GW Detection Confirmation: Time, Rate, & GRB?

Gravitoastronomy
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I understand that the LIGO experiment was very lucky to find a very strong signal of a very energetic event (binary black hole merger). Having into account the non-negligible possibility that the signal may be spurious or some problem in the data adquisition, how much time must pass before we can confirm (with a second event) that the result was likely genuine, or that could be spurious (for example, if months pass without other detection). In other words, what is the average rate of expected discoveries similar to the event on 11th December?

I have also heard that there has been independent confirmation of Gamma-ray burst coincident in time with the event (0.4 seconds shift). How trusty are those news?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The rate is unknown. The best bounds on the rate (which are rather weak) comes from the LIGO event.
 
Orodruin said:
The rate is unknown. The best bounds on the rate (which are rather weak) comes from the LIGO event.
So we must wait. After the first announcement and all the excitement, I read the paper and I changed mood, it was too good to be true, like a kind of WOW! signal. I hope that new events will confirm the data, they had detected a few candidates but with much lower sigma.
 
Orodruin said:
The rate is unknown. The best bounds on the rate (which are rather weak) comes from the LIGO event.
That was one of my questions, left open in a discussion in our institute. How were the bounds on the rate estimated from just a single event?
 
vanhees71 said:
That was one of my questions, left open in a discussion in our institute. How were the bounds on the rate estimated from just a single event?

I would assume that this was inferred in the standard way. If the signal+background rate was too low, it would be very unlikely to already have an event, which would put a lower bound on signal+background rate (translating to a lower bound on the signal rate given that the background rate is minuscule). If the signal+background rate was too high, it would be very unlikely to not have observed more events, which would put an upper bound on the rate.

Of course, one event is not much statistics and therefore the resulting allowed range is going to be large (2-400 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 as quoted in the LIGO paper).
 
I see, thanks for the quick response!
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top