#1  
Old 16-11-2018, 07:23 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
Gravity waves? Maybe not.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ational-waves/

Alex
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16-11-2018, 10:12 AM
gary
Registered User

gary is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Kuring-Gai
Posts: 5,914
Hi Alex,

Thanks for the post with the New Scientist article link.

That sets the cat amongst the pigeons.

It's good to see that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
still holds true in the world of science today and that science continues this
process of introspection, analysis and confirmation.

It would be a great pity if the LIGO detections turned out to be noise
but better to know and prove whether something is really true rather than
hope it is true.

Let's hope for the sake of all involved that it can be resolved quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16-11-2018, 10:44 AM
astroron's Avatar
astroron (Ron)
Supernova Searcher

astroron is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambroon Queensland Australia
Posts: 9,313
Thanks Alex
A very interesting read.
I look forward to the result if any that comes from this dispute.
Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16-11-2018, 11:12 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 6,932
Interesting...

If I remember correctly, one ot two detections were confirmed on BOTH facilities, quite far away apart, and were consistent with directions both g-waves and optical signal came from..
Anyway, this is how science works - there is constant verification of previous results, by independent teams, all the time...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 16-11-2018, 12:31 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 16,866
It surprised me.
In any event science wins.

Alex
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 16-11-2018, 06:55 PM
DarkArts
Registered User

DarkArts is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 606
It's a very interesting dilemma and a well written article.

Thanks for posting.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18-11-2018, 08:42 AM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
this seems to have been around for at least 18 months without resolution.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/stran...bate-20170630/

Last edited by Shiraz; 18-11-2018 at 08:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 18-11-2018, 10:17 AM
SkyWatch (Dean)
Registered User

SkyWatch is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 400
Interesting articles thanks Alex and Ray. I see from the earlier Quanta magazine article that the Danish group wouldn't talk about possible mistakes they made in their analysis of the correlations between the two detectors, so one wonders whether there is a bit of scientific jealousy at play here too...
Time will tell.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 18-11-2018, 12:03 PM
gary
Registered User

gary is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Kuring-Gai
Posts: 5,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz View Post
this seems to have been around for at least 18 months without resolution.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/stran...bate-20170630/
Hi Ray,

Thanks for the link to the Quanta Magazine article that provides
additional background on the debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Brooks, New Scientist
The best weapon in the arsenal is known as a Fourier transform. This splits a signal into various frequency components and converts it into a power spectrum, which details how much of the signal’s power is contained in each of those components. This can be done with a window function, a mathematical tool that operates on a selected part of the data. Whether or not to use one is at the heart of the disagreement over LIGO’s results (see main story).

Andrew Jackson’s dissenting team at the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark chose not to use a window function, a decision that LIGO’s Neil Cornish describes as a “basic mistake”. Jackson says they didn’t use one because it subtly alters the Fourier-transformed data in a way that can skew the results of subsequent processing.
So to window or not to window, that is the question.

As I understand it, even when one doesn't use a window function on
a FFT, if you are just considering some brief time interval then
you are effectively getting a rectangular window function anyway.

I'd speculate it is the nature of a transient - something in the time domain -
to now being analyzed in the frequency domain.

However, the nature of window functions is that they create a mathematical
convolution between themselves and the signal you are sampling.
So I know experts in signal analysis have to be careful when analysing transient
signals,. There are a gamut of window function choices with various
tradeoffs and so on from which one can choose.

Given the wealth of expertise in the world in signal analysis across
multiple disciplines in engineering and science plus the number of
mathematicians and statisticians who are steeped in the
mathematical underpinnings, in some ways it seems a surprise this
debate has dragged on for so long.

Certainly the top graph in the Quanta Magazine paper
looks more correlated with a larger SNR than the lower graph when you
just eyeball it but that falls short of the analytical rigour required.

Alas, I am no expert and my experience is limited to now and then
switching on a benchtop spectrum analyzer, twiddling the knobs and
with luck trying to separate the signal from the noise in obvious
radio signals whose strength is dozens of orders of magnitude stronger than LIGO.

I note the LIGO team have one technology they call the Fast Chirp Transform :-
https://www.advancedligo.mit.edu/fast_chirp.html

They have this patent on it :-
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6509866B2/en
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 10:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement