1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  

2: %   Signal-to-noise ratio for a stochastic background

3: %  of massive relic particles

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5: %\documentstyle[eqsecnum,prd,aps,floats,twocolumn,epsfig]{revtex}

6: %\documentstyle[eqsecnum,prd,aps,floats,epsfig]{revtex}

7: \documentstyle[epsfig,aps,floats,preprint]{revtex}

8: 

9: \def\baselinestretch{1.2}

10: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.0cm}

11: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm}

12: \setlength{\topmargin}{-.9cm}

13: \setlength{\textheight}{22.5cm}%

14: 

15: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

16: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

17: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

18: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

19: 

20: %minore o circa uguale

21: \def\laq{~\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$<$}\kern -0.8em\lower 0.62

22: ex\hbox{$\sim$}~}

23: %maggiore o circa uguale

24: \def\gaq{~\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$>$}\kern -0.7em\lower 0.62

25: ex\hbox{$\sim$}~}

26: 

27: \def \pa {\partial}

28: \def \ra {\rightarrow}

29: \def \la {\lambda}

30: \def \La {\Lambda}

31: \def \Da {\Delta}

32: \def \b {\beta}

33: \def \a {\alpha}

34: \def \ap {\alpha^{\prime}}

35: \def \Ga {\Gamma}

36: \def \ga {\gamma}

37: \def \sg {\sigma}

38: \def \da {\delta}

39: \def \ep {\epsilon}

40: \def \r {\rho}

41: \def \om {\omega}

42: \def \Om {\Omega}

43: \def \noi {\noindent}

44: \def \ti {\tilde}

45: 

46: \begin{document}

47: \par

48: \begingroup

49: %\twocolumn[%

50: 

51: \begin{flushright}

52: BA-TH/00-374\\

53: January 2000\\

54: gr-qc/0001094\\

55: \end{flushright}

56: \vskip 1true cm

57: 

58: \vspace{10mm}

59: {\large\bf\centering\ignorespaces

60: Signal-to-noise ratio for a  stochastic background\\

61: of massive relic particles

62: \vskip2.5pt}

63: 

64: \bigskip

65: {\dimen0=-\prevdepth \advance\dimen0 by23pt

66: \nointerlineskip \rm\centering

67: \vrule height\dimen0 width0pt\relax\ignorespaces

68: M. Gasperini

69: \par}

70: 

71: {\small\it\centering\ignorespaces

72: Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Bari, \\

73: Via G. Amendola 173, 70126 Bari, Italy \\

74: and \\Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bari,

75: Bari, Italy \\

76: \par}

77: 

78: \par

79: \bgroup

80: \leftskip=0.10753\textwidth \rightskip\leftskip

81: \dimen0=-\prevdepth \advance\dimen0 by17.5pt \nointerlineskip

82: \small\vrule width 0pt height\dimen0 \relax

83: 

84: 

85: \begin{abstract}

86: We estimate the signal-to-noise ratio for two gravitational detectors

87: interacting  with a stochastic background of massive scalar waves.

88: We find that the present experimental level of sensitivity could be

89: already enough to detect a signal from a light but non-relativistic

90: component of dark matter, even if the coupling is weak enough to

91: exclude observable deviations from standard gravitational

92: interactions, provided the mass is not too far from the sensitivity and

93: overlapping band of the two detectors. 

94: \end{abstract}

95: 

96: \vspace{5mm}

97: 

98:  

99: \par\egroup

100: %\vskip2pc]

101: \thispagestyle{plain}

102: \endgroup

103: 

104: \pacs{}

105: 

106: %\section {Introduction}

107: %\label{I}

108: 

109: The sensitivity of present detectors to a stochastic background of relic

110: gravitational waves has been recently discussed in detail in many

111: papers (see \cite{1} -\cite{4}, for instance, and references therein). The

112: sensitivity analysis has also been extended to include scalar waves

113: \cite{5}, and scalar stochastic backgrounds \cite{6} of massless (or

114: massive, but light enough) scalar particles, interacting with

115: gravitational strength with the detectors. At present, however, no

116: analysis seems to be available on the possible response of the

117: gravitational antennas to a scalar stochastic background of {\em

118: non-relativistic} particles. 

119: 

120: The aim of this paper is to compute the signal-to-noise ratio  (SNR) for a

121: pair of gravitational antennas by taking into account the possible mass

122: of the  background particles, in order to discuss in some detail the

123: possible effects of the non-relativistic branch of their spectrum. 

124: 

125: We shall consider a cosmic stochastic background of massive scalar

126: waves, whose energy density is coupled to the total mass of the

127: detector with gravitational strength (or weaker). We shall assume that

128: the background is characterized by a spectral energy density $

129: \Om(p)= d (\r/\r_c)/d\ln p$, which we measure in  units of critical

130: density $\r_c= 3H_0^2M_p^2/8\pi$, and which extends in momentum

131: space from $p=0$ to $p=p_1$ ($p_1$ is a cut-off scale depending on the

132: details of the production mechanism). As a function of the frequency

133: $f=E(p)=(m^2+p^2)^{1/2}$, the spectrum $\ti \Om (f)$, 

134: \beq

135: \ti \Om (f) \equiv {d (\r/\r_c)\over d\ln f} =

136: \left(f\over p\right)^2 \Om(p) 

137: \label{1}

138: \eeq

139: thus extends over frequencies $f \geq m$, from $f=m$ to $f=f_1= 

140: (m^2+p_1^2)^{1/2}$ (note that we are using ``unconventional" units in

141: which $h=1$, for a better comparison with the observable quantities

142: used in the experimental analysis of gravitational antennas). We may

143: thus distinguish three phenomenological possibilities. 

144: 

145: \begin{itemize}

146: 

147: \item{} $m \gg f_0$,  where  $f_0$ is any frequency in the sensitivity

148: band of the detector (tipically, if we are considering resonant masses

149: and interferometers, $f_0 \sim 10^2-10^3$ Hz). In this case we expect

150: no signal, as the response to the background should be totally

151: suppressed by the intrinsic noise of the detector.

152: 

153: \item{} $m \ll f_0$. In this case the detector, in its sensitivity band,

154: responds to a relativistic frequency spectrum, and the SNR can be easily

155: estimated by using the standard  results.  For a

156: relativistic background of cosmological origin, however, the maximal

157: amplitude allowed by nucleosynthesis \cite{7} is $\Om \sim 10^{-5}$,

158: possibly suppressed by a factor $q^2 \ll 1$ (in the interaction with the

159: antenna) to avoid scalar-induced, long-range violations of the

160: equivalence principle (see  \cite{8}, for instance). We thus expect from

161: such a scalar background a response not larger than from a background

162: of relic gravitons, and then too weak for the sensitivity of present

163: detectors. 

164: 

165: \item{} $m \sim f_0$. In this case the mass is the frequency band of

166: maximal sensitivity,  and the detector can respond {\em resonantly} 

167: also to the {\em non-relativistic part} of the background (i.e. to the

168: branch $p<m$ of $\Om(p)$).  In the non-relativistic sector, on the other

169: hand, the background amplitude is not constrained by the

170: nucleosynthesis bound, because the non-relativistic energy density

171: grows in time with respect to the relativistic one: it could be

172: sub-dominant at the nucleosynthesis epoch, even if today has reached

173: a near-to-critical amplitude $\Om \sim 1$ (i.e., even if the massive

174: background we are considering represents today a significant fraction

175: of the cosmological dark matter). In such case, it will be shown in this

176: paper that the present sensitivity of the existing gravitational

177: antennas could be  enough to distinguish the physical signal

178: from the intrinsic experimental noise. 

179: \end{itemize}

180: 

181: We will follow the standard approach (see \cite{2}, for instance) in

182: which the outputs of two detectors, $s_i(t)$, $i=1,2$, are correlated

183: over an integration time $T$, to define a signal: 

184: \beq

185: S = \int_{-T/2}^{T/2} dt~ dt' s_1(t)s_2(t') Q(t-t'). 

186: \label{2}

187: \eeq

188: Here $Q(t)$ is a real ``filter" function, determined so as to optimize the

189: signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), defined by an ensemble average as:

190: \beq

191: SNR= \langle S \rangle /\Da S \equiv \langle S \rangle

192: \left(\langle S^2 \rangle- \langle S \rangle^2\right)^{-1/2}

193: \label {3}

194: \eeq

195: The outputs $s_i(t)= h_i(t)+n_i(t)$ contain the physical strain induced by

196: the cosmic background, $h_i$, and the intrinsic instrumental noise,

197: $n_i$. The two noises are supposed to be uncorrelated (i.e., statistically

198: independent), $\langle n_1(t)n_2(t')\rangle=0$, and much larger  in

199: magnitude than the physical strains $h_i$. Also, the cosmic background

200: is assumed to be isotropic, stationary and Gaussian, with $\langle

201: h_i\rangle=0$. It follows that:

202: \beq

203: \langle S\rangle = \int_{-T/2}^{T/2} dt ~dt'\langle h_1(t)h_2(t')\rangle

204: Q(t-t').  

205: \label{4}

206: \eeq

207: 

208: An explicit compuation of the strain, at this point, would require a

209: specific model of the interaction between the scalar background and

210: the detector. We will assume in this paper that the strain $h_i(t)$, like

211: in the case of gravitational waves \cite{2} and Brans-Dicke scalars

212: \cite{6}, varies in time like the scalar fluctuation  $\phi(x_i,t)$

213: perturbing the detector (computed at the detector position $x=x_i$),

214: and is proportional to the so-called ``pattern function" $F_i(\hat

215: n)=e_{ab}(\hat n)D_i^{ab}$, where $\hat n$ is a unit vector specifying a

216: direction on the two sphere, $e_{ab}(\hat n)$ is the polarization tensor

217: of the scalar along $\hat n$, and $D_i^{ab}$ is the detector tensor,

218: specifying the orientation of the arms of the i-th detector. 

219: 

220: The field $\phi(x,t)$ may represent the scalar (i.e, zero helicity)

221: component of the metric fluctuations generated by the scalar

222: component of the background, as in \cite{6}, or could even represent

223: the background field itself, directly coupled to the detector through a

224: ``scalar charge" $q_i$ (for instance, a dilatonic charge), as discussed in

225: \cite{9}. To take into account this second possibility, we shall explicitly

226: introduce the scalar charge in the strain, by setting

227: \beq

228: h_i(t)=q_i \phi (x_i,t) e_{ab}(\hat n)D_i^{ab}, 

229: \label{5}

230: \eeq

231: where $q_i=1$ for scalar metric fluctuations, and $q_i<1$ for

232: long-range scalar fields, phenomenologically constrained by the

233: gravitational tests. The dimensionless parameter $q_i$ represents the

234: net scalar  charge per unit of gravitational mass of the detector, and is

235: in general composition-dependent \cite{9}. 

236: 

237: To compute the average signal (\ref{4}) we now expand the strain in

238: momentum space,

239: \bea

240: &&

241: h_i(t)= q_i \int dp \int d^2 \hat n ~\phi (p, \hat n) F_i(\hat n)  e^{2\pi

242: i\left[ p \hat n \cdot {\vec x}_i - E(p) t \right]}, \nonumber \\

243: &&

244: p=|\vec p|, ~~~~~~~ \vec p/p = \hat n, ~~~~~~~

245: E(p)=f=(m^2+p^2)^{1/2}, 

246: \label{6}

247: \eea

248: ($d^2\hat n$ denotes the angular integral over the unit two-sphere),

249: and we use the stochastic condition

250: \beq

251: \langle \phi^\star (p, \hat n), \phi(p', \hat n') \rangle= \da (p-p') 

252: \da^2 (\hat n-\hat n') \Phi (p).

253: \label{7}

254: \eeq

255: The isotropic function $\Phi(p)$ can be expressed in terms of the

256: spectral energy density $\Om(p)$, defined by

257: \beq

258: \r= \r_c \int d\ln p ~\Om (p) = {M_P^2\over 16 \pi }\langle |\dot

259: \phi|^2\rangle, 

260: \label{8}

261: \eeq

262: ($M_P$ is the Planck mass) from which:

263: \beq

264: \Phi (p)= {3 H_0^2 \Om (p) \over 8 \pi^3 p E^2(p)}.

265: \label{9}

266: \eeq

267: By inserting the momentum expansion into eq. (\ref{4}), and assuming,

268: as usual, that the observation time $T$ is much larger than the typical

269: time intervals $t-t'$ for which $Q\not= 0$, we finally obtain:

270: \beq

271: \langle S\rangle= q_1q_2 T {2 H_0^2\over 5 \pi^2} \int {dp\over p

272: E^2(p)} \ga (p) Q(p) \Om(p). 

273: \label{10}

274: \eeq

275: We have defined the overlap function $\ga(p)$ and the filter function

276: $Q(p)$, in momentum space, as follows: 

277: \bea

278: &&

279: \ga(p)= {15\over 16 \pi}\int d^2 \hat n F_1(\hat n) F_2 (\hat n) 

280:  e^{2\pi i p \hat n \cdot ({\vec x}_2 - {\vec x}_1)}, 

281: \nonumber\\

282: &&

283: Q(p)= \int dt' Q(t-t')  e^{2\pi i E(p) (t-t')}. 

284: \label{11}

285: \eea

286: Note that the overlap function depends on the relative distance of the

287: two gravitational antennas and on their particular geometric

288: configuration. In the above equation, in particular, $\ga(p)$ has been

289: normalized  to the response of an interferometric detector to a scalar

290: wave \cite{6}. 

291: 

292: We need now to compute the variance $\Da S^2$ which, for

293: uncorrelated noises, much larger than the physical strains,  can be

294: expressed as \cite{2}:

295: \beq

296: \Da S^2 \simeq \langle S^2\rangle = \int _{-T/2}^{T/2} dt dt' d\tau

297: d\tau' \langle n_1(t) n_1(\tau)\rangle \langle n_2(t') n_2(\tau')\rangle

298: Q(t-t') Q(\tau-\tau'). 

299: \label{12}

300: \eeq

301: It is convenient, in this context, to introduce the noise power spectrum

302: in momentum space, $S_i(p)$, defined by 

303: \beq

304: \langle n_i(t) n_i(\tau)\rangle = {1\over 2} \int dp S_i(p) 

305: e^{-2\pi i E(p) (t-\tau)}. 

306:  \label{13}

307: \eeq

308: Assuming, as before, that $T$ is much larger than the typical

309: correlation intervals $t-t'$, $\tau -\tau'$, and using eq. (\ref{11}) for

310: $Q(p)$, then yields

311: \beq

312: \Da S^2 = {T\over 4} \int {dp\over p} E(p) S_1(p) S_2(p) Q^2(p).

313: \label{14}

314: \eeq

315: The optimal filtering is now determined by the choice (see \cite{2} for

316: details)

317: \beq

318: Q(p)= \la {\ga(p) \Om(p)\over E^3(p) S_1(p) S_2 (p)},

319: \label{15}

320: \eeq

321: where $\la$ is an arbitrary normalization constant. With such a choice

322: we finally arrive, from eq. (\ref{10}) and (\ref{15}), to the optimized

323: signal-to-noise ratio:

324: \beq

325: SNR = {\langle S\rangle \over \Da S}=   q_1q_2  {4 H_0^2\over 5 \pi^2}

326: \left[T\int {dp\over p E^5(p)}{\ga^2(p) \Om^2(p)\over  S_1(p)

327: S_2(p)} \right]^{1/2}. 

328: \label{16}

329: \eeq

330: 

331: It must be noted, at this point, that the functions $S_i(p)$ and $\ga(p)$

332: appearing in the above equation are different, for a massive

333: background, from the usual noise power spectrum  $\ti S_i(f)$, and

334: overlap function $\ti \ga(f)$, conventionally used in the experimental

335: analysis of gravitational antennas. Indeed, $\ti S, \ti\ga$ are defined

336: as Fourier transforms of the frequency $f=E(p)$, so that (see for

337: instance eq. (\ref{13})):

338: \bea

339: &&

340: \int df ~\ti S_i(f) e^{-2\pi ift} = \int dp ~ S_i(p) e^{-2\pi iE(p)t}, 

341: \nonumber\\

342: &&

343: \int df ~\ti \ga(f) e^{-2\pi ift} = \int dp ~\ga (p) e^{-2\pi iE(p)t}, 

344: \label{17}

345: \eea

346: from which 

347: \beq

348: S_i(p)= (df/dp) \ti S_i(f), ~~~~~~~~~

349: \ga (p)= (df/dp) \ti \ga(f).

350: \label{18}

351: \eeq

352: By introducing into eq. (\ref{16}) the known, experimentally meaningful

353: variables $\ti S_i, \ti \ga$, and using  $f= E(p)= (m^2+p^2)^{1/2}$, we

354: thus arrive at the final expression:

355: \beq

356: SNR =  q_1q_2  {4 H_0^2\over 5 \pi^2}

357: \left[T\int_0^{p_1} {d\ln p\over (m^2+p^2)^{5/2}}{\Om^2(p)~

358: \ti \ga^2 (\sqrt {m^2+p^2})

359: \over  \ti S_1(\sqrt {m^2+p^2})\ti  S_2(\sqrt {m^2+p^2})} \right]^{1/2}. 

360: \label{19}

361: \eeq

362: 

363: 

364: This equation represents the main result of this paper. For any given

365: massive spectrum  $\Om(p)$, and any pair of detectors with noise $\ti

366: S_i$ and overlap $\ti \ga$, the above equation determines the range of

367: masses possibly compatible with a detectable signal ($SNR \gaq 1$), as

368: a function of their coupling $q_i$ to the detectors. 

369: 

370: For $m=0$ we have $p=f$, and we recover the standard relativistic

371: result \cite{2}, modulo a different normalization of the overlap

372: function. For $m \not=0$ we shall assume, as discussed at the

373: beginning of this paper, that the mass lies within the sensitivity and

374: overlapping band of the two detectors, i.e. $\ti\ga(m)\not=0$, and

375: $\ti  S_i(m)$ is near the experimental minimum. Also, let us assume that

376: the non-relativistic branch of the spectrum, $0<p<m$, is near to

377: saturate the critical density bound  $\Om <1$, and thus dominates the

378: total energy density of the background (the contribution of the

379: relativistic branch $p>m$, if present, is assumed to be negligible). 

380: 

381: To estimate the integral of eq. (\ref{19}), in such case, we can thus

382: integrate over the non-relativistic modes only. In that range, we will

383: approximate $\ti S_i$ and $\ti\ga$ with their constant values at $f=m$.

384: Assuming that the spectrum $\Om(p)$ avoids infrared divergences at $p

385: \rightarrow 0$ (like, for instance, a blue-tilted spectrum $\Om(p) \sim

386: (p/p_1)^\da$, with $\da >0$), we define

387: \beq

388: \int_0^m d\ln p~ \Om^2(p) = \Om_x^2,

389: \label{20}

390: \eeq

391: where $\Om_x \leq 1$ is a constant,  possibly not very far from unity,

392: and we finally arrive at the estimate

393: \beq

394: SNR \simeq  q_1q_2  {4 H_0^2 \Om_x\over 5 \pi^2}

395: \left[{T~\ti \ga^2(m)\over  m^5\ti S_1(m)\ti  S_2(m)}

396: \right]^{1/2}.  

397: \label{21}

398: \eeq

399: 

400: Following \cite{2}, the background can be detected, with a detection

401: rate $\ga$, and a false alarm rate $\a$, if 

402: \beq

403: SNR \geq \sqrt 2 \left({\rm erfc}^{-1} 2\a - {\rm erfc}^{-1} 2\ga\right).

404: \label{22}

405: \eeq

406: For a first qualitative indication, let us consider the ideal case in which

407: the two detectors are coincident and coaligned, i.e. $\ti \ga =1$, $\ti

408: S_1 =\ti S_2=\ti S$, $ q_1=q_2=q$, and the massive stochastic

409: background represents a dominant component of dark matter, i.e.

410: $\Om_x h^2_{100}\sim 1$ (where $h_{100}= H_0/(100~{\rm  km

411: ~sec^{-1}~ Mpc^{-1}})$ reflects  the usual uncertainty in the present

412: value of the Hubble parameter $H_0$). In such a case eq. (\ref{21}), for

413: an observation time $T=10^8$ sec, a detection rate $\ga = 95 \%$, a

414: false alarm rate $\a = 10 \%$, gives the condition:

415: \beq

416: m^{5/2} \ti S (m) \laq {q^2\over 3 \pi^2} 10^{-31} {\rm Hz}^{3/2}. 

417: \label{23}

418: \eeq

419: 

420: We will use here, for a particular explicit example, the analytical fit of

421: the noise power spectrum of VIRGO, which in the range from $1$ Hz to

422: $10$ kHz can be parametrized as \cite{10}:

423: \bea

424: \qquad

425: \ti S(f)&=& 10^{-44} {\rm sec} \Bigg[3.46 \times 10^{-6} \left(f\over

426: 500 ~{\rm Hz}\right)^{-5}+ 6.60 \times 10^{-2}\left(f\over 500~{\rm

427: Hz}\right)^{-1} \nonumber\\

428: &+&

429: 3.24\times 10^{-2} + 3.24\times 10^{-2}

430: \left(f\over 500~{\rm Hz}\right)^{2}\Bigg].

431: \label{24}

432: \eea

433: The intersection of this spectrum with the condition (\ref{23}), in the

434: plane $\left\{\log \ti S, \log m\right\}$, is shown in Fig. 1 for three

435: possible values of $q^2$. 

436: The allowed mass window compatible with  detection  is strongly

437: dependent on $q^2$, and closes completely for $q^2 < 10^{-7}$, at least

438: at the level of the noise spectrum used for this example. We should

439: then consider two possibilities. 

440: 

441: If the spectrum $\Om(p)$ of eq. (\ref{19}) refers to the spectrum of

442: scalar metric fluctuations, induced on very small sub-horizon scales by

443: an inhomogeneous, stochastic background of dark matter, then

444: $q^2=1$ (since the detectors are geodesically coupled to metric

445: fluctuations). In that case the detectable mass window extends over

446: the full band from $1$ Hz to $10$ kHz, i.e from $10^{-15}$ to

447: $10^{-11}$ eV. 

448: 

449: \begin{figure}[t]

450: \begin{center}

451: \mbox{\epsfig{file=f1dil.ps,width=82mm}}

452: \vskip 5mm

453: \caption{\sl The bold curve corresponds to the noise power spectrum of

454: VIRGO given in eq. (\ref{24}). The thin, dashed lines represent the

455: minimal sensitivity required for the detection of the background at the

456: $90 \%$ confidence level (i.e., $SNR \simeq 2.5$), according to eq.

457: (\ref{23}). The mass window compatible with detection corresponds to

458: the range of frequency for which $\ti S$ is below a given dashed line.}

459: \end{center}

460: \end{figure}

461: 

462: If, on the contrary, scalar metric fluctuations are negligible on such

463: small scales, and $\Om(p)$ refers to the spectrum of the scalar

464: background field itself, directly coupled to the detector through the

465: scalar charge $q$, then this coupling is strongly suppressed in the

466: mass range of Fig. 1, which corresponds to scalar interactions in the

467: range of distance from $10^6$ to $10^{10}$ cm. Otherwise, such scalar

468: field would induce long range corrections to the standard gravitational

469: forces that would be detected in the precise tests of Newtonian

470: gravity and of the equivalence principle (see \cite{11} for a complete

471: compilation of the bounds on the coupling, as a function of the range). 

472: 

473: Taking into account all possible bounds \cite{11},  it follows that, 

474: if the scalar coupling is universal (i.e. the induced scalar force is

475: composition-independent), then  the maximal allowed charge  $q^2$ is

476: around $10^{-7}$ from $1$ to $10$ Hz, and this upper bound grows

477: proportionally to the mass (on a logarithmic scale) from $10$ to

478: $10^{4}$ Hz. Composition-dependent  couplings are instead more

479: strongly constrained by Eotvos-like experiments: the maximal allowed

480: value of $q^2$ scales  like in the previous case, approximately, but the

481: bounds are one order of magnitude stronger. 

482: 

483: By inserting into the condition (\ref{23}) the gravitational bounds on

484: $q^2$ we are led to the situation illustrated in Fig. 2. A scalar

485: background of nearly critical density, non-universally coupled to 

486: macroscopic matter, turns out to be only marginally compatible with

487: detection (at least, in the example illustrated in this paper), since the

488: line of maximal $q^2$ is just on the wedge of  the noise spectrum

489: (\ref{24}). If the coupling is instead universal (for instance, like in the

490: dilaton model discussed in \cite{8}), but the scalar is not exactly

491: massless, then there is a mass window open to detection, from

492: $10^{-14}$ to $10^{-12}$ eV. 

493: 

494: \begin{figure}[t]

495: \begin{center}

496: \mbox{\epsfig{file=f2dil.ps,width=82mm}}

497: \vskip 5mm

498: \caption{\sl The noise spectrum of Fig. 1 is compared with the maximal

499: values of $q^2$ (as a function of mass) allowed by gravitational tests,

500: in two cases: composition-dependent and composition-independent

501: scalar interactions. The thin dashed lines corresponds, from left to right,

502: to $q^2=10^{-8}$, $10^{-7}$, $10^{-6}$, $10^{-5}$, $10^{-4}$.  The region

503: compatible with a detectable signal is above the noise spectrum and

504: below the bounds given by the gravitational experiments.}

505: \end{center}

506: \end{figure}

507: 

508: It seems appropriate to recall, at this point, that it is not impossible to

509: produce a cosmic background of light, non-relativisic particles that

510: saturates today the critical energy bound, as shown by explicit

511: examples of spectra obtained in a string cosmology context \cite{12}.

512: Such particles, typical of string cosmology, are in general very weakly

513: coupled to the total mass of the detector (like the dilatons, if they are

514: long range, and the charge of the antenna is composition-dependent),

515: or even completely decoupled (like the axions, since the total axionic

516: charge is zero for a macroscopic, unpolarized antenna).  Nevertheless,

517: it is important to stress that they could generate a spectrum of scalar

518: metric fluctuations, gravitationally coupled to the detector, which

519: follows the same non-relativistic behaviour of the original spectrum.

520: We know, for instance, that in cosmological models based on the

521: low-energy string effective action, the variable representing the

522: dilaton fluctuations exactly coincides with the scalar part of the metric

523: fluctuations (at least in an appropriate gauge \cite{13}), and that the

524: associated spectra also coincide. 

525: 

526: In view of the above discussion, the results illustrated in Fig. 1 and Fig.

527: 2 suggest a new possible application of gravitational antennas, which

528: seems to be interesting. Already at the present level of sensitivity, the

529: gravitational detectors could be able to explore the possible presence

530: of a light, massive component of dark matter, in a mass range that 

531: corresponds to their sensitivity  band, in spite of the fact that such a

532: massive background could be directly coupled to the total mass of the

533: detector with a charge much weaker than gravitational, or only

534: indirectly coupled, through the induced spectrum of scalar metric

535: fluctuations. 

536: 

537: \acknowledgments

538: It is a pleasure to thank Michele Maggiore and 

539: Gabriele Veneziano for interesting and useful discussions. 

540: 

541: \begin{references}

542: \newcommand{\bb}{\bibitem}

543: 

544: \bb{1}E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 48} (1993) 2389.

545: 

546: \bb{2}B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59} (1999) 102001.

547: 

548: \bb{3}M. Maggiore, Phys. Rep. (in press) (gr-qc/9909001).

549: 

550: \bb{4}D. Babusci and M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60} (1999) 083511; 

551: D. Babusci and M. Giovannini, gr-qc/9912035; astro-ph/9912377.

552: 

553: \bb{5}M. Bianchi, M. Brunetti, E. Coccia, F. Fucito and J. A. Lobo,

554: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57} (1998) 4525; 

555: M. Brunetti,  E. Coccia,  V. Fafone and F. Fucito,,  Phys. Rev. D {\bf

556: 59} (1999) 044027.

557: 

558: \bb{6}M. Maggiore and A. Nicolis, gr-qc/9907055. 

559: 

560: \bb{7}V. F. Schwartzaman, JETP Lett. {\bf 9} (1969) 184. 

561: 

562: \bb{8}T. Damour and A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 423} (1994) 532. 

563: 

564: \bb{9}M. Gasperini, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 470} (1999) 67. 

565: 

566: \bb{10}E. Cuoco, G. Curci and E. Beccaria, in Proc. of the Second E. 

567: Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves (CERN, July 1997), ed. by E.

568: Coccia et al.,  (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998), p. 524. 

569: 

570: \bb{11}E. Fischbach and C. Talmadge, Nature {\bf 356}

571: (1992) 207. 

572: 

573: \bb{12}M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano,  Phys. Rev. D  {\bf 59}  (1999)

574: 43503.

575: 

576: \bb{13}R. Brustein, M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini, V. F. Mukhanov and G.

577: Veneziano,  Phys. Rev. D  {\bf 51}  (1995) 6744.

578: 

579: \end{references}

580: 

581: \end{document}

582: 

583: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

584: table

585:  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?

586: @ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_

587: