gravitational waves ( gw ) , on very general grounds , appear to be a largely unavoidable consequence of a well established fact that no known interaction propagates instantly from source to observer : gravitation would be the first exception to this rule , should it be described by newton s theory . indeed ,
the newtonian gravitational potential @xmath0 satisfies poisson s equation    @xmath1    where @xmath2 is the density of matter in the sources of gravitational fields , and @xmath3 is newton s constant .
but , since  ( [ eq1.1 ] ) contains no time derivatives , the time dependence of @xmath0 is purely _ parametric _ , i.e. , time variations in @xmath2
_ instantly _ carry over to @xmath0 , irrespective of the value of @xmath4 .
so , for example , non - spherically symmetric fluctuations in the mass distribution of the sun ( such as e.g. those caused by solar storms ) would instantly _ and _ simultaneously be felt both in the nearby mercury and in the remote pluto     quite independently of the _ quantitative _ relevance of such instant propagation effect in this particular example  which is none in practice  , its very existence is _ conceptually _ distressing .
in addition , the asymmetry between the space and time variables in ( [ eq1.1 ] ) does not even comply with the basic requirements of special relativity .
einstein s solution to the problem of gravity , general relativity ( gr ) , does indeed _ predict _ the existence of radiation of gravitational waves . as early as 1918 , einstein himself provided a full description of the polarisation and propagation properties of weak gws  @xcite . according to gr
, gws travel across otherwise flat empty space at the speed of light , and have _ two _ independent and _ transverse _ polarisation amplitudes , often denoted @xmath5 and @xmath6 , respectively  @xcite . in a more general framework of so called _ metric theories _ of gravity , gws are allowed to have up to a maximum 6 amplitudes , some of them transverse and some longitudinal @xcite .
the theoretically predicted existence of gws poses of course the experimental challenge to _ measure _ them .
historically , it took a long while even to attempt the construction of a _ gravitational telescope _ : it was not until the decade of the 1960 s that j.  weber first took up the initiative , and developed the first gravitational antennas .
these were elastic cylinders of aluminum , most sensitive to _ short bursts _
( a few milliseconds ) of gws .
after analysing the data generated by _ two _ independent instruments , and looking for events in coincidence in both , he reported evidence that a considerably large number of gw flares had been sighted  @xcite .
even though weber never gave up his claims of _ real _ gw detection  @xcite , his contentions eventually proved untenable .
for example , the rate and intensity of the reported events would imply the happening of several supernova explosions per week in our galaxy  @xcite , which is astrophysically very unlikely .
it became clear that more sensitive detectors were necessary , whose design and development began shortly afterwards .
in the mid 1970 s and early eighties , the new concept _ interferometric _ gw detector started to develop  @xcite , which would later lead to the larger _ ligo _ and _ virgo _ projects , as well as others of more reduced dimensions ( _ geo-600 _ and _ tama _ ) , and to the future _ space _ antenna _ lisa_. in parallel , _ cryogenic _ resonant detectors were designed and constructed in several laboratories , and towards mid 1990 s the next generation of _ ultracryogenic _ antennas , _ nautilus _ ( rome ) , _ auriga _ ( padua ) , _ allegro _ ( baton rouge , louisiana ) and _ niobe _ ( australia ) , began _ taking data_. more recently , data exchange protocols have been signed up for multiple detector coincidence analysis  @xcite . based on analogous physical principles , new generation _
spherical _ gw detectors are being programmed in brazil , holland and    in spite of many years of endeavours and hard work , gws have proved elusive to all dedicated detectors constructed so far . however , the discovery of the binary pulsar _
psr 1913 + 16 _ by r.  hulse and j.  taylor in 1974  @xcite , and the subsequent long term detailed monitoring of its orbital motion , brought a breeze of fresh air into gw science : the measured decay of the orbital period of the binary system due to _ gravitational bremsstrahlung _ accurately conforms to the predictions of general relativity .
hulse and taylor were awarded the 1993 nobel prize in physics for their remarkable work . as of 1994  @xcite ,
the accumulated binary pulsar data confirm gr to a high precision of a tenth of a percent .
the binary pulsar certainly provides the most compelling evidence to date of the gw phenomenon as such , yet it does so thanks to the observation of a _ back action _
effect on the source . even though i do not consider accurate the statement , at times made by various people , that this is only _ indirect _ evidence of gws , it is definitely a matter of fact that there is more to gws than revealed by the binary pulsar   for example , amplitude , phase and polarisation parameters of a gw can only be measured , according to current lore , with dedicated gw antennas .
but how do gw telescopes interact with the radiation they are supposed to detect ?
this is of course a fundamental question , and is also the subject of the present contribution , where i intend to review the
_ theoretical foundations _ of this problem , and its solutions as presently understood . in section  [ sec.2 ] , i summarise the essential properties of gws within a rather large class of possible theories of the gravitational interaction ; section  [ sec.3 ] briefly bridges the way to sections  [ sec.4 ] and  [ sec.5 ] where interferometric and acoustic detector concepts are respectively analysed in some detail .
section  [ sec.5 ] also includes aboundant reference to new generation spherical detectors in its various variants ( solid , hollow , dual ) .
for the sake of completeness , i have added a section ( section  [ sec.6 ] ) with a very short summary of detector characterisation concepts , so that the interested reader gets a flavour of how sensitivities are defined , what do they express and how do gw signals compare with local noise disturbances in currently conceived detectors .
section  [ sec.7 ] closes the paper with a few general remarks .
quite generally , a time varying mass - energy distribution creates in its surroundings a time varying gravitational field ( _ curvature _ ) .
as already stressed in section  [ sec.1 ] , we do not expect such time variations to travel instantly to distant places , but rather that they travel as _ gravity waves _ across the intervening space .
now , how are these waves `` seen '' ? a _
observer may of course not feel any variations in the gravitational field where he / she is immersed , if he / she is in _ free fall _ in that field  this is a consequence of the _ equivalence principle _
_ two _ nearby observers have instead the capacity to do so : for , both being in free fall , they can take each other as a reference to measure any relative _ accelerations _ caused by a non - uniform gravitational field , in particular those caused by a _ gravitational wave field_. we can rephrase this argument saying that gravitational waves show up as _ local tides _ , or gradients of the local gravitational field at the observatory .    in the language of differential geometry
, tides are identified as _ geodesic deviations _ ,
i.e. , variations in the four - vector connecting nearby geodesic lines .
it is shown in textbooks , e.g.  @xcite , that the geodesic deviation equation is    @xmath7    where `` @xmath8 '' means _
covariant derivative _ , @xmath9 is proper time for _ either _ geodesic , @xmath10 is the riemann tensor , @xmath11 is a unit tangent vector ( again to either geodesic ) , and  @xmath12 is the vector connecting corresponding points of the two geodesic lines .
the gw fields considered in this paper will be restricted to a class of _ perturbations _ of the geometry of otherwise flat space - time , with the additional assumptions that they be    [ cols= " < " , ]     this is certainly not the most general definition of a gw yet it will suffice to our purposes here : any gws generated in astrophysical sources and reaching a man - made detector definitely satisfy the above requirements .
the interested reader is referred to  @xcite for a thorough treatment of more general gws .    following the above assumptions , a gw can be described by perturbations @xmath13 of a
lorentzian metric @xmath14 , i.e. , there exist _ quasi - lorentzian _ coordinates @xmath15 in which the space - time metric @xmath16 can be written    @xmath17    with    @xmath18    the actual effect of a gw on a pair of test particles is , according to  ( [ eq2.1 ] ) , determined by the riemann tensor @xmath10 , and this in turn is determined by the functions @xmath19 .
i now review briefly the different possibilities in terms of which is the theory underlying the physics of gravity waves , i.e. , which are the field equations which the @xmath19 satisfy .
the vacuum field equations of general relativity are , as is well known  @xcite ,    @xmath20    where @xmath21 is the ricci tensor of the metric @xmath22 .
if quadratic and successively higher order terms in the perturbations @xmath19 are neglected then this tensor can be seen to be given by    @xmath23    with    @xmath24    new coordinates @xmath25 can be defined by means of transformation equations    @xmath26    and these will still be quasi - lorentzian if the functions @xmath27 are _ sufficiently small_. more precisely , the gw components are , in the new coordinates ,    @xmath28    provided higher order terms in @xmath29 are neglected .
thus `` sufficiently small '' means that the derivatives of @xmath30 be of the order of magnitude of the metric perturbations @xmath31  so that in the new coordinates @xmath32 the metric tensor _ also _ splits up as @xmath33 .
it is now possible , see  @xcite , to choose new coordinates in such a way that the _ gauge conditions _    @xmath34    hold .
this being the case , equations  ( [ eq2.3 ] ) read    @xmath35    which are vacuum _ wave equations_. therefore gws travel across empty space at the speed of light , according to gr theory . _ plane wave solutions _ to ( [ eq2.9 ] ) satisfying ( [ eq2.8 ] ) can now be constructed  @xcite which take the form    @xmath36    for waves travelling down the @xmath37-axis .
the label @xmath38 is an acronym for _ transverse - traceless _ , the usual denomination for this particular gauge .
the physical meaning of the polarisation amplitudes in ( [ eq2.10 ] ) is clarified by looking at the effect of an incoming wave on test particles .
consider e.g.  two equal test masses whose center of mass is at the origin of @xmath38 coordinates ; let @xmath39 be their distance in the absence of gws , and @xmath40 the orientation ( relative to the @xmath38 axes ) of the vector joining both masses . making use of the geodesic deviation equation  ( [ eq2.1 ] ) , with the riemann tensor associated to  ( [ eq2.10 ] ) , it can be seen that the gw only affects the _ transverse _ projection of the distance relative to the wave propagation direction ( the @xmath37-axis ) ; in fact , if @xmath41 is such distance then some simple algebra leads to the result .
but it can also be calculated at the position of _ either _ one of them    this would only make up for a negligible _ second order _ difference . ]
@xmath42\;.   \label{eq2.12}\ ] ]    '' and `` @xmath43 '' polarisation modes of a gw , according to gr theory . the dotted lines ( circles ) indicate the test particles position in the absence of gw signal .
each step in the graph corresponds to a quarter of the period of the driving gw , as labeled atop .
[ fig1],width=449 ]    it is very important at this point to stress that the _ wavelength _ @xmath44 of the incoming gw must be much larger than the distance @xmath45 between the particles for  ( [ eq2.12 ] ) to hold , i.e. ,    @xmath46    and this is a condition which must be _ added _ to the already made assumption that @xmath47 .
a graphical representation of the result ( [ eq2.12 ] ) is displayed in figure  [ fig1 ] : a number of test particles are evenly distributed around a circle perpendicular to the incoming gw , i.e. , in the @xmath48 plane .
when a periodic signal comes in , the distances between those particles change following  ( [ eq2.12 ] ) ; note that the changes are modulated by the angular factors , i.e. , according to the particles positions on the circle .
the `` @xmath49 '' mode is characterised by a vanishing wave amplitude @xmath50 , while in the `` @xmath43 '' mode @xmath51 vanishes .
although general relativity has never been questioned so far by experiment , there are in fact alternative theories , e.g.  brans - dicke theory  @xcite , which are interesting for a number of reasons , for example _ cosmological _ reasons  @xcite .
generally , these theories make their own specific predictions about gws , and they partly differ from those of gr  just discussed .
the term _ metric theory _ indicates that the gravitational interaction affects the _ geometry _ of space - time , i.e. , the metric tensor @xmath22 is a fundamental ingredient  though other fields may also be necessary to complete the theoretical scheme .
obviously , general relativity falls within this class of theories .
the appropriate scheme to assess the physics of such more general class of gws was provided long ago  @xcite .
the idea is to consider only _ plane gravitational waves _ , which should be an extremely good approximation for astrophysics , given our great distance even to the nearest conceivable gw source , and to characterise them by their _ newman - penrose scalars
_  @xcite .
it appears that only _
six _ components of the riemann tensor out of the usual  20 are independent in a _ plane _
gw ; these are given by the four newman - penrose scalars    @xmath52    of which @xmath53 and @xmath54 are real , while @xmath55 and @xmath56 are _ complex _ functions of the null variable @xmath57
see  @xcite for all notation details .
if a quasi - lorentzian coordinate system is chosen such that gws travel along the @xmath37-axis then @xmath58 , and one can calculate the scalars  ( [ eq2.14 ] ) to obtain    _ 2(t - z ) & = & -r_tztz , [ eq2.15a ] + _ 3(t - z ) & = & -(-r_txtz+r_tytz ) , [ eq2.15b ] + _ 4(t - z ) & = & -r_txtx+r_tyty+2r_txty , [ eq2.15c ] + _ 22(t - z ) & = & -r_txtx - r_tyty .
[ eq2.15d ]    general relativity is characterised by @xmath59 being the only non - vanishing scalar , while in brans - dicke theory @xmath60 also is different from zero  see  @xcite for full details .
it is relevant to remark at this stage that the only non - trivial components of the riemann tensor of a plane gw are the so called `` _ _ electric _ _ '' components , @xmath61 , as we see in equations  ( [ eq2.15a]d ) above .
these are , incidentally , _ also _ the only ones which appear in the geodesic deviation equation  ( [ eq2.1 ] ) , since one may naturally choose @xmath62 .
but , because of the symmetries of the riemann tensor , only values of @xmath63 and @xmath64 different from zero , i.e. , @xmath65 , give non - zero contributions . ]
has spherical symmetry , so it includes a combination of longitudinal and transverse excitations in like proportions .
[ fig2],width=415 ]    this fact helps us make a graphical representation of all _ six _ possible polarisation states of a general metric gw in the same manner as in figure  [ fig1 ] .
the result is represented in figure  [ fig2 ]  whose source is reference  @xcite .
the idea is to take a ring of test particles , let a gw pass by , and analyse the results of the displacements it causes in the distributions of those particles , just as done in section  [ sub2.2 ] .
note that the first three modes are _ transverse _ , while the other three are longitudinal  see the caption to the figure .
as already stressed , gr only gives rise to the two @xmath56 modes .
we are now ready to discuss the objectives and procedures to detect gws : knowing their physical structure , one can design systems whose interaction with the gws be sufficiently well understood and under control ; suitable monitoring of the dynamics of such systems will be the source of information on whatever gw parameters may show up in a given observation experiment .
there are _ two _ major detection concepts : _ interferometric _ and _ acoustic _ detection .
historically , the latter came first through the pioneering work of j.  weber , but interferometric gw antennas are at present attracting the larger stake of the investment in this research field , both in hardware and in human commitment .
this is because much hope has been deposited in their capabilities to reach sufficient sensitivity to _ measure _ gws for the first time .
interferometric detectors aim to measure phase shifts between light rays shone along two different ( straight ) lines , whose ends are defined by _ freely suspended _ test masses .
this is done in a michelson layout , using mirrors , beam splitters and photodiodes .
acoustic detectors are instead based on elastically linked test masses  rather than freely suspended  which _ resonantly _ respond to gw excitations .
these _ qualitative _ ideas can be made quantitatively precise , but the process is a non - trivial one and has important subtleties which must be properly understood for a thorough assessment of the detector workings and readout .
the next sections are devoted to explain with some detail which are the _ theoretical principles _ governing the behaviour and response of both kinds of gw antennas .
a rather _ nave _ idea to measure the effect of an incoming gw is provided by the following argument  see also figure  [ fig3 ] for reference : let a gw having a `` @xmath49 '' polarisation ( assume gr for simplicity at this stage ) come in perpendicular to the local horizontal at a given observatory ; if three masses are laid down on the vertices of an ideally oriented isosceles right triangle then , as we saw ( figure  [ fig1 ] ) , the catets shrink and stretch with opposite phases . if a beam of laser light is now shone into the system , and a beam - splitter attached to mass @xmath66 and mirrors attached to @xmath67 and @xmath68 , then one can think of measuring the distance changes between the masses by simple interferometry .    '' polarised relative to the @xmath69 and @xmath70 axes , causes the end masses @xmath67 and @xmath68 to oscillate in phase opposition relative to the central mass @xmath66 .
light is shone into the system , and suitable beam splitters and mirrors are attached to the masses ; length changes are then measured interferometrically , which directly lead to determine the gw amplitude .
[ fig3],width=415 ]    this may look like a very reasonable proposal for a detector yet the following criticism readily suggests itself : gravitation is concerned with _ geometry _
, i.e. , gravitational fields alter lengths and angles ; therefore gws will affect _ identically _ both distances between the masses of figure  [ fig3 ] _ and _ the wavelength of the light travelling between them  thus leading to a _ cancellation _ of the conjectured interferometric effect
while the criticism is certainly correct , the conclusion is _
not_. the reason is that it overlooks the fact that gravitation is concerned with the geometry of _ space - time _
 not just space . in the case of the above
gw it so happens that , in @xmath38 coordinates , the time dimension of space - time is not _ warped _ in the gw geometry  see the form of the metric tensor in equation  ( [ eq2.10 ] )  while the transverse space dimensions _ are_. consequently an electromagnetic wave travelling in the @xmath48 plane experiences _ wavelength _ changes depending on the propagation direction , but it does _ not _ experience _ frequency _ changes .
the net result of this is that the _ phase _ of the electromagnetic wave differs from direction to direction of the @xmath48 plane , and _ this _ makes a gw amenable to detection by interferometric principles
.    looked at in this way , the masses represented in figure  [ fig3 ] only play a _ passive _ role in the detector , in the sense that they simply make the interference between the two light beams possible by providing physical support for the mirrors and beam splitters . in other words , the physical principles underlying the working of an interferometric gw detector must have to do with the _ interaction between gws and electromagnetic waves _ rather than with geodesic deviations of the _
masses_.    admittedly , this is not the most common point of view  @xcite .
it can however be made precise by the following considerations , which are studied in depth in references  @xcite and  @xcite .      according to the above
, it appears that we must address the question of how gw - induced fluctuations in the geometry of a background space - time affect the properties ( amplitude and phase ) of a plane electromagnetic wave  a _ light beam _   which travels through such space - time
. it will be sufficient to consider that the light beam is a _ test _
beam , i.e. , its back action on the surrounding geometry is negligible .
let then @xmath71 be the vector potential which describes an electromagnetic wave travelling in vacuum ; @xmath72 thus satisfies maxwell s equations    @xmath73    where @xmath74 stands for the generalised dalembert operator :    @xmath75
we need only retain _ first order _ terms in @xmath31 in the covariant derivatives , so that equation  ( [ eq3.1 ] ) reads    @xmath76    to this equation , _ gauge conditions _ must be added .
we shall conventionally adopt the usual lorentz conditions , @xmath77 , which , to lowest order in the gravitational perturbations , read    @xmath78    in addition to the weakness of the gw perturbation , it is also the case in actual practice that :    * the gw typical frequencies , @xmath79 , are much smaller than the frequency of the light , @xmath80 : @xmath81 . * the wavelength of the gw is much larger than the cross sectional dimensions of the light beam .
wave front distortions and beam curvature are effects which can also be safely neglected in first order calculations  @xcite .
finally , i shall make the simplifying assumption of perpendicular incidence , i.e. , the incoming gw propagates in a direction orthogonal to the interferometer s arms .
we shall thus consider one of the interferometer arms aligned with the @xmath69-direction , and the other with the @xmath70-direction , while the incoming gw will be assumed to approach the detector down the @xmath82 .
the interaction gw - light beam will thus occur in the @xmath83 plane , hence the gw perturbations can be suitably described by a function of time alone , i.e. ,    @xmath84    where @xmath79 is the frequency of the gw , which we can also safely assume to be plane - fronted , since its source will in all cases of interest be far removed from the observatory .
in addition , for a beam running along the @xmath85 , the electromagnetic vector potential will only depend on the space variable @xmath69 and on time ,  i.e. ,    @xmath86    the following _ ansatz _ suggests itself for a solution to equations  ( [ eq3.3 ] ) :    a_t(t , x ) & = & _ 0(t ) , [ eq3.7a ] + a_x(t , x ) & = & _ 1(t ) , [ eq3.7b ] + a_y(t , x ) & = & a_2 e^i_2(t ) , [ eq3.7c ] + a_z(t , x ) & = & a_3 e^i_3(t ) , [ eq3.7d ]    where @xmath87 , @xmath88 , @xmath89 and @xmath90 are small quantities of order @xmath91 , @xmath92 and @xmath93 are constants , and @xmath80 is the frequency of the light . clearly , these expressions reproduce the plane wave solutions to vacuum maxwell s equations in the limit of flat space - time , i.e. , when @xmath94 .
let us now take an incoming gw of the form    @xmath95    and substitute it into ( [ eq3.3 ] ) and ( [ eq3.4 ] ) , with the _ ansatz _  ( [ eq3.7a]-d ) , neglecting higher order terms in the ratio @xmath96 .
then  @xcite , _ both _ @xmath97 and @xmath98 are seen to satisfy the approximate differential equation    @xmath99    the solution to this equation which is _ independent of the initial conditions _ is , to the stated level of accuracy ,    @xmath100    as shown in reference  @xcite , we need not worry about either @xmath87 or @xmath88 at this stage because the _ longitudinal _ component of the electric field ( i.e. , @xmath101 ) is an order of approximation smaller than the transverse components , which are given by    @xmath102    hence    e_y(x , t ) & & a_2 , [ eq3.12a ] + e_z(x , t ) & & a_3 .
[ eq3.12b ]    these expressions beautifully show how the incoming gw causes a _ phase shift _ in an electromagnetic beam of light .
note that this phase shift is a _ periodic _ function of time , with the frequency of the gw . if we consider a real interferometer , such as very schematically shown in figure  [ fig3 ] , and call @xmath103 the _ round trip _ time for the light to go from @xmath66 to @xmath68 and back , then the accumulated phase shift is , according to these formulas ,    @xmath104    since there is an obvious symmetry between light rays travelling to the right and to the left for a gw arriving perpendicularly to them .
the arguments leading to equations ( [ eq3.12a]-b ) can be very easily reproduced , _ mutatis mutandi _ , to obtain the phase shift experienced by a light ray travelling in the @xmath105 , rather than the @xmath69 direction  everything in fact amounts to a simple interchange @xmath106 in the equations , which includes @xmath107 as this is equivalent to @xmath108 , see  ( [ eq2.10 ] ) .
the result is    @xmath109    in the actual interferometer , provided it has equal arm lengths , the two laser rays recombine in the beam splitter with a net phase difference    @xmath110    and this produces an _ interference signal _ , which is in principle measurable  if the instrumentation is sufficiently sensitive .
the reader may wonder how is it that the detector signal only depends on one of the gw amplitudes , @xmath51 , but not on the other , @xmath50 .
the reason is that we have made a very special assumption regarding the orientation of the gw s polarisation axes relative to the light beam propagation directions . in a realistic case ,
even if perpendicular gw incidence happens , the detector s arms will not be aligned with the gw s natural axes , let alone the most likely case of _ oblique _ incidence .
an important conclusion one should draw from this section is a _ conceptual _
one , that interferometric detectors are able to measure gw amplitudes and polarisations as a result of the interaction between the electromagnetic field of light rays and the background space - time geometry they travel across .    beyond this ,
though , equation  ( [ eq3.15 ] ) has very relevant _ quantitative _ consequences , too .
for example , as stressed in reference  @xcite , its range of validity is _ not _ limited to interferometer arms short compared to the gw wavelength .
therefore , according to the formula , a _
null _ effect ( signal cancellation ) happens if the round trip time @xmath111 equals the period of the gw , @xmath112 .
likewise , equation  ( [ eq3.15 ] ) also tells us that _ maximum _ detector signal occurs when @xmath113 .
all this happen to be true for arbitrary incidence and polarisation of the incoming gws as well . for gw frequencies in the 1khz range
, the best detector should thus have arm lengths in the range of 150  kilometers   and even longer for lower gw frequencies .
no ground based gw antenna has ever been conceived of such dimensions yet there are intelligent ways to _ store _ the light in shorter arms for suitably tuned gw periods .
i shall not go into details of these technical matters , see  @xcite and  @xcite for thorough information .     at its ends to oscillate at the gw s frequency .
resonant amplification is obtained when the latter equals the spring s characteristic frequency , @xmath80 .
[ fig4],width=264 ]
acoustic gw detectors work based on a completely different concept  see figure  [ fig4 ] : the idea is to set up test masses @xmath114 linked together by a spring of relaxed length @xmath39 , so that gw _ tides _ drive their oscillations around the equilibrium position , with significant mechanical amplification at the spring s characteristic frequency @xmath80 .
the spring deformation    @xmath115    thus obeys the following equation of motion :    @xmath116    where    @xmath117\,\sin^2\theta\ ; ,   \label{eq5.3}\ ] ]    as follows from ( [ eq2.12 ] )  see also reference  @xcite for a complete discussion of this case .
this is the main idea , but in practice acoustic gw detectors are _ elastic solids _ rather than a single spring , i.e. , they do not have a single characteristic frequency but a whole spectrum .
the response of an elastic solid to a gw excitation is assessed by means of the classical theory of elasticity , as described for example in  @xcite .
in such theory the deformations of the solid are given by the values of a vector field of displacements , @xmath118 , which satisfies the evolution equations    @xmath119    where @xmath120 is the ( undeformed ) solid s density , and @xmath44 and @xmath121 are its lam coefficients , related to the poisson ratio and young modulus of the material the solid is made of  @xcite .
the function in the rhs of the equation is the density of _ external forces _ driving the motion of the system ; in the present case , these are the _ tides _ generated by the sweeping gw , i.e. ,    @xmath122    where @xmath123 are components of the riemann tensor evaluated at a fixed point of the solid , most expediently chosen at its center of mass .
as already discussed in section  [ sub2.2 ] , plane gws have at most six degrees of freedom , adequately associated with the six _ electric components _ of the riemann tensor , @xmath123 .
the six components are _ one monopole _ amplitude and _ five quadrupole _
amplitudes , and this important structure is made clear by the following expression of the density of gw tidal forces :    @xmath124    which is entirely equivalent to ( [ eq5.5 ] )  see reference  @xcite  , and uses the common @xmath125 notation convention to indicate multipole terms .
it is very important to stress at this stage that @xmath126 are pure _ form factors _ , simply depending on the fact that tides are monopole - quadrupole quantities , while all the relevant _ dynamic _ information carried by the gw is encoded in the time dependent coefficients @xmath127 . according to these considerations , we see that the ultimate objective of an acoustic gw antenna is to produce values of @xmath127   or indeed to extract from the device s readout as much information as possible about those quantities .
somewhat lengthy algebra permits to write down a _ formal solution _ to equations  ( [ eq5.5 ] ) and  ( [ eq5.6 ] ) in terms of an orthogonal series expansion  @xcite :    @xmath128\ ; ,   \label{eq5.7}\ ] ]    where    f_n^(l , m ) & & _ solid_n^ * ( ) ^(l , m)()^3x , [ eq5.8a ] + g_n^(l , m)(t ) & & _ 0^tg^(l , m)(t)_n(t - t)t , [ eq5.8b ]    with @xmath114 the whole solid s mass ; @xmath129 is the ( possibly _ degenerate _ ) characteristic frequency of the elastic body , and @xmath130 the corresponding _ wavefunction _ , both determined by the solution to the _ eigenvalue _ problem    @xmath131    with the boundary conditions that the surface of the solid be free of any tensions and/or tractions
see  @xcite for full details .    historically , the first gw antennas were weber s elastic _ cylinders _
@xcite , but more recently , _
spherical _ detectors have been seriously considered for the next generation of gw antennas , as they show a number of important advantages over cylinders .
i shall devote the next sections to a discussion of both types of systems , though clear priority will be given to spheres , due to their much richer capabilities and theoretical interest .
first thing to study the response of an elastic solid to an incoming gw is , as we have just seen , to determine its characteristic oscillation _ modes _ , i.e. , its frequency spectrum @xmath132 and associated wavefunctions , @xmath133 . in the case of a cylinder
this is a formidable task ; although its formal solution is known  @xcite , cylindrical antennas happen in practice tobe narrow and long  @xcite , and so approximate solutions can be used instead which are much simpler to handle , and sufficiently good  see also  @xcite .
it appears that , in the _ long rod _
approximation , the most efficiently coupled modes are the _ longitudinal _ ones , and these have typical sinusoidal profiles , of the type    @xmath134    for a rod of length @xmath135 whose end faces are at @xmath136 , and in which the speed of sound is @xmath137 .
figure  [ fig5 ] graphically shows the longitudinal deformations of the cylinder which correspond to  ( [ eq5.10 ] ) , including _ transverse _ distortions which , though not reflected in the simplified equation  ( [ eq5.10 ] ) , do happen in practice as a result of the poisson ratio being different from zero  @xcite . an important detail to keep in mind
is that _ odd
n _ modes have maximum displacements at the end faces , while _ even n _ modes have nodes there .
in fact , the latter do not couple to gws  @xcite .
it is also interesting to stress that the center of the cylinder is always a node   this is relevant e.g.   to suspension design issues  @xcite .
, width=302 ]    a very useful concept to characterise the sensitivity of an acoustic antenna is its _ cross section _ for the absorption of gw energy
. if an incoming gw flux density of @xmath138 watts per square metre and hertz sweeps the cylinder and sets it to oscillate with energy @xmath139 joules then the cross section is _ defined _ by the  ratio    @xmath140    which is thus measured in m@xmath141hz .
simple calculations show that , for optimal antenna orientation ( perpendicular to the gw incidence direction ) this quantity is given by  @xcite    @xmath142    where @xmath114 is the cylinder s total mass .
it is interesting to get a flavour of the order of magnitude this quantity has : consider a cylinder of al5056 ( an aluminum alloy , for which @xmath143 m/s ) , 3  metres long and 60  centimetres across , which has a mass of 2.3  tons ; the above formula tells us that , for the first mode ( @xmath144 ) ,    @xmath145    this is a _ very small _ number indeed , and gives an idea of how weak the coupling between gws and matter is .
the weakness of the coupling gives an indication of how difficult it is to detect gws . by the same token ,
though , gws are very weakly damped as they travel through matter , which means they can produce information about otherwise invisible regions , such as the interior of a supernova , or even the big bang .
equation  ( [ eq5.12 ] ) is only valid for _ perpendicular _ gw incidence .
if incidence is instead oblique then a significant damping factor of @xmath146 comes in , where @xmath147 is the angle between the gw direction and the cylinder s axis  @xcite ) , if one notices that the energy of oscillation appearing in the numerator of  ( [ eq5.12 ] ) is proportional to @xmath148 . ] .
this is a severe penalty , and it also happens in interferometric detectors not optimally oriented  @xcite .      the first initiatives to construct and operate gw detectors are due to j.  weber , who decided to use elastic cylinders .
this philosophy and practice has survived him , and still today ( february 2002 ) all gw detectors in continuous data taking regimes are actually weber bars , though with significant sensitivity improvements  @xcite derived , amongst other , from ultracryogenic and _ squid _ techniques .
about ten years after weber began his research , r.  forward published an article  @xcite where he pondered in a semi - quantitative way the potential virtues of a _ spherical _ , rather than cylindrical gw detector .
ashby and dreitlein  @xcite estimated how the whole earth , as an _ auto - gravitating _ system , responds to gws bathing it , and later wagoner  @xcite developed a theoretical model to study the response of an elastic sphere to gw excitations .
interest in this new theoretical concept then waned to eventually re - emerge in the 1990s .
the _ allegro _
detector group at louisiana constructed a room temperature prototype antenna  @xcite , which produced sound experimental evidence that it is actually possible to have a working system capable of making _ multimode _ measurements
i ll come to this in detail shortly
, thus proving that a full - fledged spherical gw detector is within reach of current technological state of the art , as developed for weber bars .
it was apparently the fears to find unsurmountable difficulties in this problem which deterred further research on spherical gw antennas for years  @xcite .
in this section i will give the main principles and results of the _ theory _ of the spherical gw detector , based on a formalism which has already been partly used in section  [ sec.5 ] , and for whose complete detail the reader is referred to  @xcite .
as we have seen , first thing we need is the _ eigenmodes _ and _ frequency spectrum _ of the spherical solid .
this is a classical problem , long known in the literature , the solution to which i will briefly review here , with some added emphasis on the issues of our present concern .
the oscillation eigenmodes of a solid elastic body fall into two families : _ spheroidal _ and _ torsional _ modes  @xcite . of these , only the former couple to gws , while torsional modes do not couple at all  @xcite .
spheroidal wavefunctions have the analytic form    @xmath149    where @xmath150 are spherical harmonics  @xcite , @xmath151 is the outward pointing normal , @xmath152 is the ` angular momentum operator ' , @xmath153 , @xmath154 and @xmath155 are somewhat complicated combinations of spherical bessel functions  @xcite , and @xmath156 are ` quantum numbers ' which label the modes .
the frequency spectrum appears to be composed of ascending series of _ multipole harmonics _
, @xmath157 , i.e. , for _ each _ multipole value  @xmath158 there are an infinite number of frequency harmonics , ordered by increasing values of @xmath159 . for example , there are _ monopole _ frequency harmonics @xmath160 , @xmath161 , @xmath162 , etc . ; then _ dipole _ frequencies @xmath163 , @xmath164 ,  , then _ quadrupole _
harmonics @xmath165 , @xmath166 , and so on .
each of these frequencies is @xmath167-fold degenerate , and this is a fundamental fact which makes of the sphere a theoretically ideal gw detector , as we shall shortly see .
if the above expressions are substituted into ( [ eq5.8a]-b ) , then into  ( [ eq5.7 ] ) , one easily obtains the sphere s response function as    @xmath168   & + & \sum_{n=1}^\infty\,\frac{a_{n2}}{\omega_{n2}}\,\left[\sum_{m=-2}^2   \vec{u}_{n2m}(\vec{x})\,g_{n2}^{(2,m)}(t)\right]\ ; ,   \label{eq5.15}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where    a_n0 & = & -_0^r a_n0(r)r^3r , [ eq5.16a ] + a_n2 & = & -_0^r r^3r , [ eq5.16b ]    and    @xmath169    ) are actually _ complex _ ( the spherical harmonics for @xmath170 are complex ) suitable combinations of them and their complex conjugates have been used to make plotting possible .
these _ shapes _ are shared by _ all _ corresponding harmonics , i.e. , quadrupole profiles for example are those shown no matter the harmonic number @xmath171 of their frequency @xmath172 : simply , they oscillate faster for higher @xmath171 , but always keep the represented profile .
[ fig6],width=7 ]    the series expansion ( [ eq5.15 ] ) transparently shows that _ only _ monopole and quadrupole spherical modes can possibly be excited by an incoming gw .
the monopole will of course not be excited at all if general relativity is the true theory of gravitation .
a spherical solid is thus seen to be the _ best possible _
shape for a gw detector .
this is because of the optimality of the _ overlap coefficients _
@xmath173 between the universal form factors @xmath126 and the sphere s eigenmodes @xmath174 , which comes about due to the clean _ multipole structure _ of the latter : only the @xmath158=0 and @xmath158=2 _ spheroidal _ modes couple to gws , hence _ all the gw energy _ is deposited into them , and only them . any other solid s shape , e.g.  a cylinder , has eigenmodes most of which have some amount of monopole / quadrupole projections in the form of the coefficients  ( [ eq5.8a ] ) , and this means the incoming gw energy is distributed amongst _ many modes _
, thus making detection less efficient .
we shall assess quantitatively the efficiency of the spherical detector in terms of _ cross section _
values below .
but , as just stated , quadrupole modes are _
more specifically , they are 5-fold degenerate , each degenerate wavefunction corresponding to one of the five integer values @xmath175 can take between @xmath176 and @xmath177 .
monopole modes are instead non - degenerate .
figure  [ fig6 ] shows the shapes of all these modes  @xcite   see the caption to the figure for further details .
_ degeneracy _ is a key concept for the _ multimode _ capabilities of the spherical detector . for , as explicitly shown by equation  ( [ eq5.15 ] ) , monopole and quadrupole _ detector _
modes are driven by one and five _ gw amplitudes _ , respectively , i.e. , @xmath178 and @xmath179 . therefore , if one could _
measure _ the amplitudes of these modes , i.e. , the amplitudes of the deformations displayed in figure  [ fig6 ] , then a _ complete deconvolution _ of the gw signal would be accomplished .
this is a _
unique _ feature of the spherical antenna , which is not shared by any other gw detector : it enables the determination of _ all _ the gw amplitudes , not just a combination of them , no matter where the signal comes from . in section  [ sub5.3 ] below
i shall give a more detailed review of how the multimode capability can be implemented in  practice .
the general definition ( [ eq5.11 ] ) applies in this case , too . since
cross section is a _ frequency _ dependent concept , and since quadrupole modes are degenerate , it is clear that energies deposited in _ each _ of the five degenerate modes of a given frequency harmonic must be added up to obtain @xmath180 for that mode .
such energy must be calculated by means of volume integrals   to add up the energies of all differentials of mass throughout the solid   , the details of which i omit here .
the final result turns out to be a remarkable one  @xcite : cross sections factorise in the form    @xmath181    where @xmath182 is a characteristic of the sphere s material[multiblock footnote omitted ] , and @xmath183 a dimensionless quantity associated with the @xmath184-th  frequency harmonic ; finally , and this is the stronger theoretical point of this expression , @xmath185 is a coefficient which is characteristic of the underlying theory of gws , symbolically indicated with @xmath186 .
for example , if the latter is general relativity ( gr ) then    @xmath187   { \cal k}_2(\aleph ) = \mbox{\large $ \frac{16\,\pi^2}{15}$}\ ; ,   \end{array}\right .   \label{eq5.19}\ ] ]    while if it is e.g.  brans - dicke  @xcite then these expressions get slightly more complicated  @xcite ,  etc .
cc + cylinder & sphere +   + @xmath188 = 910 hz & @xmath189 + @xmath190 & @xmath191 = 3.1 metres + @xmath192 = 2.3 tons & @xmath193 = 42 tons +  @xmath194@xmath43@xmath195 cm@xmath141 hz   &  @xmath197   + ( * optimum orientation * ) & ( * omnidirectional * ) +    sticking to gr , a few illustrative figures are in order .
they are shown in table  [ tab1 ] , where a material of aluminum al5056 alloy has been chosen .
it appears that a sphere having the same fundamental frequency ( @xmath198 ) as a cylinder ( @xmath199 ) is about 20 times more massive , and this results in a significant improvement in cross section , since it is proportional to the detector mass .
a spherical detector is therefore almost _ one order of magnitude _ more sensitive than a cylinder in the same frequency band   obviously apart from the important fact that the sphere has _ isotropic _ sensitivity .    .
note the ( slightly ) better figure ( 17% ) for the lowest mode in the sphere , as well as the appreciable value in the second harmonic of the latter , in sharp contrast with the _ null _ coupling of this mode in the cylinder .
third harmonics show a considerable reduction in sensitivity .
[ fig7],width=9 ]    but there is more to this .
table  [ tab1 ] also refers to the sphere s cross section in its _ second _ higher quadrupole harmonic frequency , @xmath200   almost twice the value of the first , @xmath198 .
it is very interesting that cross section at this second frequency is _ only _ 2.61 times smaller than that at the first  @xcite while , as stressed in section  [ sub2.1 ] , it is _ zero _ for the second mode of the cylinder .
figure [ fig7 ] shows a plot of the cross sections _ per unit
mass _ of a cylinder and a sphere of like fundamental frequencies .
it graphically displays the numbers given in the table , but also shows that , even per unit mass , the sphere is a better detector than a cylinder
its cross section ` curve ' stays above the cylinder s .
in particular , the _ first _ quadrupole resonance turns out to have a cross section which is 1.17 times that of the cylinder ( per unit mass , let me stress again )  @xcite , i.e. , @xmath20117% better .
this constitutes the _ quantitative _ assessment of the discussion in the paragraph immediately following equation  ( [ eq5.17 ] ) .      in order to determine the actual gw induced motions of an elastic solid a _ motion sensing _
system must be set up . in the case of currently operating cylinders
this is done by what is technically known as _ resonant transducer _
the idea of such device is to couple the _
large _ oscillating cylinder mass ( a few tons ) to a _ small _ resonator ( less than 1 kg ) whose characteristic frequency is accurately tuned to that of the cylinder .
joint _ dynamics of the resulting system @xmath202cylinder + resonator@xmath203 is a two - mode _ beat _ of nearby frequencies given by    @xmath204    where @xmath205 is the frequency of either oscillator when uncoupled to the other , and @xmath206 .
the key concept of this device is the _ resonant energy transfer _ , which flows back and forth between cylinder and sensor with the period of the beat , i.e. , @xmath207 .
this means that , because the sensor s mass is very small compared to that of the cylinder , the amplitude of its oscillations is enhanced by a factor of @xmath208 relative to those of the cylinder , whence a _ mechanical amplification _
factor is obtained _ before _ the sensor oscillations are converted to electrical signals , and further processed   see a more detailed account of these principles in  @xcite .
the same principles can certainly be applied to make resonant motion sensors in a spherical antenna . in this case , however , a special bonus is there , associated to the _ degeneracy _ of the quadrupole frequencies : because all five quadrupole modes oscillate with the _ same _ frequency , it is possible to attach five ( or more ) identical resonators , tuned to a given quadrupole frequency , at suitable positions on the sphere surface , thus taking _ multiple samples _ of the sphere s motion .
this makes possible to retrieve the oscillation amplitudes of the five degenerate modes
figure  [ fig6 ]   , and thereby of the gw quadrupole amplitudes @xmath127 , since both are linearly related through equation  ( [ eq5.15 ] ) .
a _ single _ spherical antenna can thus deconvolve completely the quadrupole gw signal , and do so with _ isotropic sky coverage_. these characteristics are _ unique _ to the spherical detector , and they make it a _ theoretically _ superior system compared to either interferometers or weber bars . in addition , a sphere can naturally measure the amplitude of the non - degenerate monopole mode , as it is conceptually simple to sense the amplitude of an isotropically breathing pattern .
, width=4 ]    the conceptual idea of a resonant sensor is shown in figure  [ fig8 ] , and the equations of motion for such a system are  @xcite    & = & ^2 + ( + ) ( ) + + & & _ b=1^j m_b_b^2 ^(3)(-_b)_b + _ gw(,t ) , [ eq5.20a ] + _ a(t ) & = & -_a^2
+ _ a^gw(t )  , a=1,
,j , [ eq5.20b ]    where @xmath209 and @xmath210 are the mass and characteristic frequency of the @xmath211-th resonator , @xmath212 is the gw tide on the sphere
see  ( [ eq5.6 ] )  , and @xmath213 is the gw induced tidal acceleration on the resonator itself , relative to the centre of the sphere ; @xmath214 is the three dimensional dirac density , i.e. , point - like connections between sphere and sensors are assumed .
the mathematical detail of the analysis of these equations is somewhat sophisticated .
the interested reader will find complete information in  @xcite ; the rest of this section will be devoted to a brief discussion of the main conclusions of that analysis .
first thing to stress is that equations  ( [ eq5.20a]-b ) can not be solved analytically , they must instead be solved by a _
perturbative _ procedure .
the small perturbation parameters are the ratios    @xmath215    where @xmath114 is the sphere s total mass .
actually , the analysis assumes that the resonators are all _ identical _ , any deviations from this being eventually assessed by suitable methods  @xcite .
the fundamental result links the spring deformations to the the gw amplitudes @xmath127 by the following formula , expressed in terms of _ laplace transforms _  noted with a caret ( @xmath216 ) :    @xmath217    where it is assumed that the resonators frequency @xmath80 is tuned to either a monopole or a quadrupole harmonic of the sphere . the _ transfer functions _
@xmath218 naturally depend on whether a monopole or a quadrupole mode is selected for resonator tuning ; i will quote here only the quadrupole case , as it is the most interesting one  see again full information in  @xcite :    @xmath219\right.\nonumber \\   & \times & \left.\frac{v_a^{(c)}v_b^{(c)*}}{\zeta_c}\right\}\ ,   y_{2m}(\vec{n}_b)\,\delta_{l2}\ ; ,   \label{eq5.23}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath220 is the @xmath221-th normalised eigenvector of the matrix @xmath222 , associated to its _ non - zero _
eigenvalue @xmath223 , @xmath224 is a legendre polynomial , and @xmath225 is the position of the @xmath226-th resonator on the sphere s surface .
finally ,    @xmath227    equations ( [ eq5.22])([eq5.24 ] ) are the key to the gw signal deconvolution problem : they show that _ beats _ occur around the tuned frequency ( @xmath172 in this case ) , and that the resonators oscillate with amplitudes enhanced by a factor @xmath208 , as indeed expected .
note that these beats have frequencies which depend on the resonators positions @xmath225 , as shown by the presence of the  @xmath228 coefficient in  ( [ eq5.24 ] ) .
, width=9 ]    the deconvolution problem consists in inferring the gw amplitudes @xmath229 from the telescope s readouts @xmath230 .
thus _ at least _
5 sensors must be attached to the sphere s surface if e.g.  the 5 quadrupole amplitudes are looked for : once the corresponding five @xmath230 are _ measured _ the system  ( [ eq5.22 ] ) is solved for @xmath231 , that s it .
crucial at this point is to decide _ where _ to implant the resonators , as such decision bears fundamentally on the simplicity , or even the possibility of solving the posed problem .
there are two major proposals in the literature for this , and they are displayed in figure  [ fig9 ] .
they permit the definition of so called _ mode channels _ , which are linear combinations of the system readouts @xmath230 which are directly proportional to the gw amplitudes @xmath231 .
they happen to be of the form  @xcite    @xmath232    both for _ tiga _ and _ phc_. the actual result of these linear combinations is the following :    @xmath233\,\hat g^{(2,m)}(s)\ ; ,   \label{eq5.26}\ ] ]    i.e. , they are _ convolution products _ of the signal and the system beats .
this formula appears to be very powerful , as it shows that suitable sensor systems enable a _
spherical detector to fully deconvolve _ all _ the gw amplitudes .
one should however be careful about this conclusion , for the formula _ also _ indicates that the relevant information _ can only be obtained at the resonance frequencies _ @xmath234   in an ideal , non - dissipative system . in a real system ,
resonant linewidths are never infinitely sharp , they have instead a certain breadth ; this actually makes possible the observation across wider bandwidths , provided the amplifier noise can be kept sufficiently small
i shall briefly come to this below in section  [ sec.6 ] .
the real merit of the just described spherical gw detector comes from its _ symmetry_. a _ hollow _ sphere does of course share the symmetry properties of a solid sphere , and one might therefore expect it to be an interesting alternative , too . a detailed study of the performance of a hollow spherical gw detector can be found in  @xcite .
the added bonus of a hollow sphere is that there is one more structural parameter one can adjust to enhance this or that property , and this is of course the _ thickness _ of the spherical shell .
it appears that cross sections at e.g.  different quadrupole harmonics have characteristic behaviours when plotted as functions of thickness ; also , one can decide to attach the motion sensors to the inner _ or _ to the outer side of the shell , as their gw induced oscillations have different amplitudes .    ,
width=5 ]    to actually build and suspend a hollow sphere in the laboratory may be a difficult task from a technological point of view .
recently , though , a new concept spherical detector appeared in the literature  @xcite : this is called _ dual sphere _ , and consists in a solid sphere nested inside a hollow one , concentric with it and with a narrow gap between them   figure  [ fig10 ] . an incoming gw drives _ both _ spheres into oscillation . clearly , the inner solid sphere has a higher first ( quadrupole ) mode frequency than the outer hollow one , therefore an incoming gw with a frequency _ between _ those two will drive the oscillations of the spheres with opposite phase , say ) to above it
; the transition region has a width of order @xmath235 centred at @xmath80 , where @xmath236 is the oscillator s mechanical quality factor , about 10@xmath237 or more in gw detectors .
] , thus enhancing the signal by a rough factor of  2 .
the motion sensing in either hollow or dual spheres is conceptually analogous to that in the solid sphere , with the added flexibility that in the hollow piece one can choose to sense the displacements of either side of the shell .
actually , though , it appears that non - resonant detectors appear constitute a better choice in dual spheres , for this enables a significant bandwidth enlargement  @xcite .
let me briefly discuss now , for completeness , a few essentials of gw detector sensitivity .
so far i have only discussed the _ theoretical _ basis of the workings of gw detectors , whether interferometric or acoustic , yet have made no mention of the _ practical _ difficulties of getting them actually working
the extreme weakness of any expected gw signals arriving in the earth  @xcite is in fact a source of such truly difficult problems that it has prevented gw detectors from sighting a real signal in the last 40 years , since the times of j.  weber .
detector noise _ has to date overwhelmed any signals possibly hitting the antennas , and therefore the technological challenge has been for years , and still is today , to reduce that noise to the level where it can be filtered out with a meaningful signal to noise ratio  @xcite .    during the last decade or so ,
a number of people in different countries worldwide have managed to get important gw detection research projects funded which constitute a major step forward in detector technology .
their goal is to improve the sensitivity to the point where a significant _ event rate _ becomes available to the gw astronomer .
we thus find such laboratories as _ virgo _ ( a french - italian collaboration ) , _ ligo _ ( usa alone ) , or _ lisa _ ( a space mission , jointly funded by _
nasa _ and _ esa _ , the european space agency ) .
in addition to those , somewhat smaller experiments are _ geo-600 _ ( a german - british venture ) and _ tama _ ( the japanese project , currently making strong progress in both and stability ) .
so much for _ interferometric _ antennas .
but endeavours have not declined in the _ acoustic detector _
arena , either .
in fact , the five acoustic detectors of the weber type ( _ nautilus , explorer , auriga , allegro and niobe _ ) constitute the _ only working systems _ in the world today .
unfortunately , though , they are only sensitive to catastrophic events happening in our galaxy , with a far too low occurrence rate . these detector systems are periodically upgraded , and their sensitivity has gone up a few orders of magnitude since their origins . as already stressed in section  [ sec.1 ] , new generation _ spherical _ gw detectors are being programmed in brazil , holland and italy , and these should suddenly improve over bars by at least one more order of magnitude .    ,
width=10 ]    figure  [ fig.11 ] contains a recent plot of gw sensitivity of various earth based detectors , therefore in the frequency range near 1khz . on the other hand ,
_ lisa _ will be sensitive at frequencies far away from the range plotted in figure  [ fig.11 ]
see _ lisa _ s web site at http://sci.esa.int/home/lisa and figure  [ fig.12 ] below .
what we see in ordinates in plots like the one in figure  [ fig.11 ] , which are standard in gw science , is a _ spectral density _   or , rather , its _
square root_. it is to be understood as follows .
_ noise _ of whatever origin causes any detector to generate random outputs   _ stochastic _ time series , as this is technically known .
this noise competes with any gw signals which may be present in the antenna readout , obscuring their detection .
noise of course does not come from the sky , it rather gets added to the gw signal at almost all the different stages of the detection process .
for example , the gw induced oscillations of a given mass compete with thermal oscillations of that mass and its suspension systems ; then there is noise in the conversion from mechanical or optical gw signals to electrical signals ; then there is noise introduced by the electronics in the amplifiers of the latter ; and so forth     in the end , the detector output is a certain physical magnitude ( e.g.   a voltage ) which consists of a number of various superimposed sources of noise plus , possibly , a gw signal _ converted _ to volts by the detector hardware .
one infers the value of the _ actual _ dimensionless gw amplitude @xmath238 , say , from the output voltage if one knows the precise physics of the transduction process   and
this is obviously the case in any useful instrument .
conversely , it is also possible to _ back - convert _ all the sources of noise voltage picked up across the various detector stages to an equivalent dimensionless `` gw noise '' , which gets directly added to real gw signals , and travels through an ideally noiseless detector .
this artifact is expedient because , for a fixed antenna , it enables a quick assessment of the detectability of a given gw signal , normally calculated by methods of gravitation theory , by direct comparison with suitably constructed detector characteristic curves  such as those in figure  [ fig.11 ] .
let us then call @xmath239 any one of the detector s readout channels , _ back - converted _ to a gw amplitude by the above described procedure .
we split this up into a gw signal proper @xmath238 plus a noise term @xmath240 :    @xmath241    for stationary gaussian noise , the statistical properties of @xmath240 are encoded in its _ spectral density _ function , @xmath242 , which is the fourier transform of the _ autocorrelation function _    @xmath243    where @xmath244 stands for _ ensemble average _
it can be shown  @xcite that the _ optimum filter _ to extract the signal @xmath238 from the system readout @xmath239 is the so called _ matched filter _ , whose transfer function is the signal s fourier transform @xmath245 divided by the spectral density @xmath242 , and the _ detection threshold _ can be set from the integrated signal to noise ratio :    @xmath246    the gw signal @xmath238 is a dimensionless quantity , as it measures a perturbation of the minkowski metric , see equation  ( [ eq2.2 ] ) .
therefore the spectral density @xmath242 has dimensions of time , or inverse frequency , hz@xmath247 , according to the definitions  ( [ eq5.28 ] ) .
now , signal to noise ratio as defined by the integral  ( [ eq5.29 ] ) is made up of the contributions of the ratio between the signal power @xmath248 to the noise power @xmath242 at all frequencies ; the idea of the graphical representation in figure  [ fig.11 ] is thus to show which is the level of noise at different frequencies by means of an rms quantity , such as is the square root of the noise spectral density .
the appropriate units for this representation are accordingly hz@xmath249 , as indicated .
, width=12 ]    different interesting sources of gws are being considered by other authors in this volume , so i will not go into such matters here .
it is nevertheless instructive to present an example graph of a few signals on top of various detectors sensitivity curves in order to get a picture of the actual possibilities of each instrument , and also to grasp what are the spectral orders of magnitude of different gw signals .
one such plot is presented in figure  [ fig.12 ] .
this is , let me insist , the standard way to assess the detectability of the different gw sources .
this article is a brief review on the nature of the interactions of gws with _ test _
particles and _ test _ electromagnetic fields , as they specifically happen in currently conceived detection devices . while the fundamental principles are not new in themselves , their application in actual systems is still in many cases subject of research , as we have seen .
a thorough understanding of these matters is absolutely essential for an adequate interpretation of the antenna readouts , the more so if one considers the extreme _ weakness _ of any signals reaching us from even the most intense sources .
i have omitted any detailed discussion of the practical problems faced by real detector building .
this is a major research field in itself , of an intrinsically sophisticated and multidisciplinary nature  involving such fundamental issues as quantum measurement limits and techniques , or quantum optics  @xcite .
but it is of course not directly related to astrophysics or relativity
i have however considered appropriate to summarily brief the interested reader on how detector sensitivities are defined , and on which are the detection thresholds in current state of the art gw detectors : this is a key issue for an astrophysicist / relativist wishing to assess the detectability of a given gw signal , whether by existing instruments or future planned .
gw detection endeavours have been the subject of intensive research during the last 4 decades , though the ultimate goal of sighting gw events has still not been accomplished . while this may look like a major failure , one may not forget that detector sensitivities have gone up by a remarkable _ six orders of magnitude _ ( in energy , three in gw amplitude ) since the very first telescopes constructed by j.  weber .
also , a look at the trend in this development indicates that we are getting closer to the obejctive .
j.  weber : ` supernova 1987a rome and maryland gw radiation antenna observations ' . in : _ gravitational wave experiments _ , proceedings of the 1st
edoardo amaldi conference , ed .  by e.
coccia , g.  pizzella , f.  ronga ( world scientific , singapore 1995 ) , p.  416
aguiar _ et al .
_ : ` the first phase of the brazilian graviton project ' . in : _ gravitational waves _ , proceedings of the 3rd edoardo amaldi conference , ed .  by s.   meshkov ( world scientific , singapore 2000 ) , p.  413
paik : ` electromechanical transducers and bandwidth of resonant mass gw detectors ' . in : _ gravitational wave experiments
_ , proceedings of the 1st edoardo amaldi conference , ed .  by e.  coccia , g.  pizzella , f.  ronga ( world scientific , singapore 1995 ) , p.  201
lobo : ` spherical gravitational wave detectors and geometry ' . in : _ gravitational waves _ , proceedings of the 2nd edoardo amaldi conference , ed .  by e.
coccia , g.  pizzella , g.   veneziano ( world scientific , singapore 1998 ) , p.  168
thorne : ` gravitational radiation ' . in : _
300 years of gravitation _
, ed .  by s.w .  hawking and w.  israel ( cambridge university press , cambridge 1988 ) ,
see also more recent reviews by k.s .
thorne , e.g.   gr - qc/9704042 , or visit the website ` http://fermi.phys.ualberta.ca/~ccgrra/thorne/index.html `