4.6 Article

Testing gravitational wave propagation with multiband detections

Journal

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/03/044

Keywords

Gravitational waves in GR and beyond; theory; modified gravity; gravitational wave detectors; gravitational waves

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Effective field theories (EFT) of dark energy (DE) are limited by constraints on the propagation speed of gravitational waves (GW) but can still be valid at scales beyond the EFT description. Lower frequency observations by LISA would be harder to escape, while a joint observation by LISA and a terrestrial interferometer could constrain the speed of light and gravitons to within 10^-15. Multiband GW observations can therefore effectively constrain DE scenarios based on EFT.
Effective field theories (EFT) of dark energy (DE) - built to parameterise the properties of DE in an agnostic manner - are severely constrained by measurements of the propagation speed of gravitational waves (GW). However, GW frequencies probed by ground-based interferometers lie around the typical strong coupling scale of the EFT, and it is likely that the effective description breaks down before even reaching that scale. We discuss how this leaves the possibility that an appropriate ultraviolet completion of DE scenarios, valid at scales beyond an EFT description, can avoid present constraints on the GW speed. Instead, additional constraints in the lower frequency LISA band would be harder to escape, since the energies involved are orders of magnitude lower. By implementing a method based on GW multiband detections, we show indeed that a single joint observation of a GW150914-like event by LISA and a terrestrial interferometer would allow one to constrain the speed of light and gravitons to match to within 10-15. Multiband GW observations can therefore firmly constrain scenarios based on the EFT of DE, in a robust and unambiguous way.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available