Metaculus Help: Spread the word
If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.
In 2016, will gravitational wave astronomy discover something completely new?
On 11 Feb 2016 the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) collaboration announced for the first time the observation of gravitational waves from a black hole merger, ushering the era of gravitational wave astronomy. Furthermore, the detected event (GW150914) had a number of unusual features:
The black holes involved in the merger were heavier than expected to be seen, likely requiring the adjustment of stellar evolution models.
The event was observed almost as soon as the machine was turned on. This, combined with the fact that another significant trigger event was also seen in the first few days of data (LVT151012), though not yet confirmed to be genuine, suggests a rate of mergers at the high end of what was considered possible.
A gamma ray burst counterpart candidate was unexpectedly observed by Fermi GBM 0.4s after the merger.
This all suggests that an influx of gravitational wave discoveries will challenge prevailing astrophysical assumptions. Will the burgeoning field of gravitational wave astronomy discover something totally unexpected in 2016?
The question will be resolved yes if and only if, by 2017 Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC, all of the following conditions hold:
There is a published paper or preprint by the LIGO scientific collaboration, VIRGO scientific collaboration or other relevant gravitational wave experiments, possibly in coordination with electromagnetic and neutrino observatories, announcing the observation of a gravitational wave event.
The gravitational wave event is observed with high statistical significance in multiple detectors (>4 sigma equivalent combined significance) and does not correlate with any known background or possible noise source. This observation is possibly accompanied by a high statistical significance detection of an electromagnetic or neutrino counterpart.
At least two distinct explanations for the event have been proposed and published in peer reviewed journals by the resolve date OR at least three distinct explanations have been proposed in preprints on the arXiv or published papers. ("Distinct" here implies qualitatively different physical processes or objects involved.)
(note: third criterion updated 2/23/16)
Metaculus help: Predicting
Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.
The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.
The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.
This question is not yet open for predictions.
Metaculus help: Community Stats
Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.
When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.