text:
# Lighthouses of Gravitational Wave Astronomy

## 1 Introduction

Gravitational wave interferometers now under construction at several locations around the world will soon begin making observations. Although their initial sensitivities will be marginal, a planned program of upgrades and technology development will make them powerful instruments of cosmology over the next decade. In 2011 the launch of the joint ESA-NASA gravitational wave observatory LISA will extend the reach of this form of astronomy to the entire observable universe.

Astronomy has consistently proved itself to be full of surprises for observations in new wavebands, and this may well also be true for gravitational wave astronomy. Therefore it is a little dangerous to try to predic what these new detectors will observe, but it is useful to look ahead at this point. In particular it is not too early to consider and even to begin to plan the ways in which gravitational wave detectors and other astronomical telescopes could work together.

For cosmology, one of the most interesting features of gravitational wave observations is that certain systems are standard candles: their distance can be inferred from their gravitational waveforms. These systems are chirping binaries, that is binary systems whose orbits shrink during the observations time because of the energy they lose to gravitational waves. The change of the orbit raises the frequency of the gravitational wave, producing a “chirp” waveform.

In this review I will point out a number of ways in which gravitational wave observations of these chirping waveforms, usually coupled with coordinated observations in electromagnetic wavebands, can be used to provide cosmological information. For example, chirps from neutron-star binaries in the last few minutes before coalescence should be observed frequently by advanced ground-based detectors. These detectors can give astronomers advance notice of and rough positions for such inspiral events, and optical identifications of any afterglows produced by the mergers of the neutron stars will sharpen the distance estimate made by the detectors. Redshifts to the afterglows can be used with these distance estimates to provide independent measurements of the Hubble constant to accuracies of a few percent, and of the acceleration of the universe out to redshifts of order 0.2. Chirps from mergers of stellar-mass black holes could, even in the absence of electromagnetic counterparts, provide estimates of the cosmological acceleration out to redshifts of order 1.

Chirps from very massive ($`1000M_{}`$) black hole binaries that might have formed in the first epoch of star formation, observed by LISA, could be used to determine when star formation began. Chirps from the coalescences of massive black holes in galactic centres, again observed by LISA, could measure the cosmological deceleration out to redshifts of 4 or more, provided that electromagnetic observations can pin down the cluster of galaxies in which a coalescence occurred. This will be a real challenge to astronomy but it could have an immense payoff.

Before discussing these possibilities, I begin this article with two background sections. The first reviews gravitational wave astronomy, particularly emphasising the ways in which gravitational wave observations differ in concept and information content from electromagnetic observations, and outlining the development of detectors and the timetable on which sensitivity improvements can be expected. The second iss an introduction to chirp waveforms and the kind of information they carry. These two sections prepare for the subsequent discussions of how cosmological information can be extracted from gravitational wave observations.

## 2 Gravitational wave observing

The principles of interferometric detectors and their current development are reviewed in a number of places in the literature . In particular,  contains references to the recent literature. Several accessible textbooks  review the principles of gravitational radiation, and two recent encyclopedia articles also address these issues . What follows here is a brief introduction to these subjects.

### 2.1 Action of waves on a detector

Figure 1 shows how gravitational waves act on a ring of free particles. The action is by tidal forces carried by the waves, which distort the ring in directions transverse to the direction of propagation of the wave. Because of the equivalence principle, the overall acceleration of the ring produces no local effects; the only measurable effects are in the relative distortions. Therefore the linear displacements of these distortions are proportional to the size of the ring: the larger the ring, the larger the displacement.

The figure can be viewed as an elementary detector. By sensing the relative displacements of particles on the ring, one can measure the wave. This is exactly how interferometric detectors work. They use laser interferometry to measure changes in the relative distances between the central particle of a ring and two particles in orthogonal directions along the circumference of the ring. The particles are mirrors in the interferometer that are free to move along the direction of the displacement.

Older, solid-mass detectors, called bar detectors, use the stretching along one diameter of the ring. The restoring forces of the solid material means that the response to the wave is more complicated than in an interferometer, but the principle is the same.

All proposed gravitational wave detectors are linearly polarized. To measure the polarization of a wave requires either that several detectors make measurements or that the wave lasts long enough so that the motion of a detector carried by the Earth or in a space orbit changes the projected polarization of the detector, allowing it to measure two independent polarizations.

The waveforms in Fig. 1 have a simple relationship to the mass motions in the source of the gravitational wave . They mimic any oscillating motions in the source, as projected on the plane of the sky as seen by the ring. If the motions are all along one line, then the polarization ellipse will have its alternating major/minor axes along that line. If the motions are circular, then the wave will have circular polarization, which is a linear combination of the two polarizations with a phase shift of 90 degrees. Thus, measuring the polarization of a gravitational wave allows one to make direct inferences about the source, such as measuring the angle of inclination of the orbital plane of a binary system.

### 2.2 Planned ground-based detectors

I will focus here on the planned interferometers, which have the biggest potential for astronomical and particularly for cosmological observing. There are four instruments now being built  that should reach the target sensitivity of first-generation detectors: to measure $`h10^{21}`$. This is a threshold that has been the goal of detector development for decades: it is the largest amplitude that could reasonably be expected from sources that might be observable in one year. Observing at this level gives no guarantees of detections: Nature has to cooperate by providing strong sources. These first-generation detectors are the first step along a planned sequence of sensitivity improvements that will produced essentially guaranteed detections by the end of this decade.

Interferometers use light to compare the lengths of the two arms. The fundamental limit on sensitivity is the amount of light, since quantum uncertainties in the arrival times of photons produce a stochastic noise called shot noise, which is less important when there are more photons. However, the main technical challenge to these detectors is to eliminate low-frequency noise from external vibrations and from internal thermal vibrations of the components . These noise sources will set a lower-frequency limit of about 40 Hz on LIGO and GEO. The VIRGO detector is investing more effort in controlling vibration noise, and will have some sensitivity even at 20 Hz. All detectors go up to a few kHz before shot noise limits their sensitivity.

The largest and most ambitious project is LIGO, an American project building two 4-km detectors, one at Hanford (WA) and the other at Livingston (LA). The Hanford detector also contains a 2-km instrument for local coincidence and anti-coincidence observing. LIGO is now successfully doing interferometry, and is improving its sensitivity and reliability. LIGO may begin taking data at its planned sensitivity within the next year.

The next-largest instrument under construction is VIRGO, near Pisa. It is a cooperation between France and Italy. The timescale for operation of this 3-km instrument is about a year behind LIGO.

In Germany the GEO project is building a smaller detector, GEO600, with 600-m arms, that will nevertheless have a similar sensitivity to the LIGO instruments, and which is on the same timescale as LIGO. It achieves this sensitivity by using more advanced optical and mechanical technology. This technology will be transferred to LIGO and VIRGO when they are ready for upgrades to higher sensitivity.

GEO600 and LIGO are planning a joint test data run in December 2001, and the two projects have in fact signed a strong data-sharing and data-analysis MOU, providing for joint publication of all results. Other projects have been invited to join in this agreement.

The second-generation instruments will be upgrades of LIGO and VIRGO, which could be in place by 2007, plus a proposal in Japan that is not yet funded. These will improve the first-generation sensitivity by a factor of 10 in amplitude, and they will push the observing frequency limit down to perhaps 10 Hz. Scientists are beginning to design radical new technology for the third generation, envisioning yet a further step by a factor of 10, and a further broadening of the observing frequency window. It is possible that VIRGO and GEO will cooperate on a joint proposal for a new third-generation detector in Europe.

### 2.3 LISA, the first space-based detector

Ground-based detectors will never have sufficient sensitivity to do useful work below about 1 Hz, because gravity noise generated by moving masses on the Earth will be larger in amplitude than expected gravitational waves. Since gravity cannot be screened, the only solution is to put the detector into space. This is the justification for LISA, which is planned for launch in 2011. Unlike the ground-based detectors, LISA will observe many of its sources with extremely high signal-to-noise ratio. LISA is likely to be the first of a sequence of space-based detectors over the next few decades. LISA could have a mission lifetime of up to 10 years. The state of development was reviewed recently in the proceedings of the Third International LISA Symposium .

