DOCSLIB.ORG

Probing Strong Gravity with Gravitational Waves

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Probing Strong Gravity with Gravitational Waves Probing strong gravity with gravitational waves Chris Van Den Broeck Theory of Relativity Seminar, June 4th, 2021 Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo The coalescence of compact binaries The first 50 detections • Mostly binary black holes • Binary neutron stars: GW170817, GW190425 LIGO + Virgo, arXiv:2010.14527 Access to strongly curved, dynamical spacetime Curvature of spacetime spacetime of Curvature Characteristic timescale Yunes et al., PRD 94, 084002 (2016) The nature of gravity Ø Lovelock’s theorem: “In four spacetime dimensions the only divergence-free symmetric rank-2 tensor constructed solely from the metric gμν and its derivatives up to second differential order, and preserving diffeomorphism invariance, is the Einstein tensor plus a cosmological term.” Ø Relaxing one or more of the assumptions allows for a plethora of alternative theories: Berti et al., CQG 32, 243001 (2015) Ø Most alternative theories: no full inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms known § Most current tests are model-independent Fundamental physics with gravitational waves 1. The strong-field dynamics of spacetime • Is the inspiral-merger-ringdown process consistent with the predictions of GR? 2. The propagation of gravitational waves • Evidence for dispersion? 3. What is the nature of compact oBjects? Are the observed massive objects the “standard” black holes of classical general relativity? • Are there unexpected effects during inspiral? • Is the remnant object consistent with the no-hair conjecture? Is it consistent with Hawking’s area increase theorem? • Searching for gravitational wave echoes 1. The strong-field dynamics of spacetime Ø Inspiral-merger-ringdown process • Post-Newtonian description of inspiral phase • Merger-ringdown governed by additional parameters βn, ⍺n Ø Place bounds on deviations in these parameters: LIGO + Virgo, PRL 118, 221101 (2017) Ø Rich physics: Dynamical self-interaction of spacetime, spin-orbit and spin-spin interactions Ø Can combine information from multiple detections • Bounds will get tighter roughly as 1/ Ndet p ✓ 1◦ ' 1 = ⇡ ◦ rad 180◦ ∆ / =( )/ 0 A A0 Af −A0 A0 ≥ R D = tan ✓ 365000 km ' 1 2. The propagation of gravitational waves Ø Dispersion of gravitational waves? E.g. as a result of non-zero graviton mass: • Dispersion relation: 2 2 2 2 4 E = p c + mgc λg = h/(mgc) • Group velocity:λg = h/(mgc) 2 4 2 vg/c =1 mgc /2E 1 2 h h (t) 1 i'0 i(2⇡fts(f) Φ(ts(−f))) 2 42 2 ix + A(ts(f)) e− e v−g/c =1 mgc /E dx e− ⇥ 2 − Φ¨(ts(f)) • Modification to gravitational2✓ ◆ waveZ1 phase: δ = ⇡Dc/[λg(1 + z) f] − 2 1δ = ⇡Dc/[λg(11 + z) f] λg = h/(mgc) int 1− 1 L = QLQL = QL L − 2`!λ` 2`! E Ø Bound onλ`=1 graviton> 1.6 10mass:13 km`=1 Xg ⇥ X 23 2 dxµm=(g dx10.76,dx1,dx10−2,dxeV3)/c ⇥ 23 2 m 7.7 10− eV/c g ⇥ 2/3 4 G 5/3 ⇡f (s)(tret) h (tret)= Mc s c s a(t )r c2 c emis ✓ ◆ ✓ ◆ !220(Mf ,af ) ∆x =0 LIGO + Virgo, arXiv:2010.14529 ⌧220(Mf ,af ) dnˆ F A(nˆ) F A(nˆ) 4⇡ 1 2 A Z X =1 >0 20 150 <0 t ⇠ − R D = tan ✓ 365000 km ' 1 1 1 1 1 I I M˜ = 1 − 2 cos(2! t)+const 11 − 2 rot I I M˜ = 1 − 2 cos(◆)sin(2! t)+const 12 − 2 rot I I M˜ = 1 − 2 cos2(◆)cos(2! t)+const 22 2 rot m2 µ x1(t)= R eˆ(t)= R eˆ(t) m1 + m2 m1 m1 µ x2(t)= 2. TheR eˆ (propagationt)= R eˆ(t) of gravitational waves −m1 + m2 −m2 E2 = p2c2 + Ap↵c↵ ØE2 =Morep2c 2general+ Ap↵ formsc↵ of dispersion: E2 = p2c2 + Ap↵c↵ E2 = p2c2 + Ap↵c↵ E2 = p2c2 + Ap↵c↵ § ↵ =0 corresponds to violation of local Lorentz invariance § ↵ 6=2.5 multi-fractal spacetime 1 2 1 i'0 i§(2⇡↵ft=3s(f) Φ(tsdoubly(f))) special2 relativity ix A(ts(f)) e− e − dx e− 2 § ↵ =4 higher-dimensionalΦ¨(ts(f)) theories ✓ ◆ Z1 1 1 int 1 1 L = QLQL = QL L − 2`!λ` 2`! E X`=1 X`=1 dxµ =(dx0,dx1,dx2,dx3) 2/3 4 G 5/3 ⇡f (s)(tret) h (tret)= Mc s c s a(t )r c2 c emis ✓ ◆ ✓ ◆ ∆x =0 LIGO + Virgo, arXiv:2010.14529 dnˆ F A(nˆ) F A(nˆ) 4⇡ 1 2 A Z X t 1 11 1 1 2. The propagation of gravitational waves Ø Does the speed of gravity equal the speed of light? Ø The binary neutron star coalescence GW170817 came with gamma ray burst, 1.74 seconds afterwards Ø With a conservative lower bound on the distance to the source: -15 -16 -3 x 10 < (vGW – vEM)/vEM < +7 x 10 Ø Excluded certain alternative theories of gravity designed to explain dark matter or dark energy in a dynamical way LIGO + Virgo + Fermi-GBM + INTEGRAL, ApJ. 848, L13 (2017) LIGO + Virgo, PRL 123, 011102 (2019) 3. What is the nature of compact objects? Ø Black holes, or still more exotic oBjects? • Boson stars • Dark matter stars • Gravastars • Wormholes • Firewalls, fuzzballs • The unknown 3. What is the nature of compact objects? Anomalous effects during inspiral Ringdown of newly formed oBject Gravitational wave echoes Anomalous effects during inspiral Ø Tidal field of one body causes quadrupole deformationQ in =theλ other:(EOS; m ) ij − Eij Qij = λ(EOS; m) ij − Q = λE(EOS; m) where λ (EOS; ij m ) λdepends0 λ > on0 λ ij < 0 − ⌘ E λ(EOS; m) λ 0 λ > 0 λQ<ij 0= λ(EOS; m) ij internal structure⌘ (equation− of state) E 4 Qij =• λ(EOS;Blackλ(EOS; holes:mm) )ij λ 0 λ > 0 λ < 0 − E ⌘ • Boson stars,λ (EOS;dark matterm) λ stars:0 λ > 0 λ < 0 ⌘ λ(EOS; m)• λ Gravastars0 λ > 0: λ < 0 × 1000 ⌘ 500 Ø Enters inspiral phase at 5PN order, through 5 5 |[%] λ(m)/m (R/m) 100 / / 50 | 2 3 • O(10 - 10 ) for neutron stars × λ(EOS; m) λ 0 λ > 0 λ < 0 × × ⌘ × • Can also be measurable for black hole 10 × × × × 5 × × × × × mimickers, e.g. boson stars 10 20 30 40 50 M [M] Cardoso et al., PRD 95, 084014 (2017) Johnson-McDaniel et al., arXiv:1804.0826 FIG. 1. Relative percentage errors on the average tidal deformability ⇤ for BS-BS binaries observed by AdLIGO (left panel), ET (middle panel), and LISA (right panel), as a function of the BS mass and for di↵erent BS models considered in this work (for each model, we considered the most compact configuration in the stable branch; see main text for details). For terrestrial interferometers we assume a prototype binary at d = 100Mpc, while for LISA the source is located at d =500Mpc.The horizontal dashed line identifies the upper bound σ⇤/⇤ = 1. Roughly speaking, a measurement of the TLNs for systems which lie below the threshold line would be incompatible with zero and, therefore, the corresponding BSs can be distinguished from E BHs. Here ⇤ is given by Eq. (72), the two inspiralling objects have the same mass, and σ⇤/⇤ σkE /k2 . ⇠ 2 TABLE I. Tidal Love numbers (TLNs) of some exotic compact objects (ECOs) and BHs in Einstein-Maxwell theory and modified theories of gravity; details are given in the main text. As a comparison, we provide the order of magnitude of the TLNs for static NSs with compactness C 0.2(theprecisenumberdependsontheneutron-starequationofstate;seeTableIIIformoreprecisefits).ForBSs, the table provides the⇡ lowest value of the corresponding TLNs among di↵erent models (cf. Sec. III A) and values of the compactness. In the polar case, the lowest TLNs correspond to solitonic BSs with compactness C 0.18 or C 0.20 (when the radius is defined as that containing 99% or 90% of the total mass, respectively). In the axial case, the lowest⇡ TLNs correspond⇡ to a massive BS with C 0.16 or C 0.2(againforthetwodefinitionsoftheradius,respectively)andinthelimitoflargequarticcoupling.ForotherECOs,weprovide⇡ ⇡ expressions for very compact configurations where the surface r0 sits at r0 2M and is parametrized by ⇠ := r0/(2M) 1; the full results are available online [65]. In the Chern-Simons case, the axial l =3TLNisa⇠↵ected by some ambiguity and is denoted by− a question mark [see Sec. IV C for more details]. Note that the TLNs for Einstein-Maxwell and Chern-Simons gravity were obtained under the assumption of vanishing electromagnetic and scalar tides. Tidal Love numbers E E B B k2 k3 k2 k3 NSs 210 1300 11 70 Boson star 41.4402.8 13.6 211.8 − − Wormhole 4 8 16 16 ECOs 5(8+3 log ⇠) 105(7+2 log ⇠) 5(31+12 log ⇠) 7(209+60 log ⇠) 8 8 32 32 Perfect mirror 5(7+3 log ⇠) 35(10+3 log ⇠) 5(25+12 log ⇠) 7(197+60 log ⇠) 16 16 32 32 Gravastar 5(23 6log2+9log⇠) 35(31 6log2+9log⇠) 5(43 12 log 2+18 log ⇠) 7(307 60 log 2+90 log ⇠) − − 1− − Einstein-Maxwell 00 0 0 Scalar-tensor 00 0 0 BHs 2 2 ↵CS ↵CS Chern-Simons 001.1 M 4 11.1 M 4 ? 1 TLNs as [6, 8] 1 l(l 1) 4⇡ M kE − l , l ⌘2 M 2l+1 2l +1 r El0 (3) B 3 l(l 1) 4⇡ Sl kl − 2l+1 , ⌘2 (l + 1)M 2l +1 l0 selection rules that allow to define a wider class of “rotational” r B TLNs [22, 23, 75, 76]. In this paper, we neglect spin e↵ects to 1 leading order. where M is the mass of the object, whereas l0 (respec- 1 E 1 1 Q = 2m3 − 2 3 !2202(M3f ,af ) Q = m Q = m − − Q = 2m3 − ⌧220(Mf ,af ) Q = 2m3 Anomalous effects− during inspiral !220(Mf ,af ) Ø Spin of an individual compact object also !220(Mf ,af ) !220(Mf ,af ) induces a quadrupole moment:⌧220(Mf ,af ) ~ !220(Mf ,af ) ⌧ (M ,a ) ⌧220(Mf ,af ) Q = 2m3 220 f f ⌧220(M−f ,af ) • Black holes: =1 >0 20 150 <0 ⇠ −− • Boson stars,A dark∆tγ matter∆φ wstars:=1⌧t>f 0 φ 20 150 <0 0 0 0 ⇠ −− m R =1 >•0 Gravastars20 150: <0 D = !