1: %ack add Tan and Yancy Shirley
2:
3:
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5: %\documentclass{iaus}
6:
7: %\usepackage{graphicx}
8:
9: %\input epsf
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{On the Rapid Collapse and Evolution of Molecular Clouds}
14:
15: \author{Bruce G. Elmegreen}
16: \affil{IBM Research Division, T.J. Watson
17: Research Center, P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598,
18: bge@watson.ibm.com}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: Stars generally form faster than the ambipolar diffusion time,
22: suggesting that several processes short circuit the delay and
23: promote a rapid collapse. These processes are considered here,
24: including turbulence compression in the outer parts of giant
25: molecular cloud (GMC) cores and GMC envelopes, GMC core formation in
26: an initially supercritical state, and compression-induced triggering
27: in dispersing GMC envelopes. The classical issues related to star
28: formation timescales are addressed: high molecular fractions, low
29: efficiencies, long consumption times for CO and HCN, rapid GMC core
30: disruption and the lack of a stable core, long absolute but short
31: relative timescales with accelerated star formation, and the slow
32: motions of protostars. We consider stimuli to collapse from changes
33: in the density dependence of the ionization fraction, the cosmic ray
34: ionization rate, and various dust properties at densities above
35: $\sim10^5$ cm$^{-3}$. We favor the standard model of subcritical
36: GMC envelops and suggest they would be long lived if not for
37: disruption by rapid star formation in GMC cores. The lifecycle of
38: GMCs is illustrated by a spiral arm section in the Hubble Heritage
39: image of M51, showing GMC formation, star formation, GMC disruption
40: with lingering triggered star formation, and envelope dispersal.
41: There is no delay between spiral arm dustlanes and star formation;
42: the classical notion results from heavy extinction in the dust lane
43: and triggered star formation during cloud dispersal. Differences in
44: the IMF for the different modes of star formation are considered.
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \keywords{stars: formation --- ISM: magnetic fields --- ISM:
48: molecules}
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51:
52: Gas contraction during star formation can overcome magnetic forces
53: in either of two ways, by diffusing through a supporting field or by
54: overwhelming it with a greater force from self-gravity. If the
55: equilibrium supporting field is termed critical, then the first of
56: these is subcritical contraction and the second is supercritical. In
57: the standard model, clouds begin as subcritical throughout and spend
58: a relatively long time (e.g., $\geq10t_{dyn}$ for dynamical time
59: $t_{dyn}$) contracting by ambipolar diffusion until their cores
60: become supercritical, and then they spend a relatively short time
61: ($1-2t_{dyn}$) collapsing to stars in the core (Mestel 1965; Nakano
62: \& Tademaru 1972; Mouschovias 1976; Shu 1983; Tomisaka, Ikeuchi, \&
63: Nakamura 1990; Li \& Nakamura 2002). While there is a large body of
64: literature on this subcritical to supercritical transition (see
65: reviews in Shu, Adams, \& Lizano 1987; Mouschovias 1991; McKee et
66: al. 1993; Mouschovias, Tassis, \& Kunz 2006), there is growing
67: evidence that much of star formation actually begins closer to the
68: supercritical state, bypassing the long diffusion time of the
69: standard model (e.g., Nakano 1998; Hartmann et al. 2001).
70:
71: This new view is based in part on the observation of infalling
72: motions at large ($\sim0.1$ pc) radii (Tafalla et al. 1998; Williams
73: et al. 1999; Williams \& Myers 1999; Wu, Zhu, et al. 2005; Walsh,
74: Bourke, \& Myers 2006; Williams, Lee, \& Myers 2006), which are
75: expected for supercritical collapse (Basu \& Ciolek 2004) and for
76: supercritical collapse following fast inflows (Fatuzzo, Adams \&
77: Myers 2004). It is also based on the relatively short time scales
78: for star formation (Lee \& Myers 1999; Jijina, Myers \& Adams 1999;
79: Ballesteros-Paredes, Hartmann, \& V\'azquez-Semadeni 1999; Elmegreen
80: 2000; Lee, Myers \& Tafalla 2001; Myers 2005; Furuya, Kitamura \&
81: Shinnaga, 2006; Kirk, Ward-Thompson \& Andr\'e 2005, 2007;
82: J{\o}rgensen et al. 2007; see review in Ballesteros-Paredes \&
83: Hartmann 2007). Regarding these short time scales, it is important
84: to distinguish between the duration of star formation once it begins
85: in a cloud core, which is relatively short even in the standard
86: model (Basu 1997; Tassis \& Mouschovias 2004), and the total
87: lifetime of the core, including the time prior to star formation. We
88: consider here that even the total lifetime of giant molecular cloud
89: (GMC) cores is relatively short, unlike in the standard model. The
90: primary evidence for this is the short duration of star formation in
91: cluster-forming cores (Sect. \ref{sect:smallfast}) combined with the
92: low fraction of GMCs in a dormant, pre-star formation stage. There
93: are no known examples of GMCs with potential cluster-forming cores
94: hovering for $\sim10t_{dyn}$ at subcritical masses while the
95: magnetic field passively diffuses away. There are also few examples
96: of the oblate shapes that are expected from slow-diffusion models
97: (e.g. Ryden 1996).
98:
99: Observations of magnetic field strengths show supercritical (i.e.,
100: weak) values directly (Troland et al. 1996; Roberts, Crutcher \&
101: Troland 1997; Bourke et al. 2001; Matthews et al. 2005) or values
102: beyond (i.e., weaker than) supercritical (Crutcher 1999; Glenn,
103: Walker, \& Young, 1999; Uchida, Fiebig, \& G\"usten 2001; Brogan \&
104: Troland 2001). Indirect observations like bent or hour-glass field
105: line shapes have been taken as evidence for supercritical fields too
106: (e.g., Greaves, Holland \& Murray 1995; Holland et al. 1996; Lai et
107: al. 2002; Cortes \& Crutcher 2006). Near-critical field values are
108: also found in cloud cores (Bertoldi \& McKee 1992; Curran et al.
109: 2004; Cortes \& Crutcher 2006), and subcritical values in cloud
110: envelopes (Cortes, Crutcher, \& Watson 2005), but there are few or
111: no subcritical values in GMC cores unless extreme orientations are
112: assumed (Crutcher 2007).
113:
114: Perhaps the biggest driver of our changing view is the recognition
115: that supersonic turbulence is pervasive in the ISM. If a cloud is
116: ever in quasi-equilibrium, then the presence of supersonic
117: turbulence in addition to magnetic fields automatically implies
118: rapid evolution toward supercritical cores and star formation. The
119: turbulence always decays quickly, in $\sim t_{dyn}$ (Stone,
120: Ostriker, \& Gammie 1998; MacLow et al. 1998), and the magnetic
121: field, having formerly shared the equilibrium support with
122: turbulence, is suddenly alone and insufficient to prevent collapse.
123: If star-forming clouds are never in equilibrium, then their
124: evolution is rapid from the start. The same is true if molecular
125: clouds are super-Alfv\'enic (Padoan et al. 1998, 1999), which means
126: their turbulent speeds exceed their Alfv\'en speeds. The decay of
127: this turbulence will rapidly convert these clouds to supercritical,
128: leading to prompt collapse without a long diffusion stage. The
129: remaining question is whether turbulence is regenerated during this
130: collapse to sustain the cloud core life. We suggest in Sections
131: \ref{sect:huff} and \ref{sect:dest} that it is not, at least where
132: high mass stars form. Compressible turbulence inside a cloud core
133: should not delay star formation but speed it up by increasing both
134: the mass-to-flux ratio and the dynamical rate in the compressed
135: regions (Sect. \ref{sect:comp}). The energy input also disrupts the
136: core and moves the remaining parts of it and the envelope to the
137: side where it forms more stars in another dynamical time (Sect.
138: \ref{sect:dest}).
139:
140: Evidently, the standard model of slow diffusion followed by rapid
141: collapse has to be supplemented by two new modes of star formation
142: in which gas becomes supercritical rapidly, in only one or two
143: dynamical times following cloud formation. One of these new modes
144: applies on a star-by-star basis, following turbulence-enhanced
145: diffusion in compressed sheets and filaments in the cloud envelope
146: (Elmegreen 1993; Fatuzzo \& Adams 2002, Zweibel 2002; Heitsch et al.
147: 2004; Fatuzzo, Adams, \& Myers 2004; Li et al. 2004; Li \& Nakamura
148: 2004; Nakamura \& Li 2005; Kudoh \& Basu 2007). The other applies to
149: a whole cloud core following a history of near-critical gas buildup
150: and a brief diffusion phase ($t_{dyn}$ to $2t_{dyn}$) that converts
151: the core to supercritical (Ciolek \& Basu 2001).
152:
153: We propose here that massive cloud cores are born close to the
154: critical condition. We make a distinction between rapid ($\sim
155: t_{dyn}$) GMC core evolution and slow ($>t_{dyn}$) GMC envelope
156: evolution. GMC envelopes are exposed to background radiation so they
157: have high ionization fractions, and they apparently begin their
158: lives in a subcritical state (e.g., Ciolek \& Mouschovias 1995;
159: Cortes, Crutcher \& Watson 2005), while GMC cores are heavily
160: shielded with low ionization fractions and they probably begin their
161: lives in a critical state. In the absence of core star formation,
162: GMC envelopes should last for several dynamical times, but because
163: the envelopes form cores quickly, and the cores form highly
164: disruptive stars quickly, the envelopes are doomed along with their
165: cores to have relatively short lives. This does not mean the
166: envelopes are completely destroyed, however; their pieces are
167: scattered and triggered to produce secondary generations of stars
168: later. Some shredded pieces of GMC envelopes have the properties of
169: diffuse clouds (e.g., Pan et al. 2005; Sect. \ref{sect:dest}).
170:
171: The outline of this paper is as follows. Section \ref{sect:sc}
172: considers the rapid onset of supercritical conditions in GMC cores.
173: Section \ref{sect:time} reviews the evidence for rapid star
174: formation on large (\ref{sect:bigfast}) and small
175: (\ref{sect:smallfast}) scales, the rapid evolution of HCN cores
176: (\ref{sect:hcn}), the rapid dispersal of cluster-forming cores
177: (\ref{sect:huff}), the acceleration of magnetic diffusion in GMC
178: envelopes (\ref{sect:comp}), the possible enhancement of magnetic
179: diffusion in GMC cores (\ref{sect:magdiff}), and the slow motions of
180: protostars (\ref{sect:motions}). Section \ref{sect:dest} illustrates
181: the morphology of cloud formation, evolution, and destruction using
182: the Hubble Heritage image of M51, and contrasts the points that GMC
183: core evolution is supercritical and fast but GMC envelope evolution
184: is subcritical and slow. Finally, the implications of rapid star
185: formation for the IMF are reviewed in Section \ref{sect:imf}, where
186: differences between supercritical cluster cores and
187: turbulence-compressed GMC envelopes are suggested. A summary of the
188: results is in Section \ref{sect:sum}.
189:
190: \section{Cloud Formation and the Onset of Critical Magnetic
191: Support} \label{sect:sc}
192:
193: Diffuse (i.e., non-self-gravitating) clouds form by localized
194: compressions involving stellar pressures or supersonic turbulence
195: generated on larger scales. They also form by shredding GMCs. The
196: ISM is an active but relatively dark environment, so as long as the
197: energy input is pervasive and fast while the temperature is low,
198: shocks form easily and make diffuse clouds on dynamical time scales.
199: Numerous simulations illustrate this process in detail (de Avillez
200: \& Breitschwerdt 2005; Piontek \& Ostriker 2005). Diffuse clouds do
201: not necessarily evolve into star-forming clouds. Some apparently do
202: (Sect. \ref{sect:dest}), but most should disperse quickly in the
203: turbulent flow pattern (Heitsch et al. 2006).
204:
205: Self-gravitating clouds begin as diffuse clouds in the sense that
206: their formation starts with a transition from non-self-gravitating
207: to self-gravitating gas. This transition seems to be initiated most
208: often on a galactic scale, where independent processes like spiral
209: density waves, or directly related processes like swing-amplified
210: gas instabilities and magneto-Jeans instabilities (Kim, Ostriker, \&
211: Stone 2002; Kim 2007) provide the environment for self-gravity to
212: take hold. More localized compressions from stars (e.g., winds,
213: supernovae, HII regions) and supersonic turbulence generated on
214: larger scales also form self-gravitating clouds (e.g., Hartmann, et
215: al. 2001), just as they form diffuse clouds. Because self-gravity is
216: involved at some point in this formation process, whether at the
217: beginning for the spiral instabilities or at the end for the
218: collect-and-collapse scenarios, and because the induced motions
219: which start the latter are supersonic, the time scale for
220: self-gravitating cloud formation is relatively short. That is, it
221: operates in about a crossing time, which is also about the dynamical
222: time, $t_{dyn}=\left(G\rho\right)^{-1/2}$.
223:
224: For the topic of the present section, there are two important
225: points: cloud formation itself does not involve or require magnetic
226: diffusion, and self-gravitating cloud formation begins in an ambient
227: ISM that is close to magnetically critical on a large scale. The
228: first point illustrates again the relatively minor role of magnetic
229: diffusion in star formation, limited, as it appears to be, to the
230: final stages. The second point is directly related to the proposed
231: rapid evolution of molecular cloud cores to supercritical collapse.
232: The steps leading to this collapse are considered here.
233:
234: The galactic dynamo pumps energy from shear and turbulence into the
235: ambient magnetic field until the field pressure is comparable to the
236: other energy densities that give the gas layer its thickness. Higher
237: fields lose magnetic flux from the disk by the Parker (1966)
238: instability. At the same time, galactic evolution with its cycle of
239: self-gravitating cloud formation, star formation, and supernovae
240: tends to pin the Toomre instability parameter $Q$ at about unity
241: (Goldreich \& Lynden-Bell 1965). In that case, the self-gravitating
242: energy density in the ISM is comparable to the other energy
243: densities, and the disk thickness is about the ambient Jeans length.
244: For these reasons, the magnetic energy density is comparable to the
245: self-gravitating energy density on kpc scales in the main disks of
246: spiral galaxies. Locally, both have a value of about 0.5 eV
247: cm$^{-3}$. In this sense, the ambient ISM always has a near-critical
248: magnetic field.
249:
250: If we imagine a box with a height equal to the gas layer thickness
251: (including HI) and a length and width equal to the inverse Jeans
252: wavenumber parallel to the galactic plane, then the box is nearly
253: cubical with all dimensions $\sim a^2/\left(\pi G\Sigma\right)$ for
254: velocity dispersion $a$ and mass column density $\Sigma$. This is
255: the basic unit of self-gravitating cloud formation on a galactic
256: scale: the basic unit for swing amplified and magneto-Jeans
257: instabilities, and the basic unit for gas before a stellar spiral
258: density wave shocks it into a filamentary dust lane. It might also
259: be the outer scale for turbulence driven by gaseous self-gravity
260: (Elmegreen, Elmegreen \& Leitner 2003; Kim \& Ostriker 2007). The
261: mass of the basic unit for local conditions is $10^7$ M$_\odot$
262: (much larger than a giant molecular cloud). The corresponding first
263: step of self-gravitating cloud formation has been called either a
264: supercloud (Elmegreen \& Elmegreen 1983, 1987) or a giant molecular
265: association (Rand \& Kulkarni 1990) depending on the molecular
266: fraction, which, in turn, depends on metallicity and pressure
267: (Elmegreen 1993; Honma, Sofue \& Arimoto 1995, Wong \& Blitz 2002)
268: and is unrelated to the cloud formation process.
269:
270: We would like to know what happens to the state of magnetic
271: criticality as this basic, nearly-spherical, unit is distorted into
272: various shapes by large-scale processes, and as the gas inside the
273: unit recollects following these distortions into giant molecular
274: clouds and their nearly-spherical cluster-forming cores. We show
275: that every nearly-spherical, self-gravitating condensation that
276: forms inside the basic unit will also be close to the critical field
277: limit, regardless of intermediate steps, and that this preservation
278: of criticality works quickly, on the dynamical time scale. In
279: section \ref{sect:dest} we discuss second-generation cloud core
280: formation in the filamentary debris of first-generation GMCs; such
281: filament streaming makes the cores more supercritical than the
282: debris.
283:
284: First consider the most fundamental definition of magnetic
285: criticality, where the gradient in the field energy density, $\nabla
286: B^2/4\pi$, equals the self-gravitating force density, $g\rho$, for
287: field strength $B$, gravitational acceleration $g$ and density
288: $\rho$. Along a flux tube of halfwidth $R$, the first is $\sim
289: B^2/4\pi R$ and the second is $2\pi G\rho^2R$. Their equality gives
290: the critical field strength $B=8^{1/2}\pi G^{1/2} \rho R$.
291: Similarly, for an infinite disk with a perpendicular mass column
292: density $\Sigma$, the critical field is $B=2\pi G^{1/2}\Sigma$
293: (Nakano \& Nakamura 1978). The coefficients differ by only a factor
294: of $2^{1/2}$. Here we write the critical field strength as
295: $B=X\Sigma$ for constant $X$. For an equilibrium 3D configuration,
296: the density and column density vary with position so either the
297: central $B/\left(G^{1/2}\Sigma\right)$ ratio or the central mass $M$
298: to magnetic flux flux $\Phi$ ratio are considered, or the total mass
299: to magnetic flux ratio. Tomisaka, Ikeuchi \& Nakamura (1988) find
300: for the central value $G^{1/2}\Sigma/B=G^{1/2}M/\Phi=0.17$, while
301: Mouschovias \& Spitzer (1976) find for the total cloud value
302: $G^{1/2}M/\Phi=0.13$. For generality, we write the critical mass to
303: flux ratio as a constant $M/\Phi=Y$.
304:
305: The mass to flux ratio is an indicator of stability only for
306: spheroidal clouds, which are bounded in 3 dimensions. Suppose a
307: large round cloud threaded with field lines is critical with both
308: $B=X\Sigma$ and $M/\Phi=Y$; these expressions have the same meaning
309: for a round cloud. A thin tube of flux inside this cloud has about
310: the same $B$ and $\rho$ but a smaller radius $r<<R$, and so it is
311: magnetically sub-critical ($B>>X\rho r$) by the first definition.
312: However the flux in this tube is smaller than the flux in the whole
313: cloud by the ratio $(r/R)^2$, and the mass in the tube is smaller
314: than the whole cloud by the same ratio, so the mass to flux ratio of
315: the tube is the same as in the whole cloud: $M/\Phi=Y$. Turbulence
316: compression perpendicular to the magnetic field can form a small
317: tube of flux like this. To be specific, suppose compression changes
318: the cross-field dimension in part of the cloud by the geometric-mean
319: factor $C$ (i.e., $C=R/r>1$). Then without magnetic diffusion, both
320: the flux and the mass in this compressed region are the same as they
321: were before, rendering $M/\Phi$ unchanged at the value $Y$. At the
322: same time, $B$ increases by $C^2$ and $\Sigma$ by $C$, so $B/\Sigma$
323: goes up by the factor $C$ to the value $XC$. Such a compressed
324: region is stable in the transverse direction because it would expand
325: back without the confining ram pressure of the turbulent flow around
326: it. Thus the $B/\Sigma$ condition, which indicates stability in this
327: example ($XC>X$), is more fundamental for diverse geometries than
328: the $M/\Phi$ condition.
