Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Supermassive Black-hole Binary Astrophysics With Pulsar-timing Arrays

Supermassive Black-hole Binary Astrophysics With Pulsar-timing Arrays

Invited overview talk given at "Black Holes Across The Gravitational Wave Spectrum" workshop in Natal, Brazil.

Dr. Stephen R. Taylor

August 02, 2017
Tweet

More Decks by Dr. Stephen R. Taylor

Other Decks in Science

Transcript

  1. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 © 2017 California

    Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged Stephen Taylor Supermassive Black-hole Binary Astrophysics With Pulsar-timing Arrays JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
  2. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 Overview Pulsar timing

    Searching for gravitational waves Supermassive black-hole binaries as sources of nanohertz gravitational waves Impact of binary environments on GW signals.
  3. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Discovered in 1967

    by Hewish, Bell, et al. Rapid rotation (P~1s), and strong magnetic field (~ G) Radio emission along magnetic field axis Misalignment of rotation and magnetic field axes creates lighthouse effect 1012 Image credit: Bill Saxton Pulsars
  4. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Discovered in 1967

    by Hewish, Bell, et al. Rapid rotation (P~1s), and strong magnetic field (~ G) Radio emission along magnetic field axis Misalignment of rotation and magnetic field axes creates lighthouse effect 1012 Image credit: Bill Saxton Joeri van Leeuwen Pulsars
  5. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Millisecond Pulsars Discovered

    in 1982 with a rotational period of ~1.6 ms Diminished magnetic field but much faster rotational frequency They have accreted material from a companion star (they are “recycled”) R o t a t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y w a s comparable to atomic clocks
  6. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Pulsar timing Sophisticated

    timing models depend on P, Pdot, pulsar sky location, ISM properties, pulsar binary parameters etc. Image credit: Duncan Lorimer
  7. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 good timing-solution error

    in frequency derivative error in position unmodeled proper motion Lorimer & Kramer (2005)
  8. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Sensitivity band set

    by total observation time (1/decades) and observational cadence (1/weeks) — [ ~ 1- 100 nHz ] Primary candidate is population of supermassive black-hole binaries Searching for GWs with pulsar timing
  9. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Sensitivity band set

    by total observation time (1/decades) and observational cadence (1/weeks) — [ ~ 1- 100 nHz ] Primary candidate is population of supermassive black-hole binaries Image credit: CSIRO Searching for GWs with pulsar timing
  10. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Sensitivity band set

    by total observation time (1/decades) and observational cadence (1/weeks) — [ ~ 1- 100 nHz ] Primary candidate is population of supermassive black-hole binaries Image credit: CSIRO Searching for GWs with pulsar timing
  11. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Sensitivity band set

    by total observation time (1/decades) and observational cadence (1/weeks) — [ ~ 1- 100 nHz ] Primary candidate is population of supermassive black-hole binaries Image credit: CSIRO Searching for GWs with pulsar timing Other sources in the nHz band may be decaying cosmic-string networks, or relic GWs from the early Universe
  12. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Other sources in

    the nHz band may be decaying cosmic-string networks, or relic GWs from the early Universe Searching for GWs with pulsar timing
  13. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 0 20 40

    60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 1 Npairs = N(N 1)/2 GW Detection Signature
  14. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 0 20 40

    60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 4 Npairs = N(N 1)/2 GW Detection Signature
  15. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 0 20 40

    60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 10 Npairs = N(N 1)/2 GW Detection Signature
  16. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 0 20 40

    60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 30 Npairs = N(N 1)/2 GW Detection Signature
  17. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 0 20 40

    60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 pulsar angular separation [deg] -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 arrival time correlation N = 50 Npairs = N(N 1)/2 GW Detection Signature
  18. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Sources & Spectrum

    How do we build a stochastic signal from these binaries, and how do the different physical processes affect the spectrum?
  19. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Sources & Spectrum

    How do we build a stochastic signal from these binaries, and how do the different physical processes affect the spectrum? h2 c (f) = Z 1 0 dz Z 1 0 dM1 Z 1 0 dq d4N dzdM1dqdtr dtr d ln fK,r ⇥h2(fK,r) 1 X n=1 g[n, e(fK,r)] (n/2)2  f nfK,r (1 + z) e.g. Phinney (2001), Sesana (2013)
  20. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Sources & Spectrum

    How do we build a stochastic signal from these binaries, and how do the different physical processes affect the spectrum? h2 c (f) = Z 1 0 dz Z 1 0 dM1 Z 1 0 dq d4N dzdM1dqdtr dtr d ln fK,r ⇥h2(fK,r) 1 X n=1 g[n, e(fK,r)] (n/2)2  f nfK,r (1 + z) e.g. Phinney (2001), Sesana (2013) (a) (b) (c) (a) Comoving merger rate — affects overall signal level (b)Binary evolution — affects shape of spectrum through time binaries spend emitting at each frequency (binary environmental influences enter here) (c) Eccentricity — affects shape of spectrum through binary orbital evolution
  21. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 Upper limits reference

    the characteristic strain amplitude at a GW frequency of 1/yr (~32 nHz) . 3.0 ⇥ 10 15 Environmental Coupling • Stellar hardening • Gas-driven inspiral • Eccentricity Galaxy Population Uncertainties • Merger timescale • SMBH - host relations • Pair fraction • Redshift evolution Diminished GW Signal • BSMBH stalling • GW absorption Characteristic strain, hc 1E-17 1E-16 1E-15 1E-14 1E-13 1E-12 Gravitational Wave Frequency, f (Hz) 1E-10 1E-09 1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 hc f 10.— A conceptual view of how various uncertainties in the BSMBH population and the GWs we can Burke-Spolaor (2015) Sources & Spectrum
  22. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 Upper limits reference

    the characteristic strain amplitude at a GW frequency of 1/yr (~32 nHz) . 3.0 ⇥ 10 15 Environmental Coupling • Stellar hardening • Gas-driven inspiral • Eccentricity Galaxy Population Uncertainties • Merger timescale • SMBH - host relations • Pair fraction • Redshift evolution Diminished GW Signal • BSMBH stalling • GW absorption Characteristic strain, hc 1E-17 1E-16 1E-15 1E-14 1E-13 1E-12 Gravitational Wave Frequency, f (Hz) 1E-10 1E-09 1E-08 1E-07 1E-06 hc f 10.— A conceptual view of how various uncertainties in the BSMBH population and the GWs we can Final- parsec physics Merger rate, BH-galaxy relationships Burke-Spolaor (2015) Sources & Spectrum
  23. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 Lentati, Taylor et

    al. (2015) Shannon et al. (2015) Arzoumanian et al. (2015) [led by Ellis, inc. Taylor, Mingarelli, van Haasteren, Vallisneri, Lazio] Upper limits reference the characteristic strain amplitude at a GW frequency of 1/yr (~32 nHz) . 1.5 ⇥ 10 15 . 3.0 ⇥ 10 15 . 1.0 ⇥ 10 15 Characteristic amplitude, A1yr Year First MSP discovered 1e-16 1e-15 1e-14 1e-13 1e-12 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Predicted BSMBH Background Fig. 5.— Upper limits on the power-law GWB for a spectral index ↵ = 2/3. Limits improved steadily after dedicated timing of millisecond pul- Burke-Spolaor (2015) Sources & Spectrum
  24. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 0 5 10

    PPTA4 0 20 40 60 80 100 NANOGrav+ 0 20 40 60 80 100 EPTA+ 0 20 40 60 80 100 IPTA+ 0 5 10 15 20 T [yrs] 0 20 40 60 80 100 TPTA Expected detection probability [%] Taylor et al. (2016a), ApJL 819, L6
  25. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 “Final parsec problem”

    Dynamical friction not a sufficient driving mechanism to induce merger within a Hubble time e.g., Milosavljevic & Merritt (2003) Supermassive black-hole binary evolution
  26. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 “Final parsec problem”

    Dynamical friction not a sufficient driving mechanism to induce merger within a Hubble time e.g., Milosavljevic & Merritt (2003) Additional environmental couplings may extract energy and angular momentum from binary to drive it to sub-pc separations Supermassive black-hole binary evolution
  27. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 9 yrs
  28. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 9 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 11 yrs
  29. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 9 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 11 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 15 yrs
  30. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 9 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 11 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 15 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 30 yrs
  31. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity df/dt / f11/3 hc(f) / f 2/3 h2 c (f) = Z 1 0 dz Z 1 0 dM1 Z 1 0 dq d4N dzdM1dqdtr dtr d ln fK,r ⇥h2(fK,r) 1 X n=1 g[n, e(fK,r)] (n/2)2  f nfK,r (1 + z) h(f) / f2/3 GW dominated evolution Stellar hardening dominates d dt ✓ 1 a ◆ = G⇢H e.g. Quinlan (1996)
  32. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity df/dt / f11/3 hc(f) / f 2/3 df/dt / f1/3 hc(f) / f h2 c (f) = Z 1 0 dz Z 1 0 dM1 Z 1 0 dq d4N dzdM1dqdtr dtr d ln fK,r ⇥h2(fK,r) 1 X n=1 g[n, e(fK,r)] (n/2)2  f nfK,r (1 + z) h(f) / f2/3 GW dominated evolution Stellar hardening dominates e.g. Quinlan (1996)
  33. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity GW dominated evolution df/dt / f11/3 hc(f) / f 2/3 h2 c (f) = Z 1 0 dz Z 1 0 dM1 Z 1 0 dq d4N dzdM1dqdtr dtr d ln fK,r ⇥h2(fK,r) 1 X n=1 g[n, e(fK,r)] (n/2)2  f nfK,r (1 + z) h(f) / f2/3 Disc accretion dominates binary eccentricity da dt = 2 ˙ M1 µ (aa0)1/2 e.g. Ivanov et al. (1999), Haiman et al. (2009)
  34. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity GW dominated evolution df/dt / f11/3 hc(f) / f 2/3 df/dt / f4/3 hc(f) / f1/2 h2 c (f) = Z 1 0 dz Z 1 0 dM1 Z 1 0 dq d4N dzdM1dqdtr dtr d ln fK,r ⇥h2(fK,r) 1 X n=1 g[n, e(fK,r)] (n/2)2  f nfK,r (1 + z) h(f) / f2/3 Disc accretion dominates binary eccentricity e.g. Ivanov et al. (1999), Haiman et al. (2009)
  35. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity Roedig & Sesana (2012) Armitage & Natarajan (2005) Roedig et al. (2011)
  36. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 9 yrs
  37. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 9 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 11 yrs
  38. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 9 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 11 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 15 yrs
  39. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 circumbinary disk interaction

    stellar hardening binary eccentricity 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 9 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 11 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 15 yrs 10-9 10-8 10-7 f [Hz] 10-15 10-14 hc(f) hc( f = 1yr-1) = A = 1⇥10-15 T = 30 yrs
  40. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 fbend = 3.25

    nHz ✓ ⇢ 103M pc 3 ◆3/10 ✓ H 15 ◆3/10 ✓ M 108M ◆ 23/50 q 3/10 r fbend = 0.144 ✓ M 108M ◆ 17/14 q 6/7 ˙ M3/7 1 a3/14 0 r fbend = 0.144 ✓ M 108M ◆ 17/14 q 6/7 ˙ M3/7 1 a3/14 0 nHz Stellar hardening Circumbinary disc hardening Probing Final-parsec Processes
  41. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Probing Final-parsec Processes

    Binary evolution will be dominated by environment at low frequencies, and radiation reaction at high frequencies dt d ln f = f " X i df dt i #
  42. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Probing Final-parsec Processes

    t/d ln f term) of this equation (see Colpi 2014, for a w of SMBHB coalescence). Following Sampson et al. 5) we can generalize the frequency dependence of the n spectrum to dt d ln f = f ✓ d f dt ◆-1 = f X i ✓ d f dt ◆ i !-1 , (23) e i ranges over many physical processes that are driv- he binary to coalescence. If we restrict this sum to GW- n evolution and an unspecified physical process then the n spectrum is now hc (f) = A (f/fyr )↵ 1+(fbend/f) 1/2 , (24) Binary evolution will be dominated by environment at low frequencies, and radiation reaction at high frequencies dt d ln f = f " X i df dt i # Following Sampson et al. (2015), NANOGrav [Arzoumanian et al. (2016)] modeled the GW strain spectrum with a low-frequency turnover
  43. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Probing Final-parsec Processes

    t/d ln f term) of this equation (see Colpi 2014, for a w of SMBHB coalescence). Following Sampson et al. 5) we can generalize the frequency dependence of the n spectrum to dt d ln f = f ✓ d f dt ◆-1 = f X i ✓ d f dt ◆ i !-1 , (23) e i ranges over many physical processes that are driv- he binary to coalescence. If we restrict this sum to GW- n evolution and an unspecified physical process then the n spectrum is now hc (f) = A (f/fyr )↵ 1+(fbend/f) 1/2 , (24) Binary evolution will be dominated by environment at low frequencies, and radiation reaction at high frequencies dt d ln f = f " X i df dt i # 12 10-9 10-8 10-7 Frequency [Hz] 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 10-12 Characteristic Strain [hc( f)] McWilliams et al. (2014) Model 10-9 10-8 10-7 Frequency [Hz] 10-16 10-15 10-14 10-13 10-12 Characteristic Strain [hc( f)] Sesana et al. (2013) Model Following Sampson et al. (2015), NANOGrav [Arzoumanian et al. (2016)] modeled the GW strain spectrum with a low-frequency turnover B = 22 B = 2.2
  44. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Probing Final-parsec Processes

    “Constraints On The Dynamical Environments Of Supermassive Black-hole Binaries Using Pulsar-timing Arrays”, Taylor, Simon, Sampson, arXiv:1612.02817, PRL 118, 181102 (2017) This approach can be adapted for LIGO and LISA population inference, to map from distributions of source properties back to progenitor characteristics. (Barrett et al., arXiv:1704.03781)
  45. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Bayesian model emulation

    Run a small number of expensive SMBHB population simulations. Train a Gaussian process to learn the shape of the spectrum. Learn the spectral variance due to finiteness of the SMBHB population. We have a predictor for the shape of the spectrum, AND a measure of the uncertainty from the interpolation scheme. Probing Final-parsec Processes “Constraints On The Dynamical Environments Of Supermassive Black-hole Binaries Using Pulsar-timing Arrays”, Taylor, Simon, Sampson, arXiv:1612.02817, PRL 118, 181102 (2017) This approach can be adapted for LIGO and LISA population inference, to map from distributions of source properties back to progenitor characteristics. (Barrett et al., arXiv:1704.03781)
  46. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Testing On Mock

    Data Posterior constraints given entirely by experimentally- conditioned model. Injection is not in training data
  47. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-03-2017 Testing On Mock

    Data Posterior constraints given entirely by experimentally- conditioned model. Injection is not in training data Posterior constraints g i v e n e n t i r e l y b y e x p e r i m e n t a l l y - conditioned model.
  48. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 Latest techniques Build

    a bank of spectral shapes from population simulations (including all physics). Train a Gaussian Process to learn the spectral properties. Provides a fast physically-trained model. Can be trivially expanded. Build a semi-analytic model to probe loss- cone scattering. Also expand merger-rate density with simplified prescription. Taylor et al., PRL 118, 181102 (2017) arXiv:1612.02817 Chen et al., MNRAS, 468, 404 (2017) arXiv:1612.02826
  49. Stephen Taylor IIP 2017, Natal, Brazil, 08-02-2017 Summary PTAs are

    expected to make a GW detection within ~5-10 years. The GW strain spectrum encodes information about SMBHB dynamical evolution. Constraining the spectral shape can tell us about disc accretion, and loss-scone scattering. Gaussian Process emulation or semi-analytic methods allow direct reconstruction of SMBHB astrophysical environmental conditions.