Paper detail

On the convergence of the critical cooling timescale for the fragmentation of self-gravitating discs

We carry out simulations of gravitationally unstable discs using a Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) code and a grid-based hydrodynamics code, FARGO, to understand the previous non-convergent results reported by Meru & Bate (2011a). We obtain evidence that convergence with increasing resolution occurs with both SPH and FARGO and in both cases we find that the critical cooling timescale is larger than previously thought. We show that SPH has a first-order convergence rate while FARGO converges with a second-order rate. We show that the convergence of the critical cooling timescale for fragmentation depends largely on the numerical viscosity employed in both SPH and FARGO. With SPH, particle velocity dispersion may also play a role. We show that reducing the dissipation from the numerical viscosity leads to larger values of the critical cooling time at a given resolution. For SPH, we find that the effect of the dissipation due to the numerical viscosity is somewhat larger than had previously been appreciated. In particular, we show that using a quadratic term in the SPH artificial viscosity (beta_{SPH}) that is too low appears to lead to excess dissipation in gravitationally unstable discs, which may affect any results that sensitively depend on the thermodynamics, such as disc fragmentation. We show that the two codes converge to values of the critical cooling timescale, beta_{crit} > 20 (for a ratio of specific heats of gamma=5/3), and perhaps even as large as beta_{crit} \approx 30. These are approximately 3-5 times larger than has been found by most previous studies. This is equivalent to a maximum gravitational stress that a disc can withstand without fragmenting of alpha_{GI,crit} \approx 0.013-0.02, which is much smaller than the values typically used in the literature. It is therefore easier for self-gravitating discs to fragment than has been concluded from most past studies.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors3 topics

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.