters to A_{P} = A_{V} = A_{B} = 0.1 with a phase lag Δϕ = 0. For the modulation period, we assume P_{mod} = 15 yr. We varied the mass of the active component between 0.1 M_{⊙} and 0.6 M_{⊙} and calculated the amplitude of the orbital period variation using an EZAMS model of age t = 0. Figure 7 plots the expected period variation amplitude as a function of the active component mass. Between 0.1 M_{⊙} and 0.36 M_{⊙}, we see a clear increasing trend toward higher binary period variation levels. For fluctuation parameters slightly above the fiducial 10% level, stars between 0.30 M_{⊙} and 0.36 M_{⊙} are expected to produce amplitudes ≃10^{−7}, which is a typical order of magnitude observed in PCEB systems (Parsons et al. 2010; Zorotovic & Schreiber 2013; Völschow et al. 2016), while stars outside of this range only support low levels of period variations ≲10^{−7}. For all simulated systems, the peak angular velocity variations are ≲1%.
Fig. 7. Amplitude of binary period variation calculated for a surface magnetic field of 1 kG, cycle length of P_{act} = 2 P_{mod}, magnetic field fluctuation amplitude of A_{B} = 0.1, velocity field fluctuations of A_{V} = 0.1, and varying active component mass. The noticeable decrease in period modulation at 0.37 M_{⊙} coincides with the transition from fully convective to radiativecore stars. 

Open with DEXTER 
The physical explanation for the peak around M ≃ 0.35 M_{⊙} is the emergence of a radiative core, which shifts the boundary of the convective zone outward and reduces the total mass and angular momentum involved in the redistribution process. In Fig. 8 we plot the bottom of the convective zone as function of mass. Stars with M ≳ 0.37 M_{⊙} develop a radiative core, which reduces the domain available for angular momentum redistribution processes. While the calculated binary period modulation amplitudes again increase toward higher masses, the upper end of the investigated mass range may be affected by Rochelobe overflow, which introduces additional effects that are not considered in our model. We also recall that fully convective stars with r_{b}/R = 0 are strictly speaking not covered by the regular Sturm–Liouville problem, but the structure files adopted in our calculations for stars up to M = 0.36 M_{⊙} have relative convection zone depths of r_{b}/R ≃ 0.01.
Fig. 8. Bottom of the convection zone r_{b} as function of mass in our EZAMS stellar structure models. Stars up to 0.36 M_{⊙} are fully convective with nonzero convection velocities down to the innermost grid points. For higher masses, EZAMS predicts the emergence of a radiative core that takes up increasing fractions of the central region and reduces the total mass participating in the angular momentum redistribution processes. 

Open with DEXTER 
4. Conclusions and discussion
We presented a model that connects periodic fluctuations in the magnetic field and velocity field of the convection zone to periodic modulations of the quadrupole moment of the star, resulting in cyclic modulations of the binary period. Using the example of HR 1099, which has been discussed as one of the most promising Applegate candidates, we calculated the angular momentum redistribution modes ζ_{nk}(r) and considered the angular equation to calculate the α_{nk}(t) and β_{nk}(t) functions that are required to calculate the temporal evolution of the dissipated energy and the quadrupole moment, assuming that the star dedicates a fiducial fraction of A_{P} = 0.1 of its luminosity to drive the Applegate mechanism. The order up to which we calculate the eigenfunctions is determined by a simple soundwave travel time argument. Our constant azimuthal field ansatz leads to a simple source function only controlled by the Λ_{rϕ} and M_{rϕ} components of the Reynolds and Maxwell tensors, where the former clearly dominates in the case of simple harmonic velocity and magnetic field fluctuations, which we control through the A_{B} and A_{V} parameters with fiducial values of 0.1.
In this model, harmonic oscillations of the magnetic field fluctuations and velocity field fluctuations on a timescale of the activity cycle P_{act} result in orbital period variations on a timescale of P_{mod} = 0.5 P_{act}. In other words, we expect that the activity cycle of any Applegate candidate satisfying our assumptions is double the observed binary modulation period, whereas alternative models predict a different ration (see, e.g., Applegate 1992; Lanza et al. 1998; Lanza & Rodonò 2004).
Furthermore, depending on the phase shift between the radial fluctuations and the azimuthal fluctuations, purely negative, positive or mixed quadrupole moment changes may be observed similar to findings by Rüdiger et al. (2002).
In line with previous work, we confirm that HR 1099 is not expected to produce period variations on the level observed today through the Applegate mechanism, which would require unphysically high field fluctuation amplitudes, angular velocity changes, and dissipated power. This is consistent with previous findings by Lanza (2005, 2006), who did not explicitly consider the temporal evolution of the mechanism.
While HR 1099 in particular and RS CVn systems in general seem highly unlikely Applegate candidates, our extensive parameter study identified shortperiod PCEBs with active component masses between 0.30 M_{⊙} and 0.36 M_{⊙} as the strongest Applegate candidates with expected period variation amplitudes similar to those typically observed in such systems, which are between 10^{−7} and a few 10^{−6} (see, e.g., Zorotovic & Schreiber 2013; Völschow et al. 2016). Consequently, we propose a careful reanalysis of PCEB systems with cyclic period variations to exclude the planetary hypothesis and find direct observational evidence that intrinsic effects such as quadrupole moment changes are at work.
To distinguish between Applegate modulations and period variations caused by planets through the light travel time effect (see, e.g., Pribulla et al. 2012), longterm measurements are required to determine the correlations between activity indicators, luminosity variations that are due to photospheric temperature changes, and the binary period modulation (Applegate 1992,). Changes in the rotational profile on the 1% level may lead to tiny deformations on a similar order of magnitude as the active component oscillates between an oblate and a prolate state, which is also expected to correlate with the activity cycle (Applegate 1992; Lanza et al. 1998; Rüdiger et al. 2002,). However, matters are complicated by spots and tidal deformations.
The model presented here is a significant step forward to understand the physics of the Applegate scenario. Nevertheless, it is still based on simplifying assumptions, such as a purely azimuthal magnetic field and the adoption of a meanfield framework. The Reynolds and Maxwell stress tensors do not selfconsistently follow from a dynamo model either, but we adopt a (physically motivated) prescription for the kinetic and magnetic fluctuations that is externally imposed. Similarly, this approach still neglects effects such as viscosity quenching as a result of fast rotation, which may reduce the dissipated power and allow for higher levels of period variation in rapidly rotating systems (see Lanza 2006). Furthermore, our model does not guarantee the hydrodynamical stability of the differential rotation profile that emerges during the oscillation, although the maximum relative deviations from the state of rigid rotation are on the 2% level in HR 1099 and well below the 1% level in our PCEB parameter study (see Knobloch & Spruit 1982). Another limitation ist that we do not account for meridional circulation or for the effect of energy advection inside the star. Finally, additional quadrupole moment changes may occur as results of anisotropic Lorentz forces inside the star (Lanza et al. 1998).
While we cannot draw a final conclusion at this point, our framework nevertheless provides the most complete assessment of the Applegate mechanism so far, and it shows that a consideration of physical processes allows determining under which conditions the Applegate mechanism may be feasible. Our model yields testable predictions, suggesting that the Applegate mechanism may be favored for certain PCEB systems and disfavored in HR 1099. These predictions should be tested both on the observational side and through further refinement of the model to provide a clear picture where the Applegate mechanism is able to work.
The expression for the normalization constant can be derived by multiplying Eq. (5) with , integrating as and making use of the orthogonality of ζ_{nk} for a fixed n with respect to the weight function ρr^{4}, and the orthogonality of the Jacobian polynomials.
We chose HR 1099 for the sake of comparability with previous works by Lanza (2005); Lanza (2006) upon which our models is based.
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to the anonymous referee for carefully reading our manuscript and providing us with valuable advice that improved the quality of our work. DRGS thanks for funding via Fondecyt regular (project code 1161247), the “Concurso Proyectos Internacionales de Investigación, Convocatoria 2015” (project code PII20150171) and the BASAL Centro de Astrofísica y Tecnologías Afines (CATA) PFB06/2007.
References
 Applegate, J. H. 1992, ApJ, 385, 621 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Applegate, J. H., & Patterson, J. 1987, ApJ, 322, L99 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Beuermann, K., Dreizler, S., & Hessman, F. V. 2013, A&A, 555, A133 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Brinkworth, C. S., Marsh, T. R., Dhillon, V. S., & Knigge, C. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 287 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Faulkner, J. 1971, ApJ, 170, L99 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Fehlberg, E. 1987, ZAMM – J. Appl. Math. Mech. / Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 67, 367 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Frasca, A., & Lanza, A. F. 2005, A&A, 429, 309 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Gray, D. F., & Baliunas, S. L. 1994, ApJ, 427, 1042 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Hall, D. S. 1991, ApJ, 380, L85 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Han, Z.T., Qian, S.B., Irina, V., & Zhu, L.Y. 2017, AJ, 153, 238 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Hardy, A., Schreiber, M. R., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, L24 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Horner, J., Wittenmyer, R. A., Hinse, T. C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2033 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Knobloch, E., & Spruit, H. C. 1982, A&A, 113, 261 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Kraft, R. P., Mathews, J., & Greenstein, J. L. 1962, ApJ, 136, 312 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lanza, A. F. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 238 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lanza, A. F. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1773 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lanza, A. F., & Rodonò, M. 1999, A&A, 349, 887 [Google Scholar]
 Lanza, A. F., & Rodonò, M. 2004, Astron. Nachr., 325, 393 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lanza, A. F., Rodono, M., & Rosner, R. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 893 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Lanza, A. F., Piluso, N., Rodonò, M., Messina, S., & Cutispoto, G. 2006, A&A, 455, 595 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Lebovitz, N. R. 1970, ApJ, 160, 701 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Matese, J. J., & Whitmire, D. P. 1983, A&A, 117, L7 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Muneer, S., Jayakumar, K., Rosario, M. J., Raveendran, A. V., & Mekkaden, M. V. 2010, A&A, 521, A36 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Nasiroglu, I., Goździewski, K., Słowikowska, A., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 137 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Navarrete, F. H., Schleicher, D. R. G., Fuentealba, J. Z., & Völschow, M. 2018, A&A, 615, A81 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Parsons, S. G., Marsh, T. R., Copperwheat, C. M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2362 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Parsons, S. G., Gänsicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 256 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Perdelwitz, V., Navarrete, F. H., Zamponi, J., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A161 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical recipes in FORTRAN. The art of scientific computing, 963, [Google Scholar]
 Pribulla, T., Vaňko, M., Ammlervon Eiff, M., et al. 2012, Astron. Nachr., 333, 754 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Qian, S.B., Liu, L., Liao, W.P., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, L16 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Rüdiger, G., Elstner, D., Lanza, A. F., & Granzer, T. 2002, A&A, 392, 605 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Ulrich, R. K., & Hawkins, G. W. 1981, ApJ, 246, 985 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 Verbunt, F., & Zwaan, C. 1981, A&A, 100, L7 [NASA ADS] [Google Scholar]
 Völschow, M., Schleicher, D. R. G., Perdelwitz, V., & Banerjee, R. 2016, A&A, 587, A34 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
 Zorotovic, M., & Schreiber, M. R. 2013, A&A, 549, A95 [NASA ADS] [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
All Tables
Summary of the first ten eigenvalues of the radial equation for n = 0 and n = 2.
All Figures
Fig. 1. Convective velocity profile u_{c}, pressure scale height h_{p}, and turbulent dynamical viscosity η_{t} calculated using an EZAMS model of HR 1099 and mixing length theory. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 2. Eigenfunctions ζ_{0k} associated with the first four eigenvalues λ_{0k} calculated for HR 1099 (see Sect. 3.2). These functions represent elemental angular momentum redistribution modes. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 3. Eigenfunctions ζ_{2k} associated with the first four eigenvalues λ_{2k} calculated for HR 1099 (see Sect. 3.2). These functions represent elemental angular momentum redistribution modes. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 4. Evolution of the equatorial angular velocity variation inside HR 1099 computed for three different times. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 5. Binary period variation amplitude calculated for a surface magnetic field of 1 kG, a cycle length of P_{act} = 2 P_{mod}, a magnetic field fluctuation amplitude of A_{B} = 0.1, and a velocity field fluctuation amplitude A_{V} = 0.1 for three different cases of phase shift Δϕ between the radial and azimuthal fluctuations. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 6. Binary period variation in HR 1099 calculated for a surface magnetic field of 1 kG, a cycle length of P_{act} = 2 P_{mod}, no phase shift, and varying fluctuation parameters A_{V}, A_{B}, and A_{P}. In a conservative scenario with A_{P} = A_{V} = A_{B} = 0.1, the calculated binary period modulation amplitude is two orders of magnitude below the observed values (∼10^{−4}). Increasing the velocity field fluctuation amplitude to A_{V} = 0.3 at constant power dissipation A_{P} = 0.1 only results in a slight increase of ΔP/P. Even for the rather extreme case of A_{P} = A_{V} = A_{B} = 0.5, the produced period variations disagree with observations (see Frasca & Lanza 2005). 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 7. Amplitude of binary period variation calculated for a surface magnetic field of 1 kG, cycle length of P_{act} = 2 P_{mod}, magnetic field fluctuation amplitude of A_{B} = 0.1, velocity field fluctuations of A_{V} = 0.1, and varying active component mass. The noticeable decrease in period modulation at 0.37 M_{⊙} coincides with the transition from fully convective to radiativecore stars. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Fig. 8. Bottom of the convection zone r_{b} as function of mass in our EZAMS stellar structure models. Stars up to 0.36 M_{⊙} are fully convective with nonzero convection velocities down to the innermost grid points. For higher masses, EZAMS predicts the emergence of a radiative core that takes up increasing fractions of the central region and reduces the total mass participating in the angular momentum redistribution processes. 

Open with DEXTER  
In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.