1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %\documentclass[12pt]{aastex}
4: \usepackage{color}
5: \def\bmath#1{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}
6:
7: %% preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document:
8:
9: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
10:
11: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
12:
13: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
14:
15: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
16:
17: \slugcomment{Accepted by the Astrophysical Journal Letters}
18:
19: \shorttitle{Alignment of Outflows with Magnetic Fields}
20: \shortauthors{Matsumoto, Nakazato, and Tomisaka}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \title{Alignment of Outflows with Magnetic Fields in Cloud Cores}
25:
26: \author{Tomoaki Matsumoto\altaffilmark{1},
27: Takeshi Nakazato\altaffilmark{2,3},
28: and
29: Kohji Tomisaka\altaffilmark{4}}
30:
31: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Humanity and Environment, Hosei
32: University, Fujimi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8160, Japan,
33: matsu@i.hosei.ac.jp}
34: \altaffiltext{2}{National
35: Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan,
36: nakazato@nro.nao.ac.jp}
37: \altaffiltext{3}{Institut de Radioastronomie Millim\'{e}trique, 300 rue
38: de la Piscine, 38406 Saint Martin d'H\`{e}res, France}
39: \altaffiltext{4}{Division of Theoretical Astrophysics, National
40: Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan,
41: tomisaka@th.nao.ac.jp}
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: We estimate the polarized thermal dust emission from MHD simulations
45: of protostellar collapse and outflow formation in order to
46: investigate alignment of outflows with magnetic fields. The
47: polarization maps indicate that alignment of an outflow with the
48: magnetic field depends on the field strength inside the cloud core;
49: the direction of the outflow, projected on the plane of the sky, is
50: aligned preferentially with the mean polarization vector for a cloud
51: core with a magnetic field strength of 80~$\mu$G, while it does not
52: tend to be aligned for 50~$\mu$G as long as the 1000~AU scale is
53: considered. The direction of the magnetic field at the cloud center
54: is probed by the direction of the outflow. In addition, the
55: magnetic field at the cloud center can be revealed by {\it ALMA}
56: even when the source is embedded deeply in the envelope. The
57: Chandrasekhar-Fermi formula is examined using the polarization maps,
58: indicating that the field strength predicted by the formula should
59: be corrected by a factor of $0.24 - 0.44$. The correction factor
60: has a tendency to be lower for a cloud core with a weaker magnetic
61: field.
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \keywords{ISM: clouds --- ISM: jets and outflows --- MHD --- stars: formation --- polarization}
65:
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68: Magnetic fields are believed to control not only protostellar collapse,
69: but also formation of circumstellar disks and outflows. Many
70: observations have suggested that the outflow and jet axis of the young
71: star is aligned preferentially along the cloud-scale magnetic field
72: \citep*[e.g.,][]{Cohen84,Strom86,Vrba86,Vrba88,Tamura89,Jones03}.
73:
74: However, recent observations indicate a suggestion contrary to
75: previous ones concerning the issue of alignment of outflows and jets with the
76: magnetic fields. High-resolution observations of submillimeter
77: polarization have resolved the magnetic fields around young stars on a
78: $\sim 10^{3-4}$~AU scale, which is comparable to the outflow scale
79: \citep*{Momose01,Henning01,Wolf03,Vallee03}.
80: \citet{Wolf03} investigate alignment of outflows with
81: magnetic fields for Bok globules associated with Class 0 protostars
82: and Class I sources, suggesting that two Bok globules are associated
83: with outflows parallel to the magnetic fields, while the two other
84: globules are associated with outflows perpendicular to the magnetic
85: fields. For Classical T Tauri stars (CTTSs), \citet{Menard04} estimate
86: orientation of the symmetry axes of the disk-jet systems in the
87: Taurus-Auriga region, and
88: indicate that CTTSs are oriented randomly with respect to the local
89: magnetic field.
90: % They also suggest that
91: % CTTSs with resolved disks but without observations of bright and
92: % extended outflows have a tendency to align perpendicularly to the
93: % magnetic fields.
94:
95: % Although an outflow is driven by the magnetic fields on the scale of
96: % the protostar, their geometry can be hardly inferred from the submillimeter
97: % observations as long as the protostar is embedded deeply in the envelope;
98: % the degree of polarization decreases as increase in the intensity,
99: % and the magnetic fields of the envelopes in the foreground and background
100: % contribute significantly on the polarization along the line of sight.
101:
102: Recently, \citet{Matsumoto04} (hereafter MT04) have performed MHD simulations
103: of the collapse of magnetized cloud cores and reproduced outflow generation
104: in order to investigate the directions of outflows, circumstellar
105: disk, rotation, and magnetic fields. The simulations show that the
106: outflow tends to be aligned with a local magnetic field of a 10~AU scale
107: irrespective of the magnetic field strength assumed, while the
108: alignment depends on the field strength on the cloud core scale.
109: A disk-outflow system is aligned with the cloud core scale magnetic
110: field within $\sim 5^\circ$ and $\sim 30^\circ$ for the initial field
111: strengths of 37.1 and $18.6\,\mu$G, respectively, because of the
112: strong magnetic braking during the collapse. When a weak field
113: strength of $7.42\,\mu$G is assumed, the outflow is not aligned with
114: the cloud core scale magnetic field.
115: %
116: In this Letter, alignment of an outflow with magnetic field is
117: discussed by constructing polarization maps from the MHD simulations
118: of MT04.
119:
120: % In \S~\ref{sec:model}, the model of the cloud core and
121: % the method for estimate of polarized dust emission are shown. In
122: % \S~\ref{sec:results}, the reproduced polarization maps are examined.
123: % The results are discussed in
124: % \S~\ref{sec:discussion}.
125: %% The results are discussed and concluded in
126: %% \S~\ref{sec:discussion} and \S~\ref{sec:summary}.
127:
128:
129: \section{Cloud Model and Polarized Emission}
130: \label{sec:model}
131:
132: Polarization of dust emission is calculated from MT04 MHD simulation
133: data. The simulations follow the gravitational collapse of
134: cloud cores, formation of a first stellar core \citep{Larson69}, and
135: the launch of an outflow, resolving both the whole cloud core and the
136: protostar.
137: Polarization maps are
138: constructed by extracting the central cubic region (9128~AU)$^3$
139: from all the simulation data.
140:
141: The initial model of a cloud core is a slowly
142: rotating, spherical, isothermal cloud threaded by a uniform magnetic
143: field. The initial cloud core has the density
144: profile of a Bonnor-Ebert sphere \citep{Ebert1955,Bonnor1956}, and
145: the present model can be applied to Bok globules because Bok globules
146: are thought to have Bonnor-Ebert density profiles
147: \citep{Alves01,Harvey01,Racca02}.
148: The initial central density is set as $\rho_0 =1\times10^{-19}\,{\rm
149: g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$, which corresponds to a number density of $
150: n_0 = 2.61 \times 10^4\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ for the assumed mean molecular weight
151: of 2.3. The initial temperature of the gas is 10~K, the edge of the
152: cloud is located at $r =0.178$~pc from the center,
153: and the mass of the cloud is $6.130\,M_\odot$.
154: The initial angular velocity is assumed to be
155: $7.11\times10^{-7}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$.
156: In this Letter, the last stages of two models of MT04, models MF45 and WF45, are
157: shown. In these models,
158: the initial magnetic field
159: is inclined at an angle of
160: $\theta = 45^\circ$ from
161: % revised
162: %the initial rotation axis.
163: the initial rotation axis, which corresponds to the $z$-axis.
164: The initial magnetic field strengths $B_0$ are shown in
165: Table~\ref{table:models}.
166:
167:
168: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrr}
169: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
170: \tablecaption{Parameters and Properties of Model Cores\label{table:models}}
171: \tablewidth{0pt}
172: \tablehead{
173: \colhead{} &
174: \colhead{$B_0$} &
175: \colhead{$\bar{B}$} &
176: \colhead{$\bar{n}$} &
177: \colhead{$\phi_\mathrm{3D}$} \\
178: \colhead{Models} &
179: \colhead{($\mu {\rm G}$)} &
180: \colhead{($\mu {\rm G}$)} &
181: \colhead{(cm$^{-3}$)} &
182: \colhead{(deg)}
183: }
184: \startdata
185: % SF45 & 37.1 & 133 & $3.19\times10^5$ & 1.84\\
186: MF45 & 18.6 & 82.8 & $2.74\times10^5$ & 12.4\\
187: WF45 & 7.42 & 50.1 & $2.78\times10^5$ & 53.5
188: \enddata
189: \end{deluxetable}
190:
191: Table~\ref{table:models} also shows
192: the mean strength of magnetic field $\bar{B}$ and
193: mean number density $\bar{n}$ within the
194: region (9128~AU)$^3$ for comparison with polarization
195: maps in \S~\ref{sec:results}.
196: The mean values $\bar{B}$ and $\bar{n}$ are
197: considerably larger than the initial
198: values $B_0$ and $n_0$ because of amplification due to collapse.
199: %
200: Angle $\phi_\mathrm{3D}$
201: denotes a three-dimensional angle between
202: the direction of the mean magnetic field
203: within $r \le 50$~AU and that within $4555$~AU,
204: indicating change in the direction of the magnetic field
205: inside the cloud core (see Figs.~7 and 15 of MT04 for models MF45
206: and WF45, respectively), and
207: model WF45 shows an angle larger than that in
208: model MF45 because of the weak
209: magnetic braking.
210: %
211: The direction of the mean magnetic field within $r \le 50$~AU
212: approximately coincides with
213: the local direction of the outflow,
214: and is adopted here as an index of the direction of the outflow.
215:
216:
217: The polarization of dust emission is calculated following the analysis
218: of \citet{Fiege00} and \citet{Padoan01}. As these studies do, we focus on the thermal
219: dust emission at submillimeter wavelengths, neglecting scattering.
220: The Stokes parameters $Q$ and $U$ are proportional to the following
221: integrals of $q$
222: and $u$ when we assume that the grain properties and temperature are constant:
223: \begin{equation}
224: q = \int \rho \cos 2\psi \cos^2 \gamma ds,
225: \end{equation}
226: \begin{equation}
227: u = \int \rho \sin 2\psi \cos^2 \gamma ds,
228: \end{equation}
229: where the integrals $\int ds $ are performed along the line of sight,
230: $\rho$ denotes the gas density, $\psi$ is the angle between the
231: projection of the magnetic field on the plane of the sky and
232: the north, and $\gamma$ is the angle between the plane of the sky and
233: the local direction of the magnetic field. The polarization angle
234: $\chi$ is given by
235: $
236: \tan 2\chi = u/q,
237: $
238: % \begin{equation}
239: % \tan 2\chi = \frac{u}{q},
240: % \end{equation}
241: where $-\pi/2 \le \chi < \pi/2$.
242: The polarization vector with $\chi$ traces the polarization shown by
243: the B-vector of the submillimeter thermal emission, which is parallel
244: to the interstellar magnetic field on the plane of the sky.
245: The degree of polarization is calculated by
246: $
247: P = \alpha \left(q^2 + u^2 \right)^{1/2} / \left(\Sigma - \alpha \Sigma_2\right)
248: $
249: % \begin{equation}
250: % P = \alpha \frac{\left(q^2 + u^2 \right)^{1/2}}{\Sigma - \alpha \Sigma_2},
251: % \end{equation}
252: with
253: $
254: \Sigma = \int \rho ds
255: $
256: and
257: $
258: \Sigma_2 = (1/2) \int \rho \left( \cos^2 \gamma - 2/3 \right) ds,
259: $
260: % \begin{equation}
261: % \Sigma = \int \rho ds,
262: % \end{equation}
263: % \begin{equation}
264: % \Sigma_2 = \frac{1}{2} \int \rho \left( \cos^2 \gamma - 2/3 \right) ds,
265: % \end{equation}
266: where $\alpha$ is a parameter specified by the grain properties, and we
267: adopt a constant value of $\alpha = 0.15$ following \citet{Padoan01}.
