Paper detail

Comparing gravitational waves from nonprecessing and precessing black hole binaries in the corotating frame

Previous analytic and numerical calculations suggest that, at each instant, the emission from a precessing black hole binary closely resembles the emission from a nonprecessing analog. In this paper we quantitatively explore the validity and limitations of that correspondence, extracting the radiation from a large collection of roughly two hundred generic black hole binary merger simulations both in the simulation frame and in a corotating frame that tracks precession. To a first approximation, the corotating-frame waveforms resemble nonprecessing analogs, based on similarity over a band-limited frequency interval defined using a fiducial detector (here, advanced LIGO) and the source's total mass $M$. By restricting attention to masses $M\in 100, 1000 M_\odot$, we insure our comparisons are sensitive only to our simulated late-time inspiral, merger, and ringdown signals. In this mass region, every one of our precessing simulations can be fit by some physically similar member of the \texttt{IMRPhenomB} phenomenological waveform family to better than 95%; most fit significantly better. The best-fit parameters at low and high mass correspond to natural physical limits: the pre-merger orbit and post-merger perturbed black hole. Our results suggest that physically-motivated synthetic signals can be derived by viewing radiation from suitable nonprecessing binaries in a suitable nonintertial reference frame. While a good first approximation, precessing systems have degrees of freedom (i.e., the transverse spins) which a nonprecessing simulation cannot reproduce. We quantify the extent to which these missing degrees of freedom limit the utility of synthetic precessing signals for detection and parameter estimation.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.