"Local phenomena are reliably excluded, if you see the same signal in two distan detectors."

The occurence of glitch signals is of the order once per second, hence coincidence within 1 ms on both LIGO detectors is to be expected about once per hour. Burst events are categorized in "families", see LIGO statement cited in my previous post, indicating repetitive occurrence of characteristic signal profiles. Thus, coincidence of similar bursts cannot be excluded, but rather should be expected to occur at significant rates.  

Local phenomena are reliably excluded, if you see the same signal in two distant detectors. Such a signal cannot originate from any local disturbance that would be seen only in one detector.

"Local phenomena are reliably excluded, if you see the same signal in two distan detectors."

The occurence of glitch signals is of the order once per second, hence coincidence within 1 ms on both LIGO detectors is to be expected about once per hour. Burst events are categorized in "families", see LIGO statement cited in my previous post, indicating repetitive occurrence of characteristic signal profiles. Thus, coincidence of similar bursts cannot be excluded, but rather should be expected to occur at significant rates.  

„There are families of glitches that we frequently see but have not yet discovered the cause of.“

Note that this statement was released in the official March 2016 issue of LIGO Magazine, i.e. six months after the GW150914 event and still two months after submission of the discovery paper. So the statement cannot be regarded as obsolete.

We further read: „For example a class of glitches we have named 'blip' glitches appear at both sites which have a 'teardrop' shape in the time-frequency plane.“

As can be seen from LIGO publications including the discovery paper, „teardrop“ shape is typical of signals selected as candidates for gravitational wave (GW) events. As signals of this type obviously appear more often than those identified as GW events, alternative causes should have been investigated with exceptional care at least in view of literature data generated by connected groups, see reference cited below. Instead, discussion of suspension fibre related interference apparently is avoided by simply stating (see above): „ ... we frequently see but have not yet discovered the cause of.“

Edit - I have two questions:

1. What sort of "experimental physics" and, in particular, data evaluation is being practiced by "LIGO Scientific Collaboration" ?

2. How did it happen that the discovery paper passed the PRL refereeing procedure?

"The occurence of glitch signals is of the order once per second, hence coincidence within 1 ms on both LIGO detectors is to be expected about once per hour."

This was my above estimate. In fact, LIGO data analysts admit up to 7 ms time delay for supposed gravitational waves to travel from one detector site to the other:

"GW150914 arrived first at L1 and then at H1 about seven thousandths of a second later - consistent with the time taken for light, or gravitational waves, to travel between the two detectors." - cf. Figure 1 caption in reference cited below.

This might apply in case that waves accidentally travel along the line connecting the detector sites. Otherwise time delay should be smaller. Anyway, the margin of signal arrival from a distant cosmic event is 7 ms instead of one, so the expected rate of "coincidence" will be of the order once every 10 minutes rather than once per hour.

http://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-GW150914/index.php

"discussion of suspension fibre related interference apparently is avoided"

This also applies to the extended LIGO report, see reference below.

Dear Johan,

When I used their statement you mentioned above:

"GW150914 arrived first at L1 and then at H1 about seven thousandths of a second later - consistent with the time taken for light, or gravitational waves, to travel between the two detectors."

in my first critique I was stoned by almost all! (see discussion after publication)

Your contribution opens one a new class for rejecting LIGO's claims.

Please continue the good work

My regards,

Demetris

Data A first critical review of event GW150914 observed by LIGO d...

Thanks, Demetris, for your kind an encouraging response!

"in my first critique I was stoned by almost all!"

Every delay smaller than 10 ms I think will be ok depending on angle of incidence. Misunderstanding obviously came in by original LIGO statement suggesting light would take only 7 ms to travel from L1 to H1.

I'm really impressed by your detailed analysis of entire published work on GW150914 event and patient response to comments. My contribution was less effort after spontaneously suspecting components not covered by the mega surveillance and computer aided voting system installed at the LIGO antennas periphery in view of "environmental" influences. Strange only that obvious and, moreover, well established "internal" sources of interference such as solid state phenomena in suspension fibres are completely blacked out in favour of enforcing spectacular claims.

"Your contribution opens one a new class for rejecting LIGO's claims. Please continue ..."

Dear Demetris,

after having contacted "LIGO Open Science Center" by mid September I had some discussion with Jonah Kanner on the suspension fibre issue which ended on October 10 with his statement: "These are very good observations." Further inquiries have not been answered so far. See mail exchange below.

The detectable transient is the rapid tiny change of length in one optical path compared to another path at right angles, essentially duplicated at two locations of known separation.

Dear Jerry,

I'm quite aware of what is claimed by LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC). On the other hand, it is well known from LIGO published material (see reference below) that chirp type signals of unknown origin (!), which by shape might be confused with those expected due to gravitational wave (GW) events, are observed at significant rates. Signals of this type are automatically rejected as possible GW event candidates whenever they don't occur simultaneously, i.e. within less than 10 ms, on both detector sites. In view of their rate of occurrence, however, it cannot be excluded that they fall within the 10 ms window simply by chance.

The present discussion is based on the suggestion that chirp type signals as described may originate from solid state dislocation and associated relaxation phenomena taking place at the prestressed fibres serving for passive seismic suspension of LIGO detector test masses.

Comment by LIGO Open Science Center (LOSC): "These are very good observations." - See mail exchange cited above.

Maybe this was just a kind invitation by LOSC people to end the discussion. In our mail exchange, of course, I would have had further questions like eg the following ones recently posted in a parallel discussion:

GD: "fused silica ... eliminated the bursts that had previously been a problem"

Dear George, please let us know where you find an explicit statement like this. It appears rather strange that after non-Gaussian noise has always been identified as a big issue - "Limiting for iLIGO searches" - we don't find any clear statement telling this problem having been solved by fused silica. Did you find any signal-vs-time plot comparable to the one displayed in appended slide from one of the fused silica setups?

In Technical note LIGO-T1500427-v1 "Experimental Study of Crackling Noise as Micro-mechanics of Flow" dated 2015/09/25 the author in his concluding remarks states:

"This serves as evidence for non-trivial microstructure evolution and might further indicate intermittent dislocation dynamics in the elastic regime as the source of crackling noise."

Please note paper was released after GW150914 event.

I wonder, if crackling noise is an issue, shouldn't "intermittent dislocation dynamics" by itself "as the source of crackling noise" lead to observable signals?

@Fremerey:

"The occurence of glitch signals is of the order once per second, hence coincidence within 1 ms on both LIGO detectors is to be expected about once per hour."

But these glitches would neither have the characteristic shape of the observed signals, nor would they agree in their detailed structure very precisely. They would just be similar, not identical (after accounting for noise) over several oscillations. In the end, it is just a matter of statistical significance. The likelihood of a glitch having both the detected shape (that agrees with numerical calculations of the signal to be expected from a black-hole merger) and being sufficiently similar at both interferometers, with a time delay that is non-zero but corresponds to the running time of signal at the speed of light, if it came from such and such a direction, seems to be very small indeed. And I believe these guys understand their job.

KK: "And I believe these guys understand their job."

This apparently includes, in particular, that they avoid public discussion of noise interference from the passive seismic suspension system.

> Long-standing issue involving the monolithic (fused silica) mirror suspensions > All monolithic suspensions installed under vacuum broke one after the other > Fall: decision taken to move back to steel wires

Dear George,

I've copied above statements from page 18 of the report you earlier referred to: "Status of the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detector", dated July 7, 2017. Do you still expect displacements of order 10-18 m on test mirrors due to solid state issues in the suspension fibres can be definitely excluded?

(posted October 6, 2017, see reference below)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914#59d71fd9217e20f088364fe7

„There are families of glitches that we frequently see but have not yet discovered the cause of.“

Quite true, I assume. But there is no claim whatever that these glitches are hard to distinguish from signals. One simply does not know where they come from. It may make a signal somewhat harder to detect, but has no consequence on the identification of a signal as such.

The LIGO collaboration certainly does not state that glitches which the software cannot distinguish from signals occur once a second. I seem to remember they stated that such pseudo signals, which resemble a signal sufficiently to be misidentified by the software, and yet arise only in one of the detectors, are extremely rare, if they exist at all. If your claim were correct, of course, such incorrectly identified signals should be dominant.

"With more and more signals detected in all 3 detectors it will make less and less sense to doubt."

I'm still waiting for a first one.

Dear Francois,

apart from what you cite above I've made the following observations:

(1) As indicated in my opening statement LIGO-related laboratories have published a series of papers dealing with significant interference from solid state relaxation processes occuring at the highly stressed metal wires of their "initial" LIGO test mirror suspension.

(2) Metal wires have been replaced with fused silica fibres in "advanced" LIGO setups in order to avoid crystalline relaxation processes. This big effort was regarded a remarkable progress in LIGO instrument development.

(3) Several papers have been published also on deficiencies of the fused silica suspensions, and it was stated that connecting hardware still comprises metal components.

(4) I didn't find any LIGO report dealing with strain equivalent amplitudes due to measured solid state relaxation processes, such as is usual in case of hypothetical cosmic sources.

(5) There is no mention at all of suspension related issues in the gravitational waves discovery papers.

(6) VIRGO reported severe problems with their silica fibre suspensions (see my previous post) that caused them to go back to metal wire suspensions, i.e. to an obsolete state of the art.

(7) VIRGO didn't record any serious signal during the GW170817 event.

As an experienced experimental physicist and developer of industrial machinery I'm used to draw my conclusions from what I observe.

Dear Dr. Fremerey,

Your remarks are valuable. In my opinion the signals recorded by the LIGO observatory could be generated in the nearest industrial plant or something similar. The more so that the phenomenon of so-called "gravitational waves" as derived from the equations of general relativity is nonsense. See, e.g. two remarkable papers, which I put on my web site, F. Loinger & T. Marsico, and S. Crothers: http://inerton.kiev.ua/nogravwaves_A.Loinger&T.Marsico(2016).pdf

http://inerton.kiev.ua/nogravwaves_S.Crothers(2016)_vixra.1603.0127v3.pdf Indeed, what in fact is emitted in those equations? It is not any matter, it is not mass, it is something with spin-2... But what is the spin-2 in the present case and what is that SOMETHING??..

Dear Volodymyr,

thanks for sharing quite instructive papers that question in general the existence of gravitational waves (GW) from a very basic point of view. LIGO certainly will argue on the basis of their preferred theories and, even more, by their alleged "experimental" GW discoveries. Strange only that their discoveries themselves rely on still unproven sources.

In principle, I guess what exactly they measured. My colleagues and I designed a device that measure these kinds of perturbations of space. A theory and experiments as well as some technological applications are described in my recent book. The copyright belongs to the publishers, that is why I can only share with you their flyer for my book: http://inerton.kiev.ua/SS&DSCP.pdf

"In principle, I guess what exactly they measured."

Makes me curious. Unfortunately, your link doesn't work.

Dr. Fremery, I just put the reply to another branch of this general discussion, namely ease follow the link https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914#view=57a43c935b4952139d7633b1

Dear Volodymyr,

thanks for linking to your quite inspiring ideas on alternative causes for the LIGO signals under discussion. As I understand, related sources are suspected somewhere outside the Antenna hardware. I'm still stuck to the idea that as long as possible internal sources of interference, in particular from the "passive" seismic suspension systen in direct contact with the test mirrors, won't be reliably identified at a 10-21 strain equivalent level it doesn't make sense to launch spectacular claims on that level except for publicity and funding reasons.

At this point, LIGO experimental and non-disclosure practices must be labeled a shame from the viewpoint of every honest experimental scientist.

Dear Dr. Fremerey,

What I like in your writing is a typical German style of thinking that was in the time

around a hundred years ago. In the meanwhile, I continue to discuss with an

American researcher, George Dishman:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914?view=5a3b6c7996b7e47449581862

Yes, their tolerance 10-21 is striking...

Here I can mention that my colleagues and I observed that the decay constant of

tritium varies in time (there are also papers on similar variation of heavier unstable

nuclei); the time period of these variations is around 24 hours and the amplitude

of variation is of course much rude than the precision 10-21. This means that some

inner physical factors actually cut all the hopes of LIGO researchers.

Dear Dr. Johan K. Fremerey, I wish you a very happy Christmas Eve and invite to read my last comments / article on same ReserachGate's page that was mentioned above: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914?view=5a3f7aef96b7e4846c6b63bd

It seems to me, there is a possibility to carry out your previous gravitational experiment with some improvements.

I do hope you will support this idea. A rush of vigor and strength of spirit will give you an elixir of youth - you may read about it in the web site below (prepared by me as in 1980s I was studied the biophysics of living cells and their energetics):

http://hydridfortis-en.simdif.com

Let Space help us!