1: \documentstyle[12pt,titlepage]{article}
2: \input epsfig.sty
3: \def\baselinestretch{1.1}
4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.0cm}
5: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm}
6: \setlength{\topmargin}{-.9cm}
7: \setlength{\textheight}{22.5cm}%
8: \font\small=cmr8 scaled \magstep0
9: \font\grande=cmr9.5 scaled \magstep4
10: \font\medio=cmr9.5 scaled \magstep2
11: \outer\def\beginsection#1\par{\medbreak\bigskip
12: \message{#1}\leftline{\bf#1}\nobreak\medskip
13: \vskip-\parskip
14: \noindent}
15: \def\obdot{\hskip-8pt \vbox to 11pt{\hbox{..}\vfill}}
16: \def\obbdot{\hskip-8pt \vbox to 14pt{\hbox{..}\vfill}}
17: \def\odot{\hskip-6pt \vbox to 6pt{\hbox{..}\vfill}}
18: \def\dis{\displaystyle}
19: \newcommand{\mpl}{M_{\rm Pl}}
20: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
21: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
22: \newcommand{\ud}{\mathrm{d}}
23: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
24: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}
25: \newcommand{\nbeqn}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
26: \newcommand{\neeqn}{\end{eqnarray*}}
27: \newcommand{\bcen}{\begin{center}}
28: \newcommand{\ecen}{\end{center}}
29: \def\laq{\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$<$}\kern -0.8em\lower 0.62
30: ex\hbox{$\sim$}}
31: \newcommand{\benu}{\begin{enumerate}}
32: \newcommand{\eenu}{\end{enumerate}}
33: \newcommand{\bite}{\begin{itemize}}
34: \newcommand{\eite}{\end{itemize}}
35: \newcommand{\bdes}{\begin{description}}
36: \newcommand{\edes}{\end{description}}
37: \newcommand{\bdis}{\begin{displaymath}}
38: \newcommand{\edis}{\end{displaymath}}
39: \newcommand{\bary}{\begin{array}}
40: \newcommand{\eary}{\end{array}}
41: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
42: \newcommand{\nt}{\noindent}
43:
44: \def\gaq{\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$>$}\kern -0.7em\lower 0.62
45: ex\hbox{$\sim$}}
46:
47: \begin{document}
48: \bibliographystyle {unsrt}
49:
50: \titlepage
51:
52: \vspace{15mm}
53: \begin{center}
54: {\grande Response of VIRGO detectors to pre-big-bang gravitons }\\
55: \vspace{15mm}
56: D. Babusci $^a$ and M. Giovannini $^b$
57: \vspace{15mm}
58:
59: {\sl $^a$ INFN- Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, 1-00044 Frascati,
60: Italy}\\
61:
62: {\sl $^b$ Institute for Theoretical Physics, Lausanne University, }\\
63: {\sl BSP-Dorigny, CH-1015, Switzerland}
64: \end{center}
65:
66: \vskip 2cm
67: \centerline{\medio Abstract}
68:
69: \noindent
70: {The sensitivity achievable by a pair of VIRGO detectors to
71: stochastic and isotropic gravitational wave
72: backgrounds produced in pre-big-bang models is discussed
73: in view of the development of a second VIRGO interferometer.
74: We describe a semi-analytical
75: technique allowing to compute the signal-to-noise ratio for
76: (monotonic or non-monotonic)
77: logarithmic energy spectra of relic gravitons of arbitrary
78: slope. We apply our results to the case of two correlated and
79: coaligned VIRGO detectors and we compute their achievable
80: sensitivities.
81: We perform our calculations both for
82: the usual case of minimal string cosmological scenario and
83: in the case of
84: a non-minimal scenario (originally suggested by Gasperini)
85: where a long dilaton dominated phase is
86: present prior to the onset of the ordinary
87: radiation dominated phase. In this framework, we investigate possible
88: improvements of the achievable sensitivities by selective
89: reduction of the thermal contributions
90: (pendulum and pendulum's internal modes)
91: to the noise power spectra of the detectors.
92: Since a reduction of the shot noise does not increase significantly
93: the expected sensitivity of a VIRGO pair (in spite of the
94: relative spatial location of the two detectors)
95: our findings support the experimental efforts directed towards a substantial
96: reduction of thermal noise.
97: \vspace{5mm}
98:
99: \newpage
100:
101:
102: \renewcommand{\theequation}{1.\arabic{equation}}
103: \setcounter{equation}{0}
104:
105: \section{The problem and its motivations}
106:
107: Every variation of the background
108: geometry produces graviton pairs which are stochastically
109: distributed and whose logarithmic energy spectra represent
110: a faithful snapshot of the (time) evolution of the curvature
111: scale at very early times \cite{1}. Indeed, one of the
112: peculiar features of stochastic graviton backgrounds is that
113: their energy spectra extend over a huge interval of (present)
114: frequencies. Since gravitational interactions
115: are much weaker than electromagnetic interactions they also
116: decouple much earlier. Therefore the logarithmic energy
117: spectra of relic gravitons produced by the pumping action of
118: the gravitational field can very well extend for (approximately)
119: twenty five orders of magnitude in frequency \cite{3}. From the
120: physical point of view, this observation implies that the energy
121: spectra of relic gravitons can be extremely relevant in order to
122: probe the past history of the Universe in a regime which will
123: never be directly accessible with observations of electromagnetic
124: backgrounds of cosmological origin \cite{2}.
125:
126: In spite of the fact that the {\em nature}
127: of the production mechanism is shared by different
128: types of models \cite{1}, the specific {\em amplitudes of the
129: energy spectra} can very well change depending
130: upon the behavior of the background evolution.
131: An example in this direction are
132: logarithmic energy spectra increasing in frequency \cite{9} or even
133: non-monotonic spectra originally discussed by Gasperini \cite{gas1}.
134:
135: Different theoretical signals (with different
136: spectral distributions) lead to
137: detector outputs of different amplitudes.
138: Therefore, in order to evaluate the performances
139: of a given detector one has to choose the specific
140: functional form of the logarithmic energy spectrum.
141: String cosmological models \cite{10} are an interesting
142: theoretical laboratory leading usually to sizable theoretical
143: signals in the operating window of wide band interferometers (WBI)
144: \cite{11}. A possible
145: detection of these backgrounds would represent an
146: interesting test for cosmological models
147: inspired by the low energy string effective action.
148: Other possible choices are represented
149: by scale invariant spectra \cite{gri,8,gri2} or
150: by tilted (``blue'' \cite{gri2}) spectra whose energetical content
151: is typically concentrated at frequencies larger than
152: the mHz \cite{gio2,noi}.
153:
154:
155: The signal induced in the detector output by a stochastic
156: background of gravitational radiation
157: is indistinguishable from the intrinsic noise of the
158: detector itself. This implies that, unless the amplitude of the signal
159: is very large,
160: the only chance of direct detection of these backgrounds
161: lies in the analysis of the
162: correlated fluctuations of the outputs of, at least, two detectors
163: affected by independent noises\footnote{We stress that
164: (see, for instance the second paper in Ref. \cite{chr}) the ratio
165: between the minimum signal detectable in the cross-correlation and the
166: minimum signal detectable in the case of a single detector is
167: $\sim 1/\sqrt{T\,\Delta f}$ where $T$ represents the duration of
168: the correlation experiment and $\Delta f$ is the width of the frequency
169: band probed by the detectors. This means that for a measurement with
170: $\Delta f = 1 $ kHz (like in the case of the VIRGO interferometer) and
171: $T = 1$ yr , the minimum signal detectable with a correlation is $10^{5}$
172: times smaller than in the case of a single detector.}.
173:
174: The problem of the optimal processing of the detector outputs required
175: for the detection of the stochastic background has been considered by
176: various authors \cite{mic,chr} and it was also reviewed in Ref. \cite{alr}.
177: Suppose, indeed, that the signal registered at each detector can be
178: written as (we limit ourselves to the case of two detectors
179: $(i\,=\,1,2)$)
180: \begin{equation}
181: s_{i}\,=\,h_{i}(t)\,+\,n_{i}(t)\,,
182: \end{equation}
183: where we have indicated with $n$ the intrinsic noise of the detector,
184: and with $h$ the gravitational strain due to the stochastic background.
185: By assuming that the detector noises are stationary and uncorrelated,
186: the ensemble average of their Fourier components satisfies
187: \begin{equation}
188: \langle n^{\ast}_{i}(f)\,n_{j}(f')\rangle\,=\,\frac{1}{2}\,\delta(f-f')
189: \,\delta_{ij}\,S^{(i)}_{n}(|f|)\;,
190: \end{equation}
191: where $S_{n}(|f|)$ is usually known as the one-sided noise power spectrum
192: and is expressed in seconds. Starting to the signals $s_1$ and $s_2$, a
193: correlation ``signal'' for an observation time $T$ can be defined in the
194: following way:
195: \begin{equation}
196: S\,=\,\int_{- T/2}^{T/2}\,{\rm d} t\,\int_{- T/2}^{T/2}\,{\rm d} t'
197: \,s_1 (t)\,s_2 (t')\,Q (t - t')
198: \end{equation}
199: where $Q$ is a filter function that depends only by $t - t'$ because we
200: assume that $n$ and $h$ are both stationary. The optimal choice of $Q$
201: corresponds to the maximization of the signal-to-noise ratio associated
202: to the ``signal'' $S$.
203: In this calculation the stochastic background,
204: besides to be stationary, is also assumed to be isotropic, unpolarized
205: and Gaussian.
206: Under the further assumptions that detector noises
207: are Gaussian, much larger in amplitude than the gravitational strain and
208: statistically independent on the strain itself, it can be shown
209: \cite{mic,chr,alr} that the signal-to-noise ratio in a frequency range
210: $(f_{\rm m},f_{\rm M})$ is given by\footnote{ For a clear discussion
211: about these assumptions see Ref. \cite{alr}. In this
212: paper are also discussed the modifications needed in the case in which
213: most of these assumptions are relaxed. Finally, in order to avoid
214: possible confusions we stress that the definition of
215: the SNR is the one discussed in \cite{noi} and it is essentially the square
216: root of the one discussed in \cite{mic,chr,alr}.}:
217: \begin{equation}
218: {\rm SNR}^2 \,=\,\frac{3 H_0^2}{2 \sqrt{2}\,\pi^2}\,F\,\sqrt{T}\,
219: \left\{\,\int_{f_{\rm m}}^{f_{\rm M}}\,{\rm d} f\,
220: \frac{\gamma^2 (f)\,\Omega_{{\rm GW}}^2 (f)}{f^6\,S_n^{\,(1)} (f)\,
221: S_n^{\,(2)} (f)}\,\right\}^{1/2}\; ,
222: \label{SNR}
223: \end{equation}
224: where $H_0$ is the present value of the Hubble parameter and $F$ is a
225: numerical factor depending upon the geometry of the two detectors.
226: In the case of the correlation between two interferometers $F= 2/5$.
227: In Eq. (\ref{SNR}),
228: the performances achievable by the pair of detectors are certainly
229: controlled by the noise power spectra (NPS) $S_n^{\,(1,2)}$.
230: However in Eq. (\ref{SNR}),
231: on top of NPS, there are two important quantities.
232: The first one is the {\em theoretical}
233: background signal defined through the logarithmic energy spectrum
234: (normalized to the critical density $\rho_c$) and expressed at the present
235: (conformal) time $\eta_0$ \footnote{In most of our equations we drop the
236: dependence of spectral quantities upon the present time since all the
237: quantities introduced in this paper are evaluated today.}
238: \begin{equation}
239: \Omega_{{\rm GW}}(f,\eta_0)\,=\,\frac{1}{\rho_{c}}\,
240: \frac{{\rm d} \rho_{{\rm GW}}}{{\rm d} \ln{f}}\,=\,
241: \overline{\Omega}(\eta_0)\,\omega(f,\eta_0)\,.
242: \label{1}
243: \end{equation}
244: As we can see, we have chosen to parametrize the theoretical spectrum
245: through a time-independent amplitude ($\bar{\Omega}(\eta_0)$) and a
246: frequency-dependent part ($\omega(f)$).
247: The important quantity appearing in eq. (\ref{SNR})
248: is the overlap reduction function $\gamma(f)$ \cite{chr,alr}
249: which is a dimensionless function describing the reduction in the sensitivity
250: of the two detectors (at a given frequency $f$)
251: arising from the fact that the two detectors are not in the
252: same place and, in general, not coaligned
253: (for the same location and orientation $\gamma (f) = 1$). Since
254: the overlap reduction function cuts-off
255: the integrand of Eq. (\ref{SNR}) at a frequency which approximately
256: corresponds to the inverse separation between the two detectors, it may
257: represent a problematic (but controllable) element in the reduction
258: of the sensitivity of a given pair of detectors.
259:
260: Various ground-based interferometric detectors are presently under
261: construction (GEO \cite{geo}, LIGO-LA, LIGO-WA \cite{lig}, TAMA \cite{tam},
262: VIRGO \cite{vir}). Among them, the pair consisting of most homogeneous
263: (from the point of view of the noise performances) detectors with minimum
264: separation is given by the two LIGOs (VIRGO and GEO are even closer, but
265: they have different performances for what concerns the NPS). However, this
266: separation ($\simeq$ 3000 km) is still too large. The overlap
267: reduction function $\gamma (f)$ for the pair
268: LIGO-LA$-$LIGO-WA encounters
269: its first zero at 64 Hz, falling off (swiftly) at higher
270: frequencies, i.e., right in the region where the two LIGOs, at least in
271: their initial version, have better noise performances.
272:
273: The motivation of our exercise is very simple. We want to study
274: the sensitivity of a system of two VIRGO-like detectors to stochastic
275: backgrounds of gravitational radiation.
276: Up to now, if we exclude the case of Ref. \cite{noi},
277: the correlation between two VIRGO detectors has not been seriously explored
278: in the literature.
279: The reason for this lack of studies is that, in contrast with the
280: LIGO project where two detectors are simultaneously under construction,
281: only one VIRGO detector is currently being built. However, recently,
282: within the European gravitational
283: wave community, the possibility of building in Europe an interferometric
284: detector of dimensions comparable to VIRGO has received
285: close attention \cite{gia}. Therefore, there is a chance
286: that in the near future the VIRGO detector,
287: now under construction at Cascina (Pisa) in Italy, will be complemented
288: by another interferometer of even better performances very close
289: (at a distance $d\,<\,1000$ km) to it. In
290: this paper we examine in detail the possible improvements in the VIRGO
291: sensitivity as a result of direct correlation of two VIRGO-like detectors.
292: Technological improvements in the construction of the
293: interferometers can be reasonably expected in the next years. Thus
294: the VIRGO detectors will gradually
295: evolve towards an advanced configuration \cite{gia}.
296: For this reason we also examine
297: the possible consequences of a selective improvements of the noise
298: characteristics of the two detectors on the obtained results.
299: In order to make our analysis
300: concrete we will pay particular attention to the evaluation
301: of the performances of a pair of VIRGO detectors in the case
302: of string cosmological models \cite{10,11}.
303:
304: In order to evaluate precisely the performances of
305: a pair of VIRGO detectors we will use the following
306: logic. First of all we will pick up a given class
307: of theoretical models which look particularly
308: promising in view of their spectral properties
309: in the operating window of the WBI.
310: Secondly we will analyze the signal-to-noise
311: ratios for different regions of the parameter
312: space of the model. Finally we will
313: implement some selective reduction of the noises
314: and we will compare the results with the ones
315: obtained in the cases
316: where the noises are not reduced. We will
317: repeat the same procedure for different classes
318: of models.
319:
320: The results and the investigations we are
321: reporting can be applied to spectra of arbitrary
322: functional form. The only two requirements
323: we assume will be the continuity of the
324: logarithmic energy spectra (as a function of the present
325: frequency) and of their first derivative. We will also give
326: some other examples in this direction.
327:
328: The plan of our paper is then the following. In Section II
329: we introduce the basic semi-analytical tecnique which allows
330: the evaluation of the SNR for a pair of WBI. In Section III
331: we will evaluate the performances of a pair of VIRGO detectors
332: in the case of string cosmological models.
333: In Section IV we will show how to implement
334: a selective noise reduction and we will investigate the
335: impact of such a reduction in the case
336: of the parameter space of the models previously analyzed.
337: Section V contains our final discussion and the
338: basic summary of our results.
339:
340:
341:
342: \renewcommand{\theequation}{2.\arabic{equation}}
343: \setcounter{equation}{0}
344: \section{SNR evaluation}
345:
346: In the operating window of the VIRGO detectors the theoretical
347: signal will be defined through the logarithmic energy spectrum
348: reported in Eq. (\ref{1}). In the present Section we shall not make any
349: specific assumption concerning $\omega(f)$ and our results have
350: general applicability. We will only assume that it is a continuous
351: function of the frequency and we will also assume that its first
352: derivative is well defined in the operating window of WBI.
353: This means that $\omega(f)$ can be, in principle, a non-monotonic
354: function.
355:
356: \subsection{Basic Formalism}
357:
358: The expected noise power spectrum for the VIRGO detector \cite{vir}
359: is well approximated by the analytical fit of Ref. \cite{cuo}, namely
360: \begin{equation}
361: \Sigma_n (f)\,=\,\frac{S_n (f)}{S_0}\,=\,
362: \left\{
363: \begin{array}{lc}
364: \infty &\qquad f < f_b \\ [8pt]
365: \dis \Sigma_1\,\biggl(\frac{f_{{\rm a }}}{f}\biggr)^5\,+\,
366: \dis \Sigma_2\,\biggl(\frac{f_{{\rm a}}}{f}\biggr)\,+\,
367: \dis \Sigma_3\,\biggl[ 1 + \biggl(\frac{f}{f_{\rm a}}\biggr)^2\biggr],&
368: \qquad f \ge f_b
369: \label{NPS}
370: \end{array}
371: \right.
372: \end{equation}
373: with
374: \bdis
375: S_0\,=\,10^{-44}\,{\rm s}\;,\qquad f_a\,=\,500\,{\rm Hz}\;,
376: \qquad f_b\,=\,2\,{\rm Hz}\;,\qquad
377: \begin{array}{l}
378: \Sigma_1\,=\,3.46\,\times\,10^{-6} \\
379: \Sigma_2\,=\,6.60\,\times\,10^{-2} \\
380: \Sigma_3\,=\,3.24\,\times\,10^{-2}\,.
381: \end{array}
382: \edis
383: In order to compute reliably (and beyond naive power counting
384: arguments) the SNR we have to specify the overlap reduction
385: function $\gamma(f)$. The relative location and orientation of the
386: two detectors determines the functional form of $\gamma(f)$
387: which has to be gauged in such a way that the
388: overlap between the two detectors
389: is maximized (i.e. $\gamma(f) \simeq 1$ for most of the
390: operating window of the two VIRGO). Moreover, the two interferometers
391: of the pair
392: should also be sufficiently far apart in order to decorrelate the
393: local seismic and electromagnetic noises. Since the precise
394: location of the second VIRGO detector has not been specified so
395: far \cite{gia}, we find useful to elaborate about this point by computing
396: the overlap reduction functions corresponding to two coaligned
397: VIRGO interferometers with different spatial separations. The results of
398: these calculations are reported in Fig. \ref{over}\footnote{ For
399: illustrative purposes, we assumed that a distance of about 50 km is
400: sufficient to decorrelate local seismic and e.m. noises. Such a
401: hypothesis is certainly justified within the spirit of our exercise.}.
402: \begin{figure}[!ht]
403: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 6.2 cm \epsffile{over.ps}}
404: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
405: \caption[a]{We report the overlap reduction function(s) for the correlation of
406: the VIRGO detector presently under construction in Cascina
407: (43.6 N, 10.5 E) with a coaligned interferometer whose (corner)
408: station is located at: A) (43.2 N, 10.9 E), $d\,=\,58$ km (Italy);
409: B) (43.6 N, 4.5 E), $d\,=\,482.7$ km (France); C) (52.3 N, 9.8 E),
410: $d\,=\,958.2$ km (Germany). The third site (C) corresponds
411: to the present location of the GEO detector. Notice that from A to C
412: the position of the first zero of $\gamma(f)$ gets shifted in the
413: infra-red.}
414: \label{over}
415: \end{figure}
416: Needless to say that these choices are purely theoretical and are
417: only meant to illustrate the effects of the distance
418: on the performances of the VIRGO pair.
419:
420: The curves labeled with A, B, and C shown in Fig. \ref{over}
421: correspond to different distances $d$ between the site
422: of the VIRGO detector (presently under construction
423: in Cascina, near Pisa) and the central corner station
424: of a second coaligned VIRGO interferometer. Let us now look at
425: the position of the first frequency $f_i$ for which
426: $\gamma(f_i)\,=\,0$ for each of the curves. We can notice
427: that by increasing $d$ (i.e., going from A to C)
428: the value of $f_i$ gets progressively shifted towards lower and lower
429: frequencies, linearly with $d$. This
430: means that, for the specific purpose of the detection
431: of a stochastic background of gravitational radiation, the position
432: of the first zero of the overlap reduction function cannot
433: be ignored. In general we would like $f_i$ to be
434: slightly larger than the frequency region where the sensitivity
435: of the pair of wide band detectors is maximal. In the explicit examples
436: presented in this paper we will focus our attention
437: on the case A. The other two configurations have been the subject of a
438: related investigation \cite{noi2}.
439:
440:
441: \subsection{SNR and bounds on the graviton spectrum}
442:
443:
444: By inserting the parametrization (\ref{1}) into Eq. (\ref{SNR})
445: we can write
446: \begin{equation}
447: {\rm SNR}^2 \,=\,\frac{3 H_0^2}{5 \sqrt{2}\,\pi^2}\;
448: \sqrt{T}\;\frac{\overline{\Omega}}{f_0^{5/2}\,S_0}\;J \;,
449: \label{snrrescaled}
450: \end{equation}
451: where we introduced the (dimension-less) integral
452: \begin{equation}
453: J^2 \,=\,\int_{\nu_{\rm m}}^{\nu_{\rm M}}\,{\rm d} \nu\,
454: \frac{\gamma^2\,(f_0 \nu)\,\omega^2(f_0 \nu)}
455: {\nu^6\,\Sigma_n^{\,(1)} (f_0 \nu)\,
456: \Sigma_n^{\,(2)} (f_0 \nu)}\;.
457: \label{Jint}
458: \end{equation}
459: Here the integration variable is $\nu\,=\,f/f_0$, with $f_0$ a
460: generic frequency scale within the operating window of the
461: interferometer, and the integration domain is restricted to
462: the region $f_{\rm m}\,\le\,f\,\le\,f_{\rm M}$
463: (i.e., $\nu_{\rm m}\,\le\,\nu\,\le\,\nu_{\rm M}$).
464: In the following we will choose $f_0\,=\,100$ Hz and, taking into
465: account the frequency behavior of $\gamma (f)$ (see Fig. \ref{over}),
466: we can assume $f_{\rm M}\,=\,10$ kHz (i.e., $\nu_{\rm M}\,=\,100$).
467: The lower extreme $f_{\rm m}$ is put equal to the frequency $f_b$
468: entering Eq. (\ref{NPS}) (i.e., $\nu_{\rm m}\,=\,0.02$).
469:
470: For the chosen values of $f_0$ and $S_0$ (see Eq. (\ref{NPS}))
471: one has ($H_0\,=\,100\,\times\,h_0\;{\rm km}\,\cdot\,
472: {\rm s}^{-1}\,\cdot\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$):
473: \begin{equation}
474: h_{0}^2\,\overline{\Omega}\,\simeq\,\frac{4.0\,\times\,10^{-7}}{J}\;
475: \left(\,\frac{1\;{\rm yr}}{T}\,\right)^{1/2}\;{\rm SNR}^2\;.
476: \label{sens}
477: \end{equation}
478: Since we will often refer to this formula we want to
479: stress its physical meaning. Suppose that the functional form of $\omega (f)$
480: is given. Then the numerical value of the
481: integral $J$ can be precisely computed and, through Eq. (\ref{sens}),
482: $\overline{\Omega}$ can be estimated.
483: This quantity, inserted in Eq. (\ref{1}),
484: determines for each frequency $f$ the minimum $\Omega_{\rm GW}$
485: detectable (for an observation time $T$, with a signal-to-noise
486: ratio SNR) by the correlation of the two detector outputs.
487:
488: In the next section, $\overline{\Omega}$ will be compared with
489: two other quantities: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}$ and
490: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$. The first is the theoretical
491: value of the normalization of the spectrum, while the second
492: represents the largest normalization compatible with the
493: phenomenological bounds applicable to the stochastic GW
494: backgrounds. These quantities are of different nature and
495: in order to be more precise let us consider an example.
496:
497: Suppose, for simplicity, that we are dealing with a
498: logarithmic energy spectrum which is a monotonic function
499: of the present frequency. Suppose, moreover, that the spectrum
500: decreases sufficiently fast in the infra-red in order
501: to be compatible both with the pulsar timing bound and with the
502: CMB anisotropies bounds. Then the most relevant bound will come,
503: effectively, from Big-Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) \cite{sch,wal,cop}.
504: If at BBN too many massless particles are present they would cause
505: a faster expansion of the Universe. If the expansion would
506: be too fast, then, the correct abundances of the light
507: elements ($^4$He, $^3$ He, Li, D) observed in galaxies
508: could not be reproduced. Thus we
509: should require that the total number of massless
510: particles present in the plasma at BBN should not exceed
511: the energy density stored, at the same epoch, in radiation.
512: Therefore, in our particular case, we will have that
513: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$ is determined by demanding
514: that \cite{sch}
515: \begin{equation}
516: h^2_0\,\int\,\Omega_{\rm GW}(f,\eta_0)\;{\rm d}\ln{f}\,<\,0.2\,
517: h_0^2\,\Omega_{\gamma}(\eta_0)\,\simeq\,5\,\times\,10^{-6},
518: \label{ns}
519: \end{equation}
520: where $\Omega_{\gamma}(\eta_0)\,=\,2.6\,\times\,10^{-5}\,h_0^{-2}$
521: is the present fraction of critical energy density stored in radiation.
522: According to our definition, $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$ is
523: the maximal normalization of the spectrum compatible with the previous
524: inequality, namely,
525: \begin{equation}
526: h_0^2\,\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}\,\simeq\,
527: \frac{5\,\times\,10^{-6}}{{\cal I}}\;, \qquad
528: {\cal I}\,= \,\int_{f_{\rm ns}}^{f_{\rm max}}\,
529: \omega(f)\;{\rm d}\ln{f}.
530: \label{NSnorm}
531: \end{equation}
532: Notice that $f_{\rm ns}\,\simeq\,10^{-10}$ Hz is the present value
533: of the frequency corresponding to the horizon at the nucleosynthesis
534: time; $f_{\rm max}$ stands for the maximal frequency of the spectrum
535: and it depends, in general, upon the specific theoretical model.
536: If the spectrum has different slopes, $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$
537: will be determined not only by the nucleosynthesis bound but also by
538: the combined action of the CMB anisotropy bound \cite{2,ben} and
539: of the pulsar timing bound \cite{kas}. Indeed, we know that
540: the very small fractional timing error in the arrival times of
541: the millisecond pulsar's pulses implies that
542: $\Omega_{{\rm GW}}\,\laq\,10^{-8}$ for a frequency which is roughly
543: comparable with the inverse of the observation time along which
544: pulsars have been monitored
545: (i.e., $\omega_{\rm p}\,\sim\,1/T_{\rm obs}\,=\,10^{-8}$ Hz). Moreover,
546: the observations of the large scale anisotropies in the microwave sky
547: \cite{ben,tur} imply that the graviton contribution to the integrated
548: Sachs-Wolfe effect has to be smaller than (or at most of the
549: order of) the detected amount of anisotropy. This observation implies
550: that $\Omega_{{\rm GW}}\,\leq\,6.9\,\times\,10^{-11}$ for
551: frequencies ranging between the typical frequency of the present
552: horizon and a frequency thirty of forty times larger. In the case of
553: a logarithmic energy density with decreasing slope the
554: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$ will be mainly determined by the
555: Sachs-Wolfe bound and it will be the maximal normalization of the
556: spectrum compatible with such a bound.
557:
558: In general , we will have that
559: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}\,\leq\,\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$,
560: namely the theoretical normalization of the spectrum is bounded, from
561: above, by the maximal normalization compatible with all the
562: phenomenological bounds. Therefore, the mismatching
563: between these quantities can be interpreted as an
564: effective measure of the theoretical error
565: in the determination of the absolute normalization of the spectrum.
566:
567: Since $\omega(f)$ enters (in a highly non-linear way) into the form
568: of $J$ (as defined in Eq. (\ref{Jint})), the corresponding
569: $\overline{\Omega}$ in Eq. (\ref{sens}) will be different for any
570: (specific) frequency dependence in $\omega(f)$. The consequence
571: of this statement is that it is not possible to give a general
572: (and simple) relation between the sensitivity at a given frequency,
573: the spectral slope and the (generic) theoretical amplitude of the
574: spectrum. However, given the form of the theoretical spectrum, the
575: phenomenological bounds (depending upon the theoretical slope)
576: will fix uniquely the theoretical error and the maximal achievable
577: sensitivity. So, if we want to evaluate the performances of the VIRGO
578: pair we should pick up a given class of theoretical models (characterized
579: by a specific functional form of $\omega(f)$) and compute
580: the corresponding sensitivity. The same procedure should then be repeated
581: for other classes of models and, only at the end, the
582: respective sensitivities can be compared.
583:
584:
585: \renewcommand{\theequation}{3.\arabic{equation}}
586: \setcounter{equation}{0}
587: \section{Primordial gravitons versus VIRGO*VIRGO}
588:
589: We can consider, in principle, logarithmic energy spectra with
590: hypothetical analytical forms and arbitrary normalizations.
591: If the logarithmic energy spectrum is either a flat or a decreasing
592: function of the present frequency \cite{gri}, we can expect,
593: in general, that the theoretical signal will be of the
594: order of (but smaller than) $10^{-15}$ \cite{tur,rub} for present
595: frequencies comparable with the operating window of the
596: VIRGO pair. This happens because of the combined action of the
597: Sachs-Wolfe bound together with the spectral behavior of the
598: infra-red branch of the spectrum produced thanks to the
599: matter-radiation transition.
600: Of course this observation holds \cite{rub} for models where the graviton
601: production occurs because of the adiabatic variation
602: of the background geometry \cite{1,gri} \footnote{ An exception to this
603: assessment is represented by cosmic strings models
604: leading to a flat logarithmic energy spectrum for frequencies
605: between $10^{-12}$ Hz and $10^{-8}$ Hz \cite{vac,cal}.
606: Another possible exception is
607: given by the gravitational power radiated by magnetic
608: (and hypermagnetic) \cite{gio1}
609: knot configurations at the electroweak scale \cite{sha1}.}.
610:
611: In order to have large signals falling in the operating window of
612: the VIRGO pair we should have deviations from scale invariance
613: for frequencies larger than few mHz. Moreover,
614: these deviations should go in the direction of increasing
615: logarithmic energy spectra. This is what happens
616: in the case of quintessential inflationary models \cite{gio2}.
617: In this case, however, as we discussed in a previous
618: analysis \cite{noi}, the BBN bound put strong constraints on the
619: theoretical signal in the operating window of the
620: VIRGO pair.
621:
622: Another class of model leading to a large theoretical
623: signal for frequencies between few Hz and 10 kHz is
624: represented by string cosmological models \cite{9,10,11}.
625: Therefore, in order
626: to evaluate the performances of the VIRGO pair
627: and in order to implement a procedure of selective noise
628: reduction we will use string cosmological spectra.
629:
630: \subsection{Minimal models of pre-big-bang}
631:
632: In string cosmology
633: and, more specifically, in the pre-big-bang scenario, the curvature scale
634: and the dilaton coupling are both growing in cosmic time. Therefore
635: the graviton spectra will be {\em increasing} in frequency instead of
636: {\em decreasing} as it happens in ordinary inflationary models.
637:
638: In the context of string cosmological scenarios the Universe
639: starts its evolution in a very weakly coupled regime with vanishing
640: curvature and dilaton coupling. After a phase of sudden
641: growth of the
642: curvature and of the coupling the corrections to the tree level action
643: become important and the Universe enters a true stringy phase which is
644: followed by the ordinary radiation dominated phase. It should be stressed
645: that the duration of the stringy phase is not precisely known
646: and it could happen that all the physical scales contained
647: within our present Hubble radius crossed the horizon during the stringy phase
648: as pointed out in \cite{gas1}.
649:
650: The maximal amplified frequency of the graviton spectrum is given
651: by \cite{9,11}
652: \begin{equation}
653: f_{1}(\eta_0)\,\simeq\,64.8\,\sqrt{g_1}\,\left(\,\frac{10^{3}}
654: {n_r}\,\right)^{1/12}\; {\rm GHz}
655: \end{equation}
656: where $n_{r}$ is the effective number of spin degrees
657: of freedom in thermal equilibrium at the end of the stringy phase,
658: and $g_1\,=\,M_{s}/\mpl$ where $M_s$ and $\mpl$ are the string
659: and Planck masses, respectively. Notice that $g_1$ is the value
660: of the dilaton coupling at the end of the stringy phase, and
661: is typically of the order of $10^{-2}\,\div\,10^{-1}$ \cite{kap}.
662: As we can see from the previous equation the dependence upon
663: $n_r$ is quite weak.
664: In order to red-shift the maximal amplified frequency of the
665: spectrum from the time $\eta_1$ (which marks the beginning of
666: the radiation dominated evolution) up to the present time we
667: assumed that the cosmological evolution prior to $\eta_0$ and
668: after $\eta_1$ is adiabatic. Minimal models of pre-big-bang are
669: the ones where a dilaton dominated phase is followed by a stringy
670: phase which terminates at the onset of the radiation dominated
671: evolution. In the context of minimal models, the function
672: $\omega (f)$ introduced in Eq. (\ref{1}) can be written as
673: \begin{equation}
674: \omega (f)\,=\,
675: \left\{
676: \begin{array}{lc}
677: \dis z_s^{- 2 \beta}\,\left(\,\frac{f}{f_s}\,\right)^3\,\left[\,1\,+\,
678: z_s^{2 \beta - 3}\,-\,\frac12\,\ln{\frac{f}{f_s}}\,\right]^2
679: & \dis \qquad f\,\le\,f_s\,=\,\frac{f_1}{z_s} \\ [15pt]
680: \dis \left[\,\biggl(\frac{f}{f_1}\biggr)^{3 - \beta}\,+\,
681: \biggl(\frac{f}{f_1}\biggr)^{\beta}\,\right]^2
682: & \qquad f_s\,<\,f\,\le\,f_1
683: \end{array}
684: \right.
685: \label{minth}
686: \end{equation}
687: where,
688: \begin{equation}
689: \dis \beta\,=\,\frac{\ln\,(g_1/g_s)}{\ln\,z_s}.
690: \end{equation}
691: In this formula $z_s\,=\,f_1/f_s$ and $g_s$ are, respectively, the
692: red-shift during the string phase
693: and the value of the coupling constant at the end of the dilaton dominated
694: phase.
695: The first of the two branches appearing in Eq. (\ref{minth})
696: is originated by modes leaving the horizon
697: during the dilaton dominated phase and re-entering
698: during the radiation dominated phase. The second branch is
699: mainly originated by modes leaving the horizon during the
700: stringy phase and re-entering always in the radiation
701: dominated phase. The theoretical normalization \cite{9,11}
702: \begin{equation}
703: \overline{\Omega}^{\,\rm th}\,=\,2.6\,g_1^2\,\left(\,\frac{10^3}{n_r}\,
704: \right)^{1/3}\,\Omega_{\gamma}(\eta_0)\;,
705: \label{omth}
706: \end{equation}
707: multiplied by $\omega(f)$ (as given in Eq. (\ref{minth})) leads
708: to the theoretical form of the spectrum.
709: Notice that $n_r$ is of the order of $10^2\,\div\,10^{3}$ (depending
710: upon the specific string model) and it represents a theoretical
711: uncertainty.
712:
713: However, as anticipated in the previous section, the theoretical
714: normalization of the spectrum should be contrasted with the one
715: saturating the BBN bound (i.e., $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$).
716: This quantity is obtained by Eq. (\ref{NSnorm}), where in the case
717: under consideration
718: \begin{equation}
719: {\cal I}\,=\,{\cal I}_{d}\,+\,{\cal I}_{s} \qquad {\rm with}
720: \qquad {\cal I}_{d}\,=\,\int_{f_{\rm ns}}^{f_s}\,\frac{{\rm d}f}{f}\,
721: \omega (f)\;,\qquad {\cal I}_{s}\,=\,\int_{f_{s}}^{f_1}\,
722: \frac{{\rm d}f}{f}\,\omega (f)\;.
723: \end{equation}
724: In the case of minimal pre-big-bang models
725: the analytical expressions of ${\cal I}_{d}$ and ${\cal I}_{s}$
726: are given by
727: \begin{eqnarray}
728: {\cal I}_{d} &=& z_{s}^{- 2 \beta}\,\left\{\,\frac{1}{54}\,
729: (z_s^2 + 6\,z_s + 18)\,-\,\frac{1}{108}\,\left(\,\frac{f_{\rm ns}}{f_{s}}\,
730: \right)^3\,\left[\,2\,(z_s^2 + 6\,z_s + 18) \right. \right.
731: \nonumber \\
732: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \left. \left.
733: -\,6\,z_s\,(z_s + 6)\,\ln{\frac{f_{\rm ns}}{f_s}}\,+
734: \,9\,z_s^2\,\ln^2{\frac{f_{ns}}{f_s}}\,\right]\,
735: \right\}\;,\nonumber\\[10pt]
736: {\cal I}_{s} &=& \frac{3}{2\,\beta\,(3 - 2 \beta)}\,+\,
737: \frac{z_s^{2 \beta - 6}}{2 \beta - 6}\,-\,\frac{z_s^{- 2 \beta}}
738: {2 \beta}\;.
739: \end{eqnarray}
740: In the case of non-minimal models of pre-big-bang
741: the integrals determining
742: the BBN bound are instead
743: \begin{eqnarray}
744: {\cal I}_{1} &=& A(\sigma, z_s)\,+\,B(\sigma, z_s)\,\ln{z_s}\,+\,
745: C(\sigma, z_s)\,\ln^2{z_s}\;,\nonumber\\[10pt]
746: {\cal I}_{2} &=& \frac{z_s^{-4}}{4}\,\left(\,z_s^{\sigma - 2}\,+\,
747: z_s^{2 + \sigma}\,\right)\,\left(\,z_s^{- 4}\,-\,z_r^{- 4}\,\right)\,
748: (1\,+\,\ln{z_s})^2\;,
749: \end{eqnarray}
750: where and $z_r\,=\,f_1/f_r$ and
751: \begin{eqnarray}
752: A(\sigma, z_s) &=& - \frac{z_s^{2 \sigma}}{16\,(\sigma^2 - 4)^3}\,
753: \left\{\,13\,z_s^{- 2(2 + \sigma)}\,(\sigma^2 - 4)^3 \right.
754: \nonumber \\
755: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \left. -\,4\,z_s^{-4}\,
756: (\sigma + 2)^3\,(2 \sigma^2 - 10 \sigma + 13) \right.
757: \nonumber\\
758: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \left.
759: +\,4\,z_s^{- 4( 1 + \sigma)}\,(\sigma - 2)^3\,
760: (2 \sigma^2 + 10 \sigma + 13)\right.
761: \nonumber\\
762: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \left.
763: -\,z_s^{- 2 \sigma}\,
764: (13 \sigma^6 - 172 \sigma^4 + 832 \sigma^2 - 1664)\,
765: \right\}\;, \nonumber \\[10pt]
766: B(\sigma, z_s) &=& \frac{z_s^{2 \sigma - 4}}{4\,(\sigma^2 - 4)^2}\,
767: \left\{\,2\,(\sigma + 2)^2\,(2 \sigma - 5)\,-\,2\,z_s^{- 4 \sigma}\,
768: (\sigma - 2)^2\,(2 \sigma + 5)\right.
769: \nonumber\\
770: & & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \left.
771: -\,5\,z_s^{2 \sigma}\,(\sigma^2 - 4)^2\,\right\}\;,
772: \nonumber\\[10pt]
773: C(\sigma, z_s) &=& \frac{z_s^{4 - 2 \sigma}}{2\,(\sigma^2 - 4)}\,
774: \left\{\,2\,-\,z_s^{- 4 \sigma}\,(\sigma - 2)\,+\,\sigma\,
775: z_s^{- 2 \sigma}\,(\sigma^2 - 4))\right\}\;.
776: \end{eqnarray}
777:
778: In the intermediate
779: frequency region of the graviton spectra an important bound comes
780: from the pulsar timing measurements. Therefore, if one ought to
781: consider rather long stringy phases (i.e., large $z_s$), the BBN
782: constraint should be supplemented by the requirement that
783: $\Omega_{\rm GW}(10^{-8}\,{\rm Hz})\,<\,10^{-8}$ \cite{kas}. We will come
784: back to this point later.
785:
786: Following the explicit expression of the function $\omega (f)$,
787: Eq. (\ref{sens}) can be re-written as follows:
788: \begin{equation}
789: h_0^2\,\overline{\Omega}\,\simeq\,4\,\times\,10^{-7}\,\left(\,
790: \frac{1\,{\rm yr}}{T}\,\right)^{1/2}\,
791: \frac{{\rm SNR}^2}{\sqrt{J_d^2\,+\,J_s^2}},
792: \end{equation}
793: where, introduced the following notation
794: \begin{eqnarray}
795: J_{k} &=& \int_{\nu_{\rm m}}^{\nu_{s}}\,{\rm d}\nu\,
796: \frac{\gamma^2 (f_0 \nu)}{\Sigma_{n}^{(1)} (f_0\nu)\,
797: \Sigma_{n}^{(2)} (f_0\nu)}\,\ln^{k}{\nu}\;,
798: \qquad k\,=\,0,1,2,3,4 \nonumber\\[10pt]
799: J_{\pm m (3 - 2 \beta)} &=& \int_{\nu_s}^{\nu_{\rm M}}\,
800: {\rm d}\nu\,\frac{\gamma^2 (f_0 \nu)}{\Sigma_{n}^{(1)} (f_0 \nu)\,
801: \Sigma_{n}^{(2)} (f_0\nu)}\,\nu^{\pm m (3 - 2 \beta)}\;,
802: \;\;m\,=\,1,2 \\[10pt]
803: C_d &=& 1\,+\,z_s^{2 \beta - 3}\,+\,\frac12\,\ln{\nu_s}\;, \nonumber
804: \end{eqnarray}
805: one has
806: \begin{eqnarray}
807: J_{d} &=& \frac{z_s^{3 - 2 \beta}}{\nu_1^3}\,
808: \left(\,C_d^4 J_0\,-\,2 C_{d}^3 J_1\,+\,\frac32 C_{d}^2 J_2\,-\,
809: \frac12 C_{d} J_3\,+\,\frac{1}{16} J_{4}\,\right)^{1/2}\;,
810: \nonumber \\[10pt]
811: J_{s} &=& \frac{1}{\nu_1^3}\,\left(\,6 J_0\,+\,
812: \frac{J_{6 - 4 \beta}}{\nu_1^{6 - 4 \beta}}\,+\,
813: \frac{J_{4 \beta - 6}}{\nu_1^{4 \beta - 6}}\,+\,
814: 4 \frac{J_{3 - 2 \beta}}{\nu_1^{3 - 2 \beta}}\,+\,
815: 4 \frac{J_{2 \beta - 3}}{\nu_1^{2 \beta - 3}}\,\right)^{1/2}\;.
816: \end{eqnarray}
817:
818: The previous expressions are general in the sense that they are
819: applicable for a generic value of $f_s$.
820: If $f_{\rm m}\,<\,f_{s}\,<\,f_{\rm M}$ then both $J_{s}$ and $J_{d}$
821: give contribution to the sensitivity. If, on the other hand
822: $f_s\,<\,f_{\rm m}$ (i.e., a long stringy phase) the main contribution
823: to the sensitivity will come from $J_{s}$. The integrals appearing in
824: $J_{d,s}$ have to be evaluated numerically. In all our calculations we
825: will assume that both VIRGO detectors are characterized by the same
826: (rescaled) NPS (reported in Eq. (\ref{snrrescaled})).
827:
828: The main steps of our calculation are the following. We firstly fix $g_1$ and
829: for each pair $(z_s,\,g_1/g_s)$ (within the range of their physical
830: value) we compute $\overline{\Omega}$ (for $T\,=\,1$ yr and SNR = 1),
831: and $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$. We then compare these two quantities
832: to the theoretical normalization given in Eq. (\ref{omth}). If
833: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}$ will be larger than $\overline{\Omega}$
834: (but smaller than $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$)
835: we will say that the theoretical
836: signal will be ``visible'' by the VIRGO pair. In this way we will
837: identify in the plane $(z_s,\,g_1/g_s)$ a visibility region according
838: to the sensitivity of the VIRGO pair. The theoretical error on the border
839: of this region can be estimated by substituting
840: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$ to $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}$.
841:
842: To illustrate this point we consider a specific case. The value of the
843: coupling at the end of the stringy phase can be estimated to lie between
844: 0.3 and 0.03 \cite{kap}.
845: The knowledge of $g_1$ will not fix uniquely the theoretical
846: spectrum which does also depend on the number of relativistic degrees of
847: freedom at the end of the stringy phase. Therefore, the theoretical error
848: in the determination of the absolute normalization of the spectrum could
849: be also viewed as the error affecting the determination of $n_r$.
850: In all the plots shown we will take, when not otherwise stated,
851: $g_1\,=\,1/20$ and $n_{r}\,=\,10^3$ as fiducial values. Different choices
852: of $g_1$ will lead to similar results. We will also
853: assume that the overlap reduction function associated with the
854: pair is the one reported in the curve A of Fig. \ref{over}.
855: \begin{figure}[!hb]
856: \begin{center}
857: \begin{tabular}{cc}
858: \hbox{\epsfxsize = 6.2 cm \epsffile{minrat_a.ps}} &
859: \hbox{\epsfxsize = 6.2 cm \epsffile{minrat_b.ps}} \\
860: \end{tabular}
861: \end{center}
862: \vspace*{-1.5cm}
863: \caption[a]{We report the ratios
864: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}/\overline{\Omega}$ (left) and
865: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}/\overline{\Omega}$ (right)
866: as a function of $g_1/g_s$ and $\log{z_s}$ ($\overline{\Omega}$
867: is calculated for $T\,=\,1$ yr and SNR = 1). The lower contour plots
868: show the regions where these ratios are greater than 1.
869: The shaded area (bottom right) represents the region where the combination
870: of the theoretical parameters is such that the corresponding
871: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}$ does not violate the BBN bound.
872: As we can see the visibility region is reduced.
873: The difference between the shaded area in the right plot and the one
874: in the left plot measures the error made by assuming as normalization of
875: the spectrum not the theoretical one but the maximal one compatible
876: with the BBN. The value $z_{s}\,=\,10^{8}$ roughly corresponds to
877: $f_s\,\sim\,f_0$.
878: %Notice that $\log$ denotes not the natural logarithm
879: %but the logarithm in ten basis.
880: }
881: \label{minrat}
882: \end{figure}
883:
884: In Fig. \ref{minrat} (top left) we report the result of our
885: calculation for the ratio between
886: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}$ and $\overline{\Omega}$ as a
887: function of $g_1/g_s$ and $\log{z_s}$. The contour plot (bottom left)
888: shows the region of the plane $(\log{z_s},\,g_1/g_s)$
889: where this ratio is greater than 1, i.e. the maximal visibility
890: region allowed by the BBN bound. In the opposite case, i.e.,
891: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}/\overline{\Omega}\,<\,1$,
892: the VIRGO pair is sensitive to a region excluded by the BBN.
893: In the right part of Fig. \ref{minrat} we go one step further and
894: we plot the ratio between $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}$ and
895: $\overline{\Omega}$. The shaded area in the
896: contour plot (bottom right) is the region of the plane $(\log{z_s},\,g_1/g_s)$
897: where the conditions
898: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}/\overline{\Omega}\,>\,1$ and
899: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}/\overline{\Omega}\,>\,1$ are
900: simultaneously met. The shaded area in this plot defines the visibility
901: region of the VIRGO pair {\em assuming} the theoretical normalization
902: of the spectrum. From Fig. \ref{minrat},
903: by ideally subtracting the shaded area of the left contour
904: plot from the shaded area of the right contour plot
905: we obtain an estimate of the theoretical error.
906: The results we just presented can be obviously recovered for different
907: values of $g_1$ close to one. However, if $g_1$ gets too small
908: (and typically below 1/25) the visibility area gets smaller and
909: smaller eventually disappearing.
910:
911:
912: The visibility regions appearing in Fig. \ref{minrat} extend from
913: intermediate values of $z_s$ (of the order of $10^{8}$) towards
914: large values of $z_s$ (of the order of $10^{18}$). Notice that
915: for our choice of $g_1$, $f_s$ can become as small as $10^{-8}$
916: for $z_s $ of the order of $10^{18}$. As we recalled in the
917: previous Section, this frequency corresponds to the inverse of
918: the observation time along which pulsar signals have been monitored
919: and, therefore, for this frequency, a further ``local'' bound
920: applies to the logarithmic energy spectra of relic gravitons.
921: This bound implies that
922: $\Omega_{\rm GW}(10^{-8}\,{\rm Hz})\,<\,10^{-8}$. In our examples,
923: the compatibility with the BBN bound implies also that the
924: pulsar timing constraint is satisfied. Given our choice
925: for $g_1$ we can clearly see that the visibility regions depicted
926: in Fig. \ref{minrat} extend for values of $g_s$ which can be as
927: small as 1/160 (or as small as 1/60 in the case of right part of
928: Fig. \ref{minrat}).
929:
930: \subsection{Non-minimal models of pre-big-bang}
931:
932: In the context of minimal models of pre-big-bang, the
933: end of the stringy phase coincides with the
934: onset of the radiation dominated evolution.
935: At the moment of the transition to the
936: radiation dominated phase the dilaton sits
937: at its constant value. This
938: means that $g_1\,\sim\,0.03\,\div\,0.3$ at the beginning
939: of the radiation dominated evolution.
940: As pointed out in \cite{gas1}, it is not be impossible to imagine
941: a scenario where the coupling constant is still
942: growing while the curvature scale starts decreasing in time.
943: In this type of scenario the stringy phase is followed
944: by a phase where the dilaton still increases, or, in other
945: words, the coupling constant is rather small at the moment
946: where the curvature starts decreasing so that $g_1\,\ll\,1$.
947:
948: After a transient period (whose precise duration will be fixed by the
949: value of $g_1$), we will have that the radiation dominated evolution
950: will take place when the value of the coupling constant will be of
951: order one (i.e., $g_r\,\sim\,1$).
952: An interesting feature of this speculation is that the
953: graviton spectra will not necessarily be monotonic \cite{gas1}
954: (as the ones considered in the previous analysis).
955: We then find interesting to apply our considerations also to this case.
956:
957: The function $\omega (f)$ in the non-minimal model described
958: above is given by \cite{gas1}
959: \bite
960: \item $ \dis f_r\,<\,f\,\le\,f_s \,=\,\frac{f_1}{z_s} $
961: $$ \dis
962: \omega (f)\,=\,
963: \left(\,\frac{g_r}{g_1}\,\right)^{2/\sqrt{3}}\,
964: \left(\,\frac{f}{f_1}\,\right)^4\,
965: \left[\,\left(\,\frac{f_s}{f_1}\,\right)^{- \sigma}\,+\,
966: \left(\,\frac{f_s}{f_1}\,\right)^{\sigma}\,\right]^2\,
967: \left(\,1\,-\,\ln{\frac{f_s}{f_1}}\,\right)^2
968: $$
969: \item $ \dis f_s\,<\,f\,\le\,f_1 $
970: \begin{equation}
971: \omega (f)\,=\,
972: \left(\,\frac{g_r}{g_1}\,\right)^{2/\sqrt{3}}\,
973: \left[\,\left(\,\frac{f}{f_1}\,\right)^{2 - \sigma}\,+\,
974: \left(\,\frac{f}{f_1}\,\right)^{2 + \sigma}\,\right]^2\,
975: \left(\,1\,-\,\ln{\frac{f}{f_1}}\,\right)^2
976: %\nonumber\\
977: \label{nonminth}
978: \end{equation}
979: \eite
980: where, in the present case
981: \begin{equation}
982: f_1\,\simeq\,64.8\,\sqrt{g_1}\,\left(\,\frac{g_r}{g_1}\,
983: \right)^{1/2\sqrt{3}}\,\left(\,\frac{10^3}{n_r}\,\right)^{1/12}
984: \;{\rm GHz}\;, \qquad f_r\,=\,\left(\,\frac{g_r}{g_1}\,
985: \right)^{- 2/\sqrt{3}}\,f_1\;.
986: \end{equation}
987: (Notice that the form of $\omega(f)$ reported in
988: \cite{gas1} differs from our expression only by
989: logarithmic correction whose presence is, indeed, not
990: relevant.)
991: The frequency $f_r$ corresponds to the
992: onset of the radiation dominated evolution.
993: If we adopt a purely phenomenological approach we can
994: say that $f_r$ has to be bounded (from below)
995: since we want the Universe to be
996: radiation dominated not later than the BBN
997: epoch. Thence, we have that $f_r\,>\,f_{\rm ns}$. Recalling
998: the value of the nucleosynthesis frequency and
999: assuming that $g_r\,\simeq\,1$ this condition
1000: implies $g_1\,\gaq\,8.2\,\times\,10^{-16}$. This simply
1001: means that in order not to conflict with
1002: the correct abundances of the light elements we have to
1003: require that the coupling constant should not be too small
1004: when the curvature starts decreasing. Notice that
1005: for frequencies $f\,<\,f_r$ the spectrum evolves
1006: as $f^{-3}$.
1007: The ultra-violet branch of the spectrum is mainly
1008: originated by modes leaving the
1009: horizon during the stringy phase and re-entering when
1010: the dilaton coupling is still increasing.
1011:
1012: Concerning the non-minimal spectra few comments are in order.
1013: Owing to the fact that $g_1$ can be as small as
1014: $10^{-15}$ we have that the highest frequency of the spectrum
1015: can become substantially smaller than in the
1016: minimal case. Moreover, the spectrum might also be
1017: non-monotonic with a peak at $f_s$. Looking at the
1018: analytical form of the spectrum we see that
1019: this behavior occurs if $\sigma\,>\,2$. We remind that
1020: $\sigma $ parametrizes the spectral slope in the phase where
1021: the curvature scale decreases but the dilaton coupling
1022: is still growing \cite{gas1}.
1023: A non-monotonic logarithmic energy spectrum
1024: (with a maximum falling in the sensitivity region of
1025: the VIRGO pair) represents an interesting possibility.
1026:
1027: The results of our calculation for $g_1\,=\,10^{-12}$,
1028: $n_r\,=\,10^3$, $g_r\,=\,1$, and $\sigma\,>\,2$ are reported
1029: in Fig. \ref{nminrat}.
1030: \begin{figure}[!ht]
1031: \begin{center}
1032: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1033: \hbox{\epsfxsize = 6.2 cm \epsffile{nminrat_a.ps}} &
1034: \hbox{\epsfxsize = 6.2 cm \epsffile{nminrat_b.ps}} \\
1035: \end{tabular}
1036: \end{center}
1037: \vspace*{-1.5cm}
1038: \caption[a]{In order to make clear the comparison with the
1039: visibility region of the minimal models, we report
1040: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}/\overline{\Omega}$ (left) and
1041: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}/\overline{\Omega}$ (right)
1042: as a function of $\sigma$ and of the $\log{z_s}$ in the non-minimal
1043: scenario. Notice that we took $g_1\,=\,10^{-12}$, $n_r\,=\,10^3$,
1044: and $g_r\,=\,1$. As for Fig. \ref{minrat}, the shaded areas in the
1045: lower contour plots represent the region where each ratio is greater
1046: than 1, and, in the case of the right plot, also the BBN is satisfied.}
1047: \label{nminrat}
1048: \end{figure}
1049: As done in the case of minimal spectra
1050: we analyse the visibility window in the plane of the relevant
1051: parameters of the model. As we can see from the left part of
1052: Fig. \ref{nminrat} the region compatible with the BBN is rather
1053: large but it shrinks when we impose the theoretical normalization
1054: ( right part of Fig. \ref{nminrat}) which is always
1055: smaller than the maximal normalization allowed by BBN.
1056:
1057: It is interesting to compare directly the three dimensional plots appearing
1058: in Fig. \ref{minrat} with the corresponding three dimensional plots
1059: of Fig. \ref{nminrat}. Notice that the shaded region in
1060: the case of minimal models corresponds to ratios
1061: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,\rm max}/\overline{\Omega}$ and
1062: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,\rm th}/\overline{\Omega}$ which can be
1063: 3 or 2, respectively. On the other hand the shaded region in
1064: the case of Fig. \ref{nminrat} corresponds to ratios
1065: $\overline{\Omega}^{\rm max}/\overline{\Omega}$ and
1066: $\overline{\Omega}^{\rm th}/\overline{\Omega}$ which can be,
1067: respectively, as large as 50 or 25. So, in the latter case the
1068: signal is larger for a smaller region of the parameter space.
1069:
1070:
1071: \renewcommand{\theequation}{4.\arabic{equation}}
1072: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1073: \section{Noise reduction and the visibility region of a VIRGO pair}
1074:
1075: There are two ways of looking at the calculations reported in this
1076: paper. One can look at these ideas from a purely theoretical
1077: perspective. In this respect we presented a study of the
1078: sensitivity of a pair of VIRGO detectors to string cosmological
1079: gravitons. There is also a second way of looking at our exercise.
1080: Let us take at face value the results we obtained and let us ask
1081: in what way we can enlarge the visibility region of the VIRGO pair.
1082: In this type of approach the specific form of graviton spectrum is
1083: not strictly essential. We could use, in principle, any motivated
1084: theoretical spectrum. As we stressed, we will use string
1085: cosmological spectra because, on one hand, they are, in our opinion,
1086: theoretically
1087: motivated and, on the other hand, they give us a signal which
1088: could be, in principle detected. Of course, there are other well
1089: motivated spectra (like the ones provided by ordinary inflationary
1090: models). However, the signal would be, to begin with, quite small.
1091:
1092: In this Section we will then consider the following problem.
1093: Given a pair of VIRGO detectors, we suppose to be able,
1094: by some means, to reduce, in a selective fashion,
1095: the contribution of a specific noise source to the detectors
1096: output. The question we ought to address is how the visibility
1097: regions will be modified with respect to the case in which the
1098: selective noise reduction is not present.
1099: We will study the problem for the pair of VIRGO detectors
1100: considered in the previous Sections, i.e., for identical detectors
1101: with NPS given in Eq. (\ref{NPS}), and characterized by the
1102: overlap reduction function of the case A of Fig. \ref{over}.
1103: As for the theoretical graviton spectrum we will focus our
1104: attention on the case of minimal models considered in Section III.A,
1105: with the same parameters used to produce Fig. \ref{minrat}.
1106: Also here, the quantity $\overline{\Omega}$ will be computed
1107: for $T\,=\,1$ yr and SNR = 1.
1108:
1109: As shown in Section II the NPS is characterized by three
1110: dimension-less numbers $\Sigma_{1,2,3}$, and two frequencies
1111: $f_a$ and $f_{b}$. Roughly, $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$
1112: control, respectively, the strength of the pendulum
1113: and pendulum's internal modes noise, whereas $\Sigma_3$ is
1114: related to the shot noise (see Ref. \cite{sau} for an
1115: accurate description of the phenomena responsible of these
1116: noises). Below the frequency $f_b$ the NPS is dominated by
1117: the seismic noise (assumed to be infinity in Eq. (\ref{NPS})).
1118: The frequency $f_a$ is, roughly, where the NPS gets its minimum.
1119: The frequency behavior of this three contributions and of the
1120: total NPS is shown in Fig. \ref{noise}. The stochastic processes
1121: associated with each source of noise are assumed to be Gaussian
1122: and stationary.
1123: \begin{figure}[!hb]
1124: \centerline{\epsfxsize = 6.2 cm \epsffile{noise_virgo.ps}}
1125: \vspace*{-1.0cm}
1126: \caption[a]{The analytical fit of the rescaled noise power
1127: spectrum $\Sigma_n$ defined in Eq. (\ref{NPS}) in the case
1128: of the VIRGO detector. With the full (thick) line we denote
1129: the total NPS. We also report the separated contribution of the three
1130: main (Gaussian and stationary) sources of noise.}
1131: \label{noise}
1132: \end{figure}
1133:
1134: In the following, without entering in details concerning the actual
1135: experimental strategy adopted for the noise reduction, we will
1136: suppose to be able to reduce each of the coefficients $\Sigma_i$ by
1137: keeping the other fixed. In order to make our notation simpler we
1138: define a ``reduction vector''
1139: \begin{equation}
1140: \vec{\rho}\,=\,(\rho_1, \rho_2, \rho_3)\;,
1141: \end{equation}
1142: whose components define
1143: the reduction of the pendulum ($\rho_1$),
1144: pendulum's internal modes ($\rho_2$)
1145: and shot ($\rho_3$) noises with respect to their fiducial values
1146: appearing in Eq. (\ref{NPS}) (corresponding to the case
1147: $\vec{\rho}\,=\,(1, 1, 1)$).
1148:
1149: As shown in Fig. \ref{noise} the pendulum noise dominates the
1150: sensitivity of the detectors in the low frequency region, namely
1151: below about 40 Hz. In Fig. \ref{noired1} we report the results of
1152: our calculation for the case $\vec{\rho}\,=\,(0.1, 1, 1)$.
1153: Here the parameters of the theoretical spectrum are exactly the
1154: same as in Fig. \ref{minrat}. The only change is given by a reduction
1155: of the pendulum noise. From the comparison between Fig. \ref{noired1}
1156: and Fig. \ref{minrat}, we see that the visibility region in the
1157: parameter space of our model gets immediately larger especially
1158: towards the region of small $g_s$. This enlargement is quite
1159: interesting especially in terms of
1160: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}/\overline{\Omega}$.
1161: \begin{figure}[!hb]
1162: \begin{center}
1163: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1164: \hbox{\epsfxsize = 6.2 cm \epsffile{noired1_a.ps}} &
1165: \hbox{\epsfxsize = 6.2 cm \epsffile{noired1_b.ps}} \\
1166: \end{tabular}
1167: \end{center}
1168: \vspace*{-1.5cm}
1169: \caption[a]{We report the ratios
1170: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm max}}/\overline{\Omega}$ (left plots), and
1171: $\overline{\Omega}^{\,{\rm th}}/\overline{\Omega}$ (right plots)
1172: in the case in which the shot noise and the noise related to the
1173: pendulum's internal modes are not reduced, whereas the pendulum noise
1174: is diminished by a factor of ten with respect to the values quoted in
1175: Eq. (\ref{NPS}), i.e., $\vec{\rho}\,=\,(0.1, 1, 1)$.}
1176: \label{noired1}
1177: \end{figure}
1178:
1179: In the frequency region between 50 and 500 Hz the performances of the
1180: detectors are, essentially, limited by the pendulum's internal
1181: modes noise. The results obtained for a selective reduction of this
1182: component are summarized in Fig. \ref{noired2}, where the
1183: pendulum and shot noises are left unchanged but the internal modes
1184: component is reduced by a factor of ten. As we
1185: can see the visibility region gets larger and the increase in the area
1186: is comparable with the one obtained by selecting only the pendulum
1187: noise.
1188: \begin{figure}[!ht]
1189: \begin{center}
1190: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1191: \hbox{\epsfxsize = 6.2 cm \epsffile{noired2_a.ps}} &
1192: \hbox{\epsfxsize = 6.2 cm \epsffile{noired2_b.ps}} \\
1193: \end{tabular}
1194: \end{center}
1195: \vspace*{-1.5cm}
1196: \caption[a]{We report the result of selective reduction in the case
1197: where the noise cause by the pendulum's internal modes is reduced
1198: by a factor of ten, whereas the pendulum and shot contributions
1199: are left unchanged, i.e., $\vec{\rho}\,=\,(1, 0.1, 1)$.}
1200: \label{noired2}
1201: \end{figure}
1202:
1203: Finally, for sake of completeness, we want to discuss the case of the
1204: shot noise, i.e., the noise characteristic of the detector above 500
1205: Hz. If
1206: the shot noise is reduced by one tenth (i.e. $\rho_3\,=\,0.1$) the
1207: visibility region does not increase significantly. This result
1208: is consequence of the fact that, as shown by Fig. \ref{noise}, the
1209: shot noise contribution to the NPS starts to be relevant for
1210: $f\,\sim\,1$ kHz, i.e., in a frequency region where the overlap between
1211: the detectors begins to deteriorate (see Fig. \ref{over}).
1212: In Figs. \ref{noired1} and \ref{noired2} the thermal noise is reduced
1213: by one tenth and the increase in the visibility region is, comparatively,
1214: larger. This shows that a reduction in the shot noise
1215: will lead to an effect whose practical relevance is already questionable
1216: at the level of our analysis.
1217:
1218: Clearly,
1219: the simultaneous reduction of both components of the thermal
1220: noise leads to a substantial increase in the area of the visibility
1221: region which gets even larger than
1222: the ones illustrated in Fig. \ref{noired1}
1223: and \ref{noired2}.
1224:
1225:
1226:
1227: \renewcommand{\theequation}{5.\arabic{equation}}
1228: \setcounter{equation}{0}
1229: \section{Discussion and executive summary}
1230:
1231: There are no compelling reasons why one should not consider
1232: the appealing theoretical possibility of a second VIRGO detector
1233: coaligned with the first one. Moreover, recent experimental
1234: suggestions seem coherently directed towards this goal \cite{gia}.
1235: While the location of the second detector is still under
1236: debate we presented a theoretical analysis of some of the
1237: scientific opportunities suggested by this proposal.
1238:
1239: We focused our attention on possible cosmological sources
1240: of relic gravitons and we limited our attention to the case
1241: of stochastic and isotropic background produced by the adiabatic
1242: variation of the backgound geometry. In the framework of these
1243: models we can certainly argue that in order to have a large
1244: signal in the frequency window covered by VIRGO we have to focus
1245: our attention on models where the logarithmic energy spectrum
1246: increases at large frequencies. Alternatively we have to look
1247: for models where the logarithmic energy spectrum exhibits some
1248: bump in the vicinity of the VIRGO operating window.
1249: If the logarithmic energy spectra are decreasing as a function
1250: of the present frequency (as it happens in ordinary inflationary
1251: models) the large scale (CMB) constraints forbid a large signal
1252: at high frequencies. In the case of string cosmological models
1253: the situation seems more rosy and, therefore, we use these models
1254: as a theoretical laboratory in order to investigate, in a
1255: specific model the possible improvements of a possible VIRGO pair.
1256: The choice of a specific model is, in some sense, mandatory. In
1257: fact, owing to the form of the SNR we can immediately see that
1258: different models lead to different SNR not only because the amplitude
1259: of the signal differs in different models. Indeed, one can convince
1260: himself that two models with the same amplitude at $100$ Hz but different
1261: spectral behaviors between 2 Hz and 10 kHz lead to different SNR.
1262:
1263: In order to analyze the sensitivity of the VIRGO pair we described
1264: a semi-analytical technique whose main advantage is to produce the
1265: sensitivity of the VIRGO pair to a theoretical spectrum of arbitrary
1266: slopes and amplitudes. The theoretical error is estimated, in our
1267: approach, by requiring the compatibility with all the phenomenological
1268: bounds applicable to the graviton spectra. As an intersting example,
1269: we asked what is the sensitivity of a VIRGO pair to string cosmological
1270: spectra {\em assuming} that a second VIRGO detector (coaligned with
1271: the first one) is built in a european site. By assuming that the second
1272: VIRGO detector has the same features of the first one we computed the
1273: SNR and the related sensitivity achievable after one year of observation
1274: in the case of string cosmological spectra.
1275:
1276: By using the string cosmological spectra as a theoretical laboratory
1277: we then studied some possible noise reduction. Our main goal, in this
1278: respect, has been to spot what kind of stationary and stochastic noise
1279: should be reduced in order to increase the visibility region of the
1280: VIRGO pair in the parameter space of the theoretical models under
1281: considerations. Our main result is that a selective reduction of each
1282: of the three main sources of noise is not equivalent. A reduction in
1283: the shot noise by a factor of ten does not increase significantly the
1284: visibility region of the VIRGO pair. A selective reduction of
1285: the thermal noise components is far more efficient. In particular,
1286: we could see that a reduction (of one tenth) of the
1287: pendulum's internal modes increases the visibility region of four
1288: times. The simultaneous reduction of the two components of the
1289: thermal noise leads to an even more relevant increase.
1290:
1291: The construction of a second VIRGO detector coaligned with the first
1292: one and an overall reduction of the thermal noise of each detector
1293: of the pair leads to what we called ``upgraded VIRGO'' program. The
1294: results presented in this paper are obtained in the case of a
1295: particularly promising class of theoretical models but can be generally
1296: applied to any logarithmic energy spectrum with similar qualitative
1297: results. However, owing to the non-linearities present in the evaluation
1298: of the SNR it would not be correct assess that they hold, quantitatively,
1299: without change. We hope that our results and our suggestions may turn out
1300: to be useful in the actual process of design of the upgraded VIRGO program
1301: \cite{gia}.
1302:
1303: \section{Acknowledgements}
1304: We would like to thank A. Giazotto for very
1305: useful hints and for his kind interest in this investigation.
1306:
1307: \newpage
1308:
1309: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1310:
1311: \bibitem{1} L. P. Grishchuk, Zh. \'Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 67},
1312: 825 (1974) [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 40}, 409 (1975)];
1313: L. P. Grishchuk, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. {\bf 156}, 297 (1988)
1314: [Sov. Phys. Usp. {\bf 31}, 940 (1988)].
1315:
1316: \bibitem{3} L. P. Grishchuk, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. {\bf 156}, 297 (1988)
1317: [Sov. Phys. Usp. {\bf 31}, 940 (1988)].
1318:
1319: \bibitem{2} M. White, D. Scott, and J. Silk,
1320: Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. {\bf 32}, 319 (1994).
1321:
1322: \bibitem{9} M. Gasperini and M. Giovannini, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 282},
1323: 36 (1992).
1324:
1325: \bibitem{gas1} M. Gasperini, in {\em String theory in curved space times},
1326: Paris 1996, p. 333
1327:
1328: \bibitem{gri} L. P. Grishchuk and M. Solokhin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43},
1329: 2566 (1991); V. Sahni, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42}, 453 (1990);
1330: B. Allen, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 37}, 2078 (1988).
1331:
1332: \bibitem{10} G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 265}, 287 (1991);
1333: M. Gasperini, in Proc. of the Second SIGRAV School on {\em Gravitational
1334: Waves in Astrophysics Cosmology and String Theory}, hep-th/9907067.
1335:
1336: \bibitem{11} M. Gasperini and M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47}, 1519
1337: (1993); R. Brustein, M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini, and G. Veneziano,
1338: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 361}, 45 (1995); M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D
1339: {\bf 55}, 595 (1997); R. Brustein, M. Gasperini, and G. Veneziano,
1340: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 3882 (1997).
1341:
1342: \bibitem{8} K. S. Thorne, in {\it 300 Years of Gravitation},
1343: edited by S. W.Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press,
1344: Cambridge, England, 1987);
1345: B. Allen, in {\ Proceedings of the Les Houches School on
1346: Astrophysical Sources of Gravitational Waves}, edited by
1347: J. Marck and J. P. Lasota (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
1348: England, 1996).
1349:
1350: \bibitem{gri2} L. P. Grishchuk,
1351: talk given at {\em 34th Rencontres de Moriond: Gravitational
1352: Waves and Experimental Gravity}, Les Arcs, France, 23-30 Jan 1999,
1353: gr-qc/9903079.
1354:
1355: \bibitem{gio2} P. J. Peebles and A. Vilenkin Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 063505
1356: (1999);
1357: M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 083504 (1998);
1358: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 16}, 2905 (1999); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 123511
1359: (1999).
1360:
1361: \bibitem{noi} D. Babusci and M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60},
1362: 083511 (1999).
1363:
1364: \bibitem{mic} P. Michelson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. {\bf 227}, 933
1365: (1987).
1366:
1367: \bibitem{chr} N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46}, 5250 (1992);
1368: E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 48}, 2389 (1993).
1369:
1370: \bibitem{alr} B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59},
1371: 102001 (1999).
1372:
1373: \bibitem{geo} K. Danzmann, in {\em Gravitational Wave Experiments},
1374: edited by E. Coccia, G. Pizzella, F. Ronga (World Scientific, Singapore,
1375: 1995).
1376:
1377: \bibitem{lig} F. J. Raab, in {\em Gravitational Wave Experiments},
1378: edited by E. Coccia, G. Pizzella, F. Ronga (World Scientific, Singapore,
1379: 1995).
1380:
1381: \bibitem{tam} K. Tsubono, in {\em Gravitational Wave Experiments},
1382: edited by E. Coccia, G. Pizzella, F. Ronga (World Scientific, Singapore,
1383: 1995).
1384:
1385: \bibitem{vir} B. Caron et al., Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 14}, 1461 (1997).
1386:
1387: \bibitem{gia} The importance of building an advanced high-tech
1388: interferometer in Europe has been clearly stated during the
1389: {\em European Gravitational Wave Meeting}, held in London
1390: on 27 May 1999 (A. Giazotto, private communication).
1391:
1392: \bibitem{cuo} E. Cuoco, G. Curci, and M. Beccaria,
1393: %{\em Adaptive identification of VIRGO-like Noise Spectrum},
1394: in the Proceedings of the 2nd Edoardo Amaldi
1395: Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997, gr-qc/9709041.
1396:
1397: \bibitem{noi2} D. Babusci and M. Giovannini, Class. Quantum Grav.
1398: {\bf 17}, 2621 (2000).
1399:
1400: \bibitem{sch} V. F. Schwartzman, Pis'ma Zh. \'Eksp. Teor. Fiz
1401: {\bf 9}, 315 (1969) [JETP Lett {\bf 9}, 184 (1969)].
1402:
1403: \bibitem{wal} T. Walker et al., Astrophys. J. {\bf 376}, 51 (1991).
1404:
1405: \bibitem{cop} C. Copi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 3981 (1995);
1406: R. E. Lopez and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 103502 (1999).
1407:
1408: \bibitem{ben} C. L. Bennett, A. Banday, K. M. Gorski,
1409: G. Hinshaw, P. Jackson, P. Keegstra, A. Kogut, G. F. Smoot,
1410: D. T. Wilkinson, and E. L. Wright, Astrophys. J. {\bf 464}, L1 (1996).
1411:
1412: \bibitem{tur} M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 435 (1997);
1413: J.P. Zibin, D. Scott, and M. White, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 123513
1414: (1999).
1415:
1416: \bibitem{kas} V. Kaspi, J. Taylor, and M. Ryba, Astrophys. J.
1417: {\bf 428}, 713 (1994).
1418:
1419: \bibitem{rub} V. A. Rubakov, M. V. Sazhin, and A. V. Veryaskin,
1420: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 115}, 189 (1982); R. Fabbri and M. D. Pollock,
1421: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 125}, 445 (1983); L. F. Abbott and M. B. Wise,
1422: Nucl. Phys. {\bf 224}, 541 (1984).
1423:
1424: \bibitem{vac} T. Vachaspati and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 31}, 3052
1425: (1985); A. Vilenkin and E. P. Shellard, {\em Cosmic Strings and other
1426: Topological Defects} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1994).
1427:
1428: \bibitem{cal} R. Caldwell and B. Allen, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 3447 (1992).
1429:
1430: \bibitem{gio1} M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 124027 (1998);
1431: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 063004 (2000);
1432: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 063502 (2000).
1433:
1434: \bibitem{sha1} M. Giovannini and M. Shaposhnikov,
1435: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 2186 (1998); Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 22
1436: (1998).
1437:
1438: \bibitem{kap} V. Kaplunovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 1036 (1985).
1439:
1440: \bibitem{sau} P. R. Saulson, {\em Fundamentals of interferometric
1441: gravitational wave detectors}, (World Scientific, 1994).
1442:
1443:
1444: \end{thebibliography}
1445:
1446: \end{document}
1447:
1448:
1449:
1450:
1451:
1452:
1453:
1454: