320 likes | 454 Views
Molecular Clouds . 8 April 2003 Astronomy G9001 - Spring 2003 Prof. Mordecai-Mark Mac Low. Molecular Emission. CO emission Quickly becomes optically thick Rare isotopes have lower optical depth: 13 CO and C 18 O More easily photodissociated than H 2
E N D
Molecular Clouds 8 April 2003 Astronomy G9001 - Spring 2003 Prof. Mordecai-Mark Mac Low
Molecular Emission • CO emission • Quickly becomes optically thick • Rare isotopes have lower optical depth: 13CO and C18O • More easily photodissociated than H2 • Only traces H2 over limited column density • Reveals dynamics through Doppler shifts of lines • Other molecules (NH3, H2S, H2O, OH…) • Different critical densities for quenching of emission • Can be hard to distinguish chemistry from dynamics
Dopita & Sutherland Diffuse Matter, 2002 Chemistry • In centers of molecular clouds, where CRs dominate H2 ionization, chemistry driven by • Once H3+ is formed, it transfers protons • For example • with n < 100 cm-3:
with n > 300 cm-3: • CH3+ can also react with C or N to form C2 or CN: • Other ways of making C2 include through ion-molecule reactions involving C+, followed by charge-exchange or dissociative recombination
Grains • Continuum emission • Radiative transfer must be modeled to derive density structure • Varying temperatures near heating sources (stars, shocks) also complicate • Absorption against background stars • Optical has low dynamic range • Near-IR better (NICE: Lada et al 1994, Cambresy et al 2002) • Both require uniform background star field (eg MW disk) • Reveal limitations of molecular emission line measurements
Extinction Map of Taurus Padoan, Cambrésy & Langer 2002
Structure of Clouds • Density structure shows clumps and filaments at all scales • column density maps show fractal structure • self-similar structure extends to largest scales • Supersonic velocity dispersions seen • line centroids also show strong dispersions • velocity structure self-similar to largest scales
Bensch, Stutzki & Ossenkopf 2001 IRAM: Falgarone et al. 1998 CfA: Heithausen & Thaddeus 1990 KOSMA: Bensch et al. 2001
Molecular Cloud Kinematics • Molecular line ratioes show cloud temperatures to be of order 10 K, with sound speeds ~0.2 km/s • Line widths are much broader than thermal, corresponding to random motions of order 1-10 km/s, or Mach numbers 5-50. • Strong shocks should be produced, quickly dissipating the kinetic energy.
Clump Finding • Clumps identified in position-velocity space frequently used. • Clump mass spectrum • But only works for isolated clumps! Williams, de Geus & Blitz 1994
Super-position Single clumps in PV space come from multiple regions. Only truly isolated clumps can be reliably measured Ballesteros-Paredes & Mac Low 2002
Larson’s Laws (or at least Suggestions) • Larson (1981) suggested with α ~ -1 and β ~ 0.5 • Density law implies constant column density • equipartition between KE & PE? • lack of dynamic range in observations? More likely (e.g. Kegel 1989, Scalo 1990, Ballesteros-Paredes & Mac Low 2002) • Velocity law appears to result from turbulence
Virial Theorem • Eulerian virial theorem (McKee & Zweibel 1992): • Usually simplified by neglecting time-dependent terms and kin, and taking homogeneous clouds: mag grav moment of inertia deriv inertia flux deriv internal energies surface terms surface term internal energies grav mag
Pressure balance • Gravity balancing turbulence: • External pressure and gravitational collapse • as R decreases, gravity becomes more important
Balance gravity and magnetic field (both have R-4 dependence) • gravitational collapse occurs if M > MCR • However, real interstellar clouds are not isolated, but have substantial ram pressures acting on them, so kin 0 and shapes change (Ballesteros-Paredes et al 1999) • ram pressure confinement may dominate
Masses • Virial mass • Derive… • XCO
Magnetostatic Cores (or not?) • Observed dense cores suggested to be magnetostatically supported • Column density contrast through magnetostatic cores insufficient to explain observed cores (Nakano 1998) • Millimeter maps of dense cores show that roughly half have central protostars, while only 1 in 7 might be expected for magnetostatic cores modulated by ambipolar diffusion
Magnetic Fields • Near-IR polarization • traces fields in surfaces of molecular clouds • although clouds transparent in near-IR, dust grains deep within less efficient at polarization • Masers • trace fields at very high densities n > 106 cm-3 • OH Zeeman measurements (Crutcher et al 1999) • suggests that fields (barely) insufficient to provide magnetostatic support
Supersonic Motions • In standard scenario, magnetic fields converted shocks into linear Alfvén waves, acting as a lossless spring that stores and returns KE, maintaining supersonic motions. • Computations of turbulence decay demonstrate that non-linear MHD waves interact strongly, dissipating energy quickly (Mac Low et al. 1998, Stone et al. 1998) • Observed motions must be more or less continuously driven
Molecular Cloud Lifetimes • Cloud lifetimes estimated by Blitz & Shu (1980) to be around 30 Myr in Milky Way • Locations downstream from spiral arms • Stellar ages associated with GMCs • Much shorter lifetimes of 5-10 Myr proposed by Ballesteros-Paredes et al. (1999), Fukui et al. (1998). • Lack of 10 Myr old T Tauri stars • Cluster ages vs. associated molecular gas • Individual cloud lifetimes vs. ensemble lifetime
Assignments • Read Flash User’s Guide Chapters 5, 8, 9.1, 12, 15.2, and 18.2.1 • Read the review paper “Turbulence in Molecular Clouds” by E. Vázquez-Semadeni, astro-ph/9701050 • I will release Exercise 6 as soon as I’m convinced it works
Adaptive Mesh Refinement • Original methods developed by Berger & Oliger (1984) and Berger & Colella (1989)used subgrids that were allowed to • rotate with respect to axes • merge with other subgrids • have arbitrary shapes • Very flexible and memory efficient, but complex to program and hard to parallelize. • Instead only refine fixed blocks (De Zeeuw & Powell 1993, MacNiece et al 2000: PARAMESH)
Mesh Refinement • subdivision of blocks, not zones • quad-tree in 2D, oct-tree in 3D • blocks distributed among processors for load-balancing • neighbors may never differ by more than one level • top level only one block (!)
Block Structure PARAMESH User’s Guide • Guard cells used for interpolation, boundary conditions • Flash with PPM: • nxb = 8 • nguard = 4 • Blocks may be declared “empty” (eg to serve as physical obstacles)
Load Balancing • Peano-Hilbert space-filling curve drawn through grid blocks • Gives “Morton-ordered” list of blocks • Blocks consecutively assigned to processors from list Flash User’s Guide • This increases chance of neighboring blocks being on same processor • Parent, leaf blocks get different weighting • List divided among processors for load balance
Refinement Criterion • Choice of refinement criterion depends strongly on problem to be solved (this can be a black art!) • Default Flash criterion is 2nd order error estimate (Löhner 1987). In one dimension it is: • Setting filters out small ripples
Other Refinement Criteria • The Löhner error criterion picks out discontinuities in the flow. • Sometimes other things are more appropriate • density enhancements • high or low temperature regions • regions with strong diffusion • Any of these can be marked for refinement in addition to or instead of regions with high E.
Interpolation Across Boundaries • Flux must be conserved at boundaries between different resolution blocks • On Cartesian grid, add fluxes from fine grid • Curvilinear grids also require area factors • Fine grid guard cells m filled by interpolation on coarse grid. • Order of interpolation must match order of algorithm.
Prolongation • Fine zones filled from coarse zones on refinement • Interpolation must be same order as solution • Care must be taken at boundaries to maintain conservation • Different order interpolation routines available in Flash.
Magnetic Fields • Magnetic fields on AMR remains a problem • Transfer of fluxes requires addition of edge-centered electric fields, which works • Prolongation gives div B errors • Flash corrects using Poisson solver (inexact & expensive) • Balsara (2001) proposes area-weighted solution.