4.7 Article

Polluting the Pair-instability Mass Gap for Binary Black Holes through Super-Eddington Accretion in Isolated Binaries

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 897, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9809

关键词

Compact binary stars; Black holes; Accretion; Gravitational wave sources; High energy astrophysics; Binary stars

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program from the European Research Council (ERC) [715063]
  2. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) as part of the Vidi research program BinWaves [639.042.728]
  3. NWO [614.001.501]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The theory for single stellar evolution predicts a gap in the mass distribution of black holes (BHs) between approximately 45 and 130 M-circle dot, the so-called pair-instability mass gap. We examine whether BHs can pollute the gap after accreting from a stellar companion. To this end, we simulate the evolution of isolated binaries using a population synthesis code, where we allow for super-Eddington accretion. Under our most extreme assumptions, we find that at most about 2% of all merging binary BH systems contains a BH with a mass in the pair-instability mass gap, and we find that less than 0.5% of the merging systems has a total mass larger than 90 M-circle dot. We find no merging binary BH systems with a total mass exceeding 100 M-circle dot. We compare our results to predictions from several dynamical pathways to pair-instability mass gap events and discuss the distinguishable features. We conclude that the classical isolated binary formation scenario will not significantly contribute to the pollution of the pair-instability mass gap. The robustness of the predicted mass gap for the isolated binary channel is promising for the prospective of placing constraints on (i) the relative contribution of different formation channels, (ii) the physics of the progenitors including nuclear reaction rates, and, tentatively, (iii) the Hubble parameter.

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