- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Exploring the stability of f(Q) cosmology near general relativity limit with different connections

María-José Guzmán*, Laur Järv†, and Laxmipriya Pati‡

  • *Contact author: mjguzman@ut.ee
  • †Contact author: laur.jarv@ut.ee
  • ‡Contact author: laxmipriya.pati@ut.ee
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 110, 124013 – Published 6 December, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.124013

Abstract

In this work, we study cosmological spacetime configurations in f(Q) gravity with nonvanishing symmetric teleparallel connections. It is known that the spatially flat, homogeneous, and isotropic connections can be classified into three sets. Focusing on two of those, we explore the stability of cosmological background evolution near the general relativity regime across radiation, matter, dark energy, and geometric dark energy dominated eras. Our results show that for the standard connection set 1 the general relativity regime can be realized in two ways and both exhibit stable behavior throughout all evolutionary epochs. Conversely, for the alternative connection set 2 the trivial general relativity limit is stable, while the nontrivial option exhibits stability during the radiation era and marginal stability during the matter era, but for the dark energy and geometric dark energy eras our results are inconclusive. Furthermore, we discuss the general conditions on the function f(Q) that physically viable models should obey, and point out that for a generic f(Q) the alternative connection sets 2 and 3 are prone to trigger a sudden singularity. This can happen even near the otherwise good looking general relativity regime, as we demonstrate by an explicit numerical example. Hence the alternative configurations could be problematic already on the background level.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (79)

  1. L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, Challenges for ΛCDM: An update, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022).
  2. A. G. Adame et al. (DESI Collaboration), DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, arXiv:2404.03002.
  3. R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, Teleparallel Gravity (Springer, Dordrecht, 2013), Vol. 173, 10.1007/978-94-007-5143-9.
  4. J. M. Nester and H.-J. Yo, Symmetric teleparallel general relativity, Chin. J. Phys. (Taipei) 37, 113 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9809049.
  5. M. Adak, The symmetric teleparallel gravity, Turk. J. Phys. 30, 379 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0611077.
  6. J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, The geometrical trinity of gravity, Universe 5, 173 (2019).
  7. S. Bahamonde, K. F. Dialektopoulos, C. Escamilla-Rivera, G. Farrugia, V. Gakis, M. Hendry, M. Hohmann, J. Levi Said, J. Mifsud, and E. Di Valentino, Teleparallel gravity: From theory to cosmology, Rep. Prog. Phys. 86, 026901 (2023).
  8. S. Capozziello, V. De Falco, and C. Ferrara, Comparing equivalent gravities: Common features and differences, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 865 (2022).
  9. L. Järv and P. Kuusk, Conventionalism, cosmology and teleparallel gravity, Universe 10, 1 (2024).
  10. S. Capozziello, A. Finch, J. L. Said, and A. Magro, The 3+1 formalism in teleparallel and symmetric teleparallel gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1141 (2021).
  11. L. Pati, D. Blixt, and M.-J. Guzman, Hamilton’s equations in the covariant teleparallel equivalent of general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044071 (2023).
  12. M.-J. Guzman, The Hamiltonian constraint in the symmetric teleparallel equivalent of general relativity, arXiv:2311.01424.
  13. J. Beltrán Jiménez and T. S. Koivisto, Noether charges in the geometrical trinity of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 105, L021502 (2022).
  14. D. A. Gomes, J. Beltrán Jiménez, and T. S. Koivisto, Energy and entropy in the geometrical trinity of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024044 (2023).
  15. T. S. Koivisto, Integrable teleparallel gravity in the presence of boundaries, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024019 (2023).
  16. J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, D. Iosifidis, A. Jiménez-Cano, and T. S. Koivisto, General teleparallel quadratic gravity, Phys. Lett. B 805, 135422 (2020).
  17. F. Bajardi and D. Blixt, Primary constraints in general teleparallel quadratic gravity, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084078 (2024).
  18. E. N. Saridakis, R. Lazkoz, V. Salzano, P. V. Moniz et al. (CANTATA Collaboration), Modified gravity and cosmology: An update by the CANTATA network, arXiv:2105.12582.
  19. R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without inflaton, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084031 (2007).
  20. G. R. Bengochea and R. Ferraro, Dark torsion as the cosmic speed-up, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124019 (2009).
  21. J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, Coincident general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044048 (2018).
  22. J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, Teleparallel Palatini theories, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2018) 039.
  23. J. Beltrán Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, T. S. Koivisto, and S. Pekar, Cosmology in f(Q) geometry, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103507 (2020).
  24. M. Hohmann, L. Järv, M. Krššák, and C. Pfeifer, Modified teleparallel theories of gravity in symmetric spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D 100, 084002 (2019).
  25. L. Järv, M. Hohmann, M. Krššśák, and C. Pfeifer, Flat connection for rotating spacetimes in extended teleparallel gravity theories, Universe 5, 142 (2019).
  26. M. Hohmann, Complete classification of cosmological teleparallel geometries, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 18, 2140005 (2021).
  27. A. A. Coley, R. J. van den Hoogen, and D. D. McNutt, Symmetric teleparallel geometries, Classical Quantum Gravity 39, 22LT01 (2022).
  28. M. Hohmann, General covariant symmetric teleparallel cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124077 (2021).
  29. F. D’Ambrosio, L. Heisenberg, and S. Kuhn, Revisiting cosmologies in teleparallelism, Classical Quantum Gravity 39, 025013 (2022).
  30. D. Zhao, Covariant formulation of f(Q) theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 303 (2022).
  31. N. Dimakis, A. Paliathanasis, M. Roumeliotis, and T. Christodoulakis, FLRW solutions in f(Q) theory: The effect of using different connections, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043509 (2022).
  32. N. Dimakis, M. Roumeliotis, A. Paliathanasis, P. S. Apostolopoulos, and T. Christodoulakis, Self-similar cosmological solutions in symmetric teleparallel theory: Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123516 (2022).
  33. A. Paliathanasis, Stability properties of self-similar solutions in symmetric teleparallel f(Q)-cosmology, Symmetry 15, 529 (2023).
  34. H. Shabani, A. De, and T.-H. Loo, Phase-space analysis of a novel cosmological model in f(Q) theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 535 (2023).
  35. A. Paliathanasis, Dynamical analysis of fQ-cosmology, Phys. Dark Universe 41, 101255 (2023).
  36. H. Shabani, A. De, T.-H. Loo, and E. N. Saridakis, Cosmology of f(Q) gravity in non-flat Universe, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 285 (2024).
  37. G. Subramaniam, A. De, T.-H. Loo, and Y. K. Goh, Energy condition bounds on f(Q) model parameters in a curved FLRW Universe, Phys. Dark Universe 41, 101243 (2023).
  38. J. Shi, Cosmological constraints in covariant f(Q) gravity with different connections, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 951 (2023).
  39. Y. Yang, X. Ren, B. Wang, Y.-F. Cai, and E. N. Saridakis, Data reconstruction of the dynamical connection function in f(Q) cosmology, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 533, 2232 (2024).
  40. L. Jarv and L. Pati, Stability of symmetric teleparallel scalar-tensor cosmologies with alternative connections, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064069 (2024).
  41. A. Paliathanasis, The Brans–Dicke field in non-metricity gravity: Cosmological solutions and conformal transformations, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 125 (2024).
  42. J. Beltrán Jiménez and T. S. Koivisto, Accidental gauge symmetries of Minkowski spacetime in teleparallel theories, Universe 7, 143 (2021).
  43. D. A. Gomes, J. Beltrán Jiménez, A. J. Cano, and T. S. Koivisto, Pathological character of modifications to coincident general relativity: Cosmological strong coupling and ghosts in f(Q) theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 141401 (2024).
  44. L. Heisenberg, M. Hohmann, and S. Kuhn, Cosmological teleparallel perturbations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2023) 063.
  45. D. Zhao, Conformal transformation of f(Q) gravity and its cosmological perturbations, arXiv:2404.16299.
  46. K. Hu, T. Katsuragawa, and T. Qiu, ADM formulation and Hamiltonian analysis of f(Q) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044025 (2022).
  47. F. D’Ambrosio, L. Heisenberg, and S. Zentarra, Hamiltonian analysis of f(Q) gravity and the failure of the Dirac–Bergmann algorithm for teleparallel theories of gravity, Fortschr. Phys. 71, 2300185 (2023).
  48. K. Tomonari and S. Bahamonde, Dirac–Bergmann analysis and degrees of freedom of coincident f(Q)-gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 349 (2024); 84, 508(E) (2024).
  49. A. Golovnev and M.-J. Guzman, Nontrivial Minkowski backgrounds in f(T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044009 (2021).
  50. A. Golovnev and M.-J. Guzmán, Foundational issues in f(T) gravity theory, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 18, 2140007 (2021).
  51. T. Damour and K. Nordtvedt, Tensor-scalar cosmological models and their relaxation toward general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3436 (1993).
  52. A. Serna and J. M. Alimi, Scalar-tensor cosmological models, Phys. Rev. D 53, 3074 (1996).
  53. J. P. Mimoso and A. M. Nunes, General relativity as a cosmological attractor of scalar tensor gravity theories, Phys. Lett. A 248, 325 (1998).
  54. D. I. Santiago, D. Kalligas, and R. V. Wagoner, Scalar-tensor cosmologies and their late time evolution, Phys. Rev. D 58, 124005 (1998).
  55. A. Serna, J. M. Alimi, and A. Navarro, Convergence of scalar tensor theories toward general relativity and primordial nucleosynthesis, Classical Quantum Gravity 19, 857 (2002).
  56. L. Jarv, P. Kuusk, and M. Saal, Potential dominated scalar-tensor cosmologies in the general relativity limit: Phase space view, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104007 (2010).
  57. L. Jarv, P. Kuusk, and M. Saal, Scalar-tensor cosmologies with a potential in the general relativity limit: Time evolution, Phys. Lett. B 694, 1 (2011).
  58. L. Jarv, P. Kuusk, and M. Saal, Scalar-tensor cosmologies with dust matter in the general relativity limit, Phys. Rev. D 85, 064013 (2012).
  59. L. Järv, P. Kuusk, M. Saal, and O. Vilson, Transformation properties and general relativity regime in scalar–tensor theories, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 235013 (2015).
  60. J. Dutta, L. Jarv, W. Khyllep, and S. Tokke, From inflation to dark energy in scalar-tensor cosmology, arXiv:2007.06601.
  61. L. Järv and A. Toporensky, General relativity as an attractor for scalar-torsion cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024051 (2016).
  62. R.-H. Lin and X.-H. Zhai, Spherically symmetric configuration in f(Q) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124001 (2021).
  63. L. Järv, M. Rünkla, M. Saal, and O. Vilson, Nonmetricity formulation of general relativity and its scalar-tensor extension, Phys. Rev. D 97, 124025 (2018).
  64. L. Heisenberg, Review on f(Q) gravity, Phys. Rep. 1066, 1 (2024).
  65. K. Hu, M. Yamakoshi, T. Katsuragawa, S. Nojiri, and T. Qiu, Nonpropagating ghost in covariant f(Q) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124030 (2023).
  66. V. Arnold, Dynamical Systems V: Bifurcation Theory and Catastrophe Theory (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1994), Vol. 5, 10.1007/978-3-642-57884-7.
  67. E. V. Linder, Einstein’s other gravity and the acceleration of the universe, Phys. Rev. D 81, 127301 (2010); 82, 109902(E) (2010).
  68. B. Mirza and F. Oboudiat, Constraining f(T) gravity by dynamical system analysis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2017) 011.
  69. M. Hohmann, L. Jarv, and U. Ualikhanova, Dynamical systems approach and generic properties of f(T) cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043508 (2017).
  70. J. Lu, X. Zhao, and G. Chee, Cosmology in symmetric teleparallel gravity and its dynamical system, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 530 (2019).
  71. C. G. Boehmer, E. Jensko, and R. Lazkoz, Dynamical systems analysis of f(Q) gravity, Universe 9, 166 (2023).
  72. S. Bahamonde and L. Järv, Coincident gauge for static spherical field configurations in symmetric teleparallel gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 963 (2022).
  73. R. Lazkoz, F. S. N. Lobo, M. Ortiz-Baños, and V. Salzano, Observational constraints of f(Q) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104027 (2019).
  74. I. Ayuso, R. Lazkoz, and V. Salzano, Observational constraints on cosmological solutions of f(Q) theories, Phys. Rev. D 103, 063505 (2021).
  75. F. K. Anagnostopoulos, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, First evidence that non-metricity f(Q) gravity could challenge ΛCDM, Phys. Lett. B 822, 136634 (2021).
  76. L. Atayde and N. Frusciante, Can f(Q) gravity challenge ΛCDM?, Phys. Rev. D 104, 064052 (2021).
  77. S. Capozziello and R. D’Agostino, Model-independent reconstruction of f(Q) non-metric gravity, Phys. Lett. B 832, 137229 (2022).
  78. J. Ferreira, T. Barreiro, J. P. Mimoso, and N. J. Nunes, Testing Λ-free f(Q) cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063521 (2023).
  79. Q. Wang, X. Ren, Y.-F. Cai, W. Luo, and E. N. Saridakis, Observational test for f(Q) gravity with weak gravitational lensing, Astrophys. J. 974, 7 (2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 110, 124013– Published 6 December, 2024
  • Received 25 June 2024
  • Accepted 28 October 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2024 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation