Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Droplets II: Internal Velocity Structures and Potential Rotational Motions in Pressure-dominated Coherent Structures

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Tiny prestellar droplets appear to spin just like larger dense cores, with the same scaling laws reaching down to 0.02 pc.

desk verdict Solid new measurements of velocity gradients in sub-0.1 pc droplets extending G93 scaling, but the rotation interpretation is underdetermined at ~2-beam resolution; worth serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04367 v2 pith:X4Q6JZKW submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.GA

Hope How-Huan Chen , Jaime E. Pineda , Stella S. R. Offner , Alyssa A. Goodman , Andreas Burkert , Rachel K. Friesen , Erik Rosolowsky , Samantha Scibelli
show 1 more author
Yancy Shirley
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dropletsdensecoresvelocitygradientsangularmomentumrotationmolecularcloudsstarformationammoniasurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Using ammonia maps from the Green Bank Ammonia Survey, this paper measures the internal velocity structure of 18 tiny coherent structures—"droplets," sub-0.1 pc pressure-bound condensations—in two nearby star-forming regions. The authors fit a two-dimensional linear velocity field to each droplet and ask whether the resulting velocity gradients can be read as rotation. They report that droplets follow the same scaling relations long known for larger dense cores: velocity gradient magnitude grows roughly as $|G|\propto R^{-0.45}$, specific angular momentum grows as $J/M\propto R^{1.55}$, and the ratio of rotational to gravitational energy is $\beta\approx 0.046$. Combined with larger cores the ratio is $\beta\approx 0.039$, indicating rotation is dynamically minor across about two decades in size. If correct, the angular-momentum state of prestellar material is already fixed at sub-0.1 pc scales and is far too slow to feed centrifugally supported disks without additional processes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-dimensional linear velocity fit $v(x,y)=c_x x + c_y y + c_0$, whose coefficient vector defines the gradient $G=(c_x,c_y)$. Interpreting $|G|$ as rotation uses the solid-body, uniform-density sphere: angular velocity $\omega=|G|/\sin i$ with $\sin i=1$, specific angular momentum $J/M=\frac{2}{5}\omega R^2$, and rotational parameter $\beta=\frac{1}{3}\omega^2 R^3/(GM)$. This is the same machinery Goodman et al. (1993) applied to larger cores, so the cross-scale comparison is apples-to-apples; the paper supplements it with a pixel-by-pixel integration of angular momentum from Herschel column density maps and an adapted histogram of relative orientations to test whether gradients align with core shapes.

What would settle it

Map one of the 13 analyzed droplets with an interferometer at roughly five to ten times finer resolution, for example in NH$_3$ or N$_2$H$^+$. If the motion is true solid-body rotation, a monotonic gradient should persist across the droplet and the specific-angular-momentum profile should approach $j(r)\propto r^2$; if the single-dish gradient was produced by beam-smearing, background cloud contamination, or a few turbulent pixels, the resolved map will show multiple or non-monotonic gradient directions and a broken or shallower $j(r)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that droplets—small, pressure-confined coherent structures with radii near 0.04 pc—share a common rotational state with the larger, self-gravitating dense cores studied by Goodman et al. (1993). Fitting a plane to NH$_3$ centroid velocities yields velocity gradient magnitudes that grow with decreasing size, and assuming solid-body rotation of a uniform-density sphere gives a specific angular momentum relation $J/M = 10^{-0.72\pm 0.20}(R/1\,\mathrm{pc})^{1.55\pm 0.20}$ km/s pc that extends the earlier core relation to smaller scales. The rotational-to-gravitational energy ratio is $\beta = 0.046^{+0.079}_{-0.024}$ for droplets alone and $\beta\approx 0.039$ when larger cores are included, with no strong dependence on size. The authors are careful to label these as "net rotational motions," since turbulence, infall, outflows, and beam effects can contribute to the fitted gradient, and they find no statistically significant alignment between the velocity gradient direction and each droplet's elongation.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on treating each droplet's fitted line-of-sight velocity gradient as ordered solid-body rotation of a uniform-density sphere seen at the most favorable inclination, even though the droplets span only a few telescope beams and turbulence, infall, outflows, or beam-smearing could produce the same gradient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The specific angular momentum of prestellar material follows $J/M \sim 10^{-0.72}(R/1\,\mathrm{pc})^{1.55}$ km/s pc down to 0.02 pc, giving disk-formation models a defined initial condition at core scales.
  • Because $\beta\approx 0.04$ is far below unity, self-gravity alone can easily bind these structures against rotation, and rotation cannot dominate core dynamics unless magnetic braking or turbulence intervenes.
  • The near-constancy of $\beta$ with size implies that whatever sets the rotation—turbulent accretion, cloud-scale shear, or larger-scale flow—operates with roughly the same efficiency from 0.02 pc to about 1 pc.
  • The lack of alignment between velocity gradient and core elongation indicates that droplet shapes are not rotationally flattened, favoring formation via pressure confinement and ambient flows.
  • The $J/M\propto R^{1.5}$ scaling is exactly what turbulence models produce, so the observed "rotation" may largely trace ambient turbulent velocity structure rather than a coherent spinning body.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: if the gradients are true rotation, higher-resolution interferometric maps of individual droplets should show a monotonic gradient and a specific-angular-momentum profile approaching $j(r)\propto r^2$; if the gradients come from beam-smearing or turbulence, the apparent gradient should break apart at finer resolution.
  • One consequence the authors do not spell out: because most droplets are pressure-confined rather than self-gravitating, the small $\beta$ measured against self-gravity may understate rotation's importance relative to the external pressure that actually confines them.
  • Another extension: correlating droplet gradient orientation with the surrounding filament or magnetic-field direction would test whether the apparent rotation is inherited from large-scale turbulent flows, as the $J/M\propto R^{1.5}$ scaling already hints.
  • Applying the same analysis to additional Green Bank Ammonia Survey regions would test whether the $|G|\propto R^{-0.45}$ and $\beta\approx 0.04$ relations are universal or specific to L1688 and B18.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes GBT NH3 velocity centroid maps of 18 sub-0.1 pc coherent structures ('droplets') in L1688 and B18, fitting 2D linear velocity fields to derive velocity gradient magnitudes and orientations. Under assumptions of solid-body rotation, uniform density, and sin i = 1, the authors derive specific angular momentum J/M, rotational energy E_rot, and the rotational-to-gravitational energy ratio beta. They report that droplets follow the same velocity-gradient-size relation as larger cores (|G| ∝ R_eff^-0.45), that J/M = 10^(-0.72) (R/1 pc)^1.55, that beta ≈ 0.046 for droplets and ≈ 0.039 for the combined sample, and that there is no definitive alignment between velocity gradients and core elongations. The paper explicitly discusses non-rotational interpretations including turbulence, infall, outflows, and beam effects.

Significance. If the rotational interpretation holds, the paper extends G93's scaling of core angular momentum down to ~0.02 pc, supports a roughly scale-invariant rotational state with beta well below unity, and provides observationally grounded initial conditions for disk and planet formation models. The paper is transparent and careful: it validates the linear fits with local-gradient CDFs, excludes clearly non-linear or poorly sampled cases explicitly, and includes a pixel-by-pixel integration using Herschel column density maps that relaxes the uniform-density and solid-body assumptions. These are real strengths. However, the central rotation-derived quantities are conditional on the premise that the fitted line-of-sight centroid gradients are dominated by ordered internal rotation. Given the small sample (13 droplets after exclusions) and the modest number of independent beams across each droplet, the rotational interpretation is not uniquely established; the derived beta and J/M values are inclination-limited and partly inherited from the assumed relation between gradient, radius, and angular momentum.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Table 1, Figs. 1-3] The load-bearing premise is that the fitted 2D plane (Eq. 1) measures ordered internal rotation. The paper itself notes in §3.1 that turbulence, infall, outflows, and beam effects can contribute, and a typical droplet radius of ~0.04 pc corresponds to only ~2 GBT beams (32 arcsec at ~137 pc), so the centroid map contains roughly four independent beams across the diameter. The CDF validation excludes clearly non-linear structures but does not quantify how much of the fitted gradient could be produced by the beam-smoothed ambient cloud gradient or by noise. Please add a quantitative control: for example, compare fitted droplet gradients with gradients fitted to off-source or surrounding regions, or use synthetic velocity maps to show that a pure turbulent field with the same beam and noise would not reproduce the observed gradient magnitudes and scatter. Without such a control, the reported beta is an inclination-limited estimator of the line-of-sight gradient, not an established rotational energy ratio.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (6)] The J/M-R relation in Eq. (6) is not an independent scaling measurement: with sin i = 1, J/M = (2/5)|G| R^2 (Eqs. 3-5), so the fitted slope 1.55 ± 0.20 is algebraically 2 minus the fitted |G|-R slope 0.45 from §3.1 (Fig. 4a). The paper concedes that the relation is 'partly due to the fact that J/M is a power-law function of the radius,' but the abstract and conclusions present Eq. (6) as an empirical result and compare it to the turbulent expectation J/M ∝ R^1.5. Please reframe Eq. (6) as a derived quantity, state explicitly that its slope is set by the assumed functional form together with the measured |G|-R relation, and propagate the covariance between the two fitted power laws into the reported uncertainties. The agreement with the turbulent scaling is then not evidence for rotation, as the paper itself later notes.
  3. [§3.4, Eq. (12) and Fig. 11] The pixel-by-pixel integration is a useful robustness test for the density weighting, but it does not break the degeneracy between ordered rotation and non-rotational contributions. Equation (12) still assigns the fitted line-of-sight velocity V_fit,i as the rotational velocity at each pixel, assumes sin i = 1, and fixes the rotation axis perpendicular to the fitted gradient. Consequently, the steeper pixel-by-pixel J_tot/M-R relation (slope ~2.08) is also consistent with a turbulent velocity field under a Larson-type scaling, as the paper notes in §4. Please state explicitly that this test validates the treatment of the column density but does not validate the rotational interpretation, and that the pixel-by-pixel values are not independent of the plane-fit assumption that they are meant to test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (9) and §4] Since sin i = 1 is adopted, the reported beta values are lower limits on the true rotational-to-gravitational energy ratio (beta ∝ 1/sin^2 i). Please state this explicitly wherever the values 0.046 and 0.039 appear, rather than only noting that sin i = 1 gives a lower limit on the angular velocity.
  2. [§3.5, Eq. (14)] The histogram shape parameter xi is based on a small number of objects (Nc = 15, Ne = 9 in the combined sample). Please provide a bootstrap confidence interval on xi, since the paper's text already notes that the small number of cores can bias the result.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] In the caption for panel (b), the black line is said to show a power-law relation between the velocity gradient and the effective radius, but panel (b) plots velocity gradient against mass; this should be corrected to refer to mass.
  4. [§3.1 and Eq. (11)] Minor typographical and notation issues: 'coefficeints' should be 'coefficients' in §3.1; 'cylindrincal' should be 'cylindrical'; and in Eq. (11) the text says 'Tkin is the kinetic energy,' which appears to be a typo for 'kinetic temperature.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The J/M–R scaling (Eq. 6) is algebraically forced by the fitted |G|–R relation under the assumed definition J/M=(2/5)|G|R^2; the paper openly concedes this, so the |G|–R measurement remains the independent core result.

  1. self definitional [§3.2 (Eqs. 3–6) and §3.1 (|G|–R fit), with acknowledgment in §3.2 and §5]
    "Using Equation 5, we find a typical value of J/M = ... For both the droplets and the dense cores, we find J/M = 10−0.72±0.20 (R/1pc)1.55±0.20 km s−1 pc, (6) ... However, as G93 has noticed, the seemingly tight power-law relation between J/M and the radius is partly due to the fact that J/M is a power-law function of the radius (Equation 5)."

    Equation 5 defines J/M = (2/5)ωR^2, and Equation 3 gives ω=|G| after adopting sin i=1, so J/M = (2/5)|G|R^2. The |G|–R relation was already fitted in §3.1 as |G|∝R^{−0.45±0.13}. Substituting gives J/M ∝ R^{2−0.45}=R^{1.55±0.20}, exactly Eq. 6. Thus Eq. 6 is not an independently measured angular-momentum scaling: its exponent and tightness are the algebraic image of the input |G|–R fit under the assumed solid-body/uniform-density definition. Presenting it as 'we find' and as extending G93 is therefore a definitional consequence rather than a new test. The paper explicitly acknowledges this ('partly due to...'), so this is a disclosed, partial construction, not a concealed one.

full rationale

The primary empirical measurement in the paper—the |G|–R power law fitted to droplets and G93 cores (Fig. 4)—is independent of the rotational assumptions; it is a fit to VLSR centroid gradients. The J/M–R relation is then obtained by inserting that fitted relation into a definition, so it is forced by construction. The same is true, to a lesser degree, of β: with ω=|G| and the Paper I M–R relation (M∝R^2.4), β∝|G|^2R^3/M∝R^{−0.3}, so the claimed near-size-independence is roughly but not exactly encoded; I do not count it as a separate defining step. The paper is also explicit about the fragility of the rotation interpretation (§3.1 lists turbulence, infall, outflows, and beam effects; §3.4 gives a pixel-by-pixel alternative), so the rotation assumption is a caveat rather than a circularity. Paper I self-citations supply the droplet catalog, masses, and radii, but these are separate observational products, not the target results, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported. Therefore the only concrete circularity is the algebraic forcing of Eq. 6, which is acknowledged. Score 4: partial, disclosed construction; the |G|–R finding retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's new measurements rest on four adopted inputs: GAS NH3 velocity centroids, Herschel column densities, the G93 core catalog, and Paper I's droplet catalog. No new physical entity is introduced. The main bookkeeping burden is that the headline relations (Eq. 6 and the flat β-size trend) are partly algebraic images of the fitted |G|-R power law under the adopted rotation model, a point the paper itself concedes.

free parameters (3)
  • Power-law slope p of |G| vs R_eff = -0.45 ± 0.13
    Fitted by MCMC to the combined 13-droplet plus G93-core sample (§3.1, Fig. 4). This slope is the paper's core scaling result.
  • Power-law slope s of J/M vs R_eff (Eq. 6) = 1.55 ± 0.20
    Headlined as a measured relation, but s = 2 - p holds under J/M = (2/5)|G|R^2 (Eq. 5), so Eq. 6 is partly derived from the |G|-R fit. The paper concedes this in §3.2.
  • Power-law slope of pixel-by-pixel J_tot/M vs R_eff = 2.08
    Fitted to 13 droplets over a limited size range (§3.4, Fig. 11); an independent fit, not algebraically tied to the |G|-R slope.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Solid-body rotation formulas for a uniform-density sphere: I = (2/5)MR^2, E_rot = (1/5)MR^2ω^2, Ω_G = -(3/5)GM^2/R (Eqs. 4, 7, 8)
    Standard textbook expressions; valid as mathematics, while their applicability to droplets is a modeling question addressed by the other axioms.
  • domain assumption The fitted line-of-sight velocity gradient is interpreted as rotation with inclination sin i = 1 (Eq. 3)
    Convention inherited from G93 used to convert gradients into angular momentum, rotational energy, and β. The paper states this gives a lower limit on angular velocity and does not claim realism (§3.2).
  • domain assumption Observed VLSR gradients represent a 'net rotational motion' rather than pure turbulence, infall, or larger-scale flow (Eqs. 1-2)
    Core interpretive premise of §3.2-3.3. The paper says gradients 'do not necessarily arise purely from rotational motions' and lists turbulence, infall, and flow as contributors (§3.1).
  • domain assumption Single-Gaussian decomposition of NH3 (1,1) and (2,2) spectra in GAS DR1
    Adopted from Friesen et al. 2017 (§2.1.1). Multiple velocity components or non-Gaussian profiles would bias velocity centroids and hence gradients; no multi-component fitting was attempted.
  • domain assumption Herschel column density assumptions: κ_ν0 = 0.1 cm^2/g, emissivity index β = 1.62, mean molecular weight 2.8 u
    Used in §2.2 and in the pixel-by-pixel angular momentum integration (§3.4). These constants set the mass scale entering β and J/M.
  • domain assumption Distances of 137.3 pc for L1688 and 135 pc for B18
    All sizes, masses, and gradients scale with distance; the paper uses updated distances and rescales the adopted G93 values accordingly (§2.1, §2.3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Droplets II: Internal Velocity Structures and Potential Rotational Motions in Pressure-dominated Coherent Structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X4Q6JZKW

@misc{pith2026190804367,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Droplets II: Internal Velocity Structures and Potential Rotational Motions in Pressure-dominated Coherent Structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X4Q6JZKW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04367}
}
abstract

We present an analysis of the internal velocity structures of the newly identified sub-0.1 pc coherent structures, droplets, in L1688 and B18. By fitting 2D linear velocity fields to the observed maps of velocity centroids, we determine the magnitudes of linear velocity gradients and examine the potential rotational motions that could lead to the observed velocity gradients. The results show that the droplets follow the same power-law relation between the velocity gradient and size found for larger-scale dense cores. Assuming that rotational motion giving rise to the observed velocity gradient in each core is a solid-body rotation of a rotating body with a uniform density, we derive the "net rotational motions" of the droplets. We find a ratio between rotational and gravitational energies, $\beta$, of $\sim 0.046$ for the droplets, and when including both droplets and larger-scale dense cores, we find $\beta \sim 0.039$. We then examine the alignment between the velocity gradient and the major axis of each droplet, using methods adapted from the histogram of relative orientations (HRO) introduced by Soler et al. (2013). We find no definitive correlation between the directions of velocity gradients and the elongations of the cores. Lastly, we discuss physical processes other than rotation that may give rise to the observed velocity field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04367 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Observed NH3 velocity centroids (VLSR), the 2D linear fit, and the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of pixel￾by-pixel velocity gradient position angles, for L1688-d1 to L1688-d6. L1688-d2 and L1688-d3, marked with magenta asterisks, are excluded from subsequent analyses in this paper, due to the small number of available pixels. Left: Observed VLSR of NH3 emission. The contour marks the droplet boundary. The s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Velocity gradient, plotted against the effective radius, for larger-scale dense cores (green dots), droplets (blue filled dots), and droplet candidates (blue empty dots). The black line shows a power-law relation between the velocity gradient and the effective radi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Specific angular momentum, J/M, plotted against the effective radius, for larger-scale dense cores (green dots), droplets (blue filled dots), and droplet candidates (blue empty dots). The black line shows a power-law relation between the velocity gradient and the e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Rotational energy, Erot, plotted against the gravitational potential energy, |ΩG|, for larger-scale dense cores (green dots), droplets (blue filled dots), and droplet candidates (blue empty dots). The red line corresponds to the relation, Erot = |ΩG|, and the red b…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Ratio between rotational and gravitational energies, β, plotted against the effective radius, for larger-scale dense cores (green dots), droplets (blue filled dots), and droplet candidates (blue empty dots). The horizontal black line marks the median value of β for…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Ratio between rotational and total kinetic energies, Erot/ΩK, plotted against the effective radius, for larger-scale dense cores (green dots), droplets (blue filled dots), and droplet candidates (blue empty dots). The horizontal black line marks the median value of…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Ratio between rotational and gravitational energies, β, plotted against the ratio between the kinetic and gravitational energies, ΩK/ |ΩG|, for larger-scale dense cores (green dots), droplets (blue filled dots), and droplet candidates (blue empty dots). The red lin…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Specific angular momentum derived from pixel-by-pixel integration (“pixel-by-pixel” Jtot/M), plotted against the specific angular momentum derived in §3.2, the latter of which is derived using the method adopted by G93 and assuming solid-body rotation and a uniform de…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Specific angular momentum derived from pixel-by-pixel integration (“pixel-by-pixel” Jtot/M), plotted against the effective radius, for droplets (filled blue dots) and droplet candidates (empty blue dots). Since we do not have the access to the original observation…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Histogram of relative orientations (HRO) between the velocity gradient orientation and the position angle of the major axis, for larger-scale dense cores (the green line), droplets (the blue line), and both populations combined (the gray histogram). The normalized…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Preferential alignment of Class 0, Class I protostellar disks in multiple systems across nine nearby molecular clouds

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Disks around young stars in binary and higher-order multiple systems are preferentially aligned out to 6000 AU, implying turbulent fragmentation alone cannot explain how most multiples form.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Allen, A., Li, Z.-Y., & Shu, F. H. 2003, ApJ, 599, 363, doi: 10.1086/379243 Andr´ e, P., Di Francesco, J., Ward-Thompson, D., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 27, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch002 Andr´ e, P., Men’shchikov, A., Bontemps, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L102

    doi:10.1086/379243 2003

  2. [2]

    1984, PhD thesis, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Arquilla, R. 1984, PhD thesis, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    Arquilla, R., & Goldsmith, P. F. 1985, ApJ, 297, 436, doi: 10.1086/163542 —. 1986, ApJ, 303, 356, doi: 10.1086/164082

    doi:10.1086/163542 1985

  4. [4]

    2013, A&A, 553, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220822

    Arzoumanian, D., Andr´ e, P., Peretto, N., & K¨ onyves, V. 2013, A&A, 553, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220822

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220822 2013

  5. [5]

    Banerjee, R., & Pudritz, R. E. 2006, ApJ, 641, 949, doi: 10.1086/500496

    work page doi:10.1086/500496 2006

  6. [6]

    2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Beaumont, C., Goodman, A., & Greenfield, P. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 495, Astronomical Data Analysis Software an Systems XXIV (ADASS XXIV), ed. A. R. Taylor & E. Rosolowsky, 101

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    J., & Myers, P

    Benson, P. J., & Myers, P. C. 1989, ApJS, 71, 89, doi: 10.1086/191365

    doi:10.1086/191365 1989

  8. [8]

    Bonnor, W. B. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/116.3.351

    doi:10.1093/mnras/116.3.351 1956

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    2000, ApJ, 543, 822, doi: 10.1086/317122

    Burkert, A., & Bodenheimer, P. 2000, ApJ, 543, 822, doi: 10.1086/317122

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    Chen, C.-Y., & Ostriker, E. C. 2018, ApJ, 865, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad905 22 Chen et al

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    H.-H., Pineda, J

    Chen, H. H.-H., Pineda, J. E., Goodman, A. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a40

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    E., et al

    Dib, S., Hennebelle, P., Pineda, J. E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 425, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/425

    2010 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al

    Dullemond, C. P., Juhasz, A., Pohl, A., et al. 2012, RADMC-3D: A multi-purpose radiative transfer tool, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1202.015

    2012

  6. [14]

    K., Di Francesco, J., Shirley, Y

    Friesen, R. K., Di Francesco, J., Shirley, Y. L., & Myers, P. C. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1457, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1457

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    K., Pineda, J

    Friesen, R. K., Pineda, J. E., co-PIs, et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d58

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    2011, PySpecKit: Python Spectroscopic Toolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Ginsburg, A., & Mirocha, J. 2011, PySpecKit: Python Spectroscopic Toolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1109.001

    2011

  9. [17]

    F., & Arquilla, R

    Goldsmith, P. F., & Arquilla, R. 1985, in IN: Protostars and planets II (A86-12626 03-90). Tucson, AZ, University of Arizona Press, 1985, p. 137-149. Research supported by the Observatoire de Paris and NSF., 137–149

    1985

  10. [18]

    A., Barranco, J

    Goodman, A. A., Barranco, J. A., Wilner, D. J., & Heyer, M. H. 1998, ApJ, 504, 223, doi: 10.1086/306045

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Benson, P

    Goodman, A. A., Benson, P. J., Fuller, G. A., & Myers, P. C. 1993, ApJ, 406, 528, doi: 10.1086/172465

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    2013, A&A, 554, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220090

    Hacar, A., Tafalla, M., Kauffmann, J., & Kov´ acs, A. 2013, A&A, 554, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220090

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 267

    1983

  14. [22]

    G., & Whitworth, A

    Hosking, J. G., & Whitworth, A. P. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 994, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07273.x Kauffmann, J., Bertoldi, F., Bourke, T. L., Evans, II, N. J., & Lee, C. W. 2008, A&A, 487, 993, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809481

    2004

  15. [23]

    K., Pineda, J

    Kirk, H., Friesen, R. K., Pineda, J. E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8631

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Myers, P

    Ladd, E. F., Myers, P. C., & Goodman, A. A. 1994, ApJ, 433, 117, doi: 10.1086/174629

    1994 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Norman, M

    Li, P. S., Norman, M. L., Mac Low, M.-M., & Heitsch, F. 2004, ApJ, 605, 800, doi: 10.1086/382652

    2004 doi

  18. [26]

    2011, ApJ, 738, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/180

    Li, Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky, R., & Shang, H. 2011, ApJ, 738, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/180

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    G., & Shirley, Y

    Mangum, J. G., & Shirley, Y. L. 2015, PASP, 127, 266, doi: 10.1086/680323

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    2007 arXiv

  21. [29]

    E., Liu, H

    Monsch, K., Pineda, J. E., Liu, H. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac8da

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Myers, P. C. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1609, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1609 Offner, S. S. R., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1174, doi: 10.1086/590238 Ortiz-Le´ on, G. N., Loinard, L., Kounkel, M. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/141

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 77, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch004

    Padoan, P., Federrath, C., Chabrier, G., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 77, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch004

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    M., et al

    Pattle, K., Ward-Thompson, D., Kirk, J. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1094, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv376

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    E., Goodman, A

    Pineda, J. E., Goodman, A. A., Arce, H. G., et al. 2010, ApJL, 712, L116, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L116

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Zhao, B., Schmiedeke, A., et al

    Pineda, J. E., Zhao, B., Schmiedeke, A., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.05578. https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05578

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    E., Offner, S

    Pineda, J. E., Offner, S. S. R., Parker, R. J., et al. 2015, Nature, 518, 213, doi: 10.1038/nature14166 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323195 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, ...

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    2017, glueviz v0.13.1: multidimensional data exploration glueviz v0.13.1: multidimensional data exploration, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1237692

    Goodman, A. 2017, glueviz v0.13.1: multidimensional data exploration glueviz v0.13.1: multidimensional data exploration, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1237692. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1237692

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    2003, ApJ, 599, 258, doi: 10.1086/379166

    Rosolowsky, E., Engargiola, G., Plambeck, R., & Blitz, L. 2003, ApJ, 599, 258, doi: 10.1086/379166

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    W., Pineda, J

    Rosolowsky, E. W., Pineda, J. E., Foster, J. B., et al. 2008a, ApJS, 175, 509, doi: 10.1086/524299

    doi

  31. [39]

    Goodman, A. A. 2008b, ApJ, 679, 1338, doi: 10.1086/587685 Schlafly, E. F., Green, G., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 29, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/29

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    Pudritz, R. E. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1054, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19320.x

    2011

  33. [41]

    E., & Klessen, R

    Seifried, D., Banerjee, R., Pudritz, R. E., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, MNRAS, 423, L40, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01253.x

    2012

  34. [42]

    H., Adams, F

    Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S. 1987, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 23, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323

    1987

  35. [43]

    D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P

    Soler, J. D., Hennebelle, P., Martin, P. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/128

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    W., Dunham, M

    Stephens, I. W., Dunham, M. M., Myers, P. C., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacda9

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2015, A&A, 574, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424576 Droplets II 23

    Tafalla, M., & Hacar, A. 2015, A&A, 574, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424576 Droplets II 23

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    C., Caselli, P., & Walmsley, C

    Tafalla, M., Myers, P. C., Caselli, P., & Walmsley, C. M. 2004, A&A, 416, 191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031704 The Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.02634

    2004 arXiv

  39. [47]

    S., Schlafly, E

    Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.01425. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.01425

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.