Arxiv:2007.11009V2 [Gr-Qc] 25 Jan 2021

MIT-CTP/5222

Subluminal stochastic gravitational waves in pulsar-timing arrays and astrometry

Wenzer Qin,1, 2 Kimberly K. Boddy,3 and Marc Kamionkowski2 1Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 2Department of Physics & Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA 3Theory Group, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA The detection of a stochastic background of low-frequency gravitational waves by pulsar-timing and astrometric surveys will enable tests of gravitational theories beyond general relativity. These theories generally permit gravitational waves with non-Einsteinian polarization modes, which may propagate slower than the speed of light. We use the total-angular-momentum wave formalism to derive the angular correlation patterns of observables relevant for pulsar timing arrays and astrometry that arise from a background of subluminal gravitational waves with scalar, vector, or tensor polarizations. We ﬁnd that the pulsar timing observables for the scalar longitudinal mode, which diverge with source distance in the luminal limit, are ﬁnite in the subluminal case. Furthermore, we apply our results to f(R) gravity, which contains a massive scalar degree of freedom in addition to the standard transverse-traceless modes. The scalar mode in this f(R) theory is a linear combination of the scalar-longitudinal and scalar-transverse modes, exciting only the monopole and dipole for pulsar timing arrays and only the dipole for astrometric surveys.

I. INTRODUCTION and astrometry observables [15–18]. The relative amount each mode contributes depends on the particular theory. There are world-wide efforts to detect a stochastic Constraints on alternative theories of gravity using PTAs background of gravitational waves (GWs) using pulsar has also been considered in Refs. [19] and [20]. While timing arrays (PTAs) [1–5]. Due to the rotation of the most of these previous calculations assume all GW modes pulsars, beams of radiation from the stars may periodi- propagate at the speed of light, there are scenarios in cally sweep through the Earth’s line of sight and appear which certain modes may experience subluminal propa- as regular pulses of light. The presence of GWs then gation. In particular, the prospect of detecting massive modifies the expected pulse arrival times at Earth. For a gravitons with PTAs has been considered by Refs. [21– background of GWs, the pulse arrival times from differ- 23]. ent pulsars are correlated across the sky; in particular, In this paper, we derive the auto- and cross-correlation a stochastic background produces an angular correlation patterns for PTA and astrometry observables due to sub- given by the the Hellings-Downs curve [6].1 GWs can luminal GW polarization modes under the total-angular- also induce a shift in the apparent position of stars, which momentum (TAM) formalism [24], following the methods may be observed in astrometric surveys [8,9]. Similar to outlined in Ref. [15]. We then investigate a particular PTAs, the stellar shift exhibits particular angular corre- form of f(R) gravity that contains a single additional de- lations from a stochastic GW background [10]. gree of freedom in the form of a massive scalar field. The The GWs in general relativity (GR) arise from the speed of propagation then depends on the mass of the transverse-traceless tensor modes of the metric pertur- field, and the associated GW polarization is comprised bation. If, however, GR is modified, there may be ad- of a superposition of the SL and ST modes. ditional propagating degrees of freedom from the scalar Although observations from LIGO constrain the prop- and vector modes, leading to GW polarization states be- agation speed of the transverse-traceless modes to beyond the standard two. As a result, the angular cor- tween 1 3 10−15 and 1 + 7 10−16 times the speed relation of pulse arrival times for PTAs or stellar posi- of light− [25],× it may be possible× for an alternative the- arXiv:2007.11009v2 [gr-qc] 25 Jan 2021 tions for astrometry has a different functional form that ory of gravity to possess a frequency-dependent propa- depends on the GW polarization and the relative am- gation speed. In particular, LIGO studies GWs of fre- plitudes of the polarization states. There are generi- quency 102 Hz, while LISA will probe frequencies of cally six polarizations states, which we classify as follows: 10−2 ∼Hz, and PTAs and astrometry probe frequen- 2 transverse-traceless tensor modes, 2 vector modes, a cies∼ of nHz; thus, it is possible that even if LIGO scalar-longitudinal mode (SL), and a scalar-transverse does not∼ detect subluminal GWs, other observatories mode (ST). Previous studies have calculated the nor- could. Therefore, we consider subluminal propagation of malized, individual contributions to the angular correla- transverse-traceless modes for completeness. The same tion function due to all six polarizations for PTA [11–15] argument holds true for scalar and vector modes. To date, LIGO has found no evidence for non-Einsteinian polarizations [26–28]; however, even if future studies were 1 The NANOGrav Collaboration has found strong evidence of a able to constrain the velocities of these modes, GWs at stochastic process in pulsars; however, they find no significant frequencies below LIGO’s range of sensitivity could avoid evidence of quadrupolar correlations which would be character- these bounds. istic of a background of GWs [7]. We note that recent work has derived the astrometric 2 angular correlation functions and power spectra for non- induce particular angular correlation patterns for PTA luminal GW propagation [18]. Our results for sublumi- and astrometry observables. In PTAs, the GW affects nal GWs numerically agree with and complement those the light travel time from a pulsar and thus affects the ob- in Ref. [18], which were derived using different methods served time of arrival. We choose, however, to work with described in Ref. [16]. the relative shift in the pulse arrival frequency z(t, nˆ), The outline of this paper is as follows. In Sec.II, we rather than the arrival time, to make connections to pre- give a brief introduction to the TAM wave formalism. vious literature. We note that this change in the observ- In Sec.III, we calculate the general expressions for the able impacts the time domain information, but not the PTA and astrometric angular response to a subluminal angular response of the signal [15]. We may express the GW with nonstandard polarizations. We then turn to shift as an expansion in spherical harmonics, f(R) gravity as a concrete example in Sec.IV and relate the scalar degree of freedom to a particular combination z(t, nˆ) = z`m(t)Y`m(nˆ), (4) of ST and SL modes. We conclude in Sec.V. `,m X for a pulsar located in the nˆ direction at time t. In II. TOTAL-ANGULAR-MOMENTUM WAVES astrometry, the GW affects the apparent location of stars. The resulting shift in position may be expanded as In many studies of cosmological perturbations and a E,a B,a stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds, the spacetime δ (t, nˆ) = E`m(t)Y`m (nˆ) + B`m(t)Y`m (nˆ) , (5) `,m metric perturbation is decomposed into plane waves, as X h i these provide a simple and familiar orthonormal basis. E,a B,a However, the simplicity is lost once these waves are pro- where Y`m and Y`m are vector spherical harmonics [24]. jected onto spherical surfaces such as the sky. A more The correlation functions and power spectra for these natural basis in these situations is to work with eigen- observables are derived in Ref. [15] using the TAM for- states of total angular momentum, i.e. TAM waves [24]. malism [24], under the assumption that all polarization For example, scalar fields can be decomposed in terms modes of the GWs propagate at the speed of light with of plane waves eik·x or scalar TAM waves the GW frequency equaling its wave number, ω = k (with c = 1). Here, we consider the more general case k Ψ`m(x) = j`(kr)Y`m(nˆ), (1) of a GW of polarization α with a dispersion relation ωα(k). For massive gravity models, where the propa- where the j`(kr) are spherical Bessel functions, Y`m(nˆ) gating mode behaves like a particle of mass mα, this dis- are scalar spherical harmonics, and k is the wave num- 2 2 2 persion relation is given by ωα(k) = k + mα, which ber of the GW with amplitude k. We have defined we assume for the remainder of the paper. We define x = rnˆ, where r is the distance from Earth in the di- the phase velocity vph,α ωα/k and the group velocity ≡ rection nˆ of the pulsar. Similarly, tensors fields can be vα dωα/dk = k/ωα; thus, while the group velocity is s ik·x s ≡ written in terms of plane waves εab(k)e , where εab(k) subluminal, the phase velocity is superluminal. is the polarization tensor for plane waves of polarization We expand the metric perturbation as k,α s, or TAM waves Ψ(`m)ab(x), which are combinations of k2 dk spherical Bessel functions and tensor spherical harmonics ` α α,k −iωα(k)t hab(t, x) = 4πi h (k)Ψ (x)e , Y α (kˆ) of polarization α. The subscripts a and b are (2π)3 `m (`m)ab (`m)ab Z abstract spatial indices. The exact expressions for the (6) α,k α TAM waves can found in Eq. (94) of Ref. [24]. for a single TAM wave Ψ(`m)ab with amplitude h`m. Us- We can convert between the tensor plane wave and ing this expansion, we write the power spectra from a TAM wave bases using stochastic GW background as [15]

α,k ∗ s ik·x ` α ˆ XX0,α X,α X0,α εab(k)e = 4π i B(`m)(k)Ψ (x), (2) 2 (`m)ab C` 32π F` F` , (7) α,`,m ∝ X where the coeﬃcients Bα are given by corresponding to the PTA and astrometry observables (`m) X,X0 z, E, B . In this expression, we have omitted ∗ a factor∈ that { encompasses} time domain information, in- α ab α ˆ B(`m) = εs (k) Y(`m)ab(k) . (3) cluding the dependence on the GW frequency and the h i cadence of the observation. As we show in the following X,α subsections, the projection factors F` (i.e. detector re- III. POWER SPECTRA sponse functions) depend on the phase velocity and thus cannot be factored out from the integral over k in Eq. (6), The geodesic of observed light emanating from a source unlike the case for luminal GWs. Therefore, the actual may be altered by a GW passing between the source and power spectrum receives contributions from a range of Earth. A stochastic background of GWs is expected to velocities, determined by the window function used for 3 observation. For the purposes of this work, we assume formalism, the window function is narrow so that Eq. (7) holds; our a b α,k L,α results may be applied to the full expression of Eq. (7) in n n Ψ(`m)ab(x) = R` (kr)Y`m(nˆ), (9) Ref. [15] for more general cases. In the following subsec- − tions, we derive the expressions for the projection factors, L,α where Y`m are spherical harmonics and R` are radial in close parallel with Ref. [15]. functions, given in AppendixA. Thus, the shift in pulse frequency becomes

k2 dk ` α z,α −iωα(k)t z(t, nˆ) = 4πi h (k)F Y`m(nˆ)e . (2π)3 `m ` A. Pulsar Timing Arrays Z (10) z,α The projection factor F` is analogous to that in Ref. [15] for luminal GWs and is given by The fractional shift in the observed pulse frequency of a pulsar due to a metric perturbation hab is iv ∞ z,α ph,α L,α ixvph,α F` dx R` (x)e , (11) ≡ − 2 0 t−rs Z 1 a b 0 0 0 z(t, nˆ) = n n dt hab,0[t , (t t )nˆ], (8) where we have taken the distant-source limit, krs . −2 − → ∞ Zt where nˆ is the direction of the pulsar in the sky, t is B. Astrometry the observation time of a pulse, and rs is the distance to the pulsar. The time derivative acts only on the explicit The astrometric deﬂection due to a metric perturba- time dependence in Eq. (6). Additionally, in the TAM tion hab is

rs a ac b 1 1 rs r d δ (nˆ, t) = Π n hbc(t, 0) + dr hbc(t r, rnˆ) − n ∂chbd(t r, rnˆ) , (12) −2 r − − 2 − s Z0 where Πab(nˆ) = ηab nˆanˆb projects onto the plane orthogonal to nˆ. Expanding the metric perturbation in terms of TAM waves, we obtain−

k2 dk δa(nˆ, t) = 4πi` hα (k) F E,αY E,a(nˆ) + F B,αY B,a(nˆ) e−iωα(k)t, (13) (2π)3 `m ` `m ` `m `,m α X X Z h i where 1 ∞ 1 1 F E,α = RE,α(0) + dx RE,α(x) `(` + 1)RL,α eixvph,α (14) ` −2 ` ` − 2 ` x Z0 ∞ 1 p F B,α = dx RB,α(x) eixvph,α (15) ` ` x Z0 in the distant-source limit. spectra, however, diverge for SL modes in the kr limit for v = 1, due to the light ray surfing the→ GW; ∞ therefore, we show v = 0.999 rather than v = 1, since C. Power spectra there is no surfing for subluminal GWs and the projec- z,SL tion factor F` is finite. Note that we have dropped the polarization subscript α on v for notational simplicity, We derive the analytic expressions for the projection α with the understanding that each GW polarization mode F z,α F E,α F B,α factors ` , ` , and ` in AppendixA and summa- may propagate with its own distinct frequency. rize the results in TableI. We show the resulting power zz EE BB zE spectra C` , C` , C` , and C` as functions of the We normalize all power spectra by their quadrupole multipole ` for each GW polarization in Figs.1,2,3, contribution. For v = 1, the power spectra either have and4, respectively. For each case, we compare the power just one or two dominant contributions at low multipoles, spectra at group velocities v 0.01, 0.4, 0.8, 0.9 to the while higher multipoles are either suppressed by factors power spectra at v = 1 from Ref.∈ { [15]. The Czz and} CzE of at least `2 or vanish altogether for the ST mode (see ` ` ∼ 4

Table 1 of Ref. [15]).2 As the ST mode has no quadrupole modes, we can also consider the possibility of a domi- to set the normalization, we omit the v = 1 curve (formed nant subluminal mode that could generate a similar re- by the monopole and dipole) from Fig.1 and the single sponse to that expected from GR. We first note that the v = 1 point (from the dipole) from Figs.2 and4. power spectrum for standard tensor modes is dominated For subluminal propagation, all power spectra be- by the quadrupole. While the power spectra for modes come increasingly dominated by the quadrupole (and the with v 1 are also dominant at ` = 2, they have a zz monopole, for the scalar modes of C` ) as v decreases. much steeper drop off at higher `. We can instead at- We investigate this behavior in the v 0 limit in Ap- tempt to match the GR tensor mode power spectrum → pendixA, but we may also understand it using the plane- more closely by considering v . 1, softening the drop wave basis for GWs. The pulsar frequency shift and an- in power at large `, but at the expense of the monopole gular deflection for luminal GWs are and/or dipole contribution for non-tensor modes being more prominent. Therefore, measurements at both small nanbh z(nˆ) = ab , (16) and large angular separations Θ (to probe large and small 2(1 + kˆ nˆ) `, respectively) can help discriminate GR tensor modes · a a b c from other possibilities. a (n + k )n n hbc 1 b δ (nˆ) = n hab, (17) 2(1 + kˆ nˆ) − 2 We further demonstrate the possible similarities (or · lack thereof) for PTAs by comparing the vector and ten- ˆ where k denotes the direction of GW propagation [10]. sor mode correlation functions The factors of 1 + kˆ nˆ are derived by assuming the wave propagates at the speed· of light; if we instead have waves propagating with v < 1, these factors become 1 + vkˆ nˆ, zz 2` + 1 zz a · C (Θ) = C` P`(cos Θ), (18) which go to unity as v 0. Then z(nˆ) and δ (nˆ) re- 4π ` duce to projections of the→ GW polarizations onto the sky, X which for the tensor and vector modes are quadrupolar in form, and for the scalar modes have both monopole where P` are Legendre polynomials, at different veloc- and quadrupole components. ities to the standard Hellings-Downs curve in Fig.5. Notably, this trend holds true for the ST mode, for Each of the vector correlation function curves are nor- ` > which power at 1 no longer vanishes. There is a stark malized separately to resemble the Hellings-Downs curve Czz contrast between the power spectra ` of the ST mode over particular ranges of Θ, since any rescaling of the v ` ` with = 1 (which is nonzero for only = 1 and = 0), amplitudes cannot match the Hellings-Downs curve at v . 1 (which has contributions from all multipoles), and both small and large angles, although the v = 0.85 curve v 1 (which is strongly peaked at ` = 2 and ` = 0). comes somewhat close. Moreover, the vector correla- While the change in the shape of the power spectrum tion functions appear slightly shifted towards larger Θ for a given polarization mode is pronounced, it may be compared to the tensor modes, making measurements challenging to disentangle which modes contribute to an at many different angular separations (many multipoles) v overall signal. In particular, for small enough values of , important for discrimination power. The NANOGrav 11- the significant drop in power for ` = 2 across all spectra 6 year dataset, for instance, has the most sensitivity be- renders them effectively degenerate, with the exception tween 30◦ and 60◦ but has very few pulsar pairs at wide Czz of ` for the scalar modes, which have large monopole separations, above 90◦ [29]. Without more wide-angle contributions. Moreover, the shapes of the spectra of pairs, low multipoles (important for non-tensor modes) different modes can look similar by adjusting the value cannot be well studied or constrained. of v, which is further complicated by the fact that the observed power spectra for subluminal GWs should have Finally, we caution that for very small v, our assump- contributions from a range of velocities, corresponding to tion that the pulsars are far compared to the wavelength the range of observed frequencies, as discussed earlier in of the GWs, i.e. the distant-source limit, ceases to be a this section. Regardless, the presence of any monopole reasonable approximation. For GWs of a given frequency or dipole contributions in PTA and astrometric measure- f, the corresponding GW wavelength is λ = vph/f = ments (barring systematic uncertainties) would be a clear 1/(fv); thus, decreasing v increases λ. If the wavelength indicator of physics beyond GR. of the GW is comparable to or larger than the separa- Although we may assume the GW stochastic back- tion between the Earth and the source or between source ground consists mostly, if not all, of standard GR tensor pairs, the distant-source limit is no longer valid [30]. For GWs of frequency f yr−1, there are 3 103v GW wavelengths between∼ Earth and a source∼ located× a distance r kpc away. If two sources are located the 2 The ST mode has a monopole and dipole power spectrum in the s same distance∼ away, there are 104v/` GW wavelengths formal limit of krs → ∞. In reality, the finite distance to the ∼ photon source produces nonzero power at higher multipoles, but between them for multipole `. Thus, for the case of we expect the effect to be small and ignore it for the purposes of v = 0.01, the distant-source limit is expected to break our discussion. down for ` & 10. 5

Scalar transverse Scalar longitudinal

101 101 v = 0.999

1 1 10− 10− zz zz ` `

C 3 C 3 10− 10−

5 5 10− 10−

7 7 10− 10− 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 multipole ` multipole ` Vector Tensor

101 101 v = 1 v = 0.9 v = 0.8 1 1 10− 10− v = 0.4 v = 0.01 zz zz ` `

C 3 C 3 10− 10−

5 5 10− 10−

7 7 10− 10− 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 multipole ` multipole `

zz FIG. 1. The C` power spectra for the scalar, vector, and tensor GW polarization modes at various values of the group velocity zz v, as indicated in the legend of the lower-right panel. The spectra are normalized to C2 . The v = 1 line for the ST mode is not shown, since it has contributions from ` = 0 and 1 only. The SL mode is divergent for v = 1 due to photons surﬁng the GW wave, so we show v = 0.999 instead.

IV. GRAVITATIONAL WAVE POLARIZATIONS ing R as a perturbation. To work at linear order in the IN f(R) GRAVITY expansion, we require that [31] 1 As an example of subluminal GW propagation, we con- f(0) + f 0(0)R f (n)(0)Rn, (21) sider f(R) gravity, where f(R) is a function of the Ricci n! 1 scalar R. The corresponding action is f 0(0) + f 00(0)R f (n+1)(0)Rn, (22) n! 1 4 S = d x √ gf(R), (19) n > f R 16πG − for all higher-order terms with 1. We focus on ( ) Z models that contain R-dependent contributions beyond where G is the gravitational constant and g is the trace GR, such that f(0) = 0 and f 0(0) = 0. Thus, expanding µν of the metric g . The ﬁeld equations (from varying the f(R) to linear order in R, Eq. (20)6 becomes metric) and their trace are given by 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 = m Rµν gµν R + (gµν µ ν ) R, 0 = f (R)Rµν f(R)gµν + (gµν µ ν ) f (R), − 2 3 − ∇ ∇ − 2 − ∇ ∇ 2 0 = f 0(R)R 2f(R) + 3 f 0(R), (20) 0 = m R, (23) − − µν respectively, where g µ ν and Rµν is the Ricci with tensor. For the case of≡ standard∇ ∇ GR, f(R) = R. f 0(0) Let us assume f(R) is well-behaved in order to Taylor 2 m 00 , (24) expand around the static vacuum value R = 0,3 treat- ≡ 3f (0)

3 n For the case of 1/R gravity, where n > 0, we would expand around a ﬁnite value R0 [31]. 6

Scalar transverse Scalar longitudinal

101 101

1 1 10− 10− EE EE ` 3 ` 3 C 10− C 10−

5 5 10− 10−

7 7 10− 10− 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 multipole ` multipole ` Vector Tensor

101 101 v = 1 v = 0.9 v = 0.8 1 1 10− 10− v = 0.4 v = 0.01 EE EE ` 3 ` 3 C 10− C 10−

5 5 10− 10−

7 7 10− 10− 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 multipole ` multipole `

EE FIG. 2. The C` power spectra for the scalar, vector, and tensor GW polarization modes at various values of the group EE velocity v, as indicated in the legend of the lower-right panel. The spectra are normalized to C2 . The v = 1 line for the ST mode is not shown, since it has contributions from ` = 1 only.

Vector Tensor

101 101 v = 1 v = 0.9 v = 0.8 1 1 10− 10− v = 0.4 v = 0.01 BB BB ` 3 ` 3 C 10− C 10−

5 5 10− 10−

7 7 10− 10− 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 multipole ` multipole `

BB FIG. 3. The C` power spectra for the vector and tensor GW polarization modes at various values of the group velocity v, BB as indicated in the legend of the right panel. The spectra are normalized to C2 . The scalar polarizations do not generate B-mode deflections. where we have divided out a factor of 3f 00(0), which we scalar field ϕ constitutes a single additional degree of assume to be nonzero. freedom beyond GR [34]. This connection is clear from writing the action as S d4x √ g[f(ϕ)+(R ϕ)f 0(ϕ)]. We note that our findings are consistent with the more The field equation for ∼ϕ is ϕ = R− if f 00(ϕ) =− 0, and we general statement that f(R) gravity is equivalent to a recover the action of Eq.R (19). 6 scalar-tensor theory of gravity [32, 33], in which a massive 7

Scalar transverse Scalar longitudinal

101 101 v = 0.999

1 1 10− 10−

zE zE ` ` 3 3 C C

10− 10−

5 5 10− 10−

7 7 10− 10− 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 multipole ` multipole ` Vector Tensor

101 101 v = 1 v = 0.9 v = 0.8 1 1 10− 10− v = 0.4 v = 0.01 zE zE ` ` 3 3 C C

10− 10−

5 5 10− 10−

7 7 10− 10− 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 multipole ` multipole `

zE FIG. 4. The absolute value of the C` power spectra for the scalar, vector, and tensor GW polarization modes at various zE values of the group velocity v, as indicated in the legend of the lower right panel. The spectra are normalized to C2 . The O and • points indicate the power spectrum is negative and positive, respectively. The v = 1 line for the ST mode is not shown, since it has contributions from ` = 1 only. The SL mode is divergent for v = 1 due to photons surﬁng the GW wave, so we show v = 0.999 instead.

s,ab s0 Let us now investigate how this scalar degree of free- normalized to satisfy ε εab = 2δss0 . Thus, we find that dom decomposes into the ST and SL GW polarizations. the ratio of the SL to ST polarization amplitudes for the One can show that in synchronous gauge, the scalar per- f(R) scalar wave is (1 v2)/√2 = m2/√2ω2. turbation can be written as We can calculate the− geodesic deviation, which is a gauge-invariant quantity in linearized gravity. If we write scalar kakb the metric for a scalar GW as h = 2αR δab , (25) ab − ω2 2 scalar ST 1 v SL i(kz−ωt) hab = εab + − εab e , (28) where α = 1/6m2, which can be interpreted as the pa- √2 rameter that appears in f(R) = R + αR2 gravity (see AppendixB for a derivation of the degrees of freedom then the geodesic deviation equation gives in synchronous gauge). For a GW propagating in the z ω2 direction with ka = (0, 0, k), we find x¨ = ei(kz−ωt)x , (29) − 2 2 1 ω i(kz−ωt) scalar y¨ = e y , (30) hab 1 . (26) − 2 ∝  2 1 v m2 − z¨ = ei(kz−ωt)z. (31)   − 2 The ST and SL polarization tensors are This result is consistent with that in Ref. [34], where the 1 0 geodesic deviation was calculated using a different choice ST SL εab = 1 εab = √2 0 , (27) of gauge, and in Ref. [35], which used a gauge-invariant  0  1 method.     8

0.5 Tensor, v = 1 1.0 Vector, v = 0.95 0.4 Vector, v = 0.85 0.9 Vector, v = 0.55 0.3 0.8

(Θ) 0.2 (Θ) zz zz C 0.1 C 0.7 v = 1 0.0 v = 0.9 0.6 v = 0.8 0.1 v = 0.4 − v = 0.01 0.5 0.2 − 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 angular separation Θ [deg] angular separation Θ [deg]

FIG. 5. The Czz(Θ) autocorrelation function for the luminal FIG. 6. The Czz(Θ) autocorrelation function for the f(R) tensor mode (i.e. Hellings-Downs curve), as well as the vec- scalar mode at various values of the group velocity v. The tor polarization with various values of the group velocity v correlation function only receives contributions from the and arbitrary normalizations chosen to resemble the Hellings- monopole and dipole, the latter of which vanishes as v → 0. Downs curve. Each curve is normalized such that Czz(0◦) = 1.

The analysis in this section has thus far been in terms of plane waves, rather than TAM waves. We can trans- Hellings-Downs curve with small corrections due to this late between the two bases using Eq. (2). In the case of scalar correlation function. Since any cross-correlations the f(R) scalar mode, the plane waves only project onto between the tensor and scalar modes vanish [24], the the ST and SL spherical harmonics. Then, Eq. (2) allows power spectrum and correlation function of the GW us to rewrite Eq. (28) as background should simply be a linear combination of the tensor and scalar mode contributions. scalar ` ˆ hab = 4π i Y(`m)(k) `,m X V. CONCLUSIONS √2Ψk,ST (x) + 1 v2 Ψk,SL (x) . (32) × (`m)ab − (`m)ab h i We have derived the power spectra for the induced From TableI in AppendixA, we note that time delay in pulsar-timing surveys and the induced stellar shifts in astrometry from a stochastic background of v2 z,ST 1 z,SL subluminal GWs. In the limit that the GW velocity ap- F` = − F` , for ` 2, (33) − √2 ≥ proaches the speed of light, we recover the results pre- 1 v2 sented in Ref. [15]. We have treated each GW polariza- F E,ST = − F E,SL, for ` 2, (34) ` − √2 ` ≥ tion independently; however, a particular theory of modified gravity may relate the amplitudes between certain and thus the monopole and dipole are the only non- modes. As an example, we have considered f(R) gravity, zz EE vanishing moments for the C` and C` power spectra which gives rise to a single massive scalar mode that is zE for the scalar mode. The C` spectrum, however, does a linear combination of ST and SL modes. The relative not experience the same cancellations and receives con- contribution of ST and SL is set by the group velocity v tributions from all multipoles. of the GW. We find that this new mode only excites the Figure6 shows the redshift auto-correlation for the monopole and dipole. f(R) scalar at different velocities. As v 0, the dipole Previous studies of the angular correlations for non- contribution vanishes, leaving only a constant→ correla- Einsteinian polarizations focused on the case of luminal tion. In addition, note that since the ST and SL po- GW propagation. As there are, however, gravitational larizations are not the same as the scalar polarizations theories that contain a massive degree of freedom, our from the diagonal basis for the kinetic matrix of the work provides the foundation for considering subluminal theory, they have a non-vanishing cross-correlation that GW propagation in the context of stochastic GW obser- contributes to the f(R) scalar correlations [36]. Lastly, vations. In particular, the results of this study can be should gravity be described by this f(R) theory, we would used to set bounds on subluminal GWs from the low- expect the redshift angular correlation for a stochas- frequency end of the spectrum. We also find that our tic background of gravitational waves to look like the results numerically agree with those in Ref. [18] for sub- 9 luminal GWs. Moreover, while we are able to obtain of Physics, and the NSF GRFP. MK acknowledges the analytic expressions for the power spectra, we do not support of NASA Grant No. NNX17AK38G, NSF Grant have analytic expressions for the correlation functions; No. 0244990, and the Simons Foundation. Ref. [18] has analytic expressions for the correlation functions, but the power spectra must be numerically com- puted. Our results and these other results are thus com- Appendix A: Projection factors plementary. If PTAs or astrometric surveys find evidence of correlations beyond what is expected from GR, we may use our findings to account for the effects sublumi- In this Appendix, we outline the analytic calculation z,α E,α B,α nal propagation that may arise in particular models. of the projection factors F` , F` , and F` defined in Eqs. (11), (14), and (15), respectively, for each GW polarization α. These equations rely on the radial func- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS tions given explicitly in Refs. [15, 24]. However, directly applying these functions as written using Mathematica We thank Chiara Mingarelli and Tristan Smith for yields cumbersome expressions for the projection factors their comments on the manuscript. We also thank that are difficult to relate to our previous work. Sylvia Biscoveanu, Félix-LouisJulié,and Ryan McManus In order to obtain clean expressions, we first need to for helpful conversations. WQ acknowledges the sup- rewrite the radial functions in a form that is amenable port of a Space@Hopkins grant, the MIT Department to calculating the projection factors by hand:

x d 1 RL,SL(x) = j00(x) RE,SL(x) = RE,SL(x) + `(` + 1)RL,SL(x) ` ` ` − 2 dx ` 2 ` L,ST 1 L,SL E,ST 1 E,SL p R (x) = R (x) + j`(x) R (x) = R (x) ` −√2 ` ` −√2 ` h i L,V E d j`(x) E,V E x d E,V E 1 L,V E x 0 R (x) = 2`(` + 1) R (x) = R (x) + `(` + 1)R (x) + j`(x) ` − dx x ` − 2 dx ` 2 ` 2√2 p p L,T E j`(x) E,T E x d E,T E 1 L,T E N` R (x) = N` R (x) = R (x) + `(` + 1)R (x) + j`(x) ` − x2 ` − 2 dx ` 2 ` 2 `(` + 1) ix p RB,V B(x) = RL,V E(x) p ` 2 `(` + 1) ` ix RB,T B(x) = p RL,T E(x), ` `(` + 1) ` p

n where j`(x) is the spherical Bessel function of the first tive. All boundary terms are proportional to j`(x)/x or kind, N (` + 2)!/[2(` 2)!] , and functions with j0 (x)/xn for n 0, which vanish at x ; terms eval- ` ` ≥ → ∞ unlisted combinations≡ of L,− E, B and α are zero. Note uated at x 0 are determined by the limiting behavior p { } ` →−(`+1) that we have used the differential equation for the spher- j`(x) x 2 √π/Γ(` + 3/2). The remaining terms → ical Bessel function in the projection factors are all proportional to 2 00 0 2 ∞ x j (x) + 2xj (x) + x `(` + 1) j`(x) = 0 (A1) (n) j`(x) ` ` − I (v) eixvph dx (A2) ` xn L,SL ≡ 0 to recast R` from its form given in Refs. [15, 24]. Z The simple relations between the radial functions of the z,SL with v = 1/vph. For instance, we determine F` by ST and SL modes allow for the projection factors for 00 integrating j` (x) by parts twice, leaving a term propor- ST to be easily obtained from those for SL. Addition- (0) B,V B B,T B z,V E tional to I` ; meanwhile, the boundary terms at x 0 ally, F` and F` are easily obtained from F` 0 → involve j` δ`0 and j δ`1/3. We summarize our z,T E → ` → and F` , respectively. The somewhat complicated re- results in TableI. E,α lations for R` are particularly useful to simplify the Up to this point, all derivations and the results in Ta- integrand in Eq. (14). bleI hold for generic v. If we fix v = 1, Eq. (A2) becomes Plugging these radial functions into the equations for the projection factors, we simplify expression by inte- (n) (` n)! I (v = 1) = i`+1−n 2n−1 − (n 1)! (A3) grating by parts any function with an explicit deriva- ` (` + n)! − 10

E,α B,α z,α α F` F` F`

2 r 2 i 1 − v `(` + 1) (1) 1 1 i 1 − v (0) ST δ`1 − I (v) 0 − √ δ`0 + δ`1 + i I (v) 6v 2v2 2 ` 2 2 v2 3v v3 ` i 1 p (1) 1 1 i i (0) SL − √ δ`1 + `(` + 1)I (v) 0 δ`0 + δ`1 + I (v) 3 2v 2v2 ` 2 v2 3v 2v3 `

2 r 2i 1 (1) i(1 − v ) (0) i 1 `(` + 1) (1) VE √ δ`1 − √ I (v) + √ I (v) 0 − δ`1 + I (v) 3 2v 2v2 ` 2v3 ` 3v v2 2 `

i 1 (1) VB 0 √ δ`1 − √ I (v) 0 3 2 2v ` 2 N` i (2) 1 − v (1) i (2) TE − I (v) + I (v) 0 N`I (v) p`(` + 1) v ` 2v2 ` 2v ` iN TB 0 − ` I(2)(v) 0 p`(` + 1) `

TABLE I. Projection factors defined in Eqs. (11), (14), and (15) that relate the amplitude of a given TAM wave to its associated observables. The first column α labels the GW polarization. Note that v is the group velocity, related to the phase velocity by p (n) v = 1/vph for massive gravity. We define N` ≡ (` + 2)!/[2(` − 2)!] and define I` in Eq. (A2). for `+1 > n > 0. TableI then matches the analogous ta- tions with ` > 2 are more suppressed compared to ` = 2 E,α z,α ble in our previous work [15]. Note that Eq. (A3) diverges for smaller v, and F2 and F2 approach constant val- z,SL for n = 0, corresponding to the divergence of F` dis- ues. As expected from the discussion in Sec.IIIC, all of cussed in Ref. [15]. Other terms in TableI involving our power spectra feature a dominate quadrupole, seen n = 0 should be dropped due to (1 v2) prefactors in in Figs.1-4. order to recover previous results. − For the case of subluminal GWs, we have In order to consider the v 0 limit for projection factors with ` = 0 or 1, we must→ account for cancellations `+1−n (n) (n) iv √π Γ(` + 1 n) between the I (v) terms and any δ or δ terms and I (v < 1) = − (A4) ` `0 `1 ` n 3 use the expansion F (a, b, c, v2) 1 + (ab/c)v2. For 2 2 Γ(` + 2 ) 2 1 all relevant (i.e., scalar and vector)→ projection factors, ` + 1 n ` + 2 n 3 2 2F1 − , − , ` + , v the leading order contribution for ` = 1 scales with one × 2 2 2 additional power of v compared to the ` = 2 case, resulting in the suppression of the dipole with respect to the for ` + 1 > n 0, where 2F1 is Gauss’s hypergeometric z,ST z,SL function. We≥ have verified numerically that our results quadrupole in Figs.1-4. Finally, F` and F` ap- z,ST z,ST for the power spectra and correlation functions agree with proach constant values for ` = 0, with F0 /F2 5 z,SL z,SL zz → those in Ref. [18]. and F0 /F2 5/2. Therefore, the C` power As v 0, the hypergeometric function in Eq. (A4) ap- spectra for the ST→ and − SL modes exhibit monopole con- → (n) `+1−n tributions that are factors of 25 and 25/4 larger than the proaches 1 at leading order and I` (v) v . From E,α z,α ∼ (n) quadrupole, respectively, as observed in Fig.1. TableI, all terms for F` and F` that involve I` (v) `−2 B,V B thus have a v dependence in this limit; for F` and Although we do not discuss the possibility of superlu- B,T B (n) F` , the velocity dependence of the I` (v) terms is minal propagation in this work, we can apply TableI to v`−1. Therefore, the projection factors for all polariza- such a scenario, writing Eq. (A2) as

`+1−n `+2−n (n) −(n+1) Γ 2 ` + n ` + 1 n 1 −2 2iv Γ 2 I (v > 1) = 2 √π 2F1 , − , , v ` Γ `+2+n − 2 2 2 − 1 + 2` Γ `+1+n × ( 2 2 ` + 1 + n ` + 2 n 1 −2 ` 1 + n ` n 1 −2 2F1 , − , , v 2F1 − , − , , v (A5) × − 2 2 2 − − 2 2 2 for ` + 1 > n 0. Appendix B: Synchronous gauge ≥ To determine the degrees of freedom in f(R) gravity from the ﬁeld equations, we start with a generic metric 11

perturbation with components

h00 = 2Φ, − h0a = wa,

hab = 2sab 2Ψδab, (B1) − 1 ab where Ψ = 6 δ hab is proportional to the trace and 1 − 1 cd sab = 2 hab 3 δ hcdδab is traceless. From Eq. (23), we already know− that this theory has a propagating scalar degree of freedom, R, so we will eventually rewrite some of the above components in terms of R.

The Ricci tensor for this metric is

2 c 2 R00 = Φ + ∂0∂cw + 3∂ Ψ, ∇ 0 1 2 1 c c R0b = wb + ∂b∂cw + 2∂0∂bΨ + ∂0∂cs , −2∇ 2 b c Rab = ∂a∂b(Φ Ψ) ∂0∂ w + Ψδab sab + 2∂c∂ s , (B2) − − − (a b) − (a b) and the Ricci scalar is therefore

2 2 2 a ac R = R00 + Raa = 2 Φ 6∂ Ψ + 4 Ψ 2∂0∂aw + 2∂c∂as . (B3) − − ∇ − 0 ∇ − Substituting these results into the ﬁeld equations, we ﬁnd for the various components:

2 2 c 2 1 1 2 2 00 : 0 = m Φ + ∂0∂cw + 3∂ Ψ + R + (m )R, (B4) ∇ 0 3 6 − ∇ 2 1 2 1 b b 1 0a : 0 = m wa + ∂a∂bw + 2∂0∂aΨ + ∂0∂bs ∂0∂aR, (B5) −2∇ 2 a − 6 2 c 1 1 ab : 0 = m ∂a∂b(Φ Ψ) ∂0∂ w + Ψδab sab + 2∂c∂ s δabR ∂a∂bR. (B6) − − − (a b) − (a b) − 3 − 6

The first equation has no time derivatives of Φ and the second has no time derivatives of wa, so these two fields do not represent propagating degrees of freedom—they can be written purely in terms of other fields. We work in the synchronous gauge by setting Φ = wa = 0. The field equations simplify to

1 1 00 : 0 = m2 3∂2Ψ + R + (m2 2)R, (B7) 0 3 6 − ∇ 2 b 1 0a : 0 = m 2∂0∂aΨ + ∂0∂bs ∂0∂aR, (B8) a − 6 2 c 1 1 ab : 0 = m ∂a∂bΨ + Ψδab sab + 2∂c∂ s δabR ∂a∂bR. (B9) − (a b) − 3 − 6

The 00 equation allows us to write Ψ purely in terms time, we find of R. Since R satisfies a wave equation, let us assume 2 2 2 b 1 ∂aR = ikaR and ∂0R = iωR, where ω k = m . ∂ sab = ∂a R 2Ψ R. (B11) − − 6m2 − ∝ If we set the time-independent integration constants to zero, the 00 field equation can be integrated to give Thus, Ψ and the divergence of sab are both related to the same single degree of freedom: the scalar R. The only equation we have not yet studied is the ab 3ω2 2k2 b Ψ = − R. (B10) equation. Substituting Ψ and ∂ sab with their relations 18m2ω2 to R, we find the ab equation simplifies to 2 2 6kakb 2k + 3ω δab s = − R. (B12) Similarly, integrating the 0a equation with respect to ab ω2 18 12

Then, since R = m2 R, we can rewrite this as remaining scalar perturbation becomes

2 2 2k + 3ω δab 6kakb scalar kakb sab + − αR = 0, (B13) hab Ψδab + CabR = 2αR δab . (B14) 3ω2 ≡ − ω2 " # where α = 1/6m2. Thus, after ﬁxing the synchronous gauge, we have The full metric perturbation is hab = 2sab 2Ψδab. If shown that our remaining degrees of freedom are a mas- − the tensor degrees of freedom are of the form sab +CabR, sive scalar R and two tensor degrees of freedom that sat- where Cab denotes the coeﬃcient of R in Eq. (B13), the isfy a massless wave equation.

[1] J. P. W. Verbiest et al., “The International Pulsar Timing Taylor, “Mapping gravitational-wave backgrounds of ar- Array: First Data Release,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. bitrary polarisation using pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. 458, 1267–1288 (2016), arXiv:1602.03640 [astro-ph.IM]. Rev. D 92, 102003 (2015), arXiv:1506.08668 [gr-qc]. [2] B. B. P. Perera et al., “The International Pulsar Timing [15] Wenzer Qin, Kimberly K. Boddy, Marc Kamionkowski, Array: Second data release,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. and Liang Dai, “Pulsar-timing arrays, astrometry, and 490, 4666–4687 (2019), arXiv:1909.04534 [astro-ph.HE]. gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D99, 063002 (2019), [3] G. Hobbs, “The Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,” Class. arXiv:1810.02369 [astro-ph.CO]. Quant. Grav. 30, 224007 (2013), arXiv:1307.2629 [astro- [16] Deyan P. Mihaylov, Christopher J. Moore, Jonathan R. ph.IM]. Gair, Anthony Lasenby, and Gerard Gilmore, “Astro- [4] R. N. Manchester et al., “The Parkes Pulsar Timing Ar- metric Effects of Gravitational Wave Backgrounds with ray Project,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 30, 17 (2013), non-Einsteinian Polarizations,” Phys. Rev. D97, 124058 arXiv:1210.6130 [astro-ph.IM]. (2018), arXiv:1804.00660 [gr-qc]. [5] L. Lentati et al., “European Pulsar Timing Array Lim- [17] Logan O’Beirne and Neil J. Cornish, “Constrain- its On An Isotropic Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Back- ing the Polarization Content of Gravitational Waves ground,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 453, 2576–2598 with Astrometry,” Phys. Rev. D98, 024020 (2018), (2015), arXiv:1504.03692 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1804.03146 [gr-qc]. [6] R. w. Hellings and G. s. Downs, “UPPER LIMITS ON [18] Deyan P. Mihaylov, Christopher J. Moore, Jonathan THE ISOTROPIC GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION Gair, Anthony Lasenby, and Gerard Gilmore, “As- BACKGROUND FROM PULSAR TIMING ANALY- trometric Effects of Gravitational Wave Backgrounds SIS,” Astrophys. J. 265, L39–L42 (1983). with non-Luminal Propagation Speeds,” (2019), [7] Zaven Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGrav), “The arXiv:1911.10356 [gr-qc]. NANOGrav 12.5-year Data Set: Search For An [19] Neil J. Cornish, Logan O’Beirne, Stephen R. Taylor, and Isotropic Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background,” NicolásYunes, “Constraining alternative theories of grav- (2020), arXiv:2009.04496 [astro-ph.HE]. ity using pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, [8] V. B. Braginsky, N. S. Kardashev, I. D. Novikov, and 181101 (2018), arXiv:1712.07132 [gr-qc]. A. G. Polnarev, “Propagation of electromagnetic ra- [20] Logan O’Beirne, Neil J. Cornish, Sarah J. Vigeland, and diation in a random field of gravitational waves and Stephen R. Taylor, “Constraining alternative polariza- space radio interferometry,” Nuovo Cim. B105, 1141– tion states of gravitational waves from individual black 1158 (1990). hole binaries using pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. Rev. D [9] Nick Kaiser and Andrew H. Jaffe, “Bending of light 99, 124039 (2019), arXiv:1904.02744 [gr-qc]. by gravity waves,” Astrophys. J. 484, 545–554 (1997), [21] D. Baskaran, A.G. Polnarev, M.S. Pshirkov, and K.A. arXiv:astro-ph/9609043 [astro-ph]. Postnov, “Limits on the speed of gravitational waves [10] Laura G. Book and Eanna E. Flanagan, “Astrometric from pulsar timing,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 044018 (2008), Effects of a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background,” arXiv:0805.3103 [astro-ph]. Phys. Rev. D83, 024024 (2011), arXiv:1009.4192 [astro- [22] Kejia Lee, Fredrick A. Jenet, Richard H. Price, Norbert ph.CO]. Wex, and Michael Kramer, “Detecting massive gravitons [11] K. J. Lee, F. A. Jenet, and R. H. Price, “Pulsar Timing using pulsar timing arrays,” Astrophys. J. 722, 1589– as a Probe of Non-Einsteinian Polarizations of Gravita- 1597 (2010), arXiv:1008.2561 [astro-ph.HE]. tional Waves,” Astrophys. J. 685, 1304–1319 (2008). [23] K.J. Lee, “Pulsar Timing Arrays and Gravity Tests in [12] Sydney J. Chamberlin and Xavier Siemens, “Stochastic the Radiative Regime,” Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 224016 backgrounds in alternative theories of gravity: overlap (2013), arXiv:1404.2090 [astro-ph.CO]. reduction functions for pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. Rev. [24] Liang Dai, Marc Kamionkowski, and Donghui Jeong, D85, 082001 (2012), arXiv:1111.5661 [astro-ph.HE]. “Total Angular Momentum Waves for Scalar, Vector, [13] Jonathan Gair, Joseph D. Romano, Stephen Taylor, and and Tensor Fields,” Phys. Rev. D86, 125013 (2012), Chiara M. F. Mingarelli, “Mapping gravitational-wave arXiv:1209.0761 [astro-ph.CO]. backgrounds using methods from CMB analysis: Appli- [25] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi- cation to pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 082001 GBM, INTEGRAL), “Gravitational Waves and Gamma- (2014), arXiv:1406.4664 [gr-qc]. rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 [14] Jonathan R. Gair, Joseph D. Romano, and Stephen R. and GRB 170817A,” Astrophys. J. 848, L13 (2017), 13

arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]. cek, “Solar System constraints to general f(R) gravity,” [26] B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW170814: Phys. Rev. D75, 124014 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0611867 A Three-Detector Observation of Gravitational Waves [astro-ph]. from a Binary Black Hole Coalescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [32] John O’Hanlon, “Intermediate-range gravity - a generally 119, 141101 (2017), arXiv:1709.09660 [gr-qc]. covariant model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 137–138 (1972). [27] Maximiliano Isi and Alan J. Weinstein, “Probing grav- [33] P. Teyssandier and Ph. Tourrenc, “The Cauchy problem itational wave polarizations with signals from compact for the R+R**2 theories of gravity without torsion,”J. binary coalescences,” (2017), arXiv:1710.03794 [gr-qc]. Math. Phys. 24, 2793 (1983). [28] Benjamin P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), [34] Dicong Liang, Yungui Gong, Shaoqi Hou, and Yunqi Liu, “Search for Tensor, Vector, and Scalar Polarizations in “Polarizations of gravitational waves in f(R) gravity,” the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background,” Phys. Phys. Rev. D95, 104034 (2017), arXiv:1701.05998 [gr- Rev. Lett. 120, 201102 (2018), arXiv:1802.10194 [gr-qc]. qc]. [29] Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGRAV), “The NANOGrav [35] Fabio Moretti, Flavio Bombacigno, and Giovanni Mon- 11-year Data Set: Pulsar-timing Constraints On The tani, “Gauge invariant formulation of metric f(R) grav- Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background,” Astrophys. ity for gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 084014 J. 859, 47 (2018), arXiv:1801.02617 [astro-ph.HE]. (2019), arXiv:1906.01899 [gr-qc]. [30] Chiara M. F. Mingarelli and Trevor Sidery, “Effect of [36] Maximiliano Isi and Leo C. Stein, “Measuring stochas- small interpulsar distances in stochastic gravitational tic gravitational-wave energy beyond general relativity,” wave background searches with pulsar timing arrays,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 104025 (2018), arXiv:1807.02123 [gr- Phys. Rev. D90, 062011 (2014), arXiv:1408.6840 [astro- qc]. ph.HE]. [31] Takeshi Chiba, Tristan L. Smith, and Adrienne L. Erick-