1: 

2: 

3: \documentstyle[12pt,aps,epsf]{revtex}

4: \begin{document}

5: \tighten

6: \draft

7: \title{\bf{Relic Gravitational Waves and Their Detection}}

8: 

9: \author{L. P. Grishchuk\thanks{e-mail: grishchuk@astro.cf.ac.uk}}

10: \address{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, 

11: Cardiff CF2 3YB, United Kingdom \\ and \\ Sternberg Astronomical

12: Institute, Moscow University, Moscow 119899, Russia}

13: 

14: \maketitle

15: \vspace{2cm}

16:     

17: \begin{abstract}

18: The range of expected amplitudes and spectral slopes

19: of relic (squeezed) gravitational waves, predicted by theory and 

20: partially supported by observations, is within the reach of 

21: sensitive gravity-wave detectors. In the most favorable case, the detection of

22: relic gravitational waves can be achieved by the cross-correlation of outputs

23: of the initial laser interferometers

24: in LIGO, VIRGO, GEO600. In the more realistic case, the sensitivity of 

25: advanced ground-based and space-based laser interferometers will be needed.  

26: The specific statistical signature of relic gravitational waves, associated

27: with the phenomenon of squeezing, is a potential reserve for further 

28: improvement of the signal to noise ratio.

29: \end{abstract}

30: 

31: 

32: %\end{titlepage}    

33: 

34: \vspace{1.5cm}

35: 

36: 

37: 

38: 

39: \section{Introduction}  

40: 

41: It is appropriate and timely to discuss the detection of relic 

42: gravitatational waves at the experimental meeting like this one. We are

43: in the situation when the advanced laser interferometers, currently under

44: construction or in a design phase, can make the dream of detecting relic

45: gravitons a reality. The detection of relic gravitational waves is 

46: the only way to learn about the evolution of the very early Universe, 

47: up to the limits of Planck era and Big Bang.

48: \par

49: The existence of relic gravitational waves is a consequence of quite

50: general assumptions. Essentially, we rely only on the validity of general 

51: relativity and basic principles of quantum field theory. The strong 

52: variable gravitational field of the early Universe amplifies the inevitable

53: zero-point quantum oscillations of the gravitational waves and produces

54: a stochastic background of relic gravitational waves measurable 

55: today \cite{g1}.

56: It is important to appreciate the fundamental and unavoidable nature of this

57: mechanism. Other physical processes can also generate stochastic backgrounds

58: of gravitational waves. But those processes either involve many additional

59: hypotheses, which may turn out to be not true, or produce a gravitational wave 

60: background (like the one from binary stars in the Galaxy) which should 

61: be treated as an unwanted noise rather than a useful and interesting signal.

62: The scientific importance of detecting relic gravitational waves has been 

63: stressed on several occasions (see, for example, \cite{t1}--\cite{sch}). 

64: \par

65: The central notion in the theory of relic gravitons is the phenomenon

66: of superadiabatic (parametric) amplification. The roots of this phenomenon

67: are known in classical physics, and we will remind its basic features. As

68: every wave-like process, gravitational waves use the concept of a harmonic

69: oscillator. The fundamental equation for a free harmonic oscillator is  

70: \begin{equation}

71: \label{1}

72: \ddot{q} + \omega^2 q = 0, 

73: \end{equation}

74: where $q$ can be a displacement of a mechanical pendulum or a 

75: time-dependent amplitude of a mode of the physical field. The energy of the

76: oscillator can be changed by an acting force or, alternatively, by a 

77: parametric influence, that is,

78: when a parameter of the oscillator, for instance the length of a pendulum,

79: is being changed. In the first case, the fundamental equation takes the

80: form 

81: \begin{equation}

82: \label{2}

83: \ddot{q} + \omega^2 q = f(t),

84: \end{equation}

85: whereas in the second case Eq. (\ref{1}) takes the form

86: \begin{equation}

87: \label{3}

88: \ddot{q} + \omega^2 (t) q = 0.  

89: \end{equation}

90: Equations (\ref{2}) and (\ref{3}) are profoundly different, both, 

91: mathematically and physically. 

92: \par

93: Let us concentrate on the parametric influence. We consider a pendulum

94: of length $L$ oscillating in a constant gravitational field $g$. 

95: The unperturbed pendulum

96: oscillates with the constant frequency $\omega = \sqrt{g/L}$. 

97: $Fig. 1a$ illustrates the 

98: variation of the length of the pendulum $L(t)$ by an external agent, 

99: shown by alternating arrows. Since $L(t)$ varies, the frequency 

100: of the oscillator does also vary: $\omega(t) = \sqrt{g/L(t)}$. 

101: The variation $L(t)$ does not 

102: need to be periodic, but cannot be too much slow (adiabatic) if the result

103: of the process is going to be significant. Otherwise, in the adiabatic

104: regime of slow variations, the energy of the oscillator $E$ and its 

105: frequency $\omega$ do change slowly, but $E /\omega$ remains constant, so

106: one can say that the ``number of quanta" 

107: $E/ \hbar \omega$ in the oscillator remains fixed.  

108: In other words, for the creation of new ``particles - excitations", 

109: the characteristic time of the variation should be 

110: comparable with the period of the oscillator and the adiabatic behaviour 

111: should be violated. After some duration of the appropriate parametric influence,

112: the pendulum will oscillate at the original frequency, but will have a 

113: significantly larger, than before, amplitude and energy. 

114: This is shown in $Fig. 1b$. Obviously, the energy of the oscillator has 

115: been increased at the expense of the external agent (pump field). For

116: simplicity, we have considered a familiar case, when the

117: length of the pendulum varies, while the gravitational acceleration $g$

118: remains constant. Variation of $g$ would represent a gravitational parametric

119: influence and would be even in a closer analogy with what we study below.    

120: \par

121: A classical oscillator must have a non-zero initial amplitude for the

122: amplification mechanism to work. Otherwise, if

123: the initial amplitude is zero, the final amplitude will also be zero. 

124: Indeed, imagine the pendulum strictly at rest, hanging stright down. 

125: Whatever the variation of its length is, it will not make the pendulum 

126: to oscillate and gain energy. In contrast,

127: a quantum oscillator does not need to be excited from the very beginning. 

128: The oscillator can be

129: initially in its vacuum quantum-mechanical state. The inevitable zero-point

130: quantum oscillations are associated with the vacuum state energy

131: $\frac{1}{2} \hbar \omega$. One can imagine a pendulum hanging stright down,

132: but fluctuating with a tiny amplitude determined by the ``half of the

133: quantum in the mode". In the classical picture, it is this tiny amplitude 

134: of quantum-mechanical origin that is being parametrically amplified.

135: 

136: %Fig. 1

137: \begin{figure}

138: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth

139: \centerline{\epsfbox{oscil.fig1}} 

140: \end{figure}

141: 

142: \par

143: The Schrodinger evolution of a quantum oscillator depends crucially 

144: on whether the oscillator is being excited parametrically or by a force. 

145: Consider the phase diagram $(q, p)$, where $q$ is the 

146: displacement and $p$ is the conjugate momentum. The vacuum state is

147: described by the circle in the center (see $Fig. 2$). The mean values of $q$

148: and $p$ are zeros, but their variances (zero-point quantum fluctuations) 

149: are not zeros and are equal to

150: each other. Their numerical values are represented by the circle in the

151: center. Under the action of a force, the vacuum state evolves into a coherent 

152: state. The mean values of $p$ and $q$ have increased, but the variances are 

153: still equal and are described by the circle of the same size as for the

154: vacuum state. On the other hand, 

155: under a parametric influence, the vacuum state evolves into a squeezed

156: vacuum state. [For a recent review of squeezed states see, for example,

157: \cite{kn} and references there.] Its variances for the 

158: conjugate variables $q$ and $p$ 

159: are significantly unequal and are described by an ellipse. 

160: As a function of time, the ellipse rotates with respect to the origin 

161: of the $(q, p)$ diagram, and the numerical values of the variances 

162: oscillate too. The mean numbers of quanta in the 

163: two states, one of which is coherent and another is squeezed vacuum,   

164: can be equal (similar to the coherent and squeezed states shown in $Fig. 2$) 

165: but the statistical properties of these states are significantly different. 

166: Among other things, the variance

167: of the phase of the oscillator in a squeezed vacuum state is very 

168: small (squeezed). Graphically,

169: this is reflected in the fact that the ellipse is very thin, so that that

170: the uncertainty in the angle between the horizontal axis and the orientation 

171: of the ellipse is very small. This highly elongated ellipse can be

172: regarded as a portarait of the gravitational wave quantum state that is being 

173: inevitably generated by parametric amplification, and which we will be 

174: dealing with below.    

175:  

176: 

177: %Fig. 2

178: \begin{figure}

179: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth

180: \centerline{\epsfbox{squeeze.fig2}} 

181: \end{figure}

182: 

183: 

184: A wave-field is not a single oscillator, it depends on spatial coordinates 

185: and time, and may have several independent components (polarization

186: states). However, the field can be decomposed into a set of 

187: spatial Fourier harmonics. In this way we represent the gravitational 

188: wave field as a collection

189: of many modes, many oscillators. Because of the nonlinear character of

190: the Einstein equations, each of these oscillators is coupled to the variable

191: gravitational field of the surrounding Universe. For sufficiently

192: short gravitational waves of experimental interest, this coupling was

193: especially effective in the early Universe, when the condition of

194: the adiabatic behaviour of the oscillator was violated. It is this homogeneous

195: and isotropic gravitational field of all the matter in the early 

196: Universe that played the role of the external agent - pump field.  

197: The variable pump field acts parametrically on  

198: the gravity-wave oscillators and drives them into multiparticle 

199: states. Concretely, the initial vacuum state of each pair of waves with

200: oppositely directed momenta evolves into a highly correlated state 

201: known as the two-mode squeezed vacuum state \cite{gs}, \cite{g2}. 

202: The strength and duration of the effective coupling depends 

203: on the oscillator's frequency. They all start in the vacuum state 

204: but get excited to various amounts. As a result, a broad 

205: spectrum of relic gravitational waves is being formed. This spectrum

206: is accessible to our observations today. 

207: \par

208: Let us formulate the problem in more detail.

209: 

210: 

211: \section{Cosmological Gravitational Waves}  

212: 

213: In the framework of general relativity, a homogeneous isotropic gravitational

214: field is decribed by the line element

215: \begin{equation}

216: \label{4}

217: {\rm d}s^2 = c^2{\rm d}t^2 - a^2(t) \delta_{ij} {\rm d}x^i{\rm d}x^j = 

218: a^2({\eta})[{\rm d}\eta^2 - \delta_{ij} {\rm d}x^i{\rm d}x^j].

219: \end{equation}

220: In cosmology, the function $a(t)$ (or $a(\eta)$) is called scale factor.

221: In our discussion, it will represent gravitational pump field.

222: \par

223: Cosmological gravitational waves are small corrections $h_{ij}$ to the metric

224: tensor. They are defined by the expression 

225: \begin{equation}

226: \label{5}

227: {\rm d}s^2 = a^2({\eta})[{\rm d}\eta^2 - (\delta_{ij} + h_{ij})

228: {\rm d}x^i{\rm d}x^j].

229: \end{equation} 

230: The functions $h_{ij} (\eta ,{\bf x})$ can be expanded over spatial 

231: Fourier harmonics $e^{i{\bf nx}}$ and $e^{-i{\bf nx}}$, where

232: ${\bf n}$ is a constant wave vector. In this way, we reduce the dynamical

233: problem to the evolution of time-dependent amplitudes for each 

234: mode ${\bf n}$. 

235: Among six functions $h_{ij}$ there are only two independent (polarization) 

236: components. This decomposition can be made, both, for real and for quantized

237: field $h_{ij}$. In the quantum version, the functions $h_{ij}$ are 

238: treated as quantum-mechanical operators. We will use the Heisenberg 

239: picture in which the time evolution is carried out by the operators while

240: the quantum state is fixed. This picture is fully equivalent to the

241: Schrodinger picture, discussed in the Introduction, in which the vacuum

242: state evolves into a squeezed vacuum state while the operators are time

243: independent.   

244: \par

245: The Heisenberg operator for the quantized real field $h_{ij}$ can 

246: be written as

247: \begin{eqnarray}

248: \label{6}

249: h_{ij} (\eta ,{\bf x})

250: = {C\over (2\pi )^{3/2}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty d^3{\bf n}

251:   \sum_{s=1}^2~{\stackrel{s}{p}}_{ij} ({\bf n})

252:    {1\over \sqrt{2n}}

253: \left[ {\stackrel{s}{h}}_n (\eta ) e^{i{\bf nx}}~

254:                  {\stackrel{s}{c}}_{\bf n}

255:                 +{\stackrel{s}{h}}_n^{\ast}(\eta ) e^{-i{\bf nx}}~

256:                  {\stackrel{s}{c}}_{\bf n}^{\dag}  \right],

257: \end{eqnarray}

258: where $C$ is a constant which will be discussed later.  

259: The creation and annihilation operators satisfy the conditions 

260: $[{\stackrel{s'}{c}}_{\bf n},~{\stackrel{s}{c}}_{{\bf m}}^{\dag}]=

261: \delta_{s's}\delta^3({\bf n}-{\bf m})$, 

262: ${\stackrel{s}{c}}_{\bf n}|0\rangle =0$, where $|0\rangle$ 

263: (for each ${\bf n}$ and $s$) is the fixed 

264: initial vacuum state discussed below. 

265: The wave number $n$ is related with the wave vector ${\bf n}$ by 

266: $n = (\delta_{ij}n^in^j)^{1/2}$. 

267: The two polarization tensors ${\stackrel{s}{p}}_{ij}({\bf n})$ $(s = 1, 2)$ 

268: obey the conditions

269: \[

270:  {\stackrel{s}{p}}_{ij}n^j = 0, ~~

271:  {\stackrel{s}{p}}_{ij}\delta^{ij} = 0, ~~

272:  {\stackrel{s'}{p}}_{ij}

273:  {\stackrel{s}{p}}~^{ij} = 2\delta_{ss'}, ~~

274:  {\stackrel{s}{p}}_{ij}(-{\bf n}) = {\stackrel{s}{p}}_{ij}({\bf n}).

275: \]

276: The time evolution, one and the same for all ${\bf n}$ belonging to a 

277: given $n$, is represented by the complex time-dependent function

278: ${\stackrel{s}{h}}_n(\eta )$. This evolution is dictated by the

279: Einstein equations. The nonlinear nature of the Einstein equations

280: leads to the coupling of 

281: ${\stackrel{s}{h}}_n(\eta )$ with the pump field $a(\eta)$.

282: For every wave number $n$  

283: and each polarization component $s$,

284: the functions ${\stackrel{s}{h}}_n(\eta )$ have the form 

285: \begin{equation}

286: \label{7}

287:   {\stackrel{s}{h}}_n(\eta ) = {1\over a(\eta )} 

288:   [{\stackrel{s}{u}}_n(\eta ) + {\stackrel{s}{v}}_n^{\ast} (\eta )],  

289: \end{equation}

290: where ${\stackrel{s}{u}}_n(\eta )$ and ${\stackrel{s}{v}}_n(\eta )$

291: can be expressed in terms of the three

292: real functions (the polarization index $s$ is omitted): 

293: $r_n$ - squeeze parameter, 

294: $\phi_n$ - squeeze angle, $\theta_n$ - rotation angle,   

295: \begin{equation}

296: \label{8}

297:    u_n = e^{i{\theta}_n} \cosh~{r}_n, \qquad

298:    v_n = e^{-i({\theta}_n - 2{\phi}_n )} \sinh~{r}_n.

299: \end{equation}

300: The dynamical equations for $u_n(\eta)$ and $v_n(\eta)$ 

301: \begin{equation}

302: \label{9}

303: i\frac{{\rm d} u_n}{{\rm d}\eta} = n u_n + i\frac{a'}{a} v_n^{*}, \qquad 

304: i\frac{{\rm d} v_n}{{\rm d}\eta} = n v_n + i\frac{a'}{a} u_n^{*}

305: \end{equation}

306: lead to the dynamical equations governing 

307: the functions $r_n(\eta)$, $\phi_n(\eta)$, $\theta_n(\eta)$ \cite{g2}: 

308: \begin{equation}

309: \label{10}

310: r_n^{\prime} = \frac{a^{\prime}}{a} \cos{2{\phi}_n}, \quad

311: \phi_n^{\prime} = -n - \frac{a^{\prime}}{a} \sin{2{\phi}_n}\coth~2{r}_n, \quad 

312: \theta_n^{\prime} = -n - \frac{a^{\prime}}{a} \sin{2{\phi}_n}\tanh~{r}_n,

313: \end{equation}

314: where $^{\prime} = {\rm d}/{\rm d}\eta$, and the evolution begins 

315: from $r_n = 0$. This value of $r_n$ 

316: characterizes the initial vacuum state $|0\rangle$ which is defined 

317: long before the interaction with the pump field

318: became effective, that is, long before the coupling term 

319: $a^{\prime}/a$ became comparable with $n$. 

320: The constant $C$ should be taken as  

321: $C=\sqrt{16\pi}~l_{Pl}$ where $l_{Pl}=(G\hbar /c^3)^{1/2}$ is 

322: the Planck length. This particular value of the constant $C$

323: guarantees the correct quantum normalization of the field: energy

324: $\frac{1}{2} \hbar \omega$ per each mode in the initial vacuum state.  

325: The dynamical equations and their

326: solutions are identical for both polarization components $s$. 

327: \par

328: Equations (\ref{9})

329: can be translated into the more familiar form of the second-order  

330: differential equation for the function 

331: ${\stackrel{s}{\mu}}_n(\eta ) \equiv 

332: {\stackrel{s}{u}}_n(\eta ) + {\stackrel{s}{v}}_n^{\ast} (\eta )

333: \equiv a(\eta) {\stackrel{s}{h}}_n(\eta )$ \cite{g1}:

334: \begin{equation}

335: \label{11}

336: \mu_{n}^{\prime\prime} + \mu_{n} \left[n^2 - 

337: \frac{a^{\prime\prime}}{a}\right] = 0.    

338: \end{equation}

339: \par

340: Clearly, this is the equation for a parametrically disturbed oscillator

341: (compare with Eq. (\ref{3})). In absence of the gravitational parametric

342: influence represented by the term  

343: $a^{\prime\prime}/a$, the frequency of the oscillator defined in terms

344: of $\eta$-time would be a constant: $n$. Whenever the term    

345: $a^{\prime\prime}/a$ can be neglected, the general solution 

346: to Eq. (\ref{11}) has the usual oscillatory form

347: \begin{equation}

348: \label{12}

349: \mu_n (\eta) = A_n e^{-in\eta} + B_n e^{in\eta},

350: \end{equation}

351: where the constants $A_n$, $B_n$ are determined by the initial conditions.   

352: On the other hand, whenever the term $a^{\prime\prime}/a$ is dominant, 

353: the general solution to Eq. (\ref{11}) has the form

354: \begin{equation}

355: \label{13}

356: \mu_n (\eta) = C_n a + D_n a \int^{\eta}\frac{{\rm d} \eta}{a^2}.

357: \end{equation}

358: In fact, this approximate solution is valid as long as $n$ is small in

359: comparison with $|a^{\prime}/a|$. This is more clearly seen from the

360: equivalent form of Eq. (\ref{11}) written in terms of the 

361: function $h_n (\eta)$ \cite{ll}:

362: \begin{equation}

363: \label{14}

364: h_n^{\prime\prime} + 2\frac{a^{\prime}}{a} h_n^{\prime} + n^2 h_n = 0.

365: \end{equation} 

366: For growing functions $a(\eta)$, that is, in expanding universes, the

367: second term in Eq.(\ref{13}) is usually smaller than the first one (see below), 

368: so that, as long as $n \ll a^{\prime}/a$, the dominant solution is the growing

369: function $\mu_n (\eta) = C_n a(\eta)$, and 

370: \begin{equation}

371: \label{d}

372: h_n = const.

373: \end{equation} 

374: \par

375: Equation (\ref{11}) can be also looked at as a kind of the Schrodinger 

376: equation for a particle moving in presence of the effective 

377: potential $U(\eta) = a^{\prime\prime}/a$. In the situations that

378: are normally considered, the potential

379: $U(\eta)$ has a bell-like shape and forms a barrier (see $Fig. 3$). 

380: When a given mode $n$ is outside the barrier, its amplitude $h_n$ 

381: is adiabatically decreasing with time: 

382: $h_n \propto \frac{e^{{\pm}in\eta}}{a(\eta)}$. 

383: This is shown in $Fig. 3$ by oscillating lines with decreasing amplitudes 

384: of oscillations. The modes with sufficiently high frequencies do not 

385: interact with the barrier, they stay above the barrier. Their amplitudes 

386: $h_n$ behave adiabatically all the time. For

387: these high-frequency modes, the initial vacuum state (in the Schrodinger 

388: picture) remains the vacuum forever. On the other hand, the modes that 

389: interact with the barrier are subject to the superadiabatic amplification.   

390: Under the barrier and as long as   

391: $n < a'/a$,  the function $h_n$ stays constant instead of the adiabatic

392: decrease. For these modes, the initial vacuum state evolves into a

393: squeezed vacuum state.  

394: 

395: 

396: %Fig. 3

397: \begin{figure}

398: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth

399: \centerline{\epsfbox{barrier.fig3}} 

400: \end{figure}

401: 

402: 

403: 

404: 

405: After having formulated the initial conditions, the present day behaviour 

406: of $r_n$, $\phi_n$, $\theta_n$ (or, equivalently, the present day behaviour

407: of $h_n$) is  

408: essentially all we need to find. The mean number of particles

409: in a two-mode squeezed state is $2\sinh^2{r_n}$ for each $s$. This number 

410: determines the 

411: mean square amplitude of the gravitational wave field. The time behaviour of

412: the squeeze angle $\phi_n$ determines the time dependence of the correlation 

413: functions of the field. The amplification (that is, the growth of $r_n$) 

414: governed 

415: by Eq. (\ref{10}) is different for different wave numbers $n$. Therefore, 

416: the present day results depend on the present day frequency $\nu$

417: ($\nu = {cn}/{2 \pi a}$) measured in $Hz$.  

418: \par 

419: In cosmology, the function $H \equiv \dot a/a \equiv c a^{\prime}/a^2$ 

420: is the time-dependent Hubble parameter. The function $l \equiv c/H$

421: is the time-dependent Hubble radius. The time-dependent wavelength of the 

422: mode $n$ is $\lambda = 2 \pi a/n$. The wavelength $\lambda$ has this universal

423: definition in all regimes. In contrast, the $\nu$ defined 

424: as $\nu = {cn}/{2 \pi a}$ has the usual meaning of a frequency of an 

425: oscillating process only in the short-wavelength (high-frequency) regime of

426: the mode $n$, that is, in the regime where $\lambda \ll l$. 

427: As we have seen above, the qualitative

428: behaviour of solutions to Eqs. (\ref{11}), (\ref{14}) depends 

429: crucially on the comparative  

430: values of $n$ and $a'/a$, or, in other words, on the comparative

431: values of $\lambda(\eta)$ and $l(\eta)$. This relationship is also 

432: crucial for solutions to Eq. (\ref{10}) as we shall see now. 

433: \par

434: In the short-wavelength regime, that is, during intervals of time

435: when the wavelength $\lambda(\eta)$ is shorter than the Hubble 

436: radius $l(\eta) = a^2/a^{\prime}$, the term $n$ in (\ref{10}) is dominant. 

437: The functions $\phi_n(\eta)$ and 

438: $\theta_n(\eta)$ are $\phi_n = -n(\eta + \eta_n)$, $\theta_n = \phi_n$

439: where $\eta_n$ is a constant.  

440: The factor $\cos 2\phi_n$ is a quickly oscillating

441: function of time, so the squeeze parameter $r_n$ stays practically constant.

442: This is the adiabatic regime for a given mode. 

443: \par

444: In the opposite, long-wavelength regime, the term $n$ can be 

445: neglected.

446: The function $\phi_n$ is $\tan \phi_n(\eta) \approx const/a^2(\eta)$,

447: and the squeeze angle

448: quickly approaches one of the two values: $\phi_n = 0$ or $\phi_n = \pi$   

449: (analog of ``phase bifurcation" \cite{w}). 

450: The squeeze parameter $r_n(\eta)$ grows with time according to   

451: \begin{equation}

452: \label{15}

453: r_n(\eta) \approx ln \frac{a(\eta)}{a_*}~, 

454: \end{equation} 

455: where $a_*$ is the value of $a(\eta)$ at $\eta_*$, when the 

456: long-wavelength regime, for a given $n$, begins. The final amount of $r_n$ is

457: \begin{equation}

458: \label{16}

459: r_n \approx ln \frac{a_{**}}{a_*}~, 

460: \end{equation} 

461: where $a_{**}$ is the value of $a(\eta)$ at $\eta_{**}$, when the 

462: long-wavelength regime and 

463: amplification come to the end. It is important to emphasize that it is not

464: a ``sudden transition" from one cosmological era to another that is responsible

465: for amplification, but the entire interval of the long-wavelength 

466: (non-adiabatic) regime.

467: \par

468: After the end of amplification, the accumulated

469: (and typically large) squeeze parameter $r_n$ stays approximately constant.

470: The mode is again in the adiabatic regime. In course of the evolution, the 

471: complex functions 

472: ${\stackrel{s}{u}}_n(\eta ) + {\stackrel{s}{v}}_n^{\ast}(\eta )$

473: become practically real, and one has 

474: ${\stackrel{s}{h}}_n(\eta ) \approx {\stackrel{s}{h}}_n^{\ast}(\eta ) \approx

475: \frac{1}{a} e^{r_n} \cos \phi_n(\eta)$.  

476: Every amplified mode $n$ of the field (\ref{6}) takes the form of 

477: a product of a function of time and a (random, operator-valued) 

478: function of spatial coordinates; the mode acquires a 

479: standing-wave pattern. The periodic dependence $\cos \phi_n(\eta)$

480: will be further discussed below.  

481: \par 

482: It is clearly seen from the fundamental equations (\ref{10}), (\ref{11}), 

483: (\ref{14}) that 

484: the final results depend only on $a(\eta)$. Equations do not ask us the 

485: names of our favorite cosmological prejudices, they ask us about the

486: pump field $a(\eta)$. Conversely, from the measured relic gravitational waves,

487: we can deduce the behaviour of $a(\eta)$, which is essentially the purpose

488: of detecting the relic gravitons.   

489: 

490: 

491: \section{Cosmological Pump Field}

492: 

493: 

494: With the chosen initial conditions, the final 

495: numerical results for relic gravitational waves depend on the concrete 

496: behaviour of the pump

497: field represented by the cosmological scale factor $a(\eta)$. We know 

498: a great deal about $a(\eta)$. We know that $a(\eta)$ behaves as 

499: $a(\eta) \propto \eta^2$

500: at the present matter-dominated stage. We know that this stage

501: was preceeded by the radiation-dominated stage $a(\eta) \propto \eta$.

502: At these two stages of evolution the functions $a(\eta)$ are simple 

503: power-law functions of $\eta$.   

504: What we do not know is the function $a(\eta)$ describing the initial stage 

505: of expansion of the very early Universe, that is, before

506: the era of primordial nucleosynthesis. It is convenient to

507: parameterize $a(\eta)$ at this initial stage also by power-law functions

508: of $\eta$. First, this is a sufficiently broad class of functions, which, 

509: in addition, allows us to find exact solutions to our fundamental 

510: equations. Second, it is known \cite{g1} that

511: the pump fields $a(\eta)$ which have power-law dependence in terms of $\eta$, 

512: produce gravitational waves with simple power-law spectra in terms of $\nu$.

513: These spectra are easy to analyze and discuss in the context of detection. 

514: \par

515: We model cosmological expansion by several successive eras. Concretely,   

516: we take $a(\eta)$ at the initial stage of expansion ($i$-stage) as

517: \begin{equation}

518: \label{17}

519: a(\eta) = l_o|\eta|^{1 + \beta},  

520: \end{equation}

521: where $\eta$ grows from $- \infty$,  and $1 + \beta < 0$. We will show

522: later how the available observational data constrain the 

523: parameters $l_o$ and $\beta$. The $i$-stage lasts up to a certain   

524: $\eta = \eta_1$, $\eta_1 < 0$. To make our analysis more general,

525: we assume that the $i$-stage was followed by some interval of the 

526: $z$-stage ($z$ from Zeldovich). It is known that an

527: interval of evolution governed by the most ``stiff" matter

528: (effective equation of state $p = \epsilon$) advocated by Zeldovich, 

529: leads to a relative increase of gravitational wave amplitudes \cite{g1}.    

530: It is also known that the requirement of conistency of the graviton production 

531: with the observational restrictions does not allow the ``stiff" matter interval

532: to be too much long \cite{g1}, \cite{zn}. However, we want to 

533: investigate any interval of

534: cosmological evolution that can be consistently included. In fact,  

535: the $z$-stage of expansion that we include is quite general. 

536: It can be governed by a ``stiffer than radiation" \cite{gio} matter, 

537: as well as by a ``softer than

538: radiation" matter. It can also be simply a part of the radiation-dominated 

539: era. Concretely, we take $a(\eta)$ at the interval of time from $\eta_1$ 

540: to some $\eta_s$ ($z$-stage) in the form  

541: \begin{equation}

542: \label{18}

543: a(\eta) = l_o a_z (\eta - \eta_p)^{1 + \beta_s},

544: \end{equation}  

545: where $1 + \beta_s > 0$. For the particular choice

546: $\beta_s = 0$, the $z$-stage reduces to an interval

547: of expansion governed by the radiation-dominated matter. Starting 

548: from $\eta_s$ and up to $\eta_2$ the Universe was governed by the 

549: radiation-dominated matter ($e$-stage). So, at this interval of evolution, 

550: we take the scale factor in the form   

551: \begin{equation}

552: \label{19}

553: a(\eta) = l_oa_e(\eta - \eta_e). 

554: \end{equation} 

555: And, finally, from $\eta =\eta_2$ the expansion went over into the

556: matter-dominated era ($m$-stage):   

557: \begin{equation}

558: \label{20}

559: a(\eta) = l_oa_m(\eta - \eta_m)^2. 

560: \end{equation} 

561: A link between the arbitrary constants participating in 

562: Eqs. (\ref{17}) - (\ref{20}) is provided

563: by the conditions of continuous joining of the functions $a(\eta)$ 

564: and $a^{\prime}(\eta)$ at points of transitions $\eta_1$, $\eta_s$, $\eta_2$.

565: \par

566: We denote the present time by $\eta_R$ ($R$ from reception). This time is

567: defined by the observationally known value of the present-day Hubble

568: parameter $H(\eta_R)$ and Hubble radius $l_H=c/{H(\eta_R)}$. 

569: For numerical estimates we will be using  

570: $l_H  \approx 2 \times 10^{28}~{\rm cm}$. It is convenient to choose   

571: $\eta_R - \eta_m = 1$, so that $a(\eta_R) = 2l_H$. The ratio 

572: \[

573: a(\eta_R)/a(\eta_2) \equiv \zeta_2

574: \]

575: is believed to be around $\zeta_2 = 10^4$. We also denote   

576: \[

577: a(\eta_2)/a(\eta_s) \equiv \zeta_s~,~~~ a(\eta_s)/a(\eta_1) \equiv \zeta_1~.  

578: \]

579: With these definitions, all the constants participating in 

580: Eqs. (\ref{17}) - (\ref{20}) (except

581: parameters $\beta$ and $\beta_s$ which should be chosen from

582: other considerations)

583: are being expressed in terms of $l_H$, $\zeta_2$, $\zeta_s$,

584: and $\zeta_1$. For example,

585: \[

586: |\eta_1|= \frac{|1+\beta|}{2\zeta_2^{\frac{1}{2}}

587: \zeta_s{\zeta_1}^{\frac{1}{1+\beta_s}}} ~.

588: \]

589: The important constant $l_o$ is expressed as 

590: \begin{equation}

591: \label{21}

592: l_o = b l_H\zeta_2^{\frac{\beta-1}{2}}\zeta_s^{\beta}{\zeta_1}^{\frac{\beta-\beta_s}{1+\beta_s}} ,  

593: \end{equation}  

594: where $b \equiv 2^{2+\beta}/{|1+\beta|}^{1+\beta}$. Note that $b=1$ for

595: $\beta = -2$. 

596: [This expression for $l_o$ may help to relate formulas written here with 

597: the equivalent treatment \cite{g3} which was given in slightly 

598: different notations.] 

599: The sketch of the entire evolution $a(\eta)$ is given in $Fig. 4$.

600: 

601: %Fig. 4

602: \begin{figure}

603: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth

604: \centerline{\epsfbox{scalefac.fig4}} 

605: \end{figure}

606: 

607: \par

608: We work with the spatially-flat models (\ref{4}).

609: At every instant of time, the energy density $\epsilon(\eta)$ of matter 

610: driving the evolution is related with the Hubble radius $l(\eta)$ by

611: \begin{equation}

612: \label{22}

613: \kappa \epsilon(\eta) = \frac{3}{l^2(\eta)}, 

614: \end{equation}

615: where $\kappa = 8\pi G/ c^4$.

616: For the case of power-law scale factors $a(\eta) \propto \eta^{1+\beta}$, 

617: the effective pressure $p(\eta)$ of the matter is related with the

618: $\epsilon(\eta)$ by the effective equation of state 

619: \begin{equation}

620: \label{23}

621: p = \frac{1-\beta}{3(1+\beta)} \epsilon.

622: \end{equation}

623: For instance, $p=0$ for $\beta =1$, $p=\frac{1}{3} \epsilon$ for $\beta=0$,

624: $p= -\epsilon$ for $\beta = -2$, and so on. Each interval of

625: the evolution (\ref{17})-(\ref{20}) is governed by one of these 

626: equations of state.   

627: \par

628: In principle, the function $a(\eta)$ could be even more complicated than 

629: the one that we consider.  

630: It could even include an interval of the early contraction, 

631: instead of expansion, leading to the ``bounce" of the scale factor.  

632: In case of a decreasing $a(\eta)$ the gravitational-wave equation can 

633: still be analyzed and the amplification

634: is still effective \cite{g1}. However, the Einstein equations for

635: spatially-flat models do not permit a 

636: regular ``bounce" of $a(\eta)$ (unless $\epsilon$ vanishes at the moment

637: of ``bounce"). Possibly, a ``bounce" solution can be realized in alternative

638: theories, such, for example, as string-motivated cosmologies 

639: \cite{vg}. For a  

640: recent discussion of spectral slopes of gravitational waves produced

641: in ``bounce" cosmologies, see~\cite{cr}.

642: 

643: 

644: 

645: 

646: \section{Solving Gravitational Wave Equations}

647: 

648: 

649: The evolution of the scale factor $a(\eta)$ given by 

650: Eqs. (\ref{17}) - (\ref{20}) and

651: sketched in $Fig. 4$ allows us to calculate the function $a'/a$. This function

652: is sketched in $Fig. 5$. In all the theoretical generality, the left-hand-side

653: of the barrier in $Fig. 5$ could also consist of several pieces, but we

654: do not consider this possibility here. The graph also shows the 

655: important wave numbers

656: $n_H$, $n_2$, $n_s$, $n_1$. The $n_H$ marks the wave whose today's wavelength 

657: $\lambda(\eta_R)= 2 \pi a(\eta_R)/n_H$ is equal to the today's Hubble 

658: radius $l_H$. With our parametrization $a(\eta_R) = 2 l_H$, this wavenumber

659: is $n_H = 4 \pi$. The $n_2$ marks the wave whose wavelength $\lambda(\eta_2)=

660: 2 \pi a(\eta_2)/n_2$ at $\eta= \eta_2$ is equal to the Hubble 

661: radius $l(\eta_2)$ at $\eta = \eta_2$. Since

662: $\lambda(\eta_R)/\lambda(\eta_2) = (n_2/n_H)[a(\eta_R)/a(\eta_2)]$ and 

663: $l(\eta_R)/l(\eta_2) = [a(\eta_R)/a(\eta_2)][a(\eta_R)/a(\eta_2)]^{1/2}$,

664: this gives us $n_2/n_H = [a(\eta_R)/a(\eta_2)]^{1/2} = \zeta_2^{1/2}$. 

665: Working out in a similar fashion other ratios, we find 

666: \begin{equation}       

667: \label{24}

668: \frac{n_2}{n_H} = \zeta_2^{\frac{1}{2}},~~~ \frac{n_s}{n_2} = \zeta_s,

669: ~~~\frac{n_1}{n_s} =\zeta_1~^{\frac{1}{1+\beta_s}}. 

670: \end{equation}

671: 

672: 

673: 

674: \par

675: Solutions to the gravitational wave equations exist for any $a(\eta)$.

676: At intervals of power-law dependence $a(\eta)$, solutions to Eq. (\ref{11}) 

677: have simple form of the Bessel functions. We could have found piece-wise 

678: exact solutions to Eq. (\ref{11}) and join them in the transition points. 

679: However, we will use a much simpler treatment which is sufficient for our 

680: purposes. We know that the

681: squeeze parameter $r_n$ stays constant in the short-wavelength regimes and

682: grows according to Eq. (\ref{15}) in the long-wavelength regime. All modes 

683: start in the vacuum state, that is, $r_n = 0$ initially. After the end of 

684: amplification, the accumulated value (\ref{16}) stays constant up to today.

685: To find today's value of $e^{r_n}$ we need to calculate the 

686: ratio $a_{**}(n)/a_*(n)$. For

687: every given $n$, the quantity $a_*$ is determined by the condition

688: $\lambda(\eta_*) = l(\eta_*)$, wheras $a_{**}$ is determined by the

689: condition $\lambda(\eta_{**}) = l(\eta_{**})$.  

690: 

691: %Fig. 5

692: \begin{figure}

693: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth

694: \centerline{\epsfbox{aprime-a.fig5}} 

695: \end{figure}

696: 

697: \par

698: Let us start from the mode $n = n_1$. For this wave number we have 

699: $a_* = a_{**} = a (\eta_1)$, and therefore $r_{n_1} = 0$. The higher frequency 

700: modes $n > n_1$ (above the barrier in $Fig. 5$) have never been in the 

701: amplifying regime, so we can write

702: \begin{equation}

703: \label{25} 

704: e^{r_n} = 1,~~ n\ge n_1.

705: \end{equation}

706: Let us now consider the modes $n$ in the interval $n_1 \ge n \ge n_s$. 

707: For a given $n$ we need to know $a_* (n)$ and $a_{**}(n)$. Using Eq. (\ref{17})

708: one finds $a_*(n)/a_*(n_1) = (n_1/n)^{1 +\beta}$, and using Eq. (\ref{18}) one 

709: finds $a_{**}(n)/a_{**}(n_s) = (n_s/n)^{1 +\beta_s}$. Therefore, one finds 

710: \[

711: \frac{a_{**}(n)}{a_*(n)} = \frac{a_{**}(n_s)}{a_*(n_1)} 

712: \left(\frac{n_s}{n}\right)^{1+\beta_s}\left(\frac{n}{n_1}\right)^{1+\beta}.   

713: \]

714: Since $a_{**}(n_s) = a(\eta_s)$, $a_*(n_1) = a(\eta_1)$, and 

715: $a(\eta_s)/a(\eta_1) = \zeta_1 =(n_1/n_s)^{1+\beta_s}$, we arrive at

716: \[

717: \frac{a_{**}(n)}{a_*(n)} = \left(\frac{n}{n_1}\right)^{\beta - \beta_s}.   

718: \]

719: Repeating this analysis for other intervals of the decreasing $n$, 

720: we come to the conclusion that

721: \begin{eqnarray}

722: \label{26} 

723: e^{r_n}& =& \left(\frac{n}{n_1}\right)^{\beta - \beta_s},~~ 

724: n_1 \ge n \ge n_s, \nonumber \\ 

725: e^{r_n}& =& \left(\frac{n}{n_s}\right)^{\beta}

726: \left(\frac{n_s}{n_1}\right)^{\beta - \beta_s} ,~~ 

727: n_s \ge n \ge n_2, \nonumber \\

728: e^{r_n}& =& \left(\frac{n}{n_2}\right)^{\beta - 1}

729: \left(\frac{n_2}{n_1}\right)^{\beta}\left(\frac{n_s}{n_1}\right)^{-\beta_s},  

730:  n_2 \ge n \ge n_H. 

731: \end{eqnarray}

732: The mnemonic rule of constructing $e^{r_n}$ at successive intervals 

733: of decreasing $n$ is simple.

734: If the interval begins at $n_x$, one takes $(n/n_x)^{\beta_{*} - \beta_{**}}$

735: and multiples with $e^{r_{n_x}}$, that is, with the previous interval's 

736: value $e^{r_n}$ calculated at the end of that interval $n_x$. 

737: For the function $a'/a$ that we are working with, the $\beta_{*}$ is always

738: $\beta$, whereas the $\beta_{**}$ takes the values $\beta_s$, $0$, $1$ at

739: the successive intervals.   

740: \par

741: The modes with $n < n_H$ are still in the long-wavelength regime. For these

742: modes, we should take $a(\eta_R)$ instead of $a_{**}(n)$. Combining with

743: $a_*(n)$, we find

744: \begin{equation}

745: \label{27}

746: e^{r_n} = \left(\frac{n}{n_H}\right)^{\beta +1}

747: \left(\frac{n_H}{n_2}\right)^{\beta - 1}

748: \left(\frac{n_2}{n_1}\right)^{\beta}\left(\frac{n_s}{n_1}\right)^{-\beta_s},  

749: ~~  n \le n_H.

750: \end{equation}

751: Formulas (\ref{25}) - (\ref{27}) give approximate values of $r_n$ 

752: for all $n$. The

753: factor $e^{r_n}$ is $e^{r_n} \ge 1$ for $n \le n_1$, and  

754: $e^{r_n} \gg 1$ for $n \ll n_1$. This factor determines the mean square

755: amplitude of the gravitational waves.  

756: \par

757: The mean value of the field $h_{ij}$ is zero at every moment of time $\eta$

758: and in every spatial point ${\bf x}$:                         

759: $\langle 0|h_{ij}(\eta, {\bf x})|0\rangle = 0$.

760: The variance 

761: \[

762: \langle 0|h_{ij}(\eta, {\bf x})h^{ij}(\eta, {\bf x})|0\rangle ~\equiv~

763: \langle h^2 \rangle 

764: \] 

765: is not zero, and it determines the mean square amplitude of the generated

766: field - the quantity of interest for the experiment. Taking the product

767: of two expressions (\ref{6}) one can show that   	 

768: \begin{equation}

769: \label{28}

770: \langle h^2 \rangle = \frac{C^2}{2\pi^2} \int_0^\infty n \sum_{s=1}^2

771: \Big| {\stackrel{s}{h}}_n(\eta )\Big|^2 ~{\rm d}n \equiv 

772: \int_0^\infty h^2(n, \eta) \frac{{\rm d}n}{n}~. 

773: \end{equation}

774: Using the representation (\ref{7}), (\ref{8}) in Eq. (\ref{28}) one can 

775: also write

776: \begin{equation}

777: \label{29}

778: \langle h^2 \rangle = 

779: \frac{C^2}{{\pi^2}a^2 } \int_0^\infty n {\rm d}n (\cosh2{r_n} + 

780: \cos2{\phi_n}\sinh2{r_n}). 

781: \end{equation}

782: We can now consider the present era and use the fact that $e^{r_n}$ are 

783: large numbers for all $n$ in the interval of our interest 

784: $n_1 \ge n \ge n_H$. Then, we can derive  

785: \begin{equation}

786: \label{30}

787: h(n, \eta)\approx \frac{C}{\pi}\frac{1}{a(\eta_R)}n e^{r_n}\cos\phi_n(\eta)=

788: 8 \sqrt{\pi}\left(\frac{l_{Pl}}{l_H}\right)\left(\frac{n}{n_H}\right)

789: e^{r_n}\cos\phi_n(\eta) ~.

790: \end{equation}

791: The quantity $h(n, \eta)$ is the

792: dimensionless spectral amplitude of the field whose numerical value

793: is determined by the calculated squeeze parameter $r_n$.  

794: The oscillatory factor $\cos\phi_n(\eta)$ reflects the squeezing (standing

795: wave pattern) acquired by modes with $n_1 > n > n_H$. For modes with

796: $n < n_H$ this factor is approximately $1$. For high-frequency modes 

797: $n \gg n_H$ one has

798: $\phi_n(\eta) \approx n(\eta - \eta_n) \gg 1$, so that $h(n, \eta)$ makes 

799: many oscillations while the scale factor $a(\eta)$ is practically fixed 

800: at $a(\eta_R)$.

801: \par 

802: The integral (\ref{29}) extends formally from $0$ to $\infty$. 

803: Since $r_n \approx 0$

804: for $n \ge n_1$, the integral diverges at the upper limit. This is a typical

805: ultra-violet divergence. It should be discarded (renormalized to zero) 

806: because it comes from 

807: the modes which have always been in their vacuum state. At the lower limit,

808: the integral diverges, if $\beta \le -2$. This is an infra-red divergence

809: which comes from the assumption that the amplification process has started

810: from infinitely remote time in the past. One can deal with this 

811: divergence either by introducing a lower frequency cut-off (equivalent to

812: the finite duration of the amplification) or by considering only the

813: parameters $\beta > -2$, in which case the integral is convergent at the lower

814: limit.

815: It appears that the available observational data (see below) favour this

816: second option. The particular case $\beta = -2$ corresponds to  

817: the de Sitter evolution $a(\eta) \propto |\eta|^{-1}$. In this case, 

818: the $h(n)$ found in Eqs. (\ref{30}), (\ref{27}) does not depend on $n$. 

819: This is known as the Harrison-Zeldvich, or scale-invariant, spectrum. 

820: \par

821: An alternative derivation of the spectral amplitude $h(n)$ uses the

822: approximate solutions (\ref{12}), (\ref{13}) to the wave equation (\ref{11}). 

823: This method gives exactly the same, as in Eqs. (\ref{30}),

824: (\ref{25}) - (\ref{27}) numerical values of $h(n)$, but does not 

825: reproduce the oscillatory factor $\cos\phi_n(\eta)$. 

826: \par

827: One begins with the initial spectral amplitude $h_i(n)$ defined 

828: by quantum normalization:

829: $h_i(n) = 8 \sqrt{\pi} (l_{Pl}/ \lambda_i)$. This is the amplitude of the mode

830: $n$ at the moment $\eta_*$ of entering the long wavelength regime, i.e.  

831: when the mode's wavelength $\lambda_i$ is equal to the Hubble 

832: radius $l(\eta_*)$. For $\lambda_i$ one derives 

833: \begin{equation}

834: \label{31}

835: \lambda_i = \frac{1}{b} l_o \left(\frac{n_H}{n}\right)^{2+\beta}. 

836: \end{equation}

837: Thus, we have

838: \begin{equation}

839: \label{32}

840: h_i(n) = A \left(\frac{n}{n_H}\right)^{2+\beta},

841: \end{equation}

842: where $A$ denotes the constant  

843: \begin{equation}

844: \label{33}

845: A = b 8\sqrt{\pi} \frac{l_Pl}{l_o}~. 

846: \end{equation} 

847: The numbers $h_i(n)$ are defined at the beginning of the long-wavelength

848: regime. In other words, they are given along the left-hand-side slope of the 

849: barrier in $Fig. 5$.

850: We want to know the final numbers (spectral amplitudes) $h(n)$ 

851: which describe the field today, at $\eta_R$. 

852: \par

853: According to the dominant solution $h_n(\eta) =const$ of the long-wavelength

854: regime (see Eq. (\ref{d})), the initial amplitude $h_i(n)$ stays practically 

855: constant up to the end of the long-wavelength regime at $\eta_{**}$, 

856: that is, up to the right-hand-side slope of the barrier. 

857: [The second term in Eq. (\ref{13}) could be

858: important only at the $z$-stage and only for parameters 

859: $\beta_s \le -(1/2)$, which

860: correspond to the effective equations of state $p \ge \epsilon$. 

861: In order to keep the analysis simple, we do not consider those cases.] 

862: After the completion of the long-wavelength regime, the amplitudes decrease 

863: adiabatically in proportion to $1/a(\eta)$, up to the present time. 

864: Thus, we have 

865: \begin{equation}

866: \label{34}  

867: h(n) = A \left(\frac{n}{n_H}\right)^{2+\beta} \frac{a_{**}(n)}{a(\eta_R)}. 

868: \end{equation}

869: \par

870: Let us start from the lower end of the spectrum, $n \le n_H$, and go 

871: upward in $n$. The modes $n \le n_H$ have not started yet the adiabatic

872: decrease of the amplitude, so we have

873: \begin{equation}

874: \label{35}  

875: h(n) = A \left(\frac{n}{n_H}\right)^{2+\beta},~~ n \le n_H. 

876: \end{equation}

877: Now consider the interval $n_2 \ge n \ge n_H$. At this interval,

878: the $a_{**}(n)/a(\eta_R)$ scales as $(n_H/n)^2$, so we have

879: \begin{equation}

880: \label{36}  

881: h(n) = A \left(\frac{n}{n_H}\right)^{\beta},~~ n_2 \ge n \ge n_H. 

882: \end{equation}

883: At the interval $n_s \ge n \ge n_2$ the ratio  

884: $a_{**}(n)/a(\eta_R) = [a_{**}(n)/a(\eta_2)][a(\eta_2)/a(\eta_R)]$ 

885: scales as $(n_2/n)(n_H/n_2)^2$, so we have

886: \begin{equation}

887: \label{37}  

888: h(n) =A\left(\frac{n}{n_H}\right)^{1+\beta}\frac{n_H}{n_2},~~ n_s\ge n\ge n_2.  

889: \end{equation}

890: Repeating the same analysis for the interval $n_1 \ge n \ge n_s$ we find

891: \begin{equation}

892: \label{38}  

893: h(n) =A\left(\frac{n}{n_H}\right)^{1+\beta -\beta_s}

894: \left(\frac{n_s}{n_H}\right)^{\beta_s}\frac{n_H}{n_2},~~ n_1\ge n\ge n_s.  

895: \end{equation}

896: It is seen from

897: Eq. (\ref{38}) that an interval of the $z$-stage with $\beta_s <0$ 

898: (the already imposed

899: restrictions require also $(-1/2) < \beta_s$) bends

900: the spectrum $h(n)$ upwards, as compared with Eq. (\ref{37}), for larger $n$.  

901: If one recalls the relationship (\ref{21}) between $l_o$ and $l_H$

902: and uses (\ref{26}), (\ref{27}) in Eq. (\ref{30}) one 

903: arrives exactly at Eqs. (\ref{35})-(\ref{38}) up to

904: the oscillating factor $\cos\phi_n(\eta)$. 

905: \par 

906: Different parts of the barrier in $Fig. 5$ are responsible for amplitudes and

907: spectral slopes at different intervals of $n$. The sketch of the generated 

908: spectrum $h(n)$ in conjunction with the form of the barrier 

909: is shown in $Fig. 6$.

910: 

911: 

912: %Fig. 6 

913: \begin{figure}

914: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth

915: \centerline{\epsfbox{charam.fig6}} 

916: \end{figure}

917: 

918: 

919: The present day frequency of the oscillating modes, measured in $Hz$,

920: is defined as $\nu = cn/2\pi a(\eta_R)$. The lowest frequency (Hubble

921: frequency) is $\nu_H = c/l_H$. For numerical estimates we will be using  

922: $\nu_H \approx 10^{-18} Hz$. The ratios of $n$ are equal to the ratios of

923: $\nu$, so that, for example, $n/n_H = \nu/\nu_H$. For high-frequency

924: modes we will now often use the ratios of $\nu$ instead of ratios of $n$. 

925: \par

926: In addition to the spectral amplitudes $h(n)$ the generated field can be

927: also characterized by the spectral energy density parameter $\Omega_{g}(n)$. 

928: The energy density $\epsilon_g$ of the gravitational wave field is 

929: \[

930: \kappa \epsilon_g = \frac{1}{4} h^{ij}_{~,0} h_{ij,0} =

931: \frac{1}{4a^2} {h^{ij}}^{\prime} {h_{ij}}^{\prime}.

932: \]

933: The mean value $\langle 0|\epsilon_g (\eta, {\bf x})|0\rangle$ is given by

934: \begin{equation}

935: \label{39}

936: \kappa \langle \epsilon_g \rangle = \frac{1}{4a^2} 

937: \frac{C^2}{2\pi^2} \int_0^\infty n \sum_{s=1}^2

938: \Big| {{\stackrel{s}{h}}}^{\prime}_n(\eta )\Big|^2 ~{\rm d}n.

939: \end{equation}

940: For high-frequency modes, it is only the factor $e^{\pm i n\eta}$ that needs

941: to be differentiated by $\eta$. After avaraging out the oscillating factors, 

942: one gets  

943: $\Big| {{\stackrel{s}{h}}}^{\prime}_n\Big|^2 = 

944: n^2 \Big| {\stackrel{s}{h}}_n\Big|^2$, so that 

945: \begin{equation}

946: \label{40}

947: \kappa \langle \epsilon_g \rangle = \frac{1}{4a^2} 

948: \int_0^\infty n^2 h^2(n) \frac{{\rm d}n}{n}.  

949: \end{equation}

950: In fact, the high-frequency approximation, that has been used, permits 

951: integration over lower $n$ only up to $n_H$. And the upper limit, as was 

952: discussed above, is in practice $n_1$, not infinity.    

953: The parameter $\Omega_g$ is defined as $\Omega_g = 

954: \langle \epsilon_g \rangle /\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is given by

955: Eq. (\ref{22}) (critical density). So, we derive

956: \[

957: \Omega_g =  \int_{n_H}^{n_1} \Omega_g(n) \frac{{\rm d}n}{n} = 

958: \int_{\nu_H}^{\nu_1} \Omega_g(\nu) \frac{{\rm d}\nu}{\nu} 

959: \]

960: and

961: \begin{equation}

962: \label{41}

963: \Omega_g(\nu) = \frac{\pi^2}{3}h^2(\nu)\left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_H}\right)^2.

964: \end{equation}

965: \par

966: The dimensionless quantity $\Omega_g(\nu)$ is useful because it allows us

967: to quickly evaluate the cosmological importance of the generated field in

968: a given frequency interval. However, the primary and more universal concept

969: is $h(\nu)$, not $\Omega_g(\nu)$. It is the field, not its energy density,

970: that is directly measured by the gravity-wave detector. One should also note

971: that some authors use quite a misleading definition $\Omega_g (f) =

972: (1/\rho_c)(d \rho_{gw}/d \ln f)$ which suggests differentiation of the 

973: gravity-wave energy density by frequency. This would be incorrect and could

974: cause disagreements in numerical values of $\Omega_g$. Whenever we use

975: $\Omega_g(\nu)$, we mean relationship (\ref{41}); and for order 

976: of magnitude estimates one can use \cite{g1}:

977: \begin{equation}

978: \label{42}

979: \Omega_g(\nu) \approx h^2(\nu) \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_H}\right)^2 .

980: \end{equation}

981:  

982: 

983: 

984: \section{Theoretical and Observational Constraints}

985: 

986: 

987: 

988: The entire theoretical approach is based on the assumption that a weak 

989: quantized gravity-wave field interacts with a classical pump field. We 

990: should follow the validity of this approximation throughout the analysis. 

991: The pump field can be treated as a classical gravitational field 

992: as long as the driving energy

993: density $\epsilon$ is smaller than the Planck energy density, or, in

994: other words, as long as the Hubble radius $l(\eta)$ is greater than the

995: Planck length $l_{Pl}$. This is a restriction on the pump field, but

996: it can be used as a restriction on the 

997: wavelength $\lambda_i$ of the gravity-wave mode $n$ at the 

998: time of entry the long-wavelength regime. If $l(\eta_*) > l_{Pl}$, then

999: $\lambda_i > l_{Pl}$. The $\lambda_i$ is given by Eq. (\ref{31}). 

1000: So, we need to ensure that  

1001: \[

1002: b \frac{l_{Pl}}{l_o} \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_H}\right)^{2+\beta} < 1.

1003: \]

1004: At the lowest-frequency end $\nu = \nu_H$ this inequality

1005: gives $b(l_{Pl}/l_o) < 1$. In fact, the observational constraints 

1006: (see below) give a stronger restiction: 

1007: \begin{equation}

1008: \label{43}

1009: b \frac{l_{Pl}}{l_o} \approx 10^{-6} , 

1010: \end{equation} 

1011: which we accept. Then, at the

1012: highest-frequency end $\nu = \nu_1$ we need to satisfy

1013: \begin{equation}

1014: \label{44}

1015: \left(\frac{\nu_1}{\nu_H}\right)^{2+\beta} < 10^6.

1016: \end{equation}

1017: \par

1018: Let us now turn to the generated spectral amplitudes $h(\nu)$. According

1019: to Eq. (\ref{35}) we have $h(\nu_H) \approx b 8 \sqrt{\pi} (l_{Pl}/l_o)$. The

1020: measured microwave beckgound anisotropies, which we discuss below, 

1021: require this number

1022: to be at the level of $10^{-5}$, which gives the already mentioned 

1023: Eq. (\ref{43}). The quantity $h(\nu_1)$ at the highest 

1024: frequency $\nu_1$ is given by Eq. (\ref{38}):

1025: \[

1026: h(\nu_1) = b 8\sqrt{\pi} \frac{l_{Pl}}{l_o}

1027: \left(\frac{\nu_1}{\nu_H}\right)^{1+\beta -\beta_s}

1028: \left(\frac{\nu_s}{\nu_H}\right)^{\beta_s}\frac{\nu_H}{\nu_2}. 

1029: \]

1030: Using Eq. (\ref{21}) this expression for $h(\nu_1)$ can be rewritten as 

1031: \begin{equation}

1032: \label{45}

1033: h(\nu_1) =8\sqrt{\pi} \frac{l_{Pl}}{l_H}\frac{\nu_1}{\nu_H}= 

1034: 8\sqrt{\pi} \frac{l_{Pl}}{\lambda_1}, 

1035: \end{equation}

1036: where $\lambda_1 = c/\nu_1$. This last expression for $h(\nu_1)$ is not 

1037: surprising: the modes with $\nu \ge \nu_1$ are still in the vacuum state,

1038: so the numerical value of $h(\nu_1)$ is determined by quantum normalization.

1039: \par

1040: All the amplified modes have started with small initial amplitudes 

1041: $h_i$, at the level of

1042: zero-point quantum fluctuations. These amplitudes are also small today, since

1043: the $h_i$ could only stay constant or decrease. However, even these relatively

1044: small amplitudes should obey observational constraints. We do not want the

1045: $\Omega_g$ in the high-frequency modes, which might affect the rate of

1046: the primordial nucleosynthesis, to exceed the level of $10^{-5}$. This

1047: means that $\Omega_g(\nu_1)$ cannot exceed the level of $10^{-6}$ or so.   

1048: The use of Eq. (\ref{41}) in combination with 

1049: $\Omega_g(\nu_1) \approx 10^{-6}$ and 

1050: $h(\nu_1)$ from Eq. (\ref{45}), gives us the highest allowed frequency

1051: $\nu_1 \approx 3 \times 10^{10} Hz$. We will use this value of $\nu_1$

1052: in our numerical estimates.     

1053: Returning with this value of $\nu_1$ to Eq. (\ref{44}) we find that parameter

1054: $\beta$ can only be $\beta \le - 1.8$. We will be treating $\beta = -1.8$

1055: as the upper limit for the allowed values of $\beta$. 

1056: \par

1057: We can now check whether the accepted parameters leave room for the 

1058: postulated $z$-stage with $\beta_s < 0$. Using Eq. (\ref{21}) we can rewrite

1059: Eq. (\ref{43}) in the form

1060: \begin{equation}

1061: \label{46}

1062: 10^{-6} \frac{l_H}{l_{Pl}} =  

1063: \left(\frac{\nu_1}{\nu_H}\right)^{- \beta}

1064: \left(\frac{\nu_1}{\nu_s}\right)^{\beta_s}\frac{\nu_2}{\nu_H}. 

1065: \end{equation}

1066: We know that $\nu_2/ \nu_H = 10^2$ and $\nu_1/\nu_s$ is not smaller 

1067: than $1$. Substituting all the numbers in Eq. (\ref{46}) one can find that

1068: this equation cannot be satisfied for the largest possible $\beta = -1.8$. 

1069: In the case $\beta = -1.9$, 

1070: Eq. (\ref{46}) is only marginally satisfied, in the sense that a significant

1071: deviation from $\beta_s =0$ toward negative $\beta_s$ can only last for 

1072: a relatively short time. For

1073: instance, one can accomodate $\beta_s = -0.4$ and $\nu_s = 10^8 Hz$. 

1074: On the other hand, if one takes  

1075: $\beta = -2$, a somewhat longer interval of the $z$-stage with $\beta_s < 0$ 

1076: can be 

1077: included. For instance, Eq. (\ref{46}) is satisfied if one accepts $\nu_s =

1078: 10^{-4} Hz$ and $\beta_s = - 0.3$. This allows us to slightly increase $h(\nu)$

1079: in the interval $\nu_s < \nu < \nu_1$, as compared with the values of

1080: $h(\nu)$ reached in the more traditional

1081: case $\beta = -2$, $\beta_s = 0$. In what follows, we will consider 

1082: consequences of this assumption for the prospects of detection of the

1083: produced gravitational wave signal.    

1084: Finally, let us see what the available information on the microwave background 

1085: anisotropies \cite{s}, \cite{b} allows us to conclude about the 

1086: parameters $\beta$ and $l_o$. 

1087: \par 

1088: Usually, cosmologists operate with the spectral index ${\rm n}$ (not to be

1089: confused with the wave number $n$) of primordial cosmological perturbations.

1090: Taking into account the way in which the spectral index ${\rm n}$ is defined, 

1091: one can relate ${\rm n}$ with the spectral index $\beta + 2$ that shows up

1092: in Eq. (\ref{35}). The relationship between them is ${\rm n} = 2\beta+5$. 

1093: This relationship is valid independently of the nature of cosmological

1094: perturbations. In particular, it is valid for density perturbations,

1095: in which case the $h(n)$ of Eq. (\ref{35}) is the dimensionless 

1096: spectral amplitude

1097: of metric perturbations associated with density perturbations. If primordial

1098: gravitational waves and density perturbations were generated by the 

1099: mechanism that 

1100: we discuss here (the assumption that is likely to be true) than the parameter

1101: $\beta$ that participates in the spectral index is the same one that 

1102: participates in the scale factor of Eq. (\ref{17}). 

1103: Primordial gravitational waves and primordial density perturbations 

1104: with the same spectral index produce approximately the same 

1105: lower-order multipole distributions of large-scale anisotropies.       

1106: \par

1107: The evaluation of the spectral 

1108: index ${\rm n}$ of primordial perturbations have resulted 

1109: in ${\rm n} = 1.2 \pm 0.3$ \cite{b} or even in a somewhat higher 

1110: value. A recent analysis \cite{melch} of all

1111: available data favors ${\rm n} = 1.2$ and the quadrupole contribution of

1112: gravitational waves twice as large as that of density perturbations. 

1113: One can interpret these evaluations 

1114: as indication that the true value of ${\rm n}$ lies somewhere near 

1115: ${\rm n} = 1.2$ (hopefully, the planned new observational missions will 

1116: determine this index more accurately). This gives us the parameter $\beta$ 

1117: somewhere near $\beta = -1.9$. We will be using $\beta = -1.9$ in our estimates 

1118: below, as the observationally preferred value. The parameter $\beta$ can

1119: be somewhat larger than $\beta = -1.9$. However, as we already 

1120: discussed, the value $\beta = -1.8$ (${\rm n} = 1.4$)      

1121: is the largest one for which the entire approch is well posed.

1122: The Harrison-Zeldovich spectral index ${\rm n} = 1$ corresponds to $\beta = -2$. 

1123: \par

1124: The observed quadrupole anisotropy of the microwave background radiation is

1125: at the level $\delta T/ T \approx 10^{-5}$.   

1126: The quadrupole anisotropy that would be produced by the spectrum 

1127: (\ref{35}) - (\ref{38}) is

1128: mainly accounted for by the wave numbers near $n_H$. Thus, 

1129: the numerical value of the quadrupole anisotropy produced by relic 

1130: gravitational waves is approximately equal to $A$. According to general 

1131: physical considerations and detailed calculations \cite{gden}, the 

1132: metric amplitudes of long-wavelength gravitational waves and density

1133: perturbations generated by the discussed amplification mechanism are of the 

1134: same order of magnitude. Therefore, they contribute roughly equally to the 

1135: anisotropy at lower multipoles. This gives us the estimate $A\approx 10^{-5}$, 

1136: that we have already used in Eq. (\ref{43}). It is not yet proven 

1137: observationally that a significant part of the observed anosotropies

1138: at lower multipoles is indeed provided by 

1139: relic gravitational waves, but we can at least assume this with some degree of

1140: confidence. It is likely that the future measurements of the microwave

1141: background radiation will help us to verify this theoretical conclusion.   

1142: \par

1143: Combining all the evaluated parameters together, we show in $Fig. 7$ the 

1144: expected spectrum of $h(\nu)$ for the case $\beta = -1.9$. A small allowed

1145: interval of the $z$-stage is also included. The intervals of the spectrum

1146: accessible to space-based and ground-based interferometers are indicated

1147: by vertical lines.   

1148: 

1149: 

1150: %Fig. 7

1151: \begin{figure}

1152: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth

1153: \centerline{\epsfbox{predspec.fig7}} 

1154: \end{figure}

1155: 

1156: 

1157: \par

1158: It is necessary to note \cite{gden}, \cite{g3} 

1159: that the confirmation of any ${\rm n} > 1$ ($\beta > -2$) would 

1160: mean that the

1161: very early Universe was not driven by a scalar field - the cornerstone of

1162: inflationary considerations. This is because the ${\rm n} > 1$ ($\beta > -2$) 

1163: requires the effective equation of state at the initial stage of expansion 

1164: to be $\epsilon + p < 0$ (see Eq. (\ref{23})), but this cannot be accomodated 

1165: by any scalar field 

1166: with whichever scalar field potential. The available data do not

1167: prove yet that ${\rm n} > 1$, but this possibility seems likely. 

1168: \par

1169: It is also

1170: necessary to say that a certain damage to gravitational wave research 

1171: was inflicted by the so called ``standard inflationary result". The   

1172: ``standard inflationary

1173: result" predicts infinitely large amplitudes of density perturbations in 

1174: the interval of spectrum with the Harrison-Zeldovich 

1175: slope ${\rm n} =1$ ($\beta = -2$):

1176: $\delta\rho/\rho \propto 1/\sqrt{1 -{\rm n}}$. The metric (gravitational

1177: field) amplitudes of density perturbations are

1178: also predicted to be infinitely large, in the same proportion. 

1179: Through the so-called  

1180: ``consistency relation" this divergence leads to the vanishingly small 

1181: amplitudes of relic gravitational waves. Thus, the ``standard" inflationary 

1182: theory predicts zero for relic gravitational waves; the spectrum similar in

1183: shape to the one shown in $Fig. 7$ would have been shifted down by many 

1184: orders of magnitude. 

1185: This prediction is hanging on the ``standard inflationary result", but

1186: the ``result" itself is in a severe conflict not only with theory but 

1187: with observations too: when the

1188: observers marginalize their data to ${\rm n} = 1$ (enforce this value

1189: of ${\rm n}$ in data analysis) they find finite and small density

1190: perturbations instead of infinitely large perturbations predicted by

1191: inflationary theorists. 

1192: [For analytical expressions of the ``standard inflationary result" see any

1193: inflationary article, including recent reviews. For graphical illustration

1194: of the predicted divergent density perturbations and quadrupole anisotropies

1195: see, for example, \cite{ms}. For critical analysis and disagreement with 

1196: the ``standard inflationary result" see \cite{gden}.] General relativity and

1197: quantum field theory do not produce the ``standard inflationary result",

1198: so we shall better return to what they say. 

1199: 

1200: 

1201: \section{Detectability of Relic Gravitational Waves}

1202: 

1203: 

1204: We switch now from cosmology to prospects of detecting the predicted relic

1205: gravitational waves. The ground-based \cite{Abr}-\cite{HoughD} 

1206: and space-based \cite{lisa}, \cite{Hel} laser interferometers

1207: (see also \cite{gw0}-\cite{gw2}) 

1208: will be in the focus of our attention. We use laboratory frequencies 

1209: $\nu$ and intervals of laboratory time $t$ 

1210: $(c{\rm d}t = a(\eta_R){\rm d}\eta)$. Formulas (\ref{37}) and (\ref{38}), 

1211: with $A = 10^{-5}$, $\nu_2/\nu_H = 10^2$, and the oscillating factor 

1212: restored, can be written as 

1213: \begin{equation}

1214: \label{47}

1215: h(\nu,t) \approx 

1216: 10^{-7}\cos[2\pi\nu(t - t_{\nu})]\left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_H}\right)^{\beta+1},

1217: ~~\nu_2 \le \nu \le \nu_s 

1218: \end{equation} 

1219: and

1220: \begin{equation}

1221: \label{48}

1222: h(\nu,t) \approx 

1223: 10^{-7}\cos[2\pi\nu(t - t_{\nu})]

1224: \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_H}\right)^{1+\beta -\beta_s}

1225: \left(\frac{\nu_s}{\nu_H}\right)^{\beta_s}.~~\nu_s \le \nu \le \nu_1 

1226: \end{equation} 

1227: where the deterministic (not random) constant $t_{\nu}$  

1228: does not vary significantly from one frequency to another at 

1229: the intervals $\Delta\nu \approx \nu$. 

1230: The explicit time dependence of the spectral variance $h^{2}(\nu,t)$ 

1231: of the field, or, in other words, the explicit time dependence of 

1232: the (zero-lag) temporal correlation function of the field at every

1233: given frequency, demonstrates 

1234: that we are dealing with a non-stationary process (a consequence

1235: of squeezing and severe reduction of the phase uncertainty). 

1236: We will first ignore the oscillating factor and will compare the predicted

1237: amplitudes with the sensitivity curves of advanced detectors. The potential

1238: reserve of improving the signal to noise ratio by expoloiting the squeezing

1239: will be discussed later.

1240: \par

1241: Let us start from the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) \cite{lisa}.

1242: The instrument will be most sensitive in the interval, roughly, from

1243: $10^{-3} Hz$ to $10^{-1} Hz$, and will be reasonably sensitive

1244: in a broader range, up to frequencies

1245: $10^{-4} Hz$ and $1 Hz$. The sensitivity graph of LISA to a stochastic

1246: background is usually plotted under the assumption of a 1-year observation

1247: time, that is, the root-mean-square (r.m.s.) instrumental noise is 

1248: being evaluated in frequency 

1249: bins $\Delta \nu = 3\times 10^{-8} Hz$ around each frequency $\nu$.  

1250: We need to rescale our predicted amplitude $h(\nu)$ to these bins. 

1251: \par

1252: The mean square amplitude of the gravitational wave field is given by

1253: the integral (\ref{28}). Thus, the r.m.s. amplitude in the band $\Delta \nu$

1254: centered at a given frequency $\nu$ is given by the expression

1255: \begin{equation}

1256: \label{49}

1257: h(\nu, \Delta\nu) = h(\nu) \sqrt{\frac{\Delta\nu}{\nu}}.

1258: \end{equation}

1259: We use Eqs. (\ref{47}), (\ref{48}) and  calculate expression (\ref{49}) 

1260: assuming $\Delta \nu = 3\times 10^{-8} Hz$. The results are plotted 

1261: in $Fig. 8$. 

1262: Formula (\ref{47}) has been used 

1263: throughout the covered frequency interval for the realistic

1264: case $\beta = -1.9$ and for the extreme case $\beta = -1.8$. 

1265: The line marked $z$-model describes the signal produced in the 

1266: composite model with $\beta = -2$ up to $\nu_s = 10^{-4} Hz$ 

1267: (formula (\ref{47})) and then followed by formula (\ref{48}) 

1268: with $\beta_s = -0.3$. This

1269: model gives the signal a factor of $3$ higher at $\nu= 10^{-3} Hz$, 

1270: than the model $\beta = -2$ extrapolated down to this frequency.    

1271: %Fig.8

1272: \begin{figure}

1273: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth

1274: \centerline{\epsfbox{lisa.fig8}} 

1275: \end{figure}

1276: \par

1277: There is no doubt that the signal $\beta = -1.8$ would be easily

1278: detectable even with a single instrument. The signal $\beta = -1.9$

1279: is marginally detectable, with the signal to noise ratio around $3$ or

1280: so, in a quite narrow frequency interval near and above the frequency 

1281: $3\times 10^{-3} Hz$. However, at lower frequencies one would

1282: need to be concerned with the possible gravitational wave noise from 

1283: unresolved binary stars in our Galaxy. The further improvement of the

1284: expected LISA sensitivity by a factor of $3$ may prove to be crucial

1285: for a confident detection of the predicted signal with $\beta = -1.9$.   

1286: \par

1287: Let us now turn to the ground-based interferometers operating

1288: in the interval from $10 Hz$ to $10^{4} Hz$. The best sensitivity is

1289: reached in the band around $\nu = 10^2 Hz$. We take this frequency 

1290: as the representative frequency for comparison with the predicted signal. 

1291: We will work directly in terms of the dimensionless quantity $h(\nu)$.

1292: If necessary, the r.m.s. amplitude per $Hz^{1/2}$ at a given $\nu$ can be 

1293: found simply 

1294: as $h(\nu)/{\sqrt\nu}$. The instrumental noise will also be quoted in

1295: terms of the dimensionless quantity $h_{ex}(\nu)$. 

1296: \par

1297: The expected sensitivity of the initial instruments at $\nu = 10^2 Hz$ is

1298: $h_{ex} = 10^{-21}$ or better. The theoretical prediction at this

1299: frequency, following from (\ref{47}), (\ref{48}) with $\beta_s = 0$, is 

1300: $h_{th} = 10^{-23}$ for $\beta = -1.8$, 

1301: and $h_{th} = 10^{-25}$ for $\beta = -1.9$. Therefore, the gap between

1302: the signal and noise levels is from 2 to 4 orders of magnitude. The expected

1303: sensitivity of the advanced interferometers, such as 

1304: LIGO-II \cite{ligoII}, can be as high

1305: as $h_{ex} = 10^{-23}$. In this case, the gap vanishes for the $\beta= -1.8$

1306: signal and reduces to 2 orders of magnitude for the $\beta= -1.9$ signal.

1307: $Fig. 9$ illustrates the expected signal in comparison with the LIGO-II 

1308: sensitivity. Since the signal lines are plotted in terms of $h(\nu)$, the LISA

1309: sensitivity curve (shown for periodic sources) should be raised and

1310: adjusted in accordance with $Fig. 8$. 

1311: 

1312: 

1313: 

1314: 

1315: %Fig. 9 

1316: \begin{figure}

1317: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth

1318: \centerline{\epsfbox{ligo.fig9}} 

1319: \end{figure}

1320: 

1321: 

1322: 

1323: \par

1324: A signal below noise can be detected if the outputs

1325: of two or more detectors can be cross correlated. [For the early esimates 

1326: of detectability of relic gravitational waves see \cite{g4}.] The cross

1327: correlation will be possible for ground-based 

1328: interferometers, several of which are currently under construction. 

1329: The gap between the signal and the noise levels 

1330: should be covered by a sufficiently long observation time $\tau$.

1331: The duration $\tau$ depends on whether the signal has any temporal 

1332: signature known in advance, or not. We start from the assumption that no

1333: temporal signatures are known in advance. In other words, we first ignore 

1334: the squeezed nature of the relic background and work under the assumption

1335: that the squeezing cannot be exploited to our advantage.  

1336: \par

1337: The response of an instrument to the incoming radiation is 	

1338: $s(t) = F_{ij}h^{ij}$ where $F_{ij}$ depends on the position and 

1339: orientation of the instrument. Since the $h^{ij}$ is a quantum-mechanical

1340: operator (see Eq. (\ref{6})) we need to calculate the mean value of a quadratic

1341: quantity. The mean value of the cross correlation of responses from two

1342: instruments $\langle 0|s_1(t)s_2(t)|0\rangle$ will involve the overlap 

1343: reduction function \cite{Mich}-\cite{Allen}, 

1344: which we assume to be not much smaller than $1$ \cite{Flan}. 

1345: The signal to noise ratio $S/N$ in the measurement of the amplitude 

1346: of a signal with no specific known features increases as

1347: $(\tau \nu)^{1/4}$, where $\nu$ is some characteristic central frequency. 

1348: If the signal has features known in advance and exploited by the 

1349: matched filtering technique, the $S/N$ increases as

1350: $(\tau \nu)^{1/2}$.  

1351: \par

1352: We apply the guaranteed law $(\tau \nu)^{1/4}$ to initial and advanced

1353: instruments at the representative frequency $\nu = 10^2 Hz$. This law  

1354: requires a reasonably short time $\tau = 10^6~{\rm sec}$ in order

1355: to improve the $S/N$ in initial instruments by two orders of magnitude  

1356: and to reach the level of 

1357: the signal with extreme spectral index $\beta = -1.8$.

1358: The longer integration time or a better sensitivity will make the 

1359: $S/N$ larger than 1. In the case of a realistic spectral index  

1360: $\beta = -1.9$ the remaining gap of 4 orders of magnitude can be

1361: covered by the combination of a significantly better sensitivity and

1362: a longer observation time (not necessarily in one non-interrupted run).   

1363: The sensitivity of the advanced laser interferometers, such as LIGO II, 

1364: at the level $h_{ex} = 10^{-23}$ and the same observation time  

1365: $\tau = 10^6~{\rm sec}$ would be sufficient for reaching the level of the

1366: predicted signal with $\beta = -1.9$.

1367: \par

1368: An additional increase of $S/N$ can be achieved if the statistical

1369: properties of the signal can be properly exploited.

