List of Footnotes
1 | A few errata have been published in this intricate field; all formulas take into account the latest changes. | |
2 | In this article Greek indices ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
3 | Establishing the post-Newtonian expansion rigorously has been the subject of numerous mathematically oriented works, see e.g., [361*, 362*, 363*]. | |
4 | Note that for very eccentric binaries (with say ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
5 | Whereas, the direct attack of the post-Minkowskian expansion, valid at once inside and outside the source, faces some calculational difficulties [408, 136]. | |
6 | The TT coordinate system can be extended to the near zone of the source as well; see for instance Ref. [282]. | |
7 | Namely ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
8 | This work entitled: “The last three minutes: Issues in gravitational-wave measurements of coalescing compact binaries” is sometimes coined the “3mn Caltech paper”. | |
9 | All the works reviewed in this section concern general relativity. However, let us mention here that the equations of motion of compact binaries in scalar-tensor theories are known up to 2.5PN order [318]. | |
10 | The effective action should be equivalent, in the tree-level approximation, to the Fokker action [207], for which the field degrees of freedom (i.e., the metric), that are solutions of the field equations derived from the original matter + field action with gauge-fixing term, have been inserted back into the action, thus defining the Fokker action for the sole matter fields. | |
11 | This reference has an eloquent title: “Feynman graph derivation of the Einstein quadrupole formula”. | |
12 | In absence of a better terminology, we refer to the leading-order contribution to the recoil as “Newtonian”, although it really corresponds to a 3.5PN subdominant radiation-reaction effect in the binary’s equations of motion. | |
13 | Considering the coordinates ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
14 | In ![]() |
|
15 | See Eqs. (3.8) in Ref. [71*] for the cubic and quartic terms. We denote e.g., ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
16 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
17 | Our notation is the following: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
18 | The constancy of the center of mass ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
19 | This assumption is justified because we are ultimately interested in the radiation field at some given finite
post-Newtonian precision like 3PN, and because only a finite number of multipole moments can contribute
at any finite order of approximation. With a finite number of multipoles in the linearized metric (35*) – (37),
there is a maximal multipolarity ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
20 | We employ the Landau symbol ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
21 | In this proof the coordinates are considered as dummy variables denoted ![]() ![]() |
|
22 | The STF tensorial coefficient ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
23 | The function ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
24 | We pose ![]() |
|
25 | The equation (85) has been obtained using a not so well known mathematical relation between the Legendre functions and
polynomials:
![]() ![]() |
|
26 | The neglected remainders are indicated by ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
27 | The canonical moment ![]() ![]() |
|
28 | In all formulas below the STF projection ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
29 | Recall that our abbreviated notation ![]() ![]() |
|
30 | Recall that in actual applications we need mostly the mass-type moment ![]() ![]() |
|
31 | The work [65*] provided some alternative expressions for all the multipole moments (123) – (125), useful for some applications, in the form of surface integrals extending on the outer part of the source’s near zone. | |
32 | The moments ![]() |
|
33 | For this argument we assume the validity of the matching equation (103*) and that the post-Minkowskian series over
![]() |
|
34 | We mean the fully-fledge ![]() ![]() |
|
35 | Though the latter integral is a priori divergent, its value can be determined by invoking complex analytic continuation in
![]() |
|
36 | Of course the geodesic equations are appropriate for the motion of particles without spins; for spinning particles one has also to take into account the coupling of the spin to the space-time curvature, see Eq. (377*). | |
37 | Note, however, that the operation of order-reduction is illicit at the level of the Lagrangian. In fact, it is known that the elimination of acceleration terms in a Lagrangian by substituting the equations of motion derived from that Lagrangian, results in a different Lagrangian whose equations of motion differ from those of the original Lagrangian by a gauge transformation [374]. | |
38 | Recall the footnote 17 for our notation. In particular ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
39 | The function ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
40 | The sum over ![]() ![]() |
|
41 | It was shown in Ref. [71*] that using one or the other of these derivatives results in some equations of motion that differ by a coordinate transformation, and the redefinition of some ambiguity parameter. This indicates that the distributional derivatives introduced in Ref. [70*] constitute some technical tools devoid of physical meaning besides precisely the appearance of Hadamard’s ambiguity parameters. | |
42 | Note also that the harmonic-coordinates 3PN equations of motion [69*, 71*] depend, in addition to ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
43 | One may wonder why the value of ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
44 | See however some comments on the latter work in Ref. [145], pp. 168 – 169. | |
45 | The result for ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
46 | In higher approximations there will be also IR divergences and one should really employ the ![]() |
|
47 | We have ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
48 | When working at the level of the equations of motion (not considering the metric outside the world-lines), the effect of shifts can be seen as being induced by a coordinate transformation of the bulk metric as in Ref. [71*]. | |
49 | Notice the dependence upon the irrational number ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
50 | On the other hand, the ADM-Hamiltonian formalism provides a limited description of the gravitational radiation field, compared to what will be done using harmonic coordinates in Section 9. | |
51 | This parameter is an invariant in a large class of coordinate systems – those for which the metric becomes asymptotically
Minkowskian far from the system: ![]() |
|
52 | Namely,
![]() |
|
53 | From the thermodynamic relation (235*) we necessarily have the relations ![]() ![]() |
|
54 | In all of Section 8 we pose ![]() |
|
55 | Note that this is an iterative process because the masses in Eq. (247*) are themselves to be replaced by the irreducible masses. | |
56 | In Ref. [51*] it was assumed that the corotation condition was given by the leading-order result ![]() |
|
57 | One should not confuse the circular-orbit radius ![]() ![]() |
|
58 | This tendency is in agreement with numerical and analytical self-force calculations [24, 287]. | |
59 | The first law (280*) has also been generalized for binary systems of point masses moving along generic stable bound (eccentric) orbits in Ref. [286]. | |
60 | In the case of extended material bodies, ![]() |
|
61 | Since there are logarithms in this expansion we use the Landau ![]() |
|
62 | In addition, the wave generation formalism will provide the waveform itself, see Sections 9.4 and 9.5. | |
63 | The STF projection ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
64 | The same argument shows that the non-linear multipole interactions in Eq. (89) as well as those in Eqs. (97) and (98) do not contribute to the flux for circular orbits. | |
65 | Or, rather, ![]() |
|
66 | See Section 10 for the generalization of the flux of energy to eccentric binary orbits. | |
67 | Notice the “strange” post-Newtonian order of this time variable: ![]() |
|
68 | This procedure for computing analytically the orbital phase corresponds to what is called in the jargon the “Taylor T2 approximant”. We refer to Ref. [98] for discussions on the usefulness of defining several types of approximants for computing (in general numerically) the orbital phase. | |
69 | Notice the obvious fact that the polarization waveforms remain invariant when we rotate by ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
70 | The dependence on ![]() ![]() |
|
71 | Comparing with Eqs. (338) we have also
![]() |
|
72 | Note that this post-Newtonian parameter ![]() ![]() |
|
73 | More precisely, ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
74 | On the other hand, for the computation of the gravitational waveform of eccentric binary orbits up to the 2PN order in the Fourier domain, see Refs. [401, 402]. | |
75 | Recall that the fluxes are defined in a general way, for any matter system, in terms of the radiative multipole moments by the expressions (68). | |
76 | The second of these formulas can alternatively be written with the standard Legendre polynomial ![]() ![]() |
|
77 | The tetrad is orthonormal in the sense that ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
78 | Our conventions for the Riemann tensor ![]() |
|
79 | The four-dimensional Levi-Civita tensor is defined by ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
80 | Because of this choice, it is better to consider that the tetrad is not the same as the one we originally employed to construct the action (369*). | |
81 | Beware that here we employ the usual slight ambiguity in the notation when using the same carrier letter ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
82 | Notation adopted in Ref. [271]; the inverse formulas read
![]() ![]() |
|
83 | Note that the individual particle’s positions ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
84 | Beware of our inevitably slightly confusing notation: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
85 | Recall from Eq. (366*) that in our convention the spins have the dimension of an angular momentum times
![]() |
|
86 | In this section we can neglect the gauge multipole moments ![]() |
|
87 | Notice that the spin-orbit contributions due to the absorption by the black-hole horizons have to be added to this post-Newtonian result [349, 392, 5, 125]. |