Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Atomic Dirac energy-level dynamics and redshift in the 4xU(1) gravity gauge field

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 4×U(1) gravity gauge field shifts atomic energy levels and produces gravitational redshift, matching general relativity at first order.

desk verdict A serious QFT-based derivation of gravitational redshift with a fixable algebraic typo, but the second-order deviation claim is not operationally defined. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22057 v1 pith:DA632CPA submitted 2025-06-27 quant-ph gr-qcphysics.atom-ph

Mikko Partanen , Jukka Tulkki This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phgr-qcphysics.atom-ph
keywords gravitationalredshiftDiracequationhydrogen-likeatomsunifiedgravity4×U(1)gaugefieldenergy-levelshiftspectrallinesplitting
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 aims to show that gravitational redshift can be derived directly from quantum field theory, without invoking the curved spacetime metric of general relativity. The authors solve the Dirac equation for a hydrogen-like atom placed in a classical 4×U(1) gravity gauge field and find that every atomic energy level is multiplied by one common factor $C_1=(1-\Phi_0/c^2)/(1-2\Phi_0/c^2)$. Because all transition frequencies are scaled by the same factor, emitted light is uniformly redshifted. The resulting redshift agrees with general relativity to first order in $GM/(r_0c^2)$ but has a different second-order term, which the authors present as a distinguishing experimental target. They also predict that a gravitational potential gradient breaks the spherical symmetry of the nuclear Coulomb potential and splits otherwise degenerate spectral lines.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the point-mass solution of the unified-gravity gauge-field equations, $H_{\mu\nu}=(\Phi/c^2)\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)$ with $\Phi=-GM/r$, treated as a fixed classical background in flat spacetime. Substituted into the UG Dirac equation, with $\Phi$ approximated by its value $\Phi_0$ at the atom, this solution reduces the Hamiltonian to the conventional Dirac form with two rescaled constants: the mass term is multiplied by $C_1=(1-\Phi_0/c^2)/(1-2\Phi_0/c^2)$ and the momentum and Coulomb coupling by $C_2=1/(1-2\Phi_0/c^2)$. Since the eigenenergy formula depends only on $C_1$, the whole hydrogen-like spectrum is uniformly scaled, and the gravitational redshift formula follows directly. The same gauge field also modifies the nuclear electric potential; retaining its gradient adds a term proportional to $\mathbf{a}\cdot(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_0)+|\mathbf{a}||\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_0|$ that breaks spherical symmetry.

What would settle it

Measure a redshift between two known gravitational potentials with fractional precision better than $(GM/(rc^2))^2$; general relativity predicts a positive quadratic correction, while UG predicts a negative one of twice the magnitude, so the sign of the measured quadratic term decides between the theories.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gravity gauge field $H_{\mu\nu}=(\Phi/c^2)\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)$ with $\Phi=-GM/r$ enters the Dirac Hamiltonian of an atom only through two constants $C_1$ and $C_2$, and that all electron eigenenergies are scaled by $C_1$. Photon frequencies emitted by the atom are therefore scaled by $C_1$, giving $z_{\mathrm{UG}}=1/C_1-1\approx GM/(r_0c^2)-(GM/(r_0c^2))^2$. The first-order term matches the standard general-relativity result, while the second-order term has the opposite sign, so the two theories are in principle distinguishable by precision experiments. When the gradient of $\Phi$ is kept in the nuclear potential, the Coulomb potential acquires an asymmetric term, breaking spherical symmetry and lifting degeneracies of atomic states in strong gravitational fields.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation rests on the earlier proposed point-mass solution $H_{\mu\nu}=(\Phi/c^2)\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)$ for the gravity gauge field being the correct classical background; if that solution is wrong, the factors $C_1$, $C_2$, and the redshift formula all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All spectral lines of a hydrogen-like atom are shifted by the same relative factor, so the emitted spectrum is uniformly redshifted rather than distorted.
  • The first-order redshift matches the experimentally confirmed value, so existing laboratory and astrophysical tests do not yet distinguish UG from general relativity.
  • The second-order coefficient differs in sign from general relativity, so a sufficiently precise measurement of the redshift at two radii could tell the theories apart.
  • In a gravitational potential gradient, otherwise degenerate atomic states split, giving a spectral signature analogous to magnetic-field line splitting.
  • Because the scaling is computed from quantum field theory without assuming a local inertial frame, the result gives a microscopic account of how atomic clocks tick in a gravitational field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same $C_1$ scaling applies to all atoms and not only hydrogen-like systems, then every atomic clock in a gravitational potential would tick slower by this factor; comparing clock rates at different heights would reproduce gravitational time dilation without any curved metric.
  • A clean test of the quadratic term could come from satellite clock networks: UG predicts a negative $-(GM/(rc^2))^2$ term while general relativity predicts a positive $+\frac{1}{2}(GM/(rc^2))^2$ term, so the sign of the frequency correction discriminates between them.
  • Applying the same gauge-field recipe to molecules or nuclei would predict analogous level shifts, so molecular spectroscopy in a varying gravitational environment could probe whether the $C_1$ scaling is truly state-independent.
  • The gradient-induced asymmetric potential suggests that line splittings may depend on the orientation of the atom relative to the gravitational field, which could be searched for in spectra of compact stellar objects.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the semiclassical 'unified gravity' (UG) framework of Partanen and Tulkki, in which gravity is a 4×U(1) tensor gauge field on a fixed Minkowski background, to compute the energy levels of hydrogen-like atoms in the presence of a point mass. Starting from the UG field equations and the point-mass gauge-field solution H_mu_nu = (Phi/c^2) diag(1,1,1,1), it derives a modified Coulomb potential and a modified Dirac Hamiltonian with two scaling coefficients C1 and C2. The energy eigenvalues are claimed to scale by C1 = (1 - Phi0/c^2)/(1 - 2 Phi0/c^2), giving a gravitational redshift z_UG = 1/C1 - 1 ≈ GM/(r0 c^2) - (GM/(r0 c^2))^2. The paper argues that this first-order result agrees with experiment and with general relativity, while the second-order term differs, and it further suggests that the gradient of the Newtonian potential breaks the spherical symmetry of the nuclear Coulomb potential and splits degenerate spectral lines.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the paper would provide a quantum-field-theoretic route to gravitational redshift independent of the curved-metric formulation, with a parameter-free first-order prediction that matches experiment and a second-order term that could, in principle, discriminate between UG and GR. The first-order result is robust in the sense that it does not rely on fitted parameters, and the manuscript is explicit about the approximations made. However, the central new quantitative claim, the second-order difference from GR, is formulated in a coordinate-dependent way and is not an observable as stated. The spectral-line-splitting proposal is speculative and unquantified. The paper is therefore of interest to researchers working on alternative gravity theories, but the main claims cannot be accepted without substantial revision and re-derivation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Electric potential of the atomic nucleus, Eqs. (7)-(9) and Eq. (12)] The step from Eq. (7) to Eq. (8) is algebraically incorrect. After setting Phi = Phi0 and dropping the gradient term, Eq. (7) becomes (1 - 2 Phi0/c^2) ∇^2 phi_e = -Ze/epsilon_0 delta(r - r0). Dividing by (1 - 2 Phi0/c^2) gives ∇^2 phi_e = -Ze/epsilon_0 (1 - 2 Phi0/c^2)^{-1} delta(r - r0), not the prefactor (1 - 2 Phi0/c^2) shown in Eq. (8). Consequently, the solution in Eq. (9) should carry the inverse prefactor, not the prefactor (1 - 2 Phi0/c^2). With Eq. (9) as printed, substitution into the divided Eq. (11) yields a Coulomb term proportional to (1 - 2 Phi0/c^2), whereas Eq. (12) has -C2 Z hbar c alpha_e / |r - r0| with C2 = (1 - 2 Phi0/c^2)^{-1}. The chain from Eqs. (7) to (12) is therefore internally inconsistent. Correcting Eqs. (8)-(9) to the inverse prefactor restores consistency with Eq. (12) and leaves the C1 scaling in Eq. (14) intact, but as written the derivation of the Hamiltonian is not valid.
  2. [Gravitational redshift, Eqs. (16)-(17)] The second-order comparison between UG and GR is not coordinate-invariant. In Eq. (16), r0 is the coordinate distance in the global Minkowski frame, while the +1/2 coefficient in Eq. (17) is obtained using the isotropic radial coordinate of the Schwarzschild metric. In standard Schwarzschild coordinates, where the radial coordinate is fixed by the invariant circumference C = 2 pi R, the same GR redshift expands as z_GR = GM/(Rc^2) + (3/2)(GM/(Rc^2))^2 + ... . Since the manuscript gives no prescription for measuring r0 with physical rods and clocks in the presence of the UG gauge field, the claimed '-1 versus +1/2' distinction is an artifact of mixing coordinate conventions. The first-order term is robust, but the headline second-order difference, which is the main new observable claim, is not well defined as stated. The authors should redo the comparison in terms of an invariant quantity such as the circumferential radius and state explicitly what measurement procedure fixes r0.
  3. [Gauge field of unified gravity, Eq. (3)] The redshift result rests entirely on the point-mass solution H_mu_nu = (Phi/c^2) diag(1,1,1,1) with Phi = -GM/r, which is imported from refs. 53 and 57 and is not derived or checked in this manuscript. Because this background field is the only input to the Dirac equation, an error in this solution would change the redshift formula. The derivation is not circular in the sense of fitting a free parameter, but it is conditional: the paper establishes the redshift only within the specific UG framework, and it does not prove that the result is 'strictly independent' of general relativity as a general statement. The authors should state this conditionality explicitly and either include a derivation of Eq. (3) or give the precise equations in refs. 53/57 that justify the solution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Symmetry breaking, Eq. (18)] In Eq. (18), the expansion of the prefactor has the wrong sign. Since Phi0 = -GM/r0, one has 1/(1 - 2 Phi0/c^2) = 1/(1 + 2GM/(r0c^2)) ≈ 1 - 2GM/(r0c^2); the displayed expression with (1 + 2GM/(r0c^2)) in the numerator is incorrect at first order in GM/(r0c^2).
  2. [Symmetry breaking, after Eq. (19)] The sentence 'the last term of Eq. (9)' should refer to the last term of Eq. (19). In addition, the perturbing correction in Eq. (19) contains both the direction-dependent term a·(r - r0)/|r - r0| and the constant |a|; only the former breaks spherical symmetry, so the claim should be stated more carefully.
  3. [Symmetry breaking, Eq. (18) derivation] The sentence 'dividing Eq. (8) by 1 - 2 Phi/c^2 ≈ 1 - 2 Phi0/c^2' is confusing because Eq. (8) has already been divided by that factor. The derivation of Eq. (18) should be rewritten to show clearly which equation is being divided and by what quantity.
  4. [Gravitational redshift, Eq. (15)] The statement that photon frequencies are scaled by C1 assumes that the emitted photon's frequency in the global Minkowski frame is exactly the atomic transition frequency. The effect of the gravity gauge field on the photon field during emission is not discussed; a brief justification would improve the presentation.
  5. [General] The abstract states that the paper enables 'splitting of otherwise degenerate spectral lines', but the main text only says that such splitting is expected and leaves the detailed analysis to future work. The abstract should be aligned with the strength of the actual result.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The Dirac-level redshift calculation is a real derivation from the assumed UG gauge field, but the load-bearing field equations and point-mass solution are imported from the authors' own prior work, giving partial self-citation circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 'Gauge field of unified gravity', Eqs. (1)-(3)]
    "In contrast, a recently introduced quantum field theory, unified gravity (UG) 53, describes gravity by the metric-independent 4 × U(1) tensor gauge field... Using the stress-energy-momentum tensor source term in Eq. (2), the solution of Eq. (1) for the gravity gauge field Hµν is given by57 Hµν = [Φ/c^2] diag(1,1,1,1), Φ = −GM/r."

    The gravity field equation (1), the Lagrangian (20), and the point-mass solution (3) are all taken from Refs. 53 and 57, both by the same authors. The central redshift prediction, z_UG = 1/C1 − 1 (Eq. 16), is obtained by substituting this self-cited gauge field into the Dirac equation (Eqs. 11-12). The present paper provides no independent derivation or external verification of the UG field equations or of the point-mass solution; therefore the load-bearing physical input is a self-citation. The subsequent Dirac-level calculation is not circular in the fitting sense (no parameter is adjusted to the redshift data, and the first-order result is compared with experiment), but the framework itself rests on the authors' own prior work.

full rationale

No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: C1 and C2 are functions of the assumed Newtonian potential with known constants, and the first-order redshift is compared with external experiments, not used to set any constant. The energy-level scaling in Eq. (14) is a genuine calculation from the Hamiltonian in Eq. (12), and the redshift in Eq. (16) follows algebraically from that scaling. The main circularity concern is the importation of the entire UG framework, including the field equations and the point-mass gauge-field solution, from the authors' earlier papers (Refs. 53 and 57); the paper's claim that the result 'follows directly from quantum field theory' therefore inherits the validity of that self-cited, unvalidated framework. This is load-bearing self-citation rather than definitional or statistical circularity. The coordinate-dependence of the second-order GR comparison in Eq. (17) is a physical/correctness concern, not a circularity, and is noted separately.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper; the redshift depends only on known constants (G, M, c, hbar, e) and the derived dimensionless functions C1 and C2 of Phi0. The gravity gauge field solution in Eq. (3) is taken from prior work and involves no free constants beyond G and M. The principal assumptions are the unvalidated UG field equations, the semiclassical treatment of the gravity field, and the use of the standard Dirac-Coulomb solution for hydrogen-like atoms.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The UG field equations, Eq. (1), and the point-mass solution Eq. (3) with H_mu_nu = (Phi/c^2) diag(1,1,1,1) are correct.
    Taken from refs. 53 and 57 by the same authors; not derived or experimentally validated in this paper. All subsequent atomic shifts depend on this background gauge field.
  • domain assumption The UG Dirac equation, Eq. (10), correctly describes the coupling of fermions to the gravity gauge field.
    This is a postulate of the unified gravity framework [53]; no independent empirical check is given.
  • domain assumption The semiclassical approximation in which the gravity gauge field is treated as a fixed classical background and Phi is replaced by its value Phi0 over the atomic volume.
    Used in Eqs. (7)-(9) and (11); valid when the potential varies slowly over the atom, but it is an approximation.
  • standard math The known relativistic hydrogen-like atom solution of QED [62,63] can be rescaled by the C1, C2 replacements to give eigenstates of the UG Dirac equation.
    This is the standard Dirac-Coulomb solution; the replacement argument is sketched but not fully derived in the text.
  • domain assumption Photon frequency is unchanged during propagation in the global Minkowski frame.
    Used to convert the atomic frequency at the emitter into the detected frequency; this is a feature of UG's flat-space formulation.
invented entities (1)
  • 4xU(1) gravity gauge field H_mu_nu with H_mu_nu = (Phi/c^2) diag(1,1,1,1) around a point mass
    purpose: Provides the classical gravitational background that shifts atomic energy levels and produces redshift.
    The field is a construct of the authors' unified gravity theory introduced in ref. [53]. It predicts the observed first-order redshift, but no independent experimental verification of the UG field itself exists; the light-deflection and perihelion tests in refs. [57,58] are theoretical preprints by the same authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Atomic Dirac energy-level dynamics and redshift in the 4xU(1) gravity gauge field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DA632CPA

@misc{pith2026250622057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Atomic Dirac energy-level dynamics and redshift in the 4xU(1) gravity gauge field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DA632CPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22057}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational interaction unavoidably influences atoms and their electromagnetic radiation field in strong gravitational fields. Theoretical description of such effects using the curved metric of general relativity is limited due to the classical nature of the metric and the assumption of the local inertial frame, where gravitational interaction is absent. Here we apply unified gravity extension of the Standard Model [Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 057802 (2025)] to solve the Dirac equation for hydrogen-like atoms in the 4xU(1) gravity gauge field, which appears alongside all other quantum fields. We show that the gravity gauge field shifts the atomic Dirac energy levels by an amount that agrees with the experimentally observable gravitational redshift. Our result for the redshift follows directly from quantum field theory and is strictly independent of the metric-based explanation of general relativity. Furthermore, we present how gravitational potential gradient breaks the symmetry of the electric potential of the atomic nucleus, thus leading to splitting of otherwise degenerate spectral lines in strong gravitational fields. Enabling detailed spectral line analysis, our work opens novel possibilities for future investigations of quantum photonics phenomena in strong gravitational fields.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Extending unified gravity to account for graviton-graviton interaction

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new interaction term is added to the unified gravity Lagrangian to couple gravitons to their own stress-energy-momentum tensor, yielding a nonlinear, gauge-invariant field equation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Resolv- ing the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample,

    T. Bothwell, C. J. Kennedy, A. Aeppli, D. Kedar, J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, A. Staron, and J. Ye, “Resolv- ing the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample,” Nature 602, 420 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Gravitational redshift in quantum-clock in- terferometry,

    A. Roura, “Gravitational redshift in quantum-clock in- terferometry,” Phys. Rev. X10, 021014 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravi- tation, Freeman, New York (1973)

    1973

  4. [4]

    T. A. Moore, A General Relativity Workbook, University Science Books, Mill Walley, CA (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Rela- tivit¨ atstheorie,

    A. Einstein, “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Rela- tivit¨ atstheorie,”Ann. Phys. 354, 769 (1916)

    work page 1916

  6. [6]

    ¨Uber das Relativit¨ atsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen,

    A. Einstein, “ ¨Uber das Relativit¨ atsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen,” Jahrbuch der Ra- dioaktivit¨ at und Elektronik4, 411 (1907)

    work page 1907

  7. [7]

    ¨Uber den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes,

    A. Einstein, “ ¨Uber den Einfluß der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes,” Ann. Phys. 340, 898 (1911)

    work page 1911

  8. [8]

    Gravitational red-shift in nuclear resonance,

    R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, “Gravitational red-shift in nuclear resonance,” Phys. Rev. Lett.3, 439 (1959)

    work page 1959

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    A gravitational redshift measurement of the white dwarf mass–radius relation,

    V. Chandra, H.-C. Hwang, N. L. Zakamska, and S. Cheng, “A gravitational redshift measurement of the white dwarf mass–radius relation,” Astrophys. J. 899, 146 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    The gravita- tional redshift of Sirius B,

    S. R. G. Joyce, M. A. Barstow, J. B. Holberg, H. E. Bond, S. L. Casewell, and M. R. Burleigh, “The gravita- tional redshift of Sirius B,” MNRAS 481, 2361 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    General relativistic effects on the orbit of the S2 star with GRA VITY,

    Grould, M., Vincent, F. H., Paumard, T., and Perrin, G., “General relativistic effects on the orbit of the S2 star with GRA VITY,”A&A 608, A60 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    The masses of isolated neutron stars inferred from the gravitational redshift measurements,

    S.-P. Tang, J.-L. Jiang, W.-H. Gao, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.-M. Wei, “The masses of isolated neutron stars inferred from the gravitational redshift measurements,” Astrophys. J. 888, 45 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the galactic centre massive black hole,

    R. Abuter et al., “Detection of the gravitational redshift in the orbit of the star S2 near the galactic centre massive black hole,” A&A 615, L15 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Probing Post-Newtonian physics near the galactic black hole with stellar redshift measurements,

    S. Zucker, T. Alexander, S. Gillessen, F. Eisenhauer, and R. Genzel, “Probing Post-Newtonian physics near the galactic black hole with stellar redshift measurements,” Astrophys. J. 639, L21 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    The confrontation between general relativ- ity and experiment,

    C. M. Will, “The confrontation between general relativ- ity and experiment,” Living Rev. Relativ.17, 4 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    A lab-based test of the gravitational red- shift with a miniature clock network,

    X. Zheng, J. Dolde, M. C. Cambria, H. M. Lim, and S. Kolkowitz, “A lab-based test of the gravitational red- shift with a miniature clock network,” Nat. Commun. 14, 4886 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Gravitational redshift tests with atomic clocks and atom interferometers,

    F. Di Pumpo, C. Ufrecht, A. Friedrich, E. Giese, W. P. Schleich, and W. G. Unruh, “Gravitational redshift tests with atomic clocks and atom interferometers,” PRX Quantum 2, 040333 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Atom-interferometric test of the univer- sality of gravitational redshift and free fall,

    C. Ufrecht, F. Di Pumpo, A. Friedrich, A. Roura, C. Schubert, D. Schlippert, E. M. Rasel, W. P. Schleich, and E. Giese, “Atom-interferometric test of the univer- sality of gravitational redshift and free fall,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043240 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    The solar gravitational redshift from HARPS-LFC Moon spectra - A test of the general the- ory of relativity,

    Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., Rebolo, R., Pasquini, L., Lo Curto, G., Molaro, P., Caffau, E., Ludwig, H.- G., Steffen, M., Esposito, M., Su´ arez Mascare˜ no, A., Toledo-Padr´ on, B., Probst, R. A., H¨ ansch, T. W., Holzwarth, R., Manescau, A., Steinmetz, T., Udem, Th., and W...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Test of the gravitational redshift with galileo satellites in an eccentric orbit,

    S. Herrmann, F. Finke, M. L¨ ulf, O. Kichakova, D. Puet- zfeld, D. Knickmann, M. List, B. Rievers, G. Giorgi, C. G¨ unther, H. Dittus, R. Prieto-Cerdeira, F. Dilssner, F. Gonzalez, E. Sch¨ onemann, J. Ventura-Traveset, and C. L¨ ammerzahl, “Test of the gravitational redshift w...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Gravita- tional redshift test using eccentric Galileo satellites,

    P. Delva, N. Puchades, E. Sch¨ onemann, F. Dilss- ner, C. Courde, S. Bertone, F. Gonzalez, A. Hees, C. Le Poncin-Lafitte, F. Meynadier, R. Prieto-Cerdeira, B. Sohet, J. Ventura-Traveset, and P. Wolf, “Gravita- tional redshift test using eccentric Galileo satellites,” Phys. Rev...

    2018

  14. [22]

    Analysis of Sun/Moon gravi- tational redshift tests with the STE-QUEST space mis- sion,

    P. Wolf and L. Blanchet, “Analysis of Sun/Moon gravi- tational redshift tests with the STE-QUEST space mis- sion,” Class. Quantum Grav.33, 035012 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    G. V. Kraniotis, “Gravitational redshift/blueshift of light emitted by geodesic test particles, frame-dragging and pericentre-shift effects, in the Kerr–Newman–de Sit- ter and Kerr–Newman black hole geometries,” EPJ C 81, 147 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    One-electron atom in curved space-time,

    L. Parker, “One-electron atom in curved space-time,” Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 1559 (1980)

    1980

  17. [25]

    Gravitational perturba- tion of the hydrogen spectrum,

    L. Parker and L. O. Pimentel, “Gravitational perturba- tion of the hydrogen spectrum,” Phys. Rev. D25, 3180 (1982)

    1982

  18. [26]

    High-frequency gravitational wave detection via opti- cal frequency modulation,

    T. Bringmann, V. Domcke, E. Fuchs, and J. Kopp, “High-frequency gravitational wave detection via opti- cal frequency modulation,” Phys. Rev. D108, L061303 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    The effects of gravitational waves on a hydrogen atom,

    N. Wanwieng, N. Chattrapiban, and A. Watcharangkool, “The effects of gravitational waves on a hydrogen atom,” Class. Quantum Grav.40, 235004 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Search for high- frequency gravitational waves with Rydberg atoms,

    S. Kanno, J. Soda, and A. Taniguchi, “Search for high- frequency gravitational waves with Rydberg atoms,” EPJ C 85, 31 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Mission design for the laser astrometric test of relativity,

    S. G. Turyshev, M. Shao, and K. Nordtvedt, “Mission design for the laser astrometric test of relativity,” Adv. Space Res.39, 297 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Advancing fundamental physics with the laser astrometric test of relativity,

    S. G. Turyshev, M. Shao, K. L. Nordtvedt, H. Dit- tus, C. Laemmerzahl, S. Theil, C. Salomon, S. Rey- naud, T. Damour, U. Johann, P. Bouyer, P. Touboul, B. Foulon, O. Bertolami, and J. P´ aramos, “Advancing fundamental physics with the laser astrometric test of relativity,” Exp...

    2009

  23. [31]

    M. D. Schwartz, Quantum Field Theory and the Stan- dard Model, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Mach’s principle and a rel- 8 ativistic theory of gravitation,

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, “Mach’s principle and a rel- 8 ativistic theory of gravitation,” Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961)

    1961

  26. [34]

    f(R) gravity with torsion: the metric-affine approach,

    S. Capozziello, R. Cianci, C. Stornaiolo, and S. Vignolo, “f(R) gravity with torsion: the metric-affine approach,” Class. Quantum Grav.24, 6417 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    A bird’s eye view of f(R)-gravity,

    D. L. M. Capozziello S. and F. V., “A bird’s eye view of f(R)-gravity,” Open Astron. J.3, 49 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    Resum- mation of massive gravity,

    C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, and A. J. Tolley, “Resum- mation of massive gravity,”Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 231101 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Born–Infeld inspired modifications of gravity,

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, “Born–Infeld inspired modifications of gravity,” Phys. Rep. 727, 1 (2018), born–Infeld in- spired modifications of gravity

    2018

  30. [38]

    Light deflection and gravita- tional lensing effects inspired by loop quantum gravity,

    A. R. Soares, C. F. S. Pereira, R. L. L. Vit´ oria, M. V. de S. Silva, and H. Belich, “Light deflection and gravita- tional lensing effects inspired by loop quantum gravity,” arXiv:2503.06373 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    L. M. C. Bambi and I. Shapiro, Handbook of Quantum Gravity, Springer, Singapore (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Quantum fields in teleparallel gravity: renormalization at one-loop,

    R. Casadio, I. Kuntz, and G. Paci, “Quantum fields in teleparallel gravity: renormalization at one-loop,” EPJ C 82, 186 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections,

    J. F. Donoghue, “General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections,” Phys. Rev. D 50, 3874 (1994)

    1994

  34. [42]

    Infrared behavior of graviton-graviton scattering,

    J. F. Donoghue and T. Torma, “Infrared behavior of graviton-graviton scattering,” Phys. Rev. D60, 024003 (1999)

    1999

  35. [43]

    Quantum corrections to the Reiss- ner–Nordstr¨ om and Kerr–Newman metrics,

    J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, B. Garbrecht, and T. Konstandin, “Quantum corrections to the Reiss- ner–Nordstr¨ om and Kerr–Newman metrics,”Phys. Lett. B 529, 132 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    Renormalization of higher-derivative quan- tum gravity,

    K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization of higher-derivative quan- tum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D16, 953 (1977)

    1977

  37. [45]

    The quantum theory of gravi- tation, effective field theories, and strings: yesterday and today,

    A. Rocci and T. Van Riet, “The quantum theory of gravi- tation, effective field theories, and strings: yesterday and today,” Eur. Phys. J. H49, 7 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Becker, M

    K. Becker, M. Becker, and J. Schwarz, String theory and M-theory: A modern introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Dine, Supersymmetry and String Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    M. Dine, Supersymmetry and String Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring Theory: Volume 1, Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)

    1987

  41. [49]

    New variables for classical and quantum gravity,

    A. Ashtekar, “New variables for classical and quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 2244 (1986)

    1986

  42. [50]

    Nonperturbative quantum geometries,

    T. Jacobson and L. Smolin, “Nonperturbative quantum geometries,” Nucl. Phys. B299, 295 (1988)

    1988

  43. [51]

    Loop space representation of quantum general relativity,

    C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, “Loop space representation of quantum general relativity,” Nucl. Phys. B 331, 80 (1990)

    1990

  44. [52]

    Loop quantum gravity,

    C. Rovelli, “Loop quantum gravity,” Living Rev. Relativ. 11, 5 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    Gravity generated by four one-dimensional unitary gauge symmetries and the Stan- dard Model,

    M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Gravity generated by four one-dimensional unitary gauge symmetries and the Stan- dard Model,” Rep. Prog. Phys.88, 057802 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Teleparal- lel gravity: from theory to cosmology,

    S. Bahamonde, K. F. Dialektopoulos, C. Escamilla- Rivera, G. Farrugia, V. Gakis, M. Hendry, M. Hohmann, J. L. Said, J. Mifsud, and E. D. Valentino, “Teleparal- lel gravity: from theory to cosmology,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 86, 026901 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Aldrovandi and J

    R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, Teleparallel Gravity: An Introduction, Springer, Dordrecht (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    The teleparallel equivalent of general rel- ativity,

    J. W. Maluf, “The teleparallel equivalent of general rel- ativity,” Ann. Phys. 525, 339 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Light deflection in unified gravity and measurable deviation from general relativ- ity,

    M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Light deflection in unified gravity and measurable deviation from general relativ- ity,” arXiv:2505.14446 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    Perihelion precession of planetary orbits solved from quantum field theory,

    M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Perihelion precession of planetary orbits solved from quantum field theory,” arXiv:2506.14447 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, Pergamon, Oxford (1989)

    1989

  52. [60]

    Corrigendum: Gravity gen- erated by four one-dimensional unitary gauge symme- tries and the Standard Model (2025 Rep. Prog. Phys. 88 057802),

    M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Corrigendum: Gravity gen- erated by four one-dimensional unitary gauge symme- tries and the Standard Model (2025 Rep. Prog. Phys. 88 057802),” Rep. Prog. Phys.88, 069501 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley, New York (1999)

    1999

  54. [62]

    I. P. Grant, Relativistic Quantum Theory of Atoms and Molecules, Springer, New York (2007)

    2007

  55. [63]

    V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, Quantum Electrodynamics, Pergamon, Oxford (1982)

    1982

  56. [64]

    Gravitational light deflection in Earth- based laser cavity experiments,

    S. Ulbricht, J. Dickmann, R. A. M¨ uller, S. Kroker, and A. Surzhykov, “Gravitational light deflection in Earth- based laser cavity experiments,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 121501 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,

    B. P. Abbott et al., “Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    Tests of general relativity with GW150914,

    B. P. Abbott et al., “Tests of general relativity with GW150914,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger,

    B. P. Abbott et al., “Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L12 (2017). Acknowledgements This work has been funded by the Research Council of Finland under Contract No. 349971. Author contributions M.P. performed the theoretica...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.