Paper detail

Double Compact Objects I: The Significance Of The Common Envelope On Merger Rates

The last decade of observational and theoretical developments in stellar and binary evolution provides an opportunity to incorporate major improvements to the predictions from populations synthesis models. We compute the Galactic merger rates for NS-NS, BH-NS, and BH-BH mergers with the StarTrack code. The most important revisions include: updated wind mass loss rates (allowing for stellar mass black holes up to $80 \msun$), a realistic treatment of the common envelope phase (a process that can affect merger rates by 2--3 orders of magnitude), and a qualitatively new neutron star/black hole mass distribution (consistent with the observed "mass gap"). Our findings include: (i) The binding energy of the envelope plays a pivotal role in determining whether a binary merges within a Hubble time. (ii) Our description of natal kicks from supernovae plays an important role, especially for the formation of BH-BH systems. (iii) The masses of BH-BH systems can be substantially increased in the case of low metallicities or weak winds. (iv) Certain combinations of parameters underpredict the Galactic NS-NS merger rate, and can be ruled out. {\em (v)} Models incorporating delayed supernovae do not agree with the observed NS/BH "mass gap", in accordance with our previous work. This is the first in a series of three papers. The second paper will study the merger rates of double compact objects as a function of redshift, star formation rate, and metallicity. In the third paper we will present the detection rates for gravitational wave observatories, using up-to-date signal waveforms and sensitivity curves.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors2 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.