1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  FORMAT FOR LATEX PAPERS  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

5: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}

6: 

7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  PACKAGES TO BE LOADED  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: \usepackage{natbib}

11: \usepackage{amsfonts}

12: \usepackage{amsmath}

13: \usepackage{amssymb}

14: \usepackage{bm}

15: \usepackage{graphicx}

16: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

17: \usepackage{latexsym}

18: \usepackage{rotating}

19: \usepackage{bm}             % bold math

20: \usepackage{amsfonts}       % AMS fonts

21: 

22: 

23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  USER DEFINED COMMANDS  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

26: \newcommand{\mb}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

27: \def \nn   {\nonumber}

28: \def \met  {\mbox{g}}

29: \def \metb {\mbox{\bf g}}

30: 

31: \newcommand\be{\begin{equation}}

32: \newcommand\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

33: \newcommand\ee{\end{equation}}

34: \newcommand\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

35: 

36: \newcommand{\note}[1]{[$\blacktriangleright$~\textbf{#1}~$\blacktriangleleft$]}

37: \newcommand{\cut}{{\textrm{cut}}}

38: \newcommand{\orb}{{\textrm{orb}}}

39: \newcommand{\rr}{{\textrm{rr}}}

40: \newcommand{\Msun}{\textrm{M}_{\odot}}                   

41: \newcommand{\Mbh}{M_{\bullet}}

42: \newcommand{\abh}{a_{\bullet}}

43: \newcommand{\Sbh}{S_{\bullet}}

44: \newcommand{\Mmw}{M_{\mbox{\tiny MW}}}

45: \newcommand{\Rbh}{R_{\bullet}}

46: \newcommand{\Mco}{m}

47: 

48: 

49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

50: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  BEGIN DOCUMENT  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

52: \begin{document}

53: 

54: 

55: 

56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  TITLE  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

59: \title{Relativistic Effects in Extreme Mass Ratio Gravitational Wave Bursts}

60: 

61: 

62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  AUTHORS  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

65: 

66: \author{Nicol\'as Yunes, Carlos F.  Sopuerta~\altaffilmark{1,2,3},

67:   Louis J. Rubbo~\altaffilmark{4}, Kelly

68:   Holley-Bockelmann~\altaffilmark{5}}

69: 

70: \affil{Institute for Gravitational Physics and Geometry and

71:   Center for Gravitational Wave Physics, The Pennsylvania State

72:   University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.}

73: 

74: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, University of Guelph,

75:   Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1.}

76: 

77: \altaffiltext{2}{Institut de Ci\`encies de l'Espai (CSIC),

78:   Facultat de Ci\`encies, Campus UAB, Torre C5 parells, E-08193

79:   Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain.}

80: 

81: \altaffiltext{3}{Institut d'Estudis Espacials de Catalunya

82:   (IEEC), Ed. Nexus-201, c/ Gran Capit\`a 2-4, E-08034 Barcelona,

83:   Spain.}

84: 

85: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, Coastal Carolina University

86:   Conway, SC 29528, USA.}

87: 

88: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt

89:   University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA.}

90: 

91: 

92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  ABSTRACT  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

94: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

95: 

96: \begin{abstract}

97:   Extreme mass ratio bursts (EMRBs) have been proposed as a possible

98:   source for future space-borne gravitational wave detectors, such as

99:   the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA).  These events are

100:   characterized by long-period, nearly-radial orbits of compact

101:   objects around a central massive black hole. The gravitational

102:   radiation emitted during such events consists of a short burst,

103:   corresponding to periapse passage, followed by a longer, silent

104:   interval. In this paper we investigate the impact of including

105:   relativistic corrections to the description of the compact object's

106:   trajectory via a geodesic treatment, as well as including

107:   higher-order multipole corrections in the waveform calculation.  The

108:   degree to which the relativistic corrections are important depends

109:   on the EMRB's orbital parameters.  We find that relativistic EMRBs

110:   ($v_{\mathrm{max}}/c>0.25$) are not rare and actually account for

111:   approximately half of the events in our astrophysical model.  The

112:   relativistic corrections tend to significantly change the waveform

113:   amplitude and phase relative to a Newtonian description, although

114:   some of this dephasing could be mimicked by parameter errors.  The

115:   dephasing over several bursts could be of particular importance not

116:   only to gravitational wave detection, but also to parameter

117:   estimation, since it is highly correlated to the spin of the massive

118:   black hole.  Consequently, we postulate that if a relativistic EMRB

119:   is detected, such dephasing might be used to probe the relativistic

120:   character of the massive black hole and obtain information about its

121:   spin.

122: \end{abstract}

123: 

124: 

125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  KEYWORDS  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

128: 

129: \keywords{black hole physics --- Galaxy: nucleus --- gravitational

130:   waves --- stellar dynamics}

131: 

132: 

133: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  MAKETITLE  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

136: 

137: \maketitle

138: 

139: 

140: 

141: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  INTRODUCTION  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

143: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

144: 

145: \section{Introduction} \label{intro}

146: 

147: Low-frequency ($10^{-5} \lesssim f \lesssim 0.1$~Hz) gravitational

148: wave interferometers, such as the proposed Laser Interferometer Space

149: Antenna (LISA) \citep{Bender:1998,Danzmann:2003tv,Sumner:2004}, will

150: open a completely new window to the Universe. Through observations of

151: low-frequency gravitational radiation we will be able to witness the

152: inspiral and merger of massive black hole binaries; the inspiral of

153: compact objects into massive black holes; and millions of

154: quasi-stationary compact galactic binaries.  Recently, a new source of

155: low-frequency gravitational radiation has been suggested: extreme mass

156: ratio bursts (EMRBs) \citep{Rubbo:2006dv,Rubbo:2007}.

157: 

158: EMRBs consist of a stellar-mass compact object (SCO) orbiting a

159: massive black hole (MBH) of $10^{4-8}~\Msun$ with orbital periods

160: greater than $T_{\cut} = 3 \times 10^4$~s.  The defining orbital

161: period cutoff is derived from LISA's lower frequency limit of

162: $f_{\cut} = 3 \times 10^{-5}$~Hz.  Systems with orbital periods less

163: than $T_{\cut}$ will radiate continuously inside the LISA band.  Such

164: continuous systems are more appropriately categorized as extreme mass

165: ratio inspirals (EMRIs) and have been studied extensively elsewhere:

166: recent estimations of the event rate are given by \citet{Gair:2004iv}

167: and \citet{Hopman:2006ha}; a discussion on a possible EMRI background

168: is given by \citet{Barack:2004b}; accounts on the theoretical

169: description of EMRIs can be found in the reviews by

170: \citet{Poisson:2004lr} and \citet{Glampedakis:2005hs}, while the

171: recent review by \citet{Amaro-Seoane:2007aw} describes the

172: astrophysical and detection applications.

173: 

174: Although EMRB events are distinct from EMRI events, their evolutionary

175: track could be connected. In the burst scenario, the SCO orbits the

176: MBH emitting a beamed burst of gravitational radiation during

177: pericenter passage.  The emitted radiation carries away energy and

178: angular momentum from the system so that after multiple pericenter

179: passages the orbital period decreases, and possibly the system becomes

180: an EMRI.  However, this evolutionary track is most likely disrupted by

181: scattering interactions with other stars and/or if the SCO plunges

182: directly into the central MBH on one of its passages.

183: 

184: The EMRB event rate has recently been investigated using simplified

185: galactic models and data analysis techniques

186: \citep{Rubbo:2006dv,Rubbo:2007,Hopman:2006fc}.  Using a density

187: profile described by an $\eta$-model \citep{Tremaine:1994},

188: \citet{Rubbo:2006dv,Rubbo:2007} suggested an event rate of

189: $\sim\!15~{\textrm{yr}}^{-1}$ for events with signal-to-noise ratios

190: (SNRs) greater than five out to the Virgo cluster.  When mass

191: segregation and different inner cusp models are considered, the

192: predicted rate decreases by an order of magnitude

193: \citep{Hopman:2006fc}.  These preliminary studies were aimed at

194: understanding if EMRB event rates are interesting for low-frequency

195: gravitational wave detectors such as LISA.  More work is still needed

196: to improve the predicted event rate in the context of realistic

197: galaxies, where the role of non-equilibrium dynamics, anisotropy,

198: complex star formation histories, substructure, and non-sphericity may

199: act to change the rate from these fiducial estimates by orders of

200: magnitude \citep{HB:2006af, Rubbo:2006dv, Rubbo:2007}.

201: 

202: In addition to the astrophysical uncertainties, there are no

203: investigations of the impact of relativistic corrections to EMRB

204: dynamics.  All EMRB studies have been carried out in a

205: \textit{quasi-Newtonian} framework. In this framework, one uses the

206: Newtonian equations of motion and extracts the gravitational waveforms

207: by means of the {\em quadrupole formula}.  This approximation ignores

208: the black hole nature of the central potential, including the black

209: hole's rotation (spin), and is technically valid only for orbits with

210: non-relativistic velocities.  However, a considerable number of EMRBs

211: are characterized by large pericenter velocities ($v_{p} \gtrsim

212: 0.25\,c$) and these \textit{relativistic} EMRBs should produce

213: gravitational wave signals with larger SNRs, as we will show later.

214: 

215: In this paper, we shall not consider the issue of EMRB event rates,

216: but instead we shall study the effects of relativistic corrections to

217: such events.  For extreme-mass-ratio systems a simple way of

218: introducing relativistic corrections is by using the so-called

219: \textit{semi-relativistic} approximation introduced by

220: \citet{Ruffini:1981rs}, and used recently in the context of EMRIs by

221: \citet{Gair:2005is,Gair:2005hu}.  In this approximation, the MBH and

222: surrounding area are modeled using the Kerr solution to Einstein's

223: field equations, which describes a stationary spinning black hole (the

224: Schwarzschild solution corresponds to the non-spinning case).  The SCO

225: is considered to be a point-like object (neglecting its own

226: self-gravity) whose trajectory is described by a geodesic of the Kerr

227: spacetime.  In other words, relative to previous work, we have

228: replaced the Newtonian equations of motion by relativistic geodesic

229: equations of motion.

230: 

231: The relativistic description introduces effects such as orbital

232: precession and frame dragging, but it does not account for effects due

233: to the gravitational field induced by the SCO. These effects, for

234: example, lead to changes in the (geodesic) constants of motion due to

235: radiation reaction. Even though these effects introduce errors that

236: scale with the system's mass ratio \citep[e.g.

