1: %%
2: %% Delete all preceding lines before processing this file by LaTeX
3: %>>*
4: %%
5: %% File: ms.tex version 0.1
6: %% Started: Wed 00Jul26 by KCBN
7: %% Last revised: Wed 00Aug23 by KCBN
8: %%
9: %% @nokeywords@
10: %%
11: %
12: % This file is built from the APS files in the REVTeX 3.1 distribution.
13: % Version 3.1 of REVTeX, July 1, 1996.
14: %
15: % See the REVTeX 3.1 README file for restrictions and more information.
16: %
17: %
18: \documentstyle[epsf,aps,twocolumn]{revtex} %% gr-qc style
19: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps]{revtex} %% reviewer style
20: %\documentstyle[aps]{revtex} %% galley style
21:
22: \def\half{\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}} % small built-up `one-half'
23:
24: \def\lesssim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox
25: {\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
26:
27: \def\gtrsim{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox
28: {\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
29:
30: \begin{document}
31: % \draft command makes pacs numbers print
32: \draft
33: %\wideabs{ %% NOT for galley style
34: \title{The Formation of Supermassive Black Holes and the Evolution
35: of Supermassive Stars}
36: % repeat the \author\address pair as needed
37: \author{Kimberly C. B. New}
38: \address{Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545}
39: \author{Stuart L. Shapiro}
40: \address{Department of Physics, Department of Astronomy, and
41: National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University
42: of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801}
43:
44: %\date{27 July 2000, version 0.1}
45: \date{\today, current draft}
46:
47: \maketitle
48: %*<<
49: % \mediumtext %% galley style only
50: \begin{abstract}
51: The existence of supermassive black holes is supported by a
52: growing body of observations. Supermassive black holes
53: and their formation
54: events are likely candidates for detection by proposed long-wavelength,
55: space-based gravitational wave interferometers like LISA. However, the nature
56: of the progenitors of supermassive black holes is rather uncertain.
57: Supermassive black hole formation scenarios that
58: involve either the stellar dynamical evolution
59: of dense clusters or the hydrodynamical evolution of
60: supermassive stars have been proposed. Each of these formation
61: scenarios is reviewed and the evolution of supermassive stars
62: is then examined in some detail. Supermassive stars
63: that rotate uniformly during their secular cooling phase will
64: spin up to the mass-shedding limit and eventually contract to the point of
65: relativistic collapse. Supermassive stars
66: that rotate differentially as they cool will likely
67: encounter the dynamical bar mode instability prior to the onset of relativistic
68: collapse. A supermassive star
69: that undergoes this bar distortion, prior to or during collapse,
70: may be a strong source of
71: quasiperiodic, long-wavelength gravitational radiation.
72: \end{abstract}
73: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
74: %\pacs{PACS numbers: }
75: % } %% NOT for galley style
76:
77: %\narrowtext %% galley style only
78: \section{Supermassive Black Holes}
79:
80: There is a large body of observational evidence that supermassive black holes
81: (SMBHs) exist in the centers of many, if not most galaxies (see e.g., the
82: reviews of Rees \cite{rees98} and Macchetto \cite{macc99}).
83: The masses of SMBHs in the centers of more than 45 galaxies
84: have been estimated from observations \cite{feme00} and there are more
85: than 30 galaxies in which the presence of a SMBH has been confirmed
86: \cite{korm00}. The properties of a few confirmed SMBHs are given in
87: Table 1.
88:
89: Several properties have been deduced from these observations
90: \cite{korm00,feme00,gebh00,haka00,wang00,mefe00}. A correlation between
91: the SMBH mass and both the mass and the velocity dispersion
92: of the bulge of the host galaxy is observed. These results
93: suggest that the formation and evolution of SMBHs and the bulge
94: component of their
95: host galaxies may be closely related. The largest SMBHs are found
96: in elliptical galaxies and thus may result from galaxy mergers,
97: as ellipticals themselves are thought to form via merger.
98:
99: Because of their size and mass, SMBHs are expected to be sources
100: of long-wavelength, low-frequency gravitational radiation. Thus,
101: phenomena involving SMBHs might be detectable with proposed
102: space-based gravitational wave detectors, like the Laser Interferometer
103: Space Antenna (LISA) \cite{folk98}. For example, LISA might be
104: able to detect the collapse of a supermassive star to a
105: SMBH, the coalescence of two SMBHs, or the coalescence of a compact
106: star and a SMBH \cite{thbr76,thor95,hibe95,sire97,schu97}.
107: The event rates of these phenomena are uncertain due to the uncertainty
108: in the nature of the progenitors of SMBHs. However, the rates
109: could be appreciable because SMBHs are present in
110: many galaxies.
111:
112: \subsection{Formation Mechanisms}
113:
114: The possible formation mechanisms for SMBHs involve either the
115: stellar dynamics of dense star clusters or the hydrodynamics of
116: supermassive stars (SMSs).
117:
118: \subsubsection{Stellar Dynamical Routes}
119:
120: In general terms, dense star clusters are formed via a conglomeration
121: of stars, produced by fragmentation of the primordial gas. In one
122: cluster scenario for SMBH formation, massive stars form via stellar collisions
123: and mergers in the cluster and then evolve into stellar-mass black
124: holes. The merger of these holes, as they grow and settle to the
125: cluster center, leads to the build up of one or more SMBHs
126: \cite{qush90,lee95,hibe95}.
127:
128: An alternative cluster scenario centers on
129: the catastrophic collapse of the cluster core. Shapiro and Teukolsky
130: have numerically demonstrated that cluster cores can become dynamically
131: unstable to relativistic collapse \cite{shte85a}. They also showed
132: that if the core is made up of compact stars, it will evolve to the
133: onset of collapse on a relaxation timescale \cite{shte85b}. As the
134: compact core evolves to this point of relativistic instability, the mass
135: of its black holes will increase through collisions and gravitational
136: radiation driven mergers. This will accelerate the approach to relativistic
137: instability, leading to SMBH formation \cite{zepo65,qush87}.
138:
139:
140: \subsubsection{Hydrodynamical Routes}
141:
142: SMSs may contract directly out of the primordial gas, if radiation
143: and/or magnetic field pressure prevent fragmentation
144: \cite{hare93,eilo95,haeh98}
145: (see also \cite{lora94,brom99,abel00}). Alternatively,
146: they may build up from fragments of stellar collisions in clusters
147: \cite{sand70,bere78}.
148:
149: The evolution of SMSs will ultimately lead to the onset of relativistic
150: instability \cite{iben63,chan64a,chan64b,shte83}. If
151: the mass of the star exceeds $10^6 M_{\odot}$, the star will then
152: collapse and possibly form a SMBH. If the star is less massive,
153: nuclear reactions may lead to explosion instead of collapse.
154:
155: \section{Supermassive Stars}
156:
157: Identifying the scenario by which SMBHs form is of fundamental
158: importance to a number of areas of astrophysics.
159: The remainder of this paper examines one of the
160: possible progenitors of SMBHs discussed above, SMSs.
161:
162: Supermassive stars are radiation dominated, isentropic, and
163: convective \cite{zeno71,shte83,lora94} and are thus well
164: represented by a $n=3$ polytrope. As mentioned previously,
165: if the star's mass exceeds $10^6 M_{\odot}$, nuclear burning
166: and electron/positron annihilation are not important.
167:
168: After formation, a SMS will evolve through a phase of
169: quasistationary cooling and contraction. If the SMS is
170: rotating when it forms, conservation of angular momentum
171: requires that it spin up as it contracts. The evolutionary
172: path taken by the SMS during this cooling phase depends on
173: the strength of its viscosity and magnetic fields and on
174: the nature of its angular momentum distribution.
175:
176: \subsection{Cooling Evolution of Uniformly Rotating Supermassive Stars}
177:
178: There are two possible evolutionary regimes for a cooling SMS.
179: In the first regime, viscosity or magnetic fields are strong
180: enough to enforce {\it uniform} rotation throughout the star as it
181: contracts.
182:
183: Baumgarte and Shapiro \cite{bash99} have recently studied the
184: evolution of a uniformly rotating SMS up to the onset of
185: relativistic instability.
186: They demonstrated that a uniformly rotating,
187: cooling SMS will eventually spin up to its mass shedding limit.
188: The mass shedding limit is encountered when matter at the
189: star's equator rotates with the Keplerian velocity. The limit
190: can be represented as a ratio $\beta_{shed}=(T/|W|)_{shed}$
191: of the star's rotational kinetic energy $T$ to gravitational potential
192: energy $W$. In this case, $\beta_{shed}=9\times 10^{-3}$.
193: The star will then evolve along a mass shedding sequence, losing
194: both mass and angular momentum. It will eventually contract
195: to the point of relativistic instability.
196:
197: Baumgarte and Shapiro used both a 2nd order,
198: post-Newtonian approximation and a fully general relativistic
199: numerical code to determine that the onset of the instability
200: occurs at a ratio of $R/M \sim 450$, where $R$ is the \\ star's radius.
201: Here and throughout this paper $G=c=1$.
202: Note that a 2nd order, post-Newtonian approximation was needed
203: because rotation stabilizes the destabilizing role of nonlinear
204: gravity at the 1st post-Newtonian level.
205:
206: The major result of Baumgarte and Shapiro's work is that the following
207: universal ratios exist for the critical configuration at the onset of
208: relativistic instability: $T/|W|$, $R/M$, and $J/M^2$. Here $J$ is
209: the total angular momentum of the star. These ratios are completely
210: independent of the mass of the star or its prior evolution. Because
211: uniformly rotating SMSs will begin to collapse from a universal
212: configuration, the subsequent collapse and the resulting gravitational
213: waveform will be unique.
214:
215: \subsubsection{Collapse Outcome and Gravitational Radiation Emission}
216: The outcome of SMS collapse can only be determined with numerical,
217: fully relativistic three-dimensional hydrodynamics simulations.
218: To date, such simulations have only been published for nearly
219: spherical collapse. The numerical simulations of Shapiro and
220: Teukolsky \cite{shte79} demonstrate that this type of collapse
221: is nearly homologous.
222:
223: In this case the collapse time $\tau_{coll}$
224: is roughly the free-fall time at the horizon (where $R=2M$)
225: \begin{eqnarray}
226: \tau_{coll} &=& \biggl(\frac{R^3}{4\pi M}\biggr)^{1/2} \nonumber \\
227: &=& 14\, {\rm sec}\, [M/10^6 M_{\odot}]^{-1}.
