Detection of gravitational waves

[Ranku]

What is the state-of-the-art of detecting gravity waves. Are the instruments available now sufficiently sensitive to detect gravity waves? Have we identified 'low-hanging' sources from which gravity waves should have been detectable. Have we yet reached the point where doubts are arising as to the direct detectiblity of gravity waves?

 

[Chalnoth]

What is the state-of-the-art of detecting gravity waves. Are the instruments available now sufficiently sensitive to detect gravity waves? Have we identified 'low-hanging' sources from which gravity waves should have been detectable. Have we yet reached the point where doubts are arising as to the direct detectiblity of gravity waves?

LIGO is still basically the only gravitational wave observatory. So far all it's been able to do is place upper limits upon the magnitude of gravitational waves.

The next-generation instrument is a space-based interferometer, LISA.

I don't think anybody in the field has any doubts at all that it's possible to directly detect these waves. It's just clear that it's a challenging problem.

 

[edpell]

Are there theory calculations of how strong the waves are expected to be? How does that compare to how sensitive the LIGO is and how sensitive the LISA will be?

 

[Chalnoth]

Are there theory calculations of how strong the waves are expected to be? How does that compare to how sensitive the LIGO is and how sensitive the LISA will be?

Indeed, quite a few. Unfortunately I can't say much more than that, except that the types of events that we expect to eventually be able to detect are mergers of massive, compact objects (such as neutron stars, black holes, and especially the mergers of supermassive black holes that is expected as a consequence of galaxy mergers). Some also hope for some direct detection of the gravitational wave background (analogous to the CMB), but we really have no idea what the magnitudes of those are going to be, as that depends upon the specific model of inflation.

 

[joesmith]

There is a Gravity Wave Measurement faculty at Livingston,Louisiana.

Joe in Texas

 

[jnorman]

chalnoth - it seems to me that even in the event of two neutron stars colliding, the actual COG of the system perceived from any distance would not change, and thus no significant alteration of the gravitational field would occur, and no GWs would be detected. same way with exploding stars, etc.

in order to create detectable grav waves at any appreciable distance, the COG of some massive body/system would have to be significantly and rather quickly altered, and i can't really think of any way that could occur. local measurement of GWs could be possible if you were in the near vicinity of a pair of massive bodies in orbit about each other.

 

[Chalnoth]

chalnoth - it seems to me that even in the event of two neutron stars colliding, the actual COG of the system perceived from any distance would not change, and thus no significant alteration of the gravitational field would occur, and no GWs would be detected. same way with exploding stars, etc.

The alteration of the gravitational field comes from the time rate of change of the quadrupole of the field, not the center of mass. Another way of saying it is that it's the change in the shape of the field that produces the gravitational waves. And in order to transition from two neutron stars to just one requires a very large change in the shape of the gravitational field.

That said, most of the time people talk about detecting gravitational wave signatures, they're thinking about colliding black holes, not neutron stars.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The alteration of the gravitational field comes from the time rate of change of the quadrupole of the field, not the center of mass. Another way of saying it is that it's the change in the shape of the field that produces the gravitational waves. And in order to transition from two neutron stars to just one requires a very large change in the shape of the gravitational field.

That said, most of the time people talk about detecting gravitational wave signatures, they're thinking about colliding black holes, not neutron stars.

Is there any sitution where the merger of two neutron stars results in another neutron star? I would imagine that would tip them both past their Schwarzschild Radii. Does the massive blast of energy carry away enough mass so that they won't collapse further?

I also believe, that as sensitive as LIGO is, and LISA will be; they don't have a prayer of detecting a collision of anything less than binary BH's.

 

[Chalnoth]

Is there any sitution where the merger of two neutron stars results in another neutron star? I would imagine that would tip them both past their Schwarzschild Radii. Does the massive blast of energy carry away enough mass so that they won't collapse further?

The maximum mass of a neutron star is somewhere in the range of 3 solar masses, while the typical masses for neutron stars are 1.35-2.1 solar masses (from Wikipedia). This would seem to indicate that two neutron stars colliding would usually become a more massive neutron star, and not a black hole.

I am not sure we know just how much mass would be ejected in such a collision.

I also believe, that as sensitive as LIGO is, and LISA will be; they don't have a prayer of detecting a collision of anything less than binary BH's.

That is quite possible. But bear in mind that our ability to detect these phenomena depends critically upon how far away they occur.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The maximum mass of a neutron star is somewhere in the range of 3 solar masses, while the typical masses for neutron stars are 1.35-2.1 solar masses (from Wikipedia). This would seem to indicate that two neutron stars colliding would usually become a more massive neutron star, and not a black hole.

I am not sure we know just how much mass would be ejected in such a collision.


That is quite possible. But bear in mind that our ability to detect these phenomena depends critically upon how far away they occur.

Gotcha. So probably two large neutron stars colliding WILL collapse into a BH, and that would emit detectable GWs I think. On avg though, with the energy released in a GRB I have to imagine most neutron star mergers are just that... mergers and not collapsars. Thanks very much for the info.

For the distance, is that a result of losing energy (aka a weakening effect) or a "redshift" effect that would elongate the waves making them harder to detect? Or both? Or neither... Damn this is an exciting time to be alive if you have an active interest in science.

 

[Chalnoth]

For the distance, is that a result of losing energy (aka a weakening effect) or a "redshift" effect that would elongate the waves making them harder to detect? Or both? Or neither... Damn this is an exciting time to be alive if you have an active interest in science.

Well, it's the same as it is with light waves. You get a falloff of 1/r^2 due to the fact that we have 3 spatial dimensions, and you get an extra drop in energy (and thus detectability) from any redshift that occurs.

Of course, if neutron star-neutron star mergers are detectable at all, they're probably detectable only within a nearby region of our own galaxy, so the redshift effect would be completely negligible.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Well, it's the same as it is with light waves. You get a falloff of 1/r^2 due to the fact that we have 3 spatial dimensions, and you get an extra drop in energy (and thus detectability) from any redshift that occurs.

Of course, if neutron star-neutron star mergers are detectable at all, they're probably detectable only within a nearby region of our own galaxy, so the redshift effect would be completely negligible.

Understood! Thanks very much again for the clear info. :)

 

[nicksauce]

Well, it's the same as it is with light waves. You get a falloff of 1/r^2 due to the fact that we have 3 spatial dimensions, and you get an extra drop in energy (and thus detectability) from any redshift that occurs.

Of course, if neutron star-neutron star mergers are detectable at all, they're probably detectable only within a nearby region of our own galaxy, so the redshift effect would be completely negligible.

Gravitational wave amplitude actually goes like 1/r. (If by amplitude you mean the metric perturbation)

 

[Chalnoth]

Gravitational wave amplitude actually goes like 1/r. (If by amplitude you mean the metric perturbation)

Well, I believe the energy still drops off as 1/r^2, so I believe that's the relevant quantity for detection (though I suppose I could be mistaken). Electromagnetic wave amplitude, after all, also drops off like 1/r.

 

[nicksauce]

There is a great example in Sean Carroll's relativity book about just how sensitive gravitational wave detectors need to be.

If we have a binary system of black holes (10 solar masses each), separated by 10 times their Schwarzschild radius (~10^7cm), and they are a cosmological distance away from us (~100 Mpc), then the gravitational wave amplitude is
h ~ Rs^2 / (10Rs) / r ~ 10^-21.

This means that if we have an interferometer detector with a length scale L of order kilometres, we need it to be sensitive to scales dL, where dL/L ~ h. So dL ~ 10^-16 cm. That is, much smaller than a nucleus.

 

[nicksauce]

Well, I believe the energy still drops off as 1/r^2, so I believe that's the relevant quantity for detection (though I suppose I could be mistaken). Electromagnetic wave amplitude, after all, also drops off like 1/r.

Hmmm... All the references I read or see seem to do everything in terms of h and not energy. But that could just be for simplicity. I'm really not too sure about how the detectors work to know what the relevant quantity is.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Hmmm... All the references I read or see seem to do everything in terms of h and not energy. But that could just be for simplicity. I'm really not too sure about how the detectors work to know what the relevant quantity is.

The detectors that are earthbound use very VERY long LASER beams and try to detect deviations in them caused by a wave. LISA I believe uses high precision gyroscopes and highly finished spheres to produce a similar effect in a smaller package.

 

[Creator]

Hello guys;

Since no one mentioned it ...

I think you should be aware that there are several operational GW detectors globally of the resonant mass ("Weber bar") variety based upon Weber's original design, except that they are generally cryogenic...and have been operational for a number of years with excellent sensitivity... h < 10^-18.

There are several in Italy, one in Denmark, and Australia, and one at LSU in Baton Rouge.
This type uses a large (Aluminum) cylinder whose strain is measured as the GW passes through. (some are listed here:http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/generalrelativity/ResonantBarDetectors.html )
One recent resonant mass design (in Brazil and elsewhere) is spherical so as to make it omnidirectional .

Creator

 

[Frame Dragger]

Hello guys;

Since no one mentioned it ...

I think you should be aware that there are several operational GW detectors globally of the resonant mass ("Weber bar") variety based upon Weber's original design, except that they are generally cryogenic...and have been operational for a number of years with excellent sensitivity... h < 10^-18.

There are several in Italy, one in Denmark, and Australia, and one at LSU in Baton Rouge.
This type uses a large (Aluminum) cylinder whose strain is measured as the GW passes through. (some are listed here:http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/generalrelativity/ResonantBarDetectors.html )
One recent resonant mass design (in Brazil and elsewhere) is spherical so as to make it omnidirectional .

Creator

Thanks for the link and info, that's fascinating stuff. I only ever really heard about these in terms of the near-perfection of the sphere in the newer design in a "popular" science context. This is is very interesting, but I'm still putting my money on LIGO or LISA.

 

[Chronos]

Gravity waves are very difficult to detect, but very important in cosmology. I think we are less that 5 years away from the first 'hit'. The LIGO project is in constant calibration and likely to produce the first definitive result. LISA is not scheduled for launch until 2016.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Gravity waves are very difficult to detect, but very important in cosmology. I think we are less that 5 years away from the first 'hit'. The LIGO project is in constant calibration and likely to produce the first definitive result. LISA is not scheduled for launch until 2016.

Believe me when I say that I hope to hell that you're right. That would be an amazing piece of confirmatory evidence, and hopefully would open the gates for more funding and fast-tracking of follow-up projects.

 

[Creator]

Thanks for the link and info, ... This is is very interesting, but I'm still putting my money on LIGO or LISA.

Hi Frame Dragger; Thanks for your response. But before you drain your bank account I think you should be aware that besides these two methodologies, interferometric and resonant mass, there has been some recent development on a somewhat different and promising GW detection technique using coupled superconducting cavity detection.

It involves coupling of 2 superconducting resonant cavities. A passing GW induces a transition between the two resonant frequencies. Predicted to be quite sensitive; at resonant freq., around h = 10^-21 or better, depending on the Q factor.
Details Here:
http://srf2003.desy.de/fap/paper/TuO10.pdf

In all these various types there is no need to 'pick one', since each detector type covers a different frequency band, so they become somewhat complimentary.

Resonant mass - around 700 to 900 hertz (the Brazilian Spherical ~ ?? I'll have to look it up ).
LIGO for low frequencies, around 0.1 to 5 Hz , currently, if I'm not mistaken
LISA is ultra low freq. - milliHertz to 0.1 HZ
Superconducting Cavities Res. cover high freq.; can be designed from around 4 to 12 kiloHertz.

I like the recent progress in the SCRF.

Creator

 

[Frame Dragger]

I really love this forum. Thanks for the info Creator... this is all fascinating, but I need to read more about this. You've given me some new directions for learning in this area, and I appreciate that. :)

 

[emc2cracker]

I recently shot a question to Professor Hughes about an idea I had for building an experiment to generate gravitational waves. I know its like impossible but he didn't just tell me I was nuts he gave me the equations to show that I'm nuts lol. I will share that with you here as you will be able to follow it much easier than I can... I had to study this for days. And I am still having a hard time trying to plug in alternative parameters.

To get any interesting GW power, the spheres would have to move at a
significant fraction of the speed of light.

To set an upper limit, I'll take the spheres to be 2 meters in
diameter (a bit larger than your 5 feet). I'll take them to be
filled with mercury (denser than gallium; I'm not suggesting you
actually do this, just doing the calculation to prove the
principle). Mercury has a density of a bit less than 14 grams per
cubic centimeter, so the spheres would each have a mass of about

M = (4/3) pi (14 grams/cm^3)(100 cm)^3 = 59,000,000 gm

(At each step I've rounded up slightly, so my calculation will be an
overestimate.) If I have two "stars" of mass M orbiting one another
with their centers separated by a distance R and orbiting with a
period T, then the power generated by gravitational waves is given by

P = (8/5) (G/c^5) M^2 R^4 (2 pi/T)^6

(As you'll see in a minute, the factor of G/c^5 --- where G is the
gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light --- really kills
us. This is why all GW experiments are based on astrophysical
sources, where we can get masses that are stellar or larger.)

For your experiment, M = 5.9 x 10^7 grams. The center to center
separation R is 200 cm (well, 5 feet --- but I'm rounding up a bit to
get an overestimate). The period is

1/(2000 rpm) = 0.005 minutes = 0.03 seconds

The numerical factor G/c^5 is 2.76 x 10^(-60) sec^3/(gm cm^2). Let's
put all of this together:

P = [8/5][2.76 x 10^(-60) sec^3/(gm cm^2)][5.9 x 10^7 gm]^2 [200 cm]^4
[2 pi/(0.03 sec)]^6

= [2.76 x 10^(-60)][7.52 x 10^(38)] gm cm^2/sec^3

= 2.08 x 10^(-21) erg/sec

Converting to Watts (1 Watt = 10^7 erg/sec), your proposed apparatus
would generate a gravitational wave power of about 2 x 10^(-28)
Watts. If we imagine that you can make the rotational frequency go
arbitrarily high, it would be useful to see how this results scales
with that frequency:

P = 2.08 x 10^(-28) Watts (f/2000 rpm)^6.

Doing a little bit of algebra, we see that if want this to get up to
1 Watt, we need to dial the frequency up to about 82,000,000
revolutions per minute. At this speed, the spheres would be moving
at a speed of about 1,400,000 meters per second --- about 0.5% of the
speed of light. (Of course, at this speed, the material out of which
the spheres are made would not be able to hold together. This is why
astrophysical gravitational wave sources are objects like neutron
stars and black holes --- their enormous self gravity is what allows
them to hold together while they whirl about one another at speeds
which are an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.)

I'm afraid there's no way to overcome the fundamental limits set by
that factor of G/c^5 --- you just need enormous masses and enormous
speeds. Anything you can make on Earth will not do the trick.

Please note I'm going to be away from my email for the holidays and
am unlikely to answer any followup questions on a short timescale.

Scott Hughes


I also put this in a topic I started about this very experiment of mine. Maybe you geniuses could tell me if my apparatus would have any good uses at all lol.

 

[Chronos]

LIGO uses very long range, sensitive instruments. Detectability is not an issue, isolating the signals from background noise is an issue.

 

[emc2cracker]

I have always understood the biggest problem to hunting down gravitational waves is simply finding a system where they are possible. Does anyone know if any good binary systems have been located where gravity waves may occur? Could binary systems close but less massive be studied or would we need to study neutron stars exclusively?

 

[Chalnoth]

I have always understood the biggest problem to hunting down gravitational waves is simply finding a system where they are possible. Does anyone know if any good binary systems have been located where gravity waves may occur? Could binary systems close but less massive be studied or would we need to study neutron stars exclusively?

Gravitational wave systems aren't exactly "pointed". So finding a system that emits them wouldn't help us detect said waves much at all (except in giving us an idea of how precise our instruments need to be). What scientists most hope to find here are events which we aren't seeing at present, such as black hole-black hole mergers.

 

[Ich]

Maybe you geniuses could tell me if my apparatus would have any good uses at all lol.

You could use the mercury variety as a thermometer.

Does anyone know if any good binary systems have been located where gravity waves may occur? Could binary systems close but less massive be studied or would we need to study neutron stars exclusively?

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31391"

 

[emc2cracker]

You could use the mercury variety as a thermometer.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=31391"

Anybody want to buy a $30,000.00 thermometer? lol

I'll find a good use for it even if its just messing with electromagnetic fields. There are tons of research ideas for that alone. You don't see too many dual dynamo setups. Shame I don't have a PHD I might have been able to raise money for this lol.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Gravitational wave systems aren't exactly "pointed". So finding a system that emits them wouldn't help us detect said waves much at all (except in giving us an idea of how precise our instruments need to be). What scientists most hope to find here are events which we aren't seeing at present, such as black hole-black hole mergers.

Would a neutron star collapse to a BH through accretion produce detectable waves?

 

[Chalnoth]

Would a neutron star collapse to a BH through accretion produce detectable waves?

I think that would depend upon how far away it would be. I honestly don't know how far away we could detect such events.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I think that would depend upon how far away it would be. I honestly don't know how far away we could detect such events.

Well, maybe we'll all get lucky. Stranger things have happened... Maybe there are two 100x or more stellar mass BH's a 10 ly or so away about to merge perfectly perpendicular to the plane of LIGO! Fingers crossed everyone!

Hey, maybe this is the 2012 issue those lunatics go on about. We'll get full confirmation of GR/QM, then immidiately be accreted.

 

[emc2cracker]

Well, maybe we'll all get lucky. Stranger things have happened... Maybe there are two 100x or more stellar mass BH's a 10 ly or so away about to merge perfectly perpendicular to the plane of LIGO! Fingers crossed everyone!

Hey, maybe this is the 2012 issue those lunatics go on about. We'll get full confirmation of GR/QM, then immidiately be accreted.

LOL Now that is an end of the world I would buy tickets for. I'd just hope we get slung into deep space... a literal spaceship earth.