Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Modeling Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals within the Effective-One-Body Approach

Nicolas Yunes, Alessandra Buonanno, Scott A. Hughes, M. Coleman Miller, Yi Pan

TL;DR

These are the first models of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals within the effective-one-body (EOB) formalism, focusing on quasicircular orbits into nonrotating black holes, and show that the phase difference and amplitude difference can be reduced.

Abstract

We present the first models of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals within the effective-one-body (EOB) formalism, focusing on quasi-circular orbits into non-rotating black holes. We show that the phase difference and (Newtonian normalized) amplitude difference between analytical EOB and numerical Teukolsky-based gravitational waveforms can be reduced to less than 10^(-1) rad and less than 2 x 10^(-3), respectively, after a 2-year evolution. The inclusion of post-Newtonian self-force terms in the EOB approach leads to a phase disagreement of roughly 6-27 rad after a 2-year evolution. Such inclusion could also allow for the EOB modeling of waveforms from intermediate-mass ratio, quasi-circular inspirals.

Modeling Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals within the Effective-One-Body Approach

TL;DR

These are the first models of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals within the effective-one-body (EOB) formalism, focusing on quasicircular orbits into nonrotating black holes, and show that the phase difference and amplitude difference can be reduced.

Abstract

We present the first models of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals within the effective-one-body (EOB) formalism, focusing on quasi-circular orbits into non-rotating black holes. We show that the phase difference and (Newtonian normalized) amplitude difference between analytical EOB and numerical Teukolsky-based gravitational waveforms can be reduced to less than 10^(-1) rad and less than 2 x 10^(-3), respectively, after a 2-year evolution. The inclusion of post-Newtonian self-force terms in the EOB approach leads to a phase disagreement of roughly 6-27 rad after a 2-year evolution. Such inclusion could also allow for the EOB modeling of waveforms from intermediate-mass ratio, quasi-circular inspirals.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 3 equations, 2 figures.

Figures (2)

  • Figure 1: Absolute value of the difference in the Newtonian normalized Teukolsky and EOB fluxes as a function of orbital velocity. Calibrating the Padé or $\rho-$flux improves the agreement by orders of magnitude
  • Figure 2: Absolute value of the dephasing (left) and fractional amplitude difference (right) of the dominant GW $(2,2)$ mode as a function of time in months. Again, with the introduction of calibrated higher-order terms, the differences are small even over a full two year coherent integration.