LISA double BHs
description
Transcript of LISA double BHs
LISA double BHs
Dynamics in gaseous nuclear disk
Outlines
• Dynamical evolution of MBHBs
• Code introduction
• Initial conditions of the simulations
• Results
• Future work
MBHs coalescence (1)
● Dynamical friction (tidal stripping, efficient only for “major mergers”)
● Three body interactions (loss cone depletion… ask to Sesana)
● Gravitational wave emission
Collisionless background (Begelman, Blanford & Rees 1980)
MBHs coalescence (2)
Gaseous background
● Dynamical friction (2) (Escala, Larson, Coppi & Maradones 2004)
● Gravitational torque by ellipsoidal deformation (Escala, Larson, Coppi & Maradones 2004)
● Gravitational wave emission
● Gravitational torque in circumnuclear gap (Armitage & Natarajan 2005)
● Dynamical friction (1) (Kazantzidis et al. 2005)
Stellar bulge (Plummer):
Gaseous disk (Mestel):
Initial condition
Equation of state
P=K ργ γ = 5/3 (pure adiabatic evolution)
Code: Gadget Springel, Yoshida & White 2001
SPH: Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics
Stellar and gaseous environment are sampled statistically (Monte Carlo)
Any “particle” has a spherical distribution of mass:
Code: Gadget Springel, Yoshida & White 2001
Gravitational potential is computed with a tree algorithm
Computational cost ~ N log N
Cell opening criterion: Ml2/r4 < α2 M/r2
α > r / l (geometrical criterium)
Euler equation(for gas particles)
Escala et al. 2005 Dotti et al. in preparation
MDISK = 5 10 9 M
RDISK = 400 pcMBULGE = 6.98 MDISK
a = 200 pc
MDISK = 10 8 M
RDISK = 109 pcMBULGE = 6.98 MDISK
a = 55 pc
Parameters varying:
Clumpiness
Orbital inclination angle
BH to gas mass ratio
Parameters varying:
BH1 to BH2 mass ratio
Eccentricity
2.6 × 10 5 K < T < 4.2 × 10 5 K
i = 0 º i = 22.5 ºi = 45 º i = 67.5 º
0.010.030.050.10.30.5
Dotti et al. in preparation
MDISK = 10 8 M
RDISK = 109 pcMBULGE = 6.98 MDISK
a = 55 pc
Parameters varying:
BH1 to BH2 mass ratio
Eccentricity
T ~ 10 4 K
Run A: (equal mass / circular)
Run A: (equal mass / circular)
Run B: (equal mass / elliptical)
Run E: (equal mass / elliptical / no gas)
Predicted by: Colpi et al. 1999 van den Bosch et al. 1999
Run A / B: (equal mass)
Escala et al. 2004
Run C: (unequal mass / circular)
Run D: (unequal mass / elliptical)
Run F (unequal mass / elliptical /retrograde )
Accretion implications
Variation of the mass of one of BHs in binary has some dynamical effects… If angular momentum is conserved:
Sesana et al. in preparation
Scale considerations (1)
In my simulation we have a spatial resolution of ~ 1 pc
For this separation, the two MBHs can not coalesce in an Hubble time for GW emission.
We are preparing higher resolution simulations, but ...
“using finer and finer resolution may be a waste of time unless the physics is consistent with the scale”
Take home message I, Joe Monaghan.
Scale considerations (2)
High resolution simulations (HRSs) could investigate long-scales of the order of accretion radius of ours MBHs, of the local instability of a realistic self gravitating disk, etc.
So, HRSs allow (and force) us to implement new featuresof the code, corresponding to different physical phenomena:
• Star formation
• Black holes treated as sink particles
• Realistic cooling-heating
Scale considerations (3)
HRSs imply an increase of computational time
With the collaboration of Simone Callegari, a student ofMilano Bicocca, we are modifying the code to include anarbitrary static component of the gravitational potential in order to reduce the number of “live” particles without losing resolution
As a test, we run a simulation of a Hernquist stellar Bulge in a NFW halo of DM, with an “live” halo and a “dead” halo