1: \documentclass[floatfix,aps,prd,showpacs,amsmath,nofootinbib,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Fourth order Weyl Gravity}
9: \author{\'Eanna \'E. Flanagan}\email{eef3@cornell.edu}
10: \affiliation{
11: %Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA \\
12: % and
13: Laboratory for Elementary Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.}
14:
15: \date{\today}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: The fourth order Weyl gravity theory of Mannheim and Kazanas is based
19: on replacing the Einstein-Hilbert action with the square of the Weyl
20: tensor, and on modifying the matter action of the standard model of
21: particle physics to make it conformally invariant. This theory has
22: been suggested as a model of both dark matter and dark energy. We
23: argue that the conformal invariance is not a fundamental property of
24: the theory, and instead is an artifact of the choice of variables used
25: in its description. We deduce that in the limit of weak
26: fields and slow motions the theory does not agree with
27: the predictions of general relativity, and is therefore ruled out by
28: Solar System observations.
29:
30:
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \pacs{95.36.+x,04.50.+h,95.35.+d}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37:
38:
39:
40:
41: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
42: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
43: \def\bes{\begin{subequations}}
44: \def\ees{\end{subequations}}
45: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
46: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
47:
48: \def\nn{\nonumber}
49: \maketitle
50:
51:
52:
53:
54: %\narrowtext
55:
56:
57:
58: %\section{}
59: %\label{intro}
60:
61:
62: \def\alt{
63: \mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu\lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}
64: }
65:
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68:
69: %\section{Summary}
70: \label{sec1}
71: In the fourth order Weyl theory of gravity
72: \cite{weyl1,weyl2,weyl3,weyl4,weyl5,weyl6,weyl7,weyl8,review}, the
73: Einstein-Hilbert action is replaced by a term proportional to the
74: square of the Weyl tensor, and the action of the standard model of
75: particle physics is modified to make it be conformally invariant.
76: For simplicity and following Ref.\ \cite{review} we work here with a
77: subset of the standard model consisting of a Dirac fermion field
78: $\psi$, a gauge field $A_\alpha$ and a real scalar field $S$ which
79: plays the role of the Higgs field. The action of the theory is a
80: functional of these fields and of a metric $g_{\alpha\beta}$:
81: \begin{eqnarray}
82: && S[g_{\alpha\beta},S,\psi,A_\alpha] = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \bigg\{
83: -\alpha_g C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} C^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}
84: \nn \\
85: &&- {1 \over 2} \nabla_\alpha S \nabla^\alpha S - {1 \over 12} S^2 R -
86: \lambda S^4 - {1 \over 4} F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} \nonumber \\
87: && + {i \over 2} {\bar \psi} \gamma^\mu \nabla_\mu \psi
88: - {i \over 2} {\overline {\nabla_\mu \psi}} \gamma^\mu \psi
89: + e {\bar \psi} \gamma^\mu A_\mu \psi
90: - h S {\bar \psi} \psi \bigg\}. \nn \\
91: \mbox{}
92: \label{action1}
93: \end{eqnarray}
94: Here $\alpha_g$, $h$ and $\lambda$ are dimensionless parameters, we
95: use natural units with $\hbar = c =1$, and we use the sign convention
96: $(+,+,+)$ in the notation of Ref.\ \cite{MTW} \footnote{Our sign
97: conventions differ from those used by Mannheim in Ref.\
98: \cite{review}}.
99:
100:
101: The motivations for the action (\ref{action1}) are as follows \cite{review}. First, it
102: is invariant under the conformal transformations
103: \bes
104: \bea
105: g_{\alpha\beta} &\to& e^{2 \sigma} g_{\alpha\beta} \\
106: S &\to& e^{-\sigma} S \\
107: \psi &\to& e^{-3 \sigma/2} \psi \\
108: A_\alpha &\to& A_\alpha,
109: \eea
110: \label{symmetry}
111: \ees
112: where $\sigma = \sigma(x)$ is arbitrary. This exact symmetry prevents
113: the appearance of a cosmological constant. Second, it was argued that
114: the term coupling the Ricci scalar to the scalar field $S$ can drive a
115: gravity-mediated spontaneous symmetry breaking:
116: namely, in
117: the presence of a background value of $R$, the minimum energy state of
118: $S$ will occur at a nonzero value of $S$ and will thereby give mass to
119: the fermion field. In Refs.\ \cite{weyl1,weyl2,weyl5,weyl6} it was
120: argued that the theory (\ref{action1}) agrees with observations of
121: Newtonian gravity in the Solar System, and in addition predicts a
122: linearly growing term in the Newtonian potential that could explain
123: galactic rotation curves without the need for dark matter. Refs.\
124: \cite{weyl7,weyl8,review} argue that Weyl gravity yields a viable
125: model of the acceleration of the Universe, removing the need for dark
126: energy. Further studies of the theory can be found in Refs.\
127: \cite{study1,study2,study3,study4,study5,study6,study6a,study7,study8,study9,study10}.
128:
129: In this paper we rewrite the theory (\ref{action1}) in a new set of
130: variables that allows a simpler computation of its predictions. We
131: also show that the theory does not reproduce Solar System observations in the
132: limit of weak fields and slow motions, which rules out the theory.
133:
134:
135: \section{Reformulation of theory}
136:
137:
138:
139: We specialize at first to the sector of the theory where
140: \be
141: S(x) >0
142: \label{sector1}
143: \ee
144: everywhere \footnote{It follows from our analysis below that if $S$ is
145: positive on an initial data surface, then it is positive throughout
146: spacetime.}. We define the new variables
147: \begin{subequations}
148: \begin{eqnarray}
149: {\hat g}_{\alpha\beta} &=& {S^2 \over m_0^2} g_{\alpha\beta} \\
150: {\hat S} &=& S \\
151: {\hat \psi} &=& {m_0^{3/2} \over S^{3/2}} \psi \\
152: {\hat A}_\alpha &=& A_\alpha,
153: \end{eqnarray}
154: \end{subequations}
155: where $m_0$ is an arbitrary but fixed positive parameter with dimensions of mass.
156: All of these variables, except ${\hat S}$, are conformal invariants. The
157: action in terms of the new variables is\footnote{Here ${\hat
158: \gamma}^\mu$ are the Dirac matrices associated with the
159: metric ${\hat g}_{\mu\nu}$ that satisfy $\{ {\hat \gamma}^\mu,{\hat
160: \gamma}^\nu \} = - 2 {\hat g}^{\mu\nu}$.}
161: \begin{eqnarray}
162: && S[{\hat g}_{\alpha\beta},{\hat S},{\hat \psi},{\hat A}_\alpha] =
163: \int d^4 x \sqrt{-{\hat g}} \bigg\{
164: -\alpha_g {\hat C}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} {\hat C}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}
165: \nn \\
166: &&- {1 \over 12} m_0^2 {\hat R} -
167: \lambda m_0^4 - {1 \over 4} {\hat F}_{\mu\nu} {\hat F}^{\mu\nu} \nonumber \\
168: &&
169: + {i \over 2} {\bar {\hat \psi}} {\hat \gamma}^\mu {\hat
170: \nabla}_\mu {\hat \psi}
171: - {i \over 2} {\overline {{\hat \nabla}_\mu {\hat \psi}}} {\hat
172: \gamma}^\mu {\hat \psi}
173: + e {\bar {\hat \psi}} {\hat \gamma}^\mu {\hat A}_\mu {\hat \psi}
174: - h m_0 {\bar {\hat \psi}} {\hat \psi}
175: \bigg\}. \nn \\
176: \mbox{}
177: \label{action1a}
178: \end{eqnarray}
179:
180: In this new representation, the only field which transforms under the
181: conformal symmetry (\ref{symmetry}) is ${\hat S}$. However, the
182: action (\ref{action1a}) is independent of ${\hat S}$. Thus there are
183: two uncoupled sectors of the theory (\ref{action1}) with the
184: constraint (\ref{sector1}):
185: a trivial sector containing
186: ${\hat S}$ on which the symmetry acts, and which contains no dynamics;
187: and the remaining sector containing the fields ${\hat
188: g}_{\alpha\beta}$, ${\hat A}_\alpha$ and ${\hat \psi}$, which does
189: not possess a conformal symmetry.
190: For the remainder of this paper, we will drop the field ${\hat S}$ and
191: consider only the dynamical sector of the theory.
192:
193: In a similar manner, one can start from the action for general relativity coupled
194: to the standard model of particle physics, perform the above
195: operations in reverse, and obtain an equivalent action with one extra
196: scalar field which has an exact conformal symmetry.
197: It follows
198: that the conformal symmetry of the theory (\ref{action1})
199: is not a fundamental or defining property
200: of the theory, and is instead an artifact of the
201: choice of variables used
202: % in Eq. (\ref{action1})
203: to describe the theory.
204:
205:
206:
207: The transition from the action (\ref{action1}) to the action
208: (\ref{action1a}) can also be thought of as a gauge fixing
209: \cite{barabash,wood}. The conformal symmetry (\ref{symmetry}) is
210: analogous to a gauge freedom, and we are free to analyze the theory in
211: the gauge $S(x) = m_0$, which leads to the action (\ref{action1a}).
212:
213:
214:
215: In the action (\ref{action1a}), the parameter $m_0$ can be chosen
216: arbitrarily. This arbitrariness is the freedom of choice of
217: units of mass. Only the ratios of the three mass parameters which
218: appear in the action are measurable. These three mass parameters are
219: the Planck mass (the coefficient of Ricci scalar), the
220: cosmological constant term, and the mass term for the fermion field.
221: If we define $m_p^2 = m_0^2/6$, $\Lambda = \lambda m_0^4$, and $m_e
222: = h m_0$, then the action can be written in the more familiar looking form
223: \begin{eqnarray}
224: && S[{\hat g}_{\alpha\beta},{\hat S},{\hat \psi},{\hat A}_\alpha] =
225: \int d^4 x \sqrt{-{\hat g}} \bigg\{
226: -\alpha_g {\hat C}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} {\hat C}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}
227: \nn \\
228: &&- {1 \over 2} m_p^2 {\hat R} -
229: \Lambda - {1 \over 4} {\hat F}_{\mu\nu} {\hat F}^{\mu\nu} \nonumber \\
230: &&
231: + {i \over 2} {\bar {\hat \psi}} {\hat \gamma}^\mu {\hat
232: \nabla}_\mu {\hat \psi}
233: - {i \over 2} {\overline {{\hat \nabla}_\mu {\hat \psi}}} {\hat
234: \gamma}^\mu {\hat \psi}
235: + e {\bar {\hat \psi}} {\hat \gamma}^\mu {\hat A}_\mu {\hat \psi}
236: - m_e {\bar {\hat \psi}} {\hat \psi}
237: \bigg\}. \nn \\
238: \mbox{}
239: \label{action2}
240: \end{eqnarray}
241: This is the standard action for a fermion field of mass $m_e$ and charge
242: $e$ coupled to a gauge field and coupled to general
243: relativity, except for three modifications to the gravitational part
244: of the action: (i) the addition of the cosmological constant term; (ii)
245: the sign of the Ricci term is flipped, and (iii) the Weyl squared term
246: is added. Note also that the value of the Planck mass parameter $m_p$
247: can be different from its conventional value of $\sim 10^{19}$ GeV;
248: below we will consider all possible values of the parameters
249: $\alpha_g$ and $m_p$.
250:
251:
252: We next return to the original action (\ref{action1}), and consider
253: the sector of the theory where $S(x) < 0$ everywhere. A similar
254: analysis shows that this sector is also described by an action of the form
255: (\ref{action2}), but with the sign of the fermion mass term flipped.
256: This can be compensated for by redefining $\psi \to \gamma^5 \psi$.
257: Thus the $S<0$ sector behaves the same way as the $S>0$ sector. We
258: will confine attention to the $S>0$ sector.
259:
260: \section{Weak field limit}
261:
262: Consider now the predictions of the theory (\ref{action2}) in the
263: limit of weak fields
264: and slow motions. A key point is that the physical metric measured by
265: experiments\footnote{Here it is assumed that the units for length and
266: time are defined using non-gravitational physics. Systems of units
267: in common use such as SI units satisfy this requirement. } is the metric
268: ${\hat g}_{\alpha\beta}$, and not the metric $g_{\alpha\beta}$ that
269: appeared in the original action (\ref{action1}). This follows from
270: the form of the action (\ref{action2}), which has a standard form that
271: implies that objects constructed from the fermion and gauge fields will
272: fall on geodesics of ${\hat g}_{\alpha\beta}$ \footnote{It is
273: immediately clear that $g_{\alpha\beta}$ cannot be the physical
274: metric, since the theory cannot predict $g_{\alpha\beta}$ uniquely,
275: only $g_{\alpha\beta}$ up to conformal transformations. By contrast,
276: the metric ${\hat g}_{\alpha\beta}$ can be predicted uniquely.}.
277: Equivalently, in terms of the original variables $g_{\alpha\beta}$ and $S$,
278: all freely falling objects are subject to an acceleration proportional
279: to the gradient of $S$, as argued by Wood \cite{wood}.
280:
281:
282: It is straightforward to show that the theory (\ref{action2}) does not
283: admit a regime in which its predictions agree with the weak-field slow-motion limit of
284: general relativity, for any choice of values of the
285: parameters $\alpha_g$ and $m_p$, which implies that the theory is
286: ruled out by Solar System
287: observations. Substituting the ansatz
288: \bes
289: \bea
290: \label{metricansatz}
291: {\hat g}_{ab} dx^a dx^b &=& - [1 + 2 \Phi({\bf x})] dt^2 + [1 - 2
292: \Psi({\bf x}) ] \delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j \nn \\
293: && \\
294: T_{ab} dx^a dx^b &=& \rho({\bf x}) dt^2
295: \eea
296: \ees
297: into the linearized equation of motion obtained from the action
298: (\ref{action2}) yields the solution
299: \bes
300: \bea
301: \label{Phisoln}
302: \Phi &=& {4 \over 3} {\bar \Phi} + {1 \over 3} \Phi_{\rm N} \\
303: \Psi &=& {2 \over 3} {\bar \Phi} - {1 \over 3} \Phi_{\rm N}.
304: \eea
305: \label{soln1}
306: \ees
307: Here $\Phi_{\rm N}$ is the usual Newtonian potential which satisfies
308: \be
309: 2 m_p^2 \nabla^2 \Phi_{\rm N} = \rho,
310: \label{PhiNdef}
311: \ee
312: where $\rho$ is the mass density, and ${\bar \Phi}$ is a potential
313: which satisfies the fourth order equation
314: \be
315: 8 \alpha_g \nabla^2 \nabla^2 {\bar \Phi} - 2 m_p^2 \nabla^2 {\bar
316: \Phi} = \rho.
317: \label{eom}
318: \ee
319: We
320: have neglected the cosmological constant term whose influence will be
321: negligible on Solar System scales and smaller scales.
322:
323:
324: We now consider an isolated source of mass $\sim M$ and size $\sim
325: L$. Some useful information can be obtained from dimensional analysis.
326: In a general system of units with $\hbar \ne 1$, the action
327: (\ref{action2}) contains two independent dimensionful parameters, the mass scale
328: $\sqrt{\alpha_g} m_p$ and the lengthscale $\sqrt{\alpha_g} / m_p$.
329: There are therefore two dimensionless parameters characterizing the
330: source, namely $L m_p / \sqrt{\alpha_g}$ and $M / (\sqrt{\alpha_g}
331: m_p)$. There are three different regimes in this two-dimensional
332: parameter space in which the theory exhibits different types of
333: behavior (see Fig.\ \ref{figure1}):
334: \bes
335: \bea
336: \label{regimeI}
337: {\rm regime\ 1:}&\ \ \ {L m_p \over \sqrt{\alpha_g}} \gg {M \over \sqrt{\alpha_g} m_p}, \ \ \ &
338: {L m_p \over \sqrt{\alpha_g}} \gg 1 \\
339: \label{regimeII}
340: {\rm regime\ 2:}&\ \ \ {L m_p \over \sqrt{\alpha_g}} \gg {M \over \sqrt{\alpha_g} m_p}, \ \ \ &
341: {L m_p \over \sqrt{\alpha_g}} \ll 1 \\
342: \label{regimeIII}
343: {\rm regime\ 3:}&\ \ \ {L m_p \over \sqrt{\alpha_g}} \alt {M \over \sqrt{\alpha_g} m_p}. \ \ \ &
344: \eea
345: \label{regimes}
346: \ees
347: We now discuss these various regimes in turn.
348:
349:
350: \begin{figure}
351: \begin{center}
352: \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,width=7cm}
353: \caption{The various regimes for fourth order Weyl gravity for a
354: source of mass $\sim M$ and size $\sim L$. }
355: \label{figure1}
356: \end{center}
357: \end{figure}
358:
359:
360: %\medskip
361: %\noindent
362: %{\it Regime 1:}
363: \subsection{Regime 1}
364:
365: Consider the ratio between the first and
366: second terms in Eq.\ (\ref{eom}), evaluated in the vicinity of the
367: source at $r \sim L$. This ratio is $\sim \alpha_g / ( m_p^2 L^2)$,
368: which is small compared to unity by Eq.\ (\ref{regimeI}). Consequently
369: the fourth order derivative term gives only a
370: small correction, and it follows that ${\bar \Phi} \approx - \Phi_{\rm N}$ and
371: so also $\Phi = \Psi = - \Phi_{\rm N}$ from Eqs.\ (\ref{soln1}).
372: Thus Newton's law of
373: gravitation is recovered but with the sign flipped. The resulting repulsive
374: gravitational force disagrees with observations. This conclusion applies
375: in particular for the conventional values of the parameters, namely $\alpha_g \sim
376: 1$ and $m_p \sim 10^{19}$ GeV.
377:
378:
379:
380: %\medskip
381: %\noindent
382: %{\it Regime 2:}
383: \subsection{Regime 2}
384:
385: The exact solution to Eq.\ (\ref{eom}) is
386: \be
387: {\bar \Phi}({\bf x}) = - {1 \over 4 \pi} \int d^3 y { \chi({\bf y}) \over |
388: {\bf x} - {\bf y}|},
389: \label{phisoln}
390: \ee
391: where\footnote{If $\alpha_g$ is negative rather than positive as
392: assumed here, the exponential in Eq.\ (\protect{\ref{psi}}) is
393: replaced by a cosine. This replacement does not qualitatively
394: change the subsequent discussion.}
395: \be
396: \chi({\bf y}) = - {1 \over 32 \pi \alpha_g} \int d^3z { e^{- {1
397: \over \sqrt{2} \alpha_g} m_p | {\bf y} - {\bf z} | } \over | {\bf y} -
398: {\bf z} | } \rho({\bf z}).
399: \label{psi}
400: \ee
401: Using this solution we obtain the order of magnitude estimates
402: $\chi(r) \sim M / (\alpha_g L)$ for $r \sim L$, $\chi(r) \sim M /
403: (\alpha_g r)$ for $L \ll r \ll \sqrt{\alpha_g} /m_p$, while $\chi$
404: falls off exponentially for $r \agt \sqrt{\alpha_g} /m_p$.
405: In spherical symmetry the gradient of the field ${\bar \Phi}$ is
406: \be
407: {\partial {\bar \Phi} \over \partial r } \sim {1 \over r^2} \int_0^r
408: dr' (r')^2 \psi(r')
409: \label{acc}
410: \ee
411: which yields the estimate ${\bar \Phi}_{,r} \sim M / \alpha_g$ for $r
412: \sim L$, ${\bar \Phi}_{,r} \sim M / \alpha_g$ for $L \ll r \ll
413: \sqrt{\alpha_g} / m_p$, and ${\bar \Phi}_{,r} \sim M / (m_p^2 r^2)$ for
414: $r \gg \sqrt{\alpha_g}/m_p$. Therefore for $r \ll
415: \sqrt{\alpha_g}/m_p$ the acceleration produced by
416: the potential ${\bar \Phi}$ is smaller than the acceleration $\sim M /
417: (m_p^2 r^2)$ produced by the Newtonian potential term $\Phi_{\rm N}$
418: in the expression (\ref{Phisoln}) for $\Phi$ by a factor of $\sim
419: m_p^2 r^2 / \alpha_g \ll 1$. Therefore to a good approximation the
420: solution in this regime is given by\footnote{Up to an overall constant
421: term in ${\bar \Phi}$ which can be eliminated
422: by a gauge transformation of the form $x^i \to \alpha x^i$, $t \to
423: \alpha^{-2} t$ and which is not locally measurable.} Eqs.\ (\ref{soln1}) with the
424: ${\bar \Phi}$ terms dropped:
425: \be
426: \Phi = {1 \over 3} \Phi_{\rm N}, \ \ \ \ \Psi = - {1 \over 3}
427: \Phi_{\rm N}.
428: \label{soln4}
429: \ee
430: Since the motion of massive particles is governed by the potential
431: $\Phi$, we see that Newtonian gravity is recovered locally for
432: massive particles with an effective Newton's constant $G_{\rm eff} =
433: 1 / (24 \pi m_p^2)$.
434:
435:
436: The problem which occurs in regime 2 is light bending. Since the
437: metric given by Eqs.\ (\ref{metricansatz}) and (\ref{soln4}) is
438: conformally flat to a good approximation, there is no light bending.
439: More precisely, the amount of light bending produced for a ray that
440: grazes the source is smaller than the prediction of general relativity
441: by a factor of $\sim L^2 m_p^2 / \alpha_g \ll 1$.
442: Another way of describing this is in terms of the Eddington PPN
443: parameter $\gamma$, defined by the metric expansion in spherical symmetry
444: \bea
445: ds^2 &=& - \left[1 - {2 {\bar M} \over r} + O(1 / r^2) \right] dt^2 \nn\\
446: &&+ \left[ 1
447: + {2 \gamma {\bar M} \over r} + O(1/r^2) \right] \delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j.
448: \label{gammadef}
449: \eea
450: Comparing Eqs.\ (\ref{metricansatz}) and (\ref{soln4}) with Eq.\ (\ref{gammadef})
451: yields
452: \be
453: \gamma = -1 + O \left( {L^2 m_p^2 \over \alpha_g} \right).
454: \ee
455: Experimentally it is known that $\gamma=1$ to a within a small
456: fraction of a percent, in agreement with the prediction of general relativity.
457: The deflection of a ray of light is proportional to $1 + \gamma$.
458:
459:
460: %\medskip
461: %\noindent
462: %{\it Regime 3:}
463: \subsection{Regime 3}
464:
465: We first note that the linearized equations of motion
466: are a good approximation in regimes 1 and 2. The potential $\Phi_{\rm
467: N} \sim M / (m_p^2 L)$ defined by Eq.\ (\ref{PhiNdef}) is small
468: compared to unity by
469: Eqs.\ (\ref{regimeI}) and (\ref{regimeII}). In regime 1 we have
470: ${\bar \Phi} \approx - \Phi_{\rm N}$ so $|{\bar \Phi}| \ll 1$. In
471: regime 2, the largest value of ${\bar \Phi}$ is of order $(M/\alpha_g)
472: (\sqrt{\alpha_g}/m_p) \sim M \sqrt{\alpha_g} / m_p$ which is small
473: compared to unity by Eqs.\ (\ref{regimeII}).
474:
475: In regime 3 however, we have $|\Phi_N| \agt 1$ from Eq.\
476: (\ref{regimeIII}), and so the linearized approximation breaks down.
477: In this regime one must use the full nonlinear equations of the theory.
478: However, it is clear that Newtonian phenomenology cannot be
479: reproduced in this regime since the linear superposition principle
480: will not apply.
481:
482: \medskip
483:
484: Finally, a separate problem with the theory (\ref{action2}) is that it
485: contains a ghost field, i.e. a field whose
486: kinetic energy term has the wrong sign. This ghost field is a
487: massless spin 2 field that is due to the negative Ricci term
488: in the action (\ref{action2}) \cite{barabash}. There is also a
489: massive spin 2 field in the theory;
490: this field is normally ghostlike \cite{chiba} but here is not, due to the negative
491: coefficient of the Ricci scalar. It is however tachyonic for $\alpha_g>0$.
492:
493:
494: As this paper was being completed, we learned that similar arguments
495: had been presented by Karel Van Acolyen at a conference
496: \cite{workshop}.
497:
498: \acknowledgements
499: %\section{Acknowledgements}
500:
501: We thank Philip Mannheim and Karel Van Acoleyen
502: for helpful conversations.
503: This research was sponsored in part by NSF grant PHY-0457200.
504:
505:
506: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
507:
508:
509: \bibitem{weyl1} P. Mannheim and D. Kazanas, Astrophys. J. {\bf 342}, 635
510: (1989).
511: % Exact solutions to conformal Weyl gravity and galactic rotation curves
512:
513: \bibitem{weyl2} P. Mannheim and D. Kazanas, Astrophys. J. Supp. {\bf 76}, 431 (1991).
514: % General structure of the gravitational equations ..
515:
516: \bibitem{weyl3} P. Mannheim, Astrophysics and Space Science {\bf 181},
517: 55 (1991).
518: % General relativity and fifth force experiments
519:
520: \bibitem{weyl4} P. Mannheim, General Relativity and Gravitation {\bf
521: 22}, 289 (1990).
522: % Conformal gravity with no cosmological constant
523:
524: \bibitem{weyl5} P. Mannheim, Astrophys. J. {\bf 419}, 150 (1993).
525: % Linear potentials and galactic rotation curves
526:
527: \bibitem{weyl6} P. Mannheim ad D. Kazanas, General Relativity and Gravitation {\bf
528: 26}, 337 (1994).
529: % Newtonian limit of conformal gravity
530:
531: \bibitem{weyl7} P. Mannheim, Astrophys. J. {\bf 561}, 1 (2001).
532: % Cosmic acceleration as the solution of the cosmological constant
533: % problem
534:
535: \bibitem{weyl8} P. Mannheim, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D {\bf 12}, 893
536: (2003).
537: % how recent is cosmic acceleration; model of dark energy.
538:
539: \bibitem{review} P. Mannheim, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 56}, 340
540: (2006) [astro-ph/0505266].
541:
542: \bibitem{MTW} C. W. Misner {\it et al.}, {\it Gravitation} (Freeman,
543: New York, 1973).
544:
545: \bibitem{study1} L. Knox and A. Kosowsky, {\it Primordial
546: neuclosynthesis in conformal Weyl gravity}, astro-ph/9311006
547:
548: \bibitem{study2} D. Elizondo and G. Yepes, Astrophys. J. {\bf 428}, 17
549: (1994).
550:
551: \bibitem{study3} C. Carlson and E. Lowenstein, {\it Galactic rotation
552: curves and linear potential laws}, astro-ph/9602099.
553:
554: \bibitem{study4}
555: A. Edery and M. B. Paranjape, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 024011 (1998).
556:
557: \bibitem{study5} D. Klemm, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 15}, 3195 (1998).
558:
559: \bibitem{study6} A. Edery, A. and M. B. Paranjape,
560: Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 31}, 1031 (1999).
561:
562: \bibitem{study6a} J. Demaret, L. Querella and C. Scheen,
563: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 16}, 749 (1999).
564:
565: \bibitem{study7} M.D. Roberts, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. {\bf 249},
566: 339 (1991).
567:
568: \bibitem{study8} S. Pireaux, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 21}, 1897 (2004).
569:
570: \bibitem{study9} I. Navarro and K. Van Acoleyen, JHEP {\bf 8}, 19
571: (2005).
572:
573: \bibitem{study10} A. Edery et al,
574: {\it Spontaneous breaking of conformal invariance in theories of
575: conformally coupled matter and Weyl gravity}, hep-th/0603131.
576:
577: \bibitem{barabash} O.V. Barabash and Yu.V. Shtanov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
578: 60}, 064008 (1999).
579:
580: \bibitem{wood} J. Wood and W. Moreau, {\it Solutions of conformal
581: gravity with dynamical mass generation in the solar system},
582: gr-qc/0102056.
583:
584: %\bibitem{noghost} P. Mannheim, {\it Fourth order theories without
585: % ghosts}, hep-th/0001115.
586:
587: \bibitem{chiba} T. Chiba, {\it Generalized gravity and a ghost},
588: gr-qc/0502070.
589:
590: \bibitem{workshop} K. Van Acoleyen, presentation at ``Dark matter and
591: alternative gravities workshop'', Royal Observatory Edinburgh, April
592: 20-22 2006, available at
593: http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/$\tilde{\ }$hz4/workshop/alternative-gravities/program.html
594:
595:
596:
597: \end{thebibliography}
598:
599: \end{document}
600: