pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.10791 · v1 · pith:5I3FL3OPnew · submitted 2019-06-26 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.CO

Constraining the scalar-tensor gravity theories with and without screening mechanisms by combined observations

Xing Zhang , Rui Niu , Wen Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 15:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.CO
keywords scalar-tensor gravityscreened modified gravityBrans-Dicke theorylunar laser rangingpulsar observationstime-varying gravitational constantNordtvedt effectchameleon model
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lunar laser ranging provides the tightest constraints on screened modified gravity, improving prior bounds by more than seven orders of magnitude.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests scalar-tensor theories both with screening mechanisms that suppress the scalar field in dense regions and without such mechanisms, using observations of time-varying gravitational constant, gravitational dipole radiation, and the Nordtvedt effect. Data from the Cassini experiment, lunar laser ranging, and two specific pulsars are combined to derive limits on Brans-Dicke theory and screened modified gravity. Screening changes which observation yields the strongest bound, with lunar laser ranging dominating for screened models. The derived limits remain consistent with general relativity while narrowing the allowed parameter space for deviations. As an illustration the chameleon model receives explicit parameter bounds from the same data.

Core claim

In Brans-Dicke theory without screening the strongest constraint comes from Cassini, the second from pulsar data, and the weakest from lunar laser ranging; in screened modified gravity the lunar laser ranging measurement supplies the most stringent limit and improves the previous best constraint by more than seven orders of magnitude. The same data set yields bounds on the cosmological evolution of the scalar background through the observed time variation of G. All tests are consistent with general relativity and produce tighter limits on departures from it.

What carries the argument

Screening mechanisms that suppress the scalar field inside dense bodies for SMG (contrasted with no suppression in Brans-Dicke theory), together with the mapping of these mechanisms onto the time variation of G, dipole radiation, and Nordtvedt effect observables.

If this is right

  • Screening changes which observation supplies the dominant constraint, reversing the ordering seen in the unscreened case.
  • Lunar laser ranging improves the prior best limit on screened modified gravity by more than seven orders of magnitude.
  • Time variation of G supplies upper bounds on the cosmological evolution of the scalar background field.
  • The combined data set yields more stringent limits on all deviations from general relativity than any single test.
  • Explicit parameter bounds can be extracted for concrete screened models such as the chameleon.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same combined-observation strategy could be applied to other screened models to produce similarly strong limits once their screening functions are specified.
  • Future improvements in lunar laser ranging precision would tighten screened-model bounds proportionally if the suppression assumption continues to hold.
  • A mismatch between the ordering of constraints expected with and without screening could indicate that the dense-region suppression differs from the simple model used here.
  • Pulsar and solar-system tests together can distinguish screened from unscreened scalar-tensor theories more effectively than either class alone.

Load-bearing premise

Screening mechanisms suppress the scalar field in dense regions exactly as modeled, so solar-system and pulsar data translate directly into theory-parameter limits without additional systematic corrections.

What would settle it

An independent measurement of the Nordtvedt parameter or dipole radiation amplitude that lies outside the lunar-laser-ranging-derived interval for screened modified gravity while remaining inside the Cassini-derived interval for Brans-Dicke theory would falsify the assumed screening suppression.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.10791 by Rui Niu, Wen Zhao, Xing Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Confidence contours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. In the parameter space of exponential chameleon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Screened modified gravity (SMG) and Brans-Dicke (BD) gravity are typical examples of scalar-tensor theories with and without screening mechanisms, which can suppress the scalar field in dense regions. In this paper, we investigate the tests of time-varying gravitational constant $G$, gravitational dipole radiation, and Nordtvedt effect in BD and SMG theories, respectively. We place new constraints on these theories by combining Cassini experiment, lunar laser ranging (LLR) measurements, and pulsar observations from PSRs J1738$+$0333 and J0348$+$0432. We find that screening mechanism has important influence on theoretical constraints. The strongest, second, and weakest constraints on BD are from Cassini, pulsar, and LLR tests, respectively. The most stringent constraint on SMG comes from LLR measurements and improves the previous best constraint by more than seven orders of magnitude. We derive the bounds on the cosmological evolution of the scalar background in these theories using the time variation of $G$. The results of all tests agree well with general relativity (GR) and give more stringent constraints on the deviations from GR. Finally, as an example, we consider the chameleon model and derive the constraints on the model parameters.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates constraints on Brans-Dicke (BD) gravity (without screening) and screened modified gravity (SMG) using tests of time-varying G, gravitational dipole radiation, and the Nordtvedt effect. Data from Cassini, lunar laser ranging (LLR), and pulsars J1738+0333 and J0348+0432 are combined to bound theory parameters. The paper reports that screening affects the constraints, with Cassini giving the strongest BD limit, and LLR providing the most stringent SMG bound (improving prior limits by >7 orders of magnitude). All results are consistent with GR; bounds on scalar-field cosmological evolution are derived, and the chameleon model is treated as an example.

Significance. If the mapping of LLR and other data onto SMG parameters via the assumed screening suppression is valid, the work would deliver substantially tighter observational limits on scalar-tensor deviations from GR than previously available, with the explicit contrast between screened and unscreened cases being a useful contribution. The multi-probe combination is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and LLR analysis] Abstract and LLR analysis section: the headline claim that LLR yields the most stringent SMG constraint (improving prior bounds by >7 orders) rests on the assumption that screening suppresses the scalar field exactly as parametrized inside the Earth-Moon system, allowing direct mapping of the Nordtvedt effect or Ġ onto the theory parameters without residual couplings or environment-dependent corrections. The manuscript must supply the explicit SMG expression used for this observable (likely in the theory or LLR subsection) and demonstrate that no additional post-Newtonian terms rescale the bound.
  2. [Theory and constraints sections] Theory and constraints sections: the statement that screening has an 'important influence' on the bounds is central, yet the paper does not show how the screening factor enters the dipole-radiation or Nordtvedt formulae differently from the BD case, nor does it quantify the sensitivity of the seven-order improvement to the precise value of the suppression parameter.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Theory section] Notation for the SMG screening parameters should be introduced once in the theory section and used consistently thereafter to avoid ambiguity when comparing BD and SMG results.
  2. [Pulsar subsection] The pulsar subsection would benefit from a short table listing the individual bounds from each test before the combined result is stated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications and committing to revisions where appropriate to strengthen the presentation of the SMG expressions and the role of screening.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and LLR analysis] Abstract and LLR analysis section: the headline claim that LLR yields the most stringent SMG constraint (improving prior bounds by >7 orders) rests on the assumption that screening suppresses the scalar field exactly as parametrized inside the Earth-Moon system, allowing direct mapping of the Nordtvedt effect or Ġ onto the theory parameters without residual couplings or environment-dependent corrections. The manuscript must supply the explicit SMG expression used for this observable (likely in the theory or LLR subsection) and demonstrate that no additional post-Newtonian terms rescale the bound.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on explicit mapping. The theory section derives the SMG observables by multiplying the scalar contributions by the screening suppression factor (thin-shell parameter) appropriate to the Earth-Moon system; this is the direct mapping used for both the Nordtvedt effect and Ġ. Within the parametrized post-Newtonian framework employed, no additional environment-dependent terms appear that would rescale the bound. To make this fully transparent, we will expand the LLR subsection with the explicit SMG formula for the Nordtvedt parameter (showing the suppression factor) and add a short paragraph confirming the absence of further rescaling terms. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theory and constraints sections] Theory and constraints sections: the statement that screening has an 'important influence' on the bounds is central, yet the paper does not show how the screening factor enters the dipole-radiation or Nordtvedt formulae differently from the BD case, nor does it quantify the sensitivity of the seven-order improvement to the precise value of the suppression parameter.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit side-by-side comparison and sensitivity discussion would improve the manuscript. In the theory section the BD formulae use the unsuppressed coupling, while the SMG versions multiply the scalar terms by the screening factor (different for each body: near unity for the pulsar in dipole radiation; close to complete for Earth-Moon in the Nordtvedt effect). This difference produces the contrasting bounds. The seven-order improvement arises because LLR's tight limit on the effective (screened) parameter translates to a much stronger limit on the fundamental parameter when the suppression is strong. We will add a paragraph in the theory section showing the factor-by-factor difference and a brief scaling relation (bound scales inversely with suppression) to quantify the sensitivity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; constraints from external observations

full rationale

The paper's central results consist of upper limits on BD and SMG parameters obtained by mapping external datasets (Cassini, LLR, PSRs J1738+0333 and J0348+0432) through standard theoretical expressions for the Nordtvedt effect, dipole radiation, and Ġ. No step in the provided text reduces a prediction to a fitted input by construction, nor does any load-bearing premise collapse to a self-citation chain. The screening modeling is taken as given from the SMG framework and applied to data; the bounds remain externally falsifiable against GR. This yields a minor self-citation allowance at most.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; free parameters and modeling assumptions cannot be enumerated exhaustively. The central claim rests on the existence of screening functions whose functional form is taken from prior literature and on the validity of mapping pulsar and solar-system observables onto scalar-field parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • Brans-Dicke parameter ω
    Dimensionless coupling constant whose value is bounded by the data combination.
  • SMG screening parameters
    Model-specific parameters controlling the density-dependent suppression of the scalar field.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The functional form of the screening mechanism in SMG is correctly described by the models used in the literature.
    Invoked when translating LLR and pulsar data into constraints on SMG.
  • domain assumption The three observables (time-varying G, dipole radiation, Nordtvedt effect) are the dominant signatures of scalar-tensor deviations in the relevant regimes.
    Used to select which data sets are combined.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5755 in / 1416 out tokens · 25789 ms · 2026-05-25T15:59:23.941454+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Cline, Springer Proc

    D. Cline, Springer Proc. Phys. 148, pp.1 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Sahni, The physics of the early universe

    V. Sahni, The physics of the early universe. Proceedings, 2nd Aegean School, Ermoupolis, Greece, September 22- 30, 2003, Lect. Notes Phys.653, 141 (2004), [,141(2004)], arXiv:astro-ph/0403324 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Kiefer, Quantum Gravity (Oxford University Press, 6 2007)

    C. Kiefer, Quantum Gravity (Oxford University Press, 6 2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 160, 1113 (1967), [3,93(1987)]

    work page 1967

  5. [5]

    Fujii and K

    Y. Fujii and K. Maeda, The scalar-tensor theory of gravi- tation, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Class. Quant. Grav. 9, 2093 (1992)

    work page 2093

  7. [7]

    Gannouji, D

    R. Gannouji, D. Polarski, A. Ranquet, and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 2006, 016 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Uzan, Living Rev

    J.-P. Uzan, Living Rev. Rel. 14 (2011), 10.12942/lrr- 2011-2

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr- 2011

  9. [9]

    C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravita- tional Physics, by Clifford M. Will, pp. 396. ISBN 0521439736. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, March 1993. (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK, 1993) p. 396

    work page 1993

  10. [10]

    C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Nordtvedt, Phys

    K. Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 953 (1990)

    work page 1990

  12. [12]

    D. J. Nice, E. M. Splaver, I. H. Stairs, O. Lohmer, A. Jessner, M. Kramer, and J. M. Cordes, Astrophys. J. 634, 1242 (2005)

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    Generic tests of the existence of the gravitational dipole radiation and the variation of the gravitational constant

    K. Lazaridis, N. Wex, A. Jessner, M. Kramer, B. W. Stappers, G. H. Janssen, G. Desvignes, M. B. Purver, I. Cognard, G. Theureau, A. G. Lyne, C. A. Jordan, and J. A. Zensus, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 400, 805 (2009), arXiv:0908.0285

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, G. Esposito-Far` ese, J. P. W. Verbiest, M. Bailes, B. A. Jacoby, M. Kramer, I. H. Stairs, J. Antoniadis, and G. H. Janssen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 423, 3328 (2012), arXiv:1205.1450 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    W. W. Zhu, I. H. Stairs, P. B. Demorest, D. J. Nice, J. A. Ellis, S. M. Ransom, Z. Arzoumanian, K. Crowter, T. Dolch, R. D. Ferdman, E. Fonseca, M. E. Gonzalez, G. Jones, M. L. Jones, M. T. Lam, L. Levin, M. A. McLaughlin, T. Pennucci, K. Stovall, and J. Swiggum, Astrophys. J. 809, 41 (2015)

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    W. W. Zhu, G. Desvignes, N. Wex, R. N. Caballero, D. J. Champion, P. B. Demorest, J. A. Ellis, G. H. Janssen, M. Kramer, A. Krieger, and et al., Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 482, 3249 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Hofmann, J

    F. Hofmann, J. M¨ uller, and L. Biskupek, Astron. Astro- phys. 522, L5 (2010)

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    R. H. D. C. Brans, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961)

    work page 1961

  19. [19]

    A Unified Description of Screened Modified Gravity

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, B. Li, and H. A. Winther, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044015 (2012), arXiv:1203.4812 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    Chameleon Cosmology

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D 69, 044026 (2004), astro-ph/0309411

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  21. [21]

    Symmetron Fields: Screening Long-Range Forces Through Local Symmetry Restoration

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 231301 (2010), arXiv:1001.4525 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    The String Dilaton and a Least Coupling Principle

    T. Damour and A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B423, 532 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9401069 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  23. [23]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    f(R) theories

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010), arXiv:1002.4928 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. Lett. 195, L51 (1975)

    work page 1975

  26. [26]

    J. H. Taylor and J. M. Weisberg, Astrophys. J. 253, 908 (1982)

    work page 1982

  27. [27]

    J. H. Taylor and J. M. Weisberg, Astrophys. J. 345, 434 (1989)

    work page 1989

  28. [28]

    Zhang, W

    X. Zhang, W. Zhao, T. Liu, K. Lin, C. Zhang, X. Zhao, S. Zhang, T. Zhu, and A. Wang, Astrophys. J. 874, 121 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Angular momentum loss for eccentric compact binary in screened modified gravity

    X. Zhang, W. Zhao, T. Liu, K. Lin, C. Zhang, X. Zhao, S. Zhang, T. Zhu, and A. Wang, JCAP 1, 019 (2019), arXiv:1811.00339 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    D. M. Eardley, Astrophys. J. Lett. 196, L59 (1975)

    work page 1975

  31. [31]

    Gravitational radiation from compact binary systems in screened modified gravity

    X. Zhang, T. Liu, and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104027 (2017), arXiv:1702.08752 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Nordtvedt, Phys

    K. Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. 169, 1014 (1968)

    work page 1968

  33. [33]

    Nordtvedt, Phys

    K. Nordtvedt, Phys. Rev. 169, 1017 (1968)

    work page 1968

  34. [34]

    Nordtvedt, Rep

    K. Nordtvedt, Rep. Prog. Phys. 45, 631 (1982)

    work page 1982

  35. [35]

    A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Binary

    J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon, T. Driebe, J. W. T. Hessels, V. M. Kaspi, V. I. Kondratiev, N. Langer, T. R. Marsh, M. A. McLaugh- lin, T. T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, J. van Leeuwen, J. P. W. Verbiest, and D. G. Whelan, Science 340, 448 (2013), arXiv:13...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    Damour and J

    T. Damour and J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. 366, 501 (1991)

    work page 1991

  37. [37]

    I. S. Shklovskii, Soviet Ast. 13, 562 (1970)

    work page 1970

  38. [38]

    Bertotti, L

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, Nature 425, 374 (2003)

    work page 2003

  39. [39]

    PPN Parameter $\gamma$ and Solar System Constraints of Massive Brans-Dicke Theories

    L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 81, 047501 (2010), arXiv:0911.3401 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

    Combined cosmological and solar system constraints on chameleon mechanism

    A. Hees and A. Fuzfa, Phys. Rev. D 85, 103005 (2012), arXiv:1111.4784 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  41. [41]

    Post-Newtonian parameters and cosmological constant of screened modified gravity

    X. Zhang, W. Zhao, H. Huang, and Y. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124003 (2016), arXiv:1603.09450 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.-C. Davis, J. Khoury, and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D 70, 123518 (2004), astro- ph/0408415

    work page arXiv 2004

  43. [43]

    Hamilton, M

    P. Hamilton, M. Jaffe, P. Haslinger, Q. Simmons, H. Muller, and J. Khoury, Science 349, 849 (2015)

    work page 2015