text:
# Turbulent Fragmentation and the Initial Conditions for Star Formation

## 1 Introduction

Despite early observational evidence of the highly super–sonic nature of molecular cloud (MC) turbulence (Zuckerman & Palmer 1974), there have been attempts to simplify the problem of star formation by: i) assuming that super–sonic turbulence behaves like sub–sonic laboratory turbulence; or by ii) focusing on the process of the formation of one single star, neglecting its larger scale environment. The first type of simplification has allowed theoreticians to consider super–sonic turbulence as a source of internal pressure, as suggested by Chandrasekhar (1958) for sub–sonic turbulence (e.g. Bonazzola et al. 1987, 1992). This simplification puts aside the most important characteristic of super–sonic turbulence, that is, the generation of a very fragmented density field by a complex system of turbulent shocks. The second type of simplification has allowed for the generation of analytical and numerical models for the collapse of proto–stars, based on quasi statically evolving proto–stellar cores (e.g. Shu, Adams & Lizano 1987), which are hard to reconcile with the turbulent medium from which they are formed. A complementary way to model the dynamics of MCs avoiding the problem of super–sonic turbulence has been the assumption that the observed line width of molecular transitions is not due to turbulence, but to Alfvén waves, that is, oscillations of a rather strong magnetic field (Arons & Max 1975; Zweibel & Josafatsson 1983; Elmegreen 1985; Falgarone & Puget 1986). However, even in this scenario, random motions and super–sonic shocks are generated by super–sonic compressions along magnetic field lines, and so the process of turbulent fragmentation is unavoidable, irrespective of the magnetic field strength.

Recent numerical studies of super–sonic magneto–hydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence have shed new light on the physics of turbulence. The most important results are: i) Super–sonic turbulence decays in approximately one dynamical time, independent of the magnetic field strength (Padoan & Nordlund 1997, 1999; MacLow et al. 1998; Stone, Ostriker & Gammie 1998; MacLow 1999); ii) The probability distribution function of gas density in isothermal turbulence is well approximated by a Log–Normal distribution, whose standard deviation is a function of the rms Mach number of the flow (Vazquez–Semadeni 1994; Padoan 1995; Padoan, Jones & Nordlund 1997; Scalo et al. 1998; Nordlund & Padoan 1999; Ostriker, Gammie & Stone 1999); iii) Super–sonic isothermal turbulence generates a complex system of shocks that fragment the gas very efficiently into high density sheets, filaments, and cores; iv) Super–Alfvénic turbulence provides a good description of the dynamics of MCs, and an explanation for the origin of dense cores with magnetic field strength consistent with Zeeman splitting measurements. (Padoan & Nordlund 1997, 1999).

We call “turbulent fragmentation” the process leading to the generation of high density structures (and low density “voids”) by turbulent shocks. In previous works we investigated the possibility that MCs are fragmented primarily by random super–sonic motions, assuming that self–gravity is important only in the densest regions, so we used numerical simulations of turbulent flows where the effects of self–gravity were intentionally disregarded (Padoan, Jones & Nordlund 1997; Padoan et al. 1998, 1999; Padoan & Nordlund 1997, 1999; Padoan, Zweibel & Nordlund 2000; Padoan et al. 2000). We found that many observational properties of MCs are indeed consistent with the properties of turbulent flows, which supports the suggestion that gravity is important only in the densest regions formed by turbulent shocks.

In this work we include the description of self–gravity, in simulations of three dimensional super–sonic MHD turbulent flows (§ 2). Self–gravity is here required because we are interested in selecting gravitationally bound (collapsing) protostellar cores, formed by the process of turbulent fragmentation. The mass distribution of proto–stellar cores, selected numerically as local maxima in the gas density, is computed in § 3. The value of this result is then confirmed by the comparison between the numerically selected cores and the observed NH3 cores, in § 4. The simulation also allows us to predict core properties, which are difficult to measure observationally and are therefore not well known, such as the magnetic field strength (§ 5). In § 6 we discuss the results of this work, and in § 7 we list our main conclusions.

## 2 The Numerical Simulations

### 2.1 The Equations

We solve the compressible MHD equations:

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}\rho }{t}+𝐯\mathrm{ln}\rho =𝐯,$$
(1)
$$\frac{𝐯}{t}+𝐯𝐯=\frac{P}{\rho }\mathrm{ln}P+\frac{1}{\rho }𝐣\times 𝐁\mathrm{\Phi }+𝐟,$$
(2)
$$\frac{e}{t}+𝐯e=\frac{P}{\rho }𝐯+Q_{\mathrm{dissipation}}+Q_{\mathrm{radiation}},$$
(3)
$$\frac{𝐁}{t}=\times 𝐯\times 𝐁,$$
(4)
$$𝐣=\times 𝐁,$$
(5)
$$^2\mathrm{\Phi }=C\rho $$
(6)
plus numerical diffusion terms, and with periodic boundary conditions. $`𝐯`$ is the velocity, $`𝐁`$ the magnetic field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the gravitational potential, $`𝐟`$ an external random force, $`e`$ the internal energy, $`P=\rho T`$ is the pressure at $`T`$ const. The isothermal approximation (see discussion in Padoan, Zweibel & Nordlund 2000) makes the energy equation (3) redundant, and so the $`Q_{\mathrm{dissipation}}`$ and $`Q_{\mathrm{radiation}}`$ are not defined here. The constant $`C`$ is given by:

$$C=\frac{4\pi Gl_0^2\rho _0}{v_0^2},$$
(7)
where the velocity is measured in units of $`v_0`$, length in units of $`l_0`$, time in units of $`l_0/v_0`$, and density in units of $`\rho _0`$. If the velocity is measured in units of the sound speed $`c_s`$, and the computational box size is $`L_0=Nl_0`$, where $`N`$ is the number of computational cells along one dimension of the numerical mesh, the constant $`C`$ can be expressed as:

$$C=\frac{1}{N^2}\left(\frac{v_{ff}^2}{c_s^2}\right),$$
(8)
where $`v_{ff}`$ is the free–fall time.

### 2.2 The Model

For the purpose of this paper we have run a numerical simulation of super–sonic, super–Alfvénic and self–gravitating MHD turbulence, by solving numerically the equations given above. As in our previous works, the initial density and magnetic fields are uniform; the initial velocity is random, generated in Fourier space with power only on the large scale. We also apply an external random force, to drive the turbulence at a roughly constant rms Mach number of the flow. This force is generated in Fourier space, with power only on small wave numbers ($`1<k<2`$), as the initial velocity.

We let the flow evolve for one dynamical time. In our previous simulations without self–gravity, we usually let the flow evolve and relax for many dynamical times, since all density structures are transient. With self–gravity this is not possible because the flow does not statistically relax, and continues to generate an increasing number of collapsing cores, and to accrete mass around them. Since our numerical resolution (1283 numerical mesh) allows only the description of the initial phase of the collapse of single cores (§ 2.3), results are progressively inaccurate at later times, when the numerical resolution cannot cope with the exceedingly high density. We therefore interrupt the simulation at a time when most cores are just recently formed and start to collapse, which is about one dynamical time of the large scale, $`t_{dyn}=L_0/\sigma _v`$, where $`L_0`$ is the linear size of the computational box, and $`\sigma _v`$ is the rms flow velocity.

Periodic boundary conditions and large scale external forcing are justified by the fact that we simulate a region of turbulent flow inside a larger turbulent molecular cloud. The rms Mach number of the flow is $`_s10`$, which corresponds to a linear size $`L_05`$ pc, and an average gas density $`<n>900`$ cm-3, using empirical Larson type relations (e.g. Larson 1981; Myers 1983; Fuller & Myers 1992). The average magnetic field in this model is rather weak, as justified by our previous work (Padoan & Nordlund 1997, 1999), and such that the average magnetic energy is of the order of the average thermal energy. Assuming a kinetic temperature $`T=10`$ K, the rms flow velocity is $`\sigma _v2.5`$ km/s, and the average magnetic field strength is $`B4.5`$ $`\mu `$G. Despite this low value of $`B`$, strongly magnetized cores are formed by the process of turbulent fragmentation (with field strength sometimes in excess of 100 $`\mu `$G), due to local compressions in the turbulent flow.

### 2.3 Proto–stellar Cores in Numerical Simulations of Super–Sonic Turbulence

Star forming cores in MCs have typical gas density of about 104 cm-3, and are part of larger clouds with density of the order of 103 cm-3. Although MCs have internal structure that spans a continuous range of gas density, these values are representative of clouds and cores on the scale probed by 13CO and NH3 transitions respectively. The initial density of individual proto–stellar cores (approximately 105 cm-3) is close to the maximum density achieved by a finite difference MHD code on a 1283 numerical mesh; when a scale of 5–10 pc and an average density of approximately 103 cm-3 are simulated. In such a simulation, with an rms Mach number $`_s10`$, a density contrast of about 5 orders of magnitude is typically achieved from a minimum density of 1 cm-3 to a maximum density of 105 cm-3. Higher densities, characteristic of collapsing proto-stellar cores, cannot be achieved with such a numerical tool. In a few years numerical simulations of the same sort, in a larger numerical mesh with size of the order of 10003, will become generally available and will allow the numerical description of the initial phase of the collapse of proto–stellar cores. The future application of smooth particle hydrodynamic (SPH) codes to the study of super–sonic turbulence with strong radiative cooling (Klessen, Heitsch & Mac Low 2000), or the future development of MHD codes on an adaptive mesh (Truelove et al. 1998) are also promising. Meanwhile, it is possible to investigate the role of self–gravitating turbulence in the formation of proto–stellar cores, even if only the initial conditions for the gravitational collapse of each core can be described numerically. The formation of collapsing cores in numerical simulations of super–sonic turbulence, and their rate of disruption by the turbulent flow, has been previously discussed by Klessen, Heitsch & Mac Low (2000), and Heitsch, Mac Low & Klessen (2000). These works focus on the issue of turbulent and magnetic support against local gravitational collapse. They conclude that local gravitational collapse cannot be avoided unless the turbulence is driven on scales smaller than the local Jeans length in the densest regions, or the magnetic field provides magnetostatic support.

## 3 The Mass Distribution of Collapsing Cores

In order to select collapsing cores from the numerical simulations, we have defined as cores density fluctuations with an amplitude of at least 2.5%,

$$\frac{\rho _{max}\rho _{iso}}{\rho _{iso}}0.025$$
(9)
where $`\rho _{max}`$ is the density value at the local density maximum that defines the fluctuation, and $`\rho _{iso}`$ is the density value of the density isosurface that delimits the mass assigned to the fluctuation. The isosurface is determined as the smallest density such that the whole region inside the isosurface contains only one density maximum that exceeds the isosurface value by 2.5%.

Density fluctuations of a 2.5% amplitude grow to only a 50% amplitude while the collapsing background has increased its density of about 3 orders of magnitude (Tohline 1980). Density fluctuations of smaller amplitude are unlikely to collapse away from the background before they (or the background) become rotationally supported. However, this choice of the 2.5% amplitude threshold is somewhat arbitrary, as discussed below (see § 6). According to the definition of core given above, we do not select cores that are fragmented into smaller ones. If at least two smaller cores are found inside a larger one, the latter is excluded from the sample. Moreover, only cores with gravitational energy in excess of the sum of thermal and magnetic energies are included in the sample because we are interested only in collapsing proto–stellar cores, that is, in super–critical ones. Sub–critical cores are transient density enhancement, which will re-expand or be destroyed by the turbulent flow, or will later accrete more mass in a dynamical time from the random turbulent flow to become super–critical and collapse. There is only a very small chance that sub–critical cores, formed by a turbulent flow, are found in equilibrium and are given the opportunity to maintain such equilibrium, for as long as the ambipolar drift time (cf. Nakano 1998). Therefore, although sub–critical cores can exist as transient structures, they are almost irrelevant to the process of star formation, contrary to the picture once proposed in the literature (Shu, Adams & Lizano 1987).

The mass distribution of collapsing cores, selected from the MHD simulations (MHD cores), is plotted in Figure 1 (left panel), as the number of cores per logarithmic mass interval. Cores above 2 $`M_{}`$ are selected by scaling the computational box to a physical size of 15 pc. Cores smaller than 2 $`M_{}`$ are selected after rescaling to a physical size of 5 pc. In order to match the two mass distributions, the total number of cores from the small scale has been multiplied by a factor equal to the ratio of the total mass contained in the two models. Since we scale the physical values of the average gas density in the computational box according to a Larson type relation, $`nL^1`$, the 5 pc model has an average density 3 times larger than the 15 pc model, and thus a total mass 9 times smaller. The number of cores selected from the 5 pc model has therefore been multiplied by a factor of 9. Each mass distribution extends above and below 2 $`M_{}`$, and match almost exactly in the mass range where they overlap. In order to plot them together, we have used only the mass range above 2 $`M_{}`$ for the 15 pc model and the mass range below 2 $`M_{}`$ for the 5 pc model.

The distribution in Figure 1 is a power law between 2 and 200 $`M_{}`$, with a slope, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.34`$, consistent with the Salpeter stellar initial mass function (IMF), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.35`$. At about 2 $`M_{}`$ the mass distribution flattens, and turns around at about 0.5 $`M_{}`$ (in these logarithmic units). The scale–free behavior at large and intermediate masses is due to the process of turbulent fragmentation. The initial flattening at about 2 $`M_{}`$ is caused by the magnetic pressure: for increasingly smaller masses, an increasing number of small density enhancements assembled by turbulence are found to be sub–critical (magnetic plus thermal energies in excess of the gravitational energy), and are therefore excluded from the sample because they are not collapsing. The cutoff at the smallest masses is mainly due to the thermal pressure, because most of the smallest cores are smaller than their own Jeans mass and are therefore excluded from the sample of collapsing cores.

In the plot in Figure 1 (left panel) there is no core below 0.2 $`M_{}`$. This particular value is set by the numerical resolution of the simulation that does not allow one to discern anything smaller. The actual cutoff, and also the mass of the turn–around of the distribution, should be somewhat smaller. Moreover, it is very likely that even individual proto–stellar cores fragment at least into a binary system. If the mass distribution of each member of a binary system is plotted, instead of the mass distribution of proto–stellar cores, the low mass end of the distribution is much more populated. As an example, we have computed the mass distribution of single components of the binary systems, assuming that each core fragments into two components, whose mass ratio is a uniformly distributed random variable with values between 0 and 1. The result is plotted on the right panel of Figure 1. The mass distribution of single components has its maximum value at approximately 0.3 $`M_{}`$, it is almost symmetric around the maximum, and it extends down to sub–stellar masses with a probability comparable to the one of the most massive stars. Expressed in linear mass units (dotted line), the mass distribution is almost flat below the maximum, which is found at approximately 0.2 $`M_{}`$.

Finally, the whole distribution should be shifted somewhat towards smaller masses, if it is to be compared with the stellar IMF (for example Luhman et al. 2000) since proto–stellar collapse is always accompanied by mass loss.

## 4 Numerical Cores and Observed NH3 Cores

In the previous section we have found that the mass distribution of collapsing cores in the MHD simulation (‘MHD cores’) is consistent with the stellar IMF. In order to confirm the validity of this result, it is useful to compare the physical properties of the MHD cores, with the properties of cores selected observationally via molecular line transitions. We use the NH3 core sample from Jijina, Myers & Adams (1999), which is a literature compilation of 264 NH3 cores. For the purpose of this work, we use 149 cores not associated with stellar clusters, as defined in Jijina, Myers & Adams’ sample, because they offer a more appropriate description of the initial conditions of star formation.

Figures 2 and 3 show the probability distribution of the radius, non–thermal line width, velocity gradient (rotation), and gas density of both NH3 and MHD cores (notice that all the histograms are in log units). Numerical and observed cores are very similar in size, amount of turbulence, rotation, and density. NH3 cores have slightly larger line width, which could be due to velocity superposition along the line–of–sight of physically unrelated gas. Average values and variances of each histogram are listed in Table 1. Slightly differences between the properties of MHD and NH3 cores are expected, because the properties of the MHD cores are here obtained directly from the three dimensional numerical data–cubes of density and velocity field. We have not tried to reproduce exactly the observational procedure by solving the radiative transfer through the data–cube. This more detailed comparison with the observations, via the computation of synthetic spectral maps, has been the subject of other works (Padoan et al. 1998, 1999, 2000).

In order to further compare the two core samples, we consider the “Type 2” correlation between size and line width (single–tracer multiple–cloud –Goodman et al. 1998), which we plot in Figure 4. The NH3 cores without a stellar cluster association are represented by open squares, and the MHD cores by asterisks. A least square fit is also shown for both samples. The line width versus size relations are remarkably similar; the slope is $`(0.56\pm 0.22)`$ for the NH3 cores, and $`(0.57\pm 0.15)`$ for the MHD cores (Table 1).

## 5 Magnetic Fields in Proto–Stellar Cores

The magnetic field strength, $`B`$, in proto–stellar cores is usually unknown, because it is very difficult to measure observationally. In order to compare $`B`$ in MHD cores with the observations, we need to refer to the few available detections and upper limits of $`B`$, which are based on OH or CN Zeeman splitting measurements, although such measurements apply to a variety of scales, and not just to proto–stellar cores. In Figure 5 we have plotted B versus the estimated H2 column density, using a sample of Zeeman splitting measurements from Bourke et al. (2000), which contains the previous sample by Crutcher (1999), a number of original detections and upper limits and the recent detections by Crutcher & Troland (2000) in L1544 and by Sarma et al. (2000) in NGC6334. Asterisks represent detections and triangles upper limits (19 detections and 31 upper limits). From the point of view of this work (see below), a conservative choice is to assume that the magnetic field strength is in all cases very close to the estimated upper limits. The dashed line in Figure 5 is a least square fit to the observations, where upper limits have been treated as if they were detections.

The numerical cores, represented by squares in Figure 5, follow almost exactly the same $`B`$$`N_{col}`$ relation as the observations (the solid line is their least square fit). We have also plotted in the same figure the line that marks the equality between magnetic and gravitational energies, $`=𝒲`$. All magnetic field detections but one are below that line, which means that all regions observed have gravitational energy in excess of the magnetic energy, and only 3 of the 31 upper limits and 1 of the 19 detections are above the line. Of the 80 numerical cores, only 3 are above the line. All numerical cores, including those three, are super–critical (gravitational energy in excess of the magnetic energy) and have been selected as such. They can be occasionally found above the line because they are elongated along the direction of the magnetic field (aspect ratio 2–3), which decreases their critical mass, relative to that of a spherical core with the same $`B`$ (McKee et al. 1993). Notice that several MHD cores with relatively large values of B are found, even in excess of 100 $`\mu `$G, although the average $`B`$ in the simulation is only 4.5 $`\mu `$G, making the large scale turbulence super–Alfvénic (Padoan & Nordlund 1999).

## 6 Discussion

In this work we have found that the mass distribution of collapsing cores is practically indistinguishable from the stellar IMF. This suggests that turbulent fragmentation is an essential ingredient in the generation of the stellar IMF. The computation of the mass distribution of cores relies on the selection of local maxima of the gas density in numerical simulations of super–sonic turbulence. This method contains some uncertainties, the most significant being the assumption that any single core, corresponding to a density fluctuation beyond a threshold amplitude, collapses as a single proto–star or as a binary system, if it is not initially fragmented into smaller fluctuations with amplitude larger than the same threshold. The particular value of the threshold of 2.5% is justified by the fact that fluctuations of smaller amplitude would hardly grow before they become rotationally supported. However, the true value could be anything between 1% and 4%, and may also have spatial variations. A smaller amplitude threshold produces a steeper mass distribution than a larger threshold, because it selects a larger number of smaller cores. The slope, which we found to be 1.34 for a 2.5% threshold, could therefore be anything between 1.2 and 1.5.

Recent observational data seem to confirm the present result, that is, turbulent fragmentation generates a mass distribution of proto–stellar cores very similar to the stellar IMF. Dust continuum observations (Motte, Andre & Neri 1998) and high density molecular tracers (Ohnishi et al. 2000), have shown that dense cores in MCs have a mass distribution consistent with the stellar IMF.

We have considered only super–critical cores, because they collapse and form stars. This is in sharp contrast with the usual description of low mass star formation as the result of the quasi–static evolution of sub–critical cores. The primary reason we do not consider sub–critical cores is that they are transient structures in a super–sonic turbulent flow. Sub–critical cores disperse, re–expand, or accrete more mass from the turbulent flow and become super–critical and collapse. The last possibility –accreting more mass– is in fact the usual mode of formation of super–critical cores, and it is a dynamical process, controlled by the turbulent flow. It is highly unlikely that a sub–critical core is formed in equilibrium at all, and even more unlikely that it is left undisturbed for as long as the ambipolar drift time–scale, as assumed in many low mass star formation theories.

We have shown that a super–sonic turbulent flow generates super–critical cores of very small mass, in the same proportion as required by the stellar IMF. There is, therefore, no “need” to form low mass stars from sub–critical cores. This new point of view on star formation suggests that star formation is a fast process, as also proposed by Ballesteros–Paredes, Hartmann & Vázquez–Semadeni (1999), Elmegreen (2000), and Hartmann (2000). Notice, however, that fast does not mean efficient. As an example, the mass distribution of collapsing cores presented in Figure 1 contains only $``$2% of the total mass in the simulation, which means that in a typical MC, after one dynamical time of the large scale, only a few percent of the total mass is locked into collapsing cores. Star formation is therefore inefficient on the scale of MCs because it occurs only on a small fraction of the total mass. This is ultimately the most important feature of super–sonic turbulence: the density field fragments in a very intermittent way, such that a significant mass fraction is found at densities irrelevant for the process of star formation, or inside very small dense cores that are sub–critical and therefore transient (they do not form stars).

The fast evolution of cores is also suggested by an extremely small fraction of starless cores in the sample of NH3 cores by Jijina, Myers & Adams (1999), and by the observed chemical abundances in dense cores (Bergin et al. 1997). Finally, we have shown that all Zeeman splitting measurements are consistent with cores being super–critical (Figure 5).

## 7 Conclusions

We have computed physical properties of collapsing cores, in a simulation of super–sonic, super–Alfvénic, self–gravitating MHD turbulence. The main results are: i) The mass distribution of collapsing MHD cores is consistent with the stellar IMF; ii) The size, density, line width and velocity gradient of MHD and NH3 cores are very similar; iii) MHD cores and observed NH3 cores show the same correlation between line width and size; iv) Proto–stellar cores with significant magnetic field strength, even in excess of 100 $`\mu `$G, are formed in a flow with a low average field strength, $`B4.5`$ $`\mu `$G; v) MHD cores show the same relation between magnetic field strength and column density as estimated with Zeeman splitting measurements.

The general conclusion is that turbulent fragmentation is essential to understand the generation of the stellar IMF. Furthermore, star formation, independent of the stellar mass, occurs via the collapse of super–critical cores formed inside super–sonic turbulent MCs, sub–critical cores being irrelevant for the process of star formation. This point of view conflicts with many years of literature on star formation, but it is very promising. It has become accessible to investigation only in the past few years, because of important advances in the field of numerical fluid–dynamics, due to the increased power of super–computers and three–dimensional visualization software.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by NSF grant AST-9721455. Åke Nordlund acknowledges partial support by the Danish National Research Foundation through its establishment of the Theoretical Astrophysics Center.

TABLE AND FIGURE CAPTIONS:

Table 1: Average values of core property distributions.

Figure 1: Left: Mass distribution of MHD cores. The selection of cores is incomplete at masses $`<0.5M_{}`$ (vertical dotted line), and no core is found below $`<0.2M_{}`$, because of the limited numerical resolution. Right: Mass distribution of single components of the binary systems, assuming that all cores fragment into a binary system, and that the mass ratio of the two components is a uniformly distributed random variable with values between 0 and 1. The dotted line shows the distribution computed in linear mass units.

Figure 2: Left: Probability distribution of core radii. Right: Probability distribution of core line width.

Figure 3: Left: Probability distribution of core velocity gradient. Right: Probability distribution of core density.

Figure 4: Non–thermal line width versus size for numerical cores (asterisks) and observed NH3 cores (squares).

Figure 5: Magnetic field strength versus H2 column density. Asterisks represent the Zeeman splitting measurements, and triangles upper limits (19 detections and 31 upper limits). The dashed line is a least square fit to the Zeeman splitting measurements, where upper limits have been treated as if they were detections. The solid line is a least square fit to the MHD cores (squares). The dotted–dashed line marks the equality between magnetic and gravitational energies.


format: text

text:
# 1 The differential cross-sections (1/𝜎_ℎ)(𝑑𝜎/𝑑𝑥_𝑝) for 𝜌⁰, 𝑓₀(980) and 𝑓₂(1270) mesons.

Production properties of the orbitally excited mesons $`f_0`$(980), $`f_2`$(1270), K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) and $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525) in Z0 hadronic decays

Vladimir UVAROV

Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Moscow region, Russia

DELPHI results are presented on the inclusive production of the neutral mesons $`\rho ^0`$, $`f_0`$(980), $`f_2`$(1270), K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) and $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525) in hadronic Z0 decays. They are based on about 2 million multihadronic events collected in 1994 and 1995, using the particle identification capabilities of the DELPHI Ring Imaging Cherenkov detectors and measured ionization losses in the Time Projection Chamber. The total production rates per hadronic Z0 decay have been determined to be: $`1.19\pm 0.10`$ for $`\rho ^0`$; $`0.164\pm 0.021`$ for $`f_0`$(980); $`0.214\pm 0.038`$ for $`f_2`$(1270); $`0.073\pm 0.023`$ for K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430); and $`0.012\pm 0.006`$ for $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525). The total production rates for all mesons and differential cross-sections for the $`\rho ^0`$, $`f_0`$(980) and $`f_2`$(1270) are compared with the results of other LEP experiments and with models.

1. INTRODUCTION

At LEP it has been observed that a large fraction of primary produced particles in hadronic Z0 decays are the orbitally excited states ($`L`$=1). For certain particles a significant disagreement with currently existing models has been observed. This is due to the fact that the physics of hadronization is not completely understood and these models cannot give sufficient guidance on possible differences in the production mechanisms of different mesons and on their dependences on spin and orbital momentum dynamics. In this view, studies of the production properties of the orbitally excited states are of particular interest.

This DELPHI analysis of the orbitally excited mesons $`f_0`$(980), $`f_2`$(1270), K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) and $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525) has recently been published  and only some key points and final results will be discussed here. Tight selection criteria were required to achieve the highest possible purities of particle identification of the DELPHI Ring Imaging Cherenkov (RICH) detectors and Time Projection Chamber (TPC). Good agreement between the data and about 3 million detector simulated hadronic Z0 decays was observed.

2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1 shows the final $`x_p`$ distributions obtained for $`\rho ^0`$, $`f_0`$(980) and $`f_2`$(1270), compared to a previous DELPHI analysis  and to available data from ALEPH , OPAL  as well as the JETSET prediction.

The previous DELPHI analysis was based on less statistics and did not apply particle identification. The DELPHI and OPAL results on the $`f_0`$(980) $`x_p`$ spectra agree quite well. The $`f_2`$(1270) $`x_p`$ spectra measured by DELPHI and OPAL agree in shape but differ by 1.3 standard deviations in the normalisation. The agreement of the spectra in Figure 1 with the JETSET prediction is very satisfactory. The shapes of the $`\rho ^0`$, $`f_0`$(980) and $`f_2`$(1270) $`x_p`$ spectra for $`x_p0.4`$ appear to be approximately the same. For $`x_p>0.4`$, there is some indication that the $`f_0`$(980) and especially the $`f_2`$(1270) $`x_p`$ spectra are harder than the $`\rho ^0`$ $`x_p`$ spectrum, in agreement with JETSET expectations.

The total production rates per hadronic Z0 decay for $`\rho ^0`$, $`f_0`$(980), $`f_2`$(1270), K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) and $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525) are presented in Table 1. It is interesting to compare the total production rates of the tensor mesons with the respective rates of the vector mesons. Taking the K∗0(892) and $`\varphi `$ total rates from : $`f_2(1270)/\rho ^0=0.180\pm 0.035`$, $`\mathrm{K}_2^0(1430)/\mathrm{K}^0(892)=0.095\pm 0.031`$ and $`f_2^{^{}}(1525)/\varphi =0.115\pm 0.058`$. The differences between these ratios might indicate, that this is a simple consequence of the difference in particle masses and the mass dependence of the production rates.

This suggestion is supported by Figure 3, where the total rates measured by DELPHI for the $`f_0`$(980), $`\rho ^0`$, K∗0(892), $`\varphi `$, $`f_2`$(1270), K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) and $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525) are plotted as a function of their mass squared. Anti-particles are not included in the K∗0(892) and K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) rates. Both the scalar and vector data points and the tensor data points are well described by exponentials of the form $`Ae^{BM^2}`$ (dashed lines). Figure 3 also shows that the mass dependence of the production rates is almost the same for three sets of data points: $`\rho ^0`$ and $`f_2`$(1270); K∗0(892) and K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430); $`\varphi `$ and $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525). These points are well fitted to the exponentials $`Ae^{BM^2}`$ (solid lines), with three different normalisation parameters $`A`$ but the same slope parameter $`B`$. Thus the relation between the production rates of tensor and vector mesons indeed appears to be very similar for different particles if the mass dependence of these production rates is taken into account.

The total production rates of the tensor mesons $`f_2`$(1270), K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) and $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525) are found to be rather small in absolute value, when compared with the vector meson production rates. This agrees with common expectations that the production of orbitally excited states is suppressed. However, recently it was noticed  that the production rates of orbitally excited mesons are larger by factor of 5 than those of states with no orbital momentum if the universal mass dependence of the production rates for the pseudoscalar and vector mesons and the octet and decuplet baryons is accounted for.

Another indication for the excess of orbitally excited mesons can be seen from Table 1, where a comparison of the data with the recently proposed thermodynamical model  is presented. This model provides a very good description of the total production rates for the pseudoscalar and vector mesons and for the octet and decuplet baryons. This is illustrated in Table 1 by a very good agreement between the model prediction and the data for the $`\rho ^0`$. However, comparison of the model predictions with the present DELPHI results for the total production rates of orbitally excited mesons indicates that the model underestimates their yields by about the same factor of 1.6–2.1, except for the $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525), where the experimental uncertainties are quite large.

The large excess of orbitally excited mesons with respect to the vector mesons can be explained by introducing the extra suppression factor $`2^k`$, where $`k`$ is the number of $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ quarks in the meson, as well as the spin factor $`2J+1`$. This is seen from Figure 3, where the total production rates of the orbitally excited  and vector (see  and references therein) mesons averaged from all available LEP measurements and weighted with factor $`2^k(2J+1)^1`$ are shown as a function of their mass. All data points are well described ($`\chi ^2/ndf`$=4.8/7) by exponential of the form $`2^k(2J+1)^1n=Ae^{bM}`$, with the parameters $`A=17.8\pm 3.9`$ and $`b=4.85\pm 0.24`$ (GeV/$`c^2`$)-1. Thus there is no excess of orbitally excited mesons with respect to the vector mesons, if the dependence of their production rates on mass ($`M`$), spin ($`J`$) and number of $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ quarks ($`k`$) is accounted for.

3. SUMMARY

The DELPHI results  on inclusive production of the $`\rho ^0`$, $`f_0`$(980), $`f_2`$(1270), K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) and $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525) in hadronic Z0 decays at LEP have been presented. They are based on a data sample of about 2 million hadronic events, using the particle identification capabilities of the RICH and TPC detectors, and supersede the previous DELPHI results , with which they are consistent. The following conclusions can be drawn.

* The total $`f_0`$(980) and $`f_2`$(1270) production rates per hadronic Z0 decay are $`0.164\pm 0.021`$ and $`0.214\pm 0.038`$ respectively. The $`f_0`$(980) and $`f_2`$(1270) momentum spectra are well described by the tuned JETSET model. The shapes of the $`f_0`$(980) and $`f_2`$(1270) momentum spectra are similar to that for the $`\rho ^0`$ for $`x_p0.4`$. For higher $`x_p`$ values there is some indication that the ratios $`f_0`$(980)/$`\rho ^0`$ and especially $`f_2`$(1270)/$`\rho ^0`$ may increase with $`x_p`$, in agreement with JETSET expectations. The total $`f_0`$(980) and $`f_2`$(1270) rates and their momentum spectra are consistent with the OPAL measurements .
* The total K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) and $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525) production rates per hadronic Z0 decay amount to $`0.073\pm 0.023`$ and $`0.012\pm 0.006`$ and are about half the size of the rates predicted by the tuned JETSET model. The total K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) rate is smaller by 1.8 standard deviations than the value $`0.238\pm 0.088`$ measured by OPAL  for $`x_E0.3`$ and extrapolated by us to the full $`x_E`$ range.
* The ratios $`f_2`$(1270)/$`\rho ^0`$, K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430)/K∗0(892) and $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525)/$`\varphi `$ are $`0.180\pm 0.035`$, $`0.095\pm 0.031`$ and $`0.115\pm 0.058`$ respectively. They appear to be somewhat different. However, the relationships between the production rates of the tensor and vector mesons for the $`f_2`$(1270) and $`\rho ^0`$, K$`{}_{2}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$(1430) and K∗0(892), $`f_2^{^{}}`$(1525) and $`\varphi `$ are found to be very similar when the mass dependence of the production rates is accounted for.

REFERENCES

 DELPHI Collab., P. Abreu et al., Phys. Lett. B 449 (1999) 364.

 DELPHI Collab., P. Abreu et al., Z. Phys. C 65 (1995) 587.

 ALEPH Collab., D. Buskulic et al., Z. Phys. C 69 (1996) 379.

 OPAL Collab., K. Ackerstaff et al., E. Phys. J. C 4 (1998) 19.

 F. Becattini, Z. Phys. C 69 (1996) 485; private communication.

 DELPHI Collab., P. Abreu et al., Z. Phys. C 73 (1996) 61.

 P.V. Chliapnikov, V.A. Uvarov, Phys. Lett. B 423 (1998) 401; ibid 345 (1995) 313.

 OPAL Collab., R. Akers et al., Z. Phys. C 68 (1995) 1.

 OPAL Collab., K. Ackerstaff et al., E. Phys. J. C 5 (1998) 411.


text:
# The global structure of thin, stratified 𝛼-discs and the reliability of the one layer approximation

## 1 Introduction

Recent investigations on MHD turbulence have confirmed the existence of a mechanism able to extract angular momentum from weakly magnetized accretion discs (Balbus & Hawley, 1991; Fleming, Stone & Hawley, 2000; Miller & Stone, 2000). Many aspects of accretion are, however, still not understood. In the meanwhile, present disc models mostly incorporate the $`\alpha `$-prescription (Shakura & Sunyaev, 1973) and are of increasing complexity. For instance, models of steady state, Keplerian, vertically stratified $`\alpha `$-discs (e.g. Cannizzo, 1992; Hameury et al., 1998; D’Alessio et al., 1999) should definitely supplant the more widespread, vertically averaged version (Pringle, 1981) which, despite a great simplicity and flexibility, cannot account for fine physical effects, remains in essence somewhat limited and contains some artefacts, like degenerate solutions (Collin-Souffrin & Dumont, 1990). Vertically explicit disc models offer in principle a much better reliability but, due to the uncertainty on the $`\alpha `$-formalism, they require an extra prescription specifying the depth-dependence of the viscous energy release (Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister, 1982; Mineshige & Osaki, 1983; Cannizzo & Cameron, 1988; Hameury et al., 1998). From a numerical point of view, the bi-dimensional problem which involves partial/ordinary differential equations is much less trivial to solve than the vertically averaged problem, also meaning a much larger computational time (by a factor $`1001000`$ say, corresponding to the typical resolution in the $`z`$-direction). It is therefore legitimate to ask, from a quantitative point of view at least, which benefits the vertically explicit model really brings. The aim of this report is to show how, for steady Keplerian $`\alpha `$-discs, the one layer approach and the vertically explicit approach compare. The main motivation is both to seek where the differences appear in an $`\alpha `$-disc and to quantify these as functions of the accretion rate and value of the viscosity parameter. This investigation concerns three generic systems containing a disc: an active galactic nucleus, a young stellar object and a dwarf nova.

## 2 Vertically explicit vs. vertically averaged models: hypothesis and restrictions

We compare the structure of steady state Keplerian accretion discs computed from the vertically averaged model (hereafter, the VA-model) and from the vertically explicit model (hereafter, the VE-model). The difference between the two resides therefore in the resolution of the vertical stratification. This analysis is carried out in the framework of the $`\alpha `$-theory (Shakura & Sunyaev, 1973), with a uniform $`\alpha `$-parameter value. For a detailed description of the models, the reader is referred to Huré (1998, 2000).

In order to give a meaning to the comparison, the two models are made as close as possible and reduced to their simplest form. In particular, we use the same Rosseland and Planck opacity grids and equation of state corresponding to a solar mix at LTE for both models. Convective transport is not taken into account in the VE-model, for several reasons. First, it cannot be included in the one layer version. Second, it plays a role in regions of high opacity, namely where hydrogen recombines. In the framework of the Mixing Length Theory (e.g. Cox & Giuli, 1968), the disc region mainly involved has a small size and convection does not drastically change the disc structure (Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister, 1982; Cannizzo, 1993). Note that the weak effect of convection is sustained in the work by Gu, Vishniac & Cannizzo (1999). Third, as explained below, we shall not analyze the region where the one layer has multiple solutions and which precisely encompasses the convectively unstable zone.

Also left aside is external irradiation. It depends on many parameters and has little effect on the global quantities (midplane temperature, surface density, etc.) as long as the disc remains optically thick. Regarding the depth-dependent viscosity prescription, we adopt the most common parameterization of the heat flux gradient, namely

$$\frac{dF}{dz}=\frac{3}{2}\alpha P\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{K}$$
(1)
where $`P`$ is here the total pressure and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{K}`$ is the Keplerian angular velocity. We also neglect the disc self-gravity.

## 3 Results

The disc structure depends mainly on three input parameters: the central mass $`M`$, the accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$ and value of the $`\alpha `$-viscosity parameter. The departures between the VA-model and the VE-model are measured at the same radius $`R`$ by the ratio

$$ϵ(x)=\frac{x^{\mathrm{VE}\mathrm{model}}}{x^{\mathrm{VA}\mathrm{model}}}$$
(2)
where $`x`$ is one of the following quantities: the temperature $`T_{\mathrm{mid}}`$ (the subscript “mid” refers to the midplane), half the disc thickness $`h`$ (taken as the altitude of the photosphere’s base in the VE-model and as the pressure scale height in the VA-model), the density $`\rho _{\mathrm{mid}}`$, the total surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{t}=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\rho 𝑑z`$ and the optical thickness $`\tau _\mathrm{t}=2_0^+\mathrm{}\kappa \rho 𝑑z`$. Note that $`ϵ`$ is a function of the radius.

Figure 1 displays $`h(R)`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{mid}}(R)`$ obtained from the two models for parameter values $`(M,\dot{M},\alpha )`$ typical of a dwarf nova (DN) disc, a young stellar object (YSO) disc and a disc in an active galactic nucleus (AGN). We see that the VE-model always gives a slightly thicker and hotter disc than the VA-model, but the agreement is globally rather good. The other quantities, not shown here, compare very well too.

In order to test the sensitivity of these results to the values of the input parameter values, we have performed a series of computations by varying the accretion rate and the value of $`\alpha `$, for any of the above three systems. This amounts to about $`29000`$ runs in total. Since the one layer model yields a multivalued solution (MVS), not present in the VE-model (Cannizzo, 1992), the comparison has been restricted to the hot, inner and cold, outer branches located on both sides (see Fig. 1). The approximate location of the MVS region will be specified later.

Figure 2 displays iso-values of the quantity $`ϵ(T_{\mathrm{mid}})`$ in the $`(\mathrm{log}\dot{M},\mathrm{log}R)`$plane in the AGN case, for the canonical values $`M=10^8`$ M and $`\alpha =0.1`$. From this data grid, the maximum and minimum deviations on the temperature ratio can easily be extracted. So, we find $`1ϵ(T_{\mathrm{mid}})1.2`$ over the radial domain and for accretion rates indicated in Table 1. We have repeated this procedure for the other four key quantities $`h`$, $`\rho _{\mathrm{mid}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{t}`$, and for $`\alpha =0.01`$ as well. Table 2 summarizes the results. We notice that the agreement between the two approaches is excellent, indeed. The midplane temperature is slightly underestimated with the VA-model, by a factor never exceeding $`20\%`$ (in the cold outer disc) for any $`\alpha `$, which is remarkable given the crudeness of this model. The other quantities are a little bit more affected by the vertical averaging: we have a mean factor $`2`$ on the central density and $`1.5`$ on the optical thickness and surface density. The largest departures are observed on the disc thickness, with a factor reaching $`4`$ in the cold, outer disc. The sensitivity to the value of the $`\alpha `$-viscosity parameter is weak, even null for the temperature. However, the trend is that the deviations seem smaller with a smaller value of the $`\alpha `$-parameter, except for $`h`$.

We have carried out similar computations in the YSO and DN cases. The domains of calculation, specific to each system (Gullbring et al., 1998; Horne, 1998), are listed in Table 1 and the results are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 respectively. Globally, the conclusions drawn in the AGN case still hold. The best agreement between the two models is observed in the DN case. In particular, the temperature ratio is constant ($`1.1`$) throughout, whatever the value of $`\alpha `$. However, for $`\alpha =0.1`$ and for the lowest accretion rates examined, the optical thickness becomes close to unity in the outer disc and so the optically thick approximation underlying the two models becomes doubtful. This produces a specially large ratio $`ϵ(T_{\mathrm{mid}})1.7`$.

We point out that the deviations between the two models are largest in the vicinity of the MVS region, on the hot branch side (see Fig. 1). Since our radial resolution (set to $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}=0.1`$ in the present calculations) is finite, it is expected that the “real”, maximum deviations (i.e. the deviations resulting from an infinite resolution) are probably slightly different to those reported in the tables.

Gathering the results obtained for the three systems considered here, we find that the MVS region which more or less encompasses the thermally unstable regime where hydrogen recombines (Meyer & Meyer-Hofmeister, 1982) is located at

$$R_{\mathrm{MVS}}(1\pm 0.6)\times 10^{15}\alpha ^{0.2}M_0^{0.34}\dot{M}_0^{0.44}\mathrm{cm}$$
(3)
where the mass $`M_0`$ and accretion rate $`\dot{M}_0`$ are expressed in M and M/yr respectively. The universal character of this expression can easily be understood from power law solutions of the VA-model (Huré, 1998), given that the MVS region (see Fig. 2) is roughly bounded by isotherms.

## 4 Concluding remarks

Given the ranges of parameter values (masses, accretion rates and viscosity parameter values) considered in this study, we can conclude that the vertically averaged model of steady state Keplerian $`\alpha `$-discs is remarkably reliable, since it provides solutions very close to those obtained from the vertically explicit version. The midplane temperature appears as the quantity least sensitive to the vertical averaging (with a $`30\%`$ deviation only) whereas the disc thickness seems the most affected (a factor $`4`$ in some cases). Problems dealing with the disc irradiation (even with a global energy budget) should therefore account for vertical stratification since the disc response is sensitive to the local flaring angle and radial gradient (Kenyon & Hartmann, 1987).

This investigation demonstrates that the vertically averaged approach should be sufficient for many applications (e.g. Pringle, 1997; Burderi, King & Szuszkiewicz, 1998; Collin & Huré, 1999), in particular if the level of accuracy required on the disc structure is low or moderate. Note however that the tables given here can be used to “correct” the vertically averaged solution if a better precision is necessary. More basically, these tables show the typical error on the knowledge of the disc structure, that is, some methodology effect. It is interesting, but comforting, to see that the model is much more sensitive to the physics it contains (like turbulent viscosity, convection, opacities, etc.) than to the method used to derive the disc structure.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank M. Mouchet for reading the manuscript, D. Richard, and the referee, Dr John K. Cannizzo, for interesting remarks, specially regarding convection.