Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Observational tests for a class of scalar-tensor gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read MICROSCOPE's null fifth-force result forces the Yukawa conformal coupling γy in extended Jordan-Brans-Dicke gravity into one of two windows: γy < O(3.2×10−6) or γy > O(1/380).

desk verdict A testable eJBD model with a nice two-branch insight, but the headline lower bound rests on an internally inconsistent x0 and should not be trusted as quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08286 v1 pith:LZKWR6B4 submitted 2025-05-13 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Kunio Kaneta , Kin-ya Oda , Motohiko Yoshimura This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph
keywords scalar-tensorgravityextendedJordan-Brans-DickefifthforceMICROSCOPEmissionweakequivalenceprincipledarkenergyquintessenceconformalcouplinggravitationalwavetests
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether a recently proposed class of scalar-tensor gravity — the extended Jordan-Brans-Dicke (eJBD) theory, in which one scalar field drives inflation and later acts as quintessence dark energy — survives precision gravitational tests. Applying the MICROSCOPE mission's null result for composition-dependent fifth forces, it derives a two-sided constraint on $\gamma_y$, the coupling of the scalar to fermion masses: either $\gamma_y < O(3.2\times 10^{-6})$ or $\gamma_y > O(1/380)$. The lower bound is the load-bearing result: because the fifth-force strength is proportional to $\gamma_y^2 e^{-2\gamma_y x_0}$, it reaches a maximum and then decays exponentially, so a null search cannot exclude a large coupling. If the large-coupling branch is the real one, the theory becomes testable in forthcoming fifth-force experiments and in gravitational-wave observations of neutron-star black-hole mergers. The analysis also nearly forces the gauge coupling $\gamma_g$ to zero, using the simultaneous arrival of gravitational and electromagnetic waves from a neutron-star merger and bounds on fine-structure variation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exponential conformal factor $e^{-\gamma_y \chi/M_P}$ that couples the scalar to fermion masses, and its derived fifth-force strength $c_f(\gamma_y)=\gamma_y^2 e^{-2\gamma_y x_0}$ relative to gravity. Because this function is non-monotonic — it rises from zero, peaks near $\gamma_y\approx3.8\times10^{-4}$ at a value of order $2\times10^{-8}$, and then falls exponentially — a null composition experiment excludes only the middle region. The second essential ingredient is Eq. (20), $V_0 x_0^2 e^{-\gamma_\chi x_0}=3(H_0 M_P)^2$, which, under potential-energy dominance, fixes the present scalar field value $x_0\approx2610$ from the inflation-model parameters $V_0$ and $\gamma_\chi$ and thereby sets the exponential suppression scale in $c_f(\gamma_y)$.

What would settle it

Reconstruct the present value of the scalar field from the expansion history, for example by fitting the dark-energy equation of state to supernova and CMB distance data; if $x_0$ is close to 500 rather than 2610, the predicted Eötvös ratio at $\gamma_y\approx1/380$ exceeds the MICROSCOPE bound by orders of magnitude, ruling out the claimed lower window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the MICROSCOPE bound on the Eötvös ratio, $\eta(\mathrm{Pt},\mathrm{Ti})=(-1.5\pm2.3\pm1.5)\times10^{-15}$, once translated through the eJBD scalar-exchange potential, gives both an upper and a lower bound on the conformal coupling $\gamma_y$. The composition-dependent force is controlled by $c_f(\gamma_y)=\gamma_y^2 e^{-2\gamma_y x_0}$, with the present field value $x_0\approx2610$ fixed by assuming potential-energy dominance, $V_0 x_0^2 e^{-\gamma_\chi x_0}=3(H_0 M_P)^2$, using the inflation parameters $V_0=(0.5\text{--}1)\times10^{16}$ GeV and $\gamma_\chi=0.1$. Since $c_f(\gamma_y)$ vanishes as $\gamma_y\to0$ and again as $\gamma_y\to\infty$, passing a maximum of about $2\times10^{-8}$ near $\gamma_y\approx3.8\times10^{-4}$, the MICROSCOPE null result excludes the middle range and leaves $\gamma_y < O(3.2\times10^{-6})$ or $\gamma_y > O(1/380)$. The authors emphasize that the lower bound is a concrete discovery opportunity rather than a loophole: it places the theory in a regime where future composition experiments and gravitational-wave observations of neutron-star black-hole mergers could confirm scalar-tensor physics.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative windows assume potential-energy dominance of the dark-energy scalar, fixing the present field value $x_0\approx2610$ through $V_0 x_0^2 e^{-\gamma_\chi x_0}=3(H_0 M_P)^2$; if the present value is much smaller — the paper's Fig. 1 caption mentions a value near 500 — the exponential $e^{-2\gamma_y x_0}$ in the fifth-force strength is vastly larger and the claimed lower bound $\gamma_y>O(1/380)$ shifts by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the large window $\gamma_y > O(1/380)$ is the true branch, a fifth-force experiment modestly more sensitive than MICROSCOPE should detect a composition-dependent acceleration between materials with different charge-to-mass ratios.
  • If instead $\gamma_y < O(3.2\times10^{-6})$, the scalar is effectively invisible to current equivalence-principle tests and the theory remains consistent with all present composition experiments.
  • The independent PSR1913+16 orbital-decay constraint, $\gamma_y > O(0.001)$ or $\gamma_y < O(0.9\times10^{-4})$, overlaps the MICROSCOPE windows, so combining both data sets narrows the allowed regions.
  • Simultaneous gravitational-wave and electromagnetic arrival in a neutron-star merger forces the gauge coupling $\gamma_g$ to be extremely small; the model then predicts a time-varying fine-structure constant below current quasar and atomic-clock bounds.
  • In a neutron-star black-hole merger, scalar discharge before black-hole formation should imprint on the gravitational waveform, giving a targeted observational signature for future detectors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The two-window logic is generic: any scalar whose matter coupling enters as $g^2 e^{-g x}$ with a large vacuum value $x$ evades null fifth-force searches both at very weak and very strong coupling; other null experiments (axion searches, chameleon tests) may harbor analogous unquoted lower windows.
  • The paper's Fig. 1 caption reports a field value near 500 over the displayed time range, while Eq. (20) gives 2610 at the present epoch; if the present value is closer to 500, the lower bound moves to a much larger $\gamma_y$, so a direct reconstruction of the dark-energy scalar from expansion history would discriminate.
  • A natural next calculation would map the allowed $(\gamma_y,\gamma_\chi,V_0)$ parameter space, since the exponential suppression and hence both windows depend sensitively on the inflation parameters that fix $x_0$.
  • The same large-coupling window would predict observable deviations in neutron-star mass-radius relations or tidal deformability, since the scalar couples to nucleons through the quark condensate; the paper uses that channel for the fifth-force calculation but does not extend it to neutron-star structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies observational constraints in a class of extended Jordan-Brans-Dicke (eJBD) scalar-tensor gravity. It focuses on the Yukawa-type conformal coupling γy and derives from the MICROSCOPE null result a two-window constraint: γy < O(3.2×10^-6) or γy > O(1/380), with the lower bound arising from the non-monotonic effective coupling γy² e^{-2γy x0}. It also places constraints on the gauge conformal factor γg using fine-structure variation and GW170817, and discusses binary neutron-star/black-hole mergers as a future probe. The paper is built on the authors' earlier work that connects inflation to dark energy in this framework.

Significance. If the quantitative lower bound is reliable, the paper opens a concrete observational avenue for testing this class of scalar-tensor theories with future fifth-force experiments, which is a valuable result. The qualitative two-branch structure—an upper and a lower window for γy—is a robust consequence of the non-monotonic coupling and is worth publishing. The paper is refreshingly specific in deriving bounds from null experiments rather than only discussing constraints in principle. However, the headline lower bound is exponentially sensitive to the field value x0, which is fixed by the authors' own inflationary model and appears inconsistent with the value quoted in the paper's own figure caption. The PSR1913+16 constraint in Fig. 3 is also not derived. These issues make the quantitative claims presently premature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5, Eq. (21) and Fig. 1 caption] The headline lower bound γy > O(1/380) is obtained using x0 ≈ 2610 from Eq. (21), but the caption of Fig. 1 states that the field value remains approximately 500 over the relevant recent-epoch range. If x0 = 500, the crossing condition for the MICROSCOPE bound gives γy > about 0.017 (roughly 1/60), a factor of about 6 weaker than the advertised value; the upper bound is essentially unchanged because e^{-2γy x0} ≈ 1 in that corner. Since the abstract and Section 7 emphasize the lower bound as the main result, the authors must reconcile these two values and, if x0 is uncertain, quote the bound as a function of x0 rather than as a single number.
  2. [Sec. 5, Eq. (20)] The potential-energy dominance that fixes x0 through Eq. (20) is asserted after solving Eq. (19), but no quantitative comparison of kinetic and potential energy is shown. The derived value x0 ≈ 2610 lies far on the exponentially falling tail of the potential, beyond the maximum at x = 2/γχ = 20, so the branch selection is not obvious. The authors should display the solution x(τ), the kinetic-to-potential ratio, and a comparison with the field value reported in Fig. 1, to justify that the recent-epoch branch indeed corresponds to x0 ≈ 2610.
  3. [Sec. 6 and Fig. 3] The PSR1913+16 constraint shown in Fig. 3 (γy > O(0.001) or γy < O(0.9×10^-4)) is not derived anywhere in the text. Section 6 discusses the binary pulsar and scalar discharge qualitatively but provides no formula for the scalar energy loss or for the resulting bound on γy. If this constraint is to be presented in the figure, the derivation, or at least a specific reference to a calculation, must be supplied.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states "Field value remains to be a constant ∼ 500" but does not specify the variable plotted or its relation to the dimensionless field x = χ/MP used in Eq. (19); this should be clarified, especially because x0 ≈ 2610 is used in the main analysis.
  2. [Eq. (17)] The definition of the Eötvös parameter η(1,2) is written in an unusual form; the standard definition is η = |a1 - a2| / |a1 + a2| or a related normalized difference, and the exact convention used for the quoted MICROSCOPE limit should be stated.
  3. [Eq. (18)] The intermediate steps between the exchange potentials in Eqs. (15)-(16) and the final Eötvös expression in Eq. (18) should be shown, in particular the treatment of the Earth's composition factor and the origin of the numerical coefficient 1.1×10^-4.
  4. [Sec. 3, Eq. (9)] The derivation of Eq. (9) should be given, and the treatment of the simultaneous time variation of the electron mass should be explained, since the quoted atomic-clock and quasar constraints are normally interpreted as sensitivity to α alone.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many short, telegraphic sentences and grammatical issues (for example, "the field is assumed to be in the left to this maximum"); a careful language edit is recommended.
  6. [References] Reference [11] contains a typo in the page number "16161101(2017)"; also, the abstract and text should consistently use the uppercase spelling "MICROSCOPE" for the mission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline bounds are anchored to external MICROSCOPE and pulsar data; only a minor model-parameter self-citation appears, plus a separate x0 consistency concern that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the headline MICROSCOPE bound is not circular. Equation (18) converts the measured Eotvos parameter into a constraint on gamma_y^2 exp(-2 gamma_y x0), and the comparison with the MICROSCOPE null result is an external experimental input. The value x0 is not fitted to fifth-force data; it is obtained from Eq. (20) using the authors' inflation/dark-energy parameter choices V0 = (0.5-1) x 10^16 GeV and gamma_chi = 0.1, taken from their prior work [7,10]. That is a self-citation and model-dependent, but it does not make the prediction equivalent to its input: the same x0, when combined with the MICROSCOPE upper limit on the Eotvos parameter, yields either an upper or a lower bound on gamma_y depending on which side of the maximum of cf(gamma_y) the coupling lies. The PSR1913+16, quasar fine-structure, atomic-clock, and GW170817 constraints are likewise external. I find no step where a parameter fitted to a subset of data is renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work is used to forbid alternatives. One internal-consistency concern, not a circularity, is that the Fig. 1 caption states the field value remains ~500 while Eq. (21) uses x0 ~ 2610; because the bound is exponentially sensitive to x0, this discrepancy should be resolved before quoting the lower bound quantitatively. That is a correctness and reproducibility issue, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraint is a two-parameter (V0, gamma_chi) model output modulated by nuclear physics inputs; the external data are strong, but the conversion chain has several uncompensated assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • V0 = (0.5-1) × 10^16 GeV^4
    Inflation potential normalization from prior work [10]; enters Eq. (20) to set x0 and hence the exponential suppression in the fifth-force bound.
  • gamma_chi = 0.1
    Inflation-model parameter from prior work [10]; enters Eq. (19) and Eq. (20), and controls the late-time field value x0.
  • x0 = ≈2610 (derived from Eq. (20))
    Late-time dimensionless field value; the central bounds on gamma_y depend exponentially on x0 through e^{-2 gamma_y x0}. The paper treats it as derived, but it functions as a model input and no uncertainty is propagated from it.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The extended Jordan-Brans-Dicke Lagrangian (1) with five conformal couplings is the correct description of inflation-to-dark-energy conversion.
    Adopted from refs [6],[7],[10]; this paper tests consequences rather than derives the theory.
  • domain assumption Potential-energy dominance at recent epochs justifies Eq. (20), V0 x0^2 e^{-γχ x0}=3(H0 MP)^2.
    Used to fix x0≈2610; supported only by an unshown numerical solution of Eq. (19) shown in Fig. 1.
  • domain assumption The nucleon scalar charge is -m_N/7 per nucleon plus electron mass contributions, from the quark condensate value of about -130 MeV.
    Enter Eq. (15)-(18); cited from refs [12],[13] with no error estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational tests for a class of scalar-tensor gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LZKWR6B4

@misc{pith2026250508286,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational tests for a class of scalar-tensor gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LZKWR6B4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08286}
}
read the original abstract

We study observational bounds in a class of scalar-tensor gravity theories recently proposed. Either an upper or lower bound on a conformal factor in these theories is derived from null observation in composition dependent fifth force search, microscope mission. The important case of a lower bound implies that future improved observations have chances of verifying this class of theories. Future prospect for a particular type of observation is mentioned. The considered class of scalar-tensor gravity was shown elsewhere to explain the conversion of inflationary early phase to late time quintessence type dark energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08286 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Time variation of field derivative divided by the Hubble rate: numerical solution of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Observational bounds on the coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Another twist has been added by the discovery of dark energy [4], which may be described by a quintessence field [5]

    Introduction Since the advent of inflationary theory [1], [2], [3], a scalar field, usually called inflaton, is of central importance in cosmology. Another twist has been added by the discovery of dark energy [4], which may be described by a quintessence field [5]. How these two accelerating universes may or may not be related is, in our view, a hint towa...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The U(1) EM 3 gauge transformation in our eJBD model is modified, and the correct gauge transformation is Aµ→Aµ−∂µ(g−1 χ Λ), ψ →eiΛ′ ψ, g χ =ge−γχχ/MP, (4) ∂µΛ′ =∂µΛ +γχ ∂µχ MP Λ

    Fundamental issues related to electromagnetic gauge invariance We need to clarify what the conformal factor e−γgχ/MP in the lagrangian (2) implies since electromagnetic interaction is not written in terms of the covariant derivative. The U(1) EM 3 gauge transformation in our eJBD model is modified, and the correct gauge transformation is Aµ→Aµ−∂µ(g−1 χ Λ)...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (9) 4 Note that our model predicts time variation in a definite way as a function of inflaton field χ(t)

    Constraints from time variation of fine structure constant The fine structure constant variation at times t<t 0 is described by the formula, δtαeff α = 1− exp[−γg χ(t)−χ(t0) MP ] e−γyχ(t0)/MP. (9) 4 Note that our model predicts time variation in a definite way as a function of inflaton field χ(t). Many other JBD theories do not provide explicitly time var...

    work page

  4. [4]

    eJBD field mass is of the Horizon mass O(10−32)eV, and we may regard the field effectively massless in events we consider

    Scalar exchange force at recent epochs of cosmic evolution In the present work we focus on recent epochs of the redshift factor z + 1≤ O(a few). eJBD field mass is of the Horizon mass O(10−32)eV, and we may regard the field effectively massless in events we consider. Field coupling determined by (1) however differs from the original JBD theory. Let us wor...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The quantum number of material is as follows; Z/A∼ 0.3998 for Pt, and ∼ 0.4596 for Ti

    Constraint from composition dependent fifth force The best observational limit of the composition dependent weak equivalence principle is pro- vided by MICROSCOPE mission, which gives the limit on E¨ otv¨ os ratioη(Pt, Ti) [14], η(Pt, Ti) = (−1.5± 2.3(stat)± 1.5(syst))× 10−15, η (1, 2)≡ X A ηA EA 1 m1 − EA 2 m2 ,(17) where EA i is composition dependent co...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Agreement of data with prediction by general relativity may place constraint on other sources of energy loss of this binary system

    Future prospect: Application to dark wave emission in binary systems The first indication of gravitational wave (GW) emission was found in binary pulsar PSR1913+16, evidenced by orbital parameter variation of two neutron stars of nearly common mass ∼ 1.4msolar and eccentricity∼ 0.6, as summarized in [21]. Agreement of data with prediction by general relat...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The lower bound opens a window of finding deviation from general relativity in forthcoming observations

    Summary We have discovered an exciting possibility of lower bound on a model parameter in a class of scalar-tensor gravity from null result of composition dependent fifth force; microscope mission. The lower bound opens a window of finding deviation from general relativity in forthcoming observations. We have hinted as a future prospect a novel way of obs...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Jordan, Z

    P. Jordan, Z. Phys. 157, 112 (1959). C. Brans and R. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925(1961)

    work page 1959

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Guth, Phys.Rev

    A. Guth, Phys.Rev. D23, 347 (1981). A.D. Linde, Phys.Lett. B108, 389 (1982). A. Albrecht and P. Steinhardt, Phys.Rev.Lett. 48, 1220(1980)

    1981

  2. [10]

    The nearly exponential cosmic expansion was also introduced in other contexts of cosmology. A. A. Starobinsky, Phys.Lett. B91, 99 (1980). D. Kazanas, Astrophys.J.Lett. 241, L59 (1980). K. Sato, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 195, 467 (1981)

    1980

  3. [11]

    Weinberg, Cosmology, Oxford (2008)

    For an overview of cosmology, see standard textbooks such as S. Weinberg, Cosmology, Oxford (2008). D. H. Lyth and A. R. Liddle, The primordial density perturbation: Cosmology, inflation and the origin of structure, Cambridge University Press (2009)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Supernova Search Team collaboration, Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998); [astro-ph/9805201], Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant . Supernova Cosmology Project collaboration, Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999); [astro-ph/9812133],...

    1998 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ratra and P.J.E

    B. Ratra and P.J.E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988). C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B302, 668 (1988). P.J.E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 59 , 063505 (1999)

    1988

  6. [14]

    Yoshimura, K

    M. Yoshimura, K. Kaneta, and K. Oda, Phys.Lett. B 859 , 139133 (2024). arXiv: 2408.08605 [hep-ph]; Parametrically amplified super-radiance towards hot big bang universe

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kaneta, K

    K. Kaneta, K. Oda, and M. Yoshimura, A common origin of two accelerating universes: inflation and dark energy, arXiv: 2503.02409v2[hep-ph] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Will, Theory and experiment in gravitational physics , second edition, Cambridge University Press (2018)

    C.M. Will, Theory and experiment in gravitational physics , second edition, Cambridge University Press (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Bergmann, Comments on the scalar tensor theory , Int

    P.G. Bergmann, Comments on the scalar tensor theory , Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1, 25 (1968). R.V. Wagoner, Scalar tensor theory and gravitational waves , Phys. Rev. D1, 3209 (1970). 11

    1968

  10. [18]

    Thus, laboratory type experiments (for example, [18] giving < O(10−17) bound) give a con- straint of order, γg < O(1× 10−7)

    shown in blacks gives a severer constraint γg <O (1× 10−7). Thus, laboratory type experiments (for example, [18] giving < O(10−17) bound) give a con- straint of order, γg < O(1× 10−7). The null-measurement at high redshift observations [20], gives a bound γg < O(1× 10−5). The ...

  11. [19]

    Kaneta, K

    K. Kaneta, K. Oda, and M. Yoshimura, JCAP 10, 040 (2023). arXiv: 2304.08656 [hep-ph], Constraints on extended Jordan-Brans-Dicke gravity

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abbott et al, Phys.Rev.Lett

    B.P. Abbott et al, Phys.Rev.Lett. 119, 16161101(2017); arXiv: 1710.05832 A. Goldstein et al, APJ, 848, L 14 (2017); arXiv: 1710.0546

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Shifman, A

    M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and V. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 385; 448 (1979). M. Shifman, arXiv: hep-ph/9802214 v1 (1998)

    1979 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Cohen, R.J

    T.D. Cohen, R.J. Furnstahl, and D.K. Griegel, Quark and gluon condensates in nuclear matter , Phys. Rev. C45, 1881 (1992)

    1992

  15. [23]

    Touboul et al., Phys.Rev.Lett

    P. Touboul et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 129, 121102 (2022); arXiv: 2209.15487 v1[gr-qc]. P. Touboul et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 225006 (2019); arXiv: 1909.10598 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Will, Living Rev

    For a global overview, see C.M. Will, Living Rev. Relativity, 17, 4 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Damour and G

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

    1992

  18. [26]

    Rosenband et al

    T. Rosenband et al. Science 319, 1808 (2008), and online supplementary materials (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1154622/DC1)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Damour and F

    T. Damour and F. Dyson, Nucl.Phys. B480, 37 (1996); arXiv: hep-ph/9606486 (1996)

    1996 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Webb, V.V

    J.K. Webb, V.V. Flambaum, C.W. Churchill, M.J. Drinkwater, and J.D. Barrow, Phys.Rev.Lett. 82, 884 (1999): arXiv: 9803165 [astro-ph], A search for time variation of the fine structure constant

    1999

  21. [29]

    Shapiro and S.A

    S.L. Shapiro and S.A. Teukolsky, Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars , John Wiley and sons (1983). In particular, section 16.4 and 16.5

    1983

  22. [30]

    Fujii, A

    Y. Fujii, A. Iwamoto, T. Fukahori, T. Ohnuki, M. Nakagawa, H. Hidaka, Y. Oura and P. M¨ oller, Nucl. Phys. B573, 377 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 25, 167 (1972). J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D51, R6608 (1995). T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 081103 (2012); arXiv:1109.6324 [gr-qc]

    1972 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yoshimura, Phys

    M. Yoshimura, Phys. Scripta T36, 276 (1991). Unstable space-time in the Jordan-Brans-Dicke gravity

    1991

  25. [33]

    Lang, Phys.Rev

    R.N. Lang, Phys.Rev. D91, 084027 (2015); arXiv: 1411.3073 Compact binary systems in scalar-tensor gravity III Scalar waves and energy flux , and references therein

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    B. P. Abbott et al, Astrophys.J. 839, 1, 12 (2017); Astrophys.J. 851, 1, 71 (2017) (erratum) . e-Print: 1701.07709 [astro-ph.HE] 12

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.