Paper detail

GW190521 may be an intermediate mass ratio inspiral

GW190521 is the first confident observation of a binary black hole merger with total mass $M > 100\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. Given the lack of observational constraints at these masses, we analyze GW190521 considering two different priors for the binary&#39;s masses: uniform in mass ratio and source-frame total mass, and uniform in source-frame component masses. For the uniform in mass-ratio prior, we find that the component masses are $m_1^{\mathrm{src}} = 168_{-61}^{+15}\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ and $m_2^{\mathrm{src}} = 16_{-3}^{+33}\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. The uniform in component-mass prior yields a bimodal posterior distribution. There is a low-mass-ratio mode ($q<4$) with $m_1^{\mathrm{src}} = 100_{-18}^{+17}\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ and $m_2^{\mathrm{src}} = 57_{-16}^{+17}\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ and a high-mass-ratio mode ($q\geq4$) with $m_1^{\mathrm{src}} = 166_{-35}^{+16}\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ and $m_2^{\mathrm{src}} = 16_{-3}^{+14}\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. Although the two modes have nearly equal posterior probability, the maximum-likelihood parameters are in the high-mass ratio mode, with $m_1^{\rm src} = 171\,M_{\odot}$ and $m_2^{\rm src} = 16\,M_{\odot}$, and a signal-to-noise ratio of $16$. These results are consistent with the proposed &#34;mass gap&#34; produced by pair-instability in supernova. Our results differ from those published in Abbott et al. (2020b). We find that a combination of the prior used and the constraints applied may have prevented that analysis from sampling the high-mass-ratio mode. An accretion flare in AGN J124942.3+344929 was observed in possible coincidence with GW190521 by the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF). We report parameters assuming a common origin; however, the spatial agreement of GW190521 and the EM flare alone does not provide convincing evidence for the association ($\ln\mathcal{B} \gtrsim -4$).

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.