4.7 Article

FAR-ULTRAVIOLET H2 EMISSION FROM CIRCUMSTELLAR DISKS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 703, 期 2, 页码 L137-L141

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/L137

关键词

accretion, accretion disks; circumstellar matter; stars: pre-main sequence

资金

  1. NASA [GO-08317, GO-09081, GO-9374, GO-10810, GO-10840]
  2. National Science Foundation [0707777]
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0707777] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0707777] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyze the far-ultraviolet (FUV) spectra of 33 classical T Tauri stars (CTTS), including 20 new spectra obtained with the Advanced Camera for Surveys Solar Blind Channel (ACS/SBC) on the Hubble Space Telescope. Of the sources, 28 are in the similar to 1 Myr old Taurus-Auriga complex or Orion Molecular Cloud, 4 in the 810 Myr old Orion OB1a complex, and 1, TW Hya, in the 10 Myr old TW Hydrae Association. We also obtained FUV ACS/SBC spectra of 10 non-accreting sources surrounded by debris disks with ages between 10 and 125 Myr. We use a feature in the FUV spectra due mostly to electron impact excitation of H-2 to study the evolution of the gas in the inner disk. We find that the H-2 feature is absent in non-accreting sources, but is detected in the spectra of CTTS and correlates with accretion luminosity. Since all young stars have active chromospheres which produce strong X-ray and UV emission capable of exciting H-2 in the disk, the fact that the non-accreting sources show no H-2 emission implies that the H-2 gas in the inner disk has dissipated in the non-accreting sources, although dust (and possibly gas) remains at larger radii. Using the flux at 1600 angstrom, we estimate that the column density of H-2 left in the inner regions of the debris disks in our sample is less than similar to 3 x 10(-6) g cm(-2), 9 orders of magnitude below the surface density of the minimum mass solar nebula at 1 AU.

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