"George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily-diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> "Mike" <M.GS...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> Does anyone have any new information on anything new being done to the
>>>> After hearing the LIGO gravity wave detector was not sensitive enough
>>>> detect gravity waves what are the steps being done to fix it? Are they
>>>> planning to rip the guts out of it?
>>>> That project sucked quite a bit of money out of the NSF piggy bank and
>>>> hope more funds are not going to be solicited unlessss they're
>>>> sure LIGO is going to work.
>>> LIGO will work (and they are already working
>>> on LIGO 2 which improves the sensitivity) but
>>> whether it will detect gravitational waves is
>>> another matter. The point is that a null result
>>> at a sensitivity better than predicted for
>>> detection would also be significant.
>> ... a significant waste of money!
>> But it won't be - they computer post-process the data, and answers they
>> get will be have to be probabilities.
> The answers they get will be something like
> probable amplitudes for waves from specific
> sources and can be compared against known
> objects in those locations
Any idea of the spatial resolution provided by LIGO 1? And unless the
resolution is of the order of a few arc-seconds, how will they know what
object generated the signal?
>> So they will say "almost certain" or "very likely". And the calculations
>> can reasonably only be done on their own computers, and so the realistic
>> options for peer review are zero, the incentive for exaggeration is
> The data is what it is. The algorithms used
> can and will be reviewed. It is also possible
> that the data will be independently reprocessed
> as Markwardt did for the Anderson data on Pioneer
That is a link to a review of a different and far easier data set.
Have you any corresponding evidence that the LIGO data can or will be
subject to external review?
> Those who exaggerate tend to get found out.
And those who publish completely irrelevant links also get found out.