Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

Astrophysical Techniques Case Study Project: Merging Black Holes

By KC Law, Ka Chung (January 2019)
The objects to be reviewed here are merging black holes. As the first direct observation
of a binary black hole merger happened in September 2015 when gravitational wave (GW) was
detected jointly by interferometers in the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory
(LIGO) and the Virgo, the literature reviewed here covers mainly the period since the first
detection report (February 2016) and up to the date of this writing (end 2018). Only quoted
papers are referenced at the end, while other materials are referenced throughout whenever used.
The upcoming sections are the nature, detection, other signal, and future research of the mergers.

1. Nature of mergers
The latest full list of black hole mergers is detailed in Abbott et al. (2018a, Table III):

Altogether there have been ten mergers detected between 14th September 2015 and 23rd
August 2017 (the numerical part of label shows the date of discovery in format of “yymmdd”),
no further detections have yet been reported over the past five quarters as the detectors have been
switched off during the period. Since mergers are detected by gravitational-wave signals, the
label prefix starts with “GW”; GW151012 was previously labelled as LVT151012 when it was
not yet confirmed a black hole merger, whereas four mergers GW170729, GW170809,
GW170818 and GW170823 (6th, 7th, 9th and 10th rows in the above table) were confirmed and
added very recently in the LIGO news release on 3rd December 2018. Only two references after
this date have captured the four new members, while the others have included just the older six.
1.1 Mass

From above table the chirp mass ( ℳ = (𝑚1 𝑚2 )3⁄5 ÷ (𝑚1 + 𝑚2 )1⁄5 , a preferred
measurement to individual mass where the latter can only be measured with wide uncertainty)
ranges from 7.9𝑀⊙ to 35.7𝑀⊙ , with mean 22.3𝑀⊙ and median 24.6𝑀⊙ . These are a few folds
more massive than a typical black hole of mostly ≲ 10𝑀⊙ as depicted in Mapelli (2018, Fig.1):

1
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

Fig.1 of Mapelli (2018)

1.2 Distance
From the third last column of above table, the distance of mergers ranges from 320Mpc
to 2750Mpc with both mean and median ~1000Mpc, which is as huge scale as few percentages
of the observable Universe radius (~14000Mpc). As in Alan Weinstein’s illustration, GW signals
can trace objects almost back to the Planck time and hence a much farther distance than using
neutrino or photon signals. Yet these numbers are subject to wide uncertainty as up- or downside
error is up to ⅓ to ½ of the estimate per se, much less accurate than the above estimated mass.

Alan Weinstein’s illustration (2004)

Source of all Alan Weinstein’s illustrations (and below): https://labcit.ligo.caltech.edu/~ajw/index.html

1.3 Age
From second last column of the table, the age of mergers ranges from redshift of 0.07 to
0.48 with both mean and median ~0.2. This corresponds to age of ~13.7Gyr under flat Universe,
and belong to a very early stage of the Universe given its age is only 13.7Gyr. But as distance
and age are highly correlated under the Big Bang theory, the measurement of age is also subject
to wide uncertainty as distance; typically the error is again up to ⅓ to ½ of the estimate per se.
1.4 Luminosity
While there have been electromagnetic (EM) observations over the past decade on the
formation and/or evolution of black hole binaries (could actually be a pair of black holes or a

2
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

black hole cum neutron star) such as X-ray binaries or gamma-ray bursts, mergers are ultimately
detected by GW. Even a small number of them turned out to be mergers as reported in
Belczynski et al. (2013), the luminous or EM stage would still be confined to pre-merging era.
More recently, Abbott et al. (2016) suggest that EM signatures due to energetic outflows
at different timescales and wavelengths should be expected. Specifically, a gamma-ray burst
lasting on the order of a second or less should be followed by X-ray, optical and radio afterglows
of hours to days of duration. As the below chart from NASA shows, massive object mergers do
span a certain portion of the spectrum. Nevertheless, they admit that these are likely for neutron
stars mergers but stellar-mass binary black holes where “the current consensus is that no
significant EM counterpart emission is expected except for those in highly improbable
environments pervaded by large ambient magnetic fields or baryon densities (p.1).” Recently,
Abbott et al. (2018a) extend the consideration to the “black hole + neutron star” merger space
but still arrive a conclusion that “there are no electromagnetic observational examples (p.31).”

Source: https://lisa.nasa.gov/

Despite the unavailability of EM luminosity, GW luminosity is detectable. It is given by

the time derivative of energy (ℓGW = − 𝑑𝐸GW ⁄𝑑𝑡 ), which is in turn a function of the third-order
time derivative of the quadrupole moment tensor (formula will be given in Physics section).
From the fourth last column of the above table, the GW luminosity spans a pretty narrow range
of 3.2 × 1056 erg s −1 to 4.2 × 1056 erg s−1. Not only the estimates do not vary much across the
ten mergers, but for each merger the error of estimate is generally lower than those of distance
and age reported previously –– generally much less than ⅓ or even ¼ of the estimate per se.

Alan Weinstein’s illustration (2004)

3
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

Following again the Alan Weinstein’s illustration as shown in the above table, EM and
GW are mostly mutually exclusive in nature. Specifically, the wavelength of GW is much larger
(compared to sources) than that of EM, and accordingly the frequency of GW is at least 103
order smaller than that of EM. As EM is neither detectable nor substitutable to GW, the latter
inevitably becomes the only type of information received for the study of black hole mergers.
1.5 Effective spin

Another key feature is the effective spin (𝜒eff ) –– the mass-weighted dimensionless spin
along the direction of the orbital angular momentum. It ranges from –0.09 to 0.36 with mean
0.07 and median 0.06. As explained in Mandel & Farmer (2018), these are consistent with zero
for all but two of them –– GW151226 and GW170729. They are respectively the second lightest
and the most massive binary black hole pairs detected, indicating at least one of the components
for that event must have been a rotating black hole. Notice that GW170729 is an outlier in many
aspects: exceptionally massive, fast spinning, energy-rich, luminous, distant, and redshifted. We
will discuss whether this outlier would cause non-robustness to the overall statistical properties.

2. Detection of mergers
2.1 Detectors
There have been different observatories and projects detecting GW signals over the past
two decades. Among them the famous one includes Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA).
As documented in Kuroda et al. (2015, Fig.3), detectors span different ranges of frequencies.
Specifically, the LIGO type detectors cover 100 to 104 Hz, which is completely non-overlapped
with the LISA type detectors that cover 10−10 to 10−6Hz. The higher the frequency, the lower is
the GW amplitude as measured by strain (see next section), hence harder will be the detection.

Fig.3 of Kuroda et al. (2015)

Another simplified version of the same chart is from Hobbs (2008, Figure 1). Traditional
binary black hole mergers are detected by the frequency range of LISA and Parkes Pulsar
Timing Array (PPTA) where neutron stars mergers are detected by the frequency range of LIGO.
Yet, the much more massive and farther black hole mergers are detected by LIGO type again.

4
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

Figure 1 of Hobbs (2008)

Even in the same range of frequencies, various phases of LIGO improve on detection
sensitivity by lowering the strain noise. As shown in Alan Weinstein’s illustration, when initial
phase (2002–2008) was migrated to the advanced phase (2012–) then to beyond advanced phase,
strain noise was lowered by the order of 10 successively. The best sensitivity (lowest strain noise
among all frequencies) of the current phase is ~100 times better than it was in the initial phase.

Alan Weinstein’s illustration (2009)

Locating the first detected black hole merger GW150914 as depicted in Copi et al. (2016,
Figure 33), the frequency range spans both LISA and LIGO+Virgo regions yet bias towards the
latter. This probably explains why the detection was made by LIGO+Virgo but not by LISA.

Figure 33 of Colpi & Sesana (2016)

5
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

The black hole mergers were in fact detected by the two LIGOs (Hanford and Livingston)
with Virgo jointly. From the map of Branchesi (2018) shown below, two more detectors in Asia
will be in use in the coming few years so as to improve the accuracy of the detection network.

Slide from “Gravitational waves and multimessenger astrophysics,” M. Branchesi (2018)

The LIGO-Virgo detectors have so far undergone two scientific observing runs (O1, O2),
and are ready to start the third run (O3) in February 2019 according to the news release from
LIGO on 21st September 2018. The specific detection periods and discoveries are tabulated here:
LIGO-Virgo scientific runs
Run Period Black hole mergers discovered
O1 12/9/2015 – 19/1/2016 GW150914, GW151012, GW151226
-- 20/1/2016 – 29/11/2016 Detectors switched off
O2 30/11/2016 – 25/8/2017, GW170104, GW170608, GW170729,
1/8/2017 Virgo joined LIGO GW170809, GW170814, GW170818, GW170823
-- 26/8/2017 – 1/2019 Detectors switched off
O3 2/2019 – ––
Among the ten detections, four of them were made when Virgo joined LIGO in August
2017 (less than a month’s time as detectors were switched off on 26th). This could be due to the
collaborative effect by analysing data altogether. Moreover, the above map shows that Japan’s
KAGRA (KAmioka GRavitational-wave Antenna) will soon be in use. Based on the schedule
reported in Abbott et al. (2018c), LIGO-Virgo will still be the pillar of detection in 2019 but
KAGRA will relay in 2020. Anyway, all detections are migrating from <1000Mpc to >1000Mpc.

Fig.2 and Table 1 of Abbott et al. (2018c)

6
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

2.2 Physics
We have mentioned black hole mergers can be detected by GW but have not stated why.
While acceleration of charge generates EM radiation, acceleration of mass will generate GW
radiation. And as EMs are vector fields but GWs are tensor fields, the former is dipole where the
latter is quadrupole. Albert Einstein shows in his General Relativity that the GW strain ℎ and the
corresponding energy emission rate ℓGW (GW luminosity) as mentioned above are given by:

2𝐺 𝑑 2 𝑄𝑖𝑗
ℎ𝑖𝑗 = 4 , where 𝑑𝐿 = luminosity distance and
𝑐 𝑑𝐿 𝑑𝑡 2
2 2 1 2
𝑥 − 𝑦
3 𝐴 3 𝐴
𝑥𝐴 𝑦𝐴 0
3 1 2 2 2 1 2
𝑄𝑖𝑗 = ∫ 𝑑 𝑥𝜌(x) (𝑥𝑖 𝑥𝑗 − 3
𝑟 𝛿𝑖𝑗 ) = ∑ 𝑚𝐴 ( 𝑥𝐴 𝑦𝐴 𝑦 − 𝑥
3 𝐴 3 𝐴
0 ) , 𝛿𝑖𝑗 = diag(1,1,1),
1
𝐴∈{1,2} 0 0 − 𝑟𝐴2
3

x = (𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , 𝑥3 ) = (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧), 𝜌(x) = mass density, and others defined in below chart:
Figure A1 of Abbott et al. (2017)

3 2 3 2
𝑑𝐸GW 𝑐3 𝑑ℎ𝑖𝑗 𝐺 𝑑3 𝑄𝑖𝑗
ℓGW =− = ∬∑( ) 𝑑𝑆 = 5 ∑ ( 3 )
𝑑𝑡 16𝜋𝐺 𝑑𝑡 5𝑐 𝑑𝑡
𝑖,𝑗=1 𝑖,𝑗=1

Alan Weinstein’s illustration (2000)

7
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

Pictorially, GW strain is the relative distortion of the travelling waves given by ℎ = 𝛿𝑙 ⁄𝑙

as shown in above. Now we want to express ℎ in terms of measurable data. For highly non-
spherical binary system, the second order time derivative of the quadrupole moment is given by:

𝑑2 𝑄𝑖𝑗 2
2𝐺 2
4𝜋 2 𝐺𝑀𝑟 2 𝑓 2
≈ 𝑀𝑣 and 𝑣 = 2𝜋𝑟𝑓 ⟹ ℎ ≈ 4 𝑀(2𝜋𝑟𝑓) =
𝑑𝑡 2 𝑐 𝑑𝐿 𝑐 4 𝑑𝐿
For 𝑀~1032 kg (taking the cap of 40𝑀⊙ from the first table), 𝑟~10km (this is arbitrary
given black holes finally merge, but is still relatively too small to be matter), 𝑓~100Hz (optimal
frequency of LIGO detectors), and 𝑑𝐿 ~1025 m (taking 500Mpc from the above Distance section),
then ℎ~10−21 –– a very tiny length. For detector with arm length of 𝐿 = 4km (as in Hanford or
Livingston), the length to be detected is ∆𝐿 = ℎ𝐿~4 × 10−16 cm which is no doubt a huge task.
2.3 Techniques
Michelson type interferometer is used to measure such tiny length, where the principle of
operation is best illustrated by Bergstrom et al. (2004) and Weinstein (2007) in the below figures:

Illustrations by L. Bergstrom & A. Goobar (2004), Alan Weinstein (2007)

A laser light beam is split into two long orthogonal paths and reflected from mirrors
attached to the test masses at the end of the arms, then redirected to a photodetector. The two
returning light beams interfere destructively with each other if the test masses are at rest with the
same distance. In this case no signals would be detected. But when GW enters, the arm is slightly
elongated. Since GW speed equals light speed which is constant, beams travelling at slightly
different distances will cause non-destructive interference pattern and hence signal is detected.
The Fabry-Perot optical cavities in the arms store the light for ~150 to 200 round trips,
which amounts to lengthen 𝐿 and hence the number of photons by that multiple times. The
longer the light path, the larger the phase shift, and the finer is the resolution down to ~10−16 cm.
The carrier power of GW is ~ sin2 ∆𝜙, which is approximately ∆2 𝜙 = (2𝑘∆𝐿)2 for small signal.
To enhance accuracy, same signal is detected by several interferometers simultaneously
where results are cross checked with each other. As in Alan Weinstein’s illustration, if detectors
1 and 2 separated by distance 𝐷 of each other detecting the same signal inclined at same angle 𝜃,
then there should be a phase difference of ∆𝐿 = 𝛿𝑡⁄𝑐 = 𝐷 cos 𝜃 between them. Also illustrated
are the slightly differed CCD outputs (in signal frequencies over time) by different detectors.

8
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

Alan Weinstein’s illustration (2009)

There are several kinds of sensing limits of the detectors, which are illustrated again in
Alan Weinstein’s schematic diagram. It maps each part of the interferometer noise to the strain-
frequency schedule. The brief description of the noise types appears in the table right afterwards.
There are many ways to reduce these noises respectively, but are irrelevant to our context here.

Alan Weinstein’s illustration (2009)

Noise sources in Michelson type interferometer

Noise type Brief description
Photon shot Uncertainty in intensity due to coming statistics
Radiation pressure Quantum limited intensity fluctuations anti-correlated in two arms
Test mass thermal Mechanical systems excited by thermal environment results in physical motions of test mass
Suspension thermal Vibration of suspension wires kicks the test mass around and introduces harmonic noise lines
Seismic displacement Motion of the Earth driven by wind, volcanic/seismic activities, ocean tides or humans
Residual gas scatters Attenuation or degradation of light travelling in the beam tubes (arms)

2.4 Findings
So much about the theory and techniques, now we come to the findings. Since the news
release of four more mergers confirmation on 3rd December 2018, there has been only one paper
Abbott et al. (2018a, v2 released on 16th December 2018) summarising and comparing all ten
mergers to date comprehensively. Inevitably most of the illustrations in this section have to rely
on this survey. Another paper since then is Abbott et al. (2018b, v2 released on 18th December
2018) who discuss the statistical properties of these mergers, which will be discussed later on.

9
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

FIG.10 of Abbott et al. (2018a)

The above ten sets of charts show the most representative evidence of detected GW, with
each set belonging to a merger event. The left panel in blue shows a normalised power map of
the strain in frequency over time; the right panels in white show the time domain reconstructions
of the whitened signal in standard deviation of noise over time with four different models (two in
upper subpanel and two in lower subpanel). All merger signals happen in <0.1s when power
increases by a few folds and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) generally (almost) reaches 2𝜎 except for
GW151012 –– it was only 90% confident and hence not confirmed a merger until very recently.
Three library codes (GstLAL, PyCBC and cWB) have been run to estimate the likelihood
of these ten events being black hole mergers or other kinds (terrestrial, neutron star mergers etc.).
It is found that for most of the estimable cases, the probability is 1 or very near 1. The only two
exceptions are GstLAL estimation on GW151226 with 88% chance and PyCBC estimation on
GW170729 with only 52% chance being black hole mergers. For the latter there is 48% chance
being terrestrial; recall it is the outlier with exceptional huge statistics as mentioned previously.
Note before this event there were 14 more GW detections not listed here, all of them have been
estimated to be terrestrial by either GstLAL or PyCBC. Thus, GW170729 deserves more checks.
Probability of each event being a black hole merger under different search methods
Source: TABLE IV of Abbott et al. (2018a)
Event \ Search method GstLAL PyCBC cWB
GW150914 0.99 1 1
GW151012 0.97 0.96 ––
GW151226 0.88 1 0.95
GW170104 1 1 1
GW170608 0.92 1 1
GW170729 0.98 0.52 0.94
GW170809 0.99 1 ––
GW170814 1 1 1
GW170818 0.99 –– ––
GW170823 0.99 1 1
On this anomaly, Abbott et al. (2018a) states explicitly that “…it is worth investigating
whether this event is unusual in some way, exhibiting effects (for instance, precession or higher-
order modes) not adequately modeled by the templates used in the matched-filter searches (p.14).”
However, their further analysis did not lead to a rejection of the conclusion that GW170729 is a
black hole merger. Abbott et al. (2018b) have compared the sample properties of ten mergers by
retaining and excluding it. We will come back to this after overviewing some other key findings.

10
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

By contrast, GW050914 was very loud yielding a peak SNR of ~4𝜎, no wonder it was
first detected. For GW170104, GW170814 and GW170818 they have their peak SNRs of ~3𝜎,
from above table the former two have been estimated to be black hole mergers with probability 1
under all three search methods –– an absolute consensus derived from posterior data analyses.
At the beginning of this survey the nature of black hole mergers has been tabulated where
parameters are presented individually one by one. Now we visualise their statistical intervals and
how some of them are related to each other based on Abbott et al. (2018a, FIG. 4, 5, 7, 8) below:

FIG.4, 5, 7, 8 of Abbott et al. (2018a)

The two top-left panels show the mass ratio (𝑞), with light one divided by heavy one.
Most mergers fall into the range of ½ to 1; ratios not too small mean these are mergers but not
acquisitions (small eaten by big). Then the two top-right panels show the effective spin (𝜒eff ). As
discussed earlier (Effective spin section), the two mergers GW152226 and GW170729 deviate
from zero to positive region. Nonetheless, effective spin is not much related to mass ratio ––
whether the pair of masses is evenly distributed or not. By the same token, the final spin (𝑎f )
centres about 0.7 and is also unrelated to mass, probably except the massive outlier GW170729.

But the distance (𝑑𝐿 ) is positively correlated to the chirp mass (ℳ) which is expected.
For unlensed observation, the farther it is, the more massive system is required for detection as
GW luminosity drops inversely with distance squared. The two bottom-right panels locate the O1
and O2 mergers respectively on sky map. The widely scattered mergers demonstrate that such
early aged events happen along many directions in the sky, verifying the isotropy of Universe.
Another standard result to be reported is the strain noise discussed in Detectors section.
Here adopts the best performance of each detector during O2 from Abbott et al. (2018a, FIG.1).
The optimal values (least noise levels) are ~100 to 200Hz. Comparing this with the ten sets of
power maps shown above, one can see that this bandwidth covers exactly the power burst region
(yellow in colour). And the lowest strain noise detected ~10−23 − 10−22 is slightly better than
the required ℎ~10−21 from our rough calculation in above (Physics section). Finally, the two
LIGO detectors still perform relatively better than the Virgo ones despite the difference is small,
where Virgo has not yet implemented signal recycling but LIGO recycles light 50 more times.

11
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

FIG.1 of Abbott et al. (2018a)

As agreed previously, we would discuss the impact of including or excluding the outlier
GW170729. Abbott et al. (2018b, Figure 6) have done this by comparing the one- and two-
dimensional posterior probability distributions (with 50% and 90% credible contours) for three
parameters with all mergers included (orange line) and with GW170729 excluded (blue line):

Figure 6 of Abbott et al. (2018b)

One can see in most cases the difference between inclusion and exclusion with respect to
the fixed parameter standard (dashed line) is minimal. Towards the end, they conclude “[m]any
of our predictions are robust despite its extreme values (p.25).” Ultimately it is not excluded.

3. Other merger signals?

The Abbott et al. series of papers have set a definitive tone of GW being the only type of
signal from black hole mergers. Yes, until end-2018 there has not been any EM observation from
these mergers, but three of them GW170809, GW170818, GW170823 were identified in low-
latency and therefore alerts were sent to LIGO’s EM observing partners –– The Gamma-ray
Coordinates Network / Transient Astronomy Network (GCN/TAN) –– for follow-up actions.

12
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

Prior to this, Connaughton et al. (2016) reported a transient signal detected by the Fermi
Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) ~0.4 s after the first event attracted considerable attention:

Figure 2 of Connaughton et al. (2016)

As argued in de Mink and King (2017), “careful reanalysis of the data…and reassessment
of the low count statistics…all lead to the conclusion that the Fermi trigger is consistent with a
background fluctuation and unlikely to be of astrophysical origin. This is perhaps not surprising:
the ultra-prompt nature of the Fermi signal implies an extremely small EM source and probably
the near-simultaneous formation of the second black hole… (p.1).” They consider a mechanism
requiring the black hole binary to have a circumbinary disk at the time of merger whose mass
needs only be a very small fraction of that shed as the system evolves. They then show that this
yields a simple possibility for EM signals following the merger, with a possible delay of hours.
More recently, Bisikalo et al. (2018) document three theoretical possibilities that could
lead to EM emission from the accretion disk of a black hole merger. The first happens when
mass loss by the central compact object after merger results in violation of Keplerian equilibrium
in the disk and subsequent excitation of high amplitude waves. The second occurs through
asymmetric GW radiation, probably under specific mass ratio and angular momenta orientation.
The third is due to mechanical stresses in the disk that dissipate in the viscous time scale, directly
caused by the changes in GW space-time metric. For either case in above, the typical luminosity
appears to be ≲ 1043 erg s −1 , where Bisikalo et al. (2018) show in their model that luminosity
could reach 1046 erg s−1 . However, these are still much weaker than GW signal (~1056 erg s −1)
given in the first table. In this sense EM could be too weak to be observed rather than non-exist.
Even more recently, Doctor et al. (2018) use Dark Energy Camera to search for optical
counterparts of GW170814, the latest found black hole merger prior to the LIGO announcement
on 3rd December 2018. They cover 225 deg 2 which amount to 90% of LALInference sky map,
identify two candidates from light curves but are unlikely to be associated with GW170814.
They claim their search as the currently most comprehensive one for EM emission from black
hole mergers. Their findings then imply that EM detection, specifically mergers luminosity
higher than ~5 × 1041 erg s −1 (or i-band magnitude of 23) is still highly unlikely at the moment.
This amounts to say cross waveband information seems unavailable soon.

13
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

4. Future directions
One obvious direction of research is the examination of potential candidates of mergers.
Currently there are 14 marginal candidate events identified by the two matched-filter searches
(GstLAL and PyCBC), but as Abbott et al. (2018a) put, “it is not possible to say whether or not a
particular marginal trigger is a real GW signal (p. 32).” It is possible that new incoming data or
re-examination of old data might turn some of the marginal candidates to formal in the future.
Detectors are the key in data gathering. Adding more detectors such as Japan’s KAGRA
would improve sky localisation –– the use of signal time lags between triangular sites to improve
accuracy of the network as shown in Techniques section. To illustrate this point, refer to the
figure below. Here the blue region is obtained by two LIGO detectors (turquoise one is at design
sensitivity) where red one is by three detectors including Virgo (black one at design sensitivity).
One can see the accuracy improves a lot by having an additional detector. As the triangle will be
much enlarged by extending to Asia, the network accuracy will once again be further improved.

Fig.8 of Abbott et al. (2018c)

Apart from quantity, another improvement aspect is the quality of detectors especially on
strain noise reduction. Abbott et al. (2018c) report the targets for three key detectors in coming
few years. Although the improvements on Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo will be modest
given their design sensitivities almost reached, KAGRA will have much more potential to lower
strain noise by the order of 100. In three to four years’ time, all detectors will be expected to run
at design sensitivity with noise suppressed to < 10−23 (note the distance shown in chart labels
are for binary neutron star mergers; for black hole mergers see the last chart in Detectors section).

Fig.1 of Abbott et al. (2018c)

14
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

There have been extensive GW and EM searches but seldom on the intermediate ––
neutrino (recall the chart in Distance section). Its closer nature to GW than EM might make it
easier to be detected than EM candidates from black hole mergers. However, in their follow-up
search Adrian-Martinez et al. (2016) find no neutrinos coincident with GW150914; Gando et al.
(2016) and Abe et al. (2016) also find no neutrinos associated with GW150914 and GW151226;
Agostini et al. (2017) again find no neutrinos with GW 150914, GW 151226 and GW 170104.
The rare search along this direction might be due to the absence of theory on neutrino
generation from black hole mergers. Despite empirically frustrated, Caballero et al. (2016) show
theoretically that the neutrino surface of accreting torus around a spinning black hole has higher
neutrino temperatures and larger neutrino surfaces, in turn giving higher neutrino luminosities
(~1054 erg s−1). Recently, Yang et al. (2018) integrate the just mentioned literature techniques
into a “global analysis” and arrive results consistent with neutrino signals (<110 MeV)
associated with a binary of black holes merging process, a dawn for future detection.

5. Epilogue
Since the first detection of black hole merger in September 2015, the time gap between
successive events has been declining to single digit after the 6th discovery. Among them, four
happened in August 2017 (indeed one more neutron star merger). From the trend of detections
shown in the below chart, had the detectors not turned off over the past few quarters, the number
of events identified could have been many times of the currently known. As sample gets larger,
such statistical properties would certainly provide more constraints for the merger properties,
thus giving better understanding to the subject.
Days between successive black hole merger events
1000

100
Days (in log scale)

10

1
1&2 2&3 3&4 4&5 5&6 6&7 7&8 8&9 9 & 10
Between events

15
Astrophysical Techniques 7013ASTPHY-201819-SEM-1 by KC Law, Ka Chung PN817379

References
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, ApJL, 826, L13
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, AnP, 529, 1600209
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2018a, arXiv:1811.12907
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2018b, arXiv:1811.12940
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2018c, LRR, 21:3
Abe, K., Haga, K., Hayato, Y., et al. 2016, ApJL, 830, L11
Adrian-Martinez, S., Albert, A., Andre, M., et al. 2016, PhRevD, 93, 122010
Agostini, M., Altenmuller, K., Appel, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 21
Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Mandel, I., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 96
Bisikalo, D. V., Zhilkin, A. G., & Kurbatov, E. P. 2018, arXiv:1810.04454v1, ARep in press
Caballero, O. L., Zielinski, T., McLaughlin, G. C., et al. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 123015
Colpi, M., & Sesana, A. 2016, in An Overview of Gravitational Waves: Theory Sources and
Detection, ed. G. Auger et al. (World Scientific, 2016)
Connaughton, V., Burns, E., Goldstein, A., et al. 2016, ApJL, 826, L6
de Mink, S. E., & King, A. 2017, ApJ, 839, L7
Doctor, Z., Kessler, R., Herner, K., et al. 2018, arXiv:1812.01579
Gando, A., Gando, Y., Hachiya, T., et al. 2016, ApJL, 829, L34
Hobbs, G. 2008, CQGra, 25, 114032
Kuroda, K., Ni, W., & Pan, W. 2015, IJMPD, 24, 1530031
Mandel, I., & Farmer, A. 2018, arXiv:1806.05820
Mapelli, M. 2018, arXiv:1809.09130v1
Yang, Y., Ling, J., Wang, W., et al., 2018, arXiv:1805.09704, RAA in press

Word count: Content + References = 4400 + 253 = 4653

16