Best of both worlds: Asteroids and massive mergers

Best of both worlds: Asteroids and massive mergers
The Searches after Gravitational Waves Using ARizona Observatories, or SAGUARO, logo. Credit: Michael Lundquist

The race is on. Since the construction of technology able to detect the ripples in space and time triggered by collisions from massive objects in the universe, astronomers around the world have been searching for the bursts of light that could accompany such collisions, which are thought to be the sources of rare heavy elements.

The University of Arizona's Steward Observatory has partnered with the Catalina Sky Survey, which searches for near-Earth asteroids from atop Mount Lemmon, in an effort dubbed Searches after Gravitational Waves Using ARizona Observatories, or SAGUARO, to find optical counterparts to massive mergers.

"Catalina Sky Survey has all of this infrastructure for their asteroid survey. So we have deployed additional software to take gravitational wave alerts from LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) and the Virgo interferometer then notify the survey to search an area of sky most likely to contain the optical counterpart," said Michael Lundquist, postdoctoral research associate and lead author on the study published today in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

"Essentially, instead of searching the next section of sky that we would normally, we go off and observe some other area that has a higher probability of containing an optical counterpart of a gravitational wave event," said Eric Christensen, Catalina Sky Survey director and Lunar and Planetary Laboratory senior staff scientist. "The main idea is we can run this system while still maintaining the asteroid search."

The ongoing campaign began in April, and in that month alone, the team was notified of three massive collisions. Because it is difficult to tell the precise location from which the gravitational wave originated, locating optical counterparts can be difficult.

According to Lundquist, two strategies are being employed. In the first, teams with small telescopes target galaxies that are at the right approximate distance, according to the gravitational wave signal. Catalina Sky Survey, on the other hand, utilizes a 60-inch telescope with a wide field of view to scan large swaths of sky in 30 minutes.

Three alerts, on April 9, 25 and 26, triggered the team's software to search nearly 20,000 objects. Machine learning software then trimmed down the total number of potential optical counterparts to five.

The first gravitational wave event was a merger of two , Lundquist said.

Best of both worlds: Asteroids and massive mergers
An artist's conception of two merging neutron stars creating ripples in space time known as gravitational waves. Credit: NASA

"There are some people who think you can get an optical counterpart to those, but it's definitely inconclusive," he said.

The second event was a merger of two , the incredibly dense core of a collapsed giant star. The third is thought to be a merger between a neutron star and a black hole, Lundquist said.

While no teams confirmed optical counterparts, the UA team did find several supernovae. They also used the Large Binocular Telescope Observatory to spectroscopically classify one promising target from another group. It was determined to be a supernova and not associated with the gravitational wave event.

"We also found a near-Earth object in the search field on April 25," Christensen said. "That proves right there we can do both things at the same time."

They were able to do this because Catalina Sky Survey has observations of the same swaths of sky going back many years. Many other groups don't have easy access to past photos for comparison, offering the UA team a leg up.

"We have really nice references," Lundquist said. "We subtract the new image from the old image and use that difference to look for anything new in the sky."

"The process Michael described," Christensen said, "starting with a large number of candidate detections and filtering down to whatever the true detections are, is very familiar. We do that with near-Earth objects, as well."

The team is planning on deploying a second telescope in the hunt for optical counterparts: Catalina Sky Survey's 0.7-meter Schmidt telescope. While the telescope is smaller than the 60-inch , it has an even wider field of view, which allows astronomers to quickly search an even larger chunk of sky. They've also improved their machine learning software to filter out stars that regularly change in brightness.

"Catalina Sky Survey takes hundreds of thousands of images of the sky every year, from multiple telescopes. Our survey telescopes image the entire visible nighttime sky several times per month, then we are looking for one kind of narrow slice of the pie," Christensen said. "So, we've been willing to share the data with whoever wants to use it."


Explore further

Seeing the light of neutron star collisions

More information: M. J. Lundquist et al, Searches after Gravitational Waves Using ARizona Observatories (SAGUARO): System Overview and First Results from Advanced LIGO/Virgo's Third Observing Run, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab32f2
Citation: Best of both worlds: Asteroids and massive mergers (2019, August 16) retrieved 19 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-worlds-asteroids-massive-mergers.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
156 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 16, 2019
They start off the article by saying, "Since the construction of technology able to detect the ripples in space and time triggered by collisions from massive...."

Ripples in Space AND time, they say. However, they don't say how it is possible for 'time' to ripple, or to do anything that Space can do. Time is nonexistent. The word is only a means to DESCRIBE the duration of an Event or Action (as measured by clocks), but the description is ONLY a CONCEPT that had been made up from the imagination of ancient man as a means to measure the Earth's sunrise to sunrise rotation cycle. But scientists somehow always try to give the impression that 'time' is a tangible and substantial 'thing' with certain qualities, but it is none of the kind.
The word and concept of 'time' is so deeply ingrained in the consciousness of humans that it is virtually impossible even for scientists to ever change it - even if they wanted to do so.

Aug 16, 2019
Time is nonexistent
You keep saying that, and it's getting pretty old ...

Aug 17, 2019
yeah, the time is long past for the sillegghead's silly blather

Aug 18, 2019
And rrwillsj still comes into the phorums to spread her bullshit around liberally, but never offers anything regarding maths and science. It is becoming more apparent that rrwillsj doesn't KNOW any maths or science but only likes to see her junk in print.

I will continue to expose the corruption of science regarding the nonexistence of 'time'. And YOU will continue to have nothing important to say in the comments.

Aug 18, 2019
And rrwillsj still comes into the phorums to spread her bullshit around liberally, but never offers anything regarding maths and science. It is becoming more apparent that rrwillsj doesn't KNOW any maths or science but only likes to see her junk in print.

I will continue to expose the corruption of science regarding the nonexistence of 'time'. And YOU will continue to have nothing important to say in the comments.


Says the idiot who has never offered any maths or science! Lol.

Aug 18, 2019
Says the idiot who has never offered any maths or science! Lol.
.....coming from the clown who denies the existence of gamma radiation emissions when C-14 decays to Nitrogen.

Castrogiovanni
Aug 16, 2019
include the gamma emissions involved in radio-active decay, and in C-14 they are plentiful.

No, they are non-existent,
https://phys.org/...den.html

So much for the science content of what you as one with an Anthropology degree comprehends about "science". You can't even follow the gamma emissions during half-life decay of a radio-isotope, but you beg us to take your opinions seriously.

https://www.arpan...adiation

"What are some common sources of gamma radiation?
Gamma radiation is released from many of the radioisotopes found in the natural radiation decay series of uranium, thorium and actinium as well as being emitted by the naturally occurring radioisotopes potassium-40 and carbon-14."


Aug 18, 2019
Says the idiot who has never offered any maths or science! Lol.
.....coming from the clown who denies the existence of gamma radiation emissions when C-14 decays to Nitrogen.

Castrogiovanni
Aug 16, 2019
include the gamma emissions involved in radio-active decay, and in C-14 they are plentiful.

No, they are non-existent,
https://phys.org/...den.html

"What are some common sources of gamma radiation?
Gamma radiation is released from many of the radioisotopes found in the natural radiation decay series of uranium, thorium and actinium as well as being emitted by the naturally occurring radioisotopes potassium-40 and carbon-14."



Show me where a gamma ray is released in 14C decay. It isn't, you ignorant clown. As I linked. Get this through your thick skull, janitor boy - electron and electron antineutrino. That is it. No gamma, dumbo. Go read a textbook. Thick oaf.

Aug 18, 2019
Show me where a gamma ray is released in 14C decay. It isn't, you ignorant clown. As I linked. Get this through your thick skull, janitor boy - electron and electron antineutrino. That is it. No gamma, . Go read a textbook.
.......obviously mister Anthropologist you don'r know the differences between electrons, neutrinos & gamma radiation, but the link https://phys.org/...den.html makes it quite clear that there is gamma radiation emission in C-14 Decay.

The next "science" thing you need to learn is how to read the radio-isotope decay chain for Gamma-Radiation emissions during the 1/2 life decay of radio-isotopes SUCH AS C-14.

Benni can't "show" you a thing for which you do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend, this is why you spend so much time discussing janitorial duties, your intellectual capacity renders you incapable of going beyond that level of job skills.

Aug 18, 2019
.......obviously mister Anthropologist you don'r know the differences between electrons, neutrinos & gamma radiation, but the link https://phys.org/...den.html makes it quite clear that there is gamma radiation emission in C-14 Decay.


Link is broken, and no it doesn't, idiot. I've told you - electron and electron anti-neutrino. Full stop. Want me to post the question on a physics forum, thicko?

The next "science" thing you need to learn is how to read the radio-isotope decay chain for Gamma-Radiation emissions during the 1/2 life decay of radio-isotopes SUCH AS C-14.


Given that there is no gamma produced in 14C decay, then it would be difficult to learn such idiocy!
Give up, janitor boy - science really isn't your thing.


Aug 18, 2019
For the scientifically illiterate;

No. 3 in a series of essays on Radioactivity produced by the Royal Society of Chemistry, Radiochemical Methods Group.

C-14 decays to N-14 by emitting a negative beta particle, that is a neutron converts to a proton. Because both nuclei are in their ground states ***there is no gamma radiation associated with this decay process***.


Even an idiot can understand that. Why can't the moron Benni? No gamma. Not from the 14C, and not from the 14N. It only exists in Benniworld. Where everyone is freezing to death due to visible light not causing heating in that universe! And a shed load of mass is missing due to anything that beta-decays losing half its mass. Somehow!
Give up, D-K boy. You are too dumb to discuss science.

https://www.rsc.o...7765.pdf

Aug 18, 2019
C-14 decays to N-14 by emitting a negative beta particle, that is a neutron converts to a proton. Because both nuclei are in their ground states ***there is no gamma radiation associated with this decay process***.
.....that's only for the beta decay part of the chain, it doesn't cover the Neutron Emission for creating a free unbound neutron which must occur prior to beta decay. Your link is incomplete in that there is no discussion how a neutron becomes unbound from a nucleus making it available for Beta Decay.

Aug 19, 2019
No matter what the Vagina says, there is still NO SUCH THING AS 'TIME'. It was a figment of Hermann Minkowski's imagination and inclusion of it as Spacetime hasn't changed it in any way, shape of form. It is STILL ONLY IMAGINARY.

Aug 19, 2019
And rrwillsj still comes into the phorums to spread her bullshit around liberally, but never offers anything regarding maths and science. It is becoming more apparent that rrwillsj doesn't KNOW any maths or science but only likes to see her junk in print.

I will continue to expose the corruption of science regarding the nonexistence of 'time'. And YOU will continue to have nothing important to say in the comments.


Says the idiot who has never offered any maths or science! Lol.
says CastroVagina

The only idiot in physorg is YOU. For some strange reason you are trying to promote the idea that math equations must come before actual experimentation, whether in a lab or in the field. Predictions don't mean squat and are most often wrong anyway. Only trial-by-error is the only way to favour the outcome of the experiment. The math comes later after the actual experiment came to fruition. The math comes after to DESCRIBE WHAT TOOK PLACE, THE METHODS, and the conditions.

Aug 19, 2019
What, we shouldn't look at teh space becyuz teh Xenu said not to?

Aug 19, 2019
Lundquist is highly misinformed regarding the LIGO triggers, and this paper seems to be a transparent attempt to find a back door to rapid publication of the putative NS-BH event S190814bv through this article. The three candidate LIGO-Virgo events from O3 run that are discussed have not been subjected to complete analysis and may very well be retracted, as several events this year have been. How embarrassing for science, held hostage by a theater of confirmation bias and false analyses based on Bayesian priors and obstinate refusal that global coherent transients not only are common and expected, but well-represented in LIGO technical literature. Models are left to be manipulated into support for contradictory followup results without accountability for error merely to force retroductive verification. The logic is fallacious without parallel and methodology reduced to a naive free fitting. https://twitter.c...23273216

Aug 19, 2019
S190426c is here claimed by Lundquist to be a NS-BH signal, but is only 14% NSBH, but 49% BNS. No O3 triggers have been subjected to complete analysis and noise/error assessment (only possible upon completion of the O3 run). Five claimed events have been retracted by LIGO for O3 so far, and S190718h has been in limbo for weeks at 98% terrestrial source probability - for no known reason. See https://gracedb.l...lic/O3/. https://twitter.c...23273216

Aug 19, 2019
No matter what the Vagina says, there is still NO SUCH THING AS 'TIME'. It was a figment of Hermann Minkowski's imagination and inclusion of it as Spacetime hasn't changed it in any way, shape of form. It is STILL ONLY IMAGINARY.


Wrong. Trivially. As proven.

Aug 19, 2019
S190426c is here claimed by Lundquist to be a NS-BH signal, but is only 14% NSBH, but 49% BNS. No O3 triggers have been subjected to complete analysis and noise/error assessment (only possible upon completion of the O3 run). Five claimed events have been retracted by LIGO for O3 so far, and S190718h has been in limbo for weeks at 98% terrestrial source probability - for no known reason. See https://gracedb.l...lic/O3/.


You sound like another gobshite. All talk, no papers. Go do some real science, and stop clogging up the internet. Bye.

Aug 19, 2019
This isn't about the merits of math or General Relativity (both extraordinarily good at describing nature), but about poor experimental protocols and controls, in conjunction with pure faulty analysis and a bandwagon mentality for those who feel excited about being excited about something for once. I get it, but the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater by astronomers who are ignoring how LIGO is actually detecting important features of special relativity through geodesic reference frame effects associated with detector cavity/coordinate geometry (with respect to EM attentuation and critical magnetospheric degenerate states with generalized features). It's not as if only GW fit the various templates: ANYsimple soliton-like broadband transient with log-normal frequency distribution (almost everything in the ionsophere, the typical waveform of reconnection and radio bursts) fits LIGO triggers. https://fulguriti...for.html

Aug 19, 2019
S190426c is here claimed by Lundquist to be a NS-BH signal, but is only 14% NSBH, but 49% BNS. No O3 triggers have been subjected to complete analysis and noise/error assessment (only possible upon completion of the O3 run). Five claimed events have been retracted by LIGO for O3 so far, and S190718h has been in limbo for weeks at 98% terrestrial source probability - for no known reason. See https://gracedb.l...lic/O3/.


You sound like another gobshite. All talk, no papers. Go do some real science, and stop clogging up the internet. Bye.


Here is my blog of interdisciplinary mathematical analysis of environmental data around LIGO triggers. Show me yours: https://fulguriti...pot.com/

Aug 19, 2019
Here is my blog of interdisciplinary mathematical analysis of environmental data around LIGO triggers. Show me yours: https://fulguriti...pot.com/


If it isn't in a peer-reviewed paper, I'm not interested. Too many cranks around these days. Before the internet, they'd have had to publish their claims. Now, any idiot who craves attention can put up a bunch of crap on the web. If you want scientists to look at it, publish it.

Aug 19, 2019
Here is my blog of interdisciplinary mathematical analysis of environmental data around LIGO triggers. Show me yours: https://fulguriti...pot.com/


If it isn't in a peer-reviewed paper, I'm not interested. Too many cranks around these days. Before the internet, they'd have had to publish their claims. Now, any idiot who craves attention can put up a bunch of crap on the web. If you want scientists to look at it, publish it.
Of course, I'll have the last laugh. You are merely a bitter consumer of the ideas of others. Carry on, self-parody who poisons wells.

Aug 19, 2019
Here is my blog of interdisciplinary mathematical analysis of environmental data around LIGO triggers. Show me yours: https://fulguriti...pot.com/


If it isn't in a peer-reviewed paper, I'm not interested. Too many cranks around these days. Before the internet, they'd have had to publish their claims. Now, any idiot who craves attention can put up a bunch of crap on the web. If you want scientists to look at it, publish it.


Everybody here will just assume you're mathematically illiterate, incapable of critical thinking, cannot distinguish higher-order patterning, and are afraid of symmetrical debate (if it wasn't already evident). Not all cranks are wrong, and sometimes the cranks hijack the institution. You've heard of open science? This is what it looks like, dilettante.

Aug 19, 2019
...Somebody's cognitive dissonance was triggered...

Aug 19, 2019
...Somebody's cognitive dissonance was triggered...
As long as we're *splitting* hairs, we might as well sharpen our axes.

Aug 19, 2019
Blogs are fine - ask Ian Harry, who attempted to refute a peer-reviewed paper for LIGO on another scientist's blog (and failed to do so, making several coding errors in addition to various conceptual contradictions with respect to Fourier transforms and the nature of quasiperiodic correlated noise): https://www.prepo...st-post/

Aug 19, 2019
You've heard of open science? This is what it looks like, dilettante.


Nope. Crap on non-peer reviewed blogs is an obvious tactic of physics cranks. Otherwise they'd write their stuff up, wouldn't they? The fact that they avoid peer-review is an obvious sign that their woo would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. You are just another physics crank. There are hordes of them. Getting nowhere, accomplishing nothing. Join the club.

Aug 19, 2019
Ripples in Space and Time by Mikayla Mace

The race is on
Since the construction of technology
Able to detect the ripples
In space and time
Triggered by collisions
From massive objects
In the universe
Astronomers
Around the world
Been searching
For bursts of light
Accompany these collisions
The sources of these rare heavy elements
Foreth Mikayla Mace
Hath appeared on this phys.org
On this interweb of truths mistruths this interweb of Ripples in Space and Time
For MikaylaMace
Have entered this world of phys.org
This topsy turvy world this Aetherous spirit world
Of this vacuous vacuum
These Ripples in Space and Time
Foreth MikaylaMace needs some quiet reflection
Some time out on his river bank
Some uninterrupted silent solace
Into the true meaning of these Ripples in Space and Time

Aug 19, 2019
Nope. Crap on non-peer reviewed blogs is an obvious tactic of physics cranks. Otherwise they'd write their stuff up, wouldn't they? The fact that they avoid peer-review is an obvious sign that their woo would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. You are just another physics crank. There are hordes of them. Getting nowhere, accomplishing nothing. Join the club.


Ongoing studies of results from experiments preceding publication are in PROCESS - a monitoring operation. Calling people cranks for this role is constructive only when the target is proposing options that are not possible given multiple empirical trends for contradictions; publications are accomplished at the termination of O3, since error analysis of secular cyclical correlation takes years. LIGO technical documents support the basis of this inquiry into experiment foreground. It is no secret that LIGO cannot distinguish between EM noise transients and theoretical GW transients. Truth value for LIGO is consensus.

Aug 19, 2019
It is no secret that LIGO cannot distinguish between EM noise transients and theoretical GW transients.


And in which paper is that outlined?

Aug 20, 2019
1. "GW detection - Data stream of differential arm strain
Once recorded - Signals and noises are indistinguishable"
https://dcc.ligo....oise.pdf

2. "LIGO plans to monitor magnetic fields because they can affect the interferometer's signals. A magnetic field from a Schumann Resonance can affect both LIGO interferometers in a similar way as a gravitational wave. " https://dcc.ligo....aper.pdf

3."Potential electromagnetic noise sources include lightning, solar events and solar-wind driven noise, as well as RF communication. If electromagnetic noise were strong enough to affect h(t), it would be witnessed with high SNR by radio receivers and magnetometers." http://iopscience...3/134001

4. High SNR ramping critical-coherent magnetic response from North American ground magnetometer data surrounding GW150914:
https://fulguriti...www.html


Aug 20, 2019
non-operative magnetometers during GW150914 and LVT/GW151012 arrival times:
https://alog.ligo...leType=#
"12:46, Tuesday 17 November 2015
[… . …]
Magnetometers at End Station VEAs Fixed
I went this morning to investigate the end station VEA magnetometers.
Turns out we left the EY magnetometer off since Sep 12. I turned it on, spectrum looks reasonable now.
At EX I swapped the PSU box from the new model to the old model and two types of noise went away: a comb of lines at 1 and 1.5 Hz and a high frequency slope that I don't understand. We'll have to look into this and complain to Bartington about it. I've seen this "feature" in other PSUs and I've relegated those to EBAY magnetometers, where we don't have the x100 filter boxes. Spectrum attached. Not sure what the 1-2kHz noise is, maybe the old box is losing it too… Will investigate"

Aug 20, 2019
[… . …]"When starting to calibrate one of the magnetometers in the LVEA, DTT's time series plot was saturated. The maximum number of counts provided by the ADC was consistently exceeded. In other words, all the data was not fitting on the DTT time series plot, so calibrating in this state would produce an incorrect calibration factor. The power spectrum showed a tall peak at 60 Hz. The surrounding, fluctuating magnetic fields from the 60 Hz wires which power the entire LVEA, especially the clean rooms, were so strong that magnetometer's sensitive measurements could not be accurately viewed on DTT. To calibrate the magnetometers, one must wait until the clean rooms are gone." https://dcc.ligo....aper.pdf

Aug 20, 2019
Ripples in Space and Time by Mikayla Mace

The race is on
Since the construction of technology
Able to detect the ripples
In space and time
Triggered by collisions
From massive objects
In the universe
Astronomers
Around the world
Been searching
For bursts of light
Accompany these collisions
The sources of these rare heavy elements
Foreth Mikayla Mace
Hath appeared on this phys.org
On this interweb of truths mistruths this interweb of Ripples in Space and Time
For MikaylaMace
Have entered this world of phys.org
This topsy turvy world this Aetherous spirit world
Of this vacuous vacuum
These Ripples in Space and Time
Foreth MikaylaMace needs some quiet reflection
Some time out on his river bank
Some uninterrupted silent solace
Into the true meaning of these Ripples in Space and Time
Don't get your hopes up. Look too closely and you'll see why criticism is still strong. There is a strong pattern of deficiency obviated by assertive cliches in virtually every paper on GWs.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more