Using atomic clocks for gravitational wave detection

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the proposal of using atomic clocks for gravitational wave detection, comparing it to existing methods like pulsar timing experiments and eLISA. Participants explore the potential sensitivity and frequency range of this new approach, as well as its feasibility and implications for detecting gravitational waves from various astronomical sources.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the proposed atomic clock method could offer a less expensive alternative to LIGO by utilizing satellites for a wider baseline.
  • There are requests for comparisons of sensitivity and frequency range between the atomic clock proposal and eLISA, with some suggesting that the two may not be directly comparable due to differing target sources.
  • A participant mentions querying an expert about the potential for detecting gravitational waves from inflation, indicating that while possible, such detection would be more challenging than from supermassive black holes.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the relationship between baseline distance and frequency range, with one participant questioning whether frequency ranges have a proportional dependence on arm length.
  • Another participant emphasizes that signal sensitivity does not necessarily correlate with measurement sensitivity, indicating uncertainty in the proposed relationships.
  • There is a suggestion that the authors of the atomic clock proposal should provide standard sensitivity plots to clarify their claims.
  • One participant discusses the expected frequency range for the atomic clock method, suggesting it could access lower frequencies than eLISA, but acknowledges the need for more detailed design to estimate sensitivity accurately.
  • A mention of gamma wavelengths and their potential for high resolution in detecting velocity changes raises questions about the existence and feasibility of coherent gamma sources for this application.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility and implications of the atomic clock proposal, with no consensus reached on its effectiveness compared to existing gravitational wave detection methods. Uncertainties regarding the relationships between baseline distance, frequency range, and sensitivity remain prominent in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the current understanding of the proposed method's sensitivity estimates and the need for further detailed design work. There are also unresolved questions regarding the dependence of frequency ranges on arm lengths and the potential for coherent gamma sources.

Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
11,420
Reaction score
750
This paper, http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.00996, proposes using atomic clocks for gravitational wave detection. It sounds similar to other ideas involving pulsar timing experiments. The twist here is utilizing satellites to provide a wide base for improved sensitivity. Sounds like an inexpensive alternative to LIGO.
 
Space news on Phys.org
I'd like to see some plots comparing this proposed scheme's sensitivity and frequency range to those of eLISA (since those are the sources this paper seems to be claiming to also look at). Are they comparable?

But if this new proposal is looking to be similar to eLISA, it would suggest that this scheme is not really an alternative to advanced LIGO since advanced LIGO scans a different set of frequency ranges which correspond to different sources (usually merging binary neutron stars or stellar mass black holes in nearby galaxies rather than merging supermassive black holes in distant galaxies as is talked about here).
 
I queried Professor Moaz about the possibility of using this approach to detect gravitational waves from inflation. He replied it was, in principle, but, they would be more difficult to detect than those from SMBH, etc. A reference was included: http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/gwave_spectrum.html
 
Do you know where this new atomic clock GW detector's sensitivity curve would lie on that plot? Would it be roughly where eLISA is?

I notice this plot has LISA instead of eLISA, was it perhaps made before the new spec changes made due to NASA abandoning the LISA project?
 
Per the paper, the baseline distance for eLISA will be 10E06 km with a sensitivity at .1 - 100mHz. The configuration for the atomic clock proposal would have an 8.3 light minutes, or 10E08 km baseline. Assuming sensitivity is linear wrt baseline distance, it naively appears it should be in the 10 to 10000 mHz range.
 
Are u sure the frequency ranges have a proportional dependence on the length of the arms? (Rather than inverse proportionality?) Because eLISA has MUCH longer arms than LIGO but it is scanning a frequency range that is much SMALLER than that of LIGO not larger.
 
No, I'm not at all sure. Signal sensitivity is not necessarily related to measurement sensitivity.
 
It would be nice if the authors could provide a plot of the sensitivity and ranges as is standard...
 
Frequency range is one over distance (modified with some function depending on the details of the detector). That is the main argument for space-based detectors: you get in the frequency range of orbiting bodies. eLISA has a sensitivity in the range of 1 mHz to 1 Hz (https://www.elisascience.org/articles/elisa-mission/sensitivity), that would give this approach access to 0.01 to 10 mHz, or cycle times of three hours to a minute. This is well in agreement with the 8 light-minutes of separation, as expected. They seem to be a bit more conservative, limiting the frequency range to < 1 mHz to avoid having more than half a wavelength between the spacecraft s.

A very interesting approach. Cheaper? We'll have to see. You still have to measure the arrival times of light signals with an uncertainty significantly below the frequency of the light (and they propose an interferometer...). I would expect you still need the extremely drag-free test masses to keep control of the expected path over the timescale of hours. The proposed 10 kW laser is massive. They compare the power requirement to the ISS!

I think the idea is too new for sensitivity estimates, those will need a more detailed design.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
844
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K