1. Nano-Hertz Gravitational Wave Detection Using Pulsars Andrea N. Lommen Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy Head of Astronomy Program Director of Grundy Observatory Franklin and Marshall College Lancaster, PA

2. Table of Contents NANO-Grav Illustrative Example of General Concept Limits on Stochastic Background What limit says about sources Measurements of Polarization Burst Detection Summary

3. Collaborators Rick Jenet, UT Brownsville David Nice, Bryn Mawr College Ingrid Stairs, U. British Columbia Don Backer, UC Berkeley Scott Ransom, NRAO Paul Demorest, NRAO Rob Ferdman, U. British Columbia, Dick Manchester, ATNF Bill Coles, UC San Diego George Hobbs, ATNF Joris Verbiest, ATNF and Swinburne

4. Introducing NANO-Grav

5. The North American Nano- Hertz Observatory of Gravitational Waves (NANO-Grav) Telescopes: The Arecibo 300-m Telecope The Green Bank 140-ft Telescope The Allen Telescope Array? The Green Bank 85-ft Telescope?

6. NANO-Grav Members Andrea Lommen (chair), Franklin and Marshall College Rick Jenet, UT Brownsville Scott Ransom, Paul Demorest and Walter Brisken, NRAO Ingrid Stairs, UBC David Nice, Bryn Mawr College Paulo Freire, NAIC Arecibo Maura McLaughlin and Duncan Lorimer, West Virginia University Joe Lazio, NRL Don Backer, UC Berkeley Zaven Arzoumanian, Goddard Anne Archibald, McGill University Ryan Shannon, Cornell University Ryan Lynch, University of Virginia

7. The Arecibo Observatory

8. Illustrative Example of General Concept

9. From Kaspi, Taylor & Ryba 1994

10. Orbital Motion in the Radio Galaxy 3C 66B: Evidence for a Supermassive Black Hole Binary Hiroshi Sudou, 1* Satoru Iguchi, 2 Yasuhiro Murata, 3 Yoshiaki Taniguchi 1 Supermassive black hole binaries may exist in the centers of active galactic nuclei such as quasars and radio galaxies, and mergers between galaxies may result in the formation of supermassive binaries during the course of galactic evolution. Using the very-long-baseline interferometer, we imaged the radio galaxy 3C 66B at radio frequencies and found that the unresolved radio core of 3C 66B shows well-defined elliptical motions with a period of 1.05 ± 0.03 years, which provides a direct detection of a supermassive black hole binary. Volume 300, Number 5623, Issue of 23 May 2003, pp. 1263-1265. Copyright © 2003 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved.

11. From Jenet, Lommen, Larson, & Wen, ApJ 2004

13. Limit on Stochastic Background

14. 20yrs of B1855+09

15. PSR J1713+0747 over 12 years

16. From Jenet, Hobbs, van Straten, Manchester, Bailes, Verbiest, Edwards, Hotan, Sarkissian & Ord (2006) Rough Limit

17. Monte Carlo simulation First demonstrated by: –Jenet et al (2006), Improved by: –Lommen, Verbiest, Hobbes, Coles (2008, in prep) Generate 10,000 versions of the simulated background Query the simulations for the upper limit (Allen & Romano 1999)

18. Monte Carlo simulation Generating a background: –10000 GWs each with Amplitude randomly generated as member of a model spectrum (cosmic strings, relic GWs, SMBHs) Random polarization Random phase Random direction –Do everything above 10000 times –Measure its spectrum

20. What’s the appropriate question? Allen & Romano (1999): –What is the minimum value of A required to detect the background 95% of the time? (Jenet et al 2006) –What is the value of A that leads to the conclusion that the background is absent with 95% confidence? (Lommen, Verbiest, Hobbs, Coles 2008)

21. Limit on Energy Density of Gravitational Waves

22. What limit says about sources

23. Figure courtesy of George Hobbs

24. Our upper limit is: Equal to the predicted background using (one of) the calculations of Wyithe and Loeb (2003) Larger by a factor of about 5 than Jaffe and Backer (2003) Larger still than estimations by Enoki (2004)

25. Jaffe and Backer 2002 Ingredients of new estimate of GW background –Observed population of MBH’s by Merritt and Ferrarese (2001) –Assume the population is constant with redshift –Use Merger rate estimated by Patton et al. (2002) –Look at two different possibilities for the evolution of the merger rate with red shift

26. Characteristic strain spectrum for two models Need plot from Don here.

27. Measurement of Polarization

28. The shape of the GW response Thanks Bill Coles

31. (KJ Lee and Rick Jenet, 2008)

32. Detectability of a Waveform “Recall” (Jenet, Lommen, Larson and Wen 2004)

33. Burst Detection A burst being anything shorter than our observing timescale

34. Some Possible Sources of Burst Radiation Formation of SMBH (Thorne and Braginski ‘76) Close encounters of massive objects (Kocsis 06) Highly eccentric SMBH binaries (Enoki and Nagashima ‘06) Cosmic Strings (Hogan & Rees ‘84, Caldwell, Battye, and Shellard, ‘96, Damour and Vilenkin ‘05)

35. Detectability of a Waveform (continued) So what matters is the integral of the waveform:

36. The shape of the GW response Thanks Bill Coles

37. Detection algorithm: Weighted sum of residuals

39. So what can we detect? 20 pulsars, 1 microsecond RMS, daily obs, we would detect a 0.70 microsecond maximum response about 93% of the time. For a 2-week burst we calculate the corresponding characteristic strain: Max response (us) Characteristic strain (h) Percent detected 0.73.3e-1393 0.52.3e-1340 0.31.4e-132

40. Scaling that last slide Statistic scales as number of pulsars so e.g. measurable strains halve if number of pulsars doubles Response scales as burst length, so measurable strains halve if burst length doubles If 20 pulsars have 100 ns RMS, divide left two columns by 10

41. Sensitivity to a 0.75  s 2-week burst, daily observing, 20 pulsars

44. Sensitivity to a 0.75  s 2-week burst, daily observing, 20 pulsars + 3 more

45. Summary

46. Summary and Prospects The new GW observatory: NANO-Grav We have already ruled out significant sources, both individually and in the stochastic background Pulsar timing is best way to measure polarization of GWs Burst detection offers interesting prospects for detection and directionality