4.7 Article

Probing z ≳ six massive black holes with gravitational waves

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stad1493

关键词

gravitational waves; galaxies: high-redshift; quasars: supermassive black holes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the coalescence of massive black hole binaries at 6 < z < 10 using cosmological hydrodynamical simulations. Our simulations predict merger rates ranging from 3 to 15 yr^(-1) at z ~ 6, after correcting for a bias factor of 20-30. We find that 83% of MBHBs will merge within the Hubble time, and 21% within 1 Gyr.
We investigate the coalescence of massive black hole (M-BH greater than or similar to 10(6) M-circle dot) binaries (MBHBs) at 6 < z < 10 by adopting a suite of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of galaxy formation, zoomed-in on biased (> 3 s) overdense re gions (M-h similar to 10 (12) M-circle dot dark matter haloes at z = 6) of the Universe. We first analyse the impact of different resolutions and AGN feedback prescriptions on the merger rate, assuming instantaneous mergers. Then, we compute the halo bias correction factor due to the o v erdense simulated region. Our simulations predict merger rates that range between 3 and 15 yr (-1) at z similar to 6, depending on the run considered, and after correcting for a bias factor of similar to 20-30. For our fiducial model, we further consider the effect of delay in the MBHB coalescence due to dynamical friction. We find that 83 per cent of MBHBs will merge within the Hubble time, and 21 per cent within 1 Gyr, namely the age of the Universe at z > 6. We finally compute the expected properties of the gravitational wave (GW) signals and find the fraction of LISA detectable events with high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR > 5) to range between 66 per cent and 69 per cent. Ho we ver, identifying the electro-magnetic counterpart of these events remains challenging due to the poor LISA sky localization that, for the loudest signals (M-c similar to 10(6) M-c at z = 6), is around 10 deg(2).

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