- 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

Accuracy of numerical relativity waveforms from binary neutron star mergers and their comparison with post-Newtonian waveforms

Sebastiano Bernuzzi, Marcus Thierfelder, and Bernd Brügmann

  • Theoretical Physics Institute, University of Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 85, 104030 – Published 21 May, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.104030

Abstract

We present numerical relativity simulations of nine-orbit equal-mass binary neutron star covering the quasicircular late inspiral and merger. The extracted gravitational waveforms are analyzed for convergence and accuracy. Second-order convergence is observed up to contact, i.e. about 3–4 cycles to merger; error estimates can be made up to this point. The uncertainties on the phase and the amplitude are dominated by truncation errors and can be minimized to 0.13 rad and ≲1%, respectively, by using several simulations and extrapolating in resolution. In the latter case finite-radius extraction uncertainties become a source of error of the same order and have to be taken into account. The waveforms are tested against accuracy standards for data analysis. The uncertainties on the waveforms are such that accuracy standards are generically not met for signal-to-noise ratios relevant for detection, except for some best cases using extrapolation from several runs. A detailed analysis of the errors is thus imperative for the use of numerical relativity waveforms from binary neutron stars in quantitative studies. The waveforms are compared with the post-Newtonian Taylor T4 approximants both for point-particle and including the analytically known tidal corrections. The T4 approximants accumulate significant phase differences of 2 rad at contact and 4 rad at merger, underestimating the influence of finite-size effects. Tidal signatures in the waveforms are thus important at least during the last six orbits of the merger process.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (89)

  1. T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008).
  2. T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084035 (2009).
  3. T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084018 (2009).
  4. T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123016 (2010).
  5. J. E. Vines and E. E. Flanagan, arXiv:1009.4919.
  6. J. Vines, E. E. Flanagan, and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 83, 084051 (2011).
  7. T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084016 (2010).
  8. B. Giacomazzo, L. Rezzolla, and L. Baiotti, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044014 (2011).
  9. L. Baiotti, T. Damour, B. Giacomazzo, A. Nagar, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024017 (2011).
  10. K. Hotokezaka, K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Kiuchi, Phys. Rev. D 83, 124008 (2011).
  11. Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 051102 (2011).
  12. M. Shibata, Y. Suwa, K. Kiuchi, and K. Ioka, arXiv:1105.3302.
  13. J. Faber, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 114004 (2009), http://stacks.iop.org/0264-9381/26/i=11/a=114004.
  14. M. D. Duez, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 114002 (2010).
  15. S. Rosswog, arXiv:1012.0912.
  16. J. S. Read, C. Markakis, M. Shibata, K. Uryu J. D. E. Creighton, and J. L. Friedman Phys. Rev. D 79, 124033 (2009).
  17. L. Baiotti, T. Damour, B. Giacomazzo, A. Nagar, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 261101 (2010).
  18. M. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 71, 104016 (2005).
  19. L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124020 (2008).
  20. L. Lindblom, Phys. Rev. D 80, 064019 (2009).
  21. M. Hannam et al., Phys. Rev. D 79, 084025 (2009).
  22. C. Reisswig, S. Husa, L. Rezzolla, E. N. Dorband, D. Pollney et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 124026 (2009).
  23. M. Hannam, S. Husa, F. Ohme, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D 82, 124052 (2010).
  24. I. MacDonald, S. Nissanke, and H. Pfeiffer, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 134002 (2011).
  25. L. Baiotti, B. Giacomazzo, and L. Rezzolla, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 114005 (2009).
  26. M. Thierfelder, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Brügmann, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044012 (2011).
  27. B. Brügmann et al., Phys. Rev. D 77, 024027 (2008).
  28. T. Nakamura, K. Oohara, and Y. Kojima, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 90, 1 (1987).
  29. M. Shibata and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. D 52, 5428 (1995).
  30. T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 59, 024007 (1998).
  31. F. Banyuls, J. A. Font, J. M. A. Ibanez, J. M. A. Marti, and J. A. Miralles, Astrophys. J. 476, 221 (1997).
  32. C. Bona, J. Massó, E. Seidel, and J. Stela, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 600 (1995).
  33. M. Alcubierre et al., Phys. Rev. D 67, 084023 (2003).
  34. J. R. van Meter, J. G. Baker, M. Koppitz, and D.-I. Choi, Phys. Rev. D 73, 124011 (2006).
  35. C. Gundlach and J. M. Martin-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D 74, 024016 (2006).
  36. B. Brügmann, W. Tichy, and N. Jansen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 211101 (2004).
  37. B. Brügmann, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 8, 85 (1999).
  38. L. Del Zanna, O. Zanotti, N. Bucciantini, and P. Londrillo, arXiv:0704.3206.
  39. A. Kurganov and E. Tadmor, J. Comput. Phys. 160, 241 (2000).
  40. H. Nessyahu and E. Tadmor, J. Comput. Phys. 87, 408 (1990).
  41. C. Shu and S. Osher, J. Comput. Phys. 77, 439 (1988).
  42. C. Shu and S. Osher, J. Comput. Phys. 83, 32 (1989).
  43. X. Liu and S. Osher, J. Comput. Phys. 142, 304 (1998).
  44. L. Del Zanna and N. Bucciantini, Astron. Astrophys. 390, 1177 (2002).
  45. C. B. Macdonald and S. J. Ruuth, J. Sci. Comput. 35, 219 (2008), doi: , http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/ macdonald/lscpm.pdf.10.1007/s10915-008-9196-6
  46. E. Gourgoulhon, P. Grandclement, K. Taniguchi, J.-A. Marck, and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. D 63, 064029 (2001).
  47. K. Taniguchi and E. Gourgoulhon, Phys. Rev. D 66, 104019 (2002).
  48. E. Gourgoulhon, P. Grandclément, J. A. Marck, J. Novak and K. Taniguchi, Paris Observatory, Meudon section - LUTH laboratory, http://www.lorene.obspm.fr/http://www.lorene.obspm.fr/.
  49. L. Baiotti, M. Shibata, and T. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064015 (2010).
  50. M. Thierfelder, S. Bernuzzi, D. Hilditch, B. Brügmann, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D 83, 064022 (2011).
  51. J. D. Brown, Phys. Rev. D 77, 044018 (2008).
  52. M. Hannam, S. Husa, D. Pollney, B. Brügmann, N. O’Murchadhaand , Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 241102 (2007).

  53. In case thermal effect are included the HMNS survives even longer (several rotational periods) because of the additional pressure support due to temperature.

  54. N. Stergioulas, A. Bauswein, K. Zagkouris, and H.-T. Janka, arXiv:1105.0368.
  55. C. Reisswig and D. Pollney, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 195015 (2011).
  56. T. Yamamoto, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 78, 064054 (2008).
  57. M. Boyle, D. A. Brown, L. E. Kidder, A. H. Mroue, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, G. B. Cook , and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D76, 124038 (2007).
  58. M. A. Scheel, M. Boyle, T. Chu, L. E. Kidder, K. D. Matthews, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D 79, 024003 (2009).
  59. M. Boyle, A. Buonanno, L. E. Kidder, A. H. Mroue, Y. Pan et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 104020 (2008).
  60. M. Boyle and A. H. Mroue, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124045 (2009).
  61. D. Pollney, C. Reisswig, N. Dorband, E. Schnetter, and P. Diener, Phys. Rev. D 80, 121502 (2009).
  62. D. Pollney, C. Reisswig, E. Schnetter, N. Dorband, and P. Diener, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044045 (2011).
  63. C. Reisswig, N. Bishop, D. Pollney, and B. Szilagyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 221101 (2009).
  64. C. Reisswig, N. T. Bishop, D. Pollney, and B. Szilagyi, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 075014 (2010).
  65. M. Babiuc, J. Winicour, and Y. Zlochower, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 134006 (2011).
  66. N. T. Bishop, R. Gomez, L. Lehner, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D54, 6153 (1996).
  67. M. Babiuc, B. Szilagyi, I. Hawke, and Y. Zlochower, Classical Quantum Gravity 22, 5089 (2005).
  68. M. Babiuc, N. Bishop, B. Szilagyi, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084011 (2009).
  69. S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, and A. Zenginoglu, Phys. Rev. D 83, 064010 (2011).
  70. S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, and A. Zenginoglu, Phys. Rev. D 84, 084026 (2011).
  71. B. Aylott et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 165008 (2009).
  72. S. T. McWilliams, B. J. Kelly, and J. G. Baker, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024014 (2010).
  73. P. Ajith and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084032 (2009).
  74. LIGO Document T0900288-v3, Advanced LIGO anticipated sensitivity curves, https://dcc.ligo.org/cgi-bin/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=2974.
  75. S. Hild, S. Chelkowski, and A. Freise, arXiv:0810.0604.
  76. Thomas Dent, Simple fit to the “ET-B” sensitivity curve of arXiv:0810.0604v2, https://workarea.et-gw.eu/et/WG3-Topologyhttps://workarea.et-gw.eu/et/WG3-Topology.
  77. T. Damour, A. Nagar, and M. Trias, Phys. Rev. D 83, 024006 (2011).
  78. M. Hannam, S. Husa, F. Ohme, D. Müller, and B. Brügmann, Phys. Rev. D 82, 124008 (2010).
  79. L. Blanchet, G. Faye, B. R. Iyer, and B. Joguet, Phys. Rev. D 65, 061501 (2002).
  80. T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and B. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 66, 027502 (2002).
  81. A. Buonanno, Y.-b. Chen, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 67, 024016 (2003).
  82. L. Blanchet, T. Damour, G. Esposito-Farese, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 091101 (2004).
  83. J. van Meter, J. G. Baker, M. Koppitz, and D.-I. Choi, Phys. Rev. D 73, 124011 (2006).

  84. With LO and NLO we refer to tidal corrections of order O(x5) and O(x6) respectively in the PN expansion, where x=(GMΩ/c3)2/3 is the PN expansion parameter.

  85. Note that in the plots in this paper the burst is not visible as a consequence of the integration algorithm to recover h from ψ4, but it is actually present in the ψ4 data. The integration can also be performed in a way which takes into account the burst [86].

  86. T. Damour, A. Nagar, D. Pollney, and C. Reisswig, arXiv:1110.2938.

  87. We mention here that the LO tidal correction in the T4td waveform has a negligible effect: the main difference between T4pp and T4td is the correction in the PN dynamics. In addition, the performances of T4td may be strongly driven by the point-particle part of the phasing formula, for which a resummed PN technique could be preferable [7, 9] (see also [59, 88] for the BBH case)

  88. T. Damour, A. Nagar, M. Hannam, S. Husa, and B. Brügmann, Phys. Rev. D 78, 044039 (2008).
  89. C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 85, 104030– Published 21 May, 2012
  • Received 14 October 2011

© 2012 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation