4.7 Article

Gravitational radiation from intermediate-mass black holes

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 581, 期 1, 页码 438-450

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/344156

关键词

black hole physics; gravitational waves; stellar dynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent X-ray observations of galaxies with ROSAT, ASCA, and Chandra have revealed numerous bright off-center point sources that, if isotropic emitters, are likely to be intermediate-mass black holes, with M similar to10(2)-10(4) M-.. The origin of these objects is under debate, but observations suggest that a significant number of them currently reside in young high-density stellar clusters. There is also growing evidence that some Galactic globular clusters harbor black holes of similar mass, from observations of stellar kinematics. In such high-density stellar environments, the interactions of intermediate-mass black holes are promising sources of gravitational waves for ground-based and space-based detectors. Here we explore the signal strengths of binaries containing intermediate-mass black holes or stellar-mass black holes in dense stellar clusters. We estimate that a few to tens per year of these objects will be detectable during the last phase of their inspiral with the advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory detector, and up to tens per year will be seen during merger, depending on the spins of the black holes. We also find that if these objects reside in globular clusters, then tens of sources will be detectable with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna from the Galactic globular system in a 5 yr integration, and similar numbers will be detectable from more distant galaxies. The signal strength depends on the eccentricity distribution, but we show that there is promise for strong detection of pericenter precession and Lense-Thirring precession of the orbital plane. We conclude by discussing what could be learned about binaries, dense stellar systems, and strong gravity if such signals are detected.

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