1370: Squeezing is automatically present at all frequencies from $\nu_H$ to

1371: $\nu_1$. The squeeze parameter $r$ is larger in gravitational waves

1372: of cosmological scales, and possibly the periodic structure in 

1373: Eq. (\ref{30}) can be better revealed at those scales. However, we 

1374: are interested here  

1375: in frequencies accessible to ground based interferometers,

1376: say, in the interval $30 Hz - 100 Hz$. If our intention were to monitor

1377: one given frequency $\nu$ from the beginning of its oscillating regime

1378: and up till now, then, in order to avoid the destructive interference from 

1379: neighbouring modes during all that time,

1380: the frequency resolution of the instrument should have been 

1381: increadibly narrow, of the order of $10^{-18} Hz$.

1382: Certainly, this is not something what we can, or

1383: intend to do. Although the amplitudes of the waves have adiabatically

1384: decreased and their frequencies redshifted since the beginning of their

1385: oscillating regime, the general statistical properties of the discussed

1386: signal are essentially the same now as they were $10$ years after the 

1387: Big Bang or will be $1$ million years from now. 

1388: \par 

1389: The periodic structure (\ref{47}) may survive at some level in 

1390: the instrumental window of sensitivity from $\nu_{min}$ (minimal frequency) 

1391: to $\nu_{max}$ (maximal frequency). The mean square value of the field in 

1392: this window is 

1393: \begin{equation}

1394: \label{50}

1395: \int_{\nu_{min}}^{\nu_{max}}h^2(\nu,t)\frac{{\rm d}\nu}{\nu} =

1396: 10^{-14}\frac{1}{{\nu_H}^{2\beta+2}}\int_{\nu_{min}}^{\nu_{max}}

1397: \cos^2[2\pi\nu(t - t_{\nu})]\nu^{2\beta+1}{\rm d}\nu~.

1398: \end{equation}

1399: Because of the strong dependence of the integrand on frequency, 

1400: $\nu^{-2.6}$ or $\nu^{-2.8}$, the value of the integral (\ref{50}) 

1401: is determined by 

1402: its lower limit. Apparently, the search through the data should be based on 

1403: the periodic structure that may survive at $\nu = \nu_{min}$. As an illustration,

1404: one can consider such a narrow interval $\Delta \nu = \nu_{max} - \nu_{min}$ 

1405: that the integral (\ref{50}) can be approximated by the formula 

1406: \[

1407: \int_{\nu_{min}}^{\nu_{max}}h^2(\nu,t)\frac{{\rm d}\nu}{\nu} \approx

1408: 10^{-14}\left(\frac{\nu_{min}}{{\nu_H}}\right)^{2\beta+2}

1409: \left(\frac{\Delta \nu}{\nu_{min}}\right)\cos^2[2\pi\nu_{min}(t - t_{min})]~.

1410: \]

1411: Clearly, the correlation function is strictly periodic and its structure

1412: is known in advance, in contrast to other possible signals. This is a typical

1413: example of using the appriori information. Ideally, the gain in $S/N$ can

1414: grow as $(\tau \nu_{min})^{1/2}$. This would significantly reduce the 

1415: required observation time $\tau$. For a larger $\Delta \nu$, even an 

1416: intermediate gain between the guaranteed law $(\tau \nu)^{1/4}$ and 

1417: the law $(\tau \nu)^{1/2}$, adequate for the matched filtering 

1418: technique, would help. This could potentially make the signal with

1419: $\beta =-1.9$ measurable even by the initial laser interferometers.  

1420: A straightforward application of (\ref{50}) for exploiting the squeezing 

1421: may not be possible, as argued in the recent study \cite{AFP}, but more

1422: sophisticated methods are not excluded. 

1423: \par

1424: For frequency

1425: intervals covered by bar detectors and electromagnetic detectors, the

1426: expected results follow from the same formulas (\ref{47}), (\ref{48}) 

1427: and have been briefly

1428: discussed elsewhere \cite{g4}, \cite{g3}. 

1429: 

1430: 

1431: \section{Conclusion} 

1432: 

1433: It would be strange, if the predicted signal at the level corresponding

1434: to $\beta =-1.9$ were not seen by the instruments capable of its detection.

1435: There is not so many cosmological assumptions involved in the derivation, 

1436: that could prove wrong, thus invalidating our predictions. On the other hand, 

1437: it would be even more 

1438: strange (and even more interesting) if the relic gravitational waves

1439: were detected at the level above the $\beta = -1.8$ line. This 

1440: would mean that there is something fundamentally wrong in our 

1441: basic cosmological premises. To summarise, it is quite possible that  

1442: the detection of relic (squeezed) gravitational waves may be awaiting 

1443: only the first generation of sensitive instruments and an appropriate 

1444: data processing strategy.   

1445: 

1446: \section{Acknowlegements}

1447: 

1448: 

1449: I appreciate the help of M. V. Prokhorov in preparation of the figures. 

1450: 

1451: 

1452: \vspace{-.5cm}

1453: 

1454: \begin{thebibliography}{00}

1455: 

1456: \bibitem{g1}

1457: L. P. Grishchuk, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 67}, 825 (1974)  

1458: [JETP {\bf 40}, 409 (1975)]; Ann. NY Acad. Sci. {\bf 302}, 439 (1977);

1459: Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk. {\bf 156}, 297 (1988) [Sov. Phys.-Uspekhi. {\bf 31},

1460: 940 (1988)]. 

1461: \bibitem{t1}

1462: K. S. Thorne, in {\it 300 Years of Gravitation}, eds. S. W. Hawking

1463: and W. Israel (Cambridge: CUP) 1987, p. 330.

1464: \bibitem{t2}

1465: K. S. Thorne, in {\it Particle and Nuclear Astrophysics and Cosmology

1466: in the Next Millenium}, eds. E. Kolb and R. Peccei (Singapore:

1467: World Scientific) 1995, p. 160. 

1468: \bibitem{sch}

1469: B. F. Schutz, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 16}, A131 (1999).

1470: \bibitem{kn}

1471: P. L. Knight, in {\it Quantum Fluctuations}, Eds. S. Reynaud, 

1472: E. Giacobino, and J. Zinn-Justin, (Elsevier Science) 1997, p. 5. 

1473: \bibitem{gs}

1474: L. P. Grishchuk and Yu. V. Sidorov, Class. Quant. Grav.

1475: {\bf 6}, L161 (1989); Phys. Rev. {\bf D42}, 3413 (1990).  

1476: \bibitem{g2}

1477: L. P. Grishchuk, in {\it Workshop on Squeezed States and

1478: Uncertainty Relations}, NASA Conf. Publ. {\bf 3135}, 1992, p. 329;

1479: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 10}, 2449 (1993); 

1480: in {\it Quantum Fluctuations}, Eds. S. Reynaud, 

1481: E. Giacobino, and J. Zinn-Justin, (Elsevier Science) 1997, p. 541. 

1482: \bibitem{ll}

1483: L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, {\it The Classical Theory of Fields}

1484: (New York: Pergamon) 1975.

1485: \bibitem{w}

1486: W. Schleich and J. A. Wheeler, J. Opt. Soc. Am {\bf B4}, 1715 (1987); 

1487: W. Schleich {\it et. al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf A40}, 7405 (1989). 

1488: \bibitem{zn}

1489: Ya. B. Zeldovich and I. D. Novikov, {\it The Structure and Evolution

1490: of the Universe} (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) 1983.

1491: \bibitem{gio}

1492: M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 083504 (1998); Report hep-ph/9912480. 

1493: \bibitem{g3}

1494: L. P. Grishchuk, Report gr-qc/9810055. 

1495: \bibitem{vg}

1496: G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. {\bf B265}, 287 (1991): M. Gasperini

1497: and G. Veneziano, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 1}, 317 (1993);

1498: M. Gasperini and M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. {\bf D47}, 1519 (1993);

1499: M. Gasperini, Report hep-th/9607146.

1500: \bibitem{cr}

1501: T. Creighton, Report gr-qc/9907045.

1502: \bibitem{s} 

1503: G. F. Smoot {\it et. al.}, Astroph. J. {\bf 396}, L1 (1992). 

1504: \bibitem{b} 

1505: C. L. Bennet {\it et. al.}, Astroph. J. {\bf 464}, L1 (1996).

1506: \bibitem{melch} 

1507: A. Melchiori, M. V. Sazhin, V. V. Shulga, and N. Vittorio, Astroph. J.

1508: {\bf 518}, 562 (1999).  

1509: \bibitem{gden}

1510: L. P. Grishchuk, Phys. Rev. {\bf D50}, 7154 (1994);

1511: in {\it Current Topics in Astrofundamental Physics: Primordial Cosmology},

1512: Eds. N. Sanchez and A. Zichichi, (Kluwer Academic) 1998, p. 539;

1513: Report gr-qc/9801011.        

1514: \bibitem{g3}

1515: L. P. Grishchuk, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 14}, 1445 (1997). 

1516: \bibitem{ms}

1517: J. Martin and D. J. Schwarz, Report astro-ph/9911225.

1518: \bibitem{Abr}

1519: A. Abramovici {\it et. al.}, Science {\bf 256}, 325 (1992).  

1520: \bibitem{Brad}

1521: C. Bradaschia {\it et. al.}, Nucl. Instrum. and Methods

1522: {\bf A289}, 518 (1990).  

1523: \bibitem{HoughD}

1524: J. Hough and K. Danzmann {\it et. al.}, {\it GEO600 Proposal}, 1994.  

1525: \bibitem{lisa}

1526: P. Bender {\it et. al.} {\it LISA Pre-Phase A Report}, Second Edition,

1527: 1998

1528: \bibitem{Hel}

1529: S. L. Larson, W. A. Hiscock. and R. W. Hellings, Report gr-qc/9909080.   

1530: \bibitem{gw0}

1531: {\it Gravitational Wave Experiments}, eds. E. Coccia, G. Pizzella, and

1532: F. Ronga (Singapore: World Scientific) 1995.

1533: \bibitem{gw1}

1534: {\it Gravitational Waves: Sources and detection}, eds. I. Giufolini

1535: and F. Fidecaro (Singapore: World Scientific) 1997. 

1536: \bibitem{gw2}

1537: {\it Laser Interferometer Space Antenna}, ed. W. Folkner (AIP Conference

1538: Proceedings 456) 1998. 

1539: \bibitem{ligoII}

1540: {\it LIGO II Conceptual Project Book}, LIGO-M990288-00-M.

1541: \bibitem{g4}

1542: L. P. Grishchuk, Pis'ma Zh. Eks. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 23}, 326 (1976) [JETP

1543: Lett. {\bf 23}, 293 (1976)]. 

1544: \bibitem{Mich}

1545: P. F. Michelson, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. {\bf 227}, 933 (1987). 

1546: \bibitem{Chris}

1547: N. L. Christensen, Phys. Rev. {\bf D46}, 5250 (1992). 

1548: \bibitem{Flan}

1549: E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. {\bf D48}, 2389 (1993). 

1550: \bibitem{Allen}

1551: B. Allen, in {\it Relativistic Gravitation and Gravitational

1552: Radiation}, Eds. J-A. Marck and J-P. Lasota (CUP, 1997) p. 373. 

1553: \bibitem{AFP}

1554: B. Allen, E. E. Flanagan, and M. A. Papa. Report gr-qc/9906054.  

1555: 

1556: 

1557: \end{thebibliography}

1558: \end{document}  

1559: 

1560: 

1561: 

1562: