1: %\batchmode

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

3: %\documentclass[11pt,preprint]{aastex}

4: \documentclass[narrow]{elsart1p}

5: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

6: %%\documentclass[10pt,preprint2]{aastex}

7: %%\documentstyle[emulateapj]{article}

8: 

9: %TO DO COMMENTS

10: %calculate fractional mass above twice initial value

11: %quote typical value of total mass in system?

12: %check masses in pext=10 run

13: %Oct 31: changed 55.9 to 31.4 based on hand measurement of 6 new 512^2 runs of model 7

14: %discuss pressure driven mode eventually leading to grav driven instability

15: 

16: \usepackage{natbib}

17: \usepackage{epsfig}

18: \usepackage{amssymb}

19: \journal{New Astronomy}

20: 

21: \newcommand{\ga}{\gtrsim}

22: \newcommand{\la}{\lesssim}

23: \newcommand{\bl}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$ #1 $}}

24: %\newcommand{\vnp}{\bl{v}_{n,p}}

25: %\newcommand{\vip}{\bl{v}_{i,p}}

26: \newcommand{\vnp}{\bl{v}_{\rm n}}

27: \newcommand{\vip}{\bl{v}_{\rm i}}

28: \newcommand{\cs}{c_{\rm s}}

29: \newcommand{\csq}{c_{\rm s}^2}

30: \newcommand{\ceffsq}{C^2_{\rm eff}}

31: \newcommand{\zhat}{\mbox{\boldmath$ \hat{z}$}}

32: \newcommand{\rhat}{\mbox{\boldmath$ \hat{r}$}}

33: \newcommand{\phihat}{\mbox{\boldmath$ \hat{\phi}$}}

34: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

35: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

36: \newcommand{\barray}{\begin{eqnarray}}

37: \newcommand{\earray}{\end{eqnarray}}

38: \newcommand{\Mdot}{\dot{M}}

39: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_{\odot}}

40: \newcommand{\ul}{\underline{\hspace{20pt}}}

41: \newcommand{\bfig}{\begin{figure}}

42: \newcommand{\efig}{\end{figure}}

43: \newcommand{\FT}{{\cal F}}

44: \newcommand{\FTinv}{{\cal F}^{-1}}

45: 

46: \newcommand{\few}{\rm few~}

47: \newcommand{\cmc}{~{\rm cm}^{-3}}

48: \newcommand{\cms}{~{\rm cm}^{-2}}

49: \newcommand{\Alf}{Alfv\'en\ }

50: \newcommand{\tff}{t_{\rm ff}}

51: \newcommand{\cm}{~{\rm cm}}

52: \newcommand{\kms}{~{\rm km~s}^{-1}}

53: \newcommand{\s}{~{\rm s}}

54: \newcommand{\pc}{~{\rm pc}}

55: \newcommand{\erg}{~{\rm erg}}

56: \newcommand{\K}{~{\rm K}}

57: \newcommand{\muG}{~\mu{\rm G}}

58: \newcommand{\yr}{~{\rm yr}}

59: \newcommand{\Myr}{~{\rm Myr}}

60: \newcommand{\AU}{~{\rm AU}}

61: \newcommand{\mH}{m_{\rm H}}

62: \newcommand{\Htwo}{{\rm H}_{2}}

63: \newcommand{\mn}{m_{\rm n}}

64: \newcommand{\mi}{m_{\rm i}}

65: \newcommand{\Pext}{P_{\rm ext}}

66: \newcommand{\Pexttil}{\tilde{P}_{\rm ext}}

67: \newcommand{\mui}{\mu_0}

68: \newcommand{\muc}{\mu_{\rm core}}

69: \newcommand{\muenv}{\mu_{\rm env}}

70: \newcommand{\mucrit}{\mu_{\rm crit}}

71: \newcommand{\tni}{\tau_{\rm ni}}

72: \newcommand{\tnii}{\tau_{\rm ni,0}}

73: \newcommand{\tniitil}{\tilde{\tau}_{\rm ni,0}}

74: \newcommand{\rhon}{\rho_{\rm n}}

75: \newcommand{\rhoni}{\rho_{\rm n,0}}

76: \newcommand{\nn}{n_{\rm n}}

77: \newcommand{\nnc}{n_{\rm n,c}}

78: \newcommand{\nni}{n_{\rm n,0}}

79: \newcommand{\nion}{n_{\rm i}}

80: \newcommand{\nii}{n_{\rm i,0}}

81: \newcommand{\sign}{\sigma_{\rm n}}

82: \newcommand{\signc}{\sigma_{\rm n,c}}

83: \newcommand{\signi}{\sigma_{\rm n,0}}

84: \newcommand{\signmax}{\sigma_{\rm n,max}}

85: \newcommand{\Nni}{N_{\rm n,0}}

86: \newcommand{\Beq}{B_{z,\rm eq}}

87: \newcommand{\Beqc}{B_{z,\rm eq,c}}

88: \newcommand{\Beqi}{B_{z,\rm eq,0}}

89: \newcommand{\Bref}{B_{\rm ref}}

90: \newcommand{\Breftil}{\tilde{B}_{\rm ref}}

91: \newcommand{\vn}{v_{\rm n}}

92: \newcommand{\vnx}{v_{{\rm n},x}}

93: \newcommand{\vnmax}{|v_{\rm n}|_{\rm max}}

94: \newcommand{\vimax}{|v_{\rm i}|_{\rm max}}

95: \newcommand{\lamcrit}{\lambda_{\rm T,cr}}

96: \newcommand{\lammax}{\lambda_{\rm T,m}}

97: \newcommand{\lamgm}{\lambda_{\rm g,m}}

98: \newcommand{\mgm}{M_{\rm g,m}}

99: \newcommand{\taugm}{\tau_{\rm g,m}}

100: \newcommand{\kion}{k_{\rm i}}

101: \newcommand{\xion}{x_{\rm i}}

102: \newcommand{\lamavg}{\langle \lambda \rangle}

103: \newcommand{\Mavg}{\langle M \rangle}

104: \newcommand{\savg}{\langle s \rangle}

105: \newcommand{\axisravg}{\langle b/a \rangle}

106: \newcommand{\Zavg}{\langle Z \rangle}

107: \newcommand{\sigin}{\langle \sigma w \rangle_{\rm{i\Htwo}}}

108: \newcommand{\Psim}{\Psi_{\rm M}}

109: 

110: %\newcommand{\cbyaavg}{\langle c \rangle/\langle }

111: 

112: %\slugcomment{to be submitted to NewAst}

113: %\shorttitle{Nonlinear Fragmentation}

114: %\shortauthors{Basu, Ciolek, \& Wurster}

115: 

116: 

117: \begin{document}

118: 

119: \begin{frontmatter}

120: 

121: \title{Nonlinear Evolution of Gravitational Fragmentation Regulated by

122: Magnetic Fields and Ambipolar Diffusion}

123: 

124: 

125: \author[label1]{Shantanu Basu\corauthref{cor}}, 

126: \corauth[cor]{Corresponding author.}

127: \ead{basu@astro.uwo.ca}

128: \author[label2]{Glenn E. Ciolek},

129: \ead{cioleg@rpi.edu}

130: and \author[label1]{James Wurster}

131: 

132: \address[label1]{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of

133: Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A~3K7, Canada}

134: \address[label2]{Department of Physics, Applied Physics, and Astronomy,

135: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 W. 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180,

136: USA}

137: 

138: \begin{abstract}

139: We present results from an extensive set of simulations of gravitational

140: fragmentation in the presence of magnetic fields and ambipolar diffusion.

141: The thin-sheet approximation is employed, with an ambient magnetic field

142: that is oriented perpendicular to the plane of the sheet.

143: Nonlinear development of fragmentation instability leads to substantial

144: irregular structure and distributions of fragment spacings, fragment masses,

145: shapes, and velocity patterns in model clouds. We study the effect of 

146: dimensionless free parameters that characterize the 

147: initial mass-to-flux ratio, neutral-ion coupling, and external pressure 

148: associated with the sheet.

149: The average fragmentation spacing in the nonlinear phase of evolution is in

150: excellent agreement with the prediction of linear perturbation theory.

151: Both significantly subcritical {\it and} highly supercritical clouds 

152: have average fragmentation scales $\lamavg \approx 2 \pi Z_0$, where   

153: $Z_0$ is the initial half-thickness of the sheet. In contrast, the

154: qualitatively unique transcritical modes can have $\lamavg$ that 

155: is at least several times larger. Conversely, fragmentation dominated by

156: external pressure can yield dense cluster formation with much smaller

157: values of $\lamavg$. The time scale for nonlinear

158: growth and runaway collapse of the first core is $\approx 10$ times 

159: the calculated growth time $\taugm$ of the eigenmode with minimum growth time,

160: when starting from a uniform background state with small-amplitude

161: white-noise perturbations. Subcritical and transcritical models 

162: typically evolve on a significantly longer time scale than the supercritical

163: models.

164: Infall motions in the nonlinear fully-developed contracting cores

165: are subsonic on the core scale in subcritical and transcritical clouds,

166: but are somewhat supersonic in supercritical clouds. 

167: Core mass distributions are sharply peaked with a steep decline to large

168: masses, consistent with the existence of a preferred mass scale for each

169: unique set of dimensionless free parameters. 

170: However, a sum total of results for various 

171: initial mass-to-flux ratios yields a broad distribution reminiscent of observed

172: core mass distributions.

173: Core shapes are mostly near-circular in the plane of the sheet for subcritical

174: clouds, but become progressively more elongated for clouds with increasing

175: initial mass-to-flux ratio. Field lines above the cloud midplane

176: remain closest to vertical in the ambipolar-drift driven core formation

177: in subcritical clouds, and there is increasing amount of magnetic field 

178: curvature for clouds of increasing mass-to-flux ratio. 

179: Based on our results, we conclude that fragmentation spacings, 

180: magnitude of infall motions, core

181: shapes, and, especially, the curvature of magnetic field 

182: morphology, may serve as  

183: indirect observational means of determining a cloud's ambient

184: mass-to-flux ratio.

185: \end{abstract}

186: 

187: \begin{keyword}

188: {ISM: clouds \sep ISM: magnetic fields \sep MHD \sep stars: formation}

189: \end{keyword}

190: 

191: \end{frontmatter}

192: 

193: \section{Introduction}

194: \label{s:intro}

195: \subsection{Molecular Cloud Cores}

196: 

197: Star formation occurs in dense cores within

198: interstellar molecular clouds.

199: The existence and properties of dense cores

200: are well established by studies of molecular spectral line emission 

201: \citep{Myer83b,Bens,Jiji}, submillimeter dust emission 

202: \citep{Ward94,Andr,Kirk}, and infrared absorption

203: \citep{Bacm,Teix,Lada07}. 

204: The core formation process 

205: has been the subject of intense theoretical study for the past few 

206: decades. Ideas range from 

207: uninhibited gravitational fragmentation instability 

208: \citep{Jean,Lars85,Lars03},

209: to ambipolar diffusion in a magnetically supported cloud 

210: \citep{Mest,Mous78,Shu87},

211: to a very rapid fragmentation due to pre-existing turbulent flows

212: \citep{Pado,Kless,Gamm}.

213: The last two ideas are related to scenarios for the nature of relatively

214: low-density molecular cloud envelopes, which contain most of the mass 

215: of molecular clouds \citep[see][]{Gold}. 

216: In one scenario, they are magnetically-dominated

217: and evolve due to ambipolar diffusion, a gravitationally-driven redistribution of mass 

218: amongst magnetic flux tubes \citep{Mous78}. The relatively low

219: global star formation rate and efficiency in Galactic molecular clouds

220: \citep[see][]{McKe} is used to argue

221: that molecular cloud envelopes have a subcritical mass-to-flux ratio 

222: \citep[see e.g.][]{Shu99,Elme07}. 

223: Indirect empirical evidence based on the Chandrasekhar-Fermi (CF) 

224: method and velocity anisotropy measurements

225: does imply that the low density ($n \sim 100 \cmc$) regions are 

226: subcritical \citep{Cort,Heye}. The contrasting view is that

227: the mass-to-flux ratio is supercritical on large scales, and that the

228: star formation rate and efficiency are governed by supersonic turbulence

229: \citep{MacL}. This requires either a continual replenishment of rapidly dissipating

230: turbulence, or a relatively rapid dispersal of the cloud envelopes.

231: The focus of this paper 

232: is the fragmentation of embedded and relatively quiescent 

233: dense regions, and not on the nature of the larger envelopes.

234: %We consider a variety of initial mass-to-flux ratios, ionization

235: %fractions, and external pressures acting on these regions.

236: We study the effect of small-amplitude perturbations

237: on a variety of cloud models with different mass-to-flux ratios, 

238: degrees of magnetic coupling, and external pressures.

239:  

240: %XXX- may have to remove the refs below

241: %\citep{Mous77,Mous78,Mous80,Tomi90,BM94}.

242: %XXX - have to add refs ot McKe and MacL

243: %XXX- do we add refs to Goldsmith, Blitz, others above?

244: 

245: For the purpose of this paper, we refer to any individual unit of star

246: formation, which leads typically to a single or small multiple star system, 

247: as simply a ``core''. However, astronomers often subdivide this concept

248: into two observational categories, that of  

249: ``prestellar core'' and ``prestellar condensation''. 

250: The former term is often used to describe 

251: the extended (mean density $n \sim 10^5 \cmc$, size $s \sim 0.1$ pc,

252: spacing $\lambda \sim 0.25$ pc) objects in regions of distributed

253: star formation like the Taurus molecular cloud, while the latter

254: term typically describes the more compact ($n \ga 10^6-10^7 \cmc$,

255: $s \sim 0.02-0.03$ pc, $\lambda \sim 0.03$ pc) objects that are located 

256: within cluster-forming cores in, for example, Ophiuchus, Serpens,

257: Perseus, and Orion \citep[see discussion in][]{Ward07}. 

258: Both the prestellar cores in e.g., Taurus, and the

259: cluster-forming cores (which harbor multiple condensations) 

260: in the other clouds occupy only a very small fraction of the total 

261: volume and mass of their larger, more turbulent, molecular cloud complex

262: \citep[e.g.,][]{John,Gold}.

263: A compendium of current data from

264: spectral line emission, dust emission, and infrared absorption tends to

265: show that cores exhibit central density concentration

266: \citep{Ward94,Andr}

267: subsonic inward motions \citep{Tafa,Will,Lee,Case} that often extend beyond the 

268: nominal core boundary, near-uniform gas temperatures \citep{Bens}, subsonic 

269: internal turbulence \citep{Myer83a,Full,Good98}, 

270: and near-critical magnetic field strengths, when detected by the Zeeman

271: effect \citep{Crut99,Bour} or inferred by the CF method 

272: \citep{Crut04}.

273: 

274: The measured subsonic infall motions constitute indirect evidence for a force

275: that mediates gravity.

276: The mediative force may be

277: due to the magnetic field, whose strength in dense regions is very close to 

278: the critical value for collapse \citep{Crut99}.

279: %If the molecular cloud envelopes have a subcritical mass-to-flux 

280: If the fragmenting region has a subcritical mass-to-flux 

281: ratio, then the formation of cores will be regulated by

282: ambipolar diffusion, i.e. neutral molecules diffusing past ions that

283: are tied to magnetic fields, and will occur on a time scale that may significantly

284: exceed the local dynamical time for typical ionization fractions. 

285: %Such a gravitationally-driven redistribution of mass amongst magnetic

286: %flux tubes \citep{Mous78} provides an explanation for the inefficiency

287: %of star formation, and certainly allows time for magnetic braking to 

288: %resolve much of the angular momentum problem of star formation 

289: %\citep{Mous77,Mous78,Mous80,Tomi90,BM94}.

290: %In general, theoretical arguments based on the global star formation rate and

291: %efficiency in Galactic molecular clouds have been used to justify 

292: %the assumption of subcritical envelopes \citep[see e.g.][]{Shu99,Elme07}. 

293: %Indirect evidence based on the CF method and velocity anisotropy measurements

294: %does imply that the low density ($n \sim 100 \cmc$) regions are subcritical \citep{Cort,Heye}.

295: Conversely, if the dense gas is supercritical, then the fragmentation takes 

296: place on a dynamical time scale. \citet[hereafter BC04]{BC04} studied the nonlinear

297: development of fragmentation instability in clouds that were initially 

298: either critical or decidedly supercritical. They found that supercritical

299: fragmentation is characterized by somewhat supersonic motions on the 

300: core scale ($\sim 0.1$ pc) while critical fragmentation is characterized by

301: subsonic inward motions on those scales. The nonlinear fragmentation of 

302: decidedly subcritical clouds

303: is also presented in this paper as part of a comprehensive 

304: parameter study of

305: the effects of mass-to-flux ratio, initial ionization fraction, and external pressure.

306: We believe that the three broad categories of subcritical, transcritical, 

307: and supercritical fragmentation should all occur in the interstellar medium,

308: and even within separate regions of a single molecular cloud complex. Our

309: results can help to distinguish which mode of fragmentation is occurring in 

310: a given observed region.

311: 

312: The linear theory of fragmentation of a partially ionized, magnetic thin sheet

313: has been presented by \citet[hereafter CB06]{CB06}. 

314: An important quantity is the dimensionless critical mass-to-flux ratio, 

315: $\mu = 2 \pi G^{1/2} \sigma/B$, where $\sigma$ is the column density of a 

316: sheet and $B$ is the strength of the magnetic field that is oriented 

317: perpendicular to the plane of the sheet. In the limit of flux-freezing,

318: fragmentation can occur only if $\mu > 1$, i.e. the sheet is supercritical. 

319: Conversely, gravitationally-driven fragmentation instability cannot occur at all 

320: if $\mu < 1$, i.e. the sheet is subcritical.

321: CB06 show that the inclusion of ambipolar drift in such a model means that 

322: fragmentation can occur for {\it all mass-to-flux ratios}, but on widely 

323: varying time scales and length scales. 

324: A very important result of CB06

325: is their Fig. 2 (see also Fig. 1 in this paper), which demonstrates that transcritical ($\mu \approx 1$) fragmentation

326: has a preferred scale that can be many times larger

327: than $\lammax$, the wavelength of maximum growth rate in the thermal

328: (i.e. nonmagnetic) limit. The latter

329: is actually the preferred scale for both highly supercritical {\it and} 

330: highly subcritical clouds. This is because gravitational

331: instability in subcritical clouds develops by ambipolar drift of neutrals 

332: past near-stationary

333: magnetic field lines, and occurs on the ambipolar diffusion

334: time scale rather than the dynamical time scale \citep[see also][]{Lang78,Mous78}.

335: The ``resonant'' transcritical modes with preferred scale $\lamgm \gg \lammax$ 

336: occur due to a combination of ambipolar drift and field-line dragging;

337: the latter leads to magnetic restoring forces that can stabilize the

338: perturbations unless they are of the required large size.

339: The time scale for ambipolar-diffusion mediated gravitational instability

340: is also presented extensively in CB06. They showed that highly

341: supercritical clouds undergo gravitational instability on the 

342: %The transcritical modes have

343: %a time scale that is intermediate to the 

344: dynamical time $t_{\rm d} 

345: \approx Z/\cs$, where $Z$ is the half-thickness (effectively the scale height)

346: of the sheet and $\cs$ is the isothermal sound speed.

347: On the other hand,

348: highly subcritical clouds undergo instability on the

349: quasistatic ambipolar diffusion

350: time $\tau_{\rm AD} \approx 10\,Z/\cs$ for typical ionization

351: fraction. Transcritical clouds undergo a hybrid instability on an

352: intermediate time scale -- see also \citet{Zwei} for a 

353: similar result. Also, we note that the inclusion of nonlinear fluctuations 

354: can reduce the ambipolar diffusion time under certain circumstances

355: \citep{Fatu,Zwei02}; we do not model such effects in this paper. 

356:  

357: %This allows us to make detailed comparisons with the results of linear

358: %theory (CB06). 

359: Our nonlinear simulations represent a significant extension of the

360: parameter space of models from that presented by BC04. It similarly 

361: extends the parameter space studied by \cite{Inde}, who presented

362: nonaxisymmetric evolution of an infinitesimally thin subcritical sheet, 

363: including the effects of magnetic tension but ignoring magnetic pressure.

364: Recent fully three-dimensional simulations by \citet{Kudo07}, including 

365: magnetic fields and ambipolar diffusion, have confirmed the basic results

366: of BC04. However, that paper presents three representative models, and an extensive

367: parameter study remains computationally out of reach.

368: Here, in addition to a parameter study, we carry out large numbers of

369: simulations for {\it each} unique set of parameters. This is done 

370: in order to compile statistics on core spacings, mass distributions, and shapes.

371: All simulations end at the time of the runaway central collapse of the first 

372: core, hence we are compiling information about the early phases of star 

373: formation in a molecular cloud. The subsequent history of the molecular

374: cloud, after it has been stirred up by the initial star formation, remains 

375: to be determined.

376: This paper represents the product of a total of over

377: 700 separate simulations for models with 14 distinct sets of dimensionless

378: parameters.

379: 

380: An alternate approach to modeling fragmentation is  

381: to input turbulence directly into the dense thin-sheet

382: model \citep[e.g.,][]{Li04,Naka05}, rather than relegating its presence

383: to an unmodeled envelope. This results in highly supersonic 

384: motions within the dense sheet itself, and more rapid formation of

385: cores than in our models. We do not pursue that approach

386: in the present study but leave it open to future investigation.

387: 

388: \subsection{Relation to Global Cloud Structure}

389: Our simulations represent an intermediate approach between attempting a

390: global model of large-scale molecular

391: cloud structure and of modeling the interior collapse of individual

392: cores. Large-scale models need to account for the overall

393: structure and self-gravity of molecular clouds and cannot

394: be realistically studied using a periodic-box model. 

395: Truly global three-dimensional models are computationally expensive

396: and still rarely attempted. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)

397: techniques have been used successfully to model entire

398: cluster-forming regions \citep{Bate,Bonn}, and can explain some

399: important features of star formation like mass segregation, binary

400: fraction, and the initial mass function. These models are not fully global

401: in that they do not include the effect of the molecular cloud envelopes.

402: They also do not include the effect of magnetic

403: fields or feedback from outflows, so they cannot address the observed 

404: low global star formation efficiency (SFE), $1-5$\% \citep{Lada03}. 

405: However, the latest version of such models \citep{Pric} does include 

406: flux-frozen magnetic fields and yields somewhat lower SFE's than

407: the non-magnetic models.

408: Another three-dimensional approach which is fully global and based on

409: finite-difference or SPH techniques is modeling the formation 

410: of a molecular cloud from large-scale supersonic gas flows and the early evolution

411: of the cloud \citep{Vazq06,Vazq07,Heit,Henn}.

412: These models yield an 

413: initially flattened cloud whose subsequent evolution is affected by

414: several instabilities (thermal instability, thin-shell instability,

415: and Kelvin-Helmholtz instability). The overall structure evolves away from

416: a sheet-like configuration, but individual segments may be treated as such.

417: Of the above mentioned studies, only the work of \citet{Henn} includes the 

418: effect of magnetic fields, which may work to suppress some of the

419: instabilities. It is not clear whether this is an important factor in 

420: that model. However, the smaller-scale simulation of

421: \citet{Naka08} does show the formation of a sheet-like structure due to

422: the presence of a dynamically important magnetic field.  

423: %These simulations also do not contain a dynamically important

424: %large-scale magnetic field, which may work to suppress some of the

425: %instabilities.

426: Amongst our models, the cases with high bounding pressure may be

427: most appropriate for the scenario of cloud formation due to colliding flows.

428: Our low external pressure models are more appropriate to the 

429: alternate scenario where the flows that form a molecular cloud 

430: are driven by gravity and/or channeled by a large scale magnetic

431: field, e.g. by the magneto-Jeans instability \citep{Kim} or the 

432: Parker instability \citep{Park}.

433: 

434: Despite the various theoretical emphases on flattened structure, we note

435: that observations of molecular clouds reveal complex morphologies with

436: projected shapes that may not look like globally flattened structures. 

437: Molecular clouds have been described variously 

438: in the literature as stratified objects supported by

439: internally generated turbulence \citep{McKe99}, or as 

440: fractal objects \citep{Elme96} in which the internal

441: pressure is not as relevant. Our local sheet 

442: model may be applicable to the dense subregions of the clouds (where

443: stars actually form in weak or rich clusters) in either

444: scenario. As an example from the first scenario described above, 

445: one-dimensional  

446: %If there is stratification in a cloud due to the interplay of 

447: %gravity and non-thermal or turbulent support, it so happens that 

448: %our model can be reasonably applied in this situation. 

449: global models \citep{Kudo03,Kudo06,Foli} of molecular clouds 

450: reveal that internally-driven turbulence 

451: yields large-amplitude motions in lower-density envelopes, 

452: while retaining transonic motions in embedded dense regions; the

453: fragmentation of the latter may be described by our models. 

454: From an observational point of view, we may apply our models to  

455: dense star forming regions such as L1495 and HCl 2 in the Taurus

456: molecular cloud \citep[see][]{Gold}, the L1688 cluster-forming core

457: in Ophiuchus \citep{Mott}, or better yet to the Pipe Nebula

458: \citep{Muen}, which represents an even earlier stage of evolution,

459: with a large number of relatively

460: quiescent prestellar cores that are found

461: in a dense elongated region (the ``stem'' of the Pipe). 

462: This region may represent the best available laboratory

463: for the study of the early stage of star formation, before 

464: feedback from star formation has significantly modified a

465: cloud's internal sructure and motions. There is

466: also evidence that the stem of the Pipe Nebula is flattened along the direction

467: of the mean magnetic field \citep{Alve}. This property is similar

468: to the better established result for the elongated structures in

469: Taurus \citep{Good90,Gold}.

470: 

471: %Our view is that the supersonic motions are confined to lower density

472: %envelope.

473: %On the smaller scale, 

474: %collapse with B and ion neutral friction includes

475: %many axisymmetric models and New thin disk but nonaxisymmetric models

476: %(VB; ideal MHD only so far). Refer to 3D collapse?

477: %Can't follow much of accretion phase.

478: %

479: % refer to VB papers later, in results section when discussing shapes

480: 

481: %We carry out full parameter study and model

482: %many runs. Our model is the nonaxisymmetric extension of earlier models

483: %but have a more uniform background (not initially peaked) and the ability to study

484: %multiple core formation.  We avoid question of how initial compression got there

485: %in the first place.

486: 

487: %We stick to linear

488: %analysis and stop calculation upon formation of 1st runaway core.

489: %Turbulent fragmentation best dealt with in fully 3D model.

490: %Will deal with nonlinear perturbations in a future paper.

491: %Need to fully analyze the linear perturbation case and compare to

492: %linear analysis before moving on to more complex nonlinear IC's.

493: 

494: %We carry results to nonlinear regime and analyze stochasticity of 

495: %nonlinear runs. Determine the intrinsic width of mass distribution

496: %due to stochasticity of fragmentation process alone.

497: 

498: \section{Physical Model}

499: \label{s:pm}

500: 

501: We consider the evolution of weakly ionized, magnetic

502: interstellar molecular clouds. The clouds are isothermal, 

503: having a temperature $T$. As presented in CB06, 

504: we model a cloud as a planar sheet or layer of infinite extent 

505: in the $x$- and $y$- directions of a Cartesian coordinate

506: system ($x$, $y$, $z$). At each time $t$ the sheet has a local 

507: vertical half-thickness $Z(x,y,t)$. We take our model clouds 

508: to be {\em thin}: by this we mean that for any physical quantity 

509: $f(x,y,z,t)$ the condition $f/\nabla_p f \gg Z$ is always satisfied, 

510: where $\nabla_p \equiv \hat{\bl{x}}\partial/\partial x

511: + \hat{\bl{y}}\partial/\partial y$ is the planar gradient 

512: operator. The magnetic field that threads a cloud has

513: the form

514: \beq

515: \bl{B}(x,y,z,t)= 

516: \left\{ 

517: \begin{array}{l}

518: \Beq(x,y,t)\zhat \hspace{9.3em} \mbox{for $|z| \leq Z(x,y,t)$}, \\

519: %\hspace{15.7em} \mbox{for $|z| \leq Z(x,y,t)$}, \\

520: B_{z}(x,y,z,t)\zhat \\ 

521: + B_{x}(x,y,z,t)\hat{\bl{x}}

522: + B_{y}(x,y,z,t)\hat{\bl{y}} ~~~\mbox{for $|z| > Z(x,y,t)$},  

523: \end{array}

524: \right.

525: \eeq

526: where $\Beq$ is the vertical magnetic field strength in the equatorial

527: plane. For $|z| \rightarrow \infty$, $\bl{B} \rightarrow \Bref \zhat$,

528: where $\Bref$ is a uniform, constant reference magnetic field

529: very far away from the sheet.

530: The magnetic field components above the sheet can be determined from $\Beq(x,y)$

531: at any time using the divergence-free nature

532: of the magnetic field and the current-free approximation above the sheet

533: (see CB06 for details).

534:  

535: Some simplification is obtained by integrating the physical 

536: system of equations governing the evolution (conservation of 

537: mass and momentum, Maxwell's equations, etc.) of a model cloud along 

538: the vertical axis from $z=-Z(x,y)$ to $z=+Z(x,y)$. In doing so, 

539: a ``one-zone approximation" is used, in which the density and 

540: the $x$- and $y$- components of the neutral and ion velocities, 

541: as well as the $x$- and $y$- components of the gravitational field, 

542: are taken to be independent of height within the sheet. 

543: The volume density is calculated from the vertical pressure balance

544: equation

545: \beq

546: \rho \csq = \frac{\pi}{2}G \sign^2 + \Pext + \frac{B_x^2+B_y^2}{8\pi},

547: \eeq 

548: where $\Pext$ is the external pressure on the sheet and $B_x$ and 

549: $B_y$ represent the values at the top surface of the sheet, $z=+Z$.

550: This simplification is commonly referred to as the ``thin-sheet 

551: approximation"; the motivation for and the physical reasonability

552: of it is discussed at length in Section~2 of CB06.

553: It is the nonaxisymmetric extension of the 

554: axisymmetric thin-sheet models used to study ambipolar diffusion

555: and gravitational collapse in magnetic interstellar clouds, as 

556: originally developed by \citet{CM93} and \citet{BM94}. 

557: 

558: \subsection{Basic Equations}

559: \label{s:be}

560: 

561: We solve normalized versions of the magnetic thin-sheet

562: equations as justified in CB06. The unit of velocity is taken

563: to be $\cs$, the column density unit is $\signi$, 

564: and the unit of acceleration is $2 \pi G \signi$, equal to the 

565: magnitude of vertical acceleration above the sheet. Therefore, 

566: the time unit is $t_0 = \cs/2\pi G \signi$, and the length unit is 

567: $L_0= \csq/2 \pi G \signi$. From this system we can also construct 

568: a unit of magnetic field strength, $B_0 = 2 \pi G^{1/2} \signi$. 

569: The unit of mass is $M_0 = \cs^4/(4\pi^2G^2\,\signi)$.

570: Here, $\signi$ is the uniform 

571: neutral column density of the background state, and $G$ is the gravitational

572: constant.

573: With these normalizations, the equations used to determine the

574: evolution of a model cloud are

575: \barray

576: \label{cont}

577:  \frac{{\partial \sign }}{{\partial t}} & = & - \nabla_p  \cdot \left( \sign \, \vnp \right), \\

578: \label{mom}

579:  \frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\sign \vnp)  & = & - \nabla_p \cdot (\sign \vnp \vnp) +  \bl{F}_{\rm T}

580: + \bl{F}_{\rm M} + \sign \bl{g}_p, \\

581: \label{induct}

582:  \frac{{\partial \Beq }}{{\partial t}} & = & - \nabla_p  \cdot \left( \Beq \, \vip \right) , \\

583: \label{Ftherm}

584: \bl{F}_{\rm T} & = & - \ceffsq \nabla_p \sign                   ,\\

585: \label{Fmag}

586: \bl{F}_{\rm M} & = & \Beq \, ( \bl{B}_p - Z\, \nabla_p \Beq ) + {\cal O}(\nabla_p Z), \\

587: \label{vieq}

588: \vip & = & \vnp + \frac{\tniitil}{\sign}\left(\frac{\rhoni}{\rhon}\right)^{\kion} \bl{F}_{\rm M} , \\  

589: \label{ceffeq}

590: \ceffsq & = & \sign^2 \frac{(3 \Pexttil + \sign^2)}{(\Pexttil + \sign^2)^2} , \\

591: \label{rhon}

592: \rhon & = & \frac{1}{4} \left( \sign^2 + \Pexttil + \bl{B}_p^2 \right),\\

593: \label{Zeq}

594: Z & = & \frac{\sign}{2 \rhon}, \\                                

595: \bl{g}_p & = & -\nabla_p \psi  ,\\

596: \label{gravpot}

597: \psi & = & \FTinv \left[ - \FT(\sign)/k_z \right]     ,\\

598: \bl{B}_p & = & -\nabla_p \Psi  ,\\

599: \label{magpot}

600: \Psi & = & \FTinv \left[ \FT(\Beq - \Bref)/k_z \right]  \, .

601: \earray

602: In the above equations, $\sign(x,y) = \int_{-Z}^{+Z}\rhon(x,y)~dz$ is 

603: the column density of neutrals, 

604: %%$\Beq$ is the vertical magnetic field in the equatorial plane, 

605: $\bl{B}_p(x,y) = B_x(x,y)\hat{\bl{x}} + B_y(x,y)\hat{\bl{y}}$ is the 

606: planar magnetic field at the top surface of the sheet, 

607: $\vnp(x,y) = v_x(x,y)\hat{\bl{x}} + v_y(x,y)\hat{\bl{y}}$ is the 

608: velocity of the neutrals in the plane, 

609: $\vip(x,y) = v_{{\rm i},x}(x,y)\hat{\bl{x}} + v_{{\rm i},y}(x,y)\hat{\bl{y}}$ 

610: is the corresponding velocity of the ions, and 

611: the normalized initial mass density (in units of $\signi/L_0$)

612: $\rhoni = \frac{1}{4}(1+\Pexttil)$, where $\Pexttil$ is defined below. 

613: The operator $\nabla_p = \hat{\bl{x}} \, \partial/\partial x + 

614: \hat{\bl{y}} \, \partial/\partial y$ is the gradient in the planar

615: directions within the sheet.

616: The quantities $\psi(x,y)$ and $\Psi(x,y)$ are the 

617: scalar gravitational and magnetic potentials, respectively, also in the plane

618: of the sheet. The vertical wavenumber $k_z = (k_x^2+k_y^2)^{1/2}$ is 

619: a function of wavenumbers $k_x$ and $k_y$ in the plane of the sheet,

620: and the operators $\FT$ and $\FTinv$ represent the forward

621: and inverse Fourier transforms, respectively, which we calculate 

622: numerically using an FFT technique. Terms of order 

623: ${\cal O}(\nabla_p Z)$ in $\bl{F}_{\rm M}$, the magnetic force per

624: unit area, are not 

625: written down for the sake of brevity, but are included in the numerical

626: code; their exact form is given in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of CB06. All terms 

627: proportional to $\nabla_p Z$ are generally very small.

628: 

629: We also note that the effect of nonzero $\nabla_p Z$ and

630: external pressure $\Pext$ is accounted for in the vertically-integrated 

631: thermal pressure force per unit area, $\bl{F}_{\rm T}$, through the use of 

632: $\ceffsq$. This can be seen by noting that

633: \barray

634: \label{intP}

635: {\bl F}_{\rm T} = \int_{-Z}^{+Z} \nabla_p P~dz 

636: &=& \nabla_p \int_{-Z}^{+Z} P~dz - 2 \Pext \nabla_p Z \nonumber \\ 

637: &=& 2 \, \nabla_p (P Z - \Pext Z)~~,

638: \earray

639: where $P$ is the pressure inside the sheet. In the above expression, 

640: we have used $P=\Pext$ at the upper and lower surfaces of the sheet, 

641: %continuity of pressure across the upper and lower

642: %surfaces of the sheet, 

643: and also that $\nabla_p (+Z) = -\nabla_p (-Z)$. 

644: Using the ideal gas equation for an isothermal gas, $P=\rhon\,\csq$, the 

645: expression for half-thickness (Eq. [\ref{Zeq}]), and the normalized

646: equation for vertical

647: hydrostatic equilibrium (Eq. [\ref{rhon}], where we ignore the relatively small

648: term $\bl{B}_p^2$ for simplicity), it is straightforward to 

649: derive the normalized expression for $\ceffsq$ (Eq. [\ref{ceffeq}]).

650: %Since the dimensionless pressure $P = \rhon$ in our isothermal clouds, 

651: %and using equation (\ref{Zeq}) to substitute for $Z$, and noting that

652: %the equation for vertical hydrostatic equilibrium (\ref{rhon}) relates 

653: %$\rhon$ and $\sign$, by inserting these relations into equation 

654: %(\ref{intP}) one is able to obtain the 

655: 

656: The above equations contain the following dimensionless free parameters:

657: $\Pexttil \equiv 2 \Pext/\pi G\signi^{2}$ is the ratio of the external 

658: pressure acting on the sheet to the vertical self-gravitational stress 

659: of the reference state. The dimensionless neutral-ion collision time

660: of the reference state, $\tniitil \equiv \tnii/t_0$, 

661: expresses the effect of ambipolar diffusion. 

662: In the limit $\tniitil \rightarrow \infty$ there

663: is extremely poor neutral-ion collisional coupling, such that the ions 

664: and magnetic field have no effect on the neutrals. The opposite limit,

665: $\tniitil =0$, corresponds to the neutrals being perfectly coupled

666: to the ions due to frequent collisions, i.e. flux freezing.

667: The neutral-ion collision time of the reference state is

668: \beq

669: \tnii = 1.4 \frac{\mi + m_{{}_{\Htwo}}}{\mi} \frac{1}{\nii \sigin}\;,

670: \label{tni}

671: \eeq

672: where $\mi$ is the ion mass, which we take to be 25 a.m.u.,

673: the mass of the typical atomic ($\rm{Na}^{+}$, $\rm{Mg}^{+}$)

674: and molecular ($\rm{HCO}^{+}$) ion species in clouds, 

675: $\nii$ is the ion number density of the reference state,

676: and $\sigin$ is the neutral-ion collision rate, equal to

677: $1.69 \times 10^{-9}~{\rm{cm}}^{3}~{\rm s}^{-1}$ for 

678: $\Htwo$-${\rm{HCO}}^{+}$ collisions \citep{McDa}. 

679: The factor of 1.4 in Eq. (\ref{tni}) accounts for the fact

680: that the effect of helium is neglected in calculating the slowing-down

681: time of the neutrals by collisions with ions.

682: The parameter $\kion$ is the exponent in the power-law expression that is used 

683: to calculate the ion density $\nion$ as a function of neutral density

684: $\nn$, namely,

685: \beq

686: \label{rhoieq}

687: \nion = {\cal K} \nn^{\kion}~,

688: \eeq

689: where we adopt 

690: $\kion = 1/2$ and ${\cal K}\, (\simeq 10^{-5} {\rm cm}^{-3/2})$ for all models 

691: in this study \citep[e.g.,][]{Elme79, UN80}, but keep in mind that 

692: calculation of the ion chemistry network makes $\kion$ a function of $\nn$

693: \citep{CM98}. Finally, $\Breftil = \Bref/B_0 = \Bref/2 \pi G^{1/2} \signi$ is the 

694: dimensionless magnetic field strength of the reference state. For physical

695: clarity, we use instead the

696: dimensionless mass-to-flux ratio of the background 

697: reference state:

698: \beq

699: \label{muieq}

700: \mui \equiv 2 \pi G^{1/2} \frac{\signi}{\Bref} = 

701: \Breftil^{-1} \; ,

702: \eeq

703: where $(2 \pi G^{1/2})^{-1}$ is the critical mass-to-flux ratio for 

704: gravitational collapse in our adopted thin-sheet geometry (CB06). Models with 

705: $\mui < 1$ ($\Breftil > 1$) are subcritical clouds, 

706: and those with $\mui > 1$ ($\Breftil < 1$) are supercritical.

707: The initial mass-to-flux ratio is also related to the commonly-used plasma 

708: parameter

709: \beq

710: \beta_0 \equiv \frac{\rhoni\, \csq}{(\Bref^2/8\pi)} = \mui^2 \, (1+ \Pexttil).

711: \eeq 

712: 

713: %Expressions relating typical dimensional values of our adopted 

714: %normalizing units to the free parameters and physical quantities in the

715: %reference state of a model cloud (such as initial density, temperature,

716: %etc.) are given in equations (25) - (30) of CB06.  

717: 

718: Typical values of our units are

719: \barray

720: \label{cs}

721: \cs & = & 0.188 \, \left(\frac{T}{10 \K}\right)^{1/2} \kms,  \\

722: \label{t0}

723: t_0 & = & 3.65 \times 10^4 \left(\frac{T}{10\,\K}\right)^{1/2}

724: \left(\frac{10^{22}\,\cms}{\Nni}\right) \yr, \\

725: \label{L0}

726: L_0 & = & 7.02 \times 10^{-3} \left(\frac{T}{10 \K}\right)

727: \left(\frac{10^{22}\,\cms}{\Nni}\right) \pc \\ \nonumber

728: & = & 1.45 \times 10^3  \left(\frac{T}{10 \K}\right)

729: \left(\frac{10^{22}\,\cms}{\Nni}\right) \AU, \\

730: \label{M0}

731: M_0 & = & 9.19 \times 10^{-3} \left(\frac{T}{10\,\K}\right)^2

732: \left(\frac{10^{22}\,\cms}{\Nni}\right) \Msun, \\

733: \label{B0}

734: B_0 & = & 63.1 \left(\frac{\Nni}{10^{22}\,\cms}\right) \muG.

735: \earray

736: Here, we have used $\Nni = \signi/\mn$, where $\mn = 2.33\,\mH$ is the mean

737: molecular mass of a neutral particle for an H$_2$ gas with a 10\% 

738: He abundance by number. 

739: Furthermore, we may calculate the number density of the background state as

740: \beq

741: \nni = 2.31 \times 10^5 

742: \left(\frac{10 \K}{T}\right) 

743: \left(\frac{\Nni}{10^{22}\cms}\right)^2

744: \left(1+\Pexttil\right)\, \cmc.

745: \eeq

746: The dimensional background reference magnetic field strength for a given model is simply 

747: $\Bref = B_0/\mui$.

748: Finally, the ionization fraction ($=\nion/\nn$) in the cloud 

749: may be expressed as

750: \beq

751: \label{ioniz}

752: \xion = {\cal K} \nn^{-1/2} =  3.45 \times 10^{-8} \left(\frac{0.2}{\tniitil}\right) \left(\frac{10^5 \cmc}{\nn}\right)^{1/2} \left(1+\Pexttil\right)^{-1/2}.

753: \eeq

754: 

755: \subsection{Numerical Techniques, Boundary and Initial Conditions}

756: \label{s:techn}

757: 

758: %-describe IDL code, accuracy and run times. test cases in CB06.

759: % Flux freezing run shows no evolution

760: The system of Eqs. (\ref{cont}) - (\ref{magpot}) 

761: are solved numerically in $(x,y)$ coordinates using a multifluid 

762: non-ideal MHD code that was 

763: specifically developed for this purpose (BC04; CB06). 

764: Partial derivatives $\partial/\partial x$ and $\partial/\partial y$ are

765: replaced with their finite-difference equivalents. 

766: Gradients are approximated using three-point central 

767: differences between mesh cells, while advection of mass and magnetic 

768: flux is prescribed by using the monotonic upwind scheme of \citet{vanL}.

769: Evolution of a model is carried out 

770: within a square computational domain of size $L \times L$, spanning the

771: region $-L/2 \leq x \leq L/2$ and $-L/2 \leq y \leq L/2$. Typically, $L$

772: is taken to be several times larger (up to a factor of 4) than the characteristic

773: length scale of maximum gravitational instability $\lamgm$ 

774: (CB06; see, also, Section~\ref{s:results} below). The computational domain is then

775: divided into a set of $N^2$ equally-sized mesh cells, each having an 

776: area $L/N \times L/N$. 

777: Most of our simulations are run with $L=16\pi\,L_0$ and $N=128$, and some

778: have $L=64\pi\,L_0$ and $N=512$, so that the grid size $\Delta x =

779: \Delta y = 0.393\,L_0$ in all cases. The mass resolution is then

780: $\Delta M = 0.154\,M_0$, or $1.42 \times 10^{-3}\,\Msun$ using the standard values in

781: Eq. (\ref{M0}).

782: 

783: The numerical 

784: method of lines \citep{Schi} is employed, i.e. the first-order

785: partial differential equations

786: (\ref{cont}) - (\ref{induct}) are converted into a set of coupled 

787: ordinary differential equations (ODE's) in time, with one ODE for each

788: physical variable at each cell. Hence, the system of ODE's 

789: has the form $d\bl{\cal Y}/dt = \bl{\cal G}(\bl{\cal Y},t)$,

790: where $\bl{\cal Y}$ and $\bl{\cal G}$ are both arrays of size $V N^2$, 

791: $V$ being the number of dependent variables. Time-integration of this 

792: system of ODE's is performed by using an Adams-Bashforth-Moulton 

793: predictor-corrector subroutine \citep{Sham94}. Numerical solution of 

794: Fourier transforms and inverse transforms, necessary to calculate the 

795: gravitational and magnetic potentials $\psi$ and $\Psi$ at each time 

796: step (see Eqs. [\ref{gravpot}] and [\ref{magpot}]), is done by using 

797: fast Fourier transform techniques \citep{Press}. 

798: 

799: Periodic conditions are applied to all physical

800: variables at the boundary of the computational domain.

801: The background reference state of a model cloud is characterized

802: by a uniform column density

803: $\signi$ and magnetic field $\Beqi \zhat = \Bref \zhat$. This means that

804: the gravitational and magnetic forces are each identically

805: zero in the uniform background state. The evolution of a model cloud 

806: is started at time $t=0$ by superposing a set of perturbations 

807: $\delta\sign(x,y)$ that are random white noise with a root-mean-squared (rms)

808: value that is 3\% of $\signi$. To preserve the

809: same local mass-to-flux ratio $\sign/\Beq$ as in the uniform background

810: state, initial magnetic field perturbations 

811: $\delta\Beq = (\delta\sign/\signi)\Bref$ are also introduced.

812: 

813: Detailed tests of the accuracy of this MHD code were described in CB06. 

814: Full code runs were compared to exact linear solutions for the

815: gravitationally unstable modes of thin-sheet magnetic clouds. The 

816: code was found to be in excellent agreement with these solutions.

817: It correctly captured the temporal evolution of a model cloud in

818: the linear regime of collapse, as exemplified by the growth time of the

819: gravitational instability $\tau_{\rm g}$ for a given fragmentation 

820: length scale $\lambda$, for various values of the

821: initial parameters $\mui$, $\tniitil$, and $\Pexttil$.

822: In addition, we have run flux-freezing tests of subcritical models

823: with random perturbations and verified that no spurious gravitational

824: instability occurs in the absence of ambipolar diffusion.

825: 

826: The principal motivation for our modeling clouds as thin sheets is that

827: it significantly reduces the computational complexity of studying star 

828: formation, while still retaining many fundamental physical features 

829: necessary to understanding the dynamics of core formation and collapse 

830: within interstellar clouds. For instance, although model clouds are 

831: thin, they are not infinitesimally so, and we are able to 

832: incorporate both magnetic pressure and magnetic tension 

833: supporting forces (see Eq. [\ref{Fmag}]).

834: Additionally, the vertical integration (along the direction of the 

835: $z$-axis) that is employed to derive the system of governing equations 

836: in the thin-sheet approximation (Eqs. [\ref{cont}] - [\ref{magpot}]) 

837: has the effect of turning the fully three-dimensional gravitational 

838: collapse problem into a computationally more tractable 

839: two-dimensional problem. 

840: %Doing this greatly reduces the computational requirements for

841: %numerically studying core collapse in magnetic clouds, making it

842: %possible to have models with sufficient spatial resolution yet without

843: %a prohibitively large number of equations that need to be

844: %simultaneously integrated in time. 

845: As a result of these computational

846: savings, our numerical code is able to run efficiently on 

847: a single workstation with minimal cpu times. 

848: Depending on the initial parameters, a 

849: full simulation can be completed in as little

850: as an hour or at most a single day. Hence, we are able to quickly 

851: generate a large number of models covering the entire physically 

852: relevant range of our free parameters, and

853: produce a large quantity of models that can be used for statistical 

854: analysis. By contrast, three-dimensional MHD models

855: require a dedicated workstation or a computer cluster, and 

856: their simulation completion times are orders of magnitude greater than 

857: that needed for our thin-sheet models. 

858: Our new code is written in the IDL programming language,

859: which significantly speeds up the processes of code development,

860: debugging, and visualization.

861: 

862: We have also developed software to analyze the masses and shapes of cores

863: arising from our simulations. In any snapshot of the evolution, we first

864: isolate regions with column density (or mass-to-flux ratio in some cases)

865: above some threshold value. Thresholds are usually chosen to be high

866: enough that multiple peaks do not fall within a single contiguous

867: region above the threshold. In cases where this happens,

868: we have the option of manually isolating the cores.

869: The mass of each core is found by adding the masses of each 

870: computational zone in the isolated region above the threshold. 

871: To determine the size and shape of a core we use the MPFITELLIPSE

872: routine written in IDL by C. Markwardt, which returns the best-fit ellipse

873: to the set of zones that constitute each core. The semimajor

874: and semiminor axes of the best-fit ellipse, $a$ and $b$, respectively, are obtained

875: and used to determine the size $s = \sqrt{ab}$ and axis ratio $b/a$

876: of each core. The vertical half-thicknesses $Z$ of the zones

877: within each core are averaged to find a mean half-thickness.

878: The mean separation of fragments are found by locating,

879: for each density peak associated with a core, the nearest peak

880: of a neighboring core. These values are averaged over all cores in a simulation 

881: and over multiple model realizations. The periodic boundary 

882: conditions are also accounted for; we count any possible

883: nearest neighbor that is just across the periodic boundary.

884:  

885: 

886: \section{Results}

887: \label{s:results}

888: 

889: \subsection{Overview}

890: \label{s:over}

891: 

892: The efficiency of our two-dimensional code allows us to run a large number

893: of simulations, with various combinations of the important parameters

894: $\mui$, $\tniitil$, and $\Pexttil$. For each unique set of parameters

895: we are also able to run a multitude of independent model 

896: realizations. Each realization is distinct in specific details,

897: since the evolution is initiated by random (white noise) small-amplitude 

898: perturbations. However, the independent realizations are 

899: statistically similar, and running a large number of models allows

900: us to assess the level of randomness that contributes to 

901: distributions of various calculated quantities. 

902: 

903: Table 1 contains the parameters for each of ten models as well as

904: the predicted minimum growth time $\taugm$, the associated wavelength of 

905: maximum instability $\lamgm$, and the implied fragmentation mass

906: $\mgm \equiv \pi \signi \lamgm^2/4$, all obtained 

907: from the linear perturbation analysis of CB06.

908: The first two quantities are in normalized form, but the masses have

909: been converted to $\Msun$ using the standard values in Eq. (\ref{M0}).

910: Some insight into the numerical values of $\taugm$ and $\lamgm$ in Table 1

911: can be obtained by considering the growth rate and fragmentation

912: scale of the fastest growing mode in the limit of no magnetic

913: field, but finite external pressure. From the results of CB06, we 

914: find

915: \barray

916: \label{taug}

917: \tau_{\rm g}(\Pexttil,\Breftil=0) & = & 2 \,\frac{(1+3\Pexttil)^{1/2}}{(1+\Pexttil)} \frac{L_0}{\cs} = (1+3\Pexttil)^{1/2} \,\frac{Z_0}{\cs}, \\

918: \label{lamg}

919: \lambda_{\rm g}(\Pexttil,\Breftil=0) & = & 4 \pi \frac{(1+3\Pexttil)}{(1+\Pexttil)^2} L_0

920: = 2 \pi \left( \frac{1+3\Pexttil}{1+\Pexttil}\right) Z_0. 

921: \earray

922: In the above equations, we have used the relation

923: \beq

924: Z_0 = \frac{2L_0}{(1+\Pexttil)}.

925: \eeq

926: These results show that in the limit $\Pexttil \rightarrow 0$, the isothermal

927: sheet has effective ``Jeans length'' $\lammax = 4 \pi L_0 = 2 \pi Z_0$,

928: and growth time $\tau_{\rm T,m} = 2L_0/\cs = Z_0/\cs$. The

929: relation of these values to the sheet half-thickness

930: and sound speed is intuitively understandable; the latter is essentially

931: the dynamical time. 

932: The highly supercritical 

933: model 10, which also has low external pressure, does approach these limiting 

934: values of fragmentation scale and growth time.

935: Equations (\ref{taug})-(\ref{lamg}) also bring out the interesting property that the fragmentation

936: length and time scale of the isothermal sheet can be reduced significantly by

937: increases in $\Pexttil$, but that the fragmentation scale converges to 

938: a fixed multiple of $Z_0$ (i.e. $6 \pi Z_0$) as $\Pexttil \rightarrow \infty$.

939: This property was first noted by \citet{Elme78} and studied further by \citet{Lubo}.

940: The significantly subcritical model 1 also has a fragmentation

941: scale $\approx 2 \pi Z_0$, since instability occurs via neutral drift 

942: past near-stationary field lines; however the growth time $\taugm \approx 10\,Z_0/\cs$. 

943: The transcritical models 3 and 4

944: have values of $\taugm$ more similar to the subcritical models than the

945: supercritical ones, although their fragmentation scales $\lamgm$ are large.

946: Models 9 and 10 have have $\Pexttil=10$,

947: resulting in much smaller values of $\taugm$ and $\lamgm$ than corresponding

948: models with $\Pexttil=0.1$, although the dynamically important magnetic field

949: raises the values of both above the nonmagnetic limits.

950: 

951: Our standard simulation box is four times larger in size than

952: $\lammax$ and more than twice $\lamgm$ for most models.

953: Exceptions to this are model 3 and model 7, and these simulations are

954: carried out in larger simulation boxes of quadruple size ($L=64\,\pi L_0,N=512$)

955: when collecting information on core properties.

956: The total mass in the simulation box with 

957: $L=16\,\pi L_0 = 0.353 \,( \Nni /10^{22}\cms)^{-1} (T/10 \K)$ pc is 

958: $M = 2.53 \times 10^3\, M_0 

959: = 23.2\, ( \Nni /10^{22}\cms)^{-1}(T/10 \K)^2 \,\Msun$.

960: The expected fragmentation scales and masses for all models are 

961: significantly greater than the grid length resolution $\Delta x$ and

962: mass resolution $\Delta M$ quoted in Section \ref{s:techn}.

963: 

964: %give total mass in msun

965: %talk about resolution limit too

966: 

967: %comment out below

968: %Values of $\taugm$ and $\lamgm$ can be understood 

969: %naively in some limits by noting that the half-thickness of the

970: %reference state is $Z_0 =2L_0/(1+\Pexttil)$. Therefore, for the highly

971: %supercritical model 6 ($\mui=10, \Pexttil=0.1$), $\taugm \approx Z_0/\cs$

972: %and $\lamgm \approx 2 \pi Z_0$,

973: %while for the highly subcritical model 1 ($\mui=0.5, \Pexttil=0.1$),

974: %$\taugm \approx 10\,Z_0/\cs$ and $\lamgm \approx 2 \pi Z_0$. 

975: %In this context it is worth noting that the transcritical models 3 and 4

976: %have values of $\taugm$ more similar to the subcritical models than the 

977: %supercritical ones, although their fragmentation scales $\lamgm$ are large.

