Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Where post-Newtonian and numerical-relativity waveforms meet

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 0706.1305 v2 pith:HVMIADPT submitted 2007-06-11 gr-qc

Where post-Newtonian and numerical-relativity waveforms meet

classification gr-qc
keywords waveformsamplitudenumericalorbitsbeforecyclesdisagreementgravitational-wave
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We analyze numerical-relativity (NR) waveforms that cover nine orbits (18 gravitational-wave cycles) before merger of an equal-mass system with low eccentricity, with numerical uncertainties of 0.25 radians in the phase and less than 2% in the amplitude; such accuracy allows a direct comparison with post-Newtonian (PN) waveforms. We focus on one of the PN approximants that has been proposed for use in gravitational-wave data analysis, the restricted 3.5PN ``TaylorT1'' waveforms, and compare these with a section of the numerical waveform from the second to the eighth orbit, which is about one and a half orbits before merger. This corresponds to a gravitational-wave frequency range of $M\omega = 0.0455$ to 0.1. Depending on the method of matching PN and NR waveforms, the accumulated phase disagreement over this frequency range can be within numerical uncertainty. Similar results are found in comparisons with an alternative PN approximant, 3PN ``TaylorT3''. The amplitude disagreement, on the other hand, is around 6%, but roughly constant for all 13 cycles that are compared, suggesting that only 4.5 orbits need be simulated to match PN and NR waves with the same accuracy as is possible with nine orbits. If, however, we model the amplitude up to 2.5PN order, the amplitude disagreement is roughly within numerical uncertainty up to about 11 cycles before merger.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Consistency of spin effects between numerical relativity and perturbation theory for inspiraling comparable-mass black hole binaries

    gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0

    Adiabatic point-particle black hole perturbation theory reproduces numerical-relativity spin effects in comparable-mass inspirals to within ~1%, so only small spin-dependent post-adiabatic corrections are needed.