Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1511.06696

How chemistry influences cloud structure, star formation, and the IMF

S. Hocuk·S. Cazaux·M. Spaans·P. Caselli
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In the earliest phases of star-forming clouds, stable molecular species, such as CO, are important coolants in the gas phase. Depletion of these molecules on dust surfaces affects the thermal balance of molecular clouds and with that their whole evolution. For the first time, we study the effect of grain surface chemistry (GSC) on star formation and its impact on the initial mass function (IMF). We follow a contracting translucent cloud in which we treat the gas-grain chemical interplay in detail, including the process of freeze-out. We perform 3d hydrodynamical simulations under three different conditions, a pure gas-phase model, a freeze-out model, and a complete chemistry model. The models display different thermal evolution during cloud collapse. The equation of state (EOS) of the gas becomes softer with CO freeze-out and the results show that at the onset of star formation, the cloud retains its evolution history such that the number of formed stars differ (by 7%) between the three models. While the stellar mass distribution results in a different IMF when we consider pure freeze-out, with the complete treatment of the GSC, the divergence from a pure gas-phase model is minimal. We find that the impact of freeze-out is balanced by the non-thermal processes; chemical and photodesorption. We also find an average filament width of 0.12 pc ($\pm$0.03 pc), and speculate that this may be a result from the changes in the EOS caused by the gas-dust thermal coupling. We conclude that GSC plays a big role in the chemical composition of molecular clouds and that surface processes are needed to accurately interpret observations, however, that GSC does not have a significant impact as far as star formation and the IMF is concerned.

Explore related subjects

astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S. Hocuk, S. Cazaux, M. Spaans, P. Caselli. 2015-12-17. How chemistry influences cloud structure, star formation, and the IMF. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras%2Fstv2817

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The Entangling of Supernova Feedback Impacts with Coarsening Simulation Resolution

It is often understood that supernova (SN) feedback in galaxies is responsible for regulating star formation (SF) and generating gaseous outflows. However, a detailed look at the small-scale effects of SNe on the interstellar medium (ISM) in simulations shows that the macroscopic processes of SF suppression and outflow generation proceed in distinct channels. We demonstrate this finding in two independent simulations of isolated dwarf galaxies with very high (m_gas ~ Msun) numerical resolution, LYRA and RIGEL. Our findings suggest that the macroscopic effect of a given SN on the galaxy is best predicted by its local density. Outflows are driven by SNe in diffuse regions expanding to their cooling radii on large (~kpc) scales, while dense SF regions are disrupted in a localized (~pc) manner. However, these separate feedback channels are only distinguishable at very high resolutions capable of following mass scales \lesssim 10^2 \msun. When averaging on coarser scales, ISM densities are greatly mis-estimated, and variations between different SF and SNe-affected regions are severely washed out. It therefore cannot be __self-consistently__ determined, from coarse-resolution information __alone__, (1) whether a SN tends to contribute to outflows or direct SF suppression, and (2) the rate of SF in a given region. In particular, commonly used parameters in coarse-resolution (subgrid) models, such as the SN cooling radius and SF density threshold, may require more detailed treatments informed by high-resolution studies.

astro-ph.GA↗
arXiv2026

Computational advances and challenges in simulations of turbulence and star formation

We review recent advances in the numerical modeling of turbulent flows and star formation. An overview of the most widely used simulation codes and their core capabilities is provided. We then examine methods for achieving the highest-resolution magnetohydrodynamical turbulence simulations to date, highlighting challenges related to numerical viscosity and resistivity. State-of-the-art approaches to modeling gravity and star formation are discussed in detail, including implementations of star particles and feedback from jets, winds, heating, ionization, and supernovae. We review the latest techniques for radiation hydrodynamics, including ray tracing, Monte Carlo, and moment methods, with comparisons between the flux-limited diffusion, moment-1, and variable Eddington tensor methods. The final chapter summarizes advances in cosmic-ray transport schemes, emphasizing their growing importance for connecting small-scale star formation physics with galaxy-scale evolution.

astro-ph.GA↗
arXiv2026

How significant is the lensing interpretation of GW231123?

GW231123 is one of the most unusual gravitational-wave (GW) events, with exceptionally large inferred masses and near-extremal spins, offering an opportunity to test whether propagation effects contribute to these properties. We therefore examine whether the data support wave-optics microlensing embedded in a strong-lensing galaxy, whose detection becomes increasingly likely as observations accumulate, whether this interpretation can explain these properties, and how significant the preference remains under detector noise and waveform systematics. We compare six hypotheses: unlensed, isolated point mass, and embedded point-mass (EPM) and binary-lens (EB) effective models in Type-I (minimum) and Type-II (saddle) macro images. The EB Type-I model is most favored. For the most accurate waveform model NRSur7dq4, it gives $\log_{10}B^{\rm EB-I}_{\rm U}=2.60$, versus $0.89$ for Type II, indicating sensitivity to macro-image geometry. Within Type I, however, the binary improves over the point mass by only $\log_{10}B^{\rm EB-I}_{\rm EPM-I}=0.16$ and $Δ\ln\mathcal{L}_{\max}=0.56$, providing no clear evidence for structure beyond a single effective perturber. Moreover, under embedded lensing, waveform-template discrepancies and inferred masses and spins are reduced. However, real O4a backgrounds from numerical-relativity injections show that the apparent lensing evidence is sensitive to waveform systematics and realistic detector noise: although the commonly used waveform IMRPhenomXPHM gives the largest Bayes factor, $\log_{10}B^{\rm EB-I}_{\rm U}=4.52$, it is less exceptional relative to its own background, with a false-alarm probability of $6.5$--$8\%$, whereas NRSur7dq4 gives only $2$--$3\%$. Thus, waveform systematics can amplify apparent lensing evidence, but GW231123 remains an intriguing lensing candidate.

astro-ph.GA↗