1:
2: %\documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
3: \documentclass[a4paper]{iopart}
4:
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %%% Load PACKAGES %%%
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: %\usepackage{amsmath}
9: %%\usepackage{harvard}
10: \usepackage{latexsym}
11: \usepackage{amssymb}
12: \usepackage{color}
13: \usepackage{ulem}
14: \usepackage{times}
15: \usepackage{colordvi}
16:
17: %%-----------------------
18: %% Image inclusion
19: %%-----------------------
20: \usepackage{ifpdf}
21: \usepackage{graphicx}
22: \newcommand{\imgname}[1]{#1.eps}
23: \newcommand{\COLORimgname}[1]{COLOR#1.eps}
24:
25: \newcommand{\correction}[2]{\textcolor{blue}{\sout{#1}}
26: \textcolor{red}{#2}}
27:
28: %\usepackage[dvips]{color}
29: %\usepackage{psfig}
30: \newcommand{\NOTEmc}[1]{{\textcolor{blue}{\bf MC: #1} }}
31: \newcommand{\NOTEpj}[1]{ {\textcolor{red}{\bf PJ: #1} }}
32: \newcommand{\NOTEms}[1]{ {\textcolor{red}{\bf MS: #1} }}
33: \newcommand{\NOTErdp}[1]{ {\textcolor{green}{\bf RDP: #1} }}
34: \newcommand{\apj}{Astrophys. J.}
35: \newcommand{\dr}{{\mathrm d}}
36:
37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
38: %--------- PDFLATEX INFO - --------
39: \ifpdf
40: \pdfinfo{
41: /Author (Cerdonio, Massimo and De Pietri, Roberto and Jetzer, Philippe and Sereno, Mauro)
42: /Title (Local dark matter searches with LISA)
43: }
44: \fi
45: \ifpdf
46: \renewcommand{\imgname}[1]{#1.pdf}
47: \renewcommand{\COLORimgname}[1]{COLOR#1.pdf}
48: \fi
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50:
51: \begin{document}
52:
53: \title[Local dark matter searches with LISA]{
54: Local dark matter searches with LISA}
55:
56: \author[M. Cerdonio et al.]{
57: Massimo Cerdonio$^{1}$,
58: Roberto De Pietri$^{2}$,
59: Philippe Jetzer$^{3}$ and
60: Mauro Sereno$^{3}$}
61:
62: \address{$^1$ Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Padova, Italy and
63: INFN sezione di Padova, Italy}
64:
65: \address{$^2$ Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Parma, Italy and
66: INFN, gruppo di Parma, Italy}
67:
68: \address{$^3$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Z\"urich, Switzerland}
69:
70:
71:
72: \date{\today}
73: \begin{abstract}
74: The {\it drag-free} satellites of LISA will maintain the test masses in
75: geodesic motion over many years with residual accelerations at
76: unprecedented small levels and {\it time delay interferometry} (TDI) will
77: keep track of their differential positions at level of
78: picometers. This may allow investigations of fine details of the
79: gravitational field in the Solar System previously inaccessible.
80:
81: In this spirit, we present the concept of a method to measure
82: directly the gravitational effect of the density of diffuse Local Dark
83: Matter (LDM) with a constellation of a few {\it drag-free} satellites, by
84: exploiting how peculiarly it would affect their relative motion.
85:
86: Using as test bed an idealized LISA with {\it rigid} arms, we find
87: that the separation in time between the test masses is uniquely
88: perturbed by the LDM, so that they acquire a differential breathing
89: mode. Such a LDM signal is
90: related to the LDM density within the orbits and has characteristic
91: spectral components, with amplitudes increasing in time, at various
92: frequencies of the dynamics of the constellation. This is the
93: relevant result, in that the LDM signal is brought to non-zero
94: frequencies.
95:
96: \end{abstract}
97:
98:
99: \pacs{
100: %04.25.Dm, % numerical relativity
101: %04.30.Db, % gravitational wave generation and sources
102: %04.40.Dg, % Relativistic stars: structure, stability, and oscillations
103: %95.30.Lz, % Hydrodynamics
104: %95.30.Sf % relativity and gravitation
105: %97.60.Jd % Neutron stars
106: %97.60.Lf % black holes (astrophysics)
107: %04.70.Bw % classical black holes
108: %98.62.Mw % Infall, accretion, and accretion discs
109: 04.80.Cc, 95.35.rd, 95.55.-n
110: }
111: %\maketitle
112:
113: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
114: \section{Introduction}
115: \label{sec:intro}
116: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
117:
118: According to the current cosmology paradigm dark energy and dark matter are
119: necessary to understand the currently observed cosmological expansion and as
120: well dark matter appears necessary to understand galactic scale
121: phenomenology \cite{weinberg}. In particular the flat rotation curves of galaxies
122: indicate that, at galactic scales, the dark matter can be some five orders
123: of magnitude greater than the average cosmic value.
124:
125: High precision Solar system tests have been providing model independent constraints
126: on the local dark matter. The Solar system is the larger one with very well known mass
127: distribution and can offer tight confirmations of Newtonian gravity and general relativity.
128: What is usually investigated is the gravitational action of dark matter. Experimental bounds
129: on non luminous matter in Solar orbit were derived either by considering the third Kepler's
130: law \cite{and+al89,and+al95} or by studying its effect upon perihelion precession \cite{gr+so96}.
131: The influence of a tidal field due to Galactic dark matter on the motion of the planets and satellites
132: in the Solar system was further investigated by \cite{bra+al92} and \cite{kl+so93}. The orbital motion
133: of Solar system planets has been determined with higher and higher accuracy \cite{pit05b} and recent
134: planetary astrometric data allowed to put interesting limits. The most recent analyses
135: give an upper limit on the local dark matter density of
136: $\rho_\mathrm{DM} < 3 {\times} 10^{-16}~\mathrm{kg/m}^3$
137: at the 2-$\sigma$ confidence level \cite{1,2,3,4}.
138: Such a limit falls short to estimates from Galactic dynamics \cite{5} by 5-6 orders of magnitude.
139: Future radio ranging observations of outer planets with an accuracy of few
140: tenths of a meter could either give positive evidence of dark matter or disprove modifications of gravity.
141:
142: We present here, in
143: connection with the dynamics of the drag-free LISA constellation, a
144: new method, which has the advantage to bring the secular effects to
145: non-zero frequencies and thus to considerably ease possible detection.
146:
147: If applied to a direct gravitational
148: measurement of the total LDM density in the Solar System,
149: the method would be quite relevant, as it would
150: allow to make a comparison with the presence/absence of
151: the proposed components of local dark matter, the search for which is
152: actively under way in a variety of direct laboratory experiments
153: and indirect space based astrophysical observations \cite{6}.
154: In the present paper such a
155: comparison at present will be made taking into consideration the
156: diffuse GDM density, taken as uniformly distributed, but there is
157: the possibility that the local value of the LDM at the Solar System may
158: be somewhat \cite{7} or even considerably higher \cite{8},
159: although recent numerical simulations indicate that the value of the LDM density in the Solar
160: System should be quite close to that of the GDM diffuse density \cite{vogel}.
161:
162: Before going to the details we notice that our method
163: does not depend on the nature of the dark matter, whether it is baryonic
164: or non-baryonic and behaves as cold, warm or hot dark matter as long
165: as the dark matter has the usual gravitational interaction with
166: ordinary matter.
167: We assume that the dark matter is a homogeneous diffuse background of elementary particles
168: (as the candidates which are searched for in the underground experiments
169: such as WIMPs (the leading candidate for which is a neutralino) and axions) or at most small
170: clumps with mass much smaller than the total dark matter mass contained
171: in a sphere with radius of the order of the LISA orbit of about 1 Astronomical
172: Unit, where we assume an average dark matter density equal to the LDM density.
173: Clearly, we are mainly thinking in our proposal of dark matter in form of
174: elementary particles as WIMPs.So our study is somewhat complementary to the
175: analysis given in \cite{danzmann} for the impulsive disturbances LISA would suffer from the
176: close encounter with dust grains and small bodies belonging to the upper mass range
177: of interplanetary dust, with masses of $10^{-3}$ kg to $10^{15}$ kg, which would
178: apply quite the same to hypothetical dark matter clumps of that masses. Similarly
179: if the dark matter is in the form of small-mass primordial black holes in the range
180: of $10^{11}$ kg to $10^{17}$ kg then it has been shown that a nearby encounter of such
181: an object with one of the LISA spacecrafts would lead to a detectable
182: pulse-like signal \cite{seto,adams}. A difficulty is then to distinguish
183: this class of events with those involving perturbations due to
184: the close encounter of near-Earth asteroids and large dust grains.
185:
186:
187: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
188: \section{The method}
189: \label{sec:method}
190: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
191:
192:
193: We use as test bed a simplified version of the planned LISA mission,
194: which well serves the purpose of studying the basic concept. To lowest
195: order in the eccentricities, it has been shown that the LISA $5\times 10^6$ km
196: triangular flight formation, with given choices for the heliocentric
197: orbits, is stable and rotates rigidly around the centre of symmetry,
198: which in turn executes a yearly revolution around the Sun, trailing
199: behind the Earth on the same orbit \cite{9}. We take this approximated motion
200: of the LISA constellation as the one to be perturbed by a local
201: diffuse matter density. In this approximation both the
202: corrections due to higher terms in the eccentricity and all
203: perturbations due to the Earth, the Moon, and other planets are
204: disregarded, and as well as all the corresponding coupling effects, while
205: in reality the constellation is expected to breathe yearly by
206: thousands of km because of them. Actually such a large breathing is already
207: present for the exact Keplerian orbits of ref. \cite{9}
208: in the field of the Sun alone.
209:
210: To calculate the motion of a test mass in presence of an homogeneous
211: background in addition to a central mass $M$ we can use \cite{10} the Newtonian
212: expression
213: \begin{equation}
214: \label{poi2}
215: \phi = -\frac{G M}{r} - \frac{k}{2}r^2~,
216: \end{equation}
217: where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $r$ the distance from the central mass.
218: The second term in the
219: potential of Eq.~(\ref{poi2})
220: gives to a test mass in orbit around the Sun a
221: perturbing central acceleration of the kind $\sim k\mathbf{r}$, with
222: $\mathbf{r}$ the vector
223: distance from the Sun, $r=1 \mathrm{AU} = 1.5\times 10^{11}$ m for LISA.
224: We remind that the for an homogeneous background the choice
225: of the centre of the coordinate system does not affect the result and
226: thus we can take the Sun as the origin of it \cite{xx}.
227:
228: Within the current cosmological paradigm the constant $k$ would be the sum
229: of three terms of different amplitude and sign, respectively one proportional
230: to the density $\rho_{LDM}$ of LDM, the second one proportional to the density of cosmological dark matter
231: and the third one related to the dark energy.
232: As remarked above, according to current views the LDM term is at least five orders
233: of magnitude higher than the other two terms, which therefore we disregard.
234: In any case this shows that in principle the signals we shall discuss here would
235: carry also information about cosmological dark matter/energy, but as
236: it stands
237: now the cosmological contributions appear to be masked by many orders of
238: magnitude by the local dark matter effects.
239: Therefore for the constant $k$ we take
240: $k = - 4 \pi G \rho_\mathrm{LDM}/3$.
241:
242: The $k\mathbf{r}$ perturbation can be addressed with
243: standard Lagrange's planetary equations for the evolution of orbital
244: elements \cite{11}. In this framework the orbits keep on
245: average the Keplerian behavior, but in detail there is a yearly
246: modulation of orbital elements and it comes about a secular precession
247: of perihelion. Lagrange's planetary
248: equations account for the time evolution of the orbital elements of the
249: Keplerian orbit. Let us denote the semi-major axis length,
250: the eccentricity and the periastron argument with $a$, $e$ and $\omega$,
251: respectively. Since the perturbation $k \mathbf{r}$ is radial,
252: the inclination and the longitude of ascending node do not change, whereas the other orbital elements evolve as
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: \frac{d a}{d t} & = & \frac{2}{n}\frac{e}{\sqrt{1-e^2}}~ k r \sin \varphi , \\
255: \frac{d e}{d t} & = & \frac{1}{n a} \sqrt{1-e^2}~ k r \sin \varphi , \\
256: \frac{d \omega}{d t} & = & - \frac{1}{n a}\frac{\sqrt{1-e^2}}{e}~ k r \cos \varphi ,
257: \end{eqnarray}
258: where $\varphi$ is the mean anomaly and $n \equiv \sqrt{G M/a^3}$ is the unperturbed Keplerian mean motion.
259: Solving the Lagrange's equations, we get the evolution up to terms linear in the parameter $k$.
260: The above equations can be solved keeping the orbital elements on the right-hand side unperturbed. Since the orbits of LISA satellites are going to be nearly circular we can also expand in the eccentricity.
261:
262:
263:
264: %%%----------------------------------------------------------------
265: \begin{figure}[t]
266: \begin{flushright}
267: \includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{\imgname{fig_TDI_12_13_DM_10anni}}
268: \end{flushright}
269: \vglue-0.1cm
270: \caption{Differential motion due local dark matter between one pair of
271: LISA arms after release in geodesic motion, as from the time
272: dependence of arm lengths ($L_{12}$ is the distance between test
273: masses in spacecrafts \# 1 and \# 2 and similarly $L_{13}$); the
274: differential motions between the other pairs are similar. The value assumed in the
275: calculations for the diffuse LDM density is 0.3 GeV cm$^{-3}$.}
276: \label{fig:spacecraft}
277: \end{figure}
278:
279: As a worked example we study the effect, as LDM,
280: of the accepted average GDM density of $\rho = 0.3$ GeV/cm$^3$ \cite{5},
281: assumed to be diffuse and uniformly distributed as such within the Solar
282: System. This gives $k = -1.5\times 10^{-31}$ s$^{-2}$ on the idealized
283: rigid LISA orbits of ref. \cite{9}. The $k\mathbf{r}$ perturbation
284: operates on each of the test masses of LISA, which execute Keplerian
285: orbits to realize the rotating triangle constellation. What is
286: relevant here is the temporal behavior of the arm lengths
287: ($L_{ij}$) and of the differences between arm lengths, $\Delta L_{ij}-\Delta L_{is}$.
288:
289: The lowest approximation in eccentricity gives arm lengths $L_0$ that are time
290: independent. If we now insert the perturbation,
291: when we look for the
292: relative motions between the test masses, we find that, after
293: release in geodetic motion, the arms acquire under the perturbation a
294: breathing mode, with characteristic spectral components both at the
295: fundamental $1 y^{-1}$ frequency of revolution around the Sun, and
296: higher frequency contributions including the
297: $3 y^{-1}$ frequency with which the LISA constellation returns to
298: itself in its rotation around its barycentre.
299: Most importantly, in the prospect of detection with TDI methods, we
300: find
301: \begin{eqnarray}
302: \Delta (L_{12} - L_{13}) &=&
303: -\frac{3 \sqrt{3} L_0}{16 n^2} k
304: \bigg[n t \bigg(4 \cos (n t)+3 \cos (2 n t)\bigg)
305: \label{eq9}\\
306: &&+5 \sin (nt)-\frac{11}{2} \sin (2 n t)-\frac{1}{3} \sin (3 n t)
307: \bigg]
308: \nonumber
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: a time dependence of the difference between the changes in length
311: of pairs of arms (see Eq.~(\ref{eq9}) and Fig.~\ref{fig:spacecraft}).
312: Even more interestingly, such an amplitude modulation increases with
313: time, giving thus to the signal a characteristic time-frequency
314: signature. We also checked the accuracy of these results by a direct
315: numerical integration of the equation of motion finding
316: a perfect agreement between numerical and analytical results.
317:
318: A differential motion of the order of micrometers, as in
319: Fig.~\ref{fig:spacecraft}, may appear comfortably large in respect to
320: TDI capabilities, but one should take notice of the low frequencies at
321: which it occurs. A realistic feeling of numbers comes about as
322: follows. The performance of LISA, in regard to the lowest residual
323: acceleration in respect to geodesic motion, could be at best $3\times
324: 10^{-15}$ m s$^{-2}$ Hz$^{-1/2}$ at $10^{-4}$ Hz and possibly $10^{-13}$
325: m s$^{-2}$ Hz$^{-1/2}$ at $10^{-6}$ Hz \cite{12a}, which, over a $3 y$
326: integration time, translates into $3\times 10^{-19}$ m s$^{-2}$ and
327: $10^{-17}$ m s$^{-2}$ rms noise level respectively. These numbers should
328: be compared with the value reached by the differential acceleration
329: between the spacecrafts $k r \simeq 5 \times 10^{-20}$ m s$^{-2}$ given by the GDM
330: in $3 y$ of its secular increase. Of course if the LDM density would
331: be much higher than the GDM, as proposed in ref. \cite{8}, an actual
332: detection by LISA might appear in principle possible, but still,
333: within the oversimplified model we analyzed, it would appear at
334: characteristic frequencies not higher than $10^{-7}$ $\mathrm{Hz}$, frequencies
335: at which we cannot expect that much from LISA in any case.
336:
337: In conclusion, we see that the effect of LDM shows in the presence
338: of distinctive signals on the breathing dynamics that sheds light on the
339: possibility, in principle, of detecting, or putting upper limits, on
340: the gravitational action of LDM. However, at this stage, it is not clear
341: if such a method would be competitive with respect to planetary upper
342: bounds \cite{1,2,3}. As we discuss in the next section,
343: an LDM signal power may appear at distinctive frequencies
344: where the un-perturbed contributions are small or zero.
345: In such a framework, a few problems arise which
346: we discuss in the next section together with their possible solutions.
347:
348: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
349: \section{Discussion}
350: \label{sec:Discussion}
351: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
352:
353: First, even in absence of other perturbations, when the rigid motion
354: around the Sun of LISA used above is taken to higher approximation in
355: the eccentricity \cite{9}, the arms acquire breathing modes of large
356: amplitude. We have made analytical calculations up to 4th order in
357: eccentricity respectively both without and with the perturbation due
358: to LDM for the differential breathing of the arms
359: $\Delta L_{ij}-\Delta L_{is}$. We find that:
360:
361: \begin{itemize}
362: \item {\it without} the LDM perturbation {\it i)} there is signal power at
363: the fundamental $1\mathrm{y}^{-1}$ and overtones only up to $7 \mathrm{y}^{-1}$,
364: {\it except} $3 \mathrm{y}^{-1}$ and $6 \mathrm{y}^{-1}$;
365: {\it ii)} the amplitude of the modes {\it does not} increase in time
366: \item {\it with} the LDM perturbation {\it i)} there is signal power at the
367: fundamental $1y^{-1}$ and at all overtones up to $11\mathrm{y}^{-1}$, {\it including}
368: $3\mathrm{y}^{-1}$ and $6\mathrm{y}^{-1}$; {\it ii)} the amplitude of all the modes
369: {\it does} increase in time.
370: \end{itemize}
371:
372: \noindent
373: So it appears that the LDM signal has a specific signature
374: in the spectrum.
375:
376: Second we must take into account the perturbation of other
377: matter present in the Solar System, that is planets, asteroids,
378: interplanetary dust, Solar wind. As for the gravitational effect of a
379: local density of particles, atoms and dust, both in its steady value
380: and in its variability due to Solar activity, it should be possible to
381: take them in account accurately.
382:
383:
384: The distribution of the dust density is supposed to be flat
385: centred on the Sun, with cylindrical symmetry and of thickness of the order
386: of 1 AU, extending to some 3 AU \cite{12}. The value of its total density at Earth
387: orbit, but far from the Earth so to ignore its gravitational pull, is indicated as
388: $\rho_\mathrm{dust}$ $(1 AU) = 9.6 \times 10^{-20}$ kg/m$^3$ \cite{13}. We have to estimate the
389: effect of dust and compare to that of LDM, as they may come out to be
390: similar and hard to disentangle. The LISA constellation in its orbit stays well
391: within an approximately uniform distribution of dust at the density value
392: quoted above and we assume to be the same for the LDM distribution, so that
393: we may consider LISA embedded in a spherically symmetric density of dust and LDM.
394: This will be an extremely crude estimate, giving a conservative upper bound as the dust
395: distribution is actually not spherical. Then the ratio between the relative
396: accelerations among LISA test masses due respectively to dust and LDM is
397: simply the ratio between the corresponding densities at 1 AU.
398: If the LDM value is close to the average GDM value
399: $\rho_\mathrm{GDM}= 0.3$ GeV/cm$^3$ = $5 \times 10^{-22}$ kg/m$^3$,
400: we have that the effect of interplanetary dust on breathing motions
401: within LISA is of the order of 200 times larger than that induced by a GDM.
402: As for disentangling the two contributions, we see that, even if known with
403: moderate accuracy, which, as far as it is concerned, would allow
404: to improve by a large factor the current best limit on GDM.
405:
406:
407: The average density of electrons, protons
408: and helium atoms is somewhat below that of a GDM. Its
409: changes during Solar flares develop on so short time scales, in
410: respect to the inverse of the characteristic frequencies quoted above,
411: to be ineffective in the data analysis.
412:
413: The perturbations given by Solar System massive bodies are a more
414: serious issue. A recent calculation of LISA orbits under the
415: perturbation of the Earth \cite{14} shows large breathing modes of the arms.
416: The analysis does not go beyond a first
417: approximation in the ratio between the tidal effect of the Earth in
418: respect to that of the Sun. Even preliminary (analytical) calculations appear difficult
419: and lengthy, and it appears to us that numerical methods are
420: needed.
421:
422: We believe it would be more fruitful to our purposes to
423: perform such calculations to see the effect on the orbits of rather
424: the whole Earth-Moon system. Even if the
425: breathing effect due to the Moon are very small it has a definite
426: characteristic frequency that is $f_{EM} = 8.3 \times
427: 10^{-7}$ $\mathrm{Hz}$. This is the double of the frequency of
428: of
429: revolution of the Earth-Moon system around its barycenter and it comes out
430: as the first non zero term in the perturbation
431: after the monopole given by the total
432: Earth-Moon mass at the barycentre of the system. As we have seen above,
433: the LDM effect promotes signal amplitudes
434: in the differential breathings at distinctive higher
435: harmonics, where there is no signal power
436: in absence of the LDM perturbation. If this will occur
437: in a similar way also in the case of the Earth-Moon perturbation then the
438: leading LDM signal may be present at, say $3f_{EM}$, giving a unique
439: signature at frequencies close to where LISA is sensitive.
440:
441: An accurate calculation of the differential breathing of LISA due to the combined effects of the Moon
442: motion and of the LDM diffuse density would need a full study of the LISA dynamics, aided by numerical
443: calculations, which is beyond the scope of the present paper. We are encouraged by the present initial
444: results and such a detailed study is under way (we outline its main features in our Conclusions below).
445:
446: As discussed above the dust effect may well come out to be indistinguishable in signature
447: and about 2 orders of magnitude larger than the effect of a GDM diffuse density. Then, if our
448: detailed study will have any success, LISA would give limits to an LDM diffuse density at the
449: Earth orbit no better than the limits imposed by the accuracy on independently modelling the
450: dust distribution, that is somewhat less then 2 orders of magnitude above the GDM diffuse density.
451: This is to be compared with the current limits on an LDM coming from the motion of the planets, which,
452: as summarized in the Introduction, are some 5 orders of magnitude larger of the GDM value.
453: It is worth noting that future improvements from planetary motion observations, if they concern
454: planets within 3.5 AU from the Sun, would suffer from the same limitations from the effect of dust as well.
455:
456:
457:
458: The notion that dark matter should be present diffusely in the Galaxy
459: rests on the currently accepted cosmological paradigm
460: enforced in recent years by a wealth of observational data. The value
461: of the average GDM is $10^5$ higher than the value implied by
462: cosmological expansion in the cosmological paradigm, but still it is a direct
463: consequence of that model, when one wants to account for the rotation
464: velocities of ordinary matter far from the centre of the Galaxy, on
465: one side, and on the other side one wants to keep Newtonian
466: Gravitation, as extended by Einstein with General Relativity, to hold
467: strictly valid at the Galactic distance scale. However it has been
468: noticed \cite{15} that there are no independent observational grounds for
469: such an assumption beyond the Solar System distance scale. A variety
470: of alternative theories of gravitation have been proposed, which,
471: while keeping valid Newton-Einstein gravity within the Solar System,
472: allow a mild violation on Galactic and cosmological scale, with the
473: benefit to make unnecessary the presence of any dark matter (and even
474: dark energy). A comparative discussion of the situation says that,
475: within the present limits given by planets motion, no definitive
476: conclusion can be reached \cite{1},
477: but the possibilities of a MOND behaviour
478: \cite{bek} within actual LISA orbits should be considered.
479: A gravitational test like the one we
480: propose here might give clear cut results in this respect too.
481:
482:
483: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
484: \section{Conclusions}
485: \label{sec:Conclusions}
486: %-----------------------------------------------------------------
487:
488: The simple model shows the potential interest of the
489: basic idea and may open the way to promising
490: possibilities.
491:
492: We need to investigate to what extend the
493: perturbations from bodies in the Solar System would stimulate
494: components in the
495: relative motion between the LISA spacecrafts at the characteristic
496: frequencies of the perturbation itself, at frequency combinations with
497: the fundamental frequency of revolution around the Sun and
498: at higher frequency overtones which would
499: be distinctively identifiable in the spectrum of the the differential arms
500: breathing. To explore
501: this, and then in case to assess the feasibility of detections/upper
502: limits with LISA, we need to embed the LISA test masses in
503: the most accurate model of dynamics of the Solar System available and
504: solve numerically for LISA orbits with and without LDM. Such a
505: procedure will also automatically clarify the issue of the
506: perturbations given by other massive bodies discussed above. The study
507: should be completed by a careful evaluation of the effects of the
508: interplanetary dust and of the Solar wind.
509: Once understood and
510: accounted for the effects of massive bodies, interplanetary dust and
511: Solar activity, a last problem will concern to treat the TDI distance
512: measurements via light propagation in a fully relativistic way \cite{14}.
513:
514:
515: \ack
516:
517: In the early stage MC benefited from discussions with Michele Bonaldi,
518: Livia Conti and Stefano Vitale. We are grateful to Fabrizio De
519: Marchi for calling attention to the dust problem and to
520: Oliver Jennrich for discussions. MS is supported by the Swiss
521: National Science Foundation and by the Tomalla Foundation.
522:
523: \section*{References}
524:
525: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
526:
527:
528: \bibitem{weinberg} For a most recent and comprehensive presentation of the subject
529: and of the compelling evidence in particular for cold dark matter see e.g.:
530: S.Weinberg, ``Cosmology'' (Oxford University Press 2008)
531:
532: \bibitem{and+al89} J.D. Anderson et al, ApJ 342 (1989) 539
533:
534: \bibitem{and+al95} J.D. Anderson, et al, ApJ 448 (1995) 885
535:
536: \bibitem{gr+so96} O. Gron, H.H. Soleng, ApJ 456 (1996) 445
537: \bibitem{bra+al92} V.B. Braginsky, A.V. Gurevich, K.P. Zybin, Physics Letters A 171 (1992) 275
538:
539: \bibitem{kl+so93} S. Klioner and M. Soffel, Physics Letters A 184 (1993) 41
540:
541: \bibitem{pit05b} E.V. Pitjeva, Solar System Research 39 (2005) 176
542:
543: \bibitem{1} M. Sereno and P. Jetzer, Mont. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 371 (2006) 626
544:
545: \bibitem{2} I.B.Khriplovich and E.V.Pitjeva, Int.Journ.Mod.Phys. D15 (2006) 615
546:
547:
548: \bibitem{3} J.-M. Frere et al, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 083005
549:
550: \bibitem{4} S.L. Adler, J.Phys. A41 (2008) 412002
551: \bibitem{5} W.-M. Yao et al., J. Phys. G 33 (2006) 1
552: \bibitem{6} see for instance: G.Bertone and D.Merritt, Mod.Phys.Lett. A20 (2005) 1021
553: \bibitem{7} T.Damour and L.M.Krauss, Phys.Rev. D59 (1999) 063509
554: \bibitem{8} X.Xu and E.R.Siegel, arXiv:0806.3767v1 [astro-ph] (2008)
555: \bibitem{vogel} M. Vogelsberger et al, Mont. Not. R. Astron. Soc. (in press) (2008), arXiv:0812.0362
556:
557:
558: \bibitem{danzmann} K.V. Danzmann et al, (1998) ``LISA-Laser Interferometer Space Antenna'',
559: Pre-Phase A Report 2nd edn MPQ 233 (Garching, Germany: Max-Planck-Institut fur Quantenoptik)
560: ch 4.2.5 ``Disturbances due to minor bodies and dust''
561:
562: \bibitem{seto} N. Seto and A. Cooray, Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 063512
563:
564: \bibitem{adams} A.W. Adams and J.S. Bloom, (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/040526
565:
566: \bibitem{9} S.V.Dhurandhar et al, CQG 22 (2005) 481
567: \bibitem{10} see for instance: M.Sereno and P.Jetzer, Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 064031
568: \bibitem{xx} R. Adler, M. Bazin and M. Schiffer, ``Introduction to general relativity''
569: (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965)
570: \bibitem{11} see for instance: J.M. Danby, ``Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics''
571: (Willmann Bell 1988)
572:
573: \bibitem{12a} P.L.Bender CQG 20 (2003) S301
574: \bibitem{12} R.H.Giese et al, Icarus 68 (1986) 395
575: \bibitem{13} E.Grun et al, Icarus 62 (1985) 244
576: \bibitem{14} S.V. Dhurandhar et al. (2008), arXiv:0805.4314v1.
577: \bibitem{15} see for a review: P.D.Mannheim Progr.Part.Nucl.Phys. 56 (2006) 340
578: %\bibitem{adr+al08} O. Adriani et al., arXiv:0810.4995(2008)
579:
580: \bibitem{bek} J. Bekenstein and J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 103513
581:
582:
583:
584:
585: %%\bibitem{13} E.Grun et al eds NRInterplanetary dustNS (Springer 2001)
586: %\bibitem{16} S.Pireaux and B.Chauvineau, arXiv: 0801.3637 (gr-qc)
587: %%\bibitem{Ref1} .....
588:
589: \end{thebibliography}
590:
591: \end{document}
592:
593: