Talk:GW170817

Created talk-page

Created talk-page for the GW170817 article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Too speculative?

This is more speculation than anything else. I don't think this is an article Wikipedia should have at the moment. Pages should be about things with lasting significance. What do you write if the analysis shows there was no event? If an article can lose its significance, then it never had enough significance. --mfb (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mfb: Thank you for your comments - yes, you may be right about this - however - there seems to be some responsibly cited basis (and specific informations re detection dates and possible discoverers) for the tentatively named article, as well as a related WP:RS noting that there are “promising gravitational-wave candidates” for confirming the findings - perhaps other editors would like to comment? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure about the date. Where do you get that from? Does any news include "GW170818"? Yes, there are rumors, but nothing confirmed. LIGO released a statement about candidates - in the plural. Can you figure out which part of the rumor corresponds to which candidate? I cannot. --mfb (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - seems the following may be relevant re the detection date (at least, afaik at the moment) => On 18 August [2017], astronomer J. Craig Wheeler of the University of Texas at Austin began the public rumour mill when he tweeted, “New LIGO. Source with optical counterpart. Blow your sox off!” An hour later, astronomer Peter Yoachim of the University of Washington in Seattle tweeted that LIGO had seen a signal with an optical counterpart (that is, something that telescopes could see) from a galaxy called NGC 4993, which is around 40 million parsecs (130 million light years) away in the southern constellation Hydra. “Merging neutron-neutron star is the initial call” - no mention of "GW170818" per se in the news at the moment afaik - the tentative naming of GW170818 may be reasonable based on the quoted passage above - also reasonable afaik => the noted candidates (plural) may all have been near the time/date of the initial detection as noted above - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

GW events are not named after the day of tweets. Assuming this is connected to the GRB, it should probably be August 17. But all this is original research, and to make it worse it is based on tweets. --mfb (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This is currently a rumour, not a confirmed event, so I'm not sure if it should have a Wikipedia article just yet. I don't think that it is original research, though, as the rumours are being quite well documented by the media. Perhaps we can serve a role of providing an objective assessment of the current situation, though. As you might guess from the number of caveats here, I haven't made up my mind at the moment. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments - my present thinking at the moment => seems a wait-and-see approach may be the better road - may not be long I would think - if "GW170818" is confirmed and an official name noted, then the article name (and article contents) can easily be adjusted if necessary - if the GW event is not confirmed, then the article can easily be removed (or at least modified to some extent) if necessary - either way is *entirely* ok with me atm - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I support moving this into draft space, but I won't go through all the bureaucracy to enforce that. If you absolutely think this rumor must be part of the Wikipedia now, keep it here. --mfb (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: CERN seminar in an hour. Let's see if there are news. --mfb (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Can GRB and GW detection times for same event be different?

QUESTION: Could a "Gamma-Ray Burst (GRB)" of an astrophysical event be detected *before* the "Gravitational Wave (GW)" of the *very same* event? - or not? - if so, then "GRB 170817A" could be detected some (brief?) time *before* "GW170818" for the *very same* astrophysical event - Comments Welcome if possible - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how. The opposite can happen, if light needs some time before it escapes some object like a star, but there is nothing that would delay gravitational waves. --mfb (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - and comment - yes - seems reasonable to me atm as well - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Major rumors can be noteworthy

nature.com gave it a short article, summarizing all the major telescope priority interrupts that suddenly found a certain obscure galaxy interesting, one of them naming this GW by number in its public database. Those interruptions are certainly not a rumor, and such a confluence has made it to the science press.

We are not a crystal ball, but there are only a small number of ways this much "exciting" data collection will play out. Either one or both of the GW/GRB will be confirmed, or both will be disconfirmed. So perhaps this article will be renamed GW170818 anomaly or LVT170818 in the end, reporting on what the RS say about the fluke and what it means for LIGO. Either way, it seems clear there will be an article on this topic.

Compare 750 GeV diphoton excess. 129.68.81.144 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The diphoton excess got an article long after ATLAS and CMS released their analyses, it didn't have an article in the days before the announcement when it was a rumor. The notice could have been due to a statistical fluctuation, a glitch in the data analysis or whatever else. Anyway, there is a CERN seminar in an hour, we'll know more after that. --mfb (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just spitballing here, but I predict we'll not know more after that. Supposedly LIGO/Virgo will go public with their data in almost-real-time after their fourth confirmed announcement. 129.68.81.144 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't listen to it and I don't see the slides or the talk recorded. Did someone have a look? --mfb (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote the body of the article. I also edited Wikidata. Note that we cannot call this the "fourth" signal, nor identify what the "previous" signal was. LSC/Virgo has said they are analyzing seven [possible correction by (Drbogdan (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)): better "several" instead? - please see => “promising gravitational-wave candidates”] earlier triggers, and I expect their next signal announcement will be for something seen in February or March. The one detail missing is that this might have been seen under triple lock.

I don't think it's worth naming anyone except the fellow who started the rumor game.

I think maybe we can leave out the under construction template, it's just normal editing now. Drbogdan? 129.68.81.144 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you for your comments - and rewrite - no problem whatsoever - rm "under construction" template as suggested - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Where did you get the name?

I had entered the claim that the name GW170818 was seen in a trigger statement, which I had recalled reading earlier in the week, I thought in Nature or Quanta or New Scientist. I was unable to find it, so I deleted the claim.

Now I have to ask: Drbogdan, where did you get the name? Did you mistake the date of Wheeler's tweet for the discovery date? If so, it seems you should just rename the article to one day earlier. The most information seems to be the discussion at [1]. 129.68.81.144 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment - and suggestion - yes - the name was based on Wheeler's tweet as noted earlier above - I've also tried to find a mention of "GW170818" in the various "public logs of several major telescopes list priority interrupts" as noted earlier in the article content - I've also not been able to locate the mention, which is why I tagged the earlier article text with "{{cn|date=August 2017}}" - for my part at the moment => until an official name has been posted in a "WP:RS", the present article name (ie, "GW170818") may be as good as any other - however - if someone thinks otherwise - renaming the article (esp if there's some ok rationale to do so), is *entirely* ok with me - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done - BRIEF Followup - renamed the article => to "GW170817" - maybe better after all - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. You have to fix all the links.

While I'm OK with an article on the rumors being reported in RS, I'm concerned with us inventing the name. But maybe we're not really inventing the name, we're relaying the information and then giving the most efficient, recognizable name.

Since the GRB seems to have been confirmed and definitively named, it might be best to merge the contents of this article with the GRB, and leave in a redirect. I have no strong opinions. 129.68.81.144 (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done - related links have all been updated (and/or automatically redirected) earlier - at least afaik - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)