Is the Galileon theory an alternative to GR

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gr Theory
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Galileon theory presents a modified gravity framework that may serve as an alternative to General Relativity (GR) by eliminating the need for dark matter in galaxy clusters. Researchers Vincenzo Salzano, David F. Mota, Mariusz P. Dabrowski, and Salvatore Capozziello explore this theory in the context of the "beyond Horndeski" scenario, demonstrating that gravitational effects typically attributed to dark matter can be explained through a screening mechanism. Their findings, based on data from the CLASH survey, indicate that the Galileon model can match observational data without invoking dark matter, thus challenging the validity of GR at a 2σ confidence level. However, the theory remains speculative and introduces complexities that may outweigh its benefits.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of modified gravity theories
  • Familiarity with the Vainshtein mechanism
  • Knowledge of gravitational lensing techniques
  • Basic concepts of cosmology and astrophysics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the "beyond Horndeski" framework
  • Study the Vainshtein mechanism in detail
  • Examine gravitational lensing data from the CLASH survey
  • Explore the historical context and developments of massive gravity theories
USEFUL FOR

Cosmologists, astrophysicists, and researchers interested in alternative theories to General Relativity and the nature of dark matter.

wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,411
Reaction score
551
We have been searching for Dark Matter a long time, is it time to look at theories like this Galileon one?
What draw backs does it have? arXiv:1607.02606 [pdf, ps, other]
No need for dark matter in galaxy clusters within Galileon theory
Vincenzo Salzano, David F. Mota, Mariusz P. Dabrowski, Salvatore Capozziello
Comments: 14 pages, 4 figures
Subjects: Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO)

Modified gravity theories with a screening mechanism have acquired much interest recently in the quest for a viable alternative to General Relativity on cosmological scales, given their intrinsic property of being able to pass Solar System scale tests and, at the same time, to possibly drive universe acceleration on much larger scales. Here, we explore the possibility that the same screening mechanism, or its partial breaking at a certain astrophysical scale, might be responsible of those gravitational effects which, in the context of general relativity, are generally attributed to Dark Matter. We consider a recently proposed extension of covariant Galileon models in the so-called "beyond Horndeski" scenario, where a breaking of the Vainshtein mechanism is possible and, thus, some peculiar observational signatures should be detectable and make it distinguishable from general relativity. We apply this model to a sample of clusters of galaxies observed under the CLASH survey, using both new data from gravitational lensing events and archival data from X-ray intra-cluster hot gas observations. In particular, we use the latter to model the gas density, and then use it as the only ingredient in the matter clusters' budget to calculate the expected lensing convergence map. Results show that, in the context of this extended Galileon, the assumption of having only gas and no Dark Matter at all in the clusters is able to match observations. We also obtain narrow and very interesting bounds on the parameters which characterize this model. In particular, we find that, at least for one of them, the general relativity limit is excluded at 2σ confidence level, thus making this model clearly statistically different and competitive with respect to general relativity.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Its been around since the 70's, see:
arXiv:1508.00046v2

I found a set of notes as slides... galileon theory is a subset of massive gravity theory.
https://clareburrage.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/helsinki_2013.pdf

Afaict...
Its very complicated, not testable in the lab, and introduces more problems than it solves.
Basically it is still at the status of speculation... it is not good enough for a new theory to explain something the current theory has trouble with, it also has to explain everything the current theory does.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K