1: \documentstyle[12pt,psfig]{livrev}

2: %\bibliographystyle{livrev97}

3: 

4: \newcommand\eg{{\it e.g.\ }}

5: \newcommand\etc{{\it etc.\ }}

6: \newcommand\ie{{\it i.e.\ }}

7: \newcommand\etal{{\it et~al.\ }}

8: \newcommand\PRD{{\it Phys. Rev. D}}

9: \newcommand\PRL{{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}}

10: 

11: \begin{document}

12: 

13: \title{The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment}

14: 

15: \author{Clifford M. Will\\

16: McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences \\

17:  Department of Physics \\

18:  Washington University, St. Louis MO 63130}

19: 

20: \date{}

21: \maketitle

22: \begin{abstract}

23: The status of experimental tests of general relativity and of

24: theoretical frameworks for analysing them are reviewed.

25: Einstein's equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments

26: such as the E\"otv\"os experiment, tests of special relativity, and

27: the gravitational redshift experiment.  Future tests of EEP and of the

28: inverse square law will

29: search for new interactions arising from unification or quantum

30: gravity.  Tests of general

31: relativity at the post-Newtonian level

32: have reached high precision, including the light

33: deflection, the Shapiro time delay, the perihelion advance of

34: Mercury, and the Nordtvedt effect in lunar motion.  Gravitational

35: wave damping has been detected to half a percent using the binary

36: pulsar, and new binary pulsar systems may yield further improvements.

37: When direct observation of gravitational radiation from astrophysical

38: sources begins, new tests of general relativity will be possible.

39: \end{abstract}

40: \keywords{tests of relativistic gravity,theories of gravity,post-Newtonian

41: limit,gravitational radiation}

42: 

43: %========================================================

44: %  Section 1

45: %========================================================

46: 

47: \section{Introduction}\label{S1}

48: 

49: At the time of the birth of general relativity (GR), experimental

50: confirmation was almost a side issue.  Einstein did

51: calculate observable effects of general relativity, such as the

52: perihelion advance of Mercury, which he knew to be an unsolved

53: problem, and the

54: deflection of light, which was subsequently verified, but compared to the inner

55: consistency and elegance of the theory, he regarded such empirical

56: questions as almost peripheral.  But today, experimental

57: gravitation is a major component of the field, characterized by

58: continuing efforts to test the theory's predictions, to search

59: for gravitational imprints of high-energy particle interactions,

60: and to detect gravitational

61: waves from astronomical sources.  

62: 

63: The modern history of experimental relativity can be divided

64: roughly into four periods, Genesis, Hibernation, a Golden Era,

65: and the Quest for Strong Gravity.  The Genesis (1887--1919) comprises

66: the period of the two great experiments which were the foundation

67: of relativistic physics---the Michelson-Morley experiment and the

68: E\"otv\"os experiment---and the two immediate confirmations of

69: GR---the deflection of light and the

70: perihelion advance of Mercury.  Following this was a period of

71: Hibernation (1920--1960) during which theoretical work temporarily

72: outstripped technology and experimental possibilities, and, as a

73: consequence 

74: the field stagnated and was relegated to the

75: backwaters of physics and astronomy.

76: 

77: But beginning around 1960, astronomical discoveries (quasars,

78: pulsars, cosmic background radiation) and new experiments pushed

79: GR to the forefront.  Experimental gravitation

80: experienced a Golden Era (1960--1980) during which a systematic,

81: world-wide effort took place to understand the observable

82: predictions of GR, to compare and contrast them

83: with the predictions of alternative theories of gravity, and to

84: perform new experiments to test them.  The period began with an

85: experiment to confirm the gravitational frequency shift of light

86: (1960) and ended with the reported decrease in the orbital period

87: of the binary pulsar at a rate consistent with the general

88: relativity prediction of gravity-wave energy loss (1979).  The

89: results all supported GR, and most alternative

90: theories of gravity fell by the wayside (for a popular review, see

91: \cite{WER}).

92: 

93: Since 1980, the field has entered what might be termed a Quest for

94: Strong Gravity.  Many of the remaining interesting weak-field predictions of

95: the theory are extremely small and difficult to check, in some

96: cases requiring further technological development to bring them

97: into detectable range.  The sense of a systematic assault on the

98: weak-field

99: predictions of GR has been supplanted to some

100: extent by an opportunistic approach in which novel and unexpected

101: (and sometimes inexpensive) tests of gravity have arisen from new

102: theoretical ideas or experimental techniques, often from unlikely

103: sources.  Examples include the use of laser-cooled atom and ion

104: traps to perform ultra-precise tests of special relativity; 

105: the proposal of a ``fifth'' force, which led to a host

106: of new tests of the weak equivalence principle; and recent ideas of

107: large extra dimensions, which have motived new tests of the inverse

108: square law of gravity at sub-millimeter scales.  Several major ongoing

109: efforts also continue, principally the Stanford Gyroscope

110: experiment, known as Gravity Probe-B.  

111: 

112: Instead, much of the focus has shifted to experiments

113: which can probe the effects of strong gravitational fields.  The

114: principal figure of merit that distinguishes

115: strong from weak gravity is the quantity $\epsilon \sim GM/Rc^2$,

116: where $G$ is the

117: Newtonian gravitational constant, $M$ is the characteristic mass scale

118: of the phenomenon, $R$  is the characteristic distance scale, and $c$

119: is the speed of light.  Near the

120: event horizon of a non-rotating black hole, or for the expanding

121: observable

122: universe,

123: $\epsilon \sim 0.5$; for neutron stars, $\epsilon \sim 0.2$.  These

124: are

125: the regimes of strong gravity.  For the solar system $\epsilon <

126: 10^{-5}$;

127: this is the regime of weak gravity.  At one

128: extreme are the strong gravitational fields associated with

129: Planck-scale physics.  Will unification of the forces, or

130: quantization of gravity at this scale leave observable effects

131: accessible by experiment?  Dramatically improved tests of the

132: equivalence principle or of the inverse square law are being

133: designed, to search for or bound the imprinted effects of Planck-scale

134: phenomena.  At the other extreme are the strong fields associated with

135: compact objects such as black holes or neutron stars.  Astrophysical

136: observations and gravitational-wave detectors are being planned to

137: explore and test GR in the strong-field,

138: highly-dynamical regime associated with the formation and dynamics of

139: these objects.

140: 

141: In this living review, we shall survey the theoretical frameworks

142: for studying experimental gravitation, summarize the current

143: status of experiments, and attempt to chart the future of the

144: subject.

145: We shall not provide complete references to early work done in 

146: this field but instead will refer the reader to the appropriate

147: review articles and monographs, specifically to {\it Theory and

148: Experiment in Gravitational Physics} \cite{tegp}, hereafter referred

149: to as TEGP.  Additional recent reviews in this subject are

150: \cite{Will300,ijmp,sussp,slac,damourreview,shapiro}.

151: References to TEGP will be by chapter or section, \eg ``TEGP 8.9''.

152: 

153: %================================================================

154: % Section 2

155: %================================================================

156: 

157: \section{Tests of the Foundations of Gravitation \break Theory}\label{S2}

158: 

159: %---------------------------------------

160: % Subsection 2.1

161: %---------------------------------------

162: 

163: \subsection{The Einstein Equivalence Principle}\label{eep}

164: 

165: The principle of equivalence has historically played an important

166: role in the development of gravitation theory.  Newton regarded

167: this principle as such a cornerstone of mechanics that he devoted

168: the opening paragraph of the {\it Principia} to it.  In 1907,

169: Einstein used the principle as a basic element of general

170: relativity.  We now regard the principle of equivalence as the

171: foundation, not of Newtonian gravity or of GR,

172: but of the broader idea that spacetime is curved.

173: 

174: One elementary equivalence principle is the kind Newton had in

175: mind when he stated that the property of a body called ``mass'' is

176: proportional to the ``weight'', and is known as the weak

177: equivalence principle 

178: (WEP)\index{WEP,weak equivalence principle}.

179:   An alternative statement of WEP is

180: that the trajectory of a freely falling body (one not acted upon

181: by such forces as electromagnetism and too small to be affected

182: by tidal gravitational forces) is independent of its internal

183: structure and composition.  In the simplest case of dropping two

184: different bodies in a gravitational field, WEP states that the

185: bodies fall with the same acceleration (this is often termed the

186: Universality of Free Fall, or UFF).

187: 

188: A more powerful and far-reaching equivalence principle is

189: known as the Einstein equivalence principle 

190: (EEP)\index{EEP, Einstein equivalence principle}.

191: It states that

192: \begin{enumerate}

193: \item 

194: WEP is valid.

195: \item

196: The outcome of any local

197: non-gravitational experiment is independent of the velocity of

198: the freely-falling reference frame in which it is performed.

199: \item

200: The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is

201: independent of where and when in the universe it is performed.

202: \end{enumerate}

203: 

204: The second piece of EEP is called local Lorentz invariance 

205: (LLI)\index{LLI, local Lorentz invariance},

206: and the third piece is called local position invariance 

207: (LPI)\index{LPI, local position invariance}.

208: 

209: For example, a measurement of the electric force between two

210: charged bodies is a local non-gravitational experiment; a

211: measurement of the gravitational force between two bodies

212: (Cavendish experiment) is not.

213: 

214: The Einstein equivalence

215: principle is the heart and soul of gravitational theory, for it

216: is possible to argue convincingly that if EEP is valid, then

217: gravitation must be a ``curved spacetime'' phenomenon, in other

218: words, the effects of gravity must be equivalent to the effects of

219: living in a curved spacetime.  As a consequence of this argument,

220: the only theories of gravity that can embody EEP are those that

221: satisfy the postulates of ``metric theories of gravity'', which

222: are 

223: \begin{enumerate}

224: \item

225: Spacetime is endowed with a symmetric metric.

226: \item

227: The

228: trajectories of freely falling bodies are geodesics of that

229: metric.

230: \item

231: In local freely falling reference frames, the

232: non-gravitational laws of physics are those written in the

233: language of special relativity.  

234: \end{enumerate}

235: 

236: The argument that leads to this

237: conclusion simply notes that, if EEP is valid, then in local

238: freely falling frames, the laws governing experiments must be

239: independent of the velocity of the frame (local Lorentz

240: invariance), with constant values for the various atomic

241: constants (in order to be independent of location).  The only

242: laws we know of that fulfill this are those that are compatible

243: with special relativity, such as Maxwell's equations of

244: electromagnetism.  Furthermore, in local freely falling frames,

245: test bodies appear to be unaccelerated, in other words they move

246: on straight lines; but such ``locally straight'' lines simply

247: correspond to ``geodesics'' in a curved spacetime (TEGP 2.3).

248: 

249: General relativity is a metric theory of gravity, but then so are

250: many others, including the Brans-Dicke theory.  The nonsymmetric

251: gravitation theory (NGT) of Moffat is not a metric theory.  Neither, in

252: this narrow sense, is

253: superstring theory (see Sec. \ref{newinteractions}), which, while

254: based fundamentally on a spacetime metric, introduces additional

255: fields (dilatons, moduli)

256: that can couple to material stress-energy in a 

257: way that can lead to violations, say, of WEP.  So

258: the notion of curved spacetime is a very general and fundamental

259: one, and therefore it is important to test the various aspects of

260: the Einstein Equivalence Principle thoroughly.  

261: 

262: A direct test of WEP is the comparison of the acceleration of two

263: laborat\-ory-sized bodies of different composition in an external

264: gravitational field\index{E\"otv\"os experiment}.  

265: If the principle were violated, then the

266: accelerations of different bodies would differ.  The simplest

267: way to quantify such possible violations of WEP in a form

268: suitable for comparison with experiment is to suppose that for

269: a body with inertial mass $m_I$, the passive gravitational

270: mass $m_P$ is no longer equal to $m_I$, so that in a

271: gravitational field $g$, the acceleration is given 

272: by $m_I a= m_P g$.  Now the inertial mass of a typical

273: laboratory body is made up of several types of mass-energy:  rest

274: energy, electromagnetic energy, weak-interaction energy, and so

275: on.  If one of these forms of energy contributes to $m_P$

276: differently than it does to $m_I$, a violation of WEP would

277: result.  One could then write

278: \begin{equation}\label{E1}

279:     m_P = m_I + \sum_A \eta^A E^A /c^2 \,,

280: \end{equation}

281: where $E^A$ is the internal energy of the body generated by

282: interaction $A$, and $\eta^A$ is a dimensionless parameter that

283: measures the strength of the violation of WEP induced by that

284: interaction, and $c$ is the speed of light.  A measurement or limit

285: on the fractional difference in acceleration between two bodies

286: then yields a quantity called the ``E\"otv\"os ratio'' given by

287: \begin{equation}\label{E2}

288:  \eta \equiv {{2 | a_1  -  a_2 |} \over {| a_1 +  a_2 |}} 

289:      = \sum_A \eta^A

290:  \left (   {{E_1^A} \over {m_1 c^2}}

291:       -  {{E_2^A} \over {m_2 c^2} }

292: \right )  \,,

293: \end{equation}

294: where we drop the subscript I from the inertial masses.

295: Thus, experimental limits on $\eta$ place limits on the

296: WEP-violation parameters $\eta^A$.

297: 

298: Many high-precision E\"otv\"os-type experiments have been

299: performed, from the pendulum experiments of Newton, Bessel and

300: Potter, to the classic torsion-balance measurements of

301: E\"otv\"os \cite{eotvos}, Dicke \cite{dicke}, Braginsky \cite{braginsky} 

302: and their collaborators.  In the

303: modern torsion-balance experiments, two objects of different

304: composition are connected by a rod or placed on a tray

305: and suspended in a horizontal

306: orientation by a fine wire.  If the gravitational acceleration of

307: the bodies differs, there will be a torque induced on the

308: suspension wire, related to the angle between the wire and the

309: direction of the gravitational acceleration $\bf g$.  If the entire

310: apparatus is rotated about some direction with angular velocity

311: $\omega$, the torque will be modulated with period $2 \pi / \omega$.

312: In the experiments of E\"otv\"os and his collaborators, the wire

313: and $\bf g$ were not quite parallel because of the centripetal

314: acceleration on the apparatus due to the Earth's rotation; the

315: apparatus was rotated about the direction of the wire.  In the

316: Dicke and Braginsky

317: experiments, $\bf g$ was that of the Sun, and the rotation of the Earth

318: provided the modulation of the torque at a period of 24~hr

319: (TEGP 2.4(a)).  Beginning in the late 1980s, numerous

320: experiments were carried out

321: primarily to search for a ``fifth force'' (see Sec. \ref{newinteractions}), 

322: but their

323: null results also constituted tests of WEP.  In the ``free-fall Galileo

324: experiment'' performed at the University of Colorado, the

325: relative free-fall acceleration of two bodies made of uranium

326: and copper was measured using a laser interferometric technique.

327: The ``E\"ot-Wash'' experiments carried out at the

328: University of Washington used a sophisticated torsion balance

329: tray to compare the accelerations of various materials toward

330: local topography on Earth, movable laboratory masses, 

331: the Sun and the galaxy \cite{Su,baessler}, and have recently

332: reached levels of $4 \times 10^{-13}$.  The

333: resulting upper limits on $\eta$ are summarized in Figure \ref{wepfig} (TEGP

334: 14.1; for a bibliography of experiments, see \cite{fischbach}).

335:  

336: \begin{figure}

337: \begin{center}

338: \leavevmode

339: \psfig{figure=livingfig1.ps,height=6.0in}

340: \end{center}

341: \caption{Selected tests of the Weak Equivalence Principle,

342: showing bounds on $\eta$, which measures fractional difference in

343: acceleration of different materials or bodies.  Free-fall and 

344: E\"ot-Wash experiments originally performed 

345: to search for fifth force.  Blue band shows current 

346: bounds on $\eta$ for gravitating bodies 

347: from lunar laser ranging (LURE). }

348: \label{wepfig}

349: \end{figure}

350: 

351: 

352: The second ingredient of EEP, local Lorentz invariance, has been

353: tested to high-precision in the ``mass

354: anisotropy'' experiments\index{mass anisotropy experiments}:

355: the classic versions are the

356: Hughes-Drever experiments, performed in the period 1959-60

357: independently by Hughes and collaborators at Yale University, and

358: by Drever at Glasgow University (TEGP 2.4(b)).

359: Dramatically improved versions were carried out during the late 1980s

360: using laser-cooled trapped atom techniques (TEGP 14.1).

361: A simple and

362: useful way of interpreting these experiments is to suppose that

363: the electromagnetic interactions suffer a slight violation of

364: Lorentz invariance, through a change in the speed of

365: electromagnetic radiation $c$ relative to the limiting

366: speed of material test particles ($c_0$, chosen to be unity via a

367: choice of units), in other words, $c \ne 1$

368: (see Sec. \ref{c2formalism}).  Such a violation necessarily

369: selects a preferred universal rest frame, presumably that of the

370: cosmic background radiation, through which we are moving at about

371: 300~km/s.  Such a Lorentz-non-invariant electromagnetic

372: interaction would cause shifts in the energy levels of atoms and

373: nuclei that depend on the orientation of the quantization axis of

374: the state relative to our universal velocity vector, and on the

375: quantum numbers of the state.  The presence or absence of such

376: energy shifts can be examined by measuring the energy of one such

377: state relative to another state that is either unaffected or is

378: affected differently by the supposed violation.  One way is to

379: look for a shifting of the energy levels of states that are

380: ordinarily equally spaced, such as the four $J{=}3/2$ ground states

381: of the $^7$Li nucleus in a magnetic field (Drever experiment);

382: another is to compare the levels of a complex nucleus with the

383: atomic hyperfine levels of a hydrogen maser clock.  These

384: experiments have all yielded extremely accurate results, quoted

385: as limits on the parameter $\delta \equiv c^{-2}-1$

386: in Figure \ref{llifig}.  Also included for comparison is the corresponding

387: limit obtained from Michelson-Morley type experiments (for a review, see

388: \cite{hauganwill}).

389: %

390: \begin{figure}

391: \begin{center}

392: \leavevmode

393: \psfig{figure=livingfig2.ps,height=6.0in} 

394: \end{center}

395: \caption{ Selected tests of local Lorentz invariance showing 

396: bounds on parameter 

397: $\delta$, which measures degree of violation of Lorentz invariance 

398: in electromagnetism.  Michelson-Morley, Joos, and Brillet-Hall 

399: experiments test isotropy of round-trip speed of light,

400: the latter experiment using laser technology.  Centrifuge, 

401: two-photon absorption

402: (TPA) and JPL experiments test isotropy of light speed using one-way

403: propagation.

404: Remaining four

405: experiments test isotropy of nuclear energy levels.  Limits assume 

406: speed of Earth of 300\ km/s relative to the mean rest frame of the universe. 

407: } 

408: \label{llifig}

409: \end{figure}

410: 

411: Recent advances in atomic spectroscopy and atomic timekeeping

412: have made it possible to test LLI by checking the isotropy of the

413: speed of light using one-way propagation (as opposed to round-trip 

414: propagation, as in the Michelson-Morley 

415: experiment).  In one experiment, for example, the

416: relative phases of two hydrogen maser clocks at two stations of

417: NASA 's Deep Space Tracking Network were compared over five

418: rotations of the Earth by propagating a light signal one-way

419: along an ultrastable fiberoptic link connecting them (see Sec.

420: \ref{c2formalism}).

421: Although the bounds from these experiments are not as tight as

422: those from mass-anisotropy experiments, they probe directly the

423: fundamental postulates of special relativity, and thereby of LLI.

424: (TEGP 14.1, \cite{Will92b}).

425: 

426: The principle of local position invariance, the third part of

427: EEP, can be tested by the gravitational redshift

428: experiment\index{gravitational redshift experiment},

429:  the

430: first experimental test of gravitation proposed by Einstein.

431: Despite the fact that Einstein regarded this as a crucial test of

432: GR, we now realize that it does not distinguish

433: between GR and any other metric theory of

434: gravity, instead is a test only of EEP.  A typical gravitational

435: redshift experiment measures the frequency or wavelength shift

436: $Z \equiv \Delta \nu / \nu = - \Delta \lambda / \lambda$ between two

437: identical frequency standards (clocks) placed at rest at

438: different heights in a static gravitational field.  If the

439: frequency of a given type of atomic clock is the same when

440: measured in a local, momentarily comoving freely falling frame

441: (Lorentz frame), independent of the location or velocity of that

442: frame, then the comparison of frequencies of two clocks at rest

443: at different locations boils down to a comparison of the

444: velocities of two local Lorentz frames, one at rest with respect

445: to one clock at the moment of emission of its signal, the other

446: at rest with respect to the other clock at the moment of

447: reception of the signal.  The frequency shift is then a

448: consequence of the first-order Doppler shift between the frames.

449: The structure of the clock plays no role whatsoever.  The result

450: is a shift

451: \begin{equation} \label{E3}

452: Z = \Delta U/ c^2 \,, 

453: \end{equation}

454: where $\Delta U$ is the difference in the Newtonian gravitational

455: potential between the receiver and the emitter.  If LPI is not

456: valid, then it turns out that the shift can be written

457: \begin{equation} \label{E4}

458: Z = (1+ \alpha ) \Delta U /c^2 \,, 

459: \end{equation}

460: where the parameter $\alpha$ may depend upon the nature of the

461: clock whose shift is being measured (see TEGP 2.4(c) for

462: details).

463: 

464: The first successful, high-precision redshift measurement was the

465: series of Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments of 1960-1965, that

466: measured the frequency shift of gamma-ray photons from $^{57}$Fe

467: as they ascended or descended the Jefferson Physical Laboratory

468: tower at Harvard University.  The high accuracy 

469: achieved -- one percent -- was obtained by making

470: use of the M\"ossbauer effect to produce a narrow resonance line

471: whose shift could be accurately determined.  Other experiments

472: since 1960 measured the shift of spectral lines in the Sun's

473: gravitational field and the change in rate of atomic clocks

474: transported aloft on aircraft, rockets and satellites.  Figure \ref{lpifig}

475: summarizes the important redshift experiments that have been

476: performed since 1960 (TEGP 2.4(c)).

477: %

478: \begin{figure}

479: \begin{center}

480: \leavevmode

481: \psfig{figure=livingfig3.ps,height=6.0in}

482: \end{center}

483: \caption{Selected tests of local position invariance via gravitational

484: redshift experiments, showing bounds on $\alpha$, which measures degree

485: of deviation of redshift from the formula 

486: $\Delta \nu / \nu = \Delta U/c^2$.

487: }  

488: \label{lpifig}

489: \end{figure}

490: 

491: 

492: The most precise standard redshift

493: test to date was the Vessot-Levine rocket

494: experiment that took place in June 1976 \cite{vessot}.  A

495: hydrogen-maser clock was flown on a rocket to an altitude of

496: about 10,000~km and its frequency compared to a similar clock on

497: the ground.  The experiment took advantage of the masers'

498: frequency stability by monitoring the frequency shift as a

499: function of altitude.  A sophisticated data acquisition scheme

500: accurately eliminated all effects of the first-order Doppler

501: shift due to the rocket's motion, while tracking data were used

502: to determine the payload's location and the velocity (to evaluate

503: the potential difference $\Delta U$, and the special relativistic

504: time dilation).  Analysis of the data yielded a limit 

505: $| \alpha | < 2 \times 10^{-4}$.

506: 

507: A ``null'' redshift experiment performed in 1978 tested whether

508: the {\it relative} rates of two different clocks depended upon

509: position.  Two hydrogen maser clocks and an ensemble of three

510: superconducting-cavity stabilized oscillator ({\sc scso}) clocks were compared

511: over a 10-day period.  During the period of the experiment, 

512: the solar potential

513: $U/c^2$ changed sinusoidally with a 24-hour period by

514: $3 \times10^{-13}$ because of the Earth's rotation, and changed

515: linearly at $3 \times 10^{-12}$ per day because the Earth is 90 degrees

516: from perihelion in April.  However, analysis of the data

517: revealed no variations of either type within experimental errors,

518: leading to a limit on the LPI violation parameter 

519: $| \alpha^{\rm H} - \alpha^{\rm SCSO} | < 2 \times 10^{-2}$ 

520: \cite{turneaure}.  This

521: bound has been improved using more stable frequency standards

522: \cite{Godone,prestage}.  The

523: varying gravitational redshift of Earth-bound clocks relative to

524: the highly stable Millisecond Pulsar, caused by the Earth's

525: motion in the solar gravitational field around the Earth-Moon

526: center of mass (amplitude 4000~km), has been measured to

527: about 10 percent, and the redshift of stable oscillator

528: clocks on the Voyager spacecraft caused by Saturn's gravitational

529: field yielded a one percent test.  The solar gravitational

530: redshift has been tested to about two percent using infrared oxygen

531: triplet lines at the limb of the Sun, and to one percent using

532: oscillator clocks on the Galileo spacecraft (TEGP 2.4(c) and 14.1(a)).  

533: 

534: Modern advances in navigation using Earth-orbiting atomic clocks and

535: accurate time-transfer must routinely

536: take gravitational redshift and time-dilation effects into account.

537: For example, the Global Positioning System

538: (GPS) provides absolute accuracies of around 15 m (even better in its

539: military mode) anywhere on Earth, 

540: which corresponds to 50 nanoseconds in time accuracy

541: at all times.  Yet the difference in rate between satellite and ground

542: clocks as a result of special and general relativistic effects is a

543: whopping 39 {\it microseconds} per day ($46 \mu$s from the gravitational

544: redshift, and $-7 \, \mu$s from time dilation).

545: If these effects were not accurately accounted for, GPS

546: would fail to function at its stated accuracy.

547: This represents a welcome practical application of GR!

548: (For the role of GR in GPS, see

549: \cite{ashby}; for a popular essay, see

550: \cite{physicscentral}.)

551: 

552: Local position invariance also refers to position in time.  If LPI is

553: satisfied, the fundamental constants of non-gravitational physics

554: should be constants in time.  Table \ref{varyconstants} shows current bounds on

555: cosmological variations in selected dimensionless constants.  For

556: discussion and references to early work, see TEGP 2.4(c).  

557: 

558: 

559: \begin{table} 

560: \begin{center}

561: \begin{tabular}{l l l}

562: \hline

563: \hline

564: &Limit on $\dot{k}/k$&\\

565: &per Hubble time& \\

566: Constant $k$&$1.2 \times 10^{10} \rm{yr}$ &Method \\ [0.5ex]

567: \hline

568: \hline

569: Fine structure constant&$4 \times 10^{-4}$&H-maser vs Hg ion clock

570: \cite{prestage}\\

571: \quad $\alpha=e^2/\hbar c$&$9 \times 10^{-5}$&$^{87}$Rb fountain vs Cs

572: clock \cite{salomon}\\

573: &$6 \times 10^{-7}$&Oklo Natural Reactor \cite{Dyson}

574: \\

575: &$6 \times 10^{-5}$&21-cm vs molecular absorption \\

576: &&\quad at $Z=0.7$ (\cite{drinkwater})\\ [0.5ex]

577: \hline

578: Weak interaction constant&1&$^{187}$Re, $^{40}$K decay rates\\

579: \quad $\beta=G_f m_p^2 c/\hbar^3$&0.1&Oklo Natural Reactor

580: \cite{Dyson} \\

581: &0.06&Big bang nucleosynthesis \cite{malaney,reeves}\\ [0.5ex]

582: \hline

583: e-p mass ratio&1&Mass shift in quasar\\

584: &&\quad spectra at $Z \sim 2$\\ [0.5ex]

585: \hline

586: Proton g-factor ($g_p$)&$10^{-5}$&21-cm vs molecular absorption \\

587: &&\quad at $Z=0.7$ (\cite{drinkwater})\\ [0.5ex]

588: \hline

589: \hline

590: \end{tabular}

591: \caption{Bounds on cosmological variation of 

592: fundamental constants of non-gravitational

593: physics.  For references to earlier work, see TEGP 2.4(c).}

594: \label{varyconstants}

595: \end{center}

596: \end{table}

597: 

598: %----------------------------------------------

599: % Subsection 2.2

600: %----------------------------------------------

601: 

602: \subsection{Theoretical Frameworks for Analyzing EEP}\label{EEPframeworks}

603: 

604: \subsubsection{Schiff's Conjecture}\label{Schiff}

605: 

606: Because the three parts of the Einstein equivalence principle

607: discussed above are so very different in their empirical

608: consequences, it is tempting to regard them as independent

609: theoretical principles.  On the other hand, any complete and

610: self-consistent gravitation theory must possess sufficient

611: mathematical machinery to make predictions for the outcomes of

612: experiments that test each principle, and because there are

613: limits to the number of ways that gravitation can be meshed with

614: the special relativistic laws of physics, one might not be

615: surprised if there were theoretical connections between the three

616: sub-principles.  For instance, the same mathematical formalism

617: that produces equations describing the free fall of a hydrogen

618: atom must also produce equations that determine the energy levels

619: of hydrogen in a gravitational field, and thereby the ticking

620: rate of a hydrogen maser clock.  Hence a violation of EEP in the

621: fundamental machinery of a theory that manifests itself as a

622: violation of WEP might also be expected to show up as a violation

623: of local position invariance.  Around 1960, Schiff conjectured

624: that this kind of connection was a necessary feature of any

625: self-consistent theory of gravity.  More precisely,

626: Schiff's conjecture states that {\it any complete, self-consistent

627: theory of gravity that embodies WEP necessarily embodies EEP}.

628: In other words, the validity of WEP alone guarantees the validity

629: of local Lorentz and position invariance, and thereby of EEP.

630: 

631: If Schiff's conjecture is correct, then E\"otv\"os experiments may

632: be seen as the direct empirical foundation for EEP, hence for the

633: interpretation of gravity as a curved-spacetime phenomenon.  Of course,

634: a rigorous proof of such a conjecture is impossible (indeed, some

635: special counter-examples are known) yet a number

636: of powerful ``plausibility'' arguments can be formulated.

637: 

638: The most general and elegant of these arguments is based upon the

639: assumption of energy conservation.  This assumption allows one to

640: perform very simple cyclic gedanken experiments in which the

641: energy at the end of the cycle must equal that at the beginning

642: of the cycle.  This approach was pioneered by Dicke, Nordtvedt and

643: Haugan (see, \eg \cite{haugan}).  

644: A system in a quantum state $A$ decays to state $B$,

645: emitting a quantum of frequency $\nu$.  The quantum falls a height

646: $H$ in an external gravitational field and is shifted to frequency

647: $\nu^\prime$, while the system in state $B$ falls with acceleration

648: $g_B$.  At the bottom, state $A$ is rebuilt out of state $B$, the

649: quantum of frequency $ \nu^\prime$, and the kinetic energy $m_B g_B H$

650: that state $B$ has gained during its fall.  The energy left over

651: must be exactly enough, $m_A g_A H$, to raise state $A$ to its original

652: location.  (Here an assumption of local Lorentz invariance

653: permits the inertial masses $m_A$  and $m_B$ to be identified with

654: the total energies of the bodies.)  If $g_A$ and $g_B$ depend on

655: that portion of the internal energy of the states that was

656: involved in the quantum transition from $A$ to $B$ according to

657: \begin{equation} \label{E5}

658:    g_A = g(1 + \alpha E_A / m_A c^2 ) \,, \qquad  

659:    g_B = g(1 + \alpha E_B / m_B c^2 ) \,, \qquad  

660:    E_A - E_B \equiv h \nu  

661: \end{equation}

662: (violation of WEP), then by conservation of energy, there must be

663: a corresponding violation of LPI in the frequency shift of the

664: form (to lowest order in $h \nu /mc^2$)

665: \begin{equation}\label{E6}

666:    Z = ( \nu^\prime - \nu )/ \nu^\prime

667:      = (1+\alpha ) gH/c^2 = (1+\alpha ) \Delta U/c^2 \,.

668: \end{equation}

669: Haugan generalized this approach to include violations of

670: LLI (\cite{haugan}, TEGP 2.5).

671: 

672: 

673: % Box 1 ------

674: \begin{table}

675: \medskip

676: \centerline{\bf Box 1. The $TH\epsilon\mu$ Formalism}

677: \medskip

678: \hrule\small

679: \medskip

680: \begin{enumerate}

681: \item{\bf Coordinate System and Conventions:}  

682: 

683: $x^0 =t=$ time coordinate associated with the

684: static nature of the static spherically symmetric ({\sc sss})

685: gravitational field; ${\bf x} =(x,y,z) =$ isotropic

686: quasi-Cartesian spatial coordinates; spatial vector and gradient

687: operations as in Cartesian space.

688: 

689: \item{\bf Matter and Field Variables:}

690: \begin{itemize}

691: \item

692: $m_{0a} =$ rest mass of particle $a$.

693: \item

694: $e_a =$ charge of particle $a$.

695: \item

696: $x_a^\mu (t) =$ world line of particle $a$.

697: \item

698: $v_a^\mu = dx_a^\mu/dt =$ coordinate velocity of particle $a$.

699: \item

700: $A_\mu =$ electromagnetic vector potential;

701: ${\bf E}= \nabla A_0-\partial {\bf A}/\partial t \,,\,{\bf B}=\nabla \times

702: {\bf A}$ 

703: \end{itemize}

704: 

705: \item{\bf Gravitational Potential:}  $U( {\bf x} )$

706: 

707: \item{\bf Arbitrary Functions:}

708: 

709: $T(U)$, $H(U)$, $\epsilon (U)$, $\mu (U)$; 

710: EEP is satisfied iff 

711: $\epsilon = \mu = (H/T)^{1/2}$ for all $U$.

712: 

713: \item{\bf Action:}

714: \begin{eqnarray*}

715:   I &=& - \sum_a m_{0a} \int 

716:         (T-Hv_a^2)^{1/2} dt

717:     + \sum_a e_a \int 

718:         A_\mu (x_a^\nu ) v_a^\mu dt  \\

719:   && \quad + (8 \pi)^{-1} \int 

720: 	(\epsilon E^2-\mu^{-1} B^2) d^4 x \,.

721: \end{eqnarray*}

722: 

723: \item{\bf Non-Metric Parameters:}

724: \begin{eqnarray*}

725: \Gamma_0 &=& -c_0^2(\partial /\partial U) \ln [\epsilon (T/H)^{1/2}]_0 \,,\\

726: \Lambda_0 &=& -c_0^2(\partial /\partial U) \ln [\mu (T/H)^{1/2}]_0 \,,\\

727: \Upsilon_0 &=& 1- (TH^{-1} \epsilon\mu)_0 \,,

728: \end{eqnarray*}

729: where $c_0 = (T_0 /H_0 )^{1/2}$ and subscript

730: ``0'' refers to a chosen point in space.  

731: If EEP is satisfied, $\Gamma_0 \equiv \Lambda_0 \equiv \Upsilon_0 \equiv

732: 0$.

733: 

734: \end{enumerate}

735: \hrule\normalsize

736: \medskip

737: \end{table}

738: 

739: % end of Box 1 ----

740: \subsubsection{The $TH\epsilon\mu$ Formalism}\label{theuformalism}

741: 

742: The first successful attempt to prove Schiff's conjecture more

743: formally was made by Lightman and Lee \cite{lightmanlee}.  They developed a

744: framework called the $TH\epsilon\mu$ formalism that encompasses

745: all metric theories of gravity and many non-metric theories

746: (Box 1).  It restricts attention to the behavior of charged

747: particles (electromagnetic interactions only) in an external

748: static spherically symmetric (SSS) gravitational field, described

749: by a potential $U$.  It characterizes the motion of the charged

750: particles in the external potential by two arbitrary functions

751: $T(U)$ and $H(U)$, and characterizes the response of

752: electromagnetic fields to the external potential (gravitationally

753: modified Maxwell equations) by two functions $\epsilon (U)$ and

754: $\mu (U)$.  The forms of $T$, $H$, $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ vary from theory

755: to theory, but every metric theory satisfies

756: \begin{equation}\label{E7}

757:     \epsilon = \mu = (H/T)^{1/2} \,,

758: \end{equation}

759: for all $U$.  This consequence follows from the action of

760: electrodynamics with a ``minimal'' or metric coupling:

761: \begin{eqnarray} \label{E8}

762:   I &=& - \sum_a m_{0a} \int 

763:         (g_{\mu\nu} v_a^\mu v_a^\nu )^{1/2} dt

764:     + \sum_a e_a \int 

765:         A_\mu (x_a^\nu ) v_a^\mu dt \nonumber\\

766:   &-& {1 \over {16 \pi}} \int \sqrt{-g}

767:           g^{\mu \alpha} g^{\nu \beta}

768:           F_{\mu \nu} F_{\alpha \beta}

769:           d^4 x  \,,

770: \end{eqnarray}

771: where the variables are defined in Box 1, and where 

772: $F_{\mu\nu} \equiv A_{\nu , \mu} - A_{\mu , \nu}$.  By identifying 

773: $g_{00} = T$ and $g_{ij} = H \delta_{ij}$ in a SSS field,

774: $F_{i0} = E_i$ and $F_{ij} = \epsilon_{ijk} B_k$,

775: one obtains Eq.~(\ref{E7}).

776: Conversely, every theory within this class that satisfies Eq. (\ref{E7})

777: can have its electrodynamic equations cast into ``metric'' form.

778: In a given non-metric theory, the functions $T$, $H$, $\epsilon$ and

779: $\mu$ will depend in general on the full gravitational environment,

780: including the potential of the Earth, Sun and Galaxy, as well as on

781: cosmological boundary conditions.  Which of these factors has the most

782: influence on a given experiment will depend on the nature of the

783: experiment.

784: 

785: Lightman and Lee then calculated explicitly the rate of

786: fall of a ``test'' body made up of interacting charged particles,

787: and found that the rate was independent of the internal

788: electromagnetic structure of the body (WEP) if and only if Eq. 

789: (\ref{E7})

790: was satisfied.  In other words WEP $\to$ EEP and Schiff's

791: conjecture was verified, at least within the restrictions built

792: into the formalism.

793: 

794: Certain combinations of the functions $T$, $H$, $\epsilon$ and $\mu$

795: reflect different aspects of EEP.  For instance, position or

796: $U$-dependence of either of the combinations $\epsilon (T/H)^{1/2}$ 

797: and $\mu (T/H)^{1/2}$ signals violations of LPI, the first

798: combination playing the role of the locally measured electric

799: charge or fine structure constant.  The ``non-metric parameters''

800: $\Gamma_0$ and $\Lambda_0$ (Box 1) are measures of such

801: violations of EEP.  Similarly, if the parameter 

802: $\Upsilon_0 \equiv 1-(TH^{-1} \epsilon \mu )_0$ is non-zero anywhere, 

803: then violations of LLI will occur.  This parameter is related to the

804: difference between the speed of light, $c$, and the

805: limiting speed of material test particles, $c_o$, given by

806: \begin{equation}\label{E9}

807:     c = ( \epsilon_0 \mu_0 )^{- 1/2} \,,\qquad   

808:     c_o ~=~ ( T_0 / H_0 )^{1/2} \,.  

809: \end{equation}

810: In many applications,

811: by suitable definition of units, $c_0$ can be set equal to unity.

812: If EEP is valid, $\Gamma_0 \equiv \Lambda_0 \equiv \Upsilon_0 = 0$ 

813: everywhere.

814: 

815: The rate of fall of a composite spherical test body of

816: electromagnetically interacting particles then has the form

817: \begin{eqnarray}

818:     {\bf a} &=& (m_P /m) \nabla U  \,,\label{E10}\\

819:           m_P /m 

820:  &=&1 + (E_B^{ES} /Mc_0^2 )

821:           [2 \Gamma_0 - {8 \over 3} \Upsilon_0 ]

822:       + (E_B^{MS} /Mc_0^2 ) 

823:           [2 \Lambda_0 - {4 \over 3} \Upsilon_0 ] 

824:       \nonumber \\

825:       && \quad + \dots ,\label{E11}

826: \end{eqnarray}

827: %

828: where $E_B^{ES}$ and $E_B^{MS}$ are the electrostatic

829: and magnetostatic binding energies of the body, given by

830: \begin{eqnarray}

831: 	  E_B^{ES}

832:  &=&-{1 \over 4} T_0^{1/2} H_0^{-1} \epsilon_0^{-1}

833: \left < \sum_{ab} e_a e_b r_{ab}^{-1} \right >  \,, \label{E12} \\

834:        E_B^{MS} &=&

835:   - {1 \over 8} T_0^{1/2} H_0^{-1} \mu_0

836:   \left < \sum_{ab} e_a e_b r_{ab}^{-1}

837:        [ {\bf v}_a \cdot {\bf v}_b 

838:        + ( {\bf v}_a \cdot {\bf n}_{ab} )

839: 	   ( {\bf v}_b \cdot {\bf n}_{ab} )]

840: \right >  \,, \label{E13}

841: \end{eqnarray}

842: where $r_{ab} = | {\bf x}_a  -  {\bf x}_b |$,

843: ${\bf n}_{ab}  =  ( {\bf x}_a  -  {\bf x}_b )/r_{ab}$, and the

844: angle brackets denote an expectation value of the enclosed

845: operator for the system's internal state.  E\"otv\"os experiments

846: place limits on the WEP-violating terms in Eq. (\ref{E11}), and

847: ultimately place limits on the non-metric parameters 

848: $| \Gamma_0 | < 2 \times 10^{-10}$ and

849: $| \Lambda_0 |  <  3  \times  10^{-6}$. 

850: (We set 

851: $\Upsilon_0 = 0$ because of very tight constraints on it from

852: tests of LLI .)  These limits are

853: sufficiently tight to rule out a number of non-metric theories of

854: gravity thought previously to be viable (TEGP 2.6(f)).

855: 

856: The $TH \epsilon\mu$ formalism also yields a

857: gravitationally modified Dirac equation that can be used to

858: determine the gravitational redshift experienced by a variety of

859: atomic clocks.  For the redshift parameter $\alpha$ 

860: [Eq. (\ref{E4})], the results are (TEGP 2.6(c)):

861: %

862: \begin{equation}\label{E14}

863: \alpha= \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}

864:   -3\Gamma_0 + \Lambda_0  &{\rm hydrogen~hyperfine~transition,~ H-Maser~ clock} \\

865: -{1 \over 2} (3\Gamma_0 + \Lambda_0)  &{\rm electromagnetic~mode~in

866: ~cavity,~SCSO~clock} \\

867: -2\Gamma_0  &{\rm phonon~mode~in~solid,~principal~transition~in} \\

868: & \quad {\rm~hydrogen}.

869: \end{array} \right.

870: \end{equation}

871: 

872: The redshift is the standard one $( \alpha = 0)$, independently

873: of the nature of the clock if and only if 

874: $\Gamma_0 \equiv \Lambda_0 \equiv 0$.  Thus the Vessot-Levine

875: rocket redshift experiment sets a limit on the parameter

876: combination $| 3 \Gamma_0 - \Lambda_0 |$ (Figure \ref{lpifig}); the

877: null-redshift experiment comparing hydrogen-maser and {\sc scso} clocks

878: sets a limit on 

879: $| \alpha_H - \alpha_{SCSO} | = {3 \over 2} | \Gamma_0 - \Lambda_0 |$.

880: Alvarez and Mann

881: \cite{AlvarezMann96a,AlvarezMann96b,AlvarezMann97a,

882: AlvarezMann97b,AlvarezMann97c} extended the $TH\epsilon\mu$ formalism to

883: permit analysis of such effects as the Lamb shift, anomalous magnetic moments

884: and non-baryonic effects, and placed interesting bounds on EEP violations.

885: 

886: \subsubsection{The ${c^2}$ Formalism}\label{c2formalism}

887: 

888: The $TH \epsilon \mu$ formalism can also be applied to tests of

889: local Lorentz invariance, but in this context it can be

890: simplified.  Since most such tests do not concern themselves with

891: the spatial variation of the functions $T$, $H$, $\epsilon$, and $\mu$,

892: but rather with observations made in moving frames, we can treat

893: them as spatial constants.  Then by rescaling the time and space

894: coordinates, the charges and the electromagnetic fields, we can

895: put the action in Box 1 into the form (TEGP 2.6(a)).

896: \begin{equation}\label{E15}

897:   I = - \sum_a m_{0a} \int 

898:         (1-v_a^2)^{1/2} dt

899:     + \sum_a e_a \int 

900:         A_\mu (x_a^\nu ) v_a^\mu dt 

901:   + (8 \pi)^{-1} \int 

902: 	(E^2-c^2B^2) d^4 x   \,,  

903: \end{equation}

904: where $c^2 \equiv H_0 /T_0 \epsilon_0 \mu_0=(1-\Upsilon_0)^{-1}$.

905: This amounts to using units in which the limiting speed $c_o$

906: of massive test particles is unity, and the speed of light is c.

907: If $c \ne 1$, LLI is violated; furthermore, the form of the

908: action above must be assumed to be valid only in some preferred

909: universal rest frame.  The natural candidate for such a frame is

910: the rest frame of the microwave background.

911: 

912: The electrodynamical equations which follow from Eq. (\ref{E15})

913: yield the behavior of rods and clocks, just as in the full $TH

914: \epsilon \mu$ 

915: formalism.  For example, the length of a rod moving

916: through the rest frame in a direction parallel to its length

917: will be observed by a rest observer to be contracted relative to

918: an identical rod perpendicular to the motion by a factor 

919: $1 - V^2 /2 +  O(V^4 )$.  Notice that $c$ does not appear in this

920: expression.  The energy and momentum of an electromagnetically

921: bound body which moves with velocity $ \bf V$ relative to the rest frame

922: are given by

923: \begin{eqnarray}\label{E16}

924:   E &=& M_R  +  {1 \over 2}  M_R V^2

925:           +  {1 \over 2}  \delta M_I^{ij} V^i V^j \,,  \nonumber \\

926:   P^i  &=&  M_R V^i +  \delta M_I^{ij} V^j  \,,  

927: \end{eqnarray}

928: where $M_R  =  M_0  - E_B^{ES}$, $M_0$ is the

929: sum of the particle rest masses, $E_B^{ES}$ is the

930: electrostatic binding energy of the system ([Eq. (\ref{E12})] with

931: $T_0^{1/2}H_0 \epsilon_0^{-1}=1$), and

932: \begin{equation}\label{E17}

933:     \delta M_I^{ij}  =  -  2

934: ( {1 \over {c^2}} -  1 )

935: [ {4 \over 3} E_B^{ES} \delta^{ij} 

936:     +   \tilde E_B^{ESij} ]  \,,  

937: \end{equation}

938: where

939: \begin{equation} \label{E18}

940:        \tilde E_B^{ESij} 

941:  = -{1 \over 4} \left < \sum_{ab} e_a e_b r_{ab}^{-1} \left (

942:        (n_{ab}^i n_{ab}^j

943:    - {1 \over 3} \delta^{ij} \right ) \right > \,.

944: \end{equation}

945: Note that $(c^{-2} - 1)$ corresponds to the parameter $\delta$

946: plotted in Figure \ref{llifig}.

947: 

948: The electrodynamics given by Eq. (\ref{E15}) can also be

949: quantized, so that we may treat the interaction of photons with

950: atoms via perturbation theory.  The energy of a photon is $\hbar$

951: times its frequency $\omega$, while its momentum is $\hbar \omega /c$.  

952: Using this approach, one finds that the difference in round trip

953: travel times of light along the two arms of the interferometer in the

954: Michelson-Morley experiment is given by 

955: $L_0 (v^2 /c)(c^{-2}  - 1)$.  

956: The experimental null result then leads to the bound on 

957: $(c^{-2} - 1)$ shown on Figure \ref{llifig}.  Similarly the anisotropy in

958: energy levels is clearly illustrated by the tensorial terms

959: in Eqs. (\ref{E16}) and (\ref{E18}); by

960: evaluating $\tilde E_B^{ESij}$ for each nucleus in the

961: various Hughes-Drever-type experiments and comparing with the

962: experimental limits on energy differences, one obtains the extremely

963: tight bounds also shown on Figure \ref{llifig}.  

964: 

965: The behavior of moving

966: atomic clocks can also be analysed in detail, and bounds

967: on $(c^{-2} - 1)$ can be placed using results from tests of

968: time dilation and of the propagation of light.  In some cases, it is

969: advantageous to combine the $c^2$ framework with a ``kinematical''

970: viewpoint that treats a general class of boost transformations between

971: moving frames.  Such kinematical approaches have been discussed by

972: Robertson, Mansouri and Sexl, and Will (see \cite{Will92b}).

973: 

974: For example, 

975: in the ``JPL'' experiment, in which 

976: the phases of two hydrogen masers connected by a fiberoptic link were

977: compared as a function of the Earth's orientation, 

978: the predicted phase difference as a function of

979: direction is, to first order in $\bf V$, the velocity of the Earth

980: through the cosmic background,

981: \begin{equation}\label{E19}

982:     \Delta \phi / \tilde \phi \approx - {4 \over 3} (1-c^2)

983:     ( {\bf V} \cdot {\bf n} ~-~ {\bf V} \cdot {\bf n}_0 ) \,,  

984: \end{equation}

985: where $\tilde \phi  = 2 \pi \nu L$, $\nu$ is the maser frequency,

986: $L=21$ km is the baseline, and where ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf n}_0$ are

987: unit vectors along the direction of propagation of the light, at

988: a given time, and at the initial time of the experiment, respectively.  The

989: observed limit on a diurnal variation in the relative phase

990: resulted in the bound 

991: $| c^{-2}-1 | < 3 \times 10^{-4}$.

992: Tighter bounds were obtained from a ``two-photon absorption'' (TPA)

993: experiment, and a 1960s series of 

994: ``M\"ossbauer-rotor'' experiments, which tested the isotropy of

995: time dilation between a gamma ray emitter on the rim of a rotating

996: disk and an absorber placed at the center \cite{Will92b}.

997: 

998: \subsection{EEP, Particle Physics, and the Search for New

999: Interactions}\label{newinteractions}

1000: 

1001: In 1986, as a result 

1002: of a detailed reanalysis of E\"otv\"os' original data, 

1003: Fischbach \etal \cite{fischbach5} suggested the existence of a fifth 

1004: force of nature, with a strength of about a percent that of 

1005: gravity, but with a range (as defined by the range $\lambda$ of a Yukawa 

1006: potential, $e^{-r/\lambda} /r$) of a few hundred meters.

1007: This proposal dovetailed with earlier hints of a deviation from the 

1008: inverse-square law of Newtonian gravitation derived from measurements of 

1009: the gravity profile down deep mines in Australia, 

1010: and with ideas from particle physics suggesting the possible 

1011: presence of very low-mass particles with gravitational-strength couplings. 

1012: During the next four years 

1013: numerous experiments looked for evidence of the fifth force by searching 

1014: for composition-dependent differences in acceleration, with variants of 

1015: the E\"otv\"os experiment or with free-fall Galileo-type experiments.  

1016: Although two early experiments reported positive evidence, the others 

1017: all yielded null results.  Over the range between one and $10^4$ meters, 

1018: the null experiments produced upper limits on the strength of a postulated 

1019: fifth force between $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-6}$ of the strength of gravity. 

1020: Interpreted as tests of WEP (corresponding to the limit of 

1021: infinite-range forces), the results of two representative experiments from

1022: this period: the free-fall Galileo experiment, 

1023: and the early E\"ot-Wash experiment, are shown in 

1024: Figure \ref{wepfig}.  At the same time, tests of the inverse-square 

1025: law of gravity were carried out by comparing variations in gravity 

1026: measurements up tall towers or down mines or boreholes with gravity 

1027: variations predicted using the inverse square law together with Earth 

1028: models and surface gravity data mathematically ``continued'' up 

1029: the tower or down the hole.  Despite early reports of anomalies, 

1030: independent tower, borehole and seawater measurements now show no evidence of a 

1031: deviation.  Analyses of orbital data from planetary range

1032: measurements, lunar laser ranging, and laser tracking of the LAGEOS

1033: satellite verified the inverse-square law to parts in $10^8$ over

1034: scales of $10^3$ to $10^5$ km, and to parts in $10^9$ over planetary

1035: scales of several astronomical units \cite{talmadge}.

1036: The consensus at present is that there is no 

1037: credible experimental evidence for a fifth force of nature.

1038: For reviews and bibliographies, 

1039: see \cite{fischbach,FischbachTalmadge,FischbachTalmadge2,Adelberger,WillSky}.

1040: 

1041: Nevertheless,

1042: theoretical evidence continues to mount that EEP is {\it

1043: likely} to be violated at some level, whether by quantum gravity

1044: effects, by effects arising from string theory, or by hitherto

1045: undetected interactions, albeit at levels well below those that motivated

1046: the fifth-force searches.  

1047: Roughly speaking, in addition to the pure Einsteinian

1048: gravitational interaction, which respects EEP, theories such as string

1049: theory predict

1050: other interactions which do not.  In string theory, for example, the

1051: existence of such EEP-violating fields is assured, but the theory is not

1052: yet mature enough to enable calculation of their strength (relative to

1053: gravity), or their range (whether they are long range, like gravity, or

1054: short range, like the nuclear and weak interactions, 

1055: and thus too short-range to be

1056: detectable).  

1057: 

1058: In one simple example, one can write the Lagrangian for the low-energy

1059: limit of string theory in the so-called ``Einstein frame'', in which

1060: the gravitational Lagrangian is purely general relativistic:

1061: \begin{eqnarray}

1062: \tilde {\cal L} =& \sqrt{- \tilde g} \biggl (

1063: {\tilde g}^{\mu\nu} \biggl [ {1 \over {2\kappa}} {\tilde

1064: R}_{\mu\nu} - {1 \over 2} \tilde G (\varphi) \partial_\mu \varphi

1065: \partial_\nu \varphi  \biggr ] 

1066: -  U(\varphi) {\tilde g}^{\mu\nu}{\tilde g}^{\alpha\beta}

1067: F_{\mu\alpha} F_{\nu\beta} \nonumber \\

1068: &+ \bar {\tilde \psi} \biggl [ i {\tilde e}^\mu_a \gamma^a

1069: (\partial_\mu + {\tilde \Omega}_\mu +qA_\mu ) - \tilde M (\varphi) \biggr

1070: ]

1071: \tilde \psi \biggr ) \,,

1072: \label{stringlagrangian1}

1073: \end{eqnarray}

1074: where ${\tilde g}_{\mu\nu}$ is the non-physical metric, 

1075: ${\tilde R}_{\mu\nu}$ is the Ricci tensor derived from

1076: it, 

1077: $\varphi$ is a

1078: dilaton field, and $\tilde G$, $U$ and $\tilde M$ are functions of

1079: $\varphi$.  The Lagrangian includes that for the electromagnetic field

1080: $F_{\mu\nu}$, and that for 

1081: particles, written in terms of Dirac spinors $\tilde \psi$.  This is

1082: not a metric representation because of the coupling of $\varphi$ to

1083: matter via $\tilde M (\varphi)$ and $U(\varphi)$.   

1084: A conformal transformation ${\tilde g}_{\mu\nu} =

1085: F(\varphi) g_{\mu\nu}$, $\tilde \psi = F(\varphi)^{-3/4} \psi$, 

1086: puts the Lagrangian in the form (``Jordan'' frame)

1087: \begin{eqnarray}

1088: {\cal L} &=& \sqrt{- g} \biggl ( {g}^{\mu\nu}

1089: \biggl [ {1 \over {

1090: 2\kappa}} F(\varphi) {R}_{\mu\nu} 

1091: - {1 \over 2} F(\varphi)

1092: \tilde G (\varphi) \partial_\mu \varphi

1093: \partial_\nu \varphi

1094: +{3 \over {4\kappa F(\varphi)}} \partial_\mu F

1095: \partial_\nu F \biggr ] \nonumber \\

1096: &&- U(\varphi) {g}^{\mu\nu}{g}^{\alpha\beta}

1097: F_{\mu\alpha} F_{\nu\beta} 

1098: \nonumber \\

1099: &&

1100: + \bar {\psi} \biggl [ i {e}^\mu_a

1101: \gamma^a

1102: (\partial_\mu + {\Omega}_\mu +qA_\mu ) - \tilde M (\varphi)

1103: F^{1/2} \biggr ]

1104: \psi \biggr ) \,.

1105: \label{stringlagrangian2}

1106: \end{eqnarray}

1107: One may choose $F(\varphi)= {\rm const}/\tilde M (\varphi)^2$ 

1108: so that the particle Lagrangian takes the

1109: metric form (no explicit 

1110: coupling to $\varphi$), but the electromagnetic Lagrangian

1111: will still couple non-metrically to $U(\varphi)$.  The gravitational

1112: Lagrangian here takes the form of a scalar-tensor theory (Sec.

1113: \ref{scalartensor}).  But the non-metric electromagnetic term will, in

1114: general, produce violations of EEP.  For examples of specific models,

1115: see \cite{TaylorVeneziano,DamourPolyakov}.

1116:  

1117: Thus, EEP and related tests are now viewed as ways to discover or place

1118: constraints on new physical interactions, or as a branch of

1119: ``non-accelerator particle physics'', searching for the possible imprints

1120: of high-energy particle effects in the low-energy realm of gravity. 

1121: Whether current or proposed experiments 

1122: can actually probe these phenomena meaningfully is an open

1123: question at the moment, largely because of a dearth of firm

1124: theoretical predictions.  Despite this uncertainty, a number of experimental

1125: possibilities are being explored.

1126: 

1127: Concepts for an equivalence principle experiment in space have been developed. 

1128: The project MICROSCOPE, designed to test WEP to $10^{-15}$ has been

1129: approved by the French space agency CNES for a possible 2004 launch.

1130: Another, known as 

1131: Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle (STEP), 

1132: is under consideration as a possible

1133: joint effort of NASA  and the European Space Agency (ESA), with the

1134: goal of a $10^{-18}$ test.  

1135: The gravitational redshift could be improved to the $10^{-10}$

1136: level 

1137: using atomic clocks on board 

1138: a spacecraft which would travel to 

1139: within four solar radii of the Sun.  

1140: Laboratory tests of the gravitational inverse square law at

1141: sub-millimeter scales are being developed as ways to search for new

1142: short-range interactions or for the existence of large extra dimensions; 

1143: the challenge of these experiments is to

1144: distinguish gravitation-like interactions from electromagnetic and

1145: quantum mechanical (Casimir) effects \cite{price}.

1146: 

1147: 

1148: %===========================================================

1149: % Section 3

1150: %===========================================================

1151: 

1152: \section{Tests of Post-Newtonian Gravity}\label{S3}

1153: \index{post-Newtonian gravity, tests} 

1154: 

1155: %---------------------------------------------------------------

1156: % Subsection 3.1

1157: %---------------------------------------------------------------

1158: 

1159: \subsection{Metric Theories of Gravity and the Strong Equivalence Principle}

1160: \label{metrictheories}

1161: 

1162: \subsubsection{Universal Coupling and the Metric Postulates}\label{universal}

1163: 

1164: The overwhelming empirical evidence supporting the Einstein

1165: equivalence principle, discussed in the previous section, 

1166: supports the conclusion that the only theories of

1167: gravity that have a hope of being viable are metric

1168: theories, or possibly theories that are metric apart from possible weak

1169: or short-range non-metric couplings (as in string theory).  Therefore for

1170: the remainder of this article, we shall turn our attention

1171: exclusively to metric theories of gravity, which assume that

1172: (i)~there exists a

1173: symmetric metric, (ii)~test bodies follow geodesics of the

1174: metric, and (iii)~in local Lorentz frames, the non-gravitational

1175: laws of physics are those of special relativity.

1176: 

1177: The property that all non-gravitational fields should couple in

1178: the same manner to a single gravitational field is sometimes

1179: called ``universal coupling''.  Because of it, one can discuss the

1180: metric as a property of spacetime itself rather than as a field

1181: over spacetime.  This is because its properties may be measured

1182: and studied using a variety of different experimental devices,

1183: composed of different non-gravitational fields and particles,

1184: and, because of universal coupling, the results will be

1185: independent of the device.  Thus, for instance, the proper time

1186: between two events is a characteristic of spacetime and of the

1187: location of the events, not of the clocks used to measure it.

1188: 

1189: Consequently, if EEP is valid, the non-gravitational laws of

1190: physics may be formulated by taking their special relativistic

1191: forms in terms of the Min\-kowski metric $\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}$ and simply

1192: ``going over'' to new forms in terms of the curved spacetime

1193: metric $\bf g$, using the mathematics of differential geometry.

1194: The details of this ``going over'' can be found in standard

1195: textbooks (\cite{MTW,Weinberg}; TEGP 3.2)

1196: 

1197: \subsubsection{The Strong Equivalence Principle}

1198: \label{sep}

1199: 

1200: In any metric theory of gravity, matter and non-gravitational

1201: fields respond only to the spacetime metric $\bf g$.  In

1202: principle, however, there could exist other gravitational fields

1203: besides the metric, such as scalar fields, vector fields, and so

1204: on.  If, by our strict definition of metric theory, 

1205: matter does not couple to these fields, what can their role

1206: in gravitation theory be?  Their role must be that of mediating

1207: the manner in which matter and non-gravitational fields generate

1208: gravitational fields and produce the metric; once determined,

1209: however, the metric alone acts back on the matter in the manner

1210: prescribed by EEP.

1211: 

1212: What distinguishes one metric theory from another, therefore, is

1213: the number and kind of gravitational fields it contains in

1214: addition to the metric, and the equations that determine the

1215: structure and evolution of these fields.  From this viewpoint,

1216: one can divide all metric theories of gravity into two fundamental

1217: classes:  ``purely dynamical'' and ``prior-geometric''.

1218: 

1219: By ``purely dynamical metric theory''\index{purely dynamic metric theory}

1220:  we mean any metric theory

1221: whose gravitational fields have their structure and evolution

1222: determined by coupled partial differential field equations.  In

1223: other words, the behavior of each field is influenced to some

1224: extent by a coupling to at least one of the other fields in the

1225: theory.  By ``prior geometric''\index{prior geometric theory}

1226:  theory, we mean any metric theory

1227: that contains ``absolute elements'', fields or equations whose

1228: structure and evolution are given {\it a priori}, and are

1229: independent of the structure and evolution of the other fields of

1230: the theory.  These ``absolute elements'' typically include flat

1231: background metrics $\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}$, cosmic time coordinates $t$,

1232: algebraic relationships among otherwise dynamical fields, such as

1233: $g_{\mu \nu} =  h_{\mu \nu} + k_\mu k_\nu$, where

1234: $h_{\mu \nu}$ and $k_\mu$ may be dynamical fields.

1235: 

1236: General relativity is a purely dynamical theory since it contains

1237: only one gravitational field, the metric itself, and its

1238: structure and evolution are governed by partial differential

1239: equations (Einstein's equations).  Brans-Dicke theory and its

1240: generalizations are purely

1241: dynamical theories; the field equation for the metric involves the

1242: scalar field (as well as the matter as source), and that for the

1243: scalar field involves the metric.  Rosen's bimetric theory is a

1244: prior-geometric theory:  it has a non-dynamical, Riemann-flat 

1245: background metric, 

1246: $\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}$, and the field equations for the physical metric 

1247: $\bf g$ involve $\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}$. 

1248: 

1249: By discussing metric theories of gravity from this broad point of

1250: view, it is possible to draw some general conclusions about the

1251: nature of gravity in different metric theories, conclusions that

1252: are reminiscent of the Einstein equivalence principle, but that

1253: are subsumed under the name ``strong equivalence principle''.

1254: 

1255: Consider a local, freely falling frame in any metric theory of

1256: gravity.  Let this frame be small enough that inhomogeneities in

1257: the external gravitational fields can be neglected throughout its

1258: volume.  On the other hand, let the frame be large enough to

1259: encompass a system of gravitating matter and its associated

1260: gravitational fields.  The system could be a star, a black hole,

1261: the solar system or a Cavendish experiment.  Call this frame a

1262: ``quasi-local Lorentz frame'' .  To determine the behavior

1263: of the system we must calculate the metric.  The computation

1264: proceeds in two stages.  First we determine the external

1265: behavior of the metric and gravitational fields, thereby

1266: establishing boundary values for the fields generated by the

1267: local system, at a boundary of the quasi-local frame ``far'' from

1268: the local system.  Second, we solve for the fields generated by

1269: the local system.  But because the metric is coupled directly or

1270: indirectly to the other fields of the theory, its structure and

1271: evolution will be influenced by those fields, and in particular

1272: by the boundary values taken on by those fields far from the

1273: local system.  This will be true even if we work in a coordinate

1274: system in which the asymptotic form of $g_{\mu\nu}$ in the

1275: boundary region between the local system and the external world

1276: is that of the Minkowski metric.  Thus the gravitational

1277: environment in which the local gravitating system resides can

1278: influence the metric generated by the local system via the

1279: boundary values of the auxiliary fields.  Consequently, the

1280: results of local gravitational experiments may depend on the

1281: location and velocity of the frame relative to the external

1282: environment.  Of course, local {\it non}-gravitational

1283: experiments are unaffected since the gravitational fields they

1284: generate are assumed to be negligible, and since those

1285: experiments couple only to the metric, whose form can always be

1286: made locally Minkowskian at a given spacetime event.  

1287: Local gravitational experiments might

1288: include Cavendish experiments, measurement of the acceleration of

1289: massive self-gravitating bodies, 

1290: studies of the structure of stars and planets, or

1291: analyses of the periods of ``gravitational clocks''.  We

1292: can now make several statements about different kinds of metric

1293: theories.

1294: 

1295: (i)   A theory which contains only the metric $\bf g$ yields

1296: local gravitational physics which is independent of the location

1297: and velocity of the local system.  This follows from the fact

1298: that the only field coupling the local system to the environment

1299: is $\bf g$, and it is always possible to find a coordinate

1300: system in which $\bf g$ takes the Minkowski form at the boundary

1301: between the local system and the external environment.  Thus the

1302: asymptotic values of $g_{\mu\nu}$ are constants independent of

1303: location, and are asymptotically Lorentz invariant, thus

1304: independent of velocity.  General relativity is an example of

1305: such a theory.  

1306: 

1307: (ii)  A theory which contains the metric $\bf g$ and dynamical

1308: scalar fields $\varphi_A$ yields local gravitational physics

1309: which may depend on the location of the frame but which is

1310: independent of the velocity of the frame.  This follows from the

1311: asymptotic Lorentz invariance of the Minkowski metric and of the

1312: scalar fields, but now the asymptotic values of the scalar fields

1313: may depend on the location of the frame.  An example is

1314: Brans-Dicke theory, where the asymptotic scalar field determines

1315: the effective value of the gravitational constant, which can thus vary as

1316: $\varphi$ varies.  On the other hand, a form of velocity dependence in

1317: local physics can enter indirectly if the asymptotic values of the

1318: scalar field vary with time cosmologically.  Then the {\it rate} of

1319: variation of the gravitational constant could 

1320: depend on the velocity of the frame.

1321: 

1322: (iii) A theory which contains the metric $\bf g$ and additional

1323: dynamical vector or tensor fields or prior-geometric fields

1324: yields local gravitational physics which may have both location

1325: and velocity-dependent effects.

1326: 

1327: These ideas can be summarized in 

1328: the strong equivalence principle (SEP), which states that 

1329: %

1330: \begin{enumerate}

1331: \item 

1332: WEP is valid for self-gravitating bodies as well as for test bodies. 

1333: \item

1334: The outcome of any local test experiment is

1335: independent of the velocity of the (freely falling) apparatus. 

1336: \item

1337: The outcome of any local test experiment is

1338: independent of where and when in the universe it is performed.

1339: \end{enumerate}

1340: %

1341: The distinction between SEP and EEP is the inclusion of bodies

1342: with self-gravitational interactions (planets, stars) and of

1343: experiments involving gravitational forces (Cavendish

1344: experiments, gravimeter measurements).  Note that SEP contains

1345: EEP as the special case in which local gravitational forces are

1346: ignored.

1347: 

1348: The above discussion of the coupling of auxiliary fields to local

1349: gravitating systems indicates that if SEP is strictly valid, there must be

1350: one and only one gravitational field in the universe, the metric

1351: $\bf g$.  These arguments are only suggestive however, and no

1352: rigorous proof of this statement is available at present.

1353: Empirically it has been found that every metric theory other than

1354: GR introduces auxiliary gravitational fields,

1355: either dynamical or prior geometric, and thus predicts violations

1356: of SEP at some level (here we ignore quantum-theory inspired

1357: modifications to GR involving ``$R^2$'' terms).  

1358: General relativity seems to be the only

1359: metric theory that embodies SEP completely.  This lends some

1360: credence to the conjecture SEP $\to$ General Relativity.  In

1361: Sec. \ref{septests}, we shall discuss experimental evidence for the

1362: validity of SEP.

1363: 

1364: %----------------------------------------------------

1365: % Subsection 3.2

1366: %----------------------------------------------------

1367: 

1368: \subsection{The Parametrized Post-Newtonian Formalism}\label{ppn}

1369: 

1370: Despite the possible existence of long-range gravitational fields

1371: in addition to the metric in various metric theories of gravity,

1372: the postulates of those theories demand that matter and

1373: non-gravitational fields be completely oblivious to them.  The

1374: only gravitational field that enters the equations of motion is

1375: the metric $\bf g$.  The role of the other fields that a theory may

1376: contain can only be that of helping to generate the spacetime

1377: curvature associated with the metric.  Matter may create these

1378: fields, and they plus the matter may generate the metric, but they

1379: cannot act back directly on the matter.  Matter responds only to

1380: the metric.

1381: 

1382: Thus the metric and the equations of motion for matter become the

1383: primary entities for calculating observable effects, 

1384: and all that distinguishes one

1385: metric theory from another is the particular way in which matter

1386: and possibly other gravitational fields generate the metric.

1387: 

1388: The comparison of metric theories of gravity with each other and

1389: with experiment becomes particularly simple when one takes the

1390: slow-motion, weak-field limit.  This approximation, known as the

1391: post-Newtonian limit, is sufficiently accurate to encompass most

1392: solar-system tests that can be performed in the foreseeable

1393: future.  It turns out that, in this limit, the spacetime metric

1394: $\bf g$ predicted by nearly every metric theory of gravity has the

1395: same structure.  It can be written as an expansion about the 

1396: Minkowski metric ($ \eta_{\mu\nu} = {\rm diag}(-1,1,1,1)$) in terms

1397: of dimensionless gravitational potentials of varying degrees of

1398: smallness.

1399: These potentials are constructed from the matter

1400: variables (Box 2) in imitation of the Newtonian gravitational

1401: potential

1402: \begin{equation}\label{E20}

1403:     U ( {\bf x} ,t) \equiv \int \rho ( {\bf x}^\prime , t) 

1404:    | {\bf x} - {\bf x}^\prime |^{-1}

1405:     d^3 x^\prime \,.

1406: \end{equation}

1407: The ``order of smallness'' is determined according to the rules

1408: $U \sim~v^2 \sim \Pi \sim p/ \rho \sim \epsilon$, 

1409: $v^i \sim | d/dt | / | d/dx | \sim \epsilon^{1/2}$, and so on (we use units

1410: in which $G=c=1$; see Box 2).

1411: 

1412: \begin{table} 

1413: \begin{center}

1414: \begin{tabular}{c l c c c}

1415: \hline

1416: \hline

1417: &&&Value&Value \\

1418: &&&in semi-&in fully- \\

1419: &What it measures &Value&conservative &conservative \\

1420: Parameter&relative to GR&in GR&theories&theories \\[0.5ex]

1421: \hline

1422: \hline

1423: $\gamma$&How much space-curvature&1&$\gamma$&$\gamma$ \\

1424: &produced by unit rest mass?&&& \\[0.5ex]

1425: \hline

1426: $\beta$&How much ``nonlinearity''&1&$\beta$&$\beta$ \\

1427: &in the superposition&&& \\

1428: &law for gravity?&&& \\[0.5ex]

1429: \hline

1430: $\xi$&Preferred-location effects?&0&$\xi$&$\xi$ \\[0.5ex]

1431: \hline

1432: $\alpha_1$&Preferred-frame effects?&0&$\alpha_1$&0 \\

1433: $\alpha_2$&&0&$\alpha_2$&0 \\

1434: $\alpha_3$&&0&0&0 \\[0.5ex]

1435: \hline

1436: $\alpha_3$&Violation of conservation&0&0&0 \\

1437: $\zeta_1$&of total momentum?&0&0&0 \\

1438: $\zeta_2$&&0&0&0 \\

1439: $\zeta_3$&&0&0&0 \\

1440: $\zeta_4$&&0&0&0 \\[0.5ex]

1441: \hline

1442: \hline

1443: \end{tabular}

1444: \caption{The PPN Parameters and their significance (note that

1445: $\alpha_3$ has been shown twice to indicate that it is a measure of

1446: two effects)}

1447: \label{ppnmeaning}

1448: \end{center}

1449: \end{table}

1450: 

1451: A consistent post-Newtonian limit requires determination of $g_{00}$ 

1452: correct through $O(\epsilon^2)$, 

1453: $g_{0i}$ through $O(\epsilon^{3/2})$ and $g_{ij}$

1454: through $O(\epsilon)$ (for details see TEGP 4.1).  The only way that

1455: one metric theory differs from another is in the numerical values

1456: of the coefficients that appear in front of the metric

1457: potentials.  The parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN ) formalism

1458: inserts parameters in place of these coefficients, parameters

1459: whose values depend on the theory under  study.  In the current

1460: version of the PPN  formalism, summarized in Box 2, ten

1461: parameters are used, chosen in such a manner that they measure or

1462: indicate general properties of metric theories of gravity

1463: (Table \ref{ppnmeaning}).  Under reasonable assumptions about the

1464: kinds of potentials that can be present at post-Newtonian order

1465: (basically only Poisson-like potentials), one finds that ten PPN

1466: parameters exhaust the possibilities.

1467: 

1468: The parameters $\gamma$ and $\beta$ are the usual

1469: Eddington-Robertson-Schiff parameters used to describe the

1470: ``classical'' tests of GR, and are in some sense the most important; they

1471: are the only non-zero parameters in GR and scalar-tensor gravity.

1472: The parameter $\xi$ is non-zero in

1473: any theory of gravity that predicts preferred-location effects

1474: such as a galaxy-induced anisotropy in the local gravitational

1475: constant $G_L$ (also called ``Whitehead'' effects);

1476: $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$ measure whether or

1477: not the theory predicts post-Newtonian preferred-frame

1478: effects; $\alpha_3$, $\zeta_1$, $\zeta_2$,

1479: $\zeta_3$, $\zeta_4$ measure whether or not the theory

1480: predicts violations of global conservation laws for total

1481: momentum.  Next to $\gamma$ and $\beta$, the parameters $\alpha_1$ and

1482: $\alpha_2$ occur most frequently with non-trivial null values.

1483: In Table \ref{ppnmeaning} we show the values these

1484: parameters take (i)~in GR, (ii)~in any theory

1485: of gravity that possesses conservation laws for total momentum,

1486: called ``semi-conservative'' (any theory that is based on an

1487: invariant action principle is semi-conservative), and

1488: (iii)~in any theory that in addition possesses six global

1489: conservation laws for angular momentum, called ``fully

1490: conservative'' (such theories automatically predict no

1491: post-Newtonian preferred-frame effects).  Semi-conservative

1492: theories have five free PPN  parameters ($\gamma$, $\beta$, $\xi$,

1493: $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$) while fully conservative theories

1494: have three ($\gamma$, $\beta$ , $\xi$).

1495: 

1496: The PPN  formalism was pioneered by

1497: Kenneth Nordtvedt \cite{nordtvedt2}, who studied the post-Newtonian

1498: metric of a system of gravitating point masses, extending earlier

1499: work by Eddington, Robertson and Schiff (TEGP 4.2).  A

1500: general and unified version of the PPN  formalism was developed by

1501: Will and Nordtvedt.  The canonical version, with

1502: conventions altered to be more in accord with standard textbooks

1503: such as \cite{MTW}, is discussed in detail in TEGP, Chapter 4.  Other versions

1504: of the PPN  formalism have been developed to deal with point

1505: masses with charge, fluid with anisotropic stresses,

1506: bodies with strong internal gravity, and

1507: post-post-Newtonian effects (TEGP 4.2, 14.2).  

1508: 

1509: %-- Box 2

1510: \begin{table}

1511: \medskip

1512: \centerline{\bf Box 2.   The Parametrized Post-Newtonian Formalism}

1513: \medskip

1514: \hrule\small

1515: \medskip

1516: \begin{enumerate}

1517: \item{\bf Coordinate System:}  

1518: The framework uses a nearly

1519: globally Lorentz coordinate system in which the coordinates are

1520: $(t , x^1 , x^2 , x^3 )$.  Three-dimensional,

1521: Euclidean vector notation is used throughout.  All coordinate

1522: arbitrariness (``gauge freedom'') has been removed by

1523: specialization of the coordinates to the standard PPN  gauge

1524: (TEGP 4.2).  Units are chosen so that $G = c = 1$, where $G$ is

1525: the physically measured Newtonian constant far from the solar system.

1526: 

1527: \item{\bf Matter Variables:}

1528: 

1529: \begin{itemize}

1530: \item{$\rho =$}

1531: density of rest mass as measured in a local freely falling 

1532: frame momentarily comoving with the gravitating matter.

1533: \item{$v^i=$}

1534: $(dx^i /dt)=$ coordinate velocity of the matter.

1535: \item{$w^i=$}

1536: coordinate velocity of PPN  coordinate system relative 

1537: to the mean rest-frame of the universe.

1538: \item{$p=$}

1539: pressure as measured in a local freely falling frame 

1540: momentarily comoving with the matter.

1541: \item{$\Pi=$}

1542: internal energy per unit rest mass.  It includes all forms 

1543: of non-rest-mass, non-gravitational energy, \eg energy 

1544: of compression and thermal energy.

1545: \end{itemize}

1546: 

1547: \item{\bf PPN  Parameters:}

1548: 

1549: $\gamma \,,\, \beta \,,\, \xi \,,\, \alpha_1 \,,\, \alpha_2 \,,\,

1550: \alpha_3 \,,\, \zeta_1 \,,\,\zeta_2 \,,\,\zeta_3 \,,\,\zeta_4 \,. $

1551: 

1552: \item{\bf Metric:}

1553: \begin{eqnarray*}

1554:           g_{00} &=&

1555: -1 + 2U - 2 \beta U^2 - 2 \xi \Phi_W 

1556:         + (2 \gamma +2+ \alpha_3 + \zeta_1 - 2 \xi ) \Phi_1 \\

1557:         &&+ 2(3 \gamma - 2 \beta + 1 + \zeta_2 + \xi ) \Phi_2 

1558: + 2(1 + \zeta_3 ) \Phi_3 

1559:       + 2(3 \gamma + 3 \zeta_4 - 2 \xi ) \Phi_4 \\

1560:       &&- ( \zeta_1 - 2 \xi ) {\cal A}

1561: - ( \alpha_1 - \alpha_2 - \alpha_3 ) w^2 U

1562:       - \alpha_2 w^i w^j U_{ij}

1563:       + (2 \alpha_3 - \alpha_1 ) w^i V_i \\

1564:      && +  O(\epsilon^3) \\

1565:           g_{0i} 

1566: &=& - {1 \over 2 }

1567:           (4 \gamma + 3 + \alpha_1 - \alpha_2 

1568:            + \zeta_1 - 2 \xi ) V_i 

1569:        - {1 \over 2} 

1570:           (1 + \alpha_2 - \zeta_1 + 2 \xi )W_i \\

1571:        &&- {1 \over 2} ( \alpha_1 - 2 \alpha_2 ) w^i U

1572:        - \alpha_2 w^j U_{ij} + O(\epsilon^{5/2})\\ 

1573:            g_{ij} 

1574: &=& (1 + 2 \gamma U + O(\epsilon^2)) \delta_{ij} 

1575: \end{eqnarray*}

1576: 

1577: \end{enumerate}

1578: \hrule\normalsize

1579: \medskip

1580: \end{table}

1581: 

1582: \begin{table}

1583: \medskip

1584: \centerline{\bf Box 2. (continued)}

1585: \medskip

1586: \hrule\small

1587: \medskip

1588: \begin{enumerate}

1589: 

1590: \item{\bf Metric Potentials:}

1591: \begin{eqnarray*}

1592: U&=&\int {{\rho^\prime } \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime |}}

1593: d^3x^\prime \,,\qquad U_{ij}=

1594: \int {{\rho^\prime (x-x^\prime)_i (x-x^\prime)_j} 

1595: \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime |^3}} d^3x^\prime \\

1596: \Phi_W &=& 

1597: \int {{\rho^\prime \rho^{\prime\prime} ({\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime)} 

1598: \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime |^3}} \cdot \left (

1599: {{{\bf x}^\prime -{\bf x}^{\prime\prime} } 

1600: \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^{\prime\prime} |}}-

1601: {{{\bf x}-{\bf x}^{\prime\prime}} 

1602: \over {| {\bf x}^\prime-{\bf x}^{\prime\prime} |}} 

1603: \right ) d^3x^\prime d^3x^{\prime\prime} \\

1604: {\cal A} &=& \int {{\rho^\prime [{\bf v}^\prime 

1605: \cdot ({\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime)]^2 } 

1606: \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime |^3}}

1607: d^3x^\prime \,, \qquad

1608: \Phi_1 = 

1609: \int {{\rho^\prime v^{\prime 2}} 

1610: \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime |}} d^3x^\prime \\

1611: \Phi_2 &=& 

1612: \int {{\rho^\prime U^\prime} \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime |}} d^3x^\prime

1613: \,,\quad

1614: \Phi_3 =

1615: \int {{\rho^\prime \Pi^\prime} \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime |}} d^3x^\prime

1616: \,, \quad

1617: \Phi_4=

1618: \int {{p^\prime } \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime |}} d^3x^\prime \\

1619: V_i &=&

1620: \int {{\rho^\prime v_i^\prime} \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime |}} d^3x^\prime

1621: \,, \qquad

1622: W_i=

1623: \int {{\rho^\prime [{\bf v}^\prime \cdot 

1624: ({\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime)](x-x^\prime)_i} 

1625: \over {| {\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime |^3}} d^3x^\prime

1626: \end{eqnarray*}

1627: 

1628: \item{\bf Stress-Energy Tensor} (perfect fluid)

1629: \begin{eqnarray*}

1630: T^{00} &=& \rho (1+ \Pi + v^2 +2U) \\

1631: T^{0i} &=& \rho v^i (1+ \Pi + v^2 +2U + p/\rho) \\

1632: T^{ij} &=& \rho v^iv^j (1+ \Pi + v^2 +2U + p/\rho) +

1633: p\delta^{ij}(1-2\gamma U) 

1634: \end{eqnarray*}

1635: 

1636: \item{\bf Equations of Motion}

1637: 

1638: \begin{itemize}

1639: \item Stressed Matter, \quad

1640: ${T^{\mu\nu}}_{;\nu}= 0$

1641: \item Test Bodies, \quad

1642: $d^2 x^\mu /d \lambda^2 + {\Gamma^\mu}_{\nu \lambda}

1643: (dx^\nu /d \lambda )( dx^\lambda / d \lambda ) = 0$

1644: \item Maxwell's Equations, \quad

1645: ${F^{\mu \nu}}_{; \nu} = 4 \pi J^\mu$ \qquad

1646: $F_{\mu \nu} = A_{\nu ; \mu} - A_{\mu ; \nu }$

1647: \end{itemize}

1648: \end{enumerate}

1649: \hrule\normalsize

1650: \medskip

1651: \end{table}

1652: 

1653: %-- end of Box 2

1654: 

1655: %-----------------------------------------------------

1656: % subsection 3.3

1657: %-----------------------------------------------------

1658: 

1659: \subsection{Competing Theories of Gravity}\label{theories}

1660: 

1661: One of the important applications of the PPN  formalism is the

1662: comparison and classification of alternative metric theories of

1663: gravity.  The population of viable theories has fluctuated over

1664: the years as new effects and tests have been discovered, largely

1665: through the use of the PPN  framework, which eliminated many 

1666: theories thought previously to be viable.  The theory population

1667: has also fluctuated as new, potentially viable theories have been

1668: invented.

1669: 

1670: In this article, we shall focus on general relativity and the

1671: general class of scalar-tensor modifications of it, of which the

1672: Jordan-Fierz-Brans-Dicke theory (Brans-Dicke, for short)

1673: is the classic example.  The reasons are several-fold:

1674: 

1675: \begin{itemize}

1676: \item A full compendium of alternative theories is given in Chapter 5 of

1677: TEGP.

1678: \item Many alternative metric theories developed during the 1970s and

1679: 1980s could be viewed as ``straw-man'' theories, invented to prove

1680: that such theories exist or to illustrate particular properties.  Few

1681: of these could be regarded as well-motivated theories from the point

1682: of view, say, of field theory or particle physics.  Examples are the

1683: vector-tensor theories studied by Will, Nordtvedt and Hellings.

1684: \item A number of theories fall into the class of ``prior-geometric''

1685: theories, with absolute elements such as a flat background metric in

1686: addition to the physical metric.  Most of these theories predict

1687: ``preferred-frame'' effects, that have been tightly constrained by

1688: observations (see Sec. \ref{preferred}).  

1689: An example is Rosen's bimetric theory.  

1690: \item A large number of alternative theories of gravity predict

1691: gravitational-wave emission substantially different from that of general

1692: relativity,

1693: in strong disagreement with observations of the binary pulsar (see

1694: Sec. \ref{S5}).

1695: \item Scalar-tensor modifications of GR have recently become very

1696: popular in unification schemes

1697: such as string theory, and in cosmological model building.

1698: Because the scalar fields are generally massive, the potentials in the

1699: post-Newtonian limit will be modified by Yukawa-like terms.

1700: \end{itemize}

1701: 

1702: \subsubsection{General Relativity}\label{generalrelativity}

1703: 

1704: The metric $\bf g$ is the sole

1705: dynamical field and the theory contains no arbitrary functions or

1706: parameters, apart from the value of the Newtonian coupling constant

1707: $G$, which is measurable in laboratory experiments.  Throughout this

1708: article, we ignore the cosmological constant $\lambda$.  Although

1709: $\lambda$ has significance for quantum field theory, quantum

1710: gravity, and cosmology, on the scale of the solar-system or of stellar

1711: systems, its effects are negligible, for values of $\lambda$

1712: corresponding to a cosmological closure density.

1713: 

1714: The field equations of GR are derivable from an invariant action

1715: principle $\delta I=0$, where

1716: \begin{equation}\label{E21}

1717: I=(16\pi G)^{-1} \int R (-g)^{1/2} d^4x + I_m(\psi_m, g_{\mu\nu})\,,

1718: \end{equation}

1719: where $R$ is the Ricci scalar, and $I_m$ is the matter action, which

1720: depends on matter fields $\psi_m$ universally coupled to the metric

1721: $\bf g$.  By varying the action with respect to $g_{\mu\nu}$, we

1722: obtain the field equations

1723: \begin{equation}\label{E22}

1724: G_{\mu\nu} \equiv R_{\mu\nu} - {1 \over 2} g_{\mu\nu} R = 8\pi G T_{\mu\nu}  

1725: \,,

1726: \end{equation}

1727: where $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the matter energy-momentum tensor.  General

1728: covariance of the matter action implies the equations of motion

1729: ${T^{\mu\nu}}_{;\nu}=0$; varying $I_m$ with respect to $\psi_M$ yields

1730: the matter field equations.  By virtue of the {\it absence} of

1731: prior-geometric elements, the equations of motion are also a

1732: consequence of the field equations via the Bianchi identities

1733: ${G^{\mu\nu}}_{;\nu}=0$.

1734: 

1735: The general procedure for deriving the post-Newtonian limit is spelled

1736: out in TEGP 5.1, and is described in detail for GR in TEGP 5.2.  The PPN 

1737: parameter values are listed in Table \ref{ppnvalues}.

1738: 

1739: \begin{table} 

1740: \begin{center}

1741: \begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c}

1742: \hline

1743: \hline

1744: \noalign{\smallskip}

1745: &Arbitrary&Cosmic&\multispan 5 \hfil PPN 

1746: Parameters \hfil \\

1747: &Functions&Matching&\multispan 5 \hrulefill \\

1748: Theory&or

1749: Constants&Parameters&$\gamma$&$\beta$&$\xi$&$\alpha_1$&$\alpha_2$\\

1750: [0.5ex]

1751: \hline

1752: \hline

1753: General Relativity &none&none&1&1&0&0&0 \\

1754: Scalar-Tensor &&&&&&& \\

1755: \quad Brans-Dicke&$\omega$&$\phi_0$&${{(1+\omega)}

1756: \over {(2+\omega)}}$

1757: &1&0&0&0 \\

1758: \quad General&$A(\varphi) ,\, V(\varphi)$&$\varphi_0$

1759: &${{(1+\omega)} \over {(2+\omega)}}$&$1+\Lambda$&0&0&0

1760: \\

1761: Rosen's Bimetric&none&$c_0,\,c_1$&1&1&0&0&${c_0 \over c_1}-1$ \\

1762: [0.5ex]

1763: \hline

1764: \hline

1765: \end{tabular}

1766: \caption{Metric Theories and Their PPN  Parameter Values ($\alpha_3

1767: = \zeta_i=0$ for all cases)}

1768: \label{ppnvalues}

1769: \end{center}

1770: \end{table}

1771: 

1772: \subsubsection{Scalar-Tensor Theories}\label{scalartensor}

1773: 

1774: These theories contain the metric $\bf g$, a

1775: scalar field $\varphi$, a potential  function $V(\varphi)$, and a

1776: coupling function $A(\varphi)$ (generalizations to more than one scalar 

1777: field have also been carried out \cite{DamourEspo92}).

1778: For some purposes, the action is conveniently written in a non-metric

1779: representation, sometimes denoted the ``Einstein frame'', in which the

1780: gravitational action looks exactly like that of GR:

1781: \begin{equation}\label{E23}

1782: \tilde I=(16\pi G)^{-1} \int [\tilde R -2\tilde g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu \varphi 

1783: \partial_\nu

1784: \varphi -V(\varphi)] (-\tilde g)^{1/2} d^4x + I_m(\psi_m, A^2(\varphi) 

1785: \tilde g_{\mu\nu})  

1786: \,,

1787: \end{equation}

1788: where $\tilde R \equiv \tilde g^{\mu\nu} \tilde R_{\mu\nu}$ is the 

1789: Ricci scalar of the

1790: ``Einstein'' metric $\tilde g_{\mu\nu}$.  (Apart from the scalar potential term

1791: $V(\varphi)$, this corresponds to Eq. (\ref{stringlagrangian1})

1792: with $\tilde G(\varphi) \equiv (4\pi G)^{-1}$, $U(\varphi) \equiv 1$,

1793: and $\tilde M(\varphi) \propto A(\varphi)$.)  This representation is a

1794: ``non-metric'' one because the matter fields $\psi_m$ couple to a

1795: combination of $\varphi$ and $\tilde g_{\mu\nu}$.  

1796: Despite appearances, however, 

1797: it is a metric theory, because it can be put

1798: into a metric representation by identifying the ``physical metric''

1799: \begin{equation}\label{E24}

1800: g_{\mu\nu} \equiv A^2(\varphi) \tilde g_{\mu\nu} \,.

1801: \end{equation}

1802: The action can then be rewritten in the metric form

1803: \begin{equation}\label{E25}

1804: I=(16\pi G)^{-1} \int [\phi R - \phi^{-1} \omega(\phi) g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu 

1805: \phi \partial_\nu \phi - \phi^2 V] (-g)^{1/2} d^4x + I_m(\psi_m,  

1806: g_{\mu\nu})  

1807: \,,

1808: \end{equation}

1809: where 

1810: \begin{eqnarray}\label{E26}

1811: \phi &\equiv& A(\varphi)^{-2} \,, \nonumber \\

1812: 3+2\omega(\phi) &\equiv& \alpha(\varphi)^{-2} \,, \nonumber \\

1813:  \alpha(\varphi) &\equiv& d (\ln A(\varphi))/d\varphi \,.

1814: \end{eqnarray}

1815: The Einstein frame is useful for discussing general characteristics of

1816: such theories, and for some cosmological applications, while the metric

1817: representation is most useful for calculating observable effects.  

1818: The field equations, post-Newtonian limit and PPN  parameters are

1819: discussed in TEGP 5.3, and the values of the PPN  parameters are

1820: listed in Table \ref{ppnvalues}.

1821: 

1822: The

1823: parameters that enter the post-Newtonian limit are

1824: \begin{equation}\label{E27}

1825: \omega \equiv \omega(\phi_0)   \qquad 

1826: \Lambda \equiv [(d\omega/d\phi)(3+2\omega)^{-2}(4+2\omega)^{-1}]_{\phi_0}  

1827: \,,

1828: \end{equation}

1829: where $\phi_0$ is the value of $\phi$ today far from the 

1830: system being studied, as determined by appropriate cosmological boundary

1831: conditions.  

1832: The following formula is also useful:

1833: $1/(2+\omega)=2\alpha_0^2/(1+\alpha_0^2)$.

1834: In Brans-Dicke theory ($\omega(\phi)=$ constant), 

1835: the larger the value of

1836: $\omega$, the smaller the effects of the scalar field, and in the

1837: limit $\omega \to \infty$ ($\alpha_0 \to 0$), 

1838: the theory becomes indistinguishable from

1839: GR in all its predictions.  In more general

1840: theories, the function $\omega ( \phi )$ could have the

1841: property that, at the present epoch, and in weak-field situations, 

1842: the value of the scalar field $\phi_0$ is such that,

1843: $\omega$ is very large and $\Lambda$ is very small (theory almost

1844: identical to GR today), but that for past or

1845: future values of $\phi$, or in strong-field regions such as the

1846: interiors of neutron stars, $\omega$ and $\Lambda$ could take on values

1847: that would lead to significant differences from GR.  

1848: Indeed, Damour and Nordtvedt have shown that in such general

1849: scalar-tensor theories, GR is a natural ``attractor'': regardless of

1850: how different the theory may be from GR in the early universe (apart

1851: from special cases), cosmological

1852: evolution naturally drives the fields toward small values  of the

1853: function $\alpha$, thence to large $\omega$.  Estimates of the

1854: expected relic deviations from GR today in such theories depend on the

1855: cosmological model, but range from $10^{-5}$ to a few times $10^{-7}$

1856: for $1{-}\gamma$ (\cite{DamourNord93a,DamourNord93b}). 

1857: 

1858: Scalar fields coupled to gravity or matter are also

1859: ubiquitous in particle-physics-inspired models of unification, such as

1860: string theory.  

1861: In some models, the coupling to matter may lead to

1862: violations of WEP, which are tested by E\"otv\"os-type experiments.  In

1863: many models the scalar field is massive; if the Compton wavelength is

1864: of macroscopic scale, its effects are those of a ``fifth force''.

1865: Only if the theory can be cast as a metric theory with a

1866: scalar field of infinite range or of range long compared to the scale

1867: of the system in question (solar system) can the PPN  framework be

1868: strictly

1869: applied.  If the mass of the scalar field is sufficiently large that its

1870: range is microscopic, then, on solar-system scales, the scalar field is

1871: suppressed, and the theory is essentially equivalent to general

1872: relativity.  This is the case, for example in the ``oscillating-G''

1873: models of Accetta, Steinhardt and Will (see \cite{Steinhardt}), 

1874: in which the

1875: potential function $V(\varphi)$ contains both quadratic (mass)

1876: and quartic (self-interaction) terms, causing the scalar field to

1877: oscillate (the initial amplitude of oscillation is provided by an

1878: inflationary epoch); high-frequency 

1879: oscillations in the ``effective'' Newtonian

1880: constant $G_{\sl eff} \equiv G/\phi = GA(\varphi)^2$ then result.      

1881: The energy density in the oscillating scalar field can be enough to

1882: provide a cosmological closure density without resorting to dark 

1883: matter, yet the

1884: value of $\omega$ today is so large that the theory's local predictions are

1885: experimentally

1886: indistinguishable from GR.   In other models, explored by Damour and

1887: Esposito-Far\`ese \cite{DamourEspo96}, 

1888: non-linear scalar-field couplings can lead

1889: to ``spontaneous scalarization'' inside strong-field objects such as

1890: neutron stars, leading to large deviations from GR, even in the limit

1891: of very large $\omega$.

1892: 

1893: %------------------------------------------------

1894: % subsection 3.4

1895: %------------------------------------------------

1896: 

1897: \subsection{Tests of the Parameter $\gamma$} \label{gamma}

1898: 

1899: With the PPN  formalism in hand, we are now ready to confront

1900: gravitation theories with the results of solar-system

1901: experiments.  In this section we focus on tests of the parameter

1902: $\gamma$, consisting of the deflection of light and the time delay

1903: of light.

1904: 

1905: \subsubsection{The Deflection of Light}\label{deflection}

1906: 

1907: A light ray

1908: (or photon) which passes the Sun at a distance $d$ is deflected by

1909: an angle

1910: \begin{equation}\label{E28}

1911:     \delta \theta = {1 \over 2}(1+ \gamma ) (4m_\odot/d)

1912:     [(1+\cos\Phi )/2]  

1913: \end{equation}

1914: (TEGP 7.1), where $m_\odot$ is the mass of the Sun

1915: and $\Phi$ is the angle between the Earth-Sun line and the

1916: incoming direction of the photon (Figure \ref{deflectiongeom}).  

1917: For a grazing ray, 

1918: $d \approx d_\odot$, $\Phi \approx 0$, and

1919: \begin{equation}\label{E29}

1920:      \delta \theta ~\approx~{1 \over 2} (1+ \gamma ) 1.^{\prime\prime}75  

1921: \,,

1922: \end{equation}

1923: independent of the frequency of light.  Another, more useful

1924: expression gives the change in the relative angular separation

1925: between an observed source of light and a nearby reference source

1926: as both rays pass near the Sun:

1927: \begin{equation}\label{E30}

1928:           \delta \theta = {1 \over 2}(1+ \gamma )

1929: \left [ - {{4m_\odot} \over d} \cos\chi

1930:       + {{4m_\odot} \over d_r} 

1931: \left ( {{1+ \cos\Phi_r} \over 2} \right ) \right ]  

1932: \,,

1933: \end{equation}

1934: where $d$ and $d_r$ are the distances of closest approach of

1935: the source and reference rays respectively, $\Phi_r$ is the

1936: angular separation between the Sun and the reference source, and

1937: $\chi$ is the angle between the Sun-source and the Sun-reference

1938: directions, projected on the plane of the sky (Figure \ref{deflectiongeom}).

1939: Thus, for example, the relative angular separation between the

1940: two sources may vary if the line of sight of one of them passes

1941: near the Sun ($d \sim R_\odot$, $d_r \gg d$,

1942: $\chi$ varying with time).

1943: 

1944: \begin{figure}

1945: \begin{center}

1946: \leavevmode

1947: \psfig{figure=livingfig4.ps,height=2.0in}

1948: \end{center}

1949: \caption{Geometry of light deflection measurements.} 

1950: \label{deflectiongeom}

1951: \end{figure}

1952: 

1953: It is interesting to note that the classic derivations of the

1954: deflection of light that use only the principle of equivalence

1955: or the corpuscular theory of light

1956: yield only the ``$1/2$'' part of the coefficient in front of the

1957: expression in Eq. (\ref{E28}).  But the result of these calculations

1958: is the deflection of light relative to local straight lines, as

1959: established for example by rigid rods; however, because of space

1960: curvature around the Sun, determined by the PPN  parameter

1961: $\gamma$, local straight lines are bent relative to asymptotic

1962: straight lines far from the Sun by just enough to yield the

1963: remaining factor ``$\gamma /2$''.  The first factor ``$1/2$''

1964: holds in any metric theory, the second ``$\gamma /2$'' varies

1965: from theory to theory.  Thus, calculations that purport to derive

1966: the full deflection using the equivalence principle alone are

1967: incorrect.

1968: 

1969: The prediction of the full bending of light by the Sun was one of

1970: the great successes of Einstein's GR.

1971: Eddington's confirmation of the bending of optical starlight

1972: observed during a solar eclipse in the first days following World

1973: War I helped make Einstein famous.  However, the experiments of

1974: Eddington and his co-workers had only 30~percent accuracy, and

1975: succeeding experiments were not much better:  the results were

1976: scattered between one half and twice the Einstein value 

1977: (Figure \ref{gammavalues}),

1978: and the accuracies were low.

1979:  

1980: \begin{figure}

1981: \begin{center}

1982: \leavevmode

1983: \psfig{figure=livingfig5.ps,height=5.8in}

1984: \end{center}

1985: \caption{Measurements of the coefficient 

1986: $(1 + \gamma )/2$ from light deflection and time

1987: delay measurements.  General relativity value is unity.  

1988: Arrows denote anomalously large

1989: values from early eclipse expeditions.  Shapiro time-delay

1990: measurements using Viking spacecraft yielded agreement with GR to 0.1 percent,

1991: and VLBI light deflection

1992: measurements have reached 0.02 percent.

1993: Hipparcos denotes the optical astrometry satellite, which has reached 0.1

1994: percent.

1995: } 

1996: \label{gammavalues}

1997: \end{figure}

1998: 

1999: However, the development of VLBI, very-long-baseline radio

2000: interfer\-om\-etry, produced greatly improved determinations of

2001: the deflection of light.  These techniques now have the capability

2002: of measuring angular separations and changes in angles

2003: as small as 100 microarcseconds.  Early measurements took advantage 

2004: of a series of heavenly coincidences:

2005: each year, groups of strong quasistellar radio sources pass

2006: very close to the Sun (as seen from the Earth), including the

2007: group 3C273, 3C279, and 3C48, and the group 0111+02, 0119+11

2008: and 0116+08.  As the Earth moves in its orbit, changing the

2009: lines of sight of the quasars relative to the Sun, the angular

2010: separation $\delta \theta$ between pairs of quasars

2011: varies [Eq. (\ref{E30})].  The time variation in the

2012: quantities $d$, $d_r$, $\chi$ and $\Phi_r$ in Eq. (\ref{E30}) is

2013: determined using an accurate ephemeris for the Earth and initial

2014: directions for the quasars, and the resulting prediction for 

2015: $\delta \theta$  as a function of time is used as a basis for a

2016: least-squares fit of the measured $\delta \theta$,  with one of

2017: the fitted parameters being the coefficient ${1 \over 2}(1+ \gamma )$.  

2018: A number of measurements of this kind over the period 1969--1975 yielded 

2019: an accurate determination of the coefficient ${1 \over 2}(1+ \gamma)$  

2020: which has the value unity in GR.  A 1995 VLBI measurement using 3C273 and

2021: 3C279 yielded $(1+\gamma)/2=0.9996 \pm 0.0017$ \cite{lebach}. 

2022: 

2023: A recent series of transcontinental and intercontinental VLBI  quasar and 

2024: radio galaxy observations made primarily to monitor the Earth's rotation

2025: (``VLBI '' in Figure \ref{gammavalues}) 

2026: was sensitive to the deflection of light over 

2027: almost the entire celestial sphere (at $90 ^\circ$ from the Sun, the

2028: deflection is still 4 milli\-arcseconds). 

2029: A recent analysis of  over 2 million VLBI observations

2030: yielded $(1+\gamma)/2=0.99992 \pm 0.00014$ \cite{eubanks}.  

2031: Analysis of observations made by the Hipparcos optical astrometry

2032: satellite yielded a test at the level of 0.3

2033: percent \cite{hipparcos}.

2034: A VLBI 

2035: measurement of the deflection of light by Jupiter was

2036: reported; the predicted deflection of about 300

2037: microarcseconds was seen with about 50 percent accuracy \cite{treuhaft}.

2038: The results of light-deflection measurements are summarized in

2039: Figure \ref{gammavalues}.

2040: 

2041: \subsubsection{The Time Delay of Light}\label{timedelay}

2042: 

2043: A radar signal sent across the solar system past the Sun to a

2044: planet or satellite and returned to the Earth suffers an

2045: additional non-Newtonian delay in its round-trip travel time,

2046: given by (see Figure \ref{deflectiongeom})

2047: \begin{equation}\label{E31}

2048:       \delta t = 2(1+ \gamma ) m_\odot

2049:       \ln [(r_\oplus

2050:   ~+~ {\bf x}_\oplus \cdot {\bf n} )

2051:       (r_e - {\bf x}_e \cdot {\bf n} )/d^2 ]  

2052: \end{equation}

2053: (TEGP 7.2).  For a ray which passes close to the Sun,

2054: \begin{equation} \label{E32}

2055:     \delta t \approx {1 \over 2} (1+ \gamma )

2056:     [240-20 \ln (d^2 /r)]\; \mu {\rm s}  

2057: \,,

2058: \end{equation}

2059: where $d$ is the distance of closest approach of the ray in solar

2060: radii, and $r$ is the distance of the planet or satellite from the

2061: Sun, in astronomical units.

2062: 

2063: In the two decades following Irwin Shapiro's 1964 discovery of

2064: this effect as a theoretical consequence of general

2065: relativity, several high-precision measurements were made

2066: using radar ranging to targets passing through superior

2067: conjunction.  Since one does not have access to a ``Newtonian''

2068: signal against which to compare the round-trip travel time of the

2069: observed signal, it is necessary to do a differential measurement

2070: of the variations in round-trip travel times as the target passes

2071: through superior conjunction, and to look for the logarithmic

2072: behavior of Eq. (\ref{E32}).  In order to do this accurately however,

2073: one must take into account the variations in round-trip travel

2074: time due to the orbital motion of the target relative to the

2075: Earth. This is done by using radar-ranging (and possibly other)

2076: data on the target taken when it is far from superior conjunction

2077: ({\it i.e.}, when the time-delay term is negligible) to determine

2078: an accurate ephemeris for the target, using the ephemeris to

2079: predict the PPN  coordinate trajectory ${\bf x}_e (t)$ near

2080: superior conjunction, then combining that trajectory with the

2081: trajectory of the Earth ${\bf x}_\oplus (t)$ to determine the

2082: Newtonian round-trip time and the logarithmic term in Eq. (\ref{E32}).

2083: The resulting predicted round-trip travel times in terms of the

2084: unknown coefficient ${1 \over 2}(1+ \gamma)$

2085: are then fit to the measured travel times using the method 

2086: of least-squares, and an estimate obtained for

2087: ${1 \over 2}(1+ \gamma)$.

2088: 

2089: The targets employed included

2090: planets, such as Mercury or Venus, used as a passive reflectors of

2091: the radar signals (``passive radar''); and

2092: artificial satellites, such as Mariners~6 and 7, Voyager 2,

2093: and the Viking

2094: Mars landers and orbiters,

2095: used as

2096: active retransmitters of the radar signals (``active radar').

2097: 

2098: The results for the coefficient ${1 \over 2}(1+ \gamma)$

2099: of all radar time-delay measurements

2100: performed to date (including a measurement of the one-way time delay

2101: of signals from the millisecond pulsar PSR 1937+21) 

2102: are shown in Figure \ref{gammavalues} (see TEGP

2103: 7.2 for discussion and references).  The Viking experiment resulted in a

2104: 0.1 percent measurement \cite{reasenberg}.

2105: 

2106:   From the results of VLBI light-deflection experiments, we

2107: can conclude that the coefficient 

2108: ${1 \over 2}(1+ \gamma)$

2109: must be within at most 0.014~percent of unity.  

2110: Scalar-tensor theories must have $\omega > 3500$ to be compatible with

2111: this constraint.

2112: 

2113: \begin{table}

2114: \begin{center}

2115: \begin{tabular}{c l c l}

2116: \hline

2117: \hline

2118: Parameter&Effect&Limit&Remarks \\ [0.5ex]

2119: \hline

2120: \hline

2121: $\gamma-1$&time delay&$2 \times 10^{-3}$&Viking ranging \\

2122: &light deflection&$3 \times 10^{-4}$&VLBI\\

2123: $\beta-1$&perihelion shift&$3 \times 10^{-3}$&$J_2=10^{-7}$ from

2124: helioseismology \\

2125: &Nordtvedt effect&$6 \times 10^{-4}$&$\eta=4\beta-\gamma-3$

2126: assumed \\

2127: $\xi$&Earth tides&$10^{-3}$&gravimeter data \\

2128: $\alpha_1$&orbital polarization&$10^{-4}$&Lunar laser

2129: ranging \\

2130: &&$2 \times 10^{-4}$&PSR J2317+1439\\

2131: $\alpha_2$&spin precession&$4 \times 10^{-7}$&solar alignment 

2132: with ecliptic \\

2133: $\alpha_3$&pulsar acceleration&$2 \times 10^{-20}$

2134: &pulsar $\dot P$ statistics \\

2135: $\eta^1$&Nordtvedt effect&$10^{-3}$&lunar laser ranging \\

2136: $\zeta_1$&-- &$2 \times 10^{-2}$&combined PPN  bounds \\

2137: $\zeta_2$&binary acceleration&$4 \times 10^{-5}$&$\ddot P_p$

2138: for PSR 1913+16 \\

2139: $\zeta_3$&Newton's 3rd law&$10^{-8}$&Lunar acceleration \\

2140: $\zeta_4$&-- &-- &not independent\\ [0.5ex]

2141: \hline

2142: \hline

2143: \noalign{\smallskip}

2144: \multispan 4 $^1$Here $\eta = 4\beta -\gamma -3 - 10 \xi /3 -\alpha_1

2145: -2

2146: \alpha_2 /3 - 2\zeta_1 /3 - \zeta_2 /3 $\hfill \\

2147: \end{tabular}

2148: \caption{Current Limits on the PPN  Parameters}

2149: \index{limits on PPN  parameters}

2150: \label{ppnlimits}

2151: \end{center} 

2152: \end{table}

2153: 

2154: %---------------------------------------------------------

2155: % subsection 3.5

2156: %----------------------------------------------------------

2157: 

2158: \subsection{The Perihelion Shift of Mercury}\label{perihelion}

2159: 

2160: The explanation of the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury's

2161: orbit was another of the triumphs of GR.  This had

2162: been an unsolved problem in celestial mechanics for over half a

2163: century, since the announcement by Le Verrier in 1859 that, after

2164: the perturbing effects of the planets on Mercury's orbit had been

2165: accounted for, and after the effect of the precession of the

2166: equinoxes on the astronomical coordinate system had been

2167: subtracted, there remained in the data an unexplained advance

2168: in the perihelion of Mercury.  The modern value for this

2169: discrepancy is 43 arcseconds per century.  A number of {\it ad

2170: hoc} proposals were made in an attempt to account for this

2171: excess, including, among others, the existence of new planet

2172: Vulcan near the Sun, a ring of planetoids, a solar quadrupole

2173: moment and a deviation from the inverse-square law of gravitation,

2174: but none was successful.  General relativity accounted

2175: for the anomalous shift in a natural way without disturbing the

2176: agreement with other planetary observations.

2177: 

2178: The predicted advance, $\Delta \tilde \omega$ , per orbit, including

2179: both relativistic PPN  contributions and the Newtonian

2180: contribution resulting from a

2181: possible solar quadrupole moment, is given by

2182: \begin{equation}\label{E33}

2183:  \Delta \tilde \omega

2184:  = (6 \pi m/p)[ {1 \over 3} (2+2 \gamma - \beta )

2185:  + {1 \over 6}~

2186:      (2 \alpha_1 - \alpha_2 + \alpha_3 +2 \zeta_2 ) \mu /m

2187:  + J_2 (R^2 /2mp)]  \,,

2188: \end{equation}

2189: where $m \equiv m_1 + m_2$ and $\mu  \equiv m_1 m_2 /m$

2190: are the total mass and reduced mass of the two-body system

2191: respectively; $p \equiv a(1-e^2 )$ is the semi-latus rectum of

2192: the orbit, with a the semi-major axis and $e$ the eccentricity; $R$ is

2193: the mean radius of the oblate body; and $J_2$ is a

2194: dimensionless measure of its quadrupole moment, given by 

2195: $J_2 = (C-A)/m_1 R^2$, where $C$ and $A$ are the

2196: moments of inertia about the body's rotation and equatorial

2197: axes, respectively (for details of the derivation see TEGP 7.3).  

2198: We have ignored preferred-frame and galaxy-induced

2199: contributions to  $\Delta \tilde \omega$; these are discussed in

2200: TEGP 8.3.

2201: 

2202: The first term in Eq. (\ref{E33}) is the classical relativistic

2203: perihelion shift, which depends upon the PPN  parameters $\gamma$

2204: and $\beta$.  The second term depends upon the ratio of the masses

2205: of the two bodies; it is zero in any fully conservative theory of

2206: gravity 

2207: ($ \alpha_1 \equiv \alpha_2 \equiv \alpha_3 \equiv \zeta_2 \equiv 0$);

2208: it is also negligible for Mercury, since 

2209: $\mu /m \approx m_{\rm Merc} /m_\odot \approx 2 \times 10^{-7}$. 

2210: We shall drop this term henceforth.  The third term depends upon

2211: the solar quadrupole moment $J_2$.  For a Sun that rotates

2212: uniformly with its observed surface angular velocity,  so that

2213: the quadrupole moment is produced by centrifugal flattening, one

2214: may estimate $J_2$ to be 

2215: $\sim 1 \times 10^{-7}$.  This actually agrees reasonably well with

2216: values inferred from rotating solar models that are in accord with

2217: observations of the normal modes of solar oscillations

2218: (helioseismology). 

2219: Substituting standard orbital elements and physical

2220: constants for Mercury and the Sun we obtain the rate of

2221: perihelion shift $\dot {\tilde \omega}$, in seconds of arc per century,

2222: \begin{equation}\label{E34}

2223: \dot {\tilde \omega}= 42.^{\prime\prime}98 

2224: \left [ {1 \over 3} (2+2 \gamma - \beta ) 

2225:                  + 3 \times 10^{-4} (J_2 /10^{-7} ) \right ]  \,.

2226: \end{equation}

2227: Now, the measured perihelion shift of Mercury is known 

2228: accurately:  after the perturbing effects of the other planets have been

2229: accounted for, the excess shift is known to about 0.1 percent

2230: from radar observations of Mercury between 1966 and 1990 \cite{shapiroGR12}.  

2231: Analysis of data taken since 1990 could improve the accuracy.

2232: The solar oblateness

2233: effect is smaller than the observational error, so we obtain the PPN 

2234: bound $| 2\gamma -\beta-1 | < 3 \times 10^{-3}$.  

2235: 

2236: %---------------------------------------------------

2237: % subsection 3.6

2238: %----------------------------------------------------

2239: 

2240: \subsection{Tests of the Strong Equivalence Principle}\label{septests}

2241: 

2242: The next class of solar-system experiments that test relativistic 

2243: gravitational effects may be called tests of the strong

2244: equivalence principle (SEP).  In Sec.\ 3.1.2, we pointed out that many metric

2245: theories of gravity (perhaps all except GR) can be

2246: expected to violate one or more aspects of SEP.  Among the

2247: testable violations of SEP are a

2248: violation of the weak equivalence principle for gravitating bodies

2249: that leads to perturbations in the Earth-Moon

2250: orbit; preferred-location and preferred-frame effects in the

2251: locally measured gravitational constant that could produce

2252: observable geophysical effects; and possible variations in the

2253: gravitational constant over cosmological timescales.

2254: 

2255: \subsubsection{The Nordtvedt Effect and the Lunar E\"otv\"os Experiment}

2256: \label{Nordtvedteffect}

2257: 

2258: In a pioneering calculation using his early form of the PPN 

2259: formalism, Nord\-tvedt \cite{nordtvedt1} showed that many metric theories

2260: of gravity predict that massive bodies violate the weak

2261: equivalence principle -- that is, fall with different

2262: accelerations depending on their gravitational self-energy.  Dicke

2263: \cite{Dicke} linked such an effect to the possibility of a spatially

2264: varying gravitational constant, in theories such as scalar-tensor

2265: gravity.  For a

2266: spherically symmetric body, the acceleration from rest in an

2267: external gravitational potential $U$ has the form

2268: \begin{eqnarray}\label{E35}

2269: {\bf a} &=& (m_p/m) \nabla U \,, \nonumber \\

2270: m_p/m &=& 1- \eta (E_g/m)  \,, \nonumber \\

2271:     \eta 

2272:  &=& 4 \beta - \gamma -3 - {10 \over 3} \xi

2273:         - \alpha_1 +  {2 \over 3} \alpha_2

2274:         -  {2 \over 3} \zeta_1

2275:         -  {1 \over 3} \zeta_2  

2276: \,,

2277: \end{eqnarray}

2278: where $E_g$ is the negative of the gravitational self-energy

2279: of the body ($E_g >0$).  This violation of the massive-body

2280: equivalence principle is known as the ``Nordtvedt effect''.  The

2281: effect is absent in GR ($ \eta = 0$) but present

2282: in scalar-tensor theory ($ \eta = 1/(2+ \omega )+4\Lambda$).  The existence

2283: of the Nordtvedt effect does not violate the results of laboratory

2284: E\"otv\"os experiments, since for laboratory-sized objects,

2285: $E_g /m \le 10^{-27}$, far below the sensitivity of

2286: current or future experiments.  However, for astronomical bodies, 

2287: $E_g /m$ may be significant ($10^{-5}$ for the Sun, $10^{-8}$

2288: for Jupiter, 

2289: $4.6 \times 10^{-10}$  for the Earth, $0.2 \times 10^{-10}$

2290: for the Moon).  If the Nordtvedt effect is present 

2291: ($\eta \ne 0$) then the Earth should fall toward the Sun with a

2292: slightly different acceleration than the Moon.  This perturbation

2293: in the Earth-Moon orbit leads to a polarization of the orbit that

2294: is directed toward the Sun as it moves around the Earth-Moon

2295: system, as seen from Earth.  This polarization represents a

2296: perturbation in the Earth-Moon distance of the form

2297: \begin{equation}\label{E36}

2298:     \delta r = 13.1 \eta \cos( \omega_0 -\omega_s )t \quad {\rm m}

2299: \,,

2300: \end{equation}

2301: where $\omega_0$ and $\omega_s$ are the angular frequencies

2302: of the orbits of the Moon and Sun around the Earth (see TEGP

2303: 8.1, for detailed derivations and references; for improved

2304: calculations of the numerical coefficient, see 

2305: \cite{Nordtvedt95,DamourVokrou96}).

2306: 

2307: Since August 1969, when the first successful acquisition was made

2308: of a laser signal reflected from the Apollo\ 11 retroreflector on

2309: the Moon, the lunar laser-ranging experiment (LURE) has made

2310: regular measurements of the round-trip travel times of laser

2311: pulses between a network of observatories

2312: and the lunar retroreflectors, with accuracies that are

2313: approaching 50\ ps (1\ cm).  These measurements are fit

2314: using the method of least-squares to a theoretical model for the

2315: lunar motion that takes into account perturbations due to the Sun

2316: and the other planets, tidal interactions, and post-Newtonian

2317: gravitational effects.  The predicted round-trip travel times

2318: between retroreflector and telescope also take into account the

2319: librations of the Moon, the orientation of the Earth, the

2320: location of the observatory, and atmospheric effects on the

2321: signal propagation.  The ``Nordtvedt'' parameter $\eta$ along with

2322: several other important parameters of the model are then

2323: estimated in the least-squares method.

2324: 

2325: Several independent analyses of the data found no evidence, within

2326: experimental uncertainty, for the Nordtvedt effect (for recent results

2327: see \cite{Dickey,Williams,MullerMG}).  Their results

2328: can be summarized by the bound $| \eta | < 0.001$.

2329: These results represent a limit on a possible violation of WEP for

2330: massive bodies of 5 parts in $10^{13}$ (compare Figure \ref{wepfig}).  For

2331: Brans-Dicke theory, these results force a lower limit on the

2332: coupling constant $\omega$ of 1000.   Note that,

2333: at this level of precision, one cannot regard the results of lunar laser 

2334: ranging as a ``clean'' test of SEP until one eliminates the

2335: possibility of a compensating violation of WEP for the two bodies,

2336: because the chemical compositions of the Earth 

2337: and Moon differ in the relative fractions of iron and silicates.  To

2338: this end, the E{\"o}t-Wash group carried out an improved test of WEP

2339: for laboratory bodies whose chemical compositions mimic that of the

2340: Earth and Moon.  The resulting bound of four parts in $10^{13}$

2341: \cite{baessler} reduces the ambiguity in the Lunar laser ranging

2342: bound, and establishes the firm limit on the universality of

2343: acceleration of gravitational binding energy at the level of $\eta < 1.3

2344: \times 10^{-3}$.

2345: 

2346: In GR, the Nordtvedt effect vanishes; at the level of

2347: several centimeters and below, 

2348: a number of non-null general relativistic effects

2349: should be present \cite{Nordtvedt95}.

2350: 

2351: \subsubsection{Preferred-Frame and Preferred-Location Effects}\label{preferred}

2352: 

2353: Some theories of gravity violate SEP by predicting that the

2354: outcomes of local gravitational experiments may depend on the

2355: velocity of the laboratory relative to the mean rest frame of the

2356: universe (preferred-frame effects) or on the location of the

2357: laboratory relative to a nearby gravitating body

2358: (preferred-location effects).  In the post-Newtonian limit,

2359: preferred-frame effects are governed by the values of the PPN 

2360: parameters $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, and $\alpha_3$, and some

2361: preferred-location effects are governed by $\xi$ (see Table \ref{ppnmeaning}). 

2362: 

2363: The most important such effects are variations and anisotropies

2364: in the locally-measured value of the gravitational constant, which

2365: lead to anomalous Earth tides and variations in the Earth's

2366: rotation rate; anomalous contributions to the 

2367: orbital dynamics of planets and the Moon; self-accelerations of 

2368: pulsars, and anomalous torques on the Sun that

2369: would cause its spin axis to be randomly oriented relative to the

2370: ecliptic (see TEGP

2371: 8.2, 8.3, 9.3 and 14.3(c)).  An improved bound on $\alpha_3$ of $2

2372: \times 10^{-20}$ from the period derivatives of 20 millisecond pulsars

2373: was reported in \cite{Bell};  improved bounds on 

2374: $\alpha_1$ were achieved using lunar laser ranging data \cite{MullerPRD}, 

2375: and using

2376: observations of the circular binary

2377: orbit of the pulsar J2317+1439 (\cite{Bell2}).  

2378: Negative searches for these effects have

2379: produced strong constraints on the PPN  parameters (Table \ref{ppnlimits}).

2380: 

2381: \subsubsection{Constancy of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant}

2382: \label{bigG}

2383: 

2384: Most theories of gravity that violate SEP predict that the locally 

2385: measured Newtonian gravitational constant may vary with time as 

2386: the universe evolves.  For the scalar-tensor theories listed in 

2387: Table \ref{ppnvalues}, 

2388: the predictions for $\dot G/G$ can be written in terms of time

2389: derivatives of the asymptotic scalar field.

2390: Where $G$

2391: does change with cosmic evolution, its rate of variation should

2392: be of the order of the expansion rate of the universe,

2393: {\it i.e.,}

2394: $\dot G/G \sim H_0$, where $H_0$ is the Hubble expansion parameter 

2395: and is given by 

2396: $H_0 = 100 h\; {\rm km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}=h \times 10^{-10}\, {\rm yr^{-1}}$,

2397: where current observations of the expansion of the

2398: universe give $h \approx 0.7$.

2399: 

2400: Several observational constraints can be placed on $\dot G/G$

2401: using methods that include studies of the evolution of the Sun,

2402: observations of lunar occultations (including analyses of ancient

2403: eclipse data), lunar laser-ranging measurements,

2404: planetary

2405: radar-ranging measurements, and pulsar timing data.

2406: Laboratory experiments may one day lead to interesting limits (for

2407: review and references to past work see TEGP 8.4 and 14.3(c)).  Recent

2408: results are shown in Table \ref{Gdottable}. 

2409: 

2410: \begin{table}

2411: \begin{center}

2412: \begin{tabular}{l c}

2413: \hline

2414: \hline

2415: Method&$\dot G/G (10^{-12}\; {\rm yr}^{-1})$ \\[0.5ex]

2416: \hline

2417: \hline

2418: Lunar Laser Ranging&$ 0  \pm  8$ \\[0.5ex]

2419: &$3 \pm 5$ \\[0.5ex]

2420: Viking Radar&$ 2  \pm  4$ \\

2421: &$ -2  \pm  10$ \\[0.5ex]

2422: Binary Pulsar$^1$&$ 11  \pm  11$ \\[0.5ex]

2423: Pulsar PSR 0655+64$^1$&$ <  55$ \\[0.5ex]

2424: \hline

2425: \hline

2426: \noalign{\medskip}

2427: \multispan 2 

2428:  ${}^1$ Bounds dependent

2429: upon theory of gravity in \hfill\\

2430: \multispan 2 

2431: strong-field regime and on neutron star equation \hfill \\

2432: \multispan 2 

2433: of state. \hfill \\

2434: \end{tabular}

2435: \caption{Constancy of the Gravitational Constant}

2436: \label{Gdottable}

2437: \end{center} 

2438: \end{table}

2439: 

2440: The best limits on $\dot G/G$ still

2441: come from ranging measurements to the Viking landers and

2442: Lunar laser ranging measurements \cite{Dickey,Williams,MullerMG}.

2443: It has

2444: been suggested that radar observations of a Mercury orbiter over a

2445: two-year mission (30\ cm accuracy in range) could yield

2446: $\Delta (\dot G/G) \sim 10^{-14}\; {\rm yr}^{-1}$. 

2447:  

2448: Although bounds on $\dot G/G$ from solar-system measurements can be

2449: correctly

2450: obtained in a phenomenological manner through the simple expedient of

2451: replacing $G$ by $G_0 + {\dot G}_0 (t - t_0 )$ in

2452: Newton's equations of motion, the same does not hold true for pulsar

2453: and binary pulsar timing measurements.  The reason is that, in theories 

2454: of gravity that violate SEP, such as scalar-tensor theories,

2455: the ``mass'' and moment of inertia of a

2456: gravitationally bound body may vary with variation in $G$.  Because

2457: neutron stars are highly relativistic, the fractional variation in

2458: these quantities can be comparable to $\Delta G/G$, the precise

2459: variation depending both on the equation of state of neutron star

2460: matter and on the theory of gravity in the strong-field regime.  The

2461: variation in the moment of inertia affects the spin rate of the pulsar,

2462: while the variation in the mass can affect the orbital period in a

2463: manner that can subtract from the direct effect of a variation in G,

2464: given by $\dot P_b /P_b =-{2} \dot G/G$ \cite{nordtvedt3}.  Thus,

2465: the bounds quoted in Table \ref{Gdottable} 

2466: for the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 \cite{DamourTaylor91} and the

2467: pulsar PSR 0655+64 \cite{goldman} 

2468: are theory-dependent and must be treated as merely

2469: suggestive.

2470: 

2471: %---------------------------------------------------

2472: % subsection 3.7

2473: %----------------------------------------------------

2474: 

2475: \subsection{Other Tests of Post-Newtonian Gravity} \label{othertests}

2476: 

2477: \subsubsection{Tests of Post-Newtonian Conservation Laws}

2478: \label{conservation}

2479: 

2480: Of the five ``conservation law'' PPN  parameters 

2481: $\zeta_1$, $\zeta_2$, $\zeta_3$, $\zeta_4$, 

2482: and $\alpha_3$, only three, $\zeta_2$, $\zeta_3$ and $\alpha_3$,  

2483: have been constrained directly with any precision;

2484: $\zeta_1$ is constrained

2485: indirectly through its appearance in the Nordtvedt effect parameter

2486: $\eta$, Eq. (\ref{E35}).  There is strong theoretical

2487: evidence that $\zeta_4$, which is related to the gravity generated by

2488: fluid pressure, is not really an independent parameter -- in any

2489: reasonable theory of gravity there should be a connection between the

2490: gravity produced by kinetic energy ($\rho v^2$), internal energy ($\rho

2491: \Pi$), and pressure ($p$).

2492: From such considerations, there follows\cite{Will76}  

2493: the additional theoretical

2494: constraint

2495: \begin{equation}\label{E37}

2496: 6\zeta_4= 3\alpha_3+2\zeta_1-3\zeta_3  \,.

2497: \end{equation}

2498: 

2499: A non-zero value for any of these parameters would result in a

2500: violation of conservation of momentum, or of Newton's third law

2501: in gravitating systems.  An alternative statement of Newton's 

2502: third law for gravitating systems is that the ``active gravitational mass'', 

2503: that is the mass that determines the gravitational potential exhibited 

2504: by a body, should equal the ``passive gravitational mass'', 

2505: the mass that determines the force on a body in a gravitational field.   

2506: Such an equality guarantees the equality of action and reaction and 

2507: of conservation of momentum, at least in the Newtonian limit.

2508: 

2509: A classic test of Newton's third law for gravitating systems was

2510: carried out in 1968 by Kreuzer, in which the gravitational attraction

2511: of fluorine and bromine were compared to a precision of 

2512: 5\ parts in $10^5$.

2513: 

2514: A remarkable planetary test was reported by

2515: Bartlett and van Buren \cite{bartlett}.  They noted that current understanding

2516: of the structure of the Moon involves an iron-rich, aluminum-poor

2517: mantle whose center of mass is offset about 10 km from the center of 

2518: mass of an aluminum-rich, iron-poor crust.  The direction of offset 

2519: is toward the Earth, about $14 ^\circ$ to the east of the Earth-Moon line.  

2520: Such a model accounts for the basaltic maria which face the Earth, 

2521: and the aluminum-rich highlands on the Moon's far side, and for a 2\ km 

2522: offset between the observed center of mass and center of figure for 

2523: the Moon.  Because of this asymmetry, a violation of Newton's third 

2524: law for aluminum and iron would result in a momentum non-conserving 

2525: self-force on the Moon, whose component along the orbital direction

2526: would contribute to the secular acceleration of the lunar orbit.

2527: Improved knowledge of the lunar orbit through lunar laser ranging, and

2528: a better understanding of tidal effects in the Earth-Moon system

2529: (which also contribute to the secular acceleration) through satellite 

2530: data, severely limit any anomalous secular acceleration, with 

2531: the resulting limit

2532: \begin{equation}\label{E38}

2533: \left | {{(m_A / m_P )_{\rm Al} - (m_A /m_P )_{\rm Fe}}

2534:        \over

2535:        {(m_A /m_P )_{\rm Fe}}}

2536: \right | <4 \times 10^{-12} \,.

2537: \end{equation}

2538: According to the PPN  formalism, in a theory of gravity that violates

2539: conservation of momentum, but that obeys the constraint of Eq. (\ref{E37}), 

2540: the electrostatic binding energy $E_e$

2541: of an atomic nucleus could make a contribution to the ratio of active to

2542: passive mass of the form

2543: \begin{equation}\label{E39}

2544:      m_A = m_P 

2545:  + {1 \over 2} \zeta_3 E_e /c^2 \,.

2546: \end{equation}

2547: The resulting limit on $\zeta_3$ from the lunar experiment 

2548: is $\zeta_3 < 1 \times 10^{-8}$ (TEGP 9.2, 14.3(d)).

2549: 

2550: Another consequence of a violation of conservation of momentum is a

2551: self-accel\-er\-at\-ion of the center of mass of a binary stellar system,

2552: given by

2553: \begin{equation}\label{E40}

2554: {\bf a}_{\rm CM} = {1 \over 2} (\zeta_2+\alpha_3) {m \over a^2}{\mu

2555: \over a}{{\delta m} \over m} {e \over {(1-e^2)^{3/2}}} {\bf n}_P \,, 

2556: \end{equation}

2557: where $\delta m = m_1-m_2$, $a$ is the semi-major axis, and ${\bf n}_P$

2558: is a unit vector directed from the center of mass to the point of

2559: periastron of $m_1$ (TEGP 9.3).

2560: A consequence of this acceleration would be non-vanishing values for

2561: $d^2 P/dt^2$, where $P$ denotes the period of any intrinsic process in

2562: the system (orbit, spectra,

2563: pulsar periods).  The observed upper limit on $d^2 P_p

2564: /dt^2$ of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 places a

2565: strong constraint on such an effect, resulting in the bound $|

2566: \alpha_3 + \zeta_2 |<4 \times 10^{-5}$.  Since $\alpha_3$ has already

2567: been constrained to be much less than this (Table \ref{ppnlimits}), 

2568: we obtain a strong

2569: bound on $\zeta_2$ alone \cite{Will92c}.

2570: 

2571: \subsubsection{Geodetic Precession}\label{geodeticprecession}

2572: 

2573: A gyroscope moving through curved spacetime suffers a precession of

2574: its axis given by 

2575: \begin{equation}\label{E41}

2576: d {\bf S} /d \tau = \mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}_G \times {\bf S} \,, \qquad  

2577: \mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}_G = (\gamma + {1 \over 2} ) {\bf v} 

2578:            \times \nabla U  

2579: \,,

2580: \end{equation}

2581: where $\bf v$ is the velocity of the gyroscope, and $U$ is the

2582: Newtonian gravitational potential of the source (TEGP 9.1).  

2583: The Earth-Moon system can be considered as a ``gyroscope'', with its axis

2584: perpendicular to the orbital plane.  The predicted precession is about

2585: 2 arcseconds per century, an effect first calculated by de Sitter.

2586: This effect has been measured to about 0.7 percent using Lunar laser

2587: ranging data \cite{Dickey,Williams}.

2588: 

2589: For a gyroscope orbiting the Earth, the precession is about 8 arcseconds 

2590: per year.  The Stanford Gyroscope Experiment has as one of its goals 

2591: the measurement of this effect to $5 \times 10^{-5}$ (see below); if

2592: achieved, this would substantially improve the accuracy of the parameter

2593: $\gamma$.

2594: 

2595: \subsubsection{Search for Gravitomagnetism}\label{gravitomagnetism}

2596: 

2597: According to GR, moving or rotating matter should 

2598: produce a contribution to the gravitational field that is the analogue 

2599: of the magnetic field of a moving charge or a magnetic dipole.  

2600: Although gravitomagnetism plays a role in a variety of measured 

2601: relativistic effects, it has not been seen to date, isolated from 

2602: other post-Newtonian effects (for a discussion of the evidence for

2603: gravitomagnetism in solar system measurements and the binary pulsar, see

2604: \cite{nordtvedt88a,nordtvedt88b}).  The Relativity 

2605: Gyroscope Experiment (Gravity Probe B or GP-B) 

2606: at Stanford University, in collaboration with

2607: NASA  and Lockheed-Martin Corporation, is in the advanced stage 

2608: of developing a space mission to detect this phenomenon 

2609: directly \cite{gpbwebsite}.  A set of four superconducting-niobium-coated, 

2610: spherical quartz gyroscopes will be flown in a low polar Earth orbit, 

2611: and the precession of the gyroscopes relative to the distant stars 

2612: will be measured.  In the PPN  formalism, the predicted effect 

2613: of gravitomagnetism is a precession (also known as the Lense-Thirring

2614: effect, or the dragging of inertial frames), given by

2615: \begin{equation}\label{E42}

2616: d {\bf S} /d \tau = \mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}_{\rm LT} \times {\bf S} \,,

2617:   \qquad

2618: \mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}_{\rm LT} = -{1 \over 2}(1+\gamma + {1 \over 4}\alpha_1 ) 

2619:           [{\bf J}-3{\bf n}({\bf n} \cdot {\bf J})]/r^3  

2620: \,,

2621: \end{equation}

2622: where $\bf J$ is the angular momentum of the Earth, $\bf n$ is a

2623: unit radial vector, and $r$ is the distance from the center of the

2624: Earth (TEGP 9.1).  For a polar orbit at about 650\ km altitude, 

2625: this leads to a secular angular precession at a rate

2626: ${1 \over 2}(1+\gamma + {1 \over 4}\alpha_1 ) 

2627: 42 \times 10^{-3}$ arcsec/yr.

2628: The accuracy goal of the experiment is about 0.5\ milliarcseconds 

2629: per year.  The science instrument 

2630: package and the spacecraft are

2631: in the final phases of assembly, with launch scheduled for 

2632: 2002.

2633: 

2634: Another proposal to look for an effect of gravitomagnetism is to 

2635: measure the relative precession of the line of nodes of a pair 

2636: of laser-ranged geodynamics satellites (LAGEOS), ideally with supplementary 

2637: inclination angles; the inclinations must be supplementary in order 

2638: to cancel the dominant nodal precession caused by the Earth's 

2639: Newtonian gravitational multipole moments.  Unfortunately, the two

2640: existing LAGEOS satellites are not in appropriately inclined orbits,

2641: and no plans exist at present to launch a third satellite in a

2642: supplementary orbit.  Nevertheless, by combing nodal precession data

2643: from LAGEOS I and II with perigee advance data from the slightly

2644: eccentric orbit of LAGEOS II, Ciufolini \etal reported a partial

2645: cancellation of multipole effects, and a resulting 20 percent

2646: confirmation of GR \cite{ciufolini}.

2647: 

2648: 

2649: \subsubsection{Improved PPN  Parameter Values}\label{improvedPPN}  

2650: 

2651: A number of advanced space missions have been proposed in which spacecraft 

2652: orbiters or landers and improved tracking capabilities could lead to 

2653: significant improvements in values of the PPN  parameters, 

2654: of $J_2$ of the Sun, and of $\dot G/G$.  Doppler tracking of the Cassini

2655: spacecraft (launched to orbit and study Saturn in 1997) 

2656: during its 2003 superior conjunction could measure $\gamma$ to a few parts in

2657: $10^5$, by measuring the time variation of the Shapiro delay \cite{iess}.

2658: A Mercury orbiter, 

2659: in a two-year experiment, with 3\ cm range capability, could yield 

2660: improvements in the perihelion shift to a part in $10^4$, in $\gamma$ 

2661: to $4 \times 10^{-5}$, in $\dot G/G$ to $10^{-14}\; {\rm yr}^{-1}$, and in 

2662: $J_2$ to a few parts in $10^8$. 

2663: Proposals are being developed, primarily in Europe, for advanced space

2664: missions which will have tests of PPN  parameters as key components,

2665: including GAIA, a high-precision astrometric telescope (successor to

2666: Hipparcos), which could

2667: measure light-deflection and 

2668: $\gamma$ to the $10^{-6}$ level \cite{gaia}.  

2669: Nordtvedt \cite{Nordtvedt00} has argued that ``grand fits'' of large solar

2670: system range data sets, including ranging to Mercury, Mars and the Moon,

2671: could yield substantially improved measurements of PPN parameters.

2672: 

2673: 

2674: %=======================================================

2675: % Section 4

2676: %=======================================================

2677: 

2678: \section{Strong Gravity and Gravitational Waves: A New Testing

2679: Ground}\label{S4}

2680: 

2681: %------------------------------------------------

2682: % subsection 4.1

2683: %------------------------------------------------

2684: 

2685: \subsection{Strong-field systems in general relativity}

2686: \label{strong}

2687: 

2688: \subsubsection{Defining weak and strong gravity}

2689: \label{strongvweak}

2690: 

2691: In the solar system, gravity is weak, in the sense that the  Newtonian

2692: gravitational

2693: potential and related variables ($ U ( {\bf x} ,t) \sim v^2 \sim p/\rho \sim

2694: \epsilon$ )

2695: are everywhere much smaller than unity everywhere.  

2696: This is the basis for the post-Newtonian expansion and for the

2697: ``parametrized

2698: post-Newtonian'' framework 

2699: described in Sec. \ref{ppn}.

2700: ``Strong-field'' systems are those for which 

2701: the simple 1PN approximation of the PPN framework

2702: is no longer

2703: appropriate.  This can occur in a number of situations:

2704: 

2705: \begin{itemize}

2706: 

2707: \item

2708: The system may contain strongly relativistic objects, such as neutron

2709: stars or black holes, near and inside which $\epsilon \sim 1$, and the

2710: post-Newtonian approximation breaks down.  Nevertheless, under 

2711: some circumstances,

2712: the orbital motion may be such that the interbody potential and

2713: orbital velocities still satisfy $\epsilon \ll 1$ so that a kind of

2714: post-Newtonian approximation for the orbital motion 

2715: might work; however, the strong-field

2716: internal gravity of the bodies could (especially in alternative theories

2717: of gravity) leave imprints on the orbital motion.

2718: 

2719: \item

2720: The evolution of the system may be affected by the emission of

2721: gravitational radiation.  The 1PN approximation 

2722: does not contain the effects of gravitational radiation back-reaction.

2723: In the expression for the metric given in Box 2,

2724: radiation back-reaction effects do not occur until $O(\epsilon^{7/2})$

2725: in $g_{00}$, $O(\epsilon^{3})$ 

2726: in $g_{0i}$, and $O(\epsilon^{5/2})$ 

2727: in $g_{ij}$.

2728: Consequently, in order to describe such systems, one must carry out a

2729: solution of the equations substantially beyond 1PN order,

2730: sufficient to incorporate the leading

2731: radiation damping terms at 2.5PN order.

2732: 

2733: \item

2734: The system may be highly relativistic in its orbital motion, so that

2735: $U \sim v^2 \sim 1$ even for the interbody field and orbital velocity.

2736: Systems like this include the late stage of the inspiral of binary

2737: systems of neutron stars or black holes, driven by gravitational

2738: radiation damping, prior to a merger and collapse to a final

2739: stationary state.  Binary inspiral is one of the leading candidate

2740: sources for detection by a world-wide network of laser interferometric

2741: gravitational-wave observatories nearing completion.  A proper

2742: description of such systems requires not only equations for the motion

2743: of the binary carried to extraordinarily high PN orders (at least

2744: 3.5PN), but also requires equations for the far-zone

2745: gravitational waveform measured at the detector, that are equally

2746: accurate to high PN orders beyond the leading ``quadrupole''

2747: approximation.

2748: 

2749: \end{itemize}

2750: 

2751: Of course, some systems cannot be properly described by any post-Newt\-onian

2752: approximation because their behavior is fundamentally controlled by

2753: strong gravity.  These include the imploding cores of supernovae, the

2754: final merger of two compact objects, the quasinormal-mode vibrations

2755: of neutron stars and black holes, the structure of rapidly rotating

2756: neutron stars, and so on.  Phenomena such as these must be analysed

2757: using different techniques.  Chief among these is the full solution of

2758: Einstein's equations via numerical methods.  This field of ``numerical

2759: relativity'' is a rapidly growing and maturing branch of gravitational

2760: physics, whose description is beyond the scope of this article.

2761: Another is black hole perturbation theory (see \cite{msstt97} for a review).

2762: 

2763: \subsubsection{Compact bodies and the Strong Equivalence Principle}

2764: \label{compact-SEP}

2765: 

2766: When dealing with the motion and gravitational-wave generation by

2767: orbiting bodies, one finds a remarkable simplification within general

2768: relativity.  As long as the bodies are sufficiently well-separated

2769: that one can ignore

2770: tidal interactions and other effects that depend upon the finite extent of

2771: the bodies (such as their quadrupole and higher multipole moments), 

2772: then all aspects of their orbital behavior and gravitational wave

2773: generation 

2774: can be characterized by just two parameters:

2775: mass and angular momentum.

2776: Whether their internal structure is highly relativistic, as in black

2777: holes or neutron stars, or non-relativistic as in the Earth and Sun,

2778: only the mass and angular momentum are needed.  Furthermore, both

2779: quantities are measurable in principle by examining the external

2780: gravitational field of the bodies, and make no reference whatsoever to

2781: their interiors.  

2782: 

2783: Damour

2784: \cite{Damour300} calls this the ``effacement'' of the bodies' internal

2785: structure.

2786: It is a consequence of the Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP), described in

2787: Section \ref{sep}.

2788: 

2789: General relativity satisfies SEP because it contains one and only one

2790: gravitational field, the spacetime metric $g_{\mu\nu}$.  Consider the

2791: motion of a body in a binary system, whose size is small compared to

2792: the binary separation.  Surround the body by a region that is large

2793: compared to the size of the body, yet small compared to the

2794: separation.  Because of the general covariance of the theory, one can

2795: choose a freely-falling coordinate system which comoves with the body,

2796: whose spacetime metric 

2797: takes the Minkowski form at its outer boundary (ignoring tidal

2798: effects generated by the companion).  

2799: There is thus no evidence of the presence of the companion body,

2800: and the structure of the chosen body can be obtained using the field

2801: equations of GR in this coordinate system.  Far from the chosen body,

2802: the metric is characterized by the mass and angular momentum (assuming

2803: that one ignores quadrupole and higher multipole moments of the body) as

2804: measured far from the body using orbiting test particles and gyroscopes.

2805: These asymptotically measured quantities are oblivious to 

2806: the body's internal structure.  A black hole of mass $m$ and a planet

2807: of mass $m$ would produce identical spacetimes in this outer region.

2808: 

2809: The geometry of this region surrounding the one body must be matched to

2810: the geometry provided by the companion body.  Einstein's equations

2811: provide consistency conditions for this matching that yield

2812: constraints on the motion of the bodies.  These are the equations of

2813: motion.  As a result the motion of two planets of mass and angular

2814: momentum $m_1$, $m_2$, ${\bf J}_1$ and  ${\bf J}_2$ is 

2815: identical to that of two black holes of the same mass and angular

2816: momentum (again, ignoring tidal effects).

2817: 

2818: This effacement does not occur in an alternative gravitional theory

2819: like scalar-tensor gravity.  There, in addition to the spacetime

2820: metric, a scalar field $\phi$ is generated by the masses of

2821: the bodies, and controls the local value of the gravitational coupling

2822: constant (\ie $G$ is a function of $\phi$).   Now, in the local frame

2823: surrounding one of the bodies in our binary system, while the metric

2824: can still be made Minkowskian far away, the scalar field will take on

2825: a value $\phi_0$ determined by the companion body.  This can affect

2826: the value of $G$ inside the chosen body, alter its 

2827: internal structure (specifically its gravitational binding energy) 

2828: and hence alter its mass.  

2829: Effectively, each mass becomes several functions $m_A(\phi)$

2830: of

2831: the value of the scalar field at its location, and several distinct masses

2832: come into play, inertial mass, gravitational mass, ``radiation'' mass,

2833: \etc  The precise nature of the

2834: functions will depend on the body, specifically on its gravitational

2835: binding energy, and as a result, the motion and

2836: gravitational radiation may depend on the internal structure of each

2837: body.  For compact bodies such as neutron stars, and black holes these internal

2838: structure effects could be large; for example, the gravitational binding energy

2839: of a neutron star can be 40 percent of its total mass.  

2840: At 1PN order, the leading manifestation of this effect is 

2841: the Nordtvedt effect. 

2842: 

2843: This is how the study of orbiting systems containing

2844: compact objects provides strong-field tests of general relativity.

2845: Even though the strong-field nature of the bodies is effaced in GR, it

2846: is not in other theories, thus any result in agreement with the

2847: predictions of GR constitutes a

2848: kind of ``null'' test of strong-field gravity.

2849:  

2850: \subsection{Motion and gravitational

2851: radiation in general relativity}

2852: \label{eomgw}

2853: 

2854: The motion of bodies and the

2855: generation of gravitational radiation are long-standing problems

2856: that date back to the first years following the publication of

2857: GR, when Einstein calculated the gravitational

2858: radiation emitted by a laboratory-scale object using the linearized

2859: version of GR, and de Sitter calculated N-body equations of motion for

2860: bodies in the 1PN approximation to GR.

2861: It has at times been controversial, with disputes over such issues as

2862: whether Einstein's equations alone imply equations of motion for

2863: bodies (Einstein, Infeld and Hoffman demonstrated explicitly that they

2864: do, using a matching procedure similar to the one described 

2865: above), whether gravitational waves are real or are artifacts of general

2866: covariance (Einstein waffled; Bondi and colleagues proved their

2867: reality rigorously in the 1950s), and even over algebraic errors

2868: (Einstein erred by a factor of 2 in his first radiation calculation;

2869: Eddington found the mistake).  

2870: Shortly after the discovery of the binary pulsar PSR

2871: 1913+16 in 1974, questions were raised about the foundations of the

2872: ``quadrupole formula'' for gravitational radiation damping

2873: (and in

2874: some quarters, even about its quantitative validity).

2875: These questions were answered in part by theoretical

2876: work designed to shore up the

2877: foundations of the quadrupole approximation, and in

2878: part

2879: (perhaps mostly) by the

2880: agreement between the predictions of the

2881: quadrupole formula and the {\it observed}

2882: rate of damping of the pulsar's orbit (see Section \ref{binarypulsars}).

2883: Damour \cite{Damour300} gives a

2884: thorough review of this subject. 

2885: 

2886: The problem of motion and radiation has received renewed interest

2887: since 1990, with proposals for construction of 

2888: large-scale laser interferometric

2889: grav\-it\-at\-ional-wave observatories, such as the LIGO project in the US,

2890: VIRGO and GEO600 in Europe, and TAMA300 in Japan,

2891: and the realization that a leading

2892: candidate source of detectable waves would be the inspiral, driven 

2893: by grav\-it\-at\-ional radiation damping,

2894: of a binary system of compact objects (neutron stars

2895: or black holes) \cite{LIGO,snowmass}.  The

2896: analysis of signals from such systems 

2897: will require theoretical predictions from GR that are

2898: extremely accurate, well beyond the leading-order prediction of

2899: Newtonian or even post-Newtonian gravity for the orbits, and well beyond

2900: the leading-order formulae for gravitational waves.

2901: 

2902: This presented a major theoretical challenge: to calculate the motion

2903: and radiation of systems of compact objects

2904: to very high PN order, a formidable algebraic task,

2905: while addressing a number of issues of principle that have

2906: historically plagued this subject, sufficiently well

2907: to ensure that the results were physically meaningful.  This

2908: challenge is in the process of being met, so that we

2909: may soon see a remarkable convergence between observational

2910: data and accurate predictions of gravitational theory that could

2911: provide new, strong-field tests of GR. 

2912: 

2913: Here we give a brief overview of the problem of motion

2914: and gravitational radiation.  

2915: 

2916: \subsection{Einstein's equations in ``relaxed'' form}

2917: \label{EErelaxed}

2918: 

2919: The Einstein equations $G_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi T_{\mu\nu}$ are elegant and

2920: deceptively simple, showing geometry (in the form of the Einstein

2921: tensor $G_{\mu\nu}$, which is a function of spacetime curvature)

2922: being generated by matter (in the form of the material stress-energy tensor

2923: $T_{\mu\nu}$.  However, this is not the most useful form for actual

2924: calculations.  For post-Newtonian calculations, a far more useful form

2925: is the so-called ``relaxed'' Einstein equations:

2926: \begin{eqnarray}

2927: \Box h^{ \alpha \beta } = -16 \pi {\tau}^{ \alpha \beta } \; ,

2928: \label{relaxed}

2929: \end{eqnarray}

2930: where $\Box \equiv  -{\partial}^2 / \partial t^2 + {\nabla}^2 $

2931: is the flat-spacetime wave operator,

2932: $h^{ \alpha \beta }$ is a ``gravitational tensor potential''

2933: related to the deviation of the spacetime metric from its Minkowski

2934: form by the formula 

2935: $h^{\alpha \beta} \equiv \eta^{\alpha \beta} - (-g)^{1/2} g^{\alpha

2936: \beta}$, $g$ is the determinant of $g_{\alpha

2937: \beta}$, and a particular coordinate system has been specified 

2938: by the deDonder

2939: or harmonic gauge condition

2940: $\partial h^{\alpha \beta} /\partial x^\beta =0$ (summation on

2941: repeated indices is assumed). 

2942: This form of Einstein's equations bears a striking similarity to Maxwell's

2943: equations for the vector potential $A^\alpha$ in Lorentz gauge: $\Box

2944: A^\alpha = -4\pi J^\alpha$, $\partial A^\alpha /\partial

2945: x^\alpha =0$.   There is a key difference, however: the source on the right

2946: hand side of Eq. (\ref{relaxed}) is given by the ``effective''

2947: stress-energy pseudotensor

2948: \begin{eqnarray}

2949: \tau^{\alpha\beta} = (-g)T^{\alpha\beta} + (16\pi)^{-1}

2950: \Lambda^{\alpha\beta} \;,

2951: \label{effective}

2952: \end{eqnarray}

2953: where $\Lambda^{\alpha\beta}$ is the non-linear ``field'' contribution

2954: given by terms quadratic (and higher) in $h^{\alpha \beta}$ and its 

2955: derivatives (see \cite{MTW}, Eqs. (20.20) - (20.21) for formulae).

2956: In general relativity, the gravitational field itself generates

2957: gravity, a reflection of the nonlinearity of Einstein's equations, and

2958: in

2959: contrast to the linearity of Maxwell's equations.  

2960: 

2961: Equation (\ref{relaxed}) is exact, and depends only on the assumption

2962: that spacetime can be covered by harmonic coordinates.  It is called

2963: ``relaxed'' because it

2964: can be solved formally as a functional of source variables without

2965: specifying the motion of the source, in the form

2966: \begin{eqnarray}

2967: h^{\alpha \beta} (t,{\bf x})  &=& 4 \int_{\cal C}

2968: { \tau^{\alpha \beta} (t -| {\bf x} - {\bf x^\prime} |, {\bf x^\prime}

2969: )

2970: \over | {\bf x} - {\bf x^\prime} | } d^3x^\prime \;,

2971: \label{nearintegral}

2972: \end{eqnarray}

2973: where the integration is over the past flat-spacetime null cone $\cal

2974: C$ of the field point $(t,{\bf x})$.  

2975: The motion of the source is then determined either by the equation 

2976: $\partial {\tau}^{\alpha \beta} /\partial x^\beta =0$ (which follows

2977: from the harmonic gauge condition), or from the usual covariant

2978: equation of motion ${T^{\alpha\beta}}_{;\beta}=0$, where the subscript

2979: $;\beta$ denotes a covariant divergence.

2980: This formal solution can then be iterated in a slow motion ($v<1$)

2981: weak-field ($||h^{\alpha \beta}||<1$) approximation.  One begins by

2982: substituting

2983: $h_0^{\alpha \beta} =0$ into the source $\tau^{\alpha \beta}$ in Eq.

2984: (\ref{nearintegral}), and

2985: solving for the first iterate $h_1^{\alpha \beta}$, and then repeating the

2986: procedure sufficiently many times to achieve a solution of the desired

2987: accuracy.  For example, to obtain the 1PN equations of motion, {\it

2988: two} iterations are needed (\ie $h_2^{\alpha \beta}$ must be

2989: calculated); likewise, to obtain the leading gravitational waveform

2990: for a binary system, two iterations are needed. 

2991: 

2992: At the same time, just as in electromagnetism, the formal integral

2993: (\ref{nearintegral}) must be handled differently, depending on whether

2994: the field point is in the far zone or the near zone.

2995: For 

2996: field points in the far zone or radiation zone, $|{\bf x}| >

2997: {\lambda\!\!\!{\scriptscriptstyle{{}^{-}}}} > |{\bf x}^\prime|$ 

2998: (${\lambda\!\!\!{\scriptscriptstyle{{}^{-}}}}$ is the gravitational

2999: wavelength$/2\pi$), the field can be expanded in inverse powers of

3000: $R=|{\bf x}|$ in a multipole expansion, evaluated at the ``retarded

3001: time'' $t-R$.  The leading term in $1/R$ is

3002: the gravitational waveform.  For field points in the near zone or

3003: induction zone, $|{\bf x}| \sim |{\bf x}^\prime| <

3004: {\lambda\!\!\!{\scriptscriptstyle{{}^{-}}}}$, the field is expanded in

3005: powers of $|{\bf x}-{\bf x}^\prime|$ about the local time $t$,

3006: yielding instantaneous potentials that go into the equations of

3007: motion.  

3008: 

3009: However, because the source ${\tau}^{\alpha \beta}$ contains

3010: $h^{\alpha \beta}$ itself, it is not confined to a compact region, but

3011: extends over all spacetime.  As a result, there is a danger that the

3012: integrals involved in the various expansions will diverge or be

3013: ill-defined.  This consequence of the non-linearity of Einstein's

3014: equations has bedeviled the subject of gravitational radiation for

3015: decades.  Numerous approaches have been developed to try to

3016: handle this difficulty.  The ``post-Minkowskian'' method of Blanchet,

3017: Damour and Iyer \cite{bd86,bd88,bd89,di91,bd92,blanchet95} 

3018: solves Einstein's equations by two

3019: different techniques, one in the near zone and one in the far zone,

3020: and uses the method of singular asymptotic matching to join the

3021: solutions in an overlap region.  The method provides a natural

3022: ``regularization'' technique to control potentially divergent

3023: integrals.  The ``Direct Integration of the Relaxed Einstein

3024: Equations'' (DIRE) approach of Will, Wiseman and Pati

3025: \cite{opus,DIRE}, retains

3026: Eq. (\ref{nearintegral}) as the global solution, but splits the

3027: integration into one over the near zone and another over the far zone,

3028: and uses different

3029: integration variables to carry out the explicit integrals over the two

3030: zones.  In the DIRE method, all integrals are finite and convergent.

3031: 

3032: These methods assume from the outset that gravity is

3033: sufficiently weak that $||h^{\alpha\beta}||<1$ and harmonic

3034: coordinates exists everywhere, including inside the bodies.  Thus, in

3035: order to apply the results to cases where the bodies may be neutron

3036: stars or black holes, one relies upon the Strong Equivalence Principle

3037: to argue that, if tidal forces are ignored, and equations are

3038: expressed in terms of masses and spins,  one can simply 

3039: extrapolate the results unchanged 

3040: to the situation where the bodies are ultrarelativistic.

3041: While no general proof of this exists, it has been shown to be valid

3042: in specific circumstances, such as at 2PN order in the equations of

3043: motion, and for black holes moving in a Newtonian background field

3044: \cite{Damour300}.

3045: 

3046: Methods such as these 

3047: have resolved most of the issues that led to criticism of the

3048: foundations of gravitational radiation theory during the 1970s. 

3049: 

3050: \subsection{Equations of motion and gravitational waveform}

3051: \label{eomwaveform}

3052: 

3053: Among the results of these approaches are formulae for the equations of

3054: motion and gravitational waveform of binary systems of compact

3055: objects, carried out to high orders in an PN expansion.  Here we shall

3056: only state the key formulae that will be needed for this article.

3057: For example,

3058: the relative two-body equation of motion has the form

3059: \begin{equation}

3060: {\bf a} = {{d{\bf v}} \over dt} = {m \over r^2} \left \{- {\bf {\hat n}} + {\bf A}_{1PN} + {\bf

3061: A}_{2PN} + {\bf A}_{2.5PN} + {\bf A}_{3PN} + {\bf A}_{3.5PN} + \dots

3062: \right \} \,,

3063: \label{EOM}

3064: \end{equation}

3065: where $m=m_1+m_2$ is the total mass, $r= |{\bf x}_1 -{\bf x}_2|$,

3066: ${\bf v}={\bf v}_1-{\bf v}_2$, and

3067: ${\bf {\hat n}} = ({\bf x}_1 -{\bf x}_2)/r$.

3068: The notation ${\bf A}_{nPN}$ indicates that the term is

3069: $O(\epsilon^n)$ relative to the Newtonian term $-{\bf {\hat n}}$.

3070: Explicit formulae for terms through various orders have been

3071: calculated by

3072: various authors: non-radiative terms through 2PN order

3073: \cite{DD81,Damour82,GK86,Damour300,bfp98},

3074: radiation reaction terms at 2.5PN and

3075: 3.5PN order \cite{iyerwill,iyerwill2,blanchet97},

3076: and non-radiative 3PN terms

3077: \cite{jaraschaefer98,jaranowski,damjaraschaefer,blanchetfaye1,blanchetfaye2}.

3078: Here we quote only the first PN corrections and the

3079: leading radiation-reaction terms at 2.5PN order:

3080: \begin{eqnarray}

3081:  {\bf A}_{1PN} &=& \left \{ (4+2\eta){m \over r} - (1+3\eta)v^2 +

3082: {3 \over 2} \eta {\dot r}^2 \right \}{\bf {\hat n}} + (4-2\eta) \dot r

3083: {\bf v} \,, \label{APN} \\

3084: {\bf A}_{2.5PN} &=& -{8 \over 15} \eta {m \over r} \left \{ \left ( 9v^2 +17{m

3085: \over r} \right ) \dot r {\bf {\hat n}} - \left ( 3v^2 +9{m \over r}

3086: \right ) {\bf v} \right \} \,, \label{A2.5PN}

3087: \end{eqnarray}

3088: where $\eta = m_1m_2/(m_1+m_2)^2$.

3089: These terms are sufficient to analyse the orbit and evolution of the

3090: binary pulsar (Sec. \ref{binarypulsars}).  For example, the 1PN terms are

3091: responsible for

3092: the periastron advance of an eccentric orbit, given by $\dot \omega =

3093: 6\pi f_b m/a(1-e^2)$, where $a$ and $e$ are the semi-major axis and

3094: eccentricity, respectively, of the orbit, and $f_b$ is the orbital

3095: frequency, given to the needed order by Kepler's third law 

3096: $2 \pi f_b = (m/a^3)^{1/2}$.

3097: 

3098: Another product is a formula for the gravitational field 

3099: far from the system, written schematically in the form

3100: \begin{equation}

3101: h^{ij} = {2m \over R} \left \{ Q^{ij} + Q_{0.5PN}^{ij} +

3102: Q_{1PN}^{ij} + Q_{1.5PN}^{ij} + Q_{2PN}^{ij} + Q_{2.5PN}^{ij} +

3103: \dots \right \} \,, 

3104: \label{waveform}

3105: \end{equation}

3106: where $R$ is the distance from the source, and the variables

3107: are to be evaluated at retarded time $t-R$.  The leading term

3108: is the so-called quadrupole formula 

3109: \begin{equation}

3110: h^{ij}(t,{\bf x}) =  {2 \over R}{\ddot I}^{ij}(t-R) \,,

3111: \label{waveformquad}

3112: \end{equation}

3113: where $I^{ij}$ is the quadrupole moment of the source, and overdots

3114: denote time derivatives.  For a binary system this leads to

3115: \begin{equation}

3116: Q^{ij} = 2\eta (v^iv^j - m{\hat n}^i{\hat n}^j/r) \,.

3117: \label{Qij} 

3118: \end{equation}

3119: For binary systems, explicit 

3120: formulae for all the terms through 2.5PN order have been

3121: derived by various authors

3122: \cite{wagwill,magnum,poisson93,bdi2pn,bdiww,opus,blanchet96,blanchet98}.  

3123: Given the gravitational waveform, one can

3124: compute the rate at which energy is carried off by the radiation

3125: (schematically $\int \dot h \dot h d\Omega$,

3126: the gravitational analog of the Poynting

3127: flux).

3128: The lowest-order quadrupole formula leads to the

3129: gravitational-wave energy flux

3130: \begin{equation}

3131: \dot E = {8 \over 15} \eta^2 {m^4 \over r^4} (12v^2-11 {\dot r}^2)\,.

3132: \label{EdotGR}

3133: \end{equation}

3134: Formulae for fluxes of angular and linear momentum can also be

3135: derived.

3136: The 2.5PN radiation-reaction terms in the equation of motion (\ref{EOM})

3137: result in

3138: a damping of the orbital energy that precisely balances the energy

3139: flux (\ref{EdotGR}) 

3140: determined from the waveform.  Averaged over one orbit, this

3141: results in a rate of increase of the binary's orbital frequency  given by 

3142: \begin{equation}

3143: \dot f_b = {192\pi \over 5} f_b^2 (2\pi{\cal M}f_b)^{5/3} F(e)

3144: \,,

3145: \label{fdotGR}

3146: \end{equation} 

3147: where ${\cal M}$ is the so-called ``chirp'' mass, given by ${\cal

3148: M}=\eta^{3/5} m$, and $F(e)=(1+ 73e^2/24+37e^4/96)/(1-e^2)^{7/2}$.

3149: Notice that by making precise measurements of the phase $\Phi (t) = 2\pi

3150: \int^t

3151: f(t^\prime) dt^\prime$ of either the orbit or the gravitational waves

3152: (for which $f =2f_b$ for the dominant component) as a function of

3153: the frequency, one in effect measures the ``chirp'' mass of the

3154: system.  

3155: 

3156: These formalisms have also been generalized to include the leading effects of

3157: spin-orbit and spin-spin coupling between the bodies \cite{kww93,kidder95}.

3158: 

3159: Another approach to gravitational radiation is applicable to the special

3160: limit in which one mass is much smaller than the other.

3161: This is the method of black-hole perturbation theory.  One begins with an

3162: exact background spacetime of a black hole, either the non-rotating

3163: Schwarzschild or the rotating Kerr solution, and perturbs it according to 

3164: $g_{\mu\nu}=g^{(0)}_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}$.  The particle moves on a

3165: geodesic of the background spacetime, and a suitably defined source

3166: stress-energy tensor for the particle acts as a source for the gravitational

3167: perturbation and wave field $h_{\mu\nu}$.  This method provides 

3168: numerical results that are exact in $v$, as well as analytical results 

3169: expressed as series in powers of $v$, both for

3170: non-rotating and for rotating black holes.  For

3171: non-rotating holes, the analytical expansions have been carried to

3172: {\it 5.5} PN order, or $\epsilon^{5.5}$ beyond the 

3173: quadrupole approximation.  All results of black hole

3174: perturbation agree precisely with the $m_1 \to 0$ limit of the PN results,

3175: up to the highest PN order where they can be compared (for a detailed review

3176: see \cite{msstt97}).  

3177: 

3178: \subsection{Gravitational-wave detection}

3179: \label{gwdetection}

3180: 

3181: A gravitational-wave detector can be modelled as a body of mass $M$ at

3182: a

3183: distance $L$ from a fiducial laboratory point, connected to the point

3184: by a spring of resonant frequency $\omega_0$ and quality factor $Q$.

3185: From the equation of geodesic deviation, the infinitesimal

3186: displacement $\xi$ of the mass along the line of separation from its

3187: equilibrium position satisfies the equation of motion

3188: \begin{equation}

3189: \ddot \xi + 2{\omega_0 \over Q} \dot \xi + \omega_0^2 \xi

3190: = {L \over 2} \left ( F_+ (\theta,\phi,\psi) {\ddot h}_+ (t) + F_\times

3191: (\theta,\phi,\psi) {\ddot h}_\times (t) \right ) \,,

3192: \label{detector}

3193: \end{equation}

3194: where $F_+ (\theta,\phi,\psi)$ and $F_\times

3195: (\theta,\phi,\psi)$ are ``beam-pattern'' factors, that depend on the

3196: direction of the source $(\theta,\phi)$, and on a polarization  angle

3197: $\psi$, and $h_+(t)$ and $h_\times (t)$ are gravitational waveforms

3198: corresponding to the two polarizations of

3199: the gravitational wave (for a review, see \cite{Thorne300}).  In 

3200: a source coordinate system in which the $x-y$

3201: plane is the plane of the sky and the $z$-direction points toward the

3202: detector, these two modes are given by 

3203: \begin{equation}

3204: h_+ (t) = {1 \over 2} (h^{xx} (t) - h^{yy} (t) ) \,, \quad

3205: h_\times  (t) = h^{xy} (t) \,,

3206: \label{modes}

3207: \end{equation}

3208: where $h^{ij}$ represent transverse-traceless (TT) projections of the

3209: calculated waveform of Eq. (\ref{waveform}), given by 

3210: \begin{equation}

3211: h^{ij}_{TT} = h^{kl} [(\delta{ik}-{\hat N}^i{\hat N}^k)

3212: (\delta{jl}-{\hat N}^j{\hat N}^l ) - {1 \over 2} (\delta{ij}-{\hat

3213: N}^i{\hat N}^j)

3214: (\delta{kl}-{\hat N}^k{\hat N}^l ) ] \,,

3215: \label{TTprojection}

3216: \end{equation}

3217: where ${\hat N}^j$ is a unit vector pointing toward the detector.

3218: The beam pattern factors depend on the orientation and nature of the

3219: detector.  For a wave approaching along the laboratory

3220: $z$-direction, and for a mass whose location on the $x-y$ plane

3221: makes an angle $\phi$

3222: with the $x$ axis, the beam pattern factors are given by $F_+ =

3223: \cos 2 \phi$ and $F_\times = \sin 2 \phi$.

3224: For a resonant cylinder oriented along the laboratory $z$

3225: axis, and for source direction $(\theta,\phi)$, 

3226: they are given by $F_+ = \sin^2 \theta \cos 2 \psi $, $F_\times

3227: = \sin^2 \theta \sin 2 \psi $ (the angle $\psi$ measures the relative

3228: orientation of the laboratory and source $x$-axes).  For a laser interferometer with one

3229: arm along the laboratory $x$-axis, the other along the $y$-axis, and

3230: with $\xi$ defined as the {\it differential} displacement 

3231: along the two arms, the beam pattern functions are

3232: $F_+ = {1 \over 2} (1+\cos^2 \theta )\cos 2 \phi \cos 2 \psi - \cos

3233: \theta \sin 2 \phi \sin 2 \psi $ and

3234: $F_\times = {1 \over 2} (1+\cos^2 \theta )\cos 2 \phi \sin 2 \psi + \cos

3235: \theta \sin 2 \phi \cos 2 \psi $.  

3236: 

3237: The waveforms $h_+ (t)$ and $h_\times (t)$ depend on the nature and

3238: evolution of the source.  For example, for a binary system in a

3239: circular orbit, with an inclination $i$ relative to the plane of the

3240: sky, and the $x$-axis oriented along the major axis of the projected

3241: orbit, the quadrupole approximation of Eq. (\ref{Qij}) gives 

3242: \begin{eqnarray}

3243: h_+ (t) &=& - {{2{\cal M}} \over R} (2\pi {\cal M} f_b)^{2/3} (1+ \cos^2 i) \cos

3244: 2 \Phi_b (t) \,, \nonumber \\

3245: h_\times (t) &=& - {{2{\cal M}} \over R} (2\pi {\cal M} f_b)^{2/3} 2 \cos i

3246: \cos 2 \Phi_b (t) \,,

3247: \end{eqnarray}

3248: where $\Phi_b (t) = 2\pi \int^t f_b (t^\prime) dt^\prime$ is the orbital

3249: phase.

3250: 

3251: %=======================================================

3252: % Section 5

3253: %=======================================================

3254: 

3255: \section{Stellar system tests of gravitational theory}\label{stellar}

3256: %------------------------------------------------

3257: % subsection 5.1

3258: %------------------------------------------------

3259: 

3260: \subsection{The binary pulsar and general relativity}\label{binarypulsars}

3261: 

3262: The 1974 discovery of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 by Joseph Taylor

3263: and Russell Hulse during a routine search for new pulsars

3264: provided the first possibility of probing new aspects of gravitational 

3265: theory:  the effects of strong relativistic internal gravitational fields 

3266: on orbital dynamics, and the effects of gravitational radiation reaction.

3267: For reviews of the discovery and current status, see the published

3268: Nobel Prize lectures by Hulse and Taylor \cite{Hulse,Taylor94}.

3269: For a thorough review of pulsars, including binary and millisecond

3270: pulsars, see \cite{lorimer}.

3271: 

3272: The system consists of a pulsar of nominal period 59 ms in a close binary 

3273: orbit with an as yet unseen companion.  The orbital period is about

3274: 7.75 hours, and the eccentricity is 0.617.  From detailed analyses of the 

3275: arrival times of pulses (which amounts to an integrated version of the 

3276: Doppler-shift methods used in spectroscopic binary systems), extremely 

3277: accurate orbital and physical parameters for the system have been obtained 

3278: (Table \ref{bpdata}).  Because the orbit is so close 

3279: ($ \approx 1 R_\odot$) 

3280: and because there is no evidence of an eclipse of the pulsar signal or of 

3281: mass transfer from the companion, it is generally believed that the companion 

3282: is compact:  evolutionary arguments suggest that it is most likely 

3283: a dead pulsar.  Thus the orbital motion is 

3284: very clean, free from tidal or other 

3285: complicating effects.  Furthermore, the data acquisition is ``clean'' in 

3286: the sense that by exploiting the intrinsic stability of the pulsar

3287: clock combined with the ability to maintain and transfer atomic time

3288: accurately using such devices as the Global Positioning System,

3289: the observers can keep track of the pulsar phase with 

3290: an accuracy of $15 \mu$s, despite extended gaps between 

3291: observing sessions (including a several-year gap during the middle 1990s

3292: upgrade of

3293: the Arecibo radio telecsope).  The pulsar has shown no evidence of ``glitches'' 

3294: in its pulse period.

3295: 

3296: \begin{table}

3297: \begin{center}

3298: \begin{tabular}{l l l}

3299: \hline

3300: \hline

3301: \noalign{\smallskip}

3302: &Symbol&\\

3303: Parameter&(units)&Value$^1$ \\

3304: \hline

3305: \hline

3306: \noalign{\smallskip}

3307: \multispan 3 {(i)   {\bf ``Physical'' Parameters} \hfil}\\

3308: \quad Right Ascension&$\alpha$&$19^h 15^m 28.^s 00018(15)$ \\

3309: \quad Declination&$\delta$&$16 ^\circ 06 ^\prime 27. ^{\prime \prime}

3310: 4043(3)$

3311: \\

3312: \quad  Pulsar Period&$P_p$ (ms)&$59.029997929613(7)$ \\

3313: \quad  Derivative of Period&$\dot P_p$&$8.62713(8) \times 10^{-18}$

3314: \\

3315: \noalign{\smallskip}

3316: \multispan 3 {(ii)  {\bf ``Keplerian'' Parameters} \hfil}\\

3317: \quad  Projected semimajor axis&$a_p \sin i$ (s)&$2.3417592(19)$ \\

3318: \quad  Eccentricity&$e$&$0.6171308(4)$ \\

3319: \quad  Orbital Period&$P_b$ (day)&$0.322997462736(7)$ \\

3320: \quad  Longitude of periastron&$\omega_0$ ($^\circ$)&$226.57528(6)$

3321: \\

3322: \quad Julian date of periastron&$T_0$

3323: (MJD)&$46443.99588319(3)$ \\

3324: \noalign{\smallskip}

3325: \multispan 3 {(iii) {\bf ``Post-Keplerian'' Parameters} \hfil} \\

3326: \quad  Mean rate of periastron advance&$\langle \dot\omega \rangle\,

3327: ( ^\circ \, {\rm

3328: yr}^{-1} )$&$4.226621(11)$ \\

3329: \quad  Redshift/time dilation&$\gamma^\prime$

3330: (ms)&$4.295(2)$ \\

3331: \quad  Orbital period derivative&$\dot P_b \, (10^{-12} )$&$-

3332: 2.422(6)$ \\

3333: \hline

3334: \hline

3335: \noalign{\smallskip}

3336: \multispan 3 {$^1$Numbers in parentheses denote errors in last

3337: digit. \hfil }\\

3338: \multispan 3 {\quad  Data from http://puppsr8.princeton.edu/psrcat.html\hfill

3339: }\\

3340: \end{tabular}

3341: \caption{Parameters of the Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16}

3342: \label{bpdata}

3343: \end{center}

3344: \end{table}

3345: 

3346: Three factors make this system an arena where relativistic celestial

3347: mechanics must be used: the relatively large size of relativistic

3348: effects

3349: [$ v_{\rm orbit} \approx (m/r)^{1/2} \approx 10^{-3}$], a factor of 10

3350: larger than the corresponding values for solar-system orbits;

3351: the short orbital period, allowing secular effects to

3352: build up rapidly; and the cleanliness of the system, allowing

3353: accurate determinations of small effects.  Because the orbital

3354: separation is large compared to the neutron stars' compact size, tidal

3355: effects can be ignored.  Just as Newtonian gravity

3356: is used as a tool for measuring astrophysical parameters of ordinary binary

3357: systems, so GR is used as a tool for measuring

3358: astrophysical parameters in the binary pulsar.

3359: 

3360: The observational parameters that are obtained from a least-squares

3361: solution of the arrival-time data fall into three groups:  (i)\ non-orbital 

3362: parameters, such as the pulsar period and its rate of change (defined

3363: at a given epoch), and the 

3364: position of the pulsar on the sky; (ii)\ five ``Keplerian'' parameters, 

3365: most closely related to those appropriate for standard Newtonian binary

3366: systems, 

3367: such as the eccentricity $e$ and the orbital period $P_b$;

3368: and (iii)\ five ``post-Keplerian'' parameters.   The five post-Keplerian

3369: parameters are $\langle \dot \omega \rangle$, the average rate of periastron advance; 

3370: $\gamma^\prime$, the amplitude of delays in arrival of pulses caused by the

3371: varying effects of the gravitational redshift and time dilation as the

3372: pulsar moves in its elliptical orbit at varying distances from the

3373: companion and with varying speeds;

3374: $\dot P_b$, the rate of change of orbital period, caused

3375: predominantly by gravitational radiation damping; and  $r$ and 

3376: $s = \sin i$, respectively the ``range'' and ``shape'' of the Shapiro

3377: time delay of the pulsar signal as it propagates through the curved

3378: spacetime region near the companion, where $i$ is the angle of 

3379: inclination of the orbit relative 

3380: to the plane of the sky.

3381: 

3382: In GR, these post-Keplerian parameters can be related 

3383: to the masses of the two bodies and to measured Keplerian parameters 

3384: by the equations (TEGP 12.1, 14.6(a))

3385: %\begin{mathletters}

3386: \begin{eqnarray}

3387:         \langle \dot \omega \rangle 

3388: &=& 6\pi f_b (2\pi m f_b )^{2/3} (1-e^2 )^{-1}   \,, \nonumber \\

3389:           \gamma^\prime 

3390:  &=&e (2 \pi f_b )^{-1} (2\pi m f_b)^{2/3}

3391:           (m_2 /m) (1+m_2 /m )   \,, \nonumber \\

3392:           \dot P_b 

3393:  &=&-(192 \pi /5)(2 \pi {\cal M}f_b )^{5/3} F(e)\,,  \nonumber \\

3394:           s &=& \sin i  \,,  \nonumber \\

3395:           r &=& m_2  \,, 

3396: \label{pkparameters}

3397: \end{eqnarray}

3398: %\end{mathletters}

3399: where 

3400: $m_1$ and $m_2$ denote the pulsar and companion masses, respectively.  

3401: The formula for $\langle \dot \omega \rangle$ ignores

3402: possible non-relativistic contributions to the periastron shift, 

3403: such as tidally or rotationally induced effects caused by the companion 

3404: (for discussion of these effects, see TEGP 12.1(c)).   The formula 

3405: for $\dot P_b$ includes only quadrupole

3406: gravitational radiation; 

3407: it ignores other sources of energy loss, such as tidal

3408: dissipation (TEGP 12.1(f)).  Notice that, by virtue of Kepler's third

3409: law, $(2\pi f_b)^2 = m/a^3$,  $(2\pi m f_b)^{2/3} \sim m/a \sim

3410: \epsilon$, thus the first two post-Keplerian parameters can be seen

3411: as $O(\epsilon)$, or 1PN corrections to the underlying variable, while the

3412: third is an $O(\epsilon^{5/2})$, or 2.5PN correction.

3413: The current observed values for the Keplerian 

3414: and post-Keplerian parameters are shown in Table \ref{bpdata}.

3415: The parameters $r$ and $s$ are not separately

3416: measurable with interesting accuracy for PSR 1913+16 because the

3417: orbit's $47 ^\circ$ inclination does not lead to a substantial Shapiro

3418: delay.  

3419: 

3420: Because $f_b$ and $e$ are separately measured parameters, the

3421: measurement of the three post-Keplerian parameters provide three

3422: constraints on the two unknown masses.  The periastron shift measures

3423: the total mass of the system, $\dot P_b$ measures the chirp mass, and

3424: $\gamma^\prime$ measures a complicated function of the masses.

3425: GR passes the test if it provides a consistent solution to these

3426: constraints, within the measurement errors.

3427:   

3428: From the intersection of the  $\langle \dot \omega \rangle$ 

3429: and $\gamma^\prime $ constraints we obtain the values

3430: $m_1 = 1.4411 \pm 0.0007 M_\odot$ and 

3431: $m_2 = 1.3873 \pm 0.0007 M_\odot$.  The third of Eqs. \ref{pkparameters} 

3432: then predicts the value 

3433: $\dot P_b = -2.40243 \pm 0.00005 \times 10^{-12}$.

3434: In order to compare the predicted

3435: value for $\dot P_b$ with the observed value of Table \ref{bpdata}, it 

3436: is necessary to

3437: take into account the small effect of a relative acceleration between the

3438: binary pulsar system and the solar system caused by the differential

3439: rotation of the galaxy.  This effect was previously considered unimportant 

3440: when $\dot P_b$ was known only to 10 percent accuracy.  Damour and 

3441: Taylor \cite{DamourTaylor92} 

3442: carried out a careful estimate of this effect using data 

3443: on the location and proper motion of the pulsar, combined with the best

3444: information available on galactic rotation, and found

3445: \begin{equation} 

3446:  \dot P_b^{ \rm GAL} \simeq -(1.7 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-14}  \,.

3447: \label{Pdotgal}

3448: \end{equation}

3449: Subtracting this from the observed $\dot P_b$ (Table \ref{bpdata})

3450: gives the residual

3451: \begin{equation}

3452: \dot P_b^{\rm CORR} = -(2.408 \pm 0.010[{\rm OBS}] \pm 0.005[{\rm GAL}])

3453: \times 10^{-12} \,, 

3454: \label{Pdotcorr}

3455: \end{equation}

3456: which agrees with the prediction, within the errors.  In other words,

3457: \begin{equation}

3458:      {{\dot P_b^{\rm GR}} \over {\dot P_b^{\rm CORR}}} 

3459:  = 1.0023 \pm 0.0041[{\rm OBS}] \pm 0.0021[{\rm GAL}] \,.

3460: \label{Pdotcompare}

3461: \end{equation}

3462: The consistency among the measurements is displayed in Figure \ref{bpfigure1},

3463: in which the regions allowed by the three most precise constraints

3464: have a single common overlap.  

3465: 

3466: A third way to display the agreement with general relativity is by

3467: comparing the observed phase of the orbit with a theoretical template

3468: phase as a function of time.  If $f_b$ varies slowly in time, then to

3469: first order in a Taylor expansion, the orbital phase is given by

3470: $\Phi_b (t) = 2\pi f_{b0} t + \pi {\dot f}_{b0} t^2$.  The time of

3471: periastron passage $t_P$ is given by $\Phi (t_P)=2\pi N$, where $N$ is

3472: an integer, and consequently, the periastron time will not grow

3473: linearly with $N$.  Thus the cumulative difference between periastron

3474: time $t_P$ and $N/f_{b0}$, the quantities actually measured in

3475: practice,  should vary according to 

3476: $t_P - N/f_{b0} = -{\dot f}_{b0} N^2/2 f_{b0}^3 \approx - ({\dot

3477: f}_{b0}/2f_{b0}) t^2$.  Figure \ref{bpfigure2} shows the results: the

3478: dots are the data points, while the curve is the predicted difference

3479: using the measured masses and the quadrupole formula for ${\dot

3480: f}_{b0}$ \cite{weisberg}.   

3481: 

3482: The consistency among the constraints 

3483: provides a test of the assumption that the two bodies 

3484: behave as ``point'' masses, without complicated tidal effects, obeying 

3485: the general relativistic equations of motion including

3486: gravitational radiation.  It is also a test of strong gravity,

3487: in that the highly relativistic internal structure of the

3488: neutron stars does not influence their orbital motion, as predicted by

3489: the Strong Equivalence Principle of GR.  

3490: 

3491: 

3492: \begin{figure}

3493: \begin{center}

3494: \leavevmode

3495: \psfig{figure=livingfig6.ps,height=4.5in}

3496: \end{center}

3497: \caption{Constraints on masses of pulsar and companion from data on

3498: PSR 1913+16, assuming GR to be valid.  Width of each

3499: strip in the plane reflects observational accuracy, shown as a

3500: percentage.  Inset shows the three constraints on the full mass plane;

3501: intersection region (a) has been magnified 400 times for the full

3502: figure.

3503: } 

3504: \label{bpfigure1}

3505: \end{figure}

3506: 

3507: \begin{figure}

3508: \begin{center}

3509: \leavevmode

3510: \psfig{figure=livingfig7.ps,angle=0,height=4.5in}

3511: \end{center}

3512: \caption{Plot of cumulative shift of the periastron time from 1975 -- 2000.

