4 ms·
> Also, the article mentions that LIGO has witnessed 3 black hole mergers. Last I heard LIGO had only witnessed 2. Two have been published as bona fide BH merg
by privong 10y ago
> Also, the article mentions that LIGO has witnessed 3 black hole mergers. Last I heard LIGO had only witnessed 2.
Two have been published as bona fide BH mergers. The third is a signal in the LIGO data that doesn't formally meet the statistical significance criteria, and so is classified as a "GW candidate" rather than a detection. Unfortunately I don't have a reference for it, but this was discussed during a seminar I attended last month, given by Pedro Marronetti (NSF Program Director for LIGO, I believe).
- zeroer 10y agoNeat! I'd love to read more about it.
- privong 10y agoWhile writing the original comment, I quickly browsed the LIGO publications list[0], but nothing jumped out at me as being about the candidate, specifically. The papers with "candidate" in the titles are pre-upgrade, so I don't think they include the candidate that was referenced in the seminar I attended. [0] https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/ppcomm/Papers.html https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/ppcomm/Papers.html EDIT: Found something. The third candidate event (LVT151012) is mentioned in this paper, in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction and discussed in more detail in Section C (beginning on page 11): https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04856 https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04856 ("Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run", LIGO+VIRGO).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]