Modified Gravity and Cosmology

Timothy Cliftona , Pedro G. Ferreiraa , Antonio Padillab , Constantinos Skordisb
a Department b School

of Astrophysics, University of Oxford, UK. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, UK.

arXiv:1106.2476v3 [astro-ph.CO] 12 Mar 2012

Abstract In this review we present a thoroughly comprehensive survey of recent work on modified theories of gravity and their cosmological consequences. Amongst other things, we cover General Relativity, Scalar-Tensor, Einstein-Aether, and Bimetric theories, as well as TeVeS, f (R), general higher-order theories, Hoˇava-Lifschitz gravity, Galileons, Ghost r Condensates, and models of extra dimensions including Kaluza-Klein, Randall-Sundrum, DGP, and higher co-dimension braneworlds. We also review attempts to construct a Parameterised Post-Friedmannian formalism, that can be used to constrain deviations from General Relativity in cosmology, and that is suitable for comparison with data on the largest scales. These subjects have been intensively studied over the past decade, largely motivated by rapid progress in the field of observational cosmology that now allows, for the first time, precision tests of fundamental physics on the scale of the observable Universe. The purpose of this review is to provide a reference tool for researchers and students in cosmology and gravitational physics, as well as a self-contained, comprehensive and up-to-date introduction to the subject as a whole. Keywords: General Relativity, Gravitational Physics, Cosmology, Modified Gravity

Preprint submitted to Physics Reports

March 13, 2012

Contents 1 Introduction 2 General Relativity, and its Foundations 2.1 Requirements for Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 The foundations of relativistic theories . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Observational tests of metric theories of gravity . . . . 2.1.3 Theoretical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Einstein’s Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 The field equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 The action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Alternative Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 The Palatini procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Metric-affine gravity and matter . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Other approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Lovelock’s theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Birkhoff’s theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 The no-hair theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 The Parameterised Post-Newtonian Approach . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Parameterised post-Newtonian formalism . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Parameterised post-Newtonian constraints . . . . . . . 2.6 Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 The Friedmann-Lemaˆ ıtre-Robertson-Walker solutions 2.6.2 Cosmological distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3 Perturbation theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.4 Gravitational potentials and observations . . . . . . . 2.6.5 The evidence for the ΛCDM model . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.6 Shortcomings of the ΛCDM model . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Alternative Theories of Gravity with Extra Fields 3.1 Scalar-Tensor Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Action, field equations, and conformal transformations 3.1.2 Brans-Dicke theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 General scalar-tensor theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.4 The chameleon mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Einstein-Æther Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Modified Newtonian dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Action and field equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 FLRW solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Cosmological perturbations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Observations and constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Bimetric Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Rosen’s theory, and non-dynamical metrics . . . . . . 3.3.2 Drummond’s theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Massive gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 11 11 11 14 20 22 23 24 25 25 27 27 29 29 30 31 32 32 34 37 37 38 40 42 44 46 49 49 49 52 59 66 68 68 69 70 71 73 75 76 77 77



3.3.4 Bigravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5 Bimetric MOND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tensor-Vector-Scalar Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Actions and field equations . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Newtonian and MOND limits . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Homogeneous and isotropic cosmology . . . 3.4.4 Cosmological perturbation theory . . . . . . 3.4.5 Cosmological observations and constraints . Other Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 The Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble Theory 3.5.2 Scalar-Tensor-Vector Theory . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79 80 81 82 84 86 91 93 96 96 99 101 101 102 106 111 114 120 123 123 125 126 128 131 137 141 144 146 148 148 150 151 157 158 160 161 164 164 166 169 172 172 173 174 179

4 Higher Derivative and Non-Local Theories of Gravity 4.1 f (R) Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Action, field equations and transformations . . . 4.1.2 Weak-field limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Exact solutions, and general behaviour . . . . . . 4.1.4 Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.5 Stability issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 General combinations of Ricci and Riemann curvature. . 4.2.1 Action and field equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Weak-field limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Exact solutions, and general behaviour . . . . . . 4.2.4 Physical cosmology and dark energy . . . . . . . 4.2.5 Other topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Hoˇava-Lifschitz Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r 4.3.1 The projectable theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 The non-projectable theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Aspects of Hoˇava-Lifschitz cosmology . . . . . . r 4.3.4 The ΘCDM model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 HMT-da Silva theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Galileons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Galileon modification of gravity . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Covariant galileon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 DBI galileon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4 Galileon cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.5 Multi-galileons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Other Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Ghost condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Non-metric gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Dark energy from curvature corrections . . . . . 5 Higher Dimensional Theories of Gravity 5.1 Kaluza-Klein Theories of Gravity . . . . . 5.1.1 Kaluza-Klein compactifications . . 5.1.2 Kaluza-Klein cosmology . . . . . . 5.2 The Braneworld Paradigm . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .






5.2.1 The ADD model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Randall-Sundrum Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 The RS1 model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 The RS2 model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 Other RS-like models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Action and equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.5 Linear perturbations in RS1 and RS2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brane Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Brane based formalism – covariant formulation . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Bulk based formalism – moving branes in a static bulk . . . . . . 5.4.3 Cosmological perturbations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Action, equations of motion, and vacua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Linear perturbations on the normal branch . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.3 Linear perturbations (and ghosts) on the self-accelerating branch 5.5.4 From strong coupling to the Vainshtein mechanism . . . . . . . . 5.5.5 DGP cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Higher Co-Dimension Braneworlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Cascading gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Degravitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Einstein Gauss-Bonnet Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.1 Action, equations of motion, and vacua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.2 Kaluza-Klein reduction of EGB gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.3 Co-dimension one branes in EGB gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.4 Co-dimension two branes in EGB gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

180 181 182 184 185 188 189 195 197 199 200 207 207 209 211 214 221 228 230 235 236 237 240 240 244

6 Parameterised Post-Friedmannian Approaches and Observational straints 6.1 The Formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Evolution of perturbations on super-horizon scales . . . . . . 6.1.2 The simplified PPF approach, and its extensions . . . . . . . 6.1.3 The Hu-Sawicki frame-work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Models for µ and ζ on Sub-Horizon Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 The importance of shear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 The growth function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Current constraints on the PPF parameters . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.4 Constraining the growth rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.5 The EG diagnostic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Forecasting Constraints from Future Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Discussion

Con246 . . . 247 . . . 248 . . . 249 . . . 253 . . . 254 . . . 254 . . . 255 . . . 257 . . . 258 . . . 259 . . . 260 262


1. Introduction The General Theory of Relativity is an astounding accomplishment: Together with quantum field theory, it is now widely considered to be one of the two pillars of modern physics. The theory itself is couched in the language of differential geometry, and was a pioneer for the use of modern mathematics in physical theories, leading the way for the gauge theories and string theories that have followed. It is no exaggeration to say that General Relativity set a new tone for what a physical theory can be, and has truly revolutionised our understanding of the Universe. One of the most striking facts about General Relativity is that, after almost an entire century, it remains completely unchanged: The field equations that Einstein communication to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in November 1915 are still our best description of how space-time behaves on macroscopic scales. These are 8πG Tµν (1) c4 where Gµν is the Einstein tensor, Tµν is the energy momentum tensor, G is Newton’s constant, and c is the speed of light. It is these equations that are thought to govern the expansion of the Universe, the behaviour of black holes, the propagation of gravitational waves, and the formation of all structures in the Universe from planets and stars all the way up to the clusters and super-clusters of galaxies that we are discovering today. It is only in the microscopic world of particles and high energies that General Relativity is thought to be inadequate. On all other scales it remains the gold standard. The great success of General Relativity, however, has not stopped alternatives being proposed. Even during the very early days after Einstein’s publication of his theory there were proposals being made on how to extend it, and incorporate it in a larger, more unified theory. Notable examples of this are Eddington’s theory of connections, Weyl’s scale independent theory, and the higher dimensional theories of Kaluza and Klein. To some extent, these early papers were known to have been influential on Einstein himself. They certainly influenced the physicists who came after him. The ideas developed by Eddington during this period were later picked up by Dirac, who pointed out the apparent coincidence between the magnitude of Newton’s constant and the ratio of the mass and scale of the Universe. This relationship between a fundamental constant and the dynamical state of a particular solution led Dirac to conjecture that Newton’s constant may, in fact, be varying with time. The possibility of a varying Newton’s constant was picked up again in the 1960s by Brans and Dicke who developed the prototypical version of what are now known as scalar-tensor theories of gravity. These theories are still the subject of research today, and make up Section 3.1 of our report. Building on the work of Hermann Weyl, the Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov proposed in 1967 what would prove to be one of the most enduring theories of modified gravity. In Sakharov’s approach, the Einstein-Hilbert action, from which the Einstein field equations can be derived, is simply a first approximation to a much more complicated action: Fluctuations in space-time itself lead to higher powers corrections to Einstein’s theory. In 1977 Kellogg Stelle showed formally that these theories are renormalizable in the presence of matter fields at the one loop level. This discovery was followed by a surge of interest, that was boosted again later on by the discovery of the potential cosmological consequences of these theories, as found by Starobinsky and others. In Section 4 we review this work. 5 Gµν =

The idea of constructing a quantum field theory of gravity started to take a front seat in physics research during the 1970s and 80s, with the rise of super-gravity and superstring theories. Both of these proposals rely on the introduction of super-symmetry, and signalled a resurgence in the ideas of Kaluza and Klein involving higher dimensional spaces. Boosted further by the discovery of D-branes as fundamental objects in string theories, this avenue of research led to a vastly richer set of structures that one could consider, and a plethora of proposals were made for how to modify the effective field equations in four dimensions. In Section 5 we review the literature on this subject. By the early 1970s, and following the ‘golden age’ of general relativity that took place in the 1960s, there was a wide array of candidate theories of gravity in existence that could rival Einstein’s. A formalism was needed to deal with this great abundance of possibilities, and this was provided in the form of the Parameterised Post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism by Kenneth Nordtvedt, Kip Thorne and Clifford Will. The PPN formalism was built on the earlier work of Eddington and Dicke, and allowed for the numerous theories available at the time to be compared to cutting edge astrophysical observations such as lunar laser ranging, radio echo, and, in 1974, the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar. The PPN formalism provided a clear structure within which one could compare and assess various theories, and has been the benchmark for how theories of gravity should be evaluated ever since. We will give an outline of the PPN formalism, and the constraints available within it today, in Section 2. The limits of General Relativity have again come into focus with the emergence of the ‘dark universe’ scenario. For almost thirty years there has existed evidence that, if gravity is governed by Einstein’s field equations, there should be a substantial amount of ‘dark matter’ in galaxies and clusters. More recently, ‘dark energy’ has also been found to be required in order to explain the apparent accelerating expansion of the Universe. Indeed, if General Relativity is correct, it now seems that around 96% of the Universe should be in the form of energy densities that do not interact electromagnetically. Such an odd composition, favoured at such high confidence, has led some to speculate on the possibility that General Relativity may not, in fact, be the correct theory of gravity to describe the Universe on the largest scales. The dark universe may be just another signal that we need to go beyond Einstein’s theory. The idea of modifying gravity on cosmological scales has really taken off over the past decade. This has been triggered, in part, by theoretical developments involving higher dimensional theories, as well as new developments in constructing renormalizable theories of gravity. More phenomenologically, Bekenstein’s relativistic formulation of Milgrom’s Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND) has provided a fresh impetus for new study: What was previously a rule of thumb for how weak gravitational fields might behave in regions of low acceleration, was suddenly elevated to a theory that could be used to study cosmology. Insights such as Bertschinger’s realisation that large-scale perturbations in the Universe can be directly related to the overall expansion rate have also made it possible to characterise large classes of theories simply in terms of how they make the Universe evolve. Finally, and just as importantly, there has been tremendous progress observationally. A key step here has been the measurement of the growth of structure at redshifts of z 0.8, by Guzzo and his collaborators. With these measurements one can test, and reject, a large number of proposals for modified gravity. This work is complemented by many others that carefully consider the impact of modifications to gravity on the cosmic microwave background, weak lensing and a variety of other 6

Where convenient. to some extent. Under these conventions the line-element for Minkowski space. and future. 2 (3) (4) where Rµν = Rαµαν and R = Rαα . and space indices using the Latin alphabet. as the reader will see from our table of contents. and explain why it has become the standard paradigm. on why general relativity should be considered ‘special’ among the larger class of possibilities that we might consider. we will attempt to cover as many aspects of as many different theories as we can. A vast range of modified theories now exist in the literature. To be able to efficiently assess the different candidate theories of gravity we have opted to first lay down the foundations of modern gravitational physics and General Relativity in Section 2. From here we move on to discuss and compare alternative theories of gravity and their observational consequences. We will focus on how these theories differ from General Relativity. We will attempt to be as comprehensive in this report as we consider it reasonably possible to be. such that when it is diagonalised it has the signature (− + ++). T µν = √ −g δgµν 7 (5) . As a result. for example. Indeed. Let us now spell out the conventions and definitions that we will use throughout this review. We dub these approaches ‘Parameterised Post Friedmannian’. we will also briefly delve into the recent attempts that have been made to construct a formalism. In this section we also survey the current evidence for the ‘dark universe’.cosmological probes. curvature. be tested against the real Universe. modifying gravity in regions of low. others expand on the ideas first put forward by Kaluza and Klein. vector or tensor fields in their gravitational sector. Some of these have extra scalar. The energy-momentum tensor will be defined with respect to the Lagrangian density for the matter fields as 2 δLm . analogous to the PPN formalism. cosmological missions and surveys. We will choose to write space-time indices using the Greek alphabet. for the cosmological arena. as well as from each other. Thorne and Wheeler [902]: Rµναβ Gµν = ∂α Γµνβ − ∂β Γµνα + Γµσα Γσνβ − Γµσβ Γσνα 1 = Rµν − gµν R. (2) For the Riemann and Einstein curvature tensors we will adopt the conventions of Misner. and take them into new realms by invoking new structures. In this report we aim to provide a comprehensive exposition of the many developments that have occurred in the field of modified gravity over the past few decades. testing gravity has become one of the core tasks of many current. we will also choose to use units such that speed of light is equal to 1. We will employ the ‘space-like convention’ for the metric. some take Sakharov’s idea in an altogether new direction. While the primary focus of this report is to elucidate particular theories. and how they can be distinguished from it. We have aimed to make this a self-contained section that focuses. That is. in principle. rather than high. can then be written ds2 = ηµν dxµ dxν = −dt2 + dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 . there are now a great many possible ways of modifying gravity that can.

Let us now move onto the definitions of particular terms. The equation of state. a (13) (14) The definitions we have made here will be restated at various points in the review. w. We choose to define the equivalence principles in the following way: 8 . when working with linear perturbations about an FLRW background we will work in the conformal Newtonian gauge in which ds2 = a2 (τ ) −(1 + 2Ψ)dτ 2 + (1 − 2Φ)qij dxi dxj . (11) On the conformally static three-dimensional space-like hyper-surfaces the grad operator will be denoted with an arrow. we will often make use of the definition of the Hubble parameter defined with respect to both physical and conformal time as H H ≡ ≡ a ˙ a a . so that each section remains self-contained to a reasonable degree. as i .where the derivative here is a functional one. dτ (9) (10) In four dimensional space-time we will denote covariant derivatives with either a semicolon or a µ . (6) When writing the Friedmann-Lemaˆ ıtre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) line-element we will use t to denote the ‘physical time’ (proper time of observers comoving with the fluid). respectively. (7) where qij is the metric of a maximally symmetric 3-space with Gaussian curvature κ: ds2 = qij dxi dxj = (3) dr2 + r2 dθ2 + r2 sin2 θdφ2 . The exception to this will be Section 5. and its isotropic pressure as P . is then defined by P = wρ. on higher dimensional theories. Unless otherwise stated. Throughout this review we will refer to the energy density of a fluid as ρ. The four dimensional d’Alembertian will then be defined as ≡ g µν µ ν. and τ = dt/a(t) to denote the ‘conformal time’ coordinate. which will require the introduction of new notation in order to describe quantities in the bulk. such that ˙ ≡ ≡ d dt d . (12) As is usual. while the Laplacian will be given by ∆ ≡ q ij i j. 1 − κr2 (8) When dealing with time derivatives in cosmology we will use the dot and prime operators to refer to derivatives with respect to physical and conformal time.

and the universality of free fall. even if it has field equations that are different from Einstein’s1 . When we then discuss ‘modified gravity’ this will refer to any modification of any of these properties. for example. the EEP in particular is known to have been very influential in the conception of General Relativity. Secondly. represent different models of the same theory. While we have constructed the definition above to be as simple as possible. our definition is an entirely functional one. This term is often used by cosmologists to refer simply to Einstein’s equations. which is called General Relativity. it will be clear from reading through this report that almost all the proposals we report on preserve general covariance. In four dimensions it is usually clear what this term refers to. We will not appeal to the action or Lagrangian of the theory itself here. we have not defined exactly what we mean by ‘Einstein’s equations’. and up to tidal gravitational forces) the same laws of special relativistic physics. This is especially true in terms of the exotic fields that are sometimes introduced into cosmology in order to try and understand the apparent late-time accelerating expansion of the Universe. Particle physicists. Firstly. Let us now define what we mean by ‘General Relativity’. the effect of gravity on matter is tightly constrained to be mediated by interactions of the matter fields with a single rank-2 tensor field. Of these. on the other hand. independent of position or velocity. there are of course a number of ambiguities involved. and any other non-matter fields it interacts with. in terms of the field equations alone. and universal couplings to all matter fields. • Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP): The WEP is valid for massive gravitating objects as well as test particles. Let us now clarify further what exactly we mean by ‘modified’ theories of gravity. as well as satisfying Einstein’s field equations.• Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP): All uncharged. and furthermore in all freely falling frames one recovers (locally. In this report when we write about ‘General Relativity’ we refer to a theory that simultaneously exhibits general covariance. then we consider it to be a ‘modified theory of gravity’. once an initial position and velocity have been prescribed. refer to any dynamical theory of spin-2 fields that incorporates general covariance as ‘general relativity’. 9 . If these equations are anything other than Einstein’s equations. This does not mean that this field is the only degree of freedom in the theory. As we will discuss in the next section. but that whatever other interactions may occur. the effect of gravity on the matter fields can only be through interactions with the rank-2 tensor (up to additional weak interactions that are consistent with the available constraints). but if we allow for the possibility of extra dimensions 1 Note that under this definition the Einstein-Hilbert and Brans-Dicke Lagrangians. The term ‘gravitational theory’ can then be functionally defined by the set of field equations obeyed by the rank-2 tensor. independent of position or velocity. and up to tidal gravitational forces) the same special relativistic physics. and in all freely falling frames one recovers (locally. • Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP): The WEP is valid. exactly what one should consider as a ‘matter field’ can be somewhat subjective. However. freely falling test particles follow the same trajectories. One may note that some authors refer to what we have called the EEP as the ‘strong equivalence principle’.

then we may choose for it to refer either to the equations derived from an EinsteinHilbert action in the higher dimensional space-time. For example. but not a section on minimally coupled quintessence fields. Clearly these two possible definitions are not necessarily consistent with each other. similar conventions have started to develop around other modifications to the standard theory. We therefore include in this review a section on non-minimally coupled scalartensor theories. quintessence fields that are minimally coupled to the metric are usually thought of as additional matter fields. as an additional matter field. For example. or as part of Einstein’s equations themselves makes no difference to its effect on the expansion of the Universe. or to the effective set of equations in four dimensional space-time. Although not always clear. 10 . In this case it is only convention that states that the Einstein equations with Λ is not a modified theory of gravity. and have no baring on the physics of the situation. whether one chooses to refer to the cosmological constant as a modification of gravity. the ambiguities just mentioned are a matter of taste. whereas scalar fields that non-minimally couple to the Einstein-Hilbert term in the action are usually thought of as being ‘gravitational’ fields (this distinction existing despite what numerous studies call non-minimally coupled quintessence fields). To a large extent. Even in four dimensions it is not always clear if ‘Einstein’s equations’ include the existence of a non-zero cosmological constant. we try to follow what we perceive to be the conventions that exist in the literature in this regard. Although less established than the case of the cosmological constant. or not.

3 ± 1. as well as compatibility with a variety of different observations involving the propagation of light and the orbits of massive bodies. and foundations.1.1. 2.1. in the solar system. 2. It is expected that this can be improved upon by up to a further 5 orders of magnitude when space based tests of the equivalence principle are performed 11 . This will allow us to separate out observations that test equivalence principles. and in other astrophysical systems. and the principles that a theory must obey in order for it to stand a chance of being considered observationally viable. but will rather reflect on what can be said about them experimentally. from observations that test the different gravitational theories that obey these principles – an approach pioneered by Dicke [423].2. but their mass is usually small enough that they can effectively be considered to be non-gravitating test particles in the gravitational field of the astrophysical body. Here we will briefly recap some of its essential features. These include foundational requirements. and detailed observations of the orbits of a variety of different astrophysical bodies allow us to look for ever smaller deviations from Newtonian gravity. We will not insist immediately that any or all of these principles are valid. radio and laser signals can be sent back and forth from the Earth to spacecraft. We will discuss what they can tell us about relativity theory. Using beryllium and titanium the tightest constraint on the relative difference in accelerations of the two bodies. The best evidence in support of the WEP still comes from E¨tv¨s type experiments that use a torsion balance o o to determine the relative acceleration of two different materials towards distant astrophysical bodies. a1 and a2 . and will present some of the theorems it obeys as well as the apparatus that is most frequently used to parameterise deviations away from it. and we will then explain how and why it is that General Relativity satisfies them. This will be followed by a discussion of the cosmological solutions and predictions of the concordance general relativistic ΛCDM model of the Universe. is currently [1110] η=2 |a1 − a2 | = (0. General Relativity. and its Foundations General Relativity is the standard theory of gravity. We will outline why General Relativity should be considered a special theory in the more general class of theories that one could consider. as well as entirely new gravitational effects.8) × 10−13 . Today. It is in this section that we will discuss the gravitational experiments and observations that have so far been performed in these environments. The least stringent of the equivalence principles is the WEP. such as the universality of free fall and the isotropy of space. Requirements for Validity In order to construct a relativistic theory of gravity it is of primary importance to establish the properties it must satisfy in order for it to be considered viable. We will outline the observational tests of gravity that have been performed on Earth. In reality these materials are self-gravitating. planets and the moon. |a1 + a2 | (15) This is an improvement of around 4 orders of magnitude on the original results of E¨tv¨s o o from 1922 [472]. The foundations of relativistic theories First of all let us consider the equivalence principles.

there is still very compelling evidence that the EEP should also be considered valid to high accuracy. It is not. if we take the o o WEP to be tightly constrained by the E¨tv¨s experiment. suggested by Einstein himself in 1916 [465]. where here Mi and Mg are the inertial and gravitational masses of the atom after reabsorbing the photon. however. which test for local spatial anisotropies by carefully observing the shape and spacing of atomic spectral lines. Recalling that the energy gained by the photon in travelling from the lab ceiling to the lab floor is E − E. in a static gravitational field of strength g. gravitational redshift then simply tests the equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses. In Dicke’s approach it should therefore be considered as a test of the foundations of relativistic gravitational theories. does not appear to be able to distinguish between different theories that obey the WEP and local position invariance. The gravitational redshift effect by itself. The o o argument for this is the following [423. At this point. so that both Mi and Mg are independent of where they are in the lab. Crucial here is the assumption that local position invariance is valid. This. at least up to the accuracy specified in Eq. such that its energy has been blue-shifted by the gravitational field to E when it is collected in the reservoir. the atom re-absorbs a photon from the reservoir with energy E = (Mi − Mi )c2 and is then raised to its initial position at the ceiling. Testing this is a considerably more demanding task than was the case for the WEP. let us first consider a number of point-like particles coupled to a single rank-2 tensor. Despite the difficulties involved with this. however. a particularly stringent test of relativity theory. 433]. 594]: Consider an atom that initially has an inertial mass Mi . The 12 . which is what the E¨tv¨s experiment does to higher accuracy. The next most stringent equivalence principle is the EEP. The atom starts near the ceiling of a lab of height h. and with an energy reservoir on the lab floor beneath it. This is one of the three “classic tests” of General Relativity. If the laws of physics are position independent. The work done in lowering and raising the atom in this way is then w = (Mg − Mg )gh. is just the usual expression for gravitational redshift. This process changes the inertial and gravitational masses of the atom to Mi and Mg . respectively. and a gravitational mass Mg . and is superseded in its accuracy by the E¨tv¨s experiment we have just discussed. and this equation simply becomes (E − E) = E gh. (15). The most accurate and direct of this evidence is due to the Hughes-Drever experiments [633. gµν . however. If we accept energymomentum conservation in a closed system then it is only really a test of the WEP.[1282]. the principle of energy conservation then tells us that (E − E) = w = (Mg − Mg )gh. if the WEP is obeyed then Mi = Mg . The atom is then lowered to the floor. The atom emits a photon of energy E that then travels down to the lab floor. Alternatively. Let us now briefly consider the gravitational redshifting of light. but also that a whole set of special relativistic laws are valid in the rest frames of these particles. Now. These null results are generally considered to be a very tight constraint on the foundations of any relativistic gravitational theory if it is to be thought of as viable: The WEP must be satisfied. This last process raises its energy by Mg gh. To see why this is of importance. a process which lowers its total energy by Mg gh. and energy is conserved. The basic idea here is to determine if any gravitational fields beyond a single rank-2 tensor are allowed to couple directly to matter fields. as one now not only has to show that different test particles follow the same trajectories. then gravitational redshift o o experiments can be used to gain high precision constraints on the position dependence of the laws of physics [118]. rather than a test of the theories themselves.

It has been shown using conservation of energy that preferred frame and preferred location effects can cause violations 13 . This is a conjecture attributed to Schiff. as the Euler-Lagrange Equations (17) are not in the form of geodesic equations. we then have that pµ is spatially anisotropic. Local spatially isotropy. and the EEP is valid. such as those in Eq. where cI are a set of I constants. and yield constraints of the order n 10−27 m. (16) where mI are the masses of the particles. The Euler-Lagrange equations derived from δL = 0 then tell us that the particles in Eq. and the EEP. We therefore have no Riemannian geometry with which we can locally transform to Minkowski space. This result strongly supports the conclusion that matter fields must be coupled to a single rank-2 tensor only. there are also theoretical reasons to think that the EEP is valid to high accuracy. that states ‘any complete and self-consistent gravitational theory that obeys the WEP must also satisfy the EEP’. and should cause the type of shifts and broadening of spectral lines that Hughes-Drever-type experiments are designed to detect. so that they (I) can be written as in Eq. (17) where hµν is the new tensor. cause just the type of spatial anisotropies that these experiments constrain. (16) with gµν = I cI hµν . if the matter fields couple to two rank-2 tensors then the argument used above falls apart. and uµ = dxµ /dλ is their 4-velocity measured with respect to some parameter λ. The particles above can now no longer be thought of as following the geodesics of any one metric. (19) so that couplings to the second metric must be very weak in order to be observationally viable. In this case the Lagrangian density of our particles reads L= mI I −gµν uµ uν + nI −hµν uµ uν dλ. The relevance of this discussion for the Hughes-Drever experiments is that EEP violating couplings. 301]. The current tightest constraints are around 5 orders of magnitude tighter than the original experiments of Hughes and Drever [765. Now. (16) follow geodesics of the metric gµν . Beyond direct experimental tests. and nI is the coupling of each particle to that field. and the EEP is violated. and Riemannian geometry tells us that at any point we can choose coordinates such that gµν = ηµν locally. such as Hughes-Drever-type experiments. −hαβ uα uβ (18) and as gµν and hµν cannot in general be made to be simultaneously spatially isotropic. and hence that the EEP is valid. that we can recover special relativity at any point. It then follows that particles follow geodesics of this metric. is always recovered in this case. We therefore recover special relativity at every point. In this case the 4-momentum of the test particle in these experiments becomes pµ = mgµν uν + −gαβ uα uβ nhµν uν . (17).Lagrangian density for such a set of particles is given by L= mI I −gµν uµ uν dλ. It should be noted that these constraints do not apply to gravitational theories with multiple rank-2 tensor fields that couple to matter in a linear combination.

(16). We will not consider the issue further here. It is. Observational tests of metric theories of gravity In what follows we will consider gravitational experiments and observations that can potentially be used to distinguish between different metric theories of gravity. Solar system tests As well as the gravitational redshifting of light that we have already mentioned. Validity of the EEP can then be thought of as implying that the underlying gravitational theory should be a metric one [1273]. there are also a variety of other gravitational observations that can be performed in the solar system in order to investigate relativistic gravitational phenomena. These can both be considered tests of gravitational theories beyond the foundational issues discussed in the previous section. up to the effects of second derivatives in the metric (i. but there is as yet still no incontrovertible proof of its veracity.of the WEP [594]. with impact parameter d. Lebach and Gregory who use around 2500 days worth of observations taken over a period of 20 years. The 1. The basics of Riemannian geometry then tells us that at every point in the manifold there exists a tangent plane. For convenience we will split these into tests involving null trajectories (such as light bending) and tests involving time-like trajectories (such as the perihelion precession of planets). That is. As well as these two tests. David. is given by 2M (1 + cos ϕ) 1.e. For our present purposes. as in Eq. As already mentioned. of a photon’s trajectory due to a mass. as any theory of gravity based on a differentiable manifold and a metric tensor that couples to matter. so that the EEP is satisfied. This allows us to recover special relativity at every point. θ. the other two ‘classic tests’ of General Relativity are the bending of light rays by the Sun. tidal forces). This goes some way towards demonstrating Schiff’s conjecture.1. possible to test various other aspects of relativistic gravitational theory that one may consider as ‘foundational’ (for example.2. each of these tests is (potentially) able to distinguish between different metric theories of gravity. 2. the most famous of these is the spatial deflection of star light by the Sun.75 . A viable theory of gravity must be compatible with all of them. and local position invariance. The tightest observational constraint to date on θ is due to Shapiro. the EEP. (20) θ= d where ϕ is the angle made at the observer between the direction of the incoming photon and the direction of the mass. however. which in cases with Lorentzian signature is taken to be Minkowski space. of course. and the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury. The experiments we have just described provide very tight constraints on the WEP. This result is famously twice the size of the effect that one might naively estimate using the equivalence principle alone [464]. can be shown to have test particles that follow geodesics of the resulting metric space. the constancy of a constant of nature [1240]). Theories that obey the EEP are often described as being ‘metric’ theories of gravity. M . First of all let us consider tests involving null geodesics. we are mostly interested in the EEP. In General Relativity the deflection angle.75 is for a null trajectory that grazes the limb of the Sun. The data in this study was taken using 87 14 .

so that the perihelion of the test particle’s orbit slowly starts to precess. The Sun also has a non-zero quadrupole moment. A further.75 .025 per century.00001 ± 0. for a light-like signal reflected off a distant test object given by ∆t = 4M ln 4r1 r2 d2 20 12 − ln d R 2 au r2 µs. relative to the fixed stars. and currently more constraining.VLBI sites and 541 radio sources. The best constraint on gravity using this effect is currently due to Bertotti. as does allowing the central mass to have a non-zero quadrupole moment. and au as the astronomical unit. (23) where ∆tGR is the expected time-delay due to general relativity. as calculated by various different groups. The result of this is [1131] θ = (0. despite the fact that it was discovered long before General Relativity [777]). The second equality here is the approximate magnitude of this effect when the photons pass close by the Sun. and depends on the exact values of the quantities described above. yielding more than 1. ∆ω. These observations result in the constraint ∆t = (1. The Shapiro time-delay effect in fact constrains the same aspect of relativistic gravity as the spatial deflection of light (this will become clear when we introduce the parameterised post-Newtonian formalism later on).00023) × 1. and Newtonian gravity alone. while the other planets contribute about 531 per century. Taking all of these effects into account. Here the deflection in time is taken into account when a photon passes through the gravitational field of a massive object. (21) which is around 3 orders of magnitude better than the observations of Eddington in 1919. respectively. Here we have written R as the radius of the Sun.7 × 106 measurements that use standard correction and delay rate estimation procedures. In relativistic theories of gravity 15 . ∆t. (22) where r1 and r2 (both assumed d) are the distances of the observer and test object from an object of mass M . In the solar system the precession of the equinoxes of the coordinate system contribute about 5025 per century to Mercury’s perihelion precession. Let us now consider tests involving time-like trajectories. test of metric theories of gravity using null trajectories involves the Shapiro time-delay effect [1130]. In Newtonian physics the perihelion of a test particle orbiting an isolated point-like mass stays in a fixed position.00001)∆tGR . The ‘classical’ test of General Relativity that falls into this category is the anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury (this is called a test. This aspect is sometimes called the ‘unit curvature’ of space. which contributes a further 0. the reader is referred to [1039]. The effect of this in General Relativity is to cause a time delay. it still appears that the orbit of Mercury in the solar system has an anomalous perihelion precession that cannot be explained by the available visible matter. and the observer is on Earth. and a number of other results. For a more detailed overview of the issues involved. Iess and Tortora using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft between the 6th of June and the 7th of July 2002 [147]. as well as the deflection in space that is familiar from the lensing effects discussed above. Adding other massive objects into the system perturbs this orbit. In Table 1 we display the observed anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury. Calculating this anomalous shift exactly is a complicated matter.99992 ± 0.

There is therefore an additional contribution to the perihelion precession. which are reviewed in [1041].963 ± 0. In the previous section we only considered tests of the WEP and EEP. The acronyms EPM1988 and DE200 refer to different numerical ephemerides. It 16 .061 42. as these potentials do not drop off as ∼ 1/r2 .20 43. while violating the SEP.94 ± 0.98 . it is then possible to gain the constraint [1277] η = (−1. Every test of the Nordtvedt effect is therefore a potential killing test of general relativity. This is indeed a null result.061 42. The last equality is for the Sun-Mercury system. the additional post-Newtonian gravitational potentials mean that the perihelion of a test particle orbiting an isolated mass is no longer fixed. [746]: EPM1988 DE200 Pitjeva [1040]: EPM1988 DE200 ∆ω /( per century) 42.14 42. as well as preferred frame effects. By tracking the separation of the Earth and Moon to high precision. This effect is the name given to violations of the SEP. the most successful approach in searching for SEP violations is to use the Earth-Moon system in the gravitational field of the Sun as a giant E¨tv¨s o o experiment.052 42. To date.052 Table 1: The value of the perihelion precession of Mercury obtained from observations by various authors.4) × 10−13 . The difference between this and the laboratory experiments described in the previous section is that while the gravitational fields of the masses in WEP E¨tv¨s o o experiments are entirely negligible.Source Anderson et al. but do in most other theories. and is compatible with the observations shown in Table 1. [48] Anderson et al. it is entirely possible to satisfy the WEP and EEP. but also the non-linear terms in the space-time geometry. with a metric theory of gravity.984 ± 0. (24) where m is the total mass of the two bodies.13 ± 0. and by comparing to observations such as those in Table 1 we can therefore constrain them. Each relativistic theory predicts its own value of ∆ω.969 ± 0. [49] Krasinsky et al. which provide strong evidence that viable gravitational theories should be ‘metric’ ones. (15). and hence the underlying relativistic theory. the predicted anomalous precession of a two body system is given by ∆ω = 6πM p 42. using lasers reflected off reflectors left on the Moon by the Apollo 11 mission in 1969. This test is an additional one beyond those based on null geodesics alone as it tests not only the ‘unit curvature’ of space. and p is the semi-latus rectum of the orbit. Now.977 ± 0. this is no longer the case with the Earth and Moon. Such violations do not occur in General Relativity. consistent with General Relativity. which is sensitive to the relative magnitude and form of the gravitational potentials. For General Relativity. if it delivers a non-null result. (25) where η is defined as in Eq. Another very useful test involving time-like geodesics involves looking for the ‘Nordtvedt effect’ [986]. and is tighter even than the current best laboratory constraint on the WEP.0 ± 1.

642]). and causes the frame-dragging discussed above. and in fact constrains a similar (but not identical) set of gravitational potentials to the perihelion precession described previously. As well as these. and has been made using the LAser GEOdynamics Satellites (LAGEOS) [302] (there has. The most accurate measurement of this effect claimed so far is at the level of 5 − 10% accuracy. there are a host of alternatives to General Relativity that also predict short-ranged deviations from 1/r2 gravity. to fourth-order theories [307] and bimetric theories [308]. These range from extra-dimensional theories [673. The Gravity Probe B mission is a more tailor made experiment which was put in orbit around the Earth between April 2004 and September 2005. all of which predict ‘Yukawa’ potentials of the form U =α ρ(x )e−|x−x |/λ 3 3 d x . due to the their scale dependence. been some dispute of this result [641. although this could improve further after additional analysis is performed. and was discovered in the very early days of General Relativity by Lense and Thirring [1204. This effect exists independent of the massive bodies rotation. provides strong motivation for experimental attempts to detect them. This is the generation of gravitational fields by the rotation of massive objects. respectively. these observations allow insight into an entirely relativistic type of gravitational behaviour: gravitomagnetism.can therefore be used to constrain possible deviations from General Relativity. however. While currently less constraining than the other tests discussed so far. (27) 2 2 Here we have written the vector g = g0i . All of the tests discussed so far in this section have been for long-ranged modifications to Newtonian gravity. however. and is caused by the ‘unit curvature’ of the space. The second term in (27) is the Lense-Thirring term. |x − x | (28) where α parameterises the ‘strength’ of the interaction. Now. Unfortunately. The basic idea here is that massive objects should ‘drag’ space around with them as they rotate. often referred to as ‘fifth-forces’. and 17 . The genericity of these potentials. in the case of General Relativity it can be shown that the precession of a spin vector S along the trajectory of a freely-falling gyroscope in orbit around an isolated rotating massive body at rest is given by dS = Ω × S. (26) dτ where 3 1 Ω= v× U − × g. and have taken v and U to be the velocity of the gyroscope and the Newtonian potential at the gyroscope. The current accuracy of results from this mission are at the level of ∼ 15% [476]. The first term in (27) is called ‘geodetic precession’. Although one can convincingly argue that the same aspects of the gravitational field that cause frame-dragging are also being tested by perihelion precession and the Nordtvedt effect. and λ parameterises its range. a concept that is in good keeping with Mach’s principle. 702]. it is not true that in these cases the gravitational fields in question are being communicated through the rotation of matter. A third solar system test involving time-like geodesics is the observation of spinning objects in orbit. 785]. one can no longer simply look for the extra force on one particular scale.

and Adelberger. for example. and the experiments and observations involved. and so far is the only proposed theory of gravity that does so. General Relativity predicts radiation with helicity modes ±2 only. and others do not. These correspond to the two modes familiar from General Relativity. however. but by themselves are not sufficient to distinguish any one in particular. For a fuller discussion of these searches. as well as two modes with helicity ±1. Heckel and Nelson [11]. So. At smaller scales laboratory searches must be performed. 819. So. and binary pulsars A generic prediction of all known relativistic theories of gravity is the existence of gravitational waves: Propagating gravitational disturbances in the metric itself. more discriminating test. It is therefore the case that while the mere existence of gravitational radiation is not itself enough to effectively discriminate between different gravitational theories. a number of different theories that predict null gravitational radiation. if one were able to detect gravitational waves from nearby supernovae. 1312]. Instead. 291]. they do not all predict the same type of radiation as the quadrupolar. Gravitational waves. is of the polarity of gravitational radiation. while all known relativistic gravitational theories predict gravitational radiation. one could attempt to determine the propagation speed of gravitational waves. the reader is referred to the reviews by Fischbach and Talmadge [507]. Firstly. A second. with the scale of the phenomenon being observed typically constraining λ of similar size. so that we end up with constraints on α at various different values of λ. On intermediate scales the LAGEOS satellite. and one should then be able to uniquely 18 . The extent to which observations of these modes can constrain gravitational theory depends on whether or not the source of the radiation can be reliably identified. then the vector k µ is known. However. and two further modes with helicity 0. Generically. null radiation that we are familiar with from General Relativity. and current constraints in this regime range from α 10−2 at λ ∼ 10−2 m. Tests of the velocity of gravitational waves therefore have the potential to rule out a number of theories. In General Relativity it is the case that gravitational waves have a velocity that is strictly equal to that of the speed of light in vacuum. There are. If the source can be identified. this is not true: Some theories predict null gravitational radiation. R0i0j .then extrapolate the result to all scales. One of these helicity-0 modes corresponds to an additional oscillation in the plane orthogonal to the wave vector k µ . to α 106 at λ ∼ 10−5 m [624. and observations of gravitational accelerations at the top of towers and under the oceans provide constraints of α that range from α 10−8 at λ ∼ 107 m [1053] to α 10−3 at 10−1 m λ 104 m [459. for example. which we will now discuss. there are six different polarisation states – one for each of the six ‘electric’ components of the Riemann tensor. These observations are taken from a variety of different sources. the type of gravitational radiation that is observed is. observations must be made on a whole range of different scales. then comparing the arrival time of this radiation with the arrival time of the electromagnetic radiation would provide a potentially killing test of General Relativity. on the larger end of the observationally probed scale we have planetary orbits [1197] and lunar laser ranging [1277] constraining α 10−8 between 108 m λ 1012 m. In general. while the remaining 3 modes all correspond to oscillations in a plane containing k µ . The potential differences between different types of gravitational radiation can take a number of different forms. Weaker constraints at still smaller scales are available using the Casimir effect. however.

they are a source of gravitational waves. This is the case with Rosen’s bimetric theory of gravity [1068. Another way to search for gravitational waves is to look for their influence on the systems that emitted them. apart from the change in orbital period that is negligible in the solar system. One further effect that has been measured 19 . however. exhibits a relativistic periastron advance that is more than 30 000 times that of the Mercury-Sun system. they can be highly relativistic. Given the high degree of accuracy to which the orbits of these systems are known. the gravitational redshift. In this regard binary pulsar systems are of particular interest. Indeed. The Hulse-Taylor binary system. Each site is an independent interferometer constructed from two 4 km arms. This experiment consists of two sites in the USA (one in Livingston. Washington). however. as the star rotates. The first pulsar observed in a binary system was PSR B1913+16 in 1974. the change in angular momentum due to gravitational radiation can be determined and observed. the most constrained are the 5 ‘postKeplerian’ effects. In this regard they provide an important compliment to the observations of post-Newtonian gravity that we observe in the solar system. Direct observations of gravitational waves. For a review of pulsars in this context the reader is referred to [1177].997 ± 0. This is a particularly ‘clean’ binary system of a pulsar with rotational period ∼ 59ms in orbit around another neutron star. In the Hulse-Taylor system the observed decrease in orbital period over the past 30 years is 0.002 of the rate predicted by General Relativity [1267]. 1275]. provide an excellent opportunity to further constrain gravity. but has yet to make a positive detection. In the absence of any knowledge of k µ . To date. which are the rate of periastron advance. and the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). Further experiments are planned for the future. for example. We then have 6 different tests of relativistic gravitational theory – one for each of the modes. the direct detection of gravitational radiation has yet to be performed. These effects are familiar from the solar system tests discussed above. Both Advanced LIGO and LISA are expected to make positive detections of gravitational waves. we observe regular pulses of radiation. Louisiana and one in Richland. At present the highest accuracy null-observations of gravitational radiation are those of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO). Secondly. while being easily distinguishable when one also considers gravitational radiation. and two Shapiro time-delay effects. which is scheduled to start in 2014. of the kind discussed above. 779. however. Finally. neutron stars are composed of a type of compact matter that is of particular interest for the study of self-gravitational effects. along which laser beams are shone. by Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor [634]. and were first observed in 1967 [604]. although it may still be possible to constrain the modes being observed to a limited number of possibilities. the rate of change of orbital period. To date. one cannot necessarily uniquely identify all of the modes that are present in a gravitational wave. Firstly.identify the individual polarisation modes discussed above. Binary pulsars are of particular significance for gravitational physics for a number of reasons. There are large number of relativistic parameters that can be probed by observations of binary pulsar systems [359]. some theories can be shown to be indistinguishable from General Relativity using post-Newtonian gravitational phenomena in the solar system alone. When these beams pass over the Earth. Pulsars are rapidly rotating neutron stars that emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation. including Advanced LIGO. The experiment has an accuracy capable of detecting oscillations in space at the level of ∼ 1 part in 1021 .

theoretical considerations are a very powerful tool in testing new models. are consistent with General Relativity. The effect of emitting gravitational radiation from a binary system is to change its orbital period. 2. we should not only take our lead from observation but also from theory. In General Relativity we know that only quadrupole radiation with positive energy should be emitted from a system. let us return to constraining gravitational theory through the emission of gravitational waves. Theoretical considerations As he developed the Special Theory of Relativity. and there are two unknown quantities in the system (the masses of the pulsar. For most relativistic theories. in developing models of modified gravity. and hence gives 5 − 1 = 4 independent tests of relativistic gravity. specifically his faith in the principle of relativity and the validity of Maxwell’s equations in any inertial frame. complicated somewhat by a degeneracy between the a priori unknown shape of the emitting region and the geometry of the system as a whole [1268. and that of its companion). This leaves only one unknown quantity. however. No evidence for dipolar radiation yet exists [154. Dipole radiation is expected to be most dominant in binary systems with high eccentricity. Null observations that attest to this result therefore allow for experimental limits to be set on theories that predict positive energy dipolar radiation. then the centre of mass responsible for the gravitational radiation can move and generate dipole radiation. 314]. whereby the centre of the mass responsible for gravitational radiation is no longer the same as the centre of inertial mass. but he was also inspired by theory. The determination of the precession rate using these observations is. So too.only relatively recently is the ‘geodetic’ precession of the pulsar spin vector about its angular momentum vector [744]. The lack of any observation of dipolar radiation can also be used to rule out with high confidence theories that allow negative energy dipolar radiation. and sometimes this can carry away negative energy. So far. does significantly better [745]. including those of the double pulsar. Do the classical fluctuations propagate super-luminally? Can we excite a ghost? Do the quantum fluctuations become strongly coupled at some unacceptably low energy scale? 20 .1. all binary pulsar tests of gravity. and because both neutron stars are observable as pulsars the ratio of their masses can be directly inferred from their orbits. it is often assumed that Einstein’s inspiration came from experiments pointing towards the constancy of the speed of light. If the centre of inertial mass is what stays fixed. Not all of the post-Keplerian effects are always apparent in any given binary system. All five post-Keplerian effects are visible in this system. and not all provide independent tests of gravity. however. For example. The recently discovered ‘Double Pulsar’ PSR J0737-3039A/B [840]. however. such as Rosen’s theory [1275]. Indeed. The HulseTaylor binary therefore provides only 3 − 2 = 1 test of relativistic gravity. in the Hulse-Taylor binary only three of these effects can be observed (the inclination angle of the system on the sky is too large to observe any significant Shapiro delay). It is true that he was certainly aware of these experiments. dipole gravitational radiation is also expected. Finally. and where the companion mass is a white dwarf. The existence of dipole radiation is sometimes attributed to violations of the SEP. Typically these involve the study of classical and quantum fluctuations about classical solutions. This is a purely relativistic effect that is observed via changes in the observed pulse profile over a period of time that can be attributed to our line of sight to the pulsar crossing the emitting region at varying positions due to the precession. 776].3.

However. For example. the ghost can and will continually dump its energy into the “conventional” sector through classical processes. and in a Lorentz invariant theory. perhaps spontaneously. Another option is to make it heavy. However. Strong coupling Some modified gravity models are said to suffer from “strong coupling” problems. Given a classical solution to the field equations. such as a scalar (spin 0) or a tensor (spin 2). There are a few ways to try to exorcise the ghost. Since the former renders the entire quantum description completely non-sensical. whereas a ghost has 2 21 . perhaps the safest way to deal with a ghost is to dismiss as unphysical those solutions of a theory upon which the ghost can fluctuate. the production rate is divergent [317]. When a physical ghost is present one has a choice: Accept the existence of negative norm states and abandon unitarity. [653]). In contrast. The latter is introduced in the path integral to absorb unphysical gauge degrees of freedom. When these fields are already excited. One is to isolate it somehow. To get cosmic acceleration we need an additional repulsive force to act between massive objects at large distances. for example. or else accept that the energy eigenvalues of the ghost are negative [317]. quantum fluctuations on the Minkowski vacuum becomes strongly coupled at around Λ ∼ 10−13 eV ∼ 1/(1000km). Even in vacuum. In other words. and one can happily integrate it out. 2 our conventions. for scattering processes above Λ.Ghosts Ghosts are a common feature of many modified gravity models that hope to explain dark energy. since its energy is unbounded from below. more conventional. that is. We should be clear about the distinction between the kind of ghost that arises in certain modified gravity models and the Faddeev-Popov ghost used in the quantisation of non-abelian gauge theories. fields. then the kinetic term describing this must have the “wrong” sign2 . so much so that its mass exceeds the cut-off for the effective theory describing the relevant fluctuations. it now follows that the ghost will generate instabilities if it couples to other. This school of thought is exploited to good effect in the ghost condensate model [590]. the Lagrangian for a canonical scalar is L = − 1 (∂ψ)2 . If this force is to be mediated by a particle of even spin. and one 2 In L= + 1 (∂ψ)2 . Intuitively it is easy to see why this might be the case. one will get the spontaneous (quantum) production of ghostnon-ghost pairs. such that it completely decouples from other fields. in DGP gravity. It does not describe a physical particle and can only appear as an internal line in Feynman diagrams. the ghosts that haunt modified gravity describe physical excitations and can appear as external lines in Feynman diagrams. perturbative quantum field theory on the vacuum is no longer well defined. so that one can introduce an explicit Lorentz non-invariant cut-off to regulate the production rate of ghost-non-ghost pairs (see. this refers to quantum fluctuations on that solution becoming strongly coupled at an unacceptably low scale. it must be a ghost. A third option is to break Lorentz invariance. one usually accepts the latter.

One then has complete loss of predictivity. Computed at the Earth’s surface one should require that this lies below an meV since quantum gravity effects have yet to show up in any lab based experiments up to this scale. 2. the strength of the matter coupling is (indirectly) environmentally dependent. This is because it can be linked to a breakdown of classical perturbation theory. can be decomposed into parts that are symmetric or antisymmetric in its last two indices: Γµαβ = Γµ(αβ) + Γµ[αβ] . strong coupling at 1000 km on the Minkowski vacuum of DGP gravity is not really an issue as Minkowski space does not represent a good approximation to the classical solution in the vicinity of the Earth. either by construction (for the foundational requirements) or by trial (in the case of tests of metric theories of gravity). Einstein’s Theory Having considered the requirements that must be satisfied by a viable relativistic theory of gravity. should be viewed as an additional structure on this manifold. but be suppressed down to O(10−5 ) on Solar System scales. Consider a model of gravity that deviates from GR at large distances. the mass of the field is environmentally dependent. which is necessary for the successful implementation of the Vainshtein mechanism [1241. For the chameleon. For the symmetron. 688]. again depends on the background. Therefore. Here we will make some generic statements. Alternative ways to screen the extra fields have been suggested in the form of the chameleon [689. To be significant in terms of understanding dark energy. so much so that they are unable to propagate freely. Γµαβ . Both methods exploit the dependence of the effective potential on the environment. the field or fields that are responsible for the modification must be screened within the Solar System. for the classical solutions sourced by the Earth to leading order.2. quantum fluctuations will become strongly coupled at some scale that depends on the radial distance from the Earth’s centre. dependent on the background classical solution. 22 (29) . This is the idea behind the Vainshtein mechanism – higher order derivative interactions help to suppress the extra modes near the source (the Sun). It has actually been argued that strong coupling on the vacuum can be a virtue in modified gravity models [447]. and the symmetron [608] mechanisms. How can this screening occur? One way is for the fields to interact so strongly that they are frozen together. We discuss the Vainshtein mechanism and strong coupling in some detail in the context of DGP gravity in Section 5.4.must sum up the contribution from all the multi-loop diagrams. Whether the inferred strong coupling scale is acceptable. or not. let us now consider Einstein’s theory of General Relativity in particular. which. Indeed. getting heavy in the Solar System. The connection associated with covariant differentiation. tending to zero near a heavy source. General Relativity is a gravitational theory that treats space-time as a 4-dimensional manifold. the classical solution itself is meaningless at distances below Λ−1 since it would require a scattering process involving energies above the cut-off to probe its structure. and may even depend on position in space-time. in general. General Relativity satisfies all of the requirements described in the previous section. Furthermore. For example.5. The strong coupling scale is. of course. this deviation must be at least O(1) on cosmological scales. 399].

and all geometric quantities derived from it. ˙ ˙ (30) where λ is a parameter along the curve. respectively . These equations are formulated such that energy-momentum is a conserved quantity (due to the contracted Bianchi identity and metric-compatibility of the connection). the metric tells us everything there is to know about both distances and parallel transport in the space-time manifold.In General Relativity we take Γµ[αβ] = 0. as is required to recover special relativity in the tangent space to a point in space-time). Riemannian manifolds have a number of useful properties including tangent vectors being parallel to themselves along geodesics. Along the curve γ this gives the measure of distance s= γ dλ gµν xµ xν . to define distances on the manifold one also requires a metric tensor. which has components given by the Christoffel symbols: Γµαβ = µ αβ ≡ 1 µν g (gαν. The metric should also be considered as an additional structure on the manifold. or. The field equations Having briefly discussed the geometric assumptions implicit in General Relativity. Qµαβ ≡ µ gαβ . as a consequence of the two assumptions Qµαβ = 0 and Γµ[αβ] = 0 . µ R 2 where Rµν and R = g µν Rµν are the Ricci tensor and scalar curvature. 2 (33) Here Tµν is the energy-momentum tensor of matter fields in the space-time. and so the connection. the components of the connection are uniquely given by the Christoffel symbols via (31). xµ = xµ (λ). The relationship between the connection and the metric is defined via the non-metricity tensor.α − gαβ. so that special relativity can be recovered in the neighbourhood of 23 .1. 2. The resulting set of structures is known as a Riemannian manifold (or. the geodesic completeness of space-time implying the metric completeness of space-time. Now. let us now display the field equations of this theory: 1 Rµν − gµν R = 8πGTµν − gµν Λ. are defined entirely in terms of the metric.2. gµν . We can now use the metric to define the Levi-Civita connection. and over-dots here mean differentiation with respect to λ. therefore. we assume that torsion vanishes. pseudo-Riemannian in the case where the metric is not positive definite. This last equation is of great significance for Einstein’s equations. In General Relativity. more accurately. and Λ is the cosmological constant. which describes the curvature of the manifold.ν ) . in the language of differential geometry. and a particularly simple form for the contracted Bianchi identities: 1 µν (32) − g µν R = 0. which is in general independent from the connection. 2 (31) To summarise. In General Relativity it is assumed that the non-metricity tensor vanishes.β + gβν. We are then left with only the symmetric part of the connection.

ψ)d4 x. the Field Equations (33) can be derived from the variation of an action.2. They constitute 4 constraint equations and 6 evolution equations.e. with a universal coupling of all matter fields to the same metric. This property ensures S is invariant ¯ ¯ under general coordinate transformation. and in any freely falling frame one can always choose ‘normal coordinates’ so that local space-time is well described as Minkowski space. so that R = R(g). The vanishing of torsion and non-metricity then tell us that the metric is the only independent structure on the manifold. for the 10 independent components of the metric tensor. The action As with most field theories. and that the resulting tensor field equations are divergence free (i. and the invariant action principle ensures that we end up with a set of tensor field equations in which energymomentum is conserved. Because of this formulation the WEP and EEP are satisfied identically. Let us now assume the Ricci scalar to be a function of the metric only. 2. with the contracted Bianchi identities ensuring that the constraint equations are always satisfied.2. once it has been assumed that the spacetime manifold is Riemannian. Variation of Eq. 24 . where 2 δLm . from the metric variation of an invariant action principle under the assumption of Riemannian geometry.every point in space-time (up to tidal forces). Now. (34) to ensure that the Ls transform as scalar densities under coordinate transformations. (34) where Lm is the Lagrangian density of the matter fields. The Field Equations (33) are a set of 10 generally covariant. i. Modified theories of gravity are therefore often formulated in a similar way. when considering alternative theories of gravity one often wants to modify the field equations while conserving these basic properties. and so that the usual Newtonian Poisson equation for weak gravitational fields is recovered in non-inertial frames kept at a fixed space-like distances from massive objects (up to small corrections). (34) with respect to the metric tensor then gives the Field Equations (33).e. ψ. T µν ≡ √ −g δgµν (35) √ The factors of −g are included in Eq. Furthermore. (36) under coordinate transformations xµ = xµ (xν ). as ¯ L = det ∂xµ ∂ xν ¯ L. In the case of General Relativity this is the Einstein-Hilbert action: S= 1 16πG √ −g(R − 2Λ)d4 x + Lm (gµν . the conserved nature of Tµν and the Riemannian nature of the manifold ensure that the WEP and EEP are always satisfied: Massless test particles follow geodesics. the contracted Bianchi identities and energy-momentum conservation equations are automatically satisfied). We have outlined here how Einstein’s equations can be obtained from the variation of an invariant action with respect to the metric. quasi-linear second-order PDEs in 4 variables. and the gravitational La√ grangian density has been taken to be Lg = −g(R − 2Λ)/16πG.

as well as the Einstein tensor derived from it. In this case the metric is the only remaining geometric structure. but is still assumed to be symmetric and thus torsionless.3. Here the connection is no longer immediately assumed to be metric compatible. however. they become symmetric as soon as we assume the connection is symmetric. all matter fields are still taken to couple universally to the metric only3 . 25 .e. A large collection of many such formulations can be found in [1032]. that can be defined in terms of the antisymmetric components of the connection. and a simple metric variation of the action is the only option. Eq. If the torsionless condition on the connection is dropped then complications arise. however. However. It is for this reason that we now outline some alternative formulations of General Relativity. can lead to different field equations. (38) The Ricci tensor defined above. as has been shown by Hehl and Kerlick [600]. Variation of Eq. Alternative Formulations The discussion in the previous section involved deriving Einstein’s equations under the a priori assumption of Riemannian geometry (i. 2. (37) where Γ Rµν indicates that the Ricci tensor here is defined with respect to the connection and not the metric (at this stage the metric and connection are still independent variables). (37) with respect to the connection gives the condition that the connection is in fact the Levi-Civita connection. (40) 3 This assumption has limited validity. (34). however.3. are in general asymmetric. For the case of the Einstein-Hilbert action. We can. Variation with respect to the metric then recovers the Einstein equations. The action to be varied is then S= 1 16πG √ −g g µν Γ Rµν − 2Λ d4 x + Lm (gµν . (39) The tensor field K µαβ is the contorsion tensor. and different assumptions about the geometric structures on the manifold. The general form of the connection can be shown to be given by Γµαβ = µ αβ + J µαβ = µ αβ + K µαβ + Lµαβ . The Palatini procedure The most well known deviation from the metric variation approach is the ‘Palatini procedure’ [1020]. as K µαβ ≡ S µαβ − Sαβ µ − Sβα µ . For alternative theories of gravity. assuming to begin with that the torsion vanishes and that the connection is metric compatible). this usually still leads to the Einstein Equations (33). this is often not the case: Different variational procedures. be less restrictive in specifying the type of geometry we wish to consider. and is given by Γ Rµν = ∂α Γαµν − ∂µ Γααν + Γβ βα Γαµν − Γαµβ Γβ αν . ψ)d4 x. as it cannot be applied to tensor fields without using a covariant derivative.1.2. known as the torsion. In addition.

√ 8πG Varying with respect to the connection defines the Palatini tensor as Pµ αβ = √−g δ(δΓ−gR) . 3 (45) Clearly then. Once this is done. different. with g αβ Qµαβ = 0. be important in the following subsection and in Section 3. this is a myth. (41) Lµαβ ≡ 2 To avoid confusion. as we have assumed ˜ that matter field do not couple to the connection. and where we have split the non-metricity tensor into trace and ¯ ¯ traceless parts as Qµαβ = Qµ gαβ + Qµαβ . The constraint Qµ = 0 is sufficient to produce a consistent theory. Thus the Palatini approach in its most general form does not lead to a unique set of field equations4 . for instance that the torsion vanishes. To make the Palatini variation well defined one has to impose such conditions in the action by means of Lagrange multipliers. and hence Tµν = Tµν . one recovers General Relativity uniquely. the second field equation is the vanishing of the Palatini tensor. µ αβ that can be written as where Sµ = S αµα . or that the connection is metric compatible. This. while we use Γ µ to denote the covariant derivative associated with Γµαβ . however. we continue to denote the covariant derivative associated with the Levi-Civita connection as µ . In fact it may be shown that the equation Pµ αβ = 0 is equivalent to the connection taking the following form [600]: Γµαβ = µ αβ 1 − Qα δ µβ = 2 µ αβ 2 + Sα δ µβ . (43) but this provides only 60 constraints among the 64 independent components of the connection. 26 .1. there are 4 degrees of freedom left undetermined by the field equations. (42) One should note that only the symmetric part of the Einstein tensor appears here. This is not an important distinction at this stage. Pµ αβ = 0. As we have seen. and ˜ ˜ that we have used Tµν rather than Tµν to emphasise the fact that Tµν is defined at µ m ˜µν = − √2 δLµν . This will be spelt out explicitly for some specific theories in the sections that follow. in general.5. Varying the action with respect to the metric gµν we find the analogue of the Einstein equations: ˜ G(µν) + Λgµν = 8πGTµν . 4 It is often said that the Palatini procedure uniquely recovers GR. The Palatini tensor has only 60 independent components because it is identically traceless: Pα µα = 0. It will. has √ to be imposed as a Lagrange multiplier in the action via a term d4 x −gλα Qα .where S µαβ = Γµ[αβ] is the torsion tensor. however. i. For theories of gravity other than General Relativity the difference between the metric variation and the Palatini procedure is even more significant: The resulting field equations are. It does so only after further assumptions. however.e. Now. The tensor field Lµαβ is defined in terms of the non-metricity tensor as 1 Qµαβ − Qαβ µ − Qβαµ . T −g δg Γ δLm − √2 δgµν −g J . (44) ¯ ν Pαµβ = Sµαβ + 2gµ[α Sβ] + gµ[α Qβ] − gµ[α Qν]β . or that Qα = 0. On the other hand Tµν = constant Γ αβ in the variation.

2.3.2. Metric-affine gravity and matter A further generalisation of the metric variation approach is to keep the metric and connection completely independent, as discussed above, and further allow matter to couple not only to the metric, but also the connection [600]. In this case the action takes the form S= 1 16πG √ −g(g µν Γ Rµν − 2Λ)d4 x + Lm (gµν , Γµαβ , ψ)d4 x, (46)

where Γµαβ and gµν are once again independent. Performing the variations we recover Eq. (42) as before, and Pµ αβ = 8πG∆µαβ , (47)
δL where ∆µαβ = − √1 δΓµm is called the hypermomentum tensor [600, 601]. −g αβ ˜ In this case Tµν = Tµν , but it is straightforward to find that

˜ Tµν = Tµν +


∆ρ(µν) − ∆(µ

ρ ν)

− ∆(µν)




where µ is the covariant derivative associated with the Levi-Civita connection. Equation (47) can be shown to be self-inconsistent for reasonable forms of matter, as the Palatini tensor is invariant under projective transformations of the form Γµαβ → Γµαβ + λα δ µβ , while there is no reason to suspect this invariance is exhibited by the matter fields and hence the hypermomentum. Equivalently, the Palatini tensor obeys the identity Pαµ α = 0, while there is no reason that this should identically hold for the hypermomentum5 . One way to impose self-consistency is to demand that both torsion and non-metricity must vanish (by using Lagrange multipliers in the action), leading again to General Relativity. This type of self-consistency is, however, very strong, and weaker constraints have been found in [600]. One such weaker constraint leads to the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory [601], that we shall briefly describe in Section 3.5.1. 2.3.3. Other approaches There are a variety of other formalisms that one can use to derive Einstein’s equations. We will not go into the full details of all of these here, but merely mention some of the approaches that exist in the literature. For brevity we will only consider vacuum general relativity here. In the ‘vierbein’ formalism the Einstein-Hilbert action can be written S=
ˆ d4 x e eµ eν Rµν αβ , α β ˆ ˆ ˆ


5 Consider for example a simple Einstein-Æther model for which the matter action is S M = √ d4 x −g [α µ Aν ν Aµ + λ(Aµ Aµ + 1)]. The hypermomentum is ∆µαβ = −2Aβ µ Aα which clearly does not obey ∆αµα = 0. The variation done this way is inconsistent. On the other hand using the √ Lagrange constraint d4 x −gβµ αβ J µαβ in the action imposes J µαβ = 0, and hence the vanishing of

the Palatini tensor. This leads to a modified Eq. (47), as Pµ αβ = 0 = 8πG(∆µαβ − βµ αβ ), and to a modified Eq. (42), which now includes derivatives of βµ αβ . After using Eq. (48), however, the resulting equations are completely equivalent to the metric variation.


where indices with hats correspond to a basis in the tangent space defined by the set ˆ of contravariant vectors, eµµ , with determinant e = det[eµµ ]. The inverse of eµµ is eµµ , ˆ ˆ ˆ
ˆ ˆ ˆ such that eρ µ eν ρ = δ µν , and eρ µ eν ρ = δ µν . The metric tensor is constructed as gµν = ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ηµν eµµ eν ν . The spin connection ωµ αβ then defines a space-time and Lorentz covariant ˆˆ ρ ˆ derivative, Dµ , as Dµ vν = ˆ ρ λ ˆ ˆ ρ ˆ µ vν + ω µ λ vν , ˆ ˆ



is the Levi-Civita connection6 . The

ˆ curvature tensor Rµν αβ is defined in terms of the spin connection as ˆˆ ˆˆ ˆˆ ˆˆ ˆˆ Rµν µν ≡ ∂µ ων µν − ∂ν ωµ µν + ωµ µρ ων ρ − ων µρ ωµρ . ˆ ˆ ν ˆ ν ˆ


Variation now proceeds as in the Palatini formalism by assuming that the spin connection and vierbein are independent fields, from which one obtains the two field equations
ˆ D[µ eαν] = 0,



1 ˆˆ ˆˆ (52) Gα ≡ eα eµ eν Rµν αβ − (eµ eν Rµν αβ )eα = 0, ρ ˆ ρ ˆ α ρ β ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ 2 α β where Gµ is the Einstein tensor. Equation (51) can be used to obtain the spin connection ν ˆ in terms of the partial derivatives of the vierbein, and the resulting relation implies that ˆ ˆ ˆˆ ˆ ωµ αβ is torsion-less, i.e. one recovers Cartan’s first structure equation, deµ +ω µν ∧eν = 0. ˆ The second equation says that the vacuum Einstein equations are recovered. Another interesting alternative formulation of General Relativity is given by the Plebanski formalism [1042]. It is derived from the action S= 1 ΣAB ∧ RAB − ΨABCD ΣAB ∧ ΣCD , 2 (53)

where upper case indices denote two component spinor indices to be raised and lowered with AB and its inverse, and where the exterior product ∧ acts on space-time indices, which have been suppressed. The curvature 2-form RAB ≡ dωAB + ωA C ∧ ωCB is defined with respect to a spin connection 1-form ωA B . Variation of this action with respect to ΨABCD and ωAB then tells us that the 2-form ΣAB is the exterior product of some set of 1-forms that we can identify with the tetrad θAA , and that the connection ωAB is torsion-free with respect to ΣAB . Using this together with the variation of the action with respect to ΣAB then gives the vacuum Einstein equations, where the metric is given by g = θAA ⊗ θAA . One further alternative formulation of General Relativity is the purely affine ‘Eddington formalism’ [460]. In previous subsections we outlined how one can either treat the metric as the only independent structure on the manifold, or treat the metric and connection as being two independent structures. Another approach is to take the connection as the only structure on the manifold. In this case, the simplest way of constructing a Lagrangian density with the correct weight (and without a metric) is to simply take the square root of the determinant of the Ricci tensor itself: S= −det[Rµν (Γ)]d4 x. (54)

6 Given a metric, g µν , the Levi-Civita connection can always be defined. The question is whether that is the connection that is used to define parallel transport.


Varying this action with respect to the connection then gives the field equations

−det[Rαβ (Γ)]Rµν

= 0,


which can be shown to be equivalent to Einstein’s equations in vacuum with a cosmological constant, if we take the connection to be the Levi-Civita connection. Due to the lack of a metric in the action for this theory, however, it is not a trivial matter to introduce matter fields into the theory [69]. Finally, let us mention that approaches exist that treat gravity as simply a spin-2 field on flat space [114, 115]. It has been conjectured that one could reconstruct the Einstein-Hilbert action in such an approach by considering consistency conditions order by order in perturbation theory. This will, of course, be an invalid treatment when gravity is strong, and in cosmology. 2.4. Theorems There a number of theorems in General Relativity that are of great importance for the structure of the theory itself, as well as for the solutions to the field equations. These theorems underpin a lot of the acquired intuition on how gravity should function in different environments, and what the resulting phenomenology should be. In alternative theories of gravity, however, the theorems of General Relativity often fail, allowing new behaviours that would otherwise be impossible. Here we briefly recap what we consider to be some of the most important theorems of General Relativity. In later sections we will show how these theorems are violated in alternative theories, and discuss the consequences of this. 2.4.1. Lovelock’s theorem Lovelock’s theorem [831, 832] limits the theories that one can construct from the metric tensor alone. To enunciate this theorem, let us begin by assuming that the metric tensor is the only field involved in the gravitational action. If the action can be written in terms of the metric tensor gµν alone, then we can write S= d4 xL(gµν ). (56)

If this action contains up to second derivatives of gµν , then extremising it with respect to the metric gives the Euler-Lagrange expression E µν [L] = ∂L d d − λ ρ ∂g dx dx µν,ρ ∂L ∂gµν,ρλ − ∂L , ∂gµν (57)

and the Euler-Lagrange equation is E µν (L) = 0. Lovelock’s theorem can then be stated as the following: Theorem 2.1. (Lovelock’s Theorem) The only possible second-order Euler-Lagrange expression obtainable in a four dimensional space from a scalar density of the form L = L(gµν ) is √ √ 1 E µν = α −g Rµν − g µν R + λ −gg µν , 2 29 (58)

where α and λ are constants, and Rµν and R are the Ricci tensor and scalar curvature, respectively. This powerful theorem means that if we try to create any gravitational theory in a four-dimensional Riemannian space from an action principle involving the metric tensor and its derivatives only, then the only field equations that are second order or less are Einstein’s equations and/or a cosmological constant. This does not, however, imply that the Einstein-Hilbert action is the only action constructed from gµν that results in the Einstein equations. In fact, in four dimensions or less one finds that the most general such action is √ √ √ L = α −gR − 2λ −g + β µνρλ Rαβµν Rαβρλ + γ −g R2 − 4Rµν Rν µ + Rµν ρλ Rρλµν , where β and γ are also constants. The third and fourth terms in this expression do not, however, contribute to the Euler-Lagrange equations as E µν E µν √

Rγδαβ Rγδρλ

= =

0 0,

(59) (60)

−g R2 − 4Rαβ Rβα + Rαβρλ Rρλαβ

where the action of E µν on any function X is defined as in Eq. (57). The first of these equations is valid in any number of dimensions, and the second is valid in four dimensions only. Lovelock’s theorem means that to construct metric theories of gravity with field equations that differ from those of General Relativity we must do one (or more) of the following: • Consider other fields, beyond (or rather than) the metric tensor. • Accept higher than second derivatives of the metric in the field equations. • Work in a space with dimensionality different from four. • Give up on either rank (2,0) tensor field equations, symmetry of the field equations under exchange of indices, or divergence-free field equations. • Give up locality. The first three of these will be the subject of the next three sections of this report. The fourth option requires giving up on deriving field equations from the metric variation of an action principle, and will not be considered further here. 2.4.2. Birkhoff ’s theorem Birkhoff’s theorem7 is of great significance for the weak-field limit of General Relativity. The theorem states [160]
7 This theorem is commonly attributed to Birkhoff, although it was already published two years earlier by Jebsen [659]. It is not to be confused with Birkhoff ’s pointwise ergodic theorem.


Theorem 2.2. (Birkhoff’s Theorem) All spherically symmetric solutions of Einstein’s equations in vacuum must be static and asymptotically flat (in the absence of Λ). Strictly speaking, there are very few situations in the real Universe in which Birkhoff’s theorem is of direct applicability: Exact spherical symmetry and true vacuums are rarely, if ever, observed. Nevertheless, Birkhoff’s theorem is very influential in how we understand the gravitational field around (approximately) isolated masses. It provides strong support for the relativistic extension of our Newtonian intuition that far from such objects their gravitational influence should become negligible, or, equivalently, space-time should be asymptotically flat8 . We can therefore proceed with some confidence in treating the weak-field limit of General Relativity as a perturbation about Minkowski space. Birkhoff’s theorem also tells us that certain types of gravitational radiation (from a star that pulsates in a spherically symmetric fashion, for example) are not possible. As we will show below, Birkhoff’s theorem does not hold in many alternative theories of gravity. We therefore have less justification, aside from our own intuition, in treating the weak field limit of these theories as perturbations about Minkowski space. We must instead be more careful, as the space-time we perform our expansion around can have asymptotic curvature, leading to either time or space-dependence of the background (or some combination of the two). What is more, the perturbations themselves may be timedependent, and their form can be sensitive to the type of asymptotic curvature that the background exhibits. Behaviours such as these are not expected in General Relativity [837]. 2.4.3. The no-hair theorems These theorems are named after the phrase coined by Wheeler that “black holes have no hair”. The first of these theorems was given by Israel and showed that the only static uncharged asymptotically flat black hole solution to Einstein’s equations is the Schwarzschild solution [650]. He later extended this theorem to include charged objects [651], and Carter extended it to black holes with angular momentum [262]. The theorem is therefore often stated today as “the generic final state of gravitational collapse is a Kerr-Newman black hole, fully specified by its mass, angular momentum, and charge ” [1254]. Complementary to the black hole no-hair theorems is the no-hair ‘theorem’ of de Sitter space. The claim here is that in the context of General Relativity with a cosmological constant all expanding universe solutions should evolve towards de Sitter space. This has been shown explicitly by Wald for all Bianchi type models9 [1255]. These theorems play an important role in General Relativity and cosmology. Some progress has been made in extending them to alternative theories of gravity, but there have also been explicit examples of them being violated in particular theories. This will be discussed further in subsequent sections.
course, in a cosmological setting asymptotic regions are never realised as we will eventually come across the other masses in the Universe. 9 Except type-IX universes with large amounts of spatial curvature.
8 Of


2.5. The Parameterised Post-Newtonian Approach This section is a recap of the Parameterised Post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism that is widely used by both theoretical and observational gravitational physicists. The idea here is to create a construction that encompasses a wide array of different gravitational theories, and that contains parameters that can be constrained by observations in a reasonably straightforward fashion. In this way labour can be saved on both the theoretical and observational ends of the spectrum: Observers can apply their results to constrain a wide array of theories without having to trawl through the details of the individual theories themselves, and theorists can straightforwardly constrain their new theories by comparing to the already established bounds on the PPN parameters without having to re-calculate individual gravitational phenomena. To date, this approach has been highly successful, and in the following sections of this report we will often refer to it. We will therefore outline here how the PPN formalism proceeds. For a more detailed explanation of the principles and consequences of this formalism the reader is referred to [1274]. 2.5.1. Parameterised post-Newtonian formalism The PPN formalism is a perturbative treatment of weak-field gravity, and therefore requires a small parameter to expand in. For this purpose an “order of smallness” is defined by P ∼ Π ∼ O(2), U ∼ v2 ∼ ρ where U is the Newtonian potential, v is the 3-velocity of a fluid element, P is the pressure of the fluid, ρ is its rest-mass density and Π is the ratio of energy density to rest-mass density. Time derivatives are also taken to have an order of smallness associated with them, relative to spatial derivatives: |∂/∂t| ∼ O(1). |∂/∂x| Here we have chosen to set c = 1. The PPN formalism now proceeds as an expansion in this order of smallness. For time-like particles coupled to the metric only the equations of motion show that the level of approximation required to recover the Newtonian limit is g00 to O(2), with no other knowledge of other metric components beyond the background level being necessary. The post-Newtonian limit for time-like particles, however, requires a knowledge of g00 g0i gij to to to O(4) O(3) O(2).

Latin letters here are used to denote spatial indices. To obtain the Newtonian limit of null particles we only need to know the metric to background order: Light follows straight lines, to Newtonian accuracy. The post-Newtonian limit of null particles requires a knowledge of g00 and gij both to O(2). The way in which the PPN formalism then proceeds is as follows. First one identifies the different fields in the theory. All dynamical fields should then be perturbed from 32

has the freedom to make additional gauge transformations of the form xµ → xµ + ξ µ . where superscripts in brackets denote the order of smallness of the term. and terms containing time derivatives are removed. (64) where φ0 is the constant background value of φ. beyond the metric. where ξ µ is O(2) or smaller. Once this has been done then one is in possession of the PPN limit of the theory in question. as prescribed above. T0i = −ρvi + O(5) Taking these expressions. the field equations for the theory in question. To the relevant order. 33 +2(1 + 3γ − 2β + β2 + ξ)G2 Φ2 + 2(1 + β3 )GΦ3 − (β1 − 2ξ)GA (3) (4) g0i gij . In finding hij . and substituting in the perturbed expressions for the dynamical fields in the theory. one then proceeds to solve for hij and h0i simultaneously. the components of this tensor are given by T00 = ρ(1 + Π + v 2 − h00 ) + O(6) (65) (66) (67) Tij = ρvi vj + P δij + O(6). After such a specification one still. then the usual expansion for this quantity is φ = φ0 + ϕ(2) + ϕ(4) + O(6). then these quantities must also (2) be solved for to increasing order of smallness as the calculation proceeds. If additional fields exist. The energy-momentum tensor in the PPN formalism is then taken to be that of a perfect fluid. of course. the result can then be compared to the ‘PPN test metric’ below: g00 = −1 + 2GU − 2βG2 U 2 − 2ξG2 ΦW + (2γ + 2 + α3 + β1 − 2ξ)GΦ1 +2(3γ + 3β4 − 2ξ)GΦ4 1 1 = − (3 + 4γ + α1 − α2 + β1 − 2ξ)GVi − (1 + α2 − β1 + 2ξ)GWi 2 2 = (1 + 2γGU )δij . (2) The first step in such calculations is usually to solve for h00 . If. h0i and h00 one needs to specify a gauge.their expected background values. the theory contains an additional scalar field. This freedom should be used at the end of the process to transform the metric that has been obtained into the “standard post-Newtonian gauge”. Once done. and finally h00 can be solved for. the field equations can then be solved for order by order in the smallness parameter. We have so far outlined the procedure that one needs to follow in order to gain the appropriate form of the metric that couples to matter fields in the weak-field limit. For theories containing a metric the appropriate expansion is usually g00 g0i gij = −1 + h00 + h00 + O(6) = (3) h0i (2) (4) (61) (62) (63) + O(5) (2) hij = δij + + O(4). Additional vector and tensor gravitational fields can be specified in a corresponding way. With this solution in (2) (3) (4) hand. for example. and the perturbations assigned an appropriate order of smallness each. This is a gauge in which the spatial part of the metric is diagonal.

The test metric has been constructed to include the type of potentials that often appear when one modifies gravity10 . one can use the gravitational phenomena discussed in Section 1 to impose the constraints that follow. The great utility of the PPN formalism is that observers can take the PPN test metric above and constrain the parameters without having a particular theory in mind. Φ4 . Similarly. once gravitational phenomena have been computed. β4 . and in some theories it is occasionally necessary to include additional terms. Φ2 . and θGR is the general relativistic prediction. γ. observations that involve only null geodesics are sensitive to (2) (2) the Newtonian part of the metric.2. Φ3 . β1 . A.7 ± 4. γ. without having to work out how complicated gravitational phenomena work in each theory individually. As already discussed. 2. 34 .3) × 10−5 . Φ1 . β4 . and we will discuss these on a case by case basis in the sections that follow. Using the observed value of θ given in Section 1 then gives [1131] γ − 1 = (−1. Parameterised post-Newtonian constraints Comparison of the weak field metric of a particular theory with the PPN test metric above allows one to read off values for the PPN parameters β. (69) which is consistent with the general relativistic value of γ = 1. U is the Newtonian gravitational potential that solves the Newtonian Poisson equation. β3 . We can now use constraints on the bending of light by the Sun to get a constraint on γ. β3 . and ΦW . In General Relativity we have that β = γ = 1 and ξ = β1 = β2 = β3 = β4 = α1 = α2 = α3 = 0. Observationally. we can use the PPN test metric to find that the Shapiro time delay effect is given by [1274] ∆t = (1 + γ) ∆tGR . α2 and α3 for the theory in question. r 2 (68) where m is the mass of the Sun. β2 . The particular combination of parameters before each of these potentials is chosen here so that they have particular physical significance. α1 . 2 (70) where subscript GR again means the value of this quantity as predicted by General Relativity. an exhaustive collection of all possible potentials. (71) 10 It is not. Other theories will predict other values for these parameters.Here β. α1 . Using the PPN test metric the predicted bending of light that one should observe is [1274] θ = 2(1 + γ) (1 + γ) m = θGR . and the term gij only. These two terms involve the PPN parameter γ only. ξ. ξ. Vi and Wi are the ‘post-Newtonian gravitational potentials’ (the precise form of these potentials is given in [1274]).5. however. α2 and α3 are the ‘post-Newtonian parameters’.5) × 10−4 . r is its radius. β2 . g00 .1 ± 2. These constraints can then be applied directly to a large number of gravitational theories. Taking the observed value of ∆t given in Section 1 then gives the even tighter constraint [147] γ − 1 = (2. β1 .

It can now be clearly seen that the bending of light by the Sun. However. if we again take γ to be given by observations of the Shapiro time delay effect with all other PPN parameters being zero. J2 . as well as11 α1 ∼ α2 ∼ α3 ∼ β2 ∼ 0 and a reasonable value of J2 ∼ 10−7 . and if we take the value of γ to be that given by Eq. and the amount of spatial curvature per unit mass that is produced. gives us β − 1 = (1. In this case it is convenient to define the ‘Nordtvedt parameter’ ηN ≡ 4β − γ − 3 − 2 2 1 10 ξ − α1 + α2 − β1 − β2 . these constraints are somewhat sensitive to a number of assumptions about the orbits of the other planets. When considering theories in which such effects are expected to be absent it is therefore usual to assume that these parameters are all zero. The table below gives a selection of the tightest constraints currently available: 11 These values will be given some justification shortly. all of the post-Newtonian potentials in the PPN test metric.1) × 10−4 . γ. preferred frame effect and the violation of conserved quantities. If we now consider observations of gravitational phenomena that involve time-like geodesics then we are able to observe. 35 . as already noted. as well as the solar quadrupole moment.4 ± 4. and the Shapiro time delay effect do. constrain the same aspect of space-time geometry. where M is the total mass of the two bodies involved. µ is their reduced mass. The Nordtvedt effect is similarly an observation of time-like geodesics. αi and βi are usually interpreted as corresponding to preferred location effects. which. Of course. This becomes clear from the expression for perihelion precession. in fact. α1 . Once the value of this quantity is known. and p is the semi-latus rectum of the orbit. (71). The other parameters ξ. and to search instead for constraints on β and γ.2 ± 1. They can therefore be considered as complimentary to each other. These quantities are often interpreted as the degree of non-linearity in the gravitational theory. The affect of modifying the geometry can be seen here to be degenerate with the effect due to the solar quadrupole moment. Turyshev and Boggs [1277] then give the constraint ηN = (4. 3 3 3 3 (72) which is not to be confused with the equivalence principle violation parameter η defined in Equation (15). respectively.5) × 10−4 . however.again consistent with γ = 1. then this gives constraints on β of the order β − 1 ∼ O(10−3 ) or O(10−4 ). one can subject the ξ. The observations of Williams. then one is able to gain constraints on the above combination of β. (73) which is a much cleaner constraint on β than those which can be derived from observations of the perihelion precession of Mercury. which now becomes ∆ω = 6πM p 1 1 µ (2 + 2γ − β) + (2α1 − α2 + α3 + 2β2 ) + J2 3 6 M r2 2M p . In ‘conservative’ theories of gravity it is usually only the PPN parameters β and γ (and sometimes ξ) that vary from their general relativistic values. This can be done for any or all of the observations of the perihelion precession of Mercury given in Section 1. αi and βi parameters to observational scrutiny in a number of ways. α3 and β2 . potentially. α2 .

the ‘double pulsar’ [840. These different approaches allow. no matter how small.Parameter ξ α1 α2 α3 Limit 10−3 10−3 4 × 10−7 4 × 10−20 Source Ocean tides [1274] Lunar laser ranging [928] Alignment of Sun’s spin axis with ecliptic [987] Pulsar acceleration [1176] Further constraints and discussion on the βi parameters can be found in [1274]. which can be seen from the constraints above to be in strong disagreement with a number of different observations. 745] will tighten these constraints even further in coming years. They are thought to be successful in a number of different environments. appears to give results that are incompatible with observations. to date. For more details of the observations leading to these constraints on ξ and αi the reader is referred to the source material cited above and [1274]. These include the Vainshtein mechanism [1241] which occurs when large derivative interactions are present. The general relativistic limit in this case is therefore a singular one. The constraints on the PPN parameters that we have discussed above are all. very different from General Relativity. when the graviton becomes massless. i. that the zero mass theory of General Relativity should be recovered. the Chameleon mechanism of theories with non-minimal coupling to scalar fields [689]. As well as successful reproductions of general relativistic behaviour.e. there have also been a number cases found in the literature of theories that produce weak field gravity that is surprisingly inconsistent with the predictions of General Relativity. Here the graviton acquires a mass through the introduction of terms into the gravitational Lagrangian that. and any finite but non-zero graviton mass. for theories that deviate considerably from General Relativity to exist without disturbing gravitational physics in the solar system to a large extent. As we will describe in the sections that follow. This is. as well as the attractor mechanism of Damour and Nordtvedt [356]. this places tight constraints on a variety of different modified theories of gravity: It must be the case that any alternative theories that we consider should reproduce General Relativity in the appropriate weak field limit. Perhaps the most famous of these is the van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov (vDVZ) discontinuity that was originally found in the context of Pauli-Fierz gravity [1243. Similar results 36 . look like mass terms for the perturbations hµν around Minkowski space. including light bending and time delay effects. Naively one might then expect in the limit m → 0. and have sometimes been applied to situations that are quite different to the ones in which they were originally conceived. however. There are a number of mechanisms that have been considered in the literature that allow for a general relativistic weak field limit even in theories that are. Instead one finds from the study of linear perturbations around Minkowski space that γ → 1/2. in reasonably good agreement with General Relativity. This excellent concordance of numerous different physical phenomena means that one must reconcile any alterations to General Relativity with observations in weak field systems that appear to be narrowing down on a general relativistic description. like m2 hµν hµν . and one non-dynamical a priori specified metric). for example. 1296] (a theory with one dynamical metric. or at least something very close to it. potentially. in the weak field limit. in general. and it is likely that future observations of. not the case. however.

2. We end this section with a short discussion of the successes of ΛCDM. its predictions and potential shortcomings. Issues such as those just discussed can make the study of weak field gravity in modified theories a more complicated subject than it is in General Relativity. a dt (75) with H0 = H(a = 1) being the Hubble constant. One must be careful to make sure that the treatments being applied are justifiable. or show that the treatment being applied is unsatisfactory because. the hyper-surfaces of constant t are flat.6. (74) where qij is a maximally symmetric 3-metric of Gaussian curvature κ.have also been found in some theories of gravity constructed from more general functions of the Ricci curvature than the Einstein-Hilbert action [294]. thus arriving at the so-called ΛCDM ‘concordance model’. In some cases it is still an active area of research. In a spherically symmetric coordinate system this can be written ds2 = −dt2 + a2 dr2 + r2 dΩ 1 − κr2 where κ is a real constant.e. Cosmology We now turn to cosmology. including Friedmann-Lemaˆ ıtre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) solutions.6. and are expected in other theories as well. The dynamics of the scale factor is given by the Friedmann equation 3H 2 = 8πG i ρi (76) 37 . How this should be done for specific modified theories of gravity will be the subject of subsequent sections. for example. We then consider the observational evidence that has led to the rise of the “Dark Sector”. the value of the Hubble parameter at the present time. If κ = 0. if κ > 0 they are positively curved. cosmic distance measures and cosmological perturbation theory. The Friedmann-Lemaˆ ıtre-Robertson-Walker solutions The Robertson-Walker metric in the synchronous coordinate system is ds2 = −dt2 + a2 (t)qij dxi dxj . 2. The function a(t) is called the scale factor. In these cases one must either abandon the theory as being incompatible with observations. i. one of the mechanisms discussed previously should be applied. and that non-linear mechanisms and non-perturbative effects are being fully taken into account. which forms a major part of this review. that the limits of the theory take the expected form (rather than being singular).1. The Hubble parameter is defined as H= 1 da . and if κ < 0 they are negatively curved. and we assume it to be normalised to unity today. In this section we first describe cosmology from the point of view of General Relativity.

However. Distances play an important role if we are to map out its behaviour (see [612] for a more detailed explanation). defined by P = wρ. Matter type radiation dust radiation & dust Λ a(t) a = (2H0 t)1/2 a = ( 3 H0 t)2/3 2 complicated a = e H0 t a(τ ) a = H0 τ 1 a = √(H0 τ )2 4 a = Ω0r H0 τ + a = H0 (τ1 −τ ) ∞ Ω0m 2 4 (H0 τ ) Table 2: A summary of particular solutions to the Friedmann equation. For the known forms of matter 1 wγ = 1 . τ . In a universe √ filled with both radiation and matter we get a = Ω0r H0 τ + Ω0m (H0 τ )2 . the conformal time. and for pressureless matter a = 3H0 t .2. ˙ (78) where w is the equation of state. For 2 √ 2/3 the case of radiation we get a = 2H0 t. the de Sitter solution. If a single fluid is present and w is constant then a3(1+w)/2 = 3(1+w) H0 t. for curvature ρκ = − 8πG a−2 . neutrinos ρν (possibly with mass mν ). and wν is in the range [0. The Friedmann equation then becomes the constraint i Ωi = 1. and for the de Sitter universe 1 a = H0 (τ∞ −τ ) . pressureless matter ρm .6. tH = H0 = 9. If each fluid is uncoupled then energy-momentum conservation gives 2 ρi + 3H(1 + wi )ρi = 0.where ρi are the energy densities of all possible fluids. 1 ]. For radiation we 3κ obtain ρr = ρ0r a−4 . In many cases of interest it is convenient to use a different time coordinate. in which space (in this coordinate system) is exponentially expanding. including photons ργ . in a matter dominated universe a = 4 (H0 τ )2 . it is useful to define observables that characterise the background evolution. A general analytic solution in the case where all the above fluids are present is impossible. The 2 case of a cosmological constant is special: One obtains a = eH0 t . provided w = −1. We can also integrate along a light ray to 38 . for pressureless matter ρm = ρ0m a−3 . and then determine the dynamics of the scale factor. where τ∞ is the value of the conformal time at a → ∞. Hubble’s 1 law v = H0 d allows us to define a Hubble time.78 × 109 h−1 yr and the c −1 Hubble distance. wm = 0. We may solve Eq. Cosmological distances Given a Friedmann universe obeying Einstein’s field equations. DH = H0 = 3000 h Mpc. (77) Ωi = ρT 3H where ρT is the total energy density ρT = 8πG = i ρi . wκ = − 3 . We may also define the relative densities ρi . A summary 4 of these solutions is shown in Table 2. defined by dt = adτ . (78) for a few 3 3 cases of interest. 2. and spatial curvature ρκ . 1 and for a cosmological constant ρΛ = 8πG Λ. In a radiation dominated universe we then have 1 a(τ ) = H0 τ . analytic solutions can be found in certain special cases.

we have  DH −1 √ for Ωκ > 0  √Ωκ sinh [ Ωκ DM /DH ]  DM dr DM for Ωκ = 0 √ = DC =  √ H sin−1 [ |Ω |D /D ] for Ω < 0. 1+z Hence. Finally.get the comoving distance: t0 DC = c t cdt . It turns out that in astronomy one often works with a logarithmic scale. This relation is a consequence of Etherington’s theorem [474]. for a given universe. DA . which can be measured from the apparent magnitude. irrespective of the field equations. the angular diameter distance. and performing the radial integral (assuming the observer is at r = 0). a(t ) where the proper motion distance (also known as the transverse comoving distance) is DM . let us consider Hubble’s law. and the absolute magnitude. and Taylor expand the scale factor today to find 1 ¨ a(t) = a(t0 ) + a(t0 )[t − t0 ] + a(t0 )[t − t0 ]2 + · · · . we know that the flux of that object at a distance DL is given by L F = 4πD2 . (related to the flux at the observer). (what the magnitude would be if the observer was at 10 pc from the source) through m = M + DM . if we know the proper size of an object and its redshift we can work out. Take two objects that are a distance d apart. This can be rewritten as  DH √ for Ωκ > 0  √Ωκ sinh[ Ωκ DC /DH ]  DC for Ωκ = 0 DM =  √ H sin[ |Ω |D /D ] for Ω < 0.  D κ C H κ |Ωκ | 2 From −κ = Ωκ /DH . or if photons are extinguished due to the presence of dust. M . If we measure the brightness or luminosity of an object.e. with magnitudes. ˙ 2 39 . where DL is aptly known as the luminosity distance and is related to other L distances through: DL = (1 + z)DM = (1 + z)2 DA . and holds in any metric theory of gravity. i.g. m. 1 − κr2 0  D κ M H κ |Ωκ | It is then possible to find an expression for the angular diameter distance: DA = DM . One can then define the distance modulus: DM ≡ 5 log DL 10 pc . It is however violated if the photon number is not conserved (e. due to photon-axion mixing).

3.3. More tentatively. 2. + (ρ + (θ − β) while the fluid velocity is uµ = a(1 − Ξ. in principle.6. We note that i is 3 the covariant derivative compatible with the 3-metric qij . For extensive treatments of cosmological perturbation theory the reader is referred to [90. by d c(t0 − t). (80) where ρ is the energy density. there is a constraint on a combination of DA (z) and H(z) using the imprint of acoustic oscillations of baryons on galaxy clustering at moderate to low redshifts. We can then rewrite the above expression as (1 + z)−1 = 1 − H0 2 d q 0 H0 − c 2 d c 2 + ··· . In particular. This has been done spectacularly well with the sound horizon of the cosmic microwave background at redshift z 1100. Perfect fluids with shear have energy-momentum tensors that can be written as Tµν = (ρ + P )uµ uν + P gµν + Σµν . P is the pressure. To constrain the background evolution it is necessary to have good distance measurements. For first order scalar perturbations we can parameterise T µν as T 00 T 0i T i0 T ij = = = = −ρδ (81) iθ i (ρ + P ) δP δ ij −(ρ + P ) (82) (83) (84) P )Dij Σ.1 − 0. and uµ is aligned with the time direction such that in the coordinate system used above it has components uµ = (a. 717. On small scales and at small a ˙ redshifts we then have Hubble’s law. with measurement of supernovae light curves at different redshifts it is. z 0. its perturbation δX is not necessarily an observable quantity. one can always define a new perturbation 40 . Alternatively one might try to measure DA (z) by observing known length scales in the universe. for example. Here we shall only consider scalar fluctuations. possible to measure DL (z). In a homogeneous and isotropic space Σµν = 0. uµ the 4-velocity of the fluid (normalised to uµ uµ = −1). So. (79) where Dij ≡ i j − 1 qij ∆ is a trace-less spatial derivative operator. and Σ the scalar anisotropic stress. for which the perturbed FLRW metric can be written ds2 = a2 −(1 − 2Ξ)dτ 2 − 2( i β)dτ dx i + 1 1 + χ qij + Dij ν dxi dxj 3 . 0). and Σµν is the anisotropic stress tensor which obeys uµ Σµν = Σµµ = 0. where q0 = −¨a/a2 |t=t0 is the deceleration parameter. Perturbation theory We now turn to perturbation theory. For any variable X. and may depend on a gauge. cz = H0 d. which is an indispensable tool for making predictions for a variety of cosmological observations. t. 917]. Here δP is the pressure perturbation. i θ).On small scales the distance to the emitter is roughly related to the time of emission. 469.

two linear combinations of them can be removed13 (set to zero).g. Once again there is a multitude of uniform density gauges depending on which density fluctuation is set to zero. i ψ). Strictly speaking there is a multitude of comoving gauges depending on which velocity θ is set to zero. the total (ρX +PX )θ matter comoving gauge if θT = X (ρX +PX )X = 0. All of them. e. Two popular gauge-invariant metric variables ˆ ˆ are the Bardeen potentials Φ and Ψ: 1 1 ˆ Φ ≡ − (χ − ∆ν) + H(ν + 2β). but note that there are an infinite number of them as any linear combination of gaugeinvariant variables is also gauge-invariant. 2 2 (85) (86) 12 The Stewart-Walker lemma [1188] states that the only gauge-invariant perturbed tensors are those that have background values that are either zero or a constant multiple of the identity matrix. The remaining metric perturbations are related to the Ma-Bertschinger [841] variables as χ = h and −k 2 ν = h + 6η. are gauge-dependent. as in the comoving gauges above. apart from Σ. 6 2 and 1 1 ˆ Ψ ≡ −Ξ − (ν + 2β ) − H(ν + 2β). 41 . • Spatially flat gauge: χ = ν = 0. δ and θ both transform with ξ and therefore cannot be set to zero simultaneously. with transformations given by Ξ→Ξ− ξ a 1 χ → χ + a [6Hξ + 2∆ψ] 3 δ → δ − a (1 + w)Hξ δP δP 1 ρ → ρ + a [w − 3w(1 + w)H] ξ 1 β → β + a [ξ + Hψ − ψ ] 2 ν → ν + aψ 1 θ → θ + aξ Σ → Σ. a Given our set of perturbation variables. Popular gauges are • Newtonian gauge: ν = β = 0. and then find how our variables transform under gauge transformations using the Lie derivative. where H = a . etc. X • Uniform density gauge: δ = ν = 0.¯ ¯ δX = δX+Lξ X through the Lie derivative acting on the background tensor X through a vector field ξ µ . • Comoving gauge: θ = ν = 0. The perturbations δX are thus in general gauge-dependent12 . Thus we may speak of a ”baryon comoving gauge” if θb = 0. 13 One has to be careful and not over constrain the gauge by removing two combinations that transform with the same gauge variable. For scalar perturbations we can write ξµ = a(−ξ. The remaining metric perturbations give rise to the Newtonian potentials Φ = − 1 χ and Ψ = −Ξ. 6 • Synchronous gauge: Ξ = β = 0 (this does not completely fix the gauge). a ”photon comoving gauge” if θγ = 0. It is possible to find combinations of perturbation variables that are gauge invariant.

For example. t) = ˜ d3 k Y (xj .6. which we will now describe (see [1028] for further details): • Density fluctuations: Fluctuations in the matter density field. 2. obey ∆ + k 2 Y = 0 . P (k). The integral transform above is then a Fourier transform. where N ≥ 3 is an integer. From now on we will refer to Φ and Ψ without a “hat” as the Newtonian gauge potentials. defined by |δk |2 ≡ P (k). while k∗ = N κ for positive spatial curvature. kk ) A(ki . In the special case of topologj ically trivial and spatially flat hyper-surfaces of constant t. all scalar modes can be decomposed in terms of a complete set of eigen-modes of the Laplace-Beltrami operator. we simply have Y = eikj x . will reflect various properties of the cosmological model. (87) and (88) we can find Φ in terms of the matter variables as 2(∆ + 3κ)Φ = 3H2 i Ωi [δi + 3H(1 + wi )θi ] (91) while Ψ is then obtained using Eq. where the eigen-modes. t).ˆ ˆ The Newtonian gauge is special in this case as Φ = Φ and Ψ = Ψ. Gravitational potentials and observations One of the main sources of information in cosmology is through the observation of perturbations about a Friedmann background. 42 (92) . δ(x). The value of k depends on the geometry and topology of the spatial hyper-surfaces: In the case of trivial topology k 2 k takes values k = k∗ − κ. The Einstein equations in the Newtonian gauge give 2(∆ + 3κ)Φ − 6H(Φ + HΨ) 2(Φ + HΨ) = = 8πGa2 i ρi δi (ρi + Pi )θi i (87) (88) 8πGa2 1 1 Φ + HΨ + 2HΦ + 2H + H2 + ∆ Ψ − ( ∆ + κ)Φ = 4πGa2 3 3 and Φ − Ψ = 8πGa2 (ρi + Pi )Σi i δPi (89) i (90) Combining Eqs. Such perturbations can be probed through their effects on the dynamics of particles and light. The simplest approach is to assume that δ(x) is a multivariate Gaussian random field that is entirely described by the power spectrum.4. Y (xj . a variable A can be decomposed as A(xi . kk ). Finally. where√∗ is continuous and obeys k∗ ≥ 0 for zero or negative spatial curvature. (90).

Like P (k). where the first term encompasses all effects from the surface of last scattering. The shape of the power spectrum contains a wealth of information: The amplitude of clustering as a function of scale. and the gravitational potentials. the consequence of which we can see through the geodesic equation for light rays given above [150]. We can schematically split CMB anisotropies into three cosmological contributions. or when supplemented with independent distance measurements of each object (using the Tully-Fisher relation or supernova light curves) in peculiar velocity surveys. the second term (the Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect) is due to integrated effects along the line of sight. the clustering properties of which can be directly related to the amplitude of fluctuations in the density field (under certain assumptions of how galaxies (or clusters) trace the density field (known as bias)).where δk is the Fourier transform of δ(x). either in redshift galaxy surveys (through their distortion of P (k)). the C s contain a wealth of information about C = 21 m +1 the cosmological model. and acoustic features imprinted by the baryons from pre-recombination (known as baryon acoustic oscillations) can all be used as distance indicators. how its shape on small scales is distorted by small scale velocities (known as redshift space distortions). Peculiar velocities will be observable through their effects on the redshift of objects. the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect and other such contributions. Let us focus on the effect of the gravitational potentials. Y m (ˆ ). and define the angular power spectrum n |a m |2 . The 43 . We can expand ˆ δT (ˆ ) n = T a m n m Y m (ˆ ). is described by the non-relativistic geodesic equation given above. n. where we have spherical harmonics. peculiar velocities. (ˆ It is usual to characterise anisotropies in the CMB in terms of δTT n) . and the last term encompasses secondary effects such as weak lensing of the CMB. the peculiar velocity can be related directly to the density field via the gravitational potential: i vk = −iaf H0 k i δk . v i . • Anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): The CMB will be sensitive to density fluctuations. The power spectrum can be estimated from surveys of galaxies or clusters of galaxies. It is now instructive to delve slightly further into the form (ˆ of δTT n) . its redshift dependence. δT (ˆ ) n δT (ˆ ) n = T T LS + δT (ˆ ) n T ISW + δT (ˆ ) n T SEC . • Peculiar velocities: The motion of galaxies relative to the Hubble flow. k2 where f ≡ d ln δ/d ln a and we have assumed the general relativistic result Φ = Ψ. the dimensionless deviations of the black-body temperature of the Universe in a direction given by the unit vector. In the linear regime.

The deflection angle is given by δ θ = − ⊥ (Φ + Ψ)dτ . This flattening can be explained if the baryonic part of the galaxy resides in a halo of dark matter with a density profile that falls of as 1/r2 . The second term is the ISW effect. The galaxy shapes (or ellipticities) will be distorted by the intervening gravitational potentials.accumulated redshift of a beam of light along the line of sight is given by (1 + z) = Eobs = 1 + Ψem − Ψobs − Eem z 0 ˙ ˙ (Φ + Ψ)(dτ /dz) dz + higher order terms. non-interacting form of matter called dark matter. as advertised above. K.6. The broad case for Cold Dark Matter (CDM) is as follows [1028]: • The rotation curves of galaxies tend to flatten out at large radii. 44 . to the deLS flected position. The first term is the Sachs-Wolfe effect and. via θtrue = θdef − rrL δ θ. These distortions will induce correlations between the galaxy shapes that will reflect the underlying cosmology. The evidence for the ΛCDM model There is currently a consensus that in an FLRW Universe that is governed by Einstein’s field equations. roughly 95% of the overall energy density must be ‘dark’ in order to be compatible with observations. 2. This two by two matrix is parameterised by the convergence. • Weak lensing: Lensing arise when photon light rays are deflected due to the gravitational potentials along the line of sight. The current best fit model claims that about 25% of this dark material is in the form of a non-relativistic. θtrue .5. (94) This information can be extracted from imaging surveys of distant galaxies. and allows us to relate the true position. will give a redshift to the photons as they climb out of potential wells at the surface of last scattering. Lensing will. where factors such as the integrated visibility function have been ignored for simplicity. also affect the CMB photons as they pass through potential wells. of course. where rL (rLS ) is the distance to the lens (between the lens and the source). In practise we probe the gradient of the deflection through the inverse magnification matrix: M−1 = ∂ θtrue ∂ θdef zS =I+ 0 rL rLS rS ⊥ ⊥ (Φ + Ψ)dτ. and that the remaining 70% is in the form of a non-clustering form of energy density with a negative equation of state known as dark energy. In the case of small deflections this gives (93) M= 1 + K + γ1 γ2 γ2 1 + K − γ1 . in the case of the CMB. and depends on the time dependence of the gravitational potentials along the line of sight. θdef . and shear parameters γ1 and γ2 .

This is manifest in the motions of galaxies. 45 . the model that best fits these observations is now known as the concordance model. there was clearly a shortfall of pressureless matter at late times. the following results make a strong case for presence of an energy density with negative equation of state: • Measurements of the luminosity distance of type Ia supernovae are consistent with a universe with a cosmological constant. and inconsistent with a flat. or ΛCDM. an analysis of the APM galaxy catalogue in [463] seemed to show that a Universe with a cosmological constant might explain the amount of galaxy clustering on a wide range of scales. w = P/ρ −1. There was also tentative evidence from large-scale clustering that a flat. • Diffusion damping during recombination is expected to wipe out all small-scale structure in baryons. After the proposal of the original models of inflation. as well as the X-ray temperature of gas.068+0.14. Dark matter halos surrounding clusters explain all these observations. Dark matter. preventing the formation of galaxies at late times. Although each individual observation may be subject to a variety of interpretations.01+0.40 • The number density of clusters of galaxies as a function of redshift disfavour a flat. however. The presence of massive clusters at high redshift point accelerating expansion out to redshift z 2 [32].725 ± 0. and weak lensing measurements of the integrated gravitational potentials. matter dominated universe or an open universe [1034. • The cross correlation between the ISW effect from the CMB and a variety of surveys of large-scale structure favour w = −1. matter dominated universe.016 and w = −1.30 . 442]. Now.• Clusters of galaxies appear to have deeper potential wells than would be inferred from baryonic matter. −0. matter dominated universe [1228].080 [330. 1063]. −0. The case for dark energy has been around since the early 1980s. Indeed. 1190]. Furthermore. estimates of the ages of globular clusters of around 12-14 billion years were incompatible with a flat. In particular. 611]. the evidence for dark energy has become even more compelling. cold dark matter dominated Universe could not explain some of the observations. and will seed the formation of galaxies. the idea that the Universe should have Euclidean spatial geometry became ever more entrenched in the standard lore. and that dark matter makes up about 25%. greatly favour a model with ΩΛ = 0. with the advent of what has been dubbed “precision cosmology” in the late 1990s. the overall concordance is remarkable. Given that baryons made up a small fraction of the total energy budget. at around 4σ [534. The latest results seem to constrain the equation of state. and different systematic effects.082 • Measurements of the CMB anisotropies from large to small scales [732.10 ± 0. Most notably. can sustain structure during the damping regime. combined with measurements of galaxy clustering from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) [1058].

6. e ν where ce and cν are coefficients. One could consider arguing that some unknown physics at high energies may provide a mechanism for achieving this level of fine-tuning.1.2. Shortcomings of the ΛCDM model Perhaps the most serious problem with ΛCDM is the cosmological constant problem: That the observed value of Λ is around 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the naive 4 expectation that it should be of the Planck Mass. The present value of Λ. 46 . be considered an e unnecessary assumption (see Horndeski’s theory in Section 3. CDM is 14 By effective cosmological constant we mean the Ricci curvature of the vacuum. that are responsible for driving the effective Λ to zero. ν for a new bare term Λ0 . . this problem is sometimes referred to as the coincidence problem. ρΛ |a=1 ∼ ρm |a=1 . . However. Then the contribution to the vacuum energy Λ will include a bare term Λ1 . If we now lower the energy below the electron mass. this is hardly a readjustment mechanism: If the cosmological constant changes slightly. This is schematically given by Λ = Λ1 + ce m4 + cν m4 . and integrate out the electron.6. . These scalars will contribute an effective potential. Λ. These two quantities scale with the size of the Universe in very different ways. The first is another coincidence problem: Why is the dark matter energy density so close to the baryon energy density? This is actually worse than it might seem. Hence. Suppose that there is a set of N scalars. . It may be thought that there could exist some mechanism that relaxes the effective cosmological constant14 to zero dynamically. φA . then V (φA ) must cancel the other contributions to Λ to high accuracy as the fields settle to the minimum. suppose that we want to describe all physics up to scales just above the electron mass. but Weinberg [1265] has shown that this is impossible. Super-Symmetric (SUSY) theories can lower this expectation to that of the SUSY breaking scale. Baryons are produced non-thermally. we instead have Λ = Λ0 + cν m4 . . Now. we must now have that Λ1 and Λ0 cancel to 32 decimal places. which could. a term coming from the electron and a term coming from the neutrino. and so their similarity at the present time appears naively to be somewhat of a coincidence. V (φA ). Aside from the problems of the cosmological constant. but this seems unlikely as the problem already manifests itself at low energies. as implied by cosmological observations. there are some problems that plague dark matter as well. MPl . however. . then the mechanism fails. If we are to approach a global Minkowski metric at these energy levels. out of equilibrium. This proof assumes Poincar´ invariance in the scalar sector. but this still required a bare Λ0 to cancel the vacuum energy coming from the SUSY symmetry breaking scale to about 60 decimal places. to the cosmological constant. has another potential problem associated with it: It has an energy density of the same order of magnitude as the average matter density in the Universe today. To get the same observable vacuum energy.3).

are observed to have cores such that ρ flattens out at the centre. a0 ∼ 1. Other problems with dark matter are observational. 47 . as weak interaction cross-sections naturally give rise to the right dark matter abundance via thermal production. have very little or no stars in them. On the contrary. or various feedback processes that expel dark matter. the ΛCDM model can boast of success coming from a host of observations: Strong and weak lensing of clusters. as baryons should not know how the dark matter behaves. fuzzy dark matter [628]. e. the matter power spectrum. The CMB angular power spectrum has a lack of large-scale power above 60o [1172] (although the statistical significance of this is debatable.g.5. due to cosmic variance). The collision velocity of the bullet cluster [318] may be so large that the probability of it occurring in a ΛCDM scenario is at best ∼ 10−9 [780]. The CDM paradigm predicts a rich sub-structure within the main galactic halo that should lead to numerous dwarf galaxies orbiting the main galaxy. 210. 878]. 876.7 − 1. if they are due to 15 There are also non-thermal candidates for dark matter.usually thought to be produced thermally. 587. A possible resolution within the CDM paradigm is that most of these galaxies are dark galaxies. 1294]. as has been championed by Peebles [1030]. For further apparent discrepancies between ΛCDM and small scale observations the reader is referred to [756]. and the Faber-Jackson relation [1092]. Within the CDM paradigm. the Tully-Fisher relation [879.2 × 10−10 m s−2 [895. On cluster scales and larger. Certain violations of statistical isotropy or other anomalies on large scales in the CMB have also been reported [591. 680. so this appears far from settled. Note that simulations do not have enough resolution to probe the small scales where the problem manifests itself. however. 699. but this does not change the argument. axions. Yet there are a few cases of interesting discrepancies. P (k). 27] but they typically require additional particles to those that form the dark matter. But how can two components that have very different production mechanisms have very similar energy densities15 ? Solutions to this puzzle have been proposed [91. is inferred to be cuspy. Cosmological voids seem to be more empty of galaxies than expected. 211]. and we will discuss them only briefly. 1205. A third problem is the tight correlation between dark matter and baryons in galaxies that manifests itself in a universal acceleration scale. and there is as yet no well accepted mechanism. but rely instead on extrapolations. 365. however. Galaxies. Indeed. and are instead completely dominated by dark matter [1146]. the opposite conclusion is reached. X-ray observations of clusters. 1094]. simulations indicate that about 500 satellite galaxies should be orbiting the Milky way [909]. only about 30 such dwarfs have been observed. such correlations are not expected to be present. 679. The density profile of CDM. For example the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile [946] gives ρCDM ∝ 1 r close to the centre of a halo. the CMB angular power spectrum. however. as determined from N-body simulations. and supernova data. i. However. 586. In [510]. simulations with increasingly smaller resolutions (although still above the probed scales) have not indicated any kind of alleviation to the cusp problem. It remains to be seen whether these are really problems with ΛCDM.e. This is the cusp problem [366] and proposed solutions within the CDM paradigm include self-interacting dark matter [1174]. Another problem is that of missing satellites [867. Other simulations give similar results: ρCDM ∝ r−α with α ∼ 0. 337.

provide some motivation for looking at alternatives to ΛCDM. These difficulties do.systematic effects. or if they are statistical flukes. 48 . however.

there is less reason to think that the field equations of gravity should not contain other fields. 988. 3. The simplest scenario that one could consider in this context is the addition of an extra scalar field. Action.g. such as Kaluza-Klein and string models. and conformal transformations A general form of the scalar-tensor theory can be derived from the Lagrangian density [142. While there is good reason to couple matter fields to gravity in this way. and ghost condensates). (95) where f. such as in the lab or solar system. They are often used as the prototypical way in which deviations from General Relativity are modelled. The function h(φ) can be absorbed into the metric by a conformal transformation of the form [422] h(φ)gµν → gµν . 1253] L= 1 √ −g [f (φ)R − g(φ) 16π µφ µ φ − 2Λ(φ)] + Lm (Ψ.1. and the weak equivalence principle is satisfied for massless test particles. 3. Of course.3. This is usually achieved making couplings very weak. and is usually referred to as the Jordan frame.1. Scalartensor theories arise naturally as the dimensionally reduced effective theories of higher dimensional theories. Scalar-Tensor Theories The scalar-tensor theories of gravity are some of the most established and well studied alternative theories of gravity that exist in the literature. focusing on additional scalars. (96) The conformal frame picked out by this choice is one in which there is no direct interaction between the scalar field and matter fields. and are of particular interest as the relatively simple structure of their field equations allow exact analytic solutions to be found in a number of physically interesting situations. and one is in general free to speculate on the existence of such additional fields in the gravitational sector. vectors and tensors. As discussed in previous sections. f (R) gravity. We note that some theories in other sections of this review can also be considered as theories with extra fields (e. or a massless spin-2 particle in the quantum field theory picture. h(φ)gµν ). The effect of this transformation on the remainder of the 49 . although novel screening mechanisms such as the chameleon mechanism [689. galileons. but one might also choose to consider extra vectors. h and Λ are arbitrary functions of the scalar field φ and Lm is the Lagrangian density of the matter fields Ψ. or even higher rank fields [511. 1247]. This section represents an overview of four-dimensional gravity theories with extra fields. The reader is referred to later sections for details of this. test-particles in this conformal frame follow geodesics of the metric to which they are coupled. the effect of such additional fields needs to be suppressed at scales where General Relativity has been well tested.1. They are also often used as simple ways to self-consistently model possible variations in Newton’s constant. Alternative Theories of Gravity with Extra Fields In General Relativity the gravitational force is mediated by a single rank-2 tensor field. field equations. 688] and Vainshtein mechanism [1241] have also been explored. tensors. g. G.

with respect to g µν . often referred to as the ‘coupling parameter’. one can find a new metric that obeys the Einstein equation. and the square root of the s √ √ determinant of the metric as −g = e4Γ −¯ (in four dimensions). and Λ is a φ-dependent generalisation of the cosmological constant. (98) Now. ω /ω 2 → 0 and Λ → constant. 50 . These are the field equations of the scalar-tensor theories of gravity. however. these theories also contain the dynamical scalar field φ. This property of scalar-tensor theories can sometimes allow their field equations to be manipulated into more familiar forms. (97) where ω(φ) is an arbitrary function. as the metric that couples to matter fields must also transform. as well as the metric tensor gµν . mean that scalar-tensor theories are the same as General Relativity. This does not. but with an unusual matter content that does not follow geodesics of the new metric (with the exception of radiation fields. g and Λ. The variation of the action derived from integrating (97) over all space. and so we must vary the action derived from Eq. After eliminating R with the trace of (98). The Lagrangian density (95) can then be written as L= ω(φ) 1 √ −g φR − 16π φ µφ µ φ − 2Λ(φ) + Lm (Ψ. By this we mean that under a transformation of the metric that alters scales. The theory that is recovered after conformally transforming is one in which the metric obeys a set of fields equations similar to Einstein’s. gµν ). that allow solutions to be found more readily. It is well known that these theories admit the very useful property of being ‘conformally equivalent’ to General Relativity. or null geodesics. (97) with respect to this additional degree of freedom. (99) where primes here denote differentiation with respect to φ. but not angles.Lagrangian can then be absorbed into redefinitions of the as yet unspecified functions f . with the scalar contributing as an ordinary matter field. ¯ (100) where Γ(x) is an arbitrary function of the space-time coordinates xµ . rescaled metric from the original. After performing g such a transformation we can use the term ‘conformal frame’ to distinguish the new. This theory reduces to the well known Brans-Dicke theory [184] in the limit ω → constant and Λ → 0. this yields (2ω + 3) φ + ω ( φ)2 + 4Λ − 2φΛ = 8πT. By a redefinition of the scalar field φ we can now set f (φ) → φ. gives the field equations φGµν + φ+ 1ω ( φ)2 + Λ gµν − 2φ µ νφ − ω φ µφ νφ = 8πTµν . The line-element is then correspondingly transformed as ds2 = e2Γ(x) d¯2 . To be explicit. which are themselves conformally invariant). without loss of generality. a conformal transformation of the metric gµν into gµν can be written ¯ gµν = e2Γ(x) gµν . and approaches General Relativity with a cosmological constant in the limit ω → ∞.

ν − 6 ¯ Γ). g ¯ ¯ 16π (104) Now. over-bars on operators or indices denote that they are defined using the metric gµν . (3 + 2ω) For more general theories with ω = ω(φ) the definition of ψ must be integrated to obtain a relation between φ and ψ. By extremising the action (105) with respect to gµν and ψ ¯ 51 .µ Γ. as discussed above. The Jordan frame is the one in which the energy-momentum tensor is covariantly conserved and in which testparticles follow geodesics of the metric. Under the transformation (100) it can be shown that the Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar transform as ¯ Rµν = Rµν − 2 ¯ µ ¯ ν Γ + 2 ¯ µ Γ ¯ ν Γ − 2 ¯ α Γ ¯ α Γ + ¯ Γ gµν ¯ 2Γ µ ¯ e R = R − 6 ¯ µ Γ ¯ Γ − 6 ¯ Γ. (97) then gives L= 1 √ −¯ R − 2(3 + 2ω) ¯ µ Γ ¯ µ Γ − 2e4Γ Λ + Lm (Ψ. This potential disappears when Λ = 0 In the Brans-Dicke theory [184] the coupling parameter ω is constant. which under the conformal transformation (100) becomes L1 = 1 √ ¯ −¯φe2Γ (R − 6¯µν Γ.Among the infinite possible conformal frames we can then identify two which have particular significance: The Jordan frame and the Einstein frame. ¯ µψ 2 (105) In the absence of any matter fields the scalar-tensor theories can now be clearly seen to be conformally related to Einstein’s theory in the presence of a scalar field in a potential. Here. in the Jordan frame. Applying the transformation (100) to the rest of Eq. we can write the transformed Lagrangian (104) as L= √ 1 √ −¯R − −¯ g¯ g 16π 1¯ ¯ µ ψ + V (ψ) + Lm (Ψ. can all be transformed into the Einstein frame. Under these trans¯ formations we will now show how the scalar-tensor theories defined by the Lagrangian (97). g g 16π (103) The non-minimal coupling to the Ricci scalar can now be removed by making the choice of conformal factor e2Γ = φ−1 such that gµν = gµν /φ. for the scalar ψ and the function V (ψ). First. e2Γ gµν ). by making the definitions 4π/(3 + 2ω) ≡ ∂Γ/∂ψ and 8πV (ψ) ≡ e4Γ Λ. e2Γ gµν ). (97) containing the Ricci scalar. This defines the conformal trans¯ formation between Jordan and Einstein frames in the scalar-tensor theories. and is the one in which scalar-tensor theories are most usually formulated. This is the frame picked out by the transformation (96). The Einstein frame is the conformal frame in which the field equations of the theory take the form of the Einstein equations with the scalar contributing as an ordinary scalar field. and the scalar fields φ and ψ are therefore related by ln φ = 16π ψ. consider the term in Eq. (101) (102) while the d’Alembertian transforms as e2Γ φ = ¯ φ + 2 ¯ µ Γ ¯ µ φ.

52 . its counterpart in √ ¯ ¯ the Einstein frame is not. µ T µν = 0. Brans-Dicke theory The Brans-Dicke theory is given by the Lagrangian density (97) with ω =constant.we get the Einstein frame field equations ¯ ¯ Gµν = 8π Tµν + ¯ µ ψ ¯ ν ψ − and 1¯ ¯ αψ + V αψ 2 gµν ¯ (106) √ ˜ ˜ ψ − dV = − 4παT dψ (107) ¯ where α−2 = 3 + 2ω and where we have defined the energy-momentum tensor Tµν with ¯µν = e6Γ T µν . 3. ¯ µ T µν = 4παT ¯ ν ψ. and Λ = 0 [184].1. and in the case of static and spherical symmetry can be solved exactly by the line-element [185] ds2 = −e2α dt2 + e2β (dr2 + r2 dΩ2 ) where α = α(r) and β = β(r) are given by one of the following four solutions: I e =e α α0 B r B r 1 λ 1− 1+ eβ = eβ0 B 1+ r 1− 1+ B r B r 2 1− 1+ B r B r (λ−C−1) λ C λ φ = φ0 II α = α0 + r 2 tan−1 Λ B 2(C + 1) r r2 β = β0 − tan−1 − ln Λ B (r2 + B 2 ) −1 r 2C φ = φ e Λ tan ( B ) 0 III α = α0 − r B r (C + 1)r + B B β = β0 − 2 ln Cr IV φ = φ0 e − B 1 α = α0 − Br (C + 1) β = β0 + Br C − Br φ = φ0 e .2. It can now be explicitly seen that while the Jordan respect to gµν so that T ¯ frame energy-momentum tensor is covariantly conserved. The behaviour of this theory in the vicinity of isolated masses is well understood.

These solutions are very useful for understanding the gravitational fields around an isolated body in Brans-Dicke theory. (111) 3 + 2ω φ0 where φ0 is the background (unperturbed) value of the scalar field. α0 . It also reduces to the Schwarzschild solution when ω → ∞. It can be seen that in the general relativistic limit ω → ∞ we then recover the usual values of the 53 . The value of Newton’s constant can also be shown to be given by 4 + 2ω 1 G= . The metric (108) is spatially homogeneous at large r and has singularities at t = 0 and r = 2C. the coordinates r and t therefore cover the ranges 0 ≤ t < ∞ and 2C ≤ r < ∞. Solution I is also known to be conformally related to the minimally coupled massless scalar field solution of Buchdahl [207]. 2+ω (110) with all other parameters equalling zero. t) = 2C 1− r 1 ± 2β t2/( 3β−1) . β0 and φ0 are arbitrary throughout. β = 2ω + 3. This r solution reduces to a flat vacuum FLRW metric in the limit C → 0 (an inhomogeneous solution requires C = 0).Here we have defined λ2 ≡ (C + 1)2 − C (1 − ωC/2) > 0 in solution I. solution II can be transformed into the ω < −3/2 range of solution I [152] and solution III can be transformed into solution IV [153]. but are not the only spherically symmetric vacuum solutions of the Brans-Dicke field equations. It can be seen that these solutions are not all independent of each other. The constants B. α = ± 23 . It was also shown in [152] that the independent solutions I and IV are both conformally related to the general solution of the static. and given by C = (−1 ± −2ω − 3)/(ω + 2) in III and IV. while solution I is valid for all values of ω. solutions II. and shows explicitly the lack of validity of Birkhoff’s theorem in Brans-Dicke theory. A non-static spherically symmetric vacuum exact solution is also known [313]: d¯2 = −A(r) s α(1− √1 ) 3β dt2 −α(1+ √1 ) 3β + A(r) with t √ 2(β− 3) √ 3β− 3 dr2 + A(r)r2 (dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 ) . The constant C is arbitrary in I and II. By a transformation of the form r → 1/r and some redefinition of constants. Black hole solutions in Brans-Dicke theory with a power-law potential have been investigated in [850]. This solution is known to be conformally related to [635]. Now. spherically symmetric case in the Einstein frame. III and IV are only valid for ω < −3/2. (109) √ √ where we have A(r) = 1 − 2C . as found by Wyman [1289]. and C =constant. and Λ2 ≡ C (1 − ωC/2) − (C + 1)2√> 0 in solution II. Let us now consider the weak field limit of this theory. Following the PPN prescription outlined in previous sections one can straightforwardly find that the relevant values for the PPN parameters are: βP P N = 1 and γP P N = 1+ω . (108) √ φ(r.

and shows that deviations of this kind from General Relativity must be very small indeed (see the following subsection. the reader is referred to [489]. that it is not the value of γ that one should expect to measure outside of a black hole that has formed from gravitational collapse in this theory. This shows that the second law of black hole thermodynamics can indeed be extended to Brans-Dicke theories.PPN parameters. shown above. as predicted by Hawking [595]. and the surface area of the event horizon can decrease with time. even if the area decreases. Using the usual FLRW line-element. however. In the Brans-Dicke case apparent horizons are allowed to pass outside of the event horizon. the field equations reduce to: H2 ¨ φ φ = = ˙ ˙ 8πρ κ φ ω φ2 − 2 −H + 3φ a φ 6 φ2 ˙ 8π (ρ − 3P ) φ − 3H . and for further discussion on this topic. Here it was found that the expression for the entropy of a black hole with an horizon Σ of area A is given by φA 1 d2 x g (2) φ = . and assuming a perfect fluid matter content. and that for finite ω the only parameter that deviates from its general relativistic value is γ. and ρ + 3H(ρ + P ) = 0. This does not. (114) and (115) ˙ ˙ 54 . φ (2ω + 3) φ (114) (115) where over-dots denote differentiation with respect to the proper time of a comoving observer. for a discussion of scalar-tensor theories that can evade this bound while still exhibiting significantly different behaviour to General Relativity in the early universe). however. and is allowed here because Brans-Dicke theory can violate the condition Rµν k a k ν ≥ 0. For an intuitive interpretation of this result in the Einstein frame. (112) SBH = 4 Σ 4 such that SBH is always non-decreasing. The general solutions to Eq. derived from observations of the time delay of radio signals from the Cassini spacecraft as it passed behind the Sun. where k a ka = 0. scalar gravitational waves are emitted during the collapse. this gives the 2σ constraint on the coupling parameter ω 40 000. mean that gravitational collapse to a black hole proceeds in the same way in Brans-Dicke theory as it does in General Relativity. (113) This is a very restricting constraint on the theory. with the effective gravitational constant being replaced by 1/φ. This value of γ is valid for both the static and non-static exact solutions shown above. however. The problem of understanding black hole thermodynamics in Brans-Dicke theory has been addressed in [674]. It is interesting to note. Having discussed the gravitational fields of point-like objects in Brans-Dicke theory. Let us now proceed to discuss the cosmology of Brans-Dicke theory. Together with the expression (110). Such behaviour does not occur in General Relativity. H = a/a. This can be done most effectively using the constraint on γ given in Equation (71). let us now proceed to use observations of weak field phenomena to constrain the theory. Such an object can be shown to have an external gravitational field with γ = 1 [1107].

These solutions can be considered “Machian” in the sense that the matter fields are driving the expansion of the Universe. W . in the Brans-Dicke theory it is also possible to have spatially flat and positively curved exact vacuum solutions. however. These two different behaviours. equivalently.are now fully understood [576. where16 p = W ρ. 95]. (121) φ(τ ) = φ1  τ+ 2 |ω| − 1 3 For ω > −3/2 (ω < −3/2) we see that the scale factor here undergoes an initial period of rapid (slow) expansion and at late times is attracted towards the solution a(τ ) ∝ τ . 55 . Spatially flat solutions can 16 Note that in this section we use an upper case W to denote the equation of state of the fluid. For ω < 1 −3/2. φ can be seen to be changing rapidly at early times and slowly at late times. In this case the new time coordinate η is simply the conformal time τ given by adτ ≡ dt. (120) τ+ 2 3 |ω| − 1   τ + τ−  2 tan−1 . If ρr0 = 0 is chosen then these solutions become vacuum ones that are driven by the φ field alone. can be attributed to periods of free scalar–field domination and radiation domination. This is to avoid confusion with the coupling parameter ω. 1 or. rather than the usual lower case w used in the rest of the review. Corresponding behaviour can also be shown to exist for other equations of state. while at late-times one approaches the power-law solutions of Nariai [938] (when κ = 0): a(t) = t2[1+ω(1−W )]/[4+3ω(1−W φ(t) = φ0 t[2(1−3W )]/[4+3ω(1−W 2 )] (116) (117) 2 )] . At early times the vacuum solutions of O’Hanlon and Tupper [993] are recovered. and for ω < −3/2 the initial singularity can be seen to be avoided. a(t) ∝ t 2 . we instead find   −1 τ + τ−  2 a(τ ) = a1 (τ + τ− )2 + τ+ exp  tan−1 . a1 and φ1 are integration constants. and where 8πρr0 /3φ1 a2 = 1. Let us now consider the general FLRW solutions in terms of a transformed time coordinate η = η(t). at early and late times. Such solutions can be found any equations of state W [576]. Similarly. respectively. For a more detailed discussion of this phenomenon we refer the reader to [105]. and the general solution for ω > −3/2 is a(τ ) = a1 (τ + τ+ ) φ(τ ) = φ1 (τ + τ+ ) 1 2+ 2 √1 1+ 2 ω 3 (τ + τ− ) + 1 2− 2 √1 1+ 2 ω 3 (118) (119) − 2 √1 1+ 2 ω 3 (τ + τ− ) 2 √1 1+ 2 ω 3 where τ± . Unlike in General Relativity. but here let us consider only the radiation dominated solutions with W = 1/3. rather than φ.

√ −2(1− 3(3+2ω))−1 t φ(t) ∝ . 830. ¯ and hµν is the perturbation that satisfies h00 = h0ν = 0 in the synchronous gauge. Now. In this case the equations take on a simpler form. and braneworld cosmologies have been considered in [75. For the more general case the reader is referred to [934]. We 56 . type-V IIh solutions in [824. within which cosmological observations are usually interpreted. When κ = 0 the vacuum Brans-Dicke equations are then solved by [993] √ −1 1 (122) a(t) ∝ t 3 (1+2(1− 3(3+2ω)) ) .τ = 3Ay −1 (2ω + 3)−1/2 τ where A is a √ constant. type-III solutions in [826]. 581]. and references therein. A number of anisotropic cosmological solutions of the Brans-Dicke field equations are also known. √ sin1/2 (2 κ(τ − τ0 )) . (ln φ). 823. and uses the conformal time coordinate τ . Inhomogeneous cosmological solutions have also been found [313].1.3 for the corresponding equations in the conformal Newtonian gauge. (123) t0 For spatially closed solutions one can follow the method prescribed in [95]. starting with [939].be found by assuming φ ∝ tx and a ∝ ty . and by setting a(0) = 0. For the Brans-Dicke theory these equations have been studied many times before. For a discussion of the cosmic no-hair theorems in Brans-Dicke theory the reader is referred to [582]. or to the ω =constant limit of Eqs. gµν is the unperturbed FLRW metric with κ = 0. 820]. We will not reproduce any of these solutions here. 825]. 3 √ tan 4(2ω+3) ( κ(τ − τ0 )) 3 (2ω+3) (124) (125) Spatially flat and closed vacuum FLRW solutions such as those shown here do not exist in General Relativity. Here we will present these equations in the synchronous gauge and with κ = 0. 1096. 613]. 1054]. which then gives the solutions φ(τ ) ∝ a(τ ) ∝ tan √ ( κ(τ − τ0 )). and Kantowski-Sachs solutions in [826]. Phase plane analyses of perfect fluid FLRW solutions to the Brans-Dicke field equations have been performed in [731. 580. 579]. type-V solutions in [821. where it is shown that these theorems are valid without imposing any strong constraints on the coupling constant. to write the field equations as √ and y. 131]. type-II in [822. ω. 820]. Bianchi type-I solutions have been found in [1075. the perturbed metric can be written as gµν = gµν + a2 (τ )hµν . Here one defines a new quantity y ≡ φa2 . so that initially anisotropic universes can evolve towards an isotropic final state. but rather refer the reader to the citations above. Now let us consider perturbed FLRW space-times. 828. For κ > 0 these equations can be integrated to find y = √ (A/2 κ) sin(2 κ(τ − τ0 )). type-IX solutions in [825. 827. 133].2 = −4κy 2 + A2 . (145)-(149) in Section 3. ¯ (126) where a(τ ) is the FLRW scale factor. typeV I0 and V Ih solutions in [829. and show the potential for interesting new behaviour at early times in scalar-tensor theories of gravity. type-V III solutions in [825. as found in [290].

˜ For the tensor modes we can write the metric perturbations as hij = hT Qij . and with no tensor component involved in δφ. As 2 usual we define η = −(h + k ν)/6 (see section 2). as in Section 2. The scalar part of the perturbations can be written as in Section 2 hij = 1 hqij + Dij ν. The Dij operator. with the peculiar velocity potentials and anisotropic stress written as θf and Σf . and decouple the scalar.can then proceed as normal. where Qij is a harmonic function. is defined by Dij = i j − 3 qij ∆. f (132) ˜ where Σf is the tensor contribution to the anisotropic stress of the fluid f . For perturbation equations written in terms of gauge invariant variables the reader is referred to [1285] for the covariant approach. Primes denote differentiation with respect to conformal time. respectively. while δφ is the perturbation to the Brans1 Dicke scalar. The CMB is one 17 Various typos in the corresponding equations in [290] have been corrected. The perturbed equations are17 : − 2k 2 η + H + 1φ 2φ h = 8πa2 φ ρf δf + ω f φ − 3H φ 2 δφ φ (128) H−ω φ φ δφ(129) (130) − k 2 + 3H2 + 2η 1 φ ν + H+ 2 2φ and ν +η = = 8πa2 φ ωφ 2 φ2 δφ φ 1 1 δφ − φ φ (ρf + Pf )θf + f 8πa2 δφ (ρ + P )Σf + φ φ 1 8πa2 δφ + 2Hδφ + k 2 δφ + φ h = 2 2ω + 3 f (δρf − 3δPf ). 3 (127) where the synchronous gauge has been adopted. The background cosmological evolution and perturbations can be used to place constraints on Brans-Dicke theory from a number of different sources. 57 . and decompose the remaining non-zero hij perturbations into harmonic modes. which are not expected to be significant for most cosmological applications. or [934] for the Bardeen variable approach (for the Brans-Dicke theory one should take ω =constant in this last reference). vector and tensor components. The evolution ˜ equation for hT is then given by 8πa2 ˜ ˜ ˜ hT + 2HhT + k 2 hT = φ ˜ (ρf + Pf )Σf . τ . We will not write the vector perturbation equations here. (131) Here the perturbations to the energy density and pressure of the non-interacting fluids f are written as δρf and δPf .

Another cosmological probe that has been extensively applied to Brans-Dicke theory is that of the primordial nucleosynthesis of light elements [1292. which is sensitive to the temperature of weak–interaction freeze–out. Different expansion rates also affect the horizon size at recombination. the ACBAR 2007 data. but with a different value of G during this process. The upcoming data from the Planck satellite is. and hence a different expansion rate. and β–decay is the only weak process that still operates with any efficiency. 266. 1126. which inhibits the formation of deuterium nuclei until the critical temperature for photodissociation is past. Nucleosynthesis therefore proceeds largely as in a general relativistic cosmology (up to the effect of ‘kicks’ on the scalar field due to the annihilation of electron-positron pairs [358]). when nuclear reactions occur and the light elements form. which affects anisotropy on small scales through the exponential damping which has its cutoff determined by this quantity. the primordial abundances of the other light elements are mostly sensitive to the temperature at deuterium formation. while if the Hubble rate is greater than the weak–interaction rate then the ratio of neutrons to protons is effectively ‘frozen–in’. and hence ηγ . 59. Conversely. 265. giving ω > 97. This has been done a number of times in the literature [935. ηγ . they probe a very different physical environment and 58 . 7.8 or ω < −120. 312]. together with large-scale structure data from the SDSS data release 4. depending on the behaviour of φ in the early universe [312]. When the weak interaction rate is the greater then the ratio of neutrons to protons it tracks its equilibrium value. however. the onset of deuterium formation is primarily determined by the photon to baryon ratio. 354. This length scale is imprinted on the spectrum of perturbations as during the radiation era perturbations inside the horizon are effectively frozen. and in binary pulsars. 1284]. By using the general solutions (118)-(121). and can be used to place constraints on the coupling parameter. As the vast majority of neutrons finally end up in 4 He the primordial abundance of this element is influenced most significantly by the number of neutrons at the onset of deuterium formation. expected to tighten the constraints given above still further. Now. and hence the Hubble rate. This is in keeping with the results of [7]. of course. which affects the level of ‘Silk damping’ that occurs on small scales due to viscosity and heat conduction. these bounds can be somewhat relaxed or tightened. at this time. assuming the power-law solutions (116) and (117). While the cosmological bounds discussed above are weaker than those derived in the solar system. What is more. with the latest results based on constraints given by the WMAP 5 year data. at which time the neutrons become bound and β–decay ceases. while during matter domination perturbations grow on all length scales. This is the case until the onset of deuterium formation. the thickness of the last scattering surface is also changed. The reader is referred to [83] for further discussion of these points. but significantly weaker than those claimed by [935] of ω > 1000 to 2σ based on the WMAP first year data. Of course. the time at which weak interactions freeze out in the early universe is determined by equality between the rate of the relevant weak interactions and the Hubble rate. and so G. the CBI polarisation data. In the Brans-Dicke theory the scalar field φ is approximately constant during the epoch of radiation domination. and the BOOMERanG 2003 flight. Among the detailed processes that lead to these constraints one can see that the change in the horizon size at matterradiation equality is altered in Brans-Dicke theory due to the different expansion rates [799].0 to 2σ [1284]. ω. The typical bounds that can be achieved on the coupling parameter from observations of element abundances are then given by ω 300 or ω −30.such source.

3. Such theories have been well studied in the literature. and a useful consistency check. (97). Observations from the Cassini satellite therefore place upon ω the same tight constraint as in Brans-Dicke theory (ω 40 000 to 2σ). requires making observations in other physical environments. This interest is bolstered by the presence of an attractor mechanism that ensures General Relativity is recovered as a stable asymptote at late times in FLRW cosmology [356].1. They are therefore usually considered complimentary to the constraints imposed from observations of weak field gravity. The value of γ here can be seen to be the same as in the Brans-Dicke theory. General scalar-tensor theories The Brans-Dicke theory that has so far been considered is a very special scalar-tensor theory. The variation of ω with φ can then be constrained by observations of post-Newtonian phenomena that constrain β. Let us now consider the cosmological solutions of these theories. Perturbative analyses can still be readily performed. however. given by ω(φ) and Λ(φ) in Eq. and assuming a perfect fluid matter content. with only a single constant parameter.3. Coley and O’Neill in [303] that the Ehlers-Geren-Sachs theorem can be extended to cover scalar-tensor theories of gravity. After all. Of course. and are often used to model the possibility of having a coupling parameter ω in the early universe that is small enough to have interesting effects.3. and other nearby astrophysical systems. such as the lunar laser ranging experiments described in previous sections. The extra complication caused by allowing ω to be a function of φ means that exact solutions are hard to find.scale. in generalising the Brans-Dicke theory we want to know what the consequences are for constraints imposed in the weak field limit. while being large enough in the late universe to be compatible with the stringent bounds imposed upon such couplings by observations of gravitational phenomena in the solar system. We will explain this attractor in more detail below. while the value of β reduces to the Brans-Dicke (and General Relativity) value of unity when ω =constant. or near black holes. however.e. the field equations in this case reduce to H2 ¨ φ φ = = ˙ ˙ 8πρ κ φ ω φ2 − 2 −H + 3φ a φ 6 φ2 ˙ ˙ 8π (ρ − 3P ) φ (dω/dφ)φ2 − 3H − . 2+ω (133) with all other parameters equalling zero. however. one may wish to consider theories in which the coupling parameter ω varies throughout cosmic history. with the present day value of φ in the solar system).1. Theories in which such behaviour can occur explicitly are the subject of Section 3. This constraint. Let us now consider these more general theories. The more general class of scalar-tensor theories contains two free functions. leading to the PPN parameters βP P N = 1 + dω/dφ (4 + 2ω)(3 + 2ω)2 and γP P N = 1+ω . To constrain ω for other values of φ. It has been shown by Clarkson. First of all let us consider the case in which Λ(φ) = 0. φ (2ω + 3) φ (2ω + 3)φ 59 (134) (135) . Taking the FLRW line-element. now only applies to the local value of ω (i. such as in the early universe.

108. 1004. This is due to the vanishing of the ‘potential’ in (136) when w = 1/3. 899. approach a constant value during the radiation dominated epoch. 111]. however. and vacuum and radiation dominated solutions for arbitrary spatial curvature have been found in [95. 156] that act as past and future attractors for the general solution. then the scalar field rolls down to the minimum.where over-dots again denote differentiation with respect to the proper time of comoving observers. of the now non-zero potential Γ(ψ) (assuming such a minimum exists). (135). In terms of this parameterisation the PPN parameters βP P N and γP P N then become 1 − βP P N 1 − γP P N = − = 2 α0 β0 2 2(1 + α0 )2 2 2α0 2. (114) and (115). The reader will recall that ¯ ψ = (3 + 2ω)/16π ln φ is the scalar field in the Einstein frame. and w is the equation of state P = wρ. given by the Lagrangian (105). 1125]. and hence φ. ρ. Eqs. after some possible oscillations in the case of an under-damped system. ψ0 . except for the extra term on the RHS of Eq. 1 + α0 (138) (139) The requirement of positive mass in (136) can also be seen to be equivalent to the requirement of positive energy density. ¯ The cosmological dynamics that result from Eq. and α0 and β0 are constants. We will not reproduce these solutions here. (136) (3 − 4πψ 2 ) where here primes denote differentiation with respect to the natural log of the Einstein frame scale factor. a. Exact homogeneous self-similar solutions are found in [132]. (134) and (135) in [94. such that for a spatially flat FLRW geometry the evolution equation for the scalar field can be written as √ 8π ψ + 4π(1 − w)ψ + 4π(1 − 3w)α = 0. This interpretation of Γ as an effective potential is often used to justify an expansion of the form Γ = α0 (ψ − ψ0 ) + β0 (ψ − ψ0 )2 + O((ψ − ψ0 )3 ). and α−2 = 3+2ω denotes the strength of coupling between the scalar and tensor degrees of freedom. (136) are that ψ. 942]. where the reader will recall Γ = 4π αdψ. Equation (136) is clearly the equation for a simple harmonic oscillator with a dynamical mass. Once radiation domination ends. This mechanism is most easily seen in the Einstein conformal frame. Some of the methods used in these papers are extended to anisotropic cosmologies in [898]. These equations are similar to those of the Brans-Dicke theory. and a driving force given by the gradient of a √ potential (1 − 3w)Γ. Exact solutions with κ = 0 have been found to Eqs. some of which can be quite complicated. in the Einstein frame. Once this minimum is reached. and the negativity of the effective ‘damping force’. 2 (137) where ψ0 is an assumed local minimum of Γ(ψ). Exact homogeneous and anisotropic solutions are found in [327. and inhomogeneous self-similar solutions are found in [157]. and the asymptotics of FLRW cosmologies in scalar-tensor theories have been studied in [112. a damping force given by −4π(1 − w). 60 . and matter domination begins. then we are left with α = 0. but will instead return to the attractor mechanism expounded in [356].

Tensor perturbations on cosmological backgrounds have been studied in [109].which is the general relativistic limit of these theories. in these generalised theories. The validity and limitations of these results are extended. The first-order perturbation equations are then given by [934] 2 3 a2 a a 2 Ψ+3 a 3δφ Φ + (k 2 − 3κ)Φ + 2 a a φ 6 a a a a 2 +κ a a φ φ δφ − k 2 δφ δφ + φ2 Ψ . as well as a prediction for the locally measured value of βP P N given by β0 (1 − γ 2 ). Let us now consider perturbations around a general FLRW background. while still being (potentially) compatible with observations that appear to point towards General Relativity at late-time. This is a very useful general property of any scalar-tensor theory which has a local minimum in its parameter Γ(ψ). (137). it may be that upcoming observations of binary pulsar systems could achieve such levels. (141) where we have used conformal time. pressure and peculiar velocity of the matter fields. Using order-of-magnitude approximations. (140) βP P N − 1 = 32π where β0 is defined in Eq. φ (145) = − − 1 8π δρ − 2 φ a φ δφ 2a2 φ φ 2 Ψ + 3Φ φ − 3 φ φ 2 dω ω δφ + dφ a2 φ 2 − 61 . We will work in the conformal Newtonian gauge. This is a couple of order of magnitudes below the level that is probed by even the observations of the Cassini spacecraft. which has the usual correspondence with Bardeen’s gauge invariant variables. but is not inconceivably small. Further predictions of this scenario are a possible oscillation in the effective value of Newton’s constant near the beginning of the matter dominated epoch of the Universe’s history. the authors of [356] claim that this attractor mechanism is powerful enough to drive the value of the PPN parameter 1 − γ down to values of as low as ∼ 10−7 . Perturbations to the scalar field and energy momentum tensor are given by δφ and δT 00 δT 0i δT ij = −δρ = (142) iθ = −(ρ + P ) δP δ ij (143) P )Dij Σ. and qij is now the metric of a static 3-space with constant curvature. P and θ are the total energy density. and means that interesting new behaviour is possible at early times. τ . and are further studied in [357. (144) + (ρ + where ρ. In particular. while the scalar part of the perturbed line-element takes the form ds2 = a2 −(1 + 2Ψ)dτ 2 + (1 − 2Φ)qij dxi dxj . 1095].

(149) φ φ This last equation shows that.2 a2 a Ψ + 2 a = a a + a a 2 − a a k2 a k2 Ψ + Φ + 2 Φ + Φ − κΦ 3 a 3 + a a 2 (146) δφ 8πδP + 2 2 φ a φ − + 1 a2 φ δφ 2a2 +κ 2φ Ψ + φ Ψ + 2 φ φ 2 a a 2k 2 δφ Ψ + 2Φ − δφ − δφ − a a 3 φ φ a a 2 dω ω δφ − 2 dφ a φ 2 − φ φ δφ + φ2 Ψ . (150) One should bear in mind here that as β0 → 0 Brans-Dicke theory is recovered. Using the equations given above with κ = 0. 319. Big bang nucleosynthesis has also been explored in the context of general scalar-tensor theories [1210. 358. In [358] it is found that the inferred upper bound on the baryon density in the Universe is relatively insensitive to the presence of a gravitational scalar field.5 β0 62 Ωm h2 0. unlike in General Relativity. and that the parameters of the attractor model must satisfy the constraint 2 α0 −1 10−6. (151) . φ ωφ δφ .15 −1. Φ = Ψ when anisotropic stresses vanishes (unless the perturbations to the scalar field also vanish). − a2 d2 ω φ 2 δφ 2 dω 2 dω + 2 φ δφ − φ 2 Ψ + 2 (2ω + 3) dφ2 a2 a dφ a dφ as well as the condition δφ 8πa2 (ρ + P )Σ + . The authors of this study find that the following constraint can be imposed on these parameters at the 2σ level of significance: Φ−Ψ= α0 < 5 × 10−4−7β0 . As a corollary of this result these authors also constrain the value of Newton’s constant at recombination to be no more than 5% different from the value measured in the solar system today. and k is the wave-number of the perturbation. The effect of allowing a non-zero spatial curvature should be expected to weaken these bounds.5 . at the 2σ confidence level. a2 φ2 and 2 a Ψ+Φ a2 a = 8π 1 (ρ + P )θ − 2 φ a φ δφ + φ Ψ − δφ + (147) We also have the perturbed scalar field equation δφ + 2 = a δφ + k 2 δφ − 2φ Ψ − φ a Ψ +4 a Ψ + 3Φ a − 8πa2 (δρ − 3δP ) (2ω + 3) φ +2 a φ a (148) δφ . an analysis of the first year WMAP data has been performed and used to constrain the parameters α0 and β0 of the attractor model in [935]. Primes here denote differentiation with respect to the conformal time. τ . 773]. and as α0 → 0 General Relativity is recovered.

generalise the couplings of the Brans-Dicke scalar to other fields [617] (see also [614. 875]. non-Gaussianity [1047]. can resolve this conflict. 798. 578. 441. 527. They find such behaviour in numerous scalar-tensor gravity theories. 345. 1193. The latter of these approaches was dubbed ‘hyper-extended inflation’. proposed by Barrow in [93]. 406]. 1061. 86]. the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. 1181. 863.5 these bounds are weakened by a few orders of magnitude. Suggestions to improve this situation were to include a self-interaction potential for the scalar field [763]. slow roll inflation [96. gravitational waves [1229. 410. 100]. where the attractor mechanism to general relativity is investigated. 1191. Inflation in scalar-tensor theories of gravity has been extensively studied. 1262]. For β0 0. Such theories can act as dark energy as well as model possible deviations from General Relativity at early times. the 63 . 937. 74. 1192]. Late-time acceleration in models without a potential for the scalar field is studied in [483]. who also allow for a non-zero self-interaction potential for the scalar field. Here the authors point out that a period of expansion slower than in General Relativity before primordial nucleosynthesis. baryogenesis [99. The motivation behind this is the possibility of producing a successful inflationary phase transition from a false vacuum state. 35. and specific models that could be compatible with observations were proposed in [554]. Unfortunately. 1089]. both with and without self-interaction potentials. 803]. Theories of gravity with non-minimally coupled scalar fields and non-zero self-interaction potentials have been studied by a number of authors under the name ‘extended quintessence’ [1035.when β0 0. 1109]. 761. the formation of voids [802. as coined by La and Steinhardt for the case of Brans-Dicke theory [762]. These results are extended and refined in [319]. 412. Density perturbations in inflationary scalartensor scenarios have been investigated extensively in [861. 1127. 525. dark matter [874. These papers include studies of small angle CMB temperature and polarisation power spectra. reheating [328]. black holes [625]. supernovae observations and the affects that should be expected on weak lensing observations. 524. and quantum cosmology [533] have all also been performed in the context of inflation in scalar-tensor theories. add additional couplings between the inflaton and the space-time curvature [775]. Another interesting possibility in scalar-tensor theories of gravity is the idea of ‘gravitational memory’. 212. baryon asymmetry [1295]. The idea here is that when a black hole forms one of two things can happen (or some combination of them). often under the name ‘extended inflation’. Studies of topological defects [333. 145]. or to consider more general scalar-tensor theories of gravity [1185. 584]. 411. it was soon found that bubble collisions at the end of inflation produce unacceptable fluctuations in the CMB [1264. isotropisation of the Universe [583. The initial conditions for inflation in scalar-tensor theories have been considered in [407. The FLRW solutions of theories with power-law self-interaction potentials have been studied in further detail in [252]. thus avoiding the fine tuning problems associated with ‘new inflation’.5. 1212]. together with a period of more rapid expansion during nucleosynthesis. 1260]). The inflationary solutions of general scalar-tensor theories have been studied in detail in [106. The apparent tension between observed and theoretically predicted abundances of Lithium-7 is addressed in the context of scalartensor theories in [773]. 804]. Firstly. as well the presence of periods of accelerating expansion at late and early times. the matter power spectrum. 760. 908. include quantum effects [616]. For further details the reader is referred to 1993 review of extended inflation by Steinhardt [1184]. bubble nucleation rates and dynamics [1283. 526]. 1088]. stochastic inflation [523.

It has. could vary as the value of the scalar field controlling the value of G varies in the background universe. One particularly interesting approach is that of matched asymptotic expansions. X). 947]. Horndeski’s theory The most general four dimensional scalar-tensor theory with second-order field equations was worked out by Horndeski in [623]. the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole could be frozen in at its value when the black hole formed. which is constrained so that F. Secondly. 593. and δµ1 ν2 . and explosion. φ. which is given by rS = 2G(t)m.. 64 . As Barrow points out. φ) = a3 ˙ An − Bn 2 H n . This idea has motivated a number of studies on the gravitational field of collapsed objects in scalar-tensor theories of gravity [97. the conditions of the early universe. 1134].µn trary functions of φ and X. of black holes in the late universe.νn = n!δµ11 δµ2 . ν ] (152) ν ν where X = µ φ µ φ.A φ2 ˙ = 8κ1. and as a result Horndeski’s theory has not been well explored. 654. been recently resurrected in [276]. Note that W = W (φ). which suggests that the first option is followed.Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. κi = κi (φ. 1211.X . X) as well as F = F (φ. this being reflected in the value of G(tf ). a. The effective Lagrangian describing the cosmology in the minisuperspace approximation is given by 3 κ ˙ (153) Leff (a. The theory depends on four arbin 2 1 µ2 .... and black holes do not have any gravitational memory [1135. It has the following Lagrangian LH = αβγ δµνσ κ1 µ α φRβγ αφ νσ 4 − κ1. these two possibilities have consequences for the evaporation. X).φ φ + κ9 ˙ ˜ ˙ = Q1.φ φ + 12κ3 φ2 − 12F (154) (155) (156) (157) (158) (159) ˙ ˙ ˙ ˜ = −12F. in some sense.φ − κ3 − 2Xκ3. where aspects of the theory on FLRW backgrounds were studied. where tf is the time when the black hole formed.X µ [ν µ αφ ν αφ ν βφ µ σ ν γφ βφ σ αφ γφ µ +κ3 αβ +δµν (F + µ 2W )Rαβµν φRβγνσ − 4κ3. which means that it can be absorbed into a redefinition of F (φ. In this case there is no such thing as a static black hole solution to the gravitational field equations.δµn . and where we have ˙ A0 B0 A1 B1 A2 A3 ˜ ˙ = −Q7. however. unless the black hole exists in a static universe.A φ3 .X = κ1.φ + Xκ8 ] φ + κ9 (φ. so that rS = 2G(tf )m... 948. This paper is not very well known. 1213. 1136.X 3 − 4F. H a n=0 where H = a/a is the Hubble parameter.X µ αφ µ φ βφ + 2κ8 φ ν βφ −3[2(F + 2W ). In this case black holes that formed early on in the Universe’s history would remember. 860.φ φ + 3(Q7 φ − Q7 ) + 6κ8 φ3 ˙ ˜ = −Q1 φ + Q1 ˙ = −12F − 12F. X).

˙ ∂φ dt ∂ φ (162) where ρ is the energy density of the cosmological fluid. (167) where we have separated the net cosmological constant contribution. These terms give rise to self-tuning cosmologies for κ < 0. ρmatter . and not to the scalar. (160) ˙ ˙ ∂φ ∂φ It is assumed that matter is minimally coupled to the metric gµν . ρΛ . (166) ˆ where G = Rµναβ Rµναβ − 4Rµν Rµν + R2 is the Gauss-Bonnet combination. They demand that the vacuum space-time is Minkowski. and that this should remain true even after a phase transition in which the cosmological constant changes by some amount. The relevant cosmological field equations are given by Hjohn + Hpaul + Hgeorge + Hringo = − [ρΛ + ρmatter ] . a 65 . and the matter contribution. irrespective of the value of the cosmological constant. ˙ H ˙ a3 ∂a ˙ ∂φ where (161) and the scalar equation of motion ∂Leff d ∂Leff H H − = 0. In [276] the authors look for those corners of Horndeski’s theory that admit a selftuning mechanism.φ − 3φ2 κ8 . and where κ ˙ Hjohn = 3Vjohn (φ)φ2 3H 2 + 2 a κ ˙ Hpaul = −3Vpaul (φ)φ3 H 5H 2 + 3 2 a V κ ˙ george Hgeorge = −6Vgeorge (φ) H 2 + 2 + H φ a Vgeorge κ 2 ˙ Hringo = −24Vringo (φ)φH H + 2 . These considerations reduce Horndeski’s theory to four base Lagrangians known as the Fab Four: √ −gVjohn (φ)Gµν µ φ ν φ (163) Ljohn = √ Lpaul = −gVpaul (φ)P µναβ µ φ α φ ν β φ (164) √ Lgeorge = −gVgeorge (φ)R (165) √ ˆ Lringo = −gVringo (φ)G. The cosmological field equations are presented implicitly as a generalised Friedmann equation: Q1 = eff ∂Leff 1 ˙ ∂L a H + φ H − Leff = −ρ.˜ ˜ ∂ Q7 ∂ Q1 ˙ = −12κ1 . and Q7 = = 6F. Indeed. and P µναβ = −Rµν αβ + 2Rµ[α δ νβ] − 2Rν [α δ µβ] − Rδ µ[α δ νβ] is the double dual of the Riemann tensor. This is not in violation of Weinberg’s theorem since Poincar´ invariance is explicitly broken e by the scalar. it is argued that if the equivalence principle is to hold then this can be assumed without further loss of generality.

5. . The Vainshtein mechanism is discussed in detail in Section 5. e2 8πβi ψ gµν ).µ ψ. (105). dψ (169) .ν − V (ψ) + Lm (Ψi .1. the non-relativistic limit of the scalar field equation can then be written as L= √ −¯ g 2 ψ= 66 dVeff .The scalar equations of motion are Ejohn + Epaul + Egeorge + Eringo = 0 where Ejohn = 6 d 3 ˙ ˙ a Vjohn (φ)φ∆2 − 3a3 Vjohn (φ)φ2 ∆2 dt d 3 ˙ ˙ Epaul = −9 a Vpaul (φ)φ2 H∆2 + 3a3 Vpaul (φ)φ3 H∆2 dt d 3 ˙ Egeorge = −6 a Vgeorge (φ)∆1 + 6a3 Vgeorge (φ)φ∆1 dt +6a3 Vgeorge (φ)∆2 1 Eringo = −24Vringo (φ) and we define ∆n = H n − √ −κ a n d a3 dt 2 κ ∆ 1 + ∆3 a2 3 . and where the βi are a set of constants denoting the coupling of ψ to each of the i matter fields Ψi . as their derivative interactions could give rise to Vainshtein effects that could help pass solar system constraints. since on a Minkowski solution one has H 2 = − a2 =⇒ ∆n = 0 for n ≥ 1. ¯ ¯ (168) 16π 2 √ where. Note that it has been shown that Horndeski’s general theory is equivalent to [402] in four dimensions [710]. In the scalar-tensor theories so far discussed the scalar field should be considered coupled to each of the matter fields with the same universal coupling. 688]. A detailed study of the phenomenology of the fab four has yet to be carried out. then in the presence of other matter fields these scalars can acquire an effective mass parameter that is environmentally dependent. This mechanism is usually formulated in the Einstein conformal frame. which in the Brans-Dicke theory is given by β −2 = 2(3 + 2ω). The basic concept here is that if we consider theories with a non-minimally coupled scalar field. such as those that can exist in cosmology.4. but where the scalar field couples non-minimally to matter fields. while still having interesting new behaviour in less dense environments. 3. such as exist in the solar system. where the coupling between the scalar curvature and scalar field is minimal. but the authors of [276] argue that the ‘john’ and ‘paul’ terms are expected to play a crucial role. we have taken Γ = 8πβi ψ. in the notation used in Eq. Assuming such a coupling. the cosmological constant controls the value of the scalar via the generalised Friedmann equation. Aspects of cosmological perturbations are studied in [710] that may be applied to the Fab Four in the appropriate special case. In vacuum. One can then potentially satisfy the tight constraints on non-minimally coupled scalar degrees of freedom that are imposed in relatively dense environments. The chameleon mechanism The ‘chameleon mechanism’ was introduced as a concept in gravitational physics by Khoury and Weltman in [689. The relevant action is then √ 1 ¯ 1 µν R − g ψ.4. We see that the self-tuning is achieved at the level κ of the scalar equation of motion.

The condition given in (170) is then equivalent to the condition that a ‘thin shell’ should be present. that are different in space than they are on Earth. 484. Khoury and Weltman proceed to argue that in order to avoid violations of the weak equivalence principle. and unacceptable deviations from the predictions of General Relativity in the solar system. [689. and approaches its asymptotic value ψ∞ as ψ 2β ψ∞ − √ 8π 3∆Rc Rc Mc e−m∞ (r−Rc ) . when the chameleon mechanism is present. If the ‘thin shell’ condition is not met then one instead has ψ ∼ ψ∞ everywhere. 912. and if ψ and β are both positive then any runaway potential with dV /dψ < 0 will result in an effective potential with a local minimum whose position depends on ρ. Hence. 190. with ∆Rc /Rc 1.where Veff (ψ) ≡ V (ψ) + ρe 8πβψ . Outside of the object ψ increases further. (168) the local effective mass of the scalar field ψ. 198]. 1236. (170). as well as a number of other cosmological scenarios [912. given by mψ = d2 Veff /dψ 2 . The behaviour of scalar fields outside of massive objects. 190. and has been studied in the context of structure formation [196. and asymptotically. ψc . This idea of a scalar field with an environmentally dependent mass has sparked widespread interest since it was proposed. 1225. it allows for the possibility of measuring fifth forces. 197]. 191. Here ∆ψ denotes the difference in the value of the scalar field inside the object. Now. and other astrophysical bodies. 1091. 362]. or violations of the weak equivalence principle. ∆Rc /Rc . ψ∞ . except for a thin region of depth ∆Rc just below its surface where the value of ψ rises. r 8π (172) A comparison of Eq. where r = Rc . This new ‘effective potential’ can be seen to be dependent on the ambient energy density. 913. In particular. the ratio of the thickness of the shell just below the object’s surface to the object’s overall radius. 1199. The effect of ‘chameleon particles’ on searches for axion-like particles 67 . 499. (172) with Eq. What is more. when one satisfies the condition √ 8π(ψ∞ − φc ) 1 (170) 6βΦc then the resulting configuration of gravitational fields is found to be one in which ψ occupies the minimal of the effective potential inside the bulk of the massive object. for couplings of the type specified in Eq. 188]. More precisely. should satisfy the thin shell condition [688]. It can act as dark energy [191. we should require that the Earth. 239. 688. and that we should therefore expect in this case more obvious consequences to the existence of ψ within the vicinity of massive objects. 913. (171) immediately shows that without a thin shell variations in ψ are no longer suppressed by the small factor of 3∆Rc /Rc . can be shown to be crucially dependent on the ratio of ∆ψ to Φc . the name ‘chameleon’. r (171) √ where m∞ is the effective mass of the field at asymptotically large distances from the object of mass Mc . can be shown to be well approximated by the LHS of Eq. can be seen to generically increase with increasing ρ. while Φc is the value of the Newtonian potential at the surface of the object. and the exterior solution is given by ψ 2β Mc e−m∞ (r−Rc ) ψ∞ − √ .

can dramatically affect cosmology: It can lead to a renormalisation of the Newton constant [257]. r. 1108. and are now often used as a counterfoil to test General Relativity. for constant a0 ). Newton’s inverse square law of gravity could be modified in the low-acceleration regime of galactic dynamics. henceforth called the æther. Albeit a simple rule of thumb. 537].2. The presence of a Lorentz-violating vector field. Such a modification. They have the particular property that they single out a preferred reference frame and have become somewhat of a theoretical workhorse for studying violations of Lorentz symmetry in gravitation. have had a revival over the past decade. also known as MOND. based on observations of their rotational velocities. 3. alternatively. 989]. in the low acceleration regime (where |a| a0 ). 220]. In the Einstein-æther theory [655] violations of Lorentz invariance arise within the framework of a diffeomorphism-invariant theory. Furthermore. leave an imprint on perturbations in the early universe [809. 199. which have started to constrain the viable parameter space of these theories. 677]. and how it works. Newton’s second law is modified to (|a/a0 )a = − Φ. 788. 3. and in more elaborate actions it can even affect the growth rate of structure in the Universe [1311. with energy density profiles that vary as ρ ∼ r−2 for large r. Milgrom’s proposal was that. 186]. as vr ∝ r−1/2 . Experimental searches for chameleons have now been performed by GammeV [298. vr . Unfortunately 68 . 1314. In regions of high acceleration (where |a| a0 . and their effect on the propagation of light in astrophysics in [219. We also briefly mention some of its successes and failures. 1182. may be able to account for the anomalously high rotational velocities in spiral galaxies without invoking any new matter fields. Milgrom’s proposal is remarkably successful at fitting a large range of spiral galaxy observations. 589]. and ADMX [1079]. Given its relevance for Einstein-æther theories. 1238. What is in fact found in observations of spiral galaxies is that vr is approximately constant at large radii.and experiments involving magnetic fields have been studied in [192. they should lead to Milgrom’s Modified Newtonian Dynamics [895]. In MOND the spherically symmetric gravitational potential has two regimes: High acceleration and low acceleration. we will now briefly describe the motivation for MOND.1. it was ventured. 14. Modified Newtonian dynamics Some of the theories that we will discuss in this subsection and the next have been constructed to give modifications to Newtonian gravity on galactic scales. in regimes of low acceleration. it simply satisfies Newton’s second law: a = − Φ where Φ is the gravitational potential. To be more specific. MOND was first proposed as a possible explanation of the need for dark matter in galaxies. in the form of Einstein-æther theories. With Newtonian gravity and the visible baryonic matter in galaxies only one expects that the rotational velocity. should depend on the distance from the centre of the galaxy. Einstein-Æther Theories Vector-tensor theories. 789. Other tests of this scenario are also proposed in [187. On the other hand. The conventional answer to this problem is to posit that galaxies sit in halos of dark matter. 1183]. and their modern incarnations are a refinement of the gravitationally coupled vector field theories first proposed by Will and Nordtvedt in the 1970s [1276.2. it can be used to explain the Tully-Fisher relation that relates the velocity of rotation of a spiral galaxy with its intrinsic luminosity.

and the function µ(x) → 1 as x → ∞ and µ(x) → x as x → 0. Action and field equations As the name suggests. Aµ ) = M2 1 F (K) + λ(Aµ Aµ + 1). Such actions arise from Lorentz violating physics in quantum gravity. (175) where K µναβ ≡ c1 g µν gαβ + c2 δ µα δ νβ + c3 δ µβ δ να − c4 Aµ Aν gαβ and λ is a Lagrange multiplier. and has been shown to be stable with regard to quantum effects [1279]. non-linear Lagrangian for the æther field can be written in the form LGEA (g µν . however. Ψ). with the onset of caustics in a finite time [331]. can suffer from instabilities at the classical level. Aν ) ≡ 1 [K µναβ 16πG µA α νA β + λ(Aν Aν + 1)]. (173) where ρ is the energy density in baryons. 16πG 16πG (176) where K = K µναβ µ Aα ν Aβ . 16πG (174) where Sm is the matter action. This raises the question of whether the vector field in such theories are 69 . There are a variety of proposals for the precise form of µ(x) that fit observations of galaxies to a greater or lesser degree. nor can it be used to calculate fundamentally relativistic observables.. We call the theory derived from Eqs.2. Aµ .. such as lensing. Indeed. The simplest (and most thoroughly studied) version of the Einsteinæther theory is quadratic in derivatives of Aν . Such theories. Let us now focus on Einstein-æther theories. The non-relativistic Poisson equation in MOND can be written as · µ | Φ| a0 Φ = 4πGρ. the linear Einstein-æther theory can be constructed using the rules of effective field theory. A general action for such theories is given by S= √ d4 x −g 1 R + L(g µν . however. 3. and the behaviour of dwarf spheroidals in different environments is also problematic.MOND is unable to explain the dynamics of clusters of galaxies without recourse to additional dark matter (possibly in the form of neutrinos). (174) and (175) the linear Einstein-æther theory. Many of the theories that follow in this section have been constructed to address this deficiency: They are relativistic gravitational theories that have MOND as a non-relativistic limit. ≡ c1 + c2 + . MOND’s greatest limitation is that it is restricted to non-relativistic regimes. and has the form LEA (g µν . A more general. As a theory of modified gravity. It therefore cannot be used to make prediction on cosmological scales. and M has the dimension of mass. Note that the matter fields Ψ in SM couple only to the metric gµν . .2. We shall call this a generalised Einstein-æther theory. vector-tensor theories involve the introduction of a space-time 4-vector field. and hence forth consider Aµ to have a time-like direction. and not to Aν . . Aν ) + SM (g µν . In what follows we will use the notation c12. . it is an interesting proposal that has had a renewed surge of interest in the past decade. Nevertheless.

3. The gravitational field equations for this theory.merely an effective (possibly composite) degrees of freedom. The equations 2 of motion then simplify dramatically. obtained by varying with respect to Aν . 0). 1 α α α α (FK (J(µ Aν) − J (µ Aν) − J(µν) A )) 2 1 −FK Y(µν) + gµν M 2 F + λAµ Aν . FLRW solutions In a homogeneous and isotropic universe with perfect fluid matter content.2. or whether they are genuine fundamental fields. obtained by varying the action for the Generalised Einstein-æther theory with respect to g µν are given by Gµν ˜ Tµν = = matter ˜ Tµν + 8πGTµν . the vector field will only have a non-vanishing ‘t’ component.2. so that µ Aµ = 3H and K = 3 αH2 . (179) where we have defined yν = respect to λ fix Aν Aν = −1. Let us now consider a few special cases: If n = 1/2.3. The field equations then reduce to 1 − αK 1/2 d F H2 = dK K 1/2 d (−2H + FK αH) = dt 2(n−1) 8πG ρ. so that Aµ = (1. Λ sign(−γ)M 2 . We can summarise these behaviours in Figure 3. are µ µ (FK J ν ) + FK yν σ ∂(K αβρσ ) ∂Aν = 2λAν . Note that the α we have defined here has the same sign as K. αA ρ βA . the Friedmann equations are unchanged ( = 0) and there is no effect on the background cosmology. 0. the modified Friedmann equations become 1+ where H M H2 = 8πG ρ. The equations of motion for the vector field. and H0 is the Hubble constant today. More generally. where α ≡ M c1 + 3c2 + c3 . (180) (181) If we now take F (x) = γxn . and Yµν is defined by the functional derivative Yµν = α Aρ β Aσ ∂gµνρσ . We also get the relationship γ= 6(Ωm − 1) (1 − 2n)(−3α)n M H0 2(n−1) . 70 . Finally. (183) 2 where Ωm ≡ 8πGρ0 /3H0 . with n = 1 we have that = γα/2 and Newton’s constant is rescaled by a factor of 1/(1 + ) [257]. 3 8πG(ρ + P ). 0. if n = 0 we recover a cosmological constant. variations of the action with 3. 3 (182) ≡ (1 − 2n)γ(−3α)n /6. Brackets around indices denote sym∂(K αβ ) metrisation. we will obtain different regimes depending on the relative size of each term in the modified Friedmann equation. 2 νA β (177) (178) where FK ≡ dF dK and J µα ≡ (K µναβ +K νµβα ) .

3. for n < 1. The gravitational potentials Ψ and Φ come from the M2 a perturbed metric: ds2 = a2 (τ ) −(1 + 2Ψ)dτ 2 + (1 − 2Φ)qij dxi dxj . FK (185) (184) The perturbation in the vector field is sourced by the two gravitational potentials Φ and 71 . were qij is the unperturbed conformal metric of the hyper-surfaces of constant τ . where V is a small 2 quantity. The evolution equation for the perturbations in the vector field are 0 = c1 [V + k 2 V + 2HV + 2H2 V + Ψ + Φ + 2HΨ] a +c2 [k 2 V + 6H2 V − 3 V + 3Φ + 3HΨ] a a 2 2 +c3 [k V + 2H V − V + Φ + HΨ] a FKK + [−K1 αH − K0 (−c1 (V + Ψ) + 3c2 HV + c3 HV )]. a i V ). Cosmological perturbations 1 The four-vector Aµ can be perturbed as Aµ = (1 − Ψ.Figure 1: A schematic representation of the late-time evolution of FLRW solutions as a function of n and γ.2. Perturbing K to linear order then gives K = K0 + K1 . where K0 = 3 αH2 and M ˙ K1 = −2 αH (k 2 V + 3HΨ + 3Φ).4.

(189) We then find the following expression for the perturbed field equations: k2 Φ 1 c = − FK c1 k 2 [V + Ψ + (3 + 2˜3 )HV ] 2 ¯ −4πGa2 ρa δa + 3(¯a + Pa )Hθa . During the matter dominated era we −lE ξ(k)k 2 τ 5+p−6n and k 2 (Ψ − Φ) −lS ξ(k)k 2 τ 5+p−6n . (191) 72 . and constraints that can be imposed on them. The first-order perturbations to the vector field’s stress-energy tensor are ˜ a2 δ T 00 = FK c1 [−Hk 2 V − k 2 V − k 2 Ψ] (186) +FK α[Hk 2 V + 3HΦ + 3H2 Ψ] − 3FKK αH2 K1 ˜ a2 δ T 0i = FK c1 [−Hk 2 V − k 2 V − k 2 Ψ] + FK α(2n − 1)[Hk 2 V + 3HΦ + 3H2 Ψ]. such that V = V0 τ0 .Ψ. For illustrative ease we will initially consider only the case where V is described by p τ a growing monomial. a = FK c2 k 2 [2HV + V ]δ ij + FK (c1 + c3 )[2HV + V ]k i kj +FK α 2HΦ + Φ + 2 −FKK [αK1 (188) a Ψ − H2 Ψ + HΨ δ ij + FKK (c1 + c3 )K0 V k i kj a ˜ a2 δ T ij a + (c1 + c2 + c3 )K1 H2 + αHK1 a −αK0 Φ − 2αK0 HΨ + α ln(FKK ) K1 H − c2 K0 k 2 V ]δ ij . This gives k 2 (Ψ − Φ) = = 3 2 ˆˆ 1 ˜ a (ki kj − δij )(δ Tji ) 2 3 (c1 + c3 )k 2 [FK (2HV + V ) + FKK K0 V ]. Let us also introduce the new variable V ≡ E. where then have a2 δT 00 lE ≡ −(c1 (2 + p)n + 2α(1 − 2n)n). and ξ(k) ∼ γV0 (k) 1 τ0 p 6−6n khub 3αΩm H0 M 2 n−1 . In the absence of anisotropic stresses in the matter fields. ¯ ρ a (190) Before we look at the cosmological consequences of these theories. traceless part of the perturbed Einstein equations. This should allow us some insight into how the growth of structure proceeds in the generalised Einstein-æther case. it is instructive to study the effect of the vector field during matter domination. we may obtain an algebraic relation between the metric potentials Φ and Ψ by computing the transverse. a V + Ψ + HΨ (187) = iki FK c1 V + 2HV + a a +iki FK α 2H2 V − V + iki FKK K0 [c1 (HV + V + Ψ) − αHV ]. lS ≡ −(c1 + c3 )n(6n − p − 10). so that we can treat it as a pressureless perfect fluid. First let us consider the simplest case in which the dominant contribution to the energy density is baryonic. ˜ where the second expression for a2 δ T 00 assumes the monomial form for F (K).

even before horizon crossing. On large scales. so as to prevent the generation of vacˇ uum Cerenkov radiation by cosmic rays. and then we will consider the generalised Einstein-æther models. and a small effect (of approximately 10%) on the angular power spectrum of the CMB. result in the same contributions to the scale dependence and time evolution of the density contrast. A final constraint arises from considering the effects of the æther on the damping rate of binary pulsars. Φ. where C1 is a constant of integration and we have omitted the decaying mode. artificially switching off the perturbations in the æther field has essentially no effect on the power spectrum of large-scale structure. and not necessarily through the presence of perturbations in the vector field. Let us first consider a Universe with no dark matter. In Figure 2 we plot the join constraints on c+ and c− that can be imposed from these observables. Using a combination of CMB and large-scale structure data [1315] it is possible to impose constraints on the coefficients of the theory. and assuming adiabatic initial con6lS ξ(k) ditions for the fields δ. kτ 1. the anisotropic stress term due to the vector field can influence time evolution of the baryon density contrast. kτ 1. a number of non-cosmological constraints on the ci have been derived: Most notably.2. we find that the effect on the CMB is much more pronounced. for sub-horizon modes. The rate of energy loss in such systems by gravitational radiation agrees with the prediction of General Relativity to one part in 103 . Indeed. the influence of the vector field on the evolution of δ is a combination of its affect on the energy density and anisotropic stress contributions. 1 3 3 Additionally. 3. ci . a Parameterised Post-Newtonian (PPN) analysis of the theory leads to a reduction in the dimensionality of parameter space. and in which the perturbations in the æther field simultaneously mimic a perturbed pressureless fluid in the formation of large scale structure. Therefore. though both.5. The main effect on the evolution of perturbations is through the change in the background evolution. Hence. Hence. A more exotic. the squared speeds of the gravitational and æther waves with respect to the preferred frame must be greater than unity. subset of the parameter space can be considered if we set c1 = c3 = 0. as well as the overall energy density in the æther field. On small scales. In the case of the Einstein-æther theory it has been shown that to agree with General Relativity in these systems we must require that c+ ≡ c1 + c3 and c− ≡ c1 − c3 are related by an algebraic constraint. whilst behaving entirely differently 73 .where khub ≡ 1/τtoday . we find 1 ( 2 lE +lS ) δ(k. in this limit. this leads to δ = C1 (k) + (10+p−6n) τ 5+p−6n . τ ) = C2 (k)τ 2 + (5+p−6n)(10+p−6n) ξ(k)(kτ )2 τ 5+p−6n . Observations and constraints Let us now consider the constraints that can be imposed on these theories. This is occurs due to the requirement that c2 and c4 must be expressed in terms of the other two parameters in the theory as c2 = (−2c2 −c1 c3 +c2 )/3c1 and c4 = −c2 /c1 . θ. where C2 (k) is another constant of integration. The PPN and pulsar constraints are then no longer applicable. but viable. and a cosmological analysis is potentially the only way of constraining the values of the coupling constants. First of all we will consider the linear Einstein-æther theory. the vector field affects the evolution equations for the matter and metric perturbations only through its contribution to the energy density and anisotropic stress. If we consider the generalised Einstein-æther theory. In the case of the linear Einstein-æther theory.

This is not due to the matter power spectra.2h/M pc. The black lines are the 1 and 2σ contours.4 Figure 2: Likelihood plot in the parameter space of −c+ and −c− from observations of the CMB and large-scale structure. for which we have marginalised over the ˇ values of the other parameters. This also leads directly to a nonnegligible integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect in the matter dominated era.0 . this yields CS 10−4 . which can be reasonably fitted to the SDSS data. destroying any 74   c+ 0. but from the CMB. In the low. The details of each of these processes depends on the functional form of F . as Φ becomes time dependent.0 0. The hatched region is excluded by Cerenkov constraints. This can cause discrepancies between the amplitudes we expect in the matter power spectrum and the CMB.6 ¡ ¢ 0.0 0.regime a large ISW effect is clearly present. The first is a change in the rate of growth of the amplitude of perturbations. For matter power observations at τ ∼ 3 × 104 . One necessary condition for this is that the sound speed of the structure seed is not too large. since this would wash out structure. the time-dependence of the ξ growing mode. The second process is due to the increased magnitude Φ − Ψ.6 0. in the cosmological background [1314]. and the choice of the parameters ci . where kmax ∼ 0. The dashed line indicates the constraints available from binary pulsars.8 1.4 0.1.2 c 0.2 0. It can also lead to an integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect during the matter era.0 0. It is extremely challenging to find combinations of the parameters that allows for a realistic growth of structure. A consequence of these two effects is that it is impossible to find models where the æther field replaces the dark matter that fit the available cosmological data. which is the present epoch. There are two underlying physical processes that can constrain these models.8 0. while simultaneously ensuring the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect is acceptably small. The first requirement for successful perturbation evolution is that structure can form at all. It is therefore required that the sound horizon in the models we are considering should be less than the smallest scales where linear structure can form: CS kmax τ 1. since the evolution between the two is different.

so that all components of the Riemann tensor ˜ constructed from gαβ vanish. Ba˜ados and collaborators have shown that a general form of bigravity. Bimetric Theories In this section we will consider theories that involve two rank-2 tensors. or tensor-tensor. to fit the matter power spectrum to the data requires rescaled by a factor 0. This severely violates the constraints on these systems that have been imposed by observations of millisecond pulsars [779]. and so we follow this convention here. and the three coupling terms of the theory. As a result Rosen’s theory predicts the spin up of pulsars. however.chance of fitting the CMB data at large scales. The basic idea behind bimetric. Finally. on physical grounds. More recently. 355] might allow one to account for some aspects of the dark sector [85. are not the Einstein field equations: They invariably involve gαβ as well. The equations that govern gµν . Rosen’s theory. there were a number of proposals over the years of how one could formulate a viable bimetric theory of gravity. 75 . These are often referred to as “bimetric”. as gravitational waves with negative energy are emitted. however. and a second metric. Here we highlight what we consider to be some of the most interesting cases. ηµν . gαβ . Such a scaling is considered to be improbably small. Milgrom has recently proposed a bimetric theory that reduces to MOND in the appropriate limits. which can produce this behaviour. however. and involves the addition of an extra non-dynamical rank-2 tensor into the theory. These include Drummond’s bimetric (or “bi-vierbein”) theory. and is used to ˜ construct the energy-momentum tensor of the non-gravitational fields. ˜ If the gαβ is not dynamical. 3.3. which corresponds to a galaxy bias of 0.14. the æther field behaves exactly as a cosmological constant term. which n includes specific forms previously proposed in[647. In the limit nae → 0. let us consider the possibility of late-time accelerating expansion. All these effects cause severe problems when attempting to simultaneously fit the CMB and large-scale structure. Rosen’s bimetric theory is a particular example of such ˜ a construction. 70]. The first formulation of a bimetric theory appears to be due to Rosen [1067. It is this field is used to define the geodesic equations of test particles. ˜ exhibiting the maximal 10 Killing vectors X. then it is usually taken to be highly symmetric (i. The positions of the peaks are also poorly fit by the model. which is claimed to mimic the dark matter in spiral galaxies [434]. 1068]. such that LX gαβ = 0). An obvious choice ˜ for gαβ is the Minkowski metric. The first of these is usually universally coupled to the matter fields. as are some attempts to construct a massive theory of gravity. theories of gravity. the term ‘metric’ for this additional field is commonly used. as the term ‘metric’ implies a particular geometric function. Finally. Nevertheless. or “tensor-tensor”. Following in Rosen’s footsteps. we will briefly outline each of these theories. Finally. thus providing a way to model time-varying fundamental constants. is now known to lead to the existence of states that are unbounded from below in their energy. gµν .e.02. In what we follows. theories is the introduction of a second ‘metric’ tensor into the theory18 : a dynamical metric. If gαβ ˜ is to be dynamical. as well as arguments by Magueijo that bimetric theories could exhibit a variable speed of light. then a kinetic term of the Einstein-Hilbert form is required in the 18 A second rank-2 tensor would probably be a more accurate description of what is actually being added here. A detailed comparison with the data seems to allow a range of values for the index n.

19 Note that this equation can be derived from an action principle by including a space-time dependent rank-2 tensor as a Lagrange multiplier. when it comes to calculating the emission of gravitational radiation from binary systems [1274]. Rosen’s theory has been the subject of a number studies over the years. 1056] and Lightman and Lee’s theory [808]. almost all the PPN parameters in Rosen’s theory are indistinguishable from those of General Relativity. Unfortunately this does not circumvent the pulsar problem. The only exception is 2 α2 = vg /c2 − 1. It has been conjectured by Will. Other bimetric theories that also have been proposed with an additional a priori specified. in terms of masses and mass differences. with ˜ the matter fields usually coupling to either one. Rosen’s bimetric theory is constructed with an extra flat metric. when its predictions for the emission of gravitational waves are compared to observations of binary pulsars. cosmological background [1069]. then Rosen’s theory leads to the emission of a large amount of dipole gravitational radiation [1275]. 76 . This in turn results in a sizeable increase in the orbital period of the system. Rosen’s theory fails. however. We will not go into the details of how to do this here. but rather by the cosmological solutions to the theory. non-dynamical metric field. metrics.1. that all such theories that incorporate prior specified geometry could suffer the same deficiency as Rosen’s. These include Rastall’s theory [1055. and c is the speed of light. If this is done then the theory is observationally indistinguishable from General Relativity in the weak field. g (192) We can now define a covariant derivative in terms of gαβ . In fact. but time-varying. where vg is the speed of gravitational waves in Rosen’s theorem. however. that vg is not uniquely determined by the theory.gravitational action. such that19 ˜ Rµνρσ (˜αβ ) = 0. however. It has been found to be extremely successful when subjected to a PPN analysis. which is not observed. gαβ = ˜ ηαβ . Rosen later proposed replacing flat space metric by an a priori specified. such ˜ that the field equations for the dynamical metric can be written √ 1 −g 1 αβ ˜ ˜ 1 αβ δ ˜ ˜ (Tµν − gµν g αβ Tαβ ) g ˜ ˜ g (193) α β gµν − g α gδµ β g ν = −8πG √ 2 2 2 −˜ g The energy-momentum tensor satisfies the conventional conservation equation µ Tµν = 0. and non-dynamical metrics As advertised. for which the PPN limits of both theories are known. and compared to Solar System observations [779]. Rosen’s theory. low velocity regime of post-Newtonian gravitational physics. One can then adjust the initial conditions of the Universe in order to tune α2 . Will and Eardley found that unless the binary system under consideration obeys very specific properties. Coupling terms are then also required between gαβ and gµν .3. Binary pulsar observations are therefore incompatible with this theory. or a combination of both. 3. which we will call ˜ µ . One should note here.

˜µ µ Finally. While eA is used to construct ˜α ˜ ˜ ˜α ˜β B the Einstein-Hilbert action. In [434] it was proposed to work in the vierbein formulation with gαβ = ηAB eA eB and gαβ = ˜ α β ηAB eA eB . Note that the action for M is similar to that of the non-linear sigma model found in meson physics.3.2.3. In this case both sets of vierbein are dynamical. and γ is a free parameter which corresponds to the cosmological constant. m is a mass parameter. G (197) Hence. we then need to define a “linking action”. but does not completely resolve it. Such a correction can alleviate the problem of flat galactic rotation curves that arises in standard Newtonian gravity with no dark matter. He also claims that the higher order correction is exactly what is needed to satisfy Solar System constraints from the precession of the orbit of Mercury. for mr 1 the effective Newton’s constant is GN = G + G1 . 3. eβ is used to construct the action from which the energymomentum tensor is derived. can satisfy the time delay measurements from radio signals.3. there has been little progress in studying the various astrophysical and cosmological consequences of Drummond’s theory. and a scalar. while for large scales GN G. with a non-dynamical background metric gαβ and a dynamical fluctuation given by gαβ = ˜ 77 . and that in the weak field limit the dynamical metric gαβ ηαβ + hαβ gives rise to a potential of the form h00 = − GM r 1+ G1 −mr e . Massive gravity The theory of a single massive spin-2 field can also be considered as a bimetric theory. Drummond has shown that his bimetric theory has a well defined Newtonian limit and so. Albeit an intriguing proposal for a theory of modified gravity.3. in principle. The missing pieces of the theory are then a transformation ˜ ˜ A tensor. This is given by Drummond as SL = 1 d4 x −˜g µν Tr(jµ jν ) g˜ 16πG1 1 g˜ + d4 x −˜g µν (∂µ φ∂ν φ) 16πG2 1 m2 ˜ ˜ A A A A + g MA MA + M A MA − γ d4 x −˜ ˜ ˜ 16πG1 4 1 − g d4 x −˜m2 φ2 . Drummond’s theory Let us now turn to a more recent formulation of the bimetric theory. MB . 16πG2 ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ (194) (195) where the current jµ is defined as A jµ B ≡ g B C [ ˜ µ M AB ]M BC . ˜ ˜ ˜˜ ˜˜ ˜ (196) and where G1 and G2 are new gravitational constants. φ. which relate eA and eB by ˜µ µ eA = eφ M AB eB .

Note that Λ3 = (Mpl m2 )1/3 on and Mpl = 1/ 8πG. 78 . . 64]. 380. 383. 2 8 (200) It is now clear that the leading order part of the potential gives the PF mass term upon choosing a2 = 2.5. the Boulware-Deser ghost ˆ reveals itself by expanding the action in terms of hµν . in order to focus√ the dynamics of the helicity zero mode. two of helicity 1. hµν = = ˆ hµν ∂φα ∂φβ + ηµν − ηαβ µ Mpl ∂x ∂xν ˆ hµν ∂µ ∂ν π η αβ ∂α ∂µ π∂β ∂ν π +2 − . In contrast. For the original PF action. been some recent progress on this issue by de Rham and Gabadadze and collaborators [517. 385]: SGP F = where U (g. Massive gravity exhibits some interesting phenomenology. . h) = µ Kν = 4 n=2 1 16πG √ √ d4 x −gR + m2 −gU (g. giving rise to an additional ghost-like degree of freedom. Eq. and its possible resolution via the Vainshtein mechanism.gαβ + hαβ . To study the behaviour of the theory beyond linear order it is convenient to restore general coordinate invariance by means of the Stuckelberg trick. (199) µ µm µm µ am δ[ν1 . we can then ˜ generate a mass for the spin-2 field hαβ by adding the Pauli-Fierz (PF) term to the Einstein-Hilbert action [504]. the PF Lagrangian by itself cannot describe a consistent theory because the ghost-like mode reappears at non-linear order [175]. h). These will be discussed in more detail in the context of DGP gravity in Section 5. indicating the presence of the ghostly extra mode. . . . Mpl Λ3 Λ6 3 3 (201) (202) where in going from Eq. the generalised PF action is chosen so that the ˆ resulting higher derivative terms contribute a total derivative at zeroth order in hµν . and one of helicity 0. Unfortunately. Taking the background to be Minkowski space. and it was believed that one could not find generalisations of the theory that succeeded in eliminating it to all orders [342]. 385] who have proposed the following action [382. not least the so-called vDVZ discontinuity. To this end one can perform the following field redefinition [382. However. The form of the PF mass term is specifically chosen so that this is not the case to linear order. a generic mass term with arbitrary coefficients will result in higher derivative terms for the helicity-0 mode. for simplicity. This mode is often referred to as the Boulware-Deser ghost. in four dimensions. (198). resulting in SP F = 1 16πG √ m2 √ d4 x −gR + −g g µν g αβ − g µα g µβ hµν hαβ . 4 (198) where m is a constant mass parameter. and 1 µ µ δν + g µα hαν − δν = 1 µα 1 g hαν − g µα hαβ g βγ hγν + . δνm ] Kν11 · · · Kνm and where the am are constants. however. (201) to Eq. There has. 382. (202) we have set φα = xα − η αβ ∂β π/Λ3 . a massive spin-2 field ought to have five propagating degrees of freedom: Two of helicity 2. It is well known that. At zeroth order one finds higher derivative terms for π that contribute to the equations of motion.

ρ (205) 3 where ρ = Y 3 /(8πG 2 Xa3 ). The starting point [84] is an extension of Eddington’s affine theory (see section 2) so that the α dynamical fields are a metric gµν (with curvature scalar R) and a connection Cµν with Ricci tensor Kµν [C]. since generically there is mixing with a graviton of the form hµν Xµν . The corre˜ sponding Friedmann equations are then of the form 8πG (˜ + ρ).4 exactly. C] = 1 16πG √ 2 d4 x −g(R − 2Λ) + 2 α −det[gµν − 2K µν ] (203) where Λ is a cosmological constant. Mpl → ∞. Of course. where X and Y are functions of t alone. It may be shown [85] by introducing a 2nd metric gµν corresponding to the connection ˜ α Cµν that the above theory is a special case of bigravity with action given by S= 1 16πG d4 x √ −g(R − 2Λ) + ˜ −˜(R − 2Λ) − g ˜ −˜ g 1 2 (˜−1 )αβ gαβ . After some suitable field redefinitions one finds that the theory contains the quintic galileon Lagrangian [382]. Y 2 ). when this coupling comes in with a particular sign it can prevent the recovery of GR inside the Vainshtein radius around a heavy source [738. g (204) ˜ where Λ = α is a cosmological constant term. 297].This is a crucial first step in avoiding the extra mode. it is possible that this limit corresponds to taking its mass to infinity. 85. The homogeneous and isotropic FLRW metrics can be written as gαβ = diag(−1. and that it will reemerge in the full theory. Note that it does not reproduce the galileon theory discussed in Section 3 ˆ 4. Salam. a2 ) and gαβ = diag(−X 2 . n Further studies of bi-gravity include weak-field solutions and gravitational waves [140]. 70] (see for [1150] a short overview). one can confidently say that the Boulware-Deser ghost does not appear in the decoupling limit. a2 . 3. In these theories. This mixing cannot be eliminated by a local field redefinition and may have important phenomenological consequences. and Λ3 =constant. 739. This fluid satisfies a conventional conservation equation of ˜ the form d˜ ρ = −3(1 + w)˜. exact spherically symmetric solutions [141] and the energy of black holes [329]. One can go further and study the theory in the so-called decoupling limit.3. a2 . In any event. Y 2 . Stradthee [647]. 297]. 70]. 739. both metrics are used 2 to build Einstein-Hilbert actions even though only one of them couples to the matter content. α is a dimensionless parameter and is a length scale. Such bigravity theories lead to interesting behaviour on cosmological scales [85. Y 2 . Self-accelerating and self-tuning cosmologies were studied de Rham and Gabadadze’s theory in [384]. Whether or not this is the case has yet to be established. where 3 Xµν is cubic in π. In particular. The action is S[g. and revisited a few years ago by Kogan [355] and collaborators. whilst spherically symmetric solutions have also been considered recently [738. have recently been resurrected by Ba˜ados and collaborators [84. m → 0.4. Bigravity A class of theories that were first proposed in the 1970s by Isham. ˜ ρ (206) dt 79 H2 = .

If the ρ field dominates. momentum. such as SL = − 1 16πG d4 x −˜ κ0 (˜−1 )αβ gαβ + κ1 ((˜−1 )αβ gαβ )2 + κ2 (˜−1 )αβ (˜−1 )αβ . Black holes. It is difficult to reconcile the angular power spectrum of fluctuations and the power spectrum of the galaxy distribution predicted by a bimetric theory that unifies the dark sector with current data. Anisotropic universes in these models were studied in [1066]. however. it is possible to work out cosmological observables such as CMB anisotropies and large-scale structure. (207) ˜ where ρc = ρ + ρ. in particular. ψ) − SM (gµν . If we restrict ourselves to a regime in which ρ simply behaves as dark matter. 80 (211) (210) . 3. or mimic the effects of dark matter. Bigravity theory can also be extended to consider more complicated actions. although a full analysis of its PPN parameters has been undertaken [308]. ρ = (8πG 2 )−1 and Ω = ρ/ρc . where ˜ C αµν = Γαµν − Γαµν . The cosmological evolution of perturbations in these theories has been worked out in some detail.3. and their thermodynamics. given by ˜ dw ˜ = 2w 1 + 3w + ˜ ˜ dt ˜ 4(−w)3/2 Ωα − 2 ˜ (1 + 3w)ρ ˜ ρc . or BIMOND. satisfies a somewhat intricate evolution equation. is of the form S = √ 1 d4 x β −gR + α −˜R − 2(˜g)1/4 a2 M g˜ g 0 16πG ˜ ˜ g −SM (˜µν .(208) g g g g g and. The factor M is a non-linear ˜ function of the tensor Υµν . As a result.where w. given by Υµν = C αµβ C βνα − C αµν C ααα . can drive the expansion to a de Sitter phase. and it turns out that the perturbations in the auxiliary field can be rewritten in the form of a generalised dark matter fluid [626] with density. somewhat akin to bigravity. pressure and shear that obey evolution equations. respectively. its cosmology remains to be explored. and is responsible for cosmic acceleration. there is a clear instability ˜ in the gravitational potentials. The extra metric here can lead to a ˜ ˜ range of interesting behaviours and. ψ) (209) ˜ where M is the interaction term that connects the two metrics. The action for bimetric MOND. In [70] it was found that distinctive signatures emerge during periods of accelerated expansion. Bimetric MOND A bimetric theory of MOND. has recently been proposed by Milgrom [896]. they not only grow but diverge leading very rapidly to an overwhelming integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect on large scales. have been studied in bimetric gravity in [71]. and ψ and ψ are the matter fields that couple to gµν and gµν .5. then the best-fit ˜ bimetric model is entirely indistinguishable from the standard CDM scenario.

the disformal relativistic scalar field theory [130]. (1 + 2w + 8nw − 3w − 8nw − 6ww) ˜ ˜ ˜ (214) and where w and w are the equations of state for the matter coupled to gµν and gµν . but leave β arbitrary. 592. 1305. 774. These tensors are quadratic in C αµν . 1198. 287. Its cosmological implications have been studied in [315. This leads to an interesting range of behaviours. and the travel time of gravitational waves [664. where [315] p= 1 − 3w ˜ . TeVeS has both of these types of fields as extra degrees of freedom: A scalar field. For example. 1082. C. solar system tests [128. while in Einstein-æther theories one makes use of a vector field. 1154]. Since its inception [128] TeVeS has been intensively researched. including studies of cosmology [128. 177. We have seen above that scalar-tensor theories extend this by adding a scalar field that mediates a spin-0 gravitational interaction. leading to different gravitational couplings in the two sectors. The constants α and β can be kept unrelated. respectively. 535. 660. except for the contributions from ˜ Sµν and Sµν which contain the interaction terms between the two metrics. 296. if the matter coupled to the second metric is radiation. 414]. It is also shown that the growth of fluctuations does not proceed in a purely Newtonian way. 124. Aµ . spherically symmetric solutions [128. It is shown in [897] that to calculate fluctuations about an FLRW background in either metric requires a knowledge of the matter coupled to both metrics. In low acceleration regime. 419. 1148. Tensor-Vector-Scalar Theories In General Relativity. then we get the field equations βGµν + Sµν = −8πGTµν (212) and ˜ ˜ ˜ β Gµν + Sµν = −8πGTµν . 1291. 897]. Like GR. 1307. 1081]. 502]. 1153. 1306. 663. g and g µν gµν . it is possible to have a dust filled universe that is static. namely the Aquadratic Lagrangian theory of gravity (AQUAL) and its relativistic version [125]. 288. however. 427. but has a MOND contribution as well. 81 . 498. (213) which look like the conventional Einstein equations. 1147. is a tensor. both of which participate in the gravitational sector. and the Sanders’ stratified vector field theory [1093]. issues of superluminality [205]. in the weak field and low acceleration regime. and a (dual) vector field. 295. 1128. and ˜ ˜ n is one of the parameters in M. ˜ Note that the even though the Γs are not tensors. but unlike GR it violates the strong equivalence principle. 535. gravitational collapse and stability [1124. gravitational lensing [128. A thorough and up-to-date review of TeVeS can be found in [1152]. it obeys the Einstein equivalence principle. the phase-coupling gravitation [126]. we have that the scale factor a(τ ) (where τ is conformal time) can take the form the form a τ p . constructed in this way. and are non-linear functions of g. ˜ ˜ This theory has been constructed to reproduce MOND phenomenology on small scales. If we set α = β. the space-time metric gµν is the sole dynamical agent of gravity. φ. 331]. TeVeS is a product of past antecedent theories. where it was shown that in the high acceleration regime BIMOND reproduces conventional FLRW behaviour.4.˜ and Γαµν and Γαµν are the Christoffel symbols constructed from gµν and gµν . Here we will concentrate mostly on cosmological features of the theory. however. 3. 870].

and in the ‘physical frame’. SA . Aµ . including the original articles by Sanders [1093] and Bekenstein [128].4. ˜ (215) The vector field is further enforced to be unit-time-like with respect to the Bekenstein metric. it can be shown that the disformal transformation for the inverse metric is g µν = e2φ g µν + 2 sinh(2φ)Aµ Aν . 20 Some work on TeVeS. i. gµν . g µν Aµ Aν = −1. we write the action in the “Bekenstein frame” for the gravitational fields. Eq. which is split as S = Sg + SA + Sφ + Sm . ˜ ˜ φ. the scalar field. the Sanders vector field. ˜ but they are both the product of a series of extensions from older theories. ˜ (216) The unit-time-like constraint is a phenomenological requirement for the theory to give an acceptable amount of light bending. in this review we interchange the tilde. connection and the scalar field. (216). Aµ . g ˜ (219) ˜ where g and R are the determinant and scalar curvature of gµν . while G ˜ ˜ is the bare gravitational constant. based on theoretical and phenomenological constraints. That is. The relation between G and the measured value of Newton’s constant. we write the action for all matter fields using a single ‘physical metric’.4. gµν (with connection 20 . As already discussed. refer to the Bekenstein frame metric as the “geometric metric”. Actions TeVeS is based on an action. while the universally coupled metric is referred to as the “physical metric”. that we refer to as the Bekenstein metric. ˜ (217) where Aµ = g µν Aν . and is denoted by gµν . for the matter fields. respectively. Actions and field equations The original and most common way to specify TeVeS is to write the action in a mixed frame. in Section 3. Aµ . The universally coupled metric is µ ). the vector field. will be elaborated on below. The three gravitational fields are the metric. respectively. gµν (with ˜ ˜ a ).1. S. The existence of a scalar and a vector field may seem odd at first. and not gµν .3. the action for gµν . φ. and matter fields. 82 .e. Since it is more common ˜ to denote the metric which universally couples to matter as gµν . and φ is written using only the Bekenstein ˜ metric. and is such that Sg is of Einstein-Hilbert form ˜ ˜ Sg = ˜ 1 16πG d4 x −˜ R. GN . ˜ (218) where Sg . In this way we ensure that the Einstein equivalence principle is obeyed. To ensure that the Einstein equivalence principle is obeyed. that we call the ‘universally coupled metric’ algebraically defined via a disformal relation [127] as gµν = e−2φ gµν − 2 sinh(2φ)Aµ Aν . Using the unit-time-like constraint. and denote it as gµν .2. Sφ and Sm are the actions for gµν .

655]. µ. Note ˜ that it is possible to write the TeVeS action using g µν . λ is a Lagrange multiplier that ensures the unit-timelike constraint on Aµ . and thus their action is of the form Sm [g. 426]. More recently it has been considered as a natural generalisation of GR. with the consequence of having ˆ more general vector field kinetic terms (see the appendix of [1152]). φ. The metric g µν is used in the scalar field ˆ action. χA ] = d4 x √ −g L[g. and K is a dimensionless constant. B . in the Einstein-æther theories discussed in Section 3. to avoid the superluminal propagation of perturbations. but rather has the action written directly in terms of a non-canonical kinetic term for φ given by a free function f (X). under the right conditions. (224) for some generic collection of matter fields.2 [656. is given by SA = − 1 32πG d4 x −˜ [KF µν Fµν − 2λ(Aµ Aµ + 1)] . More general actions can be considered without destroying the MOND limit. χA . (223) Bˆ df The field µ is then given in terms of f (X) by µ = dX . χA ]. Indices on Fµν are moved using the Bekenstein metric. It should be stressed that the action for the scalar field has been constructed such that the theory has a MONDian non-relativistic limit. 83 . i. The matter stress-energy tensor is then defined with respect to δSm in the usual way. rather than g µν . The action for the vector field has no particular significance other than the fact that it is simple.The action for the vector field. This form ˜ of a vector field action has been considered by Dirac as a way of incorporating electrons into the electromagnetic potential [424. Aµ . F µν = g µα Fαν . is given by Sφ = − 1 16πG d4 x −˜ µ g µν ˜ µ φ ˜ ν φ + V (µ) . χA . but that in addition provide new features or improved phenomenology. χA . gµν . The action for the scalar field.4. 425. Not all choices of V (µ) give the correct Newtonian or MONDian limits in a quasi-static situation. while f (X) can be related to V by f = µX + 2 V . with X defined by X = 2 g µν µ φ ν φ. g ˆ (221) where µ is a non-dynamical dimensionless scalar field. ˆ ˜ (222) and V (µ) is an arbitrary function which typically depends on a scale. for specific choices of functions V (µ) (or equivalently F (X)).e. The allowed choices are presented in Section 3. B The matter fields in the action are coupled only to the ‘universally coupled metric’. g (220) where Fµν = µ Aν − ν Aµ leads to a Maxwellian kinetic term. g µν is a new metric defined by ˆ g µν = g µν − Aµ Aν . It is also easier in some cases to work with an alternative form for the scalar field action that does not have the non-dynamical field.2.

The details of the derivation we consider here can be found in [128]. s (230) The vector field does not play a role at this order of perturbations.2. ˜ µ 4 8πG Tµν + 2(1 − e−4φ )Aα Tα(µ Aν) (226) ˜ where Gµν is the Einstein tensor constructed from gµν . (229) where Φ is related to the acceleration of particles. The field equations for gµν are given by ˜ 1 +µ ˜ µ φ ˜ ν φ − 2Aα ˜ α φ A(µ ˜ ν) φ + (µV − V ) gµν ˜ 2 1 +K F α Fαν − F αβ Fαβ gµν − λAµ Aν . given in Eq. are K ˜ α F α = −λAµ − µAν ˜ ν φ ˜ µ φ + 8πG(1 − e−4φ )Aν Tνµ . Aµ . It can be shown that the PPN parameter γ is unity in TeVeS. (231) 84 . µ and the field equation for the scalar field. (225) dµ that is used to find µ as a function of ˜ Gµν = µ φ. The Bekenstein metric takes a similar form to gµν : ˜ ˜ d˜2 = −e−2φc (1 + 2Φ)dt2 + e2φc (1 − 2Φ)δij dxi dxj . 3. (227) with Aµ . φ. (216). hence the universally coupled metric can be written as ds2 = −(1 + 2Φ)dt2 + (1 − 2Φ)δij dxi dxj . The scalar field is perturbed as φ = φc + ϕ. as relevant for establishing the existence of the Newtonian and MONDian limits. 0.The field equations The field equations of TeVeS are found using a variational principle. a. 0). by a = − Φ. namely the unit-timelike constraint. where φc is the cosmological value of φ. Newtonian and MOND limits We now describe the quasi-static limit.4. 0. and is simply given by ˜ Aµ = e−φc (−1 − Φ. (228) (227) The Lagrange multiplier can be solved for by contracting Eq. is ˜ µ µˆµν ˜ ν φ g = 8πGe−2φ g µν + 2e−2φ Aµ Aν Tµν . and the µ-constraint: dV g µν µ φ ν φ = − ˆ . This gives two constraint equations. The field equations for the vector ˜ field. while an alternative shorter derivation in the spirit of the PPN formalism is given in [1152].

e. provided a function µ(| ϕ|) is supplied. Eqs. spherically symmetric situations. (236) and we get (237) 1 φc √ X. e B a0 df where X is given in Eq.The field equations to O(v 2 ) are then ˜ ∆Φ = and · µ ϕ = 8πGρ. (233) 8πG ρ. (239) 21 The constant µ0 is related to the constant k introduced by Bekenstein as µ0 = 8π . for simplicity. such that a0 is a derived quantity given by a0 = 2 3β0 1 B 1 µ0 + 1 2−K eφc . Since both X and f are dimensionless we may define a new ˜ constant β0 . (238) where the integration constant has been absorbed into the cosmological constant associated with the metric gµν . (232) and (233) into a single equation for Φ. which in the MOND limit should be given by f→ 2 3 B a0 1 µ0 1 + 1 2−K eφc X 3/2 . but is found by taking the limit µm → 1. In this case we can combine Eqs. k 85 . regardless of the boundary conditions or the symmetry of the system in question. (223). + G µ0 (2 − K) The MOND limit is now clearly recovered as µm → µ→ 2G | ϕ| 2G = GN a0 GN | ΦN | a0 . 2G 1 + µ 2−K (234) (235) The ratio GN /G is not free. To find the Newtonian and MONDian limits we can consider. the Newtonian limit. where µm = µ GN . This gives the relation GN 2 2 = . 2−K (232) ˜ while the potential Φ is given via the disformal transformation Φ = Φ+ϕ. i. Consistency requires that µ → µ0 which is then a constant21 contained in the function f (or V ). Since µ = dX . called the AQUAL equation: · µm Φ = 4πGN ρ. (232) and (233) can be solved for any quasi-static situation. we may integrate the above equation to find the function f (X).

Since in the Newtonian limit we have f → µ0 X. This second limit is imposed if dV → (µ0 − µ)−m . 419. for some constant m. In this case the universally coupled metric can be written in the conventional synchronous form as ds2 = −dt2 + a2 (t)qij dxi dxj . and by Limbach et al. 1305. and in positive powers of X for large X.4. 1153. Homogeneous and isotropic cosmology Homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) solutions to the field equations of TeVeS have been extensively studied [128. The Bekenstein free function in [128] is given in the notation used in this review by dV 3 µ2 (µ − 2µ0 )2 =− . In particular we require that f (X) → X for X 1 to recover the Newtonian limit. 427. It is clear from Eq. 177. there are at least three constants that can appear in f (X). 2 µ2 dµ 32π B 0 (µ0 − µ) which means that β0 = 4 3 2πµ0 3 . This possibility has been investigated by Bekenstein and Sagi [129]. it is impossible to perturbatively connect the Newtonian regime with the MONDian regime via a perturbation series in | ϕ|. (240) and thus √ 1 B 1 µ0 3 a0 = √ 2 2πµ0 + 1 2−K eφ c . depending on when it was formed. 592. Bekenstein chooses this to be m = 1.and the function f has the MONDian limit f → β0 X 3/2 . [810]. The two limiting cases for f (X) are somewhat strange. 3.3. (239) that a0 depends on the cosmological boundary condition. The Bekenstein metric then has a similar form. φc . In other words. but that these two expansions cannot be connected. while it diverging as µ → µ0 in the Newtonian limit. even functions that have essential singularities.e. 502]. Here we assume for simplicity that the hypersurfaces of constant t are spatially flat (see [1147] for the curved case). and can be written as ˜ ˜ d˜2 = −dt2 + b2 (t)qij dxi dxj . s 86 (243) . This signifies that in this kind of formulation of relativistic MOND (i. in terms of a scalar field) the function f (X) should be non-analytic. which can differ for each system.e. 1147. a higher power) to recover the MONDian limit. (241) This is in agreement with [129] (the authors of [177] erroneously inverted a fraction in their definition of a0 ). It could thus be considered as a slowly varying function of time. dµ although other choices are equally valid. It further signifies that f (X) can be expanded in positive √ 1 powers of X for small X. and that f (X) → X 3/2 for X 1 (i. namely µ0 . 1148. β0 and B . 4 In terms of the function dV the MONDian limiting case implies that dV → − 9β 2 2 µ2 dµ dµ 0 B as µ → 0. (242) where a(t) is the ‘physical scale factor’.

0). (245) 16πG dµ Similarly. The disformal transformation relates the two scale factors ˜ ˜ by a = be−φ . He showed that the scalar field contribution to the Friedmann equation is very small. (240). 1153. and that φ evolves very little from the early universe until today. 427.˜ for a second scale factor b(t). FLRW solutions with the Bekenstein function In the original TeVeS paper [128] Bekenstein studied the cosmological evolution of an FLRW universe by assuming that the free function is given by Eq. 1148]. while the two time coordinates t and t are related by dt = eφ dt. as discussed in [1148]. as appears to be required by cosmological observations. In this case it does not contain any independent dynamical information. see for example [592. (240) can be used to get a period 87 . Eq. which obeys the energy conservation equation with respect to the universally coupled metric. Hao and Akhoury noted that the integration constant obtained by integrating Eq. Its only effect is on the disformal transformation which relates the Bekenstein-frame Friedmann equation. with the physical Friedmann equation. Cosmological evolution is governed by the ˜ ˜ dt analogue of the Friedmann equation: ˜ 3H 2 = 8πGe−2φ (ρφ + ρ) . ˜ 2µ dt and dΓ ¯ ˜ + 3HΓ = 8πGe−2φ (ρ + 3P ). ˜ dt 2 (247) (248) 1 where µ is found by inverting φ = 2 dV . dµ It is important to note that the vector field must point to the time direction. so that √ ˜ it can be written as Aµ = ( g00 . one can define a scalar field pressure by Pφ = e2φ 16πG µ dV −V dµ (246) The scalar field evolves according to the two differential equations: dφ 1 = − Γ. and where the scalar field energy density. This is also true in cases where the vector field action is generalised. while the Bekenstein frame ln ˜ Hubble parameter is H = d dt b eφ H + dφ . (244). Many other studies on cosmology in TeVeS have also used the Bekenstein function. a cosmological constant term has to be added in order to have an accelerating expansion today. He noted that with this choice of function. and where the only effect is a constant rescaling of the left-hand-side of the Bekenstein-frame Friedmann equation. and it does not explicitly contribute to the energy density. In particular. ρφ . The a ˙ physical Hubble parameter is defined as usual as by H = a . is given by e2φ dV ρφ = µ +V . (244) where ρ is the energy density of physical matter.

It should be stressed that the solution in the radiation era is important for setting up initial conditions for the perturbations about FLRW solutions that are relevant for studying the CMB radiation and Large-Scale Structure (LSS). 66]. Exact analytical and numerical solutions with the Bekenstein free function. This transient solution in the radiation era has been generalised by Skordis to arbitrary initial conditions for φ. [177] studied more general free functions. the energy density in the scalar field is always small. during the radiation era. Eq. 22 Note that this excludes the case of a stiff fluid with w = 1. in fact account for dark energy. and a general vector field action [1148]. In doing so. and by Dodelson and Liguori in [427]. with values typically less than Ωφ ∼ 10−3 in a realistic situation. However. Nevertheless. (240). note that the sign of φ changes between the matter and cosmological constant eras. It is then possible that different systems could exhibit different values of a0 depending on when they formed. FLRW solutions by generalising the Bekenstein function Bourliot et al. and that TeVeS therefore has the potential to act as dark energy [592]. Zhao has investigated this issue further [1305](see below). but its energy density also tracks the matter fluid energy density. a constant. The impact of evolving a0 on observations has been investigated in [129. such an integration constant cannot be distinguished from a bare cosmological constant term in the Bekenstein frame. have been found by Skordis et al. as has been noted by Dodelson and Liguori [427]. In particular they introduced two new parameters. it would not be a surprising result if some other TeVeS functions [1153]. that have the Bekenstein function as a special case.of accelerating expansion. tracking in the radiation era is almost never realised. such that φ ∝ a4/5 . ˙ Finally. Since µ0 is required to be very large. is the scalar field is subdominant. (239) we see that a0 for a quasi-static system depends on the cosmological value of the scalar field at the time the system broke off from the expansion. Tracker solutions are also present for this choice of function in versions of TeVeS with more general vector field actions [1148]. and so it is somewhat dubious as to whether this can really be interpreted as dark energy arising from TeVeS. upon entering the matter era φ settles into the tracker solution. One then gets that Ωφ = (1 + 3w)2 . the energy density of the scalar field goes momentarily through zero. The ratio of the energy density in the scalar field to that of ordinary matter then remains approximately constant. It turns out that not only. 810]. and collapsed to form a bound structure. as the scalar field action in TeVeS close resemblances that of k-essence [65. the scalar field energy density is subdominant but slowly growing. 88 . as Bekenstein noted. However. From Eq. ˙ since it is purely kinetic and vanishes for zero φ [1153]. In realistic situations. more general free functions (see below). Rather. 6(1 − w)2 µ0 (249) where w is the equation of state of the matter fields22 . so that the scalar field tracks the matter dynamics.

once again. 2 0 89 . and at this point φ → 0.e. The general relativistic Friedmann equation is ˜ thus recovered. The cases for which n ≤ −4 are well behaved in the sense that no singularities occur in the cosmological evolution. Thus. then we get de Sitter solutions for both metrics. these cases do not display the tracker solutions of n ≥ 1. just like the Bekenstein case. such that the free function is generalised to µ2 (µ − µa µ0 )n dV (n) 3 =− . but is also pathological when w = −1 [177]. one finds tracker solutions: The function µ is driven to µ = µa µ0 . and so quickly becomes subdominant. at which time tracking comes to an end. n. Now suppose that the integration dµ independent of the value of n. (251) Ωφ = 3µa (1 − w)2 µ0 that [177] uses a different normalisation for V . It retains the property of having a Newtonian limit as µ → µ0 and a MOND limit as µ → 0. 23 Note constant is chosen such that V (µa µ0 ) = 0 as well. H. The cases −2 < n < 0 turn out to be pathological as they lead to singularities in the cosmological evolution [177]. There are no oscillations around that point. we get tracker solutions until the energy density of the Universe drops to values comparable with this cosmological constant. which means that the scalar field is slowly rolling. In this case we once again get a transient solution where the scalar field evolves as φ ∝ a4/(3+n) [1148]. n. but rather the evolution of ρφ is such that it evolves more rapidly than the matter density. If the background fluid is a cosmological constant. by taking dV = n cn dV dµ dµ [177]. and it can be shown that Γ = 2H(e−3Ht − 1). In the case that the integration constant is chosen such that V (µa µ0 ) = 0 one has an effective cosmological constant present. the radiation era tracker is untenable for realistic cosmological evolutions. and a power index. Furthermore. i. For example in the case w = 0 we have H ∝ a−nh . φ and µ then depends on the equation of state of the matter fields. 2 µ2 dµ 32π B 0 µ0 − µ (250) This function23 reduces to the Bekenstein function when n = 2 and µa = 2. ˙ at which point φ = 0. The scalar field relative density is now given by (1 + 3w)2 . for which µ0 must be large so that Ωφ is small ( 10−3 ). ρ. The case n = −3 is well behaved when the matter fluid is a cosmological constant. More general functions can also be constructed by considering the sum of the above prototypical function with arbitrary (n) coefficients. and their results can be recovered by rescaling B the B used in this report by → B 3 n−3 µ . This also results in H = H. It should also be pointed out that the evolution of the physical Hubble parameter. The evolution of the scalar field variables Γ. such that 3H 2 = 8πGρ.µa . The cosmological evolution depends on the power index. just like the case of the Bekenstein function. Moreover. ˙ Clearly dV (µa µ0 ) = 0. Contrary to the n ≥ 1 cases. the cosmological evolution drives the function µ to infinity. and the Universe enters a de Sitter phase. where nh = 2(µa µ0 −1) . Then. but it is approached slowly so that it is exactly reached only in the infinite future. can be different than the case of GR even in the tracking 1+3µa µ0 phase [177].

