New gravitational-wave candidate?
gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/S2…
#S20014 was found by an unmodelled burst search, I'm always skeptical of these, as they are easily confused with glitches
False alarm rate: 1 per 25 yr
Rating: 🧙♂️😐
gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/S2…
#S20014 was found by an unmodelled burst search, I'm always skeptical of these, as they are easily confused with glitches
False alarm rate: 1 per 25 yr
Rating: 🧙♂️😐
#S20014 looks to be low frequency, it's central frequency is around 65 Hz
gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/notices_l/S200…
Extremely heavy black hole mergers could be in this range. These signals are short. They can be found by burst searches and missed by template searches (there's not much to match)
gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/notices_l/S200…
Extremely heavy black hole mergers could be in this range. These signals are short. They can be found by burst searches and missed by template searches (there's not much to match)
There are also short, low-frequency glitches. Here are examples of Blip and Tomte glitches from @GravitySpyZoo. This glitches are hard to identify, as we don't have a good auxiliary monitor to identify them
@GravitySpyZoo As #S200114f is from an unmodelled search, it will take some to to identify what it could be. Intermediate mass black hole binaries,and eccentric black hole binaries are popular sources, but I always hope that we'll find something completely new. It's probably not aliens
@GravitySpyZoo In case you were worried, Betelgeuse is still there
Supernovae are one of the targets of burst searches, but we expect those signals to be longer. #S20014f has a duration of just 0.01 s.
Supernovae are one of the targets of burst searches, but we expect those signals to be longer. #S20014f has a duration of just 0.01 s.
@GravitySpyZoo Circular for #S20014f: gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/26734.gcn3
It has now passed initial data quality checks! More detailed analysis and checks are now underway (I wouldn't expect a Blip glitch to be identified at this stage, so I'll still take some convincing, but I'm a pessimist)
Rating: 🧙♂️🌶️
It has now passed initial data quality checks! More detailed analysis and checks are now underway (I wouldn't expect a Blip glitch to be identified at this stage, so I'll still take some convincing, but I'm a pessimist)
Rating: 🧙♂️🌶️
@GravitySpyZoo Some notes from @d_a_howell on the follow-up of #S20014f (Candidates from ZTF: gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/26741.gcn3)
Since we don't know the source for #S200114f, we can't work out a distance, which makes optimising follow-up strategy extra tricky
Since we don't know the source for #S200114f, we can't work out a distance, which makes optimising follow-up strategy extra tricky
@GravitySpyZoo @d_a_howell Update on #S200114f (actually got the name right this time):
1 Betelgeuse is still there
2 A few candidates found by SAGUARO🌵 (including @NUCIERA astronomers) gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/26753.gcn3 but nothing too exciting
3 Gravitational-wave analysis is still underway
4 Science is hard
1 Betelgeuse is still there
2 A few candidates found by SAGUARO🌵 (including @NUCIERA astronomers) gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3/26753.gcn3 but nothing too exciting
3 Gravitational-wave analysis is still underway
4 Science is hard
@GravitySpyZoo @d_a_howell @NUCIERA A good question on #S200114f: Should we be more confident since three detectors were online? Yes, but that was already folded into the calculation of the false alarm rate (in theory)
