4 ms·
How does this interpretation error result in the actual finding of an optical counterpart to the gravitational wave in the region it was supposed to be in? (see
by consp 8y ago
How does this interpretation error result in the actual finding of an optical counterpart to the gravitational wave in the region it was supposed to be in? (see GW170817)
Or are they only trying to weigh in on the first detection?
- SiempreViernes 8y agoApparently jackson just don’t trust the GW collaborations at all, so I guess he just puts it down to chance?
- perlgeek 8y agoMy understanding is that the neutron star merger observation was the first of this kind that humanity has ever done. Calling that a coincidence isn't a very convincing argument.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoIt was the first time we recogniced these transients as ns-ns mergers, but there is very likely other events hidden in archival data. Simply put, gw170817 looked fairly boring in the waveband that has good skycoverage, so without the ligo trigger most observatories wouldn’t have bothered looking. The article states that jackson had some objection to the signal processing done for gw170817, but nothing really about what he has to say regarding the transient found in the ligo-virgo error contours.