nano-hertz gravitational wave detection using pulsars andrea n. lommen assistant professor of...
TRANSCRIPT
Nano-Hertz Gravitational Wave Detection Using Pulsars
Andrea N. LommenAssistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy
Head of Astronomy Program
Director of Grundy Observatory
Franklin and Marshall College
Lancaster, PA
Table of Contents
• NANO-Grav
• Illustrative Example of General Concept
• Limits on Stochastic Background
• What limit says about sources
• Measurements of Polarization
• Burst Detection
• Summary
Collaborators
• Rick Jenet, UT Brownsville • David Nice, Bryn Mawr College • Ingrid Stairs, U. British Columbia• Don Backer, UC Berkeley• Scott Ransom, NRAO• Paul Demorest, NRAO• Rob Ferdman, U. British Columbia,• Dick Manchester, ATNF• Bill Coles, UC San Diego• George Hobbs, ATNF• Joris Verbiest, ATNF and Swinburne
The North American Nano-Hertz Observatory of Gravitational Waves
(NANO-Grav)
Telescopes:
The Arecibo 300-m Telecope
The Green Bank 140-ft Telescope
The Allen Telescope Array?
The Green Bank 85-ft Telescope?
NANO-Grav MembersAndrea Lommen (chair), Franklin and Marshall College
Rick Jenet, UT Brownsville
Scott Ransom, Paul Demorest and Walter Brisken, NRAO
Ingrid Stairs, UBC
David Nice, Bryn Mawr College
Paulo Freire, NAIC Arecibo
Maura McLaughlin and Duncan Lorimer, West Virginia University
Joe Lazio, NRL
Don Backer, UC Berkeley
Zaven Arzoumanian, Goddard
Anne Archibald, McGill University
Ryan Shannon, Cornell University
Ryan Lynch, University of Virginia
Orbital Motion in the Radio Galaxy 3C 66B: Evidence for a Supermassive Black Hole Binary Hiroshi Sudou,1* Satoru Iguchi,2 Yasuhiro Murata,3 Yoshiaki Taniguchi1
Supermassive black hole binaries may exist in the centers of active galactic nuclei such as quasars and radio galaxies, and mergers between galaxies may result in the formation of supermassive binaries during the course of galactic evolution. Using the very-long-baseline interferometer, we imaged the radio galaxy 3C 66B at radio frequencies and found that the unresolved radio core of 3C 66B shows well-defined elliptical motions with a period of 1.05 ± 0.03 years, which provides a direct detection of a supermassive black hole binary.
Volume 300, Number 5623, Issue of 23 May 2003, pp. 1263-1265. Copyright © 2003 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved.
€
Ωgw ( f ) =2
3
π 2
H02f 2hc ( f )
2
fmin =1
dataspan
hc ( fmin )∝rms
dataspan
Ωgw ( f )∝rms2
dataspan4
From Jenet, Hobbs, van Straten, Manchester, Bailes, Verbiest, Edwards, Hotan, Sarkissian & Ord (2006)
Rough Limit
Monte Carlo simulation• First demonstrated by:
– Jenet et al (2006),
• Improved by:– Lommen, Verbiest, Hobbes, Coles (2008, in prep)
• Generate 10,000 versions of the simulated background
• Query the simulations for the upper limit (Allen & Romano 1999)
Monte Carlo simulation
• Generating a background:– 10000 GWs each with
• Amplitude randomly generated as member of a model spectrum (cosmic strings, relic GWs, SMBHs)
• Random polarization• Random phase• Random direction
– Do everything above 10000 times
– Measure its spectrum€
hc = Af
yr−1
⎛
⎝ ⎜
⎞
⎠ ⎟
α gw
What’s the appropriate question?
• Allen & Romano (1999):– What is the minimum value of A required to detect
the background 95% of the time? (Jenet et al 2006)
– What is the value of A that leads to the conclusion that the background is absent with 95% confidence? (Lommen, Verbiest, Hobbs, Coles 2008)
Our upper limit is:•Equal to the predicted background using (one of) the calculations of Wyithe and Loeb (2003)
•Larger by a factor of about 5 than Jaffe and Backer (2003)
•Larger still than estimations by Enoki (2004)
Detectability of a Waveform
• “Recall”
€
R(t) =1
21+ cosμ( ) r+ t( )cos 2ψ( ) + r× t( )sin 2ψ( )[ ]
r+,× t( ) = r+,×e − r+,×
p
r+,×e = h+,×
e τ( )0
t
∫ dτ
r+,×p = h+,×
p τ −d
c1− cosμ( )
⎡ ⎣ ⎢
⎤ ⎦ ⎥
0
t
∫ dτ
(Jenet, Lommen, Larson and Wen 2004)
Some Possible Sources of Burst Radiation
• Formation of SMBH (Thorne and Braginski ‘76)
• Close encounters of massive objects (Kocsis 06)
• Highly eccentric SMBH binaries (Enoki and Nagashima ‘06)
• Cosmic Strings (Hogan & Rees ‘84, Caldwell, Battye, and Shellard, ‘96, Damour and Vilenkin ‘05)
Detectability of a Waveform (continued)
So what matters is the integral of the waveform:
€
R = h τ( )0
t
∫ dτ
Sinusoidal source :
R = h0 cos ωτ( )0
t
∫ dτ =h0
ωsin ωt( ) = h0
P
2πsin ωt( )
or a Gaussian source :
R = h0e− τ −tc( ) /σ( )
2
0
t
∫ dτ = h0σ π
So what can we detect?• 20 pulsars, 1 microsecond RMS, daily obs, we
would detect a 0.70 microsecond maximum response about 93% of the time. For a 2-week burst we calculate the corresponding characteristic strain:
Max response (us)
Characteristic strain (h)
Percent detected
0.7 3.3e-13 93
0.5 2.3e-13 40
0.3 1.4e-13 2
Scaling that last slide
• Statistic scales as number of pulsars so e.g. measurable strains halve if number of pulsars doubles
• Response scales as burst length, so measurable strains halve if burst length doubles
• If 20 pulsars have 100 ns RMS, divide left two columns by 10