Constraining gravity theories with the gravitational stability mass

TL;DR

This paper investigates how different gravity theories affect the gravitational stability mass of structures, comparing theoretical predictions with observational data to test the validity of modified gravity models versus general relativity.

Contribution

It computes the gravitational stability mass for various scalar-tensor theories and compares these predictions with observational data to assess their consistency and potential deviations from general relativity.

Findings

Modified gravity theories are compatible with current data.

Some data fit better with modified gravity than with GR.

No conclusive evidence against GR, with the largest deviation being 2.6 sigma.

Abstract

The measurement of the size of gravitationally bounded structures is an important test of gravity theories. For a given radius different theories can in fact predict a different gravitational stability mass (GSM) necessary to ensure the stability of the structure in presence of dark energy. We compute the GSM of gravitationally bounded structures as a function of the radius for different scalar-tensor theories, including $f(R)$ and generalized Brans-Dicke, and compare the theoretical predictions to observational data. Since the GSM only gives a lower bound, the most stringent constraints come few objects with a mass lower that the one expected in general relativity. The analysis of different observational data sets shows that modified gravity theories (MGT) are compatible with observational data, and in some cases fit the data better than general relativity (GR), but the latter is not in strong tension with the observations. The data presently available does not provide a conclusive evidence of the need of a modification of GR, with the largest deviation of order $2.6 \,\sigma$ for the galaxy cluster NGC5353/4. Future data from galaxy surveys such as the Euclid mission could be important to get stronger constraints.