Progress and Preliminary Results of TAMA Data Analysis 8th GWDAW, Milwaukee WI, USA, 16th Dec. 2003 Nobuyuki Kanda Department of Physics Osaka City University and the TAMA collaboration
Outline 1. Detector status Search for GW : 2. Burst GW 3. Inspiral Gravitational Wave 4. Black-hole QNM ringdown GW 5. Continuous GW from SN1987 remnant Data Qualify : 6. Online veto study Cooperation : 7. LIGO-TAMA coincidence analysis 8. Remarks 2
Detector status (briefly) 3
Detector Status the TAMA collaboration National Astronomical Observatory (NAOJ), Institute for Cosmic Ray Research (ICRR), The University of Tokyo, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), University of Electro-Communications, Osaka City University, Osaka University, Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Niigata University, Hirosaki University, Tohoku University, Hiroshima University, Tokyo Denki University, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tokai University 4
Latest Sensitivity h equivalent noise spectrum of TAMA300 10 -13 2001/06 (DT6) 2002/08/31 (DT7) 10 -14 2003/02/20 (DT8) h equivalent noise spectrum [/sqrt(Hz)] 2003/11/04 (DT9) 10 -15 10 -16 10 -17 10 -18 10 -19 10 -20 10 -21 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 Frequency [Hz] h ~ 2 x 10-21 [/ √ Hz] @ 1kHz 5
Observable Range Range with SNR = 10 for inspiral GW and BH ringdown GW Distance of detecting inspirals with SNR=10 3 2003/11/04 (DT9) 2 Inspiral QNM ringdown 2.7Msolar-96.3kpc 100 Observable Distance with SNR=10 [kpc] 1.4Msolar-72.5kpc 7 6 5 0.5Msolar-32.6kpc 4 3 2 10Msolar-21.9kpc 10 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 0.1 1 10 100 mass of accompanying star [Msolar] * for optimal incident direction 6
Commissioning Data Taking period actual data amount take note DT1 8/6 - 7/1999 ~3 + ~7 hours continuous lock first whole system test DT2 9/17 - 20/1999 31 hours first Physics run DT3 4/20 - 23/2000 13 hours h ~ 5x10-21 [1/ √ Hz] -- 8/14/2000 World best sensitivity DT4 8/21 - 9/3/2000 167 hours stable long run DT5 3/1 - 3/8/2001 111 hours Longest stretch of continuous lock Test Run 1 6/4 - 6/6/2001 keep running all day is 24:50 1038 hours DT6 8/1 - 9/20/2001 full-dressed run duty cycle 86% Recycling, h ~ 3x10-21 [1/ √ Hz], DT7 8/31 - 9/2/2002 24 hours with duty cycle 76.7% Simultaneous obs with LIGO & GEO 1168 hours, coincidence obs with DT8 2/14 – 4/14/2003 duty cycle 81.1% LIGO S2 10/31(Actually 11/ weekday: night time partial coincidence run with LIGO S3 DT9 28)/2003 – 1/5/ weekend: full time trying ‘crewless’ operation 2003 7
DT9 – on going – 8
Search for GW events 9
Search for GW: Burst Gravitational Wave 1. Target Source Supernova core collapse Frequency band : a few 100 Hz – a few kHz Without strict waveform assumption 2. Excess power filter Spectrogram Integration : D f - D t 3. Non-Gauss noise rejection Spike like <–> level drift 10
Burst GW: Excess power filter raw data signal Spectrogram (t-f plane) Integration for Frourie domain D f = 500 Hz, D t =200 msec 11
Burst GW : Non-Gauss noise rejection Noise behavior mean power VS 2nd moment of power fluctuation raw data -> time slice j-th time slices -> parameter mean power of trend: C 1 = < P j > 2nd moment of power fluctuation � � < P 2 j > C 2 = 1 < P j > 2 − 1 2 See the talk by Masaki Ando : “S earch results for burst gravitational waves with TAMA data ” at Thursday 18th, session “event Search III : Burst” 12
Search for GW: Inspiral Gravitational Wave 1. Known wave form coalescence of compact binaries ; NS-NS, NS-BH, BH-BH, PBMACHO 2. Known noise spectrum in Fourier domain 3. Linear system signal: s(t) = n(t) + a h(t) noise component : n(t) , GW signal: a h(t) average noise power spectrum: Sh(f) template waveform: h(t) signal-to-noise ratio: √ SNR = ρ / 2 � f 2 ˜ h ∗ ( f ) · ˜ s ( f ) e − i 2 π f τ d ρ ( τ ; parameters) = 2 f S h ( f ) f 1 chi^2 test 13
Observable Range for Inspiral GW � 1 � G � f − 7 2 � 1 � 1 � � � 2 � c 5 µ M 3 3 − 1 √ T � = M � SNR = 2 A 4 S n ( f ) d f A = T � T 6 c 3 � π 2 M � d 96 M � Distance of detecting inspirals with SNR=10 3 2003/11/04 (DT9) Observable Distance with SNR=10 [kpc] 2 2003/02/20 (DT8) 2002/08/31 (DT7) 2.7Msolar-96.3kpc 2001/06 (DT6) 100 1.4Msolar-72.5kpc 6 5 0.5Msolar-32.6kpc 4 10Msolar-21.9kpc 3 2 10 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 0.1 1 10 100 mass of accompanying star [Msolar] 14
Event ( r/ √ c 2 ) histogram DT8 search Preliminary result 15
Efficiency for Galactic event 16
Upper limit Range 50 8 Upper Limit for Glactic event 6 Upper Limit for evidence 4 1. DT2 Upper Limit C.L.90% [event/hour] 40 Range (SNR=10): 3.4 kpc 2 Observable Range [kpc] Mass region: 0.3 - 10 Msolar 0.1 8 6 30 Upper limit: 0.59 event/hour (C.L.90%) 4 2. DT4 2 20 Range (SNR=10): 17.9 kpc 0.01 8 6 Mass region: 1-2 Msolar 4 10 Upper limit: 0.027 event/hour (C.L.90%) 2 3. DT6 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Range (SNR=10): 33.1 kpc year Mass region: 1-2 Msolar ,Upper limit: 0.0095 event/hour (C.L.90%) =83 event/yr 4. DT8 Range (SNR=10): 42.2 kpc, Detection Efficiency ~60% for Galactic event Mass region: 1-2 Msolar ,Upper limit: 0.0056 event/hour (C.L.90%) =49 event/yr 1-3 Msolar ,Upper limit: 0.0033 event/hour (C.L.90%) =29 event/yr See the talk by Hirotaka Takahashi : “Search for gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries using TAMA300 data” at Wednesday 17th, session “event Search I : Inspiral” 17
Search for GW: Black-hole QNM ringdown GW 1. BH formation (by compact binary, etc.) -> quasi-normal mode GW • dumped sinusoidal waveform “ringdown” • mass and Kerr parameter determine the waveform h ( t ) = Ae − π fct Q sin(2 π f c t ) f c t ∼ 3 . 2 × 10 4 [1 − 0 . 63(1 − a ) 0 . 3 ][Hz] M QNM Q ∼ 2 . 0(1 − a ) − 0 . 45 18
BH ringdown: Observable range Assuming the BHs formed from binary coalescence -> Flanagan & Hughes, Phys.Rev.D57 (* perturbation theory may not predict the amplitude... ) Distance of detecting QNM ringdown with SNR=10 3 2003/11/04 (DT9) Observable Distance with SNR=10 [kpc] 2 2003/02/20 (DT8) 2002/08/31 (DT7) 2001/06 (DT6) 100 7 6 5 4 3 2 10 target mass range 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 8 9 1 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 100 mass of accompanying star [Msolar] 19
Templates for BH ringdown Design the template bank • Strictly orthogonal and normalized parameters, which correspond to Physics meaning • Efficient for Matched Filter algorithm Minimal match ~98%, # of templates ~800 Nakano et al. (gr-qc/0306082, PRD 68, 102003(2003).) See the talk by Hiroyuki Nakano : “Effective Search Method for Gravitational Ringing of Black Holes” in ‘poser session’ 20
Search for BH ringdown 1. Matched Filter technique similar to ‘Inspiral search’ 2. Detection efficiency estimation assumption: amplitude, radiation pattern of fundermental (l=m=2) mode, glactic distribution. Monte-Carlo (embed ringdown GW in real TAMA data) 3. Veto study reject spurious signals due to noises (spikes, glitch, etc.) 21
Search for BH ringdown Typical signal amplitude 1 8 SNR>10 Detection Probability 6 SNR>20 4 SNR>30 Detection SNR>40 2 SNR>50 efficiency by SNR>100 0.1 8 Monte-Carlo 6 4 2 0.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 100 1000 Ringdown frequency f c [Hz] See the talk by Yoshiki Tsunesada : “earch for black hole ringdown gravitational waves in TAMA300 data” at Wednesday 17th, session “event Search I : Inspiral” 22
Search for GW: Continuous GW from SN1987A remnant 1. Assumptions: SN1987A remnant pulser Large spindown rate 2–3 x10 -10 Hz/s Search range: 934.908 ±0.05 Hz 2. 1200 hours TAMA data (dt4,dt6) 3. Upper limit: h ~ 5 x 10 -23 (C.L> 99%) -> Soida et al. Class. Quant. Grav.Vol.20. No.17(2003)S645 23
Data quality evaluation 24
Data Quality: Online veto study Various noise induce at anywhere in the control servo loop check by calibration signal injection online evaluation 25
Online ‘noise budget’ estimation See the talk by Daisuke Tatsumi : “Online Veto Analysis of TAMA300” at Friday 19th, session “Detector Characterization III” 26
Cooperation : LIGO-TAMA 27
LIGO–TAMA coincidence 1. MOU was approved at Dec.2002 for joint analysis, exchange the operation informations, and share some resources. 2. Coincidence observation for S2–DT8 overlap duration of all x4 detectors: 250.7 hrs 3. Advantage of Multi-Detector Sky coverage improvement Source direction determination 4. Physics Target Compact binary coalescence Burst GW from super-novae Trigger by external observation as GRB 5. Joint working group kicked off 28
LIGO–TAMA coincidence Coincidence Schematics LIGO TAMA (LHO1, LHO2, LLO) filter evaluatation search by own data search (efficiency, fake rate, etc.) event candidates lists event candidates lists AND STEP 1 (= coincidence ) upper limit / significancy STEP 2 event behavior (waveform, amplitude, -> coherence ) upper limit / significancy See the talk by Patrick Sutton : “Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis” at Friday 19th, session “Multi-Detector Analysis” 29
Recommend
More recommend
