1 / 20

Follow-up of LIGO-Virgo observations of gravitational waves

Follow-up of LIGO-Virgo observations of gravitational waves. Roy Williams (Caltech) Peter Shawhan (U. of Maryland / JSI) for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration. Hot-Wiring the Transient Universe November 14, 2013. LIGO -G1301197. Advanced Gravitational Wave Detectors.

hani
Download Presentation

Follow-up of LIGO-Virgo observations of gravitational waves

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. Follow-up of LIGO-Virgo observations of gravitational waves Roy Williams (Caltech)Peter Shawhan (U. of Maryland / JSI)for the LIGO Scientific Collaborationand Virgo Collaboration Hot-Wiring the Transient UniverseNovember 14, 2013 LIGO-G1301197

  2. Advanced Gravitational Wave Detectors • Factor 10 in strain means factor 1000 in volume. • Long-planned upgrades of initial GW detectors: Advanced LIGO (shown) and Advanced Virgo

  3. … Now Being Installed and Tested !

  4. GEO-HF Advanced Detector Network– Under Construction Advanced LIGO 600 m 4 km 3 km 3 km 4 km 4 km Advanced LIGO (pending) Advanced VIRGO

  5. Credit: AEI, CCT, LSU Credit: Chandra X-ray Observatory Searches for GW Transient Sources • GWdata streams are analyzed jointly • Initially LIGO Hanford+Livingston and Virgo; later others too • Two main types of transient searches: Compact Binary Coalescence (CBC) Known waveform Matched filtering Templates for a range of component masses(spin affects waveforms too, but not so important for initial detection) Unmodelled GW Burst(< ~1 sec duration) e.g. from stellar core collapse Arbitrary waveform  Excess power Require coherent signals in detectors,using direction-dependent antenna response

  6. Projecting Advanced LIGO Sensitivity Progression 2015-2018 From “Prospects for Localization of Gravitational Wave Transients by the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo Observatories” arXiv:1304.0670 2017-18: ~ 9 month run, 120 - 170 Mpc Multiple Detections 2016-17: ~ 6 month run, 80 - 120 Mpc Likely Detection 2015: ~ 3 month run, 40 - 80 Mpc Possible Detection 2010: Initial LIGO, 15 Mpc

  7. Low-latency GW Event Candidates • Multiple analysis pipelines running as data is collected • Generate triggers from apparent transients in the data • Estimate significance by comparing with backgrounddistribution from time-shifted analysis GEO 600 LIGO Hanford KAGRA Virgo Send infoto observers Transfer data LIGO Livingston Swift: NASA E/PO, Sonoma State U., AuroreSimonnet LIGO-India Trigger database Validate Analyze data, identify triggers,infer sky position GW data Select event candidates Estimate background

  8. EM and GW • WHY Multimessenger? • Brilliant science from optical counterparts of GRBs (1998) • Brilliant science from neutrino counterparts of Supernova 1987A • EM  GW: Short GRBs and galactic SN • Will trigger a search for GW counterpart, short/long latency • SWIFT, Fermi, SNEWS • GW EM: Rapid alerts to telescope partners • Wide area search for counterpart (cf Singer talk) • Could be quite faint and red (cfNissanke talk)

  9. What info from GW observatory • Time of the GW candidate • At Earth, with precision of order ~10 ms(direction-dependent) • Significance of the candidate • Expressed as an effective false alarm rate (FAR) • Sky position probability map • HEALPix grid in FITS file • Maximum Distance • Although the source could be much closer • Expect to distribute GW alerts as VOEvents over(initially) private GCN/TAN, VOEventNet and/or Skyalert

  10. Alert Latency and Notes • Typical latency to generate triggers with sky position info:3 to 6 minutes • Additional time needed for validation: not yet known, but maybe ~20 min • We might provide multiple skymapswith different assumptions about the source • CBC orbit inclination: unconstrained, or face-on • GW burst polarization: unconstrained, linear, or elliptical • We may send updated information about an event after the initial alert • e.g. refined skymap or significance estimate • Will send a VOEvent referencing the first one, incrementing the version number in the IVORN

  11. Position Reconstruction Accuracy vs. Time Face-on BNS 80 MpcHLV 2016-17 ~8 % contained in 20 deg2 Face-on BNS 80 MpcHLV 2017-18 ~10 % contained in 20 deg2 Face-on BNS 160 MpcHILV 2022+ ~50 % contained in 20 deg2 Face-on BNS 160 Mpc HLV 2019+ ~30 % contained in 20 deg2

  12. Simulated skymaps • Posterior probability skymaps are obtained from coherent analysis • Fast coherent position reconst. (~min)Full parameter estimation can be done, but currently is slow (~days), effort underway to reduce to ~hour) Examples of BAYESTAR skymaps from simulated signalsL. Price, L. Singer, et al On gamma sky (Fermi) On Mellinger sky

  13. Simulated Skymaps • Error region geometry can be non-trivial • Banana shape and/or • Disconnected islands – especially for narrowband GW burst candidates • No single "sky position" quoted in alerts to observers

  14. LIGO-Virgo Approach to Partnerships • Basic Concept: Share triggers with observers who sign MOUs • Confident detection of first few GW signals will require time and care—need to avoid misinformation/rumors/media circus • Partners who sign standard MOUs will receive GW triggers promptly, exchange results, decide their own observations, analyze own data • Any apparent counterpart, may not be published or presented prior to the announcement by LIGO/VIRGO • After 4 GW events have been published, further high-confidence events will be released promptly to the public • Have sought advice and input from the astronomical community • Solicited “letters of interest” – received about 60 • Held meetings in Amsterdam (late August) and Chicago (mid September) • Very encouraging show of interest! • Feedback and suggestions from meetings have shaped some of the plans for the program

  15. Summary • Gravitational wave detectors operate as a global network • Data combined and analyzed coherently • Japan and/or India critical for good localization • Advanced LIGO and Virgo upgrades are well underway • First science run is only about 2 years away • Sensitivity and position reconstruction accuracy will improve over time • EM follow-ups are exciting • Whether for the first few GW detections, or later on • Now engaging follow-up observers. Want to get involved? Write lsc-spokesperson@ligo.org(Gabriela González), and/or virgo-spokesperson@ego-gw.it(Jean-Yves Vinet).

  16. Extra Slides…

  17. Observing Partners During 2009–2010 • Mostly (but not all) robotic wide-field optical telescopes • Many of them used for following up GRBs, surveying for supernovae and other optical transients XRT UVOT 1.2 m 2 m 1.3 m 1 m 1 m APERTURE

  18. Observing Partners During 2009–2010 25 sqdeg • Mostly (but not all) robotic wide-field optical telescopes • Many of them used for following up GRBs, surveying for supernovae and other optical transients 20×20° 3.4 sqdeg XRT UVOT 3.4 sqdeg 7.3 sqdeg 3.4 sqdeg 5.7 sqdeg 9.4 sqdeg 3.4 sqdeg 3.4 sqdeg 3.4 sqdeg FIELD OF VIEW

  19. First Implementation: 2009–2010 • Analyzed 3-detector data during 10 weeks of LIGO-Virgo running • Low-latency CBC and Burst searches • Sent alerts to ten follow-up partners • Selected (RA,Dec) points, targeting nearby galaxies in GW error region • Various communication protocols and feedback methods • General description: A&A 539, A124 • CBC low-latency analysis: A&A 541, A155 • Eight event candidates were followed up by at least one telescope • No stand-out candidates, unfortunately • Swift (XRT/UVOT) image analysis results: Evans et al., ApJS203, 28 • Ground-basedtelescopeanalysisresults: Aasi et al., arXiv:1304.0670 • Lessons learned: standardize, give observers more freedom +VLA (later)

  20. Possible VOEvent content for a GW alert preliminary

More Related