Gravitational-Wave Cosmology with Standard Sirens
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Gravitational-Wave Cosmology with Standard Sirens Martin Hendry Institute for Gravitational Research SUPA School of Physics & Astronomy University of Glasgow, UK LIGO Scientific Collaboration Abilene Christian University Albert-Einstein-Institut Northwestern University American University Penn State University Andrews University Rochester Institute of Technology Bellevue College Sonoma State University California Institute of Technology Southern University California State Univ., Fullerton Stanford University California State Univ., Los Angeles Syracuse University Texas Tech University Canadian Inst. Th. Astrophysics Carleton College Trinity University Chinese University of Hong Kong Tsinghua University College of William and Mary U. Montreal / Polytechnique Colorado State University Université Libre de Bruxelles Columbia U. in the City of New York University of Chicago Cornell University University of Florida Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ. University of Maryland Eötvös Loránd University University of Michigan Georgia Institute of Technology University of Minnesota Goddard Space Flight Center University of Mississippi GW-INPE, Sao Jose Brasil University of Oregon Hillsdale College University of Sannio Hobart & William Smith Colleges University of Szeged IAP – Nizhny Novogorod University of Texas Rio Grande Valley IIP-UFRN University of the Balearic Islands Kenyon College University of Tokyo Korean Gravitational-Wave Group University of Washington Louisiana State University University of Washington Bothell Marshall Space Flight Center University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee Montana State University USC – Information Sciences Institute Montclair State University Villanova University Moscow State University Washington State University – Pullman National Tsing Hua University West Virginia University NCSARG – Univ. of Illinois, Urbana- Whitman College Champaign LIGO Laboratory: California Institute of Technology; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; LIGO Hanford Observatory; LIGO Livingston Observatory Australian Consortium for Interferometric Gravitational Astronomy (ACIGA): Australian National University; Charles Sturt University; Monash University; Swinburne University; University of Adelaide; University of Melbourne; University of Western Australia German/British Collaboration for the Detection of Gravitational Waves (GEO600): Albert-Einstein-Institut, Hannover; Cardiff University; King's College, University of London; Leibniz Universität, Hannover; University of Birmingham; University of Cambridge; University of Glasgow; University of Hamburg; University of Sheffield; University of Southampton; University of Strathclyde; University of the West of Scotland; University of Zurich Indian Initiative in Gravitational-Wave Observations (IndIGO): Chennai Mathematical Institute; ICTS-TIFR Bangalore; IISER Pune; IISER Kolkata; IISER-TVM Thiruvananthapuram; IIT Madras, Chennai; IIT Kanpur; IIT Gandhinagar; IPR Bhatt; IUCAA Pune; RRCAT Indore; University of Delhi Gravitational Waves: the Story So Far In General Relativity gravity is described by the curvature of space-time Matter tells spacetime how to curve. Spacetime tells matter how to move Gravitational waves are ripples in spacetime propagating at the speed of light (according to GR) Created by acceleration of massive compact objects Gravitational wave detectors measure changes in L-L the separation between free test masses in this spacetime L+L GravitationalGeneral Waves: Relativity/Gravity the Story Waves So Far Gravitational waves are generated by accelerating masses. We need large masses (e.g. neutron stars/black holes) moving close to the speed of light M = 1.4 Msun f=1kHz R=2m f = 200 Hz h ~ 10-21 @ 100 Mpc At 300m: h=10-37 Low mass, low speed Large mass, large speed Terrestrial source Astrophysical source Interferometric Detectors Interferometers monitor the position of suspended test masses separated by a few km A passing gravitational wave will lengthen one arm and shrink the other arm; transducer of GW strain- intensity (10-18 m over 4 km) 10-5m 41016m Ground-based network of detectors: 2002-2010 LIGO GEO600 Hanford TAMA, CLIO 300 m 600 m 4 km 100 m 2 km LIGO LIGO VIRGO 3 km LivingstonLivingston 4 km Upgrading for the Advanced Detector Era!... From Initial to Advanced LIGO 10kg test masses on simple pendulums become 40kg monolithic suspensions in quadruple pendulums, with better quality optics Developed in Glasgow, UK supplied: fused silica suspensions, fibre-pulling, bonding and welding GW150914 – a burst of gravitational waves… … matching a BBH inspiral and merger waveform from General Relativity Abbott et al (2016): https://dcc.ligo.org/P1500218/ BBH detections announced to date First Observing run Second Observing run Abbott, et al., LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, “GW170104: Further tests of General Relativity Observation of a 50-solar binary black hole coalescence at redshift 0.2” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 (2017) Parameterised test of PN expansion Modified dispersion relation Lower limit on QG energy scale BBH detections announced to date First Observing run Second Observing run With three or more interferometers we can triangulate the sky position of a gravitational wave source much more precisely. Source location Advanced Virgo joined O2 on Aug 1st 2017 Much better From Aasi et al. sky localisation arXiv:1304.0670 Abbott et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L13 (2017) Cosmology with Standard Sirens Schutz, Nature, 323, 310 (1986) Dalal et al. (2006) • Considered joint GW-EM observation of short GRBs • 4-detector network including AIGO • sGRBs modelled as beamed (→ nearly face-on) versus isotropic Beamed • Assume redshift from Isotropic EM counterpart (or host galaxy) • Measure h (and w from CMBR) • Fisher matrix: Nissanke et al, arxiv:0904.1017 h to ~3% from 10 joint GW-GRB observations Dalal et al, PRD, 74, 063006 (2006) Tension between: 1. Measurement of H0 from cosmic distance ladder (e.g. SH0ES) 2. Inference of H0 from CMBR / LSS and cosmological model (e.g. Planck 2015) W. Freedman, arxiv:1706.02739 Abbott et al. Nature, 551, 85 (2017) Abbott et al. PRL, 119, 161101 (2017) Observables: • = GW170817 distance • = recession velocity • = mean pec. velocity Abbott et al. PRL, 119, 161101 (2017) Observables: • = GW170817 distance • = recession velocity • = mean pec. velocity Observables: • = GW170817 distance Assuming optical counterpart in NGC 4993, • and at true sky location of BNS… = recession velocity • = mean pec. velocity Recessional velocity of CoM of galaxy group Abbott et al. Nature, 551, 85 (2017) Observables: • = GW170817 distance • = recession velocity • = mean pec. velocity Recessional velocity of CoM of galaxy group Abbott et al. Nature, 551, 85 (2017) Reconstructed from 6dF and 2MASS galaxy redshift surveys. Observables: • = GW170817 distance • = recession velocity • = mean pec. velocity Springob et al. MNRAS, 445, 2677 (2017) Carrick et al. MNRAS, 450, 317 (2015) Reconstructed from 6dF and 2MASS galaxy redshift surveys. Observables: -1 Assumes = 0.42 Allows for 150 kms uncertainty • = GW170817 distance on bulk flow reconstruction • = recession velocity • = mean pec. velocity “Master” equation Maximum minimal posterior value 68% C.I. Abbott et al. Nature, 551, 85 (2017) Maximum minimal posterior value 68% C.I. Abbott et al. Nature, 551, 85 (2017) Abbott et al. Nature, 551, 85 (2017) Can we constrain the inclination from EM observations? Guidorzi et al. model broad-band emission, from X-ray and radio, for an off-axis jet. How robust are these assumptions?... (c.f. Piran et al. 2017 – GRB cocoon model) Guidorzi et al, arxiv:1710.06426 Coming attractions… Abbott et al, arxiv:1304.0670 Coming attractions… Are these rates compatible with beaming? What about the (more) isotropic emission from e.g. a kilonova? Nissanke et al, arxiv:1307.2638 Finding the E-M counterpart… observatory.org/ - http://goto http://www.lsst.org/lsst/ Metzger & Berger 2012 Third Generation GW Network Aimed at having excellent sensitivity from ~1 Hz to ~104 Hz. FP7 European design study, with EU funding, for a 3rd-generation gravitational wave facility, the Einstein Telescope (ET). Goal: 100 times better sensitivity See also Dwyer et al. arxiv: 1410.0612 than first generation instruments. See www.et-gw.eu Sathyaprakash et al. CQG, 29, 2, 914013 (2012) arxiv: 1108.1423 Cosmological constraints from Fit , , 3G detectors Competitive with Sathyaprakash et al. (2009): ‘traditional’ methods ~106 NS-NS mergers observed by ET. Assume that E-M counterparts observed Weak lensing De-lensed for ~1000 GRBs, 0 < z < 2. Sirens weakly lensed by intervening LSS Assume can be ‘de-lensed’, using e.g. cosmic shear maps. Correcting for Weak Lensing?... Shapiro et al (2010): No correction Shear varies from place to place. Shear map only, ELT Gradient of shear → arcing, or flexion Shear + flexion, Shear + flexion, ELT ELT + Space Assume we can measure flexion from galaxy surveys, giving better estimate of matter density on small angular scales. DL → 1.8% at z 2 DL → 1.4% at z 1 Euclid EELT 40 Cosmological constraints from 3G detectors Zhao et al. (2011) [See also Zhao & Wen in prep.] ~106 NS-NS mergers observed by ET. Different models for spatial distribution, source evolution; more general DE models z w(z) w0 wa 1 z GW constraints similar to those from BAO, SNIe. Results only weakly affected by source evolution. BUT assumes z known for ~1000 sources Significant ‘multi-messenger’ challenge Howell et al. MNRAS in press (2018) The Gravitational Wave Spectrum Supernovae Cosmic