The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
 19k Downloads
 622 Citations
Abstract
The status of experimental tests of general relativity and of theoretical frameworks for analyzing them is reviewed and updated. Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the Eötvös experiment, tests of local Lorentz invariance and clock experiments. Ongoing tests of EEP and of the inverse square law are searching for new interactions arising from unification or quantum gravity. Tests of general relativity at the postNewtonian level have reached high precision, including the light deflection, the Shapiro time delay, the perihelion advance of Mercury, the Nordtvedt effect in lunar motion, and framedragging. Gravitational wave damping has been detected in an amount that agrees with general relativity to better than half a percent using the HulseTaylor binary pulsar, and a growing family of other binary pulsar systems is yielding new tests, especially of strongfield effects. Current and future tests of relativity will center on strong gravity and gravitational waves.
Keywords
Tests of relativistic gravity Theories of gravity PostNewtonian limit Gravitational radiation1 Introduction
When general relativity was born 100 years ago, experimental confirmation was almost a side issue. Admittedly, Einstein did calculate observable effects of general relativity, such as the perihelion advance of Mercury, which he knew to be an unsolved problem, and the deflection of light, which was subsequently verified. But compared to the inner consistency and elegance of the theory, he regarded such empirical questions as almost secondary. He famously stated that if the measurements of light deflection disagreed with the theory he would “feel sorry for the dear Lord, for the theory is correct!”.
By contrast, today experimental gravitation is a major component of the field, characterized by continuing efforts to test the theory’s predictions, both in the solar system and in the astronomical world, to detect gravitational waves from astronomical sources, and to search for possible gravitational imprints of phenomena originating in the quantum, highenergy or cosmological realms.
The modern history of experimental relativity can be divided roughly into four periods: Genesis, Hibernation, a Golden Era, and the Quest for Strong Gravity. The Genesis (1887–1919) comprises the period of the two great experiments which were the foundation of relativistic physics — the MichelsonMorley experiment and the Eötvös experiment — and the two immediate confirmations of general relativity — the deflection of light and the perihelion advance of Mercury. Following this was a period of Hibernation (1920–1960) during which theoretical work temporarily outstripped technology and experimental possibilities, and, as a consequence, the field stagnated and was relegated to the backwaters of physics and astronomy.
But beginning around 1960, astronomical discoveries (quasars, pulsars, cosmic background radiation) and new experiments pushed general relativity to the forefront. Experimental gravitation experienced a Golden Era (1960–1980) during which a systematic, worldwide effort took place to understand the observable predictions of general relativity, to compare and contrast them with the predictions of alternative theories of gravity, and to perform new experiments to test them. New technologies — atomic clocks, radar and laser ranging, space probes, cryogenic capabilities, to mention only a few — played a central role in this golden era. The period began with an experiment to confirm the gravitational frequency shift of light (1960) and ended with the reported decrease in the orbital period of the HulseTaylor binary pulsar at a rate consistent with the general relativistic prediction of gravitationalwave energy loss (1979). The results all supported general relativity, and most alternative theories of gravity fell by the wayside (for a popular review, see [421]).
Since that time, the field has entered what might be termed a Quest for Strong Gravity. Much like modern art, the term “strong” means different things to different people. To one steeped in general relativity, the principal figure of merit that distinguishes strong from weak gravity is the quantity ϵ ∼ GM/Rc^{2}, where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, M is the characteristic mass scale of the phenomenon, R is the characteristic distance scale, and c is the speed of light. Near the event horizon of a nonrotating black hole, or for the expanding observable universe, ϵ ∼ 1; for neutron stars, ϵ ∼ 0.2. These are the regimes of strong gravity. For the solar system, ϵ < 10^{−5}; this is the regime of weak gravity.
An alternative view of “strong” gravity comes from the world of particle physics. Here the figure of merit is GM/R^{3}c^{2} ∼ ℓ^{−2}, where the Riemann curvature of spacetime associated with the phenomenon, represented by the lefthandside, is comparable to the inverse square of a favorite length scale ℓ. If ℓ is the Planck length, this would correspond to the regime where one expects conventional quantum gravity effects to come into play. Another possible scale for ℓ is the TeV scale associated with many models for unification of the forces, or models with extra spacetime dimensions. From this viewpoint, strong gravity is where the curvature is comparable to the inverse length squared. Weak gravity is where the curvature is much smaller than this. The universe at the Planck time is strong gravity. Just outside the event horizon of an astrophysical black hole is weak gravity.

Are the black holes that are in evidence throughout the universe truly the black holes of general relativity?

Do gravitational waves propagate with the speed of light and do they contain more than the two basic polarization states of general relativity?

Does general relativity hold on cosmological distance scales?

Is Lorentz invariance strictly valid, or could it be violated at some detectable level?

Does the principle of equivalence break down at some level?

Are there testable effects arising from the quantization of gravity?
In this update of our Living Review, we will summarize the current status of experiments, and attempt to chart the future of the subject. We will not provide complete references to early work done in this field but instead will refer the reader to selected recent papers and to the appropriate review articles and monographs, specifically to Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics [420], hereafter referred to as TEGP; references to TEGP will be by chapter or section, e.g., “TEGP 8.9”. Additional reviews in this subject are [40, 361, 392]. The “Resource Letter” by the author [428], contains an annotated list of 100 key references for experimental gravity.
2 Tests of the Foundations of Gravitation Theory
2.1 The Einstein equivalence principle
The principle of equivalence has historically played an important role in the development of gravitation theory. Newton regarded this principle as such a cornerstone of mechanics that he devoted the opening paragraph of the Principia to it. In 1907, Einstein used the principle as a basic element in his development of general relativity (GR). We now regard the principle of equivalence as the foundation, not of Newtonian gravity or of GR, but of the broader idea that spacetime is curved. Much of this viewpoint can be traced back to Robert Dicke, who contributed crucial ideas about the foundations of gravitation theory between 1960 and 1965. These ideas were summarized in his influential Les Houches lectures of 1964 [130], and resulted in what has come to be called the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP).
One elementary equivalence principle is the kind Newton had in mind when he stated that the property of a body called “mass” is proportional to the “weight”, and is known as the weak equivalence principle (WEP). An alternative statement of WEP is that the trajectory of a freely falling “test” body (one not acted upon by such forces as electromagnetism and too small to be affected by tidal gravitational forces) is independent of its internal structure and composition. In the simplest case of dropping two different bodies in a gravitational field, WEP states that the bodies fall with the same acceleration (this is often termed the Universality of Free Fall, or UFF).
 1.
WEP is valid.
 2.
The outcome of any local nongravitational experiment is independent of the velocity of the freelyfalling reference frame in which it is performed.
 3.
The outcome of any local nongravitational experiment is independent of where and when in the universe it is performed.
For example, a measurement of the electric force between two charged bodies is a local nongravitational experiment; a measurement of the gravitational force between two bodies (Cavendish experiment) is not.
 1.
Spacetime is endowed with a symmetric metric.
 2.
The trajectories of freely falling test bodies are geodesics of that metric.
 3.
In local freely falling reference frames, the nongravitational laws of physics are those written in the language of special relativity.
The argument that leads to this conclusion simply notes that, if EEP is valid, then in local freely falling frames, the laws governing experiments must be independent of the velocity of the frame (local Lorentz invariance), with constant values for the various atomic constants (in order to be independent of location). The only laws we know of that fulfill this are those that are compatible with special relativity, such as Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism, and the standard model of particle physics. Furthermore, in local freely falling frames, test bodies appear to be unaccelerated, in other words they move on straight lines; but such “locally straight” lines simply correspond to “geodesics” in a curved spacetime (TEGP 2.3 [420]).
General relativity is a metric theory of gravity, but then so are many others, including the BransDicke theory and its generalizations. Theories in which varying nongravitational constants are associated with dynamical fields that couple to matter directly are not metric theories. Neither, in this narrow sense, is superstring theory (see Section 2.3), which, while based fundamentally on a spacetime metric, introduces additional fields (dilatons, moduli) that can couple to material stressenergy in a way that can lead to violations, say, of WEP. It is important to point out, however, that there is some ambiguity in whether one treats such fields as EEPviolating gravitational fields, or simply as additional matter fields, like those that carry electromagnetism or the weak interactions. Still, the notion of curved spacetime is a very general and fundamental one, and therefore it is important to test the various aspects of the Einstein equivalence principle thoroughly. We first survey the experimental tests, and describe some of the theoretical formalisms that have been developed to interpret them. For other reviews of EEP and its experimental and theoretical significance, see [183, 239]; for a pedagogical review of the variety of equivalence principles, see [128].
2.1.1 Tests of the weak equivalence principle
The recent development of atom interferometry has yielded tests of WEP, albeit to modest accuracy, comparable to that of the original Eötvös experiment. In these experiments, one measures the local acceleration of the two separated wavefunctions of an atom such as Cesium by studying the interference pattern when the wavefunctions are combined, and compares that with the acceleration of a nearby macroscopic object of different composition [278, 294]. A claim that these experiments test the gravitational redshift [294] was subsequently shown to be incorrect [439].
A number of projects are in the development or planning stage to push the bounds on η even lower. The project MICROSCOPE is designed to test WEP to 10^{−15}. It is being developed by the French space agency CNES for launch in late 2015, for a oneyear mission [280]. The dragcompensated satellite will be in a Sunsynchronous polar orbit at 700 km altitude, with a payload consisting of two differential accelerometers, one with elements made of the same material (platinum), and another with elements made of different materials (platinum and titanium). Other concepts for future improvements include advanced space experiments (GalileoGalilei, STEP, STEQUEST), experiments on suborbital rockets, lunar laser ranging (see Section 4.3.1), binary pulsar observations, and experiments with antihydrogen. For an update on past and future tests of WEP, see the series of articles introduced by [372]. The recent discovery of a pulsar in orbit with two whitedwarf companions [332] may provide interesting new tests of WEP, because of the strong difference in composition between the neutron star and the white dwarfs, as well as precise tests of the Nordtvedt effect (see Section 4.3.1).
2.1.2 Tests of local Lorentz invariance

the classic MichelsonMorley experiment and its descendents [279, 357, 208, 69],

the IvesStillwell, RossiHall, and other tests of timedilation [200, 343, 151],

tests of whether the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source, using both binary Xray stellar sources and highenergy pions [67, 8],
In addition to these direct experiments, there was the Dirac equation of quantum mechanics and its prediction of antiparticles and spin; later would come the stunningly successful relativistic theory of quantum electrodynamics. For a pedagogical review on the occasion of the 2005 centenary of special relativity, see [426].
In 2015, on the 110th anniversary of the introduction of special relativity, one might ask “what is there to test?” Special relativity has been so thoroughly integrated into the fabric of modern physics that its validity is rarely challenged, except by cranks and crackpots. It is ironic then, that during the past several years, a vigorous theoretical and experimental effort has been launched, on an international scale, to find violations of special relativity. The motivation for this effort is not a desire to repudiate Einstein, but to look for evidence of new physics “beyond” Einstein, such as apparent, or “effective” violations of Lorentz invariance that might result from certain models of quantum gravity. Quantum gravity asserts that there is a fundamental length scale given by the Planck length, ℓ_{P1} = (ħG/c^{3})^{1/2} = 1.6 × 10^{−33} cm, but since length is not an invariant quantity (LorentzFitzGerald contraction), then there could be a violation of Lorentz invariance at some level in quantum gravity. In braneworld scenarios, while physics may be locally Lorentz invariant in the higher dimensional world, the confinement of the interactions of normal physics to our fourdimensional “brane” could induce apparent Lorentz violating effects. And in models such as string theory, the presence of additional scalar, vector, and tensor longrange fields that couple to matter of the standard model could induce effective violations of Lorentz symmetry. These and other ideas have motivated a serious reconsideration of how to test Lorentz invariance with better precision and in new ways.
A simple and useful way of interpreting some of these modern experiments, called the c^{2}formalism, is to suppose that the electromagnetic interactions suffer a slight violation of Lorentz invariance, through a change in the speed of electromagnetic radiation c relative to the limiting speed of material test particles (c_{0}, made to take the value unity via a choice of units), in other words, c ≠ 1 (see Section 2.2.3). Such a violation necessarily selects a preferred universal rest frame, presumably that of the cosmic background radiation, through which we are moving at about 370 km s^{−1} [253]. Such a Lorentznoninvariant electromagnetic interaction would cause shifts in the energy levels of atoms and nuclei that depend on the orientation of the quantization axis of the state relative to our universal velocity vector, and on the quantum numbers of the state. The presence or absence of such energy shifts can be examined by measuring the energy of one such state relative to another state that is either unaffected or is affected differently by the supposed violation. One way is to look for a shifting of the energy levels of states that are ordinarily equally spaced, such as the Zeemansplit 2J +1 ground states of a nucleus of total spin J in a magnetic field; another is to compare the levels of a complex nucleus with the atomic hyperfine levels of a hydrogen maser clock. The magnitude of these “clock anisotropies” turns out to be proportional to δ = c^{−2} − 1.
Also included for comparison is the corresponding limit obtained from MichelsonMorley type experiments (for a review, see [184]). In those experiments, when viewed from the preferred frame, the speed of light down the two arms of the moving interferometer is c, while it can be shown using the electrodynamics of the c^{2} formalism, that the compensating LorentzFitzGerald contraction of the parallel arm is governed by the speed c_{0} = 1. Thus the MichelsonMorley experiment and its descendants also measure the coefficient c^{−2} − 1. One of these is the BrilletHall experiment [69], which used a FabryPérot laser interferometer. In a recent series of experiments, the frequencies of electromagnetic cavity oscillators in various orientations were compared with each other or with atomic clocks as a function of the orientation of the laboratory [438, 254, 293, 20, 376]. These placed bounds on c^{−2} − 1 at the level of better than a part in 10^{9}. Haugan and Lammerzahl [182] have considered the bounds that MichelsonMorley type experiments could place on a modified electrodynamics involving a “vectorvalued” effective photon mass.
The c^{2} framework focuses exclusively on classical electrodynamics. It has recently been extended to the entire standard model of particle physics by Kostelecký and colleagues [92, 93, 228]. The “standard model extension” (SME) has a large number of Lorentzviolating parameters, opening up many new opportunities for experimental tests (see Section 2.2.4). A variety of clock anisotropy experiments have been carried out to bound the electromagnetic parameters of the SME framework [227]. For example, the cavity experiments described above [438, 254, 293] placed bounds on the coefficients of the tensors \({\tilde \kappa _{{\rm{e}} }}\) and \({\tilde \kappa _{{\rm{o}} +}}\) (see Section 2.2.4 for definitions) at the levels of 10^{−14} and 10^{−10}, respectively. Direct comparisons between atomic clocks based on different nuclear species place bounds on SME parameters in the neutron and proton sectors, depending on the nature of the transitions involved. The bounds achieved range from 10^{−27} to 10^{−32} GeV. Recent examples include [440, 369].
For thorough and uptodate surveys of both the theoretical frameworks and the experimental results for tests of LLI see the reviews by Mattingly [273], Liberati [251] and Kostelecky and Russell [229]. The last article gives “data tables” showing experimental bounds on all the various parameters of the SME.
Local Lorentz invariance can also be violated in gravitational interactions; these will be discussed under the rubric of “preferredframe effects” in Section 4.3.2.
2.1.3 Tests of local position invariance
After almost 50 years of inconclusive or contradictory measurements, the gravitational redshift of solar spectral lines was finally measured reliably. During the early years of GR, the failure to measure this effect in solar lines was seized upon by some as reason to doubt the theory (see [95] for an engaging history of this period). Unfortunately, the measurement is not simple. Solar spectral lines are subject to the “limb effect”, a variation of spectral line wavelengths between the center of the solar disk and its edge or “limb”; this effect is actually a Doppler shift caused by complex convective and turbulent motions in the photosphere and lower chromosphere, and is expected to be minimized by observing at the solar limb, where the motions are predominantly transverse to the line of sight. The secret is to use strong, symmetrical lines, leading to unambiguous wavelength measurements. Successful measurements were finally made in 1962 and 1972 (TEGP 2.4 (c) [120]). In 1991, LoPresto et al. [259] measured the solar shift in agreement with LPI to about 2 percent by observing the oxygen triplet lines both in absorption in the limb and in emission just off the limb.
The most precise standard redshift test to date was the VessotLevine rocket experiment known as Gravity ProbeA (GPA) that took place in June 1976 [400]. A hydrogenmaser clock was flown on a rocket to an altitude of about 10 000 km and its frequency compared to a hydrogenmaser clock on the ground. The experiment took advantage of the masers’ frequency stability by monitoring the frequency shift as a function of altitude. A sophisticated data acquisition scheme accurately eliminated all effects of the firstorder Doppler shift due to the rocket’s motion, while tracking data were used to determine the payload’s location and the velocity (to evaluate the potential difference ΔU, and the special relativistic time dilation). Analysis of the data yielded a limit α < 2 × 10^{−4}.
A “null” redshift experiment performed in 1978 tested whether the relative rates of two different clocks depended upon position. Two hydrogen maser clocks and an ensemble of three superconductingcavity stabilized oscillator (SCSO) clocks were compared over a 10day period. During the period of the experiment, the solar potential U/c^{2} within the laboratory was known to change sinusoidally with a 24hour period by 3 × 10^{−13} because of the Earth’s rotation, and to change linearly at 3 × 10^{−12} per day because the Earth is 90 degrees from perihelion in April. However, analysis of the data revealed no variations of either type within experimental errors, leading to a limit on the LPI violation parameter α^{H} − α^{SCSO} < 2 × 10^{−2} [391]. This bound has been improved using more stable frequency standards, such as atomic fountain clocks [174, 326, 34, 63]. The best current bounds, from comparing a Rubidium atomic fountain with a Cesium133 fountain or with a hydrogen maser [179, 319], and from comparing transitions of two different isotopes of Dysprosium [246], hover around the one part per million mark.
The Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space (ACES) project will place both a cold trapped atom clock based on Cesium called PHARAO (Projet d’Horloge Atomique par Refroidissement d’Atomes en Orbite), and an advanced hydrogen maser clock on the International Space Station to measure the gravitational redshift to parts in 10^{6}, as well as to carry out a number of fundamental physics experiments and to enable improvements in global timekeeping [335]. Launch is currently scheduled for May 2016.
The varying gravitational redshift of Earthbound clocks relative to the highly stable millisecond pulsar PSR 1937+21, caused by the Earth’s motion in the solar gravitational field around the EarthMoon center of mass (amplitude 4000 km), was measured to about 10 percent [383]. Two measurements of the redshift using stable oscillator clocks on spacecraft were made at the one percent level: one used the Voyager spacecraft in Saturn’s gravitational field [233], while another used the Galileo spacecraft in the Sun’s field [235].
The gravitational redshift could be improved to the 10^{−10} level using an array of laser cooled atomic clocks on board a spacecraft which would travel to within four solar radii of the Sun [270]. Sadly, the Solar Probe Plus mission, scheduled for launch in 2018, has been formulated as an exclusively heliophysics mission, and thus will not be able to test fundamental gravitational physics.
Modern advances in navigation using Earthorbiting atomic clocks and accurate timetransfer must routinely take gravitational redshift and timedilation effects into account. For example, the Global Positioning System (GPS) provides absolute positional accuracies of around 15 m (even better in its military mode), and 50 nanoseconds in time transfer accuracy, anywhere on Earth. Yet the difference in rate between satellite and ground clocks as a result of relativistic effects is a whopping 39 microseconds per day (46 µs from the gravitational redshift, and − 7 µs from time dilation). If these effects were not accurately accounted for, GPS would fail to function at its stated accuracy. This represents a welcome practical application of GR! (For the role of GR in GPS, see [25, 26]; for a popular essay, see [424].)
A final example of the almost “everyday” implications of the gravitational redshift is a remarkable measurement using optical clocks based on trapped aluminum ions of the frequency shift over a height of 1/3 of a meter [80].
Bounds on cosmological variation of fundamental constants of nongravitational physics. For an indepth review, see [397].
Constant k  Limit on \(\dot k/k\) (yr^{−1})  Redshift  Method 

Fine structure constant (α_{EM} = e^{2}/ħc)  < 1.3 × 10^{−16}  0  
< 0.5 × 10^{−16}  0.15  
< 3.4 × 10^{−16}  0.45  ^{187}Re decay in meteorites [312]  
(6.4 ± 1.4) × 10^{−16}  0.2−3.7  
< 1.2 × 10^{−16}  0.4−2.3  
Weak interaction constant \(({\alpha _{\rm{w}}} = {G_f}m_p^2c/{\hbar ^3})\)  < 1 × 10^{−11}  0.15  Oklo Natural Reactor [101] 
< 5 × 10^{−12}  10^{9}  
ep mass ratio  < 3.3 × 10^{−15}  0  Clock comparisons [63] 
< 3 × 10^{−15}  2.6−3.0  Spectra in distant quasars [199] 
Experimental bounds on varying constants come in two types: bounds on the present rate of variation, and bounds on the difference between today’s value and a value in the distant past. The main example of the former type is the clock comparison test, in which highly stable atomic clocks of different fundamental type are intercompared over periods ranging from months to years (variants of the null redshift experiment). If the frequencies of the clocks depend differently on the electromagnetic fine structure constant α_{EM}, the electronproton mass ratio m_{e}/m_{p}, or the gyromagnetic ratio of the proton g_{p}, for example, then a limit on a drift of the fractional frequency difference translates into a limit on a drift of the constant(s). The dependence of the frequencies on the constants may be quite complex, depending on the atomic species involved. Experiments have exploited the techniques of laser cooling and trapping, and of atom fountains, in order to achieve extreme clock stability, and compared the Rubidium87 hyperfine transition [271], the Mercury199 ion electric quadrupole transition [49], the atomic Hydrogen 1S–2S transition [159], or an optical transition in Ytterbium171 [318], against the groundstate hyperfine transition in Cesium133. More recent experiments have used Strontium87 atoms trapped in optical lattices [63] compared with Cesium to obtain \({{\dot \alpha}_{{\rm{EM}}}}/{\alpha _{{\rm{EM}}}} < 6 \times {10^{ 16}}\,{\rm{y}}{{\rm{r}}^{ 1}}\), compared Rubidium87 and Cesium133 fountains [179] to obtain \({{\dot \alpha}_{{\rm{EM}}}}/{\alpha _{{\rm{EM}}}} < 2.3 \times {10^{ 16}}\,{\rm{y}}{{\rm{r}}^{ 1}}\), or compared two isotopes of Dysprosium [246] to obtain \({{\dot \alpha}_{{\rm{EM}}}}/{\alpha _{{\rm{EM}}}} < 1.3 \times {10^{ 16}}\,{\rm{y}}{{\rm{r}}^{ 1}}\),.
The second type of bound involves measuring the relics of or signal from a process that occurred in the distant past and comparing the inferred value of the constant with the value measured in the laboratory today. One subtype uses astronomical measurements of spectral lines at large redshift, while the other uses fossils of nuclear processes on Earth to infer values of constants early in geological history.
Earlier comparisons of spectral lines of different atoms or transitions in distant galaxies and quasars produced bounds α_{EM} or g_{p}(m_{e}/m_{p}) on the order of a part in 10 per Hubble time [441]. Dramatic improvements in the precision of astronomical and laboratory spectroscopy, in the ability to model the complex astronomical environments where emission and absorption lines are produced, and in the ability to reach large redshift have made it possible to improve the bounds significantly. In fact, in 1999, Webb et al. [406, 296] announced that measurements of absorption lines in Mg, Al, Si, Cr, Fe, Ni, and Zn in quasars in the redshift range 0.5 < Z < 3.5 indicated a smaller value of α_{EM} in earlier epochs, namely Δα_{EM}/α_{EM} = (−0.72 ± 0.18) × 10^{−5}, corresponding to \({{\dot \alpha}_{{\rm{EM}}}}/{\alpha _{{\rm{EM}}}} = (6.4 \pm 1.4) \times {10^{ 16}}\,{\rm{y}}{{\rm{r}}^{ 1}}\) (assuming a linear drift with time). The Webb group continues to report changes in α over large redshifts [217]. Measurements by other groups have so far failed to confirm this nonzero effect [373, 76, 329]; an analysis of Mg absorption systems in quasars at 0.4 < Z < 2.3 gave \({{\dot \alpha}_{{\rm{EM}}}}/{\alpha _{{\rm{EM}}}} = ( 0.6 \pm 0.6) \times {10^{ 16}}\,{\rm{y}}{{\rm{r}}^{ 1}}\) [373]. Recent studies have also yielded no evidence for a variation in α_{EM} [210, 248]
Another important set of bounds arises from studies of the “Oklo” phenomenon, a group of natural, sustained ^{235}U fission reactors that occurred in the Oklo region of Gabon, Africa, around 1.8 billion years ago. Measurements of ore samples yielded an abnormally low value for the ratio of two isotopes of Samarium, ^{149}Sm/^{147}Sm. Neither of these isotopes is a fission product, but ^{149}Sm can be depleted by a flux of neutrons. Estimates of the neutron fluence (integrated dose) during the reactors’ “on” phase, combined with the measured abundance anomaly, yield a value for the neutron crosssection for ^{149}Sm 1.8 billion years ago that agrees with the modern value. However, the capture crosssection is extremely sensitive to the energy of a lowlying level (E ∼ 0.1 eV), so that a variation in the energy of this level of only 20 meV over a billion years would change the capture crosssection from its present value by more than the observed amount. This was first analyzed in 1976 by Shlyakter [365]. Recent reanalyses of the Oklo data [101, 166, 320] lead to a bound on \({{\dot \alpha}_{{\rm{EM}}}}\) at the level of around 5 × 10^{−17} yr^{−1}.
In a similar manner, recent reanalyses of decay rates of ^{187}Re in ancient meteorites (4.5 billion years old) gave the bound \({{\dot \alpha}_{{\rm{EM}}}}/{\alpha _{{\rm{EM}}}} < 3.4 \times {10^{ 16}}\,{\rm{y}}{{\rm{r}}^{ 1}}\) [312].
2.2 Theoretical frameworks for analyzing EEP
2.2.1 Schiff’s conjecture
Because the three parts of the Einstein equivalence principle discussed above are so very different in their empirical consequences, it is tempting to regard them as independent theoretical principles. On the other hand, any complete and selfconsistent gravitation theory must possess sufficient mathematical machinery to make predictions for the outcomes of experiments that test each principle, and because there are limits to the number of ways that gravitation can be meshed with the special relativistic laws of physics, one might not be surprised if there were theoretical connections between the three subprinciples. For instance, the same mathematical formalism that produces equations describing the free fall of a hydrogen atom must also produce equations that determine the energy levels of hydrogen in a gravitational field, and thereby the ticking rate of a hydrogen maser clock. Hence a violation of EEP in the fundamental machinery of a theory that manifests itself as a violation of WEP might also be expected to show up as a violation of local position invariance. Around 1960, Leonard Schiff conjectured that this kind of connection was a necessary feature of any selfconsistent theory of gravity. More precisely, Schiff’s conjecture states that any complete, selfconsistent theory of gravity that embodies WEP necessarily embodies EEP. In other words, the validity of WEP alone guarantees the validity of local Lorentz and position invariance, and thereby of EEP.
If Schiff’s conjecture is correct, then Eötvös experiments may be seen as the direct empirical foundation for EEP, hence for the interpretation of gravity as a curvedspacetime phenomenon. Of course, a rigorous proof of such a conjecture is impossible (indeed, some special counterexamples are known [311, 300, 91]), yet a number of powerful “plausibility” arguments can be formulated.
2.2.2 The THϵμ formalism
Lightman and Lee then calculated explicitly the rate of fall of a “test” body made up of interacting charged particles, and found that the rate was independent of the internal electromagnetic structure of the body (WEP) if and only if Eq. (9) was satisfied. In other words, WEP ⇒ EEP and Schiff’s conjecture was verified, at least within the restrictions built into the formalism.
2.2.2.1 Box 1. The THϵμ formalism

Coordinate system and conventions:
x^{0} = t: time coordinate associated with the static nature of the static spherically symmetric (SSS) gravitational field; x = (x,y,z): isotropic quasiCartesian spatial coordinates; spatial vector and gradient operations as in Cartesian space.
 Matter and field variables:

m_{0a}: rest mass of particle a.

e_{ a }: charge of particle a.

\(x_a^\mu (t)\): world line of particle a.

\(\upsilon _a^\mu = dx_a^\mu/dt\): coordinate velocity of particle a.

A_{ μ } =: electromagnetic vector potential; E = ∇A_{0} − ∂A/∂t, B = ∇ × A.


Gravitational potential: U(x)

Arbitrary functions: T(U), H(U), ϵ(U), μ(U); EEP is satisfied if ϵ = μ = (H/T)^{1}/^{2} for all U.
 Action:$$I =  \sum\limits_a {{m_{0a}}} \int {{{(T  Hv_a^2)}^{1/2}}dt +} \sum\limits_a {{e_a}} \int {{A_\mu}(x_a^\nu)v_a^\mu dt + {{(8\pi)}^{ 1}}\int {(\epsilon {E^2}  {\mu ^{ 1}}{B^2}){d^4}x{.}}}$$
 Nonmetric parameters:where c_{0} = (T_{0}/H_{0})^{1/2} and subscript “0” refers to a chosen point in space. If EEP is satisfied, Γ_{0} ≡ Λ_{0} ≡ ϒ_{0} ≡ 0.$${\Gamma _0} =  c_0^2{\partial \over {\partial U}}\ln {[\epsilon {(T/H)^{1/2}}]_0},\quad {\Lambda _0} =  c_0^2{\partial \over {\partial U}}\ln {[\mu {(T/H)^{1/2}}]_0},\quad {\Upsilon _0} =  1  {(T{H^{ 1}}\epsilon \mu)_0},$$
The redshift is the standard one (α = 0), independently of the nature of the clock if and only if γ_{0} ≡ Λ_{0} ≡ 0. Thus the VessotLevine rocket redshift experiment sets a limit on the parameter combination 3γ_{0} − Λ_{0} (see Figure 3); the nullredshift experiment comparing hydrogenmaser and SCSO clocks sets a limit on \(\vert {\alpha _{\rm{H}}}  {\alpha _{{\rm{SCSO}}}}\vert = {3 \over 2}\vert {\Gamma _0}  {\Lambda _0}\vert\). Alvarez and Mann [9, 10, 11, 12, 13] extended the THϵμ formalism to permit analysis of such effects as the Lamb shift, anomalous magnetic moments and nonbaryonic effects, and placed interesting bounds on EEP violations.
2.2.3 The c^{2} formalism
The electrodynamics given by Eq. (17) can also be quantized, so that we may treat the interaction of photons with atoms via perturbation theory. The energy of a photon is ħ times its frequency ω, while its momentum is ħω/c. Using this approach, one finds that the difference in round trip travel times of light along the two arms of the interferometer in the MichelsonMorley experiment is given by L_{0}(υ^{2}/c)(c^{−2} − 1). The experimental null result then leads to the bound on (c^{−2} − 1) shown on Figure 2. Similarly the anisotropy in energy levels is clearly illustrated by the tensorial terms in Eqs. (18, 20); by evaluating \(\tilde E_{\rm{B}}^{{\rm{ES}}\,ij}\) for each nucleus in the various HughesDrevertype experiments and comparing with the experimental limits on energy differences, one obtains the extremely tight bounds also shown on Figure 2.
The behavior of moving atomic clocks can also be analyzed in detail, and bounds on (c^{−2} − 1) can be placed using results from tests of time dilation and of the propagation of light. In some cases, it is advantageous to combine the c^{2} framework with a “kinematical” viewpoint that treats a general class of boost transformations between moving frames. Such kinematical approaches have been discussed by Robertson, Mansouri and Sexl, and Will (see [418]).
2.2.4 The standard model extension (SME)
Kostelecký and collaborators developed a useful and elegant framework for discussing violations of Lorentz symmetry in the context of the standard model of particle physics [92, 93, 228]. Called the standard model extension (SME), it takes the standard SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) field theory of particle physics, and modifies the terms in the action by inserting a variety of tensorial quantities in the quark, lepton, Higgs, and gauge boson sectors that could explicitly violate LLI. SME extends the earlier classical THϵμ and c^{2} frameworks, and the Χ − g framework of Ni [300] to quantum field theory and particle physics. The modified terms split naturally into those that are odd under CPT (i.e., that violate CPT) and terms that are even under CPT. The result is a rich and complex framework, with many parameters to be analyzed and tested by experiment. Such details are beyond the scope of this review; for a review of SME and other frameworks, the reader is referred to the Living Review by Mattingly [273] or the review by Liberati [251]. The review of the SME by Kostelecký and Russell [229] provides “data tables” showing experimental bounds on all the various parameters of the SME.
In the rest frame of the universe, these tensors have some form that is established by the global nature of the solutions of the overarching theory being used. In a frame that is moving relative to the universe, the tensors will have components that depend on the velocity of the frame, and on the orientation of the frame relative to that velocity.
2.3 EEP, particle physics, and the search for new interactions
Thus far, we have discussed EEP as a principle that strictly divides the world into metric and nonmetric theories, and have implied that a failure of EEP might invalidate metric theories (and thus general relativity). On the other hand, there is mounting theoretical evidence to suggest that EEP is likely to be violated at some level, whether by quantum gravity effects, by effects arising from string theory, or by hitherto undetected interactions. Roughly speaking, in addition to the pure Einsteinian gravitational interaction, which respects EEP, theories such as string theory predict other interactions which do not. In string theory, for example, the existence of such EEPviolating fields is assured, but the theory is not yet mature enough to enable a robust calculation of their strength relative to gravity, or a determination of whether they are long range, like gravity, or short range, like the nuclear and weak interactions, and thus too shortrange to be detectable.
On the other hand, whether one views such effects as a violation of EEP or as effects arising from additional “matter” fields whose interactions, like those of the electromagnetic field, do not fully embody EEP, is to some degree a matter of semantics. Unlike the fields of the standard model of electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions, which couple to properties other than massenergy and are either short range or are strongly screened, the fields inspired by string theory could be long range (if they remain massless by virtue of a symmetry, or at best, acquire a very small mass), and can couple to massenergy, and thus can mimic gravitational fields. Still, there appears to be no way to make this precise.
As a result, EEP and related tests are now viewed as ways to discover or place constraints on new physical interactions, or as a branch of “nonaccelerator particle physics”, searching for the possible imprints of highenergy particle effects in the lowenergy realm of gravity. Whether current or proposed experiments can actually probe these phenomena meaningfully is an open question at the moment, largely because of a dearth of firm theoretical predictions.
2.3.1 The “fifth” force
On the phenomenological side, the idea of using EEP tests in this way may have originated in the middle 1980s, with the search for a “fifth” force. In 1986, as a result of a detailed reanalysis of Eötvös’ original data, Fischbach et al. [156] suggested the existence of a fifth force of nature, with a strength of about a percent that of gravity, but with a range (as defined by the range λ of a Yukawa potential, e^{−r/λ}/r) of a few hundred meters. This proposal dovetailed with earlier hints of a deviation from the inversesquare law of Newtonian gravitation derived from measurements of the gravity profile down deep mines in Australia, and with emerging ideas from particle physics suggesting the possible presence of very lowmass particles with gravitationalstrength couplings. During the next four years numerous experiments looked for evidence of the fifth force by searching for compositiondependent differences in acceleration, with variants of the Eötvös experiment or with freefall Galileotype experiments. Although two early experiments reported positive evidence, the others all yielded null results. Over the range between one and 10^{4} meters, the null experiments produced upper limits on the strength of a postulated fifth force between 10^{−3} and 10^{−6} of the strength of gravity. Interpreted as tests of WEP (corresponding to the limit of infiniterange forces), the results of two representative experiments from this period, the freefall Galileo experiment and the early EötWash experiment, are shown in Figure 1. At the same time, tests of the inversesquare law of gravity were carried out by comparing variations in gravity measurements up tall towers or down mines or boreholes with gravity variations predicted using the inverse square law together with Earth models and surface gravity data mathematically “continued” up the tower or down the hole. Despite early reports of anomalies, independent tower, borehole, and seawater measurements ultimately showed no evidence of a deviation. Analyses of orbital data from planetary range measurements, lunar laser ranging (LLR), and laser tracking of the LAGEOS satellite verified the inversesquare law to parts in 10^{8} over scales of 10^{3} to 10^{5} km, and to parts in 10^{9} over planetary scales of several astronomical units [381]. A consensus emerged that there was no credible experimental evidence for a fifth force of nature, of a type and range proposed by Fischbach et al. For reviews and bibliographies of this episode, see [155, 157, 158, 4, 417].
2.3.2 Shortrange modifications of Newtonian gravity
Although the idea of an intermediaterange violation of Newton’s gravitational law was dropped, new ideas emerged to suggest the possibility that the inversesquare law could be violated at very short ranges, below the centimeter range of existing laboratory verifications of the 1/r^{2} behavior. One set of ideas [18, 21, 331, 330] posited that some of the extra spatial dimensions that come with string theory could extend over macroscopic scales, rather than being rolled up at the Planck scale of 10^{−33} cm, which was then the conventional viewpoint. On laboratory distances large compared to the relevant scale of the extra dimension, gravity would fall off as the inverse square, whereas on short scales, gravity would fall off as 1/R^{2+n}, where n is the number of large extra dimensions. Many models favored n = 1 or n = 2. Other possibilities for effective modifications of gravity at short range involved the exchange of light scalar particles.
Following these proposals, many of the highprecision, lownoise methods that were developed for tests of WEP were adapted to carry out laboratory tests of the inverse square law of Newtonian gravitation at millimeter scales and below. The challenge of these experiments has been to distinguish gravitationlike interactions from electromagnetic and quantum mechanical (Casimir) effects. No deviations from the inverse square law have been found to date at distances between tens of nanometers and 10 mm [258, 193, 192, 79, 257, 211, 2, 390, 172, 380, 45, 449, 218]. For a comprehensive review of both the theory and the experiments circa 2002, see [3].
2.3.3 The Pioneer anomaly
In 1998, Anderson et al. [16] reported the presence of an anomalous deceleration in the motion of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft at distances between 20 and 70 astronomical units from the Sun. Although the anomaly was the result of a rigorous analysis of Doppler data taken over many years, it might have been dismissed as having no real significance for new physics, where it not for the fact that the acceleration, of order 10^{−9} m/s^{2}, when divided by the speed of light, was strangely close to the inverse of the Hubble time. The Pioneer anomaly prompted an outpouring of hundreds of papers, most attempting to explain it via modifications of gravity or via new physical interactions, with a small subset trying to explain it by conventional means.
Soon after the publication of the initial Pioneer anomaly paper [16], Katz pointed out that the anomaly could be accounted for as the result of the anisotropic emission of radiation from the radioactive thermal generators (RTG) that continued to power the spacecraft decades after their launch [212]. At the time, there was insufficient data on the performance of the RTG over time or on the thermal characteristics of the spacecraft to justify more than an orderofmagnitude estimate. However, the recovery of an extended set of Doppler data covering a longer stretch of the orbits of both spacecraft, together with the fortuitous discovery of project documentation and of telemetry data giving onboard temperature information, made it possible both to improve the orbit analysis and to develop detailed thermal models of the spacecraft in order to quantify the effect of thermal emission anisotropies. Several independent analyses now confirm that the anomaly is almost entirely due to the recoil of the spacecraft from the anisotropic emission of residual thermal radiation [339, 396, 291]. For a thorough review of the Pioneer anomaly published just as the new analyses were underway, see the Living Review by Turyshev and Toth [395].
3 Metric Theories of Gravity and the PPN Formalism
3.1 Metric theories of gravity and the strong equivalence principle
3.1.1 Universal coupling and the metric postulates
 1.
there exists a symmetric metric,
 2.
test bodies follow geodesics of the metric, and
 3.
in local Lorentz frames, the nongravitational laws of physics are those of special relativity.
The property that all nongravitational fields should couple in the same manner to a single gravitational field is sometimes called “universal coupling”. Because of it, one can discuss the metric as a property of spacetime itself rather than as a field over spacetime. This is because its properties may be measured and studied using a variety of different experimental devices, composed of different nongravitational fields and particles, and, because of universal coupling, the results will be independent of the device. Thus, for instance, the proper time between two events is a characteristic of spacetime and of the location of the events, not of the clocks used to measure it.
Consequently, if EEP is valid, the nongravitational laws of physics may be formulated by taking their special relativistic forms in terms of the Minkowski metric η and simply “going over” to new forms in terms of the curved spacetime metric g, using the mathematics of differential geometry. The details of this “going over” can be found in standard textbooks (see [289, 407, 355, 324], TEGP 3.2. [420]).
3.1.2 The strong equivalence principle
In any metric theory of gravity, matter and nongravitational fields respond only to the spacetime metric g. In principle, however, there could exist other gravitational fields besides the metric, such as scalar fields, vector fields, and so on. If, by our strict definition of metric theory, matter does not couple to these fields, what can their role in gravitation theory be? Their role must be that of mediating the manner in which matter and nongravitational fields generate gravitational fields and produce the metric; once determined, however, the metric alone acts back on the matter in the manner prescribed by EEP.
What distinguishes one metric theory from another, therefore, is the number and kind of gravitational fields it contains in addition to the metric, and the equations that determine the structure and evolution of these fields. From this viewpoint, one can divide all metric theories of gravity into two fundamental classes: “purely dynamical” and “priorgeometric”.
By “purely dynamical metric theory” we mean any metric theory whose gravitational fields have their structure and evolution determined by coupled partial differential field equations. In other words, the behavior of each field is influenced to some extent by a coupling to at least one of the other fields in the theory. By “prior geometric” theory, we mean any metric theory that contains “absolute elements”, fields or equations whose structure and evolution are given a priori, and are independent of the structure and evolution of the other fields of the theory. These “absolute elements” typically include flat background metrics η or cosmic time coordinates t.
General relativity is a purely dynamical theory since it contains only one gravitational field, the metric itself, and its structure and evolution are governed by partial differential equations (Einstein’s equations). BransDicke theory and its generalizations are purely dynamical theories; the field equation for the metric involves the scalar field (as well as the matter as source), and that for the scalar field involves the metric. Visser’s bimetric massive gravity theory [401] is a priorgeometric theory: It has a nondynamical, Riemannflat background metric η, and the field equations for the physical metric g involve η.
By discussing metric theories of gravity from this broad point of view, it is possible to draw some general conclusions about the nature of gravity in different metric theories, conclusions that are reminiscent of the Einstein equivalence principle, but that are subsumed under the name “strong equivalence principle”.

A theory which contains only the metric g yields local gravitational physics which is independent of the location and velocity of the local system. This follows from the fact that the only field coupling the local system to the environment is g, and it is always possible to find a coordinate system in which g takes the Minkowski form at the boundary between the local system and the external environment (neglecting inhomogeneities in the external gravitational field). Thus the asymptotic values of g_{ μν } are constants independent of location, and are asymptotically Lorentz invariant, thus independent of velocity. GR is an example of such a theory.

A theory which contains the metric g and dynamical scalar fields φ_{ A } yields local gravitational physics which may depend on the location of the frame but which is independent of the velocity of the frame. This follows from the asymptotic Lorentz invariance of the Minkowski metric and of the scalar fields, but now the asymptotic values of the scalar fields may depend on the location of the frame. An example is BransDicke theory, where the asymptotic scalar field determines the effective value of the gravitational constant, which can thus vary as φ varies. On the other hand, a form of velocity dependence in local physics can enter indirectly if the asymptotic values of the scalar field vary with time cosmologically. Then the rate of variation of the gravitational constant could depend on the velocity of the frame.

A theory which contains the metric g and additional dynamical vector or tensor fields or priorgeometric fields yields local gravitational physics which may have both location and velocitydependent effects. An example is the EinsteinÆther theory, which contains a dynamical timelike fourvector field; the largescale distribution of matter establishes a frame in which the vector has no spatial components, and systems moving relative to that frame can experience motiondependent effects.
 1.
WEP is valid for selfgravitating bodies as well as for test bodies.
 2.
The outcome of any local test experiment is independent of the velocity of the (freely falling) apparatus.
 3.
The outcome of any local test experiment is independent of where and when in the universe it is performed.
The above discussion of the coupling of auxiliary fields to local gravitating systems indicates that if SEP is strictly valid, there must be one and only one gravitational field in the universe, the metric g. These arguments are only suggestive however, and no rigorous proof of this statement is available at present. Empirically it has been found that almost every metric theory other than GR introduces auxiliary gravitational fields, either dynamical or prior geometric, and thus predicts violations of SEP at some level (here we ignore quantumtheory inspired modifications to GR involving “R^{2}” terms). The one exception is Nordström’s 1913 conformallyflat scalar theory [303], which can be written purely in terms of the metric; the theory satisfies SEP, but unfortunately violates experiment by predicting no deflection of light. General relativity seems to be the only viable metric theory that embodies SEP completely. In Section 4.3, we shall discuss experimental evidence for the validity of SEP.
3.2 The parametrized postNewtonian formalism
Despite the possible existence of longrange gravitational fields in addition to the metric in various metric theories of gravity, the postulates of those theories demand that matter and nongravitational fields be completely oblivious to them. The only gravitational field that enters the equations of motion is the metric g. The role of the other fields that a theory may contain can only be that of helping to generate the spacetime curvature associated with the metric. Matter may create these fields, and they plus the matter may generate the metric, but they cannot act back directly on the matter. Matter responds only to the metric.
Thus the metric and the equations of motion for matter become the primary entities for calculating observable effects, and all that distinguishes one metric theory from another is the particular way in which matter and possibly other gravitational fields generate the metric.
The PPN Parameters and their significance (note that α_{3} has been shown twice to indicate that it is a measure of two effects).
Parameter  What it measures relative to GR  Value in GR  Value in semiconservative theories  Value in fully conservative theories 

How much spacecurvature produced by unit rest mass?  1  77  77  
β  How much “nonlinearity” in the superposition law for gravity?  1  β  β 
ξ  Preferredlocation effects?  0  ξ  ξ 
α _{1}  Preferredframe effects?  0  α _{1}  0 
0  α _{2}  0  
α _{3}  0  0  0  
α _{3}  Violation of conservation of total momentum?  0  0  0 
ζ _{1}  0  0  0  
ζ _{2}  0  0  0  
ζ _{3}  0  0  0  
ζ _{4}  0  0  0 
 1.
in GR,
 2.
in any theory of gravity that possesses conservation laws for total momentum, called “semiconservative” (any theory that is based on an invariant action principle is semiconservative), and
 3.
in any theory that in addition possesses six global conservation laws for angular momentum, called “fully conservative” (such theories automatically predict no postNewtonian preferredframe effects).
The PPN formalism was pioneered by Kenneth Nordtvedt [305], who studied the postNewtonian metric of a system of gravitating point masses, extending earlier work by Eddington, Robertson and Schiff (TEGP 4.2 [420]). Will [413] generalized the framework to perfect fluids. A general and unified version of the PPN formalism was developed by Will and Nordtvedt [431]. The canonical version, with conventions altered to be more in accord with standard textbooks such as [289], is discussed in detail in TEGP 4 [420]. Other versions of the PPN formalism have been developed to deal with point masses with charge, fluid with anisotropic stresses, bodies with strong internal gravity, and postpostNewtonian effects (TEGP 4.2, 14.2 [420]). Additional parameters or potentials are needed to deal with some theories, such as theories with massive fields (Yukawatype potentials replace Poisson potentials), or theories like ChernSimons theory, which permit parity violation in gravity.
3.2.1 Box 2. The Parametrized PostNewtonian formalism

Coordinate system:
The framework uses a nearly globally Lorentz coordinate system in which the coordinates are (t,x^{1},x^{2},x^{3}). Threedimensional, Euclidean vector notation is used throughout. All coordinate arbitrariness (“gauge freedom”) has been removed by specialization of the coordinates to the standard PPN gauge (TEGP 4.2 [420]). Units are chosen so that G = c = 1, where G is the physically measured Newtonian constant far from the solar system.
 Matter variables:

ρ: density of rest mass as measured in a local freely falling frame momentarily comoving with the gravitating matter.

υ^{ i } = (dx^{ i }/dt): coordinate velocity of the matter.

w^{ i }: coordinate velocity of the PPN coordinate system relative to the mean restframe of the universe.

p: pressure as measured in a local freely falling frame momentarily comoving with the matter.

Π: internal energy per unit rest mass (it includes all forms of nonrestmass, nongravitational energy, e.g., energy of compression and thermal energy).


PPN parameters: γ, β, ξ, α_{1}, α_{2}, α_{3}, ζ_{1}, ζ_{2}, ζ_{3}, ζ_{4}.
 Metric:$$\begin{array}{*{20}c} {{g_{00}} =  1 + 2U  2\beta {U^2}  2\xi {\Phi _W} + (2\gamma + 2 + {\alpha _3} + {\zeta _1}  2\xi){\Phi _1} + 2(3\gamma  2\beta + 1 + {\zeta _2} + \xi){\Phi _2}\quad \quad \quad} \\ {+ 2(1 + {\zeta _3}){\Phi _3} + 2(3\gamma + 3{\zeta _4}  2\xi){\Phi _4}  ({\zeta _1}  2\xi){\mathcal A}  ({\alpha _1}  {\alpha _2}  {\alpha _3}){w^2}U  {\alpha _2}{w^i}{w^j}{U_{ij}}} \\ {+ (2{\alpha _3}  {\alpha _1}){w^i}{V_i} + {\mathcal O}({\epsilon ^3}),\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad} \\ {{g_{0i}} =  {1 \over 2}(4\gamma + 3 + {\alpha _1}  {\alpha _2} + {\zeta _1}  2\xi){V_i}  {1 \over 2}(1 + {\alpha _2}  {\zeta _1} + 2\xi){W_i}  {1 \over 2}({\alpha _1}  2{\alpha _2}){w^i}U\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad} \\ { {\alpha _2}{w^j}{U_{ij}} + {\mathcal O}({\epsilon ^{5/2}}),\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \,\,} \\ {{g_{ij}} = (1 + 2\gamma U){\delta _{ij}} + {\mathcal O}({\epsilon ^2}).\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad} \\ \end{array}$$
 Metric potentials:$$\begin{array}{*{20}c} {U = \int {{{\rho \prime} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}}\vert}}{d^3}x\prime} ,\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad} \\ {{U_{ij}} = \int {{\rho \prime{{(x  x\prime)}_i}{{(x  x\prime)}_j}} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}}{\vert ^3}}}{d^3}x\prime,\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad} \\ {{\Phi _W} = \int {{\rho \prime\rho \prime\prime({\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}})} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}}{\vert ^3}}}\, \cdot \,\left({{{{\rm{x\prime}}  {\rm{x\prime\prime}}} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime\prime}}\vert}}  {{{\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime\prime}}} \over {\vert {\rm{x\prime}}  {\rm{x\prime\prime}}\vert}}} \right){d^3}x\prime\,{d^3}x\prime\prime,} \\ {{\mathcal A} = \int {{\rho \prime{{[v\prime\, \cdot \,({\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}})]}^2}} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}}{\vert ^3}}}{d^3}x\prime,\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad} \\ {{\Phi _1} = \int {{{\rho \prime{{v\prime}^2}} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}}\vert}}{d^3}x\prime,\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \,}} \\ {{\Phi _2} = \int {{{\rho \prime U\prime} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}}\vert}}{d^3}x\prime,\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad}} \\ {{\Phi _3} = \int {{{\rho \prime\Pi \prime} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}}\vert}}{d^3}x\prime,\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad}} \\ {{\Phi _4} = \int {{{p\prime} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}}\vert}}{d^3}x\prime,\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad}} \\ {{V_i} = \int {{{\rho \prime{{v\prime}_i}} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}}\vert}}{d^3}x\prime,\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \,\,\,}} \\ {{W_i} = \int {{\rho \prime[v\prime\, \cdot \,({\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}})]{{({\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}})}_i}} \over {\vert {\rm{x}}  {\rm{x\prime}}{\vert ^3}}}{d^3}x\prime.\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad} \\ \end{array}$$
 Stressenergy tensor (perfect fluid):$$\begin{array}{*{20}c}{{T^{00}} = \rho (1 + \Pi + {v^2} + 2U),\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad}\\{{T^{0i}} = \rho {v^i}\left({1 + \Pi + {v^2} + 2U + {p \over \rho}} \right),\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad}\\{{T^{ij}} = \rho {v^i}{v^j}\left({1 + \Pi + {v^2} + 2U + {p \over \rho}} \right) + p{\delta ^{ij}}(1  2\gamma U){.}}\end{array}$$
 Equations of motion:

Stressed matter: \({T^{\mu \nu}}_{;\nu} = 0\).

Test bodies: \({{{d^2}{x^\mu}} \over {d{\lambda ^2}}} + {\Gamma ^\mu}_{\nu \lambda}{{d{x^\nu}} \over {d\lambda}}{{d{x^\lambda}} \over {d\lambda}} = 0\).

Maxwell’s equations: \({F^{\mu \nu}}_{;\nu} = 4\pi {J^\mu},\quad {F_{\mu \nu}} = {A_{\nu; \mu}}  {A_{\mu; \nu}}\).

3.3 Competing theories of gravity
One of the important applications of the PPN formalism is the comparison and classification of alternative metric theories of gravity. The population of viable theories has fluctuated over the years as new effects and tests have been discovered, largely through the use of the PPN framework, which eliminated many theories thought previously to be viable. The theory population has also fluctuated as new, potentially viable theories have been invented.

A full compendium of alternative theories circa 1981 is given in TEGP 5 [420].

Many alternative metric theories developed during the 1970s and 1980s could be viewed as “strawman” theories, invented to prove that such theories exist or to illustrate particular properties. Few of these could be regarded as wellmotivated theories from the point of view, say, of field theory or particle physics.

A number of theories fall into the class of “priorgeometric” theories, with absolute elements such as a flat background metric in addition to the physical metric. Most of these theories predict “preferredframe” effects, that have been tightly constrained by observations (see Section 4.3.2). An example is Rosen’s bimetric theory.

A large number of alternative theories of gravity predict gravitational wave emission substantially different from that of GR, in strong disagreement with observations of the binary pulsar (see Section 9).

Scalartensor modifications of GR have become very popular in unification schemes such as string theory, and in cosmological model building. Because the scalar fields could be massive, the potentials in the postNewtonian limit could be modified by Yukawalike terms.

Theories that also incorporate vector fields have attracted recent attention, in the spirit of the SME (see Section 2.2.4), as models for violations of Lorentz invariance in the gravitational sector, and as potential candidates to account for phenomena such as galaxy rotation curves without resorting to dark matter.
3.3.1 General relativity
The metric g is the sole dynamical field, and the theory contains no arbitrary functions or parameters, apart from the value of the Newtonian coupling constant G, which is measurable in laboratory experiments. Throughout this article, we ignore the cosmological constant Λ_{C}. We do this despite recent evidence, from supernova data, of an accelerating universe, which would indicate either a nonzero cosmological constant or a dynamical “dark energy” contributing about 70 percent of the critical density. Although Λ_{C} has significance for quantum field theory, quantum gravity, and cosmology, on the scale of the solarsystem or of stellar systems its effects are negligible, for the values of Λ_{C} inferred from supernova observations.
Metric theories and their PPN parameter values (α_{3} = ζ_{ i } = 0 for all cases). The parameters γ′, β′, α′_{1}, and α′_{2} denote complicated functions of the arbitrary constants and matching parameters.
Theory  Arbitrary functions or constants  Cosmic matching parameters  PPN parameters  

γ  β  ξ  α _{1}  α _{2}  
General relativity  none  none  1  1  0  0  0 
Scalartensor  
BransDicke  ω _{BD}  ϕ _{0}  \({{1 + {\omega _{{\rm{BD}}}}} \over {2 + {\omega _{{\rm{BD}}}}}}\)  1  0  0  0 
General, f(R)  A(φ), V(φ)  φ _{0}  \({{1 + \omega} \over {2 + \omega}}\)  \(1 + {\lambda \over {4 + 2\omega}}\)  0  0  0 
Vectortensor  
Unconstrained  ω, c_{1}, c_{2}, c_{3}, c_{4}  u  γ′  β′  0  α′_{l}  α′_{2} 
EinsteinÆther  c_{1}, c_{2}, c_{3}, c_{4}  none  1  1  0  α′_{l}  α′_{2} 
Khronometric  α_{ k }, β_{ k }, λ_{ k }  none  1  1  0  α′_{l}  α′_{2} 
TensorVectorScalar  k, c_{1}, c_{2}, c_{3}, c_{4}  ϕ _{0}  1  1  0  α′_{l}  α′_{2} 
3.3.2 Scalartensor theories
Negative values of β_{0} correspond to a “locally unstable” scalar potential (the overall theory is still stable in the sense of having no tachyons or ghosts). In this case, objects such as neutron stars can experience a “spontaneous scalarization”, whereby the interior values of φ can be very different from the exterior values, through nonlinear interactions between strong gravity and the scalar field, dramatically affecting the stars’ internal structure and leading to strong violations of SEP [103, 104]. There is evidence from recent numerical simulations of the occurrence of a dynamically induced scalarization during the inspirals of compact binary systems containing neutron stars, which can affect both the final motion and the gravitationalwave emission [32, 313, 364].
On the other hand, in the case β_{0} < 0, one must confront that fact that, with an unstable φ potential, cosmological evolution would presumably drive the system away from the peak where α ≈ 0, toward parameter values that could be excluded by solar system experiments.
Scalar fields coupled to gravity or matter are also ubiquitous in particlephysicsinspired models of unification, such as string theory [384, 266, 117, 114, 115]. In some models, the coupling to matter may lead to violations of EEP, which could be tested or bounded by the experiments described in Section 2.1. In many models the scalar field could be massive; if the Compton wavelength is of macroscopic scale, its effects are those of a “fifth force”. Only if the theory can be cast as a metric theory with a scalar field of infinite range or of range long compared to the scale of the system in question (solar system) can the PPN framework be strictly applied. If the mass of the scalar field is sufficiently large that its range is microscopic, then, on solarsystem scales, the scalar field is suppressed, and the theory is essentially equivalent to general relativity.
For a detailed review of scalartensor theories see [167].
3.3.3 f(R) theories
3.3.4 Vectortensor theories

General vectortensor theory; ω, τ, ϵ, η
The gravitational Lagrangian for this class of theories had the form R+ωu_{ μ }u^{ μ }R+ηu^{ μ }u^{ ν }R_{ μν } − ϵF_{ μν }F^{ μν }+ τ∇_{ μ }∇^{ μ }u^{ ν }, where F_{ μν }, = ∇_{ μ }u_{ ν } − ∇_{ ν }u_{ μ }, corresponding to the values c_{1} = 2ϵ − τ, c_{2} = −η, c_{1} + c_{2} + c_{3} = −τ, c_{4} = 0. In these theories γ, β, α_{1}, and α_{2} are complicated functions of the parameters and of u^{2} = −u^{ μ }u_{ μ }, while the rest vanish (see TEGP 5.4 [420]).

WillNordtvedt theory
This is the special case c_{1} = −1, c_{2} = c_{3} = c_{4} = 0. In this theory, the PPN parameters are given by γ = β =1, α_{2} = u^{2}/(1 + u^{2}/2), and zero for the rest [431]).

HellingsNordtvedt theory; ω
This is the special case c_{1} = 2, c_{2} = 2ω, c_{1} + c_{2} + c_{3} = 0 = c_{4}. Here γ, β, α_{1} and α_{2} are complicated functions of the parameters and of u^{2}, while the rest vanish [187].

EinsteinÆther theory; c_{1}, c_{2}, c_{3}, c_{4}
The EinsteinÆther theories were motivated in part by a desire to explore possibilities for violations of Lorentz invariance in gravity, in parallel with similar studies in matter interactions, such as the SME. The general class of theories was analyzed by Jacobson and collaborators [204, 274, 205, 147, 163], motivated in part by [230]. Analyzing the postNewtonian limit,^{1} they were able to infer values of the PPN parameters γ and β as follows [163]:$$\gamma = 1,$$(43)$$\beta = 1,$$(44)$$\xi = {\alpha _3} = {\zeta _1} = {\zeta _2} = {\zeta _3} = {\zeta _4} = 0,$$(45)$${\alpha _1} =  {{8(c_3^2 + {c_1}{c_4})} \over {2{c_1}  c_1^2 + c_3^2}},$$(46)where c_{123} = c_{1} + c_{2} + c_{3}, c_{13} = c_{1} + c_{3}, c_{14} = c_{1} + c_{4}, subject to the constraints c_{123} ≠ 0, \({c_{14}} \neq 2,\,2{c_1}  c_1^2 + c_3^2 \neq 0\). By requiring that gravitationalwave modes have real (as opposed to imaginary) frequencies, one can impose the bounds c_{1}/c_{14} ≥ 0 and c_{123}/c_{14} ≥ 0. Considerations of positivity of energy impose the constraints c_{1} > 0, c_{14} > 0 and c_{123} > 0.$${\alpha _2} =  {{4(c_3^2 + {c_1}{c_4})} \over {2{c_1}  c_1^2 + c_3^2}}  {{(2{c_{13}}  {c_{14}})({c_{13}} + {c_{14}} + 3{c_2})} \over {{c_{123}}(2  {c_{14}})}},$$(47) 
Khronometric theory;α_{ K }, β_{ K },λ_{ K }
This is the lowenergy limit of “Hořava gravity”, a proposal for a gravity theory that is powercounting renormalizable [190]. The vector field is required to be hypersurface orthogonal (u^{ α } ∞ ∇^{α}T, where T is a scalar field related to a preferred time direction; equivalently the twist \({\omega ^{\alpha \beta}} = \nabla {}^{\left[\alpha \right.}{u^{\left. \beta \right]}} + u{}^{\left[ \alpha \right.}{a^{\left. \beta \right]}}\) must vanish, where \({a^\beta} = {u^\mu}{\nabla _\mu}{u^\beta}\)), so that higher spatial derivative terms could be introduced to effectuate renormalizability. A “healthy” version of the theory [61, 62] can be shown to correspond to the values c_{1} = −ϵc_{2} = λ_{ K }, c_{3} =β_{ K } + ϵ and c_{4} = α_{ K } + ϵ, where the limit ϵ → ∞ is to be taken. (The idea is to extract e times ω_{ aβ }ω^{ aβ } from the EinsteinÆther action and let ϵ → ∞ to enforce the twistfree condition [203].) In this case α_{1} and α_{2} are given by$${\alpha _1} = {{4({\alpha _K}  2{\beta _K})} \over {{\beta _K}  1}},$$(48)$${\alpha _2} = {1 \over 2}{\alpha _1} + {{({\alpha _K}  2{\beta _K})({\alpha _K} + {\beta _K} + 3{\lambda _K})} \over {(2  {\alpha _K})({\beta _K} + {\lambda _K})}}{.}$$(49)
3.3.5 Tensorvectorscalar (TeVeS) theories
This class of theories was invented to provide a fully relativistic theory of gravity that could mimic the phenomenological behavior of socalled Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). MOND is a phenomenological mechanism [283] whereby Newton’s equation of motion a = Gm/r^{2} holds as long as a is large compared to some fundamental scale a_{0}, but in a regime where a < a_{0}, the equation of motion takes the form a^{2}/a_{0} = Gm/r^{2}. With such a behavior, the rotational velocity of a particle far from a central mass would have the form \(\upsilon \sim \sqrt {ar} \sim {(Gm{a_0})^{1/4}}\), thus reproducing the flat rotation curves observed for spiral galaxies, without invoking a distribution of dark matter.
However, these PPN parameter values are computed in the limit where the function is a linear function of its argument y = kℓ^{2}h^{ μν }ϕ, _{ μ }ϕ_{ ν }. When one takes into account the fact that the function \(\mu (y) \equiv d{\mathcal F}/dy\) must interpolate between unity and zero to reach the MOND regime, it has been found that the dynamics of local systems is more strongly affected by the fields of surrounding matter than was anticipated. This “external field effect” (EFE) [284, 57, 58] produces a quadrupolar contribution to the local Newtonian gravitational potential that depends on the external distribution of matter and on the shape of the function μ(y), and that can be significantly larger than the galactic tidal contribution. Although the calculations of EFE have been carried out using phenomenological MOND equations, it should be a generic phenomenon, applicable to TeVeS as well. Analysis of the orbit of Saturn using Cassini data has placed interesting constraints on the MOND interpolating function μ(y) [186].
For thorough reviews of MOND and TeVeS, and their confrontation with the darkmatter paradigm, see [367, 150].
3.3.6 Quadratic gravity and ChernSimons theories
One challenge inherent in these theories is to find an argument or a mechanism that evades making the natural choice for each of the α parameters to be of order unity. Such a choice makes the effects of the additional terms essentially unobservable in most laboratory or astrophysical situations because of the enormous scale of \(\kappa \propto 1/\ell _{{\rm{planck}}}^2\) in the leading term. This class of theories is too vast and diffuse to cover in this review, and no comprehensive review is available, to our knowledge.
There are two different versions of ChernSimons theory, a nondynamical version in which β = 0, so that ϕ, given a priori as some specified function of spacetime, plays the role of a Lagrange multiplier enforcing the constraint *RR = 0, and a dynamical version, in which β ≠ 0.
EinsteinDilatonGaussBonnet gravity is another special case, in which the ChernSimons term is neglected (α_{4} = 0), and the three other curvaturesquared terms collapse to the GaussBonnet invariant, R^{2} − 4R_{ αβ }R^{ αβ } + R_{ αβγδ }R^{ αβγδ }, i.e. f_{1}(ϕ)= f_{2}(ϕ) = f_{3}(ϕ) and α_{1} = − α_{2}/4 = α_{3}(see [292, 314]).
3.3.7 Massive gravity
Massive gravity theories attempt to give the putative “graviton” a mass. The simplest attempt to implement this in a ghostfree manner suffers from the socalled van DamVeltmanZakharov (vDVZ) discontinuity [398, 453]. Because of the 3 additional helicity states available to the massive spin2 graviton, the limit of small graviton mass does not coincide with pure GR, and the predicted perihelion advance, for example, violates experiment. A model theory by Visser [401] attempts to circumvent the vDVZ problem by introducing a nondynamical flatbackground metric. This theory is truly continuous with GR in the limit of vanishing graviton mass; on the other hand, its observational implications have been only partially explored. Braneworld scenarios predict a tower or a continuum of massive gravitons, and may avoid the vDVZ discontinuity, although the full details are still a work in progress [125, 96]. Attempts to avert the vDVZ problem involve treating nonlinear aspects of the theory at the fundamental level; many models incorporate a second tensor field in addition to the metric. For recent reviews, see [188, 123], and a focus issue in Vol. 30, Number 18 of Classical and Quantum Gravity.
4 Tests of PostNewtonian Gravity
4.1 Tests of the parameter γ
With the PPN formalism in hand, we are now ready to confront gravitation theories with the results of solarsystem experiments. In this section we focus on tests of the parameter γ, consisting of the deflection of light and the time delay of light.
4.1.1 The deflection of light
It is interesting to note that the classic derivations of the deflection of light that use only the corpuscular theory of light (Cavendish 1784, von Soldner 1803 [416]), or the principle of equivalence (Einstein 1911), yield only the “1/2” part of the coefficient in front of the expression in Eq. (61). But the result of these calculations is the deflection of light relative to local straight lines, as established for example by rigid rods; however, because of space curvature around the Sun, determined by the PPN parameter γ, local straight lines are bent relative to asymptotic straight lines far from the Sun by just enough to yield the remaining factor “γ/2”. The first factor “1/2” holds in any metric theory, the second “γ/2” varies from theory to theory. Thus, calculations that purport to derive the full deflection using the equivalence principle alone are incorrect.
However, the development of radio interferometery, and later of verylongbaseline radio interferometry (VLBI), produced greatly improved determinations of the deflection of light. These techniques now have the capability of measuring angular separations and changes in angles to accuracies better than 100 microarcseconds. Early measurements took advantage of a series of heavenly coincidences: Each year, groups of strong quasistellar radio sources pass very close to the Sun (as seen from the Earth), including the group 3C273, 3C279, and 3C48, and the group 0111+02, 0119+11, and 0116+08. As the Earth moves in its orbit, changing the lines of sight of the quasars relative to the Sun, the angular separation δθ between pairs of quasars varies (see Eq. (63)). The time variation in the quantities d, d_{r}, χ, and Φ_{r} in Eq. (63) is determined using an accurate ephemeris for the Earth and initial directions for the quasars, and the resulting prediction for δθ as a function of time is used as a basis for a leastsquares fit of the measured δθ, with one of the fitted parameters being the coefficient \({1 \over 2}(1 + \gamma)\). A number of measurements of this kind over the period 1969–1975 yielded an accurate determination of the coefficient \({1 \over 2}(1 + \gamma)\), or equivalently γ − 1. A 1995 VLBI measurement using 3C273 and 3C279 yielded γ − 1 = (−8 ± 34) × 10^{−4} [243], while a 2009 measurement using the VLBA targeting the same two quasars plus two other nearby radio sources yielded γ − 1 = (−2 ± 3) × 10^{−4} [161].
In recent years, transcontinental and intercontinental VLBI observations of quasars and radio galaxies have been made primarily to monitor the Earth’s rotation (“VLBI” in Figure 5). These measurements are sensitive to the deflection of light over almost the entire celestial sphere (at 90° from the Sun, the deflection is still 4 milliarcseconds). A 2004 analysis of almost 2 million VLBI observations of 541 radio sources, made by 87 VLBI sites yielded (1 + γ)/2 = 0.99992 ± 0.00023, or equivalently, γ − 1 = (− 1.7 ± 4.5) × 10^{−4} [363]. Analyses that incorporated data through 2010 yielded γ − 1 = (−0.8 ± 1.2) × 10^{−4} [237, 238].
Analysis of observations made by the Hipparcos optical astrometry satellite yielded a test at the level of 0.3 percent [165]. A VLBI measurement of the deflection of light by Jupiter was reported in 1991; the predicted deflection of about 300 microarcseconds was seen with about 50 percent accuracy [389].
Finally, a remarkable measurement of γ on galactic scales was reported in 2006 [64]. It used data on gravitational lensing by 15 elliptical galaxies, collected by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The Newtonian potential U of each lensing galaxy (including the contribution from dark matter) was derived from the observed velocity dispersion of stars in the galaxy. Comparing the observed lensing with the lensing predicted by the models provided a 10 percent bound on γ, in agreement with general relativity. Unlike the much tighter bounds described previously, which were obtained on the scale of the solar system, this bound was obtained on a galactic scale.
The results of lightdeflection measurements are summarized in Figure 5.
4.1.2 The time delay of light
In the two decades following Irwin Shapiro’s 1964 discovery of this effect as a theoretical consequence of GR, several highprecision measurements were made using radar ranging to targets passing through superior conjunction. Since one does not have access to a “Newtonian” signal against which to compare the roundtrip travel time of the observed signal, it is necessary to do a differential measurement of the variations in roundtrip travel times as the target passes through superior conjunction, and to look for the logarithmic behavior of Eq. (65). In order to do this accurately however, one must take into account the variations in roundtrip travel time due to the orbital motion of the target relative to the Earth. This is done by using radarranging (and possibly other) data on the target taken when it is far from superior conjunction (i.e., when the timedelay term is negligible) to determine an accurate ephemeris for the target, using the ephemeris to predict the PPN coordinate trajectory x_{e}(t) near superior conjunction, then combining that trajectory with the trajectory of the Earth x_{⊕}(t) to determine the Newtonian roundtrip time and the logarithmic term in Eq. (65). The resulting predicted roundtrip travel times in terms of the unknown coefficient \({1 \over 2}(1 + \gamma)\) are then fit to the measured travel times using the method of leastsquares, and an estimate obtained for \({1 \over 2}(1 + \gamma)\).
The targets employed included planets, such as Mercury or Venus, used as passive reflectors of the radar signals (“passive radar”), and artificial satellites, such as Mariners 6 and 7, Voyager 2, the Viking Mars landers and orbiters, and the Cassini spacecraft to Saturn, used as active retransmitters of the radar signals (“active radar”).
The results for the coefficient \({1 \over 2}(1 + \gamma)\) of all radar timedelay measurements performed to date (including a measurement of the oneway time delay of signals from the millisecond pulsar PSR 1937+21) are shown in Figure 5 (see TEGP 7.2 [420] for discussion and references). The 1976 Viking experiment resulted in a 0.1 percent measurement [333].
A significant improvement was reported in 2003 from Doppler tracking of the Cassini spacecraft while it was on its way to Saturn [44], with a result γ − 1 = (2.1 ± 2.3) × 10^{−5}. This was made possible by the ability to do Doppler measurements using both Xband (7175 MHz) and Kaband (34316 MHz) radar, thereby significantly reducing the dispersive effects of the solar corona. Note that with Doppler measurements, one is essentially measuring the time derivative of the Shapiro delay. In addition, the 2002 superior conjunction of Cassini was particularly favorable: with the spacecraft at 8.43 astronomical units from the Sun, the distance of closest approach of the radar signals to the Sun was only 1.6 R_{ ⊙ }.
From the results of the Cassini experiment, we can conclude that the coefficient \({1 \over 2}(1 + \gamma)\) must be within at most 0.0012 percent of unity. Massless scalartensor theories must have ω > 40 000 to be compatible with this constraint.
4.1.3 Shapiro time delay and the speed of gravity
In 2001, Kopeikin [221] suggested that a measurement of the time delay of light from a quasar as the light passed by the planet Jupiter could be used to measure the speed of the gravitational interaction. He argued that, since Jupiter is moving relative to the solar system, and since gravity propagates with a finite speed, the gravitational field experienced by the light ray should be affected by gravity’s speed, since the field experienced at one time depends on the location of the source a short time earlier, depending on how fast gravity propagates. According to his calculations, there should be a post^{1/2}Newtonian correction to the normal Shapiro timedelay formula (64) which depends on the velocity of Jupiter and on the velocity of gravity. On September 8, 2002, Jupiter passed almost in front of a quasar, and Kopeikin and Fomalont made precise measurements of the Shapiro delay with picosecond timing accuracy, and claimed to have measured the correction term to about 20 percent [162, 226, 222, 223].
Current limits on the PPN parameters.
Parameter  Effect  Limit  Remarks 

γ − 1  time delay  2.3 × 10^{−5}  Cassini tracking 
light deflection  2 × 10^{−4}  VLBI  
β − 1  perihelion shift  8 × 10^{−5}  J_{2}_{⊙} = (2.2 ± 0.1) × 10^{−7} 
Nordtvedt effect  2.3 × 10^{−4}  η_{N} =4β − γ − 3 assumed  
ξ  spin precession  4 × 10^{−9}  millisecond pulsars 
α _{1}  orbital polarization  10^{−4} 4 × 10^{−5}  Lunar laser ranging PSR J1738+0333 
α _{2}  spin precession  2 × 10^{−9}  millisecond pulsars 
α _{3}  pulsar acceleration  4 × 10^{−20}  pulsar Ṗ statistics 
ζ _{1}  —  2 × 10^{−2}  combined PPN bounds 
ζ _{2}  binary acceleration  4 × 10^{−5}  \({\ddot P_{\rm{p}}}\) for PSR 1913+16 
ζ _{3}  Newton’s 3rd law  10^{−8}  lunar acceleration 
ζ _{4}  —  —  not independent [see Eq. (73)] 
4.2 The perihelion shift of Mercury
The explanation of the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury’s orbit was another of the triumphs of GR. This had been an unsolved problem in celestial mechanics for over half a century, since the announcement by Le Verrier in 1859 that, after the perturbing effects of the planets on Mercury’s orbit had been accounted for, and after the effect of the precession of the equinoxes on the astronomical coordinate system had been subtracted, there remained in the data an unexplained advance in the perihelion of Mercury. The modern value for this discrepancy is 43 arcseconds per century. A number of ad hoc proposals were made in an attempt to account for this excess, including, among others, the existence of a new planet Vulcan near the Sun, a ring of planetoids, a solar quadrupole moment and a deviation from the inverse−square law of gravitation, but none was successful. General relativity accounted for the anomalous shift in a natural way without disturbing the agreement with other planetary observations.
The first term in Eq. (66) is the classical relativistic perihelion shift, which depends upon the PPN parameters γ and β. The second term depends upon the ratio of the masses of the two bodies; it is zero in any fully conservative theory of gravity (α_{1} ≡ α_{2} ≡ α_{3} ≡ ζ_{2} ≡ 0); it is also negligible for Mercury, since η ≈ m_{Merc}/M_{ ⊙ } ≈ 2 × 10^{−7}. We shall drop this term henceforth.
The most recent fits to planetary data include data from the Messenger spacecraft that orbited Mercury, thereby significantly improving knowledge of its orbit. Adopting the Cassini bound on γ a priori, these analyses yield a bound on β given by β − 1 = (−4.1 ± 7.8) × 10^{−5}. Further analysis could push this bound even lower [152, 399], although knowledge of J_{2} would have to improve simultaneously. A slightly weaker bound β − 1 = (0.4 ± 2.4) × 10^{−4} from the perihelion advance of Mars (again adopting the Cassini bound on γ) was obtained by exploiting data from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter [220]
Laser tracking of the Earthorbiting satellite LAGEOS II led to a measurement of its relativistic perigee precession (3.4 arcseconds per year) in agreement with GR to two percent [262, 263] (note that the second paper contains an improved assessment of systematic errors).
4.3 Tests of the strong equivalence principle
The next class of solarsystem experiments that test relativistic gravitational effects may be called tests of the strong equivalence principle (SEP). In Section 3.1.2 we pointed out that many metric theories of gravity (perhaps all except GR) can be expected to violate one or more aspects of SEP. Among the testable violations of SEP are a violation of the weak equivalence principle for gravitating bodies that leads to perturbations in the EarthMoon orbit, preferredlocation and preferredframe effects in the locally measured gravitational constant that could produce observable geophysical effects, and possible variations in the gravitational constant over cosmological timescales.
4.3.1 The Nordtvedt effect and the lunar Eötvös experiment
Since August 1969, when the first successful acquisition was made of a laser signal reflected from the Apollo 11 retroreflector on the Moon, the LLR experiment has made regular measurements of the roundtrip travel times of laser pulses between a network of observatories and the lunar retroreflectors, with accuracies that are approaching the 5 ps (1 mm) level. These measurements are fit using the method of leastsquares to a theoretical model for the lunar motion that takes into account perturbations due to the Sun and the other planets, tidal interactions, and postNewtonian gravitational effects. The predicted roundtrip travel times between retroreflector and telescope also take into account the librations of the Moon, the orientation of the Earth, the location of the observatories, and atmospheric effects on the signal propagation. The “Nordtvedt” parameter η_{N} along with several other important parameters of the model are then estimated in the leastsquares method. For a review of lunar laser ranging, see [277].
Numerous ongoing analyses of the data find no evidence, within experimental uncertainty, for the Nordtvedt effect [436, 437] (for earlier results see [132, 435, 295]). These results represent a limit on a possible violation of WEP for massive bodies of about 1.4 parts in 10^{13} (compare Figure 1).
However, at this level of precision, one cannot regard the results of LLR as a “clean” test of SEP until one eliminates the possibility of a compensating violation of WEP for the two bodies, because the chemical compositions of the Earth and Moon differ in the relative fractions of iron and silicates. To this end, the EöotWash group carried out an improved test of WEP for laboratory bodies whose chemical compositions mimic that of the Earth and Moon. The resulting bound of 1.4 parts in 10^{13} [29, 1] from composition effects reduces the ambiguity in the LLR bound, and establishes the firm SEP test at the level of about 2 parts in 10^{13}. These results can be summarized by the Nordtvedt parameter bound η_{N} = (4.4 ± 4.5) × 10^{−4}.
APOLLO, the Apache Point Observatory for Lunar Laserranging Operation, a joint effort by researchers from the Universities of Washington, Seattle, and California, San Diego, has achieved mm ranging precision using enhanced laser and telescope technology, together with a good, highaltitude site in New Mexico. However models of the lunar orbit must be improved in parallel in order to achieve an orderofmagnitude improvement in the test of the Nordtvedt effect [298]. This effort will be aided by the fortuitous 2010 discovery by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the precise landing site of the Soviet Lunokhod I rover, which deployed a retroreflector in 1970. Its uncertain location made it effectively “lost” to lunar laser ranging for almost 40 years. Its location on the lunar surface will make it useful in improving models of the lunar libration [297].
In GR, the Nordtvedt effect vanishes; at the level of several centimeters and below, a number of nonnull general relativistic effects should be present [309].
Tests of the Nordtvedt effect for neutron stars have also been carried out using a class of systems known as wideorbit binary millisecond pulsars (WBMSP), which are pulsarwhitedwarf binary systems with small orbital eccentricities. In the gravitational field of the galaxy, a nonzero Nordtvedt effect can induce an apparent anomalous eccentricity pointed toward the galactic center [118], which can be bounded using statistical methods, given enough WBMSPs (see [374] for a review and references). Using data from 21 WBMSPs, including recently discovered highly circular systems, Stairs et al. [375] obtained the bound ∇ < 5.6 × 10^{−3}, where ∇ = η_{ N }(E_{ g }/M)_{NS}. Because (E_{ g }/M)_{NS} ∼ 0.1 for typical neutron stars, this bound does not compete with the bound on η_{ N } from LLR; on the other hand, it does test SEP in the strongfield regime because of the presence of the neutron stars. The 2013 discovery of a millisecond pulsar in orbit with two white dwarfs in very circular, coplanar orbits [332] may lead to a test of the Nordvedt effect in the strongfield regime that surpasses the precision of lunar laser ranging by a substantial factor (see Section 6.2).
4.3.2 Preferredframe and preferredlocation effects
Some theories of gravity violate SEP by predicting that the outcomes of local gravitational experiments may depend on the velocity of the laboratory relative to the mean rest frame of the universe (preferredframe effects) or on the location of the laboratory relative to a nearby gravitating body (preferredlocation effects). In the postNewtonian limit, preferredframe effects are governed by the values of the PPN parameters α_{1}, α_{2}, and η_{3}, and some preferredlocation effects are governed by ξ (see Table 2).
The most important such effects are variations and anisotropies in the locallymeasured value of the gravitational constant which lead to anomalous Earth tides and variations in the Earth’s rotation rate, anomalous contributions to the orbital dynamics of planets and the Moon, selfaccelerations of pulsars, anomalous torques on the Sun that would cause its spin axis to be randomly oriented relative to the ecliptic (see TEGP 8.2, 8.3, 9.3, and 14.3 (c) [420]), and torques on spinning pulsars that could be seen in variations in their pulse profiles.
A tight bound on η_{3} of 4 × 10^{−20} was obtained by placing limits on anomalous eccentricities in the orbits of a number of binary millisecond pulsars [37, 375]. The best bound on η_{1}, comes from the orbit of the pulsarwhitedwarf system J1738+0333 [359]. Early bounds on on η_{2} and ξ came from searches for variations induced by an anisotropy in G on the acceleration of gravity on Earth using gravimeters, and (in the case of α_{2}) from limiting the effects of any anomalous torque on the spinning Sun over the age of the solar system. Today the best bounds on α_{2} and ξ come from bounding torques on the solitary millisecond pulsars B1937+21 and J17441134 [358, 360]. Because these later bounds involve systems with strong internal gravity of the neutron stars, they should strictly speaking be regarded as bounds on “strong field” analogues of the PPN parameters. Here we will treat them as bounds on the standard PPN parameters, as shown in Table 4.
4.3.3 Constancy of the Newtonian gravitational constant
Most theories of gravity that violate SEP predict that the locally measured Newtonian gravitational constant may vary with time as the universe evolves. For the scalartensor theories listed in Table 3, the predictions for Ġ/G can be written in terms of time derivatives of the asymptotic scalar field. Where G does change with cosmic evolution, its rate of variation should be of the order of the expansion rate of the universe, i.e., Ġ/G ∼ H_{0}, where H_{0} is the Hubble expansion parameter, given by H_{0} = 69 ± 1 km s^{−1} Mpc^{−1} = 7 × 10^{−11} yr^{−1} [39].
Constancy of the gravitational constant. For binarypulsar data, the bounds are dependent upon the theory of gravity in the strongfield regime and on neutron star equation of state. BigBang nucleosynthesis bounds assume specific form for time dependence of G.
The best limits on a current Ġ/G come from improvements in the ephemeris of Mars using range and Doppler data from the Mars Global Surveyor (1998–2006), Mars Odyssey (2002–2008), and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (2006–2008), together with improved data and modeling of the effects of the asteroid belt [321, 220]. Since the bound is actually on variations of GM_{ ⊙ }, any future improvements in Ġ/G beyond a part in 10^{13} will have to take into account models of the actual mass loss from the Sun, due to radiation of photons and neutrinos (∼ 0.7 × 10^{−13} yr^{−1}) and due to the solar wind (∼ 0.2 × 10^{−13} yr^{−1}). Another bound comes from LLR measurements ([436]; for earlier results see [132, 435, 295]).
Although bounds on Ġ/G from solarsystem measurements can be correctly obtained in a phenomenological manner through the simple expedient of replacing G by G_{0} + Ġ_{0}(t − t_{0}) in Newton’s equations of motion, the same does not hold true for pulsar and binary pulsar timing measurements. The reason is that, in theories of gravity that violate SEP, such as scalartensor theories, the “mass” and moment of inertia of a gravitationally bound body may vary with G. Because neutron stars are highly relativistic, the fractional variation in these quantities can be comparable to ∇G/G, the precise variation depending both on the equation of state of neutron star matter and on the theory of gravity in the strongfield regime. The variation in the moment of inertia affects the spin rate of the pulsar, while the variation in the mass can affect the orbital period in a manner that can subtract from the direct effect of a variation in G, given by Ṗ_{b}/P_{b} = −2Ġ/G [308]. Thus, the bounds quoted in Table 5 for binary and millisecond pulsars are theorydependent and must be treated as merely suggestive.
In a similar manner, bounds from helioseismology and BigBang nucleosynthesis (BBN) assume a model for the evolution of G over the multibillion year time spans involved. For example, the concordance of predictions for light elements produced around 3 minutes after the Big Bang with the abundances observed indicate that G then was within 20 percent of G today. Assuming a powerlaw variation of G ∼ t^{−}α then yields a bound on Ġ/G today shown in Table 5.
4.4 Other tests of postNewtonian gravity
4.4.1 Search for gravitomagnetism
Gravitomagnetism plays a role in a variety of measured relativistic effects involving moving material sources, such as the EarthMoon system and binary pulsar systems. Nordtvedt [307, 306] has argued that, if the gravitomagnetic potential (70) were turned off, then there would be anomalous orbital effects in LLR and binary pulsar data.
In 2011 the Relativity Gyroscope Experiment (Gravity Probe B or GPB) carried out by Stanford University, NASA and Lockheed Martin Corporation [177], finally completed a space mission to detect this framedragging or LenseThirring precession, along with the “geodetic” precession (see Section 4.4.2). Gravity Probe B will very likely go down in the history of science as one of the most ambitious, difficult, expensive, and controversial relativity experiments ever performed.^{2} It was almost 50 years from inception to completion, although only about half of that time was spent as a fullfledged, approved space program.
The GPB spacecraft was launched on April 20, 2004 into an almost perfectly circular polar orbit at an altitude of 642 km, with the orbital plane parallel to the direction of a guide star known as IM Pegasi (HR 8703). The spacecraft contained four spheres made of fuzed quartz, all spinning about the same axis (two were spun in the opposite direction), which was oriented to be in the orbital plane, pointing toward the guide star. An onboard telescope pointed continuously at the guide star, and the direction of each spin was compared with the direction to the star, which was at a declination of 16° relative to the Earth’s equatorial plane. With these conditions, the precessions predicted by GR were 6630 milliarcsecond per year for the geodetic effect, and 38 milliarcsecond per year for frame dragging, the former in the orbital plane (in the northsouth direction) and the latter perpendicular to it (in the eastwest direction).
In order to reduce the nonrelativistic torques on the rotors to an acceptable level, the rotors were fabricated to be both spherical and homogenous to better than a few parts in 10 million. Each rotor was coated with a thin film of niobium, and the experiment was conducted at cryogenic temperatures inside a dewar containing 2200 litres of superfluid liquid helium. As the niobium film becomes a superconductor, each rotor develops a magnetic moment parallel to its spin axis. Variations in the direction of the magnetic moment relative to the spacecraft were then measured using superconducting current loops surrounding each rotor. As the spacecraft orbits the Earth, the aberration of light from the guide star causes an artificial but predictable change in direction between the rotors and the onboard telescope; this was an essential tool for calibrating the conversion between the voltages read by the current loops and the actual angle between the rotors and the guide star. The motion of the guide star relative to distant inertial frames was measured before, during and after the mission separately by radio astronomers at Harvard/SAO and elsewhere using VLBI (IM Pegasi is a radio star) [362].
The mission ended in September 2005, as scheduled, when the last of the liquid helium boiled off. Although all subsystems of the spacecraft and the apparatus performed extremely well, they were not perfect. Calibration measurements carried out during the mission, both before and after the science phase, revealed unexpectedly large torques on the rotors. Numerous diagnostic tests worthy of a detective novel showed that these were caused by electrostatic interactions between surface imperfections (“patch effect”) on the niobium films and the spherical housings surrounding each rotor. These effects and other anomalies greatly contaminated the data and complicated its analysis, but finally, in October 2010, the Gravity Probe B team announced that the experiment had successfully measured both the geodetic and framedragging precessions. The outcome was in agreement with general relativity, with a precision of 0.3 percent for the geodetic precession, and 20 percent for the framedragging effect [149]. For a commentary on the GPB result, see [429]. The full technical and data analysis details of GPB are expected to be published as a special issue of Classical and Quantum Gravity in 2015.
Another way to look for framedragging is to measure the precession of orbital planes of bodies circling a rotating body. One implementation of this idea is to measure the relative precession, at about 31 milliarcseconds per year, of the line of nodes of a pair of laserranged geodynamics satellites (LAGEOS), ideally with supplementary inclination angles; the inclinations must be supplementary in order to cancel the dominant (126 degrees per year) nodal precession caused by the Earth’s Newtonian gravitational multipole moments. Unfortunately, the two existing LAGEOS satellites are not in appropriately inclined orbits. Nevertheless, Ciufolini and collaborators [86, 88, 85] combined nodal precession data from LAGEOS I and II with improved models for the Earth’s multipole moments provided by two orbiting geodesy satellites, Europe’s CHAMP (Challenging Minisatellite Payload) and NASA’s GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment), and reported a 10 percent confirmation of GR [85]. In earlier reports, Ciufolini et al. had reported tests at the the 20–30 percent level, without the benefit of the GRACE/CHAMP data [83, 87, 82]. Some authors stressed the importance of adequately assessing systematic errors in the LAGEOS data [338, 197].
On February 13, 2012, a third laserranged satellite, known as LARES (Laser Relativity Satellite) was launched by the Italian Space Agency [315]. Its inclination was very close to the required supplementary angle relative to LAGEOS I, and its eccentricity was very nearly zero. However, because its semimajor axis is only 2/3 that of either LAGEOS I or II, and because the Newtonian precession rate is proportional to a^{−3/2}, LARES does not provide a cancellation of the Newtonian precession. Nevertheless, combining data from all three satellites with continually improving Earth data from GRACE, the LARES team hopes to achieve a test of framedragging at the one percent level [84].
4.4.2 Geodetic precession
For the GPB gyroscopes orbiting the Earth, the precession is 6.63 arcseconds per year. GPB measured this effect to 3 × 10^{−3}; the resulting bound on the parameter γ is not competitive with the Cassini bound.
4.4.3 Tests of postNewtonian conservation laws
A nonzero value for any of these parameters would result in a violation of conservation of momentum, or of Newton’s third law in gravitating systems. An alternative statement of Newton’s third law for gravitating systems is that the “active gravitational mass”, that is the mass that determines the gravitational potential exhibited by a body, should equal the “passive gravitational mass”, the mass that determines the force on a body in a gravitational field. Such an equality guarantees the equality of action and reaction and of conservation of momentum, at least in the Newtonian limit.
A classic test of Newton’s third law for gravitating systems was carried out in 1968 by Kreuzer, in which the gravitational attraction of fluorine and bromine were compared to a precision of 5 parts in 10^{5}.
4.5 Prospects for improved PPN parameter values
A number of advanced experiments or space missions are under development or have been proposed which could lead to significant improvements in values of the PPN parameters, of J_{2} of the Sun, and of Ġ/G.
LLR at the Apache Point Observatory (APOLLO project) could improve bounds on the Nordvedt parameter to the level 3 × 10^{−5} and on Ġ/G to better than 10^{−13} yr^{−1} [437].
The BepiColumbo Mercury orbiter is a joint project of the European and Japanese space agencies, scheduled for launch in 2015 [38]. In a twoyear experiment, with 6 cm range capability, it could yield improvements in γ to 3 × 10^{−5}, in β to 3 × 10^{−4}, in α_{1} to 10^{−5}, in Ġ/G to 10^{−13} yr^{−1}, and in J_{2} to 3 × 10^{−8}. An eightyear mission could yield further improvements by factors of 2−5 in β, α_{1}, and J_{2}, and a further factor 15 in Ġ/G [282, 27].
GAIA is a highprecision astrometric orbiting telescope launched by ESA in 2013 (a successor to Hipparcos) [169]. With astrometric capability ranging from 10 to a few hundred microsarcseconds, plus the ability measure the locations of a billion stars down to 20th magnitude, it could measure lightdeflection and γ to the 10^{−6} level [281].
LATOR (Laser Astrometric Test of Relativity) is a concept for a NASA mission in which two microsatellites orbit the Sun on Earthlike orbits near superior conjunction, so that their lines of sight are close to the Sun. Using optical tracking and an optical interferometer on the International Space Station, it may be possible to measure the deflection of light with sufficient accuracy to bound γ to a part in 10^{8} and J_{2} to a part in 10^{8}, and to measure the solar framedragging effect to one percent [393, 394].
Another concept, proposed for a European Space Agency mediumclass mission, is ASTROD I (Astrodynamical Space Test of Relativity using Optical Devices), a variant of LATOR involving a single satellite parked on the far side of the Sun [66]. Its goal is to measure γ to a few parts in 10^{8}, β to six parts in 10^{6} and J_{2} to a part in 10^{9}. A possible followon mission, ASTRODGW, involving three spacecraft, would improve on measurements of those parameters and would also measure the solar framedragging effect, as well as look for gravitational waves.
5 Strong Gravity and Gravitational Waves: Tests for the 21st Century
5.1 Strongfield systems in general relativity
5.1.1 Defining weak and strong gravity

The system may contain strongly relativistic objects, such as neutron stars or black holes, near and inside which ϵ ∼ 1, and the postNewtonian approximation breaks down. Nevertheless, under some circumstances, the orbital motion may be such that the interbody potential and orbital velocities still satisfy ϵ ≪ 1 so that a kind of postNewtonian approximation for the orbital motion might work; however, the strongfield internal gravity of the bodies could (especially in alternative theories of gravity) leave imprints on the orbital motion.

The evolution of the system may be affected by the emission of gravitational radiation. The 1PN approximation does not contain the effects of gravitational radiation backreaction. In the expression for the metric given in Box 2, radiation backreaction effects in GR do not occur until \({\mathcal O} ({\epsilon ^{7/2}})\) in g_{00}, \({\mathcal O} ({\epsilon ^{3}})\) in g_{0i}, and \({\mathcal O} ({\epsilon ^{5/2}})\) in g_{ ij }. Consequently, in order to describe such systems, one must carry out a solution of the equations substantially beyond 1PN order, sufficient to incorporate the leading radiation damping terms at 2.5PN order. In addition, the PPN metric described in Section 3.2 is valid in the near zone of the system, i.e., within one gravitational wavelength of the system’s center of mass. As such it cannot describe the gravitational waves seen by a detector.

The system may be highly relativistic in its orbital motion, so that U ∼ υ^{2} ∼ 1 even for the interbody field and orbital velocity. Systems like this include the late stage of the inspiral of binary systems of neutron stars or black holes, driven by gravitational radiation damping, prior to a merger and collapse to a final stationary state. Binary inspiral is one of the leading candidate sources for detection by the existing LIGOVirgo network of laser interferometric gravitationalwave observatories and by a future spacebased interferometer. A proper description of such systems requires not only equations for the motion of the binary carried to extraordinarily high PN orders (at least 3.5PN), but also requires equations for the farzone gravitational waveform measured at the detector, that are equally accurate to high PN orders beyond the leading “quadrupole” approximation.
Of course, some systems cannot be properly described by any postNewtonian approximation because their behavior is fundamentally controlled by strong gravity. These include the imploding cores of supernovae, the final merger of two compact objects, the quasinormalmode vibrations of neutron stars and black holes, the structure of rapidly rotating neutron stars, and so on. Phenomena such as these must be analyzed using different techniques. Chief among these is the full solution of Einstein’s equations via numerical methods. This field of “numerical relativity” has become a mature branch of gravitational physics, whose description is beyond the scope of this review (see [247, 176, 35] for reviews). Another is blackhole perturbation theory (see [285, 219, 351, 43] for reviews).
5.1.2 Compact bodies and the strong equivalence principle
When dealing with the motion and gravitationalwave generation by orbiting bodies, one finds a remarkable simplification within GR. As long as the bodies are sufficiently wellseparated that one can ignore tidal interactions and other effects that depend upon the finite extent of the bodies (such as their quadrupole and higher multipole moments), then all aspects of their orbital behavior and gravitationalwave generation can be characterized by just two parameters: mass and angular momentum. Whether their internal structure is highly relativistic, as in black holes or neutron stars, or nonrelativistic as in the Earth and Sun, only the mass and angular momentum are needed. Furthermore, both quantities are measurable in principle by examining the external gravitational field of the bodies, and make no reference whatsoever to their interiors.
Damour [100] calls this the “effacement” of the bodies’ internal structure. It is a consequence of the strong equivalence principle (SEP), described in Section 3.1.2.
General relativity satisfies SEP because it contains one and only one gravitational field, the spacetime metric g_{ μ#x03BD };onsider the motion of a body in a binary system, whose size is small compared to the binary separation. Surround the body by a region that is large compared to the size of the body, yet small compared to the separation. Because of the general covariance of the theory, one can choose a freelyfalling coordinate system which comoves with the body, whose spacetime metric takes the Minkowski form at its outer boundary (ignoring tidal effects generated by the companion). There is thus no evidence of the presence of the companion body, and the structure of the chosen body can be obtained using the field equations of GR in this coordinate system. Far from the chosen body, the metric is characterized by the mass and angular momentum (assuming that one ignores quadrupole and higher multipole moments of the body) as measured far from the body using orbiting test particles and gyroscopes. These asymptotically measured quantities are oblivious to the body’s internal structure. A black hole of mass m and a planet of mass m would produce identical spacetimes in this outer region.
The geometry of this region surrounding the one body must be matched to the geometry provided by the companion body. Einstein’s equations provide consistency conditions for this matching that yield constraints on the motion of the bodies. These are the equations of motion. As a result, the motion of two planets of mass and angular momentum m_{1}, m_{2}, J_{1}, and J_{2} is identical to that of two black holes of the same mass and angular momentum (again, ignoring tidal effects).
This effacement does not occur in an alternative gravitional theory like scalartensor gravity. There, in addition to the spacetime metric, a scalar field ϕ is generated by the masses of the bodies, and controls the local value of the gravitational coupling constant (i.e., G_{Local} is a function of ϕ). Now, in the local frame surrounding one of the bodies in our binary system, while the metric can still be made Minkowskian far away, the scalar field will take on a value ϕ_{0} determined by the companion body. This can affect the value of G_{Local} inside the chosen body, alter its internal structure (specifically its gravitational binding energy) and hence alter its mass. Effectively, each body can be characterized by several mass functions m_{ a } (ϕ), which depend on the value of the scalar field at its location, and several distinct masses come into play, such as inertial mass, gravitational mass, “radiation” mass, etc. The precise nature of the functions will depend on the body, specifically on its gravitational binding energy, and as a result, the motion and gravitational radiation may depend on the internal structure of each body. For compact bodies such as neutron stars and black holes these internal structure effects could be large; for example, the gravitational binding energy of a neutron star can be 10–20 percent of its total mass. At 1PN order, the leading manifestation of this phenomenon is the Nordtvedt effect.
This is how the study of orbiting systems containing compact objects provides strongfield tests of GR. Even though the strongfield nature of the bodies is effaced in GR, it is not in other theories, thus any result in agreement with the predictions of GR constitutes a kind of “null” test of strongfield gravity.
5.2 Motion and gravitational radiation in general relativity: A history
At the most primitive level, the problem of motion in GR is relatively straightforward, and was an integral part of the theory as proposed by Einstein^{3}. The first attempts to treat the motion of multiple bodies, each with a finite mass, were made in the period 1916–1917 by Lorentz and Droste and by de Sitter [260, 124]. They derived the metric and equations of motion for a system of N bodies, in what today would be called the first postNewtonian approximation of GR (de Sitter’s equations turned out to contain some important errors). In 1916, Einstein took the first crack at a study of gravitational radiation, deriving the energy emitted by a body such as a rotating rod or dumbbell, held together by nongravitational forces [143, 144]. He made some unjustified assumptions as well as a trivial numerical error (later corrected by Eddington [141]), but the underlying conclusion that dynamical systems would radiate gravitational waves was correct.
The next significant advance in the problem of motion came 20 years later. In 1938, Einstein, Infeld and Hoffman published the now legendary “EIH” paper, a calculation of the Nbody equations of motion using only the vacuum field equations of GR [145]. They treated each body in the system as a spherically symmetric object whose nearby vacuum exterior geometry approximated that of the Schwarzschild metric of a static spherical star. They then solved the vacuum field equations for the metric between each body in the system in a weak field, slowmotion approximation. Then, using a primitive version of what today would be called “matched asymptotic expansions” they showed that, in order for the nearby metric of each body to match smoothly to the interbody metric at each order in the expansion, certain conditions on the motion of each body had to be met. Together, these conditions turned out to be equivalent to the DrosteLorentz Nbody equations of motion. The internal structure of each body was irrelevant, apart from the requirement that its nearby field be approximately spherically symmetric, a clear illustration of the “effacement” principle.
Around the same time, there occurred an unusual detour in the problem of motion. Using equations of motion based on de Sitter’s paper, specialized to two bodies, LeviCivita [249] showed that the center of mass of a binary star system would suffer an acceleration in the direction of the pericenter of the orbit, in an amount proportional to the difference between the two masses, and to the eccentricity of the orbit. Such an effect would be a violation of the conservation of momentum for isolated systems caused by relativistic gravitational effects. LeviCivita even went so far as to suggest looking for this effect in selected nearby close binary star systems. However, Eddington and Clark [140] quickly pointed out that LeviCivita had based his calculations on de Sitter’s flawed work; when correct twobody equations of motion were used, the effect vanished, and momentum conservation was upheld. Robertson confirmed this using the EIH equations of motion [341]. Such an effect can only occur in theories of gravity that lack the appropriate conservation laws (Section 4.4.3).
There was ongoing confusion over whether gravitational waves are real or are artifacts of general covariance. Although Eddington was credited with making the unfortunate remark that gravitational waves propagate “with the speed of thought”, he did clearly elucidate the difference between the physical, coordinate independent modes and modes that were purely coordinate artifacts [141]. But in 1936, in a paper submitted to the Physical Review, Einstein and Rosen claimed to prove that gravitational waves could not exist; the anonymous referee of their paper found that they had made an error. Upset that the journal had sent his paper to a referee (a newly instituted practice), Einstein refused to publish there again. A corrected paper by Einstein and Rosen showing that gravitational waves did exist — cylindrical waves in this case — was published elsewhere [146]. Fifty years later it was revealed that the anonymous referee was H. P. Robertson [213].
Roughly 20 more years would pass before another major attack on the problem of motion. Fock in the USSR and Chandrasekhar in the US independently developed and systematized the postNewtonian approximation in a form that laid the foundation for modern postNewtonian theory [160, 77]. They developed a full postNewtonian hydrodynamics, with the ability to treat realistic, selfgravitating bodies of fluid, such as stars and planets. In the suitable limit of “point” particles, or bodies whose size is small enough compared to the interbody separations that finitesize effects such as spin and tidal interactions can be ignored, their equations of motion could be shown to be equivalent to the EIH and the DrosteLorentz equations of motion.
The next important period in the history of the problem of motion was 1974–1979, initiated by the 1974 discovery of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 by Hulse and Taylor [196]. Around the same time there occurred the first serious attempt to calculate the headon collision of two black holes using purely numerical solutions of Einstein’s equations, by Smarr and collaborators [368].
The binary pulsar consists of two neutron stars, one an active pulsar detectable by radio telescopes, the other very likely an old, inactive pulsar (Section 6.1). Each neutron star has a mass of around 1.4 solar masses. The orbit of the system was seen immediately to be quite relativistic, with an orbital period of only eight hours, and a mean orbital speed of 200 km/s, some four times faster than Mercury in its orbit. Within weeks of its discovery, numerous authors pointed out that PSR 1913+16 would be an important new testing ground for GR. In particular, it could provide for the first time a test of the effects of the emission of gravitational radiation on the orbit of the system.
However, the discovery revealed an ugly truth about the “problem of motion”. As Ehlers et al. pointed out in an influential 1976 paper [142], the general relativistic problem of motion and radiation was full of holes large enough to drive trucks through. They pointed out that most treatments of the problem used “delta functions” as a way to approximate the bodies in the system as point masses. As a consequence, the “selffield”, the gravitational field of the body evaluated at its own location, becomes infinite. While this is not a major issue in Newtonian gravity or classical electrodynamics, the nonlinear nature of GR requires that this infinite selffield contribute to gravity. In the past, such infinities had been simply swept under the rug. Similarly, because gravitational energy itself produces gravity it thus acts as a source throughout spacetime. This means that, when calculating radiative fields, integrals for the multipole moments of the source that are so useful in treating radiation begin to diverge. These divergent integrals had also been routinely swept under the rug. Ehlers et al. further pointed out that the true boundary condition for any problem involving radiation by an isolated system should be one of “no incoming radiation” from the past. Connecting this boundary condition with the routine use of retarded solutions of wave equations was not a trivial matter in GR. Finally, they pointed out that there was no evidence that the postNewtonian approximation, so central to the problem of motion, was a convergent or even asymptotic sequence. Nor had the approximation been carried out to high enough order to make credible error estimates.
During this time, some authors even argued that the “quadrupole formula” for the gravitational energy emitted by a system (see below), while correct for a rotating dumbell as calculated by Einstein, was actually wrong for a binary system moving under its own gravity. The discovery in 1979 that the rate of decay of the orbit of the binary pulsar was in agreement with the standard quadrupole formula made some of these arguments moot. Yet the question raised by Ehlers et al. was still relevant: is the quadrupole formula for binary systems an actual prediction of GR?
Motivated by the Ehlers et al. critique, numerous workers began to address the holes in the problem of motion, and by the late 1990s most of the criticisms had been answered, particularly those related to divergences. For a detailed history of the ups and downs of the subject of motion and gravitational waves, see [214].
The problem of motion and radiation in GR has received renewed interest since 1990, with proposals for construction of largescale laser interferometric gravitationalwave observatories. These proposals culminated in the construction and operation of LIGO in the US, VIRGO and GEO600 in Europe, and TAMA300 in Japan, the construction of an underground observatory KAGRA in Japan, and the possible construction of a version of LIGO in India. Advanced versions of LIGO and VIRGO are expected to be online and detecting gravitational waves around 2016. An interferometer in space has recently been selected by the European Space Agency for a launch in the 2034 time frame.
A leading candidate source of detectable waves is the inspiral, driven by gravitational radiation damping, of a binary system of compact objects (neutron stars or black holes) (for a review of sources of gravitational waves, see [352]). The analysis of signals from such systems will require theoretical predictions from GR that are extremely accurate, well beyond the leadingorder prediction of Newtonian or even postNewtonian gravity for the orbits, and well beyond the leadingorder formulae for gravitational waves.
This presented a major theoretical challenge: to calculate the motion and radiation of systems of compact objects to very high PN order, a formidable algebraic task, while addressing the issues of principle raised by Ehlers et al., sufficiently well to ensure that the results were physically meaningful. This challenge has been largely met, so that we may soon see a remarkable convergence between observational data and accurate predictions of gravitational theory that could provide new, strongfield tests of GR.
5.3 Compact binary systems in general relativity
5.3.1 Einstein’s equations in “relaxed” form
Here we give a brief overview of the modern approach to the problem of motion and gravitational radiation in GR. For a full pedagogical treatment, see [324].
At the same time, just as in electromagnetism, the formal integral (79) must be handled differently, depending on whether the field point is in the far zone or the near zone. For field points in the far zone or radiation zone, x > \({\mathcal R}\), where \({\mathcal R}\) is a distance of the order of a gravitational wavelength, the field can be expanded in inverse powers of R =x in a multipole expansion, evaluated at the “retarded time” t − R. The leading term in 1/R is the gravitational waveform. For field points in the near zone or induction zone, x ∼ x′ < \({\mathcal R}\), the field is expanded in powers of x − x′ about the local time t, yielding instantaneous potentials that go into the equations of motion.
However, because the source τ^{ αβ } contains h^{ αβ } itself, it is not confined to a compact region, but extends over all spacetime. As a result, there is a danger that the integrals involved in the various expansions will diverge or be illdefined. This consequence of the nonlinearity of Einstein’s equations has bedeviled the subject of gravitational radiation for decades. Numerous approaches have been developed to try to handle this difficulty. The postMinkowskian method of Blanchet, Damour, and Iyer [52, 53, 54, 108, 55, 50] solves Einstein’s equations by two different techniques, one in the near zone and one in the far zone, and uses the method of singular asymptotic matching to join the solutions in an overlap region. The method provides a natural “regularization” technique to control potentially divergent integrals (see [51] for a thorough review). The “Direct Integration of the Relaxed Einstein Equations” (DIRE) approach of Will, Wiseman, and Pati [432, 316, 317] retains Eq. (79) as the global solution, but splits the integration into one over the near zone and another over the far zone, and uses different integration variables to carry out the explicit integrals over the two zones. In the DIRE method, all integrals are finite and convergent. Itoh and Futamase used an extension of the EinsteinInfeldHoffman matching approach combined with a specific method for taking a pointparticle limit [198], while Damour, Jaranowski, and Schafer pioneered an ADM Hamiltonian approach that focuses on the equations of motion [206, 207, 109, 110, 111].
These methods assume from the outset that gravity is sufficiently weak that h^{ αβ } < 1 and harmonic coordinates exists everywhere, including inside the bodies. Thus, in order to apply the results to cases where the bodies may be neutron stars or black holes, one relies upon the SEP to argue that, if tidal forces are ignored, and equations are expressed in terms of masses and spins, one can simply extrapolate the results unchanged to the situation where the bodies are ultrarelativistic. While no general proof of this exists, it has been shown to be valid in specific circumstances, such as through 2PN order in the equations of motion [178, 290], and for black holes moving in a Newtonian background field [100].
Methods such as these have resolved most of the issues that led to criticism of the foundations of gravitational radiation theory during the 1970s.
5.3.2 Equations of motion and gravitational waveform
These formalisms have also been generalized to include the leading effects of spinorbit and spinspin coupling between the bodies as well as many nexttoleadingorder corrections [51].
Another approach to gravitational radiation is applicable to the special limit in which one mass is much smaller than the other. This is the method of black hole perturbation theory. One begins with an exact background spacetime of a black hole, either the nonrotating Schwarzschild or the rotating Kerr solution, and perturbs it according to \({g_{\mu \nu}} = g_{\mu \nu}^{(0)} + {h_{\mu \nu}}\). The particle moves on a geodesic of the background spacetime, and a suitably defined source stressenergy tensor for the particle acts as a source for the gravitational perturbation and wave field h_{ μν }. This method provides numerical results that are exact in υ, as well as analytical results expressed as series in powers of υ, both for nonrotating and for rotating black holes. For nonrotating holes, the analytical expansions have been carried to the impressive level of 22PN order, or ϵ^{22} beyond the quadrupole approximation [168], and for rotating Kerr black holes, to 20PN order [356]. All results of black hole perturbation agree precisely with the m_{1} ⊒ 0 limit of the PN results, up to the highest PN order where they can be compared (for reviews of earlier work see [285, 219, 351]).
5.4 Compact binary systems in scalartensor theories
Because of the recent resurgence of interest in scalartensor theories of gravity, motivated in part by string theory and f (R) theories, considerable work has been done to analyze the motion and gravitational radiation from systems of compact objects in this class of theories. In earlier work, Eardley [139] was the first to point out the existence of dipole gravitational radiation from selfgravitating bodies in BransDicke theory, and Will [415] worked out the lowestorder monopole, dipole and quadrupole radiation flux in general scalartensor theories (as well as in a number of alternative theories) for bodies with weak selfgravity. Using the approach pioneered by Eardley [139] for incorporating strongly selfgravitating bodies into scalartensor calculations, Will and Zaglauer [434] calculated the 1PN equations of motion along with the monopolequadrupole and dipole energy flux for compact binary systems; Alsing et al. [7] extended these results to the case of BransDicke theory with a massive scalar field. However, the expressions for the energy flux in those works were incomplete, because they failed to include some important postNewtonian corrections in the scalar part of the radiation that actually contribute at the same order as the quadrupole contributions from the tensor part. Damour and EspositoFarèse [105] obtained the correct monopolequadrupole and dipole energy flux, working in the Einsteinframe representation of scalartensor theories, and gave partial results for the equations of motion to 2PN order. Mirshekari and Will [286] obtained the complete compactbinary equations of motion in general scalartensor theories through 2.5PN order, and obtained the energy loss rate in complete agreement with the flux result from Damour and EspositoFarèse. Lang [241] obtained the tensor gravitationalwave signal to 2PN order.
Notwithstanding the very tight bound on the scalartensor coupling parameter ω from Cassini measurements in the solar system, this effort is motivated by a desire to test this theory in strongfield situations, whether by binary pulsar observations, or by measurements of gravitational radiation from compact binary inspiral. Here we summarize the key results in a manner that parallels the results for GR.
5.4.1 Scalartensor equations in “relaxed” form
5.4.2 Equations of motion and gravitational waveform
Parameters used in the equations of motion.
Parameter  Definition 

Scalartensor parameters  
ζ  1/(4+ 2ω_{0}) 
λ  (dω/dφ)_{0}ζ_{2}/(1 − ζ)^{2} 
Sensitivities  
s_{ a }  [d In M_{ A }(ϕ)/d In ϕ]_{0} 
s′_{ A }  [d^{2} In M_{ A }(ϕ)/d Inϕ^{2}]_{0} 
Equation of motion parameters  
α  1 − ζ + ζ(1 − 2s_{1})(1 − 2s_{2}) 
\(\bar \gamma\)  −2α^{−1}ζ(1 − 2s_{1})(1 − 2s_{2}) 
\({\bar \beta _1}\)  α^{−2}ζ(1 − 2s_{2})^{2} (λ(1 − 2s_{1}) + 2ζs′_{1}) 
\({\bar \beta_2}\)  α^{−2}ζ(1 − 2s_{1})^{2} (λ(1 − 2s_{2}) + 2ζs′_{2}) 
In the limit of weakly selfgravitating bodies the equations of motion and energy flux (including the dipole term) reduce to the standard results quoted in TEGP [420].
5.4.3 Binary systems containing black holes
Roger Penrose was probably the first to conjecture, in a talk at the 1970 Fifth Texas Symposium, that black holes in BransDicke theory are identical to their GR counterparts [387]. Motivated by this remark, Thorne and Dykla showed that during gravitational collapse to form a black hole, the BransDicke scalar field is radiated away, in accord with Price’s theorem, leaving only its constant asymptotic value, and a GR black hole [387]. Hawking [185] proved on general grounds that stationary, asymptotically flat black holes in vacuum in BD are the black holes of GR. The basic idea is that black holes in vacuum with nonsingular event horizons cannot support scalar “hair”. Hawking’s theorem was extended to the class of f(R) theories that can be transformed into generalized scalartensor theories by Sotiriou and Faraoni [371].
A consequence of these theorems is that, for a stationary black hole, s = 1/2. Another way to see this is to note that, because all information about the matter that formed the black hole has vanished behind the event horizon, the only scale on which the mass of the hole can depend is the Planck scale, and thus M ∝ M_{Planck} ∝ G^{−1/2} ∝ ϕ^{1/2}. Hence s = 1/2.
If both bodies in the binary system are black holes, then setting s_{ a } = 1/2 for each body, all the parameters \(\bar \gamma, {\bar \beta _A}\) and \({{\mathcal S}_ \pm}\) vanish identically, and α = 1 − ζ. But since α appears only in the combination with αm, a simple rescaling of each mass puts all equations into complete agreement with those of GR. This is also true for the 2PN terms in the equations of motion [286]. Thus, in the class of scalartensor theories discussed here, binary black holes are observationally indistinguishable from their GR counterparts, at least to high orders in a PN approximation. It has also been shown, in the extreme massratio limit to first order in the small mass, but to all PN orders, that binary black holes do not emit dipole gravitational radiation [450].
It should be pointed out that there are ways to induce scalar hair on a black hole. One is to introduce a potential V(ϕ), which, depending on its form, can help to support a nontrivial scalar field outside a black hole. Another is to introduce matter. A companion neutron star is an obvious choice, and such a binary system in scalartensor theory is clearly different from its general relativistic counterpart. Another possibility is a distribution of cosmological matter that can support a timevarying scalar field at infinity. This possibility has been called “Jacobson’s miracle hairgrowth formula” for black holes, based on work by Jacobson [202, 191].
6 Stellar System Tests of Gravitational Theory
6.1 The binary pulsar and general relativity
Parameter  Symbol (units)  Value 

(i) Astrometric and spin parameters:  
Right Ascension  α  19^{h}15^{m} 27.^{s}99928(9) 
Declination  δ  16°06′27.″3871(13) 
Pulsar period  P_{p} (ms)  59.0299983444181(5) 
Derivative of period  Ṗ _{p}  8.62713(8) × 10^{−18} 
(ii) “Keplerian” parameters:  
Projected semimajor axis  a_{p} sin i (s)  2.341782(3) 
Eccentricity  e  0.6171334(5) 
Orbital period  P_{b} (day)  0.322997448911(4) 
Longitude of periastron  ω_{0} (°)  292.54472(6) 
Julian date of periastron  T_{0} (MJD)  52144.90097841(4) 
(iii) “PostKeplerian” parameters:  
Mean rate of periastron advance  \(\langle \dot \omega \rangle \;{(\circ}{\rm{y}}{{\rm{r}}^{ 1}})\)  4.226598(5) 
Redshift/time dilation  γ′ (ms)  4.2992(8) 
Orbital period derivative  Ṗ_{b} (10^{−12})  −2.423(1) 
The system consists of a pulsar of nominal period 59 ms in a close binary orbit with an unseen companion. The orbital period is about 7.75 hours, and the eccentricity is 0.617. From detailed analyses of the arrival times of pulses (which amounts to an integrated version of the Dopplershift methods used in spectroscopic binary systems), extremely accurate orbital and physical parameters for the system have been obtained (see Table 7). Because the orbit is so close (≈ R_{⊙}) and because there is no evidence of an eclipse of the pulsar signal or of mass transfer from the companion, it is generally agreed that the companion is compact. Evolutionary arguments suggest that it is most likely a dead pulsar, while B1913+16 is a “recycled” pulsar. Thus the orbital motion is very clean, free from tidal or other complicating effects. Furthermore, the data acquisition is “clean” in the sense that by exploiting the intrinsic stability of the pulsar clock combined with the ability to maintain and transfer atomic time accurately using GPS, the observers can keep track of pulse timeofarrival with an accuracy of 13 _{ μs }, despite extended gaps between observing sessions (including a severalyear gap in the middle 1990s for an upgrade of the Arecibo radio telescope). The pulsar has experienced only one small “glitch” in its pulse period, in May 2003.
Three factors made this system an arena where relativistic celestial mechanics must be used: the relatively large size of relativistic effects [υ_{orbit} ≈ (m/r)^{1/2} ≈ 10^{−3}], a factor of 10 larger than the corresponding values for solarsystem orbits; the short orbital period, allowing secular effects to build up rapidly; and the cleanliness of the system, allowing accurate determinations of small effects. Because the orbital separation is large compared to the neutron stars’ compact size, tidal effects can be ignored. Just as Newtonian gravity is used as a tool for measuring astrophysical parameters of ordinary binary systems, so GR is used as a tool for measuring astrophysical parameters in the binary pulsar.
 1.
nonorbital parameters, such as the pulsar period and its rate of change (defined at a given epoch), and the position of the pulsar on the sky;
 2.
five “Keplerian” parameters, most closely related to those appropriate for standard Newtonian binary systems, such as the eccentricity e, the orbital period P_{b}, and the semimajor axis of the pulsar projected along the line of sight, a_{p} sin i; and
 3.
five “postKeplerian” parameters.
Because f_{b} and e are separately measured parameters, the measurement of the three postKeplerian parameters provides three constraints on the two unknown masses. The periastron shift measures the total mass of the system, Ṗ_{b} measures the chirp mass, and γ′ measures a complicated function of the masses. GR passes the test if it provides a consistent solution to these constraints, within the measurement errors.
The consistency among the constraints provides a test of the assumption that the two bodies behave as “point” masses, without complicated tidal effects, obeying the general relativistic equations of motion including gravitational radiation. It is also a test of strong gravity, in that the highly relativistic internal structure of the neutron stars does not influence their orbital motion, as predicted by the SEP of GR.
Observations [231, 410] indicate that the pulse profile is varying with time, which suggests that the pulsar is undergoing geodetic precession on a 300year timescale as it moves through the curved spacetime generated by its companion (see Section 4.4.2). The amount is consistent with GR, assuming that the pulsar’s spin is suitably misaligned with the orbital angular momentum. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that the pulsar beam may precess out of our line of sight by 2025.
6.2 A zoo of binary pulsars
More than 70 binary neutron star systems with orbital periods less than a day are now known. While some are less interesting for testing relativity, some have yielded interesting tests, and others, notably the recently discovered “double pulsar” are likely to continue to produce significant results well into the future. Here we describe some of the more interesting or best studied cases;
6.2.1 The “double” pulsar: J07373039A, B
Parameters of other binary pulsars. References may be found in the text. Values for orbit period derivatives include corrections for galactic kinematic effects
Parameter  J07373039(A, B)  J1738+0333  J11416545 

(i) Keplerian:  
a_{p} sin i (s)  1.415032(1)/1.516(2)  0.34342913(2)  1.858922(6) 
e  0.0877775(9)  (3.4 ± 1.1) × 10^{−}^{7}  0.171884(2) 
P_{b} (day)  0.10225156248(5)  0.354790739872(1)  0.1976509593(1) 
(ii) PostKeplerian:  
\(\langle \dot \omega \rangle \;(^\circ {\rm{y}}{{\rm{r}}^{ 1}})\)  16.8995(7)  5.3096(4)  
γ′ (ms)  0.386(3)  0.77(1)  
Ṗ (10^{−12})  −1.25(2)  −0.026(3)  −0.401(25) 
r (μs)  6.2(3)  
s = sin i  0.9997(4) 
6.2.2 J1738+0333: A whitedwarf companion
This is a loweccentricity, 8.5hour period system in which the whitedwarf companion is bright enough to permit detailed spectroscopy, allowing the companion mass to be determined directly to be 0.181 M_{ ⊙ }. The mass ratio is determined from Doppler shifts of the spectral lines of the companion and of the pulsar period, giving the pulsar mass 1.46 M_{ ⊙ }. Ten years of observation of the system yielded both a measurement of the apparent orbital period decay, and enough information about its parallax and proper motion to account for the substantial kinematic effect to give a value of the intrinsic period decay of Ṗ_{b} = (−25.9 ± 3.2) × 10^{−15} s s^{−1} in agreement with the predicted effect [164]. But because of the asymmetry of the system, the result also places a significant bound on the existence of dipole radiation, predicted by many alternative theories of gravity (see Section 6.3 below for discussion). Data from this system were also used to place the tight bound on the PPN parameter α_{1} shown in Table 4.
6.2.3 J11416545: A whitedwarf companion.
This system is similar in some ways to the HulseTaylor binary: short orbital period (0.20 days), significant orbital eccentricity (0.172), rapid periastron advance (5.3 degrees per year) and massive components (M_{ p } = 1.27 ± 0.01 M_{ ⊙ }, M_{ c } = 1.02 ± 0.01 M_{ ⊙ }). The key difference is that the companion is again a white dwarf. The intrinsic orbit period decay has been measured in agreement with GR to about six percent, again placing limits on dipole gravitational radiation [46].
6.2.4 J0348+0432: The most massive neutron star
Discovered in 2011 [264, 19], this is another neutronstar whitedwarf system, in a very short period (0.1 day), low eccentricity (2 × 10^{−6}) orbit. Timing of the neutron star and spectroscopy of the white dwarf have led to mass values of 0.172 M_{ ⊙ } for the white dwarf and 2.01 ± 0.04 M_{ ⊙ } for the pulsar, making it the most massive accurately measured neutron star yet. This supported an earlier discovery of a 2 M_{ ⊙ } pulsar [127]; such large masses rule out a number of heretofore viable soft equations of state for nuclear matter. The orbit period decay agrees with the GR prediction within 20 percent and is expected to improve steadily with time.
6.2.5 J0337+1715: Two whitedwarf companions.
This remarkable system was reported in 2014 [332]. It consists of a 2.73 millisecond pulsar (M = 1.44M_{ ⊙ }) with extremely good timing precision, accompanied by two white dwarfs in coplanar circular orbits. The inner white dwarf (M = 0.1975 M_{ ⊙ }) has an orbital period of 1.629 days, with e = 6.918 × 10^{−4}, and the outer white dwarf (M = 0.41 M_{ ⊙ }) has a period of 327.26 days, with e = 3.536 × 10^{−2}. This is an ideal system for testing the Nordtvedt effect in the strongfield regime. Here the inner system is the analogue of the EarthMoon system, and the outer white dwarf plays the role of the Sun. Because the outer semimajor axis is about 1/3 of an astronomical unit, the basic driving perturbation is comparable to that provided by the Sun. However, the selfgravitational binding energy per unit mass of the neutron star is almost a billion times larger than that of the Earth, greatly amplifying the size of the Nordtvedt effect. Depending on the details, this system could exceed lunar laser ranging in testing the Nordtvedt effect by several orders of magnitude.
6.2.6 Other binary pulsars.
Two of the earliest binary pulsars, B1534+12 and B2127+11C, discovered in 1990, failed to live up to their early promise despite being similar to the HulseTaylor system in most respects (both were believed to be double neutronstar systems). The main reason was the significant uncertainty in the kinematic effect on Ṗ_{b} of local accelerations, galactic in the case of B1534+12, and those arising from the globular cluster that was home to B2127+11C.
6.3 Binary pulsars and alternative theories
Soon after the discovery of the binary pulsar it was widely hailed as a new testing ground for relativistic gravitational effects. As we have seen in the case of GR, in most respects, the system has lived up to, indeed exceeded, the early expectations.
On the other hand, the early observations of PSR 1913+16 already indicated that, in GR, the masses of the two bodies were nearly equal, so that, in theories of gravity that are in some sense “close” to GR, dipole gravitational radiation would not be a strong effect, because of the apparent symmetry of the system. The Rosen theory, and others like it, are not “close” to GR, except in their predictions for the weakfield, slowmotion regime of the solar system. When relativistic neutron stars are present, theories like these can predict strong effects on the motion of the bodies resulting from their internal highly relativistic gravitational structure (violations of SEP). As a consequence, the masses inferred from observations of the periastron shift and γ′ may be significantly different from those inferred using GR, and may be different from each other, leading to strong dipole gravitational radiation damping. By contrast, the BransDicke theory is “close” to GR, roughly speaking within 1/ω_{bd} of the predictions of the latter, for large values of the coupling constant ω_{bd}. Thus, despite the presence of dipole gravitational radiation, the HulseTaylor binary pulsar provides at present only a weak test of pure BransDicke theory, not competitive with solarsystem tests.
However, the discovery of binary pulsar systems with a white dwarf companion, such as J1738+0333, J11416545 and J0348+0432 has made it possible to perform strong tests of the existence of dipole radiation. This is because such systems are necessarily asymmetrical, since the gravitational binding energy per unit mass of white dwarfs is of order 10^{−4}, much less than that of the neutron star. Already, significant bounds have been placed on dipole radiation using J1738+0333 and J11416545 [164, 46].
Because the gravitationalradiation and strongfield properties of alternative theories of gravity can be dramatically different from those of GR and each other, it is difficult to parametrize these aspects of the theories in the manner of the PPN framework. In addition, because of the generic violation of the strong equivalence principle in these theories, the results can be very sensitive to the equation of state and mass of the neutron star(s) in the system. In the end, there is no way around having to analyze every theory in turn. On the other hand, because of their relative simplicity, scalartensor theories provide an illustration of the essential effects, and so we shall discuss binary pulsars within this class of theories.
6.4 Binary pulsars and scalartensor gravity
On the other hand, a binary pulsar system with dissimilar objects, such as a white dwarf or black hole companion, provides potentially more promising tests of dipole radiation. As a result, the neutronstarwhitedwarf systems J11416545 and J1738+0333 yield much more stringent bounds. Indeed, the latter system surpasses the Cassini bound for β_{0} > 1 and β_{0} < −2, and is close to that bound for the pure BransDicke case β_{0} = 0 [164].
Bounds on various versions of TeVeS theories have also been established, with the tightest constraints again coming from neutronstarwhitedwarf binaries [164]; in the case of TeVeS, the theory naturally predicts = 1 in the postNewtonian limit, so the Cassini measurements are irrelevant here. Strong constraints on the EinsteinÆther and Khronometric theories have also been placed using binary pulsar measurements, exploiting both gravitationalwave damping data, and data related to preferredframe effects [443, 442].
7 GravitationalWave Tests of Gravitational Theory
7.1 Gravitationalwave observatories
Soon after the publication of this update, a new method of testing relativistic gravity will be realized, when a worldwide network of upgraded laser interferometric gravitationalwave observatories in the U.S. (LIGO Hanford and LIGO Livingston) and Europe (VIRGO and GEO600) begins regular detection and analysis of gravitationalwave signals from astrophysical sources. Within a few years, they may be joined by an underground cryogenic interferometer (KAGRA) in Japan, and around 2022, by a LIGOtype interferometer in India. These broadband antennas will have the capability of detecting and measuring the gravitational waveforms from astronomical sources in a frequency band between about 10 Hz (the seismic noise cutoff) and 500 Hz (the photon counting noise cutoff), with a maximum sensitivity to strain at around 100 Hz of h ∼ ∇l/l ∼ 10^{−22} (rms), for the kilometerscale LIGO/VIRGO projects. The most promising source for detection and study of the gravitational wave signal is the “inspiralling compact binary” — a binary system of neutron stars or black holes (or one of each) in the final minutes of a death spiral leading to a violent merger. Such is the fate, for example, of the HulseTaylor binary pulsar B1913+16 in about 300 Myr, or the double pulsar J07373039 in about 85 Myr. Given the expected sensitivity of the advanced LIGOVirgo detectors, which could see such sources out to many hundreds of megaparsecs, it has been estimated that from 40 to several hundred annual inspiral events could be detectable. Other sources, such as supernova core collapse events, instabilities in rapidly rotating newborn neutron stars, signals from nonaxisymmetric pulsars, and a stochastic background of waves, may be detectable (see [352] for a review).
In addition, plans are being developed for orbiting laser interferometer space antennae, such as DECIGO in Japan and eLISA in Europe. The eLISA system would consist of three spacecraft orbiting the sun in a triangular formation separated from each other by a million kilometers, and would be sensitive primarily in the very lowfrequency band between 10^{−4} and 10^{−1} Hz, with peak strain sensitivity of order h ∼ 10^{−23}.
A third approach that focuses on the ultra lowfrequency band (nanohertz) is that of Pulsar Timing Arrays (PTA), whereby a network of highly stable millisecond pulsars is monitored in a coherent way using radio telescopes, in hopes of detecting the fluctuations in arrival times induced by passing gravitational waves.
For recent reviews of the status of all these approaches to gravitationalwave detection, see the Proceedings of the 8th Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves [272].
In addition to opening a new astronomical window, the detailed observation of gravitational waves by such observatories may provide the means to test general relativistic predictions for the polarization and speed of the waves, for gravitational radiation damping and for strongfield gravity. These topics have been thoroughly covered in two recent Living Reviews by Gair et al. [170] for spacebased detectors, and by Yunes and Siemens [452] for groundbased detectors. Here we present a brief overview.
7.2 Gravitationalwave amplitude and polarization
7.2.1 General relativity
7.2.2 Alternative theories of gravity
More general metric theories predict additional longitudinal modes, up to the full complement of six (TEGP 10.2 [420]). For example, EinsteinÆther theory generically predicts all six modes [205].
A suitable array of gravitational antennas could delineate or limit the number of modes present in a given wave. The strategy depends on whether or not the source direction is known. In general there are eight unknowns (six polarizations and two direction cosines), but only six measurables \(({R_{0i0j}})\). If the direction can be established by either association of the waves with optical or other observations, or by timeofflight measurements between separated detectors, then six suitably oriented detectors suffice to determine all six components. If the direction cannot be established, then the system is underdetermined, and no unique solution can be found. However, if one assumes that only transverse waves are present, then there are only three unknowns if the source direction is known, or five unknowns otherwise. Then the corresponding number (three or five) of detectors can determine the polarization. If distinct evidence were found of any mode other than the two transverse quadrupolar modes of GR, the result would be disastrous for GR. On the other hand, the absence of a breathing mode would not necessarily rule out scalartensor gravity, because the strength of that mode depends on the nature of the source.
Some of the details of implementing such polarization observations have been worked out for arrays of resonant cylindrical, diskshaped, spherical, and truncated icosahedral detectors (TEGP 10.2 [420], for recent reviews see [256, 403]). Early work to assess whether the groundbased or spacebased laser interferometers (or combinations of the two types) could perform interesting polarization measurements was carried out in [404, 70, 267, 171, 411]; for a recent detailed analysis see [301]. Unfortunately for this purpose, the two LIGO observatories (in Washington and Louisiana states, respectively) have been constructed to have their respective arms as parallel as possible, apart from the curvature of the Earth; while this maximizes the joint sensitivity of the two detectors to gravitational waves, it minimizes their ability to detect two modes of polarization. In this regard the addition of Virgo, and the future KAGRA and LIGOIndia systems will be crucial to polarization measurements. By combining signals from various interferometers into a kind of “null channel” one can test for the existence of modes beyond the + and × modes in a model independent manner [78]. The capability of spacebased interferometers to measure the polarization modes was assessed in detail in [388, 302]. For pulsar timing arrays, see [245, 14, 74].
7.3 Gravitationalwave phase evolution
7.3.1 General relativity
In the binary pulsar, a test of GR was made possible by measuring at least three relativistic effects that depended upon only two unknown masses. The evolution of the orbital phase under the damping effect of gravitational radiation played a crucial role. Another situation in which measurement of orbital phase can lead to tests of GR is that of the inspiralling compact binary system. The key differences are that here gravitational radiation itself is the detected signal, rather than radio pulses, and the phase evolution alone carries all the information. In the binary pulsar, the first derivative of the binary frequency ḟ_{b} was measured; here the full nonlinear variation of f_{b} as a function of time is measured.
Broadband laser interferometers are especially sensitive to the phase evolution of the gravitational waves, which carry the information about the orbital phase evolution. The analysis of gravitational wave data from such sources will involve some form of matched filtering of the noisy detector output against an ensemble of theoretical “template” waveforms which depend on the intrinsic parameters of the inspiralling binary, such as the component masses, spins, and so on, and on its inspiral evolution. How accurate must a template be in order to “match” the waveform from a given source (where by a match we mean maximizing the crosscorrelation or the signaltonoise ratio)? In the total accumulated phase of the wave detected in the sensitive bandwidth, the template must match the signal to a fraction of a cycle. For two inspiralling neutron stars detected by the advanced LIGO/Virgo systems, around 16 000 cycles should be detected during the final few minutes of inspiral; this implies a phasing accuracy of 10^{−5} or better. Since v ∼ 1/10 during the late inspiral, this means that correction terms in the phasing at the level of v^{5} or higher are needed. More formal analyses confirm this intuition [99, 153, 97, 323].
Because it is a slowmotion system (v ∼ 10^{−3}), the binary pulsar is sensitive only to the lowestorder effects of gravitational radiation as predicted by the quadrupole formula. Nevertheless, the first correction terms of order v and v^{2} to the quadrupole formula were calculated as early as 1976 [405] (see TEGP 10.3 [420]).
But for laser interferometric observations of gravitational waves, the bottom line is that, in order to measure the astrophysical parameters of the source and to test the properties of the gravitational waves, it is necessary to derive the gravitational waveform and the resulting radiation backreaction on the orbit phasing at least to 3PN order beyond the quadrupole approximation.
Similar expressions can be derived for the loss of angular momentum and linear momentum. Expressions for noncircular orbits have also been derived [175, 107]. These losses react back on the orbit to circularize it and cause it to inspiral. The result is that the orbital phase (and consequently the gravitational wave phase) evolves nonlinearly with time. It is the sensitivity of the broadband laser interferometric detectors to phase that makes the higherorder contributions to df/dt so observationally relevant.
If the coefficients of each of the powers of f in Eq. (135) can be measured, then one again obtains more than two constraints on the two unknowns m_{1} and m_{2}, leading to the possibility to test GR. For example, Blanchet and Sathyaprakash [59, 60] have shown that, by observing a source with a sufficiently strong signal, an interesting test of the 4π coefficient of the “tail” term could be performed (but see [22] for a more sophisticated analysis).
Another possibility involves gravitational waves from a small mass orbiting and inspiralling into a (possibly supermassive) spinning black hole. A general noncircular, nonequatorial orbit will precess around the hole, both in periastron and in orbital plane, leading to a complex gravitational waveform that carries information about the nonspherical, strongfield spacetime around the hole. According to GR, this spacetime must be the Kerr spacetime of a rotating black hole, uniquely specified by its mass and angular momentum, and consequently, observation of the waves could test this fundamental hypothesis of GR [345, 322].
7.3.2 Alternative theories of gravity
These considerations suggest that it might be fruitful to attempt to parametrize the phasing formulae in a manner reminiscent of the PPN framework for postNewtonian gravity. A number of approaches along this line have been developed, including the parametrized postEinsteinian (PPE) framework [451, 347], a Bayesian parametrized approach [250], and a parametrization based on the postNewtonian expansions discussed above [288]. The discovery of relationships between the moment of inertia, the gravitational Love number, and the quadrupole moment of neutron stars (“ILoveQ” relations) in general relativity has opened the possibility of testing theories using gravitational waves in a manner that is relatively free of contamination from the neutronstar equation of state [448, 447].
7.4 Speed of gravitational waves
According to GR, in the limit in which the wavelength of gravitational waves is small compared to the radius of curvature of the background spacetime, the waves propagate along null geodesics of the background spacetime, i.e., they have the same speed c as light (in this section, we do not set c =1). In other theories, the speed could differ from c because of coupling of gravitation to “background” gravitational fields. For example, in the Rosen bimetric theory with a flat background metric η, gravitational waves follow null geodesics of η, while light follows null geodesics of g (TEGP 10.1 [420]).
The foregoing discussion assumes that the source emits both gravitational and electromagnetic radiation in detectable amounts, and that the relative time of emission can be established to sufficient accuracy, or can be shown to be sufficiently small.
However, there is a situation in which a bound on the graviton mass can be set using gravitational radiation alone [423]. That is the case of the inspiralling compact binary. Because the frequency of the gravitational radiation sweeps from low frequency at the initial moment of observation to higher frequency at the final moment, the speed of the gravitons emitted will vary, from lower speeds initially to higher speeds (closer to c) at the end. This will cause a distortion of the observed phasing of the waves and result in a shorter than expected overall time Δt_{a} of passage of a given number of cycles. Furthermore, through the technique of matched filtering, the parameters of the compact binary can be measured accurately (assuming that GR is a good approximation to the orbital evolution, even in the presence of a massive graviton), and thereby the emission time Δt_{e} can be determined accurately. Roughly speaking, the “phase interval” fΔt in Eq. (139) can be measured to an accuracy 1/ρ, where ρ is the signaltonoise ratio.
Thus one can estimate the bounds on Δ_{g} achievable for various compact inspiral systems, and for various detectors. For stellarmass inspiral (neutron stars or black holes) observed by the LIGO/VIRGO class of groundbased interferometers, D ≈ 200 Mpc, f ≈ 100 Hz, and fΔt ∼ ρ^{−1} ≈ 1/10. The result is λ_{g} > 10^{13} km. For supermassive binary black holes (10^{4} to 10^{7} M_{⊙}) observed by the proposed laser interferometer space antenna (LISA), D ≈ 3 Gpc, f ≈ 10^{−3} Hz, and f Δt ∼ ρ^{−1} ≈ 1/1000. The result is λ_{g} > 10^{17} km.
A full noise analysis using proposed noise curves for the advanced LIGO and for LISA weakens these crude bounds by factors between two and 10 [423, 433, 41, 42, 23, 377, 445]. For example, for the inspiral of two 10^{6} M_{⊙} black holes with aligned spins at a distance of 3 Gpc observed by LISA, a bound of 2 × 10^{16} km could be placed [41]. Other possibilities include using binary pulsar data to bound modifications of gravitational radiation damping by a massive graviton [154], using LISA observations of the phasing of waves from compact whitedwarf binaries, eccentric galactic binaries, and eccentric inspiral binaries [98, 209], using pulsar timing arrays [244], and using DECIGO/BBO to observe neutronstar intermediatemass blackhole inspirals [446].
8 Astrophysical and Cosmological Tests
One of the central difficulties of testing GR in the strongfield regime is the possibility of contamination by uncertain or complex physics. In the solar system, weakfield gravitational effects can in most cases be measured cleanly and separately from nongravitational effects. The remarkable cleanliness of many binary pulsars permits precise measurements of gravitational phenomena in a strongfield context.
Unfortunately, nature is rarely so kind. Still, under suitable conditions, qualitative and even quantitative strongfield tests of GR could be carried out.
One example is the exploration of the spacetime near black holes and neutron stars. Studies of certain kinds of accretion known as advectiondominated accretion flow (ADAF) in lowluminosity binary Xray sources may yield the signature of the black hole event horizon [299]. The spectrum of frequencies of quasiperiodic oscillations (QPO) from galactic black hole binaries may permit measurement of the spins of the black holes [327]. Aspects of strongfield gravity and framedragging may be revealed in spectral shapes of iron fluorescence lines from the inner regions of accretion disks [336, 337]. Using submm VLBI, a collaboration dubbed the Event Horizon Telescope could image our galactic center black hole Sgr A* and the black hole in M87 with horizonscale angular resolution; observation of accretion phenomena at these angular resolutions could provide tests of the spacetime geometry very close to the black hole [133]. Tracking of hypothetical stars whose orbits are within a fraction of a milliparsec of Sgr A* could test the black hole “hohair” theorem, via a direct measurement of both the angular momentum J and quadrupole moment Q of the black hole, and a test of the requirement that Q = −J^{2}/M [427]. Such tests could also be carried out using pulsars, if any should be found deep in the galactic center [255].
Because of uncertainties in the detailed models, the results to date of studies like these are suggestive at best, but the combination of future higherresolution observations and better modelling could lead to striking tests of strongfield predictions of GR.
For a detailed review of strongfield tests of GR using electromagnetic observations, see [328].
Another example is in cosmology. From a few seconds after the Big Bang until the present, the underlying physics of the universe is well understood, in terms of a standard model of a nearly spatially flat universe, 13.6 Gyr old, dominated by cold dark matter and dark energy (ΛCDM). Some alternative theories of gravity that are qualitatively different from GR fail to produce cosmologies that meet even the minimum requirements of agreeing qualitatively with BigBang nucleosynthesis (BBN) or the properties of the cosmic microwave background (TEGP 13.2 [420]). Others, such as BransDicke theory, are sufficiently close to GR (for large enough ω_{BD}) that they conform to all cosmological observations, given the underlying uncertainties. The generalized scalartensor theories and f(R) theories, however, could have small effective ω at early times, while evolving through the attractor mechanism to large ω today.
One way to test such theories is through BigBang nucleosynthesis, since the abundances of the light elements produced when the temperature of the universe was about 1 MeV are sensitive to the rate of expansion at that epoch, which in turn depends on the strength of interaction between geometry and the scalar field. Because the universe is radiationdominated at that epoch, uncertainties in the amount of cold dark matter or of the cosmological constant are unimportant. The nuclear reaction rates are reasonably well understood from laboratory experiments and theory, and the number of light neutrino families (3) conforms to evidence from particle accelerators. Thus, within modest uncertainties, one can assess the quantitative difference between the BBN predictions of GR and scalartensor gravity under strongfield conditions and compare with observations. For recent analyses, see [350, 116, 89, 90].
In addition, many alternative theories, such as f(R) theories have been developed in order to provide an alternative to the dark energy of the standard ΛCDM model, in particular by modifying gravity on large, cosmological scales, while preserving the conventional solar and stellar system phenomenology of GR. Since we are now in a period of what may be called “precision cosmology”, one can begin to envision trying to test alternative theories using the accumulation of data on many fronts, including the growth of large scale structure, cosmic background fluctuations, galactic rotation curves, BBN, weak lensing, baryon acoustic oscillations, etc. The “parametrized postFriedmann” framework is one initial foray into this arena [30]. Other approaches can be found in [15, 121, 135, 134, 454, 189].
9 Conclusions
General relativity has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny. The question then arises, why bother to continue to test it? One reason is that gravity is a fundamental interaction of nature, and as such requires the most solid empirical underpinning we can provide. Another is that all attempts to quantize gravity and to unify it with the other forces suggest that the standard general relativity of Einstein may not be the last word. Furthermore, the predictions of general relativity are fixed; the pure theory contains no adjustable constants so nothing can be changed. Thus every test of the theory is either a potentially deadly test or a possible probe for new physics. Although it is remarkable that this theory, born 100 years ago out of almost pure thought, has managed to survive every test, the possibility of finding a discrepancy will continue to drive experiments for years to come. These experiments will search for new physics beyond Einstein at many different scales: the large distance scales of the astrophysical, galactic, and cosmological realms; scales of very short distances or high energy; and scales related to strong or dynamical gravity.
Footnotes
Notes
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported since the initial version in part by the National Science Foundation, Grant Numbers PHY 9600049, 0096522, 0353180, 0652448, 0965133, 1260995 and 1306069, and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Grant Numbers NAG510186 and NNG06GI60G. We also gratefully acknowledge the continuing hospitality of the Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, where portions of this update were completed. We thank Luc Blanchet for helpful comments, and Michael Kramer and Norbert Wex for providing useful figures. We are particularly grateful to Norbert Wex and Nicolás Yunes for detailed and comprehensive comments.
References
 [1]Adelberger, E. G., “New tests of Einstein’s equivalence principle and Newton’s inversesquare law”, Class. Quantum Grav., 18, 2397–2405, (2001). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 11 and 48.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [2]Adelberger, E. G., Heckel, B. R., Hoedl, S., Hoyle, C. D., Kapner, D. J. and Upadhye, A., “ParticlePhysics Implications of a Recent Test of the Gravitational InverseSquare Law”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 131104 (2007). [DOI], [ADS], [hepph/0611223]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [3]Adelberger, E. G., Heckel, B. R. and Nelson, A. E., “Tests of the Gravitational InverseSquare Law”, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 53, 77–121, (2003). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:hepph/0307284 [hepph]]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [4]Adelberger, E. G., Heckel, B. R., Stubbs, C. W. and Rogers, W. F., “Searches for New Macroscopic Forces”, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Sci., 41, 269–320, (1991). [DOI]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [5]Alexander, S. and Yunes, N., “ChernSimons modified general relativity”, Phys. Rep., 480, 1–55, (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0907.2562 [hepth]]. (Cited on page 41.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [6]AliHaïmoud, Y. and Chen, Y., “Slowly rotating stars and black holes in dynamical ChernSimons gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 124033 (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1110.5329 [astroph.HE]]. (Cited on page 41.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [7]Alsing, J., Berti, E., Will, C. M. and Zaglauer, H., “Gravitational radiation from compact binary systems in the massive BransDicke theory of gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 064041 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1112.4903 [grqc]]. (Cited on pages 62 and 66.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [8]Alväger, T., Farley, F. J. M., Kjellman, J. and Wallin, I., “Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region”, Phys. Lett., 12, 260–262, (1977). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [9]Alvarez, C. and Mann, R. B., “The equivalence principle and anomalous magnetic moment experiments”, Phys. Rev. D, 54, 7097–7107, (1996). [DOI], [grqc/9511028]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [10]Alvarez, C. and Mann, R. B., “Testing the equivalence principle by Lamb shift energies”, Phys. Rev. D, 54, 5954–5974, (1996). [DOI], [grqc/9507040]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [11]Alvarez, C. and Mann, R. B., “The equivalence principle and g − 2 experiments”, Phys. Lett. B, 409, 83–87, (1997). [DOI], [grqc/9510070]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [12]Alvarez, C. and Mann, R. B., “The equivalence principle in the nonbaryonic regime”, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 1732–1740, (1997). [DOI], [grqc/9609039]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [13]Alvarez, C. and Mann, R. B., “Testing the equivalence principle using atomic vacuum energy shifts”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 11, 1757–1763, (1997). [grqc/9612031]. (Cited on page 22.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [14]Alves, M. E. S. and Tinto, M., “Pulsar timing sensitivities to gravitational waves from relativistic metric theories of gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 123529 (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1102.4824 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 83.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [15]Amin, M. A., Wagoner, R. V. and Blandford, R. D., “A subhorizon framework for probing the relationship between the cosmological matter distribution and metric perturbations”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 390, 131–142, (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0708.1793]. (Cited on page 88.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [16]Anderson, J. D., Laing, P. A., Lau, E. L., Liu, A. S., Nieto, M. M. and Turyshev, S. G., “Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, LongRange Acceleration”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 2858–2861, (1998). [DOI], [ADS], [grqc/9808081]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [17]Antia, H. M., Chitre, S. M. and Gough, D. O., “Temporal variations in the Sun’s rotational kinetic energy”, Astron. Astrophys., 477, 657–663, (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0711.0799]. (Cited on page 47.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [18]Antoniadis, I., ArkaniHamed, N., Dimopoulos, S. and Dvali, G., “New dimensions at a millimeter to a fermi and superstrings at a TeV”, Phys. Lett. B, 436, 257–263, (1998). [DOI], [hepph/9804398]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [19]Antoniadis, J. et al., “A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary”, Science, 340, 448 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1304.6875 [astroph.HE]]. (Cited on page 73.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [20]Antonini, P., Okhapkin, M., Göklü, E. and Schiller, S., “Test of constancy of speed of light with rotating cryogenic optical resonators”, Phys. Rev. A, 71, 050101 (2005). [grqc/0504109]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [21]ArkaniHamed, N., Dimopoulos, S. and Dvali, G. R., “The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter”, Phys. Lett. B, 429, 263–272, (1998). [DOI], [arXiv:hepph/9803315]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [22]Arun, K. G., Iyer, B. R., Qusailah, M. S. S. and Sathyaprakash, B. S., “Probing the nonlinear structure of general relativity with black hole binaries”, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 024006 (2006). [DOI], [ADS], [grqc/0604067]. (Cited on page 84.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [23]Arun, K. G. and Will, C. M., “Bounding the mass of the graviton with gravitational waves: effect of higher harmonics in gravitational waveform templates”, Class. Quantum Grav., 26, 155002 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0904.1190 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 86.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [24]Asada, H., “The light cone effect on the Shapiro time delay”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 574, L69–L70 (2002). [DOI], [astroph/0206266]. (Cited on page 45.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [25]Ashby, N., “Relativistic effects in the Global Positioning System”, in Dadhich, N. and Narlikar, J. V., eds., Gravitation and Relativity: At the Turn of the Millenium, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation (GR15), held at IUCAA, Pune, India, December 16–21, 1997, pp. 231–258, (InterUniversity Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune, India, 1998). (Cited on page 17.)Google Scholar
 [26]Ashby, N., “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”, Living Rev. Relativity, 6, lrr20031 (2003). [DOI]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20031. (Cited on page 17.)
 [27]Ashby, N., Bender, P. L. and Wahr, J. M., “Future gravitational physics tests from ranging to the BepiColombo Mercury planetary orbiter”, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 022001 (2007). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 54.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [28]“ATNF Pulsar Catalogue”, web interface to database, Australia Telescope National Facility. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat/. (Cited on page 68.)
 [29]Baeßler, S., Heckel, B. R., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., Schmidt, U. and Swanson, H. E., “Improved Test of the Equivalence Principle for Gravitational SelfEnergy”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 3585–3588, (1999). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 11 and 48.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [30]Baker, T., Ferreira, P. G. and Skordis, C., “The parameterized postFriedmann framework for theories of modified gravity: Concepts, formalism, and examples”, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 024015 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1209.2117 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 88.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [31]Bambi, C., Giannotti, M. and Villante, F. L., “Response of primordial abundances to a general modification of G_{N} and/or of the early universe expansion rate”, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 123524 (2005). [DOI], [astroph/0503502]. (Cited on page 50.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [32]Barausse, E., Palenzuela, C., Ponce, M. and Lehner, L., “Neutronstar mergers in scalartensor theories of gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 081506 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1212.5053 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [33]Bartlett, D. F. and Van Buren, D., “Equivalence of Active and Passive Gravitational Mass Using the Moon”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 57, 21–24, (1986). [DOI]. (Cited on page 53.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [34]Bauch, A. and Weyers, S., “New experimental limit on the validity of local position invariance”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 081101(R) (2002). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 17.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [35]Baumgarte, T. W. and Shapiro, S. L., Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein’s Equations on the Computer, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 2010). [ADS], [Google Books]. (Cited on page 55.)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [36]Bekenstein, J. D., “Relativistic gravitation theory for the modified Newtonian dynamics paradigm”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 083509 (2004). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:astroph/0403694]. (Cited on page 39.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [37]Bell, J. F. and Damour, T., “A new test of conservation laws and Lorentz invariance in relativistic gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 13, 3121–3127, (1996). [DOI], [grqc/9606062]. (Cited on page 49.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [38]Benkhoff, J. et al., “BepiColombo — Comprehensive exploration of Mercury: Mission overview and science goals”, Planet. Space Sci., 58, 2–20, (2010). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 54.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [39]Bennett, C. L. et al., “Nineyear Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Final maps and results”, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 208, 20 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1212.5225 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 50.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [40]Beringer, J. et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of Particle Physics”, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 010001 (2012). [DOI]. (Cited on page 8.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [41]Berti, E., Buonanno, A. and Will, C. M., “Estimating spinning binary parameters and testing alternative theories of gravity with LISA”, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 084025 (2005). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0411129]. (Cited on pages 84 and 86.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [42]Berti, E., Buonanno, A. and Will, C. M., “Testing general relativity and probing the merger history of massive black holes with LISA”, Class. Quantum Grav., 22, S943–S954, (2005). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0504017]. (Cited on pages 84 and 86.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [43]Berti, E., Cardoso, V. and Starinets, A. O., “Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes”, Class. Quantum Grav., 26, 163001 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0905.2975 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 55.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [44]Bertotti, B., Iess, L. and Tortora, P., “A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft”, Nature, 425, 374–376, (2003). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 45.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [45]Bezerra, V. B., Klimchitskaya, G. L., Mostepanenko, V. M. and Romero, C., “Constraints on nonNewtonian gravity from measuring the Casimir force in a configuration with nanoscale rectangular corrugations”, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 075004 (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1103.0993 [hepph]]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [46]Bhat, N. D. R., Bailes, M. and Verbiest, J. P. W., “Gravitationalradiation losses from the pulsar whitedwarf binary PSR J1141 6545”, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 124017 (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0804.0956]. (Cited on pages 73 and 75.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [47]Bi, X.J., Cao, Z., Li, Y. and Yuan, Q., “Testing Lorentz invariance with the ultrahigh energy cosmic ray spectrum”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 083015 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0812.0121]. (Cited on page 15.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [48]Biller, S. D. et al., “Limits to Quantum Gravity Effects on Energy Dependence of the Speed of Light from Observations of TeV Flares in Active Galaxies”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 2108–2111, (1999). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/9810044]. (Cited on page 15.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [49]Bize, S. et al., “Testing the Stability of Fundamental Constants with ^{199}Hg^{+} SingleIon Optical Clock”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 150802 (2003). [DOI], [physics/0212109]. (Cited on page 18.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [50]Blanchet, L., “SecondpostNewtonian generation of gravitational radiation”, Phys. Rev. D, 51, 2559–2583, (1995). [DOI], [grqc/9501030]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [51]Blanchet, L., “Gravitational Radiation from PostNewtonian Sources and Inspiralling Compact Binaries”, Living Rev. Relativity, 17, lrr20142 (2014). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1310.1528 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20142. (Cited on pages 60, 61, 62, and 84.)
 [52]Blanchet, L. and Damour, T., “Radiative gravitational fields in general relativity I. General structure of the field outside the source”, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 320, 379–430, (1986). [DOI]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [53]Blanchet, L. and Damour, T., “Tailtransported temporal correlations in the dynamics of a gravitating system”, Phys. Rev. D, 37, 1410–1435, (1988). [DOI]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [54]Blanchet, L. and Damour, T., “PostNewtonian generation of gravitational waves”, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare A, 50, 377–408, (1989). (Cited on page 60.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [55]Blanchet, L. and Damour, T., “Hereditary effects in gravitational radiation”, Phys. Rev. D, 46, 4304–4319, (1992). [DOI]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [56]Blanchet, L., Damour, T., Iyer, B. R., Will, C. M. and Wiseman, A. G., “GravitationalRadiation Damping of Compact Binary Systems to Second PostNewtonian Order”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 74, 3515–3518, (1995). [DOI], [grqc/9501027]. (Cited on page 61.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [57]Blanchet, L. and Novak, J., “External field effect of modified Newtonian dynamics in the Solar system”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 412, 2530–2542, (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1010.1349 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 40.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [58]Blanchet, L. and Novak, J., “Testing MOND in the Solar System”, arXiv, eprint, (2011). [ADS], [arXiv:1105.5815 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 40.)Google Scholar
 [59]Blanchet, L. and Sathyaprakash, B. S., “Signal analysis of gravitational wave tails”, Class. Quantum Grav., 11, 2807–2831, (1994). [DOI]. (Cited on page 84.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [60]Blanchet, L. and Sathyaprakash, B. S., “Detecting the tail effect in gravitational wave experiments”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 74, 1067–1070, (1995). [DOI]. (Cited on page 84.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [61]Blas, D., Pujolàs, O. and Sibiryakov, S., “Consistent extension of Hořava gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 104, 181302 (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0909.3525 [hepth]]. (Cited on page 39.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [62]Blas, D., Pujolàs, O. and Sibiryakov, S., “Models of nonrelativistic quantum gravity: the good, the bad and the healthy”, J. High Energy Phys., 4, 18 (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1007.3503 [hepth]]. (Cited on page 39.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [63]Blatt, S. et al., “New Limits on Coupling of Fundamental Constants to Gravity Using Sr87 Optical Lattice Clocks”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 140801 (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0801.1874 [physics.atomph]]. (Cited on pages 17, 18, and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [64]Bolton, A. S., Rappaport, S. and Burles, S., “Constraint on the postNewtonian parameter γ on galactic size scales”, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 061501 (2006). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:astroph/0607657]. (Cited on page 44.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [65]Braginsky, V. B. and Panov, V. I., “Verification of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass”, Sov. Phys. JETP, 34, 463–466, (1972). [DOI]. (Cited on page 10.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [66]Braxmaier, C. et al., “Astrodynamical Space Test of Relativity using Optical Devices I (ASTROD I) — a classM fundamental physics mission proposal for cosmic vision 2015–2025: 2010 Update”, Exp. Astron., 34, 181–201, (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1104.0060 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 54.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [67]Brecher, K., “Is the speed of light independent of the velocity of the source?”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 39, 1051–1054, (1977). [DOI]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [68]Breton, R. P. et al., “Relativistic Spin Precession in the Double Pulsar”, Science, 321, 104 (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0807.2644]. (Cited on page 72.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [69]Brillet, A. and Hall, J. L., “Improved laser test of the isotropy of space”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 42, 549–552, (1979). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 12 and 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [70]Brunetti, M., Coccia, E., Fafone, V. and Fucito, F., “Gravitationalwave radiation from compact binary systems in the JordanBransDicke theory”, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 044027 (1999). [DOI], [grqc/9805056]. (Cited on page 82.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [71]Burgay, M., “The double pulsar system in its 8th anniversary”, in Science with Parkes at 50 Years Young, 31 Oct.–4 Nov., 2011, (ATNF / CSIRO, Australia, 2012). [ADS], [arXiv:1210.0985 [astroph.IM]]. URL (accessed 5 June 2014): http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/conferences/Parkes50th/. (Cited on page 72.)Google Scholar
 [72]Burgay, M. et al., “An increased estimate of the merger rate of double neutron stars from observations of a highly relativistic system”, Nature, 426, 531–533, (2003). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:astroph/0312071 [astroph]]. (Cited on page 72.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [73]Carlip, S., “Modeldependence of Shapiro time delay and the ‘speed of gravity/speed of light’ controversy”, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 3803–3812, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0403060]. (Cited on page 45.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [74]Chamberlin, S. J. and Siemens, X., “Stochastic backgrounds in alternative theories of gravity: Overlap reduction functions for pulsar timing arrays”, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 082001 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1111.5661 [astroph.HE]]. (Cited on page 83.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [75]Champeney, D. C., Isaak, G. R. and Khan, A. M., “An ‘aether drift’ experiment based on the Mossbauer effect”, Phys. Lett., 7, 241–243, (1963). [DOI]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [76]Chand, H., Petitjean, P., Srianand, R. and Aracil, B., “Probing the timevariation of the finestructure constant: Results based on Si IV doublets from a UVES sample”, Astron. Astrophys., 430, 47–58, (2005). [DOI], [astroph/0408200]. (Cited on pages 18 and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [77]Chandrasekhar, S., “The PostNewtonian Equations of Hydrodynamics in General Relativity.”, Astrophys. J., 142, 1488–1540, (1965). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 58.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [78]Chatziioannou, K., Yunes, N. and Cornish, N., “Modelindependent test of general relativity: An extended postEinsteinian framework with complete polarization content”, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 022004 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1204.2585 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 83.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [79]Chiaverini, J., Smullin, S. J., Geraci, A. A., Weld, D. M. and Kapitulnik, A., “New experimental constraints on nonNewtonian forces below 100 µm”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 151101 (2003). [DOI], [hepph/0209325]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [80]Chou, C. W., Hume, D. B., Rosenband, T. and Wineland, D. J., “Optical Clocks and Relativity”, Science, 329, 1630–1633, (2010). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 17.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [81]Chupp, T. E., Hoare, R. J., Loveman, R. A., Oteiza, E. R., Richardson, J. M., Wagshul, M. E. and Thompson, A. K., “Results of a new test of local Lorentz invariance: A search for mass anisotropy in ^{21}Ne”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 63, 1541–1545, (1989). [DOI]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [82]Ciufolini, I., “The 1995–99 measurements of the LenseThirring effect using laserranged satellites”, Class. Quantum Grav., 17, 2369–2380, (2000). [DOI]. (Cited on page 52.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [83]Ciufolini, I., Chieppa, F., Lucchesi, D. and Vespe, F., “Test of LenseThirring orbital shift due to spin”, Class. Quantum Grav., 14, 2701–2726, (1997). [DOI]. (Cited on page 52.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [84]Ciufolini, I., Moreno Monge, B., Paolozzi, A., Koenig, R., Sindoni, G., Michalak, G. and Pavlis, E. C., “Monte Carlo simulations of the LARES space experiment to test General Relativity and fundamental physics”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 235009 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1310.2601 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 52.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [85]Ciufolini, I., Paolozzi, A., Pavlis, E. C., Ries, J., Koenig, R., Matzner, R., Sindoni, G. and Neumeyer, H., “Testing gravitational physics with satellite laser ranging”, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 126, 72 (2011). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 52.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [86]Ciufolini, I. and Pavlis, E. C., “A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the LenseThirring effect”, Nature, 431, 958–960, (2004). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 52.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [87]Ciufolini, I., Pavlis, E. C., Chieppa, F., FernandesVieira, E. and PérezMercader, J., “Test of general relativity and measurement of the LenseThirring effect with two Earth satellites”, Science, 279, 2100–2103, (1998). [DOI]. (Cited on page 52.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [88]Ciufolini, I., Pavlis, E. C. and Peron, R., “Determination of framedragging using Earth gravity models from CHAMP and GRACE”, New Astron., 11, 527–550, (2006). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 52.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [89]Clifton, T., Barrow, J. D. and Scherrer, R. J., “Constraints on the variation of G from primordial nucleosynthesis”, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 123526 (2005). [DOI], [astroph/0504418]. (Cited on page 87.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [90]Coc, A., Olive, K. A., Uzan, J.P. and Vangioni, E., “Big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on scalartensor theories of gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 083525 (2006). [DOI], [astroph/0601299]. (Cited on page 87.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [91]Coley, A., “Schiff’s Conjecture on Gravitation”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 49, 853–855, (1982). [DOI]. (Cited on page 20.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [92]Colladay, D. and Kostelecký, V. A., “CPT violation and the standard model”, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 6760–6774, (1997). [DOI], [arXiv:hepph/9703464]. (Cited on pages 13 and 24.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [93]Colladay, D. and Kostelecký, V. A., “Lorentzviolating extension of the standard model”, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 116002 (1998). [DOI], [arXiv:hepph/9809521]. (Cited on pages 13 and 24.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [94]Copi, C. J., Davis, A. N. and Krauss, L. M., “New Nucleosynthesis Constraint on the Variation of G”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 171301 (2004). [DOI], [arXiv:astroph/0311334]. (Cited on page 50.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [95]Crelinsten, J., Einstein’s Jury: The Race to Test Relativity, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2006). (Cited on pages 16 and 43.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [96]Creminelli, P., Nicolis, A., Papucci, M. and Trincherini, E., “Ghosts in massive gravity”, J. High Energy Phys., 2005(09), 003 (2005). [DOI], [hepth/0505147]. (Cited on page 41.)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [97]Cutler, C. and Flanagan, É.É., “Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral wave form?”, Phys. Rev. D, 49, 2658–2697, (1994). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/9402014]. (Cited on page 83.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [98]Cutler, C., Hiscock, W. A. and Larson, S. L., “LISA, binary stars, and the mass of the graviton”, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 024015 (2003). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0209101]. (Cited on page 86.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [99]Cutler, C. et al., “The Last Three Minutes: Issues in GravitationalWave Measurements of Coalescing Compact Binaries”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 70, 2984–2987, (1993). [DOI], [astroph/9208005]. (Cited on page 83.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [100]Damour, T., “The problem of motion in Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity”, in Hawking, S. W. and Israel, W., eds., Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, pp. 128–198, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1987). [ADS]. (Cited on pages 56, 57, and 60.)Google Scholar
 [101]Damour, T. and Dyson, F. J., “The Oklo bound on the time variation of the finestructure constant revisited”, Nucl. Phys. B, 480, 37–54, (1996). [DOI], [hepph/9606486]. (Cited on pages 18 and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [102]Damour, T. and EspositoFarèse, G., “Tensormultiscalar theories of gravitation”, Class. Quantum Grav., 9, 2093–2176, (1992). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 35, 36, and 66.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [103]Damour, T. and EspositoFarèse, G., “Nonperturbative strongfield effects in tensorscalar theories of gravitation”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 70, 2220–2223, (1993). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [104]Damour, T. and EspositoFarèse, G., “Tensorscalar gravity and binarypulsar experiments”, Phys. Rev. D, 54, 1474–1491, (1996). [DOI], [ADS], [grqc/9602056]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [105]Damour, T. and EspositoFarèse, G., “Testing gravity to second postNewtonian order: A fieldtheory approach”, Phys. Rev. D, 53, 5541–5578, (1996). [DOI], [ADS], [grqc/9506063]. (Cited on page 62.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [106]Damour, T. and EspositoFarèse, G., “Gravitationalwave versus binarypulsar tests of strongfield gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 042001 (1998). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/9803031]. (Cited on pages 76 and 84.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [107]Damour, T., Gopakumar, A. and Iyer, B. R., “Phasing of gravitational waves from inspiralling eccentric binaries”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 064028 (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0404128]. (Cited on page 84.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [108]Damour, T. and Iyer, B. R., “PostNewtonian generation of gravitational waves. II. The spin moments”, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare A, 54, 115–164, (1991). (Cited on page 60.)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [109]Damour, T., Jaranowski, P. and Schäfer, G., “Poincaré invariance in the ADM Hamiltonian approach to the general relativistic twobody problem”, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 021501(R) (2000). [grqc/0003051]. Erratum: Phys. Rev. D, 63, 029903(E) (2001). (Cited on page 60.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [110]Damour, T., Jaranowski, P. and Schäfer, G., “Dimensional regularization of the gravitational interaction of point masses”, Phys. Lett. B, 513, 147–155, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0105038]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [111]Damour, T., Jaranowski, P. and Schäfer, G., “Equivalence between the ADMHamiltonian and the harmoniccoordinates approaches to the third postNewtonian dynamics of compact binaries”, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 044021 (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0010040]. Erratum: Phys. Rev. D, 66, 029901(E) (2002). (Cited on page 60.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [112]Damour, T. and Nordtvedt Jr, K. L., “General relativity as a cosmological attractor of tensorscalar theories”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 70, 2217–2219, (1993). [DOI]. (Cited on page 36.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [113]Damour, T. and Nordtvedt Jr, K. L., “Tensorscalar cosmological models and their relaxation toward general relativity”, Phys. Rev. D, 48, 3436–3450, (1993). [DOI]. (Cited on page 36.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [114]Damour, T., Piazza, F. and Veneziano, G., “Runaway dilaton and equivalence principle violations”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 081601 (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0204094]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [115]Damour, T., Piazza, F. and Veneziano, G., “Violations of the equivalence principle in a dilatonrunaway scenario”, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 046007 (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:hepth/0205111]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [116]Damour, T. and Pichon, B., “Big bang nucleosynthesis and tensorscalar gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 123502 (1999). [DOI], [astroph/9807176]. (Cited on page 87.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [117]Damour, T. and Polyakov, A. M., “The string dilaton and a least coupling principle”, Nucl. Phys. B, 423, 532–558, (1994). [DOI], [arXiv:hepth/9401069]. (Cited on pages 26 and 37.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [118]Damour, T. and Schäfer, G., “New tests of the strong equivalence principle using binarypulsar data”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 66, 2549–2552, (1991). [DOI]. (Cited on page 49.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [119]Damour, T. and Taylor, J. H., “Strongfield tests of relativistic gravity and binary pulsars”, Phys. Rev. D, 45, 1840–1868, (1992). [DOI]. (Cited on page 69.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [120]Damour, T. and Vokrouhlický, D., “Equivalence principle and the Moon”, Phys. Rev. D, 53, 4177–4201, (1996). [DOI], [grqc/9507016]. (Cited on page 48.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [121]Daniel, S. F., Linder, E. V., Smith, T. L., Caldwell, R. R., Cooray, A., Leauthaud, A. and Lombriser, L., “Testing general relativity with current cosmological data”, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 123508 (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1002.1962 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 88.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [122]De Felice, A. and Tsujikawa, S., “f(R) Theories”, Living Rev. Relativity, 13, lrr20103 (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1002.4928]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20103. (Cited on page 37.)
 [123]de Rham, C., “Massive Gravity”, Living Rev. Relativity, forthcoming (2014). [ADS], [arXiv:1401.4173 [hepth]]. (Cited on page 41.)Google Scholar
 [124]de Sitter, W., “On Einstein’s theory of gravitation and its astronomical consequences. Second paper”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 77, 155–184, (1916). [ADS]. (Cited on page 57.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [125]Deffayet, C., Dvali, G., Gabadadze, G. and Vainshtein, A. I., “Nonperturbative continuity in graviton mass versus perturbative discontinuity”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 044026 (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:hepth/0106001]. (Cited on page 41.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [126]Deller, A. T., Verbiest, J. P. W., Tingay, S. J. and Bailes, M., “Extremely High Precision VLBI Astrometry of PSR J04374715 and Implications for Theories of Gravity”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 685, L67–L70, (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0808.1594]. (Cited on page 50.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [127]Demorest, P. B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S. M., Roberts, M. S. E. and Hessels, J. W. T., “A twosolarmass neutron star measured using Shapiro delay”, Nature, 467, 1081–1083, (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1010.5788 [astroph.HE]]. (Cited on page 73.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [128]Di Casola, E., Liberati, S. and Sonego, S., “Nonequivalence of equivalence principles”, arXiv, eprint, (2013). [ADS], [arXiv:1310.7426 [grqc]]. (Cited on pages 10 and 30.)Google Scholar
 [129]Dick, R., “Inequivalence of Jordan and Einstein frame: What is the low energy gravity in string theory?”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 30, 435–444, (1998). [DOI]. (Cited on page 25.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [130]Dicke, R. H., “Experimental relativity”, in DeWitt, C. M. and DeWitt, B. S., eds., Relativity, Groups and Topology. Relativité, Groupes et Topologie, Lectures delivered at Les Houches during the 1963 session of the Summer School of Theoretical Physics, University of Grenoble, pp. 165–313, (Gordon and Breach, New York; London, 1964). (Cited on page 9.)Google Scholar
 [131]Dicke, R. H., Gravitation and the Universe, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society. Jayne Lecture for 1969, 78, (American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1970). (Cited on page 10.)Google Scholar
 [132]Dickey, J. O. et al., “Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program”, Science, 265, 482–490, (1994). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 48, 50, and 53.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [133]Doeleman, S. et al., “Imaging an Event Horizon: submmVLBI of a Super Massive Black Hole”, in Astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey — Science White Papers, p. 68, (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 2009). [ADS], [arXiv:0906.3899 [astroph.CO]]. URL (accessed 10 June 2014): http://sites.nationalacademies.org/bpa/BPA_050603. (Cited on page 87.)Google Scholar
 [134]Dossett, J. N. and Ishak, M., “Spatial curvature and cosmological tests of general relativity”, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 103008 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1205.2422 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 88.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [135]Dossett, J. N., Ishak, M. and Moldenhauer, J., “Testing general relativity at cosmological scales: Implementation and parameter correlations”, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 123001 (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1109.4583 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 88.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [136]Drever, R. W. P., “A search for anisotropy of inertial mass using a free precession technique”, Philos. Mag., 6, 683–687, (1961). [DOI]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [137]Dyda, S., Flanagan, É. É. and Kamionkowski, M., “Vacuum instability in ChernSimons gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 124031 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1208.4871 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 41.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [138]Dyson, F. J., “The Fundamental Constants and Their Time Variation”, in Salam, A. and Wigner, E. P., eds., Aspects ofQuantum Theory, pp. 213–236, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1972). [Google Books]. (Cited on page 18.)Google Scholar
 [139]Eardley, D. M., “Observable effects of a scalar gravitational field in a binary pulsar”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 196, L59–L62, (1975). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 62, 63, and 74.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [140]Eddington, A. and Clark, G. L., “The Problem of n Bodies in General Relativity Theory”, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 166, 465–475 (1938). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 57.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [141]Eddington, A. S., “The Propagation of Gravitational Waves”, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 102, 268–282, (1922). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 57.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [142]Ehlers, J., Rosenblum, A., Goldberg, J. N. and Havas, P., “Comments on gravitational radiation damping and energy loss in binary systems”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 208, L77–L81, (1976). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 58.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [143]Einstein, A., “Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation”, Sitzungsber. K. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys.Math. Kl., 1916, 688–696, (1916). [ADS]. Online version (accessed 5 June 2014): http://echo.mpiwgberlin.mpg.de/MPIWG:RA6W5W65. (Cited on page 57.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [144]Einstein, A., “Über Gravitationswellen”, Sitzungsber. K. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., 1918, 154–167, (1918). [ADS]. (Cited on page 57.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [145]Einstein, A., Infeld, L. and Hoffmann, B., “The Gravitational Equations and the Problem of Motion”, Ann. Math., 39, 65–100, (1938). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 57.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [146]Einstein, A. and Rosen, N., “On Gravitational Waves”, J. Franklin Inst., 223, 43–54, (1937). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 57.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [147]Eling, C. and Jacobson, T., “Static postNewtonian equivalence of general relativity and gravity with a dynamical preferred frame”, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 064005 (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0310044]. (Cited on page 38.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [148]Eötvös, R. v., Pekár, V. and Fekete, E., “Beitrage zum Gesetze der Proportionalität von Trägheit und Gravität”, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 68, 11–66, (1922). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 10.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [149]Everitt, C. W. F. et al., “Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, 221101 (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1105.3456 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 52.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [150]Famaey, B. and McGaugh, S. S., “Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions”, Living Rev. Relativity, 15, lrr201210 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1112.3960 [astroph.CO]]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr201210. (Cited on page 40.)
 [151]Farley, F. J. M., Bailey, J., Brown, R. C. A., Giesch, M., Jöstlein, H., van der Meer, S., Picasso, E. and Tannenbaum, M., “The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Negative Muon”, Nuovo Cimento, 45, 281–286, (1966). [DOI]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [152]Fienga, A., Laskar, J., Kuchynka, P., Manche, H., Desvignes, G., Gastineau, M., Cognard, I. and Theureau, G., “The INPOP10a planetary ephemeris and its applications in fundamental physics”, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 111, 363–385, (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1108.5546 [astroph.EP]]. (Cited on page 47.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [153]Finn, L. S. and Chernoff, D. F., “Observing binary inspiral in gravitational radiation: One interferometer”, Phys. Rev. D, 47, 2198–2219, (1993). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/9301003]. (Cited on page 83.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [154]Finn, L. S. and Sutton, P. J., “Bounding the mass of the graviton using binary pulsar observations”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 044022 (2002). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0109049]. (Cited on page 86.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [155]Fischbach, E., Gillies, G. T., Krause, D. E., Schwan, J. G. and Talmadge, C. L., “NonNewtonian gravity and new weak forces: An index of measurements and theory”, Metrologia, 29, 213–260, (1992). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 10 and 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [156]Fischbach, E., Sudarsky, D., Szafer, A., Talmadge, C. L. and Aronson, S. H., “Reanalysis of the Eötvös experiment”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 56, 3–6, (1986). [DOI]. Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 1427. (Cited on page 26.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [157]Fischbach, E. and Talmadge, C. L., “Six years of the fifth force”, Nature, 356, 207–215, (1992). [DOI]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [158]Fischbach, E. and Talmadge, C. L., The Search for NonNewtonian Gravity, (Springer, New York, 1998). [Google Books]. (Cited on page 27.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [159]Fischer, M. et al., “New limits on the drift of fundamental constants from laboratory measurements”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 230802 (2004). [DOI], [physics/0312086]. (Cited on page 18.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [160]Fock, V. A., The Theory of Space, Time and Gravitation, (Pergamon Press, Oxford; New York, 1964), 2nd rev. edition. (Cited on page 58.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [161]Fomalont, E., Kopeikin, S., Lanyi, G. and Benson, J., “Progress in Measurements of the Gravitational Bending of Radio Waves Using the VLBA”, Astrophys. J., 699, 1395–1402, (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0904.3992 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 44.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [162]Fomalont, E. B. and Kopeikin, S. M., “The measurement of the light deflection from Jupiter: experimental results”, Astrophys. J., 598, 704–711, (2003). [DOI], [astroph/0302294]. (Cited on page 45.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [163]Foster, B. Z. and Jacobson, T., “PostNewtonian parameters and constraints on Einsteinaether theory”, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 064015 (2006). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0509083 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 38.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [164]Freire, P. C. C. et al., “The relativistic pulsarwhite dwarf binary PSR J1738+0333 — II. The most stringent test of scalartensor gravity”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 423, 3328–3343, (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1205.1450 [astroph.GA]]. (Cited on pages 72, 75, 77, and 78.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [165]Froeschlé, M., Mignard, F. and Arenou, F., “Determination of the PPN parameter γ with the Hipparcos data”, in Proceedings from the Hipparcos Venice’ 97 Symposium, Held on 13–16 May 1997, (ESA, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 1997). URL (accessed 10 June 2014): http://www.rssd.esa.int/?project=HIPPARCOS&page=venice97. (Cited on page 44.)Google Scholar
 [166]Fujii, Y., “Oklo Constraint on the TimeVariability of the FineStructure Constant”, in Karshenboim, S. G. and Peik, E., eds., Astrophysics, Clocks and Fundamental Constants, 302nd WEHeraeusSeminar, June 2003, Bad Honnef, Germany, Lecture Notes in Physics, 648, pp. 167–185, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2004). [hepph/0311026]. (Cited on pages 18 and 19.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [167]Fujii, Y. and Maeda, K.I., The ScalarTensor Theory of Gravitation, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 2007). [ADS]. (Cited on page 37.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [168]Fujita, R., “Gravitational Waves from a Particle in Circular Orbits around a Schwarzschild Black Hole to the 22nd PostNewtonian Order”, Prog. Theor. Phys., 128, 971–992, (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1211.5535 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 62.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [169]“Gaia: Science Home Page”, project homepage, ESA. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/. (Cited on page 54.)
 [170]Gair, J. R., Vallisneri, M., Larson, S. L. and Baker, J. G., “Testing General Relativity with LowFrequency, SpaceBased GravitationalWave Detectors”, Living Rev. Relativity, 16, lrr20137 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1212.5575 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20137. (Cited on page 79.)
 [171]Gasperini, M., “On the response of gravitational antennas to dilatonic waves”, Phys. Lett. B, 470, 67–72, (1999). [DOI], [grqc/9910019]. (Cited on page 82.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [172]Geraci, A. A., Smullin, S. J., Weld, D. M., Chiaverini, J. and Kapitulnik, A., “Improved constraints on nonNewtonian forces at 10 microns”, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 022002 (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0802.2350 [hepex]]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [173]Gleiser, R. J. and Kozameh, C. N., “Astrophysical limits on quantum gravity motivated birefringence”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 083007 (2001). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0102093]. (Cited on page 15.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [174]Godone, A., Novero, C. and Tavella, P., “Null gravitational redshift experiment with nonidentical atomic clocks”, Phys. Rev. D, 51, 319–323, (1995). [DOI]. (Cited on page 17.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [175]Gopakumar, A. and Iyer, B. R., “Gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Angular momentum flux, evolution of the orbital elements and the waveform to the second postNewtonian order”, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 7708–7731, (1997). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/9710075]. (Cited on page 84.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [176]Gourgoulhon, E., 3+1 Formalism in General Relativity: Bases of Numerical Relativity, Lecture Notes in Physics, 846, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0703035 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 55.)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 [177]“Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein’s Universe”, project homepage, Stanford University. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://einstein.stanford.edu/. (Cited on page 51.)
 [178]Grishchuk, L. P. and Kopeikin, S. M., “The Motion of a Pair of Gravitating Bodies Including the Radiation Reaction Force”, Sov. Astron. Lett., 9, 230–232, (1983). [ADS]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [179]Guéna, J., Abgrall, M., Rovera, D., Rosenbusch, P., Tobar, M. E., Laurent, P., Clairon, A. and Bize, S., “Improved Tests of Local Position Invariance Using Rb87 and Cs133 Fountains”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 080801 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1205.4235 [physics.atomph]]. (Cited on pages 17, 18, and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [180]Guenther, D. B., Krauss, L. M. and Demarque, P., “Testing the Constancy of the Gravitational Constant Using Helioseismology”, Astrophys. J., 498, 871–876, (1998). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 50.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [181]Haugan, M. P., “Energy conservation and the principle of equivalence”, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 118, 156–186, (1979). [DOI]. (Cited on page 20.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [182]Haugan, M. P. and Lämmerzahl, C., “On the interpretation of MichelsonMorley experiments”, Phys. Lett. A, 282, 223–229, (2001). [grqc/0103052]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [183]Haugan, M. P. and Lämmerzahl, C., “Principles of Equivalence: Their Role in Gravitation Physics and Experiments That Test Them”, in Lämmerzahl, C., Everitt, C. W. F. and Hehl, F. W., eds., Gyros, Clocks, Interferometers…: Testing Relativistic Gravity in Space, Proceedings of a meeting held at Bad Honnef, Germany, 21–7 August 1999, Lecture Notes in Physics, 562, pp. 195–212, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2001). [DOI], [ADS], [grqc/0103067]. (Cited on page 10.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [184]Haugan, M. P. and Will, C. M., “Modern tests of special relativity”, Phys. Today, 40, 69–76, (1987). [DOI]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [185]Hawking, S. W., “Black holes in the BransDicke Theory of gravitation”, Commun. Math. Phys., 25, 167–171, (1972). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 63 and 66.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [186]Hees, A., Folkner, W. M., Jacobson, R. A. and Park, R. S., “Constraints on MOND theory from radio tracking data of the Cassini spacecraft”, arXiv, eprint, (2014). [ADS], [arXiv:1402.6950 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 40.)Google Scholar
 [187]Hellings, R. W. and Nordtvedt Jr, K. L., “VectorMetric Theory of Gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 7, 3593–3602, (1973). [DOI]. (Cited on page 38.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [188]Hinterbichler, K., “Theoretical aspects of massive gravity”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 84, 671–710, (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1105.3735 [hepth]]. (Cited on page 41.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [189]Hojjati, A., Zhao, G.B., Pogosian, L., Silvestri, A., Crittenden, R. and Koyama, K., “Cosmological tests of general relativity: A principal component analysis”, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 043508 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1111.3960 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 88.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [190]Hořava, P., “Quantum gravity at a Lifshitz point”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 084008 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0901.3775 [hepth]]. (Cited on page 39.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [191]Horbatsch, M. W. and Burgess, C. P., “Cosmic blackhole hair growth and quasar OJ287”, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2012(05), 010 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1111.4009 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 67.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [192]Hoyle, C. D., Kapner, D. J., Heckel, B. R., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., Schmidt, U. and Swanson, H. E., “Submillimeter tests of the gravitational inversesquare law”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 042004 (2004). [DOI], [arXiv:hepph/0405262]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [193]Hoyle, C. D., Schmidt, U., Heckel, B. R., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., Kapner, D. J. and Swanson, H. E., “Submillimeter Test of the Gravitational InverseSquare Law: A Search for ‘large’ Extra Dimensions”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 1418–1421, (2001). [DOI], [arXiv:hepph/0011014]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [194]Hughes, V. W., Robinson, H. G. and BeltranLopez, V., “Upper limit for the anisotropy of inertial mass from nuclear resonance experiments”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 4, 342–344, (1960). [DOI]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [195]Hulse, R. A., “Nobel Lecture: The discovery of the binary pulsar”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 66, 699–710, (1994). [DOI]. (Cited on page 68.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [196]Hulse, R. A. and Taylor, J. H., “Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 195, L51–L53, (1975). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 58.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [197]Iorio, L., “On the reliability of the sofar performed tests for measuring the LenseThirring effect with the LAGEOS satellites”, New Astron., 10, 603–615, (2005). [DOI], [grqc/0411024]. (Cited on page 52.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [198]Itoh, Y. and Futamase, T., “New derivation of a third postNewtonian equation of motion for relativistic compact binaries without ambiguity”, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 121501(R) (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0310028]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [199]Ivanchik, A., Petitjean, P., Varshalovich, D., Aracil, B., Srianand, R., Chand, H., Ledoux, C. and Boissé, P., “A new constraint on the time dependence of the protontoelectron mass ratio: Analysis of the Q 0347383 and Q 0405443 spectra”, Astron. Astrophys., 440, 45–52, (2005). [DOI], [astroph/0507174]. (Cited on page 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [200]Ives, H. E. and Stilwell, G. R., “An experimental study of the rate of a moving atomic clock”, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 28, 215–226, (1938). [DOI]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [201]Jackiw, R. and Pi, S.Y., “ChernSimons modification of general relativity”, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 104012 (2003). [DOI], [ADS], [grqc/0308071]. (Cited on page 41.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [202]Jacobson, T., “Primordial Black Hole Evolution in TensorScalar Cosmology”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 2699–2702, (1999). [DOI], [ADS], [astroph/9905303]. (Cited on page 67.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [203]Jacobson, T., “Undoing the twist: The Hořava limit of Einsteinæther theory”, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 081501 (2014). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1310.5115 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 39.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [204]Jacobson, T. and Mattingly, D., “Gravity with a dynamical preferred frame”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 024028 (2001). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0007031]. (Cited on page 38.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [205]Jacobson, T. and Mattingly, D., “Einsteinaether waves”, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 024003 (2004). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/0402005 [grqc]]. (Cited on pages 38 and 82.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [206]Jaranowski, P. and Schäfer, G., “3rd postNewtonian higher order Hamilton dynamics for twobody pointmass systems”, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 7274–7291, (1998). [DOI], [grqc/9712075]. Erratum: Phys. Rev. D, 63 (2001) 029902. (Cited on page 60.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [207]Jaranowski, P. and Schäfer, G., “Binary blackhole problem at the third postNewtonian approximation in the orbital motion: Static part”, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 124003 (1999). [DOI], [grqc/9906092]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [208]Jaseja, T. S., Javan, A., Murray, J. and Townes, C. H., “Test of special relativity or of the isotropy of space by use of infrared masers”, Phys. Rev., 133, A1221–A1225, (1964). [DOI]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [209]Jones, D. I., “Bounding the Mass of the Graviton Using Eccentric Binaries”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 618, L115–L118, (2005). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0411123]. (Cited on page 86.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [210]Kanekar, N., Langston, G. I., Stocke, J. T., Carilli, C. L. and Menten, K. M., “Constraining Fundamental Constant Evolution with H I and OH Lines”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 746, L16 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1201.3372 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on pages 18 and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [211]Kapner, D. J., Cook, T. S., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., Heckel, B. R., Hoyle, C. D. and Swanson, H. E., “Tests of the Gravitational InverseSquare Law below the DarkEnergy Length Scale”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 021101 (2007). [DOI], [ADS], [hepph/0611184]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [212]Katz, J. I., “Comment on ‘Indication, from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo, and Ulysses Data, of an Apparent Anomalous, Weak, LongRange Acceleration’”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 1892 (1999). [DOI], [ADS], [grqc/9809070]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [213]Kennefick, D., “Einstein versus the Physical Review”, Phys. Today, 58, 43–48, (2005). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 57.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [214]Kennefick, D., Traveling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves, (Princeton University Press, Princeton; Woodstock, UK, 2007). [ADS], [Google Books]. (Cited on page 58.)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [215]Kennefick, D., “Testing relativity from the 1919 eclipse — a question of bias”, Phys. Today, 62, 37 (2009). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 43.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [216]Khoury, J. and Weltman, A., “Chameleon Fields: Awaiting Surprises for Tests of Gravity in Space”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 93, 171104 (2004). [DOI], [ADS], [astroph/0309300]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [217]King, J. A., Webb, J. K., Murphy, M. T., Flambaum, V. V., Carswell, R. F., Bainbridge, M. B., Wilczynska, M. R. and Koch, F. E., “Spatial variation in the finestructure constant — new results from VLT/UVES”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 422, 3370–3414, (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1202.4758 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on pages 18 and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [218]Klimchitskaya, G. L., Mohideen, U. and Mostepanenko, V. M., “Constraints on corrections to Newtonian gravity from two recent measurements of the Casimir interaction between metallic surfaces”, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 125031 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1306.4979 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [219]Kokkotas, K. D. and Schmidt, B. G., “QuasiNormal Modes of Stars and Black Holes”, Living Rev. Relativity, 2, lrr19992 (1999). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/9909058]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr19992. (Cited on pages 55 and 62.)
 [220]Konopliv, A. S., Asmar, S. W., Folkner, W. M., Karatekin, Ö., Nunes, D. C., Smrekar, S. E., Yoder, C. F. and Zuber, M. T., “Mars high resolution gravity fields from MRO, Mars seasonal gravity, and other dynamical parameters”, Icarus, 211, 401–428, (2011). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 47 and 50.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [221]Kopeikin, S. M., “Testing the relativistic effect of the propagation of gravity by very long baseline interferometry”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 556, L1–L5, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0105060]. (Cited on page 45.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [222]Kopeikin, S. M., “The postNewtonian treatment of the VLBI experiment on September 8, 2002”, Phys. Lett. A, 312, 147–157, (2003). [DOI], [grqc/0212121]. (Cited on page 45.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [223]Kopeikin, S. M., “The speed of gravity in general relativity and theoretical interpretation of the Jovian deflection experiment”, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 3251–3286, (2004). [DOI], [grqc/0310059]. (Cited on pages 45 and 46.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [224]Kopeikin, S. M., “Comment on ‘Modeldependence of Shapiro time delay and the ‘speed of gravity/speed of light’ controversy”’, Class. Quantum Grav., 22, 5181 (2005). [DOI], [grqc/0501048]. (Cited on page 46.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [225]Kopeikin, S. M., “Comments on ‘On the Speed of Gravity and the Jupiter/quasar Measurement’ by S. Samuel”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15, 273–288, (2006). [DOI], [ADS], [grqc/0501001]. (Cited on page 46.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [226]Kopeikin, S. M. and Fomalont, E. B., “General relativistic model for experimental measurement of the speed of propagation of gravity by VLBI”, in Ros, E., Porcas, R. W., Lobanov, A. P. and Zensus, J. A., eds., Proceedings of the 6th European VLBI Network Symposium, June 25–28 2002, Bonn, Germany, pp. 49–52, (MaxPlanckInstitut für Radioastronomie, Bonn, 2002). [grqc/0206022]. (Cited on page 45.)Google Scholar
 [227]Kostelecký, V. A. and Lane, C. D., “Constraints on Lorentz violation from clockcomparison experiments”, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 116010 (1999). [DOI], [arXiv:hepph/9908504]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [228]Kostelecký, V. A. and Mewes, M., “Signals for Lorentz violation in electrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 056005 (2002). [DOI], [arXiv:hepph/0205211]. (Cited on pages 13 and 24.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [229]Kostelecký, V. A. and Russell, N., “Data tables for Lorentz and CPT violation”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 83, 11–31, (2011). [DOI], [arXiv:0801.0287 [hepph]]. (Cited on pages 15 and 24.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [230]Kostelecký, V. A. and Samuel, S., “Gravitational phenomenology in higherdimensional theories and strings”, Phys. Rev. D, 40, 1886–1903, (1989). [DOI]. (Cited on page 38.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [231]Kramer, M., “Determination of the geometry of the PSR B1913+16 system by geodetic precession”, Astrophys. J., 509, 856–860, (1998). [DOI], [astroph/9808127]. (Cited on page 72.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [232]Kramer, M. et al., “Tests of General Relativity from Timing the Double Pulsar”, Science, 314, 97–102, (2006). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:astroph/0609417]. (Cited on page 72.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [233]Krisher, T. P., Anderson, J. D. and Campbell, J. K., “Test of the gravitational redshift effect at Saturn”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 64, 1322–1325, (1990). [DOI]. (Cited on page 17.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [234]Krisher, T. P., Maleki, L., Lutes, G. F., Primas, L. E., Logan, R. T., Anderson, J. D. and Will, C. M., “Test of the isotropy of the oneway speed of light using hydrogenmaser frequency standards”, Phys. Rev. D, 42, 731–734, (1990). [DOI]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [235]Krisher, T. P., Morabito, D. D. and Anderson, J. D., “The Galileo solar redshift experiment”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 70, 2213–2216, (1993). [DOI]. (Cited on page 17.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [236]Królak, A., Kokkotas, K. D. and Schäfer, G., “Estimation of the postNewtonian parameters in the gravitationalwave emission of a coalescing binary”, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 2089–2111, (1995). [grqc/9503013]. (Cited on page 84.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [237]Lambert, S. B. and Le PoncinLafitte, C., “Determining the relativistic parameter γ using very long baseline interferometry”, Astron. Astrophys., 499, 331–335, (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0903.1615 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 44.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [238]Lambert, S. B. and Le PoncinLafitte, C., “Improved determination of γ by VLBI”, Astron. Astrophys., 529, A70 (2011). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 44.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [239]Lämmerzahl, C., “The Einstein equivalence principle and the search for new physics”, in Giulini, D. J. W., Kiefer, C. and Lämmerzahl, C., eds., Quantum Gravity: From Theory to Experimental Search, Lecture Notes in Physics, 631, pp. 367–394, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2003). [Google Books]. (Cited on page 10.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [240]Lamoreaux, S. K., Jacobs, J. P., Heckel, B. R., Raab, F. J. and Fortson, E. N., “New limits on spatial anisotropy from opticallypumped ^{201}Hg and ^{199}Hg”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 57, 3125–3128, (1986). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [241]Lang, R. N., “Compact binary systems in scalartensor gravity. II. Tensor gravitational waves to second postNewtonian order”, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 084014 (2014). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1310.3320 [grqc]]. (Cited on pages 62 and 65.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [242]Lazaridis, K. et al., “Generic tests of the existence of the gravitational dipole radiation and the variation of the gravitational constant”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 400, 805–814, (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0908.0285 [astroph.GA]]. (Cited on page 50.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [243]Lebach, D. E., Corey, B. E., Shapiro, I. I., Ratner, M. I., Webber, J. C., Rogers, A. E. E., Davis, J. L. and Herring, T. A., “Measurement of the Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves Using VeryLongBaseline Interferometry”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 1439–1442, (1995). [DOI]. (Cited on page 44.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [244]Lee, K., Jenet, F. A., Price, R. H., Wex, N. and Kramer, M., “Detecting Massive Gravitons Using Pulsar Timing Arrays”, Astrophys. J., 722, 1589–1597, (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1008.2561 [astroph.HE]]. (Cited on page 86.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [245]Lee, K. J., Jenet, F. A. and Price, R. H., “Pulsar Timing as a Probe of NonEinsteinian Polarizations of Gravitational Waves”, Astrophys. J., 685, 1304–1319, (2008). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 83.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [246]Leefer, N., Weber, C. T. M., Cingöz, A., Torgerson, J. R. and Budker, D., “New Limits on Variation of the FineStructure Constant Using Atomic Dysprosium”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 060801 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1304.6940 [physics.atomph]]. (Cited on pages 17, 18, and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [247]Lehner, L., “Numerical relativity: a review”, Class. Quantum Grav., 18, R25–R86, (2001). [DOI], [grqc/0106072]. (Cited on page 55.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [248]Lentati, L. et al., “Variations in the fundamental constants in the QSO host J1148+5251 at z = 6.4 and the BR12020725 system at z = 4.7”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 430, 2454–2463, (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1211.3316 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on pages 18 and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [249]LeviCivita, T., “Astronomical consequences of the relativistic twobody problem”, Am. J. Math., 59, 225–334, (1937). [DOI]. (Cited on page 57.)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [250]Li, T. G. F. et al., “Towards a generic test of the strong field dynamics of general relativity using compact binary coalescence: Further investigations”, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 363, 012028 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1111.5274 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 85.)ADSGoogle Scholar
 [251]Liberati, S., “Tests of Lorentz invariance: a 2013 update”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 133001 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1304.5795 [grqc]]. (Cited on pages 15 and 24.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [252]Lightman, A. P. and Lee, D. L., “Restricted proof that the weak equivalence principle implies the Einstein equivalence principle”, Phys. Rev. D, 8, 364–376, (1973). [DOI]. (Cited on page 20.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [253]Lineweaver, C. H., Tenorio, L., Smoot, G. F., Keegstra, P., Banday, A. J. and Lubin, P., “The dipole observed in the COBE DMR 4 year data”, Astrophys. J., 470, 38–42, (1996). [DOI]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [254]Lipa, J. A., Nissen, J. A., Wang, S., Stricker, D. A. and Avaloff, D., “New limit on signals of Lorentz violation in electrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 060403 (2003). [DOI], [physics/0302093]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [255]Liu, K., Wex, N., Kramer, M., Cordes, J. M. and Lazio, T. J. W., “Prospects for probing the spacetime of Sgr A* with pulsars”, Astrophys. J., 747, 1 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1112.2151 [astroph.HE]]. (Cited on page 87.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [256]Lobo, J. A., “Spherical GW detectors and geometry”, in Coccia, E., Veneziano, G. and Pizzella, G., eds., Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves, Proceedings ofthe conference, held at CERN, Switzerland, 1–4 July, 1997, Edoardo Amaldi Foundation Series, pp. 168–179, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998). [ADs]. (Cited on page 82.)Google Scholar
 [257]Long, J. C., Chan, H. W., Churnside, A. B., Gulbis, E. A., Varney, M. C. M. and Price, J. C., “Upper limits to submillimetrerange forces from extra spacetime dimensions”, Nature, 421, 922–925, (2003). [DOI], [hepph/0210004]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [258]Long, J. C., Chan, H. W. and Price, J. C., “Experimental status of gravitationalstrength forces in the subcentimeter regime”, Nucl. Phys. B, 539, 23–34, (1999). [DOI], [hepph/9805217]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [259]LoPresto, J. C., Schrader, C. and Pierce, A. K., “Solar gravitational redshift from the infrared oxygen triplet”, Astrophys. J., 376, 757–760, (1991). [DOI]. (Cited on page 16.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [260]Lorentz, H. A. and Droste, J., “The motion of a system of bodies under the influence of their mutual attraction, according to Einstein’s theory”, in The Collected Papers of H.A. Lorentz, Vol. 5, pp. 330–355, (Nijhoff, The Hague, 1937). [DOI], Translated from Versl. K. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam, 26, 392, 1917. (Cited on page 57.)Google Scholar
 [261]Lorimer, D. R., “Binary and Millisecond Pulsars”, Living Rev. Relativity, 11, lrr20088 (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0811.0762]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20088. (Cited on page 68.)
 [262]Lucchesi, D. M. and Peron, R., “Accurate Measurement in the Field of the Earth of the GeneralRelativistic Precession of the LAGEOS II Pericenter and New Constraints on NonNewtonian Gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, 231103 (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1106.2905 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 47.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [263]Lucchesi, D. M. and Peron, R., “LAGEOS II pericenter general relativistic precession (1993–2005): Error budget and constraints in gravitational physics”, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 082002 (2014). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 47.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [264]Lynch, R. S. et al., “The Green Bank Telescope 350 MHz driftscan survey II: Data analysis and the timing of 10 new pulsars, including a relativistic binary”, Astrophys. J., 763, 81 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1209.4296 [astroph.HE]]. (Cited on page 73.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [265]Lyne, A. G. et al., “A DoublePulsar System: A Rare Laboratory for Relativistic Gravity and Plasma Physics”, Science, 303, 1153–1157, (2004). [DOI], [arXiv:astroph/0401086]. (Cited on page 72.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [266]Maeda, K.I., “On time variation of fundamental constants in superstring theories”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 3, 243–249, (1988). [DOI]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [267]Maggiore, M. and Nicolis, A., “Detection strategies for scalar gravitational waves with interferometers and resonant spheres”, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 024004 (2000). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/9907055]. (Cited on page 82.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [268]Magueijo, J., “New varying speed of light theories”, Rep. Prog. Phys., 66, 2025–2068, (2003). [DOI], [arXiv:astroph/0305457]. (Cited on page 26.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [269]Malaney, R. A. and Mathews, G. J., “Probing the early universe: A review of primordial nucleosynthesis beyond the standard big bang”, Phys. Rep., 229, 147–219, (1993). [DOI]. (Cited on page 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [270]Maleki, L. and Prestage, J. D., “SpaceTime Mission: Clock test of relativity at four solar radii”, in Lämmerzahl, C., Everitt, C. W. F. and Hehl, F. W., eds., Gyros, Clocks, and Interferometers…: Testing Relativistic Gravity in Space, Proceedings of a meeting held in Bad Honnef, Germany, August 21–27, 1999, Lecture Notes in Physics, 562, p. 369, (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2001). (Cited on page 17.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [271]Marion, H. et al., “A search for variations of fundamental constants using atomic fountain clock”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 150801 (2003). [DOI], [physics/0212112]. (Cited on page 18.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [272]Marka, Z. and Marka, S., “Selected articles from ‘The 8th Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves (Amaldi 8)’, Columbia University, New York, 22–26 June 2009”, Class. Quantum Grav., 27, 080301 (2010). [DOI]. (Cited on page 79.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [273]Mattingly, D., “Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance”, Living Rev. Relativity, 8, lrr20055 (2005). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0502097]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20055. (Cited on pages 15 and 24.)
 [274]Mattingly, D. and Jacobson, T. A., “Relativistic Gravity with a Dynamical Preferred Frame”, in Kostelecký, V. A., ed., CPT and Lorentz Symmetry II, Proceedings of the Second Meeting, held at Indiana University, Bloomington, August 15–18, 2001, pp. 331–335, (World Scientific, Singapore; River Edge, 2002). [grqc/0112012]. (Cited on page 38.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [275]Mecheri, R., Abdelatif, T., Irbah, A., Provost, J. and Berthomieu, G., “New values of gravitational moments J_{2} and J_{4} deduced from helioseismology”, Solar Phys., 222, 191–197, (2004). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 47.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [276]Mercuri, S. and Taveras, V., “Interaction of the BarberoImmirzi field with matter and pseudoscalar perturbations”, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 104007 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0903.4407 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 41.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [277]Merkowitz, S. M., “Tests of Gravity Using Lunar Laser Ranging”, Living Rev. Relativity, 13, lrr20107 (2010). [DOI], [ADS]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20107. (Cited on page 48.)
 [278]Merlet, S., Bodart, Q., Malossi, N., Landragin, A., Pereira Dos Santos, F., Gitlein, O. and Timmen, L., “Comparison between two mobile absolute gravimeters: optical versus atomic interferometers”, Metrologia, 47, L9–L11, (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1005.0357 [physics.atomph]]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [279]Michelson, A. A. and Morley, E. W., “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether”, Am. J. Sci., 34, 333–345, (1887). [DOI]. Online version (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.aip.org/history/gap/Michelson/Michelson.html. (Cited on page 12.)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [280]“MICROSCOPE (MICROSatellite à traînée Compensée pour l’Observation du Principe d’Equivalence)”, project homepage, CNES. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://smsc.cnes.fr/MICROSCOPE/. (Cited on page 12.)
 [281]Mignard, F., “Fundamental Physics with GAIA”, in Bienaymé, O. and Turon, C., eds., GAIA: A European Space Project, Summer School, held in Les Houches, France, 14–18 May 2001, EAS Publications Series, 2, pp. 107–121, (EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, 2002). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 54.)Google Scholar
 [282]Milani, A., Vokrouhlický, D., Villani, D., Bonanno, C. and Rossi, A., “Testing general relativity with the BepiColombo radio science experiment”, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 082001 (2002). [DOI]. (Cited on page 54.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [283]Milgrom, M., “A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis”, Astrophys. J., 270, 365–370, (1983). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 39.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [284]Milgrom, M., “MOND effects in the inner Solar system”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 399, 474–486, (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0906.4817 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 40.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [285]Mino, Y., Sasaki, M., Shibata, M., Tagoshi, H. and Tanaka, T., “Black Hole Perturbation”, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 128, 1–121, (1997). [DOI], [grqc/9712057]. (Cited on pages 55 and 62.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [286]Mirshekari, S. and Will, C. M., “Compact binary systems in scalartensor gravity: Equations of motion to 2.5 postNewtonian order”, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 084070 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1301.4680 [grqc]]. (Cited on pages 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, and 75.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [287]Mirshekari, S., Yunes, N. and Will, C. M., “Constraining Lorentzviolating, modified dispersion relations with gravitational waves”, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 024041 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1110.2720 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 86.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [288]Mishra, C. K., Arun, K. G., Iyer, B. R. and Sathyaprakash, B. S., “Parametrized tests of postNewtonian theory using Advanced LIGO and Einstein Telescope”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 064010 (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1005.0304 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 85.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [289]Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S. and Wheeler, J. A., Gravitation, (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973). [ADS]. (Cited on pages 28 and 32.)Google Scholar
 [290]Mitchell, T. and Will, C. M., “PostNewtonian gravitational radiation and equations of motion via direct integration of the relaxed Einstein equations. V. Evidence for the strong equivalence principle to second postNewtonian order”, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 124025 (2007). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0704.2243 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [291]Modenini, D. and Tortora, P., “Pioneer 10 and 11 orbit determination analysis shows no discrepancy with NewtonEinstein’s laws of gravity”, arXiv, eprint, (2013). [ADS], [arXiv:1311.4978 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 27.)Google Scholar
 [292]Moura, F. and Schiappa, R., “Higherderivativecorrected black holes: perturbative stability and absorption cross section in heterotic string theory”, Class. Quantum Grav., 24, 361–386, (2007). [DOI], [ADS], [hepth/0605001]. (Cited on page 41.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [293]Müller, H., Herrmann, S., Braxmaier, C., Schiller, S. and Peters, A., “Modern MichelsonMorley experiment using cryogenic optical resonators”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91, 020401 (2003). [DOI], [physics/0305117]. (Cited on page 13.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [294]Müller, H., Peters, A. and Chu, S., “A precision measurement of the gravitational redshift by the interference of matter waves”, Nature, 463, 926–929, (2010). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [295]Müller, J., Schneider, M., Nordtvedt Jr, K. L. and Vokrouhlický, D., “What can LLR provide to relativity?”, in Piran, T., ed., The Eighth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories, Proceedings of the meeting held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June 22–27, 1997, pp. 1151–1153, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999). (Cited on pages 48 and 50.)Google Scholar
 [296]Murphy, M. T., Webb, J. K., Flambaum, V. V., Dzuba, V. A., Churchill, C. W., Prochaska, J. X., Barrow, J. D. and Wolfe, A. M., “Possible evidence for a variable finestructure constant from QSO absorption lines: motivations, analysis and results”, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 327, 1208–1222, (2001). [DOI], [astroph/0012419]. (Cited on pages 18 and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [297]Murphy, T. W. et al., “Laser ranging to the lost Lunokhod 1 reflector”, Icarus, 211, 1103–1108, (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1009.5720 [astroph.EP]]. (Cited on page 49.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [298]Murphy Jr, T. W., Adelberger, E. G., Battat, J. B. R., Hoyle, C. D., Johnson, N. H., McMillan, R. J., Stubbs, C. W. and Swanson, H. E., “APOLLO: millimeter lunar laser ranging”, Class. Quantum Grav., 29, 184005 (2012). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 49.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [299]Narayan, R. and McClintock, J. E., “Advectiondominated accretion and the black hole event horizon”, New Astron. Rev., 51, 733–751, (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0803.0322]. (Cited on page 87.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [300]Ni, W.T., “Equivalence principles and electromagnetism”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 38, 301–304, (1977). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 20 and 24.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [301]Nishizawa, A., Taruya, A., Hayama, K., Kawamura, S. and Sakagami, M.A., “Probing nontensorial polarizations of stochastic gravitationalwave backgrounds with groundbased laser interferometers”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 082002 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0903.0528 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 82.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [302]Nishizawa, A., Taruya, A. and Kawamura, S., “Cosmological test of gravity with polarizations of stochastic gravitational waves around 0.1–1 Hz”, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 104043 (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0911.0525 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 83.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [303]Nordström, G., “Zur Theorie der Gravitation vom Standpunkt des Relativitätsprinzips”, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 42, 533–554, (1913). [DOI]. (Cited on page 30.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [304]Nordtvedt Jr, K. L., “Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. I. Phenomenology”, Phys. Rev., 169, 1014–1016, (1968). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 47.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [305]Nordtvedt Jr, K. L., “Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. II. Theory”, Phys. Rev., 169, 1017–1025, (1968). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 32.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [306]Nordtvedt Jr, K. L., “Existence of the gravitomagnetic interaction”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 27, 1395–1404, (1988). [DOI]. (Cited on page 51.)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [307]Nordtvedt Jr, K. L., “Gravitomagnetic interaction and laser ranging to Earth satellites”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 61, 2647–2649, (1988). [DOI]. (Cited on page 51.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [308]Nordtvedt Jr, K. L., “Ġ/G and a cosmological acceleration of gravitationally compact bodies”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 65, 953–956, (1990). [DOI]. (Cited on page 50.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [309]Nordtvedt Jr, K. L., “The Relativistic Orbit Observables in Lunar Laser Ranging”, Icarus, 114, 51–62, (1995). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 48 and 49.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [310]Nordtvedt Jr, K. L., “Testing Newton’s third law using lunar laser ranging”, Class. Quantum Grav., 18, L133–L137, (2001). [DOI]. (Cited on page 54.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [311]Ohanian, H. C., “Comment on the Schiff Conjecture”, Phys. Rev. D, 10, 2041–2042, (1974). [DOI]. (Cited on page 20.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [312]Olive, K. A., Pospelov, M., Qian, Y.Z., Manhes, G., VangioniFlam, E., Coc, A. and Cassé, M., “Reexamination of the ^{187}Re bound on the variation of fundamental couplings”, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 027701 (2004). [DOI], [astroph/0309252]. (Cited on page 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [313]Palenzuela, C., Barausse, E., Ponce, M. and Lehner, L., “Dynamical scalarization of neutron stars in scalartensor gravity theories”, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 044024 (2014). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1310.4481 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [314]Pani, P. and Cardoso, V., “Are black holes in alternative theories serious astrophysical candidates? The case for EinsteindilatonGaussBonnet black holes”, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 084031 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0902.1569 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 41.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [315]Paolozzi, A. and Ciufolini, I., “LARES successfully launched in orbit: Satellite and mission description”, Acta Astronaut., 91, 313–321, (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1305.6823 [astroph.IM]]. (Cited on page 52.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [316]Pati, M. E. and Will, C. M., “PostNewtonian gravitational radiation and equations of motion via direct integration of the relaxed Einstein equations: Foundations”, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 124015 (2000). [DOI], [grqc/0007087]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [317]Pati, M. E. and Will, C. M., “PostNewtonian gravitational radiation and equations of motion via direct integration of the relaxed Einstein equations. II. Twobody equations of motion to second postNewtonian order, and radiation reaction to 3.5 postNewtonian order”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 104008 (2002). [DOI], [ADS], [grqc/0201001]. (Cited on page 60.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [318]Peik, E., Lipphardt, B., Schnatz, H., Schneider, T. and Tamm, C., “Limit on the Present Temporal Variation of the Fine Structure Constant”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 93, 170801 (2004). [DOI], [physics/0402132]. (Cited on page 18.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [319]Peil, S., Crane, S., Hanssen, J. L., Swanson, T. B. and Ekstrom, C. R., “Tests of local position invariance using continuously running atomic clocks”, Phys. Rev. A, 87, 010102 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1301.6145 [physics.atomph]]. (Cited on page 17.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [320]Petrov, Y. V., Nazarov, A. I., Onegin, M. S., Petrov, V. Y. and Sakhnovsky, E. G., “Natural nuclear reactor at Oklo and variation of fundamental constants: Computation of neutronics of a fresh core”, Phys. Rev. C, 74, 064610 (2006). [DOI], [ADS], [hepph/0506186]. (Cited on pages 18 and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [321]Pitjeva, E. V., “Relativistic Effects and Solar Oblateness from Radar Observations of Planets and Spacecraft”, Astron. Lett., 31, 340–349, (2005). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 50.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [322]Poisson, E., “Measuring blackhole parameters and testing general relativity using gravitationalwave data from spacebased interferometers”, Phys. Rev. D, 54, 5939–5953, (1996). [DOI], [grqc/9606024]. (Cited on page 84.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [323]Poisson, E. and Will, C. M., “Gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Parameter estimation using secondpostNewtonian wave forms”, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 848–855, (1995). [DOI], [arXiv:grqc/9502040]. (Cited on page 83.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [324]Poisson, E. and Will, C. M., Gravity: Newtonian, PostNewtonian, Relativistic, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014). (Cited on pages 28, 35, 36, 59, 80, and 82.)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [325]Prestage, J. D., Bollinger, J. J., Itano, W. M. and Wineland, D. J., “Limits for Spatial Anisotropy by Use of NuclearSpinPolarized ^{9}Be^{+} Ions”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 54, 2387–2390, (1985). [DOI]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [326]Prestage, J. D., Tjoelker, R. L. and Maleki, L., “Atomic clocks and variation of the fine structure constant”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 74, 3511–3514, (1995). [DOI]. (Cited on page 17.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [327]Psaltis, D., “Measurements of black hole spins and tests of strongfield general relativity”, in Kaaret, P., Lamb, F. K. and Swank, J. H., eds., XRay Timing 2003: Rossi and Beyond, Proceedings of the conference held 3–5 November 2003 in Cambridge, MA, AIP Conference Proceedings, 714, pp. 29–35, (American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, 2004). [astroph/0402213]. (Cited on page 87.)Google Scholar
 [328]Psaltis, D., “Probes and Tests of StrongField Gravity with Observations in the Electromagnetic Spectrum”, Living Rev. Relativity, 11, lrr20089 (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0806.1531]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20089. (Cited on page 87.)
 [329]Quast, R., Reimers, D. and Levshakov, S. A., “Probing the variability of the finestructure constant with the VLT/UVES”, Astron. Astrophys., 415, L7–L11, (2004). [DOI], [astroph/0311280]. (Cited on pages 18 and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [330]Randall, L. and Sundrum, R., “An Alternative to Compactification”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 4690–4693, (1999). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:hepth/9906064]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [331]Randall, L. and Sundrum, R., “Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 3370–3373, (1999). [DOI], [hepph/9905221]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [332]Ransom, S. M. et al., “A millisecond pulsar in a stellar triple system”, Nature, 505, 520–524, (2014). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1401.0535 [astroph.SR]]. (Cited on pages 12, 49, and 73.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [333]Reasenberg, R. D. et al., “Viking relativity experiment: Verification of signal retardation by solar gravity”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 234, L219–L221, (1979). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 45.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [334]Reeves, H., “On the origin of the light elements (Z < 6)”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 66, 193–216, (1994). [DOI]. (Cited on page 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [335]Reynaud, S., Salomon, C. and Wolf, P., “Testing General Relativity with Atomic Clocks”, Space Sci. Rev., 148, 233–247, (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0903.1166 [quantph]]. (Cited on page 17.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [336]Reynolds, C. S., “Measuring Black Hole Spin Using XRay Reflection Spectroscopy”, Space Sci. Rev. (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1302.3260 [astroph.HE]]. (Cited on page 87.)Google Scholar
 [337]Reynolds, C. S., “The spin of supermassive black holes”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 244004 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1307.3246 [astroph.HE]]. (Cited on page 87.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [338]Ries, J. C., Eanes, R. J., Tapley, B. D. and Peterson, G. E., “Prospects for an Improved LenseThirring Test with SLR and the GRACE Gravity Mission”, in Noomen, R., Klosko, S., Noll, C. and Pearlman, M., eds., 13th International Workshop on Laser Ranging, Proceedings from the Science Session and Full Proceedings CDROM, Washington, DC, October 07–11, 2002, NASA Conference Proceedings, 2003212248, pp. 211–248. NASA, (2003). URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov/lw13/lw_proceedings.html. (Cited on page 52.)Google Scholar
 [339]Rievers, B. and Lämmerzahl, C., “High precision thermal modeling of complex systems with application to the flyby and Pioneer anomaly”, Ann. Phys. (Berlin), 523, 439–449, (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1104.3985 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [340]Riis, E., Anderson, L.U. A., Bjerre, N., Poulson, O., Lee, S. A. and Hall, J. L., “Test of the Isotropy of the Speed of Light Using FastBeam Laser Spectroscopy”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 60, 81–84, (1988). [DOI]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [341]Robertson, H. P., “The twobody problem in general relativity.”, Ann. Math., 39, 101–104, (1938). [DOI]. (Cited on page 57.)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [342]Roll, P. G., Krotkov, R. and Dicke, R. H., “The equivalence of inertial and passive gravitational mass”, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 26, 442–517, (1964). [DOI]. (Cited on page 47.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [343]Rossi, B. and Hall, D. B., “Variation of the rate of decay of mesotrons with momentum”, Phys. Rev., 59, 223–228, (1941). [DOI]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [344]Rozelot, J.P. and Damiani, C., “History of solar oblateness measurements and interpretation”, Eur. Phys. J. H, 36, 407–436, (2011). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 47.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [345]Ryan, F. D., “Gravitational waves from the inspiral of a compact object into a massive, axisymmetric body with arbitrary multipole moments”, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 5707–5718, (1995). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 84.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [346]Sagi, E., “Preferred frame parameters in the tensorvectorscalar theory of gravity and its generalization”, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 044032 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [0905.4001 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 39.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [347]Sampson, L., Yunes, N. and Cornish, N., “Rosetta stone for parametrized tests of gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 064056 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1307.8144 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 85.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [348]Samuel, S., “On the speed of gravity and the v/c corrections to the Shapiro time delay”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 231101 (2003). [DOI], [astroph/0304006]. (Cited on page 45.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [349]Samuel, S., “On the Speed of Gravity and the Jupiter/quasar Measurement”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 13, 1753–1770, (2004). [DOI], [astroph/0412401]. (Cited on page 45.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [350]Santiago, D. I., Kalligas, D. and Wagoner, R. V., “Nucleosynthesis constraints on scalartensor theories of gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 7627–7637, (1997). [DOI]. (Cited on page 87.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [351]Sasaki, M. and Tagoshi, H., “Analytic Black Hole Perturbation Approach to Gravitational Radiation”, Living Rev. Relativity, 6, lrr20036 (2003). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0306120]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20036. (Cited on pages 55 and 62.)
 [352]Sathyaprakash, B. S. and Schutz, B. F., “Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology with Gravitational Waves”, Living Rev. Relativity, 12, lrr20092 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0903.0338 [grqc]]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20092. (Cited on pages 59 and 79.)
 [353]Scharre, P. D. and Will, C. M., “Testing scalartensor gravity using space gravitationalwave interferometers”, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 042002 (2002). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:grqc/0109044]. (Cited on page 84.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [354]Schlamminger, S., Choi, K.Y., Wagner, T. A., Gundlach, J. H. and Adelberger, E. G., “Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Rotating Torsion Balance”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 041101 (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0712.0607 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 11.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [355]Schutz, B. F., A First Course in General Relativity, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 2009), 2nd edition. [ADS], [Google Books]. (Cited on page 28.)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [356]Shah, A. G, “Gravitationalwave flux for a particle orbiting a Kerr black hole to 20th postNewtonian order: a numerical approach”, arXiv, eprint, (2014). [ADS], [arXiv:1403.2697]. (Cited on page 62.)Google Scholar
 [357]Shankland, R. S., McCuskey, S. W., Leone, F. C. and Kuerti, G., “New analysis of the interferometer observations of Dayton C. Miller”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 27, 167–178, (1955). [DOI]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [358]Shao, L., Caballero, R. N., Kramer, M., Wex, N., Champion, D. J. and Jessner, A., “A new limit on local Lorentz invariance violation of gravity from solitary pulsars”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 165019 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1307.2552 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 49.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [359]Shao, L. and Wex, N., “New tests of local Lorentz invariance of gravity with smalleccentricity binary pulsars”, Class. Quantum Grav., 29, 215018 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1209.4503 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 49.)ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [360]Shao, L. and Wex, N., “New limits on the violation of local position invariance of gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 30, 165020 (2013). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1307.2637 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 49.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [361]Shapiro, I. I., “A century of relativity”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 71, S41–S53, (1999). [DOI]. (Cited on page 8.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [362]Shapiro, I. I., Bartel, N., Bietenholz, M. F., Lebach, D. E., Lestrade, J.F., Ransom, R. R. and Ratner, M. I., “VLBI for Gravity Probe B. I. Overview”, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 201, 1 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1204.4630 [astroph.IM]]. (Cited on page 52.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [363]Shapiro, S. S., Davis, J. L., Lebach, D. E. and Gregory, J. S., “Measurement of the Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves using Geodetic VeryLongBaseline Interferometry Data, 1979–1999”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 121101 (2004). [DOI]. (Cited on page 44.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [364]Shibata, M., Taniguchi, K., Okawa, H. and Buonanno, A., “Coalescence of binary neutron stars in a scalartensor theory of gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 084005 (2014). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1310.0627 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [365]Shlyakter, A. I., “Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants”, Nature, 264, 340 (1976). [DOI]. (Cited on page 18.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [366]Skordis, C., “Generalizing tensorvectorscalar cosmology”, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 123502 (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0801.1985]. (Cited on page 39.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [367]Skordis, C., “The tensorvectorscalar theory and its cosmology”, Class. Quantum Grav., 26, 143001 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0903.3602 [astroph.CO]]. (Cited on page 40.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [368]Smarr, L., Čadež, A., Dewitt, B. and Eppley, K., “Collision of two black holes: Theoretical framework”, Phys. Rev. D, 14, 2443–2452, (1976). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 58.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [369]Smiciklas, M., Brown, J. M., Cheuk, L. W., Smullin, S. J. and Romalis, M. V., “New Test of Local Lorentz Invariance Using a ^{21}NeRbK Comagnetometer”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 171604 (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1106.0738 [physics.atomph]]. (Cited on page 14.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [370]Sotiriou, T. P. and Faraoni, V., “f(R) theories of gravity”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82, 451–497, (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0805.1726 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 37.)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [371]Sotiriou, T. P. and Faraoni, V., “Black Holes in ScalarTensor Gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 081103 (2012). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1109.6324 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 67.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [372]Speake, C. C. and Will, C. M., “Tests of the weak equivalence principle”, Class. Quantum Grav., 29, 180301 (2012). [DOI]. (Cited on page 12.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [373]Srianand, R., Chand, H., Petitjean, P. and Aracil, B., “Limits on the time variation of the electromagnetic finestructure constant in the low energy limit from absorption lines in the spectra of distant quasars”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 121302 (2004). [DOI], [astroph/0402177]. (Cited on pages 18 and 19.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [374]Stairs, I. H., “Testing General Relativity with Pulsar Timing”, Living Rev. Relativity, 6, lrr20035 (2003). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:astroph/0307536]. URL (accessed 28 March 2014): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20035. (Cited on pages 49 and 68.)
 [375]Stairs, I. H. et al., “Discovery of three wideorbit binary pulsars: Implications for Binary Evolution and Equivalence Principles”, Astrophys. J., 632, 1060–1068, (2005). [DOI], [astroph/0506188]. (Cited on page 49.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [376]Stanwix, P. L., Tobar, M. E., Wolf, P., Susli, M., Locke, C. R., Ivanov, E. N., Winterflood, J. and van Kann, F., “Test of Lorentz Invariance in Electrodynamics Using Rotating Cryogenic Sapphire Microwave Oscillators”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 040404 (2005). [DOI], [hepph/0506074]. (Cited on page 13.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [377]Stavridis, A. and Will, C. M., “Bounding the mass of the graviton with gravitational waves: Effect of spin precessions in massive black hole binaries”, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 044002 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0906.3602 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 86.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [378]Stecker, F. W. and Scully, S. T., “Searching for new physics with ultrahigh energy cosmic rays”, New J. Phys., 11, 085003 (2009). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0906.1735 [astroph.HE]]. (Cited on page 15.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [379]Su, Y., Heckel, B. R., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., Harris, M., Smith, G. L. and Swanson, H. E., “New tests of the universality of free fall”, Phys. Rev. D, 50, 3614–3636, (1994). [DOI]. (Cited on page 11.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [380]Sushkov, A. O., Kim, W. J., Dalvit, D. A. R. and Lamoreaux, S. K., “New Experimental Limits on NonNewtonian Forces in the Micrometer Range”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 171101 (2011). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1108.2547 [quantph]]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [381]Talmadge, C. L., Berthias, J.P., Hellings, R. W. and Standish, E. M., “ModelIndependent Constraints on Possible Modifications of Newtonian Gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 61, 1159–1162, (1988). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on pages 27 and 86.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [382]Taveras, V. and Yunes, N., “BarberoImmirzi parameter as a scalar field: Kinflation from loop quantum gravity?”, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 064070 (2008). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0807.2652 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 41.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [383]Taylor, J. H., “Astronomical and Space Experiments to Test Relativity”, in MacCallum, M. A. H., ed., General Relativity and Gravitation, p. 209, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1987). [Google Books]. (Cited on page 17.)Google Scholar
 [384]Taylor, T. R. and Veneziano, G., “Dilaton Couplings at Large Distances”, Phys. Lett. B, 213, 450–454, (1988). [DOI]. (Cited on pages 26 and 37.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [385]Taylor Jr, J. H., “Nobel Lecture: Binary pulsars and relativistic gravity”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 66, 711–719, (1994). [DOI]. (Cited on page 68.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [386]Thorne, K. S., “Gravitational radiation”, in Hawking, S. W. and Israel, W., eds., Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, pp. 330–458, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1987). [Google Books]. (Cited on page 80.)Google Scholar
 [387]Thorne, K. S. and Dykla, J. J., “Black Holes in the DickeBrans Theory of Gravity”, Astrophys. J. Lett., 166, L35–L38, (1971). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 66.)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [388]Tinto, M. and Alves, M. E. D. S., “LISA sensitivities to gravitational waves from relativistic metric theories of gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 122003 (2010). [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:1010.1302 [grqc]]. (Cited on page 83.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [389]Treuhaft, R. N. and Lowe, S. T., “A measurement of planetary relativistic deflection”, Astron. J., 102, 1879–1888, (1991). [DOI]. (Cited on page 44.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [390]Tu, L.C., Guan, S.G., Luo, J., Shao, C.G. and Liu, L.X., “Null Test of Newtonian InverseSquare Law at Submillimeter Range with a DualModulation Torsion Pendulum”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 201101 (2007). [DOI], [ADS]. (Cited on page 27.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 [391]Turneaure, J. P., Will, C. M., Farrell, B. F., Mattison, E. M. and Vessot, R. F. C., “Test of the principle of equivalence by a null gravitational redshift experiment”, Phys. Rev. D, 27, 1705–1714, (1983). [DOI]. (Cited on page 17.)ADS