Paper detail

Ambipolar diffusion in low-mass star formation. I. General comparison with the ideal MHD case

In this paper, we provide a more accurate description of the evolution of the magnetic flux redistribution during prestellar core collapse by including resistive terms in the magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) equations. We focus more particularly on the impact of ambipolar diffusion. We use the adaptive mesh refinement code RAMSES to carry out such calculations. The resistivities required to calculate the ambipolar diffusion terms were computed using a reduced chemical network of charged, neutral and grain species. The inclusion of ambipolar diffusion leads to the formation of a magnetic diffusion barrier in the vicinity of the core, preventing accumulation of magnetic flux in and around the core and amplification of the field above 0.1G. The mass and radius of the first Larson core remain similar between ideal and non-ideal MHD models. This diffusion plateau has crucial consequences on magnetic braking processes, allowing the formation of disk structures. Magnetically supported outflows launched in ideal MHD models are weakened when using non-ideal MHD. Contrary to ideal MHD misalignment between the initial rotation axis and the magnetic field direction does not significantly affect the results for a given mu, showing that the physical dissipation truly dominate over numerical diffusion. We demonstrate severe limits of the ideal MHD formalism, which yield unphysical behaviours in the long-term evolution of the system. This includes counter rotation inside the outflow, interchange instabilities, and flux redistribution triggered by numerical diffusion, none observed in non-ideal MHD. Disks with Keplerian velocity profiles form in all our non-ideal MHD simulations, with final mass and size which depend on the initial magnetisation. This ranges from a few 0.01 solar masses and 20-30 au for the most magnetised case (mu=2) to 0.2 solar masses and 40-80 au for a lower magnetisation (mu=5).

preprint2015arXivOpen 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.