Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Updated constraints on modified gravity from binary pulsars

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Timing of two pulsars gives the tightest pulsar bound yet on dipole gravitational radiation and finds the gravitational constant steady.

desk verdict Updated dataset, standard pipeline, but the quoted kappa_D uncertainty is inconsistent with the paper's own equations by about four orders of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18188 v1 pith:NMRCLVMP submitted 2025-07-24 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph

S. Bussieres , M. Caldarola , S. Nesseris This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords binarypulsarsmodifiedgravitygravitationalconstantvariationdipolarradiationpulsartimingscalar-tensortheoriesMarkovchainMonteCarlogeneralrelativitytests
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

Binary pulsars are among the best natural laboratories for modified gravity, because two proposed deviations — a slowly varying gravitational constant $G$ and dipole gravitational radiation — would show up as an extra decay of the orbital period. This paper fits recent high-precision timing data for three pulsars without assuming a theory of gravity, corrects the apparent orbital decay for Galactic acceleration and the geometric acceleration from transverse motion, and then combines systems with different orbital periods to separate the two effects. For its best system, PSR J1713+0747, it obtains $\dot{G}/G = (0.32 \pm 0.31) \times 10^{-12}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ and $\kappa_D = (-0.04 \pm 0.14) \times 10^{-4}$ at 95% confidence. The paper concludes that the results are consistent with general relativity, with the dipole bound an order of magnitude tighter than the earlier J1713+0747 limit. If correct, this narrows the parameter space for scalar-tensor and related modified-gravity theories while confirming that the gravitational constant is steady at the $10^{-12}$ per year level.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing relation is Eq. (3.23): $\dot{P}_b^{\mathrm{exc}}/P_b = -2(\dot{G}/G)[1 - (1 + 3M_c/2M)s_p] - 4\pi^2 T_\odot M_c/P_b^2 \, q/(q+1) \, \kappa_D s_p^2$, where $M$ is the total mass, $q=M_p/M_c$, $T_\odot$ is the solar-mass time unit, and $s_p$ is the neutron-star sensitivity, approximated as linear in mass, $s_p = 0.16 (M_p/1.33 M_\odot)$. The two terms scale differently with orbital period — the $\dot{G}$ term grows with $P_b$ while the dipole term falls as $P_b^{-2}$ — so fitting two binaries with different periods breaks the degeneracy between the parameters. The paper feeds this relation with full posterior samples from the timing fits rather than single best-fit values, which propagates the parameter correlations into the final constraints.

What would settle it

Replace the adopted sensitivity $s_p = 0.16(M_p/1.33 M_\odot)$ with a value from a different equation of state or from a full scalar-tensor neutron-star model for the same masses and recompute the joint fit; if the inferred $\kappa_D$ moves by much more than the quoted $0.14 \times 10^{-4}$, the reported bound is set by the assumed neutron-star physics rather than by the timing data. A second check would be to add another low-eccentricity pulsar--white-dwarf binary with a well-measured parallax and an orbital period between roughly 2 and 20 days: the joint posterior for $\dot{G}/G$ and $\kappa_D$ should shift along the expected $P_b$ versus $P_b^{-2}$ direction if the degeneracy-breaking is working as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that binary-pulsar timing can jointly constrain a time-varying gravitational constant $\dot{G}/G$ and the dipole radiation parameter $\kappa_D$, and that with current data both are statistically compatible with zero. The authors use Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo fits to the pulse arrival times to extract the observed orbital-period derivative, then subtract kinematic Doppler corrections and the general-relativistic quadrupole prediction to isolate any excess decay. Joining PSR J1713+0747 with the auxiliary pulsar PSR J0437-4715 — whose well-measured excess orbital-period derivative is taken from the literature — gives the 95% constraints quoted above. A distinctive modeling choice is that, unlike earlier work, the auxiliary pulsar's dipole term is not fixed to zero; keeping both parameters free avoids absorbing a possible dipole signal into the $\dot{G}/G$ measurement. The reported values are consistent with general relativity, and the paper finds that imposing the older zero-dipole assumption changes the constraints only slightly.

Load-bearing premise

The translation of the measured excess orbital decay into a dipole-radiation bound rests on a single scaling relation for how strongly a neutron star's mass responds to a change in the effective gravitational constant, adopted as linear in mass with a coefficient from one equation of state; because the dipole term is proportional to the square of that sensitivity, any error in the scaling changes the $\kappa_D$ bound quadratically, and the paper also drops $O(s_p^3)$ terms it notes may matter in some theories.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central result is correct, modified-gravity theories predicting dipole radiation stronger than about $|\kappa_D| \sim 10^{-5}$ are disfavored by this pulsar, independent of the specific scalar coupling.
  • The $\dot{G}/G$ bound of $(0.32 \pm 0.31) \times 10^{-12}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ implies the effective gravitational coupling has been steady to roughly a part in $10^{12}$ per year over the timing baseline.
  • Because the dipole contribution scales as $P_b^{-2}$ and the $\dot{G}$ contribution scales as $P_b$, the combined analysis of binaries with different orbital periods is the mechanism that lets a single pair of systems constrain both parameters at once.
  • The authors' choice to leave the auxiliary pulsar's dipole term free means the quoted limits are conservative against a hidden dipole signal; fixing the term to zero, as earlier work did, gives slightly weaker but still GR-consistent constraints.
  • The reported limits translate directly into a bound on the time evolution of the scalar field in scalar-tensor theories, since $\dot{G}/G$ maps to $\dot{\phi}/\phi$ in those frameworks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $\kappa_D$ enters only through $s_p^2$, the reported limit is effectively a joint constraint on gravity and on neutron-star structure; a future equation of state that changes $s_p$ by tens of percent would shift the dipole bound by a comparable factor even with identical timing data.
  • The comparison with earlier work suggests that part of the order-of-magnitude improvement in $\kappa_D$ comes from the recent larger timing data sets rather than from a fundamentally new method; applying the same pipeline to older data would isolate how much of the gain is data-driven.
  • A natural next step would be to apply the same two-parameter fit to several short-period pulsar--white-dwarf binaries with well-measured parallaxes, since those systems weight the dipole term more heavily and would provide an independent cross-check of the degeneracy-breaking reported here.
  • If the assumption that the companion's sensitivity is negligible were relaxed for a white-dwarf companion, the $\dot{G}/G$ term in Eq. (3.23) would acquire an additional mass-dependent correction; checking that this correction is below the reported uncertainty would test the stability of the quoted bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Bayesian re-analysis of pulsar timing data for PSR J1713+0747, PSR J1738+0333, and PSR J1012+5307 using the TEMPO2/MCMC4Tempo2 pipeline with recent EPTA DR2 data, and combines the inferred orbital-period derivatives with a literature value for PSR J0437–4715 to constrain a possible time variation of Newton's constant Gdot/G and the dipole radiation parameter κD. The central results are Gdot/G = (0.32 ± 0.31) × 10^-12 yr^-1 and κD = (-0.04 ± 0.14) × 10^-4 for the J1713+0747 combination, which the authors argue are consistent with GR and constitute the tightest pulsar limit on dipole radiation. The paper also provides a public pipeline and discusses theoretical interpretations in scalar-tensor and extra-dimensional frameworks.

Significance. If the analysis were correct, the κD constraint would be the most stringent pulsar-based limit on dipole gravitational radiation, improving on previous work by an order of magnitude, and would complement Solar System bounds on Gdot/G. The use of an end-to-end MCMC pipeline on public EPTA DR2 data is a reproducible methodology. However, the paper's headline result is not reproducible from the stated inputs, and the inconsistency is so large that the significance claim cannot be credited without a full reanalysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3/§4, Eq. (3.23), Eq. (3.26), Eq. (4.2)] Equation (4.2) is not derivable from the stated inputs. For PSR J0437–4715, using Pb = 5.74 d, Mc ≈ 0.17 M⊙, q ≈ 8, and sp ≈ 0.16, the coefficient of κD in Eq. (3.23) is approximately 3 × 10^−18 s^−1. Propagating the uncertainty quoted in Eq. (3.26), δ(Pdot/Pb) = 5.7 × 10^−19 s^−1, gives δκD ≈ 0.2, whereas Eq. (4.2) reports an uncertainty of 1.4 × 10^−5. Even the central value in Eq. (3.26) would shift κD by about −0.1 if combined with the reported Gdot/G. Thus either Eq. (3.26) is mislabeled (e.g., an absolute Pdot rather than a fractional excess), or the uncertainty of the auxiliary pulsar was not propagated into the joint fit. In either case, the headline constraint on κD is unsupported and must be rederived or retracted.
  2. [§3.3/§4, Eqs. (4.3)–(4.4)] The κD uncertainties quoted for PSR J1738+0333 and PSR J1012+5307 (of order 10^−7) are even tighter than the J1713+0747 result and require an implausibly small uncertainty in the fractional orbital-period derivative. For these systems the coefficient of κD in Eq. (3.23) is of order 10^−15–10^−16 s^−1 (for Pb ~ 0.35 d and 0.60 d), so the reported σ_κD ≈ 1 × 10^−7 would demand σ(Pdot/Pb) ≈ 1 × 10^−23 s^−1. The paper does not report the measured Pdot/Pb values or their uncertainties for any of the three pulsars, so this required precision is not demonstrated. A table of the fitted parameters and the derived fractional orbital-period derivatives with uncertainties is necessary to assess the claims.
  3. [§3.3/§4] The paper quotes uncertainties as '95% confidence level' throughout Section 4, but Section 3.3 states that posterior means and standard deviations are computed from the MCMC chains. If the quoted numbers are 1σ values, the 95% intervals would be roughly twice as wide; if they are already 95%, they should not be labeled as standard deviations. This ambiguity directly affects the claimed agreement with General Relativity and with previous constraints, and it should be clarified with a consistent error-bar convention.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4, first paragraph] The auxiliary pulsar is referred to as PSR J0437–4714 once; this should read PSR J0437–4715.
  2. [§3.3/§4] The derivation of the reported constraints would be greatly facilitated by a table listing the fitted Keplerian and post-Keplerian parameters, especially Pdot/Pb, for each of the three main pulsars. Without these values, the two-equation solution of Eq. (3.23) cannot be independently checked.
  3. [§5, last paragraph] The paper notes that O(sp^3) terms neglected in Eq. (2.17) may be important for some theories, but it does not quantify how the adopted linear sensitivity relation of Eq. (2.15) affects the final κD bound. Since the dipole term scales as sp^2, a brief systematic propagation of this assumption would strengthen the result's robustness.
  4. [§2, Eq. (2.3)] In Eq. (2.3) the Newton constant and orbital period appear without an explicit c^3 factor; the authors should state that geometrized units with c = 1 are used throughout, or include the corresponding factors, to avoid dimensional confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the constraints are fits to external timing data, not predictions derived from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central constraints on Gdot/G and kappa_D are obtained by fitting PPK parameters to external EPTA DR2 TOAs, applying kinematic corrections, and then solving Eq. (3.23) jointly with the externally reported excess of PSR J0437-4715 given in Eq. (3.26), which comes from Ref. [61] (no author overlap with the present paper). The two constrained parameters appear as free unknowns in the fit, not as inputs; the input is the measured orbital-period excess. The sensitivity relation Eq. (2.15) is an explicitly labeled first-order approximation adopted from Ref. [32] and the AP4 equation of state, and it does not define kappa_D in terms of itself. There is no uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work, and all load-bearing cited inputs are external or explicitly adopted. The skeptic's arithmetic concern that the 5.7e-19 s^-1 uncertainty of Eq. (3.26) should propagate to delta kappa_D ~0.2 rather than the quoted 1.4e-5 is a reproducibility/correctness issue about the error propagation in Eq. (4.2), not a circularity: it is a mismatch in the reported uncertainty, not an identity between an input and an output. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two external numerical inputs: the neutron star sensitivity relation and the auxiliary pulsar's excess orbital decay. Both are adopted from prior literature rather than measured in this paper. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Neutron star sensitivity scaling coefficient = 0.16 (M_p / 1.33 M_sun)
    Adopted from Zhu et al. (2019) and Damour & Esposito-Farese (1992), this linear scaling converts the measured excess orbital decay into kappa_D. The dipole term in Eq. (3.23) scales as s_p^2, so the constraint is sensitive to this chosen value.
  • Excess orbital period derivative for PSR J0437-4715 = (3.2 ± 5.7) × 10^-19 s^-1
    Taken from Verbiest et al. (2008) rather than derived from the EPTA DR2 data used for the other pulsars; it is a central input to the combined analysis that breaks the degeneracy between Gdot/G and kappa_D.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Neutron star sensitivity s_p scales linearly with mass as s_p = 0.16 (M_p / 1.33 M_sun)
    Adopted following Damour & Esposito-Farese (1992) and Zhu et al. (2019), used in Eqs. (2.16) and (3.23); if inaccurate, the kappa_D constraint shifts.
  • domain assumption White dwarf companions have negligible sensitivity, s_c approximately 0
    Used to simplify Eq. (2.13) to (2.16); valid for weakly self-gravitating companions but an approximation.
  • domain assumption Only contributions to the excess orbital decay are Gdot and dipole radiation, with no significant tidal or mass-loss effects
    Underlies Eq. (3.23); the paper notes in Section 5 that tidal or mass loss effects could bias the constraints.
  • domain assumption The observed Pdot for PSR J0437-4715 after kinematic corrections equals the value from Verbiest et al. (2008)
    Adopted to break the degeneracy; if this literature value is biased, combined constraints shift.
  • domain assumption The Galactic acceleration model of Eq. (3.20) with the Holmberg and Flynn K_z prescription is correct
    Used to correct Pdot_obs; uncertainties in R0, Omega0, and K_z are not propagated into the final results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Updated constraints on modified gravity from binary pulsars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NMRCLVMP

@misc{pith2026250718188,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Updated constraints on modified gravity from binary pulsars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NMRCLVMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18188}
}
abstract

Binary pulsars offer a unique natural laboratory to test General Relativity (GR) and probe for deviations from its paradigm, as predicted by alternative theories of gravity. In this paper, we study two such possible deviations: a time variation of Newton's constant $G$ and the emission of dipolar gravitational radiation. We use updated data for some well-known pulsars, namely PSR J1738+0333, PSR J1012+5307, and PSR J1713+0747, to extract the Keplerian and post-Keplerian parameters that characterize their orbital dynamics, using recent high-precision pulsar timing data and a Bayesian parameter estimation with Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques. We do this via the TEMPO2 software, the MCMC4Tempo2 plugin, and a unified python pipeline to analyze the data. We then perform a combined analysis of different binary systems to constrain both the time evolution of Newton's constant and the dipolar emission parameter $\kappa_D$. For the best of our three pulsars (PSR J1713+0747), we obtain $\dot{G}/G = (0.32 \pm 0.31) \times 10^{-12}~\text{yr}^{-1}$ at 95\% confidence, along with a stringent constraint on the dipolar emission parameter, $\kappa_D = (-0.04 \pm 0.14) \times 10^{-4}$. Thanks to the recent high-precision timing data sets, we provide updated bounds on key parameters relevant to modified gravity theories, and we find that our results are consistent with GR.

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. Gravitational radiation from binary systems with time varying masses

    gr-qc 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    This paper extends the Peters-Mathews gravitational-wave emission formulas to binaries with time-varying masses and computes coalescence-time corrections for linear, exponential, and neutrino-wind mass-loss models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. Die feldgleichungen der gravitation.Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften , pages 844–847, jan 1915. Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System

    work page 1915

  2. [2]

    C. W. F. Everitt et al. Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:221101, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, and Virgo Collaboration). Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger.Physical Review Letters, 116(6):061102, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor. Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system.The Astrophysical Journal, 195:L51–L53, 1975

    work page 1975

  5. [5]

    J. H. Taylor and J. M. Weisberg. A new test of general relativity: Gravitational radiation and the binary pulsar psr 1913+16.The Astrophysical Journal, 253:908–920, 1982. – 17 –

    work page 1913

  6. [6]

    Kramer et al

    M. Kramer et al. Tests of general relativity from timing the double pulsar.Science, 314:97–102, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies.Quantum Fields in Curved Space . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    Weinberg

    S. Weinberg. The cosmological constant problem.Rev. Mod. Phys., 61:1–23, Jan 1989

    work page 1989

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Weinberg

    S. Weinberg. On the development of effective field theory.The European Physical Journal H , 46(1), mar 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Robert V. Wagoner. Scalar-tensor theory and gravitational waves.Phys. Rev. D , 1:3209–3216, Jun 1970

    1970

  3. [11]

    P. G. Bergmann. Comments on the scalar-tensor theory.International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 1(1):25–36, may 1968

    1968

  4. [12]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke. Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation.Phys. Rev., 124:925–935, Nov 1961

    1961

  5. [13]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Tests of general relativity with GW150914.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(22):221101, 2016. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)]

    2018

  6. [14]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Tests of General Relativity with the Binary Black Hole Signals from the LIGO-Virgo Catalog GWTC-1. Phys. Rev. D , 100(10):104036, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Maggiore

    M. Maggiore. Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews. Gravitational radiation from point masses in a keplerian orbit. Physical Review, 131(1):435–440, Jul 1963

    1963

  9. [17]

    A. S. Eddington. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity . Cambridge University Press, 1924

    1924

  10. [18]

    H. Weyl. Gravitation and electricity.Annalen der Physik , 364(10):101–133, 1919. Originally published in German asGravitation und Elektrizität (1918)

    1918

  11. [19]

    G. J. Olmo. Palatini approach to modified gravity: f(r) theories and beyond.International Journal of Modern Physics D , 20(04):413–462, apr 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    P. A. M. Dirac. The cosmological constants.Nature, 139:323, 1937

    1937

  13. [21]

    Lovelock

    D. Lovelock. The four-dimensionality of space and the einstein tensor.J. Math. Phys. , 13:874–876, 1972

    1972

  14. [22]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis. Modified gravity and cosmology.Physics Reports, 513(1–3):1–189, mar 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni. f(r) theories of gravity.Reviews of Modern Physics , 82(1):451–497, mar 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa. f(r) theories.Living Reviews in Relativity , 13(1), jun 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov. Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: From theory to lorentz non-invariant models.Physics Reports, 505(2–4):59–144, aug 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    A. A. Starobinsky. A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity.Physics Letters B, 91(1):99–102, 1980

    1980

  19. [27]

    J.-P. Uzan. Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Cremmer and J

    E. Cremmer and J. Scherk. Spontaneous compactification of extra space dimensions.Nuclear Physics B, 118(1):61–75, 1977

    1977

  21. [29]

    D. M. Eardley. Observable effects of a scalar gravitational field in a binary pulsar.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 196:L59–L62, mar 1975. – 18 –

    1975

  22. [30]

    G˙/g and a cosmological acceleration of gravitationally compact bodies.Phys

    Ken Nordtvedt. G˙/g and a cosmological acceleration of gravitationally compact bodies.Phys. Rev. Lett., 65:953–956, Aug 1990

    1990

  23. [31]

    C. M. Will. Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993

    1993

  24. [32]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese. Tensor-multi-scalar theories of gravitation.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 9(9):2093, sep 1992

    1992

  25. [33]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash. Neutron star structure and the equation of state.The Astrophysical Journal, 550(1):426–442, mar 2001

    2001

  26. [34]

    W. W. Zhu et al. Tests of Gravitational Symmetries with Pulsar Binary J1713+0747.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , 482(3):3249–3260, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    S. O. Kepler, S. J. Kleinman, A. Nitta, D. Koester, B. G. Castanheira, O. Giovannini, A. F. M. Costa, and L. Althaus. White dwarf mass distribution in the sdss.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 375(4):1315–1324, mar 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    H. L. Shipman. Masses and radii of white-dwarf stars. iii. results for 110 hydrogen-rich and 28 helium-rich stars. The Astrophysical Journal, 228:240–256, feb 1979

    1979

  29. [37]

    Mirshekari and C

    S. Mirshekari and C. M. Will. Compact binary systems in scalar-tensor gravity: Equations of motion to 2.5 post-newtonian order.Phys. Rev. D , 87(8):084070, apr 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farèse. Tensor-scalar gravity and binary-pulsar experiments. Physical Review D, 54(2):1474–1491, jul 1996

    1996

  31. [39]

    Hewish, S

    A. Hewish, S. J. Bell, J. D. H. Pilkington, P. F. Scott, and R. A. Collins. Observation of a rapidly pulsating radio source.Nature, 217(5130):709–713, 1968

    1968

  32. [40]

    T. Gold. Rotating neutron stars as the origin of the pulsating radio sources.Nature, 218:731–732, 1968

    1968

  33. [41]

    D. R. Lorimer and M. Kramer.Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy , volume 4 ofCambridge Observing Handbooks for Research Astronomers . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    J. M. Cordes. Pulsars as probes of relativistic gravity, nuclear matter, and astrophysical plasmas. In A. Carramiñana, F. S. Guzmán, and T. Matos, editors,Solar, Stellar and Galactic Connections Between Particle Physics and Astrophysics , pages 43–76, Dordrecht, 2007. Springer...

    2007

  35. [43]

    Z. Hu, X. Miao, and L. Shao.Tests of Classical Gravity with Radio Pulsars , pages 61–99. Springer Nature Singapore, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Damour and J

    T. Damour and J. H. Taylor. Strong-field tests of relativistic gravity and binary pulsars.Phys. Rev. D, 45(6):1840–1868, mar 1992

    1992

  37. [45]

    J. H. Taylor and J. M. Weisberg. Further experimental tests of relativistic gravity using the binary pulsar psr 1913+16.The Astrophysical Journal, 345:434–450, 1989

    1913

  38. [46]

    Damour and N

    T. Damour and N. Deruelle. General relativistic celestial mechanics of binary systems. i. the post-newtonian motion. Annales de l’I.H.P. Physique théorique , 43(1):107–132, 1985

    1985

  39. [47]

    Damour and N

    T. Damour and N. Deruelle. General relativistic celestial mechanics of binary systems. ii. the post-newtonian timing formula. Annales de l’I.H.P. Physique théorique , 44(3):263–292, 1986

    1986

  40. [48]

    Blandford and S

    R. Blandford and S. A. Teukolsky. Arrival-time analysis for a pulsar in a binary system.The Astrophysical Journal, 205:580–591, apr 1976

    1976

  41. [49]

    Damour and J

    T. Damour and J. H. Taylor. On the orbital period change of the binary pulsar psr 1913+16. The Astrophysical Journal, 366:501–511, 1991. – 19 –

    1913

  42. [50]

    D. J. Nice and J. H. Taylor. Psr j2019+2425 and psr j2322+2057 and the proper motions of millisecond pulsars. The Astrophysical Journal, 441:429–435, 1995

    1995

  43. [51]

    Lazaridis, N

    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. Generic tests of the existence of the gravitational dipole radiation and the variation of the gravitatio...

    2009

  44. [52]

    Feast and P

    M. Feast and P. Whitelock. Galactic kinematics of cepheids from hipparcos proper motions. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 291(4):683–693, 11 1997

    1997

  45. [53]

    Eisenhauer, R

    F. Eisenhauer, R. Schödel, R. Genzel, T. Ott, M. Tecza, R. Abuter, A. Eckart, and T. Alexander. A geometric determination of the distance to the galactic center.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 597(2):L121–L124, nov 2003

    2003

  46. [54]

    Holmberg and C

    J. Holmberg and C. Flynn. The local density of matter mapped by hipparcos.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 352(2):440–446, 2004

    2004

  47. [55]

    I. S. Shklovskii. Possible causes of the secular increase in pulsar periods.Soviet Astronomy, 13:562–565, 1970. Original: Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, 46, 715 (1969)

    1969

  48. [56]

    G. B. Hobbs, R. T. Edwards, and R. N. Manchester. tempo2, a new pulsar-timing package - i. an overview: tempo2, a new pulsar-timing package - i. overview.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369(2):655–672, may 2006

    2006

  49. [57]

    R. T. Edwards, G. B. Hobbs, and R. N. Manchester. tempo2, a new pulsar timing package – ii. the timing model and precision estimates.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 372(4):1549–1574, oct 2006

    2006

  50. [58]

    G. Hobbs. TEMPO2 User Manual , 2011. Version 2011-02-28

    2011

  51. [59]

    Voisin, C

    G. Voisin, C. J. Clark, R. P. Breton, V. S. Dhillon, M. R. Kennedy, and D. Mata-Sánchez. First measurement of the total gravitational quadrupole moment of a black widow companion. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 494(3):4448–4453, apr 2020

    2020

  52. [60]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - I. The dataset and timing analysis.Astron. Astrophys., 678:A48, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    J. P. W. Verbiest, M. Bailes, W. van Straten, G. B. Hobbs, R. T. Edwards, R. N. Manchester, N. D. R. Bhat, J. M. Sarkissian, B. A. Jacoby, and S. R. Kulkarni. Precision timing of PSR J0437-4715: an accurate pulsar distance, a high pulsar mass and a limit on the variation of Ne...

    2008

  54. [62]

    P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, G. Esposito-Farèse, J. P. W. Verbiest, M. Bailes, B. A. Jacoby, M. Kramer, I. H. Stairs, J. Antoniadis, and G. H. Janssen. The relativistic pulsar-white dwarf binary psr j1738+0333 - ii. the most stringent test of scalar-tensor gravity: Psr j1738+0333:...

    2012

  55. [63]

    A. T. Deller, J. P. W. Verbiest, S. J. Tingay, and M. Bailes. Extremely high precision vlbi astrometry of psr j0437-4715 and implications for theories of gravity.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 685(1):L67, sep 2008

    2008

  56. [64]

    Hofmann, J

    F. Hofmann, J. Müller, and L. Biskupek. Lunar laser ranging test of the nordtvedt parameter and a possible variation in the gravitational constant.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 522, nov 2010. – 20 –

    2010

Pith tools

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