Cited by 362Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics

Dynamics of primordial black hole formation

Open access
Niemeyer, J. C., Jedamzik, K.·1999·Physical Review D

Abstract

We present a numerical investigation of the gravitational collapse of horizon-size density fluctuations to primordial black holes (PBHs) during the radiation-dominated phase of the early Universe. The collapse dynamics of three different families of initial perturbation shapes, imposed at the time of horizon crossing, is computed. The perturbation threshold for black hole formation, needed for estimations of the cosmological PBH mass function, is found to be ${\ensuremath{\delta}}_{\mathrm{c}}\ensuremath{\approx}0.7$ rather than the generally employed ${\ensuremath{\delta}}_{\mathrm{c}}\ensuremath{\approx}1/3$ if $\ensuremath{\delta}$ is defined as $\ensuremath{\Delta}{M/M}_{\mathrm{h}},$ the relative excess mass within the initial horizon volume. In order to study the accretion onto the newly formed black holes, we use a numerical scheme that allows us to follow the evolution for long times after formation of the event horizon. In general, small black holes (compared to the horizon mass at the onset of the collapse) give rise to a fluid bounce that effectively shuts off accretion onto the black hole, while large ones do not. In both cases, the growth of the black hole mass owing to accretion is insignificant. Furthermore, the scaling of black hole mass with the distance from the formation threshold, known to occur in near-critical gravitational collapse, is demonstrated to apply to primordial black hole formation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.59.124013

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Niemeyer, J. C., & Jedamzik, K.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
1999-05-18
Volume
59
Issue
12
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-4918
OpenAlex
W2031350292
Cited by
362
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
Keywords
primordial black holes, gravitational collapse, black hole formation threshold, black hole mass function, black hole accretion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review