LIGO's disappointing 03 run

[Michael]

In spite of the addition of Virgo, and the ability to better triangulate signals, and in spite of the significant sensitivity enhancements made to all of the GW detectors, not a single new example of multimessenger astronomy has been realized during the 03 run of LIGO. That's rather disappointing and rather telling IMO. What's more telling IMO is the fact that the LIGO app shows that a significant portion of the supposed gravitational wave signals from 03 have resulted in retractions, including another one today with a FAR of 1 in 118+ *thousand* years!

It sure seems like LIGO has painted themselves into same scientific corner that Joseph Weber painted himself into. Not only must we now believe that most if not all black hole mergers *never* result in visible emissions that are powerful enough to been seen by telescopes on Earth, but even most neutron star mergers don't generate enough light to be picked out by telescopes on Earth, even with better triangulation of the signal.

It seems to me that if LIGO's methodology was scientifically sound, they should be capable of duplicating their one example of multimessenger astronomy. As statistically unlikely as it might be that LIGO just got "lucky" in 2017, it's not statistically impossible. It's pretty disappointing IMO that even after many months of the O3 run using upgraded equipment, LIGO still has yet to demonstrate that their supposed GW waves signals are actually caused by celestial processes rather than originating from terrestrial sources.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

nm.

 

[Gene2memE]

In spite of the addition of Virgo, and the ability to better triangulate signals, and in spite of the significant sensitivity enhancements made to all of the GW detectors, not a single new example of multimessenger astronomy has been realized during the 03 run of LIGO.

Press release from a couple of days ago:

News | LIGO-Virgo Network Catches Another Neutron Star Collision | LIGO Lab | Caltech

LIGO-Virgo Network Catches Another Neutron Star Collision
News Release • January 6, 2020

On April 25, 2019, the LIGO Livingston Observatory picked up what appeared to be gravitational ripples from a collision of two neutron stars. LIGO Livingston is part of a gravitational-wave network that includes LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory), funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the European Virgo detector. Now, a new study confirms that this event was indeed likely the result of a merger of two neutron stars. This would be only the second time this type of event has ever been observed in gravitational waves.

The first such observation, which took place in August of 2017, made history for being the first time that both gravitational waves and light were detected from the same cosmic event. The April 25 merger, by contrast, did not result in any light being detected. However, through an analysis of the gravitational-wave data alone, researchers have learned that the collision produced an object with an unusually high mass.

[SNIP]

..."We have detected a second event consistent with a binary neutron star system and this is an important confirmation of the August 2017 event that marked an exciting new beginning for multi-messenger astronomy two years ago," says Jo van den Brand, Virgo Spokesperson and professor at Maastricht University, and Nikhef and VU University Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Multi-messenger astronomy occurs when different types of signals are witnessed simultaneously, such as those based on gravitational waves and light.​

Is this not a "new example of multimessenger astronomy has been realized during the 03 run of LIGO"?

That's rather disappointing and rather telling IMO. What's more telling IMO is the fact that the LIGO app shows that a significant portion of the supposed gravitational wave signals from 03 have resulted in retractions, including another one today with a FAR of 1 in 118+ *thousand* years!

It sure seems like LIGO has painted themselves into same scientific corner that Joseph Weber painted himself into. Not only must we now believe that most if not all black hole mergers *never* result in visible emissions that are powerful enough to been seen by telescopes on Earth, but even most neutron star mergers don't generate enough light to be picked out by telescopes on Earth, even with better triangulation of the signal.

It seems to me that if LIGO's methodology was scientifically sound, they should be capable of duplicating their one example of multimessenger astronomy. As statistically unlikely as it might be that LIGO just got "lucky" in 2017, it's not statistically impossible. It's pretty disappointing IMO that even after many months of the O3 run using upgraded equipment, LIGO still has yet to demonstrate that their supposed GW waves signals are actually caused by celestial processes rather than originating from terrestrial sources.

Seems to me that they have now demonstrated a detection of a second gravitational wave event. How's that disappointment doing?

 

[sjastro]

Press release from a couple of days ago:

News | LIGO-Virgo Network Catches Another Neutron Star Collision | LIGO Lab | Caltech

LIGO-Virgo Network Catches Another Neutron Star Collision
News Release • January 6, 2020

On April 25, 2019, the LIGO Livingston Observatory picked up what appeared to be gravitational ripples from a collision of two neutron stars. LIGO Livingston is part of a gravitational-wave network that includes LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory), funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the European Virgo detector. Now, a new study confirms that this event was indeed likely the result of a merger of two neutron stars. This would be only the second time this type of event has ever been observed in gravitational waves.

The first such observation, which took place in August of 2017, made history for being the first time that both gravitational waves and light were detected from the same cosmic event. The April 25 merger, by contrast, did not result in any light being detected. However, through an analysis of the gravitational-wave data alone, researchers have learned that the collision produced an object with an unusually high mass.

[SNIP]

..."We have detected a second event consistent with a binary neutron star system and this is an important confirmation of the August 2017 event that marked an exciting new beginning for multi-messenger astronomy two years ago," says Jo van den Brand, Virgo Spokesperson and professor at Maastricht University, and Nikhef and VU University Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Multi-messenger astronomy occurs when different types of signals are witnessed simultaneously, such as those based on gravitational waves and light.​

Is this not a "new example of multimessenger astronomy has been realized during the 03 run of LIGO"?



Seems to me that they have now demonstrated a detection of a second gravitational wave event. How's that disappointment doing?

You think Michael will let the facts stand in the way?
Brace yourself for a wave of spin stories and the mandatory self denial.

 

[Michael]

Press release from a couple of days ago:

News | LIGO-Virgo Network Catches Another Neutron Star Collision | LIGO Lab | Caltech
The April 25 merger, by contrast, did not result in any light being detected.

Is this not a "new example of multimessenger astronomy has been realized during the 03 run of LIGO"?

Emphasis mine. No, unfortunately it's not. An example of multimessenger astronomy requires verification from some *other* (than LIGO/Virgo) piece of equipment. Unfortunately that's not the case here.

Seems to me that they have now demonstrated a detection of a second gravitational wave event. How's that disappointment doing?

Actually all that event demonstrates is that LIGO presumably has the ability to detect neutron star mergers that no other equipment on Earth can evidently see, so my disappointment remains.

The thing that made the 2017 event 'unique' is that it wasn't detected *only* by GW detectors, but also by a wide range of telescopes both in space and on the ground. This wasn't a second example of multimessenger astronomy, just another of many dozens of supposed GW events that cannot be verified by any other types of equipment.

Essentially all we've seen in 03 are dozens of more examples of entirely *invisible* events where we simply have to accept LIGO's word for the fact that they saw a celestial event which no other piece of gear on Earth or in space can observe. Seems rather fishy frankly. Why would *every single* black hole merger be entirely invisible in the first place? Even with better triangulation capacity, we still haven't seen a second example of multimessenger astronomy. AFAIK, the only such event was pure "luck". Based on the number of rescinded claims in 03, it's quite clear that LIGO routinely sees events that "appear" at first glance to be celestial in origin and yet they are not.

 

[Michael]

You think Michael will let the facts stand in the way?
Brace yourself for a wave of spin stories and the mandatory self denial.

Um, the "fact" is that no other equipment on Earth or in space saw any such event and it *was therefore not* a "multimessenger" event. That's the only relevant fact. Spin and deny that fact all you like, but there it is.

 

[Michael]

Here's the problem:

LIGO has never adequately explained how it clearly and definitively differentiates between ordinary "blip transient" events and true "gravitational waves", and even it's new naming convention would suggest that it routinely records such blip transient events in individual detectors all the time. It's not much of a 'leap of faith' to assume that LIGO can also detect simultaneously recorded terrestrial signals in more than one detector at a time, and all it's numerous retractions in 03 tend to confirm that is in fact the case.

If we are to believe LIGO, black hole mergers *never* produce visible evidence of their merger, and even neutron star mergers rarely do so. It's very fishy if you ask me.

 

[Gene2memE]

Here's LIGO's page for candidate gravitational wave events. Started publishing in April last years.

https://gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/public/O3/

Seems to be a lot of them. About 15-20 candidates with >99% probability at present. I suspect there will be a lot more papers published in the future.

 

[Michael]

Here's LIGO's page for candidate gravitational wave events. Started publishing in April last years.

GraceDB |

Seems to be a lot of them. About 15-20 candidates with >99% probability at present. I suspect there will be a lot more papers published in the future.

Just 15 to 20? Joseph Weber claimed to find hundreds of GW signals based on the same basic technology in just a year or so. It doesn't strike you as a little odd that *all* of the events in 03 are completely 'invisible' events which are all devoid any any external (to LIGO/Virgo) support whatsoever? It doesn't bother you that they've had to retract so many of them, and admit that many of them were terrestrial signals, even ones with high FAR ratios in the preliminary report?

This whole LIGO project has all the earmarks of turning into another Joseph Weber scenario all over again, only this time the "Weber bars" are a whole lot more expensive. The lack of additional multimessenger support will likely be LIGO's downfall IMO. LIGO has essentially painted themselves right into a corner.

I half expected my concerns about LIGO's questionable methodology to be laid to rest in the 03 run by LIGO duplicating a few more multimessenger events, but alas that doesn't seem to be the case. They're apparently unable to demonstrate that any of those 20 or so events had an actual celestial origin. They just "assume" that they do.

 

[SelfSim]

I half expected my concerns about LIGO's questionable methodology to be laid to rest ...

Yes the expected outcome of of that particular 'paper' would be to lay at rest your particular concerns .. because no one else would give it a second glance.

Tell me, did you include your famous conclusion that '1=0.5'?

 

[Michael]

Yes the expected outcome of of that particular 'paper' would be to lay at rest your particular concerns .. because no one else would give it a second glance.

Tell me, did you include your famous conclusion that '1=0.5'?

It's quite telling that you have to constantly resort to misrepresenting my statements and burning your own strawmen. How sad.

FYI, it doesn't really matter if one gives my expressed concerns about LIGO's methodology a second glance or not, but that particular paper does clearly explain why LIGO's questionable methods are completely incapable of achieving reliable examples of multimessenger events.

In fact, it's quite possible that the one such event to date was simply a statistical anomaly/fluke and may *never* be repeated. The fact that it hasn't been repeated even one time in the whole 03 timeline says volumes about the unreliability of their methodology, as does the fact that they've had to retract so many of their original GW claims, including ones with high FAR ratios.

Instead we have to simply "assume" as LIGO does that all BBH merger events are pretty much "invisible" (on Earth) in the EM spectrum, as are most BNS merger events.

 

[SelfSim]

It's quite telling that you have to constantly resort to misrepresenting my statements and burning your own strawmen. How sad.

It seems you failed to convince this poster here, last time this matter came up (and before that thread was closed .. as usual).

From your responses in that thread, (and the corresponding comments in your paper), its perfectly clear you still doesn't understand what a 5 sigma discovery is .. (which was the point of the coin toss analogy which led you to the stupendous '1=0.5' conclusion).

Until you demonstrate an understanding of that basic concept, all your other criticisms are just empty words devoid of any semblance of a consistent basis of argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Given the difficulty of trifecta detection, it doesn't really seem surprising that detections are rare. It's early days.

 

[Michael]

It seems you failed to convince this poster here, last time this matter came up (and before that thread was closed .. as usual).

Actually he didn't buy your nonsense:

What would cause you to rethink your position on "big bang" theory?

That said, I think they've made a bigger deal of it than they should have (the math) in this particular case, but your methodology was also really bad. It could have been cleared up much more quickly.

That thread was closed because you two hijacked it, took it *off the topic* and made it about an *individual*, just like you're *desperately* trying to hijack this one. Typical. You can't win a real scientific debate on this topic.

My criticisms of LIGO's methodology were *entirely* fair as their lack of any ability to replicate a single new multimessenger event in 03 so clearly demonstrates. LIGO's blatant methodology "trick" is based upon *assuming* that the signal is celestial in origin by "default", and failing to provide any 'veto' method related to celestial claims. Even the large number of retractions in 03 is quite telling including several from this week alone. They don't have any logical way to demonstrate that even a single one of their so called GW events is actually celestial in origin. They simply *assume* it's a celestial event is if comes close to matching any of their *numerous* templates.

 

[Michael]

Given the difficulty of trifecta detection, it doesn't really seem surprising that detections are rare. It's early days.

Well, it's not that early anymore, and their GW claims aren't rare. In fact, they're quite common now, including 4 of them from this week already that were all later retracted.

They've upgraded their equipment significantly since 2016. With the inclusion of Virgo, they have a massively improved ability to triangulate the signal now, and yet they *still* can't validate their GW claims in any external equipment.

IMO they simply painted themselves into a corner based on a pitifully flawed methodology and they have to make a constant stream of lame excuses for each new failure to externally validate any of their claims.

 

[Michael]

Hoist with his own petard - Wikipedia

By the way, LIGO's inability to validate their celestial origin claims via multimessenger astronomy is directly related to their dubious *assumption* that all template matches are automatically celestial in origin. In short, they've hoisted themselves with their own petard.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, it's not that early anymore, and their GW claims aren't rare. In fact, they're quite common now, including 4 of them from this week already that were all later retracted.

