Dark Energy and Extended Gravity theories

Francesca Perrotta (SISSA, Trieste)

Overview
The case for Dark Energy and possible approaches; Quintessence models properties; Extended Gravity Theories: effects on cosmological background evolution (expansion rate, R-boost) and perturbative effects (CMB, weak lensing, clustering properties); Current constraints on G variations

The case for Dark Energy

In the old standard picture, Gravity is an attractive force, decelerating the cosmic expansion by means of the mutual attraction between matter particles and structures. This scenario has been upset when distant Type 1A Supernovae evidenced an accelerating expansion of the Universe (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999). CMB and LSS observations strengthen this view.

p Some type of DARK ENERGY must drive the

acceleration through a REPULSIVE gravitational force.

POSSIBLE APPROACHES: Add a new component with negative equation of state (e.g. Quintessence fields); ii) Geometrically modify Gravity, e.g. including 0 or terms depending on the curvature; iii) Add a new fundamental force coupling (Extended theories of Gravity). i)

The cosmological constant 0

1 8TG Rik  gik R  0gik ! 4 Tik 2 c
If arising from the zero point quantum fluctuations of the known forms of matter (vacuum energy), then

Imposing an ultraviolet cutoff at the Planck scale,

T00
while

vac

$ c5 / G 2 J 1076 GeV 4 }
47

V 0 } 10

GeV

 discrepancy of 123 orders of magnitude !

Quintessence models of DE
A classical, minimally-coupled scalar field evolves in a potential VJ while its energy density and pressure combine to produce a negative equation of state w=p/V . Unlike the cosmological constant, the Quintessence field admits fluctuations HJ. Fine-tuning problem: in analogy with 0 the need to tune initial values of Jto get the observed energy density and equation of state; Coincidence problem: why Vm ~ VJ just today ? Search for ATTRACTOR SOLUTIONS (tracking fields)

e.g. Ratra-Peebles (1988) potential:

M V! E J

4 E

Tracking solutions are defined in the background (matter or rad.) dominated epoch. In the present Quintessence-dominated era, the field has already passed the tracking phase. Analyzing the post-tracking regime, good trackers (attractors with large basin of attraction) end up with an e.o.s. too different from 1, ruled out by observations of CMB, LSS, IA Supernovae (Bludmann 2004).

wQ ! 0.98 s 0.12

(Spergel et al. 2003)

The fine-tunig problem is resumed (Bludman 2004)

Beyond General Relativity

Can the Dark Energy be the signature of a modification of Gravity? Hints from Quantum Gravity: N coupled to R to allow for a mechanics of geometry, equivalent to a new force in the classical limit (modify the gravitational sector of the low energy Lagrangian) Prototype: Jordan-Brans-Dicke theory

Deserves further scrutiny as a testing ground of many aspects of more general NMC theories

Generalized theories of Gravity

1 1 ;Q L ! f ( R, N )  N ;Q  V (N )  Lfluid 2 2 R coupling function F (N ) R Explored classes: 8TG 1 2 F (N ) !  \N (Extended Quintessence) 8TG
Perrotta F., Matarrese S., Baccigalupi C., Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 023507 Baccigalupi, Matarrese, Perrotta 2000;

Modifications of the background evolution: cosmic expansion, R-boost. Modifications of the perturbed quantities: CMB, clustering properties, weak lensing

Background effects
Friedmann equation:
1 2 1 HF 2  H ! a V fluid  2 NN  V  3 2 3F 2a a
2

H w Geff w

1 F (N )

Changing effective G changes cosmic expansion rate. Klein-Gordon:

1   2HN !  ( a 2 F,N R  2a 2V,N )   N 2

The R-term originates a ``boost in the field dynamics

R-boost

Since R diverges as a -3 as a p0 (if non-relativistic species are present), an effective potential is generated in the KG equation, boosting the dynamics of Jat early times. (Baccigalupi et al.2000) EQ admits tracking trajectories AND they are good trackers (large basin of attraction).

Approaching 0without fine-tuning

Matarrese S., Baccigalupi C., Perrotta F., 2004

W0= -0.999, TEQ for different initial K,V

Even if wp-1, R boost enlarges the allowed range of initial energy densities

Perturbations effects
Clustering properties: scalar field perturbations may interact with matter perturbations in EQ models. Perrotta F., Baccigalupi 2002; Perrotta et al. 2003 Weak lensing : variations of G induce corrections in distance calculations; perturbations gain a new d.o.f., the anisotropic stress Acquaviva V., Baccigalupi C., Perrotta F., 2004 CMB effects (ISW, projection, lensing, bispectrum)

Modifications to the Poisson equation (Perrotta et al. 2004):

Possible effects on collapsed structures?

Weak lensing in Generalized Gravity theories

(Acquaviva, Baccigalupi, Perrotta 2004).

The lensing signal is affected by the Dark Energy both at the background and perturbation level. BACKGROUND effects: modification of the measures of distances (time-varying G). PERTURBATIONS: in Generalized theories, the anisotropic stress is non-vanishing, contrarily to the ordinary Quintessence models, and * is sourced by HN.

HPk / Pk } 128G\N

Dark Energy and CMB

Projection effects:
PH ,dec UH } d dec

Affects the location of acoustic peaks

Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect:

*( z)  2 1 = ( z ) ! const. 3 1  w( z )

Enhanced in DE models

Part of the CMB normalization at low multipoles is due to the ISW

ISW and Projection effects on CMB

w ! 1

multipoles

w ! 0.5

CMB and Extended Quintessence

1 =wG w F
For l < 10, Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect:

HCN G w \N 2 0 $ 121  G CN dec

Projection:

Hl HF w l F
These corrections will depend on the value and sign of the coupling constant \

CMB and Dark Energy

ISW not detectable, because of Cosmic Variance; Projection effects show degeneracy with variations of ;m, H0, K, but still the basic effect on which CMB constraints on dark energy are based so far; EQ: the possibility of testing EQ scenarios is related to the actual value of the coupling constant \
HOW BIG IS \ ?

Constraints on a time-varying G
8TGeff 1 2[JBD  4 ! 2[  3 F (N ) JBD
[JBD | F F '2

Jordan-Brans-Dicke parameter:

Recent solar-system experiments (Cassini spacecraft) give a lower bound:

[JBD " 40,000

(Bertotti et al. 2004)

This can be translated, in a model-dependent way, into a constraint on the time variation of G. E.g., In a Brans-Dicke theory in a matter dominated universe,

| Gt / G |!| Ft / F | 10

14

yr

1

HOWEVER, a timedependent G alters the Hubble length at matter-radiation equality, which is a scale imprinted on the power spectrum. CMB and large-scale structure experiments can provide complementary constraints, on different scales
(Liddle, Mazumdar, Barrow 1998). (Acquaviva V., Baccigalupi C., Leach S., Liddle A.R., Perrotta F., 2004)

Solar system experiments probe scales different from the ones probed by the CMB: we should expect different constraints on [ and \

The coupling parameter \w1/[ in scalar-tensor theories may be larger than locally is

Conclusions
Generalized theories of Gravity have advantages with respect to ordinary Quintessence and 0. Fine-tuning can be alleviated Possible effects on structure formation and gravitational collapse Possible signatures from CMB and weak lensing Coupling constants may be larger than expected