Aug 5, 2016 - BH â NR STF Gauss -sigma-150 , 3441 points: .... Ln (density of E) â versus -- Frequency (in Hz) : Time Evolution ( STF: Gauss, sigma = 30 ).
New Physics in GW150914 Plamen Fiziev Sofia University Foundation TCPA & BLTF, JINR, Dubna Talk at International Conference
QUANTUM FIELD THEORY AND GRAVITY Tomsk 5th of August 2016 USING LIGO DATA
GRAWITATIONAL WAVES
Down to a new astronomy
?
?
?
?
?
Without any doubts with the LIGO observation of gravitational waves burst (GWB) GW150914 starts a new era in fundamental physics. Finally, the gravitational astronomy opened a novel window to the Universe and will give us unreachable to now knowledge about the Nature. This essential development deserves extremely careful analysis of all issues which appear for the first time and, as always, are accompanied by many uncertainties and unknowns. Prior ruthless examination of all the known facts, hypotheses, assumptions, and interpretations, we can not be sure what we really see in this newly opened window to the Universe. Of course, we are free to refer to the already existing models and theoretical achievement. However, the most important in the new situation is the newly appeared real opportunity for the first time to examine the theoretical assumptions, as well as to look for new developments and unexpected physical phenomena. Our presentation is a step in this direction.
The NR-BH hypothesis versus the real GW Burst:
The NR BH hypothesis: Hz
The real signal - Hanford
The real GW Burst GW150914
Hz
The real signal - Livingston
Hz
Parameter ranges correspond to 90% credible bounds. Acronyms: L1=LIGO Livingston, H1=LIGO Hanford; 𝑳𝑷lanck = 𝒄𝟓 /𝑮 ≈ 3.6 × 𝟏𝟎𝟓𝟗 𝒆𝒓𝒈/𝒔
!
Gly=giga lightyear=9.46 x1012 km; Mpc=mega parsec=3.2 million lightyear, Gpc=103 Mpc,
?
χ𝑖𝑛𝑖 ≈-0.06 χ𝑓𝑖𝑛 ≈0.67
fm=femtometer=10-15 m, M⊙=1 solar mass = 2 x 1030 kg
arXiv:1602.06833 10−21
BH – NR STF Gauss -sigma-150 , 3441 points:
10−21
STF, Gauss sigma=150 : H1: 3441 points
L1: 3441 points
H1, L1, NR BH 3441 points = 0.26 s
Mark Hannam
Parameter space of the initial bodies:
General case:
𝑷1,2 r 15 independent parameters PRL 116, 061102 (2016) Aligned spins:
Orbital precession:
There are not enough data to find all of them for GW150914! For PCA we need at least 16 independent detectors like Hanford and Livingston ones, distributed allover the Earth !!! About 16 billion USD really needed
Chirp Mass:
1) HERE the consideration uses
ONLY POINT PARTICLES NOT BH
2) Newton gravity Is not able to explain observations, but GR AND modified theories can do this
Parameter estimation requires very many waveform evaluations that span a large region of the parameter space, a purely NR approach is unfeasible. Semi-analytical waveform models that are more efficient than fulledged NR, while still sufficiently accurate for the purposes of extracting unbiased physical information from the data. arXiv:1606.01210
BH NR fitting formula:
,
,
At present analogous formulas for extended theories of gravity and for alternative models of GR150914 are just under investigation The final results is still not known In detail and not applied to observed events
, ,
,
arXiv:1605.04767 arXiv:1605.07609
There are two markedly dierent regimes in the evolution of coalescing binary black-holes: I) the inspiraling phase up to merger and II) the final ringdown phase of the newly formed black-hole. The two regimes have to be constrained by observations with comparable accuracy. In that case, our analysis shows that it is possible to extract the parameters of the system, indicated in Ref. [1], but from a much simpler analysis of the two regimes in the test-particle approximation without the need of sophisticated numerical simulations. This is quite striking since we would expect that in the real world our test-particle approximation should not be valid in nearly mass-symmetric systems like the one proposed in Ref. [1] to explain GW 150914. Under these conditions, regime I alone is not sufficient to determine the astrophysical nature of GW 150914, nor to assess that it was produced by a binary black-hole merger leading to a newly formed black-hole.
Some Conclusions 1. The GW150914 confirms the existence of some kind of GW at the 5.1 sigma level ! 2. The absence of data about polarization of the GW in GW150914 does not permit us to distinguish GR from modified theories of gravity and to confirm validity of GR, or to refute it. Will, Liv. Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014):
3. One of the basic hypothesis in the analysis of GW150914 – the validity of GR can not be true, since we know that GR plus Standard Particle Model are not enough to describe NATURE, and one needs peremptorily: a) To introduce DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTER, which leads to possibility for alternative explanations of GW150914, or: b) To consider extended theories of gravity which are able to give their own alternative explanations of GW150914. The modified theories are not developed enough to solve the problem and to know how essential are deviations from GR for GWB. 4. The presence of BH in GW150914 is not firmly substantiate and follows from preliminary assumptions during the analysis of data! The usage of templates can be allowed only after undisputable proof of the nature of the observed phenomena. This is not the case. The BH interpretation of GW150914 leads to a crisis in the theory of BH, because of the too large BH masses (30-60 solar masses). 5. The old theory (‘60) of the gravitational collapse must be reconsidered to take into account modern knowledge of matter EOS. The very theory of EOS is not complete and firmly establish, especially at very large matter densities. 6. A further analysis of the real data without any preliminary physical hypotheses is needed. In the available data there is much more information then recently already discussed one. An analysis, based on GWB-source-of-UNKNOWN-nature is ULTIMATIVELY needed. 7. The analysis of QNM in the GW150914 tail will give us undisputable information about the nature of the final remnant. This is not done at present.
More data of high quality are needed !
Much better LIGO data for GW150914 – cWB analysis (see arXiv:0905.0020 and arXiv:1602.03843): The cWB pipeline searches for a transients in the LIGO frequency band without prior knowledge of the signal waveforms, and reconstructs the GW signal associated with these events using a likelihood analysis. Results for 2048 points: Data from LIGO Open Science Center: 10 −21
H4, L4 2048 p = 0.996 s
10−21
2048 points, Corr_Coeff (H4,L4) = 0.0512823348
100 p = 0.049 s
GW150914 is not from Cosmic Strings or Supernovae, but maybe from binary merger or from some other process ???
Important new discovery:
Cauchy Distribution
Rotating object with random GWB H4,L4 Cauchy distributions
H4,L4 distributions
H4 distribution and least square Cauchy fitting
L4 distribution and least square Cauchy fitting
𝑊𝐶𝑎𝑢𝑐ℎ𝑦 =
1 1 π (1+𝑦 2 )
=
1 1 π (1+(𝑥 𝑑)2 )
Problem: Why the two detectors really see slightly different Cauchy distributions for the same object ?
cPCA analysis of GW150914 – cWB data: 10−21
H4, L4 cWB data
10−21
CC(H4 L4 ) = .0513
H4, L4, C1, C2
cPCA cC1, cC2 cWB data
CC(cC1 cC2 ) = 0
2048 dots = 0.996 s 100 dots = 0.049 s
L4
2x1021 m
10−21
CC(H4 cC1) = .8903
cC2
cC1
H4
𝒅𝟏 =1.696
𝒅𝟐 =1.687
CC(L4 cC1) = .4092
𝟏 𝟏 𝝅 (𝟏 + (𝒙 𝒅)𝟐) 10−21
CC(H4 cC2) = .4555
cPCA with parameter p: p × H4 and (1-p) × L4 p = .4079823
The two cPC‘s see the same Cauchy distributions with 0.5 % precision
CC(L4 cC2) = .9124
cWB cC1 p = .4079823:
Ln (density of E) – versus -- Frequency (in Hz) : Time Evolution 0.000 s
Such time-evolution of the GWB is impossible in the case of BH merger
( STF: Gauss, sigma = 30 ) 0.9996 s
0.215 s
0.840 s
0.273 s
0.781 s
0.371s
0.683 s
0.527 s The real process of generation of GWB is essentially different and presents evidence for some NEW PHYSICS
cWB cC2 p = .4079823:
Ln (density of E) – versus -- Frequency (in Hz) : Time Evolution 0.000 s
Such time-evolution of the GWB is impossible in the case of BH merger
( STF: Gauss, sigma = 30 ) 0.9996 s
0.215 s
0.840 s
0.273 s
0.781 s
0.371s
0.683 s
0.527 s
The real process of generation of GWB is essentially different and presents evidence for some NEW PHYSICS
cWB C1 p = 0.5:
Ln (density of E) – versus -- Frequency (in Hz) : Time Evolution
( STF: Gauss, sigma = 30 )
0.000 s
0.9996 s
0.015 s
0.981 s
0.088 s
0.922 s
0.146 s
0.761 s
Such time-evolution of the GWB is impossible in the case of BH merger
0.527 s
The real process of generation of GWB is essentially different and presents evidence for some NEW PHYSICS
NR merger process: BBH to BH
Ln (density of E) – versus -- Frequency (in Hz) : time Evolution
( STF: Gauss, sigma = 200 )
.386 s
.460 s
Hz
Hz
.451 s
.405 s
Hz
Hz
.441 s
.414 s
Hz
.423 s
Hz
process
An obvious time-asymmetry in the time-evolution of the spectrum is seen.
An rreversible
Hz
arXiv:1606.01262
LIGO data – cWB - cC1,cC2:
cWB –– cC1, c C2 2048 p = 0.996 s 100 p = 0.049 s
cWB cC1
cWB cC2
cWB –– C1, C2
LIGO data – cWB C1,C2:
2048 p = 0.996 s 100 p = 0.049 s
STF, Gauss, sigma=120 :
cWB C1
cWB C2:
sec
1. One sees a striking symmetry between the beginning and the end both in the time domain and in the frequency domain !!!
2. NO BH QNM appear (not seen) !!!
3. That’s impossible for BH merger !!!
cWB C1 strain
C1
cWB cC1 strain
cC1
cC1, Sigma =256
sec
cC1, Sigma =512
sec
sec
cC2, Sigma =512
cC2, Sigma =256
sec
sec
sec
sec
sec
“The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.”
Werner Heisenberg, Photo 1927
The same in time-frequency domain: Narrow window Wide window
Narrow window
uncertainty paper, 1927
poor frequency resolution poor time resolution
Wide window
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle in action and its consequences for GW150914 Cutted cWB, C1, C2 C2
C2
C1
Different σ: 180
150
120
90
15 30
15
60
8 12
8
4 4
3441 points = 0.21 sec
0.01 sec ≈ 164 points
NR 100
NR 50
Hz
Hz
NR 200
NR 150
Hz
NR 300
Hz
NR 500
Hz
Hz
cWB cC1
cWB cC2
1 sec = 2048 points
1 sec = 2048 points
p ≈.4
cWB cC2 50
cWB cC1 50
Hz
Hz
cWB cC2 150
cWB cC1 150
Hz
Hz
cWB cC2 300
cWB cC1 300
Hz
Hz
cWB C1
cWB C2
1 sec = 2048 points
2048 points = 1 sec
p =.5
cWB C1 50
cWB C2 50
Hz
cWB C1 150
Hz
cWB C2 150
Hz
Hz
cWB C2 300
cWB C1 300
Hz
Hz
LIGO Let’s believe to reach an understanding of the GW at least at the level of our understanding of the water waves
Thank you for your attention
