Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 55 references

The Dynamics of Infall and Accretion Shocks in the Outer Disk

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that gas falling onto a protostellar disk should turn sharply at a shock into elliptical orbits, making molecular-line maps twisted and offset from the dust, and that ALMA maps of L1527 already show this.

desk verdict A useful semi-analytic framework for envelope-disk shocks, but the twist diagnostic depends on a shock prescription the authors themselves flag as one option among several; read it as a model, not a validated measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24582 v1 pith:X2RCBXMS submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Susan Terebey , Loraine Sandoval Ascencio , Lizxandra Flores-Rivera , Neal Turner , Andrew Barajas This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords ProtostarsProtoplanetarydisksGasstreamlinesShocksSTAKdiskSyntheticALMAobservationsMomentmapsL1527
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

The paper argues that the standard picture of protostellar disks as circular Keplerian rotators misses the shock where infalling envelope gas meets the disk. At that shock, energy is dissipated while angular momentum is conserved, so the infalling gas abruptly turns and enters a lower-energy elliptical orbit rather than a circular one. The authors construct a semi-analytic model, the shock twist-angle Keplerian (STAK) disk, and show through synthetic ALMA observations that these elliptical orbits make line-intensity and velocity-moment maps asymmetric and twisted relative to the dust continuum. Applied to the protostar L1527, the model's nearly edge-on elliptical case matches the observed C$^{18}$O velocity map better than the circular model, suggesting that envelope-disk shocks are detectable and likely common in the protostellar phase.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the shock twist-angle Keplerian (STAK) disk: a shock condition that connects a parabolic free-fall envelope orbit to an elliptical disk orbit at a common point, the disk surface $r_{\rm shock}$. The condition is described as a stone skipping on water: across the shock the gas loses all poloidal (radial and vertical) motion but keeps $v_\phi$, so angular momentum is conserved and $r_{\rm shock}$ is automatically the apoapsis of the post-shock ellipse. The disk surface itself is fixed by an updated ram-pressure boundary condition, $\rho_{\rm disk} c_{s,\rm disk}^2 = \rho_{\rm env}(c_{s,\rm env}^2 + v_{\rm env}^2)$, which generalizes earlier treatments to off-midplane streamlines and determines the $(r_{\rm shock},\theta_1)$ locations. From constant cylindrical angular momentum and the TSC collapse angular-momentum distribution, the destination circular orbit is $r_{c,\rm kep}=r_d\sin^4\theta_0$, and the ellipse eccentricity follows from $(1-e)=r_{c,\rm kep}/r_{\rm shock}$. The same effective potential $V_{\rm eff}=\Gamma^2/(2r^2\sin^2\theta)-GM/r$ connects all three orbit segments (parabolic, elliptical, circular) with a single $\Gamma$.

What would settle it

For a fully resolved Class 0/I disk observed in an optically thin line like C$^{18}$O at sub-km/s resolution, measure where the peak red- and blue-shifted emission lies and the angle of the system-velocity contour: if the contour stays straight along the disk minor axis and the peaks sit on the dust major axis, the STAK elliptical-orbit family is excluded for that source. A complementary check is to measure the near-disk velocity field in the post-shock layer, since persistent inward motion or a jump in $v_\phi$ across the shock would contradict the apoapsis condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the surface of a protostellar accretion disk is a shock front, and that gas crossing that front does not join circular Keplerian orbits, as usually assumed, but instead abruptly changes direction and enters a lower-energy elliptical orbit. Pre-shock envelope gas follows free-fall parabolic streamlines; at the disk surface $r_{\rm shock}$ the radial and vertical components of motion are quashed while the azimuthal component $v_\phi$ is conserved, so the shock point becomes the apoapsis of a ballistic ellipse with the same cylindrical angular momentum. The gas then travels inward on that ellipse until it reaches the midplane, where a second shock deposits it onto a circular orbit at $r_{c,\rm kep}=r_d\sin^4\theta_0$. Because the post-shock gas spends most of its time on eccentric orbits, synthetic C$^{18}$O maps show intensity and velocity asymmetries, an inner twist in the moment-1 system-velocity contour and a rotation of the high-velocity gas away from the dust-continuum major axis, which the paper quantifies with the Velocity Crowding Angle. Applied to ALMA observations of L1527, the elliptical model at inclination $i=95^\circ$ matches the C$^{18}$O moment-1 map better than the circular model at $i=85^\circ$, and the paper argues that the same signatures appear in several other young disks.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that at the disk-envelope shock the gas loses all radial and vertical motion while keeping its swirl speed unchanged, and that it cools quickly enough to coast ballistically between shocks; if real shocks leave some inward motion, change the swirl speed, or heat the gas for a substantial fraction of an orbit, the predicted elliptical orbits and their twist signatures would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Moment-1 velocity maps retain the STAK twist even when the disk is only marginally resolved, so ALMA surveys that do not fully resolve protostellar disks can still search for the signature; moment-0 intensity maps require higher resolution.
  • For L1527, the C$^{18}$O kinematics favor an inclination of $95^\circ$ rather than $85^\circ$, settling which side of the nearly edge-on disk is nearer the observer.
  • Published ALMA maps of several other young sources (for example GSS30 IRS3, Oph IRS63, and HL Tau) show hints of the predicted inner twist, so the signature may be common during the Class 0 and Class I phases.
  • The framework is semi-analytic and inexpensive to run, so it can be fitted to observations over a large parameter space where full hydrodynamic simulations would be impractical.
  • Detecting the envelope-disk shock in this way would confirm that much of the disk's outer gas is on non-circular orbits during the main mass-assembly phase, changing how disk radii, masses, and accretion states are inferred from kinematics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the STAK picture is right, kinematic twists in young disks may often be misread as embedded planets or warps; the planet-detection methods built for Class II disks should be re-calibrated for Class 0/I sources where envelope-disk shocks dominate the velocity field.
  • The Velocity Crowding Angle could be measured uniformly across large ALMA surveys to map how common the shock signature is and whether it anticorrelates with envelope dispersal, a testable statistical extension the paper leaves implicit.
  • The model's sharpest untested edge is the shock microphysics: real oblique shocks and magnetic fields may leave some residual radial motion or change $v_\phi$. A 3D MHD simulation that resolves the post-shock cooling layer could show whether the elliptical-orbit family survives as an approximation or is replaced by a different set of twisted orbits with a similar observable signature.
  • Because the post-shock gas is predicted to be hot briefly and then cool within minutes, high-resolution observations of shock-tracing molecules such as SO or high-J CO at the disk edge, paired with C$^{18}$O kinematics, could isolate the shock ring and test the model's cooling assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents the 'shock twist-angle Keplerian (STAK) disk' model, a semi-analytic framework for gas entering a protostellar disk from an infalling envelope. The key ingredient is that at the disk-envelope shock the gas loses its inward (poloidal) motion while preserving azimuthal velocity, so that the post-shock gas follows a lower-energy elliptical Keplerian orbit with apoapsis at the shock radius. The authors derive the orbital geometry, implement the new velocity field in the RadChemT radiative-transfer/chemistry code, and compute synthetic C18O moment maps. They identify an observable 'Velocity Crowding Angle' twist that distinguishes elliptical from circular disk orbits and compare with archival ALMA data for L1527, arguing that an i=95° elliptical model better matches the moment-1 map than a circular model. The paper also estimates post-shock cooling timescales in Appendix C to justify the ballistic-orbit assumption, and it explicitly lists several modeling limitations in Section 5.2.

Significance. If the STAK framework is physically sound, it offers a useful, computationally inexpensive way to model the envelope-disk connection during the protostellar phase and to extract kinematic diagnostics from ALMA observations. The paper's strengths are its explicit Keplerian algebra (with derivations in Appendices A and B), the concrete and falsifiable prediction of a velocity-moment twist, and the honest enumeration of simplifications such as the fixed density structure and the 'quash all inward motion' shock prescription. However, the significance is conditional: the entire observable signature is built on a shock assumption that is not derived from the oblique-shock jump conditions, and the L1527 comparison is qualitative rather than a quantitative model test.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (12), Section 5.2] The central orbit construction—post-shock gas with zero poloidal velocity and conserved v_phi, making r_shock the apoapsis of a ballistic ellipse—is not a consequence of oblique-shock jump conditions. For an oblique shock, the momentum component tangential to the shock surface is conserved. The STAK disk surface at the fiducial streamline has θ1≈83° (Table 2), i.e. it is nearly horizontal, so the tangential plane contains both the radial and azimuthal components of the infall velocity. Using Eq. (12) at the fiducial shock point, v_r is comparable to v_phi (≈1.1 vs ≈0.76 in units of (GM/r)^1/2), so an oblique shock would leave a substantial radial velocity, and the post-shock point would not be an apsis. The paper's own Section 5.2 acknowledges that 'all inward motion be quashed at the first shock' is a simplification and that other assumptions would modify the orbit, but it does not test whether the VCA twist and moment-map asymmetries survive when a realistic residual v_r is included. This is load-bearing: without this assumption, the specific elliptical orbit family, and therefore the claimed observable signatures, do not follow uniquely. I recommend either deriving the post-shock velocity from the shock geometry (including the tangential component) or explicitly demonstrating that the twist diagnostics are robust to plausible values of residual radial motion.
  2. [Section 5.1, Figure 10] The L1527 comparison is not a blind test and is evaluated by eye. The model parameters M*=0.22 Msun and rd=75 au are taken from the same group's earlier RadChemT modeling of the same source, and the inclination i=95° is selected from the models because it 'seems to match most closely.' The archive C18O moment-1 map contains envelope and outflow emission in addition to disk emission, and the model includes those components, yet no quantitative metric (residual maps, chi-square, or a parameter scan) is provided to support the claim that the elliptical model is meaningfully better than the circular one. Given that the twist signature is the central observable prediction, the paper should at least show that the i=95° elliptical model outperforms the circular model in a well-defined sense and that the improvement is not driven by the envelope/outflow components alone.
  3. [Section 5.2] The disk density structure is not updated self-consistently with the new elliptical velocities, as the paper states. This matters because the moment-0 maps and the optical-depth/self-absorption features in Figures 6 and 8 depend on the gas density distribution, while the new velocity field changes where gas piles up along the elliptical streamlines. The paper acknowledges this as a limitation but proceeds to compare synthetic and observed moment maps without estimating the magnitude of the effect. I would like to see at least a qualitative estimate of how much the density would rearrange (e.g., using mass conservation along the elliptical streamlines) and a statement of whether the VCA twist is robust to such a change.
minor comments (3)
  1. [General] There are several typographical issues, including 'Vef f' missing a space in Section 2.1 and 'T able 1' in the Table 1 header; these should be corrected in a final version.
  2. [Section 4.5] The caption of Figure 10 refers to a spatial resolution of 0.84 arcsec, while the text in Section 5.1 says the corresponding data have '22 au spatial resolution'; for a distance of 140 pc these numbers are consistent, but the units and distance should be stated together to avoid confusion.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C23)] The Mach number is defined as M1 = γ^{-1/2} v_ff/c_s, which gives M1 = v_ff/c_s divided by √γ; this is a non-standard definition (the usual Mach number is v/c_s). The authors should clarify whether this is intentional (e.g., to define a 'sonic' Mach number for the isothermal case) or a typo, since it affects the Rankine-Hugoniot temperature ratios quoted in the text.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Orbital mechanics are self-contained, but the headline twist is the shock ansatz restated, and the L1527 'agreement' is a by-eye selection, not an independent prediction.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1 and Section 2.3, Eqs. 14-16]
    "Plausibly, and for simplicity, the inward (horizontal) velocity component is also quashed... Therefore, post-shock, the gas parcel initially has no inward motion, but retains constant azimuthal vϕ motion... The shock location is identified as apoapsis because... the radial velocity is momentarily zero; both conditions are consistent with our assumptions."

    The paper's central claim that post-shock gas 'must change direction sharply' and settles into a lower-energy ellipse is not derived from energy and angular-momentum conservation; it is the explicit ansatz that the shock quashes v_r while preserving v_phi. This makes r_shock the apoapsis by construction, and Eqs. 15-16 ((1-e)=r_c,kep/r_shock, a=r_shock/(1+e)) simply re-parameterize that assumed turning point. The VCA twist and moment-map offsets are consequences of this imposed initial condition. Section 5.2 concedes that alternative shock prescriptions 'would modify the orbit away from purely elliptical.' Thus the headline bend/twist is a restatement of the input shock prescription, though the radiative-transfer mapping from the assumed orbit to synthetic maps is a genuine calculation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1, Fig. 10, and Conclusions]
    "Of the three models, the elliptical orbit model at i = 95◦ (top right) seems to match most closely to the L1527 C18O ALMA data. Both the peak red and blue shifted gas locations match, and the inner VCA twist tracing the system velocity (green) looks well aligned."

    The inclination i = 95° is selected by eye on the same moment-1 map that is then presented as confirmation; the Conclusions state that the C18O motion 'best matches a source inclination of 95°.' Because i is a free parameter adjusted to the target map, the match is not an independent prediction of the STAK model. The same map is used both to set the model orientation and to validate the model, so the claimed agreement is partly forced by the choice. This is model selection rather than formal fitting, so it contributes only mild circularity.

full rationale

The Keplerian construction is mostly self-contained: given angular momentum conservation and the assumed post-shock initial condition, the elliptical orbit parameters (Eqs. 14-16) and the relation r_c,kep = r_d sin^4(theta_0) are derived, not fitted. The pre-shock parabolic streamlines and velocities come from the standard TSC/UCM solution, which is external to this paper even though one author is a TSC co-author. The M* = 0.22 M_sun and r_d = 75 au parameters are adopted from the same group's earlier SED fitting (Flores-Rivera et al. 2021), but SED fitting does not constrain the kinematic moment maps, so this self-citation is not load-bearing circularity. The genuine circularity concerns are (1) the post-shock orbit family is the shock ansatz itself, so the predicted twist is not an independent consequence of 'energy dissipated, angular momentum conserved,' and (2) the L1527 comparison is not a blind test because the inclination is adjusted by eye to the same map used for validation. The paper's own Section 5.2 acknowledges the first point explicitly. These issues weaken the claim that the STAK signature is a robust diagnostic, but they do not invalidate the internal orbital derivation, so the overall circularity score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard Keplerian mechanics plus a set of explicitly stated physical simplifications. The most consequential assumptions are the post-shock velocity prescription (poloidal motion quenched, v_phi conserved) and rapid cooling; both are flagged by the authors. The source-specific comparison additionally imports fitted parameters (M*, r_d) from prior work and a by-eye inclination choice. No new physical particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; STAK is a model of orbit geometry and VCA is a new measured angle, not a physical entity.

free parameters (5)
  • Stellar mass M* = 0.22 Msun
    Adopted from the Flores-Rivera et al. (2021) model fit to L1527 SED; sets all orbital velocities and radii in the synthetic maps (Section 3, Fig. 6 caption).
  • Disk radius r_d = 75 au
    Taken from the prior L1527 SED fit rather than derived here; defines the centrifugal radius for the theta0=90 streamline and scales r_c,kep and r_shock through Eqs. 10 and 14.
  • Source inclination i = 95 degrees (preferred)
    Chosen by eye in Section 5.1/Fig. 10 to best match the L1527 moment-1 data; the dust continuum suggests 85 degrees and the paper acknowledges the ambiguity.
  • Fiducial streamline polar angle theta0 = 60.15 degrees
    Selected as a characteristic mass-infall angle, not fitted; enters the fiducial orbit parameters in Table 2 and the synthetic images.
  • Planck mean opacity kappa_p = 2 cm2/g
    Adopted from Bell & Lin (1994) Fig. 9 to compute post-shock cooling timescales in Appendix C; if the opacity is different, the rapid-cooling justification weakens.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Gas follows central-force ballistic orbits with disk mass negligible compared to protostar
    Stated in Section 2.2 following Cassen & Moosman (1981); underlies both the parabolic and elliptical orbit equations.
  • domain assumption Pre-collapse cloud rotates as a solid body, f(theta0)=sin^2(theta0)
    Adopted from TSC/Cassen-Moosman, used in Eqs. 5, 6, 9-11 to map theta0 to angular momentum and destination radius.
  • ad hoc to paper At the shock, poloidal velocity is fully quenched while v_phi is conserved
    Introduced in Section 2.1 ('stone skipping on water') and Section 3.1 (Eq. 22); this makes the shock point the apoapsis of the elliptical orbit. Not derived from shock jump conditions.
  • domain assumption Post-shock gas cools rapidly so pressure gradients are negligible between the two shocks
    Justified in Appendix C with cooling timescales of 3-40 minutes for r_shock > r_d/2; if cooling is slower, the ballistic elliptical trajectories fail.
  • ad hoc to paper The disk density structure remains the same hydrostatic circular-disk model after the velocity is changed to elliptical
    Explicit limitation in Section 5.2: 'we do not update the disk density in a self consistent manner'; synthetic intensities and optically thick weighting may be affected.
  • domain assumption Envelope density and temperature come from the TSC model with parameters from the prior L1527 fit
    The RadChemT/HOCHUNK3D structure from Flores-Rivera et al. (2021) is reused; it fixes rho_env and T used in the ram-pressure boundary condition, Eq. 22.
  • domain assumption The disk is geometrically thin with sin(theta1) approximately 1
    Used in Section 2.3 and Appendix B to set l_e approximately r_c,kep and to determine the ellipse parameters; stated for simplicity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Dynamics of Infall and Accretion Shocks in the Outer Disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X2RCBXMS

@misc{pith2026250524582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Dynamics of Infall and Accretion Shocks in the Outer Disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X2RCBXMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24582}
}
abstract

High-spatial-resolution observations of disks around young stars suggest planetary systems begin forming early, during the protostellar phase (< 1 Myr) when stars accrete most of their mass via infall from the surrounding cloud. During this era shocks are expected to be ubiquitous around the gaseous accretion disk due to supersonic infall that strikes the disk. We investigate the role of shocks using a theoretical and modeling framework we call the shock twist-angle Keplerian (STAK) disk, connecting the disk and infalling envelope gas via a shock using general physical principles. Briefly, at the shock, energy is dissipated while angular momentum is conserved, so that the infalling gas must change direction sharply, yielding a bend or twist in the streamlines. The model's pre-shock gas follows free-fall parabolic trajectories, while the post-shock gas is on lower-energy, elliptical orbits. We construct synthetic observations and find that the deviations from circular Keplerian orbits are detectable in Doppler-shifted molecular spectral lines using radio interferometers such as ALMA. Specifically, the STAK model leads to line emission intensity and velocity-moment maps that are asymmetric and offset with respect to the disk structure traced by the dust continuum. We examine archival ALMA data for the class 0/I protostar L1527 and find the C$^{18}$O velocity moment map has features resembling the disk plus envelope emission that naturally arise when the two are connected by a shock. Thus, spectral line observations having sub-km/s spectral resolution and angular resolution sufficient to fully resolve the disk can reveal protostars' envelope-disk shocks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24582 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel. Blue curve traces the path of a gas parcel, shown for the fiducial streamline (off-midplane, θ0 = 60◦ ) of the STAK dynamic disk. In region 1, envelope gas falls inward along a parabolic orbit. The gas encounters a shock (purple circle) when it enters the disk (rshock < rdisk = rd), losing energy and transitioning to a lower energy elliptical orbit (region 2). The gas encounters a second shock (gold circ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of a parabolic streamline orbit of the gas parcel flowing from the envelope to the disk surface. The diagram is described in spherical coordinates (r, θ, ϕ). The gas parcel reaching at different infalling angles at the disk surface is described as plane polar coordinates (r′ , θ′ ). The definition of the angles are specified in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. and closely follows that shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left A single elliptical streamline in the disk, repeated with many azimuthal offsets in Φ. Right Various meridional streamlines for a 75 au disk radius. In gray is the equivalent streamline shown in the left figure, but as a 2D meridional projection. In both plots, th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Velocity structure corresponding to single streamline case with 7 offsets in Φ ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Integrated intensity (Moment 0) maps of C18O the fiducial case for the standard circular orbit disk versus the elliptical orbit disk from our models. Three source inclinations are compared. The images are continuum subtracted. The protostar and disk parameters used are…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Averaged velocity (Moment 1) maps of the C18O fiducial case for the standard circular disk versus the elliptical disk from our models. The images are also continuum subtracted and the disk parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: L1527 C18O ALMA Moment 1 map compared with the elliptical disk model at 95◦ (top right), and with the circular disk and the elliptical disk model with 85◦ (bottom) at low spatial resolution. Spatial resolution in upper left panel is FWHM = 0.96′′ × 0.73′′, while other…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Velocity moment 1 images showing larger scale 2865 au field of view, for two inclinations. L1527 C18O elliptical disk model at source inclination 85◦ (left) and 95◦ (right), at low spatial resolution. Near the outflow and away from the disk, the white curve showing th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., P´ erez, L

    ALMA Partnership, Brogan, C. L., P´ erez, L. M., et al. 2015a, ApJL, 808, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3 —. 2015b, ApJL, 808, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l3

  2. [2]

    2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed

    Andre, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Barsony, M. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. S. Russell, 59, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9903284 Artur de la Villarmois, E., Guzm´ an, V. V., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244312

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9903284 2000

  3. [3]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac15f3

    Aso, Y., Kwon, W., Hirano, N., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac15f3

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac15f3 2021

  4. [4]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8264

    Aso, Y., Ohashi, N., Aikawa, Y., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8264

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8264 2017

  5. [5]

    R., & Lin, D

    Bell, K. R., & Lin, D. N. C. 1994, ApJ, 427, 987, doi: 10.1086/174206

    doi:10.1086/174206 1994

  6. [6]

    Boss, A. P. 1997, Science, 276, 1836, doi: 10.1126/science.276.5320.1836

    arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    2015, ApJ, 811, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/92

    Casassus, S., Marino, S., P´ erez, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 92, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/92

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/92 2015

  8. [8]

    1981, ICARUS, 48, 353, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90051-8

    Cassen, P., & Moosman, A. 1981, ICARUS, 48, 353, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90051-8

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(81)90051-8 1981

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf38e

    Dong, R., Liu, S.-Y., & Fung, J. 2019, ApJ, 870, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf38e

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Flores, C., Ohashi, N., Tobin, J. J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 958, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf7c1

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd1db

    Flores-Rivera, L., Terebey, S., Willacy, K., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd1db

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Ali, B., et al

    Furlan, E., Fischer, W. J., Ali, B., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 5, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/5

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    N., Visser, R., et al

    Furuya, K., Drozdovskaya, M. N., Visser, R., et al. 2017, A&A, 599, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629269

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Gammie, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 553, 174, doi: 10.1086/320631

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    2022, A&A, 658, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141264 Infall and Accretion Shocks in Disks 29

    Garufi, A., Podio, L., Codella, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141264 Infall and Accretion Shocks in Disks 29

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Rossi, C

    Giovannelli, F., Errico, L., Vittone, A. A., & Rossi, C. 1991, A&AS, 87, 89

    1991

  9. [17]

    2002, Classical mechanics

    Goldstein, H., Poole, C., & Safko, J. 2002, Classical mechanics

    2002

  10. [18]

    D., & Levin, Y

    Harsono, D., Alexander, R. D., & Levin, Y. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 423, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18146.x

    2011

  11. [19]

    2020, A&A, 635, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936714

    Hennebelle, P., Commer¸ con, B., Lee, Y.-N., & Charnoz, S. 2020, A&A, 635, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936714

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Hirano, S., Tsukamoto, Y., Basu, S., & Machida, M. N. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9f9d

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    M., ¨Oberg, K

    Huang, J., Andrews, S. M., ¨Oberg, K. I., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba1e1

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2005, A&A, 442, 703, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041905

    Hueso, R., & Guillot, T. 2005, A&A, 442, 703, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041905

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    Hull, C. L. H., Plambeck, R. L., Kwon, W., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 213, 13, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/1/13

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Lam, K

    Jones, D. C., Lam, K. H., Li, Z.-Y., & Tu, Y. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1842

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7c64

    Kuffmeier, M., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2017, ApJ, 846, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7c64

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54a8

    Kuznetsova, A., Bae, J., Hartmann, L., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2022, ApJ, 928, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac54a8

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Lee, J. W. Y., Hull, C. L. H., & Offner, S. S. R. 2017, ApJ, 834, 201, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/201

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Li, Z.-Y., Tobin, J

    Lin, Z.-Y. D., Li, Z.-Y., Tobin, J. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd5c9

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Golap, K. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 376, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVI, ed. R. A. Shaw, F. Hill, & D. J. Bell, 127

    2007

  22. [30]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0634

    Mori, S., Aikawa, Y., Oya, Y., Yamamoto, S., & Sakai, N. 2024, ApJ, 961, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0634

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    A., & Hollenbach, D

    Neufeld, D. A., & Hollenbach, D. J. 1994, ApJ, 428, 170, doi: 10.1086/174230

    1994 doi

  24. [32]

    I., & Lubow, S

    Ogilvie, G. I., & Lubow, S. H. 2002, MNRAS, 330, 950, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05148.x

    2002

  25. [33]

    J., Jørgensen, J

    Ohashi, N., Tobin, J. J., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd384

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2015, ApJ, 812, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/59 Paneque-Carre˜ no, T., P´ erez, L

    Oya, Y., Sakai, N., Lefloch, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/59 Paneque-Carre˜ no, T., P´ erez, L. M., Benisty, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 914, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf243 Pi´ etu, V., Guilloteau, S., & Dutrey, A. 2005, A&A, 443, 945, doi: 10.1051/...

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Pinte, C., Teague, R., Flaherty, K., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 645, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.09528

    2023 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    2018, A&A, 609, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731377

    Pinte, C., M´ enard, F., Duchˆ ene, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731377

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    2014, Nature, 507(7490), 78–80, doi: 10.1038/nature13000

    Sakai, N., Sakai, T., Hirota, T., et al. 2014, Nature, 507(7490), 78–80, doi: 10.1038/nature13000

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20885, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.20885

    Santamaria-Miranda, A., de Gregorio-Monsalvo, I., Ohashi, N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.20885, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.20885

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Shariff, K., Gorti, U., & Melon Fuksman, J. D. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1186

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Tobin, J

    Sheehan, P. D., Tobin, J. J., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7a3b

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Shu, F. H. 1977, ApJ, 214, 488, doi: 10.1086/155274 —. 1992, The physics of astrophysics. Volume II: Gas dynamics

    1977 doi

  34. [42]

    H., Adams, F

    Shu, F. H., Adams, F. C., & Lizano, S. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 23, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323

    1987

  35. [43]

    W., Guilloteau, S., Pi´ etu, V., et al

    Tang, Y. W., Guilloteau, S., Pi´ etu, V., et al. 2012, A&A, 547, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219414

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    2018, ApJL, 860, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac6d7

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, ApJL, 860, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac6d7

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 173, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aae265

    Teague, R., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 173, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aae265

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    H., & Cassen, P

    Terebey, S., Shu, F. H., & Cassen, P. 1984, ApJ, 286, 529, doi: 10.1086/162628

    1984 doi

  39. [47]

    J., & Stone, J

    Turner, N. J., & Stone, J. M. 2001, ApJS, 135, 95, doi: 10.1086/321779

    2001 doi

  40. [48]

    Ulrich, R. K. 1976, ApJ, 210, 377, doi: 10.1086/154840 van ’t Hoff, M. L. R., Tobin, J. J., Harsono, D., & van

    1976 doi

  41. [49]

    Dishoeck, E. F. 2018, A&A, 615, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732313 van’t Hoff, M. L. R., Tobin, J. J., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accf87

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Duchˆ ene, G., et al

    Villenave, M., Stapelfeldt, K. R., Duchˆ ene, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0c4b

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Visser, R., & Dullemond, C. P. 2010, A&A, 519, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913604

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    2017, A&A, 607, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731334

    Walsh, C., Daley, C., Facchini, S., & Juh´ asz, A. 2017, A&A, 607, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731334

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    A., Robitaille, T

    Whitney, B. A., Robitaille, T. P., Bjorkman, J. E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 30, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/2/30 W¨ olfer, L., Facchini, S., Kurtovic, N. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039469 W¨ olfer, L., Facchini, S., van der Marel, N., et al. 2023,...

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    2018, ApJ, 869, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed42

    Wu, C.-J., Hirano, N., Takakuwa, S., Yen, H.-W., & Aso, Y. 2018, ApJ, 869, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaed42

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    2017, A&A, 608, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730894

    Yen, H.-W., Takakuwa, S., Chu, Y.-H., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730894

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.