1 / 7

Current status of Joint LIGO-TAMA Inspiral Analysis

Current status of Joint LIGO-TAMA Inspiral Analysis. Hirotaka Takahashi / Stephen Fairhurst (Osaka Univ. and Niigata Univ. / Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee ). In collaboration with: Patrick Brady, Nobuyuki Kanda, Hideyuki Tagoshi, Daisuke Tatsumi,

mare
Download Presentation

Current status of Joint LIGO-TAMA Inspiral Analysis

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. Current status of Joint LIGO-TAMA Inspiral Analysis Hirotaka Takahashi / Stephen Fairhurst (Osaka Univ. and Niigata Univ. / Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) In collaboration with: Patrick Brady, Nobuyuki Kanda, Hideyuki Tagoshi, Daisuke Tatsumi, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the TAMA Collaboration

  2. Introduction • LIGO and TAMA300 performed a coincident observation • between Feb. 14 and April 14, 2003. • The total amount of LIGO S2 science-mode data (one or more detectors) is 1218 hours. • The total amount of TAMA300 DT8 observation data is 1163 hours. • We report on the current status of the coincidence analysis to search • for gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries using LIGO (S2) • and TAMA300 (DT8) data. TAMA300 (T1) LIGO Hanford (H1 and H2) LIGO Livingston (L1)

  3. 650 hours 513 hours 135 hours Goals of the LIGO-TAMA search • The ultimate goal of the search is a detection. • Sensitive to most of the Milky Way. • We can place an upper limit on compact star inspiral rate in • the Milky Way (if no detection). LIGO S2-TAMA DT8 coincidence data in 2003 TAMA LIGO single site nL1 : L1 was not operating • T1 : 1163 hours • (L1-nH1-nH2)+(nL1-H1-nH2)+(nL1-nH1-H2)+(nL1-H1-H2) : 785 hours • (L1-nH1-nH2-T1)+(nL1-H1-nH2-T1)+(nL1-nH1-H2-T1)+(nL1-H1-H2-T1): 650 hours

  4. In this talk We focus on what has been learned from playground data. To avoid statistical bias, • Tuning of analysis parameters are decided. • Test analysis is performed. Playground data : 64 hours (not included upper limit calculation) 1. We determined our choice of coincidence parameters using the results of Galactic binary neutron star inspiral signals injection. 2. We performed time slide analysis to estimate the background. 3. We injected Galactic binary neutron star inspiral signals into both LIGO and TAMA data to evaluate efficiency.

  5. Tuning coincidence parameters • Time windows • The distance between LIGO and TAMA • Maximum time delay of the signal • Timing accuracy ? • Since we are planning to test for coincidence between LIGO • and TAMA triggers using the time, we decided to check • how accurately LIGO and TAMA can determine this quantity. • To do this, injected a set of Galactic binary neutron star signals • into the LIGO-TAMA playground times.

  6. Accuracy of coalescence time LIGO (455 injections) TAMA (660 injections) Detected-Injected End time (msec) Detected-Injected End time (msec) Of the 455 injections into analyzed data, 455 had triggers ( ) recorded within 3 ms of the end. Of the 660 injections into analyzed data, 516 had triggers ( ) recorded within 3 ms of the end. The triggers of LIGO and TAMA are recorded within 1.5 msec of the injection Time windows

  7. From TAMA-LISM coincidence, reduced mass did not give constraints in coincidence very much. Only the chirp mass was effective. Thus, to begin on chirp mass sounds reasonable. The TAMA collaboration and the LISM collaboration: H.Takahashi et al. PRD 70 042003, (2004) Chirp mass window 0.05Msol Tuning coincidence parameters • Mass windows • Chirp mass window? Reduced mass window? … • The accuracy of chirp mass LIGO (455 injections) TAMA (660 injections) The accuracy of chirp mass Detected-Injected chirp mass (Msol) Detected-Injected chirp mass (Msol)

More Related