First Observation of a Neutron Star with Gravitational Waves and Light!

THE OBSERVATIONS

At about 8:41 am EDT on 17 August 2017, both LIGO observatories recorded a 100-second long gravitational wave (GW) signal that appeared to be coming from two neutron stars orbiting each other and merging together (this detection is called GW170817).  1.7 seconds later, the Fermi Gamma Ray Burst Monitor detected a short gamma-ray burst (GRB).  LIGO's online data analysis, along with Virgo not detecting the event due to its location in a part of the sky it isn't sensitive to, narrowed down the possible location of the gravitational wave source to the constellation Hydra (in the Southern Hemisphere) which overlapped with the area determined from the GRB detection.  Both the LIGO and GRB detectors put out circulars alerting the astronomy community to the independent discoveries; an event like this was unprecedented and became a priority target for observation.  LIGO also produced a luminosity distance (a method of estimating the distance to the source) of about 130 million light-years.

11 hours after the gravitational wave and GRB detections (the delay was caused by the time it took for the Earth to rotate observatories in South America into their nighttime sky), the 1-m Swope Telescope in Chile observed a new point of light (referred to as a transient) from galaxy NGC 4993, also about 130 million light-years away!  Approximately 70 other observatories, both on our planet and orbiting it, observed this new source of light: 11.5 hours after GW/GRB detection, infrared light was observed; 15 hours later, ultraviolet light was observed; as the days went on, the optical light from the source became redder (longer wavelength) and dimmer than the early days; 9 days later, x-rays were observed; 16 days later, radio waves were observed.

CLICK TO ENLARGE!
Left: GRB data (top) collected by Fermi and gravitational wave data (bottom) collected by LIGO.
Right: Source localization on the sky from the INTEGRAL GRB satillite (light blue band), Fermi (the dark blue disk), LIGO alone (green ovals), and LIGO and VIRGO data combined (dark green oval).  Notice that all sources identified the LIGO-Virgo area.  A new source of light (located at the intersection of the tic marks) was identified inside the overlapping area by the Swope telecope (top image inset). The image below the inset is of the same area but 20.5 days before this event showing that this source was not present. [Credit: LIGO, Virgo, Fermi, Swope, DLT40]

TURNING OBSERVATIONS INTO MEANING

The cause(s) of short GRBs have been the subject of much theoretical research; the predominant theory is that they are caused by the merger of two neutron stars or a neutron star and a black hole.  The problem is that light isn't capable of bringing us information about these kinds of systems.  So, we've seen many short GRBs, we have ideas about how they are made based on these observations, and have been waiting for evidence to either support or refute the theory.  Fortunately, gravitational waves bring us the information about the system that light can't, like the masses of the objects and how they moved around each other.  This is the first conclusive evidence that at least some of the short GRBs are created by neutron star mergers.

This visualization shows the coalescence of two orbiting neutron stars. The left panel contains a visualization of the matter of the neutron stars. The different colored layers are different densities, which have been made transparent to show more structure. The right panel shows how space-time is distorted near the collisions. The spiral wave distortions at the end of the merger propagate to Earth and are measured as gravitational waves. [Credit: (taken from ligo.org) Christopher W. Evans/Georgia Tech]

Light observations allowed us to observe the rapid fading of the brightness and gradual lengthening of the wavelength (reddening) of the light which is a signature of a kilonova explosion.  Kilonovae are also thought to be the source of most of the heavy elements in the universe.  (I have previouslyattributed these to supernova here; further research has shown that while a supernova can make some heavy elements, it can't make enough of the heavier ones like gold to account for the amounts we have.)  Breaking the light down into its different wavelengths (colors) tells us about the composition of the source or of elements being created.  Measurements like this showed that heavy elements were indeed created as predicted in this kilonova and supports that neutron star mergers may very well be the source of most of the heavy elements in the universe.

Periodic table indicating the sources of the elements.  Orange indicates formation from the merger of neutron stars like the source of GW170817. [Credit: Jenifer Johnson]

The timing of the arrival of gravitational waves and the gamma-ray burst (1.7 seconds later) are our strongest support yet that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light.  Detecting gravitational waves first is not unexpected since this system has been producing gravitational waves its whole life and we only saw the last 100 seconds of it.  It is the dynamics of what happens during the merger that produces the light in the form of a GRB, so we should expect a delay.  Even when considering different possible ways and times for light to be made in a system like this, our observations are consistent with the prediction that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light.


WHAT DID THIS NEUTRON STAR MERGER CREATE?

A remaining question that the observations we've made hasn't been able to answer is: What did this neutron star merger create: a very large neutron star or a black hole?  We simply don't know and the reason why is that we don't have a firm understanding of the equation of state (EOS) for a neutron star (EOS is a technical term for describing matter and how it behaves).  Depending on different possible EOSs, we can get either a small black hole or a very massive neutron star at some time after the merger.  We also looked for gravitational wave evidence of which it is since a small black hole would have produced gravitational waves at about 6000 Hz and a very massive neutron star would produce them up to 4000 Hz.  The LIGO detectors are not very sensitive at high frequencies, making finding evidence for a resultant black hole impossible.  We did search for gravitational waves consistent with the formation of a very massive neutron star until the end of the run on 25 August (8 days later) and didn't find anything.  We found nothing to support either possibility so we simply don't know!

The masses of stellar remnants are measured in many different ways. This graphic shows the masses for black holes detected through electromagnetic observations (purple); the black holes measured by gravitational-wave observations (blue); neutron stars measured with electromagnetic observations (yellow); and the masses of the neutron stars that merged in an event called GW170817, which were detected in gravitational waves (orange). The remnant of GW170817 is unclassified, and labeled as a question mark. [Credit: LIGO-Virgo/Frank Elavsky/Northwestern University]

THIS IS JUST THE START!

This is the true beginning of multi-messenger astronomy!  As was referred to in this post, gravitational waves, light, and neutrinos (looked for during this event but none were found) bring us different information about the universe.  Gravitational waves tell us about how mass moves around and how much of it there is; light tells us about temperature, and composition; neutrinos can bring us information about the nuclear reactions happening deep within a star.  The effort to make and share all of these observations require not just scientific knowledge, but cooperation on a large scale.  There are many things that divide us in our societies; this is something we should be proud to unite us!

Artist’s illustration of two merging neutron stars. The rippling space-time grid represents gravitational waves that travel out from the collision, while the narrow beams show the bursts of gamma rays that are shot out just seconds after the gravitational waves. Swirling clouds of material ejected from the merging stars are also depicted. The clouds glow with visible and other wavelengths of light. [Credit: NSF/LIGO/Sonoma State University/A. Simonnet]

Merry Christmas, LIGO: Another Gravitational Wave!

WE DETECTED ANOTHER GRAVITATIONAL WAVE!

On the evening of Christmas day 2015, at 9:38 pm CST (3:38 am UTC) at the LIGO Livingston Observatory in Louisiana, another gravitational wave signal was recorded.  1.1 ms later, the LIGO Hanford Observatory in Washington state also picked up the same signal.  70 seconds later, the supercomputer that runs analyses on the near real-time data noticed that there was something special in the data and sent out emails and text messages that some of us affectionately call the "Bat Signal".  This goes out to scientists primarily to summon those who evaluate candidate gravitational wave events to determine if this event should be shared with traditional astronomers (i.e. ones with telescopes).  I am on the list because I am interested in keeping up on the latest results.  I remember exactly where I was: I was in my room at my mother's house outside of Pittsburgh changing clothes after getting back from visiting the in-laws (who live within a few miles of my family's home) for Christmas.  I looked at the event record and saw that this was an extraordinary candidate gravitational wave in that its statistical significance was high but the signal wasn't as obvious in graphs as the first detection in September was.

It was decided to send out the location of the possible detection to traditional astronomers and the emails started flying discussing the evidence that this was a true detection.  It was determined that the preliminary information on the signal warranted starting the detection checklist - the large-scale investigations that try to disprove that the signal is real.  Only after a candidate passes every test and has a high statistical significance is it accepted as a detection.  The same checklist that was applied to the first detection, labeled GW150914, was applied to this candidate as well.  Once this Christmas detection was verified, it was labeled GW151226 (the number reflects the UTC date that the gravitational wave was discovered) although we had nicknamed it the "Boxing Day Event" before the verification.

(Below I will often refer to GW150914 as the "first detection" and GW151226 as the "new detection".)

Read the paper on the detection here.


THE SIGNAL & THE SOURCE

The signal is similar to the first detected gravitational wave (GW150914).  We call this kind of signal a "chirp" because initially it has a low frequency which increases over time as does its amplitude.  You've heard signals like this before if you've ever hear a slide whistle increasing in tone.  The increase in tone reflects the increase in frequency and the loudness of the whistle represents the amplitude.  The signal we detected starts at about 35 Hz (close to the frequency of the sound made by the second black key from the left on the piano) and reaches its highest frequency at about 450 Hz (very close to the A above middle C if you convert this signal into sound).

Graph of the 1-second signal of GW151226.  The red line is the prediction of what a gravitational wave from a 14.2 and 7.5 solar mass black hole merger would look like and the grey area around it is the signal that LIGO recovered from its data.  The zoomed in portions allow you to get a better look at hour the prediction (in red) and the actual signal (in grey) compare.  At the end of this signal, the frequency and amplitude both go up.  The two black holes merge at the point where the amplitude of the signal is the highest (seen in the zoomed data to the far right).

The plot above shows what we detected in our data compared to the predictions of a pair of black holes orbiting each other and merging into one.  So this is similar to the last detection in that this is also a pair of stellar-mass black holes (formed from the death of extremely massive stars) but different because the masses of these new black holes are less than the first detection.  Here, our newly detected black holes are 14.2 and 7.5 solar masses where our last detection was 36.2 and 29.1 solar masses.  That makes this signal weaker than the last (the peak amplitude of this new signal is about 1/3 that of the first detection) but we are able to observe more orbits of the system here.  We see about 27 orbits of these new black holes (corresponding to the 55 cycles of the gravitational wave we see in the figure) where we only saw about 5 orbits (or 10 cycles) in the first detection.  It is interesting to note that lower mass black hole pairs will merge at higher frequencies than higher mass black holes.  This means that the signal will stay in LIGO's most sensitive frequencies longer and that is reflected in what we see here.  This new detection's signal is about 1 second long while the first detection is less than a half second long.

So, what did this new detection look and sound like?  As far as what it looked like, there was no light that we are aware of that was produced from this system.  But we can visualize the black holes as they orbit around each other and track the corresponding progression through the signal to the merger.  [Credit: SXS Collaboration/www.black-holes.org]:

We can also "listen" to gravitational waves by taking the signal, and converting it into sound through your speakers.  Below is a comparison of what the new detection "sounded" like compared to the first detection.  The actual "sounds" are quite low in tone so that they sound more like thumps.  We also have shifted the sounds up to a higher tone so that you can hear more of the detail in the signals.  That will play after the original lower tones.  The background graph shows how the frequency changes on the vertical axis (you will see that it increases for both signals) as time progresses on the horizontal axis:

The next question is where in the sky are these black holes?  We primarily determine this using the delay in detection time between the two detectors.  When the delay is large, there is a smaller area in the shape of a ring on the sky where the gravitational wave could have come from.  The detection delay for the new detection is much shorter than the first detection, so our uncertainty is going to be larger.  Below is an illustration of the areas on the sky where the new detection (the area to the left) and the first detection (the area to the right) are likely to have come from.  Note that for the new detection on the left, there is another similar area on the opposite side of the sky that cannot be seen in this image.

The location of both the new GW151226 detection (on the left) and the first detection, GW150914 (on the right).  These are pictured on a star map (you can see the center part of the Milky Way galaxy on the left and extending right).  There is another similar area for the new detection on the opposite side of the sky (not pictured here).  The outer purple area is where we are 90% confident where the sources are located.  The inner circles each have decreasing certainty.

We will be better able to determine the location of a gravitational wave source on the sky when we have more than two detectors in operation.  Fortunately, Advanced Virgo has completed their upgrades and is currently testing their new detector.  LIGO's next observing run is expected in the 4th quarter of this year and Advanced Virgo will likely join the search before the completion of that run.  When we detect more gravitational waves (which we expect since we will be even more sensitive than we were for the two detections we have already made and the run will be longer in duration) together with Virgo, we will know even more about what it is that we are seeing.

This is an exciting time to be a scientist!

Read the official LIGO "Science Summary" on this new detection, GW151226.

LIGO Makes the First Direct Detection of Gravitational Waves

On morning of 14 September 2015 at almost 4:51 am in Louisiana (09:50:45 UTC) the LIGO detectors in Livingston, LA and Hanford, WA detected a gravitational-wave signal we've labeled GW150914 (based on the date).  The online (near real-time) data analyses alerted scientists about 3 minutes later that there was something of substantial interest in the data.  While vetting this signal (that only lasted about a half of a second) took a substantial amount of time, it opened the new field of gravitational-wave astronomy.  We had not only made the first direct detection of gravitational waves but we also made the first direct detection of a black hole binary (pair) system and proved that these kinds of systems really do exist (it was contentious because the formation of one of the black holes was expected to have destroyed the star that would have made its partner).

At the time of the posting of this blog, the press conference making the announcement is going on and I am working the satellite event being held at the Livingston Observatory.  I will be sure to update this post with the link to the recording or the announcement later (update: see the bottom of this post).  There is too much to talk about in just this post, so I am going to keep this to the basics: what did we see and what does it mean?  I will be doing a series of posts about what we did to make sure that this is a real gravitational wave, the astrophysics of the source, how we detected it, the creation of black holes and why finding a pair like we did is important to astronomy.

Update: Read the Physical Review Letters journal article here.


THE SIGNAL

This gravitational-wave detection was seen as a common signal between the two LIGO sites:

This image shows the data (top row), signal (middle row), and what's left over after the signal is subtracted from the data (bottom row).  Detailed discussion on each image is provided below.

What you see here is a series of images (above and in detail below) that picks apart the signal that was detected.  In the left column is information focusing on the Hanford Observatory and on the right the Livingston Observatory.

TOP ROW:

The vertical (Y-axis) units are strain with a scale of 10^-21.

In the top row is the signal that was seen.  However, this is not the raw data as it was collected.  What you see here is data that has been filtered to 1) reduce noise and 2) to include only frequency components that are around the frequency range of the signal itself.  The red graph on the left is the signal as seen at Hanford and on the left the blue trace is as seen at Livingston.  For comparison, the light red line under the blue Livingston line is the Hanford signal that has been shifted in time to account for the travel time between detectors and flipped (multiplied by -1) to match the orientation of the arms (the arms of each site have a opposite orientation compared to each other so the positive signal in one detector will be negative in the other).  The common signal can be seen with the noise in this comparison.

MIDDLE ROW:

The vertical (Y-axis) units are strain with a scale of 10^-21.

These plots compare the signal predicted by numerical relativity (which are results of computer simulations where the predictions of general relativity cannot be solved by in explicit mathematical expressions) for a pair of black holes with one mass 36 times the mass of our Sun and the other 29 times.  (The red line in the left plot for Hanford and the blue line on the right for Livingston.)  Beneath each of these lines are grey shadowed areas that show the signal as detected from actual LIGO data with two different independent data analysis methods (wavelet and template).  Here again, we can see that the predictions and observations match well.

BOTTOM ROW:

The vertical (Y-axis) units are strain with a scale of 10^-21.

These are plots of residual signals which are the noise that this left behind when the gravitational-wave signal is removed.  Seeing that there is no pattern left in these plots supports that what was seen was a real common signal - a real gravitational wave (this is necessary for a gravitational wave detection but not sufficient - the extra investigations performed will be the subject of a future post).


THE SPECTROGRAM

A powerful tool in signal analysis is breaking up a signal into its frequency components in a graph called a spectrogram.  It allows us to see how much of a signal is made up different frequencies at different times.  If you can hear, then you do this everyday.  It is how you are able to pick apart the sound of a tuba from the sound of a flute when you listen to a symphony.  Both are playing at the same time, but you don't confuse their sounds as coming from anything else.

Below is the spectrogram of this gravitational wave detection:

The horizontal (X-axis) is the progression of time (like above) and the vertical (Y-axis) is showing the contribution of each possible frequency.  The more yellow at a frequency, the stronger that frequency's contribution to the signal at that time.  Our gravitational wave starts at a low frequency (about 35 Hz) and increases to higher frequency (about 250 Hz) near the end of the signal.  This is similar to a signal a slide whistle increasing tone would produce.


WHAT WOULD THIS SOUND LIKE?

As I've mentioned in a previous post, the frequencies of gravitational waves that LIGO is sensitive to would be audible if they were sound waves (which they aren't).  Because of this, we can make them into sound waves by putting the signal through a speaker.  So we did!

Because the starting frequency of the gravitational wave is very low, it is difficult to hear.  The frequency is audible, but at that low of a frequency we tend to feel the sound vibration more than we hear it.  So unless you have a truly great subwoofer, you will probably only hear the end "whoop" of the signal.  In order to make the entire signal more audible, we shifted all of the frequencies up in the above sound up so you can hear the whole thing.  This is not unlike the false-color images made in astronomy for light that our eyes cannot see.

Now that you've heard the detected gravitational wave, you can see that when the tone of it becomes higher toward the end of the signal, the frequency in the spectrogram also goes up.


WHERE DID THE SIGNAL COME FROM?

Because the two LIGO detectors were the only detectors operating at the time of the event (Virgo in Italy is finishing their advanced detector upgrades and KAGRA in Japan is under construction with similar advanced instrumentation) it isn't easy to state precisely where the signal came from.  We can narrow it down to an area on the sky based on how long it took the gravitational wave to travel between the two LIGO detectors, and other factors like the strength of the signal in each detector (there is a slightly different response for each detector for different sky locations).  The most probable location is in the southern hemisphere around the constellations Volans and Carina:

The colored area on this map shows the most probable source of the detected gravitational wave where red is more likely than purple.  The location is shown against a map of the night sky centered on the Milky Way galaxy with constellations outlined.
[Credits: NASA Deep Star Maps (Visualization Credits, Ernie Wright (USRA): Lead Animator, Tom Bridgman (GST): Animator) by NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio with constellation figures based on those developed for the IAU by Alan MacRobert of Sky and Telescope magazine (Roger Sinnott and Rick Fienberg), and the source location based on Gravoscope screen grabs (LIGO & Nick Risinger, skysurvey.org), all in galactic coordinates. Composition by University of Florida / S. Barke.]

 
WHAT MADE THIS GRAVITATIONAL WAVE?

Two different data analysis methods that look at the data in fundamentally different ways not only detected this event, but provided the same results for what the source of it was.  This gravitational wave was made by two stellar mass black holes (these are the remnants of extremely massive stars that have expended their fuel and collapsed under their own gravity).  As quoted above, their masses were about 29 and 36 times the mass of our Sun.  They orbited around each other for hundreds of thousands to millions of years before they come close enough together to start orbiting very quickly (much like an ice skater spins faster as they draw their arms into themselves).  LIGO was only sensitive to the very end of this process right before the two black holes merged into one black hole.  At the end, the stars had a relative velocity of about 1.8x10⁸ m/s, or 60% the speed of light (the universe's "speed limit").  Imagine that...  Two black holes that were each the size of cities but each about 30 times as massive as our Sun whirling around each other at more than half the speed of light!  The animation below shows what it may have looked like to see these black holes merge together.  Note that since they are black holes, no light come from them directly but they do bend the light that is coming from behind them in a process called gravitational lensing:

Based on how strong we know these gravitational waves were at their source as predicted by general relativity and how strong they were once they reached Earth, we estimate that this system is located about 1.3 billion light years (~410 Mpc) away.  That distance is about 10% of the way to the edge of the observable universe!  It also means that the gravitational waves we just detected have been traveling into the universe and toward us for 1.3 billion years.  When these gravitational wave were created the Earth was in the Proterozoic eon of Precambrian time, after when multicellular life developed but before animal life.

PRESS CONFERENCE RECORDING

Note:  Fast forward to 26:30.  It's just waiting before that. 

Next post: On the formation of stellar mass black hole and why this pair of them are interesting to astronomy...

March LIGO-Virgo Meeting in Boston

So, I am at the LIGO-Virgo Meeting in Boston right now.  As you may (or may not) know, our two collaborations are very close knit.  We schedule our upgrades to be around the same time, we always share our data, and we collaborate on our science to get the most from our work.  Being a part of a big international collaboration is exciting and gives you a new perspective on international politics - in science they exist, but are much easier to deal with since we are all working for the same goal.

Here is the gorgeous view from my hotel window:

Personal Complexes:

Another thing about being one of over 800 scientists and engineers working on a project is that you can feel small.  I've written before about the Impostor Syndrome - when people who are fully qualified and competent feel inadequate.  Sometimes, these meetings bring those feelings back to me.  Every time someone comes to me and asks me what I do, I feel like my worth is being weighed.  But it absolutely isn't!  After all, I do the same thing to new colleagues that I meet and I am only interested in learning more about them and maybe working with them in the future.

I was starting to feel inferior while I was traveling here...  I was sitting at my gate during a layover and a colleague I consider a friend was sitting in his seat diligently working on his computer.  What was I doing?  Reading a vampire book.  The self-loathing voice in my head immediately chimed in with, "See, there is someone who is deserves the esteem of the collaboration.  He works hard and makes the most of his time.  What are you doing?  Reading a book about things that don't even exist!"  As I was resigning myself to mediocrity, he put his computer aside and started talking with me.  During our short conversation, he paid me the most unexpected complement.  I'm not going to repeat it here, but I was speechless and ecstatic at the same time and tried not to tear up.  I smiled and thanked him because his words forced me to think well of myself (not that I told him that).  If he is reading this, you know who you are and what you said even though you don't know how much it mattered to me - THANK YOU!

I've been trying to work more on these issues but I don't ever expect to completely get over feeling inferior to my peers.  Not that I really want to - I've met many scientists who thought they were a divine gift to science and I can't stand them (even if they are right)!

The Science:

The final data analysis from our last data run is finishing up and we've been talking about these results and preparing for the demands the MUCH more sensitive Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detectors will place on our analysis infrastructure.  This has been a time of reorganization.  I gave a short talk about the functionality of the gravitational wave simulation software (called GravEn) I wrote while I was a graduate student.  This has been the standard software we've used to measure the sensitivity of of our burst data analysis methods.  We are also taking time to consider if there is a better way of doing it.  So far, it seems like GravEn is still the bee's knees and that makes me very happy!  (The science summary of the last burst data analysis paper is here.  The plots that show the sensitivity of our methods to different kinds of signals [the second and the third] were made using the simulations I produced.)

There have also been talks on the status of LIGO, Virgo, GEO, the Japanese KAGRA detector, and the status of what used to be the LISA space-based detector (this was a partnership between the ESA and NASA until budget issues forced NASA to cancel being a full partner).  There is progress being made on all of these fronts - even LISA (which is now led by the ESA and known as NGO for the New Gravitational-wave Observatory).  Every where you walk around the conference hotel, you see small groups working together on a project and a few very tall people in red uniforms (the Wisconsin Badgers are staying in our hotel for their NCAA Sweet 16 game tonight against Syracuse).

What Would YOU Like to Ask a LIGO Scientist/Engineer?

As part of a talk on the collaboration's outreach activities, this blog was featured!  (Those who don't know my science work will often still know me as the "Living LIGO Lady".)  It was also announced that I would like to feature interviews of gravitational wave people (scientists, engineers, etc.) on this blog.  When I originally started writing this, I wanted to make science human and accessible.  I feel like I am running out of human things about me to talk about (I'm not all that interesting).  But there are so many others with different backgrounds and stories that I would like to share with you.  I already have a list of questions I am thinking about asking (not all of them will be mandatory, of course) but I want to invite you to tell me what questions you would like to as a LIGO person?  Tweet them to me @livingligo or leave a comment here (below).  You can also email me at amber@livingligo.org.  I'm thinking of using my husband, a mechanical engineer for LIGO, as a Guinea pig (he can't cook and likes to eat, so I think I can convince him :P ).

Until next week!

Q: Is there anything like LIGO outside of the USA?

I mentioned before that I've noticed in my blog visit statistics that some people find my site by searching questions that they have about gravitational waves.  They show up as the search keywords (don't worry - I have no way of knowing who searched and visited this site).  Many of the questions are great and I am not sure that my blog completely answered their question, at least in a concise way.  Today, I am answering one of these "searched for" questions:

"Is there anything like LIGO outside of the USA?"

Yes!  First, let me establish that there are 2 LIGO observatories in the United States.

Why are there 2 LIGO's?

Detectors like LIGO, gravitational wave interferometers, are sensitive to gravitational waves coming from nearly any place in the sky, including the sky that's above the other side of the planet.  The fact that gravitational waves can travel through matter and come out the other side unchanged is a huge advantage over doing astronomy using different forms of light and allows LIGO to have this amazing sensitivity.  It does have the downside that, given only a single detector, we cannot tell where a detected gravitational wave came from on the sky.  So, we built 2 detectors in the United States to ensure that, even if no other countries built gravitational wave detectors, we would be able to narrow down the location of any detections. 

LIGO Livingston's sensitivity to sources coming directly above locations on Earth.  Red is the highest sensitivity and blue is the lowest.  Since this is a flat map of a spherical object, sizes are distorted.  CLICK TO SEE DETAIL.

The time it will take a gravitational wave traveling at the speed of light to travel between the LIGO Hanford and Livingston observatories in seconds.  The black line is the circle on the sky the would produce a detection at both LIGOs at the same time.  CLICK TO SEE DETAIL.

Note that I said "narrow down".  Given 2 detectors and the detection time at each, we can start to triangulate possible sky locations of a gravitational wave to a circle on the sky that corresponds to the locations that could produce the observed difference in detection time (since we expect gravitational waves to travel at the speed of light, the maximum time it would take to travel between the 2 LIGO detectors is about 0.01 seconds).  With 3 detectors we can narrow the location to 2 points on the sky and with 4 or more we can find the 1 source.  Of course, if there was an optical event like a supernova on the 2-detector sky circle that for a gravitational wave detection at the same time, it would be probable that the optical event was also the source of the gravitational wave.

Another reason to have at least 2 detectors is eliminate the possibility that a local vibration is mistaken for a real gravitational wave.  LIGO is very sensitive to vibrations from our environment.  It is possible for a passing truck or a dropped hammer near the detector to make the mirrors inside vibrate in such a way that it "looks" like a gravitational wave.  In order to avoid making mistakes like this, we do not believe that anything is a gravitational wave unless we see the same signal in both detectors within the time it would take it to travel between detectors.  Therefore, we only consider a candidate detection if we see the same signal within +/- 0.01 seconds of when the signal is seen in one of the detectors.

Now, back to the original question:

Is there anything like LIGO outside of the USA?

There are several other gravitational wave interferometers in other countries.  The Virgo detector is located outside of Pisa, Italy, the GEO600 detector is located in Hannover, Germany, and the TAMA300 and the future KAGRA (formerly known as the LCGT) is located in Japan.  LIGO collaborates extensively with all of these detectors so that any time detectors are collecting data at the same time, that data is shared.  We also share technology so that all of the detectors are as sensitive as they can be.  The more observatories that see the same gravitational wave, the better we can localize it and the more we can know about it.