978: %Models 9 and 10 have much smaller values of $Z_0$ since $\Pexttil=10$,

979: %resulting in much smaller values of $\taugm$ and $\lamgm$ than corresponding

980: %models with $\Pexttil=0.1$. 

981: %%However, the exact numbers are not naively 

982: %%predictable since the modes are driven by external pressure more than by self-gravity. 

983: 

984: Table 2 contains model parameters and key quantities at

985: the end of each nonlinear model run.

986: %Each model with a unique set of parameters is run 

987: %about 100 times to generate average values of important physical 

988: %quantities in columns 5-11.

989: %However, models 4 and 7 need to be run in an expanded domain with

990: %$N=512$ rather than the usual $N=128$, due to their large fragmentation

991: %scales; these models are run about 25 times each to generate the averaged

992: %physical values. 

993: All runs end when $\signmax/\signi = 10$. This corresponds to 

994: a volume density enhancement $\rhon/\rhoni \approx 100$ for models with

995: $\Pexttil=0.1$ and $\rhon/\rhoni \approx 10$ for models with $\Pexttil=10$.

996: %notwithstanding a small additional effect of magnetic pinching.

997: For each model, we list representative values of $t_{\rm run}$\footnote{Experimentation

998: with different rms amplitudes of the initial perturbation (so that 

999: $\delta \sign/\signi$ is in the range 1\%-6\%), and variation of the power

1000: spectrum away from white noise but with the fixed standard rms value, reveal

1001: that the values of $t_{\rm run}$ can vary in the range 10\%-20\% from

1002: the values quoted in Table 2.},

1003: the physical time at which $\signmax=10\signi$,

1004: $\vnmax$, the maximum neutral speed in the simulated region at that time,

1005: and $\vimax$, the corresponding quantity for the ions. 

1006: In general, models with relatively large values of 

1007: $\mui, \tniitil, ~{\rm and}~ \Pexttil$ tend

1008: to evolve faster than counterparts with smaller values of these parameters.

1009: For the gravity-dominated models ($\Pexttil=0.1$), increasing values of $\mui$

1010: and/or $\tniitil$ result in greater values of $\vnmax$.

1011: %Faster evolving models also have greater values of $\vnmax$ at the 

1012: %end of the runs. 

1013: The values of $\vimax$ illustrate that the systematic motions

1014: within the nonlinearly developed cores are gravitationally driven, 

1015: so that ions lag behind neutrals somewhat. 

1016: However, the difference between the speeds of the two species 

1017: remains less than $0.1\,\cs$.

1018: We perform an analysis of core properties as described in Section \ref{s:techn},

1019: after defining a core as an enclosed region with $\sign/\signi \geq 2$

1020: at the end of the simulation.

1021: Since each simulation typically yields only a handful of cores, the

1022: models are run a large number of times to generate significant

1023: core statistics. Models 1, 2, 3, and 5 were run 100 times each, while models

1024: 4 and 7, which need to be run on an expanded grid due to very large

1025: fragmentation scales, were run 22 and 6 times, respectively.

1026: Model 8 ran 50 times and models 9 and 10 were run 25 times each.

1027: Several averaged properties of the resulting cores are presented in columns

1028: 8-12 of Table 2. These quantities are 

1029: $\lamavg$, the average distance between cores,

1030: $\Mavg$, the average mass within a core (converted to $\Msun$

1031: using Eq. [\ref{M0}]), $\savg$, the average size

1032: of a core, $\axisravg$, the average 

1033: axis ratio of a core, and $\Zavg$, the average value of the half-thickness 

1034: of a core. 

1035: 

1036: %Since each simulation typically yields only a handful of cores, the

1037: %models are run a large number of times in order to generate significant

1038: %statistics. Models 1, 2, 3, and 5 are run 100 times each, while models

1039: %4 and 7, which need to be run on an expanded grid due to very large

1040: %fragmentation scales, are run for 22 and 6 times respectively.

1041: %Model 8 is run 50 times and models 9 and 10 are run 50 times each.

1042: 

1043: %Masses in dimensional form - explain scaling

1044: 

1045: %For the purpose of analysis in our simulations, a core is defined as a 

1046: %local density peak and surrounding gas that is above a threshold

1047: %explain how thresholding and ellipse fitting is done

1048: %explain how to generate c/a

1049: 

1050: %\clearpage

1051: 

1052: %original masses, before mult. by pi/4

1053: %1.88, 2.50, 5.43, 27.7, 5.25, 1.78, 7.46, 3.68, 0.11, 0.23

1054: \begin{table}

1055: \begin{center}

1056: %\caption{Summary of Parameters and Results of Linear Theory\tablenotemark{$\dagger$}}

1057: %\caption{Summary of Parameters and Results of Linear Theory\tablenotemark{1}}

1058: \caption{Summary of Parameters and Results of Linear Theory}

1059: \end{center}

1060: \label{t:1}

1061: \begin{tabular}{crrrrrr}

1062: \hline \hline

1063: %\tablehead{

1064: %\colhead{Model} &\colhead{$\mu_0$} &\colhead{$\tniitil$} &\colhead{$\Pexttil$} & 

1065: %colhead{$t_{\rm run}$} & \colhead{$\vnmax$} & \colhead{$\lambda$} &

1066: %\colhead{Mass} & \colhead{Size} & \colhead{$b/a$} & \colhead{$Z_{\rm avg}$}

1067: %}

1068: %\startdata

1069: Model &\hspace{1em}$\mu_0$ &$\hspace{1em}\tniitil$ &\hspace{1em}$\Pexttil$ &\hspace{2em}$\taugm$ &\hspace{1em}$\lamgm$ & $\mgm$ 

1070: \\

1071: \hline

1072: 1       &0.5     &0.2    &0.1    &20.2  &14.3 &1.48

1073: \\

1074: 2       &0.8     &0.2    &0.1    &17.6  &16.5 &1.96

1075: \\

1076: 3       &1.0     &0.2    &0.1    &14.3  &24.3 &4.26

1077: \\

1078: 4       &1.1     &0.2    &0.1    &10.8   &54.9 &21.8

1079: \\

1080: 5       &2.0     &0.2    &0.1    &3.21   &23.9 &4.12

1081: \\

1082: 6       &10.0    &0.2    &0.1    &2.11   &13.9  &1.40

1083: \\

1084: 7       &1.0     &0.1    &0.1    &27.5   &28.5  &5.86

1085: \\

1086: 8       &1.0     &0.4    &0.1    &7.93   &20.0 &2.89

1087: \\

1088: 9       &0.5     &0.2    &10.0   &4.87   &3.43 &0.09

1089: \\

1090: 10      &1.0     &0.2    &10.0   &3.33   &4.99 &0.18

1091: 

1092: \\

1093: \hline

1094: %\enddata

1095: \end{tabular}

1096: \\

1097: %\tablenotetext{1}{\mbox{Times and lengths are normalized to $t_0$ and

1098: %$L_0$, respectively. Masses are converted to $\Msun$ using Eq. (\ref{M0}).}}

1099: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.

1100: Times and lengths are normalized to $t_0$ and

1101: $L_0$, respectively. Masses are converted to $\Msun$ using Eq. (\ref{M0}).

1102: \end{table}

1103: %\end{deluxetable}

1104: 

1105: %note original trun's are 203.7, 166.5, 120.9, 88.1, 22.8, 12.4, 261.0, 

1106: %60.9, 44.2, 22.2

1107: \begin{table}

1108: %\begin{deluxetable}{crrrrrrcrrr}[b]

1109: %\tabletypesize{\normalsize}

1110: %\tablewidth{0pt}

1111: %\tablecaption{Summary of Parameters and Main Results for Model Clouds}

1112: \begin{center}

1113: %\caption{Main Results for Model Clouds\tablenotemark{$\dagger$}\tablenotemark{$\ast$}}

1114: \caption{Main Results for Model Clouds}

1115: \end{center}

1116: \label{t:2}

1117: \begin{tabular}{crrrrrrrcrrr}

1118: \hline \hline

1119: %\tablehead{

1120: %\colhead{Model} &\colhead{$\mu_0$} &\colhead{$\tniitil$} &\colhead{$\Pexttil$} & 

1121: %colhead{$t_{\rm run}$} & \colhead{$\vnmax$} & \colhead{$\lambda$} &

1122: %\colhead{Mass} & \colhead{Size} & \colhead{$b/a$} & \colhead{$Z_{\rm avg}$}

1123: %}

1124: %\startdata

1125: Model &\hspace{1em}$\mu_0$ &$\hspace{1em}\tniitil$ &\hspace{1em}$\Pexttil$ &\hspace{2em}$t_{\rm run}$&\hspace{1em}$\vnmax$& $\hspace{1em}\vimax$ &\hspace{3em}$\lamavg$ &\hspace{1.5em}$\Mavg$ &\hspace{1.5em}$\savg$ &\hspace{1.5em}$\axisravg$ &\hspace{1.5em}$\Zavg$ 

1126: \\

1127: \hline

1128: 1       &0.5     &0.2    &0.1    &204  &0.39  & 0.35 &15.0  &\hspace{1.5em}1.26  &1.25  &0.74 

1129: &0.71\\

1130: 2       &0.8     &0.2    &0.1    &167  &0.62  &0.55 &17.7  &\hspace{1.5em}1.56  &1.49  &0.81 

1131: &0.72\\

1132: 3       &1.0     &0.2    &0.1    &121  &0.70   & 0.64 &20.1  &\hspace{1.5em}3.26  &2.09  &0.69

1133: &0.65\\

1134: 4       &1.1     &0.2    &0.1   &88   &0.95  &0.90 &47.1  &\hspace{1.5em}6.62

1135: &3.23  &0.66  &0.75\\

1136: 5       &2.0     &0.2    &0.1    &23   &1.1  &1.0 &19.1  &\hspace{1.5em}3.41  &2.08  &0.57

1137: &0.67\\

1138: 6       &10.0    &0.2    &0.1    &12   &1.2  &1.2 &12.8  &\hspace{1.5em}0.99  &1.04  &0.53

1139: &0.70\\

1140: 7       &1.0     &0.1    &0.1   &261 &0.66  &0.62 &31.4  &\hspace{1.5em}3.29

1141: &2.13  &0.77  &0.78\\

1142: 8       &1.0     &0.4    &0.1    &61  &0.73  &0.63 &18.5  &\hspace{1.5em}2.02  &1.69  &0.67

1143: &0.71\\

1144: 9       &0.5     &0.2    &10.0   &44   &0.70  &0.63 &4.0   &\hspace{1.5em}0.34  &0.60  &0.62

1145: &0.072\\

1146: 10      &1.0     &0.2    &10.0   &22   &0.50  &0.38 &5.3   &\hspace{1.5em}0.46  &0.74  &0.60

1147: &0.074\\

1148: \hline

1149: %\enddata

1150: \end{tabular}

1151: %\tablenotetext{$\dagger$}{\mbox{Times and lengths are normalized to $t_0$ and

1152: %$L_0$, respectively. Speeds are normalized to $\cs$. Masses are converted to $\Msun$ using Eq. (\ref{M0}).}}\\

1153: %\tablenotetext{$\ast$}{\mbox{Core data for models 4 and 7 are compiled from runs with $N = 512, L = 64\pi L_0$.}}

1154: Times and lengths are normalized to $t_0$ and

1155: $L_0$, respectively. Speeds are normalized to $\cs$. 

1156: Masses are converted to $\Msun$ using Eq. (\ref{M0}).

1157: Core data for models 4 and 7 are compiled from runs with $N = 512, L = 64\pi L_0$.

1158: %% Any table notes must follow the \end{tabular} command.

1159: \end{table}

1160: %\end{deluxetable}

1161: 

1162: \bfig

1163: \epsfig{file=f1.eps}

1164: \caption{Preferred fragmentation scales $\lamgm$ from linear stability 

1165: analysis \citep{CB06} compared with

1166: the average spacing of density peaks in the nonlinear simulations.

1167: The upper solid line is the calculated dependence of

1168: the wavelength with maximum growth rate $\lamgm$ versus 

1169: $\mui$ for fixed parameters $\tniitil=0.2$ and $\Pexttil=0.1$.

1170: The lower solid line is the same but for $\Pexttil = 10$. The triangles 

1171: represent the average spacing of density peaks (with peak $\sign \geq 2 

1172: \signi$) tabulated from a large number

1173: of simulations at each of $\mui = 0.5,0.8,1.0,1.1,2.0$, and $10.0$ with

1174: $\tniitil=0.2$ and $\Pexttil=0.1$. The squares represent the same but 

1175: with $\Pexttil = 10$.}

1176: \label{scales}

1177: \efig

1178: 

1179: Fig.~\ref{scales} shows the preferred fragmentation scales $\lamgm$ versus $\mui$ 

1180: from the linear analysis of CB06 for two separate values 

1181: of the dimensionless external pressure ($\Pexttil = 0.1$ on top 

1182: and $\Pexttil = 10$ below). Both lines represent models with

1183: $\tniitil = 0.2$, which is our adopted standard value based on 

1184: typical observationally-inferred ionization levels (see Eq. [\ref{ioniz}]

1185: above and Eq. [29] of CB06).

1186: Overlaid on each solid line are 

1187: average core spacings $\lamavg$ (see Table 2) calculated from  

1188: the nonlinear endpoint of our simulations. Each data point 

1189: represents an average of core spacings for a large number (20 to 100) of 

1190: simulations. 

1191: The lower line contains $\lamavg$ data for up to 25 runs each of 

1192: an additional four models

1193: with $\Pexttil=10$ that do not, for the sake of brevity, have their data 

1194: compiled in Tables 1 and 2.

1195: %For the purpose of this analysis, a 

1196: %core is defined as any isolatable region with $\sign/\signi \geq 2$

1197: %at the end of the simulation, when $\signmax/\signi = 10$.

1198: {\it These results show that the linear theory can be used with

1199: confidence to predict the average fragmentation properties of clouds even

1200: in a fully nonlinear stage of development.} 

1201: The tabulated fragmentation scales are slightly below the predictions

1202: of linear theory in the range $\mui \approx 1-2$, for $\Pexttil=0.1$.

1203: This is due to occasional subfragmentation of the initially large 

1204: (irregularly shaped) fragments as they become decidedly supercritical.

1205: We return to this issue when discussing the models with

1206: $\mui=1.1$.

1207: 

1208: %A notable discrepancy

1209: %occurs for $\mui=1.1, \Pexttil=0.1$ - the nonlinear spacing is somewhat

1210: %smaller than predicted by the linear theory. This is explained by 

1211: %considering nonlinear effects, as explained in \S\ \ref{muieffect}.

1212: 

1213: \subsection{The Effect of Varying $\mui$} 

1214: \label{s:mui}

1215: 

1216: \subsubsection{Time Evolution}

1217: \label{s:timevol}

1218: 

1219: Fig.~\ref{timevol} shows the time evolution of the maximum neutral column 

1220: density $\signmax$ and maximum mass-to-flux ratio $\mu_{\rm max}$,

1221: both normalized to their initial values, for models 1, 3, and 5, 

1222: which have $\mui= 0.5,1.0,$ and 2.0, respectively, and fixed parameters

1223: $\tniitil=0.2$ and $\Pexttil=0.1$. These three models have

1224: $\taugm/t_0=20.2,14.3,$ and 3.2, respectively. The actual time $t_{\rm run}$

1225: to runaway collapse of a core, starting from small-amplitude

1226: white-noise perturbations, is about $7-10$ times $\taugm$ for these

1227: models. Review of Table 1 and Table 2 shows that $t_{\rm run}/\taugm

1228: \approx 7-10$ is a generic feature of all our models. The clouds with

1229: initial critical and subcritical mass-to-flux ratio have a prolonged

1230: period of dormancy, compared to the supercritical models.

1231: This is due to the need for ambipolar diffusion to operate before

1232: collapse sets in for both cases. The dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{timevol} show how 

1233: much the mass-to-flux ratio changes during the evolution.

1234: The initially subcritical

1235: cloud requires a significant increase of $\mu_{\rm max}$

1236: before collapse begins. 

1237: Although $\mu_{\rm max}$ appears to be diverging

1238: at the end of the simulations, it is in fact increasing much more 

1239: slowly than $\signmax$, and will not asymptotically diverge. This can

1240: be seen in previously published work, i.e. in Fig. 2 of each of

1241: \citet{CM94} and \citet{BM94}.

1242: 

1243: 

1244: \bfig

1245: \epsfig{file=f2.eps,width=\linewidth}

1246: \caption{Time evolution of maximum values of surface density and

1247: mass-to-flux ratio in three simulations. The solid lines show the

1248: evolution of the maximum value of surface density in the simulation,

1249: $\signmax/\signi$, versus time $t/t_0$. This is shown for models

1250: 1, 3, and 5, which have initial mass-to-flux ratio values

1251: $\mui=$ 0.5, 1, and 2, respectively. For each model, a dashed line

1252: shows the evolution of the maximum mass-to-flux ratio in the simulation,

1253: $\mu_{\rm max}$, normalized to $\mui$.

1254: }

1255: \label{timevol}

1256: \efig

1257: 

1258: \subsubsection{Column Density and Velocity Structure}

1259: \label{s:cdens}

1260: 

1261: Fig.~\ref{densimgs} shows the column density map and velocity vectors 

1262: of neutrals at the

1263: end of the simulations for parameters $\mui=0.5,0.8,1.0,1.1,

1264: 2.0,~{\rm and}~10.0$, with $\tniitil=0.2$ and $\Pexttil=0.1$.

1265: All simulations end when $\signmax/\signi=10$, but the time at which 

1266: this is reached is different in each model. These times for the various

1267: models (in order of increasing $\mui$) are $t/t_0=203.7,166.5,120.9,88.1,22.8,~{\rm and}~12.4$.

1268: There is a striking variation in the spacings of cores as $\mui$ 

1269: changes. The highly subcritical case $\mui=0.5$ fragments on essentially

1270: the nonmagnetic preferred scale $\lammax = 4 \pi L_0$, since the 

1271: evolution is characterized by diffusion of neutrals past near-stationary

1272: magnetic field lines, i.e. a Jeans-like instability but on a diffusive time scale. 

1273: As predicted by the linear theory (CB06), there is a peak in the 

1274: fragmentation spacing near $\mui=1$. The peak 

1275: occurs at $\mui=1.1$ when $\tniitil=0.2$ and $\Pexttil=0.1$.

1276: The predicted fragmentation scale is $\lamgm=4.2\,\lammax$,

1277: and indeed our simulation with box width $4\,\lammax$ yields only

1278: one core, although it seems to be undergoing a secondary

1279: fragmentation into two pieces.

1280: 

1281: The velocity vectors of the neutral flow are normalized to the same

1282: scale in each frame, and the horizontal or vertical spacing of the

1283: footpoints is equal to $0.5\,\cs$. There is a monotonic increase of

1284: the typical neutral speeds as $\mui$ increases (see values of $\vnmax$

1285: in Table 2). The supercritical models, unlike their subcritical and

1286: critical counterparts, have large-scale flow patterns

1287: with velocities in the approximate range $(0.5-1.0)\,\cs$, and 

1288: maximum speeds associated with the most fully developed cores that

1289: are mildly supersonic at distances $\sim 0.1$ pc from the core centers.

1290: Interestingly, the essentially hydrodynamic model with $\mui=10$

1291: has only somewhat greater systematic speeds than the model with $\mui=2$.

1292: This is because the fragmentation scale is smaller, so that 

1293: each core has a weaker gravitational influence on its surroundings at this stage

1294: of development.

1295: However, recall that the frames are at different physical times 

1296: since the models with smaller values of $\mui$ reach $\signmax/\signi=10$

1297: at progressively later times.

1298: Spatial profiles of $\vnp$ in the vicinity of cores are presented in BC04, for

1299: some models, and we do not present them again in this paper. The trend of values

1300: of maximum neutral speed $\vnmax$ and maximum ion speed $\vimax$ (Table 2) reveal the 

1301: predictions of our models for the observable motions on the core scale. 

1302: The infall motions are gravitationally driven, so that the ion speed lags

1303: the neutral speed in all cases. The overall rms speed in the entire simulation

1304: region is always quite small for both neutrals and ions. The rms speed of

1305: neutrals, $v_{\rm n,rms}$, falls in the range $(0.05-0.21)\,\cs$ for the various

1306: models, and the corresponding quantity $v_{\rm i,rms}$ in the range

1307: $(0.04-0.20)\,\cs$.

1308: 

1309: %but reaches this stage at a much earlier time

1310: %velocity cuts in BC04

1311: 

1312:  

1313: %times are different though, and monotonically changing. Near critical

1314: %case is characterized by large spacing and longish time scale

1315: %shapes

1316: %vels not much bigger for highly supercritical case

1317: %transcritical cases distinct, but evolve slowly

1318: %tie in to large spacings observations and 2-stage fragmentation

1319: 

1320: %New par on 512^2 simulation here

1321: Since the standard box size $L =16\, \pi L_0$ allows only one fragment to 

1322: form initially in the model with $\mui=1.1$ (as seen in Fig. \ref{densimgs}), we ran

1323: another model with four times larger box size but the same resolution, 

1324: so that $L=64\, \pi L_0$ and $N=512$. This allows the formation of multiple

1325: fragments, since the preferred fragmentation scale from the linear theory

1326: is $\lamgm=54.9 L_0$. Fig.~\ref{bigimage} shows the column density and velocity vectors

1327: at the end of one such simulation. Velocity vectors are again normalized such 

1328: that the horizontal or vertical spacing between footpoints equals $0.5\,\cs$.

1329: This larger simulation does show that multiple fragments form with spacings

1330: approximately as predicted by the linear theory, but that there is also

1331: a tendency for cores to subfragment into two density peaks.

1332: An analysis of the result of 25 separate simulations with different 

1333: random realizations of the initial state reveals that the average distance

1334: between density peaks is $47.1 L_0$, which is somewhat smaller than $\lamgm=54.9 L_0$.

1335: This is explained by the occasional presence of secondary density peaks

1336: within the initially formed fragments. 

1337: While most model clouds undergo {\it single-stage fragmentation} into essentially

1338: thermal critical (Jeans-like) fragments of size $\approx \lammax$, the 

1339: transcritical clouds form

1340: first-stage fragments many times larger than $\lammax$, followed by a possible

1341: {\it second-stage fragmentation} when the mass-to-flux ratio of the fragment 

1342: becomes decidedly supercritical due to ambipolar diffusion. 

1343: This second-stage fragmentation may be favored because both the preferred

1344: fragmentation

1345: scale and growth time of gravitational instability drop precipitously as a cloud

1346: makes the transition from transcritical to supercritical (see Figs. 1{\it d} and 2 

1347: of CB06). The initially rather large fragment may itself

1348: be prone to fragmentation because of its irregular shape.

1349: 

1350: %The long-term evolution of such double-peaked cores cannot be determined 

1351: 

1352: %New par on surface plots

1353: Fig.~\ref{surfaceplots} shows an alternate view of the column density, using surface plots

1354: at the end of simulation

1355: runs, with parameters corresponding to those of models 1, 3 and 5. 

1356: These models start from different realizations of the initial state

1357: than those of the models presented in Fig.~\ref{densimgs}. Density peaks occur in 

1358: different locations but represent an equivalent outcome statistically.

1359: Animations of the time evolution of the surface plots are 

1360: available online\footnote{The animations of the models shown in Figs.~\ref{surfaceplots} and \ref{fls}

1361: reveal that they reach the final state with $\sign/\signi=10$

1362: in a time 15-20\% less than that quoted in Table 2. This is because

1363: the initial perturbation is white noise but with the smallest wavelengths

1364: ($\lambda \leq 4$ grid cells) damped out. This results in slightly more power

1365: in the longer wavelengths (for a fixed rms perturbation level), 

1366: including the preferred fragmentation scale $\lamgm$, and a consequent 

1367: quicker development of the favored mode.}.

1368: 

1369: 

1370: \bfig

1371: \vspace{-15ex}

1372: \centering

1373: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1374: \epsfig{file=f3a.eps,width=0.49\linewidth,clip=} &

1375: \epsfig{file=f3b.eps,width=0.49\linewidth,clip=} \\

1376: \epsfig{file=f3c.eps,width=0.49\linewidth,clip=} &

1377: \epsfig{file=f3d.eps,width=0.49\linewidth,clip=} \\

1378: \epsfig{file=f3e.eps,width=0.49\linewidth,clip=} &

1379: \epsfig{file=f3f.eps,width=0.49\linewidth,clip=}

1380: \end{tabular}

1381: \caption{Image and contours of column density $\sign(x,y)/\signi$, 

1382: and velocity vectors of neutrals, for six different models at the time 

1383: that $\signmax/\signi = 10$. All models have $\tniitil=0.2$ and

1384: $\Pexttil=0.1$. Top left: $\mui=0.5$. Top right: $\mui=0.8$. Middle 

1385: left: $\mui=1.0$. Middle right: $\mui=1.1$. Bottom left: $\mui=2.0$. 

1386: Bottom right: $\mui=10.0$. The color table 

1387: %in the image 

1388: is applied to the logarithm of column density and the contour lines 

1389: represent values of $\sign/\signi$ spaced in 

1390: multiplicative increments of $2^{1/2}$, having the values 

1391: [0.7,1.0,1.4,2,2.8,4.0,...].

1392: The horizontal or vertical distance between footpoints of velocity 

1393: vectors corresponds to a speed $0.5 \, \cs$.

1394: We use the normalized spatial coordinates 

1395: $x' = x/\lammax$ and $y' = y/\lammax$, where $\lammax$ is the wavelength of

1396: maximum growth rate in the nonmagnetic limit with $\Pext=0$.

1397: }

1398: \label{densimgs}

1399: \efig

1400: 

1401: \bfig

1402: \epsfig{file=f4.eps,width=\linewidth}

1403: \caption{Column density and velocity vectors as in Fig. \ref{densimgs} but

1404: with model 4 parameters ($\mui=1.1$) that is run with four times larger 

1405: computational region in each direction. The simulation

1406: region consists of $512 \times 512$ zones.

1407: The horizontal or vertical distance between footpoints of velocity 

1408: vectors corresponds to a speed $0.5 \, \cs$.

1409: }

1410: \label{bigimage}

1411: \efig

1412: 

1413: \bfig

1414: \epsfig{file=f5.eps,width=\linewidth}

1415: \caption{Surface plot of column density $\sign(x,y)/\signi$ at the end of 

1416: the simulation for models 1, 3, and 5 with (left to right) $\mui = 0.5,1.0,2.0$. 

1417: Animations of the time evolution for each model are available online.}

1418: \label{surfaceplots}

1419: \efig

1420: 

1421: \subsubsection{Magnetic Field Lines}

1422: \label{s:mfl}

1423: 

1424: For the force-free and current-free region above our model sheet, 

1425: the three-dimensional structure of the magnetic field 

1426: is obtained

1427: by solving Laplace's equation for the scalar magnetic potential

1428: $\Psim(x,y,z)$. The two-dimensional Fourier Transform of the

1429: magnetic potential at any height $z$ above the sheet is related to its

1430: known planar value $\Psi(x,y)=\Psim(x,y,z=0)$ via

1431: \beq

1432: \Psim(x,y,z) = \FTinv \left\{ \FT[\Psi(x,y)] \exp(-k_z\,|z|)\right\}.

1433: \eeq

1434: In the above expression, $\FT$ ($\FTinv$) represents the forward (inverse)

1435: Fourier Transform in a 

1436: two dimensional $(x,y)$ plane for a fixed $z$, $\Psi$ is obtained from

1437: Eq. (\ref{magpot}), and $k_z = (k_x^2 + k_y^2)^{1/2}$.

1438: We use the FFT technique to efficiently calculate $\Psim$ at any

1439: height $z$, which then leads to the various components of the magnetic

1440: field above the sheet via ${\bl B}-\Bref\zhat = -\nabla \Psim$

1441: (see CB06 for a justification of this expression).

1442: %(see CM93 and BM94 for a justification of this expression).

1443: 

1444: Fig.~\ref{fls} shows images of the final state column density for 

1445: two models with 

1446: $\mui=1.0$ and $2.0$, respectively. These are also independent realizations 

1447: and differ in specific details from models presented earlier. 

1448: Overlaid on the column density images are the magnetic field lines extending 

1449: above the sheet. These are three-dimensional images of a sheet plus field

1450: lines above, viewed from an angle of approximately $10^{\circ}$ from 

1451: the direction of the background magnetic field. Clearly, the supercritical

1452: model has more curvature in the field lines, as the contraction proceeds

1453: primarily with field-line dragging. The critical model produces its

1454: cores via a hybrid mode including both neutral-ion slip (ambipolar diffusion)

1455: and field-line dragging, hence the the lesser amount of field line curvature.

1456: The relative amounts of field line curvature in the cloud and within dense

1457: cores are quantified by calculating the quantity $\theta = \tan^{-1} (|B_p|/\Beq)$, 

1458: where $|B_p| = (B_x^2+B_y^2)^{1/2}$ is the magnitude of the planar magnetic

1459: field at any location on the sheet-like cloud. Hence, $\theta$ is the angle that

1460: a field line makes with the vertical direction at any location at the top

1461: or bottom surface of the sheet. To quantify the differences in field line

1462: bending from subcritical to transcritical to supercritical clouds,

1463: we note that models 1, 3, and 5, with $\mui=(0.5,1.0,2.0)$, have average

1464: values $\theta_{\rm av} = (1.7^{\circ}, 8.3^{\circ}, 18^{\circ})$, and maximum

1465: values (probing the most evolved core in each simulation) 

1466: $\theta_{\rm max} = (20^{\circ}, 30^{\circ}, 46^{\circ})$. 

1467: For the model with $\mui=0.5$, $\theta_{\rm max}$ is comparable to 

1468: that presented in Fig. 2 of \citet{Ciol}.

1469: 

1470: Our ability to model fragmentation with varying levels of magnetic

1471: support and neutral-ion slip opens up the possibility of making a 

1472: detailed comparison of observed hourglass morphologies of magnetic field

1473: lines, where measured \citep[e.g.][]{Schl}, with theoretical models so that 

1474: the curvature of field lines may be used as a proxy to measure the ambient magnetic 

1475: field strength. 

1476: 

1477: \bfig

1478: \centering

1479: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1480: %\epsfig{file=mu1test.eps,width=0.4\linewidth,angle=-90,clip=} &

1481: %\epsfig{file=mu2test.eps,width=0.4\linewidth,angle=-90,clip=}

1482: \epsfig{file=f6a.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip=} &

1483: \epsfig{file=f6b.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip=}

1484: \end{tabular}

1485: \caption{Image of gas column density $\sign(x,y)/\signi$ 

1486: and superposed magnetic field lines for

1487: models 3 and 5, with $\mui=1.0$ (left) and $\mui=2.0$ (right). The magnetic field

1488: lines extend above the sheet, and the image and field lines are seen

1489: from a viewing angle of about 10$^{\circ}$. Animations of the 

1490: evolution of the column density are available online. The field lines

1491: appear in the last frame of the animation.}

1492: %3D image of gas sheet and magnetic field lines above for mu0=1,2. 

1493: %Online movies accompany.}

1494: \label{fls}

1495: \efig

1496: 

1497: \subsubsection{Shapes}

1498: \label{s:shapes}

1499: 

1500: The core identification techniques

1501: described in Section~\ref{s:techn} yield core sizes, shapes, and masses, whose average

1502: values are tabulated in Table 2. Here in Fig.~\ref{shapehist} we present a more detailed 

1503: histogram of core shape distributions for each of models 1 through 6. 

1504: This isolates the effect of mass-to-flux ratio on core shapes. 

1505: The statistics are generated by running each of model 1-3 and 5-6 for 

1506: 100 distinct realizations with the usual box size ($L=16\,\pi L_0,N=128$).

1507: Model 4 is run 22 times due to the larger box size ($L=64\,\pi L_0,N=512$)

1508: necessitated by the large fragmentation scale.

1509: The number of cores generated are 

1510: 547, 367, 187, 126, 272, and 659, for models 1 through 6, respectively. The different 

1511: numbers reflect the varying numbers of cores arising for each set of parameters

1512: (see Fig. \ref{densimgs}) as well as the smaller number of runs for model 4. However, in each

1513: case we have sufficient numbers to make inferences about the differences between

1514: models.

1515: 

1516: Fig. \ref{shapehist} reveals in detail what is apparent by a visual inspection of 

1517: Fig.~\ref{densimgs}. The core shape distribution contains many circular objects

1518: (axis ratio $b/a \approx 1$) for subcritical clouds, but contains

1519: progressively more elongated cores as $\mui$ increases.

1520: All initially supercritical models have a peak axis ratio that is distinctly

1521: non-circular. All objects are also flattened in the vertical direction and usually

1522: have the shortest dimension along the magnetic field (see values of $\Zavg$ in

1523: Table 2). 

1524: The underlying physical explanation is that quasistatic formation

1525: of cores (for $\mui \leq 1$) allows for growth in all directions more

1526: equally, whereas dynamical gravity-dominated formation will strongly 

1527: accentuate the anisotropies ($k_x \neq k_y$) that are present at the outset

1528: \citep[see][]{Miya1,Miya2}.

1529: 

1530: The supercritical models have a mean axis ratio in the sheet

1531: plane $\approx 0.5$, which is in rough agreement with the

1532: observed mean {\it projected} axis ratio of dense cores \citep{Myer91}.

1533: However, a deprojection of the observed axis ratios yields

1534: intrinsic three-dimensional shapes that are inherently triaxial 

1535: \citep{JBD01,JB02,Goodw,Tass},

1536: with mean axis ratios $b/a \approx 0.9$ and $c/a \approx 0.4-0.5$.

1537: Since the direction of the smallest axis ($c$) corresponds to our

1538: preferred direction of flattening ($z$), the deprojected $b/a$ values 

1539: can be compared directly with our models. We find reasonable agreement for

1540: the subcritical models 1 and 2. The deprojected values of $c/a$ can also be

1541: compared with our thin-sheet models, in which effectively $c/a = \Zavg/a = 

1542: \Zavg \sqrt{\axisravg}/\savg$. There is reasonable agreement here again

1543: for the subcritical models 1 and 2, as well as for the highly supercritical model 6,

1544: which have, respectively, $c/a = 0.49, 0.43, ~{\rm and}~ 0.49$.

1545:   

1546: \bfig

1547: \epsfig{file=f7.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}

1548: \caption{Histograms of axis ratios $b/a$ of best fit ellipses to dense regions 

1549: with $\sign/\signi \geq 2$, measured at the end of simulations with

1550: $\mui =  0.5,0.8,1.0.1.1,2.0,10.0$ as labeled, corresponding to models 

1551: 1 through 6 in Table 2. Each figure is the result of

1552: a compilation of results of a large number of simulations. The bin width is 0.1. }

1553: \label{shapehist}

1554: \efig

1555: 

1556: \subsubsection{Core Mass Distributions}

1557: \label{s:cmd}

1558: 

1559: In Fig. \ref{masshist} we present histograms of core mass distributions generated

1560: from the multiple runs of models 1 through 6, as 

1561: described in Section~\ref{s:shapes}. Each core is defined as an enclosed region

1562: with $\sign/\signi \geq 2$ that is present at the end of the simulation, when

1563: $\signmax/\signi = 10$. For comparison with observations,

1564: we have converted our calculated masses to

1565: $\Msun$ using an assumed background number column density $\Nni =

1566: 10^{22} \cms$ and temperature $T=10$ K (see Eq. [\ref{M0}]).

1567: 

1568: We note that the variation of the peak masses (and the average masses tabulated

1569: in Table 2) from one model to another are in qualitative agreement with 

1570: the predictions of linear theory (Table 1). Furthermore, the $\mui=0.5$ and 

1571: $\mui=10$ models generate very similar core mass distributions that are 

1572: difficult to distinguish. This is not surprising since they have such similar

1573: preferred fragmentation scales. 

1574: 

1575: The striking feature of each of the histograms is the very sharp descent

1576: at masses greater than the peak of the distribution. Gravitational fragmentation

1577: yields a very strong preferred mass scale.

1578: The peak value itself is more ambiguous and can vary according to

1579: the magnetic field strength, the background column density, the cloud temperature,

1580: and the contour level we use to define the core.

1581: In contrast, the slope on the low-mass side is much shallower. This is due to 

1582: the capture of emerging cores at the end of any simulation. Many of those cores

1583: are expected to grow in time and move over to the right by the time their 

1584: peaks undergo runaway collapse and form a star. The distribution may be described as

1585: relatively narrow and lognormal-like, but with a broader tail at the low-mass side

1586: due to the temporal spread of core ages.

1587: 

1588: The steep decline of the of the mass distributions beyond the peak 

1589: ($d\log N/d \log M \approx -5$ is typical) 

1590: in our study is in contrast to that observed for condensations in

1591: cluster forming regions \citep[e.g.][]{Mott}, where $d\log N/d \log M \approx -1.5$ 

1592: at high masses. Gravitational fragmentation under the conditions studied in

1593: this paper and at the time snapshot chosen here yields a very strong preference

1594: for a characteristic mass. We discuss possible mechanisms 

1595: of broadening the mass distribution in Section~\ref{s:disc}. 

1596: %What can account for the difference?

1597: %In the context of this model, we believe that the longer term evolution of the

1598: %molecular cloud that we have not yet calculated may yield significant and

1599: %differential growth of cores that results in a broad tail. A simplified analytic

1600: %model of this type has been presented by \citet{BJ04}. A broad tail at the high-mass

1601: %end would then be due to a temporal effect, and form in a mirror-image 

1602: %fashion to

1603: %%the broad tail at the low-mass end that we do see in our

1604: %simulations. We note that the scenario of accretional growth of cores has

1605: %some elements in common with ideas of 'competitive accretion' of protostars

1606: %themselves \citep{Bonn}. Alternatively, a broader

1607: %high-mass tail of the core mass distribution may be generated directly by

1608: %initial conditions of turbulent flows \citep[e.g.][]{Pado}. We will study the

1609: %latter effect in the context of our simulations in an upcoming paper.

1610: 

1611: \bfig

1612: \epsfig{file=f8.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}

1613: \caption{Histograms of masses contained within regions with $\sign/\signi \geq 2$,

1614: measured at the end of simulations with $\mui =  0.5,0.8,1.0.1.1,2.0,10.0$ as labeled. 

1615: Each figure is the result of a compilation of results of a large number of 

1616: simulations. The bin width is 0.1. }

1617: \label{masshist}

1618: \efig

1619: 

1620: \subsubsection{Supercritical Cores}

1621: 

1622: For clouds that start with subcritical or transcritical initial conditions,

1623: there is available a more physical definition of a ``core'', i.e. a region that

1624: is significantly supercritical and enclosed within a subcritical common cloud envelope.

1625: Axisymmetric simulations of cores that evolve initially by ambipolar drift

1626: have shown that the contraction becomes very rapid by the time that 

1627: $\mu \approx 2$ in the central region, leaving behind a more slowly evolving

1628: and essentially subcritical envelope \citep[see, e.g.][]{FM93,CM94,BM94}.

1629: %Furthermore, the magnetic field may limit the eventual accretion rate of the

1630: %subcritical envelope onto the protostar(s) that forms from the supercritical 

1631: %region \citep{Shu04}.

1632: 

1633: Fig. \ref{mtfimgs} shows images and contour maps of $\mu(x,y)$ at the 

1634: end of the simulation

1635: for models 1 and 3, respectively. The initially subcritical ($\mui=0.5$) model

1636: 1 has peaks in $\mu(x,y)$ coinciding with the major peaks in $\sigma(x,y)$

1637: (see Fig. \ref{densimgs} upper left). However, note that the density condensations are 

1638: either largely or even entirely subcritical ($\mu < 1$) at this stage.

1639: This image shows that subcritical clouds can have observable density

1640: enhancements which may still be partially or entirely subcritical, because they

1641: are still in the process of ambipolar-drift-driven gravitational instability.

1642: The image and contours for the initially critical ($\mui=1.0$) cloud shows

1643: that the cloud naturally separates into supercritical and subcritical regions,

1644: due to ambipolar diffusion and a fixed total magnetic flux threading the cloud.

1645: The newly created supercritical regions are extended and typically contain more

1646: than one density and mass-to-flux ratio peak within them. In this case, all

1647: density peaks are associated with gas that has $\mu > 1$.

1648: 

1649: The presence of supercritical regions embedded within a common subcritical

1650: envelope allows us to define cores in a more physical way than the previous

1651: definition as regions with $\sign/\signi \geq 2$.

1652: The latter is a somewhat arbitrary designation, as indeed are all observational

1653: definitions of cores. However, the definition of supercritical cores has its own 

1654: ambiguities, as a simple definition of regions with $\mu > 1$ yields extended

1655: regions in model 3 with multiple density peaks. We find that a viable working 

1656: definition is that a core is a region with $\mu > 1.3$. This isolates individual

1657: density peaks in both models, and is consistent with the earlier axisymmetric

1658: findings that a mass-to-flux ratio somewhat {\it above} the critical value

1659: is necessary before rapid collapse and separation from the envelope becomes

1660: apparent. For example, \citet{CM93} found that $\mu > 1.23$ was required for the 

1661: absence of any available axisymmetric equilibrium state, using a similar

1662: value of $\Pexttil$ as we do.

1663: We compile data from 100 runs of each model with distinct random

1664: realizations of the initial states and present the core mass distribution for

1665: each of models 1 and 3 in Fig. \ref{scmasshist}. The conversion to dimensional 

1666: masses is done

1667: in the same manner as for Fig. \ref{masshist}. The resulting distributions 

1668: have a peak mass

1669: that is somewhat smaller than found using the different core definition used 

1670: for Fig. \ref{masshist}. However, these distributions also have a very sharp decline 

1671: at higher masses.

1672: 

1673: 

1674: \bfig

1675: \centering

1676: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1677: \epsfig{file=f9a.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip=} &

1678: \epsfig{file=f9b.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip=}

1679: \end{tabular}

1680: \caption{Image and contours of $\mu(x,y)$, the mass-to-flux ratio in units of the

1681: critical value for collapse. Regions with $\mu >1$ are displayed with a color table,

1682: while regions with $\mu <1$ are black. The contour lines are spaced in additive 

1683: increments of 0.1. Left: Final snapshot of simulation with $\mui=0.5$. Right:

1684: Final snapshot of simulation with $\mui=1.0$.}

1685: \label{mtfimgs}

1686: \efig

1687: 

1688: \bfig

1689: \epsfig{file=f10.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}

1690: \caption{Histogram of masses contained within regions that are significantly supercritical,

1691: specifically $\mu > 1.3$, measured at the end of simulations with $\mui =  0.5$ and 

1692: $\mui=1.0$. Each figure is the result of a compilation of results of a large number of

1693: simulations. The bin width is 0.1.}

1694: \label{scmasshist}

1695: \efig

1696: 

1697: \subsection{The Effect of Varying $\tniitil$} 

1698: \label{s:tni}

1699: 

1700: Eq. (\ref{ioniz}) shows that the ionization fraction $\xion$ at a given neutral density

1701: $\nn$ increases (decreases) linearly as $\tniitil$ decreases (increases).

1702: We investigate the effect of decreasing and increasing $\tniitil$

1703: by a factor of two from its standard value 

1704: (which can be accomplished by changing the factor ${\cal K}$ in Eq. [\ref{rhoieq}])

1705: in models 7 and 8, respectively. The other two parameters

1706: are kept fixed at $\mui=1.0$ and $\Pexttil=0.1$. The 

1707: characteristic growth times of instability $\taugm$ scale approximately

1708: $\propto \tniitil^{-1} \propto x_{\rm i,0}$ (see also Table 1), where $x_{\rm i,0}$ is the

1709: ionization fraction at the background number density $\nni$.

1710: Models 7, 3, and 8 have $\tniitil=(0.1,0.2,0.4)$, $\taugm = (27.5,14.3,7.9) \times t_0$, 

1711: and $\lamgm = (28.5, 24.3, 20.0) \times L_0$, respectively.

1712: Furthermore, Table 2 reveals that the time to runaway collapse

1713: ($\signmax/\signi \geq 10$) is $\approx 10\, \taugm$ when starting from small-amplitude

1714: white noise perturbations, as generally found in our parameter study.

1715: This means that our high ionization-fraction model 7 has the largest value of

1716: $t_{\rm run}(=261\,t_0)$ in our parameter study. This also leads to the largest

1717: age spread of cores in any of our simulations. This is measured by the fact that a typical

1718: simulation, when run (for compiling statistics) in a large box with $L=64\,\pi,N=512$,

1719: has many cores that are just beginning to emerge when the first core goes into a runaway 

1720: collapse. Hence, our value for $\lamavg$ is calculated with a lower core threshold

1721: $\sign/\signi \geq \sqrt{2}$ for this one model. Our analysis reveals that

1722: the fragmentation 

1723: scales in the nonlinear phase are indeed comparable amongst models 3, 7, and 8, and

1724: in good agreement with the linear theory prediction.

1725: We conclude that the effect of varying ionization (for a fixed $\mui$) within the range studied is 

1726: primarily in the {\em rate} of evolution.

1727: 

1728: Fig.~\ref{tnidensimgs} shows images and contours of the density, as well as

1729: velocity vectors, for models 7 and 8.   

1730: The time to reach runaway collapse is about four times longer

1731: for model 7 than for model 8, consistent with its value of $\tniitil$ 

1732: being four times smaller. Model 8 has $\tniitil = 0.4$, hence poorer 

1733: neutral-ion coupling and therefore reduced magnetic support. This results

1734: in slightly

1735: greater infall speeds, slightly larger number of fragments, and cores 

1736: which are slightly more elongated. These are all consistent with its more

1737: dynamical evolution.

1738: 

1739: %talk about sensitive dependence of ionization

1740: %should redo at least 5 more runs

1741: 

1742: 

1743:  

1744: 

1745: %grinds to a halt if ionization goes up

1746: %dramatic difference in timescales but not in lengthscales

1747: 

1748: 

1749: \bfig

1750: \centering

1751: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1752: \epsfig{file=f11a.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip=} &

1753: \epsfig{file=f11b.eps,width=0.5\linewidth,clip=}

1754: \end{tabular}

1755: \caption{Column density and velocity vectors as in Fig. \ref{densimgs}, but for models

1756: with $\tniitil = 0.1$ (left) and $\tniitil=0.4$ (right). Both models have

1757: $\mui=1.0$ and $\Pexttil=0.1$.}

1758: \label{tnidensimgs}

1759: \efig

1760: 

1761: \subsection{The Effect of Varying $\Pexttil$} 

1762: \label{s:pext}

1763: 

1764: Our models with $\Pexttil=10$ may represent the effect of pressured environments 

1765: such as sheets brought together by the presence of shocked gas 

1766: (e.g. stellar winds or supernovae) and being embedded in or adjoining 

1767: an H {\sc II} region. These models could represent an example of 

1768: ``induced'' star formation in a 

1769: manner related but not equivalent to that of an initial turbulent flow 

1770: with high ram pressure. 

1771: 

1772: Models 9 and 10 both develop extreme clustering in comparison to the other models. 

1773: Table 2 shows that the fragmentation scales are about 1/3 to 1/4 of that for the 

1774: corresponding models with the same mass-to-flux ratio but small $\Pexttil$.

1775: The fragments grow initially through a pressure-driven mode and the spacing

1776: is in excellent agreement with the predictions of linear theory (Fig. 

1777: \ref{scales} and Table 1).

1778: However, our results show that the nonlinear instability does develop into a 

1779: gravitationally-driven runaway collapse.

1780: The maximum speeds are still subsonic at the end of our simulation, due to 

1781: the relatively weak gravitational influence of each compact core. As well as

1782: having the smallest fragmentation scales, these models also have the shortest

1783: time scales to runaway collapse. For the fiducial $\Nni = 10^{22} \, \cms$,

1784: models 9 ($\mui=0.5$) and 10 ($\mui=1.0$) have values of $t_{\rm run} =

1785: (1.6 \Myr, 0.81 \Myr)$ and $\lamavg = (5800 \AU, 7700 \AU)$, respectively.

1786: Both sets of numbers are considerably smaller than for the models 1 and 3,

1787: which have corresponding values of $\mui$ but $\Pexttil=0.1$.

1788: Fig.~\ref{pext10densimg} shows the clustering properties of model 10 at the end of the simulation, 

1789: which is very similar to the corresponding image for model 9 (not shown).

1790: This fragmentation model clearly produces a much richer cluster than in the

1791: relatively unpressured environments presented earlier. Velocity vectors are not

1792: shown in this image due to confusion arising from infall onto so many peaks.

1793: A careful inspection of the image reveals a variety of core spacings and

1794: sizes at this stage of evolution. Interestingly, the average core spacing

1795: $\lamavg = 5.3 L_0$ is in very good agreement with the preferred 

1796: wavelength in linear theory, 

1797: $\lamgm = 5.0 L_0$. These length scales are well resolved in our 

1798: simulations. However, the average core mass $\Mavg$ significantly exceeds the 

1799: linear theory value $\mgm$. Only models 9 and 10 show such a large

1800: discrepancy between these values. We attribute it 

1801: to the very small sizes of the cores (see $\savg$ values in Table 2)

1802: in these simulations. 

1803: This means that the cores themselves are barely resolved and the mass

1804: estimates should be taken as approximate values that likely represent

1805: upper limits.

1806: 

1807: \bfig

1808: \epsfig{file=f12.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}

1809: \caption{Column density as in Fig. \ref{densimgs}, but for a model

1810: with $\Pexttil = 10$. Other parameters of this model are 

1811: $\mui=1.0$ and $\tniitil=0.2$.}

1812: \label{pext10densimg}

1813: \efig

1814: 

1815: 

1816: \section{Discussion}

1817: \label{s:disc}

1818: 

1819: Our simulations of the nonlinear development of gravitational instability

1820: under the influence of magnetic fields and ambipolar diffusion start

1821: from a background state of uniform column density and magnetic field

1822: strength. Small-amplitude white-noise perturbations initiate the evolution and

1823: eventually lead to the nonlinear growth of fragments. Averaging over a large number

1824: of simulations reveals that the average spacing of nonlinearly developed 

1825: cores is essentially that predicted from the preferred fragmentation

1826: scales in linear perturbation theory (CB06). However, the time to

1827: reach fully developed runaway collapse is up to ten times longer than

1828: that of the eigenmode with minimum growth time $\taugm$.

1829: The quantity $\taugm$ itself varies from $\approx Z_0/\cs$ 

1830: (essentially the free-fall time $\approx 1/\sqrt{G\rhoni}$ for unpressured

1831: sheets) for highly supercritical

1832: models to $\approx 10 Z_0/\cs$ for highly subcritical models (for a typical neutral-ion

1833: coupling level).

1834: The times to reach runaway collapse vary widely amongst

1835: models with different mass-to-flux ratios, ionization fractions, and

1836: external pressures. For a cloud with $\Nni=10^{22}\cms$ and $T=10\K$,

1837: the times to reach runaway growth of the

1838: first core ranges from 0.45 Myr to 9.53 Myr (see Table 2).    

1839: Since our simulations start from a flat density background, these times

1840: represent {\it upper limits} to the time that fragmentation might take

1841: for each set of parameters. However, an advantage

1842: of the uniform background density is that it allows for a self-consistent

1843: modeling of the entire core formation process, without questions

1844: about the origin of initially peaked density distributions used in earlier

1845: axisymmetric calculations \citep[e.g.][]{CM93,BM94}. 

1846: 

1847: %Our modeling of the evolution of gravitational fragmentation reveals that the

1848: %transcritical initial states take a substantially longer time to reach runaway

1849: %than do the supercritical models. In essence, they evolve on a time scale more

1850: %similar to the subcritical models. Why do they not evolve on a more intermediate

1851: %timescale? 

1852: %However, the preferred wavelength $\lamgm$ for the transcritical

1853: %modes is much larger than in either the subcritical or supercritical cases, 

1854: %due to the restoring forces associated with field-line dragging that is not

1855: %present for subcritical evolution. This makes the evolution time scale longer 

1856: %than one might anticipate.

1857: 

1858: In a medium with initial nonlinear perturbations,

1859: the time scales for all sets of parameters are indeed likely to be shorter.

1860: However, we believe that our calculated time scales are

1861: relevant if the corresponding dimensional values are obtained from higher 

1862: starting values of column density brought about in certain regions by 

1863: pre-existing (including turbulent) flows.  

1864: For example, the Taurus molecular cloud has an overall background number column 

1865: density $N \approx (1-2) \times 10^{21} \cms$ but also contains embedded

1866: dark clouds with $N \approx 5 \times 10^{21} \cms$, such as HCl 2 and L1495, 

1867: within which there are small clusters of $\sim 10-20$ YSO's and also 

1868: many dense cores \citep[see][]{Gome,Onis,Gold}. 

1869: Our periodic model may be applied to such dark clouds that may themselves

1870: have been brought together by nonlinear flows originating in the larger cloud,

1871: external triggers, or an earlier phase of gravitational fragmentation. 

1872: A second example application of our periodic model may be 

1873: within the L1688 dark cloud in Ophiuchus, which has 

1874: $N \approx 10^{22}\,\cms$ \citep{Mott}. 

1875: The mean spacing of fragments in these

1876: two regions varies \citep{Andr00}, with core edges measured to be at radii

1877: $\la 5000\, \AU$ in L1688 but at $\la 20000 \, \AU$ in the Taurus dark clouds

1878: \citep{Andr00}. While some of the difference in spacing may be due to the 

1879: different background column densities, other important aspects of spatial and

1880: kinematic structure may also arise due to 

1881: different values of $\mui$ and $\Pexttil$ (and $\tniitil$ to a lesser extent), 

1882: as demonstrated in this paper. 

1883: 

1884: %An interesting corollary of above is for transcritical fragmentation

1885: %the timescale may be long. But transcrit frag may also account for clumps

1886: %that form small groups of objects.

1887: Unlike a uniform density three-dimensional medium, our thin sheet actually

1888: has a preferred scale for gravitational fragmentation with a unique value

1889: for any given set of initial dimensionless parameters. Since our simulation

1890: region is always safely larger than this fragmentation scale, it is

1891: unlikely that

1892: the size of our system (in the $x$- and $y$-directions) influences 

1893: the final outcome, as measured by

1894: fragment spacings, time scales to runaway collapse, and core mass distributions, for

1895: example. This is supported by our tests with runs at quadruple the size of

1896: the standard simulations. 

1897: Incidentally, this is not the case for three-dimensional periodic box simulations,

1898: in which the fastest growing mode of gravitational instability is always that

1899: of the box size.

1900: We believe that a stratified medium is also a more physical and realistic 

1901: starting point

1902: than a uniform three-dimensional medium. This is because the formation process 

1903: of molecular 

1904: clouds, or magnetic fields and nonlinear flows within it, will tend to set up compressed 

1905: regions with 

1906: a characteristic scale similar to the half-thickness $Z_0 \approx

1907: \csq/(\pi G \signi)$ of our adopted background reference

1908: sheet geometry. That scale is related to the Jeans scale and effectively

1909: determines the preferred fragmentation scale, as modified by magnetic field

1910: strength, ionization fraction, and external pressure.

1911: 

1912: %-transcritical fragmentation, not as fast as one might think, closer

1913: %to subcritical case, turbulent case may be different.

1914: %refer to older axisymmetric papers. potential for 2nd fragmentation.

1915: 

1916: %-talk about high pext cases - relate to triggered core formation

1917: %-natural bndry in these models; relate to isolated models, eg BE sphere

1918: 

1919: %-CMF is not like IMF at this early time. can be different at later times

1920: %-cores can be subcritical

1921: 

1922: \bfig

1923: \epsfig{file=f13.eps,width=\linewidth,clip=}

1924: \caption{Histogram of masses from models with $\mui=0.5,0.8.1.0,1.1,2.0$ and

1925: $\tniitil=0.2,\Pexttil=0.1$. A weighted average of core masses is taken,

1926: so that an equal simulated area is assigned to each of models $1-5$.

1927: The cores are the same as the ones in the first five panels of

1928: Fig.~\ref{masshist}. The bin width is 0.1.

1929: }

1930: \label{totalmasshist}

1931: \efig

1932: 

1933: 

1934: The core mass distributions that we have compiled from our simulations

1935: are narrowly-peaked and do not match the broader distributions commonly

1936: observed in cluster-forming regions \citep[e.g.][]{Mott}.

1937: What is the missing physics that can explain the discrepancy?

1938: The explanation that is closest to the spirit of our

1939: models is that real molecular clouds start their lives with an

1940: inhomogeneous distribution of physical quantities, including the mass-to-flux

1941: ratio. We expect that the values of $\mu$ in a molecular cloud

1942: may fall within the observationally-established range of $[0.5,2]$, i.e. within

1943: a factor of two of the critical value in each direction. In that case, 

1944: we can make a simple estimate of a core mass distribution by adding up the

1945: histograms for the five models with $\mui=[0.5,0.8.1.0,1.1,2.0]$ shown

1946: in Fig.~\ref{masshist}. Since the model with $\mui=1.1$ is run fewer times but with a

1947: larger box size, we sample the number of cores necessary to give equal area

1948: weighting with the other models. The resulting histogram is presented in 

1949: Fig.~\ref{totalmasshist}. The broad variation of peaks in the individual

1950: histograms seen in Fig.~\ref{masshist} leads to a smooth power-law

1951: tail in the high mass end of the composite histogram. Fig.~\ref{totalmasshist}

1952: reveals a slope $d\log N/d\log M \approx -2$ in this region, only somewhat

1953: steeper than

1954: the value $d\log N/d\log M \approx -1.5$ measured for example by \citet{Mott}.

1955: We note that this general mechanism, arising from an initially inhomogeneous

1956: distribution of mass-to-flux ratio, is an interesting new possibility for 

1957: explaining the observed broad core mass distributions. 

1958: An important point is that a relatively {\it narrow} distribution of

1959: initial mass-to-flux ratios (factor of a few variation) can lead to a relatively

1960: broad distribution of fragment masses.

1961: This mechanism remains to be explored

1962: more generally and does not exclude the

1963: occurrence of other mechanisms like

1964: competitive accretion in a more global model \citep{Bonn}, a temporal 

1965: spread of core accretion lifetimes \citep{Myer00,BJ04}, and 

1966: turbulent fragmentation \citep[e.g.][]{Pado, Kless, Gamm,Till}. 

1967: 

1968: %The core mass functions that we have compiled from our simulations

1969: %are narrowly-peaked and do not match the broader distributions commonly

1970: %observed in cluster-forming regions \citep[e.g.][]{Mott}. Our mass

1971: %distributions represent a snapshot in time at the moment that the first

1972: %core(s) is/are undergoing runaway collapse. 

1973: %We suggest that the broader observed mass distributions may be due to any one

1974: %or a combination of the following effects: (1) subsequent temporal evolution of the

1975: %cores (i.e. differing available times for mass accumulation from the cloud environment);

1976: %(2) global effects of positioning of the cores within the overall cloud

1977: %so that their masses vary significantly,

1978: %i.e. that cores in regions of different mean density and/or different background 

1979: %mass-to-flux ratio may form cores of different masses;

1980: %and (3) directed flows creating many significantly super-Jeans

1981: %scale fragments in the first place. Future simulations will clarify these effects.

1982: %The first idea has been presented in the literature using simplified 

1983: %analytic and semi-analytic models \citep{Myer00,BJ04}. The second idea

1984: %is similar to that of competitive accretion \citep{Bonn}, but with an additional

1985: %possible twist - the effect of varying mass-to-flux ratio within the cloud.

1986: %The third idea also encompasses that of direct

1987: %turbulent fragmentation \citep[e.g.][]{Pado, Kless, Gamm}, 

1988: %which we will address in the context of our models in an upcoming paper.

1989: 

1990: The richness of the physics revealed by our models of gravitational fragmentation

1991: up to runaway collapse of the first core, under conditions of varying mass-to-flux ratio, 

1992: ionization level, and external pressure, pave the way for more extensive models 

1993: in the future. 

1994: %Fragmentation patterns under various conditions

1995: %can be compared in detail with specific observed cluster-forming regions. 

1996: %One can also investigate further the novel {\it two-stage fragmentation} of some

1997: %of the transcritical models, which form an initially super-Jeans fragment but

1998: %may break into smaller fragments as the core becomes decidedly supercritical.

1999: Adding the effects of initial cloud turbulence, implementing a technique for integrating past the

2000: formation of the first generation of stars, and including some form of energy 

2001: feedback from star formation, remain to be done.

2002: The addition of new and more complex effects will be facilitated by the fact that

2003: the thin-sheet approximation allows efficient calculation of the fragmentation

2004: process while retaining a high level of realism. In this context we point out that

2005: the recent fully three-dimensional fragmentation simulation of 

2006: \citet{Kudo07} with magnetic fields and ambipolar diffusion bears out the 

2007: main physical results presented by BC04.

2008: 

2009: \section{Summary}

2010: \label{s:summ}

2011: 

2012: We have carried out a large number of model simulations to study the 

2013: effect of initial mass-to-flux ratio, neutral-ion coupling, and external

2014: pressure on dense core formation from gravitational 

2015: fragmentation of isothermal sheet-like layers that may be embedded within larger

2016: molecular cloud envelopes. 

2017: Our simulation box is periodic in the lateral ($x,y)$ directions and 

2018: typically span four nonmagnetic (Jeans) fragmentation scales in each of these

2019: directions.

2020: The simulations reveal a wide range of outcomes, from

2021: the unique transcritical fragmentation mode into massive cores, to the 

2022: pressure-driven fragmentation into dense clusters. 

2023: We emphasize the following main results of the paper:

2024: 

2025: \begin{enumerate}

2026: 

2027: \item{\it Fragmentation Spacing.}

2028: %Core formation is initiated in a 

2029: %dynamical fashion in the highly supercritical clouds ($\mui > 2$), 

2030: %with field-line dragging, and in a quasistatic fashion in the highly 

2031: %subcritical clouds ($\mui \leq 0.5$), due to ambipolar drift with near-stationary

2032: %field lines. The intermediate case of transcritical ($\mui \approx 1$)

2033: The average spacings of nonlinearly developed fragments are generally

2034: in excellent agreement 

2035: with the preferred fragmentation scale of linear perturbation theory 

2036: \citep{CB06}, although there is

2037: definite irregularity in any simulation, with variation of fragment spacings.

2038: Both significantly subcritical {\it and} highly supercritical clouds 

2039: have average fragmentation scales $\lamavg \approx 2 \pi Z_0$, where   

2040: $Z_0$ is the half-thickness of the background state. 

2041: The transcritical ($\mui \approx 1$) models exhibit very large (super-Jeans) 

2042: average fragment 

2043: spacings, although there is evidence for nonlinear second-stage fragmentation in 

2044: some cases, which makes the average spacing slightly smaller than predicted by 

2045: linear theory.  

2046: Variation of the ionization fraction by a factor of two above and below the standard

2047: value does not have a big effect on fragment spacing. However, an external pressure

2048: dominated sheet undergoes dramatically smaller scale fragmentation to form 

2049: a dense cluster.

2050: 

2051: %nonlinear spacing agrees with linear prediction

2052: %discuss transcritical case and 2nd stage frag.?

2053: %explain for peak in fragmentation spacing

2054: %high Pext case?

2055: %transcrit may be tied to massive cores or to Taurus

2056: 

2057: \item{\it Time Evolution to Runaway.} The times $t_{\rm run}$ for various models to reach

2058: runaway collapse of the first core varies significantly for models with differing

2059: initial dimensionless mass-to-flux ratio $\mui$, neutral-ion coupling

2060: parameter $\tniitil$, and dimensionless external pressure $\Pexttil$. 

2061: Values of $t_{\rm run}$ range from 0.45 Myr to 9.53 Myr, each scaling as 

2062: $(\Nni/10^{22}\,\cms)^{-1} (T/10\K)^{1/2}$.

2063: The supercritical

2064: clouds evolve much more rapidly than the critical or subcritical clouds, with 

2065: the highly supercritical clouds evolving $\approx 10$ times more rapidly than a

2066: critical cloud, for the typical level of neutral-ion coupling. A critical cloud 

2067: in turn evolves more rapidly than a subcritical cloud, but the variation is a factor

2068: of order unity for plausible initial values of $\mui$; for example the 

2069: $\mui = 0.5$ model reaches runaway collapse in a time that is 1.7 times longer than for the

2070: $\mui=1$ model. 

2071: In all cases, the time to runaway collapse is $\approx 10 \, \taugm$ when starting with

2072: small-amplitude white noise perturbations, where

2073: $\taugm$ is the growth time of the fastest growing eigenmode mode in linear

2074: perturbation theory. 

2075: The quantity $\taugm$ itself varies from $\approx Z_0/\cs$ for highly 

2076: supercritical 

2077: models to $\approx 10 Z_0/\cs$ for highly subcritical models (for a typical neutral-ion

2078: coupling level).

2079: The effect of varying $\tniitil$ (and hence the initial ionization fraction $x_{\rm i,0}$)

2080: is that $t_{\rm run} \propto \tniitil^{-1} \propto x_{\rm i,0}$ approximately for ambipolar-drift-driven (critical or subcritical) fragmentation, so that the canonical $\taugm \approx 10 Z_0/\cs$

2081: and our calculated $t_{\rm run} \approx 100 Z_0/\cs$ are both possibly subject to significant variation.

2082: A pressure dominated cloud with $\Pexttil=10$ has $t_{\rm run}$ about 5-6 times shorter

2083: than clouds with small external pressure but other parameters held fixed.

2084: %This delay in growth occurs because the preferred mode

2085: %cannot immediately emerge from the small-amplitude white noise perturbations. 

2086: %The uniform density background also 

2087: %leads to a slower initial development of the cores than for an initially peaked density

2088: %profile, but allows a self-consistent calculation of the entire core formation process

2089: %due to dynamical contraction and/or ambipolar drift.

2090: 

2091: %all times are about 10 times linear theory prediction

2092: %upper limit since from unif background

2093: 

2094: \item{\it Velocities in the Nonlinear Regime.}

2095: Maximum infall speeds of neutrals can become supersonic on core scales in the 

2096: supercritical clouds, but remain subsonic for critical or subcritical clouds. 

2097: The latter is true even if the ionization fraction is reduced by a factor of

2098: two.

2099: The ion speeds in the cores closely follow the neutral speeds but are somewhat smaller,

2100: since the gravitationally-driven motion of the neutrals is generally opposed in

2101: the plane of the sheet by magnetic fields. 

2102: %vn > vi in plane

2103: 

2104: \item{\it Core Shapes.}

2105: An extensive compilation of core shapes shows that the distributions have a

2106: peak that is near-circular for the subcritical and critical fragmentation models. 

2107: However, the cores become more elongated in the sheet for supercritical clouds,

2108: with a mean axis ratio in the sheet plane $\approx 0.5$. The half-thickness remains

2109: smaller than either semiminor or semimajor axis in the sheet, so that the cores

2110: are triaxial and preferentially flattened along the direction of the mean 

2111: magnetic field.

2112: Preliminary comparison of our results with published deprojections

2113: of the observed axis ratios of cores shows the best agreement with our 

2114: subcritical models.

2115: 

2116: \item{\it Core Mass Distributions.}

2117: An extensive compilation of core masses shows that the peak of the distributions 

2118: are related to the preferred fragmentation mass $\mgm$ of linear theory.

2119: Transcritical fragmentation yields the largest peak masses while the highly

2120: supercritical and decidely subcritical limits have smaller (Jeans-like) peaks

2121: and similar distributions. That the peak mass is strongly selected is seen in

2122: the very sharp drops in the distributions for greater masses. This means that

2123: the observed relatively broad-tailed core mass distributions cannot be explained by

2124: a pure local gravitational fragmentation process in a medium of uniform background

2125: column density and mass-to-flux ratio. 

2126: Cores defined as significantly supercritical regions within a larger subcritical

2127: common envelope also have a very narrowly-peaked distribution. 

2128: However, a composite mass histogram that may mimic the effect of an 

2129: inhomogeneous assortment of 

2130: initial mass-to-flux ratios,

2131: does produce a broad core mass distribution that resembles its observed counterparts.

2132: %discuss sc cores

2133: 

2134: \item{\it Magnetic Field Line Structure.}

2135: Contraction of cores within a supercritical cloud yields significant

2136: curvature of the magnetic field lines and very apparent hourglass morphologies,

2137: since contraction proceeds primarily with field-line dragging. The transcritical

2138: and subcritical clouds form cores through a process driven in large part by

2139: neutral-ion slip, and result in lesser curvature in the magnetic field. 

2140: This holds out the hope of using the observed curvature of 

2141: possible future observations of hourglass magnetic fields on the core scale 

2142: as a proxy for measuring the ambient mass-to-flux ratio.

2143: 

2144: \end{enumerate}

2145: 

2146: %time of evolution, slow to rapid, 10 times linear time

2147: %times may be long but starting from uniform state

2148: %velocities at time of nonlinear development , also vn > vi

2149: %variation of shapes

2150: %CMF very peaked, requires long term evolution to settle

2151: %FL shapes?

2152: %transcritical peak - relate to isolated star formation?

2153: %second stage fragmentation for mu=1.1

2154: %sensitive dependence on ionization fraction

2155: %clusters in high pext cases

2156: 

2157: 

2158: \section*{Acknowledgements}

2159: 

2160: We thank the anonymous referee for comments which significantly improved

2161: the manuscript. We also thank

2162: Wolfgang Dapp for valuable comments on the manuscript and thank 

2163: both him and Stephanie Keating for creating 

2164: several color images and animations. 

2165: The IFRIT package, developed by Nick Gnedin, was used fruitfully 

2166: to create some color images and magnetic field line visualizations.

2167: Our IDL code benefited from the use of an Adams-Bashforth-Moulton

2168: ODE solver converted to IDL format by Craig Markwardt from the public 

2169: domain Fortran routine written by

2170: L. F. Shampine and H. A. Watts of Sandia Laboratories.

2171: SB was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering

2172: Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. 

2173: %GC was supported by the New York Center for the

2174: %Origins of Life (NSCORT) and the Department of Physics, Applied

2175: %Physics, and Astronomy at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, under

2176: %NASA Grant NAG5-7589. 

2177: JW was supported by an NSERC Undergraduate Summer Research Award. 

2178: SB would also like to thank the KITP Santa Barbara

2179: for their hospitality during the final stages of writing this paper,

2180: when this research was supported in part by the National Science 

2181: Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY05-51164.

2182: 

2183: 

2184: \begin{thebibliography}{}

2185: 

2186: \bibitem[Alves \& Franco(2007)]{Alve}

2187: Alves, F. O., Franco, G. A. P. 2007. A\&A 470, 597.

2188: 

2189: \bibitem[Andr\'{e} et al.(1996)]{Andr} 

2190: Andr\'{e}, P., Ward-Thompson, D., Motte, F. 1996. A\&A 314, 625.

2191: 

2192: \bibitem[Andr\'{e} et al.(2000)]{Andr00}

2193: Andr\'{e}, P., Ward-Thompson, D., Barsony, M., 2000. In: Mannings, V.,

2194: Boss, A. P., Russell S. S. (Eds.), Protostars and Planets IV. University of Arizona

2195: Press, Tucson, p. 59.

2196: 

2197: \bibitem[Bacmann et al.(2000)]{Bacm}

2198: Bacmann, A., Andr\'{e}, P., Puget, J.-L., Abergel, A., Bontemps, S.,

2199: Ward-Thompson, D. 2000. A\&A  361, 555.

2200: 

2201: %\bibitem[Basu(2000)]{Basu} Basu, S. 2000. ApJ 540, L103.

2202: 

2203: \bibitem[Basu \& Ciolek(2004)]{BC04}Basu, S., Ciolek, G. E. 2004. ApJ 607, L39 (BC04).

2204: 

2205: \bibitem[Basu \& Jones(2004)]{BJ04} Basu, S., Jones, C. E. 2004. MNRAS

2206: 347, L47.

2207: 

2208: \bibitem[Basu \& Mouschovias(1994)]{BM94} Basu, S., Mouschovias, T. Ch. 

2209: 1994. ApJ 432, 720.

2210: 

2211: %\bibitem[Basu \& Mouschovias(1995)]{BM95}\ul. 1995. ApJ 453, 271.

2212: 

2213: \bibitem[Bate et al.(2003)]{Bate}

2214: Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., Bromm, V. 2003. MNRAS 339, 577.

2215: 

2216: \bibitem[Benson \& Myers(1989)]{Bens} Benson, P. J., Myers, P. C. 1989.

2217: ApJS 71, 89.

2218: 

2219: %\bibitem[Bonnell et al.(1997)]{Bonn}

2220: %Bonnell I. A., Bate M. R., Clarke C. J., Pringle J. E. 1997. MNRAS, 285, 201

2221: 

2222: \bibitem[Bonnell et al.(2003)]{Bonn}

2223: Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Vine, S. G. 2003. MNRAS 343, 413.

2224: 

2225: \bibitem[Bourke et al.(2001)]{Bour} Bourke, T. L., Myers, P. C., Robinson, G.,

2226: Hyland, A. R. 2001. ApJ 554, 916.

2227: 

2228: \bibitem[Caselli et al.(2002)]{Case}

2229: Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., Zucconi, A., Tafalla, M., Dore, L., Myers, P. C.

2230: 2002. ApJ 565, 331.

2231: 

2232: \bibitem[Ciolek(1996)]{Ciol} 

2233: Ciolek, G. E. 1996. In: Roberge, W. G., Whittet, D. C. B.

2234: (Eds.), Polarimetry of the Interstellar Medium. ASP Conference

2235: Series Vol. 97. Astronomical Society of the Pacific, p. 542.

2236: 

2237: %\bibitem[Ciolek \& Basu(2000)]{CB00} Ciolek, G. E., Basu, S. 2000. 

2238: %ApJ 529, 925.

2239: 

2240: \bibitem[Ciolek \& Basu(2006)]{CB06} Ciolek, G. E., Basu, S. 2006. ApJ  652, 442 (CB06).

2241: %\bibitem[Ciolek \& Basu(2006)]{CB06} \ul. 2006. ApJ  652, 442 (CB06).

2242: 

2243: \bibitem[Ciolek \& Mouschovias(1993)]{CM93} 

2244: Ciolek, G. E., Mouschovias, T. Ch. 1993. ApJ 418, 774.

2245: 

2246: \bibitem[Ciolek \& Mouschovias(1994)]{CM94} 

2247: %Ciolek, G. E., Mouschovias, T. Ch. 1994. ApJ 425, 142.

2248: \ul. 1994. ApJ 425, 142.

2249: 

2250: %\bibitem[Ciolek \& Mouschovias(1995)]{CM95} \ul. 1995. ApJ 454, 194.

2251: 

2252: \bibitem[Ciolek \& Mouschovias(1998)]{CM98} \ul. 1998. ApJ 504, 280.

2253: 

2254: \bibitem[Cortes et al.(2005)]{Cort}

2255: Cortes, P. C., Crutcher, R. M., Watson, W. D. 2005. ApJ 628, 780.

2256: 

2257: \bibitem[Crutcher(1999)]{Crut99} Crutcher, R. M. 1999. ApJ 520, 706.

2258: 

2259: \bibitem[Crutcher et al.(2004)]{Crut04} Crutcher, R. M., Nutter, D. J., 

2260: Ward-Thompson, D., Kirk, J. M. 2004. ApJ 600, 279.

2261: 

2262: \bibitem[Elmegreen(1979)]{Elme79} Elmegreen, B. G. 1979. ApJ 232, 729.

2263: 

2264: \bibitem[Elmegreen(2007)]{Elme07}

2265: \ul.  2007. ApJ 668, 1064.

2266: 

2267: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Elmegreen(1978)]{Elme78}

2268: Elmegreen, B. G., Elmegreen, D. M. 1978. ApJ 220, 1051.

2269: 

2270: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Falgarone(1996)]{Elme96}

2271: Elmegreen, B. G., Falgarone, E. 1996. ApJ 471, 816.

2272: 

2273: \bibitem[Fatuzzo \& Adams(2002)]{Fatu}

2274: Fatuzzo, M., Adams, F. C. 2002. ApJ 570, 210.

2275: 

2276: \bibitem[Fiedler \& Mouschovias(1993)]{FM93} Fiedler, R. A., Mouschovias, T. Ch. 1993. ApJ 415, 680.

2277: 

2278: \bibitem[Folini et al.(2004)]{Foli} Folini, D., Heyvaerts, J., Waleder, R. 2004.

2279: A\&A 414, 559.

2280: 

2281: \bibitem[Fuller \& Myers(1993)]{Full} Fuller, G. A., Myers, P. C. 1993. ApJ

2282: 418, 273.

2283: 

2284: \bibitem[Gammie et al.(2003)]{Gamm}

2285: Gammie, C. F., Lin, Y.-T., Stone, J. M., Ostriker, E. C. 2003. ApJ 592, 203.

2286: 

2287: \bibitem[Goldsmith et al.(2008)]{Gold}

2288: Goldsmith, P. F., Heyer, M., Narayanan, G., Snell, R., Li, D., Brunt, C.

2289: 2008. ApJ 680, 428.

2290: 

2291: \bibitem[Gomez et al.(1993)]{Gome} 

2292: Gomez, M., Hartmann, L., Kenyon, S. J., Hewett, R. 1993. AJ 105, 1927.

2293: 

2294: \bibitem[Goodman et al.(1990)]{Good90}

2295: Goodman, A. A., Bastien, P., Myers, P. C., M\'enard, F. 1990. ApJ 359, 363. 

2296: 

2297: \bibitem[Goodman et al.(1998)]{Good98} Goodman, A. A., Barranco, J. A., 

2298: Wilner, D. J., Heyer, M. H. 1998. ApJ 504, 223.

2299: 

2300: \bibitem[Goodwin et al.(2002)]{Goodw}

2301: Goodwin, S. P., Ward-Thompson, D., Whitworth, A. P. 2002. MNRAS 330, 769.

2302: 

2303: \bibitem[Heitsch et al.(2008)]{Heit} 

2304: Heitsch, F., Hartmann, L. W., Slyz, A. D., Devriendt, J. E. G., Burkert, A. 2008. ApJ 674, 316.

2305: 

2306: %\bibitem[Hennebelle et al.(2008)]{Henn}

2307: %Hennebelle, P., Mac Low, M.-M., V\'azquez-Semadeni, E. 2008. 

2308: %In: Chabrier, G. (Ed.), Structure Formation in the Universe, Cambridge Univ. Press,

2309: %Cambridge, in press. 

2310: 

2311: \bibitem[Hennebelle et al.(2008)]{Henn}

2312: Hennebelle, P., Banerjee, R., V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., Klessen, R., Audit, E.

2313: 2008. A\&A submitted (arXiv:0805.1366).

2314: 

2315: \bibitem[Heyer et al.(2008)]{Heye}

2316: Heyer, M., Gong, H., Ostriker, E., Brunt, C. 2008. ApJ 680, 420.

2317: 

2318: \bibitem[Indebetouw \& Zweibel(2000)]{Inde} Indebetouw, R., Zweibel, E. G. 2000. ApJ 532, 361.

2319: 

2320: \bibitem[Jeans(1929)]{Jean} Jeans, J. H. 1929. Astronomy and Cosmogony.

2321: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2322: 

2323: \bibitem[Jijina et al.(1999)]{Jiji} Jijina, J., Myers, P. C., Adams, F. C.

2324: 1999. ApJS 125, 161.

2325: 

2326: \bibitem[Johnstone et al.(2004)]{John} 

2327: Johnstone, D., Di Francesco, J., Kirk, H. 2004. ApJ 611, L45.

2328: 

2329: \bibitem[Jones \& Basu(2002)]{JB02} Jones, C. E., Basu, S. 2002. ApJ 569, 280.

2330: 

2331: \bibitem[Jones et al.(2001)]{JBD01} Jones, C. E., Basu, S., Dubinski, J. 2001. ApJ 551, 387.

2332: 

2333: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2002)]{Kim}

2334: Kim, W.-T., Ostriker, E. C., Stone, J. M. 2002. ApJ 581, 1080. 

2335: 

2336: \bibitem[Kirk et al.(2005)]{Kirk}

2337: Kirk, J. M., Ward-Thompson, D., Andr\'{e}, P. 2005. MNRAS 350, 1506.

2338: 

2339: \bibitem[Klessen(2001)]{Kless}

2340: Klessen, R. S. 2001. ApJ 556, 837.

2341: 

2342: \bibitem[Kudoh \& Basu(2003)]{Kudo03}Kudoh, T., Basu, S. 2003. ApJ 595, 842.

2343: 

2344: \bibitem[Kudoh \& Basu(2006)]{Kudo06}\ul. 2006. ApJ 642, 270.

2345: 

2346: \bibitem[Kudoh et al.(2007)]{Kudo07} 

2347: Kudoh, T., Basu, S., Ogata, Y., Yabe, T. 2007. MNRAS 380, 499.

2348: 

2349: \bibitem[Lada \& Lada(2003)]{Lada03}

2350: Lada, C. J., Lada, E. A. 2003. ARAA 41, 57.

2351: 

2352: \bibitem[Lada et al.(2007)]{Lada07}

2353: Lada, C. J., Alves, J. F., Lombardi, M. 2007. 

2354: In: Reipurth, B., Jewitt, D., Keil, K. (Eds.), Protostars and Planets V.

2355: University of Arizona Press, Tucson, p. 3.

2356: 

2357: \bibitem[Langer(1978)]{Lang78} Langer, W. D. 1978. ApJ 225, 95.

2358: 

2359: \bibitem[Larson(1985)]{Lars85} Larson, R. B. 1985. MNRAS 214, 379.

2360: 

2361: \bibitem[Larson(2003)]{Lars03} \ul. 2003. Rep. Prog. Phys. 66, 1651.

2362: 

2363: \bibitem[Lee et al.(2001)]{Lee} Lee, C. W., Myers, P. C., Tafalla, M. 2001. ApJS 136, 603.

2364: 

2365: %\bibitem[Li \& Nakamura(2002)]{Li} 

2366: %Li, Z.-Y., Nakamura, F. 2002. ApJ 578, 256.

2367: 

2368: \bibitem[Li \& Nakamura(2004)]{Li04} 

2369: Li, Z.-Y., Nakamura, F. 2004. ApJ 609, L83.

2370: 

2371: \bibitem[Lubow \& Pringle(1993)]{Lubo}

2372: Lubow, S. H., Pringle, J. E. 1993. MNRAS 263, 701.

2373: 

2374: \bibitem[McDaniel \& Mason(1973)]{McDa}

2375: McDaniel, E. W., Mason, E. A. 1973. The Mobility

2376: and Diffusion of Ions and Gases. Wiley, New York.

2377: 

2378: \bibitem[McKee(1989)]{McKe} McKee, C. F. 1989. ApJ 345, 782.

2379: 

2380: \bibitem[McKee(1999)]{McKe99} \ul. 1999. 

2381: In: Lada, C. J., Kylafis, N. (Eds.),

2382: The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p. 29.

2383: 

2384: \bibitem[Mac Low \& Klessen(2004)]{MacL}

2385: Mac Low, M.-M., Klessen, R. S. 2004. Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 125.

2386: 

2387: \bibitem[Mestel \& Spitzer(1956)]{Mest} Mestel, L., Spitzer, L. Jr. 1956.

2388: MNRAS 116, 503.

2389: 

2390: \bibitem[Miyama et al.(1987a)]{Miya1}

2391: Miyama, S, Narita, S., Hayashi, C. 1987. Prog. Theor. Phys. 78, 1051.

2392: 

2393: \bibitem[Miyama et al.(1987b)]{Miya2}

2394: Miyama, S, Narita, S., Hayashi, C. 1987. Prog. Theor. Phys. 78, 1273.

2395: 

2396: %\bibitem[Morton et al.(1994)]{MMC94} Morton, S. A., Mouschovias, T. Ch., 

2397: %Ciolek, G. E. 1994. ApJ 421, 561.

2398: 

2399: \bibitem[Motte et al.(1998)]{Mott} Motte, F., Andr\'{e}, P., Neri, R. 1998. A\&A 336, 150.

2400: 

2401: %\bibitem[Mouschovias(1977)]{Mous77} Mouschovias, T. Ch. 1977. ApJ 211, 147.

2402: 

2403: \bibitem[Mouschovias(1978)]{Mous78} Mouschovias, T. Ch. 1978. 

2404: In: Gehrels , T. (Ed.), Protostars and Planets. University of Arizona 

2405: Press, Tucson, p. 209.

2406: 

2407: %\bibitem[Mouschovias \& Paleologou(1980)]{Mous80} 

2408: %Mouschovias, T. Ch., Paleologou, E. V. 1980. ApJ 237, 877.

2409: 

2410: %\bibitem[]{M87} Mouschovias, T. Ch. 1987, in Physical Processes in

2411: %Interstellar Clouds, ed. G. Morfil \& M. Scholer (Dordrecht: Reidel), 453

2412: 

2413: \bibitem[Muench et al.(2007)]{Muen} 

2414: Muench, A. A., Lada, C. J., Rathborne, J. M., Alves, J. F., Lombardi, M.

2415: 2007. ApJ 671, 1820. 

2416: 

2417: %\bibitem[]{Myers} Myers, P. C., Fuller, G. A., Goodman, A. A., \& Benson,

2418: %P. J. 1991, \apj, 376, 561

2419: 

2420: %\bibitem[Myers(2005)]{Myer05}Myers, P. C. 2005, \apj, 623, 280

2421: 

2422: \bibitem[Myers(1983)]{Myer83a} Myers, P. C. 1983. ApJ 270, 105.

2423: 

2424: \bibitem[Myers(2000)]{Myer00} \ul. 2000. ApJ 530, L119.

2425: 

2426: \bibitem[Myers \& Benson(1983)]{Myer83b} Myers, P. C., Benson, P. J. 1983. ApJ 266, 309.

2427: 

2428: \bibitem[Myers et al.(1991)]{Myer91} Myers, P. C., Fuller, G. A., 

2429: Goodman, A. A., Benson, P. J. 1991. ApJ 376, 561.

2430: 

2431: %\bibitem[Nakamura \& Hanawa(1997)]{Naka97} Nakamura, F., Hanawa, T. 1997. ApJ 480, 701.

2432: 

2433: %\bibitem[Nakamura \& Li(2002)]{Naka02} Nakamura, F., \& Li, Z.-Y. 2002, \apj, 566, L101

2434: 

2435: \bibitem[Nakamura \& Li(2005)]{Naka05} Nakamura, F., Li, Z.-Y. 2005. ApJ 631, 411. 

2436: 

2437: \bibitem[Nakamura \& Li(2008)]{Naka08} 

2438: %Nakamura, F., Li, Z.-Y. 2008. ApJ submitted (arXiv:0804.4201).

2439: \ul. 2008. ApJ submitted (arXiv:0804.4201).

2440: 

2441: \bibitem[Onishi et al.(2002)]{Onis}

2442: Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Tachihara, K., Fukui, Y. 2002. ApJ 575, 950.

2443: 

2444: \bibitem[Padoan et al.(1997)]{Pado}

2445: Padoan, P., Nordlund, A., Jones, B. J. T. 1997. MNRAS 288, 145.

2446: %\bibitem[Padoan \& Nordlund(2002)]{Pado} 

2447: %Padoan, P., Nordlund, A. 2002. ApJ 576, 870.

2448: 

2449: \bibitem[Parker(1966)]{Park}

2450: Parker, E. 1966. ApJ 145, 811.

2451: 

2452: \bibitem[Press et al.(1996)]{Press}Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T.,

2453: Flannery, B. P. 1996. Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77: The Art

2454: of Scientific Computing (Vol. 1 of Fortran Numerical Recipes), 2nd. Ed.

2455: Cambridge, New York.

2456: 

2457: \bibitem[Price \& Bate(2008)]{Pric}

2458: Price, D. J., Bate, M. R. 2008. MNRAS 385, 1820.

2459: 

2460: \bibitem[Schiesser(1991)]{Schi} Schiesser, W. E. 1991. The Numerical 

2461: Method of Lines: Method of Integration of Partial Differential Equations. Academic Press, San Diego.

2462: 

2463: \bibitem[Schleuning(1998)]{Schl} Schleuning, D. A. 1998. ApJ 493, 811.

2464: 

2465: \bibitem[Shampine(1994)]{Sham94}

2466: Shampine, L. F. 1994. Numerical Solution of Ordinary Differential

2467: Equations. Chapman \& Hall, New York.

2468: 

2469: \bibitem[Shu et al.(1987)]{Shu87} 

2470: Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., Lizano, S. 1987, ARA\&A 25, 23.

2471: 

2472: \bibitem[Shu et al.(1999)]{Shu99} 

2473: Shu, F. H., Allen, A., Shang, H., Ostriker, E. C., Li, Z.-Y. 1999. 

2474: In: Lada, C. J., Kylafis, N. (Eds.),

2475: The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p. 193.

2476: 

2477: %\bibitem[Shu et al.(2004)]{Shu04}

2478: %Shu, F. H., Li, Z.-Y., Allen, A. 2004, ApJ 601, 930.

2479: 

2480: \bibitem[Tafalla et al.(1998)]{Tafa} Tafalla, M., Mardones, D., Myers, P. C., Caselli, P.,

2481: Bachiller, R., Benson, P. J. 1998. ApJ 504, 900.

2482: 

2483: \bibitem[Tassis(2007)]{Tass}

2484: Tassis, K. 2007. MNRAS 379, L50.

2485: 

2486: \bibitem[Teixeira et al.(2005)]{Teix}

2487: Teixeira, P. S., Lada, C. J., Alves, J. 2005. ApJ 629, 276.

2488: 

2489: \bibitem[Tilley \& Pudritz(2007)]{Till}

2490: Tilley, D. A., \& Pudritz, R. E. 2007. MNRAS 382, 73.

2491: 

2492: %\bibitem[Tomisaka et al.(1990)]{Tomi90} 

2493: %Tomisaka, K., Ikeuchi, S., Nakamura, T. 1990. ApJ 362, 202.

2494: 

2495: \bibitem[Umebayashi \& Nakano(1980)]{UN80}

2496: Umebayashi, T., Nakano, T. 1980. PASJ 32, 405.

2497: 

2498: \bibitem[van Leer(1977)]{vanL} van Leer, B. 1977. JCP 23, 276.

2499: 

2500: \bibitem[V\'azquez-Semadeni et al.(2006)]{Vazq06}

2501: V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., Ryu, D., Passot, T., Gonz\'alez, R. F., 

2502: Gazol, A. 2006. ApJ 643, 245.

2503: 

2504: \bibitem[V\'azquez-Semadeni et al.(2007)]{Vazq07}

2505: V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., G\'omez, G. C., Jappsen, A. K., Ballesteros-Paredes, J.,

2506: Gonz\'alez, R. F., Klessen, R. S. 2007. ApJ 657, 870.

2507: 

2508: %\bibitem[Vorobyov \& Basu(2005a)]{VB05a}

2509: %Vorobyov, E. I., Basu, S. 2005a, MNRAS 360, 675.

2510: 

2511: %\bibitem[Vorobyov \& Basu(2005b)]{VB05}

2512: %Vorobyov, E. I., Basu, S. 2005. ApJ  633, L137.

2513: 

2514: %\bibitem[Vorobyov \& Basu(2006)]{VB06}

2515: %\ul. 2006. ApJ 650, 956.

2516: 

2517: %\bibitem[Vorobyov \& Basu(2007)]{VB07}

2518: %\ul. 2007. MNRAS 381, 1009.

2519: 

2520: \bibitem[Ward-Thompson et al.(1994)]{Ward94}

2521: Ward-Thompson, D., Scott, P. F., Hills, R. E., Andr\'{e}, P. 1994. MNRAS 268, 276.

2522: 

2523: \bibitem[Ward-Thompson et al.(2007)]{Ward07}

2524: Ward-Thompson, D., Andr\'{e}, P., Crutcher, R., Johnston, D., Onishi, T.,

2525: Wilson, C. 2007. In: Reipurth, B., Jewitt, D., Keil, K. (Eds.),

2526: Protostars and Planets V. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, p. 33. 

2527: 

2528: \bibitem[Williams et al.(1999)]{Will} Williams, J. P., Myers, P. C., Wilner, D. J.,

2529: DiFrancesco, J. 1999. ApJ 513, L61.

2530: 

2531: \bibitem[Zweibel(1998)]{Zwei}

2532: Zweibel, E. G. 1998. ApJ 499, 746.

2533: 

2534: \bibitem[Zweibel(2002)]{Zwei02}

2535: \ul. 2002. ApJ 567, 962.

2536: 

2537: \end{thebibliography}

2538: 

2539: 

2540: 

2541: \end{document}

2542: 

2543: