format: text

text:
# Mechanism of Magnetic Flux Loss in Molecular Clouds

## 1 Introduction

Magnetic fields of interstellar molecular clouds are widely believed to have significant effect on star formation. For an oblate cloud or cloud core of mass $`M`$ contracted along field lines to some extent, there is a critical value for its magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}=f_\varphi G^{1/2}M,$$
(1)
where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant and $`f_\varphi `$ is a dimensionless constant. A cloud (core) with $`\mathrm{\Phi }<\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ cannot be kept in hydrostatic equilibrium by the magnetic force alone (this state is widely called magnetically supercritical), and one with $`\mathrm{\Phi }>\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ (magnetically subcritical) can be in equilibrium if its expansion is suppressed by external magnetic fields. Applying the virial theorem to such clouds, Strittmatter (1966) found $`f_\varphi `$ between 4.9 and 9.4 depending on the flatness of the cloud. From some numerical cloud models Mouschovias & Spitzer (1976) obtained $`f_\varphi 8.0`$, and Tomisaka, Ikeuchi, & Nakamura (1988) got $`f_\varphi 8.3`$. Li & Shu (1996) found $`f_\varphi =2\pi `$ for self-similar, singular, isothermal clouds.

We can define the critical magnetic field strength of the cloud (core) by

$$B_{\mathrm{cr}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi R^2}=f_\varphi G^{1/2}\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(2)
where $`R`$ is the radius of the cloud (core) perpendicular to the mean magnetic field direction and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=M/\pi R^2`$ is the mean column density of the cloud (core) along field lines. Of course $`B<>B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Phi }<>\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, where $`B=\mathrm{\Phi }/\pi R^2`$ is the mean field strength in the cloud (core). Nakano & Nakamura (1978) found that isothermal disks penetrated by uniform magnetic fields $`𝑩`$ perpendicular to the disk layers are gravitationally unstable only when $`B<B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, where $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is given by equation (2) with $`f_\varphi =2\pi `$. The critical wavelength, below which the disk is unstable, decreases as $`B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ decreases (Nakano (1988)). These mean that with perturbations at least the disk as a whole can contract perpendicular to field lines when $`B<B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$.

While magnetic fluxes of clouds estimated by observations are not much smaller than their critical values, or $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}1`$ (e.g., Crutcher (1999)), magnetic stars with mean surface fields of 1 kG to 30 kG have ratios $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}10^510^3`$ (Nakano (1983)). For ordinary stars like the Sun with mean surface fields of $`1`$ G, $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is as small as $`10^8`$. This suggests that cloud cores must lose most of their initial magnetic fluxes at some stages of star formation. At what stages and by what mechanisms ? This is called the magnetic flux problem in star formation (e.g., Nakano (1984)).

Ohmic dissipation is too slow to dissipate magnetic fields in molecular clouds of ordinary densities. For example, for the ionization fraction $`10^8`$ at density $`10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (Figure 1) and the length scale of magnetic fields, $`0.1`$ pc, about the Jeans length at this density and temperature $`10`$K, we obtain the Ohmic dissipation time $`10^{15}`$ yr, larger than the age of the universe by orders of magnitude. Mestel & Spitzer (1956) found another process of decreasing magnetic flux, which is now widely called ambipolar diffusion (sometimes called plasma drift; see Appendix C for the terminology) and is much more efficient than Ohmic dissipation in molecular clouds of ordinary densities. In this process ions (and electrons), which are well frozen to magnetic fields, drift in the sea of neutral molecules together with magnetic fields at a terminal velocity with which the magnetic force balances with the frictional force exerted by the neutrals.

Because some dust grains in clouds are electrically charged and interact with magnetic fields, they contribute to controlling the drift of magnetic fields as well as ions. However, because grains are not so strongly coupled with magnetic fields as ions due to their large masses, complete freezing is not a good approximation in most situations. More accurate treatment is required for their motion (Elmegreen (1979)). Moreover, the size and the mass of grains are distributed in wide ranges (e.g., Mathis, Rumpl, & Nordsieck 1977, referred to as MRN hereafter), and the degree of freezing depends sensitively on their masses. More accurate treatment is also necessary for ions because even ions are not well frozen at high densities. Nakano (1984) and Nakano & Umebayashi (1986, referred to as NU (86) hereafter) formulated a method of describing the drift of magnetic fields in clouds containing any kinds of charged particles which are coupled with magnetic fields at arbitrary strengths.

Using this formalism we investigated the time scale of magnetic flux loss, $`t_B`$, from a major part of a cloud (core) as a function of the mean density of the cloud (core) (Nakano (1984); NU (86); Umebayashi & Nakano (1990); Nishi, Nakano, & Umebayashi 1991, referred to as NNU (91) hereafter). We have found that there is a critical value $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}10^{11}`$ hydrogen nuclei per $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for the density of the cloud, $`n_\mathrm{H}`$, at which $`t_B`$ is equal to the free-fall time $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ of the cloud (core); $`t_B<t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ holds only at $`n_\mathrm{H}>n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, and $`t_Bt_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$. We have called this the decoupling density because extensive flux loss occurs only at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$.

Our previous results show that at $`10^3\mathrm{cm}^3n_\mathrm{H}10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`t_B`$ is 10 to $`10^2`$ times $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ for $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ and a relation $`t_BB^2`$ approximately holds at least for $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}B0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. The relation $`t_BB^2`$ is characteristic to ambipolar diffusion which occurs when the dominant charged particles are well frozen to magnetic fields (see § 2.2 for details). As the density increases at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`t_B`$ becomes more and more insensitive to $`B`$, and finally at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, $`t_B`$ becomes almost independent of $`B`$, reminiscent of Ohmic dissipation. Recently Desch & Mouschovias (2001) wrote that ambipolar diffusion was the dominant process even at densities several orders of magnitude higher than $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$. These results may cause confusion. Besides, the dependence of $`t_B`$ on $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`B`$ described above is rather complicated. It would be necessary to clarify what is going on especially at high densities. Furthermore, although it was pointed out that grains play an important role in the process of magnetic flux loss, it does not seem to be widely recognized how important they are.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify detailed mechanisms operating in the loss of magnetic flux in molecular clouds especially at high densities and to show how the grains behave. In § 2 we summarize some of the formulae obtained by Nakano (1984) and NU (86), which will be used in this paper. In § 3 we show numerical results and analyze in detail the processes going on especially at high densities. Discussion is made in § 4, and summary is given in § 5. In Appendix A we show another method of the formulation than that of Nakano (1984) and NU (86).

## 2 Drift of Charged Particles and Magnetic Fields

### 2.1 Formulae

We summarize some of the formulae obtained by Nakano (1984) and NU (86), which will be used in this paper. We consider a cloud which is composed mainly of neutral molecules and atoms but contains a slight amount of charged particles such as various atomic and molecular ions, electrons, and grains of various sizes and charges.

Because each kind of charged particles are scarce, we can neglect in its equation of motion the pressure force, the gravity, and the inertia term compared with the Lorentz force and the frictional force exerted by the neutrals. With this approximation we obtain the drift velocity (velocity of the guiding center) $`𝒗_\lambda `$ of an arbitrary particle $`\lambda `$ of mass $`m_\lambda `$ and electric charge $`q_\lambda `$ relative to the neutrals. We adopt the local Cartesian coordinate system with the $`z`$-axis parallel to the local magnetic field vector $`𝑩`$ and the $`x`$-axis along the magnetic force $`𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩/c`$, where $`𝒋=(c/4\pi )\mathbf{}\mathbf{\times }𝑩`$ is the electric current density and $`c`$ is the light velocity. The components of the drift velocity $`𝒗_\lambda `$ are given by

$$v_{\lambda x}=\frac{(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}{1+(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}\frac{1}{A_1^2+A_2^2}\left(A_1+\frac{A_2}{\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda }\right)\frac{1}{c}|𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩|,$$
(3)
$$v_{\lambda y}=\frac{(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}{1+(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}\frac{1}{A_1^2+A_2^2}\left(\frac{A_1}{\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda }A_2\right)\frac{1}{c}|𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩|.$$
(4)
Here, $`\tau _\lambda `$ is the viscous damping time of the motion of particle $`\lambda `$ in the sea of the neutrals, whose expressions are given, e.g., by Nakano (1984) for various particles,

$$\omega _\lambda =\frac{q_\lambda B}{m_\lambda c}$$
(5)
is the gyrofrequency (defined to be negative for negatively charged particles),

$$A_1=\underset{\nu }{}\frac{\rho _\nu \tau _\nu \omega _\nu ^2}{1+(\tau _\nu \omega _\nu )^2}=\frac{B}{c}\underset{\nu }{}\frac{n_\nu q_\nu \tau _\nu \omega _\nu }{1+(\tau _\nu \omega _\nu )^2}=\left(\frac{B}{c}\right)^2\sigma _\mathrm{P},$$
(6)
$$A_2=\underset{\nu }{}\frac{\rho _\nu \omega _\nu }{1+(\tau _\nu \omega _\nu )^2}=\frac{B}{c}\underset{\nu }{}\frac{n_\nu q_\nu }{1+(\tau _\nu \omega _\nu )^2}=\left(\frac{B}{c}\right)^2\sigma _\mathrm{H},$$
(7)
where $`\rho _\nu `$ and $`n_\nu =\rho _\nu /m_\nu `$ are the mass and number densities, respectively, of particle $`\nu `$, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ are Pedersen and Hall conductivities, respectively (see Appendix A). Summation in equations (6) and (7) is for all kinds of charged particles; particles having different values of $`\tau _\nu `$ or $`\omega _\nu `$ are different kinds. The component $`v_{\lambda z}`$ is not necessary because the drift along field lines has no effect on the magnetic flux loss.

The drift velocity of magnetic fields, $`𝒗_B`$, is defined as the velocity relative to the neutrals of each point on an arbitrary closed contour in the cloud with which the magnetic flux through the contour is conserved. This requires

$$𝑬_{}+\frac{1}{c}𝒗_B\mathbf{\times }𝑩=0,$$
(8)
where $`𝑬_{}`$ is the component of the electric field $`𝑬`$ perpendicular to $`𝑩`$ in the frame moving with the neutrals. Using the relation between $`𝒗_\lambda `$ and $`𝑬`$, or the equation of motion, we obtain

$$v_{Bx}=\frac{A_1}{A_1^2+A_2^2}\frac{1}{c}|𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩|,$$
(9)
$$v_{By}=\frac{A_2}{A_1^2+A_2^2}\frac{1}{c}|𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩|.$$
(10)
The rate of magnetic flux loss is determined by $`v_{Bx}`$ alone (NU (86)). This is self-evident for axisymmetric clouds because the local $`y`$-axis is in the azimuthal direction. Therefore, the subscript $`x`$ of $`v_{Bx}`$ and $`v_{\lambda x}`$ may be omitted in the following.

Using equations (3) and (4) we can calculate the electric current density in the ($`x,y`$) plane, $`𝑱=_\lambda n_\lambda q_\lambda 𝒗_\lambda `$. With the electrical neutrality relation $`_\lambda \rho _\lambda \omega _\lambda =0`$, we can easily show that $`J_x=0`$, which is consistent with the definition of the $`x`$-axis, and that $`J_y`$ is equal to the component perpendicular to $`𝑩`$ of $`𝒋`$ which appears in equations (3) and (4). Thus the formulation has been consistently done. Consistency of equations (9) and (10) with equations (3) and (4) can be confirmed by considering the motion of a test particle which is completely frozen to magnetic fields and drifts with magnetic fields. Taking a limit $`|\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda |\mathrm{}`$ reduces equations (3) and (4) to equations (9) and (10), respectively, because $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are not affected by the test particle.

In this formalism we have neglected the effect of charge fluctuation of grains caused by sticking of ions and electrons on their motion because Nakano & Umebayashi (1980) and NU (86) had a rough estimation that this effect is small. More elaborate discussion on this effect will be given in § 4.2. We have also neglected the collision between charged particles, whose effect is negligibly small compared with the effect of their collision with the neutrals as shown in Appendix B.

With the approximation made on the motion of charged particles, the magnetic force on charged particles must balance with the frictional force exerted on them by the neutrals, or by components

$$\underset{\lambda }{}\frac{\rho _\lambda v_{\lambda x}}{\tau _\lambda }=\frac{1}{c}|𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩|,$$
(11)
$$\underset{\lambda }{}\frac{\rho _\lambda v_{\lambda y}}{\tau _\lambda }=0.$$
(12)
It is easy to confirm that $`𝒗_\lambda `$ given by equations (3) and (4) satisfies these equations.

One may simply think that the quantity $`|\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda |`$ would characterize the degree of freezing of particle $`\lambda `$ to magnetic fields. However, we have from equations (3) and (9)

$$\frac{v_{\lambda x}}{v_{Bx}}=\frac{(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}{1+(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}\left(1+\frac{A_2}{A_1\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda }\right).$$
(13)
When $`|\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda |1`$, the degree of freezing, or the relative drift velocity, is certainly determined by $`\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda `$ alone as $`v_{\lambda x}/v_{Bx}(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2/[1+(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2]`$ because $`|A_2|/A_1`$ is at most several at least in the ranges of density and field strength covered by this paper. However, when $`|\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda |`$ is not much larger than 1, the relative drift velocity may be greatly affected by the second term in the parentheses of equation (13), or by other charged particles. We shall show some examples of this effect in §§ 3.4 and 3.5.

Making use of equations (8), (9), and (10), NU (86) showed that the electric field $`𝑬_0=𝑬\mathbf{}𝒖_𝐧\mathbf{\times }𝑩/c`$ in the frame wherein the neutrals move with a velocity $`𝒖_\mathrm{n}`$ is given by

$$𝑬_0=\frac{1}{c}𝒖_𝐧\mathbf{\times }𝑩+\frac{1}{\sigma _{}}𝒋+\beta 𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩\xi \mathbf{(}𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑩,$$
(14)
where

$$\sigma _{}=\underset{\nu }{}\sigma _\nu ,\sigma _\nu =\frac{n_\nu q_\nu ^2\tau _\nu }{m_\nu }=\frac{c}{B}n_\nu q_\nu \tau _\nu \omega _\nu $$
(15)
is the electric conductivity parallel to magnetic field lines, and

$$\beta =\frac{B}{c^2}\frac{A_2}{A_1^2+A_2^2},$$
(16)
$$\xi =\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{A_1}{A_1^2+A_2^2}\frac{1}{B^2\sigma _{}}.$$
(17)
The work $`𝒋\mathbf{}𝑬_0`$ gives the dissipation rate of magnetic energy per unit volume. The first term on the right-hand side of equation (14) causes amplification of magnetic fields by fluid motion. The second term leads to Ohmic dissipation. The third term yields no work. The last term gives rise to the dissipation in excess of Ohmic dissipation; ambipolar diffusion in excess of Ohmic dissipation is given by this term when the dominant charged particles are well frozen to magnetic fields. Thus the ratio of the last term to the second term in equation (14)

$$DB^2\xi \sigma _{}=\frac{\sigma _{}\sigma _\mathrm{P}}{\sigma _\mathrm{P}^2+\sigma _\mathrm{H}^2}1$$
(18)
gives the excess dissipation relative to Ohmic dissipation (NU (86)).

In Appendix A we show another method of obtaining these formulae than that adopted by Nakano (1984) and NU (86).

### 2.2 Limiting Cases

Because the drift velocity $`v_{Bx}`$ is expressed in terms of the complicated quantities $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, it would be worthwhile to show how magnetic fields drift in some limiting cases.

When the dominant charged particles are well frozen to magnetic fields, or $`|\tau _\nu \omega _\nu |1`$, equations (6) and (7) give $`A_1_\nu \rho _\nu /\tau _\nu |A_2||_\nu \rho _\nu /(\tau _\nu ^2\omega _\nu )|`$, and thus these particles drift at almost the same velocity irrespective of their charges as seen from equation (3). These relations also reduce equation (9) to

$$v_{Bx}\underset{\nu }{}\frac{\rho _\nu }{\tau _\nu }\frac{1}{c}|𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩|.$$
(19)
This can also be obtained by replacing $`v_{\lambda x}`$ with $`v_{Bx}`$ in equation (11). Equation (19) means that the charged particles drift together with magnetic fields with the terminal velocity at which the magnetic force balances with the frictional force exerted by the neutrals. This is the generalization of ambipolar diffusion investigated first by Mestel & Spitzer (1956), who considered only ions as the transmitter of the magnetic force to the neutrals. Because the magnetic force balances with the gravitational force perpendicular to field lines when $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, the mean magnetic force in an oblate cloud with $`BB_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ can be given by

$$\frac{1}{c}|𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩|\left(\frac{B}{B_{\mathrm{cr}}}\right)^2\frac{\pi }{2}G\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho ,$$
(20)
where $`\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are the mean density and the mean column density along field lines, respectively, of the cloud. From equations (19) and (20) we have $`v_{Bx}B^2`$, and then the magnetic flux loss time from the major part of the cloud, defined as the time required to drift a length scale $`L`$ of magnetic fields, $`t_BL/v_{Bx}B^2`$. This is characteristic to ambipolar diffusion in magnetically supercritical clouds.

When ions are the major contributors to the left-hand side of equation (19), whose mass $`m_\mathrm{i}`$ is much larger than that of an H2 molecule and whose viscous damping time is given by $`\tau _\mathrm{i}m_\mathrm{i}/(\rho \sigma v_\mathrm{i})`$ with the collision rate coefficient $`\sigma v_\mathrm{i}1.5\times 10^9\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Nakano (1984)), we have

$$t_B\frac{n_\mathrm{i}\sigma v_\mathrm{i}}{\pi G\rho }\left(\frac{B_{\mathrm{cr}}}{B}\right)^2$$
(21)
for nearly spherical clouds with $`\rho \mathrm{\Sigma }/(2L)`$ insofar as $`BB_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. This is a well-known expression of the ambipolar diffusion time for magnetically supercritical clouds, which is proportional to the ionization fraction $`n_\mathrm{i}/n_\mathrm{H}`$.

If there exists a magnetically subcritical cloud core ($`B>B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$) in equilibrium owing to external magnetic fields which suppress its expansion, the magnetic force therein almost balances with the gravity, or $`|𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩|/c\pi G\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho /2`$ though this must be significantly smaller than $`B^2/(4\pi R)`$, where $`R`$ is the core radius. Substituting this relation into equation (19), we find that $`v_{Bx}`$ and $`t_B`$ are independent of $`B`$ and equal to those at $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ as shown by Nakano (1998).

Another limiting case is where the dominant charged particles are not at all frozen to magnetic fields, or $`|\tau _\nu \omega _\nu |1`$. In this case we have

$$A_1\underset{\nu }{}\rho _\nu \tau _\nu \omega _\nu ^2=\left(\frac{B}{c}\right)^2\sigma _{},$$
(22)
$$A_2\underset{\nu }{}\rho _\nu \omega _\nu (1\tau _\nu ^2\omega _\nu ^2)=\underset{\nu }{}\rho _\nu \tau _\nu ^2\omega _\nu ^3.$$
(23)
Electrical neutrality derives the last expression of equation (23). Again we find $`A_1|A_2|`$. Taking $`|𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩|/cB^2/(4\pi L)`$, we obtain the drift time of magnetic fields

$$t_B\frac{L}{v_{Bx}}\frac{4\pi \sigma _{}}{c^2}L^2.$$
(24)
This is the well-known Ohmic dissipation time, which does not depend on the field strength.

Thus our formalism contains ambipolar diffusion and Ohmic dissipation as limiting cases.

## 3 Numerical Results

### 3.1 Cloud Model

We adopt the cloud model almost the same as NNU (91). Because magnetized clouds can contract along field lines rather easily, the force balance may approximately hold between gravity and gas pressure along field lines even when they are contracting dynamically perpendicular to field lines (e.g., Scott & Black (1980); Nakamura, Hanawa, & Nakano 1995). In such clouds the mean density $`\rho `$ and the mean column density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ along field lines have a relation

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{4kT\rho }{\pi G\mu m_\mathrm{H}}\right)^{1/2}0.040\left(\frac{n_\mathrm{H}}{10^5\mathrm{cm}^3}\frac{T}{10\mathrm{K}}\frac{2.37}{\mu }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2,$$
(25)
where $`T`$ is the mean temperature of the cloud, $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`\mu `$ is the mean molecular weight of the gas, and $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ is the mass of a hydrogen atom. Equation (25) gives the column density of an isothermal disk in equilibrium if $`\rho `$ is half the density at the midplane. If magnetic fields are weak and the isothermal (spherical) cloud is on the verge of collapse (Ebert (1955); Bonnor (1956)), the mean column density is $`0.9`$ times that of equation (25). The half-thickness of the cloud is given by $`Z\mathrm{\Sigma }/(2\rho )`$, or

$$Z\left(\frac{kT}{\pi G\mu m_\mathrm{H}\rho }\right)^{1/2}0.027\left(\frac{10^5\mathrm{cm}^3}{n_\mathrm{H}}\frac{T}{10\mathrm{K}}\frac{2.37}{\mu }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{pc}.$$
(26)
Both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`Z`$ are independent of the cloud mass.

### 3.2 Densities of Charged Particles

As the reaction scheme of determining densities of various charged particles, we adopt the same model as Umebayashi & Nakano (1990) and NNU (91) though we have revised some of the rate coefficients according to Le Teuff, Millar, & Markwick (2000); the greatest change is for dissociative recombination of H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$. In dense clouds sufficiently opaque to interstellar ultraviolet radiation, ions and free electrons are formed mainly by ionization of H2 molecules and He atoms by cosmic rays. After some reactions in the gas phase and at grain surface they finally recombine each other. We determine the densities of various charged particles assuming steady state for all the reactions.

As cosmic rays go deep into a cloud, their intensity decreases by interaction with matter, and the ionization rate decreases exponentially as $`\zeta =\zeta _0\mathrm{exp}(\chi /\chi _0)`$, where $`\zeta _0`$ is the ionization rate of an H2 molecule at the cloud surface, $`\chi `$ is the depth in column density from the cloud surface, and $`\chi _096\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ is the attenuation length of the ionization rate (Umebayashi & Nakano (1981)). We take $`\chi =\mathrm{\Sigma }/4`$ because we are interested in the mean densities of various particles in the cloud. We also take into account the ionization by radioactive elements contained in the cloud at a rate $`6.9\times 10^{23}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Umebayashi & Nakano (1981)), which is important only at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{15}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

As charged particles we consider electrons e-, atomic ions H+, He+, and C+, metallic ions such as Mg+, Si+, and Fe+, which we denote as M+ collectively, H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$, molecular ions other than H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ (typically HCO+), which we denote as m+, and charged grains. As the mean masses of M+ and m+ we take $`34m_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`29m_\mathrm{H}`$, respectively. We separate H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ from m+ because the large difference in their masses causes considerable differences in $`\tau _\lambda `$ and $`\omega _\lambda `$. We adopt the MRN size distribution of grains given by

$$\frac{dn_\mathrm{g}}{da}=Cn_\mathrm{H}a^{3.5},a_{\mathrm{min}}aa_{\mathrm{max}},$$
(27)
where $`a`$ is the grain radius and $`C1.5\times 10^{25}\mathrm{cm}^{2.5}`$ (Draine & Lee (1984); Mathis (1986)). We take $`a_{\mathrm{min}}=5`$ nm and $`a_{\mathrm{max}}=250`$ nm. As for the charge states of grains we consider neutral, $`\pm e`$, $`\pm 2e`$, and $`\pm 3e`$, where $`e`$ is the elementary electric charge. We divide the grain radius into 40 bins of equal logarithmic width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}a=0.0425`$. This must be accurate enough for our purpose because we have found little difference in numerical results compared with the case of 20 bins adopted by NNU (91)111 Desch & Mouschovias (2001) criticized NNU (91) in their § 2.1 claiming (i) ignorance of the size-dependence of grain charges, and (ii) ignorance of collisions between grains of different sizes which is important to neutralization of grain charges at high densities. In reality, however, NNU (91) did not make these ignorances. As for (i) see their Appendix A, where the equations on grain charges have clear dependences on the grain radius. NNU (91) did not write anything that means (ii)., though we have found some difference from the case of 5 bins adopted by Desch & Mouschovias (2001).

Figure 1 shows abundances of various particles as functions of the cloud density $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ for the standard case $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Spitzer & Tomasko (1968)). Ions and electrons are dominant charged particles at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$, ions and g- (grains of charge $`e`$) are dominant at $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ between $`10^7`$ and $`10^9\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and g- and g+ are major at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. To keep electrical neutrality at very high densities $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ where ions and electrons are no longer dominant charged particles because of their efficient recombination, $`n(\mathrm{g}^{})n(\mathrm{g}^+)`$ must hold. Nakano (1984) showed that to assure this relation the number flux of thermal electrons must be $`(S_\mathrm{i}/S_\mathrm{e})^{1/2}`$ times that of thermal ions, or

$$\frac{n_\mathrm{e}}{n_\mathrm{i}}\left(\frac{S_\mathrm{i}}{S_\mathrm{e}}\frac{m_\mathrm{e}}{m_\mathrm{i}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(28)
where $`S_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`S_\mathrm{e}`$ are sticking probabilities of ions and electrons, respectively, when they collide neutral grains. Although Nakano (1984) ignored electric polarization of grains induced by approaching charged particles, which has an effect of enhancing the collision rate (Draine & Sutin (1987)), this effect cancels out in the derivation of equation (28). As seen in Figure 1, metallic ions are dominant among various ions, or $`n_\mathrm{i}n(\mathrm{M}^+)`$, at all densities. In numerical calculation we took $`S_\mathrm{e}=0.6`$ and $`S_\mathrm{i}=1`$ (Umebayashi & Nakano (1980); NNU (91)). This is why $`n_\mathrm{e}6\times 10^3n(\mathrm{M}^+)`$ holds at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Equation (28) also yields $`n(\mathrm{g}^{})n(\mathrm{g}^{++})`$. Decrease of charged grains with $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ at very high densities is due to neutralization of grains by mutual collisions. Cosmic rays are significantly attenuated at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

Figure 2 shows the charge state of grains as a function of the grain radius at several cloud densities. At low densities $`n_\mathrm{H}10^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$ grains of charge $`e`$ are dominant and $`1/4`$ to $`1/30`$ of grains are neutral depending on their radius. At $`n_\mathrm{H}10^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$ neutral grains are as abundant as $`e`$ grains and grains of other charges are much less at all radii. At very high densities $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ neutral grains are most abundant, and $`+e`$ grains are as abundant as $`e`$ grains at all radii.

### 3.3 Magnetic Flux Loss Time

The mean magnetic force in an oblate cloud with $`BB_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ satisfies equation (20) whether or not the force balance holds along field lines. The magnetic flux loss time $`t_B`$ can be given by the time for field lines to drift the length scale $`L`$ of the cloud. From equations (9) and (20) we have

$$t_B\frac{L}{v_{Bx}}\left(\frac{B_{\mathrm{cr}}}{B}\right)^2\frac{A_1^2+A_2^2}{A_1}\frac{2L}{\pi G\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho }.$$
(29)
First we consider a cloud wherein the force balance approximately holds between gravity and pressure along field lines and whose column density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and half-thickness $`Z`$ are given by equations (25) and (26), respectively. From equations (2) and (25) we have

$$B_{\mathrm{cr}}4\left(\frac{\pi kT\rho }{\mu m_\mathrm{H}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6.4}\times 10^5\left(\frac{T}{10\mathrm{K}}\frac{n_\mathrm{H}}{10^5\mathrm{cm}^3}\frac{2.37}{\mu }\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{G}.$$
(30)
The quasistatic contraction of clouds induced by the drift of magnetic fields is highly nonhomologous; only the densest central part of the cloud contracts leaving the outer part almost unchanged (Nakano (1979), 1982; Lizano & Shu (1989)). The time scale of such contraction is the drift time of magnetic fields in the central part of the cloud whose length scale $`L`$ is nearly equal to the thickness of the cloud, $`Z`$, or

$$t_B\left(\frac{B_{\mathrm{cr}}}{B}\right)^2\frac{A_1^2+A_2^2}{A_1}\frac{1}{\pi G\rho ^2}.$$
(31)
Disk-like clouds in runaway collapse with field lines perpendicular to the disk layers have nearly uniform cores whose column density along field lines and size across them are given approximately by equations (25) and (26), respectively (Nakamura et al. (1995)). The flux loss time of these cores is also given by equation (31). This equation also holds for nearly spherical clouds wherein the pressure force almost balances with the gravity (though $`B^2`$ must be significantly smaller than $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}^2`$) because the cloud radius is nearly equal to the half-thickness along field lines, $`Z`$.

As mentioned above, equation (29) for $`t_B`$ holds for dynamically contracting clouds even if the force balance does not hold along field lines. How about equation (31)? If the cloud is nearly spherical, equation (31) can also be applied because with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/(2L)\rho `$ equation (29) is reduced to equation (31). However, equation (2) should be used for $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ instead of equation (30), which holds only for clouds in force balance along field lines.

The time scale $`t_B`$ given by equation (31) depends on the density and the magnetic field strength of the cloud, but does not depend on the cloud mass. The gas temperature $`T`$ affects $`t_B`$ through densities of charged particles, $`\tau _\lambda `$, and $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. We take $`T=10`$ K in this paper.

Figure 3 shows $`t_B`$ for the cases of $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ (solid lines) and $`B=0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ (dashed lines) for clouds in force balance along field lines, or with $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ given by equation (30). The dot-dashed lines show the Ohmic dissipation time $`t_{\mathrm{od}}`$, which is obtained by taking a limit $`B0`$ in equation (31), or by setting $`LZ`$ in equation (24). A relation $`t_B=t_{\mathrm{od}}/(1+D)`$ holds, where $`D`$ is the excess dissipation relative to Ohmic dissipation given by equation (18). In addition to the standard case $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (thick lines), we also show the case of $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{16}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (thin lines) because there are some suggestions from observations of molecular ions that $`\zeta _0`$ might be significantly larger than the standard value in some clouds (de Boisanger, Helmich, & van Dishoeck 1996; Caselli et al. (1998)). At $`n_\mathrm{H}10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`t_B`$ is 10 to $`10^2`$ times $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ for the case of $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, and $`t_B`$ for the case of $`B=0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is about $`10^2`$ times larger than that for $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. At $`n_\mathrm{H}10^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$, the ratio $`t_B/t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ decreases as the density increases, and at last $`t_B=t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ is attained at some density, which we denote $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ and call the decoupling density as in our previous work. For the standard case $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$ we find $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}2\times 10^{11}`$ and $`3\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ and $`0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, respectively. As shown by NNU (91), $`t_B`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ do not depend sensitively on various parameters such as fractions of heavy elements remaining in the gas phase and on the details of the grain model (e.g., $`a_{\mathrm{min}}`$). As seen from Figure 3, $`t_B`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ are not very sensitive to $`\zeta _0`$.

Ciolek & Mouschovias (1993) criticized our previous work (e.g., NU (86); Umebayashi & Nakano (1990); NNU (91)) in their § 1.1 claiming that comparison of $`t_B`$ with $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ and comparison of $`v_B`$ with the free-fall velocity $`u_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ were meaningless because magnetically subcritical clouds did not contract freely. However, because the free-fall time is one of the fundamental time scales of clouds, we can find out by comparing $`t_B`$ with $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ (or $`v_B`$ with $`u_{\mathrm{ff}}`$) whether the magnetic flux is lost effectively in dynamically contracting clouds, and how slowly the clouds in quasi-equilibrium contract induced by the drift of magnetic fields without detailed simulations which have been done by many authors (e.g., Nakano (1979); Lizano & Shu (1989); Ciolek & Mouschovias (1994)). According to Ciolek & Mouschovias (1993), we concluded erroneously that ambipolar diffusion (or drift of magnetic fields) was inefficient at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ because $`t_Bt_{\mathrm{ff}}`$. Our conclusion in the previous and this papers is that extensive flux loss occurs only at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$. If there exist highly magnetically subcritical clouds with $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, they might lose magnetic fluxes extensively even at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ contracting quasistatically, though only down to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, as shown by numerical simulations of Ciolek & Mouschovias (1994). However, clouds or cloud cores with $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ cannot exist (Nakano (1998)). Moreover, as mentioned in § 1, cloud cores must decrease their magnetic fluxes down to $`10^3\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ or below in the process of star formation. Cloud cores with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ somewhat smaller than $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ can begin dynamical contraction rather easily (Nakano (1998)). Extensive flux loss down to $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ does not occur at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ because $`t_B`$ is much larger than the dynamical time scale.

### 3.4 Dependence on Magnetic Field Strength

We try to approximate the dependence of $`t_B`$ on the field strength $`B`$ by a power law $`t_BB^\gamma `$. Figure 4 (top) shows the power index $`\gamma `$ obtained by comparing $`t_B`$ for the two cases $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ and $`0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ for the standard case $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$. At $`n_\mathrm{H}10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, deviation of $`\gamma `$ from $`2`$ is small, or $`t_BB^2`$ approximately holds, at least for $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}B0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, in good agreement with ambipolar diffusion described in § 2.2. This is because ions and smallest grains, which are major contributors to transmitting the magnetic force to the neutrals, are relatively well frozen to magnetic fields in this density range. We shall discuss the small deviation of $`\gamma `$ from 2 in § 3.5.

At $`n_\mathrm{H}>10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`\gamma `$ decreases steeply as the density increases, and finally settles down to $`0`$. The situation $`\gamma 1`$ suggests that Ohmic dissipation contributes at least significantly to magnetic flux loss. However, although $`\gamma =0.13`$ at $`n_\mathrm{H}=2\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, the flux loss occurs much faster than by Ohmic dissipation; $`t_B0.1t_{\mathrm{od}}`$ as shown in Figure 3, or $`D10`$. The steep decrease of $`\gamma `$ with density and this behavior of magnetic flux loss at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ can be understood by checking the motion of some typical charged particles.

Figure 4 (bottom) shows the drift velocity relative to that of magnetic fields, $`v_\mathrm{i}/v_B`$, given by equation (13), and $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}`$ of the dominant ions M+ for the two cases $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ (solid line) and $`0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ (dashed line) with $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Here we omit the subscript $`x`$ to the velocities. At $`n_\mathrm{H}=1\times 10^9\mathrm{cm}^3`$, for example, metallic ions drift almost with magnetic fields with $`v_\mathrm{i}/v_B0.96`$ for $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ because they are well frozen to magnetic fields with $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}32`$. For $`B=0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, however, we find $`v_\mathrm{i}/v_B0.26`$ and $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}3.2`$. This value of $`v_\mathrm{i}/v_B`$ is much smaller than a naive estimation $`v_\mathrm{i}/v_B(\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i})^2/[1+(\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i})^2]0.91`$ for this value of $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}`$. This large deviation is caused by the second term in the parentheses of equation (13), or by interaction with other charged particles, especially grains. Even for $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ deviation of $`v_\mathrm{i}`$ from $`v_B`$ is caused mostly by this term: a naive estimation gives $`v_\mathrm{i}/v_B(\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i})^2/[1+(\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i})^2]0.999`$. As $`B`$ decreases, $`v_\mathrm{i}/v_B`$ decreases markedly.

The situation is the same for grains because $`|\tau _\mathrm{g}\omega _\mathrm{g}|\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}`$. Figure 5 shows the drift velocity relative to that of magnetic fields, $`v_\mathrm{g}/v_B`$, and $`|\tau _\mathrm{g}\omega _\mathrm{g}|`$ of grains of charge $`e`$ as functions of the grain radius at several densities for $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$. At $`n_\mathrm{H}=10^9\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, grains of $`a=10`$ nm with electric charge $`e`$ and $`+e`$, for example, have relative drift velocities $`v_\mathrm{g}/v_B=0.41`$ and $`0.22`$, respectively. These particles have $`|\tau _\mathrm{g}\omega _\mathrm{g}|=0.32`$, and then the naive estimation gives $`v_\mathrm{g}/v_B(\tau _\mathrm{g}\omega _\mathrm{g})^2/[1+(\tau _\mathrm{g}\omega _\mathrm{g})^2]0.093`$ for both charges, much smaller than the actual values; the actual velocity of $`+e`$ grains has even an opposite sign. As $`B`$ decreases, $`|v_\mathrm{g}/v_B|`$ decreases markedly for all radii as shown in Figure 5.

At $`n_\mathrm{H}>10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$ ions are not very well frozen to magnetic fields even for $`BB_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. Therefore, as $`B`$ decreases, the degree of freezing and $`v_\mathrm{i}/v_B`$ decrease markedly. The situation is the same for grains which are much less tightly coupled with magnetic fields. Decrease of $`v_\mathrm{i}/v_B`$ and $`|v_\mathrm{g}/v_B|`$ has an effect of decreasing $`t_B`$ if $`v_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`v_\mathrm{g}`$ are fixed. On the other hand, as $`B`$ decreases, the magnetic force, or the driving force of the drift, decreases, which has an effect of decreasing the drift velocity $`v_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`|v_\mathrm{g}|`$ as seen from equation (11), and then has an effect of increasing $`t_B`$ if $`v_\mathrm{i}/v_B`$ and $`v_\mathrm{g}/v_B`$ are fixed. These opposite effects make $`t_B`$ less sensitive to $`B`$ than at $`n_\mathrm{H}<10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, where ions and smallest grains, the dominant charged particles, are relatively well frozen and the decrease of $`B`$ has little effect on their $`v_\lambda /v_B`$. As the density increases, $`t_B`$ becomes more and more insensitive to $`B`$ because $`|\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda |`$ decreases with density for all charged particles even though $`t_B`$ is significantly smaller than $`t_{\mathrm{od}}`$. This is why $`\gamma `$ decreases steeply with density at $`n_\mathrm{H}>1\times 10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

### 3.5 Contribution of Grains

Even at $`n_\mathrm{H}<1\times 10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`\gamma `$ shows some deviation from 2 as seen in Figure 4 (top). Because ions are strongly coupled with magnetic fields and deviation of $`v_\mathrm{i}`$ from $`v_B`$ is very small at these densities as shown in Figure 4 (bottom), this deviation suggests that transmission of the magnetic force to the neutrals is significantly contributed by grains, which are not very strongly coupled with magnetic fields even at these low densities as shown in Figure 5.

To confirm this we calculate the frictional force exerted by each kind of charged particles on the neutrals, which is given by each term of equation (11). We shall not consider the component of the frictional force perpendicular to both $`𝑩`$ and $`𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩`$ because summation of this component for all charged particles vanishes as shown by equation (12). Figure 6 shows the frictional forces of ions and grains relative to the total frictional force, which is equal to $`|𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩|/c`$ per unit volume, as functions of the cloud density for the two cases of the field strength with $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Ions contribute more than grains only at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$, where the ionization fraction is relatively high. At $`n_\mathrm{H}10^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$ grains contribute more than about 90% of the frictional force at least for $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}B0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. The frictional force exerted by electrons is more than 3 orders of magnitude smaller than that by ions mainly because of their small drift momentum. For the case of $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{16}\mathrm{s}^1`$ these densities are somewhat higher; e.g., ions contribute more than grains at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$ because of higher ion densities.

Figures 7 and 8 show the frictional force exerted by grains on the neutrals as a function of their radius $`a`$ and charge $`q_\mathrm{g}`$ at several cloud densities for the two cases of the field strength $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ and $`0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ with $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$. As well as ions, negatively charged grains exert frictional force, or drift, in the direction of the magnetic force irrespective of their radius at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{14}(B/B_{\mathrm{cr}})^2\mathrm{cm}^3`$ at least for $`B0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$. Positively charged grains behave differently. At low densities they contribute in the same direction as negatively charged grains irrespective of their radius. However, at some density the largest grains begin to contribute, or drift, in the opposite direction, and the size range of such grains expands to smaller radii as $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ increases; frictional forces in these ranges are shown by dotted lines in Figures 7 and 8. For example, grains of charge $`+e`$ with $`a>160`$ nm drift in the opposite direction at $`n_\mathrm{H}=10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, and those with $`a>93`$ nm do at $`n_\mathrm{H}=10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for $`B=0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ though the dotted line is outside this panel. Finally at $`n_\mathrm{H}2\times 10^9`$ and $`9\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ and $`0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, respectively, even the smallest grains ($`a5`$ nm) with charge $`+e`$ begin to drift opposite to the magnetic force. These are because $`A_2<0`$ (or $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}<0`$) in most of the density region covered by this paper (see Figure 9; $`A_1>0`$ by definition), and thus positively charged particles with small $`\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda `$ have negative drift velocities as seen from equation (13). Because $`\tau _\mathrm{g}\omega _\mathrm{g}a^2n_\mathrm{H}^{1/2}(B/B_{\mathrm{cr}})`$, the radius range in which positively charged grains have negative drift velocities expands to smaller $`a`$ as $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ increases for a fixed $`B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ as long as $`A_2<0`$. We shall discuss the physical reason of this phenomenon in § 4.1.

At high densities, not only $`t_B`$ deviates greatly from the $`t_BB^2`$ relation, but also grains, the main contributors to the frictional force, of opposite charges drift in opposite directions. This contradicts the literal meaning of ambipolar diffusion, a term originally used in plasma physics for a quite different phenomenon in which particles of opposite charges diffuse as one unit (e.g., Cap (1976); see also Appendix C).

The great contribution of grains to the frictional force comes from their large contribution to $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, or $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$, though $`\sigma _{}`$ is mainly contributed by electrons in most of the density region in this paper. This difference in the contribution is due to large differences in $`|\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda |`$ and in the abundance $`n_\lambda /n_\mathrm{H}`$ among charged particles. For metallic ions we have $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}320(n_\mathrm{H}/10^7\mathrm{cm}^3)^{1/2}(B/B_{\mathrm{cr}})`$. At $`T10`$ K we find $`|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|/\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}4.8\times 10^3`$ and $`|\tau _\mathrm{g}\omega _\mathrm{g}|/\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}1.0\times 10^2(a/10\mathrm{nm})^2`$ for grains of charge $`q_\mathrm{g}=\pm e`$. For the case of $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`\sigma _{}`$ is mainly contributed by electrons at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and by grains at higher densities as shown in Figure 9. Contribution of ions to $`\sigma _{}`$ is minor at all densities. To $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ or $`A_1`$, ions contribute more than half only at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and grains contribute more than 80% at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ (Figure 9), though for $`B=0.1B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ ions also contribute $`5080\%`$ at $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ between $`3\times 10^8`$ and $`6\times 10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. At $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, grains overwhelm the other particles. Contribution of electrons to $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ is less than $`10^3`$ because of large $`|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|`$ at low densities and because of low abundance at high densities \[see equation (6) or (A5)\]. Situation is complicated for $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ or $`A_2`$. Because the terms of some given particles have quite different forms even with opposite signs between the equivalent equations (7) and (A6), we cannot uniquely tell how much each kind of particles contributes to $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$. Moreover, particles of opposite charges contribute oppositely and significant cancellation occurs in some situations for either expression of $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$. We would make a serious mistake if we neglect the terms of grains in $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ except at high densities where both $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}10`$ and $`n_\mathrm{i}n_\mathrm{e}`$ hold.

The sign of $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ changes at some density as shown in Figure 9. With an expression of $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ accurate at very high densities, we find that this occurs when $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}(n_\mathrm{e}/n_\mathrm{i})^{1/2}`$. As long as $`B0.01B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, this gives $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}0.08`$, which corresponds to the density $`n_\mathrm{H}1.6\times 10^{14}(B/B_{\mathrm{cr}})^2\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Because of the change of the sign, grains change the directions of drift at densities somewhat higher than this as seen from equation (13). However, the total frictional force they exert on the neutrals is always in the direction of magnetic force because the mean drift velocity of $`e`$ and $`+e`$ grains is in the direction of magnetic force as seen from equation (3) or (13).

Desch & Mouschovias (2001) ignored the contribution of grains to $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ ($`\sigma _{}`$ by their notation) and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ as seen from their equations (25) and (26). Therefore, their equation (28), which was obtained by using these equations, does not correspond to the critical state at which Ohmic dissipation becomes important, or $`D1`$, contrary to their statement. Their results will be discussed as compared with ours in § 4.3.

Because the frictional force is contributed mainly by grains, $`t_B`$ is determined mainly by grains except at very low densities. Besides, the reactions at grain surface are important in determining the densities of various charged particles (e.g., Nakano (1984); NNU (91)). Thus, grains play a decisive role in the process of magnetic flux loss in molecular clouds.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Drift of Grains

Grains of opposite electric charges drift in opposite directions at high densities as shown in §§ 3.4 and 3.5. This is formally a result of the second term in the parentheses of equation (13). Here we shall give a more intuitive explanation of this phenomenon.

In the existence of an electric field $`𝑬`$ a particle of electric charge $`q_\lambda 0`$ gyrating around magnetic field lines222 One may think that gyration completely dissipates because the viscous damping times $`\tau _\lambda `$ are smaller than $`t_B`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ by orders of magnitude. However, because of collisions with neutral molecules and atoms charged particles always have thermal motions, which would cause gyration, though a term ”gyrating” may not be appropriate when $`|\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda |1`$. drifts with a velocity $`𝒗_\lambda =c𝑬\mathbf{\times }𝑩/B^2`$ independent of its charge. If there is a force field $`𝒇`$, which is independent of the particle charge, instead of the electric field, the particle drifts with a velocity $`𝒗_\lambda =(c/q_\lambda )𝒇\mathbf{\times }𝑩/B^2`$ dependent on its charge. In the frame moving with the neutrals in a molecular cloud, there is an electric field satisfying equation (8), which causes a charge-independent drift motion (call this drift 1). Neutral molecules exert a frictional force on this drift motion, which is anti-parallel to the drift velocity independent of the electric charge. Therefore, this force causes another drift motion (drift 2) whose direction depends on the particle charge. Thus the drift velocity has both components dependent on and independent of the particle charge. Because drift 2 has opposite directions for particles of opposite charges, the frictional force on this motion yields the third drift motion whose direction is charge-independent, etc.

All these can be taken into account in the equation for the steady motion (A1) in Appendix A. The direct solution of this equation is given by equations (A2) and (A3), whose components perpendicular to $`𝑩`$ are found to agree with equations (3) and (4). When $`|\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda |1`$, the frictional force can be comparable to or stronger than the electric force, and therefore the charge-dependent part of the drift velocity can be comparable to or greater than the charge-independent one.

Because grains of opposite charges drift in opposite directions at high densities where grains are the major charged particles, one may anticipate that charge separation occurs in the $`𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩`$ -, or $`x`$-direction. However, this is not the case. All charged particles should be taken into account. As confirmed in § 2.1, equation (3) guarantees that the $`x`$-component of the electric current density vanishes.

Although the frictional force is contributed mostly by grains at high densities, their drift velocities are very small. For example, at the decoupling density $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}2\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for $`B=B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ with $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$ even the smallest grains of $`a5`$ nm with electric charge $`e`$ have a drift velocity as small as $`v_\mathrm{g}/v_B0.02`$ as seen from Figure 5. Because extensive magnetic flux loss occurs only at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ and decrease of $`B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ by the flux loss makes $`v_\mathrm{g}/v_B`$ even smaller (Figure 5), grains are hardly lost from the cloud core even if the magnetic flux decreases by orders of magnitude as far as the cloud core is magnetically supercritical. Although Ciolek & Mouschovias (1994) write that the grain abundance decreases almost in proportion to the reduction factor of the magnetic flux in highly magnetically subcritical cloud cores, cloud cores can hardly be magnetically subcritical as discussed by Nakano (1998). Although the drift velocity of ions is not very small compared with that of magnetic fields even at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ for $`BB_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ (Figure 4), ions are quite minor constituents among the heavy elements even in the gas phase (Figure 1). Thus magnetic flux loss in cloud cores has little effect on the abundance of heavy elements in stars born therein.

### 4.2 Charge Fluctuation of Grains

Electric charges of grains change stochastically because ions and electrons sometimes stick to them. This change has some effect on their motion in electromagnetic fields. Nakano (1984) and NU (86) neglected this effect because they had a rough estimation that it was small (see also Nakano & Umebayashi (1980)).

Kamaya & Nishi (2000) investigated this effect more elaborately for grains of charge $`e`$. The probability of having some charge is proportional to the time span during which the grain has this charge. Therefore, as seen from Figure 2, the grains of charge $`e`$ change their charge mostly by going to the neutral state at most radii $`a`$ and at most densities $`n_\mathrm{H}`$. The charge change between the $`e`$ and neutral states effectively decreases the viscous damping time $`\tau _\mathrm{g}`$ of grains of charge $`e`$ by some factor $`C_\mathrm{g}>1`$. This effect can be taken into account by replacing $`\tau _\mathrm{g}`$ with $`\tau _\mathrm{g}/C_\mathrm{g}`$ in our formalism summarized in § 2. Kamaya & Nishi found that if H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ is the dominant ion, $`C_\mathrm{g}`$ for grains of $`a=10`$ nm is 1.3 at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and approaches $`1`$ as $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ increases, and that larger grains have $`C_\mathrm{g}`$ closer to $`1`$.

Because metallic ions and molecular ions other than H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ are the dominant ions as shown in Figure 1, deviations of $`C_\mathrm{g}`$ from $`1`$ are about 3 times smaller than those obtained for H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ by Kamaya & Nishi (2000) at all densities and at all grain radii; the deviation $`C_\mathrm{g}1`$ is proportional to $`m_\mathrm{i}^{1/2}`$, where $`m_\mathrm{i}`$ is the mass of the dominant ions. Therefore, charge fluctuation of grains can hardly affect $`t_B`$ because $`C_\mathrm{g}`$ can be as large as 1.1 only for smallest grains only at low densities $`n_\mathrm{H}10^3\mathrm{cm}^3`$, where grains are minor contributors to the frictional force. Thus, our formalism can be applied to any situation with little error though Ciolek & Mouschovias (1993) pointed out our ignorance of this effect.

### 4.3 Comparison with Other Work

We compare our results with several previous works on $`t_B`$, $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, and the dissipation in excess of Ohmic dissipation given by $`D`$ in equation (18).

The decoupling densities $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ obtained in § 3.3 are about 4 times larger than that of NNU (91) for the same grain model. The main cause for this difference is in $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$; our $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is $`\sqrt{3}`$ times larger than theirs. At relatively low densities where major charged particles are well frozen to magnetic fields, difference in the coefficient of $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ has little effect on $`t_B`$ for a given $`B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ because these particles drift almost with magnetic fields and the drift velocity $`v_{Bx}`$ is determined by the balance of the frictional force on them with $`(B/B_{\mathrm{cr}})^2`$ times the gravity as seen from equations (19) and (20). At high densities, $`t_B`$, and then $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, depend on the coefficient of $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ because the delay in the drift of major charged particles, which are not well frozen, depends on the field strength as discussed in § 3.4. However, the general feature of $`t_B`$ (rough dependences on $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, existence of $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, etc.) is hardly affected by this coefficient.

NU (86) investigated magnetic flux loss in spherical clouds, and found that magnetic decoupling occurs at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for a cloud of $`1M_{}`$ and the decoupling density does not depend sensitively on the cloud mass. They also found that dissipation in excess of Ohmic one is not large, or $`D1`$, at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ for $`BB_{\mathrm{cr}}`$.

In § 3.4 we have found $`D10`$ at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, which is an order of magnitude larger than $`D`$ obtained by NU (86). We can list up some causes for this discrepancy; differences in the cloud model and in the grain model. NU (86) assumed that clouds were spherical without force balance along field lines. They also assumed for simplicity that all grains had the same radius $`a=100`$ nm. Another difference is in the electric conductivity $`\sigma _{}`$. For the collision of electrons with the neutrals, NU (86) adopted the classical Langevin’s cross sections in which electric polarization of the neutrals induced by an approaching electron has a great effect. These were widely adopted formerly (e.g., Nakano (1984); Mouschovias (1991)) assuming the similarity with the collision of ions with the neutrals. However, we found that laboratory experiments show much smaller cross sections at low energies (Hayashi (1981)), which are not much different from the geometrical cross sections. Sano et al. (2000) give the empirical formulae of the momentum transfer rate coefficients for the collision of electrons with H2 molecules and with He atoms, which were obtained by Umebayashi (1993, private communication) by fitting to the laboratory data. With these collision rate coefficients, which are about 80 times smaller than the previous ones at $`T10`$K, the conductivity $`\sigma _{}`$, $`t_{\mathrm{od}}`$, and $`D`$ are much larger than the previous ones except at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ where $`\sigma _{}`$ is mainly contributed by grains. On the other hand, $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ is hardly affected by this change of the cross sections because contribution of electrons is very small even with the enhanced $`\sigma _\mathrm{e}`$ (Figure 9), and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ is also hardly affected except at very high densities where $`|\sigma _\mathrm{H}|\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$. Therefore, $`t_B=t_{\mathrm{od}}/(1+D)`$ is hardly affected by this change because $`t_{\mathrm{od}}\sigma _{}`$ and $`1+D=\sigma _{}\sigma _\mathrm{P}/(\sigma _\mathrm{P}^2+\sigma _\mathrm{H}^2)`$.

Desch & Mouschovias (2001) write that Ohmic dissipation becomes important, or $`D1`$ is realized, when $`|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|6`$. However, $`|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|6`$ was obtained from their equation (28), $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|n_\mathrm{e}/n_\mathrm{i}`$,333 Emphasizing the contrast with this equation, Desch & Mouschovias (2001) write that NU (86) used a relation $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|1`$ for $`D1`$ assuming $`n_\mathrm{e}=n_\mathrm{i}`$ even at densities as high as $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$. This is another misrepresentation of the fact in addition to their comments on NNU (91) cited in footnote 2. Although NU (86) gave the expressions of $`D`$, by their equations (49) and (50), when ions and electrons are major contributors to $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ (or $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$) (of course $`n_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{i}`$), and when grains of charge $`e`$ and $`+e`$ are major contributors, respectively, as limiting cases, they used the general expression of $`D`$ given by their equation (48) or ours (18) in numerical calculation. For instance, to calculate $`D`$ shown in their figure 2, they used the densities of charged particles shown in their figure 3, which clearly shows the deviation of $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ from $`n_\mathrm{i}`$ at high densities in agreement with our equation (28). which does not correspond to the state of $`D1`$ because they ignored the contribution of grains to $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ (see § 3.5). Their criterion $`|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|6`$ for $`D1`$ gives a density $`n_\mathrm{H}6\times 10^{17}(B/B_{\mathrm{cr}})^2\mathrm{cm}^3`$ irrespective of $`\zeta _0`$ when $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is given by equation (30), or the pressure force balances with the gravity along field lines. When contraction along field lines is insufficient and then the pressure force along field lines is weaker than the gravity, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is larger than given by equation (25) and $`B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ is larger than equation (30) for a given density. This means that $`|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|`$ is larger for given $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ and $`B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, and therefore $`|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|6`$ gives even higher densities than in the above case.

Taking into account the contribution of grains to $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$, we have found that $`D1`$, or $`t_Bt_{\mathrm{od}}/2`$, is realized at $`n_\mathrm{H}1\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ for $`\zeta _0=1\times 10^{17}\mathrm{s}^1`$ almost independent of $`B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ at least at $`0.1B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}1`$. This can be confirmed by substituting the values of $`\sigma _{}`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$, and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ shown in Figure 9 into equation (18) and by noting that $`t_B`$ is almost independent of $`B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ at high densities as shown in Figure 3. This density is lower than Desch & Mouschovias’ values by orders of magnitude.

In reality, however, Ohmic dissipation becomes important at significantly lower densities. At $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ the clouds contract dynamically adjusting $`B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ so as to keep $`t_Bt_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ because too much decrease of $`B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ makes $`t_B`$ larger than $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ as long as $`t_{\mathrm{od}}>t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$. However, $`t_B=t_{\mathrm{od}}/(1+D)`$ cannot be larger than $`t_{\mathrm{od}}`$. Therefore, after $`t_{\mathrm{od}}t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ is attained at $`n_\mathrm{H}1\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ (Figure 3), field dissipation proceeds by Ohmic dissipation faster than the contraction.

Kamaya & Nishi (2000) investigated the motion of ions and grains in the process of magnetic flux loss using a simplified model. Assuming that all grains have the same radius and have an electric charge $`e`$ or 0, ions are well frozen to magnetic fields ($`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}1`$), and electrons are completely frozen ($`|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|\mathrm{}`$), they obtained the drift velocities of ions and grains of charge $`e`$. If we apply equation (3) to their model, we easily obtain the drift velocities given by their equations (34) and (35) though $`\tau _\mathrm{g}`$ should be replaced by $`\tau _\mathrm{g}/C_\mathrm{g}`$. Thus, Kamaya & Nishi (2000) obtained some relatively transparent results due to their simplified model, which are consistent with our formalism, though they got some results different from Ciolek & Mouschovias (1993).

## 5 Summary

We analyzed the detailed processes operating in the drift of magnetic fields in molecular clouds taking into account charged grains with the MRN size distribution in addition to ions and electrons and the effect of partial freezing of these particles to magnetic fields using the formalism obtained by Nakano (1984) and NU (86).

We found that to the frictional force, whereby the magnetic force is transmitted to neutral molecules, ions contribute more than half only at cloud densities $`n_\mathrm{H}10^4\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and grains contribute more than about 90% at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^6\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Besides, the reactions at grain surface are important in determining the densities of various charged particles. Thus grains play a decisive role in the process of magnetic flux loss in molecular clouds.

We confirmed the previous results (NNU (91)) on the magnetic flux loss time $`t_B`$ and the decoupling density $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, at which $`t_B`$ is equal to the free-fall time $`t_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ and therefore magnetic fields are effectively decoupled from the gas; e.g., $`t_Bt_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, and $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ is almost independent of the magnetic field strength in the cloud and takes a value a few $`\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. We found that $`t_B`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ are not very sensitive to the ionization rate by cosmic rays, $`\zeta _0`$.

We investigated the dependence of $`t_B`$ on the field strength $`B`$. Approximating the relation by a power law $`t_BB^\gamma `$, we found $`\gamma 2`$, characteristic to ambipolar diffusion, only at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$ where ions and smallest grains are pretty well frozen to magnetic fields. At $`n_\mathrm{H}>10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`\gamma `$ decreases steeply as $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ increases, and finally at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, $`\gamma 1`$ is attained, reminiscent of Ohmic dissipation, though the flux loss occurs about 10 times faster than by Ohmic dissipation at $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ a few $`\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Because even ions are not very well frozen to magnetic fields at $`n_\mathrm{H}>10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$, ions and charged grains drift slower than the magnetic fields. Decrease of $`B`$ has an effect of increasing this lag. This insufficient freezing makes $`t_B`$ less sensitive to $`B`$ than at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^7\mathrm{cm}^3`$ where major charged particles are well frozen and the decrease of $`B`$ has little effect on their lag. This tendency is enhanced as the density increases, and at last $`t_B`$ becomes almost independent of $`B`$ at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$. Ohmic dissipation is dominant only at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

We found that while ions and electrons drift in the direction of magnetic force at all densities, grains of opposite charges drift in opposite directions at high densities, where grains are major contributors to the frictional force, apart from the component of the drift velocities perpendicular to the magnetic force which yields no net frictional force. Although magnetic flux loss occurs significantly faster than by Ohmic dissipation even at $`n_\mathrm{H}n_{\mathrm{dec}}`$, the operating process at high densities is quite different from ambipolar diffusion in which particles of opposite charges are supposed to drift as one unit.

This work was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of Priority Areas (A) (No. 10147101, 10147105) of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.

## Appendix A Another Method of Formulation

Because the procedures of obtaining the formulae summarized in § 2.1 are rather complicated, it would be worthwhile to show another method of obtaining them.

With the same approximation as adopted by Nakano (1984) and NU (86) and described in § 2.1, the mean motion of charged particle $`\lambda `$ obeys

$$q_\lambda \left(𝑬+\frac{1}{c}𝒗_𝝀\mathbf{\times }𝑩\right)\frac{m_\lambda 𝒗_\lambda }{\tau _\lambda }=0,$$
(A1)
in the frame moving with the neutrals (see § 2.1 for the notation). The solution of this equation is given by

$$𝒗_\lambda =\frac{q_\lambda \tau _\lambda }{m_\lambda }𝑬_{},$$
(A2)
$$𝒗_\lambda =\frac{c}{B}\frac{(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}{1+(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}\left(\frac{𝑬_{}}{\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda }+𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\times }\frac{𝑩}{B}\right),$$
(A3)
where subscripts $``$ and $``$ represent the components parallel and perpendicular to $`𝑩`$, respectively.

The electric current density $`𝒋`$ is obtained by summing up $`n_\lambda q_\lambda 𝒗_\lambda `$ for all kinds of charged particles using equations (A2) and (A3). Moving to a more general frame wherein the neutrals move with a velocity $`𝒖_\mathrm{n}`$ and the electric field is given by $`𝑬_0=𝑬𝒖_𝐧\mathbf{\times }𝑩/c`$, and using the electrical neutrality relation, we obtain

$$𝒋=\sigma _{}𝑬_0+\sigma _\mathrm{P}\left(𝑬_0+\frac{1}{c}𝒖_𝐧\mathbf{\times }𝑩\right)+\sigma _\mathrm{H}\frac{𝑩}{B}\mathbf{\times }\left(𝑬_0+\frac{1}{c}𝒖_𝐧\mathbf{\times }𝑩\right),$$
(A4)
where $`\sigma _{}`$ is the electric conductivity along magnetic field lines given by equation (15), and $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ are Pedersen and Hall conductivities, respectively, given by

$$\sigma _\mathrm{P}=\underset{\nu }{}\frac{\sigma _\nu }{1+(\tau _\nu \omega _\nu )^2}=\left(\frac{c}{B}\right)^2A_1,$$
(A5)
$$\sigma _\mathrm{H}=\underset{\nu }{}\frac{\sigma _\nu \tau _\nu \omega _\nu }{1+(\tau _\nu \omega _\nu )^2}=\left(\frac{c}{B}\right)^2A_2,$$
(A6)
where $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, and $`\sigma _\nu `$ are given by equations (6), (7), and (15), respectively. The last equality of equation (A6) can be found by using the electrical neutrality relation. Equation (A4) with (15), (A5), and (A6) is a generalization of, e.g., Parks (1991) who considered only electrons and a single kind of ions as charged particles.

The drift velocity of magnetic fields, $`𝒗_B`$, satisfies equation (8). Making a vector product of equation (A4) with $`𝑩`$ and eliminating $`𝑬_0+𝒖_𝐧\mathbf{\times }𝑩/c=𝑬`$ by using equation (8), we obtain

$$\frac{1}{c}𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩=\left(\frac{B}{c}\right)^2\left(\sigma _\mathrm{P}𝒗_B+\sigma _\mathrm{H}\frac{𝑩}{B}\mathbf{\times }𝒗_B\right).$$
(A7)
This equation is solved for $`𝒗_B`$ as

$$𝒗_B=\left(\frac{c}{B}\right)^2[\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{P}}{\sigma _\mathrm{P}^2+\sigma _\mathrm{H}^2}\frac{1}{c}𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩+\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{H}}{\sigma _\mathrm{P}^2+\sigma _\mathrm{H}^2}\frac{1}{c}(𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\frac{𝑩}{B}].$$
(A8)
By taking the components of this equation we can confirm that equation (A8) is identical with equations (9) and (10).

Eliminating $`𝑬_{}`$ in equation (A3) by using equation (8), we obtain

$$𝒗_\lambda =\frac{(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}{1+(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}\left(𝒗_B+\frac{1}{\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda }\frac{𝑩}{B}\mathbf{\times }𝒗_B\right).$$
(A9)
Elimination of $`𝒗_B`$ by using equation (A8) gives

$$𝒗_\lambda =\frac{(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}{1+(\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda )^2}\left(\frac{c}{B}\right)^2\frac{1}{\sigma _\mathrm{P}^2+\sigma _\mathrm{H}^2}\left[\left(\sigma _\mathrm{P}+\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{H}}{\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda }\right)\frac{1}{c}𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩+\left(\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{P}}{\tau _\lambda \omega _\lambda }\sigma _\mathrm{H}\right)\frac{𝑩}{B}\mathbf{\times }\frac{1}{c}(𝒋\mathbf{\times }𝑩)\right].$$
(A10)
It is easy to confirm that equation (A10) is identical with equations (3) and (4).

With some manipulation equation (A4) can be solved for $`𝑬_0`$ as

$$𝑬_0=\frac{1}{c}𝒖_𝐧\mathbf{\times }𝑩+\frac{1}{\sigma _{}}𝒋+\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{H}}{\sigma _\mathrm{P}^2+\sigma _\mathrm{H}^2}𝒋\mathbf{\times }\frac{𝑩}{B}+\left(\frac{\sigma _\mathrm{P}}{\sigma _\mathrm{P}^2+\sigma _\mathrm{H}^2}\frac{1}{\sigma _{}}\right)\frac{𝑩}{B}\mathbf{\times }\left(𝒋\mathbf{\times }\frac{𝑩}{B}\right).$$
(A11)
By comparing the coefficients we can confirm that equations (14) and (A11) are identical. Desch & Mouschovias (2001) used an equation equivalent to ours (14) or (A11) though neglecting the dominant terms of $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ as pointed out in § 3.5.

## Appendix B Effect of Collision between Charged Particles

In § 2 and Appendix A we have neglected frictional forces on charged particles except those exerted by the neutrals. Except for electrons in some limited situations, this is a good approximation. We discuss the effect of collision between electrons and other charged particles on the collision time $`\tau _\mathrm{e}`$ of electrons, which appears in the electric conductivity $`\sigma _\mathrm{e}`$ in equation (15).

The $`90^{}`$ deflection time of an electron of velocity $`v_\mathrm{e}`$ by collision with ions of electric charge $`q_\mathrm{i}=e`$ is given by

$$\tau _{\text{e-i}}=\frac{m_\mathrm{e}^2v_\mathrm{e}^3}{8\pi n_\mathrm{i}e^4\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(B1)
where $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a quantity determined by the cut-off of the impact parameter for the collision (Spitzer (1962)). For $`v_\mathrm{e}`$ we take the thermal velocity of electrons. The collision time of an electron with the neutrals is given by

$$\tau _{\text{e-n}}\frac{1}{[n(\mathrm{H}_2)\sigma (\text{e\hspace{0.17em}-\hspace{0.17em}H}_2)+n(\mathrm{He})\sigma (\text{e\hspace{0.17em}-\hspace{0.17em}He})]v_\mathrm{e}},$$
(B2)
where $`\sigma (\text{e\hspace{0.17em}-\hspace{0.17em}H}_2)6.6\times 10^{16}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and $`\sigma (\text{e\hspace{0.17em}-\hspace{0.17em}He})2.9\times 10^{16}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ are the collision cross sections of an electron with an H2 molecule and an He atom, respectively, at $`T10`$ K (Sano et al. (2000)). The collision time $`\tau _\mathrm{e}`$ of an electron with ions or neutrals is given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _\mathrm{e}}=\frac{1}{\tau _{\text{e-i}}}+\frac{1}{\tau _{\text{e-n}}}.$$
(B3)
From equations (B1) and (B2) we have

$$\frac{\tau _{\text{e-i}}}{\tau _{\text{e-n}}}\left(\frac{n_\mathrm{i}/n_\mathrm{H}}{1\times 10^{10}}\right)^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}{40}\right)^1$$
(B4)
for $`T10`$ K. Thus, the electric conductivity $`\sigma _{}`$ is significantly affected by collision of electrons with ions only when $`n_\mathrm{i}/n_\mathrm{H}1\times 10^{10}`$, or at $`n_\mathrm{H}1\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$ as seen from Figure 1. Although charged grains also scatter electrons, their contribution does not affect this conclusion much because $`n(\mathrm{g}^+)n(\mathrm{g}^{})n_\mathrm{i}`$ at $`n_\mathrm{H}1\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`[n(\mathrm{g}^{})+n(\mathrm{g}^+)]/n_\mathrm{H}1\times 10^{10}`$ at $`n_\mathrm{H}1\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for electron-grain collision is not much different from that for electron-ion collision.

Similarly ions are scattered by charged grains. This effect is important compared with their collision with the neutrals only when $`[n(\mathrm{g}^{})+n(\mathrm{g}^+)]/n_\mathrm{H}2\times 10^9`$, which is not realized as seen from Figure 1. Collision of ions with electrons has negligible effect on the motion of ions unless $`n_\mathrm{e}/n_\mathrm{H}4\times 10^7`$. Collision of charged grains with ions is also much less effective than their collision with the neutrals.

Although $`\sigma _{}`$ is greatly affected by the scattering of electrons by ions at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$ are hardly affected as can be confirmed in the following way. Even if the effect of collision with ions is taken into account on $`\tau _\mathrm{e}`$ at $`n_\mathrm{H}1\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}^3`$, we find $`|\tau _\mathrm{e}\omega _\mathrm{e}|\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}>1`$ as far as $`n_\mathrm{i}/n_\mathrm{H}10^6`$, which is satisfied at least in the density range covered by this paper. Therefore, contribution of electrons to $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ (or $`\sigma _\mathrm{P}`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{H}`$) is still much smaller than that of ions as can be confirmed from equations (6) and (7). Our results are therefore not affected by the correction on $`\tau _\mathrm{e}`$. On the other hand, we have used $`\sigma _{}`$ with the corrected $`\tau _\mathrm{e}`$ in the estimation of the Ohmic dissipation time $`t_{\mathrm{od}}10^{15}\mathrm{yr}`$ at $`n_\mathrm{H}10^5\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in § 1; without this correction, $`t_{\mathrm{od}}`$ at this density will be $`10^2`$ times larger.

## Appendix C On the Term “Ambipolar Diffusion”

Ambipolar diffusion is a term originally used in plasma physics. At length scales larger than the Debye shielding length in plasmas, electrical neutrality is well established. Therefore, if there is a gradient in the electron density, they are transported with a flux proportional to their density gradient, and ions follow them because of electric forces, and vice versa. Thus, particles of both electric charges diffuse as one unit. This process is called ambipolar diffusion (e.g., Cap (1976)), whose literal meaning fits the process.

In the drift of magnetic fields in molecular clouds investigated first by Mestel & Spitzer (1956), ions and electrons, which are well frozen to magnetic fields, drift with the same velocity as if they were one unit. Because of this seeming similarity this process got the name “ambipolar diffusion”. However, the drift is driven by the magnetic force, not by the density gradient. Thus, this process is quite different from what the physical term ”diffusion” means.

In the original ambipolar diffusion the diffusion coefficient perpendicular to magnetic field lines is inversely proportional to both $`B^2`$ and the collision time of electrons with neutrals, $`\tau _\mathrm{e}`$, when $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}1`$ (Cap (1976)), and thus the diffusion time is proportional to $`\tau _\mathrm{e}B^2`$. On the other hand, the drift time of magnetic fields given by equation (21) in the same situation $`\tau _\mathrm{i}\omega _\mathrm{i}1`$, $`t_B\tau _\mathrm{i}^1B^2`$, has the opposite dependences. This difference also shows that these processes are quite different from each other.

Because of these differences the latter process was sometimes called “plasma drift” instead of ambipolar diffusion (e.g., Spitzer (1978); Nakano (1984); Mestel (1999)).

In this paper we have found that grains, the main contributors to the frictional force, of opposite charges drift in opposite directions except at relatively low densities. This is even contrary to the literal meaning of ambipolar diffusion. Some appropriate term is desired; plasma drift is much better than ambipolar diffusion.


text:
# Two–dimensional Copolymers and Multifractality: Comparing Perturbative Expansions, MC Simulations, and Exact Results

## Copolymer stars and their scaling exponents

Star polymers as the most simple nontrivial examples of polymer networks stars ; stars2d  are created by linking together the end points of polymer chains at a common core. Let us now consider a general star polymer made of chains of two different species (while all chains have equilibrium size $`R`$). When such a copolymer star is immersed in a good solvent its asymptotic properties are universal in the limit of long chains deGennes79 ; polymerRG ; Kleinert95 . In particular, the number of configurations (the partition function $`Z_{}`$) scales with $`R`$ on some scale $`\mathrm{}`$ as:

$$Z_{}(R/\mathrm{})^{\lambda _{f_1,f_2}},$$
(1)
where $`\lambda _{f_1,f_2}`$ constitute a family of copolymer star exponents FerHol97 ; costars . These are universal and depend only on the space dimension $`D`$ and the number of chains of different species 1 and 2 ($`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ correspondingly). If a nonvanishing mutual avoidance interaction is present between the chains of species 1 and 2 polymer field theory predicts two nontrivial physically different regimes ternary  for the scaling behavior of true copolymer stars described by Eq. (1): In the first case the polymers of species 1 behave as RWs and the polymers of species 2 as SAWs, whereas in the second case both species display RW behavior note1 . For these two relevant cases a renormalization group description of the exponents $`\lambda _{f_1,f_2}`$ has been given in terms of the scaling dimensions of appropriately composed composite operators of polymer field theory FerHol97 . In particular, the resulting perturbation theory was derived in the form of an $`\epsilon =4D`$ expansion as well as evaluated directly for fixed $`D`$ note2 . Following Ref. FerHol97  where the copolymer star exponents $`\eta _{f_1,f_2}`$ were calculated, the $`\epsilon `$-expansion for the $`\lambda `$-exponents of a copolymer star composed of two mutually avoiding sets of RWs ($`\lambda _{f_1,f_2}^G=\eta _{f_1,f_2}^G`$) and for a star of mutually avoiding sets of SAWs and RWs ($`\lambda _{f_1,f_2}^U=\eta _{f_1,f_2}^U+f_1\eta _{2,0}^U`$) read:

$`\lambda _{f_1,f_2}^G(\epsilon )={\displaystyle \frac{f_1f_2\epsilon }{2}}\{1(f_23+f_1){\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{4}}[1(f_1+`$
$`f_2+3\zeta (3)3){\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}]\},`$ (2)
$`\lambda _{f_1,f_2}^U(\epsilon )=f_1(3f_13f_2){\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{8}}f_1(4333f_1+`$
$`8f_1^291f_2+42f_1f_2+18f_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{256}}f_1[675969f_1+`$
$`456f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}64f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}2463f_2+2290f_1f_2492f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}f_2+`$
$`1050f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}504f_1f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}108f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\zeta (3)(712936f_1+`$
$`224f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2652f_2+1188f_1f_2+540f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})]{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^3}{4096}},`$ (3)
where $`\zeta (3)1.202`$ is the value of the Riemann zeta function. While we do not display the exponents calculated at fixed space dimension $`D`$ here explicitly, we show their numerical values below.

The perturbative formulas of the kind given in Eqs. (2)–(3) may be evaluated for $`D=3`$ where the topological complexity of the problem does not allow for an exact treatment. One should be aware that for similar reasons an exact expression for the partition function $`Z_{}`$, formula (1), can not be obtained for $`D=2`$ either. However, appropriate identification of the universality classes of $`D=2`$ critical behavior with conformally invariant theories often allows to extract the exact values of critical exponents. In Refs. Duplantier99  this was successfully performed for the $`D=2`$ copolymer star of two or more mutually avoiding bunches of SAWs and RWs. Here, we analyze a copolymer star of one or two RWs or SAWs of species 1 and a bunch of $`f_2`$ RWs of species 2. In the notation of the above equations the following exact expressions for the corresponding exponents are derived from Refs. Duplantier99 :

$`\lambda _{1,f_2}^G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4f_2+1+a}{8}},\lambda _{2,f_2}^G={\displaystyle \frac{12f_2+11+5a}{24}},`$ (4)
$`\lambda _{1,f_2}^U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12f_213+2a}{24}},\lambda _{2,f_2}^U={\displaystyle \frac{12f_216+5a}{24}},`$ (5)
with $`a=\sqrt{24f_2+1}`$.

As far as this is not an exact solution in terms of the original theory but rather an “exact conjecture” for the exponents we performed one more check of the scaling exponents by a MC simulation for the simplest case when the copolymer star consists of RWs only ($`\lambda _{1,f_2}^G,\lambda _{2,f_2}^G`$). In these simulations the stars are grown on a square lattice until a non-allowed intersection occurs. The number of stars $`C(N)`$ generated during the growing process is accumulated for all chain lengths $`N`$. Exponents are extracted assuming a power law $`C(N)N^{\nu _0\lambda _{f_1,f_2}}`$ where the RW correlation length exponent is $`\nu _0=1/2`$. We generate stars up to a maximum chain length $`N_{\mathrm{max}}=10^3`$ and accumulate configurations until $`C(N_{\mathrm{max}})=10^5`$. The number of successful attempts to grow stars with longer chains decreases rapidly for higher $`f_1+f_2`$ which increases simulation time drastically. While for the case $`1+1`$ a total of $`10^6`$ attempts were needed, this number rose to $`510^9`$ for $`5+1`$. Therefore, we report results only for $`f_1+f_26`$. From the bare simulation data we extracted the numerical values of the exponents by an extrapolation to $`1/N0`$. In Table 1 we report the results and the statistical error of this extrapolation in the lines marked ’MC’ and ’$`\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$’. We compare with the exact numbers according to Eqs. (4). The results are in fair agreement with a slightly growing discrepancy as the number of RWs $`f_2`$ increases.

In Fig. 1 we compare the results with the perturbative data of the $`\epsilon `$-expansion naively adding successive orders of the perturbation theory series (2). We show the $`\epsilon ^2`$ and $`\epsilon ^3`$approximations. The values predicted by successive orders of the $`\epsilon `$-expansion for $`\epsilon =2`$ do not seem to correlate with each other nor with the exact values of the $`d=2`$ exponents. It is not only the large expansion parameter $`\epsilon =2`$ that spoils the convergence of the perturbation theory. As is well known, the perturbation theory series of renormalized field theory are asymptotic at best rgbooks  and have zero radius of convergence Hardy . An appropriate resummation technique must be used to extract reliable data from the series. Here we use a Borel resummation refined by a conformal mapping LeGuillou80  as described for this particular case in Ref. FerHol97 .

The resummation procedure allows us to restore convergence of the $`\epsilon `$-expansion and enables us to extract reliable exponent values. These are also shown in Fig. 1. The same resummation is applied for the renormalization group expansions at fixed $`D=2`$ note2 . All data is summarized in Table 1. For $`\lambda _{1,2}^G`$ perturbation theory gives the exact result at first order with all higher orders vanishing Semenov88 . For completeness we have included here as in Table 2 the corresponding $`D=3`$ dimensional results from FerHol97 .

Table 2 contains the data for the resummed values of the exponents $`\lambda _{2,f_2}^U`$ for the combined SAW and RW copolymer stars. We show the values obtained by the fixed $`D=2`$ technique and the $`\epsilon `$-expansion in comparison with their exact counterparts (5). Again, the results are in fair agreement for not too large numbers of chains $`f_2`$. Indeed as one can see from the formulas (2)–(3) the increase of $`f_2`$ leads to an increase of the $`\epsilon `$-expansion coefficients resulting in a growing inaccuracy even of the resummed series.

In the perturbative treatment (which starts from the upper critical dimension $`D=4`$ polymerRG ) the order of the chains in the star does not matter for the scaling laws: there is always a possibility for every chain to interact with any other chain constituting a star. On the other hand, in $`D=2`$ the order of chains does matter: each chain of the star will interact only with its direct neighbors. This topological restriction has to be taken into account when comparing exact and perturbative results for $`D=2`$ linked polymers.

The data of Tables 1, 2 convinces us that the perturbation theory series for low numbers of chains $`f_2`$ is reliable even for $`D=2`$. Also, we note that the $`D=2`$ copolymers with $`f_1=2`$ are worse described by the perturbation theory than those with $`f_1=1`$ where the topological restriction is not present, due to the symmetry of ordering.

## Multifractal Spectrum

It is of special interest to notice another physical interpretation for the copolymer star exponents (1). For the diffusion of freely moving particles in the presence of a polymer absorber it may be shown Cates87  that the moments of particle density display universal scaling laws in the vicinity of the absorbing polymer. In particular, the $`n`$th moment $`\rho ^n`$ at distance $`r`$ from the core of an absorbing polymer star with $`m`$ chains scales as Cates87 ; FerHol97 :

$$<\rho ^n(r)>(R/r)^{\lambda _{m,n}},$$
(6)
here $`<\mathrm{}>`$ denotes the ensemble average over the configurations of the absorbing polymers while otherwise we use the notations of formula (1). The harmonic measure that corresponds to this absorption phenomenon possesses multifractal Cates87 ; Hentschel83 ; Halsey86  properties: The flux $`\varphi `$ of diffusing particles onto the polymer star is interpreted as a measure defined on the fractal structure of the star polymer. This flux is proportional to the particle density (6) some small distance $`\mathrm{}`$ away from an absorbing point on the star polymer. The following scaling law for the normalized moments of the harmonic measure at the core of the star polymer is derived:

$$<\varphi ^n>/<\varphi >^n(R/\mathrm{})^{\tau _{m,n}}.$$
(7)
Comparing formulas (6) and (7) the obvious relation between the exponents $`\tau `$ and $`\lambda `$ is:

$$\tau _{m,n}=\lambda _{m,n}n\lambda _{m,1}.$$
(8)
Note, that here we use the standard definition Cates87  for the spectrum of the exponents $`\tau `$, including normalization of the $`n`$th moment of the flux in (7) by $`<\varphi >^n`$. The expression (7) is a multifractal measure as far as the spectrum $`\tau `$ is non-trivial ($`\tau 0`$). Obviously, the spectrum $`\lambda `$ is non-trivial as well, as one can see already from the second order perturbative results (2), (3): $`\lambda _{mn}n\lambda _{m1}`$.

Using the relation (8) we now compare the values of the exponents $`\tau `$ as obtained in the perturbative approach with those of the MC simulations and the exact calculations. If the absorbing polymer star is chosen to be RW-like, then the spectra $`\tau `$ are calculated by substituting the exponents $`\lambda ^G`$ into (8) (and exponents $`\lambda ^U`$ for SAWs, correspondingly). We show in Fig. 2 the resulting spectra for the spectrum of the exponents $`\tau _{1n}^U`$ for the absorption at the end-point of a SAW. Again, we display the exact results derived from formulas (4) in comparison with the perturbative data with and without resummation. We observe a similar behavior as for the spectra $`\lambda `$: for low enough values of $`n`$ the resummed perturbative renormalization group results are in reasonable agreement with the exact predictions.

The description of multifractal phenomena often uses the spectral function formalism Halsey86 . To obtain this function for the absorption process on the center of a star of $`m`$ chains we analytically continue the set of exponents $`\tau _{mn}`$ in the variable $`n`$ and calculate the following Legendre transform

$`f_m(\alpha _{mn})`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _{mn}+n\alpha _{mn}+d(1n),`$ (9)
$`\alpha _{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\tau _{mn}}{\mathrm{d}n}}+d.`$
According to the standard definition Cates87  we have included into (9) the fractal dimension $`d`$ of the absorber. In particular, this gives the maximal value of the spectral function to be equal to $`d\tau _{m0}d\lambda _{m0}`$. There appears to be no natural generalization of $`d`$ for arbitrary $`m`$. In our presentation we use that the fractal dimension of a polymer star is equal to that of a polymer chain ($`d=2`$ for a RW and $`d=4/3`$ for a SAW in $`D=2`$, correspondingly). Another way to define the multifractal spectrum is chosen in Refs. Duplantier99  where the $`n`$th moments (7) are normalized not by $`<\varphi >^n`$ but by $`<\varphi >`$. This choice has the remarkable feature that without introducing an additional dimension $`d`$ in (9) the maximum of $`f(\alpha )`$ $`d=4/3`$ for both the SAW and the RW absorbers with $`f_1=2`$. However, this definition is not general, as already in $`D=3`$ it does not lead to the correct location of the spectral function maximum.

We display the spectral function for the case of the absorption at a RW end in Fig. 3. The spectral function is negative for some values of $`\alpha `$. This behavior was observed already in the perturbative studies of Ref. Cates87  and related to the ensemble average in formulas (6), (7) in contrast to the usual site average over the support of the measure. Comparing the perturbative, the MC and the exact results we note that the region of $`1<n<5`$ in which reasonable agreement for the spectra $`\lambda `$ and $`\tau `$ is found corresponds to a rather small region in terms of the parameter $`\alpha `$ in the left wing of the spectral functions.

## Conclusions

The field theoretical description of a polymer network of different species has been derived recently FerHol97 ; costars  in the form of renormalization group perturbation theory series. In this paper, we compared and verified the perturbation expansions for $`D=2`$ with a subsequently published exact study Duplantier99  and MC simulations. We found that the series when appropriately resummed give a reliable description of the scaling of copolymer stars with not too many chains even for the $`D=2`$ dimensional case. Not only the increase of the expansion parameter forbids application of the perturbative results for higher numbers of chains: in $`D=2`$ topological restrictions appear that are not taken into account by field theory.

We have analyzed the multifractal properties of the resulting spectra of exponents and found that the spectrum $`\tau (n)`$ is in much better coincidence with the exact counterpart than the spectral function $`f(\alpha )`$. In the latter case the perturbative approach gives comparable results only for a narrow region in the left wing of the spectral function. Note however, that the right wing corresponds to negative values of $`n`$, where obviously the analytic continuation of the perturbative expansions as well as of the exact results is speculative.

###### Acknowledgements.

Support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is gratefully acknowledged.