4.7 Article

Using voids to unscreen modified gravity

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx3288

关键词

methods: numerical; dark energy; large-scale structure of Universe

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway (Programme for Space Research)
  2. European Research Council [646702]
  3. UK STFC grant [ST/N000668/1, ST/L00075X/1]
  4. 1000 Young Talents programme in China
  5. Strategic Priority Research Program 'The Emergence of Cosmological Structures' of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB09000000]
  6. ERC Advanced Investigator grant COSMIWAY [GA 267291]
  7. ICG
  8. SEPNet
  9. University of Portsmouth
  10. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/P000541/1, ST/L00075X/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. STFC [ST/P000541/1, ST/N000668/1, ST/J005428/1, ST/L00075X/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Vainshtein mechanism, present in many models of gravity, is very effective at screening dark matter haloes such that the fifth force is negligible and general relativity is recovered within their Vainshtein radii. Vainshtein screening is independent of halo mass and environment, in contrast to e.g. chameleon screening, making it difficult to test. However, our previous studies have found that the dark matter particles in filaments, walls, and voids are not screened by the Vainshtein mechanism. We therefore investigate whether cosmic voids, identified as local density minima using a watershed technique, can be used to test models of gravity that exhibit Vainshtein screening. We measure density, velocity, and screening profiles of stacked voids in cosmological N-body simulations using both dark matter particles and dark matter haloes as tracers of the density field. We find that the voids are completely unscreened, and the tangential velocity and velocity dispersion profiles of stacked voids show a clear deviation from A cold dark matter at all radii. Voids have the potential to provide a powerful test of gravity on cosmological scales.

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