⇠220(M−f ,af ) R tan ✓ D = Ø Allow⌧220 for(M deviationsf ,af ) from Kerr value:tan ✓ R 365000 km R 2 3 D = D =Q = (1 + ) χ m 365000 km tan ✓ ' R − !220(M' f ,af ) D = tan ✓ 365000 km tan ✓ 365000 km ' ' ⌧220(Mf ,af ) 365000 km m ' Possible theoretical !220(Mf ,af ) values for boson stars: ⌧R220(Mf ,af ) 10 150 D = ⇠ − tan ✓ … hence constraints 365000 km ' are already of interest! =1 >0 20 150 <0R ⇠ − D = tan ✓ Krishnendu et al., PRD 100, 104019 (2019) 365000 km ' R D = tan ✓ 365000 km ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t/⌧ Ringdown of newly formedh(t)= black holee− lmn cos(! t + φ ) Almn lmn lmn t/⌧ lmn h(t)= e− lmn cos(! Xt + φ ) Ø Ringdown regime: Kerr metricAlmn
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Measurement of the Speed of Gravity
    Measurement of the Speed of Gravity Yin Zhu Agriculture Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China Abstract From the Liénard-Wiechert potential in both the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field, it is shown that the speed of propagation of the gravitational field (waves) can be tested by comparing the measured speed of gravitational force with the measured speed of Coulomb force. PACS: 04.20.Cv; 04.30.Nk; 04.80.Cc Fomalont and Kopeikin [1] in 2002 claimed that to 20% accuracy they confirmed that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum. Their work was immediately contradicted by Will [2] and other several physicists. [3-7] Fomalont and Kopeikin [1] accepted that their measurement is not sufficiently accurate to detect terms of order , which can experimentally distinguish Kopeikin interpretation from Will interpretation. Fomalont et al [8] reported their measurements in 2009 and claimed that these measurements are more accurate than the 2002 VLBA experiment [1], but did not point out whether the terms of order have been detected. Within the post-Newtonian framework, several metric theories have studied the radiation and propagation of gravitational waves. [9] For example, in the Rosen bi-metric theory, [10] the difference between the speed of gravity and the speed of light could be tested by comparing the arrival times of a gravitational wave and an electromagnetic wave from the same event: a supernova. Hulse and Taylor [11] showed the indirect evidence for gravitational radiation. However, the gravitational waves themselves have not yet been detected directly. [12] In electrodynamics the speed of electromagnetic waves appears in Maxwell equations as c = √휇0휀0, no such constant appears in any theory of gravity.
    [Show full text]
  • Relativity and Fundamental Physics
    Relativity and Fundamental Physics Sergei Kopeikin (1,2,*) 1) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Missouri, 322 Physics Building., Columbia, MO 65211, USA 2) Siberian State University of Geosystems and Technology, Plakhotny Street 10, Novosibirsk 630108, Russia Abstract Laser ranging has had a long and significant role in testing general relativity and it continues to make advance in this field. It is important to understand the relation of the laser ranging to other branches of fundamental gravitational physics and their mutual interaction. The talk overviews the basic theoretical principles underlying experimental tests of general relativity and the recent major achievements in this field. Introduction Modern theory of fundamental interactions relies heavily upon two strong pillars both created by Albert Einstein – special and general theory of relativity. Special relativity is a cornerstone of elementary particle physics and the quantum field theory while general relativity is a metric- based theory of gravitational field. Understanding the nature of the fundamental physical interactions and their hierarchic structure is the ultimate goal of theoretical and experimental physics. Among the four known fundamental interactions the most important but least understood is the gravitational interaction due to its weakness in the solar system – a primary experimental laboratory of gravitational physicists for several hundred years. Nowadays, general relativity is a canonical theory of gravity used by astrophysicists to study the black holes and astrophysical phenomena in the early universe. General relativity is a beautiful theoretical achievement but it is only a classic approximation to deeper fundamental nature of gravity. Any possible deviation from general relativity can be a clue to new physics (Turyshev, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Gr-Qc/0507001V3 16 Oct 2005
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Missouri: MOspace February 7, 2008 3:29 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE ijmp˙october12 International Journal of Modern Physics D c World Scientific Publishing Company Gravitomagnetism and the Speed of Gravity Sergei M. Kopeikin Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA [email protected] Experimental discovery of the gravitomagnetic fields generated by translational and/or rotational currents of matter is one of primary goals of modern gravitational physics. The rotational (intrinsic) gravitomagnetic field of the Earth is currently measured by the Gravity Probe B. The present paper makes use of a parametrized post-Newtonian (PN) expansion of the Einstein equations to demonstrate how the extrinsic gravitomag- netic field generated by the translational current of matter can be measured by observing the relativistic time delay caused by a moving gravitational lens. We prove that mea- suring the extrinsic gravitomagnetic field is equivalent to testing relativistic effect of the aberration of gravity caused by the Lorentz transformation of the gravitational field. We unfold that the recent Jovian deflection experiment is a null-type experiment testing the Lorentz invariance of the gravitational field (aberration of gravity), thus, confirming existence of the extrinsic gravitomagnetic field associated with orbital motion of Jupiter with accuracy 20%. We comment on erroneous interpretations of the Jovian deflection experiment given by a number of researchers who are not familiar with modern VLBI technique and subtleties of JPL ephemeris. We propose to measure the aberration of gravity effect more accurately by observing gravitational deflection of light by the Sun and processing VLBI observations in the geocentric frame with respect to which the Sun arXiv:gr-qc/0507001v3 16 Oct 2005 is moving with velocity ∼ 30 km/s.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of the Earth's Time-Retarded Transverse Gravitational Field On
    -1- Effect of the Earth’s Time-Retarded Transverse Gravitational Field on Spacecraft Flybys (Version 3) J. C. Hafele1 ______________________________________________________________________________ In 2008 a group of NASA scientists reported an anomalous change in the speed of six spacecraft flybys of the Earth. The reported speed change for the NEAR spacecraft flyby is 13.460.01 mm/s. It is known that general relativity theory reduces to classical time-retarded electromagnetic field theory in the linearized approximation. This report shows that time-retarded field theory applied to the Earth’s transverse gravitational field gives rise to a small change in the speed of a spacecraft during a flyby. The speed change depends on the time dependence of the transverse gravitational field, which generates an induction field that is proportional to the time derivative of the transverse field. If the corresponding speed for the induction field is set equal to (4.1300.003) times the Earth’s equatorial rotational surface speed, and the speed of the Earth’s gravitational field is set equal to (1.0600.001) times the vacuum speed of light, the calculated value for the speed change for the NEAR flyby agrees exactly with the observed value. Similar results are found for the remaining five flybys. ______________________________________________________________________________ Key Words: time-retarded gravity; transverse gravity; speed of gravity; flyby anomaly 1. INTRODUCTION It has long been known that electromagnetic fields propagate at the speed of light. The actual speed of light depends on whether the field is propagating in a vacuum or in a material medium. In either case, to calculate the electromagnetic fields of a moving point-charge, the concept of “time retardation” must be used.(1) Time retardation is necessary because it takes a certain amount of time for causal physical fields to propagate from a moving point-source to a distant field point.
    [Show full text]
  • New Varying Speed of Light Theories
    New varying speed of light theories Jo˜ao Magueijo The Blackett Laboratory,Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine South Kensington, London SW7 2BZ, UK ABSTRACT We review recent work on the possibility of a varying speed of light (VSL). We start by discussing the physical meaning of a varying c, dispelling the myth that the constancy of c is a matter of logical consistency. We then summarize the main VSL mechanisms proposed so far: hard breaking of Lorentz invariance; bimetric theories (where the speeds of gravity and light are not the same); locally Lorentz invariant VSL theories; theories exhibiting a color dependent speed of light; varying c induced by extra dimensions (e.g. in the brane-world scenario); and field theories where VSL results from vacuum polarization or CPT violation. We show how VSL scenarios may solve the cosmological problems usually tackled by inflation, and also how they may produce a scale-invariant spectrum of Gaussian fluctuations, capable of explaining the WMAP data. We then review the connection between VSL and theories of quantum gravity, showing how “doubly special” relativity has emerged as a VSL effective model of quantum space-time, with observational implications for ultra high energy cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts. Some recent work on the physics of “black” holes and other compact objects in VSL theories is also described, highlighting phenomena associated with spatial (as opposed to temporal) variations in c. Finally we describe the observational status of the theory. The evidence is slim – redshift dependence in alpha, ultra high energy cosmic rays, and (to a much lesser extent) the acceleration of the universe and the WMAP data.
    [Show full text]
  • A Gravitomagnetic Thought Experiment for Undergraduates Karlsson, Anders
    A gravitomagnetic thought experiment for undergraduates Karlsson, Anders 2006 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Karlsson, A. (2006). A gravitomagnetic thought experiment for undergraduates. (Technical Report LUTEDX/(TEAT-7150)/1-7/(2006); Vol. TEAT-7150). [Publisher information missing]. Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 CODEN:LUTEDX/(TEAT-7150)/1-7/(2006) A gravitomagnetic thought experiment for undergraduates Anders Karlsson Electromagnetic Theory Department of Electrical and Information Technology Lund University Sweden Anders Karlsson Department of Electrical and Information Technology Electromagnetic Theory Lund University P.O. Box 118 SE-221 00 Lund Sweden Editor: Gerhard Kristensson c Anders Karlsson, Lund, November 2, 2006 1 Abstract The gravitomagnetic force is the gravitational counterpart to the Lorentz force in electromagnetics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Newtonian and Relativistic Theory of Orbits and the Emission of Gravitational Waves
    108 The Open Astronomy Journal, 2011, 4, (Suppl 1-M7) 108-150 Open Access The Newtonian and Relativistic Theory of Orbits and the Emission of Gravitational Waves Mariafelicia De Laurentis1,2,* 1Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Universitá di Napoli " Federico II",Compl. Univ. di Monte S. Angelo, Edificio G, Via Cinthia, I-80126, Napoli, Italy 2INFN Sez. di Napoli, Compl. Univ. di Monte S. Angelo, Edificio G, Via Cinthia, I-80126, Napoli, Italy Abstract: This review paper is devoted to the theory of orbits. We start with the discussion of the Newtonian problem of motion then we consider the relativistic problem of motion, in particular the post-Newtonian (PN) approximation and the further gravitomagnetic corrections. Finally by a classification of orbits in accordance with the conditions of motion, we calculate the gravitational waves luminosity for different types of stellar encounters and orbits. Keywords: Theroy of orbits, gravitational waves, post-newtonian (PN) approximation, LISA, transverse traceless, Elliptical orbits. 1. INTRODUCTION of General Relativity (GR). Indeed, the PN approximation method, developed by Einstein himself [1], Droste and de Dynamics of standard and compact astrophysical bodies could be aimed to unravelling the information contained in Sitter [2, 3] within one year after the publication of GR, led the gravitational wave (GW) signals. Several situations are to the predictions of i) the relativistic advance of perihelion of planets, ii) the gravitational redshift, iii) the deflection possible such as GWs emitted by coalescing compact binaries–systems of neutron stars (NS), black holes (BH) of light, iv) the relativistic precession of the Moon orbit, that driven into coalescence by emission of gravitational are the so–called "classical" tests of GR.
    [Show full text]
  • The Confrontation Between General Relativity and Experiment
    The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment Clifford M. Will Department of Physics University of Florida Gainesville FL 32611, U.S.A. email: [email protected]fl.edu http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~cmw/ Abstract The status of experimental tests of general relativity and of theoretical frameworks for analyzing them are reviewed and updated. Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the E¨otv¨os experiment, tests of local Lorentz invariance and clock experiments. Ongoing tests of EEP and of the inverse square law are searching for new interactions arising from unification or quantum gravity. Tests of general relativity at the post-Newtonian level have reached high precision, including the light deflection, the Shapiro time delay, the perihelion advance of Mercury, the Nordtvedt effect in lunar motion, and frame-dragging. Gravitational wave damping has been detected in an amount that agrees with general relativity to better than half a percent using the Hulse–Taylor binary pulsar, and a growing family of other binary pulsar systems is yielding new tests, especially of strong-field effects. Current and future tests of relativity will center on strong gravity and gravitational waves. arXiv:1403.7377v1 [gr-qc] 28 Mar 2014 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Tests of the Foundations of Gravitation Theory 6 2.1 The Einstein equivalence principle . .. 6 2.1.1 Tests of the weak equivalence principle . .. 7 2.1.2 Tests of local Lorentz invariance . .. 9 2.1.3 Tests of local position invariance . 12 2.2 TheoreticalframeworksforanalyzingEEP. ....... 16 2.2.1 Schiff’sconjecture ................................ 16 2.2.2 The THǫµ formalism .............................
    [Show full text]
  • The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam In
    The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam In-Flow Theory of Gravity Reginald T. Cahill School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences Flinders University GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, Australia (Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au) arXiv:physics/0407133 July 26, 2004 To be published in Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology Abstract The new ‘quantum-foam in-flow’ theory of gravity has explained numerous so-called gravitational anomalies, particularly the ‘dark matter’ effect which is now seen to be a dynamical effect of space itself, and whose strength is determined by the fine structure constant, and not by Newton’s gravitational constant G. Here we show an experimen- tally significant approximate dynamical effect, namely a vector superposition effect which arises under certain dynamical conditions when we have absolute motion and gravitational in-flows: the velocities for these processes are shown to be approximately vectorially additive under these conditions. This effect plays a key role in interpreting the data from the numerous experiments that detected the absolute linear motion of the earth. The violations of this superposition effect lead to observable effects, such as the generation of turbulence. The flow theory also leads to vorticity effects that the Grav- ity Probe B gyroscope experiment will soon begin observing. As previously reported General Relativity predicts a smaller vorticity effect (therein called the Lense-Thirring ‘frame-dragging’ effect) than the new theory of gravity. arXiv:physics/0407133v3 [physics.gen-ph] 10 Nov
    [Show full text]
  • Black Hole Gravitational Waves in the Effective Field Theory of Gravity
    PHYSICAL REVIEW D 102, 024079 (2020) Black hole gravitational waves in the effective field theory of gravity † ‡ Claudia de Rham,1,2,* J´er´emie Francfort ,3, and Jun Zhang 1, 1Theoretical Physics, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom 2CERCA, Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, USA 3D´epartement de Physique Th´eorique, Universit´e de Gen`eve, 24 quai Ansermet, CH1211 Gen`eve 4, Switzerland (Received 19 June 2020; accepted 16 July 2020; published 27 July 2020) We investigate the propagation of gravitational waves on a black hole background within the low-energy effective field theory of gravity, where effects from heavy fields are captured by higher-dimensional curvature operators. Depending on the spin of the particles integrated out, the speed of gravitational waves at low energy can be either superluminal or subluminal as compared to the causal structure observed by other species. Interestingly, however, gravitational waves are always exactly luminal at the black hole horizon, implying that the horizon is identically defined for all species. We further compute the corrections on quasinormal frequencies caused by the higher-dimensional curvature operators and highlight the corrections arising from the low-energy effective field. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024079 I. INTRODUCTION charged particle mass, the low-energy effective field theory contains operators that can lead to a superluminal group The detection of gravitational waves (GWs) opens up a and phase velocity on certain backgrounds [4,5]. Yet this brand new window of opportunity to test gravity. The low-energy superluminal group and phase velocity is not in observation of GW170817 [1] together with its gamma-ray – counterpart GRB170817A [2] constrains the speed differ- conflict with causality as discussed in [6 16].
    [Show full text]
  • Examining Einstein's Spacetime with Gyroscopes
    Educational Product National Aeronautics and Educators Grades Space Administration & Students 9-12 GRAVITY PROBE B Examining Einstein’s Spacetime with Gyroscopes An Educator’s Guide “Gravity Probe B: Investigating Einstein’s Spacetime with Gyroscopes” is avail- able in electronic format through the Gravity Probe B web site. This product is one of a collection of products available in PDF format for educators and students to download and use. These publications are in the public domain and are not copyrighted. Permis- sion is not required for duplication. Gravity Probe B web site - http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Gravity Probe B email - [email protected] Educator’s Guide created in October 2004 Produced and Written by Shannon K’doah Range, Educational Outreach Director Editing and Review by Jennifer Spencer and Bob Kahn Images/Graphics by Shannon Range, Kate Stephenson, the Gravity Probe B Image Archives, York University, and James Overduin Many thanks to the contributions of Dr. Ronald Adler, Dr. James Overduin, Dr. Alex Silbergleit and Dr. Robert Wagoner. THIS EDUCATOR’S GUIDE ADDRESSES THE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS: CONTENT STANDARD A * Understandings about scientific inquiry CONTENT STANDARD B * Motions and forces * Conservation of energy and increase in disorder * Interactions of energy and matter CONTENT STANDARD D * Origin and evolution of the universe CONTENT STANDARD E * Abilities of technological design * Understandings about science and technology CONTENT STANDARD G * Science as a human endeavor * Nature of scientific knowledge * Historical perspectives 2 Educator’s Guide to Gravity Probe B * Produced October 2004 by Shannon K’doah Range GRAVITY PROBE B Examining Einstein’s Spacetime with Gyroscopes An Educator’s Guide http://einstein.stanford.edu/ * [email protected] 3 Table Of Contents Introduction To Gravity Probe B: The Relativity Mission ............
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Higher Order Retarded Gravity †
    universe Article Effects of Higher Order Retarded Gravity † Asher Yahalom 1,2 1 Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Faulty of Engineering, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel; [email protected] 2 Center for Astrophysics, Geophysics, and Space Sciences (AGASS), Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel † This paper is an extended version of our paper published in Asher Yahalom. Effects of Higher Order Retarded Gravity on Galaxies. In Proceedings of the 1st Electronic Conference on Universe, online, 22–28 February 2021. Abstract: In a recent paper, we have a shown that the flattening of galactic rotation curves can be explained by retardation. However, this will rely on a temporal change of galactic mass. In our previous work, we kept only second order terms of the retardation time in our analysis, while higher terms in the Taylor expansion where not considered. Here we consider analysis to all orders and show that a second order analysis will indeed suffice, and higher order terms can be neglected. Keywords: galaxies; rotation curves; gravitational retardation 1. Introduction Einstein’s general relativity (GR) is known to be invariant under general coordinate modifications. This group of general transformations has a Lorentz subgroup, which Citation: Yahalom, A. Effects of is valid even in the weak field approximation. This is seen through the field equa- Higher Order Retarded Gravity. tions containing the d’Alembert (wave) operator, which can be solved using a retarded Universe 2021, 7, 207. https:// potential solution. doi.org/10.3390/universe7070207 It is known that GR is verified by many types of observations. However, currently, the Newton–Einstein gravitational theory is at a crossroads.
    [Show full text]