LISA began in 1993, when an American group led by P Bender of JILA, which had been studying space-based detectors for some time, encouraged a group of Europeans, largely in the GEO and VIRGO projects, to propose a detector for the ESA M3 mission opportunity. The mission was not selected because it was too expensive for this medium-mission limit, but the scientific potential was regarded so highly that the group was encouraged to propose for the Horizon 2000+ Cornerstone selection in 1995. The present design, based on a triangular three-armed interferometer, with a detailed plan for the optics and sensing needed, matured for that proposal.

LISA was indeed selected as a Cornerstone, but still the costs were troubling. A redesign by the European LISA team, cooperating with JPL and Bender’s group at JILA, produced the current baseline design using three spacecraft, and seemed to be affordable. The project meanwhile gained considerable interest among astronomers, who were coming to the conclusion that the giant black holes that LISA could observe were ubiquitous in the centres of galaxies. This led to efforts to bring NASA into the project to share costs.

Earlier this year (2001), ESA and NASA exchanged letters of agreement to share the project equally, and ESA invited NASA to contribute to a technology demonstration mission called SMART 2, due for launch in 2006. The technology of LISA is a fascinating subject in itself, which there is no room for here. The two agencies have formed a joint LISA International Science Team (LIST), that will organise the community. It has two chairs, T Prince (Caltech and JPL) and K Danzmann (of the new branch of the Albert Einstein Institute in Hannover). Theorists and astronomers who want to contribute to the science required before LISA’s launch are welcomed to join in the projects being encouraged by the LIST’s Sources and Sensitivities Working Group, jointly chaired by S Phinney (Caltech) and the present author.

As mentioned above, LISA is a three-armed detector. The roughly equilateral triangle maintains its shape as the three spacecraft follow their independent orbits around the Sun. The triangle lies in a plane tilted $`60^{}`$ to the ecliptic, and is situated about $`20^{}`$ behind the Earth in its orbit. The arm-length of 5 million kilometres permits good sensitivity below 0.1 Hz. The lower limit on LISA’s frequency window is about 0.1 mHz, where perturbations due to fluctuations in the solar radiation pressure dominate. Figure 2 shows the way the location and orientation of LISA change during a year.

### 2.4 Principles of observation with gravitational waves

Gravitational wave observing is rather different from observing in the electromagnetic spectrum. This is partly because detectors cannot be pointed: they are simple quadrupoles with broad response patterns on the sky. And it is partly because detectors register the waves coherently, following the oscillations of phase. By contrast, most electromagnetic detection is bolometric, registering the energy and not the phase. Even radio interferometry, which uses phase at an early stage, eventually rectifies the signal and records the energy in the fringes. Detectable electromagnetic waves simply oscillate too fast to be recorded, and their phase in any case does not necessarily contain important information.

The gravitational wave phase oscillated at kHz frequencies or lower, and directly reflects the mass motions in the source. Almost all the useful information in a signal is in the phase $`\varphi (t)`$. This has several implications that are not immediately obvious to astronomers used to electromagnetic observing.

First, spectroscopy and polarimetry are automatic. The detectors are linearly polarised, and spectroscopy is nothing more than taking the Fourier transform of the detected signal.

Second, detecting a gravitational wave usually means being able to measure several parameters, such as the masses of the systems, that are encoded in the phase and frequency information. Moreover, as explained earlier, the polarisation information can be used to infer source orientations.

Third, observing by multiple detectors brings great benefits, particularly in angular resolution, as well as in confidence when signals are weak. The angular resolution improvements are analogous to what happens in radio interferometry. Even single detectors can achieve this if they observe a continuous source long enough to take advantage of the changing detector position; in this case such a detector effectively does aperture synthesis by itself.

Fourth, data analysis on computers plays a crucial role in detection. The optimum detection strategy in gravitational wave observing is to employ matched filtering . This means comparing the observed phase $`\varphi _{\text{true}}(t)`$ with the expected phase of a template signal $`\varphi _{\text{template}}(t)`$. If the two match well enough, which usually means that $`|\varphi _{\text{true}}(t)\varphi _{\text{true}}(t)|<1\text{radian}`$ over the signal duration, then one is close to optimal. Since the templates depend on parameters, which describe physical properties like sky location, source masses, orbit spindown, and other effects, a search for signals typically involves many repeated comparisons with slightly different templates. Then the availability of computer power (or the lack of it) can limit the sensitivity of an observation. This sometimes happens for other kinds of observing, for example the search for binary radio pulsars, where the parameter space that must be searched for signals is non-trivial in size.

Fifth, gravitational wave astronomers always speak about detecting amplitudes, not energy. This means their signal-to-noise ratios are the square-roots of energy or flux-based signal-to-noise measures. So if a gravitational wave observation with LISA can reach a signal-to-noise ratio of $`10^4`$, then this should be compared with an optical observation with a ratio of $`10^8`$: one photon of background for each $`10^8`$ photons from the source! This is suggestive of how much detailed information is potentially extractable from LISA observations.

There are many analogies between long-duration gravitational wave observations and radio observations of pulsars, in that radio observations are coherent as regards the pulse period itself. This is similar to the gravitational wave period of waves from the same pulsar, so many issues are the same. For example, gravitational wave positions will be at the same accuracy level as radio positions, around the arcsecond mark.

### 2.5 Angular positions

Once a source of gravitational waves has been detected, the most important information that the observation can produce is, of course, the location of the source on the sky. The accuracy of angular positions will be the crucial step in identifying sources and opening them for study by electromagnetic observation.

Since, as we remarked above, the pointing accuracy of an individual detector is poor over a short observation time, the position of the source must use more information than the instantaneous response of a single detector. The accuracy of locating a short burst comes entirely from the simultaneous observation of the event by several detectors. The accuracy of a long-duration observation is achieved, as mentioned above, by aperture synthesis.

A short burst may be defined as one in which the acceleration of the detector during the observation does not produce an overall phase-shift of the wave-form by more than one radian. The overall motion of the detector produces a constant (and usually unobservable) Doppler effect, but the acceleration of the detector distorts the waveform, and this can tell us where the wave came from. If the detector acceleration is $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ and the wave-vector of the radiation from the source is $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, then during an observation lasting a time $`T`$, short enough to regard the acceleration as constant, the phase-shift induced by the acceleration is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{\text{accel}}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{a}\stackrel{}{k})T^2.$$

The condition that this should be less than 1 amounts, for a typical value of the gravitational wave frequency $`f_{\text{gw}}`$ and for the acceleration produced by the rotation of the Earth, this sets a limit on the time of observation of

$$T_{\text{burst}}<56\left(\frac{f_{\text{gw}}}{1\text{kHz}}\right)^{1/2}\text{min}.$$
(1)
For such bursts, the position must be triangulated by using the arrival times of the waves at several detectors. This uses the detectors as an interferometer array, and the pointing accuracy is the diffraction limit, roughly the wavelength of the waves divided by the detector spacing. Within this, a source with strong signal-to-noise ratio can be located more accurately. If SNR is the amplitude signal-to-noise ratio for a particular observation, then for detectors with a baseline between Europe and the USA, say $`10^4`$ km, the accuracy is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\text{burst}}\frac{2^{}}{\text{SNR}}\left(\frac{f_{\text{gw}}}{1\text{kHz}}\right)^1.$$
(2)
A confidence limit for detection will be something like $`\text{SNR}>5`$, so that any detected source might be triangulated to better than half a degree. A strong source with $`\text{SNR}=20`$ could be located to within 5 to 10 arcminutes.

These are overly optimistic numbers, however, because there is covariance with other observational errors. If there is an error in determining the polarisation, then this could masquerade as a delay or advance in the signal by up to half a cycle. What is more, the diffraction limit applies only if there are enough detectors to determine the polarisation. With three detectors there are two possible solutions to the location on the sky. The ambiguity is resolved only with four or more detectors. Moreover, if the detectors are unusually well aligned, then they do not determine polarisation as well. Unfortunately this is the case: the LIGO detectors, in the interests of ensuring that they should see nearly identical responses, are very well aligned, so they do not contribute much to a position determination. The result is that real position determinations for bursts might be five to ten times worse than the numbers quoted above.

This situation could be significantly improved if a detector is built in Japan, with its long baseline to the others. Such a detector would improve both the detection rate and the position determinations by a factor between two and four.

A long-duration source permits a single detector to determine the position by using the phase-modulation and time-dependent polarisation projection to measure both the polarisation and position jointly. The best case is when the source lasts for a year, so that the detector synthesises a telescope with an aperture of 2 AU. The diffraction-limited position accuracy improves on the above to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\text{continuous}}\frac{0.5\text{arcsec}}{\text{SNR}}\left(\frac{f_{\text{gw}}}{1\text{kHz}}\right)^1.$$
(3)
Again, this is a little optimistic because polarisation errors can add up to a cycle to the waveform. But the pointing accuracy for ground-based detectors observing pulsars, for example, is very good. However, LISA will observe in the mHz region, which degrades its position accuracy. This is compensated somewhat by the large SNR, so that the result is a resolution accuracy between 10 arcminutes and 10 degrees, depending on how strong the source is. We will come back to the importance of these errors in the next section.

### 2.6 Amplitude estimates

The use of chirping binaries as standard candles depends on being able to measure the amplitude of their radiation accurately. In principle, this is just what the SNR measures, so the amplitude error would be of order $`1/\text{SNR}`$. But there is a strong covariance with the position error, since the antenna pattern of the detectors is broad. Roughly speaking, a position error of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ measured in radians produces a relative change in the sensitivity of the detector with respect to the source by a comparable amount. This will result in a wrong determination of the amplitude. So a good rule of thumb for amplitude errors is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }h=\mathrm{max}(1/\text{SNR},\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ).$$
(4)
If the only observations of the event are from gravitational wave detectors, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ must be inferred from the equations above. But if the event can be identified by electromagnetic observations, then the position accuracy can be much improved, and with it the amplitude accuracy. This is particularly the case for LISA, where the SNR could be as high as $`10^4`$, but the intrinsic position accuracy could be as bad as 0.2 radians . The astronomical return from LISA observations can be greatly improved by coordinated electromagnetic observations.

## 3 Chirping Binaries

### 3.1 Distance determination: the standard candle

When LISA or a network of ground-based detectors observes a binary system, then they can determine the angular position, amplitude, and angle of inclination of the binary orbit, as described above. For simplicity let us now assume that the orbit is circular, although what we describe can be extended to elliptical orbits.

There is a remarkable coincidence in the radiation from binary systems, in that both the amplitude $`h`$ of the radiation and the rate of change of the frequency of the radiation $`df_{\text{gw}}/dt`$ depend on the masses of the two stars only through exactly the same combination, which is called the chirp mass M of the system. If the two stars have masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, with associated reduced mass $`\mu `$ and total mass $`M_T`$, then the chirp mass is defined by

$$:=\mu ^{3/5}M_T^{2/5}=(m_1m_2)^{3/5}(m_1+m_2)^{1/5}.$$
(5)
This was first pointed out by the present author , who suggested how this could be used to measure the luminosity distance $`d_L`$ to any binary system that chirped, that is whose $`df_{\text{gw}}/dt`$ could be measured.

One way to see how this can be done is to consider the formula for the SNR of an observation using a filter that has been perfectly matched to the incoming signal, in polarisation and chirp mass. We consider only the radiation from the orbit, not from the later coalescence event. This underestimates the SNR, but it has the advantage that the orbit is fully understood and its SNR can be characterised, while the radiation to be expected from coalescence is not yet known. Then the SNR can be written in the following way for a burst chirp , that is a chirp that lasts less than the time given in (1):

$$\text{SNR}=8\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{r_0}{d_L}\left(\frac{}{1.2M_{}}\right)^{5/6}\zeta (f_{\text{max}}).$$
(6)
The following terms enter this equation:

* $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a factor that depends on the projection of the polarisation of the wave on the antenna pattern, so it is a function of the orientation of the binary relative to the detector. This is measurable from the polarization and direction information.
* $`r_0`$ is the range of the detector for this kind of observation, that is a distance that depends on the sensitivity of the detector. It is a function only of the detector.
* $`d_L`$ is the luminosity distance to the source, and is what we want to determine from the observation.
* $``$ is the chirp mass, and is determined from the observed rate of change of the frequency of the chirp.
* $`\zeta `$ is a number that depends weakly on $``$, taking account of the fact that massive chirping systems reach coalescence and hence their maximum frequency at a lower frequency than less massive ones do, so the response of the detector to them is a little different. This is clearly also a function of the detector, but it is known once $``$ has been determined.

From this list it is clear that all the numbers in this equation, including the value of SNR, are determined either by the detector or by the observation of the signal, except for $`d_L`$. This is therefore the unknown that can be solved for. The result is that observations of the radiation from the orbit of a chirping binary determine its luminosity distance.

### 3.2 Which binaries chirp?

The expression for the rate of change of the frequency of radiation from a binary alluded to above can be formulated to give a characteristic time called the chirp time $`\tau _{\text{gw}}=(df_{\text{gw}}/dt)/f_{\text{gw}}`$. Here are some useful ways to calculate this chirp time for various interesting systems:

$`\tau _{\text{gw}}`$ $`=`$ $`200\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{20\text{Hz}}}\right)^{8/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{1.2M_{}}}\right)^{5/3}\text{s},`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`44\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{20\text{Hz}}}\right)^{8/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{3.0M_{}}}\right)^{5/3}\text{s},`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`44\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{10^4\text{Hz}}}\right)^{8/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{10^6M_{}}}\right)^{5/3}\text{s},`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`4\times 10^5\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{3\text{mHz}}}\right)^{8/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{0.5M_{}}}\right)^{5/3}\text{s}.`$ (10)
This list shows how long one must wait for a system to change its frequency substantially, say by a factor of about two. However, one does not have to wait that long to see a system chirp. All that one requires is that the system change its frequency by the frequency resolution of the observation, which is $`1/T_{\text{obs}}`$ for an observation of duration $`T_{\text{obs}}`$. Figure 3 shows the systems that chirp and those that coalesce within a one-year observing time.

From these times, it is possible also to calculate the population statistics of chirping systems if they are created at a fixed steady rate $`R`$ and die away through coalescence. Then the steady-state population of systems radiating gravitational waves with a frequency larger than any given $`f_{\text{gw}}`$ is

$$N(>f)=7000\left(\frac{f_{\text{gw}}}{0.1\text{mHz}}\right)^{8/3}\left(\frac{}{1.2M_{}}\right)^{5/3}\left(\frac{R}{10^5\text{yr}^1}\right).$$
(11)
For example, in the Galaxy, systems like the Hulse-Taylor pulsar are expected to form once every $`40^5`$ yr or so, so this means that there should be thousands of such systems within the LISA waveband. LISA should certainly see many if not most of them, depending on whether they are obscured by radiation from the far more common white-dwarf binary systems.

Another interesting number is to try to estimate the population of binaries of $`1000M_{}`$ that might be observable by LISA. LISA should see any chirping system in its waveband anywhere in the Universe. In the first generation of stars, suppose that 10% of the present stellar mass of the universe went into such stars during a time lasting about $`10^9`$ years. Then there would have been some $`10^{18}`$ such stars that formed. Most of them may well have evolved into black holes , and the gravitational collapse event might not have disrupted the binary system. Any such binaries with a local gravitational wave frequency above 6 mHz would, by the above formulas, coalesce within about 1 year of our time, so LISA could follow the event most of the way to coalescence.

Suppose a fraction $`\eta `$ of such systems formed binaries that could coalesce in the first $`10^9`$ years. Then the rate of formation of such binaries was $`10^9\eta `$ per year. By (11), the number of such systems that LISA could follow to coalescence in one year of observing is about $`1700\eta `$. So if the efficiency of formation of these binaries is better than one tenth of one percent, then LISA would be able to detect a few. If the efficiency is better than 1%, then LISA would have of order 200 events during a ten-year mission lifetime, and the upper limit on the luminosity distances to these events would signal the onset of this first generation of star formation.

## 4 Cosmology with Ground-Based Detectors

The use of chirping binaries as standard candles to discover cosmological information has been studied by a number of authors . They have pointed out that there is a variety of methods to avoid the problem of identifying the galaxy in which the chirp occurred, and still extract cosmological information. I begin here, however, with the expectation that chirps may produce gamma-ray bursts, and in any case should certainly produce optical/radio/X-ray displays of some kind, which I will call “afterglows”. These will help the identification of the event. After this discussion, I return to the subject of identifying black hole coalescences, which should have no optical counterpart.

### 4.1 Afterglow cosmology

As we have noted above, the second-generation ground-based detectors should have ranges so that confident detections of coalescences of binary neutron stars can be made out to 400 Mpc or so. Tens of events per year are to be expected . However, the errors in position determination are rather large, so that if no other information is available then it will be difficult to determine the galaxies in which the event occurred.

The situation will be dramatically different if such events lead to gamma-ray bursts, or indeed if they lead to any other kind of transient event that leaves behind an afterglow. This seems very likely. From the identification of the event by electromagnetic detection of the afterglow, the position can be determined with very small errors and the redshift of the galaxy can be measured. Then the luminosity distance can be determined within errors given just by the SNR, which could be of order 10. Thus, each event leads to a value for the Hubble constant accurate to 10%. With 50 events over a few years of observing, the statistical errors could go down to a few percent. Although the Hubble constant should be known to this accuracy by other means by the time second-generation detectors operate, this method will be an important check on the systematics of other determinations.

Being able to give advance notice of a burst event by gravitational waves will also be a valuable contribution of these detectors. The gravitational wave signal will precede even the gamma-ray burst, and the detector scientists plan to build early-warning alert systems so that notice of potential events could be available to cooperating astronomers within seconds of the gravitational wave observation. In advanced detectors, the inspiral signal for two neutron stars could last several minutes, and there could be enough signal after the first minute to predict the coalescence event. In this case, astronomers would have a minute or so notice to begin observing before the actual coalescence event even occurred.

The association of gravitational wave events with afterglows will of course immensely help modelling of gamma-ray bursts, and it will also allow estimates of the beaming fraction. Gravitational wave emission by these systems is much more isotropic than the gamma radiation, and therefore detectors should give a fair sample of all coalescing systems within their range.

It is possible that gamma bursts are associated more strongly with coalescences between neutron stars and black holes than between double neutron stars. If this is the case, the second-generation detectors will have a longer range, out to redshifts of order 0.3. This will make their ability to do cosmology much more interesting, and measurements of the local acceleration of the universe to $`\pm 10`$% would be possible over 5 years.

All of these numbers improve by factors of 2 or more if a further detector is added to the network, say in Japan.

### 4.2 Cosmology with binary black hole observations from the ground

It is possible that the event rate for coalescence of binary black holes of stellar mass will be comparable to that for binary neutron stars. Binaries are less likely to be disrupted by black-hole formation than by neutron-star formation because less mass is lost. And globular clusters seem to be efficient factories for black-hole binaries . It may happen, then, that the first events detected by ground-based instruments will be black-hole coalescences. And if that is the case, then second-generation detectors may see many tens of such events out to redshifts of order 1. Over this distance, it is no longer appropriate to speak of the Hubble constant or the deceleration parameter, since these are just terms in the Taylor expansion of the recession velocity. The observed acceleration of the universe makes such a local approximation inadequate. The goal over cosmological distances is to sample the function $`z(d_L)`$, the Hubble flow, over as large a range of values of $`d_L`$ as possible.

Unfortunately, distant as these black-hole events are, they do not produce afterglows or other electromagnetically detectable counterparts from which a redshift can be measured. To circumvent this, I have proposed a statistical method  that can still measure the parameters describing the Hubble flow over this interesting distance range. The method is interesting not only because it can determine parameters, but also because it is an example of a nonlinear statistical method whose errors improve much more rapidly with the number $`N`$ of samples than the usual $`N^{1/2}`$ associated with linear averaging, at least at first when $`N`$ is small.

The idea is best illustrated for low-redshift measurements, where the goal is simply to determine one number, the Hubble constant. After understanding how this is done, we will see how it could be generalised to larger redshifts. For each event, the detectors will produce an error box on the sky with a number of candidate clusters of galaxies in which the event may have occurred. The angular position of each candidate leads to a corresponding luminosity distance; measuring the mean redshift of each cluster then leads to a “candidate” value of the Hubble constant for that cluster. Each candidate cluster produces a candidate value. Most are wrong, but one of them should be the correct one. Now, if one has, say, ten such events, then one value of the Hubble parameter should appear in each set of candidates. As long as the number of candidate values is not so large that the observational errors create a lot of overlap between false and true values, it should be possible to zero in on the correct value of the Hubble parameter and retrospectively identify the clusters in which the events occurred. With dozens of events, this method should be very efficient.

This method is actually a one-dimensional version of the Hough transform method that was devised to analyse bubble-chamber photographs in high-energy physics (see ). The tracks expected of particles were parametrised, and the number of bubbles on each possible track was counted. Real tracks would have a much larger number of bubbles than random ones. The Hough transform is now being developed to search for unexpected pulsar signals in gravitational wave data .

For high-redshift objects, one could use the Hough transform to search for the best set of parameters for a cosmology. Appropriate parameters might be the present Hubble constant, the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{matter}}`$, and the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. With many tens of events, there should be enough statistics to find a set of values that all the observations are consistent with. Of course, if by then the Hubble constant is well-enough known to determine the correct candidate from among the candidate clusters of galaxies, then this statistical method is not needed.

Once the clusters containing the events are established, then the redshift and the luminosity distance can be used to calibrate the expansion of the universe. At this point the statistical errors of the measurements of the large number of events will indeed reduce as $`1/\sqrt{N}`$. With data out to $`z=1`$, the parametrisation of the Hubble flow will be sensitive to the turnover, where the universe changed from deceleration to acceleration. We shall see that LISA can extend this method to redshifts of 4 or more.

## 5 Cosmology with LISA

LISA could measure a few mergers of massive black holes in the centres of galaxies each year. It will be sensitive to masses in the range $`10^3`$$`10^7M_{}`$. These observations will give important insight into the processes that formed the black holes, into their population statistics, and into the role they played in galaxy formation. But here I wish to focus on the use of LISA to measure the Hubble flow itself.

For a typical system of two $`10^6M_{}`$ black holes at $`z=1`$, LISA on its own will be able to determine the position to an accuracy of about half a degree. The physical size of the error box will be of the order of 40 Mpc in all three dimensions, because LISA’s distance determination is also limited by the angular errors, as explained earlier. Thus, the error box is about 1% of the distance to the source.

This error box may contain a number of rich clusters, each with one or more candidate galaxies that show evidence of a past galaxy merger that could have led to the black hole merger. We would like to identify the cluster in which the merger took place. There are at least three ways to do this.

1. If by the time LISA flies, the Hubble flow is known to an accuracy of better than 1% out to redshifts of 4 or so, then this may assist identifying the cluster. One measures the redshifts of each of the candidates, and uses the angular positions of the candidates to determine from the LISA chirp signal what the luminosity distance is to that candidate. If the Hubble flow is known accurately as a function of luminosity distance, then the expected redshift can be compared with the measured one, and if these do not coincide then the candidate can be rejected. If the expansion is known well enough, then the candidates may be narrowed down to just 1.
2. If the expansion is not known to this accuracy by the time LISA flies, then the statistical method described in the previous subsection could be brought to bear. This could work if there are of order ten events at high redshift over the mission lifetime of 10 years. The goal at this stage would be to determine the Hubble flow accurately enough to identify the galaxies in which the events have taken place.
3. Failing both of these circumstances, it will be a challenge to observers and astrophysicists to determine the galaxy in which the merger occurred by other means. Perhaps the morphology of the galaxy is special in some way. The gradual in-spiral of the two massive black holes transfers considerable energy to a number of stars in the core of the galaxy, and so it may be that the central bulge of this galaxy has a larger number of stars on nearly radial orbits than is normal. Or perhaps the two black holes maintained accretion disks, or even jets, until they came close enough to one another for tidal forces to disrupt them. The fossil jets may still be visible in the outer regions of the galaxy, and the gas of the accretion disks may have been expelled or shocked in a way that is observable for some time after the disruption.

The identification of the merger galaxies has a large potential payoff. The accurate angular position for each galaxy will provide a very accurate value of the luminosity distance, perhaps with errors smaller than 0.1%, depending only on the SNR of the detection. With the measured redshifts, then the measurements of the Hubble flow are limited only by the proper velocities of the galaxies (inducing single-measurement uncertainties in the Hubble flow of 0.1%). With a handful of merger events spread over redshifts out to, say, 4 or more, it should be possible to go well beyond $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-cosmology models and test quintessence and other models in which the pressure is not strictly equal to the negative of the energy density, and in which the density of dark energy/negative pressure is variable in time.

## 6 Stochastic gravitational waves from the Big Bang

Probably the most fundamental cosmological observation that gravitational wave detectors can make is of gravitational waves coming from the Big Bang. This is the gravitational analogue of the cosmic microwave background radiation, but with a key difference. Because gravitational waves couple so weakly to matter, they never thermalised. The non-thermal spectrum comes to us unchanged from whatever event(s) produced it. Using gravitational waves we can see directly to the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, what firm predictions exist for the amount of radiation that is produced by the Big Bang are discouraging. Gravitational waves should be created at some level by inflation in the same processes that produced the fluctuations in energy density that led to galaxy formation, but the present energy density must be less than $`10^{13}`$ of the closure density. The only observational limits are from the millisecond pulsar at frequencies of 1 cycle per 10 years, and from the requirement that the radiation not disturb nucleosynthesis. In both cases the limits require $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{gw}}`$ to be smaller than about $`10^6`$.

Between the prediction of inflation and the observational limits there is lots of room for other creative mechanisms, and many exist. Toy models of superstring cosmology can produce tailor-made spectra with large amounts of radiation. Cosmic defects, phase transitions, and other unknown but not implausible physics can lead to radiation confined to certain wave-bands. Even brane-world cosmologies have the potential to produce radiation up to the nucleosynthesis limit at any frequency .

Ground-based detectors can see this radiation best by cross-correlating the outputs of two nearby detectors. The best suited are the two LIGO instruments. In the second generation they may reach as low as , perhaps a little lower. LISA cannot cross-correlate its two independent interferometers because they share a common arm and hence common noise. It can, however, internally calibrate its instrumental noise and thereby identify any stochastic gravitational wave signal whose power is comparable to or larger than the instrumental noise. This is unlikely to take it lower than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{gw}}10^{10}`$. I have proposed a variant of the LISA mission that could go down as low as $`10^{13}`$, but this still does not reach the inflation prediction. A future LISA follow-on mission would be required to reach that level.

One of the problems with detecting a background from the Big Bang is that there are astrophysical backgrounds of a more recent origin. This includes radiation from white-dwarf binary systems, ordinary binaries, close neutron-star binaries, and even small objects falling into massive black holes. There could be a window around 1 Hz where the astrophysical backgrounds are weak enough to allow the cosmological background to dominate, but there are believed to be few other accessible windows .

Only observations will tell us what is out there. LISA will certainly measure the compact white-dwarf binary background, which is expected to stand out well above the noise below 1 mHz. LISA might also measure backgrounds at higher frequencies. Whether LISA or the ground-based detectors manages to see a cosmological background from fundamental physics near the Big Bang is one of the most unpredictable outcomes of gravitational wave astronomy.

## 7 Conclusions

The astronomical community has waited a considerable time for gravitational wave detectors to realise their promise. The progress has been steady but largely invisible until now. From next year, detections of some systems will be possible. But cosmological returns are likely to require another decade of development.

The second-generation ground-based detectors should make the first impact on cosmology, providing values for the Hubble constant and the acceleration of the universe that with an accuracy competitive with that of other methods. This will be a useful check on all methods. The opening up of the low-frequency window by LISA after 2011 will bring much larger potential payoffs for cosmology. With some luck (or cleverness!), LISA could measure the deceleration/acceleration history of the universe with outstanding accuracy out to redshifts of 4 or earlier. To realise this promise, coordinated observations with telescopes in the optical/IR, X-ray, radio, and other bands will be essential.


format: text

text:
# The Parallel Principle

## Introduction

I assume that there is a rough correspondence, or at least a working relationship, between the subjective life of any creature and the objective world in which it is a part. John von Neumann calls this a *psycho-physical parallelism*, according to which the images of the creature’s psychic experience mirror the objects in its physical environment . Presumably, creature learning begins in infancy by creating a parallelism of this kind that is practical and useful for the adult. For this to happen, a conscious species must develop a rudimentary psycho-physical parallelism at an early stage of evolution.

By *consciousness* I mean all that which is contained in the subjective or psychic life of an individual. Consciousness is different from the physiological state that gives rise to it, for although it is a by-product of the physical processes, it is not itself a physical entity. It is the psycho part of the psycho-physical parallelism.

Consciousness is widely believed to be *epiphenomenal*, which means that it is created and choreographed by a physical body but cannot, conversely, influence the behavior of that body. If that were the case in any species including our own, then there would be no point to a psycho-physical parallelism. It would not then matter if a creature’s psychic life mirrored or failed to mirror its physical environment, for having no influence, its psychic life would not matter to anything at all.

The two fundamental disciplines of modern physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity, are mechanically autonomous. They provide no mechanism that would allow consciousness to influence the behavior of a physical body; and accordingly, consciousness can only appear scientifically as an epiphenomenon. Therefore, barring the acceptance of the miraculous principle of Pre-Established Harmony proclaimed by Leibnitz, there is no reason to believe that the subjective life of a conscious being would in any way reflect the physical world in which it lives. There is not even reason to believe that the subjective life of a conscious being would be rational; and certainly, the appearance of rational thinking that parallels the objective world would be enormously improbable. So given the present scientific understanding, a psycho-physical parallelism would exist only if there were an amazing and inexplicable harmony in nature of the kind suggested by Leibnitz.

I do not accept ‘pre-established harmony’. I believe that subjectivity arises naturally within the objective world in a way that results in a psycho-physical parallelism, and that we can, at least partially, document the reasons for that development. To do so, we will have to amend to physics.

## The Parallel Principle

The following statement of the *parallel principle* asserts how subjectivity is generally related to physiology in humans, and presumably in all conscious species.

*The subjective images and ideas of a conscious species are related to its physiology in such a way as to allow the development of a working psycho-physical parallelism at every stage of evolution.*

For this parallelism to work, there must be some degree of mutual monitoring between the psychological and physiological worlds to keep them together on parallel tracks. This means that subjectivity must feed information back to the underlying physiological system, correcting it on the evolutionary stage when it does not create appropriate (i.e., parallel) images and ideas. Physiology must respond to this instruction.

The idea that mind and body must have evolved interactively was discussed by William James, who believed that the evolution of “appropriate” subjective feelings would be incomprehensible if feelings were biologically redundant .

On this model, our effort should initially focus on how this parallelism develops in primitive species. Our strategy will be to consider amendments to physics that will satisfy the parallel principle in early organisms. Attention goes first to the ways in which a creature that is fully automated might begin to experience consciousness.

An automaton operates on the basis of a simple stimulus/response sequence, where the success of a sequence is awarded to the survivor of the evolutionary struggle. Suppose, as a result of mutation, an amended sequence appears in the form stimulus/consciousness/response. The conscious experience in this sequence does not have to be the sole determinant of the response, but we will allow that it is influential; that is, that it will increase or decrease the likelihood of one response or another. If the response favored by the newly introduced consciousness is wrong (i.e., if it encourages an unfortunate response), then the species will not survive; but if the favored response is right, then the species will survive. In the end, a successful species will have a specific conscious experience that is associated with a successful stimulus/response sequence, and this is the signature of a psycho-physical parallelism. A more accurate formulation of the parallel principle might be:

2nd Formulation: *If an element of consciousness becomes associated with a stimulus/response sequence in a species, and if it contributes to the long-term survival of the species by enhancing or repressing a response, then the species will have acquired a rudimentary psycho-physical parallelism.*

Again, this is because a subjective state that enhances or represses a response will enable the creature to learn (through evolution) to couple that ‘psychological’ state with a successful ‘physiological’ response. It is my belief that the psycho-physical parallelism that we identify with humans began in this way.

It must be emphasized that the conscious element in the above statement is not just a circuitous way of talking about another (equivalent) physiological configuration that is itself a response to the stimulation and a determinant of the response. That would defeat our purpose by reestablishing an epiphenomenal interpretation; for again, the content of the conscious element would then be irrelevant to any behavior. We say, rather, that it is the conscious element itself that is associated with an enhanced or repressed response. That is not to say that consciousness has an existence independent of physiology; for indeed, we assume that it arises out of physiology. But we claim that the qualitative properties of the experience are directly related to the enhancement or repression of a response, and that that correspondence cannot be explained by contemporary physics. One way of providing the required feedback is described in the final sections on physics.

## The General Model & Hypothesis

A model is shown graphically in fig. 1 in which a stimulus gives rise to two possible responses $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$, together with a possible subjectve experience E. This appears in two possible sequences, one being either $`R(\text{E})`$ or $`R^{}(\text{nE})`$, and another being either $`R(\text{nE})`$ or $`R^{}(\text{E})`$, where *nE* indicates no associated experience.

We now add a hypothesis concerning the experience E that, we will say in this example, enhances a response. To put this hypothesis into play, it will be necessary to amend the underlying physics in a way that will be explained in a later section.

The General Hypothesis applied to an enhancing experience:

*When the experience E appears in association with a response, it will “enhance” the response by increasing its probability relative to other responses.* Since the bracketed term *nE* means that there is no associated experience, it produces no special effect.

The claimed influence of E increases the probability of the response $`R(\text{E})`$ in the first sequence in fig. 1, and $`R^{}(\text{E})`$ in the second sequence. Because of normalization, this effectively represses the responses $`R^{}(\text{nE})`$ and $`R(\text{nE})`$. We make the further assumption that the response $`R`$ is favored in the evolutionary struggle, and $`R^{}`$ is not. Therefore, the only species that survives is one in which the experience E is associated with a life affirming response $`R`$.

It should be noted that the experiential mutation introducing E is capable of advancing the evolution of the species in this example, and it does so without the help of a mechanical mutation of the kind that advances an automaton. That is, the sequence in fig. 1 might proceed as indicated without a mechanical mutation also taking place. This does not mean that the evolutionary process is thereafter dominated by experiential mutations in preference to mechanical ones. However, it is possible that these two processes (mechanical and experiential) operate independent of one another; and if that is so, they might also operate in tandem. If that were historically so, then whatever the relative frequency of the two process, the species would evolve faster than it would with either one of these processes working by itself. We would then be able to say that if consciousness is introduced in a way that gives rise to a psycho-physical parallelism, it will always benefit evolution by increasing the speed with which a species adapts to its environment.

## A fanciful Example

An example that I use in previous papers is more specific . It involves the experience of “pain” that is assumed to *decrease* the probability of any response to which it is associated. In the interest of concreteness, a fictitious encounter is imagined between an ancient fish that is initially assumed to be an automaton, and an electric probe that somehow exists in primordial waters. The probe provides the stimulus that gives rise to two possible responses of the fish (1) W-withdraw, or (2) C-continued contact.

A mutation is assumed to introduce the conscious experience of pain associated with one or the other of these responses. The sequence W(no pain) or C(pain) therefore presents itself as a possibility together with the sequence W(pain) or C(no pain). In the first case, C(pain) is repressed inasmuch as we require that pain *always* represses the response with which it occurs. This leaves a painless withdrawal W(no pain) that will survive the evolutionary struggle inasmuch as it is a healthy response for the fish. In the second sequence, W(pain) is repressed, leaving the fish in painless contact C(no pain) with the probe; and this leads to the fish’s demise inasmuch as that response is unhealthy. The result is the emergence of a species of fish that instinctively withdraws from a probe, and at the same time, experiences a release from pain. We therefore see the beginnings of a psycho-physical parallelism in which pain is coupled with a dangerous behavior.

When I speak of “pain” in this example I do not necessarily refer to the painful experience known to humans. Different creatures might experience pain differently. What is important about pain is the way that it is associated with the repression of unhealthy of responses.

I have been alluding to the causal efficacy of consciousness by referring to its ability to ‘enhance’ or ‘repress’ responses. I will continue to do so in the interest of simplifying and unifying the discussion. However, strictly speaking, one should only talk about possible “correspondences” or “associations” between conscious experiences and physiological responses (or our models of physiological responses). That’s because we can only hope to discover empirical relationships at this point. We have no general theory that can explain the psycho-physical interaction proposed here, and we may never have such a theory. It is even possible that there is a third unknown (and unknowable) cause that is common to these relationships . I will nonetheless continue to speak of consciousness as a ‘causal’ influence because that is the most heuristically effective way of presenting this model.

## The Physics

A stimulus that acts on a biological organism will generally create a quantum mechanical superposition of body states over a wide range of possible responses222It is frequently said that macroscopic states cannot be in quantum mechanical superpositions because they behave like classical mixtures (i.e., like classical statistical ensembles). However, quantum mechanical interference terms do exist between these states when they are taken together with correlated elements in their environment. The states in this entanglement appear to be a classical mixture when the environmental variables are integrated out; but Joss and Zeh call it an “improper mixture” because, globally considered, it is a bona fide quantum mechanical superposition with distinct probability amplitudes. See refs. 6 and 7. It might equally be called an “improper superposition”. . I call a superposition of this kind of an *endogenous* superposition. It will consist of many competing physiological configurations, each supporting a distinctive conscious state, and each with a specific quantum mechanical probability of being realized. The external stimulus therefore gives rise to an endogenous superposition of states that are capable of supporting different degrees and qualities of consciousness. The probability that one of these states is realized is normally determined by quantum mechanics alone. However, I add a special hypothesis concerning pain consciousness.

The Psycho-Physical Hypothesis applied to pain:

*When pain consciousness is associated with a component of an endogenous superposition, it will repress that component relative to other ‘painless’ components.*

If more that one component contains pain consciousness, than the degree of repression of each component will be a function of the intensity of the pain in each. This hypothesis is entirely qualitative inasmuch as no data is available to give us a measure of the degree of repression. It is further limited to one kind of experience - pain consciousness. Presumably, pleasurable experiences are associated with enhanced behaviors; and more sophisticated experience/behavior interactions are dealt with at later stages of evolution.

Again, the hypothesis is intended to be an amendment to the fundamental mechanics. It provides feedback from conscious states to physiological states that is essential if we believe that there is a naturally occurring psycho-physical parallelism. The feedback cannot be thought of a euphemism for a physiological activity that is ‘really’ the underlying cause of the influence; for barring a Leibnizian miracle, a genuine psycho-physical interaction is necessary for there to be a parallelism.

## State Reduction

There is still no general agreement concerning how, why, or exactly when a quantum mechanical wave function collapses upon measurement. The why of it will not concern us here, but for the parallel principle to work we must choose a reduction process that satisfies one important condition: namely, that state reduction (or state collapse) cannot happen too quickly. A developing endogenous state must have enough time to grow to macroscopic proportions; and it must have enough time to mature sufficiently to support consciousness.

This condition is automatically satisfied if we adopt the state reduction ideas of John von Neumann. Accordingly, (1) state reduction will not occur *unless* a conscious observer is present and aware of the system. This means that an endogenous macroscopic state will not collapse until it has matured sufficiently to support a conscious observer; that is, until an internal self-observation is possible. This idea is sometimes said to imply that consciousness *causes* the collapse of a quantum mechanical state function. As previously stated, I use terminology like this myself; but one should be reminded that we are talking about empirical relationships in which consciousness is only found to be associated with state reduction in a certain way. With this qualification, I accept the von Neumann account of state reduction. Without it, a psycho-physical parallelism would not be possible.

## Seed Particles

There remains the question of how an endogenous quantum mechanical super-position can be formed in the first place. Henry Stapp proposed that the calcium ions that are needed to release neurotransmitters across a synaptic junction are possible seed particles for the creation of such a superposition . Because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of these small ions will grow to many times its “classical” size during the time it takes for it to diffuse to the vesicles containing neurotransmitters. The resulting uncertainty as to which transmitters are released is passed on to the neurological level, and this results in the macroscopic uncertainty implicit in an endogenous superposition.

Other seed mechanisms are possible. There are many migratory transmitters that travel significant distances from their point of origin to receptors in other parts of the body, and these can acquire Heisenberg uncertainties in position. They are the steroids and peptides that move throughout the body, carried along by blood or intercellular fluids. Many of these are small enough and travel for a long enough time to be significantly affected by Heisenberg uncertainty. This means that the time of a molecule/receptor attachment is governed by a quantum mechanical probability distribution. This in turn leads to an uncertain receptor response. To this extent, migratory transmitters guarantee the existence of a superposition of receptors in different stages of stimulation. When the resulting uncertainties in all of the body’s receptors are taken together, the result will be a wide-ranging endogenous superposition of possible body states333A migratory molecule spreads out spatially as it moves about, due to its Heisenberg uncertainty of momentum. Its components interact strongly with the fluids in which it is immersed, so they are also dispersed by such classical mechanisms as diffusion, turbulence and laminar flow. Either way, the probability with which a *given* molecule attaches to a *given* receptor is governed by quantum mechanical uncertainty . The resulting ensemble of receptor states is an entanglement of seed molecules and the liquid environment in which they are immersed. But when that environment is integrated out, thereby eliminating it as part of the local (macroscopic) system, the resulting receptor states are found to lack the ability to interfere with one another (see ref. 6, 7)..

## The Case of Pain

The *endorphins* produced by the body are migratory molecules that mediate pain by seeking out and attaching to *opiate receptors* in the brain and other parts of the body. These molecules are peptides that are small enough and generally travel far enough to seed endogenous quantum mechanical superpositions that include a broad range of states with different degrees of pain consciousness. Endorphins can therefore function as the pain suppressers in the fanciful example of the fish, and this gives them a possible evolutionary role of some importance. Opiate receptors have been found in very ancient species, going back to the early vertebrates . Since they serve no other purpose than to stimulate analgesic and euphoric effects, and since they have such a pervasive presence in all vertebrates, it is easy to believe that opiate receptors served a compelling evolutionary purpose associated with the most elementary of conscious experiences444In advanced species, receptors perform these functions as well as modify more sophisticated moods in the direction of analgesia and euphoria. See ref. 10.,555The existence of ancient opiate receptors does not in itself prove the existence of consciousness, inasmuch as an automaton might very well use these devices to modify a response to certain kinds of stimuli. However, I believe that consciousness was introduced through these devices. The extent to which they existed before that event, or came into existence as party to that event, is not a question that I address here. .

Because of its (Heisenberg) uncertainty of position, a migrating endorphin molecule has a less-than-one probability of attaching itself to an opiate receptor at any given moment. So the total number of receptors that are turned on at that moment is quantum mechanically uncertain. This number is a variable of a quantum mechanical superposition, each component of which potentially supports different degrees of pain consciousness. Our psycho-physical hypothesis tells us that those components with a greater degree of pain will be repressed relative to those with a lesser degree of pain; and as a result, the distribution of states in the superposition will shift in the direction of states with lesser pain. The probability that the subject will experience less pain is thereby increased, thus establishing a connection between subjective experience and physiology as required by the psycho-physical parallelism.

It is difficult to imagine how this theory can be tested if the only seed particles available are the calcium ions within neuron synapses. But small migrating molecules are a different story. Exogenous opiates, such as codeine, morphine, heroin also alleviate pain and/or give pleasure by attaching to opiate receptors . These molecules are small enough and they travel far enough to be seed particles, and they are easier to manipulate experimentally. It is therefore possible to test the above theory by injecting pharmacological doses of these opiates into subjects, determining the extent to which they attach to receptors in conscious subjects; and comparing this with their attachment in subjects who receive subpharmacological doses. The author has proposed an experiment along these lines that injects synthetic opiates into humans using positron emission tomography (PET), or into rats using autoradiography .


text:
# Supersymmetric Dark Matter Detection at Post-LEP Benchmark Points

(November 22, 2001)

## Abstract

We review the prospects for discovering supersymmetric dark matter in a recently proposed set of post-LEP supersymmetric benchmark scenarios. We consider direct detection through spin-independent nuclear scattering, as well as indirect detection through relic annihilations to neutrinos, photons, and positrons. We find that several of the benchmark scenarios offer good prospects for direct detection through spin-independent nuclear scattering, as well as indirect detection through muons produced by neutrinos from relic annihilations in the Sun, and photons from annihilations in the galactic center.

preprint: CERN–TH/2001-298, MIT–CTP–3200, UCI–TR–2001–33, UMN–TH–2031/01, TPI–MINN–01/49, Snowmass P3-30

A set of benchmark supersymmetric model parameter choices was recently proposed Battaglia:2001zp  with the idea of exploring the possible phenomenological signatures in different classes of experiments in a systematic way. The proposed 13 benchmark points (labelled A-M) were chosen by first implementing the constraints on the parameter space of the minimal supersymmetric standard model with universal input soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters that are imposed EFGO  by previous experiments, and by requiring the calculated supersymmetric relic density to fall within the range $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$ preferred by astrophysics and cosmology. Four general regions of cosmologically allowed parameter space were identified: a ‘bulk’ region at relatively low $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ (points B, C, G, I, and L), a ‘focus-point’ region Feng:2000mn ; Feng:2000gh  at relatively large $`m_0`$ (E and F), a coannihilation ‘tail’ extending out to relatively large $`m_{1/2}`$ EFOSi ; glp  (A, D, H, and J), and a possible ‘funnel’ between the focus-point and coannihilation regions due to rapid annihilation via direct-channel Higgs boson poles EFGOSi ; Lahanas:2001yr  (K and M).

Here we ask whether the supersymmetric dark matter candidate, the lightest neutralino, can be observed in experiments that are underway or in preparation. These include direct searches direct  for the elastic scattering of astrophysical cold dark matter particles on target nuclei, and indirect searches Feng:2001zu  for particles produced by the annihilations of supersymmetric relic particles inside the Sun or Earth, in the galactic center, or in the galactic halo.

It was found previously Battaglia:2001zp  that, in $`g_\mu 2`$-friendly scenarios, supersymmetry was relatively easy to discover and study at future colliders such as the LHC and a linear collider with $`E_{CM}=1`$ TeV, which would be able to observe rather complementary subsets of superparticles. However, some of the other points might escape detection, except via observations of the lightest neutral Higgs boson. The most difficult points were typically those in the focus-point region, at the tip of the coannihilation tail, or along the rapid-annihilation funnels, with points F, H, and M being particularly elusive.

In this report, we summarize our results newpaper  on the prospects for the direct and indirect detection of astrophysical dark matter for each of these benchmark points, taking into account the sensitivities of present and planned detectors.

In Fig. 1, we present the spin-independent cross-section for neutralino-proton scattering for each benchmark point using two different codes: Neutdriver Jungman:1996df  and SSARD ssard . (Experiments sensitive to spin-dependent scattering have inferior reach newpaper .) We find reasonable agreement, with the largest differences arising for points D and K, where the cross-section is abnormally small due to cancellations Ellis:2001qm . For any given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the cancellations occur only for a specific limited range in the neutralino mass. Unfortunately, points D and K fall exactly into this category.

Fig. 1 also shows the projected sensitivities for CDMS II Schnee:1998gf , CRESST Bravin:1999fc , and GENIUS GENIUS . Comparing the benchmark model predictions with the projected sensitivities, we see that models I, B, E, L, G, F, and C offer the best detection prospects. In particular, the first four of these models would apparently be detectable with the proposed GENIUS detector.

Indirect dark matter signals arise from enhanced pair annihilation rates of dark matter particles trapped in the gravitational wells at the centers of astrophysical bodies. While most annihilation products are quickly absorbed, neutrinos may propagate for long distances and be detected near the Earth’s surface through their charged-current conversion to muons. High-energy muons produced by neutrinos from the centers of the Sun and Earth are therefore prominent signals for indirect dark matter detection Feng:2001zu ; neutrinos .

Muon fluxes for each of the benchmark points are given in Fig. 2, using Neutdriver with a fixed constant local density $`\rho _0=0.3\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and neutralino velocity dispersion $`\overline{v}=270\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$. For the points considered, rates from the Sun are far more promising than rates from the Earth. For the Sun, muon fluxes are for the most part anti-correlated with neutralino mass newpaper , with two strong exceptions: the focus point models E and F have anomalously large fluxes. In these cases, the dark matter’s Higgsino content, though still small, is significant, leading to annihilations to gauge boson pairs, hard neutrinos, and enhanced detection rates.

The potential of current and planned neutrino telescopes has been reviewed in Feng:2001zu . The exact reach depends on the salient features of a particular detector, e.g., physical dimensions, muon energy threshold, etc., and the expected characteristics of the signal, e.g., angular dispersion, energy spectrum and source (Sun or Earth). Two sensitivities, which are roughly indicative of the potential of upcoming neutrino telescope experiments, are given in Fig. 2. For focus point model E, where the neutralino is both light and significantly different from pure Bino-like, detection in the near future at AMANDA II AMANDA , NESTOR NESTOR , and ANTARES ANTARES  is possible. Point F may be within reach of IceCube IceCube , as the neutralino’s significant Higgsino component compensates for its large mass. For point B, and possibly also points I, G, C, and L, the neutralino is nearly pure Bino, but is sufficiently light that detection at IceCube may also be possible.

Muon energy thresholds specific to individual detectors have not been included. For AMANDA II and, especially, IceCube, these thresholds may be large, significantly suppressing the muon signal in models with $`m_\chi `$ less than about 4 to 6 $`E_\mu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ Bergstrom:1997tp ; Barger:2001ur . Note also that, for certain neutralino masses and properties, a population of dark matter particles in solar system orbits may boost the rates presented here by up to two orders of magnitude Damour:1998rh . We have conservatively neglected this possible enhancement.

As with the centers of the Sun and Earth, the center of the galaxy may attract a significant overabundance of relic dark matter particles Urban:1992ej . Relic pair annihilation at the galactic center will then produce an excess of photons, which may be observed in gamma ray detectors. While monoenergetic signals from $`\chi \chi \gamma \gamma `$ and $`\chi \chi \gamma Z`$ would be spectacular Bergstrom:1998fj , they are loop-suppressed and unobservable for these benchmark points. We therefore consider continuum photon signals here.

We have computed the integrated photon flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (E_{\mathrm{th}})`$ in the direction of the galactic center following the procedure of Feng:2001zu . Our results for each of the benchmark points are presented in Fig. 3. Estimates for point source flux sensitivities of several gamma ray detectors, both current and planned, are also shown. The space-based detectors EGRET, AMS/$`\gamma `$ and GLAST can detect soft photons, but are limited in flux sensitivity by their small effective areas. Ground-based telescopes, such as MAGIC, HESS, CANGAROO and VERITAS, are much larger and so sensitive to lower fluxes, but are limited by higher energy thresholds. These sensitivities are not strictly valid for observations of the galactic center. Nevertheless, they provide rough guidelines for what sensitivities may be expected in coming years. For a discussion of these estimates, their derivation, and references to the original literature, see Feng:2001zu .

Fig. 3 shows that space-based detectors offer good prospects for detecting a photon signal, while ground-based telescopes have a relatively limited reach. GLAST appears to be particularly promising, with points I and L giving observable signals. Recall, however, that all predicted fluxes scale linearly with $`\overline{J}`$. For isothermal halo density profiles, the fluxes may be reduced by two orders of magnitude. On the other hand, for particularly cuspy halo models, such as those in Navarro:1996iw , all fluxes may be enhanced by two orders of magnitude, leading to detectable signals in GLAST for almost all points, and at MAGIC for the majority of benchmark points.

Relic neutralino annihilations in the galactic halo ss  may also be detected through positron excesses in space-based and balloon experiments Tylka:1989xj ; Moskalenko:1999sb . To estimate the observability of a positron excess, we followed the procedure advocated in Feng:2001zu . For each benchmark spectrum, we first find the positron energy $`E_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ at which the positron signal to background ratio $`S/B`$ is maximized. For detection, we then require that $`S/B`$ at $`E_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ be above some value. The sensitivities of a variety of experiments have been estimated in Feng:2001zu . Among these experiments, the most promising is AMS AMS , the anti-matter detector to be placed on the International Space Station. AMS will detect unprecedented numbers of positrons in a wide energy range. We estimate that a 1% excess in an fairly narrow energy bin, as is characteristic of the neutralino signal, will be statistically significant. Unfortunately, our study newpaper  showed that for all benchmark points the expected positron signals are below the AMS sensitivity. However, one should be aware that as with the photon signal, positron rates are sensitive to the halo model assumed; for clumpy halos Silk:1992bh , the rate may be enhanced by orders of magnitude Moskalenko:1999sb .

In conclusion, we have provided indicative estimates of the dark matter detection rates that could be expected for the benchmark supersymmetric scenarios proposed in Battaglia:2001zp . We emphasize that, in addition to the supersymmetric model dependences of these calculations, there are important astrophysical uncertainties. These include the overall halo density, the possibility that it may be enhanced in the solar system, its cuspiness near the galactic center, and its clumpiness elsewhere. For these reasons, our conclusions about the relative ease with which different models may be detected using the same signature may be more reliable than the absolute strengths of different signatures. Nevertheless, our estimates do indicate that there may be good prospects for astrophysical detection of quite a large number of the benchmark scenarios newpaper .

In particular, four benchmark points (I, B, E and L) may be detected through spin-independent elastic scattering of relic particles using the projected GENIUS GENIUS  detector, with models G, F and C not far from the likely threshold of detectability. The indirect detection of muons generated by high-energy neutrinos due to annihilations inside the Sun should be most easily detectable with the proposed IceCube IceCube  detector in models E, F and B, followed by models I, G, L and C, which are near the boundary of sensititvity. The best prospects for detecting photons from annihilations in the galactic center (for models L and I) are offered by the GLAST satellite, with its relatively low threshold. However, there may also be prospects for ground-based experiments such as MAGIC if the halo is cuspier at the galactic center than we have assumed.

It was previously noted Battaglia:2001zp  that the more $`g_\mu 2`$-friendly models (I, L, B, G, C and J) offered good prospects for detecting several supersymmetric particles at the LHC and/or a 1 TeV linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. Most of these models also exhibit good prospects for dark matter detection, with the exception of model J. Among the less $`g_\mu 2`$-friendly models, we note that the focus points E and F offer good astrophysical prospects, demonstrating the complementarity of collider and astrophysics searches. This is particularly interesting in the case of focus-point model F, which is very challenging for colliders.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work of J.L.F. was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement DF–FC02–94ER40818. The work of K.A.O. was supported partly by DOE grant DE–FG02–94ER–40823.