Paper detail

Evolutionary Signatures in the Formation of Low-Mass Protostars. II. Towards Reconciling Models and Observations

A long-standing problem in low-mass star formation is the "luminosity problem," whereby protostars are underluminous compared to the accretion luminosity expected both from theoretical collapse calculations and arguments based on the minimum accretion rate necessary to form a star within the embedded phase duration. Motivated by this luminosity problem, we present a set of evolutionary models describing the collapse of low-mass, dense cores into protostars, using the Young & Evans (2005) model as our starting point. We calculate the radiative transfer of the collapsing cores throughout the full duration of the collapse in two dimensions. From the resulting spectral energy distributions, we calculate standard observational signatures to directly compare to observations. We incorporate several modifications and additions to the original Young & Evans model in an effort to better match observations with model predictions. We find that scattering, 2-D geometry, mass-loss, and outflow cavities all affect the model predictions, as expected, but none resolve the luminosity problem. A cycle of episodic mass accretion, however, can resolve this problem and bring the model predictions into better agreement with observations. Standard assumptions about the interplay between mass accretion and mass loss in our model give star formation efficiencies consistent with recent observations that compare the core mass function (CMF) and stellar initial mass function (IMF). The combination of outflow cavities and episodic mass accretion reduce the connection between observational Class and physical Stage to the point where neither of the two common observational signatures (bolometric temperature and ratio of bolometric to submillimeter luminosity) can be considered reliable indicators of physical Stage.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.