1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: % \documentclass{aastex}
3: % \usepackage{emulateapj5}
4: \usepackage{graphics}
5: \input epsf
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{A Fractal Origin for the Mass Spectrum of Interstellar Clouds:
8: II. Cloud Models and Power Law Slopes}
9: \author{Bruce G. Elmegreen
10: \affil{IBM Research Division, T.J. Watson Research Center,
11: P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA}
12: }
13:
14:
15: \begin{abstract} Three-dimensional fractal models on grids of $\sim200^3$
16: pixels are generated from the inverse Fourier transform of noise with
17: a power law cutoff, exponentiated to give a log normal distribution
18: of density. The fractals are clipped at various intensity levels and
19: the mass and size distribution functions of the clipped peaks and their
20: subpeaks are determined. These distribution functions are analogous to the
21: cloud mass functions determined from maps of the fractal interstellar
22: medium using various thresholds for the definition of a cloud. The
23: model mass functions are found to be power laws with powers ranging
24: from $-1.6$ to $-2.4$ in linear mass intervals as the clipping level
25: increases from $\sim0.03$ to $\sim0.3$ of the peak intensity. The low
26: clipping value gives a cloud filling factor of $\sim10$\% and should
27: be a good model for molecular cloud surveys. The agreement between
28: the mass spectrum of this model and the observed cloud and clump mass
29: spectra suggests that a pervasively fractal interstellar medium can be
30: interpreted as a cloud/intercloud medium if the peaks of the fractal
31: intensity distribution are taken to be clouds. Their mass function is a
32: power law even though the density distribution function in the gas is a
33: log-normal. This is because the size distribution function of the clipped
34: clouds is a power law, and with clipping, each cloud has about the same
35: average density. A similar result would apply to projected clouds that
36: are clipped fractals, giving nearly constant column densities for power
37: law mass functions. The steepening of the mass function for higher clip
38: values suggests a partial explanation for the steeper slope of the mass
39: functions for star clusters and OB associations, which sample denser
40: regions of interstellar gas. The mass function of the highest peaks is
41: similar to the Salpeter IMF, suggesting again that stellar masses may
42: be determined in part by the geometry of turbulent gas. \end{abstract}
43:
44: \keywords{turbulence --- ISM: clouds ---
45: ISM: structure --- open clusters and associations: general }
46:
47: \section{Introduction}
48:
49: Interstellar gas appears scale-free when viewed with Fourier transform
50: power spectra (Crovisier \& Dickey 1983; Green 1993; Lazarian \& Pogosyan
51: 2000; St\"utzki et al. 1998; Stanimirovic et al. 1999; Elmegreen, Kim, \&
52: Staveley-Smith 2001), delta variance techniques (St\"utzki et al. 1998;
53: Zielinsky \& St\"utzki 1999), spectral correlation functions (Rosolowsky
54: et al. 1999), principal component analysis (Heyer \& Schloerb 1997),
55: perimeter-area measures (Dickman, Horvath, \& Margulis 1990; Falgarone,
56: Phillips, \& Walker 1991), box-counting techniques (Westpfahl et al.
57: 1999), and multifractal analysis (Chappell \& Scalo 2001).
58:
59: The interstellar medium (ISM) looks like a collection of discrete clouds,
60: however, when intensity contours are drawn (Solomon et al. 1987; Loren
61: 1989; St\"utzki \& G\"usten 1990; Williams, de Geus, \& Blitz 1994;
62: Lemme et al. 1995; Kramer et al. 1998; Heyer, Carpenter, \& Snell 2001)
63: or when spectral absorption lines are fit to Gaussians (Adams 1949; Hobbs
64: 1978; Clark 1965; Radhakrishnan \& Goss 1972; Spitzer \& Jenkins 1975).
65:
66: These two interpretations have led to distinct models for the origin of
67: gas structure and star formation. Scale-free models typically involve
68: turbulence and self-gravity (Falgarone \& Phillips 1990; Scalo 1990;
69: Pfenniger \& Combes 1994; Lazarian 1995; Elmegreen 1999b; Rosolowsky
70: et al. 1999; MacLow \& Ossenkopf 2000; Pichardo et al. 2000; Klessen,
71: Heitsch, \& MacLow 2000; V\'azquez-Semadeni, Gazol, \& Scalo 2000; Semelin
72: \& Combes 2000; Ostriker, Stone, \& Gammie 2001; Heitsch, Mac Low, \&
73: Klessen 2001; Toomre \& Kalnajs 1991; Wada \& Norman 1999, 2001).
74:
75: Cloudy models involve sticky collisions and star formation triggered by
76: colliding and compressed clouds (Kwan 1979; Hunter et al. 1986; Tan 2000;
77: Scoville, Sanders, \& Clemens 1986).
78:
79: For general interstellar gas dynamics, the turbulent model (von Weizsacker
80: 1951; Sasao 1973) may be more realistic than the cloudy model for the
81: origin of structure (LaRosa, Shore \& Magnani 1999; Ballesteros-Paredes,
82: Hartmann, \& V\'azquez-Semadeni 1999). Turbulence also gives cloud-like
83: spectral lines through both density structure and velocity crowding
84: (Ballesteros-Paredes, V\'azquez-Semadeni, \& Scalo 1999; Lazarian \&
85: Pogosyan 2000; Pichardo, et al. 2000).
86:
87: For sudden transition fronts like expanding shells, spiral arms, and dust
88: lanes, cloud collisions may be an appropriate way to model the dynamics
89: (e.g., Kenney \& Lord 1991; Elmegreen 1988). This is because the pre-front
90: clumps made by turbulence at slow ambient speeds are forced to collide
91: together and interact at much faster speeds inside the front. Strongly
92: self-gravitating clouds that are made by turbulence at moderate speeds
93: but then given a chance to cool and settle to high densities should also
94: interact as in the cloudy models. Because of their high densities, these
95: clouds or clumps should move somewhat independently of the surrounding
96: turbulent gas, perhaps lagging behind the expanding flows to make bright
97: rims, or punching through spiral dustlanes to make feathery structures
98: (Seth 2000).
99:
100: The most obvious point of contact between these two views of gas structure
101: is the mass spectrum of the regions that are isolated enough to be defined
102: as clouds. The scale-free nature of the gas shows up as a scale-free
103: mass spectrum for the clouds (Elmegreen \& Falgarone 1996; St\"utzki et
104: al. 1997). This mass spectrum is not useful in the turbulent model because
105: it does not reflect the continuous distribution of matter that is really
106: present. The spectrum is more important for bound star clusters, which
107: are better defined (Elmegreen et al. 2000), and for individual stars,
108: whose masses are probably proportional to the primordial clump masses
109: (Motte, Andr\'e, \& Neri 1998; Testi \& Sargent 1998; Bacmann et al.
110: 2000; Tachihara et al. 2000).
111:
112: Here we model the cloud mass and size spectra using the intensity peaks in
113: a simulated fractal to represent clouds. The results show the anticipated
114: $\sim M^{-2}dM$ spectrum that comes from simple hierarchical models
115: (Fleck 1996), but for a different reason than what is usually given. In
116: the usual interpretation, the $M^{-2}dM$ spectrum comes from the fact
117: that there is a constant total mass in each logarithmic interval of mass;
118: i.e., each small clump at the bottom is contained inside each large clump
119: at the top. Then $M\xi(\log M)d\log M=$ constant$\times d\log M$ becomes
120: $n(M)dM\equiv\xi(\log M)d\log M= \xi(\log M)dM/M\propto M^{-2}dM$. We
121: show here that the bottom of the hierarchy, where the gas density has
122: local isolated peaks, has about the same spectrum. This is true even
123: though the probability distribution function of density alone is not a
124: power law, but log-normal.
125:
126: We also find that the spectrum flattens to $M^{-1.6}dM$ as the lower
127: limit to the cloud intensity is decreased. This flattening may explain
128: the difference between the mass spectrum of star clusters, which is
129: close to $M^{-2}dM$ (Battinelli et al. 1994; Elmegreen \& Efremov 1997;
130: Whitmore \& Schweizer 1995; Zhang \& Fall 1999) and the mass spectrum
131: for clouds, which typically ranges between $M^{-1.5}$ and $M^{-1.8}$
132: (e.g., Blitz 1993; Kramer et al. 1998; Heyer, Carpenter, \& Snell 2001).
133: An even steeper spectrum results from the highest clipping levels modeled
134: here and is close to the Salpeter IMF for stars. Thus the increase
135: in slope of the mass functions from clouds to clusters to stars may be
136: partly the result of different density thresholds in the same fractal gas.
137:
138: \section{Models}
139:
140: Fractal Brownian motion clouds (Stutzki et al. 1998) are
141: generated by first filling a 3D lattice in wavenumber space,
142: $(k_x,k_y,k_z)$, with noise distributed as a Gaussian with a
143: dispersion of unity. The noise cube is multiplied by $k^{-5/3}$ for
144: $k=\left(k_x^2+k_y^2+k_z^2\right)^{1/2}$. The inverse three-dimensional
145: FFT of the resulting truncated noise cube gives a fractal (Voss
146: 1988) with a Gaussian distribution of intensity, $I_0(x,y,z)$, as
147: shown on the bottom of Figure 1. To simulate a turbulent fractal, we
148: exponentiate this intensity distribution, $I(x,y,z)=\exp\left(\alpha
149: I_0(x,y,z)/I_{0,max}\right)$ for maximum original intensity $I_{0,max}$
150: and contrast factor $\alpha=4$. This gives another fractal, now with a
151: log-normal density distribution (Fig. 1, top). The motivation for the
152: log-normal comes from studies by V\'azquez-Semadeni (1994), Nordlund \&
153: Padoan (1999), Klessen 2000, and Wada \& Norman (2001).
154:
155: A fractal obtained in this way is a continuous distribution of density and
156: more properly called a multifractal because the local fractal dimension of
157: the density structure varies from the peaks to the valleys (e.g., Chappell
158: \& Scalo 2001; Vavrek 2001). We refer to it here only as a fractal.
159:
160: For the cloud mass and size spectra determined here, we consider two
161: cloud models. In the first (Sect. \ref{sect:model1}), a cloud is defined
162: as all of the emission above a fixed cutoff in density. In the second
163: (Sect. \ref{sect:model2}), clouds that are resolved as separate peaks
164: are each counted, whether or not they occur inside a broader emission
165: region above the cutoff. The broader emission in this second case
166: is divided into subparts to go with each peak. The subpart masses are
167: taken proportional to the peak masses that were previously determined
168: from a higher cutoff level. The algorithm will be described in more
169: detail later.
170:
171: For the first set of models, the fractal density distribution in which the
172: clouds were counted was taken to be the inner $180^3$ pixels of a $210^3$
173: grid, to avoid edge effects. In the second case, the inner $160^3$
174: px inside a $192^3$ px grid was used. Models with many different grid
175: sizes were made to confirm that the basic results are independent of
176: this. Larger grids have more clouds; the first model had 73,000 separate
177: clouds above 0.03 times the peak density, and the second model had
178: 40,000 clouds and subclouds above $e^{-3}=0.05$ times the peak density.
179: The ratio of peak to minimum value in the density distribution was 2400
180: in the first set of models, and 3800 in the second set; this ratio is
181: determined by the $\alpha$ value.
182:
183: \subsection{Model 1:
184: Clouds as Emission Regions above a Fixed Density Cutoff}
185: \label{sect:model1}
186:
187: The central $100^3$ pixels of the first model is shown in Figure 2,
188: clipped to display everything brighter than 0.03 of the peak. This
189: clipping level gives the most reasonable agreement with interstellar
190: cloud surveys, as discussed below.
191:
192: To find clouds in the $180^3$ px$^3$ fractal, we begin by initiating
193: another $180^3$ cube, $J(x,y,z)$, with values all equal to 0. This cube
194: keeps track of which pixels in the fractal cube have been counted in the
195: mass sum. Then, to find a cloud, we begin $10$ pixels inside each edge
196: in one corner of the fractal cube and step along in one direction in a
197: regular fashion until a pixel value is reached that exceeds the clipping
198: threshold. We determine whether this pixel has been counted before by
199: viewing the value of the corresponding pixel in $J(x,y,z)$. If $J=0$,
200: then it has not been counted before and we proceed to count the cloud
201: mass. If $J=1$, we continue with our regular search for another cloud. In
202: the case where $J=0$ for this pixel, we add the density of the pixel
203: to the total mass of this cloud, which begins at 0, and we change the
204: corresponding pixel in the $J$ cube from 0 to 1. We then begin to map
205: around inside this cloud by stepping one pixel away from the current
206: pixel in a random direction. If the new pixel has a value lower than
207: the threshold, we have just crossed the cloud boundary so we go back. If
208: the new pixel value is greater than the threshold so we are still inside
209: the cloud, then we determine if this position has already been added to
210: the cloud mass sum by reading the value of $J$ at this position. If the
211: new pixel has not been counted in the current cloud (i.e., if the $J$
212: value is still 0), then we add its density to the running sum for that
213: cloud and set the corresponding value in $J$ to 1.
214:
215: This procedure continues until further random searching returns no
216: new pixels in the same cloud after a total number of additional tries
217: equal to $4N^2$, where $N$ is the number of pixels already counted
218: for that cloud. If $N$ is small or large, then the minimum or maximum
219: trial counts were taken equal to 1000 and $10^7$. This step number
220: requirement gives the random walk among pixels a reasonable chance to
221: visit every pixel inside the cloud, even if the boundary is very ragged
222: and there are cul de sacs and spikes which would nearly trap a shorter
223: random search. When the cloud mass is summed, we add the result to a
224: histogram of cloud masses, which is the mass spectrum, using a linear
225: interval of the mass for counting. The cloud search then continues
226: along the regular search path where it was before the most recent cloud
227: was mapped. Cloud searches are much faster for higher intensity cut-off
228: levels because the clouds are smaller and the search requirement of
229: $4N^2$ steps without a new cloud pixel is more easily reached.
230:
231: The clouds modeled here are solid objects, not projected objects.
232: We consider cloud structure in the full three-dimensional grid because
233: spectral line mapping in real data can usually distinguish between
234: different three-dimensional objects at different velocities on the same
235: line of sight. Thus the fractal dimension of observed interstellar CO
236: clouds and clumps, obtained from the size distribution of contour-mapped
237: objects, was found to be around 2.3 -- one more than the projected fractal
238: dimension of 1.3 obtained from the boundary structure (Pfenniger \&
239: Combes 1994; Elmegreen \& Falgarone 1997). This approximation does not
240: account for artificial clouds that may appear in real surveys because
241: of velocity crowding in turbulent gas (Lazarian \& Pogosyan 2000).
242:
243: Figure 3 shows mass spectra for intensity clipping values equal to
244: 0.03, 0.1, and 0.3 times the peak intensity. The spectrum for the 0.3
245: clipping level is an average of the spectra for 10 different random
246: fractal models; this averaging was done in order to reduce the noise
247: in the cloud counting, considering the small number of bright peaks in
248: each model. The spectrum for the 0.1 clipping level is an average over
249: 4 random fractal models, and the spectrum for 0.03 is an average over 2
250: fractal models. The spectral slopes are approximately $\alpha=-1.7$,
251: $-1.9$ and $-2.3$, respectively. These correspond to power law mass
252: functions $n(M)dM\propto M^{\alpha}dM$ in linear intervals of mass, or
253: mass functions $\propto M^{1+\alpha}d\log M$ in logarithmic intervals
254: of mass.
255:
256: Figure 4 shows the running average slopes of the mass functions versus the
257: cloud mass for different clipping levels. These average slopes start at
258: the lowest cloud mass for that clipping level and extend up to the mass
259: $M$ plotted on the abscissa. The slopes of the power law mass spectra
260: become inaccurate at high mass because the number of clouds goes to zero
261: and the individual spectra level off. At low to intermediate mass, the
262: slopes are about constant for a range in cloud mass that spans a factor
263: of $\sim100$ for low clipping levels. This is the mass range where the
264: spectrum is a power law. The range is smaller for higher clipping levels
265: because the cloud masses are smaller.
266:
267: The slope of the power law mass spectrum gets steeper with higher
268: clipping levels. To understand the origin of this increase, we ran
269: other models with smaller peak-to-valley density contrasts (e.g., using
270: $\alpha=1.4$). The same range in clump spectral slopes resulted for the
271: high and low clipping levels, but now the range in clipping levels was
272: only a factor of 5 because of the smaller density contrast for the low
273: $\alpha$ case, rather than 30 as in the Figures. This change suggests
274: that the mass spectrum slope decreases for low clipping values in both
275: cases because the low density limit of the fractal is approached. Near
276: the low density limit, each cloud has a sprawling boundary that spans
277: nearly the distance to the next cloud, and there is a higher proportion
278: of high mass clouds. There is also very little intercloud medium at low
279: clipping levels. For the lowest clipping level, 0.03 times the peak, the
280: threshold cloud density is $\sim70$ times the minimum fractal density,
281: which is $\sim1/2400$ of the peak. This is still far from the lowest
282: density level, but apparently close enough to change the geometric
283: characteristics.
284:
285: Figure 5 shows the size distribution function for the model clipped at
286: 0.03 times the peak value. The cloud size is taken to be the cube-root of
287: the number of pixels. The size distribution function is approximately a
288: power law with a slope of $\sim-3.75$. This plot is again a histogram,
289: determined for linear intervals of size. Thus the average fractal
290: dimension is one more than this slope, or $D\sim-2.75$ (Mandelbrot 1982).
291: This is not a very meaningful concept for a multifractal with a smooth
292: distribution of density because there is a range of fractal dimensions
293: depending on location, but the result is analogous to the dimension
294: determined from the size distribution of interstellar clouds, which gives
295: about $D\sim-2.3$ (Elmegreen \& Falgarone 1996). The size spectra for
296: the models with other clipping factors are not shown because the size
297: ranges are too small to be interesting; they tend to be steeper for
298: higher clipping levels like the mass spectra.
299:
300: Figure 6 shows the mass versus size for all clouds. The regressions
301: with slopes of $\sim3.3$ indicate that all clouds found with a particular
302: clipping level have about the same average density and that the density
303: scales in proportion to the clipping level. This is to be expected
304: because most of the cloud mass is on the periphery of the cloud, where the
305: volume is greatest, and the density there is about the clipping value.
306: This cubic dependence is similar to that found for clump studies inside
307: molecular clouds (Loren 1989; St\"utzki \& G\"usten 1990; Williams, de
308: Geus, \& Blitz 1994; Williams, Blitz, \& Stark 1995; see the summary of
309: observations in Elmegreen \& Falgarone 1996) and differs significantly
310: from the quadratic dependence found by Larson (1981).
311:
312: The difference in the mass-radius relations for clump surveys and whole
313: GMC surveys seems to be related to the threshold used for the observation.
314: In the clump case, the threshold is probably the critical density for
315: excitation of the molecule (as recognized, for example, by Williams,
316: Blitz, \& Stark 1995). In Larson's correlation, which was based on large
317: scale CO surveys and later confirmed by other whole-cloud surveys (e.g.,
318: Solomon et al. 1987), the threshold is CO column density, probably tied
319: to the telescope sensitivity. For example, the Solomon et al. survey
320: used a brightness temperature limit to define CO clouds. Thus the
321: fundamental $M\propto R^2$ result of Larson (1981), which, when combined
322: with the virial theorem and Kolmogorov law, is the basis for most of the
323: correlations that have been found for molecular clouds, seems to be an
324: artifact of sampling near the telescope limit of detection, which is a
325: column density limit for a fractal cloud (see also V\'azquez-Semadeni,
326: Ballesteros-Paredes, \& Rodriguez, 1997).
327:
328: \subsection{Model 2: Clouds and Subclouds Defined by Each Peak}
329: \label{sect:model2}
330:
331: In the second model, clouds were defined in a $160^3$ px$^3$ grid
332: by local peaks in the density, whether or not they were separated by
333: a region below the current density cutoff. This is analogous to the
334: definition of a cloud or clump in the surveys by Williams et al. (1994,
335: 1995) and St\"utzki, \& G\"usten (1990), who fit the peaks and their
336: surrounding emission with various strategies. This model differs from
337: the first model discussed above because a single cloud in the first case
338: could be divided into several sub-clouds in the second case if there are
339: separate peaks. To keep track of where the peaks are, we used a third
340: cube, $P(x,y,z)$, of size $160^3$ with entries equal to the peak number.
341: A second cube, $J(x,y,z)$ as in model 1, kept track of which pixels had
342: been searched already.
343:
344: The peaks in the density are found by successively lowering the threshold,
345: which begins at $\exp(-1)$ times the overall peak density in the fractal
346: cube, and then goes to $\exp(-2)$ and $\exp(-3)$ times this peak density.
347: The peaks found with the $\exp(-1)$ threshold are located in the
348: same way as for model 1, with no separate subpeaks. Presumably they
349: would be unresolved also in a real cloud if the peak intensity stands
350: above the detection threshold by a factor less than $e^1=2.7$.
351: These first-threshold clouds are then used by the program again, but now
352: with the threshold of $\exp(-2)$. When a new cloud was found standing
353: above this $\exp(-2)$ threshold, the peak-identification cube, $P$,
354: was viewed at all of the positions belonging to this new cloud to see
355: if there were already any peaks in it. If there were no peaks, then the
356: current cloud was defined to be a new peak and its full mass was added
357: to the list of peaks. If there was one previous peak, then the mass from
358: this level was given to the previous peak. If there was more than one
359: previous peak from the next higher cutoff level, then the mass of the
360: current cloud was divided up among the higher peaks. With this strategy,
361: a distinct peak is a region separated from another peak by a level of
362: emission that dips below $\sim\exp\left(-1\right)$ of the peak value.
363:
364: This partitioning of mass among the various peaks in a threshold-defined
365: cloud was done in several different ways. In one method, the peaks
366: were fit to Gaussians when they were first found, and the extrapolated
367: masses from these Gaussians were determined at the next lower level
368: when they appeared inside a cloud there. This mass at the next lower
369: level was then divided up among the former peaks in proportion to their
370: extrapolated Gaussian masses. In another method, the current cloud was
371: divided into pieces proportional to the former peak masses themselves,
372: without any Gaussian extrapolations. The difference between these two
373: partitionings was noticeable but not large. Because the peak masses
374: from the levels where they are first discovered are distributed as a
375: power law, as shown in the previous subsection, any partitioning of
376: the current cloud in proportion to these previous peaks maintains that
377: same power law and extends it to larger masses. Thus the combined mass
378: distribution of isolated peaks and subdivided clouds is similar to that
379: of the peaks alone. In what follows, we discuss this case, i.e., where
380: the partitioning is proportional to the previous peak masses. In the
381: Gaussian-fitting case, the extrapolated Gaussian masses could be much
382: larger than the pure peak masses if the Gaussian dispersions were large,
383: and this led to a wild variation in how the clouds in the current level
384: were divided among peaks from the higher levels. It gave results that
385: were similar to a third case where the current cloud was equally divided
386: among the peaks from the higher level.
387:
388: In the final spectrum down to the third level ($e^{-3}$), the Gaussian
389: and equal-division methods did not produce a continuous power law, but
390: had a power law at low mass, where the peaks were single, and a broad
391: concentration of masses at intermediate values, where the subdivisions
392: gave a somewhat random mixture of masses. The preferred case, with the
393: subdivisions directly proportional to the former peak masses, gave an
394: approximately continuous power law.
395:
396: Figure 7 shows the mass distribution functions for clouds and sub-clouds
397: defined in this way using density cutoffs of $\exp(-1)$ (on the left),
398: $\exp(-2)$, and $\exp(-3)$ (on the right). The top three panels have
399: no added noise, the bottom three have noise at the level of $0.5e^{-3}$
400: times the peak density. This noise affects only the mass spectrum made
401: from the lowest contour (plotted on the right), and it tends to add
402: low mass clouds, which are mostly noise. The average slope of the mass
403: spectrum does not change much with added noise.
404:
405: The dashed lines that lie nearly parallel to the distribution functions
406: in Figure 7 have slopes of $-2.4$, $-1.8$, and $-1.6$ for these three
407: cutoffs, respectively. These slopes are similar to the mass spectrum
408: slopes found in the previous section for the cases with similar density
409: cutoffs. Thus the division of big clouds into subclouds does not affect
410: the spectrum much. There is a tendency for the mass spectra to become
411: slightly steeper at low mass, which is the result of the steepening
412: effect found previously for small clouds at high cutoff levels: most
413: of these low mass clouds are single peaks near the threshold. Figure 8
414: shows the running average slopes for the noise-free cloud/subcloud case,
415: as in Figure 4. The other figures shown in section \ref{sect:model1},
416: namely, the mass-size relation and the size spectrum, are essentially
417: the same for the present case.
418:
419: \section{Discussion}
420:
421: The connection between the cloud model of interstellar structure and
422: the multifractal model is readily understood when clouds are viewed as
423: isolated peaks in the fractal. Here we have shown that the mass spectrum
424: for such fractal clouds is similar to the observed cloud spectrum when
425: clouds are defined or selected to be those regions where the local density
426: exceeds several percent of the peak (resolved) density, or when clouds
427: are defined to be the resolvable peaks plus a proportional amount of gas
428: in the underlying plateaus. Unresolved peaks can have higher densities,
429: as can a fractal model with more cells, but this will not affect the
430: mass spectrum of the resolved objects.
431:
432: Observational cloud surveys tend to span only a factor of 5 to 10 in
433: physical scale (see references for cloud and clump surveys given above).
434: This limited range is entirely a selection effect because unbiased
435: surveys analyzed with power spectra or similar techniques find a much
436: wider range of scales in the interstellar medium, up to a factor greater
437: than $\sim100$ in the case of whole galaxies. In the cloud surveys, the
438: factor of $\sim10$ limit arises because smaller regions are unresolved and
439: larger regions are subdivided into separate clouds, the whole structure
440: being hierarchical (Scalo 1985).
441:
442: For many CO surveys, a factor of 10 in scale corresponds to a factor
443: of 10 in average density (Larson 1981), and a factor of 10 in density
444: corresponds to a volume filling factor of 10\%. This latter result is
445: because for an infinitely self-similar fractal, the filling factor scales
446: inversely with the density (Elmegreen 1999c). In fact, most cloud surveys
447: report a filling factor of about $\sim10$\% (e.g., see review in Blitz
448: 1993); this is only an artifact of sampling in the fractal point of view.
449: In the current models, the average filling factors for the clouds in
450: Section \ref{sect:model1} are $1.2\times10^{-4}$, $7.0\times10^{-3}$,
451: and 0.13 for clipping densities of 0.3, 0.1, and 0.03 times the peak.
452: For the clouds in section \ref{sect:model2}, they are $1.3\times10^{-4}$,
453: $5.7\times10^{-3}$, and 0.065.
454:
455: These filling factors vary approximately as the inverse cube or
456: inverse square of the density threshold because the low clipping levels
457: approach the minimum density, and the sprawling cloud boundaries take
458: up excess volume. The models with the lowest clipping levels, 0.03 and
459: $e^{-3}=0.05$, have the about same filling factors as the observed clouds
460: and clumps in surveys.
461:
462: The point here is that the density range that is inadvertently selected
463: for real cloud surveys is also what the fractal models need to give
464: the observed filling factor and mass function. If different observing
465: techniques are employed, giving a wider range of cloud sizes or average
466: densities, for example, thereby increasing the clump filling factor, then
467: we predict that the slope of the resulting mass function will decrease.
468: Similarly, surveys with molecular tracers sensitive to very high densities
469: should be selecting regions closer to the peaks of the turbulent fractal,
470: with lower filling factors, and these surveys should get slightly steeper
471: slopes for the clump mass spectrum.
472:
473: Note that the absolute density of an observed region is not important for
474: the slope of the mass spectrum, only the relative density compared to the
475: peaks and valleys in that region. As the threshold density approaches
476: the minimum density, the mass spectrum flattens because the cloud
477: boundaries spread out and the low density "intercloud" medium, which
478: is just the sub-threshold gas in the same fractal, gets included more
479: and more with each cloud. This interpretation is valid for molecular
480: clouds and other gases with a single phase of thermal temperature.
481: Of course, the intercloud means something different when there is a
482: high temperature phase. For example, fractal models of the neutral
483: hydrogen in the Large Magellanic Cloud require a multi-phase structure
484: because of the high density contrasts that are present (Elmegreen, Kim,
485: \& Staveley-Smith 2001).
486:
487: The size distribution function for our model clouds is also similar
488: to that for interstellar clouds in the best-fit case. The power law
489: nature of the size spectrum, combined with the cutoff in density in the
490: definition of a cloud, ensures that the mass spectrum is also a power law.
491: This is because the average density is always some factor of order unity
492: times the cutoff. Thus the mass spectrum is a power law even though the
493: density distribution function is a log-normal.
494:
495: The mass spectrum for star clusters is steeper than that for clumps,
496: by several tenths (cf. Sect. 1). The fractal model suggests that this
497: steepness results from the denser cloud regions that are sampled by
498: clusters. The typical density of an embedded star cluster corresponds
499: to an H$_2$ density of around $10^5$ cm$^{-3}$ (Lada, Evans \& Falgarone
500: 1997). This is much closer to the peak density of the turbulent fractal
501: than the density threshold for the cloud itself, so the mass spectrum
502: should be steeper in this model. However, gravity modifies the gas density
503: in the region of a cluster, so the present results are only suggestive.
504:
505: The densest peaks sampled here, with $>30$\% of the peak density in
506: the cloud, have mass spectra with slopes of $\sim-2.3$ and $\sim-2.4$
507: for models 1 and 2, respectively. These are similar to the slope of
508: the Salpeter stellar IMF. Indeed, mm-continuum sources and stars
509: do sample denser regions than clusters, so the increase in slope is
510: sensible. However, other factors enter into the stellar IMF, such as
511: the relative rate of collapse in regions with different masses and the
512: competition for mass. Thus the importance of the purely fractal result
513: for the IMF cannot be assessed without further modeling (see Elmegreen
514: 1997, 1999a).
515:
516: \section{Summary}
517:
518: Clouds that are defined by the peaks of a smooth fractal distribution,
519: whether deliberately or inadvertently because of the observing procedure,
520: have power law mass distributions even if the gas density has a
521: log-normal distribution. The power of the mass distribution ranges
522: from $-1.6$ to $-2.4$ as the clipping level varies from 0.03 to 0.3
523: times the peak. The shallower power is similar to what is observed for
524: interstellar clouds, and the cloud filling factor in the model is similar
525: to the observations too. The steeper power laws are similar to what
526: are observed for star clusters and mm-continuum sources, respectively,
527: perhaps because clusters and continuum sources sample greater densities
528: than the outer cloud boundary.
529:
530: The origin of the power law for the cloud mass spectrum is the power law
531: for the cloud size spectrum at a fixed threshold in density or column
532: density, depending on the nature of the survey. Many of the correlations
533: observed for molecular clouds and clumps now appear to be artifacts of
534: these density and column density thresholds, considering the fractal
535: nature of the interstellar medium and the internal correlations from
536: turbulent motions.
537:
538: Acknowledgements:
539: This work was supported by NSF Grant AST-9870112 to B.G.E. Helpful comments
540: by the referee led to the second clump-finding algorithm discussed here.
541:
542: \begin{thebibliography}{}
543:
544: \bibitem[]{} Adams, W.S. 1949, ApJ, 109, 354
545:
546: \bibitem[]{} Bacmann, A., Andr\'e, P., Puget, J.-L., Abergel, A., Bontemps, S.,
547: \& Ward-Thompson, D. 2000, in From Darkness to Light: Origin and Early
548: Evolution of Young Stellar Clusters, eds. T. Montmerle \& P. Andr\'e,
549: ASP Conf. Series, in press
550:
551: \bibitem[]{} Ballesteros-Parades, J., Hartmann, L., \& V\'azquez-Semadeni, E. 1999,
552: ApJ, 527, 285
553:
554: \bibitem[]{} Ballesteros-Paredes, J., V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., \& Scalo, J. 1999, ApJ, 515, 286
555:
556: \bibitem[]{} Battinelli P., Brandimarti A., \& Capuzzo-Dolcetta R. 1994,
557: A\&AS, 104, 379
558:
559: \bibitem[]{} Blitz, L. 1993, in Protostars and Planets III, ed. E.H. Levy \&
560: J.I. Lunine, Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press, p. 125
561:
562: \bibitem[]{} Chappell, D., \& Scalo, J. 2001, ApJ, 551, 712
563:
564: \bibitem[]{} Clark, B.G. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1398
565:
566: \bibitem[]{} Crovisier, J., \& Dickey, J.M. 1983, A\&A, 122, 282
567:
568: \bibitem[]{} Dickman, R. L., Horvath, M. A., \& Margulis, M. 1990, ApJ, 365, 586
569:
570: \bibitem[]{} Elmegreen, B.G. 1988, ApJ, 326, 616
571:
572: \bibitem[]{} Elmegreen, B.G. 1997, ApJ, 486, 944
573:
574: \bibitem[]{} Elmegreen, B.G. 1999a, ApJ, 515, 323
575:
576: \bibitem[]{} Elmegreen, B.G. 1999b, ApJ, 527, 277
577:
578: \bibitem[]{} Elmegreen, B.G. 1999c, in
579: The Physics and Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium,
580: Proceedings of the 3rd Cologne-Zermatt Symposium, eds.
581: V. Ossenkopf, J. Stutzki, \& G. Winnewisser, Aachen: Shaker-Verlag, p. 77
582:
583: \bibitem[]{} Elmegreen, B.G., \& Falgarone, E. 1996, ApJ, 471, 816
584:
585: \bibitem[]{} Elmegreen, B.G., \& Efremov, Yu. N. 1997, ApJ, 480, 235
586:
587: \bibitem[]{} Elmegreen, B.G., Efremov, Y.N., Pudritz, R., \& Zinnecker, H. 2000,
588: in Protostars and Planets IV, eds. V. G. Mannings, A. P. Boss, \& S. S. Russell,
589: Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press, p. 179
590:
591: \bibitem[]{} Elmegreen, B.G., Kim, S., \& Staveley-Smith, L. 2001, ApJ, 548, 749
592:
593: \bibitem[]{} Falgarone, E., \& Phillips, T. 1990, \apj, 359, 399
594:
595: \bibitem[]{} Falgarone, E., Phillips, T. G., \& Walker, C. K. 1991, ApJ, 378, 186
596:
597: \bibitem[]{} Fleck, R.C., Jr. 1996, ApJ, 458, 739
598:
599: \bibitem[]{} Green, D.A. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 327
600:
601: \bibitem[]{} Heyer, M.H., \& Schloerb, F. P. 1997, ApJ, 475, 173
602:
603: \bibitem[]{} Heyer, M.H., Carpenter, J.M., \& Snell, R.L. 2001, ApJ, 551, 852
604:
605: \bibitem[]{} Heitsch, F., Mac Low, M.-M., \& Klessen, R.S. 2001, ApJ, 547, 280
606:
607: \bibitem[]{} Hobbs, L.M. 1978, ApJS, 38, 129
608:
609: \bibitem[]{} Hunter, J. H., Jr., Sandford, M. T., II, Whitaker, R. W., \& Klein, R. I. 1986,
610: ApJ, 305, 309
611:
612: \bibitem[]{} Kenney, J.D.P., \& Lord, S.D. 1991, ApJ, 381, 118
613:
614: \bibitem[]{} Klessen, R.S. 2000, ApJ, 535, 869
615:
616: \bibitem[]{} Klessen, R.S., Heitsch, F., \& MacLow, M.-M. 2000, ApJ, 535, 887
617:
618: \bibitem[]{} Kwan, J. 1979, ApJ, 229, 567
619:
620: \bibitem[]{} Kramer, C., Stutzki, J., Rohrig, R., \& Corneliussen, U. 1998, A\&A, 329, 249
621:
622: \bibitem[]{} Lada, E.A., Evans, N.J., II., \& Falgarone, E. 1997, ApJ, 488, 286
623:
624: \bibitem[]{} LaRosa, T.N., Shore, S.N., \& Magnani, L. 1999, ApJ, 512, 761
625:
626: \bibitem[]{} Larson, R.B. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809
627:
628: \bibitem[]{} Lazarian, A. 1995, A\&A, 293, 507
629:
630: \bibitem[]{} Lazarian, A., \& Pogosyan, D. 2000, ApJ, 537, 720
631:
632: \bibitem[]{} Lemme, C., Walmsley, C.M., Wilson, T.L., \& Muders, D.
633: 1995, A\&A, 302, 509
634:
635: \bibitem[]{} Loren, R.B. 1989, ApJ, 338, 902
636:
637: \bibitem[]{} MacLow, M.-M., \& Ossenkopf, V. 2000, A\&A, 353, 339
638:
639: \bibitem[]{} Mandelbrot, B.B. 1982, The Fractal Geometry of Nature,
640: (San Francisco: Freeman).
641:
642: \bibitem[]{} Motte, F., Andr\'e, P., \& Neri, R. 1998, A\&A, 336, 150
643:
644: \bibitem[]{} Nordlund, A., \& Padoan, P. 1999, in Interstellar Turbulence,
645: eds. J. Franco \& A. Carrami\~nana, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
646: p. 218
647:
648: \bibitem[]{} Ostriker, E.C., Stone, J.M., \& Gammie, C.F. 2001, ApJ, 546, 980
649:
650: \bibitem[]{} Pfenniger, D. \& Combes, F. 1994, A\&A, 285, 94
651:
652: \bibitem[]{} Pichardo, B., V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., Gazol, A.,
653: Passot, T., Ballesteros-Paredes, J. 2000, ApJ, 532, 353
654:
655: \bibitem[]{} Radhakrishnan, V., \& Goss, W.M. 1972, ApJS, 24, 161
656:
657: \bibitem[]{} Rosolowsky, E.W., Goodman, A.A., Wilner, D.J., \&
658: Williams, J.P. 1999, ApJ, 524, 887
659:
660: \bibitem[]{} Sasao, T. 1973, PASJ, 25, 1
661:
662: \bibitem[]{} Scalo, J.M., 1985, in Protostars and Planets II, ed.
663: D.C. Black and M.S. Matthews, Tucson: University of Arizona, 201
664:
665: \bibitem[]{} Scalo, J. 1990, in Physical Processes in Fragmentation
666: and Star Formation, eds. R. Capuzzo-Dolcetta, C. Chiosi, \& A.
667: Di Fazio, Dordrecht: Kluwer, p. 151
668:
669: \bibitem[]{} Scoville, N. Z., Sanders, D. B., \& Clemens, D. P. 1986, ApJ, 310, L77
670:
671: \bibitem[]{} Semelin, B., Combes, F. 2000, 360, 1096
672:
673: \bibitem[]{} Seth, K. 2000, PhD. Dissertation, Univ. of Maryland
674:
675: \bibitem[]{} Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., \& Yahil, A. 1987, ApJ, 319, 730
676:
677: \bibitem[]{} Spitzer, L., Jr., \& Jenkins, E.B. 1975, ARA\&A, 13, 133
678:
679: \bibitem[]{} Stanimirovic, S., Staveley-Smith, L., Dickey, J.M.,
680: Sault, R.J., \& Snowden, S.L. 1999, MNRAS, 302, 417
681:
682: \bibitem[]{} St\"utzki, J., Bensch, F., Heithausen, A.,
683: Ossenkopf, V., \& Zielinsky, M. 1998, A\&A, 336, 697
684:
685: \bibitem[]{} St\"utzki, J., \& G\"usten, R. 1990, ApJ, 356, 513
686:
687: \bibitem[]{} Tachihara, K., Hara, A., Obayashi, A., Yonekura, Y.,
688: Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., \& Fukui, Y. 2000, in From Darkness to Light: Origin and Early
689: Evolution of Young Stellar Clusters, eds. T. Montmerle \& P. Andr\'e,
690: ASP Conf. Series, in press
691:
692: \bibitem[]{} Tan, J.C. 2000, ApJ, 536, 173
693:
694: \bibitem[]{} Testi, L., \& Sargent, A.I. 1998, ApJ, 508, L91
695:
696: \bibitem[]{} Toomre, A., \& Kalnajs, A.J. 1991, in Dynamics of Disk Galaxies,
697: ed. B. Sundelius, University of Chalmers, p. 341
698:
699: \bibitem[]{} Vavrek, R. 2001, PhD Dissertation, Paris Observatory
700:
701: \bibitem[]{} V\'azquez-Semadeni, E. 1994, ApJ, 423, 681
702:
703: \bibitem[]{} V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., Ballesteros-Paredes, J.,
704: Rodriguez, L.F. 1997, ApJ, 474, 291
705:
706: \bibitem[]{} V\'azquez-Semadeni, E., Gazol, A., \& Scalo, J. 2000, ApJ, 540, 271
707:
708: \bibitem[]{} von Weizsacker, C.F. 1951, ApJ, 114, 165
709:
710: \bibitem[]{} Voss, R. 1988, in The Science of Fractal Images, eds.
711: H.O. Peitgen, \& D. Saupe, New York: Springer
712:
713: \bibitem[]{} Wada, K., \& Norman, C. A. 1999, ApJ, 516, L13
714:
715: \bibitem[]{} Wada, K., \& Norman, C. A. 2001, ApJ, 547, 172
716:
717: \bibitem[]{} Westpfahl, D.J., Coleman, P.H., Alexander, J., Tongue, T. 1999, AJ, 117, 868
718:
719: \bibitem[]{} Williams, J.P., de Geus, E.J. \& Blitz 1994, ApJ, 428, 693
720:
721: \bibitem[]{} Williams, J.P., Blitz, L. \& Stark, A. 1995, ApJ,
722: 451, 252
723:
724: \bibitem[]{} Whitmore, B.C., \& Schweizer, F. 1995, AJ, 109, 960
725:
726: \bibitem[]{} Zielinsky, M. \& St\"utzki, J. 1999, A\&A, 347, 630
727:
728: \bibitem[]{} Zhang, Q., \& Fall, S.M. 1999, ApJ, 527, L81
729:
730: \end{thebibliography}
731:
732: \clearpage
733:
734: \begin{figure}
735: \plotone{f1.eps}
736: \caption{(bottom) Histogram of density in the fractal model that
737: was made
738: from the inverse Fourier transform of noise with a power
739: law cut off. (top) Histogram of the fractal model used for the
740: cloud analysis, made from the exponential of the original fractal
741: in order to give a log-normal density distribution function. }
742: \end{figure}
743: \clearpage
744:
745: \begin{figure}
746: \plotone{f2.eps}
747: \caption{Three-dimensional fractal model clipped at 0.03 times
748: the peak intensity. This type of model has the closest agreement
749: to interstellar gas, giving the observed volume filling
750: factor and mass spectrum for clumps. }
751: \end{figure}
752: \clearpage
753:
754: \begin{figure}
755: \plotone{f3.eps}
756: \caption{Cloud mass spectra for three clipping levels relative to the
757: peak intensity. These spectra are averages over 10, 4, and 2 random
758: model fractals, respectively, and so the minimum counts of 0.1, 0.25,
759: and 0.5 correspond to mass intervals in which only one model had a cloud.
760: The solid curves are the mass spectra and the dashed lines are indicative
761: of the slopes. Lower clipping levels have lower minimum masses and higher
762: maximum masses, but about the same number of clouds at a given mass.
763: The mass is from the sum of the density values in each cloud and is in
764: arbitrary units. }
765: \end{figure}
766: \clearpage
767:
768: \begin{figure}
769: \plotone{f4.eps}
770: \caption{Running average slopes of the
771: cloud mass spectra, averaged from the lowest mass up
772: to the mass plotted on the abscissa (in arbitrary units).
773: Results for the three clipping levels are shown. The lowest
774: clipping level gives a power-law mass spectrum with the shallowest
775: slope, $\sim-1.7$. This shallow slope is
776: similar to the observed slope for interstellar clouds and clumps,
777: and it is also from the clipping level that gives the same
778: filling factor as real clouds. The steeper slopes for higher
779: clipping levels might be more appropriate for star clusters and
780: mm-continuum sources, which sample denser regions of clouds.
781: }
782: \end{figure}
783:
784: \clearpage
785:
786: \begin{figure}
787: \plotone{f5.eps}
788: \caption{Size spectrum for clouds in the model clipped at 0.03
789: times the peak. The power law nature of the cloud
790: size spectrum leads to the power law mass spectrum
791: even though the density distribution function is not a power
792: law, but a log-normal. The slope of the size spectrum can be used to
793: estimate the average fractal dimension.
794: }
795: \end{figure}
796: \clearpage
797:
798: \begin{figure}
799: \plotone{f6.eps}
800: \caption{Mass versus size for clouds found in the fractal models.
801: The clouds have a nearly constant density that scales with the
802: clipping value used to define them.
803: }
804: \end{figure}
805:
806: \begin{figure}
807: \plotone{f7.eps}
808: \caption{Cloud mass spectra for three clipping levels relative
809: to the peak intensity, as in Fig. 3, but now with clouds
810: defined by the resolved peaks, rather than by
811: all of the connected emission
812: above the clipping level.
813: The top panels are without noise, the bottom panels are for
814: a fractal with noise
815: added at the level of $\pm0.5e^{-3}$ times the peak density.
816: Only single models are shown here, not averages of
817: several models as in Fig. 3.
818: The mass is in arbitrary units.}
819: \end{figure}
820:
821: \begin{figure}
822: \plotone{f8.eps}
823: \caption{Running average slopes of the
824: noise-free
825: cloud mass spectra shown at the top of
826: Fig. 7, averaged from the lowest mass up
827: to the mass plotted on the abscissa (in arbitrary units).
828: Results for the three clipping levels are shown, as in
829: Fig. 4, but now with clouds defined by the resolved peaks.
830: }
831: \end{figure}
832:
833: \end{document}
834:
835: Cluster and stellar mass functions are not
836: snapshots in time, though, like cloud mass functions. For clusters and
837: stars, the geometric functions must be multiplied by the mass-dependent
838: clump formation rates to give final spectra. This steepens the slopes
839: by several tenths.
840: