4.7 Article

Black hole formation in the early Universe

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 433, Issue 2, Pages 1607-1618

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt834

Keywords

methods: numerical; galaxies: formation; cosmology: theory; early Universe

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB 963/1]
  2. HLRN [nip00029]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Supermassive black holes with up to a 10(9) M-circle dot dwell in the centres of present-day galaxies, and their presence has been confirmed at z >= 6. Their formation at such early epochs is still an enigma. Different pathways have been suggested to assemble supermassive black holes in the first billion years after the big bang. Direct collapse has emerged as a highly plausible scenario to form black holes as it provides seed masses of 10(5)-10(6) M-circle dot. Gravitational collapse in atomic cooling haloes with virial temperatures T-vir >= 10(4) K may lead to the formation of massive seed black holes in the presence of an intense background ultraviolet flux. Turbulence plays a central role in regulating accretion and transporting angular momentum. We present here the highest resolution cosmological large eddy simulations to date which track the evolution of high-density regions on scales of 0.25 au beyond the formation of the first peak, and study the impact of subgrid-scale turbulence. The peak density reached in these simulations is 1.2 x 10(-8) g cm(-3). Our findings show that while fragmentation occasionally occurs, it does not prevent the growth of a central massive object resulting from turbulent accretion and occasional mergers. The central object reaches similar to 1000 M-circle dot within four free-fall times, and we expect further growth up to 10(6) M-circle dot through accretion in about 1 Myr. The direct collapse model thus provides a viable pathway of forming high-mass black holes at early cosmic times.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available