Directly comparing GW150914 with numerical solutions of Einstein's equations for binary black hole coalescence
The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration: B. P., Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C., Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M., Agathos, K. Agatsuma, N. Aggarwal, O. D. Aguiar, L. Aiello

TL;DR
This paper compares GW150914 directly with full numerical relativity simulations of binary black hole mergers, constraining parameters like mass ratio and spins without intermediate approximations, and finds consistency with previous results.
Contribution
It introduces a direct comparison method using full numerical relativity simulations, providing a robust test of the data against detailed binary black hole models.
Findings
Data compatible with a wide range of simulations.
Mass ratio constrained to [0.6, 1].
Final black hole mass between 64-73.5 solar masses.
Abstract
We compare GW150914 directly to simulations of coalescing binary black holes in full general relativity, accounting for all the spin-weighted quadrupolar modes, and separately accounting for all the quadrupolar and octopolar modes. Consistent with the posterior distributions reported in LVC_PE[1] (at 90% confidence), we find the data are compatible with a wide range of nonprecessing and precessing simulations. Followup simulations performed using previously-estimated binary parameters most resemble the data. Comparisons including only the quadrupolar modes constrain the total redshifted mass Mz \in [64 - 82M_\odot], mass ratio q = m2/m1 \in [0.6,1], and effective aligned spin \chi_eff \in [-0.3, 0.2], where \chi_{eff} = (S1/m1 + S2/m2) \cdot\hat{L} /M. Including both quadrupolar and octopolar modes, we find the mass ratio is even more tightly constrained. Simulations with extreme mass…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
