4.7 Article

Equivalence principle violation in Vainshtein screened two-body systems

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 87, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.063525

关键词

-

资金

  1. JSPS [23740186, 21244033]
  2. MEXT HPCI Strategic Program
  3. U.S. Deptartment of Energy [DE-FG02-90ER-40560]
  4. Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago [NSF PHY-0114422, NSF PHY-0551142]
  5. STFC [ST/H002774/1]
  6. ERC
  7. Leverhulme trust
  8. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation at Caltech
  9. STFC [ST/H002774/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H002774/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. Division Of Physics
  12. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1125897] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  13. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23740186] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In massive gravity, galileon, and braneworld explanations of cosmic acceleration, force modifications are screened by nonlinear derivative self-interactions of the scalar field mediating that force. Interactions between the field of a central body (A'') and an orbiting body (B'') imply that body B does not move as a test body in the field of body A if the orbit is smaller than the Vainshtein radius of body B. We find through numerical solutions of the joint field at the position of B that the A-field Laplacian is nearly perfectly screened by the B self-field, whereas first derivative or net forces are reduced in a manner that scales with the mass ratio of the bodies as (M-B/M-A)(3/5). The latter causes mass-dependent reductions in the universal perihelion precession rate due to the fifth force, with deviations for the Earth-Moon system at the similar to 4% level. In spite of universal coupling, which preserves the microscopic equivalence principle, the motion of macroscopic screened bodies depends on their mass providing in principle a means for testing the Vainshtein mechanism. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.063525

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据