1 / 17

Astrophysical tests of general relativity in the strong-field regime

Astrophysical tests of general relativity in the strong-field regime. Emanuele Berti , University of Mississippi/Caltech Texas Symposium, São Paulo, Dec 18 2012. What are “strong field ” tests? Alternatives to GR: massive scalars BH dynamics and superradiance

melia
Télécharger la présentation

Astrophysical tests of general relativity in the strong-field regime

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Astrophysical tests of general relativity in the strong-field regime EmanueleBerti, University of Mississippi/Caltech Texas Symposium, São Paulo, Dec 18 2012

  2. What are “strong field” tests? Alternatives to GR: massive scalars BH dynamics and superradiance GWs: SNR and event rates(e)LISA and fundamental physics BH spins and photon mass bounds Coda: Advanced LIGO and astrophysics

  3. Strong field: gravitationalfield vs. curvature; probing vs. testing [Psaltis, Living Reviews in Relativity]

  4. Testing general relativity – againstwhat?

  5. Finding a contender • Action principle • Well-posed initial-value problem • At most second-order equations of motion • Testable predictions! [Clifton+, 1106.2476] Generic scalar-tensor theory Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet Dynamical Chern-Simons

  6. A promisingopponent: massive scalar fields • 1) Phenomenology • Modern equivalent of planets [Bertschinger] • Well-posed, flexible (Damour & Esposito-Farése “spontaneous scalarization”) • f(R) and other theories equivalent to scalar-tensor theories • 2) High-energy physics • Standard Model extensions predict massive scalar fields (dilaton, axions, moduli…) • Not seen yet: dynamics must be frozen • small coupling x - or equivalently large wBD~1/x • large mass m>1/R (1AU~10-18eV!) • 3) Cosmology • “String axiverse”: light axions, 10-33eV < ms< 10-18eV [Arvanitaki++, 0905.4720]Striking astrophysical implications: bosenovas, floating orbits

  7. Are massive scalar fieldsviable? • Bounds from: • Shapiro time delay: wBD>40,000[Perivolaropoulos, 0911.3401] • Lunar Laser Ranging • Binary pulsars: wBD>25,000[Freire++, 1205.1450] [Alsing, EB, Will & Zaglauer, 1112.4903]

  8. Wavescattering in rotatingblackholes [Arvanitaki+Dubovsky, 1004.3558] • Quasinormal modes: • Ingoing waves at the horizon,outgoing waves at infinity • Discrete spectrum of damped exponentials (“ringdown”)[EB++, 0905.2975] • Massive scalar field: • Superradiance:black hole bombwhen0 < w< mWH • Hydrogen-like, unstable bound states [Detweiler, Zouros+Eardley…]

  9. Quasinormalmodes [Visualization: NASA Goddard] • In GR, each mode determined uniquely by mass and spin • One mode: (M,a)Any other mode frequency:No-hair theorem test • Relative mode amplitudes:pre-merger parameters[Kamaretsos++,Gossan++] • Feasibility depends on SNR:Need SNR>30 [EB++, 2005/07] • 1) Noise S(fQNM) 2) Signal h~E1/2, E=erdMerd~0.01(4h)2for comparable-mass mergers, h=m1m2/(m1+m2)2 f= 1.2 x 10-2 (106Msun)/M Hz t = 55 M/(106Msun) s

  10. (e)LISA vs. LIGO f= 1.2 x 10-2 (106Msun)/M Hz t = 55 M/(106Msun) s [Schutz; see Sesana’s talk] SNR=h/S: S comparable, h~hM1/2

  11. Ringdownas a probe of SMBH formation • LISA/eLISA studies:merger-tree models of SMBHformation • Light or heavy seeds?Coherent or chaotic accretion?[Arun++, 0811.1011] • eLISA can easily tell whetherseeds are light or heavy[Sesana++, 1011.5893] • Mergers: a~0.7Chaotic accretion: a~0Coherent accretion: a~1[EB+Volonteri, 0802.0025] • >10 binaries can be used for no-hair tests • Spin observations constrain SMBH formation [Sesana++, 2012]

  12. Massive bosonicfields and superradiantinstabilities • Superradiancewhenw< mWHAny light scalar can trigger a blackholebomb (“bosenova”)[Yoshino+Kodama, 1203.5070] • Strongestinstability: msM~1 • [Dolan, 0705.2880] • For ms=1eV, M=Msun: msM~1010Need light scalars (or primordialblackholes!) Negativescalar fluxat the horizoncloseto superradiantresonancesat [Detweiler 1980]

  13. Light scalars: floatingorbits (Press & Teukolsky 1972) [Cardoso++ 1109.6021; Yunes++, 1112.3351]

  14. Photon mass bound from rotatingblackholes • Procaperturbations in Kerrdo notdecouple • Use Kojima’s • slow-rotationapproximation • Strongerinstabilitythan for massive scalars • Maximum (again) for msM~1 • mg<10-20 (or 4x10-21) eVPDG: mg<10-18 eV [Data points: Brenneman++, 1104.1132] [Pani++, 1209.0465; 1209.0773]

  15. Spin-orbitresonances and spin alignment [Schnittman 04; Kesden++; Lousto’s talk]

  16. Can Advanced LIGO reconstructbinaryevolution? [Gerosa++, in preparation]

  17. Summary Tests within GR (e)LISA: Tens of events could allow us to test the no-hair theoremAdvanced LIGO/ET can also test no-hair theorem - if IMBHs exist! Spin measurements constrain SMBH merger/accretion history [EB++, 0905.2975; EB+Volonteri, 0802.0025] Massive bosons and superradiant instabilities 3) Weak-field: Solar System, binary pulsars Cassini:wBD>40,000 for ms<2.5x10-20 eVBinary pulsars will do better in a few years [Alsing++, 1112.4903; Horbatsch++, in preparation] 4) Massive scalars: floating orbits[Cardoso++, 1109.6021; Yunes++, 1112.3351] 5) Massive vectors and SMBH spins: best bounds on photon mass mg<10-20 (4x10-21eV) (Particle Data Group: mg<10-18eV)[Pani++, 1209.0465; 1209.0773] Advanced LIGO 6) Spin alignment may encode formation history of the binary Effect of tides? Reverse mass ratio?

More Related