Pan, Yi and Buonanno, Alessandra and Buchman, Luisa T. and Chu, Tony and Kidder, Lawrence E. and Pfeiffer, Harald P. and Scheel, Mark A. (2010) Effective-one-body waveforms calibrated to numerical relativity simulations: Coalescence of nonprecessing, spinning, equal-mass black holes. Physical Review D, 81 (8). Art. No. 084041 . ISSN 0556-2821 http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20100528-085628584
- Published Version
See Usage Policy.
Use this Persistent URL to link to this item: http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20100528-085628584
We present the first attempt at calibrating the effective-one-body (EOB) model to accurate numerical relativity simulations of spinning, nonprecessing black-hole binaries. Aligning the EOB and numerical waveforms at low frequency over a time interval of 1000M, we first estimate the phase and amplitude errors in the numerical waveforms and then minimize the difference between numerical and EOB waveforms by calibrating a handful of EOB-adjustable parameters. In the equal-mass, spin aligned case, we find that phase and fractional amplitude differences between the numerical and EOB (2,2) mode can be reduced to 0.01 radian and 1%, respectively, over the entire inspiral waveforms. In the equal-mass, spin antialigned case, these differences can be reduced to 0.13 radian and 1% during inspiral and plunge, and to 0.4 radian and 10% during merger and ringdown. The waveform agreement is within numerical errors in the spin aligned case while slightly over numerical errors in the spin antialigned case. Using Enhanced LIGO and Advanced LIGO noise curves, we find that the overlap between the EOB and the numerical (2,2) mode, maximized over the initial phase and time of arrival, is larger than 0.999 for binaries with total mass 30M_⊙–200M_⊙. In addition to the leading (2,2) mode, we compare four subleading modes. We find good amplitude and frequency agreements between the EOB and numerical modes for both spin configurations considered, except for the (3,2) mode in the spin antialigned case. We believe that the larger difference in the (3,2) mode is due to the lack of knowledge of post-Newtonian spin effects in the higher modes.
|Additional Information:||© 2010 The American Physical Society. Received 17 December 2009; published 20 April 2010. We thank Enrico Barausse for several useful discussions and Emanuele Berti for providing us with the quasinormal mode frequencies and decay times used in this paper. We thank Fan Zhang for extrapolating the numerical waveforms to infinity. A. B. and Y. P. acknowledge support from NSF Grants No. PHYS-0603762 and No. PHY-0903631. A. B. also acknowledges support from NASA Grant No. NNX09AI81G. L. B., T. C., L. K., H. P., and M. S. are supported in part by grants from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation to Caltech and Cornell, and from the Brinson Foundation to Caltech; by NSF Grants No. PHY-0601459 and No. PHY-0652995 at Caltech; by NASA Grant No. NNX09AF97G at Caltech; by NSF Grants No. PHY- 0652952 and No. PHY-0652929 at Cornell; and by NASA Grant No. NNX09AF96G at Cornell. H. P. gratefully acknowledges support from the NSERC of Canada, from the Canada Research Chairs Program, and from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.|
|Classification Code:||PACS: 04.25.D-, 04.25.dg, 04.25.Nx, 04.30.-w.|
|Usage Policy:||No commercial reproduction, distribution, display or performance rights in this work are provided.|
|Deposited By:||Tony Diaz|
|Deposited On:||01 Jun 2010 02:54|
|Last Modified:||26 Dec 2012 12:05|
Repository Staff Only: item control page