4.7 Article

Binary black holes in the pair instability mass gap

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa1997

关键词

black hole physics; gravitational waves; methods: numerical; binaries: general; stars: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: star clusters: general

资金

  1. Universita degli Studi dell'Insubria through a Cycle 33rd PhD grant
  2. European Research Council [770017]
  3. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the H2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions grant [794393]
  4. PRIN MIUR 2017 [20173ML3WW 002]
  5. International Space Science Institute (ISSI), Bern, Switzerland [393]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pair instability (PI) and pulsational PI prevent the formation of black holes (BHs) with mass greater than or similar to 60M(circle dot) from single star evolution. Here, we investigate the possibility that BHs with mass in the PI gap form via stellar mergers and multiple stellar mergers, facilitated by dynamical encounters in young star clusters. We analyse 10(4) simulations, run with the direct N-body code NBODY6++ GPU coupled with the population synthesis code MOBSE. We find that up to similar to 6 per cent of all simulated BHs have mass in the PI gap, depending on progenitor's metallicity. This formation channel is strongly suppressed in metal-rich (Z = 0.02) star clusters because of stellar winds. BHs with mass in the PI gap are initially single BHs but can efficiently acquire companions through dynamical exchanges. We find that similar to 21 per cent, 10 per cent, and 0.5 per cent of all binary BHs have at least one component in the PI mass gap at metallicity Z = 0.0002, 0.002, and 0.02, respectively. Based on the evolution of the cosmic star formation rate and metallicity, and under the assumption that all stars form in young star clusters, we predict that similar to 5 per cent of all binary BH mergers detectable by advanced LIGO and Virgo at their design sensitivity have at least one component in the PI mass gap.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据