Paper detail

Experimentally, How Dark Are Black Hole Mergers?

The first Advanced LIGO observing run detected two black hole merger events with confidence and likely a third. Many groups organized to followup the events in the optical even though the strong theoretical prior that no optical emission should be seen. We carry through the logic of this by asking about the experimental upper limits to the optical light from Advanced LIGO black hole mergere events. We inventory the published optical searches for transient events associated with the black hole mergers. We describe the factors that go into a formal limit on the visibility of an event (sky area coverage, the coverage factor of the camera, the fraction of sky not covered by intervening objects), and list what is known from the literature of the followup teams quantitative assessment of each factor. Where possible we calculate the total probability from each group that the source was imaged. The calculation of confidence level is reviewed for the case of no background. We find that an experimental 95% upper limit on the magnitude of a black hole requires the sum of the total probabilities over all events to be more than 3. In the first Advanced LIGO observing run we were far from reaching that threshold.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.