Gravitational Wave Flash!

The third observing run for Advanced LIGO – O3 – started on April 1 2019, after 19 months upgrading the detectors. Last night, April 8, saw the first new detection of a candidate gravitational wave source, apparently another black hole binary, dubbed S190408an.

It is anticipated that sources like this will be discovered at a rate of roughly one per week for the (planned) year-long run. Given the likely rate of events the policy of LIGO is now to make data publicly available directly without writing papers first. You can find the data entry for this event here, including this map of its position.

Whether the LIGO Scientific Collaboration will release sufficient data for others to perform a full analysis of the signal remains to be seen, but if the predicted detection rate matches reality, the field is going to move very rapidly from studies of individual events to statistical analysis of large populations. Such is the way of science!

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Gravitational Wave Flash!”

  1. An eerily-correlated set of space weather and ground magnetic field conditions yet again coincided with this new trigger event, virtually identical to those controls surrounding N=11 O1-O2 LIGO-Virgo events (where strong evidence for LIGO GW signal coincidence/contamination by magnetospheric sawtooth events [MSEs] has been established, where mean MSE rate of ~11/yr identical to number of putative GW events collected over network duty cycle-determined single year equivalent period for non-rejected quality data). These noisy conditions involve the highly active global T-storm regime in Southern Europe, Gulf of Mexico, and Southeastern North America, complete with 5-minute dead phases between near-simultaneous bursts of cloud-ground lightning from an isolated T-storm located in Louisiana (which discharged in the seconds surrounding Livingston signal arrival, as I expected). Despite this unfavorable EM environment, increasing likelihood for calibration error and instability due to charging and magnetic mode injection, LIGO-VIrgo chose to declare their premature finding directly following April 10, 2019 EHT M87 BH statement, announced April 9 2019 by LIGO via Twitter.
    See USGS, Blitzortung, and NOAA data surrounding April, 8 2019 LIGO event in these tweets:
    https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1115762943809990658
    https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1115598530431733760
    https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1115457469608804352
    GIF of isolated T-storm in LA, possible foreground modulation source for L1 h(t) around 18:18:02 UTC signal: https://t.co/svntVB0jWM
    LIGO-Virgo signals, foreground, bias, and error:
    http://www.fulguritics.blogspot.com
    EHT observations support established BH X-ray population, implicitly-challenging LIGO-Virgo BH population mass/scaling (and by extension, all other LIGO-Virgo parametric degenracies). EHT findings encourage novel approaches toward LIGO data analysis. As a rule, any deviation from LIGO-Virgo phenomenology is categorically-dismissed by the LIGO-Virgo collab. as redundant and speculative. Contributions by microlensing to GW events has now been proposed to explain anomalous mass distributions and arrival sequences for at least one pair of GW events during August, 2017. Here are the papers:
    “Observational signatures of microlensing in gravitational waves at LIGO/Virgo frequencies (Diego et al. 2019)” https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.04513.pdf
    “Reinterpreting Low Frequency LIGO/Virgo Events as Magnified Stellar-Mass Black Holes at Cosmological Distances” (Broadhurst et al. 2018) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.05273.pdf

  2. Thaddeus Gutierrez Says:

    An eerily-correlated set of space weather and ground magnetic field conditions yet again coincided with this new trigger event, virtually identical to those controls surrounding N=11 O1-O2 LIGO-Virgo events (where strong evidence for LIGO GW signal coincidence/contamination by magnetospheric sawtooth events [MSEs] has been established, as mean MSE rate of ~11/yr is identical to the count of putative GW events collected over network duty cycle-determined single year equivalent period for non-rejected quality data). These noisy conditions involve (yet again) an exceptionally-energetic global T-storm regime in Mediterranean Southern Europe, SE Australia and throughout the Gulf of Mexico-SE North America region, complete with 5-minute dead phases between near-simultaneous bursts of cloud-ground lightning from an isolated T-storm located in Louisiana (which discharged in the seconds surrounding Livingston signal arrival, as I expected). Despite this unfavorable EM environment, increasing likelihood for calibration error, dynamic instability due to charging, and incidental magnetic mode injection, LIGO-VIrgo chose to declare their [premature] finding only two days after detection and directly following April 10, 2019 EHT M87 BH image release as announced April 9 2019 by LIGO via Twitter.
    See USGS, Blitzortung, and NOAA data surrounding April, 8 2019 LIGO event in these tweets:
    https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1115762943809990658
    https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1115598530431733760
    https://twitter.com/Fulguritics/status/1115457469608804352
    GIF of isolated T-storm in LA, possible foreground modulation source for L1 h(t) around 18:18:02 UTC signal: https://t.co/svntVB0jWM
    LIGO-Virgo signals, foreground, bias, and systematic error (site directory for a controlled analytical monitoring effort)
    http://www.fulguritics.blogspot.com
    EHT supermassive BH mass observations are not necessarily incompatible with established BH X-ray binary population – despite empirically-corrected dimensionless discrepancy between results from X-ray and gravitational data for M87 and Sagittarius A of ~2 and ~1.5 respectively. Applying these factors to masses of X-ray BH binaries doesn’t significantly promote statistical overlap with LIGO BH population mass distribution. LIGO-Virgo BH population mass/scaling is improved, but unexplained exceptions for remnant mass upper limits are still the norm. It follows that all other LIGO-Virgo parametric degeneracies must also be mutually reevaluated, stripped of any dependency on priors derived from pre-existing X-ray binary statistics.
    EHT findings, I hope, will encourage more robust multi-methodological approaches toward LIGO data analysis. I must mention that, as a rule, any strict deviation from LIGO-Virgo phenomenology is categorically-dismissed by the LIGO-Virgo collab. as redundant and speculative, despite that loose deviations from models are merely relegated, through goal-seeking “black box Bayesian” multiple comparisons, into extreme margins of error rather than risking Type II error.
    Due to independently-untenable, poorly-constrained LIGO masses, microlensed multiples of single GW events are proposed to explain anomalous mass distributions and arrival sequences for at least one pair of GW events (during August, 2017, as five events were recorded that month). Here are the papers:
    “Observational signatures of microlensing in gravitational waves at LIGO/Virgo frequencies” Diego et al. 2019 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.04513.pdf
    “The wave nature of continuous gravitational waves from microlensing” Liao et al. 2019
    “Reinterpreting Low Frequency LIGO/Virgo Events as Magnified Stellar-Mass Black Holes at Cosmological Distances” Broadhurst et al. 2018 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.05273.pdf

  3. Since today, it says that there are two responses, but I see only one. Is the other beyond the event horizon?

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: