1 / 15

GW Data Analysis (from an experimentalist’s point of view)

GW Data Analysis (from an experimentalist’s point of view). Gabriela Gonz ález Louisiana State University Gravitation: A Decennial Perspective CGPG, Penn State, June 8, 2003. 3 PDs, 6 signals, 4 DOF. Data Analysis: what data?. AS_Q, or GW signal.

vilina
Download Presentation

GW Data Analysis (from an experimentalist’s point of view)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GW Data Analysis(from an experimentalist’s point of view) Gabriela González Louisiana State University Gravitation: A Decennial Perspective CGPG, Penn State, June 8, 2003

  2. 3 PDs, 6 signals, 4 DOF Data Analysis: what data? AS_Q, or GW signal Distances are controlled by feedback loops: we need to know what was there before we reduced the signals to keep cavities resonant: “calibration”.

  3. Data analysis starts with good data... that is a lot more than a good spectrum! LLO interferometer S1 S2 (Feb-Apr ’03)

  4. Seismic Noise in the band Keeping interferometer lockedS1 run: 17days (408 hrs)

  5. Calibrated spectrum Calibration lines

  6. S1: Calibration stability

  7. (Preliminary) Results from S1Upper Limits on Burst Sources • Upper limit in strain compared to prior (cryogenic bar) results: • S1: h < 5 x 10-17 - this result • IGEC 2000: h < 1 x 10-17 • Astone et al. 2001: h ~ 2 x 10-18 • Upper limit in rate constrained by observation time: • S1: 17d, 3x coinc.- this result • IGEC - 90d (2X coinc.), 260d (3X coinc.) • Astone et al. - 90d Excluded region, 90 % CL

  8. (Preliminary) Results from S1Upper Limits on Stochastic Background Sources S1 (50 hrs, H2-L1): W0h2100 < 23 Current best upper limits: • Inferred: From Big Bang nucleosynthesis: • Measured: Garching-Glasgow interferometers: • Measured: EXPLORER-NAUTILUS:

  9. (Preliminary) Results from S1Upper Limits on Periodic Sources • S1: upper limits on J1939+2134 (1.284 Hz)amp < 10-22 • Previous limits for same system: • 40m: ~10-17 • Glasgow detector: 10-20 (2nd harm.) • At other frequencies, bars have set up limits near 10 -24

  10. (Preliminary) Results from S1Upper Limits on NS Inspiral Sources Mass distribution and effective distance • S1: 289 hrs, 2x: 116 hrs; R< 164/yr in Milky Way Equivalent Galaxy • (Expected: ~10-5/yr) • Previous searches: • LIGO 40m (’94, 25 hrs) 0.5/hr, 25 kpc • TAMA300 ’99 ( 6 hrs) 0.6/hr, ~ 1kpc • Glasgow-Garching ’89 (100 hrs) no events, ~1kpc • IGEC ’00-’01 (2yrs): no events, ~10 kpc

  11. An eventful segment, withstable calibration Loudest inspiral event (but LHO not locked  )

  12. A “good” template match,a “bad” detector time

  13. Statistics of the signal: gaussian, stationary?

  14. Statistics of the signal: gaussian, stationary?

  15. Conclusions • Data analysis effort has started succesfully • Search methods are very diverse • Methods set upper limits, but are ready for detection • Data quality aspects are essential • Collaboration between theorists (sources), data analysis experts (methods) and experimentalists (data quality) is important.

More Related