For the case of a stiff fluid, with w = 1, we get that Γ has power-law solutions that are 0 inverse powers of t, so that Γ = 6 + Γ3 . A similar situation arises when −1 < w < 1, for t t 2 which we get Γ = 2(1+3w) H, and the Hubble parameter evolves as H = 3(1+w) 1 . Notice 1−w t that the limit w → 1, for the −1 < w < 1 case, does not smoothly approach the w = 1 case. Mixing different powers of n ≥ 1 leads once again to tracker solutions. One may have to add an integration constant in order to keep V (µa µ0 ) = 0, although for certain combinations of powers n and coefficients ci this is not necessary. Mixing n = 0 with some other n ≥ 1 cannot remove the pathological situation associated with the n = 0 case. Mixing n = 0 with both positive and negative powers could however lead to acceptable cosmological evolution since the effect of the negative power is to drive µ away from the µ = µa µ0 point. In general, if we mix an arbitrary number of positive and negative powers we get tracker solutions provided we can expand the new function in positive definite powers of (µ − µa µ0 ), where µa is some number different from the old µa . The observational consequences for the CMB and LSS have not been investigated for this class of function, unlike the case of the Bekenstein function. Inflationary/accelerating expansion for general functions Diaz-Rivera, Samushia and Ratra [419] have studied cases where TeVeS leads to inflationary, or self-accelerating, solutions. They first consider the vacuum case, in which ˜ ˜ they find that de Sitter solutions exist with b ∼ eH0 t , where the Bekenstein frame Hubble µ2 V 0 ˜ ˜ , and where dV = 0 (i.e. the constant H0 is given by the free function as H0 =
6 dµ

scalar field is constant, φ = φi ). Such a solution will always exist in vacuum provided that the free function satisfies dV (µv ) = 0 and V (µv ) = 0, for some constant µv . In that dµ case, the general solution is not de Sitter since both φ and µ will be time-varying, but will tend to de Sitter as µ → µv . Indeed, the n ≥ 1 case of Bourliot et al. [177] with an integration constant is precisely this kind of situation. In the non-vacuum case, for a fluid with equation of state P = wρ, they make the ansatz b3(1+w) = e(1+3w)φ . This brings the Friedmann equation into the form ˜ 3H 2 = 8πGρ0 + 1 (µ dV + V ), where ρ0 is the matter density today. Once again, they 2 dµ assume that the free-function-dependent general solution drives µ to a constant µv , but ˙ ˜ φ is evolving. Thus, we must have that φ = φ1 t + φ2 , such that φ = φ1 is a constant. In dV order for φ1 to be non-zero we must have dµ (µv ) = 0. However, there is a drawback to this approach. As they point out, consistency with the scalar field equation requires that w < −1. Furthermore, although this solution is a de Sitter solution in the Bekensteinframe, it corresponds to a power-law solution for the universally coupled metric. In order for this power-law solution to lead to acceleration, they find that −5/3 < w < −1. This range of w corresponds to a phantom fluid. Accelerated expansion in TeVeS The simplest case of accelerated expansion in TeVeS is provided by a cosmological constant term. This is equivalent to adding an integration constant to V (µ) [592, 177], and it corresponds to the accelerated expansion considered by Diaz-Rivera, Samushia and Ratra [419] in both the vacuum and non-vacuum cases (see above). These solutions 90

therefore suffer from the usual fine-tuning and coincidence problems, and so it is of interest to look for accelerating solutions without such a constant, simply by employing the scalar field (these need not be de Sitter solutions). Zhao used a function dV ∝ µ2 to obtain solutions which provide acceleration, and dµ compared his solution with the SN1a data [1305], finding good agreement. However, it is not clear whether other observables, such as the CMB angular power spectrum, or observations of LSS are compatible with this function. Furthermore, this function is not realistic, as it does not have a Newtonian limit (it is always MONDian). Although no further studies of accelerated expansion in TeVeS have been performed, it is plausible to think that certain choices of function could lead to acceleration. This is because the scalar field action has the same form as a k-essence/k-inflation action [65, 66], which has been considered as a candidate theory for acceleration. More precisely, the system of cosmological equations corresponds to k-essence coupled to matter. It is not known in general whether this type of model has similar features as the uncoupled k-essence models, although Zhao’s study indicates that this a possibility. Realistic FLRW cosmology In TeVeS, cold dark matter is absent. Therefore in order to get acceptable values for the physical Hubble constant today (i.e. around H0 ∼ 70 km s−1 Mpc−1 ) , we have to supplement the absence of CDM with something else. The reason for this is simply that if all the energy density in the Universe today was in the form of baryons, then the Hubble constant would be lower than what is observed by a factor of ∼5. Possibilities of what this supplementary material could be include the scalar field itself, massive neutrinos [1153, 502], and a cosmological constant. At the same time, one has to get the right angular diameter distance to recombination [502]. These two requirements can place severe constraints on the allowed form of the free functions. 3.4.4. Cosmological perturbation theory Cosmological perturbation theory in TeVeS has been formulated to linear order in [1147], and in variants of TeVeS with more general vector field actions in [1148]. The scalar modes of the linearly perturbed universally coupled metric are given in the conformal Newtonian gauge, as usual, by ds2 = −a2 (1 + 2Ψ)dτ 2 + a2 (1 − 2Φ)qij dxi dxj , (252)

where τ is conformal time, defined by dt = adτ . Here, we will assume, for simplicity, that the spatial curvature is zero. The reader is referred to [1147, 1148] for the curved cases, as well as for an enunciation of vector and tensor perturbations. The scalar field ¯ ¯ is perturbed as φ = φ + ϕ, where φ is the FLRW background scalar field, and ϕ is the ¯ perturbation. The vector field is perturbed as Aµ = ae−φ (1 + Ψ − ϕ, i α), such that the unit-timelike constraint is satisfied. This removes the time component of Aµ as an independent dynamical degree of freedom. Thus, there are two additional dynamical degrees of freedom, when comparing to cosmological perturbation theory in GR: The scalar field perturbation, ϕ, and the vector field scalar mode, α. The perturbed field equations for the scalar modes can be found in the conformal Newtonian gauge in [1153], and in more form (including in the synchronous gauge) 91

in [1147]. Perturbation equations for more general TeVeS actions are given in [1148]. Here we only present the Newtonian gauge equations of the original TeVeS formulation. ¯ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ We define the following variables: Φ = Φ − ϕ, Ψ = Ψ − ϕ, ζ = −(1 − e−4φ )α and H = b . b The scalar field obeys the two first order equations γ ˜ = −3Hγ + µ −3φ 2 ¯ eφ ¯ ˜ ¯ ¯ ˜ e ¯ k ϕ + φ α − µφ 6Φ + 2k 2 ζ a  a
¯ ¯


+8πGae−3φ 

δρf + 3δPf +



¯ ˜ (¯f + 3Pf ) Ψ − 2ϕ  ρ


ϕ =− The vector field equations are given by

1 ¯ ¯˜ ae−φ γ + φ Ψ. 2U


¯ ˜ K E + HE = −¯φ (ϕ − φ α) + 8πGa2 (1 − e−4φ ) µ¯ and ¯ ˜ α =E+Ψ+ φ −H α


¯ (¯f + Pf )(θf − α) ρ



and finally the Einstein equations are given by the Hamiltonian constraint
¯ ˜ ¯¯ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜˜ −2 k 2 − 3κ Φ − 2e4φ H 3Φ + k 2 ζ + 3HΨ + ae3φ φ γ

−Kk 2 E = 8πGa2 the momentum constraint equation


ρf [δf − 2ϕ] ¯


¯ ˜ ˜ ˜ ¯¯ ˜ Φ + κζ + HΨ − µφ ϕ = 4πGa2 e−4φ

¯ (¯f + Pf )θf ρ


and the two propagation equations
¯˜ ¯ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ 6Φ + 2k 2 ζ − e−4φ Ψ + 2e−4φ k 2 − 3κ Φ + 2H 6Φ + 3Ψ + 2k 2 ζ

µ −φ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ae φ γ + 6 2H + H2 + 4φ H Ψ U ¯ = 24πGa2 e−4φ (δP − 2P ϕ) ¯ ˜ ˜ +4φ 3Φ + k 2 ζ + 3 and
¯ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ¯ Φ − Ψ + e4φ ζ + 2 H + φ

(259) (260)

˜ ζ = 8πGa2

¯ (¯f + Pf )Σf ρ

Let us now turn to the problem of specifying initial conditions for the scalar modes, which in general should depend on the chosen form of the free function. The exact adiabatic growing mode in TeVeS, and generalised variants, have been found by Skordis in [1148], but only for the case of the generalised Bekenstein function. If the free function 92

is such so that the scalar field contribution to the background expansion during the radiation era is very small, however, then the adiabatic modes for other free functions should be only marginally different from the ones found in [1148]. In particular, the only effect should be a difference in the initial conditions of ϕ, which is not expected to make any difference to observations. The only study that has been performed of the observational signatures of TeVeS in the CMB radiation and in LSS is due to Skordis, Mota, Ferreira and Bœhm [1153]. Here the initial conditions were chosen such that both ϕ and α, as well as their derivatives, are initially zero. While this is not a purely adiabatic initial condition, it turns out that it is close enough to ensure that no observable difference can be seen from isocurvature contamination. Detailed studies of isocurvature modes in TeVeS have not yet been conducted. In the light of the problems that TeVeS has with observations of the CMB radiation [1153], however, it may be important to investigate what effects isocurvature modes are likely to have. Preliminary studies by Mota, Ferreira and Skordis have shown that setting the vector field perturbations to be large initially can have a significant impact [910]. In addition to the four regular isocurvature modes that exist in GR, there could in principle exist four further isocurvature modes in TeVeS: Two associated with the scalar field, and two associated with the vector field. Preliminary studies by Skordis have shown that none of the scalar field isocurvature modes are regular in either the synchronous or conformal Newtonian gauges. Conversely, under certain conditions of the vector field parameters one of the vector field isocurvature modes can be regular, while the other one is never regular. Thus, it may be possible to have one regular isocurvature mode in the TeVeS sector. The observational consequences of this mode are still unknown, as is its generation method from early universe inflation. Studies of the observable spectra based on vector or tensor modes are also yet to be conducted although the necessary equations can be found in [1147, 1148]. 3.4.5. Cosmological observations and constraints Let us now consider the observational signatures of the perturbation theory discussed above, and how they can be used to constrain TeVeS. Large-scale structure observations A traditional criticism of MOND-type theories was their lack of a dark matter component, and therefore their presumed inability to form large-scale structure compatible with current observational data. This criticism was based on intuition formed from a general relativistic universe filled with baryons only. In that case it is well known that, since baryons are coupled to photons before recombination, they do not have enough time to grow into structures on their own. Furthermore, their oscillatory behaviour at recombination is preserved, and is visible as large oscillation in the observed galaxy power spectrum Pgg (k). Finally, on scales smaller than the diffusion damping scale they are exponentially suppressed due to Silk damping. Cold dark matter solves all of these problems because it does not couple to photons, and therefore can start creating potential wells early on in the Universe’s history, into which the baryons can fall. This is enough to generate the right amount of structure, erase most of the oscillations, and overcome the Silk damping. 93

TeVeS contains two additional fields, not present in GR, that change the structure of the equations significantly. The first study of large-scale structure observations in TeVeS was conducted by Skordis, Mota, Ferreira and Bœhm in [1153]. Here the perturbed TeVeS equations were solved numerically for the case of the Bekenstein function, and the effects on the matter power spectrum, P (k), were determined. It was found that TeVeS can indeed form large-scale structure compatible with observations, depending on the choice of TeVeS parameters in the free function. In fact, the form of the matter power spectrum, P (k), in TeVeS looks quite similar to the corresponding spectrum in ΛCDM. Thus, one has to turn to other observables to distinguish the TeVeS from General Relativity. Dodelson and Liguori [427] provided an analytical explanation of the growth of structure that was found numerically in [1153]. They concluded the growth in TeVeS cannot be due to the scalar field, as the scalar field perturbations are Bessel functions that decaying in an oscillatory fashion. Instead, they reasoned, the growth of large-scale structure in TeVeS is due to the vector field perturbation. Let us see how the vector field leads to growth. Using the tracker solutions in the matter era, from Bourliot et al. [177], we can find the behaviour of the background ¯ functions a, b and φ. Using these in the perturbed field equations, after setting the scalar field perturbations to zero, it can be shown that in the matter era the vector field perturbation α obeys the equation α + b2 b1 α + 2 α = S(Ψ, Ψ , θ) τ τ (261)

in the conformal Newtonian gauge, where b1 b2 = = 4(µ0 µa − 1) , µ0 µa + 3 2 4 µ2 µ2 − 5 + 0 a 2 (µ0 µa + 3) K (262) µ0 µa + 6 , (263)

and where S is a source term which does not explicitly depend on α. If we simultaneously take the limits µ0 → ∞ and K → 0, for which Ωφ → 0, meaning that the TeVeS contribution is absent, then we get b1 → 4 and b2 → 2. In this case the two homogeneous solutions to Eq. (261) are τ −2 and τ −1 , which are decaying. ˙ Dodelson and Liguori show that the source term S(Ψ, Ψ, θ) is not sufficient to create a growing mode in the general solution to Eq. (261), and that in the general relativistic limit TeVeS does not, therefore, provide enough growth for structure formation. Now let us consider the general case. Assuming that the homogeneous solutions to (261) can be written as τ n , it can be shown that for the generalised Bekenstein function of Bourliot et al. [177] we can get 3 1 32 n≈− + 1+ . (264) 2 2 Kµ0 µa Thus, we can have n > 0, provided that for fixed µ0 µa we also have24 K
24 Smaller



values of µ0 µa can also raise this threshold.


Figure 3: LEFT: The evolution in redshift of baryon density fluctuations in TeVeS (solid line), and in ΛCDM (dashed line) for a wavenumber k = 10−3 Mpc−1 . In both cases, the baryon density fluctuates before recombination, and grows afterwards. In the case of ΛCDM, the baryon density eventually follows the CDM density fluctuation (dotted line), which starts growing before recombination. In the case of TeVeS, the baryons grow due to the potential wells formed by the growing mode in the vector field, α (dot-dashed line). RIGHT: The difference of the two gravitational potentials, Φ − Ψ, for a wavenumber k = 10−3 Mpc−1 as a function of redshift for both TeVeS (solid line), and ΛCDM (dotted line).

If this condition is met then there can exist a growing mode in α, which in turn feeds back into the perturbed Einstein equation and sources a non-decaying mode in Φ that can drive structure formation. This is displayed graphically in the left panel of Figure 3. It is a striking result that even if the contribution of the TeVeS fields to the background FLRW equations is negligible (∼ 10−3 or less), one can still get a growing mode that drives structure formation. CMB observations A general relativistic universe dominated by baryons cannot fit the most up to date observations of anisotropies in the CMB [984]. This is true even if a cosmological constant and/or three massive neutrinos are incorporated into the matter budget, so that the first peak of the CMB angular power spectrum is at the right position25 . This, however, is not proof that only a theory with CDM can fit CMB observations (as claimed in [1155, 1173]). A prime example to the contrary is the Eddington-Born-Infeld theory [70]. However, the linear Boltzmann equation, and the resulting CMB angular power spectrum, have been calculated in TeVeS, using initial conditions that are close to adiabatic [1153]. The resulting fits to the data were poor, at least for the Bekenstein free function, showing that CMB observations are, nevertheless, problematic for TeVeS. It may be that the new isocurvature modes discussed above can provide a richer phenomenology but it remains to be seen whether this can save this theory.
25 In

this case the third peak is unacceptably lower than the second.


The Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble Theory In this subsection we will briefly describe the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble (ECSK) theory [259. The former are given by dxα dxβ d2 xµ + Γµαβ = 0. 1105. [601]. but has non-zero torsion. Φ − Ψ. 2 ds αβ ds ds γ (267) −gµν dxµ dxν . The ECSK theory as a theory with torsion The ECSK theory is basically General Relativity with the addition of torsion. The addition of torsion to the connection has a direct consequence on the geometry of curves. to the shear of matter. it will also inevitably lead to growth in Φ − Ψ. and is given by Eq. then it will provide an excellent test of TeVeS. Other Theories 3. Indeed. however. However. This is not due to the existence of the vector field per se. In this case. 3. in a single metric theory where the vector field action is Maxwellian. 260.The difference in the gravitational potentials: Φ − Ψ The result of Dodelson and Liguori [427] have a further direct consequence: The perturbation equations in TeVeS that relate the difference of the two gravitational potentials. If Φ − Ψ can be measured observationally.5. 691]. It is. autoparallels (straightest lines) are not necessarily extremals (shortest or longest lines) as they are in GR. there is no contribution from the vector field to Φ − Ψ. Now. (266) αβ where K µαβ is the contorsion tensor given in terms of the torsion S µαβ by Eq.5. 1104. This is precisely what we see numerically in the right panel of Figure 3. The ECSK theory has been reviewed by Hehl et al. spinning test particles do feel the torsion and obey analogues 96 . α. and is thus given by µ Γµαβ = + K µαβ .1. The Riemann tensor is antisymmetric in both the first and the last two indices. (40). The connection is assumed to be metric compatible. and hence the Ricci tensor is its only unique non-vanishing contraction. ds2 ds ds while the latter are found by minimising the proper length given by d2 xµ µ dxα dxβ + = 0. 261. and more recently by Trautman [1215]. and are (268) Spin-less test particles and gauge-fields (e.g. but comes from the disformal transformation in which the vector field plays an important part. asymmetric. have additional contributions coming from the perturbed vector field. (38). photons) do not feel the torsion and follow the extremals. as in TeVeS. The ECSK theory is in many cases equivalent to General Relativity and departs from GR only when at least one matter field has intrinsic spin. as the vector field is required to grow in order to drive structure formation. This possibility is discussed in more detail in section 6.

We can proceed one further step. however. (269) only determines the symmetric part of the Einstein tensor. that the metricity assumption also means that the Palatini tensor simplifies to Pαµβ = Sµαβ + 2gµ[α Sβ] . The action and field equations The action for the ECSK theory is the same as the one for the metric-affine gravity described in Eq. 1214. Due to the antisymmetry of the torsion in the last two −g αβ indices. as it does in the general metric-affine case. and assume from the start that Qµαβ = 0. (270) and (272) form a consistent set of field equations for the ECSK theory. but instead take as independent variables the metric and the contorsion. Now. (46). It is straightforward to show that the spin-energy potential and the spin angular momentum tensors are related to each other by ταµβ = −µ[αβ]µ (273) and µµαβ = τµαβ − τβµα + ταβµ . Variation with respect to the inverse metric at constant contorsion then gives α Γ G(µν) + α P(µν) − P α (269) (µν) = 8πGTµν . 97 (274) . (46). Hence no inconsistency arises from Eq. Equations (269). Eq. Note. Variation with Pµ αβ = 8πGτµ αβ . We can follow a different approach. and that the connection is given by Eq. (272) where µ = Γ µ + 2Sµ . µν αβ ≡ − √1 δS µm . however. This leads to the definition of the spin-energy δL potential. Due to −g αβ the anti-symmetry of the contorsion in the first and third indices we also have that ταµβ = −τβµα . Using Eqs. To make sure that no inconsistency arises one has to impose Qµαβ = 0 with a Lagrange multiplier. Eq. (266). with the additional assumption that the connection is metric compatible. (270). The reader is referred to [599. (271) and (38) gives the anti-symmetric part of the Einstein tensor as G[µν] = R[µν] = ∗ ∗ α α Pµ ν . without the Lagrange constraint. (270) δL where τµ αβ = − √1 δK µm is the spin angular momentum tensor of matter. 1024]. δLm 1 where the matter stress-energy tensor is given by Tµν = − 2√−g δgµν respect to the contorsion gives K . The notions of autoparallel and extremal curves coincide if and only if the torsion is totally antisymmetric. 8] for further discussion. Variation with respect to Γµαβ then proceeds in the usual way. and consider the torsion rather than the contorsion as the 2nd independent variable. (271) which is also antisymmetric in the first and third indices. but we also need the anti-symmetric part. however. We can then vary the action.of the Mathisson-Papapetrou equations [868. the spin-energy potential also obeys µναβ = −µνβα .

obtained in the usual way from the Levi-Civita connection. 2 where Gµν is the Einstein tensor of gµν . This means that it completely vanishes in vacuum. This new stress-energy tensor has a very important interpretation [601]: It is none other than the canonical stress-energy tensor. or in cases where matter does not couple to contorsion (e. and τµ = τ ββµ . in the ECSK theory the usual symmetrisation procedure of the canonical stress-energy tensor to obtain the stress-energy tensor that enters the Einstein equations is not necessary.Carrying out the variation this way defines a new stress-energy tensor. the torsion in the ECSK theory is non-dynamical. (280) Let us now discuss a further property of the ECSK theory. Thus.g. (272) to form the full asymmetric Einstein tensor. Equations (277) and (270) form a consistent set of field equations that determine the geometry of the space-time from the matter stress-energy and spin distribution. This is related to Tµν by σµν = Tµν − 2 Sβα(ν τµ)αβ + Sαβ(ν τµ)αβ − τ βα Sν)αβ − τ α(µβ Sν)βα . The final form of the field equations after eliminating torsion is then found to be Gµν = 8πGTµν + (8πG)2 2τβα(µ τ + α β ν) − 2τα τ α(µν) − ταµβ τ αν β (281) 1 2τ µαβ ταµβ + τ αµβ ταµβ − 2τα τ α gµν . scalar and gauge fields). and using Eq. By inspecting of the field equations (277) and (270) we notice that there are no derivatives of the torsion appearing anywhere. at constant δLm 1 S µαβ by σµν ≡ − 2√−g δgµν S . 98 . (276) (µ (µ After some algebra. Thus. we find that the Einstein equations simplify to Γ Gµν = 8πGΣµν . Since S αµν is algebraically determined one can eliminate it from all of the field equations. (µ (275) The field equations obtained from varying the action with respect to the metric are Γ G(µν) + α Pµν α + Pνµ α +2 P βα Sν)αβ + P α β Sν)βα − Sβα(ν Pµ)αβ − Sαβ(ν Pµ)αβ = 8πGσµν . Its presence is directly given in terms of the spin-angular momentum of matter by Eq. They are supplemented by the conservation laws ∗ ν ν Σµ = 2Σαβ S αµβ − τα βλ Rαµβλ ∗ α α τµ ν (279) and = Σ[µν] . ∗ α α µµ ν (277) where Σµν = σµν + (278) is a new stress-energy tensor. (270). σµν .

There are. STVG is a theory that contains a vector field. Cosmology with spin and torsion has been studied in the hope that the cosmological singularity may be avoided. 1195. Thus.2. Conditions for such high densities can exist in the early universe. (285) and where Bµν = ∂µ φν − ∂ν φµ . it appears that only under very unrealistic circumstances can one avoid the cosmological singularity in the ECSK theory (see [601. G √ 1 d4 x −g[ω( B µν Bµν + V (φ))].Consequences of the ECSK theory We introduced the ECSK theory as a minimal modification of GR through the introduction of torsion and the application of the Palatini procedure. a number of unsatisfactory features of this interpretation. One may then ask when is the ECSK theory different from GR? By inspection. ω and µ. [601]. However. as well as the normal Newtonian force. we will briefly present the Scalar-Tensor-Vector theory of gravity (STVG) proposed in [905]. and then later by Hehl et al. A key characteristic of this theory is that the modified acceleration law for weak gravitational fields has a repulsive Yukawa force. 686. As was shown by Kibble [691]. Quantisation of the theory fares no better than in GR. and the torsion has vanishing canonical momentum. (281) tells us that the spin-potential modifications enter with an additional power of the Planck mass. For electrons the critical mass density such that spin effects are important is ∼ 1038 kg m−3 while for neutrons it is ∼ 1045 kg m−3 [602]. the ECSK theory emerges as the minimal description of space-time when one constructs a local gauge theory of the Poincar´ e group. 99 . Scalar-Tensor-Vector Theory As a matter of completeness. however. we only expect the ECSK theory to deviate from GR at very high spin-densities of matter. Eq. 757]). The reader is referred to [601] for more details. The action for STVG takes the form S = SGrav + Sφ + SS + SM . φµ . where SGrav Sφ SS = = = = 1 16π √ 1 d4 x −g (R + 2Λ) . gαβ . which makes it hard to construct a quantum description. G. It is still non-renormalizable (the spin contact interactions are reminiscent of 4-fermion interaction terms in quantum field theory). 3. 4 √ 1 1 µν g d4 x −g µ G ν G − V (G) 3 G 2 √ 1 1 µν d4 x −g g µ ω ν ω − V (ω) G 2 √ 1 1 µν d4 x −g 2 g µ µ ν µ − V (µ) µ G 2 (283) (284) (282) . and a metric. three scalar fields.5.

the weak field limit. 100 .This action has been studied in [905] where the full field equations. the author of [905] has posited a certain number of scaling relations that translate into spatial dependences for G. As would be expected from the complexity of the action. The reader is referred to [905] for further details. it is difficult to completely solve this system in the detail required to make accurate predictions. and cosmological solutions are presented. ω and µ. Hence. It is argued in [905] that the classical action for this theory could be considered as an effective field theory for a renormalisation-group-flow-quantum-gravity scenario.

2. generically referred to as f (R) theories of gravity. a choice that leads by Lovelock’s theorem to fourth-order field equations for anything except the addition of a constant term to the gravitational Lagrangian. 832]. Nevertheless we include them in this section as both theories contain nontrivial derivative interaction terms. and that they can lead to a period of accelerating expansion early in the Universe’s history [1179]. One way to extend GR is therefore to permit the field equations to be higher than second order. and [1281] for an overview). 101 . the galileon theory in particular is constructed with this in mind. where the higher order derivatives act on the conformal mode that does not propagate in GR. dating back to as early as 1918 [1269]. in order to guard against ghost-like instabilities. Here we consider the latter of these options. In fact.4. and 4.1. 1118.3. only a few years after the first papers on General Relativity by Einstein. or by making the action a more general function of the Ricci scalar then the simple linear one that leads to Einstein’s equations. rather than automatically generating a ghost. and have a number of reviews dedicated to them [969. one allows for higher-order spatial derivatives. Strictly speaking these are not higher-derivative theories since their field equations are at most second order in derivatives. Such theories can have interesting phenomenology. In particular. In both of these examples the theory can deviate considerably from GR. as opposed to higher time derivatives. In Hoˇavar Lifschitz gravity. argued to be) less susceptible to instabilities than one may have initially suspected. such a generalisation might be considered desirable as it will cause the graviton propagator to fall off more quickly in the UV. then they may simply render them dynamical. 4. Modifying gravity in this way. Indeed. 978]. More recently they have been of considerable interest as a possible explanation for the observed late-time accelerating expansion of the Universe. however. We will not discuss theories with infinite derivatives. at least. This section also includes galileon and ghost condensate theories.5. 70s and 80s by the revelations that the quantisation of matter fields in an unquantised space-time can lead to such theories [1239]. In this section we consider those gravity theories that are higher than second-order in derivatives. 4. f (R) Theories Fourth-order theories of gravity have a long history. if the higher derivatives act only on what would otherwise be non-dynamical modes.5. This interest was stimulated in the 1960s. as occur in string field theory.4. while still maintaining some basic stability properties. 1167.1. also has a number of drawbacks. For example.1 that General Relativity represents the most general theory describing a single metric that in four dimensions has field equations with at most second-order derivatives [831. such as ghost-like degrees of freedom (see Sections 2. Such theories. This is what happens in f (R) gravity. Higher Derivative and Non-Local Theories of Gravity Recall from Section 2. or p-adic string theory (see [904] for discussion of such theories). 374. that f (R) theories of gravity can have improved renormalisation properties [1186]. as another example.1. and in many cases can be shown (or. it can introduce instabilities into the theory. thereby improving the renormalisability properties. have been intensively studied. These theories generalise the Einstein-Hilbert action by adding additional scalar curvature invariants to the action.

however. the f (R) theories of gravity derived from the metric variational approach can be conformally transformed into a frame in which the field 102 .µν + gµν fR = Tµν . (286) depend on the variational principle that one adopts. except an additional constant. Conformal transformation in the metric variational approach As with scalar-tensor theories. √ where the factor of −g is included. as usual. including a matter term and varying with respect to gµν yields √ χ 1 (287) δS = dΩ −g f g µν δgµν + fR δR + T µν δgµν . Action. (289) reduces to the Einstein tensor. and the ‘metric-affine’ approach in which the same process occurs but the matter action is now taken to be a functional of the connection as well as the metric. and the field equations are second-order in derivatives of the metric. This is clearly about as simple a generalisation of the Einstein-Hilbert density as one could possibly conceive of. χ is a constant. and Tµν is the energy-momentum tensor defined by a variation of the matter action with respect to gµν in the usual way. the equations in (289) are fourth-order in derivatives. the field equations that one obtains from the least action principle associated with Eq. For all other cases. It can be seen that for the special case f = R the LHS of Eq.ρσ (g µν g ρσ − g µρ g νσ )]δgµν . 2 2 where fR means the functional derivative of f with respect to R. Integrating Eq. In this section we will mostly be concerned with the metric variational approach. then gives 1 χ fR Rµν − f gµν − fR. in order to have the proper weight. although we will also outline how the other procedures work below. (288) where is used here to mean equal up to surface terms [568]. Assuming the connection is the Levi-Civita one we can then write fR δR −[fR Rµν + fR. Unlike the Einstein-Hilbert term. The field equations derived from such an action are automatically generally covariant and Lorentz invariant for exactly the same reasons that Einstein’s equations are. Metric variational approach Let us now derive the field equations in the metric variational approach.1. by setting the first variation to zero. Looking for a stationary point of the action. field equations and transformations The f (R) generalisations of Einstein’s equations are derived from a Lagrangian density of the form √ (286) L = −gf (R). 2 2 (289) These are the f (R) field equations with which we will be primarily concerned in this section.1. (286) over a 4-volume. (286) is varied with respect to the metric and connection independently. the ‘Palatini approach’ in which Eq.4. Different possibilities are the ‘metric variation’ where the connection is assumed to be the Levi-Civita one.

Legendre transformation in the metric variational approach As well as conformal transformations. with a minimally coupled scalar field. particularly when the minimally coupled scalar field is in a quadratic potential [155]. unlike the case of conformal transformations. Such transformations allow the field equations of f (R) to take the form of a scalar-tensor theory (albeit it a slightly strange one). showing that the two Lagrangian densities are indeed equivalent. to be transformed into 1 χ ¯ ¯ ¯ Rµν − gµν R = 2 2 1 φ. (294) where χ is a new field.equations become those of General Relativity. The first step here is to notice that the Eq. 2 103 (297) . Substitution of this result back into Eq. (289). then we can define a potential Λ(φ) ≡ 1 [χ(φ)φ − f (χ(φ))] . 853] gµν = fR gµν . (294) then immediately recovers Eq. (286) can be written in the equivalent form √ L = −g [f (χ) + f (χ)(R − χ)] . one can also perform Legendre transformations on f (R) theories in the metric variational approach. ¯ together with the definition φ≡ 3 ln fR . Variation with respect to χ then gives f (χ)(R − χ) = 0.ν − gµν g ρσ φ. and a non-metric coupling to the matter fields. (286). and we have defined V = V (φ) ≡ (RfR − f ) . Now. 2 χfR (293) Theories derived from an action of the form (286) can therefore always be conformally transformed into General Relativity with a massless scalar field (as long as fR = 0). (296) and assume that φ(χ) is an invertible function.ρ φ. This is sometimes referred to as ‘Bicknell’s theorem’ in the case of f (R) theories. What is more.µ φ. In the general case we consider conformal transformations of the form [101. These transformed theories maintain the universal metric coupling of the matter fields. the special case f (χ) = 0 can be seen to correspond to the Einstein-Hilbert action. if we make the definition φ ≡ f (χ). 2 (292) ¯ Here Tµν is a non-conserved energy-momentum tensor. Eqs. and the prime denotes differentiation. χ (291) (290) which allows the field equations from the metric variational principle. (295) so that χ = R for all f (χ) = 0.σ − gµν V ¯ ¯ ¯ 2 + χ¯ Tµν .

The next step is the variation of Eq. the Palatini approach leads to an entirely different set of field equations. (97). which is not the Levi-Civita connection unless fR =constant (as is the case in GR). It can be noted from Eq.In terms of this new scalar field we can then write the density (294) as √ L = −g [φR − 2Λ(φ)] . we could instead treat the metric and connection as independent fields. with which it is compatible. 2 2 where Tµν is once again the usual energy-momentum tensor. as specified in Eq. the coupling of this field to any matter fields that are present remains unchanged.σ = 0. and R should be understood to be constructed from the metric connection compatible with gµν . and extremising with respect to gµν now gives χ 1 (299) fR Rµν − gµν f = Tµν . there are a number of very severe problems in proceeding with the Palatini 104 . however. but no kinetic term: √ L = −¯ R − 2V (φ) . and should be considered a different set of theories to the f (R) in which R is a priori taken to be constructed from the Levi-Civita connection. Here R(φ) and f (φ) are given by ¯ inverting the definition of φ. so that the difference between the metric variational approach and the Palatini approach is a semantic one. (289). and R should be taken to be given by g µν Rµν . Transforming back to the original conformal ¯ frame this theory then can be shown to be equivalent to a scalar-tensor theory with ω = −3/2 and Λ = (RfR − f )/2 [999]. (286) over some 4-volume. which results in √ −gg µν fR . (298) which is clearly just a scalar-tensor theory. Starting with an integral of Eq. ¯ Rewriting the full field equations under this conformal transformation we see that we recover General Relativity with a minimally coupled scalar field in a potential. For the case of f (R) theories. For the case of General Relativity a variation with respect to the connection then simply results in the connection being shown to be the Levi-Civita one. with vanishing coupling constant. (300) that even if the connection is not compatible with the metric gµν . While being an interesting variant on the metric variational incarnation of the f (R) theories. The Palatini procedure Starting again from the density (286) we can also proceed in a entirely different way to the metric variational approach just described. (286) with respect to Γµνσ . we can still define a new metric. and only first derivatives of the connection. gµν = fR gµν . In this expression Rµν is now defined independently from the metric. As we have not transformed the metric. g ¯ (301) where φ ≡ fR and V (φ) = (R(φ)φ − f (φ))/2φ2 . (300) where the covariant derivative here should be understood to be taken with respect to Γµνσ . It is remarkable that the field equations (299) do not involve any derivatives of the metric. Instead of assuming the connection from which the Ricci scalar is constructed is the Levi-Civita one. ω = 0. These are a different set of field equations to Eq.

on Γµνσ vanishes. 883. 782. One can therefore think of the action (302) as a generalisation of the Palatini action. 29. 881. but now allows the matter action to be a function of both metric and connection (rather than metric alone. It can then be shown that ∆µ = 0 corresponds to a vanishing of the torsion. as is the case in Palatini and metric variational formalisms). 258. as in the Palatini procedure. 999. 882. 224. 1232. Furthermore. 31. 2 3 √ [νρ] where ∆µνρ ≡ −(2/ −g)δSm /δΓµνρ . 30. and for cosmology to [1251. 726].σ (303) δ νρ − √ −gfR g µν = . Not least of these is the apparent ill-posed nature of the Cauchy problem in the presence of most matter fields. The relevant action for the theory then becomes [1168] S= √ dΩ −gf (R) + Sm (gµν . 1163. and results in the field equations χ 1 fR Rµν − gµν f = Tµν . Here one again considers the metric and connection to be independent. 640]. For these reasons we will focus on f (R) theories in the metric variational approach in the sections that follow. Without a well-posed initial value problem f (R) gravity in the Palatini formalism lacks predictive power. which is discussed in [766]. 1000. An interesting class of theories that interpolate between the Palatini approach to f (R) theories and the metric variational approach to f (R) theories is investigated in [39. 509. 429. the invariance of the Ricci scalar under the projective transformation Γµνσ → Γµνσ + λν δ µσ can lead to inconsistency of the field equations. 793. as in the Palatini procedure. 1078. which is recovered when the dependence of the matter action. 28. For further details of the Palatini approach to f (R) gravity. 665. as matter fields do not generically exhibit an invariance of this type. 105 . 34. and singularities in systems that are usually well described by weak fields [87. 1162. 724. For studies of weak field gravity in the Palatini formalism the reader is referred to [92. the reader is referred to [1167]. and hence is not a good candidate for a viable theory of gravity. 781. the Palatini approach to f (R) gravity also appears to introduce problematic strong couplings between gravity and matter fields at low energies [509. and the results that follow from it. 884. 497]. 725. 88.ρ + 2fR g µσ Γν [σρ] (304) χ 2 µ] ∆ρµν − ∆σσ[ν δ ρ . and ∆µ (νρ) = 0 introduces non-zero non-metricity [1168]. 1001.procedure in this way. and 1 √ −g √ −gfR g µσ . 1077]. As is the case in General Relativity. This invariance can be cured by adding to the action an additional Lagrange multiplier term √ of the form S = dΩ −gB µ Λν [νσ] . 727. Sm . 1164. (302) where R = g µν Rµν . 2 2 together with Γµ[µν] = 0. Γµνσ . 89]. and Rµν is taken to be a function of the connection only. Ψ). The metric-affine approach One further approach to the f (R) theories of gravity is the ‘metric-affine’ formulation.

(308) and (309) are exponentially suppressed. and we recover ψ = φ ∝ −m/r. and where we have defined the mass m2 ≡ 0 1 . and do not occur in the actual field equations themselves.The metric-affine approach has not been studied as intensively as the other approaches to f (R) gravity that we have already discussed. (308) (309) 16πφ = where boundary conditions at infinity have been imposed to eliminate exponentially increasing modes. Here we will first consider perturbations about Minkowski space. (306) to find φ. however. In the limit of small masses.1. The first step here is to write down the perturbed line-element as ds2 = −(1 + 2ψ)dt2 + (1 − 2φ)(dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 ). and more general situations. when m0 r−1 . ρ = mδ.2. and will not feature heavily in the sections that follow. obeys χ 6αδR − R = − ρ. the Yukawa potentials in Eqs. and then perturbations around de Sitter space. with m0 r−1 . Weak-field limit The weak field limit of f (R) theories of gravity has been extensively studied in the literature. The derivatives of ρ in this last equation occur due to replacing terms containing φ with those obtained from taking derivatives of Eq. Inserting a delta function source. . One can see straight away that for large masses. 2 and that the potential ψ obeys (1 + 6α∆)∆ψ = χ (1 + 8α∆)ρ. 6α (310) Mass terms similar to this continue to exist for more general theories. as we will outline shortly. 4. Perturbations about Minkowski space The first attempt at finding the Newtonian limit of an f (R) theory appears to have been performed by Pechlaner and Sexl for the case of f = R + αR2 [1029]. 106 . R = −2∆ψ + 4∆φ. (305) neglecting time derivatives and second order terms in φ and ψ one then finds that the Ricci scalar. (306). 4 (307) (306) where ∆ is the Laplacian on Euclidean 3-space. one then gets the solutions [1029] 16πψ = χm r χm − r − e−m0 r 3 −m0 r e 1− 3 1+ . and integrating Eq. (307). time dependent backgrounds. and inhomogeneous backgrounds. using the solution to Eq.

The terms in Eqs. P is pressure. One is.we instead find that ψ = 2φ ∝ −m/r. 107 . (313)-(314) that are functionals of derivatives of ρ. as the scalar degree of freedom becomes massless. and Π is the specific energy density (as defined in [1274]). and can consider the case of analytic f (R) theories that can be expanded as ∞ f (R) = i=1 ci Ri . (311) where the ci are constants. For non-vanishing values of the these constants a large number of extra Yukawa potentials are present. and 1/2 when it is small. when c2 → c3 → 0. where R is the Ricci scalar. also interested in other functions of f (R). ρ is the rest-mass energy density. of course. and the other potentials are defined as Vi ≡ ρ(x )vi (x ) 3 d |x−x | √ x Qe − X(Q) ≡ V(Q) ≡ χ≡ ˆ c1 |x−x | 6c2 Wi ≡ d3 x Yi ≡ ρ(x )(v(x )·(x−x ))(x−x )i 3 d x |x−x |3 c |x−x | Q 3 |x−x | dx c1 − 6c |x−x | 3 2 ρe d x 1 ρ v ·(x−x )(x−x )i − 6c2 |x−x | 3 e d x |x−x |3 c1 − 6c |x−x | 3 2 Zi ≡ ρ v ·(x−x )(x−x )i e d x |x−x |2 c1 − 6c |x−x | 3 ρ(x 1 2 R = 3c2 |x−x) | e d x. To full post-Newtonian order the weak field solution in the presence of a perfect fluid is then given in full generality as [307] g00 = − 1 + 7 2 c2 16c2 2 UR − (U + c2 R) − 2 U 2 + 2 2 R2 − V(U R) c1 c1 c2 3c2 18πc1 1 1 3c2 64 44c2 40c2 + V(R2 ) + 2 V(ρU ) − U) 2 V(ρR) − 3c3 V( ρ · 4πc1 9c1 3c1 1 40c2 2 4 6 1 + 3 2 V( ρ · R) + V(ρΠ) + V(ρv 2 ) + V(P ) + X(U R) c1 c1 c1 c1 6πc1 8c2 1 c2 c3 4 − − X(R2 ) − 2 X(ρU ) + 2 X(ρR) 4π c1 2c2 3c1 3c1 2 8c2 8c 2 2 + 3 X( ρ · U ) − 32 X( ρ · R) − X(P ) + X(ρΠ) (312) 3c1 c1 c1 3c1 Wi X(ρvi ) Yi Zi 7Vi − + − − √ (313) g0i = − 2c1 2c1 6c1 6c1 6 6c1 c2 2 gij = 1 + (U − c2 R) δij (314) c1 where U is the usual Newtonian potential. From the above it can be seen that the results of General Relativity are recovered. to the appropriate order. For the case of f = R + αR2 gravity we therefore already expect the PPN parameter γ to be 1 when the mass of the scalar degree of freedom is large. and for large enough values of c2 we can again see that γ → 1/2. U and R can be recast into a form where such derivatives do not appear by further manipulations [307].

930].g. To lowest order the trace of the field equations is now ∆R1 − fR − fRR R0 3fRR R1 = − χρ . and find that an extra mode of oscillation is possible. and is the familiar limit of theories in which a scalar degree of freedom has low mass. Much work has been performed on establishing the weak field limit of f (R) theories about a de Sitter background. Here we will consider de Sitter space as a background. in order to determine the post-Newtonian behaviour of a theory. [1050. and their derivatives. Here we will briefly sketch out the method by which such a result is found for more general f (R). one should expect to find γ = 1/2. 998. see e. We then proceed by perturbing the Ricci scalar as R = R0 + R1 . become of increasing interest for weak field studies. 1171. but rather a consideration of weak field expansions as applicable to systems such as the solar system and binary pulsars. ψ. while neglecting all time derivatives. (311). The first step here is to identify a de Sitter solution with constant Ricci curvature 2 R = R0 = 12H0 .The study of gravitational waves about a Minkowski space background in f (R) theories has been undertaken by Berry and Gair in [146]. and the authors conclude that current laboratory bounds (that result in |c2 /c1 | < 10−9 m2 ) mean that the extra oscillatory mode they find cannot be excited by astrophysical sources. This is not meant to be an elucidation of cosmological perturbation theory. and de Sitter space in particular. This was shown in an early paper on the subject in [292]. Here the authors consider analytic functions of the type prescribed by Eq. and that R0 in the weak-field systems under consideration takes the same value as 108 . 421. (315) where we have chosen to present the de Sitter background using a static coordinate patch. as relevant for theories that try and account for latetime accelerating expansion without dark energy. Perturbations about de Sitter backgrounds As well as the usual expansions about Minkowski space. (316) where R1 R0 . The line-element is then perturbed as 2 2 ds2 = −(1 + 2ψ − H0 r2 )dt2 + (1 − 2φ + H0 r2 )dr2 + r2 dΩ2 . 1300. in the absence of extra mechanisms to mask such behaviour. 1129. 6fRR (317) where fR and fRR should be understood to be the value of these quantities at R = R0 (implicit here is an assumption that these quantities are all of the same order of magnitude as R0 . Minkowski space is not always a stable solution of f (R) theories of gravity that attempt to produce self-accelerating cosmologies at late-times. The perturbative expansion then linearises all field equations with 2 respect to φ. R1 and H0 r2 . The majority of these studies conclude that. one is also interested in perturbations about other backgrounds. The case of spherical symmetry is considered for simplicity. The gravitational waves emitted by extreme-mass-ratio inspirals are then calculated. and in these cases time-dependent backgrounds. 943. following the approach of [294].

If we consider f (R) theories in which f = R1+δ then one can find exact non-static. (317) is then neglected. Applying the same approximations to the (t. in the cosmological background solution). has not yet been discussed. 2 (322) In this section we have discussed de Sitter space as a background to perturb around. For this same class of f (R) theories exact static. we can now also consider less symmetric spaces to perturb around. as the factor in brackets corresponds to the mass squared of the scalar degree of freedom. t) component of the field equations results in ∆ψ = χρ R1 fRR − + 2fR 2 fR 2 R1 . We can. make progress with some simple cases. a stable asymptotic solution of f (R) theories. 2 (321) This calculation has not been performed in the PPN gauge. under certain conditions. Perturbations about other backgrounds Having considered the maximally symmetric Minkowski space and de Sitter space backgrounds. However. which uses an isotropic spatial coordinate system. which must be small compared to r−1 in order to have late-time accelerating expansion. They will be discussed further in the cosmology section that follows. We will consider this subject in following sections. stable asymptotic attractors for the general class of spatially flat. establishing whether de Sitter space is. The resulting form of R1 is therefore found to be χm . as φ − χm 24πfR r ψ . with the specified symmetries applied [310]. We are now in 109 . This enterprise is hindered by our ability to find less symmetric solutions to the field equations (289). however. but nevertheless one can verify that when interpreted within the standard PPN framework it does indeed give [1001] γ= 1 . 12πfR r (320) The remaining field equations then give φ. to the same order of approximation. vacuum FLRW solutions [248]. spherically symmetric vacuum solutions are also known [310]. and establishing the genericity of initial conditions that lead to de Sitter space at late times. homogeneous and isotropic vacuum solutions [241]. From cosmological considerations the second term on the left-hand side of Eq. which can also be seen to be generic asymptotes of the general solution. (318) R1 24πfRR r where m is the mass of the object at the centre of symmetry. Such solutions can be shown to be. (319) which on substitution of the expression for R1 gives to lowest order ψ − χm .

which gives δ = −1. Chameleon mechanism 110 . W2 and W3 are oscillatory modes [310]. and the constraints on the underlying theory that are derived from it. time independent perturbations around the homogeneous. On the other hand an observer in the static background should measure an anomalous extra gravitational force that goes like [310] δ F ∼− . where a(t) = t δ(1+2δ) (1−δ) .possession of two exact solutions. + (1 − δ)2 (1+2δ) where V (r) and W (r) are given in full generality by V (r) = c3 V1 (r) + c4 V2 (r) + c5 V3 (r) and W (r) = −c3 V1 (r) + c4 W2 (r) + c5 W3 (r).2 × 10−5 when the constraint derived from the Cassini space probe on γ is applied [147]. even though the field equations they obey are identical.1 ± 1. spherically symmetric background found in [310] gives ds2 = −r2δ (1−δ) (1 + V (r))dt2 (1 − 2δ + 4δ 2 )(1 − 2δ − 2δ 2 ) (1 + W (r))dr2 + r2 dΩ2 . The different forms of the gravitational potentials and forces in these examples show that the choice of symmetries of the background space-time can have important consequences for its weak field limit. It can immediately be seen that the form of the linearised perturbations around these two backgrounds are quite different to each other. r The corresponding perturbative analysis about the static. r When subjected to constraints from observations of the perihelion precession of Mercury.7±4. which have less than maximal symmetry. for the same theories. V3 . the presence of this extra force gives δ = 2. time-dependent background found in [241] are given to linear order by [304] ds2 = −(1 + 2ψ)dt2 + a2 (t)(1 − 2φ)(dr2 + r2 dΩ2 ). Spherically symmetric. One can verify that an observer in the homogeneous. The perturbations φ(r) and ψ(r) are then found to be ψ φ = − c1 2c2 (1 − 6δ + 4δ 2 + 4δ 3 ) 2 + r r (5 − 14δ − 12δ 2 ) (1 − 2δ)c1 = − − δc2 r2 .5×10−19 [310]. and which can be used as backgrounds to perturb around. time-dependent background should measure β=1 and γ = 1 − 2δ. where V1 = −r− (1−2δ+4δ 2 ) (1−δ) (323) and where V2 .

and general behaviour Having discussed the weak field solutions which are of interest for inferring constraints on f (R) theories from observations of gravitational phenomena in the solar system and binary pulsar systems. In particular. 629]. the ‘Chameleon Mechanism’ has been applied to f (R) theories.As with a variety of other modified theories of gravity. in e. where a summary of some of the accumulated literature on it was outlined. 244. and use a dynamical systems analysis to determine the behaviour of the general solutions with the specified symmetries. Nevertheless. [267. The relatively simple structure of f (R) theories make such considerations a feasible proposition. As with other applications of the Chameleon mechanism. The black hole ‘no-hair’ theorems have been considered in the context of f (R) = R + αR2 theories by Whitt [1270].1. Isolated masses. which can be obtained in some simple cases. also suggest that this should be true for f (R) gravity. 1180. Collapse to a black hole. and show that the only static spherically symmetric solutions of the theories they consider that have regular horizons are the Schwarzschild solutions.g. 4. and black holes Progress was made into understanding the static spherically symmetric vacuum solutions of f (R) theories of gravity by Mignemi and Wiltshire in [891]. if a ‘thin shell’ is present then the mass of the scalar degree of freedom in these theories is thought to be able to be supressed enough to satisfy solar system tests of gravity. Exact solutions. Here we will be concerned with exact solutions. 495. the same logic that tells us that the vacuum black hole solutions of general relativity are the only vacuum black hole solution of Brans-Dicke theory that can result from gravitational collapse. most of the results of Hawking on this subject only rely on inequalities of the form Rµν lµ lν ≥ 0. The geodesic deviation equation in general f (R) theories has been studied in [569].4. as well as what can be inferred about the general behaviour of non-linear solutions by other methods. This mechanism was outlined in Section 3. and its behaviour in this application considered further. They further find that by dropping the requirement of regularity the Schwarzschild solution is also the only solution to these theories that is asymptotically flat. for a variety of different cases. The chameleon mechanism has been applied to specific f (R) theories. 1199. and not on the details of the field equations themselves [595]. however. They find the asymptotes of these solutions.3. has not been as extensively studied in f (R) theories of gravity as it has in Brans-Dicke theory. (324) where lµ is a null vector. let us now consider the behaviour of solutions to the full nonlinear field equations. where direct numerical calculations have been performed [1107]. These authors consider theories with higher powers of the Ricci scalar added to the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian. 193. This null energy condition is true of the conformally transformed scalar fields equations 111 . 945.1. and what theorems can tell us about the behaviours that are possible. Here we will simply reiterate the basic point that this mechanism potentially allows a means by which theories with a light effective scalar degree of freedom can evade solar system and binary pulsar tests of the PPN parameter γ by allowing the scalar to acquire a higher mass in the locale of high mass concentrations. such as the Sun and Earth.

For example. and that de Sitter space can be a stable asymptote of f (R) theories of gravity. where q 2 = 1 − 2δ + 4δ 2 . 543. where it was shown that flat FLRW isotropic points can exist in the phase plane of Bianchi solutions. however. where a(t) = tδ (1+2δ) (1−δ) (326) . and an isolated mass in a static. The constants C1 and C2 appear in these solutions as mass parameters. For the case of f (R) = R1+δ solutions are known that correspond to an isolated mass in a homogeneous and time dependent background. however. and the initial conditions. The subject of black hole radiation in the context of f (R) gravity has been studied in [200. (327) reduce to the Schwarzschild solution when 112 . This will be discussed further in the cosmology section below. only a few exact solutions that describe these situations have been found. One should. The former of these solutions is given by the line-element [304] ds2 = −A1 (r)dt2 + a2 (t)B1 (r)(dr2 + r2 dΩ2 ). spherically symmetric background. be aware that such behaviour depends on the theory in question. (326) and Eq. and B1 (r) = 1+ C1 r 4 A(r)q+2δ−1 . As well as the black hole solutions of General Relativity. 378] and [489] where it was shown that black holes in f (R) gravity have a entropy given by S= fR A . 322. Leach and Dunsby [540].in Brans-Dicke theory. 4 (325) The subject of the de Sitter no-hair theorems and isotropisation in f (R) gravity has been considered by Barrow and Ottewill [110] and Goheer. 16. In this case accelerating power-law expansion is an attractor solution [306]. Due to the complicated nature of the field equations in these theories. It therefore seems reasonable to expect that the vacuum black hole solutions of f (R) gravity should also be the same as the vacuum black hole solutions of General Relativity. and is also true in f (R) gravity. The latter solution is given by [310] ds2 = −A2 (r)dt2 + where A2 (r) B2 (r) = = r2δ . and where A1 (r) and B1 (r) are given by 1− C1 r C1 r 2 q A1 (r) = 1+ . r (1 − δ)2 (1 − 2δ + 4δ 2 )(1 − 2δ(1 + δ)) (1−4δ) (1−δ) (1+2δ) (1−δ) dr2 + r2 dΩ2 B2 (r) (327) + C2 1+ r C2 (1−2δ+4δ 2 ) (1−δ) . it is known that other vacuum solutions to f (R) theories of gravity that can describe isolated masses also exist. and it can be seen that both Eq. for theories with negative powers of R in a series expansion of their Lagrangian one may generically expect such terms to become important asymptotically.

they show that the generalisation of the solutions of General Relativity to other theories of gravity is not always unique. The results of Mignemi and Wiltshire [891] even suggest that such behaviour is generic. They were also introduced and studied by Starobinsky for cosmological purposes. The Misner-Sharp energy in spherically symmetric spacetimes is considered in [225]. (326) shows explicitly that Birkhoff’s theorem is not valid in general. These solutions are of obvious importance for cosmology at both early and late times. spherically symmetric solutions in general f (R) has been considered in [992]. has been considered in [490]. there can be multiple solutions in modified theories of gravity that reduce to the same solution in the limit of general relativity. Eq. The δ = 1/4 case of Eq. Firstly. As mentioned in the preceding section. due to the naturalness of adding an R2 term to the Einstein-Hilbert action. In particular.e. Theories with R2 terms in their Lagrangian’s have been studied extensively. and due to their improved renormalisation properties [1186]. (327) was rediscovered in [243]. Secondly. Spherically symmetric vacuum solutions of modified theories of gravity can therefore be time-dependent. Here we will briefly review and provide references to studies of these solutions. The conditions for existence and stability of de Sitter solutions in f (R) gravity appears to have been first studied in [110]. Thirdly. and have had their stability analysed. (327) displays non-trivial asymptotic behaviour as r → ∞. One can show that for any theory for which there is a value of R which satisfies fR (RdS )RdS = 2f (RdS ) (328) there exists a de Sitter solution with RdS = 4Λ. Black holes coupled to Yang-Mills fields have √ been studied in [872]. 1049. A fourth point is that the solution given in Eq. i. and the non-uniqueness of the Schwarzschild solution was demonstrated. One can note that with f (R) ∝ R2 Eq. It may therefore be the case that one needs to understand the symmetries of the background space-time to a greater extent than is necessary in General Relativity. Such behaviour is unexpected in general relativity. where a covariant formalism was developed for studying the problem. and in particular their ability to give rise to an early non-singular period of accelerating expansion in a natural way [1179]. This has clear implications for the applicability of the cosmic censorship hypothesis to modified theories of gravity. which can lead to new phenomenology. as they admit simple exact solutions. (328) is satisfied with any value of R.δ → 0. Less symmetric cosmological solutions than de Sitter space can also be found for some f (R) theories. and again opens the window to new phenomenology. where an exact solution was found for the case f = R. theories of the type f (R) = R1+δ are again of interest here. Cosmological solutions A variety of cosmological solutions in f (R) theories of gravity are known. a power-law 113 . 486]. Eq. (326) has been shown in [488] to exhibit a naked singularity. The stability of de Sitter solutions in f (R) gravity was studied in [110. in order to fully understand which solution should be used to model a given situation. in the context of f (R) gravity. The problem of static. when one considers generalisations of Einstein’s theory. These solutions are interesting for a number of reasons. Birkhoff’s theorem.

376. Kantowski-Sachs solutions have been studied in [786]. (329) and a spatially flat solution in the presence of a perfect barotropic fluid with equation of state P = wρ is also known [248] a(t) = t 3(1+w) . 790. including 114 . Beyond exact solutions. 973. 40. 306. 479]. and Bianchi V IIA solutions in [367]. and been studied further in [778. Exact Bianchi cosmological solutions were discovered for f (R) = Rn theories in [98]. These studies find a variety of interesting cosmological behaviours at both early and late-times. In fact. The conditions required for a non-singular ‘bounce’ are given in [249]. Previous motivation for studying f (R) gravity has also come from cosmological considerations.exact solution for a spatially flat vacuum FLRW solution is known to be given by [241] a(t) = tδ 1+2δ 1−δ . 242. Cosmology Much of the recent motivation for studying f (R) gravity has come from the need to explain the apparent late-time accelerating expansion of the Universe. and the existence of closed time-like curves in the G¨del solution. 310. as the initial singularity is approached. 496. The special case of n = 2 was studied in [209]. and in the presence of a perfect fluid. 972. where shear dynamics and isotropisation are discussed. and braneworld cosmology in these theories have been considered in [68]. and the G¨del universe [309. it has been shown that these are the only power-law perfect fluid FLRW solutions that exist for any f (R) gravity theory [539]. We will discuss perturbed FLRW further in the Cosmology section that follows. 1057]. 980]. 929.1. have been investigated in [248] and [310]. and the non-sequential domination of higher powers in the Ricci curvature. The dynamical systems approach has even been applied to perturbed FLRW solutions in [247]. The energy conditions in FLRW solutions have been considered in [1033]. 549. as well as late-time accelerating expansion. Bianchi type I and V solutions have been considered in [1132] and [1133]. There have also been some concerns expressed as to whether a matter dominated epoch is generically expected to exist after radiation domination [242. 538] and also in the general case in [390.4. Other know exact solutions are the Einstein static universe [309. 2(1+δ) (330) The stability of these solutions. 251. 540]. 253]. both with spatial curvature. for analytic f (R). and their properties as asymptotes of the general solution. These solutions show explicitly that in the early universe both non-singular and inflationary behaviour are possible. 1122]. o These studies explore the stability of the Einstein static universe. 43. In particular non-singular and accelerating behaviour in the early universe is again identified. 40. o 4. FLRW cosmological solutions have also been studied in f (R) theories of gravity using dynamical systems analysis. Explicit non-power-law general solutions with FLRW symmetries were found in [305]. 5. and it has been shown that to reproduce exact ΛCDM evolution with dust only one is forced towards the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant [443]. The inverse problem of finding particular forms of f (R) that result in pre-specified cosmological evolutions has been considered in [240. Such inversions do not always specify f (R) uniquely [929]. 790. This has been done for the case of a number of particular f (R) theories in [248. and oscillating solutions were considered in [208].

T 00 T 0i T ij = −ρ − δρ = P δ ij + (332) (333) (ρ + P )Dij Σ. The perturbation equations are then [637] χ+ ˙ = and ¨ ˙ δ F + 3Hδ F + = k2 R − a2 3 δF (340) 2H + ˙ F 2F χ+ ˙ 3F ˙ 3 k ˙ ¨ ˙ Ψ + 3H + (2F + H F ) − 2 Ψ 2F 2F a k 2 − 6κ − 6H 2 δF a2 (339) (338) 1 ¨ ˙ 8πδρ + 24πδP + 3δ F + 3Hδ F + 2F 8π F ˙ ˙ ¨ ˙ (δρ − 3δP ) + F (χ + Ψ) + 2F + 3H F Ψ − δR 3 3 115 . and Σ is the anisotropic stress. In terms of the viability of FLRW geometry in f (R) gravity. Now let us consider the first-order scalar perturbation equations. as usual. over-dots denote derivatives with respect to t. ρ + 3H(ρ + P ) = 0. and Taylor in [1065]. (334) (331) = −(ρ + P ) iθ i δP δ j + where θ is the peculiar velocity. Field Equations To describe the cosmology. van Elst. ˙ (337) where F = fR . and more recently by Faraoni in [487]. and κ is spatial curvature. and early universe inflationary expansion. Here it is convenient to define a new quantity ˙ χ ≡ 3HΨ + 3Φ. which are given in [637]. δP is the pressure perturbation. and energy-momentum conservation gives. we first define line-element ds2 = −(1 + 2Ψ)dt2 + a2 (t)(1 − 2Φ)qij dxi dxj . the Ehlers-Geren-Sachs theorem of General Relativity has been extended to cover these theories by Rippl. and the energy-momentum tensor. At zeroth order the Friedmann equations are H2 ˙ H κ 1 1 ˙ 8πρ − (f − RF ) − 3H F − 2 3F 2 a 1 κ ¨ ˙ = − (8πρ + 8πP + F − H F ) + 2 2F a = (335) (336) ˙ where the Ricci scalar is given by R = 6(2H 2 + H + κ/a2 ). We will therefore now present an overview of what we consider to be some of the most relevant aspects of f (R) gravity for physical cosmology. up to scalar perturbations. Tavakol.the presence of an initial singularity.

f (R) = R + 6M 2 116 (347) . who found that theories with R2 corrections to their gravitational Lagrangian can have an early period of de Sitter expansion [1179]. Here. in general. Inflation The existence of inflation has provided considerable motivation for the study of f (R) theories of gravity. Quantum initial conditions (“tunnelling from nothing”). F F (346) The equivalent equations to those given above can also be derived in the covariant approach to cosmological perturbation theory [250]. a2 a2 (343) 1 k2 ˙ ˙ 8πδρ − 3Hδ F + 3H + 3H 2 − 2 2F a Furthermore. (342) Here the perturbation to the Ricci scalar. 719. Inflation in f (R) gravity is particularly transparent in the Einstein conformal frame. we again have that Ψ = Φ. as well as the process of reheating. for the Starobinsky model with [1179] R2 . 636] where they were found to compatible with observations of the CMB. were also considered in [1249]. is given by δR = −2 χ + 4Hχ − ˙ and we have the constraint equations χ+ and H+ = − ˙ F 2F χ+ ˙ (k 2 − 3κ) 3H F Φ+ Ψ a2 2F δF . Instead it is the case that Ψ−Φ=− 8πa2 (ρ + P )Σ δF − . The spectrum of scalar and tensor fluctuation generated during this type of inflation have been studied in [916. In the rest of this section we will consider the consequences of these equations for various cosmological phenomena. 1178.with fluid evolution equations δ ρ + 3H(δρ + δP ) = (ρ + P ) χ − 3HΨ − ˙ and (a4 (ρ + P )kθ)˙ k 1 = Ψ+ 4 (ρ + P ) a a (ρ + P ) k2 θ a (341) 2 δP − (k 2 − 3κ)(ρ + P )Σ 3 . The pioneering work on this subject was that of Starobinsky in 1980. δR. (345) ˙ 3F 3 ˙ Ψ= 8πa(ρ + P )θ + δ F − HδF 2F 2F (344) (k 2 − 3κ) k2 ˙ − 3H Ψ + 2 Φ .

for the theory specified in Eq. (349) H 6H 2 and proceeds for N (2 )−1 e-foldings. We will not proceed with showing the details of reheating in this model. of course.5 1 1. For details of how reheating occurs in this potential the reader is referred to [1249. and reheating is feasible during oscillations around the minimum at φ = 0.5 2 Φ mpl Figure 4: The potential given in Eq. 1. Dark Energy As well as accelerating expansion in the early universe. f (R) theories of gravity are also capable of producing late-time accelerating expansion. Quantum cosmology. (348). 892]. normalised by its asymptotic value as φ → ∞. 977. 1 2 2 (348) is well approximated by V 2 M φ . 975. where it can be seen that slow-roll inflation is likely to occur in the region φ mpl . Pre-heating in f (R) inflationary models has been considered in [1222]. but only note that around φ 0 the potential given in Eq. 82]. instantons. This is. There have also been attempts to construct quintessencelike f (R) models which produce both early and late acceleration [974. One can then identify effective density 117 . In fact. and that in the region φ mpl slow-roll inflation occurs with ˙ H M2 =− 2 .5 VΦ V 1 0. An easy way to see the potential for late-time accelerating expansion is to consider the Friedmann equations (335) and (336) in vacuo.5 0 0 0. 976. (347) one can show that inflation is the transient attractor of the general solution [852]. 1027]. There have been a large number of papers on this subject.the conformally transformed theory in vacuum is one in which the minimally coupled scalar field exists in a potential V (φ) = √χ 3M 2 1 − e− 3 φ . exactly the type of behaviour that one wants for a viable inflaton field. 2χ (348) This potential is displayed in Figure 4. and their implications for inflation have been studied in [1246.

and yet more are due to stability issues. 1157]. which we will address in Section 4. 473. 479. These are 8πρeff 8πPeff = = ˙ RF − f − 6H F 2F ¨ + 4H F + f − RF ˙ 2F . ˙ RF − f − 6H F (352) and one can then determine what is required to achieve w < −1/3. (355) Rc Hu and Sawicki [629]: f (R) = R − and Battye and Appleby [56]: f (R) = R + Rc log e−µ + (1 − e−µ )e−R/Rc 118 (357) µRc . In fact. which we have already discussed. this just corresponds to the power-law solution given in Eq. 1 + (R/Rc )−2n (356) . for a theory with f (R) ∝ R−n . Models which have been constructed to try and over-come these problems. 485. which is thought to be either too small for validity of gravitational physics in the solar system. 3(2n + 1)(n + 1) (354) so that if n = 1. while still leading to accelerating expansion at late-times. 43. leading to some of the instabilities just alluded to. 2F (350) (351) The equation of state of this effective fluid is then given by w= ¨ ˙ 2F + 4H F + f − RF . 428. then one achieves an equation of state with w = −2/3. (329). and the extra term in the gravitational Lagrangian is inversely proportional to R. Many of these problems can be traced back to the value of the effective mass in the scalar degree of freedom of this theory.1. (353) is now known to have a number of deficiencies that make it non-viable [999.5. (353) f (R) = R − Rn where µ is a constant.and pressure parameters by analogy to the Friedmann equations of general relativity. One example of this is the now much considered theory of Carroll. Trodden and Turner [255] µ2(n+1) . For power-law evolution the effective equation of state. or imaginary. Duvuri. others come from cosmology. (352). and hence accelerating expansion. 1102. 258. is then given at late-times by [255] w = −1 + 2(n + 2) . and hence accelerating expansion. The theory specified in Eq. 122. are those of Starobinsky [1180]: −n R2 f (R) = R − µRc 1 − 1 + 2 . Some of these have to do with the weak-field limit.

The value of fR evolves throughout the matter dominated and accelerating epochs. 1226] 2 2 ¨ ˙ 4πδρ (4 + 3(a/k) M ) = 0. 251. but is constant during radiation domination. and baryon acoustic oscillations. but with a different value of the effective gravitational constant. 204. as well as late-time accelerating expansion. Other probes of the background expansion of an FLRW universe are the peak positions of the CMB spectrum of temperature fluctuations. have been made in [321. and hence constrain the rate of evolution of this quantity that is allowed during the rest of the Universe’s history. To go further using cosmological observations we must therefore consider the solutions to the perturbation equations given above. (339)-(346) allows one to write [1299. with an effective Newton’s constant given by G = 1/fR . but due to the freedom in the choice of f (R) are not able to falsify the most general form of these theories directly [240. All of these theories rely on the chameleon mechanism to satisfy solar system constraints on gravity. in particular. 468]. In a spatially flat universe. 929. Attempts to construct viable models that include an early stage of inflationary expansion. 980].1. and. n and Rc are all positive constants.1. 119 2 (360) . 496. Observations of these quantities allow the form of a(t) to be constrained. 973. (359) 3fRR From the third term on the LHS of Eq. Primordial nucleosynthesis has been studied in f (R) gravity in [310. Here we will briefly survey the literature on this subject. manipulation of Eqs. For a matter dominated universe this means δ ∝ t3 . The first thing that one may wish to consider is the growth of density perturbations. Observations of the abundances of light elements then provide constraints on the allowed values of fR during the radiation dominated epoch. Due to the conformal equivalence between these theories and general relativity. cosmological observables can be used to constrain f (R) theories of gravity. When the former is true. as fR − RfRR M2 = .2. This situation is familiar from studies of primordial nucleosynthesis in the scalar-tensor theories of gravity outlined in Section 3. the density perturbations evolve as they do in General Relativity. 242. In the present case the relevant effective gravitational ‘constant’ is inversely proportional to fR . 1219. 764. 475]. 376. δ = δρ/ρ.where µ. (358) it can be seen that the evolution of δ depends on the magnitude of M . is different in the two regimes M2 k 2 /a2 and M 2 k 2 /a2 . Observational Probes As with many modifications to gravity. the behaviour of cosmological solutions during the radiation dominated epoch are considerably simplified: They evolve in a similar way to the radiation dominated solutions of GR. δ + 2H δ − 3fR (1 + (a/k)2 M 2 ) (358) where the mass parameter M is given. just as in the weak field limit discussed in Section 4.

1221. [1187. 45. and the cosmic microwave background. 1157. 940]. oscillating modes can also become present when M 2 k 2 /a2 . (358) is modified from its form in GR by a multiplicative factor of 4/3. modes with different wave-numbers can evolve in different ways depending on whether they are larger or smaller than a2 M 2 . 814. and are non-linear in those second derivatives. 4. They are not. 1043. Here. in which M 2 k 2 /a2 . 1007. 1157. 944. 818]. which are only linear 120 . 818. see e. The inclusion of an R2 in the gravitational Lagrangian was found to remove these singularities in [57]. This length scale is therefore imprinted on the density perturbations. and cluster abundances have been used to constrain these theories in [1115. 990]. This can lead to damped power for small deviations from GR. 724.5. the third term in Eq. 607. The formation of non-linear structure has also been considered in [630. 122. 1303]. 790. These include ghost degrees of freedom. One can also see that fRR > 0 is need for the stability of scalar modes. The modified growth of structure just discussed has consequences for large-scale structure. 258. and Dolgov and Kawasaki. 1114.3. Let us first consider the existence of negative energy states in the context of Ostrogradski’s theorem [1003]. however. Correlating ISW effects in the CMB with observations of galaxy number density also leads to tight constraints [1158. That is. Cosmic microwave observations are considered in [790. due to the sign of the CMB temperature fluctuation changing if the modification to gravity is large enough. 1220. 519. The Ostrogradski instability states that Lagrangians that contain second derivatives. 377. 1226. 236.1. 818] where it is shown that power on large-scales is sensitive to the modified growth of structure through the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect. as well as the instabilities found by Frolov. 392. Some of these issues have been mentioned already.g. as we will now outline. or amplified power if the deviations are large enough. as problematic in f (R) theories as they are for general fourth-order theories. 606. 46. 914. 1158. we discussed the problems associated with ghosts – pathological fields that admit physical states of negative energy. and the Ostrogradski instability In Section 2. 1026]. Interesting results are that the change in evolution between the two regimes discussed above is scale dependent.1. In this section we will discuss them further. and the evolution of δ during the matter dominated era is consequently modified to δ ∝ t( √ 33−1)/6 . as evidenced in the Ostrogradski instability. At first sight such a result appears to be problematic for f (R) theories of gravity. 1102. It is known that ghosts can occur in general higher derivative theories of gravity. Stability issues There are a variety of stability issues that are of concern for f (R) theories of gravity. 113. this is no longer true. 1006. 122.In the latter regime. 629. 1219. 293. For studies on this subject the reader is referred to [1180. The matter power spectrum in f (R) theories of gravity has been considered in [495. (361) The transition between these two limits is theory dependent. are generically unstable. which we will now discuss. 500]. which can lead to undesirable singularities [515]. Ghosts. or negative norm when quantised. Furthermore.

and the familiar massless spin-2 degree of freedom from General Relativity. ∂¨ g (363) If it is now possible to write g = f (Q1 . therefore. Q2 .1. The short section of curve between this minimum and the singularity at φ = 0 is the only part of the potential the scalar field need experience in the entire history of a perfect FLRW solution. Q2 . This is Ostrogradski’s instability. This instability is caused by the fact that for the scalar degree of freedom in f (R) theories curvature singularities can occur at finite field value and energy level. which will be discussed in more detail in Section 4. a phenomenon previously investigated in [4. second-order derivatives of the metric in the case of General Relativity with a possible cosmological constant. 5. the scalar fields associated with FLRW cosmologies roll down the slope from φ = 0 to the local minimum at φ −0. Eq. g ). however. (364) This Hamiltonian. Frolov instability A potential problem with f (R) theories that modify the infra-red limit of General Relativity has been identified by Frolov in [515]. Instead. ˙ ¨ (362) where dots denote derivatives of g with respect to some parameter λ. Such fields are absent from f (R) theories. Now define a set of four canonical variables by Q1 ≡ g. this is clear from the existence of the conformal transformations outlined in Section 4. One can show. During cosmological expansion. The potential for the effective scalar field in this theory is shown in Fig. and a single scalar field. only a single scalar degree of freedom contains the higher-order derivatives. This works in the following way: Let us consider a Lagrangian L = L(g. f (R) gravity avoids this instability because one cannot write down the equivalent of g = f (Q1 . that these instabilities do not occur for f (R) theories [1281].1. 203]. In generic fourth-order theories massive spin-2 degrees of freedom appear along with a scalar degree of freedom. ∂g ˙ dλ ∂¨ g and P2 ≡ ∂L . Again. (355). which contain only the massless spin-2 fields of GR. however. is only linear in the momentum P1 . and ˙ P1 ≡ d ∂L ∂L − . Frolov 121 .1.1. and by an appropriate field redefinition one can remove this extra field so that the redefined metric appears in the Lagrangian only linearly in its second-order derivatives. Let us now consider ghost-like instabilities from the point of view of linear fluctuations. The Ostrogradski instability does not. P2 ) for each component ¨ of the metric.1. Now.2. Q2 ≡ g. Q2 .5. It is the massive spin-2 fields in this situations that present the generic problem with ghosts. apply to f (R) theories of gravity [1281]. f ). This is just the conformal transformation discussed in Section 4. To illustrate this problem consider the f (R) proposed by Starobinsky. P2 ) then the Hamiltonian of the system can ¨ be written as H = P1 Q1 + P2 f − L(Q1 . The f (R) theories of gravity therefore do not always suffer from the same problems with ghosts as more general higher-order theories. and cannot therefore be stable. however.

n = 1 and µ = 2. The basic point here is that the trace of the field equations. (289). (353) with n = 1 [428]. undesirable for a physically plausible theory. 81. Dolgov-Kawasaki instability Finally. If we now consider perturbations around this solution with 122 . (365) R R2 where we have taken the matter content to be that of dust.75 0. 57]. with Rc = 1. (366) for cosmologically relevant µ. however.5 0 0. although it may be mitigated by the addition of higher power of R to the gravitational Lagrangian [203.5 1 Φ Figure 5: The potential for the scalar field in Starobinsky’s theory. Now. that relatively small perturbation in curvature. are enough to push φ back up the potential to the singularity.25 1 VΦ 0. de Sitter space is a solution of this equation. argues. (353) with n = 1 this equation is 3µ4 3µ4 R− − = 8πρ. This was later extended to more general functions of f (R) that modify gravity in the infra-red limit [485] and formalised better in [1124]. (355).5 0. Eq. with RdS = 1 (8πρ + 2 (8πρ)2 + 12µ4 ) 8πρ. let us consider another instability that was initially found by Dolgov and Kawasaki for the theory given by Eq. caused by collapse of dust. For Eq.25 0 1 0. The existence of such instability is. acts as the propagation equation for scalar degree of freedom. of course.1.

1237. is of limited physical interest as it does not affect the field equations. A systematic approach to studying theories of this type. General combinations of Ricci and Riemann curvature. 906]. and allow the action to be a function of not only R. 4. Action and field equations The most general weight-zero scalar density that one can construct from g. for relativistic stars. 707. The problem in this context has been further studied in [417. Rµν Rµν . 4. is proposed and studied in [646. as required to account for the observed latetime accelerating expansion of the Universe. The existence of this type of instability was rediscovered in [706]. adding a divergence to the scalar field potential. Here we go further. 421. namely µνρσ R τ τ µν R ρσ [418].1. 901]. The Dolgov-Kawasaki instability has been shown not to occur in the Palatini approach [1165]. R. and χ is a constant which can be determined from the Newtonian limit. but of any of the three linear and quadratic contractions of the Riemann curvature tensor26 : R. and µ has been taken to be ∼ 10−33 eV . one can show that the addition of higher powers of R to the gravitational Lagrangian again helps defend it from instability [968. It is therefore the negative value of this quantity in the theory of Eq.2.2. Rµν Rµν and Rµνρσ Rµνρσ alone is given by √ (369) L = χ−1 −gf (R. In the previous section we considered theories that generalise the Einstein-Hilbert action by replacing the Ricci scalar. Further. and instabilities in systems with time-dependent mass have been studied in [60]. with some non-linear function. as usual. 72. where it was shown that the instability can be avoided by changing the equation of state of the star. based on minimal sets of curvature invariants. or including chameleon effects. 123 . For more general theories it can be shown that the effective mass squared in the relevant scalar field equation takes the same sign as fRR [485]. This large negative mass corresponds to a catastrophic instability that should make itself apparent on time scales of ∼ 10−26 seconds. This contraction. Rµνρσ Rµνρσ ) where f is an arbitrary function of its arguments. by integrating 26 There is also a fourth possibility. ρ 103 kg/m3 . 1099].R = RdS + δR then we get to lowest order that 3µ4 6µ4 δR + 1 + 2 3 RdS RdS δR = 0. R. Rµν Rµν and Rµνρσ Rµνρσ . due to its parity. The action is obtained. however. 970]. (367) Comparing this with the propagation equation of a massive scalar field gives m2 = − RdS R3 − dS 2 6µ4 − (8πρ)3 6µ4 −106 GeV. (368) where in the last equality the density has been taken to be that of water. (353) that is responsible for its exhibition of this instability. 1206. f (R). Neutron stars in f (R) gravity have been studied in [332.

ρσ −2(fY Rρ(µ ).ρσ + δgρν. Varying the action. with respect to the metric. and which can be transformed to integrals on the boundary. These field equations are generically of fourth-order. 477. for simplicity.this density.g. Λ is the cosmological constant (defined independent of f (X. Looking for a stationary point of this action. Here we will spell out the metric variational approach explicitly. as this is the most commonly considered form of the theory found in the literature. then gives δI = χ−1 = χ−1 √ 1 dΩ −g f g µν δgµν + fX δX + fY δY + fZ δZ 2 √ 1 dΩ −g f g µν δgµν − fX (Rµν δgµν − g µν δRµν ) 2 −2fY (Rρ(µ Rν) ρ δgµν − Rµν δRµν ) −2fZ (Rρσ (ν (370) Rµ) σρ δgµν − Rµ νρσ δRµ νρσ ) .νσ − δg ν. then gives the field equations χ (373) Pµν = Tµν − gµν Λ 2 where matter fields and a cosmological constant have been included. 1070]. with the exception of cases in which the function f is linear in second derivatives of the metric [418]. Z)) and T µν is the energy-momentum tensor of the matter fields.νρ + δg ν. (371) (372) The notation fN here denotes the functional derivative of f with respect to N . ρ − δg ρ. 795. the reader is referred to [792. using the Palatini formalism (in which the metric and connection are taken to be independent fields in the gravitational action). they are usually assumed to vanish. Using δRmu νρσ = 1 µ 2 g (δg σ. together with that of the matter fields. derived from integrating Eq. The addition of supplementary terms to the density (369). 124 . 794. As with f (R) theories one can proceed by using the metric variation approach (in which the connection is a priori taken to be given by the Christoffel symbols). over all space-time. can be problematic (see e.σρ − δgσν. 1002. For studies involving the Palatini procedure. Here.ν) − 4(fZ Rσ(µν)ρ ). or the metric-affine formalism (in which the metric and connection are taken to be independent fields throughout the entire action). where we have defined X ≡ R. as applied to the these theories. σ ) we can then write the gravitational part of the action as δI = −χ−1 where P µν ≡ 1 − f g µν + fX Rµν + 2fY Rρ(µ Rν) ρ + 2fZ R σρ(µ Rν) ρσ 2 +fX. Y ≡ Rµν Rµν and Z ≡ Rµνρσ Rµνρσ . (369) over all space.ρσ (g µν g ρσ − g µρ g νσ ) + (fY Rµν ) + g µν (fY Rρσ ). [849]) and so. as occurs in GR. ρ √ dΩ −gP µν δgµν . 173.ρσ . by setting the first variation to zero. in order to cancel total divergences. Y.

(376) into Eq. (373). (374) in the equivalent form √ −g R + αR2 + βRµν Rµν . ρ = mδ. conformally related to General Relativity with a scalar field. 4. 2 β (380) . 125 . In order to have non-oscillatory behaviour in the present case we must therefore require that both 3α + β ≥ 0 and β ≤ 0 be simultaneously satisfied. (308) and (309) in the limit β → 0− . (378) and (379) can then be seen to have the solutions 16πψ = χm r χm − r − e−m1 r 4e−m2 r − 3 3 e−m1 r 2e−m2 r 1− − 3 3 1+ and 1 m2 = − . the lowest order equations in the weak-field and slow-motion limit are 2(3α + β)∆R − R (4α + β) ∆R − R − 2∆(ψ + β∆ψ) = = χ − ρ 2 −χρ. the theories described by the density given in Eq.2. in general. to get the field equations. (375) which in the action integrates to a boundary term that is usually ignored.Unlike the case of f (R) theories of gravity. (376) L= χ without any loss of generality in the solutions to the resulting field equations. Eqs. (378) (379) (377) where the Ricci scalar is given as usual by R = −2∆ψ + 4∆φ. 4Rµν Rµν − R2 − Rµνρσ Rµνρσ = total divergence. we find that for the perturbed metric ds2 = −(1 + 2ψ)dt2 + (1 − 2φ)(dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 ). By redefining α and β we can therefore write Eq. β and γ are constants.2. For a delta function source. In this case one can use the well known result that the Gauss-Bonnet combination of curvature invariants is a total divergence. however. Weak-field limit Let us consider the weak field limit of theories with additional terms in their action that are quadratic in curvature invariants: √ −g R + αR2 + βRµν Rµν + γRµνρσ Rµνρσ . (381) 16πφ = where m2 = 1 1 2(3α + β) (382) These are the solutions found by Stelle in 1978 [1187]. If we now substitute Eq. (374) L= χ where α. These solutions can be seen to reduce to Eqs. More generally. these theories can be seen to exhibit massive modes with two different mass parameters. (370) are not.e. i.

the vacuum field equations imply that all asymptotically constant solutions (or asymptotically flat. while for m1 > 2m2 it is attractive over large distances. however.If the solutions given in Eqs. While it is known that no such solutions exist in General Relativity (Lichnerowicz’s theorem [797]). then one can immediately see that if m1 and m2 are both large compared to 1/r then one recovers the general relativistic prediction of γ = 1.3. Over-bars here denote quantities projected into space-like hypersurfaces. if the inequalities are saturated) obey Rµν = 0. of course. The spherically symmetric solution to Rµν = 0 is. It can also be seen that for m1 ≤ 2m2 gravity is always attractive. but it was later shown that there are. For small masses. then they must correspond to very large energy densities (exceeding the energy density of neutron stars by at least 40 orders of magnitude [1116]). (380) and (381) are the correct ones for describing the space-time geometry around approximately isolated masses. (382). The theorems of Lichnerowicz [797] and Israel [650] have more recently been considered in the context of fourth-order theories of the form given in Eq. These theories are equivalent to the sum of an Einstein-Hilbert term and a Weyl term.2. This is a considerable deviation from the behaviour γ → 1/2 that occurs when m1 r is small and m2 r is large. Isolated Masses Motivation for a number of studies in this area has come from Einstein’s particle programme. that are simultaneously asymptotically flat and geodesically complete. (380) and (381) is a constant (which can be absorbed into coordinate redefinitions). the Schwarzschild 126 . If both m1 and m2 are small compared to 1/r then one has that the leading order term in Eqs. Here it is found that for static space-times with spatial curvature satisfying ¯ ¯ Rµν Rν µ m2 1 m2 − (3) R 1 ¯ ¯ ¯ + Rµν Rν ρ Rρµ ≥ 0 (383) (384) ≥ 0. the situation is somewhat different from the f (R) case. This means that if any non-trivial static spherically symmetric vacuum solutions to these theories exist. such as the Sun. Exact solutions. and general behaviour Let us now discuss what is known about the solutions to these general fourth-order theories of gravity in the context of both isolated masses. 4. it has been conjectured that they could exist in fourth-order theories [1252]. while being repellent over small distances. and smooth as r → 0 [503]. and cosmological solutions. just as with f (R) theories. Such results would initially appear to be encouraging for Einstein’s programme. in which one looks for asymptotically flat and singularity free vacuum solutions which could be used to model particles [466]. in fact. which is the limit of f (R) gravity with a low mass parameter. followed by a term proportional to r. The expression for m1 is given in Eq. By studying the solutions of quadratic theories of the type given in Eq. (376) with β = −3α it has been shown that the solutions to the linearised vacuum field equations can be both asymptotically flat as r → ∞. (376) by Nelson [950]. no solutions with the specified properties that exist within a neighbourhood of Minkowski space [1116].

of the type given in Eq. if the inequalities are saturated). has also been studied in [967]. Power-law scaling FLRW solutions for theories with L = R + α R2 − 4Rµν Rµν + Rµνρσ Rµνρσ have been investigated in [1233]. (376). The stability of Schwarzschild black holes in the quadratic theories (376) has been studied in [1271. (385) (386) where m2 is given by Eq. (382). 2 3 (387) where fN denotes differentiation of f with respect to N . the existence of which o has been discussed in [309] for arbitrary f (X. and in the more general case in [325]. of course. (369). then the only solutions with m2 ≥ 0 1 that exist in the region exterior to a closed spherical null surface also obey Rµν = 0. (376). has been discussed by Middleton in [887]. It is then shown in [950] that if the spatial curvature satisfies R ¯ µ Rν Rρ ¯ ¯ R ν ρ µ ¯ ¯ Rµν Rν µ (3) ≤ ≥ m2 −m2 . which exists for theories with general f (X. 949]. 1186]. if [309] 4 1 f − Λ = ΛfX + 2Λ2 fY + Λ2 fz . are therefore the Schwarzschild solutions. This simplest of these is. which were used to show that the infinite sequence of anisotropic oscillations that occurs on approach 127 . then we should therefore expect all of the inequalities (383)-(386) to be satisfied for astrophysically interesting systems. As well as isotropic cosmological solutions. Y. The initial value problem for quadratic theories. It is argued in [950] that the inequalities (383)-(386) should be satisfied everywhere where the spatial curvature is smaller than the scale of the corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert action. and a cosmological constant.solution. de Sitter space. Z) (together with the conditions for the existence of closed time-like curves in the case of latter). both in vacuum and in the presence of a perfect fluid. a number of studies have also been performed of anisotropic cosmological solutions in these theories. Y. and the space-time is asymptotically constant (or asymptotically flat. The simplest of these are probably the Bianchi I Kasner-like exact solutions found in [311]. where it was found to be well-posed. The existence of powerlaw FLRW solutions. The extent to which the FLRW solutions of General Relativity can be reproduced in these theories is discussed in [848. Other known exact homogeneous and isotropic cosmological solutions are the Einstein static universe and the G¨del universe. The stability of de Sitter space in quadratic theories. has been studied in [102]. Z) in Eq. Lichnerowicz’s theorem can therefore be extended to all theories that obey the inequalities (383) and (384). The only asymptotically constant vacuum solutions with a horizon. of the type given in Eq. that satisfy the bounds (385) and (386). Cosmological Solutions There are a number of exact cosmological solutions known to exist for fourth-order theories containing Rµν Rµν and Rµνρσ Rµνρσ . This extends the Israel’s nohair theorem for black holes to quadratic fourth-order theories of gravity. which is geodesically complete only for the case of Minkowski space. If these corrections are motivated by quantum considerations.

+ cRµνρσ Rµνρσ )n (388) + bRµν where µ. V Ih and V IIh universes have been studied in [104]. IV . (Rµν Rµν )n . 856. vector and tensor inhomogeneous perturbations [107]. in their Lagrangian in [888]. 1218]. except in unphysical situations. The asymptotic behaviour of theories with quadratic corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert were studied. (376). 236. It is found that for these theories there exist 128 . Stability of past isotropic attractors has been the subject of study by Barrow and Middleton [107. This supports the hypothesis that small perturbations to the past isotropic attractor form part of the general cosmological solution to quadratic theories of fourth-order gravity. in [340]. n. where the Kasner solution of General Relativity was shown not to be a stable early asymptote of the quadratic theories given in Eq. The Gauss-Bonnet invariant has special properties. This study is extended to theories with powerlaw curvature terms. where it was shown that periods of anisotropic expansion can occur after a near isotropic expansion. This type of solution was further studied in [887].to the initial singularity in General Relativity does not occur in higher-order gravity theories. 888].4. where conditions are given for the stability of early isotropic states. and Bianchi type IX universes have been studied by Cotsakis et al. Bianchi type V IIA solutions have been studied for quadratic theories in [367]. in the context of string cosmology. We will proceed with this by first discussing studies of more general theories. which we will discuss in the Section 4. where the possibility of a stable isotropic singularity was discovered [103]. 17]. General Theories In order to construct cosmological models that can produce late-time accelerating expansion the authors of [254] considered theories of the type L=R+ (aR2 Rµν µ4n+2 . 4. let us now consider their relevance for observational cosmology and dark energy.2. followed by theories constructed from the Gauss-Bonnet curvature invariant. without de Sitter space as the late-time asymptote.5. and before re-isotropisation at late-times.2. The evolution of FLRW solutions in generalised theories has also been studied using a dynamical systems analysis in [326]. b and c are constants. This study also shows the instability of the exact solution found in [311]. Exact Bianchi type II and V Ih solutions were found by Barrow and Hervik in [102]. in [1090. Bianchi type I. as the initial singularity is approached. These authors also considered the general behaviour of Bianchi type I and II solutions in quadratic theories. and were used to show the lack of validity of the cosmic no-hair theorems in these theories: Anisotropic inflation with positive Λ is possible. for quadratic theories of the type (376). Physical cosmology and dark energy Having discussed various cosmological solutions in these general fourth-order theories. Exponential and power-law FLRW solutions in higher-dimensional string inspired models are found in [855. a. In the first of these papers the authors demonstrated the stability of past isotropic solutions to the quadratic theories (376) under scalar.

from noncommutative geometry [268].5).07 ≤ w ≤ 0. see [961].2. 954. 529. where the possibility of late-time accelerating expansion was considered. of the type f (R. the constraints imposed from big bang nucleosynthesis are largely due to the different expansion rate during the radiation dominated period due to a different value of the effective Newton’s constant. 530. As with scalar-tensor theories. as they are motivated by string theory [886. Primordial nucleosynthesis in theories with powers of Rµν Rµν added to the EinsteinHilbert action have been considered in [957]. The ˆ linear case of f = R+ G is known to be equivalent to the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian in 4 ˆ dimensions. the evolution of background cosmological models [954]. up to surface terms. R. and the Gauss-Bonnet combination. (376) with 3α + β = 0. to do so and still have an acceptable age for the Universe it requires the matter content of the Universe to have an equation of state 0. and have improved stability properties (as will be discussed in Section 4. and the resulting field equations are sometimes known as the ‘Bach-Einstein equations’.power-law attractors for the general spatially flat FLRW solutions. In this case the gravitational Lagrangian takes the form given in Eq. Rµν Rµν and Rµνρσ Rµνρσ added to the Einstein-Hilbert action were also studied in [455]. For large n it is therefore the case that accelerating expansion can occur at late times. produce field equations that differ from those of General Relativity. R2 − 4Rµν Rµν + Rµνρσ Rµνρσ ) Theories that are functions of the Ricci scalar. 951. and weak fields and gravitational waves [952]. Theories of this type are motivated. (389) Γ ≡ (391) The smaller of the exponents in Eq. For a review on short scale modifications of gravity in the context of non-commutative geometry. In [880] it is shown that while the theory given in Eq. ˆ G = R2 − 4Rµν Rµν + Rµνρσ Rµνρσ . G). to 2σ. This is a generalisation of the type of model considered in [255]. The solutions to these equations have been studied in the context of inflation [953]. for f (R) gravity. which are given by a(t) = a0 where α ≡ 12a + 4b + 4c 12a + 3b + 2c 9n2 α2 − (80n3 + 116n2 + 40n + 4)α +64n4 + 160n3 + 132n2 + 40n + 4. Theories with L = f (R. in part. The mathematical properties 129 . The FLRW solutions of theories with powers of R. 981]. (389) can be seen to → 0 as n → ∞. (392) have been particularly well studied. (390) t t0 8n2 +10n+2−3α± 4(n+1) √ Γ . (388) is capable of explaining the supernova results. the observational constraints available from pulsars [951]. where constraints from observed element abundances are imposed. The addition of a conformally invariant term to the Einstein-Hilbert action has been considered in [953. 952].21. but more general functions. while the larger tends to 4n.

to the Einstein-Hilbert action. = 8H fG − 16H H G ˆ G 2 (393) (394) ˙ ˆ ˙ where R = 6(H + 2H 2 ) and G = 24H 2 (H + H 2 ). 492. have been studied in [493. λ and G∗ are constants. has also been studied in [25. two 130 . where rs is the Schwarzschild radius of the Sun. while the latter uses the ˆ covariant formulation of Ellis and Bruni [469]. The former of these studies uses the velocity potentials and variational principle approach of Schutz [1119]. ˆ ˆ where α. and phantom-like accelerating solutions to the above equations can be demonstrated. 491. The cosmologies of ˆ these theories. while the FLRW ˆ solutions of other R+f (G) theories have been considered in [971. ˆ The general behaviour of spatially flat FLRW solution in theories with L = R + f (G) has been studied by Zhou. where the conditions fGG > 0 and fGG → 0+ as ˆˆ ˆˆ ˆ |G| → ∞ were found to be required for models to be viable. 26. Barrow and Mota [791]. In the case of general f (R. as well as trajectories in the phase space that mimic the evolution of the standard ΛCDM universe through radiation and matter dominated periods [1309]. It is further claimed that these forms of f (G) are compatible with solar system observations [372]. Copeland and Saffin in [1309] using a phase plane analysis. six degrees of freedom. BAO and CMB observations have been used to constrain L = R + f (G) theories in [907]. 323]. producing corrections to the Schwarzschild 2 metric that are of the form ∼ H 2 rs (r/rs )p . The phase space of FLRW solutions to L = f (R. have been considered in [391. In this case the Friedmann equations become 3H 2 ˙ 2H χ ˆ ˆ = GfG − f − 24H 3 f˙G + ρ ˆ 2 3 ˙ ¨ ˙ f˙ ˆ − 8H 2 f ˆ + χ (ρ + P ). in general. as well as radiation and matter dominated epochs has also been studied by de Felice and Tsujikawa in [371]. Linear perturbations around spatially flat FLRW universes have been studied in L = ˆ ˆ f (R. G) transition from deceleration to acceleration. Gn . 24]. The existence of both stable de Sitter space. The ‘inverse probˆ lem’. These authors suggest the ˆ following functional forms for f (G) as examples that satisfy these conditions. The stability of de Sitter space. G) theories by de Felice. 494]. and theories with inverse powers of αG+βR added to the Einstein-Hilbert action (where α and β are constants). that occurs from varying the action of these theories. as well as the more general Lovelock tensor. Much larger correction to General Relativistic predictions are claimed in [364] for theories with polynomial addiˆ tions of the Gauss-Bonnet term. and could produce acceptable expansion histories for the Universe: ˆ f (G) ˆ f (G) = = λ λ ˆ G tan−1 ˆ∗ G ˆ G tan−1 ˆ G∗ ˆ G ˆ G∗ ˆ G ˆ∗ G − λ 2 ˆ G2 ˆ G∗ ln 1 + ˆ∗ G2 ˆ − αλ G∗ (395) (396) ˆ − αλ G∗ .of the Gauss-Bonnet tensor. and in L = R + f (G) theories e in particular by Li. Superˆ nova. 979]. H is the Hubble rate and p is a model dependent quantity. and the theories in [324]. G´rard and Suyama in [368]. of finding FLRW solutions that behave like ΛCDM has been considered for R+f (G) ˆ theories. G) it is found that scalar perturbations in these theories have.

22. Theories with L = f (R. 36. 131 . have been studied in [890. has also been shown to suffer from matter instabilities. 229. (397). This is due to the evolution equation for perturbations to fG . in the gravitational action [982. Further string motivated study of FLRW cosmology in the context of these theories has also been performed in [53. 3 (8fRG H 2 + 16H 4 fGG + fRR )(fR + 4H f˙G ) a2 ˆ ˆˆ ˆ (397) There can be seen to be a k-dependence in Eq. 994. which ˆ we write as . Such a relation had previously been found for the vacuum case in [393]. Black holes in these theories. and for fGG H 6 to remain suitably small. that have yet to be discussed. 370]. and include the cases of L = f (R). and It was further shown in [368] that vector modes in the general case of f (R. R2 − 4Rµν Rµν + Rµνρσ Rµνρσ ) There has been some study of fourth-order theories that include a scalar field. 574. In this scenario there is an early period of very rapid expansion due to the kinetic term of the scalar field. For stability it is required that the third term in the square brackets be positive. These papers have considered the evolution of FLRW space-times. but can be 2 avoided in theories that satisfy fRR fGG − fRG = 0. 700. These features are problematic. 2 where it was argued that the space-time is unstable if vg < 0. 960.2. and primordial nucleosynthesis. BAO. and the reader is referred to [791] for the form of the source term S. 858]. 264]. G+f (R) and R+f (G). and the constraints that can be imposed upon them from supernovae. and which obeys [791] ¨+ θ+ ˙ 4θ θ ˙+ 1+ ˙ 4θ 2 θ ˙2 k2 2θ2 ˙ θ −2 θ+ 2 + 2 a θ 9 − ˙ˆ 27(3 − 4f Gθ) 48θ4 fGG ˆˆ = S. which is expected to be negative during matter domination. G) that the propagation of tensor modes in these theories is model dependent. 959. 1217. 529.of which propagate on small scales with group velocity [368] 2 vg − 2 ˙ H 2 (fRR fGG − fRG ) ˆˆ k2 256 ˆ . 231. as well as inflation. This is motivated by the dilaton that arises in string theory compactifications [886]. Such theories have scale independent ˆˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ propagation speeds only. 728. (398) where θ = 3H is the expansion scalar. 573. 1097. as well as the Ricci scalar and the Gauss-Bonnet scalar. being the subject of study in [791]. 37. 729. 285. and remain dominant over the first. 995. ˆ decay. along with R and G. 324. CMB. 324. 80]. which does not occur in General Relativity. Other topics Let us now consider some remaining topics in fourth-order gravity. 1223. These observations place strong constraints on the theories. and their extensions. in ˆˆ ˆˆ ˆ order to avoid instabilities [791. 1209.5. Late-time acceleration has also been studied in theories where a scalar field has been included. 889. solar system observations. 678. and has been studied in terms of ‘pre-big bang’ cosmology in [530. 996. This requires fGG ≥ 0. 857. These are strong constraints on the forms of f (G). φ. 4. f (G). in the gravitational action. 228. 1223. or has super-luminal 2 modes in short wavelength modes if vg > 0. structure formation. 575]. 983. The latter case.

to General Relativity with two scalar fields [550]. under a conformal transformation. Their consequences for inflation have been studied in [143. Here the Einstein-Hilbert action is replaced by SC = −αG √ d4 x −gCλµνκ C λµνκ . 42.(µ i−1 R . Greater-than-fourth-order theories can be shown to be equivalent. 162. 2 R. 163]. (399) where is the D’Alembertian. Primordial nucleosynthesis has been considered in [957]. and the form of the CMB has been investigated in [162]. Theories with infinite n have also been considered in the literature. R. . by varying the metric. so that [206] L = f (R. ∂( i R) ∂f ∂( j R) j−i . Bouncing cosmologies in these theories have been considered in [164. For a more detailed overview of theories with greater than four derivatives of the metric in their field equations the reader is referred to [1118]. ∂f . 163]. . n R).Greater-than-fourth-order Theories Another option that has been considered in the literature is that the action itself could contain derivatives of curvature invariants. gives the field equations [1117] χ 1 YRµν − f gµν − Y. 144. and have been claimed to be ghost-free [164. Extremising the action associated with this Lagrangian. . 977. Such a proposal has been advocated by Mannheim [866] in the case of conformal Gravity.σ − Zi. so that the familiar fourth-order theories discussed above are recovered when n = 0.σ ). 2 2 where n (400) Xµν Y Zi ≡ ≡ ≡ i=1 n i=0 n j=i 1 gµν (Zi ( 2 i i−1 R). 871.µν + gµν Y + Xµν = Tµν . where it was found that the familiar form of Newtonian potentials and Yukawa potentials can be present. 132 (401) . The field equations (400) can be seen to generically contain derivatives of the metric of order 2n + 4. even as a limiting case of the fundamental action. and their Newtonian limit has been considered in [657]. and the attractor nature of de Sitter space established. and the consequences of this type of theory for dark energy have been considered in [977]. Conformal Gravity One more possibility is to completely abandon the Einstein-Hilbert action. . 551. 163].ν) .

As in some other theories of modified gravity. such that the general (conformal) matter action is IM = − √ 1 1 ¯ d4 x −g[ S µ Sµ − S 2 Rµµ + λS 4 + iψγ µ 2 12 µψ ¯ − gS ψψ]. At a classical level. The situation becomes more complicated once one adds couplings to matter fields [864]. conformal gravity has been shown to have intriguing properties. the peculiar ultraviolet properties of conformal gravity have been argued to lead to a solution to the cosmological constant problem. it has been shown that such states are completely decoupled from what the authors dub the physical sector [865]. Conformal symmetry is spontaneously broken through a new scalar degree of freedom. signalling the presence of negative energy states. These 133 . For a start. for each galaxy. One can extend this to more general actions containing scalar and fermionic fields. in which no dark matter is invoked. Although some of the quantum properties of conformal gravity have been worked out. one can choose the properties of the dark matter halo. it has been argued. Φ. The case has been made that such a theory has a number of desirable properties eluding other higher derivative theories of gravity. In particular. S. The vacuum expectation value of the scalar field is what then sets the Gravitational constant and the coupling to matter. The general weak gravity potential is of the form Φ(r) = − A + Br. 2 and αG is a dimensionless gravitational self-coupling constant. This may be contrasted with the usual dark matter prescription in which. and in its current incarnation. Even though the equations are fourth order. Furthermore. It can also be used to renormalise the cosmological constant. where ψ is a fermionic field. can be tuned to fit a range of galaxy rotation curves. It has been shown that such an action can be obtained from the path integral of fermionic degrees of freedom for the conformal and gauge invariant action of a fermionic field. Conformal gravity can then be held up as a viable theory of quantum gravity. where T is a contraction of the torsion tensor (defined below). given by Cλµνκ 1 = Rλµνκ + Rαα [gλν gµκ − gλκ gµν ] 6 1 − [gλν Rµκ − gλκ Rµν − gµν Rλκ + gµκ Rλν ].where Cλµνκ is the Weyl tensor. in which the usual Newtonian potentials that drop off as 1/r are but one possibility. the non-relativistic limit of the field equations leads to a fourth order differential equation for the gravitational potential. it is unclear how the correct angular diameter distance for the CMB can be obtained. r Such a form. a fully consistent and complete analysis of their cosmology is still lacking. Theories with L = f (T ) An interesting variant on generalisations of the Einstein-Hilbert action are the L = f (T ) theories. this is achieved by fixing universal parameters.

681. Now. BAOs and the CMB. 134. and structure formation [815. and have a number of extra degrees of freedom that are not present in General Relativity as a result [796]. µ ν as T µνρ = hµ ∂ν hα − ∂ρ hα . as stated above. These authors considered the particular case f =T − α . 78. one can show that µ T νµν is not. (403) α ρ ν This definition is equivalent to setting T µνρ equal to the antisymmetric part of the Weitzenbock connection. varying the action √ −g f (T )dΩ (404) S= 16πG with respect to the vierbein fields gives the field equations fT + 1 1 Rµν − gµν R + gµν (f − ft T ) 2 2 σ (405) T = 8πGΘµν . 1287. (407) Now. and has the required radiation. It was within the framework of these generalised equations that Bengochea and Ferraro suggested that the late-time accelerating expansion of the Universe could be accounted for without dark energy [135]. defined in terms of the vierbein from gµν = ηαβ hα hβ . observational constraints. and constrained the resulting FLRW cosmology they found with supernovae. (−T )n (406) where α and n are constants. however. exploring the transition from deceleration to acceleration. It can be seen that in the case f (T ) = T the field equations (405) reduce to Einstein’s equations. while R is of course a Lorentz scalar. This can seen by noticing that one can write the Ricci scalar in terms of T µνσ as R = −T − 2 µ T νµν .theories generalise the ‘teleparallel’ approach to General Relativity. so that the theory L = T is equivalent to the Einstein-Hilbert action. however. 289. Here T is defined by 1 1 (402) T = T µνρ Tµνρ + T µνρ Tρνµ − Tµν µ T νρρ . that these theories do not respect local Lorentz invariance. from which Einstein’s equations can be derived [1235]. the teleparallel approach outlined here gives different field equations to the fourth-order theories we have so far considered. A large number of papers have followed [135] in a short space of time. For f = T . 1 (Tµνρ + Tρνµ + Tνµρ ) − gµρ T σνσ + gµν T σρσ fT T 2 where we have called the energy-momentum tensor Θµν . 1227. It has been shown. 932. and so the f (T ) theories do not exhibit 134 . conformal transformations. It therefore follows that T is not a Lorentz scalar either. 79].10. 1308. which corresponds to a Lagrangian L = T . 1288. matter and accelerating epochs. to distinguish it from the torsion tensor. 1293. 933.27. 1286. 4 2 where T µνρ is the torsion tensor. Ωm = 0. They found the best fitting model has n = −0.

We will do this now. 944. in which case the non-Lorentz invariant part of the action can be seen from Eq. The field φµν = πµ ν 135 . and to transform so that they have canonical form. 2m2 2 (409) By extremising this equation with respect to ϕ. This starts by considering the quadratic theory L= √ −g R + 1 1 2 2 . We now want to identify the scalar and spin-two degrees of freedom in Eq. Let us now outline how ghost terms arise in these theories. up to boundary terms. and C 2 = Cµνρσ C µνρσ = Rµνρσ Rµνρσ − 2Rµν Rµν + R2 is the square of the Weyl tensor. 113. 293.local Lorentz symmetry. (408) can be rewritten as [606] ˜ L= 3 −˜ R − g ˜ 2 ˜ϕ 2 − 3m2 0 1 − e−ϕ 2 2 − ˜ C2 . Rµνρσ Rµνρσ ). 392. 607. and substituting the resulting value of φ back into the Lagrangian density. so that we are considering theories that are close to GR. or perturbative modes with negative norm. as well as tachyonic instabilities in massive modes [1187. 3 3m2 2 m2 0 −¯ R − ¯ µ ϕ ¯ µ ϕ − g ¯ ϕ + 2 φµν φµν − φ2 2 2 4 − 1 ¯ ¯µ φ − ¯ µ φνρ ¯ µ φνρ + 2 ¯ µ φµν ¯ ν φ − 2 ¯ µ φνρ ¯ ρ φνµ µφ 4 where in the second equality we have expanded out to quadratic order in ϕ and φµν around zero. Any quadratic theory can be written in this form. It can be seen from Eq. By introducing a second auxiliary field. ϕ. following [606]. 293]. 236. Rµν Rµν . where ¯ ˜ Aρν = (1 + 1 φ)δρ ν − φρν . 990]. which does not affect the field equations. and performing a conformal transformation gµν = eϕ gµν . (409) as [606] 2 L = √ 3 −1 −¯ R − g ¯ A 2 ν µ 2 ¯ µ ϕ ¯ ν ϕ − 3m0 1 − e−ϕ 2 |A| 2 (410) −¯µν C ρµσ C σνρ − C ρµν C σσρ + g √ m2 2 4 |A| φµν φµν − φ2 (411) . Eq. 2 R − 2m2 C 6m0 2 (408) where m0 and m2 are constants. (408). because of the Gauss-Bonnet identity. (409) that ϕ now has the kinetic term of a canonical scalar field. and transforming the metric so that g µν = g µρ Aρν / |A|. 606. following the discussion of [606. The exceptional case is f = T . 607. (407) to be a total divergence. one recovers Eq. By introducing an auxiliary scalar field. (408). we can then rewrite Eq. for which it is convenient to introduce auxiliary fields that play these roles. πµν . Not least of these is the presence of ‘ghosts’. Stability Issues There are serious concerns with the stability of general theories of the type L = f (R.

respectively. extremising with respect to the these three new fields then gives φ1 = X. This demonstration proceeds by showing that the particle content of theories of the type (413) are the same as the quadratic theories (408) (at least. where X ≡ R. φ2 and φ3 so that the Lagrangian density (413) becomes [607. ˜ ˜ ˜ (412) The Lagrangian given in Eq. Using the Gauss-Bonnet combination. What is more. Having outlined the proof for the generic existence of spin-2 ghosts in quadratic fourth-order theories of gravity. and then using the result derived above. and the last quantity in brackets is the Gauss-Bonnet combination. (408). Finally. R0 . Y. and discarding boundary terms. The first step here is to introduce auxiliary fields φ1 . and spin-2 modes. ϕ. while for real ϕ the scalar mode is not [1270]. 3}. (413) is recovered. (416) L = −g −Λ + αR + 2 R − 2m2 C 2m0 2 136 . The quantities C µνρ are defined as ¯ C µνρ = 1 −1 g ˜ 2 µσ ¯ ν gρσ + ¯ ρ gνσ − ¯ σ gνρ .has been introduced here to make clear with respect to which metric the indices are being raised or lowered: those of πµ ν are raised and lowered with gµν . we can choose to expand the density above up to second order in fluctuations around a de Sitter background with constant Ricci curvature. φµν . At this point the theory has been shown to be equal to a scalar-scalarscalar-tensor theory. and i = {1. (411) that for real φµν the spin-2 field does indeed have the wrong sign before its kinetic term. with the three scalars non-minimally coupled to quadratic curvature invariants. Y ≡ Rµν Rµν and Z ≡ Rµνρσ Rµνρσ . while those of φµν are ˜ raised and lowered with gµν . φ2 = Y and φ3 = Z. 293] √ L = −g [f + f1 (X − φ1 ) + f2 (Y − φ2 ) + f3 (Z − φ3 )] . this equation can then be written as [293] L = √ 1 −g (f − φ1 f1 − φ2 f2 − φ3 f3 ) + f1 R + (f1 + f3 )R2 3 1 µνρσ + (f2 + 4f3 )Cµνρσ C 2 1 2 − (f2 + 2f3 ) Cµνρσ C µνρσ − 2Rµν Rµν + R2 . and is therefore generically a ghost. Z). if m2 < 0 or m2 < 0 then 0 2 the scalar or spin-2 modes exhibit tachyonic instabilities. when considering fluctuations around de Sitter space). that these theories generically contain spin-2 ghosts. (414) where fi ≡ ∂f /∂φi . let us now extend this to more general theories of the form √ (413) L = −gf (X. so that Eq. 2. so that [944] √ 1 1 2 2 . both in canonical form. (411) now has scalar. As long as fi is non-degenerate. It can be seen from Eq. 2 3 (415) where Cµνρσ is the Weyl tensor.

where boundary terms have been ignored, and we have defined Λ ≡ 1 1 1 f − XfX + X 2 ( fXX − fY − fZ ) 2 4 6 1 1 1 1 1 +X 3 ( fXY + fXZ ) + X 4 ( fY Y + fZZ + fY Z ) 2 3 8 18 6 2 fX − XfXX − X 2 (fXY + fXZ ) 3 1 1 1 −X 3 ( fY Y + fZZ + fY Z ) 0 4 9 3 (3fXX + 2fY + 2fZ ) + X(3fXY + 2fXZ ) 1 3 +X 2 ( fY Y + fZZ + fY Z ) 0 4 3 − fY + 4fZ 0 ,



m−2 0

≡ ≡

m−2 2

where . . . 0 denotes the value of the quantity inside the brackets on the de Sitter background. It should be clear that Eq. (416) is identical to Eq. (408), up to the values of α and Λ. The particle content of general theories of the type (413), on a de Sitter background, therefore also has a scalar mode with mass m0 , and a ghost-like spin-2 mode with mass m2 . As mentioned in Section 4.2.4, it has been suggested that theories that are only functions of the Ricci scalar, R, and the Gauss-Bonnet combination, G = R2 −4Rµν Rµν + Rµνρσ Rµνρσ , can evade the ghost problem outlined above [944]. The reason given for this is that the mass term m−2 → 0 as fY → 4fZ , a condition that is satisfied for theories of 2 the type L = f (X, Z − 4Y ), or, equivalently, L = f (R, G). When m−2 vanishes it can 2 be seen from Eq. (416) that the term responsible for the ghost spin-2 fluctuations will also disappear. Further requirements for the non-existence of ghosts in f (R, G) theories are discussed in [392], with particular reference to the model of [254]. Such theories may still be subjected to constraints on their parameters by the possible existence of tachyonic instabilities, if m2 < 0. For theories with L = f (R, G) it can be seen that 0 1 m−2 = 3 R2 fGG , so that the condition m2 > 0 is equivalent to the stability condition 0 0 fGG > 0 found in [371, 370] and [791] in the context of cosmology. 4.3. Hoˇava-Lifschitz Gravity r Hoˇava-Lifschitz (HL) gravity was proposed as a toy model of quantum gravity [618, r 619, 620]. The model is non-relativistic and relies on anisotropic scaling between space and time in the UV to help render the theory asymptotically safe. Furthermore, it was claimed that General Relativity could be recovered in the infra-red by including additional relevant operators. HL gravity in its various guises has been reviewed in a number of articles [1016, 1166, 1266, 926, 170]. To understand the idea behind HL gravity we must first understand why perturbative General Relativity is not UV complete. The non-renormalisability arises because the coupling constant has negative mass dimension, [G] = −2, and the graviton propagator scales as 1/p2 . Consider the following scalar field theory, S= 1 d4 x − (∂ϕ)2 + λϕ6 . 2 137 (417)

Again, the propagator scales like 1/p2 , and the coupling constant has mass dimension [λ] = −2, so schematically at least, one might expect this theory to be non-renormalisable too. To render the theory asymptotically safe, we need to improve the UV behaviour of the propagator. One might do this by adding relativistic higher derivative terms to the action, but this is known to introduce an additional ghost-like degree of freedom. The reason for the existence of this ghost can be traced back to higher order time derivatives as opposed to space derivatives. This observation suggests an alternative approach. Let us abandon Lorentz invariance and introduce higher order spatial derivatives without introducing any higher order time derivatives. The former should improve the UV behaviour of the propagator, whereas the latter guarantees the absence of ghosts. We therefore modify the kinetic term 1 1 1 ˙ − (∂ϕ)2 → ϕ2 − ϕ(−∆)z ϕ, 2 2 2 (418)

where ∆ is the spatial Laplacian. We now have a non-relativistic dispersion relation w2 ∝ k 2z , which means that time and space scale differently, x → lx, and t → lz t, (419) For large enough z, it follows that the coupling constant has a non-negative scaling dimension, [λ] = 4z − 6 so we expect the theory to be power counting renormalisable, and ghost-free. On the flip side, we have broken Lorentz invariance, which is well tested at low energies. However, we can cope with this by adding a relevant operator of the 1 form Lrel = 2 c2 ϕ∆ϕ. This leaves the good UV physics unaffected, but allows Lorentz invariance to be restored as an emergent symmetry in the IR, with an emergent speed of light c. In HL gravity, one applies similar logic to the relevant perturbative degrees of freedom, schematically replacing φ with the graviton, hij . Since we will require time and space to scale differently in this model, we must first choose a preferred time, t, which in the language of General Relativity means making an ADM split [902] ds2 = −N 2 c2 dt2 + qij (dxi + N i dt)(dxj + N j dt), (420)

where qij (x, t) is the spatial metric and N i (x, t) is the shift vector. For the lapse function we consider two separate scenarios: (i) the projectable case where the lapse N = N (t) is homogeneous and (ii) the non-projectable case where the lapse N = N (x, t) can depend on space. Having chosen a preferred time, we no longer have the full diffeomorphism group, Diff(M), but a subset known as foliation preserving diffeomorphisms, Diff(M, F), generated by δt = f (t), and δxi = ξ i (x, t). (421) Diff(M, F) is defined by the following set of infinitesimal transformations δN δN

= = =

∂t (N f ) + ξ i ∂j N ∂t (N f + ξ ) + Lξ N f ∂t qij + Lξ qij .
i i i

(422) (423) (424)


Note that this hard breaking of diffeomorphism invariance is at the root of many of the problems facing HL gravity as it allows additional degrees of freedom to propagate 138

[230, 278]. To see the extra degree of freedom emerge it is convenient to perform a Stuckelberg trick [1076], and artificially restore full diffeomorphism invariance at the expense of introducing a new field – the Stuckelberg field. This field becomes strongly coupled as the parameters of the low energy theory run towards their diff-invariant values [278] (see also [167, 735, 1025]). We can think of the lapse and shift as playing the role of gauge fields in Diff(M, F). It follows that the projectable case is the more natural since then the gauge fields have the same space-time dependence as the corresponding generators. Having said that one might expect it to be easier to match the non-projectable case to General Relativity in the infra-red. In any event, the action from these theories is built from objects that are covariant with respect to Diff(M, F). These are the spatial metric, qij , and the extrinsic curvature, Kij =
1 2N

qij − 2 ˙

(i Nj)

, where


is the spatial covariant derivative. In the non-

projectable case one should also consider terms built from ai = i log N [167]. To build the gravitational analogue of the action (417), we replace the kinetic term such that 1 2 1 √ ϕ → ˙ qN (Kij K ij − λK 2 ), 2 κG (425)

where κG is the gravitational coupling with scaling dimension [κG ] = z − 3, and λ is a dimensionless parameter that also runs with scale. Clearly, for the z = 3 theory the gravitational coupling constant is dimensionless, which may lead one to suspect the theory to be power counting renormalisable. For z = 3 the leading order term in the UV part of the action becomes 1 √ − ϕ(−∆)3 ϕ → −κG qN V6 , 2 where the dimension six contribution to the potential is V6 = β
k Rij k


Rij + . . . .


Here β is a dimensionless parameter, Rij is the spatial Ricci tensor and “. . .” denotes any of the other possible dimension 6 operators that one might wish to include, e.g. R3 , R∆R, (ai ai )3 etc. Now let us consider the type of relevant operators one might add. If we demand our action to be invariant under spatial parity xi → −xi and time reversal t → −t, then we only need consider even dimensional operators, Lrel = − At dimension four these are [692] V4 = A1 R2 + A2 Rij Rij + +B1 Rai ai + B2 Rij ai aj + B3 Rai i + C1 (ai ai )2 + C2 (ai ai )aj j + C3 (ai i )2 + C4 aij aij , (429) whereas at dimension two, V2 = −α(ai ai ) − c2 R. 139 (430) 1 √ qN (V2 + κG V4 ). κG (428)

Here we have introduced the notation ai1 = i1 · · · this form are only relevant in the non-projectable case. The full z = 3 gravitational theory is now given by S= dtd3 x


log N . Of course, terms of

1 √ qN Kij K ij − λK 2 + c2 R + α(ai ai )2 − κG V4 − κ2 V6 +Sm , (431) G κG

where Sm [N, Ni , qij ; Ψ] is the matter part of the action, and V6 is the relevant dimension 6 operator. Note that in the absence of full diffeomorphism invariance we do not require matter to satisfy energy-momentum conservation [278]. Indeed, in general we expect to see violation of energy conservation since Diff(M) breaking operators in the gravity Lagrangian will induce Diff(M) breaking quantum corrections to the matter Lagrangian [692]. Let us compare this to the Einstein-Hilbert action, written in terms of the ADM variables as c4 Kij K ij − K 2 √ +R . (432) dtd3 x qN SGR = 16πG c2 The claim is that λ = 1 and α = 0 are the infra-red fixed points of the renormalisation group flow. Of course, the parameter α plays no role in the projectable theory, since any terms containing ai = i log N will vanish for N = N (t). For both the projectable and non-projectable theories, the free parameters run to their infra-red fixed points at low energies, so that the HL action (431) tends towards the Einstein-Hilbert action (432) with an emergent speed of light, c, and an emergent Newton’s constant, G = κG c2 /16π. Before delving further into the different manifestations of HL gravity, let us pause to make a few general comments. The first of these is with regard to the large number of terms appearing in the potential. We have not bothered to present the contributions from dimension six operators since they are two numerous27 . To reduce the number of terms, Hoˇava originally borrowed the notion of detailed balance from condensed matter r theory [619], but this has since been shown to lead to phenomenological problems [278, 1169, 1170]. Of course, the large number of terms appearing in the potential is really only an aesthetic concern. A second, more serious, concern, involves the fine tuning of light cones for each field. Since Lorentz invariance is not exact there is no symmetry guaranteeing that all fields see the same emergent light cone. We would like there to be some mechanism suppressing Lorentz violating operators at low energies but preliminary investigations suggest that fine tuning is required [1045]. It is possible that supersymmetry may be able help with this to some extent [565]. Another issue that has yet to be fully explored concerns possible equivalence principle violations in HL gravity [692]. To see how these might arise it is convenient to go to the Stuckelberg picture. The Stuckelberg trick was developed in the context of massive gauge theories [1076], but it has proven very useful in elucidating some of the key physics of HL gravity as well (see, for example, [278, 167, 692]). Recall that the anisotropic scaling of space and time requires a hard breaking of Diff(M) down to Diff(M, F). We can
27 Note that the full set of inequivalent terms up to dimension six has been presented for the projectable case in [1169, 1170].


artificially restore full diffeomorphism invariance by redefining the ADM slicing in terms of the Stuckelberg field φ(x, t). That is, the slicing goes from t = constant → φ(x, t) = constant. (433)

The unit normal to the spatial surfaces is covariant under Diff(M) and given by the spacetime gradient nµ = µ φ/ −( φ)2 . We can now express HL gravity as a relativistic theory involving the space-time metric, gµν , and the Stuckelberg field [167, 692, 532]. We do this by defining the space-time analogue of the spatial metric and the extrinsic 1 curvature in terms of the projection tensor qµν = gµν +nµ nν and its Lie derivative 2 Ln qµν [532]. Violations of the EP can occur because the Stuckelberg field can mediate a force between matter fields carrying Stuckelberg “charge”. As shown in [692], Stuckelberg “charge” is a measure of violation of energy-momentum conservation, schematically given by µν α µT α Tν = 0. (434) Γ∼ µν Tµν T This is allowed by foliation preserving diffeomorphisms which simply require [692] qαν
µT µν

= 0,


1 δSm nν µ T µν √ =− . −g δφ −( φ)2


Even if the Stuckelberg charges, Γ1 , Γ2 , . . . are always small, violation of the EP can 2 still be large since the relevant E¨tv¨s parameter η ∼ Γ1 −Γ2 really only cares about the o o Γ1 +Γ charge ratios. 4.3.1. The projectable theory We now focus on the projectable version of HL gravity, for which the lapse function is homogeneous, N = N (t). The action is then given by S= dtd3 x 1 √ qN Kij K ij − λK 2 − V + Sm , κG (436)

where the potential V = −c2 R+ higher derivative operators. Since the condition of projectability is imposed at the level of the theory itself, it follows that the Hamiltonian constraint is non-local: δSm √ d3 x q Kij K ij − λK 2 + V = . δN (437)

In comparison with GR where the Hamiltonian constraint is local, this admits a much larger class of solutions. Indeed, it has been suggested that the resulting integration constant can account for dark matter [924], although this may lead to the formation of caustics and the break down of the theory [167]. Dark matter as an integration constant


To see how this might emerge, we rewrite the action (436) in the following form S= c4 16πG Kij K ij − K 2 √ + R + Sm dtd3 x qN c2 c2 √ + (1 − λ) dtd3 x qN K 2 + UV corrections. (438) 16πG

Focusing on the low energy theory, the resulting field equations are [924] √ 8πG d3 x −g G(4) − 2 Tµν nµ nν µν c 8πG (4) Giµ − 4 Tiµ nµ c 8πG (4) Gij − 4 Tij c

= O(1 − λ) = O(1 − λ) = O(1 − λ),

(439) (440) (441)

where gµν is the full space-time metric, Gµν is the corresponding Einstein tensor, and 1 nµ = N (1, −N i ) is the unit normal to hyper-surfaces of constant t. The stress energy tensor, Tµν , is not necessarily conserved, as previously stated. Note that the non-local Hamiltonian constraint, (439), and the local momentum constraint, (440), are preserved by the dynamical equations (441). Now, these equations can be rewritten as follows [924]: 8πG HL (Tµν + Tµν ) + O(1 − λ), (442) c4 √ HL where Tµν = ρHL nµ nν and d3 x qρHL = 0. Note that this latter condition does not HL require ρHL to vanish at all points in space, and one might wish to identify Tµν with a µ HL pressureless fluid moving with 4-velocity n . Taking ρ > 0 in our Hubble patch, we may associate this integration constant with dark matter [924]. This scenario has been criticised in [167], where it is argued that the cosmological HL fluid Tµν will inevitably lead to the formation of caustics and the break down of the theory. To see why this might be the case it is convenient to go to the Stuckelberg picture, where we identify the unit normal with the space-time gradient nµ = µ φ/ −( φ)2 . HL Now Tµν behaves like a pressureless fluid, and in General Relativity it is well known that this will lead to the formation of caustics, due to the attractive nature of gravity. This is not a problem for real dust, as virialisation can occur. However, in the scenario of [924], the fluid is characterised by the gradient µ φ which is problematic as the Stuckelberg field is not differentiable at the caustic. These conclusions have been disputed in [923] where it is argued that as the putative caustic begins to form we enter a UV regime and the parameter λ runs away from its IR fixed point at λ = 1. At λ = 1 it is claimed that an extra repulsive force could ultimately prevent caustics from forming. G(4) = µν Perturbation theory – ghosts, tachyons, and strong coupling Let us now consider linearised perturbations about a Minkowski background. In what follows we will work in units where the emergent speed of light is given by c = 1. Given 142

This gives |cs | < 10−30 . As it is non-local. What about the interaction terms? At low energies. which is far more trous bling. Plugging this into the action and expanding to quadratic order one finds [1170. kU V √ 1/ 8πG. and ni = 0. we can choose a gauge defined by N = 1. (449) . on scales H0 k kU V . Here we assume that all Lorentz symmetry breaking terms in V4 and V6 depend on roughly the same scale. . the momentum constraint yields B=− where c2 ∆ s 1 ˙ ζ. the Hamiltonian constraint does not affect the local propagating degrees of freedom. we may impose kU V > meV. 926] c2 = s S= 1 8πG dtd3 x − 1 ˙2 1 ˙2 ζ + ζOs ζ + h + hij Ot hij 2 cs 8 ij + Sint . But how small does |cs | need to be? The timescale of this instability is ts ∼ 1/|cs |k > 1/|cs |kU V . we require c2 > 0 to avoid a tachys onic instability. c2 > 0 yields a ghost. but with |cs | being small so as to render the tachyonic s instability mild. Ot = ∆ + µ ∆2 ∆3 +ν 4 . in Eqs. 1166] Sint = 1 8πG dtd3 x ζ(∂i ζ)2 − + 2 ∂i ∂t ζ∂i ζ ∂t ζ c4 ∆ s ∂i ∂j ∂t ζ ∆ 143 2 3 1 ζ 2 c4 s − 2 1 + 4 c2 cs s ζ(∂t ζ)2 + . where H0 is the current Hubble scale [167]. Meanwhile. (443) where ni is a divergence-free vector. k kU V . (448) Now we see a problem: At low energies. Furthermore. and qij = (1 + 2ζ)δij + hij . we infer |cs | < H0 /kU V . where we identify cs with the speed of propagation of the scalar waves. as we see from the action (446). To study the propagating degrees of freedom we neglect the matter contribution. We therefore take c2 < 0. and hij is a transverse-tracefree tensor. since modifications to Newton’s law have been tested down to the meV scale. or equivalently |1 − λ| < 10−60 . (422) to (424). The dispersion relation for the scalar is given by w2 = c2 k 2 + s k6 k4 + 4 2 kU V kU V . and as this would need to exceed the age of the universe. and integrate out the constraints. (444) 1−λ . 2 kU V kU V (447) where µ and ν are dimensionless parameters of order one. Ni = ∂i B + ni . . (446) where Sint denotes the interactions and Os = c2 ∆ + s ∆3 ∆2 + 4 2 kU V kU V . .the residual diffeomorphism. (445) 3λ − 1 This will shortly be identified with the scalar speed of sound at low energies. However. k kU V . and working up to cubic order we find that [735.

This means the Hamiltonian constraint is now local and that terms depending on ai = i log N could play an interesting role in the dynamics [169. N = N (x.2. the Newtonian potential V (r) 10−8 . The scale Λsc represents the scale at which perturbative quantum field theory breaks down in Minkowski space. just as in General Relativity. we find Λsc 10−18 eV. 28 At distances r 144 . (450) 3 ˆ ∂i ∂j ˆ ζ ∂ˆζ 2 ∆ t ˆ ˆˆ − 2c2 + 1 ζ(∂t ζ)2 s + . t). we see that much of the motivation for studying this theory is lost. on the background gravitational field generated by the Sun [926]. the absence of full diffeomorphism invariance allows an extra scalar mode to propagate [278]. The implications for the theory are profound.3.5) one might hope to raise the scale of strong coupling by considering fluctuations on curved backgrounds. so the derived scale. This lies well below scale of the UV corrections given by kU V > meV so we can certainly trust the effective low energy description we have used to derive this scale. we see that the largest cubic interactions become strongly coupled at a scale √ Λsc ∼ |cs |3 /8πG. . The non-projectable theory We now consider the non-projectable theory for which the lapse function can depend on space. for example. (451) For small |cs |. 4. Just as in the projectable case. However. Λsc ∼ |cs |3 /8πG should still be reliable. Imposing the constraint. For scattering processes above Λsc 10−18 eV we must sum up the contribution from all multi-loop diagrams. (452) 16πG 108 km from the Sun. In analogy with DGP gravity (see section 5. We also note that any notion of Minkowski space is meaningless below distances 1/Λsc 108 km since one would require a scattering process at energies above Λsc to probe its structure. |cs | < 10−30 and taking 1/ 8πG ∼ 1018 GeV. |cs | and ζ= ˆ 8πG|cS |ζ. The action is given by S= c4 16πG Kij K ij − K 2 c2 √ √ dtd3 x qN +R +α dtd3 x qN ai ai 2 c 16πG c2 √ + (1 − λ) dtd3 x qN K 2 + Sm + UV corrections.To estimate the strength of these interactions we canonically normalise the quadratic term (446) in the infra-red by redefining t= so that Sint = 8πG |cs |3 ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ dtd3 x c2 ζ(∂i ζ)2 − 2∂t ζ∂i ζ ˆ s + ∂i ˆ ∂ˆζ ∆ t 2 ˆ t . this seems optimistic since Minkowski space is an excellent approximation28 to the background geometry at distances of order 1/Λsc 108 km. Since the claims of renormalisability are based on the validity of the perturbative description at all energies. 168]. . .

ni = 0. where we had to accept the tachyonic instability and use the fact that this should be slow relative to a Hubble time to place strong bounds on |1 − λ|. Since in the non-projectable case we no longer have such concerns regarding tachyonic instabilities. Now integrating out the momentum constraint. the strongest bounds on |1 − λ| and |α| come from preferred frame effects in the Solar System. but. Again we assume that all ˜ ˜ Lorentz symmetry breaking terms in V4 and V6 depend on roughly the same scale. α Expanding to quadratic order gives [169. 145 (459) . as we will see. and 0 < α < 2. we do not identify it with the s speed of sound. 1025] c2 < 0. and hij is a transverse-tracefree tensor. (458) s Recall that this was not possible in the projectable case. |α| 10−7 . requiring [1272] |1 − λ|. as before. (457) s α The ghost and the tachyon problems can now be avoided by simultaneously taking [169. ∆2 ∆3 ˜ and Ot = ∆ + µ 2 + ν 4 . (454) where Sint denotes the interactions and ˜ O s = c2 s ∆3 ∆2 α−2 ∆+ 2 + 4 α kU V kU V . ni is a divergence free vector. (422) to (424). and qij = (1 + 2ζ)δij + hij . we choose a gauge N = 1 + χ. We now write down the dispersion relation for the scalar w 2 = c2 s α−2 2 k4 k6 k + 2 + 4 α kU V kU V . (453) where. Ni = ∂i B + ni . Eqs. kU V √ 1/ 8πG. Given the reduced set of diffeomorphisms. Instead. ˜ ˜ kU V kU V (455) where µ and ν are dimensionless parameters of order one.Again we consider small vacuum perturbations on a Minkowski background. working in units where c = 1. one finds B=− c2 ∆ s 1 ˙ ζ. 1025] 2 χ = − ζ. where c2 is given by equation (445). (456) It follows that the speed of propagation of the scalar waves in the non-projectable theory are given by α−2 c2 = c2 ˜s . 1025] S= 1 8πG dtd3 x − 1 ˙2 1 ˙2 ˜ ˜ ζ + ζ Os ζ + h + hij Ot hij 2 cs 8 ij + Sint . we cannot gauge away the fluctuations in the lapse function that depend on space. The Hamiltonian constraint yields [169.

227. In the quantum version of the theory. As we have seen. (iv) chirality of primordial gravity waves [1196] and (v) enhancement of baryon asymmetry. What about the interactions? Again. abundance of gravity waves. Now given ˜ the bounds in Eq. 854. 692]. λ = 1/3 (conformal invariance) and λ = ∞ [619]. 284]. Note that this result can be derived using a direct method similar to the one presented for the projectable case in the previous section [1025]. To avoid this problem we take c2 ∼ 1. If the scalar graviton fluctuations propagated significantly slower than other fields to which they couple. at low energies we require |λ − 1| < 10−7 and 1−λ c2 = 3λ−1 < 0. 234. 522. 645]. and so |1 − λ| ∼ |α|. This suggests that λ flows from infinity in the UV to λ = 1 in the IR.For λ and α satisfying this bound. including (i) a scale invariant spectrum of cosmological perturbations. it follows that the strong coupling scale is Λsc 1015 GeV. Solar system constraints on these theories are ˜s considered further in [643. 232]. dark matter. and black holes are studied in [226. new physics that softens the interactions kicks in at k ∼ kU V . which is dynamically inconsistent. and the derivation of this scale. 644. (ii) cosmological bounces [179. focusing on the low energy theory we find that the quantum fluctuations on Minkowski space become strongly coupled at the scale ˜ Λsc ∼ |λ − 1|/8πG ∼ |α|/8πG [1025. or using the Stuckelberg method in the decoupling limit [692]. s 4. 235]. 4 the relevant degrees of freedom have an anisotropic dispersion relation w2 ≈ k 6 /kU V . This manifests itself through the lapse function vanishing asymptotically for generic solutions to the constraint equations [603]. based on the solutions presented in [684]. 351]. without early time acceleration [925. (iii) dark matter as an integration constant [924]. we cannot trust our derivation of the strong coupling scale. This is incompatible with phenomenological requirements for the following reason: We expect there to be 3 fixed points in the renormalisation group flow for λ. However. in the UV. the speed of propagation of the scalar is c2 ≈ ˜s λ−1 . This would be particularly worrying for light since it would result in photon decay and the absence of cosmic rays. and in particular the constraint algebra. If kU V > Λsc we can trust our low energy description. then those fields would decay into scalar gravitons via the Cerenkov process. One of these relates to the formal structure of the theory. (459). since the low energy description would not be valid there [168].3. As explained in the projectable case. The asymptotically flat solutions we have just discussed represent a non-generic subset of measure zero in the space of all solutions. α which should not be too slow. its has been claimed that one must take λ < 1/3 in order to have a stable vacuum [1144]. Now. where strong coupling would otherwise occur.3. These are λ = 1 (diff invariance). if kU V < Λsc . Aspects of Hoˇava-Lifschitz cosmology r HL gravity was first applied to cosmology in [698. This is often at the root of much of the interesting cosmology that has subsequently arisen. strong coupling casts serious doubts on the claims of renormalisability as these rely on the validity of perturbative quantum field theory. This situation is reminiscent of the case in string theory where we introduce the string scale just below the Planck scale. These latter effects occur because the modified dispersion 146 . In this scenario. and so on [927]. Whilst this seems promising there are some issues facing the non-projectable theory.

to a good approximation. but they are not particularly strong. 712. At 1σ confidence level they find that |λ − 1| 0.02. (460) +n κ 2 kU V a2 2 . This corresponds to the position of the bounce. it has been claimed that scalar fluctuations on cosmological backgrounds are stable. this suggests that there exists a∗ for which the right-hand side of Eq. For the non-projectable theory there is no such contribution and C(t) ≡ 0. although ˙ this is not necessarily required in HL gravity. satisfies the usual energy-conservation law.3. Cosmological perturbations in HL gravity have also been considered (see. 1256. the background cosmology in both the projectable and nonprojectable theories is qualitatively very similar. gravity waves produced during inflation have been found to be chiral in HL gravity. ρ + 3H(ρ + P ) = 0. the Friedmann equation takes the following form: 8πG 3λ − 1 2 H = 2 3 where V (a) = κ 1+m a2 κ 2 kU V a2 ρ+ C(t) a3 + V (a). for example. (461) and where m and n are dimensionless parameters of order one. with C(t) → constant at low energies. Choosing units where the emergent speed of light is c = 1.relation results in radiation scaling like 1/a6 as opposed to 1/a4 in the UV regime. Observational constraints on |λ−1| coming from the background cosmology have been studied in [445. since at this point H = 0. consider the limiting behaviour of the right hand side of Eq. thereby representing a robust prediction of the theory [1196]. stability considerations require |λ − 1| 10−60 . 652]). We immediately notice that the effective Newton’s constant seen by cosmology differs from the one derived by comparing the low energy effective action to the Einstein-Hilbert action: 2 Gcosmo = G. 632. 284. 1258. and pressure. it is of no consequence on sub-horizon scales where we can trust the perturbative analysis about Minkowski space. at low energies. This is in contrast to the corresponding fluctuations on Minkowski space [632] which are known to suffer from either a ghost or tachyonic instability. (460) is zero at a = a∗ . Also. Indeed. which is far weaker than the bounds presented in previous sections. ±1 is the spatial curvature. 446] using BAO+CMB+SN1a. Whilst this may be relevant to long wavelength modes. For the projectable theory it corresponds to the “dark matter integration constant” [924]. By continuity. 1257. The contribution from C(t)/a3 depends on the theory in question. We refer the reader to the following review articles on this subject [926. 147 . as we saw in section 4. Here κ = 0. 521. For an FLRW universe. Recall that in the projectable theory. whereas in the non-projectable theory preferred frame effects require |λ − 1| 10−7 . we see that Gcosmo → G. To see how HL cosmology can admit a bounce. 1098].1. (462) 3λ − 1 Although as λ → 1. for the projectable theory. which is negative if nκ < 0. 713. [925. as we have already discussed. Neglecting C(t)/a3 and assuming ρ scales like 1/a3 or 1/a4 3 −4 we see that this goes like ∼ nkU V κ/a2 . P . ρ. (460). We assume that the matter component with energy density.

without any corrections from other scales in the theory. in the absence of a contribution from the cosmological constant.2 how the original versions of HL gravity are plagued with problems at the level of both theory and phenomenology. Thus the theory contains a unit time-like vector field which may be generic (as in Einstein-Aether theory) or expressed in terms of the gradient of a scalar field defining a global time (sometimes called the khronon29 ). with effective equation of state w = −1. The cosmological evolution of a matter-filled universe is driven to the de Sitter attractor. these effects may allow one to discriminate between ΘCDM and ΛCDM in the near future. with a UV completion offered by HL gravity in the khronon case.4. It is claimed that this extra symmetry removes the troublesome scalar degree of freedom. Θ. it is technically natural to assume this coupling to be small as it is protected from radiative corrections by a discrete symmetry. Indeed. The ΘCDM model HL gravity represents the UV completion of an interesting cosmological model. In particular.1 and 4. Remarkably. so that one is left with a spin-2 graviton as the only propagating 29 The khronon field is naturally identified with the Stuckelberg mode in HL gravity at low energies. The value of the effective cosmological constant on the de Sitter branch is determined by the lowest dimension coupling between the Goldstone field and the khronon. In this model. The enhancement is most prominent at very large scales of order a few gigaparsecs. Thus. it is shown that the model allows for a technically natural small contribution to cosmic acceleration. but extends also to shorter scales. HMT-da Silva theory We have discussed in Sections 4. it is assumed that the old cosmological constant problem is solved in some way.3.5. 148 . In the absence of any matter sources (including the cosmological constant) the model possesses two solutions corresponding to Minkowski and de Sitter space-times. the evolution of cosmological perturbations is different in the ΘCDM and ΛCDM models. but non-zero. the current value of cosmic acceleration would not present any fine-tuning problem. In principle. A key assumption corresponds to the fact that Lorentz invariance is broken in the gravitational sector. With this in mind. such that the net contribution to the cosmological constant is vanishing. 4.4. the growth of linear perturbations is enhanced in ΘCDM as compared to the standard ΛCDM case. The root of this is the breaking of diffeomorphism invariance and the additional scalar degree of freedom that propagates as a result. The proposed acceleration mechanism appears generically when we assume the existence of another field. Another difference is the appearance of an effective anisotropic stress. without any fine tuning. The former solution is unstable and the presence of an arbitrarily small amount of matter destroys it.3. The model then seeks to explain the tiny. The model is a valid effective field theory up to a high cut-off just a few orders of magnitude below the Planck scale. resulting in a nontrivial gravitational slip at very large scales. which is taken to be invariant under shift transformations.3.3. Hoˇava and Melby-Thompson r (HMT) proposed a modified version of the projectable theory possessing an additional U (1) symmetry [621]. amount of cosmic acceleration that is currently observed. dubbed ΘCDM [171]. Interestingly.

According to [621]. as in previous versions of HL gravity. Indeed. The action is invariant under Diff(M. Furthermore. da Silva has argued that in contrast to the claims of [621]. and Ω is a dimensionful coupling constant that can run with scale. It is this symmetry that removes the scalar graviton. Rij . he proposed the following action: SdaSilva = 1 κG dtd3 x √ q N Kij K ij − λK 2 − V (qij . F). Rij . (472) which is invariant under the same symmetries as (463). containing the usual terms up to dimension six in order to guarantee the z = 3 scaling in the UV. . HMT theory contains two new fields given by A = A(x. Note that ν transforms as a scalar. F) invariance [353]. i j ν) k Rij ) +νΘij (2Kij + + (1 − λ)[(∆ν)2 + 2K∆ν] − A(R − 2Ω) . one ought to ask why we have not included the parameter λ in front of the K 2 term in the action. and can be thought of as a second cosmological constant. t). t) and ν = ν(x. however. in particular those coming from preferred frame effects. fixing λ = 1 ensures no conflict with observational tests of Lorentz violation at low energies. one can accommodate λ = 1 and still retain the U (1) × Diff(M. The HMT action is given by SHM T = 1 κG dtd3 x √ q N Kij K ij − K 2 − V (qij . There 149 . The HMT model has been applied to cosmology in [1259]. Recently. F). A transforms exactly as the lapse function would in a nonprojectable theory. . (463) 1 where Θij = Rij − 2 Rq ij + Ωq ij . This constant controls the scalar curvature of spatial slices. with δN δN i = = = = ∂t (N f ) ∂t (N f + ξ ) + Lξ N f ∂t qij + Lξ qij i i i i (464) (465) (466) (467) (468) δqij δν δA = ∂t (Af ) + ξ i ∂j A f ∂t ν + ξ ∂j ν. In addition.mode. Of course. This is not a coincidence. Indeed. whereas A transforms like a spatial scalar and a temporal vector. These are important in extending the symmetry group to U (1) × Diff(M. As with the original projectable theory. Now we must subject λ to the same constraints as before. One can think of A as being the next to leading order term in the non-relativistic expansion of the lapse. with a potential V = −c2 R + . +νΘij (2Kij + i k Rij ) j ν) − A(R − 2Ω) . we assume N = N (t). the parameter λ is fixed to be equal to one by requiring the action to be invariant under a local U (1) symmetry: ˙ δA = ψ − N i δν δN i iψ (469) (470) (471) = −ψ = N i ψ.

strong coupling problems have recently been shown to infect the matter sector of this theory [811]. ∂µ ∂ν π. Although the galileon and the graviton both couple to matter. 168]. In each case. It is valid in the so-called decoupling limit π in which all interactions go to zero except the scalar self-interactions. unless one introduces a low scale of Lorentz violation. and a modification due to the brane bending mode. Preliminary investigations on this subject have been carried out in [631]. the galileon.. 2 (474) where LGR LDGP π = = 1 16πG 1 16πG 1 ˜ µν 2 ˜ 1˜ h ∂ hµν − hηµν 4 2 1 2 3π∂ 2 π − rc (∂π)2 ∂ 2 π 2 + . (473) This symmetry corresponds to a generalisation of Galilean invariance. This is inherited from Poincar´ invariance in the bulk e [1017].5. LGR . LDGP . 4. One might expect that almost any co-dimension one braneworld model with large distance deviations from GR will be described.are claims that the extra symmetry will eliminate the scalar graviton even when λ = 1 [353]. We should also note that even if there is no direct coupling to matter and therefore no modification of gravity. hence the name. In particular. The inspiration for the model comes from DGP gravity [454]. in part. one can potentially obtain violations of the null energy 150 . and in some appropriate limit. we will see how the boundary effective theory on the DGP brane is well described by the following action. 1 + πT. DGP Seff = d4 x LGR + LDGP . 2 (475) (476) The Lagrangian (474) has two components: a linearised GR piece. this means that there are no terms higher than second order. In particular. In Section 5. to facilitate a model independent analysis of a large class of modified gravity models. observed that the vacuum field equations are built π exclusively out of second derivatives. although more detailed study is required to be sure. on scales where we can neglect background curvature. This essentially follows from the fact that the extrinsic curvature of the brane is Kµν ≈ ∂µ ∂ν π. LDGP . any direct coupling between them is neglected to leading order. Focusing on the π-Lagrangian.. ensuring a well defined Cauchy problem and avoiding any of the potential problems arising from ghosts in higher derivative theories. in a way that is reminiscent of [169. galileons are of interest in their own right as a source of energy-momentum. by a generalised π Lagrangian possessing the Galilean symmetry.4. In addition there are no first or zero derivative terms which means that the π Lagrangian possesses the Galilean symmetry. The resulting vacuum Lagrangian is invariant under the following shift in the galileon field π → π + bµ xµ + c. π 1˜ + hµν T µν . Galileons Galileon theory [963] was originally developed by Nicolis et al. In any event. General Relativity on perturbed Minkowski space is modified by an additional single scalar field. Nicolis et al. with derivative self-interactions.

2 2 (479) ˜ ˜ where gµν = ηµν + hµν . Generically. In General Relativity. Galileon Action and Equations of Motion Now suppose we consider the decoupling limit (480) with the additional assumption that the strength of some of the scalar self-interactions can be held fixed. T µν → ∞. let us consider the amplitude. This statement is true to all orders in the “decoupling” limit Mpl . 4. We retain some of the scalar self-interactions for the following reason: we are interested in an O(1) modification of GR on cosmological scales. Mpl (480) where Mpl = 1/8πG.1.4. Tµν and Tµν . so that locally we have δA = A − AGR = − 1 TT . for a given source and boundary conditions. We are interested in the case where gravity is modified by an additional scalar. although the situation may be improved by going to multi-galileon theory (see section 4. a single galileon will result in superluminality. the action is given by ˜ S hµν . This amounts to neglecting the back-reaction of the scalar onto the geometry so that we can consider it as a field on Minkowski space. The fluctuation hµν is identified with the GR graviton. α 2 = const. In the decoupling limit. but we would like this to be screened down to O(10−5 ) on solar system scales. π = d4 xLGR + Lπ .condition without introducing any instability [964. Mpl and T µν = const. it coincides with the linearised solutions of GR. αp2 (478) Such a theory can be described by the following action S= d4 x 1 16πG −˜R(˜) − g g α 2 1˜ π∂ π + hµν T µν + πT + interactions.5). As we will see. however. A. where the physical graviton is hµν = hµν + 2πηµν .4 for a detailed discussion of the Vainshtein mechanism in DGP gravity. for the exchange of one graviton between two conserved sources.4. this amplitude is given by 1 16πG Tµν T µν − T T .5. and ˜ as such. 151 . Galileon modification of gravity To see how to generalise the decoupling limit of DGP to a larger class of modified gravity theories. (477) AGR = p2 2 µ where T = Tµ . the derivative self-interactions can help shut down the scalar at short distances through Vainshtein screening30 . α. Note that matter is minimally coupled to the metric gµν = ˜ ηµν + hµν . (481) 30 See section 5. 343].

∂∂π) + πT represents the generalisation of the π-Lagrangian in DGP gravity. ∂π. It follows that the field equations for the galileon model are therefore given by the following: 1 1˜ ˜ − ∂ 2 hµν − hηµν 2 2 5 i=1 + . ∂π. = 8πGTµν . ∂∂π) = Ei (∂∂π). and31 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 = π = = = = i=1 ci Li (π. . δ d4 xLi (π. (∂µi−1 ∂ νi−1 π). Note that we have presented the simpler expressions as suggested by [400]. 1 Specifically. Lgal (π. ∂∂π) = −T. (∂αn ∂ 1 π). . δπ where µi−1 µ Ei (∂∂π) = (i − 1)!δ[ν1 . ∂π. . ∂∂π). 31 We define (∂∂π)n = (∂ α α α α1 ∂ 2 π)(∂α2 ∂ 3 π) .where Lπ = Lgal (π. . . 400] 5 Lgal (π.. and in four dimensions is given by [963. . (482) (483) (484) (485) (486) (487) 1 − (∂π)2 2 1 − ∂ 2 π(∂π)2 2 1 − (∂ 2 π)2 − (∂∂π)2 (∂π)2 2 1 − (∂ 2 π)3 − 3(∂ 2 π)(∂∂π)2 + 2(∂∂π)3 (∂π)2 . ∂π. the variation of each component is built exclusively out of second derivatives. ∂π. 152 . ∂∂π) gives second order field equations. The vacuum part of the generalised π-Lagrangian. E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 = = = = 1 (∂ 2 π)2 − (∂∂π)2 2 3 2 (488) (489) (490) 2 3 = ∂2π (∂ π) − 3∂ π(∂∂π) + 2(∂∂π) (491) (492) (∂ 2 π)4 − 6(∂ 2 π)2 (∂∂π)2 + 8∂ 2 π(∂∂π)3 + 3[(∂∂π)2 ]2 − 6(∂∂π)4 . 2 By construction.. δνi−1 ] (∂µ1 ∂ ν1 π) . ∂∂π) = where the ci are constants. when π → π + bµ xµ + c. What is the most general Lagrangian with this property? The answer is remarkably simple. and is assumed to be Galilean invariant in the sense that Lgal → Lgal + total derivative. ∂π. (493) (494) ci Ei (π.

Galileon cosmology as a weak field The galileon theory has been constructed in terms of a tensor and a scalar propagating on a Minkowski background. 153 . Since hµν = hµν + 2πηµν . Let us consider a spatially flat FLRW space-time. In what follows. (497) For a given cosmological fluid. local will mean local in both space and time. The modification of GR is encoded entirely in the solution of the scalar equation of motion. we have a non-trivial scalar π = Ψ − ΨGR . 4 4 (498) Now in our modified theory the physical Hubble parameter (associated with hµν ) differs ˜ from the corresponding GR value. 4 4 and Φ = −Ψ .Equation (493) corresponds to the linearised Einstein equations . at distances below the curvature scale any metric is well approximated by a local perturbation about Minkowski space. ˜ hµν . and ˜ hij = 2ΨGR δij . It is easy to show that Di j |x|2 = 0. however. If we take our position to be given by x = y = 0 and t = τ = 0. then for |x| H −1 and |t| H we have [963] 1 ˙ 1 ds2 = −dτ 2 + a(τ )2 dy 2 ≈ 1 − H 2 |x|2 + (2H + H 2 )t2 (−dt2 + dx2 ). (494). which for cosmological solutions will correspond to sub-Hubble distances and sub-Hubble times. where 1 ˙ 1 2 2 ΨGR = − HGR |x|2 + (2HGR + HGR )t2 . ds2 ≈ −(1 + 2Ψ)dt2 + (1 − 2Φ)dx2 . Whilst it is straightforward to understand the weak gravitational field in the solar system using this description. where the Newtonian potentials are 32 (496) 1 1 ˙ Ψ = − H 2 |x|2 + (2H + H 2 )t2 . (499) Note that a Galilean transformation π → π +bµ xµ +c merely corresponds to a coordinate transformation xµ → xµ − cxµ + 1 (xν xν bµ − 2bν xν xµ ) in the physical metric. and so their solution. We recognise this as a perturbation on Minkowski space in Newtonian gauge. 2 2 (495) ˙ where the Hubble scale H and its time derivative H are evaluated now. This is not the case. hence. no anisotropic stress is present. H = HGR . it is not clear how one should describe cosmology. Since hµν agrees with the linearised GR solution. the corresponding GR solutions have Hubble parameter ˜ ˜ HGR . corresponds to the standard GR solution for a given source and boundary conditions. we have htt = −2ΨGR . Fortunately. 2 32 It may look like that since Φ − Ψ = 2Φ = 0 that this construction introduces anisotropic stress. as strictly speaking the condition for the absence of anisotropic stress is Di j (Φ − Ψ) = 0.

and (ii) does the scalar get screened on solar system scales? For a general galileon theory. However. the source corresponds to the vacuum energy. at the level of the scalar equations of motion the tadpole term. ¯ the galileon structure is preserved in the effective theory describing fluctuations. c1 = 0. λ → λ + c1 . Indeed. where the ghost is known to be present on the self-accelerating branch. where Lδπ = i=1 di Li (δπ. and π = 0. and require the π-tadpole term to vanish. c1 = 0. where the matrix Mij depends on the background curvature. to avoid the ghost we must choose parameters such that d2 > 0.3 for further details). d4 x c1 π. A self-accelerating vacuum with de Sitter curvature H 2 would have π = − 1 H 2 xµ xµ . The point is that at the level of the graviton equations of motion.5). and T = 0. In DGP gravity. (500) 2 Clearly non-trivial solutions exist for suitable choices of the parameters ci . ˜ S hµν . has the effect of renormalising the vacuum energy seen by the π field. Plugging this into the field equations (494). ¯ 4 gives [963] 3 − 2c2 H 2 + 3c3 H 4 − 3c4 H 6 + c5 H 8 = 0. one would find dDGP < 0 (see Section 5. and c1 = 0. ∂∂δπ) + δπT . we discuss the Vainshtein mechanism in detail in the context of DGP 154 . could give rise ¯ to self-acceleration. so selfaccelerating solutions also exist. in a braneworld context. This guarantees that Minkowski space is a solution for the physical metric since the field equations are solved ˜ by hµν = 0. The coefficients can be obtained from the coefficients in the underlying theory via a linear map di = i Mij cj . one might associate the tadpole with the vacuum energy in the bulk. ˜ Are these vacua consistent? To investigate this we need to consider fluctuations hµν . and δπ = π − π about the self-accelerating vacuum.5. These are familiar to us from DGP gravity (see Section 5. Again. as in the ghost condensate scenario. Note that this Minkowski solution need not be stable. and the tadpole. We now consider maximally symmetric vacua in the absence of vacuum energy. Is the same true in a general galileon scenario? Or can we identify a scenario that admits a consistent self-accelerating solution? There is some ambiguity as to what is actually meant by ‘self-acceleration’ if the tadpole term d4 xc1 π is present in the galileon Lagrangian. The corresponding GR solution is always Minkowski space. with c1 = 0. H 2 [963]. λ. There are two immediate things to consider: (i) does the spectrum of fluctuations contain a ghost. λ = 0. On the contrary. Given the constraints λ = 0. we set the bare vacuum energy λ = 0. however. our interest is in stable de Sitter solutions. δπ = 5 d4 xLGR + Lδπ . ˜ with hµν = 0. To avoid considering a simple cosmological constant.Self-accelerating solutions Of particular interest are self-accelerating solutions. ∂δπ. A self-accelerating vacuum is ˜ one that accelerates even in the absence of any sources for the fields hµν and π. where the self-accelerating solution is haunted by ghosts. Non-trivial solutions for the scalar π = π (x). any de Sitter solution is necessarily self-accelerating. Because of the Galilean symmetry. 2 In order to screen the scalar at solar system scales one must appeal to the Vainshtein mechanism.

and might claim that the modification of gravity does indeed get screened. (502) and derive the linearised solution M δπ lin (r) = − . Now. At shorter distances. 223] 2 3 δπ δπ M δπ . the non-linear terms in Equation (502) become important and start to dominate. the profile of the galileon field changes to   M 1/2 √  r if the term with d3 dominates d3 nonlin δπ (r) ∼ 1/3  M  r if the term with d4 dominates d4 ˜ For a suitable choice of parameters one can have |hµν (r)| |δπ nonlin (r)| on solar system scales. These can cause problems at both the classical and the quantum levels. it is well known that the GR solution is given by the standard Newtonian potential ˜ |hµν (r)| ∼ GM . Nonetheless. For simplicity we assume spherical symmetry for fluctuations on the self-accelerating background and consider the profile outside of a heavy non-relativistic source.5. our galileon analysis indicates that self-accelerating solutions that are ghost-free and exhibit some form of Vainshtein screening on solar system scales could exist. there are also other concerns. At the quantum level. Our galileon description holds provided we can neglect the effect of the scalar field back onto the geometry. 0. Firstly.5. More serious concerns appear when we study fluctuations about the spherically symmetric solutions we have just described.4. r (501) where the mass of the source M = ρ(r)dV . However. The mechanism works in exactly the same way in a general galileon theory. (502) + 2d3 + 2d4 = d2 r r r 4πr3 Note that E5 is identically zero when evaluated on a spherically symmetric field. we should consider the question of back-reaction. This happens at the so-called ‘Vainshtein radius’. 0).4. Tµν = diag(ρ(r). d4 M 2 d3 2 1/6 . This turns out not to be problematic provided we 2 take |di | Mpl /H 2i−4 [963]. given by [223] rV ∼ max d3 M d2 2 1/3 . one must identify the scale at which 155 . it is important to note that the Vainshtein mechanism itself has yet to be properly understood in a well defined and fully covariant theory. (503) 4πd2 r ˜ Now |hµν (r)| ∼ |δπ lin (r)| so we have an O(1) modification of GR. 0.gravity in Section 5. The galileon solution δπ(r) is given by [963. We discuss some aspects of this at the end of Section 5. However. At large distances one can neglect the higher order terms in Eq. Depending on which of the non-linear terms dominates.

and the radius at which one can no longer trust the classical background. the situation can be improved by the introduction of a second galileon [1018]. so does the strong coupling scale. This is known to be a problem in DGP gravity [9. one must introduce a tadpole. As we have already explained. At the classical level.5.5.the quantum fluctuations become strongly coupled. Here we note that for a general galileon model the critical radius at which the theory enters a quantum fog can sometimes be unacceptably large33 . except now we demand that the relevant vacuum Lagrangian. that it has been suggested that causal paradoxes associated with superluminality do not always manifest themselves in theories with non-linear scalar interactions [73]. This is unacceptable since the interaction terms are crucial to the successful implementation of the Vainshtein mechanism.4. 609] and can only be avoided in the general case by eliminating all of the interaction terms. one cannot find a completely consistent scenario. Yet another problem concerns radial fluctuations at large distances. ∂π. to simultaneously avoid problems with Cerenkov emission and a low scale of strong coupling in a ghost-free theory with self-accelerating solutions. 156 . as we will discuss in Section 4. indicating problems for causality34 . Conformal galileon The conformal galileon is constructed in much the same way as the pure galileon we have just described. this could be considered undesirable as a tadpole will renormalise the vacuum energy seen by the galileon. This means that there exists a critical radius at which the quantum effects start to dominate and one can no longer trust the classical solution. while it is possible to obtain self-acceleration in a general galileon model that avoids some of the problems facing DGP gravity. than the Schwarzschild radius of the Sun however. Aspects of strong coupling in DGP gravity are discussed in Section 5. In summary then. These can propagate at superluminal speeds. we find that fluctuations at short distances can sometimes propagate extremely slowly.4. transformations 33 Larger 34 Note. Lconformal (π. is invariant under the conformal group: gal dilations translations : π(x ) → π(x + a ) µ µ ν : π(xµ ) → π(bxµ ) + log b µ µ µ (504) (505) (506) (507) boosts : π(x ) → π(Λ ν x ) special conformal : π(xµ ) → π(xµ + cµ |x|2 − 2(c · x)xµ ) − 2c · x. ∂∂π). However. Indeed. so much so that a huge amount of Cerenkov radiation would be emitted as the earth moves through the solar galileon field. As the background solution changes with scale.

2. i ci Li where [963. 964]. Neglecting the tadpole. rather than [389]. Violations of the null energy condition here can drive inflationary expansion without introducing instabilities.It turns out that Lconformal = gal Lconformal 1 Lconformal 2 Lconformal 3 Lconformal 4 = = = = conformal . some issues with superluminality. ψi ]. A supersymmetric version of the conformal galileon has been obtained in [687] as a consistent completion of the supersymmetric ghost condensate. however. π] = √ d4 x −g 1 R + Lcov + Smatter [ˆµν . and is given by S[gµν . 4. 389]35 (508) (509) (510) e4π 1 − e2π (∂π)2 2 1 1 − ∂ 2 π + (∂π)2 (∂π)2 2 2 1 −2π (∂π)2 {4(∂π) · (∂∂π) · (∂π) e−2π L4 − e 20 −4(∂π)2 ∂ 2 π + 3[(∂π)2 ]2 e−4π L5 + 3e−4π (∂π)2 L4 + 1 [(∂π)2 ]3 56 (511) Lconformal 5 = 5 + (∂π)2 [(∂π)2 ∂ 2 π − (∂π) · (∂∂π) · (∂π)] . 396]. the covariant completion of Lgal = i ci Li is 35 Our sign conventions agree with [963]. g gal 16πG (513) Naturally we recognise the first term in brackets as the standard Einstein-Hilbert action. Although galileon theory was originally motivated by co-dimension one braneworld models. An obvious example would be gµν = e2π gµν although this is by no means ˆ a unique choice. 7 (512) Aspects of the conformal galileon model are studied in [343. The last term corresponds to the matter action. where the conformal factor ˆ depends on π. 157 . √ 1 d4 x −gR. and does not represent a fully covariant theory. Note that the matter 16πG fields are minimally coupled to the metric gµν = f (π)gµν . This has been worked out in [400.4. it is interesting to consider the four dimensional covariant completion of the theory in its own right. There are. Covariant galileon The galileon action (481) describes fields propagating on a Minkowski background.

Kµν . π = g µν µ ν π. We discuss aspects of Lovelock gravity. Galilean invariance is broken. The probe brane action corresponds to a generalisation of the DBI action. and ( π)2 = 158 . in Section 5. y). . (518) For a slowly moving brane (∂π)2 1. 36 We g µν µπ define ( ν π. We will not present the field equations here since they are long and complicated.given by Lcov = gal cov i ci Li . as we will now explain. covariant galileon terms are seen to arise in Kaluza-Klein compactifications of Lovelock actions [1242]. Now although the field equations in our covariant theory remain at most second order in derivatives. the leading order dynamical piece goes like − λ (∂π)2 . and in particular. and this is inherited by the dimensionally reduced theory. we first consider objects that transform covariant on the 2 brane.3. 4. . ( aαn α1 π). The non-minimal coupling helps to eliminate those higher derivatives. (517) π)( Note that for the 4th and 5th order terms one must introduce some non-minimal gravitational coupling to π.7. In a very recent paper. DBI galileon The galileon Lagrangian Lgal can also be obtained from the non-relativistic limit of a probe brane in five dimensional Minkowski space [389]. The interested reader can find them in [400]. especially for the higher-order terms. The induced metric on the brane is then given by gµν = ηµν + ∂µ π∂ν π. This is necessary since the naive covariant completion of L4 and L5 .4. We take our bulk coordinates to be (xµ . To generalise this. π)n = ( α1 α2 π)( α2 α3 π) . but should be mindful of the fact that the formulae for Lcov and Lcov 4 5 presented here differ from those in [400] by an overall factor of 4 and 5. with minimal couplings. The relevant covariant objects are the extrinsic curvature. where36 (514) (515) 1 π)2 − R( π)2 ( π)2 4 π)2 + 2( ν α π) α Lcov 2 Lcov 3 Lcov 4 Lcov 5 = = = = 1 − ( π)2 2 1 π( π)2 − 2 1 − ( π)2 − ( 2 − (516) 1 ( π)3 − 3( π)( 2 −6Gµν ( µ π)3 π) ( π)2 . results in equations of motion containing higher derivatives. respectively. and then build a Lagrangian from them that gives rises to field equations that are at most second-order. Gauss-Bonnet gravity. This might have been expected since the underlying theory has at most second-order fields. and place the probe brane at y = π(x). from which we deduce that the DBI action is SDBI = −λ √ d4 x −g = d4 x − λ 1 + (∂π)2 .

it can be shown that Si ≈ d4 xLi . Rµναβ . There is a rich structure and in some cases the symmetries can even admit non-trivial potentials beyond the usual tadpoles. which means that. (∂µn ∂ µn+1 π)(∂µn+1 π) = (∂π) · (∂∂π)n · (∂π). The expressions for S3 and S5 can be identified with the boundary terms in General Relativity and in Gauss-Bonnet gravity. Now. . and the covariant galileon by considering a general bulk geometry [389].7. and the latter is the Myers boundary term [931]. 37 We write (∂ µ1 π)(∂µ1 ∂ µ2 π) . respectively. . These represent the analogues of galileons and DBI theories living on dS4 and AdS4 . Sgen-DBI ≈ d4 xLgal [389]. The generalised DBI action required to guarantee second-order field equations is Sgen-DBI = i ci Si . Of course. giving rise to a more general class of effective theories on curved space [545. discussed in more detail in Section 5. the former is the Gibbons-Hawking term.3. This procedure has recently been extended to probe branes that are curved. for a slowly moving probe in Minkowski space. One can then recover the conformal galileon by considering a probe brane in AdS. with the Lorentz factor γ = 1/ 1 + (∂π)2 . retaining the same number of symmetries as their flat space counterparts. and the covariant derivatives of these quantities. (519) where37 S2 = → S3 = → and S4 = → − − 3 2 − √ d4 x −gR d4 xγ (∂ 2 π)2 − (∂∂π)2 (525) (526) √ d4 x −g(J − 2Gµν Kµν ) (524) − − − √ d4 x −g d4 x 1 + (∂π)2 (520) (521) (522) (523) √ d4 x −gK d4 xγ ∂ 2 π − γ 2 (∂π) · (∂∂π) · (∂π) +2γ 2 (∂π) · (∂∂π)2 · (∂π) − ∂ 2 π(∂π) · (∂∂π) · (∂π) S5 = → d4 xγ 2 (∂ 2 π)3 + 2(∂∂π)3 − 3(∂ 2 π)(∂∂π)2 (527) +6γ 2 ((∂ 2 π)(∂π) · (∂∂π)2 · (∂π) − (∂π) · (∂∂π)3 · (∂π)) −3γ 2 ((∂ 2 π)2 − (∂∂π)2 )(∂π) · (∂∂π) · (∂π) .the induced curvature. 544] (see. also [221]). neglecting the tadpole. 159 .

quartic [520. It has been argued that what sets this model apart is the fact that the non-Gaussianity is not constrained to obey fN L ∼ 1/c2 . for example. This permits additional interactions compared with [222]. 375. s although this claim has been disputed in [341]. For this reason. X) φ . where Λ is the naive cut-off38 . Note that for K = c2 X and G = c2 X we recover the covariant galileon action up to cubic order. and we lose all predictivity. 23]. 222].4. The cosmological behaviour of a number of models that are inspired by the galileon have also been investigated (see. in the remainder of this section we will restrict attention to those models for which the Galilean invariance is only weakly broken. 911]. This can spoil the functional form of the Lagrangian so much so that we require more input parameters than we can measure. and results in a blue tilt for the spectrum tensor perturbations. The late time cosmology of the covariant galileon has been studied for up to cubic [299. The point is that there is no symmetry protecting the theory from large radiative corrections. These include the braiding model [714. X) + G(φ. The theory is radiatively safe because the terms that break Galilean symmetry are suppressed by powers of Λ/Mpl . 711. which is described by the following action √ 1 R + K(φ. respectively. They find that one can have large (observable) four point functions even when the three point function is small. 704. NonGaussianity in DBI galileon inflation has been studied in [1059]. so that any radiative corrections that break the galileon symmetry are suppressed. [1145. 404]). we focus on the role of the galileon as a dark energy field – it deviates slightly from the original galileon scenario 38 This corresponds to the scale of the galileon self-interactions. It has been argued that some of these generalised models are perhaps too general [222]. 714. Galileon cosmology Galileon cosmology encompasses much more than the original model and its covariant completion. imposing Galilean symmetry on the small perturbations around the inflationary background. and quintic scalar interactions [373. This model still gives rise to second-order field equations and admits some rich phenomenology. 369]. In contrast. conformal galileon and DBI galileon theories are safe against radiative corrections since they possess additional symmetries that control the form of the derivative interactions. 1046]. making it distinguishable from DBI inflation [222]. and is now known to be equivalent to Horndeski’s general theory [623] in four dimensions [710]. We now turn to the cosmology of the late universe. 903]. Let us begin with early universe cosmology and the covariant galileon.4. fluctuations about the quasi de Sitter background will result in large non-Gaussianities at low sound speeds [903. 956. This can give rise to inflation even in the absence of a potential [222]. it is interesting to note that the authors of [341] adopt the effective field theory approach to inflation. 160 . 404. but maintains stability against radiative corrections. An even more general class of scalar tensor theories yielding second order field equations has recently been presented in [402]. Constraints on the model coming from large scale structure and non-Gaussianity have been obtained in [693.4. As with DBI inflation. (528) S = d4 x −g 16πG 2 2 where X = −( φ)2 . the pure galileon. It is claimed that the scalar equation of state can cross the phantom divide without introducing any instabilities. Indeed. In the latter model.

5. 16πG (529) 1 φ)2 − R( φ)2 2 φ)( ν α φ) α c5 ( φ)2 ( φ)3 − 3( φ)( 2Λ9 φ . This makes the model easily distinguishable from ΛCDM. we plot the evolution of the galileon equation of state for the tracker solution.µ 1 m where {αi1 . in four dimensions. Another distinguishing feature is the effective gravitational potential changing with time.νm ] πi1 ∂µ2∂ ν2 πi2 ... given by α = c4 x 4 . c3 .. The viable region of parameter space.. In Figure 6. BAO. µ .µ (531) m=1 µ .4.. we typically find that the growth index today is γ0 < 0.νm ] = m!δ µ1[ν1 . the galileon field is drawn into a phantom phase by the tracker. even for generic initial conditions. with large variations at earlier times. It turns out that the tracker solution is disfavoured by a combined data analysis (SNe. Multi-galileons The extension of the galileon scenario to include multiple scalar fields [1017..∂µm∂ νm πim . especially if we have non-zero curvature.. Note that the tracker has a phantom equation of state.. c4 and c5 such φ that there are only two free parameters. dS and β = c5 x5 .4. dS √ ˙ where xdS = 8πG φdS /HdS ... Ωk . 1018..[963] because the galileon coupling to matter disappears as Mpl → ∞. (α. 1310] 5 LN-gal = 2 m αi1 . (530) As there is no potential. for suitable choices of α and β. β). As usual. even during matter domination. In the generic case. 4. the model is described by the following action S= where Lφ = + c4 c2 c3 ( φ)2 φ + ( φ)2 2( φ)2 − 2( ( φ)2 + 3 2 2Λ 2Λ6 φ)2 + 2( φ)3 − 6Gµν ( µ √ d4 x −g 1 R + Lφ + Lm (gµν . summation over repeated Lorentz (Greek) and galileon indices (Latin) should be 161 . A general multi-galileon δ[ν2 . where these conditions are met is presented. 396] and even arbitrary p-forms [397] has recently been developed (see [ } are free parameters of the theory and δ[ν1 . ˙ There is a late time de Sitter solution characterised by H = HdS =constant and φ = ˙ dS =constant. 480] for earlier work). The existence of this fixes a relationship between c2 . CMB). In [373] conditions are derived that guarantee the absence of ghosts and imaginary sounds speeds in both the tensor and the scalar sector. Indeed. Matter density perturbations have been studied in detail within the context of this model in [369]. late time acceleration must be driven by the kinetic terms. where it is shown that the growth rate of matter perturbations is larger than in ΛCDM. with N real scalar degrees of freedom is given by the Lagrangian [1019. although it is still disfavoured with respect to ΛCDM [956].δ µmνm ] .. we see that there exists a tracker solution that approaches the late time de Sitter attractor. In any event.. As regards the cosmological evolution.. The generic case fares rather better. and for generic initial conditions. 1019. ψ) .

understood to be implicit. The equation of state of the galileon field.0 0. although this will break the galileon symmetry (532). one can generalise the formalism discussed in Section 4.37 and β = 0. with π1 .1 1 10 1 z Figure 6: Taken from Figure 1 in [369]. Note further that we define the m = 1 term of expression (531) to be αi1 πi1 . .4. N.0 0. this corresponds to 55 free parameters. The phenomenology of spherically symmetric solutions with an internal SO(N) has been studied and found to suffer from problems with instabilities and superluminality. Indeed. . (532) One might expect this to appear in the decoupling limit of some co-dimension N braneworld scenarios. How many free parameters are there in this theory? We can always choose αi1 .3 to probe a brane of co-dimension N and recover the multi-galileon theory in the nonrelativistic limit [610]. i = 1. versus redshift. wDE . To reduce the number of parameters one can consider imposing internal symmetries on the galileon fields [1019]. m!(N − 1)! m=1 5 (533) Even for N = 3.0 1.. at least for standard non-derivative matter coupling [50]. z. for α = 1.5 (A) Late!time tracking wDE 1. . One can also prove a generalised form a Goldstone’s theorem when internal symmetries are present [1310]. ..44. 162 . πN corresponding to the position of the brane in the N transverse directions [1017].im to be symmetric so the total number free parameters is given by 5 m=1 N +m−1 m = (N + m − 1)! .5 (B) Tracker 2. . . . . The Lagrangian (531) is constructed so that it is invariant under πi → πi + (bi )µ xµ + ci .0. The evolution is given for generic initial conditions (A) and for the tracker (B).

.ξ . the bigalileon theory is formulated on sub-horizon scales as fields ˜ propagating on Minkowski space. (iv) spherically symmetric excitations about the self-accelerating vacuum undergo Vainshtein screening in the solar system. The field equations for the scalars are T+ 0 m+n 4 am. π. h gravity correction. (ii) there is a self-accelerating vacuum.n Em. 1 n 1 (αm. so it still has an important role to play. (537) where39 am.ξ = with ρ µ µm ρ Em. ∂∂ξ) + πT. π. where the vacuum energy does not affect the four dimensional curvature. dubbed bigalileon theory. These models get around Weinberg’s no-go theorem by breaking Poincar´ invariance. and Lπ. where hµν = hµν + 2πηµν .Of course. one can choose parameters such that we simultaneously satisfy each of the following: (i) there is no tadpole. The other scalar. The phenomenology of this theory was developed in detail in [1018].n Em. 39 We define α−1. (∂ρn ∂ σn ξ) .n + αm−1. Let us summarise the main results. couples indirectly through its mixing with π. hµν . . Only one of the scalars.n = (m + n)!δ[ν1 .−1 = 0. (v) fluctuations about the spherically symmetric solutions are never superluminal. π and ξ. self-accelerating solutions can be consistent in some bigalileon theories. . and two scalar galileons. say. and 0 m+n 4 bm. (∂µm ∂ νm π) (∂ρ1 ∂ σ1 ξ) .n ξ)Em. 1018] ˜ S hµν . In contrast to the single galileon case.n = 0. . In direct analogy with the single galileon case. the large number of free parameters is less of an issue in the simple case of N = 2. (536) ˜ The physical metric is given by gµν = ηµν + hµν .n + βm+1. δνm δσ1 .n = βm. . ξ = d4 xLGR + Lπ. in order for them to ree main compatible with solar system tests one must limit the amount of vacuum energy to be meV. Indeed.n = (n + 1)(βm. δσn ] (∂µ1 ∂ ν1 π) . The governing action is given by [1017. and so 2πηµν gives the modified source Tµν .n π + βm. and (viii) there are no problems with back-reaction on the spherically symmetric solution (or the vacuum). (iii) fluctuations about the self-accelerating vacuum do not contain a ghost.n−1 ) and bm. 163 . . Unfortunately. ξ. (475). (vi) fluctuations about the spherically symmetric solutions never lead to trouble with excessive emission of Cerenkov radiation. This supports the case for considering bigalileon theories as a viable alternative to dark energy. (vii) there is not an unacceptably low momentum scale for strong coupling on the spherically symmetric solution.n+1 ). Given a ˜ µν gives the usual perturbative GR solution. This time we have our GR graviton. (534) where LGR is given by Eq. couples directly to the trace of the energy-momentum tensor.n = 0. . . One can also develop models of self-tuning in bigalileon theory. 0 m+n 4 (535) .n (∂∂π.n = (m + 1)(αm. . .

164 . −1 again. Other Theories Let us now consider some further theories that have yet to be discussed. 16πG (541) where M is a mass scale (confined to be 1meV ≤ M ≤ 10MeV). fluctuations in the ghost field about the vacuum expectation value appear linearly in the energy-momentum tensor. with shift symmetry φ → φ + constant. so that X = C. (539) In [590] it was shown that if the leading order term in the action has the wrong sign. and so the building block for this theory is taken to be X = ∂µ φ∂ µ φ. Ghost condensates also introduce oscillatory correction to the gravitational potential. and the dark energy from curvature corrections approach of Piazza.5. Ghost condensates Ghost condensate theories involve introducing into the gravitational sector an extra scalar field. but. so that φ is a ghost field.5. This is because gravitational fields propagating through the condensate acquire a massive mode. The action for ghost condensate theories can be written S= √ d4 x −g R + M 4 P (X) . (540) Theories of this type have a number of interesting properties. It has been argued in [590] that ghost condensate fields act like the gravitational counterpart to the Higgs field of the standard model of particle physics. For mass parameters of the order 10−3 eV. For stability we then require P (C) ≥ 0 (542) (543) P (C) + 2CP (C) ≥ 0. it is still possible to construct a theory that is stable to small fluctuations by including terms that push X to a fixed value. with a Jeans instability that grows with time. however. much like particles acquire mass while propagating through the Higgs field. φ. (538) The only terms in the action that can obey this symmetry are derivative ones. A further interesting point is that in the weak field limit large ghost condensate clumps move more slowly than small clumps. only on time scales greater than H0 . For a start. What is more. the non-zero vacuum expectation value of the ghost field signals a spontaneous breaking of Lorentz invariance. non-metric theories. If the massive modes are of order 10MeV. These are ghost condensate theories. 4. with potentially interesting phenomenological consequences. and P (X) is a function that must have a non-zero minimum at X = C in order to be a ghost. then corrections can occur on length scales as small as 1000km.1. these corrections occur −1 on spatial and temporal scales greater than H0 . meaning that anti-gravity is possible.4.

The Friedmann equation for this theory is m2 (2XP (X) − P (X)) . (547) tells us that √ φ → ± Ct. The behaviour of scalar perturbations in the ghost condensate theory was worked out in detail in [922]. A general class of solutions. the simple choice of P (X) = 2 (X − C)2 leads to a(t) ∝ (Cmt)1/2 at early times. and the ghost field as √ φ = Ct + π. Modified Newtonian potentials were discovered with Φ Ψ = = ΦGR + Φmod ΨGR + Ψmod .Extremisation of the action (541). has been studied in [755]. and where π has been set to zero. it can be shown that the effect of the ghost field on the expansion of the Universe is such it can mimic radiation domination. a 3 (549) Now. The Raychaudhuri equation is H2 = a ¨ m2 =− (XP (X) + P (X)) . such that P (X) = 2 (X − C)2 + 2 Λ/m . as t → ∞. To see why this theory is considered a modified theory of gravity we look at the perturbed field equations. where Tφ. (546) where we have chosen a unitary gauge. the equation of motion for φ is d ˙ a3 φP (X) = 0.µν . For a homogeneous and isotropic Universe. (548) 3 √ where the new mass parameter is m ≡ 8πGM 2 = M 2 /MP l . Writing the metric as gµν = ηµν + hµν . (546) can be seen to have been explicitly broken. The Fn here are functions of X that are derived from P (X). dt (547) If we assume that X → 0 and P (C) → 0. matter domination and vacuum domination. 165 (550) (551) . (545) (544) and for simplicity we have not included a term in the action for normal matter fields. then Eq. leads to a period of vacuum domination. 1 and a(t) ∝ (Cmt)2/3 at late times. Some of these solutions combine dark matter and dark energy-like behaviour. the Lagrangian density of the theory becomes √ L = −γ F0 (X) + F1 (X)K 2 + F2 (X)K ij Kij + · · · . with respect to the metric. and K is the extrinsic curvature of the 3 dimensional hyper-surfaces of constant φ. 1 Indeed. with matter sources included. Diffeomorphism invariance in Eq. yields field equations of the form Gµν = 8πGTφ. at the background level.µν = M 4 (P (X)gµν + 2P (X)∂µ φ∂ν φ) . Adding a constant. Let us now consider cosmology.

513]. the tetrad. 2 The class of theories we will now describe contains only two propagating degrees of freedom [139. by (−) ΣI = ie0 ∧ eI ± 1 2 I JK e J ∧ eK . Spherically symmetric solutions. 648]. In particular. The space-time metric is an emergent variable and is given in terms i of Bµν as √ j i k −ggµν ∝ ˜αβγδ Bµα Bνβ Bγδ ijk (553) where ˜αβγδ is the completely antisymmetric tensor density having components ±1 in any coordinate system. 138. In this theory the fundamental gravitational object is no longer the metric but a triple of 2-forms B i = i Bµν dxµ ∧ dxν . (554) From the tetrad we can also define the self-dual 2-forms ΣI . 2 a4 M 2MP l Pl (552) where α is a combination of dimensionless coefficients of O(1) from the action.5. eI }. i. have been studied [751. (+) 166 . rather than equality. while Φmod and Ψmod are corrections due to the ghost condensate that occur in the limit where the wavelength of the fluctuation is larger than the symmetry breaking scale. The proportionality symbol is used above. and extensions of these ideas to bimetric theories have also been considered [1175]. where lower-case Latin indices denote internal SU (2) indices and take values from 1 to 3. 4.e. 747.2. just like GR. 1 µν ρσ Bρσ = iBµν is a conformally invariant relation. These equations shows that the Newtonian part of the potential seeds the modified part. because the metric is defined only up to conformal rescalings. where Φmod = Ψmod . If we consider the case of de Sitter space. 137. we (+) may write (556) B i = B iI ΣI . as well as black holes. where the capital Latin indices denote internal SO(3) indices (note that this is a different space than SU (2) considered above) such that ds2 = gµν dxµ dxν = −e0 e0 + δIJ eI eJ .where ΦGR and ΨGR take their standard form from General Relativity. and similarly the anti (+) self-dual 2-forms ΣI ). 752. Non-metric gravity We will now describe the non-metric gravity theory that deforms GR while keeping only two dynamical degrees of freedom [136. 748]. (555) Any other self-dual 2-form can then be decomposed in terms of ΣI . Kinematics Consider the set of 1-forms {e0 . Let us now describe the kinematical setup of the theory before proceeding to discuss its dynamics. then the evolution equations are 2 ∂t Φmod + 3H0 ∂t Φmod + αM 2 k 2 αM 2 k 2 α k4 2 − 2 a2 + 2H0 Φmod = 2M 2 a2 ΦGR . The reason for this is that i i i Bµν is self-dual.

2 40 Strictly 41 This (562) speaking this defines a three-form which is then dualised to a one-form. The conformal freedom is then fixed by requiring41 R(h) = 1. since B i is conformally invariant. We can then write V as 3 V (hij ) = 1 hU (H ij ). As discussed above. as → 0 the theory reduces to the Plebanski formulation of GR with a cosmological constant (see Section 2. We introduce the internal metric hij = B iI B jJ δ IJ and further decompose it into trace and traceless parts as hij = 1 h δ ij + H ij . In order to couple the theory to matter fields we have to fix this ambiguity.3). (558) 1 i j k where det B = − 24 ijk Bµ ν Bν ρ Bρ µ . V (λM) = λV (M)) so that when it is applied to a four-form such as B i ∧ B j the result is also a four-form. Now. that is required to be homogeneous of degree one (i. we know that Ai is too. the metric here is defined only up to conformal transformations. 2 (560) where V (M) is a holomorphic function of a complex symmetric 3 × 3 matrix. and expand Um as 3 g Um = 1 − trH2 + O(H3 ). (559) Dynamics The action for this theory takes on the form of the well known BF-theory: S[B. M. A] = i 8πG 1 δij B i ∧ F j [A] − V (B i ∧ B j ) + Sm . where h = δij hij and δij H ij = 0. In particular.e.3. and expand U as 3 U (H) = Λ0 − 1 trH2 + O(H3 ). 167 . In a similar fashion to V .From B i we can then define the connection one-forms Ai as40 dB i + ijk Aj ∧ B k = 0. which can be achieved by the introduction of a new function R(hij ) that is also homogeneous of degree one. (557) The above equation can be solved to get Ai = µ 1 j B iαβ δjk Bµα 2 det B ν k Bνβ . we can then decompose R as R = 1 hUm (H). while the constant is a new scale that describes deviations from GR. We can now proceed and define the curvature two-forms F i of Ai as F i = dAi + 1 2 i jk A j ∧ Ak . The minus sign in the 2nd term above is required to avoid instabilities. 8 2 (561) where the constant Λ0 plays the role of the cosmological constant. method of fixing the conformal ambiguity can be shown to arise naturally by considering the motion of a test body [749].

and hence − 1 < β < 2 and 3 3 γ > 0 [753].e. however. General Relativity is recovered in the limit γ → ∞. 168 . Cosmology The cosmology of this theory has been analysed by Krasnov and Shtanov at the level of perturbed FLRW solutions [753]. defined by 1 β=g− . Tµν [750]. i. Hence. Λ=U− ∂U H ij ∂H ij and Λm = Um − ∂Um ij H . where PΛ = −ρΛ with Λ0 = 8πGρΛ . we can drop the distinction between i and I and let B i = Σi . (560) with respect to A gives Eq. ∂H ij (565) ˜ ˜ and where T IJ = T µν ΣI ΣJνλ . Under these conditions the field equations can be written Fi = 1 ρ ˜i Λ0 Σi − 2πG(P − )Σi − 2πG(ρ + P )Σ . Rather than the two new parameters. In this case one gets departures from ΛCDM that depend on g and . g and . when we consider linear fluctuations. (+) (−) (564) where Λ and Λm are the Legendre transforms of U and Um respectively. so U = Λ0 and 1 Um = 1. The field equations can then be written 3H2 = 8πGa2 (ρ + ρΛ ). (553). 3 3 (566) For the homogeneous and isotropic space-time we also have e0 = adτ and ei = adxi . We also have H ij = 0. Variation of Eq. This new parameter measures the departure from the Urbantke metric. and − 2H − H2 = 8πGa2 (P + PΛ ). 3 and γ= 1 2Λ 0 4 − . The fixing condition R = 1 then gives 3 h = 3 and V = Λ0 .where g is a dimensionless constant that can be of any sign. Let us first consider the FLRW solutions of this theory. (557). while variation with respect to B gives δij B iI F j = B iI 1 ∂U + Λδ ij − 2πGT ∂H ij 3 1 ∂Um + Λm δ ij ∂H ij 3 B jJ ΣJ − 8πGTIJ ΣJ . resulting in R = 1 h and V = 3 hΛ0 . Thus. The situation changes. For homogeneous and isotropic spaces we have B iI = δ iI . 1 After some algebra this gives Aj = iHdxj and F i = iH dτ ∧ dxj − 2 ijk H2 dxj ∧ dxk . (568) (567) where ρ and P do not include the cosmological constant. 3 (563) Cosmological consideration then tell us that 0 < g < 1. it is sometimes convenient to use the two dimensionless parameters β and γ. where T µν is the traceless part of the energy-momentum µλ tensor. for metric backgrounds the FLRW solutions of this theory are the same as those of General Relativity. given by an equality in Eq.

We now consider the perturbed space-time metric in the conformal Newtonian gauge. These modifications lead to the apparent existence of Dark Energy. The perturbation for B ij is then given (after some convenient gauge-fixing) in terms of a new scalar mode χ as 1 (569) B ij = δ ij + 2 Dij χ. Furthermore. but without introducing a new scale in the problem. hence the χ terms in the field equations can be thought of as non-local modifications of the Einstein equations. This equation can be solved to get χ in terms of Φ + Ψ. 3a2 (570) 1 2 k χ. (574) where ρ and P does not include the cosmological constant. x) bare = = 42 see d3 k k + fquad (t) k + flog (t) + . The operators of the matter field theory are then modified in the IR in a way we will now describe. operators corresponding to Fourier modes of physical momentum k are corrected by terms of order H 2 /k 2 . (572) 3 9a 1 k2 Φ − Ψ = 8πGa2 (ρ + P )Σ + 2 χ + χ . and estimate the effects of the modifications on the matter power spectrum. 2a The perturbed field equations are then given by [753] −k 2 Φ = 4πGa2 ρ [δ + 3H(1 + w)θ] + Φ + HΨ = 4πGa2 (ρ + P )θ − 1 2 2 k k χ − 3Hχ . matter and Λ dominated epochs. where matter fields are quantised on a curved background manifold. in a cosmological setup. 169 . Dark energy from curvature corrections A proposal for IR modifications of gravity has been put forward by Piazza [1036. The starting point for this is the usual semi-classical gravity. Schematically.g. a well as radiation. e. In this sense the χ field is non-dynamical. 4.[1298. To illustrate this idea consider the vacuum expectation value of the local energy density of a massless field42 : T 00 (t. they study the evolution of perturbations during inflation.. 516] for the explicit expression of a massive scalar on flat FLRW background. where H is the Hubble parameter. 1037].5. (571) 3a2 k2 k2 Φ + 2HΦ + HΨ + 2H + H2 Ψ + (Φ − Ψ) = 4πGa2 δP + 2 χ. (573) a 3 and one can show that the Bianchi identities are satisfied independently of the χ terms. The remaining equations determine χ in terms of Φ and Ψ as χ − 2Hχ − ∆ + 4H2 + Λ0 γ + 8πGβ(ρ − 3P ) χ + a2 (Φ + Ψ) = 0.3.. k3 (575) local terms + non-local terms. Krasnov and Shtanov also find the vector and tensor mode equations [753].

the inverse Hubble radius H −1 ). d(t). To extend the above to the global picture one can use the translation operator (1) (1)† (1) (0)† (0) e−iλP . In a local neighbourhood (smaller than a Hubble patch) the above prescription can be shown to cancel the quadratically divergent piece fquad (t) in Eq. as in flat space-time. Letting n be the comoving momentum that labels operators in Fourier space (related to physical momentum as n/a). 1037] is that there exists a theory that resembles semi-classical GR on small scales. (577) are. the presence of the time-dependent f ’s makes the normal-ordering procedure meaningless. while the non-local pieces represent the genuine particle/energy content of the chosen “vacuum” state. One may. The conjecture of [1036. to the scale factor.. in fact. . An where An (0) (1) (1) (1)† = δ (3) (n − n ) 1 − H 2 a2 + . regardless of the configuration of the gravitational field.where spatial homogeneity has been assumed for simplicity. but n is. To try to construct such a theory [1036. 4 dt (577) An . This prescription is equivalent to using the (0) (0)† standard commutation relation An . 2n2 (576) is the annihilation operator.e. Note that the momentum k is not conserved. and λ is the comoving proper distance to a point far away from the origin. An = δ (3) (n − n ) for the standard operator H 2 a2 2n2 defines the infinitesimal translations. The first term contributes to the cosmological constant. The local terms can be removed by local gravitational counter-terms. (575) by appropriate modifications of semi-classical gravity that manifest themselves when the Fourier modes have wavelengths comparable to the inverse extrinsic curvature (i. At the present.. a(t). but with a modified comoving momentum given by k = n 1 − that locally Comoving distances obeying Eq. but a toy-model with massive scalar fields has been considered in [1036. a complete theory that implements this idea is lacking. where P (1) = d3 n n An An = P (1) = d3 n k An An is the momentum operator constructed with the modified Fourier modes. If that is the case then one can still deal with the cosmological constant term by the usual procedure of normal-ordering. however. 1037] propose what they call the Ultra Strong Equivalence Principle: For each matter field or sector sufficiently decoupled from all other matter fields. In GR the comoving distance λ = d(t)/a(t) is a constant given by the ratio of the physical distance. What this principle aims to achieve is to remove the time-dependent terms in Eq. the modification to O(H 2 a2 /n2 ) is given by the modified commutation relation An . In curved space-time. However. (575). in the present theory one finds instead that 1 d ˙ λ = λ3 (a2 H 2 ) + higher orders. and in flat space-time can be removed by the usual procedure of normal-ordering (the f ’s vanish in flat space-time). there exists a state (the “vacuum”) for which the expectation value of the (bare) energy-momentum tensor is the same as in flat space. but that has an IR-completion that prohibits the time dependent pieces in (575). already strongly disfavoured by observations [958]. 1037]. however. try to explore further whether the dynamical Hubble scale H(t) itself could provide the scale required by cosmic acceleration by considering 170 .

. . .the more general expansion ˙ λ = A1 λH + A2 (λH)2 + . d d +B1 λ2 (aH) + B2 λ3 (a2 H 2 ) + . The authors find that certain regions of the resulting parameter space can fit the data as well as ΛCDM. dt dt (578) where Ai and Bi are a set of constants. . 171 . .

and compute an effective 3 + 1 dimensional theory by integrating out the heavy modes. so we have the tools to study gravitational theories in higher dimensions. Higher Dimensional Theories of Gravity The first systematic studies of higher dimensional geometry date back to the likes of Riemann. can only be formulated consistently in 10 dimensions. 172 . this is more than just a theoretical curiosity. Assuming that the extra dimensions have been stabilised. Riemannian geometry is not restricted to 3+1 dimensions. Perhaps the simplest observation along these lines is the stability of earth’s orbit. Cayley and Grassmann in the mid nineteenth century. this will generically correspond to a 4D gravity theory with extra fields. In D dimensions of space-time. as they permit closed time-like curves in the form of circles in the plane of the two temporal directions. It seems fair to say that a fully satisfactory answer to this question has yet to emerge.1. the effective description clearly breaks down. We will only discuss the case of extra spatial dimensions. although extra temporal dimensions have been studied (see eg [1141]). As we will show. Indeed. when the 3 dimensional space is comparable in size to the extra dimensions. Superstring theory. This forms the basis of KK cosmology where one can ask the deeply profound question of why and how the 3 extended dimensions of space were able to grow large. 701. We use the word appear. This idea has been embraced by string theorists who compactify 10 dimensional string theories and 11 dimensional supergravity/M-theory on compact manifolds of 6 or 7 dimensions respectively. examples of which are studied in detail in Section 3. One might worry that extra temporal dimensions lead to problems with causality. often switching on fluxes and wrapping branes on the compact space (see [552] for a review). while the extra dimensions remained microscopically small. where space and time form part of a curved 3 + 1 dimensional manifold. Kaluza-Klein Theories of Gravity Kaluza-Klein (KK) theory grew out of an attempt to unify gravity and electrodynamics [985. 673. but which open up at shorter and/or larger distances. 702]. and so it is clear that gravity should not appear 10 dimensional on solar system scales. Each different compactification gives a different effective 4-dimensional theory. it follows that we cannot have stable planetary orbits. the late-time dynamics of KK theories is most easily understood at the level of the 4D effective theory. One can perform a harmonic expansion of all fields along the extra dimension. It lies at the heart of General Relativity. 5. At early times. so much so that we now talk about an entire landscape of effective theories [1194]. In this section we will review various models of higher dimensional gravity that have been proposed.5. For D = 4. the Newtonian potential due to a point source will typically go like 1/rD−3 . because there exist gravitational models where the extra dimensions are hidden from experiment. as described in Section 2. Of course. The basic idea was to consider General Relativity on a 4 + 1 dimensional manifold where one of the spatial dimensions was taken to be small and compact. arguably our best candidate for a quantum theory of gravity. The problem now is a phenomenological one: Gravity does not behave like a 10 dimensional force in our experiments and observations.

and β = −(d − 2)α. z) = n γAB (x)einz/L . particle physics imposes by far the strongest constraints on the size of the extra dimension. starting with an overview of dimensional reduction and effective theory before moving on to a discussion of KK cosmology at early times. This means that if we compactify on a small enough circle we can truncate to massless modes in the 4-dimensional theory. γAB (x). (0) γzz = e2βφ . We can expand the metric as a Fourier series of the form γAB (x. these will correspond to the metric. In effective field theory language. RAB . Massive modes will only get excited by scattering processes whose energy lies at or above the compactification scale 1/L. We first define General Relativity in D = d + 1 dimensions. Assuming that the extra dimensions are universal. (579) where GD is Newton’s constant in D dimensions. S 1 . The natural scale of the compact dimensions is usually taken be Planckian. Since we have truncated to the massless fields. 5. (0) γµz = e2βφ Aµ . such that 0 ≤ z < L. For a more detailed review of KK theory see [76. (580). Indeed. whereas the zero mode corresponds to a massless field. As we take L to be smaller and smaller we see that the mass of the first massive field becomes very large. gauge field. (581) where α = 1/ 2(d − 1)(d − 2). where the coordinate z lies along the compact direction. that is the Standard Model fields can extend all the way into them. γµz and γzz to be the d-dimensional fields gµν (x). we infer that L 10−19 m. Modes with n = 0 correspond to massive fields with mass |n|/L. Standard Model processes have been well tested with great precision down to distances of the order ∼(TeV)−1 . respectively. we can integrate out the z part of the action given in Eq.1. Aµ (x) and φ(x). it is sufficient to describe the dimensional reduction of General Relativity on a circle. γAB is the D dimensional metric with corresponding Ricci tensor. z). In order that our results are more transparent we will actually define the components of the metric in the following way: (0) γµν = e2αφ gµν + e2βφ Aµ Aν . and Ricci scalar. φ] = L 16πGD √ 1 1 dd x −g R − ( φ)2 − e−2(d−1)αφ F 2 . (n) (580) We find that this gives an infinite number of extra fields in d dimensions. We find that the d-dimensional effective action is then given by Seff [g. 2 4 173 (582) . and dilaton. (0) (0) (0) (0) Let us now focus on the zero modes. R = γ AB RAB . A. We could define γµν .1. Kaluza-Klein compactifications To understand the generic features of KK compactifications.We will now discuss some aspects of KK theory. 1005]. We are assuming that one of the spatial dimensions is compactified on a circle of radius L/2π. with no evidence of extra dimensions yet emerging [941]. To this end we can define coordinates X A = (xµ . via the generalised Einstein-Hilbert action S[γ] = 1 16πGD √ dD X −γR. L ∼ lpl . Note that we are neglecting the matter Lagrangian for brevity. This also applies to matter fields arising in particle physics.

or in other words at least 45 orders of magnitude greater. (580). 1 φ = − (d − 1)αe−2(d−1)αφ F 2 . The point is that one cannot simply set the dilaton to zero and retain a non-trivial Maxwell field. vectors. What we now have is an Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton system in d dimensions. 336]. 238. This begs the question: Why did the Universe evolve into a state where just 3 spatial dimensions grew to macroscopic scales? Put another way. gµν . at times t L/c. but the moduli remain unstable [336]. which is currently around 10−19 m [941]. a compactification of. but by Leβφ(x) .1. Gµν = µ 1 2 µφ νφ 1 1 − ( φ)2 gµν + e−2(d−1)αφ Fµα Fν α − F 2 gµν 2 4 . which is at least a Hubble length c/H0 ∼ 1026 m. In more general compactifications. many different compactifications that have been studied in the literature.where F 2 = Fµν F µν and Fµν = µ Aν − ν Aµ is the electromagnetic field strength. of the compact manifold should not exceed the scale probed by modern collider experiments. (583) (584) (585) e−2(d−1)αφ Fµν = 0. These extra fields include scalars. Kaluza and Klein were particularly interested in the case of d = 4. 11 dimensional super-gravity down to four dimensions will give rise to a gravity theory with a plethora of extra fields. In the usual jargon. pseudo-vectors. a detailed analysis of which is clearly beyond the scope of this review (see [552]). we are therefore implicitly assuming that φ is stabilised close to zero. 55. There are. the general scheme of each compactification is the same as the one we have just described. Typically. 661]. moduli potentials can be generated by Casimir effects of fields in the compact space [54. In the very early universe. Modifications of gravity due to extra fields are studied in detail in Section 3. Of course. in the resulting 4-dimensional effective theory. It is amusing to compare this to the characteristic size of the 3 large spatial dimensions. The curvature associated with the d dimensional metric. If L is to represent an accurate measure of the compactification scale. each playing an equally important role in the dynamical evolution. pseudo-scalars. the problem of moduli stabilisation has only recently been solved by switching on fluxes to stabilise the volume of the compact space [662. and Ricci scalar. Of course. L. R = g µν Rµν . Rµν . However. is described by the Ricci tensor. Kaluza-Klein cosmology As we have just discussed. it was not always like that. φ. 5. since this would be in conflict with the field equations arising from Eq. of course. aside from details such as the inclusion of fluxes and branes on the compact space. one might expect that all spatial dimensions were of the same scale. In fact. for a phenomenologically viable theory with compact (and stabilised) extra dimensions.2. They were frustrated by the presence of the dilaton. We should also note that the physical size of the compact dimension is not necessarily given by L. the characteristic size. say. 335. and arbitrary p-forms. 2 where Gµν = Rµν − 1 Rgµν is the Einstein tensor in d dimensions. how does one achieve a dynamical compactification 174 . 2 switching off the dilaton does not represent a consistent truncation of the higher dimensional theory [440]. For this to happen we need to generate a potential for φ that admits a stable solution– this is known as the problem of moduli stabilisation.

. which gives ˜ ρ + nH(ρ + P ) + nH(ρ + P ) = 0. − 1) H 2 + κ a2 ˜ ˜ + n (˜ − 1) H 2 + 2 n κ a2 κ ˜ a2 ˜ κ ˜ a2 ˜ + n˜ H H = 8πGD ρ. whereas p(t) is the pressure along the n dimensions ˜ and P (t) is the pressure along the n dimensions. in contrast to the remaining spatial dimensions? Were those extra dimensions somehow prevented from growing beyond a certain size. Ψn ]. we will be interested in the case of n = 3. For example. e. . P . 1216]. is taken to have constant ˜ ˜ x curvature κ. . Naturally. where d = n + n. consider the Bianchi-type metric ˜ ds2 = γab dX a dX b = −dt2 + a2 (t)qij (x)dxi dxj + a2 (t)˜mn (˜)d˜m d˜n . (588) (589) (590) + (n − 1) H 2 + ˜ + (˜ − 1) H 2 + n + nH H = ˜ ˜ ˜ + nH H = 8πGD d−1 8πGD d−1 ˜ ˜ a ˙ where H = a/a and H = a/˜ are the Hubble parameters of the two expanding/contracting ˙ spaces. The n-dimensional metric. n ˜ ρ + (˜ − 1)P − nP . 3. The growth of these two spaces is controlled by the relevant scale factors ˜ a(t) and a(t). .g. 175 (592) . We now apply Einstein’s equations in D = d + 1 dimensions. but for the moment ˜ let us keep things general. we consider the action S= 1 16πGD √ dD x −γe−2φ R − 4( φ)2 − c + Sm [γ. P  . 555]) to consider the dynamics of anisotropic cosmologies in D = d+1 dimensions. ˙ ˜˜ (591) Note that we do not necessarily have to assume that the cosmological dynamics is governed by D-dimensional General Relativity. . we also have energy conservation. 730.   n ˜ n a Tb (587) As usual. P . 33. We can also consider modifications of GR where additional fields are present. qij (x). ˜ q x x x (586) where the coordinates xi run over the n spatial dimensions and the coordinates xm ˜ run over the n spatial dimensions. 1085. Of course. 1084. n ˜˜ ˜ ρ − nP + (n − 1)P . 1 Gab ≡ Rab − Rγab = 8πGD Tab . is taken to have ˜ constant curvature κ. . . qmn (˜). [514. 997. whereas the n-dimensional metric. 2.mechanism in the early Universe such that 3 spatial dimensions expand exponentially to an extremely large size. P. Einstein’s Equations (587) then yield ˜ the following [514] n 2 (n a ¨ a ¨ a ˜ a ˜  ˜ ˜ = diag −ρ. Indeed. or did they grow initially and later contract towards their current state? These questions have led many authors (see. 2 where the energy-momentum tensor is given by an anisotropic fluid. 1083. . in string gas cosmology [183. 1. ρ(t) is the energy density.

Entropy is indeed released from the extra dimensions into the usual 3 dimensions of 43 For the bosonic string the critical dimension is D = 26. In [1]. let us follow the analysis of Abbott. 730. entropy and horizon problems of the standard cosmology. and consider the physically interesting case of n = 3. 1084. we can take the n dimensions to be flat or hyperbolic (κ ≤ 0). We consider an epoch in which we have radiation domination. 1085. Many of the earlier works [33. for some compactification ˜ ˜ scale L LD . The upper bound on κ follows from demanding that the turnaround in a(t) occurs after the turnaround in a(t). where a(tc ) = κL. (594) (595) (596) a ¨ a + (n − 1) ¨ a ˜ n a + (˜ − 1) ˜ H2 + H + ˜2 κ a2 κ ˜ a2 ˜ + nH H = ˜ ˜ ˜ + nH H = Now. 1. it is clear that the classical equations will start to break down √ the in neighbourhood of the singular point. whereas for the superstring the critical dimension is D = 10. (593) (m) 2 δSm and Tab = − √−γ δγ ab . so that these dimensions will never turn around. Albeit without much justification. Of course. 8πGD d ρ. The scalar equation of motion just follows from energy conservation. Barr and Ellis [1]. and the constant c vanishes in the critical case43 . let us accept this assumption for the moment. 3] focus on isotropic ˜ perfect fluids. so ˜ ˜ ˜ √ we certainly would not expect to trust our field equations when a(t) ˜ κLD . a Tab = 0. The bound is not strong enough to be interesting: It merely implies ˜ that today’s Universe is larger than the horizon [1]. w = 1/(n + n). and so it is clear from Equation (595) that we will enter a phase with a > 0. ¨ The typical evolution of the two scale factors is shown in Figure 7. The physical radius of the n-sphere is a/ κ. In fact. containing the string gas. where Tab = c 1 − γab + 8 8πGD 2 aφ bφ − 6γab ( φ)2 − 2( a b − γab )φ + e2φ Tab . 176 . but not otherwise. so that the evolution equations read ˜ n 2 (n (m) − 1) H 2 + κ a2 ˜ ˜ + n (˜ − 1) H 2 + 2 n κ ˜ a2 ˜ + n˜ H H = 8πGD ρ. n ˜ 8πGD d ρ. one can show that as we start to approach the singularity of the collapsing sub-space (˜(t) → 0). for which P = P = wρ. The resulting field equations can be written in the form Gab = 8πGD Tab . the n dimensions enter a ˜ a phase of accelerated expansion. ending size the inflationary phase at some time tc . where ˜ 1/(D−2) LD ∝ GD is the fundamental Planck length in D dimensions. if the n dimensions are taken to be an n-sphere (˜ > 0). Let us return to Equations (588)-(590) with a view toward dynamical compactification. and will subsequently start to recollapse. it is clear from Equation ˜ ˜ κ ˜ (596) that they will reach a maximum size when H = 0. One might hope that the inflationary phase is sufficiently long to offer a solution to the flatness.where Sm is the matter part of the action. 1083. To see this note that H starts to become large and negative. it is assumed that quantum gravity effects will ultimately stabilise the √ of the internal space. Consider the entropy problem in particular. For simplicity and definiteness. In contrast. Note that we can even allow for a sufficiently small κ > 0 and still retain this qualitative behaviour.

where ρ = Λ/8πGD . To get the required expansion of 3-dimensional space. this is clearly way short of the total required to solve the entropy problem. Indeed. we must therefore include some additional scalar fields. and the κ ˜ κ ˜ 2Λ 2 spherical dimensions remain fixed with H = H∗ at a = a∗ . space [33. In short. where H∗ = n−1 a2 = n(d−1) . into the Field Equations (588)-(590). To get the required 177 . Since we demand that L LD . 2Λ d−1 . n ˜ 8Λ d−1 . entering an inflationary phase as the remaining n dimensions begin to recollapse. 1]. we can mimic a period of slow-roll inflation by plugging a cosmological constant. ˜ ˜ n ˜∗ The radius of the extra dimensions lies at the maximum of its potential. Λ. (597) (598) (599) + (n − 1) H 2 + ˜ + (˜ − 1) H 2 + n + nH H = ˜ ˜ ˜ + nH H = Again. and the n dimensions to be positively ˜ curved (˜ > 0). The typical evolution of the scale factors in the two different sub-spaces. The scale factor a(t) along the n dimension is assumed ˜ ˜ ˜ to be stabilised by quantum gravity effects at some time tc . after which we cannot count on exponential growth in the flat directions. Adapting [615] slightly. ˜ Setting P = P = −ρ. we find a solution for which the flat directions grow exponentially. by taking the n dimensions to be flat (κ = 0).standard evolution ∼ t1/2 inflationary phase a(t) t = tc a(t) ˜ √ ˜ aa(t) ) = kL ˜˜ c c = ˜κL (t t Figure 7: Adapted from Figure 1 in [1]. we find n 2 (n − 1) H 2 + a ¨ a ¨ a ˜ a ˜ κ a2 ˜ ˜ + n (˜ − 1) H 2 + 2 n κ a2 κ ˜ a2 ˜ κ ˜ a2 ˜ + n˜ H H = Λ. so this solution is unstable. We now consider the phenomenologically interesting case of n = 3. but only as much as log S ∼ |O(1)| log(LD /L) [730]. log S ∼ 88. KK inflation does not last long enough to provide an alternative to scalar field driven inflation. fluctuations reveal that the spherical dimensions collapse to zero size over a time scale ∆t ∼ (1 + 1 + 8/n)/4H∗ . The scale factor a(t) along the n dimensions grows large.

by switching on fluxes [662. 120]. There are also problems at the level of cosmology. the dimensionality of the string controls the dimensionality of space by allowing at most 3 spatial dimensions to grow to macroscopic scales. Note that this result is not spoilt by the inclusion of branes wrapping compact directions. 181]). or all dimensions stay small since the string gas gets frozen out [458]. In fact. other attempts to explain the dimen44 On the subject of planetary orbits. it is amusing to note that Kepler himself reasoned that the 3-fold nature of the Holy Trinity was responsible for the perceived dimensionality of space. so once again inflation is cut short far too early. Thus. we refer the reader to [807. Bounds on the variation of fundamental constants for dynamical compactifications have been studied in [571. it turns out that either all dimensions grow large since the string gas eventually annihilates completely. For further details on the latest attempts to embed inflation in higher dimensional theories.729. To allow the compact dimensions to grow large the winding modes must therefore collide and annihilate with the anti-winding modes. we would only expect collisions of 1 + 1 dimensional strings in at most 3 + 1 dimensions. The point is that strings winding around compact dimensions oppose their expansion since the energy of the string winding modes increases with radius. 458]. Here the spatial dimensions are taken to be compact and precisely 3 dimensions are allowed to grow large due to the annihilation of strings wrapping around those dimensions.number of ∼ 65 e-folds of inflation along the 3 flat directions we need H∗ ∆t ∼ 65. 812. Generically. as these happen to fall out of equilibrium before the strings [21]. 873. Modern attempts at a dynamical understanding of the dimensionality of space include String Gas Cosmology [183. which is strongly ruled out by observations [670]. For n = 3. We end our discussion of Kaluza-Klein cosmology by asking the question: Why are there 3 large spatial dimensions? We have already alluded to an anthropic explanation demanding the existence of stable planetary orbits44 . it has not stood up to intense scrutiny. just at a slower rate [456. e. We could imagine getting around this problem if we could alter the potential for the radius a. 457]. Whilst one can engineer an anisotropic set-up allowing 3 dimensions to grow large as desired. the scalar perturbations have a blue power spectrum with n = 5. both key to the development of intelligent life. 116. 1048. 178 . However.. It has been argued that a near scale invariant spectrum can be obtained if the dilaton gets frozen during the strong coupled Hagedorn phase in the very early Universe [182]. In the context of 10 dimensional string theory. as the strings are strongly interacting. More detailed quantitative analyses suggest that the desired outcome is not at all generic. H∗ ∆t ∼ 0. 661]. For example. Ptolemy is reputed to have offered some alternative ideas in his work On Dimensionality. To this we could add the existence of stable atoms and chemistry. 218. typically the internal dimensions also grow to large sizes. 457. but they have since been lost.g. such that it ˜ develops a minimum as well as a maximum. while PPN parameters for KK models in the solar system were computed in [461]. 572]. Generically. 666. 1216] (for reviews see. such claims still rely on a semi-classical treatment of cosmological perturbations that cannot be trusted during the Hagedorn phase. Whilst this idea has some appeal at first glance. [180. 166]. it is still very difficult to get enough exponential growth along the familiar 3 dimensions without causing the extra dimensions to grow alongside them [615]. when properly calculated. and both requiring no more than 3 (large) spatial dimensions. Note that Kaluza-Klein cosmologies have also recently been applied to the dark energy problem [119. and requires highly fine tuned initial conditions [456.

embedded in some higher dimensional space-time. 838. Gravity is intimately related to geometry. we note that for toroidal compactifications. making it difficult to test at short distances. rather they are confined to lie on a 3 + 1 dimensional hyper-surface. As well as fundamental strings. 52. and. It is too simplistic. with their ends attached to the D-branes. known as the brane. The Braneworld Paradigm The braneworld paradigm [15. the size of the internal space constrained by collider experiments to be below the inverse TeV scale. 179 . in other words. Such constraints can only come from gravitational experiments. Only closed strings can propagate through the bulk. to suggest that this translates into an upper bound on the radius of the bulk. In the braneworld picture the Standard Model fields are not universal. 63] represents a radical alternative to the standard Kaluza-Klein scenario. This analysis accounts for the fact that larger branes dilute more slowly. the inequality 2n < 10 =⇒ n ≤ 4 [444. This is made possible by relaxing the assumption of universal extra dimensions. perhaps even infinite in extent. as we shall see.1 mm. with torsion-balance tests of the inverse square law [10]. As is well known.2. Open strings. as gravity is the only force that extends into the bulk space-time. Karch and Randall [683] have shown that an FLRW universe initially filled with equal numbers of branes and anti-branes will ultimately come to be dominated by 3-branes and 7-branes. on small scales gravity is much weaker than the other three fundamental forces. Tests of Standard Model processes can only constrain how far the brane may extend into the bulk. In a braneworld scenario.sionality of our Universe consider that for integer values of n. as opposed to a larger brane. The braneworld set-up therefore has a natural interpretation in terms of a stack of D-branes embedded in a higher dimensional target space (see Figure 8). as well as the likelihood of intersections and annihilations (hence the importance of 7-branes). known as the bulk. These are extended objects upon which open strings can end. string theory contains fundamental objects known as D-branes [1044]. the extra dimensions must be small and compact. one can warp the bulk geometry such that an infinitely large extra dimension is still allowed by experiment. discussed in the previous section. In the braneworld scenario the extra dimensions can be much larger. Before delving into a detailed discussion of the various models. can be identified with the Standard Model fields bound to the brane. however. 1074. For an excellent introduction to large extra dimensions see [1072]. They do not constrain the size of the bulk itself. or. we note in passing that the braneworld paradigm is well motivated by string theory [622. at least in the presence of solitonic strings/branes that correspond to point masses in the large dimensions [462]. In fact. and these are identified with the gravitational interactions. In the KK scenario. In particular. the brane thickness. 683]. 3 large spatial dimensions can be linked to the stability of the small extra dimensions. 52]. this could explain why we might be more likely to find ourselves living on a 3-brane. the gravitational interaction has only been probed down to ∼ 0. The consequences of living on a 3-brane are discussed in detail in the Section 5. Finally. 62. 5.2. This is interesting because it means that the world volume of 3 + 1 dimensional branes (known as 3-branes) are less likely to intersect than those of larger branes.

as explained above. Mpl ∼ 1016 TeV. the bulk action is then described by the generalised Einstein-Hilbert action √ M D−2 Sbulk = D dD X −γR. MEW ∼ TeV.1. 5. so much so that we can treat the wall as an infinitely thin 3brane.Figure 8: Taken from [51]. rather it is reformulated as a hierarchy between the scale of the extra dimensions. In this scenario the hierarchy does not go away completely. We should clarify that D counts the number of macroscopic dimensions in this scenario. R = γ AB RAB . Here the brane has 3 macroscopic dimensions. (600) 2 where MD is the fundamental Planck scale in D dimensions. with characteristic size given by the fundamental Planck length. µ ∼ 1/L. Now. the width of the wall cannot exceed the inverse TeV scale. whereas the closed strings propagate through the bulk. and Ricci scalar. Dimopoulos and Dvali [62]. The ADD model The braneworld paradigm really began to gather momentum with the seminal work of Arkani-Hamed. The set-up is as follows: Standard Model fermions and gauge bosons are localised on a 3 + 1 dimensional domain wall. and the Planck scale. RAB .2. In the simplest construction. The bulk space transverse to the wall is compact but much larger than the width of the wall (L TeV−1 ). in which the large extra dimension is exploited in order to explain the vast hierarchy between the electro-weak scale. γAB is the D dimensional metric with corresponding Ricci tensor. The Planck mass is related to the fundamental Newton’s constant in D dimensions by 180 . in an (effective) D = 4 + n dimensional space-time. The open strings end on the D branes. Any microscopic dimensions. and d compact dimensions. behave as in the standard KK scenario described previously. and the electro-weak scale.

but then one loses much of the appeal of the original model. Randall-Sundrum Gravity As we have already suggested. rising to T ≤ 10 GeV for n = 6 [588]. The strongest astrophysical constraint comes from the possible emission of KK modes during the collapse of SN1987a. The effective four-dimensional Planck scale.2−D 8πGD = MD . At large distances. one must identify a maximum temperature for the early Universe for a given fundamental scale. the bulk is an anti-de Sitter space. at energies E mKK . we can eliminate the standard hierarchy in D dimensions. µ ∼ 1/L MEW . with n = 2 we have MD ≥ 50 TeV. gravitational interactions along the brane are mediated by the graviton zero mode. at least in D ≥ 6 dimensions. There are two versions 181 . (602) By taking the macroscopic extra dimensions to be sufficiently large. when the bulk manifold is a compact hyperbolic space. as seen by an observer on the brane. Truncating to the zero mode. and Ricci scalar R = g µν Rµν . The temperature bounds can be weakened considerably if one does not require the bulk to be flat. but from astrophysics and cosmology [63]. In perhaps the most celebrated braneworld model. the maximum temperature can be pushed beyond the GeV scale even for n = 2 [671]. one has to worry about over-production of KK modes at high temperatures. whereas for n = 3 we have MD ≥ 3 TeV [350]. developed soon after ADD by Randall and Sundrum [1051. (601) where gµν is the four-dimensional metric on the brane. and where the volume of the extra dimensions is given by Vn ∝ Ln . scattering processes along the brane. can produce a copious number of KK gravitons. we can compute the four-dimensional effective action describing long distance gravity along the brane by integrating out the macroscopic extra dimensions. is then given by 2+n 2 Mpl ∼ MD Ln . the strongest constraints on the ADD model do not come from short distance gravity tests. NKK ∼ Mpl /MD 1032 . which has a homogeneous profile over the extra dimensions. and replace it with a new hierarchy involving the scale of the extra dimensions. with Ricci tensor Rµν . In cosmology. This result in Seff = D−2 MD Vn 2 √ d4 x −gR. in a generic braneworld set-up there is no obvious reason why one should demand that the bulk space should be flat. This means that even though each mode is only very weakly coupled. Taking the fundamental scale to be MD ∼ 1 TeV imposes a temperature bound T ≤ 10 MeV for n = 2. and the current composition of the Universe.3. The problem arises because the Kaluza-Klein modes can be extremely light. For example. and 2 2 extremely numerous. mKK 1/L 10−4 eV. with strength 1/Mpl . 5. In order to be consistent with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. While a low maximum temperature is not in contradiction with cosmological data. For example. Requiring this to not be the dominant cooling processes imposes a lower bound on the fundamental Planck scale. MD ∼ MEW ∼ 1 TeV. since this may destroy the standard Big Bang picture. 1052]. In actual fact. Indeed. as in the ADD model. A higher fundamental scale will raise the maximum temperature. This is not in violation of short distance gravity tests. it does present a challenge to models of baryogenesis and inflation. in six dimensions one can eliminate the hierarchy even for millimetre size extra dimensions.

182 . Although only a toy model. The RS1 model In RS1. We begin with an overview of some of the models. and z = zc . the RS1 set-up is well motivated by a number of string theory/super-gravity constructions [622. It improves on the ADD model as the compact extra dimension need not be so large as to introduce a new hierarchy. l 4πG5 l then we admit a background solution in which the branes exhibit four-dimensional Poincar´ invariance: e ds2 = e−2|z|/l ηµν dxµ dxν + dz 2 . whereas the other boundary condition should be understood to be implicit. In between the branes we recognise the geometry to be anti-de Sitter space.1. and gµν and gµν are the metrics on the branes at z = 0 and z = zc . The line-element given in Eq. so that a brane observer only sees the gravitational effects of the extra dimension above scales set by the bulk curvature. For further details see. This is achieved by exploiting the exponential warp factor to generate a large bulk volume from a small compactification radius. whereas the RS2 model only contains a single brane. generally referred to as Randall-Sundrum I (RS1) [1051] and Randall-Sundrum II (RS2) [1052].of the Randall-Sundrum model. (604) contains an exponential warp factor that is displayed graphically in Figure 9. 439]. with some non-trivial geometry . the RS2 model [1052] contains a single brane and a non-compact extra dimension – it is infinite in extent. (603) where γab is the bulk metric. or “warping”. present in the bulk. we have two 3-branes separated by a region of five-dimensional anti-de Sitter space [1051]. Λ = −6/l . This time the bulk warp factor ensures that gravity is localised close to the brane. The branes are located at z = 0. In this section we are particularly interested in five-dimensional models containing 3-branes. Somewhat confusingly. 838. such that σ+ = −σ− = 3 6M5 3 = . M5 is the five-dimensional Planck scale and is related to the 3 five-dimensional Newton’s constant via the standard relation G5 = 1/8πM5 . The RS1 model [1051] was also proposed as a resolution to the hierarchy problem. The Z2 symmetry about z = 0 is explicit. here we extend the definition to include any model with similar features. respectively. for example. the RS1 model contains two branes. Notice the peak in the warp factor at the positive tension brane. If we fine-tune the brane tensions against Λ. 5. Neglecting Gibbons-Hawking boundary terms [536]. Although the phrase Randall-Sundrum gravity really refers to these two original models. and we impose Z2 symmetry across each brane. and the trough at the negative tension brane. We also 2 include a negative bulk cosmological constant. 845]. In contrast. (604) for −zc ≤ z ≤ zc .3. [1008. written in Poincar´ e coordinates. the action describing this model is given by S= 3 M5 2 d4 x zc −zc √ dz −γ (R − 2Λ) − σ+ (+) d4 x z=0 (−) −g (+) − σ− z=zc d4 x −g (−) .

but Brans-Dicke gravity. the hierarchy problem has been eliminated altogether. As it stands. Thus. the bulk curvature scale to be just below 1/l ∼ 0. The same cannot be said for wBD on the negative tension brane. 1008].2). and not just shifted around. M− ∼ mpl ∼ 1016 TeV. (606) Now suppose we live on the negative tension brane. see Section 3. we recover the desired effective Planck scale. the RS1 model is incomplete. (605) where ± labels the sign of the corresponding brane tension. and is given by [528] 3 ±2zc /l (±) wBD = e −1 . (607) 2 Observations require this parameter to be large (wBD > 40000. Note (+) that for the positive tension brane wBD can be made arbitrarily large with increasing (−) brane separation. By integrating out the 4D zero-mode we are able to derive the 4D effective Planck scale on a given brane [1051. 1008]: 2 3 M± = ±M5 l 1 − e 2zc /l . If we take the fundamental Planck scale M5 ∼ TeV. In contrast. The value of the Brans-Dicke parameter depends on the brane. 528. the hierarchy is not eliminated if we live on the positive tension brane since then the effective Planck mass is given by M+ ∼ e−zc /l M− [1051.z=0 z = zc z Figure 9: The behaviour of the warp factor in the RS1 model. and the distance between the branes to be such that zc /l ∼ 35.1.01M5 . The problem is that on either brane the low energy 4D effective theory is not GR. and is sometimes referred to as the radion [541. 275]. In terms of the effective Newton’s constants we have G± = G5 l ±1 1 − e 2zc /l . If we want to live on the negative tension brane we must generate a mass for the radion to 183 . The extra scalar comes from fluctuations in the brane separation. as in the ADD model.

µ ∼ 1/L. As a method to screen the extra dimensions from the low energy observer. 1/l. The geometry is then described by the metric in Eq. In this limit M+ → M5 l.2. playing the role of the compactification scale. this represents a radical alternative to the standard method of Kaluza-Klein compactifications.3.5. the situation is more akin to the five-dimensional ADD model. the single peak at z = 0 indicating 3 that we have a single brane with positive tension. Intuitively. The Goldberger-Wise mechanism does exactly that. in RS1 the observer on the positive tension brane sees a low (+) energy gravity theory corresponding to Brans-Dicke gravity. suppress its fluctuations. Since 1/l sets the scale at which the brane observer starts to become sensitive to the 184 . The corresponding warp factor is shown in Figure 10. 5.brane z Figure 10: The behaviour of the warp factor in the RS2 model.3. As we have just seen. The RS2 model The RS2 model is obtained from RS1 by taking the negative tension brane off to infinity [1052]. even though the bulk is infinite in extent. in the absence of any other massless modes. In the RS2 limit of infinite brane separation the BD scalar decouples 2 e and one is left with 4D GR. What makes the RS2 model interesting is the way in which 4D GR is recovered on the brane. The key to gravity localisation is that the bulk volume is finite even though it has infinite extent. This ensures that there is a normalisable graviton zero mode. which. and thus stabilises the distance between the branes [542]. 1/l. gravity localisation occurs because the warping makes it difficult for the graviton to propagate too far away from the brane. so we cannot eliminate the hierarchy problem as in the RS1 model. with a BD parameter wBD = 3 2zc /l − 1 . As we will see in detail in Section 5. guarantees 4D GR at low enough energies. so much so that the region of the bulk with z l has no influence on low energy brane interactions. (604) with zc → ∞. with the curvature scale. gravity is localised on the brane at energies below the bulk curvature scale. Rather. The finite bulk volume arises because the warp factor falls off exponentially as we move away from the brane.

pointing out that the CFT is strongly coupled and may therefore carry fewer degrees of freedom [508]. 1138. Note that if we accept the EFK conjecture. 438. 556. This is based on the existence of long-lived black hole X-ray binaries [471]. 695]. 1100. This translates into a lower bound on the fundamental Planck scale. which is well above the electro-weak scale. Up until now our discussion has centred around weak gravity on the brane.. this suggests that the solution should not be static since it should include the back-reaction of the Hawking radiation [470] (see also [1201]). One can embrace 45 There have been many attempts to find such a solution.3. described by a non-factorisable. or warped. for example. in the large N limit [862]. 596. Randall and Wiseman have disputed this interpretation. This suggests an alternative description of RS2 gravity [570]: ‘Gravity on an RS2 brane is dual to a strongly coupled conformal field theory (CFT) cut off in the UV. Another way of describing the correspondence is to say [470]: ‘A classical source on the brane is dual to a quantum corrected source in four dimensions. and for a review [1008]). 1/l 10−3 eV. with the quantum corrections coming from the strongly coupled CFT’. 966. Such an accelerated black hole requires knowledge of the AdS C-metric.3. When applied to the problem of finding a black hole on the brane. The quantum corrections are large because of the large number of degrees of freedom in the large-N limit. we abandon any discussion of the hierarchy problem for the single brane scenario. The difficulty arises because the brane is an accelerated surface. we can improve the bound on the bulk curvature by an order of magnitude. 505. so any black hole residing on the brane must follow an accelerated trajectory.g.bulk. table top experiments of the inverse square law impose the limit 1/l 10−4 eV. [1278. One exception are the solutions for a domain wall localised on the brane [561. In contrast. Other RS-like models One of the characteristic features of the Randall-Sundrum models is the structure of the bulk geometry. Fitzpatrick. most of which remain unpublished. Since TeV scale gravity is not phenomenologically viable in this case. 560]. For a nice review of the search for braneworld black hole solutions see [558]. [570. but this solution is unknown in five dimensions. At this point it is fair to say that as yet there has been no consensus. 506]). There is plenty of evidence for this holographic description of RS2 (see. minimally coupled to 4D gravity’. 562. metric. To understand their argument we must first recall the AdS/CFT correspondence in which type IIB string theory on AdS5 × S 5 is conjectured to be dual to N = 4 SU (N ) super-Yang-Mills. 1009. e. and the subject remains an active area of debate (see also [564. an exact solution describing a braneworld black hole remains elusive45 . What about strong gravity in the presence of localised sources? Whilst there have been some interesting numerical studies (see. M5 105 TeV. For smaller values of 1/l these binaries would have already decayed. RS2 and AdS/CFT Emparan. 185 . Fabbri and Kaloper (EFK) have suggested that a static braneworld black hole does not exist [470]. 1014. 5. 758]) exact strong gravity solutions are rare in RS2. and more recently [1200].

186 . The second thing to note is that the bulk volume is rendered finite. We say that gravity is only quasi-localised because ultra−light /||Λ4 | the extra-dimension opens up in the far infra-red. proposed by Karch and Randall [682] (see also [667]). whereas for a tension deficit. Here we consider a class of models described by warped geometries of the form ds2 = a2 (z)¯µν (x)dxµ dxν + dz 2 . g (608) Many of the most interesting RS-like models exhibit quasi-localisation and give rise to large-distance modifications of gravity. cutting off the space-time at z = lc. This means that gravity is more strongly localised than in the standard RS2 scenario. ultra−light ∼ Λ4 /M5 k E multra−light . c = sinh −1 for anti-de Sitter. At intermediate energies.this structure and consider a whole slew of interesting generalisations. σ+ < 6M5 /l. c = cosh−1 (1/A). gµν is anti-de ¯ ¯ Sitter.1[721]. This corresponds to a braneworld realisation of the bigravity scenarios discussed in Section 3. where A = l |Λ4 /3|. The first thing to note is that both branes can have positive tension since the warp factor turns around. at energies E multra−light . Now consider what happens when we introduce a second AdS brane. along the lines of an AdS generalisation of the RS1 model [720]. 1011]). one massless and one massive. Other interesting examples include the GRS model [563]. with mass m2 |Λ4 | [1120]. the light mode behaves as if it were effectively massless and one recovers 4D gravity. (1/A). 722.5. for the AdS brane the warp factor turns around at some finite value of z. and gravity is not localised at all on the AdS brane as there is no normalisable zero mode. The effective cosmological constant on the brane is given by Λ4 = 3 σ+ 3 6M5 2 − 1 . 1013] and the CGP model [274]. The Karch-Randall model 3 Here we take the RS2 model and de-tune the brane tension. so that one 3 no longer has Poincar´ invariance along the brane. This means the bulk volume is infinite. We find that a(z) = A cosh(c − |z|/l). Perhaps the most celebrated of these is the DGP model [454].3 (see also [723. We begin with the simplest generalisation. Actually. (610) (611) a(z) = A sinh(c − |z|/l). the AdS brane exhibits quasi-localisation. however. This is because there is a normalisable mode that is 2 ultra-light. and so we have a zero mode as well as the ultra-light mode. The decay of the warp factor away from the brane is greatest for the dS brane. Note that there is no issue with the vDVZ discontinuity in AdS when m2 0. when |Λ4 | is small (compared with M5 ). l2 (609) The behaviour of the warp factor also changes. At energies above the mass of both modes gravity is mediated by the exchange of two spin-2 fields. which will be discussed in detail in Section 5. For an excess tension. for de Sitter. σ+ > 6M5 /l. the asymmetric brane model [1012. σ+ = 6M5 /l. In contrast. e 3 the metric gµν is de Sitter.

however. The setup contains three Minkowski branes. (612) As the bulk volume is infinite. 3 3 σ = 3( 1 M1 /l1 + 2 M2 /l2 ).The GRS model The GRS model [563] was developed by Gregory. The corresponding solutions have a warp factor of the form [1013] a(z) = e− 1 z/l1 e 2 z/l2 z>0 z < 0. 1013] (see also [1189]) is a single brane mode. one with positive tension and two with negative tension. where 1 = ±1 and 2 = ±1. Beyond the negative tension brane lies an infinite region of Minkowski space. although there is no zero mode. It is. Unfortunately. The model includes RS2 as a special case. Allowing the bulk Planck scales to differ might seem strange. The asymmetric brane model The asymmetric brane model [1012. Rubakov and Sibiryakov. By taking this scale to be very large. Indeed. The asymmetric model then admits Minkowski branes for a suitably tuned brane tension. The warp factor goes like [563] a(z) = e−|z|/l e−zc /l |z| < zc |z| > zc . The positive tension brane is Z2 symmetric and is flanked on either side by a section of anti-de Sitter space as far as a negative tension brane. The point is that on the growing side the 3 graviton localises at the AdS boundary. the effect of localisation close to the AdS boundary 187 . but not if we imagine a string compactification down to five dimensions in which the dilaton is stabilised at different values on either side of a domain wall (the brane). the fundamental parameters in the bulk are allowed to differ on either side of the brane. gravity is not localised. including the bulk cosmological constant and the bulk Planck scales. If the bulk cosmological constant and Planck scales are given by 2 −6/l1 z>0 M1 z>0 Λ= . only without Z2 symmetry imposed across the brane. (614) The parameters 1 and 2 control whether the warp factor grows ( = −1) or decays ( = −1) away from the brane in a given direction. there is an ultra-light mode. The bulk volume is then infinite so that there is no zero mode. M= (613) 2 −6/l2 z<0 M2 z < 0. more interesting to consider the case where one of the warp factors grows away from the brane while the other decays (e.g. Again. and the extra dimension opens up at very large distances.l like RS2. 2 = − 1 = 1). where its sees an effective 4D Planck scale M1 l1 . the GRS model is known to be unstable due to the presence of a ghost in the spectrum of linearised fluctuations [1038]. although the decaying warp factor around the positive tension brane gives some degree of quasi-localisation. but by choosing the scales appropriately one can engineer a degree of quasi-localisation.

The CGP model The CGP model [274].R gµν . extrinsic curvature is 2 given by the Lie derivative of the induced metric. also exhibits quasi-localisation. This should be evaluated on either side of the brane as it can differ from side to side. We should note that the asymmetric model also admits self-accelerating solutions. Note that what appears in the action is the jump46 3 3 3 ∆ M5 K = M5 K|R − M5 K|L . we have a five dimensional bulk space split into a series of domains separated from each another by 3-branes. This is no coincidence. i. Labelling the two sides of a given brane. Now there are two (completely equivalent) ways to treat the brane contributions at the level of the field equations. Action and equations of motion In each of the models described in our overview. this decouples in the Minkowski limit [740]. it corresponds to a braneworld √ realisation of the Cardassian cosmology. just as in the DGP model. the model contains a new type of cosmological solution that tends to Minkowski space at very late times. One approach is to treat them as delta-function sources in 46 Henceforth we define the jump of any quantity Q across a brane as ∆Q = Q|R − Q|L . Here we consider the action and field equations for generic models of this type. almost decoupled from the gravitational dynamics near the brane. 1015. In principle both M5 and Lbulk can vary from domain to domain. M5 is the bulk Planck scale. R.R . K = g µν Kµν is the trace of extrinsic curvature. Kµν . with H 2 ≈ 8πG (ρ + c ρ) [512]. since the DGP model can be obtained as a limiting case of the asymmetric model [736]. Although a 3 ghost is present when we introduce a small positive vacuum energy. The unit normal on both sides points from L to R. and Lbulk is the Lagrangian density describing the bulk field content. It is known that the self-accelerating solutions of DGP contain ghost-like instabilities [273. we define Kµν |L. For each brane gµν is the induced metric and Lbrane is the Lagrangian density describing the field content on that particular brane. Interestingly.R = 1 Ln|L. The ∆ here is not to be confused with the 3-dimensional Laplacian. Gregory and Padilla. (615) where γab is the bulk metric with corresponding Ricci scalar. but undergoes an intermediate period of cosmic acceleration in the presence of ordinary matter. using L and R.3. 5. The 3-branes may be thought of as the boundaries of the various domains so that the action is given by S= bulk √ d5 x −γ 3 M5 R + Lbulk 2 + branes brane √ 3 d4 x −g −∆ M5 K + Lbrane . This corresponds to the Gibbons-Hawking boundary term [536] for the bulk domains on each side of the brane. the model shares a number of features with the DGP model. 188 . 546]. so the same is expected to be true for the asymmetric model. It combines the main features of both the asymmetric model and the DGP model in that there is an induced gravity term.e. In fact. and asymmetry across the brane.4. In fact. with respect to the unit normal na |L. developed by Charmousis.

we can also take the metric to be transverse and trace-free in the bulk. with the positive tension brane (the “+” brane) fixed at z = 0 and the negative tension brane (the “−” brane) fixed at z = zc . However. Linear perturbations in RS1 and RS2 We now consider the theory of linear perturbations. (619) µ µ This is known as Randall-Sundrum (RS) gauge [1052]. ∂z 2 l (620) where ∂ 2 = ∂µ ∂ µ . where ∂ν χν = χµ = 0. the linearised bulk equations of motion. so that the metric is given by γab = γab + δγab . 2 M5 (616) √ 2 δ bulk where Tab = − √−γ δγ ab bulk d5 x −γLbulk is the bulk energy-momentum tensor. The bulk equations of motion are then given by the bulk Einstein equations 1 bulk 1 Gab = Rab − Rγab = 3 Tab . The boundary conditions at Σi are given by the Israel junction conditions [649] 2 brane ∆ M5 (Kµν − Kgµν ) = −Tµν . We now consider small perturbations about the background. δGab = 62 δγab . this is only a partial gauge fixing. z). although the methods we use are fairly standard. we can no longer assume that the branes are fixed at z = 0 and z = zc .3. 1038. Unfortunately. as RS2 can be readily obtained by taking the negative tension brane to infinity. For brevity.5. we will restrict attention to RS1 and RS2. γab . Note ¯ that we have Z2 symmetry across the branes. Weak gravity on a RS1 brane It is enough to consider RS1. In other words. µν −g Note that in each of these examples. and on the “−” brane by gµν = e−2zc /l ηµν . Recall that the background metric. (618) Actually. ¯ defined by δγµz = δγzz = 0. We see that the induced metric on the (−) (+) ¯ “+” brane is given by gµν = ηµν .the Einstein equations. 1011]). The presence of matter on the branes will cause them to bend [528] so that they will now 189 . 275. so we can restrict attention to 0 ≤ z ≤ zc . and should apply to all RS-like models (for further details. see [528. It is convenient to choose Gaussian Normal (GN) gauge. yield l e2z/l ∂ 2 + ∂2 4 − 2 χµν = 0. In RS gauge. (617) √ (i) where Tµν = − √2 δgδ brane d4 x −gLbrane is the brane energy-momentum tensor. Since we have no additional bulk matter. our preferred approach is to explicitly separate the field equations in the bulk from the boundary conditions at the brane. the bulk geometry is only sourced by a cosmological bulk 3 constant. Tab = −M5 Λγab . δγµν = χµν (x. is given by Equation ¯ (604). 5.

(−) = −Sµν . for some functions f± that depend only on the coordinates xµ . but with the “+” brane at z = f+ − f− . xµ → xµ + l 1 − e−2(z−zc )/l ∂µ f− . (±) (627) 3 where σ± = ±6M5 /l is the tension on the “±’ brane. ¯ µν l Similarly. z) = χµν (x. l xµ → xµ + (1 − e−2z/l )∂µ f+ . to fix the position of the “−” brane we let z → z − f− (x). This makes it difficult to apply the Israel junction conditions at the branes. We first consider the “+” brane. zc ) = χµν (x. (617) at each brane to find 2 ∆ M5 δ(Kµν − Kgµν ) (±) (±) (±) = σ± δgµν − Tµν . It follows that the linearised boundary conditions at each brane are given by ∂ 2 + χµν ∂z l z=0 ∂ 2 + χµν ∂z l z=zc 190 (+) = −Sµν . 0) − f+ gµν . z) = χµν (x. ¯(+) µν l ¯ whereas on the “−” brane it is given by gµν = gµν + δgµν . where 2 (−) δgµν = χ(−) (x. owing to the Z2 symmetry. Now. 0) = χµν (x. To get round this we can apply a gauge transformation that fixes the position of the “+” brane. 2 (621) The “+” brane is now fixed at z = positioned at z = f+ (x) and z = zc + f− (x). and Tµν is the energy-momentum tensor for matter excitations. This gives rise to two coordinate patches that are related by a gauge transformation in the region of overlap. (628) (629) . z) − l 1 − e−2(z−zc )/l ∂µ ∂ν f− − f− γµν . ¯ µν l ¯ Now the induced metric on the “+” brane is given by gµν = gµν + δgµν . and another that fixes the position of the “−” brane [275]. It follows that the metric perturbation in the “+” patch is given by 2 δγµν = χ(+) (x. The metric perturbation in the “−” patch is given by 2 δγµν = χ(−) (x. ¯(−) µν l (626) (−) (−) (−) (+) (+) (+) (624) (625) We are now ready to make use of the linearised Israel junction conditions given by Eq. To fix its position we make the following coordinate transformation z → z − f+ (x). z) − l(1 − e−2z/l )∂µ ∂ν f+ − f+ γµν . although the other brane is now at z = zc +f− −f+ . 2 (623) (622) Now we have the “−” brane at z = zc . where 2 (+) δgµν = χ(+) (x. zc ) − f− gµν . the extrinsic curvature simply changes by a sign when evaluated on either side of a given brane. We will call them the “+” patch and the “−” patch accordingly. without spoiling the Gaussian Normal condition (618).

such that ∂ 2 f± = a2 ± T (±) 3.where ± Sµν (x) = ± (±) 1 (±) (±) 1 (±) gµν − 2∂µ ∂ν f± . z) = C (+) (p. (636) (635) Note that In . and det A(p) = I1 (pl) K1 plezc /l − K1 (pl) I1 plezc /l . z) = − 1 e−zc /l I1 (pl) K2 plez/l + K1 (pl) I2 plez/l p det A(p) .) = (2π)2 d4 x e−ipµ x Q(x. 6M5 (631) where a± gives the warp factor at the “±” brane (i. z)Sµν . we clearly see that matter on a brane causes it to be bend. taking the trace of these equations. From Eq. z) = − and C (−) (p. to find that χµν (x. ˜ µ (632) 4 ∂2 − 2 χµν = 0. (637) 1 I1 plezc /l K2 plez/l + K1 plezc /l I2 plez/l p det A(p) . ˜ where C (+) (p. 2 ∂ + ∂z l χµν ˜ z=zc ˜(−) = −Sµν (p). and using the fact that χµν is traceless.) → Q(p. Indeed. .). and a complete set of boundary conditions for the graviton mode χµν . (628) and (629) give the governing differential equations. and Kn are modified Bessel’s functions of integer order n [6]. . . .e. ˜ 2 ∂z l (633) ˜(+) = −Sµν (p). ¯ 3 Tµν − 3 T M5 (630) µν and where T (±) = g(±) Tµν is the trace of the appropriate energy-momentum tensor. We now take Fourier transforms along µ 1 ˜ the brane directions. Q(x. . (631) we also have f± (x) = ± 1 a2 ± 3 (2π)2 M5 191 d4 p eipµ x µ (638) ˜ T (±) . . 6p2 (639) . z)Sµν − C (−) (p. z) = where −p2 e2z/l + and 2 ∂ + ∂z l χµν ˜ z=0 1 (2π)2 d4 p eipµ x χµν (p. . a+ = 1 and a− = e−zc /l ). z). (634) This system is easily solved to give ˜(+) ˜(−) χµν (p. . Equations (620). .

0) Tµν − 2 + pure gauge terms. (640) lp2 e−zc /l 1˜ ˜ T (−) − T (−) gµν ¯(−) det A(p) µν 3 whereas at the negative tension brane we have χ(−) = µν 1 1 3 (2π)2 M5 d4 p eipµ x − µ ˜ (−) α− T (−) gµν ˜ ¯(−) C (−) (p. given our knowledge of χµν (x. Graviton spectrum Let us now pause to comment on the mass spectrum for the graviton. p ke−zc /l .(622) and (624). We can now see explicitly how BD gravity emerges as the low energy effective theory in RS1. 0) .To compute the metric perturbation on each of the branes we simply use Eqs. we have [528] χ(+) ≈ µν 1 (2π)2 d4 p eipµ x µ 2 2 M+ p2 ˜ (+) Tµν − + wBD + 1 + 2wBD + 3 ˜ ¯(+) T (+) gµν + pure gauge terms. as claimed in Section 5. on both branes. respectively. (643) + and χ(−) ≈ µν e−2zc /l (2π)2 d4 p eipµ x 2 2 M− p 2 ˜ (−) 1 ˜ ¯(−) Tµν − T (−) gµν 3 µ 2 2 M− p2 ˜ (−) Tµν − − wBD + 1 − 2wBD + 3 ˜ ¯(−) T (−) gµν + pure gauge terms. They are given by α+ = 2 3 1+ 1 lp2 C (+) (p. The spectrum can be obtained by identifying the poles in the propagator. zc ) Tµν − 2 + pure gauge terms.3. They are given by Equations (605) and (607). (642) Using the properties of modified Bessel functions [6]. z) and f± (x). (644) + 2 2 M+ p 2 ˜ (+) 1 ˜ ¯(+) Tµν − T (+) gµν 3 ± where M± and wBD are the 4D effective Planck scale and Brans-Dicke parameter on the “±” brane. α− = 2 3 1− e−2zc /l lp2 C (−) (p. we can show that at low energies. These are given by the 192 . zc ) .1. At the positive tension brane we then have χ(+) = µν 1 1 2 M3 (2π) 5 d4 p eipµ x − µ ˜ (+) α+ T (+) gµν ˜ ¯(+) C (+) (p. (641) e−zc /l ˜ (+) 1 ˜ ¯(+) Tµν − T (+) gµν 2 det A(p) lp 3 The parameters α± are crucial as they control the tensor structure of the propagator on the “±” branes.

and a tower of heavy Kaluza-Klein modes with mass splitting ∆m ∼ 1/l(ezc /l − 1). In some RS-like models (e. (±) Let us consider vacuum fluctuations (Tµν = 0) in the scalar sector. We can do this with the following coordinate transformation z z → z + B(z)δf vac . GRS).g. resulting in a single free scalar degree of freedom. The first thing to note is that the Field Equations (620). 2 and so Equation (647) is consistent with ∂ ψ = 0. which has the branes positioned at z = 0 and z = zc − δf vac . Note that Equation (631) implies ∂ 2 f± = 0. in contrast to the graviton zero mode which is localised close to the “+” brane. ψ. xµ → xµ − e−2z/l ∂µ (δf vac ) e2y/l B(y)dy. Equation (647) also imposes a relation vac vac between f+ and f− .solutions to p2 = −m2 . satisfying B(0) = 0 and B(zc ) = 1. the radion can exhibit pathological behaviour that can only be revealed by computing the effective action [1038]. ¯ 4 l δγµz = δγzz = 0. the price we pay for 193 . the metric perturbation is given by δγµν = − l2 2z/l 2 vac vac e ∂µ ∂ν ψ − l(1 − e−2z/l )∂µ ∂ν f+ − f+ γµν . While this transformation ensures that δγµz is still zero. Radion effective action The finite Brans-Dicke parameter indicates the presence of a massless scalar in addition to the massless graviton. We will now briefly outline the procedure for doing this. or brane bending mode. 2a2 ± (647) vac vac where f± is the vacuum fluctuation in f± . By solving this equation we see that there is a zero mode. Note that the radion profile in the bulk is localised close to the “−” brane. We now work in the “+” patch. Focusing solely on the scalar sector. where det A(p) = 0. δf = f+ − f− . which we take to be the physical radion mode. 0 (649) where B(z) is some differentiable function for 0 ≤ z ≤ zc . it is convenient to have both branes fixed. This is due to the radion. (628) and (629) admit a solution of the form [275] l2 (646) χ(rad) = − e2z/l ∂µ ∂ν ψ. µν 4 where ∂ 2 ψ = 0 and the vacuum boundary conditions require vac f± = − l ψ. (645) where J1 and Y1 are Bessel’s functions of order one. (648) In order to integrate out the extra dimension. This gives I1 (iml) K1 imlezc /l − K1 (iml) I1 imlezc /l = 0 =⇒ J1 (ml) Y1 mlezc /l − Y1 (ml) J1 mlezc /l = 0.

being localised close to the “−” brane. the radion. as expected. (652) 2 − σ± hµν are identically It turns out that δ Gµν − 62 γµν and ∆ M5 δ(Kµν − Kgµν ) l zero [1038]. Weak gravity on a RS2 brane Let us now focus on RS2 by taking the negative tension brane to infinity. Note that in some models. After integrating out a total derivative in z. (650) (651) δγzz = hµz = −2δf vac B (z). p show that χ(+) ≈ µν 1 (2π)2 k. As zc → ∞. δγµν = hµν = − l2 2z/l 2 vac vac e ∂µ ∂ν ψ − l(1 − e−2z/l )∂µ ∂ν f+ − f − (δf vac )B(z) γµν ¯ 4 l + z +2e−2z/l ∂µ ∂ν (δf vac ) 0 e2y/l B(y)dy. As we move the branes further and further away from one another. signalling the presence of a physical ghost [1038]. ψ. we again use the properties of modified Bessel functions [6] to µ d4 p eipµ x 2 2 M4 p2 ˜ (+) 1 ˜ ¯(+) Tµν − T (+) gµν + pure gauge terms. (653) where M− is given by Equation (605). behaves as a massless scalar. the effective action is given by Seff = − 3 M5 2 zc dz 0 √ 6 d4 x −¯ hab δ Gab − 2 γab γ l d4 x 2 −¯(+) hµν ∆ M5 δ(Kµν − Kgµν ) g (+) 1 + 2 + z=0 − σ+ hµν (−) 1 2 z=zc 2 d4 x −¯(−) hµν ∆ M5 δ(Kµν − Kgµν ) g (±) − σ− hµν . To quadratic order.fixed branes is that we now have non-vanishing δγzz . Thus. and. There is no such pathology in RS1 or RS2. its coupling strength is controlled by the scale M− . (654) At low energies. M− increases and the radion starts to decouple (decoupling completely in the RS2 limit). we arrive at the following effective action for the radion: 3 2 Sradion = − M− 2 d4 x (∂µ ψ)2 . such as GRS [563]. More precisely. the metric on the remaining positive tension brane is given by χ(+) µν 1 = (2π)2 d4 p eipµ x µ   K1 (pl) K2 (pl)  ˜ (+) 1 + plK2 (pl) ˜ (+) (+)  T − T gµν ¯ 3 M5 pK1 (pl) µν 3 + pure gauge terms. 2 194 (655) . the radion effective action comes in with the wrong overall sign.

and branes for which energy is explicitly transferred between bulk and brane [694. 1139]). can be found in the following review articles [1048. equivalently. 178] before moving on to cosmological perturbation theory [716.4. or. 695. 639. 845. ranging from supernova data to the abundance of light elements. and the bulk based formalism. consistent with the fact that the extra dimension is no longer compact. for example. Brane Cosmology There are two obvious reasons why cosmology offers an interesting arena in which to develop the braneworld paradigm. In RS2 there is actually a continuum of massive modes. with an effective Newton’s constant G4 = G5 /l. 346. with a factor of − 1 in front of the trace term. The first is that cosmological branes possess a high degree of symmetry. 1008. 47 Note that this result differs slightly from the original one quoted in [1052]. 1244]. as we have seen. This is where the brane bending mode f+ (x) 2 plays a crucial role. Further details. Note that the tensor structure of the propagator matches that of General Relativity. 195 . In this section we will study the cosmology of co-dimension one branes. 966]. 195] (see also [1008. 695. 1234]. 1234]. It cancels part of the graviton zero mode in just the right way to guarantee good agreement with solar system gravity tests. However. 347. we still recover 4D GR to leading order. where one has to argue for some sort of Vainshtein effect to pass observational tests. These two approaches are completely equivalent and yield a background cosmology governed by the following Friedmann equations [159. equivalently. or. 770. even in single brane scenarios. We will see this in DGP gravity. Note that the 1/r3 correction can be obtained in a dual picture as the one loop CFT correction to the graviton propagator [438]. anisotropic braneworlds [843. It is worth noting that this neat cancellation of terms does not always happen. a feature that can be identified with CFT particle production in the holographic picture [966]. 189. 438] for details of the derivation. and this makes it possible to solve the field equations. Note that any anisotropy is seen to dissipate on the brane in RS gravity. The result is that the Newtonian potential reads47 V (r) ∝ 1 r 1+ 2l2 + O(l3 /r3 ) . 1189. Let us finally consider massive modes. The next to leading order corrections are obtained by integrating over the continuum. focusing on the RS2 scenario with a single Z2 symmetric brane. Braneworld cosmology can be studied using two different formalisms: The brane based formalism. We will review the background dynamics [159. 5. Bulk-brane energy transfer has been used to account for dark energy [694. by considering the next to leading order expansion in pl above. 1143]. 3r2 We refer the reader to [528. Other generalisations include: the cosmology of branes without Z2 symmetry [1012. with a 4D effective 2 3 Planck scale M4 = M5 l. The second is that cosmological physics can be tested by a number of observations. including generalisations to multi-brane scenarios with bulk scalar fields.It follows that gravity is indeed localised on the brane at low energies.

From Equations (656) and (657) we see that the corrections to the standard cosmology µ manifest themselves in a term ∝ ρ2 . Here we have used the fact that M 2 = M 3 l ∼ 1016 TeV. Both corrections will strongly affect Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). 596]. 48 Assuming a RS2 scenario with fine tuned tension. 178] H2 + κ a2 κ ˙ H− 2 a = = Λ4 µ 8πG4 ρ + 4.2. At low energies. In addition. in the period following BBN [638]. these match the standard 1 8πG4 V V = 1 16πG4 V V 2 .3. eV.e. Assuming the inflaton is confined to the brane along with all the Standard Model fields. ρ(t). so their magnitude can be constrained by the abundance of light elements. and pressure. 1014. ρweyl /ργ 0. ρ + 3H(ρ + P ) = 0. For the moment. and a dark radiation term a4 = 8πG4 ρweyl . + ρ 1+ 3 3 2σ a ρ 2µ −4πG4 (ρ + P ) 1 + − 4. which imposes a constraint48 on the tension σ (MeV)4 [159]. 1100. respectively. 1009. The ρ2 corrections play the dominant role in the very early universe and will have a big impact on the inflationary dynamics. σ = 12M 3 /l. i. In the holographic description of RS2. giving σ (100GeV) 4 5 196 . σ. let us comment on a few of its important features.01. while the dark radiation is identified with thermal excitations of the CFT [570. 1/l 10−4 4 [189]. one finds that the slow roll parameters are given by [847] = η = − − ˙ H 1 = H2 16πG4 ¨ 1 φ = ˙ 8πG4 Hφ V V V V 2 1+ 1+ 1 V 1 + 2σ V σ V 2 2σ . and a cosmological fluid with energy density. (659) (660) . The 3 latter corresponds to a non-local “Weyl” contribution and can only be fixed by specifying the bulk geometry. and ˙ κ = 0. σ a (656) (657) where H = a/a is the Hubble parameter along the brane. V formulae of 4D General Relativity. The brane is sourced by a tension. the BBN constraint is significantly 5 weaker than the constraint arising from table top experiments quoted in Section 5. These require that the dark radiation can be at most 10% of the photon energy density. The parameters Λ4 and G4 denote the effective cosmological constant and Newton’s constant on the brane. the ρ2 corrections contribute to the conformal anomaly [1138].158. ∼ GR σ. ±1 describes the spatial curvature. the ρ2 corrections to the cosmological evolution should be negligible after BBN. however. the Raychaudhuri Equation (657) follows from the Friedmann Equation (656) and energy conservation. 556. ˙ (658) We will now review the derivation of this cosmology using the two equivalent formalisms. η ∼ ηGR = . where V (φ) is the inflaton potential. a(t) is the scale factor. As in the standard scenario. P (t).

However. (663) For such an embedding. (667) with σ∗ = 4πG5 σ .However. xa = X a (ξ µ ). n . a b where Rabcd is the Riemann tensor in the bulk. and the outward pointing a unit normal. using the brane based formalism. b γab na Vµ = 0. Brane based formalism – covariant formulation We shall now derive the background cosmology. Now. 197 . The brane can be thought of as an embedding. at high energies we have ∼ GR 4σ V GR . and the Israel junction conditions to derive the Einstein tensor on the brane [1140]. This is essentially because Hubble friction gets enhanced by the ρ2 terms. 5. Rµναβ is the Riemann tensor on the 1 brane. Of course. satisfying γab na nb = 1. but we will keep things general for the moment. and we recall that the extrinsic curvature of the brane is given by Kµν = 2 Ln gµν . 320] give Rµναβ µ a c d = Rabcd Vµ Vνb Vα Vβ + Kµα Kνβ − Kµβ Kνα .1. although we refer the reader to [117] for a non-Z2 symmetric generalisation. the Gauss-Codazzi equations [531. η ∼ ηGR 2σ V ηGR . We can now define tangent vectors Vµ = ∂X a /∂ξ µ . where σ is the brane tension and Tµν is the energy-momentum tensor 3 of additional matter excitations. l2 Kµν − Kγµν = 3σ∗ gµν − 4πG5 Tµν . The Gauss-Codazzi equations are the fundamental equations of embedded hypersurfaces. with respect to the normal. in the RS2 scenario the dynamics of the brane are governed by the bulk equations of motion and the Z2 symmetric junction conditions Gab = 6 γab . Eqs. γab (x). We will assume Z2 symmetry. (662) in the bulk geometry.4. This makes use of the Gauss-Codazzi equations [531. in the RS2 scenario we have a fine-tuned tension such that σ∗ = 1/l. It follows that the induced metric on the brane is given by a gµν = γab (X)Vµ Vνb . 320]. (656) and (657). such potentials are incompatible with observational constraints as they lead to a large tensorto-scalar ratio [800]. the Lie derivative of the induced metric. By Z2 symmetry this is the same on both sides of the a brane. (661) This means we can get away with steeper potentials in the braneworld case [847]. (664) (665) (666) R − K + Kµν K (Kµν − Kgµν ) 2 µν = −2Gab n n . = Rab n a Vνb .

Consider the Codazzi Equation (665). (668) 2 where Λ4 = 3 σ∗ − 12 is the effective cosmological cosmological constant on the brane. (667) now imply the usual conservation law along the brane. Although in general we must solve the bulk equations of motion to evaluate this. This is important. P (t). The induced metric is given by the usual Friedmann-Lemaˆ ıtreRobertson-Walker (FLRW) metric ds2 = gµν dξ µ dξ ν = −dt2 + a(t)2 qij dxi dxj . It is often referred to as the electric part of the Weyl tensor. Πµν . (667). ±1. and a non-local “Weyl” contribution. the right hand side of this equation is identically zero. which means we have the standard relation given by Equation (658). µ Tµν = 0. (673) where qij (x) is the metric of a hyper-surface of constant curvature. We should also note that Eµν has vanishing trace. It remains to compute the non-local piece. making use of the Bianchi identity and the local conservation of energy-momentum. Because the bulk is only sourced by a cosmological constant. such that its energy-momentum tensor is given by Tνµ = diag(−ρ(t). The matter excitations contribute a cosmological fluid with energy density. ρ(t). To extract information about the Einstein tensor on the brane. (672) The latter equation follows from the divergence of Equation (668). The local piece is a quadratic combination of the energy-momentum tensor 1 1 1 α Πµν = −Tµ Tνα + T Tµν + T αβ Tαβ gµν − T 2 gµν . we can exploit the large amount of symmetry 198 . (674) µ In the absence of non-trivial sources in the bulk Tν is conserved. (669) The corrections to standard 4D gravity are encoded in a local contribution. κ = 0. P (t)). and its divergence is sourced by the local quadratic contribution g µν Eµν = 0. µ Tµν = 0. µ µ Eν = (4πG5 )2 µ µ Πν . and in general one must solve the bulk equations of motion first in order to evaluate it in full. P (t). because the junction conditions in Eq. l and the effective Newton’s constant is given by G4 = G5 σ∗ . to give [1140] Gµν = −Λ4 gµν + 8πG4 Tµν + (4πG5 )2 Πµν − Eµν . and plug in Eq. P (t). and pressure. 3 2 6 whereas the non-local “Weyl” piece is b Eµν = Cabcd na Vµ nc Vνd . Our interest here lies in the cosmology. Eµν . so let us now assume spatial homogeneity and isotropy on the brane. Eµν . (670) (671) where Cabcd is the Weyl tensor of the bulk. we contract the Gauss Equation (664).

a 3 3 3 where µ is an integration constant that should be fixed by the bulk geometry (we will see in the next section that it can be identified with the mass of a bulk black hole). ν The modified Friedmann Equations (656) and (657) now follow automatically from Equation (668). is just an integration constant and can take any sign. V (r) (676) µ r2 + κ − 2. Gab = 62 γab . κ = 0. Using the bulk based formalism. (677) l2 r For µ > 0. the metric in Eq. Note µ that Eν is conserved on a cosmological background. (676) takes the form of a (topological) Schwarzschild black hole in anti-de Sitter space. Here we have written the solution in an explicitly time independent coordinate system.2. 5. . [178] were able to prove a generalised form of Birkhoff’s theorem. Making use of the Constraints Equations (672). we can show that 1 1 1 µ µ .to avoid doing so in the current instance. Eν = 4 diag −1. Eµν . Since we are interested in cosmological branes (with constant curvature Euclidean 3-spaces). Bulk based formalism – moving branes in a static bulk The principle limitation of the brane based formalism we have just described is that it suppresses physics deep inside the bulk. The reader can refer to [1008] for the non-Z2 symmetric generalisation. ±1. we will assume Z2 symmetry across the branes. . and use this to constrain it to be positive. V (r) = 199 . at the brane will evolve into a pathological bulk geometry. Bowcock et al. we study the Einstein equations. meaning that we can no longer say that we have a static brane sitting at a fixed coordinate position. in an extremely elegant calculation. On the contrary. although moving branes in a static anti-de Sitter bulk were considered earlier by Kraus [754]. Now. for brevity. with the l following metric ansatz [178] ds2 = γab dxa dxb = e2ν A−2/3 (−dt2 + dz 2 ) + A2/3 qij dxi dxj . (675) where A and ν are undetermined functions of t and z.4. We will now develop the bulk based formalism for cosmological branes. Such problems can be avoided by solving for the bulk geometry first. whose trajectory in the these coordinates is more complicated. showing that the bulk geometry is necessarily given by ds2 = −V (r)dτ 2 + where dr2 + r2 qij dxi dxj . For example. Again. the parameter µ giving rise to dark radiation. The bulk based formalism requires us to solve for the bulk geometry. in the brane based formalism. Braneworld cosmology from this perspective was first studied by Ida [639]. and as before qij (x) is the metric of a hyper-surface of constant curvature. we are able to identify µ with the mass of a bulk black hole. we now have a dynamic brane. This can be dangerous since it is not at all obvious if a particular choice of the non-local “Weyl” term. by virtue of the fact that µ Πµ = 0.

We are free to choose t to correspond to the proper time with respect to an observer comoving with the brane. V (a) (680) ensuring that the brane takes the standard FLRW form. 1062. we treat it as an embedding.3. in general. The induced metric on the brane is then ds2 = gµν dξ µ dξ ν = −V (a)τ 2 + ˙ a2 ˙ V (a) dt2 + a2 (t)qij dxi dxj (679) where over-dots denote ∂/∂t. The function a(t) is then immediately identified with the scale factor along the brane. for example. Assuming we cut away the AdS boundary and retain the region r < a(t). Vτ ˙ σ σ (683) (684) Making use of Equation (680) we then arrive at the modified Friedmann Equations (656) and (657). 715. [842. 0. The components of extrinsic curvature are then ˙ given by Vτ i ˙ a + V /2 ¨ i t Kj = δ .4. 769. 201. Kt = − . 705. 286. 245]). this will generically render the brane based formalism somewhat incomplete without making ad hoc assumptions about the 200 . 920. 772. a far from trivial task. (667) yield the following: ρ Vτ ˙ = σ∗ (1 + ). 430. 771. Cosmological perturbations While the theory describing cosmological perturbations in braneworld gravity has been well developed in recent years (see. (676). 918. 334. 300. 1244. (682) a j Vτ ˙ In the presence of a cosmological fluid. 703. (678) of the bulk geometry given in Eq. 395. Indeed. 194. 955. 597. which is. 768. This imposes the condition − V (a)τ 2 + ˙ a2 ˙ = −1. τ . ˙ ˙ (681) where we are free to specify that τ > 0. 1245. Kµν = 2 Ln gµν . (667). 0). a σ a + 1V ¨ 2 P ρ = σ∗ 1 − 2 − 3 . r = a(t). even approximate solutions to the resulting field equations have been notoriously hard to come by. The problem stems from the fact that one has to solve the fully coupled system of brane and bulk. 787. 991. 202.To construct the brane solution. (673). 919. 801. the junction conditions in Eq. as in Eq. as given by Equation (674). τ = τ (t). 5. 547. 847. 548. 921. 1087. The boundary condition at the brane are given in Eq. 0. 716. We must compute the 1 extrinsic curvature. 596. defined as the Lie derivative of the normal pointing into the bulk. 408. we find that the inward pointing unit normal is given by na = (−a. 742.

according to 2 2 ρδT00 . 917]. This is because the bulk can source vector and tensor modes on the brane. The dynamics on the brane are governed by Equation (668). the perturbed metric is given by ds2 = a2 −(1 + 2Ψ)dτ 2 − 2(βi + i β)dx i dτ (i Aj) + (1 − 2Φ)qij + Dij ν + 2 + hij dxi dxj . 717. 596. etc. as well as scalars. Eµν . Note that. vector and tensor components. (690) 201 . Σi . Further details can be found in [845. and hij is a transverse and trace-free tensor. and anisotropic stress. i δTji = δP δj + (ρ + P )Σi . j 3 3 2 δΠ0 = 0 µ where δTν are given by Equations (687). (vector) (i Σj) (688) + Dij Σ. vi Σij = θi = (vector) + + i θ. and so perturbations about the background cosmology on the brane satisfy µ δGµ = 8πG4 δT µ + (4πG5 )2 δΠµ − δEν . unlike in other sections. decomposing the system into scalar. 842]. pressure. Recall that the operator Dij = i j − 1 qij ∆. where the bulk and brane equations become separable. we will on occasion include vector and tensor perturbations. The bulk based formalism is better in this respect. (686) where Ai and βi are transverse vectors on qij . ν ν ν (685) To study this we use the standard four-dimensional formalism [90. vector and tensor perturbations with respect to the spatial diffeomorphism group in the background cosmology.4. i 3 3 1 2 1 i δΠi = − (ρ + 3P )δTji − (ρ + P )δj δT00 − δTkk . 201. δP . fluid 3-velocity. δ. but the resulting system is virtually intractable. . j δT00 = −ρδ. vi . 772]. Cosmological perturbations in the brane based formalism We shall now review some aspects of cosmological perturbation theory using the brane based formalism introduced in Section 5. 469. has progress been made [528.. . Working with conformal time as opposed to proper time. δTi0 = −(ρ + P )vi . j (687) The fluid 3-velocity and anisotropic stress can then be decomposed with respect to their scalar. (689) (tensor) Σij The fluctuation in the quadratic piece is also given in terms of ρδ. 202. δΠ0 = ρδTi0 .perturbations of the non-local “Weyl” contribution. and only in some special cases.1. in the usual way. The fluctuations energy-momentum on the 3 brane are written in terms of the fluctuations in density. δP . giving qualitatively different behaviour to that seen in standard 4D cosmology.

We find that for scalar perturbations δEµ = 0 gives49 δP weyl = and µ µ δEν − (4πG5 )2 Πµ = 0 gives ν 1 weyl weyl ρ δ . Weyl pressure. and for that we need to abandon the brane based formalism and solve the bulk equations of motion [842]. δq = −(ρ + P )θ. it can be shown that the quantity ρa4 ∆δ will grow during slow-roll inflation on super-horizon scales (it stays constant in GR) [548]. It can be shown that vector perturbations can be non-vanishing. we can read off corresponding fluctuations in weyl Weyl energy density. . even in the absence of vorticity [844]. etc. A = −Φ. . . Regarding density perturbations. δP . 844]. R = Ψ. revealing qualitatively different behaviour to that in General Relativity [548. We can also solve for the (total) curvature perturbation on large scales [771]. since then we can neglect the spatial gradients in Eqs. 771]. These are sourced by the dark anisotropic stress. 548. thereby closing the system [842. etc. δ weyl . This simplification has been applied to the study of both density perturbations and vector perturbations at large scales. (672) to linear µ order. and solve for the Weyl energy density and Weyl momentum in terms of ρδ. B = −β. by making use of the Constraints Eqs. Σweyl . (692) and (693).. δP . E = 1 ν. 2 202 . 3 (691) 1 4 (δ weyl ) + 4Ψ + ∆ β + ν − θweyl = 0. and identify it with the fluctuation in some dark energy energy-momentum tensor δEµν = −8πG4 δT weyl . Unfortunately. µν In direct analogy with Equations (687). δP weyl . Some progress can be made at super-horizon scales. 3 2 2 δ weyl 4 = − ρweyl (θweyl ) + Φ − (∆ + 3κ)Σweyl − 3 3 4 ρ+P {ρδ + (ρ + P )[3Hθ − (∆ + 3κ)Σ]} . We might hope to determine each of these in terms of the local ij matter fluctuations. vi . δ. where one should identify δρ = ρδ. Weyl fluid 3-velocity. 3 (694) 49 The remaining formulae in this section are taken from [771]. this does not mean we can compute large-scale CMB anisotropies. . and Weyl anisotropic stress.. Clearly we have too many Weyl unknowns and not enough equations. δπ = (ρ + P )Σ.Now we consider the contribution from the non-local “Weyl” perturbation. The bottom line is weyl that we need to know the Weyl anisotropic stress δπij explicitly. according to ˆ ˆ Φ − Ψ = 8πG4 a2 4 weyl ρ Σweyl . σ (692) (693) where denotes differentiation with respect to conformal time. and H = a /a = aH. The problem is that to evaluate the (non-integrated) Sachs-Wolfe equation we need knowledge of the metric perturbations.

αi = r Hij . We take ¯ ¯ ¯ X α = X α (t). hscalar = 2r2 [Aqij + Dij E] .g. αβ hvector = 0. αβ htensor αβ = 0. For consistency. determined by ρδ weyl . 2 l r (697) However. with scale factor a(t) = r(X). where. here we will leave the choice of gauge unspecified so that our analysis can be applied in other gauges (e. Over-dots here denote differentiation with respect to proper time on the brane. a proper treatment of cosmological perturbation theory in brane cosmology requires us to solve the coupled system of brane and bulk. We shall now specify the perturbations in the bulk. we do define the brane quantities as in the previous section. we write δγab = hscalar + hvector + htensor . ij hvector = 2r2 ij htensor ij 2 (i Hj) . however. where ξ µ = (t. t. hscalar = r αi htensor αi = 0. (673). ¯ (696) where λαβ is some two-dimensional metric. Cosmological perturbations in the bulk based formalism As we saw in the previous section. preferring instead to use proper time of comoving observers. essentially following [716] (see also [1244. The background embedding ¯ equation is now given by xa = X a (ξ µ ). 920]). and λαβ and r depend only on the first two coordinates. 918. X i = ξi. (698) (699) (700) hvector = rBαi . (695) 3 GR − 8πG4 a2 where Sweyl is the Weyl entropy perturbation. 203 i χα . ab ab ab hscalar = χαβ . and one can choose a gauge such that λαβ dxα dxβ = −V (r)dτ 2 + dr2 . ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ and λαβ (X)X α X β = −1 to ensure that the induced metric on the brane has the standard ¯ FLRW form. Decomposing the bulk metric in terms of scalar. Note that in this section we deviate from our usual convention of treating cosmological perturbations with respect to conformal time on the brane. The bulk metric is given by ds2 = γab dxa dxb = λαβ dxα dxβ + r2 qij dxi dxj . vectors and tensor components (with respect to qij ). Gaussian-Normal gauge). and we have neglected the local anisotropic stress. xα . We begin with some notation on the background. in keeping with the majority of the relevant literature. 921. The braneworld corrections to the SachsWolfe effect are given by [771] δT δT = T T − 8 3 ργ ρcdm Sweyl 4 weyl 16πG4 ρ Σweyl + 5/2 3 a da a7/2 4 weyl ρ Σweyl .ˆ ˆ where Ψ and Φ are the Bardeen gauge invariants for the metric perturbations. ξ i ) are the coordinates along the brane. . This corresponds to a section of (topological) AdS-Schwarzschild. as in Eq. V (r) V (r) = r2 µ + κ − 2. 919. We will now present the details of this in the bulk based formalism.

1 Z = A − ∆E − Qα ∂α ln r. and satisfies D2 + 3Dα ln rDα + 1 (∆ − 2κ) Hij = 0. . One can identify the following gauge invariants in the bulk [716]: scalars: vectors: tensors: Yαβ = χαβ − 2D(α Qβ) . writing the gauge invariant as 1 β αβ D Ωi . r2 l (705) For the vectors. as well as the asymptotic boundary conditions. r2 (708) To solve for these master variables we need to specify boundary conditions at the brane. ¯ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ W X α X β − W ⊥ X α nβ − W⊥ X β nα + W⊥⊥ nα nβ . The latter correspond to the condition of normalisability. ¯ ¯ 204 (709) (710) . and Ωi satisfies Fαi = Dα r5 Dβ D β Ωi r3 + (∆ + 2κ)Ωi = 0. in applying the boundary conditions. i + i ). Hij . so that it now corresponds ¯ to an embedding xa = X a + f a (ξ µ ). From a b practical perspective. Fαi = Bαi − rDα Hi . so there is no bulk black hole (i. µ = 0) [918]. δGa = 0. Secondly. For example. the scalar gauge invariants Yαβ and Z can be written as Yαβ = 2 1 1 Dα Dβ − λαβ D2 − 2 r 3 2l Ω. is essentially its own master variable. and Qα = r(χα − r∂α E). we introduce the vector master variable. We decompose this fluctuation in terms of scalars α f . the bulk equations of motion. the only way to proceed is to assume that the background bulk is maximally symmetric anti de Sitter space. 1 1 Z=− Y = 2 6r D2 − 2 l2 Ω. and Hij is transverse and 3 trace-free. and a transverse vector i . The first thing to note here is that the brane position can fluctuate. This suggests that all fields of the form W α and W αβ ˙ ¯ should be decomposed in terms of their components parallel to the tangent vector X α α and along the normal n . (706) where αβ (707) The tensor gauge invariant. Now. 3 (701) (702) (703) where Dα is the covariant derivative on λαβ . Here Bαi and Hi are transverse. it is important to express all fields in terms of covariant objects along the (background) brane. (704) where the scalar master variable Ω satisfies D2 − 3∂α ln rDα + 1 ∆ + 3κ + 2 Ω = 0. Let us now consider the boundary conditions at the brane. as follows: ¯ Wα W αβ = = ˙ ¯ −W X α + W⊥ nα . such that f a = (f α .where Dij = i j − 1 qij ∆. Hij .e. r2 is the total antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor on λαβ . The vector and scalar perturbations in the bulk can then be expressed in terms of a corresponding ‘master variable’. For simplicity we will assume that there are no exceptional modes [716] in any sector. are extremely complex in general (see [716]).

ν and Ai are invariant under gauge transformations in the bulk. Σ. βi . a 2 (712) (713) (714) (715) 1 Φ = −Z − ∆ν + HU − (D⊥ ln r)U⊥ . and θi . (vector) (tensor) namely. We can then use this knowledge to derive the dyˆ ˆ ˆ Ψ.The induced metric on the brane then takes the form ds2 = −(1 + 2Ψ)dt2 − 2a(βi + i i β)dx dt (i Aj) + a2 (1 − 2Φ)qij + Dij ν + 2 with 1 Ψ=− Y 2 ˙ ¯t − U + Kt U⊥ . A i = Hi + i . where U α = Qα + f α . i δTji = δP δj + (ρ + P )Σi . + hij dxi dxj . and the tensor. Σ(vector) and Σij are all gauge invariant on the brane. The gauge invariants on the brane are the ones familiar to us from standard cosmological perturbation theory in four dimensions. 6 1 ˆ ¯t Ψ = Ψ − (aσg )˙ = − Y + Kt U⊥ . 3 ˙ βi = −F i − aAi . Note that σg = U aν ˙ +β =− . Given the fluctuation in the brane energy-momentum tensor δTtt = −ρδ. 2 a The goal is now to solve for the master variables. so these expressions have been written entirely in terms of bulk gauge invariants. P ˆ δ = δ + 3Ha 1 + θ. δ. We are already able to express the ˆ ˆ namical gauge invariants. hij . 205 . ρ ˆ Φ = Γ = ρδ − c2 δP. ν = 2(E + ). Note that U α . 1 ˙ Φ + ∆ν + aσg = −Z − (D⊥ ln r)U⊥ . (711) β=− U aν ˙ − . Φ. hij = Hij . Γ. hij . we note that the components of the anisotropic stress (tensor) Σ. j (716) and Equations (688) and (689). δTit = −a(ρ + P )vi . θ. along with the following scalars. s (717) (718) (719) (720) (721) ˆ ˙ the vectors θi and βi = βi + aAi = −F i . Σi and Σij . 2 ˆ θ = θ − σg . subject to boundary conditions set by normalisability and the values of the non-dynamical gauge invariants on the brane.

we need to impose boundary µ µ conditions at the brane. and the remaining dynamical gauge invariants. and subsequently fix βi and θi using Equations (724) and (729). 1 ¨ 2(∆ + 3κ) 1 ˙ ¯t = − Ω − 2H Ω + 2D⊥ ln r − Kt D⊥ Ω − 2 + 2a l 3a2 t ¯ +Kt U⊥ . with a suitable boundary condition derived from Eq. and feed the solution back into the ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ expressions for Φ. Σ and the master variable. Finally. (728). One can then substitute the expression for Ψ. 1 D⊥ Ωi . For vectors. given by the linearised Israel junction conditions δ(Kν − Kδν ) = µ −4πG5 δTν . (731) We have now presented the formalism in full. Ψ. For the scalars this gives (∆ + 3κ)D⊥ Ω r = = = ˆ 8πG5 a2 ρδ − (∆ + 3κ)[(ρ + P )Σ] . δ and θ (in terms of Ω and Σ) into Equation (728) to derive a Neumann type boundary condition on Ω. s 3 ˆ We should now view these equations as follows [716]: Equations (725) and (726) fix δ ˆ given knowledge of the anisotropic stress. the Israel junction conditions yield (∆ + 2κ)Ωi ˙ Ωi = = 8πG5 a4 (ρ + P )θi . (725) (726) (727) (728) ¯t ˙ (D⊥ Ω)˙− Kt Ω U⊥ −Γ 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ = c2 ρδ + (ρ + P ) Ψ − ∂t aθ + (∆ + 3κ)Σ . Here we solve Equation (708). We then solve for Ωi using Equation (707). Ω. we consider the tensor. In principle. one should now be able to solve the Master Equation (705). ˆ 8πGa2 (ρ + P )θ − ∂t [a(ρ + P )Σ] .metric invariants in terms of the master variables (and U⊥ ) as follows: ˆ Φ = (∆ + 3κ) 1 1 ˙ Ω H Ω − (D⊥ ln r)D⊥ Ω + 2 + 2a l 3a2 −(D⊥ ln r)U⊥ . but the task of solving the system explicitly is another matter altogether. a2 (722) ˆ Ψ Ω (723) ˆ βi = − (724) To fix U⊥ . (729) (730) This time we view Equation (730) as a Dirichlet type boundary condition on the master ˆ variable. subject to the following junction condition at the brane: D⊥ Hij = −4πG5 (ρ + P )Σij (tensor) . Whilst the static coordinate system might seem the simplest from 206 . 4πG5 a (ρ + 3 (vector) P )Σi . while and θ ˆ ˆ ˆ Equation (727) fixes U⊥ . 4πG5 a2 (ρ + P )Σ. To do so one must choose coordinates for the background bulk. θ and δ.

and the brane with the common boundary. the metric in GN coordinates is given by [158] λαβ dxα dxβ = dz 2 − N 2 (t. Here the graviton is a resonance of finite width. 1011]. equations of motion. and vacua The DGP model contains a single 3-brane embedded in an otherwise empty five dimensional bulk space-time. Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati Gravity The most celebrated braneworld model exhibiting quasi-localisation and an infra-red modification of gravity is without doubt the DGP model. Numerical solutions.5. z) = a(t) cosh (|z|/l) − 1 + σ ˙ where N = r(t. in contrast to massive gravity [405. 772]. it is rarely used owing to the fact that a Gaussian Normal (GN) coordinate system makes it much easier to specify the boundary conditions. (733) ρ(t) r(t. 398]. r rc . z)dt2 . It is claimed that the Vainshtein mechanism works well on the normal branch of DGP. 1/rc . However. Action. 559. The bulk metric is given by γab . 5. It was found that short wavelength density perturbations are amplified relative to their value GR during horizon reentry. fluctuations about the self-accelerating vacuum suffer from ghost-like instabilities [273. 399]. At large distances. For example. 5. Generalisations that include a bulk cosmological constant and/or bulk branes have been studied [697. have been obtained for scalar perturbations on a radiation dominated brane [245]. screening the longitudinal graviton without introducing any new pathological modes. when µ = 0 and κ = 0.the bulk perspective. the original DGP action is given by 3 S = M5 M √ d5 x −γR + √ M2 3 d4 x −g −2M5 K + 4 R − σ + Lmatter . 1073. (732) sinh (|z|/l) . however. Gabadadze and Porrati [454].z) . and M5 is the Planck scale in the 207 . Even in this case analytic solutions can only be obtained in the case a(t) ˙ of a background de Sitter brane. as opposed to a massive field.5. The latter has generated plenty of interest since it gives rise to cosmic acceleration without the need for dark energy [394. 2 ∂M (734) where. The breakdown of classical perturbation theory at the Vainshtein scale can be linked to quantum fluctuations on the vacuum becoming strongly coupled at around 1000 km [839. and the theory resembles 4D GR. by Z2 symmetry across the brane. we identify the entire bulk space-time with two identical copies of M. At short distances. but not so much that they cause an observable effect in the CMB or in large-scale structure. developed by Dvali. ∂M. 1015. the brane dynamics do not feel the width of the resonance. with corresponding Ricci scalar. 546]. it is fundamentally more healthy and is the closest thing we have to a consistent non-linear completion of massive gravity. 447]. However. The model admits two distinct sectors: The normal branch and the self-accelerating branch. however. the theory becomes five dimensional as the resonance effectively decays into continuum Kaluza-Klein modes. R. as we will see.1. Although the normal branch is less interesting phenomenologically. r rc . when the Master Equation (705) becomes separable [202.

However. The mass scale. Such a term can be generated by matter loop corrections [161]. The normal branch is asymptotically Minkowski in the limit σ → 0. while the brane is located on the boundary at y = 0. and additional matter contributions contained in Lmatter . as we will discuss in Section 5. 6M5 (737) = ±1. M4 M5 . Let us now consider the vacua of this theory. 2 2 2M5 (Kµν − Kgµν ) = M4 Gµν + σgµν − Tµν . H = 2M5 /M4 ∼ 1/rc . 2 (735) and the boundary conditions at the brane are given by the Israel junction conditions. and does not suffer from a ghostly pathology. On this branch it is phenomenologically more interesting to have the crossover scale at distances below the horizon scale. there exist two distinct vacua [394. and the self-accelerating branch ( = 1). ¯ (738) where gµν dxµ dxν = −dt2 + e2Ht dx2 is the 4D de Sitter line-element written in Poincar´ ¯ e coordinates. 1 Gab = Rab − Rγab = 0. Kµν = 1 Ln gµν . In conformal coordinates. the brane can be viewed as a 4D hyperboloid 208 . However. The latter is so-called because as we take the limit of vanishing vacuum energy. the full solution can be written as ds2 = γab dxa dxb = e2 ¯ Hy (dy 2 + gµν dxµ dxν ). 2 The brane has a bare vacuum energy. Nevertheless. For a given tension. There is a hierarchy between this scale and the bulk Planck scale.bulk. M4 . and above which it looks five dimensional. σ. In each case. below which the theory looks four dimensional. the crossover from four to five dimensions would have to occur at the horizon scale. and K = g µν Kµν is the trace of extrinsic curvature. one finds that these correspond to de Sitter branes with intrinsic curvature.3. the metric on the brane is still asymptotically de 3 2 Sitter. placing the fundamental Planck scale at M5 ∼ 10 MeV or so. H= where 3 M5 2 M4 + 1+ 2 M4 σ 3 .5. The two branches of this solution are often referred to as the normal branch ( = −1). given by M4 R. The distinction between branches is best understood by considering their embedding in the 5D Minkowski bulk. If this were to account for dark energy today. this branch of solution is unstable as it contains physical ghost excitations. Here we define the unit normal to point into M. which has proven difficult to derive from fundamental theory. ∼ 1018 GeV. The limiting de Sitter curvature is given by the cross-over scale. rc ∼ M4 /2M5 . the key feature in the brane Lagrangian is the 2 induced curvature term. 2 3 the hierarchy enables us to identify a crossover scale. corresponding to maximally symmetric brane solutions with Tµν = 0. or finite width effects [263]. The induced metric on the brane is given by gµν . The domain M corresponds to 0 < y < ∞. The bulk equations of motion are given by the vacuum Einstein equations. Assuming σ > 0 for definiteness. is taken to be Planckian. σ → 0. 398]. or tension. (736) √ where Tµν = − √2 δgδ ∂M d4 x −gLmatter is the energy-momentum tensor for the µν −g additional matter.

a 2 (739) so that the linearised bulk equations of motion take the simple form 2 [∂y + ∂ 2 ]hab = 0. 0). y). The normal branch corresponds to keeping the interior of the hyperboloid. ∂a ha = b 1 ∂b ha . For simplicity and brevity. corresponds to the choice in whether one retains the interior ( = −1) or the exterior ( = 1) of the hyperboloid. It is convenient to choose harmonic gauge. even when σ ≥ 0 [559]. 559]. The braneworld volume is the hyperboloid in the Minkowski bulk. of radius 1/H (see Figure 11). This is an early warning sign that the self-accelerating branch could be pathological. y) → Q(p. while the self-accelerating branch corresponds to the exterior. let us consider the limiting case of vanishing vacuum energy.Figure 11: Embedding of a de Sitter brane in a flat 5D bulk. corresponding to fluctuations about a Minkowski brane in a 5D Minkowski bulk. 5. The choice of sign.5. y) = d4 xeipµ x Q(x. Note that retaining the exterior ensures that the brane behaves like a domain wall with negative effective tension. Linear perturbations on the normal branch We now consider linear perturbations on the normal branch. = ±1. taken from [273. 209 (741) . y) = e−py hab (p. σ = 0. 2 (2π) it can be seen that the normalisable solution is given by ˜ ˜ hab (p. Taking Fourier transforms with respect to the brane coordinates. so that µ 1 ˜ Q(x. (740) where ∂ 2 = ∂µ ∂ µ .2. γab = ηab + hab .

This is consistent with 5D gravity. 3 2 2M5 δ(Kµν − Kgµν ) = M4 δGµν − Tµν . at this stage it would be premature to say that we have localisation of gravity at short distances. at high energies. r rc . ˜ ˜ ξ a (p. Thus we almost have agreement. and ξ µ to set hµy = 0. 0). However. It follows from the y component of Equation (739) that hyy = h. The problem lies with the tensor structure of the propagator. p 1/rc . and is to be expected for an infinitely large 5th dimension. hGR = µν 2 ˜ ˜µν − 1 T ηµν . In contrast. and will inevitably lead to disagreement with observation. this becomes ˜ hµν (p. 2 3 M4 p2 + 2M5 p 3 (742) 3 2 1/rc = 2M5 /M4 . 0) ∼ 2 1˜ ˜ Tµν − T ηµν . To see this. 2 Mpl p2 2 (745) ˜ This can be compared with the propagator in four-dimensional General Relativity. we have ˜ ADGP ∼ 2 1˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ Tµν (p)T µν (−p) − T (p)T (−p) . now yield the following solution for the metric on the brane: ˜ hµν (p. 0) = At low energies. or. The ν component of Eq. that the graviton is able to probe the extra dimension. y) = e−py ξ a (p. where (∂y + ∂ 2 )ξ a = 0. which is given by A = hµν T µν . 1 As we can see. at high energies. consider the amplitude for the interaction between two sources. we have ˜ hµν (p.We have not yet fully fixed the gauge as there is still a residual symmetry corresponding to 2 gauge transformations of the form xa → xa + ξ a . we have ˜ AGR = 2 1˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ Tµν (p)T µν (−p) − T (p)T (−p) . (739) then gives ∂ µ hµν = ∂ν h. The junction conditions at the brane. p 1˜ 2 ˜ Tµν − T ηµν + pure gauge pieces. Tµν and Tµν . Indeed. where h = η µν hµν . 0) ∼ 1˜ 1 ˜ Tµν − T ηµν . 3 M5 p 3 (743) which suggests that the potential for a point mass will scale like V (r) ∝ 1/r2 at large distances. It is only at very large distances. the GR result differs from DGP in that it has a factor of 2 as opposed 1 to 3 . We can understand this as follows: The graviton mediating the interaction between two point particles along the brane is bound close to the brane by the induced curvature there. so the potential for a point mass will go like V (r) ∝ 1/r for r rc . In GR. This is due to the longitudinal mode of the graviton propagating in DGP but not in GR. 2 M4 p 2 3 210 (746) . equivalently. since the scaling with T 2 2 Mpl p 2 whereas in DGP. when the induced curvature is insignificant. We now use ξ y to fix the brane position to lie at y = 0. 2 M4 p 2 3 (744) momenta is the same.

211 . However. we can now fix the position of the brane to be at y = 0 while remaining in GN gauge by making the following gauge transformation: hµν = hT T + µν µ Aν + ν Aµ + µ νφ y → y − F e−Hy . it has been argued that the linearised analysis around a heavy source breaks down at the so-called Vainshtein radius. 546. The ¯ tensor hT T is transverse and trace-free. Tµν = diag(ρ. Linear perturbations (and ghosts) on the self-accelerating branch Let us consider linearised perturbations and ghosts about the self-accelerating vacuum described in Section 5. y).5. 0. 0). ¯ µν µν µ Aµ = 0. (738). 5. and the resulting phenomenological problems. 559. In fact. Now consider what happens when one of the sources is relativistic. In massive gravity. (747) The tensor hµν can be decomposed in terms of the irreducible representations of the 4D de Sitter diffeomorphism group as h 1 ¯ ¯ (748) − gµν φ + gµν .5.1 (see also [273. A generic perturbation can be described by γab = γab + δγab . it is claimed that non-linear effects help to screen the longitudinal scalar and match the theory to GR without a vDVZ discontinuity. µ hT T µν = g µν hT T = 0. 1296]. it is convenient to retain non-zero tension on the background. with decay into a continuum of massive modes occurring at r > rc . we require 2 2 that50 M4 = 4 Mpl . the prediction for light bending around the Sun differs from GR by a factor of 3 . φ and h = g µν hµν . Similar claims have been made in DGP gravity [399].5. We then have T = 0. although 4 we can recover the standard Newtonian potential. 1015. and match the two results. Below the Vainshtein radius. and xµ → xµ − e−Hy H µ F. 0.3. Strictly speaking. So. To reveal the ghost in the cleanest way possible.3. 4 4 where is the covariant derivative associated with the 4D de Sitter metric. 0. 4 This is reminiscent of the vDVZ discontinuity in massive gravity [1243. simply insert the appropriate energy-momentum tensors for non-relativistic sources. as we will discuss in Section 5. in each expression for the amplitude. In addition. so that δγyy = δγµy = 0. and Aµ is transverse. and δγµν = eHy/2 hµν (x. (749) 50 To verify this result. ¯ Following a similar approach to the one outlined for Randall-Sundrum gravity in Section 5. We will work ¯ in Gaussian Normal (GN) coordinates. 3 say Tµν . and Tµν = diag(ρ . 0. 734]). 0). with the brane position shifted to y = F (x). it is sometimes said that DGP gravity (on the normal branch) is the closest thing we have to a non-linear completion of massive gravity.4. which can be much larger than the Schwarzschild radius [1241].To get the same potential for the interaction of two non-relativistic sources. the behaviour is more like a massive resonance of width 1/rc . the similarities with massive gravity do suggest a possible resolution to this issue of tensor structure. so we will set Tµν = 0 for brevity (a more complete discussion including matter fluctuations can be found in [273]).5. It is also enough to consider vacuum fluctuations. with = +1 and the brane positioned at y = 0. we have two scalars. gµν . and so the amplitudes differ by a factor of 3 . Recall that the self-accelerating background solution is given by the geometry in Eq.

(754) The entire perturbation hµν (x. (758) 212 . Tµν = 0. This is because the trace of the Israel equation now implies that ( + 4H 2 )F = 0. (755) (756) Variables in the tensor and scalar fields can now be separated as follows: hT T (x. and on the brane. Assuming that the tensor and scalar equations of motion can be treated independently. δGab = 0. hµν . the same is true of the book-keeping mode. where the contribution from φ(x. y) = 0 4 3H ∂y − hµν = 0 2 for y > 0. y) has µν been rewritten as 2 h(φ) = ¯ (753) µ ν + H gµν φ(x. ¯ (751) We can now substitute our modified expression for hµν into the linearised fields equations 3 2 in the bulk.Although the brane position is now fixed at y = 0. (F ) (752) Note that we now have hµν = hT T + hµν + hµν . there is also a discrete tensor mode with mass m2 = d 1 rc 3H − 1 rc . (F ) hµν . In the absence of any additional matter on the brane. In addition. y) = µν m (m) um (y)χ(m) (x). the original brane position F (x) (F ) still enters the dynamics through a book-keeping term. µν This mode is now entirely transverse and trace-free in its own right. and is given by h(F ) = µν 2 Hy/2 e H µ ν + H 2 gµν F. µν 4 4 (750) The book-keeping term is pure gauge in the bulk. Note that ˆ ˆ φ is a 4D tachyonic field satisfying ( + 4H 2 )φ = 0. This is a mild instability. and (φ) ( + 4H 2 )φ = 0. (m) (m) (757) where χµν is 4D tensor field of mass m satisfying ( − 2H 2 )χµν = m2 χµν . the yy and yµ equations in the bulk imply that one can consistently choose a gauge for which h = 0. In addition. 2M5 δ(Kµν − Kgµν ) = M4 δGµν . related to the repulsive nature of inflating domain walls. y) = W (y)φ(x). we find that there is a continuum of normalisable tensor modes with mass m2 ≥ 9H 2 /4. It turns out that the transverse vector. is a free field in the linearised theory and can be set to zero. This greatly simplifies the bulk and brane equations of motion. Aµ . y). y) is therefore now completely transverse and trace-free. at y = 0+ . giving 2 − 2H 2 + ∂y − 2 3 M4 ( − 2H 2 ) + 2M5 9H 2 hµν (x. µν ˆ φ(x. that modifies the metric perturbation as hµν → hT T + µν µ Aν + ν Aµ + µ νφ h 1 ¯ ¯ − gµν φ + gµν + h(F ) .

y) − α√2H e−Hy/2 ψ(x) = φ(x. y) may now be thought of as a genuine radion mode. This property is related to the fact that the background warp factor. grows as we move deeper into the bulk. When σ < 0. φ. In this limit H → 1/rc . (759) φ(x) = αF (x). because ( −2H 2 )hµν = φ 2H 2 hµν . Given that there is always a ghost for non-zero tension. This means that it is no longer orthogonal to the radion. a calculation of the 4D effective action reveals the ghost to be the radion (see [273. (φ) Now consider the scalar equations of motion. y) − lim αmd e−y σ→0 213 9H 2 4 −m2 d ψ(x). It does not decouple even though we only have a single brane. (761) . σ > 0. one can easily check that 0 < m2 < 2H 2 . e2Hy . The first thing to note is that hµν (φ) behaves like a transverse trace-free mode with mass m2 = 2H 2 . by continuity one may expect this to remain the case when σ = 0. and d there is no helicity-0 ghost in the lightest tensor. It turns out that the scalar has a normalisable ˆ wave-function W (y) = e−Hy/2 . For negative brane tension we find m2 > 2H 2 . The lightest tensor mode in this case is therefore perturbatively unstable. note that the mass of the lightest tensor (φ) has the limit m2 → 2H 2 . and as a result of the symmetry this mode disappears from the spectrum. it is well known that masses lying in this range result in the graviton containing a helicity-0 ghost [605]. The limit of vanishing tension To study this limit more closely. This behaviour can be traced back to an additional symmetry that appears in the linearised theory in the limit of vanishing brane tension. Now. hµν . as in this case H = 1/rc . d and so we cannot treat the tensor and scalar equations of motion independently. and the quantity α becomes ill-defined. For massive gravitons d propagating in 4D de Sitter.and normalisable wave-function umd (y) = αmd e−y 4 −md . hµν (x. measuring the physical motion of the brane with respect to infinity. This means it was consistent to assume that the scalar and tensor equations of motion could indeed be treated independently. 1015]). y) → φ(x. Since none of the tensor modes have this mass. To understand what has gone wrong. and the 4D scalar φ is sourced by F by the relation   2H − r1 c ˆ . It is analogous to the “partially massless limit” in the theory of a massive graviton propagating in de Sitter space [605]. We have now identified the helicity-0 mode of the lightest tensor as a ghost when σ > 0. let us first ask whether we can trust the above solutions in the limit where σ → 0. for positive brane tension. φ(x. In that theory. In DGP gravity this shift must be accompanied by a shift in the scalar field. the equations of motion are invariant under the following redefinition of the graviton field: √ √ ( χµν 2H) (x) → χ( 2H) (x) + ( µ ν + H 2 gµν )ψ(x). ¯ (760) µν This field redefinition has the effect of extracting out part of the helicity-0 mode from √ ( 2H) χµν . α = − H H − r1 c (φ) (φ) (φ) 9H 2 2 This is well defined for σ = 0. they are all orthogonal to hµν .

As this is well above the characteristic scale of the self-accelerating vacuum. The symmetry will have the effect of combining the helicity-0 mode and the radion into a single degree of freedom. perturbations about the selfaccelerating branch of DGP contain a ghost. y). and so one is free to impose a Lorentz non-invariant cut-off in the 3-momentum such that the creation rate is no longer divergent. As explained in Section 2. and represents the residual scalar degree of freedom left over after fixing the aforementioned ψ symmetry. 5. It is only after fixing this ψ symmetry that we can treat the scalar and tensor equations of motion independently of each another. and suggests that self-accelerating branes should be projected out the from the theory altogether [559].5. signalling a ghost-like instability [546].5. 214 . This demonstrates that the five-dimensional energy is unbounded from below. being the same as that on the normal branch. However the analysis of [741] suggests that the cut-off for the effective theory is actually at a much higher energy. hµν (x. and absorbing it into a renormalisation of φ.2. Ghosts We have shown that for any value of the brane tension. the ghost will generate catastrophic instabilities as it couples universally with gravitational strength to the Standard Model fields and the remaining gravity modes. We could also consider extracting the entire helicity-0 mode and absorbing it into φ. as suggested by the perturbative analysis. Actually. This is problematic even on the normal branch. These ψ shifts can be √ understood as extracting part of the helicity-0 mode from χµν . It is also worth pointing out that the ghost can manifest itself beyond perturbation theory. there exists a clever choice of gauge that enables us to take a smooth limit as σ → 0 [546]. From strong coupling to the Vainshtein mechanism We now return to the normal branch of DGP gravity. for fluctuations on the vacuum this corresponds to Λcut-off ∼ 10−13 eV. ( 2H) (762) 51 Note that it has been argued that this choice of vacuum state explicitly breaks de Sitter invariance [653].in order to render the overall perturbation. invariant. standard Euclidean techniques indicate that the spontaneous nucleation of self-accelerating branes is unsuppressed. Indeed. without introducing any naked singularities. As we will see in the next section. It turns out that the Hamiltonian is unbounded from below. and derive the corresponding Hamiltonian [546]. we saw some similarities between this theory and massive gravity. In the presence of a self-accelerating brane one can accommodate a Schwarzschild bulk with negative mass. the ghost will cause this vacuum to be infinitesimally short-lived due to a divergent rate of particle creation51 . casting doubt on the ghost’s existence at sub-horizon distances [401]. The existence of the ghost can be trusted as long as we can trust our effective description.3. Furthermore. p/rc ).4.1. In Section 5. It had been argued that this breaks down at the Hubble energy scale. it happens that the brane to brane graviton propagator is given by DGP massive Dµναβ (p) = Dµναβ (p. H0 ∼ 10−33 eV. or vice versa. This ghost is a combination of the radion and helicity-0 mode. One can then readily calculate the 4D effective action [273].

1073]. Φ. (764) 2 where Nµ = hµy and ∂ 2 = ∂µ ∂ µ . Γ[φ]. rV ∼ (rs /m4 )1/5 . This is because it breaks down at the Vainshtein ramassive dius. it turns out that the linearised theory cannot necessarily be trusted at solar system scales. where rs ∼ 3 km is the Schwarzschild radius of the Sun. hyy ]. For now let us focus on the quadratic term. 53 The 52 Correcting eiΓ[φ] = Φ|∂M =φ d[Φ]ei(SM [Φ]+S∂M [φ]) . boundary effective action. ˜ Nµ = Nµ + rc ∂µ π.e. This can be diagonalised by means of the following field redefinition ˜ hµν = hµν + πηµν . (763) 215 . hyy ] = − 1 µ N rc d4 x 1 rc 2 M4 4 1 µν h 2 ∂2 − √ −∂ 2 rc 1 hµν − h ∂ 2 − 4 √ −∂ 2 rc h −∂ 2 + Nµ + 1 1 1 h −∂ 2 hyy − N µ ∂µ hyy − hyy −∂ 2 hyy 2rc rc 4rc 1 + d4 x hµν T µν + Γint [hµν . Nµ . For massive quantum fluctuations in vacuo.massive where Dµναβ (p. While aspects of the strong coupling problem were first identified in [696. i. is obtained by integrating the full action. The function Γint contains all the higher-order interaction terms to be discussed shortly. If this description can be trusted at solar system scales. m2 ) is the propagator for 4D massive gravity. (765) a few typos along the way. Their analysis involves a computation of the boundary effective action53 . This means the linearised theory is not reduced to GR at short distances. In massive gravity. hyy = −2rc −∂ 2 + 1 rc π. satisfying the boundary condition Φ|∂M = φ. Thus. Here we review the results of this study52 (see also [1017]). which is found to be Γ[hµν . Strong coupling in DGP gravity The situation in DGP gravity (normal branch) is similar to the case of massive gravity. but to a four-dimensional scalar-tensor theory. then it leads to wildly inaccurate predictions for the bending of light around the Sun. Nµ . the breakdown of classical perturbation theory at rV 4 1/5 translates into a strong coupling scale Λcut-off ∼ (Mpl m ) [64]. SM [Φ] + S∂M [φ]. as we will now show. over bulk fields. so does DGP gravity (normal branch) in the limit p 1/rc . just as massive gravity suffers from the vDVZ discontinuity [1243. the derivation of the strong coupling scale for quantum fluctuations on the Minkowski brane is most elegantly presented in [839]. 1296] as m → 0. Note that the equivalent scales in four-dimensional General Relativity are simply the Schwarzschild radius and the Planck scale.

and rc ∼ 1/H0 . Of course. By writing these in terms of the canonically normalised fields one can easily check √ that the largest interaction comes from the term with a = 0 1/rc . Indeed. and it has been demonstrated that the strong coupling scale can be raised on curved backgrounds [962]. 2rc π= ˆ 3 M4 π. (768) Turning our attention to the interaction piece. for −∂ 2 1 Γint = − √ 3 6Λ3 where 2 Λ = (M4 /rc )1/3 . For M4 ∼ Mpl . π ]. Nµ . the new scale corresponds to about 10−5 eV.The effective action can then be written as ˜ ˜ Γ[hµν . 2 (767) ∂ − −∂ 2 + 2 √ −∂ 2 rc 1 ˆ − Nµ 2 + 1 rc √ 2 ˆ ˆ µν − 1 h ∂ 2 − −∂ h 4 rc √ 1 −∂ 2 ˆ Nµ + π ∂ 2 − ˆ π ˆ 2 rc ˆ h d4 x 1 ˆ 1 hµν T µν + √ πT ˆ M4 6M4 ˆ ˆ ˆ + Γint [hµν . the interaction term goes like [839. we have Λ ∼ 10−13 eV ∼ 1/(1000 km). Nµ . Nµ . hµν = 2 This gives ˆ ˆ ˆ Γ[hµν . we note that it contains terms that schematically take the form 3 d4 xM5 −∂ 2 (hµν )a (Nµ )b (hyy )c . it is important to realise that we do not actually live in a vacuum. This will not impact much on table 216 . At the surface of the earth. indicating the presence of large quantum corrections to the π field at distances below a centimetre. ˆ ˆ (770) (771) This corresponds to the scale at which quantum fluctuations in vacuum become strongly coupled. Nµ . 1017] and b + c = 3. In other words. π ] = 1ˆ d x hµν 2 4 M4 ˜ ˆ Nµ = √ Nµ . π]. for scattering processes above 10−13 eV perturbative quantum field theory in a vacuum is no longer well defined. 2 (769) where a + b + c ≥ 3. π] = − M2 d x 4 4 4 1 ˜µ N rc 1˜ ˜ ∂ − hµν − h ∂ 2 − 4 √ 1 ˜ −∂ 2 −∂ 2 + Nµ + 3π ∂ 2 − π rc rc 2 1 ˜ µν h 2 √ −∂ 2 rc √ −∂ 2 rc ˜ h + 1 2 ˜ ˜ ˜ d4 x (hµν T µν + πT ) + Γint [hµν . (766) The next step is to write everything in terms of the canonically normalised fields M4 ˜ ˆ hµν . and d ≥ 3. d4 x(∂ π )2 ∂ 2 π + sub-leading interactions. 2 d4 xM4 −∂ 2 (hµν )d .

max (L4 . The modification to GR is encoded in Lπ . This is sometimes referred to as Galilean invariance and is the inspiration for galileon models [963]. This will also help us in our discussion of the breakdown of classical perturbation theory around heavy sources and the Vainshtein effect. 4 2 217 (776) . The action goes like Γ∼ where 2 1˜ ˜ 1˜ M4 1 ˜ µν 2 ˜ h ∂ hµν − h∂ 2 h + hµν T µν . (770) go to zero. We now return to the question of the strong coupling scale in the theory described by Eq. expanded to quadratic order about Minkowski space. The limiting theory should be valid at intermediate scales. Plugging this into the Lagrangian given in Eq. Tµν → ∞. we take the so-called decoupling limit [962] Tµν = fixed. (772) M4 . about this solution. M4 so that all the sub-leading interactions in Eq. rs ) r rc . where aµ and b are constants. (774) 4 2 and we have set the free field Nµ = 0. can be studied using this Lagrangian. as the π field is expected to be overwhelmed by the classical graviton at this scale. due to Vainshtein screening. In any event. rc . (773) 4 2 4 2 2 M4 1 2 Lπ = 3π∂ 2 π − rc (∂π)2 ∂ 2 π + πT . The π-Lagrangian To see the emergence of the new strong coupling scale most succinctly. (775) M4 Our interest now lies in the quantum fluctuations. LGR = Lπ = 2 M4 1 2 −Z µν (x)∂µ ϕ∂ν ϕ − rc (∂ϕ)2 ∂ 2 ϕ + ϕδT . where L4 ∼ 1/M4 is the Planck length. (774) in the presence of a classical source. however. and Λ. (774) we find d4 x [LGR + Lπ ] . from strong coupling and Vainshtein effects on the normal branch to ghosts on the self-accelerating branch. π = πcl (x) + ϕ(x). but the solution π = πcl (x) of the classical field equations T 2 3∂ 2 π − rc (∂µ ∂ν π)(∂ µ ∂ ν π) − (∂ 2 π)2 = − 2 .4. This is often referred to as the π-Lagrangian and much of the interesting phenomenology of DGP gravity. The most general Galilean invariant Lagrangians and will be studied in detail in Section 4. In vacuum (Tµν = 0) the π-Lagrangian possesses a symmetry π → π +aµ xµ +b. The first thing to note is that our classical background is no longer the vacuum. and rs is the Schwarzschild radius of the source (if present).top experiments. it is convenient to take the limit in which the troublesome π field decouples from the graviton. Note that LGR is just the standard Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian.

(778) 2 Z µν (x) = 3η µν − 2rc ∂ µ ∂ ν − η µν ∂ 2 πcl . Λ∗ (r) ∼ Λ The Vainshtein effect in DGP gravity Let us now consider the Vainshtein effect directly. we consider the classical solution to the field equations around a heavy non-relativistic source. and so neither is Z (x). and therefore outside of the regime of validity of the π-Lagrangian. hµν . πcl . (777) µν As we will see shortly. This short distance cut-off will typically lie well within the Schwarzschild radius of the source. However it is important to realise that it is only the ϕ self-interactions that grow large at this scale. The direct coupling to the graviton and the coupling to matter are negligible. rmin . should dominate over the corresponding scalar solution. To see how the scalar is screened in DGP gravity. √ 2 rV ∼ (rs rc )1/3 . so we have Λ∗ ∼ ( rc /rH )10−5 eV. As we will see. In other words. Although the scalar fluctuations enter a quantum fog at the centimetre scale they do not spoil our classical description as this is dominated by the graviton. causing problems for causality [9. this is a mechanism in which an additional scalar mode is screened at short distances by non-linear interactions. we can identify a localised strong coupling scale. πcl . This is because scattering processes would need to exceed the local strong coupling scale to probe the structure of the background at r < rmin . for spherically symmetric solutions inside the Vainshtein radius. one can explicitly show that angular fluctuations about spherically solutions will be super-luminal. Λ∗ (x) ∼ Λ Z(x) Λ. where rH ∼ 1/H0 ∼ 1026 m is the current Hubble radius. On the sphere of radius r the local strong-coupling scale is rV 3/4 . ceases to make sense below a critical length. let us note another important feature of the scalar dynamics: As Poincar´ e invariance is broken by the classical background. r It follows that the classical background. 609]. Finally. the fluctuations no longer have to propagate on the light cone. Tµν = diag(ρ(r). 0. Here the Earth’s gravitational field has the dominant effect. 0). which is fifteen orders of magnitude larger [962]. assuming spherical symmetry for simplicity. we should schematically have ˜ |h(cl) | |πcl |. We should also consider the implication of the local strong coupling scale for energetic processes taking place on the surface of the Earth. the classical ˜ (cl) graviton solution. µν 218 . with the latter going like G4 /Z(r) ∼ 10−15 G4 . If we are to screen the scalar and recover GR at a given scale. thereby eliminating the troublesome vDVZ discontinuity. we have πcl ∼ rs r/rc . πcl . Indeed. assuming the background varies slowly (relative to the fluctuations) we can treat Z µν as approximately constant in a neighbourhood of a point in space-time. Further assuming µ that the eigen-values of Zν (x) are all of similar magnitude. 0. and so Z(r) ∼ (rV /r)3/2 . For rc ∼ rH this means the fluctuations in the π field becomes strongly coupled at around 1 cm. where rmin Λ∗ (rmin ) ∼ 1.where For non-trivial solutions πcl (x) is not constant. However. ∼ Z(x).

or.˜ Since hµν is derived from Eq. around our heavy source satisfies πcl + 2 2rc 2 rs π = 2. the linearised solution in Eq. 219 . with scale-dependent coupling. namely the self-interaction of the scalar. (779). Note that the Vainshtein scale can always be obtained from the strong coupling scale by trading the Planck length for the Schwarzschild radius of the source. In general. It follows that the spherically symmetric solution. and so we have an O(1) modification of General Relativity. (773). the breakdown of classical perturbation theory has the same origin as the strong coupling of quantum fluctuations in vacuum. Now at large distances we expect the linear term to dominate. (784) As long as the cross-over scale is not too far inside the cosmological horizon. (785) In each case. π. (781) is no longer a good approximation. µν r where rs = 2G4 M is the Schwarzschild radius of the source. we see that the linearised theory breaks down at the Vainshtein radius. rs (779) |h(cl) | ∼ . equivalently. M = ρ(r)dV is its mass. However. r cl (782) Substituting our solution from Eq. (783) For the Sun we have rs ∼ 3 km. (781). 3r (781) This scales in the same way as the corresponding graviton solution in Eq. 3r cl 3r (cl) (780) where we have integrated once over a sphere centred at the origin and enclosing the entire source. For r rV . and so rV ∼ rc rH 2/3 1018 m. the Vainshtein effect extends beyond the edges of the solar system. the linearised description breaks down once the non-linear piece becomes comparable. the dynamics of the scalar are governed by the Field Equations (775). For the earth we have rs ∼ 9 mm. Now let us ask whether or not the scalar gets screened below the Vainshtein radius. giving a solution πcl (r) = − (lin) rs . 2 and G4 = 1/8πM4 is the four dimensional Newton’s constant. when (πcl ) ∼ (lin) 2 rc (lin) 2 (π ) . 2 rV ∼ (rs rc )1/3 . and so ⊕ rV ∼ rc rH 2/3 1017 m. πcl (r). given by the Oort cloud at ⊕ an average of 1016 m or so. it is just the standard linearised GR solution given by the Newtonian potential.

220 . it is worth noting that it was originally discussed using the full theory [399. for simplicity. where corrections to the potential go like δV /V |moon ∼ 10−13 rH /rc [451]. as then the next-to-leading order terms become singular. support the case for its successful implementation [1121. and that one is able to recover GR without any vDVZ discontinuity. but hardly conclusive. so the result can be smoothly patched onto the standard perturbative solution in some neighbourhood of the Vainshtein radius [399]. the corrections to the Earth’s gravitational field may have an observable effect on the precession of the moon.On the contrary. (787) ∼ cl (cl) ∼ V rV |hµν | Given that rV → ∞ as rc → ∞. See [672] for a recent discussion. It is fair to say that the Vainshtein mechanism has not yet been fully explored as a viable concept. (786) πcl (r) = rc This implies that at short distances the scalar correction to the Schwarzschild solution goes like [567] (nonlin) 3/2 |π | δV r . the claim is that one should expand in powers of r/rV around the Schwarzschild solution [567]. Is the Vainshtein radius of the elephant the same as the Vainshtein radius of a point particle with the same mass located at the centre of mass of the elephant? While this may not be a problem when the size of the source particle distribution is much smaller than the Vainshtein radius. While it is clear that there is a breakdown of linear perturbation theory at the Vainshtein radius in both massive gravity and DGP. 54 We thank Nemanja Kaloper for this colourful observation. N-body simulations of large-scale structure in DGP gravity. it clearly becomes an issue when the particles are well distributed over the whole Vainshtein sphere. especially in the full covariant theory. While we have demonstrated aspects of the Vainshtein mechanism at the level of the π-Lagrangian. Standard perturbation theory corresponds to performing an expansion in rs /r. Similarly. One should also worry about the elephant problem54 : An elephant is an extended object made up of many point particles each with their own Vainshtein radius. How does one account for such many particle systems? The answer is not known and given the role of non-linearities in the Vainshtein mechanism the problem may well be very complicated. 567]. We can now use the correction to the Newtonian force to place bounds on the crossover scale. we see that the scalar does appear to get screened in this limit. We will discuss this further in the next section. In [399] it was emphasised how one must choose the correct expansion parameter at a given scale. however. At short distances. the arguments for a smooth transition to GR are at best promising. 269]. which implies rc 10−4 rH . At r ∼ 5 AU fractional corrections to the Sun’s gravitational field should be 10−8 [1197]. so that at short distances we have the solution √ 2rs r (nonlin) . but this is not a good expansion parameter in the limit rc → ∞. the non-linear part of Equation (780) will dominate.

κ dt a 1 − 2 rc H 2 + a2 221 (793) . where for κ = 0 and = 1 the H 2α term r2−α is added to Eq. If one were to generalise the bulk to include 5D Schwarzschild. 835]. A phenomenological extension of Eq. a2 3 (792) where = −1 for the normal branch. where and ˜ Tµν = Tµν − The Bianchi identities give ν νE µ (788) 1 ˜˜ 1 1˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ 3T αβ Tαβ − T 2 gµν . 559]. and = 1 for the self-accelerating branch.4. Note that the global structure of the cosmological solutions has been investigated by Lue [833]. Staying with the simplest case of a Minkowski bulk and a tensionless brane. Maeda and Sasaki [1140] found the 4D Einstein equations of a 3-brane world embedded in a 5D bulk with Z2 symmetry. A thorough review of DGP cosmology up to 2006 can be found in [834]. This corresponds to setting Eµν = 0 and plugging an FLRW metric into our field equations (788). from the FLRW background. Πµν = − Tµλ T λν + T Tµν + 4 12 24 1 Gµν . (792) the ij component can be re-worked into a modified Raychaudhuri equation. Shiromizu. while some exact solutions in special cases have been found by Dick [420]. one can run into an unusual class of singularity on account of the branch cut in Friedmann equation [1142. Cosmological branes in generalised DGP gravity can also mimic a phantom equation of state [1086. (792) has been considered by Dvali and Turner [453]. to linear perturbations and non-linear studies. The cosmological solutions for an FLRW space-time were found by Deffayet [394] by considering the embedding of the DGP brane into a Minkowski bulk.5. while the self-accelerating branch gives de Sitter space with Hubble constant H∞ = r1 . (789) (790) = (16πGrc )2 (791) while the matter stress-energy tensor satisfies local energy-momentum conservation: ν ν T µ = 0. Clearly. but as we have already seen. c After using Eq. (792). if ρ = 0 then the normal branch implies Minkowski space. the theory contains a ghost in its perturbative spectrum. This self-accelerating model has c been proposed as an alternative to dark energy [398]. Applying this formalism to DGP we get Gµν = (16πGrc )2 Πµν − Eµν . As discussed in Section 5. as 2 κ 3H 2 + 3κ − 2 rc H 2 + a2 8πGP κ dH a2 + 3H 2 + 2 = − .5. DGP cosmology In this section we describe DGP cosmology. 8πG ν ν Π µ.5. the 00 component of the 4D field equations (with Eµν = 0) gives the Friedmann equation as H2 + κ − a2 rc H2 + 8πG κ = ρ.1.

as wE = dH + 3H 2 + PE = − dt ρE 3H 2 + 3κ a2 2κ a2 . Perturbation theory for DGP was originally worked out in detail by Deffayet [395]. ΣE = 4 weyl weyl . dt As a consequence. 2 2 (802) 55 Note that this is consistent with our general analysis for brane world cosmological pertur4 bations. Let us consider scalar perturbations in the conformal Newtonian gauge. in the interests of self-containment. −8πG4 3 ρ Σ 222 . This gives X = 8πGρE = and Y = 8πGPE = − 3 rc dH dt H2 + κ . we will now present the formalism for DGP gravity explicitly. ΘE = −8πG4 3 ρweyl θweyl . 2 and eventually during the self-accelerating era we get wE → −1. (796) The Bianchi identities. provided one identifies µE = −8πG4 ρweyl δ weyl . and energy-momentum conservation. Although braneworld cosmological perturbation theory is discussed in detail in Section 5. a2 2κ a2 κ a2 (794) + 3H 2 + H2 + rc . ensure that dρE + 3H(ρE + PE ) ≡ 0.It is instructive to cast the background equations into a form resembling an effective dark-energy fluid with density ρE and pressure PE . (795) so that we can define the equation of state. = AD 8πGa (ρ + P ) θ + BD a ΘE .4. wE . and has since been developed by a number of authors. The components of Eµν are then55 E 00 E 0i Ei j = −µE . during a possible spatial curvature dominated era we get wE ≈ − 3 . (797) (798) (799) = − i ΘE . during radiation domination we get wE ≈ − 1 . 2 2 We find the perturbed Einstein equations are then given by 2 (∆ + 3κ) − 6H (Φ + HΨ) (Φ + HΨ) (800) (801) 1 1 Φ + HΨ + 2HΦ + 2H + H2 + ∆ Ψ − ∆+κ Φ 3 3 BD a2 = AD 4πGa2 δP − (1 + wE )AD 8πGa2 ρδ + a2 µE − µE . 3 = AD 8πGa2 ρδ + BD a2 µE . during matter domina3 2 tion we get wE ≈ − 1 . 1 = µE δ i j + Di j ΣE . Let us now look at the perturbed FLRW universe in DGP.3.

In the limit rc → ∞ one recovers the familiar perturbation equations of General Relativity from the above. Several authors have applied a variety of approximations to solve the linear perturbations in the DGP model. and 2 2Xrc 3 H = a = aH. It is clear. (804) and H 1 ΘE + 4HΘE − µE + (1 + wE ) µE + 3 ΘE 3 a ∆ + 3κ 4 1 + wE + ΣE + 2 [(2 + 3wE ) Φ − Ψ] 1 + 3wE 3 a2 = 0. z=0 (809) . however.4. To fully determine the DGP perturbations one must use the five-dimensional equations. a c c for simplicity. the bulk metric is given by Equation (696). (805) that this is not a consistent approximation. Sawicki and Carroll [1101] assumed that the Weyl perturbations are zero. ∂t nb3 ∂t ∂z b3 ∂z b2 b3 (808) (H 2 + dH ) n(t. For the case of a spatially flat universe (κ = 0) one finds µE ΘE ΣE = − = = 1 k4 Ω 3 a5 . z) = 1 + √H 2 +dt |z|. They are µE + 4HµE − ∆ΘE = 0. with λαβ = dz 2 − n2 (t. ΣE . the bulk scalar mode perturbations can be deduced using a single master variable. z=0 1 k2 3 a4 − 1 6a3 ∂Ω − HΩ ∂t 3 (810) . (805) It is clear that the above equations are not closed due to the presence of the bulk anisotropic stress. Note that we have set AD = 2Xr2 −3 and BD = 2Xr2 −3 = AD − 1. The energy-momentum tensor of the Weyl fluid on the brane can then be related to Ω.Φ−Ψ = a2 2 rc (X + 3Y )8πG(ρ + P )Σ − 3ΣE . 2 3 + rc (X + 3Y ) (803) where we recall that primes denote differentiation with respect to conformal time. z) = a 1 + Using the Master Equation (705). as we discussed in Section 5. z)dt2 . κ a2 (806) (807) H2 + κ a2 |z| . Ω. For maximally symmetric 5D space-times. z=0 ∂2Ω ∂Ω k 2 3 dH ∂Ω − 3H + 2Ω− ∂t2 ∂t a H dt ∂z 223 (811) . r(t. Assuming that the bulk cosmological constant is zero. we find ∂ 1 ∂Ω ∂ n ∂Ω ∆ + 3κ n − − Ω = 0. We can now use the Bianchi identities to find the field equations for µE and ΘE . from Eq.

(804) implies that ΘE = 0. in terms of the potentials. −1 Jain. They find that the quasi-static approximation is valid to within 5% for k ≥ 0.where k is the 3-momentum on the homogeneous background.94H0 . Koyama and Maartens [737] assume the small-scale approximation k/a rc . H. Sawicki. For all sub-horizon modes s = 3. and therefore µE . This in turn allows us to eliminate all the Weyl perturbations.01hM pc−1 . Assuming that the solution of this last equation is regular as z → ∞. and compare these with numerical solutions in [246]. (811) 2 one finds that µE = 2k ΣE on the brane. (812) ρa2 δM . The ansatz they use a d˜ a is Ω = A(p)as G(z/zhor ). Under this assumption Eq. Thus. Therefore. The FLRW background evolution on the self-accelerating branch has been extensively tested. decreasing to s = 4 during matter domination. as is necessary during transitions between cosmological eras. with a best-fit value of rc ∼ 0. z} plane. The master equation then becomes an ordinary differential equation with independent variable z/zhor . [246] solve the master equation numerically by employing null coordinates in the {t. and therefore that the use of the scaling ansatz in the observational constraints imposed in [482. In quasi-static situations we also 1 2 H 1 2 have ∂t Ω ≈ 0 and H dH dt H . and solve the master equation on the self-accelerating branch near the cosmological horizon. one can correct for the time-dependence of s. to get − k 2 Φ = 4πG 1 − and − k 2 Ψ = 4πG 1 + 1 3β 1 3β ρa2 δM . Alcaniz [20] used measurements of the angular size of high redshift compact radio sources [577] to place −1 constraints on rc .29 at 1σ. 817] is justifiable. (813) where β = 1 + 2 Hrc wE . and then use Eq. In practise. Dev and Alcaniz [658] find that gravitationally lensed QSOs require rc ≥ 1. Seahra and Hu [1123] develop analytic solutions for both branches of DGP based on the scaling ansatz. one can however apply various approximations. which reproduces the quasistatic approximation of Koyama and Maartens [737]. This allows them to move away from the quasi-static regime. so that the master equation becomes ∂z Ω − n ∂z Ω − 2 k a2 n2 Ω = 0. Cardoso et al. Song has performed a similar analysis on the normal branch [1160]. it can k then be shown that Ω = Ωbr (1 + Hz)− aH when aH/k 1. in general one has to solve Eq. Inserting this into Eq. in the quasi-static limit.14H0 c 0 224 . (805) gives ΣE . and finally approaching s = 1 during Λ domination. (808) with appropriate initial and boundary conditions. They find that the analytic/scaling solutions are accurate to within a few percent all the way to the horizon. By iteration. where zhor = aH 0 a2 H(˜)2 . using Eq. thus obtaining the linearised DGP solutions without resorting to any approximations. (811) in the perturbed Einstein equations. He finds that 4r21H 2 ≥ 0. using a variety of different cosmological observations. They find that for super-horizon modes s = 6 during radiation domination. and s is an exponent that is ap˜ a proximately constant during times when a particular fluid dominates the expansion. and can be solved iteratively by assuming the boundary conditions G(0) = 1 and G(1) = 0. Song and Hu [1103] propose a scaling ansatz to close the Bianchi identities.

Deffayet et al. GRB data [1106].17+0. SN-Ia data from [1064.8 < α < 0.Maartens [737] to calculate the growth function. Using CMB and large-scale structure data these authors find that the spatially flat model is a 5. but as they point out. and ISW and galaxy-ISW correlations to show that any self-accelerating models that shares the same expansion history as a quintessence-CDM models are strongly disfavoured. a CMB shift parameter [1261]). 630].8σ worse. the linear growth of structure. This puts tension on the self-accelerating model.09 c 0 cluding CMB data increases the preferred value of ΩM . 1248. In the latter case non-zero spatial curvature improves the fits for distance measurements. Rydbeck. while assuming a flat universe. In a follow-up study Lombriser et al. These authors find that either brane tension or Λ is required for 225 . Fairbairn and Goobar [478] use the SNLS SN-Ia data [67] and BAO data [467] to show that the self-accelerating model is not compatible with a flat universe at the 99% level. depending on whether a peculiar velocity error on the SN-Ia data is included or not. This excludes the self-accelerating value of α = 1. however. As these authors argue. but the required reduction in large-scale power also produces unacceptable reductions in power in the large-scale CMB polarisation spectrum. Their SN −1 analysis gives 4r21H 2 = 0.3 at 1σ (the self-accelerating model corresponds to α = 1). but is worse fit than ΛCDM. Changes of this type cannot therefore save the model. One may speculate that changes to the initial power spectrum may be able to improve the this situation.03 at 1σ. which translates to rc = 1. and the angular diameter distance to recombination of pre-WMAP CMB data. CMB distance 1σ. Using the quasi-static approximation of Koyama. 1071. In−0. 1203. Fairnbairm and Goobar [1080] repeated the analysis of [467] by including SN-Ia data from ESSENCE [893. Maartens and Majerotto [846] used SN-Ia [1064. while that open model is 4. [817] constrained both branches of the DGP model by employing the PPF description of the CMB and large-scale structure. Xia finds α < 0. The inclusion of BAO data from [467] further supports this result. it is not necessarily reliable to use the BAO data for models other than ΛCDM. and constraints on the CMB shift parameter from WMAP-3 [1173] to disfavour the self-accelerating model at the 1 − 2σ level.. They find that the self-accelerating model is consistent with these data sets to within 2σ. They then use data coming from BAOs. as ΛCDM is used throughout the analysis in [467].21+0. [482] perform a thorough test of the self-accelerating model using the PPF approach of [627.09 H0 . Moving away from using distance measurements alone. 67].4H0 . Sawicki and Hu [1161] used the angular diameter distance to recombination from WMAP-3 [1173]. 877]. By allowing non-zero spatial curvature. 352. but worsens those involving the growth of linear structure. and constraints on the Hubble constant to exclude the spatially flat self-accelerating model at 3σ. and a collection of data on the growth of linear structure [598. but is still marginally worse than spatially flat ΛCDM. For the generalised model of [453] they find that −0. one must properly take into account the perturbations on the selfaccelerating branch in order to make firm conclusion. Xia considered the generalised model of Dvali and Turner [453] in conjunction with Union SN-Ia data set [733]. 585.686 at 2σ. Fang et al. and leads to a best fit model −1 with r ∼ 1. 1280].3σ poorer fit than ΛCDM. 67]. they show that consistency with the data can be improved. and BAO data [467] to place constraints on the self-accelerating FLRW background. [403] use SN-Ia from [1034]. a number of studies have been performed on the growth of linear structure using the small-scale quasi-static approximation of Koyama and Maartens [737].02 −0. Song.

They find that the non-linear CDM density contrast evolves as 4 1 dδM d2 δ M + 2H − 2 dt 3 1 + δM dt where Geff = G 1 + 2 dδM = 4πGeff ρM δM (1 + δM ). These two new potentials. within a more general frame-work of modified gravity 7 93 11 3 models. Ignoring non-local contributions. and that have similar expansion histories. 690. They further find that the cross-over scale is H0 rc > 3 if spatial curvature is included. the brane-bending mode can then be shown to obey the following equation in the decoupling limit. 1290. as uncovered in [839.5 in the spatially flat case. Ferreira and Skordis have also calculated this quantity. below which gravity behaves as in GR (in accordance with the Vainshtein c mechanism). The growth index on small scales. (814) are a factor of two larger than the corresponding solutions in theories that obey Birkhoff’s law. and a brane-bending mode. 963]. The form of Geff in Eq. The potential Ψ can then be written in 1 terms of a Poisson potential.5.these models to fit the data well. Their model uncovers a transition point 2 9 (1+Ω2 ) DGP M at D ∼ 1.4. to find γ = 16 − 5632 ΩDGP + 4096 Ω2 DGP + O(ΩDGP ) [501]. has been calculated by Wei using a Taylor series expansion in the fractional density parameters ΩDGP and Ωκ [1263]. ΨP . 743. To expand upon this we may rewrite the RHS of Eq. 1113. 1112. Lue. 1111. and derived the gravitational force law in a collapsing top-hat model embedded in an expanding background. ¯ dt (814) 2 1 √ 1+ 3β D D −1 . (815) is due to an additional degree of freedom in DGP: The brane-bending mode. (21) to Eq. but that both cases the best fitting models are practically indistinguishable from ΛCDM. 226 . it is still instructive to consider the substantial work that has been performed on constructing and studying non-linear structure formation scenarios in these models [836. as Ψ = ΨP + 2 ϕ. where M is the mass 9β 2 of the spherically symmetric object. 1 56 The terms 3 Ω and 16 Ω2 DGP in the Wei [1263] result are incorrect. following from the πLagrangian discussed in Section 5. and in the sub-horizon and quasi-static regime: r2 8πG 2 i j ∆ϕ + c (∆ϕ) − ϕ = δρM . This analytic result 56 is in excellent agreement with numerical studies . (815) 8 and D = 9β 2 ΩΩM δM = 8 (1+ΩM )2 ΩM δM . This gives a Vainshtein radius of r = . and H0 rc > 3. satisfy ∆ΨP = 8πGδρM . and appear to have come 16 DGP from erroneously dropping terms proportional to ΩDGP when going from Eq. Although the DGP model is strongly constrained by the observations we have already discussed. 269. This result was subsequently re-derived by Koyama and Silva [741] without the restrictive assumptions of [836]. (22) of that paper. 1121. It can be shown that the solutions to Eq. 1123]. (816) i jϕ 3β 3β 16GM r 2 1/3 This equation is closely related to the Field Equation (775). ϕ. (814) using 4πGeff δρM = ∆Ψ. ΨP and ϕ. and ∆ϕ = 8π(Geff − G)δρM . γ. Scoccimarro and Starkman [836] have considered spherical perturbations on sub-horizon scales.

(817) ∆− rc rather than ∆(Φ + Ψ) = 8πGa2 ρδ. however. The N-body simulations conducted by Schmidt were on both the self-accelerating [1112]. For the non-linear power spectrum. and shows that the abundance of massive halos in self-accelerating DGP is much smaller than in CDM models. however. This last result puts strong constraints on the self-accelerating model from cluster abundance measurements. To obtain the comoving number density of halos per logarithmic interval in the virial mass. (815). Scoccimarro finds that in the linearised quasi-static limit the bulk behaviour decouples from the brane behaviour. he also finds that the HALOFIT model does not correctly describe the non-linear DGP matter power spectrum. although even in this case the spherical collapse model predictions are better than those obtained from HALOFIT [1156]. Finally. Scoccimarro [1121] derives the linear and non-linear equations for the growth of structure in DGP without using the Mukohyama formalism. in the quasi-static limit it is found that a√ −∆ (Φ + Ψ) = 8πGa2 ρδ. independent from of the CMB and large-scale structure constraints discussed above [482. bias and the non-linear matter power spectrum. and the normal branch [1111]. The general result. while they use the Navarro-Frenk-White [946] form for halo profiles. Like [690]. This is in agreement with [269]. while the opposite effect occurs on the normal branch. (816) to show that the Vainshtein effect is recovered without making any assumptions about symmetry. (812) and (813). All three simulations also display the Vainshtein effect. and departures from the predictions of GR were seen outside of the halo virial radius. structure is enhanced. for the normal branch. Chan and Scoccimarro [269]. and thus that the nonlocal operators can be safely ignored. The self-accelerating (normal) branch bispectrum is found to be enhanced (suppressed) for equilateral configurations. and the abundance of massive halos is larger than a CDM model [1111]. more general method for defining the virial radius that does not rely on energy conservation. Schmidt use a relaxation solver on Eq. Schmidt calculates the bispectrum in both the normal and selfaccelerating branches. In this case. and the linear bias. is that the brane-bending mode on the self-accelerating branch provides a repulsive force that greatly suppresses the growth of structure. the halo profiles were also obtained. Schmidt then proceeds to calculate the halo mass function. 817]). and in general sets in at smaller scales than is found in [690]. This results in a set of equations that includes non-local terms. This is not true. as implied by adding the quasi-static expressions given in Eqs. Specifically. They find that top-hat spherical collapse in DGP requires a new. For the normal branch.Schmidt. but not for squeezed configurations. Hu and Lima [1113] used the spherical collapse model in DGP to study the halo mass function. and illustrates the diminishing strength of the Vainshtein effect for squashed matter configurations. Rather than assuming Eq. they use the Sheth-Tormen method [1137]. he finds that the Vainshtein effect is weakened for non-spherically symmetric situations. N-body simulations of DGP have been conducted by three independent groups: Schmidt [1112. common to all of these studies. In this way they find that the spherical collapse model agrees well with the halo mass function and bias obtained from N-body simulations. the spherical collapse model in the self-accelerating branch also matches the simulation results very well. For example. and Khoury and Wyman [690]. This ensures the validity of the Koyama-Maartens 227 . for both the normal and the self-accelerating branch. 1111].

attempts to solve for a higher co-dimension delta function source in Einstein gravity will generically result in a singular bulk geometry unless the energymomentum of the source is given by pure tension [316]. however. This corresponds to an enhancement by four orders of magnitude in the probability of the occurrence of high velocity merging system such as the “bullet cluster”. The results of all this are in broad agreement with those of Schmidt [1112. where Eq. In this section we will discuss braneworld models with co-dimension n ≥ 2. and the halo bias. corresponding to a tension-less brane in a Minkowski bulk. the CDM mass function. of course. the non-local terms become more important. 1111]. in agreement with the findings of [690. We have already seen higher co-dimension branes in Section 5. Chan and √ Scoccimarro √ [269] perform N-body simulations by accounting for the non-local operators −∆ and 1/ −∆. These operators contribute to the equation for the brane bending mode. 1112. when discussing the ADD model [62] in six or more dimensions. They also compute the non-linear matter power spectrum and bi-spectrum. one must consider more complicated scenarios. In this case the gravitational description typically becomes much more complicated. In general. in a realistic set-up the defect will not really be a delta function source (it will have some finite 228 . For the case of DGP. He then goes on to develop a re-summation scheme to calculate the non-linear power spectrum and the bi-spectrum. Ψ [1121]. (816) was solved. On very scales the linear approximation for the brane-bending mode breaks down. and higher dimensional cascading gravity models. and the density perturbation. Taruya and Hiramatsu [743] develop a general perturbation theory method that can be applied in the quasi non-linear regime of any theory that has an additional scalar degree of freedom (such as Brans-Dicke. including the full gravitational back-reaction of brane sources. they find that their perturbative method recovers the extreme non-linearity of the Vainshtein mechanism. 1111].6. peculiar velocities are enhanced by 24 − 34% compared to CDM [780].1. Indeed. Higher Co-Dimension Braneworlds An important characteristic of any braneworld model is the brane’s co-dimension. 5. However. This is a particularly simple example of a higher co-dimension braneworld set-up. f (R) and DGP). This is problematic if we insist on using that infinitely thin defect as a model of our 4-dimensional Universe. It was found that in DGP. and the potential. On larger scales. Their technique has compared with the HALOFIT mapping [1156]. and Scoccimarro finds a non-local and non-linear equation for the potential. both in the bulk and on the brane. while the non-linear PPF fit works well within the regime of validity of the perturbation theory. It is found that HALOFIT over-predicts power on small-scales. Ψ.2. mainly because they are much more tractable. and the non-linear PPF fit of Hu and Sawicki [630]. They uncover the Vainshtein mechanism through a broad transition around k ∼ 2hMpc−1 for z = 1. Scoccimarro [1121] shows that the non-linearities coming from the brane-bending mode can be described by a time and space dependent gravitational constant. δ. These are by far the most well developed. Scoccimarro [1121] and Koyama. and k ∼ 1hMpc−1 for z = 0.result [737] on small scales. The simulations of Khoury and Wyman [690] were improved upon in [1290]. Koyama. ϕ. Taruya and Hiramatsu [743] have also developed two independent techniques based on higher-order perturbation theory in order to find the non-linear power spectrum. Up to this point we have been concentrating on co-dimension one models. This is given by the difference between the dimension of the bulk and the dimension of the brane.

965. for example.thickness. 436. 387. 379. 282]. as such a transition can affect the brane curvature via the backdoor. This is not the case.7. it is worth pursuing alternative braneworld models with non-compact extra dimensions if they are able to reproduce 4D gravity at some scale. 450. 1250. 450. Much of the interest in this field lies in the fact that these models offer new ways to think about the cosmological constant problem [256. 216. Co-dimension two branes are particularly interesting as there is reason to believe that within them one may be able to realise self-tuning of the vacuum energy. Braneworld models with two extra dimensions shaped like a rugby ball have been developed with this in mind [256]. A low scale of bulk super-symmetry breaking. 1250. 215]. 1023. 316. 668]. 450. higher co-dimension braneworld models have been discussed in the literature (see. even for maximal symmetry on the brane [1208]. so the finer details of how the 229 . The rugby ball described above represents a compact extra dimension. Such generalisations are sometimes referred to as Brane Induced Gravity (BIG) models [448. (818) S= ∗ 2 2 bulk bulk Using higher derivative operators to resolve the singularity in the bulk propagator58 . 13. 316. 338. set by the size of the rugby ball. 280. Other notable contributions to the literature on rugby ball compactifications with fluxes and/or scalars include the following: A detailed discussion of the brane-bulk matching conditions[213.6. 449. 281. so there is no self-tuning [1250. 900. can then account for a small amount of dark energy [216]. 448. however. The curvature of the brane is now completely determined by the bulk cosmological constant and the magnetic flux. For example. Despite being extremely difficult to study. an analysis of the low energy effective theory [708]. and a study of cosmological evolution on the brane [1021]. 174. 449. In any event. one might expect that an infinite bulk should be compatible with some form of quasi-localisation of gravity by considering generalisations of DGP gravity [454] in any number of dimensions. 669. 381.4. One might then infer that phase transitions on the brane that alter the brane tension do not alter the curvature. one could consider a genuine delta function source and avoid issues with the singularity by including higher-order operators in the bulk gravity theory [449. 13. 668. 518. 386. 348. In the simplest scenario we can consider BIG models on a single 3-brane of co-dimension n. in Section 5. described by the following action [448]: 2 Mpl √ √ M 2+n d4+n x −γR + d4 x −gR. 349]). On the other hand. of the defect [316]. 277. with potentially troublesome/interesting light moduli fields [18. 214. 58 Note that this theory becomes higher-dimensional at large distances. 518]. by altering magnetic flux. Co-dimension two branes in Gauss-Bonnet gravity will be discussed in this context in Section 5. 339. 283. 339. 518. 381. as opposed to the geometry. The situation can sometimes (but not always [214. 388. 19]. Alternatively. 965].2 we will briefly review the importance of higher co-dimension branes in the degravitation scenario [61]. 215]) be improved by including super-symmetry and dilaton dynamics in the bulk to protect the relationship between the bulk cosmological constant and the flux [13. independent of the brane tension. and the would-be singularity will be automatically resolved). 12. 338. 436. 174. Changes in tension then alter the deficit angle. This is because a maximally symmetric co-dimension two brane generically behaves like a cosmic string in the bulk by forming a conical singularity57 . 121]. we 57 There are exceptions that give rise to curvature singularities as opposed to conical. 669. 217. 1022. [256. 386. 379.

Note that an axion flux is used to cancel the vacuum 2 pressure in the compact direction q 2 = 2σ5 r0 . Taking Muv ∼ 10−3 eV. → 5D → 4D [381. This could potentially help with the ghost problem. M5 . . 669. 5. and some induced curvature weighted by a 5D Planck scale. The singularities are resolved by modelling the 3-brane as a cylindrical 4-brane with compact radius r0 . They considered a landscape of models describing BIG on a 3-brane in six dimensions. . 3 the Green’s function in momentum space along the brane takes the form [449] 2 ˜ (819) G(p. The metric is given by ds2 = ηµν dxµ dxν + dρ2 + f (ρ)2 dφ2 .find that for n = 2. with the conical singularity cut away (see Figure 12). 0) = dn q 1 .0) where D(p. 668].6.1. These are sometimes referred to as cascading gravity models as the effective description tumbles down a cascade of extra dimensions as we come in from large distances. Cascading gravity More sophisticated BIG proposals make the transition from 4 + n dimensional gravity to 4 dimensional gravity via a series of intermediate steps.   Mpl ln(Muv rc ) for n = 2 2 M∗ (821) rc ∼ Mpl M uv  2 for n = 3. 668]. The Kaloper-Kiley model The first braneworld model to explore a cascade from 6D → 5D → 4D gravity was developed by Kaloper and Kiley [669. 379. respectively. It has therefore been dubbed seesaw gravity in [449]. M M∗ ∗ Unfortunately. (4 + n)D → (4 + n − 1)D → . these constructions suffer from the presence of ghosts in the spectrum of fluctuations [436]. 6 theory behaves there will be sensitive to how we resolve the singularity in the bulk [448]. 2 (2π)n p2 + q 2 + (p2 + q 2 )2 /Muv (820) and where Muv M∗ represents the regularisation scale. 339. The resulting vacua resemble a cone in the bulk. The brane has tension σ5 . Let us now turn our attention to this class of gravity models. −1 this theory reproduces normal 4D gravity at intermediate scales Muv r rc . 0) = 2+n . 338. The large distance cross-over scale can be computed from Equation (819). but is modified at sub-millimetre scales and at very large distances. and increase the resolution of our description. The effective 4D eff tension and Planck scale at distances r r0 are then given by σ4 = 2πr0 σ5 and eff 3 M4 = 2πr0 M5 . (822) 230 . 386. 2 p2 + M∗ Mpl D(p.

σ5 < σcrit . The brane tension does not affect the geometry along the brane’s non-compact directions. We have 4D (Brans-Dicke) gravity at intermediate scales 4 r0 < r < rc . It turns out that perturbation theory is under much better control in this limit. In this case the brane lies inside a very deep throat. where 0< 1. When the tension 2 lies below a critical value. Instead. The improved behaviour is due to the fact that we make a series of transitions from 4D → 5D → 6D gravity. becoming five dimensional beyond eff 4 rc ∼ M4 /M6 r0 . where M6 is the fundamental scale of gravity in the bulk. and a crossover to 6D gravity at a scale rc ∼ (1−b)M 2 ln(2(1 − b)rc /r0 ). Instead it recasts it in terms of a fine-tuning of the hierarchy between cross-over scales at each transition. M eff 231 . and the bulk space is infinite. Things are much more interesting in the near critical limit. at which point the cylinder decompactifies.Figure 12: Taken from [669]. the deficit angle is less than 2π. according to b = 2 2σ5 r0 /M6 . the theory looks like four dimensional Brans-Dicke gravity at scales r0 < r < rc . r > r0 / . An illustration of the 2D bulk geometry formed around the resolved brane in vacuum. 6 Note that the scalar fluctuations naively indicate the possible presence of a ghost. but this conclusion cannot be trusted since the perturbative theory breaks down due to strong coupling [669]. Indeed. Note that this model does not represent a solution to the cosmological constant problem. For sub-critical branes. and that there are no ghosts. where f (ρ) = ρ (1 − b) ρ + b 1−b r0 0 ≤ ρ < r0 ρ > r0 . The transition to six dimensions only occurs at very large distances. it controls the deficit angle measured at infinity. for which b = 1 − . This is consistent with the conclusions drawn in [435] for thick brane regularisations of seesaw gravity. the theory generically resembles the seesaw gravity theory. σcrit = M6 /2r0 . such that the angular dimension is effectively compactified up to distances of the order r0 / (see Figure 13).

(823) where (g6 )AB . p2 + g(p2 ) 3 p 1 1 ˜ = − T. 386] ˜ hTT (p) µν π (p) ˜ 1 1˜ pµ pν ˜ ˜ Tµν − T ηµν + 2 T . In the simplest model [381]. An illustration of the 2D bulk geometry formed around the resolved brane in vacuum. such that µν hµν = hTT + πηµν + gauge terms. respectively. R5 and R4 . 2 3M4 p2 − 2g(p2 ) 232 = 2 2 M4 (826) (827) . The field can then be decomposed in terms of a scalar. The cascading DGP model A more recent BIG model exploring these ideas was developed by de Rham et al. hTT .. one has a DGP 3-brane within a DGP 4-brane within a six dimensional bulk. about a bulk and branes that are all Minkowski. M4 and m6 = 4 M6 3. 386. M5 (824) The claim is that the intermediate DGP 4-brane can help to resolve the singularity in the bulk propagator at the location of the 3-brane [381]. 379]. in the near critical limit.Figure 13: Taken from [669]. π. on the 4-brane and on the 3-brane. who coined the phrase cascading gravity [381. Let us now consider fluctuations due to a conserved source. This situation is described by the following action: S= 4 M6 2 √ M3 d6 x −g6 R6 + 5 2 bulk √ M2 d5 x −g5 R5 + 4 2 4-brane 3-brane √ d4 x −g4 R4 . Tµν . and a transverse and trace-free tensor. (825) µν Working in momentum space one finds that the Fourier transformed fields are given by [381. (g5 )ab and (g4 )µν are the metrics in the bulk. The model contains two important mass scales corresponding to the following ratios: m5 = 3 M5 2. The corresponding Ricci scalars are given by R6 .

λ > 3 so there is no ghost. (830) indicating the presence of a ghost in the UV theory. This is a perfectly legitimate truncation by Z2 symmetry across each of the branes.where59 The amplitude between two conserved sources on the brane. the modified amplitude goes like   2 2 1 p + 2m5 p ˜ ˜ ˜˜ ˜˜ Tµν T µν − 1 T T − 1 Aλ ∼ 2 T T  . 60 It has also been argued that thickening of the brane can help to eliminate the ghost in this model [386] 233 . 388]. In contrast. It turns out that this can be achieved simply by adding tension. p m6 . λ. the 3-brane tension does alter the profile of the fields in the bulk by creating a deficit angle. The coefficient of scalar amplitude changes sign as we flow from the IR to the UV. to the 3-brane [381. and one half of the 4-brane are considered in [386]. (831) M4 p2 + 2m5 p 3 6 p2 1 − 3λ 2 − 4m p 2 2m6 M4 5 6 4 . (829) √ 2  |p −4m2 | 6  πm5  2  |p−2m6 | −1  tanh p+2m6 √ 2 g(p2 ) = |p −4m2 |  πm5 6  2  |p−2m6 |  tan−1 p+2m6 p < 2m6 (828) p > 2m6 . we will adopt the conventions of [381] when expressing our formulae. however. 386] differ. the scalar amplitude always has the correct sign. In any event. For large enough tension. its vacuum solution is unaffected by the change in tension (it is still Minkowski).6 → 2 m5. The difference is because only one half of the 6D bulk. now takes the surprisingly simple form A= 2 2 M4 p2 1 + g(p2 ) 1 ˜˜ 1 p2 + g(p2 ) ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ Tµν T µν − T T − TT 3 6 p2 − 2g(p2 ) . As the 3-brane is co-dimension 2. but this is not necessarily so because of strong coupling of the scalar in the five dimensional boundary effective field theory [381. Here. the tension cannot be arbitrarily large since we require 2m2 M 2 59 Note that the various formulae for propagators and amplitudes in [381. One must take 1 m5. p2 + g(p2 ) → p2 − 2g(p2 ) −1 2 1 as p → 0 as p → ∞. at higher energies.6 in going from [381] to [386]. One might expect that such effects will necessarily be suppressed by the five and six dimensional Planck scales. This means that kinetic terms describing fluctuations on the new vacuum now receive corrections from the non-linear bulk interactions. 388]. To eliminate this ghost we must add additional operators to the 3-brane action that modify the scalar propagator in the UV60 . The result is that the scalar propagator on the 3-brane is modified. whereas the remainder is the contribution from the massive spin-2 field. Tµν and Tµν . consistent with the results of [436]. The last term represents the contribution from the scalar amplitude. However.

388]. (833) and 5D scalar-tensor gravity for m5 > p > m6 . (832) the 4D theory at short distances is a Brans-Dicke theory that is incompatible with solar system constraints. and one may be concerned that there are issues surrounding the validity of the linearised results (as was found in the sub-critical regime of the KaloperKiley model [669]). it is by no means unique in this respect. Note that a cascade from seven dimensions has also been studied in some detail in [387]. 339]. The authors of [381] suggest that some sort of Vainshtein mechanism could account for the recovery of GR at short scales. By taking M4 ∼ Mpl . as m6 ∼ m5 ∼ H0 . 3 (832) for which the theory is ghost-free in the UV [381. the cascade occurs at the current horizon scale. At the intersection we place a 234 . for p > m5 > m6 . In [12] a five dimensional proxy theory is used that is expected to capture many of the salient features of the original model. the role of non-linearities in cascading DGP has not yet been properly investigated. Of course. each with induced curvature. agrees with the decoupling limit of the 5D boundary effective field theory of cascading DGP presented in [381]. 12] for some preliminary work). Koyama and Tasinato [338. It is interesting to note that the existence of this cascade seems to be closely related to the absence of ghosts. in the limit where the scalar and tensor degrees of freedom decouple. (834) In the far infra-red. Provided m6 < m5 we therefore have a window. (835) Thus we have a cascade from 6D → 5D → 4D gravity as we move from large to short distances. Aλ (5D) ∼ 1 ˜ ˜ µν − 1 T T ˜˜ 3 p Tµν T M5 4 . Here a six dimensional bulk contains two intersecting DGP 4-branes. Another aspect of cascading DGP that requires further study is cosmology (see [900. Indeed. p < m6 . M5 ∼ 10 MeV and M6 ∼ meV. In particular. Aλ (4D) ∼ 2 2 M4 p 2 1 ˜ ˜ Tµν T µν − 2 1− 1− λ 2 m2 M4 6 3λ 2 2m2 M4 6 ˜˜ TT . we have 4D scalar-tensor gravity in the far UV. The condition m6 < m5 has added significance in that it permits a transition from 4D to 5D at energies p ∼ m5 . For tensions in the range allowed by Eq. A(6D) ∼ ln(m6 /p) ˜ ˜ µν 1 ˜ ˜ Tµν T − TT 4 πM6 4 . This places an upper bound λ < 2πM6 = 2 2πm5 m6 M4 . Induced gravity on intersecting braneworlds A third BIG model that is very closely related to cascading DGP was developed by Corradini. we recover 6D gravity. This proxy model corresponds to a 5D scalar-tensor theory that.4 that the bulk deficit angle is less than 2π. 2 2m2 M4 6 2 < λ < 2πm5 m6 M4 .

The transition to normal gravity for short wavelength modes occurs precisely because these modes get screened by the Vainshtein mechanism [1241] (see our discussion of the Vainshtein mechanism in the context of DGP gravity in Section 5. (837) where Newton’s constant. also with some induced curvature. Sources with short characteristic wavelengths. Since the covariant derivative does not commute with the d’Alembertian. for suitably chosen scales. we ask “why does the vacuum energy hardly gravitate at all?”. (838) 235 .5. L. The model claims to admit self-accelerating and self-tuning vacua. Degravitation Higher co-dimension braneworld models and cascading gravity are expected to play an important role in realising the degravitation scenario [61]. has been promoted to a differential operator. A thorough perturbative analysis has yet to be done that confirms this expectation.. G. depending on a length scale. G(L2 ). l L. The resulting Friedmann equation on the 3-brane is then given by [339] 2 3 ρ = 2M4 H 2 + 6M5 k2 1+ H2 4 −1 tan α 2 + 4M6 tan k2 1+ H2 . l L. It is clear that the extra modes must play an important role in the filtering process at long wavelengths. These considerations amount to imposing the following limits: G → G for L2 (− ) → ∞ and G → 0 for L2 (− ) → 0. gµν = ηµν + hµν + . The source is conserved with respect to the full metric. The filter operator is often parametrised as follows: G −1 (L2 ) = 1− m2 ( ) G−1 . Sources with long characteristic wavelengths. such as the cosmological constant. . Equation (837) suggests that the energy-momentum tensor is not conserved. and k2 is a constant that encodes information about the warped geometry in the bulk (and can be derived in a non-trivial way from the parameters of the theory). The idea of degravitation is best understood by rephrasing the cosmological constant problem. it is important to realise that this equation is only expected to describe the linearised dynamics of the helicity-2 mode of the graviton. . The idea is that this operator behaves like a high pass filter characterised by the scale L. A phenomenological description of degravitation is given by [61] G −1 (L2 )Gµν = 8πTµν .DGP 3-brane.2. are filtered out and hardly gravitate at all.6. pass through the filter and gravitate normally. . we accept what our particle physics models are saying and take the vacuum energy to be up at the (TeV)4 scale or beyond. The cosmological evolution is derived using a formalism based on mirage cosmology [685]. given by gµν = ηµν + hµν . or the possible existence of ghosts and strong coupling.4). Instead of asking “why is the vacuum energy so small?”. For fluctuations on a Minkowski 3-brane one may also expect a cascade from 6D → 5D → 4D gravity as we move from large to short distances. We then try to develop a gravity theory that prevents this large vacuum energy from generating a large amount of curvature. However. where the ellipsis denotes the ˆ additional (Stuckelberg) modes that necessarily appear in a fully covariant theory [452]. 2 k2 (836) where α is the angle between the two 4-branes. 5. In other words. and the covariant d’Alembertian operator.

for smaller scales the HALOFIT formula overpredicts power because HALOFIT does not capture the Vainshtein effect. degravitation can be demonstrated in a cosmological context by the ratio of scalar curvature to Λ scaling as t−1/2 for a broad class of filters. and (iii) built out of the metric and its first two derivatives only is given by a linear combination of the metric and the Einstein tensor. Massive gravity (see Section 3. (ii) divergence free. Nevertheless. rather than being recovered from the simulation itself. and 0 ≤ α < 1.where m2 ( ) ∝ L2(α−1) α .e. (839) Thus. (841) In four dimensions the Einstein-Hilbert action therefore gives the most general field equations with the desired properties. 832] constrains the class of theories that can be constructed from the metric tensor alone: In four dimensions. the emergence of the Vainshtein mechanism is encoded in the simulations via Eq. They find that the matter power spectrum determined from the simulation agrees well with the HALOFIT [1156] formula for k <∼ 0. however. Einstein Gauss-Bonnet Gravity In Section 2. However. Using Equation (837) as its starting point. 1 δ (4D) Eµν = √ −g δg µν √ d4 x −g (α0 + α1 R) . this result full DGP theory does not exhibit degravitation. where t is the proper time of comoving observers [452]. (840) 2 Such a term arises from the variation of the Einstein-Hilbert action in the presence of a cosmological constant. whereas DGP gravity61 (see Section 5.4.7. (815). It turns out that models with co-dimension n > 2 are expected to correspond to α = 0 [386].2hMpc−1 . condition for degravitation. Working at the level of the phenomenological equations. i. However. given by − 1 k2 + 2 a2 L kL a 2α Ψ = 4πGρ. the corresponding cosmological solution arising from a higher co-dimension brane scenario has yet to be found explicitly. but this is not necessarily the unique theory with α = 1/2. N-body simulations for degravitation scenarios have been studied by Khoury and Wyman [690]. The upper limit is a necessary. 61 The 236 .1 we outlined how Lovelock’s theorem [831. 5.5) corresponds to α = 1/2. In more than four dimensions. but not sufficient.3.3) corresponds to α = 0. whereas the lower limit is required by unitarity [452]. they find a way to recalibrate the HALOFIT parameters such that it agrees with their simulation on all scales. Their simulation is based on a modified Poisson equation. the most general rank-2 tensor that can be derived from a variational principle and is (i) symmetric. 1 (4D) Eµν = − α0 gµν + α1 Gµν .

Action. Gab = Rab − 1 Rγab is the Einstein tensor. To see why. 1313]) Eab (5D/6D) 1 = − α0 γab + α1 Gab + α2 Hab . (846) 2 δ where Tab = − √−γ δγ ab dD xLm (γab . ψ) is the energy-momentum tensor of the matter fields. for further details. As we will see shortly. 5. although Λ acts like a bare cosmological constant. To generalise Lovelock’s theorem to even higher dimensions we must then add the higher order Euler classes to the corresponding action. 237 . α . The Lovelock tensor is obtained by variation of the Gauss-Bonnet action.1. seen by the geometry.7. consider the effective theory describing the dynamics of the heterotic 62 One can check explicitly that the Einstein tensor is identically zero in two dimensions. The Gauss-Bonnet corrections are weighted by the parameter α. Hab = √ δ 1 −γ δγ ab √ ˆ dD x −g G. (844) These results can generalised still further as the dimensionality of space-time is increased. and references therein. and that the Lovelock tensor is identically zero in four dimensions. it differs from the effective cosmological constant. where the square brackets denote the integer part. b 2 (843) ˆ where G = Rabcd Rabcd − 4Rab Rab + R2 . note that dD x −γR and dD x −γ G correspond to the Euler classes of order one and order two [936]. The Euler class at order k depends on kth powers of curvature. (845) where Lm is the Lagrangian density of the higher dimensional matter fields that are minimally coupled to the metric. and Rabcd is the Riemann tensor constructed from γab . and are topological in D ≤ 2 and D ≤ 4 respectively62 . Λeff . These theories are described by the action S= 1 16πGD √ ˆ dD x −γ R − 2Λ + αG + dD xLm (γab . This has dimensions of [length]2 and is often associated with the slope longer holds. The corresponding field equations are given by Gab + Λγab + αHab = 8πGD Tab . The reader is referred to [270]. 2 (842) where (in D dimensions) γab is the metric. and vacua In five or six dimensions General Relativity is just a special case of a broader class of theories commonly referred to as Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet (EGB) gravity. √ √ ˆ To see how. ψ). equations of motion. in heterotic string theory. In D dimensions we must therefore include Euler classes up to order [(D − 1)/2]. and compute the metric variation. 2 and we have introduced the Lovelock tensor [831] 1ˆ Hab = 2RRab − 4Raα Rc − 4Racbd Rcd + 2Racde Rb cde − Gγab . For D = 5 or 6 dimensions the most general rank-2 tensor satisfying the same three conditions is given by [831] (see also [767.

Note that only the lower root has a smooth limit. it follows that perturbative gravity on the Einstein branch (Λeff /ΛCS < 1) is essentially well behaved. Λ+ . In contrast. given by [279] Λ± = ΛCS eff where ΛCS = − 1± 1− 2Λ ΛCS . There are two possible values for Λeff . 4α (D − 3)(D − 4) (848) where δGab is the linearised Einstein tensor. This is known as the Chern-Simons limit (at least in odd dimensions) [1297. one may have expected such a result based on the fact that string theory is known to be ghost free. after some field redefinitions. γab = γab + δγab . eff and represents a distinct new feature of EGB gravity that is completely absent in higher dimensional General Relativity.string on the 10 dimensional target space. 344]. We refer the reader to the closing paragraphs of Section 5. It is easy to check that Λ+ /ΛCS ≥ 1 ≥ Λ− /ΛCS . gives the Gauss-Bonnet action [566. We now consider metric perturbations about these vacua. the upper root.5. we have perturbative Einstein gravity with an effective Newton’s constant given by Geff = GD . or “Gauss-Bonnet”. The ¯ linearised field equations then take the remarkably simply form δGab + Λeff δγab = 8πGeff Tab . Λ− → Λ. As noted by Zwiebach [1316]. with equality when eff eff Λ = ΛCS /2. In fact.3 for a discussion of the pathologies associated with ghosts. and corresponds to the case where the two roots coincide. (849) 1 (D − 1)(D − 2) . and as such is often referred eff to as the “Einstein” branch. 238 . γab . is not smooth as α → 0. Maximally symmetric vacua ¯ We now consider the maximally symmetric vacuum solutions. 886]. this branch is often referred to as the “stringy”. on the Gauss-Bonnet branch (Λeff /ΛCS > 1). branch. second-order corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert action will necessarily give rise to ghosts unless they appear in the Gauss-Bonnet combination. we should restrict attention to α ≥ 0 for consistency. as α → 0. where Λeff is the effective cosmological constant seen by the curvature. F we see that the leading order term gives the standard Einstein-Hilbert action. µ−1 ∼ 2πα . and the next to leading order term. Thus. we have Geff < 0 indicating the presence of a perturbative ghost [279]. Note that if we do identify EGB with a stringy generalisation of General Relativity. GD > 0. Λeff 1 − ΛCS (850) Assuming that the bare Newton’s constant is positive. In contrast. Working at tree level in the string coupling and performing a perturbative expansion in the inverse string tension. (847) For these vacua to be well defined the bare cosmological constant must satisfy the bound Λ/ΛCS ≤ 1/2. For this reason. satisfying Rabcd = ¯ 2Λeff γ ¯ ¯ ¯ (D−1)(D−2) (¯ac γbd − γad γbc ). as Geff > 0.

and eff mass ±M . As we approach the Chern-Simons limit (Λ → ΛCS /2). it follows that the cut-off for the effective description should have the limit Ecut-off → 0. We conclude that neither of them can accurately describe the true quantum vacuum state in this regime. with cosmological constant Λ± . (852) where ΩD−2 is the volume of the unit (D − 2)-sphere. M is an integration constant that one can identify with the mass of a spherically symmetric source (possibly pointlike). At asymptotically large radii the metric functions take the form V± ≈ − 2Λ± r2 M eff +1± . it appears as if our solution has 239 . Note that a generalised form of Birkhoff’s theorem now holds that guarantees that Equation (851) represents the most general spherically symmetric solution. V (r). and has a smooth limit as α → 0. This reveals that transitions between branches are unsuppressed in the near Chern-Simons regime. Of course. Spherically symmetric solutions Static spherically symmetric solutions to the vacuum field equations were first discovered by Boulware and Deser [176]. ds2 = −V (r)dt2 + dr2 + r2 dΩD−2 . As above. On the Einstein branch the singularity at r = 0 is shielded by an event horizon. V (r) (851) where dΩD−2 is the metric on a unit (D − 2)-sphere. The upper root corresponds to the Gauss-Bonnet branch. and does not have a smooth limit. (D − 1)(D − 2) ΛCS ΩD−2 rD−3 (853) The asymptotic solution here can be seen to resemble the generalised SchwarzschildTangherlini solution in D dimensional GR [1202]. even without the assumption of staticity [272]. In particular.The above conclusions regarding stability are robust provided we can trust our effective perturbative description. on the Gauss-Bonnet branch. where we have a naked time-like singularity. and there are no obvious pathologies. We have two branches for the potential. 279] V± (r) = 1 + 2ΛCS r2 (D − 1)(D − 2) 1± 1− 2Λ M (D − 1) − ΛCS ΛCS ΩD−2 rD−1 . Here we expect this description to be valid at energies up to a cut-off. To analyse the stability of either branch close to this limit one must study non-perturbative phenomena such as instanton transitions. the lower root corresponds to the Einstein branch. M > 0. and that there is very strong mixing between the two (almost degenerate) vacua. We shall stay away from the Chern-Simons limit in the remainder of this section. and a breakdown of perturbation theory. as both will quickly become littered with bubbles of the other vacuum [279]. Let us consider the properties of this solution for a source of positive mass. given by [176. Ecut-off ∼ 1/(Geff )1/(D−2 . This is not the case on the Gauss-Bonnet branch. This indicates strong coupling. the two roots are degenerate in the Chern-Simons case (Λ = ΛCS /2). where the two branches coincide.

For an excellent review of Lovelock gravities. given in Eq. are all independent of z. see [270]. and enables us to consider an interesting class of scalar-tensor theories by freezing the gauge field such that Aµ = 0. is incorrect. (845).2. (856) is that it gives rise to field equations that are at most second order in derivatives.7. Note that for Λ = 0 and α = 0 we recover the results of Section 5. gauge field. 5. z). We can then dimensionally reduce down to four dimensions using the following ansatz γµν = gµν + e2φ Aµ Aν .1. φ. however. gµν . (851) is +M on both branches [415.1 we discussed compactification of higher dimensional GR on a circle.3. γµz = e2φ Aµ . and γzz = e2φ .1. largely due to its application to braneworlds. This conclusion. Kaluza-Klein reduction of EGB gravity In Section 5. the reader is referred to [279]. A proper computation of the gravitational energy taking into account all of the Gauss-Bonnet corrections reveals the mass of the solution in Eq. (856) and F 2 = Fµν F µν . and their black hole solutions. This is. We refer the reader to Section 3. and related stability issues.7.1. where the z direction is compact. Aµ and the dilaton. and [38].1. with Fµν = µ Aν − ν Aµ .negative gravitational energy even for a positive energy source. of course. 416. provided we perform a conformal transformation to the Einstein frame and canonically normalise the dilaton. The same operation can now be performed with the EGB action. We discussed the braneworld paradigm in some detail in Section 240 . for further discussions on four-dimensional theories of this type. (854) where the metric. inherited from the underlying theory. 1010]. (855) − 2( µ Fαβ )( α F βµ ) − 2( µ φ) φ νe µ µ Fαµ )( νF αν ) − 12(Fµα α α φ)(F µβ β β φ) + 6F 2 ( φ)2 αµ +4(Fαβ + αeφ 8e−φ µ F αβ − 4(Fαβ µ φ) F βµ − 12(Fαβ φ) µ µF − 2e2φ Fµα Fν α Gµν + 3αe2φ 2F αβ Fβ µ φ αe + F 2 eφ . Integrating out the compact dimension we arrive at the following effective theory [915]: Seff = where 1 Leff = eφ R − e2φ F 2 − 2Λ + α(Rµναβ Rµναβ − 4Rµν Rµν + R2 ) 4 3 1 + αe3φ − e2φ F µ ν F ν α F α β F β µ − (F 2 )2 8 2 α β α β − (F µ α F ν β + F µν Fαβ ) Rαβ µν − 4R[µ δν] + Rδ[µ δν] 1 16πG5 √ d4 x −gLeff . Co-dimension one branes in EGB gravity Interest in EGB gravity has really taken off in recent years. One property of the Lagrangian in Eq. For an in-depth discussion of this. 5. We start in five dimensions with coordinates (xµ .

241 . For simplicity we will impose Z2 symmetry across the brane (see [1012. the induced 1 Einstein tensor Gµν = Rµν − 2 Rgµν . 1013] for a discussion of asymmetric configurations). Kµν . (862) where Tµν denotes the contribution from any additional matter excitations on the brane. 3 (858) The bulk field equations are then given by 1 1 bulk Rab − Rγab + αHab = 3 Tab .2. (857) branes brane where M5 = (1/8πG5 )1/3 is the bulk Planck scale. we split our five dimensional bulk into a series of domains separated by a series of 3-branes. as in the Randall-Sundrum 2 model. the physics of 3-branes in five dimensional EGB gravity is more or less the same as in General Relativity. 2 M5 (859) with the boundary conditions at the brane given by the “DGW” junction conditions [363. Λ = −6k . The latter depends on the extrinsic curvature. In comparison with Equation (615) we have a Gauss-Bonnet correction in the bulk and the corresponding Myers boundary term [931] on each brane. respectively. which we take to be negative. so that the action is given by S= 3 √ M5 ˆ d5 x −γ (R + αG) + Lbulk 2 bulk √ 3 + d4 x −g −∆ M5 (K + 2α(J − 2Gµν Kµν )) + Lbrane . defined as [902] P µναβ = −Rµν αβ + 2Rµ[α δ νβ] − 2Rν [α δ µβ] − Rδ µ[α δ νβ] . We will consider a single brane with tension σ. Generic action and equations of motion As in the GR case discussed in Section 5. 553] (see also [409]). 2 ∆ M5 Kµν − Kgµν + 2α(3Jµν − Jgµν − 2Pµανβ K αβ ) brane = −Tµν .4. Its energy momentum tensor is then given by brane 2 Tµν = −σgµν − Mind Gµν + Tµν .5. (861) In what follows we will assume that the bulk geometry is only63 sourced by a cosmological bulk 3 constant Tab = M5 Λγab . (860) Here we introduce the double dual of the Riemann tensor. and some induced 2 curvature. Mind R. 63 For generalisations with bulk scalar fields and bulk Maxwell fields see [271] and [805]. Schematically. where [363] Jµν = 1 α 2KKµα Kν + Kαβ K αβ Kµν − 2Kµα K αβ Kβν − K 2 Kµν . as we will now discuss. and the trace J = g µν Jµν .3.

The characteristic behaviour of weak gravity on the brane is as follows [270]: At large distances we recover four dimensional General Relativity. with an effective four dimensional Planck scale IR Mpl = 2 2 3 Mind + M5 leff (1 + 4α/leff ) = 242 eff 2 Mren + (M5 )3 leff . It follows that our weak gravity description is identical to the corresponding description in General Relativity. and renormalise the induced curvature on the brane. (870) . Meanwhile.Weak gravity on a Minkowski brane Let us seek Randall-Sundrum-like vacua. the vacuum DGW junction conditions at z = 0 impose the following constraint on the brane tension σ=6 3 M5 leff 1− 4α 2 3leff . (M5 ) = (1/8πGeff )1/3 . provided we make use of the effective cosmological constant and Planck scale in the bulk. 2 2 Mren = Mind + 3 8αM5 . (865) Since we are interested in weak gravity on the brane. For further details the reader is referred to [270]. ¯ (863) The effective AdS curvature in the bulk is then determined by the bulk equations of motion (859). we consider small fluctuations in the metric and the brane position. and references therein (see also [413]). leff (869) The effective Planck scale is consistent with the effective Newton’s constant introduced eff in Equation (850). (864) 2 = 4α leff l where the lower root corresponds to the Einstein branch and the upper root to the GB branch. As we saw previously. corresponding to a Minkowski brane in an AdS bulk. We find 1 8α 1 1± 1− 2 . ν (867) where we identify the effective five dimensional Planck scale. leff (866) The linearised junction conditions also take a remarkably simple form. eff µ µ 2 2(M5 )3 δ(Kν − Kδν ) = Mren δGµ − Tνµ . ds2 = γab dxa dxb = dz 2 + e−2|z|/leff ηµν dxµ dxν . δGab − 6 2 δγab = 0. eff 3 (M5 )3 = M5 1 − 4α 2 leff (868) and the renormalised induced curvature scale. the linearised equations of motion are identical to those found in perturbative General Relativity.

4. (852) to different “horizon” topologies [233]. Let us once again assume Z2 symmetry across the brane for simplicity. Λeff = 6/leff . 64 There UV is a typo in the corresponding expression for Mpl in [270].This holds provided 1/leff = 0. with bulk cosmological con2 eff stant. After imposing the DGW boundary conditions given in Eq. provided we use the DGW junction conditions give in Eq. so this prediction may be unreliable. bulk Planck scale. as we saw earlier. Mpl = Mind + 8αM5 /leff = Mren . The brane-based formalism relies on the covariant formulation of the effective Einstein equation on the brane. It is interesting to note that the Brans-Dicke parameter gets large close to the Cherneff Simons limit as M5 → 0. Note that this generalises the black hole solution given in Eq. (871) This holds provided Mren = 0. quantum fluctuations in the bulk eff become strongly coupled at ∼ M5 . with a differUV 2 3 ent effective Planck scale64 . and brane induced curvature scale. (860). κ = 0.4 to derive the cosmological evolution of co-dimension one branes apply equally well to branes in EGB gravity. M5 . and r = a(t) in the bulk geometry. In the bulk based formalism. ±1.2. For 1/leff = 0 the large distance behaviour is five dimensional owing to the absence of a normalisable zero mode in the Minkowski bulk. (873) dr2 + r2 qij dxi dxj . Recall that brane cosmology can be studied using either the brane-based formalism or the bulk-based formalism. we treat the brane as an embedding τ = τ (t). identifying t with the proper time of comoving observers on the brane. and a(t) with the scale factor. Brane cosmology in EGB gravity The methods used in Section 5. 243 . If Mren = 0 then the short distance behaviour is five dimensional since there is no effective induced curvature giving rise to quasi-localisation near the brane. As in Section 5. the generalised form of Birkhoff’s theorem [272] ensures that the bulk geometry around a FLRW brane is given by ds2 = −V (r)dτ 2 + where V (r) takes the form V± (r) = κ + r2 4α 1± 1− 8α 8αµ − 4 l2 r . However. V (r) (872) and qij (x) is the metric of a 3-space of constant curvature. This has been worked out for EGB gravity and applied to cosmological branes [859] (see also [709]). Mren . These results are consistent with the behaviour that would be expected in linearised theory on a brane in five dimensional General Relativity. At short distances we recover four dimensional Brans-Dicke gravity. and a Brans-Dicke parameter given by 2w + 3 = 3 4 2 3 2 Mind /leff + M5 (1 + 4α/leff ) 3 2 M5 (1 − 4α/leff ) = 3 4 IR (Mpl )2 eff (M5 )3 leff .

the Gauss-Bonnet corrections do introduce some new features at the level of cosmological perturbations. and it turns out that the Einstein tensor on the brane is given by [174. For example. with the bulk taken to lie on the Einstein branch. nT . However. r)dθ2 + gµν (x. 2 a 8α 3/2 (875) 2/3 α .(860). for example. 277. H = a/a. obeys [270] (see also [363. 557. brane (877) If we assume axial symmetry in the bulk we get ds2 = γAB dxA dxB = dr2 + L2 (x. and the tensor spectral index. r)dxµ dxν . 676. [174. 349]). The most commonly studied scenario has Mind = 0.4. 718]) 1+ 4α 3 2 H2 + κ − V (a) κ + 2 a a2 H2 + V (a) a2 = = ρbrane 3 6M5 2 σ + ρ − 3Mind H 2 + 3 6M5 κ a2 ( . 5. One of the ways to do this is to add Gauss-Bonnet corrections in the bulk [174.6 we mentioned that higher-order operators could be added to the bulk gravity to regularise the singularities that appear when we have an infinitely thin braneworld of co-dimension ≥ 2. r. We also find that observational constraints of GB brane inflation are typically softened relative to Randall-Sundrum cosmology. 874) κ This can be recast as a cubic equation in H 2 + a2 . agrees with the standard GR result. 281. 277] Gµν = − 1 G6 gµν + T brane + f (β)Wµν . and solved analytically to give a modified Friedmann equation. we find that the Hubble parameter. The simplest and most well studied scenario is to consider co-dimension-2 branes in six dimensional EGB gravity without any additional sources in the bulk (see. 675. Co-dimension two branes in EGB gravity In Section 5. in Randall-Sundrum cosmology the consistency relation between the tensor-to-scalar ratio. This relationship is broken by the GB corrections as the amplitude for the tensor perturbations are no longer monotonically increasing with scale [437]. This gives S= bulk c± =  8α 8αµ 1− 2 + 4 l a α(σ + ρ)2 (σ + ρ) + ± 6 3 2M5 M5 (876) √ d6 x −γ 1 ˆ (R + αG) + 16πG6 d4 xLbrane . 283. 4α α(1 − β) µν 244 (879) (878) . such that certain “steep” potentials are no longer ruled out [1224]. ˙ 851. just as in Randall-Sundrum cosmology [806]. 272. 280. We then find [363] H2 + where  c+ + c− − 2 κ = . 2 This cosmology can give rise to rapid inflation. 282].7. r = −8nT . 348.

but it would be very interesting to study the role varying β could play in attempts to self-tune the vacuum curvature in co-dimension 2 models. The boundary conditions derived in [174] lead to the condition Wµν |brane = 0. and in this case one cannot find a closed system of equations on the brane [277]. 245 . it is now understood that these conclusions rely on the assumption ∂r Kµν = 0 at the brane. A field dependent deficit angle. although this need not be case [277]. as we already emphasised. (881) H2 + 2 = a 3 12α ρbrane a8 where c2 is an integration constant. will lead to two important effects: Transfer of energy between bulk and brane. suggesting that Einstein gravity should be recovered on the brane at all scales.where 1 λ Wµν = Kµ Kνλ − KKµν + gµν (K 2 − Kλσ K λσ ). in general β can vary. and is often assumed to be constant. The function f (β) depends on the mathematical technique used to derive the boundary conditions at the distributional source [277. and an effective four dimensional Newton’s “constant” that can vary as Geff = G6 8πα(1−β(x)) [277]. For constant β the Friedmann equation on the brane is given by [277] 8πGeff 1 c2 κ ρbrane − + 2 . 675]. β = β(x). However. 2 (880) 1 and Kµν = 2 ∂r gµν . which is too constraining. 676. even for an infinitely large bulk. These can clearly be constrained by observation. However. The parameter β is the deficit angle on the brane.

Throughout this review we have presented how the evolution of cosmological perturbations is modified in these theories. The gravitational slip phenomenologically parametrises the shear that seems to arise frequently in scenarios of modified gravity. one had a plethora of alternative theories of gravity that needed to be confronted with constraints from Solar System measurements. This process is outlined in Section 2. and it attempts to encompass. straightforward but time-consuming. Parameterised Post-Friedmannian Approaches and Observational Constraints As expounded in this review. 360. This is. It is instructive to see in what circumstances such a parametrisation might arise. It involves working out the perturbation equations for each and every theory. during what has become known as the ‘Golden Age’ of General Relativity. is to modify two of the four Einstein field equations as follows: − 2k 2 Φ Φ−Ψ = 8πµGa2 X ρX [δX + 3(1 + wX )HθX ] (882) (883) = ζΦ.5. incorporating them into the EinsteinBoltzmann solvers and N-body codes. and compare them with observational constraints. 41. and the gravitational slip. The Parameterised Post-Newtonian (PPN) method was invented in this case as an intermediate step between theory and experiment. Geff = µG. This parametrisation is incredibly useful for quantifying deviations from General Relativity. relative to their behaviour in General Relativity. the idea of creating such an intermediate step when considering cosmological constraints has starting taking hold. and a number of authors have used it in their analyses of cosmological data [148. Over the last few years.6. There. 630. It is also seems clear that many more such theories are likely to be proposed in the future. the behaviour of a wide array of alternative theories of gravity. We will now outline the basic idea behind this approach. The bulk of the cosmological data that can be used to constrain modifications of gravity can be interpreted in terms of perturbations about a Friedmann-Lemaˆ ıtre-RobertsonWalker universe. This situation is analogous to the experimental study of General Relativity in the early 1970s. 246 . 627. It involves a set of generic parameters that can be easily constrained by experiments [1207]. reducing (or enhancing) the local gravitational force on cosmological scales. there now exists a vast range of candidate theories of gravity that modify Einstein’s theory of General Relativity in one way or another. If these theories are to be of any value in understanding and resolving the problems associated with the Dark Universe then they must be confronted with cosmological data. calculate the PPN parameters it predicts. It has been dubbed by some the ‘Parameterised Post-Friedmannian approach’. 237. in principle. at the linear level. and calculating a list of observables. ζ. The simplest approach. that has been in vogue for the past few years. 1302]. 361. where two new functions have been introduced: The effective Newton constant. 123. and to do this we will develop a consistent formalism in what follows. One can interpret Geff as the inclusion of a form of gravitational screening. Using the PPN method one can then take any given theory. One can now ask oneself if there is a general way of modifying the equations of cosmological perturbations such that it will encompass all the theories we have previously discussed.

(886) and (887) to find a modified Poisson equation: − 2k 2 Φ = 8πGa2 ρX [δX + 3H(1 + wX )θX ] + U∆ + 3HUΘ . (884) µν where δGµν is the perturbed Einstein tensor. (885) k ˆ ˆ where the Bardeen potentials Φ and Ψ are defined in Eqs. Here we split the field equations of the theory in question into a set of evolution equations for the metric. (85). 501. X (886) (887) 8πGa2 and the two evolution equations coming from the trace and traceless parts of Gij as kΓ + 2kHΓ + H − H2 − k2 3 Ψ+ k2 Φ 3 = = 4πGa2 X 1 δPX + UP 6 (888) Φ−Ψ 8πGa2 X (ρX + PX )ΣX + UΣ .1. the components of the tensor Uαβ 247 . 889) ( We can then combine Eqs. UP ≡ δU ii and Dij UΣ ≡ a2 (δU ij − 1 δU kk δ ij ). working in the conformal Newtonian gauge).6. can then be written schematically as E δGmod ≡ δGµν − δUµν = 8πG δTµν + δTµν . The evolution equations for the metric. The Formalism In order to generalise the perturbed Einstein equations we follow the approach and notation used in [1149. 77]. 1151. δUµν is the contribution of any other terms that involve perturbations of the metric.6. and bearing in mind from Eqs. and the constraint equations. Dropping the hats (i. i UΘ ≡ −a2 δU 0i . We can define the following new variables: U∆ ≡ −a2 δU 00 . Let us now be more specific. (86) and (885) that Φ and Γ have one time derivative when expressed in an arbitrary gauge. and a set of constraint equations. δTµν is the perturbed energy-momentum tensor E of matter fields in the space-time. and δTµν is the contribution of any terms that involve perturbations to the additional gravitational fields.e. as well as the 3 new gauge invariant 1 ˆ ˆ ˆ Γ≡ Φ + HΨ . (85) and (86) of Section 2. we can write the two constraint equations coming from G00 and G0i as − 2k 2 (Φ + 3Hk Γ) 2kΓ = = 8πGa2 X ρX δX + U∆ (ρX + PX )θX + UΘ . X (890) Assuming that the theory in question has at most N -time derivatives in its field ˆ ˆ equations. evolution equations for the additional gravitational fields (if any are present).

n=0 N −1 (891) (892) (893) (894) = = n=0 N −1 ˆ ˆ k 2−n Cn Φ(n) + In Γ(n) . Here δκ is a constant. κ(1 + δκ )). 6. however. the individual terms appearing in the expressions above are all gauge invariant. however. and that these equations are supplemented by additional evolution equations for the extra gravitational fields. (895) We assume that the evolution equations for the matter fields remain unchanged. the field equations are closed by imposing the Bianchi identities.1. which imposes a E series of constraints such that the theory remains consistent.can be written as N −2 U∆ UΘ UP UΣ = n=0 N −2 ˆ ˆ k 2−n An Φ(n) + En Γ(n) . Evolution of perturbations on super-horizon scales In principle it may seem that one should explore the long wavelength behaviour of cosmological perturbations on a case by case basis. we have to set EN −2 = FN −2 = IN −1 = JN −1 = 0. and proceeds as follows. equals x for κ = 0.1. and compensate by a change the 1 coordinates τ → τ + α and χ → χ(1 − 2 δκ ). or equals sinh(x) for κ < 0. It turns out. ˆ ˆ k −n Dn Φ(n) + Jn Γ(n) . κ) where κ is the spatial curvature of a hyper-surface of constant τ : ds2 = a2 −dτ 2 + dχ2 + √ 1 sinh2 ( κχ)dΩ κ κ (896) where sinhκ (x) equals sin(x) for κ > 0. although we have defined U above in the Newtonian gauge. Note that in this case the scale factor a(τ. 1151. E This imposes one of two possible options: (i) α Tαβ = α Uαβ = 0. Consider a background with scale factor a(τ. n=0 = dn ˆ ˆ ˆ where Φ(n) ≡ dτ n Φ. a. Finally. The coefficients An -Jn depend on time and scale through the scale factor. Now. while α = α(τ ). In words. that the infinite wavelength mode can be studied simply by considering the evolution of the background equations. 77]. and similarly for Γ. For a detailed discussion of these issues see [1149. This observation is due to Bertschinger [148]. when expressed in an arbitrary gauge. This fact. k. κ) is perturbed as a(τ + α. to avoid higher derivatives of the background appearing in the field equations. the 248 . We can now perturb this space-time as κ → κ(1 + δκ ) . and wavenumber. For the sake of brevity we will refrain from explicitly stating these dependences. imposes ˆ further constraints because the gauge-invariant variable Γ contains second derivatives of the scale factor. Hence. which is the more general situation. ˆ ˆ k 1−n Bn Φ(n) + Fn Γ(n) . or (ii) α (Tαβ + Uαβ ) = 0.

2 ∂ ln κ (898) (899) √ 1 sinh2 ( κχ)dΩ κ κ . 249 . and for this the reader is referred to [148]. on super-horizon scales. that local energy-momentum us conserved. (900) does not allow such an interpretation. but.scale factor will come out as the solution of some generalised set of Friedmann equations. As we will describe below. version of the Parameterised Post Friedmannian approach [148. By choosing H(a. These comparisons show reasonable agreement.1. one now has the evolution equation completely defined. 627. This is a powerful statement. These equations can then be rewritten in terms of the Uαβ tensor by choosing U∆ + 3HUθ UΣ 65 Including = = 2k 2 ζΦ. Within this approach comparisons have been made between choices of µ and ζ. it would appear that Eq. The simplified PPF approach. and will depend on the spatial curvature. as yet. it has become standard practise to assume the simplest form of the PPF parametrisation. However. µ entropy perturbations is straightforward. and by far the most popular.e. In other words. ∂ ln κ 1 ∂ ln a − δκ − Hα. and that spatial gradients can be discarded. The constant δκ that remains in the equation above has a direct physical interpretation: It is twice the comoving curvature perturbation. there is no guarantee that a simple relation of the form Ψ = ζΦ can encompass all possible theories of gravity. that we described above. (882) and (883). κ). 630. in order to complete the system here one still needs to specify a relation between Φ and Ψ. and the outcomes of numerical solutions for specific theories. and its extensions Let us now revisit the simplest. 41]. as it means it is possible to determine the evolution of large-scale perturbations without delving into the details of the theory. The further assumption that perturbations have no anisotropic stress (i. We can now write this new geometry in the form of a perturbed FLRW metric. ΣX = 0) then allows one to reorganise them in the form of Eqs. 1−µ Φ. 237. there is no compelling argument for applying the simplest PPF parametrisation on large scales. Here one considers only Eqs. with background curvature κ: ds2 = a2 −(1 + 2Ψ)dτ 2 + (1 − 2Φ) dχ2 + where Ψ(τ ) Φ(τ ) = = ∂ ln a δκ + α + Hα. − H ∂ ln κ (900) where entropy perturbations have been neglected65 .2. 6. (889) and (890). κ. In fact. and a relation between Φ and Ψ. Note that we have also assumed that shear perturbations are negligible on large scales. (897) One can now eliminate α to find a generic evolution equation that relates δκ with Φ and Ψ without specifying any particular theory of gravity: 1 d a2 dτ a2 Φ H = Φ−Ψ+ 1 d 2a dτ a ∂ ln H δκ .

68 We kept the original symbol G here. 151] proposed a reduced parametrisation that takes into account the conservation of long wavelength curvature perturbations. 360] introduced the system66 µ = ζ which was later extended to [361] µ = 1 + µ0 a3 . to which we have added a subscript ”BZ” to distinguish it from other parameters with the same name. and that the Bertschinger long-wavelength construction (see Section 6. The latter of these assumptions allows them to solve for Φ. for example. Ci and Di must now be chosen to satisfy this condition. 1 + α2 k 2 as where αi and βi are constants 66 The initial convention was that = 0 Ω0DE a3 . (903) • Bertschinger and Zukin [148. 1 + α1 k 2 as . 250 .1.e.1) can also be extended to sub-horizon scales. where β and s are constants. but the authors changed their convention in Ω0M subsequent publications. even on sub-horizon scales. It is instructive at this point to specify the various versions of the simplified PPF formalism that are currently in use: • Caldwell.The coefficients Ai . A similar approach will be used with the other frame-works presented here. on small scales relative to the cosmological horizon). we restrict ourselves to a dust-filled universe then Eqs. it is applicable in the quasi-static regime the arises when k → ∞ (i. Only one parameter is considered67 : γBZ = s 1 − ζ. Cooray and Melchiorri [237. (882) and (883). Furthermore. although under our conventions it would be more accurately Φ written as GΨ . Firstly. 67 The symbol used was actually γ. the perturbation equations now form a closed system. from which Ψ and δ are then determined. It is understandable why this approach is popular. The assumption of scale-independence is later relaxed further. (901) (902) form a complete system of differential equations that can be straightforwardly solved. Bi . (904) ≡ 1 = 3 0a . This means that if. together with δM θM = −k 2 θM + 3Φ = −HθM + Ψ. (905) that is further refined as γBZ = 1 + βa . as it has a number of benefits. such that the following parameterisation can be made γBZ GΦ = = 68 1 + β1 k 2 as 1 + β2 k 2 as µ(1 − ζ) = G . These authors make the additional assumptions that γBZ depends only on time. as it plays the role of an effective gravitational constant for a modified Poisson equation for Ψ.

In this approach different theories correspond to different sets of the functions {βi . (906) while a third variable. (910) where δ(k)i is specified by initial conditions. f (R) theories. [1301] make the parameterisation ηZL ˜ Gef f = = 1 . = −ζ. . (909) while the matter density fluctuation is likewise parametrised by 2 δm (a. and DGP. • A parametrisation specifically designed for small scales was proposed by Amin. a) ΓA (Hk . quintessence models. = (908) as well as a third derived parameter ΣZG = µZG (1 + ηZG )/2 = ΣA . scalar-tensor theories. . The authors find the appropriate functions for ΛCDM. 1−ζ µ(1 − ζ/2). 1−ζ = µ(1 − ζ). δi }. • Zhang et al. k-essence). . k} plane by 2 × 2 pixels per function. [1302] modify the Poisson equation using Ψ. They introduce the two parameters ηZG µZG 1 . They also note. which we describe further below. a) = 2 (1 − ζ)µ = β0 (a) + β1 (a)Hk + β2 (a)Hk + .• Amendola. that not every theory can be adequately matched to this expansion (e. Kunz and Sapone [41] modify the Poisson equation and the slip by considering the two functions QA and ηA : QA ηA = µ. A comparison of this approach is made with DGP and scalar-tensor theories. Blandford and Wagoner [44]. Further refinements are made by considering two specific models: A case where µZG = µZG (τ ) and ηZG = ηZG (τ ) transit from their GR values in the early universe to modified constant values today. γi . both on sub-horizon scales. 251 . ΣA = QA (1 + ηA /2). k) = δ(k)i δ0 (a) + δ1 (a)Hk + δ2 (a)Hk . . (907) These authors also introduce the EG statistic. • Zhao et al. is also introduced in order to simplify the relevant expression for gravitational lensing: Φ + Ψ = 2ΣA Φ. . however. and a case where the two functions are pixelised in the {τ. where BA (Hk .g. 2 = µ = γ0 (a) + γ1 (a)Hk + γ2 (a)Hk + .

though useful as a phenomenological tool that can be used to constrain µ and ζ. C0 = 2ζ + 3 g B + 2Hk B0 .1. and considering terms up to the lowest acceptable order. 69 Since the form of the Poisson equation is retained. 501. however. This is due to the presence of Φ . the higher derivatives do not introduce additional propagating degrees of freedom. is not without its problems. the form of the Poisson Equation (890) is retained. Taking the expansion for Uαβ .The simplified PPF approach. 77] this problem has been addressed in detail. both Φ and Ψ remain non-dynamical. 252 . Applying the Bianchi identities one can then determine the above functions in terms of 1 ζ = D0 and g = µ − 1. B1 = 2k 2 3H − 3H2 − k 2 Since A1 + 3Hk B1 = E0 = F0 = 0. Let us now consider what the simplified PPF approach does correspond to in the field equations. ˜ and 1 g + H(˜ + ζ) ˜ g kB0 = 2k 2 . and it is shown that if one wishes to consider theories with second order field equations only then the PPF equations become: − 2k 2 Φ Φ−Ψ = 8πµGa2 X ρX [δX + 3(1 + wX )HθX ] (911) g Φ. B1 and C2 do not vanish. if the field equations of the theory are second order then the simplified PPF approach is not applicable. (912) k g with the constraint µ = 1 − k H. but this moves us further away from the simplified approach. but only at the cost of introducing higher-order terms in the other evolution equations (to enforce consistency). Hence.e. without having to solve the field equations every time (just as in the PPN formalism. no Γ terms appearing). discussed in Section 2). In other words. In other words. For a start. This gives F0 = E0 = I0 = I1 = 0 (i. What we would like to have is a one-to-one correspondence between the functions that appear in the parametrised frame-work and those that appear in the theories themselves. we have: = ζΦ + U∆ UΘ UP UΣ = = = = A0 k 2 Φ + A1 kΦ + E0 k 2 Γ. In [1149. C0 k 2 Φ + C1 kΦ + C2 Φ + I0 k 2 Γ + I1 kΓ . one to simplify the equations for the gravitational slip. the field equations contain third time derivatives in arbitrary gauge. However. 3H − 3H2 − k 2 k 0 g ˜ . D0 Φ. E One can also relax the condition α Tαβ = α Uαβ = 0. A0 = 2˜ − 3Hk B0 . and corresponds to a higher-order gravitational theory69 . B0 kΦ + B1 Φ + F0 kΓ. The above way of reconstructing the U ’s from the simplified approach is not unique. it is not clear what theories a specific choice of parameters actually encompasses. kC1 = 3 (B1 + 2HB1 + kB0 ) . since A1 . A1 = −3Hk B1 . This can be achieved by constructing the field equations as in Section 6. A further problem of the simplified approach is that it is impossible to determine µ and ζ for a specific theory without solving the field equations for a specific choice of initial conditions.

3. The field equations in this case are written as Φ+Ψ Φ−Ψ = = − 8πGa2 cκ k 2 X 3κ k2 . The constant cΓ controls the transition scale between these two limits. it is not clear from the outset what kind of theories this frame-work encompasses. In both Eq. that depends on a function of time and space.1). k2 (914) (ρX + PX )θX + X X where θT = X XX +PX X is calculated in conformal Newtonian gauge71 . fζ (τ ) and fG (τ ). X ρX [δX + 3H(1 + wX )θX ] − 8πGa2 (ρX + PX )ΣX + 2ΓHS . 70 At late times the matter content of the Universe is effectively described by dust and dark energy. but only after some experimentation. 1 Taking the sub-horizon limit. gHS (τ. two functions of time. 1 + fG 2gHS . (914) ρX and PX do not include contributions from the dark energy. 71 In the original formulation the comoving gauge was used. X ρ (913) and Eq. k). X 8πGa2 (ρX + PX )ΣX + gHS (Φ + Ψ) . and tends to them in either the super-horizon or sub-horizon limits of the late Universe70 .1. later generalised by Hu [627]. The Hu-Sawicki frame-work Hu and Sawicki introduced a frame-work [630]. We see that the sub-horizon limit depends only on gHS and fG . for which the dust has no anisotropic stress.1. while the super-horizon limit depends only on gHS and fζ . fG and fζ that reproduce the solutions for specific theories. with gHS = gHS (τ ) while fζ (τ ) provides the next order correction (beyond the Bertschinger construction). we get that ΓHS → − 2 fG (Φ + Ψ). Their frame-work goes beyond the simplified PPF frameworks described above. One can find fitting functions gHS . 253 . and a constant. but we translated the equations here to make it more consistent with the other approaches we described. As in the simplified approaches. for which Hk → 0. 1 + gHS (915) In the super-horizon limit the system obeys the Bertschinger construction (see Section 6. and the system then reduces to the simplified frame-work with µ = ζ = 1 + gHS .6. (913) where cκ = 1 − The variable ΓHS is obtained by solving the differential equation cΓ 2 Hk ΓHS + HΓHS + X 2(1 + gHS ) 1 + = (2HgHS − gHS )(Φ + Ψ) + 8πGa2 gHS − 8πGa2 [gHS (1 + fζ ) + fG ] k2 (ρ +P )θ cΓ k Hk 1 ΓHS + fG (Φ + Ψ) 2 ((ρX + PX )ΣX ) + H(ρX + PX )ΣX 8πGa2 (ρE + PE )θT . cΓ .

For a generalised coupling parameter. 3β − 1 (916) where β = 1 + 2 Hrc wE (for more details see Section 5. be used to correctly reproduce the growth rate of structure. 3β 3β − 2 . There is clearly a degeneracy between the two terms on the left hand side. and in particular Eqs. the “Compton wavelength” given by Q≡3 k 2 fRR . In particular. if we focus on DGP then we have 254 . In this case the expression for gravitational slip can be found to be [737] µ = ζ = 1− 1 . fR 2fRR k 2 Ψ−Φ = − fR (Φ + Ψ). To start with we can consider f (R) theories. They can. and Ψ − Φ −(2/3)fR (Φ + Ψ). The importance of shear An important issue arises if one wishes to distinguish between the effects of dark energy and the effects of modified gravity. (812) and (813)). and discard all time variations in the perturbed fields. for example. F (φ). To see this let us consider Eq. Models for µ and ζ on Sub-Horizon Scales On sub-horizon scales the situation is greatly simplified.2.1. Let us now consider DGP models. Note that there is a scale in these equations. 6.2. (889) with UΣ = D0 Φ. let us consider scalar-tensor theories.6. a2 fR For large wavelengths Q → 0. and Ψ − Φ → 0. and the effects of lensing. For small wavelengths Q 1. Following [1043] we then have − k 2 (Φ + Ψ) Ga2 ρM δM . In [759] the authors constructed an explicit example of how anisotropic stress could mimic the effect of gravitational slip. In this case one can make a quasi-static approximation. on scales of up to hundreds of Mpc. Let us now consider this regime in a few different models. Finally.5. it can be shown that [41] µ = ζ = G∗ 2(F + F 2 ) F Gcav 2F + 3F 2 F 2 F +F 2 The expression above can be very useful in studying the evolution of structure on observable scales. 3fRR k 2 + a2 fR = 4π which can be rewritten in the µ-ζ form given above.

In a flat. 784] f = Ωγ . 255 . and where γ0 and γ1 are given by γ0 γ1 = = 3(1 − w) . The time evolution of the density field can be a sensitive probe of not only the expansion rate of the Universe but also its matter content. For the case of General Relativity with a dark energy component with equation of state P = wρ (where w is constant) we have γ = γ0 + γ1 ΩE + O(Ω2 ) E where ΩE = 1 − ΩM . HδM (917) or by the introduction of a parameter γ through [1031.that Σ = 0. we can of course consider an alternative 3β−1 model where gravity is unmodified. however.5. 783. evolves as δM ∝ a.2.e. . It is. For standard growth in the presence of a cosmological constant one has γ ≈ 6/11 to a very good approximation. but it could 3β−1 also explain observations that may otherwise have been attributed to gravitational slip.2. The growth function The primary effect of modified gravity will be on the growth of structure. given by f≡ δM . to some extent). 813. 11 2057 (919) (920) In the case of a cosmological constant (i. matter dominated universe we have that δM . . 2w 5 − 12w 3 6 15 + ΩE + . the density contrast of matter. Distinguishing between such models is. This would be an odd form of dark energy. sometimes convenient to parameterise some results or processes in terms of these quantities. with w = −1) these expressions reduce to γ= which gives the first order correction to the expression γ ≈ 6/11. but UΣ = 3β−2 Φ72 . 5 − 6w γ0 6w2 − 7w + 2 2 − 3w − γ0 . M (918) Note that γ and f are not parameters in the usual sense. This in turn generates the term UΣ above. made easier when considering a wide variety of different scales. f . We can parametrise deviations from this behaviour in terms of the growth function. 6. 72 Actually. although this can change with ΩM . but are derived quantities (indirect observables. given above. . but the dark energy has anisotropic stress given by 1 (1 + wE )ΣE = − 2k2 3β−2 δM . DGP has shear but the quasi-static limit imposes the condition µE = 2k2 ΣE between energy density associated with the perturbation of the Weyl tensor and the shear. However. of course. as discussed in Section 5.

γ. 1263]. In this report we will restrict ourselves to limiting cases where ζ ζ1 ΩE .8.9). evaluated at the General Relativistic value of R. 41. An attempt at finding approximate analytic expressions for γ was presented in [501]. but that once k crosses the mass threshold modifications start to kick-in. 3fRR ¯ where fRR is the second functional derivative of f with respect to the Ricci scalar. In DGP models the correct expression for γ is given by73 [501] γ= 7 93 2 11 + ΩE − Ω + O(Ω3 ). This has focused on specific theories.A natural question to ask is how the growth parameter. as well as the extended PPF approach. 2w2 (12w − 5)(5 − 6w) 2w2 (12w − 5)(5 − 6w) = = 3(1 − w + ζ1 ) . k 2 + a2 M 2 (˜) ˜ a One can see that for k aM (a) this expression for γ remains the same as in General Relativity. 2 (922) (923) A comparison between the approximation described above and the exact numerical value of γ is shown in Figure 14. 5 − 6w 3w −3Y1 − (2 − 3w)Y12 + 4Y2 . 73 Incorrect values for γ in DGP models have been presented in [816. E 16 5632 4096 E (921) This result is in excellent agreement with numerical studies (to within 2% or better for ΩE < 0. w(5 − 6w) 2 (1 − w)(15w2 − 4w − 1) + ζ1 (9w2 + 2w − 2) ζ1 − . (919) then we find the coefficients γ0 γ1 where we have defined Y1 Y2 ≡ ≡ 1 − w + ζ1 . We now discuss some of the results. as well as scale dependent correction in Hk are presented in [501]. depends on modifications of gravity. A non-local expression for γ can then be found of the form γ= ΩΛ k 2 −11/2 6 − a 11 2ΩM a 0 a3/2 d˜ ˜ a . varying w. An expression for the growth parameter in the quasi-static limit of f (R) theories was found in [58]. 256 . R. More general expression for γ that include the impact of µ. higher-order terms in ΩE . If we then assume that we can Taylor expand γ as in Eq. There have been a number of attempts at finding analytic expressions that relate γ to parameters in the underlying theory. Here one can define a time dependent mass scale: M 2 (a) = 1 ¯ . and to 5% for ΩE < 0.

a) = 1 + [R0 ek/kc + R∞ (1 − ek/kc ) − 1]as . Let us now consider each of these in turn.99 < R < 1.49. If a transition scale of kc = 0.43 < R∞ < 1. for a selection of gravitational slip parameters of the form ζ = ζ1 ΩE . The dashed curves are the numerical results for ζ1 = 0.4 and and 0.02 (both at the 95% confidence level).97 < Q∞ < 2. Their analysis shows that primary constraints come from the WMAP7 data.6 in ascending order. a) = 1 + [Q0 ek/kc + Q∞ (1 − ek/kc ) − 1]as . the joint 2dF and DR7 SDSS survey estimate of the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. and the corresponding analytic approximations are plotted as solid lines.04 < Q < 2.44 (both at the 95% confidence level).01 Mpc−1 is considered. 361. 0. R(k. 0.97 < Q < 1.66 and −0.2. the WMAP 7-year CMB Temperature and Polarisation data. Setting kc → ∞ and s = 0 the authors then find time independent constraints on the parameters: 0. which has substantially larger coverage than that of the COSMOS survey.80 < R0 < 2. −0.Figure 14: The growth parameter. parameters are then constrained to be 0. In [123] the authors find constraints on Q = µ and R = 1 − ζ using the Union set of Supernovae from the Supernovae Cosmology Project (with an additional sample).47 < Q0 < 3. An earlier release of WMAP data is used. The analysis of Daniel et al [361] extends the above analysis to include an incarnation of the CFHTLS lensing survey.3. Allowing time dependence greatly relaxes the constraints on the parameters: 1.22 < R < 1. and −0. there have only been a few attempts at constraining the PPF parameters using existing cosmological data sets [123. auto and cross-correlation functions from 2MASS and the SDSS LRG catalogue with ISW and the COSMOS weak lensing survey. the matter power spectrum from the SDSS DR7 release.76. and cross correlations 257 . γ. 0. Current constraints on the PPF parameters At the time of writing this report. A scale and time dependent form of the PPF parameters is proposed: Q(k. 1302]. 6.2. and that current weak lensing and cross correlations between galaxies and ISW have a minimal effect. as a function of ΩM .

and hence measurements of β at different redshifts can be used to reconstruct the history of ΩM .074 < ω0a < 0. 1]. s Pg (k). and −0. and find −1. Note that P s (k) becomes anisotropic (as does the correlation function) and it is through this anisotropy that one can measure β and hence f . or the redshift space power spectrum. measurements of β were seen as constraints on ΩM . z ∈ [1. The authors also consider a more elaborate time evolution of both ω ˜ and µ by dividing it up into bins in the following redshift ranges: (a) [0.05 < µ4 < 2. Setting ω = 0 they then find that µ is constrained to be: −0. H 2 (z) (924) where β = f .04.65 < µ2 < 1. given by Eq. (c) k ∈ [0. The reason for 6/11 this is that in ΛCDM we have β ΩM (z)/b. r⊥ ) (where the r|| and r⊥ correspond to parallel or perpendicular directions to the line of sight). Setting µ = 1 they find that ω is constrained ˜ to be: −0.1]. z ∈ [0.4 < ω0 < 2. b is the bias factor. G(x) encodes the non-linear effect due to velocity b dispersion.14.058 < ω0b < 0. 0. (908) as µZG (z) = z − zs 1 − µ0 1 + tanh + µ0 . 0.023 < µ0c < 0.0.58 < Σ3 < 1. in bin (b) 0. ζ = ω = ω0 a3 and µ = µ0 a3 .058 < µ0b < 0. z ∈ [1.93 < Σ2 < 1. In [585] it is found that the wide 258 . but rather in ΣZG = µZG (1+ηZG ) . 0.34.8 and ˜ ˜ ˜ −0. and µ is the cosine of the k vector with the line of sight. while if zs = 1 the constraints are 0. 0.67 < µ0 < 2.074 < µ0a < 0. 1] . The authors focus on scaleindependent parameters. −0. albeit with an earlier release of the WMAP data (5 year) and without BAO constraints. They consider the following bins: (a) k ∈ [0. (b) k ∈ [0.24.7 < η0 < 1.2]. and (d) k ∈ [0. 9].2. The power spectrum can be related to the real space power spectrum through an extension of what is known as the ‘Kaiser formula’: P s (k) = P (k)[1 + 2µ2 β 2 + µ4 β 2 ]G 2 k 2 µ2 σv . ˜ ˜ ˜ In [1302] the authors consider two different parameterisations. This is the combination 2 that enters into the calculation of both the ISW effect and weak lensing through their dependence on Φ + Ψ. in bin (d) 0 < Σ4 < 2. z ∈ [1.4.68 < µ0 < 1. −0.65 < µ0 < 1. 2 ∆z These authors use essentially the same data sets as in [123].22. 0.1].023 < ω0c < 0.08.96 < Σ1 < 1. In the first they consider a scale independent but time evolving parametrisation for ηZG and µZG .9.41 < η0 < 2. ξ s (r|| . 6.1. −0.64 < µ1 < 1.08. (b) [1. 2 ∆z 1 − η0 z − zs ηZG (z) = 1 + tanh + η0 . 0.1. 0. Until recently. 2]. In a second parametrisation the authors bin the parameters in both time and scale. 1].22.between large scale structure and ISW are not included.2]. This method involves measuring either the redshift space correlation function.07.24 < µ3 < 2. Constraining the growth rate Over the past few years there have been attempts to target the growth rate directly using redshift space distortions. They choose not to bin in η.11 and 0. 2]. in bin (c) 0. 2] and (c) [2. They find that if zs = 1 then the constraints are 0. ˜ −0. The resulting constraints are then as follows: In bin (a) 0.

Taken from [165]. and target µ more accurately. The EG diagnostic The effect of modified gravity on the gravitational potentials. as a function of redshift. Figure 15: The growth rate. In [1301] it was argued that this should be possible using a cross-correlation between an estimate of the local velocity field from redshift space distortions.5. FMOS. In [1159] it was argued that measurements of the growth of structure through con2 straints on the large scale peculiar velocity dispersion. and the 2dF-SDSS LRG and QSO (2SLAQ) constraint (shown in Figure 15). VIPERS. The emphasis in [585] was on finding deviations from growth rate in ΛCDM . on redshift space distortions.8. β = 0. This result is then combined with the constraint from the 2dFGRS. 2dFGRS and WiggleZ. and although not done systematically.70 ± 0. More specifically.2. many of whom were primarily targeting large scale structure and the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations.49 ± 0. The symbols and error bars correspond to constraints from VVDS. WiggleZ. can in principle be teased out with a careful combination of measurements. f .part of the VIMOS-VLT Deep Survey (VVDS) can be used to obtain β = 0. in part. for a number of different models.09 at z 0. 6. can be combined with weak lensing measurements to break the degeneracies. their analysis showed that a number of specific models could be ruled out. z. σv (the large-scale redshift space distortion).26 at z 0. With measurements at different redshifts it should be possible to reconstruct the time evolution of µ. will now all deliver constraints on β in the near to medium future.15. and the gravitational potentials inferred from a lensing map from background galaxies. In particular. GAMA and BOSS. from a more general form of 259 . Φ and Ψ. The analysis of [585] have led to a number of upcoming redshift surveys focusing.

with the planned mega surveys it should be possible to reconstruct the time evolution of µ and ζ with ever increasing precision [431. with a mean of EG = 0. it also makes sense to consider model independent parameterisations of µ and ζ using some form of Principal 260 . 6. In [1060]. where W is the lensing kernel.07. It can be shown that ˆ EG = (Ψ − Φ) 2 3H0 a−1 βδ 2 . and EG = Ω0 /(1+fR )β in F (R). α fα ( )Pα . k= /χ ¯ (926) The diagnostic EG will take different values depending on the theory of gravity: EG = Ω0 /β in ΛCDM and DGP (with different Ω0 in either case). ∆ )Pα where a band averaging over bins of width ∆ has been assumed.22. 2 (z) H (925) it is possible to estimate the galaxy-velocity power spectrum. Hence.029. The results from [1060] are somewhat tentative and preliminary. ∆ ) . and is scale dependent. A judicious choice of cosmological parameters may indeed be able to tease out the particularities of how Φ and Ψ evolve in different theories of gravity. and the galaxy-galaxy power spectrum.365. (924). With planned mega surveys such LAMOST. As mentioned in the previous section. 432]. in bandpowers Pα .205 luminous red galaxies (LRGs) from the SDSS. From a weak lensing measurement of the convergence κ= 1 2 χs 0 2 (Ψ − Φ)W (χ. In TeVeS EG is significantly different from the ΛCDM value. the authors attempted to extract an estimate of EG from a sample of 70. where Pα These band powers can all be collected into one estimator. EG is in principle a good diagnostic of the underlying gravitational theory. the F (R) prediction of EG = 0. LSST and SKA it is likely that very tight constraints on EG will be achievable in the future. Pg . Forecasting Constraints from Future Surveys There is still quite a way to go in terms of constraining deviations from General Relativity. The authors of [1060] have argued that this is evidence for the validity of General Relativity on cosmological scales. in bandpowers Pi . χs )dχ. Cκg ( ) is the band power estimate of P 2 (Ψ−Φ)g .3. Pgθ . it is possible to construct a cross power spectrum with (2) (2) galaxies.40 ± 0. P s (k) = P s (k)[Pg (k) + 2µ2 Pgθ (k) + µ4 Pθ (k)]G 2 k 2 µ2 σv . This should be compared with the ΛCDM prediction of EG = 0.408 ± 0. 2 3H0 a−1 α fα ( . ˆ EG ≡ Cκg ( . but nonetheless promising.32 and they found 8 estimates of EG across a range of between 2h−1 to 50h−1 Mpc. Their estimate was concentrated at a mean redshift of z 0.Eq. With the projected quality of the data.328 − 0. and an approximate TeVeS prediction of EG 0.

LSST will improve this by a factor of 5. The authors in [1304] have done just this. They find that in the best case scenario LSST will accurately constrain the time and scale dependence of µ and ζ in the range 0. and attempted to quantify how many eigen-modes in an expansion of µ and ζ can be accurately constrained with surveys such as Planck. 261 .5 < z < 2 and 0.16 h−1 Mpc. They find that while with DES it should be possible to constrain up to 20 independent eigen-modes.Component Analysis (PCA).04 < k0. DES. SNAP and JDEM. LSST. allowing detailed reconstruction of the time evolution in modified gravity.

mean that model builders are presented with a choice: They can either study minimal deviations away from General Relativity. • Local Lorentz invariance. or must otherwise look for mechanisms that hide modifications to gravity on the scales probed by experiment. • Homogeneity and isotropy of space on large scales.7. We must also require. such as the abundance of light elements. what we consider to be some of the upcoming highlights. From a theoretical perspective. in particular. or broken symmetries. many of which have been driven by the discovery of the dark side of the Universe in the late 1990s. These include [149] • Einstein’s field equations. as well as making predictions for the future. In this final section let us now briefly consider the outlook for future gravity research. when confronted with observations. Modified gravity necessarily involves additional fields. • Three spatial dimensions (below the electro-weak scale. or merely at the level of perturbations. however. Discussion In this review we have discussed recent advances in gravitational physics. • Conservation of energy-momentum. This requires the background FLRW cosmology of the modified theories to closely mimic the standard evolution of ΛCDM from nucleosynthesis through to matter domination. these deviations must be manifest in the solutions of the Friedmann equations. that they do not spoil the successful predictions of the standard cosmology. Tight constraints already available on solar system and astrophysical scales. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that contributions from the zero-point energy of massive particles changes as 262 . while the latter provides an exciting opportunity to try and solve some of the cosmological puzzles that have arisen with the discovery of dark matter and energy. require the presence of dark matter and dark energy. • The universality of free fall. if we wish to account for dark energy. since we know that GR is the unique diffeomorphism invariant theory of a single rank-2 tensor that can be constructed from the metric variation of an action in four dimensions. as we have discussed in Section 2. or solve the cosmological constant problem using modified gravity. extra dimensions. as it requires the vacuum energy to be at least 60 orders of magnitude smaller than expected from particle theory. model building is an important part of understanding and explaining existing data. These assumptions.6. the peak positions of the CMB acoustic spectrum. The former of these has value for understanding the special nature of General Relativity.6. or the predictions for baryon acoustic oscillations. however. • Matter fields being well modelled by fluids of dust and radiation. Let us now consider the assumptions that go into the standard cosmology. Of course. An important consideration is then whether or not these deviations manifest themselves at the level of the background cosmology. at least). and the consequences of moving away from it. and. From a particle physics perspective this is very discomforting.

the universe cools and goes through phase transitions. To circumvent the difficulties that this entails, many model builders therefore assume some unknown symmetry that sets the vacuum energy, plus any contribution from a bare cosmological constant, to zero. To account for cosmic acceleration they then require modifications to gravity on large scales74 . In some respects addressing the puzzles in cosmology is the easy part of the model builders job. More difficult is to do this in a way that is consistent with the well established observations of relativistic gravitational phenomena. This often involves identifying a screening mechanism that can work on solar system scales. The point here is that in order to modify the cosmological evolution we have to deviate considerably from GR in the IR, but IR modifications of gravity are known to cause strong deviations from the predictions of General Relativity for experiments that involve, for example, the bending or time delay of light. Deviations on the scales that these observations are made must therefore be suppressed. Currently the most popular examples of this type of mechanism are the Vainshtein mechanism and the chameleon mechanism, both of which we have discussed in this review, and neither of these is without its problems. It is therefore important for theorists to identify new ways to screen the deviations from GR at short distances, and we expect this to be an important avenue of future research. It is also crucial to ensure that our models obey some basic requirements of stability. There is little motivation for carrying out complicated simulations, and devising expensive experiments, to probe theories that are fundamentally sick. For example, we may choose to ask if the theory contains ghosts, which can lead to catastrophic instabilities unless the mass of the ghost lies above the effective theory cut-off, as described in Section 2.1.3. Ghosts are rife in modified theories of gravity, and dealing with them is one of the principle challenges faced by model builders. Another important thing to establish is the cut-off for our effective classical theory. Modified theories of gravity can become strongly coupled at lower than expected energies, and enter a quantum fog. If we want an effective theory description of gravitational fields at the surface of the earth to be classical, we need to impose that the cut-off is at least of the order of a few meV , since classical gravity has been tested in the lab at this scale. Conservatively, one may also wish to impose that the classical description of gravitational fields around the Sun should be trustworthy, at least down to its Schwarzschild radius. Let us now consider the prospect of future input into this field from experiments and observations. Tests of Lorentz invariance and the weak equivalence principle, that are already well established on Earth, are now being proposed and planned as space missions. Space offers a number of benefits over Earth-based experiments, including a lack of seismic noise, and the fact that cooled atoms stay in interferometers longer. There are also theoretical reasons for wanting to test these foundational issues of gravity in space, such as the proposal by Khoury and Weltman that extra gravitational degrees of freedom could have an environmental dependence. Space based tests of Lorentz invariance offer the possibility of improving constraints on violations of this symmetry by orders of magnitudes (see, e.g. [172, 869]). Space based tests of the equivalence are being planned by the French space agency CNES, under the name MICROSCOPE (MICRO-Satellite ´ a ` train´e Compens´e pour l’Observation du Principe d’Equivalence), and by ESA and e e
74 Some approaches, such as degravitation, (see Section 5.6.2) even use modifications to gravity in order to screen the effects of the large vacuum energy, thereby removing the need for the unknown symmetry.


NASA, under the name STEP (Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle). These two missions promise to increase bounds on violations of the weak equivalence principle to the level of 1 part in 1015 , and 1 part in 1018 , respectively. With regards to space based tests of metric theories of gravity, there is also hope for further improvement on current bounds. The Bepi-Columbo Mercury orbiter being planned by ESA will, after a two year mission, be capable of placing constraints on PPN parameters of the order γ − 1 ∼ 3 × 10−5 , β − 1 ∼ 3 × 10−4 , and α1 ∼ 10−5 [894]. The bounds on γ could be improved further by Gaia, a high precision space telescope that could constrain γ − 1 to around 1 part in 106 . Still greater constraints may be possible with LATOR (Laser Astronomic Test of Relativity) [1230]. This mission consists of two satellites that orbit the Sun at 1AU, and will have the potential of being able to constrain γ − 1 to around 1 part in 108 , and solar frame-dragging to the level of ∼ 1%. Such constraints are orders of magnitude greater than those that are currently available. Lunar laser ranging has played an important part in testing gravity over the past 4 decades, since retroreflectors were placed on the moon by Apollo astronauts, and the Soviet Lunokhod rovers [885]. Improvements in ground based technology during this time have improved the bounds on PPN parameters that reflected lasers have been able to impose, but we are now reaching the stage where further gains will be limited by the retroreflectors themselves. Tightening the current bounds using this technology will therefore require new space missions, and, in particular, the possibility of planting retroreflectors on other planets has great potential. Laser ranging of Mars over a 10 year period would allow γ − 1 to be constrained to around 1 part in 106 [1231], and the Nordtvedt parameter η = 4β − γ − 3 to the level of ∼ 6-2 × 10−6 [47]. Again, these are order of magnitude improvements on current bounds. Moving beyond the solar system, binary pulsars are an excellent test of relativistic gravity, and offer the possibility of becoming more constraining than solar system test in the near future [1177]. Pulsars also offer the opportunity to test gravity through the emission of gravitational waves. In particular, pulsar-white dwarf systems have great potential to constrain the emission of dipolar gravitational, which is a generic prediction of a large number of modified theories of gravity. Binary systems PSR J1141-6545, J0751+1807 and J1757-5322 are all recently discovered pulsar-white dwarf systems. What is more, continued observation of existing pulsars also offer the possibility of new tests of gravity, as, for example, the perihelion of PSR B1913+16 precesses it may soon allow for tests of the Shapiro time-delay effect. Future prospects for testing gravitational physics using pulsars are also bright due to the large numbers of these objects that are expected to be found by the Parkes, Arecibo, and Green Bank telescopes, as well, of course, as the SKA (Square Kilometre Array). The chance of detecting a pulsar-black hole systems increases dramatically with large-scale observations of this kind. Such a system would be potentially of great importance for testing strong field gravity. Finally, the double pulsar PSR J0737-3039A,B also offers a unique test of gravitational physics, with excellent prospects for improving constraints on gravity in the future as observations of it continue. In all of these areas it is likely that the bounds on deviations from General Relativity will continue to be tightened, with lab tests too promising continued improvement. The E¨t-Wash group at the University of Washington, and others, continue to increase bounds o at ever smaller scales, and even particle experiments using the LHC at CERN are looking for the signs of the extra-dimensions that are crucial for so many modern theories of gravity. The future prospects for constraining all of these aspects of gravity means that 264

the extra degrees of freedom in modified theories of gravity will have ever smaller regions of parameter space in which to hide. This also, of course, means that the possibility of making a detection of a deviation from General Relativity is improved, if any such deviations really do exist in nature. It is, of course, the case that there have been tremendous developments in observational cosmology over the past couple of decades, and these observations have put gravity in the spotlight once again. With measurements of the CMB, weak lensing, and galaxy surveys, as well as probes of the expansion rate with distant supernovae IA s, a strange Universe has been uncovered in which more than 95% of the energy budget is in some exotic dark form. The quality of these observations are such that it is difficult to avoid such a conclusion if the gravitational force arises from Einstein’s theory of gravity. An alternative point of view is that these observations are pointing at a flaw in our understanding of the behaviour of the Universe on the largest scales, and of behaviour of gravity at these distances in particular. Indeed, these observations may be a sign that we must think beyond Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, and his field equations. In the same way that cosmological observations may be hinting at new physics in the gravitational sector, they can also be used to constrain and even rule out alternatives. With a vast range of experiments being planned and constructed throughout the world, it seems that we are a critical juncture in the path to understanding gravity. At ESA, the satellite mission Euclid is under assessment. This mission could map out vast regions of space, probing the growth rate and morphology of large-scale structure, both key observables for constraining theories of gravity through their effects on gravitational collapse. The SKA is in a planning phase with path finders being constructed on two continents. SKA will be a vast radio telescope that will generate a survey of up to a billion radio galaxies, mapping out the evolution of structure back to extremely high redshifts. These observatories will also be competing against the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) that will image the sky over a period of ten years, building up a survey of galaxies that will primarily be used for weak lensing. These larger experiments will be complemented by smaller, more rapid surveys such FastSound, Weave, Boss, Viper, KIDS, DES and a host of other collaborations that will produce galaxy and weak lensing surveys on smaller scales, targeting different redshifts. Interestingly enough, while the original scientific driver for many of these surveys was to constrain dark energy, they have all taken on board the need to test gravity. Indeed measuring the growth rate of gravitational collapse, as a test of modified gravity, has become the core business in all of these surveys. Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity almost a century ago, and, although it remains a cornerstone of modern physics, one could argue that of all the fundamental forces of nature it is gravity that remains the least well understood. This is almost certainly due to the weakness of the gravitational interaction, which makes it incredibly difficult to test in the lab experimentally. Inevitably, experiments on the scale of planets, stars, galaxies, and beyond cannot be performed with the same level of precision and control as those conducted for the other forces on Earth. Never the less, technology is now starting to catch up with gravity. The latter half of the twentieth century may have belonged to the Standard Model of particle physics, but there is every reason to suspect that the twenty first century will belong to gravity.


Acknowledgements TC and PGF acknowledge the support of the STFC, CERN, the BIPAC, the Oxford Martin School and Jesus College, Oxford. AP and CS are supported by Royal Society University Research Fellowships. For comments, discussion and support we wish to thank Tessa Baker, John Barrow, Cliff Burgess, Christos Charmousis, Ed Copeland, Kenny Dalglish, Gregory Gabadadze, Nemanja Kaloper, Ian Kimpton, Kazuya Koyama, Ed Macaulay, Jo˜o Magueijo, Gustavo Niz, Claudia de Rham, Paul Saffin, Thomas Sotiriou, a Glenn Starkman, Reza Tavakol, Anzhong Wang, Shuang Yong Zhou, Tom Zlosnik, Joe Zuntz, and Jessica Padilla and her Mum.



[1] R. B. Abbott, S. M. Barr, and S. D. Ellis. Kaluza-Klein Cosmologies and Inflation. Phys. Rev., D30:720, 1984. [2] R. B. Abbott, B. Bednarz, and S. D. Ellis. Cosmological perturbations in Kaluza-Klein models. Phys. Rev., D33:2147, 1986. [3] R. B. Abbott, S. D. Ellis, and S. M. Barr. Kaluza-Klein Cosmologies and Inflation. 2. Phys. Rev., D31:673, 1985. [4] M. C. B. Abdalla, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov. Consistent modified gravity: dark energy, acceleration and the absence of cosmic doomsday. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 22:L35–42, Mar. 2005, arXiv:hep-th/0409177. [5] M. Abdelwahab, S. Carloni, and P. K. S. Dunsby. Cosmological dynamics of ‘exponential gravity’. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25(13):135002, July 2008, 0706.1375. [6] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. Dover, New York, 1964. [7] V. Acquaviva, C. Baccigalupi, S. M. Leach, A. R. Liddle, and F. Perrotta. Structure formation constraints on the Jordan-Brans-Dicke theory. Phys. Rev. D, 71(10):104025, May 2005, arXiv:astro-ph/0412052. [8] W. Adamowicz and A. Trautman. The equivalence principle for spin. Bull. Acad. Pol. Sci., Ser. Sci. Math. Astron. Phys., 23: 339, 1975. [9] A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi. Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion. JHEP, 0610:014, 2006, hep-th/0602178. [10] E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, S. Hoedl, and S. Schlamminger. Torsion balance experiments: A low-energy frontier of particle physics. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 62:102–134, 2009. [11] E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, and A. E. Nelson. Tests of the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 53:77–121, Dec. 2003, arXiv:hep-ph/0307284. [12] N. Agarwal, R. Bean, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden. Cascading Cosmology. Phys. Rev., D81:084020, 2010, 0912.3798. [13] Y. Aghababaie, C. P. Burgess, S. L. Parameswaran, and F. Quevedo. Towards a naturally small cosmological constant from branes in 6D supergravity. Nucl. Phys., B680:389–414, 2004, hepth/0304256. [14] M. Ahlers, A. Lindner, A. Ringwald, L. Schrempp, and C. Weniger. Alpenglow: A signature for chameleons in axionlike particle search experiments. Phys. Rev. D, 77(1):015018, Jan. 2008, 0710.1555. [15] K. Akama. An early proposal of ’brane world’. Lect. Notes Phys., 176:267–271, 1982, hepth/0001113. [16] M. Akbar and R. Cai. Friedmann equations of FRW universe in scalar tensor gravity, f(R) gravity and first law of thermodynamics. Physics Letters B, 635:7–10, Mar. 2006, arXiv:hep-th/0602156. [17] K. Akune, K.-i. Maeda, and N. Ohta. Inflation from superstring and M-theory compactification with higher order corrections. - II. - Case of quartic Weyl terms. Phys. Rev. D, 73(10):103506, May 2006, hep-th/0602242. [18] A. Albrecht, C. Burgess, F. Ravndal, and C. Skordis. Exponentially large extra dimensions. Phys.Rev., D65:123506, 2002, hep-th/0105261. [19] A. Albrecht, C. Burgess, F. Ravndal, and C. Skordis. Natural quintessence and large extra dimensions. Phys.Rev., D65:123507, 2002, astro-ph/0107573. [20] J. Alcaniz. Some observational consequences of brane world cosmologies. Phys.Rev., D65:123514, 2002, astro-ph/0202492. [21] S. Alexander, R. H. Brandenberger, and D. A. Easson. Brane gases in the early universe. Phys. Rev., D62:103509, 2000, hep-th/0005212. [22] S. O. Alexeyev and M. V. Pomazanov. Black hole solutions with dilatonic hair in higher curvature gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 55:2110–2118, Feb. 1997, arXiv:hep-th/9605106. [23] A. Ali, R. Gannouji, and M. Sami. Modified gravity a la Galileon: Late time cosmic acceleration and observational constraints. Phys.Rev., D82:103015, 2010, 1008.1588. [24] M. Alimohammadi and N. Agharafiei. Quantum attractors of generalized Gauss-Bonnet dark energy. ArXiv e-prints, Dec. 2009, 0912.0589.


[25] M. Alimohammadi and A. Ghalee. Phase space of generalized Gauss-Bonnet dark energy. Phys. Rev. D, 80(4):043006, Aug. 2009, 0908.1150. [26] M. Alimohammadi and A. Ghalee. Remarks on generalized Gauss-Bonnet dark energy. Phys. Rev. D, 79(6):063006, Mar. 2009, 0811.1286. [27] R. Allahverdi, B. Dutta, and K. Sinha. Cladogenesis: Baryon-dark matter coincidence from branchings in moduli decay. Phys. Rev. D, 83(8):083502, Apr 2011. [28] G. Allemandi, A. Borowiec, and M. Francaviglia. Accelerated cosmological models in first-order nonlinear gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 70(4):043524, Aug. 2004, arXiv:hep-th/0403264. [29] G. Allemandi, A. Borowiec, M. Francaviglia, and S. D. Odintsov. Dark energy dominance and cosmic acceleration in first-order formalism. Phys. Rev. D, 72(6):063505, Sept. 2005, arXiv:grqc/0504057. [30] G. Allemandi, M. Francaviglia, M. L. Ruggiero, and A. Tartaglia. Post-newtonian parameters from alternative theories of gravity. General Relativity and Gravitation, 37:1891–1904, Nov. 2005, arXiv:gr-qc/0506123. [31] G. Allemandi and M. L. Ruggiero. Constraining extended theories of gravity using Solar System tests. General Relativity and Gravitation, 39:1381–1388, Sept. 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/0610661. [32] S. W. Allen, A. E. Evrard, and A. B. Mantz. Cosmological Parameters from Observations of Galaxy Clusters. ArXiv e-prints, Mar. 2011, 1103.4829. [33] E. Alvarez and M. Belen Gavela. Entropy from Extra Dimensions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 51:931, 1983. [34] M. Amarzguioui, Ø. Elgarøy, D. F. Mota, and T. Multam¨ki. Cosmological constraints on a f(R) gravity theories within the Palatini approach. A&A, 454:707–714, Aug. 2006, arXiv:astroph/0510519. [35] L. Amendola. Dark energy and the boomerang data. Phys. Rev. Lett., 86(2):196–199, Jan 2001. [36] L. Amendola, C. Charmousis, and S. C. Davis. Constraints on Gauss Bonnet gravity in dark energy cosmologies. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 12:20, Dec. 2006, arXiv:hep-th/0506137. [37] L. Amendola, C. Charmousis, and S. C. Davis. Solar system constraints on Gauss Bonnet mediated dark energy. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 10:4, Oct. 2007, 0704.0175. [38] L. Amendola, C. Charmousis, and S. C. Davis. Solar System Constraints on Gauss-Bonnet Mediated Dark Energy. JCAP, 0710:004, 2007, 0704.0175. [39] L. Amendola, K. Enqvist, and T. Koivisto. Unifying Einstein and Palatini gravities. Phys. Rev. D, 83(4):044016, 2011, 1010.4776. [40] L. Amendola, R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, and S. Tsujikawa. Conditions for the cosmological viability of f(R) dark energy models. Phys. Rev. D, 75(8):083504, Apr 2007. [41] L. Amendola, M. Kunz, and D. Sapone. Measuring the dark side (with weak lensing). J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 4:13, Apr. 2008, 0704.2421. [42] L. Amendola, A. B. Mayer, S. Capozziello, S. Gottlober, V. Muller, F. Occhionero, and H. Schmidt. Generalized sixth-order gravity and inflation. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 10:L43–L47, May 1993. [43] L. Amendola, D. Polarski, and S. Tsujikawa. Are f(R) Dark Energy Models Cosmologically Viable? Physical Review Letters, 98(13):131302, Mar. 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/0603703. [44] M. A. Amin, R. V. Wagoner, and R. D. Blandford. A subhorizon framework for probing the relationship between the cosmological matter distribution and metric perturbations. MNRAS, 390:131–142, Oct. 2008, 0708.1793. [45] K. N. Ananda, S. Carloni, and P. K. S. Dunsby. A characteristic signature of fourth order gravity. ArXiv e-prints, Dec. 2008, 0812.2028. [46] K. N. Ananda, S. Carloni, and P. K. S. Dunsby. Structure growth in f(R) theories of gravity with a dust equation of state. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26(23):235018, Dec. 2009, 0809.3673. [47] J. D. Anderson, M. Gross, K. L. Nordtvedt, and S. G. Turyshev. The Solar Test of the Equivalence Principle. ApJ, 459:365, Mar. 1996, arXiv:gr-qc/9510029. [48] J. D. Anderson, M. A. Slade, R. F. Jurgens, E. L. Lau, X. X. Newhall, and E. Myles. Radar and spacecraft ranging to Mercury between 1966 and 1988. Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 9:324, 1991. [49] J. D. Anderson et al. in The Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on general relativity, Kyoto, Japan. 1992. [50] M. Andrews, K. Hinterbichler, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden. Instabilities of Spherical Solutions with Multiple Galileons and SO(N) Symmetry. 2010, 1008.4128. [51] I. Antoniadis. Gravity modifications from extra dimensions. J. Phys., A40:6657–6667, 2007. [52] I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali. New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV. Phys. Lett., B436:257–263, 1998, hep-ph/9804398.


Battye. ArXiv e-prints. D59:086004. Arai.. FRW cosmology from five dimensional vacuum Brans-Dicke theory. Sepangi. Eddington-Born-Infeld gravity and the large scale n structure of the Universe. Skordis. D. B660:275–281. [63] N. Langlois. F. May 2011. 105(1):011101. Lett. [54] T. Prog. R. 1999. M. Dvali. [73] E. Appelquist and A. Weller.. J. 118:879-892. and L. M. 50:141. [56] S. Appleby.-K. astrophysics and cosmology of theories with sub-millimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity. 2011. Atazadeh. 2003. ArXiv e-prints. Ba˜ados and P. Bamba. C. The bigravity black hole and its thermodynamics. G. The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter. C. 79(6):063511. 6:5. Theo. Rev. 1005. Arbuzova. Dimopoulos. Tamvakis. A.2501. 305:96–118. astro-ph/0510447. [74] C. Phys. Ferreira. June 1987. Equation of state for dark energy in f(T) gravity.3199. [62] N. Z. Physical Review n Letters. [65] C. Phys. 62(12):123510. P. Chodos. Mukhanov. Nuclear Physics B. Gomberoff. and H. 0705. Lett. and C. Astier et al. The future of the universe in modified gravitational theories: approaching a finite-time future singularity. F. Accelerating Cosmologies in the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Theory with Dilaton. Baccigalupi. ArXiv e-prints. arXiv:hep-th/9305025. hep-ph/9807344. Phys. 50:1087–1170. B429:263–272.. S. T. [59] K. Rev.0508. Oct.4036. Aug. 1012. Phys. and G. Arkani-Hamed.Astrophys. Bamba. Mukhanov. Dimopoulos. Do consistent f(R) models mimic General Relativity plus Lambda? Phys. Dolgov. Nov. G. Geng. A. Armendariz-Picon. astro-ph/0004134. 1008. Skordis.2693. J. Georgi. D. and T.1172.1769. Aug. V.. G. 1994. Lett. Ohta. B654:7–12.1272. Lee. Mar. 1998. The Quantum Dynamics of Kaluza-Klein Theories. Phys. H. D. Phys. Bailin and A. 1105.1963. [81] K.0561. Lett. R. 2008. July 2010. Bamba. Phys. Phys. Battye. Dvali. Curing singularities in cosmological evolution of f(R) gravity.. Grav. Antoniadis. J.. Mukhanov. 0707. 2010. Cosmology Astropart. and N. 2000. and M. Babichev. 2011. Quantum Effects in Kaluza-Klein Theories. Rept. Prog. 1983. P. 2007. and M. Gabadadze. 1987.Lett. Dec. C. JHEP. 2010. A. [79] K. Phenomenology. Phys. 0708. A. hep-th/0210184. D. Phys. Pino. Lee. R. Fukui. 84(12):124018. [72] E. hep-ph/9803315.. Bahrehbakhsh. The Supernova legacy survey: Measurement of Ωm . Hashimoto. Starobinsky. Schwartz. [75] A. 10:45. Steinhardt. Explosive phenomena in modified gravity. Phys. Phys. and G. Effective field theory for massive gravitons and gravity in theory space. 2010. Damour. 1983. Lett. V. [57] S. and A.1737.. Dvali. A fully consistent parameterization of modified gravity. Kaluza-Klein theories. Comment on “Einstein’s Other Gravity and the Acceleration of the Universe”. Love. Geng. Nov 2000. [55] T. [60] E. D. [61] N. 1107. Appleby and R. [80] K.0491.. Shojaie. [58] S. [66] C. A dynamical solution to the problem of a small cosmological constant and late-time cosmic acceleration. Appelquist and A. and A. Rev. Ferreira. and H. V. S.4334. Rev. D28:772.1382. A. and C. 0904. D. 447:31–48. Matarrese. 0909. Ferreira. J. 43:847–869. Parameterizing scalar-tensor theories for cosmological probes. and P. k-Essence. A&A. 1011.[53] I. June 2010. [67] P. 85:4438–4441. Odintsov. hep-th/0209227.. Dimopoulos. G. Rel. Nonlocal modification of gravity and the cosmological constant problem. and A. 2009. B458:209–218. [69] M. Singularity-free cosmological solutions of the superstring effective action. Ba˜ ados. [76] D. 2009. Zuntz. Arkani-Hamed. Gen. D. 2006.. S. 80(12):121501. 179:17–22. A. 2008. B700:289–293. 415:497–514. Nojiri. [64] N. Ba˜ados. Primordial nucleosynthesis in the Brans-Dicke theory with a variable cosmological term. [78] K. and V. [77] T. Rev. [70] M. 0801. Babichev and D. Phys.. [71] M. Vikman. Tracking extended quintessence. and G. causality and emergent geometry. k-Inflation. Annals Phys. Relativistic stars in f(R) gravity. 269 . Armendariz-Picon. Lett. S. Astron. Eddington’s Theory of Gravity and Its Progeny. Phys. Guo. F. A. 1006. and F. n ArXiv e-prints. Phys. Appleby and J. Farhoudi. Perrotta. Rizos. 2011. S. Farhoudi. 1008. Rev. hep-th/9904075.. C. M. 2002. and J. Arkani-Hamed.1398. 2007. and S. superluminal propagation. Phys. [68] K. Mar. R. Bamba. Rev. Chodos. ΩΛ and w from the first year data set. Cosmology Astropart.. Luo. Accelerating universe in f(R) brane gravity.. 0811. and K. 0802:101. Arkani-Hamed. Baker. 1999. Rev.

Maeda. Barausse. D. Rev. Sotiriou. Jun 1993. Jan. 2000.Rev. [85] M. Miller. J. 1995. Grav. D. Phys. II. Nonsingular scalar-tensor cosmologies. Rev. R. D73:023007. [106] J. [102] J. EAS Publ. Behavior of cosmological models with varying g. Cotsakis. Apr. A. 0911. [98] J. D. Ottewill. D. 2009. 241(3):387 – 391. Sil. Hervik. [107] J. C. 0801. A note on bigravity and dark matter. Baryogenesis in extended inflation. Rev. 2010. Barrow and P. Rev. Phys. Phys. 2004. 2008. 25:105008. Gravitational memory? Phys. P. Aug. L. Phys. Barrow and S. Formation and evaporation of primordial black holes in scalar-tensor gravity theories. Scalar-tensor cosmologies. Phys. [101] J. D. Stable isotropic cosmological singularities in quadratic gravity.. Barausse. 47(12):5329–5335. D. Barrow. Farhi. 1990. 43:984–994. and J. Baryogenesis in extended inflation. Rev. 23:L1–L6. D. and J. Phys. Gauge Invariant Cosmological Perturbations. Dec. Rev. and F. D. R.2008. 214:515–518. D. Inflation and late-time cosmic acceleration in non-minimal Maxwell-f(R) gravity and the generation of large-scale magnetic fields. Barraco and V. [94] J. Jan. D. D. Rev.1270. 0811.. Curvature singularities. E. Rev. Phys. gr-qc/0703132. Barrow and T. Barrow. 1991.4852. Phys. B. D. E. M. [92] D. [93] J. D. 0801. Electroweak fermion number violation and the production of stable particles in the early universe. D. Dec.4103. [104] J. Phys. S. Barrow. Rev. Barrow and S. Ba˜ados.2575. Liddle. 71(12):123524. W. Baryogenesis via primordial black holes. and A. Rev. Oct 1992. Oct.3805. Cosmology Astropart. R. Barrow and A. Rev. Class. Phys. Kolb. [84] M. H. 2006. Parsons. D. D. 1980. D. Exact cosmological solutions of scale-invariant gravity theories. [108] J. P. Banados. Barrow. E. 54(6):3920–3931. [91] S. Jun 2005. [83] C. [90] J. gr-qc/0511127. Skordis. Barrow and B. Carr. [87] E. Inflationary solutions in general scalar tensor theory of gravitation. Classical and Quantum Gravity. [95] J. C. Mar. Barrow. Barrow and S. Barrow and J. 43:977–983. Liddle. Rev. Barrow and K. Rev. Barrow. Rodrigues. Oct. D. J. Eddington-Born-Infeld action for dark matter and dark energy. 1993. 341:294–308. Feb. D. D. 74(12):124017. W. 30:189–192. M. Evolution of universes in quadratic theories of gravity. C. Phys. Chivukula. P. 0712.. 1993. Classical and Quantum Gravity. Barrow. arXiv:gr-qc/0509085. 4:24. Clifton. D. T. Villante. Banerjee. Giannotti. 40:31–34. Quant. de Garcia Maia. 1993. Sotiriou.. Bouncing universes with varying constants.Rev. and J. Miller. and C. Bardeen. 2008. Barrow. Hervik. Grav. Bamba and S. Kolb. Sept. 2006. I. D22:1882–1905. P. arXiv:astro-ph/0406369. 2008. T. Slow-roll inflation in scalar-tensor theories. D. D. [88] E. Sotiriou.0954. 0801. The stability of general relativistic cosmological theory. J. 51:2729–2732. 2008. Inflation and the conformal structure of higher-order gravity theories. Phys. 2008. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General. Phys. Physics Letters B. P. 46(8):R3227–R3230. [86] A. D. D. T. C. 1983. Magueijo. 75(12):123515. and A. Anisotropically inflating universes. E. Rev. Phys. Hamity. Middleton. Sep 1996. D. and E. Phys. S. Barausse. R. Phys. Quant. arXiv:gr-qc/0610013. Dutta Choudhury. Simple types of anisotropic inflation. 1988. E. Miller. 270 . 25:062001. Hervik... Barrow and J. Rev. Banerjee. and M. tidal forces and the viability of Palatini f(R) gravity. Perfect fluid scalar-tensor cosmologies. Ser. n D77:123534. Copeland. [82] K. [103] J. C. [111] J. J. D. 0807. [99] J. D. 21:4289–4296. Baryogenesis via production and decay of supermassive bosons. D.. [100] J. arXiv:gr-qc/0702098. June 2007. D. Bambi. J. Phys. Amplification of gravitational waves in scalar-tensor theories of gravity. Phys. Phys. Mimoso. Nuclear Physics B. Response of primordial abundances to a general modification of gN and/or of the early universe expansion rate. 1990. Odintsov. D. Rev. [109] J. [89] E. D. [96] J. 81(2):023513. D. Rev. N. [105] J. Sept. 50(6):3746– 3754. D. M. 48:3630–3640. 1991. Pramana. and A. Extended inflationary universes. Kimberly. Mimoso. Sep 1994. [110] J. [97] J. D. A no-go theorem for polytropic spheres in Palatini f(R) gravity. Feb. D. 62(4):044027. Spherically symmetric solutions in f(R) theories of gravity obtained using the first order formalism. Copeland. 2006. Barrow and S. and J. Class. Physics Letters B.1141. Barr.. D. Polytropic spheres in Palatini f(R) gravity. Gomberoff. 48:3592–3595. D79:063515. 16(12):2757.

[132] J. 1983. Apr. Zhuk. Bengochea.55(4):1906–1936. 0912. [140] Z. A. D. 63:1121–1134.276-286. D. Nesti. gr-qc/9502010. Bianchi V I0 in Scalar and Scalar-Tensor cosmologies. [121] A. 28:1876–1893. D. D. Silvestri. Generalized Self-similar Scalar-Tensor Theories. Mod. Rev. Rev. [114] Y. astro-ph/0602266. Burgess. [133] V. [126] J. Barrow and D. J. B254:55–60. [129] J. Mod. Rev. Rev. 2010. The Relation between physical and gravitational geometry. gr-qc/9211017.-P. [arXiv:0809. Phys. D. Carter. Bengtsson. J. ArXiv e-prints. Quantizing fourth-order gravity theories: The functional integral. [135] G. Volume 1. [131] J. Zhurnal Eksperimental noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki. F. 2001. 2002. van Nierop.2323. A. 2007. Some late-time asymptotics of general scalar-tensor cosmologies. Energy-momentum of the gravitational field: crucial point for gravitation physics and cosmology. Rev. 2010. New experimental limit on the validity of local position invariance.. Volume 1. [137] I. Phys. Observational information for f(T) theories and Dark Torsion. 2008. Rev. Comelli. Belinchon. 2010. [112] J. Berezhiani. On the effect of scalar and vector fields on the nature of the cosmological singularity. Bekenstein. 2011. Oct. N. Celest. [123] R. [117] R. Bekenstein and R. Bodies 25 (2009) 57-63. gr-qc/9305004. 429:480.3188. 1988. 1008.. Problems of Practical Cosmology. 0802. 75(6):064020. D. Berezhiani. New possibilities for observational distinction between geometrical and field gravity theories. H. [119] V. Zhuk. D. 78:435–454.Phys. Bekenstein. Bekenstein and J. Phys. Phys.Lett. Gravitational lenses and unconventional gravity theories. I.. 1984. Baukh. A.3039. [134] G. hep-th/0105091. Bengtsson.2877. D. Belinchon. 1109. Uzan. Bauch and S. Phys. 2004. [139] I. 2006. Bean and M. [138] I. A. Dynamical dark energy from extra dimensions Kinematics Phys.. Bengochea and R. N. Dynamics of linear perturbations in f(R) gravity. [125] J. [141] Z. Nesti. [136] I. Phys. Phys.. Sep. New J. B202:497– 500. p. The Cosmological constants. Exact Spherically Symmetric Solutions in 271 . H. 1995. Feb 1997. M. 79(12):124019. D73:103513.Phys. and L. arXiv:astro-ph/0611321. 2008. A. Barth and S. 81(8):083534. [130] J. Rev. V. R. Watson. Rev. Sanders. 2007. String gas cosmology. A. Rev. MOND habitats within the solar system. [118] A. 1991. Aug.. A. Comelli. Magueijo. Trodden. and L. Phase coupling gravitation: symmetries and gauge fields. [122] R. J. Einstein equations for an asymmetric brane-world. Bekenstein and E. 2011. Milgrom. 2007.2328. Phys. hepth/0510022. Note on non-metric gravity. Sagi. June 2009. I. Lett. and L. M. L. Classical and Quantum Gravity. Relativistic gravitation theory for the MOND paradigm.. Problems of Practical Cosmology. Taganov and P. Bekenstein and M. ArXiv e-prints. 99:131101. C. R. Teerikorpi. 2008. [120] V.347-359. Belinskij and I. D48:3641–3647. gr-qc/0703114. Ferraro. D..1385 [astro-ph]]..1205.1526. D. and M. Mar. astro-ph/9311062. Bengtsson. Sep. 1109. Phys. Battye. Baryshev. p. Battefeld and S. D77:103512.Lett. Bayntun. Do Newton’s G and Milgrom’s a0 vary with cosmological epoch? Phys. Christensen. Pogosian.2880. D. Bekenstein. ArXiv e-prints. Mennim. 25(8):085012. Phys. Pilo. 1972. Lett. 1993. 12:075015. [124] J. Pilo.. Shaw. V. Tangmatitham. Apr. D. 1994. Weyers. Current constraints on the cosmic growth history. gr-qc/0809.. gr-qc/0809. Codimension-2 Brane-Bulk Matching: Examples from Six and Ten Dimensions. A22:1643–1649. [116] T. Form connections. Teerikorpi. 65(8):081101. [115] Y. Phys. Bengtsson. Bernat. D. Rev. Spontaneous Lorentz Breaking and Massive Gravity. Khalatnikov. 1993. 1002. 2006. Baukh. [127] J. Astrophys.. B. and J. 2008. 0812. D73 (2006) 104016. Phys. Taganov and P. D64:124007. [hepth/0601205]. D. Form geometry and the ’t Hooft-Plebanski action. Baryshev. Sp-brane accelerating cosmologies Phys. [113] N.4197. [128] J. Rev. Does the missing mass problem signal the breakdown of Newtonian gravity? Astrophys. F. Rev. Bean. Dark torsion as the cosmic speed-up. Rev. Phys. A. hep-th/0703264. D70:083509. 286:7–14.

The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: the growth rate of cosmic structure since redshift z=0. Biswas. Nandi. J. 2010. JHEP. [150] E. Bhadra and K. 1974. [149] E. [151] E.2948. Koivisto.0956. [163] T. February 2011. D. Binetruy. 2000. Mod. Sibiryakov. 1990. 2001. Pujolas.0550. L. 2011. On the Growth of Perturbations as a Test of Dark Energy and Gravity. [168] D. Bailes. 1104. O. M. R.4659. Phys. Rev.Rev. 7:341–345. Cambridge Univ Pr. Coley. On the Extra Mode and Inconsistency of Horava Gravity. Physics Letters B. E. J. [164] T. Towards a resolution of the cosmological singularity in non-local higher derivative theories of gravity. June 1999.0590.. 0910:029.. 1968. [167] D. ApJ.3503. P. B565:269–287. Rev. Bhat. [142] P. 2010. Brandenberger. Models of non-relativistic quantum gravity: The Good. 2011. Ib´nez. and W. 11:8. gr-qc/0505141. C. [156] A. 0906. [171] D. 0804. 1005. L. 0803. 104:181302. 2006. 37:2189–2199. A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft. [143] A. [158] P. [155] G. Maeda. Bergmann. JHEP. [157] A. Amplification of Gravitational Waves During Inflation in Brans-Dicke Theory. Inflation in generalized Einstein theories. Phys. Pujolas. Cosmology Astropart. 78(2):024015. the Hagedorn bounce and the cosmic microwave background. 1007. 0912. Langlois. Rev. Non-conventional cosmology from a brane-universe. Phys. and J. Rel. 59(2):023507. R. 77(12):124017. Non-perturbative gravity. 2010. Berry and J. Theor. Bertschinger and P. and S. Blas. Bertschinger. Bicknell. O. Mazumdar. Technically natural dark energy from Lorentz breaking JCAP 1107 272 . 2000. Gomez-Reino. Iess. Comments on the scalar tensor theory. Dec. Phys. Gair. Blas. Rev. T. hep-th/9910219. D. Langlois. Trevisan. Sibiryakov. Trans. and D. A16:4543–4545. [166] J. Ellwanger. Nucl. Sibiryakov. JHEP. 3:9. Int. and P. and N. 1111. Phys. Phys. V. [162] T. R. Bhadra and K. [169] D.. Nunes. [161] N. 01:081. 0801... arXiv:astro-ph/0604485. Journal of Physics A Mathematical General. Pujolas. Phys. A. Siegel. Cosmology Astropart. [153] A. 2005. Pujolas. Biswas. 12:11.. B688:350–355.3711. J. G.0819. Quantum fields in curved space. ArXiv e-prints. [144] A. Siegel. Phil. Deffayet. Distinguishing modified gravity from dark energy. D. 0909. the bad and the healthy. 0906. J. Blanco-Pillado. and I.. Binetruy.3525. Kahler Moduli Inflation Revisited. B477:285–291. Nov. Bertschinger. Phys. Sept. 2011. U. Nov. D. and D.Massive Gravity. On the equivalence of the Buchdahl and the Janis-Newman. 2001. arXiv:hep-th/0610274. P. 1923. 648:797–806. 2006. D. 425:374–376. and J. A. Grav. 2008. and S. Berkin and K. O. [159] P. 1999. Gravitational-radiation losses from the pulsar white-dwarf binary PSR J1141 6545. Effects of R3 and R R terms on R2 inflation. Mazumdar. L. [170] D. [148] E. M. Sept. R. Sibiryakov. Mar. Europhysics Letters. Blake et al. Birkhoff. Berman and L. Blas. Deffayet. Nature. One Gravitational Potential or Two? Forecasts and Tests.9. Billyard. J. J. 2003. A. Ib´nez. and A. Biswas. Davies. Linearized f(R) Gravity: Gravitational Radiation and Solar System Tests. Gen. Comment on ‘Strong coupling in extended Horava-Lifshitz gravity’. Copeland. [154] N. Sarkar. Apr. Sept. A geometrical Lagrangian for the neutral scalar meson field. Int. Jan. Lett.Winnicour solutions. Phys.. 1991. Phys. Soc. A. C. D. Testing General Relativity with Cosmology. Blas. Relativity and Modern Physics: Harvard University Press. 0807:130. Asymptotic behavior of cosmological models in scalar-tensor a˜ theories of gravity. arXiv:gr-qc/0111100. 369:4947. 44:1691– 1704. 46:832–837. Blas. 2009.3046. A. Verbiest. Billyard. J. Bouncing universes in string-inspired gravity. Phys. [152] A. Buck. 1104. S. Birrell and P. 1:25–36. [146] C. and S.2431.Lett. Bertschinger. and S. J. D. 2010. Berkin and K. Olasagasti.. and W. arXiv:gr-qc/9807055. [165] C. 2007. 1984. Tortora. [160] G. arXiv:hep-th/0508194. Maeda. Brane cosmological evolution in a bulk with cosmological constant. Mazumdar. Coley. L.Lett. hep-th/9905012. Sibiryakov. Bertotti. Phys. July 2008. June 2008.1687. O.. A. [147] B. Inhomogeneous cosmological models in scalara˜ tensor theories. Aug. Feb. Consistent Extension of Horava Gravity. 245:348–354. Zukin. Phys. On static spherically symmetric solutions of the vacuum Brans-Dicke theory. The Royal Society. ArXiv General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology e-prints. J. S. Cosmology Astropart. K. [145] M. 2010. W.

Brane-world cosmology. Brax.. June 2010. Cosmology and brane worlds: A review. D. 2003.. Chameleons with Field Dependent Couplings. Brandenberger. Nunes. 0806. Phys. 2008. Vafa. Cosmic vorticity on the brane. Brax. hep-th/0509099. The cosmological behavior of Bekenstein’s modified theory of gravity. Mota. Rev. [193] P. van de Bruck. Nucl. Santiago. G. arXiv:hep-ph/0306190. 2000. Can gravitation have a finite range? Phys. Mota. Brax. Malik. and PVLAS and CAST Results.. 92:221601. 2010. Aug. Higgs production as a probe of chameleon dark energy. Class. Brax and C. and H. Oct. Phys. Rev. D6:3368–3382.. A.Rev. C. [180] R. hep-th/0007177. [198] P. Brax. Brandenberger et al. Brax.0746. D63:084012. Sept. Phys. and L. van de Bruck. Einstein gravity on the codimension 2-brane? Phys. J. Probing Lorentz and CPT violation y with space-based experiments. [195] P. and A. Mar 1962. [arXiv:1104. 2004. Davis. Lane. Quant. Davis.2796.2051. H. [192] P. Matter Bounce in Horava-Lifshitz Cosmology. Kosteleck´. Sept.. 67:2183– 2232. Palatini versus metric formulation in highercurvature gravity. D. 2007. JHEP. 2001. C. 0804. F. A. H. and A. P. 2009. 2006. Davis. F. and R. Winther. A. Physics Letters B. Dec. 2004.. J. Steer. Russell. Rept. D. D. D. arXiv:astro-ph/0509878. 2001. [172] R. Grav. Odintsov. Burrage. C. [176] D. Grav. and M. 1004. [183] R. [197] P. 0911. D. I. M. Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation. [194] P. C. 11:8. J. H. P. Chameleon Induced Atomic Afterglow. ArXiv e-prints. Bastero-Gil. D. 2008. B316:391. More on the Spectrum of Perturbations in String Gas Cosmology. and D. Physical Review Letters. 2005.-C. A. C. D. Skordis. Brax and C. Rev. 1005.4440. 99(12):121103. C. and D. Deser. 2008. Phys. hep-th/0108215. D. 8:33. [178] P. 20:R201–R232. and N. hep-th/0303095. 1972. Avelino. and A. Detecting dark energy in orbit: The cosmological chameleon. Costa. Bluhm. 1961. Gregory. 17:4745–4764. arXiv:astro-ph/0408415. [189] P. C.1846. Solar chameleons. van de Bruck. Compatibility of the Chameleon-Field Model with Fifth-Force Experiments. Brevik. Aug. Davis. Rev. C. Class. Weltman.. 2004. Weltman. van de Bruck.. Phys. ArXiv e-prints. String Gas Cosmology. D. Phys. Quant. H. and A. D. [181] R. S. Phys. [196] P. 82(4):043007. C. arXiv:astro-ph/0410103. Davis. 1009. Rev. bulk scalars and perturbations. and J. pages 105–110. Phys. [184] C. Rev.2835. volume 736 of American Institute of Physics Conference Series. Phys. Shaw. Weltman. editor. Burrage. C.. A. 81(10):103524. Aug. General brane cosmologies and their global spacetime structure. Ferreira. B. 273 . Rev. Rev. H. van de Bruck. 0707. arXiv:hep-ph/0703243. N. Feb. and C. Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation. Bowcock. Borunda. M. Brax and K. Brax. Bostock. 2004. 2010. K. Nov. String Generated Gravity Models. Khoury. Lett. [182] R.. Phys. f(R) gravity and chameleon theories.1267. arXiv:hep-th/0401073. Nov. J.. ii. 78(10):104021. Superstrings in the Early Universe. Brandenberger. [175] D. Brax. Green. Dicke. Janssen. A. & M. Rev. van de Bruck. Cosmology. P. Brax. [200] I. 0904. 2003. Phys. F. Nojiri. Martins. Shaw. Mota. Deser. 1006. [174] P. 68(12):125008. [185] C. Davis. May 2010. and D. D75:063508. 633:441–446. 1985. JCAP. Cosmology Astropart. [191] P. Charmousis. C. 2006. van de Bruck. 70(4):043520. Vanzo. 1989.3415. D. and A. [186] P. Phys.Lett. Rev. S. 76(8):085010. 55:2656. [190] P. Dec. C. F.Rev. Testing chameleon theories with light propagating through a magnetic field. D80:043516. Brane world cosmology. Small scale structure formation in chameleon cosmology. Wands. 2007. Brax. C. Brax. Phys. K. 125(6):2194– 2201. M. [188] P. hep-th/0010133. Mack. C. 2004. J. [199] P. Phys. Brans and R. Rev. Rev. Khoury. and D.2801. Boulware and S. Rosenfeld. hep-th/0404011. Prog. G. Phys. Seery. In C.1065. Brandenberger and C. van de Bruck. van de Bruck. Rev. and A. Phi in the Sky: The Quest for Cosmological Scalar Fields. 124:925–935. A. 2010. van de Bruck. 0611:009. Spherical collapse in chameleon models. D. Bridgman. [187] P. P. Entropy and universality of the Cardy-Verlinde formula in a dark energy universe. and A. Parry. hep-th/0311074. Phys. Bourliot. 10:026. Davis. Davis. A. Gregory..(2011) 026. Phys. 0808. V. A. Brax. Mota. H. Cosmology Astropart. J. Brandenberger. [201] H. A. C. [179] R. 70(12):123518. hep-th/0608186. R. R. Challenges for string gas cosmology. Chameleon Dark Energy.3579 [hep-th]]. A. Boulware and S. [173] M. Nov. S. Zioutas. J. [177] F... Davis. A. Brans. 2007. Navarro. astro-ph/0611255.

Burgess. L. [231] R.4212.-G. Cosmological perturbations in the bulk and on the brane. [228] R. Buckley and L. May 2007. 646:105–111. [210] M. 2006. C. Cai. [216] C. Phys. 0905.-G. C. L. Physics Letters B. Hu. 1959. AIP Conf. 1970. 2011. Sep.-G. D.1007/BF02395741. Large Dimensions and Small Curvatures from Supersymmetric Brane Back-reaction. Seery. Phys. D75:085013. P. Notes on the Missing Satellites Problem. 2007. J.2387. D. [207] H. 0910. Burd and A.1763. Black holes without mass and entropy in Lovelock gravity. arXiv:hep-th/0612220. astro-ph/0107245. Mar. Generalized Misner-Sharp energy in f(R) gravity.3820. Rev. and N. Sept. Jan. Revisiting fifth forces in the Galileon model. D. D.-M.0152.-M. H. Gravity in more than four dimensions. hep-th/0402200. 2004. Ohta. Supernova brightening from chameleon-photon mixing. 77(4):043009. P. D65:043502.3670. Phys..-P. Heisenberg. Burrage. and D. 0904. Burgess.2497. J. [215] C. K. [217] C. Burrage. 85:63–72. 11:871–876. Hydrostatic equilibrium equation and Newtonian limit of the singular f(R) gravity. ber die variationsableitung von fundamental-invarianten beliebig hoher ordnung. C. Ohta. 0812.1927.-P. 77(6):064030. 2009. S. Proc. [229] R. Ohta.-M. Jul. hep-th/0411140. Ohta. [223] C. L. 0905. alternative theories of gravity. 0911. de Rham. Classical black holes. E. Maeda. D. Bridgman.. M. Burgess. Cao. Rev.-M. and L. Dynamical Scalar Degree of Freedom in Horava-Lifshitz Gravity. 2006. [218] C. Rev.-W. May 1978. Nojiri and S. 2011. Hoover. Lett. [213] C. Mar. 80(10):104016. and N. de Sitter Galileon. Ohta. Applications to k-essence theories and MOND-like theories of gravity. 2011. 74(6):064001. Journal of Physics A Mathematical General. and N. Ohta. Supersymmetric large extra dimensions and the cosmological constant: An update.-G. and N. PoS. arXiv:grqc/0611149. 1104.-M. Buchdahl. Cai. Hall. Feb.0751. 1991. Detecting chameleons: The astronomical polarization produced by chameleonlike scalar fields. 1012. and D. Sept. Bustelo and D. JCAP. Rev. N.-G. 0708. Topological black holes in Horava-Lifshitz gravity.. Phys. 2009. Rev. Lectures on Cosmic Inflation and its Potential Stringy Realizations. D. thermodynamics. C. van Nierop. 679:504-509.. Cai. de Rham. 2006. Briscese. 2010. 1101:014. C.Rev. Cai. 1009. Burgess. Phantom scalar dark energy as modified gravity: Understanding the origin of the Big Rip singularity. 1009. 2010. Lett. Y. Phys. 2010. Extended inflation and generalised scalar-tensor theories. and N. Barraco. 0903:124. Burgess and L. [219] C. JHEP. Rev. Coley.-B. 0711. D. Randall. Rev. E. Rev. [211] J. Sep. A. Phys. [208] H. Burrage. 2009. A. Phys. Galileon inflation. Cai. Malik. unified field theories. 10. D.2966. 274 . 24:2333–2342. and L. 2009. 1008:011. Pang. Reciprocal Static Metrics and Scalar Fields in the General Theory of Relativity. B. P2GC:008. 267:330–336. B. and H. Rev. Elizalde. 2007. evaporation. 2010. and G. van Nierop. The field equations generated by the square of the scalar curvature: solutions of Kasner type.-G. Towards a natural theory of dark energy: Supersymmetric large extra dimensions. 2002. 1964. J.-I. MNRAS. Entropy function and universality of entropy-area relation for small black holes. Shaw. Ann. Rev.. 74(6):064028. Kaluza-Klein theory. [230] R. K. [220] C. 313:283–401. Burrage. On causality and superluminal behavior in classical field theories.0245. Rev.0255. Phys. [209] H. S. Odintsov. 2008. P. 2005. 2008.2638. 2009. Zhang. Bullock. Phys. 81(2):024018.-G. Brane Back-reaction and Fluxes. Thermodynamics of black holes in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. [226] R. 2009. [204] A. W. Quantum aspects of black holes.2865. Feb. Wands. Davis. [224] A. hep-th/0604088. Nov. Brookfield. 150:1.4505. Phys. Phys. D. Xogenesis. Hu. Acta Mathematica. Buchdahl. [221] C. Cai. [205] J. Phys. A. D. A. Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmological theory. grqc/0607055. arXiv:hep-th/0608015. L. Bruneton. [212] A. Chen. [222] C. D. 115:1325–1328.. van de Bruck. [206] H. Seery. Tolley. and A. de Rham. Cao. [225] R. Phys. JCAP. 1005. Effective Field Theories and Matching for Codimension-2 Branes. 79(4):044028. D80:041501. Burgess and L. 0809. Cai. B. 80(2):024003. Phys. [214] C. A. R. Viability of f(R) theories with additional powers of curvature. 2010. 1009.0270. and D. Tasinato. Classical and Quantum Gravity. A. [227] R. 743:417–449. [203] F. Burrage and D. Phys. Cao. Buchdahl. 1101.[202] H.0155. 0712. Bulk Axions. Buchdahl. Cao.

Evolution of density perturbations in f(R) gravity. and A. R. and M. D59:044013. D.2563. Phys. Capozziello. M. Capozziello. and A. 639:135– 143. S. 2007. Cosmology of generalized modified gravity models. S. Non-singular cosmology in a model of non-relativistic gravity. Carloni. V. Cosmological viability of f(R)-gravity as an ideal fluid and its compatibility with a matter dominated phase. [240] S. M. M. 2004. 1005. S.2211. May 2010. [249] S. Phys. 71(6):063513.2268. General Relativity and Gravitation. 2008. Unifying the study of background dynamics and perturbations in f(R) gravity.-G. Dark energy and cosmological solutions in second-order string gravity. P. Sur une g´n´ralisation de la notion de courbure de Riemann et les espaces ` torsion. [242] S. Rev. 2008. Rev. 0904. Phys. 24(8):2153. Classical and Quantum Gravity.. 22:3977–4006. Reconciling dark energy models with f(R) theories. 0707:008. Ann. 0909:112. Carloni. S. Cosmological dynamics of scalar tensor gravity. 2005.. [244] S. 2006. Ohta. P. M. Soh. M. 2005. 0906. Troisi. F. 2005. arXiv:astro-ph/0501426. K. N. 0706. K. Troisi. D. [235] G. 0910. 8:323. V. 174.Rev. M. Solar system and equivalence principle constraints on f(R) gravity by the chameleon approach. Cardone. Oct. Phys. Carloni. D77:083512. and A. Rev. Trodden. D. Aug. . Classical and Quantum Gravity. Ananda. S.0452. K. Silvestri.-F. 22:4839–4868. D. 593. 23:1913–1922. New Journal of Physics. Carroll. Weinberg. Topological black holes in the dimensionally continued gravity. S. 1984. and A. and A. 2009. Rev. and M. and P. and N. Aug. D.Rev. S. hep-th/0302067. Mar. 77(2):024024. Modified-source gravity and cosmological structure formation. P. Capozziello. Carroll and M. 1922. arXiv:hep-th/0505193. Dunsby. Jan. [233] R. Troisi. [241] S. Acad. Tsujikawa.0829. Spherically symmetric solutions in f(R) gravity via the Noether symmetry approach. A. 81(8):084061. ´ [260] E. Sami. Melchiorri. Duvvuri. Scalar perturbations in braneworld cosmology. R. D. 0711. Capozziello and S. and A.[232] R. Carloni. arXiv:astro-ph/0703375. [238] P. Goswami. Classical and Quantum Gravity. S. [257] S. 2010. K. N. Aug. Cardoso. Apr. [258] S. Sci. S. ´ [259] E. Odintsov. ArXiv e-prints.1840. arXiv:gr-qc/0701009. Koyama. Mar. Cosmological dynamics of Rn gravity. A. 2006. T. 2008. Dec. V. Phys. D. Dunsby. JHEP. and A. Nucl. arXiv:astroph/0410031. 2006. Phys. A. [243] S. Mar. Stabile.1685. e e ` e e e e e 275 . and S. 0812. Phys. ArXiv e-prints. Cosmology of the Lifshitz universe. Cannata and A. [253] S. S. [247] S. J. K. de Felice. [239] F. Caldwell. Trodden. Dunsby. [256] S. and P.-S. May 2008. Easson. [234] Y. and F. and D. S. Some remarks on the dynamical systems approach to fourth order gravity. D. 0705. 2008. 2009. Carroll. [236] G. Cai. Dunsby. Quintessence without scalar fields. and M. M. Horizon thermodynamics and gravitational field equations in HoravaLifshitz gravity. K. D. Calcagni. Tsujikawa. Cardoso.1789. S. Rev. [252] S. Rev.-G. E. 70(4):043528. Constraints on a new post-general relativity cosmological parameter. Rev. D. Nojiri. ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints. Kamenshchik. Phys. Carloni. e e a C. 41:1757–1776. P. Dunsby. Duvvuri. and P. Carloni. and M. Phys. arXiv:hep-th/0407149. Cartan. K. 1005. Carroll and E.. 71(4):043503. arXiv:astro-ph/0604431. Dunsby. Lorentz-violating vector fields slow the universe down. Seahra. [250] S. Capozziello. Turner. S. [245] A. Feb. Solomons. 0707. Sawicki. May 2010. Trodden.2307. July 2007. 76(2):023507. 1999. gr-qc/9808067. Koyama. 2003. Rev. Troisi. Sur les vari´t´s a connexion affine et la th´orie de la relativit´e g´n´ralis´e I. Troisi. A. Carroll. arXiv:gr-qc/0410046. Classical and Quantum Gravity. arXiv:astro-ph/0303041. Cartan. Physics Letters B. Phys. JCAP. Troisi. A. S.1878. Capozziello. 2007. 2005. 0910:020. Bounce conditions in f(R) cosmologies.0106. Candelas and S. K. 2009. Carloni. and M. Y. [248] S. A. Dec. A. Saridakis. Capozziello. Troisi. Guica. [255] S. arXiv:astro-ph/0306438. 0712. [254] S. Hiramatsu. Silva. Chameleon Cosmology Model Describing the Phantom Divide Line Crossing. Turner. arXiv:gr-qc/0510130. [237] R. Abdelwahab. Cai and E. K. Seahra. 25(3):035008. P. S. Calcagni. I. Cosmological perturbations in the DGP braneworld: Numeric solution. 2003. [246] A. A new approach to reconstruction methods in f(R) gravity. Lim. [251] S. Carloni. Sidestepping the cosmological constant with football shaped extra dimensions. Leach. Cai and K. M. Cooray. B237:397. A. Classical and Quantum Gravity. arXiv:astro-ph/0607458. S. S. 2004. Calculation of Gauge Couplings and Compact Circumferences from Selfconsistent Dimensional Reduction. S. 70(12):123525. Is cosmic speed-up due to new gravitational physics? Phys. Dec. S. K. Dunsby. JCAP. Nov. 77(10):107501. Feb. ArXiv e-prints.

0706. Saffin. 0712.2174. 1992. Phys. [267] J. Charmousis. Phys. Chan and R. [269] K. 42. Mar 2006.-F. Rev. 1925. Phys. 2009. Matching conditions for a brane of arbitrary codimension. W. 73(6):064029. F.-M. 11:991–1089. 0906. Rev. Charmousis. G. ArXiv e-prints. 1992.. Norm. 2007. ´ [261] E.. 2005. [266] J. 0807. 189:012007. 0905. Scalar brane backgrounds in higher order curvature gravity. Saridakis. Cembranos. Kaloper. D62:067505. Self-properties of codimension-2 braneworlds. Gravity and the standard model with neutrino mixing. 2000. and M. Carter and R. J. . Gregory. and M. C. R. and the fab four. R. B636:159–178. 2010. N. 81(2):024002. Pi. Strong lensing probability in TeVeS theory.1640. Charmousis and A. Ohta. 0907. Strong gravitational lens probability in TeVeS. Lett.0568. Charmousis and A. 0905. [289] S. B. Phys. A. 325. hep-th/0502171. astro-ph/0606506. T.4548. Phys. M. Sup. Math. Gregory. 0508:075. Ann. S. Cartier. Phys. 2010. and P. [288] D. 2011. Norm. Quir´s. Chen. Madden. and R. hep-th/0604086. and A. [270] C. [287] D. Einstein gravity on an even codimension brane. Padilla. Jan. [268] A. Cosmological perturbations in f(T) gravity. C. Carter. self tuning. 278:94–96. Copeland. Scale Invariant Power Spectrum in Horava-Lifshitz Cosmology without Matter. hep-th/9912160. Journal of High Energy Physics.. and D. D72:064005. Phys. and M. 769:299–346. Rev. JCAP. J.-M. General Gauss-Bonnet brane cosmology. [262] B. Modern Physics Letters A. Harko. Physics Letters B. The graceful exit in string cosmology. Orlov. Astrophys.. H. Class. 2002. submitted. [265] J.2864. Chen. D. JHEP. A. hep-th/0502170.Quant. and E. Charmousis.-M. 0710:006. [284] B. Garc´ ıa-Bellido. 2008. Higher order gravity theories and their black hole solutions.3488. .Ec. [286] C. A. R. 2007. Aug. The newtonian limit at intermediate energies.2579. Charmousis. [263] B. [276] C. Saffin. Chen and H. Chen. 1923. G. JHEP. and J. The consistency of codimension-2 braneworlds and their cosmology. 0805.-M. Zhao. JCAP. Marcolli.. Padilla. Rubakov. Conf.Rev. Charmousis. Casas.Notes Phys.Grav. 19:4671–4682. Dufaux. JHEP. Charmousis. 7:447–456. Wave function of the radion in a brane world. Padilla.Rev. Mak. [280] C. 0908:007. Axisymmetric black hole has only two degrees of freedom. 276 . D. Nucl. General second order scalar-tensor theory. 2003. Gregory. [285] C. Sur les vari´t´s a connexion affine et la th´orie de la relativit´e g´n´ralis´e II. Padilla. 0910. and J. Zegers. J. 07:062. Papazoglou. Zegers. 2009. Rev. 17. [272] C. 2008. [282] C. e e ` e e e e e Ec. hep-th/0309083. Stealth Acceleration and Modified Gravity. JHEP. Chamseddine.1633. Papazoglou. [273] C. J. Cartan. 2010. 2006. J. N. and V. [281] C. arXiv:hep-th/9910169. 0312:029.. Charmousis. N. Kao.-F. Adv.. 1:35. Gregory. Rotational perturbations of FriedmannRobertson-Walker type brane-world cosmological models. J. 0908:070. 26(6):331– 333. D. Global solutions for higher-dimensional stretched small black holes. Updating nucleosynthesis bounds on Jordano Brans-Dicke theories of gravity. Charmousis and J. Dufaux. 2009. JHEP.2300. Scoccimarro. Lect. [283] C. Feb 1971. Phys. A. 2005. G. JHEP. Large-Scale Structure in Brane-Induced Gravity II. E. [275] C. D80:104005. JCAP. 2000. [277] C. R. Connes.. 2008. [271] C.-Z.2121. A. 2006. V. 1008. 2002. and A. J. Curvature corrections to dynamics of domain walls. Gal’Tsov. Papazoglou. Antonia.. Charmousis. A. Garc´ ıa-Bellido.0857. M.. S. Niz. Jan. 0812:038. Chen. Quir´s. 1995. and M. Dent. S. 40. hepth/0201012. Tang... 2009. 1001:022. JCAP. [279] C. [274] C. 2009. 0801:006. Chen. 650:L9– L12. Properties of codimension-2 braneworlds in six-dimensional Lovelock theory. 0902. Numerical Simulations. Sup. Kofinas. Phys.1250. hep-th/0610241. 10:066. and A. Theor. K. 0804. Ser. Charmousis and A. The Instability of Vacua in Gauss-Bonnet Gravity. DGP specteroscopy. Charmousis and R. Casas. Mar. hep-th/0202107. Rev. Strong coupling in Horava gravity. Nucleosynthesis Bounds on Jordan-Brans Theories o of Gravity. Charmousis and R. E. Davis. [264] C. hep-th/9410095. and P. P. Phys. [278] C. D51:5839–5846. Dutta.

D. Barrow. A. hep-ph/0311312. Jun 2007. R. 2011. Lensed density perturbations in braneworlds: An alternative to perturbations from inflation. Phys. 575:1–3. C. J. M. Higher powers in gravitation. H. Search for Chameleon Particles Using a Photon-Regeneration Technique. Cosmology of codimension-two braneworlds. Pavlis. Classical and Quantum Gravity. [299] N. [317] J. Erickcek. arXiv:gr-qc/0601118. Phys. Barrow. 1989. Clifton. Nature. Richardson.. Generalized gravity and a ghost. Cosmic microwave background temperature and polarization anisotropy in Brans-Dicke cosmology. 2005. [298] A. [304] T. Skordis. Jan. Weld. Upadhye. K. Moore. Cline. H. M. D. D. A. Solar system constraints to general f (r) gravity. Apr. Theoretical aspects of gravitational lensing in TeVeS. 2001. Coley. J. Mazur. Gustafson. [308] T. Dec. arXiv:gr-qc/0502070. 1002. Chow and J. Clifton and T. Tian. [292] T. and A. D. 0905. D. 72(12):123003.1448.2438. Dec. Khoury. Cline. Physical Review Letters. arXiv:gr-qc/0607096. D. Cosmic microwave background and scalartensor theories of gravity. Oct. Oct. S. 2008. Rev. arXiv:gr-qc/0105026. 2004. 0708. 2003.0983. Y. 2003. 636:565–574. 0806. [312] T. X. Chiaverini. and Y. Classical and Quantum Gravity.-C. J. Steffen. Ciufolini and E. 2005. [305] T. Clifton and J. Astrophys. D. Yang. M. Phys. [293] T.. 1006. 23:7445–7453. gr-qc/0406001. Physical Review Letters. J. A Simple Model for Pulse Profiles from Precessing Pulsars. Clifton. with Special Application to Relativistic Binary PSR B1913+16. Ba˜ados. Sept. and A. [303] C. [301] T. Rev. June 2010. W. J. Physical Review Letters. Irizarry-Valle.Testing the Covariant MOND in Elliptical Lenses. FRW cosmology in Milgrom’s bimetric theory of gravity. Yoo. Smullin. Loveman. Tomlin. Smith. D. Rev. Barrow. Clifton. 2008.. Geraci. D. [309] T.. and J. Wester. and de Sitter universes. Scherrer. 1105. Phys. The phantom menaced: Constraints on low-energy effective ghosts. Rev. Pirtskhalava. The Parameterized Post-Newtonian Limit of Bimetric n Theories of Gravity. and C. Physics Letters B. 72(10):103005. Kapitulnik. astro-ph/0507332. O’Neill. Clifton. arXiv:gr-qc/0511076. Phys.[290] X. 3:8. Chiu. 81(10):103525. Phys. 2005. [295] M.. astro-ph/0202066. [314] T. 102(3):030402. Ko. Nov. Phys. G. 2005. A. JHEP. A. and A. Chkareuli and D. 0801. Oct. Rev. Astron. 1999. and E.. [310] T. M. Phys. Mar. Soc. A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the LenseThirring effect. Rev. R. and R. Chen and M. J. M. [297] G. D.1325. arXiv:astroph/9905368. Einstein. Rev. L. R. 06:048. and G. P. 2003. 78(8):083501.-M. Mota. D.4682. 431:958–960. 2005. M. The power of general relativity. Baumbaugh. Roy. Phys. Rev. arXiv:astro-ph/0307338. 2009. and J.0993. [291] J. D.5619. Cosmology Astropart. Chiba. Zlosnik. 0812. astro-ph/0504418. D. J. [316] J. 2003. Oteiza. M. Results of a new test of local Lorentz invariance: A search for mass anisotropy in 21 Ne. Spherically symmetric solutions to fourth-order theories of gravity. M. Phys. and J. 2009. A.5011. 64(6):063510. S. Freese. D67:103505. F. Rev. M. E. [300] D. hep-th/0304147. Kamionkowski. Phys. Nov. Vainshtein Mechanism In Λ3 . Astrophys. Inhomogeneous gravity. Clifton and J. J. Clifton and J. Constraints on the Variation of G from Primordial Nucleosynthesis. Phys. Ko. D. Jeon. T. Chou. 60(10):104036. Chung and K. L. 2006. 63:1541–1545. Chiu. 2006. Vinet. A. 2007. [313] T. A. 1/R gravity and scalar-tensor gravity. Mon. S. Weltman. D80:024037. R. O..Rev. Clifton. H. Clifton. Rev. o Phys. [306] T. Galileon Cosmology. Nov. Thompson. D. and C. 679:687. May 2010. 2008. Weisberg. Barrow. Giovannini. Jan.. Not. 0807. Hoare. 2004. [294] T.1783. The existence of G¨del. 24:5073–5091. arXiv:hep-ph/0209325. arXiv:gr-qc/0509059. Chupp. 277 . May 2006. New Experimental Constraints on Non-Newtonian Forces below 100 µm. A. D. Exact Friedmann solutions in higher-order gravity theories. Barrow. D. J. E. [311] T. Oct. E. Clifton. S. Descheneau. Chiba. Necessity of Dark Matter in Modified Newtonian Dynamics within Galactic Scales? . Wagshul. ArXiv e-prints. Clarkson. J. Chiba. Y. Tian. [296] M. C. D70:043543. arXiv:gr-qc/0703126. 358:601. [307] T. R. [315] T. C. J. 77(2):024041. 90(15):151101. Parametrized post-Newtonian limit of fourth-order theories of gravity. D71:123526. [302] I. Clifton and J. A. Rev. Classical and Quantum Gravity. 75(12):124014. 2008. 23:2951–2962. Further exact cosmological solutions to higher-order gravity theories.Theories.

Coc. C. Astrophys. On the Stability of a Class of Modified Gravitational Models. 648:L109–L113. Kolb. Zerbini. 2008. Creminelli. S. K. J. S. S. Fabbro. 2008. [337] C. B255:201. E. Rev. D. K. Rev. Elizalde. E. 77(4):046009. 0712. 2005. and D. [342] P.3004. J.0385. Phys. and E. D. 1867. Phys. [336] E. Demaret. Zerbini. Hudson. Adv. Rev. V. Cooney. D. Clowe. 1990. Feb. 47:898–910. A. Elizalde. 2001. D. C. J. hep-th/0505147. Howell. D78:044034. Trincherini. Fouchez. [326] G. Guy. D. A. Dec. Apr. [334] E. Ellis. Cognola and S. Topological defects in extended inflation. M. [330] A. R.. Thermodynamic aspects of extended inflation. [328] P. D64:023509. M. Qualitative Properties of Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity. J. A. R. 2006.5480. and G. Conley. et al. Carlberg. and L. Copeland. 48(10):4595–4603. Sept. Tasinato. Induced gravity on intersecting brane-worlds Part I: Maximally symmetric solutions. R. [327] A. [329] D. Nucl. M. [340] S. and J. Copi. B. A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter.J. M. Regnault. 2010. Balland. 0802. Phys. Pritchet. Dark energy in modified GaussBonnet gravity: Late-time acceleration and the hierarchy problem. arXiv:astro-ph/9910395. Nojiri. Odintsov. K. M. Cognola. Toms. Rev. Jan. Phys. astro-ph/0006421. Markevitch. 0509:003. and S. Rev. 2007. Copeland and D. D78:124002. 0802. arXiv:astro-ph/0601299. 2011. P. Wiseman. Nojiri. Nov 1993.. S. Collins and R. Apr. Zerbini. [322] G. Phys. D32:1921. a a T. Rich. [341] P. arXiv:grqc/0701138. Homogeneous Cosmologies in Generalized Modified Gravity. One-loop f(R) gravity in de Sitter universe. 84(10):104026.. Kronborg. J. Large angle anomalies in the CMB. Rev. D. Comelli. Perlmutter. W. R. 2010. Neill. J. Liddle. D. Ruhlmann-Kleider. D. J. Mar. Cognola. 2008. A. D. S. Gonz´lez-Gait´n. [321] G. D. arXiv:hep-th/0501096. A. [325] G. D. Phys. [338] O. 73(8):083525. Finite energy for a gravitational potential falling slower than 1/r. D. [332] A. T. W.. L. J. 2006.3967. 1011. [323] G. J. I. Musso. J.. E. Mixmaster universe in fourth-order gravity theories. and S. Phys. Norena. Rev. Gonzalez. Y. D. Suzuki. 0803. Ghosts in massive gravity. 0712. Rev. and E. International Journal of Theoretical Physics. Crisostomi. Fakhouri. Zerbini. and E. Feb. Sept. Huterer. 2008.. Koyama. 73(8):084007. and L. Creminelli. Copeland. Walker. Apr. Randall. 2010. TeVeS gets caught on caustics.4017. E. Zerbini. H. Oct.3010. Phys. Sebastiani. Cognola. H. Phys. Rev. Basa. E. Papucci. J. Vangioni. Supernova Constraints and Systematic Uncertainties from the First Three Years of the Supernova Legacy Survey. N. D. D. Lidman. Neutron stars in f(R) gravity with perturbative constraints. N.1215. Schwarz. Lidsey. Pilo. Tasinato. Starkman. Rev. [335] E. Gastaldi. Olive. R. 2005. Elizalde. 75(8):086002. astro-ph/0608407. Sullivan. [324] G. Cosmology Astropart.. Palanque-Delabrouille. J. and G. S. Hardin. Steep inflation: Ending braneworld inflation by gravitational particle production. M. K. [331] C. Rev. String-inspired Gauss-Bonnet gravity reconstructed from the universe expansion history and yielding the transition from matter dominance to dark energy. Querella. Quantized Antisymmetric Tensor Fields And Selfconsistent Dimensional Reduction In Higher Dimensional Space-Times. G. S. Apr. Copeland and D. and E. Trincherini. Odintsov. S. arXiv:hep-th/0611198. and G. Hook. 192:1. Phys. Big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on scalartensor theories of gravity. J. Corradini. D. M. Langbein. D. JHEP. International Journal of Theoretical Physics. E. Rev. Withers. Coley. 1105. 31:1295. Rev. Contaldi. S. and A. D. J. Phys. Bradac. S. Odintsov.[318] D. N. Hsiao. Psaltis. L. [339] O. General Relativity and Gravitation. 1985. Phys. D’Amico. 1993. 2008. 47:3186–3200. E.Astron. D.. S. 42:2911–2914. Perrett. K. M. D. ApJS. 2006. 0910. Class of viable modified f(R) gravities describing inflation and the onset of accelerated expansion. 2011. Stability Of Selfconsistent Higher Dimensional Cosmological Solutions. Corradini. Phys. Ripoche. Cognola. S. Fourmanoit. Pain. Baumont.1850. Galilean symmetry in the effective theory of inflation: new shapes of non-Gaussianity. D77:084006. Zerbini. S. 278 . Nojiri. C. and B. S. Dedeo. Nov. and S.5602. and S. Elizalde. J. G. M. S. Koyama. Codazzi. Nojiri. 1(1):293–316. Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata (1867-1897). S. 1004. Balam. 2008. S. Graham. Phys. M. Toms. arXiv:hep-th/0601008. Cognola. 1985. Phys. Rev. Sulle coordinate curvilinee d’una superficie e dello spazio. Nicolis. [333] E. 2010:847541. Odintsov. and S. 1999. A. F. Mourao. A. M.. J. 2:10. De Rop. N. D. Nesti. 82(6):064033. Uzan. D. Astier. [320] D. [319] A. Induced gravity on intersecting brane-worlds Part II: Cosmology. J. P. R. M. Liddle. Phys. 47:2302–2312. F. Cotsakis.

4453. M. Weilbacher. Tsujikawa. [359] T. 2007. Croom. D. J. D63:065002. Nicolis.Astron. JCAP. Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization. and J. [352] J. 2000. 279 . Phys. A. Phys.1068. R. ArXiv e-prints. Jan. 2010. Physics Letters B. and D. Rev. Sept. T. 1992. 2010. de Blok. 1012. 0810. A. Csaki.. Gundlach. May 2009. Damour and K. Nucleosynthesis constraints on an extended Jordan-Brans-Dicke theory.. Phys. and T.. I. Shaw. Davis. Sigurdson. Daniel. Caldwell. and J. 43(12):3873–3877. Black hole scan. D. 77(10):103513. Creminelli. [346] C.3538. R. Zamarias. astro-ph/0612401. 2002. P. hep-th/0003271. O. M. M¨ller. R. da Silva. and G. SN1987A constraints on large compact dimensions. De Felice. [355] T. 0804. 1008. 1011:021. Crittenden and P. A. 83:268–271. Nucl. Tsujikawa. Davis. D. Matter perturbations in Galileon cosmology. Rev. Rev. 2010. The Chameleonic Contribution to the SZ Radial Profile of the Coma Cluster. [350] S. Graesser. Shanks.. 1992.1962. Phys. L. Rev. De Felice.6132. Large scale structure as a probe of gravitational slip. 70(15):2217–2219. Zamarias. F. and S. May 2008. Rev. D. Mota. [365] H. Phys. Davis. E. D81:123508. 82(6):063526. M. Rev. Sept.Roy. Cullen and M. [349] B. Rev. Solar system constraints on f(G) gravity models. C. Testing general relativity with current cosmological data. K. D67:024030. Phys.4885. ArXiv e-prints. [356] T. J. [366] W. [369] A. E.1811. Brunner. and E.4747. General relativity as a cosmological attractor of tensor-scalar theories. arXiv:hep-th/0206044. F. Terning. 2008. 0802. Papazoglou. 45:1840–1868. Tsoukalas. Mar. and A. Rev. Phys. Phys. Cosmological perturbation in f(R. Tulin. Phys. Papantonopoulos. Suyama. hep-ph/9903422. Tsoukalas. Phys. Black Holes on Thin 3-branes of Codimension-2 and their Extension into the Bulk. Tensor-scalar cosmological models and their relaxation toward general relativity. Melchiorri. Bounce scenarios in modified Horava-Lifshitz cosmology. hep-ph/9911406. Cooray. 80(6):063516. Lett. [357] T. I. Damour and C. Jun 1991.G) theories with e a perfect fluid. [362] A. Phys. 2010. An Alternative Approach for General Covariant Horava-Lifshitz Gravity and Matter Coupling. hep-th/0208205. Phys. Phys. Perelstein. J.. 1007. [368] A. Kase.Rev. The 2dF-SDSS LRG and QSO Survey: QSO clustering and the L-z degeneracy. da Angela. 2010. Pichon. Unified origin for baryonic visible matter and antibaryonic dark matter. Generalized Israel junction conditions for a Gauss-Bonnet brane world. D62:084013. Physics Letters B. Rev. Steinhardt. 2010. D. L. D. Rev. de Felice. Matter instabilities in general Gauss-Bonnet gravity. Davoudiasl. 2000. Phys. ArXiv e-prints. Aug.. Morrissey. [370] A.-M. [345] R. [347] C. A. page 789293. Taylor. Graceful exit in extended inflation and implications for density perturbations. and S. R. [364] S. Czuchry. Radion dynamics and electroweak physics. R. 1009. D. Papantonopoulos. Apr 1993. Lett. Schelpe. Strong-field tests of relativistic gravity and binary pulsars. 2009. Damour and B.5712. [351] E. 48(8):3436–3450. Tsujikawa. Perturbations of Gauss-Bonnet Black Strings in Codimension-2 Braneworlds.4459. E. Damour and J. Troncoso. and S. [353] A. [372] A. 105(21):211304.. [348] B. 1103. May 1999. Lett. Damour and K. [371] A. Construction of cosmologically viable f(G) gravity models. Rev. u 2011. Nordtvedt. [367] J. Advances in Astronomy. D. Phys. [363] S. Mon. Zanelli. Phys. Nov 2010. de Felice and S. Tsujikawa. Big bang nucleosynthesis and tensor-scalar gravity. M. Phys.5450. Bianchi VIIA solutions of quadratic gravity. Randall.1880. 2001. Crisostomo. de Felice and S. D. B810:246–265.. Daniel et al. [360] S. 1011.. 2010. D62:045015. D. 0910. Damour. 2010. Graesser. [358] T. 2009. 2010. 0911. Rev. and V. 383:565–580. 1999.. 2003. Csaki.1830. Rev. de Deus and D. F. D. C. G´rard. Trincherini. Phys. and A. Solar System Constraints on f(G) Dark Energy. Nordtvedt. Rev. C.0027.Not. [361] S. 293:32–36. The Core-Cusp Problem. Sep 2010. arXiv:1002. 675:1–8. [344] J. 0907. 81(2):023532. Nov. Rev. 59(12):123502. 0709. 66(10):104025. Cuadros-Melgar. arXiv:astro-ph/9207002. 1008.[343] P.3410. M. Kogan.Rev.Soc. S. Cuadros-Melgar. [354] T. Kribs. Nonlinear bigravity and cosmic acceleration. Oct 1993. D. Galilean Genesis: An Alternative to inflation. Oct. and V. et al. hep-th/0008151.

[391] A. de Rham and G. L. [389] C. 1010. Dobado. Deffayet. J. J. Trodden. 2010. D65:044023. Gabadadze. G. 2010.4367. Living Reviews in Relativity. Phys. S.. 2010. Dvali. Vainshtein.Rev. D66:103504. Perturbations of Self-Accelerated Universe. 0802. hep-th/0607099.. D. hepth/0205084. 1007. Phys. D. Lett. 1002.0269. Heisenberg. [388] C. Can. Evolution of density perturbations in f(R) theories of gravity. 103:161601. Tolley. Gao.1780. de Rham and A. Cosmology Astropart. and A. Phys. Rev. Steer. On brane world cosmological perturbations. and G. B502:199–208. Hofmann. Massive gravity from Dirichlet boundary conditions. The phase-space view of f(R) gravity. Deffayet. J. Generalized Galileons: All scalar models whose curved background extensions maintain second-order field equations and stress-tensors. f(R) Theories. Rev. A. 87:201– 203. and A. Deser. 2002. hep-th/0106001. [375] A. Khoury. de La Cruz-Dombriz and A. Oct. Phys.. 2010. Deffayet. ´ [376] A. Gabadadze. Cascading Gravity is Ghost Free. Deffayet. Khoury. 2006. 0705. 2001.. Generalized Galileon cosmology. [382] C. and superluminal propagation in modified gravity models. Gabadadze. 0901. [394] C. Unsuccessful cosmology with modified gravity models. f(R) gravity without a cosmological constant.1232. Cosmic Acceleration and the Helicity-0 Graviton. de Rham. Deffayet. July 2007. Gabadadze. 2009. 2010. D82:061501. Phys. Phys. J. 280 . De Felice and S. 2009. Deffayet. [399] C. Maroto. Vikman. Deffayet. 0907. Rev. 2010. Cosmology of a covariant Galileon field. [387] C.Rev. Deffayet. D. [383] C. 0910. 1002. Phys. I. and G. J. Ghosts. 0904. D65:044026. Pirtskhalava. A.2700. Gabadadze. G. arXiv:astroph/0604154. and A. Dvali. [390] J.. de Rham. Phys.Rev. Vacuum structure for scalar cosmological perturbations in modified gravity models. Covariant Galileon. DeFelice. Hindmarsh. Black holes in f(R) theories. C. Faraoni. de Rham et al. Esposito-Farese. Aug. [379] C. Phys.5278.Rev. G. and A. 13:3. Tolley. Phys.. [377] A. Flat 3-Brane with Tension in Cascading Gravity.2092. 1007. de Souza and V. Phys. hepth/0010186. Phys. 0907. Esposito-Farese. JCAP.. 1005:015.Lett. Khoury. DBI and the Galileon reunited. DeFelice and M. Esposito-Farese. and A. Selftuned Massive Spin-2. June 2008.Lett. L. S.4236. and A. 0608:012. 0810. JCAP. Resummation of Massive Gravity. 1008. Deser. JCAP.Lett. June 2010. DeFelice and T. J. [392] A.5917.. 1011. 2008. and A. Lett. Dobado. Tolley. [393] A. 0711. 105:111301. Deffayet. [401] C.. 6:28. June 2009. astro-ph/0105068. 2006.1314. Gabadadze. Phys.0443. J.3872. Generalization of the Fierz-Pauli Action. Phys. An Introduction to Cascading Gravity and Degravitation. Rev.Rev. D81:124027. [396] C.Rev. arXiv:gr-qc/0607118. [398] C.1967. B688:137–141. Iglesias. 0906.1223. Cosmology Astropart. [402] C. and A. Hindmarsh. and G.0473. D82:044020. 2008. de Rham and G. 2010.4928. J... G. [380] C. Cascading gravity: Extending the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati model to higher dimension. From k-essence to generalised Galileons. de La Cruz-Dombriz. and D. 2010. X. de La Cruz-Dombriz. 0712. [400] C. Phys. 74(8):087501. and A. Tolley. 0706. [374] A.[373] A. Rev. Arbitrary p-form Galileons. Cosmology Astropart.Lett.. de Rham. Cascading Gravity and Degravitation. [385] C. L. R. de Rham. June 2007. 1003. 1006. and G. Tolley.1075. G.2072. D80:064015. 24:3637–3648... Classical and Quantum Gravity. Tsujikawa. [395] C. 77(12):123515. 2010..2821. instabilities. 2009. B693:334–338. Cosmology on a brane in Minkowski bulk. [384] C. de Felice and S. G. and M.Rev. 2009. [386] C. 2009. 2002. Suyama. J. 80(12):124011. Dobado. Rev.5474. R. Dec. D79:084003. Phys.. D. Phys. 2010. [378] A. Gabadadze. Maroto. A. Zahariade. Phys. Rev. [381] C. Phys. [397] C.. J.2999. J. Phys. 8:5. De Felice and S. 100:251603. 0802:011.3375. 2006. Tsujikawa. M. J. G. de Rham. S. 1007. de Rham.. Tsujikawa. 6:34. Accelerated universe from gravity leaking to extra dimensions. 2002. C. Nonperturbative continuity in graviton mass versus perturbative discontinuity. de Rham. Phys.

0804. Phys. Rev. M. JCAP. Deser and B. gr-qc/0505134. Kahya. D66:024019.. S. Roy.. 1952. Letter: On the Newtonian Limit in Gravity Models with Inverse Powers of R. Rev. [418] B. Deruelle and M. [413] N. D67:084009. D. arXiv:1103. 2008. Phys. Figures of merit and constraints from testing general relativity using the latest cosmological data set including refined COSMOS 3D weak lensing. 45:3301. Diaz-Rivera. A. Vikman. Ishak. American Journal of Physics. [417] A. 110:441–456. 1992. Gong and A. Dec. Phys. I. Langlois. Deruelle. Delicate f(R) gravity models with a disappearing cosmological constant and observational constraints on the model parameters. General Relativity and Gravitation. O. 2002. J. A new classical theory of electrons I. Samushia. S. 2003. E. Roy. 2006. Constraints on growth index parameters from current and future observations. 70(4):043505. Phys. 2003. 2003. Deruelle. Perturbations of extended inflation. 78(8):083515. [421] R. Nucl. [420] R. M. and J. van de Bruck. Thongkool. [408] N. Aug. Ratra. Proc. P. DeWitt. astro-ph/0201164. [409] N.Phys. 2001. and A. Rev. 46:5337–5345. and B. A new classical theory of electrons II. Soc. Oct. [411] N. Jan. 40:688–690. Dicke.3260. hep-th/0110162.. Sawicki. Nojiri. H. CMB. Soc. and I. Phys. Barraco. D.Theor.. Phys. Gordon and Breach. T. 36:217–224. Mach’s principle and invariance under transformation of units. D72:044003. Dossett. 1008. del Campo and A. D. Germani. [404] C. and R. Dorca and C. and gravitational leakage into extra dimensions. Woodard. Deruelle. 45:3386–3393. Dirac. arXiv:gr-qc/0307052. A. 1103. Phys. Dirac. [428] A. J.. Phys. D73:083503. Dolgov and M. 2010. Dynamical theory of groups and fields. astro-ph/0608602. Proc.-W. Phys. hep-th/0205318. Sami. Prog. Desai. Moldenauer and M. Dicke. Nuovo Cim. Deruelle. JCAP.. 125:2163– 2167. Langlois. Rev. D. Phys. Phys. 2006. gr-qc/0306032. Phys. 2003. L. Rev. M.. M. Kawasaki. 1962. 2002. Zaldarriaga. strong coupling and accidental symmetries in massive gravity. Raux. [424] P. Can Cosmic Structure form without Dark Matter? Phys. Gundlach. M. 1951. E.3445.Lett. Energy in generic higher curvature gravity theories. D77:124041. Jhingan. Rev. Reduced time delay for gravitational waves with dark matter emulators. [427] S. [431] J. Newton’s law on an Einstein ‘Gauss-Bonnet’ brane. [425] P. [412] N. A223:438. 2004.. [419] L. Newtonian limit of the singular f(R) gravity in the Palatini formalism. Apr. [403] C. Initial conditions for extended inflation. [430] M. Moldenauer. M. [405] C. Liguori. Phys. Oct. and D. 0807.0048. Dev. 2004.2011.1195.Rev. Katz. Tekin.. Phys. 34:369–370. Vilenkin. C. July 1989. Initial conditions for anisotropic extended-type inflationary universes.. Rev. O. hep-th/0010215. Gundlach. D.. 9:1511–1524.. 1954. 281 . D. Ghosts. Imperfect Dark Energy from Kinetic Gravity Braiding.Rev. D. Gravitational energy in quadratic curvature gravities. Smooth branes and junction conditions in Einstein Gauss-Bonnet gravity. 2010. [422] R. Y. Tekin. 573:1–4.. Landau. hep-th/0212292. Perturbations of brane worlds.. Gundlach.. J. 2001. [410] N.. Sasaki.. Vacuum density fluctuations in extended chaotic inflation. M. Astier. 89:101101. arXiv:astro-ph/0307285. Rev. Dirac.Polon. Classical and Quantum Gravity. astro-ph/0601153. Dolezel. [414] S. arXiv:1004. 1966. 1010:026. Deffayet. Jain. [432] J. 1004:022. D. Rev. [407] S. Rev. gr-qc/0306116. D. Dick. 2005. Pujolas. 2008. Ishak. B605:215–233. 84(2):023012. Wang. C. S. and D. Cosmological perturbations in brane worlds: Brane bending and anisotropic stresses. Deffayet and J. Polarski. Deffayet. H. Deser and B. B32:3669–3682. Inflation and accelerated expansion TeVeS cosmological solutions. [426] P. The growth of density fluctuations in a simplified model of extended inflation. del Campo. [429] A. Dick. Standard cosmology in the DGP brane model. Rev. Can modified gravity explain accelerated cosmic expansion? Physics Letters B. Dom´ ınguez and D. 2001. B118:977–988. May 1992. 1965. 97:231301. Rombouts. Supernovae. A209:291. D63:083513. Lett. J. Roy. Dossett. [416] S. Phys. Rev. May 1992. and D. A new classical theory of electrons III. arXiv:gr-qc/0408069.Rev. A.3086. and P. E. 2011. Phys. C. hep-th/0012116. Dodelson and M. [423] R. Deruelle and C. Rev. [415] S.3804. The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity. Proc. Soc. June 1992. [406] S. A212:330. Acta Phys.

2001. T. A. N. Phys. [440] M. T. Dutta and E. 0911. 19:5343–5350. Hasselfield. [448] G. hep-th/0111266. [454] G. Phys. Bond. Nucl. M. D67:044020. P. Dvali. Thornton. B255:355–364. Sefusatti. Phys. [434] I. J.. R... Halpern. J. 82(2):023519. 2004. Fisher. [444] R. and M. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: Cosmological Parameters from the 2008 Power Spectra. Shifman.Rev. Phys. E. J. D. E. hep-th/0703027. R. G. Duff and J. 2004. J. 2003. J. D67:044019. Khoury. Zaldarriaga. arXiv:astro-ph/0008234. Warne. [446] S.J. Pope. and K. Durrer. T. 42:3027–3047. Lett. Hilton. S. R. W. Consistent truncations in Kaluza-Klein theories. L. L. Dufaux. Physics Letters B. A supersymmetric type IIB Randall-Sundrum realization.. Irwin. K. Sakellariadou.. and J. H. Feb. J. Degravitation of the cosmological constant and graviton width. Bertrand Doriese. Sami.Mod. and D.. Acquaviva. R. E. Dubovsky and V. 2010. S. G. 2010. Barrientos. M. R. Kosowsky. 18:3207–3214. J. N..Phys. A. B. Phys. Marsden. M. Parker. J.Rev. Kaul. [452] G. N. 2001. L. R. Saez-Gomez. Trac. 0401:006. A. T. Tucker. [450] G. Hincks. Rev. Ade. 2007. Kunz. B.. M. hep-th/0202174. Phys. G. M. Aguirre. H. V. [455] D. Turner. hep-th/0007120.. G. [441] M. Dvali and M. Limon. M. R. M. M. N. C. Extended inflation in closed cosmologies. W.Rev. and Y. Moodley. ΛCDM universe in f(R) gravity. H. and M. S. Infante.. Moseley. 1009.-F. R. [453] G. Rev. P. Hilton. Math. Spergel. S. Overall observational constraints on the running parameter λ of Horava-Lifshitz gravity. D. Gabadadze. Maartens.2205. M. A. B485:208–214. Odintsov. 282 . On models of gauge field localization on a brane. Hou. hep-ph/0212069. Cosmological perturbations from brane inflation with a Gauss-Bonnet term. Sept. and M. R. Dvali. Lett. hep-th/0105243. 2005. International Journal of Modern Physics A. F. J.. A. Easther. Wollack. J. Page.. D. Dvali. Hughes. JCAP. 6:683–687. The Accelerated universe and the moon. B. Gabadadze. Staggs. 247:246–250. Nolta. Predictive Power of Strong Coupling in Theories with Large Distance Modified Gravity. B. Dark energy as a modification of the Friedmann equation. Essinger-Hileman. Sehgal. [457] R. Hofmann. Rev.-r. R. D67:123501. X.Rev. K. 1005:013. Diluting cosmological constant in infinite volume extra dimensions. Klein. and D. F. A. Dunner. R. Jackson. B. 2001.. Brane gas cosmology in M-theory: Late time behavior. 1990. Saridakis. New J. Phys. Dubovsky and V. Observational constraints on Horava-Lifshitz cosmology. D68:024012. Hughes. Rubakov. 2001. A16:4331–4350. M. Dicker. Netterfield.3373. N. P. R. Bimetric gravity and “dark matter”. Int. Dutta and E. Greene. Dunsby. Gravity on a brane in infinite volume extra space. hep-th/0307233. Brane induced gravity in more than one extra dimensions: Violation of equivalence principle and ghost. J. 1985. S. 2001. T. A. Mauskopf.1435. Das. S. Y. Dvali. [436] S. P. J. 63(4):043503. Greene. [456] R. Sievers. E. M. Lupton. Jackson. Amiri. Phys. July 2010. E. 1001:013. Lau. Kabat. R. Lin. JCAP. K. Niemack. A search for anisotropy of inertial mass using a free precession technique. Phys. [451] G. Gerhard Jensen. Goswami. M. Complementarity of the Maldacena and Randall-Sundrum pictures. Duncan and L. [449] G. JCAP. hep-th/0211124. Stelle. Phys. Hernandez-Monteagudo. and D. Modified Gravitational Theories and Cosmic Acceleration. 2003. Sherwin. R. arXiv:astro-ph/0411209. C. Chervenak. Fowler. Appel. hep-th/0404161. Phys. D76:084006. Duff and C. [442] J. 2004. hep-th/0610013. hep-th/0212222. Kabat. S. T. [439] M. R. Swetz. D. Liu. B. Marriage. A. and M. and E. Phys. hep-th/0008054. 1005. [443] P. Gabadadze. P. 8:326. H. 2006. Switzer. J. Juin. B614:125–130. G. ArXiv e-prints. Hlozek. 2003. Philosophical Magazine. Rev. 2000. astro-ph/0301510.. B. D. Grav.[433] R. Duff.Rev. Quant. Drever. Sept. Lidsey. Huffenberger. Brown. K. C. J. J. Liu. D. P. Phys. Dvali. S. Rubakov. and M. L. B. Dvali and G. [435] S. Reid. Dunkley. Menanteau. D. Brane gases in the early universe: Thermodynamics and cosmology. 2003. Why do we live in 3+1 dimensions? Phys. 1002. W. G. hep-th/0501163. [447] G. S. Easther. N. J. B. 2003. Hajian. Porrati. W. Saridakis. Devlin. C. hep-th/0003237. Phys. [438] M. Gruzinov.0866. 2003. Zhao. See-saw modification of gravity. D63:065007. D70:083525. M. M. Class. D67:104014. S. [445] S. Gabadadze. Easson. J. Drummond. Partridge. Dvali. hep-th/0005016. R. N. May 1961. 2010. [437] J. Burger.. D.Rev. Elizalde. 4D gravity on a brane in 5D Minkowski space. D. Battistelli.

Sebastiani. Govaerts. R. Sept.. J. [475] J.. Fairlie and J. Rydbeck. Tower gravity experiment . Nojiri. and D. Matter instability in modified gravity. Caillol. 1009.Evidence for non-Newtonian gravity. Emparan. Nov. Odintsov. Phys.3456. Annalen Phys. 2008. Rev. O. 44(2):pp. 2008. L. arXiv:astro-ph/0701900. Faraoni. B. Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies. Romaides. 2002. J. Elizalde. Phys. Maddox. Annalen Phys. Kaloper. Nature. [arXiv:1010. 1012. Sheikh-Jabbari.. JHEP. 15:761. astro-ph/0511029. A. 1004. and M. 60:2567–2570. L. arXiv:gr-qc/0703044. [473] A. and E. Exirifard and M. The foundation of the general theory of relativity. 1105. Crispino. N. Lovelock gravity at the crossroads of Palatini and metric formulations. International Journal of Modern Physics D. [482] W. Fairbairn and A. Supernova limits on brane world cosmology. Zhuk. F. Morozov. M. and P.5740 [gr-qc]]. B. Phys. Rev. Revised version. 49:769–822.1879. arXiv:astro-ph/0610483. J. B373:214–232. Annalen Phys. R. 1933. [481] D. 1943.. 131–137. Dec. Sutherland. [484] H. Eingorn. Quantum black holes as holograms in AdS braneworlds.3910 [gr-qc]]. and R. 83(8):086006. 2007. Eingorn. ArXiv e-prints. 0808. Lett. S. [478] M. 33:3543– 3566. 1922. L. Rev. black strings. D. and S. Phys. 2005. D. Physics Letters B. C. D. D78:103509. Emparan. and N. and A.. Kamionkowski. Euler hierarchies and universal equations. Zhuk.Phys. Lazarewicz. [480] D. Efstathiou. 2007.2208. The Annals of Mathematics. Kabat. [463] G. 1992. Evans. [474] J. Fairlie. hep-th/0206155. L. 19:621–633. [486] V. Cosmology Astropart. H. R. [467] D. 74(12):121501. hep-th/9110022. 40:1804–1818. On the non-existence of regular stationary solutions of relativistic field equations. Expansion history and f(R) modified gravity. [464] A. 2006. 0711. Faraoni. 633:560–574. Smith. 68:11–66. [465] A. J. A. Dec. hep-th/9204074.Math. Goobar. D. D. C. Jekeli. Mag. 08:043. Chameleonic Generalized Brans–Dicke model and late-time acceleration. Zerbini. and S. 1911. Sands.and late-time accelerated expansion. Ellis and M. 2006. Farajollahi. Etherington. Nucl. Bruni. [459] D. 106:221101. Contributions to the law of propertionality of inertia and gravity. Hall. Rev. hep-th/0212132. D83 (2011) 044005. 1916. Rev. Einstein. Pekar. D.. Shojaie. ArXiv e-prints. A. [460] A.2280. T. Solar system tests do rule out 1/R gravity. Apr. 74(10):104017. Dec. Fabbri. B642:432– 435. String windings in the early universe. Rev. 12:5. Govaerts. Phys. June 1988. Rev. black branes. 77(8):083514. 2010. 283 . JHEP. [469] G.. Latent solitons. Phys. Farajollahi and A. 0502:009. 2003. Mar. Nonsingular exponential gravity: A simple theory for early. de Sitter space and the equivalence between f(R) and scalar-tensor gravity. Erickcek. S. J. 661:158–161. L. JCAP. Mar. H. Farhoudi. [468] E. [470] R. W. Eckhardt. Faraoni. Easther. J. de Medeiros. R. S. 1992. W. Fang et al. and H. [485] V. 1989. A. G. 348:705–707. and N. [472] R. Black hole astrophysics in AdS braneworlds. [487] V.[458] R. D.Phys.. Pauli. Challenges to the DGP Model from Horizon-Scale Growth and Geometry. 35:898– 908. A. Phys. V. Eotvos. Salehi. M. Phil. [471] R. The cosmological constant and cold dark matter. [477] Q. 1923. J. J. 2005. 2008. Greene. astro-ph/0501171. [466] A. Standard cosmological evolution in a wide range of f(R) models. 1990. W. Salehi. 2006. [483] H.. [462] M. Fekete. M. Rev. Astrophys.3695. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity. [479] M. Fairbairn and S. Einstein. 2011. D84 (2011) 024031. Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity. Kaluza-Klein models: can we construct a viable example? Phys. Physical Review Letters. Covariant and gauge-invariant approach to cosmological density fluctuations. D. On The influence of gravitation on the propagation of light. Rev. F. Phys. hep-th/0409121. D.Lett.3508. Rev. Jackson. 75(6):067302.. [476] C. A. Universal field equations with covariant solutions. Garcia-Bellido. Extension of the EGS theorem to metric and Palatini f(R) gravity. arXiv:astro-ph/0610734. Eddington. Cosmic Dynamics in Chameleon Cosmology. 01:079.5059. Everitt et al. 0705. Phys. M. Kaloper. Phys. Einstein and W. 2010. Eisenstein et al. 2011. Sep. [461] M.. [arXiv:1101.J. and equations of state in Kaluza-Klein models Phys.

Tegmark.Lond. 1007. Tsujikawa. [492] M. Lett. 2006. [516] S. 38:1261–1284. J. Asymmetric Gravitational Lenses in TeVeS and Application to the Bullet Cluster. A173:211–232. B209:146.2327. Bunn.2558. JHEP.. [512] K. Fradkin and M. and W. D.. Figueras. Gen. 0811. 1104. 2009. Aug. [490] V. 1982. [508] A. Phys. Rel. 101(6):061103. 2008. 87:176–204.. and T. 480:313. 2005.0514. Jan 2009. 75(6):063509. D. F. [497] S. 81(4):044002. Can f(R) modified gravity theories mimic a ΛCDM cosmology? Phys. Classical Trace Anomaly. A. Cardassian Expansion: a Model in which the Universe is Flat. Fiedler and R.. Gen. D. 1987. Ferreira. Int. Fay. E. Tavakol.0992. Ferraro. 1107. Weyl Invariants & Classical Trace Anomaly in Six Dimensions. Schmidt.. Figueras and T. S. Phys. 8:2. Rev.. [500] S. Aug. 356:207–215. Singularity Problem with f(R) Models for Dark Energy.2500. [510] J. ArXiv e-prints. hepth/0312289. hep-th/0608208. [488] V. Phys. Proc. Oct. Feb 2004. Frolov. J. Astrophys.Lett. and M. [517] G. Skordis. Physical Review Letters. Pauli. 1939. Mar. [501] P.1870. their analogy to GR. On higher order gravities. Feb. Lett. B540:1–8. Fierz and W. New regions for a chameleon to hide. Schimming. Constraining f(R) gravity as a scalar-tensor theory. Aug 2006. 26(19):195013. [495] T. Grav. Nesseris. ArXiv e-prints. 0812. Ferreira and C. [511] E. M.. 0707. Wiseman. 284 . and T. Nov.4489. Renormalization in the theory of a quantized scalar field interacting with a robertson-walker spacetime. Lucietti. Rev. [515] A. Rev. 2010.. Zunckel. Feix..Rev. Sept. 11:033. Vasiliev. [503] B. C.J. arXiv:astroph/0701479. 2008. Fulling and L. Farhoudi. Softly massive gravity. 1105. Faraoni.Soc. Bullet Clusters in the MareNostrum Universe. 1992. [496] S. and Y. Jul. 41:117–129. [506] P.. 725:598–604. On the Gravitational Interaction of Massless Higher Spin Fields. [494] M. Astronomische Nachrichten. and S. Gabadadze. Rev. Wiseman. 2009. 2010. 2008. [514] P. Farhoudi. Shifman.0116. B681:89–95. Modified Gravity and the Mass of the Neutrino. F. 92(7):071101. Wiseman. Gravity and large black holes in Randall-Sundrum II braneworlds. Fay. O. 1005. 0909. Clifton’s spherical solution in f(R) vacuum harbours a naked singularity. D. 0806. and Accelerating. Faraoni. General Relativity With An Auxiliary Dimension. Sep 2007. G. 2011.. On the existence and dynamics of braneworld black holes. Phys. [499] B. Black hole entropy in scalar-tensor and f(R) gravity: an overview. [502] P.4231. Phys. Gottloeber. Faulkner. L. D78:044043. Nature.Lett. 1001. 76(6):063504. Palatini Form of 1/R Gravity. Mar. 2004. [489] V. 0908. D81:104020.1112. D. On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromagnetic field. Jebsen-Birkhoff theorem in alternative gravity. Six years of the fifth force. [493] M. [504] M. Faraoni. Astrophys.3902. Annals Phys. Lovelock tensor as generalized Einstein tensor. and dimensional dependent version of Duff’s trace anomaly relation. Farhoudi. Flanagan. Kaluza-Klein Cosmologies. 2010. Perivolaropoulos. [491] M. B189:89–95. [507] E. Journal of High Energy Physics. Ricci solitons. Skordis. 1011. Phys. Gabadadze and M. Ricci flow.0790. 0803. 2002. ArXiv e-prints. 2010. D69:124032. 76(6):063505. S. Yepes. Cluster Abundance in f(R) Gravity Models.2287. 2007. Classical and Quantum Gravity. [498] M. Hu.. Freidel. arXiv:gr-qc/0703006. Rev. Forero-Romero. May 2010. Phys. G. C. Phys. Freese and M. The linear growth rate of structure in Parametrized Post Friedmannian Universes. arXiv:1003.Roy. Phys. and strongly coupled CFT in the Schwarzschild Unruh or Boulware vacua. [513] L.3200. [509] E. 14:1233–1250. L. 2006. Phys. [505] P. Feldman and A. Astron. Randall. 1974. 2008. and G.Rev. Rel. R.Nov. Grav. Nelson. 1983. G. Bartelmann. Mod. [518] G. On Third Order Lagrangians. Freund. V. Mao. 2008. and C. Phys. Farhoudi. E.. 2011. Fischbach and C. 2011. f(R) gravity theories in Palatini formalism: Cosmological dynamics and observational constraints. Matter Dominated. Phys. Dark Matter. E. Singularity-free static centrally symmetric solutions of some fourth order gravitational field equations.. Lewis. arXiv:hep-ph/0603057. astro-ph/0201229. 2007. Parker. Rev. Fitzpatrick. Modified gravity without new degrees of freedom. Talmadge.1034. 304:221–229. Nucl. and L. Fedeli.

1999.. Rev.. 1997. Shaw. W. [523] J. Power-law cosmic expansion in f(R) gravity models. 494:315–328. Rev. [542] W. and D. Gong and A. Inflationary Brans-Dicke quantum universe. Phys. Rev. [525] J. arXiv:gr-qc/9504022. and M.. Typis Dieterichianis. 1999. Rev. V. 0801. Mota. and S. hep-th/0108017. Sept. D. D. 2010. Friedmann Equations and Thermodynamics of Apparent Horizons. A. 2009. Nov. 77(12):123520. D. [536] G. Garc´ ıa-Bellido and A. 0710. Boughn. Dec. 83:4922–4925. Brandenberger. Wise. B. Rev. Dec. Phys. and D. Gorbunov. C. Sibiryakov. Aug. Phys. Nichol. 50:730–750. Sami. [547] D. Phys. Goheer. S. R. Rev. Rev. K. 2000. Galileon gravity and its relevance to late time cosmic acceleration. [520] R. and S. [541] W. hep-ph/9907447. 0911. arXiv:astro-ph/9401042. Symmetries for Galileons and DBI scalars on curved space. J. 1999. May 2009. Stationary solutions in Brans-Dicke stochastic inflationary cosmology. Zerbini.4380. 2009. Astroparticle Physics.3821. Maartens. K. Density perturbations in the brane world. Tanaka. [540] N. Garc´ ıa-Bellido and M. T. Gauss. Dynamical systems analysis of anisotropic cosmologies in Rn -gravity. Riotto. arXiv:gr-qc/9905073. Extended inflation in scalar-tensor theories of gravity. Phys. Germani. [521] X. Hawking. and S. Goheer. Phys. 2006. [543] Y. Phys.3196.. Nuclear Physics B. D. June 1990. Nuclear Physics B. [534] T. Gravity waves from inflating brane or mirrors moving in adS(5). D60:107505. [545] G. Gasperini and G. 0906. 2007. Scranton. [538] N..0793. [544] G. 2008. arXiv:gr-qc/9506050. D15:2752–2756. [524] J. Richards. Dunsby. Phys. [527] J. Rubakov. Myers. Xue. [522] X. Giannios. D. Phys. [535] D. R. The growth of matter perturbations in f(R) models.. J. B. K. Phys. Dunsby. Gao. 1:317– 339. K. 2010. 1103. Gordon and R.5745. [530] M. Brandenberger. and P. [533] B. hep-ph/9907218. Trodden. arXiv:hep-th/9211021. Gannouji and M. 2:34. 26(10):105003. Gies. Linde. A. R. Trodden. Physics Letters B. Phys. and K. M. Rev. Maggiore. S. Goon. 52:6730–6738.. Constraints from inflation on scalar-tensor gravity theories. S. D82:024011. Goswami. and P. Goldberger and M. R. Phys. Linde. S. Geyer. 1995. JHEP. Towards a non-singular pre-big-bang cosmology. 2011. Fluctuations of the gravitational constant in the inflationary Brans-Dicke cosmology. Wang. Garc´ ıa-Bellido and D. Rev. Action Integrals and Partition Functions in Quantum Gravity. G. Y. W. and M. [529] M. 2001. Veneziano. Koyama. hep-th/0512097. D. and D. Gannouji. and G. Relativistic Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point. 2009. Odintsov. Pre-big-bang in string cosmology. 285 . Kehagias. F. Wise. 2011.6029. Modulus stabilization with bulk fields. D. Gasperini. Cosmology Astropart. 0905. Rev. Classical and Quantum Gravity. June 2008. S. and G. Cosmological Perturbations in Hoˇavar Lifshitz Gravity. Feb. D63:044022. [531] C. July 1993. Moraes. S. [537] H. Phys.[519] R. 1103. Y. Crittenden. Disquisitiones generales circa superficies curvas. Phys. 0909:060. static spacetimes in TeVeS. Polarski. D. B. Rev. Jan. Rev. JHEP. Lett. Veneziano. JCAP. 0710. K. More on ghosts in DGP model. Combined analysis of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect and cosmological implications. Bulk fields in the Randall-Sundrum compactification scenario. Garc´ ıa-Bellido. 80(6):061301. [526] J. Phys. Physical Review Letters. Sibiryakov. Spherically symmetric. 2007. Hinterbichler. J.1201. [528] J. K. arXiv:astro-ph/9312039. 423:221–242. Wang. A. 10:015. 1002:020.1556. 1004. 0906. 2005. Gao. D. Physics o Letters B. Goon. Classical and Quantum Gravity. D73:044016. July 1994. Linde. P. [548] C... R.0814. A. Gibbons and S. 2010. Garriga and T. A. Goldberger and M. [539] N. Giannantonio. Jordan-Brans-Dicke stochastic inflation. General Embedded Brane Effective Field Theories. Larena. July 1994. Rev. Feb. hep-th/9911055. gr-qc/0502122. Goheer. Nov.2808. 1828. 243:45–51. Gravity in the brane-world. 24:5689–5708. 0704. J. Dunsby. arXiv:hep-th/9611039.5247. and R. and P. [546] D. Lett. 1995. Wands. 77(2):025016.Rev. 460:58–62. 99(21):211301. Fluctuations in a Hoˇava-Lifshitz Bouncing r Cosmology. Rev. D71:103511. Gorbunov. Quir´s. Phys. 84:2778–2781. and A..3860. D. Leach. Garc´ ıa-Bellido. M. [532] C. W. Sfetsos. Hinterbichler. D81:083508.3374. Hidden in the light: Magnetically induced afterglow from trapped chameleon fields. 0809. 0809. Dynamics of f(R)-cosmologies containing Einstein static models. Wang. D. 1977. 52:6739–6749.

75(2):023520. [578] A. Gurvits. New Astron.. A. Theo.2595. [576] L. B562:118–126. Gen. hep-ph/0404271. P. Rev. Gen. Aug. R. 2003. K. [549] R. Zhuk. F. Phys. and T. Gregory. and S. Phys. Quant. Flux compactifications in string theory: A comprehensive review. Phys. [566] D. M. Lorentz violation in supersymmetric field theories. Willison... Grana. hep-th/0107108. Rev. 121:253-273. Grav.. Gruzinov. Rev. Tejeiro. D. Groot Nibbelink and M.3528. 19:4071–4083. 2001. 94:081601. [565] S. [552] M. Gottloeber. R. 22:231–242. Quant. Jan. S. 2003. Classical and quantum gravity of brane black holes. E. S. Conditions for successful extended inflation. S. JHEP. V. Braneworld instantons. Padilla. 769:259–298.. Guth and B. A. Gottlober. [550] S. Sibiryakov. A Note on dynamical stabilization of internal spaces in multidimensional cosmology. Grav.0617. 2002.-K. hep-th/9912001. Phys. and J.Rev. Green and A. [572] U. Lect. Padilla. Rubakov. and V.3068.2037. Ohta. Sloan. 2011. D. Padilla. R. 0707. 0707. Braneworld black holes. Black Holes in the Dilatonic Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Theory in Various Dimensions. Phys. Zegers. D63:084017. Goheer. Gregory. Grav. 78(4):044011. arXiv:astro-ph/9604001. A. J. M. Kellermann. 286 . Rept. D. Gregory and A. astro-ph/0112246. Goswami. Phys. [555] B. June 1973. Ruban. Gregory and A. hep-ph/0006283.2786. [573] Z. Phys. Levin.2001. Lett. and H. Kaloper.Asymptotically AdS Topological Black Holes. and A. K. C. Nucl. Guo. Dunsby. Rev. 2008. and P. [560] R. 1002. L. Realizing scale-invariant density perturbations in lowenergy effective string theory. [569] A. hep-th/0304250. 7:893–900. Dressed Domain Walls and Holography. Class. Prog. [557] J. V. Gregory. 09:029. Class. 2007. [561] R. 1010. A. On the graviton mass. Aug. M. Brane world holography in Gauss-Bonnet gravity. D. 1987. D.. 2004. [577] L. Rel. and T. 120:581-607. Starobinsky. Geodesic deviation equation in f(R) gravity. Opening up extra dimensions at ultra-large scales. 2002.. Jan. Quant. H. 2005. Tsujikawa. JHEP. Gunther. I ... JHEP. Torii. Torii. Prog. 2009. N. and A. 10:311–314. hep-th/0204218. [568] A. Grav.Lett. Multidimensional cosmological models: Cosmological and astrophysical implications. Zhuk. II . N. 2000. 19:279–302. Nested braneworlds and strong brane gravity. [564] L. Schmidt. 43:2713. 2008. Phys.Quant. 42:2713. Padilla. hep-th/0509003. Feb. 1998. Padilla. 2007. 2008. [553] E. Gubser. Phys. Phys. Black Holes in the Dilatonic Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Theory in Various Dimensions. Notes Phys. May 1990. 2006. N. H.. Gravanis and S. [571] U. [554] A. 45:426–432. Castaeda. 06:059. hep-th/0104262.. and S. Rel. 10:069. Rev. N. Jain.. Finkelstein. M. Class. 1996. Gunther. Phys. 2007. 54:2557–2563. [575] Z. B291:41. Generalized inflation from R-cubed and R square R terms. 20:4221–4238. D65:084013. 0712. Israel conditions for the Gauss-Bonnet theory and the Friedmann equation on the brane universe. Ross. Ap&SS. A. [551] S. and A. Starobinsky. H. Tejeiro. Boundary term in metric f(R) gravity: field equations in the metric formalism. Dark Energy and Stabilization of Extra Dimensions. Guarnizo. Frey. [570] S. P. 11:096.. Mueller. 2005. 312:291–297. Exact braneworld cosmology induced from bulk black holes. Class. hep-th/0209076. Gregory. Ohta. 0804. Sixth-order gravity and conformal transformations. Myers. The “angular size . [556] J. Grisa and O. 0804... 0811. 2002. 2008. Guo. Castaeda. and J. JHEP. [567] A. Greene and J. [574] Z. [558] R. N. Schmidt. 18:1441-1460. 69:044003. 84:5928–5931.5279. 423:91– 158. hep-ph/0306191. Liddle. Guarnizo. 0802.-K. [562] R.2481. 2009. Theo. Grav. L.Asymptotically Flat Black Holes. Astronomische Nachrichten. M. Existence of Einstein static universes and their stability in fourth-order theories of gravity. Phys. Phys. A New Perspective on DGP Gravity. hep-th/0610336.2666. Rev. 1992. Density fluctuations in extended inflation.redshift” relation for compact radio structures in quasars and radio galaxies. Rev. Guo. AdS/CFT and gravity. Sep.Lett. Pospelov. 2010. Classical and Quantum Gravity. 0806. Gurevich. 2001. hep-th/0002072. astro-ph/9812018. Rev. and R.1062. July 1991.Grav. The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic String. Gregory and A. and A. Ohta. Gross and J. Pujolas. hep-th/0009010.-K. and S. [563] R. [559] R. On the Problem of the Initial State in the Isotropic Scalar-Tensor Cosmology of Brans-Dicke. Phys. Gregory and A.

[600] F. 48. et al. 1971. S. Exact Brans-Dicke-Bianchi type-V II(h) perfect fluid solutions. 346:78. M.. ArXiv e-prints. March-Russell. [598] E. Annals Phys. Zhao. D. [596] S. 179:331–334. Maddox. General vacuum solution for Brans-Dicke-Bianchi type V . A test of the nature of cosmic acceleration using galaxy redshift distortions. 25:167–171. and H. Cosmic no-hair theorem in Brans-Dicke cosmology. Nature. [605] A.Roy. Hawking. G. and S. Rev. General Relativity and a Gravitation. 152:171–173. Comm. Henneaux. arXiv:hep-th/9509147. 1999. 5:74. S. peculiar velocities and the matter density of the universe. Waldram. [581] E. and G. Hinterbichler and J. D. Feb..0399. Cheng. A. 9:691–710. and D. Physics Letters B. A.[579] E. S. Reall. Lett. 1991. P. Tolman-bondi collapse in scalar-tensor theories as a probe of gravitational memory. 2010. May 1996. Guzman. W. D. Hertog. Guzm´n. Guzman. [592] J. Goymer.. hep-th/0010232.2487. 1979. Haugan.. W. Cole. Phys. Perturbations In A Non-Uniform Dark Energy Fluid: Equations Reveal Effects of Modified Gravity and Dark Matter. 23:1007–1010. Hawkins. D81:064002. 104:231301. Homogeneous Universes in Extended Inflation II. Guzm´n. [590] N. a [584] E. B282:397. Phys. 0812. 1001. Bell. Aug. A. J. Kerlick and J. and R. Gomez. Ap&SS. P. [588] L.Riemannian space-time. Li. Hao and R. D60:085008. Gorski.. Hawking. A.. Phys. Cosmological constraints on theories with large extra dimensions. 1997. Hewish. Von Der Heyde.0958. Journal of High Energy Physics.. Power Asymmetry in Cosmic Microwave Background Fluctuations from Full Sky to Sub-degree Scales: Is the Universe Isotropic? Astrophys. astro-ph/0212375. Rev. Madgwick. General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foundations and Prospects. Mod. [595] S. Rev. D63:083504. Symmetron Fields: Screening Long-Range Forces Through Local Symmetry Restoration. 1976. Nov.. Rev. Rev. [589] A. A. Phys.Theor. 1997. Rev.In. Pilkington. Apr. W. [602] F. 249:179–188. Lilje. D.4525. 1010. 1973. Phys. Feb. D. 66(10):104023. [587] L. 2000. 2009. J. [604] A. hep-th/0003052. Akhoury. 2010. D. How does one measure torsion of spacetime? Phys. 2010. Guzm´n. Mon. and B. a May 1991. 1008. arXiv:hep-th/9509142. Nov 2002. Kerlick. J. Phys. Homogeneous Universes in Extended Inflation I. Collins. 249:211–221. Ap&SS. Hamed. Higuchi. Sept. Hindawi. H. Guzzo et al. Hehl and P. P. Black holes in the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation. D62:043501. Consistent spin-two coupling and quadratic gravitation. I . Phys. 1972. 53:5597–5608. Nature. Von Der Heyde. Hindawi. Lett. Khoury. J. Tucker-Smith. 1968. 2001. Hehl and G.. A dynamical inconsistency of Horava gravity. and S. and H. 2003. 118:156–186. and B. Guzm´n. Haba and S. Rev. [591] F. Banday. Phys. Ap&SS. [586] N. Metric-affine variational principles in general relativity. Scott. [580] E.. Halle. Phys. [607] A. Forbidden mass range for spin-2 field theory in de Sitter space-time. Kleinschmidt. W. 2008. Nester. 2007. a [585] L. [597] S. Ghost Condensation and a Consistent IR Modification of Gravity. Apr. Trace anomaly driven inflation. Norberg.. T. G.Not. M. 53:5583–5596. K. F. Brane new world. West. Mukohyama. May 2004.Soc. A. [583] E. Luty. A Unified Theory of Matter Genesis: Asymmetric Freeze. [594] M. [593] T. 0912. H. General Relativity and Gravitation. Reall. Can relativistic MOND theory resolve both the dark matter and dark energy paradigms? 2005.Astron. Baryogenesis from Dark Sector. Matsumoto. 0711. Eriksen.0245. [608] K. Nontrivial vacua in higher-derivative gravitation.. 1997. Hehl. Observation of a rapidly pulsating radio source. D. Nucl. Hehl.J. Energy conservation and the principle of equivalence. 451:541. Carr. Phys. A. and D. The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: Correlation functions. Hawking. Ovrut. 19: 179. arXiv:hepth/0312099. C. H. May 1996. [603] M. 1989. B. [599] F. [601] F. 2010. 1987. J.3795. W. Harada. [606] A. W.Rev. Rev. J. H. Math. Phys. B. 393. M. T. 287 . L. Ap&SS. General Vacuum Solution for Brans-Dicke-Bianchi Type-II. 217:709–713. 1978. A36: 225. Hertog.. Spin and the structure of space-time Annales Poincare Phys. hep-ph/9904267. astro-ph/0504130. S. Waldram. Ovrut. 704:1448–1458. and P. S. W. [582] E. Hall. 391:267–270. Hall and D. Hansen. S.

Holman. Kolb. 2008. Phys. Oct. A25:2267–2279. 1990. D. A. and N. D77:103524. H.. Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space. 0903:020. Rev. Hoyle.Phys. Mathews. E. [618] P. S. J. Parametrized post-Friedmann framework for modified gravity. Porrati. 0801.0739. Physics Letters B.0642. Stability of the de Sitter spacetime in Horava-Lifshitz theory. Padmanabhan. Nicolis. 2010. E. Hinterbichler. Nucl. Sawicki. Horava and E. 2007. A..Rev. 0905. Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure. and Q. D43:995–1004. W. Witten. Horava. [621] P.Rev. Rev. June 1991. U. Spectral Dimension of the Universe in Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point. Distance measures in cosmology. Adelberger. Vadas. Nonrelativistic general covariant theory of gravity with a running constant λ.2433. L. 76(10):104043. Phys. I. B475:94–114. ApJ. Hinterbichler. Phys. [627] W. Multi-field galileons and higher co-dimension branes. W. Classical and Quantum Gravity. 251:343–348. 0708. Huang and A. Horava. T. May 2001. M. Holman.. G. Phys. 2010. Phys. International Journal of Theoretical Physics. Observational constraints on dark radiation in brane cosmology. 250:24–28.. H. [615] R. Phys. S. Hwang and H. W. May 1999..Lett. Nov. Holman. Wang. M. Rev. [624] C.. 2010. Yahiro. Hu.3657. Horndeski. 102:161301.1190. D66:043521. Orito. W. False-vacuum decay in generalized extended inflation. G. and V. D. Phys. Wang. 506:13–19. Kapner. [620] P. [619] P. Sep 2007. and M. E. Superluminality in DGP. Rev. 0801.. Holman. [628] W. and Y. 1998. Wu. 288 . 1008. Wang...1305. Trodden. [623] G. Exact solution for scalar field collapse. 0812. 506:485–494. Swanson. 2009. Rev. 1975. Parametrized Post-Friedmann Signatures of Acceleration in the CMB. July 1990. 2009. Black holes from extended inflation. 2001. Nov. 65(2):023512. Huang. [633] V. arXiv:astro-ph/9905116. Noh. and D. Wang. Integrated Sachs-Wolfe tomography and cosmological implications. Hogg. Phys. Dec 2001. [613] D. General Covariance in Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point. Phys. Horava and C. arXiv:hep-ph/0011014. 78(4):043519. 1007. [635] V. 2009. Wang. JHEP. 86:1418–1421. 2010. D. Lett. ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints. astro-ph/0003365. 1990. [610] K. Structure Formation with Generalized Dark Matter. Phase-plane analysis of friedmann-robertson-walker cosmologies in brans-dicke gravity. Physics Letters B. A. 1996. Kajino. Physical Review Letters. Rev. Heckel. W. [617] R. f(R) gravity theory and CMBR constraints. Vadas. Phys. U. D82:064027. and E. Upper Limit for the Anisotropy of Inertial Mass from Nuclear Resonance Experiments. Scale-invariant extended inflation. Hu. 1003. D. Physics Letters B. Noh. Mod. Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system. Nov. [632] Y. D. and Y. D79:084008. D. arXiv:astro-ph/9801234. W. Hirata. 1998. Jan.2003. Wang. Gauge-ready formulation of the cosmological kinetic theory in generalized gravity theories. [614] R. Wesley. 2002. astro-ph/0203272.2410. Rev.3775. [612] D. 2008. Horava. Physical Review Letters. Hughes. J. Hu and I. 43:3833–3845. D. Physical Review Letters.Rev. Nunez. Sawicki. 1960. [625] S. Bahcall. Phys. E. Hwang and H. Barkana. 1991.. Beltran-Lopez. Taylor.Rev. Feb. [616] R. Apr. E. L. [622] P. ApJ. [629] W. Eleven-Dimensional Supergravity on a Manifold with Boundary. Wands. Vadas. M. D82:124018.2359. Hu. [637] J. Martinez. Models of f(R) cosmic acceleration that evade solar system tests.Lett. Ichiki. and G. 65:17–20. 0901. Gruzinov. and H. Rev. N. and A. D50:3783–3786. and Y. Phys. Phys. Y. 4:342–344. 85:1158– 1161. 195:L51–L53. [638] K. [631] Y. Husain. Holden and D. 15(10):3271. Rev. D. [611] S. L. Gundlach. Melby-Thompson. 10(6):363–384. M. Phys. H. and D. J. Rev. gr-qc/9402021. Kolb. Hulse and J. B.[609] K. [630] W. 1974.. A. arXiv:astro-ph/0102423. 1011. Robinson. S. Ho. Gravitational couplings of the inflaton in extended inflation. Schmidt. R. H. Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point. Kolb. [636] J. Seljak. JHEP. Hsu. Hu and I. 76(6):064004. Membranes at Quantum Criticality. [626] W. hep-th/9603142.-c. Phys. 0902. 2009.4287. Submillimeter Test of the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law: A Search for “Large” Extra Dimensions. C. Aug. 0909:089. [634] R. 2000. J. 1994. R. Extended inflation from higher dimensional theories. Cold and fuzzy dark matter. Kolb. E.

1984.Rev. [641] L. Nov 2007. Iglesias. 0904. L. Israel. B44S10:1. 121:419–426. Kaloper. Phys. and M. Iorio. A. L. J. and C. P. Rev. Ark.2822. [657] H. Kainulainen. 1:24. Classical and Quantum Gravity.. 05:045. Kaloper and D. HORAVA-LIFSHITZ Gravity:. 20:1079-1093. H. Iorio. and J. Jin and X. 2007. Rev. 2009. Class. Li.Phys. Israel. Brane Induced Gravity: Codimension-2. 2001.. 2000. 738:119–156. gr-qc/0605046. Aug. June 1991. Phenomenology of the LenseThirring effect in the solar system. 0709. On Inflation in String Theory. JHEP.. Kachru. 10:603–615.. Mattingly. and S. A Decisive test to confirm or rule out existence of dark matter using gravitational wave observations. [646] M. Nuovo Cim. [668] N. D. Ishibashi and S. 2008. Ast.1547. Isham. hep-th/0201028. L. hep-th/0703190. A. Rev. Strathdee. Tanaka. Ruggiero. No de Sitter invariant vacuum in massive gravity theory with ghost. 8:245–260. Ruggiero. Dec 1967. 0711. 25:5399-5408. D. Relativity-f gravity and gravitational collapse. D.3210. Lett. Int. QG-PH:020. [647] C. 0801. Izumi and S. gr-qc/0007031. Jacobson and D. [642] L. Jaichan. Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity. [651] W. and D. 2011. hep-th/9905210. Moduli stabilization from fluxes in a simple IIB orientifold. 1973. Communications in Mathematical Physics. Kallosh. Interior spacetimes of stars in Palatini f(R) gravity. Phys. Kallosh. Israel. 244:82. Cosmological perturbations in a sixth-order gravity. [664] E. De Sitter vacua in string theory. Iorio. Gravity with a dynamical preferred frame.. Rev. [640] A. Alcaniz. Quant.. Class. hep-th/0301240. 2007. Mod. Woodard. 1968. O. Fys.. 2003. Reijonen. Jacobson. astro-ph/0206224. 2009. Einstein-aether gravity: a status report. Dec. [660] X. 2005.Quant. [650] W. 2010. Lichtenegger. JHEP. Speziale. 2003. Bent domain walls as braneworlds.3914.0153. M. 15:1. 83(14):2699–2702. Park. 0909. hep-th/0702059. Phys. [649] W. Event horizons in static vacuum space-times. Uber die allgemeinen kugelsymmetrischen L¨sungen der Einsteinschen Gravitationo sgleichungen im Vakuum. [643] L. 8:L133–L136.-h. A. 2007. Rev. Prog. Moldenhauer. 1921. and M. Event horizons in static electrovac space-times. 2008. 289 . N. 76(10):104001. Jain. [656] T. J. Sept. JCAP. [654] T. Phenomenological Constraints on the Kehagias-Sfetsos Solution in the HORAVA-LIFSHITZ Gravity from Solar System Orbital Motions. Kaloper.0199. Open. 2002. R. A. Phys. Ida. Iorio. 164(5):1776–1779.0246. arXiv:gr-qc/0411024. D66:083511. 2008. [661] S. 3:167-171. Schulz. Lett. Phys. Izumi and T. M. 0801. 2011. Oct 1999. PoS.2562. Feb. [652] K. Charting the Landscape of Modified Gravity. 0705.Theor. Grav. 2010. Primordial black hole evolution in tensor-scalar cosmology. ¨ [659] J. 1999. Phys. Phys. Kaloper. Mukohyama. [648] A. [655] T. A. [665] K. 1105. D60:123506. O. Sunhede. 1966. B. 2011. [667] N. and S. Brane world cosmologies and statistical properties of gravitational lenses.0951. Kahya and R. Nonlinear superhorizon perturbations in Horava-Lifshitz gravity.Grav.. L.[639] D.5355. Ruggiero. Phys. Aug. 1012. Kahya. I. Jan. Lect. A generic test of modified gravity models which emulate dark matter. Jacobson. Brane-world cosmology. 2007.. [669] N. A minimal set of invariants as a systematic approach to higher order gravity models. M. Trivedi. Tighter Constraints for the Kehagias-Sfetsos Solution from New Solar System Data. Oppenheimer-Volkoff Equation in Relativistic MOND Theory. [644] L. Phys. D. Mod. D68:046005. T. [666] R. and J.. Aug. Iorio. and M. JHEP. Sci. Constraining the Kehagias-Sfetsos Solution of the Horava-Lifshitz Modified Gravity with Extrasolar Planets. [658] D. arXiv:gr-qc/0611132.. On the reliability of the so-far performed tests for measuring the Lense Thirring effect with the LAGEOS satellites. Trivedi. and M. [645] L. Mat. [662] S. Phys. 25:184008. Ruggiero. Rev. [653] K. Linde. Phys. New Astronomy. 76(4):043503. Spherically symmetric black holes in minimally modified self-dual gravity. 2006. Ishak and J. A23:781–796. J. V. 2009. How (not) to use the palatini formulation of scalar-tensor gravity. gr-qc/9912002. Int J. D64:024028. 10:007. B652:213–216. 26:175005. Kachru.. Padilla.. Lett.. 331:351-395. Astrophys. Nature. Phys. 0909. P. Corda. 0808. Kiley. Notes Phys. Sp. Rev. [663] E. 09:014.. Astr.. Jebsen.-z. Mod. Salam. Dev.

2010. JCAP. Soda. hep-ph/0002001. Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field. 1011. [698] E. 1007:014. Winstanley. Lessons from the decoupling limit of Horava gravity.-L. Kofman. 2006. Kiritsis.Rev. [hepth/0504219]. N. Dec 1996. 68(6):741–743. Khoury and A. Soda. J. Jun 2009. Klein. D..4827 [hep-th]]. 2008. Phys. Rev. Tetradis. ).Phys. 54:5049–5058. JCAP. Tomaras. and M. Lett. Cosmological evolution with brane bulk energy exchange. [hep-th/0207060]. Kimura and K. [689] J. Feb 1992. [694] E. Large Scale Structures in Kinetic Gravity Braiding Model. Phys. Compact hyperbolic extra dimensions: Branes. [679] D. M. 0903. Tetradis. Kaloper. How does one measure torsion of spacetime? Phys. [arXiv:1106. D. Kiritsis. 2004. [683] A. J.. Rev. Quasi-thick codimension 2 braneworld. Galileon Hairs of Dyson Spheres. Kaluza. 1921. 2005. Induced brane gravity: Realizations and limitations. 1926. 0407:002. Rotating Black Holes in Dilatonic Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Theory. T. 212. Sept. Karch and L. 95:161601. D. 1971. JHEP 0203 (2002) 019. Feb. Berlin (Math. [701] O. Kerlick. Single explanation for both baryon and dark matter densities. Mukhanov. The black hole and FRW geometries of non-relativistic gravity. Lehners. Rev. 2009. Akad. and K. arXiv:astro-ph/0309411. [697] E. [675] S. Phys. Rev. G. [672] N. [690] J. Lett. [699] R. Rev. Kibble. JHEP 0108 (2001) 012. M. N. hepth/0404207. D. Kimpton and A. Dilatonic black holes in higher curvature string gravity. Karch and K. [691] T. ArXiv e-prints. A36: 225. Sitzungsber. 93(17):171104.. 0904. 2. 85:928–931. Mavromatos. 1961. Weltman. Murayama. Kofinas. V. 54(12):7483–7489. A. 79(11):115016. Rev. Kanno and J. and E. Randall. N-Body Simulations of DGP and Degravitation Theories. Quantentheorie und f¨ nfdimensionale Relativit¨tstheorie. 1996.0003. 678:123-126. Jan. hep-th/0506053.. Kanno and J. Jul. Holography and brane-bulk energy exchange. 1009. [671] N.0477. Trodden. Rizos. Kleihaus. 0905. 69(4):044026. Oct. 2001. hep-th/0011156. Phys. Luty. J. [hep-th/0106050]. Kofinas. [680] D. Kaloper. Preuss.2868. Physics Letters B.5666. 1926. Induced gravity on RS branes.. Kaluza-Klein modes and cosmology. Phys. 2004. March-Russell. D. [686] G. Math. [693] R. Linde. N. JHEP. A. Relaxing to three dimensions. gr-qc/0410067. K. On the Problem of Unity in Physics. [hep-th/0202037]. Radu. Tomaras. 669(2):145 – 149. [677] S. Zurek. A. A. Kanti. Tetradis. Zarikas. Karami and A.2459. 2011. [684] A. Phys. Ratz. Rev. L. 2009. 9911:022. J.1292. 2011. ArXiv e-prints. T. Phys.. Locally localized gravity. u a 37:895–906. Kehagias and E. Khoury and A. Kiritsis. Sept. Lett.2006. and M. [702] O. Wyman. Kunz. JHEP. D. Oct. Sfetsos. Kang. JCAP 0510 (2005) 014. H. Phys. T. Mirage cosmology. Lett. Rev. Randall. N. E. Original and entropy-corrected versions of the holographic and new agegraphic f(T)-gravity models. Starkman. hep-th/0608200. B. Tomaras. Khoury and M. On the higher codimension braneworld. arXiv:astro-ph/0309300. and B. The Atomicity of Electricity as a Quantum Theory Law. [681] K. Dec. and V. 2000. 1103. N. J. 2004. Kaplan. On the new string theory inspired mechanism of generation of cosmological perturbations. Zeitschrift fur Physik. Supersymmetric Galileons. Chameleon Fields: Awaiting Surprises for Tests of Gravity in Space. and E. Ovrut. B821:467–480. Oct. Horava-Lifshitz Cosmology. [687] J. Weltman. 1999. [676] S. D. 2010. Kiritsis. [692] I. Physical Review Letters. Nature. 1003. Kiritsis.1334. [700] B. Chameleon cosmology. Phys. Phys. Lett. 2006. 2009. Kiritsis and G. Kitano. 290 . N. Kaplan. B. 0610:006. 2010.[670] N. Tamvakis. N. JHEP. 74(6):063505. 1101. Khoury. 118:516. Phys. G. Padilla. D80:064023. Abdolmaleki. Yamamoto. JHEP 0302 (2003) 035. Padilla. [674] G. Kanno and J. Vainshtein’s Coiffure and Hirsute Bubbles. Klein. Phys.. Black hole area in brans-dicke theory. N. Soda. B. Asymmetric dark matter. Lorentz violating inflation. hep-th/9910174. 1921:966–972. arXiv:hep-th/0604192. [696] E. Karch and L. W. [685] A. Kaloper. [695] E. E. Nucl. Unified origin of baryons and dark matter. [688] J. 2004. Tanahashi. [673] T. 05:008. [682] A. Wiss. D. [678] P. arXiv:hep-th/9511071.

I. de Rham.3281.Suppl. I. and D.Lett.. Behavior of cosmological perturbations in the brane-world model.. [730] E. [720] I. Multi-brane worlds and modification of gravity at large scales. Lett. 2000. Curvature corrections to the low energy effective theory in 6D regularized braneworlds.Less Entropy. 0912. B503:173–180. [716] H. [712] T. The m → 0 limit for massive graviton in dS(4) and AdS(4): How to circumvent the van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov discontinuity. Brane world cosmology: Gauge-invariant formalism for perturbation. Suzuki. Seckel. [704] T. Urakawa. 2006. Physics Letters B. Maeda.5723 [hep-th]]. Evolution of linear cosmological perturbations and its observational implications in Galileon-type modified gravity. JCAP. [711] T. B595:225–249. and J. Sasaki. D81:103533. Urakawa. 1008. [708] T. Sept. JHEP. The evolution of inhomogeneities in inflationary models in the theory of gravitation with higher derivatives. 2006. 73(8):083517. M. large scale structure. 0706. R. More Dimensions . hepph/9912552.0603. D. Cosmic expansion and growth histories in Galileon scalar-tensor models of dark energy. 2009. Matter power spectrum in f(R) gravity. 2010. Kolb. Kudoh. Kodama and M. Rev. [721] I. and A. Lett. Phys. Nucl. 2000. A three three-brane universe: New phenomenology for the new millennium? Nucl. A. V. S. 2008. 2001. I. 2010. 2001.Rev. G.. 83(10):101501. Kodama. H. Pogosian. hep-th/0009160. Y. Yamaguchi. Koivisto. 2006. B501:157–164. Low energy effective gravitational equations on a Gauss-Bonnet brane. Phys. New variational principles as alternatives to the Palatini method.. Lett. Papazoglou. hep-th/0307138. Rev. [724] T. and absence thereof. 0908. Apr. Kobayashi. [727] T. Seto. Phys. Kobayashi. Shiromizu. and G. 1984. Koyama. Phys. [705] T. Gauss-Bonnet quintessence: Background evolution. Papazoglou. [707] T.. D68:044025. Viable Palatini-f(R) cosmologies with generalized dark matter. 2010. arXiv:astro-ph/0606078. I. Phys. F. Yamaguchi. and D. Yokoyama. and M. Kogan.Rev. Santiago. 1987. F. Mota. Kogan. D81:063513. Kobayashi and K. Jan. hepth/0012132. [723] I. [715] H. Papantonopoulos. Cosmological Perturbation Theory. B501:140–149. G. [726] T. A. Phys. D.Theor. Phys. Kodama. T. 2001. D30:1205. 2000. JCAP. Rev. Prog. Mouslopoulos. Maeda. G. Mukhanov. Brane cosmology with curvature corrections. and T. Kobayashi. 105:231302. Papazoglou.. Kobayashi. 2010. T. gr-qc/0305006. Phys. F. 0310:066. Quant. 78:1– 166. Kogan. Aug.2503. 75(2):023518. Rev. 2007. and D. [722] I. and M. hep-th/0004160. Cosmological perturbations in a healthy extension of Horava gravity. hep-th/0011141. Jan. 644:104–108. Phys.2743.Rev. G-inflation: Inflation driven by the Galileon field. D. Mota. Phys. 1103. 0807. [713] T. Rev.5664. 78(6):064019. arXiv:hep-th/0609155. 23:2355–2369. 2008. Y. [728] T. Phys. Shiromizu. Kobayashi. 79(2):024009. Primordial gravitational waves in inflationary braneworld. 1004:025. 0911:015. Tanaka. A.1005. Rev. 0802. Relativistic stars in f(R) gravity.Rev.. Phys. Papazoglou. W. [717] H. astro-ph/0509422. Sept.. and J. S. Ross. Kobayashi and K. Mouslopoulos. [718] G. D74:104031. Cosmological perturbations in the Palatini formulation of modified gravity. and cosmological constraints. Kobayashi. D62:064022. Rev. 93:769–783. [714] T.0974.4641. Generalized G-inflation: Inflation with the most general second-order field equations. H. Rev. Lindley. [arXiv:1105. and C. Kurki-Suonio. [719] L. and O. Phys. Yokoyama. arXiv:astro-ph/0602031. Grav. Phys. Kobayashi.. Phys. Cosmology and astrophysical constraints of Gauss Bonnet dark energy. and N.0103. and A. D. Kofman. Kofinas. B584:313–328. [725] T. and J. 2003. D. Yamaguchi. K. A. A new bigravity model with exclusively positive branes. Zhurnal Eksperimental noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki. Koivisto and D. S. [706] T. 1002.[703] S. 2001.. Large scale evolution of the curvature perturbation in Horava-Lifshitz cosmology. 0810. 2007. Koivisto and D. S. J.3101. Kogan. Phys. 76(4):043527. hep-th/0006030. Kobayashi. Ishibashi.. Phys. D. 1003. M. Maartens.. Deruelle. [709] T. Can higher curvature corrections cure the singularity problem in f(R) gravity? Phys. D. 2009. Soda. [729] T.. Ross.Rev. D77:124012.Phys. Yamaguchi. Koivisto. 291 . Kobayashi. Kobayashi. Mouslopoulos. 2003. and E. Koivisto. hep-th/0011138.. Quantum fluctuations of bulk inflaton in inflationary brane world. hep-th/0608166. Jan. Class. ’i. I. Mouslopoulos. [710] T. Phys. Tashiro. 2011.. Rev. Koivisto and H. 2007.

Class. B.2143. JCAP.Rev. J. M. 2008.Mod. Rev. Eardley. 0812. 2010.. [750] K. 2010. Manchester. On deformations of Ashtekar’s constraint algebra.2668. L. H. M. J. Improved Cosmological Constraints from New. Cosmological perturbations in a family of deformations of general relativity. Class. R. and G. Phys. Odegard. 25:025001. Ghosts in the self-accelerating universe. G. D’Amico. [742] K. M. D. Krasinskii. Non-linear interactions in a cosmological background in the DGP braneworld. 192:18. hep-th/0501232. [751] K. Koyama. July 1995. R. Kramer. Chuniaeva.Quant. Nolta. 241:128–151. Krasnov and Y. A. Sarkissian. arXiv:gr-qc/9405016. 2006. Arroja. L. Kowalski et al.Grav. P. [734] K. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. Dabringhausen. Krasnov. J. hep-th/9910149. Ghost Cosmology:. hep-th/0005239. D17:2555–2562. [748] K. Phys. Motion of a ‘small body’ in non-metric gravity.Lett. Jan. Wollack. arXiv:hep-th/0409241. Sveshnikov.1984.4708. Non-Metric Gravity. Gen.Quant.0618. M. D. P. [731] S. C. Maartens. 2011. 1103. Phys. Class. Koyama. [745] M. Taruya. Kraus. G. Astrophys. 2011. Spherically Symmetric Solution. Reynolds. 2008. 2009. Hinshaw. Structure formation in the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati cosmological model.. Tasinato. 1001. 2006. [735] K.. G. Koyama and J.1998. R. Camilo. 55:1–23.4142. 2007. Determination of the geometry of the psr b1913+16 system by geodetic precession. [754] P. I. 2011.1210. [753] K. de Boer. N. Krause and S. JCAP. 0901. 509:856–860. and E. 0711. Shtanov. Koyama and R. [747] K. JHEP. K. S. Meyer. Niz. N. Freire. Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation. 2005. Famaey.Rel.Rev. [738] K. M. 1998. 2000. Koyama and F.J. 2009. A. Halpern. arXiv:astro-ph/0609417. L. [749] K. Kolitch and D.. B. Tasinato. grqc/0703002.. [743] K. Ng. Ferdman. 12:011. B. J. D79:044017. Strong interactions and exact solutions in non-linear massive gravity. Bennett. E. E. Astrophys. A. and T. 2006. 0804. M. N. Kroupa. N. [755] A. 314:97–102. Hill. Kramer. P. V. JHEP. D72:043511. Halos of Modified Gravity. C. 2011. Spergel. 2008. Phys. Krasnov. Int. D79:123512..0090. Soda. 2007. I. Annals of Physics.Rev. D.2047. and L. Burgay. G. Koyama and F. E. Ghosts in asymmetric brane gravity and the decoupled stealth limit. Tucker. A. The motion of major planets from observations 1769-1988 and some astronomical constants.Phys. astro-ph/0511634. Analytic solutions in non-linear massive gravity. M. Koyama and K. Koyama. R. Grav. Lorimer. 1006:006. Weiland. A.. K.. 0705. 1003:061. Krasnov and Y. Missing Mass and Redshifts of Quasars. 21:1091–1122. [741] K. Dynamics of anti-de Sitter domain walls. 0601:016. Krasnov and Y. Non-Metric Gravity. hep-th/0702169. Koyama. [737] K. D. [740] K. 1999.4538. 2008. 0805. C. 0904. Exact Solutions. Evolution of cosmological perturbations in the brane world.0423.. and G. Plebanski Formulation of General Relativity: A Practical Introduction. 43:1–15. J. Possenti. Old and Combined Supernova Datasets. S. J.3603. ApJS.Rev. Rev.. 2009. Brane induced gravity from asymmetric compactification. Krasnov. McLaughlin.J. [733] M. Gold. Lyne.0713. Page. Pathological behaviour of the scalar graviton in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. [746] G. Wright. Transitions Between Standard Cosmologies and Ghost Evolution. 2009. A. [739] K. 0709. Behavior of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmological models in scalar-tensor gravity. L. [752] K. S. [756] P. Pawlowski. I. Stairs. [744] M. Tests of General Relativity from Timing the Double Pulsar. Koyama. Hiramatsu. D62:123502.Grav. JHEP. Quant.. et al. R. G. Phys. Jarosik. Larson. Pit’eva. [736] K. Non-linear Evolution of Matter Power Spectrum in Modified Theory of Gravity. Dunkley. M. D75:084040. Krasnov. 686:749–778. Silva. 1993. M. G. 1104. Shtanov. 0910. Padilla. Smith. M. Science. 0902. 1002. Niz. S. Komatsu. Local-Group tests of dark-matter Concordance Cosmology: Towards a new paradigm for structure formation? As- 292 . Kogut.. J. L. 100:081102. and F. Shtanov. Oct. 25:025002. N. Silva. A. Feb. and F.Grav.2399. Hobbs. 24:R231–R253. Limon. Phys. [732] E. II.. Koyama. Field Equations. 03:134. International Journal of Modern Physics A.

Baryogenesis in f(R) theories of gravity. [768] D. Evolution of cosmological perturbations in a brane. 1003.4414. Lee and K.. Desvignes. Lasky. C. [772] D. Kramer.1643. R. 23:1388–1396. G. Large-scale cosmological perturbations on the brane. Serna. B. D. Phys. N. [761] D. [778] J. 2010. Steinhardt. D. Purver. Annales de l’Observatoire de Paris. Rev. Apr. S. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis in Scalar Tensor Gravity: The Key Problem of the Primordial 7 Li Abundance. Phys. Lee.. Theor. Lee and E. Modern Physics Letters A. Suzuki.. 1994. ArXiv e-prints. A. 1859. hep-th/0012044. Stability of Palatini-f(R) cosmology. Rev. 2007. Sasaki. [784] S. Rev. Bertschinger. [758] H. Will. 2007. arXiv:gr-qc/0603012. 1989. Cognard. 0811. [757] J. 2008. La and P. B489:259–267. and E. G. J. Raab. ApJ. [773] J. Wex. Bubble percolation in extended inflationary models. ¨ [785] J. Laycock and A. and E. arXiv:astro-ph/0511693. M. Kudoh. Heckel. P. Thirring. [769] D. Kunz and D... June 1976. A remarkable property of the Riemann-Christoffel tensor in four dimensions. Stappers. Jan. G. hep-th/0010063. Rev. K. [763] D. and E. Lee and K. Mar. 62:376– 378. 1938. Sotani. Theureau. 2001. Brane cosmological perturbations. 206:555–558. Rev. V . Extended inflation with a curvature-coupled inflaton. Lee. Lazaridis. hep-th/0209261. Rev. Kuwahara. 2007. Lamoreaux. Annals of Mathematics. [765] S. Takasugi. Le Verrier. Phys. Physical Review Letters. Gravitational waves from inflation on the brane. Tanaka. 220:375–378. [767] C. Palatini f(R) Cosmology. 2000. Extended inflationary cosmology. Aug. D68:024035. Alimi. Generic tests of the existence of the gravitational dipole radiation and the variation of the gravitational constant. MNRAS. Rev. 57:3125– 3128. 2006. D. Lyne. Shear dynamics in Bianchi I cosmologies with Rn -gravity.0285. J. Komatsu. 86:2212–2215. Phys. 23:4915–4937. Jacobs. M. 2003. and P. R. Small localized black holes in braneworld: Formulation and numerical method. 2006. 49:1827–1839. [759] M. I The case of spherical symmetry. Oct. G. Jessner. hep-th/0005025. 0908. 2000. arXiv:astro-ph/0610367. Lambiase and G. Wands.universe. K. and D. Phys. J. M. [779] D. Leach. 98:121301. B. C. Feb. Dec. Caves. The Einstein-Cartan equations in astrophysically interesting situations. hep-th/0006007. Rev. Langlois. Langlois. arXiv:astro-ph/9306030. Janssen. astro-ph/0612452. Zensus. [760] M. 231:231–236. D78:104019. La. 2007. 0709. 658:1–10. and C. Steinhardt. 5:1. T. Dark energy versus modified gravity. 1975. 2010. Physics Letters B.4606. M. [775] A.. and D. Rev. J. Steinhardt. [782] S. Astrophys. L. Phys. Classical and Quantum Gravity.. J. Theorie DU mouvement de Mercure. 2010.. Act. H. Bullet Cluster: A Challenge to LCDM Cosmology. Phys. Maartens. 0710. D63:084009. 50:661–670. Rev. A. 74(8):087504.2006. Lett. Liddle. Pol.tron. and A. 2010. Giannios. Phys. Langlois. Ng.0939. Lett. Phys. Suppl. Lense and H. [777] U. 0906. Physics Letters B. 2009. 2001. New limits on spatial anisotropy from optically-pumped 201 Hg and 199 Hg. 1989. Phys. and T. Lanczos. R. Apr. [776] K. Jordan. [762] D. A. 148:181–212. Dec. Aug. Ni. D.2395. F. Prog. Dunsby. Theoretical frameworks for testing relativistic gravity. P. I. J. [780] J. Langlois. 688:1–3. Growth index with the exact analytic solution of sub-horizon scale linear perturbation for dark energy models with constant equation of state. Lett. Oct. and D. and J. ApJ. Physics Letters B. B5: 555. H. Sapone. 1986. [781] S. H. Wands. M. Analytic solutions for cosmological fluctuation equations in extended inflation models. 718:60– 65. [766] N. Langlois. Prescription for successful extended inflation.J. July 1994. J. D. The Cauchy problem of f(R) gravity. 1006. R. Larena. W. 2003. Uber den Einfluß der Eigenrotation der Zentralk¨rper auf die Bewegung o 293 . Maartens. W. Phys. Nov. Phys. [770] D. M. 82(4):043004. S. B. Phys. 400:805–814. Physical Review Letters. 0801. 0907. D62:126012. [783] S.. Properties of the exact analytic solution of the growth factor and its applications.. [771] D. Ng. Carloni. 1989. 523:A32. 24:5667–5679. Brane cosmology: An introduction.. [764] G. Classical and Quantum Gravity. La and P. Nakamura. A. [774] P. Lanahan-Tremblay and V. W. A. Lee.Astrophys. Nov..2108. gr-qc/0301089. 2008.1647. Faraoni. 39(4):842–850. N. Structure of neutron stars in tensor-vector-scalar theory. Scarpetta. Kuchowicz. Fortson.Post-Newtonian limit of Rosen’s theory.

1010.3956. V. Liddle and L. G. Aug. 46:3655–3658. A. J. Li. 1992. Rev. A. Molaro. H. R. B. R. E. Liddle. Phys. D. D. astro-ph/0303168. Exponential gravity. D. B. 0905.1041. Liddle. A. Dec. and D. N. V. Levshakov. 76(2):024002. Lapinov. Lidsey. D. gr-qc/0111033. 2010. 0809. Nov. 19:156. D. Phys. Cosmology of modified Gauss-Bonnet gravity.[786] [787] [788] [789] [790] [791] [792] [793] [794] [795] [796] [797] [798] [799] [800] [801] [802] [803] [804] [805] [806] [807] [808] [809] [810] [811] [812] [813] [814] der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie. Searching for chameleon-like scalar fields with the ammonia method. and M. B. Chan. F. 2011. and T. 0801. J. Physics Letters B. July 2007. A. Rept. Cosmic growth history and expansion history. Barrow. A. C040802:L024. Phys. A. Dunsby. Inflation and string cosmology. Rev. Phys. A. R. 2007. arXiv:astro-ph/0407437. 0911. Wands. Mar. Q. Henkel. Inflation in Gauss-Bonnet brane cosmology. Oct. Phys. Apr. Lim. Superstring cosmology. Wang. S. Apr. 1955. 71(6):063504. and D. 1973. hep-th/9909061. A. B. 1106. Molaro. J. A. ArXiv e-prints. Levshakov. Microwave background constraints on extended inflation voids. Rev. Li. New Two-Metric Theory of Gravity with Prior Geometry. J. I. D. Dec. 337:343–492. and J. 80(12):123528. P. D68:043517. hep-th/0503195. Mazumdar. Mota. 75(8):084010. Oct. 2009. Phys. Phys.2664. Lapinov. A. 2007. 0805. Microscopic and macroscopic behaviors of Palatini modified gravity theories. Quant. Rev. S. Leong. D. Liddle and A. D68:061301. E. Odintsov. V. and I. and D. P. P. A&A. Cosmology of Ricci-tensor-squared gravity in the Palatini variational approach. arXiv:astro-ph/0610794. Agafonova. Nojiri. D. Shaw. D67:103510. There is a big-bubble problem in extended inflation. A. Chu. astro-ph/0307017. Saridakis. 2008. R. Mota. Liddle and D. 294 . E. 2007.0603. Ozel. f(T) gravity and local Lorentz invariance. Shaw. J.2962. Constraints on f(R) cosmology in the Palatini formalism. 76(10):104047. hep-th/0202198. Reimers. Liddle and D. D. D.3795. Rev. Lidsey.3732. Lichnerowicz. Li. Lin. D. Physikalische Zeitschrift. 58(2):027302. A. J... A. A. II. Nov. F. JHEP. E. Liddle and D. 76(4):044027.. K. D. B. Masson. D. 2004. D. J. 72(4):043529. Li and J. A. Rev. P. Sotiriou. Phys. Phys. D. 1991. Wands. Reimers. Psaltis. and F. Rev. A. 1008. Lidsey and N.Rev. and W.2790.1486. 78(6):064018. 1007. Li. C. 45:2665–2673. Rev. J. Nunes. D. Phys. C. 8:3293–3302. R. and J. July 2010. The Redshift Evolution of the Tully-Fisher Relation as a Test of Modified Gravity. Rev. Mota. Lee. Smith. Theories Relativistes de la Gravitation et de l’Electromagn´tisme. MNRAS. Mota. A. Phys. 512:A44+.3428. astro-ph/0302054. 1992. Linder. Barrow. Apr. Phys. Aug. Sept. E. D. Indistinguishable Macroscopic Behaviour of Palatini Gravities and General Relativity. Wu. M. Hyperextended inflation: Dynamics and constraints. and S. Class. Lightman and D. 2005. 2003. 2003. 1918. arXiv:astro-ph/0507263. Kozlov. Searching for chameleon-like scalar fields with the ammonia method. 2008. Structure formation from power law (and extended) inflation. B. Rev. Lyth. Copeland. 1992. Limbach. P. 253:637–648. V. S. 279:244–249. R. Wands. F. G. Mapping of cold molecular cores in NH3 and HC3N lines. Li. and D. Challinor. 2002. Lasenby. Rev. and E. F. 2003. 2010. e Paris. D. 0705. D. Sakai.. Curvaton reheating: An application to braneworld inflation. Rev. Jun 1998. Phys. 2002. 2000. Dynamics of anisotropic f(R) cosmology. D. Linder.. Observational constraints on braneworld chaotic inflation. A. 2010. B. Sutherland. D. Barrow. On strong coupling in nonrelativistic general covariant theory of gravity. K. Linde. Phys. 0707. ArXiv e-prints. 2009. Rev. D. D. Phys. and A. R. Barrow. Aug. 26:055018. Leon and E. L. ArXiv e-prints. Cosmology of f(R) gravity in the metric variational approach. Zhu. J. Radiation-matter transition in jordan-brans-dicke theory. Wands. Can we see Lorentz-violating vector fields in the CMB? Phys. Urena-Lopez. T.1160. 2005. D. C.. ECONF. B. 1+3 covariant dynamics of scalar perturbations in braneworlds. Brane world cosmology in (anti)-de Sitter EinsteinGauss-Bonnet-Maxwell gravity. A. C. D65:104012. Mar. E. 0206:026. and T. D. Rev. Grav. Phys. Henkel. arXiv:gr-qc/0701111. D. J. Li. Rev. Barrow.

The Einstein Tensor and Its Generalizations. V. [841] C. 1984. 2004. Lorenz-Petzold.. 1971. Waldram. B. [817] L. Lorenz-Petzold. A. D. D59:086001. 22:1848–1852. The phenomenology of dvali-gabadadze-porrati cosmologies. Lorenz-Petzold.-P. 1995. Maartens. June 1987. and R. 1985. Science. 2007. Lorenz-Petzold. Upper limits to submillimetre-range forces from extra space-time dimensions. The universe as a domain wall. Lukas. Electromagnetic Brans-Dicke-Bianchi type-V solutions. A. Long. C. A. J. Starkman. 1984. Phys. astro-ph/0701317. Mar. N. Ap&SS. Ap&SS. A. [842] R. A. 81(12):127301. Fang. G. and D. Linder and R. and U.. 1003. astroph/0401515. [830] D. 2003. Exact Bianchi type-V III and type-IX cosmological models with matter and electromagnetic fields. Starkman. 12:498–501. hep- 295 . D. Lorenz-Petzold. [816] E. Lorenz. S. 2006. Oct. 0905. Lovelock. 134:415–416. J. 96:183. 1983. Phys. Price. Lorenz-Petzold. 1984. [834] A. 2009. 103:397–399. Strong interactions and stability in the DGP model. [836] A. Lombriser. Chan. Lue. E. D. Lovelock. The Four-Dimensionality of Space and the Einstein Tensor. and P. D’Amico. and W. 1984. Aug. Lombriser. A. 1005. [832] D. Reynolds. [829] D. 98:281–286. Lorenz-Petzold. Constraints on f(R) gravity from probing the large-scale structure. 0309:029. B. Rev. cosmic acceleration and large scale structure.Rev. Rev. Exact Brans-Dicke-Bianchi type-V Ih solutions. Apr. M. [824] D. Jan. Lyne. Kramer. 2004. Astropart. M. Ma and E. N.. V III. [arXiv:astro-ph/0408246 [astro-ph]]. hep-th/9803235. Rev. W. 28:481– 488. Lue. arXiv:hep-ph/0210004. D70 (2004) 101501. C. June 2010. C. The general vacuum Bianchi type-V solution in the Brans-Dicke theory. Rev. 1999. June 1972. 455:7. D67:064004. [818] L. astro-ph/0510068. hep-th/0208169.. D69:124015. Nature. Phys. V. Lorenz-Petzold. [825] D. Acta Physica Polonica B. 2003. Seljak.. [833] A. [837] A. Sept. [831] D. Parameterized Beyond-Einstein Growth. Possenti. 423:1–48.[815] E.Phys. N. K. Lue and G. Ap&SS. Feb. R. [838] A. and IX stiff matter solutions. D80:063536. [827] D. ArXiv e-prints. 303:1153– 1157.Rev. Stelle. Phys. W. Varney. U. [819] J. Lorenz-Petzold. D. Linder. Joshi. Jan. 421:922–925. 1984. C. Astrophys. Cahn. 92(13):131102. Exact Brans-Dicke-Bianchi type-V solutions. Gulbis. Camilo. and G. D. 2004. R. Scoccimarro. 114:277–284. Journal of Mathematical Physics. Einstein’s other gravity and the acceleration of the Universe. R. Luty. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Rev. Cosmological Constraints on DGP Braneworld Gravity with Brane Tension. Physical Review Letters. 13:874–876. 1985. Freire. [839] M. Phys. Bianchi type-V I0 and type-V Ih perfect fluid solutions. 106:409–413. Nov. Burgay. Lue. Hu. Ovrut. D. G. [840] A. Exact Brans-Dicke-Bianchi Type-II Solutions. 2010. Churnside. Lorimer. 71:406–408. Feb.3039. Slosar. Lue. Lorenz-Petzold. C. A Double-Pulsar System: A Rare Laboratory for Relativistic Gravity and Plasma Physics.. 1984. Cosmological dynamics on the brane. M. A. Ap&SS. Ap&SS. Porrati. Rev. 98:101–113.1112. Phys. [822] D. W. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Mar. Ap&SS. Phys. and J. [835] A. The general non-LRS-BDT-Bianchi type-V radiation solution. McLaughlin. Progress of Theoretical Physics. F. [821] D. Probing Newton’s constant on vast scales: DGP gravity. Squeezing MOND into a Cosmological Scenario. M. 2000. Seljak. D62:084023. C. Rattazzi. Exact Brans-Dicke-Bianchi type-V II(h) solutions. Feb. Starkman. Exact Brans-Dicke Friedmann-Robertson-Walker-Bianchi-Kantowski-Sachs vacuum solutions. How a brane cosmological constant can trick us into thinking that W ¡ -1 Phys.3009. 2003. M. Journal of Mathematical Physics. [820] D. Bertschinger. B.. arXiv:astro-ph/0310005. M.Rept. 1980. arXiv:astro-ph/0401086. Global structure of Deffayet (Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati) cosmologies. Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal newtonian gauges. hep-th/0303116. Hu. [826] D. Exact Brans-Dicke-Bianchi types-II. H. [828] D. Phys. 95:175.. 16:171–178. JHEP. Manchester. [823] D.

Rai Chaudhuri. Observational constraints on self-accelerating cosmology. and M. and Y. and T. 2004. Phys. [852] K. Ohta. Makino and M. 1993. D. arXiv:hep-ph/9612427. Riegert. Maartens. Rev. Adv. 1988. hep-th/0405205. Living Rev. [871] A. [845] R. J. [850] H. Schmidt. V. Kobayashi. Nov... [858] K. Classical and Quantum Gravity. astro-ph/0603353. Oscillating Universe in Horava-Lifshitz Gravity. Grav. Phys. 1998. Maeda. [869] D. 1105. 40:565–605. 296 . Braneworld dynamics in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.. Majumdar. Singh.4151. Halilsoy. Phys. [864] P. [gr-qc/0011105]. Nov. 2000. 1004.-i. Sahni.3237. Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance. Neue mechanik materieller systemes. Giribet. and Y. Mathisson. The Density Perturbation in the Chaotic Inflation with Non-Minimal Coupling. D. Phys. 561:1–12. 2011. Mavromatos. B. [861] N. D. 2010. Sasagawa. 597:400-407. Evolution of primordial black holes in Jordan-Brans-Dicke cosmology. Maartens and K.3932. String Cosmology: A Review. 2009. Acta Phys. D63 (2001) 063509. zero-point energy. Feb. 1981. Saini. 2005.. Sasagawa. [873] L. Macrae and R. Sakellariadou. S. Maartens and E. 1006. Maeda. [844] R.Rev. ArXiv e-prints. 86:103–118. N. 2011. Phys. Lett. Covariant gravitational equations on brane world with Gauss-Bonnet term. Comprehensive solution to the cosmological constant. D74:023004. Inflation as a transient attractor in R2 cosmology. May 2011. D. Astron. Mattingly. Rev. Brane-World Gravity. 71(6):063520. [865] P. astro-ph/9810070. Lifshitz black holes in Brans-Dicke theory. 6: 163. Effect of curvature-squared terms on cosmology. Phys. [847] R. D. Rev. Nov. Dwarf Galaxies of the Local Group. Nuclear Physics B. Madsen and J. Mateo. [855] K. Ohta. E. and Y. 385:1467–1470. General Relativity and Gravitation. gr-qc/0101059. Sep. and L. 0901.. AdS black hole solutions in dilatonic Einstein-GaussBonnet gravity. Making the Case for Conformal Gravity. H. hep-ph/9912464. V. B. 13:5. N. D. Koyama. Cosmic Acceleration as the Solution to the Cosmological Constant Problem. 2005. The de Sitter spacetime as attractor solution in eighth-order gravity. Phys. Mannheim.-i. Rev. [849] M. ApJ. [854] K. Phys. [866] P. Maeda and T. D. [860] A. D. Rel. [846] R. [851] H. 8:5. 1012. Mallik and D.3962. Sahni.-i. MNRAS. T. Phys. Inflation from M-theory with fourth-order corrections and large extra dimensions. [848] K. M. F. [868] M. B. D82:064024. Maeda and G. Phys. 1937. [843] R. 0709. 323:242–252.Rev. Phys. and I. Rev. Geometry and dynamics of the brane-world. Feb. Gen. Heard. Silverstein. 2006. 24:2555–2560.Rev. Astrophys. D. Inflation from superstring and M-theory compactification with higher order corrections. [853] K. Theor. 2008. Maeda. Gangopadhyay. Rel. Maeda. Ohta. and N. Sept. Maeda.. 2:231–252. 1989. A. 39:3159–3162. Shtanov. 2004. Mar. D76:104028. May 1989. 56:625–630. 2010. Density perturbation in extended inflation. Towards the Einstein-Hilbert action via conformal transformation. hep-th/0411093. Mazharimousavi and M. Yusaf. De Sitter ground states and boundary terms in generalised gravity.0212. Black hole solutions in f(R) gravity coupled with nonlinear Yang-Mills field. Ann. P. D. Mar. Progress of Theoretical Physics. Black hole solutions in string theory with Gauss-Bonnet curvature correction. D. Maartens. Y.. Ohta. Rev. Aug.Polon. McAllister and E. Mannheim.3659. 1101. Mannheim. July 1991. hep-th/0309152. The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity.-i. [870] N. Can TeVeS avoid Dark Matter on galactic scales? 2009. Misonoh. Math. Maeda. Barrow. D62:041301. Majerotto. Nov. Phys. [857] K. Rev. Apr.0568. Anisotropy dissipation in brane world inflation Phys. 10:2441–2446. and quantum gravity problems.2186.-i. Living Reviews in Relativity. Wands. I. ArXiv e-prints. and N..1331. 2001.2739. D69:024002. May 2011. Maeda. D. [859] K. Chaotic inflation on the brane.-i. S. Maldacena. Rev. 0708. 2011. [862] J. 83(4):044051. 0909. arXiv:astro-ph/9910093. hep-th/9711200. 37:858–862. D. Rev. arXiv:gr-qc/0502097. ArXiv e-prints. [863] S. Bassett. 0908. Rev. 2007. July 1997. Mayer and H. Sasaki. 1105. 43:703–750.3193. 36:435–506. 2001. M. [872] S. Maeda. Phys. Maartens. Phys. Rev.. [867] M. [856] K. 1998. D. Jan. 80(10):104032.

Pignata. Nov.. Jan. D. S. S. 2009. and W. Living Reviews in Relativity. Rev. de Blok. [899] J. arXiv:gr-qc/0311019. M. and W. General Relativity and Gravitation. 66(8):082001. Oct. arXiv:astro-ph/0510453. Mimoso and D. arXiv:astro-ph/0308284.. M. Tests of Gravity Using Lunar Laser Ranging. 2010. 533:L99–L102. 2004. P. 293:385–419. [884] X. Cosmological fluctuation growth in bimetric MOND. 51:934–937. 2010. 27(22):225013. Astrophys. McDonald. Mignemi and N. Quartin. [875] J. Bothun. The ESSENCE Supernova Survey: Survey Optimization. Constraining Inverse-Curvature Gravity with Supernovae. Testing general relativity with y the BepiColombo radio science experiment. Observations. J. Miranda. et al.Rev. M.. arXiv:hep-th/9303102. Self-accelerating solutions in cascading DGP braneworld. Viable Singularity-Free f(R) Gravity without a a Cosmological Constant. 2004.J. June 2009. Can a Brans-Dicke scalar account for dark matter in extended inflation models? Phys. [892] M. Milgrom. Letter: Gravitational Potential in the Palatini Formulation of Modified Gravity. Rev. E. Rev. 2010. [900] M. [901] V. C. McGaugh. Aug. Meng and P. 102(22):221101. Mimoso and D. Astrophys. G. Mena. Schombert. 2006. A. [896] M. Wands. D. 0801. Charged black holes in effective string theory. Meng and P. Bimetric MOND gravity. Blondin. D. Rev. [878] S. D. Stability of an isotropic cosmological singularity in higher-order gravity. June 1993. Phys. Barrow. D. D. Wang. 2010. G. Physical Review Letters. The Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation. Phys. 46(4):1475–1506. Lett. Rest. astro-ph/0701043.2008. Feb. 2010. 96(4):041103. [885] S. [886] R. 77(10):103523. Rev. D. Wang. [897] M. The Linear theory power spectrum from the Lyman-alpha forest in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Apr. Black holes in higher-derivative gravity theories. 48:2462–2476. Astrophys. D. Waga. Rev. 0806. [887] J. Phys. Meng and P. Milgrom. 1993..J. Aug 1992. Phys. 666:674– 693.1941. Phys. Villani. 635:761–783. Nuclear Physics B. Wands. and A. Rev. c Phys. 2004. D80:123536. 0905. D. Classical and Quantum Gravity. Rev. arXiv:hep-th/9212146. 36:1947–1954. 82(4):043523. B684:92– 95. [890] S.. Rossi. Wang. 1987. Rev. arXiv:grqc/0411007. B. 21:2029–2036. Rev.Lett. Bonanno. and J. 1006.3227. Middleton and J. [893] G. May 2008. [889] S. 44:2325–2334. McGaugh. S. 1102. [898] J. 0710. W. [880] O.4669. [876] J. Classical and Quantum Gravity. 2011. S. 0912. [877] P. 297 . Vokrouhlick´. Phys. Baryomorphosis: Relating the Baryon Asymmetry to the ‘WIMP Miracle’. R2 corrections to the cosmological dynamics of inflation in the Palatini formulation. Milgrom. 270:365–370. and M. Massless fields in scalar-tensor cosmologies. Weller. Anisotropic scalar-tensor cosmologies. [894] A. and Supernova Photometry. 2002. Wood-Vasey. 106:121303. Nov. Jan. 1995. [891] S. Oct. A. Aug. 2005.3913. Palatini Formulation of Modified Gravity with Squared Scalar Curvature. Palatini formulation of the R−1 -modified gravity with an additional squared scalar curvature term. Classical and Quantum Gravity. [879] S. Jan 1995. Middleton.J. Mignemi. McDonald et al. D. [882] X. Tseytlin. Rev. [881] X. A Novel Test of the Modified Newtonian Dynamics with Gas Rich Galaxies. [888] J. Physical Review Letters. 1986. Stewart. 1983. I. arXiv:gr-qc/0402011.J.0790. Merkowitz. [895] M. astro-ph/0003001. Phys. [874] J. Dyonic black holes in effective string theory. McDonald. Order α’ (two-loop) equivalence of the string equations of motion and the σ-model Weyl invariance conditions Dependence on the dilaton and the antisymmetric tensor. 51(2):477– 489. Phys. 13:7. Meng and P. L. Dec. Phys. D. Minamitsuji. General Relativity and Gravitation. P. 1991. Phys. J. 2007.. Jor´s. R. Rev. 2005. Wiltshire. Santiago.3809.. Nov. D. arXiv:gr-qc/9501039. Metsaev and A. On the existence of anisotropic cosmological models in higher order theories of gravity. Morris. Wang. Astrophys. McDonald. 34:2934–2946. Miji´. astro-ph/0407377. D. 36:2673–2680. 22:23–32. Nov. Phys. 1007.2390. S. 47:5259–5269. Phys. 1009.4090. Mignemi and D. 1995. D. D. Milani. The R2 cosmology: Inflation without a phase transition. [883] X. Dark matter from an oscillating Brans-Dicke scalar in the extended inflation model. Suen. 2000. Sept. 52:5612–5627. Miknaitis. R. A Modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis.2951.

Moldenhauer and M. Mota and D. [903] S. Takahashi. M. Moldenhauer. Improved constraint on the α1 ppn parameter u y from lunar motion. et al. Rev. Perturbation of junction condition and doubly gauge. [918] S. S. Cosmological expansion and the uniqueness of the gravitational action. and R. [923] S. Integro-differential equation for brane-world cosmological perturbations. Phys. B679:6–9. F. Class. 75(6):063501. Mollerach and S. K. Moffat. R. Evading equivalence principle violations. 1004. Zlosnik. Extensions. D. Multam¨ki and I. Phys. Governato. F. 0904. Thompson and D. Zwiebach. Ghigna. Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters. Phys. Mukohyama. Moore. [917] V. 0912. Gauge-invariant gravitational perturbations of maximally symmetric spacetimes. Matarrese. Rev. 2010. Kaluza-Klein cosmology and dimensional reduction. D62:084015. Oct. Mukohyama.5332. Sandstad.Rev.3563. Scale-invariant cosmological perturbations from Horava-Lifshitz gravity without inflation. Mukohyama. 0905. and C. 0909:005. [907] J. cosmological. Nordtvedt. arXiv:hep-th/0607181. Oct. Thorne. 2006. [906] J.. W. 2006. H. 2000. Yokoyama. hep-th/0004067. Phys. J. [916] V. [919] S. Phys.5069. 2010. Mar. F. Rev. Phenomenological Aspects of Horava-Lifshitz Cosmology.. Quantum theory of perturbations.. Grav. [922] S. Part 2. 2006. Shaw. P. Shaw. hep-th/0006146. D. Quant. [924] S. Lake. 2010. 33:532. Skordis. Ishak. Mukohyama. 2009.Rept. Rev. 3:4. 0906. May 1981. 1996. and J. [926] S. 45:1961–1970. Cosmology Astropart. [928] J. astro-ph/9907411. 2006.Quant. Mukohyama. Mukohyama. Doubly-gauge-invariant formalism of brane-world cosmological perturbations. 2009. F. G.J. Starobinsky.. 10:034. Phys. F. Rev. [915] F. 73(2):024018. K. Horava-Lifshitz Cosmology: A Review. T. Vilja. 97(15):151102. Primordial non-Gaussianity from the DBI Galileons. An accelerating universe and cosmological perturbation in the ghost condensate. A. Classical perturbations. [911] D. 81:063514. M. 0906:001. [921] S. Cosmology Astropart.5199. Mar 2007. 1986.Lett. hep-th/0207107. hep-th/0202100. Cosmology Astropart. JCAP. and S. Chibisov. and T. Yokoyama.0677. [914] H. Mota and D. J. Mukhanov. 2009. 1992. 524:L19–L22. 298 . D.0055. arXiv:astro-ph/0506692. Quantum fluctuations and a nonsingular universe. [904] N... 1007. Mar. Dark matter substructure in galactic halos.. 2009. Rev. A. 18:1731–1740. A. [912] D. a Phys. [925] S. Cosmology of the selfaccelerating third order Galileon. 0905. Wheeler. Strongly Coupled Chameleon Fields: New Horizons in Scalar Field Theory. Quant. H. Jan. Easson. D82:103518. 2006. 0905. 1009. M¨ller. Mukhanov and G. Motohashi.. Part 1. and CMB surface distance constraints on f(G) higher order gravity models. [929] T. Phys. Mukohyama. 3:665. D.. WH Freeman & co. and other experimental constraints in scalar field theories with a strong coupling to matter. 10:11. Brandenberger. baryon acoustic oscillations. Analytic Solution for Matter Density Perturbations in a Class of Viable Cosmological f(R) Models. Dynamics with infinitely many time derivatives and rolling tachyons. G. [910] D. Mukohyama. Mizuno and K.2190. Astrophys. hep-th/0104185. 215:203–333. [920] S.6151. Gravitation. Ferreira.2459. [909] B. 17:4777–4798. 2002. Theory of cosmological perturbations. Mota. Rev.. F. Dec. 2009. 1999. Phys.invariant variables.Rev. Class. Mukohyama. JHEP. 1992. 27:223101. Class. Moeller and B. F. Phys. Vokrouhlick´. 2010. Phys. 2002. J. 2001. 1012:051.[902] C. Work presented at the Alternative gravities workshop in Edinburgh. [905] J.. 2009. D80:064005. International Journal of Modern Physics D. arXiv:hep-ph/0606204. Part 3.. Quinn. 1973. Supernova. Dark matter as integration constant in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. Misner. 2000. JHEP. [908] S. Nakayama. Scalar tensor vector gravity theory. Mukohyama. Physical Review Letters. [913] D. Phys. Caustic avoidance in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. D. Ishak. J. F. JCAP.Grav. Mar. 12:20. A minimal set of invariants as a systematic approach to higher order gravity models: physical and cosmological constraints. J.0730. 54:R5927–R5930. Cosmic Microwave Background in TeVeS theory. Phys. D64:064006. Koyama.. Feldman. Mueller-Hoissen. Non-scale-invariant density perturbations from chaotic extended inflation. Mota. 1009. arXiv:gr-qc/0506021. and J. V. Phys. Grav. Dimensionally continued Euler forms. J. and D. K. [927] S.

arXiv:gr-qc/0611127. M. Observational consequences of the evolution of primordial fluctuations in scalar-tensor cosmology. Navarro and K. Jul 2009. Nelson. and physics. and N. Phys. 1969.. Restricting fourth-order gravity via cosmology. Physics Letters B. 1010. [935] R. [934] R. arXiv:gr-qc/0511045. Rev. 87:401–407. Observational constraints on Galileon cosmology. May 1999. 2008. The Structure of cold dark matter halos. Nelson and M. Navarro and K. Consistent long distance modification of gravity from inverse powers of the curvature. and S. 1996. Vilja.J. Physical Review Letters. and N. A. and S. [936] M. Phys. 2004. 680:263–266. Rev. [945] I. [944] I. Sachs. Nesseris.. 2006. Rev. [946] J. Static solutions for fourth order gravity. [951] W. Sugiyama. Phys. Phys. D. D36:392. On the Newtonian limit of generalized modified gravity models. M. Tsujikawa. C. and J. Nelson. A. Newton’s constant in f (R. Nesseris. Gravitational Instability in the Brans-Dicke Cosmology. Aug. Alimi. P. Nariai. 2007. 79(10):104006. Rev.3986. July 2006. [952] W. D. Sakellariadou. Do we need a new mass scale? Phys.. van Acoleyen. late-time acceleration and the cosmological constant problem. Rev. Navarro. Ochoa. J. J. Progress of Theoretical Physics. [959] I. [943] I. On metric perturbations in brane-world scenarios. 69(8):083512. D.1520. 2010. D. 2010(08):039. 2:22. [939] H. Nelson. 2003. cosmic acceleration and local tests of gravity. and M. 82(12):124044. 2010. 2009. [950] W. Sept. [937] S. De Felice. Higher derivative gravity. 1006. White. D. B689:122–128. S. 40:49–59. D82:124054. 2005. 1987. 0912. D60:116004.Rev. Accelerating universe from F(T) gravities. 1010. Hosoya. [955] A.1445. D. Navarro and K. On the Green’s Function in an Expanding Universe and Its Role in the Problem of Mach’s Principle. 2010. ArXiv e-prints. 1012. B513:173–178. Tsujikawa. 0902. Singh. D. Rev. 81(4):043528. Nelson and M. Characterizing the linear growth rate of cosmological density perturbations in an f(R) model.. ArXiv e-prints. F. 0709. Feb. Phys. J. 42:544–554. [947] B. Narikawa and K. Mazumdar. R) theories of gravity and constraints from BBN. Phys. Myers. WMAP constraints on scalar-tensor cosmology and the variation of the gravitational constant.[930] T. [932] R.3422. 2010. 66(10):103510. Constraining Newtonian stellar configurations in f(R) theories of a gravity. 1008.0407. Chiba. Physics Letters B. Apr. 299 . P. Van Acoleyen. Asymptotic and exact solutions of perfect-fluid scalartensor cosmologies. Rev.3353. 82(10):104026. Astrophysical constraints on primordial black holes in brans-dicke theory. T. Majumdar. Phys. and M. topology.Lett. f(R) actions. D. S. [953] W. 638:94–99. Oct.4276. Lett.1120. Feb. surface terms and string theory. Dynamical relaxation of dark energy: A solution to early inflation. arXiv:gr-qc/0506096. arXiv:astroph/0311274. Phys. astro-ph/9508025. 2010. Sakellariadou.. Nesseris and A. Physics Letters B. Nov. Rev. Mar. Nakahara. 82(8):085021. F(T) gravity and k-essence.. Phys. Nariai. Piazza. Effects of Extra Space-time Dimensions on the Fermi Constant. and A. Yamamoto. 2010. 1992. Cosmology Astropart. 0812. [938] H. Inflation mechanism in asymptotic noncommutative geometry. C... Cosmology Astropart. Phys. Density Fluctuation in Extended Inflationary Universe. The universe is accelerating. arXiv:hep-th/0510109. Phys. Yamaguchi. Rev. 0903. Feb. Phys. N. Neupane and B. June 2010. Phys. Constraining the Noncommutative Spectral Action via Astrophysical Observations. [942] A. 2010. Sept. Nagata. Apr. Myrzakulov. Dec. D. Frenk. 59(12):124015. Nov 2002. [958] S. Nakamura and A. 2010. Navarro.4486.1185. Progress of Theoretical Physics. May 2009. T. Myrzakulov. 3:8. Physics Letters B. Progress of Theoretical Physics. Gravitational waves in the spectral action of noncommutative geometry. Nelson. Rev. 2001. Geometry. 1999. J. Taylor & Francis. Sept. and S. hep-th/0011254. [940] T. [956] S. Multam¨ki and I. Neronov and I. Astrophys. Nagata. Chiba. 1005. [949] W. Rev. Rµν Rµν . 81(8):085038. Nath and M. [931] R. Rev. Carter. 0910. [933] R. Sugiyama. Majumdar. Nayak.3949. Serna. [957] S. Effect of accretion on primordial black holes in brans-dicke theory. [941] P. Singh. D. Feb. and L. F. 622:1–5. hep-ph/9902323. Phys.1657. D. Aug. Sakellariadou. 80(2):023529. 2010. [948] B. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics.4279. Cosmology and the noncommutative approach to the standard model. 1005. [954] W. 2010. Ochoa. Nayak. 462:563–575. July 1968. Van Acoleyen. A. Phys. L. Sakellariadou. 659:843–846. Phys. 105(10):101602.

Nojiri. 1914. 0908. and its reconstruction.Phys. Tasinato. Cosmology Astropart. Energy’s and amplitudes’ positivity. Phys. Phys. Niz. [961] P. 2003. and O. Cosmological reconstruction of realistic modified a o f(R) gravities. Odintsov.4258. 74(8):086005. 169:1014–1016. 172:81–89. [972] S. arXiv:hep-th/0608008. D. arXiv:hep-th/0601213. Nojiri and S. Phenomenology.. Jan. D. Gauss-Bonnet dark energy. D. Meth. Aug. Nicolini. S´ez-G´mez. 681:74–80. Odintsov. Nilles. Probing gravity to the second post-Newtonian order and to one part in 10 to the 7th using the spin axis of the sun. Kunduri. Journal of Mathematical Physics. Selftuning and its footprints. Nojiri and S. 2005. 15:504–506. Odintsov. [971] S. Odintsov. Oct. D. Nojiri and S. 2006. 657:238–245. Nojiri and S. A. Journal of Physics A Mathematical General. Dec. [969] S. [arXiv:0807. Physics Letters B. General Relativity and Gravitation. Phys. A24 (2009) 1229-1308. 2009. D.0544. 2009. 0406:059. 0912. 78(4):046006. arXiv:hep-th/0308176. S. 2004. Nucl. 2008. Odintsov. Odintsov.1269. Dark energy cosmology from higher-order. Nolta et al. Dark energy problem: from phantom theory to modified Gauss Bonnet gravity.. JHEP. Introduction to Modified Gravity and Gravitational Alternative for Dark Energy. From Inflation to Dark Energy in the Non-Minimal Modified Gravity. D. B677:405– 429. Sami. I. Oct. [967] D. 180:296–305. The Galileon as a local modification of gravity. Modified gravity as an alternative for ΛCDM cosmology. 0708.. 0804. [975] S.1939 [hep-th]]. D. Odintsov. Nojiri and S. K. Phys. 2006. R. D. 2007. Odintsov. 24:1846–1850. [987] K. Nojiri and S. 1005:095. Rev. D. Modified non-local-f(R) gravity as the key for the inflation and dark energy. 71(12):123509. 0801. hep-th/0309042. Dec. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement. June 2007. [976] S. 6:4. 2008. Phys. 0710. Phys. D. [973] S. Modified gravity with negative and positive powers of curvature: Unification of inflation and cosmic acceleration.0593. 0710. Mod. Physical Review. JCAP.1941. 77(2):026007. J. D. Sept. Modified Gravity with ln R Terms and Cosmic Acceleration. 1011. Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Angular Power Spectra. [970] S. Nordtvedt. D. [983] S. 2004. Odintsov. Aug. Phys. Carter. Nojiri and S. 2010. D79:064036. A. Papazoglou. Odintsov. Phys.[960] I. Rev. Journal of Physics A Mathematical General. 39:6627–6633. Dec. Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. [985] G. Trincherini. The Final Appeal To Quantum Gravity: A Review Int. Modified f(R) gravity unifying Rm inflation with the ΛCDM epoch. Nojiri. Gorbunova. 2008. Nicolis. N.3519. Tretyakov. Rev. Mod. Odintsov. 1987. Odintsov. Physics Letters B. and M. 631:1–6. Braneworld Isotropization and Magnetic Fields. R. [968] S. Towards inflation and dark energy cosmologies from modified Gauss Bonnet theory. [982] S. [964] A. Physics Letters B. 2008. D. [980] S. D. 300 . [965] H. Rev. S. ApJ. Classical and quantum consistency of the DGP model. and E. and H. D. Odintsov. D. 320:871–874. and M. Odintsov. July 1983. 2004. Astrophys. Nicolis. 74(4):046004. June 2006. June 2005. [962] A. J.1738. Nojiri and S. J. 2008. Geom. Modified Gauss Bonnet theory as gravitational alternative for dark energy.3462. 0707. Int. M. arXiv:hep-th/0610164. Nojiri. arXiv:hep-th/0504052. Odintsov.5232. 0803. Padilla. Nojiri and S. string-inspired gravity. Nojiri. Sasaki. Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models. Aug. May 1968. [981] S. [979] S.Rev. Nicolis and R. and P.2197.. S. S. 659:821–826. R. Nojiri. [966] G. [984] M.-P. arXiv:hep-th/0512262. 505:59–144. On the possibility of unifying the electromagnetic and the gravitational fields. Phys. V. arXiv:hep-th/0307288. 36:1765–1780. physics/0702221. Rev. 4:115. S. JHEP. and E. J. Trincherini. The initial value formulation of higher derivative gravity. arXiv:hep-th/0605039. Supp. Rattazzi. Aug. [974] S. Phys. May 2006. [986] K. Jan. [963] A..0924. 2007. 40:6725–6732. Odintsov. [978] S.. 0811. arXiv:hep-th/0508049. Nojiri and S. P. Nordtvedt. Z. Phys. G. D. Rev. D. 0804:012. Nojiri and S. Phys. Physics Letters B. Noakes. Rep. and G. Rattazzi. D. and D. Neupane and B. Noncommutative Black Holes. Unifying inflation with ΛCDM epoch in modified f(R) gravity consistent with Solar System tests. R. D. D. Nordstrom.. Modified f(R) gravity consistent with realistic cosmology: From a matter dominated epoch to a dark energy universe. [977] S. Future evolution and finite-time singularities in f(R) gravity unifying inflation and cosmic acceleration. 2011. hep-th/0404159. arXiv:hep-th/0510183. D. 2009. Rattazzi. 68(12):123512.

D. 2002. Nunes and E. Nonlinear evolution of f(R) cosmologies. hep-th/0406157. 2009. [1006] H. Olmo. 0902. Rept. Grav. IV . Oyaizu. Feb. Oyaizu. Grav. [1010] A. Tripathi. Torii. D66:043524. 0907. [1000] G. New framework for studying spherically symmetric static solutions in f(R) gravity. astro-ph/0204115... [1009] A. gr-qc/0303082. 21:2899–2918. [994] N. Nordtvedt... 0908. 78(12):123523. J. S.Phys. [991] N. Copeland. Solganik. 95(26):261102. Post-Newtonian constraints on f(R) cosmologies in metric and Palatini formalism. [1014] A. [1008] A. Jr. Ghost constraints on modified gravity. Experimental Evidence to Rule Out Preferred-Frame Theories of Gravity. S.Topological Black Holes with and without Cosmological Term. [1003] M. K. Phys. Lima. Oct. Nov. Phys. Carloni. Phys. Rev.. Phys. I. 72(8):083505. Tracking quintessential inflation from brane worlds. Surface terms and the Gauss-Bonnet Hamiltonian. Rev. J. [1001] G. Physics Letters B.. Nonlinear evolution of f(R) cosmologies. Class. [1016] A. 2003. M. Theo. Olmo. Dec. Olmo. 2005. Dec. 2005. 1850.Grav. 2002. Ghost-free braneworld bigravity. 22:681–694. J. Power spectrum.. B7:305–312.. 0807. and T. 4:385. Dec. J.Quant. 1997. 1009. D. D. N´nez and S. [1005] J. 2002... 122:1477-1500. Overduin and P. and T. Cosmic acceleration from asymmetric branes. Methodology. Exact and asymptotic solutions to tensor-scalar cosmologies. Global Structure of Black Holes in String Theory with Gauss-Bonnet Correction in Various Dimensions.2462.2779. M. Phys. 177:775. Aug. 2006. Phys. 81(8):084028. Phys. Brane world cosmology and holography. 2007.2787. May 2009. Apr. [989] K. July 2009. The Gravity Lagrangian According to Solar System Experiments. 2005. Rev. and P. A40:6827–6834. u˜ Feb. [1013] A. Phys. Nordtvedt. Prog. The good. Lett. [1011] A. Black Holes in the Dilatonic Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Theory in Various Dimensions. Quant. Phys. [1004] A. Jan. hep-th/0210217.4074.[988] K. 2008. Conservation Laws and Preferred Frames in Relativistic Gravity. B150:103.3333. 486:413–422. M. 20:3129–3150. Phys.. Tupper. Padilla. Limit to general relativity in f(R) theories of gravity.. Padilla.Conf. II. 1004. Prog. Okada. Olmo. grqc/9805018. 78(12):123524. 2005. Theo. arXiv:gr-qc/0505101. II. arXiv:gr-qc/0612047. Inflation in Kaluza-Klein cosmology. CFTs on non-critical braneworlds. Class. H. 283:303–380. Padilla. Quant. Padilla. Grav. 1972. [1015] A.2449. hepth/0610093... [1002] G. 75(2):023511. Oukouiss. 1970. and W. The gravity lagrangian according to solar system experiments. Padilla. Ostrogradsky. Dec. J. J. hepth/0402079. D. Quant.3918. 1985. [993] J. and S. S. Sanchis-Alepuz. 2008. Padilla. Rev. Will. hep-th/0111247. A covariant approach to braneworld holography. Quant. O. 1997. Phys. 0807. Nuclear Physics B. Astrophys. Phys. Rev. J. D. Goswami. [996] N. Padilla. Jr. [990] A.. Class. M. Memoires de l’Academie Imperiale des Science de Saint-Petersbourg. 2007. 1972. ApJ. 259:012033. Phys. [995] N. Hu.. Vacuum-field solutions in the Brans-Dicke theory. 124:207-225. B528:274–282. 608:189–193. R. J. Ohta. Phys. 301 . Physical Review Letters. III . D. 2010. [1007] H. J. Black Holes in the Dilatonic Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Theory in Various Dimensions.. Lett. of Horava gravity. [997] Y. O’ Hanlon and B. Grav. hep-th/0512083. 80(2):024013. A short review of ‘DGP Specteroscopy’. and T. Ohta. [999] G. Theo. Rev. Infra-red modification of gravity from asymmetric branes. Nzioki. Kaluza-Klein gravity. Prog. Dunsby. hep-th/0410033. Padilla. Class. Torii. 161:1059–1067. 2004. [1012] A. Phys..Ser. Dynamical aspects of generalized Palatini theories of gravity. Nuovo Cim. 2010. and C. 95(26):261102. Wesson. [998] G. J. Rev. J. 121:959-981.Asymptotically AdS Black Holes with k = +/-1. arXiv:hep-th/0411102. Rev. Olmo. 2010.4072. the bad and the ugly . arXiv:gr-qc/0505135.. [992] A. 22:1087–1104. 2005. 23:3983–3992.. Ohta. Class. Torii. Dec 2005. Padilla. 0908. PostNewtonian metric for a general class of scalar tensor gravitational theories and observational consequences. Lett.

2010. The Imperfect Fluid behind Kinetic Gravity Braiding [arXiv:1103. Vikman. [1033] S. Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift supernovae. D. Peebles. 2010. B. [1031] P. Papazoglou. Piazza. Rend.0296. solitons and Derrick’s theorem. D. Phys. [1026] C. Zamarias. Peebles. 1008. arXiv:hep-th/0201009. 2009.1299. hep-th/0611311. 1008. [1019] A. and A. Journal of Mathematical Physics. 1999. P. J. C. [1037] F. Perrotta. 0911. 557:495–504. Mat. Bi-galileon theory II: Phenomenology. D. 1 Proc. arXiv:astro-ph/0109032.. [1028] J. Saffin. ArXiv e-prints. and R. Padilla. 1999. 1007. 2003. JHEP. P. Astrophys. Papantonopoulos. 2009. [1043] L. Jan. hep-th/0507278. 0509:012. A. Solar quadrupole moment and purely relativistic gravitation contributions to Mercury’s perihelion advance. P. 2011.J. E. Rev. Grav. B797:520–536. Spinning test particles in general relativity.1697. Lett. Cosmological evolution of a purely conical codimension-2 brane world. V. Pleba´ski.Roy. On Lorentz violation in Horava-Lifshitz type theories. Sotiriou. Palermo. 517:565–586. Rattazzi. 2010. Constraints on a f(R) gravity dark energy model with early scaling evolution. 11:1087– 1132. Hwang. [1038] L. JHEP.. [1030] P. hep-th/9510017. F. Zamarias. 2007. 65(6):064020. 2:165–175. The large-scale structure of the universe. 11:113050. Papazoglou. [1047] T. variability of the gravitational constant and topography of Mercury surface from radar observations 1964-1989. Qiu and K. 1994. A209: 248. 2000. 1012. Non-Gaussianities of single field inflation with nonminimal coupling. Piazza. 284:1159–1194. 1977. 1012. Phys. On quadratic lagrangians in General Relativity.0745. Dec. Shang. M. 1995. Palatini. with generalizations: A Review. Singular instantons in higher derivative theories. Saffin. Pattern of growth in viable f(R) cosmologies. S. Cosmological Physics. 642:311–314. Peldan. 1993. [1018] A. [1025] A. Perez Bergliaffa Constraining f(R) theories with the energy conditions. [1041] E. Rev. Phys. gr-qc/0608072. Rev. The IR-Completion of Gravity: What happens at Hubble Scales? New J. R. Papantonopoulos and A. Zhou. [1034] S. [1020] A. [1022] E. The Supernova Cosmology Project. Silvestri.3312. 80:249–271. Class. E. Papazoglou and T. Phys. 1966. and S.-Y. V. Deduzione invariantiva deUe equazioni gravitazionali dal principio di Hamilton. Dec. astro-ph/0101127. Dirichlet-Branes and Ramond-Ramond Charges. [1039] S. hep-th/0004028.0765. gr-qc/9305011. A. Phys. Padilla.[1017] A. Padilla. C. 0707. Quant. Pitjeva. Bi-galileon theory I: motivation and formulation. A.Phys. Pireaux and J. [1024] A. [1035] F. M. D.. n 18:2511–2520. 2010. Induced cosmology on a regularized brane in six. 2008. [1027] B. I. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. Phys. Zhou. Paul. Saffin. 2006. Astrophys. Lett. 61(2):023507. Matarrese.5424. JHEP.-Y. Jan. Park. Pechlaner and R. C. Extended quintessence. Sawicki. Papantonopoulos. The fate of the radion in models with metastable graviton. and H. and S. 2002. and V. 1951. Actions for gravity. and S. Phys. Apr. Ap&SS.Soc. Papazoglou. 2005. [1046] O. Zhou. 0904. 2010. 1980. and V. 55:313–321.Lond. Rev. Yang. 2008. Rev. Peacock. July 2001. J.5360 [hep-th]]. [1036] F. [1044] J. On the separation of Einsteinian substructures. 302 . and S. 0907.-Y. Rozelot. 77(2):023503. Regularization of conical singularities in warped six. 75:4724–4727.. Pogosian and A. Experimental testing of relativistic effects. 03:002. 83(8):084022. [1042] J.. Dec.J. Pujolas.1662. Mukherjee. Noh. A. 2010. Pitjeva.1396.. Mar.. Pilo. Phys. [1040] E.. M. Zaffaroni. [1021] E. 43:203. Modifying Gravity in the Infra-Red by imposing an ‘Ultra-Strong’ Equivalence Principle. Papapetrou.dimensional compactifications. Dec 1999. Modern Numerical Ephemerides of Planets and the Importance of Ranging Observations for Their Creation. 07:056. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. [1032] P. 0709. The void phenomenon. P. Strong coupling in extended Horava-Lifshitz gravity. Sexl. [1045] M. 1010. [1023] E. Tavakol. [1029] E. Pospelov and Y. Perlmutter et al. Polchinski.4299. B685:197–200. 2001. Multi-galileons. astro-ph/9812133. Communications in Mathematical Physics. Nucl.5249.dimensional flux compactification. 1919.Lett. Circ. Baccigalupi.

Res. Evolution of Anisotropies in Eddington-Born-Infeld Cosmology. Gauge invariant cosmological perturbation theory for braneworlds.. J. Riess et al. [1060] R. 9:339–351. 1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for past deceleration and constraints on dark energy evolution. 2004. Large and infinite extra dimensions: An introduction. 464:256–258. [1063] A.. Jul 2002.5354. 2009. Riazuelo. M. R. E. R. hep-th/9906064. 57:150–153. P. D. M. 1983. Randall and R.. Rosen. Newtonian Gravity in Theories with Inverse Powers of R. Ivezi´. A. Phys. Dec. Jan. A.. G. A. Phys. II. 80(2):024022. Rippl. Baldauf. Spergel. Rebou¸as and J. 2002. 0809. Y. Nov. A. Cannon. Z. R. hep-th/0205220. and R. Cosmological constraints from the clustering of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR7 luminous red galaxies. 28(15):155004. P. and I. 83:3370–3373. D. Gunn. astro-ph/9805201. R. J. Seljak. 0806. Rapp. R. A note on a theory of gravity. Riazuelo and J. G¨del-type universes in f(R) gravity. Phys. B125:136–138. [arXiv:1105. Lett. L. MNRAS. A. 80(8):084029. Pope. Renaux-Petel. H. Szalay. 404:60–85. 44:871–893. C. 1977. Rubakov. Vernizzi. Jan. [1059] S. 1976. [1072] V.5086. Oct. A. A. Quevedo. C. S. H. Rajaraman. Rev. 1003. Steer. Feb. [1057] M. N. G. [1064] A. Rev. hepth/0303125. N. and Y. Weinberg. Lett. Shanks. F. Mandelbaum. van Elst. Rodrigues. J. Geophys. J. T. R. Classical and Quantum Gravity. Sundrum.Rev.6366 [astro-ph. Finkel’Shtejn. M. Verde. Napoles.. T. D. et al. General Relativity and Gravitation. Durrer. Physical Review. Sepangi.. Uzan. [1053] R. General Relativity and Gravitation. 0906. [1056] P. and R. D. An anisotropic cosmological model in a modified Brans-Dicke theory. Grav. 1998. C. Farhoudi.3613. E. [1051] L. Rubakov and M. Tavakol. [1049] I. Mon. Rastall. Grav. c Knapp. Class. Vogeley. 0906. 2001. Lectures on string/brane cosmology. Lupton. York. C. July 1987. Jan. E. A. A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension. [1067] N. 83:4690–4693. 1999. 1940. D. R. 54:66–75. Astron. 607:665– 687. S.. [1062] A. Rosenthal. Eisenstein. D. Smith. General Relativity and Flat Space. Meiksin. hep-th/0210292. The 2dF-SDSS LRG and QSO Survey: The 2-Point Correlation Function and Redshift-Space Distortions.1190.Soc. Strong coupling in brane-induced gravity in five dimensions. R. D. H. Nature. [1073] V. J.. M. [1050] A. Rev. 28 (2011) 182001. Type Ia supernova discoveries at z &gt. Quant. 66(2):023525. 2009. 2003. 1978. Reid. 2008. Shaposhnikov. Stoughton. D. Percival. [1070] E. [1071] N.J. A.Roy. 116:1009–1038. D. [1054] S. [1052] L. 1999. and D. Schneider. J. [1074] V. D78:063013. 1973. T. 2002.CO]]. Skibba. Sundrum.-P. 1105. Phys. 2003. Orthogonal non-Gaussianities from Dirac-Born-Infeld Galileon inflation Class. Nichol. 55:38–42. Canadian Journal of Physics. An alternative to compactification. Phys. An estimate of equatorial gravity from terrestrial and satellite data.Astron.2185. McKay. Confirmation of general relativity on large scales from weak lensing and galaxy velocities. Strauss. Phys.[1048] F.. A.2053. M. Santos. [1055] P. Apr. Quiros. D. A bi-metric theory of gravitation. Ross. J. A. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. ˇ Bahcall. G. R. Rosen. G. July 2009. L. J. [1065] S. 1996. [1075] V. Rev. Budavari. Lett. 14:730–732. M. Wake. 80(6):063009. T.. D. Rev. 19:5721–5779. [1069] N. A. Cosmological observations in scalar-tensor quintessence. c o Sept. J. Taylor. Do We Live Inside a Domain Wall? Phys. W. A. Lett. Randall and R. astro-ph/0612400. Riess et al. G. 2006. Lombriser. Phys. 2011. Ruban and A. hep-ph/9905221. Mar. A. Frieman. 4:435–447. A. Phys. J. Fukugita. Usp. Note on stability of de Sitter solutions of f(R) theories. General Relativity and Gravitation. hep-ph/0104152. Rosen. H. astro-ph/0402512. 2010. Extended Palatini action for general relativity. Zehavi. Tegmark. U. Rastall. Kinematics and dynamics of f(R) theories of gravity. D. Schlegel. Kron. Canadian Journal of Physics.Not. Gott. R. M. [1068] N. Rasouli. da Angela. A theory of gravity. Gunn. arXiv:gr-qc/9511010. Bimetric gravitation theory on a cosmological basis. Quant. 28:193–205.1659. Astrophys. ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints. E. [1061] A. [1066] D. Rubakov. Rev. [1058] B. Generalization of the Taub-Kazner cosmological metric 303 . arXiv:astro-ph/0311160. May 2010. 0907. D. Leyva. and H. Reyes. M.

P. May 1999. D. C. Carroll. 2007... B. The Stuckelberg field. D. Rev. Sahdev. 480:492–502. Mar. 304 . D75:064002.Astrophys. gr-qc/0105121.. [1091] H. Sagi and J. 40:263–317. Constraints on Perturbative f(R) Gravity via Neutron Stars. Santiago. Saridakis. Fairbairn. [1085] D. Bradley. Carosi. hep-th/0304245. 2008. 2005. 59(10):103504. Int. 660:16–46.. Martin. A Search for Scalar Chameleons with ADMX. H. 2010. Toporensky. Gregory. D. Sciama. 2007. and T. Sanders. Sakai. Towards a Realistic Kaluza-Klein Cosmology. Rev. S. Nuovo Cimento Lettere. Perfect fluid higher dimensional cosmologies. Sturani. Tretjakov. Ann. Sanctuary and R. 2004. 1002. [1087] V. Sawicki and W.-S. astro-ph/9612099. E. Lett. Sanders and S. G. B507:305–311.Mod. Modified Newtonian dynamics as an alternative to dark matter. and A. L. 2009. Phys. Kalligas. D. J. hep-th/0102042.. Cosmological structure evolution and cmb anisotropies in DGP braneworlds. 2010. [1084] D. Black holes in the TeVeS theory of gravity and their thermodynamics. [1089] N. and K. Hu. Lett. Sanders. [1083] D. 463. J. Souradeep. Preferred frame parameters in the tensor-vector-scalar theory of gravity and its generalization.2765. Schaefer. 0712. A stratified framework for scalar-tensor theories of Modified Dynamics. [1102] I. July 2009. [1099] A. Annals of Physics. [1101] I. Ruggiero. Phys. 415. [1103] I. The Universal Faber-Jackson Relation. [1100] I. Sakai and K. Rydbeck. Deliduman. [1081] E. Phys. Cosmology Astropart. [1106] B.Phys. Aug.. Rev. D. General Relativity and Gravitation.J. Asztalos. [1098] E. Sami. and K. H. 0905. 0809. [1096] C. On the analogy between charge and spin in General Relativity. Gravitational lensing and f(R) theories in the Palatini approach..0300. Phys. 2010. Apr. [1095] D. Rev. Scalar-tensor cosmologies and their late time evolution. Tsujikawa. Sahdev. astro-ph/0612285. Feb. A19:3265–3348. [1094] R. I. Hoskins. 1997. P. Phys. van Bibber.2639. Savas Arapoglu. arXiv:hepth/0504154. [1082] E. B137:155–159. Yavuz Eksi. Rosenberg. D80:044032. 1003. (in Recent developments in General Relativity). 5:289–293. Goobar. 1989. If Gauss Bonnet interaction plays the role of dark energy. [1097] A. Santos and R. and W. 645:1–5. and J. J. 75(12):127502. [1105] D. Sahdev. K.Astron. 42:1953–1967. Astrophys. Y. Savonije and E. McGaugh. July 1997. Phys. Aspects of Horava-Lifshitz cosmology. 2007. Phys. [1104] D. Song. Pergamon + PWD (Oxford). Jan.. Wagoner. Phys. Stability of cosmological solutions in f(R) models of gravity. Mod. and S.5160. Physics Letters B. D77:024010. J. The physical structure of General Relativity. Clarke. and R. [1076] H. 1004. CFT and entropy on the brane. Sciama. [astroph/0202346]. Phys. astro-ph/0204521. S.J. astro-ph/0606285. 1962. Yokoyama. Verlinde. Ruegg and M. M. D. V. Hotz. Rev.3218. Iorio. [1077] M. Cosmology in Brans-Dicke Theory with a Scalar Potential. arXiv:astro-ph/0608104.. Rev. 2007. 36. Phys. Phys. Sikivie. 2010. M.4001. Bubble dynamics and space-time structure in extended inflation.3156. Dec. D65:023518. 0708. 1962. D. Nov 1998. Solar System planetary orbital motions and f(R) theories of gravity. 48:5570–5575. Phys. Effective field theory analysis of the self-interacting chameleon. Physics Letters B. D39:3155. 2002. J. astro-ph/0701495. Astrophys. A. Brane world models of dark energy JCAP 0311 (2003) 014. arXiv:astro-ph/0702278. Sami. M. L. Ruiz-Altaba. D. Relic gravity waves from brane world inflation. Monopole inflation in Brans-Dicke theory. M. [1079] G. Rev. Rev. W. W. Hagmann. 2007. Tanner. Rev.. Sahni. Testing the DGP model with ESSENCE. 58(12):124005. Y. N. 2011. Shtanov. Phys.. June 2007. ArXiv e-prints. ArXiv e-prints. arXiv:gr-qc/9611065. 1101.3179. Maeda. Kinion. July 2005. C. The fate of (phantom) dark energy universe with string curvature corrections. Ruggiero and L. C. Hu. Sawicki and S.. JCAP. 1984. 258:111–134. astro-ph/0510364. 2... Bekenstein. Sahni. Sagi. J. 1:10. K. 1972. [1086] V. 1993. Rybka. The Hubble Diagram to Redshift greater than 6 from 69 Gamma-Ray Bursts. Perfect fluid higher dimensional cosmologies. Rev. 1984. [1080] S. D30:2495–2507. 2002. Maeda. [1093] R. Phys. 0705:003. 41:1497–1509.Rev. P. 619:193–200. [1078] M. [1092] R. arXiv:gr-qc/ the scalar-tensor gravitation theory. Rev. Near-horizon solution for DGP perturbations. [1088] N. [1090] M. arXiv:gr-qc/9811024. 2001. Sanyal. R. L. General Relativity and Gravitation. Sawicki.

51(8):4236–4249. Schutz. F. Measurement of the Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves using Geodetic Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Data. K. Schmidt.5178. Hu. Cai. Classical and Quantum Gravity. Alimi. and G. Schelpe. 0812. J. 0901. Rev. Rev. 2006. 0908. 79(8):083518.. gr-qc/0512117. Rev. Schmidt. [1126] A. ii. 0910. Barrow. [1122] S.Rev. Rev.4242. [1129] C. [1112] F. S. Roy. 2:2762–2773. Feix. A. 387:1303–1312. 2009.. 2006. [1135] D. Schmidt. [1132] M. Rev. Phys. Apr 1995. Lima. Phys. Schmidt. 92(12):121101. J. arXiv:astro-ph/0412120. Shapiro. [1108] C. Schmidt.2668. Mon. 4:209. Dec. Rev. 0911. 0910. Shaw and J. Exact solutions of Bianchi-type I and V spacetimes in the f(R) theory of gravity. J. 82(4):044033. Scheel. Physical Review Letters.. D. B¨hmer. 100(4):041101. Schmidt. S. D. Halo statistics. gr-qc/0703060. A. Local experiments see cosmologically varying constants. H. Lett. 71(8):083512. Mar. 633:164–166.. D80:104006. 2009. Su. International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics. Cluster constraints on f(R) gravity. Phys. Physical Review Letters. 277:67–72. Shapiro. Phys. [1120] M. 2009. Barrow.2457. 2005. Cosmological Simulations of Normal-Branch Braneworld Gravity. [1117] H. Oyaizu. and W. 2007. Variational derivatives of arbitrarily high order and multi-inflation cosmological models. arXiv:gr-qc/0602017. and R. D.0545. [1116] H. Physics Letters B. Rev. D. [1130] I. 1005. Adelberger.0607. 391:433–442. D82:124015. Phys. 2009. Shaw and J. Feb. Schmidt. 1992. D. 1979 1999. Dec. W. Rev. III. Generation of density perturbations by inflation in scalar-tensor gravity theories. Mar. G. June 1992. D. History. Schlamminger. Astronomische Nachrichten. A. Physics Letters B. B639:596–599. hepth/0011177. Serna. 1007. T. Lebach. 53(6):3074–3086. Seahra and C. Phys. and H. Fourth Test of General Relativity. D.0892. On static spherically symmetric solutions of the Bach-Einstein gravitational field equations. G. A. Teukolsky. [1125] A. 7:1023–1031. D80:123003. Feb. H. o Phys. Yepes. Classical and Quantum Gravity. Phys. 2008.. S. Physical Review Letters. comparison with general relativity. M. Weak lensing in scalar-tensor theories of gravity. Sharif and M.[1107] M. 1985.Rev.. Dec. Uzan. Hu.5787. and W. Phys. D. 13:789–791. E. Hu. Serna and J. [1131] S. Astron.2798. I. 2008. and A. Lima. Apr. Seifert. and J. [1119] B. Feb. J. Spherical Collapse and the Halo Model in Braneworld Gravity. An analytic model for non-spherical lenses in covariant MOdified Newtonian Dynamics. 2010. and Applications to Cosmology. Nonlinear evolution of f(R) cosmologies.0232. 2006. Soc. Riazuelo. Aug. 0906. 2007. Scoccimarro. Hu. [1109] C. Seshadri. Wang. 2004. Scalar-tensor cosmological models. A. Einstein static universes are unstable in generic f(R) models. D. D73:123505. D. 2010.. L. 0804. ApJ. D81:063005. R. Collapse to black holes in brans-dicke theory. [1118] H. 2010. Phys. Fourth Order Gravity: Equations. [1111] F. and E. Shapiro. B. [1114] F. Non-vacuum Bianchi types I and V in f(R) gravity. Perturbation Theory. Vikhlinin. R. Mar 1996. Shao. [1128] H. Schwartz. Davis. I: Spherically symmetric spacetimes. Perfect Fluids in General Relativity: Velocity Potentials and a Variational Principle. [1124] M. D. Large-Scale Structure in Brane-Induced Gravity I. Schmidt.. D. Apr. 2010. [1113] F. D. 80(8):083505. S. An alternative explanation of the conflict between 1/R gravity and solar system tests. Famaey.4545.0235. 2009. Shan.Rev. 306:67–70. Phys. 305 . M. [1115] F. The local effects of cosmological variations in physical ‘constants’ and scalar fields. 2009. 1970. Seahra and W. Nov. Chameleon-photon mixing in a primordial magnetic field. Wagner. Shamir. M. Lett. Choi. [1133] M. Phys. [1123] S. Rev. Phys. 2001. J. B502:223–228. [1110] S. B. 2009. [1134] D. Phys. R. D76:064002. Primordial nucleosynthesis bounds on the Brans-Dicke theory. Oct. June 1990. 42:2643–2655. arXiv:gr-qc/0511034. 1003. Phys. Stability of spherically symmetric solutions in modified theories of gravity. Farasat Shamir. Zhao. 79(6):064009. Gregory. Sharif and M.. O. 26(23):235020. [1121] R. 0712. 1964. F. L. D80:043001. General Relativity and Gravitation. Self-consistent cosmological simulations of dgp braneworld gravity. [1127] T. Phys. and S. Gundlach. Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Rotating Torsion Balance. Phys. S. Schimd. Dominguez-Tenreiro. Analytic Description of DGP Perturbations on All Scales.Rev. Rev. Not.. The emergence of localized gravity. Rev. and M.

and W. Phys. Phys. and W. Phys. Mota. J. D. Mon. 194:332–337. Shiromizu. D75:064003. the halo model and nonlinear cosmological power spectra. gr-qc/0601056. [1148] C. 341:1311. P. [1153] C. 2010. 2007. P.. 308:119. V. Phys. 23:1253–1267. Sahni. Phys. D80:121301.. Skordis.Suppl. Large scale structure in Bekenstein’s theory of relativistic MOND. Sotiriou. Large scale bias and the peak background split. arXiv:astro-ph/0610532. 2006. Generalizing TeVeS Cosmology. A. Shtanov. Induced cosmological constant and other features of asymmetric brane embedding. Shafieloo. G. hep-th/0102035. Classical and Quantum Gravity. 79(12):123527. 0711.Rev. Phys.. [1152] C. The Kinematics of the Ultra-Faint Milky Way Satellites: Solving the Missing Satellite Problem. Mar. P. Shiromizu and D. Feb. 2009. Pogosian. ArXiv e-prints. Maeda. 82:451–497. AdS/CFT and the brane-world. Sotiriou.Roy. P. H. Hu.-i. The Tensor-Vector-Scalar theory and its cosmology. hep-th/0210066.. K. 2007. 1999.Soc. Rev. Rev. Modifications of gravity. Rev. W. Hu. Shtanov. Zhao.. V. gr-qc/9910076.3677. Silva and K. D. 1101. 2009. Consistent cosmological modifications to the Einstein equations. Song. Koyama. Low energy effective theory for two brane systems: Covariant curvature formulation. Skordis and T.-S. Sept. 306 . [1157] Y. Skordis. Song.Roy. June 2009. and J. D77:124031. [1161] Y. 1010. 2006. 2007. Sotiriou. r [1145] F. 2003. 2007.. Phys. II: Quasi-spherical spacetimes. [1137] R.Suppl. astro-ph/0511591. Skordis. Unification of inflation and cosmic acceleration in the Palatini formalism. Extended Hoˇava Gravity with Physical Ground-State Wavefunction. Skordis. Nucl. 2006. 645:389–392. [1164] T. [1160] Y. [1159] Y. Phys.3218. 2001. Phys. D64:044015. G. Song.2106. Sasaki.. 73(6):063515. and M. Zlosnik. Feb. 2006. [1147] C. Melchiorri..Phys. [1142] Y. astro-ph/9901122. Smith et al. Astrophys. [1141] Y. [1150] C. 2010. [1156] R. [1163] T.. astro-ph/0606286. f(R) theories of gravity. D73:123506. Silk. Sheth and G. Phys. Sotiriou. Nucl. 670:313–331. [1138] T.J. Sept.Astron. Hu. [1136] D.. Self-Accelerating Universe in Galileon Cosmology. and C. Unusual cosmological singularities in brane world models. D.. D. 0801. Shu.-S. 2009. [gr-qc/0204040].Rev. Rev. [1165] T.Not. 2009. D.Not. arXiv:gr-qc/0611107. Lett. Grav. V. Feb. P. F. [1149] C. Peiris. Skordis. 0909. Phys. D. Rev. Simon and M. P. Physics Letters B. The Einstein equation on the 3-brane world. Bouncing brane worlds. astro-ph/0207664. D77:123502. 2007. Large Scale Structure Formation of normal branch in DGP brane world model. Sahni. Horava-Lifshitz gravity: a status report. B557 (2003) 1-6. Tormen. 75(4):044004. [1140] T. Large-scale tests of the DGP model. D. Sotiriou. 1011. D62:024012. Did Boomerang hit MOND? Phys.Proc. [gr-qc/0208047]. D. 194:338– 343.Phys.Proc. Phys. Ferreira. General Relativity and Gravitation.. 2006. Skordis. D67:084022.2399. 26:143001. Class. astro-ph/0508048. Rev.. A. Constraining f(R) gravity in the Palatini formalism. C.2513. Large scale structure of f(R) gravity. R. K. Shtanov. Sawicki. Skordis. Rev.. Phys. 2008. Koyama. 0706. Rev. 0806. Sahni. TeVeS cosmology: Covariant formalism for the background evolution and linear perturbation theory.. The Geometry Of Modified Newtonian Dynamics.4538. A. [1162] T. Shaw and J. Phys. Slosar. Anti-de Sitter no hair. Class. P. Geha. arXiv:gr-qc/0507027. Nov. 38:1407–1417. 0903. [1139] T.Rev. Song. Grav. Quant. Complementarity of Weak Lensing and Peculiar Velocity Measurements in Testing General Relativity. Faraoni. [1155] A. Rev.3602. 96:011301. 2005. [1154] C. Reviews of Modern Physics. Lett. astro-ph/0505519.Astron. 2010.6019. Bacon.Soc.1985. [1151] C. Curvature scalar instability in f(R) gravity. Eddington-Born-Infeld theory and the dark sector. [1146] J. and L. Rev. 1009. 2003. Cosmological constraints on f(R) acceleration models. [1166] T. 2008. Song.. Boehm. I. arXiv:gr-qc/0512017. Barrow. Rev. [1144] F. Sawicki.3074 [gr-qc]]. The local effects of cosmological variations in physical ‘constants’ and scalar fields. 2011. 2000. and I. Rev. [1143] Y. The nearly Newtonian regime in non-linear theories of gravity. Shiromizu and K. [1167] T.0516. Nichol. [arXiv:0901. [1158] Y. D74:103513. Stable clustering. K. Phys. 0706. Mon. Ida.. Quant. Sotiriou and V. Toporensky. 76(6):063517.1238. Koyama. D72:101301. P.-W. 19 (2002) L101-L107. JCAP 0904 (2009) 023. arXiv:gr-qc/0509029.

Annals of Physics. S.. Faulkner. e. Jan. Sotiriou. Chou. 2008.2041. M. 2000. Classical and Quantum Gravity. Disappearing cosmological constant in f(R) gravity.Lett. Aug 1977. 91(1):99 – 102.4701. 737:102. M. D. ArXiv e-prints. A. D. [1180] A. 0810. N. M. Apr. D’Amico. M. 0805. A. [1189] H. 16(4):953–969. Astrophys. 36:855–862. arXiv:astro-ph/9606018. Visser. [1186] K. Manchester. A. Baumbaugh. Oct. Apr. [1185] P. 6:5. A. 2009. Sotiriou and S. Sullivan. A. Testing General Relativity with Pulsar Timing. astro-ph/9909386. Stewart and M. arXiv:astro-ph/0308114.1444. 9:353– 371. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: Implications for cosmology. Phys. [1171] M. Susperregi. H. arXiv:gr-qc/0604006.Rev. O. [1181] A. Dec. Upadhye. Woodard. A. J. Laboratory constraints on chameleon dark energy and power-law fields.5070. and P. 2004. Astrophys. A341:49–74. A. Stairs.Jan. Sotiriou. H. Starobinskii. Soussa and R. Hyperextended inflation. Spergel et al. H. Spectrum of density fluctuations in Brans-Dicke chaotic inflation. Observational evidence for selfinteracting cold dark matter. 1997. 2007. R. D. 0706. 2003. 148:175–194. A. and S. Stoica. JETP Lett. General Relativity and Gravitation. [1174] D. A. Classical gravity with higher derivatives. Wasserman. Perturbations of spacetimes in general relativity. First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters.4464. Bi-metric theory of gravity from the non-chiral Plebanski action. [1184] P. Oct. 322:935– 966. Rev. Visser. H. Steinhardt. Lett. Feb. 86:157–163. D82:064003. 1995. and W.. Wester. A. arXiv:gr-qc/9712031. 0910:033. Starobinsky. S. 84:3760–3763. Susperregi. 102:251601. [1193] M. Steinhardt and F. [1191] M. [1169] T. S. Weltman. [1190] E. Rev. K. 64:2740– 2743. Steinhardt. a. 58(8):083512. 2007. 10:33. Phys. P. 1003. [1177] I. 2005. [1173] D. J. June 1990. P. Astrophys.2798...Rev. Apr. [1192] M. J. The anthropic landscape of string theory. 2010.. Physical Review Letters. [1175] S. Yokoyama. P. The Perturbation Spectrum Evolving from a Nonsingular Initially De-Sitter Cosmology and the Microwave Background Anisotropy. Liberati. Astrophys. Spergel et al.. Extended inflation with an exponential potential. Soc. E. Walker. 1998. hep-th/0302219. Letter: The Force of Gravity from a Lagrangian Containing Inverse Powers of the Ricci Scalar. N. [1187] K. Physics Letters B. Sept. Phys. P. 632:1060–1068. hep-th/0004126. Steffen and Gammev Collaboration. 307 . arXiv:astro-ph/0307536. astro-ph/0603449. A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity. Accetta. Discovery of three wide-orbit binary pulsars: Implications for binary evolution and equivalence principles. McLaughlin. 2003. S. B482:205–212. Quantum gravity without Lorentz invariance. 1997. 2000. M. In Identification of Dark Matter 2008. Freire. Proc. Lorimer. 1010. arXiv:astro-ph/9212004. Lond. Camilo. D. A. Weinfurtner. Soviet Astronomy Letters. Suppl. Living Reviews in Relativity. Stelle. Cosmology in the Randall-Sundrum brane world scenario. 2011. 1993. [1182] J. General Relativity and Gravitation. and I. R. G.0988. 9:302. 1980. Tye. How typical is General Relativity in Brans-Dicke chaotic inflation? Dec. 170:377. J. Phys. Hobbs. 2010. Recent advances in extended inflationary cosmology. [1178] A. [1179] A.. arXiv:gr-qc/9502002. P. Roy. Stelle. Phys. JHEP. Susperregi and A. Gregory. [1170] T. Tomlin. M. and S. 2007. SNLS3: Constraints on Dark Energy Combining the Supernova Legacy Survey Third Year Data with Other Probes... H. Mazur. Spergel and P. Mazumdar. 0904. Constraints on chameleons and axions-like particles from the GammeV experiment.. Stairs. Starobinsky and J. P. Possenti. P. [1172] D. June 1983. Susskind.J. N. [1168] T.Suppl. S. [1176] I. [1188] J. arXiv:gr-qc/9804081. Steffen. [1194] L. Weinfurtner. Starobinsky. Phys. Phys. 0905. Rev. 55:560–572. Renormalization of higher-derivative quantum gravity. F. Lyne.Lett. 1104. [1183] J. 2010.1726. J. Speziale. astro-ph/0302209. 2003. Kramer. Density fluctuations in Brans-Dicke inflation. Burgay. Phenomenologically viable Lorentz-violating quantum gravity. 1978. 2009. Metric-affine f(R) theories of gravity.Rev. J. 1974.

2002. D. [1201] T. Observational signatures of f(R) dark energy models that satisfy cosmological and local gravity constraints. [1218] S. arXiv:gr-qc/9610021. Torres. Physikalische Zeitschrift. R. M. Feb. J. [1198] T. 2008. 19:33. Thirring. Thongkool. Standish. Sami. Lett. 77(2):023507. Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965). Schunck. Dec. Feb. Physics Letters B. Gannouji. Tsujikawa and M. J.Rev. Torii.4309. Phys. D77:124020. 55:739–753. 2006.. Yajima.1032. Prog. Revisiting chameleon gravity: Thin-shell and no-shell fields with appropriate boundary conditions. Rev. Math. C. Annalen der Physik. 2003. Aghababaie. [1223] S. Sci. 1963. Apr 1998.. [1197] C. [1206] I. 0603:091. 0705. R. Baryons and dark matter from the late decay of a supersymmetric condensate. ApJ. 60(12):123505. On the Einstein-Cartan equations III Bull. Dec. 56(6):3478–3484. 0709.. Feb. 80(12):127501. 518:302–315. Bulk singularities and the effective cosmological constant for higher co-dimension branes. Phys. Sami. A45: 341. F. Maeda. B. Phys. [1215] A. Phys.2284. [1214] A. 225:13–17. Rev. Phys. Physics Letters A. [1209] T. Suppl. Burgess. arXiv:hep-th/0606040. D. Phys. Soda. Jan. Physics Letters B. Tsujikawa. and T. Polarski. Dilatonic black holes with a Gauss-Bonnet term. astro-ph/0406078. 1972. Torii. Tangherlini. JHEP. [1207] K. 27(3):636–651. [1216] A. Model-independent constraints on possible modifications of Newtonian gravity. Torres. Tanaka. Tsujikawa. Rev. B372:443–466. 2009. Moraes. 1105. [1205] S. arXiv:gr-qc/9606034. [1208] A. 1997. M. Sami. Einstein-Cartan theory. hep-th/9109048.1693. Foundations. 80(8):084044.0554 [hep-th]]. Theor. 148:307–316. 0808. F. Tegmark et al. 20: 895. E. Rev. Lett. gr-qc/0606062. Cosmology Astropart. A. Phys.1391. Choudhury.. 1999. 2006. Phys. Observational constraints on braneworld inflation: The Effect of a Gauss-Bonnet term. 1988. arXiv:hep-th/0608178. String-inspired cosmology: a late time transition from a scaling matter era to a dark energy universe caused by a Gauss Bonnet coupling. and R. arXiv:hepph/9906501. 1918. Ser. ¨ [1204] H. 0908. Rev. Tamaki. Tseytlin and C. How delicate are the f(R) gravity models with a disappearing cosmological constant? Phys. Tsujikawa. R. 1975. 526:179–185. [1196] T. Dispersion of growth of matter perturbations in f(R) gravity. 78(8):084028.. D. 2007. [1222] S. Tolley. F. 1971. Matter density perturbations and effective gravitational constant in modified gravity models of dark energy. 356(2-3):256 – 263. and D. Thomas. Pol. Phys. Takahashi. Acad. Tsujikawa. Tsujikawa. [1220] S. Phys. and S. [1200] N.. Will. W. D. [1212] D. Uber die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie. D70:063525. M. 1992..[1195] J. A non-singular homogeneous universe with torsion. [1224] S. hep-th/0512218. Tanahashi and T. I. Black holes in braneworld models. Hellings. and F. S. 2009. Phys. D. Sept. [arXiv:0904. Trautman. Torres. Physics Letters B. 2008. Tsujikawa. Density perturbations in the ekpyrotic Universe and string-inspired generalizations. 2006. Phys. [1199] T. D. 61:1159–1162. Cosmologies from higher-order string corrections. 102 (2009) 231301. Jan. [1219] S. Oct. Phys. Phys. Physical Review Letters. Thorne and C. Preheating with nonminimally coupled scalar fields in higher-curvature inflation models. Gravitational memory of boson stars. Phys. [1202] F.2997. Phys. Astron. and Y. 0908. Theoretical Frameworks for Testing Relativistic Gravity. astro-ph/0608632. Slow roll inflation in nonminimally coupled theories: hyperextended gravity approach. H. Torres. Talmadge. 2011. Classical black hole evaporation in Randall-Sundrum infinite braneworld. Tsujikawa. 1995. Tsujikawa. Rev. Boson stars in general scalar-tensor gravitation: Equilibrium configurations. D. 2008. Maeda. Rev.. 1997. [1203] M. 76(2):023514. 2004. K. Jan. Schwarzschild field in n dimensions and the dimensionality of space problem. [1210] D. Sci.2669. Apr. [1217] S. [1213] D. Rev.Rev. 0803. J. M. D. 2006. 308 . Liddle. 359:249–253. Berthias. 163:595. Trautman. Nucl. Tamaki and S. Rev. J. July 2007. 57(8):4821–4825. D74:123507. D. Oct. A. Maartens. Hoover. 1:6. Elements of string cosmology. Cosmological Constraints from the SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies. Vafa.. [1211] D. Nucleosynthesis bounds on scalar-tensor gravity: power-law couplings. R. Rev. Feb. arXiv:gr-qc/0110124. [1221] S. Sep 1997. Chiral Primordial Gravitational Waves from a Lifshitz Point Phys. 1995. and K. Post-Newtonian parameters in the tensor-vector-scalar theory. F. and E. D. Rev. Tafel. Tanaka. gr-qc/0203082.

335:432. Case. Phys. 0905.4055. Tavakol. Constraining chameleon field theories using the GammeV afterglow experiments. hep-th/0009056. P. Class. Rev. A. [1245] C. [1232] K.3906. Brandenberger. [1234] K. Mar. [1252] H. G. S. Jr. Turner. Physical Review Letters. G. D70:083514. 0705. Kulnazarov. 65:3080–3083. 2009. H. Tsujikawa. Dec. Tavakol. Lidsey. astro-ph/0112161. D. arXiv:hep-ph/0608186. van de Bruck. Dorca. Lidsey. Apr. Upadhye. Upadhye and W. Phys. hep-th/0005032. Feb. J. arXiv:gr-qc/9404044. Parry.0487. Rev. 5:20. 1994. 2004. D. Umezu. Galileons from Lovelock actions. Cosmological consequences of the brane/bulk interaction. Sept. Classical and quantum cosmology of the Starobinsky inflationary model. Murphy. Krauss. [1226] S. June 2004. B39:393–394. General Relativity and Gravitation. 2005. Tavakol.. T. [1236] A. Vilenkin. Unzicker and T. K. [1235] A. S.. Williams. J. Cosmological perturbations in Palatini modified gravity. Phys. A. Jr. M. [1243] H. Grav. Chameleon scalar fields in relativistic gravitational backgrounds. K. The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: The Bias of galaxies and the density of the Universe. Vasiliev. [1237] A. Tavakol. ArXiv General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology e-prints. and R.gravity. arXiv:physics/0503046. Nov. Phys. Phys. and R. [1249] A. D. C. 2006. Sept. Jan. Can codimension-two branes solve the cosmological constant problem? Phys. Uddin. and T. Mathews. Dewitt. Nov. Classical and Quantum Gravity. 2008. 1985.. 41:2725–2736. Van Acoleyen and J. Upadhye. Percival. 2003. I. Lidsey. -i. J. On singularities of general relativity and gravitational equations of fourth order. D. Translation of Einstein’s Attempt of a Unified Field Theory with Teleparallelism. Tavakol. Rev. 1981. B22:397–411. Massive and massless Yang-Mills and gravitational fields. and R. Utiyama and B. E. Density perturbations in f(R) gravity theories in metric and Palatini formalisms. J. van Elst. Oct. van de Bruck. Journal of Mathematical Physics. Rev. J.. ArXiv e-prints. Cosmological scaling solutions in generalised GaussBonnet gravity theories. J. Flatness of the universe . Physical Review Letters. Tsyba. and A.[1225] S. Vollick. Vainshtein. K. Quant. Dorca. K. arXiv:gr-qc/0411082. Laser Ranging to the Moon. [1242] K. Uddin. Uzan. W. S. Phys. I. Tsujikawa. M. Cline. Rev. [1230] S. [1231] S. Rev. J. Nordtvedt. I. and L. et al. 2002. [1229] M. Aug. E. B243:378–382. Turyshev. D1:3209–3216. arXiv:hep-ph/0205340. Renormalization of a Classical Gravitational Field Interacting with Quantized Matter Fields. Steigman. 2003. Yerzhanov. [1241] A. Nucl. van Dam and M. Wagoner. ArXiv Physics e-prints. 309 . D.. Shao.. Turyshev. 52:2090–2093. Nov. Observational constraints on accelerating brane cosmology with exchange between the bulk and brane. [1244] C. [astro-ph/0507227]. and R. R. Steffen. Uddin. Lukas. Baugh. J. 2000. [1247] M. J. G. Rev. Pure kinetic k-essence as the cosmic speed-up and f(T) . Phys. 74(10):104024.0082. Y. 1102. 77(4):043007. T. Ichiki. July 1962. Existence of relativistic stars in f(R) gravity. Dec. Mon. S. M. Lett. G. 2011. 21:2773–2799. Phys. W.0270. D. Anderson. D62:123515. H. Shao. 1972. von Borzeszkowski. Phys. [1248] L.Not. and R.Roy. 2004. D73 (2006) 063527. Hu.Lett. 1/R curvature corrections as the source of the cosmological acceleration. 2000. Martins.Astron. Phys. 0903. [1239] R.0232. [1233] K. Annalen der Physik. L. The fundamental constants and their variation: observational and theoretical status. 80(6):064002. 1990. G. and K. J. M. 75:403–455. arXiv:astro-ph/0306630. and A.. Van Doorsselaere. and J. Tamaki. C. [1228] M. [1240] J. June 1984. 0712. B495:183–192. Mars and Beyond. 1970. K. Matarrese. 68(6):063510. 0901. Cosmology Astropart. [1227] P. Veltman. S. Relic gravitational waves and extended inflation.. Myrzakulov. Nakamura. 493:239–248. [1238] A. 24:3951–3962. [1251] D. 81(1):015013. 0911. 3:608–618. E. A. Consistent equation for interacting gauge fields of all spins in (3+1)-dimensions. 1990. Rev. Verde.Soc. D. 1008.Reconciling theoretical prejudices with observational data. Yahiro. 32:2511–2521.3226. 2009. N. Lett. Phys. Weltman. 2010. [1253] R. Rev. [1246] H. Heavens. Nordtvedt.. Gubser. Kajino. G. To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass. Khoury. hep-th/0406141. M. Vinet and J. Classical and Quantum Gravity. M. [1250] J. 11:2483–2497. and M. Unveiling chameleon fields in tests of the gravitational inverse-square law. Phys. Turner and F. Cosmological perturbations in brane-world theories: Formalism. 2010. Phys.0779. and R. May 2009. J. V. F. The laser astrometric test of relativity mission. Phys. Scalar tensor theory and gravitational waves. M. 2007. Reviews of Modern Physics. R. arXiv:gr-qc/0311020. 1970. M.. Rev. S. Wilczek. Quantum cosmology and higher-order Lagrangian theories.

212:L91–L94.5167. [1284] F.. ApJ. Weisberg and J.. 0909. Wang. B664:1–6. hep-th/0111057. Wu and X. Harvard University. [1282] P. Weinberg. Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics.. Wei. Akad. Preuss. C. 45:2653–2664. Nov. Avoiding Dark Energy with 1/R Modifications of Gravity. D. Oct 1983. volume 720 of Lecture Notes in Physics. Fourth-order gravity as general relativity plus matter. Advances in Space Research. Wang. Einstein-aether as a quantum effective field theory.Rev. 222:012054. d. Weyl. Asymptotic behavior of homogeneous cosmological models in the presence of a positive cosmological constant. Dec. JCAP. astro-ph/0604051. Rev. Nordtvedt. editor. Linear perturbations of cosmological models in the Horava. and D. Phys. 28(8):2118–2120. Williams. and C.Phys. D. 1979. H. 1972.2089. Dec. D. Vector and tensor perturbations in Horava-Lifshitz cosmology. S. 1989. 1991. Phys. 2002. General relativistic geodetic spin precession in binary pulsar b1913+16: Mapping the emission beam in two dimensions. ApJ. Wang and R. Eardley. Observational Constraints on the Nature of the Dark Energy: First Cosmological Results from the ESSENCE Supernova Survey. 2009. Mar. 2010. 1993. [1272] C. Apr. [1271] B. Wu. [1274] C. Will and K. Weinfurtner. Robust dark energy constraints from supernovae. Will. 666:694–715. Sotiriou. D. Phys. D. 1984. 1008. Weisberg.1748. Woodard. Weinberg. [1263] H. Physics Letters B. Cosmology in nonrelativistic general covariant theory of gravity. [1283] A. 1992. Sitzungsber. [1265] S. Cosmic microwave background with Brans-Dicke gravity II: constraints with 310 . Rev.J. 2007. J. 1918.. Phys. Astrophys.[1254] R. Lett. Weenink and T. Whitt. and three-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe observations. and M. in General relativity. Jun 1971. In L. D82:124063.. arXiv:gr-qc/0411113. 2010. Phys. Wang and Y. Rev. Will and D. Stability of Schwarzschild black holes in fourth-order gravity. Wiseman.3637. [1268] J. Relativistic stars in Randall-Sundrum gravity. Will. Growth Index of DGP Model and Current Growth Rate Data. [1273] C. Phys. Visser. Mar. Astrophys. 44:991–998. Mester. 82(12):123510. Torii. Wald. 2004.. [1264] E. I. Turyshev. 1002. Taylor. Sept. Everitt. Berlin Springer Verlag. 2006. G.. Astrophys. Astrophys. M.4122. J. 1977. Prokopec.Conf. Gravitation und Elektrizit¨t. The confrontation between general relativity and experiment. 1989. and 10. P. Rev. and R. Morris Loeb Lectures in Physics. J. a [1270] B. Constraints on the nucleation rate in extended inflation. Phys. Taylor. May 2. Rev. [1261] Y. 2006. 1(465). Rev. Nov.Lifshitz theory of gravity without detailed balance.Lett. D. Wu.Phys. 2002. [1278] T. 40:3950–3959. 0802. 1003:013. Progress in Lunar Laser Ranging Tests of Relativistic Gravity. D. Wiss. 2008. Papantonopoulos. Nice and J. Wang and P. [1255] R. D81:024009. Final states of gravitational collapse. [1269] H. 2010. Rev. G. galaxy clustering. Maartens. 1007. 2010... 145:176–178.. [1259] A. M.0308. H. Preferred-Frame Theories and an Extended PPN Formalism.. J. Classical and Quantum Gravity. 93(26):261101. 1009. Gauge invariant cosmological perturbations for the nonminimally coupled inflaton field.Ser. Wald. astro-ph/0701041.J. [1280] W.Mod. 5. [1275] C. Phys. 26(22):225009. Phys. Aug. The Invisible Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy. F. [1256] A. Wang. 32:379–388. Mukherjee. 576:942–949. arXiv:astro-ph/0601672. Whitt. Boggs. Worden. page 403. 2010. Physical Review Letters. Teil. 26(26):1653–1655. Conservation Laws and Preferred Frames in Relativistic Gravity. Will. W. 2000. M. Some problems with extended inflation. Wood-Vasey et al. [1267] J. 61:1–23.2446. [1262] J. [1281] R. Withers. An Einstein centenary survey. Chen.. Constraints on generalized extended inflationary models. 0905. Rev. D. Jr. Dipole gravitational radiation in Rosen’s theory of gravity Observable effects in the binary system PSR 1913+16. J. M. 1988. Projectable Horava-Lifshitz gravity in a nutshell. 177:757. Wands. [1260] Y. D65:124007. Rev. Scalar field perturbations in Horava-Lifshitz cosmology. [1266] S. Timing Measurements of the Relativistic Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16. Maartens. H. [1277] J. The STEP Payload and Experiment. M. 2007.2133. Phys. Dec. J. 722:1030–1034. M. July 1985. 3. 2010. 2010. 9:3. [1279] B. T. 25:1205–1208. Rev. Rel. 650:1–6. [1257] A. Living Rev. The Cosmological Constant Problem. [1276] C. 0907. [1258] A. M. Phys. R.

682:711–720. [1288] P. D. The dynamical behavior of f(T) theory.3512. Yu. and baryon asymmetry. Parker. [1301] P. and S.2348. [1285] F. M. [1297] J. Oct. Zhao. astroph/0509590. Rev. Rood. 0903. and G. 76(2):024007. Horne. N.0863. Is Gravitational Lensing by Intercluster Filaments Always Negligible? Astrophys. Zumberge. D24:839– 841. Ferreira. K. 81(10):103510. 2010. Testing gravity against the early time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. A. Roy. [1308] R. [1298] Y. Rev. Aug.4935. 2010. Bacon. Observational constraints on f(T) theory. and K. Growth factor in f(T) gravity. Wu and H. Chen. 73(12):123504.5389.0001. Cosmic microwave background with Brans-Dicke Gravity: I. Zhou. Nichol.. M. and clusters. [1299] P. Zylberberg. Phys. Second edition (February 2008). Steigman. Liguori. T. Gravity theories in more than four dimensions 1. 1004. Wu and H.-S. 1979. [1309] S. Physical Review Letters.1326. Goldstone’s Theorem and Hamiltonian of Multi-galileon Modified Gravity. Nov. 2010. 2010. X.the WMAP and SDSS data. 2010. Copeland. [1291] D. Li. D. D82:044032. Starkman.Rev. [1292] J. galaxies. 103(24):241301. Dec. Zhang. M. 1003. Probing Gravity at Cosmological Scales by Measurements which Test the Relationship between Gravitational Lensing and Matter Overdensity. [1289] M. ArXiv e-prints. Zhao. Chave. 2009. Ander.4610. 2008. G. Growth of structure in theories with a dynamical preferred frame. P. [1302] G. Silvestri. 2010. Taylor. Mod. [1300] P. Oct. Yoho. July 2009. Zhang. D. Xu et al. Wyman and J.1376. and K. Submarine measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant. Wu.. Spiess. hep-th/0502193. Wu and H. D. Rev. 2005. Zhou. 1970. Starkman.0674. Ferrer. 692:176–179. Probing modifications of general relativity using current cosmological observations. Zanelli. L. D. N. Yang. G.0520. Song. Nov. 2007. 0903. [1294] A. A. 0905. Phys. [1293] R. Brans-Dicke dilaton. Jan. and Y. 1005. [1304] G. Phys. Pogosian.. and P. Huang. Yoshimura. and M. D16:2055–2063. 1981. C. [1312] M.3669. Behavior of f(R) gravity in the solar system. Zumino. Oct. Silvestri. Wyman. L. [1313] B. 1011. [1307] H. JETP Lett. Wang. arXiv:astro-ph/0511218. Yang. 7:9. 2006. [1286] P. Zhang. Sov. and R. [1296] V. D. N. Mar. 0710. 2008. Phys. A. 1011. Zlosnik. Schramm.JETP.. Cosmological Tests of General Relativity with Future Tomographic Surveys. Phys. Hildebrand. 693:415–420. Yu. [1311] T. F.1932. Koyama. J. 0903. Enhanced Peculiar Velocities in Brane-Induced Gravity.Phys. B. ArXiv e-prints. Giannantonio. Cosmology Astropart. and G. Bean. Zeldovich and A. T. 99(14):141302. Phys. Starobinsky. E. J. A. ArXiv e-prints. May 2010. [1306] H. J. 1010. N-body Simulations for f(R) Gravity using a Self-adaptive Particle-Mesh Code. Stevenson. 2010. Dodelson. Physical Review Letters. 2006. Soc. J. f(T) models with phantom divide line crossing. L.0384. [1305] H. A. Physics Reports.1257. [1290] M. J. Zhao. 227:697–704. L. 0704. Testing Bekenstein’s Relativistic MOND gravity with Gravitational Lensing. An introduction to gravitational lensing in TeVeS gravity. 66:1559–1562. Rev. ArXiv e-prints. 0711.2046. Zhao. Phys. astro-ph/0610056. [1295] M. Zheng and Q. Int. I. 1006. A. astro-ph/0611777. 2009. 368:171–186. Constraints on cosmology and neutrino physics from big bang nucleosynthesis. J. Physical Review Letters. 2010. Physics Letters B. July 2007. Not.-e. Khoury. Static spherically symmetric scalar fields in general relativity.. Rev. Apr. J.0385. R. Conformal transformation in f(T) theories. 34:1159–1166. Particle production and vacuum polarization in an anisotropic gravitational field. J.-Y. and J. 1007. R. Pogosian. F. Zhao. Lecture notes on Chern-Simons (super-)gravities.-S. 137(1):109–114. Saffin. Yu. Qiang. and X. Koyama. [1287] P. 67:3051–3054. Linearized gravitation theory and the graviton mass. Constraining TeVeS gravity as effective dark matter and dark energy. D. Degree-scale anomalies in the CMB: localizing the first peak dip to a small patch of the north ecliptic sky. Physics Letters B. 2010. 1010. 1972. Physical Review Letters. D. Bacon. R. Astron.. 2009. Oct. E. 77(8):084010.. Cosmological constraints on f(G) dark energy models. 1008. Mon. 1991. Extended inflation. 12:312. 311 . Aug. [1303] G. Phys. Zakharov. June 2006. Covariant Formulation. D. D. Zhao. G. ApJ. [1310] S. 2008. arXiv:astro-ph/0701662. A. 1991.

1824. and G. [1315] J. P. P. Phys. Lett. [1314] J. Zlosnik. May 2010. Ferreira. F. Constraining Lorentz Violation with Cosmology. A. B156:315. and T. Physical Review Letters. 312 . 0808. Rev.. Zwiebach. Bourliot. 101(26):261102. D. 2008. G. G. T. Ferreira.1986. 81(10):104015. Vector field models of modified gravity and the dark sector. Phys. Dec. Starkman. Zuntz. Curvature Squared Terms and String Theories. G. D. G. [1316] B. 1985. 1002.0849. Zlosnik. Zuntz.