1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib, usegraphicx]{mn2e}
2:
3:
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: %\usepackage{lscape}
6: %\usepackage{graphicx}
7: %\usepackage{color}
8: \usepackage{amsmath}
9: \usepackage{amssymb}
10: %\usepackage{amsfonts}
11: %\usepackage{amstext}
12: %\usepackage{amsbsy}
13: \usepackage{natbib}
14: %\loadbold
15: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
16: %\newcommand{\tbfrac}[2]{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{0}{#1\strut}{#2\strut}}
17: \newcommand{\kms}{\ensuremath{{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}
18: \newcommand{\msun}{\ensuremath{M_{\odot}}}
19: \newcommand{\hills}{\citet{1988Natur.331..687H}}
20: \newcommand{\hillsp}{\citep{1988Natur.331..687H}}
21: \newcommand{\browna}{\citet{2005ApJ...622L..33B}}
22: \newcommand{\brownap}{\citep{2005ApJ...622L..33B}}
23: \newcommand{\browns}{\citet{2006ApJ...640L..35B}}
24: \newcommand{\brownsp}{\citep{2006ApJ...640L..35B}}
25: \newcommand{\genzel}{\citet{2003ApJ...594..812G}}
26: \newcommand{\yutremaine}{\citet{2003ApJ...599.1129Y}}
27: \newcommand{\perets}{2006astro.ph..6443P}
28: \newcommand{\ghez}{2005ApJ...620..744G}
29: \newcommand{\infinity}{{\infty}}
30: \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}
31: \newcommand{\apjl}{ApJ}
32: \newcommand{\mnras}{MNRAS}
33: \newcommand{\aj}{AJ}
34: \newcommand{\apjs}{ApJS}
35: \newcommand{\nat}{Nat}
36: \newcommand{\pasj}{PASJ}
37: \newcommand{\aap}{A\&A}
38: \newcommand{\letter}{{paper}}
39: \newcommand{\sag}{Sgr~A*}
40: \newcommand{\rmd}{{\rm d}}
41: \newcommand{\physrep}{Physics Reports}
42: \newcommand{\aaps}{A\&AS}
43: %\begin{document}
44: \title[Hypervelocity Stars from
45: the Galactic Centre]{Production of Hypervelocity Stars through Encounters with
46: Stellar-Mass Black Holes in the Galactic Centre}
47:
48: \author[O'Leary \& Loeb]{Ryan M.\
49: O'Leary\thanks{E-mail:roleary@cfa.harvard.edu} and Abraham
50: Loeb\thanks{E-mail:aloeb@cfa.harvard.edu}\\ Harvard University, Department of Astronomy, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA\\}
51:
52: \begin{document}
53: \maketitle
54:
55: \begin{abstract}
56:
57:
58: Stars within 0.1\,pc of the supermassive black hole \sag\ at the
59: Galactic centre are expected to encounter a cluster of stellar-mass
60: black holes (BHs) that have segregated to that region. Some of
61: these stars will scatter off an orbiting BH and be kicked out of the
62: Galactic centre with velocities up to $\sim\,2000\,$\kms. We
63: calculate the resulting ejection rate of hypervelocity stars (HVSs)
64: by this process under a variety of assumptions, and find it to be
65: comparable to the tidal disruption rate of binary stars by \sag,
66: first discussed by \hills. Under some conditions, this novel
67: process is sufficient to account for all of the hypervelocity
68: B-stars observed in the halo, and may dominate the production rate
69: of all HVSs with lifetimes much less than the relaxation time-scale
70: at a distance $\sim 2\,$pc from \sag\ ($\gtrsim 2\,$Gyr). Since
71: HVSs are produced by at least two unavoidable processes, the
72: statistics of HVSs could reveal bimodal velocity and mass
73: distributions, and can constrain the distribution of BHs and stars
74: in the innermost $0.1\,$pc around \sag.
75: \end{abstract}
76:
77: \begin{keywords}
78: Galaxy:centre--Galaxy:kinematics and dynamics--stellar dynamics
79: \end{keywords}
80:
81:
82: \section{Introduction}
83: %%\subsection{Motivation}
84: Hypervelocity stars (HVSs) have velocities so great ($\sim1000\,$\kms)
85: that they are gravitationally unbound to the Milky Way galaxy. Since the
86: discovery of the first HVS by \browna, six additional HVSs have been found
87: \citep{2005Apj...634L.181E, 2005A&A...444L..61H, 2006ApJ...640L..35B,
88: 2006ApJ...647..303B}. The age and radial velocities of all but one HVS are
89: consistent with them originating from the Galactic centre\footnote{In the
90: case of \citet{2005Apj...634L.181E}, the star appears to originate from the
91: Large Magellanic Cloud.}, the most natural site for producing them (Hills
92: 1988). As more HVSs are found, they can be used to constrain many
93: properties of both the Galactic centre as well as the Milky-Way galaxy as a
94: whole, providing information about the Galactic potential
95: \citep{2005ApJ...634..344G,2006astro.ph..8159B}, the merger history of the
96: \sag\ \citep{2005astro.ph..8193L,2006astro.ph..7455B}, as well as the mass
97: distribution of stars near \sag.
98:
99: Nearly 17 years before the initial discovery by \browna, \hills\ first
100: proposed that HVSs should populate the galaxy and provide indirect evidence
101: for the existence of a supermassive black hole (SMBH) in the Galactic
102: centre. \hills\ showed that when a tight stellar binary (with a separation
103: $<0.1\,$AU) gets sufficiently close to a SMBH, it will be disrupted by its
104: strong tidal field. Consequently, one member of the binary could be ejected
105: from the Galactic centre with sufficient energy to escape the gravitational
106: potential of the entire galaxy
107: \citep{1991AJ....102..704H,2005MNRAS.363..223G}. The other binary member
108: is expected to remain in a highly eccentric orbit around the SMBH
109: \citep[see, e.g.,][]{2003ApJ...592..935G,2006MNRAS.368..221G}.
110: \yutremaine\ analysed the production rate of HVSs in more detail,
111: specifically for stars originating near the SMBH in our galaxy, \sag. The
112: authors also corrected the initial calculation of \hills\ and accounted for
113: the diffusion of hard binaries into the ``loss--cone'', finding the
114: production rate of HVSs to be $\sim\,10^{-5}\,$yr$^{-1}$, nearly three
115: orders of magnitude below the previous estimate. \yutremaine\ also looked
116: at two additional mechanisms for producing HVSs. They found that the rate
117: could easily be higher ($\sim\,10^{-4}\,$yr$^{-1}$) if \sag\ had a massive
118: binary companion \citep[see
119: also][]{2005astro.ph..8193L,2006astro.ph..7455B,2006astro.ph..4299S}, and
120: also determined that star-star scattering near \sag\ resulted in a nearly
121: undetectable rate, due to physical collisions among the two stars.
122:
123: In examining the rate estimate from \yutremaine\, one may adopt a simple
124: mass function (MF) for stars, $\rmd n/\rmd m \propto m^{-\beta}$ to
125: estimate the total number of B--type HVSs in the Galactic halo. Using the
126: Salpeter MF slope $\beta = 2.35$ and a minimum mass limit of $0.5\,\msun$
127: one expects there to be about $\sim\,80$ HVSs with masses between $3$ and
128: $5\,\msun$, consistent with the observed rate for such stars \brownsp.
129: However this is an overestimate. The Salpeter MF overestimates the total
130: number of stars with mass $>\,3\,\msun$, since star formation occurs
131: continuously over time near the Galactic centre and massive stars have
132: short lifetimes \citep{astern,\perets}. Accounting for continuous star formation
133: as well as a more realistic distribution of binary parameters,
134: \cite{\perets} found a lower total HVS rate of $5\times 10^{-7}\,$yr$^{-1}$
135: yielding $\sim 1$ HVS in the entire galaxy with mass between $3$ and
136: $5\,\msun$. The discrepancy between this calculation and the number of
137: observed HVSs may be overcome by massive perturbers in the Galactic centre,
138: which reduce the relaxation time and increase the rate to that observed
139: \citep{\perets}.
140: Nevertheless, their results are highly sensitive to the mass
141: distribution of the perturbers. In their calculations the authors
142: use a very flat slope for the distribution of masses which has not
143: been well constrained by observations. In their estimate, they assume
144: that all stars are initially relaxed and therefore fill the entire
145: energy-momentum space. The lifetimes of the stars observed by
146: \browns\ are very similar to the enhanced relaxation time, except in
147: the most optimistic case of \citet{\perets}. We argue then that the
148: total number of B-type HVSs given by \cite{\perets} may still be an
149: overestimate, and an additional source of HVSs may be required.
150:
151: In this \letter, we propose a novel source of HVSs in the Milky Way: in the
152: dense stellar cusp near \sag\, {\it stars scatter off stellar-mass black
153: holes} (BHs) that are segregated there \citep{1993ApJ...408..496M} and
154: recoil out of the Galactic centre. The existence of stars on radial orbits
155: originating from the Galactic centre was first proposed by
156: \cite{2000ApJ...545..847M} as evidence for a segregated BH cluster. Here,
157: we show that there should exist a high-velocity tail of stars, significant
158: enough in number to account for some if not all of the HVSs observed by
159: \browns.
160:
161: This \letter\ is organised as follows. In \S \ref{stars} we describe
162: the distribution of stars and BHs around \sag. We
163: describe in detail our assumptions and calculations in \S \ref{theory},
164: and present our results in \S \ref{results}. Finally, in \S
165: \ref{discussion}, we discuss the observational implications and
166: prospects for future work.
167:
168: \section{The cusp of stars and BHs around \sag}
169: \label{stars}
170: Using near-infrared adaptive optics imaging, \genzel\ showed that the
171: density of stars in the innermost $\sim 2\,$pc of the Galactic centre
172: is well-fit by a broken power-law radial profile, $\rho(R) = 1.2
173: \times 10^6 (R/0.4\,{\rm pc})^{-\alpha}\,\msun\,$pc$^{-3}$, where
174: $\alpha \approx 1.4$ for $R < 0.4\,$pc and $\alpha \approx 2.0$ for $R
175: > 0.4\,$pc, assuming that \sag\ is at a distance of $8\,$kpc
176: \citep{2005ApJ...620..744G,2005ApJ...628..246E}. Additional
177: observations of the background light density show that the cusp might
178: be slightly shallower in the inner few arcseconds
179: \citep{schoedel07}. Indeed, for a dynamically relaxed stellar system,
180: stars near a SMBH are expected to be in a cusp profile with $1.5 <
181: \alpha < 1.75$, depending on the mass distribution of the stars
182: (\citealp{1976ApJ...209..214B,1977ApJ...216..883B}; but see also
183: \citealp{2006ApJ...645L.133H}). \genzel\ normalised the density
184: profile by assuming that the total mass of stars within $1.9\,$pc of
185: \sag\ is $\approx 3.2\times 10^6\,\msun$, and that the mass
186: distribution follows the same density profile as the observed stars
187: with a constant mass--to--light ratio. Invariably, stellar evolution
188: and mass segregation should alter the mass--to--light ratio at
189: different radii \citep{2006ApJ...645L.133H}, and cause the actual
190: density profile to deviate from the observed number counts of stars.
191: In addition to determining that the stars are in a cusp profile, the
192: observations also indicate that the stars have formed mostly
193: continuously with a standard initial MF
194: \citep{astern,2003ApJ...594..812G}.
195:
196: Besides the observed cusp of stars, there are two additional
197: structures found near \sag\ that suggest ongoing star formation very
198: close to the SMBH. Within 1 arcsec ($\approx\,0.04\,$pc) of \sag\ is
199: a nearly isotropic cluster of massive B--type stars, the so-called
200: ``S--stars'' \citep{2005ApJ...628..246E,2005ApJ...620..744G}, whose
201: origin remains a mystery (see \citealp{2005PhR...419...65A} for a
202: review; see also \citealp{2006astro.ph..6443P} and references
203: therein.). Outside this cluster, at 1--13 arcsec (0.04--0.5\,pc), is
204: at least one disk of young stars, with a stellar population distinctly
205: younger than the S--stars
206: \citep{2003ApJ...594..812G,2006ApJ...643.1011P}. The spectral
207: identification of $\gtrsim 30$ post main sequence blue supergiants and
208: Wolf-Rayet stars constrains the age of the disk to $\lesssim 8\,$Myr
209: \citep{2006ApJ...643.1011P}. The stars have top-heavy initial mass
210: function with $\beta \approx 1.35$
211: (\citealp{2006MNRAS.366.1410N,2006ApJ...643.1011P}; see also
212: \citealp{2005MNRAS.364L..23N}). Within the same observations of the disk,
213: \citet{2006ApJ...643.1011P} found the density of OB--type stars to
214: fall off more steeply than the observed cusp of stars, with no
215: positive detections outside of $0.5\,$pc.
216:
217: Dispersed throughout the stars there should be a group of stellar-mass
218: BHs brought there through mass segregation
219: \citep{1993ApJ...408..496M,2000ApJ...545..847M}. Assuming that all
220: the stars in the stellar cusp around \sag\ formed $10\,$Gyr ago,
221: \citet{2000ApJ...545..847M} predicted that there should be $\sim
222: 2.5\times 10^4$ BHs within the central pc of the Milky Way. In their
223: analysis, \citet{2000ApJ...545..847M} estimated that $1.6\%$ of the
224: stellar mass is in BHs given an approximately Salpeter MF. All BHs
225: within $5\,$pc relax to the central pc through mass segregation, where
226: they form an $\alpha = 1.75- 2.0$ cusp. More detailed studies support
227: this argument. \citet{2006ApJ...645L.133H} numerically solved the
228: time--dependant Boltzmann equations for a four mass model near \sag\
229: with $10\,\msun$ BHs, $1.4\,\msun$ neutron stars, $1\,\msun$ stars,
230: and $0.6\,\msun$ white dwarfs. They found that there should be
231: $\approx 1.8\times 10^3$ BHs and $\approx 3\times 10^4\,\msun$ of
232: stars within $0.1\,$pc of \sag\ in an $\alpha_{\rm BH} \approx 2.0$ ,
233: $\alpha_{*} \approx 1.4$ cusp respectively. In addition, large $N$
234: Monte-Carlo simulations of relaxation and stellar evolution in the
235: Galactic centre found the formation of a similar cusp of BHs
236: \citep{2006astro.ph..3280F}. However, in these simulations the
237: density of BHs at $0.1\,$pc was found to be ten times higher and the
238: density of stars to be about five times lower than in
239: \citet{2006ApJ...645L.133H}. Very few observations constrain number
240: of stellar-mass BHs considered here, however X-ray observations seem
241: to place an upper limit of $\sim 40,000$ BHs in the inner parsec
242: \citep{deegan}.
243:
244:
245: \section{Theory and assumptions}
246: \label{theory}
247:
248: To calculate the rate at which stars are ejected from the Galactic
249: centre through their scattering off BHs there, we generalise the
250: analysis of \yutremaine\ to multi--mass systems \citep[in a form
251: similar to that of][]{1969A&A.....2..151H}. In our calculations we
252: assume that \sag\ has a mass $M_{\rm smbh} = 3.5\times 10^6\,\msun$
253: and is at a distance of $8\,$kpc \citep{2005ApJ...620..744G,2005ApJ...628..246E}.
254:
255: \subsection{Two--body scattering}
256: We would like to identify the conditions under which a scattering between
257: a BH and a star would result in the ejection of a HVS. In each scattering,
258: a star of mass $m$ and velocity $\bmath v$ undergoes a change in velocity
259: (\citealp{1987gady.book.....B}, Eqs. 7-10a - 10b)
260: \begin{eqnarray}
261: \label{deltahv}
262: {\bmath \delta \hat{\bmath{v}}} = \frac{2m'bw^3}{G(m'+m)^2} \left(1+\frac{b^2w^4}{G^2(m'+m)^2}\right)^{-1} \hat{\bmath{w}}_{\perp} \nonumber\\
263: - \frac{2m'w}{m'+m} \left(1+\frac{b^2w^4}{G^2(m'+m)^2}\right)^{-1} \hat{\bmath{w}},
264: \end{eqnarray}
265: where $b$ is the impact parameter of the encounter, $w = |{\bmath w}|
266: = |{\bmath v}-{\bmath v}'|$ is the relative velocity at infinity, $m'$
267: is the mass of the BH, and ${\bmath v}'$ is the BH's velocity. The
268: direction of ${\bmath \delta \hat{v}}$ is determined by $\hat{\bmath
269: w}$ and $\hat{\bmath w}_{\perp}$, the unit vectors along and
270: perpendicular to $\bmath{w}$, respectively.
271:
272: In some instances, the BH may tidally distort (or even disrupt) the
273: incoming star, causing the BH-star system to lose energy.
274: At closest approach, the stars will have a relative velocity of
275: $\sqrt{w^2 + 2 G (m+m')/b_{\rm min}}$, where $b_{\rm min}$ is the
276: distance of closest approach between the star and BH. In order to be
277: conservative, we assume that the star is composed of two halves, each
278: with mass $m/2$, separated by a distance of two stellar radii, $2
279: R_*$. This is chosen in order to have the energy loss diverge when
280: $b_{\rm min}=R_*$. Then, in the impulse approximation, the total
281: amount of energy lost is approximately
282: \begin{equation}
283: \label{deltae}
284: \Delta E \approx \frac{2 G^2 m m'^2 R_*^2}{(w^2 + 2 G (m + m') / b_{\rm min})(b_{\rm min}^2-R_*^2)^2}.
285: \end{equation}
286: Thus, the final relative velocity between the star and BH is reduced to,
287: \begin{equation}
288: \label{finalrelvel}
289: w_{\rm f} = \sqrt{w^2 - 2 \Delta E/m}.
290: \end{equation}
291: If we now assume that the final relative velocity is in the same
292: direction as in Equation~(\ref{deltahv}), we get the final change in
293: velocity,
294: \begin{eqnarray}
295: \label{deltav}
296: {\bmath \delta \bmath{v}} = \frac{2m'b w_f w^2}{G(m'+m)^2} \left(1+\frac{b^2w^4}{G^2(m'+m)^2}\right)^{-1} \hat{\bmath{w}}_{\perp} \nonumber\\
297: - \frac{m'}{m'+m} \left(w - w_f + 2w_f\left(1+\frac{b^2w^4}{G^2(m'+m)^2}\right)^{-1}\right) \hat{\bmath{w}}.
298: \end{eqnarray}
299: Equation~(\ref{deltav}) correctly reduces to Equation~(\ref{deltahv}) as $w_f$
300: approaches $w$.
301:
302: We are seeking circumstances under which the star's velocity
303: at infinity is greater than some threshold ejection speed $v_{\rm ej}$,
304: \begin{equation}
305: \label{vinf}
306: v_{\infinity}^2 = |\bmath{v}+\bmath{\delta v}|^2 - \frac{2 G M_{\rm
307: smbh}}{r} \geq v_{\rm ej}^2,
308: \end{equation}
309: where $r$ is the distance from \sag\ at which the encounter
310: occurred. For the distance of $55\,$kpc, at which many HVSs have been
311: observed, the star would have a velocity $v_{\rm 55} \approx
312: [v_\infinity^2-(800\,\kms)^2]^{1/2}$ \citep{1987AJ.....94..666C}.
313:
314: For our calculations we determine $R_{*}$ by fitting a broken
315: power-law to the solar metallicity stellar models of
316: \citet{1992A&AS...96..269S}, and do not consider ejections where the
317: star is tidally disrupted by the BH (i.e. $\Delta E \gtrsim
318: Gm^2/R_*$).
319: For a typical star of $1\,\msun$ at a distance of $.01\,$pc, this
320: condition would give a minimum closest approach of $b_{\rm min}
321: \approx 2.07 R_*$. At $.001\,$pc, the star and BH could get as close
322: as $1.57 R_*$ before tidal disruption.
323:
324:
325: \subsection{Total rate}
326: The population of stars near \sag\ can be described by the
327: seven--dimensional distribution function (DF) $f_*({\bmath r}, {\bmath
328: v}, m)$, where $m$ is the star's mass, ${\bmath v}$ is the star's
329: velocity, and ${\bmath r}$ is the star's position relative to \sag\
330: which is located at ${\bmath r} = \bmath{0}$. Similarly, we describe
331: the DF of BHs by $f_{\rm BH}({\bmath r}', {\bmath v}', m')$.
332:
333: In our analysis we restrict our attention to stars scattering off BHs only,
334: since in star--star scattering, physical collisions between the stars limit
335: the total production rate of HVSs (Yu \& Tremaine 2003).
336: Thus, the probability for a test star to encounter a BH at an impact parameter
337: $b$ within an infinitesimal time interval $\rmd t$ is
338: \citep{1960AnAp...23..467H,2003ApJ...599.1129Y}
339: \begin{equation}
340: \Gamma({\bmath r}, {\bmath v}) \rmd t= \rmd t \int b\,\rmd b \int w\, \rmd^3{\bmath v}' \int \rmd{\Psi} \int \rmd m'\, f_{\rm BH}({\bmath r}, {\bmath v}', m'),
341: \end{equation}
342: where $m'$ is the BH mass, and $\Psi$ is the angle between the $({\bmath
343: v}, {\bmath v}')$-plane and $({\bmath v} - {\bmath v'}, {\bmath
344: \delta v})$-plane. The integrated rate at which all stars
345: undergo such encounters in a small volume, $\rmd^3{\bmath r}$,
346: around position ${\bmath r}$ is
347: \begin{equation}
348: \mathcal{R}({\bmath r}) = \int \rmd^3 {\bmath v}\int \rmd m\,f_*(\bmath r, \bmath v, m)\,\Gamma({\bmath r}, {\bmath v}).
349: \end{equation}
350: Finally, the total rate of ejecting stars with velocity $\geq v_{\rm ej}$
351: is
352: \begin{equation}
353: \label{finalrate}
354: \frac{\rmd N_{\rm ej}}{\rmd t} = \int \rmd^3{\bmath r} \mathcal{R}({\bmath r}),
355: \end{equation}
356: from some inner value $r_{\rm min}$ (which depends on the distribution
357: function of the stars, see, \S \ref{disfunct}) to $0.1\,$pc, where
358: we limit the integration over $b$, $w$, and $\Psi$ such that
359: $v_{\infinity} > v_{\rm ej}$, as in Eq.~(\ref{vinf}), and exclude all
360: encounters that tidally disrupt the star ($\Delta E \gtrsim
361: Gm^2/R_*$).
362:
363: In order to find the total rate of HVSs we integrate
364: Eq.~(\ref{finalrate}) using a multidimensional Monte-Carlo
365: numerical integrator. Because the integrand of
366: Eq.~\ref{finalrate} is not continuous, other integration routines
367: are unsuitable for our calculations. We integrate all of our results
368: until they converge to a residual statistical error of $< 10\,\%$.
369:
370:
371: \begin{table*}
372: \caption{\label{table1} Stellar DF Models and Results. The first four columns describe the different stellar distribution functions used in our analysis.
373: $\beta$ is the slope of the MF, which is normalised by the maximum mass (column 3) and minimum mass (column 4)
374: of the stars, as well as the total number of stars, as described in \S~\ref{disfunct}. The remaining columns list the total integrated rate of HVSs ($v_\infinity > 1000\,\kms$) for each model. From left to right the rates correspond to $m' = 10\,\msun$, $m' = 15\,\msun$ both
375: with $r_{\rm min} = 0.001\,$pc, and finally $m' = 15\,\msun$ with $r_{\rm min} = 0$. Our results are described in more detail
376: in \S~\ref{results}.}
377:
378: \begin{tabular}{@{}lrrrrrr@{}}
379: \hline
380: Model & $\beta$ & Maximum Mass & Minimum Mass & & HVS Rate & \\
381: & & & & $m' = 10\,\msun$ & $m' = 15\,\msun$ & $r_{\rm min} = 0$ \\
382: & & ($\msun$) & ($\msun$) & (yr$^{-1})$ & (yr$^{-1}$) & (yr$^{-1}$) \\
383: \hline
384: 1a & 4.85 & 20 & 3 & $3.5 \times 10^{-9} $ & $1.5 \times 10^{-8} $ & $8.2\times 10^{-8}$ \\
385: 1b & 3.85 & 20 & 3 & $2.0 \times 10^{-9} $ & $7.8 \times 10^{-9} $ & $3.9\times 10^{-8}$ \\
386: 2a & 2.35 & 3 & 0.5 & $3.3 \times 10^{-7} $ & $9.8 \times 10^{-7} $ & $3.6\times 10^{-6}$ \\
387: 2b & 2.35, 4.85 & 3 & 0.5 & $4.4 \times 10^{-7} $ & $1.3 \times 10^{-6} $ & $4.8\times 10^{-6}$ \\
388: \hline
389: \end{tabular}
390: \end{table*}
391:
392: \subsection{Distribution functions}
393: \label{disfunct}
394: Unfortunately, there are no observations to constrain the expected
395: number or distribution of BHs near \sag\ \citep[see also,][]{deegan}.
396: For simplicity, we assume that all BHs have a mass of $10\,\msun$, are
397: distributed isotropically, and follow an $\alpha_{\rm BH}$ cusp
398: density profile so that
399: \begin{equation}
400: \label{bhdist}
401: f_{\rm BH} \propto E^{\alpha_{\rm BH} - 1.5} \delta(m' - 10\,\msun),
402: \end{equation}
403: where $E= (G M_{\rm smbh} / r - v'^2/2)$ is the negative specific
404: energy of a BH and $\alpha_{\rm BH} = 2$.
405: Equation~(\ref{bhdist}) is normalised by integrating
406: Equation~\ref{bhdist} over $|v'| < \sqrt{2 G M/r}$ and $r$ so that there
407: are $N_{\rm BHs} = 1800$ BHs within $0.1\,$pc of \sag, consistent with
408: the calculations of \cite{2000ApJ...545..847M} and
409: \cite{2006ApJ...645L.133H}. In addition, we look at a system of
410: $N_{\rm BHs} = 1800$ more massive BHs, $m' = 15\,\msun$, in order to
411: determine the importance of the BH MF on the rate of HVSs. Because
412: the density power-law assumed here $\alpha_{\rm BH} = 2$ is steeper
413: than the $\approx 1.5$ slope derived for a ``drain limited''
414: population of BHs \citep[see Eq.~1 of][]{2004ApJ...606L..21A}, the
415: innermost regions of the integration (interior to $\lesssim 10^{-4} -
416: .001\,$pc) will have a number density that exceeds this theoretical
417: limit. Therefore, at the end of \S~\ref{results} we also look at an
418: approximately drain limited sample of BHs.
419:
420:
421: The stellar DF, on the other hand, should be much shallower than the
422: BH's within $\sim\,0.1\,$pc of \sag. Observations as well as the
423: calculations of \cite{2006ApJ...645L.133H} suggest $\alpha_{*}
424: = 1.4$ in this region \citep{2003ApJ...594..812G}. This gives
425: \begin{equation}
426: \label{stardist}
427: f_{*} \propto E^{-0.1} \frac{\rmd n}{\rmd m} ,
428: \end{equation}
429: where $\rmd n / \rmd m \propto m^{-\beta}$ is the current MF of stars.
430: We truncate Eq.~(\ref{stardist}) so that $f_* = 0$ when
431: \begin{equation}
432: \label{constraint1}
433: E > G (m' + m)/R_{*}.
434: \end{equation}
435: Stars would need to undergo physical collisions with the BHs, which
436: are rare and disruptive, in order to relax to a higher specific energy
437: \citep{1976ApJ...209..214B}.
438: For a typical $1\,\msun$ star, this corresponds to an orbit with
439: minimum semimajor axis $\approx .007\,$pc, remarkably close to the
440: semimajor axis of S2 (S0-2) of $.005\,$pc
441: \citep{2005ApJ...620..744G,2005ApJ...628..246E}. Because we assume
442: that there are no stars with a tighter orbit, interior to the region
443: the number density of stars is much shallower, and follows an $\alpha_*
444: \approx .5$ power-law. In addition to the above constraint, we
445: explicitly exclude all orbits which would tidally disrupt the star,
446: \begin{equation}
447: \label{constraint2}
448: r_{\rm closest} < R_{*} \left(\frac{m}{M_{\rm smbh}}\right)^{1/3},
449: \end{equation}
450: where $r_{\rm closest}$ is the star's closest approach to the SMBH.
451: Although Equations~\ref{constraint1}~\&~\ref{constraint2} should
452: completely determine the innermost radius of the stars, $r_{\rm min}$,
453: we also set $f_{*} = 0$ for $r< r_{\min}$. Except where explicitly
454: mentioned in our results, we conservatively set $r_{\rm min} =
455: 0.001\,$pc. This is the innermost resolved radius of the simulations
456: of \citet{2006astro.ph..3280F}, where the authors found no significant
457: change in the DF caused by stellar
458: collisions.
459:
460: For the stellar DF, we use a total of four models, varying both $\beta$
461: and the normalisation. We do this both to constrain the total number
462: of HVSs as well test how sensitive the rate is on the model. For
463: clarity of our results, as well as to satisfy different observational
464: constraints, we separate the stars into two distinct populations.
465:
466:
467: For stars with mass $m > 3\,\msun$, we are constrained by the total
468: number of observed S--stars, as well as the star formation history in
469: the region. There are $O(10)$ S--stars with mass $m \gtrsim 5\,\msun$
470: within $0.01\,$pc of \sag\
471: \citep{2005ApJ...620..744G,2005ApJ...628..246E}. We assume that this
472: reflects approximately a steady state and normalise our models (1a-b)
473: to 10 such stars subject to the above constraints (i.e.,
474: Eqs.~\ref{constraint1}~\&~\ref{constraint2}). To have a complete
475: description we also need to know the slope of the current MF of stars,
476: $\beta$. Unfortunately, this is unconstrained for stars with $m
477: \lesssim 5\,\msun$. However observations suggest that all of the
478: stars in the region have formed mostly continuously in time
479: \citep{astern,2003ApJ...594..812G}. For completeness, we look at
480: two different values of $\beta$. If the stars formed with a
481: standard Salpeter MF continuously throughout time, we would expect
482: ${\rmd m}/{\rmd n} \propto m^{-2.35} \times t_m$, where $t_m$ is the
483: lifetime of the stars. For $m \lesssim 10\,\msun$, $t_m \propto
484: m^{-2.5}$, therefore for Model 1a, we set $\beta = 2.35 + 2.5 = 4.85$.
485: In Model 1b, we set $\beta = 1.35 + 2.5 = 3.85$, consistent with a
486: flatter MF as observed in the young disks of massive stars
487: \citep{2006MNRAS.366.1410N,2006ApJ...643.1011P}.
488: % Finally, we have
489: %Model 1c, where we set $\beta = 2.35 + 2.5 + 2.5/2 = 6.1$. This is
490: %consistent with a Salpeter MF of continuously formed stars (like Model
491: %1a) that is also limited by two-body relaxation (a random-walk process
492: %$\propto \sqrt{t}$). We justify this final model by noting that the
493: %main sequence lifetime of the stars in question is less than the
494: %regular (non-resonant) two-body relaxation time in the cusp
495: %\citep{2006astro.ph..3280F,2006ApJ...645L.133H}.
496: %In addition, we expect mass segregation to have little effect on such
497: %a population of stars, since the mass difference between the stars is
498: %much less than the difference between each star and the BHs, which was
499: %seen in the case of low-mass objects in \cite{2006ApJ...645L.133H}.
500: %Because of this uncertainty, however, we have included variety of
501: %shallower MFs as well.
502: We have confirmed that the total amount of background light contributed
503: by the unresolved stars is very near, but does not exceed the best
504: estimates from the observed background light in the inner cusp
505: \citep{schoedel07}.
506:
507: For stars with mass $0.5\,\msun < m < 3\,\msun$, we use two different
508: models. For Model 2a, we use a Salpeter MF with $\beta = 2.35$. For Model
509: 2b, we use a broken-power law with $\beta = 2.35$ for $0.5\,\msun < m
510: < 1\,\msun$, and $\beta = 4.85$ for $1\,\msun < m < 3\,\msun$, roughly
511: consistent with a population of stars that formed continuously over the
512: last 10$\,$Gyr. In both cases, we normalise Eq.~(\ref{stardist})
513: by requiring that the total mass in stars for $r < 0.1\,$pc be equal
514: to $6\times10^4\,\msun$ \citep{2003ApJ...594..812G}.
515:
516:
517:
518:
519: \section{Results}
520: \label{results}
521:
522:
523: In our results, we consider a star to be a HVS when $v_{\infinity} >
524: 1000\,\kms$ ($v_{\rm ej} = 1000\,\kms$). We list our results along
525: with a summary of each Model's MF in Table~\ref{table1}. In
526: Figure~\ref{velocity}, we show how the total ejection rate depends on
527: the minimum ejection velocity, $v_{\rm ej}$, with $r_{\rm min} =
528: 0.001\,$pc. For small ejection velocities ($v_{\rm ej} \sim
529: 100\,\kms$) the rate decreases roughly as a power-law $\propto v_{\rm
530: ej}^{-2.5}$ independent of the stellar MF or mass of the BHs.
531: However, for velocities $v_{\rm ej} \gtrsim 800\,\kms$ tidal dissipation as
532: well as physical collisions between stars and BHs begin to suppress
533: the rate of HVSs. In our Model 1a, with $m_{\rm min} = 3\,\msun$ and
534: $10\,\msun$ BHs, the ejection rate decreases rapidly from $3.5\times
535: 10^{-9}\,$yr$^{-1}$ for $v_{\rm ej} = 1000\,\kms$ (with an observed
536: velocity of $v_{\rm 55} > 600\,\kms$ at 55\,kpc from \sag) down to
537: $6.3\times 10^{-11}\,$yr$^{-1}$ for $v_{\rm ej} = 1500\,\kms$ ($v_{\rm
538: 55} \gtrsim 1300\,\kms)$. The velocity distribution of lower mass
539: HVSs ($\sim\,.5\,\msun$) shows a slightly weaker change in the rate of
540: HVSs in the high velocity range, as can be seen in
541: Figure~\ref{velocity}. Thus, the observed distribution of HVSs
542: produced from this mechanism should be truncated sharply around
543: $\sim\,2000\,{\rm km~s^{-1}}$, in contrast to tidally disrupted
544: binaries which easily eject HVSs with velocities exceeding
545: $4000\,\kms$ \citep{2006MNRAS.368..221G,2006astro.ph..8159B}.
546:
547: Figure~\ref{massdep} shows the dependence of the rate of HVSs on the
548: stars' masses. The rate of HVSs is plotted in
549: $0.5\,\msun$ intervals, so that the total rate of a model is the sum
550: over all mass bins. For a cluster of single mass BHs, the mass
551: distribution of HVSs produced by this mechanism is steeper than the
552: stellar MF by $\sim 1$ for the low mass stars, and $\sim 2$ for higher
553: mass stars. A steeper slope is expected since more massive stars will
554: receive a much smaller kick than less massive stars ($\sim \propto m'
555: / (m + m')$). However, it remains unclear if these slopes will hold
556: for cluster of BHs with varied masses, where a few of the most massive
557: BHs may eject the majority of HVSs. The steep slope of the HVS MF
558: makes it clear that very massive HVSs ($m \sim 10\,\msun$) can not
559: originate from this mechanism, unless there were significantly more stars
560: in the past. There is also a clear discontinuity in the rate of
561: HVSs at $3\,\msun$. This just reflects the clear overdensity of high
562: mass stars in this region.
563:
564:
565: \begin{figure}
566: \begin{center}
567: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f1.ps}
568: \end{center}
569: \caption{\label{velocity} The total rate of stars with ejected
570: velocities $v_{\infinity} > v_{\rm ej}$ versus $v_{\rm ej}$ for
571: $r_{\rm min} = 0.001\,$pc. The coloured curves from top to bottom
572: are for Models 2a (green), 2b (magenta), 1a (black) and
573: 1b (red). The dashed curves are for the same stellar MFs but for a
574: system of $15\,\msun$ BHs instead of $10\,\msun$. The top axis is
575: labelled to show the corresponding velocity at a galactocentric
576: radius of $55\,$kpc, $v_{\rm 55}$.}
577: \end{figure}
578: \begin{figure}
579: \begin{center}
580: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f2.ps}
581: \end{center}
582: \caption{\label{massdep} The total rate of HVSs ($v_{\rm ej} =
583: 1000\,\kms$,) in $0.5\,\msun$ intervals for $r_{\rm min} =
584: 0.001\,$pc. The colours correspond to the same models as in
585: Figure~\ref{velocity}. The top and bottom black `dotted' lines are
586: for a power-law with slope -3, and -7 respectively for comparison.
587: The discontinuity of the HVS rate at $3\,\msun$ is a result of our
588: two different normalisations for Models 1 and 2.}
589: \end{figure}
590:
591: The ejection rate also depends very strongly on the extent to which
592: stars populate the innermost regions of the cusp, as shown in
593: Figure~\ref{minrad}. This is despite the constraints on the stellar
594: DF (c.f. Eqs.~\ref{constraint1} \& \ref{constraint2}), which limit
595: both the semimajor axis of stars to $\sim\,0.01\,$pc and the maximum
596: eccentricity of the orbit. For $r_{\rm min} \lesssim 0.001\,$pc the
597: total rate increases with a shallow power-law index versus inner
598: radius, doubling its value by $10^{-4}\,$pc. We caution, however,
599: that interior to $0.001\,$pc, stellar collisions may flatten the cusp
600: of low mass stars \citep{1991ApJ...370...60M, 2006astro.ph..3280F} and
601: cause the rate of HVSs to increase more slowly than shown in
602: Figure~\ref{minrad}. For the high mass stars in the region (Models
603: 1a-b), the stars are less likely to have physical collisions in their
604: lifetimes, and may populate the entire phase space allowed by
605: Eqs.~(\ref{constraint1}) \& (\ref{constraint2}).
606:
607:
608: Since \browns\ initiated a targeted search for HVSs in the Galactic
609: halo, it is useful to forecast the number of observable HVSs that
610: would originate from encounters with stellar-mass BHs. Current
611: observations indicate that there are $\sim 33 \pm 17$ hypervelocity
612: B-stars with masses between $3$--$5\,\msun$ (W. Brown, private
613: communication). {\it Can scattered stars alone explain the abundance
614: of the observed HVSs?} The answer is positive but not under the
615: most conservative conditions assumed thus far, which predict only
616: $\sim 1 (N_{\rm BH}/1800)$ such HVSs, for $r_{\rm min} =0.001\,$pc.
617: If the masses of the BHs in the cluster were more typically $\sim
618: 15\,\msun$, as might be expected from mass segregation as well as an
619: old population of BHs \citep{2004ApJ...611.1068B}, the number HVSs in
620: our Galaxy would be four times larger. This is still lower than the
621: number of observed HVSs. However, if we assume the most massive stars
622: populate the entire phase space within the constraints of
623: Eqs.~(\ref{constraint1}) \& (\ref{constraint2}), we expect there to be
624: $\sim 30$ HVSs in our Galaxy. If we relax our definition of a HVS and
625: set $v_{\rm ej} = 900\,\kms$, the ejection velocity of HVS7
626: \citep{1987AJ.....94..666C,2006ApJ...647..303B}, we get $\sim 50$
627: HVSs.
628: The assumption that the stars fill the entire phase space is in best
629: agreement with the observations of the S-stars, which appear to be a
630: relaxed system \citep{2005ApJ...620..744G}. By integrating the DF in
631: this region, subject to the above constraints, we find that there
632: should be $\lesssim 0.3$ stars interior to 0.001$\,$pc. In addition,
633: Equation~(\ref{constraint1}) limits the semimajor axis of any star to
634: $\sim 0.01$pc, close to the semimajor axis of S2 (S0-2), $\approx
635: 0.005\,$pc. Thus, the stars that are ejected from this region are
636: ones on eccentric orbits which bring them into this region, similar to
637: S14 (S0-16), which has a closest approach of $\approx 0.0002\,$pc
638: \citep{2005ApJ...620..744G}. This is also consistent with the
639: resonant relaxation timescales in the region \citep[][however, note
640: our caution in
641: \S~\ref{discussion}]{1996NewA....1..149R,2006ApJ...645.1152H}. We also
642: note, however, that we are still being conservative in our
643: calculations. We have excluded all collisional encounters, which at
644: the highest relative velocities may not actually disrupt the star or
645: have significant tidal energy dissipation. If stars and BHs do
646: populate the inner $10^{-4}\,$pc, any collisions would be at
647: velocities far greater than the escape velocity of the star. Our
648: calculations suggest that such encounters may contribute a factor of a
649: few more HVSs, and may offset any depletion of stars and BHs in the
650: region. Since any such collisions would be brief and not very
651: luminous (unless coalescence follows at low impact speeds), it would
652: be difficult to identify star-BH collision events in external Galactic
653: nuclei.
654:
655: Most recently, \citet{2007astro.ph..1600B} have detected a significant
656: number of marginally bound HVSs in the galactic halo. They found that
657: these stars outnumber the unbound population by a factor of $\sim 2$.
658: Such a ratio of bound to unbound HVSs is consistent with the scenario
659: presented here, as well as the tidally ejected binary scenario \hills\
660: to within the statistical uncertainties
661: \citep{2007astro.ph..1600B}. If we look at the ratio of the rates of
662: stars ejected with velocities between $845\,\kms$ ($v_{55} =
663: 275\,\kms$) and $920\,\kms$ ($v_{55} = 450\,\kms$), and stars ejected
664: with higher velocities, we find that there should be $\approx 2.6$
665: times more bound HVSs than unbound HVSs in a volume limited survey.
666: However, this analysis assumes that all such HVSs would be observable,
667: and does not account for any selection effects of the survey by
668: \citet{2007astro.ph..1600B}. With more HVS discoveries, a more
669: detailed statistical analysis may be able to determine the origin of
670: the HVSs.
671:
672: As we pointed out in \S~\ref{disfunct}, the density profile of BHs
673: assumed thus far will exceed the ``drain limit''
674: \citep{2004ApJ...606L..21A} in the innermost regions of integration.
675: We have therefore approximated the drain limit for both $10\,\msun$ and
676: $15\,\msun$ BHs by using an $\alpha_{\rm BH} = 1.7$ power-law, which
677: we found to be the best fit to the Equation~1 of
678: \citet{2004ApJ...606L..21A} between $0.001$ and $0.1\,$pc. We assumed
679: that, inside of $0.1\,$pc, there are $N_{\rm BH} \approx 12000$
680: $10\,\msun$ BHs and $\approx 5500$ $15\,\msun$ BHs. We have found
681: that this increases the total rates calculated above by a factor of
682: $\sim 4$ for the $10\,\msun$ BHs and $\sim 2$ for the $15\,\msun$ BHs.
683: This is true, even if the BHs are drain limited only out to $\sim
684: 0.01\,$pc. Thus, for a drain limited population of $10\,\msun$ BHs
685: (interior to $0.01\,$pc), there would be $\sim 40$ hypervelocity
686: B-stars produced from BH-star scattering, with $r_{\rm min} = 0$.
687:
688:
689: \begin{figure}
690: \begin{center}
691: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f3.ps}
692: \end{center}
693: \caption{\label{minrad} The HVS ejection rate ($v_{\rm ej} =
694: 1000\,\kms$) versus the minimum radius of integration $r_{\rm
695: min}$. The lines are coloured as in Fig.~\ref{velocity}. Interior
696: to $0.001\,$pc, stellar collisions may flatten the cusp of low mass
697: stars \citep{1991ApJ...370...60M,2006astro.ph..3280F} and cause the rate of HVSs to
698: increase more slowly than shown in Figure~\ref{minrad}. For the high
699: mass stars in the region (Models 1a-b), the stars are less likely to
700: have physical collisions in their lifetimes, and may populate the
701: entire phase space allowed by Eqs.~(\ref{constraint1}) \&
702: (\ref{constraint2}). }
703: \end{figure}
704:
705:
706: \section{Summary and discussion}
707: \label{discussion}
708: We constructed a variety of models for the distribution of stars and
709: BHs in the innermost $0.1\,$pc of the Galactic centre. Assuming that
710: the cusp and disk of stars we observe today represent a steady state
711: over the past $\sim\,100\,$Myr, we calculated the rate at which stars
712: will scatter off BHs and populate the Milky Way halo. We showed that
713: the total ejection rate of HVSs can be comparable to that produced by
714: the tidal disruption of binaries, and may exceed it for intermediate
715: mass stars. Our results are consistent with the total number of
716: ejected stars from Fokker-Plank simulations by
717: \citet{2006astro.ph..3280F}.
718: Assuming that the B-stars are fully relaxed as is observed with the
719: younger S-Stars \citep{\ghez}, we can account for most, if not all, of
720: the stars observed by \browns. We demonstrated that the velocity
721: distribution as well as the mass distribution of HVSs should be
722: truncated at high values for the BH scattering process compared to
723: binary disruption events (see Figs. 1 and 2). Better statistics of
724: HVS detections could therefore determine the relative significance of
725: these two plausible channels.
726:
727:
728: In our study, the ejected stars originate from the inner $\sim 0.1\,$pc
729: near \sag, whereas the tidally disrupted binaries that produce HVSs
730: originally come from $\gtrsim\,2\,$pc
731: \citep{2003ApJ...599.1129Y,2006astro.ph..6443P}. The observations of the
732: young disk of stars \citep{2006ApJ...643.1011P}, as well as the cluster of
733: S-stars, suggest that the population of stars at 0.1\,pc from \sag\ should
734: be younger and more massive than at $2\,$pc. This is further supported by
735: the steep drop in B-stars outside of 0.5\,pc
736: \citep{2006ApJ...643.1011P}. In addition, binaries with B-stars ($t_{\rm
737: ms} \lesssim 300\,$Myr) may also not be fully relaxed as has been assumed
738: in many previous calculations, and therefore the diffusion rate of the most
739: massive binaries into the loss-cone may be lower by orders of magnitudes.
740:
741: In the survey of \citet{2006ApJ...647..303B}, the observed HVSs have
742: the same colour as blue horizontal branch stars (BHBs) and have yet to
743: be distinguished from B-stars with high resolution spectroscopy. The
744: calculations shown here suggest that low mass stars, such as BHBs and
745: their progenitors, can become HVSs with high efficiency if they are in
746: the inner 0.1\,pc of \sag.
747: Although tidal disruption rates may be enhanced by massive perturbers,
748: BHBs must undergo significant mass loss, causing them to widen or even
749: disrupt, and therefore are unlikely to be found in the tight binaries
750: which are disrupted \citep{2006astro.ph..6443P}. The spectroscopic
751: identification of one hypervelocity BHB star would be strong evidence
752: in support of the mechanism presented here, or an inspiralling massive
753: BH
754: \citep{2003ApJ...599.1129Y,2005astro.ph..8193L,2006astro.ph..7455B}. However,
755: the expected rate of hypervelocity BHBs depends on uncertain details
756: of stellar evolution and goes beyond the scope of this work. A
757: population of BHBs ejected through this mechanism may be spun up
758: through repeated encounters in the BH cusp
759: \citep{2001ApJ...549..948A}, as well as during the final encounter
760: which ejects them (H.\ Perets, private communication). Therefore, a
761: rotating BHB star may appear to be more like a B-star without detailed
762: spectroscopic evidence. In fact, the HVS HE 0437-5439
763: \citep{2005Apj...634L.181E}, should not be ruled out as being a BHB
764: star based on its required spin value alone.
765:
766: There is a curious link between the number of HVSs observed by
767: \citet{2006ApJ...647..303B} and the S-stars observed orbiting \sag.
768: Some S-stars may be the former companions to the HVSs from tidally
769: disrupted binaries \citep{2003ApJ...592..935G,2006MNRAS.368..221G,\perets}.
770: Interestingly, there exists a similar connection between HVSs
771: scattered off of the BHs and the S-stars as well, although perhaps not
772: one--to--one. For every strong encounter that produces a HVS, there is
773: likely another encounter which can bring the star closer to \sag,
774: perhaps kicking out the BH instead, similar to the scenario proposed
775: by \citet{2004ApJ...606L..21A}. In this scenario, the scattering of a
776: small fraction of young stars from many previous disks into the inner
777: $0.04\,$pc may result in a population similar to the S-stars (O'Leary,
778: R.\ M.\ \& Loeb, A.\ 2007, in preparation). However, we should note
779: that if the S-star are in fact the remnants of tidally disrupted
780: binaries, then this mechanism will only be secondary, as it is only
781: ejects a small fraction of such stars.
782:
783: There is obviously considerable uncertainty in our models. The rate of
784: diffusion of stars both close to and far from \sag\ into eccentric
785: orbits is important to understanding both the mechanisms as well as
786: the source of the observed B-type HVSs in the Galactic halo. In both
787: cases, it is most likely that the stars formed on relatively circular
788: orbits, whether in a disk around \sag\ or in an inspiralling cluster.
789: Large scale simulations similar to those already done by
790: \citet{2006astro.ph..3280F} can help resolve the uncertainties of
791: relaxation, and with modifications, may be able to account for the
792: conditions of continuous star formation over long periods of time. For
793: low mass stars, physical collisions may deplete the total number of
794: stars, and reduce the rate. In our discussion we have not considered
795: the effects of resonant relaxation
796: \citep{1996NewA....1..149R,2006ApJ...645.1152H} near \sag, which may
797: have two counteracting effects on our rate calculation. Resonant
798: relaxation may flatten the cusp and deplete the number density of
799: stars and BHs in the innermost 0.01\,pc; at the same time, it may also
800: drive more massive stars into the same region producing more B-type
801: HVSs \citep{2006ApJ...645.1152H}.
802:
803: In our analysis, we also neglected the migration of massive objects near
804: \sag. If, as suggested by \citet{2006ApJ...641..319P}, many intermediate
805: mass BHs (IMBHs with masses $ \gtrsim 10^3\,\msun$) populate the inner pc
806: of the Galactic centre and merge with \sag\ every $\sim 10^7$--$10^8\,$yr,
807: then the cusp of stellar-mass BHs and stars would not regenerate fast
808: enough to produce HVSs through BH-star encounters
809: \citep{2006astro.ph..7455B} but instead could produce them through
810: IMBH-star encounters \citep{2005astro.ph..8193L}. BHs with masses between
811: most stellar mass BHs and IMBHs (e.g. $\sim 50\,\msun$), may also form
812: through standard binary evolution \citep{2004ApJ...611.1068B}. Such BHs
813: could considerably increase the rate of HVSs, even if they are relatively
814: rare.
815:
816:
817:
818:
819:
820: \section*{Acknowledgements}
821:
822: We would like to thank Reinhard Genzel for discussing his most recent
823: results on the stars near \sag, as well as Warren Brown and Hagai
824: Perets for their helpful discussions and comments on our manuscript. This
825: work was supported in part by Harvard University grants.
826:
827:
828: %\bibliography{p}
829:
830: \begin{thebibliography}{}
831:
832: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Alexander}}{{Alexander}}{2005}]{2005PhR...41%
833: 9...65A}
834: {Alexander} T., 2005, \physrep, 419, 65
835:
836: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Alexander} \& {Kumar}}{{Alexander} \& {Kumar}}{2001}]{2001ApJ...549..948A} {Alexander} T.,
837: {Kumar} P., 2001, \apj, 549, 948
838:
839: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Alexander} \& {Livio}}{{Alexander} \&
840: {Livio}}{2004}]{2004ApJ...606L..21A}
841: {Alexander} T., {Livio} M., 2004, \apjl, 606, L21
842:
843: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Alexander} \& {Sternberg}}{{Alexander} \&
844: {Sternberg}}{1999}]{astern}
845: {Alexander} T., {Sternberg}, A., 1999, \apj, 520, 137
846:
847: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bahcall} \& {Wolf}}{{Bahcall} \&
848: {Wolf}}{1976}]{1976ApJ...209..214B}
849: {Bahcall} J.~N., {Wolf} R.~A., 1976, \apj, 209, 214
850:
851: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bahcall} \& {Wolf}}{{Bahcall} \&
852: {Wolf}}{1977}]{1977ApJ...216..883B}
853: {Bahcall} J.~N., {Wolf} R.~A., 1977, \apj, 216, 883
854:
855: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Baumgardt}, {Gualandris} \& {Portegies
856: Zwart}}{{Baumgardt} et~al.}{2006}]{2006astro.ph..7455B}
857: {Baumgardt} H., {Gualandris} A., {Portegies Zwart} S., 2006, \mnras, 372, 174
858:
859: \bibitem[Belczynski et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...611.1068B} Belczynski, K.,
860: Sadowski, A., Rasio, F.~A.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 1068
861:
862: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Binney} \& {Tremaine}}{{Binney} \&
863: {Tremaine}}{1987}]{1987gady.book.....B}
864: {Binney} J., {Tremaine} S., 1987, {Galactic dynamics}.
865: Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, 747 p.
866:
867: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bromley}, {Kenyon}, {Geller}, {Barcikowski},
868: {Brown} \& {Kurtz}}{{Bromley} et~al.}{2006}]{2006astro.ph..8159B}
869: {Bromley} B.~C., {Kenyon} S.~J., {Geller} M.~J., {Barcikowski} E., {Brown}
870: W.~R., {Kurtz} M.~J., 2006, \apj, 653, 1194
871:
872:
873: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brown}, {Geller}, {Kenyon} \&
874: {Kurtz}}{{Brown} et~al.}{2005}]{2005ApJ...622L..33B}
875: {Brown} W.~R., {Geller} M.~J., {Kenyon} S.~J., {Kurtz} M.~J., 2005,
876: \apjl, 622, L33
877:
878: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brown}, {Geller}, {Kenyon} \&
879: {Kurtz}}{{Brown} et~al.}{2006a}]{2006ApJ...640L..35B}
880: {Brown} W.~R., {Geller} M.~J., {Kenyon} S.~J., {Kurtz} M.~J., 2006a,
881: \apjl, 640, L35
882:
883: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Brown}, {Geller}, {Kenyon} \&
884: {Kurtz}}{{Brown} et~al.}{2006b}]{2006ApJ...647..303B}
885: {Brown} W.~R., {Geller} M.~J., {Kenyon} S.~J., {Kurtz} M.~J., 2006b,
886: \apj, 647, 303
887:
888: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2007)]{2007astro.ph..1600B} Brown, W.~R., Geller,
889: M.~J., Kenyon, S.~J., Kurtz, M.~J., \& Bromley, B.~C.\ 2007, ArXiv
890: Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0701600
891:
892: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Carlberg} \& {Innanen}}{{Carlberg} \&
893: {Innanen}}{1987}]{1987AJ.....94..666C}
894: {Carlberg} R.~G., {Innanen} K.~A., 1987, \aj, 94, 666
895:
896:
897: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Deegan} \& {Nayakshin}}{{Deegan} \&
898: {Nayakshin}}{2007}]{deegan}
899: {Deegan} P., {Nayakshin} S., 2007, \mnras, 377, 897
900:
901: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Edelmann}, {Napiwotzki}, {Heber},
902: {Christlieb} \& {Reimers}}{{Edelmann} et~al.}{2005}]{2005Apj...634L.181E}
903: {Edelmann} H., {Napiwotzki} R., {Heber} U., {Christlieb} N., {Reimers}
904: D., 2005, \apjl, 634, L181
905:
906: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Eisenhauer}, {Genzel}, {Alexander}, {Abuter},
907: {Paumard}, {Ott}, {Gilbert}, {Gillessen}, {Horrobin}, {Trippe}, {Bonnet},
908: {Dumas}, {Hubin}, {Kaufer}, {Kissler-Patig}, {Monnet}, {Str{\"o}bele}, {Szeifert}, {Eckart}, {Sch{\"o}del} \& {Zucker}}{{Eisenhauer}
909: et~al.}{2005}]{2005ApJ...628..246E}
910: {Eisenhauer} F., {Genzel} R., {Alexander} T., {Abuter} R., {Paumard} T.,
911: {Ott} T., {Gilbert} A., {Gillessen} S., {Horrobin} M., {Trippe} S.,
912: {Bonnet} H., {Dumas} C., {Hubin} N., {Kaufer} A., {Kissler-Patig} M., {Monnet} G., {Str{\"o}bele} S., {Szeifert} T., {Eckart} A., {Sch{\"o}del} R., {Zucker} S., 2005, \apj,
913: 628, 246
914:
915: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Freitag}, {Amaro-Seoane} \&
916: {Kalogera}}{{Freitag} et~al.}{2006}]{2006astro.ph..3280F}
917: {Freitag} M., {Amaro-Seoane} P., {Kalogera} V., 2006, \apj, 653, 1194
918:
919:
920: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Genzel}, {Sch{\"o}del}, {Ott}, {Eisenhauer},
921: {Hofmann}, {Lehnert}, {Eckart}, {Alexander}, {Sternberg}, {Lenzen},
922: {Cl{\'e}net}, {Lacombe}, {Rouan}, {Renzini} \& {Tacconi-Garman}}{{Genzel}
923: et~al.}{2003}]{2003ApJ...594..812G}
924: {Genzel} R., {Sch{\"o}del} R., {Ott} T., {Eisenhauer} F., {Hofmann} R.,
925: {Lehnert} M., {Eckart} A., {Alexander} T., {Sternberg} A., {Lenzen} R.,
926: {Cl{\'e}net} Y., {Lacombe} F., {Rouan} D., {Renzini} A.,
927: {Tacconi-Garman} L.~E., 2003, \apj, 594, 812
928:
929: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ghez}, {Salim}, {Hornstein}, {Tanner}, {Lu},
930: {Morris}, {Becklin} \& {Duch{\^e}ne}}{{Ghez}
931: et~al.}{2005}]{2005ApJ...620..744G}
932: {Ghez} A.~M., {Salim} S., {Hornstein} S.~D., {Tanner} A., {Lu} J.~R.,
933: {Morris} M., {Becklin} E.~E., {Duch{\^e}ne} G., 2005, \apj, 620, 744
934:
935: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ginsburg} \& {Loeb}}{{Ginsburg} \&
936: {Loeb}}{2006}]{2006MNRAS.368..221G}
937: {Ginsburg} I., {Loeb} A., 2006, \mnras, 368, 221
938:
939: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gnedin}, {Gould}, {Miralda-Escud{\'e}} \&
940: {Zentner}}{{Gnedin} et~al.}{2005}]{2005ApJ...634..344G}
941: {Gnedin} O.~Y., {Gould} A., {Miralda-Escud{\'e}} J., {Zentner} A.~R.,
942: 2005, \apj, 634, 344
943:
944: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gould} \& {Quillen}}{{Gould} \&
945: {Quillen}}{2003}]{2003ApJ...592..935G}
946: {Gould} A., {Quillen} A.~C., 2003, \apj, 592, 935
947:
948: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gualandris}, {Portegies Zwart} \&
949: {Sipior}}{{Gualandris} et~al.}{2005}]{2005MNRAS.363..223G}
950: {Gualandris} A., {Portegies Zwart} S., {Sipior} M.~S., 2005, \mnras, 363,
951: 223
952:
953: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{H{\'e}non}}{{H{\'e}non}}{1960}]{1960AnAp...2%
954: 3..467H}
955: {H{\'e}non} M., 1960, Annales d'Astrophysique, 23, 467
956:
957: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Henon}}{{Henon}}{1969}]{1969A&A.....2..151H}
958: {Henon} M., 1969, \aap, 2, 151
959:
960: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hills}}{{Hills}}{1988}]{1988Natur.331..687H}
961: {Hills} J.~G., 1988, \nat, 331, 687
962:
963: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hills}}{{Hills}}{1991}]{1991AJ....102..704H}
964: {Hills} J.~G., 1991, \aj, 102, 704
965:
966: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hirsch}, {Heber}, {O'Toole} \&
967: {Bresolin}}{{Hirsch} et~al.}{2005}]{2005A&A...444L..61H}
968: {Hirsch} H.~A., {Heber} U., {O'Toole} S.~J., {Bresolin} F., 2005, \aap,
969: 444, L61
970:
971: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hopman} \& {Alexander}}{{Hopman} \&
972: {Alexander}}{2006a}]{2006ApJ...645.1152H}
973: {Hopman} C., {Alexander} T., 2006a, \apj, 645, 1152
974:
975: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hopman} \& {Alexander}}{{Hopman} \&
976: {Alexander}}{2006b}]{2006ApJ...645L.133H}
977: {Hopman} C., {Alexander} T., 2006b, \apjl, 645, L133
978:
979: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Levin}}{{Levin}}{2005}]{2005astro.ph..8193L}
980: {Levin} Y., 2006, \apj, 653, 1203
981:
982: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Miralda-Escud{\'e}} \&
983: {Gould}}{{Miralda-Escud{\'e}} \& {Gould}}{2000}]{2000ApJ...545..847M}
984: {Miralda-Escud{\'e}} J., {Gould} A., 2000, \apj, 545, 847
985:
986: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Morris}}{{Morris}}{1993}]{1993ApJ...408..496%
987: M}
988: {Morris} M., 1993, \apj, 408, 496
989:
990: \bibitem[Murphy et al.(1991)]{1991ApJ...370...60M} Murphy, B.~W., Cohn,
991: H.~N., Durisen, R.~H.\ 1991, \apj, 370, 60
992:
993: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Nayakshin}, {Dehnen}, {Cuadra} \&
994: {Genzel}}{{Nayakshin} et~al.}{2006}]{2006MNRAS.366.1410N}
995: {Nayakshin} S., {Dehnen} W., {Cuadra} J., {Genzel} R., 2006, \mnras, 366,
996: 1410
997:
998: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Nayakshin} \& {Sunyaev}}{{Nayakshin} \&
999: {Sunyaev}}{2005}]{2005MNRAS.364L..23N}
1000: {Nayakshin} S., {Sunyaev} R., 2005, \mnras, 364, L23
1001:
1002: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Paumard}, {Genzel}, {Martins}, {Nayakshin},
1003: {Beloborodov}, {Levin}, {Trippe}, {Eisenhauer}, {Ott}, {Gillessen}, {Abuter},
1004: {Cuadra}, {Alexander} \& {Sternberg}}{{Paumard}
1005: et~al.}{2006}]{2006ApJ...643.1011P}
1006: {Paumard} T., {Genzel} R., {Martins} F., {Nayakshin} S., {Beloborodov}
1007: A.~M., {Levin} Y., {Trippe} S., {Eisenhauer} F., {Ott} T., {Gillessen}
1008: S., {Abuter} R., {Cuadra} J., {Alexander} T., {Sternberg} A., 2006,
1009: \apj, 643, 1011
1010:
1011: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Perets}, {Hopman} \& {Alexander}}{{Perets}
1012: et~al.}{2006}]{2006astro.ph..6443P}
1013: {Perets} H.~B., {Hopman} C., {Alexander} T., 2007, \apj, 656, 709
1014:
1015:
1016: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Portegies Zwart}, {Baumgardt}, {McMillan},
1017: {Makino}, {Hut} \& {Ebisuzaki}}{{Portegies Zwart}
1018: et~al.}{2006}]{2006ApJ...641..319P}
1019: {Portegies Zwart} S.~F., {Baumgardt} H., {McMillan} S.~L.~W., {Makino} J.,
1020: {Hut} P., {Ebisuzaki} T., 2006, \apj, 641, 319
1021:
1022: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Rauch} \& {Tremaine}}{{Rauch} \&
1023: {Tremaine}}{1996}]{1996NewA....1..149R}
1024: {Rauch} K.~P., {Tremaine} S., 1996, New Astronomy, 1, 149
1025:
1026: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Schaller}, {Schaerer}, {Meynet} \&
1027: {Maeder}}{{Schaller} et~al.}{1992}]{1992A&AS...96..269S}
1028: {Schaller} G., {Schaerer} D., {Meynet} G., {Maeder} A., 1992, \aaps, 96,
1029: 269
1030:
1031: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sch{\"o}del}, {Eckart}, {Alexander}, {Merritt}, {Genzel}, {Sternberg}, {Meyer}, {Kul}, {Moultaka}, {Ott} \& {Straubmeier}}{{Sch{\"o}del} et~al.}{2007}]{schoedel07}
1032: {Sch{\"o}del} R., {Eckart} A., {Alexander} T., {Merritt} D., {Genzel} R., {Sternberg} A., {Meyer} L., {Kul} F., {Moultaka} J., {Ott} T., {Straubmeier} C., 2007, \aap, 469, 125
1033:
1034: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Sesana}, {Haardt} \& {Madau}}{{Sesana}
1035: et~al.}{2006}]{2006astro.ph..4299S}
1036: {Sesana} A., {Haardt} F., {Madau} P., 2006, \apj, 651, 392
1037:
1038:
1039: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Yu} \& {Tremaine}}{{Yu} \&
1040: {Tremaine}}{2003}]{2003ApJ...599.1129Y}
1041: {Yu} Q., {Tremaine} S., 2003, \apj, 599, 1129
1042:
1043: \end{thebibliography}
1044:
1045:
1046: \end{document}
1047:
1048: