4.8 Article

Search for Gravitational Waves from High-Mass-Ratio Compact-Binary Mergers of Stellar Mass and Subsolar Mass Black Holes

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 126, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.021103

关键词

-

资金

  1. Max Planck Gesellschaft
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation
  3. French Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
  4. Italian Istituto Nazionale della Fisica Nucleare (INFN)
  5. Dutch Nikhef
  6. Polish institute
  7. Hungarian institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted the first search for gravitational waves from the coalescence of stellar mass and subsolar mass black holes, setting upper limits on the merger rates based on the non-detection of significant candidate signals. The results contribute to our understanding of the potential existence of primordial black holes and their role as a component of dark matter.
We present the first search for gravitational waves from the coalescence of stellar mass and subsolar mass black holes with masses between 20-100 M-circle dot and 0.01-1 M-circle dot (10-10(3) M-J), respectively. The observation of a single subsolar mass black hole would establish the existence of primordial black holes and a possible component of dark matter. We search the similar to 164 day of public LIGO data from 2015-2017 when LIGO-Hanford and LIGO-Livingston were simultaneously observing. We find no significant candidate gravitational-wave signals. Using this nondetection, we place a 90% upper limit on the rate of 30-0.01 M-circle dot and 30-0.1 M-circle dot mergers at < 1.2 x 10(6) and < 1.6 x 10(4) Gpc(-3) yr(-1), respectively. If we consider binary formation through direct gravitational-wave braking, this kind of merger would be exceedingly rare if only the lighter black hole were primordial in origin (< 10(-4) Gpc(-3) yr(-1)). If both black holes are primordial in origin, we constrain the contribution of 1(0.1)M-circle dot black holes to dark matter to < 0.3(3)%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据