January28,2010 1:1 WSPC-ProceedingsTrimSize:9.75inx6.5in main 1 0 1 Towards Tests of Alternative Theories of Gravity with LISA 0 2 CarlosF.Sopuerta1 andNicol´asYunes2 n 1Institut de Ci`encies de l’Espai (CSIC-IEEC), a Facultat de Ci`encies, Campus UAB, Torre C5 parells, Bellaterra, 08193 Barcelona, Spain J 2Physics Department, Princeton University,Princeton, NJ 08544, USA 7 2 The inspiral of stellar compact objects into massive black holes, usually known ] as extreme-mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs), is one of the most important sources c of gravitational-waves for the future Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). q Intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals (IMRIs are also of interest to advance ground-based - r gravitational-waveobservatories.Wediscussherehowmodificationstothegravitational g interaction can affect the signals emitted by these systems and their detectability by [ LISA. We concentrate in particular on Chern-Simons modified gravity, a theory that emergesindifferentquantum gravitational approaches. 1 v Keywords: GravitationalWaveAstronomy;Extreme-Mass-RatioInspirals. 9 9 8 1. Motivation 4 . One ofthe primarygoalsof the future Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) 1 0 istosearchformodificationstoGeneralRelativity(GR)inphysicalsituationswhere 0 strong gravitationalfields are involved, speeds are large and binary pulsar or Solar 1 Systemexperiments do notlead to stringentconstraints.One avenueto study such : v situations is to explore deviations from the Kerr metric within GR. However, in i X GR, the Kerr metric is considered (provided cosmic censorship and causality hold) r to be the only possible final state of the gravitational collapse of compact bodies. a AnotherroutetotestGRistoconsideralternativetheoriesofgravityandstudythe imprint these leave on gravitational waves (GWs) emitted by LISA sources. Here, we reportresults relatedto the capture and inspiralof stellar compactobjects into massiveblackholes(BHs)ingalacticcenters,usuallyknownasExtreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals (EMRIs). Due to the plethora of alternative theories available, it is difficult to justify the choice of one theory over another. One approach is to propose certain crite- ria for a theory to be a reasonable candidate to test GR with LISA.1 An example of such a theory is Chern-Simons (CS) modified gravity.2 In this 4D theory, the Einstein-Hilbert action is modified through the addition of the product of a dy- namicalscalarfieldandthe Pontryagindensity.Thismodificationarisesgenerically and unavoidingly in the low-energy effective limits of string theory and can also arise in loop quantum gravity when the Barbero-Immirzi parameter is promoted January28,2010 1:1 WSPC-ProceedingsTrimSize:9.75inx6.5in main 2 to a field. Regarding BH solutions, one has to distinguish between the dynamical and non-dynamical versions of the theory. In the latter the scalar field is a given function which leads to an additionalconstraintwhich is too restrictive,essentially disallowingspinning BHsolutionsfortime-like scalarfields3 andforbidding pertur- bations of non-spinning BHs.4 The dynamical theory admits BH solutions, like the Schwarzschild metric and a modified Kerr metric,5 which are the theory and BH solutions that we consider here. 2. EMRIs in CS modified Gravity We now summarize recent results6 on the study of EMRIs in CS modified gravity in steps: (i) MBH geometry: Using the small-coupling andslow-rotationapproximations, the exterior, stationary and axisymmetric gravitational field of a rotating BH in 5 dynamical CS modified gravity, in Boyer-Lindquist type coordinates, is given by ds2 =ds2Kerr+5ξa/(4r4)(cid:2)1+12M/(7r)+27M2/(10r2)(cid:3)sin2θdtdφ, whereds2Kerr is thelineelementfortheKerrmetric,M andaaretheMBHmassandspinparameter, and ξ = α2/(κβ), where κ = (16πG)−1 is the gravitational constant and (α,β) are the coupling constants associated with the gravitational CS correction and the strengthoftheCSscalarfieldrespectively.Themultipolarstructureofthemodified metric remains completely determined by only two moments (no-hair or two-hair theorem):themassmonopoleandthecurrentdipole.Therelation,however,between these two moments and higher-order ones is modified from the GR expectation at multipole ℓ 4. ≥ (ii) The CS scalar field: It is axisymmetric and fully determined by the MBH geometry.5 Hence, the no-hairtheoremstill holds inthe dynamicaltheory(modulo the modification of the relation aforementioned). (iii) Motion of test particles around the MBH: It has been shown6 that point- particles follow geodesics in this theory, as in GR. Geodesics in the modified MBH geometry have essentially the same properties as Kerr geodesics; there are enough constant of motion to completely separate the Hamilton-Jacobi equations. The geodesic equations take the following form: x˙µ = x˙µ + δxµ , where an over- Kerr CS head dot denotes differentiation with respect to proper time and xµ = [t,r,θ,φ] are Boyer-Lindquist-type coordinates. The corrections δxµ =[L,2EL,0, E]δgCS, CS − φ where E and L are the energy and angular momentum of the geodesic, and δgCS = ξa/(112r8f)(70r2 + 120rM + 189M2), with f = 1 2M/r. One can seeφ that the innermost-stable circular orbit (ISCO) location −is CS shifted by:5 R =6M 4√6a/3 7a2/(18M) 77√6aξ/(5184M4), where the upper (lower) ISCO ∓ − ± signs correspond to co- and counter-rotating geodesics. Notice that the CS correc- tion acts against the spin effects. One can also check that the three fundamental frequencies of motion7 change with respect to the GR values. (iv) Gravitational Wave emission: Up to date, EMRIs in CS modified gravity have been described using the semi-relativistic approximation,8 where the motion January28,2010 1:1 WSPC-ProceedingsTrimSize:9.75inx6.5in main 3 is assumedgeodesic and GWs are assumedto propagatein flat spacetime.Neglect- ing radiation reaction effects, the dephasing between CS and GR GWs are due to the modifications in the MBH geometry. This dephasing will not prevent in prin- ciple detection of GWs from EMRIs with LISA (from short periods of data 3 ∼ weeks, where radiation reaction effects can be neglected), but instead it will bias the estimation of parameters, leading to an uncontrolled systematic error. (v) Radiation reaction effects: Using the short-waveapproximation,it has been shown6 that to the leading order the GW emission formulae are unchanged,except for subdominant energy-momentum emission by the scalar field. The inclusion of radiation-reaction effects, neglected in this analysis, will be crucial in the future, since it will lead to stronger GW modifications that will break the degeneracy between the CS coupling parameter and the system parameters. (vi) Tests of CS gravity with LISA: A rough estimate6 of the accuracy to which CS gravity could be constrained via a LISA observation is ξ1/4 . 105km(cid:0)δ/10−6(cid:1)1/4(M/M•), where δ is the accuracy to which ξ can be measured, which depends on the integration time, the signal-to-noise ratio, the type of orbit considered and how much radiation-reaction affects the orbit. Notice that IMRIs are favoredover EMRIs. This result is to be compared with the binary pulsar con- strained ξ1/4 .104 km.5 We then see that an IMRI with M =103M⊙ could place a constraint two-orders of magnitude more stringent than the binary pulsar one. Moreover, a GW test can constrain the dynamical behavior of the theory in the neighbourhoodofBHs,whichissimplynotpossiblewithneutronstarobservations. (vii) Future Work: Current efforts focus on the inclusion of radiation reaction, a key point for which is that, to leading order, GW emission in CS gravity is unchanged. This simplifIes the analysis, allowing for GR-like expressions for the rate of change of constants of motion due to GW emission. Acknowledgments We acknowledge support from NSF grant PHY-0745779, the Ramo´n y Cajal Pro- gramme (MEC, Spain), and a Marie Curie International Reintegration Grant (MIRG-CT-2007-205005/PHY) within the 7th European Community Framework Programme,and from the contract ESP2007-61712of MEC, Spain. References 1. N. Yunesand F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D80, 122003 (2009). 2. S. Alexanderand N. Yunes,Phys. Rept. 480, 1 (2009). 3. D. Grumiller and N. Yunes,Phys. Rev. D77, 044015 (2008). 4. N. Yunesand C. F. Sopuerta, Phys. Rev. D77, 064007 (2008). 5. N. Yunesand F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D79, 084043 (2009). 6. C. F. Sopuertaand N.Yunes,Phys. Rev. D80, 064006 (2009). 7. W. Schmidt,Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 2743 (2002). 8. R. Ruffiniand M. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 66, 1627 (1981).