1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \title{Flux-Limited Diffusion Approximation Models of Giant
6: Planet Formation by Disk Instability}
7:
8: \author{Alan P.~Boss}
9: \affil{Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of
10: Washington, 5241 Broad Branch Road, NW, Washington, DC 20015-1305}
11: \authoremail{boss@dtm.ciw.edu}
12:
13: \begin{abstract}
14:
15: Both core accretion and disk instability appear to be required
16: as formation mechanisms in order to explain the entire range of
17: giant planets found in extrasolar planetary systems. Disk instability
18: is based on the formation of clumps in a marginally-gravitationally
19: unstable protoplanetary disk. These clumps can only be expected to contract
20: and survive to become protoplanets if they are able to lose thermal energy
21: through a combination of convection and radiative cooling. Here we
22: present several new three dimensional, radiative hydrodynamics models
23: of self-gravitating protoplanetary disks, where radiative transfer is
24: handled in the flux-limited diffusion approximation. We show that
25: while the flux-limited models lead to higher midplane temperatures
26: than in a diffusion approximation model without
27: the flux-limiter, the difference in temperatures does not appear
28: to be sufficiently high to have any significant effect on
29: the formation of self-gravitating clumps. Self-gravitating clumps
30: form rapidly in the models both with and without the flux-limiter.
31: These models suggest that the reason for the different outcomes of
32: numerical models of disk instability by different groups cannot be
33: attributed solely to the handling of radiative transfer, but rather
34: appears to be caused by a range of numerical effects and assumptions.
35: Given the observational imperative to have disk instability form
36: at least some extrasolar planets, these models imply that disk
37: instability remains as a viable giant planet formation mechanism.
38:
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks -- hydrodynamics -- instabilities --
42: planetary systems: formation -- solar system: formation}
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: Observations of protoplanetary disks around T Tauri stars traditionally
47: imply disk masses in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 $M_\odot$ (Kitamura et al. 2002).
48: However, these disk masses may well be underestimated by as much as a factor
49: of 10 (Andrews \& Williams 2007). In addition, young stellar objects are
50: likely to have had even higher disk masses at ages younger than typical
51: T Tauri stars (a few Myr), as their protostellar disks transitioned
52: into protoplanetary disks. Combined with the need for planet formation
53: theorists to prefer increasingly higher disk masses in order to
54: account for the timely formation of gas giants by core accretion (e.g.,
55: Inaba et al. 2003 suggest a 0.08 $M_\odot$ disk, while Alibert et al.
56: 2005 considered disks as massive as 0.1 $M_\odot$), it is becoming
57: clear that at least some protoplanetary disks are likely to
58: have experienced a phase of gravitational instability, which might
59: have led to the rapid formation of gas giant planets by the disk
60: instability mechanism (e.g., Boss 1997; Mayer et al. 2002). The absence
61: of IR excesses in $\sim$ 65\% of the youngest stars observed by {\it Spitzer}
62: suggests that the majority of protoplanetary disks dissipate on time scales
63: of $\sim$ 1 Myr or less (Cieza et al. 2007). While core accretion models can
64: be constructed that permit giant planet formation times less than 1 Myr
65: (Chambers 2006), other assumptions can require formation times of several
66: Myr (e.g., Inaba et al. 2003; Alibert et al. 2005).
67:
68: Considering that estimates of the frequency of gas giant planets
69: around G dwarfs with orbits inside $\sim$ 20 AU range from $\sim$ 20\%
70: to $\sim$ 40\%, there is a need for at least one robust formation
71: mechanism for gas giant planets. It is important to note that {\it both}
72: core accretion and disk instability appear to be needed to explain
73: the range of extrasolar planets detected to date. Core accretion would
74: seem to be the preferred mechanism to form giant planets with very
75: large inferred core masses. E.g., HD 149026b has been inferred to have a
76: core mass of $\sim$ 70 $M_\oplus$ with a gaseous envelope of
77: $\sim$ 40 $M_\oplus$ (Sato et al. 2005), though the formation of this
78: planet is hard to explain even by core accretion (Ikoma et al. 2006).
79: Disk instability would seem to be the preferred mechanism for forming
80: gas giants in very low metallicity systems (e.g., the M4 pulsar planet,
81: where the metallicity [Fe/H] = -1.5 [Sigurdsson et al. 2003], and
82: perhaps the giant planets orbiting HD 155358 and HD 47536,
83: both of which have [Fe/H] = -0.68 [Cochran et al. 2007]).
84: While disk instability is somewhat insensitive to metallicity
85: (Boss 2002), recent models have suggested that higher metallicity
86: could aid in the formation of giant planets by disk instability
87: (Mayer et al. 2007). Disk instability also appears to be needed to form
88: gas giant planets around M dwarf stars (Boss 2006b), though the situation
89: regarding formation by core accretion is unclear at present
90: (Laughlin et al. 2004; cf., Kornet et al. 2006).
91:
92: Based on all of these observations and detections, then, the
93: main theoretical questions would seem to be whether there is
94: a formation mechanism that can account for the {\it majority}
95: of extrasolar planets, and if so, which mechanism it is. In
96: order to answer these questions, theorists have been busily examining
97: core accretion and disk instability in increasingly greater detail.
98: Core accretion has been subjected to considerably greater
99: scrutiny than disk instability, given that it has been the
100: generally accepted mechanism for giant planet formation for
101: almost three decades, dating back to Mizuno (1980), whereas
102: disk instability is only a decade-old as a serious alternative
103: to core accretion (Boss 1997), and is just now beginning to be
104: investigated sufficiently to discover its strengths and weaknesses.
105:
106: Theorists studying disk instability are divided into two distinct camps,
107: those whose numerical models support the possibility of forming giant planets
108: by this means (e.g., Boss 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006a,b, 2007;
109: Mayer et al. 2002, 2004, 2007), and those whose
110: numerical models (e.g., Pickett et al. 2000; Cai et al. 2006;
111: Boley et al. 2006, 2007a,b) or analytical arguments (e.g., Rafikov 2007)
112: do not. The reason for this basic difference in outcomes is presently unclear,
113: and may be a combination of many effects (Nelson 2006; Boss 2007), such
114: as numerical spatial resolution, gravitational potential solver accuracy,
115: use of artificial viscosity, degree of stellar irradiation, detailed
116: radiative transfer effects, and spurious numerical heating.
117:
118: Recently attention has been focused on the role of radiative losses
119: from the surface of the disk. A disk instability is likely to
120: be stifled if the optically-thick clumps that form are unable to
121: lose at least some of the thermal energy produced by compressional
122: heating during contraction to protoplanetary densities. While vertical
123: convection appears to be able to cool the disk midplane (Boss 2004;
124: Boley et al. 2006; Mayer et al. 2007; Rafikov 2007), this thermal
125: energy must eventually be radiated away at the disk's surface.
126: Models employing the flux-limited diffusion approximation have
127: been presented by Boley et al. (2006, 2007b) and Mayer et al. (2007),
128: reaching opposite conclusions regarding the possibility of disk
129: instability forming protoplanets. The treatment of radiative
130: boundary conditions for the disk differs for each group.
131: Boley et al. (2006) fit an atmosphere to the flux
132: originating from the interior of the disk. Mayer et al. (2007) assume
133: blackbody emission at the disk surface (for particles defined as being
134: on the surface), while the present models use an envelope bath
135: with a fixed temperature, typically 50 K.
136:
137: With the exception of a single test model mentioned in passing by Boss (2001),
138: all of the author's disk instability models since Boss (2001) have employed
139: diffusion approximation radiative transfer {\it without} a flux-limiter,
140: for reasons of computational performance. We present here
141: three new models that explore in some detail the effects of including
142: a flux-limiter in disk instability models, in the hopes of helping
143: to decide if this particular numerical choice is responsible for
144: the distinct disparity in outcomes of disk instability models.
145:
146: \section{Numerical Methods}
147:
148: The calculations were performed with a code that solves the three
149: dimensional equations of hydrodynamics and radiative transfer, as well
150: as the Poisson equation for the gravitational potential. This code
151: has been used in all of the author's previous studies of disk instability,
152: and is second-order-accurate in both space and time (Boss \& Myhill 1992).
153:
154: The equations are solved on a spherical coordinate grid with $N_r = 101$,
155: $N_\theta = 23$ in $\pi/2 \ge \theta \ge 0$, and $N_\phi = 512$.
156: The radial grid is uniformly spaced with $\Delta r = 0.16$ AU between 4
157: and 20 AU. The $\theta$ grid is compressed into the midplane to ensure
158: adequate vertical resolution ($\Delta \theta = 0.3^o$ at the midplane).
159: The $\phi$ grid is uniformly spaced, and the central protostar is assumed
160: to move in such a way as to preserve the location of the center of
161: mass of the entire system. The number of terms in the spherical harmonic
162: expansion for the gravitational potential of the disk is $N_{Ylm} = 48$.
163: The Jeans length criterion is monitored to ensure that numerical
164: artifacts do not form.
165:
166: The boundary conditions are chosen at both 4 and 20 AU to absorb radial
167: velocity perturbations. Mass and momentum that enters the innermost
168: shell of cells at 4 AU are added to the central protostar and so removed
169: from the hydrodynamical grid, whereas mass and momentum that reach the
170: outermost shell of cells at 20 AU piles up at the boundary.
171:
172: \section{Flux-Limited Diffusion Approximation}
173:
174: All of the author's disk instability models since Boss (2001) have
175: employed radiative transfer in the diffusion approximation, through
176: the solution of the equation determining the evolution of the
177: specific internal energy $E$:
178:
179: $${\partial (\rho E) \over \partial t} + \nabla \cdot (\rho E {\bf v}) =
180: - p \nabla \cdot {\bf v} + \nabla \cdot \bigl[ { 4 \over 3 \kappa \rho}
181: \nabla ( \sigma T^4 ) \bigr], $$
182:
183: \noindent
184: where $\rho$ is the total gas and dust mass density, $t$ is time,
185: ${\bf v}$ is the velocity of the gas and dust (considered to be a
186: single fluid), $p$ is the gas pressure, $\kappa$ is the Rosseland
187: mean opacity, $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant,
188: and $T$ is the gas and dust temperature. The energy
189: equation is solved explicitly in conservation law form, as are the
190: four other hydrodynamic equations.
191:
192: The final term in the energy equation represents the transfer of energy by
193: radiation in the diffusion approximation, which is valid in
194: optically thick regions of the disk. Given typical midplane
195: optical depths of $\sim 10^4$, the diffusion approximation should
196: be valid at the disk midplane and throughout most of the disk, though
197: it will break down at the surface of the disk. In order to ensure that
198: the diffusion approximation did not affect the solution in
199: regions where it is not valid, Boss (2001) used a simple artifice
200: to control the flux in the low optical depth regions of the disk:
201: the divergence of the radiative flux term was set equal to zero
202: in regions wherever the optical depth $\tau$ dropped below a critical
203: value $\tau_{crit}$, where $\tau_{crit}$ was typically set equal to 10.
204:
205: An alternative approach to treating the low optical depth regions
206: of disks in the diffusion approximation is to employ a flux-limiter
207: (e.g., Bodenheimer et al. 1990). The purpose of a flux-limiter is
208: to enforce the physical law that in low optical depth regions the ratio
209: of the radiative flux ${\vec F}$ to the radiative energy density $e_r$
210: cannot exceed the speed of light $c$, i.e., $|{\vec F}| \le c e_r$.
