4.7 Article

Shortcut in codimension-2 brane cosmology in light of GW170817

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
卷 83, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11328-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, the universe is considered as a codimension-2 brane in a noncompact six-dimensional AdS spacetime. The gravitational horizon radius on the brane under the low energy approximation is derived, indicating the effect of extra dimensions on gravitational waves. The time delay between a GW signal and an EM wave signal is studied in the low-redshift limit, giving an upper limit for the AdS(6) radius as l(2) ? 3.84 Mpc(2) based on joint observations of GW170817 and GRB 170817A. For high-redshift sources, a stronger constraint on the AdS6 radius is required to detect the EM counterpart of a GW event within a reasonable observation time. Our research suggests that the AdS6 radius should satisfy l(2) ? 0.02 Mpc(2) for DECIGO and BBO.
In this paper, our universe is regarded as a codimension-2 brane embedded in a noncompact six dimensional Anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime. We derive the gravitational horizon radius on the brane under the low energy approximation, which reflects how the extra dimensions cause the shortcut effect of gravitational waves (GWs). We also study the time delay between a GW signal and an electromagnetic (EM) wave signal in the low-redshift limit by combining with the joint observations of GW170817 and GRB 170817A, which gives an upper limit to the AdS(6) radius as l(2) ? 3.84 Mpc(2). For a high-redshift source, the time delay is converted into the discrepancy between the source redshift derived from the GW signal and the one derived from the EM counterpart. It is found that if one expects to detect the EM counterpart of a high-redshift GW event within a reasonable observation time, it requires a stronger constraint on the AdS6 radius. Our research shows that the AdS6 radius should satisfy l(2) ? 0.02 Mpc(2) for the DECIGO and BBO.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据