237: see][]{Glampedakis:2005hs}, they cannot be neglected for EMRIs. This

238: is because in the late stages of the EMRI the SCO spends a substantial

239: fraction of cycles in the strong-field region of the MBH.  On the

240: other hand, in the case of EMRBs, the SCO sling-shots around the MBH

241: and its interaction time during pericenter passage is relatively small

242: ($< 10^{5}$~s).  Radiation reaction effects can then be neglected

243: in EMRBs since the radiation reaction timescale is always much larger

244: than the period of pericenter passage.

245: 

246: In this paper, we also improve on the semi-relativistic approximation

247: by using a more precise gravitational wave extraction procedure. The

248: procedure employed is the multipole-moment wave generation formalism

249: for slow-motion objects with arbitrarily strong internal gravity

250: \citep{Thorne:1980rm}.  We consider terms up to the mass-octopole and

251: current-quadrupole multipoles, thus improving on the mass-quadrupole

252: analysis of \citet{Rubbo:2006dv,Rubbo:2007} and \citet{Hopman:2006fc}.

253: Higher multipoles will become important if the system becomes even

254: more relativistic, but pericenter velocities for EMRBs are typically

255: small to moderate relative to the speed of light (typically $0.1

256: \lesssim v_{p}/c \lesssim 0.5$).  Such higher multipolar corrections

257: were taken into account for EMRIs by~\citet{Babak:2006uv}, but for

258: those sources the phase evolution must be tracked very accurately,

259: requiring techniques from black hole perturbation 

260: theory~\citep{Poisson:2004lr, Glampedakis:2005hs} that we shall not 

261: consider here.

262: 

263: The study of the relativistic corrections considered in this work

264: leads to the following conclusions. First, we find that relativistic

265: effects are significant for approximately $50\%$ of the orbits

266: contained in the EMRB phase space considered by

267: \citet{Rubbo:2006dv,Rubbo:2007}.  These relativistic EMRB orbits

268: differ from their Newtonian counterparts in such a way that the

269: associated waveforms present a noticeably different structure.  In

270: particular, we find that there is a dephasing relative to Newtonian

271: waveforms that is due to precessional effects and depend strongly on

272: the MBH spin.  These findings show that EMRB events are relativistic

273: enough that they should be treated accordingly, as was previously

274: found for EMRIs \citep{Glampedakis:2005hs}.

275: 

276: Second, we find that the corrections to the trajectories affect the

277: waveforms much more than the corrections in the waveform generation

278: over several bursts.  For example, for a given relativistic

279: trajectory, we find that the difference between the SNR of a waveform

280: obtain from the quadrupole formula to that obtained from the

281: quadrupole-octopole formula is of the order of $10 \%$ (depending on

282: the location of the observer.)  On the other hand, using the same

283: waveform generation formula (quadrupole or quadrupole-octopole), the

284: difference between the SNR of a Newtonian waveform to that of a Kerr

285: waveform is of the order of $100 \%$. These findings show that

286: modeling EMRB waveforms with a quasi-Newtonian treatment might not be

287: sufficient for certain data analysis applications.

288: 

289: Third, we find that the relativistic corrections accumulate with

290: multiple bursts and, thus, they may have an important impact in

291: improving the SNR. It is also conceivable that such corrections might

292: be important for parameter estimation studies and, perhaps, may be

293: used to determine or bound the spin of the MBH if a high SNR event is

294: detected. Along this same lines, if parameters can be determined

295: accurately enough, it might also be possible to use EMRB measurements

296: to test deviations from General Relativity. We must note, however,

297: that changing the orbital parameters in Newtonian waveforms could

298: somewhat mimic some of the relativistic corrections, but a detailed

299: Fisher analysis of such effects is beyond the scope of this paper. 

300: 

301: The remainder of this paper is divided as follows:

302: Section~\ref{dynamics} deals with the dynamics of EMRBs in the

303: semi-relativistic approximation and justifies the use of this

304: approximation for these systems; Section~\ref{waveforms} reviews the

305: inclusion of higher-order multipolar corrections to the waveform

306: generation formalism; Section~\ref{numsim} describes the numerical

307: implementation of the equations of motion and the initial data used;

308: Section~\ref{comps} compares the orbital trajectories and waveforms;

309: Section~\ref{conclusions} concludes and points to future research.

310: 

311: In this paper, we denote the MBH mass by $\Mbh$ and its {\em

312: gravitational radius} by $\Rbh = 2G\Mbh/c^2$, where $c$ is the speed

313: of light and $G$ the Newtonian gravitational constant.  To simplify

314: some expressions we normalize masses with respect to $\Mmw = 4\times

315: 10^6\,\Msun$, which is of the same magnitude as the mass of the MBH at

316: the center of the Milky Way \citep{Ghez:2005}.  The gravitational

317: radius can then be written as:

318: %

319: \begin{eqnarray}

320:   \Rbh &=& (3.82\times 10^{-7}~\textrm{pc}) \frac{\Mbh}{\Mmw} \,.

321: \end{eqnarray}

322: %

323: 

324: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  EMRB DYNAMICS  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

327: 

328: \section{EMRB Dynamics} \label{dynamics}

329: 

330: In this section, we discuss the description of the orbital motion.

331: Newtonian dynamics usually provides an adequate description of many

332: astrophysical sources of gravitational waves, at least from a

333: qualitative point of view.  However, for certain gravitational wave

334: sources, such a description is insufficient and relativistic effects

335: have to be considered.  For EMRB sources with pericenter distances

336: $r_p > 4\Rbh$ and velocities $v_{p}/c < 0.5$, the semi-relativistic

337: approximation to the equations of motion, in combination with a

338: multipolar description of the gravitational radiation, can adequately

339: model the dynamics and gravitational radiation, as we argue below.

340: 

341: The semi-relativistic approximation treats the motion of the SCO in

342: the point-particle limit as a geodesic of the MBH geometry, which is

343: justified based on the small mass-ratios associated with these

344: systems.  In this work, we adopt Cartesian Kerr-Schild coordinates,

345: $\{t,x^i\}$ ($i=1,2,3$), in which the MBH geometry is

346: time-independent, reflecting its stationary character, and tends to a

347: flat-space geometry in Cartesian coordinates far from the MBH.  We

348: denote the geodesic trajectory by $z^i(t)$, its spatial velocity by

349: $v^i(t) = dz^i/dt$, and its spatial acceleration by $a^i(t) =

350: dv^i/dt$.  The latter, in such a coordinate system, and by virtue of

351: the geodesic equations of motion, has the following form

352: \citep[e.g. see][]{Marck:1995kd}:

353: %

354: \begin{equation} \label{geodesics}

355:   a^i = F^i[v^j;\met^{}_{\mu\nu},\partial^{}_j\met^{}_{\mu\nu}] \,,

356: \end{equation}

357: %

358: where $\met^{}_{\mu\nu}$ ($\mu,\nu=0,1,2,3$) are the spacetime

359: components of the MBH metric. These equations describe the influence

360: of the spacetime curvature produced by the MBH and approach the

361: Newtonian equations of motion in the regime where $v/c = |v^i|/c \ll

362: 1$ and $G\Mbh/(c^2\,r) \ll 1$ ($r=|x^i|$).

363: 

364: The effects from the self-gravity of the SCO can be neglected.  To see

365: this, consider the (Keplerian) orbital timescale, $T^{}_{\orb}$, in

366: comparison to a characteristic radiation-reaction timescale,

367: $T^{}_{\rr}$.  For the latter, we can use the timescale associated

368: with the rate of change of the semi-latus rectum, $p$, related to the

369: pericenter distance by $r_p = p/(1 + e)$, namely $T^{}_{\rr} \sim

370: p/|dp/dt|$.  The radiation-reaction timescales of the other orbital

371: elements are comparable or larger \citep[see,

372: e.g.,][]{Glampedakis:2005hs}. The ratio of these timescales is

373: %

374: \begin{equation} \label{eq:tscales}

375:   \frac{T^{}_{\orb}}{T^{}_{\rr}} \sim 2 \pi \mu

376:   \left(\frac{\Rbh}{2p}\right)^{5/2}\,,

377: \end{equation}

378: %

379: where $\mu = m/\Mbh$ is the mass ratio of the system and $m$ the SCO

380: mass.  It is evident that the radiation-reaction timescale is much

381: greater than the orbital timescale due to the extreme mass ratio, $\mu

382: \ll 1$, and because EMRBs have $p \gg \mu^{5/2} \Rbh$. In the unlikely

383: case that more accuracy is required, one could improve the analysis

384: through the use of ``Kludge'' waveforms \citep{Babak:2006uv}, which

385: have been shown to reproduce numerical results in the adiabatic

386: approximation accurately for EMRIs.

387: 

388: Formally, the orbital timescale used is not really the exact timescale

389: of orbital motion. This is because the mass distribution of a

390: MBH-embedded galaxy possesses a non-Keplerian potential that leads to

391: non-Keplerian orbits.  However, most EMRBs (by rate) have apocenters

392: that do not extend far into the stellar population, implying that the

393: contribution from the galaxy potential is minimal.  The orbits we

394: study in later sections have a contamination from the galactic

395: potential that is less than $2\%$ of the MBH mass.  Moreover,

396: \citet{Hopman:2006fc} rightly argue that the inner region is

397: statistically empty of stars, which is due to finite effects realized

398: at the small scales observed near the MBH.

399: 

400: Certain constraints may be derived on the size of $p$ and $r_{p}$ for

401: EMRB events. The most important constraint is derived from the

402: definition of EMRBs: orbits with sufficiently large orbital period

403: $T_{\orb} > T_{\cut}$.  Assuming a Keplerian orbit (which is a rough

404: assumption), this constraint translates to pericenter distances as

405: follows

406: %

407: \begin{equation}

408:   r_p > (7.98 \times 10^{-7}~\textrm{pc}) \frac{(1 -e)}{0.1}

409:   \left(\frac{\Mbh}{\Mmw}\right)^{1/3}

410:   \left(\frac{T}{T_{\cut}}\right)^{2/3} \,, \label{orbitalconstraint}

411: \end{equation}

412: %

413: where we have rescaled quantities assuming a typical eccentricity of

414: $e = 0.9$ \citep{Rubbo:2006dv,Rubbo:2007} and a typical MBH mass of

415: $\Mbh = \Mmw$.  In terms of geometrized units, such a constraint

416: translates roughly to $r_{p} > 2\Rbh$.

417: 

418: This constraint can be compared with the requirement that the SCO does

419: not get captured. Any object that enters the black hole event horizon

420: is captured, where the horizon is located (in Boyer-Lindquist

421: coordinates) at

422: %

423: \begin{equation}

424:   r_{\rm cap} = (1.91 \times 10^{-7}~\textrm{pc})\,

425:   \frac{\Mbh}{\Mmw}\, \left[ 1 + \sqrt{1 -

426:   \frac{\abh^2}{\Mbh^2}}\;\right]\,,

427: \end{equation}

428: %

429: where $\abh$ is the (Kerr) MBH spin parameter, related to its

430: intrinsic angular momentum by $\Sbh = G\Mbh\,\abh/c$, and bounded by

431: $\abh/\Mbh \leq 1$.  Thus, for a maximally spinning Kerr MBH ($\abh =

432: \Mbh$), $r_{\rm cap} = 0.5\Rbh$, while for a Schwarzschild

433: (non-spinning) MBH it is just $\Rbh$.  This condition tell us simply

434: that $r_p > r_{\rm cap}$, which is a condition superseded by the

435: constraint on the orbital period given in

436: equation~\eqref{orbitalconstraint}.  One could explore other possible

437: constraints \citep{Rubbo:2006dv, Rubbo:2007} but they are in general

438: superseded by equation~\eqref{orbitalconstraint}.

439: 

440: These constraints clearly exclude the ergosphere of the MBH ($r_{\rm

441: cap} < r \lesssim \Rbh$) where frame dragging effects are most

442: pronounced.  However, for EMRIs it has been argued

443: \citep{Glampedakis:2005hs} that orbits with $r_p < 10 \Rbh$ cannot be

444: considered Keplerian anymore, mainly due to precessional effects. This

445: statement can be made more quantitative by looking at the ratio of

446: first-order post-Newtonian (1~PN) predictions \citep{Blanchet:2002av}

447: to Newtonian ones (0~PN). For example, for the energy of a circular

448: orbit, this ratio scales as $7 \Rbh/(8 r_p)$, while for the perihelion

449: precession angle, the ratio scales as $3 \Rbh/(2 r_p)$, for

450: extreme-mass ratios.  Therefore, for orbits with pericenter passage

451: $r_p \sim 5\Rbh$, the 1~PN correction to the energy and the perihelion

452: precession angle is approximately $20 \%$ and $30 \%$ respectively,

453: relative to the Newtonian value. This indicates that, even for orbits

454: outside the ergosphere, relativistic effects are not necessarily

455: negligible.

456: 

457: The relativistic geodesic equations of motion introduce corrections to

458: the Newtonian motion that can be interpreted in terms of a black hole

459: \textit{effective} potential.  By comparing the Newtonian and

460: relativistic potentials one can see that the relativistic corrections

461: dominate over the centrifugal barrier at small distances from the

462: black hole center.  In this work we show that these relativistic

463: corrections can be sampled by EMRBs and hence, one should model these

464: systems accordingly.  Nevertheless, as we argued above, the

465: relativistic treatment of EMRBs does not need to be as sophisticated

466: as in the case of EMRIs, since radiation-reaction can be neglected.

467: 

468: 

469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% BURST WAVEFORMS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

472: 

473: \section{EMRB Waveforms} \label{waveforms}

474: 

475: In this section we describe how we extract gravitational waveforms

476: once we have integrated the geodesic equations of motion. We use a

477: multipole-moment wave generation formalism for slowly-moving objects

478: with arbitrarily strong internal gravity \citep{Thorne:1980rm,

479: Flanagan:2005yc, Glampedakis:2005hs}. In quasi-Newtonian and

480: semi-relativistic treatments, the radiation is modeled by the lowest

481: non-vanishing multipole moment: the mass-quadrupole.  To that order,

482: and for the case of a point-like object orbiting a MBH at a fixed

483: coordinate location, the plus and cross polarizations are given by

484: \citep{Misner:1973cw, Thorne:1980rm}

485: %

486: \begin{equation} \label{waves-quad}

487:   h_{+,\times} = \frac{2 G m}{r c^4} \; \epsilon^{ij}_{+,\times}

488:   \left( a_i z_j + v_i v_j \right),

489: \end{equation}

490: %

491: where $r$ is the (flat-space) distance to the observer and

492: $\epsilon^{ij}_{+,\times}$ are polarization tensors.  This expression

493: assumes, based on the slow motion approximation, that the change in

494: the acceleration with respect to time, the \textit{jerk}, $j^i =

495: da^i/dt$, is a small quantity.  More precisely, we are neglecting

496: terms of order $(v/c)^3$, or in other words, since the (quadrupole)

497: leading order terms are of order $(v/c)^2$, this implies a relative

498: error of order $v/c$.  

499: 

500: One can improve on this description for the gravitational radiation by

501: accounting for higher-order multipole moments. In this paper, we

502: consider the mass-octopole and current-quadrupole multipoles, which

503: require the knowledge of one more time derivative of the trajectory,

504: the jerk.  Adding these contributions to equation~\eqref{waves-quad},

505: the gravitational waveforms are given by~\citep{Thorne:1980rm}

506: %

507: \begin{eqnarray} \label{waves-oct}

508:   h_{+,\times} &=& \frac{2 G m}{r c^4} \; \epsilon^{ij}_{+,\times} \bigg\{

509:   a_i z_j + v_i v_j \nonumber\\

510:   &+& \frac{1}{c} \Big[ \left({\bf{n}} \cdot {\bf{z}}\right) \left(z_i j_j + 3 a_i v_j

511:   \right) + \left({\bf{n}} \cdot {\bf{v}}\right)

512:   \left( a_i z_j + v_i v_j \right) \nonumber\\ 

513:   &-& \left({\bf{n}} \cdot {\bf{a}}\right) v_i z_j - \frac{1}{2}

514:   \left({\bf{n}} \cdot {\bf{j}}\right) z_i z_j \Big] \bigg\}, 

515: \end{eqnarray}

516: %

517: where $n^i = x^i/r$ is a unit vector that points to the observer and

518: the vector product is the flat-space scalar product.  In this case, we

519: are neglecting terms of order $(v/c)^4$ and hence we are making a

520: relative error of order $(v/c)^2$ with respect to the leading order

521: quadrupole term.

522: 

523: The waveforms of equation~\eqref{waves-oct} are a truncated multipole

524: expansion, where we are neglecting the current-octopole,

525: mass-hexadecapole, and higher multipole moments. This expansion is

526: based on a slow-motion approximation which is valid for orbits whose

527: pericenter velocity is small relative to the speed of light.  For

528: closed circular orbits, we can use the Virial theorem to argue that

529: this is equivalent to requiring $r_{p} > \Mbh$. For a relativistic

530: EMRB event with $v_{p}/c = 0.4$, the maximum relative contribution of

531: the octopole to the quadrupole is of the order of~$40\%$, since the

532: octopolar term is of order $v/c$ smaller than the quadrupolar one. In

533: this paper, we shall study EMRBs from the sample of Milky Way sources

534: studied in~\cite{Rubbo:2006dv}. These sources have initial pericenter

535: distances of $r_{p} > 8 \Mbh$, thus justifying the use of a

536: low-multipolar expansion in the wave-generation formalism and the

537: neglect of radiation reaction effects in the orbital motion.

538: 

539: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

540: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%   NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

541: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

542: 

543: \section{Numerical Simulations} \label{numsim}

544: 

545: In this section we describe the EMRB simulations that were carried

546: out, including the choice of initial conditions.  The simulations

547: involve integrating the equations for geodesic motion around a Kerr

548: black hole, equation~\eqref{geodesics}, forward in time. \citep[For a

549: detailed exposition of Kerr geodesics see][]{Chandrasekhar:1992bo}.

550: Since Cartesian Kerr-Schild coordinates are used, the initial

551: conditions can be denoted by $(z^i_0,v^i_0)$.  The numerical

552: implementation does not use the Kerr geodesic constants of motion

553: (energy, angular momentum, and Carter constant) in order to reduce the

554: number of variables of the resulting system of ordinary differential

555: equations.  Instead, we have used the constants of motion to monitor

556: the accuracy of the time integration.  The integration accuracy is set

557: so that we obtain fractional errors for the constants of motion

558: smaller than one part in $10^{10}$.  The code uses a Bulirsh-Stoer

559: extrapolation method as the evolution algorithm \citep[see,

560: e.g.][]{Press:1992nr,Stoer:1993sb}.  We have also introduced in the

561: code the possibility of switching between Kerr geodesics and Newtonian

562: equations of motion.  The gravitational waveforms are then obtained

563: directly by applying expressions~\eqref{waves-quad} and

564: \eqref{waves-oct} to the numerically obtained trajectory $z^i(t)$.

565: 

566: Comparisons are carried out by choosing a representative relativistic

567: orbit within the allowed phase space for EMRB's.  We made the

568: following choices for the test case:

569: %

570: \begin{itemize}

571: \item The central MBH mass is $\Mbh = \Mmw$ and the SCO mass is $\Mco

572:   = 1~\Msun$, such that the mass ratio is $\mu = \Mco/\Mbh = 2.5

573:   \times 10^{-7} \ll 1$.

574: 

575: \item The MBH spin parameter is either $\abh=0$ (Schwarzschild) or $\abh

576:   = 0.998~\Mbh$ (Kerr).  The angular momentum is aligned along the

577:   $z$-axis and equal to either $S^z = 0$ or $S^z = 0.998 G\Mbh^2/c$.

578:   

579: \item The observer is located at $r_{obs} = 8$ kpc along the z-axis,

580:   which corresponds to the approximate distance from Earth to the center

581:   of the Milky Way \citep{Eisenhauer:2005}.

582: \end{itemize}

583: %

584: Furthermore, we make the following choices for the orbital initial

585: conditions: 

586: %

587: \begin{eqnarray} \label{orbit:ID}

588:   z^i_0 &=& \left(-1.59, 1.05, -0.185\right) \times 10^{-5}~{\textrm{pc}}, 

589:   \nonumber\\

590:   v^i_0 &=& \left(1.70,-2.89,0.510\right)\times 10^{4}~{\textrm{km

591:   s}}^{-1}\,.

592: \label{testorbit}

593: \end{eqnarray}

594: %                  

595: The initial conditions are such that $r_{0} = |z^i_0| = 50 \Rbh = 1.91

596: \times 10^{-5}$~pc, and $|v^i_0| = 0.11\,c = 3.39 \times

597: 10^{4}~{\textrm{km s}}^{-1}$.  The orbital plane is inclined by

598: $10^{\circ}$ with respect to the $x-y$ plane to demonstrate the

599: effects of orbital plane precession, which only occurs for spinning

600: MBHs. Since this paper is concerned with the effect of relativistic

601: corrections to EMRB events, we choose to give all orbits the same

602: initial conditions. The possibility of relaxing this choice and its

603: effect on the conclusions derived in this paper shall be discussed in

604: a later section.

605: 

606: Although the test orbit is in the phase space of EMRB events studied

607: in~\citet{Rubbo:2006dv}, one might worry that it is too relativistic

608: to actually have a significant probability to occur in nature.  In 

609: particular, one can think that the SCO may be tidally disrupted. To

610: address this question, let us consider a Newtonian description of the 

611: central potential, which leads to the following values of the pericenter 

612: distance and velocity:

613: %

614: \begin{eqnarray}

615:   r_{p} &=& 6.45~\Rbh = 2.48 \times 10^{-6}~{\textrm{pc}},

616:   \nonumber \\

617:   |v_{p}| &=& 0.384\,c = 1.15 \times 10^{5}~{\textrm{km s}}^{-1} \,.

618: \end{eqnarray}

619: %

620: One might worry that stars might be tidally disrupted with such small

621: pericenters. However, as shown by \citet{Hopman:2006fc}, most SCOs in

622: EMRB scenarios consist of stellar-mass black holes, which cannot be

623: tidally disrupted.

624: 

625: Such relativistic orbits are actually naturally occurring in the phase

626: space of possible EMRBs studied in~\citet{Rubbo:2006dv}. Of all

627: orbits in the allowed EMRB phase space considered

628: in~\citet{Rubbo:2006dv, Rubbo:2007}, $6\%$ is contained within a small

629: $6$-dimensional phase space volume centered on the test

630: orbit~\footnote{In other words, $6\%$ of the test orbits considered to

631:   be EMRBs in ~\citet{Rubbo:2006dv} are close in phase space to our

632:   test orbit. This does not imply that the probability of such a test

633:   orbit actually occurring in nature is $6 \%$, since any element of

634:   phase space may have small overall probabilities, even down to

635:   $10^{-7} \%$.}. Furthermore, the test case shown possesses a short

636: orbital timescale, bursting approximately $150$ times per year. Such

637: events with small orbital timescale were shown to dominate the EMRB

638: event rate in~\citet{Rubbo:2006dv}. It is in this sense that the test

639: orbit studied here is {\emph{typical}} or representative of EMRBs.

640: 

641: The relative location of the test orbit in the pericenter

642: distance-eccentricity plane of the phase space of allowed

643: EMRBs~\citep{Rubbo:2006dv} is presented in Figure~\ref{ID} (triangle.)

644: The eccentricity was here calculated assuming a Newtonian orbit and

645: the pericenter separation is given in gravitational radii, $\Rbh$.

646: Although the test orbit has a large eccentricity, its apocenter is

647: small enough ($r_{a} \lesssim 150 \Rbh \approx 6 \times 10^{-5}$~pc)

648: that the contribution from the surrounding stellar population to the

649: potential can be neglected.  In general, the left side of the figure

650: corresponds to highly relativistic orbits with large pericenter

651: velocities and small pericenter distances.  Orbits with pericenter

652: velocities $|v_p| > 0.25\,c = 3 \times 10^4~{\textrm{km s}}^{-1} $

653: account for approximately 50\% of the possible orbits within the phase

654: space studied in~\citet{Rubbo:2006dv}.

655: %

656: \begin{figure}

657: \includegraphics[scale=0.375,clip=true]{f1.eps}

658: \caption{\label{ID} Plot of the set of possible EMRB orbits as

659:   computed in \citet{Rubbo:2006dv} in the pericenter

660:   distance-eccentricity plane. The pericenter distance is given in

661:   units of the gravitational radius $\Rbh$. The initial conditions

662:   for the test [Eq.~(\ref{testorbit})] and the extreme 

663:   [Eq.~(\ref{extremeorbit})] orbits are indicated by a triangle and

664:   a circle respectively.}

665: \end{figure}

666: %

667: 

668: Although the test orbit is a good source to demonstrate the

669: differences between the Newtonian and relativistic treatments, we

670: could have chosen an even more relativistic one. Such an event would

671: still be classified as an EMRB in a Newtonian treatment, but it would

672: border with the definition of a continuous source.  An example of such

673: an extreme orbit is shown with a circle in Figure~\ref{ID}, to the

674: left of the test orbit (triangle).  This extreme orbit possesses the

675: following initial conditions:

676: %

677: \begin{eqnarray}

678:   z^i_0 &=& \left(-1.81,0.6,-1.06\right) \times 10^{-6}~{\textrm{pc}},

679:   \nonumber \\

680:   v^i_0 &=& \left(1.72,-1.78,0.31\right) \times 10^{5}~{\textrm{km

681:   s}}^{-1},

682:   \label{extremeorbit}

683: \end{eqnarray}

684: %

685: where $r_p = 4\,\Rbh = 1.53 \times 10^{-6}$~pc and $|v_p| = 0.49c =

686: 1.46 \times 10^5~{\textrm{km s}}^{-1}$ for a Newtonian potential. We

687: will study such an extreme orbit at the end of the next section as an

688: example of a limiting relativistic case.

689: 

690: 

691: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%   COMPARISONS  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

693: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

694: 

695: \section{Comparison of Trajectories and Waveforms} \label{comps}

696: 

697: In this section we compare the results obtained for both the orbital

698: motion and the gravitational radiation emitted by an EMRB event using

699: both the Newtonian and relativistic description.  Since the {\em plus}

700: and {\em cross} polarization waveforms present similar features, we

701: only plot the {\em plus} polarization waveforms.  In the remainder of

702: this section we use the following nomenclature: a quadrupolar

703: (octopolar) Newtonian waveform is one that was calculated using the

704: quadrupole (octopole) formula and Newtonian equations of motion; a

705: quadrupole (octopole) Schwarzschild waveform is one that was

706: calculated using the quadrupole (octopole) formula and the geodesic

707: equations of motion with no spin ($\abh=0$); a quadrupole (octopole)

708: Kerr waveform is one that was calculated using the quadrupole

709: (octopole) formula and the geodesic equations of motion with spin

710: $\abh = 0.998 \Mbh$.

711: 

712: %----------------------------------------------

713: \subsection{Orbital Trajectories}

714: 

715: Let us begin by comparing the trajectories obtained in our

716: simulations.  In Figure~\ref{Orbits}, we plot the test orbit

717: corresponding to a Newtonian treatment (solid line) and the one

718: corresponding to a relativistic treatment without spin (dashed line)

719: and with spin (dotted line).  The dot and arrow indicate the initial

720: location and velocity projected onto the $x$-$y$ plane. The MBH is

721: located at the origin of the coordinates, and the vectors denoted by

722: $L$ and $S$ describe the direction of the initial orbital angular

723: momentum and the MBH spin respectively.  In the relativistic

724: description there are precessional effects in the SCO orbit that can

725: be clearly observed in Figure~\ref{Orbits}.  These precessional

726: effects are: pericenter precession about the orbital angular momentum

727: axis, which acts in the initial orbital plane; and frame-dragging

728: precession about the total angular momentum axis, which acts out of

729: the initial orbital plane.  While the former always occurs in a

730: relativistic treatment, the latter is present only in the spinning

731: case.

732: %

733: \begin{center}

734: \begin{figure}

735:  \includegraphics[scale=0.85,clip=true]{f2.eps}

736: \caption{\label{Orbits} Trajectories for the SCO, with initial

737:   conditions given by~\eqref{orbit:ID}, corresponding to a Newtonian

738:   description (solid line) and relativistic descriptions with no spin

739:   (dashed line) and with spin (dotted line).  The MBH is located at

740:   the origin and the vectors $L$ and $S$ denote the initial orbital

741:   angular momentum and the MBH spin respectively. }

742: \end{figure}

743: \end{center}

744: %

745: 

746: Different relativistic precessional effects are generally of different

747: magnitude. These effects are usually inversely proportional to the

748: pericenter distance, or equivalently proportional to the pericenter

749: velocity of the SCO.  Precession out of the initial orbital plane,

750: however, is smaller than precession in the orbital plane by a relative

751: factor of order $v_{p}/c$ and it is directly proportional to the spin

752: of the MBH. In terms of post-Newtonian theory \citep[see,

753: e.g.][]{Blanchet:2002av}, the pericenter advance is described by

754: 1st-order post-Newtonian corrections to the equations of motion (order

755: $(v/c)^2$ relative to the Newtonian acceleration), while precession

756: off the orbital plane is due to spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings

757: that correspond to $1.5$ and $2$-order corrections (order $(v/c)^3$

758: and $(v/c)^4$ relative to the Newtonian acceleration.)  Therefore,

759: since EMRBs are characterized as events with small to moderate

760: pericenter velocities, precession out of the initial orbital plane is

761: small to moderate relative to pericenter advance, even for maximally

762: spinning MBHs.

763: 

764: We can estimate the precession rate by comparing the Newtonian and

765: relativistic trajectories.  For the test orbit considered, we find

766: that the rate in the orbital plane is roughly $\pi/3$ radians per

767: orbit for the non-spinning case and $2\pi/3$ radians per orbit for the

768: spinning one. These precessional effects have been studied extensively

769: in the context of EMRIs \citep[see, e.g.][]{Schmidt:2002} and also

770: specifically for S-stars in the central region of our Galaxy in

771: \citet{Kraniotis:2007}.  Nonetheless, these effects have not been

772: previously analyzed in the context of EMRBs, since previous studies

773: employed a quasi-Newtonian treatment. 

774: 

775: %----------------------------------------------

776: \subsection{Waveforms}

777: Let us now analyze how the differences in the SCO trajectories

778: translate into different signatures in the waveforms.  In

779: Figure~\ref{hp1} we plot the quadrupole Newtonian and Schwarzschild

780: waveforms (solid and dashed lines respectively), while in

781: Figure~\ref{hp2} we plot the quadrupole Schwarzschild and Kerr

782: waveforms (dashed and dot-dot-dashed lines respectively.) There are

783: three main differences between the Newtonian and the relativistic

784: waveforms: a modulated phase change, an amplitude change, and a time

785: of arrival change.  The changes in amplitude and time of arrival are

786: due to the test particle experiencing a larger ``force'' of attraction

787: as it approaches the black hole.  Quantitatively, this increase in

788: force is due to the presence of ($r_p^{-n}$)-contributions to the

789: relativistic corrections to the central potential (with $n$ a real

790: positive number.)

791: 

792: %

793: \begin{figure}[tl]

794:   \includegraphics[scale=0.35,clip=true]{f3.eps}

795: \caption{\label{hp1} EMRB waveforms ({\em plus} polarization):

796: The Newtonian waveform corresponds  to the solid line and

797: the Schwarzschild one to the dashed line.}

798: \end{figure}

799: %

800: 

801: %

802: \begin{figure}[tr]

803: \includegraphics[scale=0.35,clip=true]{f4.eps}

804: \caption{\label{hp2} EMRB waveforms ({\em plus} polarization):

805: The Schwarzschild waveform corresponds to the dashed

806: line and the Kerr one to the dot-dot-dashed line.

807: The dephasing of the waveforms can be best observed during the

808: silent transitions between bursts. For example, in the first silent

809: transition the waveforms are roughly $\pi$ radians out of phase, while

810: in the third one they are in phase.}

811: \end{figure}

812: %

813: 

814: Gravitational wave interferometers are most sensitive to the phase,

815: which is clearly different for Newtonian and relativistic waveforms.

816: The dephasing present in Figures~\ref{hp1} and \ref{hp2} parallels the

817: orbital dephasing discussed earlier (the gravitational-wave and

818: orbital frequencies are intimately related) and leads to an amplitude

819: modulation. In terms of the gravitational wave phase, both

820: Figures~\ref{hp1} and \ref{hp2} show a dephasing of $\pi/6$ radians

821: per cycle.  This can be seen after the third burst where the waveforms

822: are back in phase. In fact, there is a significant dephasing even

823: between the relativistic waveforms due to the effect of the MBH spin.

824: If a cursory examination by eye can detect the difference in the

825: waveforms due to differences in the nature of the central potential,

826: it stands to reason that strong-field EMRB waveforms might allow us to

827: probe of the spacetime near a MBH. We should note, however, that no

828: work has yet been done to find best-fit parameters for Newtonian

829: waveforms that maximize the correlation with relativistic ones. In

830: other words, it might be possible to mimic some of the relativistic

831: corrections by choosing different initial data for the Newtonian

832: waveforms, but such a study is beyond the scope of this paper.

833: 

834: The difference in dephasing can be better studied by calculating the

835: signal overlap,

836: %

837: \begin{equation} \label{corr}

838:   (h_{1} | h_{2}) = \frac{\int_{0}^{T} h_{1}(t)

839:   h_{2}(t) dt}{\sqrt{ \int_{0}^{T} h_{1}^{2}(t) dt} \;

840:   \sqrt{\int_{0}^{T} h_{2}^{2}(t) dt}} \;.

841: \end{equation}

842: The overlap indicates how well a signal $h_{1}$ can be extracted via

843: matched filtering with a template $h_{2}$~\footnote{The overlap is

844:   given here in the time domain, but an analogous representation in

845:   the frequency domain could also be used. Such an expression in the

846:   frequency domain can be derived through Parseval's theorem.}.  In

847: Figures~\ref{power1} and~\ref{power2} we plot the normalized integrand

848: as a function of time, with $h_{1}$ given by the quadrupole Kerr

849: waveform and $h_{2}$ given by either the quadrupole Newtonian or

850: Schwarzschild waveforms.  Observe that neither the Newtonian nor the

851: Schwarzschild waveforms match well with the Kerr waveform.  Moreover,

852: note that the correlation with the Newtonian waveform deteriorates

853: greatly after only the first cycle. The integral of

854: equation~\eqref{corr} gives the correlation between different

855: waveforms over nine days (four bursts): for the Newtonian and Kerr

856: plus-polarized waveforms it is $9.6 \%$; for the Schwarzschild and

857: Kerr plus-polarized waveforms it is $-6.3 \%$.  As a point of

858: comparison, a substantial signal overlap should be~$\gtrsim 95 \%$. As

859: already mentioned, the same initial conditions were chosen for both

860: the Newtonian and relativistic orbits, such that their waveforms would

861: be both initially in-phase and any dephasing due to relativistic

862: effects could be clearly studied. However, such a choice forces the

863: SCO to pass through periapsis at slightly different times, because in

864: the relativistic case this object experiences a ``deeper'' potential.

865: Such a difference in timing degrades the overlap somewhat and could,

866: in principle, be ameliorated by choosing different initial conditions

867: for the Newtonian evolution, {\textit{i.~e.~}} by maximizing the

868: overlap over all orbital parameters, but such a study is beyond the

869: scope of this paper.

870: 

871: Figures~\ref{power1} and~\ref{power2} provide some evidence that the

872: use of a relativistic waveform might be required for the data analysis

873: problem of extracting EMRB signals. Such expectations are somewhat

874: confirmed in Table~\ref{table_orbs}, where we present the correlation

875: between Newtonian and Kerr plus-polarized waveforms integrated over

876: both a single day (one burst) and nine days of data (several bursts)

877: for a sample of different EMRB orbits~\footnote{Here we use the

878:   frequency representation of the correlation calculation, employing

879:   the Fourier transform of the waveforms.}. Both a single and several

880: bursts should be studied because, in principle, parameter adjustments

881: might mitigate the between-burst dephasing, but probably not the

882: in-burst dephasing. The orbits chosen were taken directly from the

883: allowed EMRB phase space of~\citet{Rubbo:2006dv} and possess different

884: initial positions and velocities, leading to different eccentricities,

885: initial inclination and orbital periods. The orbital period can be

886: used to classify the orbits into highly-bursting (burst more than once

887: per week) and slowly-bursting (burst less than once per week.)  For

888: highly-bursting EMRBs, the average correlation is $\sim 27 \%$ when

889: all nine days of data (several bursts) are used, while it is $\sim 93

890: \%$ when only one day of data (single burst) is used. For the

891: slowly-bursting EMRBs we considered here, there is actually only one

892: burst per week and its correlation is $\sim 85 \%$. These results

893: indicate that accumulating precession effects lead to a significant

894: loss of correlation between Newtonian and Kerr waveforms if bursts are

895: to be connected. Moreover, we see that even for a single burst the

896: shape of the relativistic waveforms is sufficiently different from its

897: Newtonian counterpart to lead to a significant mismatch (in-phase

898: dephasing). If one maximizes the correlation over intrinsic orbital

899: parameters it might be possible to increase the correlation somewhat,

900: but again that is to be studied elsewhere.

901: 

902: %

903: \begin{figure}[tl]

904: \includegraphics[scale=0.33,clip=true]{f5.eps}

905: \caption{\label{power1} Plot of the overlap integrand of

906:   equation~\eqref{corr} with $h_{1}$ given by the quadrupole Kerr

907:   waveform and $h_{2}$ by the quadrupole Newtonian one.  The inset

908:   zooms to a region near the small peaks.}

909: \end{figure}

910: %

911: 

912: %

913: \begin{figure}[tr]

914: \includegraphics[scale=0.33,clip=true]{f6.eps}

915: \caption{\label{power2} Plot of the overlap integrand of

916:   equation~\eqref{corr} with $h_{1}$ given by the quadrupole Kerr

917:   waveform and $h_{2}$ by the quadrupole Schwarzschild one.}

918: \end{figure}

919: %

920: 

921: Let us now focus on the differences in the waveforms when they are

922: calculated with the quadrupolar approximation versus the

923: quadrupolar-octopolar one. In Figure~\ref{diff} we plot the absolute

924: value of the difference between the octopole and quadrupole waveforms

925: as a function of time for a Schwarzschild (upper panel) and a Kerr

926: (lower panel) central potential. The difference is normalized to the

927: maximum of the first peak of the quadrupole waveform, since other

928: peaks have approximately the same maximum.

929: %

930: \begin{figure}

931: \includegraphics[scale=0.33,clip=true]{f7.eps}

932: \caption{\label{diff} Plot of the absolute magnitude of the difference

933:   between the quadrupole and octopole Schwarzschild (upper panel) and

934:   Kerr (lower panel) waveforms. The difference is normalized to the

935:   maximum value of the first peak of the quadrupole waveform.}

936: \end{figure}

937: %

938: Observe that the inclusion of higher-order multipoles does not affect

939: the phasing of the waveforms, but only the amplitude, which is in

940: general different by roughly 4\% relative to the quadrupole waveform

941: for the Kerr test case. At first sight, this result is in disagreement

942: with the expectation that the octopolar correction is at most

943: $\lesssim 40 \%$ of the quadrupolar one. Note, however, that the $40

944: \%$ estimate is an order-of-magnitude {\emph{upper limit}}, since the

945: octopole correction is dependent on the location of the observer

946: relative to the trajectory, velocity, acceleration and jerk vectors.

947: For the test case, where the observer is located on the $\hat{z}$-axis

948: and the orbit is initially inclined by $10^{\circ}$, the octopolar

949: change is reduced by approximately an order of magnitude, since

950: initially $(\mb{n} \cdot \mb{z}) \approx (\mb{n} \cdot \mb{v}) \approx

951: (\mb{n} \cdot \mb{a}) \approx (\mb{n} \cdot \mb{j}) \approx 0.1$. In

952: Table~\ref{table_obs}, we present the approximate maximum difference

953: between octopolar and quadrupolar waveforms as a function of observer

954: location, focusing only on the first burst of radiation. The location

955: of the observer is rotated about the $\hat{y}$-axis on the

956: $\hat{x}-{\hat{z}}$ plane, always at a fixed radial distance of 8~kpc.

957: Note that for some observers the difference is larger and, in fact, of

958: the order of 40\%, since the dot products are closer to unity.  These

959: results are thus consistent with the expectation that the $n$-th

960: multipolar contribution cannot in general be larger than order

961: $(v/c)^n$ relative to the quadrupolar leading term.

962: 

963: \subsection{Data Analysis}

964: 

965: In order to quantify some of our statements about the change in phase

966: and amplitude, we calculated the SNR for the relativistic waveforms

967: via the standard formula

968: %

969: \begin{equation}

970:   \rho^2 = 4 \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{|\tilde{h}(f)|^{2}}{S_{n}(f)} \;

971:   df \;,

972: \end{equation}

973: %

974: where the tilde denotes the Fourier transform and $S_{n}(f)$ is the

975: one-sided power spectral noise density.  Here we employ the Online

976: Sensitivity Curve Generator \citep{Larson:2000} with the standard LISA

977: settings and the inclusion of the white-dwarf background contribution.

978: When calculating SNRs, we set the observation time to roughly nine

979: days, so as to include multiple bursts in our single SNR value.

980: 

981: The inclusion of relativistic corrections in the trajectories has a

982: dramatic impact in the SNR. We find that the Schwarzschild waveform

983: increases the SNR by a factor of approximately $59\%$, while the Kerr

984: waveform increases it by $162\%$, relative to the Newtonian SNR.  The

985: difference in SNR is because the relativistic orbits experience a

986: deeper effective potential and, thus, the interaction timescale is

987: smaller.  Therefore, the inverse of the interaction time, $f_{\star} =

988: v_p/r_p$, is larger for the Schwarzschild and Kerr waveforms relative

989: to the Newtonian one.  As a result, the Fourier power is shifted to

990: higher frequencies, where LISA is more sensitive.

991: 

992: The SNR behaves similarly for other EMRB orbits with different orbital

993: periods, eccentricities and pericenter parameters. This can be

994: observed in Table~\ref{table_orbs} where we present the SNR difference

995: between Newtonian and Kerr waveforms for different EMRB orbits for a

996: single and several bursts. Highly-bursting EMRBs lead to a large

997: change in the SNR over a week of data, since they experience the

998: depths of the effective potential several times. Per burst, the change

999: in SNR can range from one, to ten or even ninety percent, depending on

1000: the inclination angle of the orbit, the pericenter distance and other

1001: orbital parameters. Also note that the orbits presented in the table

1002: are not as relativistic as the test case, which is why the SNR

1003: difference is smaller. This study seems to indicate that the SNR is in

1004: general somewhat larger for relativistic waveforms, specially when

1005: several burst are taken into account.~\footnote{Naive intuition might

1006:   suggest that the change in the SNR should scale like the square root

1007:   of the number of bursts, but this is not necessarily correct. First,

1008:   different orbits possess different beaming patterns on the sky due

1009:   to precession. Second, the starting frequencies of these bursts is

1010:   very close to the limit of LISA's sensitivity band [$10^{-5}$ Hz].

1011:   As the orbits burst, precession somewhat increases the frequency of

1012:   the waveform, forcing different bursts to contribute different

1013:   amounts to the SNR.}  Consequently, the event rate calculated in

1014: \citet{Rubbo:2006dv, Rubbo:2007}, which in particular summed over all

1015: bursts in one year of data, is an underestimate for their galaxy

1016: model, because some of the systems with a Newtonian SNR $\lesssim 5$

1017: should have been added to the detectable event rate.  However, the

1018: uncertainty in the event rate is still probably dominated by

1019: astrophysical uncertainties and not by the dynamics modeling.

1020: 

1021: Conversely, the inclusion of higher multipole moments to the wave

1022: generation formalism has little to no effect in the SNR. In the

1023: previous section we showed that there was $\approx 4\%$ difference

1024: between the octopole and quadrupole waveforms relative to the maximum

1025: of the first peak of the quadrupole waveform. We further showed that

1026: this difference depends on the location of the observer (see

1027: table~\ref{table_obs}), but for the test case it does not exceed a

1028: maximum of 40\%, which agrees with the multipole-ordering argument

1029: previously described.  However, we also pointed out that the amplitude

1030: difference is confined to sharp peaks in the time domain. Such a

1031: confined change in the waveform amplitude leads to a Fourier power

1032: being dispersed over a large frequency region, including outside the

1033: LISA band.  As a result, there is a correspondingly small change in

1034: the SNR: of the order of $\approx 1\%$ relative to the quadrupolar

1035: formalism. Such a result is in agreement with the analysis

1036: of~\cite{Babak:2006uv}, which was carried out for EMRIs. Therefore, we

1037: see that the change in SNR is primarily dominated by the modifications

1038: introduced in the geodesic description of the equations of motion, and

1039: not in the octopolar correction to the waveform generation.

1040: 

1041: The analysis presented in this section, in particular

1042: Figure~\ref{power1}, makes it clear that relativistic corrections to

1043: the waveforms accumulate with multiple bursts. In other words, over a

1044: single burst (pericenter passage), a quadrupolar waveform calculation

1045: using Newtonian dynamics might be sufficient.  However, if one wants

1046: to estimate parameters associated with the central MBH, then multiple

1047: bursts might be necessary to associate the events to a single SCO

1048: trajectory.  In terms of data analysis, for a detection search it is

1049: simpler to look for a single burst using techniques such as excess

1050: power and wavelet decompositions \citep[e.q.  see][]{Anderson:2000yy,

1051:   Klimenko:2004, Stuver:2006, Camarda:2006}. For estimating MBH

1052: parameters, the results of this paper suggest that multiple bursts

1053: might have to be connected. For this to occur, a single template may

1054: be used, but as our results indicate, the template will need to

1055: incorporate the effects of general relativity.~\footnote{A note of

1056:   caution should be added here, since a detailed study of the

1057:   maximization of the overlap with respect to orbital parameters in

1058:   the Newtonian waveform has not yet been carried out. Indeed, it

1059:   might be possible to mimic some of the relativistic effects with

1060:   Newtonian waveforms with varying parameters, but such mimicking is

1061:   most probably not possible for highly relativistic EMRBs.}

1062: 

1063: At this junction, we should comment on some of the caveats in the

1064: conclusions derived from the analysis presented here. First, in this

1065: paper we have primarily concentrated on the question of characterizing

1066: the gravitational waves through the study of the SNR and overlap. In

1067: this study, however, we have not maximized these data analysis

1068: measures with respect to (intrinsic or extrinsic) orbital parameters.

1069: Although it might be possible to improve the SNR and overlap via

1070: parameter maximization, our study suggests that the introduction of

1071: relativistic effects, such as precession, lead to a clear imprint on

1072: the waveform that might be difficult to mimic with a purely Newtonian

1073: waveform irrespective of its parameters. Second, in this paper we have

1074: only touched the iceberg of the signal characterization and parameter

1075: estimation problem. A possible route to study this problem is through

1076: a numerical Fisher analysis, with the complications derived from the

1077: fact that the waveforms are known only numerically. Furthermore,

1078: increasing the complexity of the waveform will also increase the

1079: computational cost of these studies and, thus, it might be interesting

1080: to investigate whether it is possible or advantageous to search for

1081: individual bursts with similar frequency and identify them as

1082: belonging to the same physical system.  These issues are beyond the

1083: scope of this paper, but they should be addressed in future

1084: investigations.

1085: 

1086: Setting these caveats momentarily aside, let us conclude with some

1087: discussion of the extreme relativistic case introduced earlier. As we

1088: have seen, relativistic corrections can introduce strong modifications

1089: to EMRB waveforms, which depend on how relativistic the EMRB event is

1090: and, in particular, on the pericenter velocity.  The corrections are

1091: particularly strong for the class of EMRBs that inhabit the boundary

1092: between EMRBs and EMRIs, defined by the $T_{\cut} = 3 \times 10^{4}$~s

1093: value, corresponding to the period between apocenter passages.  An

1094: example of such an event is the extreme orbit discussed in

1095: Section~\ref{numsim}, whose waveform is shown in Figure~\ref{extreme}.

1096: Observe that a simplistic Newtonian description misses the rich

1097: structure, in which the SCO whirls twice about the black hole before

1098: zooming out to apocenter again. This behavior is missed entirely when

1099: we evolve the orbit with the Newtonian equations of motion, even

1100: though the same initial conditions were used. Even though in the

1101: previous cases a Newtonian waveform might be able to extract

1102: relativistic events by adjusting intrinsic parameters, such is

1103: definitely not the case for the highly-relativistic event of

1104: Fig.~\ref{extreme}, since no choice of parameters in the Newtonian

1105: waveform can reproduce its multiple-peak structure.

1106: 

1107: Due to their whirling behavior, the extreme orbit waveform resembles

1108: the zoom-whirl events often mentioned in the EMRI literature

1109: \citep{Hughes:2001:a, Hughes:2001:b, Glampedakis:2002}.  However, the

1110: event is still an EMRB and not an EMRI because the period between

1111: apocenter passages is too long.  For our galactic model, we find the

1112: probability of a small region of phase space around this orbit to be

1113: rather high, 10\%.  If this EMRB is detected with sufficiently high

1114: SNR it seems plausible that a parameter estimation analysis would

1115: allow for a determination of the background parameters, such as the

1116: black hole spin. \citet{Barack:2004a} have already investigated LISA's

1117: ability to measure MBH properties using approximate EMRI signals.

1118: They found that, depending on the actual orbital parameters, it will

1119: be possible to measure the MBH spin with fractional errors of

1120: $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-5}$.  This high precision measurement is the result

1121: of observing up to $\sim\!10^{6}$ complete orbits. Conversely, it is

1122: very unlikely that EMRB measurements will be able to match the

1123: measurement capabilities of EMRI signals, since only a few bursts will

1124: probably be available. Whether accurate parameter extraction is

1125: possible can only be determined with a more detailed data analysis

1126: investigation of EMRBs.

1127: 

1128: %

1129: \begin{figure}

1130: \includegraphics[scale=0.33,clip=true]{f8.eps}

1131: \caption{\label{extreme} Plot of the quadrupole Newtonian (solid) and

1132:   Schwarzschild (dashed) gravitational waveform as a function of

1133:   time.}

1134: \end{figure}

1135: 

1136: 

1137: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1138: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  CONCLUSIONS %%%%$%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1139: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1140: 

1141: \section{Conclusions} \label{conclusions}

1142: 

1143: We have studied the effects of relativistic corrections on the

1144: gravitational waves produced by EMRBs. These events originate from

1145: long period orbits of a SCO around a MBH, leading to large-amplitude,

1146: quasi-periodic gravitational wave bursts. Using a more accurate

1147: relativistic treatment of the phenomenon, we have improved on the

1148: waveforms and trajectories relative to previous work.  The orbital

1149: trajectories were corrected by accounting for the spacetime curvature

1150: of the system for Schwarzschild and Kerr MBHs. The waveform generation

1151: was corrected by accounting for the next order term in the multipolar

1152: expansion of gravitational radiation.

1153: 

1154: We found that relativistic corrections change the waveform shape

1155: relative to its Newtonian counterpart. One of the most significant

1156: changes was found to be an amplitude-modulated dephasing, produced by

1157: the relativistic corrections to the orbital trajectory and, in

1158: particular, by relativistic precessional effects. Other effects

1159: included a change in the amplitude of the waveform, partially produced

1160: by the inclusion of higher-order terms in the gravitational wave

1161: generation scheme.

1162: 

1163: The magnitude of the relativistic corrections was found to be directly

1164: proportional to the pericenter velocity of the orbit, as expected.

1165: Surprisingly, we estimated that at least $50 \%$ of the orbits

1166: analyzed in \citet{Rubbo:2006dv,Rubbo:2007} acquire relativistic

1167: velocities and, thus, non-negligible relativistic corrections. We

1168: investigated these corrections in detail by choosing a test orbit,

1169: that is representative of the kind that dominated the event rate

1170: calculation of~\citet{Rubbo:2006dv}. We also studied a limiting case

1171: of a highly relativistic EMRB and found that it whirls more than once

1172: around the MBH before zooming back to apocenter and becoming silent

1173: again.

1174: 

1175: We have also discussed the possible consequences that relativistic

1176: effects might have on the detection and parameter estimation of

1177: gravitational waves from EMRBs by LISA, namely a change in the SNR and

1178: loss of overlap. These changes are mainly due to the relativistic

1179: treatment of the equations of motion, while a quadrupolar wave

1180: generation formalism seems to suffice. This finding is relevant

1181: particularly to match filtering searches, where a Newtonian treatment

1182: of the orbit might lead to a deterioration of confidence limits.

1183: Furthermore, our study suggests that, given an EMRB gravitational wave

1184: detection, it might be plausible to extract or bound the spin of the

1185: central potential with a template that takes into account the Kerr

1186: character of the MBH. Other astrophysical consequences include a

1187: possible increase in the event rate, which implies that the rates of

1188: \citet{Rubbo:2006dv,Rubbo:2007} and \citet{Hopman:2006fc} might be

1189: lower limits, although these estimates are still dominated by

1190: uncertainties in the astrophysical modeling for the host galaxy.

1191: 

1192: In addition to the astrophysical modeling, future research should

1193: tackle the details of the EMRB data analysis and signal extraction

1194: issues put forward above. Based on the results of this paper, one may

1195: explore the possibility of testing alternative theories of gravity

1196: with EMRBs by performing matched filtering with templates from

1197: alternative theories \citep{will:1998:bmo, scharre:2002:tsg,

1198:   will:2004:tat, berti:2005:tgr, berti:2005:esb}.  Another possible

1199: avenue for future research is the study of confidence limits with

1200: which the spin of the central MBH can be measured.

1201: 

1202: This research could then be used to examine whether EMRB events can

1203: distinguish between a pure Kerr MBH and some other spacetime. Such

1204: studies have already began with the analysis

1205: of~\citet{Collins:2004ex},~\citet{Glampedakis:2005cf}

1206: and~\citet{Barausse:2006vt}, where comparisons between a Kerr and

1207: other non-Kerr spacetimes were performed. Such studies could be

1208: extended to the perturbed Kerr solution found by~\citet{Yunes:2005ve},

1209: where the perturbation is parameterized by the Weyl tensor of the

1210: external universe and could represent some external accretion disk,

1211: planetary system or some other compact object. Ultimately, these

1212: investigations will decide whether EMRB events are worth studying in

1213: further detail by future gravitational wave observatories.

1214: 

1215: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1218: 

1219: \acknowledgments

1220: 

1221: The authors would like to thank Ben Owen for reading the manuscript

1222: and providing useful comments, as well as the anonymous referee for

1223: providing insightful suggestions. We would also like to acknowledge

1224: the support of the Center for Gravitational Wave Physics funded by the

1225: National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement PHY-01-14375,

1226: and support from NSF grants PHY 05-55628, PHY 05-55436, PHY 02-18750,

1227: PHY 02-44788, PHY 02-45649 and PHY 00-99559.  K.~H.~B.~and L.~R.~also

1228: acknowledge the support of NASA NNG04GU99G, NASA NN G05GF71G.

1229: C.~F.~S. acknowledges the support of the Natural Sciences and

1230: Engineering Research Council of Canada.

1231: 

1232: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1233: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  BIBLIOGRAPHY  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1235: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:

1236: \begin{thebibliography}{48}

1237: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1238: 

1239: \bibitem[{Amaro-Seoane {et~al.}(2007)}]{Amaro-Seoane:2007aw}

1240: Amaro-Seoane, P., {et~al.} 2007, ArXiv e-print astro-ph/0703495

1241: 

1242: \bibitem[{Anderson {et~al.}(2001)Anderson, Brady, Creighton, \&

1243:   Flanagan}]{Anderson:2000yy}

1244: Anderson, W.~G., Brady, P.~R., Creighton, J. D.~E., \& Flanagan, E.~E. 2001,

1245:   Phys. Rev., D63, 042003

1246: 

1247: \bibitem[{Babak {et~al.}(2007)Babak, Fang, Gair, Glampedakis, \&

1248:   Hughes}]{Babak:2006uv}

1249: Babak, S., Fang, H., Gair, J.~R., Glampedakis, K., \& Hughes, S.~A. 2007, Phys.

1250:   Rev., D75, 024005

1251: 

1252: \bibitem[{Barack \& Cutler(2004{\natexlab{a}})}]{Barack:2004b}

1253: Barack, L., \& Cutler, C. 2004{\natexlab{a}}, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 122002

1254: 

1255: \bibitem[{Barack \& Cutler(2004{\natexlab{b}})}]{Barack:2004a}

1256: ---. 2004{\natexlab{b}}, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 082005

1257: 

1258: \bibitem[{Barausse {et~al.}(2007)Barausse, Rezzolla, Petroff, \&

1259:   Ansorg}]{Barausse:2006vt}

1260: Barausse, E., Rezzolla, L., Petroff, D., \& Ansorg, M. 2007, Phys. Rev., D75,

1261:   064026

1262: 

1263: \bibitem[{Bender {et~al.}(1998)}]{Bender:1998}

1264: Bender, P., {et~al.} 1998, {Laser Interferometer Space Antenna for the

1265:   Detection and Observation of Gravitational Waves: An International Project in

1266:   the Field of Fundamental Physics in Space}, {LISA Pre-Phase A Report},

1267:   Max-Planck-Institut f{\"u}r Quantenoptik, Garching, mPQ~233

1268: 

1269: \bibitem[{{Berti} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Berti}, {Buonanno}, \&

1270:   {Will}}]{berti:2005:esb}

1271: {Berti}, E., {Buonanno}, A., \& {Will}, C.~M. 2005{\natexlab{a}}, Phys. Rev. D,

1272:   71

1273: 

1274: \bibitem[{{Berti} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}}){Berti}, {Buonanno}, \&

1275:   {Will}}]{berti:2005:tgr}

1276: ---. 2005{\natexlab{b}}, Class. Quant. Grav., 22, S943

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[{Blanchet(2006)}]{Blanchet:2002av}

1279: Blanchet, L. 2006, Living Rev. Relativity, 9, 4

1280: 

1281: \bibitem[{Camarda \& Ortolan(2006)}]{Camarda:2006}

1282: Camarda, M., \& Ortolan, A. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 062001

1283: 

1284: \bibitem[{{Chandrasekhar}(1992)}]{Chandrasekhar:1992bo}

1285: {Chandrasekhar}, S. 1992, {The mathematical theory of black holes} (New York:

1286:   Oxford University Press)

1287: 

1288: \bibitem[{Collins \& Hughes(2004)}]{Collins:2004ex}

1289: Collins, N.~A., \& Hughes, S.~A. 2004, Phys. Rev., D69, 124022

1290: 

1291: \bibitem[{Danzmann \& R{\"u}diger(2003)}]{Danzmann:2003tv}

1292: Danzmann, K., \& R{\"u}diger, A. 2003, Class. Quant. Grav., 20, S1

1293: 

1294: \bibitem[{Eisenhauer {et~al.}(2005)}]{Eisenhauer:2005}

1295: Eisenhauer, F., {et~al.} 2005, ApJ, 628, 246

1296: 

1297: \bibitem[{Flanagan \& Hughes(2005)}]{Flanagan:2005yc}

1298: Flanagan, E.~E., \& Hughes, S.~A. 2005, New J. Phys., 7, 204

1299: 

1300: \bibitem[{Gair {et~al.}(2005)Gair, Kennefick, \& Larson}]{Gair:2005is}

1301: Gair, J.~R., Kennefick, D.~J., \& Larson, S.~L. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 084009

1302: 

1303: \bibitem[{Gair {et~al.}(2006)Gair, Kennefick, \& Larson}]{Gair:2005hu}

1304: ---. 2006, ApJ, 639, 999

1305: 

1306: \bibitem[{Gair {et~al.}(2004)}]{Gair:2004iv}

1307: Gair, J.~R., {et~al.} 2004, Class. Quant. Grav., 21, S1595

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[{Ghez {et~al.}(2005)}]{Ghez:2005}

1310: Ghez, A.~M., {et~al.} 2005, ApJ, 620, 744

1311: 

1312: \bibitem[{Glampedakis(2005)}]{Glampedakis:2005hs}

1313: Glampedakis, K. 2005, Class. Quant. Grav., 22, S605

1314: 

1315: \bibitem[{Glampedakis \& Babak(2006)}]{Glampedakis:2005cf}

1316: Glampedakis, K., \& Babak, S. 2006, Class. Quant. Grav., 23, 4167

1317: 

1318: \bibitem[{Glampedakis \& Kennefick(2002)}]{Glampedakis:2002}

1319: Glampedakis, K., \& Kennefick, D. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 044002

1320: 

1321: \bibitem[{{Holley-Bockelmann} \& {Sigurdsson}(2006)}]{HB:2006af}

1322: {Holley-Bockelmann}, K., \& {Sigurdsson}, S. 2006, ArXiv e-print

1323:   astro-ph/0601520

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[{{Hopman} \& {Alexander}(2006)}]{Hopman:2006ha}

1326: {Hopman}, C., \& {Alexander}, T. 2006, ApJ, 645, L133

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[{Hopman {et~al.}(2006)Hopman, Freitag, \& Larson}]{Hopman:2006fc}

1329: Hopman, C., Freitag, M., \& Larson, S.~L. 2006, ArXiv e-print astro-ph/0612337

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[{Hughes(2001{\natexlab{a}})}]{Hughes:2001:a}

1332: Hughes, S.~A. 2001{\natexlab{a}}, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 064004

1333: 

1334: \bibitem[{Hughes(2001{\natexlab{b}})}]{Hughes:2001:b}

1335: ---. 2001{\natexlab{b}}, Class. Quant. Grav., 18, 4067

1336: 

1337: \bibitem[{Klimenko {et~al.}(2004)Klimenko, Yakushin, \&

1338:   Mitselmakher}]{Klimenko:2004}

1339: Klimenko, S., Yakushin, I., \& Mitselmakher, G. 2004, Class. Quant. Grav., 21,

1340:   S1685

1341: 

1342: \bibitem[{Kraniotis(2007)}]{Kraniotis:2007}

1343: Kraniotis, G.~V. 2007, Class. Quant. Grav., 24, 1775

1344: 

1345: \bibitem[{Larson {et~al.}(2000)Larson, Hiscock, \& Hellings}]{Larson:2000}

1346: Larson, S.~L., Hiscock, W.~A., \& Hellings, R.~W. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62,

1347:   062001,

1348:   \texttt{http://www.srl.caltech.edu/$\sim$shane/sensitivity/index.html}

1349: 

1350: \bibitem[{Marck(1996)}]{Marck:1995kd}

1351: Marck, J.-A. 1996, Class. Quant. Grav., 13, 393

1352: 

1353: \bibitem[{Misner {et~al.}(1973)Misner, Thorne, \& Wheeler}]{Misner:1973cw}

1354: Misner, C.~W., Thorne, K., \& Wheeler, J.~A. 1973, Gravitation (San Francisco:

1355:   W. H. Freeman \& Co.)

1356: 

1357: \bibitem[{Poisson(2004)}]{Poisson:2004lr}

1358: Poisson, E. 2004, Living Rev. Relativity, 7, 6

1359: 

1360: \bibitem[{Press {et~al.}(1992)Press, Flannery, Teukolsky, \&

1361:   Vetterling}]{Press:1992nr}

1362: Press, W.~H., Flannery, B.~P., Teukolsky, S.~A., \& Vetterling, W.~T. 1992,

1363:   Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge (UK) and New

1364:   York: Cambridge University Press)

1365: 

1366: \bibitem[{Rubbo {et~al.}(2006)Rubbo, Holley-Bockelmann, \& Finn}]{Rubbo:2006dv}

1367: Rubbo, L.~J., Holley-Bockelmann, K., \& Finn, L.~S. 2006, ApJ, 649, L25

1368: 

1369: \bibitem[{Rubbo {et~al.}(2007)Rubbo, Holley-Bockelmann, \& Finn}]{Rubbo:2007}

1370: Rubbo, L.~J., Holley-Bockelmann, K., \& Finn, L.~S. 2007, in Laser

1371:   Interferometer Space Antenna: 6th International LISA Symposium, ed. S.~M.

1372:   Merkowitz \& J.~C. Livas, Vol. 873 (AIP Conference Proceedings), 284--288

1373: 

1374: \bibitem[{Ruffini \& Sasaki(1981)}]{Ruffini:1981rs}

1375: Ruffini, R., \& Sasaki, M. 1981, Prog. Theor. Phys., 66, 1627

1376: 

1377: \bibitem[{{Scharre} \& {Will}(2002)}]{scharre:2002:tsg}

1378: {Scharre}, P.~D., \& {Will}, C.~M. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 042002

1379: 

1380: \bibitem[{Schmidt(2002)}]{Schmidt:2002}

1381: Schmidt, W. 2002, Class. Quant. Grav., 19, 2743

1382: 

1383: \bibitem[{Stoer \& Bulirsch(1993)}]{Stoer:1993sb}

1384: Stoer, J., \& Bulirsch, R. 1993, Introduction to Numerical Analysis (New York:

1385:   Springer-Verlag)

1386: 

1387: \bibitem[{Stuver \& Finn(2006)}]{Stuver:2006}

1388: Stuver, A.~L., \& Finn, L.~S. 2006, Class. Quant. Grav., 23, S733

1389: 

1390: \bibitem[{Sumner \& Shaul(2004)}]{Sumner:2004}

1391: Sumner, T.~J., \& Shaul, D. N.~A. 2004, MPLA, 19, 785

1392: 

1393: \bibitem[{Thorne(1980)}]{Thorne:1980rm}

1394: Thorne, K.~S. 1980, Rev. Mod. Phys., 52, 299

1395: 

1396: \bibitem[{Tremaine {et~al.}(1994)}]{Tremaine:1994}

1397: Tremaine, S., {et~al.} 1994, AJ, 107, 634

1398: 

1399: \bibitem[{Will(1998)}]{will:1998:bmo}

1400: Will, C.~M. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 2061

1401: 

1402: \bibitem[{Will \& Yunes(2004)}]{will:2004:tat}

1403: Will, C.~M., \& Yunes, N. 2004, Class. Quant. Grav., 21, 4367

1404: 

1405: \bibitem[{Yunes \& Gonzalez(2006)}]{Yunes:2005ve}

1406: Yunes, N., \& Gonzalez, J.~A. 2006, Phys. Rev., D73, 024010

1407: 

1408: \end{thebibliography}

1409: 

1410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  TABLES  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1413: \clearpage 

1414: %

1415: \begin{center}

1416: \begin{deluxetable}{c c c c c c c c c}

1417:   \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{\label{table_orbs} SNR and overlap for

1418:     different EMRB orbits.}  \tablehead{ \colhead{$r_p$ [$\mu$pc]} &

1419:     \colhead{$v_p/c$} & \colhead{$P$ [yrs]} &

1420:     \colhead{$e$} & \colhead{$\#$ Bursts} & \colhead{$\frac{|\Delta

1421:     \rho|}{\rho}$} & \colhead{$\frac{|\Delta

1422:     \rho^{(1)}|}{\rho^{(1)}}$} & \colhead{$(h_1|h_2)$} 

1423:     & \colhead{$(h_1|h_2)^{(1)}$} }  

1424: %

1425: \startdata 

1426: %

1427: $7.8$ & $0.196$ & $0.0042$ & $0.603$ & $6$ & $0.38$ & $0.049$ & $0.27$ & $0.98$\\[1mm]

1428: %

1429: $7.5$ & $0.207$ & $0.0055$ & $0.684$ & $5$ & $0.13$ & $0.0007$ & $0.20$ & $0.88$\\[1mm]

1430: %

1431: $7.2$ & $0.217$ & $0.0074$ & $0.749$ & $4$ & $0.22$ & $0.057$ & $0.31$ & $0.90$\\[1mm]

1432: %

1433: $7.1$ & $0.220$ & $0.0086$ & $0.777$ & $3$ & $0.49$ & $0.061$ & $0.33$ & $0.99$\\[1mm]

1434: %

1435:       &                      &          &         &     &     \\[1mm]

1436: %

1437: $13$  & $0.163$ & $0.0450$ & $0.859$ & $1$ & $\cdot$ & $0.002$ & $\cdot$ & $0.90$\\[1mm]

1438:                                 %

1439: $8.0$ & $0.217$ & $0.1953$ & $0.968$ & $1$ & $\cdot$ & $0.033$ & $\cdot$ & $0.97$\\[1mm]

1440: %

1441: $10$  & $0.193$ & $0.7683$ & $0.984$ & $1$ & $\cdot$ & $0.009$ & $\cdot$ & $0.72$\\[1mm]

1442: %

1443: $12$  & $0.173$ & $3.0407$ & $0.992$ & $1$ & $\cdot$ & $0.015$ & $\cdot$ & $0.80$\\[1mm]

1444: %

1445: \enddata \tablecomments{In this table we present the SNR and

1446:   correlation computed in the frequency domain between Kerr quadrupole

1447:   and octopole waveforms for different EMRB orbits. The orbits are

1448:   separated into two groups: highly-bursting (top) and slowly-bursting

1449:   (bottom). The first five columns present information about the

1450:   different orbits, including how many times they burst, their

1451:   eccentricities and periods, which were chosen directly from the

1452:   allowed EMRB phase space of~\citet{Rubbo:2006dv} and thus represent

1453:   Milky Way sources. The sixth and seventh columns present the

1454:   difference in SNR between a Newtonian and Kerr quadrupole waveform

1455:   relative to the former using the entire data set and only one burst

1456:   respectively. Similarly, the eighth and nineth columns show the

1457:   correlation between the plus polarizations using the entire data set

1458:   four and one burst respectively. Since the slowly-bursting sources

1459:   burst only once, the sixth and eighth columns are redundant for

1460:   these sources. All calculations assume the observer is located on

1461:   the $z$-axis and random initial inclination angles.}

1462: \end{deluxetable}

1463: \end{center}

1464: %

1465: 

1466: 

1467: \clearpage 

1468: %

1469: \begin{center}

1470: \begin{deluxetable}{c c c c c}

1471: \tablewidth{0pt}

1472: \tablecaption{\label{table_obs} Comparison between quadrupole and

1473:   octopole waveforms.}

1474: \tablehead{

1475: \colhead{Angle [degrees]} & \colhead{$x_{\textrm{obs}}$ [kpc]} &

1476: \colhead{$y_{\textrm{obs}}$ [kpc]} & \colhead{$z_{\textrm{obs}}$ [kpc]}

1477: & \colhead{Amp.~diff.}} 

1478: \startdata

1479: $0$  & $0$  & $0$ & $8$ & $3.9 \%$ \\[1mm]

1480: $20$ & $2.73$  & $0$ & $7.51$ & $3.3 \%$ \\[1mm]

1481: $40$ & $5.14$  & $0$ & $6.12$ & $11.5 \%$ \\[1mm]

1482: $60$ & $6.93$  & $0$ & $4$    & $15.2 \%$ \\[1mm]

1483: $80$ & $7.88$  & $0$ & $1.39$ & $19.7 \%$ \\[1mm]

1484: $100$ & $7.88$  & $0$ & $-1.39$ & $21.6 \%$ \\[1mm]

1485: $120$ & $6.93$  & $0$ & $-4$ & $17.8 \%$ \\[1mm]

1486: $140$ & $5.14$  & $0$ & $-6.13$ & $43.3 \%$ \\[1mm]

1487: $160$ & $2.74$  & $0$ & $-7.52$ & $8.6 \%$ \\[1mm]

1488: \enddata

1489: \tablecomments{Here we present an approximate measure of the amplitude

1490:   difference between the quadrupole and octopole waveforms. We

1491:   concentrate only on the first burst of radiation and we normalize

1492:   the difference to the maximum of the first peak of the quadrupole

1493:   waveform. The difference is presented as a function of the observer

1494:   location, which is always at a fixed radial distance of

1495:   $r_{\textrm{obs}} = 8$ kpc, but rotated about the $\hat{y}$-axis on

1496:   $\hat{x}-\hat{z}$ plane ($\theta$ is here the usual Euler polar

1497:   angle.) }

1498: \end{deluxetable}

1499: \end{center}

1500: %

1501: 

1502: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  THAT'S ALL FOLKS!  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1505: \end{document}

1506: