29 August 2012

Gravitational-wave emission and shifts in time


There's some recent buzz about a new indirect measurement of gravitational waves in Rapid Orbital Decay in the 12.75-minute WD+WD Binary J0651+2844. It presents a measurement the period decrease in a binary system of two white dwarfs which orbit each other every 13 minutes:

Summary figure from phys.org: on the top is the accumulated shift in eclipse time, and on the bottom are some light curves of eclipse measurements.

The shifting eclipse time agrees with the general-relativistic prediction, where gravitational waves carry away some of the energy and the two stars slowly fall together as they orbit.

In the comments on the associated Phys.org news post there was some confusion on how exactly the six second time shift over 380 days translated into the two objects merging in two million years. And I have seen (and experienced) similar confusions when looking at the canonical Hulse-Taylor plots for example the one on the Cardiff Gravitational Physics Tutorial on the Hulse-Taylor pulsar , which show cumulative shift in the periastron time of the orbits:
Figure (from Weisberg and Taylor (2004) via the Cardiff site) showing the accumulating shift in periastron time over years of measurements. 

This plot is often presented as showing "decrease in the period due to gravitational-wave emission." But the period decrease is approximately constant over the times considered in both these systems, and then seeing plots of the quadratic accumulation of time shifts can be confusing. So here's how that works (also worked out in Kepler et all 1991 as cited in the WD+WD paper):

If we want to estimate the time taken by some number of orbits $n$, if the time per orbit is a slowly varying function, we can approximate by Taylor expanding:

$$ t_n = t_0 + \frac{dt}{dn} (n- n_0) + \frac{1}{2} \frac{d^2t}{dn^2} (n - n_0)^2 +... $$

The period $P$ of the orbit is then $\frac{dt}{dn}$ in this notation, and

$$ \begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2t}{dn^2} &= \frac{d}{dn}\left( \frac{dt}{dn} \right) \\
&= \frac{dt}{dn} \frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{dt}{dn}\right) \\
&= P \dot{P}
\end{aligned} $$

where $\dot{P} = dP/dt$ and we throw infinitesimals around like physicists. This means that we have after $n$ orbits:

$$ t_n = t_0 + P (n- n_0) + \frac{1}{2} P \dot{P} (n - n_0)^2 $$

compared to the constant period estimate,

$$ t_n^{\text{no-GW}} = t_0 + P (n- n_0) $$

so the accumulated time shift $T$ over $N$ orbits is quadratic in $N$:
$$ T = \frac{1}{2} P \dot{P} N^2 $$

In the case of the WD-WD system, we have $T \simeq - 6$ seconds, $ P \simeq 13$ minutes, and

$$ N  \simeq \frac{380 \text{ days}}{13 \text{ minutes} / \text{ orbit}} = 42000 \text{ orbits} $$

therefore

$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{P} &= \frac{2 T}{P} \frac{1}{N^2} = \frac{ 2 T} { (P N) N }\\
&\simeq 2 (- 6 \text{ seconds}) / (380 \text{ days}) / (42000 \text{ orbits}) \\
&= - 8.7 \times 10^{-12} \text{ s / s} = - 0.27 \text{ ms / year} \\
\end{aligned}$$

with some Google unit conversions, which is almost the same as the result in the paper abstract. If we just keep extrapolating this with a constant $\dot{P}$, we will have a period of $0$ minutes in

$$\frac{0 - 13 \text{ minutes} }{- 0.27 \text{ ms / year}} = 3 \text{ million years} $$

which is pretty soon, astronomically speaking.

This white dwarf system would be a powerful "verification binary," detectable in a future space-based gravitational-wave telescope like LISA or eLISA; Antoine Petiteau on the LISA Facebook group estimated signal-to-noise ratios of 40-70 in LISA and 20 in eLISA based on their current designs. The frequency is too low for the ground-based detectors to see, since Earth's seismic noise and gravity-gradient noise get in the way.

22 August 2012

New Blogger: Starting Teaching

So, I've recently started a new faculty position and I'd like to get back into some sort of blogging. Enter the New Math Blogger Initiative! Now, I'm not exactly a math blogger, but I think teaching physics will have similar features - especially after my conversation with some of the new math faculty at my institution.

I'm going to shortly answer two of the blog prompts this week:


Where does the name of your blog originate? Why did you choose that? (Bonus follow up: Why did you decide to blog?)

My blog address I addressed in one of my first posts: Making Science, along with some thoughts about why I originally started blogging. The title of my blog, "I will do science to it," was inspired by the webcomic Dresden Codak - specifically the one that inspired this shirt - so I should credit that! The webcomic is full of neat science fiction, a bit of philosophy, and other such delights, and I occasionally identify with the protagonist despite a much more normal and stable upbringing.

If you are a new teacher, what are two specific things you plan on doing this year?

The course I will teach this year is Introduction to Astronomy, and I am incredibly lucky in being able to build off and alongside an experienced faculty member who is teaching the course again this semester and sharing notes. This means I get to incorporate all sorts of things like pre/post conceptual tests to measure the course impact on student learning, lecture tutorials, paper clickers, without the overhead of developing the material for the course myself. My goal, though, is to make it my own. To make this specific for myself, I'll break it in to two goals. 

First, I want to be able to clearly justify each form of class activity and explain to students how we know it will help them learn, especially for the activities that will take extra effort on their part.  I'm reading a great book on Learner-Centered Astronomy Teaching, Strategies for Astro 101, which has tons of explanations of this sort of thing.

Second, I want to actually walk the walk about learning goals that are required by the university policies. Also spurred by the book mentioned above, this is a general pattern I'm trying to implement: In both reasearch and teaching, I'm trying to take things that might be considered "overhead" (e.g. grant-writing in research) seriously as an opportunity to improve my understanding of the work and build long-term effective project management. So I want to link activities to learning goals, with serious reflection rather than a vague "close enough" (which, I have already found, is tempting). This may be over-ambitious for my first semester teaching. So let me consider this successful if I make a link for at least one thing each class.