4.7 Article

Assessing the readiness of numerical relativity for LISA and 3G detectors

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 104, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.044037

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [PHY-1806580, PHY-1809572, PHY-1550461, 1333360, PHY-2114581, PHY-0757058, PHY-0823459]
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [LPS-80NSSC19K0322]
  3. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1333360] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A new criterion has been established to identify the minimum resolution required for numerical relativity simulations to be indistinguishable from real signals. This criterion can be applied to any finite-differencing numerical relativity code with multiple simulations of different resolutions for validation.
Future detectors such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna promise signal-to-noise ratios potentially in the thousands and data containing simultaneous signals. Accurate numerical relativity waveforms will be essential to maximizing the science return. A question of interest to the broad gravitational wave community is: Are the numerical relativity codes ready to face this challenge? Towards answering this question, we provide a new criteria to identify the minimum resolution a simulation must have as a function of signal-to-noise ratio in order for the numerical relativity waveform to be indistinguishable from a true signal. This criteria can be applied to any finite-differencing numerical relativity code with multiple simulations of differing resolutions for the desired binary parameters and waveform length. We apply this criteria to binary systems of interest with the fourth-order MAYA code to obtain the first estimate of the minimum resolution a simulation must have to be prepared for next generation detectors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available