228: \end{eqnarray}
229: The peak gravitational wave frequency $f_{GW}=\tau_{coll}^{-1}$
230: is then $10^{-2}\, {\rm Hz}$, if the mass of the star is $10^6 M_{\odot}$.
231: This is in the middle of LISA's frequency band of $10^{-4}-1\, {\rm Hz}$
232: \cite{thor95,folk98}.
233:
234: The amplitude $h$ of this burst signal can be estimated roughly in
235: terms of the star's quadrupole moment
236: \begin{eqnarray}
237: h &\leq& \epsilon \frac{2M^2}{Rd} \nonumber \\
238: &\leq& \epsilon \, 5\times 10^{-17}\, [M/10^6 M_{\odot}][d/1{\rm Gpc}]^{-1}.
239: \end{eqnarray}
240: Here $d$ is the distance to the star and $\epsilon \sim T/|W|$ is a measure of
241: the star's deviation from spherical symmetry. In this
242: case, $\epsilon$ will be much less than one even near the horizon, since
243: the collapse is nearly spherical.
244:
245: Three-dimensional, general relativistic simulations of nonspherical,
246: rotating collapse are underway \cite{shib00}.
247: The results are not available as yet. However, there are two
248: possible outcomes of this type of collapse that can be discussed.
249:
250: The first outcome is direct collapse to a SMBH, from the onset of instability.
251: In this case $\epsilon$
252: will be on the order of one near the horizon. Thus the peak amplitude
253: (see equation 2) of the burst signal will be $h \sim 5\times 10^{-17}\,
254: [M/10^6 M_{\odot}][d/1{\rm Gpc}]^{-1}$.
255:
256: Alternatively, the star may encounter the dynamical bar mode instability.
257: The bar mode is the strongest of a set of global nonaxisymmetric
258: instabilities that may be encountered by a rapidly rotating object.
259: This instability will deform the star into a bar-shaped configuration,
260: making it a strong source of long-wavelength, quasiperiodic gravitational
261: radiation. During the development of the instability, angular momentum
262: and mass will be transported outwards \cite{tohl85,new00,brow00}.
263: This could hasten the star's eventual collapse. Previous linear
264: and nonlinear analyses indicate that $\beta_{bar} \sim 0.27$ is likely
265: to be an upper limit for the onset of this instability, for a wide range
266: of polytropic equations of state and rotation laws (see, e.g.,
267: \cite{pick96,toma98}).
268:
269: Baumgarte and Shapiro \cite{bash99} have estimated that a uniformly
270: rotating SMS will reach $\beta$$\sim$$0.27$ when $R/M$=15. This
271: estimate awaits confirmation from three-dimensional, general
272: relativistic hydrodynamical simulations.
273:
274: The frequency of the quasiperiodic gravitational radiation emitted
275: by the bar can be estimated in terms of its rotation frequency to be
276: \begin{eqnarray}
277: f_{GW} &=& 2 f_{bar} \sim 2\biggl(\frac{GM}{R^3}\biggr)^{1/2}
278: \nonumber \\
279: &\sim& 2 \times 10^{-3}\, {\rm Hz} \, [M/10^6M_{\odot}]^{-1},
280: \end{eqnarray}
281: when $R/M$=15. The corresponding amplitude of the radiation,
282: again estimated in terms of the star's quadrupole moment, is
283: \begin{eqnarray}
284: h &\sim& \frac{2M^2}{Rd} \nonumber \\
285: &\sim& 6\times 10^{-18}\, [M/10^6 M_{\odot}][d/1{\rm Gpc}]^{-1}.
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: The emission of gravitational radiation will continue as long as
288: the collapsing SMS's bar shape persists.
289:
290: \subsection{Cooling Evolution of Differentially Rotating Supermassive Stars}
291:
292: In the opposite evolutionary regime, neither
293: viscosity nor magnetic fields are strong
294: enough to enforce uni\-form rotation throughout the cooling SMS as it
295: contracts. In this case it has been shown that the angular momentum
296: distribution is conserved on cylinders during contraction
297: \cite{boos73}. Because viscosity and magnetic fields are weak,
298: there is no means of redistributing angular
299: momentum in the star. So even if the star starts out rotating
300: uniformly, it cannot remain so.
301:
302: The star will then rotate {\it differentially} as it cools and contracts.
303: In this case, the subsequent evolution de\-pends on the star's initial
304: angular momentum distribution, which is largely unknown.
305:
306: One possible outcome is that the star will spin up to mass shedding
307: (at a different value of $\beta_{shed}$ than a \\ uniformly rotating
308: star) and then follow an evolutionary path that may be similar to
309: that described by Baumgarte and Shapiro \cite{bash99}.
310:
311: The alternative outcome is that the star will encounter the dynamical
312: bar instability prior to reaching the mass shedding limit. As discussed
313: above, the bar shape induced by this instability will make the star
314: a source of quasiperiodic, long-wavelength gravitational radiation.
315: The outward transport of angular momentum that occurs during the instability
316: could hasten the eventual collapse of the star.
317:
318: New and Shapiro \cite{nesh00} have investigated the evolution of
319: differentially rotating SMSs. Because the angular momentum distribution
320: of these stars is unknown, they examined SMS models with several different
321: initial angular momentum distributions. The goal of their work was
322: to determine if the bar instability or mass shedding limits are reached
323: by these SMS models.
324:
325: New and Shapiro's strategy was to examine equilibrium sequences of
326: SMS models, each of which was constructed with a different rotation
327: law. The individual models on each sequence were constrained to have
328: the same $M$ and $J$, since these quantities are conserved during the
329: cooling evolution of a SMS. However, the models along a sequence
330: have decreasing entropy and thus decreasing axis ratio $R_p/R_e$,
331: where $R_p$ is the polar radius and $R_e$ is the equatorial radius.
332: A sequence is thus representative of the quasistatic, cooling/contracting
333: evolution of a {\it single} SMS. This quasistatic approximation
334: is appropriate because the cooling timescale is much longer than
335: the hydrodynamic timescale for $M \lesssim 10^{13} M_{\odot}$ \cite{bash99}.
336: New and Shapiro examined each of the sequences to determine
337: whether the limits $\beta_{bar}$ or $\beta_{shed}$
338: are reached for a SMS model with the given rotation law.
339:
340: All of the sequences New and Shapiro examined were constructed
341: with Hachisu's self-consistent field (HSCF) technique \cite{hach86}.
342: The HSCF method builds individual models in hydrostatic equilibrium,
343: such that their pressure, gravitational, and centrifugal forces are
344: in balance.
345:
346: The HSCF method requires the choice of a barotropic equation of
347: state $P=P(\rho)$. All of the SMS models examined by New and Shapiro
348: were constructed with a polytropic equation of state for which
349: \begin{equation}
350: P=K\rho^{1+1/n}.
351: \end{equation}
352: As mentioned above, the structure of a SMS is well represented by
353: an $n=3$ polytrope. In this equation of state, the polytropic constant
354: $K$ is a measure of the specific entropy of the model.
355:
356: The selection of appropriate rotation laws was constrained by the
357: fact that each rotation law chosen had to enforce conservation
358: of the contracting star's specific angular momentum profile
359: \cite{boos73}.
360:
361: One rotation law that satisfies this constraint
362: is the so-called $n'$=3 law \cite{boos73}. Its specific angular
363: momentum profile $j(m)$ is
364: \begin{equation}
365: j(m)=a_1+a_2\biggl(1-\frac{m(\varpi)}{M}\biggr)^{\alpha_2}
366: +a_3\biggl(1-\frac{m(\varpi)}{M}\biggr)^{\alpha_3},
367: \end{equation}
368: where $M$ is the total mass of the system, $m$ is the mass interior
369: to cylindrical radius $\varpi$, and the numerically
370: determined constants are $a_1$=13.27, $a_2$=163.3, $a_3$=-176.5,
371: $\alpha_2$=0.2353, and $\alpha_3$=0.2222.
372: This angular momentum profile is identical to that of a uniformly
373: rotating, spherical $n$=3 polytrope. Thus an equilibrium sequence
374: constructed with this rotation law is representative of the evolution
375: of a SMS that rotates uniformly {\it prior} to its cooling phase.
376: New and Shapiro \cite{nesh00} have constructed an equilibrium sequence
377: with this rotation law.
378:
379: Because the initial rotation profiles of SMSs are unknown,
380: New and Shapiro also examined sequences constructed
381: by Hachisu, Tohline, and Eriguchi (\cite{hach88}; hereafter, HTE).
382: These sequences were built with the following parameterized
383: angular momentum profile:
384: \begin{equation}
385: j(m)=(1+q)(J/M)\bigl[1-(1-m(\varpi)/M)^{1/q}\bigr].
386: \end{equation}
387: Here, the index $q$ specifies the rotation law. Note that the
388: limiting case of $q$=0 corresponds to the j-constant
389: rotation law.
390:
391: Nearly spherical models built with these ``q-laws'' are differentially
392: rotating. Thus, HTE's $n$=3, q-law sequences are
393: representative of the evolution of SMSs, with a wide range of
394: {\it initial differential} rotation profiles.
395:
396: \subsubsection{Evolutionary Scenarios}
397: A detailed discussion of the properties of the n'=3 sequence,
398: constructed by New and Shapiro, and the q-law sequences of HTE can
399: be found in \cite{nesh00}. In what follows we summarize these
400: properties as they relate to the evolutionary scenarios of
401: differentially rotating SMSs.
402:
403: Density contour plots of selected models from the $n'$=3 sequence
404: are shown in Figure 1.
405: The $n'$=3 sequence terminates due to mass shedding at
406: $\beta_{shed} \gtrsim 0.30$. $\beta_{shed}$ exceeds the
407: likely upper limit for the bar instability $\beta_{bar}\lesssim 0.27$.
408: Thus we expect that a SMS with this rotation law should never reach
409: the mass shedding limit, but will instead encounter
410: the dynamical bar instability near $R_p/R_e \sim 0.004$. This is the axis ratio
411: of the model with $\beta = 0.27$ (see Figure 1d).
412:
413: No mass shedding limits exist on HTE's q-law sequences. Each
414: of these sequences makes a continuous transition from spheroidal
415: to toroidal configurations
416: at values of $\beta_{trans}>0.33>0.27\gtrsim\beta_{bar}$.
417: Thus, $n$=3 models with these
418: $q$-indexed laws would likely encounter the bar mode as spheroids.
419:
420: We note that the hydrodynamical study of \cite{pick96} indicates that
421: $\beta_{bar}$ may be less than $0.27$ for rotation laws that
422: place a significant amount of angular momentum in equatorial mass
423: elements. Their results predict that the $m$=2 stability limit may
424: be less than $\sim 0.20$ for models with the $n'$=3 rotation law.
425: Their simulations, of $n$=1.5 polytropes, also suggest that a
426: one-armed spiral, $m$=1 mode may become increasingly dominant over
427: the $m$=2 mode as the equatorial concentration of angular momentum increases.
428: Note that the grid resolutions used in \cite{pick96}
429: were likely not sufficient to accurately model the development of
430: instabilities in models with these extreme differential rotation
431: laws \cite{toma98}. However, the results of \cite{pick96} and
432: the linear and nonlinear stability analyses of \cite{toma98}
433: confirm that $0.27$ is likely to be an approximate upper limit
434: to $\beta_{bar}$, for a variety of polytropic indices and rotation
435: laws. The analysis presented in \cite{nesh00}
436: assumes that the $m$=2 bar mode is the dominant mode and that
437: $\beta_{bar}\lesssim 0.27$.
438:
439: Even if the actual value of $\beta_{bar}$ is less than
440: $0.27$, the qualitative nature of the results of New and Shapiro
441: would not change.
442: That is, the sequences they examined would still have models that
443: are unstable to the bar mode. In addition, their quantitative estimates
444: of the characteristics of the gravitational radiation emission \\
445: presented below would only change by a numerical factor of order
446: 1-10, even if $\beta_{bar}$ were as low as $0.22$.
447:
448: \subsubsection{Gravitational Radiation Emission}
449: The results of New and Shapiro \cite{nesh00} indicate
450: that a bar mode phase is likely to be encountered by differentially
451: rotating SMSs with a wide range of initial angular momentum distributions.
452: Hydrodynamical simulations are needed to follow the evolution
453: of the star as the instability develops, to compute the
454: gravitational radiation waveforms emitted, and to determine the
455: fate of a SMS that undergoes the bar instability.
456:
457: Previous hydrodynamical simulations of the bar instability in
458: models with other rotation laws and a different polytropic equation
459: of state indicate that the outcome of this instability is a
460: persistent bar-like structure that emits quasiperiodic gravitational
461: radiation over many cycles \cite{shib00,new00,brow00,saij00}.
462: If a similar outcome
463: re\-sults from the bar instability in a SMS, the quasiperiodic,
464: long-wavelength gravitational radiation emitted could be detected
465: by LISA.
466:
467: The frequency of these quasiperiodic gravitational waves can be
468: estimated from the expected bar rotation rate $\Omega_{bar}$.
469: The model on New and Shapiro's $n'$=$3$ sequence with
470: $\beta$$\sim$$\beta_{bar}$=$0.27$
471: has a central rotation rate $\Omega_{c}$=$1.02\times 10^{-1}
472: {\rm Hz}\, [M_6 \beta_{-5}^{-3} R_{17}^{-3}]^{1/2}$. Here
473: $M_6\equiv M/10^6 M_{\odot}$,
474: $R_{17}\equiv (R_e)_0/10^{17}\,{\rm{cm}}$,
475: and $\beta_{-5}\equiv \beta_0/10^{-5}$.
476: The subscript 0 denotes the value is for
477: the (nearly) spherical progenitor star, prior to the start of its
478: cooling phase. In previous hydrodynamics
479: simulations of the bar mode
480: instability \cite{new00}, $\Omega_{bar}$ was $\sim 0.4 \Omega_{c}$. With
481: this relation between $\Omega_{bar}$ and $\Omega_{c}$, the gravitational
482: wave frequency $f_{GW}$ can be estimated to be
483: \begin{eqnarray}
484: f_{GW} &=& 2 f_{bar} = 2 \frac{\Omega_{bar}}{2\pi} \sim \frac{0.4}{\pi}\Omega_{c} \nonumber \\
485: &\sim& 1\times 10^{-2} {\rm Hz}\, [M_6 \beta_{-5}^{-3} R_{17}^{-3}]^{\frac{1}{2}
486: }.
487: \end{eqnarray}
488: For a SMS of $10^6 M_{\odot}$, which begins as a slowly rotating star of radius
489: $10^{17} {\rm cm}$ with $\beta_0$=$10^{-5}$, this yields a frequency of
490: $1\times 10^{-2} {\rm Hz}$. This frequency
491: is in the range in which LISA is expected to be most sensitive,
492: $10^{-4}$-$1 {\rm Hz}$.
493: The choice $\beta_0$=$2\times 10^{-4}/R_{17}$ is the maximum value of $\beta_0$
494: for which $f_{GW}$ (=$10^{-4} {\rm Hz}$) is still in LISA's
495: range of sensitivity.
496:
497: The strength of the gravitational wave signal can be estimated roughly to be
498: \begin{eqnarray}
499: h &\sim& \frac{G}{c^4} \frac{\ddot{Q}}{d} \sim \frac{G}{c^4}
500: \frac{M R_{bar}^2 f_{bar}^2}{d} \nonumber \\
501: &\sim& 4 \times 10^{-15} \biggl(\frac{d}{1\, {\rm Gpc}}\biggr)^{-1}
502: M_6^2 \beta_{-5}^{-1} R_{17}^{-1},
503: \end{eqnarray}
504: where $\ddot{Q}$ is the second time derivative of the star's
505: quadrupole moment and $d$ is the distance, which we \\ scale to 1 Gpc
506: (the Hubble distance is $\sim$ 3 Gpc). Here we have used $R_{bar}
507: \sim R_e$=$4.14\times 10^{13} \beta_{-5} R_{17}\,{\rm{cm}}$ for the
508: $n'$=$3$ model of \cite{nesh00} that reaches the point $\beta\sim\beta_{bar}$.
509:
510: The bar will decay on a secular
511: timescale due to dissipative effects. For differentially rotating
512: SMSs, the largest source of dissipation will be gravitational radiation.
513: The gravitational radiation damping timescale $\tau_{GW}$
514: is approximately
515: \begin{equation}
516: \tau_{GW} \sim \frac{T}{\bigl(\frac{dE}{dt}\bigr)_{GW}},
517: \end{equation}
518: where $T$ is the rotational kinetic energy and
519: $(dE/dt)_{GW}$ is the rate at which gravitational radiation carries
520: energy away from the system. Recall that $T=\beta |W|$.
521: The gravitational potential energy $|W| \sim GM^2/R_{bar}$. Thus,
522: \begin{equation}
523: T=\beta \frac{G M^2}{R}.
524: \end{equation}
525: The radiation rate can be estimated as \cite{shte83}
526: \begin{equation}
527: \bigl(\frac{dE}{dt}\bigr)_{GW} \sim \frac{G}{c^5} \frac{M}{R^2} v^6.
528: \end{equation}
529: In this case the characteristic velocity of the system is
530: $v=(\beta G M/R)^{1/2}.$ Substitution of equations (11) and (12)
531: into equation (10) yields
532: \begin{eqnarray}
533: \tau_{GW} &\sim& \frac{c^5}{G^3} \frac{R_{bar}^{4}}{\beta^2 M^3} \nonumber \\
534: &\sim& 1 \times 10^4 \, {\rm yrs} \, M_6^{-3} [\beta_{-5} R_{17}]^4.
535: \end{eqnarray}
536:
537: The number of cycles $\cal{N}$ for which the signal will persist is
538: %equations (21)
539: \begin{eqnarray}
540: \cal{N}&\sim&\tau_{GW} f_{GW} \nonumber \\
541: &\sim& 4 \times 10^9 [M_6 \beta_{-5} R_{17}]^{-5/2}.
542: \end{eqnarray}
543: The quasiperiodicity of such a signal will assist in its detection
544: \cite{schu97}.
545:
546: The fraction of the mass $(dM/M)_{GW}$ radiated via gravitational radiation over
547: the interval $\tau_{GW}$ can be estimated as
548: \begin{eqnarray}
549: \biggl(\frac{dM}{M}\biggr)_{GW} &\sim& \tau_{GW}
550: \bigl(\frac{dE}{dt}\bigr)_{GW} \frac{1}{Mc^2} \nonumber \\
551: &\sim& \frac{G}{c^2} \frac{\beta M}{R} \nonumber \\
552: &\sim& 1 \times 10^{-3} M_6 [\beta_{-5} R_{17}]^{-1}.
553: \end{eqnarray}
554:
555: \section{Conclusions and Future Work}
556:
557: There is strong evidence that SMBHs exist. However, the nature
558: of their progenitors is uncertain. Proposed formation mechanisms
559: involve the evolution of stellar clusters or SMSs.
560:
561: Recent studies indicate that differentially
562: rotating SMSs, and possibly uniformly rotating SMSs as well,
563: are likely to encounter the dynamical bar instability
564: and thus emit quasiperiodic, long-wavelength gravitational radiation.
565: SMSs will also emit burst gravitational wave signals as they undergo
566: relativistic collapse.
567:
568: Linear and nonlinear stability analyses are needed to
569: determine precisely the onset of the $m$=2 dynamical bar instability
570: for the SMS models considered here. Such analyses are
571: also needed to determine the relative importance of various unstable
572: nonaxisymmetric modes in SMS models (as a dominant $m$=1 mode would
573: change the characteristics of the gravitational radiation emission).
574:
575: In addition, three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations
576: are necessary to study the evolution of SMSs as they undergo
577: the bar instability and/or relativistic collapse,
578: to compute the gravitational waveforms
579: emitted, and to determine the final fate of the star.
580:
581: Future investigations involving hydrodynamical simulations of
582: SMS models would benefit from improved knowledge of initial conditions,
583: such as an appropriate value for $\beta_0$. These appropriate
584: initial conditions could be determined from studies of large-scale
585: structure and cosmology.
586:
587: Most importantly, studies are required to assess the roles of viscosity
588: and magnetic fields in rotating SMSs to judge whether they are sufficient
589: to drive these configurations to uniform rotation prior to bar instability.
590:
591:
592: \acknowledgments
593: This work has been supported in part by NSF Grants AST 96-18524
594: and PHY 99-02833 and NASA Grants NAG5-7152 and NAG5-8418 to the
595: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
596: A portion of this work performed under auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy
597: by Los Alamos National Laboratory under contract W-7405-ENG-36.
598:
599:
600: %\appendix
601:
602: %\section{}
603:
604: % now the references. delete or change fake bibitem. delete next three
605: % lines and directly read in your .bbl file if you use bibtex.
606: \begin{references}
607: %\bibitem[*]{byline} Currently at Los Alamos National Laboratory,
608: %Los Alamos, NM 87545
609: %\bibitem{detect}See, e.g., articles in {\it Gravitational Wave
610: %Detection}, eds. K. Tsubono, M.-K. Fugimoto, and K. Kuroda
611: %(Universal Academic Press, Tokyo, 1996) for recent articles
612: %describing these interferometers.
613:
614: \bibitem{rees98}
615: M. J. Rees, in Proceedings of the ESO conference,
616: {\it Black Holes in Binaries and Galactic Nuclei},
617: eds.\ L.\ Kaper, et al. (1998)
618:
619: \bibitem{macc99}
620: F. D. Macchetto, in {\it Towards a New Millenium in
621: Galaxy Morphology}, eds.\ D.\ L.\ Block, et al.
622: (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999)
623:
624: \bibitem{feme00}
625: L. Ferrarese and D. Merritt, Astrophys. J. Lett.,
626: submitted (2000, astro-ph/0006053)
627:
628: \bibitem{korm00}
629: J. Kormendy, in {\it Galaxy Disks and Disk Galaxies},
630: ASP Conference Series, eds.\ J. G. Funes, S. J. Corsini, and E. M. Corsini,
631: submitted (ASP, 2000, astro-ph/0007401)
632:
633: \bibitem{miyo95}
634: M. Miyoshi, et al., Nature, {\bf 373}, 127 (1995)
635:
636: \bibitem{macc97}
637: F. D. Macchetto, et al., Astrophys. J., {\bf 489},
638: 579 (1997)
639:
640: \bibitem{wing99}
641: C. Winge, et al., Astrophys. J., {\bf 519}, 134 (1999)
642:
643: \bibitem{genz00}
644: R. Genzel, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., submitted
645: (2000, astro-ph/0001428)
646:
647: \bibitem{gebh00}
648: K. Gebhardt, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett., in press (2000,
649: astro-ph/0006289)
650:
651: \bibitem{haka00}
652: M. G. Haehnelt and G. Kauffmann, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., submitted
653: (2000, astro-ph/0007369)
654:
655: \bibitem{wang00}
656: Y. P. Wang, P. L. Biermann, and A. Wandel, Astronomy and Astrophysics,
657: in press (2000, astro-ph/0008105)
658:
659: \bibitem{mefe00}
660: D. Merritt and L. Ferrarese, Astrophys. J., in press
661: (2000, astro-ph/0008310)
662:
663: \bibitem{folk98}
664: W. M. Folkner, ed., AIP Conference Proceedings 456, {\it
665: LISA Second International LISA Symposium on the Detection
666: and Observation of Gravitational Waves in Space}
667: (AIP Press, Woodbury, 1998)
668:
669: \bibitem{thbr76}
670: K. S. Thorne and V. B. Braginsky, Astrophys. J. Lett.,
671: {\bf 204}, 1 (1976)
672:
673: \bibitem{thor95}
674: K. S. Thorne, in {\it Seventeenth
675: Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology},
676: eds.\ H.\ B\"{o}hringer, G. E. Morfill, and J. E. Tr\"{u}mper,
677: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 759 (1995)
678:
679: \bibitem{hibe95}
680: D. Hils and P. L. Bender, Astrophys. J. Lett., {\bf 445},
681: 7 (1995)
682:
683: \bibitem{sire97}
684: S. Sigurdsson and M. J. Rees, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc,
685: {\bf 284}, 318 (1997)
686:
687: \bibitem{schu97}
688: B. F. Schutz, in {\it Proceedings of the 1997 Alpbach Summer
689: School on Fundamental Physics in Space}, ed.\ A.\ Wilson
690: (ESA 1997)
691:
692: \bibitem{qush90}
693: G. D. Quinlan and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J., {\bf 356}, 483 (1990)
694:
695: \bibitem{lee95}
696: H. M. Lee, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., {\bf 272}, 605 (1995)
697:
698: \bibitem{shte85a}
699: S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. Lett., {\bf 292},
700: 91 (1985a)
701:
702: \bibitem{shte85b}
703: S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J., {\bf 298},
704: 34 (1985b)
705:
706: \bibitem{zepo65}
707: Ya. B. Zel'dovich and M. A. Podurets, AZh, {\bf 42}, 963 (1965)
708: [English transl., Soviet Astr.-A. J., {\bf 9}, 742 (1965)]
709:
710: \bibitem{qush87}
711: G. D. Quinlan and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J., {\bf 321}, 199 (1987)
712:
713: \bibitem{hare93}
714: M. G. Haehnelt and M. J. Rees, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc,
715: {\bf 263}, 168 (1993)
716:
717: \bibitem{eilo95}
718: D. J. Eisenstein and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J., {\bf 443}, 11 (1995)
719:
720: \bibitem{haeh98}
721: M. G. Haehnelt, P. Natarajan, and M. J. Rees, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc,
722: {\bf 300}, 817 (1998)
723:
724: \bibitem{lora94}
725: A. Loeb and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J., {\bf 432}, 52 (1994)
726:
727: \bibitem{brom99}
728: V. Bromm, P. Coppi, and B. Larson, Astrophys. J. Lett., in press
729: (2000, astro-ph/9910224)
730:
731: \bibitem{abel00}
732: T. Abel, G. Bryan, and M. L. Norman, Astrophys. J., in press
733: (2000, astro-ph/0002135)
734:
735: \bibitem{sand70}
736: R. H. Sanders, Astrophys. J., {\bf 162}, 791 (1970)
737:
738: \bibitem{bere78}
739: M. C. Begelman and M. J. Rees, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., {\bf 185},
740: 847 (1978)
741:
742: \bibitem{iben63}
743: I. Iben, Astrophys. J., {\bf 138}, 1090 (1963)
744:
745: \bibitem{chan64a}
746: S. Chandrasekhar, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 12}, 114, 437E (1964a)
747:
748: \bibitem{chan64b}
749: S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J., {\bf 140}, 417 (1964b)
750:
751: \bibitem{shte83}
752: S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, {\it Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron
753: Stars}, (Wiley, New York, 1983)
754:
755: \bibitem{zeno71}
756: Ya. B. Zel'dovich and I. D. Novikov, {\it Relativistic Astrophysics},
757: Vol. 1 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1971)
758:
759: \bibitem{bash99}
760: T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J., {\bf 526}, 941 (1999)
761:
762: \bibitem{shte79}
763: S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. Lett., {\bf 234},
764: 177 (1979)
765:
766: \bibitem{shib00}
767: M. Shibata, T. W. Baumgarte, and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J., in press
768: (2000, astro-ph/0005378)
769:
770: \bibitem{tohl85}
771: J. E. Tohline, R. H. Durisen, and M. McCullough, Astrophys. J., {\bf 298},
772: 220 {1985}
773:
774: \bibitem{new00}
775: K. C. B. New, J. M. Centrella, and J. E. Tohline, Phys. Rev. D, in press
776: (2000, astro-ph/9911525)
777:
778: \bibitem{brow00}
779: J. D. Brown, Phys. Rev. D, in press (2000, gr-qc/0004002)
780:
781: \bibitem{pick96}
782: B. K. Pickett, R. H. Durisen, and G. A. Davis, Astrophys. J., {\bf 458},
783: 714 (1996)
784:
785: \bibitem{toma98}
786: J. Toman, et al., Astrophys. J., {\bf 497}, 370 (1998)
787:
788: \bibitem{boos73}
789: P. Bodenheimer and J. P. Ostriker, Astrophys. J., {\bf 180}, 159 (1973)
790:
791: \bibitem{nesh00}
792: K. C. B. New and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J., submitted (2000)
793:
794: \bibitem{hach86}
795: I. Hachisu, Astrophys. J. Supp., {\bf 61}, 479 (1986)
796:
797: \bibitem{hach88}
798: I. Hachisu, J. E. Tohline, and Y. Eriguchi, Astrophys. J. Supp., {\bf 66},
799: 315 (1988, HTE)
800:
801: \bibitem{saij00}
802: M. Saijo, M. Shibata, T. W. Baumgarte, and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J.,
803: submitted (2000)
804:
805: \end{references}
806:
807: % figures follow here
808: %
809: % Here is an example of the general form of a figure:
810: % Fill in the caption in the braces of the \caption{} command. Put the label
811: % that you will use with \ref{} command in the braces of the \label{} command.
812: %
813: % \begin{figure}
814: % \caption{}
815: % \label{}
816: % \end{figure}
817: %\begin{figure}
818: %
819: %\plot{segfig}{}{My first figure is an encapsulated PostScript (EPSF)
820: %figure that is included}
821: %
822: % this is roughly the equivalent of the above:
823: %\begin{figure}
824: %\epsfbox{segfig.ps}
825: %\caption{My first figure is an encapsulated PostScript figure
826: %that is included.}
827: %\label{fig:segfig}
828: %\end{figure}
829:
830: %\clearpage
831:
832: \begin{figure}
833: %\epsfbox{fig1.eps}
834: \caption{Snapshots of a cooling SMS.
835: Density contours of \\ selected models on the
836: $n'$=3 equilibrium sequence are shown in the
837: $(x>0,z>0)$ plane. The maximum density is normalized
838: to unity. The highest density contour level is 0.9; subsequent
839: contour levels range from $10^{-1}$ to $10^{-10}$ and are
840: separated by a decade. The axis ratios $R_p/R_e$ of the models displayed
841: are (a) 1.00; (b) 0.700; (c) 0.300; (d) 0.004; (e) 0.002.
842: The model with $R_p/R_e$=0.004 shown in (d) has $\beta$=$\beta_{bar}
843: \sim 0.27$.}
844: \label{den}
845: \end{figure}
846: %\clearpage
847:
848: \begin{table}
849: \begin{center}
850: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
851: Galaxy & Mass ($M_{\odot}$) & Radius (pc) & Reference \\
852: \tableline
853: NGC 4258 & $\sim 3.6 \times 10^7$ & $<13$ & \cite{miyo95} \\
854: M87 & $\sim 3.2 \times 10^9$ & $<3.5$ & \cite{macc97} \\
855: NGC 4151 & $\sim 10^9$ & $<60$ & \cite{wing99} \\
856: Milky Way & $2.6-3.3\times 10^6$ & $<8$ & \cite{genz00}\\
857: \end{tabular}
858: \end{center}
859: \caption{The host galaxies, masses, and radii of selected confirmed SMBHs.}
860: \label{table 1}
861: \end{table}
862:
863:
864: \end{document}
865:
866: