4.7 Article

The first stellar cluster

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 672, 期 2, 页码 757-764

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/524187

关键词

early universe; equation of state; hydrodynamics; methods : numerical; stars : formation; stars : luminosity function, mass function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report results from numerical simulations of star formation in the early universe that focus on gas at very high densities and very low metallicities. We argue that the gas in the central regions of protogalactic halos will fragment as long as it carries sufficient angular momentum. Rotation leads to the build- up of massive disklike structures which fragment to form protostars. At metallicities Z approximate to 10(-5) Z(circle dot), dust cooling becomes effective and leads to a sudden drop of temperature at densities above n = 10(12) cm(-3). This induces vigorous fragmentation, leading to a very densely packed cluster of low-mass stars. This is the first stellar cluster. The mass function of stars peaks below 1 M-circle dot, similar to what is found in the solar neighborhood and comparable to the masses of the very low metallicity subgiant stars recently discovered in the halo of our Milky Way. We find that even purely primordial gas can fragment at densities 10(14) cm(-3) <= n <= 10(16) cm(-3), although the resulting mass function contains only a few objects ( at least a factor of 10 fewer than the Z = 10(-5) Z(circle dot) mass function) and is biased toward higher masses. A similar result is found for gas with Z = 10(-6) Z(circle dot). Gas with Z = 10(-6) Z(circle dot) behaves roughly isothermally at these densities ( with polytropic exponent gamma approximate to 1.06), and the massive disklike structures that form due to angular momentum conservation will be marginally unstable. As fragmentation is less efficient, we expect stars with Z <= 10(-6) Z(circle dot) to be massive, with masses in excess of several tens of solar masses, consistent with the results from previous studies.

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