They've upgraded their equipment significantly since 2016. With the inclusion of Virgo, they have a massively improved ability to triangulate the signal now, and yet they *still* can't validate their GW claims in any external equipment.

IMO they simply painted themselves into a corner based on a pitifully flawed methodology and they have to make a constant stream of lame excuses for each new failure to externally validate any of their claims.

It's still early days for GW detection, but I was talking about trifecta 'multimessenger' detection, which is much more difficult.

 

[sjastro]

Just 15 to 20? Joseph Weber claimed to find hundreds of GW signals based on the same basic technology in just a year or so. It doesn't strike you as a little odd that *all* of the events in 03 are completely 'invisible' events which are all devoid any any external (to LIGO/Virgo) support whatsoever? It doesn't bother you that they've had to retract so many of them, and admit that many of them were terrestrial signals, even ones with high FAR ratios in the preliminary report?

This whole LIGO project has all the earmarks of turning into another Joseph Weber scenario all over again, only this time the "Weber bars" are a whole lot more expensive. The lack of additional multimessenger support will likely be LIGO's downfall IMO. LIGO has essentially painted themselves right into a corner.

I half expected my concerns about LIGO's questionable methodology to be laid to rest in the 03 run by LIGO duplicating a few more multimessenger events, but alas that doesn't seem to be the case. They're apparently unable to demonstrate that any of those 20 or so events had an actual celestial origin. They just "assume" that they do.

Rather than making up spin stories as I initially suggested your post is an outrageous lie.
To suggest Weber’s system and LIGO’s involves the same basic technology is so comprehensively wrong and is clearly disinformation to make a point at any cost.

Weber’s technology was nothing more than weights hanging off a spring and tuned to a resonance frequency.
A problem with this technology if the frequency of the GW was not at the resonance frequency nothing happened; if the frequencies did match, the system was not sensitive enough to record displacement.
Weber’s set up was riddled with false positives.
LIGO technology is based on an interferometer design where the sensitivity is enhanced by quantum squeezing.
To suggest the technologies are basically the same is so utterly disrespectful to the reader because the facts are clearly of no interest to you.

In a similar vein is the disinformation that LIGO and VIRGO are failures because of the lack of multi-messenger events.
If multi-messenger events were thought to play a significant role there would be no need for more than two GW detectors.
Two detectors would verify each others finding of the wave, no triangulation is required as telescopes would confirm the position.

The true story is that for BBH, NS-BH and BNS mergers, the percentage of multi-messanger events is going to be small.
BBH mergers are not expected to be multi-messenger events as the collision occurs inside the merged event horizon where radiation cannot escape.
The jury is out on whether NS-BH mergers are capable of emitting radiation and is probably influenced by the size of the neutron star and the radius of the black hole’s event horizon.
Then there are the BNS mergers.
Since there are no event horizons the neutron stars collide to produce a short term gamma ray burst followed by an afterglow at longer wavelengths in the X-ray, UV, optical, infrared, microwave and radio range.
The amplitude of the GW (which is equivalent to brightness for EM radiation) is much lower than for BBH mergers.

This means the detection radius for BNS mergers is considerably smaller resulting in a fewer number of galaxy candidates so it is no surprise the percentage of BNS mergers is going to be low in comparison with BBH mergers.

In fact the O3 specifications for detection radius for LIGO reveal:
BNS mergers:- 110-130 Mpc
BBH mergers:- 990 -1200 Mpc

In terms of actual performance:

The data indicates only 2 event alert detections in the 110-130 Mpc range out of a total of forty odd which is consistent with the idea of the limited number of candidates.
Out of the total number of confirmed discoveries (OI + O2 + O3) ≈30, one is a multi-messenger discovery.
So your nonsense about the limited number of multi-messenger discoveries as being an issue is nothing more than a dishonest beat up.

As one poster put it stop the polluting the science forum; in this case with dishonest personal based opinions.

 

[Michael]

Rather than making up spin stories as I initially suggested your post is an outrageous lie.
To suggest Weber’s system and LIGO’s involves the same basic technology is so comprehensively wrong and is clearly disinformation to make a point at any cost.

Ok, that was an inaccurate and very sloppy single sentence in *one* of my posts in this thread. While Joseph Weber was the first one to propose the use of a laser interferometer to detect gravitational waves, his original "Weber Bars" weren't based on that technology. It was however his student that first built such a device and his basic idea of a laser interferometer is in fact used in LIGO.

Weber’s set up was riddled with false positives.

Ya, and so is LIGO's equipment. They call them "retractions" and "blip transients" these days.

If multi-messenger events were thought to play a significant role there would be no need for more than two GW detectors.
Two detectors would verify each others finding of the wave, no triangulation is required as telescopes would confirm the position.

Well, that's not necessarily true. Even the orientation of the arms, and the direction of the gravitational wave can play a significant role in LIGO/Virgo's ability to detect GW events. It would still be advantageous to triangulate the signal to as small of an area in the sky as possible, and advantageous to have numerous detectors in various alignment patterns.

The true story is that for BBH, NS-BH and BNS mergers, the percentage of multi-messanger events is going to be small.

Ya, real small, like zero out of 50+ events in 03? That's "small" alright. It's simply amazing that only "naked" and uncharged black holes ever seem to "merge" and they *never* produce any emissions from any plasma around any black hole in spite of the fact that such plasma tends to be extremely bright around ordinary black holes. According to the LIGO app, there have been six BNS mergers in 03 yet zero confirmations by any other gear on Earth or in space. Apparently the term minuscule is more accurate.

BBH mergers are not expected to be multi-messenger events as the collision occurs inside the merged event horizon where radiation cannot escape.

What about plasma torus interactions? Miraculously we evidently see nothing but mergers between *naked*, and *uncharged* black holes. There's no rhyme nor reason to assuming that all BBH mergers should *always* be "invisible" (on Earth).

The jury is out on whether NS-BH mergers are capable of emitting radiation and is probably influenced by the size of the neutron star and the radius of the black hole’s event horizon.

And yet again, there's no consideration of any mass/energy interaction *outside* of the event horizon.

Then there are the BNS mergers.
Since there are no event horizons the neutron stars collide to produce a short term gamma ray burst followed by an afterglow at longer wavelengths in the X-ray, UV, optical, infrared, microwave and radio range.

And yet LIGO is 0 for 6 in BNS multimessenger astronomy in 03. Six events are described as BNS merger events. None produced multimessenger verification.

This means the detection radius for BNS mergers is considerably smaller resulting in a fewer number of galaxy candidates so it is no surprise the percentage of BNS mergers is going to be low in comparison with BBH mergers.

I'm less concerned by the percentage of BNS mergers vs. BBH mergers than I'm concerned about the fact that LIGO is 0 for 6 in terms of validating their claims about BNS mergers in 03.

The data indicates only 2 event alert detections in the 110-130 Mpc range out of a total of forty odd which is consistent with the idea of the limited number of candidates.

Yet six of the GRaceDB items are listed as BNS mergers.

Out of the total number of confirmed discoveries (OI O2 O3) ≈30, one is a multi-messenger discovery.

More specifically 0 of the 50+ items recorded (and not retracted) in 03 are multi-messenger events.

So your nonsense about the limited number of multi-messenger discoveries as being an issue is nothing more than a dishonest beat up.

Boloney. LIGO painted themselves into a scientific corner by failing to provide a reliable veto method related to their celestial origin claims. Even the fact they have to retract so many events, including high original FAR items, clearly demonstrates that they have a serious problem with their methodology. It's also clear from their naming convention that *many* celestial origin signals produce signals that are marginally consistent with signals related to merger events.

It's not my fault that LIGO painted themselves into a corner. I pointed out the *numerous* problems in their methodology *years* ago. It's really no surprise to me that they're 0 for 50+ in the current observation run. Their methodology is pitiful IMO. It's riddled with multiple types of methodology flaws, including no reliable way to distinguish between ordinary "blip transient" type events that span multiple detectors and real GW events. They have no reliable veto methods related to celestial events, and their sigma figure is utterly and completely unrelated to the actual *cause* of any particular signal.

 

[Michael]

So LIGO is now 0 for 50+ in terms of delivering on multimessenger astronomy for their GW wave claims in the 03 run. What happens if they go 0 for the next 50? How about if they go zero for the next 250?

It's not even the case that all these 50+ 03 run signals are seen by all three detectors, in fact that's the rare exception.

In the case of Joseph Weber, the *lack* of a detection in other detectors was used to falsify Weber's assertion that they were GW signals. In this case however, a lack of a detection in one or more of the three LIGO/Virgo detectors is simply ignored, as is the fact that *none* of them produce a visible counterpart. There's therefore *no logical way to falsify these LIGO claims* and the cost of building such detectors is measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Sheesh. What a pitiful scientific methodology. Not only is there no logical veto method for LIGO's celestial origin claims as to cause, there's no logical falsification method either. The whole GW claim amounts to "No, you can't see anything, or verify our work, just trust us, we're doctors".