Talk:Virgo interferometer

Acronym?

Is VIRGO an acronym or do they just capitalize it for fun? If it's an acronym, what does it stand for? —Keenan Pepper 04:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not an acronym, it is supposed to be named after the Virgo cluster, which should hopefully fall into range for detection of GWs after future upgrades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.65.235.176 (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this page a copyright violation?

In particular, from this site: http://www.ego-gw.it/public/virgo/virgo.aspx. ~Quatar, user of it.wiki~ (can you also answer in my talk?). .

Why so few bounces?

The article says that the 3 km chamber allows a 120 km path length - a total of 40 bounces. Yet a 99.999% reflective mirror should allow 69,000 bounces before the light is reduced even 50% in intensity. Are there plans to eventually increase the sensitivity a thousand-fold with some different light path? Wnt (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fabry Perot cavities in the arms actually consist of one 85% reflective 'input mirror' and one 99.99xx% 'end mirror'. Using those numbers in the appropriate formula for a Fabry Perot with two different mirrors will get you into the 120 km range. Making both mirrors highly reflective would lead to a very high finesse, which makes it hard to lock the cavity. Current finesse of the arms is 50, which will be increased to 150 or so in future upgrades. A higher finesse gives only an advantage at low frequencies, where the sensitivity is also limited by other effects, choosing the right value is a complex trade-off. Light escaping from the end mirrors is useless, that is why you use the very high reflection there. The proper value of the finesse is obtained by changing the reflectivity of the input mirror.--85.18.14.0 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Results?

There is no mention of any positive or null results or reasons for the lack of either. We have these with LIGO. What news is there? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The end of the intro, mentioned that the advanced overhaul came on line in Sept '15. Then the next paragraph states that LIGO's detection was also Sept '15. I wonder if VIRGO just missed the boat, or came in just under the wire. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OsamaBinLogin, Virgo has been out of service since 2011; enhancements are in progress. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Interferometric detection

This section has a formula with a factor C. From the description, it sounds to me like C = cosine of the angle of attack, and that -1 <= C <= +1, right? So if the wave is coming from the opposite direction, then C would be negated, just like a cosine? OsamaBinLogin (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Frequency ambiguity

In one place, the page says "Virgo is a wide band detector whose sensitivity ranges from a few Hz up to 10 kHz." Also, the graph only depicts responses up to 10 kHz. However, later on the page says "This last stage allows one to control accurately the position of the mirror for frequencies above 10 mHz." Is this latter statement in error? RichMorin (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

no, this is not an error. The suspensions are controlled down to 0 Hz, but below about 10 Hz, the various noise sources are too high to give enough sensitivity to gravitational waves. So the 'usable bandwidth' is 10 Hz - 10 kHz, but to achieve this various parameters are controlled at much lower frequencies.--2001:610:120:3001:D811:48DB:DFF8:31B2 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Virgo interferometer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305011822/http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/fr/pres/compress/Ego.htm to http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/fr/pres/compress/Ego.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304033916/http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2009-2/ to http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2009-2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.virgo-gw.eu/DataAnalysis/Calibration/Sensitivity
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://tds.ego-gw.it/ql/?c=8940

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

COI Issues

I am writing on behalf of group of scientists of the Virgo collaboration that would like to improve the page. We will register with independent usernames and declare in the profile that we are scientists currently working on Virgo. Is our intent compliant with the Wikipedia rules about Conflict of Interest ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlrnmz78 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vlrnmz78: There is no problem with you contributing. But you should still cite sources. I saw you made a large contribution on the Science case of Advanced Virgo interferometer, without any citations. It would be good if you could add some (I can help you with the formatting if you need). Auguel (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Revamp of the article

Hello everyone, I will soon be undertaking some massive improvements to the article, which has been missing a lot of content for a long time, and which is not up to date for some things. My goal will be to raise the article to GA or FA standards. I have already made some important changes on the draft page User:Thuiop/sandbox/Virgo, including a reorganization of the article ; I will be pushing those changes to the main space soon.

For full transparency, I am a member of the Virgo collaboration, and this effort partly comes from the will to update the page before the O4 run starts, as interest in the detector may rise depending on the findings ; I am also an experienced contributor, although I am mainly active on the fr wiki. I am well aware of possible conflict of interest and will do my best to keep the article neutral and well-sourced ; I will ask review the article when the time comes. I also plan to have people from the collaboration review it to ensure the content is accurate. Thuiop (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Does the article need more background on gravitational waves?

Although gravitational waves is linked, would the article benefit from a new section summarising the importance of their detection to cosmology? I also think another shot at FA is worth considering. Graham Beards (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Graham, I do not know if a separate section is warranted? This is the supposed goal of the science case section, which is intentionally short as I splitted it in another article, motivated by the fact that this motivation is identical for other detectors such as LIGO and KAGRA. My aim here was that readers interested in things pertaining to current GW detectors in general (including the science case) would find the details there, leaving more room here for things that are specific to Virgo. I realize writing this that this article is not linked in the lead, which probably would be a good idea (but it is linked from the relevant subsections already). In any case, I am happy to include more information in the Virgo article if you feel this is helpful; I may have moved too much during the splitting (for reference, the article is currently ~5200 words long, down from ~8500 before the split).

Concerning the FA submission, I submitted it to WP:GOCER a while ago, as someone suggested to me; the copy-editing is definitely my weakest point since English is not my native language and I am not entirely accustomed to the English Wikipedia writing conventions. Given the size of the backlog, I think it will be handled in a month or so? I do intend to resubmit it when this is done. In the meantime, if there is anything that you feel could be improved in general, I would be happy to know. Thuiop (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have checked the prose and I can't see any issues. I'm happy to take another look. Perhaps you could think about including a precis the daughter article and linking it with the {{main|}} template. Graham Beards (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Level 5 vital article?

This was designated a level-5 vital article in Special:Diff/853114284. Is it really important enough to be level 5? RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I was thinking level 5 is the most important :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)