A team of five researchers — James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, and Pavel Naselsky — from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, presented their own analysis of the openly available LIGO data. And, unlike the LIGO collaboration itself, they come to a disturbing conclusion: that these gravitational waves might not be signals at all, but rather patterns in the noise that have hoodwinked even the best scientists working on this puzzle
arXiv:1706.04191v1 [astro-ph.IM] 13 Jun 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04191
For decades, theory and observation suggested that stellar black holes couldn’t exceed roughly 10 solar masses.The black holes LIGO has seen, though, are somewhere in the middle—in the range of tens of solar masses. We’ve always assumed that black holes of this mass range should probably exist, but they’re hard to find evidence for in observations. So why has LIGO seen these, and not the smaller stellar-mass black holes everyone expected? But not everything is as physicists expected. The ripples we’ve seen were produced by black holes more massive than we thought we would find.
@ Salah A. Mabkhout;;
yes LIGO is false alarm in physics....nothing can escape from Black hole then how can a Gravitational wave come from?
Where did such massive black holes come from?
How were such large black-hole binaries created? How did they form?”
One explanation is that: two pre-existing black holes came together by chance and captured each other gravitationally in some crowded part of the galaxy!
The Schwaritschild radius for the sun is less than 3 km , hence for the two collided black holes are 3×32=96km and 3×29=87km. The space within a Galaxy is of order of millions of light years. How luckly those two black holes of such tiny sizes -at random- to have a chance to meet each other ? In other wards what is the probability of this event to happen? Definitely, almost zero I guess.
Most stars are NOT solitary, so a black hole likely has a partner star. Just because the event horizon is small does not mean the collision cross section is small.
Comments on our paper, 'On the time lags of the LIGO signals'
James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/
Our recent arXiv posting of arXiv:1706.04191 "On the time lags of the LIGO signals" has generated considerable interest - both positive and negative. This is understandable given the significance of the claimed discovery of gravitational waves resulting from the merger of two black holes. In our opinion, a discovery of this importance merited a genuinely independent analysis of the data. It was the aim of our manuscript to perform such an analysis using publicly available data from LIGO and methods that were as close as possible to those adopted by the LIGO team. We focussed our attention mainly on the first event, GW150914, with special attention to the time lag between the arrival times of the signal at the Hanford and Livingston detectors. In our view, if we are to conclude reliably that this signal is due to a genuine astrophysical event, apart from chance-correlations, there should be no correlation between the "residual" time records from LIGO's two detectors in Hanford and Livingston. The residual records are defined as the difference between the cleaned records and the best GW template found by LIGO. Residual records should thus be dominated by noise, and they should show no correlations between Hanford and Livingston. Our investigation revealed that these residuals are, in fact, strongly correlated. Moreover, the time delay for these correlations coincides with the 6.9 ms time delay found for the putative GW signal itself.
Comments on our paper, 'On the time lags of the LIGO signals'
James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu, Pavel Naselsky
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/gravitational-waves/
As a member of the LIGO collaboration, Ian Harry states that he "tried to reproduce the results quoted in 'On the time lags of the LIGO signals'", but that he "[could] not reproduce the correlations claimed in section 3". Subsequent discussions with Ian Harry have revealed that this failure was due to several errors in his code. After necessary corrections were made, his script reproduces our results.
Claes Johnson
Absurdity of Modern Physics: LIGO Gravitational Wave Detection as Ill-posed Problem |
The conclusion is drawn by computer simulations and modelling that this extremely minute effect as a "ripple in the fabric of space-time", was the result of a very specific extremely gigantic invisible explosion 1.3 billion light years away shining brighter than all stars in all galaxies for 0.25 seconds in the form of gravitational waves.
We see a combination of a biggest possible cause/input and a smallest possible effect/output in a certain mathematical model. The conclusion comes from using this mathematical model in inverse form, where a smallest possible signal is used to identify a biggest possible origin of the signal.
This means that the mathematical model in inverse form is extremely ill-posed and as such cannot be used to draw conclusions. To do so requires that all alternative explanations of the zero signal can be eliminated, and it is then not enough to just say that no other explanation immediately suggest themselves, that is to draw conclusions from ignorance with the precision of the conclusions increasing as the ignorance or stupidity grows.
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-rise-of-ligos-space-studying-super-team
By Troy Rummler
Scientists using the second instrument on the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have already found an unconfirmed signal that aligned with the first gravitational waves LIGO detected, says scientist Valerie Connaughton of the Universities Space Research Association, who works on the Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor. “We were surprised to find a transient event 0.4 seconds after the first GW seen by LIGO.”
While the event is theoretically unlikely to be connected to the gravitational wave, she says the timing and location “are enough for us to be interested and to challenge the theorists to explain how something that was not expected to produce gamma rays might have done so.”
“The neutrinos IceCube is looking for originate from the most extreme environment in the cosmos,” says IceCube scientist Imre Bartos of Columbia University. “We don't know what these environments are for sure, but we strongly suspect that they are related to black holes.”
The source of the recent controversy is that a group from Denmark has taken LIGO’s public data, their public procedure, and executed it for themselves. But when they analyzed the removed noise, they found that there were correlations between the noise found in the two detectors, which shouldn’t be the case! Noise is supposed to be random, and so if the noise is correlated, there’s a danger that what you’re calling your extracted signal may actually be contaminated by noise.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-uncertain-are-ligos-first-gravitational-wave-detections-d34209811db4
The fourth gravitational wave detection. The black holes that caused this latest round of gravitational waves were 31 and 25 times the mass of the sun before they merged, making this the second largest collision we’ve detected this way. They are located about 1.8 billion light years away from Earth. Again Ligo-Virgo detected a rare massive black holes merge for he forth time, while non of the expected existed black holes have been detected!!! What is wrong?
It would be not wise to comment on technicalities like LIGO, GW experiment, Higgs Boson Experiment ,CMB anisotropy experiment since complexity of those experiments from the point of view of manpower, time duration, technology involved is enormous and it is known in full to a few dozens of people involved. So let see the entire story from the different point of view which everybody understands well. Take for example Higgs boson experiment at LHC CERN. The LHC accelerator itself costed about 5 billion dollars, its support and service cost 1.2 billion dollars per year. For the 10 years of operations was spent about 15 billion dollars on that expensive toys which feeds a few thousands of people working there. Money must come from somewhere and more precisely they are supplied by founding agencies. Nevertheless those are TAXPAYER money. Each year people at LHC CERN must write report WHAT WAS ACHIEVED FOR THOSE BILLIONS DOLLARS???. If the reports would be negative , then of course the facility would be shut down. That happened for instance to Arecibo observatory looking for extra terrestial intelligence (SETI) . It is a NECESSITY therefore , that SOMETHING finally must be find to justify the whole business. So Higgs boson was find , presented , and the money flow , BIG MONEY continues. Nobody ever will dothose experiments again and confirm the Higgs boson.
I am not telling that all those ,one event, billion dollars experiment are pure fake , due to politics but I suspect that the fake is highly likely. This line of reasoning applies to LIGO , to CMB anisotropy, to Supernova experiment . And just think what you could do for 15 billion dollars + 1.2 billion each year.
Regarding your Higgs critique, you might be interested in https://www.amazon.com/Higgs-Fake-Particle-Physicists-Committee/dp/1492176249/. I believe, something can be said at least about the technicalities.
Surprisingly, after they won nobel prize no more GW from Black Holes have been detected!
- Badges
- Science topic