251 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 1(1): 251–254, 2014 251 doi: 10.14311/APP.2014.01.0251 Testing f(R)-Theories by Binary Pulsars Mariafelicia De Laurentis1,2, Ivan De Martino2,3 1Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Università di Napoli ”Federico II” 2INFN sez. di Napoli Compl. Univ. di Monte S. Angelo, Edificio G, Via Cinthia, I-80126 - Napoli, Italy 3Departamento de Fisica Teorica, Universidad de Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain Corresponding author: felicia@na.infn.it Abstract Using the Post-Keplerian parameters to obtain, in the Minkowskian limit we obtain constraints on f(R)-theories of gravity from the first time derivative of the orbital period of a sample of binary stars. In the approximation in which the theory is Taylor expandable, we can estimate the parameters of an an analytic f(R)-theory, and fulfilling the gap between the General Relativity prediction and the one cames from observation, we show that the theory is not ruled out. Keywords: gravitation - binary pulsar systems - f(R)-theories - gravitational waves. 1 Introduction Astrophysical systems like Neutron Stars (NS), coa- lescing binary systems, Black Holes (BHs), and White Dwarfs (WDs), are the most promising to study the gravitational waves (GWs) emision. Indeed, study- ing the binary system B1913+16, known as the Hulse- Taylor binary pulsar, the first time derivative of the orbital period was measured to be different from zero [13, 18], as predicted by General Relativity (GR) when gravitational radiation is emitted. This measurements was confirmed by study in other relativistic binary sys- tems. The agreement between GR and the observation is at the order of ∼ 1%. However, using the Extended Theories of Gravity (ETG) it should be possibile to explain the observational results as shown in [10, 12] where, starting from a class of analytic f(R)-theories it is possible evaluate the first time derivative of the orbital period and compare it with the data. This ap- proach permit both to test the ETGs both to explain the gap between observation and the theoretical pre- diction. This paper was organized as follow: in Sec. 1 we calculate the quadrupole emission for an analytic f(R)-Lagrangian using the weak-field limit; in Sec 2 we compare the theoretical prediction with the observed data. Finally in Sec 3 we give our conclusions and re- marks. 2 The First Time Derivative of the Orbital Period in the f(R)-Theories The simplest extension to GR is the f(R)-gravity, in which, the Lagrangian is an arbitrary function of Ricci scalar [2]. Starting from the field equations in f(R)- gravity (for details see [2, 16, 4, 5]) f′(R)Rµν − f(R) 2 gµν −f′(R);µν + +gµν�gf ′(R) = X 2 Tµν , (1) 3�f′(R) + f′(R)R− 2f(R) = X 2 T , (2) where Tµν = −2 √ −g δ( √ −gLm) δgµν is the energy momentum tensor of matter (T is the trace), X = 16πG c4 is the cou- pling, f′(R) = df(R) dR , �g = ;σ ;σ, and � = ,σ ,σ. it is possibile, in the Minkowskian approximation of an analytic f(R)-Lagrangian1, f(R) = ∑ n fn(R0) n! (R−R0)n ' ' f0 + f′0R + f′′0 2 R2 + ... (3) to compute the quadrupole emission due to GWs [10, 11]. Furthermore, it is possible calculate the energy 1For convenience we will use f instead of f(R). All considerations are developed here in metric formalism. From now on we assume physical units G = c = 1. 251 http://dx.doi.org/10.14311/APP.2014.01.0251 Mariafelicia De Laurentis, Ivan De Martino momentum tensor of gravitational field in f(R)-gravity that assumes the following form tλα = f ′ 0k λkα ( ḣρσḣρσ ) ︸ ︷︷ ︸ GR − 1 2 f′′0 δ λ α ( kρkσḧ ρσ )2 ︸ ︷︷ ︸ f(R) . (4) To be more precise, the first term, depending on the choice of the constant f′0, is the standard GR term, the second is the f(R) contribution. It is worth noticing that the order of derivative is increased of two degrees consistently to the fact that f(R)-gravity is of fourth- order in the metric approach [10]. In this contest, we can write the total average flux of energy due to the GWs integrating over all possible directions as 〈 dE dt 〉 ︸ ︷︷ ︸ (total) = G 60 〈 f′0 (... Q ij... Qij ) ︸ ︷︷ ︸ GR −f′′0 (.... Q ij.... Q ij ) ︸ ︷︷ ︸ f(R) 〉 , (5) where we point out that for f′′0 → 0 and f′0 → 4 3 , the previous equation becomes 〈 dE dt 〉 ︸ ︷︷ ︸ (GR) = G 45 〈... Q ij ... Qij 〉 , (6) that is the prediction of GR [14, 17]. In order to evaluate the above expressions for the flux it is nec- essary to form explicit expressions for 〈... Q ij... Qij 〉 and〈.... Q ij.... Q ij 〉 for the system under consideration. For our purposes we consider a binary pulsar system. If we assume a Keplerian motion of the stars in the binary system, wherewe mp is the pulsar mass, mc the com- panion mass, and µ = mcmp mc + mp is the reduced mass, it is possible to compute the time average of the radiated power computing the first time derivative of the orbital period [11] Ṗb = − 3 20 ( T 2π )−5 3 µG 5 3 (mc + mp) 2 3 c5(1 − �2) 7 2 × × [ f′0 ( 37�4 + 292�2 + 96 ) − f′′0 π 2T−1 2(1 + �2)3 × × ( 891�8 + 28016�6 + 43520�2 + 3072 )] , (7) where � is the orbital eccentricity and T is the orbital period of the binary. 3 Methodology and Data Analysis Knowing exactly the Lagrangian that describes the sys- tem, we can predict the orbital period decay, how- ever,we want understand how well the relativistic bi- nary systems can fix bounds on f(R) parameters using eq. (7), and getting an estimation of the second deriva- tive of the Lagrangian with respect to Ricci scalar, f′′0 . We use the following prescription, the difference be- tween the first derivative of the binary observed period variation (ṪbObs ±δ) and the theorethical one obtained by GR, ∆Ṫb = ṪbObs − ṪGR, is fulfilled imposing that: ṪbObs − ṪGR −f ′′ 0 Ṫbf(R) = 0, (8) ṪbObs ±δ − ṪGR −f ′′ 0±δ Ṫbf(R) = 0, (9) where δ is the experimental error, that we propagate on the ṪbObs, into an uncertainty on f ′′ 0±δ . In this way, the extra contribution to the loss of energy due to the emission of GWs radiation in the ETGs regime can pro- vide to fill the difference between theory and observa- tions. We select a sample of Observed Relativistic Bi- nary Pulsars (see their references reported in Tab. 1 of [11]) for which we compute the correction Ṫbf(R) , the difference ∆ṪGR between ṪbObs and ṪGR (equal to the correction −f′′0 Ṫbf(R) ), the corresponding f ′′ 0 solution of (8), the interval centered on f′′0 and finally, the inter- val centered on f′′0 and computed from the difference: f′′0+δ −f′′0−δ 2 , all results are reported in Tab. 1. In Fig. 1 we show, for sake of convenience, in logarithmic scale, the absolute values of f′′0 reported in Tab.1 versus the ratio ṪbObs ṪGR . There are six binaries in tables, for which the ETGs are not ruled out 0.04 ≤ f′′0 ≤ 38, getting 0.5 ≤ ṪbObs ṪGR ≤ 1.5. For those systems the difference be- tween ṪGR and ṪbObs can be explained adding an extra contribution that comes out from the f(R)-thoery. In- stead for most of binaries we have f′′0 values that can surely rule out the theory, since taking account of the weak field assumption we obtain 38 ≤ f′′0 ≤ 4 × 107. From this last values to the first ones, there is a jump of about four up to five order of magnitude on f′′0 . The origin of these strong discrepancies, perhaps, is due to the extreme assumption we made, to justify the differ- ence between the observed ṪbObs and the predicted ṪGR using the ETGs. 252 Testing f(R)-Theories by Binary Pulsars Table 1: Upper Limits of f′′0 correction to ṪGR of binary relativistic pulsars assuming that all the loss of energy is caused by Gravitational Wave emission. We reported the J-Name of the system,the difference ∆ṪGR between ṪbObs and ṪGR equal to the correction −f ′′ 0 Ṫbf(R) , the correction Ṫbf(R) , the corresponding f ′′ 0 solution of (8), the interval centered on f′′0 and computed from the difference f′′0+δ −f′′0−δ 2 ,where f′′0±δ ,are the corresponding solutions of ( 8) taking account of the experimental errors ±δ on the observed orbital period variation ṪbObs. Name ∆ṪGR Ṫbf(R) f ′′ 0 ±∆f′′0 J2129+1210C -2.17E-14 6.01E-13 3.61E-02 8.32E-02 J1915+1606 -2.04E-14 2.10E-13 9.74E-02 4.77E-03 J0737-3039A -4.23E-15 1.86E-14 2.28E-01 9.15E-02 J1141-6545 -1.65E-14 3.88E-15 4.25E+00 6.44E+00 J1537+1155 5.39E-14 1.42E-15 -3.79E+01 7.03E-02 J1738+0333 -1.56E-15 1.06E-16 -1.47E+01 2.92E+01 J0751+1807 1.41E-13 8.98E-16 -15.7E+01 1.002E+01 J0024-7204J -5.22E-13 3.13E-16 1.67E+03 4.15E+02 J1701-3006B -5.03E-12 8.81E-16 5.71E+03 7.04E+01 J2051-0827 -1.55E-11 4.77E-16 3.24E+04 1.68E+03 J1909-3744 -5.47E-13 2.62E-18 2.09E+05 1.14E+04 J1518+4904 2.41E-13 3.42E-19 -7.05E+05 6.43E+03 J1959+2048 1.47E-11 1.07E-17 -1.38E+06 7.51E+04 J2145-0750 4.01E-13 1.00E-19 -4.00E+06 2.99E+06 J0437-4715 1.59E-13 1.04E-19 -1.57E+06 2.73E+06 J0045-7319 3.02E-07 1.11E-16 2.74E+9 8.13E+07 J2019+2425 -3.00E-11 1.11E-22 2.71E+11 5.41E+11 J1623-2631 4.00E-10 2.02E-23 -1.98E+13 2.97E+13 4 Discussion and Remarks In this paper, we develop expressions for quadrupole gravitational radiation in f(R)-gravity theory using the weak field technique and apply these results, which are applicable in general, to a sample of a binary pulsars, though their orbits are eccentric. Here, we seen that, where the GR theory is not enough to explain the gap between the data and the theoretical estimation of the orbital decay, there is the possibility to extend the GR theory with a generic f(R)- theory to cover the gap. According to eq. (7),we have selected a sample of rela- tivistic binary systems for which the first derivative of the orbital period is observed, we have computed the theoretical quadrupole radiation rate, and finally we have compared it to binary system observations. From Tab. 1, it is seen that the first five systems have masses determined in a manner quite reliable, while for the remaining sample, masses are estimated by requiring that the mass of the pulsar is 1.4M� and, assuming for the orbital inclination one of the usual statistical val- ues (i = 60◦ or i = 90◦ ), and from here comes then the estimate of the mass of the companion star. So a primary cause of major discrepancies, not only for the ETGs, but also for the GR theory, between the variation of the observed orbital period and the predicted effect of emission of gravitational waves, could be a mistake in the estimation of the masses of the system. In addi- tion, other causes may be attributable to the evolution- ary state of the system, which, for instance, if it does not consist of two neutron stars may transfer mass from companion to the neutron star. In our sample, there are only five double NS that can be used to test GR and ETGs. Taking into account of the strong hypothesis we made, the ETG correction to ṪGR can also include the galactic acceleration term correction ([7], [8]). Here, we give a preliminary result about the energy loss from bi- nary systems and we show that, when the nature of the binary systems can exclude energy losses due to trade or loss of matter, then, we can explain the gap between the first time derivative of the observed orbital period and the theoretical one predicted by GR, using an an- alytical f(R)-theory of gravity. 253 Mariafelicia De Laurentis, Ivan De Martino 10 0 10 5 10 10 10 15 10 −4 10 −2 10 0 10 2 10 4 10 6 10 8 10 10 f′′ 0 Ṫ b O b s Ṫ G R ṪbObs ṪGR = 1.5 ṪbObs ṪGR = 0.5 f ′′ 0 = +0.04 f ′′0 = 38 PSRJ1537+1155 PSRJ1738+0333 f ′′ 0 = 14.71 PSRJ2129+1210C Figure 1: In figure there are shown, for sake of convenience, in logaritmic scale, the absolute values of f′′0 reported in Tab. 1 versus the ratio ṪbObs ṪGR . We must note that for five binaries the ETGs we are probing is not ruled out 0.04 ≤ f′′0 ≤≈ 38, for those systems the difference between ṪGR and ṪbObs is tiny, indeed we get 0.5 ≤ ṪbObs ṪGR ≤ 1.5. Instead for most of binaries we have f′′0 values that can surely rule out the theory, since taking account of the weak field assumption we obtain 38 ≤ f′′0 ≤ 4 × 107. From this last values to the first ones, there is a jump of about four up to five order of magnitude on f′′0 . References [1] Bogdanos C., Capozziello S., De Laurentis M., Nesseris S., 2010, Astrop. Phys. , 34, 236. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.08.001 [2] Capozziello S., De Laurentis M., 2011, Physics Reports 509, 167. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003 [3] Capozziello S., Corda C., De Lauren- tis M., 2008 Phys. Lett. B 669, 255-259 . doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.001 [4] Capozziello S., Francaviglia M., 2008, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40,357. doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0551-y [5] Capozziello S., De Laurentis M., Faraoni V., 2009 ,The Open Astr. Jour , 2, 1874. [6] Damour T. and Esposito-Farese G., Phys. Rev. D, 58, 042001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.042001 [7] Damour T., & Taylor J.H., 1991,ApJ, 366, 50 [8] Damour T., & Taylor J.H.,1992, Phys. Rev. D., 45, 1840 [9] Damour & Esposito-Farese 1996, Phys. Rev. D 54, 1474 [10] De Laurentis M., Capozziello S., 2011, Astrop. Phys. , 35, 257. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.08.006 [11] De Laurentis M., & de Martino I., 2013, MNRAS, 431, 741D. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt216 [12] Freire P.C. et al., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3328. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21253.x [13] Hulse R.A. and Taylor J.H., 1975, ApJ, 195, L51- L53. [14] Landau L.D., Lifshitz E.M., 1962, The Classical Theory of Fields, Addison-Wesley Pub.Co., Inc., Reading. [15] Maggiore M., 2007, Gravitational Wawes: Theory and Experiments, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001 [16] Nojiri S., Odintsov S.D., 2011, Physics Reports 505, 59. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001 [17] Weinberg S., 1972 ,”Gravitation and Cosmology”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. [18] Weisberg J.M., Nice D.J. and Tay- lor J.H., 2010, ApJ, 722,1030-1034. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1030 [19] Will C.M, 1993, ”Theory and experiment in grav- itational physics” Cambridge University Press, UK. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511564246 254 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.08.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10714-007-0551-y http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.042001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.08.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt216 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21253.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1030 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511564246 Introduction The First Time Derivative of the Orbital Period in the f(R)-Theories Methodology and Data Analysis Discussion and Remarks