Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #385955 > unrolled thread

LIGO

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  LIGO moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-15 21:10 +0000
    Re: LIGO moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-16 13:18 +0000
      Re: LIGO Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-06-18 10:13 +0200
        Re: LIGO Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-18 11:06 +0200
          Re: LIGO Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-06-21 23:20 -0700
            Re: LIGO Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-06-25 00:09 +0200
    Re: LIGO moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-18 15:36 +0000
      Re: LIGO "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 10:04 -0700
        Re: LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 14:41 -0500
          Re: LIGO "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-20 22:07 -0700
            Re: LIGO Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 08:30 -0500

#385955 — LIGO

The scientists at LIGO have announced a second event detection of a pair of
black holes merging.  The event was detected at both of the LIGO locations
on Dec 26, 2015 at 3:38:53 UTC.  The two black holes had masses of
approximately 14.2 and 7.5 solar masses and the resulting final black hole
about 20.8 solar masses, with the difference radiated as gravitational 
waves.

paper at
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#385982

Apparently there is a third event, from October 12, 2015, that has not
(yet?) been confirmed.

Now back to the usual anti-Einstein ranting. Meanwhile, science marches
on without you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386119

On 6/16/16 3:18 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Apparently there is a third event, from October 12, 2015, that has not
> (yet?) been confirmed.

It was actually already reported in the first paper.  It's
characterized as a "trigger" rather than an "event" -- it's
*probably* a gravitational wave signal from another binary
black hole merger, but there's about a 5-10% chance that it
could be noise.  More details are in arxiv.org/abs/1606.04856.

Steve Carlip

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386121

Steven Carlip wrote:

> On 6/16/16 3:18 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Apparently there is a third event, from October 12, 2015, that has not
>> (yet?) been confirmed.
> 
> It was actually already reported in the first paper.  It's
> characterized as a "trigger" rather than an "event" -- it's
> *probably* a gravitational wave signal from another binary
> black hole merger, but there's about a 5-10% chance that it
> could be noise.  More details are in arxiv.org/abs/1606.04856.

First of all, when you refer to resources, you should post URIs; not only is 
that unambiguous, it is also more convenient for many readers since their 
software would create hyperlinks.  Additionally, in this case you should not 
refer to the version on the preprint server, arXiv.org, but to the official 
version since (AFAIK) all the LSC and VC’s papers can be read online for 
free.

<https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1600088/main/public> referenced in 
<https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/detection-companion-papers>

Second, from where do you have those figures?  The abstract of that paper 
says:

“[…] It also identified a third possible signal, LVT151012, with 
substantially lower significance, which has a 87% probability of being of 
astrophysical origin. […]”

That is a _13_ % chance of being noise, is it not?

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386458

On 6/18/16 2:06 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Steven Carlip wrote:
>
>> On 6/16/16 3:18 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Apparently there is a third event, from October 12, 2015, that
>>> has not (yet?) been confirmed.

>> It was actually already reported in the first paper.  It's
>> characterized as a "trigger" rather than an "event" -- it's
>> *probably* a gravitational wave signal from another binary black
>> hole merger, but there's about a 5-10% chance that it could be
>> noise.  More details are in arxiv.org/abs/1606.04856.

> First of all, when you refer to resources, you should post URIs; not
> only is that unambiguous, it is also more convenient for many readers
> since their software would create hyperlinks.  Additionally, in this
> case you should not refer to the version on the preprint server,
> arXiv.org, but to the official version since (AFAIK) all the LSC and
> VC’s papers can be read online for free.

In this field, the standard practice is to refer to the arXiv version.
You can get to the "official version" easily enough from the arXiv
site, but the arXiv has added advantages: it will often have the most
recent version (for this paper, v2 is up now), and it has links to,
for instance, the Inspire and NASA ADS listings of citations.  If
you look at the "official version" you cite, you'll notice that the
references almost all have hyperlinks to the arXiv.  You are, of
course, welcome to use any method you like to cite papers; I'll go
with the practice of the people (like me) who actually work in the
field.

> <https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1600088/main/public> referenced in
> <https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/detection-companion-papers>

> Second, from where do you have those figures?  The abstract of that
> paper says:

> “[…] It also identified a third possible signal, LVT151012, with
> substantially lower significance, which has a 87% probability of
> being of astrophysical origin. […]”

> That is a _13_ % chance of being noise, is it not?

There are a number of different ways of getting the estimate.  The
abstract used the most conservative, which is perhaps fair enough.
But if you look at section IIIC, you'll see that the two matched
template analyses gave sigmas of 1.7 and 2.0.

Steve Carlip

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386595

Steven Carlip wrote:

> On 6/18/16 2:06 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Steven Carlip wrote:
>>> […]  More details are in arxiv.org/abs/1606.04856.
>> 
>> First of all, when you refer to resources, you should post URIs; not 
>> only is that unambiguous, it is also more convenient for many readers 
>> since their software would create hyperlinks.  Additionally, in this 
>> case you should not refer to the version on the preprint server, 
>> arXiv.org, but to the official version since (AFAIK) all the LSC and 
>> VC’s papers can be read online for free.
> 
> In this field, the standard practice is to refer to the arXiv version. 
> You can get to the "official version" easily enough from the arXiv site,
> but the arXiv has added advantages: it will often have the most recent
> version (for this paper, v2 is up now), and it has links to, for
> instance, the Inspire and NASA ADS listings of citations.  If you look at
> the "official version" you cite, you'll notice that the references almost
> all have hyperlinks to the arXiv.  You are, of course, welcome to use any
> method you like to cite papers; I'll go with the practice of the people
> (like me) who actually work in the field.

Thank you for the update; that makes sense.  But it would still be better if
you posted URIs.

>> “[…] It also identified a third possible signal, LVT151012, with 
>> substantially lower significance, which has a 87% probability of being
>> of astrophysical origin. […]”
> 
>> That is a _13_ % chance of being noise, is it not?
> 
> There are a number of different ways of getting the estimate.  The 
> abstract used the most conservative, which is perhaps fair enough. But if
> you look at section IIIC, you'll see that the two matched template
> analyses gave sigmas of 1.7 and 2.0.

ACK, thanks.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386141

In the LIGO papers, I see phrases such as this:

"The results presented here are restricted to BBH systems with total
masses less than 100M Searches for more massive black holes, compact
binary systems containing neutron stars and unmodeled transient signals
will be reported elsewhere."

Do they still have something up their sleeves?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386146

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 8:37:32 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> In the LIGO papers, I see phrases such as this:
> 
> "The results presented here are restricted to BBH systems with total
> masses less than 100M Searches for more massive black holes, compact
> binary systems containing neutron stars and unmodeled transient signals
> will be reported elsewhere."
> 
> Do they still have something up their sleeves?

There's an array of other gravitational wave detectors 
of various forms and construction.  

All of them should corroborate each event.  A gravitational 
wave should be detected by each observer.  

So, besides waiting for the other LIGO's to come online, 
the cryogenic Weber bars and other more economical means 
should be used to corroborate results (of the more 
sensitive LIGO).



Basically in contrast to optical (or radio) astronomy, the 
field-of-view is time-series data.  



Finally there's a notion that the event propagates in 
the tachyonic and they maybe should be looking in the 
exact opposite direction, for actual evidence of an 
appropriate object as would match the theories of the 
formation of events, that here yet are (finely-tuned) 
speculation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386318

On 6/18/2016 12:04 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 8:37:32 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> In the LIGO papers, I see phrases such as this:
>>
>> "The results presented here are restricted to BBH systems with total
>> masses less than 100M Searches for more massive black holes, compact
>> binary systems containing neutron stars and unmodeled transient signals
>> will be reported elsewhere."
>>
>> Do they still have something up their sleeves?
>
> There's an array of other gravitational wave detectors
> of various forms and construction.

But not all of them are sensitive to the same signal profiles. So some 
of them would not be able to detect these. Can you state which ones you 
think should be able to detect these signals and why?

>
> All of them should corroborate each event.  A gravitational
> wave should be detected by each observer.
>
> So, besides waiting for the other LIGO's to come online,
> the cryogenic Weber bars and other more economical means
> should be used to corroborate results (of the more
> sensitive LIGO).
>
>
>
> Basically in contrast to optical (or radio) astronomy, the
> field-of-view is time-series data.
>
>
>
> Finally there's a notion that the event propagates in
> the tachyonic and they maybe should be looking in the
> exact opposite direction, for actual evidence of an
> appropriate object as would match the theories of the
> formation of events, that here yet are (finely-tuned)
> speculation.
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386357

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 12:41:07 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 6/18/2016 12:04 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 8:37:32 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> In the LIGO papers, I see phrases such as this:
> >>
> >> "The results presented here are restricted to BBH systems with total
> >> masses less than 100M Searches for more massive black holes, compact
> >> binary systems containing neutron stars and unmodeled transient signals
> >> will be reported elsewhere."
> >>
> >> Do they still have something up their sleeves?
> >
> > There's an array of other gravitational wave detectors
> > of various forms and construction.
> 
> But not all of them are sensitive to the same signal profiles. So some 
> of them would not be able to detect these. Can you state which ones you 
> think should be able to detect these signals and why?
> 
> >
> > All of them should corroborate each event.  A gravitational
> > wave should be detected by each observer.
> >
> > So, besides waiting for the other LIGO's to come online,
> > the cryogenic Weber bars and other more economical means
> > should be used to corroborate results (of the more
> > sensitive LIGO).
> >
> >
> >
> > Basically in contrast to optical (or radio) astronomy, the
> > field-of-view is time-series data.
> >
> >
> >
> > Finally there's a notion that the event propagates in
> > the tachyonic and they maybe should be looking in the
> > exact opposite direction, for actual evidence of an
> > appropriate object as would match the theories of the
> > formation of events, that here yet are (finely-tuned)
> > speculation.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Yes, they should all exactly corroborate the gravitational 
wave event, you can't hide a gravitational wave (without 
having invented the "gravitational lens" as it were).

Because gravity is omnipresent, the propagation of a 
gravitational wave is apparent to all observers.  

The earlier systems pick up plenty of gravitational 
waves, now they should all agree.

Also, besides the receipt timing, there is still that 
the amplitude of the waves should also be coinciding 
and corroborating the event(s).  


It is unscientific and galling for ALIGO to let the 
media say now that it is "black holes colliding" when 
there hasn't been a falsifiable experiment (observation 
via other means).  

It is similar that of dark matter, that which doesn't 
exist, though here it may be so that gravitational waves 
are as of the order of the collision of stellar-scale 
objects, because the stellar observatory as experiment 
is only courtesy sampling and happenstance and not 
subject to ad hoc arrangement of the medium, for then 
here to have a replete (and economical) arrangement of 
configuration and energy to help show what is (and what 
isn't) the cosmological scale noise of stellar-scale 
collisions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#386380

On 6/21/2016 12:07 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Yes, they should all exactly corroborate the gravitational
> wave event, you can't hide a gravitational wave (without
> having invented the "gravitational lens" as it were).

Not all detectors are sensitive to the same signals. It's not like the 
gravitational wave is missing the detector. It's that some detectors 
will not be able to pick up those waves.

>
> Because gravity is omnipresent, the propagation of a
> gravitational wave is apparent to all observers.
>
> The earlier systems pick up plenty of gravitational
> waves, now they should all agree.
>
> Also, besides the receipt timing, there is still that
> the amplitude of the waves should also be coinciding
> and corroborating the event(s).
>
>
> It is unscientific and galling for ALIGO to let the
> media say now that it is "black holes colliding" when
> there hasn't been a falsifiable experiment (observation
> via other means).

Well, I agree with you that independent verification of the source would 
be best.

>
> It is similar that of dark matter, that which doesn't
> exist, though here it may be so that gravitational waves
> are as of the order of the collision of stellar-scale
> objects, because the stellar observatory as experiment
> is only courtesy sampling and happenstance and not
> subject to ad hoc arrangement of the medium, for then
> here to have a replete (and economical) arrangement of
> configuration and energy to help show what is (and what
> isn't) the cosmological scale noise of stellar-scale
> collisions.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web