4.7 Article

Casimir tests of scalar-tensor theories

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 107, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.084025

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper calculates bounds and forecasts for screened modified gravity theories, focusing on the chameleon model in Casimir force experiments. Numerical simulations are compared to analytical approximations, specifically the proximity force approximation (PFA) and the screening factor approximation. Results show that the PFA does not accurately reproduce the numerical results for the chameleon model, but the screening factor approximation fares better in extracting constraints and forecasts from data.
We compute bounds and forecasts on screened modified gravity theories, specializing to the chameleon model in Casimir force experiments. In particular, we investigate the classical interaction between a plate and sphere subject to a screened interaction of the chameleon type. We compare numerical simulations of the field profile and the classical pressure exerted on the sphere to analytical approximations for these nonlinear field theories. In particular, we focus on the proximity force approximation (PFA) and show that, within the range of sphere sizes R and plate-sphere distance D simulated numerically, the PFA does not reproduce the numerical results. This differs from the case of linear field theories such as Newtonian gravity and a Yukawa model where the PFA coincides with the exact results. We show that, for chameleon theories, the screening factor approximation, whereby the sphere is modeled as a screened sphere embedded in the external field due to the plates, fares better and can be used in the regime D greater than or similar to R to extract constraints and forecasts from existing and forthcoming data. In particular, we forecast that future Casimir experiments would corroborate the closing of the parameter space for the simplest of chameleon models at the dark energy scale.

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