4.7 Article

RADIATIVE RAYLEIGH-TAYLOR INSTABILITIES

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 730, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/116

关键词

H II regions; stars: formation

资金

  1. NSF [0847477, AST-0807739, CAREER-0955300]
  2. France-Berkeley fund
  3. Institute for Geophysics and Planetary Physics
  4. Center for Origin, Dynamics and Evolution of Planets
  5. Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship
  6. NASA [NNX09AK31G]
  7. Spitzer Space Telescope Theoretical Research Program
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0807739] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  10. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [847477] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  11. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0807739] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  12. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  13. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0929822] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We perform analytic linear stability analyses of an interface separating two stratified media threaded by a radiation flux, a configuration relevant in several astrophysical contexts. We develop a general framework for analyzing such systems and obtain exact stability conditions in several limiting cases. In the optically thin, isothermal regime, where the discontinuity is chemical in nature (e.g., at the boundary of a radiation pressure-driven H II region), radiation acts as part of an effective gravitational field, and instability arises if the effective gravity per unit volume toward the interface overcomes that away from it. In the optically thick adiabatic regime where the total (gas plus radiation) specific entropy of a Lagrangian fluid element is conserved, for example at the edge of radiation pressure-driven bubble around a young massive star, we show that radiation acts like a modified equation of state and derive a generalized version of the classical Rayleigh-Taylor stability condition.

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