1: %Submitted to ApJL**
2: %
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
5: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
6: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
7: %
8: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\simg}{\gtrsim}
13: \newcommand{\siml}{\lesssim}
14: \newcommand{\meszaros}{M${\acute {\rm e}}$sz${\acute {\rm a}}$ros}
15: %
16: %\slugcomment{submitted to ApJL}
17: %
18: \shorttitle{Spatial Correlation of MBH Mergers}
19: \shortauthors{Ioka \& \meszaros}
20: %
21: \begin{document}
22: %
23: \title{
24: Spatial Correlation of Massive Black Hole Mergers:
25: Probing the Formation Mechanism and Reionization
26: }
27: \author{
28: Kunihito Ioka\footnote{
29: Physics Department and Center for Gravitational Wave Physics,
30: 104 Davey Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
31: PA 16802}
32: and Peter \meszaros$^{1,}$\footnote{
33: Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 525 Davey Laboratory,
34: Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802}
35: }
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We consider the spatial clustering of massive black hole (MBH) mergers, and
39: discuss possible ways to use gravitational wave observations in the LISA
40: and DECIGO/BBO range for obtaining cosmological and cosmogonical information.
41: Constraints on large scale structure (LSS) and merger histories may be
42: possible through the detection of an alignment of the GW polarization
43: direction with principal axes of the LSS. Constraints on the merger physics
44: and the reionization epoch may be obtained by GW measurements of MBH
45: correlation lengths, in the case when the MBH angular momentum loss occurs
46: through gas drag. Such measurements would provide information about the
47: LSS and the reionization epoch, as well as about the astrophysics of MBH
48: mergers, additional to and independent of that obtained from
49: electromagnetic signals.
50: \end{abstract}
51:
52: \keywords{black hole physics --- cosmology: theory --- galaxies: evolution
53: --- galaxies: nuclei --- gravitation --- quasars: general}
54:
55: \section{Introduction and summary}
56:
57: Gravitational waves (GWs) will provide new eyes for studying the universe in
58: the 21st century. Ground-based laser interferometers such as TAMA300 and LIGO
59: have already begun operations in the $10$ Hz -- kHz band, while the Laser
60: Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA)\footnote{http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html},
61: covering the $10^{-4}$ -- $10^{-2}$ Hz band, will be launched in $2011$. Other
62: recently proposed facilities are the Decihertz Interferometer Gravitational Wave
63: Observatory (DECIGO) \citep{seto01} and the Big Bang Observer (BBO)
64: \footnote{http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/}, operating around decihertz
65: frequencies ($10^{-2}$ -- $10$ Hz). These detectors may determine the spatial
66: distribution of GW sources, which should contain important cosmological as
67: well as astrophysical information \citep[e.g.,][]{ioka00,seto05}.
68:
69: In this paper we propose novel ways to use a 3D map of GW sources, in particular
70: of Massive Black Hole (MBH) mergers. MBH mergers are one of the most powerful
71: GW sources in the universe. LISA may detect MBH mergers involving masses
72: $10^{3} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}$ out to high redshifts, while DECIGO/BBO may
73: localize $1 \sim 10^{3} M_{\odot}$ MBH mergers with an arcmin resolution
74: \citep{takahashi03}. They can also measure distances to MBH binaries through
75: the change of the GW frequency during the observation.
76:
77: The MBH merger history has large uncertainties derived from the seed MBH formation
78: and the angular momentum evolution of MBH binaries. The presence of high redshift
79: quasars may imply that seed MBHs were formed much before the cosmological
80: reionization epoch as Population III (Pop.III) remnants
81: \citep{madau01,volonteri03}. In such a scenario the event rate could reach
82: $\sim 10^{4}$ events per yr \citep[\S~\ref{sec:event};][]{islam04}, which
83: makes them potentially interesting for doing cosmology. Although we will find
84: it impossible to measure the spatial correlation of host galaxies of MBH
85: mergers through GWs alone (\S~\ref{sec:event}), we may still use the 3D maps
86: of MBH mergers to study the MBH evolution.
87:
88: One possible way to extract information from a 3D map of GW sources is the
89: cross-correlation of GWs with electromagnetic (EM) sources (\S~\ref{sec:align}).
90: We will suggest that the orbital axis of the MBH binary can be aligned with a
91: principal axis of the large scale structure (LSS) in which the binary resides,
92: and that this may be detectable with LISA and DECIGO/BBO. Such a detection would
93: provide useful clues to the angular momentum gains of MBH binaries.
94:
95: GW sources could have a larger correlation length than that of host galaxies,
96: and in this case we may detect a spatial correlation of GW sources
97: (\S~\ref{sec:gas}). We will suggest that the MBH merger rate may drop inside
98: an ionized bubble, since ionizing photons heat the gas which could be responsible
99: for the angular momentum loss of MBH binaries. Since ionized bubbles may be
100: larger than the LSS scales at the end of reionization, we could detect the spatial
101: correlation of MBH mergers and thus probe the effectiveness of MBH binary angular
102: momentum loss via gas. The merger rate may also drop after reionization, thus
103: providing an independent marker for this important epoch.
104:
105: \section{Event rate and correlation length}\label{sec:event}
106:
107: We first estimate the event rate of MBH mergers, adopting throughout a
108: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $(\Omega_{m}, \Omega_{\Lambda}, \Omega_{b}, h,
109: \sigma_{8}) =(0.27, 0.73, 0.044, 0.71, 0.84)$ \citep{spergel03}. Since
110: little is known about the MBH merger history, we concentrate on a model
111: in which MBH mergers are associated with the mergers of host halos of dark
112: matter \citep{begelman80,volonteri03}. By using the extended \citet{ps74}
113: (PS) formalism, we can estimate the halo merger rate as in equation
114: (\ref{eq:rate}) \citep{lacey94,haehnelt94}.
115:
116: The comoving number density of halos in the mass range $M \sim M+dM$ at
117: redshift $z$ is given by the PS mass function as
118: \beqa
119: \frac{dn_{\rm PS}}{dM}(M,z)dM
120: =\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \frac{\rho_{m}}{M}
121: \frac{\delta_{c}(z)}{\sigma^{2}}
122: \left|\frac{d\sigma}{dM}\right|
123: \exp \left[-\frac{\delta_{c}^{2}(z)}{2\sigma^{2}}\right] dM,
124: \eeqa
125: where $\rho_{m}=3 H_{0}^{2} \Omega_{m}/8\pi G \simeq 2.78 \times 10^{11}
126: \Omega_{m} h^{2} M_{\odot}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ is the mean comoving matter density,
127: $\sigma \equiv \sigma(M)$ is the rms mass fluctuation on a mass scale $M$
128: at the present epoch, $\delta_{c}(z) \equiv \delta_{c} D(z=0)/D(z)$ is the
129: critical linear overdensity evaluated at present for a spherical
130: perturbation to collapse at $z$, and $D(z)$ is the linear growth rate.
131: These halos of mass $M$ are incorporated into a larger halo of mass
132: $M_{2}\sim M_{2}+dM_{2}$ at redshift $z$ at a rate given by
133: \beqa
134: \frac{d^{2} f}{dM_{2} dz}(M \to M_{2};z)dM_{2}
135: &=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}
136: \left[\frac{\sigma^{2}}{\sigma_{2}^{2}(\sigma^{2}-\sigma_{2}^{2})}\right]^{3/2}
137: \frac{d\delta_{c}(z)}{dz}
138: \left|\frac{d\sigma_{2}^{2}}{dM_{2}}\right|
139: \nonumber\\
140: &\times& \exp \left[-\frac{(\sigma^{2}-\sigma_{2}^{2})\delta_{c}^{2}(z)}
141: {2\sigma^{2}\sigma_{2}^{2}}\right] dM_{2},
142: \eeqa
143: where $\sigma_{2} \equiv \sigma(M_{2})$ \citep{lacey94}. Therefore the
144: merger rate of halos of mass larger than $M_{\min}$ with halos of the same
145: mass or larger per comoving volume is given by
146: \beqa
147: \frac{dn_{\rm merg}}{dt}(z)=
148: \int_{M_{\min}}^{\infty} dM
149: \frac{dn_{\rm PS}}{dM}(M,z)
150: \int_{2M}^{\infty} dM_{2}
151: \frac{d^{2} f}{dM_{2} dz}(M \to M_{2};z)
152: \left|\frac{dz}{dt}\right|.
153: \label{eq:dnmdt}
154: \eeqa
155: This yields the total number of merger events per observed time
156: $t_{\rm obs}$ per redshift $z$ as
157: \beqa
158: \frac{dN_{\rm merg}}{dz dt_{\rm obs}}(z)
159: =\frac{1}{1+z}
160: \frac{dn_{\rm merg}}{dt}
161: \frac{dV_{c}}{dz},
162: \label{eq:rate}
163: \eeqa
164: where $dV_{c}/dz=4 \pi c d_{L}^{2} |dt/dz|/(1+z)$ is the comoving volume
165: per redshift, $d_{L}=c (1+z) \int_{0}^{z} (1+z) |dt/dz| dz$ is the
166: luminosity distance, and
167: $|dt/dz|^{-1}=(1+z)H_{0}\sqrt{\Omega_{m}(1+z)^{3}+\Omega_{\Lambda}}$.
168: We follow \citet{ks96} to estimate $\delta_{c}$ and $\sigma(M)$.
169:
170: We note that the merger rate in equation (\ref{eq:dnmdt}) is dominated
171: by equal mass halos ($M_{2}\sim 2M$). Thus the rate is not reduced much
172: even if dynamical friction is inefficient in initially bringing halos
173: of small mass ratios together \citep{lacey94,yu02}. The dynamical friction
174: also becomes ineffective as the MBH binary hardens. It is unclear how the
175: MBH binary loses its angular momentum afterward. The two main
176: possibilities are through interactions with stars or with gas. Stars may
177: not be effective since the MBH binary will quickly eject all stars on
178: intersecting orbits \citep{milos03,merritt04}, while gas may reduce the
179: binary separation efficiently \citep{gould00,armitage02,escala04}. Here we assume that
180: two MBHs coalesce soon after the host halos merge. In \S~\ref{sec:gas}
181: we will propose observational methods to test whether gas is responsible
182: for the angular momentum losses.
183:
184: The event rate in equation (\ref{eq:dnmdt}) is dominated by halos with
185: the minimum mass $M \sim M_{\min}$. It is not well known what fraction
186: of galaxies (and down to what mass) harbor MBHs, although almost all
187: nearby massive galaxies have central MBHs \citep{magorrian98}. Here we
188: assume that all halos of mass above $M_{\min}(z)$ have a central MBH and
189: consider three possibilities for $M_{\min}(z)$: (a) The minimum halos
190: have a virial temperature $T_{\rm vir} \sim 10^{4}$ K, above which baryons
191: can cool via atomic hydrogen lines \citep{barkana01,menou01}. We
192: calculate $T_{\rm vir}$ according to \citet{ks96}. (b) The minimum halos
193: have $T_{\rm vir} \sim 10^{3}$ K, above which molecular hydrogen
194: (H$_{2}$) cooling is possible \citep{barkana01,bromm04}. (c) The minimum
195: halos contain more than one Pop.III MBH on average. We assume that one
196: MBH forms in each $3 \sigma$ halo at $z=20$, and the mean number of MBHs
197: in a given halo is calculated by equation (3) of \citet{madau01}.
198:
199: Figure~\ref{fig:rate} shows the number of merger events per yr per unit $z$
200: as a function of $z$. We can see that in total $\sim 10^{3}$ events/yr are
201: expected in case (a), and $\sim 10^{4}$ events/yr in the case (c). In the
202: case (b) we plot only the region of $z \simg 15$ with a solid line because
203: H$_{2}$ is fragile and can be destroyed by photons in the Lyman-Werner
204: (11.2-13.6 eV) bands well before the cosmological reionization
205: \citep{haiman00,omukai99}. The H$_{2}$ history is very uncertain because
206: free electrons can promote H$_{2}$ formation \citep{bromm04}, so that
207: $\simg 10^{3}$ events/yr at $z \simg 15$ is not implausible.
208: The mass density of MBHs in the case (b) exceeds that found in the
209: nuclei of nearby galaxies \citep{madau01,yu02b}. Thus in the case (b) the
210: merging efficiency should drop at low redshift and many MBHs are to be
211: wandering without being observed.
212: The event rate in the case (c) is larger
213: than that in the case (a). This suggests that the MBH merger might happen
214: in nonluminous dwarf galaxies, which have not been explored yet.
215:
216: The MBH mass, especially in small halos, is quite uncertain. If we
217: extrapolate the relation of MBH and halo mass \citep{ferrarese02}, we
218: have $M_{\rm MBH} \sim 10^{7} M_{\odot}
219: ({T_{\rm vir}}/{10^{6}{\rm \ K}})^{\alpha}$ where $\alpha$ ranges from
220: $\sim 5/2$ \citep{merritt01} to $\sim 2$ \citep{gebhardt00}. For
221: $\alpha \sim 2$ the MBH mass in halos of $T_{\rm vir}\sim 10^{4}$K is
222: $\sim 10^{3} M_{\odot}$, so that almost all events of case (a) may be
223: detectable by LISA \citep[e.g.,][]{hughes02}. For $\alpha \sim 5/2$,
224: we have $M_{\rm MBH} \sim 10^{2} M_{\odot}$. This is below the sensitivity
225: of LISA but above that of DECIGO/BBO \citep{takahashi03}. In the case (c),
226: the Pop.III MBH mass is also unclear. Depending on the gas accretion onto
227: a protostellar core, the final mass of a Pop.III star and its end product
228: may reach $\sim 10^{3} M_{\odot}$ \citep{omukai03}. In this case LISA may
229: detect almost all Pop.III MBH mergers.
230:
231: The first question to be addressed is whether the correlation length of
232: the MBH mergers is measurable or not. Since the merger rate is dominated
233: by the minimum halos of mass $M_{\min}$, the correlation length $r_{0}$
234: of the MBH mergers is roughly that of the minimum halos. We can then
235: estimate the correlation length $r_{0}$ by\footnote{
236: The length $r_{0}$ is not exactly the same as the correlation length $r_{1}$
237: at which the correlation function is unity $\xi(r_{1})=1$.
238: However the difference is negligible for our discussions.}
239: \beqa
240: b(M_{\min},z) \sigma(r_{0}) D(z)/D(z=0)=1,
241: \eeqa
242: where $b(M,z)=1+{\delta_{c}}^{-1}\left[{\delta_{c}^{2}(z)}{\sigma^{-2}}-1 \right]$
243: is the bias parameter for halos of mass $M$ at redshift $z$ \citep{mo96}.
244: Figure~\ref{fig:rate} shows the correlation length $r_{0}$ as a function of $z$.
245: Whether the correlation length $r_{0}$ is measurable or not is determined
246: by the number $N_{\rm pair}$ of merger pairs whose distances are less than $r_{0}$.
247: We need at least $N_{\rm pair} \simg 10$ for a 3$\sigma$ detection since
248: the Poisson error of the correlation function is given by
249: $\Delta \xi/\xi \sim N_{\rm pair}^{-1/2}$ \citep[][\S~48]{peebles80}.
250: Unfortunately we can show that $N_{\rm pair}$ at each redshift bin
251: $\delta z\sim 1$ is less than unity even if we observe for 10 yrs
252: (even for the case (b)). Therefore we conclude that it is impossible to
253: measure the correlation length $r_{0}$ of the host halos, using the MBH
254: merger GWs, regardless of the detector sensitivity.
255:
256: However, there are other types of spatial information and other means to
257: extract them involving MBH merger GWs. One of these is the exploitation of
258: cross-correlations between GWs with EM sources (\S~\ref{sec:align}).
259: Another is in the case when the spatial distribution of MBH mergers has
260: a larger characteristic scale than the correlation length $r_{0}$ of the
261: associated halos (\S~\ref{sec:gas}, see also \cite{khlopov05}).
262: We discuss these two cases below.
263:
264: \section{Orbital alignment with large scale structures}\label{sec:align}
265:
266: Among various ways to cross-correlate GWs with EM sources, the one
267: involving the GW polarization and the EM LSS may be interesting. In the
268: hierarchical structure formation scenario, sheet- or filament-like LSSs are
269: initially formed. Such LSSs have a preferred direction, which could imprint a
270: preferred orientation of the MBH binary relative to the LSS (see
271: Figure~\ref{fig:align}). The orientation
272: of the MBH binary may be determined through the GW polarization \citep{cutler98},
273: while the associated LSS can be mapped with wide-field cameras such as Suprime-Cam
274: on the Subaru Telescope \citep{kodama01,ouchi05}. This offers the prospect of
275: correlating the MBH binary axis with the direction of the LSS.
276:
277: The number of events needed to detect a correlation may be small. Let
278: $\theta_{i}$ $(0^{\circ} \le \theta_{i} < 90^{\circ}, i=1, \cdots, N)$ be
279: an angle between the binary axis and the associated filament direction.
280: (We focus on filaments to be concrete.) The anisotropy may then be
281: quantified by \citep{struble85}
282: \beqa
283: \delta=\sum_{i}\frac{\theta_{i}}{N}-45.
284: \eeqa
285: For an isotropic distribution, $\delta \sim 0$ and the standard deviation
286: would be $\sigma_{\theta}=90/(12 N)^{1/2}$ deg. Thus only $N \sim 10$ events
287: may be enough for a 5$\sigma$ detection if the correlation is strong
288: ($\theta_{i} \sim 0^{\circ}$ or $90^{\circ}$).
289: However a $100\%$ alignment would be unlikely.
290: If the alignment is $\sim 20\%$ (which corresponds $\delta \sim 10$) as suggested
291: for the alignment between galaxies and the LSS
292: \citep{pimbblet05,west95,lee02},
293: we need $N \sim 200$ events for a 5$\sigma$ detection.
294: Note that the alignment between the radio jets and
295: the galaxy disk has not been measured, but this is still consistent with
296: the $\sim 20\%$ alignment because of the Poisson error \citep{kinney00}.
297:
298: We may apply the discussions on the alignment of galaxy spin axes with
299: LSSs \citep[e.g.,][]{lee02,navarro04,west94}. In hierarchical models of
300: galaxy formation, the galactic angular momentum is produced by tidal
301: torques from the surrounding matter in the early protogalactic stage
302: \citep{peebles69,doro70,white84}. The tidal torque theory predicts that
303: galaxy spins tend to align with the intermediate principal axis of the LSS,
304: suggesting that the MBH binary may also favor an orbital axis normal to
305: the LSS filaments $\theta_{i} \sim 90^{\circ}$. Alternatively, the binary
306: may have $\theta_{i} \sim 0^{\circ}$ if galaxies merge in the direction of
307: the collapse from a sheet to a filament. Therefore the detection of such
308: correlations would be useful for probing the MBH merger history.
309:
310: A typical comoving scale of LSS at $z \sim 1$ is $\sim 20$ Mpc, which is
311: about $\sim 1^{\circ}$ on the sky and $\Delta z \sim 0.01$ at $z\sim 1$.
312: Although LISA may not attain such precision in the localization of MBH
313: mergers of mass $\sim 10^{3} M_{\odot}$ \citep{hughes02,cutler98,seto04},
314: we may be able to identify associated LSSs if we can find EM counterparts
315: to the MBH merger \citep{tipler75,milos04}. On the other hand DECIGO/BBO
316: should be able to identify associated LSSs because of its arcmin
317: resolution \citep{takahashi03}.
318: We may determine the orientation of the LSSs at the position of the MBH
319: merger with wide-field telescopes one by one, or we may have already
320: known the LSSs from future high-redshift surveys or 21 cm surveys.
321:
322:
323: \section{Effect of photoionization on MBH-drag}\label{sec:gas}
324:
325: One of the major problems in the MBH evolution is uncertainty about
326: how the MBH binary loses its angular momentum. The two main candidates
327: for extracting the angular momentum are stars and gas. With stars there
328: is the so called final parsec problem, in which the binary quickly ejects
329: all stars on intersecting orbits and cuts off the supply of stars
330: \citep{milos03,merritt04}, although this regions may be refilled via
331: star-star encounters \citep{milos03} or chaotic orbits \citep{mpoon04}.
332: On the other hand, gas may be efficient in reducing the binary
333: separation \citep{gould00,armitage02,escala04}.
334: Here we assume that gas is responsible for the angular momentum losses,
335: and show that this assumption may be verified or disproved by
336: the spatial distribution of MBH mergers.
337:
338: We point out that a photoionizing background would heat the gas that
339: is assumed to be responsible for the angular momentum losses and
340: would inhibit the drag exerted on MBHs by gas, especially in small halos.
341: A photoionizing background photoevaporates gas in mini halos
342: with virial temperatures $T_{\rm vir} \siml 10^{4}$ K
343: and substantially reduces the cool gas in halos with
344: $10^{4} {\rm \ K} \siml T_{\rm vir} \siml 10^{5}$ K
345: \citep{ikeuchi86,efstathiou92,thoul96}.
346: Since the amount of MBH-dragging gas is reduced,
347: the MBH merger rate should drop in an ionized bubble,
348: possibly to almost zero because the event rate is dominated by small halos.
349: This would result in a spatial correlation of MBH mergers, and its detection
350: would indicate that MBH binaries lose their angular momentum via gas.
351:
352: The evolution of ionized bubbles during cosmological reionization
353: is still unclear, despite intensive studies \citep{barkana01}.
354: The analysis of Ly$\alpha$ spectra in the highest redshift quasars
355: indicates that the reionization ends at $z\sim 6$ \citep{fan02},
356: while the WMAP polarization data imply an onset of reionization at
357: a much higher redshift $z \sim 17 \pm 5$ \citep{kogut03}. Also under
358: discussion is whether the reionization proceeds from high- to low-density
359: regions \citep{furlanetto04} or from low- to high-density regions \citep{miralda00}.
360:
361: Recent observations and simulations suggest that the ionized bubble size
362: at the end of their overlap is essentially determined by the finite bubble
363: size and the cosmic variance \citep{wyithe04,furlanetto04}.
364: A comoving size $R$ of a finite bubble occupies a redshift interval of
365: \beqa
366: \Delta z=\frac{R}{c(1+z)}\left|\frac{dz}{dt}\right|,
367: \label{eq:finite}
368: \eeqa
369: which produces a scatter $\sim \Delta z$ of reionization redshift.
370: On the other hand, reionization in a certain region would be completed
371: when the fraction of collapsed mass exceeds a critical value in this region.
372: Because of the cosmic variance, a different region reaches the critical point at
373: different redshift with a scatter
374: \beqa
375: \frac{\Delta z}{1+z}
376: =\frac{\bar \delta_{R}}{\delta_{c}(z)}-1+
377: \sqrt{1-\frac{\sigma^{2}_{R}}{\sigma^{2}_{R_{0}}}},
378: \label{eq:variance}
379: \eeqa
380: where $\sigma_{R} \equiv \sigma[M(R)]$ is
381: the rms mass fluctuation over the comoving radius $R$ at the present epoch,
382: the mass $M(R_{0})$ within $R_{0}$ is the minimum galaxy mass
383: and $\bar \delta_{R}$ is the mean overdensity on the radius $R$.
384: Here we set $\bar \delta_{R}=\sigma_{R}$, and
385: choose $M(R_{0})$ to have $T_{\rm vir}=10^{4}$ K.
386:
387: Comparing equation (\ref{eq:finite}) with equation (\ref{eq:variance}),
388: we find that the scatter in the reionization redshift is
389: $\Delta z \sim 0.14$, and the ionized bubble has a comoving size
390: $R \sim 60$ Mpc ($\theta_{b} \sim 0.4^{\circ}$ on the sky)
391: at the end of reionization at $z\sim 6$.
392: This scale is much larger than the correlation length of host halos $r_{0}$,
393: and may be detectable through GWs.
394: Let us consider here a redshift shell $z \sim z+\Delta z$
395: at the end of reionization (see Figure~\ref{fig:reion}).
396: Since few mergers take place inside an ionized bubble
397: and the bubble separation is about their size $R\sim 60$ Mpc
398: ($\theta_{b} \sim 0.4^{\circ}$ on the sky),
399: the MBH mergers should have a correlation $\xi \sim 1$ on this scale.
400: The number of merger pairs whose distances are less than $R$
401: (less than $\theta_{b}$ on the sky)
402: is approximately
403: \beqa
404: N_{\rm pair} \sim
405: \left[\frac{dN_{\rm merg}}{dz dt_{\rm obs}} T_{\rm obs}
406: \Delta z \right]^{2}
407: \frac{\theta_{b}^{2}}{4}
408: \sim 20
409: \left(\frac{dN_{\rm merg}/dz dt_{\rm obs}}{10^{3}/{\rm yr}/z}\right)^{2}
410: \left(\frac{T_{\rm obs}}{10{\rm yr}}\right)^{2}
411: \left(\frac{\Delta z}{0.14}\right)^{2}
412: \left(\frac{\theta_{b}}{0.4^{\circ}}\right)^{2}
413: \eeqa
414: for an observation time $T_{\rm obs}$.
415: Since the Poisson error of the correlation function is
416: $\Delta \xi/\xi \sim N_{\rm pair}^{-1/2}$,
417: the spatial correlation of MBH mergers
418: may be detectable by GWs at a 4$\sigma$ level
419: in the case (b) of Figure~\ref{fig:rate}.
420: (Even if the actual bubble size is less than $\sim 60$ Mpc
421: \citep{miralda00,gnedin00},
422: we may cross-correlate the merger position with the bubble position
423: to detect a correlation as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:diss}.)
424: To locate MBH mergers within an angle $\theta_{b}$
425: LISA may need EM counterparts to the MBH mergers,
426: while DECIGO/BBO, with a resolution better than $\theta_{b}$
427: \citep{takahashi03}, may do so without counterparts.
428:
429: The bubble overlap may also be accompanied by a sharp drop in the merger
430: rate because the photoionization effectively raises the minimum halo
431: mass that harbors a central MBH (e.g., from the case (b) to the case (a)
432: in Figure~\ref{fig:rate}).
433: Therefore the merger history may also be used to determine the
434: reionization redshift.\footnote{
435: \citet{wyithe03} also suggest that the merger rate drops after reionization.
436: However their reason is not the suppression of angular momentum losses
437: but the suppression of MBH formation.
438: }
439:
440: \section{Discussion}\label{sec:diss}
441:
442: A precise estimate of the reduction of the merger rate at reionization is
443: beyond the scope of the paper, since it would depend on the MBH-dragging
444: mechanism \citep{escala04} and the degree of self-shielding of ionizing
445: photons \citep{susa04}. We note that gas will eventually evaporate even
446: if the gas is self-shielding in mini halos with $T_{\rm vir} \siml 10^4$
447: K. This is because the outside layer of gas is always ionized under the
448: ionizing background and can escape from halos.
449: We also note that the photoionization effect may be weak at high
450: redshift $z \simg 10$ \citep{dijkstra04}.
451:
452: In the future, the spatial distribution of ionized
453: bubbles will be determined by other methods such as 21 cm tomography
454: \citep{tozzi00,ioka05}, Ly$\alpha$ spectroscopy \citep{miralda98}
455: and dispersion measures \citep{ioka03}. For such measurements, the
456: cross-correlation of the merger position with the bubble position
457: (like the cross-correlation with LSSs outlined in \S~\ref{sec:align})
458: would make it easy to detect a signal. For example, if the fraction of ionized
459: bubbles on the sky is $f_{b} \sim 1/3$ in a redshift shell $z \sim z+\Delta z$,
460: we only need $\sim 5^2 f_{b}^{-1} \sim 80$ events in $z \sim z+\Delta z$
461: to detect a 5$\sigma$ correlation. The rate of MBH mergers and the mechanism
462: by which the angular momentum loss occurs may be independently constrained
463: or determined through purely GW measurements, such as outlined in \S \ref{sec:gas}
464:
465: In summary, we
466: have discussed two possible ways to exploit gravitational wave observations
467: in the $10^{-4}-10$ Hz range for gleaning information about the high redshift
468: LSS formation and about the mechanism of angular momentum loss in MBH mergers,
469: as well as the reionization of the universe. The former would be indicated
470: by an alignment of the GW polarization direction with a principal axis
471: of the LSS, due to a preferential vector along which the galaxies approach.
472: The latter would be detectable through an MBH correlation length larger
473: than that of the host LSS, which can occur if the MBH angular momentum loss
474: occur through gas drag. In both cases we would gain information about the LSS
475: additional to and independent of any obtained from electromagnetic signals,
476: and in the latter also about the astrophysics of MBH mergers as well as an
477: independent measure of the reionization epoch.
478:
479:
480:
481: \acknowledgments
482: We thank M.~J.~Rees for useful comments. This work was supported in
483: part by the Eberly Research Funds of Penn State and by the Center for
484: Gravitational Wave Physics under grant PHY-01-14375 (KI),
485: and NASA NAG5-13286, NSF AST 0307376 (PM).
486:
487:
488: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
489:
490: \bibitem[Armitage \& Natarajan (2002)]{armitage02}
491: Armitage,~P.~J., \& Natarajan,~P. 2002, ApJ, 567, L9
492:
493: \bibitem[Barkana \& Loeb (2001)]{barkana01}
494: Barkana,~R., \& Loeb,~A. 2001, Phys.~Rep., 349, 125
495:
496: \bibitem[Begelman, Blandford, \& Rees (1980)]{begelman80}
497: Begelman,~M.~C., Blandford,~R.~D., \& Rees,~M.~J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307
498:
499: \bibitem[Bromm \& Larson (2004)]{bromm04}
500: Bromm,~V., \& Larson,~R.~B. 2004, ARA\&A, 42, 79
501:
502: \bibitem[Cutler (1998)]{cutler98}
503: Cutler,~C. 1998, Phys.~Rev.~D, 57, 7089
504:
505: \bibitem[Dijkstra et al. (2004)]{dijkstra04}
506: Dijkstra,~M., Haiman,~Z., Rees,~M.~J., \& Weinberg,~D.~H. 2004,
507: ApJ, 601, 666
508:
509: \bibitem[Doroshkevich (1970)]{doro70}
510: Doroshkevich,~A.~G. 1970, Astrofizika, 6, 581
511:
512: \bibitem[Escala et al. (2004)]{escala04}
513: Escala,~A., Larson,~R.~B., Coppi,~P.~S., \& Mardones,~D. 2004, ApJ, 607, 765
514:
515: \bibitem[Efstathiou (1992)]{efstathiou92}
516: Efstathiou,~G. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 43P
517:
518: \bibitem[Fan et al. (2002)]{fan02}
519: Fan,~X., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 1247
520:
521: \bibitem[Ferrarese (2002)]{ferrarese02}
522: Ferrarese,~L. 2002, ApJ, 578, 90
523:
524: \bibitem[Furlanetto, Zaldarriaga, \& Hernquist (2004)]{furlanetto04}
525: Furlanetto,~S.~R., Zaldarriaga,~M., \& Hernquist,~L. 2004, ApJ, 613, 1
526:
527: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al. (2000)]{gebhardt00}
528: Gebhardt,~K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L13
529:
530: \bibitem[Gould \& Rix (2000)]{gould00}
531: Gould,~A., \& Rix,~H.-W. 2000, ApJ, 532, L29
532:
533: \bibitem[Gnedin (2000)]{gnedin00}
534: Gnedin,~N.~Y. 2000, ApJ, 542, 535
535:
536: \bibitem[Haehnelt (1994)]{haehnelt94}
537: Haehnelt,~M.~G. 1994, MNRAS, 269, 199
538:
539: \bibitem[Haiman, Abel, \& Rees (2000)]{haiman00}
540: Haiman,~Z., Abel,~T., \& Rees,~M.~J. 2000, ApJ, 534, 11
541:
542: \bibitem[Hughes (2002)]{hughes02}
543: Hughes,~S.~A. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 805
544:
545: \bibitem[Ikeuchi (1986)]{ikeuchi86}
546: Ikeuchi,~S. 1986, Ap\&SS, 118, 509
547:
548: \bibitem[Ioka (2003)]{ioka03}
549: Ioka,~K. 2003, ApJ, 598, L79
550:
551: \bibitem[Ioka, Tanaka, \& Nakamura (2000)]{ioka00}
552: Ioka,~K., Tanaka,~T., \& Nakamura,~T. 2000, ApJ, 528, 51
553:
554: \bibitem[Ioka \& \meszaros (2005)]{ioka05}
555: Ioka,~K., \& \meszaros,~P. 2005, ApJ, 619, 684
556:
557: \bibitem[Islam, Taylor, \& Silk (2004)]{islam04}
558: Islam,~R.~R., Taylor,~J.~E., \& Silk,~J. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 629
559:
560: \bibitem[Khlopov, Rubin, \& Sakharov (2005)]{khlopov05}
561: Khlopov,~M.~Y., Rubin,~S.~G., \& Sakharov,~A.~S. 2005,
562: Astropart. Phys., 23, 265
563:
564: \bibitem[Kinney et al. (2000)]{kinney00}
565: Kinney,~A.~L., et al. 2000, ApJ, 537, 152
566:
567: \bibitem[Kitayama \& Suto (1996)]{ks96}
568: Kitayama,~T., \& Suto,~Y. 1996, ApJ, 469, 480
569:
570: \bibitem[Kodama et al. (2001)]{kodama01}
571: Kodama,~T., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, L9
572:
573: \bibitem[Kogut et al. (2003)]{kogut03}
574: Kogut,~A., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 161
575:
576: \bibitem[Lacey \& Cole (1994)]{lacey94}
577: Lacey,~C., \& Cole,~S. 1994, MNRAS, 271, 676
578:
579: \bibitem[Lee \& Pen (2002)]{lee02}
580: Lee,~J., \& Pen,~U. 2002, ApJ, 567, L111
581:
582: \bibitem[Madau \& Rees (2001)]{madau01}
583: Madau,~P., \& Rees,~M. 2001, ApJ, 551, L27
584:
585: \bibitem[Magorrian et al. (1998)]{magorrian98}
586: Magorrian,~J., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285
587:
588: \bibitem[Menou, Haiman, \& Narayanan (2001)]{menou01}
589: Menou,~K., Haiman,~Z., \& Narayanan,~V.~K. 2001, ApJ, 558, 535
590:
591: \bibitem[Merritt \& Ferrarese (2001)]{merritt01}
592: Merritt,~D., \& Ferrarese,~L. 2001, ApJ, 547, 140
593:
594: \bibitem[Merritt \& Milosavljevi$\acute{\rm c}$ (2004)]{merritt04}
595: Merritt,~D., \& Milosavljevi$\acute{\rm c}$,~M. 2004, astro-ph/0410364
596:
597: \bibitem[Merritt \& Poon (2004)]{mpoon04}
598: Merritt,~D., \& Poon,~M.~Y. 2004, ApJ, 606, 788
599:
600: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud$\acute{\rm e}$ (1998)]{miralda98}
601: Miralda-Escud$\acute{\rm e}$,~J. 1998, ApJ, 501, 15
602:
603: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud$\acute{\rm e}$, Haehnelt, \& Rees (2000)]{miralda00}
604: Miralda-Escud$\acute{\rm e}$,~J., Haehnelt,~M., \& Rees,~M.,~J. 2000, ApJ, 530, 1
605:
606: \bibitem[Milosavljevi$\acute{\rm c}$ \& Merritt (2003)]{milos03}
607: Milosavljevi$\acute{\rm c}$,~M., \& Merritt,~D. 2003, ApJ, 596, 860
608:
609: \bibitem[Milosavljevi$\acute{\rm c}$ \& Phinney (2003)]{milos04}
610: Milosavljevi$\acute{\rm c}$,~M., \& Phinney,~E.~S. 2005, ApJ, 622, L93
611:
612: \bibitem[Mo \& White (1996)]{mo96}
613: Mo,~H.~J., \& White,~S.~D.~M. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347
614:
615: \bibitem[Navarro, Abadi, \& Steinmetz (2004)]{navarro04}
616: Navarro,~J.~F., Abadi,~M.~G., \& Steinmetz,~M. 2004, ApJ, 613, L41
617:
618: \bibitem[Omukai \& Nishi (1999)]{omukai99}
619: Omukai,~K., \& Nishi,~R. 1999, ApJ, 518, 64
620:
621: \bibitem[Omukai \& Palla (2003)]{omukai03}
622: Omukai,~K., \& Palla,~F. 2003, ApJ, 589, 677
623:
624: \bibitem[Ouchi et al. (2005)]{ouchi05}
625: Ouchi,~M., et al. 2005, ApJ, 620, L1
626:
627: \bibitem[Peebles (1969)]{peebles69}
628: Peebles,~P.~J.~E. 1969, ApJ, 155, 393
629:
630: \bibitem[Peebles (1980)]{peebles80}
631: Peebles,~P.~J.~E. 1980, The Large Scale Structure of the Universe
632: (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)
633:
634: \bibitem[Pimbblet (2005)]{pimbblet05}
635: Pimbblet,~K.~A. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 256
636:
637: \bibitem[Press \& Schechter (1974)]{ps74}
638: Press,~W.~H., \& Schechter,~P. 1974, ApJ, 187, 425
639:
640: \bibitem[Seto, Kawamura, \& Nakamura (2001)]{seto01}
641: Seto,~N., Kawamura,~S., \& Nakamura,~T. 2001, Phys.~Rev.~Lett., 87, 221103
642:
643: \bibitem[Seto (2004)]{seto04}
644: Seto,~N. 2004, Phys,~Rev.~D, 69, 022002
645:
646: \bibitem[Seto \& Cooray (2005)]{seto05}
647: Seto,~N., \& Cooray,~A. 2005, astro-ph/0502054
648:
649: \bibitem[Spergel et al. (2003)]{spergel03}
650: Spergel,~D.~N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
651:
652: \bibitem[Struble \& Peebles (1985)]{struble85}
653: Struble,~M.~F., \& Peebles,~P.~J.~E. 1985, AJ, 90, 582
654:
655: \bibitem[Susa \& Umemura (2004)]{susa04}
656: Susa,~H., \& Umemura,~M. 2004, ApJ, 600, 1
657:
658: \bibitem[Takahashi \& Nakamura (2003)]{takahashi03}
659: Takahashi,~R., \& Nakamura,~T. 2003, ApJ, 596, L231
660:
661: \bibitem[Thoul \& Weinberg (1996)]{thoul96}
662: Thoul,~A.~A., \& Weinberg,~D.~H. 1996, ApJ, 465, 608
663:
664: \bibitem[Tipler (1975)]{tipler75}
665: Tipler,~F.~J. 1975, ApJ, 197, 199
666:
667: \bibitem[Tozzi et al. (2000)]{tozzi00}
668: Tozzi,~P., Madau,~P., Meiksin,~A., \& Rees,~M.~J. 2000, ApJ, 528, 597
669:
670: \bibitem[Volonteri, Haardt, \& Madau (2003)]{volonteri03}
671: Volonteri,~M., Haardt,~F., \& Madau,~P. 2003, ApJ, 582, 559
672:
673: \bibitem[West (1994)]{west94}
674: West,~M.~J. 1994, MNRAS, 268, 79
675:
676: \bibitem[West, Jones, \& Forman (1995)]{west95}
677: West,~M.~J., Jones,~C., \& Forman,~W. 1995, ApJ, 451, L5
678:
679: \bibitem[White (1984)]{white84}
680: White,~S.~D.~M. 1984, ApJ, 286, 38
681:
682: \bibitem[Wyithe \& Loeb (2003)]{wyithe03}
683: Wyithe,~J.~S.~B., \& Loeb,~A. 2003, ApJ, 590, 691
684:
685: \bibitem[Wyithe \& Loeb (2004)]{wyithe04}
686: Wyithe,~J.~S.~B., \& Loeb,~A. 2004, Nature, 432, 194
687:
688: \bibitem[Yu (2002)]{yu02}
689: Yu,~Q. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 935
690:
691: \bibitem[Yu \& Tremine (2002)]{yu02b}
692: Yu,~Q., \& Tremaine,~S. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 965
693:
694: \end{thebibliography}
695:
696: %
697: % Tables
698: %
699:
700: %
701: % Figure captions
702: %
703:
704: \newpage
705: \begin{figure}
706: \plotone{f1.eps}
707: \caption{\label{fig:rate}
708: Upper panel -- Number of MBH merger events per yr per unit redshift $z$
709: as a function of $z$. Three cases are considered for the minimum halos
710: that harbor a central MBH:
711: (a) The virial temperature $T_{\rm vir}$ of minimum halos is $10^{4}$ K,
712: above which atomic cooling is effective.
713: (b) The minimum halos have $T_{\rm vir}=10^{3}$ K,
714: above which molecular cooling is possible. This is shown with a dashed
715: line for $z<15$, since molecular cooling may be ineffective in this range.
716: (c) The minimum halos contain more than one Population III MBH on average,
717: where we assume that one MBH forms in each $3 \sigma$ halo at $z=20$.
718: Middle panel -- Correlation length of the MBH mergers as a function of $z$.
719: Case (b) is plotted only for $z \simg 14$, and case (c) only for
720: $z \siml 18$ (see text).
721: Lower panel -- Minimum halo mass that harbors a central MBH $M_{\rm
722: min}(z)$ as a function of $z$.
723: }
724: \end{figure}
725:
726: \newpage
727: \begin{figure}
728: \plotone{f2.eps}
729: \caption{\label{fig:align}
730: Schematic figure of LSSs (hatched region) and MBH binaries, illustrating
731: the preference for MBH binary axes to be normal to the filaments/sheets
732: of LSSs. The sizes of MBH binaries are magnified to make them clear.
733: }
734: \end{figure}
735:
736: \newpage
737: \begin{figure}
738: \plotone{f3.eps}
739: \caption{\label{fig:reion}
740: Upper panel -- Schematic figure of reionized bubbles, with
741: neutral regions shown as shaded zones.
742: Lower panel -- Schematic sky view at the end of the bubble overlap era.
743: Few MBH mergers take place inside an ionized bubble if the MBH binaries
744: lose their angular momentum via gas drag, as the photoionizing background
745: reduces the amount of MBH-dragging gas.
746: }
747: \end{figure}
748:
749: \end{document}
750: