Search for: All records

Abstract We answer frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the Hellings and Downs correlation curve—the ‘smoking-gun’ signature that pulsar timing arrays (PTAs) have detected gravitational waves (GWs). Many of these questions arise from inadvertently applying intuition about the effects of GWs on LIGO-like detectors to the case of pulsar timing, where not all of it applies. This is because Earth-based detectors, like LIGO and Virgo, have arms that are short (km scale) compared to the wavelengths of the GWs that they detect ( $\approx {10}^2$ –10⁴km). In contrast, PTAs respond to GWs whose wavelengths (tens of light-years) are much shorter than their arms (a typical PTA pulsar is hundreds to thousands of light-years from Earth). To demonstrate this, we calculate the time delay induced by a passing GW along an Earth-pulsar baseline (a ‘one-arm, one-way’ detector) and compare it in the ‘short-arm’ (LIGO-like) and ‘long-arm’ (PTA) limits. This provides qualitative and quantitative answers to many questions about the Hellings and Downs curve. The resulting FAQ sheet should help in understanding the ‘evidence for GWs’ recently announced by several PTA collaborations. 

Abstract The Australian, Chinese, European, Indian, and North American pulsar timing array (PTA) collaborations recently reported, at varying levels, evidence for the presence of a nanohertz gravitational-wave background (GWB). Given that each PTA made different choices in modeling their data, we perform a comparison of the GWB and individual pulsar noise parameters across the results reported from the PTAs that constitute the International Pulsar Timing Array (IPTA). We show that despite making different modeling choices, there is no significant difference in the GWB parameters that are measured by the different PTAs, agreeing within 1σ. The pulsar noise parameters are also consistent between different PTAs for the majority of the pulsars included in these analyses. We bridge the differences in modeling choices by adopting a standardized noise model for all pulsars and PTAs, finding that under this model there is a reduction in the tension in the pulsar noise parameters. As part of this reanalysis, we “extended” each PTA’s data set by adding extra pulsars that were not timed by that PTA. Under these extensions, we find better constraints on the GWB amplitude and a higher signal-to-noise ratio for the Hellings–Downs correlations. These extensions serve as a prelude to the benefits offered by a full combination of data across all pulsars in the IPTA, i.e., the IPTA’s Data Release 3, which will involve not just adding in additional pulsars but also including data from all three PTAs where any given pulsar is timed by more than a single PTA.