1 / 18

Upper-limit on Sco X-1 S2 preliminary results

Upper-limit on Sco X-1 S2 preliminary results. C Messenger, V Re and A Vecchio on behalf of PULG LSC General Meeting LHO, 10 th – 13 th November 2003. Outline. Astrophysical scenario Data analysis General S2 approach S2 preliminary results Future work Open issues

brett-mccarthy
Télécharger la présentation

Upper-limit on Sco X-1 S2 preliminary results

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. Upper-limit on Sco X-1S2 preliminary results C Messenger, V Re and A Vecchio on behalf of PULG LSC General Meeting LHO, 10th – 13th November 2003

  2. Outline • Astrophysical scenario • Data analysis • General • S2 approach • S2 preliminary results • Future work • Open issues • Plan for final upper-limits LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  3. Astrophysical scenario • Observational evidence that rotation frequencies in Low Mass X-Ray Binaries (LMXB) are • Well below NS breaking frequency • Clustered in a narrow (237 Hz – 619 Hz) frequency range (Bildsten, 1998; Chakrabarty et al, 2003) • Currently, two models: • Magnetic braking (Wang and Zang, 1997), but problems with lack of persistent emission and need for fine tuning of parameters • Gravitational waves (Bildsten, 1998) (from Cutler and Thorne 2000) LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  4. GWs from accreting neutron stars • Accretion onto neutron stars considered since the Seventies a viable mechanism to sustain GW emission (Papaloizou and Pringle, 1978; Wagoner, 1984) • Conjecture for LMXBs: GWs are the limiting physics that prevent NSs from being spun-up to the braking frequency • Two models: • “Mountain” on neutron star (Bildsten, 1998; Ushomirsky, Cutler, Bildsten, 2000; Cutler, 2002) • fgw = 2 frot • R-modes (Andersson et al, 1999; Wagoner, 2002) • fgw = 4/3 frot LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  5. Data analysis • Source position: known • Orbital motion • Circular orbit to a very good approximation • Search with discrete mesh over 3 orbital parameters (period, projected orbit semi-major axis, initial phase) • Phase Doppler shift much more severe than for isolated sources • Need to start correcting for Tobs > 5 min (Sco X-1) • .Df ~ 0.2 Hz (Sco X-1) LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  6. Data analysis (con’t) • Frequency drift (spin down/up: GWs balance accretion torque): signal monochromatic for Tobs ~ 2 weeks • Rotation frequency not very well known: Df ~ 1 – 40 Hz LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  7. Computationally bound search • Computational load comes from two poorly constrained set of parameters: • Emission frequency: search over a fairly large bandwidth (tens of Hz) • Orbital parameters (Sco X-1: N_filt ~ 106 for 1 day of coherent integration) • In the long term the only viable search strategy is: • Hierarchical • On the Grid (Dhurandhar and Vecchio, 2001) LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  8. Approach for S2 analysis • Target Sco X-1 (the brightest source) • The analysis can be extended in a straightforward way (in principle) to the other LMXBs • Coherent analysis over: • The full bandwidth (for emission at twice the rotation frequency) • The longest possible observation time for available computational resources (B’ham cluster Tsunami: 200 CPUs) T(coherent) < 1 day • Frequency domain analysis (different flavour of analysis carried out for S1) LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  9. Scorpius X-1 • Neutron star in a binary system accreting from a low-mass (0.42 M_sun) companion • Distance: 2.8 (+/- 0.2) kpc • Orbital parameters • Period: 0.787313(1) day = 18.9 hrs • Projected semi-major axis: 1.990 sec < a < 2.213 sec • “Initial” orbital phase: 1.21 < a < 1.31 • Circular orbit (e < 10-3) • Rotation frequency from twin kHz QPOs (van der Klis et al, 1997; van der Klis, 2000) • 232 – 242 Hz • 302 – 312 Hz LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  10. Preliminary analysis • Analysis: one-stage coherent demodulation (F statistic) • Frequency band • “lower band”: 464 – 484 Hz • “upper band”: 604 – 624 Hz • Two dimensional parameter space • Period known to high accuracy (not a search parameter for Tobs < 1 month) • Mesh on a and a • Tobs ~ 3 hrs (set by Tanalysis = 1 week on 100 CPUs) • Same data segment for L1, H1 and H2 • Frequentist upper-limits on ten 4 Hz wide bands covering the entire frequency range LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  11. Filter mesh • Flat 2D mesh (suitable re-parameterisation of the search parameters a and a) on X and Y • Mis-match: 10% • Number of filters • 39,487 (for upper band) • Factor ~2 fewer for lower band LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  12. Choice of data segment • Highest sensitivity segment during S2 for all the three detectors in both bands • GPS times: 734249072 < t < 734238015 • Tobs = 11,057 sec 464 – 484 Hz 604 – 624 Hz H1 H2 L1 LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  13. h0 = 10-21 h0 = 10-21 h0 = 10-21 Lower band : 464 – 476 Hz • 464 – 468 Hz: fairly noisy band in all 3 IFOs (2F* ~ 66 – 116) • 468 – 476 Hz is a quiet band: results consistent with noise only (2F* ~ 50) for L1, H1 and H2 LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  14. h0 = 10-21 h0 = 10-21 Lower band: 476 – 484 Hz • Extremely noisy band • Strongly contaminated by broad feature at 480 Hz • 2F* ~ 100 – 1200 depending on IFO LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  15. h0 = 10-21 h0 = 10-21 h0 = 10-21 h0 = 10-21 h0 = 10-21 Upper band: 604 – 624 Hz • Quiet band • Results consistent with noise only (2F* ~ 50) for L1 and H1 • H2 is slightly noisier (2F* = 55-60)

  16. Summary of preliminary UL h0 = 3x10-21 h0 = 2x10-21 h0 = 10-21 h0 = 5x10-22 LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  17. Summary • h0(95%) = 5x10-22 - 3x10-21 for the three detectors over the entire bandwidth (2 frot) • No filter triggers “in coincidence” • No analysis has been carried out on the band corresponding to 4/3 frot • Main limitation of current analysis • Lack of veto procedure (crucial for f ~ 480 Hz) • We will implement and apply the test currently being used for isolated pulsars LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

  18. Work plan • November • Perform a variety of tests and checks on the entire pipeline • Run analysis on much smaller bandwidth and longer observation time (main purpose: investigate run times) • Investigate trade-offs and perform optimisation of the search • December • Run S2 analysis LSC Meeting, LHO 10th – 13th November, 2003

More Related