The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics

AI-generated keywords: Cosmological models

AI-generated Key Points

Investigation into the potential cosmological interpretations of a low-frequency gravitational-wave background found in NANOGrav's pulsar timing data set
Various models explored: cosmic inflation, scalar-induced GWs, first-order phase transitions, cosmic strings, and domain walls
All models except stable cosmic strings can reproduce the observed signal
Comparisons made to standard interpretation of inspiraling supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs)
Many cosmological models provide a better fit with Bayes factors ranging from 10 to 100 compared to SMBHBs
Results heavily depend on modeling assumptions and should not be considered evidence for new physics at this stage
Excluded parameter regions where predicted GW signal significantly exceeds NANOGrav signal identified
Pulsar timing data used to constrain parameter space of these models
Search for signals produced by ultralight dark matter (ULDM) and dark matter substructures in Milky Way conducted
No evidence found for either signal, updated constraints reported
Constraints on ULDM coupled to electrons, muons, or gluons outperform torsion balance and atomic clock constraints
Detailed descriptions of authors' contributions and analysis methods provided
NG15 data set used in study described
Appendices include lists of parameters, prior ranges, recovered posterior ranges for each model, and median GW spectra based on recovered posterior distributions
Paper expands on previous research by investigating various cosmological models to explain observed low-frequency gravitational-wave background in NANOGrav data
Highlights importance of pulsar timing data in constraining parameter space for these models

Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Adeela Afzal (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Gabriella Agazie (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Akash Anumarlapudi (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Anne M. Archibald (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Zaven Arzoumanian (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Paul T. Baker (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Bence Bécsy (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Jose Juan Blanco-Pillado (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Laura Blecha (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Kimberly K. Boddy (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Adam Brazier (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Paul R. Brook (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Sarah Burke-Spolaor (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Rand Burnette (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Robin Case (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Maria Charisi (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Shami Chatterjee (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Katerina Chatziioannou (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Belinda D. Cheeseboro (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Siyuan Chen (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Tyler Cohen (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), James M. Cordes (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Neil J. Cornish (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Fronefield Crawford (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), H. Thankful Cromartie (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Kathryn Crowter (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Curt J. Cutler (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Megan E. DeCesar (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Dallas DeGan (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Paul B. Demorest (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Heling Deng (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Timothy Dolch (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Brendan Drachler (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Richard von Eckardstein (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Elizabeth C. Ferrara (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), William Fiore (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Emmanuel Fonseca (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Gabriel E. Freedman (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Nate Garver-Daniels (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Peter A. Gentile (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Kyle A. Gersbach (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Joseph Glaser (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Deborah C. Good (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Lydia Guertin (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Kayhan Gültekin (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Jeffrey S. Hazboun (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Sophie Hourihane (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Kristina Islo (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Ross J. Jennings (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Aaron D. Johnson (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Megan L. Jones (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Andrew R. Kaiser (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), David L. Kaplan (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Luke Zoltan Kelley (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Matthew Kerr (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Joey S. Key (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Nima Laal (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Michael T. Lam (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), William G. Lamb (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), T. Joseph W. Lazio (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Vincent S. H. Lee (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Natalia Lewandowska (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Rafael R. Lino dos Santos (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Tyson B. Littenberg (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Tingting Liu (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Duncan R. Lorimer (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Jing Luo (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Ryan S. Lynch (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Chung-Pei Ma (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Dustin R. Madison (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Alexander McEwen (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), James W. McKee (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Maura A. McLaughlin (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Natasha McMann (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Bradley W. Meyers (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Patrick M. Meyers (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Chiara M. F. Mingarelli (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Andrea Mitridate (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Jonathan Nay (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Priyamvada Natarajan (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Cherry Ng (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), David J. Nice (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Stella Koch Ocker (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Ken D. Olum (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Timothy T. Pennucci (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Benetge B. P. Perera (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Polina Petrov (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Nihan S. Pol (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Henri A. Radovan (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Scott M. Ransom (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Paul S. Ray (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Joseph D. Romano (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Shashwat C. Sardesai (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Ann Schmiedekamp (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Carl Schmiedekamp (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Kai Schmitz (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Tobias Schröder (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Levi Schult (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Brent J. Shapiro-Albert (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Xavier Siemens (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Joseph Simon (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Magdalena S. Siwek (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Ingrid H. Stairs (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Daniel R. Stinebring (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Kevin Stovall (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Peter Stratmann (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Jerry P. Sun (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Abhimanyu Susobhanan (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Joseph K. Swiggum (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Jacob Taylor (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Stephen R. Taylor (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Tanner Trickle (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Jacob E. Turner (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Caner Unal (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Michele Vallisneri (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Sonali Verma (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Sarah J. Vigeland (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Haley M. Wahl (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Qiaohong Wang (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Caitlin A. Witt (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), David Wright (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Olivia Young (for the NANOGrav Collaboration), Kathryn M. Zurek (for the NANOGrav Collaboration)

arXiv: 2306.16219v1 - DOI (astro-ph.HE)

74 pages, 31 figures, 4 tables; published in Astrophysical Journal Letters as part of Focus on NANOGrav's 15-year Data Set and the Gravitational Wave Background. For questions or comments, please email [email protected]

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: The 15-year pulsar timing data set collected by the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves (NANOGrav) shows positive evidence for the presence of a low-frequency gravitational-wave (GW) background. In this paper, we investigate potential cosmological interpretations of this signal, specifically cosmic inflation, scalar-induced GWs, first-order phase transitions, cosmic strings, and domain walls. We find that, with the exception of stable cosmic strings of field theory origin, all these models can reproduce the observed signal. When compared to the standard interpretation in terms of inspiraling supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs), many cosmological models seem to provide a better fit resulting in Bayes factors in the range from 10 to 100. However, these results strongly depend on modeling assumptions about the cosmic SMBHB population and, at this stage, should not be regarded as evidence for new physics. Furthermore, we identify excluded parameter regions where the predicted GW signal from cosmological sources significantly exceeds the NANOGrav signal. These parameter constraints are independent of the origin of the NANOGrav signal and illustrate how pulsar timing data provide a new way to constrain the parameter space of these models. Finally, we search for deterministic signals produced by models of ultralight dark matter (ULDM) and dark matter substructures in the Milky Way. We find no evidence for either of these signals and thus report updated constraints on these models. In the case of ULDM, these constraints outperform torsion balance and atomic clock constraints for ULDM coupled to electrons, muons, or gluons.

Submitted to arXiv on 28 Jun. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2306.16219v1

Comprehensive Summary
Key points
Layman's Summary
Blog article

This paper presents an investigation into the potential cosmological interpretations of the positive evidence for a low-frequency gravitational-wave (GW) background found in the 15-year pulsar timing data set collected by the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves (NANOGrav). The authors explore various models, including cosmic inflation, scalar-induced GWs, first-order phase transitions, cosmic strings, and domain walls, to explain this signal. They find that all these models, except stable cosmic strings of field theory origin, can reproduce the observed signal. Comparing these cosmological models to the standard interpretation in terms of inspiraling supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs), many of them seem to provide a better fit with Bayes factors ranging from 10 to 100. However, it is important to note that these results heavily depend on modeling assumptions about the cosmic SMBHB population and should not be considered as evidence for new physics at this stage. The authors also identify excluded parameter regions where the predicted GW signal from cosmological sources significantly exceeds the NANOGrav signal. These parameter constraints are independent of the origin of the NANOGrav signal and demonstrate how pulsar timing data can be used to constrain the parameter space of these models. Furthermore, this paper includes a search for deterministic signals produced by models of ultralight dark matter (ULDM) and dark matter substructures in the Milky Way. The authors find no evidence for either of these signals and report updated constraints on these models. In particular, they show that their constraints on ULDM coupled to electrons, muons, or gluons outperform torsion balance and atomic clock constraints. The paper provides detailed descriptions of each author's contributions to specific analyses and discusses their results accordingly. It also presents information about the NG15 data set used in this study and outlines general analysis methods employed. Additionally, it includes appendices with lists of parameters, prior ranges, and recovered posterior ranges for each model, as well as median GW spectra based on the recovered posterior distributions. Overall, this paper expands on previous research by investigating various cosmological models to explain the observed low-frequency gravitational-wave background in the NANOGrav data. It provides valuable insights into the potential origins of this signal and highlights the importance of pulsar timing data in constraining parameter space for these models.

- Investigation into the potential cosmological interpretations of a low-frequency gravitational-wave background found in NANOGrav's pulsar timing data set
- Various models explored: cosmic inflation, scalar-induced GWs, first-order phase transitions, cosmic strings, and domain walls
- All models except stable cosmic strings can reproduce the observed signal
- Comparisons made to standard interpretation of inspiraling supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs)
- Many cosmological models provide a better fit with Bayes factors ranging from 10 to 100 compared to SMBHBs
- Results heavily depend on modeling assumptions and should not be considered evidence for new physics at this stage
- Excluded parameter regions where predicted GW signal significantly exceeds NANOGrav signal identified
- Pulsar timing data used to constrain parameter space of these models
- Search for signals produced by ultralight dark matter (ULDM) and dark matter substructures in Milky Way conducted
- No evidence found for either signal, updated constraints reported
- Constraints on ULDM coupled to electrons, muons, or gluons outperform torsion balance and atomic clock constraints
- Detailed descriptions of authors' contributions and analysis methods provided
- NG15 data set used in study described
- Appendices include lists of parameters, prior ranges, recovered posterior ranges for each model, and median GW spectra based on recovered posterior distributions
- Paper expands on previous research by investigating various cosmological models to explain observed low-frequency gravitational-wave background in NANOGrav data
- Highlights importance of pulsar timing data in constraining parameter space for these models

Scientists have been studying a special kind of wave called gravitational waves. They looked at data from pulsars, which are stars that send out regular signals. They explored different ideas about how these waves could be made, like from big explosions or strange things in space. Most of the ideas seemed to match the data, except for one. They compared their findings to what they already knew about black holes crashing into each other. Some of the new ideas fit better with the data than the old ones. But they say it's still too early to know for sure if any of these new ideas are true. They also looked for signs of something called dark matter, but didn't find any yet. The scientists shared all their information and methods so others can learn from it too." Definitions- Cosmological: relating to the study of the universe and its origins. - Gravitational-wave: a wave caused by changes in gravity. - Pulsar: a type of star that sends out regular signals. - Cosmic inflation: a theory that explains how the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang. - Scalar-induced GWs: gravitational waves caused by certain types of particles. - First-order phase transitions: changes in matter that happen suddenly. - Cosmic strings: long, thin objects that may exist in space. - Domain walls: boundaries between different regions in space. - Bayes factors: a way to compare different explanations based on probability. - Supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs): pairs

Exploring Cosmological Models to Explain the Low-Frequency Gravitational-Wave Background Detected by NANOGrav

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in understanding the origin of low-frequency gravitational waves (GWs) detected in pulsar timing data collected by the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves (NANOGrav). In this paper, researchers explore various cosmological models to explain this signal and compare them with the standard interpretation in terms of inspiraling supermassive black hole binaries (SMBHBs). They also search for deterministic signals produced by ultralight dark matter (ULDM) and dark matter substructures. Here, we provide an overview of their findings and discuss how these results can help us better understand the potential origins of GWs.

Background on NANOGrav Data Set

The authors use a 15-year pulsar timing data set collected by NANOGrav to investigate various cosmological interpretations of the observed low-frequency GW background. This data set consists of monthly observations from 45 millisecond pulsars distributed across our Galaxy. The authors describe general analysis methods employed and provide information about this data set in detail.

Cosmological Interpretations Explored

The authors explore several cosmological models as potential explanations for this signal, including cosmic inflation, scalar-induced GWs, first-order phase transitions, cosmic strings, and domain walls. Comparing these models to SMBHBs as a standard interpretation reveals that many of them seem to provide a better fit with Bayes factors ranging from 10 to 100. However, it is important to note that these results heavily depend on modeling assumptions about the cosmic SMBHB population and should not be considered as evidence for new physics at this stage. Additionally, they identify excluded parameter regions where predicted GW signals from cosmological sources significantly exceed those observed in NANOGrav data set. These constraints are independent of any particular model or origin of the signal and demonstrate how pulsar timing data can be used to constrain parameter space for different cosmologies.

Searching For Deterministic Signals From ULDM And Dark Matter Substructures

The authors also conduct searches for deterministic signals produced by ULDM coupled with electrons/muons/gluons or dark matter substructures in Milky Way galaxy using NG15 dataset . They find no evidence for either type of signal but report updated constraints on these models which outperform torsion balance and atomic clock experiments’ constraints on ULDM parameters coupled with electrons/muons/gluons respectively .

Conclusion

Overall ,this paper provides valuable insights into potential origins of low frequency gravitational wave background detected by NANOGrav . It demonstrates how pulsar timing datasets can be used effectively to constrain parameter spaces associated with different cosmology models . Furthermore ,it updates existing constraints on ULDM parameters coupled with electrons / muons / gluons which outperforms torsion balance & atomic clock experiments’ constraints respectively .

Created on 07 Jul. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

63.5%

Classification of astrophysical events from gravitational wave signature

astro-ph.HE

63.2%

Measuring the photo-ionization rate, neutral fraction and mean free path of H…

astro-ph.CO

62.8%

Anomalies in Gravitational-Lensed Images Revealing Einstein Rings Modulated b…

astro-ph.CO

62.6%

A consistent and robust measurement of the thermal state of the IGM at $2 \le…

astro-ph.CO

61.9%

Topology by Dissipation: Majorana Bosons in Metastable Quadratic Markovian Dy…

quant-ph

61.5%

Mode Mixing and Rotational Splittings: II. Reconciling Different Approaches t…

astro-ph.SR

61.4%

Neutron star phase transition as the origin for the fast radio bursts and sof…

astro-ph.HE

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.