4.7 Review

Observational tests of modified gravity

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 78, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.063503

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modifications of general relativity provide an alternative explanation to dark energy for the observed acceleration of the Universe. Modified gravity theories have richer observational consequences for large-scale structures than conventional dark energy models, in that different observables are not described by a single growth factor even in the linear regime. We examine the relationships between perturbations in the metric potentials, density and velocity fields, and discuss strategies for measuring them using gravitational lensing, galaxy cluster abundances, galaxy clustering/dynamics, and the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. We show how a broad class of gravity theories can be tested by combining these probes. A robust way to interpret observations is by constraining two key functions: the ratio of the two metric potentials, and the ratio of the gravitational constant in the Poisson equation to Newton's constant. We also discuss quasilinear effects that carry signatures of gravity, such as through induced three-point correlations. Clustering of dark energy can mimic features of modified gravity theories and thus confuse the search for distinct signatures of such theories. It can produce pressure perturbations and anisotropic stresses, which break the equality between the two metric potentials even in general relativity. With these two extra degrees of freedom, can a clustered dark energy model mimic modified gravity models in all observational tests? We show with specific examples that observational constraints on both the metric potentials and density perturbations can in principle distinguish modifications of gravity from dark energy models. We compare our result with other recent studies that have slightly different assumptions (and apparently contradictory conclusions).

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