http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.04060
In preparation for future space-borne gravitational-wave (GW) detectors, should the modelling effort focus on high-precision vacuum templates or on the the astrophysical environment of the sources? We perform a systematic comparison of the phase contributions caused by 1) known environmental effects in both gaseous and stellar matter backgrounds, or 2) high-order post-Newtonian terms in the evolution of mHz GW sources. We use the accuracy of currently available analytical waveform models as a benchmark and find the following trends: the largest unmodelled contributions are likely environmental for binaries lighter than $\sim 10^7/(1+z)^2$~M${\odot}$, where $z$ is the redshift. Binaries heavier than $\sim 10^8/(1+z)$~M${\odot}$ do not require more accurate waveforms due to low signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). For high-SNR sources, environmental influences are relevant at low redshift, while high-order vacuum templates are required at $z > 4$. Led by these findings, we argue that including environmental effects in waveform models should be prioritised in order to maximize the science yield of mHz detectors.
L. Zwick, P. Capelo and L. Mayer
Tue, 13 Sep 22
62/85
Comments: Submitted to MNRAS
You must be logged in to post a comment.