• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

156 submissions , 130 unreviewed
4,059 questions , 1,467 unanswered
4,947 answers , 21,066 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
547 active unimported users
More ...

  Gravitational wave production by rotating primordial black holes

+ 0 - 0
+ 0 - 0
Referee this paper: arXiv:1511.05642 by Ruifeng Dong, William H Kinney, (show more)

Please use comments to point to previous work in this direction, and reviews to referee the accuracy of the paper. Feel free to edit this submission to summarise the paper (just click on edit, your summary will then appear under the horizontal line)

(Is this your paper?)

requested Nov 19, 2015 by ruifeng14 (65 points)
submission not yet summarized

paper authored Nov 18, 2015 to astro-ph by ruifeng14
  • [ no revision ]

    Just from reading the abstract: The gravitational detectors cannot detect a weak stochastic background and probably never will be able to. The signal is very noisy, and if there is any stochastic background, it is averaged out and what the GW detector really does is that it tries to find nice coherent wave-forms deviating from the background. The only possible way of detecting a stochastic background would be if it were unexpectedly large and in a frequency range where there is no other possible physical source.

    @Void I think the real problem is that GW signal with so high frequencies, i.e. higher than \(10^{17}Hz\), is not detectable with current technologies, which focus on low frequencies (not very higher than \(1 Hz\)). On the other hand, the signal from PBH's evaporation is not weak in magnitude (the GW's present energy fraction can be as high as \(10^{-5}\)). 

    @ruifeng14 The energy fraction might be a good measure for cosmology but not for local detection. The $\sim 10^{-5}$ CMB energy fraction is also a weak background noise which is possible to separate from the foreground sources thanks only to the relative tractability of noise in photon detection. I am just saying that the current measurement principles of gravitational waves are in principle noisy and, as long as they build on the same detection principle, will be only barely able to detect strong coherent signals.

    Btw., by a simple order of magnitude estimate, a signal of $10^{17} Hz$ is even not measurable by classical mechanical devices because that would correspond to $\sim 100 eV$ binding energies, well above even the electron structure of usual materials. For these frequencies, a quantum detection is necessary, and we know that the rates of detection of gravitons even under ideal conditions are usually extremely small.

    Simply stated, I think it would be more accurate to say that such a signal will not be directly detectable in the foreseeable future; if you want to make a link to observation, an indirect alternative of detection must be offered.

    @Void Yes, you are right. For now, the detection of gravity waves is still classical, because no quantum gravity effect has been confirmed yet. Thanks for your comment.

    Your Review:

    Please use reviews only to (at least partly) review submissions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
    To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
    Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
    This is the review box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
    Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
    Your name to display (optional):
    Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
    Anti-spam verification:
    If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
    Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
    To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

    user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

    Your rights