4.7 Article

Studying the Solar system dynamics using pulsar timing arrays and the LINIMOSS dynamical model

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stz2515

关键词

methods: data analysis; pulsars: general

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [XDB23010200]
  2. 973 Program [2015CB857101]
  3. National Natural Science Fundation of China (NSFC) [U15311243, 11690024, 11373011]
  4. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pulsar timing arrays (PTAs) can be used to study the Solar system ephemeris (SSE), the errors of which can lead to correlated timing residuals and significantly contribute to the PTA noise budget. Most Solar system studies with PTAs assume the dominance of the term from the shift of the Solar system barycentre (SSB). However, it is unclear to which extent this approximation can be valid, since the perturbations on the planetary orbits may become important as data precision keeps increasing. To better understand the effects of SSE uncertainties on pulsar timing, we develop the LINIMOSS dynamical model of the Solar system, based on the SSE of Guangyu Li. Using the same input parameters as DE435, the calculated planetary positions by LINIMOSS are compatible with DE435 at centimetre level over a 20 yr timespan, which is sufficiently precise for pulsar-timing applications. We utilize LINIMOSS to investigate the effects of SSE errors on pulsar timing in a fully dynamical way, by perturbing one SSE parameter per trial and examining the induced timing residuals. For the outer planets, the timing residuals are dominated by the SSB shift, as assumed in previous work. For the inner planets, the variations in the orbit of the Earth are more prominent, making previously adopted assumptions insufficient. The power spectra of the timing residuals have complex structures, which may introduce false signals in the search of gravitational waves. We also study how to infer the SSE parameters using PTAs, and calculate the accuracy of parameter estimation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据