211: Bodenheimer et al. (1990) adopted a prescription for enforcing
212: this constraint based on the flux-limiter proposed by Levermore \&
213: Pomraning (1981) for the situation where scattering of light is
214: negligible. The Levermore \& Pomraning (1981) flux-limiter is based on a
215: heuristic argument leading to an approximation consisting of a rational
216: function that uses a polynomial involving gradients of the radiation energy
217: density. They then tested their formulation against an exact solution
218: for planar geometry, i.e., one-dimensional radiative transfer.
219: Their flux-limiter has been employed by Boley et al. (2006) and by
220: Mayer et al. (2007) in their disk instability calculations, with
221: differing results, as well as in the molecular cloud collapse models
222: of Whitehouse \& Bate (2006).
223:
224: The author's diffusion approximation code is derived from a
225: code that handles radiation transfer in the Eddington approximation
226: (Boss 1984; Boss \& Myhill 1992). In this code, the energy equation is
227: solved along with the mean intensity equation, given by
228:
229: $$ {1 \over 3} {1 \over \kappa \rho} \nabla \cdot ( {1 \over \kappa \rho}
230: \nabla J) - J = -B $$
231:
232: \noindent
233: where $J$ is the mean intensity and $B$ is the Planck function
234: ($B = \sigma T^4 / \pi$). The mean intensity $J$ is related to the
235: radiative energy density $e_r$ by $J = c e_r / 4 \pi$, while the net flux
236: vector ${\vec H}$ is given by ${\vec H} = {\vec F} / 4 \pi$. Hence,
237: the statement of physical causality $|{\vec F}| \le c e_r$ is
238: equivalent to $|{\vec H}| \le J$. The Eddington approximation
239: version of the code does not calculate ${\vec H}$ directly,
240: but rather $\nabla \cdot {\vec H}$, as this quantity is used
241: in the code to calculate the time rate of change of energy per
242: unit volume due to radiative transfer, $L$, through
243:
244: $$ L = - 4 \pi \nabla \cdot {\vec H} =
245: {4 \pi \over 3} \nabla \cdot ({1 \over \kappa \rho} \nabla J) $$
246:
247: \noindent
248: in optically thick regions (Boss 1984). Hence, it is convenient
249: to apply the physical causality constraint $|{\vec H}| \le J$
250: in another form. Using the equation for $L$, one finds
251:
252: $$ {\vec H} = - {1 \over 3 \kappa \rho} \nabla J. $$
253:
254: \noindent
255: The constraint $|{\vec H}| \le J$ then becomes
256:
257: $$ | {4 \pi \over 3 \kappa \rho} \nabla J | \le 4 \pi J. $$
258:
259: \noindent
260: This constraint is then evaluated in a convenient but approximate
261: manner by effectively taking the divergence of both sides of this
262: equation, resulting in a constraint on $L$ that
263:
264: $$ |L| = |{4 \pi \over 3} \nabla \cdot ({1 \over \kappa \rho} \nabla J)|
265: \le |4 \pi \nabla \cdot {\vec J}|,$$
266:
267: \noindent
268: where ${\vec J}$ is a pseudovector with $J$ as components in all
269: three directions. In the diffusion approximation, $J = B$.
270: In practice, then, $L$ is calculated for each
271: numerical grid point, and if $|L|$ exceeds $|4 \pi \nabla \cdot {\vec J}|$,
272: $L$ is set equal to $|4 \pi \nabla \cdot {\vec J}|$ but with the
273: original sign of $L$ (i.e., preserving the sense of whether the
274: grid cell is gaining or losing energy through radiative transfer).
275:
276: Boss (2001) noted in passing that a model where this flux limiter
277: was employed did not result in any major changes in the progress
278: of the disk instability models under investigation, but provided
279: no details or justification for this statement. The main purpose
280: of this paper is to return to this potentially key point, calculate
281: several new models with this version of flux-limited diffusion, and
282: compare them to a disk instability model without a flux-limiter.
283:
284: \section{Results}
285:
286: We now present the results of a set of three new models
287: employing the flux-limiter defined in the previous section.
288: The three models vary only in the value chosen for the critical
289: optical depth $\tau_{crit}$, below which the term calculating
290: the time rate of change of energy per unit volume due to radiative
291: transfer, $L$ (effectively the divergence of the radiative flux),
292: was set equal to zero. The three models employed $\tau_{crit} =$
293: 0.1, 1.0, 10.0. In practice, all three of these models evolved
294: in very much the same manner, so figures will only be shown for the
295: model with $\tau_{crit} = 1.0$, termed model FL1. The three models are
296: all continuations in time of model HR of Boss (2001), starting at
297: a time of 322 yrs of evolution in model HR, and continuing for
298: up to another 8 yrs of evolution ($\sim 1/2$ clump orbital period).
299: The new models are compared to model TE of Boss (2007), which
300: used diffusion approximation radiative transfer, but without
301: the flux-limiter, and which also started from model HR of Boss (2001)
302: after 322 yrs of evolution.
303:
304: The results for models FL1 and TE at a time of 326 yrs of evolution
305: are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The midplane density contours for
306: the two models are very similar, especially so for the highest
307: density regions (cross-hatched). The densest spiral arms and
308: clumps that exist at this phase of the evolution are located
309: between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock in Figures 1 and 2, with
310: maximum densities of $\sim 1.6 \times 10^{-9}$ g cm$^{-3}$ occurring
311: in the clumps at 6:30 o'clock.
312:
313: Figures 3 and 4 depict the temperature and optical depth profiles as a
314: function of vertical height above the midplane, along the $\theta$
315: coordinate direction, starting from the cells with the maximum
316: densities in models FL1 and TE. Two different evaluations of the
317: optical depth are plotted, namely the optical depth in
318: the radial direction (the value used in evaluating all
319: radiative transfer effects, including $L$ and $\tau_{crit}$, in
320: model TE and all previous models by the author, including the
321: flux-limiter test mentioned by Boss 2001), and the optical
322: depth in the $\theta$ direction, which was used for evaluating
323: $L$ and $\tau_{crit}$ in the three new models.
324: The decision of using an optical depth $\tau$
325: dependent only on the radial coordinate direction was originally made
326: in order to enforce consistency with spherically symmetric
327: calculations of protostellar cloud collapse, the problem that initially
328: motivated the development and testing of this radiative hydrodynamics
329: code (e.g., Boss \& Myhill 1992; Myhill \& Boss 1993).
330: Figures 3 and 4 show that these two different evaluations
331: of $\tau$ do not differ greatly from each other, varying by no more
332: than a factor of 6 at the same vertical height. Given
333: the spatial resolution in the $\theta$ coordinate, the
334: differences in the two evaluations of where $\tau = \tau_{crit}$
335: typically differ by less than one vertical cell. Improving this treatment of
336: $\tau$ in a three dimensional code may require the
337: use of an angle-dependent ray-tracing radiative transfer
338: routine, which would be prohibitively computationally expensive.
339: Alternatively, one could imagine using a weighted mean $\tau$ derived
340: from the values of $\tau$ in the three coordinate directions.
341: Nevertheless, it is apparent from Figures 3 and 4 that the
342: surface of the disk, defined as where $\tau \sim 2/3$, falls
343: at a vertical height of $\sim$ 1.6 to 1.7 AU in both models.
344:
345: Figures 5 and 6 are perhaps the most important for discerning
346: the effects of the flux-limiter, showing the vertical
347: temperature profiles over the maximum density clumps in
348: Figures 1 and 2 for models FL1 and TE. While the temperature
349: differences are hard to discern when plotted on a log scale
350: (Figure 3 and 4), on a linear scale it is clear that in
351: the flux-limiter model (FL1), there is a much steeper vertical
352: temperature gradient near the surface of the disk than in
353: the model without the flux-limiter (TE), as might be expected.
354: [Note that in both models, the temperature is assumed to fall
355: to 50 K in the disk's envelope (e.g., Chick \& Cassen 1997).]
356: In spite of this steeper rise below the disk's surface, however,
357: in both models FL1 and TE the profile flattens out near the
358: disk midplane and approaches essentially the same value of
359: $\approx 100$ K, with model FL1 being less than 2 K hotter than
360: model TE at the midplane. This similarity in thermal
361: behavior is consistent with the similarities in the density
362: evolution seen in Figure 1 and 2.
363:
364: The models assume that the disk is immersed in an envelope bath
365: at 50 K. The specific internal energy of the envelope gas in cells with
366: densities less than $10^{-12}$ g cm$^{-3}$ is recalculated each time step
367: from the internal energy equation of state, using the assumed envelope
368: temperature of 50 K and the envelope density at each grid cell. The
369: specific internal energy is thus forced to track the temperature
370: profiles displayed in Figures 5 and 6 and so to merge smoothly
371: with the assumed envelope thermal bath. This assumption can
372: lead to either the gain or the loss of internal energy, depending on
373: whether the envelope cell had a temperature lower than or greater
374: than 50 K before the envelope temperature constraint was applied.
375: It is important to note that while the handling of the disk's
376: surface is directly linked to the ability of the disk to cool
377: itself by radiation into the infalling envelope, this surface treatment
378: has relatively little effect on the cooling of the midplane by
379: convective-like motions, as the driver for these motions is the
380: vertical temperature gradient near the disk's midplane, not the
381: disk's surface. Figure 5 in Boss (2004) shows that the
382: regions of convective instability according to the Schwarzschild
383: criterion are concentrated near the disk midplane, in spite of
384: the fact that the midplane is forced to be convectively stable
385: by the assumption of equatorial reflection symmetry.
386:
387: Figure 7 and 8 display the results of both models after another 4 yrs
388: of evolution, at $\sim$ 330 yrs, the maximum time to which model FL1 was
389: evolved. It is evident again from these figures that the models continued
390: to evolve in a highly similar manner. In order to quantify this,
391: the dense clumps seen at 7:30 o'clock in Figures 7 and 8 were
392: evaluated in detail. For model FL1, this clump had a maximum
393: density of $1.2 \times 10^{-9}$ g cm$^{-3}$, and contained a
394: mass of 0.24 $M_{Jupiter}$ within regions with a density no less
395: than 1/30 of the maximum density. This mass exceeds the Jeans
396: mass of 0.23 $M_{Jupiter}$ for this clump, implying that it is
397: gravitationally bound. The ratio of thermal energy to gravitational
398: energy for the clump is 0.84. The equivalent spherical radius of the
399: clump was 0.38 AU, which is smaller than the critical tidal
400: radius of 0.49 AU, implying stability against tidal forces.
401: For comparison, the corresponding clump in model TE had a maximum
402: density of $1.5 \times 10^{-9}$ g cm$^{-3}$, containing a
403: mass of 0.30 $M_{Jupiter}$, compared to a Jeans mass of 0.24.
404: The ratio of thermal energy to gravitational energy for this clump is 0.77.
405: The equivalent spherical radius of this clump was 0.39 AU,
406: also smaller than the critical tidal radius of 0.52 AU. While
407: model TE yielded a clump at this time that was 25\% more massive
408: than in model FL1, both models produced apparently
409: self-gravitating clumps that could go on to form gas giant
410: protoplanets. The estimated orbital eccentricities and semimajor
411: axes are 0.033 and 11.3 AU for the clump in model FL1 and 0.004
412: and 11.3 for model TE clump at $\sim$ 330 yrs: both clumps are
413: on roughly circular orbits at this time.
414:
415: Evidently the clumps in both models are only marginally gravitationally
416: bound and marginally tidally stable, as shown by the fact that they
417: tend to disappear within an orbital period or less. Calculations with
418: even higher spatial resolution have shown that the clumps become
419: better-defined as a result (Boss 2005), suggesting that in the
420: continuum limit, the clumps should survive to become protoplanets.
421: An adaptive mesh refinement code will be needed to properly investigate
422: the long-term survival of such clumps.
423:
424: Figures 9 and 10 display the midplane temperature distributions
425: for models FL1 and TE at the same times as the density distributions
426: shown in Figures 7 and 8. The distributions are again highly
427: similar, at least in the outer disk and in the clump-forming
428: region. However, the region of the model FL1 disk inside about 6 AU
429: does appear to be considerably more nonaxisymmetric than
430: in the case of model TE, which is very nearly axisymmetric
431: inside 6 AU. Evidently use of the flux-limiter can lead to
432: significantly stronger nonaxisymmetric variations in the
433: temperature field. However, these temperature changes have
434: little effect on the clump-forming region of the disk, as the inner
435: disk is the hottest region of the disk, with the midplane temperature
436: rising to over 630 K at the inner boundary at 4 AU, sufficiently
437: high to ensure gravitational stability ($Q >> 1$). Clumps
438: do not form in the inner region in these models because of the
439: high inner disk temperatures in the initial radial temperature
440: profile.
441:
442: In spite of the basic agreement after $\sim$ 8 yrs of evolution,
443: one must wonder what would happen on the much longer time
444: scales that must be considered in deciding whether these
445: clumps could survive to form gaseous protoplanets. In order
446: to address this question, Figures 11 and 12 show the time
447: evolutions of the volume-averaged midplane temperatures
448: and total midplane thermal energies for both models. The
449: intention is to discern if there are any trends evident
450: over 8 yrs of evolution that could be used to decide the
451: extent to which these two models might diverge if they
452: could be evolved arbitrarily farther in time. Figures 11 and 12
453: reveal no such evidence for divergence: both of these
454: quantities, when plotted for the entire midplane region
455: (Figure 11), or only for the region from 6.5 to 13 AU of
456: most interest for disk instability (Figure 12), show
457: that the two models evolve in very similar manners and
458: give no hint that their evolutions might turn out to
459: be significantly different if evolved even further in time.
460:
461: The models with the flux-limiter run considerably slower
462: than models without a flux-limiter, as in order to maintain a
463: stable solution of the energy equation with explicit time
464: differences, a smaller time step (often 1\% of the
465: Courant time step) had to be employed. This fact is evident
466: from Figures 11 and 12, which plot disk quantities every
467: 10,000 time steps for models FL1 and TE: it is clear from the
468: density of plot symbols that model FL1 required many more time
469: steps to evolve for the same period of time as model TE. The
470: flux-limiter models each required roughly one year of
471: machine time on a dedicated Alpha workstation to run for only up to
472: 8 yrs of model evolution time, i.e., the models were being
473: calculated only eight times faster than the disks were evolving in
474: model time, a situation similar to current weather prediction models.
475:
476: Rather than attempt to run these models significantly further in
477: time, then, one can address the question of the extent to
478: which the flux-limiter is having a long-term effect on the disk
479: by examining more closely the evolution of the innermost disk,
480: where the shorter orbital periods mean that the calculation
481: has effectively been evolved for more dynamical times, i.e.,
482: for closer to a full orbital period. In order to be more
483: quantitative than is possible by presenting only density and
484: temperature contour plots, Figure 13 shows the amplitudes
485: of the $m = 1$ mode in the spherical harmonic representation
486: of the midplane density distribution, as a function of radial
487: distance, for models FL1 and TE. The time shown in Figure 13
488: was chosen in order to be as late as possible in the evolution
489: of model FL1, yet as close as possible in time to model TE (data
490: files are only stored every 10,000 times steps, so the times
491: available for cross-comparison are quite limited as a result.)
492: Figure 13 shows that the amount of nonaxisymmetry in the two
493: models is nearly identical in the clump-forming region and beyond
494: (outer 2/3 in radius), but is still reasonably well-correlated
495: even in the innermost disk. At some radii, model FL1 has a higher
496: $m = 1$ amplitude than model TE, and the opposite is true at other
497: inner disk radii. Figure 13 shows that the degree of nonaxisymmetry
498: is well-correlated in both models, even in the innermost disk
499: where orbital periods are the shortest, suggesting that the
500: innermost disk shows little or no tendency for diverging
501: in behavior, at least over these time scales, as a result of the
502: flux-limiter.
503:
504: Finally, Figures 14 and 15 show the effects of the flux-limiter
505: on the convective energy fluxes in models FL1 and TE at
506: $\sim$ 330 yrs. The vertical convective energy flux is calculated
507: as in Boss (2004) as the product of the local vertical
508: velocity, cell area, specific internal energy, and cell density.
509: Figures 14 and 15 plot this flux for a conical surface at a
510: fixed angle of 0.3 degrees above the disk's midplane (i.e.,
511: the $J = 2$ cells in the $\theta$ coordinate).
512: The convective flux must vanish at the midplane as a consequence
513: of the assumed equatorial symmetry of the models; if this
514: constraint were to be lifted, more vigorous convective fluxes are
515: to be expected (e.g., Ruden et al. 1988). These two figures
516: show that application of the flux-limiter has no obvious
517: systematic effects on the vertical convective fluxes near
518: the midplane, where the need for convective cooling is
519: most severe; the overall patterns of upwelling and downwelling
520: regions are quite similar in both models.
521:
522: \section{Discussion}
523:
524: These models have shown that the flux-limiter has relatively
525: little effect on the evolution, at least during a phase when the
526: disk has already begun forming strong spiral arms and clumps.
527: The question arises as to what would happen if the flux-limiter
528: was applied earlier in the evolution of the disk, prior to
529: the formation of highly nonaxisymmetric structures. The model
530: noted in passing by Boss (2001) began at an earlier time than
531: in the present models, after 141 yrs of evolution instead of
532: after 322 yrs, and so tested the effects of the flux-limiter
533: at such an earlier phase. Unfortunately, the data files from
534: the Boss (2001) flux-limiter model no longer exist, as
535: the models were run in 2000 and stored on a hard disk that
536: has since failed. Hence it is not possible to present those
537: results in the detail presented here, a fact that motivated
538: calculation of the models in this paper. The flux-limiter
539: model from Boss (2001) was compared to a non-flux-limiter
540: model by visual inspection of density contour plots, as
541: in Figures 1 and 2 and in Figures 7 and 8 in the present paper,
542: with the conclusion being that there were no significant
543: differences apparent in the degree of clumpiness in the two
544: models. While purely a qualitative judgement, these results
545: suggest that the role of the flux-limiter is similarly
546: limited both early and late in the development of a phase
547: of disk instability.
548:
549: Boley et al. (2006, 2007b) have presented the results of a
550: series of tests of their radiative hydrodynamics code on a
551: ``toy problem'' (the plane-parallel grey atmosphere)
552: with sufficient assumptions to permit an
553: analytical solution for the temperature distribution. Their
554: toy problem assumes an infinite slab, making the problem the
555: same as a one-dimensional Cartesian atmosphere. This toy problem
556: is well-suited to their cylindrical coordinate code, as their vertical
557: ($z$) cylindrical coordinate is effectively a one-dimensional Cartesian
558: coordinate, and by freezing motion in the radial direction
559: (Boley et al. 2006) and applying suitable boundary conditions
560: at the disk edges the Boley et al. code can be used to simulate
561: a plane-parallel atmosphere.
562:
563: Boley et al. (2006) ``... challenge
564: all researchers who publish radiative hydrodynamics simulations
565: to perform similar tests or to develop tests of their own and
566: publish the results.'' While it would be ideal to be able to undertake
567: the same tests as those examined by Boley et al. (2006, 2007b), the fact
568: that their tests assume a plane-parallel atmosphere makes them
569: unsuitable for a spherical coordinate code, which has no Cartesian
570: coordinate. The closest analogue coordinate for the present code would be the
571: $\theta$ coordinate, but trying to reproduce a plane-parallel atmosphere
572: solution with spherical coordinates places the spherical coordinate code
573: at a distinct disadvantage from the beginning, as any attempt
574: to study a plane-parallel atmosphere with such a code will
575: immediately introduce corrugations in all variables in each
576: azimuthal ($r$, $\theta$) plane. One could perhaps average over
577: the entire disk to try to remove these corrugations, but the non-uniform
578: $\theta$ grid spacing, designed to represent realistic protoplanetary
579: disks, not plane-parallel slabs, would result in highly variable
580: effective spacings in the vertical direction, which would further
581: complicate the analysis. Studying the performance of the current
582: radiative hydrodynamics code on the Boley et al. (2006, 2007b)
583: tests in an unbiased manner requires writing a new one dimensional
584: radiative hydrodynamics code based on the same numerical assumptions
585: as the present three dimensional spherical coordinate code.
586: Writing and testing such a code, even before trying the Boley et
587: al. (2006, 2007b) tests, is a non-trivial task, as no such code
588: exists. Writing such a code to perform the Boley et al. (2006, 2007b)
589: tests would be a worthy goal for future work.
590:
591: Alternatively, it is possible that a spherical coordinate
592: version of the Boley et al. (2006, 2007b) tests could be posed
593: and examined with the one dimensional spherical coordinate version
594: of the present code. This would also meet the request by Boley
595: et al. (2006) ``... to develop tests of their own and publish
596: the results.'' This task remains for future investigation.
597:
598: Finally, it should be noted that the motivation of this
599: paper is the same as that expressed in the Boley et al. (2006)
600: request ``... to develop tests of their own and
601: publish the results.'' Many other numerical tests of the present
602: code have been presented as follows: spatial resolution
603: (Boss 2000, 2005); gravitational potential solver (Boss 2000,
604: 2001, 2005), artificial viscosity (Boss 2006a); and
605: radiative transfer (Boss 2001, 2007). It would be valuable
606: for other reseachers to consider their own tests of all
607: of these key numerical aspects.
608:
609: \section{Conclusions}
610:
611: The results presented here confirm the statement made by Boss (2001)
612: that the inclusion of a flux-limiter in these calculations does
613: not lead to significantly different outcomes for the progress
614: of a disk instability calculation. Even with the
615: steeper vertical temperature gradient near the disk surface when
616: a flux-limiter was employed (Figures 7 and 8), the corresponding
617: midplane temperature increased by no more than 2\%. Similarly,
618: Boss (2007) investigated the effects of several other changes
619: in the treatment of radiative transfer in these models,
620: finding that the numerical assumption that had the largest
621: effect was the relaxation of the monotonically declining vertical
622: temperature profile, which resulted in clumps that were no more
623: than a factor of 2 times less dense than when monotonicity was enforced.
624: For comparison, for models FL1 and TE in Figure 7 and 8, the
625: maximum clump densities differed by only 25\%, implying even less
626: of a difference between models FL1 and TE and the two models (H and TZ)
627: from Boss (2007).
628:
629: Evidently disk instability is tolerant of a range of treatments
630: of the radiative transfer, at least up to a point. If there
631: is a means for a clump to cool enough to contract, the clump
632: will find this means to allow its survival. In this context it
633: is of interest to note that analytical evaluations of disk instability
634: (e.g., Rafikov 2007) have been restricted to considering plane
635: parallel (one dimensional) disk models, where the entire
636: disk midplane must be cooled, in order to cool the disk
637: midplane anywhere at all. In a more realistic three dimensional
638: disk model, of the sort depicted in the present numerical models,
639: only the limited midplane region inside the dense clump needs to lose
640: thermal energy, in any direction, in order for the clump
641: to continue to contract and possibly survive to become
642: a gas giant planet. This is a considerably relaxed criterion
643: for cooling and ultimate clump survival compared to the cooling of an
644: entire slab of midplane gas and dust. Similarly, a hot spot
645: on the disk surface above a contracting clump will find it
646: easier to radiate away its thermal energy than if the entire
647: disk surface has the same vertical thermal profile as that under
648: the hot spot.
649:
650: Given the apparent observational need for disk instability to be
651: able to form gas giant planets in some protostellar environments,
652: if flux-limiters and other radiative transfer effects are not
653: the main reason for the discrepant outcomes in models of disk
654: instability, then there must be other reasons, or combinations
655: of reasons, for these differences, as examined and discussed
656: in some detail by Nelson (2006) and Boss (2007). Spurious
657: heating of the inner disk associated with numerical oscillations
658: is one possible source of these discrepancies that deserves
659: further scrutiny (Boley et al. 2006, 2007b), as this leads to gravitational
660: stability in the same region of the disk where clumps form in other
661: disk instability models (Boss 2007).
662:
663: Because of the unsatisfactory nature of the theoretical understanding
664: of disk instabilities at present, it is important to continue
665: to undertake code tests. The present models have shown that
666: the use of a flux-limiter has relatively little effect on the
667: evolution of an instability during the phase when the disk is
668: already dynamically unstable. However, it is also important
669: to investigate the role of a flux-limiter during earlier phases
670: of evolution, before the disk becomes unstable, in order to learn
671: if the flux-limiter can affect clump formation if applied from
672: the very beginning of the evolution. A new model is underway that
673: investigates this possibility, and the results will be presented
674: in a future paper. Other code tests should also be sought, similar
675: to the radiative transfer tests advanced by Boley et al. (2006,
676: 2007b), except for spherical geometry instead of slab geometry,
677: so that the present code can be tested in a similar manner.
678:
679: \acknowledgements
680:
681: I thank the referee for a number of good ideas for improving the manuscript,
682: and Sandy Keiser for computer systems support. This research was
683: supported in part by NASA Planetary Geology and Geophysics grants NNG05GH30G
684: and NNX07AP46G, and is contributed in part to NASA Astrobiology Institute
685: grant NCC2-1056. The calculations were performed on the Carnegie Alpha
686: Cluster, the purchase of which was partially supported by NSF Major Research
687: Instrumentation grant MRI-9976645.
688:
689: \begin{references}
690:
691: \reference{r}
692: Alibert, Y., et al. 2005, A\&A, 434, 343
693:
694: \reference{r}
695: Andrews, S. M., \& Williams, J. P. 2007, ApJ, 659, 705
696:
697: \reference{r}
698: Bodenheimer, P., Yorke, H. W., R\'o\`zyczka, M., \& Tohline, J. E. 1990,
699: ApJ, 355, 651
700:
701: \reference{r}
702: Boley, A. C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 517
703:
704: \reference{r}
705: Boley, A. C., Hartquist, T. W., Durisen, R. H., \& Michael, S. 2007a,
706: ApJ, 656, L89 (erratum 660, L175)
707:
708: \reference{r}
709: Boley, A. C., Durisen, R. H., Nordlund, A., \& Lord, J. 2007b,
710: ApJ, 665, 1254
711:
712: \reference{r}
713: Boss, A. P. 1984, ApJ, 277, 768
714:
715: \reference{r}
716: ------. 1997, Science, 276, 1836
717:
718: \reference{r}
719: ------. 2000, ApJ, 536, L101
720:
721: \reference{r}
722: ------. 2001, ApJ, 563, 367
723:
724: \reference{r}
725: ------. 2002, ApJ, 567, L149
726:
727: \reference{r}
728: ------. 2004, ApJ, 610, 456
729:
730: \reference{r}
731: ------. 2005, ApJ, 629, 535
732:
733: \reference{r}
734: ------. 2006a, ApJ, 641, 1148
735:
736: \reference{r}
737: ------. 2006b, ApJ, 643, 501
738:
739: \reference{r}
740: ------. 2007, ApJL, 661, L73
741:
742: \reference{r}
743: Boss, A. P., \& Myhill, E. A. 1992, ApJS, 83, 311
744:
745: \reference{r}
746: Cai, K., et al. 2006, ApJL, 636, L149 (erratum 642, L173)
747:
748: \reference{r}
749: Chambers, J. E. 2006, ApJ, 652, L133
750:
751: \reference{r}
752: Chick, K. M., \& Cassen, P. 1997, ApJ, 477, 398
753:
754: \reference{r}
755: Cieza, L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 667, 308
756:
757: \reference{r}
758: Cochran, W. D., Endl, M., Wittenmyer, R. A., \& Bean, J. L. 2007,
759: ApJ, 665, 1407
760:
761: \reference{r}
762: Ikoma, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 650, 1150
763:
764: \reference{r}
765: Inaba, S., Wetherill, G. W. \& Ikoma, M. 2003, Icarus, 166, 46
766:
767: \reference{r}
768: Kitamura, Y., et al. 2002, ApJ, 581, 357
769:
770: \reference{r}
771: Kornet, K., Wolf, S., \& R\'o\.zyczka, M. 2006, A\&A, 458, 661
772:
773: \reference{r}
774: Laughlin, G., Bodenheimer, P., \& Adams, F. C. 2004, ApJ, 612, L73
775:
776: \reference{r}
777: Levermore, C. D., \& Pomraning, G. C. 1981, ApJ, 248, 321
778:
779: \reference{r}
780: Mayer, L, Quinn, T., Wadsley, J., \& Stadel, J. 2002, Science, 298, 1756
781:
782: \reference{r}
783: ------. 2004, ApJ, 609, 1045
784:
785: \reference{r}
786: Mayer, L, Lufkin, G., Quinn, T., \& Wadsley, J. 2007, ApJL, 661, L77
787:
788: \reference{r}
789: Mizuno, H. 1980, Prog. Theor. Phys., 64, 544
790:
791: \reference{r}
792: Myhill, E. A., \& Boss, A. P. 1993, ApJS, 89, 345
793:
794: \reference{r}
795: Nelson, A. F. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1039
796:
797: \reference{r}
798: Pickett, B. K., Cassen, P., Durisen, R. H., \& Link, R. 2000, ApJ, 529,
799: 1034
800:
801: \reference{r}
802: Rafikov, R. R. 2007, ApJ, 662, 642
803:
804: \reference{r}
805: Ruden, S. P., Papaloizou, J. C. B., \& Lin, D. N. C. 1988, ApJ, 329, 739
806:
807: \reference{r}
808: Sato, B., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 465
809:
810: \reference{r}
811: Sigurdsson, S., et al. 2003, Science, 301, 193
812:
813: \reference{r}
814: Whitehouse, S. C., \& Bate, M. R. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 32
815:
816: \end{references}
817:
818: \clearpage
819:
820: \begin{figure}
821: \vspace{-2.0in}
822: \plotone{f1.eps}
823: \caption{Equatorial density contours for model F1 after 325.8 yrs of evolution.
824: The disk has an outer radius of 20 AU and an inner radius of 4 AU.
825: Hashed regions denote clumps and spiral arms with densities higher than
826: $10^{-10}$ g cm$^{-3}$. Density contours represent factors of two
827: change in density.}
828: \end{figure}
829:
830: \clearpage
831:
832: \begin{figure}
833: \vspace{-2.0in}
834: \plotone{f2.eps}
835: \caption{Same as Figure 1, but for model TE after 326.5 yrs.}
836: \end{figure}
837:
838: \clearpage
839:
840: \begin{figure}
841: \vspace{-2.0in}
842: \plotone{f3.eps}
843: \caption{Log of the optical depth (dashed lines) and
844: temperature (solid line) as a function of distance above
845: the midplane for model FL1 after 325.8 yrs of evolution. The profiles
846: are along the $\theta$ coordinate, starting at the location
847: of the maximum density in the midplane. The long-dashed line gives
848: the optical depth in the $\theta$ direction, starting with zero
849: at the rotational (symmetry) axis, while the short-dashed line
850: gives the optical depth in the radial direction, starting with
851: zero at the outer edge of the spherical computational volume.}
852: \end{figure}
853:
854: \clearpage
855:
856: \begin{figure}
857: \vspace{-2.0in}
858: \plotone{f4.eps}
859: \caption{Same as Figure 3, but for model TE after 326.5 yrs.}
860: \end{figure}
861:
862: \clearpage
863:
864: \begin{figure}
865: \vspace{-2.0in}
866: \plotone{f5.eps}
867: \caption{Temperature (linear scale) as a function of distance above the
868: midplane for model FL1 after 325.8 yrs of evolution, plotted as in Figure 3.}
869: \end{figure}
870:
871: \clearpage
872:
873: \begin{figure}
874: \vspace{-2.0in}
875: \plotone{f6.eps}
876: \caption{Same as Figure 5, but for model TE after 326.5 yrs.}
877: \end{figure}
878:
879: \clearpage
880:
881: \begin{figure}
882: \vspace{-2.0in}
883: \plotone{f7.eps}
884: \caption{Equatorial density contours for model FL1 after 329.6 yrs of
885: evolution, plotted as in Figure 1.}
886: \end{figure}
887:
888: \clearpage
889:
890: \begin{figure}
891: \vspace{-2.0in}
892: \plotone{f8.eps}
893: \caption{Same as Figure 7, but for model TE after 330.3 yrs.}
894: \end{figure}
895:
896: \clearpage
897:
898: \begin{figure}
899: \vspace{-2.0in}
900: \plotone{f9.eps}
901: \caption{Equatorial temperature contours for model FL1 after 329.6 yrs of
902: evolution, plotted as in Figure 1, with temperature contours representing
903: factors of 1.26 changes in temperature.}
904: \end{figure}
905:
906: \clearpage
907:
908: \begin{figure}
909: \vspace{-2.0in}
910: \plotone{f10.eps}
911: \caption{Same as Figure 9, but for model TE after 330.3 yrs.}
912: \end{figure}
913:
914: \begin{figure}
915: \vspace{-2.0in}
916: \plotone{f11.eps}
917: \caption{Volume-averaged midplane temperatures (triangles and solid
918: lines) and total midplane $E_{thermal}$ (circles and dashed lines)
919: for model FL1 (filled symbols) and model TE (open symbols) as a
920: function of time in years. Temperatures are given in K and the total thermal
921: energy in units of $10^{39}$ ergs.}
922: \end{figure}
923:
924: \clearpage
925:
926: \begin{figure}
927: \vspace{-2.0in}
928: \plotone{f12.eps}
929: \caption{Same as Figure 11, but only for radial distances of
930: 6.5 to 13 AU in the midplane.}
931: \end{figure}
932:
933: \clearpage
934:
935: \begin{figure}
936: \vspace{-2.0in}
937: \plotone{f13.eps}
938: \caption{Amplitudes of the $m = 1$ mode in a spherical harmonic expansion
939: of the midplane density distribution as a function of radial distance
940: in the disk, with radial cell number 1 located at 4 AU and cell number
941: 100 located at 20 AU. The amplitudes for model FL1 (filled symbols)
942: and for model TE (open symbols) are shown at 328.2 and 328.3 yrs,
943: respectively.}
944: \end{figure}
945:
946: \clearpage
947:
948: \begin{figure}
949: \vspace{-2.0in}
950: \plotone{f14.eps}
951: \caption{Logarithm of the vertical convective flux (cgs units)
952: as a function of radial distance for model FL1 at 329.6 yrs.
953: Values are plotted for a conical surface 0.3 degrees above
954: the midplane, where the fluxes must vanish. Positive
955: fluxes refer to upward transport, while negative fluxes
956: correspond to downward transport.}
957: \end{figure}
958:
959: \clearpage
960:
961: \begin{figure}
962: \vspace{-2.0in}
963: \plotone{f15.eps}
964: \caption{Same as Figure 14, but for model TE at 330.3 yrs.}
965: \end{figure}
966:
967: \end{document}
968:
969: