CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 129Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories

Evading the Vainshtein Mechanism with Anomalous Gravitational Wave Speed: Constraints on Modified Gravity from Binary Pulsars

Open access
Beltrán Jiménez, Jose, Piazza, Federico, Velten, Hermano·2016·Physical Review Letters
DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.116.061101
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

By using observations of the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, we constrain the gravitational wave (GW) speed to the level of 10(-2). We apply this result to scalar-tensor theories that generalize Galileon 4 and 5 models, which display anomalous propagation speed and coupling to matter for GWs. We argue that this effect survives conventional screening due to the persistence of a scalar field gradient inside virialized overdensities, which effectively "pierces" the Vainshtein screening. In specific branches of solutions, our result allows us to directly constrain the cosmological couplings in the effective field theory of dark energy formalism.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.116.061101

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • DHOST models with late-time self-acceleration exist and can satisfy constraints from solar interior structure and the gravitational-wave orbital decay of the Hulse-Taylor pulsar.

    “The latter study found DHOST models with late-time self-acceleration. They performed perturbations in the quasi-static limit and showed that the models can satisfy constraints from solar interior structure (Saito et al. 2015; Sakstein 2015a; Babichev et al. 2016) and the GW orbital decay of the Hulse–Taylor pulsar (Beltrán Jiménez et al. 2016b).”

    From Testing general relativity in cosmology (2019) · cites this paper as Beltrán Jiménez et al. 2016b

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Beltrán Jiménez, J., Piazza, F., & Velten, H.
Affiliations
Aix-Marseille Université (FR)
ORCID
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2016-02-09
Volume
116
Issue
6
Pages
061101-061101
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.116.061101
OpenAlex
W1563822511
Cited by
129
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20
FWCI
13.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
  • A*MIDEX Foundation (ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02)
  • UFES
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Pulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Keywords
Vainshtein mechanism, gravitational wave speed, modified gravity, binary pulsars, scalar-tensor gravity, Galileon, screening, scalar field gradient, effective field theory of dark energy

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