3513: Points are data, curve is the GR prediction.  Gap during the middle

3514: 1990s was caused by closure of Arecibo for upgrading. 

3515: [J. H. Taylor and J. M.  Weisberg, 2000, private communication].

3516: }

3517: \label{bpfigure2}

3518: \end{figure}

3519: 

3520: Recent observations \cite{kramer,weisberg2} indicate

3521: variations in the pulse profile, which suggests that the pulsar is

3522: undergoing precession as it moves through the curved spacetime

3523: generated by its companion, an effect known as geodetic precession. 

3524: The amount is consistent with GR, assuming that the pulsar's

3525: spin is suitably misaligned with the orbital angular momentum.  

3526: Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that the pulsar beam may precess

3527: out of our line of sight by 2020. 

3528: 

3529: %-----------------------------------------

3530: % subsection 4.2

3531: %-----------------------------------------

3532: 

3533: \subsection{A population of binary pulsars?}\label{population}

3534: 

3535: Since 1990, several new massive binary pulsars similar to PSR 1913+16 were

3536: discovered, leading to the possibility of new or improved tests of

3537: GR.

3538: 

3539: \begin{table}

3540: \begin{center}

3541: \begin{tabular}{l l l l l}

3542: \hline

3543: \hline

3544: \noalign{\smallskip}

3545: Parameter&B1534+12&B2127+11C&B1855+09&B0655+64 \\

3546: \hline

3547: \hline

3548: \noalign{\smallskip}

3549: \multispan 4 {\bf (i)  ``Keplerian'' Parameters \hfil}\\

3550: \quad  $a_p \sin i$ (s) &3.729464(3)&2.520(3)&9.2307802(4)&4.125612(5)\\

3551: \quad  $e$&0.2736775(5)&0.68141(2)&0.00002168(5)&0.0000075(11)\\

3552: \quad  $P_b$(day)&0.42073729933(3)&0.335282052(6)&12.3271711905(6)&1.028669703(1)\\

3553: \noalign{\smallskip}

3554: \multispan 4 {\bf (ii) ``Post-Keplerian'' Parameters$^1$ \hfil} \\

3555: \quad  $\langle \dot \omega \rangle \, ( ^\circ \, {\rm yr}^{-1} )$

3556: &1.755794(19)&4.457(12)&\\

3557: \quad  $\gamma^\prime$ (ms)&2.071(6)&4.9(1.1)&\\

3558: \quad  ${\dot P}_b \,(10^{-12})$&$-$0.131(9)&&&$<$ 0.5\\

3559: \quad  $r(\mu {\rm s})$&6.3(1.3)&&1.27(10)\\

3560: \quad  $s= \sin i$&0.983(8)&&0.9992(5)\\

3561: \hline

3562: \hline

3563: \noalign{\smallskip}

3564: \multispan 5 {$^1$ From \cite{wolszczan,stairs,stairs2} \hfil }\\

3565: \multispan 5 {\quad and http://puppsr8.princeton.edu/psrcat.html \hfil}\\

3566: \end{tabular}

3567: \caption{Parameters of Other Binary Pulsars}

3568: \label{bpdata2}

3569: \end{center}

3570: \end{table}

3571: 

3572: {\it PSR 1534+12}.  \quad This is a binary pulsar system in our

3573: galaxy.  Its pulses are significantly stronger and narrower

3574: than those of PSR 1913+16, so timing measurements are more precise,

3575: reaching $3 \mu s$ accuracy.  Its parameters are listed in 

3576: Table \ref{bpdata2} \cite{stairs,stairs2}.  

3577: The orbital plane appears to be almost edge-on relative to the line 

3578: of sight ($i \simeq 80 ^\circ$); as a result the Shapiro

3579: delay is substantial, and separate values of the parameters $r$ and

3580: $s$ have been obtained with interesting accuracy.  Assuming general

3581: relativity, one infers that the two masses are 

3582: $m_1=1.335 \pm 0.002 M_\odot$ and $m_2=1.344 \pm 0.002 M_\odot$.  The rate of orbit decay $\dot P_b$ agrees

3583: with GR to about 15 percent, the precision limited by

3584: the poorly known distance to the pulsar, which introduces a

3585: significant uncertainty into the subtraction of galactic

3586: acceleration.  Independently of $\dot P_b$, measurement of the four

3587: other post-Keplerian parameters gives two tests of strong-field

3588: gravity in the non-radiative regime \cite{TWDW92}.

3589: 

3590: {\it PSR 2127+11C.}

3591: \quad This system appears to be a clone of the Hulse-Taylor binary 

3592: pulsar, with very similar values for orbital period and eccentricity

3593: (see Table \ref{bpdata2}).  The inferred

3594: total mass of the system is $2.706 \pm 0.011 M_\odot$.

3595: Because the system is in the globular cluster M15 (NGC 7078), 

3596: it suffers Doppler shifts resulting from local accelerations, 

3597: either by the mean cluster gravitational field or by nearby stars, 

3598: that are more difficult to estimate than was the case with the galactic 

3599: system PSR 1913+16.  This may make a separate, precision measurement of the 

3600: relativistic contribution to $\dot P_b$ impossible.

3601: 

3602: {\it PSR 1855+09}.  \quad This binary pulsar system is not

3603: particularly relativistic, with a long period (12 days) and highly

3604: circular orbit.  However, because we observe the orbit nearly edge on,

3605: the Shapiro delay is large and measurable, as reflected in the

3606: post-Keplerian parameters $r$ and $s$.

3607: 

3608: {\it PSR 0655+64}. \quad This system consists of a pulsar and a white

3609: dwarf companion in a nearly circular orbit.  Only an upper limit on

3610: $\dot P_b$ has been placed.

3611: 

3612: %------------------------------------------

3613: % subsection 4.3

3614: %-------------------------------------------

3615: 

3616: \subsection{Binary pulsars and alternative theories} \label{binarypulsarsalt}

3617: 

3618: Soon after the discovery of the binary pulsar it was widely hailed as 

3619: a new testing ground for relativistic gravitational effects.  

3620: As we have seen in the case of GR, in most respects, 

3621: the system has lived up to, indeed exceeded, the early expectations.  

3622: 

3623: In another respect, however, the system has only partially lived up to its

3624: promise, namely as a direct testing ground for alternative theories of

3625: gravity.  The origin of this promise was the discovery

3626: that alternative theories of gravity generically predict the emission 

3627: of dipole gravitational radiation from binary star systems.  

3628: In general relativity, there is no dipole radiation because the

3629: ``dipole moment'' (center of mass) of isolated systems is 

3630: uniform in time (conservation

3631: of momentum), and because the ``inertial mass'' that determines the

3632: dipole moment is the same as the mass that generates gravitational

3633: waves (SEP).  In other theories, while the

3634: inertial dipole moment may remain uniform, the ``gravity-wave'' dipole

3635: moment need not, because the mass that generates gravitational waves

3636: depends differently on the internal

3637: gravitational binding energy of each body than does the inertial mass

3638: (violation of SEP).  

3639: Schematically, in a coordinate system in which the center of inertial

3640: mass is at the origin, so that $m_{I,1} {\bf x}_1 + m_{I,2} {\bf x}_2 =0$,

3641: the dipole part of the retarded gravitational field would be given by

3642: \begin{equation}

3643: h \sim {1 \over R} {d \over dt} (m_{GW,1} {\bf x}_1 + m_{GW,2} {\bf x}_2 )

3644: \sim {{\eta m} \over R} {\bf v} \left ( {m_{GW,1} \over m_{I,1}} -

3645: {m_{GW,2} \over m_{I,2}} \right ) \,,

3646: \label{hdipole} 

3647: \end{equation}

3648: where ${\bf v} = {\bf v}_1 -{\bf v}_2$ and $\eta$ and $m$ are defined

3649: using inertial masses.  In theories that violate SEP,

3650: the difference between gravitational-wave mass and inertial mass is a

3651: function of the internal gravitational binding energy of the bodies.

3652: This additional form of gravitational radiation damping could, 

3653: at least in principle, be significantly stronger than the usual quadrupole 

3654: damping, because it depends on fewer powers of the orbital velocity $v$,

3655: and it depends on the gravitational binding energy per unit mass of

3656: the bodies, which, for neutron stars, could be as large as 40 percent

3657: (see TEGP 10 for further details).

3658: As one fulfillment of this promise, Will and Eardley worked out in 

3659: detail the effects of dipole gravitational radiation in the bimetric theory 

3660: of Rosen, and, when the first observation of the decrease of 

3661: the orbital period was announced in 1979, the Rosen theory

3662: suffered a terminal blow.  A wide

3663: class of alternative theories also fail the binary pulsar test because

3664: of dipole gravitational radiation (TEGP 12.3).

3665: 

3666: On the other hand, the early observations of PSR 1913+16 

3667: already indicated that, in

3668: GR, the masses of the two bodies were nearly equal, so

3669: that, in theories of gravity that are in some sense ``close'' to

3670: GR, dipole gravitational radiation would not be a

3671: strong effect, because of the apparent symmetry of the system.  

3672: The Rosen theory, and others like it, are not ``close'' to general 

3673: relativity, except in their predictions for the weak-field, slow-motion 

3674: regime of the solar system.  When relativistic neutron stars are present, 

3675: theories like these can predict strong effects on the motion of the bodies 

3676: resulting from their internal highly relativistic gravitational structure

3677: (violations of SEP).  As a consequence,

3678: the masses inferred from observations of the periastron shift 

3679: and $\gamma^\prime$ may

3680: be significantly different from those inferred using general

3681: relativity, and may be different from each other, leading to strong

3682: dipole gravitational radiation damping.  By contrast, the Brans-Dicke

3683: theory is ``close'' to GR, roughly

3684: speaking within $1/ \omega_{\rm BD}$ of the predictions of the latter, 

3685: for large values of the coupling constant $\omega_{\rm BD}$  (here we use

3686: the subscript BD to distinguish the coupling constant from the periastron

3687: advance $\dot \omega$).  

3688: Thus, despite the presence of dipole gravitational radiation, 

3689: the binary pulsar provides at present only a weak test of Brans-Dicke

3690: theory, not yet competitive with solar-system tests.  

3691: 

3692: %------------------------------------------------------

3693: % subsection 4.4

3694: %------------------------------------------------------

3695: 

3696: \subsection{Binary pulsars and scalar-tensor gravity} 

3697: \label{binarypulsarsscalar}

3698: 

3699: Making the usual assumption that both members of the system are neutron 

3700: stars, and using the methods summarized in TEGP Chapters 10--12, 

3701: one can obtain 

3702: formulas for the periastron shift, the gravitational redshift/second-order 

3703: Doppler shift parameter, and the rate of change of orbital period, 

3704: analogous to Eqs. (\ref{pkparameters}).  These formulas depend on the

3705: masses of the two neutron stars, on their self-gravitational binding

3706: energy, represented by ``sensitivities'' $s$ and $\kappa^*$ and on 

3707: the Brans-Dicke coupling constant $\omega_{\rm BD}$.  First, there is 

3708: a modification of Kepler's third law, given by

3709: \begin{equation}

3710:     2 \pi f_b = ( {\cal G} m /a^3)^{1/2} \,.

3711: \label{KeplerBD}

3712: \end{equation}

3713: Then, the predictions for $\langle \dot \omega \rangle$, $\gamma^\prime$ 

3714: and $\dot P_b$

3715: are

3716: %\begin{mathletters}

3717: \begin{eqnarray}

3718:        \langle \dot \omega \rangle 

3719: &=& 6 \pi f_b (2\pi m f_b)^{2/3} (1-e^2 )^{-1} {\cal P}{\cal G}^{-4/3}

3720:  \,, \label{periastronBD}\\

3721:           \gamma^\prime 

3722: &=& e (2 \pi f_b )^{-1} (2\pi m f_b)^{2/3}

3723:           (m_2 /m) {\cal G}^{-1/3}

3724:           ( \alpha_2^* + {\cal G} m_2 /m

3725:       + \kappa_1^* \eta_2^* )  \,,\label{gammaBD} \\

3726:           \dot P_b 

3727: &=& -(192 \pi /5)(2 \pi {\cal M} f_b )^{5/3} F^\prime (e) 

3728:      - 4 \pi (2 \pi \mu f_b ) \xi {\cal S}^2 G(e)  \,, \label{PdotBD}

3729: \end{eqnarray}

3730: %\end{mathletters}

3731: where ${\cal M} \equiv \chi^{3/5} {\cal G}^{-4/5} \eta^{3/5} m$, and, 

3732: to first order in $\xi \equiv (2 + \omega_{\rm BD} )^{-1}$, we

3733: have 

3734: %\begin{mathletters}

3735: \begin{eqnarray} 

3736:           F^\prime (e)  

3737: &=& F(e) + {5 \over 144} \xi (\Gamma + 3 \Gamma^\prime )^2

3738:        (  {1 \over 2} e^2 

3739:        +   {1 \over 8} e^4 ) (1-e^2 )^{-7/2}  \,, \nonumber \\

3740:           G(e)  

3741: &=& (1-e^2 )^{-5/2} (1+ {1 \over 2} e^2 )

3742:     \,,\nonumber \\

3743:           {\cal S}  

3744: &=& s_1  -  s_2  \,, \nonumber \\

3745:           {\cal G}  

3746: &=&  1  -  \xi (s_1 + s_2 - 2s_1 s_2 )  \,, \nonumber \\

3747:           {\cal P}  

3748: &=& {\cal G} [1 -  {2 \over 3} \xi

3749:        +  {1 \over 3} \xi  

3750:           (s_1 + s_2 -2s_1 s_2 )]  \,, \nonumber \\

3751:           \alpha_2^*  

3752: &=& 1 -  \xi s_2  \,, \qquad

3753:           \eta_2^*  

3754: = (1-2s_2 ) \xi  \,, \nonumber \\

3755:           \chi

3756: &=& {\cal G}^2 

3757:           [1 -   {1 \over 2} \xi  +  {1 \over 12} \xi \Gamma^2 ]  \,, 

3758: \nonumber \\

3759:           \Gamma  

3760: &=& 1 - 2(m_1 s_2  +  m_2 s_1 )/m  \,, \quad

3761:           \Gamma^\prime  

3762: = 1 - s_1 - s_2 \,. 

3763: \label{BDcoefficients}

3764: \end{eqnarray}

3765: %\end{mathletters}

3766: The quantities $s_a$ and $\kappa_a^*$ are defined by

3767: \begin{equation} 

3768:        s_a = - 

3769: \left ( {{\partial (\ln m_a )} \over {\partial (\ln G)}} \right )_N 

3770:     \,, \qquad

3771:        \kappa_a^*  =  - 

3772: \left ( {{\partial (\ln I_a )} \over {\partial (\ln G)}} \right )_N 

3773: \,,\label{sensitivities}

3774: \end{equation}

3775: and measure the ``sensitivity'' of the mass $m_a$ and moment

3776: of inertia $I_a$ of each body to changes in the scalar field

3777: (reflected in changes in $G$) for a fixed baryon number $N$ (see TEGP

3778: 11, 12 and 14.6(c) for further details).  The quantity $s_a$ is

3779: related to the gravitational binding energy.  Notice how the violation of

3780: SEP in Brans-Dicke theory introduces complex structure-dependent

3781: effects in everything from the Newtonian limit (modification of the

3782: effective coupling constant in Kepler's third law) to

3783: gravitational-radiation.  In the limit $\xi \to 0$, we recover GR, and

3784: all structure dependence disappears.

3785: The first term in $\dot P_b$ [Eq. (\ref{PdotBD})]

3786: is the effect of quadrupole and

3787: monopole gravitational radiation, while the second term is the

3788: effect of dipole radiation.  

3789: 

3790: In order to estimate the sensitivities $s_a$  

3791: and $\kappa^*_a$, one must adopt an equation of state for

3792: the neutron stars.  It is sufficient to restrict

3793: attention to relatively stiff neutron 

3794: star equations of state in order to guarantee neutron stars of sufficient 

3795: mass, approximately $1.4 M_\odot$.  The lower limit 

3796: on $\omega_{\rm BD}$ required to give consistency among the constraints on 

3797: $\langle \dot \omega \rangle$, $\gamma$ and $\dot P_b$ 

3798: as in Figure \ref{bpfigure1} is several hundred \cite{zaglauer}.  

3799: The combination of $\langle \dot \omega \rangle$ and $\gamma$ give a constraint on 

3800: the masses that is relatively weakly dependent on $\xi$, thus the constraint 

3801: on $\xi$ is dominated by $\dot P_b$ and is directly proportional to 

3802: the measurement error in $\dot P_b$; in order to achieve a constraint 

3803: comparable to the solar system value of $3 \times 10^{-4}$, the error in

3804: $\dot P_b^{\rm OBS}$ would have to be reduced by more than a factor of ten.

3805: 

3806: Alternatively, a binary pulsar system with dissimilar objects, such as

3807: a white dwarf or black hole companion, would provide potentially more

3808: promising tests of dipole radiation.  Unfortunately, none has been

3809: discovered to date; the dissimilar system B0655+64, with a white dwarf

3810: companion is in a highly circular orbit, making measurement of the

3811: periastron shift meaningless, and is not as relativistic as 1913+16.

3812: From the upper limit on $\dot P_b$ (Table \ref{bpdata2}), one can

3813: infer at best the weak bound $\omega_{BD} > 100$

3814: 

3815: Damour and Esposito-Far\`ese \cite{DamourEspo92} have generalized

3816: these results to a broad class of scalar-tensor theories.  These

3817: theories are characterized by a single function $\alpha(\varphi)$ of the

3818: scalar field $\varphi$, which mediates the coupling strength of the

3819: scalar field.  For application to the solar system or to binary systems, one

3820: expands this function about a cosmological background field value $\varphi_0$:

3821: \begin{equation}

3822: \alpha(\varphi) = \alpha_0 (\varphi -\varphi_0) + {1 \over 2} \beta_0 

3823: (\varphi -\varphi_0)^2 + \dots \,.

3824: \end{equation}

3825: A purely linear coupling function produces Brans-Dicke theory, with

3826: $\alpha_0^2 = 1/(2 \omega_{BD} +3)$.  The function $\alpha(\varphi)$ acts

3827: as a potential function for the scalar field $\varphi$, and, if $\beta_0

3828: >0$, during cosmological evolution,

3829: the scalar field naturally evolves toward the minimum of the

3830: potential, \ie toward $\alpha_0 \approx 0$, $\omega_{BD} \to \infty$, or toward

3831: a theory close to, though not precisely GR 

3832: \cite{DamourNord93a,DamourNord93b}.  

3833: Bounds on the parameters $\alpha_0$ and $\beta_0$ from solar-system,

3834: binary-pulsar and gravitational-wave observations 

3835: (see Sec. \ref{backreaction})

3836: are shown in Figure \ref{scalarbounds} \cite{DamourEspo98}.  Negative

3837: values of $\beta_0$ correspond to an unstable scalar potential; in

3838: this case, objects such as neutron stars can experience a

3839: ``spontaneous scalarization'', whereby the interior values of $\varphi$

3840: can take on values very different from the exterior values, through

3841: non-linear interactions between strong gravity and the scalar field,

3842: dramatically affecting the stars' internal structure and the consequent

3843: violations of SEP.  On the other hand, $\beta_0 <0$ is of little

3844: practical interest, because, with an unstable $\varphi$ potential,

3845: cosmological evolution would presumably drive the system away from the

3846: peak where $\alpha_0 \approx 0$, 

3847: toward parameter values that could easily be excluded

3848: by solar system experiments.  On the $\alpha_0 - \beta_0$ plane shown

3849: in Figure \ref{scalarbounds}, the $\alpha_0$ axis corresponds to pure

3850: Brans-Dicke theory, while the origin corresponds to pure GR.  As

3851: discussed above, solar system bounds (labelled ``1PN'' in 

3852: Figure \ref{scalarbounds})

3853: still beat the binary pulsars.

3854: The bounds labelled ``LIGO-VIRGO'' are discussed in Sec.

3855: \ref{backreaction}.

3856: 

3857: \begin{figure}

3858: \begin{center}

3859: \leavevmode

3860: \psfig{figure=livingfig8.ps,height=3.0in}

3861: \end{center}

3862: \caption{Region of the scalar-tensor theory $\alpha_0 - \beta_0$ plane

3863: allowed by solar-system, binary-pulsar, and future gravitational-wave

3864: observations.  A polytropic equation of state for the neutron stars

3865: was assumed.  The shaded region is that allowed by all tests.  For

3866: positive values of $\beta_0$, solar-system bounds (labelled 1PN) still

3867: are the best. (From [Damour and Esposito-Far\`ese 1998], \copyright

3868: 1998 by the American Physical Society, reproduced by permission)}

3869: \label{scalarbounds}

3870: \end{figure}

3871: 

3872: 

3873: %==================================================

3874: % Section 6

3875: %==================================================

3876: 

3877: \section{Gravitational-wave tests of gravitational theory}

3878: \label{gwaves}

3879: 

3880: \subsection{Gravitational-wave observatories}

3881: 

3882: Some time in the next decade, a new opportunity for testing

3883: relativistic gravity will be realized, with

3884: the commissioning and operation of kilometer-scale, laser interferometric

3885: gravitational-wave observatories in the U.S. (LIGO pro\-ject), Europe

3886: (VIRGO and GEO600 projects) and Japan (TAMA300 project).  

3887: Gravit\-at\-ion\-al-wave searches at these observatories are scheduled to

3888: commence around 2002.  The LIGO 

3889: broad-band antennae will have the capability of detecting and

3890: measuring the gravitational waveforms from astronomical sources in a

3891: frequency band between about 10 Hz (the seismic noise cutoff) and 

3892: 500 Hz (the photon counting noise cutoff), with a maximum

3893: sensitivity to strain at around 100 Hz of $h \sim \Delta l/l \sim 10^{-22}$

3894: (rms).  The most promising source for detection and study of

3895: the gravitational-wave signal is the ``inspiralling compact binary''

3896: -- a binary system of neutron stars or black holes (or one of each) in

3897: the final minutes of a death dance leading to a violent merger.

3898: Such is the fate, for example, of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar PSR

3899: 1913+16 in about 300 million years.  Given the expected sensitivity of the

3900: ``advanced LIGO'' (around 2007), which could see such sources out to

3901: hundreds of megaparsecs, it has been estimated that from 3 to

3902: 100 annual inspiral events could be detectable.

3903: Other sources, such as supernova core collapse events, instabilities

3904: in rapidly rotating nascent neutron stars, signals from

3905: non-axisymmetric pulsars, and a stochastic background of waves, may be

3906: detectable (for reviews, see \cite{LIGO,snowmass}; for updates on

3907: the status of various projects, see \cite{fritschel,brillet}).    

3908: 

3909: A similar

3910: network of cryogenic resonant-mass gravitational antennae have  been  in

3911: operation for many years, albeit at lower levels of sensitivity

3912: ($h \sim 10^{-19}$).  While modest improvements in sensitivity may be

3913: expected in the future, these resonant detectors are not expected to

3914: be competitive with the large interferometers, unless new designs

3915: involving bars of spherical, or nearly spherical shape come to

3916: fruition.  These systems are primarily sensitive to waves in

3917: relatively narrow bands about frequencies in the hundreds to thousands

3918: of Hz range \cite{rome,allegro,niobe,auriga}.

3919: 

3920: In addition, plans are being developed for an orbiting laser

3921: interferometer space antenna (LISA for short).  Such a system,

3922: consisting of three spacecraft separated by millions of kilometers,

3923: would be sensitive primarily in the very low frequency band between

3924: $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-1}$ Hz, with peak strain sensitivity of order $h \sim

3925: 10^{-23}$ \cite{danzmann}.   

3926: 

3927: In addition to opening a new astronomical window, the 

3928: detailed observation of gravitational waves by such observatories may

3929: provide the means to test general relativistic predictions for the

3930: polarization and speed of the waves, and for gravitational radiation

3931: damping. 

3932: 

3933: \subsection{Polarization of gravitational waves}

3934:    

3935: A laser-interferometric or resonant bar gravitational-wave detector 

3936: measures the local components of a symmetric $3\times3$ tensor which

3937: is composed of the ``electric'' components of the Riemann curvature tensor,

3938: $R_{0i0j}$, via the equation of geodesic deviation, given, for a pair

3939: of freely falling particles by

3940: $ {\ddot x}^i =  - R_{0i0j} x^j $,

3941: where $x^i$ denotes the spatial separation.  

3942: In general there are six independent components, which can be expressed in

3943: terms of polarizations (modes with specific transformation properties

3944: under rotations and boosts).  Three are transverse to the direction of

3945: propagation, with two representing quadrupolar deformations and one

3946: representing a monopole ``breathing'' deformation.  Three modes are

3947: longitudinal, with one an axially symmetric 

3948: stretching mode in the propagation direction,

3949: and one quadrupolar mode in each of the two orthogonal planes containing the

3950: propagation direction.  Figure \ref{wavemodes} shows the displacements

3951: induced on a ring of freely falling test particles by each of these

3952: modes.  

3953: General relativity predicts only the first two

3954: transverse quadrupolar modes (a) and (b) independently of the source; these

3955: correspond to the waveforms $h_+$ 

3956: and $h_\times$ 

3957: discussed earlier (note the $\cos 2 \phi $ and $\sin 2 \phi $

3958: dependences of the displacements) . 

3959: Scalar-tensor gravitational waves

3960: can in addition contain the transverse breathing mode (c).  More general

3961: metric theories predict additional longitudinal modes,

3962: up to the full complement of 

3963: six (TEGP 10.2).

3964: 

3965: A suitable array of gravitational antennas could delineate or limit

3966: the number of modes present in a given wave.  The strategy depends on

3967: whether or not the source direction is known.

3968: In general there are eight unknowns (six polarizations and two direction

3969: cosines), but only six measurables ($R_{0i0j}$).  If the direction can

3970: be established by either association of the waves with optical or

3971: other observations, or by time-of-flight measurements between

3972: separated detectors, then six suitably oriented detectors suffice to

3973: determine all six components.  If the direction cannot be established,

3974: then the system is underdetermined, and no unique solution can be

3975: found.  However, if one assumes that only transverse waves are

3976: present, then there are only three unknowns if the source direction is

3977: known, or five unknowns otherwise.  Then the corresponding number

3978: (three or five) of detectors can determine the polarization.  If

3979: distinct evidence were found of any mode other than the two 

3980: transverse quadrupolar modes of GR, the result would be disastrous for

3981: GR.  On the other hand, the absence of a breathing mode would not

3982: necessarily rule out scalar-tensor gravity, because the strength

3983: of that mode depends on the nature of the source.  

3984: 

3985: \begin{figure}

3986: \begin{center}

3987: \leavevmode

3988: \psfig{figure=livingfig9.ps,height=5.0in}

3989: \end{center}

3990: \caption{Six polarization modes for gravitational waves permitted in

3991: any metric theory of gravity.  Shown is the displacement that each

3992: mode induces on a ring of test particles.  The wave propagates in the

3993: $+z$ direction.  There is no displacement out of the plane of the

3994: picture.  In (a), (b) and (c), the wave propagates out of the plane;

3995: in (d), (e), and (f), the wave propagates in the plane.  In general

3996: relativity, only

3997: (a) and (b) are present; in scalar-tensor gravity, (c) may also be

3998: present.}

3999: \label{wavemodes}

4000: \end{figure}

4001: 

4002: Some

4003: of the details of implementing such polarization observations have

4004: been worked out for arrays of resonant cylindrical, disk-shaped, 

4005: spherical and truncated icosahedral

4006: detectors (TEGP 10.2, for recent reviews see \cite{lobo,wagoner});

4007: initial work has been done to assess whether

4008: the ground-based or space-based

4009: laser-interferometers (or combinations of the two types) could perform

4010: interesting polarization measurements 

4011: \cite{wagoner2,brunetti,maggiore,gasperini}.  

4012: Unfortunately for this purpose, the two LIGO observatories (in Washington

4013: and Louisiana states, respectively) have been constructed to have their

4014: respective arms as parallel as possible, apart from the curvature of the

4015: Earth; while this maximizes the joint sensitivity of the two detectors to

4016: gravitational waves, it minimizes their ability to detect two modes of

4017: polarization.

4018: 

4019: \subsection{Gravitational radiation back-reaction}

4020: \label{backreaction}

4021: 

4022: In the binary pulsar, a test of GR was made possible by measuring at

4023: least three relativistic effects that depended upon only two unknown

4024: masses.  The evolution of the orbital phase under the damping effect

4025: of gravitational radiation played a crucial role.  Another situation

4026: in which measurement of orbital phase can lead to tests of GR is that

4027: of the inspiralling compact binary system.  The key differences are

4028: that here gravitational radiation itself is the detected signal,

4029: rather than radio pulses, and the phase evolution alone carries all

4030: the information.  In the binary pulsar, the first derivative of the

4031: binary frequency, $\dot f_b$, was measured; here the full nonlinear

4032: variation of $f_b$ as a function of time is measured. 

4033: 

4034: Broad-band laser interferometers

4035: are especially sensitive to the phase evolution of the gravitational

4036: waves, which carry the information about the orbital phase evolution.

4037: The analysis of gravitational-wave data from such sources will involve

4038: some form of matched filtering of the noisy detector output against an

4039: ensemble of theoretical ``template'' waveforms which depend on the

4040: intrinsic parameters of the inspiralling binary, such as the component

4041: masses, spins, and so on, and on its inspiral evolution.  

4042: How accurate must a template be in order to

4043: ``match'' the waveform from a given source (where by a match we mean

4044: maximizing the cross-correlation or the 

4045: signal-to-noise ratio)?  In the total accumulated phase

4046: of the wave detected in the sensitive bandwidth, the template must

4047: match the signal to a fraction of a cycle.  For two inspiralling

4048: neutron stars, around 16,000 cycles should be detected during the final few

4049: minutes of inspiral; this implies a

4050: phasing accuracy of $10^{-5}$ or better.  Since $v \sim 1/10$ during

4051: the late inspiral, this means that correction terms in the phasing

4052: at the level of

4053: $v^5$ or higher are needed.  More formal analyses confirm this

4054: intuition \cite{3min,finnchern,cutlerflan,poissonwill}.

4055: 

4056: Because it is a slow-motion system ($v \sim 10^{-3}$), the binary

4057: pulsar is sensitive only to the lowest-order effects of gravitational

4058: radiation as predicted by the quadrupole formula.  Nevertheless, the

4059: first correction terms of order $v$ and $v^2$ to the quadrupole formula,

4060: were

4061: calculated as early as 1976 (\cite{wagwill}, see TEGP 10.3).  

4062: 

4063: But for laser-interferometric observations of gravitational waves,

4064: the bottom line is that, in order to measure the astrophysical

4065: parameters of the source and to test the properties of the

4066: gravitational waves, it is necessary to derive the

4067: gravitational waveform and the resulting radiation back-reaction on the orbit

4068: phasing at least to 2PN

4069: order beyond the quadrupole

4070: approximation, and probably to 3PN

4071: order.  

4072: 

4073: For the special case of 

4074: non-spinning bodies moving on quasi-circular orbits ({\it i.e.}

4075: circular apart from a slow inspiral), the evolution of the

4076: gravitational wave frequency $f = 2f_b$ through 2PN

4077: order has the 

4078: form 

4079: \begin{eqnarray}

4080: \dot f &=&{96\pi \over 5} f^2 

4081: (\pi {\cal M} f)^{5/3}

4082: \biggl [ 1 

4083: - \left ( {743 \over 336} + {11 \over 4} \eta \right ) (\pi mf)^{2/3}

4084: + 4\pi(\pi mf)  \nonumber \\

4085: &&  + \left ( {34103 \over 18144} + {13661 \over 2016} \eta + {59 \over

4086: 18} \eta^2 \right )  (\pi mf)^{4/3} 

4087: + O[(\pi mf)^{5/3}] \biggr ] \,,

4088: \label{fdot2PN}

4089: \end{eqnarray}

4090: where $\eta= m_1m_2/m^2$.  The first term is the quadrupole

4091: contribution [compare Eq. (\ref{fdotGR})], 

4092: the second term is the 1PN contribution, the

4093: third term, with the coefficient $4\pi$, 

4094: is the ``tail'' contribution,

4095: and the fourth term is the 2PN

4096: contribution, first reported jointly by Blanchet {\it et al.}

4097: \cite{bdiww,bdi2pn,opus}.  

4098: Calculation of the higher-order contributions is nearing completion.

4099: 

4100: Similar expressions can be derived for the loss of angular momentum

4101: and linear momentum. (For explicit formulas for non-circular

4102: orbits, see \cite{gopu}). These losses react

4103: back on the orbit to circularize it and cause it to inspiral.  The

4104: result is that the orbital phase (and consequently the 

4105: gravitational-wave 

4106: phase) evolves non-linearly with time.  It is the sensitivity of the

4107: broad-band LIGO and VIRGO-type detectors to phase that makes the  

4108: higher-order contributions to $df/dt$ so observationally relevant.

4109: A ready-to-use set

4110: of formulae for the 2PN gravitational waveform template, including the

4111: non-linear evolution of the gravitational-wave frequency (not

4112: including spin effects) have been published\cite{biww}  and

4113: incorporated into the Gravitational Radiation Analysis and Simulation

4114: Package (GRASP), a software toolkit used in LIGO.

4115: 

4116: If the coefficients of each of the powers of $f$ in Eq. (\ref{fdot2PN})

4117: can be measured, then one again obtains more than two constraints on

4118: the two unknowns $m_1$ and $m_2$, leading to the possibility to test

4119: GR.  For example, 

4120: Blanchet and Sathyaprakash \cite{lucsathya,lucsathya2} have shown that, by

4121: observing a source with a sufficiently strong signal, an interesting

4122: test of the $4\pi$ coefficient of the ``tail'' term could be

4123: performed.  

4124: 

4125: Another possibility involves gravitational waves from a small mass

4126: orbiting and inspiralling into a (possibly supermassive) spinning black hole.

4127: A general non-circular, non-equatorial orbit will precess around the

4128: hole, both in periastron and in orbital plane, 

4129: leading to a complex gravitational waveform that carries

4130: information about the non-spherical, strong-field spacetime around the hole.

4131: According to GR, this spacetime must be the Kerr spacetime of a

4132: rotating black hole, uniquely specified by its mass and angular

4133: momentum, and consequently, observation of the waves could test this

4134: fundamental hypothesis of GR \cite{ryan,poissonBH}.

4135: 

4136: Thirdly, the dipole gravitational radiation predicted by scalar-tensor

4137: theories will result in a modification of the  gravitational-radiation

4138: back-reaction, and thereby of the phase evolution.

4139: Including only the leading quadrupole and dipole contributions, one

4140: obtains, in Brans-Dicke theory,

4141: \begin{eqnarray}

4142: \dot f &=&{96\pi \over 5} f^2

4143: (\pi {\cal M} f)^{5/3}

4144: \biggl [ 1 + b (\pi mf)^{-2/3}  \biggr ] \,,

4145: \label{fdotBD}

4146: \end{eqnarray}

4147: where ${\cal M} = (\chi^{3/5} {\cal G}^{-4/5})\eta^{3/5} m$, 

4148: and $b$ is the coefficient of the dipole term, given by

4149: $b= (5/48)(\chi^{-1} {\cal G}^{4/3} )\xi {\cal S}^2$, where

4150: $\chi$, $\cal G$, $\cal S$ are given by Eqs. (\ref {BDcoefficients}),

4151: and $\xi = 1/(2+\omega_{BD})$.

4152: The effects are strongest for systems involving a neutron star and a

4153: black hole.   Double neutron star systems are less

4154: promising because the small range of masses available near

4155: $1.4~M_\odot$ results in suppression of dipole radiation by symmetry

4156: (the sensitivity $s$ turns out to be a relatively weak function of

4157: mass near $1.4~M_\odot$, for typical equations of state).

4158: For black holes, $s=0.5$ identically, consequently

4159: double black-hole systems turn out to be observationally

4160: identical in the two theories.  

4161: 

4162: But for a $1.4 ~M_\odot$  

4163: neutron star and a $10~ M_\odot$ ($3~ M_\odot$) black 

4164: hole at 200 Mpc, the bound on

4165: $\omega_{\rm BD}$ could be 600 (1800) (using advanced LIGO noise curves).  

4166: The bound increases linearly with

4167: signal-to-noise ratio \cite{willbd}.  If 

4168: one demands that this test be performed

4169: annually, thus requiring observation of frequent, and therefore

4170: more distant, 

4171: weaker sources, the bounds on $\omega_{\rm BD}$ will be too weak to compete with

4172: existing solar-system bounds (this corresponds to the ``LIGO-VIRGO''

4173: bound on the $\alpha_0$ axis in Figure \ref{scalarbounds}, 

4174: which assumes a signal-to-noise ratio

4175: of 10).

4176: However, if one is prepared to wait 10 years for the

4177: lucky observation of a nearby, strong source, the resulting bound

4178: could exceed the current solar-system bound.  

4179: The bounds are illustrated in Figure

4180: \ref{BDbounds} by the curves marked $N=1$ and $N=1/10$.  

4181: Figure \ref{BDbounds} assumes a

4182: double-neutron-star inspiral rate of $10^{-6}$ per year per galaxy,

4183: and a black-hole-neutron-star rate $\beta$ times that, where $\beta$

4184: is highly uncertain.  

4185: Values of $\beta = 1/10 \,,\, 1, \, {\rm and} \, 10$ are shown.

4186: For the general class of scalar-tensor theories, the corresponding bounds

4187: are plotted on the $\alpha_0 - \beta_0$ plane in Figure

4188: \ref{scalarbounds}, under the restrictive assumption of a signal-to-noise

4189: ratio (S/N) of 10 \cite{DamourEspo98}.   

4190: All other factors being equal, the bound achievable on the 

4191: $\alpha_0 - \beta_0$

4192: parameters of scalar-tensor gravity is inversely proportional to S/N.

4193: 

4194: \begin{figure}

4195: \begin{center}

4196: \leavevmode

4197: \psfig{figure=livingfig10.ps,height=4.0in}

4198: \end{center}

4199: \caption{Bounds on the scalar-tensor coupling constant $\omega_{\rm

4200: BD}$ from

4201: gravitational-wave observations of inspiralling black-hole

4202: neutron-star systems.  The solar system bound is around

4203: $\omega_{\rm BD}=3500$.} 

4204: \label{BDbounds}

4205: \end{figure}

4206: 

4207: \subsection{Speed of gravitational waves}

4208: 

4209: According to GR, in the limit in which the wavelength of gravitational

4210: waves is small compared to the radius of curvature of the background

4211: spacetime, the waves propagate along null geodesics of the background

4212: spacetime, {\it i.e.} they have the same speed, $c$, as light (in this

4213: section, we do not set $c=1$).  In other

4214: theories, the speed could differ from $c$ because of coupling of

4215: gravitation to ``background'' gravitational fields.  For example, in

4216: the Rosen bimetric theory with a flat background metric

4217: $\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}$,

4218: gravitational waves follow null geodesics of $\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$}$,

4219: while light follows null geodesics of ${\bf g}$ (TEGP 10.1).

4220: 

4221: Another way in which the speed of gravitational waves could differ

4222: from $c$ is if gravitation were propagated by a massive field (a

4223: massive graviton), in which case, $v_g$ would

4224: be given by, in a local inertial frame,

4225: \begin{equation}

4226: {v_g^2 \over c^2} = 1- {m_g^2c^4 \over E^2} \,,

4227: \label{eq1} 

4228: \end{equation}

4229: where $m_g$ and $E$ are the graviton rest mass and energy,

4230: respectively.  For a recent review of the idea of a massive graviton

4231: along with a model theory,

4232: see \cite{visser}.

4233: 

4234: The most obvious way to test this is to

4235: compare the arrival times of a gravitational wave and an

4236: electromagnetic

4237: wave from the same event, {\it e.g.} a supernova.

4238: For a source at a distance $D$, the

4239: resulting value of the difference $1-v_g/c$ is

4240: \begin{equation}

4241: 1- {v_g \over c}= 5 \times 10^{-17} \left (

4242: {{200 {\rm Mpc}} \over D} \right ) \left ( {{\Delta t}

4243: \over {1 {\rm s}}} \right )

4244: \,,

4245: \label{eq2}

4246: \end{equation}

4247: where

4248: $\Delta t \equiv \Delta t_a - (1+Z) \Delta t_e $ is the ``time difference'', 

4249: where $\Delta t_a$ and $\Delta t_e$ are the differences

4250: in arrival time and emission time, respectively, of the

4251: two signals, and $Z$ is the redshift of the source.

4252: In many cases, $\Delta t_e$ is unknown,

4253: so that the best one can do is employ an upper bound on

4254: $\Delta t_e$ based on observation or modelling.

4255: The result will then be a bound on $1-v_g/c$.

4256: 

4257: For a massive graviton, if 

4258: the frequency of the gravitational waves is such that $hf \gg

4259: m_gc^2$,

4260: where $h$ is Planck's constant, then $v_g/c \approx 1- {1 \over 2}

4261: (c/\lambda_g

4262: f)^{2}$, where $\lambda_g= h/m_gc$ is the graviton Compton wavelength,

4263: and

4264: the bound on $1-v_g/c$ can be converted to a bound on $\lambda_g$,

4265: given

4266: by

4267: \begin{equation}

4268: \lambda_g > 3 \times 10^{12}~{\rm km} \left ( {D \over {200 ~{\rm

4269: Mpc}}}

4270: {{100 ~{\rm Hz}} \over f} \right )^{1/2} \left ({1 \over

4271: {f\Delta t}} \right )^{1/2} \,.

4272: \label{eq4}

4273: \end{equation}

4274: 

4275: The foregoing discussion assumes that the source emits {\it both}

4276: gravitational and electromagnetic radiation in detectable amounts, and

4277: that the relative time of emission can be established 

4278: to sufficient accuracy, or can be shown to be sufficiently

4279: small.

4280: 

4281: However, there is a situation in which a bound on the graviton mass

4282: can be set using gravitational radiation alone \cite{graviton}.

4283: That is the case of

4284: the inspiralling compact binary.  Because the frequency of the

4285: gravitational radiation sweeps from low frequency at the initial

4286: moment of observation to higher frequency at the final moment, the

4287: speed of the gravitons emitted will vary, from lower speeds initially

4288: to higher speeds (closer to $c$) at the end.  This will cause a

4289: distortion of the observed phasing of the waves and result in a

4290: shorter than expected

4291: overall time $\Delta t_a$ of passage of a given number of cycles.

4292: Furthermore, through the technique of matched filtering, the

4293: parameters of the compact binary can be measured accurately,

4294: (assuming that GR is a good approximation to the orbital evolution, even in

4295: the presence of a massive graviton), and

4296: thereby the emission time $\Delta t_e$ can be determined accurately.

4297: Roughly speaking, the ``phase interval'' $f\Delta t$ in Eq.

4298: (\ref{eq4}) can be

4299: measured to an accuracy $1/\rho$, where $\rho$ is the

4300: signal-\-to-\-noise

4301: ratio.

4302: 

4303: Thus one can estimate the bounds on $\lambda_g$ achievable for various

4304: compact inspiral systems, and for various detectors.   For

4305: stellar-mass inspiral (neutron stars or black holes) observed by the

4306: LIGO/VIRGO class of ground-based interferometers, $D \approx

4307: 200 {\rm Mpc}$, $f \approx 100 {\rm Hz}$, and $f\Delta t \sim

4308: \rho^{-1} \approx 1/10$.

4309: The result is $\lambda_g > 10^{13}

4310: {\rm km}$.  For supermassive binary black holes ($10^4$ to $10^7

4311: M_\odot$) observed by the proposed laser-interferometer space antenna

4312: (LISA), $D \approx 3 {\rm Gpc}$, $f \approx 10^{-3} {\rm Hz}$,

4313: and $f\Delta t \sim

4314: \rho^{-1} \approx 1/1000$. The result is $\lambda_g >

4315: 10^{17}~ {\rm km}$.

4316: 

4317: A full noise analysis using proposed noise curves for the advanced

4318: LIGO and for LISA weakens these crude bounds by factors between two and 10.

4319: These potential bounds can be compared

4320: with the solid bound $\lambda_g > 2.8 \times 10^{12} \, {\rm km}$, 

4321: \cite{talmadge} 

4322: derived from solar system dynamics, which limit

4323: the presence of a Yukawa modification of Newtonian gravity of the form

4324: \begin{equation}

4325: V(r) =(GM/r)\exp(-r/\lambda_g) \,,

4326: \end{equation}

4327: and with the model-dependent bound 

4328: $\lambda_g > 6\times 10^{19} \,{\rm km}$ from consideration of

4329: galactic and cluster dynamics \cite{visser}.

4330: 

4331: 

4332: \subsection{Other strong-gravity tests}\label{other}

4333: 

4334: One of the central difficulties of testing general relativity in the

4335: strong-field regime is the possibility of contamination by uncertain

4336: or complex physics.  In the solar system, weak-field gravitational effects 

4337: could

4338: in most cases be measured cleanly and separately from

4339: non-gravitational effects.  The remarkable cleanliness of the binary

4340: pulsar permitted precise measurements of gravitational phenomena

4341: in a strong-field context.  

4342: 

4343: Unfortunately, nature is rarely so kind.

4344: Still, under suitable conditions, qualitative and even quantitive

4345: strong-field tests of general relativity can be carried out.

4346: 

4347: One example is in cosmology.  From a few seconds after the big bang

4348: until the present, the underlying physics of the universe is well

4349: understood, although significant uncertainties remain (amount of dark

4350: matter, value of the cosmological constant, the number of light

4351: neutrino families, \etc.).  Some alternative theories of gravity that

4352: are qualitatively different from GR fail to produce cosmologies that

4353: meet even the minimum requirements of agreeing qualitatively with big-bang

4354: nucleosynthesis (BBN) or the properties of the cosmic microwave background

4355: (TEGP 13.2).

4356: Others, such as Brans-Dicke theory, are sufficiently close to GR (for

4357: large enough $\omega_{BD}$) that they conform to all cosmological

4358: observations, given the underlying uncertainties.  The generalized

4359: scalar-tensor theories, however, could have small $\omega_{BD}$ at

4360: early times, while evolving through the attractor mechanism to large

4361: $\omega_{BD}$ today.  One way to test such theories is through

4362: big-bang nucleosynthesis, since the abundances of the light elements

4363: produced when the temperature of the universe was about 1 MeV are

4364: sensitive to the rate of expansion at that epoch, which in turn

4365: depends on the strength of interaction between geometry and the

4366: scalar field.  Because the universe is radiation-dominated at that

4367: epoch, uncertainties in the amount of cold dark matter or of the

4368: cosmological constant are unimportant.  The nuclear reaction rates are

4369: reasonably well understood from laboratory experiments and theory, and

4370: the number of light neutrino families (3) conforms to evidence from

4371: particle accelerators.  Thus, within modest uncertainties, one can

4372: assess the quantitive difference between the BBN predictions of GR and

4373: scalar-tensor gravity under strong-field conditions and compare with

4374: observations.

4375: The most sophisticated recent analysis

4376: \cite{damourpichon} places bounds on the parameters $\alpha_0$ and

4377: $\beta_0$ of the generalized framework of Damour and Esposito-Far\`ese

4378: (see Sec. \ref{binarypulsarsscalar} and Fig. \ref{scalarbounds}) that

4379: are weaker than solar-system bounds for $\beta_0 < 0.3$, but

4380: substantially stronger for  $\beta_0 > 0.3$.

4381: 

4382: Another example is the exploration of the spacetime near black holes

4383: via accreting matter.  Observations of low-luminosity binary X-ray

4384: sources suggest that a form of accretion known as advection-dominated

4385: accretion flow (ADAF) may be important.  In this kind of flow, the

4386: accreting gas is too thin to radiate its energy efficiently, but

4387: instead transports (advects) it inward toward the central object.  If

4388: the central object is a neutron star, the matter hits the surface and

4389: radiates the energy away; if it is a black hole, the matter and its

4390: advected energy disappear.   Systems in which the accreting object is

4391: believed to be a black hole from estimates of its mass are indeed

4392: observed to be underluminous, compared to systems where the object is

4393: believe to be a neutron star.  This has been regarded as the first

4394: astrophysical evidence for the existence of black hole event horizons

4395: (for a review, see \cite{narayan}).  While supporting one of the

4396: critical strong-field predictions of GR, the observations and models are not

4397: likely any time soon to be able to distinguish one gravitational 

4398: theory from another (except for theories that do not predict black

4399: holes at all).

4400: 

4401: Another example involving accretion purports to explore the

4402: strong-field region just outside massive black holes in active

4403: galactic nuclei.  Here, iron in the

4404: inner region of a thin

4405: accretion disk is irradiated by X-ray-emitting material above or below the

4406: disk, and fluoresces in the $K\alpha$ line.  The spectral shape of the

4407: line depends on relativistic Doppler and curved-spacetime effects as

4408: the iron orbits the black hole near the innermost stable circular

4409: orbit, and could be used to determine whether the hole is a

4410: non-rotating Schwarzschild black hole, or a rotating Kerr black hole.

4411: Because of uncertainties in the detailed models, the results are

4412: inconclusive to date, but the combination of higher-resolution

4413: observations and better modelling could lead to striking tests of

4414: strong-field predictions of GR.

4415: 

4416: \section{Conclusions} \label{S5}

4417: 

4418: We find

4419: that general relativity has held up under extensive experimental scrutiny.

4420: The question then arises, why bother to continue to test it?  One

4421: reason is that gravity is a fundamental interaction of nature, and as

4422: such requires the most solid empirical underpinning we can provide.

4423: Another is that all attempts to quantize gravity and to unify it with

4424: the other forces suggest that the standard general relativity of Einstein is

4425: not likely to be the last word.

4426: Furthermore, the predictions of general relativity are fixed; 

4427: the theory contains 

4428: no adjustable constants so nothing can be changed.  Thus every test 

4429: of the theory is either a potentially deadly test or a possible probe for

4430: new physics.  Although it is remarkable 

4431: that this theory, born 80 years ago out of almost pure thought, 

4432: has managed to survive every test, the possibility of finding 

4433: a discrepancy will continue to drive experiments for years to come.

4434: 

4435: \section*{Acknowledgments}

4436: 

4437: This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation,

4438: Grant Number PHY 96-00049.

4439: 

4440: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

4441: 

4442: \bibitem{LIGO}\comment{article} 

4443: Abramovici, A.,  Althouse, W. E., Drever, R. W. P., 

4444: G{\" u}rsel, Y.,  Kawamura, S.,  Raab, F. J.,  Shoemaker, D.,  

4445: Siewers, L.,  Spero, R. E.,  Thorne, K. S.,  Vogt, R. E.,  

4446: Weiss, R.,  Whitcomb, S. E., and Zucker, M. E., 

4447: ``LIGO: The laser interferometer gravitational-wave observatory'',

4448: {\it Science}, 

4449: {\bf 256}, 

4450: 325-333, 

4451: (1992).

4452: \keywords{Laser-interferometer gravitational wave detectors}

4453: %

4454: \bibitem{Adelberger}\comment{article} 

4455: Adelberger, E. G., Heckel, B. R., Stubbs, C. W., and Rogers, W. F.,

4456: ``Searches for new macroscopic forces'',

4457: {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Particle Sci.},

4458: {\bf 41},

4459: 269-320, 

4460: (1991).

4461: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence principle,

4462: Particle physics,}

4463: %

4464: \bibitem{AlvarezMann96a}\comment{article} 

4465: Alvarez, C., and Mann, R. B.,

4466: ``Testing the equivalence principle by Lamb shift energies'',

4467: \PRD,

4468: {\bf 54},

4469: 5954-5974,

4470: (1996),

4471: (gr-qc/9507040).

4472: \keywords{Equivalence principle}

4473: %

4474: \bibitem{AlvarezMann96b}\comment{article} 

4475: Alvarez, C., and Mann, R. B.,

4476: ``The equivalence principle and anomalous magnetic moment experiments'',

4477: \PRD,

4478: {\bf 54},

4479: 7097-7107,

4480: (1996),

4481: (gr-qc/9511028).

4482: \keywords{Equivalence principle}

4483: %

4484: \bibitem{AlvarezMann97a}\comment{article} 

4485: Alvarez, C., and Mann, R. B.,

4486: ``The equivalence principle and g-2 experiments'',

4487: {\it Phys. Lett.,} 

4488: {\bf B409},

4489: 83-87,

4490: (1997),

4491: (gr-qc/9510070).

4492: \keywords{Equivalence principle}

4493: %

4494: \bibitem{AlvarezMann97b}\comment{article} 

4495: Alvarez, C., and Mann, R. B.,

4496: ``The equivalence principle in the non-baryonic regime'',

4497: \PRD,

4498: {\bf 55},

4499: 1732-1740,

4500: (1997),

4501: (gr-qc/9609039).

4502: \keywords{Equivalence principle}

4503: %

4504: \bibitem{AlvarezMann97c}\comment{article} 

4505: Alvarez, C., and Mann, R. B.,

4506: ``Testing the equivalence principle using atomic vacuum energy shifts'',

4507: {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.,}

4508: {\bf A11},

4509: 1757-1763,

4510: (1997),

4511: (gr-qc/9612031).

4512: \keywords{Equivalence principle}

4513: %

4514: \bibitem{ashby}\comment{inproceedings}

4515: Ashby, N.,

4516: ``Relativistic effects in the Global Positioning System'',

4517: in Dadhich, N., and Narlikar, J. V., eds.,

4518: {\it Gravitation and Relativity: At the Turn of the Millenium. 15th

4519: International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation},

4520: 231-258,

4521: (Inter-University Center for 

4522: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune, India, 1998).

4523: \keywords{Equivalence principle, Technology}

4524: %

4525: \bibitem{baessler}\comment{article} 

4526: Baessler, S., Heckel, B. R., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., 

4527: Schmidt, U., and Swanson, H. E.,

4528: ``Improved test of the equivalence principle for gravitational

4529: self-energy'',

4530: \PRL,

4531: {\bf 83},

4532: 3585-3588,

4533: (1999).

4534: \keywords{Equivalence principle, Laboratory tests of relativistic

4535: gravity}

4536: %

4537: \bibitem{bartlett}\comment{article} 

4538: Bartlett, D. F., and van Buren, D.,

4539: ``Equivalence of active and passive gravitational mass using the

4540: moon'',

4541: \PRL,

4542: {\bf 57},

4543: 21-24,

4544: (1986).

4545: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

4546: %

4547: \bibitem{Bell}\comment{article} 

4548: Bell, J. F., and Damour, T.,

4549: ``A new test of conservation laws and Lorentz invariance in relativistic

4550: gravity'',

4551: {\it Class. Quantum Grav.},

4552: {\bf 13},

4553: 3121-3128,

4554: (1996),

4555: (gr-qc/9606062).

4556: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Binary systems, Pulsars }

4557: %

4558: \bibitem{Bell2}\comment{article} 

4559: Bell, J. F.,  Camilo, F., and Damour, T.,

4560: ``A tighter test of local Lorentz invariance using PSR J2317+1439'',

4561: {\it Astrophys. J.},

4562: {\bf 464},

4563: 857,

4564: (1996).

4565: (astro-ph/9512100).

4566: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Binary systems, Pulsars }

4567: %

4568: \bibitem{niobe}\comment{inproceedings}

4569: Blair, D. G., Heng, I. S., Ivanov, E. N., and Tobar, M. E., 

4570: ``Present status of the resonant-mass gravitational-wave antenna NIOBE'',

4571: in Coccia, E., Pizzella, G., and Veneziano, G., eds.,

4572: {\it Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves},

4573: 127-147,

4574: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).

4575: \keywords{Resonant gravitational wave detectors }

4576: %

4577: \bibitem{blanchet95}  \comment{article} 

4578: Blanchet, L., 

4579: ``Second-post-Newtonian generation of gravitational radiation'',

4580: \PRD, 

4581: {\bf 51}, 

4582: 2559-2583, 

4583: (1995), 

4584: (gr-qc/9501030). 

4585: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations }

4586: %

4587: \bibitem{blanchet96}  \comment{article} 

4588: Blanchet, L., 

4589: ``Energy losses by gravitational radiation in inspiralling compact binaries to

4590: 5/2 post-Newtonian order'', 

4591: \PRD, 

4592: {\bf 54}, 

4593: 1417-1438,

4594: (1996),

4595: (gr-qc/9603048).

4596: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations,

4597: Binary systems }

4598: %

4599: \bibitem{blanchet97}  \comment{article} 

4600: Blanchet, L., 

4601: ``Gravitational radiation reaction and balance equations to

4602: post-Newtonian order'',

4603: \PRD, 

4604: {\bf 55}, 

4605: 714-732,

4606: (1997),

4607: (gr-qc/9609049). 

4608: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations,

4609: Equations of motion }

4610: %

4611: \bibitem{blanchet98}\comment{article} 

4612: Blanchet, L., 

4613: ``Quadrupole-quadrupole gravitational waves'',

4614: {\it Class. Quantum Grav.}, 

4615: {\bf 15}, 

4616: 113-141,

4617: (1998),

4618: (gr-qc/9710038). 

4619: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations }

4620: %

4621: \bibitem{bd86}  \comment{article} 

4622: Blanchet, L., and Damour, T., 

4623: ``Radiative gravitational fields in general relativity. 

4624: I. General structure of the field outside the source'', 

4625: {\it Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London},

4626: {\bf A320}, 

4627: 379-430,

4628: (1986).

4629: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations }

4630: %

4631: \bibitem{bd88}  \comment{article} 

4632: Blanchet, L., and Damour, T., 

4633: ``Tail-transported temporal correlations in the dynamics of a gravitating

4634: system'',

4635: \PRD, 

4636: {\bf 37}, 

4637: 1410-1435,

4638: (1988).

4639: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations }

4640: %

4641: \bibitem{bd89}  \comment{article} 

4642: Blanchet, L., and Damour, T., 

4643: ``Post-Newtonian generation of gravitational waves'',

4644: {\it Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'e (Phys. Theorique)}, 

4645: {\bf 50}, 

4646: 377-408,

4647: (1989).

4648: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations }

4649: %

4650: \bibitem{bd92}  \comment{article} 

4651: Blanchet, L., and Damour, T., 

4652: ``Hereditary effects in gravitational radiation'',

4653: \PRD, 

4654: {\bf 46}, 

4655: 4304-4319,

4656: (1992).

4657: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations }

4658: %

4659: \bibitem{bdi2pn}  \comment{article} 

4660: Blanchet, L., Damour, T., and Iyer, B. R., 

4661: ``Gravitational waves from inspiralling compact binaries: Energy loss 

4662: and waveform to second-post-Newtonian order'',

4663: \PRD, 

4664: {\bf 51}, 

4665: 5360-5386,

4666: (1995),

4667: (gr-qc/9501029).

4668: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations,

4669: Binary systems }

4670: %

4671: \bibitem{bdiww} \comment{article} 

4672: Blanchet, L., Damour, T., Iyer, B. R.,

4673: Will, C. M., and Wiseman, A. G., 

4674: ``Gravitational-radiation damping of compact

4675: binary systems to second post-Newtonian order'',

4676: \PRL, 

4677: {\bf 74}, 

4678: 3515-3518,

4679: (1995),

4680: (gr-qc/9501027).

4681: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations,

4682: Binary systems }

4683: %

4684: \bibitem{blanchetfaye1}\comment{unpublished} 

4685: Blanchet L., and Faye, G.,

4686: ``On the equations of motion of point-particle binaries at the third

4687: post-Newtonian order'',

4688: {\it Phys. Lett. A},

4689: in press,

4690: (gr-qc/0004009).

4691: \keywords{Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian approximations, Binary

4692: systems }

4693: %

4694: \bibitem{blanchetfaye2}\comment{unpublished}

4695: Blanchet L., and Faye, G.,

4696: ``General relativistic dynamics of compact binaries at the third

4697: post-Newtonian order'',

4698: \PRD,

4699: in press,

4700: (gr-qc/0007051).

4701: \keywords{Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian approximations, Binary

4702: systems}

4703: %

4704: \bibitem{bfp98}  \comment{article} 

4705: Blanchet L., Faye, G., and Ponsot, B., 

4706: ``Gravitational field and equations

4707: of motion of compact binaries to 5/2 post-Newtonian order'',

4708: \PRD, 

4709: {\bf 58}, 

4710: 124002 (20 pages),

4711: (1998),

4712: (gr-qc/9804079).

4713: \keywords{Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian approximations, Binary

4714: systems }

4715: %

4716: \bibitem{biww} \comment{article} 

4717: Blanchet, L., Iyer, B. R., Will, C. M., and Wiseman, A. G.,

4718: ``Gravitational waveforms from inspiralling compact binaries to second

4719: post-Newtonian order'',

4720: {\it Class. Quantum Grav.}, 

4721: {\bf 13}, 

4722: 575-584,

4723: (1996),

4724: (gr-qc/9602024). 

4725: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations,

4726: Binary systems }

4727: %

4728: \bibitem{lucsathya} \comment{article} 

4729: Blanchet, L., and Sathyaprakash, B. S., 

4730: ``Detecting a tail effect in gravitational-wave experiments'',

4731: \PRL, 

4732: {\bf 74}, 

4733: 1067-1070,

4734: (1995).

4735: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Parameter estimation }

4736: %

4737: \bibitem{lucsathya2}\comment{article} 

4738: Blanchet, L., and Sathyaprakash, B. S.,

4739: ``Signal analysis of gravitational wave tails'',

4740: {\it Class. Quantum Grav.},

4741: {\bf 11},

4742: 2807

4743: (1994).

4744: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Parameter estimation}

4745: %

4746: \bibitem{braginsky}\comment{article} 

4747: Braginsky, V. B., and Panov, V. I.,

4748: ``Verification of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass'',

4749: {\it Sov. Phys. JETP},

4750: {\bf 34},

4751: 463-466,

4752: (1972).

4753: \keywords{Equivalence principle, Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity}

4754: %

4755: \bibitem{brillet}\comment{inproceedings}

4756: Brillet, A.,

4757: ``VIRGO - Status report, November 1997'',

4758: in Coccia, E., Pizzella, G., and Veneziano, G., eds.,

4759: {\it Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves},

4760: 86-96,

4761: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997).

4762: \keywords{Laser-interferometer gravitational wave detectors }

4763: %

4764: \bibitem{brunetti}\comment{article} 

4765: Brunetti, M., Coccia, E., Fafone, V., and Fucito, F., 

4766: ``Gravitational-wave radiation from compact binary systems in 

4767: the Jordan-Brans-Dicke theory'',

4768: \PRD, 

4769: {\bf 59},

4770: 044027 (9 pages),

4771: (1999),

4772: (gr-qc/9805056).

4773: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Theories of gravity, Scalar-tensor

4774: gravity}

4775: %

4776: \bibitem{ciufolini}\comment{article} 

4777: Ciufolini, I., Pavlis, E., Chieppa, F., Fernandes-Vieira, E., and

4778: P\'erez-Mercader, J.,

4779: ``Test of general relativity and measurement of the Lense-Thirring effect

4780: with two Earth satellites'',

4781: {\it Science},

4782: {\bf 279},

4783: 2100-2103,

4784: (1998).

4785: \keywords{Space-based tests of relativistic gravity, Lense-Thirring

4786: effect}

4787: %

4788: \bibitem{3min} \comment{article} 

4789: Cutler, C., Apostolatos, T. A., Bildsten, L., Finn, L. S.,

4790: Flanagan, \'E. E., Kennefick, D., Markovi\'c, D. M., Ori, A., Poisson, E.,

4791: Sussman, G. J.,  and Thorne, K. S., 

4792: ``The last three minutes: Issues in

4793: gravitational wave measurements of coalescing compact binaries'',

4794: \PRL, 

4795: {\bf 70}, 

4796: 2984-2987,

4797: (1993),

4798: (gr-qc/9208005).

4799: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Binary systems, Parameter estimation}

4800: %

4801: \bibitem{cutlerflan}\comment{article} 

4802: Cutler, C., and Flanagan, \'E. E., 

4803: ``Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one

4804: extract the binary's parameters from the inspiral waveform?''

4805: \PRD,

4806: {\bf 49}, 

4807: 2658-2697,

4808: (1994),

4809: (gr-qc/9402014).

4810: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Binary systems, Parameter estimation}

4811: %

4812: \bibitem{Damour82}\comment{article} 

4813: Damour, T., 

4814: ``Probl\`eme des deux corps et freinage de rayonnement

4815: en relativit\'e g\'en\'eral'',

4816: {\it C. R. Acad Sci. Paris, Ser. II},

4817: {\bf 294}, 

4818: 1355-1357,

4819: (1982).

4820: \keywords{Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian approximations, 

4821: Gravitational radiation, Binary systems}

4822: %

4823: \bibitem{Damour300}\comment{inbook}

4824: Damour, T., 

4825: ``The problem of motion in Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity'',

4826: in Hawking, S. W., and Israel, W., eds.,

4827: {\it 300 Years of Gravitation}, 

4828: 128-198,

4829: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).

4830: \keywords{Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian approximations,

4831: Gravitational radiation }

4832: %

4833: \bibitem{damourreview}\comment{inproceedings}

4834: Damour, T.,

4835: ``Gravitation, experiment and cosmology'',

4836: {\it Proceedings of the 5th

4837: Hellenic School on Elementary Particle Physics}

4838: in press,

4839: (gr-qc/9606079).

4840: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Cosmology }

4841: %

4842: \bibitem{DD81}\comment{article} 

4843: Damour, T., and Deruelle, N., 

4844: ``Radiation reaction and angular momentum loss in small angle gravitational

4845: scattering'',

4846: {\it Phys. Lett.}, 

4847: {\bf 87A}, 

4848: 81-84,

4849: (1981).

4850: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations, 

4851: Binary systems }

4852: %

4853: \bibitem{Dyson}\comment{article} 

4854: Damour, T., and Dyson, F., 

4855: ``The Oklo bound on the time variation of the fine-structure constant

4856: revisited'',

4857: {\it Nucl. Phys.},

4858: {\bf B480},

4859: 37-54,

4860: (1996),

4861: (hep-ph/9606486).

4862: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

4863: %

4864: \bibitem{DamourEspo92} \comment{article} 

4865: Damour, T., and Esposito-Far\`ese, G., 

4866: ``Tensor-multi-scalar theories of gravitation'', 

4867: {\it Class. Quantum Grav.}, 

4868: {\bf 9}, 

4869: 2093-2176,

4870: (1992).

4871: \keywords{Theories of gravity, Scalar-tensor gravity}

4872: %

4873: \bibitem{DamourEspo96}\comment{article} 

4874: Damour, T., and Esposito-Far\`ese, G.,

4875: ``Tensor-scalar gravity and binary-pulsar experiments'',

4876: \PRD,

4877: {\bf 54},

4878: 1474-1491

4879: (1996),

4880: (gr-qc/9602056).

4881: \keywords{Theories of gravity, Scalar-tensor gravity, Binary systems,

4882: Pulsars}

4883: %

4884: \bibitem{DamourEspo98} \comment{article} 

4885: Damour, T., and Esposito-Far\`ese, G., 

4886: ``Gravitational-wave versus binary-pulsar tests of strong-field gravity'',

4887: \PRD, 

4888: {\bf 58}, 

4889: 042001 (12 pages),

4890: (1998),

4891: (gr-qc/9803031).

4892: \keywords{Theories of gravity, Scalar-tensor gravity, Binary systems,

4893: Pulsars}

4894: %

4895: \bibitem{di91}  \comment{article} 

4896: Damour, T., and Iyer, B. R., 

4897: ``Post-Newtonian generation of gravitational waves. II. The spin moments'',

4898: {\it Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'e (Phys. Theorique)}, 

4899: {\bf 54}, 

4900: 115-164,

4901: (1991).

4902: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations}

4903: %

4904: \bibitem{damjaraschaefer}\comment{article} 

4905: Damour, T., Jaranowski, P., and Sch\"afer, G.,

4906: ``Poincar\'e invariance in the ADM Hamiltonian approach to the general

4907: relativistic two-body problem'',

4908: \PRD,

4909: {\bf 62},

4910: 021501(R) (5 pages),

4911: (2000),

4912: (gr-qc/0003051).

4913: \keywords{Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian approximations, Binary

4914: systems}

4915: %

4916: \bibitem{DamourNord93a}\comment{article} 

4917: Damour, T., and Nordtvedt, K.,

4918: ``General relativity as a cosmological attractor of tensor-scalar

4919: theories'',

4920: \PRL,

4921: {\bf 70},

4922: 2217-2219,

4923: (1993).

4924: \keywords{Theories of gravity, Scalar-tensor gravity, Cosmology }

4925: % 

4926: \bibitem{DamourNord93b} \comment{article} 

4927: Damour, T., and Nordtvedt, K., 

4928: ``Tensor-scalar cosmological models and their relaxation toward general

4929: relativity'',

4930: \PRD, 

4931: {\bf 48}, 

4932: 3436-3450,

4933: (1993).

4934: \keywords{Theories of gravity, Scalar-tensor gravity, Cosmology }

4935: %

4936: \bibitem{damourpichon}\comment{article} 

4937: Damour, T., and Pichon, B., 1999. 

4938: ``Big bang nucleosynthesis and tensor-scalar gravity'',

4939: \PRD, 

4940: {\bf 59}, 

4941: 123502 (13 pages),

4942: (1999),

4943: (gr-qc/9807176).

4944: \keywords{Theories of gravity, Scalar-tensor gravity, Cosmology,

4945: Nucleosynthesis }

4946: %

4947: \bibitem{DamourPolyakov}\comment{article} 

4948: Damour, T., and Polyakov, A. M.,

4949: ``The string dilaton and a least coupling principle'',

4950: {\it Nucl. Phys.,}

4951: {\bf B423},

4952: 532-558,

4953: (1994).

4954: \keywords{Theories of gravity, String theory}

4955: %

4956: \bibitem{DamourTaylor91} \comment{article} 

4957: Damour, T., and Taylor, J. H., 

4958: ``On the orbital period change of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16'',

4959: {\it Astrophys. J.}, 

4960: {\bf 366}, 

4961: 501-511,

4962: (1991).

4963: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Binary systems, Pulsars}

4964: %

4965: \bibitem{DamourTaylor92} \comment{article} 

4966: Damour, T., and Taylor, J. H., 

4967: ``Strong-field tests of relativistic gravity and binary pulsars'',

4968: \PRD, 

4969: {\bf 45}, 

4970: 1840-1868,

4971: (1992).

4972: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Binary systems, Pulsars }

4973: %

4974: \bibitem{DamourVokrou96}\comment{article} 

4975: Damour, T., and Vokrouhlick\'y, D.,

4976: ``Equivalence principle and the Moon'',

4977: \PRD,

4978: {\bf 53},

4979: 4177-4201

4980: (1996),

4981: (gr-qc/9507016).

4982: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence principle}

4983: %

4984: \bibitem{danzmann}\comment{article} 

4985: Danzmann, K., 

4986: ``LISA - An ESA cornerstone mission for a gravitational-wave observatory'',

4987: {\it Class. Quantum Grav.}, 

4988: {\bf 14}, 

4989: 1399-1404,

4990: (1997).

4991: \keywords{Laser-interferometer gravitational wave detectors}

4992: %

4993: \bibitem{Dicke}\comment{article}

4994: Dicke, R. H.,

4995: ``Gravitation and the Universe'',

4996: {\it Jayne Lecture for 1969,}

4997: Memoirs of the

4998: American Philosophical Society, 

4999: {\bf 78},

5000: 1-82,

5001: (1970).

5002: \keywords{Theories of gravity, Equivalence principle, Tests of

5003: relativistic gravity}

5004: %

5005: \bibitem{Dickey}\comment{article} 

5006: Dickey, J. O., Bender, P. L., Faller, J. E., Newhall, X X,  Ricklefs, R. L.,

5007: Ries, J. G., Shelus,  P. J., Veillet, C., Whipple, A. L., Wiant, J. R.,

5008: Williams, J., and Yoder, C. F.,

5009: ``Lunar laser ranging: A continuing legacy of the Apollo Program'',

5010: {\it Science},

5011: {\bf 265},

5012: 482-490,

5013: (1994).

5014: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Technology }

5015: %

5016: \bibitem{drinkwater}\comment{article} 

5017: Drinkwater, M. J.,  Webb, J. K., Barrow, J. D., and Flambaum, V. V.,

5018: ``New limits on the possible variation of physical constants'',

5019: {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.},

5020: {\bf 295},

5021: 457-462,

5022: (1998),

5023: (astro-ph/9711290).

5024: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Astronomical observations }

5025: %

5026: \bibitem{eotvos}\comment{article} 

5027: E\"otv\"os, R. V., Pek\'ar, V., and Fekete, E.,

5028: ``Beitrage zum Gesetze der Proportionalit\"at von Tr\"agheit und

5029: Gravit\"at'',

5030: {\it Ann. der Physik (Leipzig)},

5031: {\bf 68},

5032: 11-66,

5033: (1922)

5034: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence

5035: principle}

5036: %

5037: \bibitem{eubanks}\comment{unpublished}

5038: Eubanks, T. M., Martin, J. O., Archinal, B. A., 

5039: Josties, F. J., Klioner, S. A., Shapiro, S., and Shapiro, I. I.,

5040: ``Advances in solar system tests of gravity'',

5041: preprint, available at ftp://casa.usno.navy.mil/navnet/postscript/, file 

5042: prd\_15.ps,

5043: (1999).

5044: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Astronomical observations }

5045: %

5046: \bibitem{finnchern} \comment{article} 

5047: Finn, L. S., and Chernoff, D. F., 

5048: ``Observing binary inspiral in gravitational radiation: One interferometer'',

5049: \PRD, 

5050: {\bf 47}, 

5051: 2198-2219,

5052: (1993),

5053: (gr-qc/9301003).

5054: \keywords{Gravitational wave observations, Parameter estimation }

5055: %

5056: \bibitem{fischbach5}\comment{article} 

5057: Fischbach, E., Sudarsky, D., Szafer, A., Talmadge, C., and Aronson, S.

5058: H.,

5059: ``Reanalysis of the E\"otv\"os experiment'',

5060: \PRL,

5061: {\bf 56},

5062: 3-6,

5063: (1986),

5064: [Erratum: \PRL, {\bf 56}, 1427, (1986)].

5065: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence principle,

5066: Particle physics}

5067: %

5068: \bibitem{fischbach}\comment{article} 

5069: Fischbach, E.,  Gillies, G. T., Krause, D. E., Schwan, J. G., and Talmadge,

5070: C.,

5071: ``Non-Newtonian graviaty and new weak forces: An index of Measurements

5072: and Theory'',

5073: {\it Metrologia},

5074: {\bf 29}, 

5075: 213-260,

5076: (1992).

5077: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence principle,

5078: Particle physics}

5079: %

5080: \bibitem{FischbachTalmadge}\comment{article} 

5081: Fischbach, E., and Talmadge, C.,

5082: ``Six years of the fifth force'',

5083: {\it Nature},

5084: {\bf 356},

5085: 207-215,

5086: (1992).

5087: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence principle,

5088: Particle physics}

5089: %

5090: \bibitem{FischbachTalmadge2}\comment{book}

5091: Fischbach, E., and Talmadge, C.,

5092: ``The search for non-Newtonian gravity'',

5093: (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999).

5094: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence principle,

5095: Particle physics}

5096: %

5097: \bibitem{fritschel}\comment{inproceedings}

5098: Fritschel, P., 

5099: ``The LIGO project: Progress and plans'',

5100: in Coccia, E., Pizzella, G., and Veneziano, G., eds.,

5101: {\it Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves},

5102: 74-85,

5103: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).

5104: \keywords{Laser-interferometer gravitational wave detectors}

5105: %

5106: \bibitem{hipparcos} \comment{online}

5107: Froeschl\'e, M., Mignard, F., and Arenou, F.,

5108: ``Determination of the PPN Parameter $\gamma$ with the Hipparcos

5109: Data'',

5110: {\it Proceedings of the Hipparcos Venice 1997 Symposium},

5111: Available at

5112: http://astro.estec.esa.\-nl/\-Hip\-parcos/venice.html,

5113: unpublished,

5114: (1997).

5115: \keywords{Space-based tests of relativistic gravity}

5116: %

5117: \bibitem{gaia}\comment{lr_url}

5118: GAIA: for information about the project, 

5119: see http://astro.\-estec.\-esa.\-nl/GAIA/.

5120: \bibitem{gasperini}\comment{article} 

5121: Gasperini, M., 

5122: ``On the response of gravitational antennas to dilatonic waves'',

5123: {\it Phys.Lett.},

5124: {\bf B470}, 

5125: 67-72,

5126: (1999),

5127: (gr-qc/9910019).

5128: \keywords{Gravitational wave detectors, Theories of gravity, 

5129: Scalar-tensor gravity}

5130: %

5131: \bibitem{Godone}\comment{article} 

5132: Godone, A.,  Novero, C., Tavella, P.,

5133: ``Null gravitational redshift experiment with nonidentical atomic clocks'',

5134: \PRD,

5135: {\bf 51},

5136: 319-323,

5137: (1995).

5138: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence principle}

5139: %

5140: \bibitem{goldman}\comment{article} 

5141: Goldman, I.,

5142: ``Upper limit on $G$ variability derived from the spin-down of PSR

5143: 0655+64'',

5144: {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.},

5145: {\bf 244},

5146: 184-187,

5147: (1990).

5148: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Pulsars }

5149: %

5150: \bibitem{gopu}\comment{article} 

5151: Gopakumar, A., and Iyer, B. R., 

5152: ``Gravitational waves from inspiraling

5153: compact binaries: Angular momentum flux, evolution of the orbital elements

5154: and the waveform to the second post-Newtonian order'',

5155: \PRD, 

5156: {\bf 56}, 

5157: 7708-7731,

5158: (1997),

5159: (gr-qc/9710075).

5160: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations,

5161: Binary systems}

5162: %

5163: \bibitem{gpbwebsite}\comment{lr_url}

5164: Gravity Probe-B: for information about the project, see

5165: http://einstein.stanford.edu/.

5166: \keywords{Space-based tests of relativistic gravity, Lense-Thirring

5167: effect}

5168: %

5169: \bibitem{GK86}\comment{inproceedings}

5170: Grishchuk, L. P., and Kopejkin, S. M., 

5171: ``Equations of motion for isolated bodies with relativistic corrections

5172: including the radiation-reaction force'',

5173: in Kovalevsky, J., and Brumberg, V.  A., eds., 

5174: {\it Relativity in Celestial Mechanics and Astrometry}, 

5175: 19-34,

5176: (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986).

5177: \keywords{Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian approximations, Binary

5178: systems}

5179: %

5180: \bibitem{allegro}\comment{inproceedings}

5181: Hamilton, W. O., 

5182: ``The ALLEGRO detector and the future of  resonant detectors in the USA'',

5183: in Coccia, E., Pizzella, G., and Veneziano, G., eds.,

5184: {\it Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves},

5185: 115-126,

5186: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).

5187: \keywords{Resonant gravitational wave detectors}

5188: %

5189: \bibitem{haugan}\comment{article} 

5190: Haugan, M. P.,

5191: ``Energy conservation and the principle of equivalence'',

5192: {\it Ann. Phys. (N. Y.)},

5193: {\bf 118},

5194: 156-186,

5195: (1979).

5196: \keywords{Equivalence principle}

5197: %

5198: \bibitem{hauganwill}\comment{article} 

5199: Haugan, M. P., and Will, C. M.,

5200: ``Modern tests of special relativity'',

5201: {\it Physics Today},

5202: {\bf 40},

5203: 69-76,

5204: May (1987).

5205: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence principle}

5206: %

5207: \bibitem{Hulse} \comment{article} 

5208: Hulse, R. A., 

5209: ``Nobel Lecture: The discovery of the binary pulsar'',

5210: {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.},  

5211: {\bf 66}, 

5212: 699-710,

5213: (1994).

5214: \keywords{Binary systems, Pulsars }

5215: %

5216: \bibitem{iess}\comment{article} 

5217: Iess, L., Giampieri, G., Anderson, J. D., and Bertotti, B.,

5218: ``Doppler measurement of the solar gravitational deflection'',

5219: {\it Class. Quantum Grav.},

5220: {\bf 16},

5221: 1487-1502,

5222: (1999).

5223: \keywords{Space-based tests of relativistic gravity}

5224: %

5225: \bibitem{iyerwill} \comment{article} 

5226: Iyer, B. R., and Will, C. M., 

5227: ``Post-Newtonian gravitational radiation reaction for two-body systems'',

5228: \PRL, 

5229: {\bf 70}, 

5230: 113-116,

5231: (1993).

5232: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Equations of motion, 

5233: Post-Newtonian approximations, Binary systems}

5234: %

5235: \bibitem{iyerwill2} \comment{article} 

5236: Iyer, B. R., and Will, C. M., 

5237: ``Post-Newtonian gravitational radiation reaction for two-body systems:

5238: Non-spinning bodies'',

5239: \PRD, 

5240: {\bf 52}, 

5241: 6882-6893,

5242: (1995).

5243: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Equations of motion,

5244: Post-Newtonian approximations, Binary systems}

5245: %

5246: \bibitem{jaraschaefer98}\comment{article} 

5247: Jaranowski, P., and Sch\"afer, G.,

5248: ``3rd post-Newtonian higher order Hamilton dynamics for two-body point-mass

5249: systems'',

5250: \PRD,

5251: {\bf 57},

5252: 7274-7291,

5253: (1998),

5254: (gr-qc/9712075).

5255: \keywords{Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian approximations, Binary systems}

5256: %

5257: \bibitem{jaranowski}\comment{article} 

5258: Jaranowski, P., and Sch\"afer, G.,

5259: ``The binary black-hole problem at the third post-Newtonian approximation in

5260: the orbital motion: Static part'',

5261: \PRD,

5262: {\bf 60},

5263: 124003 (7 pages),

5264: (1999),

5265: (gr-qc/9906092).

5266: \keywords{Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian approximations, Binary systems}

5267: %

5268: \bibitem{kww93} \comment{article} 

5269: Kidder, L. E., Will, C. M., and Wiseman, A. G., 

5270: ``Spin effects in the inspiral of coalescing compact binaries'',

5271: \PRD,

5272: {\bf 47}, 

5273: R4183-4187,

5274: (1993),

5275: (gr-qc/9211025).

5276: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian

5277: approximations, Binary systems}

5278: %

5279: \bibitem{kidder95} \comment{article} 

5280: Kidder, L. E., 

5281: ``Coalescing binary systems of compact objects to (post)$^{5/2}$-Newtonian

5282: order. V. Spin effects'',

5283: \PRD, 

5284: {\bf 52}, 

5285: 821-847,

5286: (1995),

5287: (gr-qc/9506022).

5288: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian

5289: approximations, Binary systems}

5290: %

5291: \bibitem{kramer} \comment{article} 

5292: Kramer, M., 

5293: ``Determination of the geometry of the PSR B1913+16 system by

5294: geodetic precession'', 

5295: {\it Astrophys. J.}, 

5296: {\bf 509}, 

5297: 856-860,

5298: (1998),

5299: (astro-ph/9808127).

5300: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Binary systems, Pulsars }

5301: %

5302: \bibitem{lebach}\comment{article} 

5303: Lebach, D. E., Corey, B. E., Shapiro, I. I., Ratner, M. I., Webber, J. C., 

5304: Rogers, A. E. E., Davis, J. L., and Herring T. A.,   

5305: ``Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using

5306: very-long-baseline interferometry'',

5307: \PRL,

5308: {\bf 75},

5309: 1439-1442,

5310: (1995).

5311: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Astronomical observations }

5312: %

5313: \bibitem{lightmanlee}\comment{article} 

5314: Lightman, A. P., and Lee, D. L.,

5315: ``Restricted proof that the Weak Equivalence Principle implies the

5316: Einstein Equivalence Principle'',

5317: \PRD,

5318: {\bf 8},

5319: 364-376,

5320: (1973).

5321: \keywords{Equivalence principle}

5322: %

5323: \bibitem{lobo}\comment{inproceedings}

5324: Lobo, J. A., 

5325: ``Spherical GW detectors and geometry'',

5326: in Coccia, E., Pizzella, G., and Veneziano, G., eds.,

5327: {\it Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves},

5328: 168-179,

5329: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).

5330: \keywords{Resonant gravitational wave detectors} 

5331: %

5332: \bibitem{price}\comment{article} 

5333: Long, J. C., Chan, H. W., and Price, J. C.,

5334: ``Experimental status of gravitational-strength forces in the

5335: sub-centimeter regime'',

5336: {\it Nucl. Phys.},

5337: {\bf B539},

5338: 23-34,

5339: (1999),

5340: (hep-ph/9805217).

5341: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Particle physics}

5342: %

5343: \bibitem{lorimer}\comment{article}

5344: Lorimer, D.,

5345: ``Binary and millisecond pulsars'',

5346: {\it Living Rev. Rel.},

5347: {\bf 1},

5348: 10,

5349: (1998),

5350: \keywords{pulsars}

5351: %

5352: \bibitem{maggiore}\comment{article} 

5353: Maggiore, M., and Nicolis, A., 

5354: ``Detection strategies for scalar

5355: gravitational waves with interferometers and resonant spheres'',

5356: \PRD,

5357: {\bf 62},

5358: 024004 (15 pages),

5359: (1999),

5360: (gr-qc/9907055).

5361: \keywords{Gravitational wave observations, Theories of gravity,

5362: Scalar-tensor gravity}

5363: %

5364: \bibitem{malaney}\comment{article} 

5365: Malaney, R. A., and Mathews, G. J.,

5366: ``Probing the early universe: A review of primordial nucleosynthesis beyond

5367: the standard big bang'',

5368: {\it Phys. Rep.}

5369: {\bf 229},

5370: 147-219,

5371: (1993).

5372: \keywords{Cosmology, Nucleosynthesis }

5373: %

5374: \bibitem{narayan}\comment{inproceedings}

5375: Menou, K., Quataert, E., and Narayan, R., 

5376: ``Astrophysical evidence for black-hole event horizons'', 

5377: in  Piran, T., and Ruffini, R., 

5378: {\it Proceedings of

5379: the Eighth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity}, 

5380: 204-224.

5381: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999),

5382: (astro-ph/9712015).

5383: \keywords{Black holes, Astrophysics }

5384: %

5385: \bibitem{msstt97}\comment{article} 

5386: Mino, Y., Sasaki, M., Shibata, M., Tagoshi, H., and Tanaka, T., 

5387: ``Black hole perturbation'',

5388: {\it Prog.Theor.Phys.Suppl.}, 

5389: {\bf 128},  

5390: 1-121,

5391: (1997),

5392: (gr-qc/9712057).

5393: \keywords{Black holes, Gravitational radiation, Perturbation theory }

5394: %

5395: \bibitem{MTW}\comment{book} 

5396: Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., and Wheeler, J. A., 

5397: {\it Gravitation},

5398: (Freeman. San Francisco, 1973). 

5399: %

5400: \bibitem{MullerPRD}\comment{article} 

5401: M\"uller, J., Nordtvedt, K., and Vokrouhlick\'y, D.,

5402: ``Improved constraint on the $\alpha_1$ PPN parameter from lunar

5403: motion'',

5404: \PRD,

5405: {\bf 54},

5406: R5927-R5930,

5407: (1996).

5408: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5409: %

5410: \bibitem{MullerMG}\comment{inproceedings} 

5411: M\"uller, J., Schneider, M., Nordtvedt, K., and Vokrouhlick\'y, D.,

5412: ``What can LLR provide to relativity?''

5413: in Piran, T., and Ruffini, R., eds.,

5414: {\it Proceedings of the 8th Marcel Grossman Meeting on General

5415: Relativity},

5416: 1151-1153,

5417: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999).

5418: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5419: %

5420: \bibitem{nordtvedt1} \comment{article} 

5421: Nordtvedt, K.,

5422: ``Equivalence principle for massive bodies. I. Phenomenology'',

5423: {\it Phys. Rev.,}

5424: {\bf 169},

5425: 1014-1016,

5426: (1968).

5427: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence principle}

5428: %

5429: \bibitem{nordtvedt2} \comment{article} 

5430: Nordtvedt, K.,

5431: ``Equivalence principle for massive bodies. II. Theory'',

5432: {\it Phys. Rev.,}

5433: {\bf 169},

5434: 1017-1025,

5435: (1968).

5436: \keywords{Theories of gravity,  Equivalence principle}

5437: %

5438: \bibitem{nordtvedt88a} \comment{article} 

5439: Nordtvedt, K.,

5440: ``Gravitomagnetic interaction and laser ranging to Earth satellites'',

5441: \PRL,

5442: {\bf 61},

5443: 2647-2649,

5444: (1988).

5445: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Lense-Thirring effect}

5446: %

5447: \bibitem{nordtvedt88b} \comment{article} 

5448: Nordtvedt, K.,

5449: ``Existence of the gravitomagnetic interaction'',

5450: {\it Int. J. Theor. Phys.}

5451: {\bf 27},

5452: 1395-1404,

5453: (1988).

5454: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Lense-Thirring effect}

5455: %

5456: \bibitem{nordtvedt3} \comment{article} 

5457: Nordtvedt, K.,

5458: ``$\dot G$/G and a cosmological acceleration of gravitationally

5459: compact bodies'',

5460: \PRL,

5461: {\bf 65},

5462: 953-956,

5463: (1990).

5464: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Binary systems }

5465: %

5466: \bibitem{Nordtvedt95} \comment{article} 

5467: Nordtvedt, K.,

5468: ``The relativistic orbit observables in lunar laser ranging'',

5469: {\it Icarus},

5470: {\bf 114},

5471: 51-62,

5472: (1995).

5473: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5474: %

5475: \bibitem{Nordtvedt00}\comment{article} 

5476: Nordtvedt, K.,

5477: ``Improving gravity theory tests with solar system `grand fits' '',

5478: \PRD,

5479: {\bf 61},

5480: 122001 (7 pages),

5481: (2000).

5482: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5483: %

5484: \bibitem{rome}\comment{inproceedings} 

5485: Pallottino, G. V., 

5486: ``The resonant-mass detectors of the Rome group'',

5487: in Coccia, E., Pizzella, G., and Veneziano, G., eds.,

5488: {\it Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves},

5489: 105-114,

5490: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).

5491: \keywords{Resonant gravitational wave detectors }

5492: %

5493: \bibitem{DIRE}\comment{article} 

5494: Pati, M. E., and Will, C. M., 

5495: ``Post-Newtonian gravitational radiation

5496: and equations of motion via direct

5497: integration of the relaxed Einstein equations. Foundations'',

5498: \PRD,

5499: in press,

5500: (gr-qc/0007087).

5501: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Equations of motion, Post-Newtonian

5502: approximations}

5503: %

5504: \bibitem{poisson93}\comment{article} 

5505: Poisson, E., 

5506: ``Gravitational radiation from a particle in circular orbit around a black

5507: hole. I. Analytic results for the nonrotating case'',

5508: \PRD, 

5509: {\bf 47}, 

5510: 1497-1510,

5511: (1993).

5512: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Black holes, Perturbation theory}

5513: %

5514: \bibitem{poissonBH}\comment{article}

5515: Poisson, E.,

5516: ``Measuring black-hole parameters and testing general relativity using

5517: gravitational-wave data from space-based interferometers'',

5518: \PRD,

5519: {\bf 54},

5520: 5939-5953, 

5521: (1996),

5522: (gr-qc/9606024).

5523: \keywords{Gravitational wave observations, Black holes, Parameter estimation}

5524: %

5525: \bibitem{poissonwill}\comment{article} 

5526: Poisson, E., and Will, C. M., 

5527: ``Gravitational waves from inspiralling compact binaries: Parameter estimation

5528: using second-post-Newtonian waveforms'',

5529: \PRD, 

5530: {\bf 52}, 

5531: 848-855,

5532: (1995),

5533: (gr-qc/9502040).

5534: \keywords{Gravitational wave observations, Parameter estimation,

5535: Post-Newtonian approximations}

5536: %

5537: \bibitem{prestage}\comment{article} 

5538: Prestage, J. D.,  Tjoelker, R. L., and Maleki, L.,

5539: ``Atomic clocks and variations of the fine structure constant'',

5540: \PRL,

5541: {\bf 74},

5542: 3511-3514,

5543: (1995).

5544: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity}

5545: %

5546: \bibitem{auriga}\comment{inproceedings} 

5547: Prodi, G. A., Conti, L., Mezzena, R., Vitale, S., Taffarello, L., Zendri, J.

5548: P., Baggio, L., Cerdonio, M., Colombo, A., Crivelli Visconti, V.,

5549: Macchietto, R., Falferi, P., Bonaldi, M., Ortolan, A., Vedovato, G.,

5550: Cavallini, E., and Fortini, P., 

5551: ``Initial operation of the gravitational-wave detector AURIGA'',

5552: in Coccia, E., Pizzella, G., and Veneziano, G., eds.,

5553: {\it Second Edoardo Amaldi Conference on Gravitational Waves},

5554: 148-158,

5555: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).

5556: \keywords{Resonant gravitational wave detectors}

5557: %

5558: \bibitem{reasenberg}\comment{article} 

5559: Reasenberg, R. D., Shapiro, I. I., MacNeil, P. E., Goldstein, R. B.,

5560: Breidenthal, J. C., Brenkle, J. P., Cain, D. L., Kaufman, T. M.,

5561: Komarek, T. A., and Zygielbaum, A. I.,

5562: ``Viking relativity experiment: Verification of signal retardation by

5563: solar gravity'',

5564: {\it Astrophys. J. Lett.},

5565: {\bf 234},

5566: L219-L221,

5567: (1979).

5568: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5569: %

5570: \bibitem{reeves}\comment{article} 

5571: Reeves, H.,

5572: ``On the origin of the light elements (Z $<$ 6)'',

5573: {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.}

5574: {\bf 66},

5575: 193-216,

5576: (1994).

5577: \keywords{Cosmology, Nucleosynthesis }

5578: %

5579: \bibitem{dicke}\comment{article} 

5580: Roll, P. G., Krotkov, R., and Dicke, R. H.,

5581: ``The equivalence of inertial and passive gravitational mass'',

5582: {\it Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)},

5583: {\bf 26},

5584: 442-517,

5585: (1964).

5586: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence

5587: principle}

5588: %

5589: \bibitem{ryan} \comment{article} 

5590: Ryan, F. D., 

5591: ``Gravitational waves from the inspiral of a compact object into a massive,

5592: axisymmetric body with arbitrary multipole moments'',

5593: \PRD, 

5594: {\bf 52}, 

5595: 5707-5718,

5596: (1995).

5597: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Binary systems }

5598: %

5599: \bibitem{salomon}\comment{inproceedings} 

5600: Salomon, C., Sortais, Y., Bize, S., Abgrall, M., Zhang, S., Nicolas,

5601: C., Mandache, C., Lemonde, P., Laurent, P., Santarelli, G., Clairon,

5602: A., Dimarcq, N., Petit, P., Mann, A., Luiten, A., and Chang, S.,

5603: ``Cold Atom Clocks'',

5604: in Inguscio, M., and Arimondo, E., eds.,

5605: {\it Proceedings of the International Conference on Atomic Physics

5606: 2000},

5607: (Singapore, World Scientific, 2000),

5608: in press.

5609: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Technology }

5610: %

5611: \bibitem{shapiroGR12}\comment{inproceedings} 

5612: Shapiro, I. I.,

5613: ``Solar system tests of general relativity'',

5614: in Ashby, N., Bartlett, D. F., and Wyss, W., eds.,

5615: {\it General Relativity and Gravitation: 12th International Conference

5616: on General Relativity and Gravitation},

5617: 313-330,

5618: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990).

5619: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5620: %

5621: \bibitem{shapiro}\comment{article} 

5622: Shapiro, I. I.,

5623: ``A century of relativity'',

5624: {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.},

5625: {\bf 71},

5626: S41-S53,

5627: (1999).

5628: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5629: %

5630: \bibitem{stairs} \comment{article} 

5631: Stairs, I. H., Arzoumanian, Z., Camilio, F., Lyne, A. G., 

5632: Nice, D. J., Taylor, J. H., Thorsett, S. E., and Wolszczan, A., 

5633: ``Relativistic orbital decay in PSR B1534+12'',

5634: {\it  Astrophys.  J.}, 

5635: {\bf 505}, 

5636: 352-357,

5637: (1998),

5638: (astro-ph/9712296).

5639: \keywords{Gravitational wave observations, Binary systems, Pulsars}

5640: %

5641: \bibitem{stairs2} \comment{inproceedings} 

5642: Stairs, I. H., 

5643: Nice, D. J., Thorsett, S. E., and Taylor, J. H., 

5644: ``Recent Arecibo timing of the relativistic binary PSR B1534+12'',

5645: {\it  Gravitational

5646: Waves and Experimental Gravity: XXXIV Rencontres de Moriond}, 

5647: in press,

5648: (astro-ph/9903289).

5649: \keywords{Gravitational wave observations, Binary systems, Pulsars}

5650: %

5651: \bibitem{Steinhardt} \comment{article} 

5652: Steinhardt, P. J., and Will, C. M.,

5653: ``High-frequency oscillations of Newton's constant induced by inflation'',

5654: \PRD,

5655: {\bf 52},

5656: 628-639,

5657: (1995),

5658: (astro-ph/9409041).

5659: \keywords{Cosmology, Inflation, Scalar-tensor gravity}

5660: %

5661: \bibitem{Su}\comment{article} 

5662: Su, Y., Heckel, B. R., Adelberger, E. G., Gundlach, J. H., Harris, M.,

5663: Smith, G. L., and Swanson, H. E.,

5664: ``New tests of the universality of free fall'',

5665: \PRD,

5666: {\bf 50}, 

5667: 3614-3636

5668: (1994).

5669: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence

5670: principle}

5671: %

5672: \bibitem{talmadge}\comment{article} 

5673: Talmadge, C., Berthias, J. -P., Hellings, R. W., and 

5674: Standish, E. M., 

5675: ``Model-independent constraints on possible modifications of Newtonian

5676: gravity'',

5677: \PRL, 

5678: {\bf 61}, 

5679: 1159-1162,

5680: (1988).

5681: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Particle physics}

5682: %

5683: \bibitem{Taylor94} \comment{article} 

5684: Taylor, J. H., 

5685: ``Nobel Lecture: Binary pulsars and relativistic gravity'',

5686: {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.},  

5687: {\bf 66}, 

5688: 711-719,

5689: (1994).

5690: \keywords{Gravitational wave observations, Binary systems, Pulsars}

5691: %

5692: \bibitem{TWDW92} \comment{article} 

5693: Taylor, J. H., Wolszczan, A., Damour, T., and Weisberg, J. M.,

5694: ``Experimental constraints on strong-field relativistic gravity'',

5695: {\it Nature},

5696: {\bf 355},

5697: 132-136,

5698: (1992).

5699: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Binary systems, Pulsars}

5700: %

5701: \bibitem{TaylorVeneziano}\comment{article} 

5702: Taylor, T. R., and Veneziano, G.,

5703: ``Dilaton coupling at large distance'',

5704: {\it Phys. Lett.,}

5705: {\bf B213},

5706: 450-

5707: (1988).

5708: \keywords{String theory, Scalar-tensor gravity}

5709: %

5710: \bibitem{Thorne300} \comment{inbook} 

5711: Thorne, K. S., 

5712: ``Gravitational radiation'',

5713: in Hawking, S. W., and Israel, W., eds.,

5714: {\it 300 Years of Gravitation}, 

5715: 330-458,

5716: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).

5717: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Gravitational wave detectors }

5718: %

5719: \bibitem{snowmass} \comment{inproceedings} 

5720: Thorne, K. S., 

5721: ``Gravitational waves'',

5722: in Kolb, E. W., and Peccei, R. eds., 

5723: {\it Proceedings of the Snowmass

5724: 95 Summer Study on Particle and Nuclear Astrophysics and Cosmology},

5725: 398-425,

5726: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995),

5727: (gr-qc/9506086).

5728: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Gravitational wave detectors }

5729: %

5730: \bibitem{turneaure}\comment{article} 

5731: Turneaure, J. P., Will, C. M., Farrell, B. F., Mattison, E. M., and

5732: Vessot, R. F. C.,

5733: ``Test of the principle of equivalence by a null gravitational

5734: redshift experiment'',

5735: \PRD,

5736: {\bf 27},

5737: 1705-1714,

5738: (1983).

5739: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Equivalence

5740: principle}

5741: %

5742: \bibitem{treuhaft}\comment{article} 

5743: Treuhaft, R. N., and Lowe, S. T.,

5744: ``A measurement of planetary relativistic deflection'',

5745: {\it Astron. J.},

5746: {\bf 102},

5747: 1879-1888,

5748: (1991).

5749: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Astronomical observations}

5750: %

5751: \bibitem{vessot}\comment{article} 

5752: Vessot, R. F. C., Levine, M. W., Mattison, E. M., Blomberg, E. L.,

5753: Hoffman, T. E., Nystrom, G. U., Farrell, B. F., Decher, R., Eby, P. B.,

5754: Baugher, C. R., Watts, J. W., Teuber, D. L., and Wills, F. O.,

5755: ``Test of relativistic gravitation with a space-borne hydrogen

5756: maser'',

5757: \PRL,

5758: {\bf 45},

5759: 2081-4,

5760: (1980).

5761: \keywords{Space-based tests of relativistic gravity}

5762: %

5763: \bibitem{visser} \comment{article} 

5764: Visser, M., 

5765: ``Mass for the graviton'',

5766: {\it Gen. Relativ. Gravit.}, 

5767: {\bf 30}, 

5768: 1717-1728,

5769: (1998),

5770: (gr-qc/9705051).

5771: \keywords{Theories of gravity}

5772: %

5773: \bibitem{wagoner}\comment{inproceedings} 

5774: Wagoner, R. V., 

5775: ``Resonant-mass detection of tensor and scalar waves'',

5776: in Marck, J. -A., and Lasota, J. -P., eds.,

5777: {\it Relativistic Gravitation and Gravitational Radiation},

5778: 419-432,

5779: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).

5780: \keywords{Resonant gravitational wave detectors, Theories of gravity,

5781: Scalar-tensor gravity}

5782: %

5783: \bibitem{wagoner2}\comment{inproceedings}

5784: Wagoner, R. V., and Kalligas, D., 

5785: ``Scalar-tensor theories and gravitational radiation'',

5786: in Marck, J. -A., and Lasota, J. -P., eds.,

5787: {\it Relativistic Gravitation and Gravitational Radiation},

5788: 433-446,

5789: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).

5790: \keywords{Resonant gravitational wave detectors, Theories of gravity,

5791: Scalar-tensor gravity}

5792: %

5793: \bibitem{wagwill} \comment{article} 

5794: Wagoner, R. V., and Will, C. M., 

5795: ``Post-Newtonian gravitational radiation

5796: from orbiting point masses'',

5797: {\it Astrophys. J.}, 

5798: {\bf 210}, 

5799: 764-775,

5800: (1976).

5801: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations,

5802: Binary systems }

5803: %

5804: \bibitem{Weinberg}\comment{book} 

5805: Weinberg, S. W.,

5806: {\it Gravitation and Cosmology}

5807: (Wiley, New York, 1992).

5808: %

5809: \bibitem{weisberg}\comment{misc} 

5810: Weisberg, J. M., and Taylor J. H., 

5811: Private communication.

5812: %

5813: \bibitem{weisberg2}\comment{inproceedings}

5814: Weisberg, J. M., and Taylor J. H., 2000. 

5815: ``General relativistic precession of the spin axis of binary pulsar B1913+16:

5816: First two-dimensional maps of the emission beam'',

5817: in Kramer, M., Wex, N., and Wielebinski, R., 

5818: {\it Pulsar Astronomy -- 2000 and Beyond}, 

5819: in press,

5820: (2000).

5821: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Binary systems, Pulsars}

5822: %

5823: \bibitem{Will76}\comment{article} 

5824: Will, C. M.,

5825: ``Active mass in relativistic gravity: Theoretical interpretation of the

5826: Kreuzer experiment'',

5827: {\it Astrophys. J.},

5828: {\bf 204},

5829: 224-234,

5830: (1976).

5831: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Post-Newtonian

5832: approximations}

5833: %

5834: \bibitem{Will300}  \comment{inbook}

5835: Will, C. M.,

5836: ``Experimental gravitation from Newton's {\it Principia} to Einstein's

5837: general relativity'',

5838: in Hawking, S. W., and Israel, W., eds.,

5839: {\it 300 Years of Gravitation}, 

5840: 80-127,

5841: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).

5842: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5843: %

5844: \bibitem{WillSky}\comment{article} 

5845: Will, C. M.,

5846: ``Twilight time for the fifth force?'',

5847: {\it Sky and Telescope},

5848: {\bf 80},

5849: 472-479,

5850: (1990).

5851: \keywords{Laboratory tests of relativistic gravity, Particle physics}

5852: %

5853: \bibitem{Will92b}\comment{article} 

5854: Will, C. M.,

5855: ``Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light'',

5856: \PRD,

5857: {\bf 45},

5858: 403-411,

5859: (1992),

5860: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5861: %

5862: \bibitem{Will92c}\comment{article} 

5863: Will, C. M.,

5864: ``Is momentum conserved? A test in the binary system PSR 1913+16'',

5865: {\it Astrophys. J. Lett.},

5866: {\bf 393},

5867: L59-L61,

5868: (1992).

5869: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Post-Newtonian

5870: approximations, Binary systems, Pulsars }

5871: %

5872: \bibitem{ijmp}\comment{article} 

5873: Will, C. M.,

5874: ``The confrontation between general relativity and experiment: A 1992

5875: update'',

5876: {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. D},

5877: {\bf 1},

5878: 13-68,

5879: (1992).

5880: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5881: %

5882: \bibitem{WER} \comment{book}

5883: Will, C. M., 

5884: {\it Was Einstein Right?} 

5885: 2nd Ed., 

5886: (Basic Books/Perseus Group, New York, 1993).

5887: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5888: %

5889: \bibitem{tegp} \comment{book}

5890: Will, C. M., 

5891: {\it Theory and Experiment in Gravitational

5892: Physics,} 

5893: 2nd Ed., 

5894: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).

5895: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5896: %

5897: \bibitem{willbd}\comment{article} 

5898: Will, C. M., 

5899: ``Testing scalar-tensor gravity with gravitational-wave observations of

5900: inspiralling compact binaries'',

5901: \PRD, 

5902: {\bf 50}, 

5903: 6058-6067,

5904: (1994),

5905: (gr-qc/9406022).

5906: \keywords{Gravitational wave observations, Theories of gravity,

5907: Scalar-tensor gravity, Binary systems }

5908: %

5909: \bibitem{sussp}\comment{inbook}

5910: Will, C. M.,

5911: ``The confrontation between general relativity and experiment: A 1995

5912: update'',

5913: in Hall, G. S., and  Pulham, J. R., eds.,

5914: {\it General Relativity: Proceedings of

5915: the 46th Scottish Universities Summer School in Physics},

5916: 239-282,

5917: (Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 1996).

5918: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5919: %

5920: \bibitem{graviton} \comment{article} 

5921: Will, C. M., 

5922: ``Bounding the mass of the graviton using gravitional-wave observations of

5923: inspiralling compact binaries'',

5924: \PRD, 

5925: {\bf 57}, 

5926: 2061-2068,

5927: (1998),

5928: (gr-qc/9709011).

5929: \keywords{Gravitational wave observations, Theories of gravity,

5930: Binary systems }

5931: %

5932: \bibitem{slac}\comment{online}

5933: Will, C. M.,

5934: ``The confrontation between general relativity and experiment: A 1998

5935: update'',

5936: in Dixon, L., ed.,

5937: {\it Gravity: From the Hubble Length to the Planck Length. XXVI SLAC Summer

5938: Institute on Particle Physics},

5939: (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford 1998),

5940: Available at

5941: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/gen/meeting/\-ssi/\-1998/\-manu\_\-list.html,

5942: (gr-qc/9811036).

5943: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5944: %

5945: \bibitem{physicscentral}\comment{online}

5946: Will, C. M.,

5947: ``Einstein's relativity and everyday life'',

5948: Available on the Web at

5949: http://www.physicscentral.com/writers,

5950: Posted October 2000.

5951: \keywords{equivalence principle, technology}

5952: %

5953: \bibitem{opus} \comment{article} 

5954: Will, C. M., and Wiseman, A. G., 

5955: ``Gravitational radiation from compact binary systems: Gravitational waveforms

5956: and energy loss to second post-Newtonian order'',

5957: \PRD, 

5958: {\bf 54}, 

5959: 4813-4848,

5960: (1996),

5961: (gr-qc/9608012).

5962: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations,

5963: Binary systems }

5964: %

5965: \bibitem{zaglauer} \comment{article} 

5966: Will, C. M., and Zaglauer, H. W., 

5967: ``Gravitational radiation, close binary systems and the Brans-Dicke theory of

5968: gravity'',

5969: {\it Astrophys. J.}, 

5970: {\bf 346}, 

5971: 366-377,

5972: (1989).

5973: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations,

5974: Theories of gravity, Scalar-tensor gravity, Binary systems }

5975: %

5976: \bibitem{Williams}\comment{article} 

5977: Williams, J. G., Newhall, X X, and Dickey, J. O.,

5978: ``Relativity parameters determined from lunar laser ranging'',

5979: \PRD,

5980: {\bf 53},

5981: 6730-6739,

5982: (1996).

5983: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity}

5984: %

5985: \bibitem{magnum} \comment{article} 

5986: Wiseman, A. G., 

5987: ``Coalescing binary systems of compact objects to (post)$^{5/2}$-Newtonian

5988: order. II. Higher-order waveforms and radiation recoil'',

5989: \PRD, 

5990: {\bf 46}, 

5991: 1517-1539,

5992: (1992).

5993: \keywords{Gravitational radiation, Post-Newtonian approximations,

5994: Binary systems }

5995: %

5996: \bibitem{wolszczan} \comment{article} 

5997: Wolszczan, A., 

5998: ``Binary pulsars and relativistic gravitation'',

5999: {\it  Class. Quantum Grav.}, 

6000: {\bf 11}, 

6001: A227-A242,

6002: (1994).

6003: \keywords{Tests of relativistic gravity, Binary systems, Pulsars}

6004: %

6005: 

6006: \end{thebibliography}

6007: \end{document}

6008: 

6009: