Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byMalakai Hache Modified about 1 year ago

1
1 1 Dissecting Dark Energy Eric Linder Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

2
2 2 Our Tools Expansion rate of the universe a(t) ds 2 = dt 2 +a 2 (t)[dr 2 /(1-kr 2 )+r 2 d 2 ] Einstein equation (å/a) 2 = H 2 = (8 /3) m + H 2 (z) = (8 /3) m + C exp{ dlna [1+w(z)]} Growth rate of density fluctuations g(z) = ( m / m )/a Poisson equation 2 (a)=4 Ga 2 m = 4 G m (0) g(a)

3
3 3 Tying HEP to Cosmology Accurate to 3% in EOS back to z=1.7 (vs. 27% for w 1 ). Accurate to 0.2% in distance back to z lss =1100! Klein-Gordon equation + 3H = -dV( )/d ¨ ˙ Linder Phys.Rev.Lett following Corasaniti & Copeland 2003 w(a) = w 0 +w a (1-a)

4
4 4 All w, All the time Suppose we admit our ignorance: H 2 = (8 /3) m + H 2 (z) Effective equation of state: w(z) = -1 + (1/3) d ln( H 2 ) / d ln(1+z) Modifications of the expansion history are equivalent to time variation w(z). Period. Time variation w´ is a critical clue to fundamental physics. Alterations to Friedmann framework w(z) gravitational extensions or high energy physics Linder 2003

5
5 5 The world is w(z) Don’t care if it’s braneworld, cardassian, vacuum metamorphosis, chaplygin, etc. Simple, robust parametrization w(a)=w 0 +w a (1-a) Braneworld [DDG] vs. (w 0,w a )=(-0.78,0.32) Vacuum metamorph vs. (w 0,w a )=(-1,-3) Also agree on m(z) to 0.01 mag out to z=2

6
6 6 Revealing Physics Some details of the underlying physics are not in w(z). N eed an underlying theory - ? beyond Einstein gravity? Growth history and expansion history work together. w 0 =-0.78 w a =0.32 Linder 2004 cf. Lue, Scoccimarro, Starkman Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) for braneworld perturbations

7
7 7 Questions How does a(t) teach us something fundamental (beyond w(z))? Benchmarks: à la energy scale for inflation models; rule out theories tying DE to inflation; scalar tensor 2 ; slow roll parameters of V( ) like linear potential Predictive power: Albrecht-Skordis-Burgess w(z); naturalness constraints ; flatness and w(z) w<-1: Crossing w=-1 with hybrid quintessence Other tools: astronomy (strong gravity, solar system), accelerator, tabletop experiments

8
8 8 Lambda, Quintessence, or Not? Many models asymptote to w=-1, making distinction from difficult. Can models cross w=-1? (Yes, if w<-1 exists.) All models match CMB power spectrum for CDM

9
9 9 Naturalness and w´ Consider the analogy with inflation. Tilt n=1 (Harrison-Zel’dovich) is roughly predicted; profound if n=1 exactly (deSitter, limited dynamics). Same: w=-1 exactly is profound, but w≈-1 maybe not too surprising. Small deviation w -1 important so precision sought. However, while n=0.97, constant without running, is possible, w=-0.97 constant is almost ridiculous. Thus, searching for w´ is critical even if find w very near -1.

10
10 Predictions & Benchmarks Linear potential [Linde 1986] V( )=V 0 + leads to collapsing universe, can constrain t c a t curves of Would like predictions of w(z) - or at least w´. In progress for Albrecht-Skordis-Burgess model V( ) = (1+ /b + /b 2 ) exp(- )

11
11 Predictions & Benchmarks Extensions to gravitation E.g. scalar-tensor theories: f/2 - ( ) ; ; -V Take linear coupling to Ricci scalar R: f/ = F R Allow nonminimal coupling F=1/(8 G)+ 2 R-boost (note R 0 in radiation dominated epoch) gives large basin of attraction: solves fine tuning yet w ≈ -1. [Matarrese,Baccigalupi,Perrotta 2004] But growth of mass fluctuations altered: S 0 since G 1/F.

12
12 Questions How does a(t) teach us something fundamental (beyond w(z))? Benchmarks: à la energy scale for inflation models; rule out theories tying DE to inflation; scalar tensor 2 ; slow roll parameters of V( ) like linear potential Predictive power: Albrecht-Skordis-Burgess w(z); naturalness constraints ; flatness and w(z) w<-1: Crossing w=-1 with hybrid quintessence Other tools: astronomy (strong gravity, solar system), accelerator, tabletop experiments

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google