Transcript BRANEWORLD COSMOLOGICAL PERTURBATIONS
Modified (dark) gravity
Roy Maartens, Portsmouth 0.75
0.2
or Dark Gravity?
LCDM fits the data well… but we cannot explain it
it’s the simplest but ….
model compatible with all no data so far other model is a better fit theory cannot explain it
obs 8
G
~
H
0 2
M p
2 ~ vacuum energy ( 10 33 eV ) 2 ( 10 28 eV ) 2 ~ 4
M
new physics 4
M
susy ~ ~ ( 10 3 eV) 4 ( 1 TeV) 4 theory obs
why so small? and … why so fine-tuned?
~ 0 but : crucial for structure formation
a
0 while
m
a
3
“minimalist” approach LCDM is the best model
test this against data wait for particle physics/QG to explain focus on * the best tests for w=-1 * the role of theoretical assumptions e.g. w=const, curvature=0
vac ( 10 3 eV ) 4 inflation nonlinear |
K
|~ 10 -big average 10 big |
K
| 1
… but we can do more with the data We can test gravity The problem is so big that we need to test alternatives
alternatives to LCDM Dynamical Dark Energy in General Relativity
“quintessence”,…
effective ‘Dark Energy’ via nonlinear effects of structure formation?
Dark Gravity – Modify GR on large scales
4D: scalar-(vector)-tensor theories [e.g. f(R)]
higher-D: braneworld models [e.g. DGP]
NB – these alternatives require that the vacuum energy does not gravitate:
Dark Energy dynamics
vac 0
G
8
GT
T
dark time 8
GT
dark varying DE field
w
p
DE DE 1 3
Dark Gravity dynamics
G
G
dark 8
GT
G
dark new scalar DOF to modify expansion
Modified (dark) gravity is GR wrong on large scales ?
i.e. acceleration via the weakening of gravity
Example from history: Mercury perihelion – Newton + ‘dark’ planet ?
no – modified gravity!
Today: Modified Friedman equations (schematic)
H
2 ( 1
A
dark ) 8
G
3
K a
2 ( 1
A
dark ) 1 2
H
dark 4
G
(
p
)
K a
2 3
H A
dark (
p
) 0 modificati on to GR
modified Friedman:
H
2 ( 1
A
dark ) 8
G
3
K a
2 ( 1
A
dark ) 1 2
H
dark
Examples: f(R) modified gravity
4
G
(
p
)
K a
2
L
grav
f
(
R
)
A
dark
R
6
H
2
f
f R
1 1
H
2
f RR H
DGP modified gravity (5D braneworld model)
A
dark 1
r c H
modified Friedman:
H
2 ( 1
A
dark ) 8
G
3
K a
2 ( 1
A
dark ) 1 2
H
dark 4
G
(
p
)
K a
2
general feature geometric tests on their own cannot distinguish modified gravity from GR why?
geometric tests are based on the comoving distance
r
(
z
) 0
z dz
'
H
(
z
' )
- the same H(z) gives the same expansion history
we can find a GR model of DE to mimic the H(z) of a modified gravity theory:
GR DE
H
2 dark gravity 8
G
( 3 DE )
H
2 ( 1
A
dark ) 8
G
3 choose DE (
z
) 3
H
2 (
z
) 8
G
then
r GR
(
z
) and
w GR
(
z
)
r DG
(
z
)
w DG
(
z
)
A
dark (
z
)
how to distinguish DG and DE models that both fit observed H(z)?
they predict different rates of growth of structure
structure formation is suppressed by acceleration in different ways in GR and modified gravity: * in GR – because DE dominates over matter * in DG – because gravity weakens
2
H
DE :
G
eff 4
G
eff
G
DG :
G
eff
G
increases
G
eff
G
decreases
(G determined by local physics) δ/a
G
eff
G
eff
G G
eg DGP
G
eff
G G
eff
G
eg
f
(
R
)
G
eff
G
Distinguish DE from DG via growth of structure
DE and DG with the same H(z) rates of growth of structure differ
f
d
d
ln ln
a
bias evolution?
(Y Wang, 0710.3885) f DE + DG models LCDM DG model (modification to GR) DE model (GR) LCDM
f(R) gravity
simplest scalar-tensor gravity:
L
grav, GR
R
L
grav
f
(
R
)
a new light scalar degree of freedom eg.
f
(
R
)
R
4
R
, ~
H
0
at low energy, 1/ R dominates This produces late-time self-acceleration
but the light scalar strongly violates solar system constraints all f(R) models have this problem way out: ‘chameleon’ mechanism, i.e. the scalar becomes massive in the solar system - very contrived
Generalising f(R) gravity
Scalar-tensor gravity (‘extended quintessence’):
L
grav
F
( )
R
( ) 2 2
U
( )
also a new light scalar degree of freedom But now there are 2 free functions: late-time self-acceleration is possible without violating solar system constraints (no chameleon is needed) Interesting - but the models do not improve on standard GR quintessence models Scalar-vector-tensor gravity – even more complicated; no advantage unless it solves the DM and DE problems gravitationally
Dark gravity from braneworlds?
String theory - our 4D universe may be moving in 10D spacetime ST unifies the 4 interactions
new massive graviton modes new effects from higher-D fields and other branes perhaps these could dominate at low energies different possibilities * ‘bulk’ fields as effective DE on the brane our brane (eg ekpyrotic/ cyclic) * matter on a ‘shadow’ brane as effective DE on the ‘visible’ brane * effective 4D gravity on the brane modified on large scales (eg DGP) matter extra dimension gravity + dilaton, form fields… shadow brane
DGP – the simplest example
4D brane universe in 5D bulk Friedman on the brane
H
2
H r c
8
G
3 late time : 0
H
1
r c
early time :
H
r c
1
H
2 8
G
3
early universe late universe – recover GR dynamics – acceleration without DE gravity “leaks” off the brane therefore gravity on the brane weakens passes the solar system test: DGP GR The background is very simple – like LCDM
Expansion history
w
eff (
z
) 1 1
m
(
z
) SNe
m
( 0 ) small and
r c
~
H
0 1
Density perturbations (sub-horizon) (cannot neglect 5D effects!)
2
H
4
G
eff (
t
)
G
eff (
t
)
G
1 (
t
) , 2 3 1
δ/a More suppression of structure than LCDM
… too good to be true 5D analysis of perturbations shows - there is a ghost in the scalar sector of the gravitational field This ghost is from 5D gravity * It is not apparent in the background * It is the source of suppressed growth
G
eff 2
H
4
G
eff (
t
)
G
Brans Dicke with 0
The ghost makes the quantum vacuum unstable Can DGP survive as a classical toy model?
The simplest models fail
f(R) and DGP – simplest in their class – simplest modified gravity models both fail because of their scalar degree of freedom: f(R) strongly violates solar system constraints DGP has a ghost in 5D gravity Either GR is the correct theory on large scales Or Modified gravity is more complicated THEORY: find a ghost-free generalized DGP or find a ‘non-ugly’ ST model ?
PHENOMENOLOGY: model-independent tests of the failure of GR ?
Model-independent tests of GR
There is no natural DE model in GR (but LCDM is preferred by simplicity) There is no natural or preferred modified MG (theory gives no guidance) Aim = without choosing a DE model in GR, and without specifying a modified DG model, try to find constraints on deviations from GR Problem = find tests that do not depend on the DE or the DG model
In parallel: 1. Test for Lambda vs dynamical DE in GR 2. Test for GR vs modified DG
Some complications: * modified gravity has ‘dark’ anisotropic stress
ds
2 ( 1 2 )
dt
2 ( 1 2 )
a
2
d
x
2
examples
DGP : dark
k
2
a
2 ( ) 8 3
G
eff dark
k
2
a
2 ( ) 8
G
eff f(R) : dark
f RR f R
DE (smooth) – only need growth rate for CMB,LSS DG – also need anisotropic stress + G eff * linear-nonlinear transition (nonlinear regime should recover GR) can severely complicate WL tests
Degeneracies * DE with clustering and anisotropic stress can look like MG – (physical?) * astrophysical (eg bias evolution vs growth rate)
Approaches: (1) Growth rate: compare the observed growth rate with the theoretical rate – is it DE or DG?
f we need to know the DE and the DG models
(2) Parameter-splitting: check for a breaking of GR consistency between ‘geometry’ and ‘growth’ eg
w
(geom)
K
0
w
(grow) 1
CMB CMB+Gal CMB+SN CMB+WL All inconsistency could mean a more complicated DE model or data problems (S Wang et al, 0705.0165)
(3) Parametrised post-Friedman approach
Parametrised post-Newtonian formalism has been very successful for testing deviations from GR in the solar system Develop a PPF for modified DG?
Need basic assumptions: * DE is smooth * modified gravity is a metric theory with energy conservation
G
dark 8
GT
G
T
0
G
dark 0
To close the system – 3 functions
,
G
eff , dark
(Hu, Sawicki 0708.1190; Jain, Zhang 0709.2375)
some conclusions
observations imply acceleration theory did not predict it – and cannot explain it simplest model LCDM is the best we have GR with dynamical DE – no natural model modifications to GR – dark gravity: * theory gives no natural model * simple f(R) model fails solar system test * simplest braneworld model DGP has a ghost theorists need to keep exploring * better models * better observational tests (model-independent?)