1: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

4: \documentclass{emulateapj}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

9: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

10: \def\etal{et al.\ \rm}

11: 

12: \title{Cooling of young stars growing by disk accretion.}

13: 

14: \author{Roman R. Rafikov\altaffilmark{1,2}}

15: \altaffiltext{1}{CITA, McLennan Physics Labs, 60 St. George St., 

16: University of Toronto, Toronto ON M5S 3H8 Canada; rrr@cita.utoronto.ca}

17: \altaffiltext{2}{Canada Research Chair}

18: 

19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

20: 

21: \begin{abstract}

22: In the initial formation stages young stars must 

23: acquire a significant fraction of their mass by accretion from a 

24: circumstellar disk that forms in the center of a collapsing protostellar 

25: cloud. Throughout this period mass accretion rates through the disk 

26: can reach $10^{-6}-10^{-5}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ leading to 

27: substantial energy release in the vicinity of stellar surface.

28: We study the impact of irradiation of the stellar surface produced 

29: by the hot inner disk on properties of accreting fully 

30: convective low-mass stars, and also look at objects such as young 

31: brown dwarfs and giant planets. At high accretion rates irradiation 

32: raises the surface temperature of the equatorial region 

33: above the photospheric temperature $T_0$ that a star would 

34: have in the absence of accretion. The high-latitude (polar) 

35: parts of the stellar surface, where disk irradiation is weak, 

36: preserve their temperature at the level of $T_0$. In strongly 

37: irradiated regions an almost isothermal outer radiative zone 

38: forms on top of the fully convective interior, leading

39: to the suppression of the local internal cooling flux derived from 

40: stellar contraction (similar suppression occurs in 

41: irradiated ``hot Jupiters''). Properties of this radiative 

42: zone likely determine the amount of thermal energy that gets advected 

43: into the convective interior of the star. 

44: Total intrinsic luminosity integrated over the whole stellar 

45: surface is reduced compared to the non-accreting case, by 

46: up to a factor of several in some systems (young brown dwarfs, 

47: stars in quasar disks, forming giants planets),

48: potentially leading to 

49: the retardation of stellar contraction.

50: Stars and brown dwarfs irradiated by their disks tend to lose energy 

51: predominantly through their cool polar regions while young giant 

52: planets accreting through the disk cool through their whole surface.

53: \end{abstract}

54: \keywords{planets and satellites: formation --- 

55: solar system: formation}

56: 

57: 

58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

60: 

61: \section{Introduction.}

62: \label{sect:intro}

63: 

64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

65: 

66: 

67: Our understanding of advanced stages of star formation (T Tauri

68: and later phases) has been significantly

69: improved with the advent of infrared, 

70: submillimeter, and high-resolution optical observatories

71: such as HST and Spitzer. At the same time a great deal of 

72: uncertainty still remains regarding the earliest, so-called

73: Class 0 and Class I, stages of the star formation process. In the 

74: conventional nomenclature, Class 0 stars are the protostellar

75: cloud cores in the very beginning of their collapse, while

76: Class I are the protostars embedded within an envelope of circumstellar 

77: material that is infalling, accumulating in the centrifugally

78: supported disk, and being accreted by the protostars. 

79: 

80: At present, our knowledge exhibits a significant gap when 

81: it comes to describing the actual buildup of the stellar 

82: mass, from $M_\star=0~M_\odot$

83: in the Class 0 phase to $M_\star\sim 1~M_\odot$ in the end of

84: Class I phase. From the observational point of view the major 

85: reasons for this 

86: are (1) the heavy obscuration provided by the increased 

87: densities in the central part of the infalling  protostellar

88: core and the molecular cloud as a whole and (2) the 

89: difficulty in deriving the spectra of the

90: central objects, namely distinguishing between the 

91: intrinsic protostellar and accretion luminosities.

92: At the same time, our ignorance concerns not only the 

93: history of {\it mass} 

94: accumulation by the protostars. Thermodynamical state of the

95: accumulated gas is also an important ingredient of the 

96: picture. Stars that form out of material with high entropy, 

97: in particular that processed through 

98: the accretion shock, tend to have large sizes, while objects 

99: formed out of the lower entropy gas should be more compact.

100: At the moment the uncertainty in the initial 

101: thermodynamical state of protostellar objects 

102: precludes us from 

103: getting a good handle on the evolutionary tracks of the fully

104: assembled (in terms of mass) protostars in the first $1-10$

105: Myrs after their formation. 

106: %(D'Antona \& Mazzitelli 1994; 

107: %Palla \& Stahler 1999; Siess \etal 2000). 

108: Beyond 

109: about 10 Myrs, when the initial conditions become largely 

110: forgotten, the evolution tracks calculated under

111: different assumptions about the initial conditions typically

112: converge (Baraffe \etal 2002). However, prior to this stage 

113: there are significant discrepancies between the results of

114: different groups, and the uncertainty in the initial 

115: conditions for such calculations is the prime suspect for 

116: the difference. 

117: 

118: It is generally accepted that the conservation of the angular 

119: momentum in the collapsing protostellar cloud results in 

120: accumulation of the collapsed gas in a rotationally-supported 

121: disk in the cloud center. Only a small fraction 

122: of the cloud mass has low enough angular momentum to 

123: collapse directly into the protostellar core. The majority of  

124: stellar mass is most likely accumulated by accretion from the 

125: disk. According to observations, Class I stars acquire most 

126: of their mass on timescale of several $10^5$ yrs

127: which implies that disks around these objects must exhibit time averaged 

128: mass accretion rates of $\dot M \sim 10^{-6}-10^{-5}$ 

129: M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. Accretion luminosity released in processing 

130: such large mass flux through the disk exceeds the intrinsic

131: luminosity of the protostar. This immediately raises 

132: an issue of the possible non-trivial radiative coupling between 

133: the protostar and its circumstellar disk. 

134: 

135: Effects of disk accretion on structure of young stars 

136: have been investigated by Mercer-Smith \etal (1984), 

137: Palla \& Stahler (1992), Siess \& Forestini (1996),

138: Hartmann \etal (1997), Siess \etal (1997, 1999). 

139: %In particular, these studies have generally found that 

140: %if accreted material is able to lose its thermal energy 

141: %rapidly, before its full incorporation into star, then

142: %star contracts more rapidly than in the absence of 

143: %accretion. 

144: Some of these authors studies how the heat advected 

145: into the star with the freshly accreted material affects 

146: protostellar properties. However, none of these investigations 

147: looked at the effect of heat deposited at the stellar 

148: {\it surface} by radiation originating in the inner parts 

149: of the circumstellar disk, where most of the accretion energy 

150: is released (see Figure \ref{fig:scheme} for a schematic 

151: representation). Given that accretion luminosity may easily 

152: exceed the intrinsic stellar luminosity (luminosity derived from 

153: gravitational contraction, cooling and, possibly, deuterium 

154: burning in stellar interior), omission of this effect may not 

155: be justified in many cases.

156: 

157: 

158: \begin{figure}

159: \plotone{f1.eps}

160: \caption{

161: Schematic representation of stellar illumination  by the disk

162: (slant hashed). Filled region at the point where disk joins the star

163: marks the boundary layer where intense energy dissipation 

164: takes place. Part of radiation emitted by the disk (arrows) gets 

165: intercepted by the star which heating it to temperature $T_{irr}$, 

166: higher than the temperature $T_0$ that a star would have in 

167: the absence of irradiation. Photospheric temperature is

168: preserved at the level of $T_0$ only in the polar regions

169: of the star (marked with dashed lines) where disk illumination

170: is weak. An external radiative zone 

171: (horizontally hashed) forms in the strongly irradiated parts 

172: of the stellar surface.

173: \label{fig:scheme}}

174: \end{figure}

175: 

176: In this paper we investigate stellar irradiation by the 

177: circumstellar disk and address the importance of this effect 

178: in determining the intrinsic luminosity of young stars. We 

179: calculate the spatial distribution of the disk flux on

180: the stellar surface and determine when irradiation is

181: important in \S \ref{sect:T_dist}. The effect of irradiation

182: on stellar cooling is investigated locally in \S 

183: \ref{sect:stellar_cool} and globally in \S 

184: \ref{sect:total_cooling}. Finally, in \S \ref{sect:disc} 

185: we discuss the applications of this study to some real 

186: objects and its possible limitations.

187: 

188: 

189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

190: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

191: 

192: \section{Temperature distribution due to disk irradiation.}

193: \label{sect:T_dist}

194: 

195: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

196: 

197: We start by calculating the distribution on the stellar surface 

198: of the radiative flux $F_{irr}$ produced by the disk.

199: We consider an axisymmetric geometrically thin disk accreting 

200: onto a star with radius $R_\star$ and mass $M_\star$.  

201: Flux $F_{irr}$ intercepted by the star is a function of $\theta$ 

202: -- the angle between the normal to the stellar surface and the 

203: normal to the disk (coincident with the polar axis of the star, 

204: assuming that disk lies in the stellar equatorial plane). 

205: Polar regions of the star are exposed to the radiation 

206: of only the distant, cool parts of the disk, while the equatorial 

207: regions have a direct view to the innermost parts of the disk 

208: where most of the energy is dissipated.

209: One can easily show that a disk extending all the way to the 

210: stellar surface gives rise to irradiation flux $F_{irr}(\theta)$ 

211: given by (Adams \& Shu 1986; Popham 1997)

212: \ba

213: && F_{irr}(\theta)=2\frac{R_\star\cos\theta}{\pi}

214: \int\limits_{R_{in}}^\infty F_d(R)R dR\nonumber\\

215: && \times\int\limits_0^{\phi_c} d\phi\frac{R\sin\theta\cos\phi-R_\star}

216: {(R^2+R_\star^2-2R_\star R\sin\theta\cos\phi)^2}

217: \label{eq:irr_flux}

218: \ea

219: where $R$ is the cylindrical radius, 

220: $\cos\phi_c=R_\star/(r\sin\theta)$, $R_{in}=R_\star/\cos\theta$, 

221: and $F_d(R)$ is the energy radiated by the unit surface area 

222: of the disk per unit of time. In Appendix A we demonstrate 

223: that this expression can be reduced to a one-dimensional 

224: integral which is easier to analyze than equation 

225: (\ref{eq:irr_flux}). 

226: 

227: To find the explicit dependence of $F_{irr}$ on $\theta$ one 

228: needs to know $F_d(R)$ which is determined by the viscous 

229: dissipation in the disk. Studies of steady-state thin accretion disks 

230: have generally found that

231: \ba

232: F_d(R)=\frac{3}{8\pi}\frac{G M_\star \dot M}{R^3}f(R)

233: \label{eq:vis_dissip}

234: \ea

235: where $\dot M$ is a mass accretion rate and the function $f(R)$,

236: embodying the details of the disk emissivity near the stellar 

237: surface, behaves as $f\to 1$ when $R\gg R_\star$. With $F_d$ 

238: given by (\ref{eq:vis_dissip}) one finds

239: \ba

240: F_{irr}(\theta)=\frac{G M_\star \dot M}{R_\star^3}g(\theta),

241: \label{eq:irr_flux_mod}

242: \ea

243: where the dimensionless function $g(\theta)$ is given by equation 

244: (\ref{eq:g}).

245: 

246: A standard disk with zero torque at the stellar surface 

247: (situation appropriate for accretion onto  

248: black holes) has (Shakura \& Sunyaev 1973) 

249: $f(R)=1-(R_\star/R)^{1/2}$. The total viscous dissipation in 

250: such a disk is $\dot E_d = (1/2)GM_\star \dot M/R_\star$ 

251: and the gas at the inner edge of the disk rotates at the local Keplerian 

252: velocity. This is inappropriate in our case since the gas speed 

253: has to match the velocity of the stellar surface at $R=R_\star$

254: (for simplicity assumed to be zero in our case).

255: As a result a boundary layer must form near the stellar surface in 

256: which the azimuthal velocity of the gas is lowered by the viscous 

257: torque from the local Keplerian value to the stellar rotation speed. 

258: Viscous dissipation dramatically 

259: increases gas temperature in this layer creating an additional 

260: source of radiative flux very close to the stellar surface. 

261: Irradiation by the boundary layer emission boosts up the

262: stellar surface temperature in a narrow belt at the equator (with

263: the thickness in $\theta$-direction comparable to the thickness

264: of the boundary layer) above that expected from the irradiation 

265: by the more distant parts of the disk, outside of the boundary layer.

266: Thus, the existence of the boundary layer significantly modifies 

267: disk structure and emissivity near the stellar surface

268: (Popham \etal 1993; Popham \& Narayan 1995) complicating 

269: the calculation of $f(R)$.

270: 

271: Fortunately, it will be shown later in \S 

272: \ref{sect:total_cooling} that cooling of irradiated stars

273: depends only weakly on the behavior of $f(R)$ at $R\sim R_\star$

274: and is thus relatively insensitive to the structure of the 

275: boundary layer. For the mass 

276: accretion rates considered in this work ($10^{-6}-10^{-5}$ 

277: M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$) the geometric thickness of the boundary 

278: layer is rather small, $\lesssim 0.15$ R$_\star$ (Popham \etal 

279: 1993), so that the fraction of the stellar surface covered by 

280: the boundary 

281: layer and affected by the energy dissipation in it is rather small. 

282: For this reason we will further assume for simplicity 

283: that\footnote{Such assumption 

284: results in $\dot E_d = (3/2)GM_\star \dot M/R_\star$, larger 

285: than what can be provided by the change of the potential energy of 

286: disk material, but this inconsistency is not going to strongly 

287: affect our results.} $f(R)\approx 1$. In this case 

288: $F_d$ keeps increasing all the way to the stellar surface [unlike 

289: the zero inner torque case in which $F_d(R_\star)\to 0$] 

290: thus roughly mimicking the contribution of the boundary layer to

291: the disk flux. We plot the behavior of function $g(\theta)$ in Figure 

292: \ref{fig:irr_flux} for both $f(R)=1$ and $f(R)=1-(R_\star/R)^{1/2}$.

293: 

294: \begin{figure}

295: \plotone{f2.eps}

296: \caption{

297: Irradiation flux absorbed by the stellar surface in units of 

298: $GM_\star \dot M/R_\star^3$ as a function of $\theta$. Solid

299: curve corresponds to 

300: $F_d(R)\propto R^{-3}$, dashed curve corresponds to  

301: $F_d(R)\propto R^{-3}[1-(R_\star/R)^{1/2}]$, while the dotted 

302: curve represents asymptotic behavior (\ref{eq:as}).

303: \label{fig:irr_flux}}

304: \end{figure}

305: 

306: Irrespective of the complications related to the existence of 

307: the boundary layer one can derive useful results for

308: $F_{irr}(\theta)$ in two asymptotic regimes. In particular, 

309: using equation (\ref{eq:1D}) one finds that 

310: as $\theta\to\pi/2$ 

311: \ba

312: F_{irr}\to\frac{F_d(R_\star)}{2},~~~~~g\approx\frac{3}{16\pi},

313: \label{eq:T_pi_2}

314: \ea

315: a result that is easy to 

316: understand since any point at the stellar equator receives 

317: disk radiation with uniform temperature corresponding to local

318: disk flux $F_d(R_\star)$

319: from $\pi$ steradian and reemits it into $2\pi$ steradian.

320: In the other limit

321: of $\theta\to 0$ one finds from equation (\ref{eq:1D}) that

322: \ba

323: %F_{irr}(\theta\to 0)\approx I_1\frac{G M_\star \dot M}

324: %{R_\star^3}\sin^5\theta,

325: g\approx I_1\sin^5\theta,

326: \label{eq:as}

327: \ea

328: where constant $I_1$ is given by equation (\ref{eq:I}). One can

329: see from Figure \ref{fig:irr_flux} that approximation (\ref{eq:as}) 

330: works 

331: quite well (better than $22\%$ accuracy) for $\theta\lesssim 0.5$.

332: This asymptotic behavior is insensitive to the details of the 

333: disk emissivity at $R\sim R_\star$ since  polar regions 

334: are irradiated only by parts of the disk at $R\gg R_\star$ where 

335: $f(R)\approx 1$. 

336: 

337: Let us denote $T_0$ and $L_0=4\pi R_\star^2\sigma T_0^4$ 

338: the temperature and luminosity which a star with mass 

339: $M_\star$ and radius $R_\star$ would have in the absence of 

340: irradiation ($\sigma$ is a Stephan-Boltzmann constant). 

341: To characterize the importance of irradiation we introduce 

342: {\it irradiation parameter} $\Lambda$:

343: \ba

344: \Lambda\equiv\frac{GM_\star\dot M}{\sigma T_0^4 R_\star^3}\approx

345: 1.6~M_1\dot M_{-9}R_{11}^{-3}T_{3.5}^{-4},

346: \label{eq:Lambda}

347: \ea

348: where $T_n\equiv T_0/10^n$ K, $R_n\equiv R_\star/10^n$ cm, 

349: $M_1\equiv M_\star/M_\odot$, and 

350: $\dot M_n\equiv \dot M/(10^n~M_\odot~ {\rm yr}^{-1})$.

351: By construction, $\Lambda$ is roughly the ratio of accretion 

352: luminosity and the stellar luminosity $L_0$ in the absence 

353: of irradiation.

354: 

355: When irradiation is 

356: allowed for the photospheric temperature of the star $T_{ph}$ 

357: is a function of $\theta$ since 

358: energy balance in steady state requires 

359: \ba

360: \sigma T_{ph}^4(\theta) = \sigma T_{irr}^4(\theta) + F_{in}

361: \label{eq:balance}

362: \ea

363: at each point on the stellar surface, 

364: where $F_{in}$ is 

365: the intrinsic energy flux coming from the stellar interior 

366: (derived from cooling of the stellar interior, 

367: gravitational contraction, and D burning) and

368: \ba

369: && T_{irr}(\theta)\equiv \left[\frac{F_{irr}(\theta)}

370: {\sigma}\right]^{1/4}=T_0\left(\Lambda g\right)^{1/4}\\ 

371: && \approx 3.5\times 10^4  ~\mbox{K}

372: \left(M_1\dot M_{-5}R_{11}^{-3}\right)^{1/4}g^{1/4}.

373: \nonumber

374: \label{eq:T_irr}

375: \ea

376: Equation (\ref{eq:balance}) assumes that all radiation intercepted 

377: by the star gets fully absorbed by its surface and reflection is 

378: negligible. Our discussion can be easily extended

379: for the case of non-zero stellar albedo.

380: 

381: In the absence of irradiation $F_{in}=\sigma T_0^4$.  

382: With irradiation the local flux emitted by the photosphere

383: $\sigma T_{ph}^4$ exceeds $\sigma T_0^4$, but the 

384: intrinsic stellar flux $F_{in}$ derived from the gravitational 

385: contraction and cooling of the stellar interior

386: actually becomes smaller than $\sigma T_0^4$ as we 

387: demonstrate in \S \ref{sect:1D}. 

388: 

389: 

390: 

391: We define the regime of {\it weak} irradiation as that 

392: corresponding to low $\dot M$ such that 

393: \ba

394: T_{irr}(\theta)\lesssim T_0

395: \label{eq:weak_condition}

396: \ea

397: for any $\theta$ (i.e. $\Lambda g\ll 1$). As the irradiation 

398: is more intense near the stellar equator, weak irradiation

399: at {\it any} point on the stellar surface requires 

400: $T_{irr}(\pi/2)\lesssim T_0$ (or $\Lambda\lesssim 1$), 

401: or accretion rates lower than 

402: \ba

403: && \dot M_c\approx \frac{16\pi}{3}\frac{R_\star^3\sigma T_0^4}

404: {G M_\star}\nonumber\\

405: && \approx 10^{-8}T_{3.5}^4 R_{11}^3 M_1^{-1}~

406: {\rm M}_\odot ~{\rm yr}^{-1}.

407: \label{eq:crit_M_dot}

408: \ea

409: Energy dissipation in the equatorial boundary layer (which we 

410: do not account for here) can heat equatorial region  

411: above $T_0$ even at $\dot M\lesssim  \dot M_c$, but this heating 

412: does not spread very far from the equator and 

413: does little to affect the large scale stellar structure.

414: 

415: A regime of {\it strong} irradiation is defined as that 

416: corresponding to $\dot M\gtrsim \dot M_c$ ($\Lambda\gg 1$) 

417: so that at least some parts of the stellar surface have 

418: \ba

419: T_{irr}(\theta)\gtrsim T_0

420: \label{eq:strong_condition}

421: \ea

422: (or $\Lambda g \gtrsim 1$).

423: Initially this condition is satisfied only near the stellar 

424: equator where an irradiated belt with 

425: $T_{irr}(\theta)\gtrsim T_0$  forms. As $\dot M$ increases 

426: this belt expands in $\theta$-direction, although rather 

427: slowly since $F_{irr}$ is a rapidly decreasing function of 

428: $\theta$, see Figure \ref{fig:irr_flux}. 

429: As will be shown in \S \ref{sect:1D}, in irradiated regions 

430: the intrinsic energy flux $F_{in}$ coming from the stellar 

431: interior is suppressed compared 

432: to $\sigma T_0^4$ so that the effective temperature of the 

433: irradiated part of the star can be well approximated by 

434: \ba

435: T_{ph}\approx T_{irr}(\theta).

436: \label{eq:irr_temp}

437: \ea

438: Transition between the low-latitude irradiated region 

439: and the high-latitude part of the stellar surface where 

440: $T_{ph}\approx T_0$ takes place at $\theta_{irr}$ given 

441: by (see eq. [\ref{eq:as}])

442: \ba

443: &&\sin\theta_{irr}\approx \left(\frac{R_\star^3\sigma T_0^4}

444: {I_1 G M_\star \dot M}\right)^{1/5}=(I_1\Lambda)^{-1/5}\nonumber\\

445: &&\approx 0.5~

446: T_{3.5}^{4/5} R_{11}^{3/5} M_1^{-1/5}\dot M_{-5}^{-1/5}.

447: \label{eq:theta_c}

448: \ea

449: According to this formula, at $\dot M=10^{-5}$ M$_\odot$ 

450: yr$^{-1}$ polar regions having temperature $T_0\approx 3000$ K  

451: occupy about $15\%$ of the stellar surface. The rest of 

452: the surface has $T_{ph}$ 

453: significantly modified by intense radiation coming 

454: from the disk. At this $\dot M$ equatorial temperature 

455: reaches $T_{ph}(\pi/2)\approx 1.8\times 

456: 10^4$ K, much higher than $T_0\sim 3000$ K corresponding 

457: to the typical Hayashi track of a young star.

458: 

459: 

460: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

461: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

462: 

463: \section{Cooling of irradiated stellar surface.}

464: \label{sect:stellar_cool}

465: 

466: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

467: 

468: Young stars, brown dwarfs and giant planets are fully 

469: convective objects. It is well known (Kippenhahn \& Weigert 1994) 

470: that many characteristics of fully convective objects such as 

471: their luminosity and effective temperature are determined 

472: mainly by the properties (opacity behavior, ratio of specific 

473: heats of the gas) of their outermost, near-photospheric layers 

474: and are rather insensitive to the processes 

475: occurring in the convective interior.

476: Given that irradiation changes the boundary conditions

477: on the surface of accreting fully convective object we may

478: also expect that it should affect the luminosity of such an 

479: object (Arras \& Bildsten 2006).

480: 

481: Intense heating some parts of the 

482: stellar surface suppresses convection in the subsurface layers

483: and gives rise to a convectively stable radiative zone sandwiched 

484: between the photosphere and convective interior, see Figure 

485: \ref{fig:scheme} for illustration. Appearance 

486: of this zone is analogous to the formation of a roughly isothermal 

487: radiative layer in the outer parts of the close-in extrasolar giant planets 

488: caused by the intense radiation of their parent stars 

489: (Guillot \etal 1996; Burrows 2000). It is the structure of 

490: this zone that we want to investigate in order  

491: to assess an impact of irradiation on stellar cooling.

492: Here we assume that the radiative zone is

493: \begin{enumerate}

494: \item optically thick, as measured from its bottom 

495: (convective-radiative boundary) to the photosphere, and

496: \item geometrically thin compared to $R_\star$.

497: \end{enumerate}

498: Validity of these assumptions is verified in \S \ref{sect:1D}.

499: 

500: In the absence of internal energy sources radiation 

501: transport in the optically thick radiative layer is 

502: governed by 

503: \ba

504: \nabla\cdot {\bf F}=0,~~~~{\bf F}=

505: -\frac{16}{3}\frac{\sigma T^3}{\kappa\rho}\nabla T,

506: \label{eq:rad_tran}

507: \ea

508: where $F$ is the radiative flux density, $\kappa$ is opacity 

509: and $\rho$ is the gas density. Equation of hydrostatic equilibrium 

510: reads $\nabla P = -\rho {\bf g}$, where $P$ is the gas pressure and

511: ${\bf g}$ is the local gravitational acceleration. These two equations

512: describe the radiative zone structure subject to the boundary condition

513: \ba

514: && T\Big|_{\tau=2/3}=T_{ph}(\theta),

515: \label{eq:Tboundary}

516: \ea

517: where $\tau$ is the optical depth. The radiative boundary condition 

518: (\ref{eq:Tboundary}) coupled with (\ref{eq:balance}) is appropriate 

519: here because most of the stellar surface is not obscured by 

520: the accreting gas and is free to radiate energy into space.

521: 

522: 

523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

524: 

525: \subsection{1D approximation for the structure of the radiative layer.}

526: \label{sect:1D}

527: 

528: In general one must solve equation (\ref{eq:rad_tran}) together with 

529: the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium in two dimensions -- $r$ and 

530: $\theta$. However, under the circumstances clarified in \S 

531: \ref{sect:1D_validity} the $r$-component of the radiative

532: flux $F_r$ is much larger than its $\theta$-component $F_\theta$, 

533: so that the latitudinal transport of energy can be neglected.

534: This leaves $r$ as the only independent variable in equation 

535: (\ref{eq:rad_tran}) effectively making it one-dimensional.

536: A dependence on $\theta$ then appears only through the external 

537: boundary condition, namely $T_{ph}(\theta)$. This is the limit that 

538: we will focus on in this work. 

539: 

540: Because of the thinness of the radiative zone, $r$ varies 

541: only weakly through the radiative zone so that one can neglect 

542: the divergence of the radial component of $F_r$, thereby 

543: reducing equation (\ref{eq:rad_tran}) to simply 

544: $\partial F_r/\partial r =0$.

545: With these simplifications equation (\ref{eq:rad_tran}) can be

546: integrated once to find

547: \ba

548: F_{in}=-\frac{16}{3}\frac{\sigma T^3}

549: {\kappa\rho}\frac{\partial T}{\partial r},

550: \label{eq:flux}

551: \ea

552: where the integration constant on the left-hand side is 

553: independent of $r$ and as such has to coincide with the 

554: intrinsic flux $F_{in}$ coming from 

555: the convective interior of the star. Determination of 

556: $F_{in}$ is the goal of our calculation.

557: 

558: Radial pressure gradients in the radiative zone

559: are much larger than the latitudinal gradients so that the 

560: equation of hydrostatic equilibrium can be written as

561: \ba

562: \frac{\partial P}{\partial r} = -\rho g,

563: \label{eq:hydro_eq}

564: \ea

565: where $g=|{\bf g}|\approx GM_\star/R_\star^2$ is the gravitational 

566: acceleration which is roughly constant within the thin radiative 

567: layer (stellar rotation is neglected throughout this work).

568: 

569: Subsequent consideration is very similar to the calculation of 

570: the atmospheric structure for the protoplanetary core 

571: immersed in a protostellar nebula, which can be found in Rafikov 

572: (2006). We assume that $\kappa$ depends on

573: gas pressure and temperature as

574: \ba

575: \kappa=\tilde\kappa P^\alpha T^\beta,

576: \label{eq:kappa}

577: \ea

578: where $\alpha>0$ and $\beta$ are constants. 

579: Equation (\ref{eq:kappa}) is a reasonable approximation to the

580: opacity behavior in some density and temperature intervals 

581: typical for young stars. In particular, 

582: at $2500$ K $<T\lesssim 5000$ K opacity is mainly 

583: due to H$^-$ absorption with electrons supplied by

584: elements heavier than H with low ionization potentials. 

585: Bell \& Lin (1994) have demonstrated that in this regime  

586: $\kappa$ can be well fit by  

587: \ba

588: \kappa\approx 6\times 10^{-14}P^{2/3}T^{7/3}.

589: \label{eq:low_T}

590: \ea

591: At $T\gtrsim 5000$ K electrons from partial hydrogen ionization 

592: enhance H$^-$ opacity and hydrogenic absorption dominates. In this regime 

593: (Bell \& Lin 1994)

594: \ba

595: \kappa\approx 2.4\times 10^{-39}P^{1/3}T^{29/3}.

596: \label{eq:high_T}

597: \ea

598: 

599: Here we also assume that the equation of state (EOS)

600: of gas in the whole star, including the external radiative zone,

601: can be characterized by a single ratio of specific heats $\gamma$. 

602: In other words, we assume that under adiabatic conditions gas behaves as 

603: $P=K\rho^\gamma$, where $K$ is a constant set by the entropy of the gas 

604: and $\gamma$ is fixed throughout the star. We adopt $\gamma=5/3$, which 

605: should work fine in fully ionized, convective interiors of young low-mass 

606: stars, although this approximation is not very accurate at the transition 

607: between the outer radiative zone and the convective interior since 

608: gas is only partly atomic there. Continuing 

609: dissociation and ionization cause variations of $\gamma$ in this region 

610: which may be quite important, see \S \ref{sect:complications}. 

611: Nevertheless, to get a qualitative picture of the effect of irradiation 

612: on stellar cooling and for making rough numerical estimates this 

613: constant-$\gamma$ approximation should be sufficient.

614: 

615: With $\kappa$ in the form (\ref{eq:kappa}) 

616: equation (\ref{eq:flux}) can be integrated using 

617: (\ref{eq:hydro_eq}), (\ref{eq:kappa}) and the 

618: ideal gas law:

619: \ba

620: \left(\frac{P}{P_{ph}}\right)^{1+\alpha}-1 = \frac{\nabla_0}{\nabla_{ph}}

621: \left[\left(\frac{T}{T_{ph}}\right)^{4-\beta}-1\right],

622: \label{eq:PofT}

623: \ea

624: where 

625: \ba

626: && \nabla_0=\frac{1+\alpha}{4-\beta},

627: \label{eq:nabla_0}\\

628: && \nabla_{ph}= \frac{3}{16}\frac{F_{in}\kappa_{ph}P_{ph}}

629: {g\sigma T_{ph}^4},

630: \label{eq:nabla_ph}

631: \ea

632: and $P_{ph}$ and $\kappa_{ph}=\tilde \kappa P_{ph}^\alpha

633: T_{ph}^\beta$ are the values of pressure and opacity at the 

634: photosphere. 

635: 

636: Solution (\ref{eq:PofT}) allows us to calculate temperature gradient 

637: \ba

638: \nabla(T)\equiv\frac{\partial \ln T}{\partial \ln P}=\nabla_0

639: \left[1-\left(\frac{T_{ph}}{T}\right)^{4-\beta}

640: \left(1-\frac{\nabla_{ph}}{\nabla_0}\right)\right],

641: \label{eq:nabla}

642: \ea

643: which determines whether gas is stable against convection.

644: Note that at the photosphere $\nabla(T_{ph})=\nabla_{ph}$.

645: Everywhere inside the radiative zone 

646: \ba

647: \nabla<\nabla_{ad}\equiv 

648: (\gamma-1)/\gamma,

649: \label{eq:Schwar}

650: \ea

651: where $\nabla_{ad}$ is the adiabatic temperature gradient. 

652: In convective regions $\nabla>\nabla_{ad}$. For our adopted 

653: $\gamma=5/3$ one finds $\nabla_{ad}=2/5$. 

654: 

655: We also assume that at some depth an object under consideration

656: does become convective and determine what is necessary for this 

657: transition to occur. If $\beta<4$ then equations (\ref{eq:nabla}) 

658: and (\ref{eq:Schwar}) demonstrate that convection sets

659: in only provided that

660: \ba

661: \nabla_0>\nabla_{ad}. 

662: \label{eq:less4}

663: \ea

664: Situation described by equation (\ref{eq:less4}) is realized e.g. 

665: for opacity given by equation (\ref{eq:low_T}), when $\nabla_0=1$ 

666: exceeds $\nabla_{ad}=2/5$, implying that radiative energy 

667: transport does indeed change to convective at some depth, 

668: as we have assumed. 

669: 

670: On the other hand, when opacity is 

671: characterized by $\beta>4$ equation (\ref{eq:nabla}) guarantees 

672: that transition to convection occurs at some depth, irrespective 

673: of the exact value of either $\beta$ or $\nabla_0$. This situation 

674: is appropriate for $\kappa$ given by equation (\ref{eq:high_T}) 

675: since in that case $\beta\approx 10$.

676: 

677: Despite this difference, in both cases the temperature $T_{cb}$ 

678: and pressure $P_{cb}$ at the convective-radiative boundary are 

679: given by\footnote{These results coincide with equations

680: (47) and (48) of Rafikov (2006) if we identify 

681: $\nabla_{ph}=\nabla_\infty$ and assume $\nabla_{ph}\ll 1$.} 

682: \ba

683: && T_{cb}=T_{ph}\left(\frac{\nabla_0-\nabla_{ph}}

684: {\nabla_0-\nabla_{ad}}\right)^{1/(4-\beta)},

685: \label{eq:T_cb}\\

686: && P_{cb}=P_{ph}\left(\frac{\nabla_{ad}}{\nabla_{ph}}\cdot

687: \frac{\nabla_0-\nabla_{ph}}

688: {\nabla_0-\nabla_{ad}}\right)^{1/(1+\alpha)},

689: \label{eq:P_cb}

690: \ea

691: which can be derived by setting $\nabla(T_{cb})=\nabla_{ad}$

692: and using equation (\ref{eq:PofT}). Using equations 

693: (\ref{eq:hydro_eq}), (\ref{eq:PofT}), and (\ref{eq:P_cb}) 

694: one can also find that the optical depth at the 

695: convective-radiative boundary

696: \ba

697: \tau_{cb}\sim  \nabla_{ph}^{-1},

698: \label{eq:tau_cb}

699: \ea

700: while the radial extent of the outer radiative zone is 

701: \ba

702: \Delta R_r\sim H_{ph}\ln\nabla_{ph}^{-1}.

703: \label{eq:dR_r}

704: \ea

705: where $H_{ph}=k_B T_{ph}/(\mu g)$ is the photospheric scale 

706: height. Given that irradiation cannot heat 

707: the star to a temperature comparable to its central temperature

708: (otherwise outer layers would be unbound) $H_{ph}$ should be 

709: much smaller than $R_\star$ even under rather extreme irradiation.

710: 

711: Both $\nabla_0$ and $\nabla_{ad}$ are constants of order unity. 

712: This makes it clear from equation (\ref{eq:T_cb}) that the 

713: temperature variation between the photosphere and the convective

714: zone boundary is rather small, $|T_{cb}-T_{ph}|\sim T_{ph}$.

715: In practice, we find that at $T\lesssim 5000$ K, when $\kappa$

716: is given by (\ref{eq:low_T}), convection sets in at 

717: $T_{cb}\approx 1.36 T_{ph}$, while at higher temperatures, when 

718: $\kappa$ is given by (\ref{eq:high_T}), $T_{cb}\approx 1.19 T_{ph}$.

719: At the same time, under strong irradiation the external radiative 

720: zone should be deep enough for the pressure $P_{cb}$ at its bottom

721: to greatly exceed $P_{ph}$. In this case equation (\ref{eq:P_cb}) 

722: suggests that

723: \ba

724: \nabla_{ph}\ll 1,

725: \label{eq:nabla_cond}

726: \ea

727: a result that is verified in \S \ref{sect:isolated}, see 

728: equation (\ref{eq:nabl_ph}).

729: 

730: According to equation (\ref{eq:tau_cb}) smallness of 

731: $\nabla_{ph}$ results in $\tau_{cb}\gg 1$, thus justifying our

732: assumption (1) about the radiative zone properties.

733: At the same time, because of rather weak (logarithmic) dependence 

734: of $\Delta R_r$ on $\nabla_{ph}$, the thickness of the outer 

735: radiative zone should not be much different from $H_{ph}\ll 

736: R_\star$. As

737: a result, $\Delta R_r\ll R_\star$, verifying our assumption (2).

738: Thus, the condition (\ref{eq:nabla_cond}) can then be viewed as a 

739: prerequisite for the formation of a geometrically thin, optically thick  

740: radiative zone with roughly isothermal temperature profile 

741: under the action of intense external irradiation. External radiative 

742: layers with similar near-isothermal structure are expected to exist in

743: the envelopes of irradiated hot Jupiters (Guillot \etal 1996; Baraffe 

744: \etal 2003; Chabrier \etal 2004) and 

745: in the outer parts of the low-luminosity atmospheres of protoplanetary 

746: cores immersed into the protoplanetary nebulae (Rafikov 2006).

747: 

748: The value of $P_{ph}$ 

749: can be fixed in the following way. Above the photosphere gas is 

750: roughly isothermal with temperature $T_{ph}$ -- an 

751: approximation which is good enough for our purposes. Then at 

752: height $z$ above the photosphere

753: $\rho(z)=\rho_{ph}\exp(-z/H_{ph})$, where $\rho_{ph}$ is the 

754: photospheric gas density. Using this result and equation

755: (\ref{eq:kappa}) we find the photospheric optical depth

756: \ba

757: \frac{2}{3}=\int\limits_0^\infty\kappa\rho dz=

758: \frac{\kappa_{ph}P_{ph}}{(\alpha+1)g},

759: \label{eq:2_3}

760: \ea

761: from which it follows that

762: \ba

763: P_{ph}=\left[\frac{2(\alpha+1)}{3}\frac{g}{\tilde 

764: \kappa T_{ph}^\beta}\right]^{1/(1+\alpha)}.

765: \label{eq:P_ph}

766: \ea

767: As a byproduct of relation (\ref{eq:2_3}) one can rewrite 

768: equation (\ref{eq:nabla_ph}) as 

769: \ba

770: \nabla_{ph}=\frac{\alpha+1}{8}\frac{F_{in}}{\sigma T_{ph}^4}.

771: \label{eq:nab_ph}

772: \ea

773: It then follows from equations (\ref{eq:nabla_cond}) 

774: and (\ref{eq:nab_ph}) that $F_{in}\ll \sigma T_{ph}^4$.

775: 

776: We are now in position to evaluate $F_{in}$ and see how irradiation 

777: affects cooling of convective objects. To do this we note that

778: the inner boundary of the radiative zone is also the outer boundary

779: of the convective interior. We assume that convective 

780: transport is so efficient that entropy is constant\footnote{In 

781: reality stellar envelope contains superadiabatic regions which 

782: are not captured in our analysis and may affect its results.} 

783: throughout the inner convective zone, so that the EOS can be 

784: well represented by $P=K\rho^\gamma$, where $K$ is the adiabatic 

785: constant. As a result, $P_{ph}$ and $T_{ph}$ must be 

786: related via $(kT_{cb}/\mu)^\gamma=K P_{cb}^{\gamma-1}$ which, 

787: coupled with equations (\ref{eq:nabla_ph}), (\ref{eq:T_cb}), 

788: (\ref{eq:P_cb}), and condition (\ref{eq:nabla_cond}), yields

789: the following expression for $F_{in}$:

790: \ba

791: && F_{in}(\theta)=\frac{16\nabla_{ad}}{3}

792: \left(\frac{\nabla_0-\nabla_{ad}}{\nabla_0}\right)^{\nabla_0/\nabla_{ad}-1}

793: \frac{\sigma g}{\tilde \kappa}\nonumber\\

794: && \times\left(\frac{\mu K^{1/\gamma}}{k_B}\right)^{(1+\alpha)/\nabla_{ad}}

795: \left[T_{ph}(\theta)\right]^{4-\xi},

796: \label{eq:F_in}

797: \ea

798: where 

799: \ba

800: \xi=\beta+(1+\alpha)/\nabla_{ad}. 

801: \label{eq:xi}

802: \ea

803: Intrinsic stellar flux $F_{in}$ exhibits an explicit 

804: latitudinal dependence because it is a function of 

805: $T_{ph}(\theta)$.

806: 

807: As discussed before, when $\beta<4$ and $\nabla_0>0$ a transition to 

808: convection at some depth requires $\nabla_0>\nabla_{ad}$. 

809: As a result, 

810: \ba

811: 4-\xi=(4-\beta)\left(1-\frac{\nabla_0}{\nabla_{ad}}\right)<0. 

812: \label{eq:4xi}

813: \ea

814: On the other hand, when 

815: $\beta > 4$ one also finds $4-\xi<0$ because $\nabla_0<0$ 

816: in this case. Thus, in both situations 

817: $F_{in}$ {\it decreases} as $T_{ph}$ increases. In other words,

818: irrespective of the opacity behavior external irradiation of the 

819: stellar surface {\it suppresses} 

820: stellar cooling, a result known from the studies of irradiated 

821: giant planets (Guillot \etal 1996; Burrows 2000).

822: 

823: Since external radiative zone is rather thin compared to $R_\star$ 

824: it must contain negligible amount of mass compared with $M_\star$. 

825: Then the structure of fully convective inner region of the 

826: star should be well described by the classical 

827: theory of polytropic spheres (Landau \& Lifshitz 1984; Kippenhahn 1994). 

828: In particular, adiabatic constant $K$ can be related to the stellar

829: mass and radius as

830: \ba

831: K=\zeta(\gamma) G M_\star^{2-\gamma}R_\star^{3\gamma-4},

832: \label{eq:K}

833: \ea

834: where $\zeta(\gamma)\sim 1$ is a parameter set by the equation 

835: of state of the gas. In a particular case of convective young stars 

836: with fully ionized interior characterized by $\gamma=5/3$ one 

837: has $\zeta(5/3)=0.1286$ and  

838: \ba

839: K=1.081\times 10^{14}~M_1^{1/3}R_{11}.

840: \label{eq:K_3_2}

841: \ea

842: 

843: Equations (\ref{eq:F_in}) and (\ref{eq:K}) 

844: unambiguously determine cooling 

845: of the star as a function of stellar parameters $R_\star$ and

846: $M_\star$, temperature distribution at the photosphere 

847: $T_{ph}(\theta)$, and opacity behavior in the outer radiative zone.

848: 

849: 

850: 

851: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

852: 

853: \subsection{Comparison with the case of an isolated star.}

854: \label{sect:isolated}

855: 

856: We now compare stellar cooling in the irradiated case with that 

857: occurring in isolated stars, in the absence of external 

858: illumination. In the latter case $T_{ph}=T_0$, $F_{in}=F_0=\sigma T_0^4$ 

859: and equation (\ref{eq:nab_ph}) gives 

860: $\nabla_{ph}=\nabla_{eff}=(\alpha+1)/8\sim 1$. Substituting this result 

861: into equations (\ref{eq:T_cb}), (\ref{eq:P_cb}), using 

862: adiabatic relation at the convective-radiative boundary, 

863: and equation (\ref{eq:P_ph}) we find

864: \ba

865: && T_0=\left[\frac{16\nabla_{ad}}{3}

866: \left(\frac{\nabla_0-\nabla_{eff}}{\nabla_0-\nabla_{ad}}

867: \right)^{1-\nabla_0/\nabla_{ad}}\right.

868: \nonumber\\

869: && \left.\times\frac{g}{\tilde \kappa}

870: \left(\frac{\mu K^{1/\gamma}}

871: {k_B}\right)^{(1+\alpha)/\nabla_{ad}}\right]^{1/\xi}.

872: \label{eq:T_0}

873: \ea

874: This expression sets

875: the effective temperature of the star and its cooling 

876: rate $F_0$ as functions of $M_\star$, $R_\star$ and

877: opacity behavior. In particular, for $\kappa$ typical 

878: at temperatures below $5000$ K one finds using equation 

879: (\ref{eq:K_3_2}) that

880: \ba

881: T_0\approx 1200~\mbox{K}~M_1^{11/39}R_{11}^{1/13}.

882: \label{eq:Hayashi}

883: \ea

884: This is considerably smaller than $T_{eff}\approx 3000-4000$ 

885: K typical for an isolated fully convective star on the Hayashi 

886: track that one obtains with detailed numerical stellar structure 

887: calculations (Siess \etal 2000). We ascribe this difference 

888: to our adoption of fixed $\gamma$ throughout the whole star and

889: the neglect of superadiabaticity in the outer parts of the 

890: convective region, see \S \ref{sect:complications}. At the same 

891: time equation (\ref{eq:Hayashi}) captures the 

892: main property of the Hayashi track -- extremely weak 

893: sensitivity of $T_0$ to $R_\star$ and, consequently, stellar 

894: luminosity. 

895: 

896: If we now go back to equation (\ref{eq:F_in}) one can easily

897: see that it can be rewritten as

898: \ba

899: F_{in}\approx F_0\left[\frac{T_{ph}(\theta)}{T_0}

900: \right]^{4-\xi},

901: \label{eq:Fin}

902: \ea

903: or, with equation (\ref{eq:balance}), as 

904: \ba

905: \left(\frac{F_{in}}{F_0}\right)^{4/(4-\xi)}=\frac{F_{in}}{F_0}

906: +\left(\frac{T_{irr}}{T_0}\right)^4.

907: \label{eq:Fin_alt}

908: \ea

909: This result together with (\ref{eq:4xi}) once again vividly 

910: illustrates the inhibition of stellar cooling by external 

911: irradiation and specifies the magnitude of this effect.

912: 

913: Using equations (\ref{eq:nab_ph}) and (\ref{eq:Fin}) we can

914: also write

915: \ba

916: \nabla_{ph}\approx \frac{(\alpha+1)}{8}\left(\frac{T_{ph}}{T_0}

917: \right)^{-\xi},

918: \label{eq:nabl_ph}

919: \ea

920: which shows that $\nabla_{ph}\ll 1$ when stellar

921: surface is strongly irradiated ($T_{ph}\gtrsim T_0$), thus confirming 

922: equation (\ref{eq:nabla_cond}). Note the

923: strong dependence of $\nabla_{ph}$ on $T_{ph}/T_0$: with our 

924: power-law anzatz for opacity $\xi\approx 13/2$ and $\approx 13$ 

925: below and above $5000$ K correspondingly, see equations (\ref{eq:low_T})

926: and (\ref{eq:high_T}).

927: 

928: 

929: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

930: 

931: \subsection{Conditions of validity of 1D approximation.}

932: \label{sect:1D_validity}

933: 

934: In Appendix \ref{ap:1D_validity} we determine the circumstances 

935: under which the results of \S \ref{sect:1D} hold true. We show

936: there that the condition of the validity of 1D approximation

937: can be expressed as

938: \ba

939: \left(\frac{H_{ph}}

940: {L_\theta}\right)^2\lesssim \nabla_{ph},

941: \label{eq:validity}

942: \ea

943: where $L_\theta$ is a characteristic scale in $\theta$ 

944: direction over which the external boundary condition 

945: [in our case $T_{ph}(\theta)$] experiences variation. Equation 

946: (\ref{eq:irr_flux}) and Figure \ref{fig:irr_flux} 

947: demonstrate that in the case of irradiation 

948: by accretion disk $L_\theta\sim R_\star$. Then equations 

949: (\ref{eq:nab_ph}) and (\ref{eq:Fin}) allow us to rewrite the 

950: condition (\ref{eq:validity}) as (assuming that $T_0$

951: and $T_{ph}$ are in the same opacity regime)

952: \ba

953: T_{ph}\lesssim T_0\left(\frac{R_\star}{H_0}

954: \right)^{2/(2+\xi)},

955: \label{eq:c1}

956: \ea

957: where $H_0=k_B T_0/(\mu g)$ is the photospheric scale height 

958: in the absence of irradiation. Given that

959: \ba

960: \frac{R_\star}{H_0}\approx 5\times 10^3~ M_1 R_{11}T_{3.5}^{-1}

961: \label{eq:rat}

962: \ea

963: we may conclude that 1D approximation should be rather accurate

964: even if $T_{ph}$ exceeds $T_0$ by a factor of several 

965: (e.g. $T_{ph}\lesssim 7 T_0$ for $T\lesssim 5000$ K). 

966: 

967: Whenever the condition (\ref{eq:validity}) is violated 

968: the redistribution of energy in 

969: $\theta$-direction within the radiative layer becomes  

970: important. In this case one needs to solve the full 

971: two-dimensional equation (\ref{eq:rad_tran}) without assuming

972: that radiative flux in $\theta$ direction is small. 

973: A similar situation arises at stellar equator where 

974: a lot of energy is released in a boundary layer 

975: that is not very extended in $\theta$ direction 

976: (Popham \etal 1993). As a result, at equator

977: $L_\theta\ll R_\star$ and the condition (\ref{eq:validity}) 

978: can be violated there even though at all other latitudes 

979: 1D approximation works fine.

980: 

981: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

982: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

983: 

984: \section{Integrated stellar cooling.}

985: \label{sect:total_cooling}

986: 

987: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

988: 

989: We are now in position to calculate the integrated intrinsic 

990: luminosity $L$ (due to stellar contraction and interior cooling) 

991: of a convective star that is irradiated by a circumstellar disk:

992: \ba

993: L=4\pi R_\star^2\int\limits_0^{\pi/2}F_{in}(\theta)

994: \sin\theta d\theta,

995: \label{eq:L}

996: \ea

997: where $F_{in}(\theta)$ is given by the expression (\ref{eq:F_in}) 

998: in the irradiated part of the stellar surface, for 

999: $\theta\gtrsim\theta_{irr}$, while $F_{in}(\theta)\approx 

1000: \sigma T_0^4$ in the weakly irradiated polar regions, for

1001: $\theta\lesssim\theta_{irr}$. 

1002: 

1003: Convective objects can exhibit different modes of cooling which  

1004: is best illustrated by considering the limit $\theta_{irr}\ll 1$

1005: ($\Lambda\gg 1$). In this limit the contribution of polar

1006: caps to the total luminosity is

1007: \ba

1008: L_{pc}\approx 4\pi F_0 R_\star^2(1-\cos\theta_{irr})\approx 

1009: 4\pi F_0 R_\star^2 \theta_{irr}^2,

1010: \label{eq:L_pc}

1011: \ea

1012: while irradiated equatorial regions contribute

1013: \ba

1014: L_{er}\approx \frac{4\pi C F_0 R_\star^2} 

1015: {[I\sin^5\theta_{irr}]^{(4-\xi)/4}}\int

1016: \limits_{\theta_{irr}}^{\pi/2}[g(\theta)]^{(4-\xi)/4}

1017: \sin\theta d\theta,

1018: \label{eq:L_er}

1019: \ea

1020: see equation (\ref{eq:Fin}).

1021: 

1022: \begin{figure}

1023: \plotone{f3.eps}

1024: \caption{

1025: Plot of function $I_2(\xi)$. Solid line corresponds to $I_2$

1026: computed using $g(\theta)$ (see Figure \ref{fig:irr_flux}) and 

1027: the dashed line is $I_2$ calculated

1028: using asymptotic representation (\ref{eq:as}).

1029: \label{fig:I_2}}

1030: \end{figure}

1031: 

1032: Using equations (\ref{eq:as}), (\ref{eq:theta_c}) 

1033: it is easy to see that for 

1034: $\theta_{irr}\ll 1$ the latter integral is dominated by 

1035: $\theta\approx \theta_{irr}$ if 

1036: \ba

1037: \xi>\frac{28}{5}.

1038: \label{eq:xi_cond}

1039: \ea

1040: In this case, according to equation (\ref{eq:as}), 

1041: one may approximate $g(\theta)\approx I\sin^5\theta$ and

1042: find that 

1043: \ba

1044: L_{er}\approx \frac{16\pi}{5(\xi-28/5)} 

1045: F_0 R_\star^2 \theta_{irr}^2\sim L_{pc}. 

1046: \label{eq:L_er1}

1047: \ea

1048: This results leads us to an interesting conclusion that as long

1049: as the condition (\ref{eq:xi_cond}) is fulfilled, an object

1050: cools predominantly through its polar caps and its 

1051: integrated luminosity $L$ is almost independent of the details 

1052: of opacity behavior in its outer layers. The latter point 

1053: is easy to understand, since in this case $L\sim F_0 S$, 

1054: where $S$ is the

1055: surface area of the polar caps. But according to equation 

1056: (\ref{eq:theta_c}) the value of $S$ is determined only by 

1057: irradiation and $T_0$. As a result, $L$ depends on $\kappa$ 

1058: only weakly, through the $L_{er}$ contribution. 

1059: 

1060: We call the regime of stellar cooling realized under 

1061: the condition (\ref{eq:xi_cond}) the {\it high-latitude} 

1062: cooling. This regime naturally occurs in irradiated 

1063: young stars since $\xi>28/5$ for $\kappa$ given by either

1064: (\ref{eq:low_T}) or (\ref{eq:high_T}). Equations (\ref{eq:L_pc})

1065: and (\ref{eq:L_er1}) demonstrate that in this regime $L$ 

1066: is suppressed roughly by $\sim \theta^2_{irr}$

1067: which may be as low as $\sim 0.2-0.4$ according to the 

1068: expression (\ref{eq:theta_c}). Thus, disk irradiation 

1069: can substantially slow down cooling of

1070: young stars.

1071: 

1072: In the opposite case of $\xi<28/5$ cooling is in the 

1073: {\it low-latitude} regime, so that star loses most

1074: of its internal energy through the equatorial regions 

1075: even though they are strongly irradiated. In this case

1076: one should use the full expression (\ref{eq:L_er}) to 

1077: evaluate $L\approx L_{er}$. Stellar luminosity suppression 

1078: for $\theta_{irr}\ll 1$ is given by 

1079: \ba

1080: && L/L_0\approx C I_2(\sin\theta_{irr})^{5(\xi-4)/4},

1081: \label{eq:second_as}\\

1082: && I_2(\xi)=I_1^{(\xi-4)/4}\int

1083: \limits_{0}^{\pi/2}[g(\theta)]^{(4-\xi)/4}

1084: \sin\theta d\theta.\nonumber

1085: \ea

1086: Function $I_2(\xi)\sim 1$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:I_2}.

1087: Knowing that $4<\xi<28/5$ in the low-latitude case one 

1088: can easily see that the degree of luminosity 

1089: suppression is smaller than in the high-latitude 

1090: cooling regime.

1091: 

1092: In Figure \ref{fig:supp} we plot $L/L_0$ -- the ratio of 

1093: stellar luminosities in the irradiated and isolated cases 

1094: -- as a function of irradiation parameter $\Lambda$, 

1095: for different values of $\zeta$. This calculation does not 

1096: explicitly make an assumption $\theta_{irr}\ll 1$ (or 

1097: $\Lambda\gg 1$), although it 

1098: covers this regime as well. Here $L/L_0$ is computed by the 

1099: straightforward integration of $F_{in}$ over the stellar 

1100: surface (including the polar caps where $F_{in}=F_0$), with

1101: the distribution of $T_{irr}(\theta)$ found from equation

1102: (\ref{eq:irr_flux_mod}) and $g(\theta)$ displayed in Figure 

1103: \ref{fig:irr_flux}. We also indicate the asymptotic

1104: behavior of $L/L_0$ as given by equations (\ref{eq:L_pc}) 

1105: and (\ref{eq:L_er1}) for $\xi>28/5$ and equation 

1106: (\ref{eq:second_as}) for $\xi<28/5$. 

1107: 

1108: One can easily see that, 

1109: as expected, $L/L_0\propto\theta_{irr}^2\propto \Lambda^{-2/5}$

1110: as $\Lambda\gg 1$

1111: for $\xi=13$ and $6.5$ independent of the actual value of $\xi$

1112: (only the normalizations of the curves are different because of the

1113: different contributions produced by the near-polar cap regions) since 

1114: for both $\xi>28/5$. Significant suppression of the stellar 

1115: flux (by $\sim 2$) is found in this case already at 

1116: $\Lambda\sim 10^2-10^3$. In the case $\xi<28/5$ asymptotic behavior

1117: for $\Lambda\gg 1$ agrees well with equation (\ref{eq:second_as}),

1118: $L/L_0\propto \Lambda^{(4-\xi)/4}$, and

1119: the degree of stellar flux suppression is weaker than in the 

1120: high-latitude regime: $L/L_0\approx 0.5$ only at 

1121: $\Lambda\approx 5\times 10^3$ for $\xi=5.3$

1122: and at $\Lambda\approx 2\times 10^5$ for $\xi=4.5$.

1123: 

1124: Note that results presented in Figure \ref{fig:I_2} are calculated

1125: neglecting any additional heating that can be produced near the 

1126: equator by the boundary layer dissipation. We will address this 

1127: point in more detail in \S \ref{sect:complications}.

1128: 

1129: \begin{figure}[t]

1130: \plotone{f4.eps}

1131: \caption{

1132: Plots of the intrinsic luminosity of an irradiated star L 

1133: (in units of an isolated star luminosity $L_0$) as a function 

1134: of irradiation parameter 

1135: $\Lambda=GM_\star \dot M/(\sigma T_0^4 R_\star^3)$ for 

1136: different values of the power law index $\xi$ defined by equation

1137: (\ref{eq:xi}). Dotted lines illustrate the corresponding asymptotic 

1138: behaviors for $\Lambda\gg 1$: $L/L_0\propto \Lambda^{-2/5}$

1139: for $\xi>28/5$ and $L/L_0\propto \Lambda^{(4-\xi)/4}$

1140: for $\xi<28/5$. 

1141: \label{fig:supp}}

1142: \end{figure}

1143: 

1144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1146: 

1147: \section{Discussion.}

1148: \label{sect:disc}

1149: 

1150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1151: 

1152: Luminosity suppression by disk irradiation is one of the most important 

1153: results of this work. Analogous phenomenon has been previously 

1154: found in studies of extrasolar giant planets in short-period orbits, 

1155: where stellar irradiation is quite severe (Guillot \etal 1996; 

1156: Burrows \etal 2000). In that case irradiation affects only one 

1157: side of the plant which always faces the star. Some heat from

1158: the day side gets redistributed to the night side by atmospheric

1159: circulation (Menou \etal 2003; Dobbs-Dixon \& Lin 2007) 

1160: which should complicate the calculation of the 

1161: photospheric boundary conditions across the whole planetary 

1162: surface. In our case irradiation is azimuthally symmetric which

1163: makes our calculation more robust. Analogous to the case of 

1164: extrasolar giant planets we expect that luminosity 

1165: suppression by irradiation would tend to retain heat inside the star 

1166: and increase stellar radius above the value found in the absence of 

1167: irradiation (Baraffe \etal 2003). Whether this radius increase is 

1168: significant will be investigated in future work.

1169: 

1170: Luminosity suppression may have some effect on the strength of the 

1171: magnetic field that is generated by dynamo action in the convective 

1172: interior of the star. Since in irradiated case convective eddies 

1173: transport smaller energy flux to the stellar surface than in the 

1174: case of an isolated star the speed of convective motions is expected 

1175: to be smaller. This results in a less vigorous dynamo action and 

1176: likely weaker magnetic field generated inside the star. 

1177: 

1178: Formation of an optically thick radiative zone near the stellar surface

1179: in irradiated regions is another result of this work which has

1180: important implications.  As the star grows the hot gas in the vicinity 

1181: of the boundary layer where disk meets the star 

1182: gets advected into the convective interior thereby raising stellar 

1183: entropy. This provides another way of slowing down stellar contraction,

1184: in addition to the luminosity suppression discussed above. Hartmann 

1185: \etal (1997) argued that impact of the heat advection on stellar structure 

1186: is not significant as long as the temperature of 

1187: advected gas is much smaller than the central temperature of the star.

1188: In the irradiated case it is the properties of the external radiative 

1189: zone that determine the temperature of the gas at the 

1190: convective-radiative boundary, and thus the amount of thermal energy 

1191: advected into the stellar interior. Indeed, hot gas sinking through the 

1192: radiative zone will lose a significant fraction of its thermal 

1193: energy by radiative diffusion in the latitudinal direction, so that 

1194: the temperature at the convective-radiative boundary is likely to be 

1195: lower than in the center of the boundary layer. It is important to build the 

1196: detailed 2D model of the radiative transport in the vicinity of the 

1197: boundary layer to quantify this effect and to verify the significance of 

1198: heat advection (see also \S \ref{sect:1D_validity}).

1199: 

1200: Presence of the radiative zone may also affect atmospheric opacity in 

1201: accreting brown dwarfs and giant planets. Accreted gas brings in

1202: significant amount of dust into the object's atmosphere (dust can 

1203: also form out of the gas phase under low-temperature conditions) 

1204: which changes $\kappa$ and radiative properties of the star 

1205: (Chabrier \etal 2000). However, if the object is fully 

1206: convective all the way to its photosphere, vertical fluid motions

1207: quickly advect dust grains into the hot interior where grains get 

1208: easily destroyed. This is not the case in irradiated regions of accreting 

1209: objects since dust grains can hover in the radiative zone for a 

1210: long time, as long as their gravitational settling is not too fast. 

1211: Of course, for grains to exist in the outer radiative layer  

1212: in the first place $T_{irr}$ must be lower than the sublimation 

1213: temperature of dust material, which may be possible only in accreting 

1214: brown dwarfs and giant planets. 

1215: 

1216: We expect that in the case of young stars it would be very difficult 

1217: to obtain a direct observational confirmation of the luminosity 

1218: suppression by irradiation. The major reason for this 

1219: is that $L/L_0$ starts to deviate from unity only when $\dot M$ and,

1220: correspondingly, accretion luminosity are very large. At this stage 

1221: the luminosity of a star+disk system is completely dominated by 

1222: the direct emission from the disk and the disk flux intercepted 

1223: and re-radiated by the stellar surface. Intrinsic stellar luminosity 

1224: provides negligible contribution which would be almost impossible

1225: to distinguish. Besides, forming protostar should still be enshrouded 

1226: in the dense veil of the residual gas collapsing onto the 

1227: circumstellar disk. Reprocessing of star+disk emission in

1228: this infalling envelope would complicate things even more. 

1229: Another potential way of detecting the luminosity suppression 

1230: is indirect, through its effect on the stellar radius and luminosity 

1231: as the star emerges as almost fully formed Class I object in the end 

1232: of active accretion phase. 

1233: 

1234: Effects of disk accretion in star formation have been previously 

1235: investigated by a number of authors. Adams \& Shu (1986) and 

1236: Popham (1997) have calculated the amount of energy which is 

1237: emitted by the disk and is intercepted by the star. Unlike us 

1238: these authors were not primarily concerned in the details of 

1239: the distribution of irradiation flux over the stellar surface. 

1240: This is a crucial point of our study allowing us to identify 

1241: the two different regimes of stellar cooling -- high- and 

1242: low-latitude. 

1243: 

1244: Mercer-Smith \etal (1984) were the first to explore the effect 

1245: of disk accretion on the stellar structure. 

1246: They handled disk accretion by specifying mass addition 

1247: rate and accretion luminosity as external boundary conditions.

1248: They find that the stars formed by disk accretion have {\it larger}

1249: radii than nonaccreting stars of the same mass. As mentioned in 

1250: Hartmann \etal (1997) this outcome most likely results from allowing

1251: the accreted material to have very high entropy which leads to 

1252: stellar swelling, see Prialnik \& Livio (1985). This approximation 

1253: is unlikely to be valid in reality since disk 

1254: material joining the stellar surface should have enough time to 

1255: radiate most of its thermal energy before being fully incorporated 

1256: into the star. Palla \& Stahler (1992) and Hartmann \etal (1997) 

1257: in their studies of intermediate- and low-mass stars allowed the 

1258: accreted material to have low entropy. They found that accretion 

1259: {\it reduces} stellar size compared to the non-accreting case since 

1260: in this case the addition of mass leads only to 

1261: the increase of gravitational energy of the star and is not accompanied by

1262: the increase of thermal energy. 

1263: 

1264: All these studies have either ignored irradiation of star by

1265: the disk or accounted for it only in the averaged sense which may

1266: not be acceptable as our study demonstrates. To get a complete 

1267: picture of protostellar evolution one needs to include the 

1268: luminosity suppression by disk irradiation into account. 

1269: Such calculation must necessarily 

1270: allow for the spatial distribution of irradiation flux on the 

1271: stellar surface since only in this way a proper estimate of

1272: the luminosity suppression can be obtained.

1273: 

1274: 

1275: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1276: 

1277: \subsection{Applications to real systems.}

1278: \label{sect:applications}

1279: 

1280: Here we apply our results to different classes of fully convective 

1281: objects which may accrete through the disk at high $\dot M$. In doing

1282: our estimates, which require the knowledge of $R_\star$ and $T_0$, 

1283: we use the radii and photospheric temperatures of 

1284: corresponding objects determined in the absence of irradiation and mass 

1285: inflow by accretion as proxies for  $R_\star$ and $T_0$ that 

1286: these objects would have if irradiation and accretion were properly 

1287: accounted for. Needless to say, a truly accurate estimate of the 

1288: effect of irradiation can be obtained only if $R_\star$ and 

1289: $T_0$ are calculated self-consistently accounting for the 

1290: effects of accretion and irradiation.

1291: 

1292: \subsubsection{Young stars}

1293: \label{sect:youngstars}

1294: 

1295: Young low-mass stars transitioning from Class 0 to Class I 

1296: phase are fully convective and should be 

1297: assembled by mass accretion from a circumstellar disk within 

1298: several $10^5$ yrs. This implies very high accretion rate 

1299: and we adopt $\dot M=5\times 10^{-6}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ for a 

1300: simple  estimate.  An isolated $M_\star=0.5$ M$_\odot$ star 

1301: at an age of $10^5$ yrs has a radius $R_\star=3.9$ R$_\odot$ and 

1302: effective temperature $T_0=3760$ K (Siess \etal 2000). 

1303: These parameters yield $\Lambda=10^2$ and $T_{irr}(\pi/2)

1304: \approx 6000$ K, although the latter is likely to be higher 

1305: because of the boundary layer dissipation. At this $\Lambda$ 

1306: cooling in the equatorial region is suppressed but the size 

1307: of the polar caps is reduced only weakly: according to Figure 

1308: \ref{fig:irr_flux} $\theta_{irr}\approx 73^\circ$ 

1309: [$\theta_{irr}$ is given by an implicit 

1310: relation $g(\theta_{irr})=\Lambda^{-1}$]. In Figure 

1311: \ref{fig:lambdas} we present more general results for $\Lambda$ 

1312: calculated for stars of different masses using stellar

1313: parameters from Siess \etal (2000) and assuming 

1314: constant $\dot M=M_\star/t_{acc}$, where $t_{acc}$ is the accretion 

1315: time (assumed equal to the stellar age). 

1316: One can see that the low-mass stars assembled within

1317: $3\times 10^5$ yrs generally have $\Lambda$ in the range of

1318: $30-10^2$, agreeing with our simple estimate.

1319: 

1320: Since $\xi\approx 6$ for $T\lesssim 5000$ K, young stars cool 

1321: mainly through the polar regions and we find from Figure

1322: \ref{fig:supp} that stellar luminosity is reduced by 

1323: irradiation only by about $10\%$ for 

1324: $\Lambda\approx 10^2$. On the other hand, if $\dot M$

1325: is not constant but increases as $M_\star$ grows one may expect

1326: values of $\Lambda$ larger by a factor of several. Also, to 

1327: calculate $\Lambda$ we have used parameters of isolated stars 

1328: while stars assembled by disk accretion of the low-entropy material 

1329: have smaller $R_\star$,

1330: leading to larger $\Lambda$. All these factors may increase the

1331: importance of disk irradiation in determining $L$ of 

1332: young accreting stars.

1333: 

1334: \begin{figure}[b]

1335: \plotone{f5.eps}

1336: \caption{

1337: Irradiation parameter $\Lambda$ for stars of different mass

1338: and age $t_{acc}$ (indicated on the plot) assembled by disk accretion

1339: with constant $\dot M=M_\star/t_{acc}$. Stellar parameters from

1340: Siess \etal (2000) were used in this calculation.

1341: \label{fig:lambdas}}

1342: \end{figure}

1343: 

1344: \subsubsection{Young stars in quasar disks}

1345: \label{sect:youngstars_QSOs}

1346: 

1347: A very interesting mode of star formation is possible in the 

1348: accretion disks around the supermassive black holes (SMBHs) in the

1349: centers of galaxies (Illarionov \& Romanova 1988; 

1350: Goodman \& Tan 2004; Nayakshin 2006).

1351: It is currently known that our own Galactic Center harboring 

1352: a SMBH of mass $M_{BH}\approx 3.7\times 10^6$ M$_\odot$ 

1353: (Ghez \etal 2005) contains 

1354: a number of young ($\lesssim 6$ Myrs) massive 

1355: ($M_\star\gtrsim 10$ M$_\odot$) stars that form 

1356: two misaligned disks around the SMBH (Paumard \etal 2006).

1357: One of the most likely scenarios for the origin of these stars 

1358: is a fragmentation of a gravitationally unstable gaseous disk 

1359: (or disks) followed by the growth of fragments to their present

1360: masses by gas accretion from the residual disk (Levin 2006; 

1361: Nayakshin 2006). Assuming that disk temperature is kept at 

1362: the level of $50$ K by the radiation of nearby stars (Levin 2007) 

1363: one finds that at $a=0.1$ pc from the SMBH 

1364: (which is the typical dimension of the observed disks)  

1365: surface mass density of $\Sigma\approx 27$ g cm$^{-2}$ is 

1366: required for the disk to be Toomre unstable. 

1367: 

1368: Fragments formed as a result of instability at $0.1$ pc 

1369: have a typical mass

1370: $M_\star\sim \Sigma h^2\approx 10^{-3}$ M$_\odot$ (approximately one 

1371: Jupiter mass) where $h$ is a disk scale height. At formation

1372: the Hill radius of such an object $R_H=a(M_\star/M_{BH})^{1/3}$

1373: is already comparable to $h$ and as $M_\star$

1374: grows by accretion $R_H$ becomes larger than $h$. As a result,

1375: accretion onto fragment proceeds through the {\it sub-disk} that 

1376: forms within the fragment's Hill sphere, presenting us with the

1377: setting investigated in this paper. Rate at which gas flows into

1378: the fragment's Hill sphere is the Hill accretion rate\footnote{Such 

1379: high $\dot M$ is also typical for FU Orioni objects. As demonstrated by 

1380: Popham \etal (1993) in the high-$\dot M$ regime the boundary layer 

1381: is so thick that it covers a significant ($\sim 0.5$) fraction of 

1382: the stellar surface slowing down interior cooling. Heat advection 

1383: into the stellar interior may also become an issue (Popham 1997).} 

1384: $\dot M_H\approx 

1385: \Sigma\Omega R_H^2\approx 2\times 10^{-4}~M_1^{2/3}(a/0.1~\mbox{pc})^2$ 

1386: M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. Note that $\dot M_H$ is smaller

1387: than the Eddington mass accretion rate 

1388: $\dot M_{Edd}=4\pi cR_\star/\kappa_{es}=

1389: 1.4\times 10^{-3}R_{11}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ (here $c$ is the 

1390: speed of light and $\kappa_{es}$ is the electron scattering opacity) at 

1391: $a=0.1$ pc but may become comparable to $\dot M_{Edd}$ further out from 

1392: the SMBH provided that $R_\star$ is not much larger than $R_\odot$.

1393:  

1394: If gas in the disk is able to accrete at the  

1395: same high rate $\dot M_H$ onto the stellar surface then 

1396: \ba

1397: \Lambda\approx 3\times 10^5 M_1^{5/3}T_{3.5}^{-4}

1398: R_{11}^{-3}.

1399: \label{eq:Hill_Lambda}

1400: \ea

1401: At present we do not have a theory for the structure of 

1402: stars formed by fragmentation of gravitationally unstable disks

1403: so the value of $R_\star$ is highly uncertain. If $R_\star \lesssim 10~R_\odot$ 

1404: then $\Lambda\gtrsim 10^3$ and luminosity suppression by irradiation 

1405: should be quite important,

1406: reducing $L$ by a factor of $2-3$ compared to $L_0$, as Figure \ref{fig:supp} 

1407: demonstrates for $\xi=6.5$. As the value of $R_\star$ itself is 

1408: affected by the time history of $L$, irradiation

1409: should not be overlooked in studies of star formation in quasar 

1410: disks.

1411: 

1412: \subsubsection{Young brown dwarfs}

1413: \label{sect:BDs}

1414: 

1415: Brown dwarf (BD) formation is likely to be a scaled down version of

1416: the low-mass star formation: one again expects a formation 

1417: of a centrifugally supported disk around a fully convective

1418: object that grows by disk accretion. The biggest uncertainty in 

1419: determining $\Lambda$ is again $R_\star$: $0.1$ Gyr old  

1420: BDs have radii of $0.1-0.2$ R$_\odot$ (Baraffe \etal 2003) 

1421: but accumulation of their mass 

1422: (poorly investigated at present) likely takes less than 

1423: $10^5$ yr, during which time their entropy is still

1424: quite high,

1425: resulting in considerably larger $R_\star$. Assuming

1426: that an object with $M_\star=0.03$ M$_\odot$ grows at constant 

1427: $\dot M$ in time $t_{acc}=5\times 10^4$ yr and has $R_\star=0.5$ 

1428: R$_\odot$ and $T_0\approx 3000$ K we find $\Lambda\approx 800$. 

1429: Provided that opacity can still be characterized by expression 

1430: (\ref{eq:low_T}) (which is a somewhat questionable assumption)

1431: we conclude that irradiation may lead to order unity reduction 

1432: in $L$. As the brown dwarf cools and contracts $\Lambda$ increases 

1433: bringing down $L/L_0$ even more, provided that $\dot M$ could still be 

1434: maintained at high level. Thus, young BDs may be affected by

1435: the disk irradiation which may have consequences 

1436: for their subsequent thermal evolution.

1437: 

1438: \subsubsection{Young giant planets}

1439: \label{sect:planets}

1440: 

1441: Finally, we consider the situation arising during the late stages 

1442: of giant planet formation via the so-called core instability. This

1443: scenario of planet formation assumes buildup of a 

1444: $\sim 10$ M$_\oplus$ refractory core in the protoplanetary nebula by

1445: planetesimal agglomeration. The self-gravity of the core triggers an 

1446: instability and leads to rapid gas accumulation (Mizuno 1980). 

1447: While the initial stages of this process can be adequately described 

1448: in the spherically-symmetric approximation, the later epoch of unstable

1449: gas accretion must have distinctly non-spherical morphology. Indeed, as

1450: mentioned in Rafikov (2006), as soon as the mass of a rapidly growing planet

1451: exceeds the so-called {\it transitional} mass $M_{tr}=c_s^3/\Omega G\approx 

1452: 40 M_\oplus a_5^{3/4}$ (here $c_s$ is the gas sound speed in the nebula

1453: and $a_5\equiv a/5$ AU is the planetary semi-major axis scaled by 5 AU) 

1454: the Hill radius of the planet $R_H$ becomes larger than the scale 

1455: height of the disk $h$. As a result, protoplanet starts accreting 

1456: gas from the surrounding nebula through the sub-disk that forms 

1457: within its Hill sphere, thereby presenting a situation analogous to 

1458: the star formation in the Galactic Center described in 

1459: \S \ref{sect:youngstars_QSOs} (except that now the collapsing 

1460: fragment of a gravitationally unstable disk is replaced by a growing 

1461: planet). Here we assess how important can irradiation be for planetary

1462: cooling when $M_p\gtrsim M_{tr}$.

1463: 

1464: The maximum $\dot M$ available to the planet is still likely given 

1465: by the Hill rate $\dot M_H\approx 2\times 10^{-3}M_{p,2}^{2/3}a_5^{-1}$ 

1466: M$_{\rm J}$ yr$^{-1}$, where $M_{p,2}\equiv M_p/10^2$ M$_\oplus$ and

1467: we have adopted a surface density profile $\Sigma=270 a_5^{-3/2}$ 

1468: g cm$^{-2}$ typical for the Minimum-Mass Solar Nebula. This allows us

1469: to compute

1470: \ba

1471: \Lambda\approx 10^4 M_2^{5/3}a_5^{-1}

1472: \left(\frac{R_p}{5~\mbox{R}_J}\right)^{-3}

1473: \left(\frac{T_0}{10^3~\mbox{K}}\right)^{-4}.

1474: \label{eq:Lam_planet}

1475: \ea

1476: This estimate is rather uncertain because of poorly constrained

1477: $R_p$ and $T_0$ during the stage of active gas accretion by the 

1478: planet. Here we adopt $R_p=5$ R$_J$ and $T_0=10^3$ K mainly for 

1479: illustrative purposes.

1480: 

1481: Dust is the major source of opacity in the outer layers of forming

1482: giant planets. Dust opacity scales as $\kappa\propto T^{\beta}$

1483: with $\beta\approx 0.5-2$ depending on dust grain composition,

1484: spectrum of grain sizes, etc. Here we adopt $\beta=1$ in which

1485: case $\xi=4.5$. This corresponds to cooling dominated by the 

1486: equatorial regions, which is different from the stellar case. As a 

1487: result, $L/L_0$ should be more sensitive 

1488: to the structure of the boundary layer through which disk material 

1489: accretes onto the planet, namely, $L/L_0$ should be {\it lower} 

1490: than Figure 

1491: \ref{eq:Lam_planet} implies.  Forgetting about this complication 

1492: for the moment and using $\xi=4.5$ and $\Lambda$ from

1493: equation (\ref{eq:Lam_planet}), we find from Figure \ref{fig:supp} 

1494: that in the planetary case $L$ can be suppressed compared to 

1495: $L_0$ by several tens of per cent. Given the existing uncertainties 

1496: in modeling the late stages of planet formation this degree of 

1497: luminosity suppression by irradiation may not seem like a 

1498: serious issue. 

1499: However, more massive, compact and cooler planets can easily have 

1500: $\Lambda\sim 10^5-10^6$ in which case irradiation would reduce  

1501: $L$ by a factor of several potentially affecting planetary evolution.

1502: 

1503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1504: 

1505: \subsection{Additional complications.}

1506: \label{sect:complications}

1507: 

1508: Here we address various complications that may arise when the

1509: results of this work are applied to real objects.

1510: 

1511: All our derivations and estimates explicitly assumed opacity 

1512: in the form (\ref{eq:kappa}). While 

1513: this representation can be quite accurate within some temperature 

1514: intervals one has to bear in mind that on the surface of a star 

1515: irradiated by the disk temperature can vary appreciably 

1516: between the equator and the poles. Indeed, the equatorial 

1517: regions of a $M_\star=1$ M$_\odot$, $R_\star=2$ R$_\odot$ star 

1518: accreting at $\dot M=10^{-5}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ are heated

1519: to $1.1\times 10^4$ K so that equation (\ref{eq:high_T}) applies, 

1520: while polar caps still have $T\approx 3\times 10^3$ K so 

1521: that equation (\ref{eq:low_T}) is more appropriate. Thus, in

1522: different regions of stellar surface $\kappa$ has

1523: different dependence on $P$ and $T$. In this case equation 

1524: (\ref{eq:second_as})  becomes invalid and to properly 

1525: compute the luminosity suppression one would need to take into account

1526: the latitudinal variation of not only $T_{irr}$ but also  

1527: $\kappa(P,T)$. 

1528: 

1529: Even at a fixed latitude opacity can switch from one 

1530: regime to another within the outer radiative zone. Although $\kappa$ 

1531: is much more sensitive to $T$ than to $P$ and the radiative zone 

1532: is roughly isothermal, pressure at its bottom  

1533: $P_{cb}$ is $\sim \nabla_{ph}^{-1/(1+\alpha)}\gg 1$ of the

1534: photospheric pressure $P_{ph}$, so that even a weak dependence 

1535: of $\kappa$ on $P$  can lead to opacity transition within the outer

1536: radiative zone. In particular, this situation is likely to occur 

1537: at latitudes where $T_{irr}\approx 5000$ K and $\kappa$ switches 

1538: from (\ref{eq:low_T}) to (\ref{eq:high_T}). In this case  

1539: calculation of the local radiative flux $F_{in}$ gets more complicated 

1540: as the external radiative region splits into two layers characterized 

1541: by different opacity behaviors. 

1542: 

1543: Our numerical estimates of the luminosity suppression strongly

1544: rely on the assumption of fixed $\gamma$ within the radiative 

1545: zone. Equation (\ref{eq:Hayashi}) which assumes $\gamma=5/3$ 

1546: throughout the whole star fails to predict the correct photospheric

1547: temperature of an isolated star. The reason for

1548: this is the variation of $\gamma$ at low $T$

1549: caused by molecular dissociation.

1550: This results in $\nabla_{ad}\lesssim 0.1$ and leads to a 

1551: smaller drop of temperature in the outer convective parts of 

1552: the star. On the other hand, superadiabaticity of convection 

1553: in the outer layers of convective zone counteracts this effect 

1554: to some extent. Our

1555: simple estimate (\ref{eq:Hayashi}) underpredicts $T_0$ by a factor 

1556: of $2-3$ which is primarily a consequence of our assumption of fixed 

1557: $\gamma=5/3$. A proper calculation of $F_{in}(\theta)$ and 

1558: $L/L_0$ must be able to account for the variation of $\gamma$

1559: with $P$ and $T$ inside the outer radiative zone.

1560: 

1561: Our analysis is affected to some extent by the presence of 

1562: the boundary layer through which disk material 

1563: joins the star. Viscous dissipation in this 

1564: layer heats accreting gas to very high temperature. Since 

1565: this energy release takes place very close to the stellar surface 

1566: most of the heat is likely to leak out and not get carried into 

1567: the star with the accreted gas. However, some residual 

1568: heat may still be accreted. Moreover, in addition to advective there could also 

1569: be a radiative energy transfer from the boundary layer into the outer

1570: layers of the star  (Popham 1997). Increase of $T$ in the 

1571: external radiative zone driven by these processes acts to 

1572: additionally slow down stellar cooling in the equatorial region, as 

1573: equation (\ref{eq:F_in}) demonstrates. Thus, presence of the 

1574: boundary layer reduces $L/L_0$ even more than our analysis 

1575: predicts, and the results presented in Figure \ref{fig:supp} 

1576: should be viewed as upper limits on $L/L_0$. This effect is

1577: likely not very important for young stars which cool predominantly

1578: through their polar regions, largely unaffected by the 

1579: additional heat deposition at

1580: the equator. However, in the case of young giant planets which lose

1581: fair amount of energy through the low-latitude part of the surface 

1582: (see \S \ref{sect:planets}) the reduction of intrinsic flux in 

1583: the equatorial region may produce quite noticeable decrease of 

1584: $L/L_0$ compared to the idealized case considered in this work.

1585: 

1586: \begin{figure}[t]

1587: \plotone{f6.eps}

1588: \caption{

1589: Schematic representation of magnetically channeled accretion. 

1590: Disk material travels along the magnetic field lines and 

1591: sediments onto the magnetospheric columns (shaded) heated by shock 

1592: dissipation and gravitational settling of material in them. 

1593: Hot magnetospheric columns irradiate stellar surface near the 

1594: magnetic poles.

1595: \label{fig:mag_pole}}

1596: \end{figure}

1597: 

1598: When discussing the external radiative zone throughout this 

1599: work we have been concerned only with the radiative energy

1600: transport. At the same time, it is well known that in the case 

1601: of hot Jupiters advective transport in the form of

1602: atmospheric jets and winds can be quite important in

1603: redistributing heat across the planetary surface (Menou 

1604: \etal 2003; Dobbs-Dixon \& Lin 2007). 

1605: In our azimuthally-symmetric setting only 

1606: meridional atmospheric motions can lead to energy exchange 

1607: between the hot equatorial and cold polar regions. Fluid 

1608: motions occurring on surfaces of constant effective potential

1609: (gravitational plus centrifugal) are unlikely to produce

1610: efficient equator-pole energy exchange (compared to the 

1611: radiative transfer) because of rather 

1612: fast rotation typical for objects formed by disk accretion. Rotation

1613: forces angular momentum conservation and prevents significant 

1614: fluid motions in $\theta$-direction, suppressing this mode of

1615: advective transport. On the other hand,  rotation tends

1616: to promote meridional circulation within the radiative layer 

1617: (Kippenhahn \& Weigert 1994) whose impact on the energy 

1618: transport in the outer radiative zone should be 

1619: investigated in more detail.

1620: 

1621: Finally, our basic assumption of direct mass accretion from 

1622: the disk may be challenged if the growing star possesses magnetic 

1623: field strong enough to disrupt accretion flow outside of 

1624: $R_\star$ (K\"onigl 1991; Matt \& Pudritz 2005).

1625: In this case gas is channeled by the magnetic field and 

1626: is deposition onto the stellar surface at magnetic 

1627: poles rather than at stellar equator. This completely changes 

1628: the topology of accretion flow but the major conclusions about

1629: the effect on stellar cooling are likely to hold. 

1630: Indeed, the magnetically channeled gas travels towards 

1631: the stellar surface at a good fraction of the free-fall velocity

1632: and at some point it must pass through the radiative shock, after 

1633: which it accumulates at the top of the magnetospheric column 

1634: of accreted material, as schematically indicated in Figure 

1635: \ref{fig:mag_pole}. Total energy release within the shock 

1636: and magnetospheric column is comparable to that occurring 

1637: if the accretion disk were extending all the way to the stellar 

1638: surface. This hot column of accreted material illuminates the 

1639: surface of the star leading to the same suppression of intrinsic 

1640: stellar flux as we discussed in this work. In this case, however, 

1641: irradiation is strongest near the magnetic poles while 

1642: the magnetic equator is likely to be the coolest part of the

1643: stellar surface\footnote{Illumination of the star by the distant parts of 

1644: accretion disk, beyond the point where accretion flow is 

1645: disrupted by the magnetic field, is 

1646: unlikely to be very important given the rapid 

1647: fall-off of $F_d$ with the distance from the star.}.  

1648: Calculation of stellar irradiation and integrated luminosity in 

1649: this case would involve constructing a model for the 

1650: magnetospheric column structure and its radiative properties. 

1651: 

1652: The impact of these details on the structure and evolution 

1653: of young stars should be addressed by future work. 

1654: 

1655: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1656: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1657: 

1658: \section{Summary.}

1659: \label{sect:concl}

1660: 

1661: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1662: 

1663: Luminosity of young stars actively accreting from the 

1664: circumstellar disk can be significantly affected by the 

1665: radiation which is produced in the inner parts of the disk 

1666: and is intercepted by the stellar surface. We showed that

1667: if a star gains its mass via disk accretion on timescale 

1668: of several $10^5$ yr then the radiative flux caused

1669: by viscous dissipation in the disk is more than sufficient 

1670: to increase the surface temperature of the star above the

1671: photospheric temperature that an isolated star with the 

1672: same mass and radius would have. Irradiation

1673: by the disk is strongest in the equatorial regions and is

1674: almost negligible near the poles. An outer radiative zone 

1675: of almost constant temperature forms above the fully convective 

1676: interior in the strongly irradiated parts of the stellar 

1677: surface. This leads to the local suppression of intrinsic

1678: energy flux escaping from the stellar interior. 

1679: 

1680: We have 

1681: demonstrated that there are two distinct modes in which a

1682: fully convective object can cool: mainly through the 

1683: cool high-latitude polar regions or predominantly through the 

1684: low-latitude parts of the stellar surface. A particular 

1685: regime of cooling in a given object is set by the opacity 

1686: behavior and the adiabatic temperature gradient $\nabla_{ad}$ in the outer 

1687: radiative zone. Accreting young stars and brown dwarfs cool 

1688: mainly through the polar regions while forming giant planets

1689: cool through the whole surface.

1690: 

1691: Integrated stellar luminosity in accreting case is suppressed 

1692: compared to the case of an isolated object, by up to a factor

1693: of several in some classes of objects (actively accreting brown dwarfs

1694: and planets, stars forming in gravitationally unstable 

1695: disks in galactic nuclei). This leads to larger radii of 

1696: irradiated objects and may affect the initial conditions which 

1697: are used to calculate the evolution of the low-mass objects 

1698: on timescales of $\sim 10$ Myr after their formation.

1699: Existence of external radiative zone may facilitate retention 

1700: of dust in the atmospheres of brown dwarfs and planets, and

1701: may affect the strength of magnetic field generated by 

1702: internal dynamo in convective objects.

1703: 

1704: Some of the results obtained in this work may be 

1705: applicable to accreting white dwarf and neutron star systems.

1706: 

1707: \acknowledgements 

1708: 

1709: I am grateful to Gilles Chabrier for careful reading of the 

1710: manuscript and many useful suggestion. 

1711: The financial support for this work is provided

1712: by the Canada Research Chairs program and a NSERC 

1713: Discovery grant.

1714: 

1715: \appendix

1716: 

1717: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1718: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1719: 

1720: \section{Irradiation flux.}

1721: \label{ap:irr_flux}

1722: 

1723: Performing an integral over $\phi$ in eq. 

1724: (\ref{eq:irr_flux}) we find

1725: \ba

1726: && F_{irr}(\theta)=\frac{2\cos\theta}{\pi}

1727: \int\limits_{x_{in}}^\infty \frac{F_d(xR_\star)q(x,\theta)x dx}{D^2},

1728: \label{eq:1D}\\

1729: && q(x,\theta)=\sqrt{x^2\sin^2\theta-1}-2\frac{x^2(1-2\sin^2\theta)+1}{D}

1730: \arctan\left(\frac{x^2+2x\sin\theta+1}{x\sin\theta+1}

1731: \sqrt{\frac{x^2\sin^2\theta-1}{D^2}}\right),

1732: \label{eq:h}

1733: \ea

1734: where $D^2=(x^2+1)^2-4x^2\sin^2\theta$ and $x_{in}=1/\sin\theta$.

1735: For $F_d(R)$ obeying (\ref{eq:vis_dissip}) equation (\ref{eq:1D}) 

1736: can be rewritten as eq. (\ref{eq:irr_flux_mod}) with 

1737: \ba

1738: g(\theta)=\frac{3\cos\theta}{4\pi^2}

1739: \int\limits_{x_{in}}^\infty \frac{f(xR_\star)q(x,\theta)dx}{x^2 D^2}

1740: \label{eq:g}

1741: \ea

1742: Integral in (\ref{eq:g}) is dominated by

1743: $x\sim x_{in}$. Near equator, where $\theta\to \pi/2$ one can expand 

1744: integrand in (\ref{eq:1D}) in terms of $\pi/2-\theta\ll 1$ and 

1745: $x-1\ll 1$ which results in $F_d(\pi/2)=F_d(R_\star)/2$. 

1746: Polar regions of the star ($\theta\to 0$) are illuminated only by

1747: distant parts of the disk, $R\gtrsim R_\star/\sin\theta\gg 

1748: R_\star$, so that $x\gg 1$ (while $x\sin\theta\sim 1$)

1749: in equation (\ref{eq:1D}). Also, far from the star one can safely 

1750: use equation (\ref{eq:vis_dissip}) with $f=1$ to finally arrive at the 

1751: equation (\ref{eq:as}) with 

1752: \ba

1753: I_1=\frac{3}{4\pi^2}\int\limits_1^\infty\frac{dt}{t^6}

1754: \left(\sqrt{t^2-1}-2\arctan\frac{\sqrt{t^2-1}}{1+t}\right)=\frac{1}{50\pi^2}

1755: \label{eq:I}

1756: \ea

1757: This result is independent of the structure of the boundary layer near

1758: the stellar surface since the polar regions of the star do not have direct

1759: sight lines to the boundary layer. This is evidenced by the convergence 

1760: at $\theta \to 0$ of the two curves in Figure \ref{fig:irr_flux}

1761: calculated assuming $f(R)=1$ and $f(R)=1-(R_\star/R)^2$.

1762: 

1763: 

1764: 

1765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1766: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1767: 

1768: \section{Validity of 1D approximation.}

1769: \label{ap:1D_validity}

1770: 

1771: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1772: 

1773: To determine the validity limits of the 1D solution for the

1774: structure of the radiative zone found in \S \ref{sect:1D} we evaluate 

1775: the magnitude of the corrections arising when the latitudinal 

1776: radiative transfer is accounted for. Considering 1D solution 

1777: (\ref{eq:PofT}) as a zeroth-order approximation we plug it into

1778: the full equation (\ref{eq:rad_tran}) and carefully expand all 

1779: $\theta$-derivatives, remembering that $P$ is almost independent 

1780: of $\theta$ (latitudinal pressure gradients are small). Integrating

1781: the resultant expression once over $r$ we  again arrive 

1782: at the equation (\ref{eq:flux}) but with 

1783: $F_{in}\to F_{in}+\delta F_{in}$ in the left-hand side, where

1784: \ba

1785: \delta F_{in}=\left(\frac{k_B T_{ph}^{4-\beta}}

1786: {\mu L_\theta^2}\right)^2 g^{-1}

1787: \int\limits_P^{P_{cb}}\frac{T^{\beta-2}}{P^{\alpha+2}}

1788: Z(P)dP.

1789: \label{eq:deltaF}

1790: \ea

1791: Here $Z(P)\sim 1$ is a weak function of pressure (varying by at

1792: most a factor $\sim 1$) and $L_\theta$ 

1793: is a characteristic scale of latitudinal variation of $T_{ph}$,

1794: $L_\theta = R_\star(\partial \ln T_{ph}/\partial \theta)^{-1}$.

1795: Our 1D approximation is justified if the correction 

1796: to the 1D result $\delta F_{in}$ is small compared to $F_{in}$

1797: given by equation (\ref{eq:F_in}). 

1798: 

1799: Integral in (\ref{eq:deltaF}) attains its 

1800: highest value at $P\sim P_{ph}$ (latitudinal radiation transfer 

1801: is easiest in the upper, low density layers of the star just below

1802: the photosphere) and one can easily find using equations 

1803: (\ref{eq:P_ph}), (\ref{eq:nab_ph}), and (\ref{eq:F_in}) that 

1804: \ba

1805: \frac{\delta F_{in}}{F_{in}}\sim \left(\frac{H_{ph}}

1806: {L_\theta}\right)^2\nabla_{ph}^{-1},

1807: \label{eqflux_ratio}

1808: \ea

1809: where $H_{ph}$ is a photospheric scale height. This result makes

1810: it clear that the 1D solution for the structure of the radiative 

1811: zone should be reasonable as long as the condition (\ref{eq:validity}) 

1812: is fulfilled.

1813: 

1814: 

1815: 

1816: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1817: 

1818: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1819: 

1820: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1821: Arras, P. \& Bildsten, L. 2006, ApJ, 650, 394

1822: 

1823: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1824: Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, A\&A, 337, 403

1825: 

1826: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1827: Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P. H. 2002, A\&A, 382, 563

1828: 

1829: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1830: Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T. S., Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, A\&A, 402, 701

1831: 

1832: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1833: Bell, K. R. \& Lin, D. N. C. 1994, ApJ, 427, 987

1834: 

1835: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1836: Burrows, A., Guillot, T., Hubbard, W. B., Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Lunine, J. I., \& Sudarsky, D. 2000, ApJL, 534, L97

1837: 

1838: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1839: Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I.,  Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P. H. 2000, ApJ, 542, 464

1840: 

1841: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1842: Chabrier, G., Barman, T., Baraffe, I.,  Allard, F., \& Hauschildt, P. H. 2004, ApJL, 603, L53

1843: 

1844: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1845: D'Antona, F. \& Mazzitelli, I. 1994, ApJS, 90, 467

1846: 

1847: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1848: Dobbs-Dixon, I. \& Lin, D. N. C. 2007, astro-ph/0704.3269

1849: 

1850: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1851: Frank, A. C. \& Shu, F. H. 1986, ApJ, 308, 836

1852: 

1853: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1854: Ferguson, J. W. \etal 2005, ApJ, 623, 585

1855: 

1856: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1857: Ghez, A. M., Salim, S., Hornstein, S. D., Tanner, A., Lu, J. R., Morris, M., Becklin, E. E., Duchene, G. 2005, ApJ, 620, 744

1858: 

1859: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1860: Guillot, T., Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., \& Saumon, D. 1996, ApJL, 459, L35

1861: 

1862: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1863: Hartmann, L., Cassen, P., \& Kenyon, S. J. 1997, ApJ, 475, 770

1864: 

1865: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1866: Hayashi, C. 1981, Progr. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 70, 35

1867: 

1868: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1869: Illarionov, A. F. \& Romanova, M. M. 1988, Sov. Astr., 32, 148

1870: 

1871: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1872: Kippenhahn, R. \& Weigert, A. 1994, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Berlin: Springer-Verlag)

1873: 

1874: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1875: K\"onigl, A. 1991, ApJL, 370, L39

1876: 

1877: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1878: Landau, L. D. \& Lifshitz, E. M. 1984, Statistical Physics; Butterworth-Heinemann

1879: 

1880: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1881: Levin, Y. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 515

1882: 

1883: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1884: Matt, S. \& Pudritz, R. E. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 167

1885: 

1886: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1887: Menou, K., Cho, J. Y.-K., Seager, S. \& Hansen, B. M. S. 2003, ApJL, 587, L113

1888: 

1889: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1890: Mercer-Smith, J. A., Cameron, A. G. W., \& Epstein, R. I. 1984, ApJ, 279, 363

1891: 

1892: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1893: Mizuno, H. 1980, Progr. Theor. Phys., 64, 544

1894: 

1895: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1896: Palla, F. \& Stahler, S. W. 1992, ApJ, 392, 667

1897: 

1898: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1899: Palla, F. \& Stahler, S. W. 1999, ApJ, 525, 772

1900: 

1901: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1902: Popham, R. 1997, ApJ, 478, 734

1903: 

1904: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1905: Popham, R., \& Narayan, R. 1995, ApJ, 442, 337

1906: 

1907: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1908: Popham, R., Narayan, R., Hartmann, L., \& Kenyon, S. 1993, ApJL, 415, L127

1909: 

1910: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1911: Prialnik, D. \& Livio, M. 1985, MNRAS, 216, 37

1912: 

1913: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1914: Rafikov, R. R. 2006, ApJ, 648, 666

1915: 

1916: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1917: Saumon, D., Chabrier, G., \& van Horn, H. M. 1995, ApJS, 99, 713

1918: 

1919: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1920: Siess, L., Dufour, E., \& Forestini, M. 2000, A\& A,  358, 593

1921: 

1922: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1923: Siess, L. \& Forestini, M. 1996, A\&A, 308, 472

1924: 

1925: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1926: Siess, L., Forestini, M. \& Bertout, C. 1997, A\&A, 326, 1001

1927: 

1928: \harvarditem{}{}{} 

1929: Siess, L., Forestini, M. \& Bertout, C. 1999, A\&A, 342, 480

1930: 

1931: \end{thebibliography}

1932: 

1933: 

1934: \end{document}

1935: 

1936: 

1937: To quantify the effect of the boundary layer on stellar  

1938: cooling one must have a good description of its structure. 

1939: Popham \etal (1993) have explored the boundary layer 

1940: physics in the pre-main sequence accretion disks and found

1941: boundary layer effective temperatures at the level of 

1942: $(1-1.5)\times 10^4$ K for $\dot M=10^{-6}-10^{-5}$ M$_\odot$

1943: yr$^{-1}$. Deep within the boundary layer $T$ should be even 

1944: higher which may result in a significant radiative energy flow 

1945: into the equatorial part of the outer radiative zone. 

1946: Popham \etal (1993) found the geometric thickness of the 

1947: boundary layer to be quite substantial, with $h/R_\star$

1948: reaching $0.15$ for $\dot M=10^{-6}-10^{-5}$ M$_\odot$

1949: yr$^{-1}$. These results may be affected by the boundary 

1950: conditions adopted in Popham et al., namely that the

1951: angular velocity of the gas matches the angular speed of the 

1952: star at some arbitrarily chosen radius. Siess \& Forestini (1996)

1953: have adopted a different approach by assuming that the 

1954: boundary layer is neutrally stable with respect to mixing 

1955: instabilities which led them to conclude that some kinetic 

1956: energy of accreted gas is actually dissipated quite 

1957: deep within the star. Clearly, more work is required to

1958: better characterize the structure of the boundary layer

1959: and its impact on stellar cooling.

1960: