Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Many questions about the LIGO Gravity Wave Experiment...

  1. Feb 18, 2016 #1
    I'd like to understand the details behind the LIGO experiment a bit better:
    1. How do scientists know that the gravitational waves detected by LIGO originated from two specific black holes (located a billion light years away)?

    2. Does the LIGO result confirm the existence of black holes?

    3. Was it only after gravitational waves were detected by LIGO, that scientists tried to figure out from which location the gravitational waves originated? i.e. post-hoc deduction

    4. There was a "dud" gravitational wave detection in 2014 by the BICEP2 telescope located at the South Pole. What makes scientists so confident this time that the LIGO results aren't a dud?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 18, 2016 #2

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    They do not. There are large error bars on exactly where the merger occurred. You cannot pinpoint a specific position.

    Yes.

    Yes. Before the gravitational wave arrived, there was no way of knowing a merger was going to occur there.

    The BICEP2 result was not an actual gravitational wave measurement, but an indirect measurement of the CMB polarisation which seemed to have properties which could be explained by gravitational waves in the early Universe. Scrutiny showed that the effect was likely due to foreground dust and not actual gravitational waves in the early Universe.

    The signal at LIGO is very different. It is a direct measurement of a gravitational wave so the background is known. It was detected independently at the two different observatories. It matches exactly the prediction for a black hole merger. The expected rate of random fluctuations giving a similar signal is one in 200000 years.
     
  4. Feb 18, 2016 #3
    Because with two gravitational wave detectors, they have a partial reconstruction of the source of the waves. This means that if you measure a pulse of light (EM waves) twice, you can get some information about the direction of the source, because you know how far apart the two detectors are and what the timing difference between the signals.

    No, it provides indirect evidence for their existence, but it is pretty compelling. There is other indirect evidence, mind you, by observing objects in the vicinity of what are clearly black holes.

    Yes. The reconstruction required measuring the gravitational multiple times. The analysis for where the gravitational wave originated is extremely broad. It is a huge swath of the sky.

    Totally different physics was measured. In 2014, it was an indirect detection, so there was always the possibility that what they were observing weren't gravitational waves (They were measuring it through CMB polarization, which has two real sources, magnetic field and gravitational waves; it turns out, against early expectations, that it was the former and not the latter). Contrarily, the LIGO detection is a direct detection of gravitational waves, so they literally measured a gravitational wave itself. You can't really take that back.

    As time goes on, they will detect many more gravitational waves, which will increase our confidence, but this detection alone sits just over 5 sigma (1 in 3 million chance it's random noise).
     
  5. Feb 18, 2016 #4

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
     
  6. Feb 18, 2016 #5
    Like I said, it's extremely convincing indirect evidence. It's essentially impossible to envision this as failing to be black holes without overturning GR. And while these are extremely important theoretical points, it's still irrefutable that this isn't a direct detection of black holes.


    (EDIT: English parlance is somewhat bad (particularly in the advent of blogs like Woit's), so let me be clear that when I say "important theoretical points" I don't mean important points that are themselves "just theoretical." I mean points that pertain to well-tested scientific theories and/or scientific principles.)
     
  7. Feb 19, 2016 #6
    Thanks FieldTheorist and Orodruin - very comprehensive replies.

    Supposing that these gravitational waves indeed originated from these two black holes - do we expect LIGO to detect more gravitational waves from this same event?
     
  8. Feb 19, 2016 #7

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    No, the detectable gravitational wave from the event has passed us - just like the light coming from the supernova SN1987A passed us in 1987 and is not coming back. Just like the light from SN1987A, the gravitational wave spread out from the event at the speed of light and since it is an isolated event, it will no longer be detectable once the wave passes by.

    Of course, just as there are many supernovae occurring in the Universe, there will likely be other black hole mergers to observe in gravitational waves.
     
  9. Feb 19, 2016 #8

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The calculations are outlined in their paper, available online at https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0122/P150914/014/LIGO-P150914_Detection_of_GW150914.pdf

    A very brief summary. A plot of frequency vs time for the inspiral was made. The paper describes the details of the signal filtering. A brief quote from the paper:

    The paper goes through an analysis of how compact the mass must be to emit a 150 hz signal, and concludes from the chirp mass and the size constraints that a black hole is the only plausible candidate.

    As far as confidence goes - only time will tell. Certainly the intangible factors like the sheer size of the team and the amount of internal review seems very promising.
     
  10. Feb 19, 2016 #9

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Well, it doesn't always mean that it really is a duck! Particularly black holes are not very attractive guys. They are singularities of the general relativistic gravitational field (pretty similar to point charges in classical electrodynamics which can be characterized as singularities of the electromagnetic field), i.e., manifestations of our ignorance. Unfortunately we have no clue, what else such massive objects of around 30 solar masses might be than "black holes", but who knows which kind of unknown matter might exist that could explain it. As I said, so far we have no idea!
     
  11. Feb 19, 2016 #10

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Well, I think this is the point of the proverb. If an object has the observable properties of a given type of object, there is really no way to distinguish it and you might as well refer to it as being of that type.
     
  12. Feb 19, 2016 #11

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Sure, but as I stressed, I find it a bit unsatisfactory to explain something as a singularity of our description. I'd rather think that the description of the "duck" is incomplete in such a case. Of course, I'm well aware, that in the present stage of empirical knowledge it's impossible to come up with a better idea.
     
  13. Feb 19, 2016 #12

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    In that case we would probably still continue calling it a duck even after the more precise description was in place, we would simply say that "this is a better description of a duck".
     
  14. Feb 19, 2016 #13

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    An example is the fuzz ball model. It is generally called a candidate model of BH in a QG theory. It agrees with classical GR on macroscopic horizon properties, but differs microscopically (e.g. a Planck length beyond the classical horizon will show differences), and it has no singularity. IMO, this is a model of a quantum BH, not something that is not a BH.

    I guess it depends on defining properties. To me, the singularity represents theory incompleteness, and is an inessential feature - if it exists, it can't be detected and it presumably doesn't exist. I would define BH by the macroscopic horizon properties and by the totality of GR predictions about externally detectable classical phenomenology. Whatever has these attributes is a BH.
     
  15. Feb 19, 2016 #14

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    In other words, whatever walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is a duck.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Many questions about the LIGO Gravity Wave Experiment...
  1. Gravity and LIGO (Replies: 2)

Loading...