Paper detail

Biases in estimates of black hole kicks from the spin distribution of binary black holes

A population of more than 50 binary black hole mergers has now been observed by the LIGO and Virgo gravitational-wave observatories. While neutron stars are known to have large velocities associated with impulsive kicks imparted to them at birth in supernovae, whether black holes receive similar kicks, and of what magnitude, remains an open question. Recently, Callister et al. (2021) analysed the binary black hole population under the hypothesis that they were all formed through isolated binary evolution and claimed that large black hole kicks (greater than 260 km/s at 99% confidence) were required for the spin distribution of merging binary black holes to match observations. Here we highlight that a key assumption made by Callister et al. (2021) -- that all secondary black holes can be tidally spun up -- is not motivated by physical models, and may lead to a bias in their estimate of the magnitudes of black hole kicks. We make only minor changes to the Callister et al. (2021) model, accounting for a population of wider merging binaries where tidal synchronisation is ineffective. We show that this naturally produces a bimodal spin distribution for secondary black holes, and that the spin-orbit misalignments observed in the binary black hole population can be explained by more typical black hole kicks of order 100 km/s, consistent with kicks inferred from Galactic X-ray binaries containing black holes. We conclude that the majority of the binary black hole population is consistent with forming through isolated binary evolution.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.