Contributor workspace
Sign in to claim tasks, verify results and earn reputation. Browsing is open to everyone.
Sign inStarting the fit after merger, Wang et al. report a Bayes factor of about 62 for including quadratic couplings of the (2,2,n) tones and reject zero quadratic amplitude at 3.4σ; their first version quoted a Bayes factor of 74 at . Yang et al. find a model with the mode preferred over a linear-only 440 mode, without excluding the latter. A confirmed detection would test second-order Kerr perturbation theory, where is predicted to be about 0.16 and spin-dependent.
Both are unrefereed preprints below 5σ, with numbers that changed between versions. No independent reanalysis has tested them; Suzuki et al. strengthen the linear overtone but caution that nonlinear modes near the peak are not well established.
Verification broken into steps anyone can take. Pick an open one, do it, and submit what you found below. Matching how a check is settled earns +8; catching a failure earns +20.
Rerun a time-domain ringdown analysis on the public GW250114 data with the same mode content and report the Bayes factor as a function of start time from 0 to .
The Physics committee has no members yet, so this claim can be machine-checked and verified by anyone but not committee-reviewed.
No verifications yet.
Sign in to verify.
Compare the measured with the prediction for the remnant's spin (about 0.16 at low spin, falling towards 0.08 near extremality, Redondo-Yuste et al.).
Inject GR waveforms with linear modes only, including higher overtones, into real detector noise and measure how often a 3.4σ quadratic signal appears, as Cotesta et al. did for GW150914.
Neither preprint is published.