4.7 Article

Beyond the growth rate of cosmic structure: Testing modified gravity models with an extra degree of freedom

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 96, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.043509

关键词

-

资金

  1. Royal Society University
  2. Australian Research Council [FT130101086]
  3. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I000976/1, ST/L000652/1]
  4. Leverhulme Trust
  5. ICG
  6. SEPNet
  7. University of Portsmouth
  8. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I000976/1, ST/L000652/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Australian Research Council [FT130101086] Funding Source: Australian Research Council
  10. STFC [ST/L000393/1, ST/I000976/1, ST/L000652/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In modified gravity the observed acceleration of the universe is explained by changing the gravitational force law or the number of degrees of freedom in the gravitational sector. Both possibilities can be tested by measurements of cosmological structure formation. In this paper we elaborate the details of such tests using the Galileon model as a case study. We pay attention to the possibility that each new degree of freedom may have stochastically independent initial conditions, generating different types of potential well in the early universe and breaking complete correlation between density and velocity power spectra. This stochastic bias can confuse schemes to parametrize the predictions of modified gravity models, such as the use of the growth parameter f alone. Using data from the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey we show that it will be possible to obtain constraints using information about the cosmological-scale force law embedded in the multipole power spectra of redshift-space distortions. As an example, we obtain an upper limit on the strength of the conformal coupling to matter in the cubic Galileon model, giving vertical bar 1/M vertical bar less than or similar to 200/M-P. This allows the fifth-force to be stronger than gravity, but is consistent with zero coupling.

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