2017
DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/798/1/012081
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Graviton mass evaluation with trajectories of bright stars at the Galactic Center

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A precession of orbit in Yukawa potential is in the same direction as in GR, but dependences of precession angles on semi-major axis and eccentricity are different in these two models, therefore, after observations of bright star orbits for one or a few periods one could select the best fit from two considered cases. In paper [4] we presented an upper bound for graviton mass 2.9×10 −21 eV using previous observations of S2 star (see also [108][109][110][111][112] for a more detailed discussion) and now we also demonstrate our forecasts to reduce this upper limit. As it was noted earlier, our current estimates for graviton mass is slightly weaker than the LIGO ones, but it is independent and consistent with LIGO results and we expect that the graviton mass estimate will be significantly improved with new observations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…A precession of orbit in Yukawa potential is in the same direction as in GR, but dependences of precession angles on semi-major axis and eccentricity are different in these two models, therefore, after observations of bright star orbits for one or a few periods one could select the best fit from two considered cases. In paper [4] we presented an upper bound for graviton mass 2.9×10 −21 eV using previous observations of S2 star (see also [108][109][110][111][112] for a more detailed discussion) and now we also demonstrate our forecasts to reduce this upper limit. As it was noted earlier, our current estimates for graviton mass is slightly weaker than the LIGO ones, but it is independent and consistent with LIGO results and we expect that the graviton mass estimate will be significantly improved with new observations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…46 If we apply our consideration for gravity theories with massive graviton and we use observational data for S2 star we obtain that 2.9 × 10 −21 eV with 90% C.L. 47 (see also discussion [48][49][50] ). Our estimate for graviton mass is slightly weaker than the LIGO ones, but it is independent and consistent with LIGO results.…”
Section: Graviton Mass Constraints From Analysis Of Trajectories Of Bmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Also, an experimental detection of graviton is a very hard problem to solve and there are different ways to evaluate a graviton mass if it is non-vanishing [24][25][26][27]. We use Yukawa gravity, one among the gravity theories with non-vanishing graviton mass [24,25,28] to give constraint of graviton mass.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, an experimental detection of graviton is a very hard problem to solve and there are different ways to evaluate a graviton mass if it is non-vanishing [24][25][26][27]. We use Yukawa gravity, one among the gravity theories with non-vanishing graviton mass [24,25,28] to give constraint of graviton mass. In the few recent publications reporting about the discovery of gravitational waves from the binary black hole system, the LIGO-Virgo collaboration obtained the graviton mass constraints [29][30][31][32] and in the last years the constraint was significantly improved, in particular, based on a joint analysis of events from the first (O1) and the second (O2) observing runs or in other words, the events were collected in the first LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog (GWTC-1), the authors found that graviton mass should be m g < 4.7×10 −23 eV [33], while adding events from the first part of the third observational run (O3a) to GWTC-1 to form the second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog (GWTC-2), the authors found that m g < 1.76 × 10 −23 eV [34].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%