Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:40:29.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mid-infrared Variability and Accretion in NGC 2264 Protostars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

S. Terebey ,
A. M. Cody ,
L. M. Rebull  and
J. R. Stauffer
S. Terebey
Affiliation:
California State University Los Angeles; email: [email protected]
A. M. Cody
Affiliation:
NASA Ames Research Center;
L. M. Rebull
Affiliation:
Spitzer Science Center; California Institute of Technology
J. R. Stauffer
Affiliation:
Spitzer Science Center; California Institute of Technology
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.

Variable mass accretion is thought to be an important aspect of protostar formation. Mid-infrared wavelength observations trace variations in accretion luminosity and thus can probe mass accretion on sub-AU scales. We present results from the Spitzer YSOVAR campaign towards Class I protostars in NGC 2264. The precise (0.02 mag) medium-cadence light curves at 3.6 and 4.5 microns show that young star variability is ubiquitous, with a variety of morphologies and time scales. A structure function analysis shows the light curves, on average, have a power-law behavior up to 30 days. The trend continues to longer timescales (years) for protostars (Class I), in contrast with the smaller brightness changes displayed by T Tauri stars (Class II). The power-law behavior suggests a stochastic process, such as turbulent mass accretion, drives the variability.

Keywords

stars:formation – stars:protostars – stars:variables: T Tauri
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 10 , Issue S314: Young Stars & Planets Near the Sun , November 2015 , pp. 209 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2016 

References

Cody, A. M., Stauffer, J. R., Baglin, A.et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 82Google Scholar
Dunham, M. M., Evans, Neal J. II, Terebey, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, 470Google Scholar
Forbrich, J., Tappe, A., Robitaille, T., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1453Google Scholar
Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S., Kochanek, C. S., Stern, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales-Calderon, M., Stauffer, J. R., Hillenbrand, L. A.et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 50Google Scholar
Park, B.-G., Sung, H., Bessell, M. S., & Kang, Y. H. 2000, AJ, 120, 894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebull, L. R., Cody, A. M., Covey, K. R., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 92Google Scholar
Sung, H., Stauffer, J. R. & Bessell, M. S., 2009, AJ, 138, 1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar