1. Modes of Star Formation: A Retrospective Fred C. Adams Fred C. Adams DENSE CORES LXV DENSE CORES LXV Newport, RI, October 2009

2. A Brief History (Shu, Adams, Lizano, 1987) 4 Stages of Star Formation

3. AmbipolarDiffusion

4. Monopole Solution

5. Fred: Your measurements of only `half the sound speed’ must be wrong: you should get 0.495 times a_s. You need to get more accurate measurements…

6. Fred: Your measurements of only `half the sound speed’ must be wrong: you should get 0.495 times a_s. You need to get more accurate measurements… Phil: … you and Frank never do anything 0.495-hearted or 0.495-assed…

7. Physical Diffusion Solutions

8. Mass Infall Rates with Nonzero Head Start Velocity

9. [1] What is the distribution of cluster environments? [2] How does the cluster environment affect the formation of stars/planets? Most Stars Form in Clusters:

10. Cluster environments actively affect the formation of planets more than the formation of stars themselves. Conjecture:

11. Cumulative Distribution: Fraction of stars that form in stellar aggregates with N < N as function of N Median point: N=300 (Adams, Proszkow, Fatuzzo, & Myers 2006, ApJ)

12. Dynamical Studies Distribution of closest approachesDistribution of closest approaches Radial position probability distributionRadial position probability distribution I.Evolution of clusters as astrophysical objects II.Effects of clusters on forming solar systems

13. Simulations of Embedded Clusters Modified NBODY2(and 6) Codes (S. Aarseth)Modified NBODY2(and 6) Codes (S. Aarseth) Simulate evolution from embedded stage to age 10 MyrSimulate evolution from embedded stage to age 10 Myr Cluster evolution depends on the following:Cluster evolution depends on the following: –cluster size –initial stellar and gas profiles –gas disruption history –star formation history –primordial mass segregation –initial dynamical assumptions 100 realizations are needed to provide100 realizations are needed to provide robust statistics for output measures robust statistics for output measures (E. Proszkow thesis - work with Phil!)

14. Virial RatioQ = |K/W| virial Q = 0.5; cold Q = 0.04 Mass Segregation: largest star at center of cluster Simulation Parameters Cluster Membership N = 100, 300, 1000 Radius Initial Stellar Density Gas Distribution SF Efficiency = 0.33 Embedded Epoch t = 0–5 Myr SF time span t = 0-1 Myr

15. Closest Approach Distributions Simulation 00  b C (AU) 100 Subvirial0.1661.50713 100 Virial0.05981.431430 300 Subvirial0.09571.711030 300 Virial0.02561.632310 1000 Subvirial0.07241.881190 1000 Virial0.01011.773650 Typical star experiences one close encounter with impact parameter b C over t = 10 Myr Subvirial initial conditions matter - thanks Phil…

16. Interaction Cross Sections 2.0 M  1.0 M  0.5 M  0.25 M 

17. Clusters have relatively moderate effects on their constituent solar systems through dynamical interactions

18. – –Photoevaporation of a circumstellar disk – –Radiation from the background cluster often dominates radiation from the parent star (Johnstone et al. 1998; Adams & Myers 2001) – –FUV radiation (6 eV < E < 13.6 eV) is more important in this process than EUV radiation – –FUV flux of G 0 = 3000 will truncate a circumstellar disk to r d over 10 Myr, where Effects of Cluster Radiation on Forming/Young Solar Systems

19. FUV Flux depends on: – –Cluster FUV luminosity – –Location of disk within cluster Assume: – –FUV point source at center of cluster – –Stellar density  ~ 1/r Composite Distribution of FUV Flux G 0 = 1 corresponds to FUV flux 1.6 x 10 -3 erg s -1 cm -2 Median900 Peak1800 Mean16,500 G 0 Distribution

20. Photoevaporation Model (Adams et al. 2004)

21. Evaporation Time vs FUV Field ----------------------- (for disks around solar mass stars)

22. Evaporation Time vs Stellar Mass Evaporation is much more effective for disks around low-mass stars: Giant planet formation can be compromised G=3000

23. Evaporation vs Accretion Disk accretion aids and abets the disk destruction process by draining gas from the inside, while evaporation removes gas from the outside... Total time scale of 8 Myr, consistent with observations …

24. Radiation effects Dominate over Dynamical effects in Clusters Dynamical effects in Clusters

25. Group/Cluster Transition (Adams & Myers 2001, ApJ)

26. Constraints on Solar Birth Cluster Supernova Neptune Sedna Radiation

27. CONSISTENT SCENARIO for Solar Birth Aggregate Cluster size: N = 1000 - 7000 Reasonable a priori probability (few percent) Allows meteoritic enrichment and scattering survival UV radiation field evaporates disk down to 30 AU Scattering interactions truncate Kuiper belt at 50 AU leave Sedna and remaining KBOs with large (a,e,i)

28. Bottom Line: Clusters in solar neighborhood exert an intermediate level of influence on their constituent solar systems: Neither Dominant Nor Negligible. What’s next: Extend analysis to larger N Distribution of cluster sizes N

29. Fundamental Plane for Clusters Density:1,10,100 Relax time: 1-1000 Myr

32. In spherical limit, orbits are Spirographs: WHAT ABOUT ORBITS?

33. Orbits in Spherical Potential

34. (effective semi-major axis) (angular momentum of the circular orbit) (circular orbits do not close)

35. These results determine the radiation exposure of a star, averaged over its orbit, as a function of energy and angular momentum:

36. Triaxial Density Distributions Relevant density profiles include NFW and Hernquist Isodensity surfaces in triaxial geometry In the inner limit both profiles scale as 1/r

37. Triaxial Potential In the inner limit the above integral can be simplified to where is the depth of the potential well and the effective potential is given by are polynomial functions of

38. Triaxial Forces (Adams, Bloch, Butler, Druce, Ketchum 2007)

39. Orbit Gallery

40. New Cluster Result Kinematic observations of the Orion Nebula Cluster show that the system must have: Non-spherical geometry Non-spherical geometry Non-virial initial conditions Non-virial initial conditions Viewing angle not along a principal axis Viewing angle not along a principal axis (with E. Proszkow, J. Tobin, and L. Hartmann, 2009)

41. Results from PDR Code Lots of chemistry and many heating/cooling lines determine the temperature as a function of G, n, A

42. Solution for the Fluid Fields outer disk edge sonic surface