tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post1245098132571008086..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Penrose claims LIGO noise is evidence for Cyclic CosmologySabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14425252965193084822017-07-24T19:43:50.822-04:002017-07-24T19:43:50.822-04:00@Topher, yes, the Creswell paper invalidates the e...@Topher, yes, the Creswell paper invalidates the erebon story. I should have read it before. My purpose was just to explain Penrose's paper, right or wrong. Penrose clearly thinks correlated noise could be found at all time delays. Since he must have read the paper, I assumed it couldn't say what it does, in fact, say.<br /><br />Your previous comment was good "If black hole mergers George Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079808299277959750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91226521372751014612017-07-24T11:47:28.742-04:002017-07-24T11:47:28.742-04:00@George Rush: Sorry I'm very late responding, ...@George Rush: Sorry I'm very late responding, probably too late. It does help me understand this paper more if I allow the false assumption that LIGO is directional. I had to re-read section 2 with that in mind, and it suddenly made a lot more sense. Thanks!<br /><br />But because LIGO is not "pointed" anywhere at a given time, erebon decays can be ruled out as a source of the Topherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17958113758384139554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-71497706663190721362017-07-24T10:29:04.567-04:002017-07-24T10:29:04.567-04:00@Michael Musson, the word "near" needs u...@Michael Musson, the word "near" needs unpacking - as you recognize, since you put it in "scare quotes". He's thinking the erebon-decay noise must be physically "near", namely, in the galaxy hosting the BBH merger event:<br /><br />Penrose >> ... the “noise” which comes from the erebon decay from [b]that particular galaxy[/b] would indeed be correlated withGeorge Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079808299277959750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39915515830362447542017-07-23T18:45:45.126-04:002017-07-23T18:45:45.126-04:00@George Rush: I took Penrose's argument to be ...@George Rush: I took Penrose's argument to be that the erebon decay related noise would be occurring everywhere so that inevitably it would be present "near" the source of a detected gravitation wave and therefore present in the filtered gravitation wave signal. <br /><br />I don't see why the erebon decay signal would be seen with the BBH merger but not be seen in the Michael Mussonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17360143418083381579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15456540000288214532017-07-23T14:21:33.640-04:002017-07-23T14:21:33.640-04:00The problem for Penrice is the same as for the log...The problem for Penrice is the same as for the logo team albeit rotated to a different view. For Penrice it's a case of, you can't make the null hypothesis into a predictionAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10350749903431500202017-07-22T13:16:35.290-04:002017-07-22T13:16:35.290-04:00@Topher,
I'll try to explain Dr. Penrose'...@Topher, <br /><br />I'll try to explain Dr. Penrose's paper again.<br /><br />There's one catch: I'm afraid he might think you can point LIGO like a telescope!? Hard to believe he'd make such a mistake. But to start, let's pretend you can; makes it easier to explain his paper. I'll come back to the issue later.<br /><br />DM is composed of erebons. (According to George Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079808299277959750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49224609851630522342017-07-22T08:17:44.040-04:002017-07-22T08:17:44.040-04:00Dr. Rush, thanks very much for your reply, and for...Dr. Rush, thanks very much for your reply, and for the interesting facts and opinions you have posted (as I should have noted in my previous comment).<br /><br />I am impressed by your scientific dedication to the truth. In that spirit, I will acknowledge that it didn't occur to me to try to Google how the LIGO team crunches their numbers until well after I submitted my earlier comment.JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18436432216148857952017-07-21T19:44:35.028-04:002017-07-21T19:44:35.028-04:00@Unknown,
You're right. My statement "Th...@Unknown,<br /><br />You're right. My statement "They're simply not checking for any time-correlated (between Hanford and Livingston) noise" is, taken at face value, stupid. Of course they're looking at it - somewhat. The paper you cite is not the best example, since they were already aware of Jackson et al's criticisms by 24 March 2017. But I remember seeing a LIGO George Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079808299277959750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8856263775220392812017-07-21T13:18:37.059-04:002017-07-21T13:18:37.059-04:00LIGO noise -- It's not a bug, it's a featu...LIGO noise -- It's not a bug, it's a feature.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13243006930165511059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9697991286373038362017-07-21T12:58:51.190-04:002017-07-21T12:58:51.190-04:00I read Penrose's paper when you first tweeted ...I read Penrose's paper when you first tweeted about it, but was deeply disappointed with his non-explanation of the 12 ms delay in the correlations. At the end of your post you mentioned this as a problem, but I think it's a *big* problem! Noise is expected for lots of reasons, but correlated noise is not. Penrose's erebons offer noise but not correlated noise AFAICT. His effort to Topherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17958113758384139554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81624313660805642062017-07-21T10:20:44.468-04:002017-07-21T10:20:44.468-04:00LIGO is proof of osculatory Gaian unity, one erron...LIGO is proof of osculatory Gaian unity, one erroneous hurtful imposition versus three encompassing philosophic diversities. Science must be inclusive drum circles not divisive orthogonal null interferometers.<br /><br />http://www.perspectivalrealism.org/about-us/<br />...Science is philosophically invalid for postulating an objective reality immune to perception, history, and political Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82771440104249494022017-07-21T09:34:22.330-04:002017-07-21T09:34:22.330-04:00" BTW note he's using Python! C++ would b..." BTW note he's using Python! C++ would be expected, maybe others, not a script language, for high speed data processing."<br /><br />I think Dr. Harry used Python for the examples he posted on Dr. Carroll's blog so that readers could follow his method more easily and reproduce his results if they wanted to - not because that is how LIGO signals are actually analyzed. At least, JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30828882580091114672017-07-21T03:07:43.933-04:002017-07-21T03:07:43.933-04:00"Just that this noise-like contribution would..."Just that this noise-like contribution would be correlated with the same time-difference as the merger signal."<br /><br />And yet, LIGO did not see any of such signal: https://journals.aps.org/.../10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.121101<br /><br />@George you should be careful before asserting things that the LSC does or does not: "They're simply not checking for any time-correlated (Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031141191397448812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90466622883110649362017-07-21T00:15:31.238-04:002017-07-21T00:15:31.238-04:00Tobias,
Yes, as I said above already in reply to ...Tobias,<br /><br />Yes, as I said above already in reply to TransparencyNCP.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91256749735929717132017-07-20T14:34:12.222-04:002017-07-20T14:34:12.222-04:00Hi,
I am not suprised to see correlated noise in ...Hi,<br /><br />I am not suprised to see correlated noise in the residuals of the two detectors at the same time shift seen for the observation itself.<br /><br />Is it really beyond possibility that the fitted "template" does not exactly reproduce reality ? If it does not match the exact merger GW, then obviously one doesnt fully subtract the GW signal and the "residuals" willt kosubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13956052025472802645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87939967265666620882017-07-20T14:16:14.947-04:002017-07-20T14:16:14.947-04:00@Sabine,
No doubt I'm misunderstanding somet...@Sabine, <br /><br />No doubt I'm misunderstanding something(s) but here's what I guess Penrose and collaborator(s) think.<br /><br />LIGO data is very noisy. Correlations are very hard to find. LIGO's mind-set is that GW events are very rare: noise can't be coming from galaxies, but from equipment and random sources. They're simply not checking for any time-correlated (George Rushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10079808299277959750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59788378869427822142017-07-20T10:35:22.857-04:002017-07-20T10:35:22.857-04:00"human consciousness can’t be explained by kn..."<i>human consciousness can’t be explained by known physics</i>" Build a silicon neural net, train it. The result is immune to discretization. Statistically weak observations mathematize to miserable conclusions, then new particles beg detection. Theory and experiment publish to no empirical end. Galileo and Popper say, "First testable, then believable."<br /><br />Test Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19109930827837167432017-07-20T10:18:01.953-04:002017-07-20T10:18:01.953-04:00Michael,
Well, yes. And the measurement is non-un...Michael,<br /><br />Well, yes. And the measurement is non-unitary. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78411096687974341302017-07-20T10:14:46.938-04:002017-07-20T10:14:46.938-04:00In the paper, Penrose says "…but the view her...In the paper, Penrose says "…but the view here is taken (in opposition to that of “many-worlds” proponents) that since unitarity is already violated in quantum measurement, then it is not a universal truth;…"<br /><br />I thought unitarity was a property of the matrices of probability amplitudes of evolution operators, and measurement is a separate thing (that is also inherently Michael Mussonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17360143418083381579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10157483540165498232017-07-20T05:52:37.618-04:002017-07-20T05:52:37.618-04:00Matti,
Sorry about that. It came up in a Google s...Matti,<br /><br />Sorry about that. It came up in a Google search. Looks dark enough for my liking. But if you have a better image, feel free to suggest one.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74032075923971236672017-07-20T04:39:17.667-04:002017-07-20T04:39:17.667-04:00The picture you used. I clicked the link and saw y...The picture you used. I clicked the link and saw you used the wrong one. That one is Mirko Vosk. Not that it matter much but I guess I dislike to find mistakes.Mattihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16378902135503029904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55435859654388103682017-07-20T03:47:55.713-04:002017-07-20T03:47:55.713-04:00One man’s noise is another man’s signal.
Maxwell&...<em>One man’s noise is another man’s signal.</em><br /><br />Maxwell's demon raises its head again? Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur)https://www.blogger.com/profile/12611755507524401026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84132826718272919812017-07-20T01:09:45.785-04:002017-07-20T01:09:45.785-04:00TransparencyCNP,
Yes, basically. If you take a th...TransparencyCNP,<br /><br />Yes, basically. If you take a theoretical (pre-calculated) template you'll almost always miss part of the signal. However, my understanding is that LIGO also does a non-templated search from which there shouldn't be correlations left pretty much by definition. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30235032591065843932017-07-20T00:59:36.995-04:002017-07-20T00:59:36.995-04:00Isn't it sort of obvious that if the "bes...Isn't it sort of obvious that if the "best-fit theoretical templates" are not exactly right then there will be correlations in the residuals? You could test this by using worse theoretical templates and checking if you get stronger correlations.TransparencyCNPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226139962752932435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-464631510805636302017-07-20T00:53:10.034-04:002017-07-20T00:53:10.034-04:00George,
Don't know what you mean by "cov...George,<br /><br />Don't know what you mean by "covered this" in the paper. He mention it, but didn't offer an explanation. If you think the paragraph you quoted answered my question, then please explain. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com