4.7 Article

The structure of protostellar envelopes derived from submillimeter continuum images

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 530, 期 2, 页码 851-866

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/308401

关键词

circumstellar matter; dust, extinction; ISM : clouds; stars : formation; stars : pre-main-sequence; submillimeter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High dynamic range imaging of submillimeter dust emission from the envelopes of eight young protostars in the Taurus and Perseus star-forming regions has been carried out using the Submillimeter Common-User Bolometer Array (SCUBA) on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope. Good correspondence between the spectral classifications of the protostars and the spatial distributions of their dust emission is observed, in the sense that those with cooler spectral energy distributions also have a larger fraction of the submillimeter flux originating in an extended envelope than in a disk. This results from the cool sources having more massive envelopes rather than warm sources having larger disks. Azimuthally averaged radial profiles of the dust emission are used to derive the power-law index of the envelope density distributions, p (defined by p proportional to r(-p)), and most of the sources are found to have values of p consistent with those predicted by models of cloud collapse. However, the youngest protostars in our sample, L1527 and HH 211-mm, deviate significantly from the theoretical predictions, exhibiting values of p somewhat lower than can be accounted for by existing models. For L1527 heating of the envelope by shocks where the outflow impinges on the surrounding medium may explain our result. For HH 211-mm another explanation is needed, and one possibility is that a shallow density profile is being maintained in the outer envelope by magnetic fields and/or turbulence. If this is the case, star formation must be determined by the rate at which the support is lost from the cloud, rather than the hydrodynamical properties of the envelope, such as the sound speed.

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