4.7 Article

Slow star formation in dense gas: Evidence and implications

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 654, Issue 1, Pages 304-315

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/509101

Keywords

ISM : clouds; stars : formation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It has been known for more than 30 years that star formation in giant molecular clouds (GMCs) is slow, in the sense that only similar to 1% of the gas forms stars every free-fall time. This result is entirely independent of any particular model of molecular cloud lifetime or evolution. Here we survey observational data on higher density objects in the interstellar medium, including infrared dark clouds and dense molecular clumps, to determine whether these objects form stars slowly like GMCs, or rapidly, converting a significant fraction of their mass into stars in one free-fall time. We find no evidence for a transition from slow to rapid star formation in structures covering 3 orders of magnitude in density. This has important implications for models of star formation, since competing models make differing predictions for the characteristic density at which star formation should transition from slow to rapid. The data are inconsistent with models that predict that star clusters form rapidly and in free-fall collapse. Magnetic- and turbulence-regulated star formation models can reproduce the observations qualitatively, and the turbulence-regulated star formation model of Krumholz & McKee quantitatively reproduces the infrared-HCN luminosity correlation recently reported by Gao & Solomon Slow star formation also implies that the process of star cluster formation cannot be one of global collapse, but must instead proceed overmany free-fall times. This suggests that turbulence in star-forming clumps must be driven, and that the competitive accretion mechanism does not operate in typical cluster-forming molecular clumps.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available