4.7 Article

Remnant of binary black-hole mergers: New simulations and peak luminosity studies

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 95, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024037

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [PHY-1607520, PHY-1305730, PHY-1212426, PHY-1229173, AST-1028087, PHY-0969855, OCI-0832606, DRL-1136221]
  2. NSF [PHY-1229173, AST-1028087, PHY-0722703, DMS-0820923]
  3. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  4. Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (OAC) [1515969] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  6. Division Of Physics [1607520] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present the results of 61 new simulations of nonprecessing spinning black hole binaries with mass ratios q = m(1) / m(2) in the range 1/3 <= q <= 1 and individual spins covering the parameter space -0.85 <= alpha(1),(2) <= 0.85. We additionally perform ten new simulations of nonspinning black hole binaries with mass ratios covering the range 1/6 <= q < 1. We follow the evolution for typically the last ten orbits before merger down to the formation of the final remnant black hole. This allows for assessment of the accuracy of our previous empirical formulas for relating the binary parameters to the remnant final black hole mass, spin and recoil. We use the new simulation to improve the fit to the above remnant formulas and add a formula for the peak luminosity of gravitational waves, produced around the merger of the two horizons into one. We find excellent agreement (typical errors similar to 0.1%-0.2%) for the mass and spin, and within similar to 5% for the recoil and peak luminosity. These formulas have direct application to parameter estimation techniques applied to LIGO observations of gravitational waves from binary black hole mergers.

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