arXiv:1611.06573v2 [astro-ph.GA] 3 Apr 2017 hnrska eie nepii oml o h dy- the 1943) for (Chandrasekhar space, formula force friction velocity explicit namical an in derived isotropic and Chandrasekhar and infinite was spatially unacceler- distribution and field-star homogeneous unper- linear the the was that that body and assuming test ated, By the of motion. motion in turbed force star of a field on fluctuating acting the of effect decelerating tematic evo- of phase migration 1999). envelope protoplanet bi- Ostriker and common (e.g., 2014), 1976), the the Paczynski al. (e.g., in et al. in lution Alessandrini cores et Bosch star (e.g., role den nary clusters van key binaries (e.g., star (SMBH) a galaxies 1999), 2006), hole plays Merritt black (e.g., friction supermassive of (Chandrasekhar Dynamical evolution contribution dynamics important stellar under- 1943). to most its Chandrasekhar the most and 1983; of arguably the astrophysics is of Mulder in one standing 1972; is stars processes friction of fundamental Dynamical Kalnajs deflection a the 1957; 1986). by on gravitational Weinberg it the induced Camm behind & (i.e., drag raised (Danby Dynamical overdensity is the the that as of wake) by friction. understood direction particle dynamical be the test as can along known friction deceleration motion net a its suffers stars F F [email protected],fabio.antonin F rpittpstuigL using 2017 typeset 5, Preprint April version Draft hnrska ecie yaia rcina h sys- the as friction dynamical describes Chandrasekhar lighter of cluster a through moving object massive A YAIA RCINADTEEOUINO UEMSIEBLACK SUPERMASSIVE OF EVOLUTION THE AND FRICTION DYNAMICAL df etrfrItricpiayEpoainadRsac nA in Research and Exploration Interdisciplinary for Center = lhuhicuigtefs tr nrae h ea ae o mas slow low moving rate, stars decay of the deficit increases the stars to fast due the long including very Although become can timescale tnadCadaehrstetet eso httebnr e than o binary steeply inspiralling I the less the that rises hole. than show profile black faster We density central moving cusp massive treatment. stars more Chandrasekhar’s from a standard by force consist dominated binaries frictional cusp massive the of stellar evolution a throu friction driven inside coalescence is dynamical reaches binary the eventually massive consider the and of “hard” evolution becomes early binary The core. remnant the egr h eodr oesal na ceti ri tadistanc a (i.e., at hole orbit eccentric primary an Hu the on one of stalls than radius hole longer secondary timescales the decay mergers have galaxies massive sufficiently ubro tle aeltsa ucino h otglx as an mass, galaxy host the of function have a should as galaxies satellites stalled of number ujc headings: nuclei Subject multiple include disks. which nuclear observations, eccentric of and number AGNs a to explanation − h uemsiebakhlsoiial ntence ftomriggala merging two of nuclei the in originally holes black supermassive The 4 πG 2 υ υ υ υ 1. 3 ( m INTRODUCTION A T + E tl mltajv 01/23/15 v. emulateapj style X m aais uli-Sprasv lc oe tr:knmtc n d and kinematics Stars: - holes black Supermassive - nuclei Galaxies: ⋆ nΛ ln ) & fsc aeltsobtn ihntercrs u eut ol prov could results Our cores. their within orbiting satellites such of 1 Z 0 υ dυ IA UDE-ASCPROBLEM HUNDRED-PARSEC FINAL aiDspuo n ai Antonini Fabio and Dosopoulou Fani ⋆ otwsenUiest,Easo,I 60208 IL Evanston, University, Northwestern 4 πf ≈ ( 10 υ ⋆ rf eso pi ,2017 5, April version Draft ) − υ [email protected] ⋆ 2 0p o asv litcl) ecluaeteexpected the calculate We ellipticals). massive for 100pc , ρ ABSTRACT (1) ∝ tohsc CEA n eateto hsc n Astrophy and Physics of Department and (CIERA) strophysics r − 2 ncsssalwrthan shallower cusps In . .. htmove that i.e., itosta h tnadCadaehrstreatment Chandrasekhar’s standard the that dictions fti rbe.Mr pcfial,aayia tech- analytical specifically, More the treatments to and problem. previous niques stars in this ve- fast ignored the was star Maxwellian), of that of field a a force contribution say, proper near frictional the to, the star including opposed using test and (as by a distribution this of locity do momentum the We of angular SMBH. coefficients evolution and time friction containing orbit-averaged energy dynamical galaxies the the describe of derive which nuclei We SMBH. the a in friction dynamical edt elc h otiuino tr ihlreveloc- large with stars that of ( assumptions contribution ities the simplifying erroneous neglect of usual to to lead leads models the (1) interesting because Equation physically results which of in pa- this nuclei existence in galactic the described work is the Merritt al. per for & et al. motivation Antonini Petts The et 2014; Read 2016). known 2008; Capuzzo-Dolcetta 1984; & also Arca-Sedda Merritt 2012; & Weinberg are Gualandris & Tremaine theory 2006; (e.g., standard 2006), exist al. the et to Baumgardt has sys- from 2003; of (1) al. variety deviations et a Equation Spinnato well Although (e.g., remarkably tems describe to force. shown been decelerating the to in()ipista nysaswt velocity with stars only that Equa- implies Clearly, (1) function. tion distribution velocity stellar the inlcntn,l h olm oaih,and logarithm, Coulomb the body, Λ ln test constant, the tional of mass where nti ae epeetacmrhniesuyof study comprehensive a present we paper this In v ⋆ m v > ⋆ eoe h aso h edstars, field the of mass the denotes N hgaiainlwv msin We emission. wave gravitational gh pert ra down. break to appear ) bd iuain r sdt ettopre- two test to used are simulations -body cnrct nrae ftestellar the if increases ccentricity fodroetnhteinfluence the tenth one order of e hwta h rgts cluster brightest the that show d n fascnayhl orbiting hole secondary a of ing jc hc sngetdi the in neglected is which bject the before friction dynamical by -ai iais( binaries s-ratio slower betm.Drn uhminor such During time. bble ncr litcl,off-center ellipticals, core in u ramn einclude we treatment our n rta h asv body. massive the than er iswl omabnr in binary a form will xies hntets oy contribute body, test the than v ρ ∝ t velocity, its OEBNRE:THE BINARIES: HOLE r − 1 q ynamics h frictional the . 10 G − d an ide 3 h gravita- the in ) v sics, ⋆ m f v < ( the v ⋆ ) , 2 Dosopoulou and Antonini makes about the evolution of a massive body moving (Bonfini & Graham 2016; Mazzalay et al. 2016) and ec- near a SMBH. Assuming that the density of field stars centric nuclear disks (Lauer et al. 1996). follows ρ(r) r−γ , then Equation (1) predicts that This paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we in- (Antonini & Merritt∼ 2012): (i) the dynamical friction troduce the general formalism we adopt to describe the force goes to zero as γ 1/2, (ii) the eccentricity is orbital evolution of a massive binary moving inside a stel- conserved for γ = 3/2, while→ dynamical friction tends lar cusp around a central SMBH, treating dynamical fric- to circularize orbits for γ > 3/2 and make them more tion as a perturbation to the classic Kepler problem. In eccentric for γ < 3/2. Compared to previous work (e.g. Section 3 we compare the theoretical predictions for the Antonini & Merritt 2012) we study the evolution of mas- binary evolution with the results of N-body simulations. sive binaries in models with a wide range of density pro- In Section 4 we describe the different phases involved in files and binary mass ratios and consider for the first time the evolution of a SMBH binary and calculate the life- the effect of the friction from fast stars to the evolution time of a SMBH binary in early-type galaxies. In Section of the binary eccentricity. Moreover, in our paper the 5 we calculate the expected average number of stalled binary evolution equations are first derived using a per- satellites in luminous galaxies as a function of the host turbation approach based on the varying conic method of galaxy SMBH mass, commenting on possible connections Lagrange (e.g., Dosopoulou & Kalogera 2016a) and then to observations. In Section 6 we present our conclusions. orbit-averaged (e.g., Dosopoulou & Kalogera 2016b). Predictions (i) and (ii) can be easily understood based 2. on Equation (1), and noting that the distribution func- ANALYTICAL TREATMENT tion which corresponds to an isotropic and spherical clus- A binary system can be exposed to various perturba- ter of stars near a SMBH is f(E) E γ−3/2/Γ(γ 1/2) tions emerging from physical processes involved in the [see also Equation (10) below], with∝ | |E the orbital− en- course of its evolution. Within the astrophysical context ergy. The previous expression shows that as γ 1/2 all these processes are in principle dynamical processes in stars have zero energy with respect to the SMBH,→ i.e., addition to the classic Newtonian gravity. the distribution function tends to a delta function which In stellar binaries these processes include tidal forces peaks at the local escape velocity. Under these condi- and tidal friction, relativistic corrections, gravitational- tions, Equation (1) implies that the dynamical friction wave emission, magnetic braking, mass-loss and mass- force is zero, since there are no stars locally that move transfer interactions as well as many-body forces. In slower than the test star. Point (ii) is also easily shown massive binaries moving inside a stellar cusp, a funda- to be true. For γ = 3/2, f(E) = const. Equation (1) mental perturbation is dynamical friction which is the in this case shows that the dynamical friction force is deceleration drag experienced by the secondary massive independent of radius and reduces to a linear decelera- body. tion drag Fdf = const v along the orbit. This implies Due to the various perturbations, each body in the bi- that the orbital− eccentricity· of a massive body will re- nary is no longer moving in the actual Keplerian ellipse it main unchanged during its motion. For steeper profiles, would if no perturbations existed, but its physical orbit is because the phase-space density is higher than average slowly changing with time. The time evolution of the or- at periapsis the additional drag there tends to circularize bital elements can be described using the Varying-Conic the orbit, while for shallower profiles the higher phase- method advanced and completed by Lagrange. In this space density at apoapsis tends to make the orbit more method the true physical orbit of the body is approxi- eccentric. mated by a family of evolving instantaneous ellipses that Our calculations show that the evolution of the test at each moment in time describe the ellipse the body mass can be significantly affected by the frictional force would follow if the perturbation ceased instantaneously. produced by stars moving faster than its velocity. Adding In what follows we describe the general formalism of this contribution leads to a timescale for inspiral that, this method and we then apply this formalism to the for 1/2 . γ . 1, can be up to one order of magnitude orbital evolution of an inspiraling object inside a stellar shorter than what predicted by Equation (1). The orbital cusp treating dynamical friction as a perturbation to the eccentricity of the test mass is found to increase during binary orbit. the inspiral for all values of γ less than 2; for steeper ≈ profiles the eccentricity decreases but only mildly before 2.1. Varying-Conic method the secondary SMBH reaches the center. Finally, we consider the dynamical evolution of SMBH The general reduced two-body problem where Newto- binaries, the formation of which is believed to be a nian gravity is the only force acting on the two bodies in generic product of galaxy mergers. We explore the de- the system is described by the equation pendence of the lifetime of a SMBH binary on its total GM mass, mass ratio, and on the density profile of the sur- ¨r = r (2) rounding cusp. We calculate the expected number of − r3 stalled satellites as a function of the host galaxy SMBH mass and find that the inner cores of massive galaxies where G is the gravitational constant, M is the total like M87 are likely hosts of stalled satellite SMBHs. The mass of the system and r is the relative position between implications of our results are discussed in connection to the two bodies. a number of observations, which include off-center AGNs Any dynamical interaction between the two bodies in- (Lena et al. 2014), binary AGNs (Rodriguez et al. 2006), troduces an extra force to the binary which acts as a double or multiple nuclei within core elliptical galaxies perturbation to the classic two-problem. Under the ef- fect of a perturbing force F(r, r˙) the equation of motion Dynamical friction of massive black hole binaries 3 for the perturbed two-body problem can be written as 2.3 e0 = 0.2 r GM r F r r ¨ = + ( , ˙) (3) e0 = 0.4 − r3 2.2 e0 = 0.6 where the perturbing force F(r, r˙) depends in principle upon both the relative position r and velocity v = r˙. 2.1 e0 = 0.9 Equation (3) can be solved assuming that at each in- stant of time, the true orbit can be approximated by an 2.0 instantaneous ellipse which is changing over time through its now time-dependent orbital elements Ci(t). Here
= 1) 1.9 Ci = (a, e, i, Ω,ω,f) are namely the semi-major axis, ec- centricity, inclination, longitude of the ascending node, ζ argument of periapsis and true anomaly f. We also de- ( 1.8 γ fine n = (GM/a3)1/2 as the mean motion. At each mo- ment of time these orbital elements describe the orbit 1.7 the body would follow if perturbations were to cease in- stantaneously. We refer to these elements as osculating orbital elements. The time-evolution equations for the 1.6 osculating orbital elements decomposed in the reference system KR(ˆr, τ,ˆ ˆn), where the unit vector ˆr is along the 1.5 relative position vector between the two bodies in the 0 5 10 15 20 binary, become ln Λ da 2 Fig. 1.— Value of γ for which ζ = 1 as a function of the Coulomb = [Fre sin f + Fτ (1 + e cos f)] (4) logarithm ln Λ, and for different initial eccentricities e0. The eccen- dt n√1 e2 tricity of the binary orbit increases with time for any γ < γ(ζ = 1). − de √1 e2 e + cos f Note that if only the slow stars are included, γ(ζ = 1) = 1.5 for = − F sin f + F cos f + any value of ln Λ and e0. dt na r τ 1+ e cos f (5) di cos(f + ω)√1 e2 = F − (6) dt n na(1 + e cos f) 2 dΩ 1 a(1 e ) sin(f + ω) 2.2. Dynamical friction = Fn − (7) dt na2√1 e2 sin i 1+ e cos f − In what follows we consider the evolution of a binary dω √1 e2 2+ e cos f comprising a massive object moving near a SMBH of = − F cos f + F sin f dt nae − r τ 1+ e cos f considerably larger mass and which sits at the center of a galaxy. Gravitational interaction with stars results in cos i √1 e2 sin(f + ω) loss of energy and angular momentum by the massive ob- F − (8) − na sin i n 1+ e cos f ject. We assume that the galaxy is spherically symmetric 2 and isotropic and we describe it using a power-law stellar df n(1 + e cos f) dω dΩ −γ = cos i . (9) density profile of the form ρ(r) = ρ0 (r/r0) , where r0 dt (1 e2)3/2 − dt − dt − is a characteristic radius and γ is the slope of the den- sity profile. In what follows we set r = r , with r Equations (4) and (5) indicate that for a perturbing 0 infl infl the radius containing a mass in stars twice the mass of force always vertical to the orbital plane, i.e., Fr = Fτ = the central SMBH (M•), i.e., the SMBH influence radius. 0 the semi-major axis and the eccentricity do not change Unless otherwise specified, in what follows we use units while Equations (6) and (7) show that the inclination i such that M• = r = G = 1. and the longitude of the ascending node Ω evolve only infl Assuming that the gravitational potential Φ is domi- for a non-zero vertical to the orbital plane component of nated by the central SMBH and neglecting the effect of the perturbing force, i.e., Fn = 0. On the contrary, from the surrounding stars we can write Φ GM•/r. Ed- Equation (8) we see that the6 periapsis is precessing for dington’s formula then uniquely leads≈ to − the following any non-zero perturbing force, i.e., F = 0. distribution function of the field-star velocities (Merritt In the following section we apply6 the formalism de- 2013) scribed above to study the effect of dynamical friction on the orbital evolution of a test mass moving inside Γ (γ + 1) 1 2 2 γ−3/2 a cluster of stars around a central SMBH. In this case f(υ⋆)= 2v υ (10) Γ γ 1 2γπ3/2v2γ c − ⋆ dynamical friction acts as a perturbing force on the − 2 c evolution of the inspiraling object. We begin with a brief introduction to dynamical friction as described ini- where υ⋆ is the star velocity, υc = GM•/r is the cir- tially by Chandrasekhar (1943) and further studied by cular velocity and the normalizationp corresponds to unit Antonini & Merritt (2012) in the case of a test mass mov- total number. ing inside a cluster of stars around a more massive central The general formula for the dynamical friction force SMBH. including also the contribution from stars moving faster 4 Dosopoulou and Antonini than the massive body is The orbital velocity and dynamical friction force (14) ˆr ˆ ˆn υ decomposed in the reference system KR( , τ, ) men- 2 υ 2 tioned above can be written as F df 4πG mρ(r) ln Λ dυ⋆4πf(υ⋆)υ ≈− υ3 × Z ⋆ 0 υ ˆr ˆ ˆz υesc υ = vr + vτ τ + vn (26) 2 υ⋆ + υ υ + dυ⋆4πf(υ⋆)υ ln 2 F = F ˆr + F τˆ + F ˆz . (27) Z ⋆ υ υ − υ df df,r df,τ df,n υ ⋆ − ⋆ (11) Substituting Equation (26) into Equation (14) we have vr vτ Fdf,r = ǫ(r, v) v3 , Fdf,τ = ǫ(r, v) v3 and Fdf,n = vn = 0. where υ is the velocity of the massive body and m its Using the dynamical friction components derived mass. The quantity ln Λ is the Coulomb logarithm de- above and Equations (4) (9) the osculating orbital ele- fined as ment time-evolution equations− of an inspiraling massive b b v2 body due to dynamical friction are ln Λ = ln max ln max c (12) bmin ≈ Gm da 2ǫ(r, v) (1 e2)1/2 = 3 2 2 − 1/2 (28) where bmax and bmin are the maximum and minimum dt n a (1 + e +2e cos f) impact parameters respectively. de 2ǫ(r, v) 2 3/2 e + cos f We can rewrite the dynamical friction force in a more = 3 3 (1 e ) 2 3/2 (29) compact form as dt n a − (1 + e +2e cos f) 2 v di cos(f + ω)√1 e F = κ(r) [ln Λ α(v)+ β(v)+ δ(v)] (13) = Fdf,n − = 0 (30) df v3 dt na(1 + e cos f) v dΩ 1 cos(f + ω)√1 e2 Fdf = ǫ(r, v) (14) 3 = Fdf,n − =0 v dt na2√1 e2 sin i na(1 + e cos f) where we defined − (31) 2 3/2 κ(r)= 4πG2ρ(r)m (15) dω 2ǫ(r, v) (1 e ) sin f − = 3 3 2 − 3/2 (32) ǫ(r, v)= κ(r) [ln Λ α(v)+ β(v)+ δ(v)] (16) dt n a (1 + e +2e cos f) e v df n(1 + e cos f)2 dω 2 = . (33) α(v)=4π f(υ⋆)υ⋆dυ⋆ (17) dt (1 e2)3/2 − dt Z0 − vesc 2 υ⋆ + υ Equations (28) (33) verify the aforementioned comment β(v)=4π f(υ⋆)υ⋆ ln dυ⋆ (18) − Zv υ⋆ υ that in the absence of a vertical to the orbital plane com- vesc − ponent of the perturbing force, which is true in the case δ(v)=4πv f(υ⋆)( 2υ⋆)dυ⋆. (19) of dynamical friction (Fdf,n = 0), the inclination i and Zv − the longitude of the ascending node Ω remain constant in the absence of other perturbing forces. Although accord- The distribution function (10) can be rewritten as ing to Equation (32) dynamical friction can in principle induce a precession to the orbit, this precession has a Γ (γ + 1) 1 2 b f(υ⋆)= 2 x (20) negligible effect on the evolution of e and a. Γ γ 1 2γ π3/2v3 − − 2 c 2.3. Eccentricity evolution where we defined x = υ⋆/vc and b = γ 3/2. Integrals (17) and (19) have an analytic form while− integral (18) We focus here on how dynamical friction affects the demands numerical manipulation. Using Equation (20) binary eccentricity. We begin by investigating qualita- we can rewrite the above integrals in a dimensionless tively the expected eccentricity evolution using a simpli- form as fied physical picture of the problem. This picture focuses Γ (γ + 1) 4 on the eccentricity changes near periapsis and apoapsis. α(ξ)= π−1/22b−γ ξ3 This analysis is useful to understand the link between Γ γ 1 3 − 2 the expected eccentricity evolution of the system and 2 the physical origin of the dynamical friction force. The 2 F1 3/2, b, 5/2, ξ /2 (21) × − time-evolution of the eccentricity vector e induced by a Γ (γ + 1) −1/2 −γ perturbing force F (in our case F = Fdf ) is given by β(ξ)= 1 4π 2 (22) Γ γ 2 − ˙e 1 F h h˙ 1.4 x + ξ = df + υ (34) x2(2 x2)b ln dx (23) GM × × × Zξ − x ξ h r − where = υ is the angular momentum per unit − − × Γ (γ + 1) 2 γ 1 reduced mass µ = M•m/(M• + m) and the dot indicates δ(ξ)= 8π−1/2 ξ (24) Γ γ 1 b +1 a derivative with respect to time. In the absence of other − 2 perturbing forces in the binary, the angular momentum 0.04b+1 (2 ξ2)b+1 (25) changes are only due to dynamical friction. × − − The dynamical friction force given by Equation (11) where ξ = v/vc and we made use of that fact that is a decelerating drag-force (i.e., F = g(υ, r)υ where df − vesc/vc = √2. g(υ, r) is a function of the massive body position and Dynamical friction of massive black hole binaries 5
0.0 proportional to − − − Chandrasekhar 1943 T his paper 1 1 e −0.2 ∆τp − (37) ∝ υp ∼ r1+ e − 1 1+ e 0.4 ∆τ . (38) a ∝ υ ∼ r1 e a − −0.6 The expected increase or decrease of the eccentricity can ] then be determined by the ratio a − 0.8 ∆e (de/dt) ∆τ ζ p = p p , (39) log[ ≡ ∆ea (de/dt)a ∆τa −1.0 γ = 2.0 where ∆ep and ∆ea are the induced eccentricity changes − near periapsis and apoapsis respectively. If ζ = 1 the 1.2 γ = 1.5 eccentricity remains constant, if ζ > 1 the contribution| | γ = 1.0 near periapsis dominates and the| | eccentricity decreases −1.4 γ = 0.6 while if ζ < 1 the apoapsis contribution dominates and the eccentricity| | increases. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 We note that Equations (35) and (36) reduce to ana- Time lytic expressions if we take into account only stars moving slower than the massive body. Under this consideration Fig. 2.— Secular evolution of the semi-major axis for a massive we have β(ξ) = γ(ξ) = 0 and Equations (16) and (17) binary with q = 10−3 and for different slopes γ of the density profile. Dashed lines include only the slow stars contribution to lead to dynamical friction (Chandrasekhar 1943) while solid lines include ǫ (1 e)−γ (1 + e)3/2 F p (40) also the contribution from fast stars. In shallow stellar cusps with p ∝ − 2 1 γ < 1 the dynamical friction timescale becomes long and the orbital ǫ (1 + e)−γ (1 e)3/2 F a. (41) decay is slow. Adding the contribution from the fast stars increases a ∝ − 2 1 the orbital decay rate. In this calculation we set ln Λ = 6.0 and e0 = 0.1. Substituting Equations (40) and (41) into Equations (35) and (36) we have de (1 e)−γ − F p (42) velocity) always acting in the opposite to the motion dt ∝−(1 + e)1/2 2 1 of the body direction. In addition, the time-evolution p ˙ −γ of the angular momentum vector is given by h = de (1 + e) a 2F , (43) r F h˙ = g(υ, r)r υ. This leads to ˙e = dt ∝ (1 e)1/2 1 × df ⇒ − × a − 2g(υ, r) υ2r (υ r) υ . The eccentricity vector e is − − · where the hyper-geometric function 2F1 is always posi- defined as always pointing in the direction of periapsis. tive for all 0
− − − true anomaly can also evolve due to possible precessions 0.4 Chandrasekhar 1943 and specifically the periapsis precessionω ˙ and the longi- T his paper tude of the ascending node precession Ω.˙ Given that due 0.2 to dynamical friction we haveω ˙ << 1 and that Ω˙ = 0, we can compute the secular evolution of the orbital el- ˙ a > 0.0 ements neglecting the second term in Equation (9) and use − (1 + e cos f)2 0.2 df = n dt (45) (1 e2)3/2 − − 0.4 when integrating Equations (28) and (29) over the or-
˙ bit. In order to incorporate higher-order effects in the R > a/R− < 0.6 γ = 0.6 time-evolution equations we have to proceed one step
< γ = 1.0 further and include all the terms in Equation (9) when −0.8 γ = 1.5 applying the orbit-averaging process. In this paper, we γ = 2.0 derive first-order secular time-evolution equations where −1.0 the general orbit-averaging rule for the phase-dependent 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 quantity (...) is defined by the integral e (1 e2)3/2 2π df (...) = − (...) 2 . (46) 0.4 − − − Maxwellian distribution h i 2π Z0 (1 + e cosf) T his paper Under these considerations, the secular time-evolution 0.2 equations for the semi-major axis and the eccentricity of the massive body can be written as ˙ a > 0.0 da 2(1 e2)2 2π (1 + e cos f)−2ǫ(r, v) = − df (47) dt πn3a2 Z (1 + e2 +2e cos f)1/2 −0.2 0 de 2(1 e2)3 = − −0.4 dt πn3a3 2π
˙ (e + cos f)ǫ(r, v) R > a/R− < 0.6 2 3/2 2 df. × Z0 (1 + e +2e cos f) (1 + e cos f) < (48) −0.8 Making use of Equation (47) we plot in Figure 2 the secu- − lar semi-major axis evolution of an inspiraling body with 1.0 −3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 mass ratio q = m/M• = 10 . We see that for γ < 1 e the dynamical friction timescale becomes much longer, although the contribution to dynamical fiction from the Fig. 3.— The average fractional change in the quantity R = 1−e2 fast stars always increases the orbital decay rate. We by the time the massive body reaches the center as a function of discuss the implications of the long dynamical friction the initial eccentricity. Solid lines include the contribution from the fast stars. The dashed lines in the upper panel include only timescale for SMBH binaries in early-type galaxies in the contribution from stars moving slower than the test mass (e.g., Section 4 and 5 below. Figure 8.18 in Merritt (2013)), while in the lower panel they are The secular evolution of the binary eccentricity is de- obtained by using a Maxwellian stellar velocity distribution. The eccentricity always increases unless γ ∼ 2, and it is always higher scribed by Equation (48). Using this equation we plot when including the fast stars. Assuming a Maxwellian velocity in Figure 3 the average fractional change in the quantity distribution appears to be a poor approximation for any value of R =1 e2 in one orbital decay time, i.e., a/a˙ . We plot γ. this change− as a function of the initial eccentricity.| | In the upper panel of Figure 3 we see that adding the 2.4. Secular evolution fast stars contribution makes the eccentricity higher com- The orbital element time-evolution Equations (28) pared to the case where only the slow stars were taken (33) of a perturbed binary are in principle phase-− into account. The results shown in Figure 3 clearly im- dependent and undergo physical oscillations with the or- ply that the change in eccentricity can be of order unity bital period. For a perturbation with a long timescale if γ < 1. compared to the orbital period these oscillations can be In the lower panel of Figure 3 we compare the results smoothed out adopting orbit-averaging techniques. The of Equation (48) with the eccentricity change predicted orbit-averaged orbital element time-evolution equations assuming that the stellar velocities follow a Maxwellian then describe the secular evolution of the system. In or- distribution. As expected, the use of a Maxwellian ve- der to orbit-average a quantity along the orbit we need locity distribution is inadequate to describe the evolution to know how the true anomaly is changing over time. of the binary. More specifically, adopting a Maxwellian This is described by Equation (9) which shows that apart distribution always leads to a shorter timescale for the from the unperturbed Keplerian evolution described by eccentricity evolution compared to what we obtain by the first term on the right-hand side of this equation the using the distribution function (10). Dynamical friction of massive black hole binaries 7
−6 Fig. 4.— Evolution of semi-major axis and eccentricity of the massive binary in the N-body simulations. Results for m⋆ = (5 × 10 and 1 × 10−5) are given by the black and blue line respectively. Line thickness increases with the mass ratio of the binary for which we considered the two values: q = (2 × 10−4; 5 × 10−5). Simulations shown good agreement with the theoretical prediction (dashed red lines), 4 which was obtained from Equation (48) with ln Λ ≈ ln 1/10− .
3. N-BODY TREATMENT 2013) − Chandrasekhar formulated his theory assuming an in- q M• + m σ 2 finite and homogeneous field of stars and that the un- ah 36 − pc . (49) ≈ (1 + q)2 3 109M⊙ 300 km s 1 perturbed field star trajectories are straight lines. Any × of these assumptions represents a simplification of the with (Alexander 2005) real physical system; both the test and field particles for 1 GM• example move on ellipses, not straight lines, around the σ2 = (50) central SMBH. Thus, it is not clear whether Equations 1+ γ r (47) and (48) can accurately describe the dynamical evo- the stellar velocity dispersion of the primary galaxy. At lution of the massive binary due to dynamical friction. ah the evolution of the massive binary ceases to be driven Antonini & Merritt (2012) showed that Chandrasekhar’s by dynamical friction, and its semimajor axis shrinks theory reproduces remarkably well the real decay rate of as the two massive objects interact with stars and eject a massive object into a shallow density profile model, them from the nucleus via gravitational slingshots. Even however only when the contribution of the fast stars is before the binary reaches ah, our analytical treatment is included in evaluating the frictional drag. Whether the expected to breakdown as the binary separation becomes theory also reproduces the evolution of the binary eccen- smaller than the radius containing a mass equal to the tricity as well as the orbital decay for a range of density mass of the inspiraling body profile slopes remains to be shown. Here we use N-body 1 simulations to investigate the evolution of a massive bi- m 3−γ nary starting with various initial eccentricities and den- acrit r(Mm = m)= rinfl , (51) sity profile models. ≡ 2M• In order to validate Chandrasekhar’s treatment in the with Mm(r) the mass in stars within a sphere of radius systems we considered, the results of the simulations r from the primary SMBH. At a . acrit the analyti- are compared to theoretical predictions based on Equa- cal treatment breaks down as the star distribution in tions (47) and (48). In order to make such compari- the cluster starts to be significantly affected by the mo- son, in this section we adopt ln Λ ln(M•/m) which ≈ tion of the massive intruder (e.g., Baumgardt et al. 2006; gives values consistent with those found in former stud- Matsubayashi et al. 2007). ies (Antonini & Merritt 2012; Spinnato et al. 2003) and can be derived analytically from Equation (12) if one 3.1. Initial setup and numerical method identifies bmax with the local scale length determined by We generate equilibrium N-body models of stars the density gradient ρ/ ρ (Just et al. 2011). around a SMBH adopting the truncated mass model Before we discuss the|∇ results| of our N-body integra- − tions we introduce here two critical values of the binary r γ separation which will turn out to be crucial for the cor- ρ(r)= ρ0 exp( r/rtr) . (52) r − rect interpretation of our models. Dynamical friction is infl expected to only affect the evolution of the massive bi- Monte-Carlo initial positions and velocities were assigned nary until its separation reaches the semi-major axis of to the N-body particles by numerically generating the a “hard” binary 1 , which is often expressed as (Merritt distribution function corresponding to the isotropic equi- librium model of Equation (52), while at the same time 1 Defined as a binary that ejects passing stars at typical velocities taking into account the gravitational potential due to the greater than the escape velocity from the nucleus. central SMBH. A massive particle was placed in these 8 Dosopoulou and Antonini
−2 −4 −4 −4 Fig. 5.— Left panel: Evolution of semi-major axis and eccentricity for binaries with q = 10 and for m⋆ = (4×10 , 2×10 , 10 , 5× −5 −4 −3 −2 −2 −1 10 ) in increasing thickness order. Right panel: time evolution in models with m⋆ = 2×10 and for q = (5×10 , 10 , 5×10 , 10 ) 1 in increasing thickness order of the black solid lines. Dashed red curves show the theoretical prediction of Equation (48) with ln 1/10− −3 while for the dashed blue curves we use ln 1/5 × 10 . Blue and purple thickmarks give the values of acrit and ah respectively. This figure shows that (i) the evolution above acrit is not affected by the mass of the field particles, (ii) above acrit dynamical friction leads towards higher eccentricities, and (iii) below acrit the eccentricity remains approximately constant with time. models with mass m m , with corresponding mass fluctuations in e are due to hard scattering off sur- ≫ ⋆ ratio q 1 at an initial galactocentric distance r . rtr. rounding stars which cause the angular momentum of The initial≪ conditions were evolved forward in time us- the massive body to random walk with an amplitude ing the direct-summation code φGRAPE (Harfst et al. that decreases with increasing mass ratio m/m⋆ (e.g., 2007). This code uses a fourth-order Hermite integrator Matsubayashi et al. 2007). We note that in a real galaxy with a predictor-corrector scheme and hierarchical time the mass ratio between the secondary massive body and steps. The performance and accuracy of the code depend field stars could be much larger than in our simulations, both on the time-step parameter η and on the smooth- so such an effect would be essentially absent. ing length ǫ. We set η = 0.01 and ǫ = 5 10−4. With Figure 5 and 6 show simulations where the orbit of these choices, energy conservation was typically× of or- the massive body was followed until a had shrunk by a der 0.1% over the entire length of the integration. The factor of 100 below its intial value. In these additional calculations were carried out in serial mode using graph- simulations≈ we increased the mass of the secondary body ics processing units combined with the sapporo library and field particles, and set rtr = 1. (Gaburov et al. 2009; B´edorf et al. 2015). In the simulations shown in Figure 5 a0 1 and e0 0.3. We see from the left panels that the orbital≈ evolution≈ 3.2. Results of the binary at a & ah is essentially independent on m⋆, or equivalently on the number of particles, N, used to Figure 4 shows the evolution of the semi-major axis represent the galaxy. At later times, t & 200 or at a . ah, and eccentricity of the massive binary in N-body models the binary hardening rate becomes significantly longer with γ = (0.6, 1.5, 2), two values of binary mass ratio q = − − and shows a clear N-dependence, in the sense of slower (2 10 4, 5 10 5), and two different values for the mass hardening for larger N. In this phase the hardening of × × −6 −5 of the field particles m⋆ = (5 10 , 1 10 ). In all the binary requires a repopulation of the depleted orbits × × the models shown in Figure 4 we set rtr =0.2, and place through collisional loss-cone repopulation which is an N- the secondary massive body at r = rtr with a velocity dependent process (e.g., Yu 2002). half the circular value. With this choice of parameters, The right panels of Figure 5 show the evolution of the the initial values of semi-major axis and eccentricity are massive binary in a set of integrations with the same a0 0.1 and e0 0.7. value of N but for different values of q. From these The≈ resulting≈ eccentricity and semi-major axis evolu- plots we see that the dynamical friction timescale of a tion in the simulations shown in Figure 4 are in good massive binary above acrit scales approximately linearly agreement with the theoretical predictions. In all cases, with the mass of the secondary body (see also Figure 4). the semi-major axis evolves more rapidly than the ec- This is also expected given that the dynamical friction centricity does. Indeed, we find no systematic change acceleration decreases proportionally with m, if we ne- in the binary eccentricity over the simulated timescale glect the logarithmic dependence of the frictional drag for any value of γ. Although this behavior seems largely on m through ln Λ. As before, the massive binary orbit consistent with the predicted evolution, we also observe is observed to stall at ah. random-like variations of the orbital eccentricity. Such ≈ Dynamical friction of massive black hole binaries 9
to the v−2 dependence that appears in Equation (11). This also∝ explains why for smaller initial separations the agreement appears to improve – for smaller a0 the con- tribution of the stars to the gravitational potential can be more safely neglected given that the potential is more strongly dominated by the primary SMBH. We have shown that after the binary semi-major axis has decreased to acrit the eccentricity remains approxi- mately constant in time. Therefore the value of e at acrit is also approximately the eccentricity the binary will have at the time it has decayed to ah. Below ah the evolution becomes more uncertain. Scattering experiments typi- cally suggest a slow but steady growth of eccentricity (Mikkola & Valtonen 1992). The predicted eccentricity of the massive binary at acrit is given in Figure 7 as a function of the binary mass-ratio, different initial values of the orbital eccentricity and for γ = (0.6, 1). In this plot we compare the theoretically predicted results with the results from the N-body simu- lations which are shown as solid triangles, and that were obtained as the average value of e at radii a
] −0.5 f e −1.0 − −1.5 γ = 1.0 e0 = 0.1 − e0 = 0.3 2.0 e0 = 0.7 log[1 γ = 0.6 N-body −2.5 −4.0 −3.5 −3.0 −2.5 −2.0 −1.5 −1.0 log[Mass Ratio]
Fig. 7.— Eccentricity of the massive binary at the moment the inspiraling body reaches acrit as a function of the binary mass ratio. Black triangles represent the results from the N-body simulations shown in Figure 5 where γ = 1, e0 = 0.3 and a0 = 1. The values of e from these simulations are averaged values at a ≤ acrit. Increasing marker size indicates larger number of particles, i.e., lower m⋆. nection between dynamical friction and the formation of where the argument of the Coulomb logarithm is taken to ′ 3/2 stalled SMBH satellites in luminous galaxies. be Λ = 2 σ/σs with σs the stellar velocity dispersion of the secondary galaxy. 4.1. Large scale orbital decay Equation (54) does not consider that the satel- Modeling the main galaxy as a singular isothermal lite galaxy can be stripped of its stars due to the sphere, the timescale for a satellite SMBH of mass m to strong tidal field of the primary galaxy. Following decay towards the center is (Binney & Tremaine 1987): Binney & Tremaine (1987) we assume that the satel- lite galaxy can also be modeled as a singular isothermal 2 sphere, so that its mass is related to its velocity disper- bare 6.6 Re σ T⋆ = 17 −1 sion through the relation: ln Λ 10kpc 300km s 8 1 10 M⊙ M (r) α2σ2r . (55) Gyr (53) s ≈ 2G s t m 1/3 Setting the Hill radius r = GM r2/4σ2 with M where R is the effective radius of the main galaxy. t m m e the mass of the main galaxy and α = 2 as appropriate Some previous work made use of Equation (53) to de- for a sharp truncation, the dynamical friction timescale scribe the formation and evolution of SMBH binaries becomes: during galaxy mergers (e.g., McWilliams et al. 2014). 2 However, Equation (53) can lead to a significant overesti- gx 2 Re σ T⋆,2 =0.15 ′ −1 mate of the real dynamical friction timescale and to erro- ln Λ 10kpc 300km s neous conclusions about the survival timescale of SMBH 100km s−1 3 pairs at the scale of Re. Equation (53) neglects the fact Gyr. (56) that the satellite SMBH is brought in during the course σs of a galaxy merger and it will retain some of its host galaxy’s stars until late in the merger process. Consider- A good approximation to the timescale for a secondary ing the stellar mass bound to the inspiraling SMBH leads SMBH to decay from Re to the influence radius of the to a significantly shorter timescale for the formation of a primary SMBH, is gx gx bound pair. T⋆ = max(T⋆,1,T⋆,2) . (57) By assuming a strict proportionality between the mass of the stellar bulge of the satellite galaxy, Ms, 4.2. Dynamical friction of a bound pair 3 and the mass of its central SMBH Ms = 10 m As the secondary SMBH enters the sphere of influ- (Merritt & Ferrarese 2001), and replacing m with Ms in ence of the primary, the SMBHs are bound to each other Equation (53) gives and the formulae given above, which are only strictly 2 valid for a Maxwellian distribution of velocities and a gx 2 Re σ self-gravitating cluster, can no longer apply. Neverthe- T⋆,1 =0.06 ′ −1 ln Λ 10kpc 300km s less, most work in the past (e.g., Kelley et al. 2016) has 8 neglected such complication and applied Equation (53) 10 M⊙ Gyr , (54) until a . m h Dynamical friction of massive black hole binaries 11
Although such simplification is reasonable for major mergers, we find that for q . 0.1 it necessarily leads to an erroneous evaluation of the binary evolution timescale as well as the evolution of its orbital eccentricity. Using Equation (28) it can be shown that the charac- teristic dynamical friction timescale to decay from the primary SMBH influence radius, rinfl, to a much shorter separation r = χrinfl, is: − [ln Λα + β + δ] 1 T bare =1.5 107 χγ−3/2 1 (58) • × (3/2 γ)(3 γ) − − − 1/2 −1 3/2 M• m r infl yr . 3 109M⊙ 108M⊙ 300pc × The coefficients α, β and δ can be easily computed from Equation (17), (18) and (19), assuming a circular orbit, i.e., setting ξ = 1 in these equations as justified by the fact that the orbital decay timescale is not significantly affected by the binary orbital eccentricity. Fig. 8.— The solid lines give the dynamical friction timescale to Equation (58) does not consider that part of the host reach acrit, TCha, derived from Equation (58) by setting β = δ = 0 galaxy can remain bound to the secondary SMBH even and divided by our more accurate estimate T•. The dashed lines are the dynamical friction timescale, TMxw, computed using the inside rinfl. Assuming as before that the satellite galaxy Maxwellian approximation and divided by T•. This calculation can be modeled as a singular isothermal sphere, then quantifies the error one would make by employing the standard the timescale to decay from rinfl, to a smaller radius r = Chandrasekhar’s formula in which the contribution of the fast stars is neglected, or by assuming that the velocities of the field stars χrinfl, can be obtained by replacing m with Ms(r), where follow a Maxwellian distribution. 1/3 now rt (Ms/2M•) r. In this case, Equation (28) leads to≈ ′ −1 gx 7 [ln Λ α + β + δ] γ−3 T• =1.2 10 χ 1 (59) of the fast stars to the drag force is smaller in this case. × (3 γ)2 − − −1 3 M• 100km s 4.3. Hardening 9 yr. 3 10 M⊙ σs The phase of binary evolution determined by dynami- × cal friction comes to an end when the binary’s semi-major The decay timescale from the influence radius of the pri- axis reaches ah. Gravitational encounters will continue mary SMBH is then supplying stars∼ to the binary at a rate that depends on bare gx the host galaxy morphology. T• = min(T ,T ) . (60) • • Dry mergers between luminous galaxies result in tri- Note that Equation (60) is strictly valid only until the axial remnants, which leads to an efficient hardening of secondary hole reaches acrit (see Equation (51)). Below the binary (Khan et al. 2011; Vasiliev et al. 2014). After this radius, the central cusp starts to be significantly a major merger a galaxy is likely to retain some degree modified by the secondary SMBH (Baumgardt et al. of triaxiality or flattening during its subsequent evolu- 2006) and time-dependent galaxy models are required in tion. The timescale to decay from ah to coalescence is order to describe the detail evolution of the binary orbit (Vasiliev et al. 2015)
(Antonini & Merritt 2012). Here we ignore such com- 10+4ψ −5−3ψ 5+ψ 5+ψ plication and set χ = acrit/rinfl. Our choice is clearly 9 rinfl M• + m conservative. Th 1.2 10 9 (61) ≈ × 300pc 3 10 M⊙ In order to quantify the error one would make by em- 3ψ−1 × ploying the standard Chandrasekhar’s formula, we plot −4 4q 5+ψ φ 5+ψ p(e)yr (62) in Figure 8 the dynamical friction timescale from Equa- (1 + q)2 tion (58) with β = δ = 0 divided by T•. For γ . 1 the standard Chandrasekhar’s theory can lead to sig- with nificant deviations from our more accurate formulation. p(e)=(1 e2) k + (1 k)(1 e2)4 , (63) Neglecting the fast moving stars’ contribution leads to − − − 9 an overestimate of the dynamical friction timescale that k =0.6+0.1 log [M • + m]/3 10 M . can be longer than T• by about one order of magnitude × ⊙ for γ 0.5. In Figure 8 we also compare our estimate The parameters φ and ψ parameterize the evolving hard- to that≈ obtained by assuming that the velocity distri- ening rate with values estimated from Monte Carlo sim- bution of the field stars follows a Maxwellian distribu- ulations. In what follows we adopt φ =0.4 and ψ =0.3 tion. This latter approximation underpredicts the decay which are the values derived by Vasiliev et al. (2015) for timescale by about one order of magnitude for γ 0.5. triaxial galaxies. For ln Λ & 6 and/or γ & 1 both approximations≈ give a We describe how much the binary must shrink by good estimate of the decay timescale, as the contribution stellar-dynamical processes before the GW emission 12 Dosopoulou and Antonini
Fig. 9.— Left panel: orbital decay timescale of a secondary SMBH as a function of its mass, m, in the nucleus of M87. Purple-dashed line is from Equation (57) and gives the decay timescale from the effective radius of the galaxy, Re, to the sphere of influence of the primary SMBH. Red-hatched region gives the timescale to decay from rinfl to acrit. This timescale was computed via Equation (60) setting γ = 1 (left-red curve) and γ = 0.6 (right-red curve) as representative values for the density profile slope of the inner core of M87. Blue-dot-dashed line is the hardening timescale to decay from ah to coalescence computed using Equation (61), assuming triaxial geometry and a moderate 8 −3 eccentricity e = 0.3. For m . 10 M⊙ we find T• > Th > T⋆. Right panel: orbital decay timescales as a function of M• for q = 10 . Purple points give the dynamical friction timescale T⋆ for the core-S´ersic galaxies in Dullo & Graham (2015). Larger points are systems with a direct SMBH mass measurement (Kormendy & Ho 2013). As before, red-hatched region gives the timescale to decay from rinfl to acrit for γ = 0.6 and γ = 1. Blue-dot-dashed line is Th. takes over using the ratio (Vasiliev et al. 2015): We note that Equation (61) was derived for major & 5 5 mergers, q 0.1. However, additional simulations per- 10 − 10 ah rinfl M• + m formed using the Monte-Carlo code RAGA (Vasiliev 55 8 2015) showed that Equation (61) works remarkably well aGW ≈ × 30pc 10 M⊙ −2 −3 4 for all binaries with q & 10 . At q 10 Equa- 5 ≈ −3 1 4q tion (61) starts to break down, but even for q = 10 f(e) 5 (64) × (1 + q)2 it overestimates by only a factor of 3 the binary’s coalescence timescale (E. Vasiliev; private≈ communica- with tion). Hence, unless otherwise specified, in what follows − 7 (1 e) 2 we adopt Equation (61) in the full range of mass ratios f(e)= − (65) 10−3 q 1. The fact that T is only an order of 1+ 73 e2 + 37 e4 h 24 96 magnitude≤ ≤ estimate for the lowest mass ratio binaries we considered does not affect our calculations below, given and aGW the separation at which gravitational wave ra- diation takes over. From Equation (64) one finds that that the total lifetime of these binaries is largely domi- −3 nated by their dynamical friction timescale. ah 10.0 10.0 10.0 2.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 1.6 )] ⊙ 9.0 10 9.0 9.0 1.2 M 8.5 3 8.5 8.5 0.8 1 8.0 8.0 8.0 0.3 0.4 7.5 0.1 Gyr 7.5 7.5 0.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 − log[Lifetime(Gyr)] log [Total Mass( 0.4 6.5 6.5 6.5 − Lifetime= T⋆ Lifetime= T⋆ + T• Lifetime= T⋆ + T• + Th 0.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 −4.0−3.5−3.0−2.5−2.0−1.5−1.0−0.5 0.0 −4.0−3.5−3.0−2.5−2.0−1.5−1.0−0.5 0.0 −4.0 −3.5 −3.0 −2.5 −2.0 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 log[Mass ratio] log[Mass ratio] log[Mass ratio] Fig. 10.— Lifetime of a SMBH binary (colorbar) as a function of its total mass and mass ratio. We set γ = 0.6. Left panel shows the time for a SMBH binary to decay from Reff to rinf , central panel to decay from Reff to acrit, and right panel from Reff until coalescence. The lifetime of a SMBH binary to the left of the solid white lines is above 10, 3, 1, 0.3 and 0.1 Gyr respectively. The lifetime of SMBH binaries with a low mass ratio becomes significantly longer when we include in the calculation the timescale for dynamical friction inside rinf which is often neglected in the literature. 6 7 on massive early type galaxies because (i) galaxy mergers m . 10 M⊙ (m . 10 M⊙ ) when γ = 1 (γ =0.6). are thought to play a crucial role in the late growth of In the right panel of Figure 9 we show the timescale of these systems and, (ii) these galaxies are often observed orbital decay T⋆ for the sample of 31 core-S´ersic early- to have extended density profile cores within the sphere type galaxies in Dullo & Graham (2015) (purple points). of influence of the SMBH, which implies a long dynami- These systems are bright elliptical and lenticular galax- cal friction timescale. For these reasons, luminous early- ies with extended density profile cores. Dullo & Graham type galaxies are likely hosts of stalled satellite SMBHs. (2015) give the measured structural parameters of these On the other hand our results imply that in low mass galaxies, including Re and σ, which we used to compute ellipticals, SMBH binaries have a short timescale, i.e., T⋆. This timescale is plotted as a function of the pri- shorter inspiral times, possibly in the decreasing or near mary SMBH mass for q = 10−3. Larger symbols are constant eccentricity regime. systems for which a direct SMBH measurement is avail- We start by considering the case of a widely stud- able in the literature (Kormendy & Ho 2013). The re- 9 ied massive galaxy such as M87, for which M• sulting T⋆ is . 10 yr. The hardening timescale Th (dot- 9 −1 ≈ 6.15 10 M⊙, σ 330km s (Kormendy & Ho 2013), dashed line) also appears to be quite short . 109yr, and, R × 9kpc (Lauer≈ et al. 1995) and r 300pc e ≈ infl ≈ as expected, weakly dependent on the primary SMBH (Marconi & Hunt 2003). Given these structural param- mass. Finally, the hatched red region gives T• which eters, the calculation of the decay timescales can be sim- was computed through Equation (60) by setting (e.g., ply performed by assuming that the secondary galaxy Merritt et al. 2009) velocity dispersion is related to the mass of its central SMBH through the M• σ relation defined below in 0.56 − M• Equation (69) setting z = 0 (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; rinfl 35 pc. (66) Gebhardt et al. 2000) ≈ 108M⊙ An additional parameter which needs to be defined is γ, the slope of the deprojected spatial density profile of with M• given by Equation (69) at z = 0. stars within rinfl. We adopt the two representative values The analysis shown in the right panel of Figure 9 con- γ = 0.6 and 1, as motivated by the facts that the M87 firms and generalizes our statement that the dynamical density profile is observed to be nearly flat inside rinfl friction timescale inside the influence radius of a SMBH and values γ 0.5 are excluded by our assumption of can become of the order the Hubble time in luminous kinematical isotropy.≤ spheroids. Not just in the core of M87 but for most The left panel of Figure 9 gives the orbital decay galaxies in the sample we considered T• can be signifi- timescale as a function of the satellite SMBH mass inside cantly larger then either T⋆ or Th, and can become longer M87 at the different stages of the evolution of the mas- than the Hubble time even for relatively high mass ra- sive binary. The dynamical friction timescale to decay tio binaries. The overall trend indicating longer lifetimes from the effective radius to the SMBH influence radius, for higher total mass galaxies results from the strong de- T , is shorter than 109yr for m & 5 106 implying pendence of Equations (53), (54) and (56) on the galaxy ⋆ ≈ × that SMBH binaries are unlikely to stall near Re. The effective-radius. hardening timescale to reach coalescence from the hard In Figure 10 we investigate further the dependence of binary separation is quite short . 109yr, even for the the lifetime of a SMBH binary on its total mass and mass moderate eccentricity we adopted e =0.3. The dynami- ratio. The total lifetime of a SMBH binary is given by cal friction timescale to decay from rinfl to ah can instead tL = T⋆ + T• + Th. We plot the lifetime of a massive 8 be extremely long. For m . 10 M⊙, T• becomes longer black hole binary in the three different stages of the bi- than either T⋆ or Th, and it is longer than 10Gyr for nary evolution as a function of the binary total mass and mass ratio. For the effective radius of the host galaxy 14 Dosopoulou and Antonini 8 0.73 we use Re = 1.35 M•/10 M⊙ kpc where the mass 25 γ = 0.6 dependence and normalization were obtained from the N observed mass-radius relation of galaxies at redshift zero m γ = 1.0 (Figure 7 in Forbes et al. (2008) for their sample of ellip- tical galaxies), and after expressing the galaxy mass as 20 3 Mm = 10 M•, assuming the latter relation holds at all redshifts. Based on Figure 10 the amount of time the secondary 15 SMBH spends to decay from the effective radius of the galaxy Re to the influence radius of the central black hole is short, typically less than 3 Gyr. Adding the time the binary spends in the dynamical∼ friction phase 10 until acrit leads to significantly longer binary lifetimes. Figure 10 shows that including the dynamical friction timescale for high total mass and low mass ratio bina- 5 ries expands the parameter space for long-lived binaries 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 with lifetimes greater than 3 Gyr, while there is a log(M•/M⊙) considerable amount of these∼ binaries that have lifetimes greater than 10 Gyr. This implies that binaries with Fig. 11.— Average number of infalling satellites for 0 10 Dullo & Graham (2015) 10 ILLUSTRIS Ns Ns 8 8 N3842 6 6 N3842 A2261-BCG A2261-BCG 4 M87 4 N4073 N4073 N4649 N6876 N6876 N5419 2 N4696 2 N4696 N4472 N1016 M87 N741 N5419 N741N1016 N4472N4649 0 0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 log(M•/M⊙) log(M•/M⊙) Fig. 12.— Expected average number of stalled satellites as a function of the host galaxy SMBH mass for γ = 0.6 (left panel) and γ = 1.0 (right panel). Solid red and black lines are calculated based on integral (71). For the red line we used Equations (67)-(69) while for the black line we used, keeping the same normalization, the steepest redshift-dependence model in Nipoti et al. (2012). Filled stars refer to the group of elliptical galaxies in Dullo & Graham (2015). Galaxies with a measured primary SMBH mass are depicted as green stars, while galaxies with a SMBH mass inferred from the M• − σ relation are shown as red stars. Black points are derived using the results of the ILLUSTRIS simulation (Kelley et al. 2016). The average number of stalled satellites increases similarly with the galaxy mass in all three different treatments. The yellow stars refer to galaxies with observed double and multiple nuclei. Data for A2261-BCG, NGC 4696, NGC 5419 and NGC 6876 were taken from Postman et al. (2012), Arnalte Mur et al. (2006), Mazzalay et al. (2016) and Lauer et al. (2002); Dullo & Graham (2012) respectively. −4 −3 −5 gives ∆r/rinfl 10 (q = 10 ) and ∆r/rinfl 10 pc). The same appears to be true in the case of NGC (q = 10−4). These∼ values are small and not consistent∼ 4696 which has a secondary nucleus at 30 pc from with the observed off-center displacements mentioned in the center (Laine et al. 2003), which is slightly∼ smaller −1 −2 Lena et al. (2014) which are of order 10 10 for than the estimated SMBH influence radius (rinfl 40 ≈ the massive elliptical galaxies shown in∼ Figure− 13 follow- pc) and much smaller than the core radius (rc 250 pc). ing the sample of Lena et al. (2014). However, if we as- These features in NGC 4696 have been interpreted≈ as ev- sume that the secondary SMBH is accreting, rather than idence of a recent minor merger with a gas-rich galaxy the primary, then the predicted offsets, in this case the (Sparks et al. 1989; Farage et al. 2010). Similar is the galactocentric distance of the satellite SMBH, appear to case of NGC 6876 which has a double nucleus at 30 be consistent at least with those observed in NGC 4278 pc from the center (Lauer et al. 2002; Dullo & Graham∼ and NGC 5846. 2012). This is slightly smaller than the estimated SMBH Although difficult to be spatially resolved in opti- influence radius (rinfl 40 pc) and much smaller than ≈ cal and X-ray, giant ellipticals often host strong radio the galaxy inner core radius (rc 119 pc). sources. For example, a pair of AGNs within the ellipti- More recent observations suggest≈ the presence of mul- cal host galaxy 0402+379 and with a projected separa- tiple nuclei located (in projection) within the core ellip- tion 7.2 pc has recently been discovered (Rodriguez et al. tical galaxy A2261-BCG (Bonfini & Graham 2016). The 2006, 2009; Burke-Spolaor 2011). This is the closest bi- estimated mass of the core and the central SMBH in 10 nary SMBH yet discovered within a core elliptical and A2261-BCG is Mcore M• 2 10 . This implies that may be the tip of the iceberg of SMBH binaries with if a SMBH is present∼ at the∼ center× of this galaxy, then parsec scale separations. Binary AGNs within host core such nuclei are residing well inside its influence radius. ellipticals at subkiloparsec separations like the one in The double/multiple nuclei considered above have Rodriguez et al. (2006) could be explained as stalled galactocentric separations that are below rinfl but well holes in a slowly evolving orbit inside low-density cores. above the separation at which the binary can be con- Early observations have suggested the presence of dou- sidered a “hard” binary. We conclude that the equilib- ble nuclei in core elliptical galaxies with the second nu- rium and stability of such double/multiple nuclei could cleus at off-center subkiloparsec separations. A charac- be understood in terms of the long dynamical friction teristic example is the double nucleus of the core ellipti- timescale within the influence radius of the host galaxy cal galaxy NGC 5419 with the second nucleus at an off- SMBH predicted by our models. center separation 70 pc (Mazzalay et al. 2016). The We conclude by noting that the stalled satellites pre- projected separation∼ between the two nuclei is smaller dicted by our models are likely to be on highly eccen- than the estimated SMBH influence radius (r 100 tric orbits (See Section 2). The highly eccentric orbit infl ≈ pc) and much smaller than the core radius (rc 500 of the satellite can also have interesting observational ≈ consequences. As the satellite is disrupted it will form Dynamical friction of massive black hole binaries 17 at the center of a galaxy. The main physical mechanism that drives the evolution of the binary is dynamical fric- tion. The main results of this paper are summarized below: 1) We study the orbital evolution of the massive body treating dynamical friction as a perturbation to the classic two-body problem. Unlike previous treat- ments we take into account the contribution to dy- namical friction from stars moving faster than the massive body. Assuming that the density profile of field stars follows ρ r−γ , we find that the binary secular eccentricity∝ always increases unless γ & 2. Specifically, low mass-ratio binaries with a moder- ate initial eccentricity, e0 & 0.3, attain e & 0.9 by the time they reach the hardening phase. Although the contribution from fast stars increases the or- bital decay rate, for cusps shallower than ρ r−1 the dynamical friction timescale becomes very∝ long. 2) We run N-body simulations with different reso- Fig. 13.— Evolution of orbital radius for γ = 0.6 (solid lines) lutions and for various slopes of the stellar cusp and γ = 1 (dot-dashed lines) and a binary of mass-ratio q = density profile and mass of the secondary body. We 10−4 (black lines) and q = 10−3 (blue lines). Dashed horizon- confirm the expected theoretical prediction that tal lines give the value of the observed off-center displacement for shallow density profile cusps the eccentricity reported by Lena et al. (2014). The satellite galaxies stall at increases while for γ & 2 the eccentricity decreases ≈ 0.1rinfl. Stalled binaries could produce “displacements” com- parable to those observed in NGC 4278 and NGC 5846, if the during the inspiral. secondary SMBH is accreting. Note that the time has been nor- 9 malized such that M• = 5 × 10 M⊙ and rinfl = 500pc, but it can be rescaled to any of the galaxies we considered using 3) We apply our treatment of dynamical friction to 3/2 9 −1/2 t → t × (rinfl/500pc) (M•/5 × 10 M⊙) . study the evolution of SMBH binaries formed in early-type galaxies. We treat independently the different phases involved in the evolution of the bi- an eccentric disk-like structure around the nucleus of nary, compute the decay timescale that describes the primary galaxy. A characteristic example could be the dynamical friction phase and calculate the life- the nucleus of the low-luminosity elliptical galaxy NGC time of a SMBH binary as a function of its total 4486B (companion to M87). NGC 4486B is unusual for mass and mass ratio. We find that low mass ra- a galaxy of its luminosity in having a well-resolved core. tio binaries, q . 10−3, formed in massive elliptical Two brightness peaks are observed in the core separated galaxies (γ < 1) have a lifetime greater than a Hub- by 12 pc (Lauer et al. 1996). Neither peak is coin- ble time. This results in stalled satellite SMBHs on cident≈ with the galaxy photocenter, which falls between eccentric orbits at a galactocentric distance of or- them. This double peak structure has been interpreted der one tenth the influence radius of the primary as evidence for an eccentric-disk of stars where the peaks black hole. would be the ansae of the disk orbiting a SMBH. The disk might be related to the disruption of a star clus- 4) We calculate the expected number of stalled satel- ter on an eccentric orbit by the tidal field of the primary lites as a function of the host galaxy SMBH mass. SMBH; its eccentric nature would naturally result by the We find that the number increases with the galaxy dynamical friction process in the flat density core. For 8 mass and that the brightest cluster galaxies should example, taking M• =2 10 M⊙ (Lauer et al. 1996), an have a few of such satellites. We discuss our re- × 6 inspiraling star cluster with total mass m = 10 M⊙ will sults in connection to displaced active galactic nu- reach the center in 0.2 0.5Gyr starting from rinfl. If clei, double and multiple nuclei often observed in ≈ − we assume a reasonable value for the cluster core radius core elliptical galaxies and eccentric nuclear stellar of 2pc then the cluster will be disrupted by the SMBH disks. tidal≈ field when it reaches a separation of 10pc from the center. This distance appears to be consistent≈ with the observed offsets of the two nuclear brightness peaks in NGC 4486B. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6. We want to thank our colleague Eugene Vasiliev who CONCLUSIONS provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the In this paper we study the orbital evolution of a mas- research. We are thankful to the referee for his/her sive binary which consists of a massive object moving comments and suggestions that helped to improve the near a SMBH of considerably larger mass and which sits manuscript during its revising stages. REFERENCES Antonini, F. 2013, ApJ, 763, 62 Antonini, F., & Merritt, D. 2012, ApJ, 745, 83 18 Dosopoulou and Antonini Alessandrini, E., Lanzoni, B., Miocchi, P., Ciotti, L., & Ferraro, Lena, D., Robinson, A., Marconi, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 146 F. R. 2014, ApJ, 795, 169 Laine, S., van der Marel, R. P., Lauer, T. R., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, Arnalte Mur, P., Ellis, S. C., & Colless, M. 2006, PASA, 23, 33 478 Arca-Sedda, M., & Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R. 2014, ApJ, 785, 51 L´opez-Sanjuan, C., Le F`evre, O., Ilbert, O., et al. 2012, A&A, Alexander, T. 2005, Phys. Rep., 419, 65 548, A7 Baes, M., Buyle, P., Hau, G. K. T., & Dejonghe, H. 2003, Marconi, A., & Hunt, L. K. 2003, ApJ, 589, L21 MNRAS, 341, L44 Mazzalay, X., Thomas, J., Saglia, R. P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, Baumgardt, H., Gualandris, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2006, 462, 2847 MNRAS, 372, 174 Matsubayashi, T., Makino, J., & Ebisuzaki, T. 2007, ApJ, 656, Batcheldor, D., Robinson, A., Axon, D. J., Perlman, E. S., & 879 Merritt, D. 2010, ApJ, 717, L6 McWilliams, S. T., Ostriker, J. P., & Pretorius, F. 2014, ApJ, B´edorf, J., Gaburov, E., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2015, 789, 156 Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 2, 8 Merritt, D., & Ferrarese, L. 2001, MNRAS, 320, L30 Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1987, Princeton, NJ, Princeton Merritt, D. 2006, ApJ, 648, 976 University Press, 1987, 747 p., Merritt, D., Schnittman, J. D., & Komossa, S. 2009, ApJ, 699, Bundy, K., Fukugita, M., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1369 1690 Burke-Spolaor, S. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2113 Merritt, D. 2013, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei, by Bonfini, P., & Graham, A. W. 2016, ApJ, 829, 81 David Merritt. ISBN: ¡ISBN¿9780691158600¡/ISBN¿. 544 Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, ApJ, 97, 255 pp. — 6 x 9 — 5 halftones. 136 line illus. Princeton: Princeton Danby, J. J. A., & Camm, G. L. 1957, MNRAS, 117, 50 University Press, 2013, de Ravel, L., Le F`evre, O., Tresse, L., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 379 Mulder W. A. 1983, A&A, 117, 9 Dullo, B. T., & Graham, A. W. 2012, ApJ, 755, 163 Mikkola, S., & Valtonen, M. J. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 115 Dullo, B. T., & Graham, A. W. 2015, ApJ, 798, 55 Nipoti, C., Treu, T., Leauthaud, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, Drory, N., & Alvarez, M. 2008, Panoramic Views of Galaxy 1714 Formation and Evolution, 399, 260 Ostriker, E. C. 1999, ApJ, 513, 252 Dosopoulou, F., & Kalogera, V. 2016a, ApJ, 825, 70 Patton, D. R., & Atfield, J. E. 2008, ApJ, 685, 235-246 Dosopoulou, F., & Kalogera, V. 2016b, ApJ, 825, 71 Paczynski, B. 1976, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Farage, C. L., McGregor, P. J., Dopita, M. A., & Bicknell, G. V. Systems, 73, 75 2010, ApJ, 724, 267 Petts, J. A., Read, J. I., & Gualandris, A. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 858 Ferrarese, Laura, & Merritt, David 2000, ApJ, 539, L9 Postman, M., Lauer, T. R., Donahue, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, Forbes, D. A., Lasky, P., Graham, A. W., & Spitler, L. 2008, 159 MNRAS, 389, 1924 Rasskazov, A., & Merritt, D. 2016, arXiv:1606.07484 Gaburov, E., Harfst, S., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2009, New Read, J. I., Goerdt, T., Moore, B., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1451 Astronomy, 14, 630 Rodriguez, C., Taylor, G. B., Zavala, R. T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 646, Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L13 49 Gualandris, A., & Merritt, D. 2008, ApJ, 678, 780-797 Rodriguez, C., Taylor, G. B., Zavala, R. T., Pihlstr¨om, Y. M., & Haehnelt, M. G., & Kauffmann, G. 2002, MNRAS, 336, L61 Peck, A. B. 2009, ApJ, 697, 37 Harfst, S., Gualandris, A., Merritt, D., et al. 2007, New Rodriguez-Gomez, V., Genel, S., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2015, Astronomy, 12, 357 MNRAS, 449, 49 Janowiecki, S., Mihos, J. C., Harding, P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, Sesana, A. 2013, MNRAS, 433, L1 972 Sparks, W. B., Macchetto, F., & Golombek, D. 1989, ApJ, 345, Just, A., Khan, F. M., Berczik, P., Ernst, A., & Spurzem, R. 153 2011, MNRAS, 411, 653 Spinnato, P. F., Fellhauer, M., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2003, Kalnajs, A. J., 1972, in IAU Colloquium No. 10, Gravitational MNRAS, 344, 22 N-body problems, ed. M. Lecar (Dordrecht:Reidel), p. 13 Tremaine, S., & Weinberg, M. D. 1984, MNRAS, 209, 729 Khan, F. M., Just, A., & Merritt, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 89 van den Bosch, F. C., Lewis, G. F., Lake, G., & Stadel, J. 1999, Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., & Hernquist, L. 2016, arXiv:1606.01900 ApJ, 515, 50 Kitzbichler, M. G., & White, S. D. M. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1489 Vasiliev, E., Antonini, F., & Merritt, D. 2014, ApJ, 785, 163 Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511 Vasiliev, E., Antonini, F., & Merritt, D. 2015, ApJ, 810, 49 King, I. R., & Minkowski, R. 1972, External Galaxies and Vasiliev, E. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3150 Quasi-Stellar Objects, 44, 87 Valtaoja, E., Ter¨asranta, H., Tornikoski, M., et al. 2000, ApJ, Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 531, 744 18 Weinberg, M. D. 1986, ApJ, 300, 93 Lauer, T. R., Ajhar, E. A., Byun, Y.-I., et al. 1995, AJ, 110, 2622 Xu, C. K., Zhao, Y., Scoville, N., et al. 2012, ApJ, 747, 85 Lauer, T. R., Tremaine, S., Ajhar, E. A., et al. 1996, ApJ, 471, Yu, Q. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 935 L79 Lauer, T. R., Gebhardt, K., Richstone, D., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1975