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

A Was the LIGO team over-hasty to claim black holes confirmed?

  1. May 18, 2016 #1
    Since the thread In LIGO’s pulse, how much comes from BH merging/ inspiraling where I questioned the late ‘ringdown’ part of the LIGO signal, scientists have pointed out that the main pre-merging signal could indicate various types of binary compact objects, including gravastars of similar mass (~30 solar masses). In discussing this, Physics World , quotes Prof Sathyaprakash from Cardiff’s LIGO team saying that "Our signal is consistent with both the formation of a black hole and a horizonless object – we just can't tell." Now, Remo Raffini (of the Rees-Ruffini-Wheeler textbook) co-authors an arXiv paper (arXiv:1605.04767v1 [gr-qc] 16 May 2016) saying that unfortunately the signal of the merging “occurs just at the limit of the sensitivity of LIGO (so is) not sufficient to determine the astrophysical nature of GW 150914, nor to assess that it was produced by a binary black-hole merger leading to a newly formed black-hole." The Editors have invited me to start this new thread, now it’s agreed that the signal of merging is unclear and there are astrophysical contenders for the pre-merging signal.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 18, 2016 #2

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    One may say the LIGO interpretation was conservative in that they only considered explanations involving known forms of matter and energy, modeled via GR, finding a perfect fit. They did not attempt to prove that no exotic matter models (within GR) or small modifications to GR, could produce an indistinguishable signal. Note that both stable wormholes and gravastars require large amounts of exotic matter (if GR is assumed) for which there is currently no evidence or any well founded reason to believe exist.
     
  4. May 18, 2016 #3

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    I am not sure why you chose to reference that unpublished work:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04767v1

    When you discussed this with the mentors you referenced a published paper:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.07309
     
  5. May 18, 2016 #4

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From the published paper, the following provides summary completely consistent with my earlier post:

    "Horizonless compact objects require exotic matter con-
    figurations and almost inevitably possess a stable light
    ring at r < 3M [27]. The latter might be associated
    with various instabilities, including fragmentation and
    collapse [27] and the ergoregion instability [44–47] when
    the object rotates sufficiently fast. While our results
    are generic, the viability of a BH mimicker depends on
    the specific model, especially on its compactness and
    spin [48].
    The recent GW detection by aLIGO [1] enormously
    strengthens the evidence for stellar-mass BHs, whose ex-
    istence is already supported by various indirect observa-
    tions in the electromagnetic band (cf. e.g. Refs. [49, 50]).
    While BHs remain the most convincing Occam’s razor
    hypothesis, it is important to bear in mind the elusive
    nature of an event horizon and the challenges associated
    with its direct detection."
     
  6. May 18, 2016 #5

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    I think that the paper was not over-hasty. The signal detected is certainly consistent with black holes, and does provide novel confirmatory evidence. Furthermore, this evidence was predicted in advance and the experiment was built to detect just such evidence.

    It is certainly possible to take any experiment, in isolation, and find some alternative explanation. Which is why experiments are compared in the context of all the available information. The alternatives violate the energy conditions, so their priors are low.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Was the LIGO team over-hasty to claim black holes confirmed?
  1. Black hole (Replies: 2)

  2. Black hole (Replies: 284)

  3. Black hole (Replies: 5)

Loading...