4.6 Article

THE NESSIE NEBULA: CLUSTER FORMATION IN A FILAMENTARY INFRARED DARK CLOUD

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 719, 期 2, 页码 L185-L189

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L185

关键词

ISM: clouds; stars: formation

资金

  1. NASA [NAG5-10808]
  2. NSF [AST-0098562, AST-0507657, AST-0808001]
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  4. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [0808001] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Nessie Nebula is a filamentary infrared dark cloud (IRDC) with a large aspect ratio of over 150:1 (1 degrees.5 x 0 degrees.01 or 80 pc x 0.5 pc at a kinematic distance of 3.1 kpc). Maps of HNC (1-0) emission, a tracer of dense molecular gas, made with the Australia Telescope National Facility Mopra telescope, show an excellent morphological match to the mid-IR extinction. Moreover, because the molecular line emission from the entire nebula has the same radial velocity to within +/- 3.4 km s(-1), the nebula is a single, coherent cloud and not the chance alignment of multiple unrelated clouds along the line of sight. The Nessie Nebula contains a number of compact, dense molecular cores which have a characteristic projected spacing of similar to 4.5 pc along the filament. The theory of gravitationally bound gaseous cylinders predicts the existence of such cores, which, due to the sausage or varicose fluid instability, fragment from the cylinder at a characteristic length scale. If turbulent pressure dominates over thermal pressure in Nessie, then the observed core spacing matches theoretical predictions. We speculate that the formation of high-mass stars and massive star clusters arises from the fragmentation of filamentary IRDCs caused by the sausage fluid instability that leads to the formation of massive, dense molecular cores. The filamentary molecular gas clouds often found near high-mass star-forming regions (e.g., Orion, NGC 6334, etc.) may represent a later stage of IRDC evolution.

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

4.6
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