Paper detail

A method for reconstructing the variance of a 3D physical field from 2D observations: Application to turbulence in the ISM

We introduce and test an expression for calculating the variance of a physical field in three dimensions using only information contained in the two-dimensional projection of the field. The method is general but assumes statistical isotropy. To test the method we apply it to numerical simulations of hydrodynamic and magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in molecular clouds, and demonstrate that it can recover the 3D normalised density variance with ~10% accuracy if the assumption of isotropy is valid. We show that the assumption of isotropy breaks down at low sonic Mach number if the turbulence is sub-Alfvenic. Theoretical predictions suggest that the 3D density variance should increase proportionally to the square of the Mach number of the turbulence. Application of our method will allow this prediction to be tested observationally and therefore constrain a large body of analytic models of star formation that rely on it.

preprint2010arXivOpen 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.