Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Lorentz-violating matter-gravity couplings in small-eccentricity binary pulsars

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Binary pulsar timing can set the tightest gravitational limits on Lorentz-violating matter–gravity couplings, down to $10^{-11}$ for spatial neutron and proton coefficients.

desk verdict Solid, honest maximal-reach limits on matter-gravity SME coefficients from three small-eccentricity pulsars; the O(1) orientation projection is the acknowledged weak point but does not undercut the order-of-magnitude claims. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10019 v1 pith:ALUV67AV submitted 2019-08-27 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Lijing Shao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords LorentzviolationStandard-ModelExtensionbinarypulsartimingmatter-gravitycouplingsneutronstarwhitedwarfmaximal-reachlimitssmall-eccentricitybinaries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that three small-eccentricity neutron-star–white-dwarf binaries can act as precision laboratories for Lorentz violation in the way ordinary matter couples to gravity. It uses pulsar-timing measurements of the projected semimajor axis $\dot{x}_p$ and of the Laplace–Lagrange parameters $\dot{\eta}$ and $\dot{\kappa}$ to put upper limits on the matter–gravity coefficients of the Standard-Model Extension for neutrons, protons, and electrons. The tightest spatial limits reach $\sim 10^{-11}$ for $c^n_{jk}$ and $c^p_{jk}$, and the effective neutron vector coefficient $(\bar a^n_{\mathrm{eff}})_k$ is bounded near $\sim 10^{-8}$ GeV. Because neutron stars are strongly self-gravitating, the limits are conservative strong-field tests, complementary to lunar laser ranging and laboratory clock experiments. If the analysis is right, binary pulsars become one of the best gravitational probes of matter–gravity Lorentz violation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the point-particle action $\mathcal S_u = \int d\lambda\,[-m\sqrt{-(g_{\mu\nu}+2\bar c_{\mu\nu})u^\mu u^\nu} - (\bar a_{\mathrm{eff}})_\mu u^\mu]$, in which $\bar c_{\mu\nu}$ and $(\bar a_{\mathrm{eff}})_\mu$ are the species-dependent coefficient fields for Lorentz violation. For a composite body, these coefficients are replaced by particle-number-weighted sums over neutron, proton, and electron constituents, giving the composite $A_{jl}$ and $B_j$ used in the orbital equations. The mechanism that carries the argument is the small-eccentricity limit of the osculating-element equations, where $\langle d x_p/dt\rangle$ and the Laplace–Lagrange parameter derivatives $\langle d\eta/dt\rangle$, $\langle d\kappa/dt\rangle$ become linear in $A_{jl}$ and $B_j$. The 'maximal-reach' strategy then assumes one SME coefficient is nonzero at a time and treats the unknown projection of the orbit onto the sky as an order-one number, converting the absence of measured secular changes into upper limits.

What would settle it

Measure the longitude of the ascending node for PSR J0751+1807 or PSR J1738+0333 and recompute the projections of $B_j$ and $A_{jl}$ onto the orbital frame; if the true projection factors turn out to be much smaller than order one, the maximal-reach limits in Table IV would weaken by more than a factor of a few, contradicting the paper's order-one projection assumption for that pulsar.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that in the small-eccentricity limit the secular orbital changes of a relativistic binary reduce to simple, clean signals of Lorentz violation. The averaged derivative of the projected semimajor axis, $\langle d x_p/dt\rangle$, is controlled by a combination of the tensor components $A_{\hat a\hat c}\cos\omega - A_{\hat b\hat c}\sin\omega$, while the averaged derivatives of the eccentricity-vector components, $\langle d\eta/dt\rangle$ and $\langle d\kappa/dt\rangle$, are controlled by the vector components $B_{\hat a}$ and $B_{\hat b}$. These $A$ and $B$ objects are particle-number-weighted sums of the SME coefficients $c^w_{(jk)}$, $c^w_{(0j)}$, and $(\bar a^w_{\mathrm{eff}})_j$ over neutrons, protons, and electrons, with the electron's $c^w$ weight suppressed by the electron–proton mass ratio. Using measured and estimated time derivatives for PSRs J0348+0432, J0751+1807, and J1738+0333, the paper derives maximal-reach bounds: $c^{n,p}_{jk}\lesssim 10^{-11}$, $c^{n,p}_{0k}\lesssim 10^{-8}$, and $(\bar a^n_{\mathrm{eff}})_k\lesssim 10^{-8}$ GeV, with PSR J1738+0333 giving the best $c^w_{jk}$ limits and PSR J0751+1807 the best $c^w_{0k}$ and $(\bar a^w_{\mathrm{eff}})_k$ limits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the unknown orientation of each orbit projects the Lorentz-violating coefficients onto the measured derivatives with order-one factors, and that the pulsar's proper motion does not systematically cancel the signal; if either fails, some quoted limits could weaken by more than a factor of a few.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The spatial coefficients $c^n_{jk}$ and $c^p_{jk}$ are pinned below $\sim 10^{-11}$, with PSR J1738+0333 providing the tightest limit through its accurate $\dot{x}_p$ measurement.
  • The mixed-index coefficients $c^n_{0k}$ and $c^p_{0k}$ are bounded below $\sim 10^{-8}$, and the neutron vector coefficient $(\bar a^n_{\mathrm{eff}})_k$ below $\sim 10^{-8}$ GeV, both best constrained by PSR J0751+1807 via $\dot{\eta}$ and $\dot{\kappa}$.
  • Because neutron stars are strongly self-gravitating, the limits are conservative strong-field versions of the SME coefficients; any strong-field enhancement would tighten them rather than weaken them.
  • Longer timing baselines improve the limits roughly as $T_{\mathrm{obs}}^{-3/2}$ even without instrumental upgrades, and new radio telescopes should speed up the improvement.
  • The electron $c^w_{jk}$ and $c^w_{0k}$ limits are suppressed by the electron–proton mass ratio, while the electron $(\bar a^w_{\mathrm{eff}})_k$ limits are not, so both charged-lepton sectors receive independent bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the longitude of the ascending node were measured for PSR J0751+1807 or PSR J1738+0333, the order-one projection assumption could be replaced by an explicit three-dimensional fit, which would either confirm the quoted limits or sharpen them into correlated bounds on several coefficients at once.
  • A dedicated simultaneous fit of $\dot{x}_p$, $\dot{\eta}$, and $\dot{\kappa}$ with proper motion modeled would separate a genuine Lorentz-violating residual from the astrophysical contaminants that the current maximal-reach approach absorbs into upper limits.
  • Applying the same small-eccentricity equations to newly discovered short-period neutron-star–white-dwarf binaries should tighten the limits faster than the $T^{-1.5}$ scaling alone, because the signal grows with the orbital frequency.
  • The current numbers should be read as order-of-magnitude reach: if a future signal appears, the maximal-reach approach cannot identify which coefficient is responsible, and a full orbital-orientation fit would be required.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives new constraints on Lorentz-violating matter-gravity couplings in the Standard-Model Extension (SME) using three small-eccentricity neutron star–white dwarf binaries. It combines the osculating-element equations of Jennings et al. (2015) with published pulsar timing measurements of the projected semimajor axis derivative, ˙xp, and the Laplace–Lagrange parameters, ˙η and ˙κ. After a small-eccentricity expansion (Eqs. 21–26), the author converts these measurements into maximal-reach limits on the SME coefficients c^w_jk, c^w_0k, and (a^w_eff)_k for neutrons, protons, and electrons. The main results are collected in Table IV, with the best limits on c^w_jk coming from PSR J1738+0333 and the best limits on c^w_0k and (a^w_eff)_k from PSR J0751+1807. The analysis relies on treating the unknown orbital orientation (in particular the longitude of ascending node, Ω) as O(1) in the projections, and on using measured ˙xp values as upper limits despite a comparable proper-motion contribution. The paper explicitly acknowledges these simplifications and discusses caveats related to strong-field effects in neutron stars.

Significance. If the derived limits hold, they are competitive and complementary to existing bounds: c^n,jk limits reach about 1e-11, c^n,0k about 1e-8, and (a^n_eff)_k about 1e-8 GeV, with the neutron (a_eff)_k bound slightly stronger than the corresponding lunar laser ranging result. A notable strength is that the analysis uses externally published timing measurements rather than fitting the SME coefficients to the data, so there is no circularity in the central claims. The paper is transparent about its maximal-reach methodology and about the strong-field caveat for neutron stars, and it provides a clear scaling law (T_obs^{-1.5}) for future improvements. These features make the paper a useful and reproducible contribution to the experimental SME literature, even though the quoted limits are order-of-magnitude estimates under simplifying assumptions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (24)–(26) and Table IV] The Table IV limits assume that the projections of A_jl and B_j onto the orbital basis (a_hat, b_hat, c_hat) are O(1). For a single nonzero Cartesian component, the projection is a product of sines and cosines of the unknown angles Ω, i, and ω, and for a generic orientation it can be much smaller than unity. The text acknowledges this but does not quantify the resulting spread. I recommend adding a short Monte Carlo over Ω (and over i where not directly measured) to show the distribution of the resulting limits, or at least a clear statement that the quoted numbers are favorable-orientation maximal-reach estimates rather than orientation-independent bounds.
  2. [Sec. IV, paragraph on using measured ˙xp as an upper limit] The observed ˙xp for PSR J0751+1807 and PSR J1738+0333 is used directly as an upper limit on Lorentz-violating contributions, with the argument that proper-motion contamination is not conspiratorial. The proper-motion contribution to ˙xp can be of the same order as the measured values for these nearby pulsars, so a partial cancellation could shift the derived limit by an O(1) factor without any fine-tuning. This does not invalidate the maximal-reach approach, but it is the weakest link in the chain. Please provide the proper-motion values used and/or perform an Ω-randomization for the ˙xp analysis analogous to what was done for the η, κ analysis in Ref. [21], so that the systematic effect is quantified rather than asserted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The symbol m in the definition (a_eff)_μ = a_μ − m e_μ is not explicitly identified as the fermion mass in the surrounding text; a brief parenthetical would improve readability.
  2. [Table I] The entry 'Ne ∼ 0' for neutron stars could be clarified as 'negligible' to avoid implying an exactly zero electron content.
  3. [Sec. IV, first paragraph] The statement 'the more relativistic the binary (namely, the larger nb)' is slightly imprecise because nb is the orbital frequency; the intended meaning is the shorter the orbital period, the larger the orbital velocity, and rephrasing would avoid confusion.
  4. [Sec. IV, discussion of proper motion] The phrase 'Nature's conspiracy' is informal for a journal article; consider replacing it with a more neutral formulation such as 'fine-tuning of the unknown longitude of ascending node'.
  5. [Eq. (17)] The numerical factor 0.0005 in the electron terms is the ratio m_e/m_p; stating this explicitly would help readers quickly verify the composition-weighted coefficients.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SME limits are derived from external published timing measurements and independent theoretical equations.

full rationale

No circularity found. The SME coefficients are constrained, not fitted: the timing observables xp_dot, eta_dot, and kappa_dot are external published measurements taken from the pulsar timing papers cited in Table III, and the secular equations (24)-(26) are taken from Jennings et al. (Ref. [31]), an independent derivation not by the present author. The O(1) projection treatment and the use of measured xp_dot as an upper limit are explicit conservative assumptions, not constructions that make the output equal the input. Self-citations (Refs. [21]-[24]) are used only for the standard procedure of randomizing the unmeasured longitude of ascending node and for previous applications of the maximal-reach approach; they do not supply the derived limits or forbid alternatives. The central limits in Table IV follow by algebraically inverting Eqs. (24)-(26) with one coefficient assumed nonzero at a time, so the result is self-contained against external pulsar data.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities and no fitted free parameters are introduced; the paper converts published timing measurements into order-of-magnitude SME coefficient limits via cited theoretical equations and acknowledged simplifying assumptions.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The SME action with spontaneous Lorentz violation and constant coefficients (Eqs. 9-10) is the correct effective low-energy description.
    Sec II adopts the Kostelecky-Tasson framework; the paper bounds the vacuum expectation values of (a_eff)_mu and c_mu_nu.
  • domain assumption A macroscopic NS or WD is described by the point-particle action (5) with composite coefficients from Eqs. (6)-(8), summing free constituent fermions and neglecting binding energy contributions.
    Sec II, Table I; the text notes binding energy could be at most about 20% for NSs and strong-field nonperturbative effects may alter this (Sec V).
  • domain assumption The secular orbital evolution of a binary under the SME acceleration is given by Eqs. (12)-(14) from Jennings et al. [31].
    Sec III imports these osculating-element equations and derives the small-eccentricity forms (21)-(26).
  • domain assumption The three pulsars have eccentricities small enough (e <= 1e-6) that leading-order-in-e equations (21)-(26) are accurate.
    Sec IV, after Table III; the binaries are classified as small-eccentricity with e <= 1e-6.
  • ad hoc to paper The unknown longitude of ascending node and orbital orientation can be treated as O(1) projections for maximal-reach limits, and only one SME coefficient is nonzero at a time.
    Sec IV states 'we take a simplified approach and treat these projections as O(1) operators' and uses the maximal-reach method; acknowledged as requiring more work if a signal is found.
  • domain assumption Bounds on time derivatives xp_dot, eta_dot, and kappa_dot are estimated as X_dot ~ sqrt(12) sigma_X / T_obs, assuming linear-in-time evolution.
    Sec IV, paragraph after Table III; the approximation is cited to Refs. [21,23] and is used to convert published uncertainties into upper limits.
  • ad hoc to paper The measured xp_dot for J0751+1807 and J1738+0333 can be attributed to proper motion, with no conspiracy of the unknown longitude of ascending node hiding a Lorentz-violating signal.
    Sec IV, paragraph on proper motion; the author argues a factor-of-a-few uncertainty at most.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lorentz-violating matter-gravity couplings in small-eccentricity binary pulsars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALUV67AV

@misc{pith2026190810019,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lorentz-violating matter-gravity couplings in small-eccentricity binary pulsars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALUV67AV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10019}
}
read the original abstract

Lorentz symmetry is an important concept in modern physics. Precision pulsar timing was used to put tight constraints on the coefficients for Lorentz violation in the pure-gravity sector of the Standard-Model Extension (SME). We extend the analysis to Lorentz-violating matter-gravity couplings, utilizing three small-eccentricity relativistic neutron star (NS) -- white dwarf (WD) binaries. We obtain compelling limits on various SME coefficients related to the neutron, the proton, and the electron. These results are complementary to limits obtained from lunar laser ranging and clock experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10019 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Pulsar orbit and the coordinate system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Modified gravitational wave propagations in linearized gravity with Lorentz and diffeomorphism violations and their gravitational wave constraints

    gr-qc 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    No evidence of Lorentz or diffeomorphism violation is found in GWTC-3 gravitational waves, yielding 90% bounds on the lowest-dimension SME coefficients k(2)(I)00 and k(3)(V)jm.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [21]

    Shao, Phys

    L. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 111103 (2014), arXiv:1402.6452 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [1]

    J. D. Tasson, Rept. Prog. Phys. 77, 062901 (2014), arXiv:1403.7785 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2014

  3. [2]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D39, 683 (1989)

    1989

  4. [3]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev.D55, 6760 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9703464 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1997

  5. [4]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9809521 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1998

  6. [5]

    Bailey and Kosteleck´ y

    presented the general structure of the SME when the curved spacetime is considered. Bailey and Kosteleck´ y

    work page

  7. [6]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev.D80, 015020 (2009), arXiv:0905.0031 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [7]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev.D85, 096005 (2012), arXiv:1112.6395 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D69, 105009 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0312310 [hep-th]

    2004 arXiv

  2. [9]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and Z. Li, Phys. Rev. D99, 056016 (2019), arXiv:1812.11672 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Symmetry in Special and General Relativity

    worked out different kinds of observational phenom- ena associated with the minimal operators in the pure- gravity sector of the SME whose mass dimension d≤ 4. After that, Kosteleck´ y and Tasson [11] investigated in great detail the theoretical aspects of the matter-gravity co...

    1908 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Kosteleck´ y and M

    A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D88, 096006 (2013), arXiv:1308.4973 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Q. G. Bailey, V. A. Kosteleck´ y, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D91, 022006 (2015), arXiv:1410.6162 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Q. G. Bailey and V. A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D74, 045001 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0603030 [gr-qc]

    2006 arXiv

  7. [14]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and J. D. Tasson, Phys. Rev. D83, 016013 (2011), arXiv:1006.4106 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. D. Tasson, in Proceedings, 7th Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry (CPT 16): Bloomington, In- diana, USA, June 20-24, 2016 (2017) pp. 13–16, arXiv:1612.09264 [hep-ph]. 7

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Shao et al

    C.-G. Shao et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 071102 (2016), arXiv:1607.06095 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes, Phys. Lett.B779, 136 (2018), arXiv:1712.10268 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

    J. D. Tasson, in 8th Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Sym- metry (CPT’19) Bloomington, Indiana, USA, May 12- 16, 2019 (2019) arXiv:1907.08106 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Q. G. Bailey, in 8th Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Sym- metry (CPT’19) Bloomington, Indiana, USA, May 12- 16, 2019 (2019) arXiv:1906.08657 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Shao, in 8th Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry (CPT’19) Bloomington, Indiana, USA, May 12-16, 2019 (2019) arXiv:1905.08405 [gr-qc]

    L. Shao, in 8th Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry (CPT’19) Bloomington, Indiana, USA, May 12-16, 2019 (2019) arXiv:1905.08405 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A. Hees, Q. G. Bailey, A. Bourgoin, H. P.-L. Bars, C. Guerlin, and C. Le Poncin-Lafitte, Universe 2, 30 (2016), arXiv:1610.04682 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and N. Russell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 (2011), arXiv:0801.0287 [hep-ph]

    2011

  16. [24]

    Shao and Q

    L. Shao and Q. G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D99, 084017 (2019), arXiv:1903.11760 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Shao, Phys

    L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D90, 122009 (2014), arXiv:1412.2320 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    maximal-reach

    to constrain the coefficients for Lorentz violation. It is clear that the more relativistic the binary (namely, the larger nb), the better the tests. Therefore, we use three well-timed NS-WD binaries whose orbital periods are shorter than half a day [32–34]. Relevant parame- ter...

  19. [27]

    Shao and Q

    L. Shao and Q. G. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D98, 084049 (2018), arXiv:1810.06332 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Shao and N

    L. Shao and N. Wex, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 215018 (2012), arXiv:1209.4503 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    L. Shao, R. N. Caballero, M. Kramer, N. Wex, D. J. Champion, and A. Jessner, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 165019 (2013), arXiv:1307.2552 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Shao and N

    L. Shao and N. Wex, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 165020 (2013), arXiv:1307.2637 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Shao and N

    L. Shao and N. Wex, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 59, 699501 (2016), arXiv:1604.03662 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    R. J. Jennings, J. D. Tasson, and S. Yang, Phys. Rev. D92, 125028 (2015), arXiv:1510.03798 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. , Science 340, 448 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Desvignes et al

    G. Desvignes et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 458, 3341 (2016), arXiv:1602.08511 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, G. Esposito-Far` ese, J. P. W. Verbiest, M. Bailes, B. A. Jacoby, M. Kramer, I. H. Stairs, J. Antoniadis, and G. H. Janssen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 423, 3328 (2012), arXiv:1205.1450 [astro- ph.GA]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lange, F

    C. Lange, F. Camilo, N. Wex, M. Kramer, D. C. Backer, A. G. Lyne, and O. Doroshenko, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 326, 274 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0102309 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bluhm, H

    R. Bluhm, H. Bossi, and Y. Wen, (2019), arXiv:1907.13209 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D. R. Lorimer and M. Kramer, Handbook of Pulsar As- tronomy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Wex, in Frontiers in Relativistic Celestial Mechanics: Applications and Experiments , Vol

    N. Wex, in Frontiers in Relativistic Celestial Mechanics: Applications and Experiments , Vol. 2, edited by S. M. Kopeikin (Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston,

  34. [42]

    J. D. Tasson, Phys. Rev. D86, 124021 (2012), arXiv:1211.4850 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will, Gravity: Newtonian, Post- Newtonian, Relativistic (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    S. M. Kopeikin, Astrophys. J. Lett. 467, L93 (1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    Altschul, Phys

    B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D75, 023001 (2007), arXiv:hep- ph/0608094 [hep-ph]

    2007

  38. [46]

    Schreck, Class

    M. Schreck, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 135009 (2017), arXiv:1603.07452 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Panjwani, L

    H. Panjwani, L. Carbone, and C. C. Speake, in Proceed- ings, 5th Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry (CPT 10): Bloomington, Indiana, June 28-July 2, 2010 (2010) pp. 194–198

    2010

  40. [48]

    N. A. Flowers, C. Goodge, and J. D. Tasson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 201101 (2017), arXiv:1612.08495 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bourgoin, C

    A. Bourgoin, C. Le Poncin-Lafitte, A. Hees, S. Bouquil- lon, G. Francou, and M.-C. Angonin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 201102 (2017), arXiv:1706.06294 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Pihan-Le Bars, C

    H. Pihan-Le Bars, C. Guerlin, R. D. Lasseri, J. P. Ebran, Q. G. Bailey, S. Bize, E. Khan, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D95, 075026 (2017), arXiv:1612.07390 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and J. Tasson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 010402 (2009), arXiv:0810.1459 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. A. Hohensee, S. Chu, A. Peters, and H. Mueller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 151102 (2011), arXiv:1102.4362 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  45. [53]

    M. A. Hohensee, H. Mueller, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 151102 (2013), arXiv:1308.2936 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    J. Zhao, L. Shao, Z. Cao, and B.-Q. Ma, (2019), arXiv:1907.00780 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Far` ese, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2220 (1993)

    1993

  48. [56]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Far` ese, Phys. Rev. D54, 1474 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9602056 [gr-qc]

    1996 arXiv

  49. [57]

    L. Shao, N. Sennett, A. Buonanno, M. Kramer, and N. Wex, Phys. Rev.X7, 041025 (2017), arXiv:1704.07561 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Kramer, D

    M. Kramer, D. C. Backer, J. M. Cordes, T. J. W. Lazio, B. W. Stappers, and S. Johnston, New Astron. Rev. 48, 993 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0409379 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Yunes, K

    N. Yunes, K. Yagi, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D94, 084002 (2016), arXiv:1603.08955 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    B. S. Sathyaprakash et al. , (2019), arXiv:1903.09221 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019

  53. [61]

    Carson, B

    Z. Carson, B. C. Seymour, and K. Yagi, (2019), arXiv:1907.03897 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Shao et al., in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, Vol

    L. Shao et al., in Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, Vol. AASKA14 (Proceedings of Science,

  55. [65]

    Bull et al

    P. Bull et al. , (2018), arXiv:1810.02680 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Bailes et al

    M. Bailes et al. , in Proceedings of the MeerKAT Sci- ence: On the Pathway to the SKA (MeerKAT2016: Stellenbosch, South Africa, May 25–27, 2016) , Vol. MeerKAT2016 (2018) p. 011, arXiv:1803.07424 [astro- ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [2014]

    39, arXiv:1402.5594 [gr-qc]

    p. 39, arXiv:1402.5594 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  58. [2015]

    042, arXiv:1501.00058 [astro-ph.HE]

    p. 042, arXiv:1501.00058 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.