Timeline for What would a kHz gravitational wave detector look like? (mountains on millisecond magnetars) How would it differ from LIGO/Virgo?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2021 at 23:05 | vote | accept | uhoh | ||
| Apr 25, 2021 at 23:05 | |||||
| Apr 23, 2021 at 16:09 | history | edited | ProfRob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 48 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 15:17 | comment | added | uhoh | Oh, yes, I'm starting to come around; the time it takes to "bounce around" is compared to the time it takes for the wave to pass, since both move at the same speed. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 15:02 | history | edited | ProfRob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 67 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 14:58 | comment | added | ProfRob | @uhoh but I see you are confused. No, it it the total path length that matters, the length of the arms is irrelevant from that point of view. Long arms are good to reduced any displacement noise. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 14:56 | comment | added | ProfRob | @uhoh I'll try to word correctly. You want the total path travelled to be about $\lambda/2$. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 11:54 | comment | added | uhoh | "Roughly speaking... you make your interferometer arm length equal to a quarter of the GW wavelength" I'm no expert, but shouldn't the quarter wavelength apply to the physical length of the cavity, not the effective length including reflections? Yes more reflections, longer effective length is good, but that seems to be a separate thing than making the arms ~$\lambda / 4$. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 7:27 | history | edited | ProfRob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 878 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 7:06 | history | answered | ProfRob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |