4.7 Article

Population III star formation in a Delta CDM universe. I. The effect of formation redshift and environment on protostellar accretion rate

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 654, 期 1, 页码 66-92

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/509250

关键词

cosmology : theory; galaxies : high-redshift; hydrodynamics; stars : formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We perform 12 extremely high resolution adaptive mesh refinement cosmological simulations of Population III star formation in a Lambda CDM universe, varying the box size and large-scale structure, to understand systematic effects in the formation of primordial protostellar cores. We find results that are qualitatively similar to those of previous groups. We observe that in the absence of a photodissociating ultraviolet background, the threshold halo mass for formation of a Population III protostar does not evolve significantly with time in the redshift range studied (33> z > 19) but exhibits substantial scatter (1.5< M-vir/ 10(5) M-. < 7) due to different halo assembly histories: halos that assembled more slowly develop cooling cores at lower mass than those that assemble more rapidly, in agreement with previous work. We do, however, observe significant evolution in the accretion rates of Population III protostars with redshift, with objects that form later having higher maximum accretion rates ((m) over dot similar or equal to 10(-4) M-. yr(-1) at z = 33 and similar or equal to 10(-2) M-. yr(-1) at z = 20). This can be explained by considering the evolving virial properties of the halos with redshift and the physics of molecular hydrogen formation at low densities. Our result implies that the inferred mass distribution of Population III stars is broader than previously thought and may evolve with redshift. Finally, we observe that our collapsing protostellar cloud cores do not fragment, consistent with previous results, which suggests that Population III stars that form in halos of mass 10(5)-10(6) M-. always form in isolation.

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