Paper detail

The Meaning and Consequences of Star Formation Criteria in Galaxy Models with Resolved Stellar Feedback

We consider the effects of different star formation criteria on galactic scales, in high-resolution simulations with explicitly resolved GMCs and stellar feedback. We compare: (1) a self-gravity criterion (based on the local virial parameter and the assumption that self-gravitating gas collapses to high density in a free-fall time), (2) a fixed density threshold, (3) a molecular-gas law, (4) a temperature threshold, (5) a Jeans-instability requirement, (6) a criteria that cooling times be shorter than dynamical times, and (7) a convergent-flow criterion. We consider these both MW-like and high-density (starburst) galaxies. With feedback present, all models produce identical integrated star formation rates (SFRs), in agreement with the Kennicutt relation. Without feedback all produce orders-of-magnitude excessive SFRs. This is totally dependent on feedback and independent of the SF law. However, the spatial and density distribution of SF depend strongly on the SF criteria. Because cooling rates are generally fast and gas is turbulent, criteria (4)-(7) are 'weak' and spread SF uniformly over the disk (above densities n~0.01-0.1 cm^-3). A molecular criterion (3) localizes to higher densities, but still a wide range; for Z Z_solar, it is similar to a density threshold at n~1 cm^-3 (well below mean densities in the MW center or starbursts). Fixed density thresholds (2) can always select the highest densities, but must be adjusted for simulation resolution and galaxy properties; the same threshold that works in a MW-like simulation will select nearly all gas in a starburst. Binding criteria (1) tend to adaptively select the largest over-densities, independent of galaxy model or resolution, and automatically predict clustered SF. We argue that this SF model is most physically-motivated and presents significant numerical advantages in large-dynamic range simulations.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 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.