268:
269:
270: \begin{figure*}[t]
271: \epsscale{1.2}
272: %\epsscale{0.9}
273: \plotone{f1.eps}
274: \figcaption[f1.eps]{
275: Polarization maps constructed from MHD data of the central (9182~AU)$^3$ box for
276: models ({\it a-c}) MF45 and ({\it d-f}) WF45 along the lines of sight
277: parallel to
278: ({\it a, d}) the $x$-axis,
279: ({\it b, e}) the $y$-axis,
280: ({\it c, f}) and the $z$-axis, respectively.
281: Vector traces the B-vector of the polarized thermal emission, and
282: is therefore parallel to the interstellar magnetic field lines on the
283: plane of the sky.
284: The length of the vector is proportional to the
285: degree of polarization, which is also shown by black contours
286: at 1~\% intervals.
287: The mean orientation of the polarization vector is denoted by
288: the thick green line.
289: Color scale and blue contours denote the surface density $\Sigma$,
290: which is proportional to the intensity of thermal dust emission when
291: the gas is assumed to be optically thin.
292: Thick red line denotes the projected direction of the mean
293: magnetic fields averaged over $r \le 50 \mathrm{AU}$, indicating
294: the direction of the outflow.
295: \label{f1.eps}
296: }
297: \end{figure*}
298:
299: \section{Results}
300: \label{sec:results}
301: \subsection{Polarization Maps of the Cloud Cores}
302: \label{sec:cloud}
303:
304: Figure~\ref{f1.eps} shows the polarization maps overlaid by the
305: % revised
306: %surface density for models MF45 and WF45 for three orthogonal lines of sight.
307: surface density for models MF45 and WF45 for three orthogonal lines of
308: sight ($x$, $y$, and $z$-directions).
309: %
310: The elliptical distribution of the surface density reflects
311: the flat infalling envelope for all the models and for
312: all the lines of sight (see Fig. 2 of MT04 for the
313: three-dimensional density and magnetic field structures of
314: model MF45).
315: %
316: The hourglass structure of magnetic fields in three dimensions
317: is projected directly on the polarization vector.
318: %
319: The orientations of the mean polarization vector (thick green line) are
320: perpendicular to the long axes of the surface densities.
321: %
322: The degree of polarization
323: along the long axis is less than that
324: along the short axis due to the hourglass structure of the field lines;
325: this field structure increases the component of the magnetic field parallel
326: to the line of sight $B_\mathrm{los}$ compared with the perpendicular
327: component $B_\perp$, and reduces the degree of polarization along the
328: flat envelope.
329:
330:
331: The outflows are hardly visible in the maps because the outflows are
332: extended up to only $\sim 200$ and 150~AU for models MF45 and WF45.
333: We adopt here the direction of the mean magnetic field within $r\le50$~AU
334: as an index of the direction of the outflow (thick red line).
335: %
336: %% The projected direction of the outflow is almost aligned with
337: %% the mean polarization vector (thick green line) for model MF45
338: %% irrespective of the lines of sight (Fig.~\ref{f1.eps}{\it a-c}), while
339: %% the alignment depends on
340: %% the line-of-sight for model WF45 (Fig.~\ref{f1.eps}{\it d-f}).
341: %
342: % revised
343: The projected direction of the outflow is almost aligned with
344: the mean polarization vector (thick green line) for model MF45
345: irrespective of the lines of sight (Fig.~\ref{f1.eps}{\it a-c})
346: because of a small intrinsic angle between the outflow and the
347: cloud core scale magnetic field ($\phi_\mathrm{3D}=12.4^\circ$).
348: On the other hand,
349: the alignment depends on
350: the line-of-sight for model WF45 (Fig.~\ref{f1.eps}{\it d-f})
351: because the outflow is not aligned with the magnetic field
352: intrincically ($\phi_\mathrm{3D}=53.5^\circ$).
353: %
354: When model WF45 is observed along the $x$-direction
355: (Fig.~\ref{f1.eps}{\it d}), the projected direction of the outflow
356: is aligned with the mean polarization vector by chance.
357: %
358: They are not aligned considerably when observed along
359: the $y$- and $z$-directions as shown in Figure~\ref{f1.eps}{\it e} and
360: \ref{f1.eps}{\it f}.
361:
362: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccc}
363: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
364: \tablecaption{Outflow Orientations and Estimate of Magnetic Field Strengths \label{table:pol}}
365: \tablewidth{0pt}
366: \tablehead{
367: \colhead{} &
368: \colhead{Line of } &
369: \colhead{$\phi_\mathrm{prj}$} &
370: \colhead{$\bar{\rho}$} &
371: \colhead{$\delta v$} &
372: \colhead{$\sigma_\chi$} &
373: \colhead{$B_\mathrm{CF}$} &
374: \colhead{$f$} \\
375: \colhead{Models} &
376: \colhead{Sight} &
377: \colhead{(deg)} &
378: \colhead{(g cm$^{-3}$)} &
379: \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} &
380: \colhead{(deg)} &
381: \colhead{($\mu$G)} &
382: \colhead{}
383: }
384: \startdata
385: % model xyz phi rho v_turb sigma B_CF
386: % SF45 & $x$ &$ -2.00$& $1.22\times10^{-18}$ & 0.170 & 9.26& 237.7 & 0.56 \\
387: % SF45 & $y$ & 0.258& $1.22\times10^{-18}$ & 0.181 & 9.98 & 234.4 & 0.57 \\
388: % SF45 & $z$ & 3.15 & $1.22\times10^{-18}$ & 0.155 & 9.14 & 219.2 & 0.61 \\
389: MF45 & $x$ & 4.40 & $1.04\times10^{-18}$ & 0.209 & 10.3 & 242.8 & 0.34 \\
390: MF45 & $y$ & 13.1 & $1.04\times10^{-18}$ & 0.214 & 11.0 & 233.2 & 0.35 \\
391: MF45 & $z$ & 9.62 & $1.04\times10^{-18}$ & 0.193 & 12.4 & 186.4 & 0.44 \\
392: WF45 & $x$ & $-3.02$& $1.06\times10^{-18}$ & 0.262&16.0 & 197.6 & 0.25 \\
393: WF45 & $y$ & 59.1 & $1.06\times10^{-18}$ & 0.251 & 14.3 & 212.2 & 0.24 \\
394: WF45 & $z$ & 86.5 & $1.06\times10^{-18}$ & 0.244 & 17.2 & 171.6 & 0.29
395: \enddata
396: \end{deluxetable*}
397:
398: More qualitatively,
399: Table~\ref{table:pol} shows $\phi_\mathrm{prj}$, which is defined as
400: an angle between the red and thick green lines.
401: %
402: This angle indicates that the direction of the outflow tends to
403: be aligned with the mean polarization vector on the plane of the sky
404: when a cloud core has a strong magnetic field of $\bar{B} \sim 80\mu$G.
405:
406: The polarization maps examined here demonstrate that the direction of
407: the magnetic field at the cloud center can not be inferred from the
408: polarization on the scale of this map ($\sim 10^3$~AU scale).
409: Model MF45 shows polarization maps similar to model
410: WF45, although the magnetic field at the cloud center
411: of Model MF45 is projected to quite different direction from that of Model WF45.The directions of the central magnetic field reflect
412: the those of outflows.
413: In other words, the direction of the outflow probes the
414: direction of the magnetic field at the cloud center.
415:
416: \begin{figure*}[t]
417: \epsscale{1.2}
418: %\epsscale{0.9}
419: \plotone{f2.eps}
420: \figcaption[f2.eps]{
421: Polarization maps convoluted by
422: the Gaussian beam with $\mathrm{FWHM} = 25 \mathrm{AU}$
423: toward the cloud center for model WF45
424: along the lines of sight
425: parallel to
426: ({\it a}) the $x$-axis,
427: ({\it b}) the $y$-axis, and
428: ({\it c}) the $z$-axis.
429: The beam pattern is denoted in the bottom left corner of each panel.
430: Thick line denotes
431: the projected direction of the mean
432: magnetic fields averaged over $r \le 50 \mathrm{AU}$,
433: indicating the direction of the outflow.
434: Grayscale and contours denote the surface density.
435: \label{f2.eps}
436: }
437: \end{figure*}
438:
439: Figure~\ref{f2.eps} simulates direct observations
440: toward the cloud center on the 100~AU scale
441: with high resolution of 25~AU
442: for the three lines of sight for model WF45.
443: These maps are
444: constructed by convolution of the polarization pattern of
445: Figure~\ref{f1.eps}{\it d}--\ref{f1.eps}{\it f}
446: with a Gaussian beam of $\mathrm{FWHM} = 25$~AU,
447: which corresponds to angular resolution of $0.1\arcsec$ for an object
448: at a distance of 250~pc, e.g., an observation toward B335 by {\it ALMA}.
449: %
450: In constructing Figure~\ref{f2.eps}, the envelope
451: of 9128~AU scale is taken into account similar to
452: Figure~\ref{f1.eps}{\it d}--\ref{f1.eps}{\it f}.
453: %On this scale,
454: On the scale of Figure~\ref{f2.eps},
455: the polarization
456: reveals the convergence of alignment between the disk-outflow system
457: and the magnetic field; nevertheless the protostar is embedded deeply in the envelope.
458: Figure~\ref{f2.eps} shows the polarization depending on the
459: lines of sight (see also Fig.~13 of MT04 for the three-dimensional structure).
460: %
461: Figure~\ref{f2.eps}{\it a} shows an edge-on view of the disk as
462: reproducing the considerably flat surface density, and the
463: polarization vector is almost perpendicular to the long axis of the
464: surface density. The bipolar outflow is extended up to 150~AU vertically
465: on the map, although it is hardly visible in both the
466: polarization and the surface density.
467: %
468: Figure~\ref{f2.eps}{\it b} also shows an edge-on view, exhibiting
469: a polarization pattern different from Figure~\ref{f2.eps}{\it a};
470: the polarization vector is oriented along the projected disk surface
471: because the radial component of the magnetic field in the hourglass structure
472: contributes $B_\perp$ there.
473: In $|z| \gtrsim 100$~AU, the polarization vector is still
474: perpendicular to the disk, similar to Figure~\ref{f2.eps}{\it a}.
475: %
476: Figure~\ref{f2.eps}{\it c} shows the change in the direction of the
477: mean magnetic field; the outflow, whose direction is indicated by
478: the thick line, is aligned with the central polarization vector.
479:
480: \subsection{Estimate of Field Strengths from Polarization Maps}
481: \label{sec:B}
482:
483: Magnetic field strength can be estimated from the polarization maps of
484: Figure~\ref{f1.eps} using the method of \citet{Chandra53}:
485: \begin{equation}
486: B_\mathrm{CF} = \left( \frac{4\pi}{3} \bar{\rho} \right)^{1/2}
487: \frac{\delta v}{\sigma_\chi},
488: \end{equation}
489: where
490: $\bar{\rho}$ denotes the mean density, estimated by averaging the surface
491: density over the map,
492: $\delta v$ denotes the rms gas velocity,
493: assumed as the velocity component parallel to the line of sight
494: superposed as $\delta v ^2= \int \rho v_\mathrm{los}^2 dV/\int \rho dV$,
495: and $\sigma_\chi$ denotes the standard deviation to the mean
496: orientation angle of the polarization vector.
497: The derived parameters $\bar{\rho}$, $\delta v$,
498: $\sigma_\chi$, and the estimated magnetic field strength $B_\mathrm{CF}$
499: are shown in Table~\ref{table:pol} for the three orthogonal lines of sight.
500:
501: The estimated field strengths range
502: from 186 to 242~$\mu$G for model MF45, and from 171 to 212~$\mu$G for
503: model WF45, exhibiting significant dispersion\footnote{
504: We confirmed that a method proposed by \citet{Houde04} can correct
505: a projection effect of the magnetic field.}.
506: % revison of ver 3.
507: Moreover, these field strengths are
508: $2-4$ times larger than the mean magnetic field strengths $\bar{B}$
509: (see Table~\ref{table:models}), which are obtained directly from MHD data.
510: In other words, the prediction of the Chandrasekhar-Fermi formula should
511: be corrected by a factor of $f = 0.34 - 0.44$
512: for model MF45 and $f = 0.24 - 0.29$ for model WF45, as shown in
513: Table~\ref{table:pol}.
514: \citet*{Ostriker01} and \citet{Padoan01} also report
515: such an overestimated field strength in application of
516: the Chandrasekhar-Fermi formula, and
517: obtain a correction factor of $f \simeq 0.4 - 0.5$, which
518: is consistent with our case.
519: %
520: \citet{Padoan01} discuss
521: the deviation from the prediction of the Chandrasekhar-Fermi formula as
522: being attributable to deviation from the linear theory, which is assumed by
523: \citet{Chandra53}.
524: The large values of $\sigma_\chi$ shown in Table~\ref{table:pol}
525: indicate that the Alfv\'en wave is nonlinear with large amplitude in our models.
526: Moreover, it is noteworthy that model WF45 exhibits larger
527: $\sigma_\chi$ than model MF45,
528: indicating that the correction is more significant for a cloud with
529: weaker magnetic field.
530:
531:
532: % \begin{equation}
533: % \sigma_\chi ^2 = \frac{1}{N}\sum_i^N \left( \chi_i - \bar{\chi}\right)^2 ,
534: % \end{equation}
535: % \begin{equation}
536: % v_\mathrm{turb} ^2 = \frac{1}{M} \int \rho v_\mathrm{los} ^2 dV ,
537: % \end{equation}
538: % \begin{equation}
539: % M = \int \rho dV ,
540: % \end{equation}
541:
542: \section{Discussion}
543: \label{sec:discussion}
544:
545: Activity of an outflow may be discussed in terms of alignment of
546: the outflow with the magnetic field.
547: The cloud core with stronger magnetic field exhibits a faster outflow as
548: shown in Figure 18 of MT04, and the outflow tends to be aligned with the
549: polarization vector. This indicates that the fast outflow is
550: observed parallel to the magnetic field. According to the observations
551: toward CTTSs, \citet{Menard04} suggest a similar tendency in
552: spite of the different evolutionary stage from that considered here:
553: CTTSs without bright and extended outflows have a tendency to be
554: perpendicular to the magnetic field.
555:
556:
557: The outflows are extended up to only $150-200$~AU in the MHD simulation
558: data used here, while the outflows observed by molecular line emission
559: are extended up to a 1000~AU scale \citep[e.g.,][]{Wolf03}.
560: Moreover, the outflows presented here have considerably slower velocity
561: than that observed around young stars.
562: Therefore the cloud cores presented here are restricted to
563: the very early evolutionary stage compared with the observed cloud cores.
564: This restriction arises in response to
565: computational cost for solving the launch
566: mechanism of the outflow near the protostar.
567: In further stages, the magnetic field hardly seems to affect the
568: direction of the outflow on the scale of 1000~AU, because
569: the outflow is accelerated at $r \sim 10$~AU at a speed
570: comparable to the Alfv\'en velocity at this radius,
571: and the magnetic field strength of the envelope
572: decreases rapidly, proportional to $B \propto r^{-1}$.
573: Moreover, the protostar may be
574: decoupled from the magnetic field of the envelope as a result of
575: efficient ambipolar
576: diffusion \citep*{Nakano02} in further stages. The directions of the
577: outflow will be fixed during the main accretion phase of the protostar.
578:
579: \acknowledgments
580:
581: Numerical computations were carried out on the VPP5000 supercomputer at the
582: Astronomical Data Analysis Center (ADAC) of the National Astronomical
583: Observatory, Japan.
584: This research was supported in part by
585: Grants-in-Aid
586: for Young Scientists (B) 16740115 (TM),
587: for Scientific Research (C) 14540233 (KT) and 17540212 (TM),
588: and for Scientific Research (B) 17340059 (TM, KT)
589: by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.
590:
591: \clearpage
592:
593: \begin{thebibliography}{}
594:
595: %\input{reference.tex}
596: \bibitem[Alves et al.(2001)Alves, Lada, \& Lada]{Alves01} Alves, J., Lada, C.~J., \& Lada, E.~A.\ 2001, \nat, 409, 159
597: \bibitem[Bonnor(1956)]{Bonnor1956} Bonnor, W. B. 1956, \mnras, 116,351
598: \bibitem[Chandrasekhar \& Fermi(1953)]{Chandra53} Chandrasekhar, S., \& Fermi, E.\ 1953, \apj, 118, 113
599: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(1984)Cohen, Rowland, \& Blair]{Cohen84} Cohen, R.~J., Rowland, P.~R., \& Blair, M.~M.\ 1984, \mnras, 210, 425
600: \bibitem[Ebert(1955)]{Ebert1955} Ebert, R. 1955, Z. Astrophys., 37, 222
601: \bibitem[Fiege \& Pudritz(2000)]{Fiege00} Fiege, J.~D., \& Pudritz, R.~E.\ 2000, \apj, 544, 830
602: \bibitem[Harvey et al.(2001)]{Harvey01} Harvey, D.~W.~A., Wilner, D.~J., Lada, C.~J., Myers, P.~C., Alves, J.~;., \& Chen, H.\ 2001, \apj, 563, 903.
603: \bibitem[Henning et al.(2001)]{Henning01} Henning, T., Wolf, S., Launhardt, R., \& Waters, R.\ 2001, \apj, 561, 871
604: \bibitem[Houde(2004)]{Houde04} Houde, M.\ 2004, \apjl, 616,
605: L111
606: \bibitem[Jones \& Amini(2003)]{Jones03} Jones, T.~J.~\& Amini, H.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1418
607: \bibitem[Larson(1969)]{Larson69} Larson, R.\ B.\ 1969, \mnras, 145, 271
608: \bibitem[Matsumoto \& Tomisaka(2004)]{Matsumoto04} Matsumoto, T., \& Tomisaka, K.\ 2004, \apj, 616, 266
609: \bibitem[Momose et al.(2001)]{Momose01} Momose, M., Tamura, M., Kameya, O., Greaves, J.~S., Chrysostomou, A., Hough, J.~H., \& Morino, J.-I.\ 2001, \apj, 555, 855
610: \bibitem[M{\' e}nard \& Duch{\^ e}ne(2004)]{Menard04} M{\' e}nard, F., \& Duch{\^ e}ne, G.\ 2004, \aap, 425, 973
611: \bibitem[Nakano, Nishi, \& Umebayashi(2002)]{Nakano02} Nakano, T., Nishi, R., \& Umebayashi, T.\ 2002, \apj, 573, 199
612: \bibitem[Ostriker et al.(2001)Ostriker, Stone, \& Gammie]{Ostriker01} Ostriker, E.~C., Stone, J.~M., \& Gammie, C.~F.\ 2001, \apj, 546, 980
613: \bibitem[Padoan et al.(2001)]{Padoan01} Padoan, P., Goodman, A., Draine, B.~T., Juvela, M., Nordlund, {\AA}., R{\" o}gnvaldsson, {\" O}.~E.\ 2001, \apj, 559, 1005
614: \bibitem[Racca, G{\' o}mez, \& Kenyon(2002)]{Racca02} Racca, G., G{\' o}mez, M., \& Kenyon, S.~J.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 2178
615: \bibitem[Strom et al.(1986)]{Strom86} Strom, K.~M., Strom, S.~E., Wolff, S.~C., Morgan, J., \& Wenz, M.\ 1986, \apjs, 62, 39
616: \bibitem[Tamura \& Sato(1989)]{Tamura89} Tamura, M.~\& Sato, S.\ 1989, \aj, 98, 1368
617: \bibitem[Vall{\' e}e, Greaves, \& Fiege(2003)]{Vallee03} Vall{\' e}e, J.~P., Greaves, J.~S., \& Fiege, J.~D.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 910
618: \bibitem[Vrba et al.(1986)]{Vrba86} Vrba, F.~J., Luginbuhl, C.~B., Strom, S.~E., Strom, K.~M., \& Heyer, M.~H.\ 1986, \aj, 92, 633
619: \bibitem[Vrba et al.(1988)Vrba, Strom, \& Strom]{Vrba88} Vrba, F.~J., Strom, S.~E., \& Strom, K.~M.\ 1988, \aj, 96, 680
620: \bibitem[Wolf et al.(2003)Wolf, Launhardt, \& Henning]{Wolf03} Wolf, S., Launhardt, R., \& Henning, T.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 233
621: \end{thebibliography}
622:
623:
624:
625: \end{document}
626: %%
627: %% End of file
628: