Evidence of Gravitational Waves, or Confirmation Bias?

[Osmosis]

Perhaps they could be converted to one-lane bowling alleys----
Osmosis

[Michael Mozina]

I'm really curious now to see how LIGO "formally" responds to the Danish teams discovery of correlated noise, before, during and after the so called "signal" at the very same time delay as the signal no less. There's certainly a pregnant pause going on at the moment, as everyone waits to see what LIGO has to publicly say about it.

LIGO's cheesy blog response backfired publicly in a big way. Their blog entry would tend to suggest that it was news to LIGO that any correlated noise even existed because they originally tried to claim that they couldn't even reproduce the Danish teams findings. If LIGO already knew that there was a correlated noise process going on before the Danish team pointed it out to them, LIGO wouldn't have claimed that they couldn't reproduce the correlated noise, and someone from LIGO would have found the bugs in their python code instead of making the Danish team do it for them. Ouch, what a public relations disaster for LIGO!

The big question now is what is the actual *cause* of all those correlated noise patterns which they observed at 6.9 milliseconds? Penrose's explanation for that correlated noise was just silly IMO. I sure hope that LIGO has a much better scientific explanation for that correlated noise before, during and after the signal timeline, because otherwise they are in big trouble. LIGO's whole basis for eliminating blip transients as the probable cause of the signal was based on the premise/claim that blip transients cannot be correlated. Obviously noise can be correlated, and LIGO didn't even seem to know that noise could be correlated, and was correlated during the timeline in question until someone else pointed it out to them.

Stay tuned, for LIGO's next episode of: 'As the invisible universe turns'. This should be amusing.

[Michael Mozina]

I pointed this out at CF today, but it bears repeating here too.

LIGO's methodology and their claim is *so bad*, LIGO can't even distinguish its discovery claim from the typical "null hypothesis". In LIGO's case, the null hypothesis would assume that all noise patterns, correlated or uncorrelated, regardless of the frequency or duration pattern selected, are caused by *anything other than* gravitational waves. The null hypothesis would therefore not expect to observe any time correlation between any specific subset of noise and any specific celestial event. Indeed, since LIGO has not delivered on multimessenger astronomy as they promised, the null hypothesis is completely compatible with LIGO's findings to date!

What a really crappy methodology if they can't even distinguish their claims and their results from a typical null hypothesis. That is some seriously messed up and shoddy methodology.

[Higgsy]

"Recent claims in a preprint by Creswell et al. of puzzling correlations in LIGO data have broadened interest in understanding the publicly available LIGO data around the times of the detected gravitational-wave events. We see that the features presented in Creswell et al. arose from misunderstandings of public data products. The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration (LVC) have full confidence in our published results, and we are preparing a paper in which we will provide more details about LIGO detector noise properties and the data analysis techniques used by the LVC to detect gravitational-wave signals and infer their waveforms."
http://www.ligo.org/news.php

[Michael Mozina]

"Recent claims in a preprint by Creswell et al. of puzzling correlations in LIGO data have broadened interest in understanding the publicly available LIGO data around the times of the detected gravitational-wave events. We see that the features presented in Creswell et al. arose from misunderstandings of public data products. The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration (LVC) have full confidence in our published results, and we are preparing a paper in which we will provide more details about LIGO detector noise properties and the data analysis techniques used by the LVC to detect gravitational-wave signals and infer their waveforms."
http://www.ligo.org/news.php

Huh? How could the "features" (aka correlated noise) arise from misunderstandings of public data products? What the heck does that even mean? It's been almost two full months since the Danish study was put on Arxiv, and LIGO still hasn't said anything publicly which has held up to any scrutiny. Their last attempt to refute the Danish findings was a public relations disaster for LIGO. I guess that's why they're taking their sweet time coming up with a formal response.

I'm curious to find out if LIGO is forced to admit that there *is* correlated noise present, or if they will try to deny that it even exists (again)? I suspect that LIGO will be forced to admit that correlated noise exists, and they're going to discuss the mechanics of how they filtered the "public" data in an "oh so special" private way to remove the correlated noise that is present.

The problem for LIGO is that the mere existence of correlated noise before, during and after the signal devastates their claims related to blip transients. If some noise sources can be correlated in both detectors, then blip transients can be correlated too, and LIGO has no way to distinguish between correlated blip transients and gravitational waves. In fact their hopelessly flawed methodology would automatically classify correlated blip transient events in a similar frequency range as being celestial in origin with some trumped up sigma figure attached to it.

Well, I guess with all the publicity, LIGO can't just sweep this problem under the rug like they swept their missing veto under the rug.

[Michael Mozina]

The "null hypothesis" isn't really even specific to LIGO, nor is it biased against LIGO, so LIGO has no one to blame but themselves for not being able to distinguish their results from the null hypothesis.

The gravitational wave null hypothesis makes no assumptions about the existence or non-existence of gravitational waves. It makes no assumptions about the type of equipment that is built or used to measure them. It makes no assumptions about the particular type of data set that is used. It makes no particular assumptions about which people are involved in the process, or anything related to the specific methods which are used to try to measure them.

The only assumption the null hypothesis makes is that regardless of the data set/noise observed in the equipment, it is caused by something other than gravitational waves, therefore there should be no correlation between any particular time stamped data set, and any specific observed celestial event.

Let's review the history of the various claims of the observation of gravitational waves vs. the null hypothesis. The gravitational wave null hypothesis was born in the late 1960, early 1970's with Joseph Weber.

Throughout the 1970's, Joseph Weber was *never* able in something like 311 attempts, to differentiate his findings from the null hypothesis. His claims finally (years later) "fell out of favor" because nobody could duplicate his claims and he was never able to show that the null hypothesis was inconsistent with any of his findings.

A few years ago, BICEP2 claimed to be able to correlate it's observed data set to a highly specific celestial observation (current polarized photon patterns), but alas their claim turned to dust in mere months. Because Bicep2 claimed to differentiate its data set from the null hypothesis based on specific celestial observations, their claim could in fact be falsified and it was falsified in record time from the standpoint of astronomy. That was strike two in terms of trying to beat the null hypothesis pitcher.

LIGO in 2017 *still* cannot differentiate it's findings from the null hypothesis, and it's really up to them to do so. They claimed they would be able to do so, and claimed they could deliver multimessenger astronomy (null hypothesis differentiation) after hundreds of millions of dollar worth of upgrades of course. They got their money and spent the money. Where's the beef? It's been almost two full years now and we've yet to see a single paper or finding from LIGO that is not 100 percent consistent with the null hypothesis. Even Bicep2 had the courage to claim to differentiate itself from the null hypothesis, but LIGO has not even done that much in two full years! *When* will they deliver on their multimessenger astronomy promise? Ever?

In the whole history of gravitational wave research, only BICEP2 was able to claim to link their data sets to observable events in space, and that claim blew up in less than six months.

For almost five decades the null hypothesis has been 100 percent consistent with respect to gravitational waves. Only one group has ever briefly claimed to be able to link their data set to celestial events and thereby differentiate itself from the null hypothesis, but that claim lasted mere months before it turned to dust.

For almost five decades, the null hypothesis has held up very well and continues to hold up well to this day. At the rate LIGO is going, the null hypothesis is likely to be 100 consistent with the data for many more decades to come.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... 18/page-11

1. The sigma figure provided by LIGO is meaningless with respect to their claim as to cause.
2. LIGO provided no *quantified* way to eliminate ordinary environmental noise as the cause.
3. LIGO provided no quantified way to eliminate blip transients, particularly after that bombshell revelation by the Danish team and their observation of correlated noise.
4. LIGO used a highly biased methodology that favors all celestial origin claims 'by default'.
5. LIGO has provided no data whatsoever which is inconsistent with the null hypothesis.

I think my last couple of exchanges with Selfsim at CF are worth reading. Our last couple of posts pretty much sums up my various online debates so far. There are five key *methodology* problems in the LIGO papers (plural) to date. My conversation with Selfsim pretty much sums up those various problems, but the last point on that list warrants some thought as LIGO moves forward.

LIGO has created a ticking time bomb. Sooner or later they need to start providing some evidence which actually deviates from the null hypothesis. To date, everything that LIGO has published is 100 percent consistent with the null hypothesis. The same is true for every claim that was ever made by Joseph Weber.

As justification for the last round of multi-hundred million dollar upgrades, LIGO claimed that these expensive, publicly funded upgrades would allow their equipment to see all sorts of different kinds of events in space. They calculated that they'd expect to observe more neutron star merger events than black hole merger events by a ratio of 5/3. Based on LIGO's own predictions, they should have observed five neutron star merger events to choose from by now, and that doesn't count all their other discussions of supernova events and other high energy events. Suffice to say, LIGO should have a number of "visual" events to choose from by now if their so called "predictions" had any value whatsoever.

After almost 2 full years of operation, LIGO has not made good on their promise of what they called 'multimessenger astronomy", aka "differentiation from the null hypothesis", but so far the null hypothesis reigns supreme. It's 100 percent consistent with everything that has been published by LIGO to date.

Multimessenger astronomy is really the elephant in the room with LIGO. That elephant can't and won't go away until LIGO opens the door on some data which actually deviates from the null hypothesis, and LIGO delivers on their promise of multimessenger astronomy.

It's bit like a baby or adolescent elephant at the moment, but it grows with time, and it's hungry. It eagerly gorges itself on LIGO's own published papers. The more LIGO cries big black hole wolf, the more the elephant grows and the larger it becomes.

Each one of the five problems are 'deal busters' in and of themselves. Since I'm a mere amateur, and my public criticisms really don't matter to them, LIGO can ignore the first four problems on that list at their peril, but LIGO can't escape the elephant in the room until and unless it makes good on it's promise to differentiate their claims from the null hypothesis, and deliver on multimessenger astronomy.

It's also worth pointing out that while astronomers *pride* (and I do mean pride) themselves on *quantifying* their various claims, there is in fact no quantified basis for LIGO's claim of "discovery" of gravitational waves without a sigma figure that is related to *environmental noise*, not just a sigma figure related to their equipment noise. Their veto methods had *no* quantified "safety" assessment associated with any of them including the one that originally vetoed that very signal with 'high confidence'.

LIGO literally has no quantified mathematical basis for claiming 'discovery'. The only thing that the sigma figure provided by LIGO applies to is their ability to eliminate equipment noise as the culprit. It does not quantify the probability of environmental noise causing the same signal, because they removed all noisy days and all vetoed times. The only thing that LIGO can rightfully claim to have "discovered" from the sigma figures they have provided is the fact they "discovered' that they can eliminate local equipment noise as the cause of the signal. They "discovered' nothing else with that specific 5+ sigma figure.

In other words, where's the math, and where's the visual beef?

How ironic that LIGO doesn't even have a legitimate mathematical basis for their claim.

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.ligo.org/news.php

Evidently August 25th, 2017 is the last day of observation run 2 (O2), and observation run 3 (O3) isn't scheduled to start up again until the fall of 2018. LIGO has to be crossing their fingers and toes about now and hoping for a miracle over the next week and a half. They desperately need an observation to write about which actually deviates from the null hypothesis, and they've got only ten more observational days to go before they start to shut it down and they start working on the next round of upgrades. If they don't produce something soon, It's going to be a long next year for LIGO.

Inquiring minds really want to know if LIGO will deliver on multimessenger astronomy in 02, or whether they're just going to remain "hopeful" of making good on that promise in 03(+)?

If that earlier Nature article was correct, and LIGO already had another 1/2 dozen potential signals to analyze back in June. It will be interesting to see if any of those 1/2 dozen+ candidate signals involves multimessenger astronomy. If none of them deviate from the null hypothesis, I really wonder how many times LIGO can rationally try to cry black hole wolf before even the 'professionals' start to publicly complain?

In the mean time, there's also that pesky Danish paper to deal with.

[comingfrom]

In the mean time, there's also that pesky Danish paper to deal with.

LIGO is "preparing a brief guide", to explain to the Danes how they extract GW signals. LIGO (and VIRGO) "have full confidence in our published results"

What they don't tell you...
They are waiting on the graphic artist for the obligatory artist's impression of two black holes merging, without which the brief guide may not be so convincing.

Reading their news feed, they say this on their announcement of their third GW detection.

The detected waves—observed on January 4th, 2017 at 10:11:58.6 UTC (5:12AM EST) —were produced by a binary black hole system. Stellar-mass black holes with 31.2 and 19.4 solar masses merged to produce a spinning black hole of 48.7 solar masses. The detected signal is completely consistent with the predictions of general relativity.

That's a outright lie.
GR didn't predict that black holes collide, let alone on January 4th, 2017 at 10:11:58.6 UTC with those very specific masses.

Maybe they meant... consistent with our mathematical predictions which are based on GR ... or something like that. But then, I don't expect scientists who are so far off in saying what they really mean, can then consistently predict anything.

That last sentence on the end there struck me as being phoney propaganda. They know that what they are claiming is unrealistic and untrue, so they have to say General Relativity predicted it, so readers will believe it.

~Paul

[Webbman]

only gangsters have the capability to measure the masses of black holes.

[comingfrom]

I believe you are right.

And they can do it from a blip.

[Michael Mozina]

LIGO ends their current observation run on Friday, and they won't start another observation run for about a year. They'll only start the next observation run after they complete another round of upgrades on the various detectors. The clock is definitely ticking on LIGO's ability to deliver on multimessenger astronomy in 2017, or differentiate any of their claims from the null hypothesis. So far they've been unable to make good on that promise almost two full years after claiming to have 'discovered' gravitational waves.

What at huge public soap opera LIGO has created for themselves.

LIGO might presumably be able to "lay low" for the next year and collect their Nobel Prize, *assuming* that their public response to the Danish team actually holds up to scientific scrutiny from the Danish team.

I'm very curious to find out if LIGO publicly admits to the existence of correlated noise during the timelines of the signals in question, or if they try to claim that there really is no correlated noise. Their response pretty much makes or breaks their assertion about being able to quantitatively rule out ordinary blip transients as the cause of the signals, and that issue ultimately makes or breaks their case with respect to cause.

If there was in fact correlated noise occurring between the two detectors at the very same delay time, before, during and after the signal, then the 'cause' of all of the other correlated noise is also the most likely cause of the "subset' of correlated noise that LIGO is interested in. It's *statistically unlikely* that a celestial signal would "just so happen" to arrive at the detectors at exactly the same delay time as the other correlated noise. If there is correlated noise then what is the actual source of that correlated noise?

It's still mind boggling to me that LIGO has never once provided a *quantified* sigma figure related to ruling out environmental noise as the cause. Two years down the road, and LIGO *still* has no rational way to differentiate any of their various claims from the null hypothesis. It's simply amazing to me that this invisible event charade has even lasted this long.

Assuming that LIGO survives the "Danish inquisition", they'll probably continue to receive public accolades for another year, along with the Nobel Prize. They'll get a year long reprieve while they upgrade their equipment again, but the pressure will definitely be on LIGO to deliver on their promise of multimessenger astronomy when they come back online.

This slow motion, metaphysical train wreck could easily drag out another two or three years, only to eventually bite the dust just like Joseph Weber and just like BICEP2. LIGO can't hide from it's multimessenger astronomy problem forever. Sooner or later LIGO has to deliver *something*, *anything* which is inconsistent with the null hypothesis, and consistent with multimessenger astronomy.

[Michael Mozina]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... -wave/amp/
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/? ... first-time

Evidently there are rumors that LIGO may have come up with an observation that deviates from the null hypothesis, and might allow them to make good on their promise of multimessenger astronomy. It will be interesting to see if this rumor actually pans out. Presumably the NS merger signal could be longer, and with Virgo involved, the signal could be triangulated back to a specific event. A neutron star merger could have a real EM counterpart.

[Zyxzevn]

.. A neutron star merger could have a real EM counterpart.

That neutron star merger still sounds like unicorns for me.

How large is the probability that this "related observation" is just by chance?
I estimate about 1 in 10.
And that estimate seems right on track.

[Michael Mozina]

.. A neutron star merger could have a real EM counterpart.

That neutron star merger still sounds like unicorns for me.

How large is the probability that this "related observation" is just by chance?
I estimate about 1 in 10.
And that estimate seems right on track.

I'll wait to see what they actually publish (if anything) before passing judgement. In "theory" at least, a neutron star merger should be a highly visible event. That could be exciting. If LIGO can actually produce results which deviate from the null hypothesis, even I'll be impressed, and I've been vocally critical towards their methodology and their "discovery" claims to date.

As I've said before in this thread, I like and I support GR theory. I hope that LIGO does eventually succeed in "discovering" gravitational waves, I just don't believe that they've actually done so to date. That doesn't mean it's impossible, or that I'll remain a skeptic forever. If LIGO delivers on multimessenger astronomy, it would be absolutely awesome IMO. On the other hand, If LIGO doesn't deliver on multimessenger astronomy, their claims will eventually go down in flames.