Tuesdays 10:30 - 11:30 | Fridays 11:30 - 12:30
Showing votes from 2016-06-03 12:30 to 2016-06-07 11:30 | Next meeting is Tuesday Aug 12th, 10:30 am.
Large-angle fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature induced by the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect and Compton-y distortions from the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich (tSZ) effect are both due to line-of-sight density perturbations. Here we calculate the cross-correlation between these two signals. Measurement of this cross-correlation can be used to test the redshift distribution of the tSZ distortion. We also evaluate the detectability of a yT cross-correlation from exotic early-Universe sources in the presence of this late-time effect.
This paper presents updated estimates of source parameters for GW150914, a binary black-hole coalescence event detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) on September 14, 2015 [1]. Reference presented parameter estimation [2] of the source using a 13-dimensional, phenomenological precessing-spin model (precessing IMRPhenom) and a 11-dimensional nonprecessing effective-one-body (EOB) model calibrated to numerical-relativity simulations, which forces spin alignment (nonprecessing EOBNR). Here we present new results that include a 15-dimensional precessing-spin waveform model (precessing EOBNR) developed within the EOB formalism. We find good agreement with the parameters estimated previously [2], and we quote updated component masses of $35^{+5}_{-3}\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and $30^{+3}_{-4}\mathrm{M}_\odot$ (where errors correspond to 90% symmetric credible intervals). We also present slightly tighter constraints on the dimensionless spin magnitudes of the two black holes, with a primary spin estimate $0.65$ and a secondary spin estimate $0.75$ at 90% probability. Reference [2] estimated the systematic parameter-extraction errors due to waveform-model uncertainty by combining the posterior probability densities of precessing IMRPhenom and nonprecessing EOBNR. Here we find that the two precessing-spin models are in closer agreement, suggesting that these systematic errors are smaller than previously quoted.