Samuel D. Mcdermott

~FIND THE GAP~ New Physics and the Black Hole Mass Gap

Samuel D. McDermott work with Djuna Croon + Jeremy Sakstein: PotDU & 2007.00650 [hep-ph], PRD & 2007.07889 [gr-qc] &/+ Maria Straight and Eric Baxter: PRL & 2009.01213 [gr-qc] &/+ Eric Baxter: @ApJL & 2104.02685 [astro-ph.CO] + code development in progress (email me for updates/release info)

1 [email protected] Sam McDermott “Find the Gap” 2104.02685/@ApJL 60 Black Hole Mass Gap (BHMG) 40 dN(1g) dN 1 ∼ dθ * 20 dMBH ∫ dM* dMBH(θ)/dM*

0 (1g) (2g) 40 50 60 70 80 90 ⃗ dN dN p (m1, m2 ∣ θ ) ∝ + λ dMBH dMBH with GW190521 47.7 without GW190521 0.20

2 10° 0.15 ) M ( 0.10 n 3 10° + LVC GWTC-2 = 0.05 0.00 4 10° 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 M Ø Sam McDermott “Find the Gap” 2104.02685/@ApJL 60 Black Hole Mass Gap (BHMG) 40 dN(1g) dN 1 ∼ dθ * ∫ 20 Part 1 dMBH dM* dMBH(θ)/dM* 0 (1g) (2g) 40 50 60 70 80 90 ⃗ dN dN p (m1, m2 ∣ θ ) ∝ + λ dMBH dMBH with GW190521 47.7 without GW190521 0.20

2 10° 0.15 ) M ( 0.10 n 3 10° + LVC GWTC-2 = 0.05 0.00 4 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10° Part 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 M Ø Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PRD & 2007.07889

power law increase 20

calculated with MESA 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PRD & 2007.07889

40 “ﬂattens” MBH power law (pulsations) increase 20

calculated with MESA 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PRD & 2007.07889

40 M “ﬂattens” M BH BH power law (pulsations) decreases increase 20

calculated with MESA 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PRD & 2007.07889

40 M “ﬂattens” M BH BH power law (pulsations) decreases increase 20

calculated with MESA 0 no remnant! 40 50 60 70 80 90 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PRD & 2007.07889

60 maximum black hole mass MBHMG 40 M “ﬂattens” M BH BH power law (pulsations) decreases increase 20

calculated with MESA 0 no remnant! 40 50 60 70 80 90 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Evolution* of Pop III Stars

109

→ time

108 102 103 104 105 106 107

10 *MESA v12778 Paxton et al, arXiv:1710.08424 [astro-ph.SR] Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Outcome of Pulsations

no remnant

9 10 remnant (despite some mass loss)

108 — pulsational pair instability supernova (PPISN) 70M⊙ ≲ M10in 2≲ 100M⊙103 104 105 106 107 vs

100M⊙ ≲ Min ≲ 250M⊙ — pair instability supernova (PISN) Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Can we Change the BHMG?

• New light degree(s) of freedom are produced in the core of a massive star during helium burning

• This additional loss channel causes the star to consume fuel more quickly and end helium burning earlier

• This reduces the amount of 16O available during pulsations

• Explosions are less violent ⟹ mass loss is less pronounced ⟹ a heavier black hole

12 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Reactions in Pop III Stars

109 Main nuclear{ reaction:

→ time

108 102 103 104 105 106 107

13 *MESA v12778 Paxton et al, arXiv:1710.08424 [astro-ph.SR] Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Reactions in Pop III Stars

109 Main nuclear{ reaction: Subdominant but important: → γ time

16O 108 102 103 104 105 106 107

14 *MESA v12778 Paxton et al, arXiv:1710.08424 [astro-ph.SR] Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Losses to Light Particles

40 ζ α g2 Y T6 erg • Electrophilic axion: � = 6 EM ae e F ≃ 33 α Y T6 F sC 2 4 deg 26 e 8 deg T π m m g⋅s T ≡ N e 8 108K 2 7 2 2 gaγT k k erg • Photophilic axion: � = S f S ≃ 283.16 g2 T4 aγ 2 10 8 k 2 ρ 4π ρ ( 2T ) [( 2T ) ] g ⋅ s S = 0.166 3 Y Z2 ( ) 3 ∑ j j 2T T8 j 2 2 3 2 ϵ m ωp erg Z ϵ m • Dark photon: A′ A′ �A′ = ≃ 1800 T8 4π ρ ωp/T g⋅s A ( 10−7 meV ) 2 4παEMne 2 Z e − 1 ωp ≃ ≃ (654eV) ρ3 me A 3. Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 2.5

Implications2. for Oxygen Production 3. 0.17 0.16 shorter time to He 0.152.5 0.14 depletion… 0.132. 0.12 0.11 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.17 New particle coupling strength (big) 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0 20 40 60 80 100 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Implications for Oxygen Production

3. shorter time to He 2.5 depletion… 2.

0.17 0.16 0.15 …less oxygen 0.14 0.13 available during pulsations 0.12 0.11 0 20 New particle40 coupling60 strength 80 (big)100 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Implications for Black Hole Masses

60 60 max BSM coupling t=0 50 50 SM only increasing coupling 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 initial stellar mass GW150914 GW151012 GW151226 GW170104 GW170608 GW170729 GW170809 GW170814 GW170818 GW170823 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Losses to Light Particles

1010 9 8 • Electrophilic axion: 10 10 106 104 108 102 108 109 106 • Photophilic axion: 104 108 �/�ν = 1 102 109 106

• Dark photon: 108 105 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Implications for Black Hole Masses

160 160 160 160 160 160

140 140 140 140 140 140 120 t=0 120 120 120 120 120 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 80 80 80 80 80 BHMG BHMG BHMG M M M 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40

20 20 20 20 20 20

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 increasing increasing increasing coupling coupling coupling

larger coupling to new physics ⟹ larger black hole mass

20 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PotDU & 2007.00650 + PRD & 2007.07889 Implications for Black Hole Masses

160 160 160 160 160 160

140 140 140 140 140 140 120 t=0 120 120 120 120 120 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 80 80 80 80 80 BHMG BHMG BHMG M M M 60 60 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 40 40

20 20 20 20 20 20

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 35 g13 larger coupling to new physics ⟹ larger black hole mass

21 But… Limits!

Claimed constraints from other stellar systems are in “tension”

Capozzi & Raffelt 2007.03694: “The evolution of a low-mass star as it ascends the red-giant branch (RGB) is driven by the growing mass and shrinking size of its dege- nerate core until helium ignites and the core quickly expands” ⟹ α26 ≤ 0.2

CAST excludes up to eV, weakening linearly at larger ; g10 ≤ 0.7 ma ∼ 0.02 ma helioseismology requires (Vinyoles et al., 1501.01639) g10 ≤ 4

Exceeding the luminosity of photons from the sun unacceptably changes the 8B neutrino ﬂux, limiting −9 (An et al., 1302.3884; Redondo and Raffelt ϵmA′ /meV ≲ 10 1305.2920) But… Limits!

Claimed constraints from other stellar systems are in “tension”

CAST excludes up to eV, weakening linearly at larger ; g10 ≤ 0.7 ma ∼ 0.02 ma helioseismology requires (Vinyoles et al., 1501.01639) g10 ≤ 4

Claimed constraintsthese stars from have other uncertainties stellar systems (mixing, are in structure) “tension” and unexplored parameter degeneracies (age, metallicity; distance, reddening) Capozzi & Raffelt 2007.03694: “The evolution of a low-mass star as it ascends the red-giant branch (RGB) is driven by the growing mass and shrinking size of its dege- nerate core until helium ignites and the core quickly expands” ⟹ α26 ≤ 0.2 Solar bound only (Redondo 1310.0823) α26 ≤ 4200 CAST excludes up to eV, weakening linearly at larger ; g10 ≤ 0.7 ma ∼ 0.02 ma helioseismology requires (Vinyoles et al., 1501.01639) g10 ≤ 4

Exceeding the luminosity of photons from the sun unacceptably changes the 8B neutrino ﬂux, limiting −9 (An et al., 1302.3884; Redondo and Raffelt ϵmA′ /meV ≲ 10 1305.2920) the Sun is pretty well (though as yet imperfectly) understood But… Limits! Di Luzio, et al., 2006.12487 & PRL Also… Claimed constraintsthese stars from have other uncertainties stellar systems (mixing, are in structure) “tension” and unexplored parameter degeneracies (age, metallicity; distance, reddening) Capozzi & Raffelt 2007.03694: “The evolution of a low-mass star as it ascends the red-giant branch (RGB) is driven by the growing mass and shrinking size of its dege- nerate core until helium ignites and the core quickly expands” ⟹ α26 ≤ 0.2 Solar bound only (Redondo 1310.0823) α26 ≤ 4200 CAST excludes up to eV, weakening linearly at larger ; g10 ≤ 0.7 ma ∼ 0.02 ma helioseismology requires (Vinyoles et al., 1501.01639) g10 ≤ 4

Exceeding the luminosity of photons from the sun unacceptably changes the 8B neutrino ﬂux, limiting −9 (An et al., 1302.3884; Redondo and Raffelt ϵmA′ /meV ≲ 10 Not true! (we simulated this) 1305.2920) the Sun is pretty well (though as yet imperfectly) understood SM Uncertainties Z Environment Rates also rare events: Winds (2σ errors) • pre-/post-collapse merger f • accretion after formation ov Physics ÆMLT • retention of H envelope ∫r • binarity 2 • rotation sin µw • … ¢s ¢t Numerics Net 40 50 60 Farmer et al., Maximum BHM mass (MBH,max [M ]) 1910.12874 BHMG Ø Surprisingly Massive: SM vs BSM

SM physics BSM physics

• is at the value predicted by • is not as expected from MBHMG MBHMG the SM-only calculation* SM-only calculation: objects “in the

*unless ~5σ deviations from nuclear rates or major differences in (SM) mass gap” form from isolated stellar physics wrt to MESA evolution, no rare process required

• Continuous distribution of up to MBH • Implies a continuous distribution of expected value of due to MBHMG BH masses up to a new, higher isolated stars, plus rare excursions value of MBHMG to (“pollutants”) MBH > MBHMG

29 LIGO Observations: Oct 2020 Black Hole Population Statistics

0.030 with GW190521 with GW190521 without GW190521 without GW190521 0.025 2 10°

0.020 ) )

M 0.015 M ( ( n n 10 3 0.010 °

0.005

0.000 4 10° 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 M M Ø Ø Black Hole Population Statistics

with GW190521 Baxter, Croon, SDM, Sakstein @ApJL & 2104.02685 without GW190521 dN(1g) dN(2g) 2 ⃗ 10° p (m1, m2 ∣ θ ) ∝ + λ dMBH dMBH ) M ( n 3 10° BHs formed from “pollutants” (λ<1) isolated stellar evolution

4 xkcd.com/2059/ 10° 0 20 40 60 80 100 M Ø

32 Black Hole Population Statistics

4 xkcd.com/2059/ 10° 0 20 40 60 80 100 M Ø dN(1g) dN 1 ∼ d α ⃗ * dMBH ∫ dM* dMBH( α )⃗ /dM* this is exactly what we get from MESA! 33 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PRD & 2007.07889 &/+ Baxter @ApJL & 2104.02685 dMBH/dM*

MBHMG 40

0 40 50 60 70 80 90

34 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PRD & 2007.07889 &/+ Baxter @ApJL & 2104.02685 dMBH/dM*

MBHMG 40 wide range of stellar masses 20

0 40 50 60 70 80 90

35 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PRD & 2007.07889 &/+ Baxter @ApJL & 2104.02685 dMBH/dM*

MBHMG narrow range of 40 BH masses wide range of stellar masses 20

0 40 50 60 70 80 90

36 Croon, McDermott, Sakstein PRD & 2007.07889 &/+ Baxter @ApJL & 2104.02685 dMBH/dM*

MBHMG narrow range of 40 BH masses wide range of stellar masses … followed 20 immediately by the mass gap! 0 40 50 60 70 80 90

37 Black Hole Population Statistics (1g) (2g) ⃗ dN dN after GWTC-2 p m1, m2 ∣ θ ∝ + λ ( ) Baxter, Croon, SDM, Sakstein dMBH dMBH @ApJL + 2104.02685

ﬂexible ﬁtting function with a sharp peak followed by a gap:

a−1 (1g) dNBH 2 MBH MBH ∝ 1 + 2a 1 − Θ(MBHMG − MBH) dMBH MBHMG ( MBHMG )

38 Black Hole Population Statistics (1g) (2g) ⃗ dN dN after GWTC-2 p m1, m2 ∣ θ ∝ + λ ( ) Baxter, Croon, SDM, Sakstein dMBH dMBH @ApJL + 2104.02685

ﬂexible ﬁtting function with a sharp peak followed by a gap:

a−1 (1g) dNBH 2 MBH MBH ∝ 1 + 2a 1 − Θ(MBHMG − MBH) dMBH MBHMG ( MBHMG )

(2g) (1g) (1g) dN dN (Ma) dN (MBH − Ma) ∼ dMa dMBH ∫ dMa dMa Black Hole Population Statistics (1g) (2g) ⃗ dN dN after GWTC-2 p m1, m2 ∣ θ ∝ + λ ( ) Baxter, Croon, SDM, Sakstein dMBH dMBH @ApJL + 2104.02685v2

1010--11 1010--11

1010--22 1010--22

1010--33 1010--33

1010--44 1010--44

2020 40 6060 8080 100100 2020 40 60 8080 100100

40 Black Hole Population Statistics (1g) (2g) ⃗ dN dN after GWTC-2 p m1, m2 ∣ θ ∝ + λ ( ) Baxter, Croon, SDM, Sakstein dMBH dMBH @ApJL + 2104.02685v2

47.7

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

41 Conclusions

42 xkcd.com/1022/ Conclusions

• LIGO is in the middle of its “discovery bump” — we are learning so much more about the Universe all the time!

• Physically motivated mass functions will soon reveal intimate details of the black hole creation mechanism

• The future is exciting!

43 xkcd.com/1022/ Thanks!

[email protected] samueldmcdermott.github.io/