Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T08:40:23.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Possible density dependent local variations in the IMF

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2016

Indulekha Kavila
Affiliation:
School of Pure and Applied Physics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam686560, Kerala, INDIA email: indulekha@mgu.ac.in, babigeorge27@gmail.com
Babitha George
Affiliation:
School of Pure and Applied Physics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam686560, Kerala, INDIA email: indulekha@mgu.ac.in, babigeorge27@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A robust feature of turbulent fragmentation theories is a universal Salpeter like slope (2.2 -2.4), for the mass spectrum of the fragments, at the high mass end. This is so due to the scale-free nature of turbulence and gravity. There are reports of top heavy / flatter Initial Mass Functions (IMF), inferred for many regions where we expect star formation to take place in gas clouds with comparatively higher gas density. Also, a higher Star Formation Efficiency (SFE) for regions of higher gas density has been proposed, to understand the formation of bound stellar systems in which dark matter is not a significant factor affecting the internal dynamics. In turbulent fragmentation models for star formation, we do not expect the mass of the stellar cluster to influence the maximum stellar mass directly and thereby imply a relation between the maximum stellar mass and the cluster mass. However, such a relation may be expected from statistical considerations. In this context, we explore the density dependence of the IMF, that would arise due to denser clouds producing more massive clusters due to the density dependence of the SFE.

Type
Poster Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2016 

References

Converse, J. M. & Stahler, S. W. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 666 Google Scholar
Elmegreen, B. G. 2006, ApJ, 648, 572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guszejnov, D., & Hopkins, P. F. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4137 Google Scholar
Indulekha, K. 2013, JApA, 34, 207 Google Scholar
Kruijssen, J. M. D., Maschberger, T., Moeckel, N., Clarke, C. J., Bastien, N., & Bonnell, I. A. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pang, X., Grebel, E. K., Allison, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., Altmann, M., Harbeck, D., Moffat, A. F. J., & Drissen, L. 2013, ApJ, 764, 73 Google Scholar
Weidner, C. & Kroupa, P. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilking, B. A., & Lada, C. J. 1983, MNRAS, 274, 698 Google Scholar