Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
We compare GW150914 directly to simulations of coalescing binary black
holes in full general relativity, including several performed
specifically to reproduce this event. Our calculations go beyond
existing semianalytic models, because for all simulations-including
sources with two independent, precessing spins - we perform comparisons
which account for all the spin-weighted quadrupolar modes, and
separately which account for all the quadrupolar and octopolar modes.
Consistent with the posterior distributions reported by Abbott et al.
[Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016)] (at the 90\% credible level), we
find the data are compatible with a wide range of nonprecessing and
precessing simulations. Follow-up simulations performed using previously
estimated binary parameters most resemble the data, even when all
quadrupolar and octopolar modes are included. Comparisons including only
the quadrupolar modes constrain the total redshifted mass M-z epsilon
[64 M-circle dot - 82 M-circle dot], mass ratio 1/q = m(2)/m(1)
epsilon [0.6; 1], and effective aligned spin chi(eff) epsilon [-0.3,
0.2] where chi(eff) = (S-1/m(1)+S-2/m(2)). (L) over cap /M. Including
both quadrupolar and octopolar modes, we find the mass ratio is even
more tightly constrained. Even accounting for precession, simulations
with extreme mass ratios and effective spins are highly inconsistent
with the data, at any mass. Several nonprecessing and precessing
simulations with similar mass ratio and chi(eff) are consistent with the
data. Though correlated, the components' spins (both in magnitude and
directions) are not significantly constrained by the data: the data is
consistent with simulations with component spin magnitudes a(1,2) up to
at least 0.8, with random orientations. Further detailed follow-up
calculations are needed to determine if the data contain a weak imprint
from transverse (precessing) spins. For nonprecessing binaries,
interpolating between simulations, we reconstruct a posterior
distribution consistent with previous results. The final black hole's
redshifted mass is consistent with M-f,M-z in the range 64.0 M-circle
dot - 73.5 M-circle dot and the final black hole's dimensionless spin
parameter is consistent with a(f) = 0.62-0.73. As our approach invokes
no intermediate approximations to general relativity and can strongly
reject binaries whose radiation is inconsistent with the data, our
analysis provides a valuable complement to Abbott et al.
Directly comparing GW150914 with numerical solutions of Einstein's
equations for binary black hole coalescence
Abbott, B. P.;Abbott;Acernese, F.;Ackley;Adhikari, R. X.;Adya;Agatsuma, K.;Aggarwal, A.;Ajith, P.;Allen;Anderson, S. B.;Anderson;Arceneaux, C. C.;Areeda;Ascenzi, S.;Ashton;Aufmuth, P.;Aulbert, M. K. M.;Baker, P. T.;Baldaccini;Ballmer, S. W.;Barayoga;Barker, D.;Barone;Barsuglia, M.;Barta, R.;Basti, A.;Batch;Bazzan, M.;Bejger;Bergmann, G.;Berry;Betzwieser, J.;Bhagwat;Billingsley, G.;Birch;Bisht, A.;Bitossi;Blackburn, J. K.;Blair;Bloemen, S.;Bock;Bohe, A.;Bond;Bork, R.;Boschi;Bradaschia, C.;Brady, M.;Brau, J. E.;Briant;Brisson, V.;Brockill;Brown, D. A.;Brown;Buchanan, C. C.;Buikema;Buonanno, A.;Buskulic;Cadonati, L.;Cagnoli, Calderon;Callister, T.;Calloni, K. C.;Cao, J.;Capano;Caride, S.;Diaz;Cavaglia, M.;Cavalier;Cepeda, C. B.;Baiardi;Chamberlin, S. J.;Chan;Cheng, C.;Chincarini, M.;Chow, J. H.;Christensen;Chung, S.;Ciani;Coccia, E.;Cohadon;Cominsky, L.;Constancio;Cook, D.;Corbitt, S.;Costa, C. A.;Coughlin, J. P.;Countryman, S. T.;Couvares;Coward, D. M.;Cowart;Craig, K.;Creighton;Cumming, A.;Cunningham;Danilishin, S. L.;D'Antonio;Dasgupta, A.;Costa;Davier, M.;Davies;DeBra, D.;Debreczeni;Deleglise, S.;Del Pozzo;Dergachev, V.;De Rosa;Devine, R. C.;Dhurandhar;Palma, I.;Di Virgilio;Dooley, K. L.;Doravari;Drago, M.;Drever;Dwyer, S. E.;Edo;Eggenstein, H. B.;Ehrens;Engels, W.;Essick, T. M.;Everett, R.;Factourovich;Fan, X.;Fang;Favata, M.;Fays;Fenyvesi, E.;Ferrante;Fidecaro, F.;Fiori;Flaminio, R.;Fletcher;Frasconi, F.;Frei;Fritschel, P.;Frolov, H. A. G.;Gair, J. R.;Gammaitoni;Garufi, F.;Gaur;Genin, E.;Gennai;Ghosh, Abhirup;Ghosh;Giardina, K. D.;Giazotto;Goetz, E.;Goetz;M. Gonzalez;Gopakumar, A.;Gordon;Gossan, S. E.;Gosselin;Graef, C.;Graff;Gray, C.;Greco;Grunewald, S.;Guidi, M. K.;Gushwa, K. E.;Gustafson;Hacker, J. J.;Hall, M.;Hanke, M. M.;Hanks;Hardwick, T.;Harms, M. J.;Hartman, M. T.;Haster;Heidmann, A.;Heintze;Hemming, G.;Hendry;Heptonstall, A. W.;Heurs;Hofman, D.;Holt;Houston, E. A.;Howell;Huerta, E. A.;Huet;Huynh Dinh, T.;Indik, N.;Isac, J. M.;Isi;Izumi, K.;Jacqmin;Jawahar, S.;Jian;Jones, D. I.;Jones;Haris, K.;Kalaghatgi;Kang, G.;Kanner;Karvinen, K. S.;Kasprzack;Kaufer, S.;Kaur, S.;Keitel, D.;Kelley;Key, J. S.;Khalili, A.;Kijbunchoo, N.;Kim;Kim, K.;Kim;King, E. J.;King;Kleybolte, L.;Klimenko;Kowalska, I.;Kozak;Krueger, C.;Kuehn;Kutynia, A.;Lackey;Lasky, P. D.;Laxen;Leaci, P.;Leavey, K.;Lee, H. M.;Lee, J. R.;Leroy, N.;Letendre;Li, T. G. F.;Libson;Lombardi, A. L.;Lord;Lormand, M.;Losurdo;Lundgren, A. P.;Lynch;Macinnis, M.;Macleod, Magana;Magee, R. M.;Majorana;Malvezzi, V.;Man, L.;Manske, M.;Mantovani;Marka, S.;Marka;Martelli, F.;Martellini;Marx, J. N.;Mason;Mavalvala, N.;Mazumder, E.;McCormick, S.;McGuire;McManus, D. J.;McRae;Meadors, G. D.;Meidam;Mercer, R. A.;Merilh;Messenger, C.;Messick;Mezzani, F.;Miao, E. E.;Milano, L.;Miller;Miller, J.;Millhouse;Mirshekari, S.;Mishra;Mohapatra, S. R. P.;Montani;Moraru, D.;Moreno;Mours, B.;Mow Lowry;Mukherjee, Arunava;Mukherjee;Mullavey, A.;Munch;Mytidis, A.;Nardecchia;Nedkova, K.;Nelemans;Neunzert, A.;Newton;Nissanke, S.;Nitz, M. E. N.;Nuttall, L. K.;Oberling, J.;Oelker, E.;Ogin, F.;Oliver, M.;Oppermann, B.;O'Shaughnessy, R.;Ottaway, B. J.;Pai, A.;Pai;Palomba, C.;Pal Singh;Paoletti, F.;Paoli;Parker, W.;Pascucci;Pedraza, M.;Pedurand, S.;Perreca, A.;Perri;Pichot, M.;Piergiovanni;Pinard, L.;Pinto;Popolizio, P.;Post, V.;Prestegard, T.;Price, M.;Privitera, S.;Prodi;Punturo, M.;Puppo;Qiu, S.;Quetschke;Raab, F. J.;Rabeling, S.;Rajan, C.;Rakhmanov;Razzano, M.;Re;Rei, L.;Reid;Ricci, F.;Riles;Robinet, F.;Rocchi;Roma, V. J.;Romano, J. H.;Rosinska, D.;Rowan;Ryan, K.;Sachdev;Sakellariadou, M.;Salconi;Samajdar, A.;Sammut;Sandeen, B.;Sanders;Sauter, O. E. S.;Savage;Schilling, R.;Schmidt;Schofield, R. M. S.;Schoenbeck, D.;Schutz, B. F.;Scott;Sengupta, A. S.;Sentenac;Setyawati, Y.;Shaddock;Shaltev, M.;Shapiro;Shoemaker, D. H.;Siellez;Sigg, D.;Silva;Singh, R.;Singhal;Smith, J. R.;Smith;Sorazu, B.;Sorrentino;Staley, A.;Steinke;Steinmeyer, D.;Stephens;Straniero, N.;Stratta;Sturani, R.;Stuver;Sunil, S.;Sutton;Tacca, M.;Talukder;Tarabrin, S. P.;Taracchini, P.;Thorne, K. A.;Thorne;Tiwari, V.;Tokmakov;Tonelli, M.;Tornasi;Toyra, D.;Travasso, M. C.;Trozzo, L.;Tse;Ugolini, D.;Unnikrishnan;Vahlbruch, H.;Vajente;van Beuzekom, M.;van den Brand;van Veggel, A. A.;Vardaro;Vaulin, R.;Vecchio, P. J.;Venkateswara, K.;Verkindt, A.;Vinciguerra, S.;Vine;Vo, T.;Vocca, D.;Vyatchanin, S. P.;Wade;Walker, M.;Wallace;Wang, M.;Wang;Was, M.;Weaver;Weinstein, A. J.;Weiss, T.;Wette, K.;Whelan, D.;Williamson, A. R.;Willis, H.;Winkler, W.;Wipf;Woehler, J.;Worden;Yablon, J.;Yam;Yvert, M.;Zadrozny;Zendri, J. P.;Zevin;Zhao, C.;Zhou;Zuraw, S. E.;Zweizig;Chu, T.;Clark;Hemberger, D.;Hinder;Khan, S.;Kidder, T.;Lousto, C. O.;Lovelace;Pfeiffer, H. P.;Scheel;Teukolsky, S.;Vinuales;MARCHESONI, Fabio
2016-01-01
Abstract
We compare GW150914 directly to simulations of coalescing binary black
holes in full general relativity, including several performed
specifically to reproduce this event. Our calculations go beyond
existing semianalytic models, because for all simulations-including
sources with two independent, precessing spins - we perform comparisons
which account for all the spin-weighted quadrupolar modes, and
separately which account for all the quadrupolar and octopolar modes.
Consistent with the posterior distributions reported by Abbott et al.
[Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016)] (at the 90\% credible level), we
find the data are compatible with a wide range of nonprecessing and
precessing simulations. Follow-up simulations performed using previously
estimated binary parameters most resemble the data, even when all
quadrupolar and octopolar modes are included. Comparisons including only
the quadrupolar modes constrain the total redshifted mass M-z epsilon
[64 M-circle dot - 82 M-circle dot], mass ratio 1/q = m(2)/m(1)
epsilon [0.6; 1], and effective aligned spin chi(eff) epsilon [-0.3,
0.2] where chi(eff) = (S-1/m(1)+S-2/m(2)). (L) over cap /M. Including
both quadrupolar and octopolar modes, we find the mass ratio is even
more tightly constrained. Even accounting for precession, simulations
with extreme mass ratios and effective spins are highly inconsistent
with the data, at any mass. Several nonprecessing and precessing
simulations with similar mass ratio and chi(eff) are consistent with the
data. Though correlated, the components' spins (both in magnitude and
directions) are not significantly constrained by the data: the data is
consistent with simulations with component spin magnitudes a(1,2) up to
at least 0.8, with random orientations. Further detailed follow-up
calculations are needed to determine if the data contain a weak imprint
from transverse (precessing) spins. For nonprecessing binaries,
interpolating between simulations, we reconstruct a posterior
distribution consistent with previous results. The final black hole's
redshifted mass is consistent with M-f,M-z in the range 64.0 M-circle
dot - 73.5 M-circle dot and the final black hole's dimensionless spin
parameter is consistent with a(f) = 0.62-0.73. As our approach invokes
no intermediate approximations to general relativity and can strongly
reject binaries whose radiation is inconsistent with the data, our
analysis provides a valuable complement to Abbott et al.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11581/400492
Citazioni
ND
102
95
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 589/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.