1/11/2017 1
Insights in binary black hole formation from gravitational waves Simon Stevenson [email protected] @simon4nine for the COMPAS team Alejandro Vigna-Gómez, Coenraad J. Neijssel1, Jim W. Barrett, Ilya Mandel and more!
Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 2
Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 3
Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 4
140
120
100
Maximum total 80 mass against 60 GW170814 metallicity 40
20
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Adapted from Belczynski+ 2016 arXiv:1602.04531 Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 Binary black hole mass distribution 5
Weak constraints on power law
Weak evidence for maximum mass around 40 Msol. Pair- instability mass gap?
LVC 2016 arXiv:1606.04856
Fishbach & Holz arXiv: 1709.08584
Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017
Mass function with number of observations
Mandel…Stevenson+ 2016 arXiv:1608.08223 Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 Binary black hole merger rates 7
§ O1 empirically determined merger rates assuming a particular mass distribution § “Power law” distribution favoured over “Flat-in-log” distribution (see next slide) § Lower bounds including GW170104 are 40 and 12 Gpc-3 yr-1 respectively. Remain consistent including GW170814
LVC 2016 arXiv:1606.04856 Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 8
How did these binary black holes form?
Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 9
Formation channels
Mandel & Farmer 2017, Nature
Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 10
§ Formation in a dense stellar Dynamical environment such as a globular or formation nuclear cluster Rodriguez+ arXiv:1604.04254 2016
Glasgow Seminar 1/11/2017 11
§ Predicted masses and Dynamical spins consistent formation - with observed masses events
Carl Rodriguez https://twitter.com/aCarlRodriguez/status/870314010301935618 Melbourne Uni Seminar Adapted from Rodriguez+ 2016 arXiv:1604.04254 1/11/2017 12
Isolated binary evolution
Belczynski+ 2016, Nature Melbourne Uni Seminar arXiv:1602.04531 1/11/2017 13
Isolated binary evolution - masses
Stevenson+ Nat. Commun. 8, 14906 (2017). arXiv:1704.01352 Updated to include GW170104 Melbourne Uni Seminar (also consistent with GW170814, not shown) 1/11/2017 14
Constrain binary evolution uncertainties with masses and rates
Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017
Uncertainties in binary evolution can be explored with pop synth
Stevenson+ 2015
arXiv:1504.07802 Melbourne Uni Seminar 14/3/2017
Model comparison to pop synth models (with mock observations)
§ Currently only include small set of isolated binary evolution models (Dominik et al Stevenson+ 2015 2012) – would like to include other channels
arXiv:1504.07802 Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 17
§ Can distinguish between/measure fractions of these two formation Measure mixing channels using the rate and mass fraction with distribution masses
Zevin+ 2017 arXiv:1704.07379 M elbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 18
Can also use spins!
Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 19
§ Dynamics Lˆ
Spin-orbit (mis)alignment § Isolated binary evolution
Lˆ
Melbourne Uni Seminar Vitale+ 2015 (1503.04307) 1/11/2017 20
Solid lines are 200 BBH detections, true fraction is colour Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 How constraints on model fractions improves 21 with number of observations
¤ Including realistic measurement uncertainties
¤ Drawing increasing number of observations from a multinomial distribution
¤ True fractions shown in blue
¤ Rule out extreme models at > 5σ with ~5 observations
Melbourne Uni Seminar Stevenson+ 2017 MNRAS arXiv: 1703.06873 1/11/2017 How constraint on fraction of dynamically formed BBHs 22 evolves with the number of observations
Stevenson+ 2017 MNRAS arXiv: 1703.06873
Dark shaded region is 1 sigma, light is 2 sigma Roughly 1/sqrt(nObservations) in the tail Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 23
What can we learn from the detections so far?
Melbourne Uni Seminar 6/6/2017 24
Dimensionless Spin magnitudes Misalignments
Effective spin parameter
Mass ratio
Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 25
Effective spin parameter measurements
LVC 2017 arXiv:1706.01812 ) Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 26
Our approximation
Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature arXiv:1706.01385 Melbourne Uni Seminar
6/6/2017 1/11/2017 27
Spin magnitude distributions
Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature arXiv:1706.01385 Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 28
Our models
Assumes equal masses q=1
Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature Melbourne Uni Seminar arXiv:1706.01385 1/11/2017 29
Our models
Assumes equal masses q=1
Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature Melbourne Uni Seminar arXiv:1706.01385 1/11/2017 30
Our models
Assumes equal masses q=1
Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature Melbourne Uni Seminar arXiv:1706.01385 6/6/2017 31
Effect of mass ratio
Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature Glasgow Seminar arXiv:1706.01385 1/11/2017 32
Results – model comparison
L=Low F=Flat H=High I = Isotropic, M=Mixture (see next slide) A=Aligned Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature arXiv:1706.01385 Melbourne Uni Seminar Updated to include GW170814 1/11/2017 33
Mixture fraction
Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature arXiv:1706.01385 Melbourne Uni Seminar Updated to include GW170814 1/11/2017 34 Accumulation of significance
Updated to include GW170814:
Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature arXiv:1706.01385 Melbourne Uni Seminar Updated to include GW170814 1/11/2017 35
Effect of small spins
Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature arXiv:1706.01385 Melbourne Uni Seminar Updated to include GW170814 1/11/2017 36 High Flat Low Isotropic Future predictions Aligned
Farr, Stevenson+ 2017 Nature arXiv:1706.01385 Melbourne Uni Seminar Updated to include GW170814 1/11/2017 37
Low χeff
Low spin Misaligned magnitudes spins Implications: Some wild Dynamic speculation formation?
Stripped stars? Supernova?
Melbourne Uni Seminar 6/6/2017 Stripped 38 WR stars?
¤ In isolated binary evolution, second black hole forms from a stripped star (WR star)
¤ Binary is either close enough to spin the star up (to maximal) or wide enough to form a black hole with the natal (stellar) spin (since tides are very sensitive to separation)
Zaldarriaga + arXiv:1702.00885
See also Glasgow Seminar Hotokezaka and Piran arXiv:1702.03952 1/11/2017 39 § How to link pre-supernova spin of star to remnant spin? § In many cases, need to eject some excess angular momentum. Why not eject it all? § Unlikely since we see high spins in HMXBs (e.g. Miller & Miller arXiv:1408.4145). These are most likely the birth spins Low spin (unaltered by accretion) -> maybe HMXBs are not BBH magnitude from progenitors? § Different formation pathway for BBH than HMXB – supernova? Evolutionary reasons for different spins? § Issue with HMXB measurements? Agreement between Fe line and continuum fitting methods for some systems. § Low spin from SN e.g. Chan et al arXiv:1710.00838
Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 40
Low spin magnitude from supernova?
Belczynski et al 2017 arXiv:1706.07053 Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 Dynamical formation 41 Dynamics
¤ Naturally expect an isotropic distribution of spins (e.g. Rodrgiuez+ 2016 arXiv:1609.05916)
¤ However, predicts too low merger rate to explain all observed events?
Rate from Rodriguez+ 2016 arXiv:1602.02444 Melbourne Uni Seminar Figure adapted from arXiv:1606.04856 1/11/2017 42
Black hole natal kicks ¤ BH kicks bounded from above by inferred BBH merger rates
¤ Bounded from below by need for misalignment to explain low effective spins (if BH spins are generally large)
Wysocki et al 2017 arXiv: 1709.01943 Melbourne Uni Seminar 1/11/2017 43
2 1 j [cm s− ] 13 14 15 ¤ Spin tilts during supernova as in 5.10 5.10 5.10 3 the Double Pulsar J0737-3039 10 (e.g. Farr+ 2011) 102 101
¤ Also shown by supernova 100 [Hz] NS modellers (e.g. Kazeroni+ 2017) f 0
100 ¤ No statements in literature for − 101 black hole formation (that I know − R =5 R =3 R =4 R =2 Spin tilts during 2 about) 10 − 101 102 103 f [Hz] supernovae CORE arXiv:1701.07029 2017 + Kazeroni
Melbourne Uni Seminar Farr+ 2011 arXiv:1104.5001 1/11/2017 44
§ Gravitational waves measurements of binary black hole masses, spins and merger rates give us insight into their formation § Effective spin for GW150914, GW151226, GW170104, GW170814 and LVT151012 are all clustered around 0 § Either black holes are misaligned with respect to the orbital Conclusions angular momentum, or else they have intrinsically low spins § We showed that given our simple models, the data favour misalignment (provided spins are at least sometimes large) § Misalignment can originate from a linear kick or tilt during a supernova in isolated binaries, and is natural for dynamically formed binary black holes
Melbourne Uni Seminar