LIGO: Water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.

[Michael Mozina]

I can't help but feel like this is turning into 'cry wolf' scenario, where astronomers are making a concerted effort to attempt to verfy LIGO's claims/signals with multimessenger support, only to be repeatedly disappointed. That has to be frustrating. Sooner or later they're going to lose interest if no such support can be found for any new signals.

I'm not sure it's crying wolf - all the neutrino and EM observatories that respond to GW candidate events, do so because they choose to do so. In many cases it is a completely automated pipeline.

It's a cry wolf routine because LIGO automatically 'assumes" that it's a gravitational wolf by 'default'. Regardless of whether anyone else verifies that they also see a celestial wolf, LIGO is still apt to publish papers claiming that they saw a celestial wolf. Nobody is obligated to go looking for the wolf of course, but LIGO is still running around claiming to have seen a gravitational wolf. Other astronomers would naturally like to observe that celestial merger wolf.

The O3 run also verifies my initial concern that LIGO has a big problem when it comes to ruling out 'blip transients', and distinguishing between blip transients and gravitational waves. 21 of the first 74 signals from 03 were later attributed to environmental processes, and many of those were signals were observed in multiple detectors. That doesn't bode well for LIGO or LIGO's methodology IMO.

Well to be fair, almost all those retractions (not all, but almost all) happened within minutes or at least on the same day of the canidate being announced, and the reason given most often was that the background was non-stationary in one of the interferometers at the time. This is what happens if you do physics in the public gaze, like in a circus tent. Hardly anyone else is brave enough to do this and we should commend them for it. Also, it is a huge cultural change from O1 and O2 when they were very secretive as regards work in progress.

It's hard to commend LIGO for bravery when they flat out lied in their first published paper about there being no vetoes present within an hour of the first signal they categorized as a gravitational wave, only to find out after the paper was published that their claim was not true. Their own LIGO magazine stated that the signal in question was originally vetoed within 18 seconds of being uploaded to the GraceDb database. Worse yet, when I asked LIGO some basic questions as to the nature of that original veto, the hardware that is associated with it, and their reasons and methodologies for later deciding that it was a "safe" veto, they refused to explain what type of hardware/software caused the veto and they handwaved about it being 'safe' without explaining how they decided it was "safe", and with no quantification method related to it's level of "safety". I found that behavior to be highly offensive and highly unprofessional quite frankly. Prior to their first published GW paper, I had never seen a published paper that flat out misrepresented the order of events and intentionally hid/misrepresented important information. That was not "brave" behavior, that was cowardly and dishonest behavior IMO.

I am very far from being ready to say that the signals that were not retracted are, in general, not GW signals.

I'm in the opposite camp. I'm very far from believing that any remaining signals are in general, GW signals. I'm fine with the one (and only) multimessenger event, but the rest of them look pretty dubious IMO without a logical way to eliminate blip transients.

Given that the FAR for some of the signals is only a day or two, it is to be expected that a small number of non-retracted candidates are, in fact, of non-GW origin.

28 percent isn't really a "small number" IMO, particularly when many of them were observed in multiple detectors, and the actual cause of blip transients has never been determined.

My biggest concern is around BNS or NSBW candidates with a long FAR and no counterparts.

Those are simply the 'most obvious" problems, but why would BBH events *never* have EM or neutrino counterparts? Black holes are massively visible in the x-ray spectrum because of the plasma in orbit around them, so how and why would they merge without those plasma bodies interacting in higher energy wavelengths? I see no logical reason why all BBH events would be "invisible" both to the EM spectrum and in terms of neutrino production. That sure seems "convenient", particularly since they cannot explain what causes blip transients nor can they offer a logical way to identify them.

[Zyxzevn]

...
Things would be different if LIGO had spent the time to hunt down the actual cause of blip transients and taken serious steps to eliminate them.
...
This problem could go on for years if not decades at this rate.

If you don't check for any errors, you can go on producing nonsense for a very long time.

I think this has become the norm in Astronomy.
Because often you can not check for errors, due to enormous distances.

So the only way people keep believing that a theory really works,
is by the magicians continuously presenting the observation and theory
in a way that seems correct.
Because their theory becomes non-falsifiable, the illusion can be held up.



No the ball is not balancing. It is either a string or a stick holding it up.
It is all in the presentation.

In similar sense, the LIGO is held up by not looking at the actual problems.

[Michael Mozina]

...
Things would be different if LIGO had spent the time to hunt down the actual cause of blip transients and taken serious steps to eliminate them.
...
This problem could go on for years if not decades at this rate.

If you don't check for any errors, you can go on producing nonsense for a very long time.

I think this has become the norm in Astronomy.
Because often you can not check for errors, due to enormous distances.

So the only way people keep believing that a theory really works,
is by the magicians continuously presenting the observation and theory
in a way that seems correct.
Because their theory becomes non-falsifiable, the illusion can be held up.



No the ball is not balancing. It is either a string or a stick holding it up.
It is all in the presentation.

In similar sense, the LIGO is held up by not looking at the actual problems.

I agree of course which is why my paper was specifically focused on the problems in LIGO's methodology rather than fixated on any particular data set. The 'errors" they're making are in their methodology.

I think what irked me the most (aside from LIGO's misrepresentation of the veto of the signal) was the fact that when I presented my paper for publication in the same magazine that published the original LIGO paper, they refused to publish it because it wasn't based on an analysis of LIGO's data, and only focused on their methodology. They said it wasn't "new" material, so they wouldn't publish it. Essentially what they did is refuse to even consider LIGO's flawed methodology to be open to scientific scrutiny. That attitude sucks.

[Higgsy]

It's hard to commend LIGO for bravery when they flat out lied in their first published paper about there being no vetoes present within an hour of the first signal they categorized as a gravitational wave, only to find out after the paper was published that their claim was not true.

No valid vetoes were present. Zero. None. Zilch. Not one. The fact that you are unable to understand or refuse to accept this simple fact is entirely down to your vendetta against LIGO.

I agree that the O3 run has been disappointing, and I agree that there are questions to answer if things go on as they are. We can disagree about where we currently stand on whether genuine detections have occurred and are occurring, and either you or I will eventually change our position in the light of future evidence. That's OK. You can continue to ignore or disagree with the science that indicates that relatively low levels of EM radiation is to be expected from BBH mergers. That's OK.

But your mischaracterisation of the first detection does not fall within acceptable scientific disagreement, and although I am no part of the LIGO team, I resent on their behalf your repeated and unwarranted accusations of dishonesty. You are currently reflecting on why you get thrown off forums - it might be salutory for you to consider whether this sort of abuse of the professional integrity of entire scientific teams might bias moderators against you.

[Michael Mozina]

No valid vetoes were present. Zero. None. Zilch. Not one. The fact that you are unable to understand or refuse to accept this simple fact is entirely down to your vendetta against LIGO.

I agree that the O3 run has been disappointing, and I agree that there are questions to answer if things go on as they are. We can disagree about where we currently stand on whether genuine detections have occurred and are occurring, and either you or I will eventually change our position in the light of future evidence. That's OK. You can continue to ignore or disagree with the science that indicates that relatively low levels of EM radiation is to be expected from BBH mergers. That's OK.

But your mischaracterisation of the first detection does not fall within acceptable scientific disagreement, and although I am no part of the LIGO team, I resent on their behalf your repeated and unwarranted accusations of dishonesty. You are currently reflecting on why you get thrown off forums - it might be salutory for you to consider whether this sort of abuse of the professional integrity of entire scientific teams might bias moderators against you.

LIGO's original GW paper said *absolutely* nothing at all about a "valid veto", it specifically said that no vetoes were present within an hour of the signal. Period. Nobody outside of LIGO has any legitimate scientific way to determine if the veto that *was actually present* was "valid" or invalid. We must simply take LIGO's word for it, in spite of the fact that they neglected to mention that the specific signal in question was vetoed within 18 seconds of being uploaded to the GraceDb database. When LIGO was asked specifically about the nature of the veto, the hardware/software associated with that veto, and the method that was used to determine the 'safety' of that veto, they *absolutely refused* to provide any such information, and they responded with something akin to "trust us we're doctors (Phd types)". It was a total snow job!

A legitimate scientific way to deal with that veto would have been to come clean (in the published paper) with the fact that the specific signal in question was originally vetoed, identify and explain the exact hardware and why it triggered a veto. It should have published the software that triggered that veto, and carefully and quantifiably explained the way that they determined the 'safety' (or lack thereof) of the veto that was present. It would have clearly explained *exactly* how and why they overrode the veto of that specific signal.

Instead of doing the right thing however, LIGO chose to simply "cover it up" and flat out *misrepresent the scientific facts*. They falsely and erroneously claimed that there were no vetoes present! That's not 'honest' science, that's shady BS! The peer reviewers were denied all of the critical information that they required to make a full and fair scientific assessment of the nature and safety of that veto. Why?

This wasn't just "any old" paper either. This was a paper that was proclaiming to have made a *huge* scientific discovery with five sigma certainty. They claimed to have discovered something that was never seen before in science. Such "discovery" papers are 'game changers". There are no "more important' papers than discovery papers, which makes it all the less tolerable that they omitted *vital* and *relevant* facts when claiming to have made a "discovery" of epic scientific proportions.

I'm quite sure that it is very uncomfortable to have someone outside of LIGO come along and question LIGO's scientific integrity, but they have no one else to blame for it. They *never* should have put themselves in that position to begin with. They *never* should have claimed to the peer reviewers (and everyone else on planet Earth) that no vetoes were present when in fact the very signal which they claim is the first example of a gravitational wave was *vetoed* by their own hardware and software. They never should have hidden that fact to start with. They should have carefully explained in their published paper the decision making process that resulted in them manually overriding that veto.

To this very day there has *never* been a complete public discussion of the nature of that veto, the hardware channels and specific software associated with that veto, any quantified method of determining the "safety" of that veto, or any of the relevant details. That's completely unacceptable behavior in any circumstance, but far worse in a "discovery" paper! How 'safe' was that veto? A little safe? A lot safe? 5+ sigma safe? Was it's "safety" margin figured into the final sigma figures they came up with, or was it simply ignored altogether? Who knows? Nobody does, probably not even LIGO themselves, and certainly nobody outside of LIGO.

You may feel like I've personally "wronged" LIGO somehow by discussing these *facts*, but I didn't do any such thing. I even made a concerted effort to contact LIGO directly, and ask them specifically about this veto issue. Instead of taking any real time, and providing me with the relevant facts that I asked for, I got a two paragraph *non answer* to any of my specific questions and they blew me off.

If you think their stonewalling is somehow related to me personally, go ask them yourself and post their response to this thread. Be sure to ask them which specific hardware channels were involved in the veto, the nature and purpose of that hardware, and what exactly it was designed to "veto" out. Ask them what software was involved, and be sure to ask them for a way to quantify the level of so called "safety" of that veto. You'll get none of that information and we both know it.

You'll just get yourself in "hot water" with LIGO, that's all. You'll make them mad because they believe that they are not to be doubted or questioned by anyone.

I'm sure I haven't made any friends at LIGO by publicly pointing out the facts surrounding the veto of that specific signal, and their omission of those facts in their published paper, but I can't just ignore that kind of unethical scientific behavior. It's just not right, and it's not acceptable. Prior to the LIGO paper, I had *never* seen important scientific facts omitted from a published paper, or seen anyone *misrepresent* the actual facts. This was definitely a unique event in that respect. I was appalled and I'm still appalled. I'm also dismayed about being stonewalled and their lack of a full explanation. It's just not right. If that somehow offends you, I think you need to ask yourself why you're offended at me rather than offended at LIGO's behavior.

By the way "scientific teams" also make mistakes. I caused all sorts of controversy when I dared to question the BICEP2 paper after their press conference. We all know (now) how that turned out. I'm sure I didn't make any friends at BICEP2 when I pointed out their sloppy methodology as it relates to the elimination of all other possible explanations for polarized photon patterns from space, but someone had to do it. It turned out that I was right too. Hundreds of "scientists" screwed up.

And by the way, I don't question the integrity of *everyone* who signed their name to those papers. I'm sure that many of the folks on LIGO's 'team" knew nothing about that original veto. I do however question the integrity of everyone at LIGO that *did* know about it and allowed the facts to be omitted and misrepresented in a published paper.

[Higgsy]

LIGO's original GW paper said *absolutely* nothing at all about a "valid veto", it specifically said that no vetoes were present within an hour of the signal. Period.

Correct. There were no vetoes present within an hour of the signal. Period.

I'm quite sure that it is very uncomfortable to have someone outside of LIGO come along and question LIGO's scientific integrity, but they have no one else to blame for it.

