Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Disk Formation in Magnetized Dense Cores with Turbulence and Ambipolar Diffusion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Turbulence and ambipolar diffusion work together to form large, persistent, strongly magnetized protostellar disks in 3D collapse simulations.

desk verdict A solid, systematic simulation study showing turbulence and ambipolar diffusion work together to build persistent but strongly magnetized disks; the main caveat is an AD timestep floor that may under-cook the diffusion in exactly the cells that matter. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11806 v1 pith:FINL66UP submitted 2019-08-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA

Ka Ho Lam (1) , Zhi-Yun Li (1) , Che-Yu Chen (1) , Kengo Tomida (2 , 3) , Bo Zhao (4) ((1) University of Virginia , (2) Osaka University , (3) Princeton University
show 1 more author
(4) Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik (MPE))
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords protostellardiskformationambipolardiffusionturbulencemagneticbrakingmagnetohydrodynamicsplasmabetastarpseudodisk
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

This paper uses three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations of collapsing rotating cores to argue that turbulence and ambipolar diffusion each help solve the magnetic braking catastrophe, but on different timescales. Turbulence alone forms a large, near-Keplerian disk early in the protostellar accretion phase, yet that disk is so strongly magnetized that it later gets destroyed by a magnetically dominated structure. Ambipolar diffusion alone can enable a persistent disk, but only if it is relatively strong, and such disks tend to fragment gravitationally. Together, turbulence and strong ambipolar diffusion produce large, persistent, and stable disks throughout the accretion phase: turbulence seeds the disk early, and ambipolar diffusion weakens and unpinches the field so magnetic braking does not kill it later. The disks that survive remain strongly magnetized, with plasma $\beta$ of order a few tens or less, two to three orders of magnitude lower than values commonly adopted in protoplanetary disk simulations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is ambipolar diffusion acting as a magnetic-flux redistribution agent, quantified by the diffusion coefficient $\eta_A = Q_A B^2/(4\pi\rho^{3/2})$ with ion density $\rho_i = C\rho^{1/2}$, together with the turbulence-induced warping of the pseudodisk. Ambipolar diffusion lowers the vertical field strength $B_z$ near the protostar, creates a strong-field plateau called the 'diffusion-DEMS', and reduces azimuthal pinching as measured by the field curvature $\kappa_\phi$; both effects reduce the magnetic braking torque $-\Gamma_z = (1/c)[(J\times B)\times r]_z$. The sink-particle treatment, which removes mass and momentum while preserving the magnetic flux, lets the simulations follow the accretion phase, while the warped pseudodisk provides the early disk by letting high-angular-momentum material retain its angular momentum as it falls toward the center.

What would settle it

Re-run the same core-collapse simulations with the ambipolar-diffusion timestep floor removed or weakened and check whether the persistent disks in the standard-diffusion models (M0.0AD1.0 and M1.0AD1.0) still form and survive; if they disappear, the disk-persistence claim rests on the numerical floor rather than on ambipolar diffusion itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that turbulence and ambipolar diffusion are complementary disk-formation agents in the main protostellar accretion phase. Sonic turbulence warps, but does not destroy, the magnetically flattened pseudodisk that feeds the protostar, and it enables a relatively large disk to form early whether or not ambipolar diffusion is present. That early disk does not survive unless ambipolar diffusion is strong enough: ambipolar diffusion redistributes magnetic flux outward and reduces azimuthal field-line pinching in the circumstellar region, lowering the magnetic braking torque that would otherwise strip the disk's angular momentum. In laminar runs, strong ambipolar diffusion produces disks that tend to fragment; initial turbulence suppresses that fragmentation. The paper therefore concludes that turbulence and ambipolar diffusion work together constructively, and that the disks formed this way inherit magnetic fields with plasma beta of order a few tens or smaller, substantially more magnetized than the initial conditions usually assumed in protoplanetary disk modeling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the numerical floor on the ambipolar-diffusion timestep, which artificially weakens diffusion in low-density, moderately magnetized cells where diffusion is fastest, does not alter the magnetic-flux redistribution that the paper credits with letting disks survive; if that floor is doing the work, the disk-persistence result is a numerical artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A rotationally supported disk formed early by turbulence is transient in ideal MHD; its survival requires an ambipolar diffusivity at least of order the standard value $Q_A$.
  • Strong ambipolar diffusion alone yields persistent disks, but these disks are gravitationally unstable and fragment in the laminar runs; adding sonic turbulence removes the fragments.
  • The surviving disks have plasma $\beta$ of order 1 to a few tens, with the poloidal field often dominating the toroidal field, so they are much more magnetized than typical protoplanetary-disk simulations assume.
  • Resolving the mismatch between these strongly magnetized young disks and the weaker fields used in later disk evolution models requires longer-term, higher-resolution simulations with more realistic thermodynamics and additional non-ideal MHD effects.
  • The magnetically induced pseudodisk remains the coherent backbone of the inner accretion flow even under sonic turbulence, so the disk-feeding pattern is warped but not destroyed.
  • The early disks induced by turbulence are initially very strongly magnetized, with plasma $\beta$ below unity, which is why they cannot persist without ambipolar diffusion to weaken the field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the strong magnetization persists through the protostellar phase, late-stage protoplanetary disk models may need initial poloidal fields with $\beta$ near unity rather than $10^4$-$10^5$; this would change the balance between MRI and wind-driven accretion as well as planet migration rates.
  • A direct observational test is possible: ALMA Zeeman or dust-polarization measurements of young, embedded disks should find ordered poloidal fields with $\beta$ in the range of a few to a few tens if this picture is right, whereas older T Tauri disks should be more demagnetized.
  • The AD timestep floor, which lowers $\eta_A$ in low-density moderately magnetized cells, is the main numerical caveat; removing it or varying its threshold would show whether the persistence threshold in $Q_A$ is physical or an artifact.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a series of 3D non-ideal MHD simulations of disk formation in rotating, magnetized molecular cloud cores, combining for the first time initial turbulence and ambipolar diffusion (AD) during the protostellar mass accretion phase, using the Athena code with sink particles and a zoom-in grid. The authors survey a parameter grid with turbulent Mach numbers M = 0, 0.5, 1 and AD coefficients QA from 0 to 10 times the standard value. They find that turbulence enables the early formation of a relatively large disk, that AD is required for such a disk to persist to later times, and that the two effects work constructively: turbulence helps at early times and AD promotes survival. They also report that AD-enabled disks in laminar runs tend to fragment, with fragmentation suppressed by turbulence. A second central claim is that the formed disks inherit strong magnetic fields, with plasma beta on the order of a few tens or smaller, 2-3 orders of magnitude below typical values adopted in protoplanetary disk simulations.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful step forward in the disk formation debate, being among the first studies to treat turbulence and ambipolar diffusion together in the protostellar accretion phase with a sink treatment. The systematic scan over QA and Mach number, the identification of the diffusion-DEMS in 3D, and the quantification of disk magnetization are valuable contributions. The paper also provides useful diagnostics linking the AD timestep floor to its potential impact, and it is careful to note where its conclusions are tentative. However, the main quantitative claims -- the AD strength threshold for persistent disks and the plasma-beta values -- are directly coupled to a numerical approximation whose effect has not been tested. This makes the significance conditional on a relatively inexpensive numerical check.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2(ii), Eq. (7)] The AD timestep floor lowers the ambipolar diffusivity in low-density, moderately magnetized cells, which are exactly the cells where AD acts fastest and where AD-driven flux redistribution is most important. Equation (7) shows that Δt_AD is smallest precisely at low ρ and moderate B, and the floor caps η_A there. The authors state that only a tiny amount of mass is affected, but the affected cells are in the envelope where the flux must diffuse outward to reduce magnetic braking; the mass in those cells can be small while their dynamical effect is large. The paper does not test how the results change when the floor is removed or made less restrictive, nor does it report the actual reduction factor of η_A in the affected cells. The threshold QA ≈ 1 for persistent disks (Section 5) and the derived disk plasma-β values (Section 6.1) therefore remain entangled with this numerical approximation. I request a convergence test with the floor removed or substantially relaxed for at least the key models M0.0AD1.0 and M1.0AD1.0, together with a quantitative report of the mass fraction and the reduction factor of η_A in the affected cells.
  2. [§2.4, §6.1] The zoom-in resolution is about 10 au, and the 'well-developed disk' criterion requires more than 100 disk cells. With typical disk radii of a few tens to ~100 au, the disks are resolved by only a small number of cells across, and the disk-selection criteria (f = 2, density threshold 3.8e-15 g cm^-3) are applied at this coarse scale. The resolution study in Section 6.2 is only a lower-resolution uniform-grid run that reproduces the same qualitative trend; it does not demonstrate convergence of the disk magnetization diagnostics (λd and β) or of the disk size. Given that the paper's quantitative claim about plasma-β being 2-3 orders of magnitude below protoplanetary disk values is likely resolution-sensitive, I ask for at least one higher-resolution zoom-in run (e.g., of M1.0AD3.0 or M1.0AD10.0) to show that the reported β and λd values do not change substantially with resolution.
  3. [§6.1, Figs. 15-16] The classification of a disk as present or absent relies on specific thresholds (50 and 100 disk cells) that the authors themselves call 'somewhat arbitrary.' The quantitative conclusion that a persistent disk requires QA ≳ 1 is based on these thresholds, which are not justified by any sensitivity test. While the morphological maps support the qualitative trend, the specific threshold value in QA should be presented as a function of the disk definition, or a broader set of selection parameters should be tested to show that the qualitative conclusion is robust. This is not a request for an entirely new study, but a statement of the uncertainty associated with the stated threshold.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2(ii)] Please specify the numerical value of the AD timestep floor (the minimum allowed Δt_AD or the equivalent maximum η_A) and the algorithm used to enforce it, so that readers can assess the strength of the approximation.
  2. [Fig. 10 caption] There is a typo: 'pniched' should be 'pinched'.
  3. [Figs. 15-16 captions] The text uses 'plamsa-β' and 'polaroidal' (e.g., in the caption of Fig. 15); these should be 'plasma-β' and 'poloidal'.
  4. [§5, near Fig. 13] The text contains the typo 'AD coeffiecent' (should be 'AD coefficient').
  5. [§6.2] The comparison to Gray et al. (2018) refers to a 'large misalignment between the turbulence-induced angular momentum (which is set to zero for our simulation as a whole) and the magnetic field.' Please clarify how the net angular momentum was removed from the turbulent velocity field; a short description of the projection method would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central disk-formation claims are simulation outputs; self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that turbulence enables early disk formation, that ambipolar diffusion allows those disks to persist, and that the resulting disks are strongly magnetized with plasma-beta of order a few tens or smaller—are all direct outputs of the numerical simulations, not quantities derived from assumed conclusions. No parameter is fitted to an external target and then renamed as a prediction; the AD coefficient QA is scanned over a range, and disk properties (lambda_d, beta, disk-cell counts) are measured from the simulated flow. Self-citations such as Zhao et al. (2011) for the DEMS concept and Li et al. (2014b) for the warped pseudodisk are used for interpretation and comparison, but the paper's own diagnostics (column density maps, velocity profiles, field distributions, torque calculations) stand independently of those works. The AD timestep floor described in Section 2.2(ii) is a numerical approximation that could affect quantitative results, but it is not a circular step: the floor is not an input that is later relabeled as an output, and the qualitative complementarity of turbulence and AD is not guaranteed by construction. Therefore, no circularity is found.

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

No external data are fitted; the listed free parameters are chosen initial conditions, AD scan values, and post-processing thresholds. The main trend, that stronger AD and stronger turbulence both favor disks, is visible across the scan, but the quantitative values of disk plasma-beta and persistence epochs depend on the parameter choices. The axioms list the modeling assumptions that the simulation conclusions rest on, especially the sink treatment and the AD timestep floor.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial mass-to-flux ratio lambda_core = 2.6 globally, up to 8.4 on the central axis
    Chosen for all runs; sets the magnetic braking strength and directly controls the disk formation outcome.
  • Initial rotation ratio beta_rot = 0.03 (Omega about 6e-13 s^-1)
    Chosen so that a large 400 au disk forms in the absence of a magnetic field; lower rotation would make disks harder to form.
  • Turbulence Mach number M = 0.0, 0.5, 1.0
    Chosen as laminar, subsonic, and transonic levels typical of low-mass cores; the combined runs focus on M = 1.
  • Ambipolar diffusivity factor Q_A/Q_A,0 = 0.1x, 0.3x, 1x, 3x, 10x the standard value
    Scanned to bracket uncertainty in the AD coefficient; the threshold for persistent disks lies near the standard value.
  • Disk selection factor f = 2
    Threshold in the four disk criteria adopted from Masson et al. 2016; the quoted lambda_d and beta depend on this choice.
  • Density threshold for disk cells = 3.8e-15 g cm^-3
    Fourth disk criterion; affects the disk mass, lambda_d, and plasma-beta values reported in Section 6.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gas remains isothermal with P = rho c_s^2 throughout collapse and disk formation.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; neglects radiative feedback, which is relevant for disk fragmentation and could alter disk survival.
  • domain assumption Ion density follows rho_i = C rho^(1/2) with C set by cosmic-ray ionization equilibrium, and the ion-neutral drag coefficient gamma is constant.
    Equations (5)-(6) and Section 2.3; neglects charged grains and non-equilibrium chemistry; the 10x AD runs are intended to cover grain-depletion enhancement.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnetic flux associated with accreted stellar material is neither destroyed nor removed at the sink; the field in the sink region keeps evolving under constrained transport.
    Section 2.2(i); the sink treatment is meant to mimic decoupling, but the resulting DEMS and magnetic braking conclusions depend on this conservation choice.
  • ad hoc to paper Ambipolar diffusivity is artificially reduced in cells where the AD timestep would be too small, and the affected mass is claimed to be tiny.
    Section 2.2(ii) and equation (7); alters the low-density, moderately magnetized cells where AD is fastest, so disk survival conclusions could depend on this floor.
  • domain assumption Initial turbulent velocity field has a k^-2 power spectrum, is allowed to decay freely, and excess angular momentum is removed before adding solid-body rotation.
    Section 2.3; the early-disk result and warp structure depend on this particular turbulent realization and spectral index.
  • ad hoc to paper Disk cells are selected by the four Masson et al. criteria with factor f = 2 and density threshold 3.8e-15 g cm^-3.
    Section 6.1; the reported lambda_d, beta, and disk masses are sensitive to these thresholds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disk Formation in Magnetized Dense Cores with Turbulence and Ambipolar Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FINL66UP

@misc{pith2026190811806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disk Formation in Magnetized Dense Cores with Turbulence and Ambipolar Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FINL66UP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11806}
}
abstract

Disks are essential to the formation of both stars and planets, but how they form in magnetized molecular cloud cores remains debated. This work focuses on how the disk formation is affected by turbulence and ambipolar diffusion (AD), both separately and in combination, with an emphasis on the protostellar mass accretion phase of star formation. We find that a relatively strong, sonic turbulence on the core scale strongly warps but does not completely disrupt the well-known magnetically-induced flattened pseudodisk that dominates the inner protostellar accretion flow in the laminar case, in agreement with previous work. The turbulence enables the formation of a relatively large disk at early times with or without ambipolar diffusion, but such a disk remains strongly magnetized and does not persist to the end of our simulation unless a relatively strong ambipolar diffusion is also present. The AD-enabled disks in laminar simulations tend to fragment gravitationally. The disk fragmentation is suppressed by initial turbulence. The ambipolar diffusion facilitates the disk formation and survival by reducing the field strength in the circumstellar region through magnetic flux redistribution and by making the field lines there less pinched azimuthally, especially at late times. We conclude that turbulence and ambipolar diffusion complement each other in promoting disk formation. The disks formed in our simulations inherit a rather strong magnetic field from its parental core, with a typical plasma-$\beta$ of order a few tens or smaller, which is 2-3 orders of magnitude lower than the values commonly adopted in MHD simulations of protoplanetary disks. To resolve this potential tension, longer-term simulations of disk formation and evolution with increasingly more realistic physics are needed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11806 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Column density along z-axis of the zoom-in simulations of the three ideal MHD models with different levels of turbulence (left to right, M = 0.0, 0.5 and 1.0) when the sink particle has accreted 0.1 M (upper row) and 0.2 M (lower). The sink particle is marked by a cross. (See the supplementary material in the online journal for an animated version of the column density distribution for each model. Models M0.0AD0.0 a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Turbulence-induced pseudodisk warping. Plotted in the top row are the density distributions on a cylinder of radius rcyl = 250 au at the epoch when M∗ = 0.1 M for Model M0.0AD0.0 (panel a), M0.5AD0.0 (b), and M1.0AD0.0 (c) as a function of azimuthal angle φ (from 0 to 2π) and height z, showing a more severe warping of the (dense) pseudodisk by a stronger turbulence. The middle row is for Model M1.0AD0.0 at the same … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 3D view of the turbulence-warped pseudodisk. Plotted is the isosurface of the normalized density ρ˜ = 1 at an epoch when the stellar mass M∗ = 0.15 M for the ideal MHD sonic turbulence model M1.0AD0.0. The surface is colored by its height above or below the x-y plane passing through the sink particle (i.e., its z value). star for each of the two turbulence models compared to the laminar model. The lower magnetic flu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the mass-weighted rotational (upper curves) and infall speeds (lower) in a wedge within 45◦ of the equatorial plane compared to the Keplerian (upper black dotted line) and free-fall (lower) profile at two representative epochs with stellar mass of M∗ =…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reduction of the magnetic flux close to the accreting protostar by turbulence. Plotted are (a) the magnetic flux passing through a circle of 125 au in radius on the equatorial plane as a function of stellar mass and (b) the dimensionless ratio of the mass enclosed by a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Column density along z-axis of the zoom-in simulations of all non-turbulent AD models with QA = 0.1×, 0.3×, 1.0×, 3.0× and 10.0× (left to right) the standard value when the sink particle has accreted 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25 and 0.3 M (top to bottom). The sink particle is …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of the mass-weighted rotational (upper curves) and infall speeds (lower) on the equatorial plane compared to the Keplerian (upper black dotted) and free-fall (lower) profile at five representative epochs with stellar mass of M∗ = 0.1 (panel a), 0.15 (b), …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of the vertical magnetic field on the equatorial plane for the least diffusive model M0.0AD0.1 at the epochs when M∗ = 0.10, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3 M , showing a distinct strong-field plateau at early epochs, which is disrupted at later epochs. (See the supp…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: AD-induced magnetically dominated circumstellar structure in Model M0.0AD0.1 at a representative epoch when M∗ = 0.15 M . Plotted are the distributions as a function of radius of (a) the azimuthally averaged vertical magnetic field strength (Bz ) on the equatorial plan…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Column density along z-axis of the zoom-in simulations of five sonic-turbulent AD models with QA = 0.1×, 0.3×, 1.0×, 3.0× and 10.0× (left to right) the standard value when the sink particle has accreted 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 and 0.25 M (top to bottom). The sink particle is m…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distributions of the mass-weighted rotational (upper curves) and infall speeds (lower) in a wedge within 45◦ of the equatorial plane compared to the Keplerian (upper black dotted) and free-fall (lower) profile at five representative epochs with stellar mass of M∗ = 0.…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Turbulence-induced pseudodisk warping with am￾bipolar diffusion. Plotted are the density distributions on a cylin￾der of radius rcyl = 250 au at the epoch when M∗ = 0.1 M for Model M1.0AD0.1 (panel a), M1.0AD1.0 (b), and M1.0AD10.0 (c) as a function of azimuthal angle…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distribution of the vertical magnetic field on the equatorial plane (top panels) and the column density (bottom panels) for the weak turbulence and weak AD model (M0.1AD0.1) at the epochs when M∗ = 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25 M , showing a distinct strong-field plateau…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Column density of cells identified as a part of the disk along z-axis of all non-turbulent AD models with QA = 0.0×, 0.1×, 0.3×, 1.0×, 3.0× and 10.0× (left to right) the standard value when the sink particle has accreted 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25 and 0.3 M (top to bottom).…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Column density of cells identified as a part of the disk along z-axis of all sonic-turbulent AD models with QA = 0.0×, 0.1×, 0.3×, 1.0×, 3.0× and 10.0× (left to right) the standard value when the sink particle has accreted 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 and 0.25 M (top to bottom). Th…

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. Dust and Gas Transport in Substructured Nonideal MHD Wind-Launching Disks with Embedded Planets

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

    In magnetized wind-launching disks, planet-opened gaps remain partially permeable: small grains and gas leak through, while large grains are filtered, making substructures regulators rather than barriers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379243 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599..363A 599, 363

    Allen A., Li Z.-Y., Shu F. H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379243 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599..363A 599, 363

    doi:10.1086/379243 2003

  2. [2]

    Bai X.-N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7dda , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845...75B 845, 75

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7dda 2017

  3. [3]

    M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/144 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736..144B 736, 144

    Bai X.-N., Stone J. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/144 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736..144B 736, 144

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/144 2011

  4. [4]

    A., Hawley J

    Balbus S. A., Hawley J. F., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170270 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...376..214B 376, 214

    doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  5. [5]

    A., Tafalla M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.071206.100404 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA

    Bergin E. A., Tafalla M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.071206.100404 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    D., Payne D

    Blandford R. D., Payne D. G., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982MNRAS.199..883B 199, 883

    doi:10.1093/mnras/199.4.883 1982

  7. [7]

    C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/69 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...69C 785, 69

    Chen C.-Y., Ostriker E. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/69 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...69C 785, 69

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/1/69 2014

  8. [8]

    C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad905 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...34C 865, 34

    Chen C.-Y., Ostriker E. C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad905 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865...34C 865, 34

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad905 2018

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    B., Basu S., Kunz M

    Dapp W. B., Basu S., Kunz M. W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117876 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..878D 671, 878

    Desch S. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/522825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...671..878D 671, 878

    2007 doi

  3. [12]

    T., McKee C

    Draine B. T., McKee C. F., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002105 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ARA

    1993

  4. [13]

    T., Roberge W

    Draine B. T., Roberge W. G., Dalgarno A., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160617 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...264..485D 264, 485

    1983 doi

  5. [14]

    R., et al., 2014, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1258022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Sci...346.1089F 346, 1089

    Fu R. R., et al., 2014, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1258022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Sci...346.1089F 346, 1089

    2014 doi

  6. [15]

    H., Allen A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505257 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..374G 647, 374

    Galli D., Lizano S., Shu F. H., Allen A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505257 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..374G 647, 374

    2006 doi

  7. [16]

    C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/120 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729..120G 729, 120

    Gong H., Ostriker E. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/120 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729..120G 729, 120

    2011 doi

  8. [17]

    C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/8 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..204....8G 204, 8

    Gong H., Ostriker E. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/8 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..204....8G 204, 8

    2013 doi

  9. [18]

    F., Lazarian A., Santos-Lima R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/96 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819...96G 819, 96

    Gonz \'a lez-Casanova D. F., Lazarian A., Santos-Lima R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/96 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...819...96G 819, 96

    2016 doi

  10. [19]

    J., McKee C

    Gray W. J., McKee C. F., Klein R. I., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2406 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.2124G 473, 2124

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    Hennebelle P., Commer c on B., Chabrier G., Marchand P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/L8 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...830L...8H 830, L8

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

    Hull C. L. H., Zhang Q., 2019, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2019.00003 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019FrASS...6....3H 6, 3

    2019

  13. [22]

    Joos M., Hennebelle P., Ciardi A., Fromang S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220649 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    K \"o lligan A., Kuiper R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833686 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  15. [24]

    Krasnopolsky R., K \"o nigl A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/343890 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...580..987K 580, 987

    2002 doi

  16. [25]

    Krasnopolsky R., Li Z.-Y., Shang H., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1541 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716.1541K 716, 1541

    2010 doi

  17. [26]

    Krasnopolsky R., Li Z.-Y., Shang H., Zhao B., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/77 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757...77K 757, 77

    2012 doi

  18. [27]

    Kuffmeier M., Haugb lle T., Nordlund ., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7c64 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846....7K 846, 7

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    W., Mouschovias T

    Kunz M. W., Mouschovias T. C., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17110.x , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408..322K 408, 322

    2010

  20. [29]

    L., Federrath C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.3647K 486, 3647

    Kuruwita R. L., Federrath C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.3647K 486, 3647

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    Lazarian A., Eyink G., Vishniac E., Kowal G., 2015, @doi [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rsta.2014.0144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015RSPTA.37340144L 373, 20140144

    2015

  22. [31]

    T., Bate M

    Lewis B. T., Bate M. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty829 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.4241L 477, 4241

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    Li C., Chen X., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aafdaa , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..240...37L 240, 37

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    F., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177329 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...464..373L 464, 373

    Li Z.-Y., McKee C. F., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177329 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...464..373L 464, 373

    1996 doi

  25. [34]

    Li Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky R., Shang H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/180 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738..180L 738, 180

    2011 doi

  26. [35]

    E., J rgensen J

    Li Z.-Y., Banerjee R., Pudritz R. E., J rgensen J. K., Shang H., Krasnopolsky R., Maury A., 2014a, @doi [Protostars and Planets VI] 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch008 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014prpl.conf..173L pp 173--194

    doi

  27. [36]

    Li Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky R., Shang H., Zhao B., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/130 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...793..130L 793, 130

    doi

  28. [37]

    S., McKee C

    Li P. S., McKee C. F., Klein R. I., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1437 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2500L 452, 2500

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    L., Konigl A., Wardle M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...442..726M 442, 726

    Mac Low M.-M., Norman M. L., Konigl A., Wardle M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175477 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...442..726M 442, 726

    1995 doi

  30. [39]

    N., Inutsuka S.-I., Matsumoto T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/63.3.555 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASJ...63..555M 63, 555

    Machida M. N., Inutsuka S.-I., Matsumoto T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/63.3.555 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASJ...63..555M 63, 555

    2011 doi

  31. [40]

    N., Inutsuka S.-i., Matsumoto T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2343 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.2278M 438, 2278

    Machida M. N., Inutsuka S.-i., Matsumoto T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2343 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.2278M 438, 2278

    2014 doi

  32. [41]

    Martizzi D., Quataert E., Faucher-Gigu \`e re C.-A., Fielding D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3273 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.2465M 483, 2465

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    Masson J., Chabrier G., Hennebelle P., Vaytet N., Commer c on B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526371 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    N., Inutsuka S.-i., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6a1c , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839...69M 839, 69

    Matsumoto T., Machida M. N., Inutsuka S.-i., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6a1c , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839...69M 839, 69

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    R., Li Z.-Y., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/922 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698..922M 698, 922

    Mellon R. R., Li Z.-Y., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/922 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698..922M 698, 922

    2009 doi

  36. [45]

    Mostefaoui S., Kita N. T., Togashi S., Tachibana S., Nagahara H., Morishita Y., 2002, @doi [Meteoritics and Planetary Science] 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2002.tb00825.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002M&PS...37..421M 37, 421

    2002

  37. [46]

    Okuzumi S., Takeuchi T., Muto T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/127 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785..127O 785, 127

    2014 doi

  38. [47]

    Pattle K., Fissel L., 2019, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2019.00015 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019FrASS...6...15P 6, 15

    2019

  39. [48]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424082 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    M., Lazarian A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/21 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...21S 747, 21

    Santos-Lima R., de Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Lazarian A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/21 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...747...21S 747, 21

    2012 doi

  41. [50]

    E., Klessen R

    Seifried D., Banerjee R., Pudritz R. E., Klessen R. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt682 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.3320S 432, 3320

    2013 doi

  42. [51]

    H., 1992, The physics of astrophysics

    Shu F. H., 1992, The physics of astrophysics. Volume II: Gas dynamics

    1992

  43. [52]

    H., Galli D., Lizano S., Cai M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505258 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..382S 647, 382

    Shu F. H., Galli D., Lizano S., Cai M., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/505258 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...647..382S 647, 382

    2006 doi

  44. [53]

    C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04186.x , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.323..587S 323, 587

    Stehle R., Spruit H. C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04186.x , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.323..587S 323, 587

    2001

  45. [54]

    M., Gardiner T

    Stone J. M., Gardiner T. A., Teuben P., Hawley J. F., Simon J. B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588755 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..178..137S 178, 137

    2008 doi

  46. [55]

    C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424480 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...618..783T 618, 783

    Tassis K., Mouschovias T. C., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/424480 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...618..783T 618, 783

    2005 doi

  47. [56]

    N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/117 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801..117T 801, 117

    Tomida K., Okuzumi S., Machida M. N., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/117 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801..117T 801, 117

    2015 doi

  48. [57]

    N., Hosokawa T., Sakurai Y., Lin C

    Tomida K., Machida M. N., Hosokawa T., Sakurai Y., Lin C. H., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/835/1/L11 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835L..11T 835, L11

    2017 doi

  49. [58]

    Tomisaka K., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312417 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...528L..41T 528, L41

    2000 doi

  50. [59]

    Tsukamoto Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2016.6 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASA...33...10T 33, e010

    2016 doi

  51. [60]

    N., Inutsuka S., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1290 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..278T 452, 278

    Tsukamoto Y., Iwasaki K., Okuzumi S., Machida M. N., Inutsuka S., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1290 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..278T 452, 278

    doi

  52. [61]

    N., Inutsuka S., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L26 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810L..26T 810, L26

    Tsukamoto Y., Iwasaki K., Okuzumi S., Machida M. N., Inutsuka S., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L26 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810L..26T 810, L26

    doi

  53. [62]

    Vaytet N., Commer c on B., Masson J., Gonz \'a lez M., Chabrier G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732075 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    Wurster J., Li Z.-Y., 2018, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2018.00039 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018FrASS...5...39W 5, 39

    2018

  55. [64]

    J., Bate M

    Wurster J., Price D. J., Bate M. R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw013 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.1037W 457, 1037

    2016 doi

  56. [65]

    R., Price D

    Wurster J., Bate M. R., Price D. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2212 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4434W 480, 4434

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    Zhao B., Li Z.-Y., Nakamura F., Krasnopolsky R., Shang H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/10 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742...10Z 742, 10

    2011 doi

  58. [67]

    Zhao B., Caselli P., Li Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky R., Shang H., Nakamura F., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1124 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.2050Z 460, 2050

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    Zhao B., Caselli P., Li Z.-Y., Krasnopolsky R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2617 , http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.4868Z 473, 4868

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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