4.8 Article

Clear and Measurable Signature of Modified Gravity in the Galaxy Velocity Field

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 112, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.221102

关键词

-

资金

  1. BIS National E-infrastructure capital [ST/K00042X/1]
  2. STFC [ST/H008519/1]
  3. STFC DiRAC Operations Grant [ST/K003267/1]
  4. Durham University
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F001166/1]
  6. Polish National Science Center [DEC-2011/01/D/ST9/01960]
  7. ERC [GA 267291]
  8. FCT-Portugal [SFRH/BD/75791/2011]
  9. HPC Infrastructure for Grand Challenges of Science and Engineering Project
  10. European Regional Development Fund under the Innovative Economy Operational Programme
  11. STFC [ST/I001166/1, ST/F002300/1, ST/I00162X/1, ST/H008519/1, ST/K00042X/1, ST/F002289/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F002300/1, ST/I001166/1, ST/H008519/1, ST/I00162X/1, ST/F002289/1, ST/K00042X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The velocity field of dark matter and galaxies reflects the continued action of gravity throughout cosmic history. We show that the low-order moments of the pairwise velocity distribution v(12) are a powerful diagnostic of the laws of gravity on cosmological scales. In particular, the projected line-of-sight galaxy pairwise velocity dispersion sigma(12)(r) is very sensitive to the presence of modified gravity. Using a set of high-resolution N-body simulations, we compute the pairwise velocity distribution and its projected line-of-sight dispersion for a class of modified gravity theories: the chameleon f(R) gravity and Galileon gravity (cubic and quartic). The velocities of dark matter halos with a wide range of masses would exhibit deviations from general relativity at the (5-10)sigma level. We examine strategies for detecting these deviations in galaxy redshift and peculiar velocity surveys. If detected, this signature would be a smoking gun for modified gravity.

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

4.8
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