Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2)
24 September 2018
ABSTRACT
We study the orbital evolution of black hole (BH) binaries in quadruple systems,
where the tertiary binary excites large eccentricity in the BH binary through Lidov-
Kozai (LK) oscillations, causing the binary BHs to merge via gravitational radiation.
We show that binary-binary interactions can significantly increase the LK window
for mergers (the range of companion inclinations that allows the BH binary to merge
within 10 Gyrs). This increase arises from a secular resonance between the LK oscil-
lation of the BH binary and the nodal precession of the outer (binary-binary) orbit
driven by the tertiary binary. Therefore, in the presence of tertiary binary, the BH
merger fraction is increased to 10−30%, an order of magnitude larger than the merger
fraction found in similar triple systems. Since the occurrence rate of stellar quadruples
in the galactic fields is not much smaller than that of stellar triples, our result sug-
gests that dynamically induced BH mergers in quadruple systems may be an important
channel of producing BH mergers observed by LIGO/VIRGO.
Key words: binaries: general - black hole physics - gravitational waves - stars: black
holes - stars: kinematics and dynamics
1 INTRODUCTION & Rasio 2016; VanLandingham et al. 2016; Petrovich & An-
tonini 2017; Hoang et al. 2018; Leigh et al. 2018) , and sec-
Since 2015, a number of black hole (BH) binary and neu- ular/nonsecular Lidov-Kozai oscillations (e.g., Lidov 1962;
tron star (NS) binary mergers have been observed in gravita- Kozai 1962; Naoz 2016) in isolated triples in the galactic
tional waves by aLIGO/VIRGO (e.g., Abbott et al. 2016a,b, fields (e.g., Silsbee & Tremaine 2017; Antonini et al. 2017;
2017a,b,c,d). To bring two BHs into sufficiently close or- Liu & Lai 2018).
bits and allow gravitational-radiation driven binary coa- The BH binary merger rate inferred from the LIGO de-
lescence, several different formation scenarios have been tections (10-200 Gpc−3 yr−1 ) is higher than expected and
proposed. These include isolated binary evolution, either challenges existing models. Additional mechanisms/effects
through common-envelop phases (e.g., Lipunov et al. 1997, may be required to produce a greater BH merger rate to
2017; Podsiadlowski et al. 2003; Belczynski et al. 2010, 2016; match observations. Lidov-Kozai (LK) oscillations driven by
Dominik et al. 2012, 2013, 2015) or through chemically ho- tertiary companions (either another star/BH in the galac-
mogeneous evolution associated with rapid stellar rotations tic triple scenario, or a supermassive BH for binaries near
(e.g., Mandel & de Mink 2016; Marchant et al. 2016), three- galactic nuclei) provide a natural, purely dynamical mecha-
body encounters and/or secular interactions in dense star nism to induce binary BH merger (e.g., Miller & Hamilton
clusters such as globular cluster (e.g., Portegies Zwart & 2002; Wen 2003; Thompson 2011; Antonini & Perets 2012;
McMillan 2000; Miller & Hamilton 2002; Wen 2003; Miller Antonini et al. 2014; Hoang et al. 2018). In a recent paper
& Lauburg 2009; O’Leary et al. 2006; Banerjee et al. 2010; (Liu & Lai 2018), we systematically study the merger win-
Downing et al. 2010; Thompson 2011; Rodriguez et al. 2015; dow (the range of companion inclinations that allows the
Chatterjee et al. 2017; Samsing et al. 2018) or galactic nuclei inner binary to merge within ∼10 Gyrs) and merger frac-
(e.g., O’Leary et al. 2009; Antonini & Perets 2012; Antonini tion for BH binaries in triples for a wide range of param-
c 2018 RAS
2 Liu, & Lai
c 2018 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–11
Enhanced Black Hole Mergers in Binary-Binary Interactions 3
c 2018 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–11
4 Liu, & Lai
except that we do not include the GW terms for the sake binary (e.g., Seto 2013; Antonini et al. 2014), i.e.
of clarity. By switching the indices j → j2 , e → e2 , εoct,34 p
tLK 1 − e2max & Pout . (26)
and tLK,34 , Equations (12)-(13) an (17) can be applied to
the second binary (with m1 → m3 , m2 → m4 , m12 → m34 , See Liu & Lai (2018) for more discussion on the regime of
a → a2 and n → (Gm34 /a32 )1/2 in Equations 14-15, 18). The validity of the double-averaged equations and the more gen-
outer orbit is influenced by both first and second binary. The eral single-averaged equations.
