Paper detail

Testing Gravity on Cosmic Scales: A Case Study of Jordan-Brans-Dicke Theory

We provide an end-to-end exploration of a distinct modified gravitational theory in Jordan-Brans-Dicke (JBD) gravity, from an analytical and numerical description of the background expansion and linear perturbations, to the nonlinear regime captured with a hybrid suite of $N$-body simulations, to the parameter constraints from existing cosmological probes. The nonlinear corrections to the matter power spectrum due to baryons, massive neutrinos, and modified gravity are simultaneously modeled and propagated in the cosmological analysis for the first time. In the combined analysis of the Planck CMB temperature, polarization, and lensing reconstruction, Pantheon supernova distances, BOSS measurements of BAO distances, the Alcock-Paczynski effect, and the growth rate, along with the joint ($3\times2$pt) dataset of cosmic shear, galaxy-galaxy lensing, and overlapping redshift-space galaxy clustering from KiDS and 2dFLenS, we constrain the JBD coupling constant, $ω_{\rm BD}>1540$ (95% CL), the effective gravitational constant, $G_{\rm matter}/G=0.997\pm0.029$, the sum of neutrino masses, $\sum m_ν<0.12$ eV (95% CL), and the baryonic feedback amplitude, $B<2.8$ (95% CL), all in agreement with the standard model expectation. We show that the uncertainty in the gravitational theory alleviates the tension between KiDS$\times$2dFLenS and Planck to below $1σ$ and the tension in the Hubble constant between Planck and the direct measurement of Riess et al. (2019) down to ~$3σ$; however, we find no substantial model selection preference for JBD gravity relative to $Λ$CDM. We further show that the neutrino mass bound degrades by up to a factor of three as the $ω_{\rm BD}$ parameterization becomes more restrictive and that a positive shift in $G_{\rm matter}/G$ suppresses the CMB damping tail in a way that might complicate future inferences of small-scale physics. (Abridged)

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 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.