Paper detail

It has to be cool: on supergiant progenitors of binary black hole mergers from common-envelope evolution

Common-envelope (CE) evolution in massive binary systems is thought to be one of the most promising channels for the formation of compact binary mergers. In the case of merging binary black holes (BBHs), the essential CE phase takes place at a stage when the first BH is already formed and the companion star expands as a supergiant. We study which BH binaries with supergiant companions will evolve through and potentially survive a CE phase. To this end, we compute envelope binding energies from detailed massive stellar models at different evolutionary stages and metallicities. We make multiple physically extreme choices of assumptions that favor easier CE ejection as well as account for recent advancements in mass transfer stability criteria. We find that even with the most optimistic assumptions, a successful CE ejection in BH (and also NS) binaries is only possible if the donor is a massive convective-envelope giant, a red supergiant (RSG). In other words, pre-CE progenitors of BBH mergers are BH binaries with RSG companions. We find that due to its influence on the radial expansion of massive giants, metallicity has an indirect but a very strong effect on the envelope structure and binding energies of RSGs. Our results suggest that merger rates from population synthesis models could be severely overestimated, especially at low metallicity. Additionally, the lack of observed RSGs with luminosities above log($L/L_{\odot}$) = 5.6-5.8, corresponding to stars with $M > 40 M_{\odot}$, puts into question the viability of the CE channel for the formation of the most massive BBH mergers. Either such RSGs elude detection due to very short lifetimes, or they do not exist and the CE channel can only produce BBH systems with total mass $< 50 M_{\odot}$. We discuss an alternative CE scenario, in which a partial envelope ejection is followed by a phase of possibly long and stable mass transfer.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.