Paper detail

Protostellar accretion traced with chemistry: Comparing synthetic C18O maps of embedded protostars to real observations

Context: Understanding how protostars accrete their mass is a central question of star formation. One aspect of this is trying to understand whether the time evolution of accretion rates in deeply embedded objects is best characterised by a smooth decline from early to late stages or by intermittent bursts of high accretion. Aims: We create synthetic observations of deeply embedded protostars in a large numerical simulation of a molecular cloud, which are compared directly to real observations. The goal is to compare episodic accretion events in the simulation to observations and to test the methodology used for analysing the observations. Methods: Simple freeze-out and sublimation chemistry is added to the simulation, and synthetic C$^{18}$O line cubes are created for a large number of simulated protostars. The spatial extent of C$^{18}$O is measured for the simulated protostars and compared directly to a sample of 16 deeply embedded protostars observed with the Submillimeter Array. If CO is distributed over a larger area than predicted based on the protostellar luminosity, it may indicate that the luminosity has been higher in the past and that CO is still in the process of refreezing. Results: Approximately 1% of the protostars in the simulation show extended C$^{18}$O emission, as opposed to approximately 50% in the observations, indicating that the magnitude and frequency of episodic accretion events in the simulation is too low relative to observations. The protostellar accretion rates in the simulation are primarily modulated by infall from the larger scales of the molecular cloud, and do not include any disk physics. The discrepancy between simulation and observations is taken as support for the necessity of disks, even in deeply embedded objects, to produce episodic accretion events of sufficient frequency and amplitude.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.