1 / 51

Enrique Vázquez-Semadeni Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica, UNAM, México

Formation and Evolution of Cores in Globally Collapsing Environments. Enrique Vázquez-Semadeni Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica, UNAM, México. Collaborators: CRyA UNAM: Javier Ballesteros-Paredes Pedro Col ín Gilberto Gómez Postdoc: Robert Loughnane*. Grad students:

chick
Télécharger la présentation

Enrique Vázquez-Semadeni Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica, UNAM, México

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Formation and Evolution of Cores in Globally Collapsing Environments Enrique Vázquez-Semadeni Centro de Radioastronomía y Astrofísica, UNAM, México

  2. Collaborators: CRyA UNAM: Javier Ballesteros-Paredes Pedro Colín Gilberto Gómez Postdoc: Robert Loughnane* Grad students: Raúl Naranjo-Romero* Manuel Zamora-Avilés * at this conference

  3. Outline: • The case for globally collapsing molecular clouds (MCs). • Formation of filaments and clumps in collapsing MCs. • Idealized, spherically symmetric simulations. • Interpretation revisiting basic theory. • Preliminary synthetic observations of the clumps. • From the simple to the complex.

  4. CLOUD FORMATION AND GLOBAL COLLAPSE

  5. WNM n, T, P, -v1 WNM n, T, P, v1 • When a dense cold cloud forms by phase transition triggered by a compression in the warm atomic gas, it “automatically” (Vishniac 1994; Walder & Folini 1998, 2000; Koyama & Inutsuka 2002, 2004; Audit & Hennebelle 2005; Heitsch et al. 2005, 2006; Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2006). • acquires mass (a cloud’s mass is not constant); • cools down (by a transition to the cold atomic phase) • acquires turbulence (through TI, NTSI, KHI?) • The compression may be driven by global turbulence, larger-scale (kpc) instabilities, etc. CNM

  6. May cold clouds be globally collapsing? • Because they form out of a transition from the warm/diffuse to the cold/dense phase, they quickly become Jeans-unstable. (If the colliding flows were not already driven by larger-scale gravitational instability.) r 102r, T  10-2 T  Jeans mass, ~ r-1/2 T3/2, decreases by ~ 104 upon warm-cold transition.

  7. Converging inflow setup Lbox Rinf Linflow • Run with Gadget 2 SPH code; 2.6x107 SPH particles: • L = 256 pc • <n> = 1 cm-3 • vinflow ~ 7 km s-1 • Tini = 5000 K • Rcyl = 32 pc (Gómez & Vázquez-Semadeni 2014, ApJ, in press., arXiv:1308.6298)

  8. Gómez & VS 2014, (ApJ in press, arXiv:1308.6298)

  9. Because the cloud contains many Jeans masses, its collapse is nearly pressureless. • Collapse proceeds fastest along shortest dimension (Lin+65): • Spheroids  Sheets  Filaments • Because collapse of filaments is slower than that of spheres (Toalá+12; Pon+12), spheroidal fluctuations within a filament collapse earlier than rest of the filament. •  Rest of filament “rains down” onto star-forming clump

  10. Case-study of filaments formed in simulation: • Filaments are flow features(not equilibrium objects) where accretion changes from being ~2D to ~1D. • “River-like” features, flowing towards the gravitational potential trough (the core). cm-2 2 km s-1 Gómez & VS 2014, ApJ, in press (arXiv:1308.6298).

  11.  Nonthermal motions dominated by infall at all scales in MCs? • Turbulence is only a background, • Not a support mechanism. • Albeit highly non-isotropic, multi-scale infall (Vázquez-Semadeni+09, ApJ, 707, 1023) • Small-scale, low-mass, high-density structures collapse first. • Large-scale, massive, lower-density structures collapse later. • Hierarchical gravitational collapse. • A multi-scale and anisotropic version of non-homologous, inside-out collapse (Shu 1977)

  12. SPHERICAL COLLAPSE AND THEORY REVISITED

  13. Highly idealized simulations: (Naranjo-Romero, VS & Loughnane, in prep.) • Spherical collapse(Larson 1969). • Collapsing gaussian fluctuation embedded in gravitationally unstable background(see also Mohammadpour & Stahler 2013): • <n> = 1000 cm-3 • Zero initial velocity • Box size: ~ 3 LJ (2.1 pc) • Fluctuation size: ~ 1 LJ (0.7 pc) • Fluctuation amplitude: rcl/rbg ~ 2 • Resolution: 5123 • Periodic boundaries t measured in units of global free-fall time, tff ~ 1 Myr.

  14. = M(r)/MJ(r) 0.7 pc

  15. = M(r)/MJ(r) 0.7 pc

  16. = M(r)/MJ(r) 0.7 pc

  17. = M(r)/MJ(r) 0.7 pc

  18. = M(r)/MJ(r) 0.7 pc

  19. = M(r)/MJ(r) 0.7 pc

  20. Some points to note (Whitworth & Summers 1985): • At early times, the core has the profiles • r ~ cst. • |u| ~ r (linear, subsonic) • At intermediate times, two sonic points (v=cs) appear and the core develops the profiles (rs = inner sonic point): • Immediately before the formation of the singularity (the protostar), the core develops the profiles • r ~ r-2 • |u| ~ cst. Bonnor-Ebert like Singular isothermal sphere (SIS)-like, but with uniform infall speed.

  21. Immediately before protostar formation: = M(r)/MJ(r) r ~ r-2 u ~ cst. 0.7 pc

  22. So, SIS-like profile is approached at time of protostar formation, • Despite previous criticisms (Whitworth+96; Vázquez-Semadeni+05): • Static SIS is an unstable equilibrium, but... • ... with uniform infall velocity, it is the approached stage at singularity formation. • Also, supersonic velocities develop only during the last ~ 17% of the evolution. •  Most prestellar cores will appear subsonic.

  23. To what extent does spherical collapse explain observations? • BE-like density profile consistent with observations of prestellar cores (e.g., Alves+01; Andre+14). • Not indicative of hydrostatic equilibrium! • Central “quiescent” region is an intrinsic property of collapsing cores in prestellar (pre-singularity formation) stage. • u ~ r in central region. • Not a turbulence-dissipation region. • What do synthetic observations tell us? • Synthetic NH3 (1,1) observations. • Using MOLLIE radiative transfer code (Keto 1990). • Central 8 out of 18 hyperfine lines.

  24. Profiles at t = 1.8 tff: Center r = ½ LJ r = ¾ LJ Raw profiles with zero nonthermal velocity

  25. We note that: • No background turbulence. • Double peak actually more pronounced in outer parts. • At center, infall speeds smear out hyperfine lines. • Hard to distinguish infall signature from hyperfine lines.

  26. We note that: • No background turbulence. • Double peak actually more pronounced in outer parts. • At center, infall speeds smear out hyperfine lines. • Hard to distinguish infall signature from hyperfine lines. Compare to Pineda+2010:

  27. CORE COLLAPSE IN CLOUD FORMATION SIMULATIONS

  28. More realistic simulations: (Loughnane, Zamora-Avilés & VS 2014, in prep.) • Colliding-flow simulations with magnetic field and stellar feedback • FLASH 2.5 AMR code. • Periodic boundaries • Box size: ~ 256 pc • <n> = 1 cm-3 • <T> ~ 5000 K • Maximum resolution: 0.002 pc ~ 400 AU • Look at one ~25-Msun core in its final prestellar stages.

  29. t=10.6 Myr 1 pc

  30. t=10.7 Myr 1 pc

  31. t=10.7 Myr : beam 1 pc

  32. Compare to Pineda+2010:

  33. Similar behavior of line profile with distance from core center to that of Pineda+10, • ...although just part of a continuous collapse process, with no turbulence-supported hydrostatic stage, • nor a turbulence-dissipation stage at the center. • Although complex motions in envelope seem necessary to blur the hyperfine lines.

  34. SUMMARY

  35. Dense clouds... • evolve! • Growing in mass • are likely dominated by infall, not strong random turbulence. • have only moderately supersonic initial turbulence (atomic phase). • Strongly supersonic motions develop as a consequence of collapse. • Collapse • Is multi-scale, and • occurs inside-out at each scale. • Spherical cores initiating collapse in unstable environments: • Have Bonnor-Ebert-like profiles during prestellar phases, but finite infall speeds. • At formation of singularity (YSO), develop SIS-like profile (r ~ r-2), but with uniform infall speed. • 4. Synthetic observations of cores in more realistic cloud-formation simulations • Exhibit similar radial variation as Pineda+10. • Although not because of turbulence-dissipation process, but just ongoing collapse on top of chaotic background.

  36. THE END

  37. (Gómez & Vázquez-Semadeni 2014, ApJ, subm., arXiv:1308.6298)

  38. Collision-driven turbulence is only moderately supersonic. • Strongly supersonic velocities typical of GMCs appear later, as a consequence of gravitational contraction. 4.2 Inflow weakens, collapse starts (11 Myr) SF starts (17.2 Myr)  Cannot rely on those highly supersonic motions to support the clouds. 2.8 1.4 ~ 0.5 km s-1 Turbulence driven by compression, through NTSI, TI and KHI. (Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2007)

  39. The same happens with grid codes: • AMR simulations with feedback (VS+2010, ApJ, 715, 1302) • density-weighted s • volume-weighted s • with feedback • without feedback

  40. Filament and clump formation by gravitational contraction in dense gas

  41. Because the cloud contains many Jeans masses, its collapse is nearly pressureless. • Collapse proceeds fastest along shortest dimension (Lin+65): • Spheroids  Sheets  Filaments • Because collapse of filaments is slower than that of spheres (Toalá+12; Pon+12), spheroidal fluctuations within a filament collapse earlier than rest of the filament. •  Rest of filament “rains down” onto star-forming clump

  42. This mechanism contrasts with the standard picture that: • Cores form by supersonic turbulent compressions in the clouds. • Cores proceed to collapse once their internal turbulence dissipates. • Through a “transition to coherence” (Goodman+98; Pineda+10). Velocity dispersion Hyperfine separation Pineda+2010: B5 Core. Velocity dispersion derived from nonthermal component necessary to erase the peaks, assumed to be the NH3 (1,1) hyperfine lines.

  43. Investigate the clump dynamics (Camacho+14, in prep.) • In terms of the “virial parameter” a(Bertoldi & McKee 1992):

  44. GMCs and massive star-forming clumps are observed to lie near “equipartition line” in “extended Larson diagram”(Keto & Myers 1986; Heyer+2009): GMCs (Heyer +09) Massive clumps (Gibson+09) Virial equilibrium: a=1 Free-fall or equipartition a=2 Ballesteros-Paredes+11 Dobbs+14 (PPVI)

  45. Although some clumps seem to have too large Ek. Unbound?? (Barnes+2011)

  46. What do the clumps look like in the simulation? • Use a clump-finding algorithm for SPH data by Mata & Gómez: All particles in domain One clump above n = 104 cm-3 (Camacho+14, in prep.)

  47. t = 20 Myr • “Raw” clumps tend to lie above equipartition line. Unbound??? How could this be, if the turbulence has decayed, and there’s no other energy source than gravity? (Camacho+14, in prep.)

  48. Or are we missing mass? All clumps, adding stellar mass Only clumps with no stellar particles t = 20 Myr (Camacho+14, in prep.)

More Related