1: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3:
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}
5: \usepackage{bm}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{Modulator noise suppression in the LISA Time-Delay
9: Interferometric combinations}
10:
11: \author{Massimo Tinto}
12: \email{Massimo.Tinto@jpl.nasa.gov}
13: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
14: Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}
15:
16: \author{J. W. Armstrong}
17: \email{John.W.Armstrong@jpl.nasa.gov}
18: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
19: Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}
20:
21: \author{Frank B. Estabrook}
22: \email{Frank.B.Estabrook@jpl.nasa.gov}
23: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
24: Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109}
25:
26: \date{\today}
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29: LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) is a mission to detect and
30: study low-frequency cosmic gravitational radiation through its
31: influence on the phases of six modulated laser beams exchanged
32: between three remote spacecraft. We previously showed how the
33: measurements of some eighteen time series of relative frequency or
34: phase shifts could be combined (1) to cancel the phase noise of the
35: lasers, (2) to cancel the Doppler fluctuations due to non-inertial
36: motions of the six optical benches, and (3) to remove the phase
37: noise of the onboard reference oscillators required to track the
38: photodetector fringes, all the while preserving signals from passing
39: gravitational waves. Here we analyze the effect of the additional
40: noise due to the optical modulators used for removing the phase
41: fluctuations of the onboard reference oscillators. We use the
42: recently measured noise spectrum of an individual modulator
43: (Klipstein {\it et al.} \cite{Klip06}) to quantify the contribution
44: of modulator noise to the first and second-generation Time-Delay
45: Interferometric (TDI) combinations as a function of the modulation
46: frequency. We show that modulator noise can be made smaller than the
47: expected proof-mass acceleration and optical-path noises if the
48: modulation frequencies are larger than $\approx 682$ MHz in the case
49: of the unequal-arm Michelson TDI combination $X_1$, $\approx 1.08$
50: GHz for the Sagnac TDI combination $\alpha_1$, and $\approx 706$ MHz
51: for the symmetrical Sagnac TDI combination $\zeta_1$. These
52: modulation frequencies are substantially smaller than previously
53: estimated and may lead to less stringent requirements on the LISA's
54: oscillator noise calibration subsystem. The measurements in
55: \cite{Klip06} were performed in a laboratory experiment for a range
56: of modulation frequencies, but we emphasize that, for the reference
57: oscillator noise calibration algorithm to work, the modulation
58: frequencies must be equal to the frequencies of the reference
59: oscillators.
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \pacs{04.80.Nn, 95.55.Ym, 07.60.Ly}
63: \maketitle
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66: \label{intro}
67:
68: LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) is a three-spacecraft deep
69: space mission, jointly proposed to the National Aeronautics and Space
70: Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA). It will
71: detect and study low-frequency cosmic gravitational radiation by
72: observing frequency shifts of laser beams interchanged between
73: drag-free spacecraft \cite{PPA98}.
74:
75: Modeling each spacecraft with two optical benches, carrying
76: independent lasers, beam splitters and photodetectors, we previously
77: analyzed the measured eighteen time series of frequency shifts (six
78: one-way laser carrier beams between spacecraft pairs, six between the
79: two optical benches on each of the three spacecraft, and six more by
80: over-imposing phase modulations on the laser carrier beams between
81: spacecraft pairs to monitor rates of the reference oscillators on each
82: spacecraft). We showed that there exist several combinations of these
83: eighteen observable which cancel the otherwise overwhelming phase
84: noise of the lasers, and the phase fluctuations due to the
85: non-inertial motions of the six optical benches, and also allow the
86: removal of the phase noise from the onboard reference oscillators (or
87: USOs -- "Ultra-Stable Oscillators") required to track the
88: photodetector fringes, while leaving signals due to passing
89: gravitational waves \cite{TEA02}.
90:
91: The analysis in our previous work assumed that noise due to the
92: electro-optic modulators used to implement the onboard reference
93: oscillator noise calibration algorithm was negligible. Here we amend
94: those results to a more realistic LISA operational configuration where
95: the effects of the phase fluctuations of the modulators are explicitly
96: included in the various time-delay interferometric (TDI,
97: \cite{TD_Living05}) combinations. An experimental investigation for
98: estimating the magnitude of the phase noise introduced by a
99: commercially available electro-optical modulator (EOM) on the phase
100: measurement was recently performed by Klipstein {\it et al.}
101: \cite{Klip06}. They showed that a modulation frequency of about $8$
102: GHz would be adequate to suppress EOM noise in a one-way phase
103: measurement to smaller than a budgeted noise level. Their conclusion
104: was conservative in that it did not take account of the transfer
105: functions of modulator noise to the TDI combinations. Here we derive
106: the EOM noise transfer functions and show that smaller modulation
107: frequencies than those previously identified could be used, implying
108: less stringent phase noise requirements on the EOMs and perhaps
109: simpler subsystem design.
110:
111: In Section \ref{LISA_TDI} we give a brief summary of TDI and its
112: implementation for LISA, and show that the expressions derived in
113: \cite{TEA02} for removing the Ultra-Stable Oscillator noise from the
114: TDI combinations, valid for a stationary LISA configuration (so called
115: ``first-generation TDI''), can easily be generalized to the
116: ``second-generation'' TDI combinations (i.e. those accounting for the
117: the motions of the three spacecraft with respect to each other and
118: around the Sun).
119:
120: In Section \ref{Modulator_Spectrum} we derive the transfer functions
121: of the modulator noises to the second-generation TDI combinations
122: $X_1$ (unequal-arm Michelson), $\alpha_1$ (Sagnac), and $\zeta_1$
123: (symmetrized Sagnac). Using the measurements in \cite{Klip06} on a
124: particular EOM, we show that selecting modulation frequencies greater
125: than $\approx 682$ MHz (for $X_1$), $\approx 1.08$ GHz (for
126: $\alpha_1$), and $\approx 706$ MHz (for $\zeta_1$) results in the
127: power spectral density of the modulator noise being smaller than the
128: optical-path and proof-mass noises of these TDI combinations.
129:
130: \section{Time-Delay Interferometry}
131: \label{LISA_TDI}
132:
133: Equal-arm Michelson interferometer detectors of gravitational waves
134: can observe gravitational radiation by canceling the much larger frequency
135: fluctuations of the laser light injected into their arms. This is
136: done by comparing phases of split beams propagated along the equal
137: (but non-parallel) arms of the detector. The laser frequency
138: fluctuations affecting the two beams experience the same delay within
139: the two equal-length arms and cancel out at the photodetector where
140: relative phases are measured. In this way gravitational wave signals of
141: dimensionless amplitude less than $10^{-22}$ can be observed
142: using lasers whose frequency stability can be as large as
143: $10^{-13}$.
144:
145: If the arms of the interferometer have different lengths, as will
146: inevitably be the case for space-based detectors such as LISA, simple
147: differencing of the phases on the photodetector does not exactly
148: cancel the laser phase fluctuations, $p (t)$. The larger the
149: difference between the two arms, the larger will be the magnitude of
150: the laser phase fluctuations affecting the detector response. If
151: $L_1$ and $L_2$ are the lengths of the two arms, the laser relative
152: phase fluctuations remaining in the response is equal to (units in
153: which the speed of light $c = 1$)
154: \begin{equation}
155: \Delta p (t) = p(t - 2L_1) - p(t - 2L_2) \ .
156: \label{DC}
157: \end{equation}
158: In the case of LISA, whose lasers are expected to display relative
159: frequency fluctuations equal to about $10^{-13}/\sqrt{Hz}$ in the
160: milliHertz band, and whose arms will differ by a few percent
161: \cite{PPA98}, equation (\ref{DC}) implies the following expression
162: for the amplitude of the Fourier components of the uncanceled laser
163: frequency fluctuations (an over imposed tilde denotes the operation of
164: Fourier transform)
165: \begin{equation}
166: |{\widetilde {\Delta p}} (\omega)| \simeq |{\widetilde {p}} (\omega)| \
167: 2 \ \omega |(L_1 - L_2)| \ .
168: \label{FDC}
169: \end{equation}
170: At $\omega/2\pi = 10^{-3}$ Hz, for instance, and assuming $|L_1 - L_2| \simeq
171: 0.5 \ \ {\rm sec}$, the uncanceled fluctuations from the laser are
172: equal to $6.3 \times 10^{-16}/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$. Since the LISA
173: sensitivity goal is about $10^{-20}/\sqrt{\rm Hz}$ in this part of the
174: frequency band, it is clear that an alternative experimental approach
175: for canceling the laser frequency fluctuations is needed.
176:
177: The solution of this problem is achieved by first ``de-coupling'' the
178: two arms with the implementation of a multi-photo-receiver design in
179: which, at each optical bench, the phase difference between the light
180: entering the arm and the one exiting it is measured, time-tagged, and
181: digitally recorded. By then properly time-shifting and linearly
182: combining these phase measurements exact cancellation of the laser
183: phase noise is again achieved. The sensitivity to gravitational radiation
184: for the practical LISA case is essentially equivalent to that of an
185: equal-arm Michelson detector. For a physical and historical
186: description of this technique, called Time-Delay Interferometry (TDI),
187: the reader is referred to \cite{TD_Living05} and references therein.
188:
189: In the case of LISA there are six beams exchanged between the three
190: spacecraft, with the six relative phase measurements $s_{ij}$ ($i,j =
191: 1, 2, 3$) recorded when each received beam is mixed with light from an
192: independent laser on the receiving optical bench (that laser also
193: being used to transmit light back along the same arm to the distant
194: spacecraft{\footnote{This is the simplest configuration; for technical
195: reasons, schemes in which two or more of the lasers are remotely
196: phase-locked are being considered by the LISA project. TDI works
197: as well for these alternate measurement approaches also
198: \cite{TSSA03}.}}). The frequency fluctuations from all the six
199: lasers, which enter in each of the six Doppler measurements, must be
200: removed to levels smaller than those of the secondary (proof mass and
201: optical path) noises \cite{TEA02} in order to detect and study
202: gravitational radiation at the predicted amplitudes (see Figure
203: \ref{Fig1} for a description of the LISA geometry).
204:
205: \begin{figure}
206: \begin{center}
207: \includegraphics[width=2.5in, angle = -90.0]{Figure1.ps}
208: \end{center}
209:
210: \caption{Schematic LISA configuration. Each spacecraft is equidistant
211: from the point O, in the plane of the spacecraft. Unit vectors
212: $\hat n_i$ point between spacecraft pairs with the indicated
213: orientation. At each vertex spacecraft there are two optical
214: benches (denoted 1, $1^*$, etc.), as indicated.}
215: \label{Fig1}
216: \end{figure}
217:
218: As the three spacecraft forming the LISA array orbit the Sun, their
219: systematic relative motions result in Doppler shifts of the laser
220: frequencies. These offsets may be as large as about $\pm 20 \ {\rm
221: MHz}$ and are measured at the receiving spacecraft via heterodyning.
222: To limit the offset frequencies to this range either the lasers
223: must be referenced to an atomic line (such as molecular iodine
224: stabilization \cite{LC06}) or a sophisticated locking scheme must be
225: employed \cite{TSSA03}.
226:
227: A heterodyne measurement is ``base-banded'' by using a properly
228: selected tracking frequency generated by a reference oscillator (the
229: USO) using servo loop feedback. Although this procedure allows us to
230: accurately track the phases of the photodetector fringes, it
231: introduces into the phase measurements a residual noise due to the USO
232: itself \cite{TEA02}. This USO noise is not negligible and a technique
233: for removing it from the TDI combinations was devised (see
234: \cite{TEA02} for more details). This technique requires the
235: modulation of the laser beams exchanged by the spacecraft, and the
236: further measurement of six more inter-spacecraft relative phases by
237: comparing the sidebands of the received beam against sidebands of the
238: transmitted beam \cite{TEA02}.
239:
240: The time-keeping of the three spacecraft must be synchronized in an
241: inertial frame, usually taken to be the solar system barycentric
242: frame. On each link, the up- and downlink delay times used in the TDI
243: combinations thus differ due to large relativistic aberrations. This
244: is first accommodated in the analysis by so called ``modified
245: generation'' TDI combinations, and in ``second generation'' TDI where
246: more general ``flexing'' of the LISA configuration is allowed.
247: Following \cite{TEA04}, the arms are labeled with single numbers given
248: by the opposite spacecraft; e.g., arm $2$ (or $2^{'}$) is opposite
249: spacecraft $2$, where primed delays are used to distinguish
250: light-times taken in the counter-clockwise sense and unprimed delays
251: for the clockwise light times (see Figure (\ref{Fig2})). Also the
252: following labeling convention of the relative phase data will be used.
253: Explicitly: $s_{23}$ is the one-way phase shift measured at spacecraft
254: $3$, coming from spacecraft $2$, along arm $1$. Similarly, $s_{32}$
255: is the phase shift measured on arrival at spacecraft $2$ along arm
256: $1'$ of a signal transmitted from spacecraft $3$. Due to aberration
257: and the relative motion between spacecraft, $L_1 \neq L_1^{'}$ in
258: general. As in \cite{TEA02}, we denote six further data streams
259: $\tau_{ij}$ ($i,j = 1, 2, 3$), as the intra-spacecraft metrology data
260: used to monitor the motion of the two optical benches and the relative
261: phase fluctuations of the two lasers on each of the three spacecraft.
262: \begin{figure}
263: \centering
264: \includegraphics[width=3.0 in, angle=0.0]{Figure2.ps}
265: \caption{Schematic diagram of the LISA configuration involving
266: six laser beams. Optical path delays taken in the counter-clockwise
267: sense are denoted with a prime, while unprimed delays are in the
268: clockwise sense.
269: \label{Fig2}}
270: \end{figure}
271:
272: The frequency fluctuations introduced by the lasers, by the optical
273: benches, by the proof masses, by the fiber optics, by the USOs, and by
274: the measurements themselves at the photo-detectors (i.e.\ the
275: shot-noise fluctuations) enter the Doppler observables $s_{ij}$,
276: $\tau_{ij}$ with specific time signatures; see
277: \cite{ETA00,TEA02} for a detailed discussion. The contribution
278: $s^\mathrm{GW}_{ij}$ due to GW signals was derived in
279: \cite{AET99} in the case of a stationary array, and further extended
280: to the realistic configuration \cite{KTV04} of the LISA array orbiting
281: the Sun.
282:
283: The four data streams recorded at spacecraft 1, including Doppler
284: effects, independent lasers, gravitational wave signals, optical path
285: noises, proof-mass and bench noises, fiber optics and USO phase fluctuations, are
286: now given by the following expressions \cite{TEA02,TEA04}
287: \begin{eqnarray}
288: s_{31} & = & \left[\nu_{3} \ (1 - \dot L_2) - \nu^*_{1} - a_{31} \ f_{1} \right] t
289: + p_{3,2} - p^{*}_1 - a_{31} \ q_1 - \nu_{3} \ {\hat n_2} \cdot {\vec \Delta_{3,2}}
290: \nonumber \\
291: & &
292: + \nu_{3} \ (1 - \dot L_2) \ \left[ 2 {\hat n_2} \cdot {\vec \delta^{*}_1} -
293: {\hat n_2} \cdot {\vec \Delta^{*}_1} \right]
294: + s^{\rm gw}_{31} + s^{\rm opt. \ path}_{31}
295: \label{eq:1}
296: \\
297: \tau_{31} & = & \left[\nu_{1} - \nu^*_{1} - c_{31} \ f_{1} \right] t +
298: p_{1} - p^{*}_1 - c_{31} \ q_1
299: + 2 \ \nu_{1} \ {\hat n_3} \cdot ({\vec \delta_1} - {\vec \Delta_1}) + \mu_1
300: \label{eq:2}
301: \\
302: s_{21} & = & \left[\nu^*_{2} \ (1 - \dot L_{3'}) - \nu_{1} - a_{21} \ f_{1} \right] t
303: + p^*_{2,3'} - p_1 - a_{21} \ q_1 + \nu^*_{2} \ {\hat n_3} \cdot {\vec \Delta^*_{2,3'}}
304: \nonumber
305: \\
306: & &
307: + \nu^*_{2} \ (1 - \dot L_{3'}) \ \left[ - \ 2 {\hat n_3} \cdot {\vec \delta_1} +
308: {\hat n_3} \cdot {\vec \Delta_1} \right]
309: + s^{\rm gw}_{21} + s^{\rm opt. \ path}_{21}
310: \label{eq:3}
311: \\
312: \tau_{21} & = & \left[\nu^*_{1} - \nu_{1} - c_{21} \ f_{1} \right] t +
313: p^{*}_{1} - p_1 - c_{21} \ q_1
314: - \ 2 \ \nu^*_{1} \ {\hat n_2} \cdot ({\vec \delta^*_1} - {\vec \Delta^*_1}) + \mu_1 \ .
315: \label{eq:4}
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: \noindent
318: For all the down conversions at spacecraft $1$, the USO-generated
319: frequency $f_1$ is used, and it is multiplied by coefficients
320: $a_{21}$, $a_{31}$, $c_{21}$, and $c_{31}$ that are the result of
321: phase-lock loops driving numerically controlled oscillators to track
322: the large ($ \simeq 20 \ {\rm MHz}$ center frequency) offsets in the
323: heterodyne phase measurements (the ``beat notes'') \cite{TEA02}. Thus
324: the values of these coefficients are determined by the following
325: expressions
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: a_{31} & = & \frac{\nu_{3} \ (1 - \dot L_2) - \nu^*_{1}}{f_{1}} \ ,
328: \label{eq:5}
329: \end{eqnarray}
330:
331: \begin{eqnarray}
332: a_{21} & = & \frac{\nu^*_{2} \ (1 - \dot L_{3'}) - \nu_{1}}{f_{1}} \ ,
333: \label{eq:6}
334: \end{eqnarray}
335:
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: c_{21} = - c_{31} & = & \frac{\nu^*_{1} - \nu_{1}}{f_{1}} \ .
338: \label{eq:7}
339: \end{eqnarray}
340: Eight other relations, for the readouts at vertices $2$ and $3$, are
341: given by cyclic permutation of the indices in equations
342: (\ref{eq:1})-(\ref{eq:7}).
343:
344: Recent experimental results have indicated that onboard lasers can be
345: effectively stabilized by referencing their frequency to that of
346: molecular-line transitions such as those defined by molecular iodine
347: ($I_2$). Besides providing a high reference frequency stability for
348: the LISA onboard lasers, $I_2$ stabilization has the advantage of
349: making the center frequencies of the lasers onboard each spacecraft
350: essentially equal \cite{LC06}. In the following we will assume the
351: onboard lasers to be iodine-stabilized, and we will correspondingly
352: set the coefficients $c_{ij}$ defined in equation (\ref{eq:7}) to be
353: identically equal to zero.
354:
355: The gravitational wave phase signal components in equations
356: (\ref{eq:1}) and (\ref{eq:3}) are given by integrating with respect to
357: time the equations (1), (2) of reference \cite{AET99}, which related
358: frequency shifts to metric perturbations. It is these that LISA is
359: designed to measure at levels set by the optical path phase noise
360: contributions, $s^{\rm opt. \ path}_{ij}$, due mainly to shot noise
361: from the low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the links connecting the
362: distant spacecraft. The $\tau_{ij}$ measurements will be made with
363: high SNR so that for them the shot noise is negligible. The other
364: unavoidable secondary phase noise is due to proof mass
365: non-gravitational perturbations, described here by the random
366: displacement vectors ${\vec \Delta_{i}}$ and
367: ${\vec \Delta^{*}_{i}}$.
368:
369: The expressions of the phase measurements given by equations
370: (\ref{eq:1} - \ref{eq:4}), when substituted into the second generation
371: laser-noise-free combinations yield data that, although free of laser
372: and motional phase noises, are now affected additionally by the USO
373: phase fluctuations, which have been denoted $q_i$ ($i = 1, 2, 3$) in
374: equations (\ref{eq:1} - \ref{eq:4}). For instance, with a state-of-the-art
375: USO displaying a frequency stability of about $1.0 \times 10^{-13}$ in
376: the milliHertz frequency band, the corresponding relative frequency
377: fluctuations, $\dot q_i/\nu_i$, introduced in the laser-noise-free
378: data combinations would be equal to about $3.0 \times 10^{-20}$,
379: several orders of magnitude above the secondary noises and LISA
380: sensitivity goals \cite{PPA98}.
381:
382: The expressions of the gravitational wave signal, the USO and the
383: secondary noise sources entering into $X_1$ will in general be
384: different from those entering into $X$, the corresponding ``first
385: generation'' unequal-arm Michelson observable derived under the
386: assumption of a stationary LISA array \cite{AET99,ETA00}. However,
387: the magnitude of the corrections introduced by the motion of the array
388: on the gravitational wave signal, the USO and the secondary noise
389: sources entering into $X_1$ will all be proportional to the product of
390: their time derivatives, the spacecraft relative velocities, and the
391: LISA arm-length. At $1$ Hz, for instance, the larger corrections (due
392: to aberration) will be about five orders of magnitude smaller than the
393: main terms. Since the amplitude of these corrections scale linearly
394: with the Fourier frequency, we can completely disregard the time- and
395: direction-dependence of the time-delays entering into these noise
396: sources over the entire LISA band \cite{TEA04}.
397:
398: These considerations imply that the second generation TDI expressions
399: for the gravitational wave signal, the USOs and the secondary noises
400: can be expressed in terms of the corresponding first generation TDIs.
401: For instance, the second generation unequal-arm Michelson combination,
402: $X_{1q}$, (where the $q$-index indicates the inclusion of the USO
403: noises) can be written in terms of the corresponding first generation
404: unequal-arm Michelson combination, $X_{q} (t)$, in the following
405: manner \cite{TL04}
406: \begin{equation}
407: X_{1q} (t) = X_{q} (t) - X_{q} (t - 2L_2 - 2L_3) \ ,
408: \label{X1fromX}
409: \end{equation}
410: in which the time-dependence of the light-travel times can be
411: completely disregarded. Equation (\ref{X1fromX}) implies that the USO
412: calibration procedure for the second generation TDI combinations can
413: actually be evaluated by simply considering the corresponding calibration
414: expressions derived for the first generation TDI expressions given in
415: \cite{TEA02}. For this reason, from now on we will focus our attention
416: on the first generation combinations.
417:
418: \section{Magnitude of the modulator noise into the TDI combinations}
419: \label{Modulator_Spectrum}
420:
421: In the USO calibration scheme first proposed by Bender {\it et al.}
422: \cite{PPA98}, a second frequency is superimposed on each of the six
423: main laser beams: specifically, beams originating at spacecraft $i$
424: are modulated at the frequency $f_i$ generated by its onboard USO. The
425: main carrier signal, together with a side-band (of intensity perhaps
426: ten times lower than the intensity in the carrier \cite{PPA98}) are
427: transmitted, and at the receiving spacecraft $j$ they are heterodyned
428: at a photo detector with the local laser beam $\nu_j$ also carrying
429: side-bands \cite{TEA02}. If the frequencies of the sidebands are
430: carefully selected to be larger than the laser frequency offsets (but
431: to differ from each other by an amount smaller than the operational
432: bandwidth of the photo detector) then the lowest two difference
433: frequencies (or difference phase trains) can be distinguished and
434: measured at the photo detector. These two difference phase time
435: series are given respectively by the difference between incoming and
436: outgoing carriers, and by the difference of the phases of their
437: side-bands respectively. They are then independently further tracked
438: with coefficients $a_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$ \cite{TEA02,H01}. This
439: process provides six additional data records, $s'_{ij}$. Consider,
440: for instance, the phase difference between the second signal
441: transmitted by bench $3$ and the second at the receiving bench $1^*$
442: \begin{eqnarray}
443: s'_{31} & = & \left[(\nu_{3} + f_{3}) \ (1 - \dot L_2) - \nu^*_{1} -
444: f_{1} - b_{21} \ f_{1} \right] t + p_{3,2} - p^{*}_1
445: \nonumber
446: \\
447: & + & q_{3,2} - (1 \ + \ b_{21}) \ q_1 + m_{3,2} - m^*_1
448: \label{eq:8}
449: \end{eqnarray}
450: \noindent
451: where, for simplicity, we have omitted the terms associated with the
452: optical bench noises, the optical path and proof-mass noises, and the
453: contribution from a possibly present gravitational wave signal. Note
454: that now the expressions for the measurements $s'_{ij}$ include also
455: the phase noises $m_i, m^*_i \ \ i = 1, 2, 3$ introduced by the
456: modulators on the measured phase differences $s'_{ij}$. These terms
457: were neglected in \cite{TEA02} and here we amend that analysis.
458:
459: Note that the numerical coefficient $b_{21}$, determined by the
460: following equation
461: \begin{eqnarray}
462: b_{21} & = & \frac{(\nu_{3} + f_{3}) \ (1 - \dot L_2) - (\nu^*_{1} + f_{1})}{f_{1}} \ ,
463: \label{eq:9}
464: \end{eqnarray}
465: is distinct from $a_{21}$ given by equation (\ref{eq:5}) (although
466: they will be close if all the $f_i$ are close).
467:
468: The quantities $r^{(m)}_{21} \equiv (s_{21} - s'_{21})/f_3$ and
469: similarly $r^{(m)}_{31} \equiv (s_{31} - s'_{31})/f_2$ (and cyclic
470: permutations of their indices) enter into the algorithm presented in
471: \cite{TEA02} for removing the USO noises from the various TDI
472: combinations. Now they explicitly show their dependence on the
473: modulator noises $m_i, m^*_i \ \ i = 1, 2, 3$, and are related to the
474: $r_{ij}$ expressions introduced in \cite{TEA02} (which did not include
475: the modulator noises) by the following expressions
476: \begin{eqnarray}
477: r^{(m)}_{31} & = & r_{31} - \frac{m_{3,2} - m^*_1}{f_3}
478: \nonumber
479: \\
480: r^{(m)}_{21} & = & r_{21} - \frac{m^*_{2,3} - m_1}{f_2}
481: \label{r_func}
482: \end{eqnarray}
483: with the others obtained as usual via permutation of the spacecraft
484: indices.
485:
486: \subsection{Modulator Noise in the $X$-combination}
487:
488: As a result of the presence of modulator noises in the $s'_{ij}$
489: measurements (and consequently in the combinations $r^{(m)}_{ij}$) the
490: first-generation TDI unequal-arm Michelson combination given in
491: equation (27) of \cite{TEA02} (which now will include combinations of
492: the $r^{(m)}_{ij}$ measurements) will be affected by the modulator
493: noises. If we denote with $X^{(m)}$ the resulting new unequal-arm
494: Michelson combination, it is easy to see that this can be written as
495: the sum of $X$ (as given in \cite{TEA02}) with terms due to the
496: modulator noises. The resulting expression is equal to
497: \begin{eqnarray}
498: X^{(m)} & = & X -
499: a_{12} \ f_2 \
500: \left[
501: \frac{m_{1,22} - m^*_{2,322}}{f_2}
502: +
503: \frac{m^*_{2,3} - m_{1}}{f_2}
504: +
505: \frac{m^*_{1} - m_{3,2}}{f_3}
506: +
507: \frac{m_{3,2} - m^*_{1,22}}{f_1}
508: \right]
509: \nonumber
510: \\
511: & + &
512: a_{13} \ f_3 \
513: \left[
514: \frac{m^*_{1,33} - m_{3,233}}{f_3}
515: +
516: \frac{m_{3,2} - m^*_{1}}{f_3}
517: +
518: \frac{m_{1} - m^*_{2,3}}{f_2}
519: +
520: \frac{m^*_{2,3} - m_{1,33}}{f_1}
521: \right]
522: \nonumber
523: \\
524: & - &
525: a_{21} \ f_1 \
526: \left[
527: \frac{m^*_{1} - m_{3,2}}{f_3}
528: +
529: \frac{m_{3,2} - m^*_{1,22}}{f_1}
530: \right]
531: +
532: a_{31} \ f_1 \
533: \left[
534: \frac{m_{1} - m^*_{2,3}}{f_2}
535: +
536: \frac{m^*_{2,3} - m_{1,33}}{f_1}
537: \right] \ .
538: \label{Xm}
539: \end{eqnarray}
540: The expression above leads to the following estimation of the spectral
541: density of the noise, $S_{X^{(m)}}$, in the TDI combination $X^{(m)}$
542: \begin{eqnarray}
543: S_{X^{(m)}} & = & S_{X} \ + \ 4 \sin^2(\omega L) \
544: \left[
545: S_{m_1} (a_{12} + a_{13} + a_{31})^2 +
546: S_{m^*_1} (a_{12} + a_{13} + a_{21})^2
547: \right.
548: \nonumber
549: \\
550: & & \left.
551: + S_{m^*_2} \ a^2_{12} + S_{m_3} \ a^2_{13}
552: \right] \ ,
553: \label{Sxm}
554: \end{eqnarray}
555: which has been written as the sum of the secondary noise spectra
556: $S_{X}$ of the combination $X$ (not containing the modulator noises)
557: and the spectra of the modulator noises themselves. Note that for a
558: figure of merit equation (\ref{Sxm}) conveniently assumes all USOs to
559: have equal frequency $f$, and all the armlengths to be equal to a
560: common value $L$.
561:
562: Assuming a maximum beat-note frequency offset of $20$ MHz in each arm,
563: the coefficients $a_{ij}$ can be taken all equal to $a \equiv 20 \
564: {\rm MHz} / f$, where $f$ is the USO or modulation
565: frequency{\footnote{In the experimental setup used by \cite{Klip06} to
566: characterize an individual EOM's noise it was not necessary that
567: the modulation frequency be the same as the USO frequency. We
568: emphasize that in LISA's actual USO calibration subsystem the
569: modulation frequency must equal the USO frequency; see Figure 5 of
570: \cite{TEA02}.}. Given the measured modulator noise spectrum
571: (figure 6 in \cite{Klip06}), from equation (\ref{Sxm}) it is then
572: possible to determine the value of the USO frequency which would
573: make the modulator noise contribution smaller than the secondary
574: noises (\cite{ETA00}, Section IV) affecting the $X$ combination over
575: the entire LISA band. This can be done my maximizing over the
576: angular frequency $\omega$ the following function (see equation
577: \ref{Sxm} above)
578: \begin{equation}
579: \sin(\omega L) \ \sqrt{80 \ \frac{S_m (\omega)}{S_X
580: (\omega)}} \ \times 20 \ {\rm MHz} \ ,
581: \label{Xfmod}
582: \end{equation}
583: where $S_m (\omega)$ is the spectrum of the noise associated with one
584: modulator. Over the frequency band relevant to LISA, the measured
585: $S_m (\omega)$ for a single EOM can be approximated by the following analytic
586: expression (see figure 6 in \cite{Klip06})
587:
588: \begin{eqnarray}
589: S_m (\omega) & = & \
590: 2.8 \ \times 10^{-9} \ \omega^{-1} \ \ \ {\rm cycles}^2 \ {\rm Hz}^{-1}
591: \ \ \ {\rm when:}
592: \ \ \ 10^{-4} \le \omega/2\pi \le 8 \times 10^{-3} \ {\rm Hz} \nonumber \\
593: & = & \ 5.5 \ \times 10^{-8} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm cycles}^2 \ {\rm Hz}^{-1}
594: \ \ \ {\rm when:} \ \ \
595: 8 \times 10^{-3} \le \omega/2\pi \le 3 \times 10^{-2} \ {\rm Hz} \nonumber \\
596: & = & \ 3.8 \ \times 10^{-10} \ \omega^{-3} \ \ {\rm cycles}^2 \ {\rm Hz}^{-1}
597: \ \ \ {\rm when:} \ \ \
598: 3 \times 10^{-2} \le \omega/2\pi \le 5 \times 10^{-1} \ {\rm Hz} \nonumber \\
599: & = & \ 1.2 \ \times 10^{-11} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm cycles}^2 \ {\rm Hz}^{-1}
600: \ \ \ {\rm when:} \ \ \
601: 5 \times 10^{-1} \le \omega/2\pi \le 1 \ \ {\rm Hz} \ .
602: \label{Sm}
603: \end{eqnarray}
604: Note that the expressions of the power spectral densities of the
605: noises entering into the $X$, $\alpha$, and $\zeta$ combinations are
606: given in Section IV of \cite{ETA00} as fractional frequency
607: fluctuations, and therefore need to be converted to the same units as
608: $S_m$ before being used for direct comparison.
609:
610: After maximizing the function given in equation (\ref{Xfmod}) we
611: conclude that the modulation frequency $f$ should be equal to or
612: larger than $682$ MHz for the modulator noise level in the
613: $X$-combination to be smaller than the remaining secondary noises.
614: A numerical comparison of modulation noise in $X$ at this level,
615: modulation noise if $f = 8 \ {\rm GHz}$ is adopted, and the combined
616: secondary noises is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig3}.
617:
618: \begin{figure}
619: \centering
620: \includegraphics[width=5.0in]{Figure3.ps}
621: \caption{Numerical comparison of modulation noise in $X$ with a
622: modulation frequency $f$ equal to $682 \ {\rm MHz}$
623: (dashed-line), $ 8 \ {\rm GHz}$ (dash-dot line), and the combined
624: secondary noises (solid line).}
625: \label{Fig3}
626: \end{figure}
627:
628: \subsection{Modulator Noise in the $\alpha$-combination}
629:
630: If we denote with $\alpha^{(m)}$ the resulting new Sagnac
631: combination, it is easy to see that this can be written as the
632: sum of $\alpha$ (as given in \cite{TEA02}) and terms
633: due to the modulator noises. The resulting expression is equal to
634: \begin{eqnarray}
635: \alpha^{(m)} & = & \alpha +
636: [a_{32} \ f_2 + a_{13} \ f_3]
637: \
638: \left[
639: \frac{m_{1} - m^*_{2,3}}{f_2}
640: \right]
641: -
642: [a_{23} \ f_3 + a_{12} \ f_2]
643: \left[
644: \frac{m^*_{1} - m_{3,2}}{f_3}
645: \right]
646: \nonumber
647: \\
648: & - &
649: a_{12} \ f_2
650: \left[
651: \frac{m^*_{3,2} - m_{2,12}}{f_2}
652: \right]
653: +
654: a_{13} \ f_3
655: \left[
656: \frac{m_{2,3} - m^*_{3,13}}{f_3}
657: \right]
658: \label{alpham}
659: \end{eqnarray}
660: The expression above leads to the following estimation of the spectral
661: density of the noise, $S_{\alpha^{(m)}}$, in the TDI combination $\alpha^{(m)}$
662: \begin{eqnarray}
663: S_{\alpha^{(m)}} & = & S_{\alpha}
664: \ + \
665: (a_{32} + a_{13})^2 \
666: (S_{m_1} + S_{m^*_2})
667: \ + \
668: (a_{23} + a_{12})^2 \
669: (S_{m^*_1} + S_{m_3})
670: \nonumber
671: \\
672: & + &
673: |(a_{13} + a_{12} \ e^{ i \omega L})|^2
674: \ S_{m_2}
675: \ + \
676: |(a_{12} + a_{13} \ e^{i \omega L})|^2
677: \ S_{m^*_3}
678: \label{Salpham}
679: \end{eqnarray}
680: which has been written as the sum of the noise spectra of the
681: modulator noise-free combination $\alpha$ and the contribution to the
682: overall spectrum coming from the modulator noise. All the armlengths
683: have been taken again to be equal to a common value $L$.
684:
685: Again taking the maximum beat-note frequency offset to be $20$ MHz in
686: each arm, the coefficients $a_{ij}$ can be treated as all equal to $a
687: \equiv 20 \ {\rm MHz} / f$. Now the function that needs to be
688: maximized to determine the value of the USO frequency which
689: makes the modulator noise smaller than the LISA secondary noises
690: over the entire LISA band is equal to
691: \begin{equation}
692: \sqrt{\frac{S_m (\omega)}{S_\alpha (\omega)} \ (20 +
693: 4 \cos(\omega L))} \times 20 \ {\rm MHz} \ .
694: \label{alphafmod}
695: \end{equation}
696: By calculating the maximum value of the above function over the LISA
697: operational band we conclude that a modulation frequency
698: $f$ equal to or larger than $\approx 1.08$ GHz will suppress the
699: modulator noise in the $\alpha$-combination to a level smaller
700: than the secondary noises. A numerical comparison of the resulting
701: modulation noise in $\alpha$ with the secondary noises is shown in
702: Fig. \ref{Fig4}.
703:
704: \begin{figure}
705: \centering
706: \includegraphics[width=5.0in]{Figure4.ps}
707: \caption{Numerical comparison of modulation noise in $\alpha$ with a
708: modulation frequency $f$ equal to $1.08 \ {\rm GHz}$ (dashed-line),
709: $ 8 \ {\rm GHz}$ (dash-dot line), and the combined secondary noises
710: (solid line).}
711: \label{Fig4}
712: \end{figure}
713:
714: \subsection{Modulator Noise in the $\zeta$-combination}
715:
716: We denote with $\zeta^{(m)}$ the new symmetrized Sagnac combination,
717: and write it again as the sum of $\zeta$ (as given in \cite{TEA02})
718: with added terms due to the modulator noises. The resulting expression is
719: equal to
720: \begin{eqnarray}
721: \zeta^{(m)} & = & \zeta +
722: \frac{f_1}{3} (a_{21} - a_{31})
723: \
724: \left[
725: \left(\frac{m^*_{3,3} - m_{2,13}}{f_2} \right)
726: -
727: \left(\frac{m_{1,1} - m^*_{2,31}}{f_2} \right)
728: +
729: \left(\frac{m_{2,2} - m^*_{3,12}}{f_3} \right)
730: -
731: \left(\frac{m^*_{1,1} - m_{3,21}}{f_3} \right)
732: \right]
733: \nonumber
734: \\
735: & + &
736: \frac{f_2}{3} (a_{32} - a_{12})
737: \
738: \left[
739: \left(\frac{m^*_{1,1} - m_{3,21}}{f_3} \right)
740: -
741: \left(\frac{m_{2,2} - m^*_{3,12}}{f_3} \right)
742: +
743: \left(\frac{m_{3,3} - m^*_{1,23}}{f_1} \right)
744: -
745: \left(\frac{m^*_{2,2} - m_{1,32}}{f_1} \right)
746: \right]
747: \nonumber
748: \\
749: & + &
750: \frac{f_3}{3} (a_{13} - a_{23})
751: \
752: \left[
753: \left(\frac{m^*_{2,2} - m_{1,32}}{f_1} \right)
754: -
755: \left(\frac{m_{3,3} - m^*_{1,23}}{f_1} \right)
756: +
757: \left(\frac{m_{1,1} - m^*_{2,31}}{f_2} \right)
758: -
759: \left(\frac{m^*_{3,3} - m_{2,13}}{f_2} \right)
760: \right] \ .
761: \label{zetam}
762: \end{eqnarray}
763: In order to identify the minimum modulation frequency $f$ that
764: suppresses the modulator noise below the secondary noises, it is
765: useful to set $a_{ij} = a_{ji}$, which is allowed if there is no
766: flexing and
767: \begin{figure}
768: \centering
769: \includegraphics[width=5.0in]{Figure5.ps}
770: \caption{Numerical comparison of modulation noise in $\zeta$ with a
771: modulation frequency $f$ equal to $706 \ {\rm MHz}$ (dashed-line),
772: $ 8 \ {\rm GHz}$ (dash-dot line), and the combined secondary noises
773: (solid line).}
774: \label{Fig5}
775: \end{figure}
776: the six lasers are stabilized to the same $I_2$ transition frequency.
777: Again assuming a maximum beat-note frequency offset of $20$ MHz in
778: each arm, the coefficients $a_{ij}$ can be taken as $a \equiv 20 \
779: {\rm MHz} / f$. A careful analysis shows that the function which needs
780: to be evaluated to identify the value of the USO frequency $f$
781: required to make the modulator noise smaller than the LISA secondary
782: noises is
783:
784: \begin{equation}
785: \sqrt{\frac{16 \ [2 - \cos(2 \pi f L)] \ S_m (\omega)}{3 \ S_\zeta (\omega)}} \times 20 \ {\rm MHz} \ .
786: \label{zetafmod}
787: \end{equation}
788: By calculating the maximum value of the function above over the LISA
789: band we conclude that a modulation frequency $f$ equal to or larger
790: than $706$ MHz will suppress the modulator noise in $\zeta$ to a level
791: smaller than the secondary noises. A numerical comparison of the
792: resulting modulation noise in $\zeta$ is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig5}.
793:
794: \section*{Acknowledgments}
795:
796: We thank Bill Klipstein, Daniel Shaddock, and Brent Ware for several
797: stimulating discussions about modulator noise. This research was
798: performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
799: Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
800: Administration. Massimo Tinto and John Armstrong were supported under
801: research task 05-BEFS05-0014. Frank B. Estabrook is a Distinguished
802: Visiting Scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
803:
804: \begin{references}
805:
806: \bibitem{Klip06} W.Klipstein, P.G. Halverson, R. Spero, R. Cruz, \& D.
807: Shaddock. In: {\it Proceedings of the 6th International LISA
808: symposium}, Editor(s): S.M. Merkowitz and J.C. Livas, AIP
809: Conference Proceedings Volume 873, Greenbelt, Maryland (USA), 19-23
810: June 2006. ISBN: 978-0-7354-0372-7.
811:
812: \bibitem{PPA98} P. L. Bender, K. Danzmann, and the LISA Study Team,
813: {\it Laser Interferometer Space Antenna for the Detection of
814: Gravitational Waves, Pre-Phase A Report}, Doc. MPQ 233
815: (Max-Planck-Instit\"ut f\"ur Quantenoptik, Garching, 1998).
816:
817: \bibitem{TEA02} M. Tinto, F.B. Estabrook, \& J.W. Armstrong {\it
818: Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 65}, 082003 (2002).
819:
820: \bibitem{TD_Living05} M. Tinto, and S.V.Dhurandhar,
821: {\it Living Reviews in Relativity}, {\bf 8}, 4 (2005).
822:
823: \bibitem{TSSA03} M. Tinto, D.A. Shaddock, J. Sylvestre, \& J.W. Armstrong {\it
824: Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 67}, 122003 (2003).
825:
826: \bibitem{LC06} V. Leonhardt \& J.B. Camp {\it Appl. Opt.}, {\bf 45},
827: 4142, (2006)
828:
829: \bibitem{TEA04} M. Tinto, F.B. Estabrook, \& J.W. Armstrong {\it
830: Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 69}, 082001 (2004).
831:
832: \bibitem{ETA00} F.B. Estabrook, M. Tinto, \& J.W. Armstrong {\it
833: Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 62}, 042002 (2000).
834:
835: \bibitem{AET99} J.W. Armstrong, F.B. Estabrook, \& M. Tinto {\it
836: Ap. J}, {\bf 527}, 814 (1999).
837:
838: \bibitem{KTV04} A. Krolak, M. Tinto, \& M. Vallisneri {\it
839: Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 70}, 022003 (2004).
840:
841: \bibitem{STEA03} D.A. Shaddock, M. Tinto, F.B. Estabrook, \& J.W. Armstrong {\it
842: Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 68}, 061303 (2003).
843:
844: \bibitem{CH03} N.J. Cornish \& R.W. Hellings {\it Class. Quantum
845: Grav.}, {\bf 20}, 4851 (2003).
846:
847: \bibitem{TL04} M. Tinto, \& S.L. Larson {\it
848: Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 70}, 062002 (2004).
849:
850: \bibitem{7} R.W. Hellings, G. Giampieri, L. Maleki, M. Tinto,
851: K. Danzmann, J. Homes, \& D. Robertson, {\it Optics Communications},
852: {\bf 124}, 313, (1996).
853:
854: \bibitem{H01} R.W. Hellings, {\it Phys. Rev. D}, {\bf 64}, 022002 (2001).
855:
856: \end{references}
857: \end{document}
858:
859:
860: