1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,epsfig,widetext]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
6:
7: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
8: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
9: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
10: \usepackage{epsfig}
11:
12: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
13: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
14: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt
15: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
16:
17: \def\btt#1{{\tt$\backslash$#1}}
18: \input epsf
19: \def\plotlittle#1{\centering \leavevmode
20: \epsfxsize= 0.8\columnwidth \epsfbox{#1}}
21: \def\plotone#1{\centering \leavevmode
22: \epsfxsize= 1.0\columnwidth \epsfbox{#1}}
23: \def\plottwo#1{\centering \leavevmode
24: \epsfxsize= 1.0\columnwidth \epsfbox{#1}}
25: \def\plotfiddle#1#2#3#4#5#6#7{\centering \leavevmode
26: \vbox to#2{\rule{0pt}{#2}}
27: \special{psfile=#1 voffset=#7 hoffset=#6 vscale=#5 hscale=#4 angle=#3}}
28: \def\plotrotate#1{\centering
29: %\leavevmode
30: %\epsfxsize= 1.7\columnwidth
31: \epsfbox{#1 angle=-90}}
32:
33: \newenvironment{tablehere}{\def\@captype{table}}{}
34: \newcommand{\tableskip}{\\[-6pt]}
35: %set of the definitions
36: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
37: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
38: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}
39: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}
40: \def\half{\frac{1}{2}}
41: \def\nn{\nonumber}
42:
43: \newcommand{\LCDM}{$ \Lambda $CDM}
44:
45: \newcommand{\mnras}{Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.}
46: %\nofiles
47:
48: \begin{document}
49:
50: \preprint{}
51:
52: \title{Detectability of a phantom-like braneworld model\\ with the integrated
53: Sachs-Wolfe effect}
54:
55: \author{Tommaso Giannantonio \footnote{Tommaso.Giannantonio@port.ac.uk},
56: Yong-Seon Song \footnote{Yong-seon.Song@port.ac.uk} and Kazuya Koyama \footnote{Kazuya.Koyama@port.ac.uk}}
57: \affiliation{Institute of Cosmology \& Gravitation,
58: University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO1 2EG, UK }
59:
60: \date{\today}
61:
62: \begin{abstract}
63: We study a braneworld model in which a phantom-like behaviour
64: occurs with only cold dark matter and a cosmological constant,
65: due to a large distance modification of gravity. With the addition
66: of curvature, the geometrical tests are not strict enough to rule out
67: models in which gravity is modified significantly on large scales.
68: We show that this degeneracy in the parameter space
69: is broken by the structure formation tests, such as the integrated
70: Sachs-Wolfe effect, which can probe general
71: relativity on large scales.
72: \end{abstract}
73:
74: \pacs{04.50.Kd, 95.36.+x, 98.80.Es}
75:
76: %\keywords{CMB-inflation}
77:
78: \maketitle
79:
80: \section{introduction}
81: The late time acceleration of the Universe is one of the
82: biggest problems in cosmology. In the framework of conventional
83: general relativity, the expansion of the Universe at late times is dominated
84: by a \emph{dark energy} with negative pressure and equation of state $w \equiv p / \rho < -1/3$.
85: Several current observations suggest $w<-1$, which is often called
86: \emph{phantom} dark energy, although the fiducial LCDM model with $ w = -1 $ is still preferred
87: if we combine all the data sets \cite{Percival:2007yw,Giannantonio:2008zi}.
88: From a theoretical point of view, it is extremely difficult to realise dark energy
89: models with $w<-1$:
90: the easiest way to obtain such a model is to consider a ghost scalar field
91: with the wrong sign for the kinetic term, although this leads to the instability
92: of the vacuum \cite{Caldwell:1999ew}. There are a few successful models
93: that lead to $w<-1$ without having theoretical pathologies \cite{Csaki:2005vq,
94: Libanov:2007mq};
95: among them, we focus on a braneworld model proposed by Sahni and Shtanov
96: \cite{Sahni:2002dx}
97: and further developed by Lue and Starkman \cite{Lue:2004za}.
98:
99: This model is based on the Dvali--Gabadadze--Porrati (DGP)
100: model of the 5D braneworld where we are supposed to live on
101: a 4D brane in the 5D Minkowski spacetime \cite{Dvali:2000hr}.
102: The 4D gravity on the brane is recovered by the induced 4D Einstein--Hilbert
103: action on the brane. In this model there are two branches of the solutions
104: \cite{Deffayet:2000uy}:
105: in the first branch, known as \emph{self-accelerating}, the
106: late time acceleration can be realised without introducing any
107: dark energy, while in the other, known as the \emph{normal}
108: branch, a cosmological constant is needed to explain
109: the late time accelerated expansion of the Universe; nevertheless,
110: the extra-dimensional effects modify gravity on large scales
111: and the model deviates from the standard LCDM.
112: In particular, at the background level, the Universe behaves as if
113: there were a phantom-like dark energy $w<-1$.
114:
115: Besides the fact that this model mimics a phantom behaviour,
116: it is known to be free of ghosts and thus represents a
117: healthy modified gravity theory. This is in contrast with
118: the self-accelerating branch of the DGP model (hereafter sDGP)
119: where there exists
120: a ghost at the linearised level (for a review see \cite{Koyama:2007za}).
121: Another advantage of the model
122: is that there is a mechanism to recover general relativity
123: on small scales. Thus with this model we can modify gravity
124: on large scales significantly without spoiling the success of
125: general relativity on the solar system scales, providing the
126: basis for the test of the large distance modification of general relativity.
127:
128: In this paper, we study the phenomenological consequences of the
129: normal branch DGP model (hereafter nDGP).
130: We first present in Section II the geometrical
131: tests on nDGP, looking for a parameter space % which provides the nDGP models
132: which can be tested from structure formation, which is summarised in Section III.
133: %, structure formation in nDGP model is summarised,
134: Then we present the ISW-galaxy correlations as a powerful tool to distinguish
135: between LCDM and nDGP models in Section IV.
136: Section V is devoted to the conclusion.
137:
138: \section{Geometrical tests}
139: The cosmic expansion of the nDGP model depends on the usual 4D FRW metric plus
140: the gravitational effect of the 5D bulk on the brane.
141: The cosmic acceleration is then introduced by the brane tension, which works
142: as a cosmological constant on the brane.
143: The gravity at large scales is modified by the 5D gravity effects on the brane,
144: which are parameterised by a transition scale from 4D gravity to 5D gravity.
145: The crossover distance $r_c$ is defined as the ratio between 4D and 5D Planck
146: mass scales
147: \ba
148: r_c=\frac{M_{4}^{2}}{2M_{5}^{3}}\,,
149: \ea
150: where $M_4$ and $M_5$ are the Planck scales in the 4D and 5D spacetime
151: respectively. The late time expansion history is determined by two
152: free parameters, the cosmological constant (or brane tension) $\Lambda$ and the crossover
153: distance $r_c$.
154:
155: The Friedmann equation for an nDGP model with curvature $ K = - \Omega_k H_0^2 $ is given by
156: \ba\label{eq:FRW}
157: H^2-\frac{\Omega_k H_0^2}{a^2}+\frac{1}{r_c}
158: \sqrt{H^2 -\frac{\Omega_k H_0^2}{a^2}}
159: =\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho_m+\frac{\Lambda}{3}\,,
160: \ea
161: and the dimensionless expansion history $E(a)$ is defined by
162: \ba
163: E^2(a)\equiv\frac{H^2(a)}{H_0^2}=\frac{\Omega_k}{a^2}+
164: \left[ \sqrt{\frac{\Omega_m}{a^3}+\Omega_{\Lambda}+\Omega_{r_c}}
165: -\sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}}\right]^2\,,
166: \ea
167: where $\Omega_{\Lambda}=\Lambda/3H_0^2$ and $\Omega_{r_c}=(4H_0^2r_c^2)^{-1}$,
168: which satisfies
169: \ba
170: \sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}}=\frac{\Omega_m+\Omega_{\Lambda}+\Omega_k-1}
171: {2\sqrt{1-\Omega_k}}\,.
172: \ea
173: The free parameter $r_c$ can range in theory from $0$ to the infinity;
174: however, it has been shown that the deviations from general
175: relativity on solar system scales are also controlled by $r_c$,
176: and the current constraints require that $r_c > H_0^{-1}$.
177: We can see that if $r_c$ approaches the infinity, then Eq.~(\ref{eq:FRW}) converges
178: to GR, while if $r_c$ approaches $H_0^{-1}$, then the 5D gravitational effect on
179: the expansion history becomes maximal.
180:
181: The modification of gravity at late time screens the
182: cosmological constant and makes the effective equation
183: of state less than $-1$. We define the effective
184: energy density of dark energy $\rho_{\rm eff}$ as \cite{Lazkoz:2006gp}
185: \ba
186: H^2-\frac{\Omega_k H_0^2}{a^2}&=&
187: \frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho_m+\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho_{\rm eff} \nn\\
188: \rho_{\rm eff}&=&\frac{1}{8\pi G}\left(\Lambda-\frac{3}{r_c}
189: \sqrt{H^2-\frac{\Omega_k H_0^2}{a^2}} \right)\,.
190: \ea
191: It is clearly seen that the 5D effects make the effective
192: dark energy density $\rho_{\rm eff}$ smaller.
193: From the continuity equation of $\rho_{\rm eff}$
194: \ba
195: \dot\rho_{\rm eff}+3H(1+w_{\rm eff})\rho_{\rm eff}=0\,,
196: \ea
197: we can derive $w_{\rm eff}$ as
198: \ba\label{eq:weff}
199: w_{\rm eff}&=&-1
200: -\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}} \Omega_m a^{-3}}
201: { \Omega_{\Lambda} - 2 \sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}}(E^2-\Omega_k/a^2)^{1/2}}\nonumber\\
202: && \times \frac{1}{
203: (E^2-\Omega_k/a^2)^{1/2} + \sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}}}
204: \,.
205: \ea
206: At the current time, the effective equation of state becomes
207: \be
208: w_{\rm eff}(a=1)=-1 - \frac{(\Omega_m+\Omega_{\Lambda}-1)\Omega_m}
209: {(1-\Omega_m)(\Omega_m +\Omega_{\Lambda}+1)},
210: \ee
211: where we neglected the curvature for simplicity. Provided that
212: $\Omega_m <1$, we have the phantom behaviour $w_{\rm eff}<-1$.
213:
214: \begin{figure}[htbp]
215: \begin{center}
216: \epsfysize=3.0truein
217: \epsfxsize=3.0truein
218: \epsffile{fig1.eps}
219: \caption{\footnotesize Geometrical test on the nDGP by using
220: SN$+$CMB$+$$H_0$ observations. There is correlation observed
221: in the projected $\Omega_k$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ plane
222: after marginalisation of all other cosmological parameters.
223: }
224: \label{fig:contour}
225: \end{center}
226: \end{figure}
227:
228: We revisit the geometrical test on the nDGP \cite{Lazkoz:2006gp, Lazkoz:2007zk}.
229: The geometrical test on the nDGP with a flat curvature prior
230: is not in favour of the cases for the significant screening effect,
231: which rules out observable modified gravity effects in the nDGP.
232: However we find that measurable screening effects are
233: allowed with the inclusion of curvature. We exploit the leverage arm in the
234: geometrical tests at both ends of low and high redshifts.
235: At low redshifts, we use the Gold SN data set \cite{riess04}.
236: At high redshifts, we fix the distance to the last scattering surface at
237: $z_{\mathrm{lss}}=1088^{+1}_{-2}$ by fitting the harmonic space scale of the
238: acoustic peak $l^{A}=302^{+0.9}_{-1.4}$ and matter density
239: $\Omega_mh^2=0.1268^{+0.0072}_{-0.0095}$ \cite{spergel03}.
240: In addition to that, we constrain the expansion constant $H_0$
241: with the Hubble constant measurement,
242: $H_0=72^{+8}_{-8}$ \cite{Freedman:2000cf}.
243:
244: With a fixed CMB prior of $\Omega_mh^2$, best fit values for $w$ and $H_0$
245: are correlated with each other.
246: The theoretical models predicting $w<-1$ have a smaller best fit value
247: for $H_0$ compared with LCDM ($w=-1$).
248: Since the measured comoving distance to $z_{\mathrm{lss}}$ is consistent with
249: a best fit value for $H_0$ in flat LCDM,
250: the comoving distance to $z_{\mathrm{lss}}$ in phantom-like braneworld models
251: becomes longer than the measured distance.
252: This worse fit for the large distance measured by CMB in the models with $w<-1$
253: can be cured by introducing a positive curvature
254: which makes the distance shorter without significantly affecting
255: the fit for the shorter distance measured by SNe.
256: Consequently, a larger $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, which realises larger
257: screening effects and $w<-1$, is allowed with a positive
258: curvature ($\Omega_k <0$) as is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:contour}.
259: Hence if the curvature is added, there appears a degeneracy in the
260: geometrical tests and the models with large modified gravity effects
261: are allowed. This degeneracy can be broken by the structure formation
262: test.
263:
264: \section{Structure formation tests}
265: There are three regimes of gravity in the nDGP model on different scales.
266: On super-horizon scales, gravity is significantly influenced by
267: 5D effects. In this regime, we cannot ignore the time
268: evolution of metric perturbations and the dynamical
269: solutions should be obtained by solving the 5D equations
270: of motion. The dynamical solutions have been obtained
271: in the following two methods in the literature: a first derivation is
272: obtained by the scaling ansatz in the sDGP \cite{Sawicki:2006jj}
273: and in the nDGP \cite{Song:2007wd},
274: and the other is found from the full 5D numerical simulations
275: \cite{Cardoso:2007xc}. It has been shown
276: that both approaches give identical results, and the solutions
277: for the perturbations are shown to be insensitive to
278: the initial conditions for the 5D metric perturbations.
279:
280: On sub-horizon scales, we can ignore the time dependence
281: of the metric perturbations and the quasi-static
282: approximations can be used \cite{Lue:2002sw, Koyama:2005kd}. Even on scales smaller
283: than $r_c$, gravity is not described by general
284: relativity due to an extra scalar degree of freedom
285: introduced by the modification of gravity.
286: In this regime, gravity can be described by
287: a Brans-Dicke theory and the growth of structure
288: becomes scale independent.
289:
290: We use the Newtonian gauge
291: \begin{equation}
292: ds^2 =-(1+2\Psi) \, dt^2 + a(t)^2(1+2 \Phi) \, \delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j,
293: \end{equation}
294: to describe the metric perturbations.
295: Fig.~\ref{fig:GI} shows the behaviour of metric perturbations
296: $\Phi_- \equiv (\Phi-\Psi)/2$ which determines the integrated
297: Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect both for the dynamical
298: solutions and scaling solutions, for the models of Table~\ref{tab:models}.
299: In the literature, the spatial
300: curvature was not introduced in the calculations, and thus
301: we derive the quasi-static solutions with curvature in Appendix A.
302:
303: \begin{figure}[htbp]
304: \begin{center}
305: \epsfysize=3.0truein
306: \epsfxsize=3.0truein
307: \epsffile{fig2.eps}
308: \caption{\footnotesize We plot the solutions of structure formation
309: of three nDGP models in the $1-\sigma$ contour of Fig.~\ref{fig:contour}, compared with the LCDM (dotted line).
310: Solid curves represent the quasi-static solutions of nDGP models
311: with different $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, and the dashed curve attached
312: to each solid curve represents the dynamic solution of each nDGP model
313: at $k=10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
314: }
315: \label{fig:GI}
316: \end{center}
317: \end{figure}
318:
319:
320: \begin{table}[htb]
321: \begin{center}
322: \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c |}
323: \hline
324: & LCDM & nDGP 1 & nDGP 2 & nDGP 3 \\
325: \hline
326: $ \Omega_m $ & 0.30 & 0.32 & 0.34 & 0.37 \\
327: $ \Omega_b $ & 0.052 & 0.056 & 0.060 & 0.064 \\
328: $ \Omega_k $ & -0.014 & -0.027 & -0.040 & -0.053 \\
329: $ \Omega_{\Lambda} $ & 0.72 & 0.90 & 1.1 & 1.3 \\
330: $ H_0 $ & 66 & 63 & 61 & 59 \\
331: \hline
332: \end{tabular}
333: \caption{Details of the cosmological models used. The other parameters are for all models: scalar spectral index $ n_s = 0.95 $, optical depth $ \tau = 0.10 $, and amplitude of the primordial scalar perturbations $ A = 2.04 \cdot 10^{-9}$ at a pivot scale $ k = 0.05 $ Mpc$^{-1}$.}
334: \label{tab:models}
335: \end{center}
336: \end{table}
337:
338: Finally, once the non-linearity of density perturbations becomes
339: important, the theory approaches general relativity
340: \cite{Lue:2002sw, Koyama:2007ih}.
341: This transition to general relativity is crucial to satisfy the
342: tight constraints from the solar system experiments \cite{Deffayet:2001uk,
343: Dvali:2002vf}, and
344: will play
345: a crucial role for weak lensing measures. On the
346: other hand, for the ISW effect, we can safely ignore the
347: non-linear physics.
348:
349: The dynamical solutions are relevant to the scales of the large scales
350: CMB anisotropies. We have checked that the difference in the large
351: scales CMB anisotropies from LCDM are small given the constraints
352: from the geometrical tests because, due to the large cosmic variance, we do not
353: expect that the CMB anisotropies on these scales can give strong constraints
354: on the models. The quasi-static solutions are relevant to the scales of
355: ISW-galaxy cross-correlations. In the next section, we will study how
356: they can be used to break the degeneracy that arises from the geometrical
357: tests.
358:
359: \section{ISW-galaxy correlations}
360: The gravitational potential well $\Phi_{-}$ is shallower in the nDGP model
361: than in the LCDM model due to the modification of gravity. This
362: is the opposite from what happens in
363: the self-accelerating models \cite{Song:2006jk} where
364: the gravitational potential well is deeper than in LCDM.
365: The nDGP model predicts an earlier variation of the gravitational
366: potential than the LCDM model.
367: By cross-correlating galaxies at different redshifts with the CMB,
368: one can in principle trace the redshift history of the decay of the
369: potential. Furthermore, the cross-correlation arises from the well understood
370: quasi-static (QS) regime of nDGP (solid curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:GI}).
371:
372:
373: \begin{figure*}[htb]
374: \begin{center}
375: % \epsfysize=3.0truein
376: % \epsfxsize=3.0truein
377: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=.9\linewidth]{fig3.eps}
378: % \epsffile{CCF-Tg.eps}
379: \caption{\footnotesize
380: Measurement of the cross-correlation functions between six different galaxy data sets and the CMB,
381: reproduced from \cite {Giannantonio:2008zi}. The curves show the theoretical predictions for the
382: ISW-galaxy correlations at each redshift for the LCDM model (black, dashed) and the three nDGP
383: models of Fig.~\ref{fig:GI} (green, solid), which describe the $1-\sigma $ region of the geometry test from Fig.~\ref{fig:contour}.
384: }
385: \label{fig:constraints}
386: \end{center}
387: \end{figure*}
388:
389: The cross-power spectrum of the CMB and a set of galaxies $g_{i}$ is given by \cite {Pogosian:2004wa,Corasaniti:2005pq}
390: \ba
391: C^{{\rm I}g_{i}}_{\sc l}=4\pi \int \frac{{\rm d}k}{k}
392: I^{\rm I}_{\sc l}(k)I^{g_{i}}_{\sc l}(k){k^3P_{\Phi_-\Phi_-}(k,0)\over 2\pi^2},
393: \ea
394: where $P_{\Phi_-\Phi_-}(k,0)$ is the power spectrum of
395: $\Phi_{-}$ at the present time and
396: the kernel $I^{\rm I}_{\sc l}$ is
397: \ba
398: I^{\rm I}_{\sc l}(k)=\int {\rm d}z W^{\rm I}(k,z)
399: j_{\sc l}(kD) \left( {d D \over d r} \right)^{1/2}\,.
400: \ea
401: The window function is given by
402: \ba
403: W^{\rm I}(k,z)&=&
404: -\frac{2}{1+z}
405: \frac{\partial}{\partial \ln a}\left[\frac{\Phi_-(k,z)}{\Phi_-(k,0)}\right]\,,
406: \ea
407: where
408: the galaxy kernel $I^{g_{i}}$ is
409: \ba
410: I^{g_{i}}_{\sc l}(k)=\int {\rm d}z W^{g_{i}}(k,z)
411: j_{\sc l}(kD) \left( {d D \over d r} \right)^{1/2}.
412: \ea
413: Under the QS approximation, the window function becomes
414: \ba
415: W^{g_{i}}(k,z)&=&\frac{2}{3\Omega_{m}}
416: \frac{k^2}{H_0^2}
417: \frac{n_{i}(z)b_{i}(z)}{1+z}\frac{\Phi_-(k,z)}{\Phi_-(k,0)}\,,
418: \ea
419: where $n_{i}(z)$ is the redshift distribution
420: of the galaxies normalised to $\int dz n_{i} = 1$
421: and $b_{i}(z)$ is the galaxy bias.
422:
423:
424: \begin{figure*}[t]
425: \begin{center}
426: % \epsfysize=3.0truein
427: % \epsfxsize=3.0truein
428: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=.8\linewidth]{fig4.eps}
429: % \epsffile{CCF-Tg.eps}
430: \caption{\footnotesize
431: The theoretical predictions for the
432: ISW-galaxy cross power spectra at each redshift for the LCDM model (black, dashed) and the three nDGP
433: models of Fig.~\ref{fig:GI} (green, solid), which describe the $1-\sigma $ region of the geometry test from Fig.~\ref{fig:contour}.
434: }
435: \label{fig:constraintsfut}
436: \end{center}
437: \end{figure*}
438:
439:
440: First, we investigate the current status of the observations
441: using the data set obtained in \cite {Giannantonio:2008zi}, which consists in the measurement of the ISW effect via the real space cross-correlation functions (CCF) between six different galaxy catalogues and the CMB. The redshift distributions of the different
442: catalogues are partly overlapping, but each data set $i$ is characterised by a median
443: redshift $ 0.1 \le \bar z_i \le 1.5$ around which each particular measured CCF is
444: getting the biggest contribution. Thus, this analysis represents a first step
445: towards an exploration of the redshift evolution of the potentials and, ultimately,
446: of gravity itself as described by \cite{Hu:2004yd}.
447:
448: We reproduce in Fig.~\ref{fig:constraints} the measured CCF for the six galaxy
449: catalogues from \cite {Giannantonio:2008zi}, in order of increasing redshift: 2MASS (excluding the small scale contaminated data), the main galaxy sample from the SDSS,
450: the SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, NVSS, HEAO and the SDSS quasars, with the relative
451: error bars which should be remembered are highly correlated. Looking at the
452: theoretical curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:constraints}, we can see that
453: the nDGP models have a very different prediction from the LCDM for the CCF at high
454: redshift. This is in agreement with their peculiar potential evolution: the rise
455: in the potential $ \Phi_-$ at high redshift produces an expected negative CCF, while
456: the following steeper decay leads to a positive CCF which becomes eventually higher
457: than the LCDM one.
458:
459: However, it is clear that these predictions represent a poor fit to the high redshift data. Remembering that all three nDGP models in Fig.~\ref{fig:constraints} are inside the $1\sigma$ region from the geometry test of Section II, we can qualitatively see that the ISW test will produce stricter constraints by noticing e.g. that the quasar CCF alone has a significance level of $ 2\sigma $, which means that at least two of the nDGP models will be excluded at above this level.
460:
461: Then, we study the best possible constraints which can be obtained by this technique
462: with future surveys. For definiteness, we assume that the galaxy sets come from a net
463: galaxy distributions of
464: \ba
465: n_g(z)\propto z^2 e^{-(z/1.5)^2}\,,
466: \ea
467: where the normalisation is given by the LSST expectation
468: of 35 galaxies per $\rm arcmin^2$.
469: For the subsets of galaxies, we assume that this total distribution is
470: separated by photometric redshifts which have a Gaussian error
471: distribution with rms
472: $\sigma(z)=0.03(1+z)$.
473: The redshift distributions are then given by \cite{Hu:2004yd}
474: \ba
475: n_i(z)={A_{i}\over 2}n_g(z)
476: \left[ {\rm erfc}\left(\frac{z_{i-1}-z}{\sqrt{2}\sigma(z)}\right)
477: -{\rm erfc}\left(\frac{z_{i}-z}{\sqrt{2}\sigma(z)}\right)\right]\,,\nn
478: \ea
479: where erfc is the complementary error function and $A_{i}$ is determined
480: by the normalisation constraint.
481:
482:
483: We show in Fig.~\ref{fig:constraintsfut} the predicted cross power spectra obtained using this redshift tomography for the models of Table~\ref{tab:models}. The theoretical possibility to distinguish between them is given by the signal to noise ratio
484: \be
485: \left( \frac{S}{N} \right)^2 = \sum_l {\rm f_{sky}}(2l+1) \frac { [C^{Ig}_l]^2} {C_l^{gg} C_l^{TT} + [C_l^{Ig}]^2},
486: \ee
487: where $C_l^{TT}$ is the temperature power spectrum. This is summarised in Table~\ref{tab:SN}.
488:
489: \begin{table}[htb]
490: \begin{center}
491: \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c | c |}
492: \hline
493: $ \bar z $ & LCDM & nDGP 1 & nDGP 2 & nDGP 3 \\
494: \hline
495: 0.2 & 2.8 & 2.9 & 2.6 & 2.2 \\
496: 0.6 & 4.0 & 3.5 & 2.5 & 1.3 \\
497: 1.0 & 3.4 & 2.2 & 0.68 & 1.1 \\
498: 1.4 & 2.5 & 1.2 & 0.69 & 2.6 \\
499: 1.8 & 1.9 & 0.52 & 1.3 & 3.2 \\
500: 2.2 & 1.5 & 0.16 & 1.6 & 3.3 \\
501: 2.6 & 2.4 & 0.18 & 1.6 & 3.1 \\
502: 3.0 & 0.96 & 0.22 & 1.5 & 2.9 \\
503: \hline
504: \end{tabular}
505: \caption{Theoretical signal to noise ratio for the models of Table~\ref{tab:models} with ${\rm f_{sky}}=1$.}
506: \label{tab:SN}
507: \end{center}
508: \end{table}
509:
510: Although the geometrical test is not able to easily break the degeneracy
511: between curvature and the screening effect,
512: the alternative consequence for the structure formation by the screening effect
513: is measurable from the ISW-galaxy cross-correlations.
514: The screening of the cosmological constant in nDGP2 and nDGP3
515: becomes effective before the decay of the growth factor
516: which occurs when the matter component becomes subdominant. This early screening
517: enhances the growth factor which makes the potential $\Phi_-$ grow.
518: This generates anti-correlations in the ISW-galaxy cross-correlations
519: at high redshifts, which leaves observable signatures as is
520: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:constraintsfut}.
521: From Table~\ref{tab:SN}, it is expected that this effect on the
522: structure formation can be observed at around 50$\%$ noise level for nDGP2 and
523: 25$\%$ noise level for nDGP3.
524: This is an illustration how we can break the degeneracy between
525: curvature and the screening effect in the geometrical tests
526: by using the structure formation tests.
527:
528: \section{Conclusion}
529: In this paper, we studied the observational constraints on the normal branch
530: DGP model in which a phantom-like behaviour occurs only with
531: cold dark matter and a cosmological constant.
532: The geometrical tests using the gold SN data set, CMB and the HST
533: key project are not enough to rule out models in which gravity
534: is significantly modified on cosmological scales. We then
535: showed that the structure formation tests performed using the integrated
536: Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect can break the degeneracy in the parameter
537: space.
538:
539: The current measurements of the ISW effect obtained in \cite {Giannantonio:2008zi}
540: are indeed as competitive as the geometrical tests. This is due to
541: the fact that, in the nDGP model, the cross-correlation with galaxies becomes negative
542: at high redshift due to the peculiar behaviour of the metric
543: perturbations caused by the modification of gravity. This demonstrates
544: that the structure formation tests are very promising tools to distinguish
545: between general relativity and modified gravity models. We also showed that
546: it is possible to track the evolution of the potentials by cross-correlating
547: the ISW with galaxies at each redshift in future observations.
548: It is very likely that in the future the ISW effect will provide one of the
549: strongest constraints on the model. We will present the full likelihood
550: analysis using the latest data sets in a forthcoming paper.
551:
552: \section*{Acknowledgements}
553: We would like to thank Robert Crittenden, Roy Maartens and Elisabetta Majerotto for useful discussion. YS and KK are supported by STFC.
554:
555: \appendix
556: \section{Quasi-static solutions with curvature}
557: In the Gaussian normal coordinates, the 5D metric is
558: given by \cite{Deffayet:2001uk}
559: \begin{equation}
560: ds^2 = dy^2 -n(y,t)^2 dt^2 + a(y,t)^2 \delta_{ij}dx^i dx^j,
561: \end{equation}
562: where
563: \begin{eqnarray}
564: a(y,t) &=& a(t) \left[1 - \left(H^2 -\frac{\Omega_k}{a_0^2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} y
565: \right], \\
566: n(y,t) &=&1 - (\dot{H}+H^2) \left(H^2 -\frac{\Omega_k}{a_0^2} \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} y.
567: \end{eqnarray}
568: The extrinsic curvature of the brane is determined by the
569: first derivative of the metric with respect to $y$ at the brane ($y=0$):
570: \begin{eqnarray}
571: \frac{a'}{a} & = & - \left(H^2 - \frac{\Omega_k}{a^2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}, \quad \\
572: \frac{n'}{n} & = & -\left(\dot{H} +H^2 \right) \left(H^2 - \frac{\Omega_k}{a^2} \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}.
573: \end{eqnarray}
574:
575: Defining the comoving density perturbations
576: \begin{equation}
577: \rho \bigtriangleup = \delta \rho -3 Ha \delta q,
578: \end{equation}
579: the Poisson equation is obtained as
580: \begin{equation}
581: \frac{k^2}{a^2}\Phi = \frac{\kappa_4^2}{2} \left[
582: \frac{2 (a'/a)r_c}{2 (a'/a) r_c-1} \right] \left[ \rho \bigtriangleup -
583: \frac{\delta \rho_E-3 H a \delta q_E}{2 (a'/a) r_c} \right].
584: \label{poisson}
585: \end{equation}
586: The traceless part of the space-space component
587: of the effective Einstein equations gives
588: \ba
589: -\frac{1}{a^2} && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\left\{
590: 1 - \frac{1}{r_c \left[(a'/a)+(n'/n)\right]} \right\}
591: (\Phi+\Psi) \nonumber\\
592: &=& -
593: \frac{\kappa_4^2 \delta \pi_{E}}{r_c \left[(a'/a)+(n'/n)\right]}.
594: \label{anisotropy}
595: \ea
596: The Weyl density perturbations $\delta \rho_E$, $\delta q_E$ and
597: $\delta \pi_E$ should be determined by the constraint equations
598: \ba
599: \dot{\delta \rho}_E &+& 4 H \delta \rho_E - a^{-1} k^2 \delta q_E =0, \\
600: \dot{\delta q}_{E} &+& 4 H \delta q_E + a^{-1}
601: \left(\frac{1}{3} \delta \rho_E - \frac{2}{3} k^2 \delta \pi_E \right)\nonumber\\
602: &=&-a^{-1} \frac{2}{3} r_c \left(\frac{n'}{n}-\frac{a'}{a} \right)
603: \left\{
604: -\frac{\rho \bigtriangleup}{2 (a'/a) r_c -1} \right. \nonumber\\
605: &+& \left.
606: \frac{\delta \rho_E -3 H a \delta q_E}{2 (a'/a)r_c-1} \right. \nonumber\\
607: &+& \left.\frac{1}{r_c \left[(a'/a)+ (n'/n) \right]-1}
608: k^2 \delta \pi_E \right\}.
609: \label{EulerE}
610: \end{eqnarray}
611:
612: The constraint equations are not closed and we need
613: additional information by solving the 5D equation
614: of motion. In the quasi-static limit, we can impose the
615: condition on $\delta \rho_E$ and $\delta \pi_E$ from the bulk
616: equation as \cite{Koyama:2005kd}
617: \begin{equation}
618: \delta \rho_E = 2 k^2 \delta \pi_E.
619: \end{equation}
620: Then the constraint equations give
621: \begin{equation}
622: \delta \rho_E = 2 \left[
623: \frac{-1+(a'/a)r_c + (n'/n)r_c}{-3 + 4 (a'/a) r_c + 2 (n'/n) r_c} \right]
624: \rho \Delta,
625: \end{equation}
626: and $\delta q_E=0$.
627: The Poisson equation and the traceless part of Einstein equations
628: give
629: \begin{eqnarray}
630: \frac{k^2}{a^2} \Phi &=& \frac{\kappa_4^2}{2}
631: \left[1- \frac{1}{3 \beta(t)} \right] \rho \triangle,
632: \label{solphi}
633: \\
634: \frac{k^2}{a^2} \Psi &=& -\frac{\kappa_4^2}{2}
635: \left[1 + \frac{1}{3 \beta(t)} \right] \rho \triangle,
636: \label{solpsi}
637: \end{eqnarray}
638: where
639: \begin{equation}
640: \beta(t) =1 - \frac{2}{3} \left[2 \left(\frac{a'}{a}\right)+
641: \left(\frac{n'}{n}\right) \right] r_c,
642: \end{equation}
643: which can be written as
644: \begin{equation}
645: \beta(t) = 1 + \; 2 H^2 r_c \left(H^2 - \frac{\Omega_k}{a^2} \right)^{-1/2}
646: \left[1+ \frac{\dot{H}}{3 H^2} - \frac{2}{3} \frac{\Omega_k}{a^2 H^2} \right].
647: \end{equation}
648:
649:
650: \bibliography{ms}
651:
652: \end{document}
653:
654: