- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Data-analysis driven comparison of analytic and numerical coalescing binary waveforms: Nonspinning case

Yi Pan1, Alessandra Buonanno1, John G. Baker2, Joan Centrella2, Bernard J. Kelly2, Sean T. McWilliams1, Frans Pretorius3, and James R. van Meter2,4

  • 1Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
  • 2Gravitational Astrophysics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Rd., Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
  • 4Center for Space Science & Technology, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Physics Department, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, Maryland 21250, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 77, 024014 – Published 10 January, 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.024014

Abstract

We compare waveforms obtained by numerically evolving nonspinning binary black holes to post-Newtonian (PN) template families currently used in the search for gravitational waves by ground-based detectors. We find that the time-domain 3.5PN template family, which includes the inspiral phase, has fitting factors (FFs) ≥0.96 for binary systems with total mass M=10–20M⊙. The time-domain 3.5PN effective-one-body template family, which includes the inspiral, merger, and ring-down phases, gives satisfactory signal-matching performance with FFs ≥0.96 for binary systems with total mass M=10–120M⊙. If we introduce a cutoff frequency properly adjusted to the final black-hole ring-down frequency, we find that the frequency-domain stationary-phase-approximated template family at 3.5PN order has FFs ≥0.96 for binary systems with total mass M=10–20M⊙. However, to obtain high matching performances for larger binary masses, we need to either extend this family to unphysical regions of the parameter space or introduce a 4PN order coefficient in the frequency-domain gravitational wave (GW) phase. Finally, we find that the phenomenological Buonanno-Chen-Vallisneri family has FFs ≥0.97 with total mass M=10–120M⊙. The main analyses use the noise-spectral density of LIGO, but several tests are extended to VIRGO and advanced LIGO noise-spectral densities.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (50)

  1. A. Abramovici et al., Science 256, 325 (1992); http://www.ligo.caltech.edu.
  2. H. Lück et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 14, 1471 (1997); http://www.geo600.uni-hannover.de.
  3. M. Ando et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3950 (2001); http://tamago.mtk.nao.ac.jp.
  4. B. Caron et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 14, 1461 (1997); http://www.virgo.infn.it.
  5. http://www.lisa-science.org/resources/talks-articles/science/lisa_science_case.pdf.
  6. F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 121101 (2005).
  7. M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111101 (2006).
  8. J. Baker, J. Centrella, D. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111102 (2006).
  9. M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D 74, 041501 (2006); 74, 084023 (2006); M. CampanelliC. O. LoustoY. ZlochowerU. Sperhake, arXiv:gr-qc/0606079 [Phys. Rev. D (to be published)]; J. González, U. Sperhake, B. Brügmann, M. Hannam, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 091101 (2007); B. Szilagyi, D. Pollney, L. Rezzolla, J. Thornburg and J. Winicour, Classical Quantum Gravity 24, S275 (2007); F. Pretorius and D. Khurana, 24, S83 (2007).
  10. A. Buonanno, G. Cook, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 75, 124018 (2007).
  11. J. Baker, J. van Meter, S. McWilliams, J. Centrella, and B. Kelly, arXiv:gr-qc/0612024 [Phys. Rev. Lett. (to be published)].
  12. P. Jaranowski and G. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D 57, 7274 (1998); 63 029902(E) (2000); L. Blanchet and G. Faye, 63, 062005 (2001); V. C. de Andrade, L. Blanchet, and G Faye, Classical Quantum Gravity 18, 753 (2001); T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Schäfer, Phys. Lett. B 513, 147 (2001); L. Blanchet, G. Faye, B. R. Iyer, and B. Joguet, Phys. Rev. D 65, 061501(R) (2002); 71, 129902 (2005); L. Blanchet and B. R. Iyer, Classical Quantum Gravity 20, 755 (2003); L. Blanchet, T. Damour, G. Esposito-Farese, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 091101 (2004).
  13. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 59, 084006 (1999).
  14. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 62, 064015 (2000).
  15. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, in Proceedings of the IXth Marcel Grossmann Meeting, Rome, 2000 (unpublished).
  16. T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084011 (2000).
  17. T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124013 (2001).
  18. A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104005 (2006).
  19. T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 57, 885 (1998).
  20. T. Baumgarte, P. Brady, J. D. E. Creighton, L. Lehner, F. Pretorius, and R. DeVoe, arXiv:gr-qc/0612100.
  21. J. W. York, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1350 (1999).
  22. E. Gourgoulhon, P. Grandclément, and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. D 65, 044020 (2002).
  23. P. Grandclément, E. Gourgoulhon, and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. D 65, 044021 (2002).
  24. H. P. Pfeiffer, L. E. Kidder, M. S. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Comput. Phys. Commun. 152, 253 (2003).
  25. G. B. Cook and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D 70, 104016 (2004); M. Caudill, G. B. Cook, J. D. Grigsby, and H. Pfeiffer, 74, 064011 (2006).
  26. S. Brandt and B. Brügmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3606 (1997).
  27. C. Cutler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2984 (1993).
  28. T. Damour, B. Iyer, and B. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 63, 044023 (2001); 66, 027502 (2002).
  29. T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 67, 064028 (2003).
  30. A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 67, 024016 (2003); 74, 029903(E) (2006).
  31. T. Damour, B. Iyer, P. Jaranowski, and B. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 67, 064028 (2003).
  32. K. G. Arun, B. R. Iyer, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and P. Sundararajan, Phys. Rev. D 71, 084008 (2005); 72, 069903(E) (2005).
  33. T. Damour, E. Gourgoulhon, and P. Grandclément, Phys. Rev. D 66, 024007 (2002); P. Grandclément, E. Gourgoulhon, and S. Bonazzola, 65, 044021 (2002).
  34. L. Blanchet, Phys. Rev. D 65, 124009 (2002).
  35. A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 67, 104025 (2003); 74, 029904(E) (2006).
  36. L. S. Finn, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5236 (1992); L. S. Finn and D. F. Chernoff, 47, 2198 (1993); É. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, 57, 4535 (1998).
  37. http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/scripts/ref_des.shtml.
  38. J. Baker, S. McWilliams, J. van Meter, J. Centrella, D. Choi, B. Kelly, and M. Koppitz, Phys. Rev. D 75, 124024 (2007).
  39. J. Baker, M. Campanelli, F. Pretorius, and Y. Zlochower, Classical Quantum Gravity 24, S25 (2007).
  40. T. Damour, B. Iyer, and B. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084036 (2000).
  41. B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 72, 082001 (2005).
  42. B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 73, 062001 (2006).
  43. E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and C. Will, Phys. Rev. D 73, 064030 (2006).
  44. L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Relativity 9, 4 (2006).
  45. P. Ajith et al. (unpublished).
  46. E. Berti, V. Cardoso, J. González, U. Sperhake, M. Hannam, S. Husa, and B. Brügmann, arXiv:gr-qc/0703053 [Phys. Rev. D (to be published)].
  47. A. Nagar, T. Damour, and A. Tartaglia, Classical Quantum Gravity 24, S109 (2007); T. Damour and A. Nagar, in Proceedings of the XIth Marcel Grossmann Meeting, Berlin, 2006 (unpublished).
  48. H. P. Pfeiffer, D. A. Brown, L. E. Kidder, L. Lindblom, G. Lovelace, and M. A. Scheel, Classical Quantum Gravity 24, S59 (2007).
  49. http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/~rana/NoiseData/S6/DCnoise.txt.
  50. Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 69, 104017 (2004).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 77, 024014– Published 10 January, 2008
  • Received 16 April 2007

© 2008 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation