1: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,aps,prd,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: %\usepackage{psfrag}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \title{Constraining neutron star tidal Love numbers with gravitational wave detectors}
11:
12:
13: %\interfootnotelinepenalty=10000
14: %\date{\today}
15: %\author{ \'Eanna \'E. Flanagan$^{1,2}$}
16: %\author{Tanja Hinderer$^1$}
17: %\affiliation{$^1$ Center for Radiophysics and Space
18: %Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA\\
19: %$^2$ Laboratory for
20: %Elementary Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853,
21: %USA}
22: \author{ \'Eanna \'E. Flanagan}
23: \author{Tanja Hinderer}
24: \affiliation{Center for Radiophysics and Space
25: Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}
26:
27:
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: Ground-based gravitational wave
31: detectors may be able to constrain the nuclear equation of state using the
32: early, low frequency portion of the signal of detected neutron
33: star - neutron star inspirals. In this early adiabatic
34: regime, the influence of a neutron star's internal structure on the phase of
35: the waveform depends only on a single parameter $\lambda$ of the star related to
36: its tidal Love number, namely the ratio of the induced quadrupole moment to the
37: perturbing tidal gravitational field. We
38: analyze the information obtainable from
39: gravitational wave frequencies smaller than a cutoff frequency of $400{\,}{\rm Hz}$,
40: %which is at least 20 percent lower than the frequency of the innermost
41: %stable circular orbit for $R\alt 18{\,} {\rm km}$ NSs.
42: %In this domain, f-mode frequency dependent corrections to the internal-structure
43: %signal are less than $\sim 3\%$, and higher order multipole corrections
44: %are less than $\sim 5\%$, for NS models with f-mode frequencies $\agt
45: %1000$ Hz.
46: where corrections to the internal-structure signal are less than $10
47: \%$. For an inspiral of two non-spinning $1.4M_{\odot}$ neutron
48: stars at a distance of $50$ Megaparsecs, LIGO II detectors will be
49: able to constrain $\lambda$ to $\lambda \leqslant 2.0 \times 10^{37}
50: {\rm g}{\,}{\rm cm}^2{\rm s}^2 $ with $90\%$ confidence. Fully
51: relativistic stellar models show that the corresponding constraint
52: on radius $R$ for $1.4M_{\odot}$ neutron stars would be $R \leqslant
53: 13.6 {\,}{\rm km} {\;}\left(15.3{\,} {\rm km} \right)$ for a $n=0.5$
54: $\left(n=1.0\right)$ polytrope with equation of state $p \propto
55: \rho^{1 + 1/n}$.
56:
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \maketitle
60:
61:
62: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
63: \def\endeq{\end{equation}}
64: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
65: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
66: \def\bes{\begin{subequations}}
67: \def\ees{\end{subequations}}
68:
69:
70: \def\hpl{{{\hat \Phi}_L}}
71: \def\hpr{{{\hat \Phi}_R}}
72:
73:
74:
75:
76:
77:
78: %\section{INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY}
79: %\label{intro}
80:
81: \noindent {\it Background and motivation:} Coalescing binary neutron
82: stars are one of the most important sources for gravitational wave
83: (GW) detectors \cite{Cutler:2002me}. LIGO I observations have
84: established upper limits on the event rate \cite{Abbott:2007xi}, and
85: at design sensitivity LIGO II is expected to detect inspirals at a
86: rate of $\sim 2/$day
87: %at the $95\%$ confidence level
88: \cite{2004ApJ...601...L179}.
89:
90:
91:
92: One of the key scientific goals of detecting neutron star (NS)
93: binaries is to obtain information about the nuclear equation of
94: state (EoS), which is at present fairly unconstrained in the
95: relevant density range $\rho \sim 2 - 8 \times 10^{14}{\rm g}{\,}{\rm
96: cm}^{-3}$ \cite{2000ARNPS..50..481H}. The conventional view has
97: been that for most of the inspiral, finite-size effects have a
98: negligible influence on the GW signal, and
99: that only during the last several orbits and merger at GW frequencies
100: $f \agt 500$ Hz
101: %of order several hundred Hz and higher
102: can the effect of the internal structure be
103: seen.
104:
105: There have been many investigations of how well the EoS can be
106: constrained using these last several orbits and merger, including
107: constraints from the GW energy spectrum
108: \cite{2002PhRvL..89w1102F}, and, for black hole/NS inspirals, from
109: the NS tidal disruption signal \cite{2000PhRvL..84.3519V}. Several
110: numerical simulations have studied the dependence of the
111: GW spectrum on the radius \cite{2003PhR...376...41B}.
112: However, there are a number of difficulties associated with trying to
113: extract equation of state information from this late time regime:
114: (i) The highly complex behavior requires solving the full
115: nonlinear equations of general relativity together with
116: relativistic hydrodynamics. (ii) The signal depends on unknown
117: quantities such as the spins of the stars.
118: %and angular momentum distribution inside the stars.
119: (iii) The signals from the hydrodynamic merger
120: (at frequencies $\gtrsim $ 1000 Hz) are outside of LIGO's most
121: sensitive band.
122:
123:
124: The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the potential feasibility
125: %suggest the possibility
126: of instead
127: obtaining EoS information from the early, low frequency part of
128: the signal. Here, the influence of tidal effects is a small
129: correction to the waveform's phase, but it is very clean and
130: depends only on one parameter of the NS -- its Love number \cite{Mora:2003wt}.
131:
132: %\section{Tidal interactions in compact binaries}
133: \medskip
134: \noindent {\it Tidal interactions in compact binaries:} The
135: influence of tidal interactions on the waveform's phase has been
136: studied previously using various approaches
137: \cite{1995MNRAS.275..301K,1993ApJ...406L..63L,1992ApJ...398..234K,
138: 1998PhRvD..58h4012T,2002PhRvD..65j4021P,Mora:2003wt}.
139: We extend those studies by (i) computing the effect of the
140: tidal interactions for fully relativistic neutron stars, i.e. to
141: all orders in the strength of internal gravity in each star, (ii)
142: computing the phase shift analytically without the assumption that the mode
143: frequency is much larger that the orbital frequency, and (iii)
144: performing a computation of how accurately the Love number can be
145: measured.
146:
147: The basic physical effect is the following:
148: %\cite{1995MNRAS.275..301K,1993ApJ...406L..63L,1992ApJ...398..234K,1992ApJ...400..175B,
149: %1998PhRvD..58h4012T,2002PhRvD..65j4021P,2002PhRvD..66f4013B,Mora:2003wt}:
150: the $l=2$ fundamental {\it{f}}-modes of the star can
151: be treated as forced, damped harmonic oscillators driven by the
152: tidal field of the companion at frequencies below their
153: resonant frequencies. Assuming circular orbits
154: they obey equations of motion of the form \cite{Dong94}
155: \beq
156: {\ddot q} + \gamma {\dot q} + \omega_0^2 q = A(t) \cos[ m\Phi(t)],
157: \endeq
158: where $q(t)$ is the mode amplitude, $\omega_0$ the mode frequency,
159: $\gamma$ a damping constant, $m$ is the mode azimuthal quantum
160: number,
161: $\Phi(t)$ is the orbital phase of the binary, and $A(t)$ is a
162: slowly varying amplitude.
163: The orbital frequency $\omega(t) = {\dot \Phi}$ and $A(t)$ evolve on
164: the radiation reaction timescale which is much longer than $1/\omega_0$.
165: In this limit the oscillator evolves
166: adiabatically, always tracking the minimum of its time-dependent
167: potential. The energy absorbed by the oscillator up
168: to time $t$ is% \cite{1969mech.book.....L}:
169: \beq
170: E(t) = {\omega_0^2A(t)^2 \over 2 (\omega_0^2- m^2 \omega^2)^2 } + \gamma \int_{-\infty}^t dt'
171: {m^2\omega(t')^2 A(t')^2 \over w_0^4 + m^2\omega(t')^2 \gamma^2}.
172: \endeq
173: The second term here describes a cumulative, dissipative effect
174: which dominates over the first term for tidal interactions of main
175: sequence stars. For NS-NS binaries, however, this term is
176: unimportant due to the small viscosity \cite{1992ApJ...398..234K},
177: and the first, instantaneous term dominates.
178:
179: The instantaneous effect is somewhat larger than often estimated
180: for several reasons: (i) The GWs from the time varying stellar
181: quadrupole are phase coherent with the orbital GWs,
182: and thus there is a contribution to the energy flux that is linear
183: in the mode amplitude. This affects the rate of inspiral and gives
184: a correction of the same order as the energy absorbed by the mode
185: \cite{1993ApJ...406L..63L}. (ii) Some papers
186: \cite{1992ApJ...398..234K,1995MNRAS.275..301K,1998PhRvD..58h4012T}
187: compute the orbital phase error as a function of
188: orbital radius $r$. This is insufficient as one has to express it
189: in the end as a function of the observable frequency, and there is
190: a correction to the radius-frequency relation which comes in at
191: the same order. (iii) The effect scales as the fifth power of
192: neutron star radius $R$, and most previous estimates took
193: $R=10\,{\rm km}$. Larger NS models with e.g. $R = 16{\,} {\rm km}$
194: give an effect that is larger by a factor of $\sim 10$.
195:
196: \medskip
197: \noindent {\it Tidal Love number:} Consider a static, spherically
198: symmetric star of mass $m$ placed in a time-independent external
199: quadrupolar tidal field ${\cal E}_{ij}.$ The star will develop in
200: response a quadrupole moment $Q_{ij}.$ In the star's local
201: asymptotic rest frame (asymptotically mass centered Cartesian coordinates) at
202: large $r$ the metric coefficient $g_{tt}$ is given by (in units
203: with $G=c=1$) \cite{Thorne:1998kt}:
204: \beq
205: \frac{\left(1-g_{tt} \right)}{2} = - {m \over r}- {3Q_{ij} \over 2
206: r^3} \left( n^i n^j - \frac{\delta^{ij}}{3} \right) +{{\cal
207: E}_{ij} \over 2} x^i x^j + \ldots
208: \label{eq:Qdef}
209: \endeq
210: where $n^i=x^i/r;$ this expansion defines the traceless tensors ${\cal E}_{ij}$ and
211: $Q_{ij}.$ To linear order, the induced quadrupole will be of the
212: form
213: \beq
214: Q_{ij} =- \lambda {\cal E}_{ij}.
215: \label{eq:Lovedef}
216: \endeq
217: Here $\lambda$ is a constant which we will call the tidal Love number
218: (although that name is usually reserved for the dimensionless quantity
219: $k_2 = {3\over 2}G \lambda R^{-5}$).
220: The relation (\ref{eq:Lovedef})
221: between $Q_{ij}$ and ${\cal E}_{ij}$
222: defines the Love number $\lambda$ for both Newtonian and
223: relativistic stars.
224: For a Newtonian star, $ \left(1-g_{tt}
225: \right)/2$
226: is the Newtonian potential, and $Q_{ij}$ is related
227: to the density perturbation $\delta \rho$ by $Q_{ij}=\int d^3x
228: \delta \rho \left(x_i x_j - r^2 \delta_{ij}/3\right)$.
229:
230:
231: We have calculated the Love numbers for a variety of fully
232: relativistic NS models with a polytropic pressure-density relation
233: $P=K \rho^{1+1/n}$.
234: % which allows us to explore a wide range of parameters.
235: Most realistic EoS's resemble a polytrope with
236: effective index in the range $n \simeq 0.5-1.0$
237: \cite{2001ApJ...550..426L}. The equilibrium
238: stellar model is obtained by numerical integration of the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkhov
239: equations. We calculate the linear
240: $l=2$ static perturbations to the Schwarzschild spacetime
241: following the method of \cite{1967ApJ...149..591T}. The perturbed
242: Einstein equations $\delta G_{\mu}{}^{\nu}= 8 \pi \delta
243: T_{\mu}{}^{\nu}$ can be combined into a second order differential
244: equation for the perturbation to $g_{tt}$. Matching the exterior
245: solution and its derivative to the asymptotic expansion (\ref{eq:Qdef}) gives
246: the Love number.
247: For $m/R \sim 10^{-5}$ our results
248: agree well with the Newtonian results of Refs.\
249: \cite{1995MNRAS.275..301K,1955MNRAS.115..101B}.
250: %The relativistic
251: %dimensionless Love numbers $\bar{\lambda}\equiv \lambda R^{-5}$
252: %span a greater range than the Newtonian ones: depending on $m/R$,
253: %they are up to $19\%$ larger (for $n=0.2$) and up to $24 \%$
254: %smaller (for $n=1.0$) than the Newtonian values, while for
255: %$n=0.5$, they differ only by $-5.3\%$ to $+2.3 \%$.
256: Figure 1 shows
257: the range of Love numbers for $m/R=0.2256$, corresponding to the
258: %the value of
259: surface redshift $z=0.35$ that has been measured for
260: EXO0748-676 {\cite{2002Natur.420...51C}}.
261: Details of this computation
262: will be published elsewhere.
263:
264:
265:
266:
267:
268: \begin{figure}
269: \begin{center}
270: \includegraphics*[viewport=1 1 200 270]{fig1}
271: \caption{[Top] The solid lines bracket the range of Love numbers
272: $\lambda$ for fully relativistic polytropic neutron star models of
273: mass $m$ with surface redshift $z=0.35$, assuming a range of $0.3
274: \leq n \leq 1.2$ for the adiabatic index $n$. The top scale gives
275: the radius $R$ for these relativistic models. The dashed lines are
276: corresponding Newtonian values for stars of radius $R$. [Bottom]
277: Upper bound (horizontal line) on the weighted average ${\tilde
278: \lambda}$ of the two Love numbers obtainable with LIGO II for a
279: binary inspiral signal at distance of 50 Mpc, for two non-spinning,
280: $1.4 M_\odot$ neutron stars, using only data in the frequency band
281: $f<400$ Hz. The curved lines are the actual values of $\lambda$
282: for relativistic polytropes with $n=0.5$ (dashed line) and $n=1.0$
283: (solid line).} \label{fig1}
284: \end{center}
285: \end{figure}
286:
287:
288:
289: \medskip
290: \noindent {\it Effect on gravitational wave signal:}
291: Consider a binary with masses $m_1$, $m_2$ and Love numbers
292: $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$. For simplicity, we compute only the excitation of
293: star 1; the signals from the two stars simply add in the phase.
294: Let $\omega_n$, $\lambda_{1,n}$ and $Q_{ij}^n$
295: be the frequency, the
296: contribution to $\lambda_1$ and the contribution to $Q_{ij}$
297: of modes of the star with $l=2$ and with
298: $n$ radial nodes, so that $\lambda_1 = \Sigma_n \lambda_{1,n}$ and $Q_{ij}
299: = \Sigma_n Q_{ij}^n$.
300: Writing the relative displacement as
301: ${\bf x} = (r \cos \Phi, r \sin \Phi, 0)$, the action for the system is
302: \begin{eqnarray}
303: S &=& \int dt \left[{1 \over 2} \mu {\dot r}^2 + {1 \over 2} \mu
304: r^2 {\dot
305: \Phi}^2 + { M \mu \over r} \right] - {1 \over 2} \int dt Q_{ij} {\cal
306: E}_{ij} \nonumber \\
307: && + \sum_n \int dt {1 \over 4 \lambda_{1,n} \omega_n^2} \left[ {\dot Q}^n_{ij} {\dot
308: Q}^n_{ij} - \omega_n^2 Q^n_{ij} Q^n_{ij} \right].
309: \label{eq:action}
310: \end{eqnarray}
311: Here $M$ and $\mu$ are the total and reduced masses, and ${\cal
312: E}_{ij} =-m_2 \partial_i \partial_j \left( 1/r \right)
313: %= -m_2/r^3(3n^in^j-\delta^{ij})
314: $ is the tidal field.
315: This action is valid to leading
316: order in the orbital potential but to all orders in the internal
317: potentials of the NSs, except that it neglects GW dissipation,
318: because $Q_{ij}$ and ${\cal E}_{ij}$ are defined in the star's local
319: asymptotic rest frame \cite{TH}.
320:
321:
322: Using the action (\ref{eq:action}), adding the leading order,
323: Burke-Thorne GW dissipation terms, and defining the total quadrupole
324: $Q_{ij}^{\rm T}= Q_{ij}+ \mu x_i x_j - \mu r^2 \delta_{ij}/3$
325: with $Q_{ij} = \Sigma_n Q_{ij}^n$, gives the equations of motion
326: \begin{subequations}
327: \label{eq:system}
328: \begin{eqnarray}
329: {\ddot x^i} + {M \over r^2} n^i &=& {m_2 \over 2 \mu} Q_{jk}
330: \partial_i \partial_j \partial_k {1 \over r} - {2 \over 5} x_j {d^5
331: Q^{\rm T}_{ij} \over dt^5}, \\
332: {\ddot Q}^n_{ij} + \omega_n^2 Q^n_{ij} &=& m_2 \lambda_{1,n} \omega_n^2
333: \partial_i
334: \partial_j {1 \over r} - {2 \over 5} \lambda_{1,n} \omega_n^2 {d^5
335: Q^{\rm T}_{ij} \over dt^5}.\ \ \ \
336: \end{eqnarray}
337: \end{subequations}
338: By repeatedly
339: differentiating $Q_{ij}^{\rm T}$ and eliminating
340: second order time derivative terms using
341: the conservative parts of Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:system}), we can
342: express $d^5 Q^{\rm T}_{ij}/ dt^5$ in terms of $x^i$, ${\dot
343: x}^i$, $Q^n_{ij}$ and ${\dot Q}^n_{ij}$
344: and obtain a second order set of equations; this casts Eqs. (\ref{eq:system}) into
345: a numerically integrable form.
346:
347: When GW damping is neglected, there exist
348: equilibrium solutions with $r={\rm const}$,
349: $\Phi=\Phi_0 + \omega t$ for which $Q_{ij}^{\rm T}$ is static in the
350: rotating frame. Working to leading order in $\lambda_{1,n}$,
351: we have
352: $Q^{\rm T}_{11}= {\cal Q}^\prime + {\cal Q}\cos(2 \Phi)$,
353: $Q^{\rm T}_{22}= {\cal Q}^\prime - {\cal Q}\cos(2 \Phi)$,
354: $Q^{\rm T}_{12}= {\cal Q}\sin(2 \Phi)$,
355: $Q^{\rm T}_{33}= -2 {\cal Q}^\prime$,
356: where
357: \beq
358: {\cal Q} =
359: \frac{1}{2} \mu r^2 + \sum_n {3 m_2 \lambda_{1,n}
360: \over 2 (1 - 4 x_n^2)r^3},\ {\cal Q}^\prime=\frac{1}{6} \mu r^2
361: + \sum_n { m_2 \lambda_{1,n}
362: \over 2r^3}
363: \endeq
364: and $x_n = \omega / \omega_n$.
365: Substituting these solutions back into the action (\ref{eq:action}),
366: and into the quadrupole formula $\dot E=-{1 \over 5} \langle
367: \dddot Q^{\rm T}_{ij} \dddot Q^{\rm T}_{ij} \rangle$ for the GW damping, provides
368: an effective description of the orbital dynamics for quasicircular
369: inspirals in the adiabatic limit. We obtain for the orbital radius,
370: energy and energy time derivative
371: \bes
372: \bea
373: r(\omega) &=& M^{1/3} \omega^{-2/3}
374: \left[ 1 + \frac{3}{4} \sum_n \chi_n
375: g_1(x_n) \right], \\
376: \label{eq:adE}
377: E(\omega) &=& - { \mu \over 2} \left(M \omega\right)^{2/3}
378: \left[ 1 - \frac{9}{4} \sum_n \chi_n
379: g_2(x_n) \right], \\
380: {\dot E}(\omega) &=& - \frac{32}{5} M^{4/3} \mu^2 \omega^{10/3}
381: \left[ 1 + 6 \sum_n \chi_n
382: g_3(x_n) \right],\ \ \
383: \eea
384: \ees
385: where $\chi_n = m_2 \lambda_{1,n} \omega^{10/3} m_1^{-1} M^{-5/3}$,
386: $g_1(x) = 1 + 3 / (1-4x^2)$, $g_2(x) = 1 + (3 - 4x^2) (1 - 4 x^2)^{-2}$,
387: and $g_3(x) = (M/m_2 + 2 - 2 x^2)/(1-4x^2)$.
388: Using the formula $d^2 \Psi/d \omega^2 =
389: 2 \left(dE/d\omega\right)/\dot E$ for the phase $\Psi(f)$ of the Fourier
390: transform of the GW signal at GW frequency $f=\omega/\pi$ {\cite{Tichy}} now gives
391: for the tidal phase correction
392: \bea
393: \label{eq:tidal0}
394: \delta \Psi(f)&=& - \frac{15m_2^2 }{16 \mu^2
395: M^5} \sum_n \lambda_{1,n} \int_{v_i}^v dv' v' \left(v^3-v'^3\right)
396: g_4(x_n'), \nonumber \\
397: g_4(x) &=&
398: \frac{2M}{m_2 (1 - 4 x^2)} + \frac{22 - 117 x^2 +
399: 348 x^4 - 352 x^6}{(1 - 4 x^2)^3}. \nonumber\\
400: \eea
401: Here $v = (\pi M f)^{1/3}$, $v_i$ is an arbitrary constant related to
402: the initial time and phase of the waveform, and $x_n' =
403: (v')^3/(M\omega_n)$. In the limit $\omega \ll \omega_n$ assumed in
404: most previous analyses \cite{1995MNRAS.275..301K,1992ApJ...398..234K,
405: 1998PhRvD..58h4012T,Mora:2003wt},
406: %and adding the contribution from star 2,
407: we get
408: \begin{equation}
409: \label{eq:tidal1}
410: \delta \Psi = - \frac{9}{16} \frac{v^5}{\mu M^{4}}\left[ \left( 11
411: \frac{m_2}{m_1}+ \frac{M}{m_1} \right) \lambda_1 + 1
412: \leftrightarrow 2 \right ],
413: \end{equation}
414: which depends on internal structure only
415: through $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$.
416: Here we have added the contribution from star 2.
417: The phase (\ref{eq:tidal1}) is formally of post-5-Newtonian (P5N) order, but
418: it is larger than the point-particle P5N terms (which are currently unknown)
419: by $\sim (R/M)^5 \sim 10^5$.
420:
421:
422: \begin{figure}
423: \begin{center}
424: \includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{fig2}
425: \caption{[Top] Analytic approximation (\ref{eq:tidal1}) to the
426: tidal perturbation to the gravitational wave phase
427: for two identical $1.4 M_\odot$ neutron stars of radius $R = 15\,$km,
428: modeled as $n=1.0$ polytropes, as a function of
429: gravitational wave frequency $f$.
430: [Bottom] A comparison of different approximations to the tidal phase
431: perturbation: the numerical solution (lower dashed, green curve) to the
432: system (\ref{eq:system}), and the adiabatic analytic approximation
433: (\ref{eq:tidal0}) (upper dashed, blue), both
434: in the limit (\ref{simplify}) and divided by the leading
435: order approximation (\ref{eq:tidal1}).}
436: \label{fig2}
437: \end{center}
438: \end{figure}
439:
440: %[width=.45\textwidth,clip]
441: \medskip
442: \noindent
443: {\it Accuracy of Model:} We will analyze the information contained in
444: the portion of the signal before $f = 400 \, {\rm Hz}$. This
445: frequency was chosen to be at least $20\%$ smaller than the frequency
446: of the innermost stable circular orbit \cite{1996PhRvD..54.3958L}
447: for a conservatively large
448: polytropic NS model with $n=1.0$, $M = 1.4 M_{\odot}$, and $R = 19\,$km.
449: We now argue that in this frequency band,
450: the simple model (\ref{eq:tidal1}) of the phase correction is sufficiently
451: accurate for our purposes.
452:
453: We consider six types of corrections to (\ref{eq:tidal1}).
454: For each correction, we estimate its numerical value at
455: the frequency $f=400$ Hz for a binary of two identical $m=1.4
456: M_\odot$, $R = 15$, $n=1.0$ stars: (i)
457: Corrections due to modes with $l\ge3$ which
458: are excited by higher order tidal tensors
459: ${\cal E}_{ijk}, \ldots$. The
460: $l=3$ correction to $E(\omega)$, computed using the above methods in the low frequency limit,
461: is smaller than the $l=2$ contribution by a factor of $65 k_3 R^2 /
462: (45 k_2 r^2)$, where $k_2$, $k_3$ are apsidal constants.
463: For Newtonian polytropes we have $k_2 = 0.26$, $k_3 = 0.106$
464: \cite{Mora:2003wt},
465: and the ratio is
466: $0.58 (R/r)^2 = 0.04 (R/15\,{\rm km})^{2}$. (ii)
467: To assess the accuracy of the $\omega \ll \omega_n$ limit underlying (\ref{eq:tidal1})
468: we simplify the model (\ref{eq:action}) by taking
469: \beq
470: \label{simplify}
471: \omega_n = \omega_0\ \ \ \ {\rm for}\ {\rm all}\ n,
472: \endeq
473: so that $Q^n_{ij}/\lambda_{1,n}$ is independent of $n$.
474: This simplification does not affect (\ref{eq:tidal1}) and {\it increases} the size
475: of the finite frequency corrections in (\ref{eq:tidal0}) since
476: $\omega_n \ge \omega_0$ \footnote{Buoyancy forces and
477: associated $g$-modes for which $\omega_n \le \omega_0$ have a
478: negligible influence on the waveform's phase\cite{Dong94}.}. This
479: will yield an upper bound on the size of the corrections.
480: (Also the $n\ge1$ modes contribute typically less than $1-2\%$ of the
481: Love number \cite{1995MNRAS.275..301K}.)
482: Figure 2 shows the phase correction $\delta \Psi$ computed numerically
483: from Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:system}), and the approximations (\ref{eq:tidal0})
484: and (\ref{eq:tidal1}) in the limit (\ref{simplify}). We see that the adiabatic approximation
485: (\ref{eq:tidal0}) is extremely accurate, to better than $1\%$, and so the
486: dominant error is the difference between (\ref{eq:tidal0}) and
487: (\ref{eq:tidal1}). The fractional correction to (\ref{eq:tidal1}) is
488: $\sim 0.7 x^2 \sim 0.2 (f/f_0)^2$, where $f_0 = \omega_0 / (2 \pi)$,
489: neglecting unobservable terms of the form $\alpha + \beta f$.
490: This ratio is $\alt 0.03$ for
491: $f \le 400$ Hz and for $f_0 \ge 1000$ Hz as is the case for $f$-mode
492: frequencies for most NS models \cite{2002PhRvD..65j4021P}.
493: (iii) We have linearized in $\lambda_{1}$; the corresponding
494: fractional corrections scale as $(R/r)^5 \sim 10^{-3} (R/ 15\,{\rm
495: km})^5$ at 400 Hz. (iv)
496: The leading nonlinear hydrodynamic corrections can be computed by
497: adding a term $- \alpha Q^0_{ij} Q^0_{jk} Q_{ki}^0$ to the Lagrangian
498: (\ref{eq:action}), where $\alpha$ is a constant. This corrects the phase shift (\ref{eq:tidal1}) by
499: a factor $1 - 285 \alpha \lambda_{1,0}^2 \omega^2/968 \sim 0.9995$,
500: where we have used the models of Ref.\ \cite{Dong1} to estimate $\alpha$.
501: (v) Fractional corrections to the tidal signal
502: due to spin scale as $\sim f_{\rm spin}^2/f_{\rm max}^2$,
503: where $f_{\rm spin}$ is the spin frequency and $f_{\rm max}$ the
504: maximum allowed spin frequency. These
505: can be neglected as
506: $f_{\rm max} \agt 1000$ Hz for most models and $f_{\rm spin}$ is
507: expected to be much smaller than this. (vi) Post-1-Newtonian
508: corrections to the tidal signal (\ref{eq:tidal1}) will be of order
509: $\sim M/r \sim 0.05$. However these corrections will depend only on
510: $\lambda_1$ when $\omega \ll \omega_n$, and can easily be computed and included in
511: the data analysis method we suggest here.
512:
513: Thus, systematic errors in the measured value of
514: $\lambda$ due to errors in the model should be $\alt 10\%$,
515: which is small compared to the current uncertainty in
516: $\lambda$ (see Fig.\ 1).
517:
518: \medskip
519: \noindent
520: {\it Measuring the Love Number:} The binary's parameters
521: are extracted from the noisy GW signal by integrating the waveform
522: $h(t)$ against theoretical inspiral templates $h(t,\theta^i)$,
523: where $\theta^i$ are the parameters of the binary.
524: The
525: best-fit parameters $\hat{\theta}^i$ are those that maximize the
526: overlap integral.
527: The probability distribution for the signal parameters
528: for strong signals and Gaussian detector noise is
529: $p\left(\theta^i
530: \right)={\cal{N}} {\rm exp}\left(-1/2 {\,}{\Gamma_{ij}\Delta
531: \theta^i \Delta \theta^j}\right)$ \cite{1994PhRvD..49.2658C},
532: where $\Delta \theta^i = \theta^i-{\hat \theta}^i$,
533: $ \Gamma_{ij} = ( \partial h/\partial \theta^i \, , \, \partial
534: h/\partial \theta^j )$
535: is the Fisher information matrix,
536: and the inner product is defined by Eq. (2.4) of Ref.\ \cite{1994PhRvD..49.2658C}.
537: The rms statistical measurement error in ${\theta}^i$ is then
538: $\sqrt{\left(\Gamma^{-1}\right)^{ii}}$.
539:
540: Using the stationary phase approximation and neglecting corrections
541: to the amplitude, the Fourier transform of the waveform for spinning
542: point masses is given by $\tilde h(f) = {\cal A} f^{-7/6}
543: {\rm exp}\left(i\Psi\right)$. Here the phase $\Psi$ is
544: \begin{eqnarray}
545: &&\Psi(f)= 2 \pi f t_c - \phi_c - {\pi \over 4} + {3 M \over 128 \mu}
546: (\pi M f)^{-5/3} \nonumber \\
547: && \left[1 + {20 \over 9}\left({743 \over 336 } + {11 \over 4}
548: {\mu \over M } \right)v^{2} -4 (4 \pi-\beta) v^3 \right. \nonumber \\
549: &&+ \left. 10 \left( { 3058673 \over 1016064 } + { 5429 \over 1008
550: } { \mu \over M } + { 617 \over 144 }{ \mu^2\over M^2 } -\sigma
551: \right) v^{4} \right.\nonumber\\
552: &&+\left.\left(\frac{38645\pi}{252}-\frac{65}{3}\frac{\mu}{M}\right)
553: \ln v\right.\nonumber\\
554: &&+\left.\left(\frac{11583231236531}{4694215680}-
555: \frac{640\pi^2}{3}-\frac{6848\gamma}{21}\right)v^6\right.\nonumber\\
556: &&+\left.
557: \frac{\mu}{M}\left(\frac{15335597827}{3048192}+\frac{2255\pi^2}{12}+\frac{47324}{63}-
558: \frac{7948}{9}\right)v^6\right.\nonumber\\
559: &&+\left.\left(\frac{76055}{1728}\frac{\mu^2}{M^2}-\frac{127825}{1296}\frac{\mu^3}{M^3}
560: -\frac{6848}{21}\ln (4v)\right)v^6\right.\nonumber\\
561: &&+\left.\pi\left(\frac{77096675}{254016}+\frac{378515}{1512}\frac{\mu}{M}
562: -\frac{74045}{756}\frac{\mu^2}{M^2}\right)v^7\right],
563: \label{eq:phasemodel}
564: \end{eqnarray}
565: where $v = (\pi M f)^{1/3}$, $\beta$ and $\sigma$ are spin parameters, and $\gamma$ is
566: Euler's constant \cite{lrr}. The tidal term (\ref{eq:tidal1}) adds linearly to
567: this, yielding a phase model with 7 parameters ($t_c,\phi_c,
568: M,\mu,\beta,\sigma,{\tilde \lambda}$), where $\tilde \lambda= [(11
569: m_2 + M) \lambda_1/m_1 + (11 m_1 + M) \lambda_2/m_2 ]/26$ is a
570: weighted average of $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$. We incorporate the
571: maximum spin constraint for the NSs by assuming a Gaussian prior for
572: $\beta$ and $\sigma$ as in Ref.~\cite{1994PhRvD..49.2658C}.
573:
574:
575: Figure 1 [bottom panel] shows the $90\%$ confidence upper limit
576: ${\tilde \lambda} \leqslant 20.1 \times 10^{36}{\,} {\rm g}{\,}{\rm
577: cm}^2{\rm s}^2 $ we obtain for LIGO II (horizontal line) for two
578: nonspinning $1.4 M_{\odot}$ NSs at a distance of $50$ Mpc
579: (signal-to-noise of 95 in the frequency range $20-400$Hz) with
580: cutoff frequency $f_c=400{\,}{\rm Hz}$, as well as the corresponding
581: values of $\lambda$ for relativistic polytropes with $n=0.5$ (dashed
582: curve) and $n=1.0$ (solid line). The corresponding constraint on
583: radius assuming identical $1.4 M_\odot$ stars would be $R \leqslant
584: 13.6 {\,}{\rm km} {\;}\left(15.3{\,} {\rm km} \right)$ for $n=0.5$
585: $\left(n=1.0\right)$ polytropes.
586: %For $1.4 M_{\odot}$NSs with a surface redshift of $z=0.35$ the
587: %minimum signal-to-noise ratio necessary to detect the
588: %internal-structure effect with LIGO I is $\rho=90{\;}(185)$ for
589: %$n=0.5{\;}(1.0).$
590: Current NS models span the range $10\, {\rm km} \alt R \alt 15 \, {\rm km}$.
591:
592: Our phasing model (\ref{eq:phasemodel}) is the most accurate available
593: model, containing terms up to post-3.5-Newtonian (P3.5N) order.
594: We have experimented with using lower order phase models (P2N, P2.5N,
595: P3N), and we find that the resulting upper bound on ${\tilde \lambda}$
596: varies by factors of order $\sim 2$. Thus there is some associated
597: systematic uncertainty in our result. To be conservative, we have
598: adopted the most pessimistic (largest) upper bound on ${\tilde
599: \lambda}$, which is that obtained from the P3.5N waveform.
600:
601:
602: In conclusion, even if the internal structure signal is too small to
603: be seen, the analysis method suggested here could start to give
604: interesting constraints on NS internal structure for nearby events.
605:
606: This research was supported in part by NSF grants PHY-0140209 and PHY-0457200.
607: We thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions.
608:
609:
610: \newcommand{\apjl}{Ap. J. Lett.\ }
611: \newcommand{\apja}{Ap. J.\ }
612: \newcommand{\aap}{Astron. and Astrophys.}
613: \newcommand{\cmp}{Commun. Math. Phys.}
614: \newcommand{\grg}{Gen. Rel. Grav.}
615: \newcommand{\lr}{Living Reviews in Relativity}
616: \newcommand{\mnras}{Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc.}
617: \newcommand{\pr}{Phys. Rev.}
618: \newcommand{\prsl}{Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A}
619: \newcommand{\ptrsl}{Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London}
620:
621:
622: %\bibliographystyle{prsty}
623: %\bibliographystyle{h-physrev3}
624: %\bibliography{tidal}
625:
626: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
627:
628: \bibitem{Cutler:2002me}
629: C.~Cutler and K.~S. Thorne, gr-qc/0204090;
630: C.~{Cutler} {\em et~al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 2984 (1993).
631:
632: \bibitem{Abbott:2007xi}
633: B.~Abbott {\em et~al.},
634: \newblock (2007), arXiv:0704.3368 [gr-qc].
635: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0704.3368;%%
636:
637: \bibitem{2004ApJ...601...L179}
638: V.~{Kalogera} {\em et~al.},
639: \newblock \apja {\bf 601}, 179 (2004).
640: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0405564;%%
641:
642: \bibitem{2000ARNPS..50..481H}
643: V.~Heiselberg,% Henning;Padharipande,
644: \newblock Annual Reviews of Nuclear and Particle Science {\bf 50}, 481 (2000).
645:
646: \bibitem{2002PhRvL..89w1102F}
647: J.~A. {Faber}, P.~{Grandcl{\' e}ment}, F.~A. {Rasio}, and K.~{Taniguchi},
648: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 231102 (2002).
649:
650: \bibitem{2000PhRvL..84.3519V}
651: M.~{Vallisneri},
652: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 3519 (2000).
653:
654: \bibitem{2003PhR...376...41B}
655: See, e.g, M.~Anderson et. al., arXiv:0708.2720;
656: M.~Shibata, K.~Taniguchi and K.~Uryu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 084020 (2003);
657: P.~Marronetti, M.D.~Duez, S.L.~Shapiro and T.W.~Baumgarte, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 141101 (2004);
658: R.~Oechslin et. al., MNRAS {\bf 349}, 1469 (2004);
659: T.~W. {Baumgarte} and S.~L. {Shapiro}, Physics Reports {\bf 376}, 41 (2003).
660:
661: \bibitem{Mora:2003wt}
662: T.~Mora and C.~M. Will,
663: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D69}, 104021 (2004).
664: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0312082;%%
665:
666: \bibitem{1995MNRAS.275..301K}
667: K.~D. {Kokkotas} and G.~{Schafer},
668: \newblock Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. {\bf 275}, 301 (1995).
669:
670: \bibitem{1993ApJ...406L..63L}
671: D.~Hansen, Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 38}, 1173 (2006);
672: D.~{Lai} et. al., \apjl {\bf 406}, L63 (1993).
673:
674: \bibitem{1992ApJ...398..234K}
675: C.~S. {Kochanek},
676: \newblock \apja {\bf 398}, 234 (1992);
677: L.~{Bildsten} and C.~{Cutler},
678: \apja {\bf 400}, 175 (1992).
679:
680: \bibitem{1998PhRvD..58h4012T}
681: K.~{Taniguchi} and M.~{Shibata},
682: \newblock \prd {\bf 58}, 084012 (1998).
683:
684: \bibitem{2002PhRvD..65j4021P}
685: J.~A. {Pons}, E.~{Berti}, L.~{Gualtieri}, G.~{Miniutti}, and V.~{Ferrari},
686: \prd {\bf 65}, 104021 (2002);
687: E.~{Berti}, J.~A. {Pons}, G.~{Miniutti}, L.~{Gualtieri}, and V.~{Ferrari},
688: \prd {\bf 66}, 064013 (2002).
689:
690:
691: %\bibitem{1969mech.book.....L}
692: %L.~D. {Landau} and E.~M. { Lifshitz},
693: %\newblock {\em Mechanics} (Addison-Wesley Publishing, Reading, Massachusetts,
694: % 1969).
695:
696: \bibitem{Thorne:1998kt}
697: K.~S. Thorne,
698: \newblock Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 124031 (1998).
699: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9706057;%%
700:
701: \bibitem{2001ApJ...550..426L}
702: M.~Lattimer, J.M.~Prakash, \apja
703: {\bf 550}, 426 (2001).
704:
705: \bibitem{1967ApJ...149..591T}
706: K.~S. {Thorne} and A.~{Campolattaro},
707: \newblock \apja {\bf 149}, 591 (1967).
708:
709: \bibitem{1955MNRAS.115..101B}
710: R.~A. {Brooker} and T.~W. {Olle},
711: \newblock Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. {\bf 115}, 101 (1955).
712:
713: \bibitem{2002Natur.420...51C}
714: J.~{Cottam} et. al.,
715: %, F.~{Paerels}, and M.~{Mendez},
716: \newblock Nature {\bf 420}, 51 (2002).
717:
718: \bibitem{TH}
719: K.S. Thorne and J.B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 31}, 1815 (1985).
720:
721: \bibitem{Dong94}
722: D.\ Lai, \mnras ~ {\bf 270}, 611 (1994).
723:
724: \bibitem{Dong1}
725: D. Lai et. al., Ap. J. Supp. {\bf 88}, 205 (1993).
726:
727:
728:
729: \bibitem{lrr} L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Relativity
730: {\bf 9}, (2006), http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-4
731:
732: \bibitem{1994PhRvD..49.2658C}
733: %E.~E. {Flanagan} and C.~{Cutler},
734: %\newblock Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49}, 2658 (1994).
735: E.~Poisson and C.\ M.\ Will, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 848 (1995).
736:
737: \bibitem{1996PhRvD..54.3958L}
738: K.~Uryu, M.~Shibata and Y.~Eriguchi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 104015 (2000);
739: B.~Bejger et. al., Astron. Astrophys. {\bf 431}, 297 (2005).
740:
741: \bibitem{Tichy}
742: W.\ Tichy, E.\ E.\ Flanagan and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61},
743: 104015 (2000).
744: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9505030;%%
745:
746:
747:
748: \end{thebibliography}
749:
750:
751: \end{document}
752: