1: \documentclass[prd,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: \usepackage{epstopdf}
5:
6: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{.85}
7: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{.7}
8: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{.15}
9: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{.66}
10: \renewcommand{\dbltopfraction}{.66}
11: \renewcommand{\dblfloatpagefraction}{.66}
12: \setcounter{topnumber}{9}
13: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{9}
14: \setcounter{totalnumber}{20}
15: \setcounter{dbltopnumber}{9}
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{Gravity with Perturbative Constraints: Dark
19: Energy Without New Degrees of Freedom}
20: \date{\today}
21:
22: \author{Alan Cooney}
23: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Arizona,
24: Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
25:
26: \author{Simon DeDeo}
27: \affiliation{Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics,
28: University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA \\
29: \& \\ Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, University of Tokyo,
30: Kashiwano-ha 5-1-5, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba 277-8582, Japan}
31:
32: \author{Dimitrios Psaltis}
33: \affiliation{Departments of Astronomy and Physics,
34: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: Major observational efforts in the coming decade are designed to probe
38: the equation of state of dark energy. Measuring a deviation of the
39: equation-of-state parameter $w$ from -1 would indicate a dark energy
40: that cannot be represented solely by a cosmological constant. While it
41: is commonly assumed that any implied modification to the $\Lambda$CDM
42: model amounts to the addition of new dynamical fields, we propose here a
43: framework for investigating whether or not such new fields are
44: required when cosmological observations are combined with a set of
45: minimal assumptions about the nature of gravitational physics. In our
46: approach, we treat the additional degrees of freedom as perturbatively
47: constrained and calculate a number of observable quantities, such as
48: the Hubble expansion rate and the cosmic acceleration, for a homogeneous
49: Universe. We show that current observations place our Universe within
50: the perturbative validity of our framework and allow for the presence
51: of non-dynamical gravitational degrees of freedom at cosmological scales.
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \maketitle
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57: \label{intro}
58:
59: Cosmological observations suggest the existence of dark matter. There
60: is, also, by now ample evidence that the Universe at late times is
61: accelerating. Do either of these facts require the introduction of
62: new, dynamical degrees of freedom in the gravitational and matter sectors?
63:
64: In the case of dark matter, the analysis of ``bullet cluster'' objects
65: such as 1E 0657-56~\cite{Clowe:2006p1018} and
66: MACSJ0025.4-1222~\cite{Bradac:2008p1023} comes as conclusive evidence
67: for the existence of new degrees of freedom independent of the visible
68: baryonic matter. While the exact nature of these new degrees of
69: freedom are still under debate, the simplest choice -- a single,
70: non-relativistic, dark matter fluid -- is the center of the
71: cosmological standard model.
72:
73: Even if we choose to account for the galactic rotation curves with a
74: modification to gravity, it is difficult to do it without the addition
75: of extra degrees of freedom. A consequence of the Lovelock-Grigore
76: theorem~\cite{Lovelock:1970p948,Grigore:1992p984} is that most local,
77: classical, and covariant modifications to the gravitational action
78: lead to new fields~\cite{Skordis:2008p872}. Alternatives to dark
79: matter that have these properties -- such as
80: TeVeS~\cite{Bekenstein:2004p1081} and STVG~\cite{Moffat:2006p1065} --
81: themselves have new fields as a consequence of the Lovelock-Grigore
82: theorem.
83:
84: Today, cold dark matter with a cosmological constant ($\Lambda$CDM)
85: satisfies all current observational
86: constraints~\cite{2008arXiv0803.0547K}. However, a number of
87: theoretical issues~\cite{Weinberg:1989p1168} have prompted
88: observational campaigns to search for deviations from the predicted
89: $\Lambda$CDM behavior~\cite{Albrecht:2006p1174}. These observations
90: will measure the equation-of-state parameter $w$ of the dark energy
91: and search for deviations from the value $w=-1$ that corresponds to a
92: cosmological constant. Should their results force us to abandon
93: $\Lambda$CDM, we will face a problem for dark energy similar to that
94: we faced for dark matter: do such observations require new dynamical
95: degrees of freedom? So far, the two major approaches to dark energy
96: modeling that predict values of $w\ne -1$,
97: quintessence~\cite{ArmendarizPicon:2000p1215} and $f(R)$
98: gravity~\cite{Carroll:2004p1253}, incorporate new dynamical degrees of
99: freedom, which can be cast, in both cases, in the form of a single
100: scalar field.
101:
102: A number of attempts have been made for modifying General Relativity
103: in a way that generates cosmologies with $w\ne -1$ but without
104: introducing new dynamical fields. Modified source
105: gravity~\cite{Carroll:2006p871}, based on insights from the Palatini
106: formulation of the Einstein equations~\cite{Flanagan:2004p1310} forces
107: the (Einstein-frame) scalar field to be non-dynamical by erasing the
108: kinetic term. Cuscuton
109: cosmology~\cite{Afshordi:2007p59,Afshordi:2007p54} also modifies the
110: kinetic term; it appears to have new dynamical degrees of freedom but
111: these are frozen out at the perturbative level. Non-local~\cite{Barvinsky:2003p1420,Soussa:2003p1374}
112: or holographic~\cite{Larsen:2002p4709} theories may
113: also avoid the introduction of new degrees of
114: freedom. Albeit
115: ambitious, these attempts can face serious
116: problems~\cite{Iglesias:2007p869}.
117:
118: In the opposite extreme, because of the Lovelock-Grigore theorem, the
119: theoretical pressures on purely phenomenological models that deviate
120: from $\Lambda$CDM but that do not introduce new dynamical degrees of
121: freedom are strong. The fact that observations favoring dark energy
122: are made on relativistic, Hubble scales makes it even harder to avoid
123: the consequence of the Lovelock-Grigore theorem, while remaining
124: internally consistent. Requiring general covariance from the start,
125: for example, prevents one from even phrasing many minimal theories the
126: way MOND did on galactic scales~\cite{Milgrom:1983p1141}. In general,
127: while many theories similar or equivalent to Brans-Dicke~\cite{BD61} may,
128: in the limit of small post-Newtonian corrections, appear only to modify the General Relativistic
129: equations of motion, the new scalars such theories introduce appear as truly independent degrees
130: of freedom in the relativistic regime -- for example, on scales approaching the horizon size.
131:
132: Approaches, however, that tie together two particular sets of observations
133: -- homogeneous expansion and linear structure formation -- in a
134: phenomenological but self-consistent fashion have also been recently
135: explored. For example, the parametrized post-Friedmann
136: framework~\cite{Hu:2007p1209} makes minimal assumptions about the
137: underlying physics, requiring only causality, metric structure, and
138: energy-momentum conservation. The Cardassian
139: model~\cite{2002PhLB..540....1F} introduces a power-law term in the
140: Friedmann equation, which leads to accelerated expansion even in a
141: matter dominated universe. The approach of
142: Ref.~\cite{Skordis:2008p872} is similar in spirit, and explicitly
143: shows how a subset of modifications will introduce new degrees of
144: freedom. Although these approaches are general and simple to use in
145: connection to observational data, they can not, by their very nature,
146: generate predictions for other astrophysical settings -- the solar
147: system, for example, or nearby (non-cosmological) event horizons.
148: As a result, they can not guarantee that dynamical degrees of freedom are
149: not required for consistency in these other situations.
150:
151: We follow here a different approach intermediate to the two outlined
152: above, which we call Gravity with Perturbative Constraints (see also
153: Ref.~\cite{2008PhRvD..78f4013D} for an initial discussion of cosmology
154: with perturbative constraints). In contrast to the fundamental
155: approach, we do not propose a basic theory but rather remain largely
156: neutral on the details of how a particular set of observations are
157: generated. In contrast to the phenomenological approach, our models
158: have a wide range of applicability and one can, for example, ask
159: whether the cosmological predictions that do not add extra degrees of
160: freedom are consistent with observations in the solar system or of
161: compact objects.
162:
163: Our aim is to cover as large a class as possible of modifications to
164: gravity that do not require new degrees of freedom. Within our
165: framework, it is possible in principle to incorporate all such
166: modifications that are covariant, metric (in the sense of obeying the
167: Einstein equivalence principle), and conserve energy-momentum. The
168: price we will pay for such generality is that we must remain
169: perturbatively close to General Relativity. While we discuss in
170: detail the exact conditions for perturbative validity below, we
171: caution here that this valid- ity does {\em not} require weak fields
172: (as defined with reference to either the Minkowski or homogenous FRW
173: metrics as the background).
174:
175: Our method of generating such models is known in the literature as
176: that of perturbative constraints~\cite{Simon:1990p1512}; it is an
177: alternative way of associating, in a physically unambiguous fashion, a
178: general action of the gravitational field with a field equation that is
179: of second order. Developed to deal with approximate local actions derived from
180: fundamentally non-local theories, it has a wide range of applicability
181: and does not rely on the existence of an underlying non-locality.
182:
183: The method of perturbative constraints we use here allows us to
184: retain many of the important features of the action of the
185: gravitational field. In particular, it allows us to retain the
186: translational symmetries that, under Noether's principle, lead to
187: energy-momentum conservation, as well as enforcing diffeomorphism
188: invariance -- the invariance of physical law under changes of
189: coordinates. It does so without introducing new degrees of freedom,
190: while at the same time producing behavior that differs from the
191: General Relativistic case, and allowing for a consistent set of
192: predictions across a wide variety of spacetimes.
193:
194: \section{Gravity with Perturbative Constraints}
195:
196: In this paper, we specialize to the case of a flat, homogenous FRW metric,
197: \begin{equation}
198: \small{ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2(t)\left[dr^2+
199: r^2\left( d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d\phi^2\right)\right]} \;.
200: \end{equation}
201: It is important to emphasize here, however, that because we will be
202: modifying gravity in ways that affect cosmological expansion, standard
203: relationships between, e.g., the energy density of various components
204: and the rate of expansion that hold in a flat Universe within General
205: Relativity will not necessarily hold here.
206:
207: We start with an action for the gravitational field that is a general
208: function $f(R)$ of the Ricci scalar curvature. The field equation for
209: this general theory is \begin{equation} f' R_{\mu \nu}
210: -\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}f + g_{\mu \nu} \square f' - \nabla_{\mu}
211: \nabla_{\nu} f' = 8\pi G T_{\mu \nu}\;,
212: \end{equation}
213: where $f'=\frac{\partial f}{\partial R}$. For a flat FRW spacetime, the
214: Ricci scalar curvature is
215: \begin{equation}
216: R= 6\left[ \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+ \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 \right]\;.
217: \end{equation}
218: The above field equation obeys the Bianchi identity and hence
219: $\nabla^{\mu}T_{\mu \nu}=0$, which results in the usual conservation
220: law
221: \begin{equation}
222: \dot{\rho}_i + 3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left( \rho_i + P_i\right) = 0 \;.
223: \label{eq:cons}
224: \end{equation}
225: Here $\rho_i$ and $P_i$ are the energy density and pressure,
226: respectively of the $i^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}$ constituent of the
227: Universe. In this paper, we will consider Lagrangian densities of the
228: form
229: \begin{equation}
230: f(R)=R-2\Lambda +\frac{\mu^{2(n+1)}}{R^n} \; ,
231: \end{equation}
232: where n and $\mu$ are free parameters and the last term in the action
233: is considered only at the perturbative level. The case $\Lambda = 0$,
234: $n=1$ was first discussed in Ref.~\cite{2008PhRvD..78f4013D}.
235:
236: Henceforth we shall adopt geometerized units where $8\pi G = 1$.
237: Following standard procedure, we evaluate the $(\mu, \nu) = (0,0)$
238: component of the field equation as well as its trace and obtain
239: \begin{equation}
240: \label{00}
241: -3f'\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{1}{2}f+3f''\dot{R}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}= \rho
242: \end{equation}
243: and
244: \begin{equation}
245: \label{tr}
246: \small{Rf' -2f-3\left[ f''\ddot{R} + \dot{R}^2 f''' +3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{R}f'' \right]=\left( -\rho +3P\right)} \;.
247: \end{equation}
248: In this last equation, $\rho$ and $P$ denote the total density and
249: pressure of all constituents of the Universe.
250:
251: When the function $f(R)$ is non linear in the Ricci scalar curvature,
252: Eq.~\ref{00} is not a first-order ordinary differential
253: equation in time, as is the standard Friedmann equation. Indeed, as
254: discussed earlier, a non-linear Lagrangian introduces additional
255: degrees of freedom to the gravitational field. The key feature of
256: gravity with perturbative constraints is a consistent way of treating these additional
257: degrees of freedom as fixed and not allowing them to evolve
258: independently~\cite{EW89,Simon:1990p1512,2008PhRvD..78f4013D}.
259:
260: In practice, we combine Eq.~\ref{00} with the conservation
261: law of Eq.~\ref{eq:cons}, and obtain a single differential equation for the
262: scale factor that we formally denote by
263: \begin{equation}
264: {\cal G}(\dot{a},a)+\mu^4{\cal
265: F}(\dddot{a},\ddot{a},\dot{a},a)=0\;.
266: \label{eq:all_deg_freed}
267: \end{equation}
268: Solving this equation with $\mu^4=0$, i.e.,
269: \begin{equation}
270: {\cal G}(\dot{a}^{(0)},a^{(0)})=0\;.
271: \end{equation}
272: and requiring the scale factor to be unity at the present epoch, we
273: obtain the General Relativistic solution, which we denote by
274: $a^{(0)}(t)$. We then use this solution to evaluate the derivatives
275: that correspond to all the new degrees of freedom in
276: Eq.~(\ref{eq:all_deg_freed}), i.e.,
277: \begin{equation}
278: {\cal G}(\dot{a},a)+\mu^4{\cal F}(\dddot{a}^{(0)},\ddot{a}^{(0)},
279: \dot{a}^{(0)},a^{(0)})=0\;.
280: \end{equation}
281: This last equation is again an ordinary differential equation that is
282: of first order in time and we solve it requiring the scale factor to be
283: unity in the present epoch.
284:
285: Inspection of the field equations or of the Lagrangian action shows
286: that we can expand the final solution for the scale factor in orders
287: of the parameter $\mu^{2(n+1)}/R_0^{n+1}$, where
288: $R_0=\rho_{m,0}+4\Lambda$ is the unperturbed Ricci scalar curvature of the
289: Universe in the present epoch. For the case with $n=1$, we can write
290: the solution for the scale factor in the form
291: \begin{eqnarray}
292: a(t) &=& a^{(0)}(t)\left[1+
293: \frac{\mu^4}{(\rho_{m,0}+4\Lambda)^2} a^{(4)}(t) \right.\nonumber\\
294: &&\qquad\qquad+\left.
295: \frac{\mu^8}{(\rho_{m,0}+4\Lambda)^4} a^{(8)}(t) + \ldots \right]\;.
296: \label{eq:orders}
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: Note that, although the modified Friedmann equation includes only
299: terms of order $\mu^4$, its solution has higher-order terms because of
300: the non-linearity of the differential equation. Consistency requires
301: that terms of order $\mu^8$ and higher are negligible and can,
302: therefore, be dropped.
303:
304: When discussing our results, we will occasionally express them in
305: terms of the contributions of matter and of the cosmological constant
306: to the energy density of the Universe, which are given by
307: \begin{equation}
308: \Omega_{\rm m}\equiv \frac{\rho_m}{3H^2}
309: \label{eq:Omegam}
310: \end{equation}
311: and
312: \begin{equation}
313: \Omega_\Lambda\equiv\frac{\Lambda}{3H^2}\;,
314: \label{eq:Omegal}
315: \end{equation}
316: respectively, where $H\equiv (\dot{a}/{a})$. Finally, in order to
317: compare our results to the usual parametrization of the dark energy
318: equation of state, we will also write the Friedmann equation in the
319: XCDM form~\cite{2003RvMP...75..559P} as
320: \begin{equation}
321: 3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \rho_{\rm m} + \rho_{\rm X}\;,
322: \label{eq:XCDM}
323: \end{equation}
324: and the equation for acceleration as
325: \begin{equation}
326: 6\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} = -\rho_m-(1+3w_{\rm X})\rho_{\rm X}\;,
327: \end{equation}
328: where $\rho_X$ is the energy density of an equivalent ``dark energy''
329: component with an equation of state $P_{\rm X}=w_X\rho_{\rm X}$. Note
330: that this term includes contributions from both the cosmological
331: constant and by the perturbative term that modifies the Einstein
332: equations.
333:
334: \subsection{Case $1$: $\Lambda=0$, $n=1$}
335:
336: This situation corresponds to a Universe with zero cosmological
337: constant and $f(R) = R+\mu^{4}/R$. Since we are interested in
338: deviations in the matter dominated regime, we will only consider
339: matter with $P=0$. In this case, the $(\mu, \nu) = (0,0)$ component of
340: the field equation and its trace become
341: \begin{equation}
342: 3 \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{3\mu^4}{R^2}
343: \left[ \frac{R}{6}+\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+2\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)
344: \frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right] = \rho_{m}
345: \label{eq:Hubb}
346: \end{equation}
347: and
348: \begin{equation}
349: R +\frac{3\mu^4}{R^2}\left[ R+ 2\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}-
350: 6\left( \frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right)^2 +6\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)
351: \frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right] = \rho_{m} \;,
352: \end{equation}
353: respectively.
354:
355: When $\mu=0$, the equation for the scale factor describes the familiar
356: matter-dominated Einstein cosmology, for which
357: \begin{equation}
358: \label{matdom0}
359: a^{(0)}(t)= \left(\frac{\sqrt{3\rho_{m,0}}t}{2}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}} \;.
360: \end{equation}
361: As a result
362: \begin{equation}
363: \left(H^{(0)}\right)^2\equiv \left(\frac{\dot{a}^{(0)}}{a^{(0)}}\right)^2=\frac{ \rho_{m,0}}{3\left(a^{(0)}\right)^3}
364: \label{H0zero}
365: \end{equation}
366: and
367: \begin{equation}
368: R^{(0)} \equiv 6\left[ \frac{\ddot{a}^{(0)}}{a^{(0)}}+ \left(H^{(0)}\right)^2\right]= \frac{ \rho_{m,0}}{\left(a^{(0)}\right)^3}\;.
369: \label{Rzero}
370: \end{equation}
371: Now to order $\mu^4$ Eq.~(\ref{eq:Hubb}) gives
372: \begin{eqnarray}
373: 2H^{(0)}\dot{a}^{(4)} + &&\frac{\mu^4}{(R^{(0)})^{2}}\left( \frac{R^{(0)}}{6} + \frac{\ddot{a}^{(0)}}{a^{(0)}}+2\frac{\dot{R}^{(0)}}{R^{(0)}} H^{(0)}\right) \nonumber \\
374: &&= -a^{(4)}\frac{\rho_{m,0}}{\left(a^{(0)}\right)^3}\;.
375: \end{eqnarray}
376: Solving for $a^{(4)}(t)$ using Eq.~(\ref{H0zero}) and~(\ref{Rzero}) the contribution to order $\mu^4$ is
377: \begin{equation}
378: a^{(4)}(t) =\frac{9\rho_{m,0}^2t^4}{40}\;.
379: \end{equation}
380: We then perform the same expansion up to order $\mu^8$. The contribution is
381: \begin{equation}
382: a^{(8)}(t) = -\frac{18819\rho_{m,0}^4t^8}{1600}\;,
383: \end{equation}
384: As a boundary condition, we require that at the present
385: epoch, which we denote by $t_0$, the scale factor is unity. Thus, as we
386: evaluate $a(t)$ to higher order in $\mu$, we get corrections to the
387: value of $t_0$ from General Relativity, i.e.,
388: \begin{equation}
389: t_0 = \frac{2}{\sqrt{3\rho_{m,0}}}
390: \left(1 -\frac{3}{5}\frac{\mu^4}{\rho_{m,0}^2}+
391: \frac{115}{2}\frac{\mu^8}{\rho_{m,0}^4}+ \ldots \right)
392: \end{equation}
393:
394: As discussed earlier, it is practically impossible to check the
395: convergence of our method without knowing the form of the Lagrangian
396: action to higher order in the parameter $\mu$. We can provide,
397: however, a necessary condition for convergence in calculating an
398: observable quantity, by requiring that the correction to the value of
399: this observable calculated to order $\mu^8$ is not larger than the
400: correction calculated to order $\mu^4$.
401:
402: As an example, we calculate the value of the Hubble constant at the
403: present epoch, $H_0\equiv H(t=t_0)$, as
404: \begin{equation}
405: H_0=\sqrt{\frac{\rho_{m,0}}{3}}\left( 1+3\frac{\mu^4}{\rho_{m,0}^2}-\frac{1017}{2}\frac{\mu^8}{\rho_{m,0}^4}+ \ldots \right)\;.
406: \end{equation}
407: Similarly we evaluate the deceleration parameter $q_0\equiv
408: -\ddot{a}a/\dot{a}^2$ at the present epoch as
409: \begin{equation}
410: q_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-36\frac{\mu^4}{\rho_{m,0}^2} +
411: 12312\frac{\mu^8}{\rho_{m,0}^4}+ \ldots \right)\;.
412: \end{equation}
413: Requiring the correction to order $\mu^8$ in the expression for the
414: Hubble constant to be smaller than the correction to order $\mu^4$
415: results in the bound $\mu^4/\rho_{\rm m,0}^2 < 6/1017$, whereas the
416: same requirement for the deceleration parameter leads to
417: $\mu^4/\rho_{\rm m,0}^2 < 36/12312$. Both of these constraints at the
418: present epoch are very similar and require $\mu^4$ to have very small
419: values, which cannot lead to an accelerated expansion within the
420: limits of perturbative validity.
421:
422: An additional problem of using a cosmology with $n=1$ and $\Lambda=0$
423: to account for the observations can be seen by writing the Friedmann
424: equation to order $\mu^4$ (as in~\cite{2008PhRvD..78f4013D}), i.e.,
425: \begin{equation}
426: 3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2
427: = \rho_{\rm m}+ \frac{6 \mu^4}{\rho_{\rm m}}\;.
428: \end{equation}
429: Transforming this equation in the XCDM form
430: requires that
431: \begin{equation}
432: \rho_X = \frac{6\mu^4}{\rho_{\rm m}}\;.
433: \end{equation}
434: Clearly the matter-dominated perturbative gravity theory to order
435: $\mu^4$ behaves as a dark energy fluid with $w_{\rm X}=-2$ which is
436: inconsistent with the combined WMAP and BAO data~\cite{2008arXiv0803.0547K}.
437:
438: %\begin{figure}[t]
439: %\caption{The solid line shows the predicted value of the
440: %deceleration parameter $q_0$, as a function of the quantity $\Omega_m
441: %= 8\pi G \rho_0 /3H_0^2$, for the theory with $\Omega_{\Lambda} =0$
442: %and $n=1$ calculated up to order $\mu^4$. The shaded region shows the
443: %regime in which the theory is perturbatively valid to the same
444: %order. The thick (shaded) line represents the values of $q_0$ and
445: %$\Omega_m$ as determined by the combined WMAP and BAO
446: %data~\cite{2008arXiv0803.0547K}}
447: %\end{figure}
448:
449: \subsection{Case $2$: $\Lambda \ne0$, $n=1$}
450:
451: We have found that, while the case with $n=1$ and $\Lambda=0$ may
452: generate accelerating solutions, these solutions lie outside the range
453: where the perturbative expansion to the action is valid. Intuitively,
454: this comes from the fact that by the time acceleration has begun, the
455: matter density is low enough that the zeroth-order relation,
456: $R_0=\rho_{\rm m,0}$, implies that the contribution of the additional
457: term, $\mu^4/R$, is too large to be treated as a small perturbation to
458: the standard gravitational action. This is not the case, however, in a
459: Universe with a non-zero cosmological constant, as we will discuss
460: below.
461:
462: In the case of a Universe with a non-zero cosmological constant, the
463: $(\mu ,\nu)=(0,0)$ component of the field equation and the trace are
464: \begin{equation}
465: \label{lamcase}
466: 3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{3\mu^4}{R^2}\left[
467: \frac{R}{6}+\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+2\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)
468: \frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right]
469: = \rho_{\rm m} +\Lambda\;,
470: \end{equation}
471: and
472: \begin{equation}
473: R +\frac{3\mu^4}{R^2}\left[ R+ 2\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}
474: -6\left( \frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right)^2
475: +6\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right]
476: = \rho_{\rm m} + 4 \Lambda\;,
477: \end{equation}
478: respectively.
479:
480: We will again seek a perturbative solution to this equation of the
481: form~(\ref{eq:orders}). When $\mu=0$, the Friedmann equation is the
482: same as for $\Lambda$CDM, i.e.,
483: \begin{equation}
484: a^{(0)}(t)= \left[ \sqrt{\frac{\rho_{m,0}}{\Lambda}}
485: \sinh \left(\frac{\sqrt{3\Lambda}}{2}t\right) \right]^\frac{2}{3}\;.
486: \end{equation}
487: The time at the present epoch, i.e., the one for which the
488: $\Lambda$CDM solution gives a scale factor of unity, is
489: \begin{equation}
490: t_0 = \frac{2 }{\sqrt{3\Lambda}}\sinh^{-1}
491: \left(\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{\rho_{m,0}}}\right)\;.
492: \end{equation}
493:
494: At orders $\mu^4$ and $\mu^8$, the solutions of the equation for the
495: scale factor, $a^{(4)}(t)$ and $a^{(8)}(t)$, respectively, as well as
496: the time $t_0$ that corresponds to the present epoch can be found in
497: closed form but are too long to be displayed here (we present the
498: solution to order $\mu^4$ in Appendix~A). Instead, we write the
499: Friedmann equation to order $\mu^4$
500: \begin{eqnarray}
501: \label{hubl}
502: 3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 &=& \rho_m+ \Lambda-
503: \frac{\mu^4}{(\rho_m+4\Lambda)^2}\nonumber\\
504: &&\qquad
505: \left[3 \Lambda - 6 (\rho_m+\Lambda)
506: \left(\frac{\rho_m}{\rho_m+4\Lambda} \right) \right] \;.
507: \end{eqnarray}
508: and the acceleration equation to the same order
509: \begin{eqnarray}
510: \label{accl}
511: 6\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} &=& -\rho_m+2\Lambda -\frac{\mu^4}{(\rho_m+4\Lambda)^2}
512: \nonumber\\
513: &&\qquad
514: \left[ 6\Lambda +24(\rho_m+\Lambda)
515: \left( \frac{\rho_m}{\rho_m + 4\Lambda}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
516: &&\qquad\left.
517: -54(\rho_m+\Lambda)\left( \frac{\rho_m}{\rho_m + 4\Lambda}\right)^2\right]\;.
518: \end{eqnarray}
519: These two equations allow us to calculate to order $\mu^4$ two
520: observable quantities at the present epoch, as a function of the
521: parameters $\mu^4$ and $\Lambda$: the Hubble constant, or equivalently
522: the parameter $\Omega_{\rm m,0}$, and the deceleration parameter
523: $q_0$. We show the result of this calculation in Fig.~\ref{fig:Omegam}
524: and \ref{fig:q0} respectively, together with the regions where
525: the calculation of each observable is not perturbatively valid.
526:
527: \begin{figure}[t]
528: \includegraphics[width= 85mm]{F1.eps}
529: \caption{Contours of constant values of the parameter $\Omega_{\rm m}$ at
530: the present epoch, for different values of the cosmological constant
531: $\Lambda$ and the parameter $\mu^4$ of the action of the gravitational
532: field. The normalization constant $\rho_{\rm m,0}$ is the density of
533: matter at the present epoch. The hatched area shows the region of the
534: parameter space where the calculation of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ is not
535: perturbatively valid.
536: \label{fig:Omegam}}
537: \end{figure}
538:
539: \begin{figure}[t]
540: \includegraphics[width= 85mm]{F2.eps}
541: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:Omegam} for the deceleration parameter
542: $q_0$ at the present epoch. Only negative values of $q_0$ are shown,
543: which correspond to Universes that are currently accelerating.
544: \label{fig:q0}}
545: \end{figure}
546:
547: In both figures, the horizontal axis, i.e., $\mu^4/(\rho_{\rm
548: m,0}+4\Lambda^2)=0$, corresponds to a General Relativistic Universe
549: with a cosmological constant. The WMAP results, interpreted within
550: General Relativity, correspond to a Universe with $\Lambda/\rho_{\rm
551: m,0}\simeq 2.65$~\cite{2008arXiv0803.0547K}. Keeping this value
552: constant and moving towards positive values of $\mu^4/(\rho_{\rm
553: m,0}+4\Lambda^2)$, the predicted value of $\Omega_{\rm m,0}$
554: increases, because the perturbative term in the modified Friedman
555: equation contributes negatively to the rate of expansion of the
556: universe, and the deceleration parameter decreases for the same
557: reason. The opposite is true when the parameter $\mu^4/(\rho_{\rm
558: m,0}+4\Lambda^2)$ becomes increasingly negative.
559:
560: The hatched areas in both figures show the regions of the parameter
561: space where the corrections to each observable calculated to order
562: $\mu^8$ are not negligible and hence the solution is no longer of the
563: same order as the field equation. This is the criterion we have
564: discussed earlier in determining the perturbative validity of our
565: calculations. The particular shapes of the hatched regions are
566: determined by the dependence of the perturbative terms in
567: Eqs.~\ref{hubl} and \ref{accl}, both of which can be negative,
568: positive, or even zero for different values of the ratio
569: $\Lambda/\rho_{\rm m,0}$. In both figures, however, the excluded
570: regions lie far from the parameters of the General Relativistic
571: Universe that are consistent with the WMAP data, suggesting that small
572: potential deviations from the General Relativistic predictions can be
573: modeled successfuly within our framework.
574:
575: \begin{figure}[t]
576: \includegraphics[width= 85mm]{F3.eps}
577: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:Omegam} for the equivalent
578: equation-of-state parameter $w_{\rm X}$ of a XCDM model with the same
579: cosmological expansion at the present epoch.
580: \label{fig:w0}}
581: \end{figure}
582:
583: Finally, we investigate the parameter $w_{\rm X}$ at the present epoch
584: for an equivalent XCDM cosmology that would result in the same
585: cosmological expansion rate and acceleration as that predicted by the
586: last two equations. We calculate the equivalent equation-of-state
587: parameter by comparing the last two equations to those of the XCDM
588: framework. The result is, to order $\mu^4$,
589: \begin{eqnarray}
590: \label{wnumbs}
591: w_{\rm X} &\sim& -1+\frac{\mu^4}{(\rho_m+4\Lambda)^2}
592: \left(\frac{\rho_m + \Lambda}{\Lambda}\right)
593: \nonumber\\
594: && \left[ 12\left( \frac{\rho_m}{\rho_m + 4\Lambda}\right)
595: -18\left( \frac{\rho_m}{\rho_m + 4\Lambda}\right) ^2\right]\;.
596: \end{eqnarray}
597: In Fig.~\ref{fig:w0}, we show contours of constant values of the
598: parameter $w_{\rm X}$. The current observed limits $-0.14<w_{\rm
599: X}<0.12$ on the equation-of-state parameter~\cite{2008arXiv0803.0547K}
600: suggest that deviations from the $\Lambda$CDM model that do not
601: introduce new degrees of freedom fall within the perturbative limits
602: of our approach and cannot be ruled out {\em a priori\/}.
603:
604: \subsection{Case $3$: $\Lambda=0$, $n \ne1$}
605: \label{nne1}
606:
607: Finally, we examine a more general class of theories with $n \ne 1$
608: that are nevertheless matter dominated. We focus here on the case
609: $\Lambda=0$ in order to isolate the expected dependence of our previous
610: results on the value of the parameter $n$.
611:
612: In this case, the $(\mu ,\nu)=(0,0)$ field equation becomes
613: \begin{equation}
614: 3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{3\mu^{2(n+1)}}{R^{(n+1)}}
615: \left[ \frac{R}{6}+n\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+n(n+1)\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)
616: \frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right] = \rho_{\rm m}
617: \end{equation}
618: and its solution can be expanded again in terms of the perturbative
619: parameter $\mu^2/R_0$. The constrain on this parameter for
620: perturbative validity becomes increasingly less restrictive as the
621: exponent $n$ decreases.
622:
623: As with Case 1, we can write the Friedmann equation to order
624: $\mu^{2(n+1)}$ and obtain
625: \begin{equation}
626: 3\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2
627: = \rho_{\rm m}+ \frac{\mu^{2(n+1)}}{2\rho_{\rm m}^n}
628: \left[6n(n+1)+n-1\right]\;.
629: \end{equation}
630: At the same order the acceleration equation is given by
631: \begin{equation}
632: 6\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} = -\rho_{\rm m} + \frac{(2+3n)\mu^{2(n+1)}}
633: {2\rho_{\rm m}^n}\left[6n(n+1)+n-1\right]\;.
634: \end{equation}
635:
636: If we write the Friedmann equations in the flat XCDM form,
637: Eq.~(\ref{eq:XCDM}), in the present epoch, we obtain for the equivalent
638: equation-of-state parameter,
639: \begin{equation}
640: w_{\rm X} = -(n+1)\;.
641: \end{equation}
642: As a result, increasing the value of the exponent $n$ makes the
643: equation-of-state parameter $w_{\rm X}$ more negative.
644:
645: \section{Conclusions}
646:
647: We have presented a formalism -- Gravity with Perturbative Constraints
648: -- that describes deviations from General Relativistic predictions at
649: cosmological scales without introducing new degrees of freedom. Our
650: formalism preserves diffeomorphism invariance, the Einstein equivalence
651: principle, and energy-momentum conservation. Because it is based on
652: modifications of the Lagrangian of the gravitational field, it allows
653: us to link a wide variety of observations -- from compact objects and
654: solar system phenomena, to non-linear clustering and linear structure
655: formation -- in order to test for the consistency of assuming no new
656: gravitational degrees of freedom.
657:
658: Our method is quite different from the Palatini formulation of 1/R gravity discussed by, for example, Ref.~
659: \cite{v03}, and expanded on as ``modified source gravity'' in Ref.~\cite{Carroll:2006p871}. Since both our methods and those related to Palatini formulations, however, eliminate the extra degree of freedom associated with modifying General Relativity it is worth comparing some of their features. In particular, because we are able to treat our system perturbatively -- and, explicitly, because our predictions for densities $\rho \gtrsim\rho_{\mathrm{crit}}$ do not demand a particular behavior when $\rho\ll\rho_{\mathrm{crit}}$ -- we do not run into the issues found by Ref.~\cite{Flanagan:2004p1310}, where the microscopic discreteness expected for ordinary baryons and dark matter particles no longers ``averages out'' correctly to return the homogenous Friedmann equations.
660:
661: Put explicitly, Ref.~\cite{Flanagan:2004p1310} noted first that the microscopic discreteness of matter did not strongly affect the averaged metric in General Relativity: \emph{i.e.}, when taking the matter field to be composed of discrete particles (small but still larger than their Schwartzschild radius) the gravitational fields relative to the background are still small and $g_{\mu\nu}$ can be consistently be replaced by $\langle g_{\mu\nu} \rangle$ plus a small, linear perturbation. This behavior was then contrasted with the Palatini $1/R$ formulation, where the $\Phi$ field, a function of the matter density that appears as a modification to the Einstein equation, has strong variations from point to point since the behavior of $\Phi$ is strongly non-linear in the range $\rho\in[0,\rho_{\mathrm{crit}}]$ regardless of the length scale of the perturbation.
662:
663: In the case of gravity with perturbative constraints, however, describing the behavior of the equations of motion when $\rho\ll\rho_{\mathrm{crit}}$ may involve increasingly higher order terms in the approximate equations of motion, and -- likely for many, though perhaps not all, models where the first terms in the equations of motion are generated by $1/R^n$ cases discussed in this paper -- eventually goes outside the radius of convergence of the series. That our theory can not in all cases make predictions for atomic-scale physics is a feature of the perturbative approach; in contrast to Palatini $1/R$, the behavior at $\rho \gtrsim\rho_{\mathrm{crit}}$ decouples from these more difficult questions and no particular atomic-scale behavior is required by us for consistency with larger scales.
664:
665: In this first approach to the problem, we chose to look for
666: modifications of the Einstein-Hilbert action that involve the addition
667: of terms proportional to an inverse power of the Ricci scalar
668: curvature. We were lead to this choice by our goal to describe
669: potential deviations at cosmological scales, without affecting
670: significantly the behavior of gravity in the solar system. One might
671: object that our particular choice of parametrization -- a two
672: dimensional space, ($\Lambda$, $n$) -- too-drastically narrows down
673: the possible models considered. In a sense, this is a problem with any
674: attempt to cover a space of functions with a finite number of
675: parameters.
676:
677: Our approach, however, follows the general direction of testing for
678: modifications of gravity in the solar system and in other
679: astrophysical systems by using the Parametrized Post-Newtonian (PPN)
680: framework \cite{10887}. In a similar fashion to our work, the PPN
681: framework provided a way to link together different observations in
682: various astrophysical settings in a consistent and physically rigorous
683: way. While the PPN model itself required a certain degree of
684: arbitrariness -- the functional forms of the potentials -- it turned
685: out that the original choices of these functional
686: forms~\cite{Will:1972p1578} were sufficient to cover nearly every
687: theory proposed in the following thirty-seven years. Only in a few cases
688: have failures of PPN been due to an overly restrictive choice of
689: parameters (see, \emph{e.g.}~\cite{Alexander:2007p1595}). The usefulness of the framework
690: we propose here will depend, of course, on its ability to capture the
691: behavior of plausible gravitational theories that go beyond General
692: Relativity.
693:
694: The particular set of terms that we included in the Lagrangian of the
695: gravitational field allow us also to study in a more systematic way
696: other phenomenological cosmologies that produce accelerating
697: expansion. For example, the set of parameters discussed in
698: Sec.~\ref{nne1}, i.e., $\Lambda=0$ and $n\ne 1$, provide a homogenous cosmology
699: identical to the Cardassian model of
700: Ref.~\cite{2002PhLB..540....1F}. Within our formalism, however, we can
701: also make predictions for the formation of structure in this
702: cosmology, by taking explicitly into account the modifications to the
703: Poisson equation.
704:
705: Our formalism is also capable of describing the cosmological expansion
706: histories that are generated by the phenomenological XCDM
707: model~\cite{1997PhRvD..56.4439T}. This is demonstrated in
708: Fig.~\ref{fig:w0}, for a flat universe, where the values of the
709: equivalent equation-of-state parameter $w$ are shown as a function of
710: the perturbative parameter $\mu^4$, the matter density, and the value
711: of the cosmological constant. In a similar manner, our framework can
712: also describe the cosmological expansion generated by the model
713: suggested by the Dark Energy Task Force~\cite{Albrecht:2006p1174}, in
714: which the equation-of-state parameter is allowed to change in time as
715: $w_0+(1-a)w_a$, since the values of the equivalent parameter $w$
716: calculated here depend indeed on cosmic time (cf.\ Eq.~\ref{wnumbs}). In
717: contrast to the phenomenological model, however, our framework offers
718: additional insight as to how the resulting gravity modifications agree
719: with structure formation observations, or with ``fifth-force''
720: constraints from other arenas.
721:
722: %Throughout this paper, we have emphasized the extent to which
723: %Minimally Modified Gravity is truly ``minimal,'' in the sense that it
724: %does not introduce new degrees of freedom. Yet we make no statement as
725: %to whether the fundamental theory that might be \emph{modeled} by MMG
726: %has ``hidden'' degrees of freedom. Rather, the formalism of MMG
727: %requires that these hidden degrees of freedom do not make themselves
728: %manifest on observable scales. Put another way, should we find
729: %observations that can not be captured within the MMG framework, we
730: %would have strong evidence for the existence of new degrees of
731: %freedom; MMG allows us to determine whether or not observations
732: %constitute a ``bullet cluster'' for dark energy.
733:
734: We will study the behavior of the cosmological expansion predicted by
735: gravity with perturbative constraints for a Universe with a finite
736: spatial curvature as well as compare these predictions directly to
737: observations in forthcoming papers.
738:
739: \acknowledgements
740:
741: A.\,C.\ thanks the members of the Kavli Institute for Cosmological
742: Physics for their hospitality. S.\,D. thanks the Perimeter Institute (Canada)
743: for hospitality, and Wayne Hu, Justin Khoury and members of the Perimeter Institute
744: cosmology group for helpful discussions. We thank \'Eanna Flanagan for helpful comments. We also thank Feryal \"Ozel for carefully
745: reading the manuscript. This work was supported in part by an NSF
746: CAREER award at the University of Arizona.
747:
748: \section{Appendix: Perturbative solution to 4th order for $\Lambda \ne 0$}
749:
750: As discussed in the main text, perturbations to $\Lambda$CDM at order $\mu^4$ has closed-form solution. In particular:
751: \begin{eqnarray}
752: a^{(4)}(t)&=&\left(\frac{\rho_{m,0}}{\Lambda}+4 \right)^2
753: \nonumber\\
754: &&
755: \left\{\frac{2\tan^{-1}\left[ \sqrt{3}\tanh \left( \frac{\sqrt{3\Lambda}}{2}t\right)\right]-9\sqrt{3}t}{96\sqrt{3}\tanh \left( \frac{\sqrt{3\Lambda}}{2}t\right)}\right.\nonumber \\
756: &&+\left.\frac{17-23\cosh(\sqrt{3\Lambda}t)+8\cosh(2\sqrt{3\Lambda}t)}{48\left[1-2\cosh(\sqrt{3\Lambda}t)\right]^2}\right\}\; \nonumber.
757: \end{eqnarray}
758:
759: \begin{thebibliography}{31}
760: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
761: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
762: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
763: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
764: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
765: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
766: \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
767: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
768: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
769: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
770: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
771: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
772:
773: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Clowe et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Clowe, Brada{\v c},
774: Gonzalez, Markevitch, Randall, Jones, and Zaritsky}}]{Clowe:2006p1018}
775: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Clowe}},
776: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Brada{\v c}}},
777: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~H.} \bibnamefont{Gonzalez}},
778: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Markevitch}},
779: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~W.} \bibnamefont{Randall}},
780: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Jones}}, \bibnamefont{and}
781: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Zaritsky}},
782: \bibinfo{journal}{ApJ} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{648}}, \bibinfo{pages}{L109}
783: (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
784:
785: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brada{\v c} et~al.}(2008)\citenamefont{Brada{\v c},
786: Allen, Treu, Ebeling, Massey, Morris, von~der Linden, and
787: Applegate}}]{Bradac:2008p1023}
788: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Brada{\v c}}},
789: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~W.} \bibnamefont{Allen}},
790: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Treu}},
791: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Ebeling}},
792: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Massey}},
793: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~G.} \bibnamefont{Morris}},
794: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{von~der Linden}},
795: \bibnamefont{and}
796: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Applegate}},
797: \bibinfo{journal}{astro-ph} (\bibinfo{year}{2008}),
798: \eprint{arXiv:0806.2320}.
799:
800: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lovelock}(1970)}]{Lovelock:1970p948}
801: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Lovelock}},
802: \bibinfo{journal}{Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{36}},
803: \bibinfo{pages}{293} (\bibinfo{year}{1970}).
804:
805: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Grigore}(1992)}]{Grigore:1992p984}
806: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~R.} \bibnamefont{Grigore}},
807: \bibinfo{journal}{Class. Quant. Grav.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{9}},
808: \bibinfo{pages}{1555} (\bibinfo{year}{1992}).
809:
810: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Skordis}(2008)}]{Skordis:2008p872}
811: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Skordis}},
812: \bibinfo{journal}{gr-qc} (\bibinfo{year}{2008}), \eprint{arXiv:0806.1238v1}.
813:
814: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bekenstein}(2004)}]{Bekenstein:2004p1081}
815: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~D.} \bibnamefont{Bekenstein}},
816: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},
817: \bibinfo{pages}{083509} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
818:
819: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Moffat}(2006)}]{Moffat:2006p1065}
820: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.} \bibnamefont{Moffat}},
821: \bibinfo{journal}{JCAP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{03}}, \bibinfo{pages}{004}
822: (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
823:
824: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Komatsu} et~al.}(2008)\citenamefont{{Komatsu},
825: {Dunkley}, {Nolta}, {Bennett}, {Gold}, {Hinshaw}, {Jarosik}, {Larson},
826: {Limon}, {Page} et~al.}}]{2008arXiv0803.0547K}
827: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{{Komatsu}}},
828: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{{Dunkley}}},
829: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~R.} \bibnamefont{{Nolta}}},
830: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~L.} \bibnamefont{{Bennett}}},
831: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{{Gold}}},
832: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{{Hinshaw}}},
833: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{{Jarosik}}},
834: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{{Larson}}},
835: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Limon}}},
836: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{{Page}}},
837: \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{astro-ph} (\bibinfo{year}{2008}),
838: \eprint{arXiv:0803.0547}.
839:
840: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Weinberg}(1989)}]{Weinberg:1989p1168}
841: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Weinberg}},
842: \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}},
843: \bibinfo{pages}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).
844:
845: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Albrecht et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Albrecht,
846: Bernstein, Cahn, Freedman, Hewitt, Hu, Huth, Kamionkowski, Kolb, Knox
847: et~al.}}]{Albrecht:2006p1174}
848: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Albrecht}},
849: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Bernstein}},
850: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Cahn}},
851: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~L.} \bibnamefont{Freedman}},
852: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Hewitt}},
853: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hu}},
854: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Huth}},
855: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kamionkowski}},
856: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~W.} \bibnamefont{Kolb}},
857: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Knox}}, \bibnamefont{et~al.}
858: (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0609591v1}.
859:
860: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Armendariz-Picon
861: et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Armendariz-Picon, Mukhanov, and
862: Steinhardt}}]{ArmendarizPicon:2000p1215}
863: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Armendariz-Picon}},
864: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Mukhanov}}, \bibnamefont{and}
865: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~J.} \bibnamefont{Steinhardt}},
866: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}},
867: \bibinfo{pages}{4438} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
868:
869: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Carroll et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{Carroll, Duvvuri,
870: Trodden, and Turner}}]{Carroll:2004p1253}
871: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~M.} \bibnamefont{Carroll}},
872: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Duvvuri}},
873: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Trodden}}, \bibnamefont{and}
874: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~S.} \bibnamefont{Turner}},
875: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},
876: \bibinfo{pages}{043528} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
877:
878: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Carroll et~al.}(2006)\citenamefont{Carroll, Sawicki,
879: Silvestri, and Trodden}}]{Carroll:2006p871}
880: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~M.} \bibnamefont{Carroll}},
881: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Sawicki}},
882: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Silvestri}},
883: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Trodden}},
884: \bibinfo{journal}{New J. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{8}},
885: \bibinfo{pages}{323} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}).
886:
887: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Flanagan}(2004)}]{Flanagan:2004p1310}
888: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{{\'E}.~{\'E}.} \bibnamefont{Flanagan}},
889: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{92}},
890: \bibinfo{pages}{071101} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).
891:
892: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Afshordi
893: et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Afshordi, Chung, and
894: Geshnizjani}}]{Afshordi:2007p59}
895: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Afshordi}},
896: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.~H.} \bibnamefont{Chung}},
897: \bibnamefont{and}
898: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Geshnizjani}},
899: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}},
900: \bibinfo{pages}{083513} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}{\natexlab{a}}).
901:
902: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Afshordi
903: et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Afshordi, Chung, Doran, and
904: Geshnizjani}}]{Afshordi:2007p54}
905: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Afshordi}},
906: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.~H.} \bibnamefont{Chung}},
907: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Doran}}, \bibnamefont{and}
908: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Geshnizjani}},
909: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}},
910: \bibinfo{pages}{123509} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}{\natexlab{b}}).
911:
912: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Barvinsky}(2003)}]{Barvinsky:2003p1420}
913: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~O.} \bibnamefont{Barvinsky}},
914: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{572}},
915: \bibinfo{pages}{109} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
916:
917: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Soussa and Woodard}(2003)}]{Soussa:2003p1374}
918: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~E.} \bibnamefont{Soussa}} \bibnamefont{and}
919: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~P.} \bibnamefont{Woodard}},
920: \bibinfo{journal}{Class. Quant. Grav.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{20}},
921: \bibinfo{pages}{2737} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).
922:
923: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Larsen et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Larsen, van~der
924: Schaar, and Leigh}}]{Larsen:2002p4709}
925: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Larsen}},
926: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.} \bibnamefont{van~der Schaar}},
927: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~G.} \bibnamefont{Leigh}},
928: \bibinfo{journal}{Journal of High Energy Physics}
929: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{04}}, \bibinfo{pages}{047} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
930:
931: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Iglesias et~al.}(2007)\citenamefont{Iglesias, Kaloper,
932: Padilla, and Park}}]{Iglesias:2007p869}
933: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Iglesias}},
934: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Kaloper}},
935: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Padilla}}, \bibnamefont{and}
936: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Park}},
937: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}},
938: \bibinfo{pages}{104001} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}).
939:
940: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Milgrom}(1983)}]{Milgrom:1983p1141}
941: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Milgrom}},
942: \bibinfo{journal}{ApJ} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{270}}, \bibinfo{pages}{365}
943: (\bibinfo{year}{1983}).
944:
945: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hu and Sawicki}(2007)}]{Hu:2007p1209}
946: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Hu}} \bibnamefont{and}
947: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Sawicki}},
948: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}},
949: \bibinfo{pages}{104043} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}).
950:
951: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Freese} and {Lewis}}(2002)}]{2002PhLB..540....1F}
952: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{{Freese}}} \bibnamefont{and}
953: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Lewis}}},
954: \bibinfo{journal}{Physics Letters B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{540}},
955: \bibinfo{pages}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0201229}.
956:
957: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{DeDeo} and {Psaltis}}(2008)}]{2008PhRvD..78f4013D}
958: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{DeDeo}}} \bibnamefont{and}
959: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{{Psaltis}}},
960: \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{78}},
961: \bibinfo{pages}{064013} (\bibinfo{year}{2008}), \eprint{arXiv:0712.3939}.
962:
963: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Simon}(1990)}]{Simon:1990p1512}
964: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~Z.} \bibnamefont{Simon}},
965: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{41}},
966: \bibinfo{pages}{3720} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).
967:
968: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Woodard}(1989)}]{EW89}
969: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~A. E. . R.~P.} \bibnamefont{Woodard}},
970: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{325}},
971: \bibinfo{pages}{389} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).
972:
973: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Peebles} and {Ratra}}(2003)}]{2003RvMP...75..559P}
974: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~J.} \bibnamefont{{Peebles}}}
975: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{{Ratra}}},
976: \bibinfo{journal}{Reviews of Modern Physics} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}},
977: \bibinfo{pages}{559} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0207347}.
978:
979: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Will}(1971)}]{10887}
980: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~M.} \bibnamefont{Will}},
981: \bibinfo{journal}{ApJ.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{163}}, \bibinfo{pages}{611}
982: (\bibinfo{year}{1971}).
983:
984: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Will and Nordtvedt}(1972)}]{Will:1972p1578}
985: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~M.} \bibnamefont{Will}} \bibnamefont{and}
986: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Nordtvedt}},
987: \bibinfo{journal}{ApJ} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{177}}, \bibinfo{pages}{757}
988: (\bibinfo{year}{1972}).
989:
990: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Alexander and Yunes}(2007)}]{Alexander:2007p1595}
991: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Alexander}} \bibnamefont{and}
992: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Yunes}},
993: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{99}},
994: \bibinfo{pages}{241101} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}).
995:
996: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Turner} and {White}}(1997)}]{1997PhRvD..56.4439T}
997: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~S.} \bibnamefont{{Turner}}} \bibnamefont{and}
998: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{White}}},
999: \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4439}
1000: (\bibinfo{year}{1997}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/9701138}.
1001:
1002: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Vollick}}(2003)}]{v03}
1003: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{D.~S.}\bibnamefont{{Vollick}}},
1004: \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{68}}, \bibinfo{pages}{063510}
1005: (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0306630}.
1006:
1007: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Brans} and {Dicke}}(1961)}]{BD61}
1008: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.} \bibnamefont{{Brans}}} \bibnamefont{and}
1009: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~H.}~\bibnamefont{{Dicke}}},
1010: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{124}},
1011: \bibinfo{pages}{925} (\bibinfo{year}{1961}).
1012:
1013: \end{thebibliography}
1014:
1015:
1016: \end{document}
1017:
1018:
1019:
1020:
1021:
1022:
1023:
1024:
1025:
1026:
1027:
1028:
1029:
1030:
1031:
1032:
1033:
1034:
1035: