Paper detail

Observational Diagnostics for Two-Fluid Turbulence in Molecular Clouds As Suggested by Simulations

We present high resolution simulations of two-fluid (ion-neutral) MHD turbulence with resolutions as large as 512^3. The simulations are supersonic and mildly sub-Alfvenic, in keeping with the conditions present in molecular clouds. Such turbulence is thought to influence star formation processes in molecular clouds because typical cores form on length scales that are comparable to the dissipation scales of this turbulence in the ions. The simulations are motivated by the fact that recent studies of isophotologue lines in molecular clouds have found significant differences in the linewidth-size relationship for neutral and ion species. The goals of this paper are to explain those observations using simulations and analytic theory, present a new set of density-based diagnostics by drawing on similar diagnostics that have been obtained by studying single-fluid turbulence, and show that our two-fluid simulations play a vital role in reconciling alternative models of star formation. The velocity-dependent diagnostics display a complementarity with the density-dependent diagnostics. We find that the linewidth-size relationships show a prominent difference between ions and neutrals when the line of sight is orthogonal to the mean field. This is because the MHD waves in the ions differ from hydrodynamic waves in the neutrals. We also find that the density probability distribution functions (PDFs) show prominent differences between the ions and neutrals when the line of sight is parallel to the mean field. This is because the velocity fluctuations in the ions tend to produce column density fluctuations along field lines. When the magnetic field makes an angle to the line of sight, both observable differences should be visible. These diagnostics should be easy for observers to test. This analysis assumes optically thin lines and a mean magnetic field that is uniform in direction within a cloud.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.