text:
# The origin of paramagnetic magnetization in field-cooled YBa2Cu3O7-δ films

## I Introduction

One of the fundamental properties of superconductors is ideal diamagnetism in magnetic fields smaller than the first critical field ($`H<H_{c1}`$), the so-called Meissner effect. However, a number of measurements carried out in superconductors has revealed a paramagnetic signal in the temperature dependence of the magnetic moment ($`m(T)`$) which appears upon cooling down the samples in a magnetic field through the transition temperature $`T_c`$ (the field cooling regime) 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 8 ; 9 . In this case, the paramagnetic contribution exceeds the diamagnetic part, leading to an overall paramagnetic signal. This effect is called the paramagnetic Meissner effect (PME) or Wohlleben effect 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 8 ; 9 . Three theories have been suggested to account for the origin of the effect. (i) The $`d`$-symmetry of the order parameter can lead to the existence of spontaneous “paramagnetic” super-currents in the superconductor due to the presence of $`\pi `$-contacts 10 . (ii) The Koshelev-Larkin (KL) model 11  considers the redistribution of Abrikosov vortices trapped in the superconductor upon the transition to the superconducting state, leading to the appearance of the paramagnetic signal in $`m(T)`$. (iii) The giant vortex state, existing in the surface superconductivity state, can also lead to a total paramagnetic signal if the temperature is decreased and the trapped flux within the giant vortex is compressed 12 ; 13 . The observations of PME in conventional superconductors with $`s`$-symmetry 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 8 ; 9  has indicated that $`d`$-symmetry of the order parameter is not a necessary condition for the appearance of PME. The giant vortex approach outlined in Refs. 12, ; 13,  assumes a special geometry with the sample’s extended surfaces oriented parallel to the field in order to facilitate the appearance of the giant vortex state. However, a large number of experiments have been carried out on films in fields perpendicular to the largest film surfaces. Therefore, the quantitative comparison of theoretical dependences obtained in the framework of the giant vortex model 12 ; 13  with experimental results is inadequate due to the necessity of taking into account the real boundary conditions. Nevertheless, this model can be the most appropriate for the explanation of PME in the vicinity of the superconducting transition, since fluctuations of the order parameter do not permit the formation of a pure Abrikosov vortex state, which is a necessary condition for the explanation of PME in the framework of the KL model. Well below $`T_c`$ (or below the irreversibility line $`T_{\mathrm{irr}}`$) the KL model is the most suitable one for the description of $`m(T)`$ in thin films. Therefore, the analysis of the experimental results obtained in this work will be carried out within the framework of this model.

In this work temperature dependences of the magnetic moment have been measured over a wide magnetic field range in YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO) thin films grown by different methods. The experimental results obtained have been analyzed in the framework of the KL model 11 , which turns out to be the most appropriate for our experimental conditions.

## II Growth and characteristics of epitaxial YBCO films

Single crystalline high temperature superconducting (HTS) YBCO thin films have been investigated in this work. The films were grown by (i) pulsed-laser deposition (PLD) 14  and by (ii) off-axis DC magnetron sputtering 15  techniques. These techniques produce epitaxial films with the crystallographic $`c`$-axis oriented perpendicular to the film surface 16 ; 17 . In this case, as shown by high resolution electron microscopy streif ; penn ; svech , the films grown on a mismatched substrate develop numerous out-of-plane edge dislocations. The dislocations are usually arranged in so-called dislocation walls (rows), forming 30 to 250 nm large domains. The domains are typically misaligned by $`0.5^{}`$ to $`2^{}`$, depending on film growth conditions. In this work, a $`300`$ nm thick PLD film (PP17) with $`T_c87.9`$ K, as well as two $`300`$ nm thick magnetron sputtered films (K21 and K1509) with $`T_c86.5`$ K have been investigated. The most extensively investigated K1509-film was sputtered onto a rotating sapphire substrate buffered by CeO2 with a diameter of 51 mm. All the films investigated have a quite narrow transition width of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c=0.2`$ to 0.5 K and a high critical current density of $`J_c2\times 10^6`$ A/cm2 at $`T=77`$ K in self-field. The film growth rate of the magnetron sputtering was approximately 0.01 to 0.02 nm/s. In these films, the layer-by-layer (nearly two-dimensional) growth mechanism is realized. In contrast, in the films grown by the PLD procedure with a growth rate of 0.1 to 0.2 nm/s, the three-dimensional island-like mechanism is most likely to occur. Therefore, the magnetron sputtered films usually have a significantly smaller density of stacking faults and accompanying dislocation loops ($`10^9`$ lines/cm2 as estimated by high resolution electron microscopy 21 ) than is in the case of the PLD films. The size of the domains in the magnetron sputtered films is usually larger (up to 250 nm), as well as more ordered and equidistantly spaced than in the PLD films. The misalignment angles are typically $`<1^{}`$ ieee ; 21 . The average density of the edge dislocations is likely to be slightly smaller than in the PLD films. Similar characteristics should be expected for the K1509-film with $`J_c(H=0,T=77\mathrm{K})2.34\times 10^6`$ A/cm2.

All the measured pieces of the films were of a similar rectangular shape with dimensions $`1.5`$ mm2.

## III Experimental details

The temperature and field dependences of the magnetic moment were investigated by employing a Quantum Design MPMS SQUID magnetometer in fields $`|H|5`$ T and temperatures $`5T95`$ K. The temperature dependences were measured in the field-cooled (FC) regime, i.e. the films were cooled through $`T_c`$ with a magnetic field applied.

The MPMS SQUID detection system comprises SQUID sensing loops configured as a highly balanced second-derivative pickup coil set with a total length of $`3`$ cm. The coils are designed to reject the uniform field from the superconducting magnet to a precision of approximately 0.1%. The magnetic moment of a sample is calculated from the response curve of the SQUID pickup coils which is measured as the sample moves through the coils along a scan length (typically 4 cm). The temperature of the sample is measured, depending on the temperature range, either by a sensor fixed at the null point of the pickup coils in the cooling annulus around the sample space or by a sensor located under the bottom of the sample tube MPMS . This quite “remote” temperature sensing is expected to be insensitive to any possible temperature gradient along the scan length. Experimentally, we did observe some temperature destabilization at scan lengths $`7`$ cm, which is a common feature for this kind of instrument. This observation can imply that we do indeed deal with a temperature gradient. Accordingly, the smaller the scan length is, the smaller the difference between the minimal and maximal temperatures will be. Therefore, the possibility of significant temperature fluctuations in the measured samples becomes negligible for sufficiently small scan lengths.

The $`J_c(H,T)`$ dependencies shown in Fig. 1, which are necessary for the quantitative result analysis, have been obtained from the width of the magnetization loops ieee . The so-obtained $`J_c(H,T)`$ were highly consistent with $`J_c(H,T)`$ obtained by the direct transport method and from Clem-Sanchez analysis 22  of AC susceptibility measurements of the films in perpendicular fields ieee . The $`J_c(H,T)`$ behavior has suggested ieee  that the mechanisms of critical current limitation can be attributed to strong pinning of vortices on linear defects, most likely edge dislocations which are perpendicular to the film surface.

## IV Experimental results

The FC dependences of $`m(T)`$ measured in the K1509, PP17 and K21 films are qualitatively consistent with each other, and therefore, in what follows, the results for the K1509-film will be shown. The measurements at different cooling rates (0.05, 0.1, 0.25 and 0.5 K/min) and different scan lengths (4, 2, 1.5, 1 and 0.75 cm) are exhibited in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. As can be seen, different cooling rates do not have a significant qualitative influence on the $`m(T)`$ behavior. The small discrepancies might be explained either by temperature lags at the highest sweep rates or by the influence of the magnetic flux distribution effects described in the next section. In contrast, changes in scan length qualitatively modify the $`m`$ behavior below $`T_c`$. As the temperature is further decreased the $`m`$ signal rises, and the signals become comparable for all the measured scan lengths. The $`m(T)`$ behavior has also been measured at different magnetic fields (Fig. 4). As the field changed by more than three orders of magnitude the $`m`$ value was changed by less than one order of magnitude over the temperature range of the measurements.

The characteristic features of the dependencies in Figs. 2-4 are as follows. (i) The diamagnetic response is absent below $`T_c`$ at the scan length $`1`$ cm. At shorter scan lengths a magnetic moment $`<0`$ can be measured in the vicinity of $`T_c`$. (ii) The change in $`m`$ is rather moderate compared to the large change in $`H`$. In addition, $`m(T)`$ depends non-monotonously on the applied field. (iii) The paramagnetic value of $`m`$ monotonically increases in decreasing temperature, indicating the absence of saturation. Feature (iii) has been obtained in a number of works 1 ; 4 , whereas features (i) and (ii) are observed for the first time.

The measurements indicate that the profile of the trapped magnetic flux which determines the value of the $`m`$ signal may be influenced by certain experimental conditions, such as the scan length and the applied magnetic field. As will be shown in the next section, changes in the $`m`$ value observed in the experiments are governed by relatively small changes in the vortex compression. Moreover, we show that the vortex compression in the films is extremely sensitive to seemingly negligible changes in experimental conditions, which can explain various experimental results reported on the paramagnetic Meissner effect in the literature and in Fig. 3.

## V Theoretical consideration

As was mentioned in Sect. I, from the point of view of the real geometry of the experiment, the most likely mechanism for the appearance of the PME is the inhomogeneous redistribution of vortices upon cooling a YBCO film below $`T_c`$. Note that in this case the term – Paramagnetic Meissner Effect (PME) - would inappropriately reflect the nature of the effect, which should be rather referred to as the Paramagnetic Effect or the Positive Magnetization Effect (PME). Vortex distributions leading to the PME are considered in the model developed by Koshelev and Larkin 11 . The geometry of this model is shown in Fig. 5. The model assumes that if the film is cooled down below $`T_c`$ in a perpendicular field $`H_z`$ then, firstly, the film enters the vortex (mixed) state and, secondly, the gradient of vortex density in the region $`|x|<|b|<|w|`$ corresponds to $`J_c`$. Such a density can be formed due to the interaction between vortices and surface Meissner currents (“sheet currents”), which forces vortices inward from the film edges. $`b`$ characterizes the degree of the vortex compression and unambiguously defines the magnetic flux through the film:

$$f=\mathrm{\Phi }_H\frac{4dJ_c}{cH_z}\mathrm{\Phi }_J,$$
(1)
provided that $`J(|x|<|b|)=J_c`$ and $`f=\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }/2wH_z`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the full magnetic flux through the film, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_H=E(k)(1k^2)K(k)`$ is the field contribution, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_J=[E(k)(1k^2)K(k)]\mathrm{ln}[(1+k)/(1k)]2kK(k)`$ is the shielding current contribution. $`E(k)`$ and $`K(k)`$ are the complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kinds, respectively, $`k=b/w`$.

In the case of a $`2w`$ wide, $`d`$ thick and infinitely long film (Fig. 5), the density of the magnetic moment $`m_\rho (H_z,T)`$ is the sum of two components 11 :

$$m_\rho =\frac{H_zw}{8d}\left(m_H\frac{4dJ_c}{cH_z}m_J\right),$$
(2)
where $`m_H=1k^2`$ is the diamagnetic part of the Meissner currents and $`m_J=(1k^2)\mathrm{ln}[(1+k)/(1k)]+2k`$ is the paramagnetic part, arising due to the gradient of the vortex density. The total magnetic moment $`m(H_z,T)`$ is $`m_\rho (H_z,T)`$ multiplied by the film volume.

The $`J_c`$ dependence on temperature results in $`b`$ being temperature dependent. In turn, this leads to two independent variables, $`J_c`$ and $`k`$, in Eq. (2). This fact does not allow us to directly calculate the critical current density and parameter $`k`$ (and $`f`$) from $`m(H_z,T)`$ alone. Independent measurements on these films provided us with $`J_c(H_z,T)`$ 18 ; 19 , which turned out to be well described by the following empirical formula

$$J_c(H_z,T)=J_{c0}(H_z)(1T/T_c)^\alpha ,$$
(3)
where $`J_{c0}(H_z)=J_{c0}(0)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\mathrm{ln}(H^{}/H_z)`$ at $`H_zH_{tr}`$ and $`J_{c0}(H_z)=J_{c0}(0)`$ at $`H_zH_{tr}`$. $`H_{tr}=H^{}\mathrm{exp}(1/\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$ defines the crossover field from the plateau to the decreasing part of $`J_c(H_z)`$ (Fig. 1) 18 ; 19 . The temperature dependence of $`H^{}`$ is $`H^{}H_{\mathrm{eff}}(1T/T_c)`$. For the YBCO films the parameters $`J_{c0}(0)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are determined by the conditions and method of preparation. The variation of these parameters is negligible for films obtained under the same preparation conditions. These parameters can be independently obtained from transport, AC susceptibility and magnetization measurements at low temperatures. For the K1509 film, the following values were obtained $`\alpha 1.13`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }0.24`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}6.4\times 10^4`$ Oe ieee . $`J_{c0}(0)`$ was chosen so that $`J_c`$ at $`T=77`$ K is equal to the experimentally obtained value of $`2.34\times 10^6`$ A/cm2, therefore, $`J_{c0}(0)=2.34\times 10^6(177/T_c)^\alpha `$ A/cm2.

For the detailed quantitative analysis of the experimental data, the dependencies obtained for the K1509 film (Fig. 4) have been used. Using Eqs. (1) and (2), as well as the experimentally obtained formula (3), we have calculated the temperature dependences of the parameters $`k`$ and $`f`$ for the vortex arrangement in the film (Figs. 6 and 7, respectively). In the immediate vicinity of $`T_c`$, where the critical current density is rather small, the PME cannot be obtained in the frame of the KL model 11 . Therefore, the behavior in Figs. 6 and 7 was obtained within the temperature range of the KL model applicability. Note that our experimental geometry and, correspondingly, our current distribution are different from the geometry shown in Fig. 5. However, there are no analytical expressions for $`m(k,H,J_c)`$ for our case of finite sample length. The existing expressions for a circular sample 11  would only insignificantly shift the $`f(t)`$, $`k(t)`$ curves along the corresponding ordinate axis, where $`t=T/T_c(H)`$ with $`T_c(H)`$ being the critical temperature obtained from the experiments performed at corresponding fields. Moreover, the magnetic response of a sample weakly depends on its shape wurl . Thus, the original KL model can be employed.

It is shown that for relatively high fields ($`H_z>100`$ Oe) the $`m(T)`$ behavior corresponds to the case of weak vortex compression ($`1k<<1`$). For low fields ($`<10`$ Oe) the compression becomes quite large ($`k<<1`$) at low temperatures, which does not allow us to use the asymptotical relationship between the parameters $`m`$, $`k`$ and $`f`$ obtained in Ref. 11, , justifying the use of the exact expressions (1) and (2).

In the low field region a small difference in the paramagnetic moment (Fig. 4) can be entirely explained by a small change in the flux and the compression of the vortex arrangement in the film (for example, as a result of flux creep). This is due to the fact that over this field range $`J_c`$ does not depend on the applied field (Fig. 1). In high fields, the degradation of $`J_c`$ in increasing field is compensated by an increase in the magnetic flux in the film (Fig. 7) and a decrease in the vortex compression (Fig. 6). In this case, the weak compression regime ($`1k<<1`$) is realized, i.e. the vortices almost entirely fill up the film. As the temperature decreases, vortices near the film’s edges can freely leave the film (due to flux creep) via edge micro-cracks and other defects inherent to every film zeldov . This process results in increasing compression and decreasing flux in decreasing temperature.

Despite the fact that the $`m(t)`$ dependence on the field is non-monotonic (Fig. 4), $`f(t)`$ and $`k(t)`$ monotonically increase with increasing field for all the fields except $`H=5`$ Oe (Fig. 7a). Moreover, in contrast to the $`f(t)`$ behavior for all the other measured fields, $`f(t)`$ at $`H=5`$ Oe starts increasing in decreasing temperature at $`t<0.965`$. This deviation of $`f(t)`$ from monotonic behavior as a function of field and temperature at the lowest measurement field can be explained by the entry of additional vortices from the film edges as the temperature is decreased. The conditions for entry are defined by the sheet currents, which, in turn, significantly depend on the degree of vortex compression in the film. Vortex entry through the edges of the film in this case is facilitated by the small number of vortices and the strong compression in the field as a result of relatively large sheet currents.

### V.1 $`m(T)`$ behavior as a function of the scan length

The parameters of the KL theory, the vortex compression $`k`$ and the magnetic flux $`f`$ within the film also enable us to quantitatively account for the $`m(T)`$ behavior as a function of the scan length (Fig. 3). Indeed, the PME can be affected by inhomogeneity of the magnetic field inside the magnet scan , which can influence the flux profile within the film. From the curves in Fig. 3 it is possible to estimate a magnetic field change ($`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$) or field gradient in the magnet, which would result in the different $`m(T)`$ behavior as a function of the scan length. In the general case, the magnetic moment can be written as $`m=m(k,H)`$, so its change is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m\frac{m}{k}\mathrm{\Delta }k+\frac{m}{H}\mathrm{\Delta }H.$$
(4)
It can be equivalently rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m\left(\frac{m}{k}\frac{k}{H}+\frac{m}{H}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }H,$$
(5)
where $`k/H`$ is unknown function and can only be roughly estimated with the help of the experimental data in Fig. 6. Therefore, we have used Eq. (4) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ estimations.

Assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }H=0`$, in Fig. 8 we show the calculated change of the compression coefficient ($`\mathrm{\Delta }k=k(4\mathrm{cm})k(1\mathrm{cm})`$) of the frozen vortex ensemble in the K1509 film measured under the same conditions, but with two different scan lengths: 4 cm and 1 cm (Fig. 3). As can be seen, the change in the maximum does not exceed 0.01%, which corresponds to a maximum change in the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ within the film of $`0.03`$%. The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=f(4\mathrm{cm})f(1\mathrm{cm})`$ can be calculated either similarly to $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ by direct solution of Eqs. (1-3), or in agreement with the expression $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(t,J_c(t))=(f(t)/k)\mathrm{\Delta }k(t)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }k(t)`$ is the dependence in Fig. 8. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(t)`$ behaves essentially the same as $`\mathrm{\Delta }k(t)`$.

If we now assume that in Eq. (4) $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=0`$ (correspondingly $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=0`$), which is a priori not correct, we can calculate the maximal field change ($`\mathrm{\Delta }H^{\mathrm{max}}`$) responsible for the maximal $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m(4\mathrm{cm})m(1\mathrm{cm})`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }H^{\mathrm{max}}50`$ Oe for $`H=500`$ Oe (Fig. 3). Apparently, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H^{\mathrm{max}}<0`$, since $`m/H<0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m>0`$ (see Eqs. (2), (4), and Fig. 3). Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }k>0`$, this field change can be considered as a significantly overestimated 10% field gradient over the 4 cm scan length in the magnet bore along its axis.

It is worth mentioning that the magnetic flux change $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ within the film does not necessarily imply the entry or exit of vortices. This is because for a given amount of vortices the flux is defined by their gradient ($`J_c`$) and compression ($`k`$). This means that with a fixed amount of vortices we get different values of $`f`$ by changing $`k`$. Changes in $`k`$ mainly occur due to changes in the sheet currents, flowing in vortex free film regions (Fig. 5). Thus, the discrepancies between the $`m(T)`$ curves in Fig. 3 are due to changes in the magnetic flux profile in the film, which are, in turn, caused by inhomogeneous field distribution in the magnet.

Moreover, as the sample moves through the SQUID pickup coils it is likely to experience not only the field inhomogeneity, but also the temperature gradient along the length of the scan. The latter factor would play a boosting role in redistribution of the flux profile, which would occur due to temperature variations within the sample. In the vicinity of $`T_c`$, the effect of the temperature variations can be even more pronounced due to strong fluctuations of the superconducting order parameter. The influence of the temperature gradient is a rather unpredictable factor, which may depend on temperature, the parameters of the temperature controller and the level of liquid helium inside the cryostat. In addition, the field gradient of a magnet can also be a variable. It may depend on the field pre-history and the remnant field scan . Therefore, the influence of these factors on the flux profile may have led to somewhat non-reproducible $`m(T)`$ behavior in Fig. 3 and might explain various experimental results available in the literature 1 ; 3 ; 5 ; 7 ; 8 ; 9 .

The question arises why three orders of magnitude of the external field introduce a relatively small change in $`m(T)`$ behavior (Fig. 4), whereas a small field gradient $`<10`$% can introduce not only comparative changes in $`m(T)`$, but also a qualitative change at small scan lengths (Fig. 3). The first part of the question is dealt with in the previous subsection, where the compensating interplay between $`k(T,H)`$ and $`J_c(T,H)`$ is identified in the quasi-static, steady scenario. What if the field is suddenly changed (due to the gradient). This change would affect the sheet currents and, correspondingly, the vortex arrangement, i.e. $`k`$. The degree of the vortex re-arrangement depends on the vortex mobility, which, in turn, can depend on $`H`$ and $`T`$. On the other hand, the $`J_c(H)`$ change would be negligible, since $`J_c\mathrm{log}H`$ (Eq. (3)). Therefore, the change in $`k`$ is not compensated by the degradation of $`J_c`$, as discussed in the previous subsection. This imbalance between the paramagnetic and diamagnetic contributions can lead to considerable, even qualitative changes in the $`m(T)`$ behavior observed (Fig. 3).

An additional factor, which can contribute to differences in FC $`m(T)`$ behaviors for similar samples, is structural imperfection. In films as in our case, differences in the quality of the film edges can also define the structure of the vortex ensemble in the films zeldov  and, together with field and temperature gradients, lead to some differences between $`m(T)`$ behaviors observed for different films produced and measured under similar conditions.

## VI Conclusion

In conclusion, the origin of the paramagnetic Meissner effect in experimental $`m(H,T)`$ dependences obtained in YBCO films was shown to be in good quantitative agreement with the model of vortex compression proposed in Ref. 11, . For a consistent description of the $`m(H,T)`$ dependencies in the frame of the model, the experimental $`J_c(T,H)`$ dependence has to be taken into account, and this was independently determined in Refs. ieee, ; 18, ; 19, . Upon changing the applied field by three orders of magnitude, the absolute value of the PME is changed by less than one order of magnitude. This change can be explained by, firstly, the field independent behavior of $`J_c`$ at $`H<100`$ Oe and, secondly, by the degradation of $`J_c(H)`$ at $`H>100`$ Oe, which is compensated by a sharp decrease of the vortex compression ($`1k<<1`$) and magnetic flux in the film. The discrepancies between the experimental curves of $`m(T)`$ obtained at different scan lengths can be accounted for by the influence of field and temperature gradients along the scan length of the samples.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank A. L. Kasatkin, A. V. Semenov and J. Horvat for useful and fulfilling discussions and T. Silver for reading the manuscript and critical remarks. D.A.L. and V.M.P. are grateful to the University of Leipzig for support and hospitality, as well as to Deutsche Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) for financial support through Leonard Euler’s Programme. This work was also financially supported by the Australian Research Council.


format: text

text:
# Quiescent and coherent cores from gravoturbulent fragmentation

## 1 Introduction

Understanding the processes that lead to the formation of stars is one of the fundamental challenges in theoretical astrophysics. It is well known that stars form in dense cores within molecular clouds, but the physical processes that control the formation of low-mass stars within these cores are not well understood yet.

The traditional scenario assumes that low-mass protostellar cores are in quasi-static equilibrium supported against gravitational collapse by a combination of magnetic and thermal pressures (see, e.g., Shu, Adams & Lizano 1987). A core forms stars once magnetic support is lost through a process called ambipolar diffusion. Neutral gas particles slowly drift through the ions which are held up by the magnetic field, allowing the core to eventually attain a critical mass-to-flux ratio. Then the gravitational energy exceeds the magnetic energy and collapse sets in from the inside-out.

The theory of gravoturbulent star formation (see, e.g., the reviews by Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2000; Larson 2003; Mac Low & Klessen 2004, and references therein), on the other hand, suggests that clouds and cores are formed by compressible motions in the turbulent velocity field of their environment (e.g. von Weizsäcker 1951; Sasao 1973; Hunter & Fleck 1982; Elmegreen 1993; Padoan 1995; Ballesteros-Paredes, Hartmann & Vázquez-Semadeni 1999a; Ballesteros-Paredes, Vázquez-Semadeni & Scalo 1999b; Klessen et al. 2000; Padoan et al. 2001a; Heitsch et al. 2001; Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2004). Those cores with an excess of gravitational energy collapse rapidly to form stars, while the others with sufficiently large internal or kinetic energies re-expand once the turbulent compression subsides.

Observational evidence suggests that low-mass stars form from molecular cloud cores with column density profiles that often resemble those of Bonnor-Ebert111Ebert (1955) and Bonnor (1956) describe the equilibrium density structure of isothermal gas spheres confined by an external pressure as solution of the Lane-Emden equation. equilibrium spheres (Alves, Lada, & Lada 2001, see also the review by André, Ward-Thompson, & Barsony 2000), and with velocity dispersions that are small, i.e. transonic, or even subsonic (Myers 1983; Barranco & Goodman 1998; Goodman et al. 1998; Jijina, Myers, & Adams 1999; Caselli et al. 2002; Tafalla et al. 2004). For this reason such cores are often termed “quiescent”. Moreover, if the measured line-of-sight (l.o.s) velocity dispersion of a core is independent of column density towards the maximum, then it is called “coherent” (Barranco & Goodman 1998). In the scenario of magnetically mediated star formation (Shu et al. 1987) these structures are explained as consequences of the quasistatic contraction process. In the gravoturbulent theory, however, protostellar cores are transient features naturally generated by the dynamical flow in the cloud. In order to test this theory, it is necessary to show that these fluctuations exhibit properties similar to those of the observed cores.

Several groups have now began to study core properties in numerical simulations of gravoturbulent cloud fragmentation (e.g., Ostriker, Stone & Gammie 2001; Padoan et al. 2001a,b; Ballesteros-Paredes & Mac Low 2002; Gammie et al. 2003; Li et al. 2004; Schmeja & Klessen 2004; Jappsen & Klessen 2004; Tilley & Pudritz 2004; Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2004). In particular, Ballesteros-Paredes, Klessen & Vázquez-Semadeni (2003, hereafter called Paper I) demonstrated that indeed transient, dynamic cores have an angle-averaged column density structure that often resembles that of hydrostatic Bonnor-Ebert profiles. This analysis was based on numerical calculations by Klessen, Burkert & Bate (1998), Klessen & Burkert (2000, 2001), and Klessen et al. (2000), and applied a fitting procedure similar to that used by Alves, Lada, & Lada (2001).

In this paper we focus on the velocity structure of protostellar cores, and compare with the data available for observed quiescent, low-mass cores. In §2 we summarize the main features of the numerical models used, and explain how we analyze the density and velocity structure. In §3.1 we show that the density fluctuations that we identify with protostellar cores often have very small and nearly spatially constant turbulent l.o.s velocity dispersion, even though they are produced by highly turbulent supersonic flows. In §3.2 we discuss the energy budget of the cores. Finally, in §4 we summarize and interpret our results in terms of the gravoturbulent fragmentation model of star formation.

## 2 Numerical simulations and core sample

An important prerequisite for adequately describing the density and velocity structure of cores in numerical models of gravoturbulent molecular cloud evolution is the ability to resolve high density contrasts at arbitrary locations within the cloud. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH; see Benz 1990, Monaghan 1992) is probably the best method currently available for this purpose.

The properties of our numerical scheme and resolution issues in the context of gravoturbulent fragmentation have been extensively discussed in Paper I (see also Klessen et al. 2000, or Klessen 2001). Once the density contrast in the center of a collapsing cloud core exceeds a density contrast of about $`10^4`$ a “sink” particle is created (Bate et al. 1995). It replaces the central high-density region and has the ability to accrete further infalling material while keeping track of mass and linear and angular momentum. However, the internal structure of the sink particle is not resolved. With a diameter of about 600 AU it fully encloses the star/disk system expected to form roughly 1000 years after the critical density for sink particle formation is reached (Wuchterl & Klessen 2000).

The numerical resolution limit of our numerical scheme is determined by the Bate & Burkert (1996) criterion, which is sufficient for the highly nonlinear fluctuation spectrum considered here. This is confirmed by resolutions studies with up to $`10^7`$ SPH particles (see Jappsen et al. 2004). It should be noted, however, that the Bate & Burkert (1996) criterion may not be sufficient for adequately following the growth of linear perturbations out of quasi-equilibrium, as was suggested for the case of rotationally supported disks by Fisher, Klein, & McKee (private communication).

We analyze two models, one labeled LSD, in which turbulence is driven on large scales, of wavelength $`\lambda 1/2`$ of the computational box, and the other labeled SSD, in which energy is injected on smaller scales, of $`\lambda 1/8`$ of the box. We consider the system at an evolutionary stage when 5% of the available gas mass is accumulated in collapsed cores. Note that in Paper I we also studied cores from a contracting Gaussian density field (GC) without turbulence. Since in this paper we focus on the turbulent velocity structure, that simulation is not considered here.

To identify cloud cores we use the 3-dimensional clump-finding algorithm introduced in Appendix A of Klessen & Burkert (2000). We then project a cubic subregion of the full computational volume centered around the core along the three principal axes, and compute the column density $`N`$ and the total, turbulent-plus-thermal l.o.s velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ of each core. We take $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}^2=\sigma _{\mathrm{turb}}^2+c_\mathrm{s}^2`$, where the turbulent velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{turb}}`$ is obtained as the mass-weighted standard deviation of the velocity field in each line-of-sight along the projection axis, and $`c_\mathrm{s}^2`$ is the sound speed of the mean particle ($`\mu =2.3m_\mathrm{H}`$). This assumes optically thin emission throughout the subcube, and gives us a direct estimate of the true physical state of the system. An in-detail comparison with observations requires to consider specific molecular emission lines tracing various density regimes and to take optical thickness effects into account.

Since each projection in general gives different values of $`N`$, core size $`R`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$, we treat each projection as an independent case. We have increased the number of analyzed cores in comparison to Paper I by taking the first 200 cores identified in each of the LSD and SSD simulations. For the quiescence and coherence studies we only consider “starless” cores and exclude those with collapsed central regions, i.e. with a sink particle in their interior. For the energy budget analysis, however, we do include cores with sinks, as they allow for comparison with observations of cores containing young stellar objects. In order to avoid repetition, we analyze fields with multiple cores detected by the clumpfinding algorithm only once. This procedure yields a sample of 44 cores for the LSD model, and 101 for SSD without central collapsed object, plus 15 and 10 fields with sink particles for LSD and SSD models, respectively. Altogether, we analyze $`(44+101)\times 3=435`$ column density maps without, and $`(15+10)\times 3=75`$ column density maps with sink particles. Adopting the same physical scaling as in Paper I, the maps we consider cover $`0.154`$pc by $`0.154`$pc. The mean density in the simulation is $`n(\mathrm{H}_2)=3.3\times 10^3`$cm-3, the total mass in the simulation corresponds to $`700M_{}`$, and the speed of sound is $`c_\mathrm{s}=0.2`$km s-1.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Quiescent and coherent cores from gravoturbulent fragmentation

In the following, we consider a core being quiescent if its projected non-thermal velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{turb}}`$ is smaller or equal to the thermal sound speed ($`\sigma _{\mathrm{turb}}c_\mathrm{s}`$), within the half central surface density contour, i.e. if the non-thermal component to the observed linewidth does not exceed the thermal line broadening. We call a core coherent if its velocity dispersion is independent of column density again for $`N`$ larger than half the peak value $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$, or in other words, if $`\sigma _{\mathrm{turb}}`$ is roughly independent of the offset from the core center.

In Figures 1 and 2 we illustrate the properties of four different molecular cloud cores in our models. We show maps of column density $`N`$, and maps of the l.o.s velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ for each projection. To check for coherence, we also plot $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ versus the normalized column density $`N/N_{\mathrm{max}}`$. In this particular case, we average $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ in bins of 0.1 with respect to the normalized column density. This allows for a direct comparison, e.g., with Fig. 4 in Barranco & Goodman (1998), who plot the velocity dispersion against the antenna temperature using similar binning. The cores are chosen to span a wide range of morphological and structural appearance. Figure 1 shows two cores from model LSD. The top one is a smooth and roundish object that is coherent as well as quiescent in each of its projections. Its density as well as kinematic structure closely resembles that of the two “thermal” cores L1498 and L1517B in Taurus, studied in great detail by Tafalla et al. (2004). In the inner parts the derived velocity dispersion is almost entirely determined by thermal motion only. The lower core in Figure 1 has $`xy`$\- and $`xz`$-projections that are classified as subsonic-coherent, but it appears transonic-coherent in the $`yz`$-map. Recall that, similarly to the standard observational procedures, we consider only column densities above half of the peak value. In contrast to the upper core, it is clearly cometary-shaped as result of highly anisotropic ram pressure. The external flow coming from the right-hand side (in the $`xy`$\- and $`xz`$-projection) is abruptly stopped at the surface of the core, leading to a noticeable increase of the velocity dispersion there. In Fig. 2 we present cores from model SSD. The first case is coherent only in the $`yz`$-map, in the other two projections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ varies too strongly with location and consequently with $`N`$. The last one represents the subset of cores that are neither quiescent nor coherent in any of their projections.

The fact that high-density clumps in turbulent molecular clouds are created by convergent flows and thus are transiently bounded by ram pressure has observational consequences. As illustrated in Figures 1 and 2, in the simulations we often find localized maxima of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ in the low column-density gas at the outskirts of the core, suggestive that the core is actually a dense post-shock region, with the localized maximum of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ signaling the shock position. Such a configuration is also often seen in observations of actual molecular cloud cores (e.g., Barranco & Goodman 1998; Goodman et al. 1998; Caselli et al. 2002; Tafalla et al. 2004). This important observational feature is thus naturally explained by the theory of gravoturbulent star formation. It should be noted, that the “standard” scenario of magnetically mediated star formation treats the turbulent nature of the cores’ surroundings in a rather ad-hoc fashion, through the consideration of micro-turbulent motions providing an isotropic pressure that increases with decreasing density (e.g., Lizano & Shu 1989, Myers & Fuller 1992). In this case, the increase of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ outside the core should in general be roughly isotropic, contrary to observed localized maxima of the velocity dispersion (see, e.g., maps in Barranco and Goodman 1998; Goodman et al. 1998, Caselli et al. 2002).

The origin of the coherence, on the other hand, is not so clear. We speculate that it may arise from the fact that the density-weighted path length of gas contributing to the emission has a minimum at the core center, as illustrated in Figure 4 of Goodman et al. (1998). This contributing length is thus stationary with respect to small offsets in the plane of the sky. If the linewidth in a pencil beam is due essentially to density-weighted velocity differences sampled along the line-of-sight, then it should exhibit the same behavior. Because our analysis is based on information from all the available gas, the quiescent and coherent nature of some cores in our sample is inequivocal evidence of the abscence of large velocities in their interior. This suggests that either these cores have not developed gravitational collapse motions, or else are at the earliest stages of collapse, with velocities still being small. Whether this is the correct interpretation of observed line maps requires detailed radiative transfer calculations for various tracer molecules, and we plan to test this speculation in detail in a forthcoming paper.

From Figures 1 and 2 and the statistics of the complete core sample222Note that choosing a different time for analysis in our simulations (cf. §2), or different parameters for the simulations, would probably alter to some extent the statistics presented in this paper. Thus, the precise fractions of coherent and quiescent cores should not be taken literally. The fundamental result is that a substantial fraction of the cores in the simulations analyzed here, at an arbitrary time in their evolution, are quiesent and/or coherent. (Table 1), we note several issues. First, as already discussed in Paper I, the inferred properties of cores may vary considerably between different projections. For example, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{turb}}`$ may vary by as much as a factor of 2 to 3. Second, in our turbulent models, roughly 60% of all cores can be identified as being coherent by visual inspection. About 40% of these are quiescent or subsonic, 40% are transonic, and about 20% are supersonic. Third, we note a clear distinction between the LSD and SSD model, the former having a larger fraction of coherent cores, most of which are furthermore quiescent. Instead, the SSD model produces a larger number of cores that do not qualify as being coherent, and those that do are mostly transonic or supersonic. Thus, the LSD model compares better to observations than the SSD model because observed cores often appear quiescent and coherent. However, persuasive observational statistics is still lacking. This argues in favor of clouds and their cores being driven from large scales (see also the discussion in Ossenkopf & Mac Low 2002).

To estimate the fraction of cores with subsonic velocities, Fig. 3 shows a histogram of the mean velocity dispersion inside the lowest contour (above half of the peak column density). For the whole core sample (models LSD and SSD combined) about 23 % of all cores are quiescent in the strict sense (i.e. with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{turb}}c_\mathrm{s}`$), while 46 % are still transonic with $`c_\mathrm{s}<\sigma _{\mathrm{turb}}2c_\mathrm{s}`$. For the preferred model LSD, roughly 50% of them are coherent and subsonic, 15% are coherent and transonic, only 6% are coherent and supersonic, and the remaining 29% are not found to be coherent.

We stress that all of this occurs in turbulent flows with rms Mach numbers as high as 6. In fact, this is a natural consequence of the turbulent energy cascade. The velocity field becomes progressively more auto-correlated towards small scales leading to the well-known line width–size relation in Galactic molecular clouds (Larson 1981). In interstellar turbulence, there is thus always a lengthscale at which the flow turns from supersonic to subsonic (Padoan 1995; Vázquez-Semadeni, Ballesteros-Paredes, & Klessen 2003a). This does not necessarily imply that the dissipative regime of the turbulence has been reached, nor that there is a unique inner scale, but only that, on average, at this scale in a particular flow, the cascade turns into an incompressible one. In Galactic molecular clouds, this happens at roughly 0.05–0.1 pc (e.g., Larson 1981; Myers 1983), which is the typical size of cold cloud cores. Again, this does not imply these cores are quasistatic or long-lived. On the contrary, cores in our simulations are always out of equilibrium. They are created by a transient turbulent compression that eventually subsides, at which point the core is left in an unbalanced state. If the core crosses the “border” of gravitational instability, then it immediately proceeds to collapse. Otherwise, it re-expands and merges back into its surroundings in times slightly longer than the local free-fall time (Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2004). Moreover, cores can be disturbed, destroyed or re-compressed by interaction with neighboring turbulent fluctuations (e.g., Klessen et al. 2000; Klessen 2001).

### 3.2 Energy balance in protostellar cores

Observed protostellar cores are often said to be in “virial equilibrium” (e.g. Myers 1983; Myers & Goodman 1988a,b), because the measured and the inferred “virial” values of certain physical variables are comparable. Recent studies have focused on the comparison between of the observationally estimated mass $`M`$ and the virial mass $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$, defined as

$$M_{\mathrm{vir}}(M_{})210R(\mathrm{pc})\mathrm{\Delta }v_{\mathrm{eff}}^2(\mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{s}^2)$$
(1)
(see, e.g., Caselli et al. 2002; Tachihara et al. 2002) for a uniform density sphere of radius $`R`$ and “effective” linewidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Because most observations are based on the emission from tracer molecules heavier than the mean particle mass in the gas ($`\mu =2.3m_\mathrm{H}`$), the thermal contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ must be calculated by substracting the one from the tracer molecule and adding a fictitious contribution from the mean molecule (see, e.g., eq. 7 of Caselli et al. 2002). Given the definition of the line-of-sight velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ in §2, for our theoretical data this “effective” linewidth is computed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{\mathrm{eff}}=(8\mathrm{ln}2)^{1/2}\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$.

In Fig. 4 we plot $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ against $`M`$. The actual core mass $`M`$ is calculated by integrating the column density within the half-maximum isocontour of the column density maps. The diagonal line denotes equipartition, $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}=M`$. Crosses (triangles) denote cores in the SSD (LSD) model. Cores with protostars (i.e., in our numerical sheme with a sink particle in their center) are indicated by tailed squares. Note that their virial mass estimates $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ are lower limits. Although the sink particle carries the correct mass, there is no information on its internal velocity structure, because it is not resolved in the SPH code. Thus, the velocity dispersion calculated in fields with sink particles is an underestimate. However, this underestimate does not appear to be too serious, since at the evolutionary stage we consider, the mass in the central protostar is just a small fraction of the overall core mass. Moreover, a similar underestimate is likely to occur in the observations due to depletion and optical thickness effects in the dense, collapsing gas in the central regions of real cores. To allow for direct comparison with observational data, we also indicate in Figure 4 the regions covered by the cores in the surveys of Morata et al. (2004, vertical lines), Onishi et al. (2002, horizontal lines), Caselli et al. (2002, lines tilted by $`45^{}`$), and starless cores in Tachihara et al. (2002, lines tilted by $`+45^{}`$).

With the above considerations in mind, several points are worth noting. First, cores from the large-scale turbulence model LSD populate a different region in $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$$`M`$ parameter space than their counterparts in the small-scale turbulence model SSD. The former tend to have somewhat lower line-of-sight velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}`$ (implying lower virial masses) and at the same time larger actual masses. As a result, they are closer to equipartition than cores in SSD. The velocity field in the LSD model is dominated by large-scale shocks that are very efficient in sweeping up molecular cloud material, thus creating massive coherent density structures that more frequently exceed the critical mass for gravitational collapse. Therefore cloud cores in the LSD model predominantly form in a clustered and coeval mode from gas that is largely Jeans unstable (see Klessen 2001). On average they have higher density contrast than their SSD counterparts, and their energy budget is more influenced by self-gravity. The LSD cores fall almost completely in the low-mass regions of the Onishi et al. (2002), Caselli et al. (2002) and Tachihara et al. (2002) samples, suggesting that the model reproduces well the physics of the lower-mass cores in these regions, while the production of higher- or lower-mass cores by the simulations probably requires a different normalization and/or varying the mass content in the simulation (by varying the number of Jeans masses in the box).

On the other hand, shock-generated clumps in the SSD model tend to form at random locations and at random times. On average they have a smaller density contrast and smaller masses. By the same token, their velocity dispersions are larger, giving thus larger virial masses $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$. These cores tend to be more dominated by their internal velocity dispersion rather than by self-gravity, as reflected by the fact that they exibit larger departures from equipartition (typically by factors $`10`$ to $`100`$), which appear inconsistent with observational estimates of this balance, except for the strongly sub-virial cores presented discussed Morata et al. (2004).

Second, the starless cores in our sample exhibit an excess of their virial mass. This result is consistent with recent observations by Tachihara et al. (2002) and Morata et al. (2004), who show that for cores without central protostar the virial mass estimates usually exceed the actual mass. Although in the Tachihara et al. (2002) sample departures from equipartition smaller (less than a factor of 10), Morata et al. (2004) show cores that depart from equipartition by factors of 30. On the other hand, the cores classified as starless by Caselli et al. (2002) tend to be in equipartition. The above results suggest that some of these may actually contain collapsed objects. Observational evidence of this possibility has been recently given by new observations with the Sptizer Space Telescope. On one hand, Reach et al. (2004) have detected 8 embedded sources (Class 0/I) in a small field centered on a single globule in Tr 37 where only one IRAS source was detected. Similarily, Young et al. (2004), show that L1014, a dense core previously thought to be starless actually shows evidence of containing an embedded source. Thus, if this phenomenon is common, then many apparently starless cores that are near equipartition may actually contain collapsed objects. Furthermore, as pointed out by Young et al. (2004), this would also suggest that traditional estimates of pre-stellar core lifetimes may be overestimated. This again supports the idea that not all density peaks in self-gravitating turbulent fields necessarily collapse, but that collapse occurs rapidly once equipartition is reached (Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2004).

A third point to make is that cores with central protostars (sink particles) in our models tend to be more massive than cores without, in agreement with the observational situation that cores with stars tend to be more massive than starless cores (Caselli et al. 2002; Tachihara et al. 2002)

Finally, we note, that even though some cores in the model lie close to the identity line $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}=M`$, it does not imply virial equilibrium. This requires the second derivative of the moment of inertia to vanish (see, e.g., Ballesteros-Paredes 2004 and references therein). Our cores are not static, but instead are constantly evolving, and thus they are in general out of equilibrium. Reaching hydrostatic equilibrium in a turbulent molecular cloud environment is extremely difficult, and requires strongly idealized conditions that are not met in the interstellar gas. The condition $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}=M`$, or equivalently $`\sigma _{\mathrm{los}}\sigma _{\mathrm{vir}}`$, simply reflects equipartition between the volume-averaged kinetic energy and self-gravity, as occurs precisely at the verge of gravitational collapse.

Altogether, our calculations support the following evolutionary sequence. Initially, cloud cores are generated by transient compressive turbulent motions. In this phase their energy budget is dominated by the external ram pressure. The compression causes their internal and gravitational energies to increase. If they accumulate enough mass, or reach sufficient density contrast, they may become gravitationally unstable and quickly go into collapse. The transition to the stage when self-gravity dominates the evolution is characterized by approximate energy equipartition. If self-gravity never becomes that important, the cores are left with an excess of internal energy after the external compression subsides, and may re-expand within a few free-fall times.

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

In the emerging picture of gravoturbulent star formation (see, e.g., the review by Mac Low & Klessen 2004, and references therein), the structure of Galactic molecular clouds is determined by compressible supersonic turbulence. High-density cores build-up at the stagnation points of locally convergent flows. Some of those cores may become gravitationally unstable and go into collapse to form stars, while others will simply redisperse into the ambient medium (Sasao 1973; Hunter & Fleck 1982; Elmegreen 1993; Ballesteros-Paredes et al. 1999a; Padoan et al. 2001a; Klessen et al. 2001; Padoan & Nordlund 2002; Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2004).

Our analysis demonstrates that a considerable fraction of the cores in supersonic turbulent flows can be identified as being “quiescent” (i.e., sub- or transonic) and “coherent” (i.e., with roughly constant velocity dispersion across the central parts of the core) despite the fact that they are embedded and formed in a highly dynamical environment. These cores are quiescent, because they form at the stagnation points of the flow where the compression is at a maximum and the relative velocity differences are at a minimum. The origin of coherence is not so clear, but we speculate that it may be caused by projection, because the line-of-sight length of the matter contributing to the line profile has a minimum at the core center, and small offsets from the center therefore cause little variation in the observed line width.

Molecular cloud cores that harbor protostars in their interior (as identified by the presence of sink particles in our models) are characterized by having $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}<M`$, but for those objects our estimates to $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ are lower limits to the true value. On the other hand, most of the cores without central objects in our simulations have $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}>M`$, and thus are *not* gravitationally bound. This is in agreement with the observational results of Tachihara et al. (2002) and Morata et al. (2002) for starless cores. However, also some observed “starless” cores seem to lie close to or even fall below the equipartition line (e.g., Caselli et al. 2002), and we speculate that at least some of them may contain as yet undetected young stellar or sub-stellar objects, as is in the case of core L1014 (Young et al. 2004).

The fact that cores in the gravoturbulent model are initially created and confined by the ram pressure from convergent larger-scale flows leads to the velocity dispersion being highest in the low column-density gas at the surface of the clump, either at localized positions or with bow-like shapes. Such structure is often found in detailed high-resolution velocity maps of observed starless cores (e.g., Barranco & Goodman 1998; Goodman et al. 1998; Caselli et al. 2002; Tafalla et al. 2004). However, it is not predicted or explained within the framework of star-formation models based on the slow contraction of magnetically subcritical cores mediated by ambipolar diffusion.

Our calculations support an evolutionary sequence where a molecular cloud core is formed by turbulent ram pressure compression. As it gains mass and becomes denser, both its internal kinetic energy and the absolute value of its gravitational energy increase. For some cores, the gravitational attraction may exceed any opposing forces (either thermal or magnetic), and the core goes into collapse to quickly build up a protostellar object in its interior. The fact that star-forming cores are often observed near energy equipartition is only the signature of gravity becoming dynamically important, not of hydrostatic equilibrium. However, if the external turbulent compression ends before the core reaches the state where it is dominated by self-gravity, then it will reexpand and merge with the lower-density ambient molecular cloud material.

In a typical turbulent cloud environment, the evolution of molecular cloud cores is both transient and fast. This holds for their formation by convergent flows, as well as for their destruction either by collapse and transformation into stars, or by reexpansion or dispersion by passing shock fronts. Both, observational estimates of pre-stellar core lifetimes in well-characterized star forming regions (e.g., Lee & Myers 1999; Jijina et al. 1999) and numerical simulations of star-forming turbulent clouds (e.g. Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2005) indicate that the process of core formation and collapse is fast ($`10^6`$yr). 333Note that it is often thought that transient cores cannot form stars, while star-forming cores are the ones “that last long enough” to do so. For example, Tassis & Mouschovias (2004) suggest that typical molecular cloud cores undergo a lengthy gestation period before becoming observable and being able to form stars. In their picture, starless cores are simply not old enough yet to begin forming stars. They thus conclude that observational estimates of core lifetimes do not constrain the duration of such lengthy early phase. However, this picture has problems: observationally, the existence of such a long gestation period would imply that most molecular clouds should appear devoid of star formation, in contradiction with observational facts (Hartmann 2003; Ballesteros-Paredes & Hartmann 2005). Theoretically, the long gestation period can only occur in a quiescent, unperturbed medium. The presence of supersonic turbulence speeds up the formation and evolution of the density fluctuations (i.e. of the cores; see Li & Nakamura 2004; Vázquez-Semadeni et al. 2005), independently of whether they end up collapsing or re-dispersing.

We conclude that the quiescent, coherent, and sometimes near-virial nature of observed molecular cloud cores is in direct agreement with the theory of gravoturbulent star formation (Mac Low & Klessen 2004, and references therein), where stars build up from material in the gravitationally unstable parts of the spectrum of transient, dynamically-evolving density fluctuations that are the characteristics of self-gravitating, supersonically turbulent media such as interstellar gas clouds.

We thank L. Hartmann, S. Lizano, and P., Myers for stimulating discussions during the elaboration of the present manuscript. We also thank our referee A. Goodman for insightful comments and suggestions. RSK acknowledges support by the Emmy Noether Program of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG: grant KL1358/1). JBP and EVS acknowledge support from CONACYT’s grants 27752-E and 36571-E respectively. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service.