1. Effects of Young Clusters on Forming Solar Systems WITH: Eva M. Proszkow, Anthony Bloch (Univ. Michigan) Philip C. Myers (CfA), Marco Fatuzzo (Xavier University) David Hollenbach (NASA Ames), Greg Laughlin (UCSC) Fred C. Adams University of Michigan Stars to Planets, Univ. Florida

2. Most stars form in clusters: In quantitative detail: What effects does the cluster environment have on solar system formation?

3. N-body Simulations of Clusters UV Radiation Fields in Clusters Disk Photoevaporation Model Scattering Encounters Outline

4. Cumulative Distribution: Fraction of stars that form in stellar aggregates with N < N as function of N Lada/Lada Porras Median point: N=300

5. Simulations of Embedded Clusters Modified NBODY2 Code (S. Aarseth) Simulate evolution from embedded stage out to ages of 10 Myr Cluster evolution depends on the following: –cluster size –initial stellar and gas profiles –gas disruption history –star formation history –primordial mass segregation –initial dynamical assumptions 100 realizations are needed to provide robust statistics for output measures

6. Virial RatioQ = |K/W| virial Q = 0.5; cold Q = 0.04 Mass Segregation: largest star at center of cluster Simulation Parameters Cluster Membership N = 100, 300, 1000 Cluster Radius Initial Stellar Density Gas Distribution Star Formation Efficiency0.33 Embedded Epoch t = 0–5 Myr Star Formation t = 0-1 Myr

7. Dynamical Results Distribution of closest approaches Radial position probability distribution (given by cluster mass profiles) I.Evolution of clusters as astrophysical objects II.Effects of clusters on forming solar systems

8. Mass Profiles Subvirial Virial  = r/r 0 Simulationpr0r0 a 100 Subvirial0.690.392 100 Virial0.440.703 300 Subvirial0.790.642 300 Virial0.491.193 1000 Subvirial0.821.112 300 Subvirial0.591.963 Stellar Gravitational Potential

9. Closest Approach Distributions Simulation 00  b C (AU) 100 Subvirial0.1661.50713 100 Virial0.05981.431430 300 Subvirial0.09571.711030 300 Virial0.02561.632310 1000 Subvirial0.07241.881190 1000 Virial0.01011.773650 Typical star experiences one close encounter with impact parameter b C during 10 Myr time span

10. –Photoevaporation of a circumstellar disk –Radiation from the background cluster often dominates radiation from the parent star (Johnstone et al. 1998; Adams & Myers 2001) –FUV radiation (6 eV < E < 13.6 eV) is more important in this process than EUV radiation –FUV flux of G 0 = 3000 will truncate a circumstellar disk to r d over 10 Myr, where Effects of Cluster Radiation on Forming/Young Solar Systems

11. Calculation of the Radiation Field Fundamental Assumptions –Cluster size N = N primaries (ignore binary companions) –No gas or dust attenuation of FUV radiation –Stellar FUV luminosity is only a function of mass –Meader’s models for stellar luminosity and temperature Sample IMF → L FUV (N) Sample Cluster Sizes Expected FUV Luminosity in SF Cluster →

12. FUV Flux depends on: –Cluster FUV luminosity –Location of disk within cluster Assume: –FUV point source located at center of cluster –Stellar density  ~ 1/r Photoevaporation of Circumstellar Disks G 0 = 1 corresponds to FUV flux 1.6 x 10 -3 erg s -1 cm -2 Median900 Peak1800 Mean16,500 G 0 Distribution

13. Photoevaporation Model (Adams et al. 2004)

14. Results from PDR Code Lots of chemistry and many heating/cooling lines determine the temperature as a function of G, n, A

15. Solution for Fluid Fields outer disk edge sonic surface

16. Evaporation Time vs FUV Field ----------------------- (for disks around solar mass stars)

17. Photoevaporation in Simulated Clusters Radial Probability Distributions Simulationr eff (pc)G 0 meanr med (pc)G 0 median 100 Subvirial0.08066,5000.323359 100 Virial0.11234,3000.387250 300 Subvirial0.12681,0000.5491,550 300 Virial0.18139,0000.687992 1000 Subvirial0.197109,6000.9553,600 1000 Virial0.34835,2001.252,060 FUV radiation does not evaporate enough disk gas to prevent giant planet formation for Solar-type stars

18. Evaporation Time vs Stellar Mass Evaporation is much more effective for disks around low-mass stars: Giant planet formation can be compromised G=3000

19. Evaporation vs Accretion Disk accretion aids and abets the disk destruction process by draining gas from the inside, while evaporation removes gas from the outside...

20. Solar System Scattering Many Parameters + Chaotic Behavior Many Simulations Monte Carlo

21. Monte Carlo Experiments Jupiter only, v = 1 km/s, N=40,000 realizations 4 giant planets, v = 1 km/s, N=50,000 realizations KB Objects, v = 1 km/s, N=30,000 realizations Earth only, v = 40 km/s, N=100,000 realizations 4 giant planets, v = 40 km/s, Solar mass, N=100,000 realizations 4 giant planets, v = 1 km/s, varying stellar mass, N=100,000 realizations

22. Red Dwarf captures the Earth Sun exits with one red dwarf as a binary companion Earth exits with the other red dwarf Sun and Earth encounter binary pair of red dwarfs 9000 year interaction

23. Eccentricity e Semi-major axis a Jupiter SaturnUranus Neptune Scattering Results for our Solar System

24. Cross Sections 2.0 M  1.0 M  0.5 M  0.25 M 

25. Solar System Scattering in Clusters Ejection Rate per Star (for a given mass) Integrate over IMF (normalized to cluster size) Subvirial N=300 Cluster  0 = 0.096,  = 1.7  J = 0.15 per Myr 1-2 Jupiters are ejected in 10 Myr Less than number of ejections from internal solar system scattering (Moorhead & Adams 2005)

26. Conclusions N-Body simulations of young embedded clusters –Distributions of radial positions and closest approaches –Subvirial clusters more concentrated & longer lived Clusters have modest effects on star and planet formation –FUV flux levels are low & leave disks unperturbed –Disruption of planetary systems rare, b C ~ 700-4000 AU –Planet ejection rates via scattering encounters are low --------------------------------------------------------------------- Photoevaporation model for external FUV radiation Distributions of FUV flux and luminosity Cross sections for solar system disruption [Orbit solutions, triaxial effects, spirographic approx.]

28. Time Evolution of Parameters Subvirial ClusterVirial Cluster 1003001000 In subvirial clusters, 50-60% of members remain bound at 10 Myr instead of 10-30% for virial clusters R 1/2 is about 70% smaller for subvirial clusters Stars in the subvirial clusters fall rapidly towards the center and then expand after t = 5 Myr

29. Orbits in Cluster Potentials

30. Orbits (continued) (effective semi-major axis) (angular momentum of the circular orbit) (circular orbits do not close)

31. Spirographic Orbits! (Adams & Bloch 2005) Orbital Elements

32. Allowed Parameter Space Spirographic approximation is valid over most of the plane

33. Application to LMC Orbit Spirographic approximation reproduces the orbital shape with 7 percent accuracy & conserves angular momentum with 1 percent accuracy. Compare with observational uncertainties of 10-20 percent.

34. Triaxial Potentials in Clusters Box Orbit Growth of perpendicular coordinate

35. Where did we come from?

36. Solar Birth Aggregate Supernova enrichment requires large N Well ordered solar system requires small N

37. Stellar number N Probability P(N) Expected Size of the Stellar Birth Aggregate survival supernova Adams & Laughlin, 2001, Icarus, 150, 151

38. Constraints on the Solar Birth Aggregate (1 out of 60) (Adams & Laughlin 2001 - updated)

39. Probability as function of system size N (Adams & Myers 2001)

40. (Walsh et al. 2006) NGC 1333 - cold start

41. Probability of Supernovae

43. Probability of Scattering Scattering rate: Survival probability: Known results provide n, v, t as function of N (e.g. BT87) need to calculate the interaction cross sections

44. Cross Section for Solar System Disruption