1: \documentclass[12pt] {article}
2: \usepackage{psfrag}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{latexsym,amsfonts}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \pagestyle{plain}
7: \textwidth=16truecm
8: \textheight=23.6truecm
9: \topmargin-1.5cm
10: \hoffset-1.2cm
11: \baselineskip=24pt
12:
13: %
14: \begin{document}
15: \setcounter{page}{1}
16: \def\theequation{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
17: \def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
18: \setcounter{section}{0}
19:
20: \title{Storage rings as detectors for relic gravitational--wave
21: background ?}
22:
23: \author{A. N. Ivanov\thanks{E--mail: ivanov@kph.tuwien.ac.at, Tel.:
24: +43--1--58801--14261, Fax: +43--1--58801--14299}~\thanks{Permanent
25: Address: State Polytechnic University, Department of Nuclear Physics,
26: 195251 St. Petersburg, Russian Federation} ~~and~
27: A. P. Kobushkin\thanks{E--mail: kobushkin@kph.tuwien.ac.at and
28: kobushkin@bitp.kiev.ua }~\thanks{Permanent Address: Bogoliubov
29: Institute for Theoretical Physics, 03143, Kiev and Physical and
30: Technical National University KPI, Prospect Pobedy 37, 03056, Kiev,
31: Ukraine}}
32:
33: \date{\today}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: \vspace{-0.5in}
38:
39: \begin{center}
40: {\it Atominstitut der \"Osterreichischen Universit\"aten,
41: Arbeitsbereich Kernphysik und Nukleare Astrophysik, Technische
42: Universit\"at Wien, \\ Wiedner Hauptstr. 8-10, A-1040 Wien,
43: \"Osterreich \\ und\\ Institut f\"ur Mittelenergiephysik
44: \"Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,\\
45: Boltzmanngasse 3, A-1090, Wien, \"Osterreich}
46: \end{center}
47:
48: \begin{center}
49: \begin{abstract}
50: We argue that storage rings can be used for the detection of
51: low--frequency gravitational--wave background. Proceeding from the
52: measurements by Schin Dat${\acute{\rm e}}$ and Noritaka Kumagai
53: (Nucl. Instrum. Meth. {\bf A421}, 417 (1999)) and Masaru Takao and
54: Taihei Shimada (Proceedings of EPAC 2000, Vienna, 2000, p.1572) of
55: variations of the machine circumference of the SPring--8 storage ring
56: we explain the systematic shrinkage of the machine circumference by
57: the influence of the relic gravitational--wave background. We give
58: arguments against a possibility to explain the observed shrinkage of
59: the machine circumference of the SPring--8 storage ring by diastrophic
60: tectonic forces. We show that the forces, related to the {\it
61: stiffness} of the physical structures, governing the path of the beam,
62: can be neglected for the analysis of the shrinkage of the machine
63: circumference caused by the relic gravitational--wave background. We
64: show the shrinkage of the machine circumference can be explained by a
65: relic gravitational--wave background even if it is treated as a
66: stochastic system incoming on the plane of the machine circumference
67: from all quarters of the Universe. We show that the rate of the
68: shrinkage of the machine circumference does not depend on the radius
69: of the storage ring and it should be universal for storage rings with
70: any radii.\\ PACS: 04.30.Nk, 04.80.Nn, 02.50.Ey
71: \end{abstract}
72: \end{center}
73:
74: \newpage
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77: \setcounter{equation}{0}
78:
79: The existence of gravitational waves has been predicted by Einstein's
80: general theory of relativity \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99} . Starting with
81: the pioneering work by Weber \cite{JW60} one of the most challenging
82: problems of experimental physics is the detection of gravitational
83: radiation. In the seventies of the last century the existence of
84: gravitational waves has been confirmed indirectly in a set of accurate
85: measurements of secular orbital period changes in the Hulse--Taylor
86: binary pulsar \cite{JT82}. An attempt for the observation of the
87: cosmic low--frequency gravitational--wave background has been
88: undertaken by Stinebring, Ryba, Taylor and Romani \cite{DS90}.
89:
90: An interesting influence of gravity on the parameters of storage rings
91: of the Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP) at CERN and the
92: SPring--8 in Japan has been found by Arnaudon {\it et al.} \cite{LA95}
93: and Dat${\acute{\rm e}}$ and Kumagai \cite{SD99}, and Takao and
94: Shimada \cite{MT00}, respectively. Below we will discuss only the
95: measurements for the SPring--8 storage ring \cite{SD99,MT00}, though
96: our results should be applicable also to other storage rings.
97:
98: In the analysis of the influence of gravity on the SPring--8 electron
99: storage ring Dat${\acute{\rm e}}$, Kumagai, Takao and Shimada have
100: considered the changes of the machine circumference $C_0 \simeq
101: 1436\,{\rm m}$ in dependence of gravitational coupling of the storage
102: ring to the Moon and the Sun. According to \cite{SD99,MT00}, the
103: change $\Delta C$ of the reference value of the machine circumference
104: is defined by the gravitational interaction of the electron storage
105: ring with the Moon and the Sun due to the tidal and seasonal forces. A
106: total rate of a change of the machine circumference can be written as
107: %
108: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label1.1}
109: \frac{\Delta C}{\Delta t} = \Bigg(\frac{\Delta C}{\Delta t}\Bigg)_{\rm
110: m} + \Bigg(\frac{\Delta C}{\Delta t}\Bigg)_{\rm s} +
111: \Bigg(\frac{\Delta C}{\Delta t}\Bigg)_{\rm us},
112: \end{eqnarray}
113: %
114: where first two terms are caused by the tidal (m) and seasonal (s)
115: forces, but the third term describes a rate of a change of the machine
116: circumference due to unknown sources (us).
117:
118: The theoretical predictions for $(\Delta C/\Delta t)_{\rm m} + (\Delta
119: C/\Delta t)_{\rm s}$ caused by the tidal and seasonal forces have been
120: fully confirmed experimentally \cite{SD99,MT00}. Nevertheless,
121: measuring the rate $\Delta C/\Delta t$ of the changes of the machine
122: circumference of the storage ring there has been found a systematic
123: shrinkage of the machine circumference with the rate of about $2\times
124: 10^{-4}\,{\rm m/yr}$ \cite{MT00}, which cannot be explained by the
125: tidal and seasonal forces induced by the Moon and the Sun. In
126: (\ref{label1.1}) this shrinkage is described by the third term
127: $(\Delta C/\Delta t)_{\rm us}$. In this letter we give arguments that
128: this phenomenon can be understood as an influence of a cosmic very
129: low--frequency gravitational--wave background. Therefore, below we
130: denote the third term as $(\Delta C/\Delta t)_{\rm gw}$.
131:
132: The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we estimate the rate
133: of the shrinkage of the machine circumference due to the gravitational
134: strain. In Section 3 we solve the equations of motion of the storage
135: ring in the field of the cylindrical relic gravitational wave. We show
136: that the solution of the equations of motion gives the same result
137: obtained within the hypothesis of the {\it gravitational strain}. We
138: show that the rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference does
139: not depend on the radius of the storage ring and should be universal
140: for storage rings with any radii. In Section 4 we give arguments
141: against a possibility to explain the observed shrinkage of the machine
142: circumference of the SPring--8 storage ring by diastrophic tectonic
143: forces. In Section 5 we discuss the influence of the {\it stiffness}
144: of the physical structures of the storage ring, governing the path of
145: the beam. We argue that the forces, induced by the {\it stiffness} of
146: the physical structures of the storage ring, governing the path of the
147: beam, can be neglected for the analysis of the shrinkage of the
148: machine circumference caused by the relic gravitational--wave
149: background. In Section 6 we investigate the shrinkage of the machine
150: circumference induced by a stochastic spherical relic
151: gravitational--wave background incoming on the plane of the machine
152: circumference from all quarters of the Universe. We show that the
153: stochastic relic gravitational--wave background, incoming on the plane
154: of the machine circumference from all quarters of the Universe, does
155: not destroy the shrinkage of the machine circumference. The former is
156: due to the fact that the effect of the shrinkage of the machine
157: circumference is of the second order in gravitational wave
158: interactions. We show that the independence of the rate of the
159: shrinkage of the machine circumference on the radius of the storage
160: ring retains in the case of the interaction of the storage ring with
161: the stochastic relic gravitational--wave background. In the Conclusion
162: we discuss the obtained results.
163:
164: \section{Gravitational strain and shrinkage of machine circumference}
165: \setcounter{equation}{0}
166:
167: It is well--known that on the Earth one of the main fundamental
168: effects of gravitational waves is the {\it gravitational strain}\,: a
169: fractional distortion in the length of the object induced by the
170: gravitational field \cite{JP99}.
171:
172: In this connection we assume that the storage ring is sensitive to the
173: influence of low--frequency gravitational waves, which produce a
174: variation $\delta C_{\rm gw}(t)$ of the machine circumference
175: $C_0$. Following \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99} we treat low--frequency
176: gravitational waves as perturbations of the metric.
177:
178: For the calculation of $\delta C_{\rm gw}(t)$ we define a perturbation
179: of the metric $h_{ab}(t,z)\,(a,b = x,y,z)$ as a monochromatic plane
180: wave traveling along the $z$--axis with frequency $\omega$ and wave
181: number $k = \omega/c$ \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}
182: %
183: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.1}
184: h_{ab}(t,z) = \left(\begin{array}{llcl} h_{xx}(t,z) & h_{xy}(t,z) &
185: 0\\ h_{yx}(t,z) & h_{yy}(t,z) & 0\\ ~~0 & ~~0 & 0
186: \end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{llcl}
187: \Delta_+ & ~\Delta_\times & 0\\
188: \Delta_\times & - \Delta_+ & 0\\
189: ~0 & ~~0 & 0
190: \end{array}\right)\,\cos(\omega t - k z + \delta),
191: \end{eqnarray}
192: %
193: where $\Delta_+$ and $\Delta_\times$ are constant amplitudes of the
194: diagonal and non--diagonal components of the monochromatic plane wave,
195: $h_{tt}(t,z) = h_{ta}(t,z) = h_{at}(t,z) = 0$ \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}
196: and $\delta$ is an arbitrary phase. We define the monochromatic plane
197: wave in the so--called {\it transverse traceless} gauge $h_{aa}(t,z) =
198: h_{xx}(t,z) + h_{yy}(t,z) = 0$ (see pp.946--948 of Ref.\cite{JW73}).
