Slashdot Mirror


The Earth As a Gravitational Wave Detector

b30w0lf writes "Gravitational wave detection — i.e. the detection of propagating ripples in spacetime — is a hot subject these days, with ground-based interferometer experiments like LIGO active, and hopes for a space interferometer like LISA. However, physicist Freeman Dyson proposed back in 1969 that the earth itself could be used as a gravitational wave detector. The idea is behind the approach is that gravitational waves impact the earth's crust, causing potentially detectable seismic waves. Using Dyson's approach, Physicists at Harvard and NINP, Florence were able to put an upper limit on the intensity of gravitational background radiation based on a year of observational seismic data (abstract, full pre-print). The upper limit they found improved currently laboratory upper limits by 9 orders of magnitude."

12 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Resonant Detector by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

    The crucial thing is that they improved the limits in the narrow frequency band where the Earth is a resonant detector :

    in the frequency range 0.05 Hz – 1 Hz

    This is very cool, but note that it is at a frequency where there are not a lot of expected sources (stellar-mass binary black hole coalescence is up in the kHz range).

    The announcement on Monday about inflationary gravitational waves is likely to get a good deal more scientific attention.

    1. Re:Resonant Detector by mbone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, scratch the above. Reading their paper and the Dyson paper, the frequency limit is set by the seismometers, not by the normal modes of the Earth.

  2. Re:45 year old story by Netdoctor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Upper Limit on a Stochastic Background of Gravitational Waves from Seismic Measurements in the Range 0.05–1 Hz

    Michael Coughlin and Jan Harms
    Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101102 (2014)
    Published March 13, 2014

  3. Use the Moon instead by avandesande · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since the moon is much more stable than the Earth, would it be a better detector? Have seismic readings been taken on the Moon?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  4. Re:Not just noise by geoskd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Thay're not saying that gravity waves are creating the signals. What they are saying is that if gravity waves are creating any signals at all, the size of the signals being measured limits the possible size of the gravity waves to smaller than a certain size. It is putting an upper bound on the possible size of gravity waves. This is important, because the previously determined upper bound on gravity wave size was 9 orders of magnitude bigger than it is now that we have these experimental results.

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  5. Re:Not just noise by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

    but what about other things that could generate similar signals

    What "other things"? Electromagnetism is the only thing that has comparable speed to gravity waves, and unlike gravity waves, it only penetrates Earth-sized solid matter with exponential falloff at short distances. Forget possible seismic causes for the kind of measurements they must be looking for. Just recalling my high school physics 101, you know...

    Also, from TFA:

    Gravitational waves are the last untested prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

    I'd argue that this is debatable, seeing that we've already measured the decay of at least one binary pulsar that wonderfully corresponds to the predicted gravity-wave-mediated energy loss.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  6. Neither. by tlambert · · Score: 5, Informative

    Neither.

    What they did is say is basically "We now have a detector 10^9 times more sensitive, which is capable of detecting gravitational waves up to 10^9 times smaller than previous detectors, if there are waves. We didn't see any waves with this detector. Therefore if they exist, they are smaller than what our new detector can detect".

    In other words, if there are gravitational waves, they are smaller magnitude than they are able to detect with the new detection system. This doesn't rule them out, it just blacks out a potential energy/amplitude range in which they might have existed before nothing was seen in that search band.

    They've more or less reduced the probability set, and pissed in a number of esoteric theories cheerios, but not done a lot else to prove or disprove gravity waves.

    It's the difference between having to look for a lost item in an entire warehouse, or having to look for it in a crackerjack bix sized area of the warehouse - albeit it'll take a lot more expensive and redesigned equipment to even look in part of the crackerjack box.

    Frankly, if we threw 4 ten ton spheres into relatively deep space (e.g. solar orbit), arranged them at the vertices of a tetrahedron, and then used laser interferometry between the spheres, and then threw another ten ton sphere across the solar system at a non-trivial speed, and through the tetrahedron, not intersecting a face or the body center, we could pretty much say once and for all if there were gravity waves or not, based on delay (or non-delay) of the effect of the moving sphere being "not there, then suddenly there, then suddenly not there", at least to about 1/2 the wavelength used by the interferometers (hence the need for a "non-trivial speed" for what is, in effect, a gravitational probe inserted into the system, to do the experiment).

    Doing the more or less definitive experiment would be expensive (as in "on the order of the cost of the LHC").

  7. LIGO is a money pit by fluffy99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They've sunk over a billion into the Hanford and Livingston observatories. The LIGO observatories from 2002 to 2010 were only operational for a very small fraction of the time, plagued by equipment problems, never acheived the design sensitivity, and NEVER detected anything useful. Most of their data was contaminated by local noise, including the highway a few miles away. They blindly collected terabytes of raw data that has never been fully analyzed and they have minimal local data analysis capability.

    Now NSF is pouring even more money into it in the hopes they can improve the sensitivity and actually detect something? At best they might record a perturbance that is correlated between multiple sites (they also partner with an Australian site I believe), of which the value of that data is still debatable.

    I wish the NSF would pull the plug on this waste of resources and invest in something more useful like cleaner nuclear power.

    1. Re:LIGO is a money pit by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      LIGO is enormously more sensitive (~12 orders of magnitude), than this seismic measurement but in a different frequency band (~100Hz), so both are valuable measurements sensitive to different types of GW sources .

      LIGO itself is a phenomenally difficult project, but with big payoffs. There is the basic physics of understanding how gravity works, but there are also technology spinoffs. The extremely low loss mirror technology developed for LIGO is not being used for other applications, including telecom. The high Q optical cavities are used in commercial measurement devices for measuring tiny concentrations of materials in gasses . There are likely many other spin-offs from the project.

    2. Re:LIGO is a money pit by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was on a LIGO review committed years ago (and worked on the precursor to the project many years before that). At the time of the review, LIGO had worked with a vendor to produce extremely low loss coatings. Based on that technology that vendor was able to move into the (at that time) rapidly expanding telecom optics business - and actually refused to make the parts LIGO needed) because the technology was more valuable to them for telecom. LIGO really was driving the optics business back then.

      I believe there have also been spinoffs from their stabilization and vibration isolation work, and possibly from their ultra- stable frequency laser work (Maybe someone from the project will respond.... Stan???).

      The value of basic physics like verifying, or disproving general relativity is of course much more difficult to measure. What is the value of understanding the large scale structure of the universe, or physics at very high energies? I don't know the coin to use to measure that. There was a time when number theory, quantum mechanics and relativity all seemed pretty esoteric and useless. That doesn't mean that all basic science is valuable, but there is no way to know in advance what is.

  8. Re: done already in 1997 by Stanford seismologist by hubie · · Score: 3, Informative

    The two used much different frequency regimes. The Stanford paper looked for waves with periods of 30 minutes to 24 hours. The one in the article looked for waves with periods of 1 to 20 seconds.

  9. Coincidence? by uassholes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    December 27, 2004 at 21:30:26 UT, a burst of gamma rays from SGR 1806-20 passed through the Solar System. The burst was so powerful that it had effects on Earth's atmosphere, at a range of about 50,000 light years.
    At 00:58:53 UTC on Sunday, 26 December 2004, an undersea megathrust earthquake occurred in the Indian Ocean which caused a tsunami which killed 250,000 people.