Access the full text.

Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
, Volume 2020 (1908) – Aug 12, 2019

/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/constraining-an-exact-brans-dicke-gravity-theory-with-recent-jGeMvfRXid

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

- ISSN
- 2212-6864
- eISSN
- ARCH-3332
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.dark.2020.100711
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site

1, ∗ 2, † Hassan Amirhashchi and Anil Kumar Yadav Department of Physics, Mahshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mahshahr, Iran Department of Physics, United College of Engineering and Research,Greater Noida - 201310, India In this paper ﬁrst we study Brans-Dicke equations with the cosmological constant to ﬁnd an exact solution in the spatially ﬂat Robertson-Walker metric. Then we use Observational Hubble data, the baryon acoustic oscillation distance ratio data as well as cosmic microwave background data from Planck to constrain parameters of the obtained Brans-Dicke model. To compare our results and ﬁnd out the amount of deviation from general relativity, we also constrain concordance cosmological model using the same data. In our theoretical model the Brans-Dicke coupling constant is replaced by a , say new, parameter namely ƒscalar ﬁeld density Ω ‚. Therefore, as Ω → 0 which is equivalent φ φ to ω → ∞ general relativity is recovered. In general, we found no signiﬁcant deviation from general +0.021 relativity. Our estimations show Ω = 0.010 which is equivalent to ω > 1560 at 95% conﬁdence −0.012 level. We also obtained constraint the rate of change of gravitational constant, G/G, at present time −13 −1 −13 −1 as 1.150×10 yr < G/G < 1.198×10 yr (at 1σ error). The total variation of gravitational constant, since the epoch of recombination, is also constrained as −0.0084 < δG/G < −0.0082 at 68% conﬁdence level. PACS numbers: 98.80.-k, 04.20.Jb, 04.50.kd Keywords: Brans-Dike gravity, Scalar ﬁeld, Cosmological Constant, Dark Energy I. INTRODUCTION Other word, despite of Einstein’s general theory of relativity (GR), Brans-Dicke (BD) cosmology is not a fully geometrical theory of gravity. Brans-Dicke theory The concordance cosmological model (ΛCDM) of contains an additional parameter, the Brans-Dicke universe is credited today as the most simplest and suc- coupling ω, as compared to GR. It should be noted that cessful cosmological model that describes the dynamics while large ω refers to as important contribution of the of present universe with acceleration but it suﬀers some Ricci scalar, small ω indicates the main contribution of fundamental problems on theoretical ground, which are the scalar ﬁeld. Since Einstein’s GR theory is recovered reported by numerous cosmologists [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. in the limit ω → ∞, BD theory could be considered as The major cosmological constant problems are: ﬁne a good scale to quantify the accuracy of the predictions tuning and cosmic coincidence which yet to be solve. of GR against observational tests (reader is advised Therefore, one may argue that the cosmological constant to see the textbooks, [23, 24]). The value of ω could problem is the crisis of fundamental physics [7, 8]. It be estimated from the astronomical and astrophysical enforce cosmologist to think about the alternative of observational data. Using solar system data obtained cosmological constant. This is why, in the literature from Cassini-Huygens mission, it is estimated ω > 40000 various dark energy models with dynamical equation of (eff) at 2σ conﬁdent level (CL) [25, 26, 27]. Nevertheless, state (EoS) parameter ω have been studied (for ex- (eff) constraining ω using cosmological data obtained from ample see [9, 10, 11, 12]), where ω = −1 represents WMAP and Planck missions gave lower values for this the ΛCDM universe [13, 14]. Some other proposals to parameter. Wu and Chen combined cosmic microwave avoid these conceptual problems associated with Λ have background (CMB) data from 5 years of WMAP, and been reported from time to time [15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. LSS measurements from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey However, to concur with high precision observational (SDSS) release 4 [28] and obtained ω > 97.8 at 2σ CL. data, we have to have small deviation from ΛCDM By using structure formation constraints, Acquaviva model or modiﬁcation to general theory of relativity but et al [29] have obtained ω > 120 at 2σ CL. Li et indeed, we still do not have a promising and concrete al [30] have used CMB temperature data from the fundamental theory to handle this issue [20]. In 1961, Planck satellite, the 