Talk:First observation of gravitational waves

Why does the graph start at time = 0.3 seconds?

Why do all the graphs start at time = 0.3 seconds, roughly? Why not at zero? I am guessing this is because the wall-clock time was hh:mm:ss.30 in UTC, so they are using wall-clock time, but (1) this is not explained and nobody has been able to answer this question for me, and (2) what are the values of hh, mm, and ss, in UTC? I see the date, but not the time. Thanks.146.115.179.89 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The times on the horizontal axes in the observation figure are relative to 09:50:45 UTC. This is mentioned in the caption of Fig. 1 in the discovery paper. The UTC time is given in the article here. Gap9551 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Observations of gravitational waves

Now that a second one has been confirmed, are we going to create Second observation of gravitational waves? Or merge it (pardon the pun) with this page and rename it Observations of gravitational waves or Direct evidence of gravitational waves? Tayste (edits) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Only the first observation is historic. Since all subsequent observations/detections will be useful to science, we may create a sub-section on a "list" at Gravitational wave of other detections. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we need list of black hole mergers or list of gravitational wave observations if they go beyond black holes and nothing. We donb't need an article called "second", but the official designation could be the title of the article if it is notable, which I suspect it is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First observation of gravitational waves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150922064706/https://www.advancedligo.mit.edu/feb_2015_news.html to https://www.advancedligo.mit.edu/feb_2015_news.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160215165041/https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500271/public/main to https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500271/public/main

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Head count roughly split and both sides have reasonable arguments which centre around different naming criteria (consistency for those in support, recognisability for those in oppose). Splitting is an editorial decision outside the scope of RM and can be followed up on in the section below. Jenks24 (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

---

First observation of gravitational waves → GW150914 – When we last discussed this back in February 2016, we only had this case of a gravitational wave, and it wasn't clear if that would remain the case or not. We now know that these are regularly-detectable events rather than a one-off, and we have a series of articles on them, titled GW151226, GW170104, GW170814, and GW170817. This one doesn't match that pattern. As such, I think this is worth re-discussing whether we should move this to GW150914 (while keeping the current name as a redirect). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Support per nom. Last time I voted Oppose, but things have changed. The entire section Gravitational waves (providing context) could then possibly be removed, or partially relocated in the articles that are linked to as 'main articles'. Gap9551 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 95.133.219.133. Rename section "Grav. waves" to "Background". (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Please make "First observation of gravitational waves" into a redirect as well. 118.101.246.108 (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• I suspect that 10 times more people will know it by its current name rather than GW150914. But the current name is a bit untidy compared to the GW series names! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support as previously.TR 07:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per most familiar name. How many general readers will be looking up any of those unmemorable letter and number combinations? The present title is concise and aptly descriptive. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per most familiar name. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Several !votes above are opposing the move on the basis that "First observation of gravitational waves" is the most familiar name. However, is that truly so? Doing the (very imperfect) google test of searching "GW150914" vs "First observation of gravitational waves", I find 71,600 vs. 78,100 hits. The usage seems fairly similar. If you take into account that the latter is actually matching phrases like "first observation of gravitational waves by three detectors" and "first observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star merger" referring to other events, it seems that GW150914 is the slightly more common name.TR 21:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Those hits are probably from astronomical and other scientific sources. From the essay Wikipedia: Readers first "Use common words, phrases and styles rather than less common words, phrase and styles". Any longish set of letters and numbers will be less familiar than a clear description, which the present title provides. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• The essay you cite is about the contents of articles, not titles. It's irrelevant to this discussion. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• The goal of any talk page is to seek consensus. These bland and baseless dismissals of other arguments are not helpful IMO. The principle of this essay is very relevant indeed. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Support The page should have the same name as the event itself, not a description of it. The existing page name can redirect there. Nothing wrong with page titles that are the official coded names for astronomical objects/events. It would be silly, for example, to move NGC 4993 to The galaxy where the merging of neutron stars was first detected, for example. Tayste (edits) 23:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose – the less recognizable name would not be an improvement. A potential alternative is to split the content, with one article on the first observation, the other more specifically about the event. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: According to WP:POVNAME, which is policy, actual names are preferable over descriptions, so Tayste's comment is absolutely correct. As an example, it lists Octomom, which is a redirect to the name of the woman almost nobody remembers or even recognizes anymore. If I want to find the First film by George Lucas on Wikipedia, I go to George Lucas and take it from there, and link to the actual name of the film. That is how it should be. There, as here, the actual name is something forever memorized by all geeks of the relevant persuasion, and instantly forgotten by anyone else.

And yes, the current name is POV or worse, incorrect. Hulse and Taylor (and Weisberg) are generally regarded as making the first indirect observation of gravitational waves, while LIGO has made the first direct observation. And yes, this distinction is considered a slightly sensitive issue in some circles, even though the debate has long been settled. There were, for example, internal debates about whether to say "First Direct Observation" in the title of the discovery paper, they settled for doing so in the abstract.

In short, this discussion should not even exist: policy says we must change to the official and neutral name. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

So far as the official name is concerned, policy says nothing of the sort, but it's a very common misconception, which is why I originally wrote that essay! (Which now has more than 500 incoming links and growing daily.)

See also wp:correct, a more recent essay on another common misconception also reflected in the long post above. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

These essays have nothing to do with my comment. We are discussing an official name versus a less than accurate and less than neutral description, and I cited the relevant policy. Actual names are allowed to be inaccurate and non-neutral. Invented descriptive phrases are not. In fact, I would oppose this description being kept as a redirect, it should be a dab.

I'm perfectly happy with unofficial names, like Hulse–Taylor binary instead of the redirect PSR 1913+16. Not on the table are "LIGO/Virgo G184098" (the original name, used on GCN Circulars) or "The Event" (as it was known amongst the insiders at the time), simply because the names are unknown, not because they are unofficial. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

These essays have everything to do with your comment. If you think they misrepresent policy, fine, but I don't think they do. Yes, you have cited policy, but inaccurately IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per common name and common sense. My goodness what on earth does this random string of numbers even mean? No. If there is something easy for people to know and understand, that is what we name it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think part of the point of this request is that the current title of this page is not name at all, let alone a common one. It is a description of the subject. Moreover, as shown above, there is actually very little evidence that this particular description is even more common than the actual proper name of the event. The meaning of this proper name can be easily explained in the first line of the article, and should therefore lead to little or no confusion.TR 07:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: "GW" = gravitational wave, "15" = year (2015), "09" = year (september), "14" = day (Monday in this case ;-) ). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Which makes it a very good scientific name but an absolutely horrible name for letting people know what it is, which is one of the key factors in our naming conventions. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which is policy. Five criteria are listed regarding article titles, of which "GW150914" is clearly the winner for three of them (precision, conciseness, consistency), the loser for one of them (naturalness), and arguable regarding one of them (recognizability). The cited policy recognizes this kind of conflict happens, and asks us to weigh them all and seek consensus. Getting all excited about one of the criteria and ignoring the rest isn't very helpful. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of our naming policies, yes, and the best part of them is that it realizes that these things are in tension and it is the job of RM participants to weigh their merits. I've considered all the others: there is nothing preventing having the official name in the text of the article. We primarily weigh, however, the most recognizable name for a subject, and there needs to be a strong reason on the other fronts to ignore that. The tension here is primarily between COMMONNAME and CONSISTENCY, of which I think the winner in this specific case is COMMONNAME. I think its also telling that most of the regular RM participants who don't have a scientific background here are opposed to the move: it gives an idea as to how an outside editor who is familiar with the naming conventions think they apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

But GW150914 is, in fact, the closest there is to a COMMONNAME under discussion here. The existing alternative is not a name. It is a not quite accurate and not quite neutral descriptive phrase and thus violates policy.

I suspect that those without a scientific background have no idea that there is a several-decades-long and sometimes controversial backstory regarding the "First observation of gravitational waves" assertion. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Some interesting points and valid. If you would stop cluttering the discussion with rubbish such as The existing alternative is not a name then perhaps we could discuss them logically. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC).

• Comment the main issue here is that we have to first decide what the scope of the article is. If it's the first observation, then we need history, background, previous searches, experimental techniques, and so on (e.g. more or less this article), which ultimately culminates in the discovery of GW150914. If it's the article is about the event, then it's about the GW150914 event/system itself, its physical properties, with a description of the significance of the event to science/astrophysics at large. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

What you are calling the main issue is actually a complete non-issue. Both "first observation" and "event" can share the same article, regardless of what the title is, and the relative emphasis depends on RS and editor effort, which can change over time. If it proves to be too much material overall, the article can be split. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

They can share an article, but in this case it makes a lot of sense to split. Too much material is not the only criterion for splitting. Andrewa (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Very well put. Andrewa (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jargon is to be avoided, and jargon in titles is the worst. Consider First observation of gravitational waves, GW150914. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it ought to be split, with this article renamed observation of gravitational waves (or merged into Gravitational-wave astronomy or Gravitational-wave observatory), while the first event could be moved to GW150914, like all the other events past and future, unless those should also be expandedlike Gravitational Wave Event 2015-09-14. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    • There is logic to that, but my strongest reaction is the following examples: GW151226, GW170104, GW170814, GW170817, are codes, not titles. In a broad context, they are recognisable only to experts. They should be spelled out, Gravitational wave measurement of 2017-01-04, for example. The abbreviation GW170104 should only be allowed after being defined on first use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC) "Gravity wave" vs "Gravitational wave", I am not sure, but I am pretty sure I wouldn't want to fight for unnecessary capitalisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
      • You're right, Gravity wave is something different, at least here on Wikipedia. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Those are all no goes. Just because a name is systematic (GW150914) doesn't mean it's not the name of the thing. The name of SN 1987A isn't First detected supernova of 1987, it's SN 1987A. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Definitely disagree. So the astronomy boffins like their jargon, that's no surprise. They have a lot of data. SN 1987A lies at the top level of Wikipedia articles, and it fails RECOGNISABILITY as an undefined abbreviation/code. It looks like a serial number. It should be renamed Supernova 1987A. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
            • Well put. We are a general encyclopedia. Andrewa (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per TonyBallioni. It is clear to everyone from the current title what the subject is, whereas the proposed title will only make sense to specialists in the field. Furthermore, this is of general interest, as the first such wave discovered, unlike the later ones. So I'm not sure a consistency argument is valid. (And there's also an argument that those other titles could be improved too, per the SN 1987A example above).  — Amakuru (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed name will make sense only to specialist. The google results are almost equal because everything that mentions "First observation of gravitational waves" also mentions "GW150914". I think splitting the article in a two, one about the event, and one about the gravitational waves would be the best call here. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested split

There seems support for a split above, the only opposition I can see is on the grounds that the article isn't big enough to need splitting, which doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason for not splitting.

If we're going to split as proposed, then the proposed move is pointless anyway. (Disclosure: I'm against the move in any case.)

That now struck out comment was of course originally part of the RM, but this section was rightly moved out of the RM by the closer. Just to explain the apparent non-sequitar. Andrewa (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Keeping the current name while splitting off the GW event seems like a bit of a dead end - the amount of content for it won't particularly grow over time. Would something like Interferometer observations of gravitational waves have a better scope for future expansion? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the title solution is to split the content, and I disagree that was the consensus. Just name it First observation of gravitational waves (GW150914). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That may be the most logical and inclusive way to go, Support First observation of gravitational waves (GW150914). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither I nor the RM closer assessed whether there is consensus to split. That's what this section is about investigating. Andrewa (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

An article on that topic seems an excellent idea to me. Good lateral thinking. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, y'all, another editor, Jimbo, offered what seems to me to be some pretty decent options and analysis when the topic came up on his talkpage (full comment). Here's just his concluding thoughts (less lead up analysis):

I would personally consider at least two alternate solutions: first to rename the article "First direct observation of gravitational waves". This seems to resolve both your objection, and the desire that the title be one that readers will find comprehensible and context-setting for what they are about to read.

Another solution might be to have an article about the "event of discovery" which focusses on the history of the team, the cultural impact, the scientific implications, etc., and to have another article "GW150914" which has the scientific details only, similar to GW151226. I immediately see both advantages and disadvantages in this approach.

A fellow editor, --75.188.199.98 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• It occurs to me that one might simply set aside the issue of primacy altogether (in the title, not the article) thus dodging any semantic controversy surrounding such. Perhaps some neutral wording with a parenthetical added for specificity, as so: Observation of gravitational waves (GW150914) – while keeping in place "First ..." and "First direct ...", etc., as redirects. Or even simpler: Observation of gravitational waves GW150914. Accurately refers to the incident discussed in the article without taking sides in any "Who's first?" "How do we define 'first'?" controversies. Such nuance can be better covered in the body of the article itself where there's room to elaborate.

A fellow editor, --75.188.199.98 (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) James (^talk/_contribs) 01:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

---

First observation of gravitational waves → First direct observation of gravitational waves – See User:Jimbo Wales detailed analysis on this topic here. Jimbo's argument is that this is not necessarily the first observed gravitational waves but it is the first directly observed gravitational waves. Brian Everlasting (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I support to rename article to "First direct observation of gravitational waves". The first observation (indirectly) was from Hulse and Taylor (PSR 1913+16).Earthandmoon (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.72.144.98 (talk)

I sill half want the name to be GW150914. "First direct observation of gravitational waves" could be a redirect, but it is getting too verbose, do you want to qualify it by "First direct observation of gravitational waves by humans". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Sources seem to refer to it simply as the "First observation...", not any of these other suggestions, the common name for a subject takes precedence of technical preciseness. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. You all just had a move request a few days ago, let it rest. ValarianB (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @ValarianB:, look at the discovery paper, which concludes with "This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger." Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Would have been nice to know my close was being criticised on Jimbo's talk page... Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. The discussion is archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 224#Admins not understanding and not interested in discussing NPOV. It would also have been nice if the up-to-date link had been provided when that was archived on 23 November, I guess it shows that nobody has looked at this since then. Or maybe not at all, as Jimbo neither criticises your close, nor endorses this move, rather he tells the person who raised the issue on his page My basic advice to you is to relax and drop it. Seems good advice to me. Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the Jimbo thread has been quoted and permalinked in the section immediately preceding this one since 21:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC). ––A Fellow Editor– 00:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Jimbo that this is a very minor point and our title is at least acceptable. So relax and drop it. Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons above - also - for my part at the moment => seems the current title (ie, First observation of gravitational waves) implies a direct observation - a substantial experiencing of an actual detection - whereas an indirect observation may suggest a less-than-substantial (interpretable?) experiencng of an actual occurrence - and not really an actual observation per se at all. Drbogdan (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gravitational Wave Speed?

So since the observed length change happened during this event, gravitational waves travel at the speed of light? always? I felt this wasn't explained or clear, if someone could answer and maybe put it in the article. I know that Space-Time could expand faster than light, so this makes me curious, and also how it might relate to gravitons. Cornelius (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, the information was on the "Gravitational Wave" wiki page, I forgot that was the main page for this topic. And it's the speed of light. Cornelius (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Danish physicists doubt 1st GW detection - worth noting or not?

FWIW - seems a team of Danish physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute have raised doubts about the first detection of a gravitational wave - this concern was added to the main article, but later reverted by another editor.

QUESTION: Are the doubts about the first detection of a gravitational wave worth noting (see possible edit addition below) in the main article - or not? Perhaps for an "historical reason", if for no other reason?

Comments Welcome from other editors.

[Possible Edit Addition]

--- Doubts of detection ---

In October 2018, doubts about the first detection of a gravitational wave have been raised by a team of physicists at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark, who consider the original gravitational wave signal detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) an "illusion." However, LIGO Executive Director David Reitze of Caltech noted in response, "Their analysis has been looked at by many people who have all concluded there is absolutely no validity to their claims."

References

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - if interested - please see possibly related/relevant discussion at the following => Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 November 5#Are gravitational waves real? - in any regard - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - Seems, more recently, in December 2018, a relevant report was published in Quanta Magazine - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Copyright violation

Sorry to inform all of you that we need to refrain from editing for a while due to copyright infringement by User:Rowan Forest (former name BatteryIncluded). He copied and pasted copyrighted contents to Circumstellar habitable zone, and then Administrator Diannaa removed it. I also assessed the edit history of First observation of gravitational waves and found at least one infringement... For more information, please visit Talk:Circumstellar_habitable_zone#Violation_of_copyright_laws and join the discussion. Thank you, --ProfessorPine (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to questions over detection's validity?

Why is there no reference to questions raised against the detection by members of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen?

See: Exclusive: Grave doubts over LIGO's discovery of gravitational waves

It doesn't mean one is agreeing with their analysis -- but, it should be mentioned. The fact (revealed below) that an edit mentioning it has been suppressed makes me wonder about the integrity of this entry.Mwidunn (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)