Hello, everyone, and welcome to our second web seminar of the series of the Latin American Webinars of Physics. My name is Jorge Diaz. I'm from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, and I will be your host today. Our speaker is Ricardo Husturani from the Institute de Física Theórica in UNESCO in Brazil. And he will talk about LIGO and the exciting discovery of gravitational waves. A little bit more about our speaker. Ricardo received his PhD from the School de Normales Superiores de Pisa in Italy. And after postdoctoral positions at Helsinki, Geneva, and Urbina, he moved to UNESCO in Brazil, where he is currently a researcher working on the LIGO experiment. The title of Ricardo's talk today is Observation of Gravitational Waves from a binary blackboard merger, we're really glad to have him today as our speaker. And I remind you that all of you, all our viewers, that you can be part of the discussion by writing questions on the Q&A system of Google+. You can also reach us through Twitter with the hashtag LAWOP. So don't forget that you can answer all your questions, and Ricardo will answer at the end. So I will now hand it over to Ricardo. Hello. So thank you. Now, please explain it for you. Thank you. So thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk about these exciting news of the gravitational wave detection, the first historic gravitational wave detection from binary blackboard merger. So I will start with an introduction about gravity waves, what we knew about gravity waves before the detection, and what this detection is teaching us for the future. So let's get started with a very short general relativity primer. So I'm on slide two. I guess everything is broadcasting fine. So what is the framework? The framework is general relativity, of course. And basically, this slide is what you need to know about general relativity to grasp an understanding of gravitational waves. So we consider the metric, and we split it in something which is Minkowski plus a perturbation. This perturbation is usually small. But what is more important rather than it is more is that it's the high-frequency part. So for instance, on Earth, we have the gravitational field of the Earth, which in dimensionless quantities is 10 to the minus 8. And usually, this perturbation, we aim at detecting as much smaller. But they have a typical behavior in frequency. And that's what allows us to disentangle them from the background. So the usual approach is to linearize the Einstein equation, and then to get a kind of D'Alembert equation for the wave. So the D'Alembert equation for the wave seems to tell us that we have 10 wave equations for the 10 components. But we don't have 10 physical degrees of freedom. Because we know that four are gauge degrees of freedom. Two are really physical and radiative degrees of freedom, and actually are the ones that radiate gravitational waves. And four are still physical, but are not radiative. I mean, this is much less exotic than it may look like, because it's exactly the same thing that happens in entramagnetism. Entramagnetism is one has four degrees of freedom, one is gauge, one is constrain, and not radiative degrees of freedom. And then there are the two photons in this city, which represent the radiation. So it was not immediate. People didn't realize this immediately after Einstein wrote down the general relativity famous paper. But it was eddington in 22 that showed, and quite ironically showed, that eight of these degrees of freedom propagate with the speed of thought, in the sense that they're not physical radiative degrees of freedom. And only two are really radiative and propagate energy from the source, even though it took some more 30 years for the full of community to accept this fact. So here I hope you can see the cursor. So I'm accompanying in the formula of the slide what I'm saying. Basically, one can decompose the 10 components of the metric into taking out the gauge degrees of freedom into one scalar, which is basically the general relativistic analog of the internal potential. Then there are two degrees of freedom in this vector, one extra degrees of freedom in this scalar, and two degrees of freedom. One plus two plus one are the four constrain degrees of freedom, and these two are the real radiative gravitational wave degrees of freedom. And after we gauge fix, the radiative degrees of freedom actually fulfills a Dalambert equation. The other constrain degrees of freedom fulfill a Laplaceian equation. So they are constrained to the source. Here, for simplicity, I put the source equal to zero. So the constrain degrees of freedom are zero in absence of the source. The wave is the only one that exists in vacuum in absence of the source. So after this short introduction, I move to the description of what do gravitational waves do. So for instance, the gravitational wave is propagating in the z direction. It's transverse, and it has two polarization. The plus polarization, basically the black line here correspond to a string of test masses. It squeezes and stretches these test masses with this pattern, and the h cross polarization squeezes and stretches in this other pattern, just at 45 degrees. So this is the effect of the gravitational wave as they pass by, as they propagate energy from the source to the eventual observer. OK, and these are the pictures of the detector. So this is LIGO in the state of Washington, in the city of Hanford, actually close to the city of Hanford in the northwest of the United States. This is LIGO Livingston in the state of Louisiana near the Gulf of Mexico, and these are the two detectors that actually made the detection. And this is Virgo, which is in PISA, which has an agreement to share data and data analysis with the two LIGOs, but it wasn't on at the time of the detection. So Virgo didn't take part. The detector itself didn't take part into the detection, even though the Virgo collaboration took part in the detection as part of the data analysis team. So all of the three of this detector are now being upgraded. They've been taking data in the past, also Virgo, even though it wasn't on at the time of the detection. It has been taking data in the past. And the new science run are due to start, well, it's not clear July, August, but surely before the end of the year. The last science run, the one which eventually came up with the detection ended in January. The analysis will be completed by the end of this month. So by the end of this month, you will see the result of the four four months of analysis. The detection that was announced only happened in the first month of the analysis. And then in a few years from now, after 2020, the Japanese detector Kagura and the Indian detector Indigo will also join the collaboration. So there will really be not only two detectors as for the first detection, but really a network of five detectors. But soon we'll be having three detectors, say by the end of the year, and then two more in four years from now. How did the detector work? So this is a simple scheme. And then I will show you an animation. Basically, there is a laser. The lights go through a beam splitter and then propagates into two orthogonal arms, and then it recombines. The idea is that once it recombines, it can have a phase shift just because the length it travels into the two orthogonal paths can be slightly different. And phase shift down to 10 to the minus 8 can be measured. And the phase shift corresponds to a different optical path given by this formula where delta L is the different optical path that the laser has gone through into the two different arms in units of the wavelength of the laser. Multiply by n. This n is basically the number of effective bounces that the photons take, because this is not just a simple Michelson interferometer. But it has, OK, they are not shown here, but here there are Fabry-Perot cavities. Fabry-Perot cavities basically allow the photon to go back and forth roughly a few hundred times before actually exiting and recombining with the photons coming from the other arm. And this says that this delta phasing of 10 to the minus 8 can be translated into a difference of optical path of 10 to the minus 15 meters times 1 over n. So the more bounces we get and the lower we can go in measuring differences in optical path. And imagine this is the size of the order of a nucleus of an atom. So this may sound crazy, but bear in mind that the beam size is few centimeters square. So what one is actually measuring is not the position of individual nuclei of atoms, but the average position of a macroscopic size of the mirror. And now I want to show you a little animation. Let's see if I can show you. OK, the animation showing how, basically, when the gravitation wave pass by, it has these stretching and squeezing of the two orthogonal directions. So the optical path changes. If the optical path changes, then the intensity of the recombine light changes. And basically from the intensity of the recombine light, we can directly read the intensity of the gravitation wave. And we actually read it in real time. OK, so that's enough for this animation. Let's go back to the presentation. OK, but this is not the end of the story. I told you that in a few years we should have a network of five detectors. Actually, in 20 years from now, we should have also a space detector. So Lisa Pathfinder has been sent into space. So the idea of Lisa is to have an interferometer, very much of the kind I showed you in the previous slide, but in space. The advantage to be in space, of course, there are many disadvantages to be in space because you cannot send your favorite PhD student to go and fix the detector. But the main advantage is that you don't have environmental noise. So the mirrors over which the photon had to bounce off will not shake because of earthquakes, because of seismic activities, because of environmental noise. The idea is that if one could build an interferometer, send an interferometer into the space, this would be sensitive to much lower frequencies. So one of the three stations that would eventually build an interferometer in space has been sent to space, and it worked. But of course, this is only a technical mission. It's not a scientific mission because you cannot make an interferometer with one station. But this showed that it is, in principle, possible. And so if the mission is funded, in 20 years from now, we could have three stations having an interferometer arranged in a triangular shape. And this will allow to extend the detection to lower frequencies. But let me tell you then what are the sources and what are the typical signals we are actually aiming at. So with LIGO, we really focus on astrophysical sources.  Supermassive black holes are known to exist, and they should emit gravitational waves. But these are not the target of LIGO. They could be the target of LIZA.  I will not talk about them. We are actively searching in LIGO, but they are not very promising to show up in LIGO. So this will not be the subject of this talk. So I will concentrate on what are stellar masses, black holes as sources, and which eventually turn out to be the first source of the detected gravitational waves. OK, just to give you a ballpark of what are the numbers we are talking about. So a gravitational wave from a distribution of masses is sourced by the quadruple moment of the distribution of masses. So you have to integrate over the density weighted by two powers of the position of that mass element. And a typical quantity that is relevant for a binary system which then, as such, has a quadruple is the mutual velocity, the relative velocity. And the relative velocity is related to the total mass and to the radius, to the orbital radius by the standard Newtonian form. So the gravitational perturbation produced by this system is of the order of the second derivative of the quadruple. Just doing a little bit of algebra, you get that this is proportional, basically, to the Newtonian potential of the source times the relative velocity. But what is important, this is modulated in time. There is a typical oscillatory behavior which is generated by the circular motion of the binary system. And this is what allows us to have the detection. Because imagine the Newtonian potential, which is gm over d mu is the reduced mass here, of a system outside our galaxy would be very, very small. And the amplitude of the gravitational wave, it's even smaller than the Newtonian potential by a factor v squared. Here I'm using units of the velocity of light equal to 1. But the fact that there is this high frequency modulation, it will allow us to disentangle from other sources of gravitational perturbation. And this is to give you just the ballpark of the numbers. So for masses which are typical solar masses and radii which are 10, 15 kilometers, you get to produce a frequency for the gravitational wasting around the kilohertz. OK, don't be mistaken. Here from this formula, it seems that as you raise the mass, you get to higher frequency. But actually, it's the other way around. Why? Because you have a higher power of r.  Because when the two black holes get so close that they touch each other, then the signal ends. So actually, when you increase the masses, you also have to increase the orbital separation. And so at the end, you get a lower frequency. So higher masses means frequency that spreads up to lower frequencies. And here is also the typical velocity. So for the frequency at which LIGO is sensitive, I will show you later more in detail. So from 100 hertz, one kilohertz, you really see solar object at relativistic velocity, so which is something that has never been achieved by any other experiment, any other observation before. And finally, to conclude this general relativity background, say, on gravitational wave, this is the Einstein formula for the emission. It's just the integral of the derivative of the plus polarization plus the derivative of the cross polarization square. And if you sum the two and you substitute the V-dian vibration, then you get the flux that goes to SV to the power of 10. This nu is the dimensionless combination of the two masses, and then you have the reduced mass. So before getting into the detection by LIGO, let me spend a couple of minutes to tell you what we knew about gravitational waves before LIGO. So we knew already the gravitational wave exist and are emitted by binary system. How? Because we know that there is a double neutral star system that emits gravitational waves. How we know that? So we observe that neutral star binary is because neutral star, which are pulsar, they emit a radio beam like in a lighthouse. This radio beam is hitting on us once every cycle. And the modulation of this light beam tells us that the pulsar which is emitting this light is in a binary. So most of the pulsar we observe are not in binary system. We observe 1,000 pulsar which are not in binary system.  And we can observe that they are in binary system just because the time of arrival of the lighthouse is modulated as it should be for this binary to be in a periodic orbital motion. So there are a few parameters that we can observe by this modulation of the time of arrival of the light beam, which is basically the projection of the semi-major axis of the orbit in the plane perpendicular to the observer. The eccentricity on this orbit, the period of the orbit, the period shift, the Einstein delay. And most importantly, we observe the derivative of the period of the orbit. So we observe that this system is not conservative. We observe that this system is changing its orbit in time. So from all of these parameters and using the first post Newtonian order, the post Newtonian at first order level physics, we can infer the mass of the primary and the mass of the companion, the mass of the two co-signants of the binary system. So we really have to use GR, Newtonian physics, not enough. So from all of these observations, we can measure the two individual masses. From the measure of the individual masses, we can plug in the Einstein formula and get the prediction for the derivative of the period. So I will show you in the next slide a comparison between the prediction of the time derivative of the period and the observation of the time derivative of the period. And the comparison is done by plotting the following quantity, basically the accumulated phase. If the system was exactly conservative, the accumulated phase would be linear in time. But since the period is varying, we can do it. We can make a theory of expansion. And we will see a quadratic behavior on the top of the linear behavior in the expansion of the phase as a function of time. Let me stress once more. All of these relies on the first post Newtonian order. So the first correction to Newtonian physics predicted by generativity in the conservative sector. And we rely on the leading order, flux formula, then in the dissipative sector. So you can recognize this formula for the energy.  The kinetic energy is minus 1 half the potential energy. So for a circular orbit, the energy is minus the kinetic energy. But this formula receives correction in generativity to all orders of v squared. And we also have to use the flux. Using the first post Newtonian order correction given by generativity and the leading prediction for the flux, we can predict the derivative of the period. We compare to the derivative of the period which is observed. And this is the beautiful result that showed already many years ago that binary systems do emit gravitational wave as predicted by generativity. And this is the accordance between the prediction and the observation. And all of these binary systems have a typical velocity of 10 to the minus 3 in units of the speed of light. And there are a few hundred million years from coalescence. So we are talking about objects in mass, stellar mass objects that have periods of hours and with the velocity of 10 to the minus 3, which is very large, but still far for the real strong gravity energy. So this was about what we knew about gravitational wave before the LIGO detection. What we knew about the decals. So let me go a bit quick, because I see I spent a lot of time on the preliminary material. So we observed black holes in a galaxy of black holes of roughly up to 20 solar masses. We know that the center of our galaxy we have a black hole of 1 million solar masses. And we know that galaxies not ours, but galaxies having active galactic nuclei, they can host supermassive black holes up to 1 billion solar masses. And finally, let's go to the LIGO observation. So what I'm showing right now is the output of LIGO. Remember, the light intensity output of LIGO at the time of the detection. So 0 has been chosen as the time of the detection. And this is not what has been shown in the press release, because it looks very ugly. And the output is very, very noisy. And as you can see, there is noise with all frequency components. And just to help you to visualize the blue little line, this is the level of the signal. This is the level of the signal in the output of the detector. So it sounds ridiculously small. So I will try now to explain you how we actually dig this out. Well, this is a zoom. So again, in this scale, the blue is the gravitational wave signal. And red and green are the output of the two detectors. It's completely swamped out by the noise. But as you can see, the noise contains contribution at all frequencies. So you see this oscillation on the time scale of a few tens of seconds. But at every instant, there are very wide oscillations at much higher frequencies. So what we can do is take the Fourier transform and look at the noise, how it looks like. And as you can see, there are frequencies in which the noise is under control and very narrow frequencies in which the noise springs up. These are basically related to the fact that the mirrors are suspended and the suspensions have their own resonant frequencies. So whatever noise excites the resonant modes that will show up very strongly, but very sharply. So it would be relatively easy to chop this frequency out and get rid of them. And as you can see, at low frequencies, it's hopeless. Below 20 hertz, basically, there's too much noise. It's not even worth to look at the data below this, just because the mirrors start to oscillate, responding to environmental noise. Whereas at high frequency, the limited noise is a laser shot noise. So let's do the following. Let's divide. Let's go to frequency space. We divide by the average noise and then go back. By the way, this is the noise level that the two LIGOs had at the time of the detection. This is the noise level that LIGO had in 2000. The LIGO had five years ago at the time of the last data taking. And this brown line is the level of the signal that has been actually detected. As you can see, the signal would have been barely detectable. Basically, it would have been taken for some spurious noise with the sensitivity of five years ago, whereas it's really well above the noise level with the nowadays sensitivity. Just to give you a comparison, this light blue line is the sensitivity of Virgo five years ago. So just to show you one of the last light about the signal, so this is the signal representing a mixed time frequency space. So two slides ago, I showed you the signal in time domain, then the spectrum, which is basically the power of the signal in frequency space. And this is the power of the signal divided at each time, basically making it fully transform at each time being. As you can see, if you just take the signal, you only see the noise lines. But then if you normalize by the average noise, this is what you can see. And you can see that among the noise, there is a concentration of high power at some time. And then the concentration raises in frequency, get to a maximum frequency, and then it ends. This is exactly what we expect from a gravitational wave from a binary. When the two binaries are approaching, we get the radius of the orbit is shrinking, the frequency is going up, and the intensity of the signal is going up. So after subtraction of the noise or better said, whitening, we get this. But we can do better. OK, this is the output of the sector back in time domain after the whitening. As you can see, I mean, you can see by naked eye that there is a signal. Red and green line are the white and output of the sector. And the black line is the best fit of our model. Again, white and. I mean, the generativity model doesn't have these bumps and kinks. These bump and kinks just come from the fact of the whitening. But I mean, if you compare the white and prediction on generativity to the white and output of the data, we really get good agreement. And trying prediction on generativity for all kinds of masses, this is the values that we can get with the 10% accuracy. We can measure individual masses of the binary components. We can get an estimate of the distance to get this level of amplitude of the signal. So now let me try to explain you how do we get to this best fit waveform. OK, this best fit waveform, we can only measure the masses and not the speed. Well, how do we get to the best fit waveform? We get to the true mechanism that is called match filtering. So match filtering is something that you should be more familiar with than you may think of. It's the same thing that you do when you turn the handle of a radio to catch your station. If you look at randomly at the broadcasting signal, you only hear noise. Whereas if you get to the right frequency, then you can dig the signal out of the noise. How this is done quantitatively? In the following way, you get the output of the detector, which would be signal plus noise. And by the way, the signal is a scalar component for the output of the detector. So the signal will be a suitable combination of the metric entries. And then we characterize the noise by spectral density, that spectral density with those spikes that I showed you before. The idea of match filtering is the following. If we take a correlation of the output of the detector with a pre-computed signal, and if this pre-computed signal is exactly the same as the signal which is in the data, when they take the product, we get a term which is always positive because it's the square of a quantity, and a term that can oscillate. And basically the term which is always positive can outcome this other term, even though instantly, at every instant of time, the noise is larger than H. But this integral of the correlation of noise with signal can be smaller than the integral of H square. So to give you an example, these are the raw output of the detector. And this, we take the correlation with the waveform. And this is the waveform that actually maximizes the correlation. When we take the correlation with the best waveform, we do retain this spike in the correlation. How do we know that that's the best? OK, let me show you another animation. Just a second, I have to load the animation. OK, yes, this is the animation. Because if we vary, you see here, I'm just to play with. I let the two masses of the binary constituent vary. You keep in fix the total mass. I just vary the ratio of the two masses. And this is how it affects the waveform. As you can see, the waveform changed shape. So when you take the correlator, the output of the correlator will be very sensitive to the specific shape of the waveform. So in other words, the specific masses of the waveform and the shape of the waveform bears the fingerprint of the masses of the progenitors. So let me go back to the main presentation then. And so basically, just by trying all possible waveforms that we can generate based on general relativity, we can check what is the one that is the best correlator. And that, by definition, is the one that allow us to determine those data. So just to summarize, we observe a system that when the orbital radius is larger than the individual size, then we are in this parallel region. Then we get to a distance where the two objects are basically at a distance comparable to the individual size. Then they merge. And then you get one final object, one final curve which is highly oscillating. And then it settles down by emitting gravitation wave. So we observe a kind of six cycle in the spiral. Then we observe the merger. And then the ring down settles down very, very quickly. And you know this process is basically emitting the last, just in this last oscillation, it emitted three solar masses in gravitational wave energy. And you can see from the green line, oops, sorry, that it actually reached a velocity of 50% of the speed of light. So what do we learn, in theory, about fundamental gravity, about from this system? Well, we have to remember how we model the three phases. So we have a phase of an inspirer, where the two black holes are separated one from the other, which allows an analytical understanding in terms of post-intone approximation to generativity, where the parameter of the expansion is the velocity, which is a good parameter of the expansion because it's smaller than 1. I mean, the relative velocity. When they do object merge, of course, this approximation is no longer valid because first, we reach relative velocity. And second, the idea that you have two separate objects doesn't hold anymore.  And that also allows a perturbative description. So the idea is to merge these three descriptions. And the merging of these three descriptions is done here in the analytical side. And then for the last 5, 6 orbit, which are actually crucial for this detection, is done through a numerical solution to generate relativity equation. And let me just focus for the sake of clarity to the inspirer part, which allows an analytical understanding. So all what I want to stress here that all, like in the case of parser, all what you need to know, to know, to understand the dynamics of the binaries is the energy and flux function. This is the energy and function with post internal correction. And this is the flux function thanks to post internal correction. The idea is that to do this mesh filtering and so to correlate the gravitational wave with the data, you need them to compute the phase. And you need to compute the phase with high accuracy. So how you compute the phase? Knowing the dynamics. So the phase is the integral of the phase derivative. And this is trivial. But then let's just make a change of variable. This, instead of dT, we have a dE in dV divided by dE in dT in dV. But dE in dV is exactly the derivative of the energy function. The power emitted is exactly the flux. So if you plug your knowledge of the dynamics into this phasing formula, you see that this phasing formula naturally comes in a series expanded in dV. And as you can see, since we want to correlate with the data, we need the phase to be known with order 1 accuracy. And this means that this high order correction are important because here we have 1 over v to the 6 at the denominator in the leading behavior. So we really need high order correction. So this is to stress that the phasing determination, which is crucial for doing the mesh filtering, is sensitive to high correction of general relativity. So it's very much different from the binary Pulsar case when you only need the first order correction. And what is important here is that this coefficient, which are predicted by general relativity, they depend then on the fundamental theory, but they also depend on the individual masses and properties of the system. So they depend both on the astrophysical parameter and on the general relativity parameter. So these are the so-called post-neutonic coefficients. So let me skip this. And so this post-neutonic coefficient could indeed be measured. So these delta phi's are post-neutonic coefficient at 0, 0.5, 1 PM, 1.5, could indeed be measured to some level of accuracy. But as you can see, the level of accuracy is not allowed. These delta phi's are for order 1. And we could measure them to order 1 precision. Why? Because we only one detection. And as I said, those coefficients depends, yes, on general relativity and on the parameter, astrophysical parameter. So if you want to get a better precision, we need to pile up several detection. However, as you can see, the binary in the triangle that determined the precision with which the binary Pulsar could fix those parameters, well, binary Pulsar could not say anything beyond first post-neutonic order. Just because the velocity there was 10 to the minus 3, so all post-neutonic order that involves higher power or velocity was completely undetermined. Another good test that was possible to be done with this detection, that is really the new thing that was never observed before, is about the merger and the rundown. So if you use the general relativity equation, you can predict the final mass and the final spin of the final black hole through the inspired phase. But then you can also measure the final mass on the final spin, because you know that the perturbed curve black hole will have a typical decay of its emission, which is related to the final mass on the final spin. And then you can check that the two predictions from the inspired phase, which is done through general relativity, and the measure of the final mass on the spin, sorry, this is the measure of the final mass and spin from the signal itself. And this is the prediction of the final mass and the spin from the inspired part. The two are consistent. So still there is room for something which is not GR, but there's absolutely no need so far of explaining there's no deviation that we observe from GR. OK, and this is the result of the Monte Carlo that had been tried by producing millions of waveforms and see what are the probability distribution function for the mass 1 and mass 2 for the measure. So let me skip now the rest of the details. And now I'm getting to the end of the talk. Just wanted to show you what is the distance reach of the LIGO detectors given the total mass of the system. So the distance reach in luminosity distance in megaparsec is in the observing around it and in general is this blue line, which you see is well better. This is a factor of three or four better than the distance reach of the detector that took data until five years ago. And the green line is the prediction for two years from now. So this is the portion of the universe that we aim to explore with an advanced detector. Of course, as you raise the masses of the sources, you can see too far the distances. So the signal, for instance, that we saw, it had a total mass of roughly 60. And it was detected at the distance of roughly 400 megaparsec. And from this, we can infer what is the rate of this kind of event. Of course, with one event, the uncertainty is large. But we can infer that the rate of event is of the order of 10 100 event per giga-parsec cube per year. And you have to compare with the fact that in 1 giga-parsec cube, there are about 20 million galaxies. OK, this is the region of the sky where the system, the signal, has been localized to come from. And you have to consider this is done through triangulation. So as the word says, you would need, in principle, three detectors to pinpoint a point in the sky. With two detectors, you have this degeneracy, the position in the sky. So there are far too many galaxies to be able to know which is the galaxy that hosted the system. OK, then there are, I don't have time to go into the astrophysics detail or what are the models of the progenitor, but these are still very, very unknown. The only thing I can say now is that the repeated detection on gravitational waves will help to disentangle which is the model of the progenitor. But for the moment, we really don't know if it was, the binary system was already a binary when they were stars, and then they became called by collapse or supernovae, and they stayed binary, and then they eventually merged. Or if they were isolated black holes that happened to encounter later in their life, that we still don't know. And so I'm almost at the conclusion. Sorry, I want to conclude on leaving you with a slide. Sorry, my computer is low now to change the slide. OK, I want to leave you with this slide that summarizes basically all the known facts about the gravitational wave detection. Thank you. I'm taking question now. Thanks, Ricardo, for this very nice presentation on this fascinating topic. Make sure that it is working properly. OK, so as I said, Ricardo, thanks again for the very nice presentation, and let's move on to questions. So let me first start with anybody on the handout. Do you have any questions that you'd like to pass to Ricardo? Because I see that Roberto has a few questions. I don't know if you want to go directly. Yeah, I have some questions for Ricardo. So let's see. I have a note here that's like, one question is like, when you mentioned that you have this 10 to 2 megaparsec like the horizon that you can observe with gravitational wave, do you have some kind of estimation of how many events you could observe with advanced LIGO? OK, so in the following year, how many great news? Yes. OK, so the point is that astrophysical estimation that we had before the detection, they said that they spanned five orders of magnitude, and they reached the top rate that was predicted was about 10 per gigaparsec cube per year, the number of call essences. As you can see, they were basically wrong. I mean, because now we constrained the measured rate of this event. Of course, it has still to order magnitude uncertainty because with one event we had used statistics, of course. But still, we are constraining the rate number of these events to something that is already in the very top of the previous astrophysical prediction. So this is just to say that astrophysical prediction were just not trustworthy, but that we knew in advance because the prediction that has five orders of magnitude uncertainty is clear that it wasn't completely trustworthy. So this is the rate. So how many of these we can see? Well, for example, for high masses, we can go and see things up to gigaparsec. The blue line is the sensitivity of the last run. The green line is the future runs. So if you go beyond the gigaparsec, then the event rate can really be 100 per year for these high masses, and then consequently smaller for low masses. There is a question that we have also from Nicolas. So I will read the question for you, Ricardo. So he says on the slides, 11 and 12, what is H and L? So it looks like you have label H and label L in your slide. Yes, those are M4 and Nibbiston. M4 and Nibbiston? OK, so they're labeled to stand for the two detectors. Yes. OK, so that was easy. Droer, do I think you have more questions? Hi, yeah, yeah, regarding to the, maybe with this also, these plots, when you were explaining this, how it works, the interferometer, just I was wondering is there are some kind of, the detector has some kind of blind spot to some directions, some arrival of direction always has a kind of, it kind of observed all the three, I mean all the solid sphere, all the direction. Sure, good question, yes. I forgot to put this slide on the next presentation. OK, the idea is that if you go back to the interferometer. So then, suppose if the wave arrives exactly perpendicular to the detector, then you have maximum sensitivity. But if the wave arrives, say at 45 degrees here, then you're completely blind to H plus, but not blind to H cross. So yes, there is a modulation with the position in the sky. And yes, there are spots in the sky where you're blind, but these are very, very narrow. So basically, you have modulation within a factor of few in the sky, to which you are more or less sensitive. But the spots to which you are blind are narrow. There are, say, 10% of the sky. The thing is that the two LEGO detector are oriented in exactly the same way. In order to have the same sensitivity to any position in the sky, this is done, of course, because you want to take coincidences between the two detectors. This will not decays when you add new detectors. So adding new detectors, those blind spots in the sky will be covered by the other detectors. So to have a full coverage of the sky. OK, did I answer your question? No, yeah, yeah, this is the idea. It's like to have the interplay between the two interferometers to be the most efficient possible. So any direction? Yeah, so just to stress the point, if you have only two detectors, it's better to orient them in exactly the same way. So if you orient them in exactly the same way, the blind spot of one will be the blind spot of the other. So if anything comes from that spot, it's lost. Still, it's better to do this way because you want to take coincidences. Because you have so much noise that you cannot trust the detection made only by one detector. So if with two detectors, suppose you orient them differently, so you have no blind spot. But then suppose the signal comes from a blind spot of one of the two, you do nothing with that trigger. Because it's a single detector trigger. You cannot do anything. You have too much noise, you just want the detector. You really have to have the coincidences. So with only two detectors, it makes no sense to have different orientation. Because you need the same orientation to be able to confirm one another. With more detectors, then it will make a lot of sense to cover the blind spot. I have a question. Are there is a question? Yes, from Alejandro. Alejandro. I don't, Ricardo. Thank you for the talk. So there is a window of masses where these sources could potentially be due to, this gravitational wave could potentially be due to dark matter or some primordial black hole source or something like that.  Well, this is gravity of polyparticles, basically. I mean, when the size of the object comes, it's at the merger. And here, you see, the merger happens exactly at the time when spark shield black holes should meet. So if the black holes are made from, I mean, if they're black holes, their size is fixed by their mass. So they have to merge at that point. If they're not black holes, if they're extended, then they would merge at a different point. But that is excluded. Because this is exactly the signal that generativity foresees. Then, about the formation of the black hole, then it's another story. I mean, once you have black holes, this is the signal. What formed them? Then we are open-minded. The only thing that you have to keep in mind is that the mass we are sensitive to is these ones, from few masses to a few hundred solar masses, from a few solar masses to a few hundred. So let me maybe rephrase this in a better way. So what if you don't see the number of signals that you should see with the expected rate, or the expected abundance of this type of black holes in the non-universe? With that, what can you conclude from that? Or is there anything you can conclude from that? I mean, you've already observed one. You've observed this event. But now you expect to observe more. What if you don't observe that many more? Even no more? Well, let me stress once more. The astrophysical prediction, we are very uncertain. We don't have a model for the formation of binaries. So basically, the astrophysical prediction were consistent with having zero deductions. So now we have this lower bound for the rate. And if future data are inconsistent with this, well, then we have a problem that maybe our detection was just a very, very erratic event that happens in the tail on the distribution. But I mean, we'll see. But I mean, now we saw something in the very first week. We turned on the detector with this sensitivity. So I mean, if that's the case, that it was a very rare event in the tail distribution, we'll learn pretty soon. The most common scenario is that we keep seeing things with this kind of rate. Thank you. So regardless, we do have a few extra questions that people have been sending to the Q&A system in Google Plus. So we have a question from Diego Rastrepo. He asks, how many events for neutron star and neutron star merger are expected per year, every year? Well, again, the astrophysical predictions are smaller than this. So the point is that neutron star and neutron star, you can see them to lower distance, to shorter distance, because they are less massive. So the total mass of the neutron star and neutron star system is about three solar masses. So if you get three solar masses to the distance reach of LIGO, then you get basically 100 megaparsec for optimal orientation. If the orientation is not optimal, you can get even less. And then you have to count how many binary system you have up to 100 megaparsec. Well, consider the galaxy density that you have with it. You have 20 million galaxies per megaparsec. Consider that in, OK, you do the math now. We can see neutron star and neutron star binary up to, say, a bit less than 100 megaparsec. Then you can count the number of galaxies that you have there. We know that in a typical galaxy like ours, we have 10, 100 coalescences of neutron star per mega year. Per mega year. And then you get the number. So neutron star and neutron star are considered, they come out to be less than this rate. OK. There is actually another question. There's another question from Diego. He asked about the masses of the black holes. He says, are the masses of the black holes compatible with a statistical expectations? So he basically wants to know, how natural are these 30 solar masses? Well, again, the point is, OK, let me make one point clear. I'm not a traditional astrophysicist. I am a gravitational astrophysicist. So until one month ago, two months ago, gravitational astrophysicist was kind of oxymoron. Now it's not anymore. So now we have kind of equal status than traditional astrophysicists. I mean, it's not very common just because they have not been observed so far. Solar masses of 30, 40, 50s in solar masses. Bias there. But exactly, there could be some as biases with the observations that used to spot those low masses black holes. And sincerely, I mean, we run an experiment. We don't have to have prejudices about what are the sources out there. We have to detect whatever natural glaciers we give us. So frankly, since the model of bioinformation are so poorly understood, and let me stress this, there are few competing models. We don't know. Maybe all of them are important in different galaxies. Maybe one of them will be picked at the end. We don't know. So what are the predictions? I mean, it's at this level. I mean, once we make 20 detections, then we might be able to select a model over the other. But for the time being, I think we should be really, really, really open-minded. OK. We do have another question here from Bernardo Inseca. He says, he introduced a slide number 31. So he says, on a slide 31, on the source position, with just a time of arrival of two detectors, one would mainly predict that you could only plug a full ring on the sky as a source position. How was it possible to get more information about the source? Exactly. Now, a very good question. In principle, from the time of arrival, you get a ring. But you also get the amplitude. So as I said, just qualitatively, I didn't put any slide. But the sensitivity to every position in the sky is slightly different. Since the signal is so loud, it's very unlikely that the signal came from a position in the sky, which is still in the ring of a loud position from the time delay, but would be modulated by, would have a projection into the detector that would decrease its amplitude. So this is basically the intersection of the ring in the sky with the point in the sky which have maximal projection into the detector. So it is a combination of time delay and consistency of the amplitude. OK. Actually, Reneva has another question. He says, can lego detect a signal from any orientation of the plane of the binary system? For example, a perpendicular plane relative to the line of sight. So he's basically concerned about where the plane of the process is going on. Yes. This has to do with the extra nature of, so I'm trying to broadcast my face now. I don't know if I'm getting there. OK. But this has to do to the very nature of gravitational waves. Now, Reneva, in electromagnetic, the main emission is given by the dipole. And so the dipole is related to one line. And since, basically, you can have direction. And since electromagnetic waves are transverse, you can have two directions which are both orthogonal to the dipole. In gravity waves, the main emission is related to a quadrupole. So a quadrupole is defined by a plane. So you can never be, basically, by motion in the plane. And the motion in each of the two directions on the plane generates transverse waves. So you can never be orthogonal to both transverse waves generated by both motion on the plane. So basically, it's never zero. So wherever you look from, the emission is never zero. It's not like a dipole emission. A quadrupole emission is never zero. Then what happens is that the projection of this emission onto the detector can have zero effect just because of symmetry on the two arms. So those are the blind spots. But wherever you look at the source from, that is never zero, unlike from the dipole emission. The quadrupole emission is never zero. It's modulated within a factor of two, but it's never zero. Then it can get to zero once you project it on a specific detector orientation. Oh, sorry. This is qualitative. I didn't put the whole formula on that. But this is the qualitative idea. So that ends up with a run of questions from the audience. I want to make sure that nobody else has a question from the people who are here. I have a simple question. Yes, I have a simple question. What happens when the masses are very large? Why does the sensitivity go down? OK. When the masses are very large, what happens is that the object, which we assume are black holes, they also get fat, fatter and fatter. If they get fatter and fatter, even if they go at the speed of light, it will take longer to go around one or the other. And then if it takes longer, then the frequency will be smaller. If the frequency will be smaller, then you'll hit the noise, basically. So this is the signal of this binary system. So if it was originated by larger masses, then it would be, for a given distance, it would be higher. Because, of course, mass is the source of gravity. So larger mass, it would be higher. But it would move to the left. Because when the two black holes would touch, so the signal would end when they would have been at a larger distance, when the two center would have been at a larger distance. So at a smaller frequency, the signal would end. So if you increase the masses, then you move the signal to the left and to the upper part. And then eventually, you hit the noise at lower frequency of the detector, which doesn't allow you to see anything anymore. Great. So anybody else for the question? We have many interesting questions. So if there are no more questions, well, we thank Ricardo again. And also all of you, all the viewers, we will meet again soon for another Latin American webinar of physics. Then we remind you that you can also check for calendars in our website at lophysics.gorepress.com. And also for updates, you can also look for us on Facebook and also on Twitter. But also, don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel where all these thoughts will be available for future views. OK, so thanks Ricardo again. Thank you everyone, and see you next time. Thank you.


Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pedro Rodriguez Almeida. I am the head of infrastructure and urban development industries at the World Economic Forum and I would like to welcome you all on behalf of the World Economic Forum to this press conference on the launch of our strategic infrastructure initiative report on operations and maintenance. World Economic Forum has been working in this topic for the past three years and we built a knowledge series on strategic infrastructure covering the three building blocks of project origination, project delivery and now operations and maintenance, particularly the volume that we are launching today has a lot to do with what goes on in the world. Existing infrastructure stock, in fact, can be optimized for its usability. It's not always wise to build new, if existing infrastructure can be refurbished and be put to operation with benefits to the end users and that substantially decreases the amount of new money that has to be injected either by governments or the private sector. It just makes business sense. It makes sense in terms of society to look at this type of operation and maintenance strategies on how you can optimize the existing utilization of assets, particularly the report that you have on your desks. It's titled, Steps to Operate and Maintain Infrastructure Effectively and Efficiently. It's a report that is done in collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group. It very much follows an approach with practical guidance to governments on how they can look at these challenges, but also as opportunities to look at their existing infrastructure and also to balance the need to invest in green fields or new infrastructure or, on the contrary, with infrastructure that is already in place that can be upgraded, refurbished or simply changed in terms of how you operate and service it on a daily basis. The report very much brings together simple ideas that can be properly digested not only for specialists but also for government officials and specialists in the public administration. It's not meant to be a detailed technical compendium of what are all the requirements, all the details of operation and maintenance but rather to focus on a number of strategies and these strategies, they can either be implementation strategies like maximize the utilization of an asset or enhance quality for users to name two or they can be enablement strategies, for example to ensure funding to build capabilities or to reform governance. The report itself has a number of case studies that were collected across the world. It covers mainly what we call economic infrastructure but it has also a number of examples on social infrastructure, on the best practices on how operation and maintenance can be included in social infrastructure. So without further ado on the report itself, you will have the press release and you have it with you. I would like to introduce the panel. We have Minister Roy of the Panama Canal Affairs on my extreme left. We have Rashad Kaldani, Executive Vice President of Emerging Markets, Kester Depwey-Parnia of Quebec in Canada. We have Lee McIntyre, Executive Chairman of CH2M Hill and myself, Pedro Rodrigo Zambaida from the World Economic Forum. I would like to ask Minister Roy to provide some initial remarks. He is of course familiar with the work that we produce. We have prepared a specific case study on the Panama Canal and I would very much invite you Minister Roy to share your insights. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here and introducing this very fine technical report. It's been the product of many, many hours of work by many institutions. I think it's going to be a very fantastic piece of technical report for all the people involved in the process of maintenance. Just for the Panama Canal, I just want to mention briefly that maintenance is really one of our main jobs every day. This is a process that has been going on since 1914 when this waterway started. I want to mention a couple of things so you have an idea of the value of maintenance. The process of maintenance at the canal is very, very structured. It's not like we're going to go ahead and if something broke we're going to do maintenance on it. No, this is a process. It's all preventive maintenance, absolutely everything is preventive maintenance. It's a very rigorous progress and a very rigorous project. Now, for example, many people don't understand that when the canal, they forget, they're not aware that when the canal was built, the technique of reinforced concrete was just starting in the world. And also, electricity, AC electricity was just starting as a worldwide business. As a matter of fact, we had a very little company that this was their first big job, was called General Electric. They did the first, the Panama Canal was their first big job and they did a very good job certainly for many years. Now, the concrete that was used in the canal was not even 2,500 PSI strong and it has lasted a hundred years. And the reason is that we have been doing maintenance on it for a long time. Now the new concretes are specified very expensively to have all kinds of mixes, more cement, more additives, lots of things. But our original concrete, really, if you look at it, was a very poor concrete but very well maintained. So that's why I stress the fact that Panama Canal is mainly a maintenance operation.  But the ones we have are called miter gates because they close at an angle. They have several reasons for it in those days. It will apply the pressure from the water and close them very well. So it has a lot of technical detail of why they did it that way. Now we're doing it differently for some other technical reasons. I'm not going to get into that but what I want to stress is that those gates lasted 85 years on rack and pinion levers. If you went there, the gear was, I don't know, maybe from that wall to you. That was the diameter. It was a huge wheel and with a very little one that was only acted upon by a 40 horsepower motor, electric motor and it was an incredible thing that lasted for 85 years. When it was broken, it was due to excessive and incredible maintenance. Now they have been changed for hydraulic systems. So I just want to close my remark saying that maintenance is key and I hope this report will give an insight of all the work that we have done and we can also learn a lot from the other participants in the forum. Thank you very much. Thank you minister Roy. I would like to ask Rashad Kaldani to give also his insights particularly from an investor side that has a large pension fund that is interested in infrastructure. Indeed Pedro. Thank you. I think this is very timely report because as I traveled around the region over the last four or five months I hear from country to country the huge needs for further investments in infrastructure and as Riley pointed out, there is a lot of benefits to be acquired from new infrastructure but also from maintaining existing infrastructure but this report focuses on the latter and I would like to bring up why from an investor such as CDPQ which has $200 billion under management and is looking for this asset class infrastructure why this is so important. We actually like to buy existing assets because they are relatively low risk. They provide current income but we are long term investors so we look for assets that last 10, 20, 30 years and obviously there the whole issue of operations and maintenance is critical. So we have already $8 billion in this class of infrastructure. We are now actively looking to expand on that in the emerging markets and I think this report is very timely in bringing out some very practical steps to keep the value up and to attract long term investors such as CDPQ and other institutional investors. Thank you Rashad. Lee, I would like to have also your insights on particularly as you are the executive chairman of a large design engineering and construction project management company very close also to what the canal is going to be today. Well, Mr. Roy's comments on the canal kind of sum it up. If you think about it, if they had not had maintenance, design life was probably 20, 30 years so they would have to build three or four canals. Think of the expenditure based there so it kind of sums up the value of this report is excellent. If there is anything more exciting than infrastructure it is O and M. That was a joke by the way. We have learned at this conference that long term financing and local currencies is the issue for Latin America. Trillion dollar shortfall at least. Well, if you learn from this report that actually a big bulk of that, part of that shortfall could be taken care of by sustainability, resource, asset allocation and O and M and existing projects. To me what operation of maintenance is, it's resource management, it's asset management and it's data. For example, there's a lot of projects around the world now that are redoing pipelines, gas pipelines because people have forgotten where they're built. They were built 60 years ago, they've held up well on their own for 60 years, but now they're starting to leak. During that time since we lost the data, don't have the data, houses have been built over the gas lines. So it's created a whole new issue. If the projects had been, had a plan for asset management and resource management, a lot of cost could have been eliminated. So this report is just excellent. Thank you, Lee. I would like now to open the press conference for the journalists that are here in the room. I would like you to please clearly identify yourself and to stand up and say your name and also your affiliation. Also please make one question at a time. Make it clear. And also if you have a particular preference in the panel to answer that question also indicate and I will moderate that answer together with the panelists. Please take the mic. Mariela Palacios from Capital Financiero. The question is for Mr. Roy. We would like to know the cost of maintenance for the Panama metro system if you have estimates already. The maintenance of the metro, which we shall inaugurate on Saturday. It's our first line here in Panama. The total cost and we will talk first about total cost, the operational cost and maintenance, power, energy, administrative costs. It'll be about $50 million by law when we drafted the law for the metro. The first thing we did was to establish a provision stating that at least 20% of revenue shall be allocated to maintenance. Therefore, that contract for the maintenance work will run. I have to check the exact final numbers because we have several maintenance contracts, but the largest one is the contract for the actual moving equipment, the trains, the equipment, etc. That contract is probably, it's probably around $9 million. The others are smaller contracts for cleaning exterminator costs, just smaller contracts for the rest of the operation. But the largest one is for the moving equipment. We have very new sophisticated equipment and we shall provide good maintenance for it. Thank you. I have a question for Minister Roy. This is Henry Greenes from Oxford Business Group. Minister Roy, line three. There are two options on the table. Monorail and light train, like line one and two. There are also two opinions, an engineering opinion and a financial opinion. Under your view, what is the best option for line three? A monorail or light train? Thank you. Yeah, this is a very interesting question because we're going to go ahead with the monorail for line three. And there are many specific reasons for this. The monorail has the capacity to go up a steeper slope. Okay? We have two problems on the monorail is going to the west. That means going over the Panama Canal. So we need to build a new bridge and then we need to go and negotiate all the hills that we have some hills on the other side. And if we did not use a monorail, we would have had to build lots of tunnels, okay? So when we made the calculations in the total cost and the benefits, the monorail came on top. There are new monorails because some people think in their mind that the monorails are like a Disney World thing. Yeah, they do. As a matter of fact, I did too at the beginning. But no such a thing. There are new monorails with lots of capacity and they have been used for some years now in Tokyo and in other places. Now they're built one in Sao Paulo, Brazil. So well, we had the problem of the hills and also we had the problem that we're going to put the monorail station on top of the metro station. So we can have a vertical transfer. Okay? So now when the monorail goes out from Albrook, if you know Panama, it is in Albrook, we have an airport that we have to take care of. So the monorail cannot go the train or whatever we would have put there, cannot start slowly going up because then you meet the approximation cone of the airport. So we had to go low at the beginning and then suddenly rise up and the only equipment that could do that fast enough was the monorail. So those were the two reasons that we use a monorail instead of a light train. Please take your mic. Buenos. Good afternoon, Mr. I'm William Espinosa, AAP Business Magazine. What's the status of the Panama Canal project right now and the final investment? Line one, no, the Panama Canal. Changing subjects? Okay, there are several contracts. Let me explain this. There's a contract for dredging. Many contracts for dredging. The dredging has been done by our big companies, dredgers in the world, Boscalis, Jan Denul, international dredging, dredging international, et cetera. So that's one part of the thing is the dredging. The other ones are excavations in dry land. Okay, so there are other companies that have that. Then we have the Pacific Access Channel, which is another contract.  Okay, now the LOX contract, which is the one that has been in the news, it is a $3.2 billion contract. And on your question of financing, one of the issues that we have been discussing here are the advances that we gave to the contractor. First of all, the first $600 million of advances, it is written in the contract. So there is nothing to change there. It's $600 million. And what is that money for? It's for all the equipment that they had to buy at the beginning. They had to buy immense equipment to manufacture concrete, okay? That's one of them, trucks, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So a lot of this money is for equipment, maybe 400 or close to 500 million or the 600 million was used for all the equipment that was needed. And then the rest was used for what is called mobilization. They have to install all these things, et cetera. Now, on top of the 600, we have given them 184 more. So that's $784 million, that's the one that we have advanced up to now. And the discussion that we had before with the contractor was that contractors felt that they had rights to claim X number of dollars for this, for that, for that, okay? Our only position, and we maintained it, and it was the position that stuck is the, we told them you should go through the procedure. And the procedure is clearly spelled in the contract. They wanted to do a deal outside of the contract and say, okay, let's make a deal for X million. And we said, zero, no, we don't go for that. So if you wanna do, if you wanna get money, you sure can get money if you convince the dispute adjudication board to give you that money or then later in arbitration. So at the end of about two, three months of going back and forth, you all read about it in the newspapers. I think that we finally convinced the contractors that first of all, we were acting in good faith and that we were not trying to short change them. And that the way to go was by the rules and that if they think that they have the right and that they are right on what they are asking for, they'll be able to get it there. And then we made some other deal here, which is very key. And this was the deal maker for the finish of the conflict. It was at the insurance company made available through backing some European banks, $400 million, which is very unusual. I have spoken to many people in the industry and the insurance industry and practically the Zurich America, that's the name of the company, Zurich America has done something for us very good. And in the international scene, kind of unusual because they practically took the risk already for something that hasn't happened. I mean, that bond is in case the contractor goes broke and the job start stops, but they went ahead and helped us making available this money for the contractors now so they can finish the job. So on top of that, then we gave them $100 million more and they put a hundred million of their own. So we got $600 million of fresh money last week. So they have enough money already to go ahead and we still owe them a lot. So I think there is about $1.6 billion at this moment, $1.5 billion at this moment that will be disbursed during the next year and a half or so until the job is finished on supposedly December 31st, 2015. We'll probably, depending on X or Y, if they comply with that, then we can give them a little extension to February 2016 without it being the longest and they want to do it really for 215 because they get other awards within the deals that we have made. The deal with me is called the final MOU and the MOU is being translated into Spanish because lots of people here in Panama are requesting to have a copy of the MOU. So there have been, I think it should be translated at this moment already and it will be made available to the public maybe next week or so. Please. Buenas tardes. Good afternoon. My name is Adolfo Berrios from La Estrella. My question is for Minister Roe. The administrator of the canal, Mr. Jorge Quijano, already announced that Evergreen withdrew one of their services from the canal. What services were withdrawn and is there another shipping company that is announcing changes? The situation is the following. It's very simple. Due to the fact that the canal is not ready, the expansion, the new expansion is not ready, we have lost business that we had up to this point and they are leaving and they're leaving for the Suez Canal and what's the reason behind this? We are seeing more that there are two things influencing this, the price of oil, which is the number one variable in the operating costs for a vessel, fuel costs for many. The other is also that the vessels that are too large that at this moment cannot pass through the Panama Canal, they're the most efficient ones. So therefore they have great efficiency when you divide the quantity of oil used by the number of containers, you have to divide the cost by 4,000 some containers, but if you divide it by the Suez Canal, it might be a 9,000, 14,000 maximum and there's some new vessels that were never expected to traverse through Panama that have approximately 18,000 containers. So these vessels have great efficiency, the latest technology, engine technology and what they're doing now because they cannot use the Panama Canal is that they're using the Suez Canal. Now, what's going on with this? Well, it's taking them longer for merchandise to arrive to its owners and I'm talking Walmart, Home Depot, all these companies that use the shipping lines for their supply. For example, a trip from China, they go all around and use a Suez Canal, they traverse the entire Mediterranean, the Atlantic, that takes them about 12 days more than using the Panama Canal, but the fuel cost is so favorable and because the shipping lines are not the ones that are paying for the different costs, the ones that are bearing the costs are the Walmart, Home Depot companies that are paying for inventory that they will have in their warehouses for 12 more days and shipping companies said, well, this is the way it is, there's no other way and it's a phenomenon that we're seeing and we hope it's temporary until the canal is finished but this is why it's so critical to finish the work soon. Back. Hola, buenas tardes, Blanca. Good afternoon, Blanca Berseril with Bloomberg Financial, also for Minister Roy. Do you have data on how much is being lost because the Panama Canal is not ready? Do you know how much companies are losing? Well, the truth is I am not, I'm not a data banker. There is such a number, yes, of course. It's less than what people think it is. But please don't quote me on this number. But I think it's around $50 million but we shall confirm it with the Panama Canal official so they can provide us the exact number. It's not a huge number but it's not a small amount either so we really do not want to lose business to the Suez Canal and we will try to speed up the process as much as possible. We have two large competitors, the U.S. Land Bridge and the Suez Canal and what do we mean by land bridge? The vessel comes from China, arrives at the U.S. West Coast, LA and Long Beach ports, then they transfer it to the railways or they use trucks and they are transported this way to New York. This land bridge is a little bit quicker than using the Panama Canal and then going upward. It's about five days quicker but it's more expensive. So that's why we take a lot of business away from that route when we really began to position the canal as a commercial company. Now they are also making their own investments and things are becoming more equal. Those are great competitors but right now the Suez Canal journey is the one that's taking away business. A land bridge in the U.S. is used mostly for a time sensitive cargo, a time sensitive freight, an iPad shipment, that has to arrive to its market quickly so that freight uses the U.S. land bridge. Other goods are able to take longer and they can use the Panama Canal without problem. Taking into account that we have a representative of a big pension fund, these are the guys that really have the capability to mobilize capital into physical assets. So don't miss the opportunity to ask Rashad Kaldani also questions about that and again, nothing of this happens and although this type of assets like the expansion of Panama Canal don't come that often, the private sector that makes this happen is here and they're also involved in a number of other projects. So don't miss the opportunity to ask as well how this happens and what they are doing to make these projects very successful. I'm enjoying Mr. and Minister Roy. I'm learning a lot. Fascinating story. Please microphone here. Hi, Tiffany Grabsky, SNL Financial. Question for anyone really because we've been talking a lot in Latin America specifically here in Panama being the hub of the Americas about integration of infrastructure in all of Latin America. So I wanted to know a bit your opinion of what the opportunities are for integration in Latin America, what's being missed and what maybe we'll see shortly. Rashad, do you want to take that one? Well, in every region of the world integration provides huge benefits and I think that's the case in Latin America as it is for instance in Africa. I also know well in Asia, two regions that we're focusing on a lot. Here there's tremendous, you see it in the logistic sector. Huge advantages to what Panama is doing is going to benefit all the countries in the Caribbean region. Lots of ports are coming up because of what Panama is doing here. You see it also in the gas sector, for instance, a lot more trading, a lot more pipelines being discussed that go across countries. I think the energy sector as a whole, which is something we're looking at a lot, it lends itself to a lot of integration. So yes, I do think there's tremendous scope in this region. There's integrated projects already in South America. Integration lends itself to a place with dense population like Europe. There's a lot of integrated infrastructure, energy, data management, transportation, rail, everything in Europe is the population is at least 20 times more dense than South America or North America. So it does lend itself a little bit more when the countries are heavily populated. But there's examples all the time of integration. We have time for one last question. This one in the back. This one. Please hear. My name is Patricia Moore with American Airlines Nexus Magazine. I'm a question for Ghost for Mr. McIntyre. And it is about the integration of NAFTA, which we know that is now turning 20 years. Even though they don't have that dense population, what do you think about the results? Well, I'm a big NAFTA fan. Of course, I'm a big free trade fan. So I think NAFTA's been a huge success for, but it's seen friction. If you see the Keystone Pipeline issue that's coming from Canada to build a pipeline across the US, so you see friction, you see politics, you see things enter. But I think it's been a very powerful economic block, especially in energy now, with all three countries in NAFTA being energy rich. If we get our act together, it could be very, trading blocks are being formed all over the world right now.  If they are approved, they include the United States and all three of those trading blocks. So I think NAFTA was a good move. Not everybody likes NAFTA, but as far as as a business person, it's been quite successful and has more potential. It would get out of our own way. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much. I'm Mr. Roy Rashad Kaldanian, Lee McIntyre for the press conference. Good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you.


Come with me on a journey to the Godot engine I'm going to show you how to install Godot Let's check it out. So hopefully you know how to install software on your system But just in case you don't I thought I'd go over it real quick We do have a few options first of all you can get the Godot game engine at Godot engine org That's Godot with a T good dot good dots But spelt was pronounced Godot as far as I know Anyway, we go here and we can go to download and it should jump to your operating system But you can download for Linux Mac OS Windows Linux server And they'll have options here on your Linux for 64 bit and 32 bit if you're on a modern system You probably want a 64 bit unless you're running a very old distro on a very old machine In case you want to go with 32 don't worry that you're downloading it for a 64 bit or 32 You'll be able to export to both those there's also a mono version which we're not going to worry about That's if you want to be able to write code in C sharp because they do support that We're just going to be using Godot Scripting language in the tutorials I do so all you need is the standard so you can choose 64 bit there Of course you can download it for Mac Windows and a link server We'll talk about the difference in the Linux and a link server options in in just a few minutes But go ahead and download that it's around a 40 or 50 megabyte file. That's it. It's it's one execute It's so nice. There's nothing to really install.  But right now Godot 3 is what's in my repositories. You can see here now these ones that say I 386 because I have repositories for 32 bit stuff as well, but we have the Godot 3 Godot 3 runner and Godot 3 server. So what are these three different things? Well, I'll explain as best to Ken Godot 3 will be the game engine with the editor and everything in it So you're going to design your game in it. It's going to run the games And allow you to modify and export all that stuff. So that's that's the main game engine. That's all you really need Godot 3 server what that does is so it's a headless version. So come over here to serve I'm not really sure what the difference between headless and server Here is But the server one here is the headless one. So what does that mean? So let's say I have a game I designed a game. I put it up on github. You want automate the packaging of it and we'll go over this in future videos so basically You pull down the code instead of opening up the editor and then saying package for Linux package for Windows You can do it from the shell if you use the regular Godot 3 Engine you can do it, but it will pop up the GUI interface while it's packaging it and then it will close The server one is great So it doesn't open up the GUI and also if you're running out of servers So if you're producing a piece of software and you want to do builds of that software it can build it on a headless server So that's what the server version is for it's for not designing the game But once the game is created just packaging it without the GUI interface So you can saw as well, but again, you can do the same thing here.  So what is the Godot runner? I'm gonna explain this as best I can it's it's the engine runtime So it's against not the whole editor So when you compile or I shouldn't say compile really when you package your game for distribution You have a few options. We'll talk about all them in a moment, but let's say I'm packaging it for Linux and Windows and Mac OS, okay You have an option to package it as a single binary Which will have the game engine built-in basically this runtime file as Well as all your assets and code all in one executable. You also have an option to Compile and executable with a separate pack file think of this if you're familiar at all with a lot of games But thinking back to Doom or Quake are good examples Doom had wad files. So you had the game executable But then all your assets your art your music and all that were inside a wad file Similar to that except for your dough scripts in is in the pack file Why would you do this separately? I'm gonna try to display this as best I can In fact, I'm gonna talk to you here rather than have you guys just stare at a screen. So what I was saying was It's really nice to have a single binary with everything So I can say here's one file click on it and it runs and you can do that for Windows and Linux I haven't really looked at what for Mac. I've packaged it. It gives a zip file. I didn't look it was in the zip box I don't have an Apple machine to test on So why wouldn't you want to just have it packaged in one? executable binary there are a few reasons one If you want people to be able to make modifications to the game or if you want to have mod packs It's better to have your pack files separate. That's one reason a second reason is just for Size and distribution so one pack file is not platform dependent So I can make an executable for Windows and execute for Linux and I can make an executable for Linux 32 bit and 64 bit And I'll have those executables, but they all can share the same pack file so I'm not making multiple pack files embedded in five into one binary file and so that's another example, but What really came to light for me because I was originally was making a full binary for this because I was like, okay, it's it's The the executable I think is like 20 megabytes And then my pack file was another 30 so we're looking at 50 megabytes So I'll just make make a few binaries for 32 bit Linux 30 64 bit Linux and Windows Then I was looking at making a dead file. So a pack a dead file for Debbie and or Debbie and base distributions I might begin a little technical here, but that's what this video is for and it was recommended to me Not to do it that way and here's why so you have Linux and Linux runs on program pretty much anything It runs, you know, most modern desktop systems are gonna be 64 bit So but some people might have a little 32 bits Debian still supports 32 bit operating systems. So and then there's also Arm based Linux systems and at least by default the dough doesn't export to Standard Linux arm distribution, but if you get a raspberry pi running Debbie in I'm pretty sure there's an arm version of the engine on in their repositories so It makes more sense for me to just create a pack file and then have a the Debian file the deb file Pull down the executable from the repositories. So that's what this is. So we have the game engine We have the server for compiling headless packaging headless But then you have the Godot 3 runner the runner is basically the same as the executable program You generate when you export except for it just isn't named like your package So what you would do if you were to create a dead package You would put your pack file in there, but then create a Dependency on this Godot 3 runner Okay, you're with me this might get a little this I'm worrying that I'm being a little confusing And then you have a script that says use a Godot 3 runner with my pack file Then you don't have to worry about different architectures because if Debbie and supports it they're going to have that Godot 3 runner in the repositories and now you just have one pack file and a dead file saying use that and It's good with all architectures that are supported on Debian with Godot So that is a reason why you might separate. So there's a few reasons why you might separate Yeah, having one single binary with everything in it is convenient for distribution In some aspects but not in others and that's pretty much it You have one pack file and then the operating systems can share it regardless of their architecture and operating system So that being said again This Godot 3 can do what these other ones do it's just it's going to be bigger than the runner and It's going to have require a GUI when the server one won't and again We'll look at that more in the future So whether you install it from the website or you install it from your package manager the package manager is not Going to have the mono version in it. So you're going to be looking at writing stuff with Godot script Well next you want to open it so once you open it the first time you open it It's going to ask if you want to download some templates So if you want to look at some other people's projects and see how they do things you can click on that these are projects I've been working on I'm going to create a new one. So I'm just going to click new project I'm just going to call this tester. I'm going to create that folder in my project path creating edit Okay, now we're not going to get into creating an app so much in this one or a program in this one But I'm going to say user interface just to have something in there. I'm going to add a child label and I'll type in this is a test Now I can hit f5. Oh got to save that for save it Run it and choose that one. So there's my app great background white text. This is a test and And now let's talk about a little more about packaging and exporting So I'm going to go up to project and export right now. I have no presets for this project. I Have not set up any templates So we're going to go go add and I can choose one of these so I'll choose Linux and it's going to tell me here that I have problem blah blah blah you're gonna want to click this manage export templates and just click download Now the Godot game engine. Oh And then click official and we'll start downloading it and it will install it for you The good old game engine is great because it's Like I said 40 or 50 megabytes, which isn't much at all for the whole interface for designing games and running them But if you want to package them like I said for APK for Android, you want to generate binaries for Windows for other architectures for iOS Package it for use in a web page. It's you're going to need these templates and it's a little large Not too bad to today's standards. I think it's kind of large But again, this is making it so you can export to basically all major platforms out there It's about 441 megabytes right now once it's done downloading that it will quickly Extract that and you'll be good to go That's it. We're gonna go close and now when I go back up to projects and export you can see Linux runnable there. I'm going to just choose and you have options here again So we have binary. I'm going to do 64 bit. We can choose to embed the pack file or not Which I've talked about I'm gonna go create here.  That's what I want to call it. Yes It's gonna give it an extension here of x86 64x we're doing 64 bit which You don't need that extension on a Linux machine, but if I was to now Go to my file browser. You can see here that I have a binary Which is actually the origin I thought was going to be 40 megabytes Which is basically the game engine and my pack file which in this case is only eight kilobytes because there's no code or Or would that there's basically it's just something to display this text But that's what all your art and music and your scripts go So That's exporting like that Now let's look at this Let's say we want to export To another one we can go HTML and I'm going to go here. I'm gonna go to that same bin folder, but I'm gonna call this HTML and We're going to call this my app And we will export it's gonna confirm That's what I want to call it and where I want to put it and now if I go back over here you can see that I have this I can put this up on a web server and People can access the game and you can see it has that same pack file So again, I've just doubled up my pack file, which again, this is a teeny tiny file But once I add a lot of music and graphics that can get large So it's good if you can have your different applications your different packages of this share that same pack file So if I wanted to instead of putting it in this HTML folder I Can come back here and just say to put it in my bin folder Tester bin Save and now I can say export Yes, there and it recreated that stuff But you can see I now have my Linux executable here and my HTML as well as the other files the HTML needs But they're both going to share that same pack file So I'm not doubling up and of course I can do the same thing I can say add, you know Mac OS windows I guess I don't know what UWP is. It's a window symbol. Maybe portable windows. Is that still a thing? And then Android we'll go over Android a little bit more There are a few things you need to create a key a debugging key for testing and then key for distribution And then you also want to make sure you change this name to your unique identifier Otherwise, it's going to say Godot engine in there I will go over Android packaging a little bit more But just basically it's just a few options in here, but you got to generate a key But once you have that set up Those how you like them I can delete that one once you have them set up I can say export all and I can say whether debugging or release. I'll say debugging and It will create all those packages so I can have a configuration for Linux If I want I can do a 64 bit or 32 bit or both. I can do HTML I can do iOS which you probably need a key for as well. That's one thing I have a package for Mac OS and then once you have most of you like you just click export all and you've generated packages mall And of course you can do that from the shell so you can do automatic builds clears mud Okay, I think I made it sound a little more complicated Then I need to just because I'm giving you different options But really all you have to do is once you download Godot and install it Go to export install the templates and then export stuff again. We're going to get into the APKs for Android because you just got to generate a key and change some options, but once you do that It's super simple as well Don't worry too much if you don't understand the difference between packaging your pack file into your binary and separate I recommend doing it. Well, whatever you think is best. It really isn't that big of a difference If it becomes once you start doing it, you'll decide which way is best for you So thanks for watching. Please visit films by Chris calm. That's Chris the K There's a link in the description and as always I hope that you have a great day


Good morning today. We're here at the unit training equipment set at Camp Atterbury Where we store a lot of our training sets for all of our units here in Indiana? Especially bigger vehicles that we can't have at the Armory and bring them down to Atterbury So behind me today is what's called an M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier And they've been assigned to some of our units to help them with their wartime mission And we've been directed to ship these out in support of the president's directive Provide military equipment to Ukraine So we got a short notice the team did a complete technical inspection And we're able to get all of these things ready ahead of time in less than five days So a monumental Herculean effort by our maintainers Doing great work and getting this equipment ready We had all hands on deck and sent the technicians out to those carriers where they were located on the motor pool they started them up and brought them into the shop at that point they began their technical inspections we call it a TI and that's in order to Identify any repairs that need to be made on the vehicles after the repairs were completed We began road testing the the carrier So once the parts were hung and the repairs were complete We would they would take the carriers on a road test ensure that everything was FMC as expected and then following The BII being stored the last step is really just to stage the vehicles and prepare them for transport