4.7 Article

Formation of massive primordial stars in a reionized gas

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 667, 期 2, 页码 L117-L120

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/522202

关键词

cosmology : theory; galaxies : formation; stars : formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use cosmological hydrodynamic simulations with unprecedented resolution to study the formation of primordial stars in an ionized gas at high redshifts. Our approach includes all the relevant atomic and molecular physics to follow the thermal evolution of a prestellar gas cloud to very high densities of similar to 10(18) cm(-3). We locate a star-forming gas cloud within a reionized region in our cosmological simulation. The gas cloud cools down to a few tens of kelvins by HD line cooling, and this is lower than possible by H-2 cooling only. Owing to the low temperature, the first runaway collapse is triggered when the gas cloud's mass is similar to 40 M-circle dot. We show that the cloud core remains stable against chemothermal instability and also against gravitational deformation throughout its evolution. Consequently, a single protostellar seed is formed, which accretes the surrounding hot gas at the rate. We carry out protostellar evolution calculations using the inferred accretion rate. The M >= 10(-3) M-circle dot yr(-1) resulting mass of the star when it reaches the zero-age main sequence is. Since the obtained M-ZAMS similar to 40 M circle dot. is as large as the mass of the collapsing parent cloud, the final stellar mass is likely close to this value. M-ZAMS Such massive, rather than exceptionally massive, primordial stars are expected to cause early chemical enrichment of the universe by exploding as black hole-forming super/hypernovae and may also be progenitors of high-redshift gamma- ray bursts. The elemental abundance patterns of recently discovered hyper-metal-poor stars suggest that they might have been born from the interstellar medium that was metal-enriched by the supernovae of these massive primordial stars.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据