329:
330: Now consider what happens to the state of criticality as gas flows
331: along the field lines in the compressed filament, collecting into
332: $N$ cores of height $H$ spaced out along its total length $L$. The
333: mass in each is the initial mass of the filament divided by $N$, so
334: $M/\Phi$ decreases from $Y$ to the sub-critical value $Y/N$. The
335: transverse column density in each increases during this collection
336: by the factor $L/NH$, so $B/\Sigma$ becomes $XCNH/L$. If both the
337: cores and the original cloud are somewhat spherical, then $C\sim
338: L/H$ and the first condition also becomes subcritical, by the same
339: factor $N$: $B/\Sigma\sim XN$. Thus the cores are stable by the same
340: degree for both conditions. For them to form stars, magnetic
341: diffusion has to reduce the flux by a factor $N$. {\it The
342: observation of protostars or dense mm-wave continuum sources strung
343: out along filaments implies that significant magnetic diffusion has
344: already occurred.} During this diffusion, both criticality
345: conditions move together from sub-critical to super-critical. (We
346: note that turbulence simulations without magnetic fields also get
347: beaded filaments, but this field-free case is unrealistic. The same
348: result in the magnetically critical case requires diffusion.)
349:
350: Compression parallel to the field should also be considered. Suppose
351: part of the cloud of length $L<R$ is compressed along the field into
352: a layer of thickness $H$, so the density and transverse column
353: density (perpendicular to the field) go up by the factor $L/H$. The
354: field strength will be unchanged at first by the parallel motions so
355: $B/\Sigma$ decreases to the {\it super}-critical value $XH/L$. The
356: $M/\Phi$ ratio drops for the layer because, although the flux is
357: constant, only part of the total cloud mass is involved; this gives
358: $M/\Phi\sim YL/R$, a {\it sub}-critical value. However, the layer
359: will be heavily weighed down transverse to the field and it will
360: adjust, pulling in the field with it. Because $B$ increases as the
361: inverse of the transverse area and $\Sigma$ increases only as the
362: inverse of the transverse length, the ratio $B/\Sigma$ goes back up
363: and eventually becomes $X$, stabilizing the collapse. This stable
364: point occurs when the new transverse radius is $r\sim RH/L$. The
365: transverse collapse preserves both mass and flux in the layer, so
366: $M/\Phi$ stays with its sub-critical value $YL/R$. Thus the new core
367: is critical by the first condition and sub-critical by the second
368: condition. However, prior to the initial compression, this part of
369: the cloud had the same low $M/\Phi$ ratio as it did after the
370: compression and collapse: the mass was down by the factor $L/R$ at
371: both times. Thus both $B/\Sigma$ and $M/\Phi$ are unchanged after
372: the adjustment for this part of the cloud. Moreover the final
373: condensed object will be spheroidal if the transverse size, $r\sim
374: RH/L$ equals the parallel height, $H$, and this requires $L\sim R$.
375: Thus parallel compressions and equilibrium adjustments in spherical
376: clouds leading to spherical cores will leave the state of
377: criticality unchanged if there is no magnetic diffusion.
378:
379: In general, there will be compressions from turbulence and external
380: pressures both transverse and parallel to the field, and at oblique
381: angles, and the compressed gas will re-adjust by self-gravitational
382: forces forming dense cores. Transverse components of compression
383: tend to make cores with a decreased state of criticality (for $N>1$
384: in the above example) and these cores will survive only during the
385: active compression unless there is significant flux loss at this
386: time. Parallel components of compression tend to preserve the state
387: of criticality even without flux loss. If the characteristic length
388: for collapse along a transversely-compressed filament is much longer
389: than its width (as suggested by theory -- Fiege \& Pudritz 2000),
390: and comparable to its length, then only $N=1$ core will form in the
391: transverse-compressed filament and both directions of compression
392: produce cores with the same state of criticality as the initial
393: cloud. In this case, cloud formation by self-gravitational
394: readjustment of compressed and distorted basic ISM units will
395: produce whole GMCs at about the same state of magnetic criticality
396: as the ambient medium. Similarly, the round cores of GMCs, however
397: they form, will begin their lives close to the state of magnetic
398: criticality of the surrounding cloud. As the ambient ISM is
399: approximately magnetically critical, so the clouds and
400: cluster-forming cores will be too, before any diffusion begins.
401: V\'azquez-Semadeni et al. (2005) also noted that spheroidal
402: supercritical cores require spheroidal supercritical clouds in the
403: absence of magnetic diffusion.
404:
405: We note that conservation of magnetic criticality from a large
406: spheroidal cloud to a small spheroidal cloud implies significant
407: movement of gas along the field lines in the absence of magnetic
408: diffusion. We are suggesting this is the case. Such parallel motion
409: does not happen all at once, however, but in steps as the GMC and
410: GMC core form in a hierarchical fashion from self-gravity and
411: turbulence compression. The parallel motion is also accompanied by
412: perpendicular motion to preserve cloud roundedness, but the latter
413: moves the field with it, causing the observed hour-glass shape with
414: a pinch at the middle. Eventually magnetic diffusion smooths out
415: the field, but this smoothing is not needed for GMC core-formation,
416: which operates quickly. A typical GMC is 1\% the mass of a
417: supercloud ($10^5$ M$_\odot$ compared to $10^7$ M$_\odot$), and 10\%
418: of the size ($100\times20\times20$ pc$^3$ compared to
419: $1000\times200\times200$ pc$^3$). This means the GMC is a
420: contraction of the inner $100^{-1/3}\sim0.2$ of the supercloud
421: length by a factor of only $\sim2$. Similarly, a cluster-forming
422: core might be $\sim10$\% of the GMC mass and 20\% of the size, which
423: means that $10^{-1/3}=0.46$ of the GMC length is involved in core
424: formation with a contraction that is another factor of $\sim2$. Most
425: of the supercloud mass stays in a low density envelope that has
426: little star formation, and most of the GMC mass stays in another,
427: denser envelope where star formation is also relatively slow. The
428: two factors of 2 illustrate the modest amount of motion along field
429: lines and the mild perpendicular re-adjustment to this motion. The
430: smallness of these factors helps explain the quickness of GMC and
431: GMC core formations.
432:
433: At this point in the evolution of a cloud, it takes only a little
434: magnetic diffusion for the core to become supercritical and begin a
435: collapse phase. Whereas the usual diffusion time is $t_B=R/\Delta v$
436: for ion-neutral drift velocity $\Delta v$ and cloud radius $R$, the
437: diffusion time to reach a supercritical state from an initial state
438: with $B=aX\Sigma$ and $a$ slightly larger than 1 is only
439: $t_B\left(1-1/a\right)<<t_B$. This is because $\Sigma$ has to
440: increase by $1/a$ to become supercritical, and for transverse
441: motions $\Sigma\propto 1/R$. Thus the core gas has to diffuse only
442: from an initial radius $R$ to a slightly smaller radius $R/a$ for
443: the core to go supercritical, and the time scale for this is
444: $\left(R-R/a\right)/\Delta v=t_B\left(1-1/a\right)$. A more
445: detailed discussion is in Ciolek \& Basu (2001). They get
446: $t_{core}\sim t_B\left(1-M/Y\Phi\right)$ for marginally subcritical
447: cores, and this is about the same result.
448:
449: \section{Time Scale for Star Formation}
450: \label{sect:time}
451:
452: \subsection{The Big Scale}
453: \label{sect:bigfast}
454:
455: One of the most revealing diagnostics of the star formation process
456: is the time scale. If it is long compared to the dynamical time,
457: then mechanisms for delay and prevention of star formation in
458: strongly self-gravitating gas have to dominate the process. If the
459: ratio of times is of order unity, then the gas collects into stars
460: as fast as physically possible.
461:
462: Modern observation suggest that star formation is much faster than
463: we imagined three decades ago, when a time scale of $\sim10^8-10^9$
464: yrs came from the ratio of Galactic molecular mass to star formation
465: rate (Zuckerman \& Evans 1974; Scoville \& Solomon 1975) and from
466: the high molecular fraction of the inner Milky Way (Solomon, Sanders
467: \& Scoville 1979). The GMC evolution times dropped to 30 Myr when
468: the interarm regions were found to be mostly free of GMCs (Bash,
469: Green \& Peters 1977), and to 5-10 My when the ages of newly exposed
470: clusters were first observed (Leisawitz, Bash \& Thaddeus 1989). Now
471: the formation times of dense clusters can be observed directly,
472: suggesting that the main star formation activity is often over in
473: $\sim3$ Myr. Inside the denser cores where individual stars form, it
474: can be as short as several $\times10^5$ years (e.g., Onishi et al.
475: 2002). In the LMC, GMC lifetimes may be a little longer $\sim10-30$
476: Myr for reasons that are unexplained (Fukui 2007; Kawamura et al.
477: 2007).
478:
479: All of these time scales are still correct in the sense that the
480: basic observations have not changed. The interpretation of what they
481: mean has changed, however. The high molecular fraction in the inner
482: Milky Way implies that gas spends a high fraction of its time in
483: molecular form without forming stars. This means some combination of
484: four things: (1) star formation is inefficient in CO clouds; (2)
485: molecular envelopes contain most of the CO mass but evolve more
486: slowly than the dense molecular cores where stars form; (3)
487: molecular clouds get dispersed in CO-rich pieces after star
488: formation, and (4) some molecules are in diffuse clouds that do not
489: form stars (Polk et al. 1988).
490:
491: These four points are familiar: self-gravitating clouds are
492: assembled by gravitational collapse in spiral density wave shocks,
493: turbulent shocks, and explosive shells, and they form by
494: gravitational instabilities in the ambient medium as part of
495: swing-amplified spiral growth. These are all dynamical processes
496: that operate as quickly as possible in the ISM, such as the crossing
497: time over the scale height, $H=a^2/\pi G\Sigma$, or the self-gravity
498: rates $\left(G\rho\right)^{1/2}$ and $\pi G\Sigma/a$ for average
499: midplane density $\rho$, disk column density $\Sigma$ and velocity
500: dispersion $a$. The clouds then evolve to high density on the
501: internal dynamical time scale which decreases as the density
502: increases. Molecules form in clumps as soon as the cloud can shield
503: itself, which is at a relatively low average density for a massive
504: cloud (e.g., Pelupessy, Papadopoulos, \& van der Werf 2006; Glover
505: \& Mac Low 2007), and stars form slightly later. The main point here
506: is that even though every step operates at close to the local
507: dynamical rate, the star formation step operates at the highest
508: density where the dynamical rate is greatest. Cloud core disruption
509: is also at the high core rate, via shocks from winds and HII
510: regions. Thus self-gravitating clouds spend a longer time forming
511: than getting dispersed even though every step evolves as quickly as
512: possible: the relevant density is lower when they form than when
513: they get dispersed.
514:
515: Cloud destruction after star formation involves mostly the dense
516: core. Part of the GMC envelope will get compressed during core
517: disruption and form new stars as a result, and part will get pushed
518: away with only scattered star formation before settling into new
519: cores. In either case, a large fraction of the GMC molecules
520: outlasts the first generation of star formation in the core, which
521: typically involves only $\sim10$\% of the GMC mass. If the ratio of
522: the core density to the average density in a GMC is $\sim100$, then
523: the ratio of dynamical times is $\sim10$, and the envelope molecules
524: last $\sim10$ times longer than the star formation event. The
525: fraction of GMCs that are active is not 10\%, however. The timing
526: factor of 10 has to be divided by the number of dense-core locations
527: and generations per GMC. Considering that the Orion cloud formed
528: $\sim4$ generations and other local clouds form a similar number of
529: subgroups, and that star formation usually persists at a relatively
530: low level on the periphery of OB associations even after the dense
531: core phase is over, the inactive GMC fraction is very low. Thus the
532: fraction of the ISM in the form of GMCs can be high, as it is in the
533: inner Milky Way, even though each stage prior to star formation
534: evolves at the local dynamical rate. The star formation rate is low,
535: only $\sim1$\% of the dynamical rate for the average GMC, because
536: $\sim90$\% of the GMC mass has a long dynamical time, and
537: $\sim80-90$\% of a GMC core gas gets dispersed during star formation
538: (i.e., cluster formation in dense cores is only $\sim10-20$\%
539: efficient; e.g., Tachihara et al. 2002; Lada \& Lada 2003; Brooke et
540: al. 2007; J{\o}rgensen et al. 2007).
541:
542: It is important to make a distinction here between GMC destruction,
543: where the GMC is converted back into atomic form, and GMC dispersal,
544: where the GMC is moved and broken apart. Both lead to the end of
545: star formation in any one location, but the relevant time scales and
546: processes differ and their contributions to the total molecular
547: fraction differ. GMC destruction requires ionization and heating,
548: so the cloud is disassembled molecule by molecule. Ionization can
549: destroy part of a GMC, but ionization is usually accompanied by
550: compression and motion, so the cloud moves away in pieces before it
551: is completely destroyed. Whitworth (1979) estimated that the ionized
552: mass from an embedded OB cluster is $2.3\times10^4\left(T_i/5\;{\rm
553: Myr}\right)^3\left(\epsilon/0.04\right)^{4/3}\left(n/10^3\;{\rm
554: cm}^{-3}\right)^{-1/3}$ $M_\odot$ for ionization time $T_i$, star
555: formation efficiency $\epsilon$ and cloud density $n$. With shorter
556: O-star lifetimes than he assumed, $T_i\sim3$ Myr, and slightly lower
557: $\epsilon$ for whole OB associations (e.g., 1\% per generation for
558: average GMCs according to Williams \& McKee 1997), the ionized mass
559: is only $10-20$\% of a GMC mass. Thus there is usually a large mass
560: from the GMC envelope left over after cluster formation in the core,
561: and this mass is available for more star formation in a slightly
562: different location after another dynamical time (Sect.
563: \ref{sect:dest}).
564:
565: It is also important to distinguish between timescales for GMC
566: destruction, dispersal, and consumption. The latter time is the
567: total GMC mass divided by the galactic star formation rate. We
568: suggest that the dispersal time is the fastest of these and is
569: comparable to the dynamical time because star formation begins and
570: ends quickly in a GMC. The destruction time is longer because each
571: GMC may go through several stages of star formation following
572: disruption in active cores. The consumption time is longest because
573: the efficiency of star formation in each event is low and relatively
574: little gas gets used up. GMCs exist in one place for a dispersal
575: time and they exist as entities for a destruction time. There is no
576: physical meaning to the consumption time as far as an individual GMC
577: is concerned.
578:
579: The fourth point mentioned above, that there are molecular diffuse
580: clouds in the inner galaxy, follows from the fact that molecular
581: self-shielding is independent of cloud self-gravity, depending more
582: on the product of density and column density in the shielding layer
583: than on any property of the cloud interior. High pressure regions
584: have higher diffuse cloud densities in thermal equilibrium with the
585: radiation field, and so require lower column densities for
586: self-shielding. Thus the diffuse molecular mass can be high in high
587: pressure regions, which includes the inner parts of galaxies and
588: starburst galaxies (Elmegreen 1993). The observed galactic
589: gradients in molecular fraction are partially the result of this
590: pressure gradient combined with a metallicity gradient (Honma, Sofue
591: \& Arimoto 1995; Wong \& Blitz 2002). In M64, 25\% of the CO
592: molecular mass is diffuse (Rosolowsky \& Blitz 2005).
593:
594: These points illustrate how the molecular mass can be high and the
595: star formation rate low. The star formation rate is the efficiency
596: per cloud multiplied by the cloud formation rate, which equals the
597: destruction rate when the total CO mass is constant. The efficiency
598: is very low in GMCs, a few percent (Williams \& McKee 1997), so the
599: consumption time, which is the ratio of the cloud mass to the star
600: formation rate, is long. The efficiency is low for GMCs because only
601: a small fraction of the GMC mass is involved with active star
602: formation. These active regions are, for example, HCN cores (Sect
603: \ref{sect:hcn}). In such cores the total efficiency is higher than
604: it is in a GMC by the cloud to core mass ratio. The formation and
605: destruction rates of HCN cores could by dynamical as well, and much
606: faster than the CO formation and destruction rates because of the
607: higher density. As for CO, the HCN core lifetime is the ratio of the
608: HCN mass to the star formation rate divided by the efficiency in the
609: HCN core. This efficiency is higher than in the CO cloud, but it
610: still quite small because the real action happens in even denser
611: sub-cores (e.g., the CS cores) which have an even lower total mass
612: and a higher local efficiency (e.g., Shirley et al. 2003).
613: Eventually a high enough density should be reached where the total
614: galactic mass divided by the local dynamical time is within a factor
615: of a few times the total star formation rate. There, the efficiency
616: will be high, 30\% to 50\%, and the final contraction to a unique
617: star take place. The correspondence between decreasing scale and
618: increasing efficiency is expected for hierarchically structured
619: clouds.
620:
621: Dense, high-efficiency regions of star formation have probably been
622: observed. The mm-wave continuum cores and other dense cores that
623: have a Kroupa (2001) mass function show a shift in the turnover mass
624: at some value that is higher than the stellar IMF turnover by a
625: factor of about 3 (Motte et al. 1998; Testi \& Sargent 1998;
626: Johnstone et al. 2000, 2001; Motte et al. 2001; Beuther \& Schilke
627: 2004; Stanke et al. 2006; Alves, Lombardi \& Lada 2007). If these
628: dense cores form individual and binary stars, then their
629: efficiencies are the inverse of this factor. This final stage has
630: an extremely fast dynamical time compared to that in the lower
631: density gas. The contraction can be significantly retarded by
632: magnetic forces without affecting our proposal that cluster-forming
633: cores (which have lower average density) evolve in a dynamical time.
634: The bottleneck in the star formation processes is at the lower
635: densities, where the evolution is slow because the dynamical time is
636: long.
637:
638: The historical decrease in molecular cloud lifetime that was
639: mentioned at the beginning of this section has a simple explanation.
640: Generally, as the scale of the region observed has decreased with
641: improved instruments and finer surveys, the lifetimes of the clouds
642: that are seen have dropped. Gas structure has a wide range of scales
643: and no characteristic scale, as shown by the power law power spectra
644: of HI (Dickey et al. 2001) and CO (St\"utzki et al. 1998). Surveys
645: with particular sampling sizes tend to highlight structures with a
646: narrow range of scales, from several times the sampling size
647: (Verschuur 1993) to several tens of the sampling size, as which
648: point the largest structures tend to be ignored in favor of the
649: clumps inside these structures. That is, clusters of clumps are not
650: found by clump-finding algorithms. The algorithms only find
651: continuous regions, and these are always close to the resolution
652: limit of the telescope or survey. Because all structures evolve on
653: their local dynamical time, higher resolution surveys that find
654: smaller clouds also observe smaller lifetimes.
655:
656: For example, giant spiral arm features (``beads on a string'') that
657: produce star complexes 300 pc in diameter remain active for
658: $\sim30-50$ My (Efremov 1995), GMCs that produce OB associations
659: (which are generally inside star complexes in a hierarchical sense;
660: e.g., Battinelli, Efremov \& Magnier 1996) last $10-20$ Myr, while
661: GMC cores that produce clusters last only $\sim3$ Myr. Generally
662: there are several generations of small-scale star formation inside
663: each large-scale region (Efremov \& Elmegreen 1998). Thus, star
664: formation is hierarchical in time as well as space. This double
665: hierarchy can be misleading because observations always contain
666: selection effects. OB associations and the $10^5$ M$_\odot$ GMCs
667: that make them are not a characteristic scale for star formation
668: even though they all have about the same size in normal galaxy
669: disks: $\sim80$ pc (Efremov 1995). They are selected for that size
670: by the selection of a star-formation time scale through the survey
671: requirement that O stars are still present. Once a survey is about
672: OB associations, the size of the region is fixed by the dynamical
673: time scale. This size will be larger in higher pressure regions
674: because of the way size $R$ and dynamical time scale with pressure
675: $P$: $R^2/\left(t_{dyn}^4P\right)\sim G/2.5$ (Elmegreen 1989). The
676: associated stellar and cloudy masses will be larger in high pressure
677: regions too: $M^2/\left(P^3t_{dyn}^8\right)\sim1.6G$. The same can
678: be said for other stellar clusters selected by age, such as T-Tauri
679: associations with smaller $t_{dyn}$ and star complexes with larger
680: $t_{dyn}$, as identified by Cepheid variables and Red supergiants
681: (Efremov 1978). For these reasons, more recent surveys with smaller
682: scale resolutions get shorter cloud lifetimes.
683:
684: \subsection{The Small Scale}
685: \label{sect:smallfast}
686:
687: An important consideration is how far down in scale the dynamical
688: evolution goes, and whether it slows when star formation begins at
689: the bottom. Elmegreen (2000) compiled evidence that a dynamical
690: cascade persists down to the scale of embedded star clusters without
691: significant delay on the small scale. The time scale for each level
692: was said to be $\sim1-2$ crossing times where the crossing time was
693: taken to be $R/V\sim1.09/\left(G\rho\right)^{1/2}\sim t_{dyn}$ for a
694: uniform virialized cloud. For molecular density $n$,
695: $t_{dyn}\equiv\left(G\rho\right)^{-1/2}=61n^{-1/2}$ Myr. Star
696: formation cannot be as fast as a single crossing time or shorter
697: than a crossing time (unless there is an implosion -- Lintott et al.
698: 2005) because turbulent and magnetic energy has to dissipate; thus
699: 1-2 crossing times seemed to be a reasonable match to the
700: observations. Tan, Krumholz \& McKee (2006) suggested there is a
701: delay for clusters, amounting to $\sim4-5$ crossing times. They
702: suggest the longer time requires near-equilibrium cloud support.
703: Here we review the issues raised in these papers.
704:
705: The discussion in Elmegreen (2000) had four points: (1) hierarchical
706: structure in young stars often mimics hierarchical structure in
707: molecular clouds, implying these stars had less than a crossing time
708: to mix, (2) embedded clusters ages are relatively small, (3) age
709: differences between neighboring clusters are relatively small, and
710: (4) a high fraction of dense cores contain young star formation. The
711: case for short star formation times was independently made by
712: Ballesteros-Paredes, Hartmann, \& V\'azquez-Semadini (1999), based
713: on the short duration of star formation in Taurus. A recent review
714: of short time scales is in Ballesteros-Paredes \& Hartmann (2007).
715:
716: The discussion in Tan, Krumholz, \& McKee (2006) had six points: (1)
717: CS clumps are nearly round, (2) clusters are generally smooth, (3)
718: protostellar wind momentum, which is proportional to the star
719: formation rate, is small, (4) cluster age spreads are relatively
720: large, (5) a dynamical ejection event in the Orion Nebula cluster
721: occurred a relatively long time ago (2.5 Myr), and (6) stellar mass
722: segregation requires a relatively long time. The third method using
723: wind momentum is highly inaccurate, as these authors admit, so we
724: will not use it here to determine a cluster formation time to within
725: the desired factor of 3.
726:
727: The other points are reconsidered here. We begin with the usual
728: caution that star forming regions have a range of densities so the
729: crossing time does not have a single value. The dynamical time will
730: also be longer for the lower density regions, so the total age
731: spread for stars should be larger than the age spread in a cluster
732: core. As clouds contract and the density increases, the crossing
733: time decreases, so prior star formation in the same cloud will have
734: a longer time scale than current star formation in the core (we show
735: a model of this in Sect. \ref{sect:huff}). Thus, fairly old stars
736: should always be present in an active region even if the current
737: level of activity is short-lived. Palla \& Stahler (2000) have
738: termed this evolution accelerated star formation: the star formation
739: rate in a region increases with time until the final cloud core is
740: disrupted. Huff \& Stahler (2006) found an extended age distribution
741: in the Orion Nebula cluster and modeled it with continuous star
742: formation during monotonic cloud collapse. There was no equilibrium
743: or energy feedback in their model and yet the evolutionary time
744: scale matched the stellar ages. For these reasons, we do not
745: consider the observation of relatively old stars or relatively old
746: ejection events to be an indication that cloud cores are stable.
747: This point is relevant to some of the discussion in Tan, Krumholz,
748: \& McKee (2006), and also counters most of the discussion in Tassis
749: \& Mouschovias (2004).
750:
751: There remain two lifetime indicators that are based on morphology
752: alone: clump shapes and cluster substructure. Tan, Krumholz \& McKee
753: (2006) note that CS cores forming high mass stars are circular to
754: within $\sim26$\%. Equilibrium clouds are also round so they
755: conclude the CS clouds are in equilibrium. However, numerical
756: simulations form roundish objects that are not in equilibrium
757: (Ballesteros-Paredes \& Mac Low 2002; Gammie et al. 2003; Li, et al.
758: 2004), and other cores are more irregular than the CS observations
759: suggest (Myers et al. 1991; Bacmann et al. 2000; Steinacker et al.
760: 2005). The CS sources cited by Tan, Krumholz \& McKee were observed
761: by Shirley et al. (2003) with a 24.5 arcsec beam at an average
762: distance of 5.3 kpc, making the average beam half-size 0.31 pc. The
763: average deconvolved radius of a CS core was calculated to be 0.37
764: pc, which is about the same. Thus the sources are barely resolved.
765: The major and minor axes used by Shirley et al. to obtain the
766: average ellipticity measurement of 1.26 did not consider deconvolved
767: beams, however, so the intrinsic ellipticity ratios are higher than
768: the observed ratios. Higher resolution observations may eventually
769: show irregular substructures like those commonly seen at lower
770: densities; then the CS cores would appear to be more rapidly
771: evolving.
772:
773: Cluster substructure consists of stellar hierarchies and filaments
774: that mimic cloud hierarchies and filaments (Gomez et al. 1993; Testi
775: et al. 2000; Heydari-Malayeri et al. 2001; Nanda Kumar, Kamath, \&
776: Davis 2004; Smith et al. 2005; Gutermuth et al. 2005; Stanke, et al.
777: 2006; see review in Allen et al. 2006). The clusters have to be
778: fairly young to show it, and even then it appears most prominently
779: in the youngest protostars (e.g., Dahm \& Simon 2005). By the time a
780: cluster core is ready for disruption, which may be 1.5 crossing
781: times after its most active phase began, the oldest stars will have
782: moved around enough to mix their birth sites and only the
783: pre-stellar cores and youngest protostars will still show gas-like
784: morphologies.
785:
786: The discussion about this in Section 2.2 of Tan, Krumholz, \& McKee
787: (2006) has a different conclusion. They consider a cluster mass $M$
788: forming in a total time $t_{form}$, and a total mass in subclusters,
789: $M_{sub}$, which each form and disperse in a time $t_{dyn}$. For
790: unbound subclusters, the steady state gives
791: $t_{form}=\left(M/M_{sub}\right)t_{dyn}$. For bound subclusters,
792: they consider the individual lifetimes to be the time for a
793: subcluster to sink to the cluster center by dynamical relaxation,
794: which is $\sim0.17\Lambda\ln\Lambda$ dynamical times for $\Lambda$
795: equal to the ratio of the cluster mass to the mass of an individual
796: substructure. For IC 348, which has 8 subclusters with 10-20 stars
797: each out of the total of 345 stars, the unbound case gives
798: $t_{form}\sim5t_{dyn}$ and the bound case in their analysis gives
799: $t_{form}\sim21t_{dyn}$. We note that $t_{dyn}$ for the unbound case
800: was assumed to be the dynamical time for the substructure, which is
801: less than the dynamical time for the larger-scale core according to
802: the usual time-size-velocity scaling relation. For example, if the
803: substructure is 1/4 of the core size and the dynamical time scales
804: with the square root of size as in the Larson (1981) law, then
805: $t_{form}$ would be only $2.5t_{dyn}$ in the unbound case. However,
806: the basic model should be questioned. Bound and unbound
807: substructures should interact with each other more frequently than
808: they evolve on their own. A substructure with any reasonable size
809: cannot cross from one side of the cloud core to the other without
810: mixing with another substructure. Colliding loose substructures
811: either merge or destroy each other if their collision speed is less
812: than a few times their internal dispersion (e.g., Aarseth \& Lecar
813: 1975). Their lives are much shorter than either their own
814: dissolution time or their sinking time from dynamical friction. For
815: example, the filamentary structures seen in young mm-wave continuum
816: sources and the hierarchical structure seen in young stars and
817: protostars have characteristic outer scales that are comparable to
818: the scales of the cluster cores. If stars are born with the same
819: pervasive hierarchy as the gas, which extends over all available
820: scales, then each subcluster can hardly move without interacting
821: with another one. Only the smallest and densest might last for a
822: full crossing time. Thus clusters substructure should be evanescent
823: with average individual lifetimes much less than a core crossing
824: time. This short time accounts for the low fraction of clusters
825: with substructure even when the star formation time is only 1-2
826: crossing times.
827:
828: Krumholz \& Tan (2007) continue the discussion of relatively long
829: time scales by comparing the star formation efficiency per unit free
830: fall time, $\epsilon_{ff}$, for a variety of molecular tracers. The
831: free fall time is $t_{ff}=\left(3\pi/32G\rho\right)^{1/2}$, which is
832: $\left(3\pi/32\right)^{1/2}=0.54$ times the crossing time, so a star
833: formation efficiency of 1\% in a free fall time corresponds to a
834: star formation efficiency of 1.8\% in a crossing time. They suggest
835: the average $\epsilon_{ff}$ is only a few percent, independent of
836: density, and so cluster formation with a final $\sim10$ percent
837: efficiency requires $\sim5$ free fall times. There are several
838: points to make here. First, the observed total efficiency for whole
839: OB associations is only a few percent per generation (Williams \&
840: McKee 1997), so $\sim1.5$ free fall times in a GMC ($=0.75$ crossing
841: times) is a reasonable result for these large scales, and it
842: requires the GMC evolution time to be short as suggested here.
843: Second, a slight increase in $\epsilon_{ff}$ with $\rho$ in Figure 5
844: of Krumholz \& Tan (2007) was not mentioned but it might be expected
845: for several reasons. In the Krumholz \& McKee (2005) model,
846: $\epsilon_{ff}$ scales with the inverse cube root of Mach number
847: (their eq. 30), and the Mach number could decrease for higher
848: density regions. If we consider the Larson (1981) correlations as
849: Krumholz \& McKee do, in which the linewidth scales approximately as
850: $\rho^{-1/2}$, then the inverse cube root of Mach number scales with
851: $\rho^{1/6}$ for a constant temperature, and this is about the trend
852: in $\epsilon_{ff}$ with $\rho$ in Krumholz \& Tan (2007). On the
853: other hand, the linewidth-density relation in Plume et al. (1997)
854: goes the opposite way for dense gas, $\Delta v\propto \rho^{0.3},$
855: and then $\epsilon_{ff}$ would not increase with $\rho$ if
856: $\epsilon_{ff}\propto\Delta v^{-0.3}$ from the Krumholz \& McKee
857: theory. On a more general level, an increase in $\epsilon_{ff}$ with
858: $\rho$ should be expected regardless of the dynamics for
859: hierarchically structured clouds, because the mass fraction of dense
860: star-forming clumps always increases with the average density
861: (Elmegreen 2005). This is what the observations in Krumholz \& Tan
862: show most directly, and it does not support or refute any particular
863: model of star formation.
864:
865: The highest-density value for $\epsilon_{ff}$ in Krumholz \& Tan
866: (2007) comes from CS emission, and these authors suggest it is
867: overestimated by a factor of a few because of undersampling in the
868: CS surveys by Plume et al. (1997) and Shirley et al. (2003), who
869: observed only H$_2$O maser sources. Krumholz \& Tan assume
870: $L_{CS}>20$ L$_\odot$ from Plume et al., derive a conversion of
871: $M_{CS}/M_\odot=4.5\times10^4L_{CS}/L_\odot$, and get a CS mass
872: limit of $>9\times10^4$ M$_\odot$. This is divided by a star
873: formation rate of 3 M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and by the free fall rate at
874: the beam-diluted average CS density of $1.8\times10^5$ cm$^{-3}$ to
875: get $\epsilon_{ff}<0.27$. Shirley et al. (2003), however, state
876: that $L_{CS(5-4)}=20$ L$_\odot$ is the most likely value for the
877: Milky Way after considering various completeness corrections, so the
878: Krumhjolz \& Tan value of $\epsilon_{ff}$ may not be so high. Even
879: so, with a factor of 3 downward correction for $L_{CS}$, the
880: $\epsilon_{ff}-\rho$ correlation in Krumholz \& Tan is still present
881: because the plotted CS point is 10 times higher than the others at
882: the same density. More important to the present paper is the
883: observation in Plume et al. and Shirley et al. that the ratio of
884: bolometric luminosity to virial mass in CS gas is a factor of
885: several hundred higher than in CO gas, and also relatively constant
886: from region to region spanning a factor of 100 in gas mass. Thus the
887: CS gas is closer to the star formation stage than CO. The efficiency
888: should increase in this way with density as the observations zero-in
889: on the individual star-forming cores. This takes us back to the
890: fundamental property of hierarchical clouds mentioned above, that
891: the mass fraction of the densest cores increases with the average
892: density.
893:
894: The most peculiar point in the Krumholz \& Tan diagram is the low
895: value for HCN, which has $\epsilon_{ff}\sim0.0058$. This is lower
896: than the other values at the same density by a factor of $\sim10$
897: and the corresponding long time for HCN evolution could raise
898: questions about the time scale for star formation. We discuss this
899: HCN value now.
900:
901: \subsection{The Evolution Time in HCN Cores}
902: \label{sect:hcn}
903:
904: Gao \& Solomon (2004a,b) and Wu, Evans, et al. (2005) derived the
905: star formation rate in HCN clouds using the associated IR
906: luminosity. They observed the proportion $L_{IR}\sim 900L_{HCN}$
907: $L_\odot \left({\rm K \;km\; s}^{-1} {\rm pc}^2\right)^{-1}$, and
908: then converted the $L_{IR}$ to a star formation rate with ${\dot M}=
909: 2\times10^{-10} \left(L_{IR}/L_\odot\right)$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$
910: from Kennicutt (1998). They converted $L_{HCN}$ to a mass using the
911: virial theorem, $M_{dense}=\alpha L_{HCN}$ with $\alpha\sim10$
912: M$_\odot$ $\left({\rm K\; km\; s}^{-1} {\rm pc}^2\right)^{-1}$. As
913: a result, the time scale is
914: \begin{equation}
915: {{M_{dense}}\over{{\dot
916: M}}}=\left({{M_{dense}}\over{L_{HCN}}}\right)\left({{L_{HCN}}\over
917: {L_{IR}}}\right)\left({{L_{IR}}\over{{\dot
918: M}}}\right)\sim5.5\times10^7\;{\rm
919: yrs},\label{eq:time}\end{equation}which is much longer than the
920: dynamical time at the high density of HCN. The virial theorem
921: conversion factor comes from the equations $M=5R\Delta v^2/G$ and
922: $L_{HCN}=T\left(8\ln2\right)^{1/2}\Delta v \pi R^2$ for Gaussian
923: dispersion of the emission line $\Delta v$ and source radius $R$.
924: These equations give $\alpha=2.1n(H_2)^{1/2}/T$ for density
925: $n(H_2)=3M/\left(4\pi R^3m(H_2)\right)$. HCN requires excitation at
926: $n=3\times10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ and Gao \& Solomon assume $T=35$K, which
927: gives $\alpha=10$ as above.
928:
929: Gao \& Solomon (2004a,b) observed unresolved HCN emission from whole
930: galaxies, while Wu et al. (2005) observed individual star-forming
931: regions in the Milky Way. The $L_{IR}-L_{HCN}$ correlation was about
932: the same for each, and this is a bit surprising. In whole galaxies,
933: the IR comes from massive stars whether they are inside or outside
934: the dense neutral cores, whereas the HCN comes only from the cores.
935: Generally O-type stars disperse their cores and break out quickly,
936: long before they supernova. The time spent inside a core, which is
937: the star formation timescale of interest for this paper, can be
938: arbitrarily short for the same total $L_{IR}$, $M_{dense}$ and
939: ${\dot M}$. For example, an O-type star might spend its first 0.2
940: Myr inside an HCN core before disrupting it and then spend the
941: remainder of its 3 Myr lifetime outside HCN cores. Then the star
942: formation rate in a core is $3/0.2$ time the average rate, and the
943: HCN timescale per core is $0.2/3$ of 55 Myr, or 3.7 Myr.
944: Correspondingly, $0.2/3=6.7$\% of O-type stars would be in HCN cores
945: at any one time. Clearly for whole galaxies, the HCN timescale
946: derived above is not equivalent to the duration of star formation
947: inside an HCN core.
948:
949: The situation for individual star-forming regions is different. All
950: of the points in Figure 5 of Krumholz \& Tan (2007) other than HCN
951: were for individual regions, as was the Wu et al. (2005)
952: contribution to the HCN point. In this case, the duration of star
953: formation in an HCN core equals the efficiency of star formation
954: there multiplied by $M_{dense}/{\dot M}$, and this product can be
955: much less than $M_{dense}/{\dot M}$ alone. The average efficiency of
956: star formation in a dense core is half the final efficiency if stars
957: form with a uniform rate, and the final efficiency is probably only
958: $\sim10$\%, considering that $\sim90$\% of embedded clusters become
959: unbound after the gas leaves (which requires a low final efficiency
960: and rapid gas clearing; Lada \& Lada 2003). Thus the average
961: efficiency during the embedded lifetime may be only $\sim5$\%, in
962: which case the duration of star formation in HCN cores is
963: $0.05\times55=$ 2.75 Myr. If star formation accelerates in a cloud
964: core (Palla \& Stahler 2000), then the average stellar mass fraction
965: during the lifetime of the core is less than half of the final mass
966: fraction, and the core duration would be less than 2.75 Myr.
967:
968: The duration of star formation in HCN cores should be the same
969: everywhere because HCN excitation corresponds to a certain density
970: and the dynamical time at that density is fixed. Thus the agreement
971: between the Gao \& Solomon correlation and the Wu et al. correlation
972: begins with a fundamental timescale that is the same for each and
973: then multiplies this timescale upward by about the same amount for
974: each. The multiplication factor for the galactic scale is the
975: inverse of the fractional time that O-type stars spend in HCN cores.
976: For smaller scales, it is the inverse of the average star formation
977: efficiency in an HCN core. These factors may not be exactly the
978: same, but for the 9 orders of magnitude in $L_{IR}$ separating the
979: Gao \& Solomon results from the Wu et al. results, differences in
980: the conversion factors amounting to a factor of $\sim3$ will not be
981: noticed.
982:
983: The lifetime of the HCN gas (55 Myr) still has to be explained. This
984: lifetime is much longer than a crossing time and in this sense faces
985: the same problem as the CO-emitting gas in the Zuckerman \& Evans
986: (1974) discussion. The solutions could be similar too. First, the
987: HCN cores as a whole should evolve more slowly than their denser
988: subcores where the stars actually form, so the HCN stage prior to
989: star formation should be slower than the stage after star formation
990: in a sub-core becomes disruptive. Second, HCN should be only
991: partially converted into stars during cluster formation (the low
992: efficiency) and the residual should be pushed aside at high pressure
993: without decreasing its density much. Then it stays HCN but has a
994: geometry temporarily unsuitable for star formation until it
995: recollapses in a different position later. Third, some HCN is
996: probably not in the form of strongly self-gravitating cores where
997: individual stars form, but is diffuse intercore gas that is at a
998: high enough density and opacity to excite HCN. In this sense, HCN
999: alone, like CO alone, is not the star-forming gas but provides an
1000: envelope or intercore matrix to the star-forming gas, which is much
1001: denser. Of all these, the low efficiency in each HCN core, discussed
1002: above, is probably the dominant cause of the relatively long
1003: consumption time.
1004:
1005: High resolution observations of HCN regions should show a low
1006: fraction of the gas actively involved with star formation, as do
1007: observations of CO clouds. However, it may be that nearly every HCN
1008: region still contains some star formation, which is the case for CO
1009: too. The inactive HCN, like the inactive CO, should be peripheral
1010: or intercore gas in the immediate vicinity of star formation, and it
1011: should not be strongly self-gravitating by itself. Dense
1012: self-gravitating cores in the same regions are the more likely
1013: precursors of young stars, and their contribution to the HCN mass
1014: fraction should be low, like the 5-10\% estimated above. There
1015: should also be evidence for HCN mini-shells, comets, and other
1016: disturbances at these high densities. These should resemble
1017: structures observed on much larger scales in CO. Their presence
1018: would indicate that cloud core dispersal maintains a high density
1019: for a crossing time while second generations of stars might be
1020: triggered into forming.
1021:
1022: CS-emitting gas is closer to the density where star formation
1023: becomes highly efficient, and the consumption timescale for CS is
1024: correspondingly shorter than for HCN. Plume et al. (1997) estimate
1025: this timescale is 13 Myr based on the total CS mass divided by the
1026: Galactic star formation rate. This is still much longer than the CS
1027: crossing time (0.12 Myr), so the CS abundance has the same problem
1028: as HCN and CO with probably the same solution: it either has to
1029: recycle after discrete events or form stars in a small fraction of
1030: its mass (sub-cores) where the local efficiency is higher.
1031:
1032: \subsection{The Huff \& Stahler Accelerated Star Formation Model with Feedback}
1033: \label{sect:huff}
1034:
1035: Huff \& Stahler (2006) observed the history of star formation in the
1036: Orion Nebula cluster and found accelerated star formation with some
1037: stars older than the current crossing time. They suggested a model
1038: of cloud evolution where energy dissipation removes turbulent
1039: support and the cloud contracts, slowly at first, and then faster as
1040: the dissipation and dynamical times get shorter. Their model has no
1041: stellar energy input or feedback and still the cloud evolves
1042: relatively slowly because it takes time to dissipate the turbulent
1043: energy. Cloud contraction also generates more turbulent energy from
1044: the change in $PdV$ for boundary pressure $P$ and volume $V$. This
1045: model is useful as a starting point to investigate star formation in
1046: cores when feedback is added. To do this, we begin with the Huff \&
1047: Stahler evolution equation for a singular isothermal sphere and add
1048: an energy input term that is a function of the stellar mass
1049: \begin{equation}
1050: {{dH}\over{dt}}=-\eta{{M_{cloud}v^3}\over{2R}}+\Gamma
1051: M_{star}^\gamma,
1052: \end{equation}
1053: where $M_{cloud}$ is constant, $M_{star}$ is the increasing stellar
1054: mass, $v$ is the velocity dispersion, $R$ is the radius, and $H$ is
1055: the enthalpy. The power $\gamma$ depends on the types of stars that
1056: form. For a massive cluster where O-type stars form, $\gamma$ is
1057: large because the luminosity, particularly beyond the Lyman
1058: continuum, is a sensitive function of stellar mass. For a low mass
1059: cluster or for a cluster where ionization is not important,
1060: $\gamma\sim1$. We consider both cases here. Figure \ref{fig:vacca2}
1061: shows the Lyman continuum luminosity (bottom) and the total
1062: luminosity (top) as functions of the cluster mass. These curves were
1063: obtained by randomly sampling the IMF until the desired cluster mass
1064: was achieved. The IMF ranges from 0.01 M$_\odot$ to 150 M$_\odot$
1065: with a flat slope below 0.5 M$_\odot$ and a slope of $-1.5$ above
1066: that, for logarithmic mass bins (where the Salpeter slope is
1067: $-1.35$). Each cluster mass used 1000 random trials and took the
1068: resulting average luminosity. The rms variations around these
1069: luminosities are shown by dashed lines using the right-hand axes.
1070: The stellar luminosities and masses were obtained from Vacca,
1071: Garmany, \& Shull (1996). The top panel shows that the total
1072: luminosity increases approximately in proportion to the cluster mass
1073: because the luminosity is heavily weighted by low mass stars. The
1074: Lyman continuum luminosity is strongly dependent on cluster mass
1075: ($\gamma\sim40$ in places), with a sudden turn on of the Lyman
1076: continuum flux at $M_{cluster}\sim10^3$ M$_\odot$, where O-type
1077: stars first begin to appear. In the following models, we take
1078: $\gamma=1$ and $2$ to illustrate the main points.
1079:
1080: The kinetic energy in an expanding HII is approximately independent
1081: of time and depends mostly on the initial thermal energy in the HII
1082: region provided by the ionizing flux. This follows from the
1083: expansion equation $R=R_0\left(1+7a_{II}t/4R_0\right)^{4/7}$, which
1084: gives a velocity-squared proportional to $R^{-3/2}$, and from the
1085: HII region mass, which is $M=(4\pi/3) m_H nR^3$ for
1086: $(4\pi/3)nR^3=\left([4\pi/3]SR^3/\alpha\right)^{1/2}$. Here $S$ is
1087: the Lyman continuum flux, $\alpha$ is the recombination coefficient
1088: to the second level of hydrogen, $n$ is the HII region density, and
1089: $R$ is the HII region radius. The radius-dependence for mass and
1090: velocity-squared cancel, leaving the expansion kinetic energy
1091: constant at approximately its initial thermal value,
1092: $0.5M_0a_{II}^2$, where $M_0$ is the Stromgren sphere mass at the
1093: initial cloud density and $a_{II}$ is the thermal speed in the HII
1094: region. The kinetic energy therefore depends on the square root of
1095: the Lyman continuum flux. This justifies the use of this flux as a
1096: crude measure of cloud-core destruction rates.
1097:
1098: The stellar mass in our adaptation of the Huff \& Stahler model
1099: comes from the volume and time integral over the instantaneous star
1100: formation rate, which is taken to be
1101: $\epsilon_{cr}\rho\left(G\rho\right)^{1/2}$ for constant efficiency
1102: per crossing time $\epsilon_{cr}$. The volume integral gives
1103: \begin{equation}
1104: {{dM_{star}}\over{dt}}=\epsilon_{cr}\int_{R_{min}}^{R_0}
1105: \rho\left(G\rho\right)^{1/2} 4\pi R^2dR=
1106: \epsilon_{cr}\left({{GM_{cloud}^3}\over{4\pi}}\right)^{1/2}
1107: {{\ln\left(R_0/R_{min}\right)}\over{R_0^{3/2}}}
1108: \end{equation}
1109: for a singular isothermal sphere with
1110: $\rho(R)=\rho_0\left(R_0/R\right)^2$ (as assumed by Huff \& Stahler
1111: 2006). The collapse is assumed to decrease $R_0$ while keeping the
1112: total cloud mass constant. The log term has assumed a minimum
1113: radius, or inner core radius, $R_{min}$, to terminate the
1114: singularity. The enthalpy is $H=-GM_{cloud}^2/\left(12R\right)$
1115: (Huff \& Stahler). The energy dissipation rate is assumed to be
1116: $-\eta v^3/\left(2R\right)$ from Mac Low (1999), who determine
1117: $\eta\sim0.4$. We take $\eta=0.3$ here to be slightly conservative
1118: (small values lengthen the contraction and star formation time
1119: scales relative to the crossing time). We also take
1120: $\epsilon_{cr}=0.1$ and three values of $\Gamma$ for each case to
1121: give a reasonable range for the final mass of stars. The equations
1122: are integrated numerically over time.
1123:
1124: Figures \ref{fig:huffr}-\ref{fig:huffq} show the results. In Figures
1125: \ref{fig:huffr} and \ref{fig:huffp}, $\gamma=1$ and the cloud mass
1126: is $10^3$ M$_\odot$ and $10^4$ M$_\odot$, respectively. In Figure
1127: \ref{fig:huffq}, $\gamma=2$ and the cloud mass is $10^4$ M$_\odot$.
1128: The starting radii are $R(t=0)=3$ pc for the first case and 6 pc for
1129: the second two cases; $R_{min}=0.1$ pc. In the bottom panels, the
1130: radius, stellar mass, and star formation rate are plotted versus the
1131: absolute time, and in the top panels these quantities are plotted
1132: versus the relative time, which is the absolute time divided by the
1133: instantaneous dynamical time, $\left(G\rho\right)^{-1/2}$. The
1134: different values of $\Gamma$ are plotted in separate curves, as
1135: indicated. In each case, the radius decreases at first, as in the
1136: Huff-Stahler solution, because there are few young stars to add
1137: turbulent energy. When the density and star formation rate reach a
1138: sufficiently high value, the energy input rate from stars begins to
1139: exceed the turbulent energy loss rate and the radius increases. Then
1140: star formation slows down because of the decreasing density. Lower
1141: $\Gamma$ cases produce higher stellar masses.
1142:
1143: The duration of the most active phase, which is taken to be the full
1144: width at half maximum in the lower middle panel of Figures
1145: \ref{fig:huffr} to \ref{fig:huffq}, is only several instantaneous
1146: crossing times even if the age range in the cluster is many
1147: instantaneous crossing times and a large total value in absolute
1148: time. In Figure \ref{fig:huffr}, for example, the width of the
1149: highest star formation peak is $\sim5.3$ Myr, which is $\sim1.4$
1150: times the age at the peak. In the top middle panel the age at the
1151: peak is 1.8 instantaneous crossing times. Multiplying the relative
1152: time by the fractional total time gives 2.5 crossing times measured
1153: at the peak density for the FWHM duration of star formation. The
1154: relative durations of all three curves are given in the top middle
1155: panel in order of decreasing $\Gamma$. Figures \ref{fig:huffp} and
1156: \ref{fig:huffq} also give the relative durations. For these two
1157: cases, the lowest $\Gamma$ has unrealistically strong star formation
1158: because the final efficiencies exceed 60\%; the middle $\Gamma$ are
1159: best, giving $\sim30$\% efficiency. The corresponding FWHM durations
1160: of star formation are 1.8 and 1.6 crossing times at peak density. In
1161: terms of absolute time, there are old stars present dating back to
1162: when the cluster was young, which can be several million years. The
1163: case closest to a massive dense cluster like 30 Dor is in Figure
1164: \ref{fig:huffq} with $\Gamma=0.0026$, for which a $10^4$ M$_\odot$
1165: cloud produces a $\sim3\times10^3$ M$_\odot$ cluster in a burst
1166: lasting $2.6$ Myr and $1.6$ crossing times at the highest density.
1167:
1168: This example is a crude model for the formation and disruption of a
1169: cluster, but it illustrates the point also made in sections
1170: \ref{sect:bigfast} and \ref{sect:smallfast} that star formation can
1171: be fast in terms of the instantaneous dynamical time, even though
1172: the absolute rate varies from slow at the beginning, to fast in the
1173: densest phase, to slow again after the disruption.
1174:
1175: A second conclusion to be made from this analysis is that the
1176: conceptual difference between star formation rate and instantaneous
1177: luminosity is important. The luminosity is not proportional to the
1178: star formation rate but to the integral of the star formation rate
1179: over time. So any point in the evolution where the stellar
1180: disruptive luminosity balances the turbulent dissipation rate is
1181: quickly passed as stars continue form. There is no stable state
1182: because stars keep forming and the luminosity keeps increasing even
1183: when there is a temporary equilibrium. V\'azquez-Semadeni et al.
1184: (2005) and Bonnell \& Bate (2006) also note the lack of stable
1185: equilibria in cluster-forming cores.
1186:
1187: Li \& Nakamura (2006) and Nakamura \& Li (2007) took a different
1188: approach. They ran realistic MHD simulations (although without
1189: magnetic diffusion) that generate quasi-stable equilibria through
1190: protostellar wind feedback. The latter paper gets a star formation
1191: rate of a few percent of the cloud mass in each free fall time and
1192: it maintains this rate for 1.5 initial free fall times ($t_{ff}=1.2$
1193: Myr). The equilibrium state is maintained for the last one free fall
1194: time, although it may have been able to continue longer if the code
1195: ran longer. After $1.5t_{ff}$, 80 stars formed. This model is like
1196: the one shown in Figure \ref{fig:huffr} in the sense that it is a
1197: low mass cloud ($\sim10^3$ M$_\odot$) without ionization. In Figure
1198: \ref{fig:huffr}, the duration of star formation is also about 1.5
1199: instantaneous free fall times, although there is no equilibrium.
1200: This distinction between models raises an important point. In our
1201: figures, the collapse turns around because of intense stellar
1202: pressures at some high density, where the star formation rate is
1203: high. Viewed in a narrow time interval around this turning point,
1204: one dynamical time wide, there is an equilibrium. However, stars
1205: continue to form and the balance of forces continues to build in
1206: favor of cloud dispersal. Soon the cloud expands and star formation
1207: slows down. This all happens in less than a few crossing times. The
1208: same turnaround might happen in the Nakamura \& Li models: as stars
1209: continue to form, their collective winds and radiation should
1210: continue to agitate the gas and eventually overcome the total
1211: dissipation rate, which is somewhat fixed for a constant average
1212: density and Mach number. Their simulated cloud should then expand
1213: and the star formation rate should decrease. It would seem to take
1214: some tuning to maintain an equilibrium for much longer than 2 to 4
1215: $t_{ff}$ because the collective effects of winds and radiation
1216: should then be quite influential. One way to tune the result would
1217: be to turn off the winds after a short time in each star. A second
1218: point of comparison is that for most of the present paper we are
1219: concerned with massive clusters, and then ionization destroys and
1220: displaces a high fraction of the core gas soon after an O-type star
1221: forms. Nakamura \& Li do not consider this type of energy input, and
1222: even our models in Figure \ref{fig:huffq} do not have a high enough
1223: $\gamma$ to fully account for the sensitivity of energy input to the
1224: presence of massive stars.
1225:
1226: Another important effect might be the lack of magnetic diffusion in
1227: the Nakamura \& Li (2007) models (their earlier, 2D, simulations had
1228: magnetic diffusion). Without magnetic diffusion, there is no
1229: possibility of rapid compression-induced triggering, which is an
1230: effect described in their earlier papers and studied again in
1231: Section \ref{sect:comp} below. Star formation triggered by
1232: compression near the outflows could increase the efficiency per free
1233: fall time considerably and lower the overall timescale of the active
1234: phase. It could even remove the impression that there is a
1235: quasi-equilibrium if the phase of gravity/wind force balance becomes
1236: short-lived. Such wind-induced triggerings have apparently been
1237: observed (Barsony 2007). In addition, even in their paper with
1238: magnetic diffusion, Nakamura \& Li (2005) do not consider the
1239: accelerated collapse that might arise from magnetic diffusion rates
1240: proportional to a power of the density greater than 0.5 (Sect.
1241: \ref{sect:magdiff}).
1242:
1243: Krumholz, Matzner \& McKee (2006) developed a detailed analytical
1244: model of cluster formation with essentially the same results as
1245: shown here, although their conclusions differed. They considered
1246: spherical self-gravitating clouds with energy input from ionization
1247: by massive stars. Each generation of star formation in their model
1248: is rapid when measured on a dynamical timescale. Their figures show
1249: oscillations on timescales of 0.5-1 crossing times, and each
1250: oscillation is a generation of stars. Thus their model agrees with
1251: the short timescale for star formation and cloud disruption
1252: discussed in the present paper. However, their model allows the
1253: energized debris from one generation to recollect at the same
1254: position and make more stars later (because everything is
1255: spherically symmetric). Real GMCs are more filamentary (e.g., Koda
1256: et al. 2006) and star formation at one location cannot easily
1257: influence GMC turbulence or support at a distant point in the same
1258: cloud. Instead, star formation pushes on the gas in its immediate
1259: neighborhood, causing that part of the envelope to move aside, and
1260: at the same time it triggers new star formation in the compressed
1261: region (triggering was not included in their model). Recall that our
1262: application of the Huff \& Stahler (2006) model was only for cloud
1263: cores of modest total mass, not for whole GMCs. Cloud cores are
1264: spherical and somewhat easily disrupted by a single star formation
1265: event, as shown in Section \ref{sect:huff}, while GMCs are elongated
1266: with remote parts that are not so easily disrupted by the same
1267: event.
1268:
1269: Krumholz, Matzner, \& McKee also assume that energy from each
1270: generation of star formation affects all of the GMC mass at once,
1271: and through continuous boom and bust oscillations, the total
1272: lifetime of the cloud can be extended. Our view is different. GMCs
1273: show only localized disruption from massive clusters, involving
1274: primarily the core mass ($\sim10^4$ M$_\odot$) and some triggering
1275: in nearby parts of the cloud, with slow and quiescent star formation
1276: elsewhere. Something other than star formation has to support the
1277: remote diffuse parts, and observations suggest this is a combination
1278: of modest turbulence with a strong (sub-critical) magnetic field
1279: (e.g., Cortes, Crutcher, \& Watson 2005). This is the standard model
1280: as far as the low-density envelope is concerned.
1281:
1282: Our primary point about rapid star formation is that a whole cloud
1283: begins star formation rapidly somewhere inside of it, and that part
1284: ends star formation rapidly as well. This is unlike the standard
1285: model, which would introduce a delay everywhere of some $10t_{dyn}$
1286: because of slow ambipolar diffusion. For the star-forming part of
1287: the cloud, we agree with the rapid timescale of the Huff \& Stahler
1288: (2006) model. For the rest of the cloud, we agree with the longer
1289: timescale of the Mouschovias (1991) model, provided it is recognized
1290: that the cloud moves around every few crossing times because of
1291: pressure from star-forming cores. Further discussion on long-term
1292: cloud evolution is in Section \ref{sect:dest}.
1293:
1294: \subsection{Turbulence Compression and Enhanced Magnetic Diffusion
1295: in Cloud Envelopes}
1296: \label{sect:comp}
1297:
1298: Turbulent fragmentation as a model for star formation (see review in
1299: Mac Low \& Klessen 2004) applies best to cloudy regions that are not
1300: collapsing already. Once collapse begins, the dynamics of the
1301: collapse takes over using the initial conditions from the turbulent
1302: state (e.g., power-law power-spectrum of velocities, with
1303: hierarchical filaments and clumps; Li et al. 2004; Bate \& Bonnell
1304: 2005; Jappsen et al. 2005; Tilley \& Pudritz 2005; Martel et al.
1305: 2006). Turbulent fragmentation was originally envisioned as a way to
1306: get high densities inside clouds, considering that star formation is
1307: more rapid in the compressed regions than in the cloud as a whole.
1308: Another aspect is also important, and that is the enhanced expulsion
1309: of magnetic flux from the compressed gas (e.g., Nakamura \& Li 2005;
1310: Kudoh \& Basu 2007). The point is that slow ambipolar diffusion at
1311: the low average density of a cloud or GMC envelope is not relevant
1312: for star formation. Diffusion is relatively fast in the clumps where
1313: stars actually form.
1314:
1315: Compression enhances diffusion by changing the force density balance
1316: in a magnetically critical cloud from one where $g\rho\sim
1317: B^2/\left(4\pi R\right)\sim\rho n_i\alpha_{in}R\omega_{diff}$ for
1318: gravitational acceleration $g\sim G\rho R$ and cloud radius $R$, to
1319: one where $g_c\rho_c<B_c^2/\left(4\pi L\right)\sim\rho_c
1320: n_{i,c}\alpha_{in}L\omega_{diff,c}$ in the clumps. Subscript {\it c}
1321: represents the compressed clump state, $L$ is the compressed clump
1322: size, and $\omega_{diff}$ is the magnetic diffusion rate.
1323: Self-gravity is written here as relatively unimportant during the
1324: initial compression, although this would not always be the case.
1325: Writing the clump ionization fraction as $x_c =n_{i,c}m/\rho_c$ for
1326: mean molecular weight $m$, we get a magnetic diffusion rate
1327: \begin{equation}
1328: \omega_{diff,c}={{B_c^2m} \over {\left(\rho_c
1329: L\right)^2x_c\alpha_{in}}}.\end{equation} The column density does
1330: not change much with fast lateral compression ($\rho R\sim\rho_c L$)
1331: but the field strength does, by flux freezing, as $B_c\sim B
1332: \left(R/L\right)$, thus
1333: \begin{equation}
1334: {{\omega_{diff,c}}\over{\omega_{diff}}}\sim
1335: {{R^2x}\over{L^2x_c}}>>1.
1336: \end{equation}
1337:
1338: This enhancement factor for the diffusion rate is larger than the
1339: time factor during which the turbulence-compressed state is
1340: maintained, so there is a net flux loss from the clump. The duration
1341: of the pre-compressed state is $\tau=R/v_A$ for Alfv\'en speed
1342: $v_A=B/\left(4\pi\rho\right)^{1/2}$ initially comparable to the
1343: virial speed $\left(gR\right)^{1/2}$. The duration of the compressed
1344: state is $\tau_c=L/v_{A,c}$ where $v_{A,c}\sim v_A
1345: \left(R/L\right)^{1/2}$. Thus the ratio of durations is
1346: $\tau_c/\tau=\left(L/R\right)^{3/2}$. Multiplying this by the ratio
1347: of diffusion rates, we get the relative enhancement of flux loss as
1348: \begin{equation}
1349: {{\omega_{diff,c}\tau_c}\over{\omega_{diff}\tau}}\sim
1350: {{R^{1/2}x}\over{L^{1/2}x_c}}\sim\left({R\over
1351: L}\right)^{0.5+\kappa}>>1
1352: \end{equation}
1353: for ionization fraction varying with density as $x\sim n^{-\kappa}$
1354: and $n$ inversely proportional to size during the compression. In
1355: simulations by Nakamura \& Li (2005), $\kappa\sim0.5$ and they find
1356: enhanced flux loss. The compression-induced flux loss is larger if
1357: $\kappa\sim1$ in the dense state, as suggested in the Section
1358: \ref{sect:magdiff}.
1359:
1360: For a magnetically critical cloud, $\tau\sim t_{dyn}$ and
1361: $\omega_{diff}\tau\sim t_{dyn}/t_{diff}\sim1/10$. If
1362: $\left(R/L\right)^{0.5+\kappa}>10$, which is reasonable, then
1363: $\omega_{diff,c}\tau_c>1$ and the clump diffusion time is less than
1364: the duration of the compressed state. This means that a high
1365: fraction of the magnetic flux will diffuse out. In this case,
1366: turbulence compression not only makes the dense regions but it also
1367: forces so much magnetic flux from them that they can become
1368: supercritical in a crossing time and collapse quickly into stars.
1369: This triggering process is much faster than the same gas would have
1370: evolved on its own from an initially sub-critical state.
1371:
1372: The regions where turbulence-enhanced compression and diffusion
1373: should be important include marginally stable GMCs envelopes and
1374: non-collapsing central regions, in addition to diffuse and
1375: low-pressure molecular regions that are sub-critical on average.
1376: Compression-enhanced diffusion should also be important in GMC
1377: envelopes where HII regions and other pressures trigger star
1378: formation. The compression has to be strong enough ($R>>L$) to make
1379: $\omega_{diff,c}\tau_c>1$. We consider in Section \ref{sect:imf}
1380: whether the IMF should be different in turbulence-compressed regions
1381: than in collapsing supercritical cores, and possibly different again
1382: for star formation that follows the standard model of slow ambipolar
1383: diffusion before collapse.
1384:
1385: \subsection{Enhanced Magnetic Diffusion in Cloud Cores}
1386: \label{sect:magdiff}
1387:
1388: Microscopic changes should also play an important role in the rapid
1389: collapse of GMC cores, and they should aid with accelerated
1390: diffusion in the turbulence-compressed clumps of GMC envelopes. An
1391: essential consideration is how rapidly the ratio of the magnetic
1392: diffusion time to the dynamical time decreases at higher density.
1393: For typical cosmic ray ionization rates, the density scaling for the
1394: electron fraction changes from $x\propto n^{-1/2}$ to $n^{-1}$ when
1395: charge exchange replaces dissociative recombination for the
1396: neutralization of ionic molecules, and electron recombination on
1397: neutral grains replaces dissociative recombination with ionic
1398: molecules (Elmegreen 1979; Draine \& Sutin 1987). For cosmic ray
1399: ionization rates typical of the solar neighborhood, this change
1400: occurs at $n\sim10^5$ cm$^{-3}$. The density scaling is important
1401: because the ratio of the diffusion time to the dynamical time drops
1402: faster for steeper scaling laws. For example, Basu \& Mouschovias
1403: (1995) showed that dynamical evolution is faster when $x\sim
1404: n^{-2/3}$ than when $x\propto n^{-1/2}$. Hujeirat, Camenzind, \&
1405: Yorke (2000) considered various density dependencies and found that
1406: if the power exceeds $2/3$, the time for an initially subcritical
1407: core to start collapsing dynamically is equal to the initial free
1408: fall time. The $n^{-1/2}$ to $n^{-1}$ scaling transition at
1409: $n\sim10^5$ cm$^{-3}$ is shown in Figure 1 of Elmegreen (1979) and
1410: in Figures 1-6 of Umebayashi \& Nakano (1990).
1411:
1412: Also at high density, the waves generated by cosmic ray streaming
1413: instabilities damp faster than their growth rate and cosmic rays
1414: stream freely along the field lines. The cosmic ray density drops
1415: sharply at this point. This drop is shown in Figure 1 of Padoan \&
1416: Scalo (2005), where for dark cores it also occurs at a density of
1417: $\sim10^5$ cm$^{-3}$. A sudden drop in the cosmic ray ionization
1418: rate inside the dense parts of clouds would lead to an even greater
1419: drop in the ionization fraction.
1420:
1421: Further loss of magnetic support at this density should arise
1422: because of changes in the grain population. Charged grains
1423: contribute substantially to the magnetic support of neutral
1424: molecules, and small grains dominate the viscous cross section.
1425: However, observations suggest that PAH molecules and small grains
1426: disappear in very dense clouds (Boulanger, et al. 1990). Depletion
1427: could cause small grains to grow. Omont (1986) suggests the
1428: depletion time onto grains is $10^{10}/n$ years, which is smaller
1429: than the dynamical time, $\left(G\rho\right)^{-1/2}$, when
1430: $n>3\times10^4$ cm$^{-3}$. Depletion also removes ionic metals which
1431: lowers the ionization fraction. Also at about this density, grain
1432: coagulation reduces the number of charged grains and this too
1433: reduces grain coupling to neutrals (Flower, Pineau des For\^{e}ts,
1434: \& Walmsley 2005). Further coupling loss arises because large grains
1435: lose their field line attachment (Kamaya \& Nishi 2000). All of
1436: these microscopic effects speed up star formation at $n\sim10^5$
1437: cm$^{-3}$ for Solar neighborhood conditions by allowing the magnetic
1438: field to leave the neutral gas more quickly. Only a few of these
1439: effects have been included in MHD simulations.
1440:
1441:
1442: \subsection{Slow Protostellar Motions in Rapidly Evolving Clouds}
1443: \label{sect:motions}
1444:
1445: Newborn protostars that form in magnetic turbulent gas should move
1446: slower than the virial speed for two reasons. First, the magnetic
1447: field provides some support to the cloud, so most of the gas moves
1448: at sub-virial speeds anyway. Second, protostars that form in
1449: turbulence-shocked regions will have the average speed of the two
1450: colliding streams; the component of the velocity perpendicular to
1451: the shock will cancel. If magnetic energy, turbulence and
1452: self-gravity have comparable energy densities, then the turbulent
1453: speed is $\left(1/2 \right)^{1/2}$ of the virial speed. Colliding
1454: flows reduce the final protostar speed by another factor of
1455: $\left(2/3\right)^{1/2}$, on average, so the net reduction is a
1456: factor of $\left(1/3\right)^{1/2}=0.58$. Thus protostars should
1457: appear to be moving relatively slowly. Observations by Belloche,
1458: Andr\'e, \& Motte (2001), Di Francesco, Andr\'e \& Myers (2004),
1459: Walsh, Myers \& Burton (2004), J{\o}rgensen et al. (2007) and Walsh
1460: et al. (2007) show slow motions for pre-stellar cores.
1461:
1462: The slow birth motion of pre-stellar cores implies that the
1463: protostars they eventually make will be subvirial and sink to the
1464: center of the cloud, increasing the star-to-gas mass fraction there
1465: and decreasing the required total efficiency for cluster
1466: self-binding (Elmegreen \& Clemens 1985; Pinto 1987). Patel \&
1467: Pudritz (1994) proposed that the cold stellar component in an
1468: embedded cluster would collapse inside the gaseous component by a
1469: two-fluid instability. If the initial protostar speed is $v_i$ and
1470: the virial speed is $v_v$, then the formation efficiency that
1471: produces a 50\% stellar mass fraction after protostar settling is
1472: $0.5\exp\left(-0.75\left[1-v_i^2/v_v^2\right]\right)$ for an
1473: isothermal cloud (Verschueren 1990). The formation efficiency for
1474: cluster binding with instantaneous gas removal is therefore 50\% for
1475: $v_i=v_v$ and 30\% for $v_i=0.58v_v$. It is smaller for slow gas
1476: removal (Lada, Margulis, Dearborn 1984), and smaller still if some
1477: stars escape leaving a tighter cluster in the core (Boily \& Kroupa
1478: 2003).
1479:
1480: Before a pre-stellar clump detaches from the magnetic field on which
1481: it formed, its motion will be influenced by the magnetic field. If
1482: the magnetic field in a protostellar clump is critical, or if the
1483: clump forms with a constant mass-to-flux ratio in a cloud where the
1484: average magnetic field is critical, then the field strength in the
1485: clump satisfies, $B_{clump}\sim2\pi G^{1/2} \Sigma_{clump}$ for
1486: clump mass column density $\Sigma_{clump}$ (Sect. \ref{sect:sc}).
1487: The magnetic force per unit volume acting on the clump by the field
1488: lines it drags behind is approximately $F_B=B_{clump}^2/\left(8\pi
1489: R_{clump}\right)\sim G\Sigma_{clump}^2/R_{clump}$. The force per
1490: unit volume acting on the clump by the gravity from the rest of the
1491: cloud is $F_G\sim G\Sigma_{cloud}\rho_{clump}\sim
1492: G\Sigma_{cloud}\Sigma_{clump}/R_{clump}$. Thus the ratio of the
1493: magnetic to the gravitational forces acting on the clump from the
1494: surrounding cloud is
1495: \begin{equation} F_B/F_G \sim \Sigma_{clump}/\Sigma_{cloud}
1496: >>1.\end{equation}
1497: This latter inequality is usually satisfied because protostellar
1498: clumps have low angular filling factors, which means their column
1499: densities are higher than the average cloud column densities around
1500: them. As a result, clumps do not free fall in a cloud until either
1501: their magnetic field lines become detached or their fields diffuse
1502: out. This is one of the reasons why clump motions can be slow.
1503:
1504: Magnetic fields should also limit clump accretion from remote parts
1505: of the cloud. The magnetic force per unit volume exerted on the
1506: ambient gas in a cloud is $\sim B_{cloud}^2/\left(8\pi
1507: R_{cloud}\right)\sim G\Sigma_{cloud}^2 / R_{cloud}$. The
1508: gravitational accretion force per unit volume that the clump exerts
1509: on this ambient gas is $\sim GM_{clump}\rho_{cloud}/R_{cloud}^2$.
1510: The magnetic to gravitational force ratio for accreted ambient cloud
1511: gas is
1512: \begin{equation} F_B/F_G \sim
1513: M_{cloud}/M_{clump}>>1.\end{equation} Thus the ambient cloud gas
1514: cannot freely fall onto a clump whose mass is significantly less
1515: than the mass of the whole cloud.
1516:
1517: Pre-stellar clump motions and gas accretion onto clumps from remote
1518: parts of the cloud should be restrained by the cloud's magnetic
1519: field if it is close to the critical value. Pre-stellar clumps are
1520: therefore born with relatively slow speeds, and they should keep
1521: these speeds until their field lines detach. The protostars they
1522: form should accrete only from their immediate clump reservoirs or
1523: from closely interacting clumps. These protostars should also move
1524: slowly for a long time, even if they become detached from the field
1525: lines, because the protostars are bound to their clumps by clump
1526: gravity with a stronger acceleration ($G\Sigma_{clump}$) than they
1527: are attracted to the whole cloud ($G\Sigma_{cloud}$), considering
1528: that $\Sigma_{clump}>\Sigma_{cloud}$. Protostars begin to move
1529: freely only when they become detached from the cloud's field lines
1530: and also destroy the clump that formed them. Before this detachment,
1531: protostars should appear offset from their clump centers with an
1532: equilibrium position that balances clump and cloud forces from
1533: magnetic fields, ram pressure, and gravity. The observation of slow
1534: protostellar and prestellar motions may eventually be used to
1535: determine the magnetic field strength. Faster motions compared to
1536: virial imply weaker fields compared to critical.
1537:
1538:
1539: \section{The Morphology of Destruction: Triggered Star Formation and
1540: Longevity in Molecular Cloud Envelopes} \label{sect:dest}
1541:
1542: Jets, winds, heating, and ionization in dense cluster-forming cores
1543: can compress the existing clumps and produce tiny shells, both of
1544: which may trigger more star formation (Norman \& Silk 1980; Quillen
1545: et al. 2005; Barsony 2007). If only low mass stars form, the energy
1546: input may not be disruptive and the core might survive for several
1547: crossing times. If high mass stars form, then the core should be
1548: rapidly dispersed. Gas exhaustion also halts star formation. In a
1549: region that forms a bound cluster, nearly half of the gas is
1550: converted into stars and little remains in a dense state for more
1551: star formation.
1552:
1553: These two endings for core activity are readily observed. High mass
1554: cores that form O-type stars make compact HII regions in the midst
1555: of dense clusters of lower mass stars. These HII regions clear out
1556: small cavities at first and change the mode of star formation from
1557: one of collapse and turbulence compression to one of triggering at
1558: the cavity edges and in the debris. Low mass cores with no O-type
1559: stars should contain smaller, less energetic bubbles when they are
1560: young (Quillen et al. 2005) and a gradual lessening of extinction
1561: over time as the gas gets used up, rather than an explosive
1562: clearing. The efficiency may reach $\sim30$\% by the clearing time
1563: in both cases (Lada \& Lada 2003). The age of a newly cleared
1564: cluster is typically short, only a few crossing times.
1565:
1566: The general speed up of star formation with density implies that GMC
1567: cores are finished before the diffusion time in the envelope. This
1568: is particular true if the GMC envelope is subcritical, which seems
1569: likely (Sect. \ref{sect:sc}). In addition, GMCs in the main disk of
1570: the Milky Way have an average column density equivalent to $\sim10$
1571: mag of visible extinction (Solomon et al. 1987). Because it takes
1572: $\sim4$ magnitudes for a clumpy cloud to significantly shield the
1573: background uv light (McKee 1989; Ciolek \& Mouschovias 1995; Myers
1574: \& Khersonsky 1995; Padoan et al. 2004), there should be
1575: considerable ionization in the envelopes of GMCs. This means the
1576: magnetic diffusion time can be long, many tens of dynamical times.
1577: Thus we have an exception to the highly dynamical picture presented
1578: in the preceding sections: GMC envelopes can be relatively
1579: long-lived.
1580:
1581: Envelope longevity appears necessary also from the Zuckerman \&
1582: Evans (1974) constraint, which suggests that CO clouds cannot be
1583: collapsing as a whole, and from the Solomon, Sanders \& Scoville
1584: (1979) constraint, which notes that the inner Galaxy is highly
1585: molecular (Sect \ref{sect:bigfast}). Dynamical evolution of GMCs
1586: means primarily that they progress toward star formation relatively
1587: quickly and then scatter their envelopes relatively quickly. But it
1588: does not mean that the scattered envelope disappears.
1589:
1590: An example of rapid star formation with slow GMC envelope evolution
1591: is shown in Figure \ref{fig:m51blowup}, which reproduces the
1592: southern part of the inner spiral arm in M51 from the HST Heritage
1593: mosaic. There is a clear progression of star formation morphology
1594: from left (east) to right that matches the expected time evolution
1595: as the gas flows away from the spiral shock. In the east, there is a
1596: large concentrated dark cloud that is part of the dust lane itself.
1597: It measures $1.0\times0.23$ kpc$^{2}$ (assuming the distance is
1598: $9.5$ Mpc from Zimmer et al. 2004) and with an estimated average
1599: visual extinction of 2 mag, contains $10^7$ M$_\odot$. Star
1600: formation occurs throughout this cloud in several places, so there
1601: is no perceptible time delay between cloud formation and star
1602: formation. The giant cloud itself is a ``giant molecular
1603: association'' or ``supercloud,'' and the relatively small
1604: concentrations in it, barely visible at $\sim100$ pc in length,
1605: would be the GMCs. This size and hierarchical morphology is common
1606: in the spiral arms of our Galaxy too (Grabelski et al. 1987). In the
1607: middle of the image there is relatively little in the center of the
1608: dust lane but there is one kpc-long clumpy cloud extending south and
1609: there are several small cloud filaments to the west of it, along
1610: with many small HII regions in the dense knots. The small filaments
1611: make irregular shells, and there are many bright blue stars inside
1612: these shells that could have pressurized them. Further to the west
1613: there is another supercloud with embedded HII regions inside the
1614: dustlane and there are two other kpc-scale filaments south of the
1615: dustlane and aligned perpendicular to it (``feathers'' -- Shetty \&
1616: Ostriker 2006; La Vigne, Vogel \& Ostriker 2006). These filaments
1617: have low-level star formation along their edges. There are also more
1618: blue stellar associations between the filaments, giving the overall
1619: appearance of shells again. By shells, we do not mean
1620: three-dimensional objects; the in-plane dimensions are much larger
1621: than the gas scale height, so these are more like ribbons or loops
1622: in the plane. The observed progression from left to right in the
1623: figure is the flow direction for gas in the density wave crest. Each
1624: feather has swung out counter-clockwise from the dust lane because
1625: of reverse shear on the inner side of the arm (Balbus 1988; Kim \&
1626: Ostriker 2002, 2006). The time scale for this is several tens of Myr
1627: at a relative speed of $\sim50$ km s$^{-1}$ (according to Kim \&
1628: Ostriker 2006, the spur patterns move at the rotation speed of the
1629: disk relative to the arm).
1630:
1631: The figure shows many aspects of the present discussion: the rapid
1632: appearance of cores and stars in giant clouds that form in the dust
1633: lane, the shredding of these clouds downstream, the appearance of
1634: 500-pc scale star complexes and their 80-pc knots, which are OB
1635: associations in the classic definition, the diffuse, filamentary and
1636: shell-like nature of the cloudy debris, and the lingering star
1637: formation in the cores of this debris. Most of the dense cloud cores
1638: contain some level of star formation inside or immediately adjacent
1639: to them, and much of the diffuse filamentary gas has little star
1640: formation. Essentially all of the dark clouds should be molecular.
1641: The classical notion that there is a delay between the spiral shock
1642: and star formation is not evident: star formation is immediate in
1643: the superclouds. The offset between the main dustlanes and the blue
1644: light that has long been interpreted as a time delay for star
1645: formation is in fact from cloud distruction following dustlane
1646: emergence and from triggered and lingering second-generation star
1647: formation in the shear-twisted debris.
1648:
1649: The time scale for evolution of the filaments, which are apparently
1650: the scattered envelopes of superclouds and GMCs, can be assessed
1651: from this figure. The smallest filaments in the image are $\sim20$
1652: pc wide. For one magnitude of extinction and a depth equal to their
1653: width, they would have an H density of $\sim30$ cm$^{-3}$. The
1654: bigger filaments would have slightly lower average densities because
1655: their extinctions look about the same. These structures resemble
1656: local diffuse clouds although they are probably molecular in M51,
1657: which is molecule-rich. The dynamical time at this density is
1658: $\sim15$ My, which is a good fraction of the spiral arm flow time
1659: represented in the figure. Since most of the filaments contain star
1660: formation inside or adjacent to their cores, the onset of star
1661: formation in the debris appears to operate relatively quickly, on
1662: approximately the dynamical time. This would seem to be impossible
1663: if the clouds are diffuse. Magnetic diffusion should be slow in the
1664: low-density parts of this gas because they are highly exposed to
1665: ambient starlight, and if the debris came from the disruption of
1666: sub-critical GMC envelopes, it should be sub-critical in filamentary
1667: form too.
1668:
1669: The morphology of clouds and HII regions in Figure
1670: \ref{fig:m51blowup} gives a clue to the continued activity on
1671: relatively short time scales. There seem to be two mechanisms for
1672: second generation star formation: direct triggering from HII regions
1673: and other pressures associated with the existing blue stars, and
1674: gravity-driven streaming of gas along the filaments to make dense
1675: cores (e.g., Nakamura, Hanawa, \& Nakano 1993; Tomisaka 1995; Fiege
1676: \& Pudritz 2000). The first of these short-circuits the long
1677: diffusion time by compressing the gas (Sect. \ref{sect:comp}. The
1678: second overcomes magnetic resistance directly by increasing the
1679: mass-to-flux ratio, presumably to the supercritical point. The cores
1680: are well separated and the mass-to-flux ratio increases by the ratio
1681: of filament length divided by filament width, which is a factor of
1682: $\sim10$. Gas that is sub-critical by a factor of 10 in low-density
1683: filaments can become supercritical when it collects to a core, and
1684: then it can collapse even if the rest of the filament has a long
1685: diffusion time. Filament streaming takes a time
1686: $\sim(L/W)\left(G\rho\right)^{-1/2}$ for collection length $L$ on
1687: each side of the core, filament width $W$, and filament density
1688: $\rho$. This time is longer than $\left(G\rho\right)^{-1/2}$ alone,
1689: but the process is still dynamical and it requires minimal magnetic
1690: diffusion before star formation begins in the core.
1691:
1692: The low-density sub-critical debris left behind in the filaments
1693: should continue to have a lifetime significantly longer than the
1694: dynamical time because it is sub-critical and highly exposed. It
1695: satisfies the Zuckerman \& Evans constraint and the Solomon, Sanders
1696: \& Scoville constraint. But these constraints have little bearing on
1697: star formation time scales when they are satisfied by diffuse GMC
1698: debris. The fate of this gas depends more on supernovae and the
1699: clouds' pending impact with the next spiral arm.
1700:
1701: We conclude that most or all of the gas that is strongly
1702: self-gravitating evolves toward star formation on a dynamical time,
1703: whether it is forming a first generation of stars in a supercloud or
1704: subsequent generations in the debris. A high fraction of the volume
1705: of the ISM is in the form of diffuse gas, which may evolve in
1706: isolation more slowly than the internal dynamical time considering
1707: the likely subcritical fields and strong ionic attachment to these
1708: fields. However, this diffuse gas is forced to evolve in other ways
1709: by supernovae and stellar pressures in its vicinity. Sometimes these
1710: pressures trigger star formation, speeding up magnetic diffusion and
1711: collapse locally, and sometimes they move the gas into tenuous
1712: shells and filaments that eventual get ionized and disperse. The
1713: full image of M51 indicates that many of the diffuse extinction
1714: clouds make it all the way to the next arm, so they last a
1715: relatively long time if they are left alone.
1716:
1717: In a recent paper, Mouschovias, Tassis, \& Kunz (2006) reviewed the
1718: observations which historically suggested slow ambipolar diffusion
1719: time scales for GMC evolution. The present model agrees with their
1720: assessment that cloud envelopes are subcritical and slow to evolve,
1721: and that cloud cores are supercritical and collapsing. However, they
1722: believe the cores form slowly on the ambipolar diffusion time and we
1723: suggest they form quickly because they are close to critical from
1724: birth or they are compressed. They also referred to the separation
1725: between dustlanes and HII regions in spiral density waves as
1726: evidence for long time scales prior to star formation, but we have
1727: shown for M51 that there is no such delay. The difference between
1728: these two views lies entirely in the different initial conditions
1729: for core formation, not in the theory of ambipolar diffusion and
1730: collapse. We also differ in our consideration of cloud disruption
1731: and secondary star formation, which can be rapid because of high
1732: stellar pressures.
1733:
1734: There is no single mode of star formation but several, starting with
1735: what might be called a primary mode that begins with large scale
1736: gravitational instabilities in spiral arm dustlanes and elsewhere in
1737: the ambient ISM, continuing with triggered star formation during the
1738: disruption of the cores and envelopes in these primary clouds, and
1739: lingering further still with the dynamical collapse of filamentary
1740: debris and more pressurized triggering during envelope dispersal. We
1741: believe considerable evidence supports a picture where the onset of
1742: star formation in almost all clouds is at the dynamical rate, not
1743: the slower ambipolar diffusion rate. The evidence also suggests that
1744: the complete destruction of clouds can be considerably slower,
1745: giving the molecules long total lifetimes. Thus cloud evolution
1746: consists of a mixture of rapid and slow processes. These are nicely
1747: mapped out as a time sequence in the downstream flow from a strong
1748: spiral arm. In galaxies with weak or no stellar spirals, the same
1749: phases of cloud evolution should occur, but they will be mixed
1750: together in space as there is no global trigger for the first stage.
1751:
1752:
1753: \section{IMF Variations for the 3 Modes of Star Formation}
1754: \label{sect:imf}
1755:
1756: The previous sections presented evidence that star formation has
1757: three distinct modes: (1) rapid collapse for small stellar groups
1758: and single stars in turbulence-compressed regions, which may mix
1759: into clusters or remain dispersed, (2) rapid collapse of
1760: supercritical cores that are born with near-critical field strengths
1761: as a result of larger-scale galactic processes, and (3)
1762: supercritical collapse of single stars and clusters following slow,
1763: diffusion-limited contraction in an initially subcritical cloud. The
1764: latter is the standard model but appears to take too long for the
1765: general case and to give the wrong proportion of pre-stellar and
1766: stellar cores. The disruption of star-forming clouds was shown to
1767: involve another type of star formation, which is a variant of the
1768: first mode: triggered star formation in cloud envelopes and in
1769: debris from previous generations of stars. Examples of these modes
1770: were given and the whole evolutionary scenario was illustrated using
1771: HST Heritage images of M51.
1772:
1773: These modes differ in fundamental ways so it is natural to expect
1774: some differences in the properties of stars they produce. The IMF,
1775: for example, could differ between quiescent regions in mode (3) and
1776: large-scale collapsing regions in mode (2). Turbulent fragmentation
1777: in mode (1) would seem to give a different IMF also. Binary
1778: fractions, mass segregation, efficiencies and other properties of
1779: star formation might differ as well. Remarkably, simulations with
1780: extremely diverse conditions, ranging from pure collapse with no
1781: magnetic fields (Bonnell \& Bate 2006) to highly constrained and
1782: localized with strong fields (Tilley \& Pudritz 2005) all give about
1783: the same IMF slope at intermediate mass. Simulations have not yet
1784: sampled out to high mass. The turnover at low mass depends on the
1785: assumptions of the model, and although the models can be tuned to
1786: give the right result, the origin of the turnover is not understood
1787: yet (compare, for example, the different reasons for a turnover in
1788: Padoan \& Nordlund 2002, Martel et al. 2006, and Jappsen et al. 2005
1789: or Bonnell, Clarke \& Bate 2006).
1790:
1791: Padoan \& Nordlund (2002) and Padoan et al. (2007) discuss how
1792: magnetic turbulent compression with Kolmogorov-type scaling laws
1793: between velocity and length can partition the gas into pieces that
1794: have the Salpeter mass function at intermediate mass. Di Fazio
1795: (1986) and Elmegreen (1993, 1997) suggested a slightly different
1796: scenario where the IMF slope comes not only from instantaneous mass
1797: partitioning but also from differential collapse rates, which
1798: steepen the slope for the time-integrated population. Bonnell,
1799: Larson, \& Zinnecker (2007) present a case for collapse without
1800: magnetic restraints, where gas can move freely relative to the dense
1801: cores and protostellar masses grow by competition accretion. We
1802: discussed how critical magnetic fields should limit this scenario in
1803: Section \ref{sect:motions}.
1804:
1805: Turbulent fragmentation theories would seem to apply best to the
1806: first star formation mode. Competitive accretion seems to apply best
1807: to the second mode, i.e. to supercritical, collapsing,
1808: cluster-forming cores or parts of cores, where the magnetic field is
1809: relatively weak, clump motions are relatively unconstrained, and
1810: collapse motions dominate broad-spectrum turbulence for the
1811: dynamics. If this is the case, then we can assess what the possible
1812: IMF differences might be.
1813:
1814: Bonnell, Larson, \& Zinnecker (2007) show that in freely collapsing
1815: models, stellar masses grow mostly by accretion, sometimes from far
1816: away, and that stellar interactions and sub-cluster ejection limits
1817: the accretion for what turn out to be the low mass stars (e.g. Bate
1818: \& Bonnell 2005). Bonnell \& Bate (2006) note that competitive
1819: accretion works well for the high mass stars. The high masses of the
1820: highest mass stars can even run away in this model, because the
1821: accretion rate increases with mass (e.g., Martel et al. 2006). Also
1822: in dense cluster-forming cores, pre-stellar clumps might coalesce to
1823: make more massive stars (Peretto, Andr\'e, \& Belloche 2006). Thus
1824: mode 2 would seem to be able to produce an excess of massive stars
1825: if the density gets high and the gas reservoir is large, as in a
1826: massive cluster. This would make the mode 2 part of the IMF somewhat
1827: shallow. The mode 1 part of the same cloud would presumably not have
1828: such coalescence and runaway properties: each star is forced to
1829: accrete from its immediate neighborhood because of magnetic
1830: stresses. Then the IMF might be slightly steeper. The composite IMF
1831: in a cluster that contains both a supercritical collapsing inner
1832: core and a turbulence-compressed outer core or envelope would have
1833: an IMF gradient and an intermediate average IMF. The outer IMF would
1834: be steeper than the inner IMF, and the average would depend on what
1835: fraction of the total mass was in the supercritical collapsing
1836: state. Such a variation would naturally account for mass
1837: segregation at stellar birth and for the slight trend toward
1838: shallower IMFs with increasing density and pressure (Elmegreen
1839: 2004).
1840:
1841: The Padoan \& Nordlund (2002) model assumes the clump mass that
1842: forms in a compressed layer is proportional to $\rho L^3$ for
1843: compressed density $\rho$ and layer thickness $L$. The uncompressed
1844: values are $\rho_0$ and $L_0$. By mass and flux conservation, $\rho
1845: L=\rho_0 L_0$ and $B\rho=B_0\rho_0$, so the magnetic field dominates
1846: the layer pressure, giving $\rho v=\rho_0 v_0$ for velocity
1847: dispersions $v$ and $v_0$. With space partitioned as $P(k)d\log
1848: k=k^3d\log k$ and velocity correlated in the surrounding cloud as
1849: $v_0/v_c=\left(L_0/R\right)^\alpha$ for cloud radius $R$, they get a
1850: power law mass function $f(M)d\log M=P(k)d\log k$ for $M=\rho
1851: L^3=\rho_0L_0L^2
1852: \propto\rho_0L_0^3\left(v/v_c\right)^2\left(R/L_0\right)^{2\alpha}$.
1853: If the initial scale for the compression, $L_0$, is identified with
1854: the inverse wavenumber of the turbulence, $k^{-1}$, then $M\propto
1855: k^{2\alpha-3}$. Combining this with $P(k)$, the result is
1856: $f(M)\propto M^{3/\left(2\alpha-3\right)}\propto M^{-1.33}$ for
1857: $\alpha=0.37$, from the velocity power spectrum. The analogous
1858: result for filaments is slightly different. Assuming again that
1859: $M=\rho L^3$ for filament width $L$, we now have conservation laws
1860: $\rho L^2=\rho_0L_0^2$ and $BL^2=B_0L_0^2$, which still gives
1861: $\rho\propto B\propto v$ by pressure balance, but then the mass
1862: becomes $M=\rho_0L_0^2L=\rho_0L_0^3\left(v/v_c\right)^{1/2}
1863: \left(R/L_0\right)^{\alpha/2} \propto k^{\alpha/2-3}$. With the same
1864: space partitioning, $P(k)\propto k^3$, this gives an IMF for
1865: filaments of $f(M)\propto M^{9/\left(\alpha-6\right)}\sim
1866: M^{-1.60}$, which is slightly steeper than the Salpeter function.
1867:
1868: If the compressed layers produce a number of star formation sites
1869: proportional to the area layer, namely $\left(L_0/L\right)^2$, and
1870: the cylinders produce a number of sites proportional to the length,
1871: $L_0/L$, then both of these IMFs becomes $f(M)\propto M^{-1}$. This
1872: can be seen by using $P(k)=k^3 \left(L_0/L\right)^2d\log k$ for the
1873: layer and $k^3 \left(L_0/L\right)d\log k$ for the filament, i.e.,
1874: counting not just compression space in the original cloud (the $k^3$
1875: term) but also the number of sites per compressed region. In the
1876: first case, $k^3\left(L_0/L\right)^2=
1877: k^3\left(v_c/v\right)^2\left(R/L_0\right)^{2\alpha}\propto
1878: k^{3-2\alpha}$ and in the second case $k^3\left(L_0/L\right)=k^3
1879: \left(v_c/v\right)^{1/2}\left(R/L_0\right)^{\alpha/2}\propto
1880: k^{3-\alpha/2}$. Because $M\propto k^{2\alpha-3}$ and
1881: $k^{\alpha/2-3}$ in the layer and filament geometries, the IMFs are
1882: simply $M^{-1}$. This is the usual result for hierarchical
1883: structure.
1884:
1885: If the turbulence-compressed layers and filaments fragment into star
1886: formation sites in this way, giving $f(M)\propto M^{-1}$ in both
1887: cases, then the instantaneous mass spectrum from turbulence
1888: fragmentation would be shallower than the observed IMF. Also in
1889: this case, we should observe linear strings of the youngest
1890: pre-stellar condensations and protostars along gaseous filaments
1891: with a number of condensations increasing with filament length. We
1892: should see two dimensional arrays of condensations and protostars
1893: inside compressed layers with the number of condensations increasing
1894: with the area of the layer. To get the Salpeter IMF or something
1895: steeper requires additional physics. Elmegreen (1993, 1997)
1896: suggested this was the mass dependence of the dynamical timescale
1897: for evolution of gas into protostars: in a hierarchically structured
1898: cloud, the smaller pieces, which have lower masses, tend to be
1899: denser on average, and to have shorter dynamical times. Thus an
1900: instantaneous mass function from turbulence steepens into the IMF as
1901: proportionally more low mass clumps and stars form by turbulence
1902: compression and other dynamical processes.
1903:
1904: The IMF is likely to be much more complicated than either theory
1905: predicts, and possibly the result of a combination of effects.
1906: V\'azquez-Semadeni, Kim \& Ballesteros-Paredes (2005) for example,
1907: found that the collapsing mass increases as the relative magnetic
1908: field strength increases. This implies that the IMF in sub-critical
1909: regions of clouds, such as GMC envelopes and diffuse regions, might
1910: be shallower than the IMF in critical or super-critical regions
1911: where the field strength is relatively low. Such a trend would
1912: counter the mass segregation gradient discussed above.
1913:
1914: \section{Summary}
1915: \label{sect:sum}
1916:
1917: The previous sections considered many facets of star formation that
1918: all fall under one basic model consisting of three tenets: (1)
1919: clouds of various origins are hierarchically structured as a result
1920: of turbulence and self-gravity, (2) their densest parts evolve
1921: toward star formation at about the local dynamical rate, and (3)
1922: their low-density envelopes disperse as a result of this star
1923: formation and survive in pieces for several dynamical times,
1924: possibly forming stars in multiple generations.
1925:
1926: Cloud formation in the first step includes compression and
1927: gravitational collapse in spiral shocks, swing-amplified spiral
1928: arms, expanding shells and other dynamical structures that form by
1929: turbulence and stellar pressures on a wide range of scales. The
1930: formation and initial evolution occurs on the dynamical time scale,
1931: and in absolute terms, this can be large, several tens of millions
1932: of years, or small, a million years or less, depending on the
1933: pre-cloud density. The low density parts of these clouds, which are
1934: most directly exposed to background starlight, are most strongly
1935: tied to the magnetic field and evolve more slowly in relative terms
1936: than the dense, optically-thick cores. Core evolution starts close
1937: and stays close to the magnetically critical state, and with
1938: relatively little delay, becomes magnetically supercritical. At this
1939: point star formation proceeds at a high rate, which is still close
1940: to the dynamical rate but now at a high density. Star formation
1941: appear to accelerate as the cloud density increases, but observers
1942: at each stage would see it operating at only a few times the current
1943: dynamical rate even though relatively old stars are present. Star
1944: formation disrupts the core relatively quickly, with no intermediate
1945: stage of dynamical equilibrium.
1946:
1947: The envelope becomes disrupted too, following core star formation,
1948: but if there is a relatively large internal magnetic field and a
1949: relatively slow diffusion rate, then it can be pushed to the side,
1950: broken, and dispersed without collapsing into stars immediately. The
1951: envelope also has star formation during this whole process, and it
1952: can be supercritical in small regions where turbulence compression
1953: and external pressures accelerate the diffusion rate. Star formation
1954: finally stops when all of the residual gas is converted back into a
1955: low-density, weakly self-gravitating state by starlight heating,
1956: ionization, and evaporation.
1957:
1958: Cloudy debris that is relatively isolated and in a low pressure
1959: environment, such as the Taurus clouds, can form stars by the
1960: standard model, one at a time by quasi-equilibrium magnetic
1961: diffusion up to densities of $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ or so, as many
1962: models of this process suggest. The evidence suggests that most star
1963: formation is not like this, however.
1964:
1965: During the entire cycle of cloud evolution, a large fraction of the
1966: molecular mass and a large fraction of the time are spent without
1967: significant star formation, which is confined primarily to the
1968: dense, short-lived inner regions. These dense regions form star
1969: clusters, and they do this by forming protostars with relatively low
1970: velocities that begin their lives inside gas filaments and
1971: hierarchical subunits and mix over time inside the cloud core. The
1972: outer parts may never get time to mix before core disruption. Then
1973: they remain hierarchical up to scales of hundreds of parsecs until
1974: galactic shear tears them apart.
1975:
1976: The IMF would seem to be different for the three modes of star
1977: formation discussed here: turbulence compression promotes scale-free
1978: hierarchical structure while supercritical collapse promotes fast
1979: relative motions and large-scale accretion. Considering IMF
1980: simulations currently available, the supercritical cluster cores
1981: could form proportionally more massive stars, thereby contributing
1982: to mass segregation and a slight flattening of the IMF in dense,
1983: supermassive clusters.
1984:
1985: \acknowledgements I am grateful to the referee, Mark Krumholz, for
1986: useful suggestions, and to Jonathan Tan and Yancy Shirley for
1987: comments on the manuscript.
1988:
1989: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1990:
1991: \bibitem[]{1904} Aarseth, S.J., \& Lecar, M. 1975, ARAA, 13, 1
1992:
1993: \bibitem[]{2377} Allen, L., Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R., Myers, P.
1994: C., Wolk, S., Adams, F. C., Muzerolle, J., Young, E., \& Pipher, J.
1995: L. 2007, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt,
1996: \& K. Keil, (Tucson, Univ of Arizona), 361
1997:
1998: \bibitem[]{1984} Alves, J., Lombardi, M., \& Lada, C.J. 2007, A\&A, 462,
1999: L17
2000:
2001: \bibitem[]{2382} Bacmann, A., Andr\'e, P., Puget, J.-L., Abergel, A.,
2002: Bontemps, S., \& Ward-Thompson, D. 2000, A\&A, 361, 555
2003:
2004: \bibitem[]{2385} Balbus, S. A. 1988, ApJ, 324, 60
2005:
2006: \bibitem[]{2387_01} Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Hartmann, L.,
2007: Vázquez-Semadeni, E. 1999, ApJ, 527, 285
2008:
2009: \bibitem[]{2390} Ballesteros-Paredes, J., \& Mac Low, M.-M. 2002, ApJ,
2010: 570, 734
2011:
2012: \bibitem[]{2393} Ballesteros-Paredes, J., \& Hartmann, L. 2007,
2013: Rev. Mexican A\&A, 43, 123
2014:
2015: \bibitem[]{2396} Barsony, M. 2007, in Triggered Star formation in a
2016: turbulent ISM, ed. B.G. Elmegreen \& J. Palous, IAU Symposium 237,
2017: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), in press
2018:
2019: \bibitem[]{2400} Bash, F.N., Green, E., \& Peters, W.L., III. 1977,
2020: ApJ, 217, 464
2021:
2022: \bibitem[]{2403} Basu, S. 1997, ApJ, 485, 240
2023:
2024: \bibitem[]{785} Basu, S., \& Mouschovias, T.C. 1995, ApJ, 452, 386
2025:
2026: \bibitem[]{2407} Basu, S., \& Ciolek, G.E. 2004, ApJ, 607, L39
2027:
2028: \bibitem[]{2409} Bate, M.R., \& Bonnell, I.A. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1201
2029:
2030: \bibitem[]{2411} Battinelli, P., Efremov, Y., \& Magnier, E.A. 1996,
2031: A\&A, 314, 51
2032:
2033: \bibitem[]{2414} Belloche, A., Andr\'e, P., \& Motte, F. 2001, in From
2034: Darkness to Light: Origin and Evolution of Young Stellar Clusters,
2035: ASP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 243. eds. T. Montmerle \& P.
2036: Andr\'e, (San Francisco: ASP), p.313
2037:
2038: \bibitem[]{2421} Bertoldi, F., \& McKee, C.F. 1992, ApJ, 395, 140
2039:
2040: \bibitem[]{2026} Beuther, H., \& Schilke, P. 2004, Science, 303, 1167
2041:
2042: \bibitem[]{790} Boily, C.M., \& Kroupa, P. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 673
2043:
2044: \bibitem[]{2431} Bonnell, I.A. \& Bate, M.R. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 488
2045:
2046: \bibitem[]{2433} Bonnell, I.A., Clarke, C.J., \& Bate, M.R. 2006,
2047: MNRAS, 368, 1296
2048:
2049: \bibitem[]{2436} Bonnell, I.A., Larson, R.B., \& Zinnecker, H. 2007, in
2050: Protostars and Planets VI, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, \& K. Keil,
2051: (Tucson, Univ of Arizona), 149
2052:
2053: \bibitem[]{792} Boulanger, F., Falgarone, E., Puget, J.L., \&
2054: Helou, G. 1990, ApJ, 364, 136
2055:
2056: \bibitem[]{2446} Bourke, T.L., Myers, P.C., Robinson, G., \& Hyland,
2057: A.R. 2001, ApJ, 554, 916
2058:
2059: \bibitem[]{2449} Brogan, C.L., \& Troland, T.H. 2001, ApJ, 550, 799
2060:
2061: \bibitem[]{2451} Brooke, T.Y., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 364
2062:
2063: \bibitem[]{803} Ciolek, G.E., \& Mouschovias, T.C. 1995, ApJ, 454,
2064: 194
2065:
2066: \bibitem[]{2465} Ciolek, G.E., \& Basu, S. 2001, ApJ, 547, 272
2067:
2068: \bibitem[]{2469} Cortes, P.C., Crutcher, R.M., \& Watson, W.D. 2005,
2069: ApJ, 628, 780
2070:
2071: \bibitem[]{2472} Cortes, P.C. \& Crutcher, R.M. 2006, ApJ, 639, 965
2072:
2073: \bibitem[]{2477} Crutcher, R.M. 1999, ApJ, 520, 706
2074:
2075: \bibitem[]{2479} Crutcher, R.M. 2007, in Triggered Star formation in a
2076: turbulent ISM, ed. B.G. Elmegreen \& J. Palous, IAU Symposium 237,
2077: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), in press
2078:
2079: \bibitem[]{2483} Curran, R.L., Chrysostomou, A., Collett, J.L.,
2080: Jenness, T., \& Aitken, D.K. 2004, A\&A, 421, 195
2081:
2082: \bibitem[]{2486} Dahm, S.E., \& Simon, T. 2005, AJ, 129, 829
2083:
2084: \bibitem[]{2488} Dickey, J.M., McClure-Griffiths, N.M., Stanimirovic,
2085: S., Gaensler, B.M, \& Green, A.J, 2001, ApJ, 561, 264
2086:
2087: \bibitem[]{2491} de Avillez, M.A., \& Breitschwerdt, D. 2005, A\&A,
2088: 436, 585
2089:
2090: \bibitem[]{2496} Di Francesco, J., Andr\'e, P., \& Myers, P.C. 2004,
2091: ApJ, 617, 425
2092:
2093: \bibitem[]{2499} Di Fazio, A. 1986, A\&A, 159, 49
2094:
2095: \bibitem[]{814} Draine, B.T., \& Sutin, B. 1987, ApJ, 320, 803
2096:
2097: \bibitem[]{2505} Efremov, Y.N. 1978, Sov.Astron.Lett., 4, 66
2098:
2099: \bibitem[]{2507} Efremov, Y.N. 1995, AJ, 110, 2757
2100:
2101: \bibitem[]{2509} Efremov, Y.N., \& Elmegreen, B.G. 1998, MNRAS, 299,
2102: 588
2103:
2104: \bibitem[]{816} Elmegreen, B.G. 1979, ApJ, 232, 729 (E79)
2105:
2106: \bibitem[]{2514} Elmegreen, 1989, ApJ, 338, 178
2107:
2108: \bibitem[]{2516} Elmegreen, 1993, ApJ, 411, 170
2109:
2110: \bibitem[]{2522} Elmegreen, B.G. 1997, ApJ, 486, 944
2111:
2112: \bibitem[]{2524} Elmegreen, B.G. 2000, ApJ, 530, 277
2113:
2114: \bibitem[]{2530} Elmegreen, B.G. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 367
2115:
2116: \bibitem[]{822} Elmegreen, B.G. 2005, in The many scales in the
2117: Universe, eds. J. C. del Toro Iniesta, et al. (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
2118: p. 99
2119:
2120: \bibitem[]{2540} Elmegreen, B.G., \& Elmegreen, D.M. 1983, MNRAS, 203,
2121: 31
2122:
2123: \bibitem[]{2543} Elmegreen, B.G., \& Clemens, C. 1985, ApJ, 294, 523
2124:
2125: \bibitem[]{2545} Elmegreen, B.G., \& Elmegreen, D.M. 1987, ApJ, 320,
2126: 182
2127:
2128: \bibitem[]{2551} Elmegreen, B.G., Elmegreen, D.M., Leitner, S. 2003,
2129: ApJ, 590, 271
2130:
2131: \bibitem[]{2559} Fatuzzo, M., Adams, F.C. 2002, ApJ, 570, 210
2132:
2133: \bibitem[]{2561} Fatuzzo, M., Adams, F.C., \& Myers, P.C. 2004, ApJ,
2134: 615, 813
2135:
2136: \bibitem[]{2564} Fiege, J.D., \& Pudritz, R.E. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 105
2137:
2138: \bibitem[]{2568} Flower, D.R., Pinneau des For\^{e}ts, G., \& Walmsley,
2139: C.M. 2005, A\&A, 436, 933
2140:
2141: \bibitem[]{2573} Fukui, Y. 2007, in Triggered Star Formation in a
2142: Turbulent Interstellar Medium, ed. B. G. Elmegreen \& J. Palou\v{s},
2143: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press), 40
2144:
2145: \bibitem[]{2577} Furuya, R.S., Kitamura, Y., \& Shinnaga, H. 2006, ApJ,
2146: 653, 1369
2147:
2148: \bibitem[]{2580} Gammie, C.F., Lin, Y.-T., Stone, J.M., \& Ostriker,
2149: E.C. 2003, ApJ, 592, 203
2150:
2151: \bibitem[]{830} Gao, Y. \& Solomon, P.M. 2004a, ApJ, 609, 271
2152:
2153: \bibitem[]{2585} Gao, Y., \& Solomon, P.M. 2004b, ApJS, 152, 63
2154:
2155: \bibitem[]{2592} Glenn, J., Walker, C.K., \& Young, E.T. 1999, ApJ,
2156: 511, 812
2157:
2158: \bibitem[]{2595} Glover, S.C.O., \& Mac Low, M.-M. 2007, ApJ, 659,
2159: 1317
2160:
2161: \bibitem[]{2598} Goldreich, P., \& Lynden-Bell, D. 1965, MNRAS, 130,
2162: 125
2163:
2164: \bibitem[]{2601} Gomez, M., Hartmann, L., Kenyon, S. J. \& Hewett, R.
2165: 1993, AJ, 105, 1927
2166:
2167: \bibitem[]{1617} Grabelsky, D. A., Cohen, R. S., Bronfman, L.,
2168: Thaddeus, P., \& May, J. 1987, ApJ, 315, 122
2169:
2170: \bibitem[]{2607} Greaves, J.S., Holland, W.S., \& Murray, A.G. 1995,
2171: ApJ, 297, L49
2172:
2173: \bibitem[]{2610} Gutermuth, R.A., Megeath, S.T., Pipher, J.L.,
2174: Williams, J.P., Allen, L.E., Myers, P.C., \& Raines, S. N. 2005,
2175: ApJ, 632, 397
2176:
2177: \bibitem[]{2614} Hartmann, L., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., \& Bergin, E.A.
2178: 2001, ApJ, 562, 852
2179:
2180: \bibitem[]{2621} Heitsch, F., Slyz, A. D., Devriendt, J.E.G., Hartmann,
2181: L.W., \& Burkert, A. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1052
2182:
2183: \bibitem[]{2624} Heydari-Malayeri, M., Charmandaris, V., Deharveng, L.,
2184: Rosa, M. R., Schaerer, D., \& Zinnecker, H. 2001, A\&A, 372, 527
2185:
2186: \bibitem[]{2627} Heitsch, F., Zweibel, E., Slyz, A.D., \& Devriendt,
2187: J.E.G. 2004, ApJ, 603, 165
2188:
2189: \bibitem[]{2630} Heitsch, F., Slyz, A.D., Devriendt, J.E.G., \&
2190: Burkert, A. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1379
2191:
2192: \bibitem[]{2636} Holland, W.S., Greaves, J.S., Ward-Thompson, D., \&
2193: Andr\'e, P. 1996, A\&A, 309, 267
2194:
2195: \bibitem[]{2639} Honma, M., Sofue, Y., \& Arimoto, N. 1995, A\&A, 304,
2196: 1
2197:
2198: \bibitem[]{2642} Huff, E.M., \& Stahler, S.W. 2006, ApJ, 644, 355
2199:
2200: \bibitem[]{2644} Hujeirat, A., Camenzind, M., \& Yorke, H. W. 2000,
2201: A\&A, 354, 1041
2202:
2203: \bibitem[]{2649} Iglesias-P\'aramo, J. et al. 2006, ApJS, 164, 38
2204:
2205: \bibitem[]{2651} Jappsen, A.-K., Klessen, R. S., Larson, R. B., Li, Y.,
2206: \& Mac Low, M.-M. 2005, ApJ, 435, 611
2207:
2208: \bibitem[]{2654} Jijina, J., Myers, P.C., \& Adams, F.C. 1999, ApJS,
2209: 125, 161
2210:
2211: \bibitem[]{2197} Johnstone, D., Fich, M., Mitchell, G. F., \& Moriarty-Schieven, G. 2001, ApJ, 559, 307
2212:
2213: \bibitem[]{2199} Johnstone, D., Wilson, C. D., \& Moriarty-Schieven, G., et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, 327
2214:
2215: \bibitem[]{2662} J{\o}rgensen, J.K., Johnstone, D., Kirk, H., \& Myers,
2216: P.C. 2007, ApJ, 656, 293
2217:
2218: \bibitem[]{840} Kamaya, H., \& Nishi, R. 2000, ApJ, 543, 257
2219:
2220: \bibitem[]{2667} Kawamura, A., Minamidani, T., Mizuno, Y., Onishi, T.,
2221: Mizuno, N., Mizuno, A., Fukui, T. 2007, in Triggered Star Formation
2222: in a Turbulent Interstellar Medium, ed. B. G. Elmegreen \& J.
2223: Palou\v{s}, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press), 101
2224:
2225: \bibitem[]{842} Kennicutt, R.C., Jr. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541
2226:
2227: \bibitem[]{2678} Kim, W.-T. 2007, in Triggered Star formation in a
2228: turbulent ISM, ed. B.G. Elmegreen \& J. Palous, IAU Symposium 237,
2229: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), in press
2230:
2231: \bibitem[]{2682} Kim, W.-T., Ostriker, E.C., \& Stone, J.M. 2002, ApJ,
2232: 581, 1080
2233:
2234: \bibitem[]{2685} Kim, W.-T., \& Ostriker, E. C. 2002, ApJ, 570, 132
2235:
2236: \bibitem[]{2687} Kim, W.-T., \& Ostriker, E. C. 2006, ApJ, 646, 213
2237:
2238: \bibitem[]{2689} Kim, W.-T., \& Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1232
2239:
2240: \bibitem[]{2694} Kirk, J.M., Ward-Thompson, D., \& Andr\'e, P. 2005,
2241: MNRAS, 360, 1506
2242:
2243: \bibitem[]{2697} Kirk, J.M., Ward-Thompson, D., \& Andr\'e, P. 2007,
2244: MNRAS, 375, 843
2245:
2246: \bibitem[]{2700} Koda, J., Sawada, T., Hasegawa, T., Scoville, N.Z.
2247: 2006, ApJ, 638, 191
2248:
2249: \bibitem[]{2235} Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231
2250:
2251: \bibitem[]{844} Krumholz, M.R., \& McKee, C.F. 2005, ApJ, 630, 250
2252:
2253: \bibitem[]{2708} Krumholz, M.R., Matzner, C.D., \& McKee, C.F. 2006,
2254: ApJ, 653, 361
2255:
2256: \bibitem[]{2711} Krumholz, M.R., \& Tan, J.C. 2007, ApJ, 654, 304
2257:
2258: \bibitem[]{2713} Kudoh, T.., \& Basu, S. 2007, in Triggered star
2259: formation in a turbulent interstellar medium, IAU Symposium 237,
2260: eds. B.G. Elmegreen \& J. Palo\v{s}, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ
2261: Press), in press
2262:
2263: \bibitem[]{2718} Lada C. J., Margulis M., \& Dearborn D., 1984, ApJ,
2264: 285, 141
2265:
2266: \bibitem[]{846} Lada, C.J., \& Lada, E.A. 2003, ARAA, 41, 57
2267:
2268: \bibitem[]{2723} Lai, S.-P., Crutcher, R.M., Girart, J.M., \& Rao, R.
2269: 2002, ApJ, 566, 924
2270:
2271: \bibitem[]{2257} Larson, R.B. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809
2272:
2273: \bibitem[]{2728} La Vigne, M.A., Vogel, S.N., \& Ostriker, E.C. 2006,
2274: ApJ, 650, 818
2275:
2276: \bibitem[]{2731} Lee, C.W., \& Myers, P.C. 1999, ApJS, 123, 233
2277:
2278: \bibitem[]{2733} Lee, C.W., Myers, P.C., \& Tafalla, M. 2001, ApJS,
2279: 136, 703
2280:
2281: \bibitem[]{2738} Leisawitz, D., Bash, F.N., \& Thaddeus, P. 1989, ApJS,
2282: 70, 731
2283:
2284: \bibitem[]{2744} Li, P.S., Norman, M.L., Mac Low, M.-M., \& Heitsch, F.
2285: 2004, ApJ, 605, 800
2286:
2287: \bibitem[]{2747} Li, Z.Y., \& Nakamura, F. 2002, ApJ, 578, 256
2288:
2289: \bibitem[]{2749} Li, Z.Y., \& Nakamura, F. 2004, ApJ, 609, L83
2290:
2291: \bibitem[]{2277} Li, Z.-Y. \& Nakamura, F. 2006, ApJ, 640, L187
2292:
2293: \bibitem[]{2756} Lintott, C.J. et al. 2005, ApJ, 620, 795
2294:
2295: \bibitem[]{2763} Mac Low, M.-M. 1999, ApJ, 524, 169
2296:
2297: \bibitem[]{2765} Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S., Burkert, A., \& Smith,
2298: M. D. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 2754
2299:
2300: \bibitem[]{2768} Mac Low, M.-M., \& Klessen, R.S. 2004, RvMP, 76, 125
2301:
2302: \bibitem[]{2774} Martel, H., Evans, N.J., II., \& Shapiro, P.R. 2006,
2303: ApJS, 163, 122
2304:
2305: \bibitem[]{2780} Matthews, B.C., Lai, S.-P., Crutcher, R.M., \& Wilson,
2306: C.D. 2005, ApJ, 626, 959
2307:
2308: \bibitem[]{861} McKee, C.F. 1989, ApJ, 345, 782
2309:
2310: \bibitem[]{2787} McKee, C. F., Zweibel, E. G., Goodman, A. A., \&
2311: Heiles, C. 1993, in Protostars and Planets III, ed. E.H. Levy \&
2312: J.I. Lunine, (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 327
2313:
2314: \bibitem[]{2795} Mestel, L. 1965, QJRAS, 6, 265
2315:
2316: \bibitem[]{2302} Motte, F., Andr\'e, P., \& Neri, R. 1998, A\&A, 336, 150
2317:
2318: \bibitem[]{2304} Motte, F., Andr\'e, P., Ward-Thompson, D., \& Bontemps, S. 2001, A\&A,
2319: 372, L41
2320:
2321: \bibitem[]{2797} Mouschovias, T.C. 1976, ApJ, 207, 141
2322:
2323: \bibitem[]{2801} Mouschovias, T.C. 1991, in The Physics of Star
2324: Formation and Early Stellar Evolution, ed. C.J. Lada \& N. D.
2325: Kylafis (Dordrecht: Klewer), 449
2326:
2327: \bibitem[]{2805} Mouschovias, T.C., \& Spitzer, L., Jr. 1976, ApJ, 210,
2328: 326
2329:
2330: \bibitem[]{2808} Mouschovias, T.C., Tassis, K., \& Kunz, M.W. 2006,
2331: ApJ, 646, 1043
2332:
2333: \bibitem[]{2811} Myers, P.C. 2005, ApJ, 623, 280
2334:
2335: \bibitem[]{2813} Myers, P.C., Fuller, G.A., Goodman, A.A., \& Benson,
2336: P.J. 1991, ApJ, 376, 561
2337:
2338: \bibitem[]{871} Myers, P.C., \& Khersonsky, V.K. 1995, ApJ, 442,
2339: 186
2340:
2341: \bibitem[]{873} Nakamura, F., \& Li, Z.-Y. 2005, ApJ, 631, 411
2342:
2343: \bibitem[]{2329} Nakamura, F. \& Li, Z.-Y. 2007, ApJ, 662, 395
2344:
2345: \bibitem[]{2825} Nakamura, F., Hanawa, T., \& Nakano, T. 1993, PASJ,
2346: 45, 551
2347:
2348: \bibitem[]{2828} Nakano, T. 1998, ApJ, 494, 587
2349:
2350: \bibitem[]{2830} Nakano, T. \& Tademaru, E. 1972, ApJ, 173, 87
2351:
2352: \bibitem[]{875} Nakano, T., \& Nakamura, T. 1978, PASJ, 30, 671
2353:
2354: \bibitem[]{2834} Nakano, T., \& Umebayashi, T. 1986, MNRAS, 218, 663
2355:
2356: \bibitem[]{2836} Nanda Kumar, M. S., Kamath, U. S., Davis, C. J. 2004,
2357: MNRAS, 353, 1025
2358:
2359: \bibitem[]{2843} Norman, C. \& Silk, J. 1980, ApJ, 238, 158
2360:
2361: \bibitem[]{881} Omont, A. 1986, A\&A, 164, 159
2362:
2363: \bibitem[]{2847} Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Tachihara, K.,
2364: \& Fukui, Y. 2002, ApJ, 575, 950
2365:
2366: \bibitem[]{2854} Padoan, P., Juvela, M., Bally, J., \& Nordlund, A.
2367: 1998, ApJ, 504, 300
2368:
2369: \bibitem[]{2857} Padoan, P., \& Nordlund, A. 1999, ApJ, 526, 279
2370:
2371: \bibitem[]{2859} Padoan, P., \& Nordlund, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 870
2372:
2373: \bibitem[]{887} Padoan, P., Willacy, K., Langer, W., \& Juvela, M.
2374: 2004, ApJ, 614, 203
2375:
2376: \bibitem[]{890} Padoan, P. \& Scalo, J. 2005, ApJ, 624, L97
2377:
2378: \bibitem[]{2866} Padoan, P., Nordlund, A., Kritsuk, A.G., Norman, M.L.
2379: 2007, astroph/0701795
2380:
2381: \bibitem[]{2871} Palla, F., \& Stahler, S.W. 2000, ApJ, 540, 255
2382:
2383: \bibitem[]{2875} Pan, K., Federman, S.R., Sheffer, Y., \& Anderson,
2384: B.-G. 2005, ApJ, 633, 986
2385:
2386: \bibitem[]{2878} Patel, K., \& Pudritz, R.E. 1994, ApJ, 424, 488
2387:
2388: \bibitem[]{2880} Pelupessy, F.I., Papadopoulos, P.P., \& van der Werf,
2389: P. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1024
2390:
2391: \bibitem[]{2883} Peretto, N., Andr\'e, Ph., \& Belloche, A. 2006, A\&A,
2392: 445, 979
2393:
2394: \bibitem[]{2886} Pinto, F. 1987, PASP, 99, 1161
2395:
2396: \bibitem[]{2888} Piontek, R.A., \& Ostriker, E.C. 2005, ApJ, 629, 849
2397:
2398: \bibitem[]{2890} Polk, K. S., Knapp, G. R., Stark, A. A., \& Wilson, R.
2399: W. 1988, ApJ, 332, 432
2400:
2401: \bibitem[]{2893} Quillen, A., Thorndike, S., Cunningham, A., Frank, A.,
2402: Gutermuth, R., Blackman, E., Pipher, J., \& Ridge, N. 2005, ApJ,
2403: 632, 941
2404:
2405: \bibitem[]{2897} Rand, R.J., \& Kulkarni, S.R. 1990, ApJ, 349, L43
2406:
2407: \bibitem[]{2899} Roberts, D.A., Crutcher, R.M., \& Troland, T.H. 1997,
2408: ApJ, 479, 318
2409:
2410: \bibitem[]{2296} Rosolowsky, E. \& Blitz, L. 2005, ApJ, 623, 826
2411:
2412: \bibitem[]{2906} Ryden, B.S. 1996, ApJ, 471, 822
2413:
2414: \bibitem[]{2915} Scoville, N.Z., \& Solomon, P.M. 1975, ApJ, 199, L105
2415:
2416: \bibitem[]{2920} Shetty, R., \& Ostriker, E.C. 2006, 647, 997
2417:
2418: \bibitem[]{2922} Shu, F.H. 1983, ApJ, 273, 202
2419:
2420: \bibitem[]{902} Shu, F.H., Adams, F.C., \& Lizano, S. 1987, ARAA,
2421: 25, 23
2422:
2423: \bibitem[]{2929} Smith, M.D., Gredel, R., Khanzadyan, et al. 2005,
2424: MmSAI, 76, 247
2425:
2426: \bibitem[]{2932} Solomon, P. M., Sanders, D. B., \& Scoville, N. Z.
2427: 1979, in The large-scale characteristics of the galaxy, ed. W.B.
2428: Burton, (Dordrecht: Reidel) p. 35
2429:
2430: \bibitem[]{2936} Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., \& Yahil,
2431: A. 1987, ApJ, 319, 730
2432:
2433: \bibitem[]{2945} Stanke, T., Smith, M.D., Gredel, R., \& Khanzadyan, T.
2434: 2006, A\&A, 447, 609
2435:
2436: \bibitem[]{2948} Steinacker, J., Bacmann, A., Henning, Th., Klessen,
2437: R., \& Stickel, M. 2005, A\&A, 434, 167
2438:
2439: \bibitem[]{2951} Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C., \& Gammie, C. F. 1998,
2440: ApJ, 508, L99
2441:
2442: \bibitem[]{2954} St\"utzki, J., Bensch, F., Heithausen, A., Ossenkopf,
2443: V., \& Zielinsky, M. 1998, A\&A, 336, 697
2444:
2445: \bibitem[]{2959} Tachihara, K., Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., \& Fukui, Y.
2446: 2002, A\&A, 385, 909
2447:
2448: \bibitem[]{2962} Tafalla, M., Mardones, D., Myers, P.C., Caselli, P.
2449: Bachiller, R., \& Benson, P.J. 1998, ApJ, 504, 900
2450:
2451: \bibitem[]{2973} Tan, J.C., Krumholz, M.R., \& McKee, C.F. 2006, ApJ,
2452: 641, L121
2453:
2454: \bibitem[]{2976} Tassis, K., \& Mouschovias, T.C. 2004, ApJ, 616, 283
2455:
2456: \bibitem[]{2980} Testi, L., Sargent, A.I., Olmi, L et al. 2000, ApJ,
2457: 540, 53
2458:
2459: \bibitem[]{2445} Testi, L., \& Sargent, A. I. 1998, ApJ, 508, L91
2460:
2461: \bibitem[]{2983} Tilley, D.A. \& Pudritz, R.E. 2005, JRASC, 99, 132
2462:
2463: \bibitem[]{2985} Tomisaka, K. 1995, ApJ, 438, 226
2464:
2465: \bibitem[]{2987} Tomisaka, K., Ikeuchi, S., \& Nakamura, T. 1988, ApJ,
2466: 335, 239
2467:
2468: \bibitem[]{2990} Tomisaka, K., Ikeuchi, S., \& Nakamura, T. 1990, ApJ,
2469: 362, 202
2470:
2471: \bibitem[]{2993} Troland, T.H., Crutcher, R.M., Goodman, A.A., Heiles,
2472: C., Kaz\`es, I., \& Myers, P.C. 1996, ApJ, 471, 302
2473:
2474: \bibitem[]{2998} Uchida, K.I., Fiebig, D., \& G\"usten, R. 2001,
2475: A\&A, 371, 274
2476:
2477: \bibitem[]{917} Umebayashi, T., \& Nakano, T. 1990, MNRAS, 243, 103
2478:
2479: \bibitem[]{3005} Vacca, W.D., Garmany, C.D., \& Shull, J.M. 1996, ApJ,
2480: 460, 914
2481:
2482: \bibitem[]{3010} V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., Kim, J., \&
2483: Ballesteros-Parades, J. 2005, ApJ, 630, L49
2484:
2485: \bibitem[]{3013} V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., Kim, J., Shadmehri, M., \&
2486: Ballesteros-Paredes, J. 2005, ApJ, 618, 344
2487:
2488: \bibitem[]{3016} Verschueren, W. 1990, A\&A, 234, 156
2489:
2490: \bibitem[]{3018} Verschuur, G.L. 1993, AJ, 106, 2580
2491:
2492: \bibitem[]{3024} Walsh, A.J., Myers, P.C., \& Burton, M.G. 2004, ApJ,
2493: 614, 194
2494:
2495: \bibitem[]{3027} Walsh, A.J., Bourke, T.L., \& Myers, P.C. 2006, ApJ,
2496: 637, 860
2497:
2498: \bibitem[]{3030} Walsh, A.J., Myers, P.C., Di Francesco, J., Mohanty,
2499: S. Bourke, T.L., Gutermuth, R., \& Wilner, D. 2007, ApJ, 655, 958
2500:
2501: \bibitem[]{3037} Whitworth, A. 1979, MNRAS, 186, 59
2502:
2503: \bibitem[]{2387_02} Williamsn, J.P. \& McKee, C.F. 1997, ApJ, 476, 166
2504:
2505: \bibitem[]{3043} Williams, J.P., Myers, P.C., Wilner, D.J., \& Di
2506: Francesco, J. 1999, ApJ, 513, L61
2507:
2508: \bibitem[]{3046} Williams, J.P., \& Myers, P.C. 1999, ApJ, 518, L37
2509:
2510: \bibitem[]{3048} Williams, J.P., Lee, C.W., \& Myers, P.C. 2006, ApJ,
2511: 636, 952
2512:
2513: \bibitem[]{3051} Wong, T. \& Blitz, L. 2002, ApJ, 569, 157
2514:
2515: \bibitem[]{3053} Wu, J., Evans, N.J., II., Gao, Y., Solomon, P.M.,
2516: Shirley, Y.L., \& Vanden Bout, P.A. 2005, ApJ, 635, L173
2517:
2518: \bibitem[]{3056} Wu, Y., Zhu, M., Wei, Y., Xu, D., Zhang, Q., Fiege,
2519: J.D. 2005, ApJ, 628, L57
2520:
2521: \bibitem[]{3062} Zimmer, P., Rand, R. J., \& McGraw, J. T. 2004, ApJ,
2522: 607, 285
2523:
2524: \bibitem[]{3067} Zuckerman, B., \& Evans, N.J. II 1974, ApJ, 192, L149
2525:
2526: \bibitem[]{3069} Zweibel, E.G. 2002, ApJ, 567, 962
2527:
2528:
2529: \end{thebibliography}
2530:
2531: \clearpage
2532:
2533: %fig1
2534: \begin{figure}\epsscale{.6}
2535: \plotone{f1.eps}\caption{(bottom) The Lyman continuum luminosity in
2536: photons per second (solid line) is shown versus the cluster mass,
2537: using data in Vacca et al. (1996). 1000 cluster samples are made for
2538: each mass, and each cluster is formed by randomly sampling an IMF.
2539: The dashed line (right-hand axis) shows the rms deviation around the
2540: average luminosity that comes from the stochastic sampling. The
2541: Lyman continuum luminosity sharply increases for clusters more
2542: massive than $\sim10^3$ M$_\odot$ because this is the mass where the
2543: IMF is typically sampled out to the O-star range. (top) The total
2544: luminosity of the cluster is shown versus the cluster mass, along
2545: with the rms deviations from the sampling.
2546: }\label{fig:vacca2}\end{figure}
2547: %fig2
2548: \begin{figure}\epsscale{1}
2549: \plotone{f2.eps}\caption{Models based on the Huff \& Stahler (2006)
2550: formulism with energy input from stars. The bottom panels show cloud
2551: radius, star formation rate, and cluster mass versus the absolute
2552: time, and the top panels show these quantities versus the relative
2553: time, which is the absolute time divided by the instantaneous
2554: dynamical time for the average density inside the cloud. The numbers
2555: in the top middle panel are the product of the instantaneous
2556: crossing rate at the peak in the star formation rate (and at the
2557: peak density) multiplied by the duration of star formation, which is
2558: the time interval between the half-peaks in the star formation rate
2559: shown in the lower middle panel. These models assume the luminosity
2560: of the cluster increases linearly with cluster mass ($\gamma=1$) and
2561: they assume the initial cloud mass is $10^3$ M$_\odot$. This would
2562: be analogous to the Taurus clouds or other regions of low-mass star
2563: formation. The total duration of star formation can be long in
2564: absolute terms, so fairly old stars can be present in such a region
2565: (as indicated by the long absolute times in the lower panels), but
2566: the main activity is always finished in only a few instantaneous
2567: crossing times, as indicated by the small values of $\Delta {\rm
2568: Time}\*\left(G\rho\right)^{0.5}$ in the top middle
2569: panel.}\label{fig:huffr}\end{figure}
2570: %fig3
2571: \begin{figure}\epsscale{1}
2572: \plotone{f3.eps}\caption{The same cluster formation model as in Fig.
2573: 2 except for a cloud mass of $10^4$ M$_\odot$. The collapse of
2574: massive clouds is difficult to turn around by non-ionizing
2575: radiation, which is the case for this $\gamma=1$ run. This is
2576: unrealistic, however, because such a massive cloud will form
2577: high-mass stars and then $\gamma>>1$. $\Gamma=2.68$ is an extreme
2578: case because it forms too many stars (a 64\% final efficiency).
2579: }\label{fig:huffp}\end{figure}
2580: %fig4
2581: \begin{figure}\epsscale{1}
2582: \plotone{f4.eps}\caption{The cluster formation model with the same
2583: high mass as in Fig. 3, except now with a sensitive relation between
2584: cluster mass and luminosity using $\gamma=2$. This model applies to
2585: high mass regions that form O-type stars. As in the other models,
2586: the duration of star formation is always short in terms of the
2587: instantaneous crossing time, but the total age span for the stars
2588: can be large in absolute terms. $\Gamma=0.0022$ is an extreme case
2589: because it forms too many stars (a 67\% final
2590: efficiency).}\label{fig:huffq}\end{figure}
2591:
2592: %fig5
2593: \begin{figure}\epsscale{1}
2594: \plotone{f5_small.eps} \caption{A section of the southern inner arm
2595: of M51 from the full-resolution Hubble Heritage image. The overall
2596: dimensions are 3.49 by 1.65 kpc. There are 2 giant cloud complexes
2597: in the main dust lane ($10^7$ M$_\odot$). Each has embedded HII
2598: regions, showing that star formation begins very soon after cloud
2599: formation with no significant downstream displacement. The
2600: post-shock flow is mostly from left to right in this figure as the
2601: gas streams along the spiral arm. The feathers of dust clouds below
2602: the main dust lane are twisted remnants of former cloud complexes in
2603: which star formation has dispersed the cores. Many filaments or
2604: ribbons of dust surround complexes of bright blue stars, suggesting
2605: pressurized dispersal. Star formation lingers in the filaments and
2606: in other debris because of triggering from these pressures and
2607: because of parallel collapse along the filaments into dense knots.
2608: The lowest density regions do not show star formation. These low
2609: density regions are presumably the envelopes and shredded debris of
2610: former GMCs. They appear to last a relatively long time; some even
2611: get to the next spiral arm (not shown) [Image degraded for astroph].
2612: }\label{fig:m51blowup}\end{figure}
2613:
2614: \end{document}
2615: