4.7 Article

STAR FORMATION IN DISK GALAXIES. I. FORMATION AND EVOLUTION OF GIANT MOLECULAR CLOUDS VIA GRAVITATIONAL INSTABILITY AND CLOUD COLLISIONS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 700, 期 1, 页码 358-375

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/358

关键词

galaxies: ISM; galaxies: spiral; galaxies: star clusters; ISM: clouds; ISM: structure; methods: numerical; stars: formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the formation and evolution of giant molecular clouds (GMCs) in a Milky-Way-like disk galaxy with a flat rotation curve. We perform a series of three-dimensional adaptive mesh refinement numerical simulations that follow both the global evolution on scales of similar to 20 kpc and resolve down to scales less than or similar to 10 pc with a multiphase atomic interstellar medium. In this first study, we omit star formation and feedback, and focus on the processes of gravitational instability and cloud collisions and interactions. We define clouds as regions with n(H) >= 100 cm(-3) and track the evolution of individual clouds as they orbit through the galaxy from their birth to their eventual destruction via merger or via destructive collision with another cloud. After similar to 140 Myr a large fraction of the gas in the disk has fragmented into clouds with masses similar to 10(6) M(circle dot) and a mass spectrum similar to that of Galactic GMCs. The disk settles into a quasi-steady-state in which gravitational scattering of clouds keeps the disk near the threshold of global gravitational instability. The cloud collision time is found to be a small fraction, similar to 1/5, of the orbital time, and this is an efficient mechanism to inject turbulence into the clouds. This helps to keep clouds only moderately gravitationally bound, with virial parameters of order unity. Many other observed GMC properties, such as mass surface density, angular momentum, velocity dispersion, and vertical distribution, can be accounted for in this simple model with no stellar feedback.

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