1: \documentclass{article}

2: 

3: \bibliographystyle{livrevrel}

4: 

5: \usepackage{epubtk}

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: \usepackage[square,comma,sort]{natbib}

8: 

9: %\showlistoftablesfalse

10: 

11: \begin{document}

12: 

13: \title{Probes and Tests of Strong-Field Gravity with Observations

14: in the Electromagnetic Spectrum}

15: 

16: \author{%

17: \epubtkAuthorData{Dimitrios Psaltis}{%

18: Physics and Astronomy Departments\\

19: University of Arizona}{%

20: dpsaltis@physics.arizona.edu}{%

21: http//www.physics.arizona.edu/\~dpsaltis}%

22: }

23: 

24: \date{}

25: \maketitle

26: 

27: \begin{abstract}

28: Neutron stars and black holes are the astrophysical systems with the

29: strongest gravitational fields in the universe. In this article, I

30: review the prospect of probing with observations of such compact

31: objects some of the most intriguing General Relativistic predictions

32: in the strong-field regime: the absence of stable circular orbits near

33: a compact object and the presence of event horizons around black-hole

34: singularities. I discuss the need for a theoretical framework within

35: which future experiments will provide detailed, quantitative tests of

36: gravity theories. Finally, I summarize the constraints imposed by

37: current observations of neutron stars on potential deviations from

38: General Relativity.

39: \end{abstract}

40: 

41: \epubtkKeywords{}

42: 

43: 

44: \newpage

45: 

46: \section{Introduction}

47: \label{sec:int}

48: 

49: Over the past 90 years, the basic ingredients of General Relativity

50: have been tested in many different ways and in many different

51: settings. From the solar eclipse expedition of 1917 to the modern

52: observations of double neutron stars, General Relativity has passed all

53: tests with flying colors~\cite{Will06}. Yet, our inability to devise a

54: renormalizable quantum gravity theory as well as the mathematical

55: singularities found in many solutions of Einstein's equations suggest

56: that we should look harder for gravitational phenomena not described

57: by General Relativity.

58: 

59: The search for such deviations has been very fruitful in the regime of

60: very weak fields. Observations of high-redshift

61: supernovae~\cite{Perl97, Riess98} and of the cosmic microwave

62: background with WMAP~\cite{Spergel03} have measured a non-zero

63: cosmological constant (or a slowly rolling field that behaves as such

64: at late times). This discovery can be incorporated within the

65: framework of General Relativity, if interpreted simply as a constant

66: in the Einstein--Hilbert action. It nevertheless brought to the surface

67: a major problem in trying to connect gravity to basic ideas of quantum

68: vacuum fluctuations~\cite{Weinberg89,Carroll01}.

69: 

70: In the strong-field regime, on the other hand, which is relevant for

71: the evolution of the very early universe and for determining the

72: properties of black holes and neutron stars, little progress has been

73: made in testing the predictions of general

74: relativity~\cite{Stairs03}. There are two reasons that have been

75: responsible for this lag. First, phenomena that occur in strong

76: gravitational fields are complex and often explosive, making it very

77: difficult to find observable properties that depend cleanly on the

78: gravitational field and that allow for quantitative tests of gravity

79: theories. Second, there exists no general theoretical framework within

80: which to quantify deviations from general relativistic predictions in

81: the strong-field regime.

82: 

83: During the current decade, technological advances and increased

84: theoretical activity have led to developments that promise to make

85: strong-field gravity tests a routine in the near future. The first

86: generation of earth-based gravitational wave observatories (such as

87: LIGO~\cite{LIGO}, GEO600~\cite{GEO}, TAMA300~\cite{TAMA}, and

88: VIRGO~\cite{VIRGO}) as well as the Beyond Einstein Missions (such as

89: Constellation-X, LISA, and the Black Hole Imager~\cite{beyondEins})

90: will offer an unprecedented look into the near fields of black holes

91: and neutron stars. Moreover, recent ideas on quantum

92: gravity~\cite{Burgess04}, brane-world gravity~\cite{Maartens04}, or

93: other Lagrangian extensions of general

94: relativity~\cite{Woodard06,Sotiriou08} will provide the means with

95: which the experimental results will be interpreted.

96: 

97: In this article, I review the theoretical and experimental prospects

98: of testing strong-field General Relativity with observations in the

99: electromagnetic spectrum. In the first few sections, I discuss the

100: motivation for performing such tests and then describe the

101: astrophysical settings in which strong-field effects can be

102: measured. In Section~\ref{sec:need}, I elaborate on the need for a

103: theoretical framework within which strong-field gravity tests can be

104: performed and in Section~\ref{sec:tests} I review the current

105: quantitative tests of General Relativity in the strong-field regime

106: that use neutron stars. Finally, in Section~\ref{section:beyond} I

107: discuss the prospect of probing and testing strong gravitational

108: fields with upcoming experiments and observatories.

109: 

110: 

111: \newpage

112: 

113: \section{The motivation for strong-field tests}

114: \label{sec:motiv}

115: 

116: Most physical scientists would agree that there is very little need to

117: motivate testing one of the fundamental theories of physics in a

118: regime that experiments have probed only marginally, so far. However,

119: in the particular case of testing the strong-field predictions of

120: General Relativity, there exist at least three arguments that provide

121: additional strong support to such an endeavor. First, there is no

122: fundamental reason to choose Einstein's equations over other

123: alternatives. Second, gravitational tests to date seldom probe strong

124: gravitational fields. Finally, it is known that General Relativity

125: breaks down at the strong-field regime. I will now elaborate on each

126: of these arguments.

127: 

128: \smallskip

129: 

130: \noindent $\bullet$ {\em There is no fundamental reason to choose

131: Einstein's equations over other alternatives.~--\/} All theories of

132: gravity, including Newton's theory and General Relativity, have two

133: distinct ingredients. The first describes how matter moves in the

134: presence of a gravitational field. The second describes how the

135: gravitational field is generated in the presence of matter. For

136: Newtonian dynamics, the first ingredient is Newton's second law

137: together with the assertion that the gravitational and inertial masses

138: of an object are the same; the second ingredient is Poisson's

139: equation. For General Relativity, the first ingredient arises from the

140: equivalence principle, whereas the second is Einstein's field

141: equation.

142: 

143: The equivalence principle, in its various formulations, dictates the

144: geometric aspect of the theory~\cite{Will06}: it is impossible to tell

145: the difference between a reference frame at rest and one free-falling

146: in a gravitational field, by performing local, non-gravitational (for

147: the Einstein Equivalence Principle) or even gravitational (for the

148: Strong Equivalence Principle) experiments.  Moreover, the equivalence

149: principle encompasses the Lorentz symmetry, as well as our belief that

150: there is no preferred frame and position anywhere in the

151: spacetime. Because of its central importance in any gravity theory,

152: there have been many attempts during the last century at testing the

153: validity of the equivalence principle. These were performed mostly in

154: the weak-field regime and have resulted in upper limits on possible

155: violations of this principle that are as stringent as one part in

156: $10^{12}$~\cite{Will06}.

157: 

158: Contrary to the case of the equivalence principle, there are no

159: compelling arguments one can make that lead uniquely to Einstein's

160: field equation. In fact, Einstein reached the field equation, more or

161: less, by reverse engineering (see the informative discussion

162: in~\cite{Misner73, Pais82}) and, soon afterwards, Hilbert

163: constructed a Lagrangian action that leads to the same equation. The

164: Einstein--Hilbert action is directly proportional to the Ricci scalar,

165: $R$,

166: %

167: \begin{equation}

168:            S= \frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\int d^4 x  \, \sqrt{-g} \, (R-2\Lambda)\;,

169: \label{EHaction}

170: \end{equation}

171: %

172: where $g\equiv\det\vert g_{\mu\nu}\vert$, $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the

173: spacetime metric, $c$ is the speed of light, $G$ is the gravitational

174: constant, and $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant.  While such a

175: theory is entirely self-consistent at the classical level, it may

176: represent only an approximation that is valid at the scales of

177: curvature that are found in terrestrial, solar, and stellar-system

178: tests.

179: 

180: Indeed, a self-consistent theory of gravity can also be constructed

181: for any other action that obeys the following four simple

182: requirements~\cite{Misner73}. It has to: {\em (i)\/} reproduce the

183: Minkowski spacetime in the absence of matter and of the cosmological

184: constant, {\em (ii)\/} be constructed from only the Riemann curvature

185: tensor and the metric, {\em (iii)\/} follow the symmetries and

186: conservation laws of the stress-energy tensor of matter, and {\em

187: (iv)\/} reproduce Poisson's equation in the Newtonian limit. Of all

188: the possibilities that meet these requirements, the field equations

189: that are derived from the Einstein--Hilbert action are the only ones

190: that are also linear in the Riemann tensor. Albeit simple and elegant,

191: a more general classical action of the form~\cite{Sotiriou08}

192: %

193: \begin{equation}

194:            S =\frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\

195:                  \int d^4 x  \, \sqrt{-g} \,

196:             f(R)\;,

197: \label{EHaction2}

198: \end{equation}

199: %

200: also obeys the same requirements.  Indeed, the

201: action~(\ref{EHaction2}) results in a field equation that allows for

202: the Minkowski solution in the absence of matter, is constructed only

203: from the Riemann tensor, obeys the usual symmetries and conservation

204: laws~\cite{Wald84}, and can be made to produce negligible corrections

205: at the small curvatures probed by weak-field gravitational

206: experiments.  On the other hand, the predictions of the theory may be

207: significantly different at the strong curvatures probed by

208: gravitational tests involving compact objects.

209: 

210: The single, rank-2 tensor field $g_{\mu\nu}$ (i.e., the metric) of the

211: Einstein--Hilbert action may also not be adequate to describe

212: completely the gravitational force (although, if additional fields are

213: introduced, then the strong equivalence principle is violated, with

214: important implications for the frame- and time- dependence of

215: gravitational experiments). In fact, a variant of such theories with

216: an additional scalar field, the Brans--Dicke theory~\cite{Brans61},

217: has been the most widely used alternative to General Relativity to be

218: tested against experiments.  Today, scalar-tensor theories are among

219: the prime candidates for explaining the acceleration of the universe

220: at late times (the ``dark energy''~\cite{Peebles03}). Depending on the

221: coupling between the metric, the scalar field, and matter, the

222: relative contribution of such additional fields may become significant

223: only at the high curvatures found in early universe or in the vicinity

224: of compact objects.

225: 

226: Although the above discussion has considered only the classical action

227: of the gravitational field in a phenomenological manner, it is

228: important to also note that corrections to the Einstein--Hilbert action

229: occur naturally in quantum gravity theories and in string theory. For

230: example, if we choose to interpret the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ as a

231: quantum field, we can take Equation~(\ref{EHaction}) as a quantum

232: field-theoretic action defined at an ultraviolet scale (such as the

233: Planck scale), and proceed to perform quantum-mechanical calculations

234: in the usual way~\cite{Donoghue94}.  However, radiative corrections

235: will induce an infinite series of counterterms as we flow to lower

236: energies and such counterterms will not be reabsorbed into the

237: original Lagrangian by adjusting its bare parameters.  Instead, such

238: terms will appear as new, higher-derivative correction terms in the

239: Einstein--Hilbert action~(\ref{EHaction}). 

240: 

241: Finally, it is worth emphasizing that the previous discussion focuses

242: on Lagrangian gravity in a four-dimensional spacetime.  In the context

243: of string theory, General Relativity emerges only as a leading

244: approximation. String theory also predicts an infinite set of

245: non-linear terms in the scalar curvature, all suppressed by powers of

246: the Planck scale. Moreover, the low-energy effective action of string

247: theory contains additional scalar (dilatonic) and vector gravitational

248: fields~\cite{Green88}. Motivated by ideas of string theory, brane-world

249: gravity~\cite{Maartens04,DGP00a,DGP00b,DGP00c} also provides a

250: self-consistent theory that is consistent with all current tests of

251: gravity.

252: 

253: All the above strongly support the notion that the field equation that

254: arises from the Einstein--Hilbert action may be appropriate only at the

255: scales that have been probed by current gravitational tests. But how deep

256: have we looked?

257: 

258: \smallskip

259: 

260: \noindent $\bullet$ {\em Gravitational tests to date seldom probe

261: strong gravitational fields.~--\/} All historical tests of general

262: relativity have been performed in our solar system. The strongest

263: gravitational field they can, therefore, probe is that at the surface

264: of the Sun, which corresponds to a gravitational redshift of

265: %

266: \begin{equation}

267: z_\odot\simeq \frac{GM_\odot}{R_\odot c^2}\simeq 2\times 10^{-6}\;,

268: \end{equation}

269: %

270: and to a spacetime curvature of

271: %

272: \begin{equation}

273: \frac{GM_\odot}{R_\odot^3 c^2}\simeq 4\times 10^{-28}~\mbox{cm}^{-2}\;.

274: \end{equation}

275: %

276: Coincidentally, the gravitational fields that have been probed in

277: tests using double neutron stars are of the same magnitude, since the

278: masses and separation of the two neutron stars in the systems under

279: consideration are comparable to the mass and radius of the Sun,

280: respectively\footnote{Note, however, that some of the phenomena

281: observed in double neutron stars depend on the coupling of matter and

282: gravity in the strong-field regime~\cite{Damour93}.}. These are

283: substantially weaker fields than those found in the vicinities of

284: neutron stars and stellar-mass black holes, which correspond to a

285: redshift of $\sim 1$ and a spacetime curvature of $\simeq

286: 2\times 10^{-13}$~cm$^{-2}$.

287: 

288: It is instructive to compare the degree to which current tests verify

289: the predictions of General Relativity to the increase in the strength

290: of the gravitational field going from the solar system to the vicinity

291: of a compact object. Current constraints on the deviation of the PPN

292: parameters from the General Relativistic predictions are of order

293: $\simeq 10^{-5}$~\cite{Will06}. It is conceivable, therefore, that

294: deviations consistent with these constraints can grow and become of order

295: unity when the redshift of the gravitational field probed is increased

296: by six orders of magnitude and the spacetime curvature by fifteen!

297:  

298: Is it possible, however, that General Relativity still describes

299: accurately phenomena that occur in the strong gravitational fields

300: found in the vicinity of stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars?

301: 

302: \smallskip

303: 

304: \noindent $\bullet$ {\em General Relativity breaks down at the

305: strong-field regime.~--\/} Our current understanding of the physical

306: world leaves very little doubt that the theory of General Relativity

307: itself breaks down at the limit of very strong gravitational

308: fields. Considering the theory simply as a classical, geometric

309: description of the spacetime leads to predictions of infinite matter

310: densities and curvatures in two different settings. Integrating

311: forward in time the Oppenheimer--Snyder equations, which describe the

312: collapse of a cloud of dust~\cite{Oppenheimer39}, leads to the

313: formation of a black hole with a singularity at its

314: center. Integrating backwards in time the Friedmann equation, which

315: describes the evolution of a uniform and isotropic universe, always

316: results in a singularity at the beginning of time, the big

317: bang. Clearly, the outcome in both of these settings is unphysical.

318: 

319: It is widely believed that quantum gravity prohibits these unphysical

320: situations that occur at the limit of infinitely strong gravitational

321: fields.  Even though none of the observable astrophysical objects

322: offer the possibility of testing gravity at the Planck scale, they

323: will nevertheless allow placing constraints on deviations from general

324: relativity that are as large as $\sim 10$ orders of magnitude more

325: stringent compared to all other current tests. This is the best result

326: we can expect in the near future to come out of the detection of

327: gravitational waves and the observation of the innermost regions of

328: neutron stars and black holes with NASA's Beyond Einstein missions. If

329: the history of the recent detection of a minute yet non-zero

330: cosmological constant is any measure of our inability to predict even

331: the order of magnitude of gravitational effects that we have not

332: directly probed, then we might be up for a pleasant surprise!

333: 

334: 

335: \newpage

336: 

337: \section{Astrophysical and Cosmological Settings of Strong Gravitational

338: Fields}

339: \label{sec:strong}

340: 

341: 

342: \subsection{When is a gravitational field strong?}

343: \label{subsec:definition}

344: 

345: Looking at the Schwarzschild spacetime, it is natural to measure the

346: ``strength'' of the gravitational field at a distance $r$ away from an

347: object of mass $M$ by the parameter

348: %

349: \begin{equation}

350: \epsilon\equiv \frac{GM}{rc^2}\;,

351: \end{equation}

352: %

353: which is proportional to the Newtonian gravitational potential and is

354: also directly related to the redshift.  Infinitesimal gravitational

355: fields correspond to the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, which leads to

356: the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity.  Weak gravitational

357: fields correspond to $\epsilon\ll 1$, which leads to Newtonian

358: gravity. Finally, the strongest gravitational fields accessible to an

359: observer are characterized by $\epsilon\rightarrow 1$, at which point

360: the black-hole horizon of an object of mass $M$ is approached. (Note

361: that formally the horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole occurs at

362: $\epsilon=2$; I drop here the factor of 2, as I am mostly interested

363: in dimensional arguments).

364: 

365: Albeit useful in defining post-Newtonian expansions, the parameter

366: $\epsilon$ is not fundamental in characterizing a gravitational field

367: in Einstein's theory. Indeed, the geodesic equation and the Einstein

368: field equation (or equivalently, the Einstein--Hilbert

369: action~[\ref{EHaction}]) are written in terms of the Ricci scalar, the

370: Ricci tensor, and the Riemann tensor, all of which measure the

371: curvature of the field and not its potential. As a result, when we

372: consider deviations from General Relativity that arise by adding

373: linearly terms to the Einstein--Hilbert action, the critical strength

374: of the gravitational field beyond which these additional terms become 

375: important is typically given in terms of the spacetime curvature.

376: 

377: For example, in the presence of a cosmological

378: constant, the metric of a spherically symmetric object becomes

379: %

380: \begin{equation}

381: ds^2=-\left(1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)dt^2

382:      +\left(1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)^{-1}dr^2

383:      +r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)

384: \end{equation}

385: %

386: and the Newtonian approximation becomes invalid when

387: %

388: \begin{equation}

389:    \frac{GM}{c^2r^3}\ll \frac{1}{6}\Lambda\;.

390: \label{eq:curv_lambda}

391: \end{equation}

392: %

393: In this case, a gravitational field is ``weak'' if the spacetime

394: curvature is smaller than $\Lambda/3$, independent of the value of the

395: parameter $\epsilon$. In the opposite extreme, if there are additional

396: terms in the action of the gravitational field beyond the

397: Einstein--Hilbert term, such as

398: %

399: \begin{equation}

400:            S =\frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\

401:                  \int d^4 x  \, \sqrt{-g} \,

402:             (R+\alpha R^2)\;,

403: \label{eq:EH3}

404: \end{equation}

405: %

406: then the General Relativistic predictions become inaccurate at

407: strong gravitational fields defined by the condition

408: %

409: \begin{equation}

410:    \frac{GM}{c^2r^3}\gg \frac{1}{\alpha}\;,

411: \label{eq:curv_nonlinear}

412: \end{equation}

413: %

414: even if the parameter $\epsilon$ is much smaller than unity. Note

415: that, in Equation~(\ref{eq:EH3}), $\alpha$ is an appropriate constant

416: with units of (length)$^2$ and I have set the Ricci scalar to $R\sim

417: GM/r^3c^2$ (I use this here as an order of magnitude estimate and do

418: not consider the fact that, if the distance $r$ is larger than the

419: radius of the object, then the Ricci scalar in General Relativity

420: vanishes).

421: 

422: Similar considerations lead to a condition on curvature when we add to

423: the Einstein--Hilbert action terms that invoke additional scalar,

424: vector, and tensor fields.  In all these cases, a strong gravitational

425: field is characterized not by a large gravitational potential (i.e., a

426: high value of the parameter $\epsilon$) but rather by a large

427: curvature

428: %

429: \begin{equation}

430: \xi\equiv \frac{GM}{r^3c^2}\;.

431: \label{eq:xi}

432: \end{equation}

433: %

434: Because the condition that the curvature needs to satisfy in order for

435: a gravitational field to be considered ``strong'' depends on the

436: particular deviation from General Relativity under study (cf.\

437: Equations~[\ref{eq:curv_lambda}] and [\ref{eq:curv_nonlinear}]) I will

438: not normalize the parameter $\xi$ to any particular energy density but

439: rather leave it, hereafter, as a dimensional quantity.

440: 

441: This is an appropriate parameter with which to measure the strength of

442: a gravitational field in a geometric theory of gravity, such as

443: General Relativity, because the curvature is the lowest order quantity

444: of the gravitational field that cannot be set to zero by a coordinate

445: transformation. Moreover, because the curvature measures energy

446: density, a limit on curvature will correspond to an energy scale

447: beyond which additional gravitational degrees of freedom may become

448: important.

449: 

450: 

451: \subsection{A parameter space for tests of gravity}

452: \label{subsec:parameters}

453: 

454: The two parameters, $\epsilon$ and $\xi$, define a parameter space on

455: which we can quantify the strengths of the gravitational fields probed

456: by different tests of gravity (see Figure~\ref{fig:fields}). Only a

457: fraction of this parameter space is accessible to experiments. Regions

458: of the parameter space with potential $\epsilon>1$ correspond to

459: distances from a gravitating object that are smaller than the horizon

460: radius and are, therefore, inaccessible to observers. (I neglect here,

461: for simplicity, the small numerical factor in the horizon radius that

462: depends on the spin of the black hole.) In Figure~\ref{fig:fields},

463: this region is outlined by the vertical red line.

464: 

465: \epubtkImage{strong_fields.png}{

466: \begin{figure}[htbp]

467: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=18.0cm]{strong_fields}}

468: \caption{A parameter space for quantifying the strength

469: of a gravitational field.  The $x$-axis measures the potential

470: $\epsilon\equiv GM/rc^2$ and the $y$-axis measures the spacetime

471: curvature $\xi\equiv GM/r^3c^2$ of the gravitational field at a radius

472: $r$ away from a central object of mass $M$. These two parameters

473: provide two different quantitative measures of the strength of the

474: gravitational fields. The various curves, points, and legends are

475: described in the text.}

476: \label{fig:fields}

477: \end{figure}}

478: 

479: Quantifying deviations from General Relativity for part of the

480: parameter space requires a detailed understanding of the properties of

481: dark matter and dark energy, which is beyond current capabilities.  In

482: the limit of very small values of the curvature, the presence of a

483: non-zero cosmological constant affects the outcome of gravitational

484: experiments when (see eq.~[\ref{eq:curv_lambda}])

485: %

486: \begin{equation}

487: \xi\le \frac{3G\Omega_\Lambda H_0^2}{8\pi c^2}\simeq 5\times 

488:    10^{-58}\left(\frac{\Omega_\Lambda}{0.73}\right)

489:    \left(\frac{H_0}{73~\mbox{km/s/Mpc}}\right)^2~\mbox{cm}^{-2}\;,

490: \end{equation}

491: %

492: where $\Omega_\Lambda$ is the current density of dark energy in units

493: of the critical density and $H_0$ is the current value of the Hubble

494: constant. Phenomena that probe such low values of curvature (i.e.,

495: below the horizontal green line in Figure~\ref{fig:fields}) can lead to

496: quantitative tests of General Relativity only if a specific model of

497: dark energy (e.g., a cosmological constant) is assumed.

498: 

499: The ability to perform a quantitative test of a gravity theory also

500: relies on an independent measurement of the mass that generates the

501: gravitational field. This is not always possible, especially in

502: various cosmological settings, where gravitational phenomena are used

503: mostly to infer the presence of dark matter and not to test General

504: Relativistic predictions. Dark matter is typically required in systems

505: for which the acceleration drops below the so-called MOND acceleration

506: scale $a_0\simeq 10^{-8}$~cm~s$^{-2}$~\cite{Milgrom83, Sanders02,

507: Bekenstein07}. (This is an observed fact, independent of whether the

508: inability of Newtonian gravity to account for observations is due to

509: the presence of dark matter or to the breakdown of the theory itself.)

510: This acceleration scale is also comparable to $a_0\simeq c

511: H_0$. Systems for which dark matter is necessary to account for their

512: gravitational fields are characterized by

513: %

514: \begin{equation}

515: \xi \le \left(\frac{a_0}{c^2}\right)^2 \frac{1}{\epsilon}

516: \simeq \left(\frac{H_0}{c}\right)^2 \frac{1}{\epsilon}\;.

517: \end{equation}

518: %

519: This region of the parameter space is outlined by the purple line in

520: Figure~\ref{fig:fields}. The fact that the three lines that correspond

521: to the Schwarzschild horizon, the MOND acceleration scale, and the

522: dark energy all seem to intersect roughly in one point in the

523: parameter space is directly related to the cosmic coincidence problem,

524: i.e., that the universe is flat, with comparable amounts of (mostly

525: dark) matter and dark energy. 

526: 

527: In the opposite limit of very strong gravitational fields, General

528: Relativity is expected to break down when quantum effects become

529: impossible to neglect. This is expected to happen if a gravitational

530: test probes a distance from an object of mass $M$ that is comparable

531: to the Compton wavelength $\lambda_{\rm C}\equiv h/Mc$, where $h$

532: is Planck's constant. Quantum effects are, therefore, expected to 

533: dominate when 

534: %

535: \begin{equation}

536: \xi\ge \frac{1}{L_{\rm P}^2}\epsilon^2\;,

537: \end{equation}

538: %

539: where $L_{\rm P}\equiv (Gh/c^3)^{1/2}\simeq 4\times 10^{-33}$~cm is

540: the Planck length. This part of the parameter space is not shown in

541: Figure~\ref{fig:fields}, as it is many orders of magnitude away from

542: the values of the parameters that correspond to astrophysical systems.

543: 

544: Having defined the parameter space and outlined the various limiting

545: cases, I can now identify the various astrophysical systems that

546: probe its various regimes. In general, systems of constant central

547: mass $M$ will follow curves of the form

548: %

549: \begin{equation}

550: \xi=\frac{c^4}{G^2M^2}\epsilon^3\;,

551: \end{equation}

552: %

553: whereas probes at a constant distance $r$ away from the central object

554: will follow curves of the form

555: %

556: \begin{equation}

557: \xi=\frac{1}{r^2}\epsilon\;.

558: \end{equation}

559: %

560: Figure~\ref{fig:fields} shows a number of representative contours of

561: constant mass and distance. 

562: 

563: The strongest gravitational fields around astrophysical systems can be

564: found in the vicinities of neutron stars (NS in

565: Figure~\ref{fig:fields}) and black holes in X-ray binaries

566: (XRB). Large gravitational potentials but smaller curvatures can be

567: found around the horizons of intermediate mass black holes ($\sim

568: 10^2\mbox{\,--\,}10^4\,M_\odot$; IMBHs) and in active galactic nuclei

569: ($10^6\mbox{\,--\,}10^{10}\,M_\odot$; AGN). Weaker gravitational fields exist near

570: the surfaces of white dwarfs (WD), main-sequence stars (MS), or at the

571: distances of the various planets in our solar system (SS). Finally,

572: even weaker gravitational fields are probed by observations of the

573: motions of stars in the vicinity of the black hole in the center of

574: the Milky Way (Sgr~A$^*$), and by studies of the rotational curve of

575: the Milky Way (MW) and other galaxies. In placing the various systems

576: on the parameter space shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fields}, I have used a

577: typical mass-radius relation for neutron stars and white

578: dwarfs~\cite{Shapiro84}, the calculated mass-radius relation of

579: main-sequence stars~\cite{Clayton83}, and the inferred mass-radius

580: profile of the inner region around Sgr~A$^*$~\cite{Schodel02}, which

581: smoothly approaches the mass profile inferred from the rotation curve

582: of the Milky Way~\cite{Dehnen98}.

583: 

584: \epubtkImage{tests.png}{

585: \begin{figure}[t]

586: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{tests}}

587: \caption{Tests of General Relativity placed on an appropriate

588:   parameter space.  The long-dashed line represents the event horizon

589:   of Schwarzschild black holes.}

590: \label{fig:tests}

591: \end{figure}}

592: 

593: Current tests of General Relativity with astrophysical objects probe a

594: wide range of gravitational potentials and curvatures (see

595: Figure~\ref{fig:tests}).  However, they fall short of probing the most

596: extreme phenomena that are predicted by the theory to occur in the

597: vicinities of compact objects. For example, tests during solar

598: eclipses, with double neutron stars (such as the Hulse--Taylor pulsar),

599: or with Grav Prob B probe curvatures that are the same as those found

600: near the horizons of supermassive black holes, but potentials that are

601: smaller by six to ten orders of magnitude. Moreover, all these tests

602: probe curvatures that are smaller by thirteen or more orders of

603: magnitude from those found near the surfaces of neutron stars and the

604: horizons of stellar-mass black holes. Future experiments, such as the

605: gravitational wave detectors and the Beyond Einstein missions, will

606: offer for the first time the opportunity to probe directly such strong

607: gravitational fields.

608: 

609: The whole range of gravitational fields, from the weakest to the

610: strongest, can also be found during various epochs of the evolution of

611: the universe. As a result, observations of cosmological phenomena may

612: also probe very strong gravitational fields.  The scalar curvature of

613: a flat universe is given by

614: %

615: \begin{equation}

616: R=\frac{6}{\alpha^2}\left(\alpha \ddot{\alpha}+\dot{\alpha}^2\right)\;,

617: \end{equation}

618: %

619: where $\alpha$ is the scale factor. Using the Friedmann equation,

620: the scalar curvature becomes

621: %

622: \begin{equation}

623: R=3\left(\frac{\Omega_{\rm m}^0}{\alpha^3}+4\Omega_{\rm d}^0\right)

624:    \left(\frac{H_0}{c}\right)^2\;,

625: \label{eq:Rcosmo}

626: \end{equation}

627: %

628: where $\Omega_{\rm m}^0$ and $\Omega_{\rm d}^0$ are the

629: (non-relativistic) matter and dark energy densities in the present

630: universe, respectively, in units of the critical

631: density. Equation~(\ref{eq:Rcosmo}) shows that, at late times, the

632: radius of curvature of the universe is comparable to the Hubble

633: distance.

634: 

635: The evolution of the scalar curvature with redshift for a flat

636: universe and for the best-fit cosmological parameters obtained by the

637: WMAP mission~\cite{Spergel03} is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cosmo}.

638: Identified on this figure are several characteristic epochs that have

639: been used in testing General Relativistic predictions: the $z\simeq 1$

640: epoch of type I supernovae that are used to measure the value of the

641: cosmological constant~\cite{Perl97, Riess98}; the $z\simeq 1000$ epoch

642: at which the acoustic peaks of the cosmic microwave background

643: observed by WMAP are produced; and the period of nucleosynthesis

644: during which the temperature of the universe was in the range 60~keV

645: -- 1~MeV~\cite{Santiago97, Carroll02}.  The period of big-bang

646: nucleosynthesis is the earliest epoch for which quantitative tests

647: have been performed. The corresponding scalar curvature of the

648: universe at that time, however, is still small and comparable to the

649: curvatures of gravitational fields probed by current tests of General

650: Relativity in the solar system. It was only when the temperature of

651: the Universe was $\sim 100$~GeV that its curvature was $\simeq

652: 10^{-12}$~cm$^{-2}$, i.e., comparable to that found around a neutron

653: star or stellar-mass black hole. This is the period of electroweak

654: baryogenesis, for which no detailed theoretical models or data exist

655: to date.

656: 

657: \epubtkImage{cosmology.png}{

658: \begin{figure}[htbp]

659: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{cosmology}}

660: \caption{The scalar curvature of our universe, as a function

661: of redshift. The curve corresponds to a flat universe with the

662: best-fit values of the cosmological parameters obtained by the WMAP

663: mission~\cite{Spergel03}. The arrows point to the curvature and

664: redshift of the universe during various epochs.}

665: \label{fig:cosmo}

666: \end{figure}}

667: 

668: 

669: \subsection{Probing versus testing strong-field gravity}

670: \label{subsec:probvstest}

671: 

672: The parameter space shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fields} is useful in

673: identifying the strength of the gravitational field probed by a

674: particular test of gravity. However, it is important to emphasize that

675: probing a gravitational field of a given strength is not necessarily

676: the same as testing General Relativity in that regime. I discuss

677: bellow the difference with two examples from scalar-tensor gravity

678: that illustrate the two opposite extremes.

679: 

680: First, a phenomenon that occurs in a weak gravitational field may

681: actually be testing the strong-field regime of gravity. In General

682: Relativity, Birkhoff's theorem states that the external spacetime of a

683: spherically symmetric object is described by the Schwarzschild metric,

684: independent of the properties of the object itself. Birkhoff's

685: theorem, however, does not apply to a variety of gravity theories,

686: such as scalar-tensor or non-linear (e.g., $R+R^2$) theories. In fact,

687: in these theories, the spacetime at any point around a spherically

688: symmetric object depends on the mass distribution that generates the

689: spacetime, which may itself lie in a strong gravitational field and,

690: therefore, probe that regime of the theory. For example, in

691: Brans--Dicke gravity, which is a special case of scalar-tensor

692: theories, the evolution of the binary orbit in a system with two

693: neutron stars due to the emission of gravitational waves depends on

694: the coupling of matter to the scalar field, which occurs in the strong

695: gravitational field of each neutron

696: star~\cite{Eardley75, Will89, Damour96}.  As a result, even though the

697: gravitational field that corresponds to a double-neutron star orbit is

698: rather weak (see Figure~\ref{fig:tests}), observations of the orbital

699: decay of the binary actually test General Relativity against

700: scalar-tensor theories in the strong-field regime~\cite{Damour96}.

701: 

702: In the opposite extreme, phenomena that probe strong gravitational

703: fields cannot necessarily be used in testing General Relativity in

704: this regime. Analytical and numerical studies strongly suggest that

705: the end state of the collapse of a star in Brans--Dicke gravity is a

706: black hole described by the Kerr spacetime of General

707: Relativity~\cite{Thorne71, Bekenstein72, Hawking72, Scheel95,

708: Psaltis07b}. Therefore, the observation of a phenomenon that occurs

709: even just above the horizon of a black hole cannot be used in testing

710: General Relativity against Brans--Dicke gravity in the strong-field

711: regime, because both theories make the exact same prediction for that

712: phenomenon.

713: 

714: In the following, I will distinguish attempts to probe phenomena that

715: occur exclusively in the strong-field regime of General Relativity

716: from those that aim to test the strong-field predictions of the theory

717: against various alternatives.

718: 

719: 

720: \newpage

721: 

722: \section{Probing Strong Gravitational Fields with Astrophysical Objects}

723: \label{sec:probes}

724: 

725: A number of astrophysical objects offer the possibility of detecting

726: directly the observable consequences of two strong-field predictions

727: of General Relativity that have no weak-field or Newtonian

728: counterparts: the presence of a horizon around a collapsed object and

729: the lack of stable circular orbits in the vicinity of a neutron star

730: or black hole. As in most other areas of astrophysics research, we

731: have to rely on imaging, spectral, or timing observations in order to

732: reveal the information of the strong-field effects that is encoded in

733: the detected photons. The construction of gravitational wave

734: observatories will offer, for the first time in the near future, a

735: wealth of additional probes into the inner workings of gravitational

736: fields in the vicinities of compact objects.

737: 

738: In the following, I review a number of recent attempts to probe

739: strong-field phenomena that have used a variety of techniques and were

740: applied to different astrophysical objects. I will only discuss

741: phenomena that are observable in the electromagnetic spectrum and

742: refer to a number of excellent reviews on the gravitational phenomena

743: that are anticipated to be detected by gravitational wave

744: observatories~\cite{Hugh00, Flanagan05}.

745: 

746: 

747: \subsection{Black hole images}

748: \label{subsec:image}

749: 

750: To paraphrase the common proverb, {\em a picture is worth a thousand

751: spectra.} Directly imaging the vicinity of a black hole promises to

752: provide a direct evidence for the existence of a horizon. However,

753: black holes are notoriously small, and the resolution required for

754: imaging their horizons is, for most cases, beyond current

755: capabilities. For a stellar-mass black hole in the galaxy, the opening

756: angle of the horizon, as viewed by an observer on Earth, is only

757: %

758: \begin{equation}

759: \theta=2\times 10^{-4}\left(\frac{M}{10\,M_\odot}\right)

760: \left(\frac{1~\mbox{kpc}}{D}\right)~\mu\mbox{arcsec}\;,

761: \end{equation}

762: %

763: where $M$ is the mass of the black hole and $D$ is its distance.

764: 

765: For a supermassive black hole in a distant galaxy, the opening angle is

766: %

767: \begin{equation}

768: \theta=20\left(\frac{M}{10^9\,M_\odot}\right)

769: \left(\frac{1~\mbox{Mpc}}{D}\right)~\mu\mbox{arcsec}\;.

770: \end{equation}

771: %

772: This is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:images} for a number of supermassive

773: black holes with secure mass determinations. The angular size of the

774: horizons of some of the sources are barely resolvable today with

775: interferometric observations in the sub-mm/infrared wavelengths and

776: will be resolvable in the X-rays in near future with the Black Hole

777: Imager~\cite{Ozel01}.

778: 

779: \epubtkImage{images.png}{

780: \begin{figure}[htbp]

781: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{images}}

782: \caption{The opening angles, as viewed by an observer on

783: Earth, of the horizons of a number of supermassive black holes in

784: distant galaxies with a secure dynamical mass measurement (sample

785: of~\cite{Tremaine02}). The opening angle of the black hole horizon in

786: the center of the Milky Way (Sgr~A$^*$) is also shown for comparison.}

787: \label{fig:images}

788: \end{figure}}

789: 

790: The black hole that combines the highest brightness with the largest

791: angular size of the horizon is the one that powers the source

792: Sgr~A$^*$, in the center of the Milky Way. Since the first

793: measurements of the size of the source at 7~mm~\cite{Lo98} and at

794: 1.4~mm~\cite{Krichbaum98} demonstrated that the emitting region is only

795: a few times larger than the radius of the horizon (see

796: Figure~\ref{fig:sgrsize}), a number of observational and theoretical

797: investigations have aimed to probe deeper into the gravitational field

798: of the black hole and constrain its properties.

799: 

800: \epubtkImage{size.png}{

801: \begin{figure}[htbp]

802: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{size}}

803: \caption{The major axis of the accretion flow around

804: the black hole in the center of the Milky Way, as measured at

805: different wavelengths, in units of the Schwarzschild radius (left axis) and

806: in milliarcsec (right axis; adapted from~\cite{Shen05}). Even with current

807: technology, the innermost radii of the accretion flow can be readily

808: observed.}

809: \label{fig:sgrsize}

810: \end{figure}}

811: 

812: The long-wavelength spectrum of Sgr~A$^*$ peaks at a frequency of

813: $\simeq 10^{12}$~Hz, suggesting that the emission changes from

814: optically thick (probably synchrotron emission) to optically thin at a

815: comparable frequency (see, e.g., \cite{Narayan95}). As a

816: result, observations at frequencies comparable to or higher than the

817: transition frequency can, in principle, probe the accretion flow at

818: regions very close to the horizon of the black hole.

819: 

820: Even though the exact shape and size of the image of Sgr~A$^*$ at long

821: wavelengths depends on the detailed structure of the underlying

822: accretion flow (cf.~\cite{Ozel00} and \cite{Yuan03}), there

823: exist two generic observable signatures of its strong gravitational

824: field. First, the horizon leaves a `shadow' on the image of the

825: source, which is equal to $\simeq\sqrt{27}GM/c^2$ and roughly

826: independent of the spin of the black hole~\cite{Bardeen73, Falcke00,

827: Takahashi04, Broderick06,Noble07}. Second, the brightness of the image of the

828: accretion flow is highly non-uniform because of the high velocity of

829: the accreting plasma and the effects of the strong gravitational

830: lensing. Simultaenously fitting the size, shape, polarization map, and

831: centroid of the image observed at different wavelengths with future

832: telescopes, will offer the unique possibility of removing the

833: complications introduced by the unknown nature of the accretion flow,

834: imaging directly the black hole shadow, and measuring the spin of the

835: black hole~\cite{Broderick06b}.

836: 

837: 

838: \subsection{Continuum spectroscopy of accreting black holes}

839: \label{subsec:contspec}

840: 

841: There have been at least three different efforts published in the

842: literature that use the luminosities and the continuum spectra of

843: accreting black holes to look for evidence of strong-field phenomena.

844: 

845: \epubtkImage{bh_vs_ns.png}{

846: \begin{figure}[htbp]

847: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{bh_vs_ns}}

848: \caption{The 2--20~keV quiescent luminosities of black hole

849: candidates (filled circles) and neutron stars (open circles) in units

850: of the Eddington luminosity for different galactic binary systems, as

851: a function of their orbital periods, which are thought to determine

852: the mass transfer rate between the two stars. The systematically lower

853: luminisoties of the black hole systems have been attributed to the

854: presence of the event horizon~\cite{Narayan97, McClintock04}.}

855: \label{fig:bhvsns}

856: \end{figure}}

857: 

858: \subsubsection{Luminosities of black holes in quiescence and the absence 

859: of a hard surface}

860: \label{subsub:horizon}

861: 

862: More low-mass X-ray binaries are stellar systems in which the primary

863: star is a compact object and the secondary star is filling its Roche

864: lobe. Matter is transferred from the companion star to the compact

865: object and releases its gravitational potential energy mostly as

866: high-energy radiation, making these systems the brightest sources in

867: the X-ray sky~\cite{Psaltis06, McClintock06}.

868: 

869: The rate with which mass is transfered from the companion star to the

870: compact object is determined by the ratio of masses of the two stars,

871: the evolutionary state of the companion star, and the orbital

872: separation~\cite{Verbunt93}. On the other hand, the

873: rate with which energy is released in the form of high-energy

874: radiation depends on the rate of mass transfer, the state of the

875: accretion flow (i.e., whether it is via a geometrically thin disk or a

876: geometrically thick but radiatively inefficient flow), and on whether the

877: compact object has a hard surface or an event horizon. Indeed, for a

878: neutron-star system in steady state, most of the released

879: gravitational potential energy has to be radiated away (only a small

880: fraction heats the stellar core~\cite{Brown98}), whereas

881: for a black hole system, a significant amount of the potential energy

882: may be advected inwards past the event horizon, and hence may be forever

883: lost from the observable universe. For similar systems, in the same

884: accretion state, one would therefore expect black holes to be

885: systematically underluminous than neutron stars~\cite{Narayan97}.

886: 

887: The luminosities of transient black holes and neutron stars in their

888: quiescent states most clearly show this trend. When plotted against

889: the orbital periods of the binary systems, which are used here as

890: observable proxies to the mass transfer rates, sources that are

891: believed to be black holes, based on their large masses, are

892: systematically underluminous (Figure~\ref{fig:bhvsns}

893: and~\cite{Narayan97, Garcia01, McClintock04}). Although the physical

894: mechanism behind the difference in luminosities is still a matter of

895: debate~\cite{Narayan97, Bildsten00, Lasota00}, the trend shown in

896: Figure~\ref{fig:bhvsns} appears to be a strong, albeit indirect,

897: evidence for the presence of an event horizon in compact objects with

898: masses larger than the highest possible mass of a neutron star.

899: 

900: \subsubsection{Hard X-ray spectra of luminous black holes 

901: and the presence of an event horizon}

902: \label{subsub:hard}

903: 

904: Galactic black holes in some of their most luminous states (the

905: so-called very high states) have mostly thermal spectra in the soft

906: X-rays with power-law tails that extend well into the soft

907: $\gamma$-rays~\cite{Grove98}.  It has been hypothesized that these

908: power-law tails are the result of Compton upscattering of soft X-ray

909: photons off the relativistic electrons that flow into the black hole

910: event horizon with speeds that approach the speed of light and,

911: therefore, constitute an observational signature of the presence of an

912: event horizon (e.g., see~\cite{Titarchuk98, Laurent99})

913: 

914: A relativistic converging flow has indeed the potential of producing

915: power-law spectral tails (e.g., see~\cite{Payne81, Titarchuk97,

916: Psaltis01}).  However, this mechanism is identical to a second order

917: Fermi acceleration and hence the power-law tail is a result of

918: multiple scatterings away from the horizon with small energy exchange

919: per scattering rather than the result of very few scatterings of

920: photons with ultrarelativistic electrons near the black hole

921: horizon~\cite{Psaltis97, Papathanassiou00}. Moreover, the model

922: spectra always cut-off at energies smaller than the electron rest

923: mass~\cite{Laurent99, Niedzwiecki06} whereas the observed spectra

924: extend into the MeV range~\cite{Grove98}. Successful theoretical

925: models of the power-law spectra of black holes that are based on

926: Comptonization of soft photons by non-thermal

927: electrons~\cite{Gierlinski99} as well as the discovery of similar

928: power-law tails in the spectra of accreting neutron stars that extend

929: to $\sim 100-200$~keV~\cite{DiSalvo01, DiSalvo06} have shown

930: conclusively that the observed power-law tails do not constitute

931: evidence for black hole event horizons.

932: 

933: 

934: \subsubsection{Measuring the radii of the innermost stable 

935: circular orbits of black holes using continuum spectra}

936: \label{subsub:isco}

937: 

938: The thermal spectrum of a black hole source in some of its most

939: luminous states is believed to originate in a geometrically thin

940: accretion disk. The temperature profile of such an accretion disk away

941: from the black hole is determined entirely by energy conservation and

942: is independent of the magnitude and properties of the mechanism that

943: transports angular momentum and allows for matter to accrete (as long

944: as this mechanism is local; see~\cite{Shakura73, Balbus99}). The

945: situation is very different, however, near the radius of the innermost

946: stable circular orbit (hereafter ISCO).

947: 

948: Inside the ISCO, fluid elements cannot stay in circular orbits but

949: instead quickly loose centrifugal support and rapidly fall into the

950: black hole. The density of the accretion disk inside the ISCO is very

951: small and the viscous heating is believed to be strongly

952: diminished. It is, therefore, expected that only material outside the

953: ISCO contributes to the observed thermal spectrum. The temperature

954: profile of the accretion flow just outside the ISCO depends rather

955: strongly on the mechanism that transports angular momentum outwards

956: and in particular on the magnitude of the torque at the

957: ISCO~\cite{Krolik99, Gammie99, Agol00}. To lowest order, however, if

958: the entire accretion disk spectrum can be decomposed as a sum of

959: blackbodies, each at the local temperature of every radial annulus,

960: then the highest temperature will be that of the plasma near the ISCO

961: and the corresponding flux of radiation will be directly proportional

962: to the square of the ISCO radius.

963: 

964: \epubtkImage{spin.png}{

965: \begin{figure}[htbp]

966: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=13.0cm]{spin}}

967: \caption{The spectra emerging from geometrically thin

968: accretion disks around black holes with different spins, but with the

969: same accretion luminosity~\cite{Davis05}.From left to right, the

970: curves correspond to spins ($a/M$) of 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.78, 0.881,

971: 0.936, 0.966, and 0.99.  The spin values were chosen to give roughly

972: equal variation in the position of the spectral peak for spins $>0.8$.

973: The other parameters which determine the model are the viscosity

974: parameter, $\alpha=0.01$, the inclination of the observer, $\cos i=0.5$,

975: the mass of the black hole, $M=10\,M_\odot$, and the accretion

976: luminosity, $L=0.1 L_{\rm Edd}$. The peak energies of the spectra increase

977: with increasing spin, as a consequence of the fact that the ISCO

978: radius decreases with spin.}

979: \label{fig:bhspin}

980: \end{figure}}

981: 

982: Phenomenological fits of multi-temperature blackbody models to the

983: observed spectra of black holes provide strong support to the above

984: interpretation. When model spectra are fit to observations of any

985: given black hole in luminosity states that differ by more than one

986: order of magnitude, the inferred ISCO radius remains approximately

987: constant~\cite{Tanaka95}. For systems with a dynamically measured mass

988: and with a known distance, such an observation can lead to a

989: measurement of the physical size of the ISCO and hence of the spin of

990: the black hole~\cite{Zhang97, Gierlinski01} (see

991: Figure~\ref{fig:bhspin}).

992: 

993: There are a number of complications associated with producing the

994: model spectra of multitemperature blackbody disks that are required in

995: measuring spectroscopically the ISCO radius around a black

996: hole. First, as discussed above, the temperature profile of an

997: accretion disk at the region around the ISCO depends very strongly on

998: the details of the mechanism of angular momentum transport, which are

999: poorly understood~\cite{Krolik99, Gammie99, Agol00}. Second, the

1000: vertical structure of the disk at each annulus, which determines the

1001: emerging spectrum, may or may not be in hydrostatic equilibrium near

1002: the ISCO, as it is often assumed, and its structure depends strongly

1003: on the external irradiation of the disk plasma by photons that

1004: originate in other parts of the disk. Finally, material in the inner

1005: accretion disk is highly ionized and often far from local

1006: thermodynamic equilibrium, generating spectra that can be

1007: significantly different from blackbodies~\cite{Hubeny97}.

1008: 

1009: There have been a number of approximate models of multi-temperature

1010: accretion disks that take into account some of these effects, in a

1011: phenomenological or in an {\em ab initio} way. The models of Li et

1012: al.~\cite{Li05} are based on the alpha-model for angular momentum

1013: transport, assume that the local emission from each annulus is a

1014: blackbody at the local temperature, and take into account the strong

1015: lensing of the emitted photons by the central black hole. On the other

1016: hand, the models of Davis et al.~\cite{Davis05} are the result of

1017: ionization-equilibrium and radiative transfer calculations at each

1018: annulus, they are based on the alpha model for angular momentum but

1019: allow for non-zero torques at the ISCO, and take into account the

1020: strong lensing of photons by the black hole. 

1021: 

1022: Given the flux $F$ of the accretion disk measured by an observer on

1023: Earth, the color temperature $T_{\rm col}$ that corresponds to the

1024: innermost region in the disk that is emitting (which presumably is

1025: near the ISCO), the distance $D$ to the source, and the mass $M$ of

1026: the black hole, the spin $\alpha$ of the black hole can be

1027: inferred~\cite{Zhang97} by equating the radius of the ISCO, i.e.,

1028: %

1029: \begin{equation}

1030: r_{\rm ISCO}=

1031: \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{c^2}}\left\{3+A_2\pm [(3-A_1)(3+A_1+2A_2)]^{1/2}\right\}

1032: \label{eq:fisco}

1033: \end{equation}

1034: %

1035: to the one inferred spectroscopically (since $F\sim T^4 R^2$) by

1036: %

1037: \begin{equation}

1038: r_{\rm spec}=

1039: D \left[\frac{F}{2\sigma g(\theta, \alpha)}\right]^{1/2}

1040: \left[\frac{f_{\rm col} f_{\rm GR}(\theta, \alpha)}{T_{\rm col}}\right]^2\;.

1041: \label{eq:rspec}

1042: \end{equation}

1043: %

1044: Here $A_1=1+(1-a^2)^{1/3}[(1+a)^{1/3}+(1-a)^{1/3}]$,

1045: $A_2=(3a^2+A_1^2)^{1/2}$, $a$ is the specific angular momentum per

1046: unit mass for the black hole, and the positive (negative) sign is

1047: taken for prograde (retrograde) disks. In these equations, $\sigma$ is

1048: the Stefan--Boltzmann constant and $\theta$ is the inclination of the

1049: observer with respect to the symmetry axis of the accretion disk. The

1050: functions $g(\theta, \alpha$) and $f_{\rm GR}(\theta, \alpha)$ are

1051: correction factors for the flux and the temperature, respectively,

1052: that need to be calculated when going from an accretion disk annulus

1053: to a distant observer and incorporate the combined effects of

1054: gravitational lensing, gravitational redshift, and Doppler boosting of

1055: the disk photons. Given a thickness of the accretion disk, both these

1056: transfer functions can be computed to any desired degree of

1057: accuracy. Finally, the factor $f_{\rm col}$ measures the ratio of the

1058: color temperature of the spectrum (as measured by fitting a blackbody

1059: to the observed spectrum) to the effective temperature in that annulus

1060: in the accretion disk (which is a measure of the total radiation flux

1061: emerging from that annulus). Computing the value of the factor $f_{\rm

1062: col}$ is the goal of the recent calculations of the ionization

1063: equilibrium and radiative transfer in accretion disks~\cite{Davis05}.

1064: 

1065: Fitting these spectral models to a number of observations of black hole

1066: candidates with dynamically measured masses has resulted in

1067: approximate measurements of their spins: $a>0.7$ for

1068: GRS~1915$+$105~\cite{Midleton05, McClintock06b}; $a=0.75-0.85$ for

1069: 4U~1543-44~\cite{Shafee06}; $a=0.65-0.75$ for

1070: GRO~J1655$-$40~\cite{Shafee06}. It is remarkable that all inferred

1071: values of the black hole spins are high, comparable to the maximum

1072: allowed by the Kerr solution.

1073: 

1074: Equations~(\ref{eq:fisco}) and (\ref{eq:rspec}) demonstrate the strong

1075: dependence of the inferred values of black hole spins on various

1076: observable quantities (the mass of, distance to, and inclination of

1077: the black hole, as well as the flux, and temperature of its disk

1078: spectrum) and on a model parameter (the color correction factor

1079: $f_{\rm col}$). Numerical simulations of magnetohydrodynamic flows

1080: onto black holes are finely tuned to resolve the length- and

1081: timescales of phenomena that occur in the vicinity of the horizon of a

1082: black hole (see, e.g.,~\cite{Gammie03, deVilliers03}). When such

1083: models incorporate accurate multi-dimensional radiative transfer, they

1084: will provide the best theoretical spectra to be compared directly to

1085: observations (see, e.g.,~\cite{Blaes06}). Moreover, monitoring of

1086: the same sources at long wavelengths will improve the measurements of

1087: their masses and distances.  Finally, combination of this with other

1088: methods based on line spectra and the rapid variability properties of

1089: accreting black holes will enable us to tighten the uncertainties in

1090: the various model parameters and observed quantities that enter

1091: Equation~(\ref{eq:fisco}) and measure with high precision the spins of

1092: galactic black holes.

1093: 

1094: 

1095: \subsection{Line spectroscopy of accreting compact objects}

1096: \label{subsec:lines}

1097: 

1098: Heavy elements on the surface layers of neutron stars or in the

1099: accretion flows around black holes that are not fully ionized generate

1100: atomic emission and absorption lines that can be detected by a distant

1101: observer with a large gravitational redshift. The value of the

1102: gravitational redshift can be used to uniquely identify the region in

1103: the spacetime of the compact object in which the observed photons are

1104: produced.

1105: 

1106: 

1107: \subsubsection{Atomic lines from the surfaces of neutron 

1108: stars}

1109: \label{subsub:linesns}

1110: 

1111: The gravitational redshift of an atomic line from the surface layer of

1112: a neutron star leads to a unique determination of the relation between

1113: its mass and radius. The detection of a rotationally broadened atomic

1114: line from a rapidly spinning neutron star offers the additional

1115: possibility of measuring directly the stellar radius~\cite{Ozel03,

1116: Chang06} and, therefore, of determining its mass, as well.  The

1117: profile of a rotationally broadened atomic line can be used to study

1118: frame-dragging effects in the strong-field

1119: regime~\cite{Bhattacharya05}. Moreover, detecting a gravitationally

1120: redshifted and rotationally broadened atomic line can lead to a

1121: measurement of the oblateness of the spinning star~\cite{Cadeau07},

1122: which is determined by the strong-field coupling of matter with the

1123: gravitationally field. Unfortunately, this is one of the very few

1124: astrophysical settings discussed in this review in which observations

1125: significantly trail behind theoretical investigations.

1126: 

1127: Despite many optimistic expectations and early claims (see,

1128: e.g.,~\cite{Lewin93}), the observed spectra of almost all

1129: weakly-magnetic neutron stars are remarkably featureless. The best

1130: studied case is that of the nearby isolated neutron star

1131: RX~J1856$-$3754, which was observed for 450~ks with the Chandra X-ray

1132: Observatory and showed no evidence for any atomic lines from heavy

1133: elements~\cite{Braje02}. This is in fact not surprising, given that

1134: heavy elements drift inwards of the photosphere in timescales of

1135: minutes~\cite{Bildsten92} and it takes only $\simeq 10^{-7}\,M_\odot$

1136: of light elements to blanket a heavy element surface.

1137: 

1138: There are two types of neutron stars, however, in the atmospheres of

1139: which heavy elements may abound: young cooling neutron stars and

1140: accreting X-ray bursters~\cite{Ozel03}. On the one hand, the escaping

1141: latent heat of the supernova explosion makes young neutron stars

1142: relatively bright sources of X-rays. Their strong magnetic fields can

1143: inhibit accretion of light elements either from the supernova fallback

1144: or from the interstellar medium, leaving the surface heavy elements

1145: exposed. On the other hand, in the atmospheres of accreting, weakly

1146: magnetic neutron stars, heavy elements are continuously replenished.

1147: Moreover, large radiation fluxes pass through their atmospheres during

1148: thermonuclear bursts~\cite{Strohmayer06} making them very bright and

1149: easily detectable.

1150: 

1151: The most promising detection to date of gravitationally redshifted

1152: lines from the surface of a neutron star came from an observation with

1153: XMM-Newton of the source EXO~0748$-$676, which showed redshifted

1154: atomic lines during thermonuclear flashes~\cite{Cottam02}. This is a

1155: slowly spinning neutron star (47~Hz~\cite{Villarreal04}) and hence its

1156: external spacetime can be accurately described by the Schwarzschild

1157: metric. In this case, the measurement of a gravitational redshift of

1158: $z=0.35$ leads to a unique determination of the relation between the

1159: mass and the radius of the neutron star, i.e., $M\simeq 1.4

1160: (R/10$~km$)M_\odot$. Combination of this result with the spectral

1161: properties of thermonuclear bursts during periods of photospheric

1162: radius expansion and in the cooling tales also allowed for an

1163: independent determination of the mass and radius of the neutron

1164: star~\cite{Ozel06}.

1165: 

1166: Future observations of bursting or young neutron stars with upcoming

1167: X-ray missions such as Constellation-X~\cite{ConX} and

1168: XEUS~\cite{XEUS} have the potential of detecting many gravitationally

1169: redshifted atomic lines and, hence, of probing the coupling of matter

1170: to the strong gravitational fields found in the interiors of neutron

1171: stars.

1172: 

1173: 

1174: \subsubsection{Relativistically broadened iron lines in accreting

1175: black holes}

1176: \label{subsub:ironbh}

1177: 

1178: Astrophysical black holes in active galactic nuclei accreting at

1179: moderate rates offer another possibility of probing strong

1180: gravitational fields using atomic spectroscopy (for an extensive

1181: review on the subject see~\cite{Reynolds03}; see also

1182: \cite{Miller07} for a review of iron line observations from 

1183: stellar-mass black holes). The relatively cool accretion disks in

1184: these systems act as large mirrors, reflecting the high-energy

1185: radiation that is believed to be produced in the disk coronae by

1186: magnetic flaring~\cite{Guilbert88}. The spectrum of reflected

1187: radiation in hard X-rays is determined by electron scattering, whereas

1188: the spectrum in the soft X-rays is characterized by a large number of

1189: fluorescent lines caused by bound-bound transitions of the partially

1190: ionized material. The combination of the high yield and relatively

1191: high abundance of iron atoms in the accreting material make the iron

1192: K$\alpha$ line, with a rest energy of 6.4~keV for a neutral atom, the

1193: most prominent feature of the spectrum.

1194: 

1195: 

1196: \epubtkImage{iron_lines_a.png}{

1197: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1198: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{iron_lines_alpha}

1199: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{iron_lines_a}}

1200: \caption{Theoretical models of relativistically broadened

1201: iron line profiles from accretion flows around black holes. The left

1202: panel shows the dependence of the line profile on the spin parameter

1203: of the black hole, whereas the right panel shows its dependence on the

1204: emissivity index (see text). All calculations were performed for an

1205: inclination angle of 40$^\circ$~\cite{Brenneman06}.}

1206: \label{fig:ironlines_th}

1207: \end{figure}}

1208: 

1209: The profile of the fluorescent iron line as observed at infinity is

1210: determined mainly by general and special relativistic effects that

1211: influence the propagation of photons from the point of reflection to the

1212: observer~\cite{Laor91}. Dividing an accretion disk into a series of

1213: concentric rings orbiting at the local Keplerian frequency, special

1214: relativistic effects produce a rotational splitting of the line

1215: emerging from each ring, whereas general relativistic effects generate

1216: an overall redshift~\cite{Fabian89}. The combination of these effects

1217: integrated over the entire surface of the accretion disk leads to a

1218: characteristic profile for the iron reflection line, which is broad

1219: with a shallow and extended red wing (Figure~\ref{fig:ironlines_th}).

1220: 

1221: The magnitude of the relativistic effects depends on the specifics of

1222: the spacetime of the black hole, on the position and orientation of

1223: the observer, on the position and properties of the source of X-rays

1224: above the accretion disk, and on the dependence of fluorescence yield

1225: on position on the accretion disk through its dependence on the 

1226: ionization states of the elements~\cite{George91}. Given a model for

1227: the source of X-rays and the accretion disk, fitting the profile of an

1228: iron line from an accreting black hole can lead, in principle, to a

1229: direct mapping of its spacetime. Unfortunately, the source of X-ray

1230: illumination and the physical properties of the accretion flows

1231: themselves are poorly understood.

1232: 

1233: If we make assumptions regarding these astrophysical complications

1234: that are largely model independent, a general property of the

1235: spacetime, such as the spin of the black hole, can be measured. The

1236: accretion disk is typically modeled as a geometrically thin reflecting

1237: surface at the rotational equator of the black hole that is extending

1238: inwards until the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit. Even

1239: though the density of the material inside this radius is significant

1240: and might reflect the illuminating X-rays, its ionization state

1241: changes rapidly, leading to small changes in the resulting iron line

1242: profile~\cite{Reynolds97, Brenneman06}.  The extent of the iron line

1243: towards lower energies is a measure of the innermost radius of the

1244: accretion disk. By assumption, this radius is set as the radius of the

1245: innermost stable circular orbit, which depends on the spin of the

1246: black hole. Fitting theoretical models to observations can, therefore,

1247: lead to a measurement of the black hole spin.

1248: 

1249: The uncertainties in the position of the illuminating source and in

1250: the disk structure are often modeled by a single function for the

1251: ``emissivity'' of the iron line, which measures the flux in the iron

1252: line that emerges locally from each patch on the accretion disk. This

1253: is typically taken to be axisymmetric and to have a power-law

1254: dependence on radius, i.e., $r^{-a}$. Increasing the emissivity index

1255: $a$ results in iron line profiles with more extended red wings, which

1256: is degenerate with increasing the spin of the black hole (see

1257: Figure~\ref{fig:ironlines_th} and~\cite{Beckwith04}). This uncertainty

1258: can introduce significant systematics in modeling iron-line profiles

1259: from slowly spinning black holes. For rapidly spinning black holes,

1260: however, masking the effect of the black hole spin by steepening the

1261: emissivity function requires an unphysically high value for the

1262: emissivity index~\cite{Brenneman06}.

1263: 

1264: Since the original observation of broadened iron lines from the

1265: supermasive black hole MCG-6-15-30 with ASCA~\cite{Tanaka95b},

1266: observations of other active galactic nuclei with

1267: ASCA~\cite{Nandra97}, XMM-Newton~\cite{Nandra06}, and more recently

1268: with Suzaku~\cite{Reeves06} as well as of stellar mass black

1269: holes~\cite{Miller06} have revealed many more examples of such

1270: redshifted atomic lines. The best studied case remains MCG-6-15-30

1271: (see Figure~\ref{fig:ironlines_obs}), in which the extended red wing of

1272: the line has been discussed as evidence for a rapidly spinning black

1273: hole ($\alpha\ge 0.98$~\cite{Brenneman06}).

1274: 

1275: \epubtkImage{iron_line_obs.pbg}{

1276: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1277: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{iron_line_obs}}

1278: \caption{The 0.5-10~keV spectrum of the supermassive black hole 

1279: in the center of the galaxy MCG-6-15-30 as observed with

1280: XMM-EPIC. Panel (a) shows the ratio of the observed spectrum to a

1281: power-law model and reveals the complicated structure of the

1282: residuals. Panel (b) shows the ratio of the observed spectrum to a

1283: model of the warm absorber, which accounts for the low-energy

1284: residuals.  Panel (c) shows the 2-9~keV spectrum of the source

1285: together with a model of the relativistically broadened iron

1286: line~\cite{Wilms01}}

1287: \label{fig:ironlines_obs}

1288: \end{figure}}

1289: 

1290: Perhaps the most challenging, although most rewarding to understand,

1291: property of iron lines is their time variability. Current observations

1292: of iron lines from accreting black holes (e.g., the one shown in

1293: Figure~\ref{fig:ironlines_obs}) are integrated over a time that is

1294: equal to many hundred times the dynamical timescale in the

1295: accretion-disk region where the lines are formed. As a result, an

1296: observed line profile is not the result of reflection from an

1297: accretion disk of a single flaring event, but rather the convolution

1298: of many such events that occurred over the duration of the

1299: observation. Moreover, the continuum spectrum of the black hole, which

1300: is presumably reflected off the accretion disk to produce the

1301: fluorescent iron line, changes over longer timescales, implying a

1302: correlated variability of the line itself.

1303: 

1304: Observations with current instruments can only investigate the

1305: correlated variability of the iron line with the continuum spectrum

1306: (see, however,~\cite{Iwasawa04}). They have shown that the flux in the

1307: line remains remarkably constant even though the continuum flux

1308: changes by almost an order of magnitude~\cite{Fabian03}. General

1309: relativistic light bending, which leads to focusing of the

1310: photon rays towards the innermost regions of the accretion disk may

1311: be responsible for this puzzling effect~\cite{Miniutti04}.

1312: 

1313: Future observations with upcoming X-ray missions such as

1314: Constellation~X~\cite{ConX} and XEUS~\cite{XEUS} will resolve the time

1315: evolution of the reflected iron line from a single magnetic

1316: flare~\cite{Reynolds99}. Because density inhomogeneities in the

1317: turbulent accretion flow move, roughly, in test-particle

1318: orbits~\cite{Armitage03}, the time evolution of the redshift of the

1319: iron line from a single flare reflected mainly off a localized density

1320: inhomogeneity will allow for a direct mapping of the spacetime around 

1321: the black hole.

1322: 

1323: 

1324: \subsection{The fast variability of accreting compact objects}

1325: \label{subsec:var}

1326: 

1327: The strongest gravitational fields in astrophysics can be probed only

1328: with rapidly variable phenomena around neutron stars and galactic

1329: black holes (see Figure~\ref{fig:tests_future}). Such phenomena have

1330: been discovered in almost all known accreting compact objects in the

1331: galaxy. They are quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) with frequencies

1332: in the range $\sim 1$~Hz$-1$~kHz that remain coherent for tens to

1333: hundreds of cycles and follow a rich and often complicated

1334: phenomenology (for an extensive review of the observations

1335: see~\cite{vanderKlis06}).

1336: 

1337: \epubtkImage{qpo1820.pbg}{

1338: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1339: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=10.0cm,angle=-90]{qpo1820}}

1340: \caption{The dependence of the twin QPO frequencies

1341: on the X-ray countrate observed by the PCA instrument onboard RXTE,

1342: for the neutron-star source 4U~1820$-$30~\cite{Zhang98}.  The

1343: flattening of the correlation at high frequencies has been discussed

1344: as a signature of the innermost stable circular orbit.}

1345: \label{fig:qpo_isco}

1346: \end{figure}}

1347: 

1348: 

1349: \subsubsection{Quasi-periodic oscillations in neutron stars}

1350: 

1351: The fastest oscillations detected from accreting, weakly magnetic

1352: neutron stars are pairs of QPOs with variable frequencies that reach

1353: up to $\sim 1300$~Hz and with frequency separations of order $\sim

1354: 300$~Hz~\cite{vanderKlis06}. The origin of these oscillations is still

1355: a matter of debate. However, all current models associate at least one

1356: of the oscillation frequencies with a characteristic dynamical

1357: frequency in a geometrically thin accretion disk (see discussion

1358: in~\cite{Psaltis01a} and~\cite{Miller98, Stella99, Psaltis00b}).

1359: 

1360: The highest dynamical frequency excited at any radius in an equatorial

1361: accretion disk around a compact object is the one associated with the

1362: circular orbit of a test particle at that radius~\cite{Bardeen73b};

1363: this is often referred to as the azimuthal, orbital, or Keplerian

1364: frequency. A mode in the accretion disk associated with this frequency

1365: can give rise to a long-lived quasi-periodic oscillation only if it

1366: lives outside the innermost stable circular orbit. The azimuthal

1367: frequency at this radius provides, therefore, an upper limit on the

1368: frequency of any observed oscillation~\cite{Kluzniak85, Miller98}. As

1369: a result, detecting such rapid oscillations offers the possibility of

1370: measuring the location and of understanding the properties of the

1371: region near the innermost stable circular orbit around a neutron star.

1372: 

1373: \begin{figure}[t]

1374: \centerline{

1375: \includegraphics[width=10.0cm, height=10.5cm]{qpo1636}}

1376: \caption{

1377: The dependence of the amplitude and quality factor of the lower kHz QPO on

1378: its frequency for the neutron-star source

1379: 4U~1636$-$56~\cite{Barret06}. The drop of the QPO amplitude and

1380: coherence at high frequencies have been discussed as signatures of

1381: the innermost stable circular orbit.}

1382: \label{fig:qpo_isco2}

1383: \end{figure}

1384: 

1385: The signature of the ISCO on the amplitudes and characteristics of the

1386: observed oscillations is hard to predict without a firm model for the

1387: generation of the oscillations in the X-ray flux. Two potential

1388: signatures have been discussed, however, based on the phenomenology of

1389: the oscillations. The first one is associated with the fact that the

1390: frequencies of the oscillations appear to increase roughly with

1391: accretion rate. When an oscillation frequency reaches that of the

1392: innermost stable circular orbit, one would expect its frequency to

1393: remain constant over a wide range of accretion

1394: rates~\cite{Miller98}. Such a trend has been observed in the

1395: quasi-periodic oscillations of the globular cluster source

1396: 4U~1820$-$30~\cite{Zhang98, Kaaret99}; Figure~\ref{fig:qpo_isco}). When

1397: observations of the source obtained over different epochs are

1398: combined, the dependence of the frequency of the fastest oscillation

1399: on the observed accretion rate appears to flatten at a value $\simeq

1400: 1050$~Hz.  This is comparable to the azimuthal frequency at the

1401: innermost stable circular orbit for a $\simeq 2.1\,M_\odot$ neutron

1402: star~\cite{Zhang98}. 

1403: 

1404: Albeit suggestive, the interpretation of the 4U~1820$-$30 data relies

1405: on the assumption that the oscillatory frequencies in an accretion

1406: disk depend monotonically on the accretion rate and, furthermore, that

1407: the X-ray countrate is a good measure of the accretion rate.  This

1408: assumption is probably justified for short timescales (of order one

1409: day) but is known to break down on longer timescales, such as those

1410: used in Figure~\ref{fig:qpo_isco}~\cite{vanderKlis01}. Indeed, in a

1411: given source, the same oscillation frequencies have been observed over

1412: a wide range of X-ray countrates and vice

1413: versa~\cite{vanderKlis01}. The hard X-ray color of a source and not

1414: the countrate appears to be a more unique measure of the accretion rate,

1415: which is presumably the physical parameter that determines the

1416: oscillation frequencies~\cite{Mendez99}. When the data of 4U~1820$-$30

1417: are plotted against hard color, the characteristic flattening seen in

1418: Figure~\ref{fig:qpo_isco} disappears~\cite{Mendez99}.

1419: 

1420: A second signature of the innermost stable circular orbit is a

1421: potential decrease in the amplitude and coherence of the oscillations

1422: when the region where they are excited approaches the ISCO. Such a

1423: trend has been observed in a number of accreting neutron

1424: stars~(Figure~\ref{fig:qpo_isco2} and~\cite{Barret06, Barret07})

1425: and has been questioned on similar grounds as the study of

1426: 4U~1820$-$30~\cite{Mendez06}. The most significant criticism comes from

1427: the fact that the drop in amplitude and coherence is rather gradual

1428: and occurs over a $\sim 150$~Hz range of frequencies. Even assuming

1429: that this drop is a signature of the ISCO, measuring its location will

1430: be possible only within a detailed model of the frequencies of

1431: quasi-periodic oscillations.

1432: 

1433: Among more model-dependent ideas, perhaps the most exciting prospect

1434: of probing strong-field gravity effects in neutron stars with

1435: quasi-periodic oscillations comes from applying the relativistic model

1436: of QPOs~\cite{Stella99} to the observed correlations between various

1437: pairs of QPO frequencies~\cite{Psaltis99}. In the relativistic model,

1438: the highest-frequency QPO is identified with the azimuthal frequency

1439: of a test particle in orbit at a given radius.  The peak separation of

1440: this QPO with the second higher frequency QPO is identified as the

1441: radial epicyclic frequency of the test particle in the same orbit. A

1442: variant of this model can account for the observed correlations

1443: between oscillations frequencies, when hydrodynamic effects are taken

1444: into account~\cite{Psaltis00b}. Because the two observed frequencies

1445: are directly related to the azimuthal and radial frequencies at

1446: various radii in the accretion flow, interpretation of the data with

1447: this model can provide a direct map of the exterior spacetime of the

1448: neutron stars, to within the $\simeq 10$\% uncertainty introduced by

1449: the hydrodynamic corrections to the oscillation frequencies.

1450: 

1451: 

1452: \subsubsection{Quasi-periodic oscillations in black holes}

1453: \label{subsub:bhqpo}

1454: 

1455: Pairs of rapid quasi-periodic oscillations have also been detected

1456: from a number of accreting systems that harbor black hole

1457: candidates~\cite{McClintock06}. The phenomenology of these

1458: oscillations is very different from the one discussed above for

1459: accreting neutron stars. The frequencies of the rapid oscillations

1460: observed in each source vary at most by a percent over a wide range of

1461: luminosities and their ratios are practically equal to ratios of small

1462: integers (2:3 for XTE~J1550$-$564 and GRO~J1655$-$40, 3:5 for

1463: GRS~1915$+$105, etc.).

1464: 

1465: The high frequencies of the oscillations observed from black hole

1466: sources with dynamically measured masses demonstrate that they

1467: originate in regions very close to the black hole horizons. In fact,

1468: requiring the frequency of the 450~Hz oscillation observed from

1469: GRO~J1655$-$40 to be limited by the azimuthal frequency at the ISCO

1470: necessitates a spining black hole with a Kerr spin parameter $a/M\ge

1471: 0.25$~\cite{Strohmayer01}. Moreover, the frequencies of the observed

1472: oscillations are roughly inversely proportional to the black holes

1473: masses, as one would expect if they were associated to dynamical

1474: frequencies near the innermost stable circular

1475: orbit~\cite{Abramowicz04}.

1476: 

1477: \epubtkImage{bhqpo_lin.png}{

1478: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1479: \centerline

1480: {\includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{bhqpo_lin}

1481: \includegraphics[width=7.0cm]{bhqpo_res}}

1482: \caption{

1483: (Left Panel) The intersection of the two solid lines shows the

1484: black hole mass and spin for the source GRO~J1655$-$40 for which the

1485: observed 300~Hz and the 450~Hz oscillations can be explained as the

1486: lowest order $c$- and $g$-modes, respectively. The intersection of the

1487: dotted lines makes the opposite identification of disk modes to the

1488: observed oscillatory frequencies (after~\cite{Wagoner01}). (Right

1489: Panel) Each solid line traces pairs of black hole mass and spin for

1490: which the observed frequencies correspond to different resonances

1491: between the Keplerian and periastron precession frequencies

1492: (after~\cite{Abramowicz02}). In both panels, the horizontal dashed

1493: lines show the uncertainty in the dynamically measured mass of the

1494: black hole.}

1495: \label{fig:bhqpo}

1496: \end{figure}}

1497: 

1498: As in the case of neutron stars, using black hole quasi-periodic

1499: oscillations to probe directly strong gravitational fields is hampered

1500: by the lack of a firm understanding of the physical mechanism that is

1501: producing them. In one interpretation, they are associated with linear

1502: oscillatory modes that are trapped just outside the radius of the

1503: innermost stable circular orbit (for reviews see~\cite{Wagoner99,

1504: Kato01, Nowak01}). The frequencies of these modes depend primarily on

1505: the mass and spin of the black hole. Identifying the two observed

1506: oscillations with the lowest order linear modes, therefore, leads to

1507: two pairs of values for the mass and spin of the black hole (depending

1508: on which oscillation is identified with which mode). For example, for

1509: the case of the black hole GRO~J1655$-$40, one of the inferred pairs

1510: of values agrees with the dynamically measured mass of the black hole

1511: of $6.9\pm 1.0\,M_\odot$ and results in an estimated value of the

1512: black hole spin of $a/M\sim 0.9$ (Figure~\ref{fig:bhqpo}

1513: and~\cite{Wagoner01}). Although compelling, this interpretation leaves

1514: to coincidence the fact that the ratios of the oscillation frequencies

1515: are approximately equal to ratios of small integers.

1516: 

1517: In an alternate model, the oscillations are assumed to be excited in

1518: regions of the accretion disks where two of the dynamical frequencies

1519: are in parametric resonance, i.e., their ratios are equal to ratios of

1520: small integers~\cite{Abramowicz02}. In this case, the

1521: frequencies of the oscillations depend on the mass and spin of the

1522: black hole as well as on the radius at which the resonance occurs. As

1523: a result, the observation of two oscillations from any given source

1524: does not lead to a unique measurement of its mass and spin, but rather

1525: to a families of solutions. For example, identifying the frequencies of

1526: the two oscillations observed from GRO~J1655$-$40 as a 3:2, a 3:1, or

1527: a 2:1 resonance between the Keplerian and the periastron precession

1528: frequencies at any radius in the accretion disk leads to three family

1529: of solutions, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bhqpo}. The dynamically

1530: measured mass of the black hole then picks only two of the possible

1531: families of solutions and leads to a smaller value for the inferred

1532: spin.

1533: 

1534: Future observations of accreting neutron stars and black holes with

1535: upcoming missions that will have fast timing capabilities, such as

1536: XEUS~\cite{XEUS}, will be able to discover a large spectrum of

1537: quasi-periodic oscillations from each source. Such observations will

1538: constrain significantly the underlying physical model for these

1539: oscillations, which remains the most important source of uncertainty

1540: in using fast variability phenomena in probing strong gravitational

1541: fields.

1542: 

1543: 

1544: \newpage

1545: 

1546: \section{The Need for a Theoretical Framework for Strong-Field Gravity

1547: Tests}

1548: \label{sec:need}

1549: 

1550: Modern observations of black holes and neutron stars in the galaxy

1551: provide ample opportunities for testing the predictions of general

1552: relativity in the strong field regime, as discussed in the previous

1553: section. In several cases, astrophysical complications make such

1554: studies strongly dependent on model assumptions. This will be remedied

1555: in the near future, with the anticipated advances in the observational

1556: techniques and in the theoretical modeling of the various

1557: astrophysical phenomena. A second difficult hurdle, however, in

1558: performing quantitative tests of gravity with compact objects will be

1559: the lack of a parametric extension to General Relativity, i.e., the

1560: equivalent of the PPN formalism, that is suitable for calculations in

1561: the strong-field regime.

1562: 

1563: In the past, {\em bona fide\/} tests of strong-field general

1564: relativity have been performed using particular parametric extensions

1565: to the Einstein--Hilbert action. This appears a priori to be a

1566: reasonable approach for a number of reasons. First, deriving the

1567: parametric field equations from a Lagrangian action ensures that

1568: fundamental symmetries and conservation laws are obeyed. Second, the

1569: parametric Lagrangian action can be used over the entire range of

1570: field strengths available to an observer and, therefore, even tests of

1571: General Relativity in the weak-field limit (i.e., with the PPN

1572: formalism) can be translated into constraints on the parameters of the

1573: action. This is often important, when strong-field tests lead to

1574: degenerate constraints between different parameters. Finally,

1575: phenomenological Lagrangian extensions can be motivated by ideas of

1576: quantum gravity and string theory and, potentially, help constrain the

1577: fundamental scales of such theories. There are, however, several

1578: issues that need to be settled before any such parametric extension of

1579: the Einstein--Hilbert action can become a useful theoretical framework

1580: for strong-field gravity tests (see also~\cite{Sotiriou08} and

1581: references therein).

1582: 

1583: {\em First, gravity is highly non-linear and strong-field phenomena

1584: often show a non-perturbative dependence on small changes to the

1585: theory.~--\/} I will illustrate this with scalar-tensor theories that

1586: result from adding a minimally coupled scalar field to the Ricci

1587: curvature in the action. Such fields have been studied for more than

1588: 40 years in the form of Brans--Dicke gravity~\cite{Will93} and have

1589: been recently invoked as alternatives to a cosmological constant for

1590: modeling the acceleration of the universe~\cite{Peebles03}. In the

1591: context of compact-object astrophysics, constraints on the relative

1592: contribution of scalar fields coupled in different ways to the metric

1593: have been obtained from observations of the orbital decay of double

1594: neutron stars~\cite{Will89, Damour93} and compact X-ray

1595: binaries~\cite{Will89, Psaltis07a}. More recently, similar constraints

1596: on scalar extensions to General Relativity have been placed using the

1597: observation of redshifted lines from an X-ray burster~\cite{DeDeo03}

1598: and of quasi-periodic oscillations observed in accreting neutron

1599: stars~\cite{DeDeo07}.  The oscillatory modes of neutron stars in such

1600: theories and the prospect of constraining them using gravitational

1601: wave signatures have also been studied~\cite{Sotani04, Sotani05}.

1602: 

1603: The general form of the Lagrangian of a scalar-tensor theory is given,

1604: in the appropriate frame, by the Bregmann-Wagoner action

1605: (see~\cite{Will93} for details)

1606: %

1607: \begin{equation}

1608: S=\frac{1}{16\pi}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g_*}\left[R_* \pm 

1609: g_*^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \phi \partial_\nu\phi +

1610: 2\lambda(\phi)\right]+S_{\rm m}[\phi_m, A^2(\phi)g_{*\mu\nu}]\;,

1611: \label{eq:st}

1612: \end{equation}

1613: %

1614: where $A(\phi)$ and $\lambda(\phi)$ are two arbitrary functions, and

1615: $S_m$ is the action for the matter field $\phi_m$.  In the

1616: strong-field regime, the potential term $\lambda(\phi)$ in the

1617: action~(\ref{eq:st}) is typically negligible and is set to zero. On the

1618: other hand, the functional form of the coupling function $A(\phi)$ can

1619: be parametrized to measure deviations from General Relativity.

1620: 

1621: Damour and Esposito-Farese~\cite{Damour93} considered a second-order

1622: parametric form

1623: %

1624: \begin{equation}

1625: A(\phi)= \exp\left[\alpha_0(\phi-\phi_0)+

1626:    \frac{1}{2}\beta_0(\phi-\phi_0)^2+...\right]\;,

1627: \label{eq:stcoupling}

1628: \end{equation}

1629: %

1630: with $\phi_0\rightarrow 0$ a background cosmological value for the

1631: scalar field and $\alpha_0$ and $\beta_0$ the two parameters of the

1632: theory to be constrained by observations. The linear term,

1633: parametrized by $\alpha_0$, can be best constrained with weak-field

1634: tests.  On the other hand, constraining significantly the non-linear

1635: term, parametrized by $\beta_0$, requires strong-field phenomena, such

1636: as those found around neutron stars. Indeed, the two main PPN

1637: parameters for such a scalar-tensor theory are

1638: %

1639: \begin{eqnarray}

1640:   \gamma^{PPN}-1&=&-2\frac{\alpha_0^2}{1+\alpha_0^2}\nonumber\\

1641:   \beta^{PPN}-1&=&\frac{\beta_0\alpha_0^2}{2(1+\alpha_0^2)^2}\;.

1642: \end{eqnarray}

1643: %

1644: The deviation of the PPN parameters from the general relativistic

1645: values is of second order in $\alpha_0$ and of third order in the

1646: product $\alpha_0^2\beta_0$. As a result, a very good limit on

1647: the parameter $\alpha_0$ renders the parameter $\beta_0$ practically

1648: unconstrainable by weak-field tests.

1649: 

1650: The study of Damour and Esposito-Farese~\cite{Damour93} revealed one of

1651: the main reasons that necessitate careful theoretical studies of

1652: possible extensions of General Relativity that are suitable for

1653: strong-field tests. The order of a term added to the Lagrangian action

1654: of the gravitational field is not necessarily a good estimate of the

1655: expected magnitude of the observable effects introduced by this

1656: additional term. For example, because of the non-linear coupling

1657: between the scalar field and matter introduced by the coupling

1658: function~(\ref{eq:stcoupling}), the deviation from general

1659: relativistic predictions is not perturbative. For values of $\beta_0$

1660: less that about $-6$, it becomes energetically favorable for neutron

1661: stars to become ``scalarized'', with properties that differ

1662: significantly from their general relativistic

1663: counterparts~\cite{Damour93}. Such non-perturbative effects make

1664: quantitative tests of strong-field gravity possible even when the

1665: astrophysical complications are only marginally understood.

1666: 

1667: A similar situation, albeit in the opposite regime, arises in an

1668: extended gravity theory in which a term proportional to the inverse of

1669: the Ricci scalar curvature, $R^{-1}$, is added to the Einstein--Hilbert

1670: action in order to explain the accelerated expansion of the

1671: universe~\cite{Carroll04}. Although one would expect that such an

1672: addition can only affect gravitational fields that are extremely

1673: weak, it turns out that it also alters to zeroth order the

1674: post-Newtonian parameter $\gamma$ and can, therefore, be excluded by

1675: simple solar-system tests~\cite{Chiba03}.

1676: 

1677: {\em Second, Lagrangian extensions of General Relativity often suffer

1678: from serious problems with instabilities.~--\/} This issue can be

1679: understood by considering a Lagrangian action that includes terms of

1680: second order in the Ricci scalar, i.e., $R^2$, as well as the terms of

1681: similar order that can be constructed with the Ricci and Riemann

1682: tensors.  For the sake of the argument, I will consider here the

1683: parametric Lagrangian

1684: %

1685: \begin{equation}

1686: {\cal S}= \frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\int d^4x

1687:    \sqrt{-g}\left(R+\alpha_2 R^2 + \beta_2 R_{\sigma \tau}R^{\sigma \tau}

1688:    + \gamma_2 R^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\right)\;,

1689:    \label{eq:PL}

1690: \end{equation}

1691: %

1692: with $\alpha_2$, $\beta_2$, and $\gamma_2$ the three parameters of the

1693: theory. Such terms arise naturally as high-order corrections in

1694: quantum gravity and string theory and their relative importance

1695: increases with the curvature of the metric~\cite{Donoghue94,

1696: Burgess04}.  They have also been invoked as alternatives to the

1697: inflation paradigm for the early expansion of the

1698: universe~\cite{Starobinski80}. The predictions for astrophysical

1699: objects of extended gravity theories that incorporate high-order terms

1700: have been reported only for a few limited cases in the literature. The

1701: dependence of the stellar properties on $R^2$ terms in the action has

1702: been studied by Parker and Simon~\cite{Parker93}, who simply derived

1703: the generalized Tolmann--Oppenheimer--Volkoff equation without solving

1704: it, and by Barraco and Hamity~\cite{Barraco98} who attempted to solve

1705: the problem using a perturbation analysis (unfortunately, this last

1706: study suffers from a large number of errors).

1707: 

1708: This second-order gravity theory has a number of unappealing

1709: properties (see discussion in~\cite{Simon90, Simon91}). Classically, a

1710: high-order gravity theory requires more than two boundary conditions,

1711: which is a fact that appears to be incompatible with all other

1712: physical theories. Quantum mechanically, second-order gravity theories

1713: lead to unstable vacuum solutions. Both these phenomena could be

1714: artifacts of the possibility that the action~(\ref{eq:PL}) may arise

1715: as a low-energy expansion of a non-local Lagrangian that is

1716: fundamentally of second order~\cite{Simon90, Simon91}.

1717: Phenomenologically speaking, these problems can be overcome by

1718: requiring the field equations to be of second order, when extremizing

1719: the action. This procedure leads to a generalized, high-order gravity

1720: theory that remains consistent with classical expectations and is

1721: stable quantum-mechanically (according to the procedure outlined

1722: in~\cite{Simon90, Simon91}), but requires a different than usual

1723: derivation of the field equations~\cite{DeDeo08}.

1724: 

1725: Even when these issues are being taken into account, the terms

1726: proportional to $\beta_2$ and $\gamma_2$ lead to field equations with

1727: solutions that suffer from the Ostrogradski

1728: instability~\cite{Woodard06}. And even if these terms are dropped and

1729: only actions that are generic function of only the Ricci scalar are

1730: considered, then the resulting solutions for the expansion of the

1731: universe~\cite{Dolgov03} and for spherically symmetric

1732: stars~\cite{Seifert07} can be violently unstable, depending on the sign

1733: of the second-order term.

1734: 

1735: A potential resolution of several of these problems in theories with

1736: high-order terms in the action appears to be offered by the Palatini

1737: formalism. In this approach, the field equations are derived by

1738: extremizing the action under variations in the metric and the

1739: connection, which is considered as an independent

1740: field~\cite{Sotiriou07}. For the simple Einstein--Hilbert action, both

1741: approaches are equivalent and give rise to the equations of general

1742: relativity; when the action has non-linear terms in $R$, the two

1743: approaches diverge. Unfortunately, the Palatini formalism leads to

1744: equations that cannot handle in general the transition across the

1745: surface layer of a star to the matter-free space outside it, and is

1746: therefore not a viable alternative~\cite{Barausse07}.

1747: 

1748: {\em Finally, it is crucial that we identify the astrophysical

1749: phenomena that can be used in testing particular aspects of

1750: strong-field gravity.\/} For example, in the case of the

1751: classical tests of General Relativity, it is easy to show that the

1752: deflection of light during a solar eclipse and the Shapiro time delay

1753: depend on one (and the same) component of the metric of the Sun (i.e.,

1754: on the PPN parameter $\gamma$). Therefore, they do not provide

1755: independent tests of General Relativity (as long as we accept the

1756: validity of the equivalence principle). On the other hand, the

1757: perihelion precession of Mercury and the gravitational redshift depend

1758: on the other component of the metric (i.e., on the PPN parameter

1759: $\beta$) and, therefore, provide complementary tests of the

1760: theory. Understanding such degeneracies is an important component of

1761: performing tests of gravity theories.

1762: 

1763: In the case of strong gravitational fields, this issue can be

1764: illustrated again by studying the high-order Lagrangian

1765: action~(\ref{eq:PL}) in the metric formalism (see

1766: also~\cite{Burgess04}). In principle, as the strength of the

1767: gravitational field increases, the terms that are of second-order in

1768: the Ricci scalar become more important and, therefore, affect the

1769: observable properties of neutron stars and black holes. However,

1770: because of the Gauss-Bonnet identity,

1771: %

1772: \begin{equation}

1773: \frac{\delta}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}\int d^4x \left(

1774:    R^2 -4 R_{\sigma \tau}R^{\sigma \tau}

1775:    +  R^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\right)

1776:    =0\;,

1777: \end{equation}

1778: %

1779: variations, with respect to the metric, of the term proportional to

1780: $\gamma_2$ in Equation~(\ref{eq:PL}) can be expressed as variations of

1781: the terms proportional to $\alpha_2$ and $\beta_2$. Therefore, for all

1782: non-quantum gravity tests, the predictions of the theory described by

1783: the Lagrangian action~(\ref{eq:PL}) are identical to those of the

1784: Lagrangian

1785: %

1786: \begin{equation}

1787: {\cal S}= \frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\int d^4x

1788:    \sqrt{-g}\left[R+(\alpha_2-\gamma_2) R^2 + (\beta_2+4\gamma_2) 

1789:     R_{\sigma \tau}R^{\sigma \tau}\right]\;.

1790:    \label{eq:r2_clas}

1791: \end{equation}

1792: %

1793: As a result, {\em astrophysical tests that do not invoke

1794: quantum-gravity effects can only constrain a particular combination of

1795: the parameters, i.e., $\alpha_2-\gamma_2$ and $\beta_2+4\gamma_2$.} It

1796: is only through phenomena related to quantum gravity, such as the

1797: evaporation of black holes, that the parameter $\gamma$ may

1798: be constrained.

1799: 

1800: When the spacetime is isotropic and homogeneous, as in the case of

1801: tests using the cosmic evolution of the scale factor, an additional

1802: identity is satisfied, i.e.,

1803: %

1804: \begin{equation}

1805: \frac{\delta}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}}\int d^4x \left(

1806:    R^2 -3 R_{\sigma \tau}R^{\sigma \tau}\right)=0\;.

1807: \end{equation}

1808: %

1809: This implies that, for cosmological tests, the predictions of the theory

1810: described by the Lagrangian action~(\ref{eq:PL}) are identical to those 

1811: of the Lagrangian

1812: %

1813: \begin{equation}

1814: {\cal S}= \frac{c^4}{16\pi G}\int d^4x

1815:    \sqrt{-g}\left[R+(\alpha_2+\frac{1}{3}\beta_2

1816:         +\frac{1}{3}\gamma_2) R^2\right]\;.

1817:    \label{eq:r2_cosm}

1818: \end{equation}

1819: %

1820: As a result, {\em such cosmological tests of gravity can only constrain a

1821: particular combination of the parameters, i.e.,

1822: $\alpha_2+\beta_2/3+\gamma_2/3$.}

1823: 

1824: The parameters $\alpha_2$ and $\beta_2$ can be independently

1825: constrained using observations of spacetimes that are strongly curved

1826: but are not isotropic and homogeneous, such as those found in the

1827: vicinities of black holes and neutron stars.  Measuring the properties

1828: of neutron stars, such as their radii, maximum masses and maximum

1829: spins, which require the solution of the field equations in the

1830: presence of matter, will provide independent constraints on the

1831: combination of parameters $\alpha_2-\gamma_2$ and $\beta_2+4\gamma_2$.

1832: However, one can show that in absence of matter, the external

1833: spacetime of a black hole, as given by the solution to Einstein's

1834: field equation, is also one (but not necessarily the only) solution of

1835: the parametric field equation that arises from the Lagrangian

1836: action~(\ref{eq:PL}). As a result, tests that involve black holes will

1837: probably be inadequate in distinguishing between the particular theory

1838: described by Equation~(\ref{eq:PL}) and general

1839: relativity~\cite{Psaltis07b}.

1840: 

1841: This is, in fact, a general problem of using astrophysical

1842: observations of black holes to test General Relativity in the

1843: strong-field regime. The Kerr solution is not unique to general

1844: relativity~\cite{Psaltis07b}.  For example, there is strong

1845: analytical~\cite{Thorne71, Bekenstein72, Hawking72} and numerical

1846: evidence~\cite{Scheel95} that, in Brans--Dicke scalar-tensor gravity

1847: theories, the end product of the collapse of a stellar configuration

1848: is a black hole described by the same Kerr solution as in Einstein's

1849: theory. The same appears to be true in several other theories

1850: generated by adding additional degrees of freedom to Einstein's

1851: gravity; the only vacuum solutions that are astrophysically relevant

1852: are those described by the Kerr metric~\cite{Psaltis07b}. Until a

1853: counter-example is discovered, studies of the strong gravitational

1854: fields found in the vicinities of black holes can be performed only

1855: within phenomenological frameworks, such as those involving multipole

1856: expansions of the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics~\cite{Ryan95,

1857: Collins04, Glampedakis06}.

1858: 

1859: To date, it has only been possible to test quantitatively the

1860: predictions of General Relativity in the strong-field regime using

1861: observations of neutron stars, as I will discuss in the following

1862: section. In all cases, the general relativistic predictions were

1863: contrasted to those of scalar-tensor gravity, with Einstein's theory

1864: passing all the tests with flying colors.

1865: 

1866: 

1867: \newpage

1868: 

1869: \section{Current Tests of Strong-Field Gravity with Neutron Stars}

1870: \label{sec:tests}

1871: 

1872: Performing tests of strong-field gravity with neutron stars requires

1873: knowledge of the equation of state of neutron-star matter to a degree

1874: better than the required precision of the gravitational test. This

1875: appears {\em a priori\/} to be a serious hurdle given the wide range

1876: of predictions of equally plausible theories of neutron-star matter

1877: (see~\cite{Lattimer01} for a recent compilation). It is easy to

1878: show, however, that current uncertainties in our modeling of the

1879: properties of ultra-dense matter do not preclude significant

1880: constraints on the strong-field behavior of gravity~\cite{DeDeo03}.

1881: 

1882: \epubtkImage{ns.png}{

1883: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1884: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=10.0cm]{ns}}

1885: \caption{Mass-radius relations of neutron stars 

1886: in General Relativity (GR), scalar-tensor (ST), and Rosen's bimetric

1887: theory of gravity~\cite{DeDeo03}. The shaded areas represent the range

1888: of mass-radius relations predicted in each case by neutron-star

1889: equations of state without unconfined quarks or condensates. All

1890: gravity theories shown in the figure are consistent with solar-system

1891: tests but introduce variations in the predicted sizes of neutron stars

1892: that are significantly larger than the uncertainty caused by the

1893: unknown equation of state.}

1894: \label{fig:mr}

1895: \end{figure}}

1896: 

1897: During the last three decades, neutron-star models have been

1898: calculated for a variety of gravity theories (see~\cite{Will93} and

1899: references therein) and were invariably different, both in size and in

1900: allowed mass, than their general relativistic counterparts. As an

1901: example, Figure~\ref{fig:mr} shows neutron-star models calculated in

1902: three representative theories that cannot be excluded by current tests

1903: that do not involve neutron stars.  In the figure, the shaded areas

1904: represent the uncertainty introduced by the unknown equation of state

1905: of neutron-star matter (not including quark stars or large neutron

1906: stars with condensates). Clearly, the deviations in neutron-star

1907: properties from the predictions of General Relativity for these

1908: theories (that are still consistent with weak-field tests) are larger

1909: than the uncertainty introduced by the unknown equation of state of

1910: neutron-star matter.

1911: 

1912: This is a direct consequence of the fact that the curvature around a

1913: neutron star is larger by $\sim 13$ orders of magnitude compared to

1914: the curvature probed by solar-system tests, whereas the density inside

1915: the neutron star is larger by only an order of magnitude compared to

1916: the densities probed by nuclear scattering data that are used to

1917: constrain the equation of state. Given that the current values of the

1918: post-Newtonian parameters are known from weak-field tests to within

1919: $\sim 10^{-4}$, it is reasonable that deviations from general

1920: relativity can be hidden in the weak-field limit but may become

1921: dominant as the curvature is increased by more than ten orders of

1922: magnitude. Neutron stars can indeed be used in testing the

1923: strong-field behavior of a gravity theory.

1924: 

1925: \epubtkImage{xpsr_bd.png}{

1926: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1927: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=10.0cm]{xpsr_bd}}

1928: \caption{The limiting rate for the evolution of the

1929: orbital periods ($\tau_{\rm P}^{-1}\equiv \dot{P}/P$) of five known

1930: millisecond accreting pulsars as a function of the Brans--Dicke

1931: parameter $\omega_{\rm BD}$.  The lower half of the plot corresponds

1932: to an orbital period that decreases with time ($\dot{P}/P<0$), whereas

1933: the upper half corresponds to an orbital period that increases with

1934: time ($\dot{P}/P>0$). Only the area outside the two curves for each

1935: system is physically allowed~\cite{Psaltis07a}.}

1936: \label{fig:xpsr_bd}

1937: \end{figure}}

1938: 

1939: 

1940: \subsection{Brans--Dicke gravity and the orbital decay of binary systems 

1941: with neutron stars}

1942: 

1943: Binary stellar systems that are currently known to harbor at least one

1944: neutron star have orbital separations that are too large to be used in

1945: probing directly strong gravitational fields. Even at that separation,

1946: however, the orbital evolution of the binary system caused by the

1947: emission of gravitational waves is affected, in a scalar-tensor

1948: theory, by the coupling of matter to the scalar field, which occurs in

1949: a strong gravitational field. This manifests itself as a violation of

1950: the strong equivalence principle, with many observable consequences

1951: such as the rapid decay of the orbit due to emission of dipole

1952: radiation~\cite{Eardley75, Will89}. The various quantitative tests of

1953: strong-field gravity using binary systems with radio pulsars have been

1954: reviewed in detail elsewhere~\cite{Stairs03}. Here, I will focus only

1955: on tests that involve the orbital period evolution of the binary

1956: systems.

1957: 

1958: The best studied binaries with compact objects are the double neutron

1959: stars, with the Hulse--Taylor pulsar (PSR 1913$+$16) as the

1960: prototypical case. Unfortunately, in all double neutron-star systems,

1961: the masses of the two members of the binary are surprisingly

1962: similar~\cite{Thorsett99} and this severely limits the prospects of

1963: placing strong constraints on the dipole radiation from them.  Indeed,

1964: the magnitude of dipole radiation depends on the difference of the

1965: sensitivities between the two members of the binaries, and for neutron

1966: stars the sensitivities depend primarily on their masses. The

1967: resulting constraint imposed on the Brans--Dicke parameter $\omega$ by

1968: the Hulse--Taylor pulsar is significantly smaller than the limit

1969: $\omega>40000$ set by the Cassini mission~\cite{Bertotti03}.

1970: 

1971: The constraint is significantly improved when studying binary systems

1972: in which only one of the two stars is a neutron star. There are

1973: several known neutron star-white dwarf binaries that are suitable for

1974: this purpose, in which the neutron stars appear as radio pulsars

1975: (e.g., PSR B0655$+$64~\cite{Damour96};

1976: PSR~J0437$-$4715~\cite{vanStraten01}), as millisecond accreting X-ray

1977: pulsars (e.g., XTE~J1808$-$456~\cite{Psaltis07a}), or as non-pulsing

1978: X-ray sources (e.g., 4U~1820$-$30~\cite{Will89}). In the last two

1979: cases, the evolution of the binary orbit is also affected

1980: significantly by mass transfer from the companion star to the neutron

1981: star. However, for each value of the Brans--Dicke parameter

1982: $\omega_{\rm BD}$, there is a minimum absolute value for the rate of

1983: evolution of the orbital period (see Figure~\ref{fig:xpsr_bd}

1984: and~\cite{Psaltis07a}). An accurate measurement of the orbital period

1985: derivative in any of these systems offers, therefore, the potential of

1986: placing a lower limit on the Brans--Dicke parameter.  Because of the

1987: astrophysical complications introduced by mass transfer, the optimal

1988: constraint on $\omega_{\rm BD}$ is of order $10^4$ in this method,

1989: which is comparable to the Cassini limit.

1990: 

1991: \epubtkImage{st2_psr.png}{

1992: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1993: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=10.0cm]{st2_psr}}

1994: \caption{Constraints on the two parameters of a second-order

1995: scalar-tensor theory placed by the timing properties of a number of

1996: binary stellar systems that harbor neutron stars. For two of the

1997: systems, current constraints are contrasted to those expected in the

1998: near future when a measurement of the orbital period derivative is

1999: possible to an accuracy of 1\%. General relativity corresponds to the

2000: origin of the parameter space; the constraint imposed by the Cassini

2001: mission is also shown for comparison~\cite{Damour07}. In all cases,

2002: the allowed part of the parameter space is under the corresponding

2003: curve.}

2004: \label{fig:st_psr}

2005: \end{figure}}

2006: 

2007: 

2008: \subsection{Second-order scalar-tensor gravity and radio pulsars}

2009: 

2010: As discussed in the previous section, observations of strong-field

2011: phenomena provide constraints on Brans--Dicke scalar-tensor gravity,

2012: which are, however, at most comparable to those of solar system tests.

2013: This is true because the fractional deviation of a Brans--Dicke theory

2014: from General Relativity is of order $\omega_{\rm BD}^{-1}$, both for

2015: weak and strong gravitational fields, and the solar-system tests have

2016: superb accuracy. On the other hand, a scalar-tensor theory with a

2017: second-order coupling (e.g., the one arising from the

2018: action~(\ref{eq:st}) with the coupling~(\ref{eq:stcoupling})) allows

2019: for large deviations in the strong-field regime while being consistent

2020: with the weak-field limits~\cite{Damour93, Damour96}.

2021: 

2022: In the case of neutron stars, the second-order scalar-tensor theory

2023: described by Damour and Esposito-Farese~\cite{Damour93} leads to a

2024: non-perturbative effect known as spontaneous scalarization (similar to

2025: the spontaneous magnetization in ferromagnetism).  For significantly

2026: large negative values of the parameter $\beta_0$, there is a range of

2027: neutron-star masses for which it becomes energetically favorable for

2028: the scalar field to acquire high values inside the neutron star and

2029: affect significantly its structure compared to the general

2030: relativistic predictions. An example of the mass-radius relation for

2031: neutron stars in a second-order scalar-tensor theory with $\beta_0=-8$

2032: is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mr}.

2033: 

2034: The properties and stability of scalarized neutron stars have been

2035: studied extensively in the literature~\cite{Damour93, Salgado98,

2036: Harada98}. For the purposes of tests of strong-field gravity, the

2037: coupling of matter with the gravitational field and the external

2038: spacetimes of scalar stars are so different compared to their general

2039: relativistic counterparts that large negative values of $\beta_0$ can

2040: be firmly excluded with current observations of binary stellar systems

2041: that harbor radio pulsars. Figure~{\ref{fig:st_psr}} shows the current

2042: constraints on the two parameters $\alpha_0$ and $\beta_0$ of the

2043: theory imposed by the timing observations of the Hulse--Taylor pulsar

2044: (PSR~J1913$+$16), of a pulsar in an asymmetric binary with a white

2045: dwarf (PSR~J1141$-$6545), and of two other pulsars (PSR~J0737$-$3079

2046: and PSR~B1534$+$12). The best weak-field limits, including those

2047: imposed by the Cassini mission, are also shown for

2048: comparison~\cite{Damour07}.

2049: 

2050: As expected, weak-field tests bound significantly the value of the

2051: parameter $\alpha_0$, leaving the parameter $\beta_0$ largely

2052: unconstrained. Between the binary systems with radio pulsars, the one

2053: with the white-dwarf companion provides the most stringent

2054: constraints because the large asymmetry between the two compact object

2055: leads to the prediction of strong dipole gravitational radiation that

2056: can be excluded observationally. Finally, for large negative values

2057: of the parameter $\beta_0$, the scalarization of the neutron stars makes

2058: the predictions of the theory incompatible with observations.

2059: 

2060: \epubtkImage{redshift.png}{

2061: \begin{figure}[htbp]

2062: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=10.0cm]{redshift}}

2063: \caption{Contours of constant

2064: gravitational redshift measured at infinity for an atomic line

2065: originating at the surface of a neutron star in a scalar-tensor

2066: gravity theory, for different values of the parameter $\beta_0$ that

2067: measures the relative contribution of the scalar field. The thick

2068: curve separates the scalarized stars from the general relativistic

2069: counterparts.  The measurements of a redshift of $z=0.35$ from a

2070: burster~\cite{Cottam02} and the astrophysical constraint of a baryonic

2071: mass of at least $1.4\,M_\odot$ (dashed lines) result in a bound on the

2072: parameter $\beta$ of $-\beta<9$~\cite{DeDeo03}. }

2073: \label{fig:z}

2074: \end{figure}}

2075: 

2076: 

2077: \subsection{Second-order scalar-tensor gravity and X-ray observations 

2078: of accreting neutron stars}

2079: 

2080: The quantitative features of a number of phenomena observed in the

2081: X-rays from accreting neutron stars depend strongly on their masses

2082: and radii, as discussed in~\ref{sec:strong}. The constraints imposed by two of

2083: these phenomena on the parameters of the second-order scalar-tensor

2084: gravity of Damour and Esposito-Farese~\cite{Damour93} have been studied

2085: recently~\cite{DeDeo03, DeDeo07}.

2086: 

2087: The first phenomenon is the observation of gravitationally redshifted

2088: atomic lines during X-ray bursts from the source

2089: EXO~0748$-$56~\cite{Cottam02}. Figure~\ref{fig:z} shows the values of

2090: the gravitational redshift from the surface of neutron stars with

2091: different masses, in second-order scalar-tensor theories with

2092: different values of the parameter $\beta_0$~\cite{DeDeo03}.  In this

2093: calculation, the parameter $\alpha_0$ was set to zero and the

2094: neutron-star structure was calculated using the equation of state

2095: U~\cite{Cook94}. The hatch-filled area corresponds to neutron-star

2096: masses that are unacceptable for each value of the parameter

2097: $\beta_0$, while the thick curve separates the scalarized stars from

2098: the general relativistic counterparts.

2099: 

2100: A dynamical measurement of the mass of EXO~0748$-$56 can rule out the

2101: possibility that the neutron star in this source is scalarized,

2102: because scalarized stars have very different surface redshifts

2103: compared to the general relativistic stars of the same mass. The

2104: source EXO~0748$-$56 lies in an eclipsing binary system which makes it

2105: a prime candidate for a dynamical mass measurement. In the absence of

2106: such a measurement, however, a limit on the parameter $\beta_0$ can be

2107: placed under the astrophysical constraint that the baryonic mass of

2108: the neutron stars is larger than $\simeq 1.4\,M_\odot$. This is a

2109: reasonable assumption, given that a progenitor core of a lower mass

2110: would not have collapsed to form a neutron star. Combining this

2111: constraint with the measured redshift of $z=0.35$ leads to a limit on

2112: the parameter $-\beta_0<9$, which depends only weakly on the assumed

2113: equation of state of neutron-star matter~\cite{DeDeo03}.

2114: 

2115: \epubtkImage{maxorb.png}{

2116: \begin{figure}[htbp]

2117: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=10.0cm]{maxorb}}

2118: \caption{The maximum orbital frequency outside a neutron star

2119: of mass $M_{\rm ADM}$ for different scalar-tensor theories identified

2120: by the parameter $\beta$. The dashed line shows the maximum observed

2121: frequency of a quasi-periodic oscillation from an accreting neutron

2122: star~\cite{DeDeo07}.}

2123: \label{fig:QPO}

2124: \end{figure}}

2125: 

2126: A second set of phenomena that can lead to strong-field tests of

2127: gravity are the fast quasi-periodic oscillations observed from many

2128: bright accreting neutron stars~\cite{vanderKlis06}. The highest known

2129: frequency of such an oscillations is 1330~Hz, observed from the source

2130: 4U~1636$-$53 and corresponds to the Keplerian frequency of the

2131: innermost stable circular orbit of a $1.6\,M_\odot$ slowly spinning

2132: neutron star. Figure~\ref{fig:QPO} shows the maximum Keplerian

2133: frequency outside a neutron star in the second-order scalar tensor

2134: theory, for different values of the parameter $\beta_0$.  For small

2135: stellar masses, the limiting frequency is achieved at the surface of

2136: the star, whereas for large stellar masses, the limiting frequency is

2137: reached at the innermost stable circular orbit. This figure shows that

2138: scalarized stars allow for higher frequencies than their general

2139: relativistic counterparts. Requiring, therefore, the observed

2140: oscillation frequency to be smaller than the highest Keplerian

2141: frequency of a stable orbit outside the compact object cannot be used

2142: to constrain the parameters of this theory. On the other hand, the

2143: correlations between the various dynamical frequencies outside the

2144: compact object depend strongly on the parameter $\beta$ and hence the

2145: gravity theory can be constrained given a particular model for the

2146: oscillations~\cite{DeDeo07}.

2147: 

2148: 

2149: \newpage

2150: 

2151: \section{Going Beyond Einstein}

2152: \label{section:beyond}

2153: 

2154: \epubtkImage{tests_future.png}{

2155: \begin{figure}[htbp]

2156: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{tests_future}}

2157: \caption{The spectral (redshift) and timing capabilities 

2158: required for an observatory to probe different strengths of 

2159: gravitational fields. Phenomena that occur in the vicinities

2160: of neutron stars and stellar-mass black holes experience large

2161: redshift and occur over sub-millisecond timescales.}

2162: \label{fig:tests_future}

2163: \end{figure}}

2164: 

2165: Testing General Relativity in the strong-field regime with neutron

2166: stars and black holes will require advanced observatories that will be

2167: able to resolve various phenomena in the characteristic energy and

2168: time-scales in which they occur. The two parameters used to quantify

2169: the strength of a gravitational field in

2170: Section~\ref{subsec:definition} are also useful in discussion the

2171: specifications required by such future observatories.

2172: 

2173: The potential and the curvature in a gravitational field are related

2174: directly to the characteristic energy- and time-scales, respectively,

2175: that need to be resolved in order for an observation to be able to

2176: probe a particular region of the parameter space.  The potential

2177: $\epsilon$ gives directly the gravitational redshift $z$ according to

2178: %

2179: \begin{equation}

2180: z=1-(1-2\epsilon)^{-1/2}\;,

2181: \end{equation}

2182: %

2183: the measurement of which is the goal of spectroscopic observations;

2184: for weak gravitational fields $z\simeq\epsilon$. At the same time, the

2185: curvature $\xi$ is directly related to the dynamical timescale $\tau$

2186: in the same region of a gravitational field by

2187: %

2188: \begin{equation}

2189: \tau=\frac{2\pi}{c}\xi^{-1/2}\;.

2190: \end{equation}

2191: %

2192: As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tests_future}, only observatories with

2193: excellent spectroscopic and millisecond timing capabilities will be

2194: able to resolve phenomena that occur in the strongest gravitational

2195: fields found in astrophysics, i.e., those in the vicinities of neutron

2196: stars and stellar-mass black holes.

2197: 

2198: \epubtkImage{gwaves.png}{

2199: \begin{figure}[htbp]

2200: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{gwaves}}

2201: \caption{The parameter space that will be probed by 

2202: an experiment based on a gravitational wave detection with LIGO and

2203: LISA, for an assumed source at a distance of 1~Mpc.}

2204: \label{fig:gwaves}

2205: \end{figure}}

2206: 

2207: One of the most promising avenues towards testing strong-field general

2208: relativity is via the detection of the gravitational waves emitted

2209: during the coalescence of compact objects. In the simple case in which

2210: two compact objects of mass $M$ are orbiting each other in circular

2211: orbits with separation $a$, slowly approaching because of the emission

2212: of gravitational waves, the characteristic period $P$ of the

2213: gravitational wave is half of the orbital period and, therefore, is

2214: related to the spacetime curvature by

2215: %

2216: \begin{equation}

2217: P=\frac{\pi}{c}\xi^{-1/2}\;.

2218: \label{eq:Pgw}

2219: \end{equation}

2220: %

2221: At the same time, the strain $h$ detected by an observatory on Earth

2222: for a gravitational wave emitted by such a source placed at a distance

2223: $D$, is~\cite{Flanagan05}

2224: %

2225: \begin{equation}

2226: h=\left(\frac{GM}{ac^2}\right)\left(\frac{GM}{Dc^2}\right)\;.

2227: \end{equation}

2228: %

2229: Given the distance to a source and the measurement of a strain, the

2230: curvature of the gravitational field probed is

2231: %

2232: \begin{equation}

2233: \xi=\frac{\epsilon^5}{h^2 D^2}=10^{-3}\epsilon^5

2234:    \left(\frac{h}{10^{-23}}\right)^{-2}

2235:    \left(\frac{D}{1~\mbox{Mpc}}\right)^{-2}~\mbox{cm}^{-2}\;.

2236: \label{eq:xigw}

2237: \end{equation}

2238: %

2239: The sensitivity of each detector of gravitational waves depends

2240: strongly on the period of the wave. Using equations~(\ref{eq:Pgw})

2241: and~(\ref{eq:xigw}), the sensitivity curve of a detector can be

2242: converted into a region of the parameter space that can be probed,

2243: given the distance to the source. This is shown in

2244: Figure~\ref{fig:gwaves} for the advanced LIGO and LISA, for an assumed

2245: source distance of 1~Mpc. Gravitational waves detected by LISA will

2246: probe the same curvatures as current tests of General Relativity but

2247: significantly larger potentials.  On the other hand, gravitational

2248: waves detected by the advanced LIGO have the potential of probing

2249: directly the strongest gravitational fields found around astrophysical

2250: objects.

2251: 

2252: In the near future, a number of observatories will exploit new

2253: techniques and open new horizons in gravitational physics by exploring

2254: the strong-field region of the parameter space shown in

2255: Figure~\ref{fig:tests_future}. Observations with the Square Kilometre

2256: Array~\cite{SKA} may lead to the discovery of the most optimal binary

2257: systems for strong-field gravity tests with pulsar timing, in which a

2258: pulsar is orbiting a black hole~\cite{Kramer05}. High energy

2259: observations of black holes and neutron stars with

2260: Constellation-X~\cite{ConX} and XEUS~\cite{XEUS} will detect highly

2261: redshifted atomic lines and measure their rapid variability

2262: properties. Finally, gravitational wave observatories, either from the

2263: ground (such as LIGO~\cite{LIGO}, GEO600~\cite{GEO},

2264: TAMA300~\cite{TAMA}, and VIRGO~\cite{VIRGO}) or from space (such as

2265: LISA~\cite{LISA}) will detect directly for the first time one of the

2266: most remarkable predictions of General Relativity, the generation of

2267: gravitational waves from orbiting compact objects and black hole

2268: ringing.

2269: 

2270: 

2271: \newpage

2272: 

2273: \section{Acknowledgements}

2274: \label{acknowledgements}

2275: 

2276: It is my great pleasure to acknowledge the many fruitful discussions

2277: and collaborations with a number of people that have shaped my ideas

2278: on astrophysical tests of strong-field gravity. In particular, I thank

2279: T.\ Belloni, D.\ Chakrabarty, S.\ DeDeo, F.\ Lamb, C.\ Miller, R.\

2280: Narayan, J.\ McClintock, F.\ \"Ozel, and M.\ van der Klis. I am

2281: indebted to S.\ DeDeo and F.\ \"Ozel for helping me settle on and

2282: understand the defition of strong-field gravity. I am also grateful to

2283: G.\ Esposito-Far\'ese, T.\ Johanssen, J.\ McClintock, F.\ \"Ozel, and

2284: C.\ Reynolds for their detailed comments that helped me greatly

2285: improve the presentation of this review.

2286: 

2287: 

2288: \newpage

2289: 

2290: \bibliography{ms}

2291: 

2292: \end{document}

2293: