Primodial Black Hole Dark Matter - Keck Institute for ...kiss.caltech.edu/symposia/DaMaSC_2017/presentations/Flauger.pdf · Primodial Black Hole Dark Matter ... most longstanding

Primodial Black Hole Dark MatterRaphael Flauger

Dark Matter in Southern California 2017, Caltech, August 30, 2017

1978ApJ...225L.107R

Introduction

We have compelling evidence that dark matter exists...

Introduction

... but we don’t know whether dark matter consists of

• WIMPs

Introduction

• WIMPs

• axions

• SIDM

• neutrinos

• ...

• primordial black holes

... but we don’t know whether dark matter consists of

LIGOLIGO has detected gravitational waves from binary black hole mergers

LIGOThe detected black holes are perhaps more massive than expected

Could LIGO be seeing mergers of primordial black holes that make up all the dark matter?

• Expected rates agree with the rates estimated by LIGO.

• Consistent with observational constraints on primordial black holes at the time of writing.

(Bird, Cholis, Muñoz, Ali-Haïmoud, Kamionkowski, Kovetz, Racanelli, Riess, 2016)

LIGO and Dark Matter

Merger rates

Did LIGO detect dark matter?

Simeon Bird,∗ Ilias Cholis, Julian B. Munoz, Yacine Ali-Haımoud, MarcKamionkowski, Ely D. Kovetz, Alvise Raccanelli, and Adam G. Riess1

1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University,

3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218, USA

We consider the possibility that the black-hole (BH) binary detected by LIGO may be a signatureof dark matter. Interestingly enough, there remains a window for masses 20M⊙ � Mbh � 100M⊙where primordial black holes (PBHs) may constitute the dark matter. If two BHs in a galactic halopass sufficiently close, they radiate enough energy in gravitational waves to become gravitationallybound. The bound BHs will rapidly spiral inward due to emission of gravitational radiation andultimately merge. Uncertainties in the rate for such events arise from our imprecise knowledge of thephase-space structure of galactic halos on the smallest scales. Still, reasonable estimates span a rangethat overlaps the 2 − 53 Gpc−3 yr−1 rate estimated from GW150914, thus raising the possibilitythat LIGO has detected PBH dark matter. PBH mergers are likely to be distributed spatiallymore like dark matter than luminous matter and have no optical nor neutrino counterparts. Theymay be distinguished from mergers of BHs from more traditional astrophysical sources through theobserved mass spectrum, their high ellipticities, or their stochastic gravitational wave background.Next generation experiments will be invaluable in performing these tests.

The nature of the dark matter (DM) is one of themost longstanding and puzzling questions in physics.Cosmological measurements have now determined withexquisite precision the abundance of DM [1, 2], and fromboth observations and numerical simulations we knowquite a bit about its distribution in Galactic halos. Still,the nature of the DM remains a mystery. Given the ef-ficacy with which weakly-interacting massive particles—for many years the favored particle-theory explanation—have eluded detection, it may be warranted to considerother possibilities for DM. Primordial black holes (PBHs)are one such possibility [3–6].

Here we consider whether the two ∼ 30M⊙ black holesdetected by LIGO [7] could plausibly be PBHs. There isa window for PBHs to be DM if the BH mass is in therange 20M⊙ � M � 100M⊙ [8, 9]. Lower masses areexcluded by microlensing surveys [10–12]. Higher masseswould disrupt wide binaries [9, 13, 14]. It has been ar-gued that PBHs in this mass range are excluded by CMBconstraints [15, 16]. However, these constraints requiremodeling of several complex physical processes, includ-ing the accretion of gas onto a moving BH, the conversionof the accreted mass to a luminosity, the self-consistentfeedback of the BH radiation on the accretion process,and the deposition of the radiated energy as heat in thephoton-baryon plasma. A significant (and difficult toquantify) uncertainty should therefore be associated withthis upper limit [17], and it seems worthwhile to exam-ine whether PBHs in this mass range could have otherobservational consequences.

In this Letter, we show that if DM consists of ∼ 30 M⊙BHs, then the rate for mergers of such PBHs falls withinthe merger rate inferred from GW150914. In any galactichalo, there is a chance two BHs will undergo a hard scat-ter, lose energy to a soft gravitational wave (GW) burstand become gravitationally bound. This BH binary will

merge via emission of GWs in less than a Hubble time.1

Below we first estimate roughly the rate of such mergersand then present the results of more detailed calcula-tions. We discuss uncertainties in the calculation andsome possible ways to distinguish PBHs from BH bina-ries from more traditional astrophysical sources.Consider two PBHs approaching each other on a hy-

perbolic orbit with some impact parameter and relativevelocity vpbh. As the PBHs near each other, they pro-duce a time-varying quadrupole moment and thus GWemission. The PBH pair becomes gravitationally boundif the GW emission exceeds the initial kinetic energy. Thecross section for this process is [19, 20],

σ = π

�85π

3

�2/7

R2s

�vpbhc

�−18/7

= 1.37× 10−14 M230 v

−18/7pbh−200 pc

2, (1)

where Mpbh is the PBH mass, and M30 the PBH massin units of 30M⊙, Rs = 2GMpbh/c2 is its Schwarzschildradius, vpbh is the relative velocity of two PBHs, andvpbh−200 is this velocity in units of 200 km sec−1.We begin with a rough but simple and illustrative es-

timate of the rate per unit volume of such mergers. Sup-pose that all DM in the Universe resided in Milky-Waylike halos of mass M = M12 1012 M⊙ and uniform massdensity ρ = 0.002 ρ0.002 M⊙ pc−3 with ρ0.002 ∼ 1. As-suming a uniform-density halo of volume V = M/ρ, therate of mergers per halo would be

N � (1/2)V (ρ/Mpbh)2σv

� 3.10× 10−12 M12 ρ0.002 v−11/7pbh−200 yr

−1 . (2)

1In our analysis, PBH binaries are formed inside halos at z = 0.

Ref. [18] considered instead binaries which form at early times

and merge over a Hubble time.

arX

iv:1

603.

0046

4v2

[astr

o-ph

.CO

] 30

May

201

6

Γ � V n2σvpbh � V (ρ/Mpbh)2σvpbh


Merger rates












σ = π

�85π

3

�2/7

R2s

�vpbhc

�−18/7

= 1.37× 10−14 M230 v

−18/7pbh−200 pc

2, (1)




� 3.10× 10−12 M12 ρ0.002 v−11/7pbh−200 yr

−1 . (2)




arX

iv:1

603.

0046

4v2

[astr

o-ph

.CO

] 30

May

201

6



Merger rates












σ = π

�85π

3

�2/7

R2s

�vpbhc

�−18/7

= 1.37× 10−14 M230 v

−18/7pbh−200 pc

2, (1)




� 3.10× 10−12 M12 ρ0.002 v−11/7pbh−200 yr

−1 . (2)




arX

iv:1

603.

0046

4v2

[astr

o-ph

.CO

] 30

May

201

6

2

The relative velocity vpbh−200 is specified by a character-istic halo velocity. The mean cosmic DM mass density isρdm � 3.6 × 1010 M⊙ Mpc−3, and so the spatial densityof halos is n � 0.036M−1

12 Mpc−3. The rate per unitcomoving volume in the Universe is thus

Γ � 1.1× 10−4 ρ0.002 v−11/7pbh−200 Gpc−3 yr−1. (3)

The normalized halo mass M12 drops out, as it should.The merger rate per unit volume also does not dependon the PBH mass, as the capture cross section scales likeM2

pbh.

This rate is small compared with the 2−53 Gpc−3 yr−1

estimated by LIGO for a population of ∼ 30M⊙−30M⊙mergers [21], but it is a very conservative estimate. AsEq. (3) indicates, the merger rate is higher in higher-density regions and in regions of lower DM velocity dis-persion. The DM in Milky-Way like halos is known fromsimulations [22] and analytic models [23] to have sub-structure, regions of higher density and lower velocitydispersion. DM halos also have a broad mass spectrum,extending to very low masses where the densities can be-come far higher, and velocity dispersion far lower, thanin the Milky Way. To get a very rough estimate of theconceivable increase in the PBH merger rate due to thesesmaller-scale structures, we can replace ρ and v in Eq. (3)by the values they would have had in the earliest gener-ation of collapsed objects, where the DM densities werelargest and velocity dispersions smallest. If the primor-dial power spectrum is nearly scale invariant, then gravi-tationally bound halos of mass Mc ∼ 500 M⊙, for exam-ple, will form at redshift zc � 28 − log10(Mc/500M⊙).These objects will have virial velocities v � 0.2 km sec−1

and densities ρ � 0.24 M⊙ pc−3 [24]. Using these valuesin Eq. (3) increases the merger rate per unit volume to

Γ � 700Gpc−3 yr−1. (4)

This would be the merger rate if all the DM resided in thesmallest haloes. Clearly, this is not true by the presentday; substructures are at least partially stripped as theymerge to form larger objects, and so Eq. (4) should beviewed as a conservative upper limit.

Having demonstrated that rough estimates contain themerger-rate range 2−53 Gpc−3 yr−1 suggested by LIGO,we now turn to more careful estimates of the PBH mergerrate. As Eq. (3) suggests, the merger rate will depend ona density-weighted average, over the entire cosmic DM

distribution, of ρ0.002v−11/7pbh−200. To perform this average,

we will (a) assume that DM is distributed within galac-tic halos with a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile [25]with concentration parameters inferred from simulations;and (b) try several halo mass functions taken from theliterature for the distribution of halos.

The PBH merger rate R within each halo can be com-

puted using

R = 4π

� Rvir

0r2

1

2

�ρnfw(r)

Mpbh

�2

�σvpbh� dr (5)

where ρnfw(r) = ρs�(r/Rs)(1 + r/Rs)2

�−1is the NFW

density profile with characteristic radius rs and char-acteristic density ρs. Rvir is the virial radius at whichthe NFW profile reaches a value 200 times the comovingmean cosmic density and is cutoff. The angle bracketsdenote an average over the PBH relative velocity dis-tribution in the halo. The merger cross section σ isgiven by Eq. (1). We define the concentration param-eter C = Rvir/Rs. To determine the profile of each halo,we require C as a function of halo mass M . We willuse the concentration-mass relations fit to DM N-bodysimulations by both Ref. [26] and Ref. [27].We now turn to the average of the cross section times

relative velocity. The one-dimensional velocity dispersionof a halo is defined in terms of the escape velocity atradius Rmax = 2.1626Rs, the radius of the maximumcircular velocity of the halo. i.e.,

vdm =

�GM(r < rmax)

rmax=

vvir√2

�C

Cm

g(Cm)

g(C), (6)

where g(C) = ln(1+C)−C/(1+C), and Cm = 2.1626 =Rmax/Rs. We approximate the relative velocity distri-bution of PBHs within a halo as a Maxwell-Boltzmann(MB) distribution with a cutoff at the virial velocity. i.e.,

P (vpbh) = F0

�exp

�−v2pbhv2dm

�− exp

�− v2virv2dm

��, (7)

where F0 is chosen so that 4π� vvir0 P (v)v2dv = 1. This

model provides a reasonable match to N-body simula-tions, at least for the velocities substantially less thanthan the virial velocity which dominate the merger rate(e.g., Ref. [28]). Since the cross-section is independentof radius, we can integrate the NFW profile to find themerger rate in any halo:

R =

�85π

12√2

�2/7 9G2M2vir

cR3s

�1− 1

(1 + C)3

�D(vdm)

g(C)2,

(8)

where

D(vdm) =

� vvir

0P (v, vdm)

�2v

c

�3/7

dv, (9)

comes from Eq. (7).Eq. (1) gives the cross section for two PBHs to form a

binary. However, if the binary is to produce an observ-able GW signal, these two PBHs must orbit and inspiral;a direct collision, lacking an inspiral phase, is unlikely


For Milky Way like halo

much smaller than rate inferred by LIGO.

2



Γ � 1.1× 10−4 ρ0.002 v−11/7pbh−200 Gpc−3 yr−1. (3)


pbh.




Γ � 700Gpc−3 yr−1. (4)






puted using

R = 4π

� Rvir

0r2

1

2

�ρnfw(r)

Mpbh

�2

�σvpbh� dr (5)


�−1is the NFW



vdm =

�GM(r < rmax)

rmax=

vvir√2

�C

Cm

g(Cm)

g(C), (6)


P (vpbh) = F0

�exp

�−v2pbhv2dm

�− exp

�− v2virv2dm

��, (7)



R =

�85π

12√2

�2/7 9G2M2vir

cR3s

�1− 1

(1 + C)3

�D(vdm)

g(C)2,

(8)

where

D(vdm) =

� vvir

0P (v, vdm)

�2v

c

�3/7

dv, (9)




Merger rates












σ = π

�85π

3

�2/7

R2s

�vpbhc

�−18/7

= 1.37× 10−14 M230 v

−18/7pbh−200 pc

2, (1)




� 3.10× 10−12 M12 ρ0.002 v−11/7pbh−200 yr

−1 . (2)




arX

iv:1

603.

0046

4v2

[astr

o-ph

.CO

] 30

May

201

6

2



Γ � 1.1× 10−4 ρ0.002 v−11/7pbh−200 Gpc−3 yr−1. (3)


pbh.




Γ � 700Gpc−3 yr−1. (4)






puted using

R = 4π

� Rvir

0r2

1

2

�ρnfw(r)

Mpbh

�2

�σvpbh� dr (5)


�−1is the NFW



vdm =

�GM(r < rmax)

rmax=

vvir√2

�C

Cm

g(Cm)

g(C), (6)


P (vpbh) = F0

�exp

�−v2pbhv2dm

�− exp

�− v2virv2dm

��, (7)



R =

�85π

12√2

�2/7 9G2M2vir

cR3s

�1− 1

(1 + C)3

�D(vdm)

g(C)2,

(8)

where

D(vdm) =

� vvir

0P (v, vdm)

�2v

c

�3/7

dv, (9)




much smaller than rate inferred by LIGO.

2



Γ � 1.1× 10−4 ρ0.002 v−11/7pbh−200 Gpc−3 yr−1. (3)


pbh.




Γ � 700Gpc−3 yr−1. (4)






puted using

R = 4π

� Rvir

0r2

1

2

�ρnfw(r)

Mpbh

�2

�σvpbh� dr (5)


�−1is the NFW



vdm =

�GM(r < rmax)

rmax=

vvir√2

�C

Cm

g(Cm)

g(C), (6)


P (vpbh) = F0

�exp

�−v2pbhv2dm

�− exp

�− v2virv2dm

��, (7)



R =

�85π

12√2

�2/7 9G2M2vir

cR3s

�1− 1

(1 + C)3

�D(vdm)

g(C)2,

(8)

where

D(vdm) =

� vvir

0P (v, vdm)

�2v

c

�3/7

dv, (9)



2



Γ � 1.1× 10−4 ρ0.002 v−11/7pbh−200 Gpc−3 yr−1. (3)


pbh.




Γ � 700Gpc−3 yr−1. (4)






puted using

R = 4π

� Rvir

0r2

1

2

�ρnfw(r)

Mpbh

�2

�σvpbh� dr (5)


�−1is the NFW



vdm =

�GM(r < rmax)

rmax=

vvir√2

�C

Cm

g(Cm)

g(C), (6)


P (vpbh) = F0

�exp

�−v2pbhv2dm

�− exp

�− v2virv2dm

��, (7)



R =

�85π

12√2

�2/7 9G2M2vir

cR3s

�1− 1

(1 + C)3

�D(vdm)

g(C)2,

(8)

where

D(vdm) =

� vvir

0P (v, vdm)

�2v

c

�3/7

dv, (9)



In substructure as high as

More refined estimates appear consistent with LIGO rates.(Bird, Cholis, Muñoz, Ali-Haïmoud, Kamionkowski, Kovetz, Racanelli, Riess, 2016)

For Milky Way like halo


Constraints

adapted from Carr, Kühnel, Sandstad, 2016

1016 1026 1036 104610-7

10-5

0.001

0.100

10-17 10-7 103 1013

M/g ! !

f

M/M! !

KEG F WDNS ML WB

mLQ

LSS

WMAP

FIRAS

DF


Constraints


1016 1026 1036 104610-7

10-5

0.001

0.100

10-17 10-7 103 1013

M/g ! !

f

M/M! !

KEG F WDNS ML WB

mLQ

LSS

DF


Constraints


1016 1026 1036 104610-7

10-5

0.001

0.100

10-17 10-7 103 1013

M/g ! !

f

M/M! !

KEG F WDNS ML E

WB

mLQ

LSS

DF

S

Brandt, 2016Niikura et al., 2017


CMB ConstraintsSpectral distortions

dark matter

cosmological constant

γ

e− p

ν

He

• Coulomb interactions

• Compton scattering

• Double-Compton scattering

• Bremsstrahlung

lead to black body spectrum


• photon number changing processes freeze out below

• energy is no longer efficiently exchanged below

z < few× 106

z < 105

injection of photons/energy generates µ

intermediate and y-distortions

Accretion onto primordial black holes predominantly generates y-distortion

(Ricotti, Ostriker, Mack, 2007)


easily compatible with FIRAS bound

3

III. SPECTRAL DISTORTIONS AND ANISOTROPY CORRELATION FUNCTIONS

Ref. [1] calculated the contribution of BH accretion luminosity to the Compton y parameter, that was estimated bythe contribution y1 obtained from energy injected in the redshift interval zrec < z < zeq. We can write this estimateas

y ≈ 0.25

�trec

teq

dtQpBH(t)

UCMB(t)= 0.25

�zeq

zrec

dz

H(z)(1 + z)

QpBH(z)

UCMB(z). (4)

The result is shown in Fig. 2. The constraint from COBE/FIRAS [15, 16] is y < 1.5 × 10−5 at 95%CL; the BHcontribution cannot be constrained in the mass range of interest.

FIG. 2: Spectral distortion y parameter.

Moving on to CMB anisotropies, in Fig. 3 we show results for the recombination history (left panel) and TTpower spectrum (right panel) for sample values of mBH . Performing a likelihood analysis [17, 18] for the 6 usualΛCDM parameters augmented by another parameter for mBH , using the latest TT, TE, EE anisotropy data fromPlanck [19, 20], leads to the constraint quoted in the introduction. In Fig. 4 we show part of the likelihood triangle.

redshift z10

010

110

210

3

xe

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

fBH

=1, mBH

=100Msol

fBH

=1, mBH

=10Msol

fBH

=1, mBH

=1Msol

fBH

=0

l101 102 103

l(l+

1)C

lTT

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000fBH

=1, mBH

=100Msol

fBH

=1, mBH

=10Msol

fBH

=0

FIG. 3: Left: ionisation fraction. For clarity, the late re-ionisation at z ∼few is not shown here although it is included in thecalculation of the CMB anisotropies. Right: TT power spectrum. The effect is difficult to see for mBH = 10 M⊙.

0.1 1 10 100 1000

10- 1410- 1310- 1210- 1110- 1010- 910- 8

y1

mBH/Msol (Aloni, Blum, Flauger, 2016)

CMB ConstraintsAnisotropies

Accretion onto primordial black heats the plasma and ionizes hydrogen.

redshift z100 101 102 103

x e

10-3

10-2

10-1

100fBH=1, mBH=100MsolfBH=1, mBH=10MsolfBH=1, mBH=1MsolfBH=0

(Aloni, Blum, Flauger, 2016)


Modified ionization history leads to modified temperature and polarization anisotropies

l101 102 103

l(l+1

)ClTT

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000fBH=1, mBH=100MsolfBH=1, mBH=10MsolfBH=0

(Aloni, Blum, Flauger, 2016)

4

FIG. 4: Likelihood plots for ΛCDM+BH model, using Planck TT, TE, EE data [19, 20].

IV. SUMMARY

We have re-analyzed the CMB constraints on primordial black holes (BHs) playing the role of cosmological dark

matter. We find that primordial black holes with masses mBH > 5 M⊙ are disfavored. This limit is subject to

large, and difficult to quantify, theory uncertainty arising from the treatment of accretion and accretion luminosity

of the BHs. Assuming, for concreteness, the same accretion prescription as in the earlier analysis of Ref. [1], our

limit is weaker despite the fact that we use Planck CMB data of far superior quality compared to the WMAP3 data

considered in [1].


disfavored by Planck 2015 data

Mpbh > 5Msol


Caveat

• the accretion rate is very uncertain

Accretion as modeled by Ricotti, Ostriker, Mack

Mpbh < 5Msol

Accretion as modeled by Ali-Haïmoud, Kamionkowski

Mpbh < 100Msol

Accretion as modeled by Poulin et al.

Mpbh < 2Msol

Primordial black holes can form

• during inflation if because

Formation

∆2R(k) =

H2(tk)

8π2�(tk)

� ≈ 0

0 2 4 6 8 100.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Φ�MP

V�Φ�

e.g.

Primordial black holes can form

• during inflation if because

• during reheating

• during a phase transition

• ...

Formation

Even though there are several mechanisms that can lead to formation of primordial black holes, none naturally predicts 30 solar masses.

� ≈ 0

Conclusions

• The idea that LIGO might have seen gravitational waves from black holes that make up the dark matter is intriguing.

• It seems disfavored by data, but a firm conclusion would require a better understanding of accretion onto these black holes.

• Assuming a nearly monochromatic initial mass function, what is the expected mass function at late times?

• The idea is testable as it predicts high eccentricities, absence of EM counterpart, low spin, origin in low mass halos, a stochastic gravitational wave background

Thank you

Primodial Black Hole Dark Matter - Keck Institute for ...kiss.caltech.edu/symposia/DaMaSC_2017/presentations/Flauger.pdf · Primodial Black Hole Dark Matter ... most longstanding

Documents