9 year polarization data from the Brans-Dicke [21] had proposed a scalar-tensor theory WMAP and some others cosmological observations and in which the average expansion rate is modiﬁed due found that ω varies in region −407.0 < ω < 175.87 to alignment of scalar ﬁeld with geometry while the at 2σ CL. Hrycyna et al [31] used supernovae geometrization of tensor ﬁeld remains alone [22]. So, type Ia and other cosmological data and found both the scalar and tensor ﬁeld have more or less +0.8281 +0.1872 +0.4588 ω = {−0.8606 , −1.1103 , −2.3837 } intrinsic geometrical consequences and ﬁnally executes −0.1341 −0.1.729 −4.5459 for linear, oscillatory, and transient approaches to the a more general method of geometrizing gravitation. de Sitter state respectively. Avilez and Skordis [32] have reported strong cosmological constraints on coupling pa- rameter of Brans-Dicke theory as ω > 692 by using CMB h.amirhashchi@mhriau.ac.ir, hashchi@yahoo.com data. We recommend readers to see Refs [33, 34, 35] for abanilyadav@yahoo.co.in arXiv:1908.04735v3 [gr-qc] 10 Oct 2019 2 theoretical bounds on the Brans-Dicke coupling constant. of our ﬁts to data. Finally, we summarize our ﬁndings in Section V. Generally, in the case of zero space curvature (k = 0) and zero pressure (p = 0) it is possible to ﬁnd analytical II. THEORETICAL MODEL AND BASIC solution for BD equations in the absence of the cosmolog- EQUATIONS ical constant Λ [36]. However, since original BD model does not have accelerating expansion phase, it is conve- The Einstein’s ﬁeld equations in Brans-Dicke theory nient to extend this model by adding a Λ-term as an eﬀec- with cosmological constant are given by tive contribution rather than a potential (note that the precise shape of the scalar ﬁeld potential is not known 1 8π R − Rg + Λg = T ij ij ij ij yet [37]). Some interesting BD solutions with a non- 2 2 φc vanishing cosmological constant (henceforth ΛBD) could be found in Refs [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43]. In 1973 Gure- ω 1 1 vich et al [44] obtained an exact analytical solution for k − φ φ − g φ φ − (φ − g φ), (1) i j ij k ij ij pure BD with negative coupling constant, ω < 0, with no φ 2 φ initial singularity. Since there is no cosmic acceleration and in Gurevich et al solution, Tretyakova et al [45] added a cosmological constant in order to extended Gurevich et al 8πT (2ω + 3)φ = + 2Λφ, (2) solution with negative ω. They show that the scale fac- tor may not vanish, unlike in the standard ΛCDM case. where ω is the Brans-Dicke coupling constant; φ is Brans- In 1984, Singh and Singh [46] had investigated Brans- Dicke scalar ﬁeld and Λ is the cosmological constant. Dike cosmological model by choosing Λ = Λ(φ) and this The FRW space-time is read as idea was extended by Azad and Islam [47] in an-isotropic and homogeneous Bianchi type I spacetime. A higher 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ds = c dt − a (t)(dx + dy + dz ), (3) dimensional interacting scalar ﬁeld and Higgs model is obtained by Qiang et al [48]. Later on, using classical where a(t) is scale factor. approach, Smolyakov [49] has investigated Brans-Dike The energy momentum tensor of perfect ﬂuid is given by cosmological model with with eﬀective value of Λ in 5 D. Das and Banerjee [50] have investigated model of ac- T = (p + ρ)u u − pg . (4) ij i ij celerating universe with variable deceleration parameter in BD theory. In 2010, Setare and Jamil [51] have con- Here, p and ρ are the isotropic pressure and energy den- i i structed the chameleon model of holographic dark energy sity of the matter respectively and u u = 1; where u is in BD theory and compared their results with those ob- the four velocity vector. tained via GR for large value of coupling constant ω. In The ﬁeld equations (1) for space-time (3) are read as this connection, Yadav [52] and Ali et al [53] have inves- 2 2 ˙ ˙ ¨ a¨ a˙ ωφ φa˙ φ 8π tigated some non-isotropic, non-ﬂat and in-homogeneous 2 + + + 2 + = − p + Λc , (5) 2 2 2 models of accelerating universe in BD scalar-tensor the- a a 2φ φa φ φc ory of gravitation. In this paper we obtain a new exact analytical solution for ΛBD model and use recent ob- 2 2 2 a˙ φa˙ ωφ 8π Λc servational data namely CMB, BAO, and observational + − = ρ + , (6) 2 2 2 Hubble data (OHD) obtained from cosmic chronomet- a φa 6φ 3φc 3 ric (CC) technique to constrain model parameters. It is worth mentioning that since in BD theory gravitational ¨ ˙ φ φa˙ 8π(ρ − 3p) 2Λc coupling G is not a constant parameter, hence it’s varia- + 3 = + . (7) φ φa (2ω + 3)c φ 2ω + 3 tion means that supernovae can no longer be considered as standard candles (see Ref [54] for more details). We In this paper we use over dot to show derivatives with use Metropolis-Hastings algorithm to generate Markov respect to time t. chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chains and estimate model parameters. Although the main goal of this paper is to Equations (5), (6) and (7) lead the following equation constrain ω (as we show in the next section, instead of BD coupling constant we introduce new density parame- 2 2 ¨ ˙ ˙ a¨ a˙ φ φa˙ ωφ ter i.e Ω and constrain this parameter) and G, but, we Λc = 3 + 3 − ω − 3ω + . (8) 2 2 a a φ φa φ also discuses other important quantities such as decelera- tion and Hubble parameters. The plan of this paper is as Before solving above questions we deﬁne the matter and follows: Section II deals with the model and basic equa- cosmological constant density parameters as tions. We summary the computational technique used to ﬁt model parameters to data by a numerical MCMC 8πρ Λc Ω = , Ω = , (9) m Λ 2 2 2 analysis in SectionIII. Section IV deals with the results 3c H φ 3H 3 −3 where ρ = (ρ ) a and {Ω , Ω } stand for matter Dividing equation (17) by H and then integrating, we m m m Λ and Λ-term density parameters respectively. We also de- obtain ﬁne the deceleration parameter (DP) q and the scalar ﬁeld deceleration parameter q as bellow ψ = . ω+1 Thus, equation (11) leads to a¨ φ q = − q = − . (10) 2 2 aH φH 5ω + 6 Ω + Ω = 1 + . (19) m Λ 6(ω + 1) Now, dividing equations (6) by H and then using equa- tion (9), we obtain If we deﬁne the density of scalar ﬁeld φ as 5ω + 6 Ω = − , (20) Ω + Ω = 1 + ψ − ψ , (11) φ m Λ 6(ω + 1) then eq (19) is written as where ψ = . It should be noted that in BD gravity φH theory one can not use the usual relation between Ω + Ω + Ω = 1. (21) m Λ φ Hubble parameter and density in order to deﬁne density parameters, meaning that for a spatially-ﬂat model the The scale factor a and φ in connection with redshift z sum of density parameters don’t quite sum to one. are read as a 1 1 We assume that the present universe is ﬁlled with 0 a = , φ = = √ , 2.5( 1+0.96Ω −1) pressure-less matter i. e. p = 0. So, putting p = 0 1 + z 1+ω φ (1 + z) (1 + z) in equations (5), (7) and (8) then dividing by 3H and (22) using equations (9) and (10), we obtain the following re- where a is the present value of scale factor. lations Equations (9), (21) and (22) leads to ω + 3 2ω + 3 2ω + 3 2ω + 3 Ω = Ω − q + ψ − ψ, (12) Λ m 2ω 2ω 6 2ω 1 h √ i H 2 3+2.5( 1+0.96Ω −1) H = Ω (1 + z) + Ω , BD m Λ (1 − Ω ) 3(ω + 1) 2ω + 3 4ω + 3 ω + 1 (23) 1 − Ω + q + ψ − ψ = 0, where H is the present value of Hubble’s parameter. 2ω 2ω 2ω 2 0 (13) Above equation clearly imposes a lower bound on the scalar ﬁeld density as Ω ≥ −1.04. It is also interesting ω ω Ω = q − q + (ω + 1)ψ − ψ . (14) to note that, now, Ω → 0 is equivalent to ω → ∞ for m φ 3 3 which GR recovers from BD gravity theory. Obviously, as Ω → 0, ΛCDM model recovers from eq (23) Equations (13) and (14) lead to H = H [Ω (1 + z) + Ω ] . (24) q − (ω + 1)q + (3ω + 2)ψ = 2. (15) ΛCDM 0 m Λ We also note that a de-Sitter solution arises whenever The ﬁrst integral of equation (15) is read as H0t q = −1 ⇒ H = 0 ⇒ H = H ⇒ a(t) ∝ e . (25) ˙ 0 φ a˙ κ (ω + 1) − = , (16) φ a φa Since for our ΛBD model we have where κ is the constant of integration. Ω 24Ω + 25 − 3 − 4Ω m φ Λ q = , (26) z=0 4 (Ω + Ω ) Λ m The solution of equation (16) has singularity at a = 0 and φ = 0 which in turn gives κ = 0. Thus equation (16) it is clear to conclude that this condition can not be could be written as achieved in our ΛBD model (see V for derivation of DP an transition redshift). φ a˙ In the next section we use joint combination of three inde- (ω + 1) − = 0. (17) φ a pendent observational data including OHD, BAO, CMB to constrain both ΛCDM and ΛBD models with following Integrating equation (17), ﬁnally we obtain parameters space ω+1 φ = . (18) Θ = {H , Ω , Ω , Ω h , t(Gyr), q }, (27) a ΛCDM 0 m Λ b 0 0 4 TABLE I: Hubble parameter versus redshift data. and H(z) σ z Reference Θ = {H , Ω , Ω , Ω h , t(Gyr), q , Ω , G/G}. H ΛBD 0 m Λ b 0 φ 69 19.6 0.070 [57] (28) 69 12 0.090 [58] Note that ΛCDM model has only two free parameters i.e 68.6 26.2 0.120 [57] 83 8 0.170 [58] {H , Ω } while ΛBD model has three free parameters 0 m 75 4 0.179 [59] namely {H , Ω , Ω }, hence, all other parameters are 0 m φ 75 5 0.199 [59] 72.9 29.6 0.200 [57] derived parameters. 77 14 0.270 [58] 88.8 36.6 0.280 [57] 83 14 0.352 [59] 83 13.5 0.3802 [60] III. DATA AND METHOD 95 17 0.400 [58] 77 10.2 0.4004 [60] 87.1 11.2 0.4247 [60] 92.8 12.9 0.4497 [60] We use Metropolis-Hasting algorithm from the Pymc3 89 50 0.47 [61] python package to generate MCMC chains for parame- 80.9 9 0.4783 [60] 97 62 0.480 [62] ter spaces (27) and (28). For each parameter we run 4 104 13 0.593 [59] 92 8 0.680 [59] parallel chains with 100000 iterations to stabilize the es- 105 12 0.781 [59] timations. In order to conﬁrm the convergence of the 125 17 0.875 [59] 90 40 0.880 [62] MCMC chains we perform well known Gelman-Rubin 117 23 0.900 [58] and Geweke tests. Moreover, we monitor the trace plots 154 20 1.037 [59] 168 17 1.300 [58] for good mixing and stationarity of the posterior distri- 160 33.6 1.363 [63] butions to conﬁrm the convergence of all chains. In our 177 18 1.430 [58] 140 14 1.530 [58] Bayesian analysis, we assume the following uniform pri- 202 40 1.750 [58] ors for free parameters: 186.5 50.4 1.965 [63] H ∼ U(60−800) Ω ∼ U(0−0.5) Ω ∼ U(−0.5−0.5). 0 m φ (29) and In bellow we brieﬂy describe the cosmological data we have been used to constrain parameter spaces (27) and πr(z ) l = , (32) (28). r (z ) s ∗ Observational Hubble Data: we use 31H(z) data- points (Table. I) in the redshift range .07 ≤ z ≤ 1.965 while the average acoustic structure is determined by the taken from Table 2 of Ref [55]. The cosmic chronomet- acoustic scale l , the shift parameter R is associated with ric (CC) technique is used to determined these uncorre- the overall amplitude of CMB acoustic peak. In eq (32) lated data. There reason why we use this data is behind the comoving distance to the CMB decoupling surface the fact that OHD data obtained from CC technique is r(z ) and the comoving sound horizon at the CMB de- model-independent. In fact, the most massive and pas- coupling r (z ) are given by s ∗ sively evolving galaxies based on the “galaxy diﬀerential Z Z age”method is used to determine the CC data (see ref[56] z ∞ ′ ′ dz 1 dz c (z ) r(z ) = , r (z ) = , (33) for more details). Since in this compilation all data are ∗ s ∗ H(z) H E(z ) 2 0 z uncorrelated, we consider C = diag(σ ) as covariance ij matrix of this class of data. The chisqure for this data is where E(z) = H(z)/H , and the sound speed squared given by c of baryon ﬂuid coupled with photons (γ) is given by 2 T −1 [65] χ = (H(z) − H ) C (H(z) − H ), (30) 0 0 HOD −4 CMB: It is shown [64] that the existence of dark energy 1 2.7255 c = p , R = 31500Ω h , could aﬀect CMB power spectrum in at least two ways. s b b 2.7 3[1 + R /(1 + z)] First, the change of the angular diameter distance causes (34) a shift in positions of CMB acoustic peaks from the last where h is the normalized Hubble constant and z = 1090 scattering surface to today. Second, the presence of dark is decoupling redshift. We use the CMB distance priors energy results in ﬂuctuation of gravitational potentials based and Planck 2015 collaboration [3] to constrain our which in turn leads to the late-time integrated Sachs- models. According to Planck 2015 data, the mean values Wolfe eﬀect. As the ﬁrst eﬀect is more important to of shift and acoustic scale parameters are hRi = 1.7488 constrain dark energy models, we only use CMB distance and hl i = 301.76 with the deviations σ(R) = 0.0074 and measurements in our statistical analysis. In this regard, σ(l ) = 0.14 respectively. For this data, the inverse of we consider following two CMB shift parameters (for ﬂat the covariance matrix is given by space-time). dz 1.412 −0.762 −1 R = Ω , (31) C = . (35) E(z) −0.762 1.412 0 5 Finally, The chisquare associated with the CMB data D (z) which is given by could be obtained as cz D (z) = r (z) , (37) H(z) 2 2 2 χ = (l − 301.76) × 1.412 + (R − 1.7488) × 1.412 CMB is the eﬀective distance measure related to the BAO scale [72], c is the speed of light, and r (z ) is the comoving s d sound horizon size at the drag epoch. The drag redshift z , which is the redshift at which baryons are released from photons has the following ﬁtting formula [73] 2 0.251 1291(Ω h ) 2 b + 2(l − 301.76)(R − 1.7488) × (−0.762). (36) z = [1 + b (Ω h ) ], (38) a d 1 b 2 0.828 1 + 0.659(Ω h ) where BAO: The counteracting forces of pressure and grav- 2 −0.419 2 0.674 b = 0.313(Ω h ) [1 + 0.607(Ω h ) ], (39) 1 m m ity result in periodic ﬂuctuations of the density of bary- onic matter which represent by BAO. We use almost the and same BAO data points were used in the WMAP 9-year 2 0.223 analysis [66]. This includes ten numbers of r (z )/D (z) s d V b = 0.238(Ω h ) . (40) 2 m extracted from the 6dFGS [67], SDSS-MGS [68], BOSS [69], BOSS CMASS [70], and WiggleZ [71] surveys. Here The chisquare statistics for BAO could be written as χ = BAO 2 2 2 1 r (z ) 1 D (z = 0.15) 664 1 D (z = 0.32) 1264 s d V V − 0.336 + − + − 2 25 25 2 2 0.015 D (z = 0.106) r (z ) 148.69 r (z ) 149.28 V ( ) s d ( ) s d 149.69 149.28 2 2 2 1 D (z = 0.38) 1477 1 r (z ) 1 D (z = 0.51) 1877 V s d V + − + − 0.0916 + − 16 2 19 2 2 r (z ) 147.78 0.0071 D (z = 0.44) r (z ) 147.78 ( ) ( ) s d V s d 147.78 147.78 2 2 2 1 D (z = 0.57) 2056 1 r (z ) 1 D (z = 0.61) 2140 V s d V + − + − 0.0726 + − 20 22 2 2 2 r (z ) 149.28 0.0034 D (z = 0.6) r (z ) 147.78 ( ) ( ) s d V s d 149.28 147.78 1 r (z ) s d + − 0.0592 (41) 0.0032 D (z = 0.73) Finally, since these three datasets are independent, the ω as an additional parameter to ΛCDM model. From 2 2 2 total chisqure could be given by χ = χ +χ + Table. II we observe that Ω is restricted in the inter- tot OHD CMB χ . Therefore, we evaluated the following total likeli- val 0.0001 < Ω < 0.0127 at 1σ CL with the best ﬁt BAO hood for statistical analysis. Ω = 0.0027, which in turn gives the best ﬁt for BD con- stant parameter as ω = 308.452. Our analysis show that L ∝ exp − χ . (42) the BD parameter is constrained to ω > {211, 1560, 8460} tot tot at 68%, 95%, and 99% conﬁdence level respectively. We have compared our result of ω to those obtained from other researches in Table. III. From this table we observe IV. RESULTS that our estimated bound on ω is much stronger than those reported by previous works. While our computed We have listed our statistical analysis on parame- ω is comparable with that obtained by Avilez and Sko- ter spaces (27) & (28) using the joint combination of rdis [32] at 95% CL, but our analysis put much stronger OHD+CMB+BAO at 1σ and 2σ error in Table. II. Also, bound on this parameter at 99 CL. Also at 68% CL our Figures. 1 & 2 show the contour plots, at 1σ, 2σ, and obtained bound is comparable with what computed by 3σ conﬁdence levels, for both ΛBD and ΛCDM mod- Li et al[30]. Figures. 3 shows the 1σ-3σ contour plot of els using joint combination of three datasests respec- (ω, H ) pair. tively. First we discuss the ΛBD model, which contain 6 ΛCDM TABLE II: Results from the ﬁts of the ﬂat ΛCDM and ΛBD ΛBD models to the data at 2σ & 2σ conﬁdence levels. Parameter %68 %95 Best Fit 0.35 +1.2 Fit H0 68.68 ± 0.62 68.7 67.90 −1.2 +0.018 Ω 0.3290 ± 0.0089 0.329 0.344 0.3 −0.017 +0.017 ΛCDM Ω 0.6710 ± 0.0089 0.671 0.655 −0.018 0.69 2 +0.00086 Ωbh 0.02322 ± 0.00042 0.02322 0.023 −0.00079 Derived +0.27 0.66 Age(Gyr) 13.56 ± 0.13 13.56 13.73 −0.25 +0.027 q −0.507 ± 0.013 −0.507 −0.482 −0.025 +1.2 0.0234 Fit H0 68.78 ± 0.62 68.8 69.334 −1.2 +0.0026 +0.021 Ω 0.0101 0.010 0.0027 −0.010 −0.012 0.0216 +0.012 +0.023 Ω 0.321 0.321 0.318 −0.0096 −0.024 ΛBD +0.017 Ω 0.6692 ± 0.0089 0.669 0.678 13.5 Λ −0.018 ω > 211 > 1560 308.452 2 +0.00084 Ω h 0.02315 ± 0.00042 0.02315 0.0227 −0.00081 −0.5 Derived +0.24 Age(Gyr) 13.38 ± 0.12 13.38 13.246 −0.23 −0.6 G −12 −1 +0.0046 (10 yr ) 0.1147 ± 0.0024 0.1147 0.117 −0.0046 67.5 69.0 70.5 0.30 0.35 0.66 0.69 0.0216 0.0234 13.0 13.5 14.0 −0.6 −0.5 H Ω Ω Ω h 0 m Λ b Age(Gyr) q +0.032 q −0.585 ± 0.016 −0.585 −0.595 −0.032 FIG. 2: One-dimensional marginalized distribution, and two-dimensional contours with 68% CL, 95%, and 99% CL for ﬂat ΛCDM and ΛBD models ﬁtted over CC+ABO+CMB data. 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.69 0.66 0.0234 0.0216 13.8 13.6 13.4 13.2 0.124 0.116 0.108 −0.54 −0.6 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 67 68 69 70 71 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.66 0.69 0.0216 0.0234 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 0.108 0.116 0.124 −0.60 −0.54 2 G −1 −12 Ωφ H0 Ωm ΩΛ Ωbh Age(Gyr) G(yr ) × 10 q 66.4 67.2 68.0 68.8 69.6 70.4 71.2 FIG. 1: One-dimensional marginalized distribution, and three-dimensional contours with 68% CL, 95% CL, and 99% CL for parameter space Θ using CC+ABO+CMB data. The ΛDB vertical dashed red line stands for Ω = 0. FIG. 3: Constraints in the (ω, H ) plane with 1σ-3σ conﬁdent level in the ﬂat ΛBD model ﬁtted over CC+ABO+CMB data. TABLE III: Constraints on the BD coupling constant from diﬀerent researches. BD parameter Method combination era to the current time [73]. Therefor, one ω > {80(3σ), 120(2σ)} CMB+WMAP+LSS [29] can estimate the variation in G throughout variations of ω > 97.8(2σ) WMAP5+SDSSLRG [74] Ω or ω as these two parameters are correlated. For this ω > {337.34(1σ), 181.65(2σ)} WMAP9pol+BAO [30] purpose, we inter two new derived parameters namely ω > {1834(2σ), 890(3σ)} PLANCKTEMP+WMAP9pol [32] ˙ ˙ ω > {211(1σ), 1560(2σ), 8460(3σ)} CC+CMB+BAO This paper G/G ≡ −φ/φ and δG/G ≡ (G − G )/G which is rec 0 0 the integrated change of gravitational constant since the epoch of recombination in our MCMC code. Figures. 4 We know that in the context of BD theory, the gravi- & 5 depict 2-dimensional contours of marginalized likeli- tational constant G is also underwent evolution from re- hood distributions of H versus G/G and δG/G respec- G˙ −1 −12 2 q (yr ) × 10 Ωbh G Age(Gyr) ΩΛ Ωm Ωbh Age(Gyr) Ω Ω Λ m ω 7 We have summarized constraints on G/G obtained from 0.123 diﬀerent methods in Table. IV which is an update of Ta- ble I of Ref [30]. From this table we observe that our constrain is much tighter with respect to other listed 0.12 previous constraints. From Table. II we see that the TABLE IV: Constraints on the BD coupling constant from 0.117 diﬀerent researches. −13 −1 G/G(10 yr ) Method 0.114 2 ± 7 Lunar laser ranging [75] 0 ± 4 Big bang nucleosynthesis [76, 77] 0 ± 16 Helioseismology [78] 0.111 −6 ± 20 Neutron star mass [79] 20 ± 40 Viking lander ranging [80] 40 ± 50 Binary pulsar [81] −96 ∼ 81(2σ) CMB(WMAP3) [82] 0.108 −17.5 ∼ 10.5(2σ) WMAP5+SDSSLRG [74] +2.48+4.38 −1.42 (1σ2σ) Planck+WP+BAO [30] −2.27−4.74 +0.0024+0.0046 1.174 (1σ2σ) CC+CMB+BAO This paper −0.0024−0.0046 66.4 67.2 68.0 68.8 69.6 70.4 71.2 estimated Hubble constant H for both ΛCDM and ΛBD models are in excellent agreement with those of FIG. 4: Constraints in the (G/G, H ) plane with 1σ-3σ conﬁdent Chen & Ratra (68 ± 2.8) [83], Aubourg et al (BAO: level. +2.9 67.3 ± 1.1) [84], Chen et al (68.4 ) [85], Aghanim −3.3 et al (Planck 2018: 67.66 ± 0.42) [4], and 9-years +0.94 WMAP mission (68.92 ) [86]. Figure. 6 depicts the −0.95 −0.00816 robustness of our ﬁts for H(z). When we ﬁt both (Θ , Θ ) to CC+CMB+BAO data we obtain ΛCDM ΛBD (Ω = 0.329 ± 0.0089, Ω = 0.671 ± 0.0089) and (Ω = m Λ m −0.0082 +0.012 0.321 , Ω = 0.669 ± 0.0089) for these models re- −0.0096 spectively. Obviously, these results are in excellent agree- −0.00824 ment with those obtained by Planck 2018 collaboration[4] (Ω = 0.3103 ± 0.0057, Ω = 0.6897 ± 0.0057). The m Λ −0.00828 −0.00832 −0.00836 −0.0084 66.4 67.2 68.0 68.8 69.6 70.4 71.2 FIG. 5: Constraints in the (δG/G, H ) plane with 1σ-3σ conﬁdent level. tively. The 68% marginalized limits on these two param- FIG. 6: The plot of Hubble rate versus the redshift z. The points eters are as bellow. with bars indicate the experimental data summarized in Table. I −13 −13 1.150 × 10 < G/G < 1.198 × 10 , computed values of deceleration parameter for ΛCDM & +0.013+0.027+0.07 ΛBD models are q = −0.507 and ΛCDM −0.013−0.025−0.032 +0.016+0.032+0.042 q = −0.585 at 1σ − 2σ respectively. − 0.0084 < δG/G < −0.0082, (43) ΛBD −0.016−0.032−0.044 Our estimated values of DP for both models are in good agreement with those reported in Refs [87], [88], [89], and with the best-ﬁt values [90]. The dependence of deceleration parameter q(z) has −13 G/G = 1.17 × 10 , δG/G = −0.00825. (44) been plotted in Figures. 7 as a function of redshift z. Our δG/G G −1 −12 (yr ) × 10 G H We deﬁned new density parameter for scalar ﬁeld i.e Ω which recovers GR theory when tends to zero (this is ,of course, equivalent to the case when ω → ∞). The latest observational data namely OHD (CC data), CMB, and BAO have been used to constrain parameter spaces 28 (Brans-Dicke theory) & 27 (General relativity theory). To this aim, We have used Metropolis-Hasting algorithm to perform MCMC analysis. The marginalized bounds on BD coupling constant are obtained as ω > (211, 1560) at 68% and 95% conﬁdent levels respectively. Our esti- mations put tighten constrain on the Brans-Dicke model compared with previous works. Moreover, we deﬁned two additional derived parameters in MCMC code namely the rate of change of the gravitational constant G/G and the integrated change of this parameter δG/G since the epoch of recombination to explore whether G is a FIG. 7: The plot of deceleration parameter versus the redshift z ƒconstant‚or not. The marginalized 1σ limits are given for Both ΛCDM & ΛBD models. Filled circles show the best ﬁt by equation 43. These bounds are in excellent agreement values of DP at transition red-shift z . with the precision of Solar System experiments. Gener- ally, our computations do not show any signiﬁcant devia- computations show that both ΛBD & ΛCDM models in- tion from general theory of relativity. When we compare ters the accelerating expansion phase almost at the same the distribution of other cosmological parameters of 28 time (also see ﬁg. 7). We also estimated transition red- & 27 spaces, we ﬁnd out that the introduction of Brans- shift z for both models as a derived parameter in our t Dicke gravity does not aﬀect the best-ﬁt values and esti- +0.021+0.041+0.054 MCMC code. We found z = 0.602 for mated errors. −0.021−0.041−0.055 +0.021+0.041+0.055 ΛBD and z = 0.599 for ΛCDM mod- −0.021−0.041−0.054 els at 1σ − 3σ CL. Figure. 8 shows the 1σ − 3σ contour APPENDIX A plot of (H − z ) pair. It has recently been shown [91] 0 t that the transition redshift should be restricted in a spe- ciﬁc interval as 0.33 < z < 1. For Both models, the It is well known that at a speciﬁc redshift called tran- computed z is in good agreement with those obtained in t sition, z the expansion phase of universe changes from Refs[92, 93, 94] decelerating to accelerating. To obtain this special red- shift, ﬁrst we derive deceleration parameter which is de- 71.2 ﬁned as 70.5 1 a¨ (1 + z) dH(z) 70.4 70.0 q(z) = − = − 1. (A1) H a H(z) dz 69.5 69.6 Using 23 in above equation, and after some algebra we 69.0 obtain 68.8 68.5 1 ( 24Ω +25+1) Ω ( 24Ω + 25 − 3)(1 + z) m φ q(z) = h √ . 68.0 ( 24Ω +25+1) 4 Ω + Ω (1 + z) Λ m 67.2 67.5 (A2) In the other hand, transition redshift could be deﬁned by 67.0 66.4 the condition q(z ) = a¨(z ) = 0. Applying this condition 0.525 0.550 0.575 0.600 0.625 0.650 0.675 t t in above equation and after some algebra ﬁnally we get transition redshift as follows. " # FIG. 8: H − z plane with 1σ − 3σ conﬁdent level. Solid √ 0 t 24Ω +25+1 4Ω contours stand for ΛBD model Λ z = p − 1. (A3) Ω ( 24Ω + 25 − 3) m φ It is straightforward to show that in ﬂat-ΛCDM model V. CONCLUDING REMARKS the transition redshif is given by 2Ω In this paper ﬁrst we tried to obtain a new exact so- Λ z = − 1. (A4) lution for Brans-Dicke equations with the cosmological Ω constant in the spatially ﬂat Robertson-Walker metric. 0 9 [1] O. Akarsu et al. arXiv: 1903.06679v1 [gr-qc] (2019). [37] H. W. Lee, K. Y. Kim, Y. S. Myung, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, [2] E. Komastu et al. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 192, 18 1585 (2011) (2011). [38] C. Romero, A. Barros, Astrophys. Space Sci. 192, 263 [3] P. A. R. Ade et al. Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016). (1992). [4] N. Aghamin et al. [Plank Collaboration], arXiv: [39] K. Uehara and C. W. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 26, 2575 (1982). 1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO] (2018). [40] J. M. Server´o and P. G. Est´evez, Gen. Rel. Gray. 15, 351 [5] P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (1983). (2003) [41] D. Lorenz-Petzold, Phys. Rev. D 29, 2399 (1984). [6] T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. 380, 234 (2003) [42] L.O. Pimentel, Astrophys. Space Sci. 112, 175 (1984). [7] S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989) [43] T. Etoh, M. Hashimoto, K. Arai, S. Fujimoto, Astron. [8] P.J.E. Peebles, B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003) Astrophys. 325, 893 (1997). [9] V. Sahni, A. Shaﬁeloo and A. A. Starobinsky, Astrophys. [44] L. E. Gurevich, A. M. Finkelstein, V. A. Ruban, Astro- J. 793, 2 (2014) phys. Space Sci. 22, 231 (1973). [10] A. Shaﬁeloo, B. L. Huillier and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. [45] D. A. Tretyakova, A. A. Shatskiy, I. D.Novikov and S. Rev. D 98, 083526 (2018) O.Alexeyev, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124059 (2012). [11] A. K. Yadav, Astrophys. Space Sc. 335,565 (2011) [46] T. Singh, T. Singh, J. Math Phys. 25, 9 (1984). [12] A. K. Yadav, Astrophys. Space Sc. 361,276 (2016) [47] A. K. Azad, J. N. Islam, Pramana 60, 2127 (2003). [13] G. K. Goswami, Research in Astron. Astrophys. 17, 27 [48] Li. Qiang, G. M. Yong, H. Muxin, Y. Dan, Phys. Rev D (2017); arXiv: 1710.0728 [gr-qc] (2017) 71, 061501 (2005). [14] E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. [49] M. A. Smolyakov, arXiv: 0711.3811 [gr-qc] (2007). Phys. D 15, 1753 (2007) [50] S. Das and N. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D. 78, 043512 (2008). [15] E.J. Copeland, A.R. Liddle and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D [51] M. R. Setare & M. Jamil, Physics Letters B 690, 1 (2010) 57, 4686 (1988) [52] A. K. Yadav. Research in Astron. Astrophys. 13, 772 [16] P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett. 325, (2013). L17 (1988) [53] A. T. Ali, A. K. Yadav S.R. Mahmoud, Astrophys Space [17] I. Zlatev, L. Wang and P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. Sci 349, 539 (2014). 82, 896 (1999) [54] E. Gaztanaga, E. Garcia-berro , J. Isern, E. Bravo, and [18] N. Bartolo and M. Pietroni, Phys. Rev. D 61, 023518 I. Dominguez, Phys. Rev. D 65, 023506 (2002). (1999) [55] J. Ryan, S. Doshi, B. Ratra, MNRAS 480, 759 (2018). [19] E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and Shinnji Tsujikava, Int. J. [56] Moresco, M., et al.: JCAP 05, 014 (2016) Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006) [57] C. Zhang, H. Zhang, S. Yuan, S. Liu, T.-J. Zhang, Y.-C. [20] R. R. Caldwell and M. Kamionkowski, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sun, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 1221 Part. Sci. 59, 397 (2009) (2014). [21] C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961) [58] J. Simon J, L. Verde, R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. D 71, [22] R. H. Dicke, ibid 125, 2163 (1962) 123001 (2005). [23] Y. Fujii, K.-I. Maeda, The Scalar-Tensor Theory of Grav- [59] M. Moresco M, et al, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys 8, itation (Cambridge University Press, UK, 2003). 006 (2012). [24] V. Faraoni, Cosmology in Scalar-Tensor Gravity (Kluwer [60] M. Moresco, et al,J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys 5, 014 Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2004). (2016). [25] B.Bertotti, L. Iess,and P. Tortora, Nature 425, 374 [61] A. L. Ratsimbazafy, et al, MNRAS, 467, 3239 (2017). (2003). [62] D. Stern D, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski, S. [26] C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 9, 3 (2006). A. Stanford, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys 2, 008 (2010). [27] L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 81, 047501 (2010). [63] M. Moresco, MNRAS, 450, L16 (2015). [28] M. Tegmark et al. (SDSS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [64] E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. 74, 123507 (2006). Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006). [29] V. Acquaviva, C. Baccigalupi, S. M. Leach, A. R. Liddle, [65] W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Astrophys. J. 444, 489 (1995). and F. Perrotta, Phys. Rev. D 71, 104025 (2005). [66] G. Hinshaw et al. [WMAP Collaboration], Astrophys. J. [30] Y.-C. Li, F.-Q. Wu, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 88, Suppl. 208, 19 (2013). 084053 (2013). [67] F. Beutler et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 423, 3430 [31] O. Hrycyna, M. Szydlowski and M. Kamionka, Phys. (2012). Rev. D 90, 124040 (2014). [68] A. J. Ross, et al, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 449, 835 [32] A. Avilez and C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 011101 (2015). (2014). [69] S. Alam et al. [BOSS Collaboration], arXiv:1607.03155 [33] S. Sen and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 63, 124006 (2001). [astro-ph.CO]. [34] M. Arik, M. Calik, M. B. Sheftel, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [70] L. Anderson et al. [BOSS Collaboration], Mon. Not. Roy. 17, 225 (2008) Astron. Soc. 441, 24 (2014). [35] R. Garc´ıa-Salcedo, T. Gonz´alez, and I. Quiros, Phys. [71] E. A. Kazin et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 441, 3524 Rev. D 92, 124056 (2015). (2014). [36] S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (Wiley, New [72] D. J. Eisenstein et al. [SDSS Collaboration], Astrophys. York, 1972). J. 633, 560 (2005). 10 [73] D. J. Eisenstein and W. Hu, Astrophys. J. 496, 605 [83] G. Chen, B. Ratra, B, PASP 123, 1127 (2011). (1998). [84] E. Aubourg, et al, Phys. Rev D 92, 123516 (2015). [74] F. Q. Wu and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 82, 083003 (2010). [85] G. Chen, S. Kumar, B. Ratra, B, Astrophys. J. 835, 86 [75] J. Muller and L. Biskupek, Classical Quantum Gravity (2017). 24, 4533 (2007). [86] G. Hinshaw, et al, Astrophys.J.Suppl.Ser 208, 25 (2013). [76] C. J. Copi, A. N. Davis, and L. M. Krauss, Phys. Rev. [87] H. Amirhashchi, Phys. Rev D 97, 063515 (2018). Lett. 92, 171301 (2004). [88] Nisha Rani et al, JCAP. 12, 045 (2015). [77] C. Bambi, M. Giannotti, and F. L. Villante, Phys. Rev. [89] M. Vargas dos Santosa, R. R. R. Reisa and I. Wagaa, D 71, 123524 (2005). JCAP. 02, 066 (2016). [78] D. B. Guenther, L. M. Krauss, and P. Demarque, Astro- [90] H. Amirhashchi, arXiv: 1811.05400 [astro-ph.CO] (2018). phys. J. 498, 871 (1998). [91] H. Yu, B. Ratra and Fa-Yin, Wang, Astrophys. J. 856, [79] S. E. Thorsett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1432 (1996). 3 (2018). [80] R. W. Hellings, et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1609 (1983). [92] R. Goistri, et al, JCAP 03, 027 (2012). [81] V. M. Kaspi, J. H. Taylor, and M. F. Ryba, Astrophys. [93] S. Capozziello, O. Luongo, E.N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D J. 428, 713 (1994). 91, 124037 (2015). [82] K.-C. Chang and M. C. Chu, Phys. Rev. D 75, 083521 [94] H. Amirhashchi, S. Amirhashchi, Phys. Rev. D 99, (2007). 023516 (2019).

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology – arXiv (Cornell University)

**Published: ** Aug 12, 2019

Loading...

You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!

Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.

System error. Please try again!

Already have an account? Log in

Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.

To save an article, **log in** first, or **sign up** for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.

Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote

Access the full text.

Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.

All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.