Paper detail

Cosmic Degeneracies I: Joint N-body Simulations of Modified Gravity and Massive Neutrinos

We present the first suite of cosmological N-body simulations that simultaneously include the effects of two different and theoretically independent extensions of the standard $Λ$CDM cosmological scenario - namely an $f(R)$ theory of Modified Gravity (MG) and a cosmological background of massive neutrinos - with the aim to investigate their possible observational degeneracies. We focus on three basic statistics of the large-scale matter distribution, more specifically the nonlinear matter power spectrum, the halo mass function, and the halo bias, for which we determine the deviation with respect to the fiducial $Λ$CDM cosmology in the context of both separate and combined simulations of $f(R)$ MG and massive neutrinos scenarios. Our results show that while these two extended models separately determine very prominent and potentially detectable features in all the three statistics, when we allow them to be simultaneously at work these features are strongly suppressed, resulting in much weaker deviations from the standard model's predictions. In particular, when an $f(R)$ gravity model with $f_{R0}=-1\times 10^{-4}$ is combined with a total neutrino mass of $Σ_{i}m_{ν_{i}}=0.4$ eV, the resulting matter power spectrum, halo mass function, and bias at z=0 are found to be consistent with the standard model's predictions at the 10%, 20%, and 5% accuracy levels, respectively. Therefore, our results imply an intrinsic theoretical limit to the effective discriminating power of present and future observational data sets with respect to these widely considered extensions of the standard cosmological scenario in the absence of independent measurements of the neutrino masses from laboratory experiments, even though the high-redshift evolution might still allow to partially break the degeneracy [Abridged].

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.