first piece of Equation (8) is given by
djout 3 Λ h
= (j · L̂out ) L̂out × j 3 EXCITATION OF ECCENTRICITY IN
dt 1st
4tLK,12 Λout
i BINARY-BINARY SYSTEMS
−5(e · L̂out ) L̂out × e
( Before considering the population of binary mergers in
75εoct,12 Λ h
quadruple systems (Section 4), we first examine how binary-
− 2 (e · L̂out )(j · êout ) L̂out
64tLK,12 Λout binary interaction influences the excitation of eccentricity in
the inner binary.
i
+(e · êout )(j · L̂out ) L̂out + (e · L̂out )(j · L̂out ) êout × j
Figure 2 shows the maximum excited eccentricity
+ 2(j · êout )(j · L̂out ) L̂out − 14(e · êout )(e · L̂out ) L̂out achieved in the first binary (emax ; in the absence of GW
) emission) and merger window (including GW emission; to
be discussed in Section 4) as a function of the initial mutual
h8
2 1 2 2
i
+ e − − 7(e · L̂out ) + (j · L̂out ) êout × e (22) .
5 5 inclination angle I0 (the initial value of I1 ) for a system with
m1 = 30M , m2 = 20M , a0 = 100AU (the initial semima-
The evolution equation of Lout is (dLout /dt)|1st = jor axis of the first binary), m3 = m4 = 15M . We fix the
√
µout Gmtot aout (djout /dt)|1st . Also initial inclination of the second binary to be I2,0 = 30◦ , so
deout 3 Λ
that no LK oscillations occur in the second binary, and we
= p (j · L̂out ) eout × j concentrate on the eccentricity excitation of the first binary.
dt 1st 4tLK,12 1 − e2out Λout
h1 As in Liu & Lai (2018), we introduce the p effective outer bi-
25
−5(e · L̂out )eout × e − − 3e2 + (e · L̂out )2 nary semimajor axis as aout,eff = aout 1 − e2out and define
2 2
5 i 75 εoct,12 Λ
− (j · L̂out )2 L̂out × eout − p −1/3
2 64tLK,12 1 − e2out Λout aout,eff m34
āout,eff ≡
( 1000AU 30M
(27)
h
× 2 (e · L̂out )(j · eout ) êout + (j · L̂out )(e · eout ) êout p
2
aout 1 − eout
m34
−1/3
= .
1000AU 30M
1 − e2out i
+ (e · L̂out )(j · L̂out ) L̂out × j This quantity characterizes the “quadrupole strength” of the
e
out outer perturber m34 = m3 +m4 . In the examples depicted in
+ 2(j · eout )(j · L̂out ) êout − 14(e · eout )(e · L̂out ) êout Figure 2, we adopt aout = 4400AU for eout = 0 and aout =
5500AU for eout = 0.6, so that in all cases āout,eff = 4.4.
1 − e2out h 8 2 1
+ e − − 7(e · L̂out )2 The top two panels of Figure 2 show the results when
eout 5 5
a2 aout . In these cases, the binary-bianry system effec-
2
i 1 8
+(j · L̂out ) L̂out × e − 2 − e2 (e · êout ) eout tively reduces to a triple system, with the first binary per-
5 5
turbed by m34 . When eout = 0 (the top left panel of Figure
+14(e · L̂out )(j · êout )(j · L̂out ) eout
h8 2), the octupole effect vanishes, and the maximum eccentric-
1
+7(e · êout ) e2 − − 7(e · L̂out )2 ity emax achieved by the first binary (starting from e0 ' 0)
5 5
) can be evaluated analytically (Liu et al. 2015; Anderson et
i
2
+(j · L̂out ) eout × L̂out . (23) al. 2017):
2
3 jmin −1 η 2 9 2
2
5 cos I0 + − 3 + 4η cos I0 + η 2 jmin
Here, we have defined 8 jmin 2 4
√
−1
+η 2 jmin
4
Λ ≡ L|e=0 = µ Gm12 a, (24) + εGR 1 − jmin = 0, (28)
√
Λout ≡ Lout |eout =0 = µout Gmtot aout . (25) √
where jmin ≡ 1 − e2max , η ≡ (L/Lout )e=0 , and
Similar expressions apply to (djout /dt)|2nd and
3Gm212 a3out,eff
(deout /dt)|2nd . Equations (4)-(9) completely determine εGR = (29)
c2 a4 m34
the secular evolution of the binary-binary system. These 2 −1 3 −4
m12 m34 aout,eff a
equations are based on the double averaging approxima- ' 3.6 × 10−5 ,
tion, and require that the timescale near the maximum 60M 30M 103 AU 102 AU
eccentricity emax be longer than the period of the outer which measures the strength of the GR precession (relative
c 2018 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–11
Enhanced Black Hole Mergers in Binary-Binary Interactions 5
I0 Deg I0 Deg
93.5 93 92.5 92 91.5 91 95 94 93 92 91
0.01 0.01
0.001 0.001
1emax
1emax
104 104
105 elim 105 elim
eout 0.6
106 eout 0 106
1012 1012
1010 1010
Hubble Timescale
Tm yr
Tm yr
108 108
106
I 0,merger
I 0,merger 106
Merger Window
a2 1 AU a2 1 AU
104 104
0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02
cosI0 cosI0
I0 Deg I0 Deg
130 120 110 100 90 140 130 120 110 100 90 80
0.01 0.01
0.001 0.001
1emax
1emax
104 104
105 105
eout 0 eout 0.6
106 106
1012 1012
1010 1010
Tm yr
Tm yr
108 108
106 106
a2 81 AU a2 81 AU
104 104
0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2
cosI0 cosI0
Figure 2. Eccentricity excitation and merger window in binary-binary systems for different values of eout and a2 . All four panels have
the same āout,eff = 4.4 (Equation 27). In each panel, the upper and lower plots show the maximum eccentricity emax (assuming no GW
emission), and the first (inner) binary merger time Tm (with GW emission) as a function of I0 (the initial value of I1 ). The system
parameters are: m1 = 30M , m2 = 20M , a0 = 100AU (initial value of a), m3 = m4 = 15M , aout = 4400AU (for eout = 0) and
aout = 5500AU (for eout = 0.6). The numerical results (blue and black dots) are from the double-averaged secular equations (each black
dot represents a successful merger event within 1010 yrs). The dashed horizontal line (elim ) is given by Equation (30).
to the LK oscillations). Note that in the limit of η → 0 The lower panels of Figure 2 show emax versus I0 when
and εGRp→ 0, Equation (28) yields the well-known relation the second binary has a semimajor axis a2 = 81AU. We see
emax = 1 − (5/3) cos2 I0 . The maximum possible emax for that regardless of the value of eout (i.e., the strength of the
all values of I0 , called elim , is given by octupole potential), extreme eccentricity excitation can be
3 2
η2 4 2
achieved over a much wider range of inclinations, roughly
−1
(jlim − 1) −3 + jlim − 1 + εGR 1 − jlim = 0. from 90◦ to 130◦ .
8 4 5
(30)
From the top panels of Figure 2 (with a2 = 1 AU), we see The enhanced inclination range for LK oscillations in
that for eout = 0, the limiting eccentricity can be achieved binary-binary systems can be understood as a resonance
only in a very narrow inclination window around I0 = 92.2◦ . phenomenon (Hamers & Lai 2017). Considering the simple
For eout = 0.6 (corresponding to εoct,12 ' 0.003), the same case where the second binary does not experience LK oscil-
limiting eccentricity applies (see Liu et al. 2015), but it can lation and stays circular (e2 = 0) and the outer binary is
be achieved over a wide range of I0 ∈ [92◦ , 94.5◦ ]. also circular (eout = 0), the angular momentum axis of the
c 2018 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–11
6 Liu, & Lai
outer binary is affected by the second binary via value, and the merger window increases as the octupole ef-
fect (measured by εoct ) becomes stronger. Note that for
dL̂out 3 L2
= cos I2 L̂out × L̂2 , (31) εoct = 0 and (1 − emax ) 1, the merger window can be
dt 2nd 4tLK,34 Lout
determined analytically: the merger time is given by
where tLK,34 is the LK timescale in the second binary, given
Tm ' Tm,0 (1 − e2max )3 (35)
by
3 to a good approximation (see Equation 48 of Liu & Lai
1 m34 aout,eff
tLK,34 = , (32) (2018) and regime of validity of this equation), with Tm,0
n2 m12 a2
given by Equation (21). Combining Equations (28) and (35)
where n2 = (Gm34 /a32 )1/2 . Thus, L̂out is driven into preces- and setting Tm = 1010 yrs, the upper and lower boundaries
±
sion around the L2+out ≡ L2 + Lout axis at the rate of the merger window, I0,merger , can be obtained.
The lower panels of Figure 2 show that for β ' 1, as a
3 |L2 + Lout | 3
Ωout = cos I2 ' cos I2 . (33) direct consequence of the widened LK eccentricity excitation
4tLK,34 Lout 4tLK,34
window, the binary merger window also significantly widens
On the other hand, the outer binary drives LK oscillations of compared to the case with small a2 (or β 1).
the (first) inner binary on timescale tLK,12 . Thus, we define In order to systematically explore how the merger win-
the dimensionless parameter dow and merger fraction vary for different binary-binary pa-
3
3/2
a2 m1 + m2
3/2 rameters, we carry out calculations for different values of β
β ≡ Ωout tLK,12 = cos I2 . (34) by changing a2 . Note that for a given aout and eout , the
4 a1 m3 + m4
semimajor axis of the second binary must satisfy the stabil-
The value of β measures the ratio between the LK timescale ity criterion of Mardling & Aarseth (2001):
in the first binary and the precession timescale of the outer 2/5
(1 + eout )2/5
orbit. When β 1, the second binary essentially acts like a aout m12 0.3I2,0
> 2.8 1 + 1 − . (36)
single mass (m3 + m4 ), and “normal” LK oscillations apply. a2 m34 (1 − eout )6/5 180◦
When β 1, L̂out precesses rapidly around the L2+out , the Figure 3 shows the results for systems with m1 = 30M ,
problem again reduces to that of “normal” LK oscillations, m2 = 20M , a0 = 100AU, and m3 = m4 = 15M .
with L̂2+out serving as the effective L̂out . When β ∼ 1, a The semimajor axis of the second binary is a2 = 5600AU
secular resonance occurs that generates large I even for ini- (eout = 0), a2 = 5870AU (eout = 0.3), a2 = 7000AU
tially low-inclination systems, and this resonantly excited (eout = 0.6) and a2 = 12847AU (eout = 0.9), all given
inclination then leads to LK oscillations of the inner binary. āout,eff = 5.6 (Equation 27). We see that the merger win-
In the lower panels of Figure 2, the parameters of the dow indeed is much wider for β ' 0.3 − 3. This range is
system (with a2 = 81AU) gives β ' 1. So we indeed see that somewhat larger when the octupole effect (εoct ) increases.
the width of LK window for extreme eccentricity excitation Note that the initial mutual inclinations for successful merg-
is significantly enhanced due to the presence of the tertiary ers inside the merger window are not uniformly distributed.
binary. Note that the eccentricity of the inner binary can un- This is because the overlap of resonances from both binary-
dergo excursions to more extreme values than the analytical binary interactions (e.g., Hamers & Lai 2017) and octupole
prediction of elim . Also, when the outer binary is eccentric terms (e.g., Lithwick et al. 2011; Li et al. 2015) together
(eout = 0.6), the octupole effect comes into play, and the induces chaos of the systems with intermediate β.
LK window is further extended (although slightly). Overall, To calculate the merger fraction, we assume that the
Figure 2 shows that the orbital properties of the second bi- initial inclination of the outer binary is uniformly distributed
nary play a more important role compared to the octupole in cos I0 ∈ [−1, 1]. As shown in Figure 3, fmerger exhibits a
terms in exciting eccentricity of the first inner binary and clear dependence on β. The secular resonance around β ' 1
largely determine the LK window. gives the the maximum fmerger ∼ 30%, which is ∼ 6 − 30
times larger than the cases with β 1 (equivalent to a
“pure” triple). We also see that compared to the octupole
contribution, the resonance plays an more significant role in
4 MERGER WINDOW AND MERGER
determining the merger fraction.
FRACTION
Equation (34) indicates that β has a dependence on I2 .
In this section, we study the LK oscillations including grav- In the calculations shown above (Figures 2-3), the angular
itational radiation for binary-binary systems. We focus on momentum vector of the second binary L2 is always placed
the merger window of the first inner binary (i.e., the initial initially at 30◦ with respect to Lout . In Figure 4, we set
inclination I0 that gives mergers in less than 1010 yrs). the initial I2,0 to 15◦ and 45◦ , and all other parameters are
First consider the examples shown in Figure 2. The up- sampled identically to the case of eout = 0.6 depicted in
per two panels (with a2 = 1AU, so that the second binary Figure 3. The different results for I2,0 = 15◦ and 45◦ arise
behaves like a single mass) correspond to the result already from the fact that I2 varies in time in the case of I2,0 = 45◦ ,
found in Liu & Lai (2018): the inner binary can merge within giving rise to time-dependent β. Also, the amplitude of nodal
1010 yrs only if its eccentricity is excited to sufficiently large precession of the outer binary (i.e., the angle between Lout
c 2018 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–11
Enhanced Black Hole Mergers in Binary-Binary Interactions 7
40 aout 5600 AU 40 aout 5870 AU
eout 0 eout 0.3
30 30
fmerger
fmerger
20 20
10 10
0 0
60 60
0.4 70 0.4 70
0.2 80 0.2 80
I0 Deg
I0 Deg
0.0 90 0.0 90
cos I0
cos I0
0.2 100 0.2 100
0.4 110 0.4 110
120 120
0.6 130 0.6 130
0.8 140 0.8 140
0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 5.00 10.00 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 5.00 10.00
Β Β
fmerger
20 20
10 10
0 0
60 60
0.4 70 0.4 70
0.2 80 0.2 80
I0 Deg
I0 Deg
0.0 90 0.0 90
cos I0
cos I0
Figure 3. Merger fraction and merger window as a function of the dimensionless parameter β (Equation 34) for different values of aout
and eout . The system parameters are m1 = 30M , m2 = 20M , a0 = 100AU, m3 = m4 = 15M , and e0 = 0.001. All four panels have
the same āout,eff = 5.6 (Equation 27). In each panel, the bottom plot shows the merger window with each dot representing a successful
merger within 10 Gyrs; the top plot shows the merger fraction from the mergers shown in the bottom plot.
and Ltot ) for the two cases are different, and this difference wider the window. The merger fraction ranges from ∼ 1%
can affect the LK oscillations of the first inner binary (see (for eout ' 0) to a few % (for eout = 0.9). Note that for some
Hamers & Lai 2017). values of āout,eff , the irregular distribution of merger events
inside the merger window is evident; this results from the
To illustrate how the merger window and merger frac- chaotic behaviors of the octupole-level LK oscillations (see
tion depend on the properties of the outer binary, Figure 5 also the examples in Figure 2, particulary the eout = 0.6
shows our results as a function of āout,eff for several values of case).
β. When β 1, for a given eout , the merger window shows
For 0.3 . β . 3, the merger window and merger fraction
an general trend of widening as āout,eff decreases. Note that
are significantly larger for all values of eout . At β ' 1, dif-
for eout ' 0, the merger window (the dashed curve in each
ferent values of eout give the similar fmerger for each āout,eff .
panel) and merger fraction can be obtained analytically us-
The secular resonance enhances fmerger to tens of percent.
ing Equations (28) and (35) (see Equations 51, 53 and 54 of
Liu & Lai 2018). For the same value of āout,eff (thus the same If the orbital plane of the second inner binary has ini-
quadrupole effect), the merger window and merger fraction tially random orientation, LK oscillations in the second bi-
can be different for different eout . In general, the larger the nary become possible, and the merger window and merger
eccentricity eout , the stronger the octupole effect, and the fraction can be changed. We show an example in Figure 6 for
c 2018 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–11
8 Liu, & Lai
40 aout 7000 AU 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
eout 0.6
30
I2,0 45 °
fmerger
I0 Deg
0.0 90
cos I0
c 2018 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–11
Enhanced Black Hole Mergers in Binary-Binary Interactions 9
5 10
Β 0.0014 Β 0.29
4 8
fmerger
fmerger
3 6
2 4
1 2
0 0
0.02 91 0.00 90
0.02
I0 Deg
I0 Deg
0.03
cos I0
cos I0
92 0.04 92
0.04 0.06
0.05 94
DA regime eout 0 93 0.08
4 6 8 4 6 8
0.02 91 0.00 90
0.03 92
I0 Deg
I0 Deg
0.04 92 0.05
cos I0
cos I0
94
0.05 93 0.10
0.06 96
0.07 DA regime eout 0.3 94 0.15 98
4 6 8 4 6 8
0.02 91
0.0 90
0.04 92 95
I0 Deg
I0 Deg
0.1
cos I0
cos I0
93 100
0.06 0.2
94 105
0.08 0.3
DA regime eout 0.6 95 110
0.4
4 6 8 4 6 8
0.02 0.0 90
0.04 92
0.1
I0 Deg
I0 Deg
0.06 94 100
cos I0
cos I0
0.08 0.2
0.10 96 0.3 110
0.12 0.4
0.14 DA regime eout 0.9 98 0.5 120
4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8
aout,eff aout,eff
30 Β1 20 Β 1.8
25
15
fmerger
fmerger
20
15 10
10
5
5
0 0
0.0 90 0.0 90
0.2 100 0.1
I0 Deg
I0 Deg
cos I0
cos I0
I0 Deg
0.1
cos I0
cos I0
I0 Deg
100 0.0
cos I0
cos I0
0.2
0.4 0.2 100
120 0.4
0.6 120
0.8 140 0.6
4 6 8 4 6 8
0.2 0.4
80 0.2
0.0 80
I0 Deg
I0 Deg
0.0
cos I0
cos I0
0.2 100
0.4 0.2 100
0.6 120 0.4
140 120
0.8 0.6
4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8
aout,eff aout,eff
Figure 5. Merger window and merger fraction as a function of the effective semi-major axis of outer binary āout,eff (Equation 27) for
β = 0, 0.29, 1, 1.8 (corresponding to a2 = 1AU, 35AU, 81AU and 121AU). In all examples, we assume a fixed I2,0 = 30◦ . In each case,
each dot (in the bottom four panels) represents a successful merger event within 1010 yrs. Note that merger events can have an irregular
distribution as a function of cos I0 , because of the chaotic behavior introduced by the octupole terms and binary-binary interactions.
Also note that we only consider the range of āout,eff such that double-averaged secular equations are valid (see Equation 26).
c 2018 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–11
10 Liu, & Lai
35 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
30
25 This work is supported in part by the NSF grant AST-
fmerger
I0 Deg
80
cos I0
0.0
100
0.5 120 REFERENCES
140
4 6 8
40 Abbott B. P., et al., 2016a, PhRvL, 116, 061102
0.5 60
I0 Deg
80 Abbott B. P., et al., 2016b, PhRvL, 116, 241103
cos I0
0.0
100 Abbott B. P., et al., 2017a, PhRvL, 118, 221101
0.5 120 Abbott B. P., et al., 2017b, ApJ, 851, L35
140
4 6 8 Abbott B. P., et al., 2017c, PhRvL, 119, 141101
40
0.5 60
I0 Deg
Abbott B. P., et al., 2017d, PhRvL, 119, 161101
80
cos I0
0.0 Anderson K. R., Lai D., Storch N. I., 2017, MNRAS, 467,
100
3066
0.5 120
140 Antonini F., Perets H. B., 2012, ApJ, 757, 27
4 6 8
40 Antonini F., Murray N., Mikkola S., 2014, ApJ, 781, 45
0.5 60
Antonini F., Rasio F. A., 2016, ApJ, 831, 187
I0 Deg
80
cos I0
0.0 Antonini F., Toonen S., Hamers A. S., 2017, ApJ, 841, 77
100
0.5 120 Banerjee S., Baumgardt H., Kroupa P., 2010, MNRAS, 402,
140
4 5 6 7 8 371
aout,eff Belczynski K., Dominik M., Bulik T., O’Shaughnessy R.,
Fryer C., Holz D. E., 2010, ApJ, 715, L138
Figure 6. Similar to the case of a2 = 81AU in Figure 5, ex- Belczynski K., Holz D. E., Bulik T., O’Shaughnessy R.,
cept that the initial cos I2,0 is distributed uniformly in cos I2,0 ∈ 2016, Natur, 534, 512
[−1, 1]. Chatterjee S., Rodriguez C. L., Kalogera V., Rasio F. A.,
2017, ApJ, 836, L26
Dominik M., Belczynski K., Fryer C., Holz D. E., Berti E.,
1.0 Bulik T., Mandel I., O’Shaughnessy R., 2012, ApJ, 759,
Β 0.0014
52
0.8 Β 0.29
Dominik M., Belczynski K., Fryer C., Holz D. E., Berti E.,
Β1
Bulik T., Mandel I., O’Shaughnessy R., 2013, ApJ, 779,
Β 1.8
0.6
N Nmax
72
Dominik M., et al., 2015, ApJ, 806, 263
0.4 Downing J. M. B., Benacquista M. J., Giersz M., Spurzem
R., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1946
Fang X., Thompson T. A., Hirata C. M., 2018, MNRAS,
0.2
476, 4234
Hamers A. S., Lai D., 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1657
0.0 Hamers A. S., 2018, MNRAS, 478, 620
5 6 7 8 9 10
Hamers A. S., Bar-Or B., Petrovich C., Antonini F., 2018,
Log10 Tm arXiv, arXiv:1805.10313
Hoang B.-M., Naoz S., Kocsis B., Rasio F. A., Dosopoulou
F., 2018, ApJ, 856, 140
Figure 7. The distribution of merger time (in years) normalized
by the number of mergers for different values of β. Here we only Kozai Y., 1962, AJ, 67, 591
include merging systems with āout,eff ∈ [5.6, 8.8] in Figure 5. Leigh N. W. C., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5672
For each β, the number of mergers is 986 (β = 0.0014), 1913 Li G., Naoz S., Holman M., Loeb A., 2015, ApJ, 802, 71
(β = 0.29), 11359 (β = 1), 3374 (β = 1.8), respectively. Lidov M. L., 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719
Lithwick Y., Naoz S., 2011, ApJ, 742, 94
Lipunov V. M., Postnov K. A., Prokhorov M. E., 1997,
AstL, 23, 492
Lipunov V. M., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3656
c 2018 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–11
Enhanced Black Hole Mergers in Binary-Binary Interactions 11
Liu B., Muñoz D. J., Lai D., 2015, MNRAS, 447, 747
Liu B., Lai D., 2018, arXiv, arXiv:1805.03202
Mandel I., de Mink S. E., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2634
Marchant P., Langer N., Podsiadlowski P., Tauris T. M.,
Moriya T. J., 2016, A&A, 588, A50
Mardling R. A., Aarseth S.J., 2001, MNRAS, 321, 398
Miller M. C., Hamilton D. P., 2002, ApJ, 576, 894
Miller M. C., Lauburg V. M., 2009, ApJ, 692, 917
Naoz S., 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441
O’Leary R. M., Rasio F. A., Fregeau J. M., Ivanova N.,
O’Shaughnessy R., 2006, ApJ, 637, 937
O’Leary R. M., Kocsis B., Loeb A., 2009, MNRAS, 395,
2127
Peters P. C., 1964, PhRv, 136, 1224
Petrovich C., 2015, ApJ, 799, 27
Petrovich C., Antonini F., 2017, ApJ, 846, 146
Podsiadlowski P., Rappaport S., Han Z., 2003, MNRAS,
341, 385
Portegies Zwart S. F., McMillan S. L. W., 2000, ApJ, 528,
L17
Rodriguez C. L., Morscher M., Pattabiraman B., Chatter-
jee S., Haster C.-J., Rasio F. A., 2015, PhRvL, 115, 051101
Sana H., 2017, IAUS, 329, 110
Samsing J., D’Orazio D. J., Askar A., Giersz M., 2018,
arXiv, arXiv:1802.08654
Seto N., 2013, PhRvL, 111, 061106
Silsbee K., Tremaine S., 2017, ApJ, 836, 39
Thompson T. A., 2011, ApJ, 741, 82
VanLandingham J. H., Miller M. C., Hamilton D. P.,
Richardson D. C., 2016, ApJ, 828, 77
Wen L., 2003, ApJ, 598, 419
c 2018 RAS, MNRAS 000, 1–11