Cited by 188Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena

ASTROPHYSICAL TESTS OF MODIFIED GRAVITY: CONSTRAINTS FROM DISTANCE INDICATORS IN THE NEARBY UNIVERSE

Open access
Jain, Bhuvnesh, Vikram, Vinu, Sakstein, Jeremy·2013·The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

We use distance measurements in the nearby universe to carry out new tests of gravity, surpassing other astrophysical tests by over two orders of magnitude for chameleon theories. The three nearby distance indicators—cepheids, tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) stars, and water masers—operate in gravitational fields of widely different strengths. This enables tests of scalar–tensor gravity theories because they are screened from enhanced forces to different extents. Inferred distances from cepheids and TRGB stars are altered (in opposite directions) over a range of chameleon gravity theory parameters well below the sensitivity of cosmological probes. Using published data, we have compared cepheid and TRGB distances in a sample of unscreened dwarf galaxies within 10 Mpc. We use a comparable set of screened galaxies as a control sample. We find no evidence for the order unity force enhancements expected in these theories. Using a two-parameter description of the models (the coupling strength and background field value), we obtain constraints on both the chameleon and symmetron screening scenarios. In particular we show that f ( R ) models with background field values f R 0 above 5 × 10 −7 are ruled out at the 95% confidence level. We also compare TRGB and maser distances to the galaxy NGC 4258 as a second test for larger field values. While there are several approximations and caveats in our study, our analysis demonstrates the power of gravity tests in the local universe. We discuss the prospects for additional improved tests with future observations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/39

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Jain et al. found no evidence for an enhancement of the gravitational force and put a constraint on the f(R) model parameter at 95% confidence level.

    “The authors found no evidence for an enhancement of the gravitational force and put a constraint of at 95% C.L. (Jain et al. 2013b).”

    From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Jain et al. 2013b

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jain, B., Vikram, V., & Sakstein, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
The Astrophysical Journal
Published
2013-11-25
Volume
779
Issue
1
Pages
39
ISSN
  • 0004-637X (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4357
OpenAlex
W2168807438
Cited by
188
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 20
FWCI
15.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astrophysical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Keywords
modified gravity, chameleon screening, symmetron screening, scalar-tensor gravity, f(R) gravity, local universe, Cepheid variable stars, tip of the red giant branch, water masers, dwarf galaxies, NGC 4258, distance indicators

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