1 / 13

Quantum noise reduction techniques for the Einstein telescope

This paper explores various quantum noise reduction techniques for the Einstein Telescope, a next-generation gravitational wave detector. The goal is to significantly improve sensitivity and reduce noise in order to detect frequencies as low as a few Hz. The paper discusses the requirements for the detector's sensitivity, the classical noise budget, and different quantum noise reduction options.

franksylvia
Télécharger la présentation

Quantum noise reduction techniques for the Einstein telescope

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. Quantum noise reduction techniques for the Einstein telescope Helge Müller-Ebhardt on behalf of ET WG3 Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (AEI) and Leibniz Universität Hannover TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AAAA

  2. 1st generation 2nd generation 3rd generation Requirements on the sensitivity for ET • a hundred times better sensitivity than initial detectors • significantly increase the detection band towards frequencies as low as a few Hz • highly broadband • extremely sensitive -19 10 Seismic -20 10 -21 10 -22 Noise Spectral Density 10 shot noise thermal noise -23 10 [Punturo, 2008] -24 10 -25 10 1 10 100 1000 10000 f [Hz]

  3. ET’s classical noise budget • detector with 10 km long arms of few hundred kg test-mass mirrors • underground facility with long tunnel system and high caverns • cryogenic environment for test-masses and suspension system • up scaled super attenuator • Newtonian noise subtraction [Hild, 2010]

  4. Simple position meter: Michelson interferometer • detector with 10 km long arms of few hundred kg test-mass mirrors • power-recycling and arm cavities increase circulating optical power • finite arm-cavity bandwidth → shot noise rises at high frequencies • tuned signal-recycling → effective bandwidth • quantum noise touches SQL (depending on optical power)

  5. Overview: quantum noise reduction options • optical-spring interferometer • speed-meter interferometer • optical inertia interferometer • optical transducer with local readout • (frequency-dependent) input-squeezing interferometer • variational-output interferometer single interferometer detector ↔ xylophone detector

  6. QNR technique: optical-spring interferometer • Michelson interferometer with detuned signal-recycling cavity • optomechanical coupling induces a restoring force acting on test-masses: optical spring • mechanical resonance up-shifted into detection band • sensitivity enhanced around resonances • well-investigated in prototypes and table-top experiments

  7. QNR technique: speed-meter interferometer • different optical realizations proposed: sloshing cavity, polarizing optics, Sagnac topology, long signal-recycling cavity, … • frequency-independent back-action noise at low frequencies is cancelled in output → shot noise limited • SQL beating depends on optical power / cavity bandwidth • combinable with frequency-dependent input squeezing • speed meter effect not yet experimentally observed • technical challenges: ring cavities,... [Chen, 2003] [Purdue, 2002] [Danilishin, 2004]

  8. QNR technique: input-squeezing • squeezed vacuum input at dark port increases sensitivity • optimal frequency-dependent squeezing ellipse → overall sensitivity enhancement • squeezed field reflected at filter cavities realizes frequency dependency • 2 filter cavities required for e.g. optical-spring interferometer • optical loss in filter cavities degenerates squeezing → sets requirements on filter cavities • well-investigated technique

  9. QNR technique: variational output • at every frequency there exists optimal readout quadrature • output field reflected at filter cavities → frequency-dependent readout quadrature • 2 filter cavities required for e.g. optical-spring interferometer • quadrature without signal content in output → optical loss increases noise and decreases signal • highly susceptible to optical loss • technique less investigated

  10. Single interferometer detector: Michelson frequency-dependent input-squeezing 300 ppm loss in two 10 km (1 km) long filter cavities • circulating optical power 3 MW • arm length 10 km • test-mass mirror weight 120 kg variational output 20 ppm loss in two 10 km (1 km) long filter cavities

  11. Single interferometer detector: Sagnac frequency-dependent input-squeezing 300 ppm loss in two 10 km (1 km) long filter cavities • circulating optical power 3 MW • arm length 10 km • test-mass mirror weight 120 kg variational output 20 ppm loss in two 10 km (1 km) long filter cavities

  12. Two-band xylophone detector • hard to realize broadband single interferometer detector - in terms of quantum noise, especially optical loss - in terms of technical noise even more • split detection band into LF interferometer and HF interferometer • LF interferometer: - up scaled advanced detector - cold - optical-spring • HF interferometer: - up scaled initial detector - room-temperate - high-power [Hild, 2010]

  13. LF interferometer: filter cavities vs. Sagnac • Sagnac interferometer with frequency-independent input squeezing - no filter cavities - need ring cavities in the arms - moderate test-mass weight possible - moderate circulating optical power (180 kW) • optical-spring interferometer with frequency-dependent input squeezing - need filter cavities - heavy test-mass mirrors - low circulating optical power (18 kW) ET-LF option

More Related