199:
200: Placing the storage ring in the $xy$--plane at $z = 0$ the variation
201: $\delta C_{\rm gw}(t)$ can be defined by the contour integral
202: %
203: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.2}
204: &&\delta C_{\rm gw}(t) = \oint_{C_0}\sqrt{dx^2 + dy^2 +
205: h_{xx}(t,0)dx^2 + h_{yy}(t,0)dy^2 + 2h_{xy}(t,0)dxdy} -
206: C_0=\nonumber\\ &&= \frac{C_0}{2\pi}\int^{2\pi}_0(\sqrt{1 -
207: h_{xy}(t,0)\sin2\varphi - h_{xx}(t,0)\cos2\varphi} - 1)\,d\varphi =
208: \oint_{C_0}\delta {\ell}_{\rm gw},
209: \end{eqnarray}
210: %
211: where we have used polar coordinates $x = (C_0/2\pi)\cos\varphi$ and
212: $y = (C_0/2\pi)\sin\varphi$ and the relation $h_{yy}(t,0) = -
213: h_{xx}(t,0)$ (\ref{label2.1}). A change of the length of a segment
214: between two adjacent points of the machine circumference of the
215: storage ring due to the {\it gravitational strain} caused by the
216: monochromatic plane wave $h_{ab}(t,z)$ we denote as $\delta
217: {\ell}_{\rm gw}$. Expanding the square root in powers of $h_{ab}(t,0)$
218: we represent $\delta {\ell}_{\rm gw}$ in the following form
219: %
220: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.3}
221: \delta {\ell}_{\rm gw} = \frac{C_0}{2\pi}\,\Big( -
222: \frac{1}{2}(h_{xx}\cos 2\varphi + h_{xy}\sin2\varphi)-
223: \frac{1}{8}(h_{xx}\cos 2\varphi +h_{xy}\sin2\varphi)^2 + \ldots\Big)
224: d\varphi.
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: %
227: Keeping the first non--vanishing contribution we get
228: %
229: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.4}
230: \delta C_{\rm gw}(t) = \oint_{C_0}\delta {\ell}_{\rm gw} \simeq -
231: \frac{1}{16}\,C_0\,(h^2_{xx}(t,0) + h^2_{xy}(t,0)) = -
232: \frac{1}{16}\,C_0\,h^2_0\,\cos^2(\omega t + \delta),
233: \end{eqnarray}
234: %
235: where the amplitude $h_0$ is equal to $h_0 = \sqrt{\Delta^2_+ +
236: \Delta^2_\times}$.
237:
238: We would like to accentuate that the amplitude $h_0$ of the
239: monochromatic plane wave is not the real amplitude of the relic
240: gravitational--wave background. The relation of the amplitude $h_0$ to
241: the amplitude $h^{\rm gw}_0$ of the relic gravitational--wave
242: background can be found, for example, in the following way.
243:
244: Notice that a real relic gravitational--wave background should be
245: treated as a perturbation of the Friedmann--Robertson--Walker metric
246: \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}. In terms of a perturbation of the
247: Friedmann--Robertson--Walker metric, caused by the relic
248: gravitational--wave background $h^{\rm gw}_{ab}(t,z)$, a change of the
249: length of a segment between two adjacent points of the machine
250: circumference of the storage ring can be determined by
251: \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}
252: %
253: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.5}
254: \delta s_{\rm gw} = R_{\rm U}\,\Big( - \frac{1}{2}(h^{\rm gw}_{xx}\cos
255: 2\varphi +h^{\rm gw}_{xy}\sin2\varphi) - \frac{1}{8}(h^{\rm
256: gw}_{xx}\cos 2\varphi +h^{\rm gw}_{xy}\sin2\varphi)^2 + \ldots\Big)
257: d\varphi,
258: \end{eqnarray}
259: %
260: where $R_{\rm U}$ is the radius of the Universe at the present
261: time. According to \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}, the radius of the Universe
262: is equal to $R_{\rm U} =(c/H_0)\sqrt{k/(\Omega - 1)}$, where $c =
263: 9.45\times 10^{15}\,{\rm m\cdot yr^{-1}}$, $H_0 = (7.63 \pm
264: 0.75)\times 10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ \cite{DG00}, $\Omega$ is a {\it
265: density parameter} as the ratio of the energy density in the Universe
266: to the critical energy density \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}, and $k = 0,
267: \pm 1$ for flat, closed and open Universe, respectively
268: \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}: (1) $k = 0$ with $\Omega = 1$, (2) $k = 1$
269: with $\Omega > 1$ and (3) $k = - 1$ with $\Omega < 1$. For our
270: estimate we will use $R_{\rm U} \sim c/H_0 = 1.25\times 10^{26}\,{\rm
271: m}$. This agrees with the value of the {\it Volume today} equal to $V
272: = 2\pi^2 R^3_{\rm U} = 3.83\times 10^{79}\,{\rm m}^3$ (see
273: \cite{JW73}, p.738, Box 27.4).
274:
275: It is obvious that the contour integral of $\delta s_{\rm gw}$ over
276: the machine circumference of the storage ring should give the same
277: variation of the length of the machine circumference as
278: Eq.(\ref{label2.4}):
279: %
280: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.6}
281: \delta C_{\rm gw}(t) = \oint_{C_0}\delta {\ell}_{\rm gw} =
282: \oint_{C_0}\delta s_{\rm gw}.
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: %
285: Keeping the first non--vanishing contributions we obtain the relation
286: between $h_0$ and $h^{\rm gw}_0$ equal to
287: %
288: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.7}
289: h^{\rm gw}_0 = \sqrt{\frac{C_0}{2\pi R_{\rm U}}}\,h_0 \sim 1.4\times
290: 10^{-12}\,h_0,
291: \end{eqnarray}
292: %
293: where $h^{\rm gw}_0 = \sqrt{(\Delta^{\rm gw}_+)^2 + (\Delta^{\rm
294: gw}_{\times})^2}$.
295:
296: Since by definition of a perturbation, $h_0 \ll 1$, the relation
297: (\ref{label2.7}) gives a correct upper limit on the value of the real
298: amplitude of the gravitational--wave background $h^{\rm gw}_0 \ll
299: 1.4\times 10^{-12}$ \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}. A more detailed estimate
300: for $h^{\rm gw}_0$, related to the experimental shrinkage of the
301: machine circumference of the storage ring \cite{MT00}, we derive
302: below.
303:
304: Notice that it is rather clear that the contribution of the
305: gravitational waves to the variation of the machine circumference,
306: $\delta C_{\rm gw}(t) \sim O((h^2_0)$, is of the second order. In
307: fact, the mass quadrupole moment of the storage ring, located in the
308: $xy$--plane at $z = 0$, has only two equal components $D_{xx} = D_{yy}
309: = D$. Due to this, the interaction of this mass quadrupole moment with
310: gravitational waves is proportional to $D\,(h_{xx} + h_{yy})$, which
311: is zero by definition for gravitational waves in the {\it transverse
312: traceless gauge} $h_{xx} = - h_{yy}$ \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}.
313:
314: The change of the storage ring of the machine circumference $\Delta
315: C_{\rm gw}$ induced by the gravitational waves (\ref{label2.1}) for the
316: time interval $\Delta t = t_2 - t_1$ is equal to
317: %
318: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.8}
319: \Delta C_{\rm gw} = \delta C_{\rm gw}(t_2) - \delta C_{\rm gw}(t_1) =
320: \frac{1}{16}\,C_0\,h^2_0\,\sin(\omega \Delta t)\,\sin(\omega(t_2 +
321: t_1) + 2\delta).
322: \end{eqnarray}
323: %
324: For the rate of the change of the machine circumference at $\Delta t
325: \to 0$ we get
326: %
327: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.9}
328: \frac{\Delta C_{\rm gw}(t)}{\Delta t} =
329: \frac{1}{16}\,C_0\,h^2_0\,\omega\,\sin(2\omega t + 2\delta).
330: \end{eqnarray}
331: %
332: For the comparison with the experimental rate we have to average the
333: theoretical rate (\ref{label2.9}) over the data--taking period
334: $\tau$. This gives
335: %
336: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.10}
337: \hspace{-0.3in}\Big\langle\frac{\Delta C_{\rm gw}(t)}{\Delta
338: t}\Big\rangle_{\tau} =
339: \frac{1}{16}\,C_0\,h^2_0\,\omega\,\frac{1}{\tau}
340: \int^{+\tau/2}_{-\tau/2}dt\,\sin(2\omega t + 2\delta) =
341: \frac{1}{16}\,C_0\,h^2_0\,\sin 2\delta\;\frac{\sin \omega \tau}{\tau}.
342: \end{eqnarray}
343: %
344: In the low--frequency limit $\omega \tau \ll 1$, corresponding to the
345: case of the relic gravitational--wave background, the relation
346: (\ref{label2.8}) can be transcribed into the form
347: %
348: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.11}
349: \frac{1}{C_0}\Big\langle\frac{\Delta C_{\rm gw}(t)}{\Delta
350: t}\Big\rangle_{\tau} = \frac{1}{16}\,h^2_0\,\omega\,\sin 2\delta .
351: \end{eqnarray}
352: %
353: Since the experimental rate of the change of the machine circumference
354: is equal to
355: %
356: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.12}
357: \frac{1}{C_0}\Big(\frac{\Delta C}{\Delta t}\Big)_{\exp} \simeq -
358: 1.4\times 10^{-7}\,{\rm yr^{-1}},
359: \end{eqnarray}
360: %
361: a comparison of theoretical and experimental rates leads to the
362: relation
363: %
364: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.13}
365: \omega\, h^2_0\,\sin 2\delta = \frac{16}{C_0}\,\Big(\frac{\Delta
366: C}{\Delta t}\Big)_{\exp} \simeq -\,2.2 \times 10^{-6}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.
367: \end{eqnarray}
368: %
369: The experimentally observed shrinkage of the machine circumference of
370: the storage ring \cite{MT00} imposes a constraint on the phase of the
371: gravitational wave, i.e. $-\sin 2\delta > 0$. For further estimates we
372: set $|\sin 2\delta|\sim 1$.
373:
374: Then, since $h_0 \ll 1$, we get the lower limit on the frequency,
375: $\omega \gg 2\times 10^{-6}{\rm yr}^{-1}$. This corresponds to an
376: oscillation period $T \ll 3\times 10^{-3}\,{\rm Gyr}$ of the shrinkage
377: of the machine circumference, which is smaller compared with the age
378: of the Universe $T \simeq 15\,{\rm Gyr}$ \cite{GB88}. Since the
379: oscillation period exceeds greatly any reasonable interval of
380: experimental measurements, the rate of the shrinkage of the machine
381: circumference, induced by the relic gravitational--wave background,
382: should be constant in time during any data--taking period. This agrees
383: with Eq.(\ref{label2.11}).
384:
385: We can also give a lower limit on the amplitude $h_0$. According to
386: the experimental data by Takao and Shimada \cite{MT00}, the oscillation
387: period of the rate of the machine circumference (\ref{label2.12})
388: should be much greater than 5 years, $T \gg 5\,{\rm yr}$. This gives
389: $\omega \ll 1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ and $h_0 \gg 10^{-3}$ and according to
390: (\ref{label2.7}) we get $h^{\rm gw}_0 \gg 10^{-15}$, the lower limit
391: on the amplitude of the relic gravitational--wave background imposed
392: by the experimental shrinkage of the machine circumference of the
393: storage ring (\ref{label2.12}).
394:
395: The rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference, represented in
396: terms of the relic gravitational--wave perturbations of the
397: Friedmann--Robertson--Walker metric (\ref{label2.5}), reads
398: %
399: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.14}
400: \Big\langle\frac{\Delta C_{\rm gw}(t)}{\Delta t}\Big\rangle_{\tau} =
401: \frac{\pi}{8}\,R_{\rm U}\,(h^{\rm gw}_0)^2\,\omega\,\sin 2\delta.
402: \end{eqnarray}
403: %
404: This shows that the rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference
405: does not depend on the length of the machine circumference of the
406: storage ring.
407:
408: Thus, in our interpretation of the shrinkage of the machine
409: circumference as induced by the relic gravitational--wave background,
410: the value of the rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference
411: should be universal and equal to $(\Delta C_{\rm gw}(t)/\Delta
412: t)_{\exp} = -\,2\times 10^{-4}\,{\rm m/yr}$ \cite{MT00} for storage
413: rings with any radii both for the SPring--8 with radius $R_0 \simeq
414: 229\,{\rm m}$ and for the DAPHNE with radius $R_0 \simeq 15\,{\rm m}$.
415:
416: Another important quantity characterizing the relic
417: gravitational--wave background is the density parameter $\Omega_{\rm
418: gw}$ defined by \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}
419: %
420: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label2.15}
421: \Omega_{\rm gw} = \frac{\omega^2 (h^{\rm gw}_0)^2}{12H^2_0}.
422: \end{eqnarray}
423: %
424: For the frequency $\omega \ll 1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ we get the upper limit
425: $\Omega_{\rm gw} \ll 10^{-10}$, where we have used that $\omega h_0
426: \sim 1.5\times 10^{-3}\sqrt{\omega} \ll 1.5\times 10^{-3}\,{\rm
427: yr^{-1}}$ for $\omega \ll 1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ giving due to
428: (\ref{label2.7}) the relation $\omega h^{\rm gw}_0 \sim 2\times
429: 10^{-15}\sqrt{\omega} \ll 2\times 10^{-15}\,{\rm yr^{-1}}$. The
430: estimate $\Omega_{\rm gw} \ll 10^{-10}$ does not contradict
431: contemporary cosmological models \cite{JP99}.
432:
433: \section{Equations of motion and shrinkage of machine circumference}
434: \setcounter{equation}{0}
435:
436: \hspace{0.2in} In this Section we show that the analysis of the
437: influence of the relic gravitational--wave background through the
438: solution of equations of motion for the storage ring in the
439: cylindrical relic gravitational--wave field gives the same result that
440: we have obtained in Section 2.
441:
442: According to \cite{JW73} (see pp.1004--1011 of Ref.\cite{JW73}) the
443: non--relativistic motion of a massive particle in the $xy$--plane at
444: $z = 0$ induced by the cylindrical gravitational--wave background can
445: be described the equations of motion
446: %
447: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.1}
448: \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}&=& - R^x_{0x0}\,x - R^x_{0y0}\,y,\nonumber\\
449: \frac{d^2y}{dt^2}&=& - R^y_{0x0}\,x - R^y_{0y0}\,y,
450: \end{eqnarray}
451: %
452: where $R^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma\delta}$ is the Riemann tensor defined
453: by \cite{JW73}
454: %
455: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.2}
456: R^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma\delta} = \frac{\partial
457: \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\beta\delta}}{\partial x^{\gamma}} - \frac{\partial
458: \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma}}{\partial x^{\delta}} +
459: \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\gamma}\,\Gamma^{\mu}_{\beta\delta} -
460: \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\delta}\,\Gamma^{\mu}_{\beta\gamma}.
461: \end{eqnarray}
462: %
463: The Christoffel symbols or differently the ``covariant connection
464: coefficients'' $\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\lambda\mu}$ are determined in terms
465: of the metric tensor \cite{JW73} (see also \cite{DG00})
466: %
467: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.3}
468: \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\lambda\mu} =
469: \frac{1}{2}\,g^{\alpha\nu}\,\Big(\frac{\partial g_{\mu\nu}}{\partial
470: x^{\lambda}} + \frac{\partial g_{\lambda\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}} -
471: \frac{\partial g_{\mu\lambda}}{\partial x^{\nu}}\Big).
472: \end{eqnarray}
473: %
474: For the calculation of the Christoffel symbols we use the following
475: metric tensor \cite{JW73} (see also \cite{DG00})
476: %
477: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.4}
478: g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}(t - z),
479: \end{eqnarray}
480: %
481: where $\eta_{\mu\nu} = {\rm diag}(- 1, 1, 1, 1)$ and $h_{\mu\nu}(t -
482: z)$ is a symmetric tensor defined in the {\it transverse traceless
483: gauge} with non--zero components $h_{xx}(t - z) = - h_{yy}(t - z)$ and
484: $h_{xy}(t - z) = h_{yx}(t - z)$ \cite{JW73}. In terms of
485: $h_{\mu\nu}(t - z)$ the Christoffel symbols are given by
486: %
487: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.5}
488: \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\lambda\mu} =
489: \frac{1}{2}\,\eta^{\alpha\nu}\,\Big(\frac{\partial
490: h_{\mu\nu}}{\partial x^{\lambda}} + \frac{\partial
491: h_{\lambda\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}} - \frac{\partial
492: h_{\mu\lambda}}{\partial x^{\nu}}\Big) -
493: \frac{1}{2}\,h^{\alpha\nu}\,\Big(\frac{\partial h_{\mu\nu}}{\partial
494: x^{\lambda}} + \frac{\partial h_{\lambda\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}} -
495: \frac{\partial h_{\mu\lambda}}{\partial x^{\nu}}\Big).
496: \end{eqnarray}
497: %
498: The components of the Riemann tensor contributing to the equations of
499: motion (\ref{label3.1})
500: %
501: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.6}
502: R^x_{0x0} &=& - \frac{d\Gamma^x_{0x}}{dt} - \Gamma^x_{x0}\Gamma^x_{0x}
503: - \Gamma^x_{y0}\Gamma^y_{0x}\quad,\quad R^x_{0y0} = -
504: \frac{d\Gamma^x_{0y}}{dt} - \Gamma^x_{x0}\Gamma^x_{0y} -
505: \Gamma^x_{y0}\Gamma^y_{0y},\nonumber\\ R^y_{0x0} &=& -
506: \frac{d\Gamma^y_{0x}}{dt} - \Gamma^y_{x0}\Gamma^x_{0x} -
507: \Gamma^y_{y0}\Gamma^y_{0x}\quad,\quad R^y_{0y0} = -
508: \frac{d\Gamma^y_{0y}}{dt} - \Gamma^y_{x0}\Gamma^x_{0y} -
509: \Gamma^y_{y0}\Gamma^y_{0y}.
510: \end{eqnarray}
511: %
512: The Christoffel symbols read
513: %
514: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.7}
515: \hspace{-0.3in}\Gamma^x_{0x}&=& + \frac{1}{2}\,\frac{dh_{xx}}{dt} -
516: \frac{1}{4}\, \frac{d}{dt}(h^2_{xx} + h^2_{xy})\quad\quad\;,\;
517: \Gamma^y_{0y} = - \frac{1}{2}\,\frac{dh_{xx}}{dt} - \frac{1}{4}\,
518: \frac{d}{dt}(h^2_{xx} + h^2_{xy}),\nonumber\\
519: \hspace{-0.3in}\Gamma^x_{0y}&=& + \frac{1}{2}\,\frac{dh_{xy}}{dt} -
520: \frac{1}{2}\,h_{xx} h_{xy}\,\frac{d}{dt}{\ell
521: n}\Big(\frac{h_{xy}}{h_{xx}}\Big)\;,\; \Gamma^y_{0x} = +
522: \frac{1}{2}\,\frac{dh_{xy}}{dt} + \frac{1}{2}\,h_{xx}
523: h_{xy}\,\frac{d}{dt}{\ell n}\Big(\frac{h_{xy}}{h_{xx}}\Big).
524: \end{eqnarray}
525: %
526: For the monochromatic gravitational waves the ratio $h_{xy}/h_{xx} =
527: \Delta_{\times}/\Delta_+$ is constant and the Christoffel symbols
528: $\Gamma^x_{0y}$ and $\Gamma^y_{0x}$ are linear in $h_{ab}$.
529:
530: For the calculation of the components of the Riemann tensor, defining
531: the equations of motion (\ref{label3.1}), we keep also the terms of
532: order $O(h^2_{ab})$ inclusively and obtain
533: %
534: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.8}
535: R^x_{0x0} &=& - \frac{1}{2}\,\frac{d^2h_{xx}}{dt^2} +
536: \frac{1}{4}\,\frac{d^2}{dt^2}(h^2_{xx} + h^2_{xy}) -
537: \frac{1}{4}\,\Big[\Big(\frac{dh_{xx}}{dt}\Big)^2 +
538: \Big(\frac{dh_{xy}}{dt}\Big)^2\Big],\nonumber\\ R^x_{0y0} &=&
539: R^y_{0x0} = - \frac{1}{2}\,\frac{d^2h_{xy}}{dt^2} ,\nonumber\\
540: R^y_{0y0} &=&+ \frac{1}{2}\,\frac{d^2h_{xx}}{dt^2} +
541: \frac{1}{4}\,\frac{d^2}{dt^2}(h^2_{xx} + h^2_{xy}) -
542: \frac{1}{4}\,\Big[\Big(\frac{dh_{xx}}{dt}\Big)^2 +
543: \Big(\frac{dh_{xy}}{dt}\Big)^2\Big].
544: \end{eqnarray}
545: %
546: Substituting (\ref{label3.8}) in the equations of motion
547: (\ref{label3.1}) we get
548: %
549: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.9}
550: \ddot{x}&=&\frac{1}{2}\,\ddot{h}_{xx}(t)\,x +
551: \frac{1}{2}\,\ddot{h}_{xy}(t)\,y - \frac{1}{4}\,(\ddot{h^2}(t) -
552: \dot{h}^2(t))\,x, \nonumber\\ \ddot{y}&=&
553: \frac{1}{2}\,\ddot{h}_{xy}(t)\,x - \frac{1}{2}\,\ddot{h}_{xx}(t)\,y -
554: \frac{1}{4}\,(\ddot{h^2}(t) - \dot{h}^2(t))\,y,
555: \end{eqnarray}
556: %
557: where overdots stand for the derivative with respect to time. We have
558: denoted $h^2 = h^2_{xx} + h^2_{xy}$ and $\dot{h}^2 = \dot{h}^2_{xx} +
559: \dot{h}^2_{xy}$.
560:
561: The equations of motion (\ref{label3.9}) can be treated as the
562: Lagrange equations derived from the Lagrange function
563: %
564: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.10}
565: L(t,x,y,\dot{x},\dot{y}) &=& \frac{1}{2}\,(\dot{x}^2 + \dot{y}^2) -
566: \frac{1}{8}\,(\ddot{h^2}(t) - \dot{h}^2(t))\,(x^2 + y^2)\nonumber\\
567: &&+ \frac{1}{4}\,\ddot{h}_{xx}(t)\,(x^2 - y^2) +
568: \frac{1}{2}\,\ddot{h}_{xy}(t)\,xy.
569: \end{eqnarray}
570: %
571: In the polar coordinates $x = r\cos\Phi$ and $y = r\sin \Phi$ we
572: get
573: %
574: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.11}
575: L(t, r, \varphi, \dot{r}, \dot{\Phi}) &=& \frac{1}{2}\,\dot{r}^2 -
576: \frac{1}{8}\,(\ddot{h^2}(t) - \dot{h}^2(t))\,r^2\nonumber\\ &&+
577: \frac{1}{2}\,r^2\dot{\Phi}^2 +
578: \frac{1}{4}\,r^2\,(\ddot{h}_{xx}(t)\,\cos 2\Phi +
579: \ddot{h}_{xy}(t)\,\sin 2\Phi).
580: \end{eqnarray}
581: %
582: Assuming that the radius $r$ is almost constant we can factorize
583: radial and angular degrees of freedom.
584: %
585: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.12}
586: L(t, r, \varphi, \dot{r}, \dot{\Phi}) &=& \frac{1}{2}\,\dot{r}^2 -
587: \frac{1}{8}\,(\ddot{h^2}(t) - \dot{h}^2(t))\,r^2\nonumber\\ &&+
588: R^2_0\,\Big[\frac{1}{2}\,\dot{\varphi}^2 +
589: \frac{1}{4}\,(\ddot{h}_{xx}(t)\,\cos 2\Phi + \ddot{h}_{xy}(t)\,\sin
590: 2\Phi)\Big].
591: \end{eqnarray}
592: %
593: where $R_0$ is the radius of the machine circumference, $R_0 =
594: C_0/2\pi$.
595:
596: The equations of motion for the radius $r(t)$ and the azimuthal angle
597: $\Phi(t)$ are equal to
598: %
599: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.13}
600: \ddot{r}(t) &=& - \frac{1}{4}\,(\ddot{h^2}(t) -
601: \dot{h}^2(t))\,r(t),\nonumber\\ \ddot{\Phi}(t)&=&-
602: \frac{1}{2}\,(\ddot{h}_{xx}(t)\,\sin 2\Phi(t) - \ddot{h}_{xy}(t)\,\cos
603: 2\Phi(t)).
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: %
606: Since $\Phi(t) \ll 1$, the solution reads
607: %
608: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.14}
609: \Phi(t) &=& \frac{1}{2}\,h_{xy}(t) =
610: \frac{1}{2}\,\Delta_{\times}\,\cos(\omega t + \delta),\nonumber\\
611: \dot{\Phi}(t) &=& \frac{1}{2}\,\dot{h}_{xy}(t) = -
612: \frac{1}{2}\,\Delta_{\times}\,\omega\,\sin(\omega t + \delta).
613: \end{eqnarray}
614: %
615: For the frequencies of the gravitational wave background corresponding
616: to the low--frequency limit $\omega \to 0$ we get
617: %
618: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.15}
619: \dot{\Phi}(t) = - \frac{1}{2}\,\Delta_{\times}\,\omega\,\sin\delta.
620: \end{eqnarray}
621: %
622: This predicts the rotation of the machine circumference with a
623: practically constant velocity in dependence on the polarization and
624: phase of the gravitational wave background.
625:
626: Assuming that $r(t)$ is a smooth function of $t$ and replacing the
627: radius $r(t)$ by $R_0 = C_0/2\pi$ in the r.h.s. of (\ref{label3.13})
628: we get
629: %
630: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.16}
631: \frac{1}{R_0}\,\frac{dr(t)}{dt} = - \frac{1}{4}\,\int^t_0
632: d\tau\,(\ddot{h^2}(\tau) - \dot{h}^2(\tau)) + D
633: \end{eqnarray}
634: %
635: where a constant $D$ cancels all constant contributions to the
636: r.h.s. of (\ref{label3.16}).
637:
638: For the relic monochromatic cylindrical gravitational wave $h_{xx} =
639: \Delta_+\,\cos(\omega t + \delta)$ and $h_{xy} =
640: \Delta_\times\,\cos(\omega t + \delta)$ the r.h.s. of
641: (\ref{label3.15}) is equal to
642: %
643: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.17}
644: \frac{1}{R_0}\,\frac{dr(t)}{dt} = \frac{1}{16}\,h^2_0\,\omega\,
645: \sin(2\omega t + 2\delta) - \frac{1}{8}\,h^2_0\omega^2 t.
646: \end{eqnarray}
647: %
648: At leading order in the low--frequency limit $\omega \to 0$ we get
649: %
650: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.18}
651: \frac{1}{C_0}\frac{dC(t)}{dt} = \frac{1}{16}\,h^2_0\,\omega\,\sin
652: 2\delta.
653: \end{eqnarray}
654: %
655: This agrees fully with our result (\ref{label2.11}) obtained within
656: the hypothesis of the {\it gravitational strain}.
657:
658: Some similar formulas calculated in this section one can find in the
659: paper by van Holten \cite{JH99} devoted to the analysis of the
660: cyclotron motion in a gravitational--wave background.
661:
662: The fluctuations of the Friedmann--Roberson--Walker metric $h_{ab}(t -
663: z)$ we define as \cite{VR82}--\cite{MS00}
664: %
665: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.19}
666: ds^2 = a^2(t)( - dt^2 + dz^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + h^{\rm gw}_{ab}(t -
667: z)dx^a dx^b),
668: \end{eqnarray}
669: %
670: where $a(t)$ is a scale factor \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99}.
671: From (\ref{label3.19}) we obtain \cite{BA88}
672: %
673: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label3.20}
674: h_{ab}(t - z) = a^2(t)h^{\rm gw}_{ab}(t - z).
675: \end{eqnarray}
676: %
677: The explicit expression for the scale factor $a(t)$ depends on the
678: epoch of the evolution of the Universe \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99} (see
679: also \cite{BA88}--\cite{BA96}). The relation (\ref{label3.20}) does
680: not contradict our estimate (\ref{label2.7}).
681:
682: \section{Shrinkage of the machine circumference as diastrophism
683: of the Earth crust}
684:
685: In this Section we give arguments against a possibility to explain the
686: observed shrinkage of the machine circumference of the SPring--8
687: storage ring by diastrophic tectonic forces or {\it diastrophism of
688: the Earth crust}.
689:
690: There are major forces acting within the Earth crust. They can be
691: forces of {\it compression}, {\it tension} or {\it shearing}. They may
692: be directly due to plate tectonics or caused by more localized or
693: regionalized stresses. When these forces actually deform parts of the
694: crust, the resulting landforms produced are said to have been formed
695: by {\it diastrophism}. Diastrophism can cause {\it uplifting}, {\it
696: rifting}, {\it doming}, and {\it tilting} of regions of the Earth
697: surface. However, the major forms of diastrophism are associated with
698: either {\it folding} or {\it faulting}. When these forces actually
699: deform parts of the crust, the resulting landforms produced are said
700: to have been formed by {\it diastrophism} \cite{D1}.
701:
702: Since the shrinkage of the machine circumference can be identified to
703: some extent with the deformation of the part of the Earth crust, an
704: alternative source of the systematic shrinkage could be, in principle,
705: caused by {\it diastrophism}. First let us estimate the value of the
706: {\it part of the Earth crust} which is undergone by {\it
707: diastrophism}. The area occupied by the storage ring is equal to $S_0
708: = C^2_0/4\pi = 0.164\,{\rm km}^2$ with a radius $R_0 = C_0/2\pi =
709: 0.229\,{\rm km}$. The deformation of this part of the Earth crust
710: leads to the systematic shrinkage of the crust to the center of the
711: machine circumference of the storage ring. Since neither {\it
712: faulting} nor {\it tilting} can contribute to this shrinkage, so only
713: {\it folding} of the Earth crust can be attracted to the explanation
714: of this phenomenon.
715:
716: Indeed, {\it folding} occurs when rocks buckle or fold due to
717: horizontal or vertical pressure. They are shaped into an arch (called
718: {\it anticline}) or a trough (called {\it syncline}), or they may
719: override an adjacent fold \cite{D1}.
720:
721: However, the linear scale of the machine circumference of the storage
722: ring $R_0$ is smaller compared with linear scales $L$ of tectonic
723: forces providing {\it moldings} of the Earth crust, which are of order
724: of a few kilometers, and, correspondingly $L \gg R_0$. Of course, the
725: Global Positioning System (GPS) admits a measuring of motion of some
726: parts of the Earth crust with a velocity comeasurable with the rate of
727: the shrinkage of the machine circumference of the storage ring which
728: is of order $2\times 10^{-4}\,{\rm m/yr}$ \cite{D1}. However, it is
729: very unlikely that in such a seismic active country as Japan a center
730: of tectonic forces, leading to the shrinkage of the machine
731: circumference, would be localized with a great precision at the center
732: of the machine circumference during more than 5 years.
733:
734: Therefore, we can conclude that the observed shrinkage of the machine
735: circumference of the SPring--8 storage ring, located in Japan, can be
736: hardly caused by diastrophic tectonic forces. It seems extremely
737: incredible that the diastrophic tectonic forces, discussed above,
738: would really be able to produce a longer then few--year lasting
739: folding of the Earth crust with the scale $D \simeq 0.458\,{\rm km}$
740: to the center of the machine circumference of the storage ring.
741:
742: Thus, one can believe that the mechanism of the shrinkage of the
743: machine circumference related to the gravitational--wave background
744: seems to be more credible and probable with respect to any one caused
745: by tectonic forces.
746:
747: \section{Shrinkage of the machine circumference and stiffness of
748: the physical structures, governing the path of the beam}
749: \setcounter{equation}{0}
750:
751: In this section we discuss the influence of the forces, related to the
752: {\it stiffness} of the physical structures of the storage ring,
753: governing the path of the beam (mounts of magnets, for instance). In
754: fact, one can imagine that the forces, induced by the {\it stiffness}
755: of the physical structures of the storage ring, can prevent the
756: machine circumference of the storage ring from the shrinkage caused by
757: the relic gravitational--wave background. If it is so this should mean
758: that the observed shrinkage of the machine circumference of the
759: storage ring cannot be explained by the influence of the relic
760: gravitational--wave background. Below we show that the forces, related
761: to the {\it stiffness} of the physical structures of the storage ring,
762: can be neglected for the analysis of the shrinkage of the machine
763: circumference, caused by the relic gravitational--wave background.
764:
765: Let us denote the forces, caused by the {\it stiffness} of the
766: physical structures of the storage ring, as $\vec{F}_{\rm stiff}$.
767: The observation of the fluctuations of the machine circumference,
768: induced by the tidal and seasonal forces \cite{SD99,MT00}, assumes
769: that the forces, produced by the {\it stiffness} of the physical
770: structures of the storage ring, are smaller compared with the tidal
771: and seasonal forces.
772:
773: Since the seasonal forces are smaller compared with the tidal forces
774: but have been measured experimentally by the change of the machine
775: circumference, it is obvious that the forces, induced by the {\it
776: stiffness} of the physical structures of the storage ring, should be
777: smaller compared with the seasonal forces.
778:
779: This can be written in the form of the inequality
780: %
781: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label5.1}
782: |\vec{F}_{\rm stiff}| \ll | \vec{F}_{\rm s}(\vec{r}\,)|,
783: \end{eqnarray}
784: %
785: where the force $\vec{F}_{\rm s}(\vec{r}\,)$ is defined by \cite{SD99}
786: %
787: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label5.2}
788: \vec{F}_{\rm s}(\vec{r}\,) = - \bigtriangledown\,U_{\rm s}(\vec{r}\,).
789: \end{eqnarray}
790: %
791: The potential $U_{\rm s}(\vec{r}\,)$, produced by the Sun, is given by
792: \cite{SD99}
793: %
794: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label5.3}
795: U_{\rm s}(\vec{r}\,) = G_N M_{\odot}\,\Bigg(\frac{1}{|\vec{R}_s -
796: \vec{r}\,|} - \frac{1}{R_s} - \frac{\vec{r}\cdot
797: \vec{R}_s}{R^3_s}\Bigg),
798: \end{eqnarray}
799: %
800: where $G_N = 6.636 \times 10^4\,{\rm m^3\,kg^{-1}\,yr^{-2}}$
801: \cite{DG00}, $M_{\odot} = 1.989\times 10^{30}\,{\rm kg}$ is the mass
802: of the Sun, $R_s = 1.496\times 10^{11}\,{\rm m}$ is the distance
803: between centers of the Sun and the Earth, $|\vec{r}| = R_{\oplus} =
804: 6.378\times 10^6\,{\rm m}$ is the radius of the Earth.
805:
806: The rate of the change of the machine circumference, caused by the
807: tidal and seasonal forces is of order of $|\Delta C/\Delta t| =
808: 4\times 10^{-4}\,{\rm m/yr}$ \cite{SD99,MT00}. The the experimental
809: rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference, $|\Delta C/\Delta
810: t| = 2\times 10^{-4}\,{\rm m/yr}$ \cite{MT00}, is of the same order of
811: magnitude. This implies that the forces, leading to the shrinkage of
812: the machine circumference, can be of gravitational nature. Moreover,
813: the forces, induced by the {\it stiffness} of the physical structures
814: of the storage ring, governing the path of the beam, should be smaller
815: compared with the forces responsible for the shrinkage.
816:
817: In order to get a quantitative confirmation of this assertion we
818: suggest to compare the energy densities of the seasonal forces and the
819: relic gravitational--wave background. Following
820: \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99} we define the energy density of the seasonal
821: forces and the gravitational--wave background as
822: %
823: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label5.4}
824: T^{\rm s}_{00} &\sim& \frac{1}{32\pi c^2 G_N}\,\Big\langle \Big(
825: \frac{2\pi}{T_s}\,U_{\rm s}(\vec{r}\,)\Big)^2\Big\rangle = \frac{\pi
826: G_N M^2_{\odot} R^4_{\otimes}}{40 c^2 T^2_s R^6_s},\nonumber\\ T^{\rm
827: gw}_{00} &=& \frac{c^2\omega^2(h^{\rm gw}_0)^2}{32\pi G_N},
828: \end{eqnarray}
829: %
830: where $T_s = 0.5\,{\rm yr}$ is a period of the seasonal
831: forces\,\footnote{We have used for the estimate of the
832: time--derivative of the potential $U_s(\vec{r}\,)$ the relation
833: $|\dot{U}_{\rm s}(\vec{r}\,)| \sim \omega_s|U_{\rm s}(\vec{r}\,)|$,
834: where $\omega_s = 2\pi/T_s$ is a characteristic frequency of the
835: time--variations of the seasonal forces \cite{AM77}.}.
836:
837: Assuming that the energy density of the gravitational--wave background
838: $T^{\rm gw}_{00}$ should be of the same order of magnitude as the
839: energy density of the seasonal forces $T^{\rm s}_{00}$, $T^{\rm
840: gw}_{00} \sim T^{\rm s}_{00}$, we can get a constraint on the
841: amplitude and frequency of the gravitational--wave background
842: responsible for the observed shrinkage of the machine circumference
843: \cite{MT00}. Setting $T^{\rm gw}_{00} \sim T^{\rm s}_{00}$ we obtain
844: %
845: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label5.5}
846: \omega h^{\rm gw}_0 \sim \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{5}}\,\frac{G_N M_{\odot}
847: R^2_{\otimes}}{c^2 T_s R^3_s}\simeq 10^{-16}\,{\rm yr^{-1}}.
848: \end{eqnarray}
849: %
850: For $\omega \ll 1\,{\rm yr^{-1}}$ the relation (\ref{label5.5}) gives
851: $h^{\rm gw}_0 \gg 10^{-16}$ that agrees with our estimate $h^{\rm
852: gw}_0 \gg 10^{-15}$ given in section 2.
853:
854: This should testify that the {\it stiffness} of the physical
855: structures of the storage ring, governing the path of the beam, can be
856: neglected for the analysis of the shrinkage of the machine
857: circumference, caused by the relic gravitational--wave background.
858:
859: \section{Stochastic relic gravitational--wave background}
860: \setcounter{equation}{0}
861:
862: In this section we analyse the shrinkage of the machine circumference
863: \cite{MT00} coupled to the relic gravitational--wave background
864: treated as a stochastic system \cite{BA88,BA96,SWB1}--\cite{SWB3}. We
865: show that the suggested explanation of the shrinkage of the machine
866: circumference, measured at the SPring--8 \cite{MT00}, by the relic
867: gravitational--wave background survives even if the storage ring
868: interacts with the stochastic relic gravitational waves coming from
869: all quarters of the Universe. This is related to the fact that the
870: observed shrinkage of the machine circumference of the storage ring is
871: an effect of the second order of the interaction of the gravitational
872: waves with the machine circumference.
873:
874: Below we consider spherical relic gravitational waves \cite{SWB3,SGW1}
875: converging to the center of the machine circumference\,\footnote{The
876: spherical gravitational waves, converging to the center of the machine
877: circumference, we define as \cite{SGW1}: $h_{ab}(t,|\vec{r} -
878: \vec{R}_0|) \sim \cos(\omega(t - |\vec{r} - \vec{R}_0|/c) +
879: \delta)/|\vec{r} - \vec{R}_0|$, where the vector $\vec{R}_0$ is the
880: radius--vector of the machine circumference, located in the plane of
881: the machine circumference $|\vec{R}_0| = R_0 = C_0/2\pi$, and
882: $\vec{r}$ is the radius--vector of the observer. It is zero , $\vec{r}
883: = 0$, at the center of the machine circumference.}. The relic
884: gravitational waves are polarized in the $(\varphi_s\vartheta_s)$
885: plane, defined by unit vectors $\vec{e}_{\varphi_s}$ and
886: $\vec{e}_{\vartheta_s}$ as it is shown in Fig.1, perpendicular to the
887: direction of the propagation, which is anti--parallel to the unit
888: vector $\vec{e}_r$. The polarization tensor, determined in the {\it
889: transverse traceless gauge}, has the following non--vanishing
890: components: $\Delta_{\varphi_s\varphi_s} = -
891: \Delta_{\vartheta_s\vartheta_s} = \Delta_+$ and
892: $\Delta_{\varphi_s\vartheta_s} = \Delta_{\vartheta_s\varphi_s} =
893: \Delta_\times$.
894:
895: It is convenient to analyse the influence of the stochastic relic
896: gravitational--wave background on the shrinkage of the machine
897: circumference in terms of the {\it gravitational strain} as it is done
898: in Section 2.
899:
900: The {\it gravitational strain} of the machine circumference, induced
901: by the stochastic relic gravitational waves incoming from all quarters
902: of the Universe, can be defined by
903: %
904: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label6.1}
905: \hspace{-0.3in}\delta C_{\rm gw}(t) = - \frac{C_0}{16\pi}\int
906: d\Omega_s \int^{2\pi}_0\langle( h_{xx}(t)\,\cos 2\varphi +
907: h_{xy}(t)\sin2\varphi)^2\rangle d\varphi,
908: \end{eqnarray}
909: %
910: where $h_{xx}(t)$ and $h_{xy}(t)$ are given by
911: %
912: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label6.2}
913: h_{xx}(t) &=& \cos\vartheta_s\,(\Delta_+\,\cos 2\varphi_s +
914: \Delta_\times\,\sin 2\varphi_s)\,\cos\Big(\omega \Big(t -
915: \frac{R_0}{c}\Big) + \delta\Big),\nonumber\\ h_{xy}(t)&=&
916: \cos\vartheta_s\,(- \Delta_+\,\sin 2\varphi_s + \Delta_\times\,\cos
917: 2\varphi_s)\,\cos\Big(\omega \Big(t - \frac{R_0}{c}\Big) +
918: \delta\Big)
919: \end{eqnarray}
920: %
921: and $h_{yy}(t) = - h_{xx}(t)$. Below we neglect $R_0/c = 7.6\times
922: 10^{-7}\,{\rm s}$, where $R_0 \simeq 229\,{\rm m}$ is the radius of
923: the machine circumference, relative to the data--taking period $\tau$,
924: which is about a few years \cite{MT00}. The quantities $h_{xx}(t)$,
925: $h_{yy}(t)$ and $h_{xy}(t)$ are the projections of the components of
926: the polarization tensor of the spherical relic gravitational wave on
927: the plane of the machine circumference (see Fig.1). They depend on the
928: angles $\vartheta_s$ and $\varphi_s$, which are the angle of the slope
929: of the polarization plane of the gravitational wave relative to the
930: plane of the machine circumference and the azimuthal angle,
931: respectively (see Fig.1). At $\vartheta_s = \varphi_s = 0$ we get a
932: gravitational wave equivalent to the cylindrical gravitational wave
933: defined by (\ref{label2.1}).
934:
935: Integration over the angles $\vartheta_s$ and $\varphi_s$, where
936: $d\Omega_s = \sin\vartheta_sd\vartheta_sd\varphi_s$, takes into
937: account the contribution of the stochastic relic gravitational waves
938: incoming on the plane of the machine circumference from all quarters
939: of the Universe\,\footnote{It is assumed that the Earth is transparent
940: for the relic gravitational waves.}. Following
941: \cite{BA96,SWB1}--\cite{SWB3} we assume that the stochastic relic
942: gravitational--wave background is isotropic.
943: %
944: \begin{figure}
945: \centering \psfrag{p}{$\vec{e}_r$} \psfrag{g}{$\vec{e}_{\vartheta_s}$}
946: \psfrag{a}{$\varphi_s$}
947: \psfrag{b}{$\vartheta_s$}\psfrag{d}{$\vec{e}_{\varphi_s}$}
948: \psfrag{x}{$\vec{e}_x$} \psfrag{y}{$\vec{e}_y$}
949: \psfrag{z}{$\vec{e}_z$}
950: \includegraphics[height=0.30\textheight]{fig1.eps}
951: \caption{The orientation of the polarization plane of the stochastic
952: relic gravitational waves relative to the plane of the machine circumference.}
953: \end{figure}
954: %
955:
956:
957: In Eq.(\ref{label6.1}) the brackets $\langle \ldots\rangle$ mean
958: %
959: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label6.3}
960: \langle f\rangle = \int^{\infty}_0 d\omega\,S_h(\omega)\,f(\omega),
961: \end{eqnarray}
962: %
963: where $S_h(\omega)$ is a spectral density, caused by the averaging
964: over stochastic degrees of freedom of the relic gravitational--wave
965: background \cite{SWB1}--\cite{SWB2}. We suppose that the spectral
966: density $S_h(\omega)$ is normalized to unity.
967:
968: The properties of the spectral density $S_h(\omega)$ depend on the
969: theoretical model of the stochastic relic gravitational--wave
970: background. We do not suggest any theoretic model of a stochastic
971: gravitational--wave background and our approach to the description of
972: the stochastic relic gravitational--wave background is
973: phenomenological to full extent. The properties of the spectral
974: density $S_h(\omega)$, such as a localization in the region of very
975: low frequencies, $\omega \ll 1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, and so, we specify in
976: terms of constraints on the averaged frequencies $\langle \omega
977: \rangle$ and $\langle \omega^2 \rangle$. These constraints come from
978: the comparison of the experimental and theoretical rates of the
979: shrinkage of the machine circumference, where the theoretical rate is
980: defined by the interaction of the storage ring with the stochastic
981: relic gravitational--wave background.
982:
983: Substituting (\ref{label6.2}) into (\ref{label6.1}) we get
984: %
985: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label6.4}
986: \hspace{-0.3in}\delta C_{\rm gw}(t) &=& -
987: \frac{C_0}{16\pi}\int^{\infty}_0d\omega\,S_h(\omega)\,\cos^2(\omega t
988: + \delta)\int d\Omega_s\,\cos^2\vartheta_s\nonumber\\
989: \hspace{-0.3in}&\times& \int^{2\pi}_0\,\Big[\Delta_+\,\cos 2(\varphi_s
990: + \varphi) + \Delta_\times\,\sin 2(\varphi_s +
991: \varphi)\Big]^2\,d\varphi,
992: \end{eqnarray}
993: %
994: Integrating over the angular variables we obtain the {\it
995: gravitational strain}, induced by the stochastic spherical relic
996: gravitational--wave background incoming on the plane of the machine
997: circumference from all quarters of the Universe. It reads
998: %
999: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label6.5}
1000: \hspace{-0.3in}\delta C_{\rm gw}(t) &=& -
1001: \frac{4\pi}{3}\,\frac{1}{16}\,C_0h^2_0\int^{\infty}_0
1002: d\omega\,S_h(\omega)\,\cos^2(\omega t + \delta),
1003: \end{eqnarray}
1004: %
1005: where $h_0 = \sqrt{\Delta^2_+ + \Delta^2_\times}$.
1006:
1007: The relative rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference can be
1008: defined by
1009: %
1010: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label6.6}
1011: \frac{1}{C_0}\,\frac{\Delta C_{\rm gw}}{\Delta t} =
1012: \frac{4\pi}{3}\,\frac{1}{16}\,h^2_0 \int^{\infty}_0
1013: d\omega\,\omega\,S_h(\omega)\,\sin(2\omega t + 2\delta).
1014: \end{eqnarray}
1015: %
1016: In such a form the rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference
1017: resembles two--point correlation functions of the operators of the
1018: gravitational waves appearing in the description of the relic
1019: gravitational--wave background as a stochastic system
1020: \cite{SWB1}--\cite{SWB3}.
1021:
1022: For the comparison of the theoretical rate of the change of the
1023: machine circumference (\ref{label6.6}) with the experimental data one
1024: has to average the theoretical rate over the data--taking period
1025: $\tau$. This gives
1026: %
1027: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label6.7}
1028: \frac{1}{C_0}\,\Big\langle \frac{\Delta C_{\rm gw}}{\Delta
1029: t}\Big\rangle_{\tau} &=& \frac{4\pi}{3}\,\frac{1}{16}\,h^2_0
1030: \int^{\infty}_0 d\omega\,\omega\,S_h(\omega)\frac{1}{\tau}\int^{+
1031: \tau/2}_{-\tau/2}dt\,\sin(2\omega t + 2\delta) =\nonumber\\
1032: &=&\frac{4\pi}{3}\,\frac{1}{16}\,h^2_0\,\sin2\delta \int^{\infty}_0
1033: d\omega\,\omega\,S_h(\omega)\,\frac{\sin \omega \tau}{\omega \tau}.
1034: \end{eqnarray}
1035: %
1036: Since we deal with a relic gravitational--wave background, we suppose
1037: that the frequencies of the relic gravitational waves satisfy the
1038: constraint $\omega \tau \ll 1$.
1039:
1040: For the validity of this constraint we have to assume that the
1041: spectral density $S_h(\omega)$ is localized in the region of
1042: frequencies of order of $\omega \ll 1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$.
1043:
1044: In the case of the dominance of the region $\omega \tau \ll 1$ in the
1045: integrand of the integral over $\omega$ in the r.h.s. of
1046: (\ref{label6.7}), we can transcribe Eq.(\ref{label6.7}) into the form
1047: %
1048: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label6.8}
1049: \frac{1}{C_0}\,\Big\langle \frac{\Delta C_{\rm gw}}{\Delta
1050: t}\Big\rangle_{\tau} = \frac{4\pi}{3}\,\frac{1}{16}\,h^2_0\, \langle
1051: \omega \rangle\,\sin 2\delta,
1052: \end{eqnarray}
1053: %
1054: where $\langle \omega \rangle$ we determine as an averaged frequency
1055: of the stochastic relic gravitational--wave background weighted with
1056: the spectral density $S_h(\omega)$. It reads
1057: %
1058: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label6.9}
1059: \langle \omega\rangle = \int^{\infty}_0 d\omega\,\omega\,S_h(\omega).
1060: \end{eqnarray}
1061: %
1062: The expression (\ref{label6.8}) differs by a factor $4\pi/3$ from the
1063: rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference given by
1064: Eq.(\ref{label2.11}). Such a factor is caused by the summation over
1065: all directions of the relic gravitational waves coupled to the storage
1066: ring. The appearance of the factor $4\pi/3$ does not change
1067: significantly our estimates made below Eq.(\ref{label2.13}).
1068:
1069: Now from the comparison of the theoretical rate (\ref{label6.8}) with
1070: the experimental one (\ref{label2.12}) we get $\langle \omega \rangle
1071: \gg 5\times 10^{-7}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. For the averaged period of
1072: oscillations of the machine circumference this gives $\langle T\rangle
1073: \ll 10^{-2}\,{\rm Gyr}$.
1074:
1075: The upper limit on the density parameter $\Omega_{\rm gw} \ll
1076: 10^{-10}$, given by (\ref{label2.15}), is left unchanged for
1077: $\sqrt{\langle \omega^2\rangle} \ll 1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, which is not
1078: related to the factor $4\pi/3$. Remind that the constraint
1079: $\sqrt{\langle \omega^2\rangle} \ll 1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ is caused by the
1080: experimental fact that the period of the observed shrinkage of the
1081: machine circumference of the SPring--8 storage ring should be greater
1082: than 5 years \cite{MT00}.
1083:
1084: Of course, the constraints $\langle \omega \rangle \gg 5\times
1085: 10^{-7}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ and $\sqrt{\langle \omega^2\rangle} \ll
1086: 1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ can be justified only by the properties of the
1087: spectral density $S_h(\omega)$ within a certain theoretical model of
1088: the stochastic relic gravitational--wave background.
1089:
1090: For the rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference, given in
1091: terms of the stochastic relic gravitational--wave perturbations of the
1092: Friedmann--Robertson--Walker metric (\ref{label2.5}), we obtain
1093: %
1094: \begin{eqnarray}\label{label6.10}
1095: \Big\langle \frac{\Delta C_{\rm gw}}{\Delta t}\Big\rangle_{\tau} =
1096: \frac{4\pi}{3}\,\frac{\pi}{8}\,R_{\rm U}\,(h^{\rm gw}_0)^2\, \langle
1097: \omega \rangle\,\sin 2\delta,
1098: \end{eqnarray}
1099: %
1100: where $h^{\rm gw}_0 = \sqrt{(\Delta^{\rm gw}_+)^2 + (\Delta^{\rm
1101: gw}_{\times})^2}$.
1102:
1103: The r.h.s. of (\ref{label6.10}) does not depend on the length of the
1104: the machine circumference. Therefore, the rate of the shrinkage of the
1105: machine circumference should be universal for all storage rings with
1106: any radii.
1107:
1108: From the comparison of (\ref{label6.10}) with (\ref{label6.8}) one can
1109: conclude that the relation between the amplitudes $h_0$ and $h^{\rm
1110: gw}_0$, given by Eq.(\ref{label2.7}), is retained for the stochastic
1111: relic gravitational--wave background incoming on the plane of the
1112: machine circumference from all quarters of the Universe.
1113:
1114: Thus, within our phenomenological approach to the description of the
1115: stochastic relic gravitational--wave background the interaction of the
1116: stochastic relic gravitational--wave background, incoming on the plane
1117: of the machine circumference from all quarters of the Universe, with
1118: the storage ring does not destroy the shrinkage of the machine
1119: circumference of the storage ring, observed in \cite{MT00}. Formally,
1120: this is due to the phenomenon of the shrinkage of the machine
1121: circumference is of the second order in gravitational wave
1122: interactions.
1123:
1124: \section{Conclusion}
1125:
1126: The results obtained above should be understood as a hint that
1127: experimental analysis of fine variations of the machine circumferences
1128: of the storage rings can, in principle, contain an information about
1129: the relic gravitational--wave background on the same footing as the
1130: storage rings are sensitive to the tidal and seasonal forces
1131: \cite{LA95}--\cite{MT00}.
1132:
1133: We argue that if the systematic shrinkage of the machine circumference
1134: of the storage ring, observed at the SPring--8 \cite{MT00}, is caused by
1135: the influence of the relic gravitational--wave background, the same
1136: effect should be measured for the machine circumference of the storage
1137: ring of any accelerator, for example, the LEP at CERN \cite{LA95}, the
1138: ELSA at University of Bonn, the DAPHNE at Frascati, the VEPP--4 at
1139: Novosibirsk and others.
1140:
1141: We have shown that the rate of the shrinkage of the machine
1142: circumference, represented in terms of the relic gravitational--wave
1143: perturbations of the Friedmann--Robertson--Walker metric, does not
1144: depend on the length of the machine circumference and should be
1145: universal for any storage ring with any radius (see
1146: Eqs.(\ref{label2.14}) and (\ref{label6.10})).
1147:
1148: This makes very simple the experimental analysis of the validity of
1149: our hypothesis of the influence of the relic gravitational--wave
1150: background on the shrinkage of the machine circumference of the
1151: SPring--8 storage ring. Indeed, it is sufficient to measure the rates
1152: of the shrinkage of the machine circumferences of the storage rings of
1153: the LEP at CERN, the DAPHNE at Frascati, the VEPP--4 at Novosibirsk or
1154: of any other accelerators. If the rates of the shrinkage of the
1155: machine circumferences of the storage rings would have been found
1156: comeasurable with the value $ (\Delta C(t)/\Delta t)_{\exp} =
1157: -\,2\times 10^{-4}\,{\rm m/yr}$, obtained for the SPring--8 storage
1158: ring \cite{MT00}, this should testify the detection of the relic
1159: gravitational--wave background. Any negative result should bury the
1160: hypothesis.
1161:
1162: We argue that the shrinkage of the machine circumference of the
1163: storage ring cannot be related to diastrophic tectonic forces. Then,
1164: since the value of the rate of the shrinkage of the machine
1165: circumference is comeasurable with the change of the machine
1166: circumference, induced by the seasonal forces, the influence of the
1167: {\it stiffness} of the physical structures of the storage ring,
1168: governing the path of the beam (mounts of magnets, for instance), can
1169: be neglected. In fact, as has been measured by Dat${\acute {\rm e}}$
1170: and Kumagai \cite{SD99} and Takao and Shimada \cite{MT00} the forces,
1171: related to the {\it stiffness} of the physical structures of the
1172: storage ring, governing the path of the beam (mounts of magnets, for
1173: instance), are smaller compared with the seasonal forces.
1174:
1175: We have solved Einstein's equations of motion for the storage ring in
1176: the field of the cylindrical relic gravitational wave and computed the
1177: rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference. We have shown that
1178: the rate of the shrinkage of the machine circumference, obtained from
1179: the solution of Einstein's equations of motion for the storage ring in
1180: the field of the cylindrical relic gravitational wave, coincides with
1181: the rate obtained in terms of the {\it gravitational strain}. In
1182: addition to the shrinkage of the machine circumference we have found a
1183: slow rotation of the storage ring defined by the non--diagonal
1184: component of the polarization tensor of the relic gravitational wave
1185: in the {\it transverse traceless gauge}, $\Phi(t) = h_{xy}(t)/2$,
1186:
1187: Finally we have discussed the interaction of the storage ring with a
1188: stochastic relic spherical gravitational--wave background. We have
1189: shown that, since the shrinkage of the machine circumference is a
1190: phenomenon of the second order in gravitational wave interactions, it
1191: cannot be destroyed even if one takes into account the contribution of
1192: the relic gravitational waves incoming on the plane of the machine
1193: circumference from all quarters of the Universe. We have obtained an
1194: additional factor $4\pi/3$ relative to the rate of the shrinkage of
1195: the machine circumference, induced by the cylindrical relic
1196: gravitational--wave background (\ref{label2.11})\,\footnote{Of course,
1197: the stochastic relic gravitational--wave background would not produce
1198: a rotation of the machine circumference, which is linear in the
1199: gravitational wave $\Phi(t) = h_{xy}(t)/2$. Such a rotation has been
1200: obtained in Section 3 by solving Einstein's equations of motion of the
1201: storage ring in the field of the cylindrical relic gravitational
1202: wave.}. This changes only the lower limit of the frequencies of the
1203: gravitational waves responsible for the observed shrinkage.
1204:
1205: Indeed, we get $\langle \omega \rangle \gg 5\times 10^{-7}\,{\rm
1206: yr}^{-1}$ instead of $\langle \omega \rangle\gg 2\times 10^{-6}\,{\rm
1207: yr}^{-1}$. We would like to emphasize that the factor $4\pi/3$ does
1208: not influence on the upper limit on the density parameter $\Omega_{\rm
1209: gw} \ll 10^{-10}$, given by (\ref{label2.15}) and agreeing well with
1210: predictions of all cosmological models \cite{JW73}--\cite{JP99} (see
1211: also \cite{BA96,SWB1}--\cite{SWB3}).
1212:
1213: The upper limit on the density parameter $\Omega_{\rm gw} \ll
1214: 10^{-10}$ is retained if $\sqrt{\langle \omega^2\rangle} \ll 1\,{\rm
1215: yr}^{-1}$, which is caused by the experimental fact that the shrinkage
1216: of the machine circumference lasts longer than 5 years \cite{MT00}.
1217:
1218: Of course, the constraints $\langle \omega \rangle \gg 5\times
1219: 10^{-7}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ and $\sqrt{\langle \omega^2\rangle} \ll
1220: 1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ can be justified by the properties of the spectral
1221: density $S_h(\omega)$, defined by the theoretical model of the
1222: stochastic relic gravitational--wave background.
1223:
1224: One can suppose that in the case of the validity of our explanation of
1225: the shrinkage of the machine circumference by the relic
1226: gravitational--wave background, the constraints on the averaged
1227: frequencies of the relic gravitational waves can be likely used to set
1228: ``limits on a low--frequency cosmological spectrum''.
1229:
1230: For the better understanding of the mechanism of the shrinkage of the
1231: machine circumference of the storage ring, caused by the relic
1232: gravitational--wave background, we recommend readers to consult the
1233: paper by Schin Dat${\acute {\rm e}}$ and Noritaka Kumagai \cite{SD99},
1234: suggested a nice physical explanation of fine variations of the
1235: machine circumference of the SPring--8 storage ring induced by the
1236: tidal forces.
1237:
1238: \section*{Acknowledgement}
1239:
1240: \hspace{0.2in} We are grateful to Manfried Faber and Heinz Oberhummer
1241: for fruitful and stimulating discussions and reading the
1242: manuscript. We thank Schin Dat${\acute{\rm e}}$ for calling our
1243: attention to the data [8,9] and encouraging discussions. Discussions
1244: with Igor N. Toptygin and his comments on the results obtained in the
1245: manuscript are greatly appreciated. We thank Berthold Schoch and
1246: Wolfgang Hillert from University of Bonn for fruitful discussions. We
1247: thank Natalia Troitskaya for interesting comments on our results and
1248: discussions.
1249:
1250: \newpage
1251:
1252: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
1253: \bibitem{JW73}
1254: C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler,
1255: in {\it GRAVITATION}, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1973.
1256: \bibitem{SW72}
1257: S. Weinberg,
1258: in {\it GRAVITATION AND COSMOLOGY: Principles and Applications of
1259: the General Theory of Relativity}, Wiley, New York, 1972.
1260: \bibitem{JP99}
1261: J. A. Peacock,
1262: in {\it COSMOLOGICAL PHYSICS},
1263: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
1264: \bibitem{JW60}
1265: J. Weber, Phys. Rev. {\bf 117}, 306 (1960).
1266: \bibitem{JT82}
1267: J. H. Taylor and J. M. Weisberg,
1268: ApJ {\bf 253}, 908 (1982); ApJ {\bf 345}, 434 (1989).
1269: \bibitem{DS90}
1270: D. R. Stinebring, M. F. Ryba, J. H. Taylor, and R. W. Romani,
1271: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 285 (1990).
1272: \bibitem{LA95}
1273: L. Arnaudon {\it et al.},
1274: Nucl. Instrum. Meth. {\bf A357}, 249 (1995).
1275: \bibitem{SD99}
1276: Schin Dat${\acute{\rm e}}$ and Noritaka Kumagai,
1277: Nucl. Instrum. Meth. {\bf A421}, 417 (1999).
1278: \bibitem{MT00}
1279: M. Takao and T. Shimada,
1280: {\it Long term variation of the circumference of the
1281: SPring--8 storage ring},
1282: Proceedings of EPAC 2000, Vienna, 2000, p.1572;\\
1283: http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e00/PAPERS/MOP5A04.pdf,\\
1284: http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e00/index.html.
1285: \bibitem{DG00}
1286: D. E. Groom {\it et al.},
1287: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C15}, 74 (2000).
1288: \bibitem{GB88}
1289: G. B\"oner,
1290: in {\it THE EARLY UNIVERSE, Facts and Fiction},
1291: Spring--Verlag, 1988;
1292: E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,
1293: in {\it THE EARLY UNIVERSE}, Frontiers in Physics,
1294: Addison--Wesley Publishing Co., New York, 1990.
1295: \bibitem{JH99}
1296: J. W. van Holten,
1297: {\it Cyclotron motion in a gravitational--wave background},
1298: gr--qc/9906117.
1299: \bibitem{VR82}
1300: V. A. Rubakov, M. V. Sazhin, and A. V. Veryaskin,
1301: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 115}, 189 (1982).
1302: \bibitem{BA88}
1303: B. Allen,
1304: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 37}, 2078 (1988).
1305: \bibitem{LG91}
1306: L. P. Grishchuk and M. Solokhin,
1307: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}, 2566 (1991);
1308: L. P. Grishchuk,
1309: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 48}, 3513 (1993).
1310: \bibitem{MD93}
1311: M. Demia${\acute{\rm n}}$ski, A. G. Polnarev, and P. Naselsky,
1312: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47}, 5275 (1993).
1313: \bibitem{BA95}
1314: B. Allen, R. R. Caldwell, and S. Koranda,
1315: Phys. Rev. D {\bf51}, 1553 (1995).
1316: \bibitem{BA96}
1317: B. Allen,
1318: {\it The stochastic gravity--wave background: sources and detection},
1319: gr--rc/9604033.
1320: \bibitem{MS00}
1321: M. P. Infante and N. S${\acute{\rm a}}$nchez,
1322: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 083515 (2000).
1323: \bibitem{D1}
1324: http://www.citytel.net/PRSS/depts/geog12/litho/diastro.htm;\\
1325: http://courses.unt.edu/hwilliams/${\rm GEOG_3350}$/examreviews/
1326: diastrophism1.htm;\\
1327: http://sankofa.loc.edu/savur/web/Diastrophism.html
1328: \bibitem{AM77}
1329: A. B. Migdal,
1330: in {\it QUALITATIVE METHODS IN QUANTUM THEORY},
1331: W. A. Benjamin, Inc., Advanced Book Program, Reading,
1332: Massachusetts, London, 1977.
1333: \bibitem{SWB1}
1334: B. Allen, J. D. E. Creighton, $\acute{\rm E}$. $\acute{\rm E}$.
1335: Flanagan, and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 122002 (2003);
1336: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 122002 (2002);
1337: B. Allen, J. D. E. Creighton, $\acute{\rm E}$. $\acute{\rm E}$.
1338: Flanagan, and M. A. Papa,
1339: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 024024 (1999);
1340: B. Allan and J. D. Romano,
1341: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 102001 (1999); B. Allen and A. C. Ottewill,
1342: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 545 (1997);
1343: $\acute{\rm E}$. $\acute{\rm E}$. Flanagan,
1344: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 48}, 2389 (1993);
1345: N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46}, 5250 (1992).
1346: \bibitem{SWB2}
1347: M. Maggiore,
1348: {\it Stochastic Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves},
1349: Lecture given at ICTP Conference on Gravitational Waves 2000,
1350: Trieste, Italy, 5-9 Jun 2000;
1351: Published in {\it Gravitational Waves}, Trieste 2000, pp. 397--414,
1352: gr--qc/0008027;
1353: Phys. Rep. {\bf 331}, 283 (2000);
1354: P. Astone, V. Ferrari, M. Maggiore, and J. D. Romano,
1355: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D {\bf 9}, 361 (2000);
1356: M. Maggiore, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 1320 (1997);
1357: A. Buonanno, M. Maggiore, and C. Ungarelli,
1358: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 3330 (1997).
1359: \bibitem{SWB3}
1360: J. A. Lobo and $\acute{\rm A}$. Montero,
1361: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 19}, 6405 (2002), gr--qc/0206062.
1362: \bibitem{SGW1}
1363: V. Fock,
1364: in {\it THE THEORY OF SPACE TIME AND GRAVITATION}, Pergamon Press,
1365: New York, 1959;
1366: L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,
1367: in {\it THE CLASSICAL THEORY OF FIELDS, Course of
1368: Theoretical Physics}, Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, New York, 1959;
1369: R. M. Wald, in {\it GENERAL RELATIVITY}, The University of Chicago
1370: Press, Chicago and London, 1984.
1371: \end{thebibliography}
1372:
1373: \end{document}
1374:
1375:
1376:
1377:
1378:
1379:
1380: