Skip to main content

Full text of "Search for a stochastic background of 100-MHz gravitational waves with laser interferometers"

See other formats

Search for a stochastic background of 100-MHz gravitational 
waves with laser interferometers 

Tomotada Akutsu/'Q Seiji Kawamura, 2 Atsushi Nishizawa, 3 
Koji Arai, 2 Kazuhiro Yamamoto, 2 Daisuke Tatsumi, 2 Shigeo Nagano, 
Erina Nishida, 5 Takeshi Chiba, 6 Ryuichi Takahashi, 7 Naoshi Sugiyama, 7 
Mitsuhiro Fukushima, 2 Toshitaka Yamazaki, 2 and Masa-Katsu Fujimoto 2 


1 Department of Astronomy, University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan 

<n ; 

qq 1 Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan 



2 National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan 
3 Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, 

^National Institute of Information and Communications 
Technology, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8795, Japan 


5 Graduate School of Humanities and Sciences, 

Ochanomizu University, Bunkyo, Tokyo 112-8610, Japan 
6 Department of Physics, College of Humanities and Sciences, 


q ', Nihon University, Tokyo 156-8550, Japan 

7 Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan 

(Dated: August 8, 2008) 


^ ■ This letter reports the results of a search for a stochastic background of gravitational waves 

(GW) at 100 MHz by laser interferometry. We have developed a GW detector, which is a pair 
of 75-cm baseline synchronous recycling (resonant recycling) interferometers. Each interferometer 
has a strain sensitivity of ~ 10~ 16 Hz -1 / 2 at 100 MHz. By cross-correlating the outputs of the two 
interferometers within 1000 seconds, we found /ifog^gw < 6 x 10 25 to be an upper limit on the 
energy density spectrum of the GW background in a 2-kHz bandwidth around 100 MHz, where a 
flat spectrum is assumed. 

PACS numbers: Valid PACS appear here 


Recently, Cruise and Ingley reported on a detector for gravitational waves (GW) at 100 
MHz l|. Their GW detector is a pair of waveguide loop cavities, each of which has a 
strain sensitivity of ~ 10~ 14 Hz -1 / 2 at the frequency. Except for this, no experiments were 
attempted to directly detect GWs at very high frequencies (above 100 kHz), while many 
theories predict a stochastic gravitational-wave background (GWB) in a broad range of 
frequencies, 10~ 18 — 10 10 Hz. At very high frequencies, a relatively large GWB is predicted 
by some models of the early universe and compact astronomical objects (references are 
summarized in our previous paper [2]). Although the amount of the cosmic GWB is indirectly 
limited by not only the helium-4 abundance due to big-bang nucleosynthesis [3|, but also 
measurements of the cosmic microwave background |4| , direct search experiments for a GWB 
at very high frequencies should be significant. 

We have developed a more sensitive detector for 100-MHz GWs using laser interferome- 
ters. The detector is a pair of synchronous recycling interferometers, where the synchronous 
recycling (or resonant recycling) technique was proposed by Drever in the 1980s |5|. In our 
previous papers 0, E| , we showed that this interferometer is suitable to detect a GWB at 
very high frequency with high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and that the SNR can be im- 
proved by cross-correlating the outputs of the two interferometers. In this letter, we report 
the first results of the search for a stochastic GWB at 100 MHz with the GW detector. 

Synchronous recycling interferometer. — The interferometer has a resonant response to 
GWs at a specific frequency p], IsJ]. GW signals are enhanced in a recycling cavity (see 
Fig. [1]), which is formed by a recycling mirror (RM), a transfer mirror (TM), and two end 
mirrors (EMI and EM2). 

The size of the recycling cavity determines the resonant frequency, where the signal 
enhancement is proportional to the laser power kept in the cavity. At the entrance of the 
interferometer, a laser beam is divided into two orthogonal directions by a beamsplitter 
(BS). Thus two beams are incident on the RM, which is a beamsplitter but with relatively 
high reflectivity. When the laser frequency is stabilized to the recycling cavity, the two 
beams passing through the RM are resonant in the cavity by circulating many times along a 
common path in opposite directions (clockwise and counterclockwise). At the same time, the 
two circulating beams will experience differential phase shifts due to quadrupole components 
of GWs. The phase difference is maximized for the GWs at the same frequency as the free- 
spectral range z/fsr, the inverse of the round-trip period of the circulating beams. The phase 


Recycling cavity^ £^ End mjrror 2 

Recycling mirror 


; Beamsplitter 
~£t Photodetector 

FIG. 1: Schematic view of a synchronous recycling interferometer. GW signals are enhanced in 
the recycling cavity, and detected with the photodetector. 

difference is enhanced as the laser power builds up depending on the finesse of the recycling 
cavity. The beams that left the cavity are recombined at the BS so that the differential 
components (GW signals) are detected with the photodetector (PD). 

Experimental setup. — We have developed two synchronous recycling interferometers, 
hereafter called IFO-1 and IFO-2. For each interferometer (see Fig. [2]), we use a Nd:YAG 
continuous-wave laser with a wavelength of 1064 nm and a laser power of 0.5 W. The laser 
beam passes through an electro-optic phase modulator (EOl) and a Faraday isolator (FI), 
and then enters the interferometer. The recycling cavity is designed to have a baseline 
length (distance from the RM to the EMI or EM2 [15j) of L ~ 75 cm so that the GW 
response is maximized at z/fsr = c/(4L) ~ 100 MHz, where c is the speed of light 16]. 
Because this experiment is the first step in the direct detection of a GWB at 100 MHz, both 
interferometers are constructed in the air, and each recycling cavity is designed to have a 
finesse of ~ 100; each RM has relatively low reflectivity (nominal 98.5%). For calibration, 
we use the E02 to simulate GWs by modulating the phases of the circulating beams in the 
cavity. The size of the Sagnac interferometer, which is formed by the BS, the RM, and two 
steering mirrors, is relatively small (12.5-cm square optical path), and thus its GW response 
is insignificant compared to that of the recycling cavity. 

The laser frequency is stabilized to the recycling cavity by the Pound-Drever-Hall tech- 
nique [91]. This technique requires phase- modulation sidebands spaced by a radio frequency 
(RF) from the laser-source (carrier) frequency z/ in the optical frequency domain. The RF 



LO: 14.696840 MHz 

Freq. stabilization 


FIG. 2: (Color online.) Schematic view of the experimental setup of one of the interferometers. 
EO: electro-optic phase modulator; FI: Faraday isolator; DAQ: data acquisition system. The laser 
frequency is stabilized to the recycling cavity by the Pound-Drever-Hall technique. GW signal 
sidebands are once converted to intermediate-frequency (IF) signals at the PD2. Then the IF 
signals are mixed with a local oscillator (LO), and converted to audio- frequency (AF) signals. The 
AF signals are recorded with the DAQ. The E02 is used to simulate GW signal sidebands for 

sidebands at v ± / RF are induced at the EOl, where the laser light is phase- modulated 
& t /rf = 85.4 MHz. The PD1 detects the light reflected from the cavity and produces a 
photocurrent, which contains RF signals modulated by the relative deviation between the 
laser and the cavity. We correct the relative deviation using signals demodulated from the 
RF signals. 

The target GW signals are converted to electrical signals at intermediate frequencies (IF) 
~ 15 MHz with the PD2, since it is difficult to make a low-noise photodetector that can 
respond to signals at very high frequencies (~ 100 MHz). The PD2 produces IF signals 
at /if = few — /rf in response to the beat between the RF sidebands (also used for the 
laser stabilization) and signal sidebands (representation of the GW signals in the optical 
frequency domain) at z/ ± /gw> where /gw is the GW frequency. A small fraction of the 
RF sidebands leaks to the PD2, since the splitting ratio of the BS is not exactly balanced in 
the realistic case. Otherwise, non-differential components including the RF sidebands are in 



Frequency [MHz] 


FIG. 3: (Color online.) Strain sensitivities of the interferometers estimated from the IF signals. 
The solid red and dashed green lines represent the sensitivities of IFO-1 and IFO-2, respectively. 

principle completely reflected into the PD1. The PD2 is designed to have a band-path filter 
centered at /if ~ 15 MHz with about 1-MHz bandwidth. Thus the conversion coefficient 
from GWs to IF signals contains the filter response of the PD2 as well as the frequency 
response of the recycling cavity. 

We find the strain sensitivity of each interferometer is about 10 -16 Hz -1 ' 2 around 100 MHz 
(Fig. [3]) [17]. We estimate the sensitivity from IF signals. For calibration of the interfer- 
ometer outputs, we estimate the conversion coefficient from the IF signals Vjp to the GW 
amplitudes h by modulating the phases of the circulating beams with the E02 driven by 
calibration signals V ca ,\ [l8|. The coefficient is the product of the response of the recycling 
cavity and the band-path filter of the PD2, and is estimated by 

A(f GW )C(f GW ). (1) 

V lF (fw) M/if) 

where A(rad/V) is the measured modulation efficiency of the E02, and C (strain/rad) is 
the calculated conversion coefficient from the phase modulation to the simulated GWs. The 
term C is a function of the distance of the E02 from the RM, and it is ~ 25 cm in our 

The IF signals vary too quickly to be sampled with an inexpensive data acquisition 
(DAQ) system. We convert the IF signals to recordable audio-frequency (AF) signals at 
/af = few - (/ c - A//2) with a local oscillator (LO) at f LO = f c - Af/2 - f RF , where 
we choose Af = 6.32 kHz as a signal bandwidth to be recorded, and f c = 100.1 MHz as a 

center frequency of the bandwidth. They yield /lo = 14.696840 MHz. For example, GWs 
at 100.1 MHz corresponds to AF signals at 3.16 kHz. 

Cross-correlation analysis. — Using the outputs of the two interferometers, we have per- 
formed a cross- correlation analysis to reduce uncorrelated noises between them and improve 
the SNR, the ratio of the GW signals to the interferometer noises. The analysis method 
is similar to the method used in LIGO 


11] . We assume that a GWB is isotropic, 

unpolarized, stationary, and Gaussian, and it is so small that the interferometer outputs 
are dominated by their noises rather than GW signals. The GWB is often character- 
ized by a normalized energy density spectrum per unit logarithmic frequency interval 
fi gw (/) = p^ 1 dp(f)/d\n f, where p(f) is the cumulative energy density of GWB included 
below / Hz, and p c = 3HqC 2 / (8tcG) is the critical energy density of the universe; here G is 
the Newton constant, and Hq = h\oo x lOOkm/s/Mpc is the Hubble constant. In this letter, 
we also use the form hl 00 Q gw (f), which is independent of the value of hi 00 . 
We define a cross-correlation statistic: 


1 I™ x* x (f)x 2 (f)Q(f)df, (2) 

J — oo 

where x\ and x 2 are Fourier components of the signal outputs from IFO-1 and IFO-2, 
respectively; T is the observation time period; Q is the optimal filter that optimizes the 
SNR of an expectation value (ensemble average) of Z\ 2 estimated from available data (the 
exact definition of Q will be given later in Eq.([5])). 

The expectation value of Z\ 2 and its variance are respectively written as 

^ s (zi2) = H SZ *^^mqw> (3) 

4 = (Z 2 l2 ) - (Z 12 ) 2 ~ — / dfPi(|/|)P 2 (i/|)|Q(/)i 2 , (4) 

J —00 

where Pi and P 2 are the one-sided power spectral densities (PSD) of the noises in IFO-1 
and IFO-2, respectively [h]]; and 712 is called the reduced overlap reduction function. As 
the usual overlap reduction function in the low-frequency limit Q] , 712 represents the 
reduction of the signal correlation caused by the distance between the two interferometer 
sites and the alignment of their arms. In our experiment, 712 ~ 0.93 is nearly constant 
around 100 MHz, because the two recycling cavities are co-aligned and almost co-located 
(the distance is ~ 10cm) j^ . 


The SNR of the estimation is defined as Hz / y&z- To optimize the SNR, the filter Q is 
chosen as 

n(f\ - y n gw(l/l)7i2(/) (r .s 

Qn \f\ 3 Pi(\f\m\f\y [) 

where K is a normalization constant [6|. Using this optimal filter, we find that the SNR is 
written as 

snr - 3H <> s/t \ r .„ -rumuw) i 1/2 
SNR -T^ VT [J_JwmlmW)\ ■ (6) 

Thus the SNR in principle increases proportional to VT. 

The observation time period used for the cross-correlation analysis is 1070.5 seconds. The 
data record is divided into N = 439 segments. For each segment, the cross-correlation and 
its uncertainty are calculated based on Eqs.© and (j4"l); we will refer to the calculated ones 
as Zu and a|, respectively. The ensemble average \iz defined in Eq.Q is estimated by a 
weighting average: 

N A(n) 


HZ = ^' 

V 2 (n) ' ^ ' ' 

n=\ °Z 

where the superscript "(n)" indicates that the quantity is calculated from the n-th segment 

n, = 1, 2, ... , N); a is the uncertainty of fiz and is written as 

N 1 


n=l a Z 



As the integration domain in Eq.(T2]), we use a range from 2.08 kHz to 4.19 kHz for AF signals, 
which corresponds to a 2-kHz bandwidth around 100.1 MHz for GW signals. Because the 
optimal filter in Eq.(jSJ) contains fi gw (/) itself, we need to assume its spectrum in advance. 
We assume that the spectrum will be flat in such a narrow bandwidth. 

The variation of fiz itself with respect to the observation time period is shown in FigJH 
The two curves represent ^±1.65(7^, and the area enclosed by the curves is a two-sided 90% 
confidence interval of \xz- After the 1070.5-second observation, we obtain (iz = 4.9 x 10~ 12 
with = 3.7 x 10~ 12 . The 90% confidence interval [fiz — 1.65<7 M ,/iz + 1.65(5"^] includes 
Hz = 0; in other words, there is a possibility of Q gw = at 100 MHz. Instead, we consider 
an upper limit on the amount of the stochastic GWB at 100 MHz. 

We define the upper limit as a one-sided 90% confidence level; in terms of Hz, the upper 
limit corresponds to fiz + 1.28a M . Then we find h^Q^ < 6 x 10 25 as an upper limit on 
the stochastic GWB at around 100.1 MHz from the direct search experiment. Note that 

1 1 1 1 

i i , , , , i i i i i i 

i i i i i i i 

i : _ 

, , , , 

, , , . i . . , , i , , , , 

. ... t .... ' 

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 
Observation time [sec] 

FIG. 4: (Color online.) Variation of fiz with respect to the observation time period is shown as 
filled red circles. The area enclosed by black curves is its two-sided 90% confidence interval. 

this is also an upper limit on the correlated noises between the two interferometers at this 

Conclusions. — We searched for a stochastic GWB at 100 MHz by laser interferometry. 
The GW detector is a pair of synchronous recycling interferometers. Each interferometer has 
a strain sensitivity of ~ 10 -16 Hz -1 ' 2 to GWs at 100 MHz. Using the two interferometers, 
we directly searched for a stochastic GWB centered at 100.1 MHz with 2-kHz bandwidth in 
1070.5 seconds. We performed a cross-correlation analysis to improve the SNR of the search. 
We found h^Q^ < 6 x 10 25 to be an upper limit on the energy density of a stochastic 
GWB at 100 MHz. 

We plan to improve the GW detector by increasing the finesse of each recycling cavity 
up to about 4.5 x 10 4 . For this purpose, each cavity will be constructed in a vacuum with 
high-reflectivity mirrors in future. Then each interferometer will have a strain sensitivity 
of about 4.7 x 10" 21 Hz~ 1 / 2 . For about a one-year observation, we should obtain a tighter 
upper limit as hl 00 fl gw ~ 2.8 x 10 14 around 100 MHz by a cross-correlation analysis with 
these two interferometers. 

This research is supported by Grant-in- Aid for Scientific Research (A) 17204018 from the 
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. 


* Electronic address: takutsu@g| 
[1] A. M. Cruise and R. M. J. Ingley, Class. Quantum. Grav. 23, 6185 (2006). 
[2] A. Nishizawa et al., Phys. Rev. D 77, 022002 (2008). 
[3] M. Maggiore, Phys. Rep. 331, 283 (2000). 

[4] T. L. Smith, E. Pierpaoli, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 021301 (2006). 

[5] R. W. P. Drever, Gravitational radiation, edited by N. Deruelle and T. Piran (North-Holland, 
Amsterdam, 1983), pp.321-338. 

[6] A. Nishizawa et al., arXiv:0801.4149, "Optimal Location of Two Laser-interferometric Detec- 
tors for Gravitational Wave Backgrounds at 100 MHz". 

[7] J.-Y. Vinet, B. Meers, C. N. Man, and A. Brillet, Phys. Rev. D 38, 433 (1988). 

[8] B. J. Meers, Phys. Rev. D 38, 2317 (1988). 

[9] R. W. P. Drever, J. L. Hall, F. V. Kowalski, J. Hough, G. M. Ford, and H. Ward, Appl. Phys. 
B 31, 97 (1983). 

[10] B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 59, 102001 (1999). 
[11] B. Abbott et al., Astrophys. J. 659, 918 (2007). 
[12] N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5250 (1992). 
[13] E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 48, 2389 (1993). 

[14] K. X. Sun, M. M. Fejer, E. Gustafson, and R. L. Byer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3053 (1996). 
[15] The cavity's optical path is crossed so that it encloses nearly zero area so as to be insensitive 

to the Sagnac effect [141 ]. 
[16] One can construct a narrowband audio-frequency GW detector by adding delay lines or Fabry- 

Perot cavities in the recycling cavity Q] . 
[17] There was a concern on environmental electromagnetic noises around 100 MHz. We use a loop 

antenna to measure the noise features, and choose a quiet band for the GW search. 
[18] The calibration signal generator induces noises as shown in Fig. [3] (the common peaks for both 

IFOs at about 100.1 MHz in this case), even when the generator is in a stand-by mode. We 

power off the generator during the 1000-second data taking described below. 
[19] The square root of each PSD is the strain sensitivity. 

[20] The overlap reduction function, j(f), defined in our previous paper (| is related to 712 in the 


following form: -f(f) = 712 (/) 

sin I ^ 1J L - 

l ^FSR 

7T / 
2 ^FSR 

. Both functions reduce to the usual 
overlap reduction function in the low-frequency limit: / — > 0.