4.7 Article

Gravitational wave tests of general relativity with the parameterized post-Einsteinian framework

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 84, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.062003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSF [0855407, PHY-0745779]
  2. NASA [NNX10AH15G]
  3. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Physics [0855407] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. NASA [133038, NNX10AH15G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gravitational wave astronomy has tremendous potential for studying extreme astrophysical phenomena and exploring fundamental physics. The waves produced by binary black hole mergers will provide a pristine environment in which to study strong-field dynamical gravity. Extracting detailed information about these systems requires accurate theoretical models of the gravitational wave signals. If gravity is not described by general relativity, analyses that are based on waveforms derived from Einstein's field equations could result in parameter biases and a loss of detection efficiency. A new class of parameterized post-Einsteinian waveforms has been proposed to cover this eventuality. Here, we apply the parameterized post-Einsteinian approach to simulated data from a network of advanced ground-based interferometers and from a future space-based interferometer. Bayesian inference and model selection are used to investigate parameter biases, and to determine the level at which departures from general relativity can be detected. We find that in some cases the parameter biases from assuming the wrong theory can be severe. We also find that gravitational wave observations will beat the existing bounds on deviations from general relativity derived from the orbital decay of binary pulsars by a large margin across a wide swath of parameter space.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available