We're currently gathering more data to keep our analysis pipeline fed, e.g. from another survey of the Parkes telescope.
This is done as a new "application" (in BOINC terms) that will get the new label "BRP5". It is currently being tested on Albert, too ("Binary Radio Pulsar Search (Perseus Arm Survey)").
You think? In contrast to the GW search the Radio-Pulsar search lead to a couple of really interesting new discoveries. In my very personal view this is more effective than the GW searches we did so far.
So, Einstein@Home can profit from the results of pulsar hunting?
I always thought that this secondary project only diverts the resources.
The ultimate goal of Einstein@Home is to contribute to a better understanding of our universe by studying neutron stars, objects with such extreme conditions that they drive our theories of matter and forces to the limits (and possibly beyond), allowing to test and refine these.
The only way we can study these objects is through their emissions we could detect on (or near) earth - electromagnetic waves (like radio or gamma) or gravitational waves.
In that sense every result, in particular every new discovery of a pulsar, helps a bit to understand - what is possible, and what not, which theories and models do match best what we observe. So all three searches currently running on Einstein@Home do help the general goal.
As for the more narrow goal of detecting gravitational waves, the radio pulsar discoveries of Einstein@Home do help to form pulsar timing arrays that will help us to measure gravitational waves of a different wavelength than what the LIGO detectors and the GW search on Einstein@Home is sensitive for.
Finally the radio pulsar search allows us to keep and even increase our user base and thus computing power, even during periods when there is no new data from the GW detectors available - like now.
The ultimate goal of Einstein@Home is to contribute to a better understanding of our universe by studying neutron stars, objects with such extreme conditions that they drive our theories of matter and forces to the limits (and possibly beyond), allowing to test and refine these.
Boy am I in the wrong place. I thought we were trying to find and contact ET's...come to think of it, I think this has already been done..
FGRP3 was originally meant to process the new data published by FERMI last November. However at the launch of FGRP3, we couldn't finish the preparation of this data for our search, so we launched FGRP3 first to finish the analysis of the older data set that was left over from the previous run FGRP2. When the current FGRP3 runs out of that data, we intend to have the new data prepared. Work on that is well underway. Also we are working on improvements on the analysis code that will give us an increase in sensitivity of ~25% without additional computing cost.
S6CasA is actually part of a larger effort that we internally call "S6Directed", i.e. an analysis of "S6" data targeting single positions (hopefully GW sources) in the sky. We started with the most promising "Cassiopeia A", and will then simply move on to the next target (there are about a dozen on our list). We are also working on improving the analysis code for this, trying to make it more efficient and sensitive.
Well, we intend to spend less time on the other targets than we did on CasA, and we hope that the more efficient search code will help to not lose too much sensitivity. We also probably won't cover all possible sources; we will probably cut the run short when more sensitive data from the advanced detectors becomes available for analysis, which is currently planned to happen end of next year.
We started with the most promising "Cassiopeia A", and will then simply move on to the next target (there are about a dozen on our list).
I would like to know, what is so promissing on Cassiopeia A. It´s not sure whether it´s a black hole or a pulsar, whose magnetic axis is never directed to earth, as the radition activity doesn´t show a measurable periodicity. Where as the Crab-Pulsar is just 57% as far away as Cas A and so giving 3 times stronger GW signal, Further the Crab-Pulsar is also a young pulsar, just about 1000 years old, and does show glitches in the rotation periode, which are interpreted as reorientation of his material. This should result in GWs, ok? Furthermore the Crab-Pulsar is realy very well controlled by the Jodrell Bank Observatory. So one do know the exact period at that time and when such glitches happend and how strong they are. So the Crab-Pulsar would have been on the top of my list.
Kind regards an happy crunching
Martin
We started with the most promising "Cassiopeia A", and will then simply move on to the next target (there are about a dozen on our list).
I would like to know, what is so promissing on Cassiopeia A. It´s not sure whether it´s a black hole or a pulsar, whose magnetic axis is never directed to earth, as the radition activity doesn´t show a measurable periodicity. Where as the Crab-Pulsar is just 57% as far away as Cas A and so giving 3 times stronger GW signal, Further the Crab-Pulsar is also a young pulsar, just about 1000 years old, and does show glitches in the rotation periode, which are interpreted as reorientation of his material. This should result in GWs, ok? Furthermore the Crab-Pulsar is realy very well controlled by the Jodrell Bank Observatory. So one do know the exact period at that time and when such glitches happend and how strong they are. So the Crab-Pulsar would have been on the top of my list.
Kind regards an happy crunching
Martin
That is exactly the point: Because the rotation of the Crab-pulsar is so well understood, it doesn't take a massive network of computers like Einstein@home to search for GWs from it (at least as long as you assume that the GW frequency is related to the EM pulse frequency in a known way (like the first being twice the latter for a certain emission mechanism), which is a reasonable assumption, but by no means certain). So most searches involving the Crab-pulsar are "targeted" or "narrow band" searches, where the search frequency and frequency derivatives of the GW signal are very tightly constrained by EM observations. So this kind of search is not that computationally expensive.
For Cas A however, as you mentioned, this is not the case. So we need to do a much more expensive "directed" search here. The sky position of the source is known from EM observations, but for the frequency and frequency derivative(s), we need to try an awful lot of independent templates, and that's what Einstein@home can do really well.
We started with the most promising "Cassiopeia A", and will then simply move on to the next target (there are about a dozen on our list).
I would like to know, what is so promissing on Cassiopeia A. It´s not sure whether it´s a black hole or a pulsar, whose magnetic axis is never directed to earth, as the radition activity doesn´t show a measurable periodicity. Where as the Crab-Pulsar is just 57% as far away as Cas A and so giving 3 times stronger GW signal, Further the Crab-Pulsar is also a young pulsar, just about 1000 years old, and does show glitches in the rotation periode, which are interpreted as reorientation of his material. This should result in GWs, ok? Furthermore the Crab-Pulsar is realy very well controlled by the Jodrell Bank Observatory. So one do know the exact period at that time and when such glitches happend and how strong they are. So the Crab-Pulsar would have been on the top of my list. Furthermore, doesn´t these glitches - abrupt changes in rotational speed - emit GW-power?
Kind regards an happy crunching
Martin
..... So most searches involving the Crab-pulsar are "targeted" or "narrow band" searches, where the search frequency and frequency derivatives of the GW signal are very tightly constrained by EM observations. So this kind of search is not that computationally expensive. ....
Quote:
Quote:
From this I conclude, that it was already for a limited range of parameters done without success. So, will it be repeated here with a much wider field of parameters? Furthermore, doesn´t these glitches - abrupt changes in rotational speed likely due to material reorientation inside the pulsar - emit GW-power?
RE: RE: We're currently
)
There's some more info over here.
BM
BM
RE: RE: RE: You think?
)
RE: The ultimate goal of
)
Boy am I in the wrong place. I thought we were trying to find and contact ET's...come to think of it, I think this has already been done..
No reply needed. It would only start trouble :)
Any update? What is coming
)
Any update?
What is coming after S6 casa and FGRP3?
FGRP3 was originally meant to
)
FGRP3 was originally meant to process the new data published by FERMI last November. However at the launch of FGRP3, we couldn't finish the preparation of this data for our search, so we launched FGRP3 first to finish the analysis of the older data set that was left over from the previous run FGRP2. When the current FGRP3 runs out of that data, we intend to have the new data prepared. Work on that is well underway. Also we are working on improvements on the analysis code that will give us an increase in sensitivity of ~25% without additional computing cost.
S6CasA is actually part of a larger effort that we internally call "S6Directed", i.e. an analysis of "S6" data targeting single positions (hopefully GW sources) in the sky. We started with the most promising "Cassiopeia A", and will then simply move on to the next target (there are about a dozen on our list). We are also working on improving the analysis code for this, trying to make it more efficient and sensitive.
BM
BM
RE: (there are about a
)
12 targets. Uau! This is going to take some serious computing power.
S6 casa is running for more than a year now.
Well, we intend to spend less
)
Well, we intend to spend less time on the other targets than we did on CasA, and we hope that the more efficient search code will help to not lose too much sensitivity. We also probably won't cover all possible sources; we will probably cut the run short when more sensitive data from the advanced detectors becomes available for analysis, which is currently planned to happen end of next year.
BM
BM
Hallo! RE: We started
)
Hallo!
I would like to know, what is so promissing on Cassiopeia A. It´s not sure whether it´s a black hole or a pulsar, whose magnetic axis is never directed to earth, as the radition activity doesn´t show a measurable periodicity. Where as the Crab-Pulsar is just 57% as far away as Cas A and so giving 3 times stronger GW signal, Further the Crab-Pulsar is also a young pulsar, just about 1000 years old, and does show glitches in the rotation periode, which are interpreted as reorientation of his material. This should result in GWs, ok? Furthermore the Crab-Pulsar is realy very well controlled by the Jodrell Bank Observatory. So one do know the exact period at that time and when such glitches happend and how strong they are. So the Crab-Pulsar would have been on the top of my list.
Kind regards an happy crunching
Martin
RE: Hallo!RE: We started
)
That is exactly the point: Because the rotation of the Crab-pulsar is so well understood, it doesn't take a massive network of computers like Einstein@home to search for GWs from it (at least as long as you assume that the GW frequency is related to the EM pulse frequency in a known way (like the first being twice the latter for a certain emission mechanism), which is a reasonable assumption, but by no means certain). So most searches involving the Crab-pulsar are "targeted" or "narrow band" searches, where the search frequency and frequency derivatives of the GW signal are very tightly constrained by EM observations. So this kind of search is not that computationally expensive.
For Cas A however, as you mentioned, this is not the case. So we need to do a much more expensive "directed" search here. The sky position of the source is known from EM observations, but for the frequency and frequency derivative(s), we need to try an awful lot of independent templates, and that's what Einstein@home can do really well.
HB
Hallo Bikeman! RE:
)
Hallo Bikeman!
From this I conclude, that it was already for a limited range of parameters done without success. So, will it be repeated here with a much wider field of parameters? Furthermore, doesn´t these glitches - abrupt changes in rotational speed likely due to material reorientation inside the pulsar - emit GW-power?
Kind regards and happy crunching
Martin