Paper detail

2-D Radiative Transfer in Protostellar Envelopes: I. Effects of Geometry on Class I Sources

We present 2-D radiation transfer models of Class I Protostars and show the effect of including more realistic geometries on the resulting spectral energy distributions and images. We begin with a rotationally flattened infalling envelope as our comparison model, and add a flared disk and bipolar cavity. The disk affects the spectral energy distribution most strongly at edge-on inclinations, causing a broad dip at about 10 um (independent of the silicate feature) due to high extinction and low scattering albedo in this wavelength region. The bipolar cavities allow more direct stellar+disk radiation to emerge into polar directions, and more scattering radiation to emerge into all directions. The wavelength-integrated flux, often interpreted as luminosity, varies with viewing angle, with pole-on viewing angles seeing 2-4 times as much flux as edge-on, depending on geometry. Thus, observational estimates of luminosity should take into account the inclination of a source. The envelopes with cavities are significantly bluer in near-IR and mid-IR color-color plots than those without cavities. Using 1-D models to interpret Class I sources with bipolar cavities would lead to an underestimate of envelope mass and an overestimate of the implied evolutionary state. We compute images at near-, mid-, and far-IR wavelengths. We find that the mid-IR colors and images are sensitive to scattering albedo, and that the flared disk shadows the midplane on large size scales at all wavelengths plotted. Finally, our models produce polarization spectra which can be used to diagnose dust properties, such as albedo variations due to grain growth. Our results of polarization across the 3.1 um ice feature agree well with observations for ice mantles covering 5% of the radius of the grains.

preprint2003arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.