University of Strathclyde
UniversityGlasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Research output, citation impact, and the most-cited recent papers from University of Strathclyde (United Kingdom). Aggregated across the NobleBlocks index of 300M+ scholarly works.
Top-cited papers from University of Strathclyde
On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC the two detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory simultaneously observed a transient gravitational-wave signal. The signal sweeps upwards in frequency from 35 to 250 Hz with a peak gravitational-wave strain of 1.0×10(-21). It matches the waveform predicted by general relativity for the inspiral and merger of a pair of black holes and the ringdown of the resulting single black hole. The signal was observed with a matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 24 and a false alarm rate estimated to be less than 1 event per 203,000 years, equivalent to a significance greater than 5.1σ. The source lies at a luminosity distance of 410(-180)(+160) Mpc corresponding to a redshift z=0.09(-0.04)(+0.03). In the source frame, the initial black hole masses are 36(-4)(+5)M⊙ and 29(-4)(+4)M⊙, and the final black hole mass is 62(-4)(+4)M⊙, with 3.0(-0.5)(+0.5)M⊙c(2) radiated in gravitational waves. All uncertainties define 90% credible intervals. These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger.
On August 17, 2017 at 12∶41:04 UTC the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo gravitational-wave detectors made their first observation of a binary neutron star inspiral. The signal, GW170817, was detected with a combined signal-to-noise ratio of 32.4 and a false-alarm-rate estimate of less than one per <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:mrow><a:mrow><a:mn>8.0</a:mn><a:mo>×</a:mo><a:msup><a:mrow><a:mn>10</a:mn></a:mrow><a:mrow><a:mn>4</a:mn></a:mrow></a:msup></a:mrow><a:mtext> </a:mtext><a:mtext> </a:mtext><a:mi>years</a:mi></a:mrow></a:math>. We infer the component masses of the binary to be between 0.86 and <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><c:mrow><c:mn>2.26</c:mn><c:mtext> </c:mtext><c:mtext> </c:mtext><c:msub><c:mrow><c:mi>M</c:mi></c:mrow><c:mrow><c:mo stretchy="false">⊙</c:mo></c:mrow></c:msub></c:mrow></c:math>, in agreement with masses of known neutron stars. Restricting the component spins to the range inferred in binary neutron stars, we find the component masses to be in the range <f:math xmlns:f="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><f:mrow><f:mn>1.17</f:mn><f:mi>–</f:mi><f:mn>1.60</f:mn><f:mtext> </f:mtext><f:mtext> </f:mtext><f:msub><f:mrow><f:mi>M</f:mi></f:mrow><f:mrow><f:mo stretchy="false">⊙</f:mo></f:mrow></f:msub></f:mrow></f:math>, with the total mass of the system <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><i:mrow><i:mn>2.7</i:mn><i:msubsup><i:mrow><i:mn>4</i:mn></i:mrow><i:mrow><i:mo>−</i:mo><i:mn>0.01</i:mn></i:mrow><i:mrow><i:mo>+</i:mo><i:mn>0.04</i:mn></i:mrow></i:msubsup><i:msub><i:mrow><i:mi>M</i:mi></i:mrow><i:mrow><i:mo stretchy="false">⊙</i:mo></i:mrow></i:msub></i:mrow></i:math>. The source was localized within a sky region of <l:math xmlns:l="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><l:mrow><l:mn>28</l:mn><l:mtext> </l:mtext><l:mtext> </l:mtext><l:mrow><l:msup><l:mrow><l:mi>deg</l:mi></l:mrow><l:mrow><l:mn>2</l:mn></l:mrow></l:msup></l:mrow></l:mrow></l:math> (90% probability) and had a luminosity distance of <n:math xmlns:n="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mn>4</n:mn><n:msubsup><n:mrow><n:mn>0</n:mn></n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mo>−</n:mo><n:mn>14</n:mn></n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mo>+</n:mo><n:mn>8</n:mn></n:mrow></n:msubsup><n:mtext> </n:mtext><n:mtext> </n:mtext></n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mi>Mpc</n:mi></n:mrow></n:mrow></n:math>, the closest and most precisely localized gravitational-wave signal yet. The association with the <p:math xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><p:mi>γ</p:mi></p:math>-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short <r:math xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><r:mi>γ</r:mi></r:math>-ray bursts. Subsequent identification of transient counterparts across the electromagnetic spectrum in the same location further supports the interpretation of this event as a neutron star merger. This unprecedented joint gravitational and electromagnetic observation provides insight into astrophysics, dense matter, gravitation, and cosmology. Published by the American Physical Society 2017
AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425, \nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981, \nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826, \nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376, \nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294, \nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198, \nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544, \nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107, \nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756, \nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6, \nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58, \nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007, \nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591, \nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930, \nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794, \nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727, \nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986, \nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409, \nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368, \nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884, \nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239, \nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997, \nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798, \nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909, \nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336, \nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419, \nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490, \nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401, \nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880, \nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913, \nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381, \nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112, \nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812, \nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287, \nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308, \nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901, \nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141, \nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374, \nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822, \nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480, \nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171, \nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789, \nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217, \nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24, \nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700, \nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983, \nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002, \nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318, \nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462, \nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884, \nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996, \nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628, \nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003, \nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434, \nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783, \nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514, \nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172, \nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113, \nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135, \nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702, \nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703, \nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308, \nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290, \nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105, \nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563, \nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936, \nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657, \nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254, \nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694, \nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781, \nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533, \nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829, \nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395, \nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566, \nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767, \nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301, \nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919, \nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576, \nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572, \nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940, \nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340, \nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254, \nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604, \nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182, \nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775, \nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,
The research on formative assessment and feedback is reinterpreted to show how these processes can help students take control of their own learning, i.e. become self‐regulated learners. This reformulation is used to identify seven principles of good feedback practice that support self‐regulation. A key argument is that students are already assessing their own work and generating their own feedback, and that higher education should build on this ability. The research underpinning each feedback principle is presented, and some examples of easy‐to‐implement feedback strategies are briefly described. This shift in focus, whereby students are seen as having a proactive rather than a reactive role in generating and using feedback, has profound implications for the way in which teachers organise assessments and support learning.
In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
The discovery of the enhancement of Raman scattering by molecules adsorbed on nanostructured metal surfaces is a landmark in the history of spectroscopic and analytical techniques. Significant experimental and theoretical effort has been directed toward understanding the surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) effect and demonstrating its potential in various types of ultrasensitive sensing applications in a wide variety of fields. In the 45 years since its discovery, SERS has blossomed into a rich area of research and technology, but additional efforts are still needed before it can be routinely used analytically and in commercial products. In this Review, prominent authors from around the world joined together to summarize the state of the art in understanding and using SERS and to predict what can be expected in the near future in terms of research, applications, and technological development. This Review is dedicated to SERS pioneer and our coauthor, the late Prof. Richard Van Duyne, whom we lost during the preparation of this article.
Transformative artificially intelligent tools, such as ChatGPT, designed to generate sophisticated text indistinguishable from that produced by a human, are applicable across a wide range of contexts. The technology presents opportunities as well as, often ethical and legal, challenges, and has the potential for both positive and negative impacts for organisations, society, and individuals. Offering multi-disciplinary insight into some of these, this article brings together 43 contributions from experts in fields such as computer science, marketing, information systems, education, policy, hospitality and tourism, management, publishing, and nursing. The contributors acknowledge ChatGPT’s capabilities to enhance productivity and suggest that it is likely to offer significant gains in the banking, hospitality and tourism, and information technology industries, and enhance business activities, such as management and marketing. Nevertheless, they also consider its limitations, disruptions to practices, threats to privacy and security, and consequences of biases, misuse, and misinformation. However, opinion is split on whether ChatGPT’s use should be restricted or legislated. Drawing on these contributions, the article identifies questions requiring further research across three thematic areas: knowledge, transparency, and ethics; digital transformation of organisations and societies; and teaching, learning, and scholarly research. The avenues for further research include: identifying skills, resources, and capabilities needed to handle generative AI; examining biases of generative AI attributable to training datasets and processes; exploring business and societal contexts best suited for generative AI implementation; determining optimal combinations of human and generative AI for various tasks; identifying ways to assess accuracy of text produced by generative AI; and uncovering the ethical and legal issues in using generative AI across different contexts.
We present the results from three gravitational-wave searches for coalescing compact binaries with component masses above <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:mrow><a:mn>1</a:mn><a:mtext> </a:mtext><a:mtext> </a:mtext><a:msub><a:mrow><a:mi>M</a:mi></a:mrow><a:mrow><a:mo stretchy="false">⊙</a:mo></a:mrow></a:msub></a:mrow></a:math> during the first and second observing runs of the advanced gravitational-wave detector network. During the first observing run (<d:math xmlns:d="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><d:mi>O</d:mi><d:mn>1</d:mn></d:math>), from September 12, 2015 to January 19, 2016, gravitational waves from three binary black hole mergers were detected. The second observing run (<f:math xmlns:f="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><f:mi>O</f:mi><f:mn>2</f:mn></f:math>), which ran from November 30, 2016 to August 25, 2017, saw the first detection of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral, in addition to the observation of gravitational waves from a total of seven binary black hole mergers, four of which we report here for the first time: GW170729, GW170809, GW170818, and GW170823. For all significant gravitational-wave events, we provide estimates of the source properties. The detected binary black holes have total masses between <h:math xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><h:mrow><h:msubsup><h:mrow><h:mn>18.6</h:mn></h:mrow><h:mrow><h:mo>−</h:mo><h:mn>0.7</h:mn></h:mrow><h:mrow><h:mo>+</h:mo><h:mn>3.2</h:mn></h:mrow></h:msubsup><h:mtext> </h:mtext><h:mtext> </h:mtext><h:msub><h:mrow><h:mi>M</h:mi></h:mrow><h:mrow><h:mo stretchy="false">⊙</h:mo></h:mrow></h:msub></h:mrow></h:math> and <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><k:msubsup><k:mn>84.4</k:mn><k:mrow><k:mo>−</k:mo><k:mn>11.1</k:mn></k:mrow><k:mrow><k:mo>+</k:mo><k:mn>15.8</k:mn></k:mrow></k:msubsup><k:mtext> </k:mtext><k:mtext> </k:mtext><k:msub><k:mrow><k:mi>M</k:mi></k:mrow><k:mrow><k:mo stretchy="false">⊙</k:mo></k:mrow></k:msub></k:math> and range in distance between <n:math xmlns:n="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><n:msubsup><n:mn>320</n:mn><n:mrow><n:mo>−</n:mo><n:mn>110</n:mn></n:mrow><n:mrow><n:mo>+</n:mo><n:mn>120</n:mn></n:mrow></n:msubsup></n:math> and <p:math xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><p:mrow><p:msubsup><p:mrow><p:mn>2840</p:mn></p:mrow><p:mrow><p:mo>−</p:mo><p:mn>1360</p:mn></p:mrow><p:mrow><p:mo>+</p:mo><p:mn>1400</p:mn></p:mrow></p:msubsup><p:mtext> </p:mtext><p:mtext> </p:mtext><p:mi>Mpc</p:mi></p:mrow></p:math>. No neutron star–black hole mergers were detected. In addition to highly significant gravitational-wave events, we also provide a list of marginal event candidates with an estimated false-alarm rate less than 1 per 30 days. From these results over the first two observing runs, which include approximately one gravitational-wave detection per 15 days of data searched, we infer merger rates at the 90% confidence intervals of <r:math xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><r:mrow><r:mn>110</r:mn><r:mo>−</r:mo><r:mn>3840</r:mn><r:mtext> </r:mtext><r:mtext> </r:mtext><r:msup><r:mrow><r:mi>Gpc</r:mi></r:mrow><r:mrow><r:mo>−</r:mo><r:mn>3</r:mn></r:mrow></r:msup><r:mtext> </r:mtext><r:msup><r:mrow><r:mi mathvariant="normal">y</r:mi></r:mrow><r:mrow><r:mo>−</r:mo><r:mn>1</r:mn></r:mrow></r:msup></r:mrow></r:math> for binary neutron stars and <u:math xmlns:u="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><u:mrow><u:mn>9.7</u:mn><u:mo>−</u:mo><u:mn>101</u:mn><u:mtext> </u:mtext><u:mtext> </u:mtext><u:msup><u:mrow><u:mi>Gpc</u:mi></u:mrow><u:mrow><u:mo>−</u:mo><u:mn>3</u:mn></u:mrow></u:msup><u:mtext> </u:mtext><u:msup><u:mrow><u:mi mathvariant="normal">y</u:mi></u:mrow><u:mrow><u:mo>−</u:mo><u:mn>1</u:mn></u:mrow></u:msup></u:mrow></u:math> for binary black holes assuming fixed population distributions and determine a neutron star–black hole merger rate 90% upper limit of <x:math xmlns:x="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><x:mrow><x:mn>610</x:mn><x:mtext> </x:mtext><x:mtext> </x:mtext><x:msup><x:mrow><x:mi>Gpc</x:mi></x:mrow><x:mrow><x:mo>−</x:mo><x:mn>3</x:mn></x:mrow></x:msup><x:mtext> </x:mtext><x:msup><x:mrow><x:mi mathvariant="normal">y</x:mi></x:mrow><x:mrow><x:mo>−</x:mo><x:mn>1</x:mn></x:mrow></x:msup></x:mrow></x:math>. Published by the American Physical Society 2019
Abstract On 2017 August 17, the gravitational-wave event GW170817 was observed by the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors, and the gamma-ray burst (GRB) GRB 170817A was observed independently by the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor, and the Anti-Coincidence Shield for the Spectrometer for the International Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory . The probability of the near-simultaneous temporal and spatial observation of GRB 170817A and GW170817 occurring by chance is <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mn>5.0</mml:mn> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>8</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> . We therefore confirm binary neutron star mergers as a progenitor of short GRBs. The association of GW170817 and GRB 170817A provides new insight into fundamental physics and the origin of short GRBs. We use the observed time delay of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1.74</mml:mn> <mml:mo>±</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0.05</mml:mn> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> <mml:mspace width="0.25em"/> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi> </mml:math> between GRB 170817A and GW170817 to: (i) constrain the difference between the speed of gravity and the speed of light to be between <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>15</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>7</mml:mn> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>16</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> times the speed of light, (ii) place new bounds on the violation of Lorentz invariance, (iii) present a new test of the equivalence principle by constraining the Shapiro delay between gravitational and electromagnetic radiation. We also use the time delay to constrain the size and bulk Lorentz factor of the region emitting the gamma-rays. GRB 170817A is the closest short GRB with a known distance, but is between 2 and 6 orders of magnitude less energetic than other bursts with measured redshift. A new generation of gamma-ray detectors, and subthreshold searches in existing detectors, will be essential to detect similar short bursts at greater distances. Finally, we predict a joint detection rate for the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor and the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors of 0.1–1.4 per year during the 2018–2019 observing run and 0.3–1.7 per year at design sensitivity.
We report the observation of a gravitational-wave signal produced by the coalescence of two stellar-mass black holes. The signal, GW151226, was observed by the twin detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) on December 26, 2015 at 03:38:53 UTC. The signal was initially identified within 70 s by an online matched-filter search targeting binary coalescences. Subsequent off-line analyses recovered GW151226 with a network signal-to-noise ratio of 13 and a significance greater than 5σ. The signal persisted in the LIGO frequency band for approximately 1 s, increasing in frequency and amplitude over about 55 cycles from 35 to 450 Hz, and reached a peak gravitational strain of 3.4_{-0.9}^{+0.7}×10^{-22}. The inferred source-frame initial black hole masses are 14.2_{-3.7}^{+8.3}M_{⊙} and 7.5_{-2.3}^{+2.3}M_{⊙}, and the final black hole mass is 20.8_{-1.7}^{+6.1}M_{⊙}. We find that at least one of the component black holes has spin greater than 0.2. This source is located at a luminosity distance of 440_{-190}^{+180} Mpc corresponding to a redshift of 0.09_{-0.04}^{+0.03}. All uncertainties define a 90% credible interval. This second gravitational-wave observation provides improved constraints on stellar populations and on deviations from general relativity.
The Advanced LIGO gravitational wave detectors are second-generation instruments designed and built for the two LIGO observatories in Hanford, WA and Livingston, LA, USA. The two instruments are identical in design, and are specialized versions of a Michelson interferometer with 4 km long arms. As in Initial LIGO, Fabry&ndash;Perot cavities are used in the arms to increase the interaction time with a gravitational wave, and power recycling is used to increase the effective laser power. Signal recycling has been added in Advanced LIGO to improve the frequency response. In the most sensitive frequency region around 100 Hz, the design strain sensitivity is a factor of 10 better than Initial LIGO. In addition, the low frequency end of the sensitivity band is moved from 40 Hz down to 10 Hz. All interferometer components have been replaced with improved technologies to achieve this sensitivity gain. Much better seismic isolation and test mass suspensions are responsible for the gains at lower frequencies. Higher laser power, larger test masses and improved mirror coatings lead to the improved sensitivity at mid and high frequencies. Data collecting runs with these new instruments are planned to begin in mid-2015.
As they travel through space, some light beams rotate. Such light beams have angular momentum. There are two particularly important ways in which a light beam can rotate: if every polarization vector rotates, the light has spin; if the phase structure rotates, the light has orbital angular momentum (OAM), which can be many times greater than the spin. Only in the past 20 years has it been realized that beams carrying OAM, which have an optical vortex along the axis, can be easily made in the laboratory. These light beams are able to spin microscopic objects, give rise to rotational frequency shifts, create new forms of imaging systems, and behave within nonlinear material to give new insights into quantum optics.
A practical and accessible introduction to numerical methods for stochastic differential equations is given. The reader is assumed to be familiar with Euler's method for deterministic differential equations and to have at least an intuitive feel for the concept of a random variable; however, no knowledge of advanced probability theory or stochastic processes is assumed. The article is built around $10$ MATLAB programs, and the topics covered include stochastic integration, the Euler--Maruyama method, Milstein's method, strong and weak convergence, linear stability, and the stochastic chain rule.
The governance debate is wide-ranging and complex. The aim of this article is to bring order to the debate by concentrating on how the rise of governance challenges many of the more traditional notions of public administration. Governance is about new methods and forms in governing and ultimately is about a change in the meaning of government. This article argues that a governance perspective provides an organizing framework for understanding the changing processes of governing. Five propositions and associated dilemmas are examined. Governance involves: multi-agency partnerships, a blurring of responsibilities between public and non-public sectors, a power dependence between organizations involved in collective action, the emergence of self-governing networks and the development of new governmental tasks and tools. The key dilemmas of governance are: its weak normative underpinnings, a tendency to facilitate blame avoidance and scapegoating, the proliferation of unintended consequences and inadequate accountability mechanisms. In the light of such factors analysts and practitioners should consider the prospect of governance failure. Governance represents a positive attempt to tackle social and economic challenges in innovative ways but it should not be seen as a panacea. This article draws on insights from the UK Economic and Social Research Council's Local Governance Programme. © UNESCO 1998.
Traditional approaches to organizational change have been dominated by assumptions privileging stability, routine, and order. As a result, organizational change has been reified and treated as exceptional rather than natural. In this paper, we set out to offer an account of organizational change on its own terms—to treat change as the normal condition of organizational life. The central question we address is as follows: What must organization(s) be like if change is constitutive of reality? Wishing to highlight the pervasiveness of change in organizations, we talk about organizational becoming. Change, we argue, is the reweaving of actors' webs of beliefs and habits of action to accommodate new experiences obtained through interactions. Insofar as this is an ongoing process, that is to the extent actors try to make sense of and act coherently in the world, change is inherent in human action, and organizations are sites of continuously evolving human action. In this view, organization is a secondary accomplishment, in a double sense. Firstly, organization is the attempt to order the intrinsic flux of human action, to channel it towards certain ends by generalizing and institutionalizing particular cognitive representations. Secondly, organization is a pattern that is constituted, shaped, and emerging from change. Organization aims at stemming change but, in the process of doing so, it is generated by it. These claims are illustrated by drawing on the work of several organizational ethnographers. The implications of this view for theory and practice are outlined.
We demonstrate the transfer of information encoded as orbital angular momentum (OAM) states of a light beam. The transmitter and receiver units are based on spatial light modulators, which prepare or measure a laser beam in one of eight pure OAM states. We show that the information encoded in this way is resistant to eavesdropping in the sense that any attempt to sample the beam away from its axis will be subject to an angular restriction and a lateral offset, both of which result in inherent uncertainty in the measurement. This gives an experimental insight into the effects of aperturing and misalignment of the beam on the OAM measurement and demonstrates the uncertainty relationship for OAM.
We describe the observation of GW170104, a gravitational-wave signal produced by the coalescence of a pair of stellar-mass black holes. The signal was measured on January 4, 2017 at 10∶11:58.6 UTC by the twin advanced detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory during their second observing run, with a network signal-to-noise ratio of 13 and a false alarm rate less than 1 in 70 000 years. The inferred component black hole masses are 31.2_{-6.0}^{+8.4}M_{⊙} and 19.4_{-5.9}^{+5.3}M_{⊙} (at the 90% credible level). The black hole spins are best constrained through measurement of the effective inspiral spin parameter, a mass-weighted combination of the spin components perpendicular to the orbital plane, χ_{eff}=-0.12_{-0.30}^{+0.21}. This result implies that spin configurations with both component spins positively aligned with the orbital angular momentum are disfavored. The source luminosity distance is 880_{-390}^{+450} Mpc corresponding to a redshift of z=0.18_{-0.07}^{+0.08}. We constrain the magnitude of modifications to the gravitational-wave dispersion relation and perform null tests of general relativity. Assuming that gravitons are dispersed in vacuum like massive particles, we bound the graviton mass to m_{g}≤7.7×10^{-23} eV/c^{2}. In all cases, we find that GW170104 is consistent with general relativity.
On 17 August 2017, the LIGO and Virgo observatories made the first direct detection of gravitational waves from the coalescence of a neutron star binary system. The detection of this gravitational-wave signal, GW170817, offers a novel opportunity to directly probe the properties of matter at the extreme conditions found in the interior of these stars. The initial, minimal-assumption analysis of the LIGO and Virgo data placed constraints on the tidal effects of the coalescing bodies, which were then translated to constraints on neutron star radii. Here, we expand upon previous analyses by working under the hypothesis that both bodies were neutron stars that are described by the same equation of state and have spins within the range observed in Galactic binary neutron stars. Our analysis employs two methods: the use of equation-of-state-insensitive relations between various macroscopic properties of the neutron stars and the use of an efficient parametrization of the defining function p(ρ) of the equation of state itself. From the LIGO and Virgo data alone and the first method, we measure the two neutron star radii as R_{1}=10.8_{-1.7}^{+2.0} km for the heavier star and R_{2}=10.7_{-1.5}^{+2.1} km for the lighter star at the 90% credible level. If we additionally require that the equation of state supports neutron stars with masses larger than 1.97 M_{⊙} as required from electromagnetic observations and employ the equation-of-state parametrization, we further constrain R_{1}=11.9_{-1.4}^{+1.4} km and R_{2}=11.9_{-1.4}^{+1.4} km at the 90% credible level. Finally, we obtain constraints on p(ρ) at supranuclear densities, with pressure at twice nuclear saturation density measured at 3.5_{-1.7}^{+2.7}×10^{34} dyn cm^{-2} at the 90% level.
On August 14, 2017 at 10∶30:43 UTC, the Advanced Virgo detector and the two Advanced LIGO detectors coherently observed a transient gravitational-wave signal produced by the coalescence of two stellar mass black holes, with a false-alarm rate of ≲1 in 27 000 years. The signal was observed with a three-detector network matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 18. The inferred masses of the initial black holes are 30.5_{-3.0}^{+5.7}M_{⊙} and 25.3_{-4.2}^{+2.8}M_{⊙} (at the 90% credible level). The luminosity distance of the source is 540_{-210}^{+130} Mpc, corresponding to a redshift of z=0.11_{-0.04}^{+0.03}. A network of three detectors improves the sky localization of the source, reducing the area of the 90% credible region from 1160 deg^{2} using only the two LIGO detectors to 60 deg^{2} using all three detectors. For the first time, we can test the nature of gravitational-wave polarizations from the antenna response of the LIGO-Virgo network, thus enabling a new class of phenomenological tests of gravity.
We report on gravitational-wave discoveries from compact binary coalescences detected by Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo in the first half of the third observing run (O3a) between 1 April 2019 <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:mrow><a:mn>15</a:mn><a:mo>∶</a:mo><a:mn>00</a:mn></a:mrow></a:math> UTC and 1 October 2019 <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><c:mrow><c:mn>15</c:mn><c:mo>∶</c:mo><c:mn>00</c:mn></c:mrow></c:math> UTC. By imposing a false-alarm-rate threshold of two per year in each of the four search pipelines that constitute our search, we present 39 candidate gravitational-wave events. At this threshold, we expect a contamination fraction of less than 10%. Of these, 26 candidate events were reported previously in near-real time through gamma-ray coordinates network notices and circulars; 13 are reported here for the first time. The catalog contains events whose sources are black hole binary mergers up to a redshift of approximately 0.8, as well as events whose components cannot be unambiguously identified as black holes or neutron stars. For the latter group, we are unable to determine the nature based on estimates of the component masses and spins from gravitational-wave data alone. The range of candidate event masses which are unambiguously identified as binary black holes (both objects <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><e:mo>≥</e:mo><e:mn>3</e:mn><e:mtext> </e:mtext><e:mtext> </e:mtext><e:msub><e:mi>M</e:mi><e:mo stretchy="false">⊙</e:mo></e:msub></e:math>) is increased compared to GWTC-1, with total masses from approximately <h:math xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><h:mn>14</h:mn><h:mtext> </h:mtext><h:mtext> </h:mtext><h:msub><h:mi>M</h:mi><h:mo stretchy="false">⊙</h:mo></h:msub></h:math> for GW190924_021846 to approximately <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><k:mn>150</k:mn><k:mtext> </k:mtext><k:mtext> </k:mtext><k:msub><k:mi>M</k:mi><k:mo stretchy="false">⊙</k:mo></k:msub></k:math> for GW190521. For the first time, this catalog includes binary systems with significantly asymmetric mass ratios, which had not been observed in data taken before April 2019. We also find that 11 of the 39 events detected since April 2019 have positive effective inspiral spins under our default prior (at 90% credibility), while none exhibit negative effective inspiral spin. Given the increased sensitivity of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, the detection of 39 candidate events in approximately 26 weeks of data (approximately 1.5 per week) is consistent with GWTC-1. Published by the American Physical Society 2021