Confirmation of general relativity on large scales from weak lensing and galaxy velocities
Open accessAbstract
Although general relativity underlies modern cosmology, its applicability on cosmological length scales has yet to be stringently tested. Such a test has recently been proposed, using a quantity, E(G), that combines measures of large-scale gravitational lensing, galaxy clustering and structure growth rate. The combination is insensitive to 'galaxy bias' (the difference between the clustering of visible galaxies and invisible dark matter) and is thus robust to the uncertainty in this parameter. Modified theories of gravity generally predict values of E(G) different from the general relativistic prediction because, in these theories, the 'gravitational slip' (the difference between the two potentials that describe perturbations in the gravitational metric) is non-zero, which leads to changes in the growth of structure and the strength of the gravitational lensing effect. Here we report that E(G) = 0.39 +/- 0.06 on length scales of tens of megaparsecs, in agreement with the general relativistic prediction of E(G) approximately 0.4. The measured value excludes a model within the tensor-vector-scalar gravity theory, which modifies both Newtonian and Einstein gravity. However, the relatively large uncertainty still permits models within f(R) theory, which is an extension of general relativity. A fivefold decrease in uncertainty is needed to rule out these models.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Reyes et al. (2010) measured E_G value was in 2.5σ tension with TeVeS models.
“Nevertheless, the measured value was in a 2.5- tension with the TeVeS models.”
From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Reyes et al. (2010)
Reyes et al. (2010) provided one of the first measurements of E_G at z=0.32, finding agreement with the GR-ΛCDM value of 0.39, although uncertainties did not exclude some alternative gravity theories such as f(R) predicting E_G between 0.328 and 0.365.
“Reyes et al. (2010) provided one of the first measurements of at redshift finding in agreement with GR-CDM value of although the uncertainties did not exclude some other possible alternative gravity theories such as f(R) (see Sect. 7.4.1) that predict a range of between 0.328 and 0.365.”
From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Reyes et al. (2010)
TeVeS has been found to be in tension with latest large scale structure and CMB data sets.
“However, the theory has been recently found to be in tension with latest large scale structure and CMB data sets, e.g., Reyes et al. (2010) and Xu et al. (2015), although often disputed by its proposers, e.g., Bekenstein and Sanders (2012) and Milgrom (2017).”
From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Reyes et al. (2010)
Combining galaxy-shear with galaxy-velocity correlation from planned spectroscopic surveys could test general relativity and its variants at high redshift.
“The combination with the galaxy -velocity correlation function estimated from currently planned spectroscopic surveys could test general relativity and its variants at high redshift ( Reyes et al. 2010 ) .”
From LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products (2019) · cites this paper as Reyes et al. 2010
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 332
- Authors
- Reyes, R., Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Baldauf, T., Gunn, J. E., Lombriser, L., & Smith, R. E.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Reyes, Reinabelle
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 464
- Issue
- 7286
- Pages
- 256-258
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2034077004
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 34
- FWCI
- 22.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
- Keywords
- general relativity, modified gravity, gravitational slip, large-scale structure growth, weak gravitational lensing, galaxy clustering, galaxy velocities, f(R) gravity, galaxy bias, cosmological tests of gravity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