Uncomfortable? They don't know you exist.

You may feel like I've personally "wronged" LIGO somehow by discussing these *facts*, but I didn't do any such thing. I even made a concerted effort to contact LIGO directly, and ask them specifically about this veto issue. Instead of taking any real time, and providing me with the relevant facts that I asked for, I got a two paragraph *non answer* to any of my specific questions and they blew me off.

Why should they waste their time with some random guy on the internet? Who doesn't even have an affiliation? And who is accusing them of professional misconduct?

I do however question the integrity of everyone at LIGO that *did* know about it and allowed the facts to be omitted and misrepresented in a published paper.

Yes, I knew you would double down. This isn't about them. They don't give two hoots about you. It's about your immoderate and unprofessional accusations.

If you were a little more familiar with how scientific papers were written you would understand why reporting triggers on the faulty automated veto pipeline is not appropriate for the discovery paper. There are multiple automated detection pipelines and multiple veto pipelines. No-one outside LIGO knows all the details of the pipelines or what is in them from moment to moment, and no-one outside does for any big experiment. The discovery paper doesn't talk about all the other pipelines and the process that was followed over the subsequent days to eventually decide that it was a valid signal to a level of confidence sufficient to claim the first detection. It's the job of the experimental team to do that.

Having said that LIGO has published the raw data from the detectors for anyone to analyse, and anyone can do that and decide for themselves whether the signals are or are not a GW signal. Maybe you'd like to do that instead of beefing about an irrelevant detail. They also published three separate papers which discuss calibration and noise in the detectors at the time:

1)Calibration of the Advanced LIGO Detectors for the Discovery of the Binary Black-hole Merger GW150914
Published in Phys. Rev. D. 95, 062003 (2017)
2) Characterization of Transient Noise in Advanced LIGO Relevant to Gravitational Wave Signal GW150914
Published in CQG 33, 134001 (2016)
3) Improved Analysis of GW150914 Using a Fully Spin-Precessing Waveform Model
Published in Phys. Rev. X 6, 041014 (2016)

Doesn't seem to me that they are running away from publishing details of the detector state at the time of the detection.

You have got hold of this because it was mentioned in passing as a piece of colour in a popular article about the first detection by LIGO themselves and you are worrying like a bone something that is not what you think it is. And the consequence is that your reputation amongst the very few professionals who know you exist is damaged. I was trying to help you understand that, but obviously that's hopeless, so do carry on.

[Zyxzevn]

This image represents the current state of theoretical physics / astronomy, far better than I stated before.

It is very easy to create a mathematical justification of why the ball would stay on the cards.
It seems to be in perfect balance, with only a few movements a bit off.
So from the perspective of theoretical physics,
it can be proven beyond doubt, that this ball is balancing on the cards.

But it is not a stable situation, and the maths is hiding the fact that a lot
more is going on behind the directly visible.

The maths are hiding the simple fact that it is a trick.
And you can only find it out, if you look at many different alternative explanations.
And see which ones are the most fitting in the situation.

And this seems to me the major problem of theoretical physics and astronomy today.
They only look at one solution, and sometimes it is "the perfect balance".
Like the balance of redshift and age of the universe.

But if you allow many alternative explanations, like in the plasma cosmology,
you can have many other solutions to the same problem.
And you can see that instead of "the perfect balance", we have a visual trick.

[Michael Mozina]

LIGO's original GW paper said *absolutely* nothing at all about a "valid veto", it specifically said that no vetoes were present within an hour of the signal. Period.

Correct. There were no vetoes present within an hour of the signal. Period.

Absolutely false. The *exact* signal itself was "vetoed" within 18 seconds. Nothing like starting your argument with pure denial of the scientific facts. Sheesh.

I'm quite sure that it is very uncomfortable to have someone outside of LIGO come along and question LIGO's scientific integrity, but they have no one else to blame for it.

Uncomfortable? They don't know you exist.

If that's true, then what do you (or they care) what I think?

Yes, I knew you would double down. This isn't about them. They don't give two hoots about you. It's about your immoderate and unprofessional accusations.

There's nothing immoderate or unprofessional about stating the *actual facts*. It's not my fault that their own vetoes went off within 18 seconds, nor it is my fault that they flat out lied about that fact in their published paper. They only have themselves to blame for such unprofessional behavior.

If you were a little more familiar with how scientific papers were written you would understand why reporting triggers on the faulty automated veto pipeline is not appropriate for the discovery paper.

How do you know it was 'faulty"? What type of hardware triggered it? FYI, I've had several papers published, so I do know how it works. Nowhere is it's SOP to misrepresent the facts and claim that no vetoes were present when in fact they were present.

There are multiple automated detection pipelines and multiple veto pipelines. No-one outside LIGO knows all the details of the pipelines or what is in them from moment to moment, and no-one outside does for any big experiment.

True, which is why it's even more important that they come clean and explain what caused the veto, and to quantify it's level of "safety". Was it a little safe? A lot safe? Was it five sigma safe? Who knows? Do they even know?

The discovery paper doesn't talk about all the other pipelines and the process that was followed over the subsequent days to eventually decide that it was a valid signal to a level of confidence sufficient to claim the first detection. It's the job of the experimental team to do that.

It's also their job to be honest and to explain the nature of all vetoes present, including explaining how and why they decided to override it.

Having said that LIGO has published the raw data from the detectors for anyone to analyse, and anyone can do that and decide for themselves whether the signals are or are not a GW signal. Maybe you'd like to do that instead of beefing about an irrelevant detail. They also published three separate papers which discuss calibration and noise in the detectors at the time:

1)Calibration of the Advanced LIGO Detectors for the Discovery of the Binary Black-hole Merger GW150914
Published in Phys. Rev. D. 95, 062003 (2017)
2) Characterization of Transient Noise in Advanced LIGO Relevant to Gravitational Wave Signal GW150914
Published in CQG 33, 134001 (2016)
3) Improved Analysis of GW150914 Using a Fully Spin-Precessing Waveform Model
Published in Phys. Rev. X 6, 041014 (2016)

Which (if any) of those papers explicitly and directly discussed the veto in question, the hardware associated with it, the reason it was deemed safe, and quantified it's level of "safety"? Let me guess.....none of them.

Doesn't seem to me that they are running away from publishing details of the detector state at the time of the detection.

Did you actually write them and ask them for details as I did, or are you just going by your gut feeling? I have first hand experience with their stonewalling.

You have got hold of this because it was mentioned in passing as a piece of colour in a popular article about the first detection by LIGO themselves and you are worrying like a bone something that is not what you think it is.

I wasn't all that worried until I asked them for details about the veto and they simply blew me off. Then I started worrying about it.

And the consequence is that your reputation amongst the very few professionals who know you exist is damaged. I was trying to help you understand that, but obviously that's hopeless, so do carry on.

Do you really think I'm worried about my 'reputation" among astronomers? Holy cow! Astronomers cannot even explain 95 percent of their own models, they publicly misrepresent other models, they have a habit of being fast and loose with the scientific facts, and they don't allow for honest scientific debate on their websites. Who cares what they think about me?

I really find it amusing that they or you would simply ignore their own unethical behaviors and then blame me for them. That's called projection. I didn't misrepresent the fact that the exact signal in question was vetoed within 18 seconds. They did that. How the heck is that my fault?

[Michael Mozina]

Look at the problem this way Higgsy. Here we are, more than 10 months into a year long 'run", where 75 GraceDB "signals" have been recorded, including quite a few attributed to neutron stars, and yet not a single one of them enjoys any sort of support from either the EM spectrum or neutrino observations. About 28 percent of them were later attributed to environmental signals, but most of the rest are still considered to be valid GW wave signals, and most of the signals (including terrestrial ones) were recorded by multiple detectors.

Originally LIGO claimed that blip transients could be eliminated of their very first signal based on the fact that blip transients only occurred in a single detector, but quite a few of the 28 percent of the 03 signals later identified as terrestrial in origin were observed by multiple detectors. This alone demonstrates that LIGO still has a serious blip transient problem and they've never identified the cause of blip transients.

Whatever veto method LIGO had in place at the time of the first first signal, it was obviously intended to weed out *something* from the environment that they were worried about, yet its purpose was never identified, and never discussed in the published paper and in fact the veto was never mentioned, effectively *hidden* from the peer reviewers.

Even from a place of pure statistics from the 03 run, if 28 percent of the 03 run can already be identified as terrestrial in origin, then there's a 28 percent chance that the veto method related to the first signal was a clear indication that signal in question was terrestrial in origin.

Since none of the remaining 72 percent of the 03 signals enjoy any support from multimessenger astronomy, it's entirely possible that *all* of the signals recorded in the GraceDB database are actually terrestrial signals from some as of yet unidentified terrestrial cause.

At *least* my biggest two complaints/concerns with the LIGO methodology have since been demonstrated to be true in the 03 run. LIGO continues to receive terrestrial "blip transients" in multiple detectors that 'mimic' GW events, yet have a terrestrial cause. Their sigma methodology also has *zero* relationship to any specific cause of any specific signal. Even events that were given high FAR values in 03 were later categorized as terrestrial signals.

In short, LIGO's entire claim has all the earmarks of another Joseph Weber scenario, only the "LIGO bars" cost hundreds of millions of dollars and many years to build. If enough of them ever do come online with the same sensitivity as LIGO/Virgo, and LIGO is still unable to demonstrate that there's a link to these signals and celestial events, then what?

Weber claimed to have seen *hundreds* of GW waves, but they were all later attributed to terrestrial events. LIGO Is in danger of going down that same rabbit hole, with all but perhaps one signal, and even that one multimessenger event could have theoretically just been a statistical fluke.

I'd feel a lot better about LIGO had they carefully explained the veto that occurred with respect to their first signal, and they had been able to duplicate multimessenger astronomy in 03. As it stands, I lack faith in their methodology, I lack faith in their printed statements, and I lack faith in their ability to even question their own results anymore than Weber was able to objectively question his own results.

[Zyxzevn]

There is a fundamental failure with how the LIGO-team calculate the P-values
in their statistics. It does not seem based on any real-world values,
but is estimated from made-up numbers. There is no other way,
because there has never been any good test signal.
It is clear P-hacking, and has nothing to do with science.

But most scientists (especially astronomers) don't understand P-values,
and want to belief in unicorns,
so they can get away with it.

Like I stated in the beginning: having a signal is just a first step to
tune the system. It took years to get a decent signal from a radar system,
where the signal is transmitted by the radar itself.
And where we can actually observe the object that we are trying to detect.

The LIGO is a blind and deaf man, bound to a tree, trying to feel the complex
world around it, by feeling the tree. Without any clue what to is going on.
Now he claims that there are unicorns far beyond the horizon, and suddenly
everyone believes him.

[Michael Mozina]

There really is no scientific relationship between the sigma figures and FARS (false alarm rates) that LIGO throws around and the actual *cause* of any given signal. Without even identifying the cause of 'blip transients", and without multimessenger support, it's essentially impossible to calculate the odds that any particular signal is celestial in origin vs. terrestrial noise. The values they throw around are essentially meaningless nonsense.

03 has been everything I feared it would be. It's a scientific disaster. They've cried wolf 75 times now in 03 and yet no celestial wolf has been seen, not even once. That's pathetic.

For the sake of science, part of me actually hoped that I was wrong about LIGO's sloppy methodology, and that the 03 run would result in a number of new multimessenger events. Unfortunately however, my worst fears have been realized, and they've painted themselves into a scientific corner with their own sloppy methodology. Now instead of being able to clearly demonstrate their case, they're reduced to making endless excuses as to why even events which are supposedly related to neutron star mergers are entirely invisible events. It's a scientific disaster at this point. Nobody want's to mention the problem. Nobody has any explanations. Nobody has a clue why they're 0 for 75 in 03. They're just pretending it doesn't matter, and they're going to sweep their long string of failures under the rug. Wow. This has played out exactly as I feared it would play out. Not one new event can be confirmed, and the one and only multimessenger event looks like it was a complete fluke. I hate to be right in this case because it really would be nice if we had another way of 'observing' the universe, but this looks like another "dark matter" snipe hunt all over again.

Only the mainstream would dream up a bogus methodology that somehow pretends to have produced "evidence" without actually "observing" anything other than terrestrial noise. This is just sad to watch.

[Zyxzevn]

With a more commercial background, I notice that the steps taken by the LIGO are not constructive at all.
They have had many false detections.
But they are great to determine the errors in their system.
When I still wanted to get a good result out of the LIGO,
I would go to great extend to determine what causes these errors.
Instead I notice that they are swept under the rug.

This means to me that they are not working to a better result, but to a bigger budget.

[Michael Mozina]

With a more commercial background, I notice that the steps taken by the LIGO are not constructive at all.
They have had many false detections.
But they are great to determine the errors in their system.
When I still wanted to get a good result out of the LIGO,
I would go to great extend to determine what causes these errors.
Instead I notice that they are swept under the rug.

This means to me that they are not working to a better result, but to a bigger budget.

The problem for LIGO is that they can only cry wolf so many times before other astronomers start to get frustrated and start to ignore them. As it stands, every time that LIGO claims to have observed a new GW wave signal, everyone drops whatever they're doing, and starts pointing their telescopes at the locations that LIGO provides them. They spend valuable telescope time and significant amounts of money trying to find an EM counterpart. Sooner or later the larger community will wise up to the fact that LIGO is simply full of it, and they'll just start ignoring them entirely.

The 03 run is an important scientific turning point IMO. It's the first time that three different detectors have been online most of the time. LIGO/Virgo has much better triangulation potential in this run, so their claims are related to smaller and smaller amounts of the sky. As a result, LIGO is less likely to "get lucky" in terms of timing because of a more constrained location, and the ability of anyone to find an EM counterpart depends upon the veracity of LIGO's claims. So far they're 0 for 75 in 03. Imagine a batter that has struck out 75 times in a row. Are you really going to assume that the next time at bat is likely to result in a hit?

I think what's going to eventually happen is that the larger community will start to simply ignore the BBH hole claims entirely and focus only on events which presumably relate to neutron star mergesr and supernova type events. When enough of those types of events also leads to nothing being found, I think you'll see a wholesale abandonment of LIGO by the larger community. Who wants to keep wasting their valuable telescope time on pointless snipe hunts?

I was really hoping that Kagra would be a game changer by further helping to constrain signals to ever smaller regions of the sky, but alas, they're experiencing *serious* growing pains and Kagra won't be much help over the last couple of months of the 03 run. From what I read, it could be the 05 run before Kagra comes anywhere close to reaching it's design potential. Right now it's 3-5 orders of magnitude less sensitive than LIGO/Virgo in terms of sensitivity, and particularly limited in terms of volume space. It's not much help at the moment.

This is a "sensitive" problem because GW detectors aren't cheap, they require enormous effort, and nobody really wants to consider the possibility that this is another Joseph Weber scenario all over again. The total cost and the amount of time required to independently "test" LIGO's claims are simply enormous. Weber bars only cost a few thousand dollars and a few weeks/months to build, whereas "LIGO bars" cost hundreds of millions of dollars and many *years* to build.

[Michael Mozina]

As I understand it, the 03 run winds up at the end of April, leaving about two more months for LIGO to pull a magic multimessenger rabbit out of their hat.

IMO if this entire 03 run ends with no multimessenger support at all, and almost 30 percent of the 03 signals are later re-categorized as being terrestrial signals, LIGO will have some *serious* explaining to do while they're taking time off to upgrade their equipment again. This pattern of behavior cannot go on forever without raising eyebrows. in fact it's gone on for so long already, it's looking pretty fishy to anyone who's not emotionally or professionally attached to LIGO's GW wave claims.

In theory, as LIGO becomes even more sensitive, it becomes more sensitive to terrestrial noise too. They still haven't isolated the cause of "blip transients" and we know from the 03 results that multiple detectors can be affected by the same terrestrial noise. Something has to give with respect to blip transients. Either LIGO needs to determine their actual cause and filter them out, or they need to change their methodology in some other way to deal with them. They can't keep *assuming* that terrestrial noise can only affect a single detector at a time since the 03 run demonstrates that this is absolutely not the case.

The Nobels have already been handed out, and they've been patting each other on the back for years now, so this is a serious scientific problem, and it's a reflection on everyone's scientific integrity. Either LIGO needs to hit some home runs soon with respect to delivering on multimessenger astronomy, or they need to admit that they have serious correlated noise problems. This LIGO scenario has now become the quintessential example of a classic case of confirmation bias.

[Zyxzevn]

Different instrument
https://astrobites.org/2020/03/02/using ... -detector/
I don't think that the required sensitivity can be reached by looking at stars.
Because the effect of the hypothetical waves do not add up.
I estimate 10^40 off.