4.4 Article

Chameleon field theories

期刊

CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM GRAVITY
卷 30, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0264-9381/30/21/214004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF CAREER [PHY-1145525]
  2. NASA ATP [NNX11AI95G]
  3. Alfred P Sloan Foundation
  4. Division Of Physics
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1145525] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chameleons are light scalar fields with remarkable properties. Through the interplay of self-interactions and coupling to matter, chameleon particles have a mass that depends on the ambient matter density. The manifestation of the fifth force mediated by chameleons therefore depends sensitively on their environment, which makes for a rich phenomenology. In this paper, we review two recent results on chameleon phenomenology. The first result a pair of no-go theorems limiting the cosmological impact of chameleons and their generalizations: (i) the range of the chameleon force at cosmological density today can be at most similar to Mpc; (ii) the conformal factor relating Einstein-and Jordan-frame scale factors is essentially constant over the last Hubble time. These theorems imply that chameleons have negligible effect on the linear growth of structure, and cannot account for the observed cosmic acceleration except as some form of dark energy. The second result pertains to the quantum stability of chameleon theories. We show how requiring that quantum corrections be small, so as to allow reliable predictions of fifth forces, leads to an upper bound of m < 0.0073(rho/10 g cm(-3)) 1/3 eV for gravitational strength coupling, whereas fifth force experiments place a lower bound of m > 0.0042 eV. An improvement of less than a factor of 2 in the range of fifth force experiments could test all classical chameleon field theories whose quantum corrections are well-controlled and couple to matter with nearly gravitational strength regardless of the specific form of the chameleon potential.

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

4.4
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