undefined | Better HN

0 pointsahnitz9y ago0 comments

Hi Nonbel, I work within the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and as another posted commented, manual intervention (in the case of GW170104 by me) was only necessary for the online analysis. The purpose of online analysis is for fast coordination with EM partners so that potentially interesting opportunities are not missed. In the case of binary black holes, the expectation is that there will be no electromagnetic counterpart, as the region is expected to be cleared of matter well before we observed the black holes merging. If one to were to be found however, that would be exciting.

By design, detection statements and significance estimates come solely from the offline analysis which is conducted separately (i.e. not triggered by) the online analysis. No human intervention is required here, as the issue with the online status information was known about at the time and was not an issue with the data itself. Even if there were no candidate events at the time, it would be been included in the offline analysis of the period containing the event.

In regards to GW150914 and iDQ, you should know that iDQ has never been approved as a veto for CBC (compact binaries such as neutron stars and black holes) searches. Again, no intervention was required to "remove" the veto as it was never used in the offline analysis nor would be in the first place. It's only use that I am aware of is as a veto against Burst triggers in online analysis. These searches look for generic signals, but may also detect some of the louder CBC sources, such as GW150914. In case you were wondering, there weren't dedicated online CBC searches at the time of GW150914, but there were offline analysis, and those produced the results reported in the original detection paper.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

nonbel9y ago· 1 in thread

Thanks,

This is information that should be included in the papers because the current description is too terse. Basically you are saying that the filters used for online analysis have nothing to do with the background model, zero influence on what periods get included, etc. I'm still unclear on what exactly needed to be "restarted by hand" for the original GW150914 signal, but ok.

>"In the case of binary black holes, the expectation is that there will be no electromagnetic counterpart, as the region is expected to be cleared of matter well before we observed the black holes merging."

Is there any other type of event that is expected to be accompanied by some kind of corroborating evidence?

ahnitzOP9y ago

To get an electromagnetic counterpart, you need matter to be in the system. It may be possible for binary neutron star and some neutron-star black hole mergers. These types of mergers are one of the predicted sources of short gamma ray bursts, so if we get reasonably lucky it may be possible to find one in coincidence. Gamma ray burst are beamed, however, so to detect it, it would have to be point towards the earth, and many of the gamma bursts that we have accurate distance measurements for are currently outside our sensitivity range. We only have estimates for a fraction of GRBs though. Lower energy EM radiation may be possible to see as well with these mergers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse