Views
8 months ago

LIGO_casebook

WEISS: We don’t look

WEISS: We don’t look at it this way, but that description is OK up to a point. VERITAS: And is he correct in saying that the input wiggle and the output wiggle – which are different – are related by an Instrument Transfer Function which must be determined and reported for LIGO to be a valid scientific instrument? WEISS: This is where his confusion begins. What we do with LIGO is take the output wiggle as reported by LIGO, remove the noise component from it, and what remains is the input wiggle. This process is our equivalent of the conventional Transfer Function. The Instrument Transfer Function procedure is not applicable to LIGO. VERITAS: Thank you for that clear statement. And the stuff you remove as noise, where does it come from? WEISS: There are very many sources of noise – seismic ground vibration, a truck passing by, waves lapping on shore, distant thunder, … , And then there are also many types of instrument-origined noise. VERITAS: When you speak of noise here, anything that is not gravitational wave signal is noise. Is this correct? WEISS: Yes. VERITAS: Very good. So, let us make a list of all possible external noise sources and label them A through K, say. Then all instrument-origined noise L through P, say. And let Q be the gravitational wave signal. So when your computer takes out the noise part, does it subdivide the noise into all these categories A through P, and show the tabulated values for the categories? WEISS: Of course not. Our sophisticated digital technique can distinguish between signal and noise, and remove all that it identifies as noise, namely, A through P taken as a consolidated lump. Only the signal Q then remains, and that is the input wiggle. This is what we compare with the theory wiggle for black hole merger. VERITAS: But the instrument-origined noise L through P is different from external noise A through K. The latter is not dependent on LIGO, the former is. It is more likely than not that L-P is correlated with Q, the input signal. The “noise” L-P could be harmonics of Q, for example. If your algorithm has instruction to take out out L-P, would not it take out some of Q as well? Or wouldn’t it leave some of L-P with Q? You simply cannot lump together A-K and L-P for the purpose of extracting Q. It may be convenient for the computer, but it is wrong physics. 64

WEISS: Now we are getting into complicated areas. VERITAS: Not at all. We have just clarified your misunderstanding. It is the components L through P that necessitate the Instrument Transfer Function, not A through K. You are mixing up and mishandling them, and you are doing so to your benefit. By bypassing the Transfer Function procedure, you have given yourself leeway to make up your custom discovery wiggles from the data. There is nothing about LIGO that cannot be described and analyzed in terms of conventional instrument concept. What is your response to that? WEISS: As I said, this subject is too complicated. VERITAS: OK, let’s move on. As Dr. De has pointed out in his book, there is no written evidence anywhere that you have taken into account the Earth’s static magnetic field on the LIGO instrument all these years. What do you have to say about that? WEISS: This effect is being studied. VERITAS: So are your discoveries valid even though you left out this effect? WEISS: This effect cannot be so important as to invalidate our discoveries. VERITAS: And then Dr. De has also pointed out that you take the hypothetical properties of gravitational wave as true and operative, to deduce the passage of gravitational wave. You assume that the mirror motions are invisibly entangled (because a gravitational wave is passing through) to prove that a gravitational wave has passed through. There is absolutely no experimental evidence of any kind that the mirror motions are in invisible entanglement. This is a pure flight of fancy that leads you to report a tangible discovery. WEISS: As I said, this is too complicated. VERITAS: Dr. De has also shown that LIGO is not a complete scientific instrument. I believe the expression he used is “it is not all there.” LIGO cannot detect gravitational waves even if they existed and traversed LIGO. That is because it is the invisible entanglement of the mirrors that LIGO must experimentally demonstrate to report the detection of the wave. And LIGO has no way to do this. WEISS: We have detected gravitational wave – four times now. VERITAS: So you say. Professor Weiss, who is wallowing in his own misunderstanding, you or Dr. De? And what about your 1000 colleagues? MOSCATO: Objection, Your Honor. There is no cause for this kind of taunt. 65

RrpprES rN Spncr-TrME - LIGO - Caltech
Talk (PDF) - Physics Department - Utah State University
LIGO Magazine, issue 3, 9/2013 - LIGO Scientific Collaboration
LIGO Magazine, Issue 2, 3/2013 - LIGO Scientific Collaboration
LIGO
Gravitational Waves Detection - isapp 2007
Talk (PDF) - Physics Department - Utah State University
The Hunt for Gravitational Waves - Particle Physics and Particle ...
International Innovation - Department of Physics - University of Florida
Hunting Gravitational Waves - Fermilab Center for Particle ...
Gravitational Waves: a new window to observe the Universe
Talk (PDF) - Physics Department - Utah State University
LIGO
LIGO
Laser Interferometer Space Antenna - LISA International Science ...
ELInes
Laser Beam Expander Optical Surfaces Ltd optisurf.com - Trioptics
Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of Madame ... - Sense Publishers
European_XFEL_Annual_Report_14_eng
PHY ICS - The Institute of Physics in Ireland