arXiv:0704.1932v1 [astro-ph] 16 Apr 2007 ∗ inllnigadtemte vrest.Lnigis Lensing overdensity. and relativ- matter to general the relationship sensitive in the and that is gravita- lensing from for here tional responsible on 12] potentials focus 11, gravitational we differs 10, between difference general 9, The in 8, ity. struc- 7, gravities Fortunately, 6, modified [5, in exactly. formation mimicked dark ture be the can allowing gravity By history state expansion the of considered. equation is energy universe the of another? one fundamental from A distinguished be 4]. arises: [3, then scales at question cosmological relativity or general [2] modify scale to galactic Alternatively, made large [1]. been the universe from have late to attempts observations, and universe early of the the of range of structure wide expansion a overall for the been account have to cosmologists energy, introduc- able dark By and matter physics. dark particle failure ing in This modifications to scales. at obser- led cosmological are has astronomical and physics independent galactic of particle on variety vations of a Model with Standard odds the plus ity oeto-akrmetric: Robertson-Walker eaiiy(R,i h bec faiorpcstresses, anisotropic of absence the φ in (GR), relativity 2 E φ h nwri N”i nytezr re expansion order zero the only if “No” is answer The relativ- general on based Predictions Introduction.— etoi drs:[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected] address: lectronic = ) d ψ x − 2 1 r h w oetasi h etre Friedman- perturbed the in potentials two the are ψ hnhiAtooia bevtr,CieeAaeyo cec,8 adnRa,Saga,Cia 200030 China, Shanghai, Road, Nandan 80 Science, of Academy Chinese Observatory, Astronomical Shanghai and olnigi estv to sensitive is lensing so , 5 6 ∇ ai aayadlnigsreswl eal omeasure and to infrared able optical, Planned be relativity. will measurements general surveys of from lensing set differs and a energy/matter gravity dark which galaxy propose between in We radio distinguishing models thereby of relationship. relationship, and theories lensing/matter this models Alternative the for gravitational overdensity. test the predictions can matter between different which the relationship make fixed and a often lensing is gravity gravitational model for this of responsible prediction potentials important An energy. dark ASnumbers: PACS eoiydvrec,t ecn cuay eso htti ilesl eaaeatraie uhas peculiar such the alternatives to separate potentials easily Newtonian will the this of that and Laplacian show TeVeS We DGP, the accuracy. ΛCDM, of percent ratio to the divergence, to velocity equal is value expectation etrfrPril srpyis em ainlAclrtrLbrtr,Btva L60510-0500 IL Batavia, Laboratory, Accelerator National Fermi Astrophysics, Particle for Center a eateto srnm srpyis h nvriyo hcg,Ciao L60637-1433 IL Chicago, Chicago, of University The Astrophysics, & Astronomy of Department 2 h tnadcsooia oe sbsdo eea eaiiyadicue akmte and matter dark includes and relativity general on based is model cosmological standard The stesaefco.I tnadgeneral standard In factor. scale the is ( φ − egi Zhang, Pengjie iciiaigpoeo rvt tcsooia scales cosmological at gravity of probe discriminating A ψ a h w eso modifications of sets two the Can ln h ieo ih where sight of line the along ) 2 H on nttt o aayadCsooy(ONC fSA n USTC and SHAO of (JOINGC) Cosmology and Galaxy for Institute Joint ( z 4 w rdcdb n modified any by produced ) ds eateto srnm,CrelUiest,Ihc,N 14853 NY Ithaca, University, Cornell Astronomy, of Department 3 DE etefrMteaia cecs nvriyo Cambridge, of University Sciences, Mathematical for Centre eateto ple ahmtc n hoeia Physics, Theoretical and Mathematics Applied of Department 2 ibroc od abig,C30A ntdKingdom United 0WA, CB3 Cambridge, Road, Wilberforce 1+2 + (1 = ob refunction, free a be to ,2 1, ∇ f ( 2 R ihl Liguori, Michele φ gravity. ) ψ h Poisson The . ) dt 2 − a 2 1+ (1 φ 3 ahlBean, Rachel h ierrgm,mte osrainrelates conservation θ matter regime, linear Here, the distribution. galaxy · a ∇ in distortions redshift spectrum rela- is basic The which simple: bias. prediction is galaxy idea this of problem of the to test insensitive a tively equal. propose exactly underly- we not the are Here of two the probe but overdensity, a matter as ing overdensity galaxy the use ten standard, alter- the by of obeyed gravity. prediction not of a generally theories is nate is This that theory sight. GR-based of line the density relates algebraically equation aaiswt esn ascntutdfo aaisat same galaxies the from redshifts, constructed correlating higher maps Cross lensing above. with goal galaxies So, first factor. the growth isfying density linear the i fteetocossetateeoei ietprobe direct a is therefore cross-spectra two these of tio = power cross galaxy-velocity the quantitatively, More of- Astronomers non-trivial. is prediction this Testing • • v /H − orltn hs aaisadlnigmp recon- galaxies. background maps from lensing cross- structed and by galaxies redshift this these at correlating signal lensing the Extract galaxy the space. of redshift accom- in anisotropy be spectrum the power can studying field by The velocity plished conser- the overdensities. Matter of the to measurement field. velocities relates velocity redshift vation the given a measuring at by overdensity matter the Extract δ/H ˙ δ E ( olnigi setal eemndby determined essentially is lensing so , z G P and ) 4 nosrainlqatt whose quantity observational an , gθ = n ct Dodelson Scott and −h ≡ − v βδ P ∇ stecmvn euirvlct.In velocity. peculiar comoving the is where , 2 δ ( g φ ( − FERMILAB-PUB-07-081-A k ψ ) ) θ g ( − β a emaue.Tera- The measured. be can ∇ k ≡ ) 2 i φ ,6 5, d a eifre from inferred be can otefatoa over- fractional the to ln D/d P gθ ln ∗ = a βP θ and gδ to δ along sat- , D δ θ by ≡ is 2

2 of ∇ (φ − ψ)/(βδ). It does not depend on galaxy bias Here, W is the lensing kernel. For a flat universe, χ, χs or on the initial matter fluctuations, at least in the lin- are the comoving angular diameter distance to the lens ear regime. Modifications in gravity will in general leave and source, respectively. Eq. 3 is a pure geometric result signatures in either β and/or the Poisson equation. and can be applied to any modified gravity models where Galaxy-Velocity Cross-correlation.— A galaxy’s photons follow null geodesics. peculiar motion shifts its apparent radial position from A standard method to recover the redshift information s xz to xz = xz +vz/H(z) in redshift space, where vz is the is by the lensing-galaxy cross correlation. For galaxies in comoving radial peculiar velocity. The coherent velocity the redshift range [z1,z2], the resulting cross correlation component changes the galaxy number overdensity from power spectrum under the Limber’s approximation is s δg to δg ≃ δg − ∇zvz/H(z). The stochastic velocity com- χ2 −1 ponent mixes different scales and damps the power spec- Cκg(l) = 4 ng(χ)dχ (4) trum on small scales. The redshift space galaxy power  Zχ1  spectrum therefore has the general form χ2 l −2 × W (χ,χs)ng(χ)P∇2 (φ−ψ)g( ,z)χ dχ 2 2 2 Zχ1 χ s 2 4 k u σv Pg (k)= Pg(k)+2u Pgθ(k)+ u Pθ(k) F 2 (1) l/χ1  H (z)  W (¯χ,χs)   ≃ P∇2(φ−ψ)g(k, z¯)dk 4l∆χ Zl/χ2 where u = kk/k is the cosine of the angle of the k vector (2) with respect to radial direction; Pg, Pgθ, Pθ are the real = fα(l)Pα . space galaxy power spectra of galaxies, galaxy-θ and θ, Xα respectively; σ is the 1D velocity dispersion; and F (x) v Here, χ are the comoving angular diameter distance to is a smoothing function, normalized to unity at x = 0, 1,2 redshift z1,2 andχ ¯ is the mean distance. The band power determined by the velocity probability distribution. This (2) (1) simple formula has passed tests in simulations on scales Pα of P∇2(φ−ψ)g is defined at the same k range as Pα . < In practice, we measure the band power Cκg(l, ∆l). The where δ ∼ 1 [13]. The derivation of Eq. (1) is quite general, so it should be applicable even when gravity is weighting fα(l, ∆l) is defined correspondingly. For each modified. l, only a fraction of α having fα(l, ∆l) 6= 0 contribute. s A discriminating probe of gravity.— With the The distinctive dependence of Pg on u allows for si- above measurements, one can construct an estimator multaneous determination of Pg, Pgθ and Pθ [14]. The parameters we want to determine are the band powers of C (l, ∆l) 1 ˆ κg Pgθ(k) defined such that P (k)= Pα if kα ≤ k < kα+1, EG = , (5) 2 −1 (1) (1) 3H0 a α fα(l, ∆l)Pα where k1 < k2 < · · · < kα < · · · . We denote Pα P as the band power of Pgθ. For a ki in each k bin, whose expectation value is s we have a measurement of Pg , which we denote as Pi. 2 2 The unbiased minimum variance estimator of P (1) is ∇ (φ − ψ) ∇ (φ − ψ) α hEˆGi = = . (6) Fi 2 4 2 −1 2 −1 ˆ 2 −3H a θ  l 3H a βδ  l P = WiPi, where Wi = (λ1 + λ2ui + λ3ui ). Here, 0 k= χ¯ ,z¯ 0 k= χ¯ ,z¯ 2σi F ≡PF (ku σ /H), σ2 is the variance of P and the three i i v i i ˆ Lagrange multipliers λα (α =1, 2, 3) is determined by The fractional error on EG is

2 2 2 2 (1),2 1 −1 2(m+n−2) Fi h∆EGi ∆C α fα∆Pα λ = (0, , 0) · A ; Amn = u . (2) ≃ + , (7) 2 i 2σ2 E2 C2 P (1) 2 Xi i G κg ( α fαPα ) P 2 2 N N Galaxy-galaxy lensing.— Weak lensing is sensitive where ∆C = [Cκg + (Cκ + Cκ )(Cg + Cg )]/(2l∆lfsky). to the convergence κ, the projected gravitational poten- N N Here, Cκ, Cκ , Cg, Cg are the power spectra of weak tial along the line of sight: lensing convergence, weak lensing shot noise, galaxy and

χs galaxy shot noise, respectively, and fsky is the fractional 1 2 κ = ∇ (φ − ψ)W (χ,χs)dχ . (3) sky coverage. Errors on EG at any two adjacent bins are 2 Z0 correlated, since they always share some same k modes. However, by requiring lα/χ1 = lα+1/χ2, where l1

TABLE I: Summary of target surveys. 2 redshift area/deg Ngal band 0.4 AS2a z< 0.8 10,000 ∼ 1.5 × 106 optical b 8 0.3 ADEPT 1

0.4 takes the general form 0.3 φ = −η(k,a)ψ , 0.2 2 2 −1 k (φ − ψ) = 3H0 Ω0a δGeff (k,a) . (8) 0.1 ADEPT+LSST 1.3dark energy will have large-scale fluctuations [16], but, for FIG. 1: EG as a smoking gun of gravity. We only show those 2 models with large sound speed and negligible anisotropic k modes well in the linear regime (∆m(k,z) ≤ 0.2) in four redshift bins. For clarity, we shift the error bars of AS2+LSST stress, such as quintessence, these are negligible at sub- and ADEPT+LSST slightly rightward. Irregularities in the horizon scales and Eq. 8 still holds. error-bars are caused by irregularities in the available discrete (2) Flat DGP: η = [1 − 1/3βDGP]/[1+1/3βDGP] and k 2 modes of redshift distortion. Dotted lines are the results Geff = 1 [9], where βDGP = 1 − 2rcH(1 + H/˙ 3H ) < 0 of a flat DGP model with Ω0 = 0.2. Dashed lines are for and r = H /(1 − Ω ). Ω differs from that of ΛCDM, in − 2 − 2 c 0 0 0 f(R) = λ1H0 exp( R/λ2H0 ) with λ2 = 100. They have order to mimic H(z) of ΛCDM. roughly the same expansion history as the fiducial cosmology (3) f(R) gravity: in the sub-horizon limit, G = at z < 2. Solid lines with wiggles are for TeVeS with KB = eff −1 0.08, 0.09, 0.1, where the lines with most significant wiggles (1 + fR) [11] and η = 1 [12], with fR ≡ df/dR|B where have KB = 0.1. B denotes the FRW background. This falls naturally out of a conformal transformation of the expression for EG in the Einstein frame into the Jordan frame, noting that Einstein frame scalar field fluctuations are negligible on magnification utilizing its unique flux dependence, with subhorizon scales [12]. We numerically solve the full per- S/N comparable to that of LSST through cosmic shear turbation equations in the Einstein frame since it is com- [15]. Survey specifications are summarized in TABLE I. putationally simpler [12] and then conformally transform The fiducial cosmology adopted is the ΛCDM cosmology, to the Jordan frame, which we choose as the physical with the WMAP best fit parameters Ω0 = 0.26, ΩΛ = frame, evaluating β such that EG =Ω0/(1+fR)β. In the 2 2 1 − Ω0,h = 0.72, σ8 = 0.77 and ns = 1. The result limit that fR → 0, e.g. for f(R) ∼ λ1H0 exp(−R/λ2H0 ) is shown in figure 1. We find that, errors in Cκg mea- [11] with λ1 ≪ λ2, the evolution is observationally equiv- surements are in general much larger than errors in Pgθ alent to ΛCDM. For modes that entered the horizon prior measurements. At k< 0.1h/Mpc, cosmic variance in Cκg to matter-radiation equality, as we consider here, β, and measurements in general dominates the EG error budget, therefore EG, is scale invariant for IR modifications to 2 resulting in decreasing error-bars toward larger k. This gravity, with fR > 0. The scale independence of D and makes fsky and the lensing source redshifts the two most β also holds in ΛCDM, Quintessence-CDM, DGP. An relevant survey parameters for EG error estimation. observed scale-independent deviation in EG from ΛCDM We restrict our discussion to sub-horizon scale pertur- could signify a special class of modified gravity, as shown bations and express equations hereafter in the Fourier in Fig. 1. form. Four independent linear equations are required to solve for four perturbation variables δ, θ, ψ and φ. The mass-energy conservation provides two: δ˙ + Hθ =0 2 Scales larger than the horizon at matter-radiation equality are ˙ 2 2 2 and Hθ + 2H θ − k ψ/a = 0. For at least ΛCDM, suppressed [12] and, if measurable, would have a scale dependent quintessence-CDM, DGP and f(R) gravity, the other two increase in the value of EG in comparison to the small scale value. 4

(4) TeVeS/MOND. Besides the gravitational met- Jeremiah Ostriker for useful discussions. PJZ is sup- ric, TeVeS [2] contains a scalar and a vector field. These ported by the one-hundred talents program of the Chi- new fields act as sources for the gravitational potential nese Academy of Science (CAS), the National Science φ in the modified Poisson equation and can change the Foundation of China grant 10533030 and CAS grant evolution of cosmological perturbations with respect to KJCX3-SYW-N2. RB’s work is supported by the standard gravity [6, 7]. We considered a TeVeS model National Science Foundation grants AST-0607018 and with Ωb =0.05, Ων =0.17, ΩΛ =0.78 and we adopted a PHY-0555216. SD is supported by the US Department choice of the TeVeS parameters that produces a signifi- of Energy. cant enhancement of the growth factor. The TeVeS EG 3 is significantly different from the standard EG (Fig. 1). It exhibits scale dependence with accompanying baryons acoustic wiggles. Both features are due to the vector field fluctuations, which play a significant role in struc- [1] See, e.g. D. Spergel, et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603449; M. Tegmark, et al. 2006, astro-ph/0608632; A. Riess et al. ture formation [7]. These fluctuations decrease toward 2006, astro-ph/0611572; small scales and cause the scale dependency of EG. We [2] M. Milgrom. ApJ, 207, 371 (1983); Jacob D. Bekenstein, also checked that they affect the final shape of the acous- Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 083509 tic oscillations of the other components significantly. As [3] Gia Dvali, Gregory Gabadadze, Massimo Porrati. a result, oscillations in φ, ψ and δ do not cancel out per- Phys.Lett. B485 (2000) 208; C. Deffayet, PLB, 502, 199 fectly in TeVeS when we take the ratio, thus producing (2001); the wiggles in E . [4] Sean M. Carroll, Vikram Duvvuri, Mark Trodden, G Michael S. Turner. Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 043528 ; Sean For the four gravity models investigated, differences M. Carroll, Antonio De Felice, Vikram Duvvuri, Damien in EG are much larger than observational statistical un- A. Easson, Mark Trodden, Michael S. Turner. Phys.Rev. certainties. Planned surveys are promising to detect per- D71 (2005) 063513; cent level deviation from GR and should distinguish these [5] M. White, C.S. Kochanek, 2001, ApJ, 560, 539; Ak- modified gravity models unambiguously. ihito Shirata, Tetsuya Shiromizu, Naoki Yoshida, Ya- At large scales, gravity is the only force determining sushi Suto, Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 064030; C. Sealfon, L. Verde & R. Jimenez, Phys.Rev. D71(2005) 083004; H. the acceleration of galaxies and dark matter particles. So Stabenau, B. Jain, Phys.Rev. D74(2006)084007 we assumed no galaxy velocity bias. As statistical errors [6] C. Skordis, D. F. Mota, P. G. Ferreira, C. Boehm. in EG measurements reach the 1% level (Fig. 1), several Phys.Rev.Lett. 96 (2006) 011301 ; Constantinos Skordis, other systematics may become non-negligible. One is the Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 103513 accuracy of the redshift distortion formula (Eq. 1), which [7] Scott Dodelson, Michele Liguori. 2006, Phys.Rev.Lett. 97 may be problematic for those modes with large u, even at (2006) 231301 very linear scales [13]. A remedy is to exclude them when [8] Arthur Lue, Roman Scoccimarro, Glenn Starkman. Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 124015; L. Knox, Y.-S. Song, extracting Pgθ, at the expense of statistical accuracy. As J.A. Tyson. 2005, astro-ph/0503644; Mustapha Ishak, discussed before, accuracy of EG measurement is dom- Amol Upadhye, David N. Spergel. Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) inated by accuracy of P∇2(φ−ψ)g measurements and is 043513 thus less affected. A less severe one is the nonlinear evo- [9] Kazuya Koyama, Roy Maartens. JCAP 0601 (2006) 016 2 > [10] Tomi Koivisto, Hannu Kurki-Suonio. Class.Quant.Grav. lution, which becomes non-negligible at ∆m ∼ 0.1. In general relativity, nonlinear corrections to density and ve- 23 (2006) 2355-2369; Tomi Koivisto. Phys.Rev. D73 locity differ (Fig. 12, [17]). A direct consequence is that (2006) 083517; B. Li, M.-C. Chu. Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 104010; Yong-Seon Song, Wayne Hu, Ignacy Sawicki. EG develops a dependence on the matter power spec- 2006, astro-ph/0610532; B. Li & J. Barrow. 2007, trum. Similar effects in modified gravity models are ex- gr-qc/0701111 pected. This can be corrected by high order perturbation [11] Pengjie Zhang. Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 123504 2 < calculations, which should work well where ∆m ∼ 0.2. [12] Rachel Bean, David Bernat, Levon Pogosian, Alessandra We thank Daniel Eisenstein, Bhuvnesh Jain and Silvestri, Mark Trodden. Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 064020 [13] Roman Scoccimarro. Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 083007 [14] Max Tegmark, Andrew J. S. Hamilton, Yongzhong Xu. Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 335 (2002) 887-908

3 [15] P. Zhang & U.L. Pen 2005, Physical Review Letters, 95, To simplify the numerical treatment of the TeVeS perturbations 241302 equations while retaining a good qualitative description of all the [16] J. Weller & A.M. Lewis, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 346 significant physical effects at the same time, we introduced sev- eral approximations. Namely we assumed instantaneous recom- (2003) 987; R. Bean & O. Dore, 2004, PRD, 69, 083503 bination and employed the tight coupling approximation between [17] F. Bernardeau, S. Colombi, E. Gaztanaga, R. Scocci- baryons and photons at all scales before decoupling; moreover marro. Phys.Rept. 367 (2002) 1-248; astro-ph/0112551 we evolved perturbations in the massive neutrino component in a simplified way by switching off neutrinos perturbations when they were below the free steaming scale and treating them as a fluid above the free streaming scale.