Timeline for Why hasn't LIGO been able to detect the black hole merger statistics of events that are individually undetectable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2017 at 18:27 | answer | added | user2555272 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 27, 2017 at 1:46 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/934961686016135170 | ||
| Nov 25, 2017 at 1:31 | comment | added | OTH | It's not only few parameters, but 16, which include 6x spin, 2x chirp mass, 2x symmetric mass ratios, 3x sky position, 2x binary orbital orientation, and one more which I can't remember right now. Marginalizing over these parameters yields much less sensitive results. Having said this, there are plans to search for sub-threshold events. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 18:11 | comment | added | hsnee | Your analogy actually makes me think of LIGO's all-sky searches: arxiv.org/abs/1202.2788 | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 16:53 | comment | added | Count Iblis | What can then be detected is not these individual shifts, but that spread out over the sky there are these shifts that are each individually swamped in the noise. So, one can say that one has detected the presence of stars without having detected even a single one. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 16:52 | comment | added | Count Iblis | @hsnee What I'm getting at is that these irregular signals will contribute to the noise, making the noise to be have statistically differently compared to if that source of noise had been completely absent. Compare e.g. taking a picture of the blue sky around dusk. I cannot identify stars, but in every direction of a bright star a bit more light has been detected on average, but this swamped due to the read noise. In the direction of each star the probability distribution of the pixel gray values are slightly shifted. | |
| Apr 5, 2016 at 8:06 | comment | added | hsnee | Black hole mergers are not continuous event so it's not very useful to use statistical methods. These are definitely used, however, in detecting GWs from continuous-wave sources, such as pulsars. Is this your question? | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 21:39 | comment | added | user93237 | Different black hole merger events will show up as signals of different amplitudes, frequencies, and phases, so I'm not sure if what you're talking about is possible. IF all black hole merger events showed up as signals of, say, the same frequency then there would obviously be bandpass filtering techniques one could apply to greatly increase the signal-to-noise and get meaningful statistical data. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 19:12 | comment | added | Floris | @ChrisWhite that would be terrific. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 19:11 | comment | added | user10851 | There is in fact a plan for this, and I've already seen the perfect figure describing it in a talk (short answer: this is really hard, and only the next generation of sensitivity might help a little bit). Now the question is where can I find this figure and discussion in a paper. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 19:04 | history | asked | Count Iblis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |