paper

Reply to Comment on "Analysis of Ringdown Overtones in GW150914"

arXiv:2310.20625 · doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.169002

Abstract

In this Reply we include the corrections suggested in the Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 169001]. We show that their impact on our results is small, and that the overall conclusion of the Article [Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 111102] are robust. As pointed out in the Article, it is crucial to account for the statistical uncertainty in the ringdown starting time, neglected in most previous studies. This uncertainty is ~40 times larger than the systematic shift induced by the software bug mentioned in the Comment. The remaining discrepancies between the Comment and the Article can be attributed to additional differences in the setup, notably the sampling rate and the noise estimation method (in the Article the latter was chosen to mimic the original methods of [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 111102]). Beyond data analysis considerations, the physics of the problem cannot be ignored. As shown in [arXiv:2302.03050], a model consisting of a sum of constant-amplitude overtones starting at the peak of the waveform introduces uncontrolled systematic uncertainties in the measurement due to dynamical and strong-field effects. These theoretical considerations imply that studies based on such models cannot be interpreted as black hole spectroscopy tests.

3 pages, 1 figure. Unabridged version of the shorter (due to format constraints) Reply published in Phys. Rev. Lett

References in corpus (7)

Cited by in corpus (23)