Gravitational Wave Controversy Updates

Following my recent post about the claims and counter-claims concerning the detection (or otherwise) of gravitational waves, I have a couple of updates.

First, a few days ago there appeared a paper on the arXiv by Nielsen et al with the abstract (which I’ve slightly edited for formatting reasons):

We use the Pearson cross-correlation statistic proposed by Liu & Jackson (2016), and employed by Creswell et al. (2017), to look for statistically significant correlations between the LIGO Hanford and Livingston detectors at the time of the binary black hole merger GW150914. We compute this statistic for the calibrated strain data released by LIGO, using both the residuals provided by LIGO and using our own subtraction of a maximum-likelihood waveform that is constructed to model binary black hole mergers in general relativity. To assign a significance to the values obtained, we calculate the cross-correlation of both simulated Gaussian noise and data from the LIGO detectors at times during which no detection of gravitational waves has been claimed. We find that after subtracting the maximum likelihood waveform there are no statistically significant correlations between the residuals of the two detectors at the time of GW150914.

The four authors of this paper are, I believe, either present or former members of the LIGO Collaboration

Meanwhile, the NBI group behind the Cresswell et al. paper challenged by the above paper has issued a statement which you can read here. The group re-iterate points made in the New Scientist article discussed in my recent post. Although the Nielsen et al. paper is not explicitly mentioned in the NBI statement but I’m given to understand that the Danish group does not agree with the conclusions in that paper.

The story continues.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Gravitational Wave Controversy Updates”

  1. The authors of Nielsen et al 2018 (including Duncan Brown), according to Chris Berry on twitter, all have left the LIGO collab. Duncan Brown is still apparently giving talks on GW, but I am not sure why he would leave LIGO with the whole crew. Perhaps it is because they used a custom ML template (not the NR template) and a deliberately-obfuscated jumble of unspecified sample locations and incomplete posterior analysis (i.e.) authors virtually show disdain of customary analytic approaches, which seems either rushed or derisive, as if opaque coding is superior to atavistic mathematical exhaustion) Really, these guys are pumping out exercises for immanent crtique, with mislabeled plots and prevarication: that the inversion and splitting of an anticorrelation by dressing incommensurate comparative data is somehow accomplishing anything but hubris. I’m really sick of “scientists” that think they can show no math or share their samples.

  2. Not directly related but a very interestig article:

    Observational evidence for extended emission to GW170817

    https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/482/1/L46/5090425

    (a hypermassive magnetar rather than a black hole)

  3. In order for the simultaneous arrival of optical and gravitational signals in the GW170817 case to be real and not faked, gravitational waves (if they exist; actually they don’t) should both

    1) travel at the speed of light and

    2) experience Shapiro delay.

    Both requirements are theoretically unfounded; the second is even nonsense. “Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light” was Eddington’s 1922 fabrication (nothing to do with Einstein’s general relativity): http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/102/716/268.full.pdf

    The simultaneous arrival was clearly FAKED.

    • Bullshit. While it is an interesting question, and can be used to rule out other theories, whether gravitational waves a) travel at the speed of light and b) experience the same Shapiro delay as gravitational radiation, it is clear that in GR they do, on both counts.

      No, it was no clearly faked. What is clear is your incompetence.

      Claiming that a result was intentionally faked is a bold claim. You need more than a crackpot theory to back it up.

  4. Van Putten et al. 2018 dredge noise to locate terrestrial noise eigenmodes and strain channel feedbacks to further dig the LIGO collaboration a deeper hole.
    https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/482/1/L46/5090425
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/tpA7PxC7igBLsbMq8
    https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/10/why-is-information-on-ngc-4993.html
    https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/10/a-short-grb-analogue-with-multi.html
    https://fulguritics.blogspot.com/2018/06/gw170817-occurs-at-green-bar.html
    As the GW170817 strain signal arrived and remained for ~100 s at 23 Hz =13034 km, w/respect to Earth d=12742 km; ((13034-12742)/2)=146 km, the exact upper bound of metal ion-dominated sporadic E-region layer formation – also upper z-bound for auroral current sheet (~150 km). L1-H1 LOS:ground propagation domain (139.96 Hz=2142 km=0.007145 s, 3030/2142=1.4146~sqrt(2)) is involved with the enhancement of GW150914 coupled noise lag (~0.007 s), artifacts of LIGO orientation to the Earth-ionosphere waveguide with respect to elliptical Schumann TM modes.
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.11579
    New signal components in are continental waveguide orientation of LIGO network to multiple supercell thunderstorm noise source in TX/OK (700 Hz/428 km), the geographic distance between L1 and H1 (99-100 Hz/3000-3030 km, feedback-enhanced modes during L1 glitch).
    GRB170817A consists of mostly <100 keV photons, peaking at 300 keV, as magnetospheric soft proton flares, not an s-GRB. Ordinary dispersion from geomagnetic response to proton injections explains strictly-decreasing multiscale phase lags, indistinguishable from strain – also phase modulated, without amplitude sensitivity. Clock error can encode EM propagation and contaminate signals, in addition to magnetic noise and driven soliton-like optical crossovers in Kerr (nonlinear) media.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: