I was just going to say thanks for doing these. But: Have you heard of anyone trying to pick up the sun or moon presence in other networks?
Was getting ready to point the older LIGO array of three detectors in the direction of the moon and sun to see if it could pick up “moon” “no moon” and “sun” “no sun” in the correlations.The L1 H1 V1 strain data is 16384 samples per second so the distance resolution is about 18.3 km. Angular slicing is good with 16384th second resolution. The datasets have 4096 second files and continuous coverage for a couple of weeks. GWpy can read the files. Not sure if that is officially part of Astropy.
The difference in the three GW detector correlations at one time, relative to the same detectors aiming at a slightly different location (vacuum nearby), should show a difference. More for the sun than the moon. Can you image Venus or Jupiter yet? An array of atom interferometer gravimeters or gradiometers can just pick them up. But no one has done it yet. Changing to “venus” “no venus” should improve things, and more detectors are coming online in the next few years. If LIGO works for the moon, it will work for all the larger planets. I don’t think it can do asteroids, but the next generation ones can. I have a bet that any mass will have a basic level of noise, different from the vacuum nearby.
I am hoping to see a difference for vacuum, mantle, core at least. But your islands of higher test statistics around the sun are troublesome. If those were real source direction variation?. Probably not. I will have to look to see if you have done a whole sky scan.
Cosmic ray shadows might affect any electromagnetic sensor arrays where the electromagnetic shock fronts of the cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere are picked up. I track so many groups for the Internet Foundation, it is hard to remember all of them, I am trying to set standards for data and model sharing for the whole Internet. I am sure I saw a group using either the magnetoTelluric or one of the ELF sensor networks. There are so many groups using SDRs for radio telescope work, magnetometer networks. There are almost as many private efforts and formal ones. But they come and go.
I like the gravitational sensor networks because they are supposed to not attenuate through the earth. If there were a moon shadow, there are other sensors besides the three LIGO ones. Some are more sensitive, but require continuous calibration. I was looking for an easy target for testing. I picked the moon and sun because they are what I use to calibrate the superconducting gravimeter and broadband seismometer arrays. A linear regression for each axis is all that is needed, so small groups making MEMS, atom interferometer, Bose Einstein, electrochemical, piezoelectic and other types of gravimeters can use that easy large signal as they are starting. Then time of flight speed of gravity calibrations.
The SGs and seismometers picked up the Japan earthquake as gravitational signals. The shape and timing of the gravitational signals from seismic events is pretty well developed. There are groups racing to improve detector sensitivity. Everyone is using three axis or tensor methods now. But slow to get the sampling rates up to time of flight levels. The strongest signals are earth based, and that requires Msps and Gsps. Luckily the SDR community pushed the Gsps ADCs and amplifiers the last few years, so off-the-shelf components are dropping the cost.
Sorry I had to write from my personal email, Network Solutions is working on my email server. Sorry to bother you if you are not interested in these things, but I write this down when I am trying to remember all the groups for each new sensor network and possible correlations.
Richard Collins, Director, The Internet Foundation
RichardCollins@TheInternetFoundation.Org
Cosmic Ray Sensor Networks – sun and moon shadows and tracking – other radio groups who track the sun and moon
Andrey,
My email is working again, at least temporarily. I wrote from my personal email. I wonder it that got to you.
After writing to you, I realized I have not looked at cosmic ray groups lately, in regard to radio detector networks.
There is an extensive literature, so pardon me for mentioning them. Except that there is only one mention of “radio” in your sun paper – S J Tingay is from 31 International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research – Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia in the sun paper. And radio or electromagnetic are not mentioned in the moon paper.
Your sun paper shows structure for the interior of the sun, and that will be very helpful. But there are lots more sensor arrays that can pick up the cosmic ray pulses. I expect the time of flight radio pulse detection can be quite precise in direction with continuous recording small arrays. They are running for other reasons, and adding a “look for those near the sun direction” should not be burdensome. I will look. I follow some things for decades before they come to fruition. I can add that one.
I won’t bother you any more. I found tens of thousands of references to these other networks. I have been doing this every day for 23 years, and it still amazes me, that anything I can imagine that seems reasonable to try, when I go look there are ten thousand people, already working on parts of the problem in great detail — most always not apparently working with each other globally and with a map of the whole.
What people seem to not realize is groups like “cosmic ray” depend on “electromagnetic pulse” and “muon detection” and those are more diffuse. So a way is needed to keep track of all the developments, then when you look for solutions, you don’t have to rely just on a few ten thousand who happen to already be working on a problem to solve the problems of detector development, you can let millions see what is required and let them join appropriate groups.
That kind of global community research, in near real time, seems to be evolving. Some groups do it for short times and make great gains. But sustained and broad search by the whole of the human race needs a more consistent and complete method. The biggest part of the problem is the papers are all literally the equivalent of “paper” that is just images only humans can read. I am trying to set standards for converting papers into standard electronic forms with equations, requisite data and all the connected materials. Or the get the publishers to share equations as symbolic equations that work, problems that are accessible, data sets that are shared and accessible. it is happening in dribs and drabs. Too late for covid deaths, but maybe that was the price people were willing to pay to know how important it is to not put human readers into critical paths of all research sharing.
Richard Collins, Director, The Internet Foundation
