1: %\documentclass{aastex}

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

3: 

4: \def\pp{\parshape 2 0.0truecm 16.25truecm 2truecm 14.25truecm}

5: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

6: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}} 

7: \newcommand{\simless}{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim\;$}}

8: \newcommand{\simgreat}{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim\;$}} 

9: \newcommand{\fone}{{ {\cal F}_1 }} 

10: \newcommand{\rclust}{{ R_{\rm c} }} 

11: \newcommand{\uvexp}{{\langle L_{UV} \rangle_\ast }} 

12: \newcommand{\sigbar}{{ \langle \sigma \rangle_{UV} }} 

13: \newcommand{\ncolumn}{{ N_{\rm col} }}  

14: \newcommand{\mubar}{{\langle \mu \rangle }}  

15: 

16: %

17: %------------------------------------------------------------------

18: %

19: 

20: \begin{document}

21: 

22: \title{UV Radiation Fields Produced by Young Embedded Star Clusters} 

23: 

24: \author{Marco Fatuzzo$^1$ and Fred C. Adams$^{2,3}$ } 

25:  

26: \affil{$^1$Physics Department, Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH 45207} 

27: 

28: \affil{$^2$Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, University of Michigan \\

29: Physics Department, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}  

30: 

31: \affil{$^3$Astronomy Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}

32: 

33: \email{fatuzzo@xavier.edu, fca@umich.edu} 

34: 

35: \begin{abstract} 

36: 

37: A large fraction of stars form within young embedded clusters, and

38: these environments produce a substantial ultraviolet (UV) background

39: radiation field, which can provide feedback on the star formation

40: process. To assess the possible effects of young stellar clusters on

41: the formation of their constituent stars and planets, this paper

42: constructs the expected radiation fields produced by these clusters.

43: We include both the observed distribution of cluster sizes $N$ in the

44: solar neighborhood and an extended distribution that includes clusters

45: with larger $N$. The paper presents distributions of the FUV and EUV

46: luminosities for clusters with given stellar membership $N$,

47: distributions of FUV and EUV luminosity convolved over the expected

48: distribution of cluster sizes $N$, and the corresponding distributions

49: of FUV and EUV fluxes. These flux distributions are calculated both

50: with and without the effects of extinction.  Finally, we consider the

51: effects of variations in the stellar initial mass function on these

52: radiation fields. Taken together, these results specify the

53: distributions of radiation environments that forming solar systems are

54: expected to experience.

55: 

56: \end{abstract}

57: 

58: \keywords{stars: formation -- planets: formation -- open clusters} 

59: 

60: \section{INTRODUCTION} 

61: 

62: Although a robust paradigm for star formation within giant molecular

63: cloud complexes now exists (Shu et al. 1987), most stars are thought

64: to be born within some type of cluster environment (e.g., Lada \& Lada

65: 2003; Porras et al. 2003). Furthermore, the distribution of cluster

66: sizes (given here in terms of stellar membership $N$) remains

67: uncertain, and the influence of the cluster environment on forming

68: stars and planets is not completely understood. One important way in

69: which the cluster setting can influence the formation of additional

70: cluster members, and especially their accompanying planetary systems,

71: is through the radiation fields provided by the background

72: environment.  This radiation can potentially drive a number of

73: significant processes, including [1] the heating of starless cores,

74: leading to evaporation and the loss of star forming potential (e.g.,

75: Gorti \& Hollenbach 2002), [2] the evaporation of circumstellar disks,

76: leading to loss of planet forming potential (e.g., Shu et al.  1993,

77: Hollenbach et al. 1994, St{\"o}rzer \& Hollenbach 1999, Adams et

78: al. 2004), [3] ionization within starless cores, leading to greater

79: coupling between the magnetic fields and gas (e.g., Shu 1992), thereby

80: acting to suppress continued star formation, and [4] ionization of

81: circumstellar disks, which helps maintain the magneto-rotational

82: instability (MRI), which in turn helps drive disk accretion (e.g.,

83: Balbus \& Hawley 1991). For applications to circumstellar disks, note

84: that the background radiation from the cluster environment often

85: dominates that produced by the central star (e.g., Hollenbach et

86: al. 2000; Adams \& Myers 2001); this claim is substantiated and

87: quantified by the results of this paper.

88: 

89: The goal of this paper is to provide a systematic construction of the

90: distributions of the expected radiation fields in clusters, including

91: UV luminosities and fluxes, in both the EUV and FUV radiation bands

92: (these are defined in \S 2).  With these distributions of luminosities

93: and fluxes determined, one can then assess the importance of the

94: cluster background environment for star and planet formation, through

95: the channels outlined above (and others).  Although a complete

96: assessment of this type has not been done, the importance of radiation

97: fields in clusters has been emphasized in previous work. A study of

98: the EUV radiation fields and their potentially harmful effects on

99: planet formation has been carried out (Armitage 2000).  An analogous

100: treatment of the FUV radiation fields for the clusters in the solar

101: neighborhood has also been done (Adams et al. 2006; hereafter

102: APFM). Finally, Parravano et al. (2003) have reconstructed the UV

103: radiation fields in the local interstellar medium, where the ultimate

104: source of the UV radiation is star forming regions.

105: 

106: This paper is organized as follows. In \S 2 we outline the basic

107: approach, including specification of the cluster sample, assumptions

108: about the gas content, and our characterization of the stellar IMF.

109: We then present the distributions of EUV and FUV luminosities in \S 3,

110: where these distributions are constructed both for clusters of a given

111: size $N$ and for the entire ensemble of cluster sizes. In \S 4, we

112: present the corresponding distributions of EUV and FUV flux, which

113: requires the additional specification of the distribution of radial

114: positions within the cluster.  This section also discusses the effects

115: of extinction and the effects of averaging over stellar orbits on the

116: resulting distributions. We conclude in \S 5 with a summary of our

117: findings and a discussion of potential applications.

118: 

119: \section{FORMULATION} 

120: 

121: In this section, we specify the input parameters used to produce the

122: resulting distributions of radiation fields. We must specify the

123: distribution of cluster membership sizes $N$, the cluster radii as a

124: function of $N$, the stellar initial mass function (IMF), and the

125: mass-luminosity relationship for massive stars. We defer a discussion

126: of the gas content of clusters, and our treatment of extinction, until

127: \S 4 where we consider the flux distributions.  Throughout this paper,

128: we often present results as a function of cluster size $N$. In this

129: context, we consider the cluster to have a stellar membership of $N$

130: primaries and we ignore binarity. We also present results for both FUV

131: radiation, which is defined to have photon energies in the range 6 eV

132: $\le h \nu \le$ 13.6 eV, and EUV radiation, where $h \nu \ge$ 13.6 eV.

133: To define nomenclature: We use the general subscript `$UV$' to denote

134: either of these ultraviolet radiation bands, and the explicit

135: designation `$EUV$' or `$FUV$' to denote one of the two particular UV

136: radiation bands.

137: 

138: \begin{figure}

139: \figurenum{1}

140: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig1.ps} }}

141: \figcaption{Cumulative distribution showing the fraction of stars born

142: in clusters of stellar membership $N$ as a function of $N$. The data

143: points with the dotted curve show the observed distribution in the

144: solar neighborhood (as compiled in Lada \& Lada 2003). The solid

145: line shows an extended distribution for which the same trend --

146: roughly equal number of stars born in each decade of cluster size --

147: extends up to $N = 10^5$. Note that the scale for $f(N)$ is given 

148: for the extended distribution; for the solar neighborhood, $f(N)$ = 1 

149: for $N$ = 1740. } 

150: \label{fig:clustnum} 

151: \end{figure}

152: 

153: For the distribution of cluster sizes (stellar membership $N$), we use

154: two standard choices. The first is the observed distribution of

155: cluster sizes in the stellar neighborhood.  In this case, both Lada \&

156: Lada (2003) and Porras et al. (2003) have produced distributions

157: of observed clusters out to 2 kpc (1 kpc) and down to cluster sizes of 35

158: (30), respectively. These observational compilations show that the

159: number of stars born in clusters of size $N$ is evenly distributed

160: logarithmically over the range of clusters seen in the solar

161: neighborhood, i.e., from $N$ = 30 to 2000. For the sake of

162: definiteness, we use the actual data from the Lada \& Lada (2003)

163: compilation as our first standard distribution.  While this 

164: catalog is not complete, it is likely representative of the

165: basic statistical properties of embedded clusters within 2 kpc.

166: For our second

167: standard distribution, we assume that this general trend continues up

168: to larger cluster sizes, i.e., that star formation takes place in

169: clusters with an even logarithmic distribution extending up to $N$ =

170: $10^5$ stars. Both the Lada/Lada distribution and the extended

171: distribution are shown in Figure \ref{fig:clustnum}.

172: 

173: The radial sizes of observed clusters follow a well-defined law of 

174: the form 

175: \be

176: \rclust (N) = R_0 \left( {N \over 300} \right)^{1/2} \, , 

177: \label{rofn}

178: \ee 

179: where the scale $R_0 \approx 1$ pc (see Fig. 2 of APFM,

180: which uses the data from Lada \& Lada 2003, and Carpenter 2000).  

181: We use this empirically determined law to specify cluster radii

182: throughout this paper, including for the extrapolation of the cluster

183: distribution described above.

184: 

185: The stellar IMF has a

186: power-law form, with a nearly universal slope, for masses $M_\ast 

187: \simgreat 1 M_\odot$ (starting with Salpeter 1955) and a lognormal 

188: form below this value.  

189: Since the total luminosity of a star scales roughly as $m^3$ 

190: for stars with mass less than $\sim 10 M_\odot$ and

191: the IMF has a slope of $\sim 2.35$, the luminosity distribution

192: as a function of stellar mass scales as $\sim m^{0.7}$ for 

193: intermediate mass stars.  Of course, low mass stars

194: fall within the lognormal part of the IMF and 

195: have spectra that peak well below the UV band.   As a

196: result, we can ignore the contribution of all stars smaller than 1

197: $M_\odot$ to a reasonable approximation (as quantified in Fig. 2 below).  

198: To specify the

199: initial mass function in this context, we only need to correctly

200: account for the fraction $\fone$ of stars with $M_\ast > 1 M_\odot$

201: and the slope $\Gamma$ at high stellar masses. We thus assume that the

202: stellar IMF has a power-law form for mass $M_\ast > 1 M_\odot$ with

203: index $\Gamma$, i.e.,

204: \be

205: {dN_\star \over dm} = A m^{-\Gamma} \, = \fone (\Gamma - 1) m^{-\Gamma} \, , 

206: \ee

207: where $m$ is the mass in units of solar masses and where the slope

208: $\Gamma = 2.35$ for the classic form of Salpeter (1955). Although this

209: slope is remarkably consistent over a wide variety of regions (Massey

210: 2003 and references therein), we can account for possible variations

211: in the IMF by allowing the index $\Gamma$ to vary. In the second

212: equality, we have normalized the distribution according to the

213: convention

214: \be

215: \int_1^{m_{max}} {d N_\star \over d m} dm = \fone \, , 

216: \label{normalize} 

217: \ee

218: so that $\fone$ is defined to be the fraction of the stellar

219: population with masses larger than 1 $M_\odot$.  For a typical stellar

220: mass function (e.g., that advocated by Adams \& Fatuzzo 1996), the

221: fraction $\fone \approx 0.12$. Notice also that we assume that the IMF

222: does not extend up to arbitrarily high stellar masses, but rather is

223: truncated at a maximum mass $m_{max}$. In this context, the IMF is

224: thus determined by the parameter set $(\fone, \Gamma, m_{max})$. In

225: this paper, we fix $\fone$ = 0.12 for all cases and vary the other two

226: parameters such that $(\Gamma, m_{max})$ = (2.35, 100), (2.1, 100),

227: (2.5, 100), and (2.35, 120). We adopt the first of these choices of

228: IMF parameters as our standard case, but explore the effects of

229: varying the IMF in \S 4.

230: 

231: \begin{figure}

232: \figurenum{2}

233: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig2.ps} }}

234: \figcaption{Distribution of UV luminosity over the range of stellar

235: masses.  The solid line shows relative amount of EUV luminosity

236: produced by stars of varying mass, plotted as a function of mass.  

237: The dashed line shows the analogous distribution for FUV luminosity. 

238: The vertical axis gives the distribution in units of erg s$^{-1}$ 

239: $M_\odot^{-1}$. The IMF is normalized as in equation (\ref{normalize}). } 

240: \label{fig:uvmass} 

241: \end{figure}

242: 

243: With the IMF specified, we need to determine the relationship between

244: stellar mass and UV luminosity. Toward that end, we use stellar models

245: calculated by Maeder and collaborators (e.g., Maeder \& Meynet 1987;

246: Schaller et al. 1992). Specifically, this previous work provides a

247: grid of stellar models as a function of both mass and age. In this

248: setting we use the zero age models to specify the stellar luminosity

249: and effective temperature. We then follow the procedure of Armitage

250: (2000) to determine the luminosity in the EUV and FUV bands (note that

251: departures from blackbody spectra are important in this regime).

252: Notice also that the UV radiation is dominated by the largest stars,

253: which reach the main-sequence rapidly, so zero-age main sequence

254: models are appropriate for the construction of these luminosity

255: distributions (i.e., we need not consider pre-main-sequence evolution).

256: Additional stellar evolution results in two competing effects for the

257: total cluster luminosity: All stars get brighter as they age, but the

258: most massive stars (with $m \sim 100$) have relatively short lifetimes.

259: Adopting zero-age main sequence values for the luminosity, as done 

260: here, thus yields one representative outcome for a given cluster. 

261: The next level of complication, not done here, would be to construct 

262: distributions of UV luminosity and flux as a function of cluster age. 

263: 

264: Figure \ref{fig:uvmass} shows the range of stellar masses that

265: dominates the production of UV radiation for both the EUV and FUV

266: bands. The dashed curve shows the standard IMF multiplied by the FUV

267: luminosity, plotted as a function of stellar mass. The distribution

268: shows a broad peak near 20 $M_\odot$. This result vindicates our

269: assumption that low mass stars (defined here to be those with masses

270: $M_\ast < 1 M_\odot$) have a negligible contribution to the total UV

271: luminosity of the cluster. Similarly, the solid curve in Figure

272: \ref{fig:uvmass} shows the stellar IMF multiplied by the EUV

273: luminosity as a function of mass. This distributed is skewed toward

274: even larger stellar masses, with a peak near 40 $M_\odot$.

275: 

276: For a given stellar IMF, we thus obtain corresponding distributions of

277: FUV and EUV luminosities. To leading order, these distributions can be

278: characterized by their expectation values and their width (or variance);

279: at a higher order of analysis, however, the shapes of the distribution

280: show significant departures from simple gaussians. For a given IMF and a

281: given UV band (either FUV or EUV), the expectation value $\uvexp$ of the

282: UV luminosity is determined by the integral

283: \be

284: \uvexp = \int_1^\infty L_{UV}(m) {dN_\star \over dm} dm \, , 

285: \label{meanuv} 

286: \ee 

287: where $dN_\ast/dm$ = 0 for stellar masses $m > m_{max}$.  The

288: expectation value of equation (\ref{meanuv}) is normalized so that it

289: provides the expected UV luminosity {\it per star}. Because of the

290: wide range of stellar masses and the sensitive dependence of both EUV

291: and FUV emission on stellar mass, this expectation value is much

292: larger than the UV radiation emitted by the majority of stars. As a

293: result, the UV radiation from a cluster will converge to the value

294: implied by this expectation value only in the limit of large $N$

295: (the value of $N$ necessary to be ``large'' is determined below). 

296: Furthermore, since the EUV radiation depends even more sensitively on

297: stellar mass, this trend is more extreme for the case of EUV radiation

298: (compared to FUV radiation). Small clusters will generally display

299: large departures from the expectation value.

300: 

301: Here we need to determine both the expectation value and variance of

302: the UV luminosity distribution.  The UV luminosity is that of the

303: entire cluster, and is given by the sum

304: \be

305: L_{UV} (N) = \sum_{j=1}^N L_{UVj} \, , 

306: \label{uvsum} 

307: \ee

308: where $L_{UVj}$ is the UV luminosity from the $jth$ member.  In this

309: formulation, we assume that the UV luminosity for a given star is

310: determined solely by the stellar mass, which is drawn independently 

311: from a specified stellar IMF. This sum is thus the sum of random

312: variables, where the variables (the individual contributions to the UV

313: power) are drawn from a known distribution, which is in turn

314: determined by the IMF and the $L_{UV}-m$ relation.  In the limit of

315: large $N$, the expectation value of the UV power is given by

316: \be L_{UV} (N) = N \uvexp \, .

317: \label{lnexp} 

318: \ee 

319: As usual, the central limit theorem implies that the distribution of

320: values $L_{UV} (N)$ must approach a gaussian form as $N \to \infty$

321: (e.g., Richtmyer 1978), although convergence is often slow. One of the

322: issues of interest here is the value of stellar membership $N$

323: required for these statistical considerations to be valid; similarly,

324: we would like to know the fraction of the cluster population that has

325: such sufficiently large $N$. In its limit of applicability, this 

326: gaussian form for the composite distribution is independent of the

327: form of the initial distributions, i.e., it is independent of the

328: stellar IMF and the mass-luminosity relation. The width of the

329: distribution also converges to a known value given by the expression

330: \be 

331: \sigbar^2 = {1 \over N}

332: \sum_{j=1}^N \sigma_j^2 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \sigbar = \sqrt{N}

333: \sigma_0 \, , 

334: \label{nvariance} 

335: \ee 

336: where $\sigma_0$ is the width of the individual distribution, i.e., 

337: \be 

338: \sigma_0^2 \equiv \langle L_{UV}^2 \rangle - \uvexp^2 \, .  

339: \ee 

340: 

341: The expectation values and widths of the luminosity distributions are

342: listed in Table 1 for the four types of stellar IMF used in this

343: paper.  The first column gives the parameters $(\Gamma, m_{max})$ of

344: the IMF, where the fraction $\fone$ = 0.12 for all of the cases.  The

345: expectation values are listed as the UV luminosity (either EUV or FUV)

346: per star, and are presented in units of erg/s (cgs units).  The widths

347: of the distributions are given in normalized form, where ${\widetilde

348: \sigma}_{0UV} \equiv \sigma_{0UV}/\langle L_{UV} \rangle_\ast$.

349: Although the luminosity distributions, as characterized by their width

350: and expectation values, vary somewhat with the stellar IMF, they all

351: show the same general features. For all four IMFs and both UV bands,

352: the expectation values (per star) are $\uvexp \sim 10^{36}$ erg/s in

353: order of magnitude, or about 250 $L_\odot$.  In other words, the mean

354: UV luminosity is always much larger than the total luminosity of the

355: typical star (which has mass $M_\ast \sim 0.5 M_\odot$ and luminosity

356: $\sim0.1 L_\odot$ on the main-sequence). This finding is simply a

357: manifestation of the sensitive dependence of the UV luminosity on

358: stellar mass and the large UV luminosities produced by the most

359: massive stars. The second feature illustrated in Table 1 is that the

360: widths of the luminosity distributions are large, roughly 20 -- 40

361: times wider than the expectation values. This property of the

362: distributions implies that one needs a large number of cluster stars

363: $N$ in order to fully sample the distribution. For example, in order

364: for the width of the distribution to be narrower than the expectation

365: value, the number of stars $N$ must satisfy the relation

366: \be 

367: N > N_{min} = {\widetilde \sigma}_{0UV}^2 \sim 10^3 \, , 

368: \ee

369: where the numerical value depends on the assumed IMF, but is of order

370: 1000 (see also APFM). Notice that 90\% of the stars in the observed

371: sample in the solar neighborhood are born in clusters with $N < 1000$,

372: i.e., the regime of incomplete sampling of the IMF.  For the

373: extrapolated distribution of cluster sizes, only about half of the

374: stars are born in the regime of incomplete sampling (see Fig.

375: \ref{fig:clustnum}). In either case, a significant fraction of stars

376: are born in clusters where the UV luminosity is subject to incomplete

377: sampling. This finding implies that one must consider the full

378: distribution of possible luminosities --- not just mean or median

379: values --- when assessing the importance of radiation fields in these

380: environments.

381: 

382: \begin{table}

383: \begin{center}

384: \caption{\bf Parameters for UV Luminosity Distributions} 

385: \medskip 

386: \begin{tabular}{lcccc} 

387: \hline 

388: \hline 

389: IMF $(\Gamma, m_{max})$ 

390: & $\langle L_{FUV} \rangle_\ast$ (erg/s) & ${\widetilde \sigma}_{0FUV}$ &  

391: $\langle L_{EUV} \rangle_\ast$ (erg/s) & ${\widetilde \sigma}_{0FUV}$ \\ 

392: \hline

393: (2.35, 100)  & 1.23 $\times 10^{36}$ & 25.5  & 8.47 $\times 10^{35}$ & 36.9 \\

394: (2.1, 100)   & 2.53 $\times 10^{36}$ & 18.7  & 1.89 $\times 10^{36}$ & 25.5 \\

395: (2.5, 100)   & 7.91 $\times 10^{35}$ & 30.4  & 5.15 $\times 10^{35}$ & 46.2 \\

396: (2.35, 120)  & 1.36 $\times 10^{36}$ & 26.6  & 1.01 $\times 10^{36}$ & 38.5 \\

397: \hline 

398: \hline 

399: \hline 

400: \end{tabular}

401: \end{center} 

402: \end{table} 

403: 

404: \section{ULTRAVIOLET LUMINOSITY DISTRIBUTIONS} 

405: 

406: In this section, we construct the distributions of ultraviolet

407: luminosities. This determination is done for both FUV and EUV

408: radiation, and is carried out in two ways.  First, we construct the UV

409: luminosity distribution for clusters of a given size $N$. In this

410: case, each cluster independently samples the stellar IMF $N$ times and

411: the resulting sampling variation leads to a distribution of possible

412: UV luminosities.  Second, we construct the UV luminosity distribution

413: for a collection of clusters over a distribution of cluster sizes

414: (namely those shown in Fig. \ref{fig:clustnum}). In this latter case,

415: the distribution of UV luminosity (both EUV and FUV) is determined by

416: two input distributions, the stellar IMF and the distribution of

417: cluster membership $f(N)$.

418: 

419: Before constructing the physically relevant luminosity distributions,

420: we first consider the shapes of the distributions, in particular their

421: substantial departures from gaussianity.  To illustrate this behavior,

422: Figure \ref{fig:gauss} presents the distribution of FUV

423: luminosities, normalized so that the area under the curves equals

424: unity.  This plot uses the FUV luminosity divided by the

425: expected mean FUV luminosity for the horizontal axis, and thus

426: emphasizes the {\it shape} of the distributions. Keep in mind that the

427: dimensionless widths of the luminosity distributions discussed above

428: (see Table 1) apply to the individual distributions (per star),

429: whereas the distributions in Figure \ref{fig:gauss} give the shape for

430: different values of $N$.  For relatively ``small'' $N$, i.e., $N$ =

431: 1000 as shown by the dashed histogram, the distribution is distinctly

432: non-gaussian and peaks at a value significantly less then the mean.

433: For larger $N$, however, the distribution attains the expected

434: gaussian form, as shown by the solid histogram for $N = 10^4$. The

435: dotted curve shows the corresponding gaussian distribution with the

436: expected dimensionless width for the $N$ = $10^4$ case; notice the

437: good agreement.  This plot shows that clusters must have relatively

438: large stellar membership, $N$ as large as $N \sim 10^4$, before the

439: distribution of FUV luminosity is not dominated by sampling

440: statistics. Note that no clusters this large are observed within 2 kpc

441: (Lada \& Lada 2003), so that the entire solar neighborhood is subject

442: to these sampling variations.

443: 

444: \begin{figure}

445: \figurenum{3}

446: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig3.ps} }}

447: \figcaption{Distribution of FUV luminosities. The dashed histogram

448: shows the distribution for clusters with $N$ = 1000 stars; the solid

449: histogram shows the distribution for $N = 10^4$. Note that the

450: luminosities (along the horizontal axis) are normalized by the average

451: value one would get with complete sampling of the stellar IMF.  The  

452: probability distribution (vertical axis) is normalized so that the 

453: area under the curves (the total probability) is unity. For

454: comparison, the dotted curve shows a gaussian distribution with width

455: $\sigma = 25.5 / \sqrt{10^4} \approx$ 0.255 (see Table 1). } 

456: \label{fig:gauss} 

457: \end{figure}

458: 

459: \begin{figure}

460: \figurenum{4a}

461: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig4a.ps} }}

462: \figcaption{}  

463: \label{fig:lumin_euv} 

464: \end{figure}

465: 

466: Figure 4 shows the probability distribution for EUV luminosities

467: (Fig. 4a) and FUV luminosities (Fig. 4b) for three different cluster 

468: sizes $N$.  Note that these distributions (along with 

469: those shown in Figures 6 - 9 below) are built using the base 10 logarithm 

470: of the luminosity (flux).  Specifically, in Figs. 4 and 6 -- 9, $P(x)$ d(log$_{10}x$)

471: (where $x$ is either $L_{UV}$ or $F_{UV}$) is the probability that $x$ falls between

472: log$_{10}x$ and log$_{10}x$+d(log$_{10}x$). 

473: Note that the mean of the logarithm is not the same as the logarithm

474: of the mean, $\langle \log_{10} x \rangle \ne \log_{10}\langle x

475: \rangle$,

476: so that even a gaussian distribution is skewed (the peak of the

477: distribution

478: falls to the right of mean) when plotted as in Figure 4.

479: 

480: In both Figures 4a and 4b, distributions are shown for $N$ = 100

481: (dashed curves), $N$ = 300 (dotted curves), and $N$ = 1000 (solid

482: curves). As the number of cluster members $N$ increases, the

483: distributions shift to the right, toward higher luminosities, as

484: expected. The distributions also appear to become narrower with

485: increasing $N$.  The relative width $\sigbar/N \uvexp$ does indeed

486: become smaller as $N$ grows larger, as outlined above, but the

487: apparent decrease in the total width with $N$ is an artifact of

488: plotting the distribution using a logarithmic scale for the UV

489: luminosity (on the horizontal axis).

490: 

491: \begin{figure}

492: \figurenum{4a}

493: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig4b.ps} }}

494: \figcaption{Probability distribution for EUV luminosities. The three 

495: curves show the normalized distributions for clusters of varying

496: sizes, with $N$ = 100 (dashed), $N$ = 300 (dotted), and $N$ = 1000

497: (solid). Each probability distribution is built up from $10^7$

498: independent realizations of the cluster population. 

499: b. -- Same as Figure 4a, but for FUV luminosities. }  

500: \label{fig:lumin_fuv} 

501: \end{figure}

502: 

503: Figure 5 shows the UV luminosities for clusters as a function of

504: cluster membership size $N$.  Results are shown here for both the EUV

505: luminosities (Fig. 5a) and the FUV luminosities (Fig. 5b).  In each

506: case, the luminosity for a given cluster size $N$ shows a wide range

507: of values due to incomplete sampling of the IMF, i.e., the UV

508: luminosity for a given $N$ is characterized by a distribution.  The

509: mean value (for a fully sampled IMF) follows the solid line shown in the

510: Figures. The median value, which is significantly smaller than the

511: mean (for a fully sampled IMF)

512: at small $N$, is shown by the data point symbols. Here the width

513: of the distribution is delineated in two different ways. The error

514: bars show the range of luminosities enclosing the fraction of the

515: distribution from 16.5\% to 83.5\% of the total.  The dotted curves

516: show the total expected range of luminosities calculated from the

517: statistical considerations above, i.e., the expectation value plus or

518: minus the width of the distribution for a fully sampled IMF.  Since the luminosity

519: distribution is wide, and far from gaussian at low values of $N$, the

520: width of the distribution defined this way is larger than the

521: expectation value. This property of the distributions results in the

522: lower dotted line falling rapidly toward zero (becoming nearly

523: vertical) at $N \approx 1200$ for the EUV distribution and at $N

524: \approx 700$ for the FUV distribution. These results are in basic

525: agreement with those obtained earlier for EUV radiation (Armitage

526: 2000) and FUV radiation (APFM).

527: 

528: The results depicted in Figure 5 show that the distributions of UV

529: luminosity have qualitatively different behavior for large $N$ and

530: small $N$ clusters. Note that the ranges of expected luminosity values

531: become centered on the expectation values for sufficiently large

532: values of stellar membership $N$.  For the EUV distribution, this

533: centering occurs for $N \simgreat 2000$, whereas for the FUV

534: distribution it occurs for $N \simgreat 1000$. For both cases, this

535: centering occurs at somewhat larger $N$ than the values required for

536: the distributions to be narrower than their expectations values.  By

537: coincidence, the required ``centering'' values are roughly the same as

538: the value of $N$ for the largest cluster (the Orion Nebula Cluster, or

539: ONC) in the solar neighborhood cluster distribution. In other words,

540: for all of the clusters in the solar neighborhood, the stellar

541: membership is {\it not} large enough to use statistical arguments to

542: predict expectation values, etc., so that the central limit theorem

543: does not fully apply (i.e., the limit of large $N$ is not reached).

544: The distributions thus depend sensitively on the sampling of the

545: underlying IMF.  Notice that this finding makes sense: For $N \sim

546: 1000$, say, the number $N_{UV}$ of stars large enough to provide {\it

547: any} significant UV luminosity is only about $N_{1} \sim \fone N \sim

548: 120$, whereas the number $N_{20}$ of stars larger than 20 $M_\odot$

549: (where most of the UV is emitted --- see Fig. \ref{fig:uvmass}) is

550: only $N_{20} \sim N \fone (20)^{-1.35} \sim 2$. In other words, in

551: rough terms, only clusters with stellar membership $N$ greater than

552: $\sim$1000 are large enough to populate the part of the IMF where most

553: of the UV radiation is emitted.

554: 

555: \begin{figure}

556: \figurenum{5a}

557: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig5a.ps} }}

558: \figcaption{} 

559: \label{fig:lumnumber_euv} 

560: \end{figure}

561: 

562: \begin{figure}

563: \figurenum{5a}

564: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig5b.ps} }}

565: \figcaption{EUV Luminosity per cluster as a function of cluster size

566: $N$.  For each value of $N$, the EUV luminosity can have a wide

567: distribution of values.  The solid line shows the mean value

568: for a fully sampled IMF ($N \uvexp$) as a

569: function of cluster membership $N$.  

570: The data points show the median

571: values of the distribution, where the error bars delineate the range

572: from 0.165 to 0.835. The dotted curves show the expectation value 

573: plus or minus the width of the distribution for a fully sampled IMF. 

574: b. -- Same as Figure 5a, but for the FUV Luminosity per cluster.} 

575: \label{fig:lumnumber_fuv} 

576: \end{figure}

577: 

578: The distributions presented thus far have been constructed using the

579: observed distributions of cluster sizes $N$ in the solar neighborhood

580: (Lada \& Lada 2003). We now consider the effects of variations in the

581: cluster size distribution on the luminosity distributions.

582: Specifically, we first sample the cluster size distribution to

583: determine the size $N$ of the cluster to which a ``test'' star

584: belongs, and then sample the IMF N times to determine the

585: corresponding luminosity of our ``test'' star's cluster.  We repeat

586: this process a total of $10^7$ times to then build up luminosity

587: distributions (we have varied the sampling size and verified that it

588: is large enough for convergence).  Figure 6 shows a comparison of the

589: resulting luminosity distributions for different cluster size

590: distributions, including the solar neighborhood (solid curve) and the

591: extended distribution that is extrapolated up to cluster sizes of $N =

592: 10^5$ (dashed curves). The EUV distributions are shown in Figure 6a,

593: and the FUV distributions are shown in Figure 6b. A related issue is

594: the extent to which the UV radiation fields are dominated by the most

595: massive star in the cluster. To consider this problem, both panels of

596: Figure 6 also show the distributions of luminosity using only the most

597: massive star in the cluster (dotted curves), for both the solar

598: neighborhood and extended distributions of cluster sizes.  For the

599: solar neighborhood distribution, which includes only relatively

600: ``small'' clusters, the distribution of luminosity with only the most

601: massive star and the distribution with all stars are nearly the same;

602: this result indicates that the UV radiation fields are dominated by

603: the single most massive star in such systems. In the case of the

604: extended cluster size distribution, however, there is marked

605: difference between the distribution that includes all stars and the

606: one that includes only the most massive star. This trend is clearly

607: evident for both the EUV and FUV bands, and shows that many stars

608: provide a significant contribution to the UV luminosity for large

609: clusters.

610:  

611: \begin{figure}

612: \figurenum{6a}

613: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig6a.ps} }}

614: \figcaption{}

615: \label{fig:lumcluster_euv} 

616: \end{figure}

617: 

618: \begin{figure}

619: \figurenum{6a}

620: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig6b.ps} }}

621: \figcaption{Distributions of EUV luminosities for different cluster

622: samples. The solid line shows the distribution of EUV luminosity for

623: the sample of clusters observed in the solar neighborhood (Lada \&

624: Lada 2003). The dashed curve shows the corresponding distribution of

625: EUV luminosities for the extended cluster distribution that extends up

626: to $N$ = $10^5$. The dotted curves show the analogous distributions

627: for the case in which only the most massive star is allowed to

628: contribute to the EUV luminosity of the cluster. 

629: b. -- Same as Figure 6a, but for FUV luminosities.

630: }  

631: \label{fig:lumcluster_fuv} 

632: \end{figure}

633: 

634: \section{ULTRAVIOLET FLUX DISTRIBUTIONS} 

635: 

636: Given the distribution of UV luminosity, both for clusters of a given

637: size $N$ and for the expected distribution of clusters, the next step

638: is to construct distributions of UV flux. To convert the distributions

639: of EUV and FUV luminosities into fluxes, we first need to specify the

640: distribution of stars within clusters.  In other words, we must

641: convolve the distribution of luminosities with a distribution of

642: radial positions to produce a distribution of fluxes.  For most of

643: this paper, we assume that the stars follow a distribution of radial

644: positions that corresponds to a density law of the form $\rho_\ast

645: \propto 1/r$, or, equivalently, $dm \propto r^2 \rho_\ast dr \propto r

646: dr$. Although the density profile will have an inner cutoff (to remove

647: the apparent singularity at the origin), this scale does not enter

648: into the problem (one can integrate over it). However, the outer

649: boundary does play a role and here we truncate the distribution at the

650: outer radius $\rclust$ of the cluster, where $\rclust$ is given as a

651: function of $N$ in equation (\ref{rofn}). This form for the density

652: distribution of stars is consistent with results from N-body

653: simulations of analogous clusters (see eq. [3] and Table 2 of APFM).

654: Note that by considering the distribution of radial positions to

655: determine flux, we are determining the complete ensemble of possible

656: flux values provided by the cluster environment. However, individual

657: solar systems will execute orbits within the cluster potential, and

658: the distribution of orbit-averaged fluxes will be somewhat

659: narrower. We take up this issue in \S 4.4.

660: 

661: \subsection{Extinction} 

662: 

663: In this treatment, we provide flux distributions both with and without

664: extinction. Since the gas (and hence the dust) in young clusters has a

665: relatively short lifetime, perhaps only $\sim3$ Myr (Allen et

666: al. 2007), the flux distributions with no extinction will be

667: applicable for much of the time.  Nonetheless, we want to consider how

668: much extinction can change the radiation fields.  In order to consider

669: the effects of extinction on the expected radiation fields, we need to

670: specify the distribution of gas (and dust), as well as the opacity at

671: UV wavelengths. For the sake of definiteness, we take the gas

672: distribution to follow a Hernquist profile (Hernquist 1990) so that

673: the density is given by

674: \be

675: \rho = {\rho_0 \over \xi (1 + \xi)^3} \, , 

676: \label{density} 

677: \ee

678: where $\xi = r/r_s$ and $r_s$ is the scale radius of the 

679: profile. Here we take $r_s$ = $\rclust$ so that the density 

680: distribution has the approximate form $\rho \propto 1/r$ 

681: for radii within the cluster itself. The form of equation 

682: (\ref{density}) allows the density and its corresponding 

683: gravitational potential to match smoothly onto the background 

684: of the molecular cloud, but otherwise plays no role. The 

685: density scale $\rho_0$ is determined by the specification 

686: of the gas content of the cluster. For example, if the 

687: star formation efficiency $\epsilon$ = 1/3, so that two 

688: thirds of the mass within $\rclust = r_s$ is made of gas, 

689: then $\rho_0$ = $4 N \langle M_\ast \rangle / \pi r_s^3$, 

690: where $\langle M_\ast \rangle$ is the mean stellar mass of 

691: the population. 

692: 

693: With the density specified by equation (\ref{density}), 

694: the column density is given by the integral 

695: \be

696: \ncolumn (r) = {1 \over \mubar} \int_{r_{1}}^{r} \rho(r) dr = 

697: {\rho_0 r_s \over \mubar} 

698: \int_{\xi_1}^{\xi} {d\xi \over \xi (1 + \xi)^3 } \, , 

699: \label{colintegral} 

700: \ee

701: where $\mubar$ is the mean mass of the particles and where $r_{1}$ is

702: an inner cutoff radius. In most clusters, as assumed herein, the most

703: massive star lies at the cluster center and will evacuate its

704: immediate vicinity and produce an inner cutoff radius.  Here we set

705: the inner cutoff radius by assuming that the evacuated cavity

706: originally contained a mass $QM_{*max}$, leading to an inner radius

707: \be

708: r_1 = \left({Q M_{*max}\over 2 \pi\rho r_s^3}\right)^{1/2}\,,

709: \ee

710: where we use $Q$ = 3 and 10 to define two choices of $r_1$. 

711: 

712: The integral from equation (\ref{colintegral}) can be evaluated 

713: to obtain the result 

714: \be

715: \ncolumn = { \rho_0 r_s \over \mubar } \left\{ 

716: \ln \left[ {\xi (1 + \xi_{1} \over \xi_{1} (1 + \xi) } \right] 

717: + {1 \over 2 (1 + \xi)^2} - {1 \over 2 (1 + \xi_{1})^2} 

718: + {1 \over 1 + \xi} - {1 \over 1 + \xi_{1} } \right\} \, , 

719: \label{column} 

720: \ee 

721: where $\xi = r/r_s$ and $\xi_{1} = r_{1} /r_s$. 

722: 

723: Next we want to obtain a general assessment of the effects of

724: extinction on the distribution of the UV radiation fields. We assume

725: that all of the UV-generating stars lie within the spherical cavity

726: defined above.  The target systems are distributed according to a

727: $\rho_\ast \sim 1/r$ distribution within the radial range $0 \le r \le

728: R_c (N)$, i.e., the target stars can orbit through the evacuated

729: central cavity and experience no extinction (even though they do not

730: form there).  Each radial position has both an associated flux and an

731: associated column density $N(r)$ as defined by equation (\ref{column}).  

732: The column density can be converted into an optical depth through the 

733: relation

734: \be 

735: \tau_{UV} = \sigma_{UV} \ncolumn \, , 

736: \ee

737: where the cross sections are given by $\sigma_{FUV}$ = $10^{-21}$ cm$^2$  

738: and $\sigma_{EUV}$ = $2 \times 10^{-21}$ cm$^2$. 

739: 

740: Note that actual embedded clusters will not necessarily have smooth

741: distributions of column density and hence extinction.  The dynamic

742: nature of the star formation process (e.g., winds, jets, and

743: outflows), and the cloud formation process itself, lead to a highly

744: clumpy geometry with some less obscured lines of sight.  In such a

745: system, the degree of penetration of UV radiation, and the

746: corresponding photo-ionization rates, are much larger than in the case

747: of uniform density distributions (Bethell et al. 2007). More detailed

748: radiative transfer models of this type should be performed for these

749: cluster environments.  One should also keep in mind that the gas only

750: resides in the cluster for a relatively short time (about 3--4 Myr;

751: Allen et al. 2007), so the full (unattenuated) UV flux distribution

752: will be applicable for much of the time.  The treatment presented here

753: thus represents an upper limit to the effects of extinction on the

754: distribution of UV fluxes. Nonetheless, as shown next, this effect can

755: be significant.

756: 

757: \begin{figure}

758: \figurenum{7a}

759: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig7a.ps} }}

760: \figcaption{}

761: \label{fig:flux_euv} 

762: \end{figure}

763: 

764: 

765: \begin{figure}

766: \figurenum{7a}

767: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig7b.ps} }}

768: \figcaption{Distribution of EUV flux as a function of EUV flux

769: $F_{EUV}$ determined by sampling over the Lada \& Lada (2003)

770: distribution of cluster sizes. This case uses the first stellar IMF

771: with $(\fone, \Gamma, m_{max})$ = (0.12, 2.35, 100). The solid curve

772: shows the full distribution; the dotted curve shows the reduced

773: distribution using only the radiation from the most massive star. 

774: The dashed curves show the flux distribution with extinction 

775: included for $Q$ = 3 (long-dashes) and $Q$ = 10 (short-dashes). 

776: The vertical lines mark the benchmark flux values for which the

777: background cluster radiation dominates that of the central star (left)

778: and for which the disk is evaporated in 10 Myr (right). 

779: b. -- Same as Figure 7a, but for FUV flux.}

780: \label{fig:flux_fuv} 

781: \end{figure}

782: 

783: \subsection{Benchmarks}  

784: 

785: One important issue is to determine how often the radiation field

786: impinging on circumstellar disks is dominated by the background

787: cluster or by the central star itself.  For any given star and given

788: background radiation flux, we can determine the radius within the disk

789: where the UV radiative flux from the central star is equal to that of

790: the background. For a given central star, let $L_{UV\ast}$ be the

791: stellar luminosity within a UV band, either FUV or EUV, and let

792: $F_{UV}$ be the flux in the same UV band from the background

793: environment of the cluster.  At a given radius $\varpi$ within the

794: disk, the UV flux contribution from the central star is equal to that

795: of the background $(F_{UV})$ when

796: \be

797: {L_{UV\ast} \over 4 \pi \varpi^2} = F_{UV} \, . 

798: \label{fluxbound} 

799: \ee 

800: The central star dominates at smaller radii and the background cluster

801: dominates at larger radii.  In order to provide a benchmark for

802: comparison, we must specify the radius $\varpi$ of interest.  Within

803: our own solar system, planet formation takes place within 30 AU; in

804: more general solar systems, the time scale for forming planets

805: increases with radius and the lifetime of the gas decreases with

806: radius, so we expect planet formation to become increasingly difficult

807: for larger values of $\varpi$. We thus adopt $\varpi$ = 30 AU to

808: evaluate equation (\ref{fluxbound}). The resulting benchmark flux is

809: thus approximately $F_{EUV}$(bench) $\approx$ 0.86 erg cm$^{-2}$

810: s$^{-1}$ for the EUV band and $G_0$(bench) $\approx 1000$ for the FUV

811: band.  Note that throughout this paper, we present FUV fluxes in units

812: of $G_0$, where $G_0$ = 1 corresponds to the ``standard'' interstellar

813: value of $1.6 \times 10^{-3}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$.

814: 

815: One of the most important effects of the background radiation fields

816: is to drive photoevaporation from circumstellar disks, thereby leading

817: to loss of planet-forming potential. We thus want to determine what

818: part of the expected distribution of UV flux will lead to substantial

819: mass loss.  For the sake of definiteness, we find the flux required to

820: evaporate a $M_d$ = 0.05 $M_\odot$ disk over at time scale of 10 Myr.

821: The expected mass loss rate $\dot M$ from a circumstellar disk exposed

822: to EUV radiation can be written in the form

823: \be

824: {\dot M} \approx 10^{-8} M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1} \left( 

825: {F_{EUV} \over 130 \, {\rm erg} \, {\rm cm}^{2} \, {\rm s}^{-1} } 

826: \right)^{1/2} \left( {r_d \over 30 {\rm AU}} \right)^{3/2} \, , 

827: \ee 

828: where $r_d$ is the disk radius (Hollenbach et al. 2000). Note that a

829: mass loss rate of $10^{-8}$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ will evaporate a

830: typical planet-forming disk with mass $M_d$ = 0.05 $M_\odot$ in only

831: about 5 Myr.  As a result, EUV fluxes of order $F_{EUV} \sim 30$ erg

832: cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ can evaporate this type of disk in 10 Myr and can 

833: thereby compromise the planet formation process.

834: 

835: For FUV radiation, the detailed models indicate that an external

836: radiation field of $G_0$ = 3000 will evaporate a disk around a 1.0

837: $M_\odot$ star down to 36 AU over a time of 10 Myr, where the assumed

838: disk mass $M_d$ = 0.05 $M_\odot$ (Adams et al. 2004). Interpolating

839: between the published models for $G_0$ = 3000 and those for $G_0$ =

840: 30,000, we estimate that a radiation flux of $G_0$ = 5800 will

841: evaporate the disk down to 30 AU in 10 Myr. Note that this benchmark

842: flux is only about 6 times larger than the flux required to dominate

843: the stellar FUV flux (see above), i.e., a relatively modest increase

844: in the FUV radiation environment can lead to a significant effect on 

845: forming solar systems.  As noted in \S 2, the use of zero-age

846: main sequence luminosity values is not entirely appropriate in this

847: context given that the most massive stars (those with $m \sim 100$) 

848: burn their hydrogen in less than 10 million years.  However, stellar

849: evolution results in two competing effects for the total cluster

850: luminosity, since stars get brighter as they age, but the most massive

851: stars have relatively short lifetimes.  Our results are therefore

852: expected to be representative of the actual values. 

853: 

854: 

855: \begin{figure}

856: \figurenum{8a}

857: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig8a.ps} }}

858: \figcaption{} 

859: \label{fig:composite_euv} 

860: \end{figure}

861: 

862: \begin{figure}

863: \figurenum{8a}

864: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig8b.ps} }}

865: \figcaption{EUV flux distributions for different stellar IMFs and

866: cluster size distributions.  For the standard cluster size

867: distribution in the solar neighborhood, the resulting flux

868: distributions are shown for stellar IMFs with parameters $(\Gamma,

869: m_{max})$ given by (2.35, 100) (solid curve) (2.1, 100) (short dashed

870: curve), (2.5, 100) (long dashed curve), and (2.35, 120) (dot-dashed

871: curve). The dotted curve shows the flux distribution for the standard IMF 

872: (2.35, 100) and the extended cluster size distribution.  

873: The vertical lines mark the benchmark flux values for which the

874: background cluster radiation dominates that of the central star (left)

875: and for which the disk is evaporated in 10 Myr (right). 

876: b. -- Same as Figure 8a, but for FUV flux.} 

877: \label{fig:composite_fuv} 

878: \end{figure}

879: 

880: \subsection{Composite Flux Distributions} 

881: 

882: Figure 7 shows the flux distributions for the expected cluster

883: sample. Note that these distributions are determined by first sampling

884: the cluster size distribution (for the solar neighborhood), then

885: sampling the standard stellar IMF $N$ times for a cluster of given

886: size $N$, and finally sampling the radial positions according to a

887: $\rho \sim 1/r$ distribution. This process is repeated to build up the

888: distributions shown herein.  The EUV distributions are shown in Figure

889: 7a, and the FUV distributions are shown in Figure 7b. For both of

890: these cases, the solid curve shows the full distribution for the case

891: of no extinction; the dashed curve shows the distribution with

892: extinction included. Also shown in the Figures are the corresponding

893: distributions for the radiation produced by the most massive star in

894: the cluster alone (with no extinction).  These latter distributions

895: are almost identical to the full distributions; this finding indicates

896: that the radiation fields are dominated by the most massive star in

897: the cluster for the ensemble of clusters represented in the solar

898: neighborhood. The dashed curves in Figure 7 show the effects of

899: including extinction, for the two cases $Q$ = 3 (long dashes) and $Q$

900: = 10 (short dashes).

901: 

902: The vertical lines in Figure 7 depict the benchmark flux values

903: defined in the previous section, i.e., the values for which the

904: background cluster radiation dominates that of the central star (at

905: disk radius 30 AU) and the values for which the disk is evaporated in

906: 10 Myr (for a disk with mass $M_d$ = 0.05 $M_\odot$ and radius $r_d$ =

907: 30 AU). The former benchmark fluxes are smaller than the latter for

908: both the EUV and FUV distributions.  For the case of EUV radiation, 42

909: percent of the distribution has the radiation field dominated by the

910: background cluster, but only 7 percent of the distribution is exposed

911: to enough EUV radiation to evaporate the disks.  For the case of FUV

912: radiation, effect is somewhat larger, with 58 percent of the

913: distribution being dominated by the background cluster and 25 percent

914: of the distribution exposed to enough FUV radiation to drive

915: substantial disk evaporation.  These results thus show that disk

916: evaporation tends to be dominated by FUV radiation, rather than EUV

917: radiation, in agreement with previous claims (Hollenbach et al. 2000;

918: Adams et al. 2004). Furthermore, the dominant source of (EUV)

919: ionization in circumstellar disks (as required for the

920: magneto-rotational instability, MRI, for example) is usually the

921: central star rather than the background (note that cosmic rays and

922: X-rays also provide ionization and thereby affect MRI).

923: 

924: Figure 8 shows the effects of varying the stellar IMF and the assumed

925: cluster size distribution on the resulting composite UV flux

926: distributions. Results are shown for both EUV radiation (Fig. 8a) and

927: FUV radiation (Fig. 8b). No extinction has been included in the

928: construction of these distributions. For each case, four of the curves

929: show the distributions for the four different stellar IMFs used in

930: this paper.  The upper mass cutoff has relatively little effect on the

931: composite flux distribution. This finding indicates that the stellar

932: IMF is sufficiently steep so that stars with the highest masses do not

933: dominate the UV radiation output. This result is consistent with the

934: distributions shown in Figure \ref{fig:uvmass}, which indicate that

935: the UV contribution peaks at masses of 20 -- 40 $M_\odot$.  The slope

936: of the IMF has a larger effect on the flux distributions, with the

937: expected result: A shallow slope leads to more high mass stars and

938: shifts the UV flux distributions to higher values (to the right),

939: whereas a steeper slope works in the opposite direction.

940: 

941: The fifth (dotted) curves in Figure 8 shows the resulting composite

942: flux distribution for the extended cluster size distribution (and the

943: standard stellar IMF). The flux distributions are significantly

944: narrower for the extended cluster size distribution. Notice that the

945: peak of the distribution does not change substantially. The reason for

946: this invariance can be understood as follows: First, note that the

947: cluster size distribution used here corresponds to equal numbers of

948: stars being found in each decade of cluster size; as a result, the

949: extended cluster distribution has only about half of its stars in the

950: large $N$ clusters, i.e., the clusters that are added to the

951: distribution for the solar neighborhood.  For these (additional) large

952: $N$ clusters, the IMF sampling is relatively complete so that the

953: total luminosity of a cluster obeys the scaling $L_{UV}(tot) \sim N

954: \langle L_{UV} \rangle_\ast$; however, the cluster radius scales

955: according to equation (\ref{rofn}), and most stars in the cluster

956: reside at the larger radii, so that $r^2 \sim N$, and hence the flux

957: $F_{UV} \sim L_{UV}(tot)/4 \pi r^2$ becomes nearly independent of $N$.

958: 

959: \subsection{Orbits} 

960: 

961: The distributions of flux considered above were constructed by

962: statistically sampling the distribution of radial positions within a

963: cluster. However, any given solar system will follow particular orbits

964: through the cluster. In this subsection, we consider the interplay

965: between orbital motion and radiation exposure of circumstellar disks.

966: 

967: The first task is to find the orbit-averaged radiative flux.  For the

968: density profile of equation (\ref{density}), the potential is given by

969: \be 

970: \Psi = {\Psi_0 \over 1 + \xi}   \, , 

971: \ee 

972: where $\xi = r/r_s$ as above and where $\Psi_0$ = $2 \pi G \rho_0

973: r_s^2$ determines the total depth of the potential well. If we define

974: $M_T$ to be the total mass enclosed within the scale radius $r_s$,

975: which is taken here to be the cluster radius $R_c(N)$, then $\Psi_0$ =

976: $4 G M_T/r_s$. Following previous treatments (Adams \& Bloch 2005,

977: APFM), we define dimensionless energy and angular momentum variables

978: \be

979: \epsilon \equiv { |E| \over \Psi_0} \qquad {\rm and} \qquad 

980: q \equiv {J^2 \over 2 \Psi_0 r_s^2} \, , 

981: \ee 

982: where $E$ and $J$ are the (physical) specific energy and specific

983: angular momentum of the orbit. As shown in APFM, the radiation flux 

984: averaged over an orbit is then given by the expression

985: \be 

986: \langle F_{UV} \rangle_{orb} = {L_{UV} \over 8 r_s^2} 

987: {A(q) \epsilon^{3/2} \over \cos^{-1} \sqrt{\epsilon} + 

988: \sqrt{\epsilon} \sqrt{1 - \epsilon} } \, , 

989: \label{orbitave} 

990: \ee 

991: where $A(q)$ is a slowly varying function of angular momentum and 

992: is constrained to lie in the range $1 \le A(q) \le \sqrt{2}$. 

993: 

994: Equation (\ref{orbitave}) gives the orbit-averaged flux for a orbit

995: with given energy $\epsilon$ and angular momentum $q$. The stellar

996: dynamics of the cluster determines the distribution of energy and

997: angular momentum for the cluster members (e.g., Binney \& Tremaine

998: 1987; hereafter BT87). In particular, for given assumptions about the

999: velocity distribution, one can find the relationship between the

1000: distribution function, the differential energy distribution, and the

1001: density profile of the cluster.  We assume an isotropic velocity 

1002: distribution and a density profile form $\rho \propto 1/r$; note that

1003: this density profile is consistent with our N-body simulations of

1004: young embedded clusters (APFM). For this case, the differential energy

1005: distribution --- the probability distribution for orbital energies ---  

1006: takes the form 

1007: \be 

1008: h(\epsilon) = {d P_m \over d \epsilon} = 

1009: {2 \over (1 - \epsilon_0)^2 } (1 - \epsilon) \, , 

1010: \label{enerdist} 

1011: \ee

1012: which is normalized for the range of dimensionless energies

1013: $\epsilon_0 \le \epsilon \le 1$. In these systems, stellar orbits are

1014: not highly populated for low energies, those well beyond the starting

1015: cluster radius, so we truncate the distribution at some energy scale

1016: $\epsilon_0$. For example, the energy corresponding to a radial orbit

1017: with its outer turning point at twice the nominal cluster radius has

1018: $\epsilon$ = 1/3, which thus defines a representative value. Here we

1019: use $\epsilon_0$ = 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 to sample the possible values.

1020: 

1021: \begin{figure}

1022: \figurenum{9a}

1023: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig9a.ps} }}

1024: \figcaption{}

1025: \label{fig:orbitflux_euv}

1026: \end{figure}

1027: 

1028: \begin{figure}

1029: \figurenum{9a}

1030: {\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig9b.ps} }}

1031: \figcaption{Distribution of orbit-averaged EUV flux. (Compare with

1032: Fig. 7a).  This case uses the standard stellar IMF with $(\fone,

1033: \Gamma, m_{max})$ = (0.12, 2.35, 100) and the Lada \& Lada (2003)

1034: distribution of cluster sizes.  The solid curve shows the full

1035: distribution with $\epsilon_0$ = 1/3; the other two distributions use

1036: $\epsilon_0$ = 1/2 (short dashes) and $\epsilon_0$ = 1/4 (long

1037: dashes).  The vertical lines mark the benchmark flux values for which

1038: the background cluster radiation dominates that of the central star

1039: (left) and for which the disk is evaporated in 10 Myr (right). 

1040: b. -- Same as Figure 9a, but for FUV flux. }

1041: \label{fig:orbitflux_fuv}

1042: \end{figure}

1043: 

1044: The distribution of energies within the cluster (eq.

1045: [\ref{enerdist}]), in conjunction with the orbit-averaged flux for a

1046: given energy (eq. [\ref{orbitave}]), define a distribution of fluxes

1047: within a given cluster (with given UV luminosity $L_{UV}$, which can

1048: be taken to be either EUV or FUV). Note that the dependence of the

1049: orbit-averaged flux on angular momentum ($q$) is weak, and that the

1050: variations tend to average out over the ensemble of possible values.

1051: We thus need to adopt an intermediate value for $A(q)$ in equation

1052: (\ref{orbitave}). The convolution of equations (\ref{orbitave}) and

1053: (\ref{enerdist}) shows that the resulting distribution of

1054: orbit-averaged flux is weighted toward the lowest flux values, those

1055: corresponding to the lowest energies $\epsilon$, or, equivalently, the

1056: outer parts of the cluster. This result makes sense because the mass

1057: profile $M (r) \sim r^2$, so most of the stars must spend most of

1058: their time in the outer realm of the cluster system.

1059: 

1060: Figure 9 shows the distributions of orbit-averaged fluxes for both the

1061: EUV (Fig. 9a) and FUV (Fig. 9b) radiation bands. These distributions

1062: are thus the analogs of those shown in Figure 7 (where Fig. 7 was

1063: constructed by sampling in radial position, and Fig. 9 was constructed

1064: by sampling in energy).  In both panels of Figure 9, the solid curve

1065: shows the flux distribution with no extinction, the standard stellar

1066: IMF, the cluster distribution observed in the solar neighborhood, and

1067: the limiting energy value $\epsilon_0$ = 1/3. The other two curves

1068: show the distributions for other choices of the outer boundary

1069: condition: $\epsilon_0$ = 1/2 (short-dashes) and $\epsilon_0$ = 1/4

1070: (long-dashes).  Finally, the two vertical lines are the benchmark

1071: values defined in \S 4.2. The line on the left corresponds to the flux

1072: for which the radiation from the central star is equal to that of the

1073: cluster background at a disk radius of 30 AU; the line on the right

1074: marks the flux for which disks surrounding 1.0 $M_\odot$ stars are

1075: expected to be evaporated over 10 Myr (for assumed disk radius $r_d$ =

1076: 30 AU and mass $M_d$ = 0.05 $M_\odot$). Comparison of the

1077: orbit-averaged flux distribution (Fig. 9) with the flux distribution

1078: obtained using the distribution of radial positions (Fig. 7) shows

1079: that net effect of orbit-averaging makes the flux distribution

1080: somewhat narrower and shifts the peak of the distribution to smaller

1081: values; the size of the shift is about a factor of $\sim$3.

1082: Note that the difference between the flux distributions shown in

1083: Figures 7 and 9 represents an upper limit to the effects of orbit

1084: averaging. In real clusters, star-star scattering events and orbital

1085: instabilities will act to move stars from one orbit to another, so

1086: that they will explore many orbits (many values of $\epsilon$). Over

1087: sufficiently long times, solar systems will thus experience the full

1088: distribution of fluxes depicted in Figure 7.

1089: 

1090: \section{CONCLUSION}

1091: 

1092: \subsection{Distributions of UV Radiation Fields} 

1093: 

1094: In this paper we have constructed the distributions of UV radiation

1095: fields expected from the observed collection of young embedded groups

1096: and clusters. This compilation includes both the EUV and FUV bands.

1097: The specification of these radiation fields requires three different

1098: types of input distributions: [1] Clusters with a given stellar

1099: membership $N$ display a UV luminosity distribution due to sampling of

1100: the stellar IMF (note that for $N \simless 10^3$, the sampling is

1101: incomplete and the distributions are wider than their expectation

1102: values, as discussed below). [2] The clusters are found over a

1103: distribution $f(N)$ of sizes $N$. We consider here both the observed

1104: distribution of cluster sizes for the solar neighborhood, where $N$

1105: lies in the range $30 \le N \le 2000$, and an extended cluster size

1106: distribution where we extrapolate the local distribution up to

1107: membership sizes $N$ = $10^5$ (Fig. \ref{fig:clustnum}). [3] The stars

1108: reside at a range of locations within a given cluster, so we must

1109: specify the distribution of radial positions $P(r)$ in the cluster in

1110: order to determine the distribution of radiation flux; alternatively,

1111: we can sample the orbital energy distribution function $h(\epsilon)$

1112: and thereby obtain the orbit-averaged radiation fluxes. These

1113: probability distributions [$f(N)$, $P(L_{UV})$; $P(r)$ or

1114: $h(\epsilon)$] jointly determine the composite distribution of fluxes

1115: that affect the ensemble of forming solar systems. The first two

1116: distributions [$f(N)$, $P(L_{UV}$] are sufficient to determine the

1117: composite distributions of UV luminosities.

1118: 

1119: Our results show that the distributions of UV radiation are

1120: qualitatively different for small clusters and large clusters, where

1121: the boundary between the two regimes lies in the range $N$ = 1000 --

1122: 2000 (note that the boundary is not perfectly sharp).  The

1123: determination of the radiation fields in the smaller clusters is

1124: dominated by incomplete sampling of the stellar IMF, so the resulting

1125: distributions are wider than their expectation values and show

1126: substantial departures from a gaussian form.  In contrast, larger

1127: clusters contain enough stars to sample the IMF, so that their UV

1128: distributions are close to gaussian, with widths less than their 

1129: expectation values. According to this criterion, the entire ensemble

1130: of clusters in the solar neighborhood falls in the range of ``small''

1131: clusters, where UV radiation fields are subject to incomplete sampling

1132: effects.

1133: 

1134: The effects of the stellar IMF on the radiation distributions are

1135: modest. The upper mass cutoff has little effect, essentially because

1136: the IMF is a steeply declining function of stellar mass, so that stars

1137: in the mass range 20 -- 40 $M_\odot$ provide the most UV radiation

1138: (Fig. \ref{fig:uvmass}). In other words, although more massive stars

1139: produce more UV radiation per object, their total contribution is

1140: diminished due to their rarity.  Shallower slopes for the IMF allow

1141: for greater numbers of massive stars and result in a shift in the

1142: radiation field distribution to higher values (Fig. 8), whereas

1143: steeper IMF slopes act in the opposite direction. The extended cluster

1144: distribution produces a composite UV flux distribution that is

1145: narrower than that of the solar neighborhood, but retains

1146: approximately the same peak value (because the larger cluster radii

1147: compensate for larger cluster UV luminosity as $N$ increases).

1148: 

1149: We have compared the composite flux distributions using both

1150: distributions of radial positions (Fig. 7) and distributions of

1151: orbital energies (Fig. 9). The first case presents the entire

1152: distribution of radiative fluxes provided by the cluster environment.

1153: The second case presents the distribution of orbit-averaged fluxes

1154: that would be experienced by solar systems as they move through the

1155: cluster in the absence of any interactions (which change the orbits).

1156: The two distributions are similar, with the orbit-avereged flux

1157: distribution being somewhat narrower and shifted to lower values.

1158: The statistical measures for the flux distributions 

1159: shown in Figures 7 -- 9 are summarized in Table 2 (EUV) and

1160: Table 3 (FUV) below.  The first column identifies the distribution

1161: and gives the corresponding figure and line type in parentheses.  

1162: The remaining columns specify the mean, median, peak, and width

1163: of the distributions in terms of the log($F_{UV}$) values

1164: used in the horizontal axis of each corresponding figure.  

1165: 

1166: \begin{table}

1167: \begin{center}

1168: \caption{\bf Measures for EUV Flux Distributions (log$_{10}$ F$_{EUV}$)} 

1169: \medskip 

1170: \begin{tabular}{lcccc} 

1171: \hline 

1172: \hline 

1173: Distribution (figure and line type)

1174: & Mean & Median &  

1175: Peak & Width \\ 

1176: \hline

1177: Standard (Fig. 7 - solid)& -1.33 & -0.53  & 0.70 & 2.65 \\

1178: Largest Star Only (Fig. 7 - dotted) & -1.43 & -0.60 & 0.57 & 2.64 \\

1179: Extinction with Q = 3 (Fig. 7 - long dash) & -6.95 & -6.60  & -8.0 & 4.10 \\

1180: Extinction with Q = 10 (Fig. 7 - short dash) & -2.89 & -2.53  & 1.23 & 3.36 \\

1181: IMF [2.1, 100] (Fig. 8 - short dash)  & -0.56 & 0.27  & 0.90 & 2.44 \\

1182: IMF [2.5, 100] (Fig. 8 - long dash)  & -1.91 & -1.20  & 0.37 & 2.75 \\

1183: IMF [2.35, 120] (Fig. 8 - dot dash)  & -1.28 & -0.47 &  0.77 & 2.66 \\

1184: extended cluster (Fig. 8 - dotted)  & -0.37 & 0.40  & 0.43 & 2.29 \\

1185: $\epsilon_0 = 1/2$ (Fig. 9 - short dash) & -1.79 & -0.93  & 0.37 & 2.62 \\

1186: $\epsilon_0 = 1/3$  (Fig. 9 - solid) & -1.98 & -1.13  & 0.10  & 2.62 \\

1187: $\epsilon_0 = 1/4$ (Fig. 9 - long dash) & -2.08 & -1.27  & -0.03 & 2.63 \\

1188: \hline 

1189: \hline 

1190: \hline 

1191: \end{tabular}

1192: \end{center} 

1193: \end{table} 

1194: 

1195: \begin{table}

1196: \begin{center}

1197: \caption{\bf Measures for FUV Flux Distributions (log$_{10} \,G_0$)} 

1198: \medskip 

1199: \begin{tabular}{lcccc} 

1200: \hline 

1201: \hline 

1202: Distribution (figure and line type)

1203: & Mean & Median &  

1204: Peak & Width \\ 

1205: \hline

1206: Standard (Fig. 7 - solid)& 3.06 & 3.20  & 3.52 & 1.13 \\

1207: Largest Star Only (Fig. 7 - dotted)  & 2.84 & 2.97 & 3.28 & 1.14 \\

1208: Extinction with Q = 3 (Fig. 7 - long dash)  & 0.22 & 0.43  & -0.45 & 2.05 \\

1209: Extinction with Q = 10 (Fig. 7 - short dash) & 2.25 & 2.37  & 3.82 & 1.61 \\

1210: IMF [2.1, 100] (Fig. 8 - short dash)  & 3.43  & 3.60  & 3.82 & 1.07 \\

1211: IMF [2.5, 100] (Fig. 8 - long dash)  & 2.77  & 2.90  & 3.22 & 1.15 \\

1212: IMF [2.35, 120] (Fig. 8 - dot dash)   & 3.07  & 3.20  & 3.55 & 1.14 \\

1213: extended cluster (Fig. 8 - dotted)  & 3.43 & 3.47  & 3.38 & 0.97  \\

1214: $\epsilon_0 = 1/2$ (Fig. 9 - short dash)  & 2.58  & 2.77  & 3.22 & 1.05 \\

1215: $\epsilon_0 = 1/3$  (Fig. 9 - solid)  & 2.38  & 2.57  & 2.98 & 1.06 \\

1216: $\epsilon_0 = 1/4$ (Fig. 9 - long dash)  & 2.27 & 2.47  & 2.82 & 1.07 \\

1217: \hline 

1218: \hline 

1219: \hline 

1220: \end{tabular}

1221: \end{center} 

1222: \end{table} 

1223: 

1224: 

1225: \subsection{Implications for Star and Planet Formation} 

1226: 

1227: The composite UV flux distributions can be used to provide estimates

1228: for the percentages of forming solar systems that have their radiation

1229: exposure dominated by the background environment of the cluster

1230: (versus the central star). These percentages depend on the mass of the

1231: central star and the radius of interest within the disk. For the case

1232: of solar type stars and disk radii of 30 AU, we find that 42 percent

1233: of the population will have their EUV exposure dominated by the

1234: background, compared to 58 percent for FUV radiation.  Note that the

1235: vast majority of the stellar population has mass smaller than 1.0

1236: $M_\odot$, so the overall percentage of solar systems with radiation

1237: dominated by the background will be higher.

1238: 

1239: Another way to gauge the importance of these background radiation

1240: fields is to determine the percentage of disks that will be destroyed

1241: by UV radiation before planet formation can take place. For example,

1242: we can consider planet formation to be compromised when the disk

1243: evaporation time becomes less than 10 Myr at a disk radius of 30

1244: AU. For this case, and for the distribution of cluster sizes in the

1245: solar neighborhood, we find that 25 percent of the disk population

1246: loses some of their planet forming potential due to FUV radiation from

1247: the background cluster, whereas only 7 percent of the disk population

1248: is compromised by EUV radiation. This latter result is consistent with

1249: previous claims (and assumptions) about the relative importance of FUV

1250: radiation over EUV radiation in these systems (e.g., Hollenbach et al.

1251: 2000; Adams et al. 2004). Again, most stars have smaller masses and

1252: their accompanying disks will be more easily destroyed. For red dwarfs

1253: with $M_\ast = 0.25 M_\odot$, for example, 25 percent of the disk

1254: population will be evaporated down to a radius of $\sim8$ AU, which is

1255: much smaller than the 30 AU benchmark, and will effectively shut down

1256: giant planet formation (see also Laughlin et al. 2004). We note that

1257: additional photoevaporation models of evaporating disks must be done

1258: to provide further quantification of this issue.

1259: 

1260: Instead of quantifying the likelihood of disk photoevaporation using

1261: the composite flux distribution for the entire cluster sample, we can

1262: consider the loss of circumstellar disk gas as a function of stellar

1263: membership $N$. This question is vital to future and ongoing searches

1264: for extra-solar planets, where clusters are often used as a convenient

1265: means of obtaining a well-defined sample of target stars at known

1266: distances.  The results of this paper show that the radiation fields

1267: produced by clusters with smaller $N$ have much more variation from

1268: cluster to cluster than their larger $N$ counterparts. However, the

1269: mean flux for a cluster is surprisingly insensitive to cluster size

1270: $N$. As shown in \S 4.3, for sufficiently large $N$ the typical UV

1271: flux becomes nearly independent of $N$: In this regime, the total

1272: luminosity $L_{UV} \propto N$, the cluster radius scales like $R_c^2

1273: \propto N$, and most of the stars reside in the outer parts of the

1274: cluster where $r \sim R_c$. As a result, the typical background flux

1275: $F_{UV} \propto L_{UV}/r^2$ becomes nearly independent of stellar

1276: membership size $N$.

1277: 

1278: Next we note that evaporation tends to remove gas from the outer parts

1279: of circumstellar disks, whereas disk accretion drains gaseous material

1280: from the inner disk. Taken together, these two processes combine to

1281: set the total disk lifetime.  As shown herein, disk evaporation from

1282: FUV radiations dominates over that of EUV radiation for the expected

1283: distributions. Further, the ``typical'' cluster environment provides

1284: enough radiation to evaporate a disk associated with a solar type star

1285: down to a radius of $\sim 30$ AU in 10 Myr. As shown in previous work

1286: (e.g., Clarke et al. 2001; Adams et al. 2004), viscous disk accretion

1287: with viscosity parameter $\alpha \sim 10^{-3}$ results in a disk

1288: lifetime of about 10 Myr for these disk radii (30 AU). As a result,

1289: disk lifetimes of this order of magnitude are expected in cluster

1290: environments, where, indeed, such disk lifetimes have been observed

1291: (Haisch et al. 2001).  One prediction of this work is that disks will

1292: survive longer in the outer parts of clusters, provided that they do

1293: not primarily live on radial orbits. Some observational work on this

1294: issue has been carried out, and suggests that the spatial positions of

1295: circumstellar disks are anti-correlated with the locations of the

1296: massive stars (Guarcello et al. 2007; Balog et al. 2007), 

1297: but more work along these lines

1298: should be done.

1299: 

1300: EUV leads to ionization (by definition), which has an impact on the

1301: efficacy of MRI as a source of disk viscosity. In the absence of any

1302: background sources of radiation, beyond the EUV flux from the central

1303: star and the background of cosmic rays, circumstellar disks are

1304: expected to have ``dead zones'', regions where the ionization levels

1305: are so low that MRI cannot operate (e.g., Gammie 1996). As shown in \S

1306: 4, when compiled over the observed distribution of clusters in the

1307: solar neighborhood, the composite EUV flux distribution shows that 42

1308: percent of the disk population is exposed to significant ionizing

1309: radiation from the environment of their birth clusters, in addition to

1310: that received from the central stars. This percentage was calculated

1311: for a fiducial radius of 30 AU; at this location, the vertical extent

1312: of the dead zones will be smaller, and the efficacy of MRI and disk

1313: accretion will be enhanced for $\sim40$ percent of the population. At

1314: smaller disk radii, however, the percentage of disks that receive a

1315: substantial enhancement of ionizing flux from the background cluster

1316: is much smaller; specifically, for the background to dominate at 0.1

1317: AU, the inner edge of the dead zones, the EUV background flux must be

1318: $\sim10^5$ larger than the benchmark value, and the percentage of the

1319: distribution with such large flux values is negligible. We thus

1320: conclude that the ionizing (EUV) radiation produced by the cluster

1321: background is insufficient to eliminate dead zones in circumstellar

1322: disks.

1323: 

1324: The radiation fields produced by young embedded clusters also have

1325: implications for the birth aggregate of our solar system. Since a

1326: large fraction of the stellar population is formed within clusters, it

1327: is likely that our solar system was born within a cluster of some size

1328: $N$.  Furthermore, the meteorites from our solar system show evidence

1329: of short-lived radioactive isotopes during their early history, and

1330: this enrichment is often ascribed to a nearby supernova explosion,

1331: which must take place within the birth cluster. Using these observed

1332: properties, and others, a number of authors have tried to determine

1333: and/or constrain the birth environment of our Sun (e.g., Williams \&

1334: Gaidos 2007, Ouellette et al. 2007, Zahnle et al. 2007, Gounelle \&

1335: Meibom 2007, Adams \& Laughlin 2001). The radiation fields produced by

1336: the cluster environment provide additional constraints: If a

1337: hypothetical birth cluster produced too much UV radiation, then the

1338: early solar nebula would be evaporated before the giant planets could

1339: form. In other words, the existence of our giant planets --- in

1340: conjunction with disk photoevaporation models --- places limits on the

1341: environment of our solar system during its first 10 Myr. This paper

1342: (Figs. 7,8,9) shows that the expected distribution of clusters provide

1343: FUV radiation fields in the range $G_0$ = 300 -- 30,000, with a

1344: typical value of $G_0$ = 3000.  Over a time span of 10 Myr, this

1345: latter value of the FUV flux will evaporate a disk around a solar type

1346: star down to 36 AU (Adams et al. 2004), thereby leaving enough gas in

1347: the solar nebula for giant planets to form.  Even a more extreme flux

1348: of $G_0$ = 30,000 would only evaporate the disk down to $\sim15$ AU.

1349: As a result, the gas reservoirs for Jupiter and Saturn are always

1350: safe, whereas the gas supply for Uranus and Neptune could be

1351: compromised (but note that these ice giants have little gas).  In

1352: addition to photoevaporation, circumstellar disks can be destroyed (or

1353: disrupted) in their birth clusters by scattering encounters and by ram

1354: pressure stripping (Pfalzner et al. 2006, Olczak et al. 2006, Throop

1355: \& Bally 2005, Kobayashi \& Ida 2001). These effects have been

1356: included in studies of the solar birth cluster, but can and should be

1357: considered more globally (e.g., Adams et al. 2006, Malmberg et

1358: al. 2007).

1359: 

1360: \subsection{Discussion and Future Work} 

1361: 

1362: In addition to continued applications of the distributions of UV

1363: radiation fields constructed herein, as outlined above, the

1364: distributions themselves can be improved in several ways. The greatest

1365: uncertainty concerns the distributions of cluster properties,

1366: especially membership size $N$ and radius $R_c(N)$.  For the solar

1367: neighborhood, the recent observational compilations (Lada \& Lada

1368: 2003, Porras et al. 2003) provide good working estimates for the

1369: distributions of cluster membership size $N$ (see Fig. 1) and cluster

1370: radius $R_c$ (see eq. [\ref{rofn}]). Beyond the solar neighborhood,

1371: however, no complete observational census has been carried out, and

1372: one must rely on some type of extrapolation. Is this work, we have

1373: used an extended distribution of the form $dN_C/dN \propto N^{-2}$,

1374: where $N_C$ is the number of clusters, so that equal numbers of stars

1375: are formed within each decade of cluster size $N$ [i.e., $N (dN_C/dN)

1376: \propto N^{-1}$].  For clusters with large $N$, the sampling of the

1377: stellar IMF is relatively complete, so that the statistics of the

1378: distribution of luminosity are well-behaved. In order to determine the

1379: distribution of UV fluxes, one needs the distribution of radial

1380: positions within the cluster, including the cluster radius

1381: $R_c$. Since most of the cluster members do not live in the cluster

1382: core, but rather in its outer parts, the distribution of radial sizes

1383: is crucial. In the present formulation, the adopted relation $R_c

1384: \propto N^{1/2}$ (observed in the solar neighborhood) implies that

1385: although clusters with larger $N$ have correspondingly larger

1386: luminosities, they produce almost the same distribution of fluxes

1387: because of their larger radii. On the other hand, if clusters with

1388: larger $N$ do not follow this empirical law (e.g., they could be more

1389: compact), then the distributions of UV fluxes would be shifted toward

1390: higher values. Another possibility is that the population of larger

1391: clusters has mean radii given by equation (\ref{rofn}), but the radii

1392: sample a wide distribution about the mean, so that the more compact

1393: clusters would produce environments with large UV fluxes.

1394: 

1395: Another related issue is that this work samples the stellar IMF

1396: independently for clusters of all sizes $N$. Current observartions are

1397: consistent with the assumption that the IMF is independent of

1398: environment (e.g., Kroupa 2002, Chabrier 2003, and references therein). 

1399: However, correlations of stellar IMF with cluster size $N$ could

1400: affect the distributions of UV radiation fields calculated here.

1401: Additional observation work should be carried out to determine if any

1402: such correlations exist, and how they are quantified.

1403: 

1404: In addition to EUV and FUV radiation, young stars also produce copious

1405: amounts of X-ray emission. As a result, cluster environments can also

1406: provide a significant X-ray background radiation field, which can also

1407: affect star and planet formation. In this case, the dominant effect is

1408: ionization, both in circumstellar disks and in pre-stellar cores. In

1409: the case of disks, ionization helps MRI produce disk accretion, and

1410: thereby helps the star formation process. In pre-stellar cores,

1411: ionization leads to greater coupling between gas the magnetic fields,

1412: and thereby slows down star formation. In future work, the construction 

1413: of X-ray backgrounds in clusters, and the effects of this radiation on 

1414: star formation, should be considered. 

1415: 

1416: \vskip 0.35truein 

1417: \centerline{\bf Acknowledgment} 

1418: 

1419: We thank Lori Allen, Tom Megeath, Phil Myers, and Eva Proszkow for

1420: useful discussions an an anonymous referee for useful comments that

1421: improved the paper.  This work was supported at the University of

1422: Michigan by the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, by the

1423: Astrophysics Theory Program (NNG04GK56G0), and by the Spitzer Space

1424: Telescope Theoretical Research Program (1290776). This work was

1425: supported at Xavier University through the Hauck Foundation.

1426: 

1427: 

1428: \bigskip 

1429: \begin{thebibliography} 

1430: \medskip 

1431: 

1432: \bibitem[ab]{ab05} 

1433: Adams, F. C., \& Bloch, A. M. 2005, ApJ, 629, 204 (AB05) 

1434: 

1435: \bibitem[af]{afat96}  

1436: Adams, F. C., \& Fatuzzo, M. 1996, ApJ, 464, 256  

1437: 

1438: \bibitem[ah]{adlg} 

1439: Adams, F. C., Hollenbach, D., Laughlin, G., \& Gorti, U. 

1440: 2004, ApJ, 611, 360 

1441: 

1442: \bibitem[al01]{al01} 

1443: Adams, F. C., \& Laughlin, G. 2001, Icarus, 150, 151 

1444: 

1445: \bibitem[am]{am01}

1446: Adams, F. C., \& Myers, P. C. 2001, ApJ, 553, 744

1447: 

1448: \bibitem[apfm]{apfm} 

1449: Adams, F. C., Proszkow, E. M., Fatuzzo, M., \& Myers, P. C. 

1450: 2006, ApJ, 641, 504 (APFM) 

1451: 

1452: \bibitem[alex]{alex}

1453: Alexander, R. D., Clarke, C. J., \& Pringle, J. E. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 229 

1454: 

1455: \bibitem[allen]{allen} 

1456: Allen, L. E., Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R., Myers, P. C., Adams,

1457: F. C., Muzzerolle, J., Young, E., \& Pipher, J. L. 2007, Protostars 

1458: and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth (Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press), p. 361

1459: 

1460: \bibitem[arm]{arm} 

1461: Armitage, P. J. 2000, A\&A, 362, 968 

1462: 

1463: \bibitem[bh]{bh}

1464: Balbus, S., \& Hawley, J. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214

1465: 

1466: \bibitem[balog]{balog}

1467: Balog, Z, Muzerolle, J., Rieke, G. H., Su, K. Y. L, \& Young, E. T.

1468: 2007, ApJ, 660,  1532

1469: 

1470: \bibitem[beth]{beth} 

1471: Bethell, T. J., Zweibel, E. G., \& Li, P. S. 2007, ApJ, 667, 275 

1472: 

1473: \bibitem[Binney and Tremaine 1987]{bt87}

1474: Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S. 1987, {Galactic Dynamics}, 

1475: (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press) 

1476: 

1477: \bibitem[carp]{carp00}

1478: Carpenter, J. M. 2000, AJ, 120, 3139

1479: 

1480: \bibitem[chab]{chab}

1481: Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763 

1482: 

1483: \bibitem[clark]{clark}

1484: Clarke, C. J., Gendrin, A., Sotomayor, M. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 485 

1485: 

1486: \bibitem[ee]{e2}

1487: Elmegreen, B. G., Efremov, Y., Pudritz, R. E., \& Zinnecker, H. 2000,

1488: Protostars and Planets IV, eds. V. Mannings, A. Boss, \& S. Russell  

1489: (Tucson: Univ. Ariz.  Press), p. 179

1490: 

1491: \bibitem[gam]{gam}

1492: Gammie, C. F. 1996, ApJ, 457, 355 

1493: 

1494: \bibitem[gpm]{gpm} 

1495: Guarcello, M. G., Prisinzano, L., Micela, G., Damiani, F., Peres, G.,

1496: \& Sciortino, S. 2007, A\&A, 462, 245

1497: 

1498: \bibitem[gh]{gh} 

1499: Gorti, U., \& Hollenbach, D. 2002, ApJ, 573, 215 

1500: 

1501: \bibitem[gou]{gou} 

1502: Gounelle, M., \& Meibom, A. 2007, submitted to ApJ 

1503: 

1504: \bibitem[haisch]{haisch}

1505: Haisch, K. E., Lada, E. A., \& Lada, C. J. 2001, ApJ, 553, L153

1506: 

1507: \bibitem[hq]{hq} 

1508: Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359 

1509: 

1510: \bibitem[h94]{h94}

1511: Hollenbach, D., Johnstone, D., Lizano, S., \& Shu, F. 1994, ApJ, 654, 669 

1512: 

1513: \bibitem[hyj]{hyj} 

1514: Hollenbach, D. J., Yorke, H. W., \& Johnstone, D. 2000, Protostars and

1515: Planets IV, eds. V. Mannings, A. Boss, \& S, Russell (Tucson: Univ. 

1516: Ariz.  Press), p. 401

1517: 

1518: \bibitem[ki]{ki} 

1519: Kobayashi, H., \& Ida, S. 2001, Icarus, 153, 416 

1520: 

1521: \bibitem[kr]{kr}

1522: Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82 

1523: 

1524: \bibitem[ll]{ll}

1525: Lada, C. J., \& Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA\&A, 41, 57

1526: 

1527: \bibitem[laugh]{laugh}

1528: Laughlin, G., Bodenheimer, P., \& Adams, F. C. 2004, ApJ, 612, 73 

1529: 

1530: \bibitem[]{mm87}

1531: Maeder, A., \& Meynet, G. 1987, A\&A, 182, 243 

1532: 

1533: \bibitem[malm]{malm} 

1534: Malmberg, D., de Angeli, F., Davies, M. B., Church, R. P., Mackey, D.,

1535: \& Wilkinson, M. I.  2007, MNRAS, 378, 1207

1536: 

1537: \bibitem[mass]{mass}

1538: Massey, P. 2003, ARA\&A, 41, 15 

1539: 

1540: \bibitem[ops]{ops} 

1541: Olczak, C., Pfalzner, S., \& Spurzem, R. 2006, ApJ, 642, 1140

1542: 

1543: \bibitem[adh]{adh} 

1544: Ouellette, N., Desch, S. J., Hester, J. J. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1268O

1545: 

1546: \bibitem[phm]{phm} 

1547: Parravano, A., Hollenbach, D. J., \& McKee, C. F. 2003, ApJ, 584, 797 

1548: 

1549: \bibitem[poe]{poe} 

1550: Pfalzner, S., Olczak, C., \& Eckart, A. 2006, A\&A, 454, 811

1551: 

1552: \bibitem[]{porras}

1553: Porras, A., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 1916

1554: 

1555: \bibitem[rich]{rich}

1556: Richtmyer, R. D. 1978, Principles of Advanced Mathematical Physics 

1557: (New York: Springer) 

1558: 

1559: \bibitem[]{salp55} 

1560: Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 

1561: 

1562: \bibitem[]{sc01} 

1563: Scally, A., \& Clarke, C. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 449 

1564: 

1565: \bibitem[]{ssmm92} 

1566: Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., \& Maeder, A. 1992, 

1567: A\&AS, 96, 269  

1568: 

1569: \bibitem[shu92]{shu92}

1570: Shu, F. H. 1992, Gas Dynamics, (Mill Valley: Univ. Sci. Books)  

1571: 

1572: \bibitem[sal]{sal} 

1573: Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., \& Lizano, S. 1987, ARA\&A, 25, 23 

1574: 

1575: \bibitem[]{sjh}

1576: Shu, F. H., Johnstone, D., \& Hollenbach, D. J. 1993, Icarus, 106, 92 

1577: 

1578: \bibitem[]{sh99}

1579: St\"orzer, H., \& Hollenbach, D. 1999, ApJ, 515, 688

1580: 

1581: \bibitem[]{tpn}

1582: Testi, L., Palla, F., \& Natta, A. 1998, A\&AS, 133, 81

1583: 

1584: \bibitem[tb]{tb}

1585: Throop, H. B., \& Bally, J. 2005, ApJ, 623, 149 

1586: 

1587: \bibitem[wg]{wg} 

1588: Williams, J. P., \& Gaidos, E. 2007, ApJ, 663, 33

1589: 

1590: \bibitem[zman]{zman} 

1591: Zahnle, K., Arndt, N., Cockell, C., Halliday, A., Nisbet, E., Selsis,

1592: F., \& Sleep, N. H.  2007, SSRv, 129, 35Z

1593: 

1594: \end{thebibliography}

1595: 

1596: \end{document}

1597: 

1598: 

1599: %\newpage 

1600: %\begin{figure}

1601: %\figurenum{8a}

1602: %{\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig8a.ps} }}

1603: %\figcaption{Same as Figure 7a with the second stellar IMF 

1604: %given by $(\fone, \Gamma, m_{max})$ = (0.12, 2.1, 100). } 

1605: %\end{figure}

1606:  

1607: %\newpage 

1608: %\begin{figure}

1609: %\figurenum{8b}

1610: %{\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig8b.ps} }}

1611: %\figcaption{Same as Figure 7b with the second stellar IMF 

1612: %given by $(\fone, \Gamma, m_{max})$ = (0.12, 2.1, 100). } 

1613: %\end{figure}

1614: 

1615: %\newpage 

1616: %\begin{figure}

1617: %\figurenum{9a}

1618: %{\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig9a.ps} }}

1619: %\figcaption{Same as Figure 7a with the third stellar IMF 

1620: %given by $(\fone, \Gamma, m_{max})$ = (0.12, 2.5, 100). } 

1621: %\end{figure}

1622: 

1623: %\newpage 

1624: %\begin{figure}

1625: %\figurenum{9b}

1626: %{\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig9b.ps} }}

1627: %\figcaption{Same as Figure 7a with the third stellar IMF 

1628: %given by $(\fone, \Gamma, m_{max})$ = (0.12, 2.5, 100). } 

1629: %\end{figure}

1630: 

1631: %\newpage 

1632: %\begin{figure}

1633: %\figurenum{11a}

1634: %{\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig11a.ps} }}

1635: %\figcaption{Same as Figure 7a, using the first stellar IMF, 

1636: %but with the extended cluster distribution function. } 

1637: %\end{figure}

1638: 

1639: %\newpage 

1640: %\begin{figure}

1641: %\figurenum{11b}

1642: %{\centerline{\epsscale{0.90} \plotone{fig11b.ps} }}

1643: %\figcaption{Same as Figure 7a, using the first stellar IMF, 

1644: %but with the extended cluster distribution function. } 

1645: %\end{figure}

1646: