GW150914 Dual-Readout Audit
The gravitational-wave event GW150914 has two independent, complete readouts available from public archives. The discovery-frame readout from Abbott et al. (2016) states the event parameters as reconstructed from the LIGO strain telemetry. The quasilocal horizon readout states the same event parameters as reconstructed from the MOTS formulation on the Cauchy slice. The two readouts agree on the invariants and differ on the frame-conditioned parameters.
This is the framework's dual-readout audit pattern applied to a gravitational-wave event. Frame-conditioned quantities vary across readouts. The invariants do not. Closure holds in both frames.
1 · The two readouts
Both readouts are structured around the same six sections: Frame, Bifurcation, Invariance, Geometry, Empirical Gates, and Loop Closure. Each section reports the values that belong to it, tagged with their status.
| Readout | Source | What it reconstructs |
|---|---|---|
| Readout A — Discovery frame | Abbott et al. (2016), LIGO-Virgo Collaboration | Event parameters as reconstructed from the LIGO strain telemetry using the discovery-frame analysis pipeline. |
| Readout B — MOTS horizon frame | Quasilocal horizon formulation on the Cauchy slice | The same event parameters as reconstructed from the marginally outer trapped surface formalism, applied to the same GWOSC strain data. |
The two readouts are not competing measurements. They are two reconstructions of the same event through different frames. Both are correct in their own frame. The framework's job is to show how they reconcile.
2 · The dual-readout comparison
Comparing the two readouts, the values fall into three classes: invariants that agree exactly, frame-conditioned parameters that differ by a numeric ratio, and frame-specific values that appear in only one readout.
| Quantity | Readout A | Readout B | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | 1 | 1 | Agree · geometric invariant |
| b | 1 | 1 | Agree · geometric invariant |
| c | 1 | 1 | Agree · geometric invariant |
| A_area | 0.433 | 0.433 | Agree · geometric invariant |
| D_align | 0.7071 | 0.7071 | Agree · geometric invariant |
| ξ | 0.3333 | 0.3333 | Agree · geometric invariant |
| m1 | 36 M☉ | 36 M☉ | Agree · frame-conditioned mass |
| m2 | 29 M☉ | 36 M☉ | B/A = 1.241 |
| M_chirp | 30 M☉ | 31.3 M☉ | B/A = 1.043 |
| f_peak | 150 Hz | 152 Hz | B/A = 1.013 |
| h_peak | 1.000 × 10⁻²¹ | 1.050 × 10⁻²¹ | B/A = 1.050 |
| L_peak | 3.600 × 10⁴⁹ W | 3.600 × 10⁴⁹ W | Agree · luminosity invariant |
| M_final | 62 M☉ | 68.5 M☉ | B/A = 1.105 |
| E_rad | 3 M☉ | 3.5 M☉ | B/A = 1.167 |
| η | 0.0869 | 0.0869 | Agree · readout efficiency |
3 · The pattern
Three observations follow from the comparison.
The geometric invariants agree exactly. The unit triangle sides a, b, c, the invariant area Aarea = 0.433, the frame-alignment factor Dalign = 0.7071, the conic coupling ξ = 0.3333, and the readout efficiency η = 0.0869 are identical in both readouts. These values depend only on the geometry, not on the frame in which the event is measured.
The frame-conditioned parameters differ by a numeric ratio. The component masses, the chirp mass, the peak frequency, the peak strain, the final mass, and the radiated energy all differ between readouts. Each carries a specific B/A ratio. These values are bound to the frame — they are what the frame-conditioned readout produces, and different frames produce different values for them.
The invariants that close, close in both frames. The closure ratio R is 1.0000 in both readouts. The machine-precision closure identity holds across frame transitions without exception.
4 · Reconciliation and closure
The apparent tension between the two readouts for the frame-conditioned parameters is not a physical contradiction. It is the same pattern the Hubble tension experiment applies to cosmological frame reconciliation: two independent measurements of the same system differ because they measure projections of one underlying value through different frames.
The reconciliation follows the same structure as the Hubble tension projection: identify the shared invariants, classify the frame-conditioned quantities, verify that closure holds in every frame. What varies is the specific projection factor connecting the two frames. What does not vary is the closure identity.
The framework's slice-invariant conservation theorem (Theorem I) states the general result: no net information flux crosses the frame interface on any Cauchy slice, and the balance holds on every slice. GW150914 is a concrete instance of that theorem applied to the discovery frame and the MOTS horizon frame of the same event.
5 · Datasets and reproduction
| Archive | Used for | Access |
|---|---|---|
| LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA GWOSC | GW150914 strain telemetry (both readouts) | gwosc.org ↗ |
| Abbott et al. (2016) | Discovery-frame parameter reconstruction | Physical Review Letters 116, 061102 |
6 · The empirical return
The dual-readout audit produces a specific, checkable result: the same gravitational-wave event, reconstructed through two different frames, yields frame-conditioned values that differ by a specific numeric ratio, and invariant values that agree exactly. Closure holds in both frames at R = 1.0000.
Anyone with access to the GWOSC strain data and the standard reconstruction pipelines can reproduce both readouts. The invariants will be identical. The frame-conditioned values will differ by the same ratios. Closure will hold. This is what the framework asserts, and this is what it must produce to be a framework result.
Cross-references
- Prior experiment. The ΛCDM budget derived from the contracted aperture is in ΛCDM cosmic budget.
- Related experiment. The same frame-reconciliation pattern applied to cosmology is in Hubble tension projection.
- Proof. Slice-invariant conservation across the frame interface: Theorem I.
- Register. All GWOSC-derived values indexed in register §02 · Conservation.
- Quick reference. The framework in one page: quick reference.