Paper detail

What Physics Determines the Peak of the IMF? Insights from the Structure of Cores in Radiation-Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations

As star-forming clouds collapse, the gas within them fragments to ever-smaller masses. Naively one might expect this process to continue down to the smallest mass that is able to radiate away its binding energy on a dynamical timescale, the opacity limit for fragmentation, at $\sim 0.01$ $M_\odot$. However, the observed peak of the initial mass function (IMF) lies a factor of $20-30$ higher in mass, suggesting that some other mechanism halts fragmentation before the opacity limit is reached. In this paper we analyse radiation-magnetohydrodynamic simulations of star cluster formation in typical Milky Way environments in order to determine what physical process limits fragmentation in them. We examine the regions in the vicinity of stars that form in the simulations to determine the amounts of mass that are prevented from fragmenting by thermal and magnetic pressure. We show that, on small scales, thermal pressure enhanced by stellar radiation heating is the dominant mechanism limiting the ability of the gas to further fragment. In the brown dwarf mass regime, $\sim 0.01$ $M_\odot$, the typical object that forms in the simulations is surrounded by gas whose mass is several times its own that is unable to escape or fragment, and instead is likely to accrete. This mechanism explains why $\sim 0.01$ $M_\odot$ objects are rare: unless an outside agent intervenes (e.g., a shock strips away the gas around them), they will grow by accreting the warmed gas around them. In contrast, by the time stars grow to masses of $\sim 0.2$ $M_\odot$, the mass of heated gas is only tens of percent of the central star mass, too small to alter its final mass by a large factor. This naturally explains why the IMF peak is at $\sim 0.2$ $M_\odot$.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.