4.7 Article

THE YOUNG INTERSTELLAR BUBBLE WITHIN THE ROSETTE NEBULA

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 719, 期 2, 页码 1872-1883

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/719/2/1872

关键词

H II regions; ISM: bubbles; ISM: individual objects (Rosette Nebula); stars: early-type

资金

  1. Universite Louis Pasteur at Strasbourg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ionized Si IV and C IV seen toward the young, bright OB stars of NGC 2244 in the core of the Rosette Nebula to study the physics of young IS bubbles. Two discrete velocity components in Si IV and C IV are seen toward stars in the 6.2 pc radius central cavity, while only a single velocity component is seen toward those stars in the surrounding H II region, at the perimeter and external to this cavity. The central region shows characteristics of a very young, windblown bubble. The shell around the central hot cavity is expanding at 56 km s(-1) with respect to the embedded OB stars, while the surrounding H II region of the Rosette is expanding at similar to 13 km s(-1). Even though these stars are quite young (approximate to 2-4 Myr), both the radius and expansion velocity of the 6.2 pc inner shell point to a far younger age; t(age) similar to 6.4 x 10(4) years. These results represent a strong contradiction to theory and present modeling, where much larger bubbles are predicted around individual O stars and O associations. Specifically, the results for this small bubble and its deduced age extend the missing wind luminosity problem to young evolving bubbles. These results indicate that OB star winds mix the surrounding H II regions and the wind kinetic energy is converted to turbulence and radiated away in the dense H II regions. These winds do not form hot, adiabatically expanding cavities. True IS bubbles appear only to form at later evolutionary times, perhaps triggered by increased mass loss rates or discrete ejection events. Means for rectifying discrepancies between theory and observations are discussed.

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