Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Exploring the Foundations of the Universe with Space Tests of the Equivalence Principle

T0 review · 3 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 A pair of future space missions could measure the Eötvös ratio to $10^{-17}$, two orders of magnitude tighter than today's limits, and either detect an equivalence-principle violation or sharply constrain new scalar-field dark-matter and…

desk verdict A solid community white paper whose 10^-17 sensitivity claim is a shot-noise projection, not a demonstrated error budget; the advanced MICROSCOPE section is the more grounded half. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11785 v3 pith:PQEYMIXM submitted 2019-08-30 physics.space-ph astro-ph.IM

Baptiste Battelier , Joël Bergé , Andrea Bertoldi , Luc Blanchet , Kai Bongs , Philippe Bouyer , Claus Braxmaier , Davide Calonico
show 29 more authors
Pierre Fayet Naceur Gaaloul Christine Guerlin Aurélien Hees Philippe Jetzer Claus Lämmerzahl Steve Lecomte Christophe Le Poncin-Lafitte Sina Loriani Gilles Métris Miguel Nofrarias Ernst Rasel Serge Reynaud Manuel Rodrigues Markus Rothacher Albert Roura Christophe Salomon Stephan Schiller Wolfgang P. Schleich Christian Schubert Carlos Sopuerta Fiodor Sorrentino Tim J. Sumner Guglielmo M. Tino Philip Tuckey Wolf von Klitzing Lisa Wörner Peter Wolf Martin Zelan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-phastro-ph.IM PACS 04.80.Cc07.87.+v95.35.+d
keywords equivalenceprincipleuniversalityoffreefallEötvösratioatominterferometryBose-Einsteincondensateelectrostaticaccelerometerspacemissiondarkmatterscalarfield
topics Dark EnergyDark Matter
open problems Dark MatterDark Energy
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 makes the case that a future space mission, in the post-MICROSCOPE era, can test the equivalence principle by measuring the Eötvös ratio $\eta$ to $10^{-17}$ or better, a factor of 100 beyond the current best space result. It lays out two mission concepts that could achieve this: a dual-species atom interferometer using Bose-Einstein condensates of $^{87}$Rb and $^{41}$K, and an advanced electrostatic accelerometer with three concentric test masses and optical readout. The motivation is that most unification theories and most scalar-field models of dark matter and dark energy predict some level of equivalence-principle violation, so a measurement at this sensitivity is one of the few clean routes to new physics beyond general relativity and the Standard Model. If the target is met, the experiment either discovers such a violation or sets the strongest constraints on a wide class of new fields.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the Eötvös ratio $\eta$, defined from the gravitational accelerations $a_A$, $a_B$ of two bodies of different composition, and the differential method that isolates it from common-mode noise. In the atom-interferometer concept the working identity is the phase $\Delta\phi = K a T^2$ acquired by matter waves in a Mach-Zehnder sequence, with $K$ the effective wave number, $a$ the acceleration, and $T$ the pulse separation time; the single-shot differential acceleration noise is set by quantum projection noise and scales as $(C K T^2 \sqrt{N})^{-1}$. The argument is carried by the parameter set of the paper's Table II: $N = 10^6$ atoms per species, $T = 20$ s, 10-second cycles, five simultaneous interferometers, and near-unity contrast, together with the gravity-gradient compensation technique that relaxes the required initial overlap of the two species to 100 nm in position and 10 nm/s in velocity. In the accelerometer concept the working mechanism is the nested differential electrostatic accelerometer under drag-free control, where the equivalence-principle signal appears as a differential acceleration modulated at the frequency $f_{\rm EP} = f_{\rm orb} + f_{\rm spin}$ and is separated from constant and low-frequency systematic errors by demodulation.

What would settle it

A flight demonstration on a low-Earth orbit that measures the actual differential acceleration noise floor of either payload: if the single-shot differential sensitivity is not at the $1.09\times10^{-13}$ m/s² level for the atom interferometer (or the equivalent $8\times10^{-17}$ m/s² resolution at the signal frequency for the accelerometer), or if any listed systematic exceeds its budget, then the 18-month integration to $\sigma_\eta \le 10^{-17}$ would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the next step in space tests of the universality of free fall is a measurement of the Eötvös ratio $\eta = 2(a_A-a_B)/(a_A+a_B)$ with uncertainty $\sigma_\eta \le 10^{-17}$, two orders of magnitude below the MICROSCOPE mission's goal and the sensitivity needed to search for the tiny composition-dependent accelerations predicted by string-inspired scalar fields, dark matter, and dark energy models. For the atom-interferometer scenario it shows that a shot-noise-limited differential acceleration of about $1.09\times10^{-13}$ m/s² per cycle, averaged over 18 months on a 700 km orbit with 10-second cycles and five interleaved interferometers, reaches $\sigma_\eta \le 10^{-17}$. For the accelerometer scenario it derives the equivalent requirement of about $8\times10^{-17}$ m/s² accelerometric resolution at the expected signal frequency, and argues that this can be met by replacing the gold-wire suspension noise source, adding an optical position readout, and extending integration sessions to 480 orbits. The paper also frames the Eötvös ratio as a figure of merit that must be supplemented by diversity in test-mass composition and by quantum tests using atoms in coherent superposition, because different violation mechanisms couple to different charges.

Load-bearing premise

The projected $10^{-17}$ performance rests on controlling every systematic differential acceleration below the target (or modulating it away from the signal frequency), which in the atom-interferometer scenario means magnetic-field gradients below $1\,\mu$G/m, satellite rotation at the nanoradian-per-second level, shot-to-shot temperature stability of 0.5 K with 0.5 mK/m gradients, and near-unity contrast, none of which has been demonstrated together in space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A null result at $10^{-17}$ would improve constraints on light scalar-field dark matter couplings to electromagnetism and matter by three to four more orders of magnitude in the mass range covered by the paper's Figures 2 and 3.
  • A positive result would be the first detection of a composition-dependent gravitational acceleration and would point directly to new fields beyond the Standard Model.
  • The atom-interferometer mission would add a genuinely quantum test-mass pair ($^{87}$Rb/$^{41}$K Bose-Einstein condensates) to the classical macroscopic tests, broadening coverage of violation mechanisms tied to spin, isospin, and nuclear composition.
  • The advanced accelerometer concept would run two equivalence-principle comparisons simultaneously on three concentric test masses, improving common-mode rejection and doubling the science yield per orbit.
  • Both concepts would push drag-free control, cold-atom payloads, and optical readout technologies that also serve future geodesy, clock, and gravitational-wave missions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The hybrid accelerometer-plus-atom-interferometer option the paper mentions would, if developed, provide an in-situ absolute calibration of the electrostatic sensor; this combination could become a general tool for future missions that need both low-frequency acceleration stability and absolute accuracy, such as space gravitational-wave detectors.
  • Figures 2 and 3 imply that a null result at $10^{-17}$ would exclude most of the remaining parameter space for linearly and quadratically coupled scalar dark matter, leaving only near-universal coupling or large mass; the paper does not quantify the fine-tuning this imposes on dark-energy models.
  • The gravity-gradient compensation technique central to the atom-interferometer scenario could be validated first in ground-based 10-metre and 100-metre atom interferometers; a successful validation would retire the long-standing objection that verifying the required atomic-cloud overlap is impractical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This white paper, prepared for the ESA Voyage 2050 planning cycle, argues that future space tests of the Einstein Equivalence Principle, and in particular the universality of free fall, should aim for an Eötvös-ratio uncertainty of 10^-17 or better. Two tentative mission concepts are presented: a dual-species (^87Rb/^41K) atom-interferometer mission in low Earth orbit, and an advanced electrostatic accelerometer mission building on the heritage of MICROSCOPE. The paper reviews the theoretical motivations from dark matter, dark energy, and quantum gravity, surveys the current experimental landscape, derives a shot-noise-limited sensitivity for the atom-interferometer scenario, lists the principal systematic error sources and their required control levels, and sketches secondary science objectives such as time-frequency transfer, geodesy, and Lorentz-symmetry tests. The overall claim is that a 10^-17 test is both scientifically compelling and technologically plausible in the post-MICROSCOPE era.

Significance. If the 10^-17 target were actually achieved, it would represent a two-order-of-magnitude improvement over MICROSCOPE and would constrain a broad class of scalar-field dark matter/dark energy models and quantum-gravity-inspired violation scenarios. The paper is valuable as a community roadmap: it consolidates the state of the art, identifies the main technical challenges, and builds on demonstrated drag-free and cold-atom heritage from LISA Pathfinder, MICROSCOPE, MAIUS, and QUANTUS. The sensitivity formula in Eq. (4.1) and the parameter set in Table II are transparent, and the systematic-error checklist in Section IV.D is useful. However, neither mission concept is supported by an end-to-end systematic error budget, and the central feasibility claim of ση ≤ 10^-17 is asserted rather than demonstrated. As a white paper the lack of a full design is understandable, but the quantitative claims in the Executive Summary and in Section IV.G go beyond what the supporting material establishes.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV.C–IV.D, Eq. (4.4), Table II] The shot-noise integration to ση ≤ 10^-17 after 18 months assumes that all systematic errors are either below shot noise or appear at frequencies other than the orbital frequency ω0. In the chosen inertial-spacecraft configuration, the Earth's magnetic field vector and the thermal environment rotate around the spacecraft at ω0, so the quadratic Zeeman and blackbody-radiation-gradient systematics quantified in Section IV.D.e and IV.D.g enter exactly at the signal frequency and cannot be rejected by the demodulation argument of Eq. (4.4). The paper acknowledges this by requiring control of these effects, but it provides no error budget, no shielding or thermal model, and no demonstration that the stated requirements (1 mG offset-field stability, 1 µG/m gradient, 0.5 K and 0.5 mK/m shot-to-shot thermal stability) are simultaneously achievable in orbit. The 18-month integration time in Table II therefore represents a shot-noise-only projection, not a realistic uncertainty estimate, and the claim of a 'residual uncertainty of 10^-17' in Section IV.G is not substantiated.
  2. [V.B, especially V.B.1 and V.B.2] The advanced MICROSCOPE concept requires an accelerometric resolution of 8×10^-17 m/s^2 at the EP frequency and a stochastic noise level near 10^-13 m/s^2/Hz^1/2, but these figures are extrapolated from MICROSCOPE performance rather than derived from a quantitative model. The paper itself states that the gold-wire mechanical noise, which dominated in MICROSCOPE, would need a reduction by a factor of 1000 and that this is 'far from what is technologically feasible today'; the proposed remedy, a discharging device, is described as 'under study.' No error budget is provided for the other identified systematics (contact potentials, MLI cracking, digital-electronics quantization, temperature sensitivity) at the 10^-17 level. Without such a budget, the 10^-17 goal for the advanced MICROSCOPE scenario is not supported by the presented evidence.
  3. [IV.C, Table II] The assumed near-unity contrast (C = 1) is essential to the single-shot sensitivity in Eq. (4.1), and the planned gravity-gradient compensation requires tilting the retro-reflection mirror by about 400 µrad and shifting the laser frequency by 150 GHz on a periodic basis. The papers cited for these techniques (e.g., Refs. [13–15]) are ground-based demonstrations at different gradient magnitudes and timescales; no analysis or simulation is given for the space implementation with a 1-m baseline and T = 20 s. Since contrast directly enters the sensitivity calculation and the compensation technique is needed to keep imperfect-overlap systematics below shot noise, this is a load-bearing point that needs at least a preliminary feasibility assessment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV.D.g] The name 'Stephan-Boltzmann' should be 'Stefan-Boltzmann', and 'fluctation' is a typo.
  2. [V.A.1 and V.B.2] 'decorralated' should be 'decorrelated' in Section V.A.1, and 'cantered' in Section V.B.2 should likely be 'centered'.
  3. [Table I] The word 'macrsocopic' is a typo; also the use of red text to indicate white-paper goals will not survive monochrome printing, so a symbol or footnote would be clearer.
  4. [IV.F] 'tempreature' should be 'temperature'.
  5. [I and V.A.2] The Introduction says final MICROSCOPE results are 'expected later this year' while Section V.A.2 states the mission ended in October 2018; for a 2019 white paper this is acceptable, but the temporal phrasing should be checked for consistency in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 10^-17 projections are explicit design calculations from stated parameters, benchmarked against independent published missions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the projected 10^-17 Eötvös-ratio sensitivity for two mission concepts. For the atom-interferometer scenario, the sensitivity is computed from Eq. (4.1) (quantum-projection noise), Eq. (4.2) (orbital averaging), and the explicit parameters in Table II (N=10^6, T=20 s, C=1, 700 km orbit), yielding the stated 18-month integration time. The target is an input goal, not an output fitted to data; no quantity is defined in terms of the result it is said to predict. For the advanced MICROSCOPE concept, the 8×10^-17 m/s^2 resolution requirement is arithmetically derived from the 10^-17 target and the MICROSCOPE orbit, and the stochastic-noise estimate is an extrapolation of measured MICROSCOPE performance, not a renamed prediction. The paper does invoke numerous references, including works by co-authors (e.g., [13] for gravity-gradient compensation, [14] for ground demonstrations, [25] for scalar-dark-matter constraints, [131] for the accelerometer model), but these are independent published results used as engineering heritage or as external benchmarks; none is a self-citation whose authority alone forces the central feasibility claim. Section IV.D states that systematic errors must be controlled below 10^-17 or modulated away, and it quantifies requirements (B0 to 1 mG, gradients to 1 µG/m, 0.5 K temperature stability), but it does not present a full error budget; the paper itself notes it is 'only an example mission scenario' requiring a 'detailed trade off study.' That is a completeness or correctness limitation, not a circular derivation. No step reduces by construction to its own input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced; the scalar fields discussed are borrowed from the literature. The free parameters are mission design choices assumed to be achievable, and the axioms are standard physics plus the assumption that systematics can be controlled to the required level.

free parameters (5)
  • Atom number per shot, N = 10^6 (assumed)
    Table II sets N=10^6 for both species. The shot-noise-limited differential acceleration in Eq. (4.1) scales as 1/sqrt(N), so the projected 10^-17 sensitivity depends directly on this assumed value.
  • Free evolution time, T = 20 s (assumed)
    Table II. The interferometer phase scales as T^2 (Eq. 4.1), so the projected sensitivity depends critically on this chosen duration.
  • Cycle time, Tc = 10 s (assumed)
    Table II. Combined with 5 simultaneous interferometers it sets the integration time needed to reach sigma_eta <= 10^-17 (Eq. 4.2).
  • Number of simultaneous interferometers = 5 (assumed)
    Table II. Assumed to enable interleaved operation with 50 s per experiment and 10 s cycle time.
  • Contrast, C = 1 (assumed)
    Table II. The paper assumes near-unity contrast; any contrast loss directly degrades the sensitivity in Eq. (4.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Eötvös ratio eta is a valid phenomenological parametrization of UFF violations, and differential accelerations between two test masses can be measured against the local gravity field.
    Used throughout to define the target observable (Eq. 2.4). Standard in equivalence principle tests.
  • standard math The atom-interferometer phase is Delta_phi = K a T^2 and the shot-noise limit for a differential acceleration measurement is given by Eq. (4.1).
    Background quantum metrology used to project sensitivity; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption All systematic error sources except those exactly at the orbital modulation frequency can be averaged down by demodulation over the integration time.
    Section IV.D assumes this to separate a possible UFF violation signal from spurious accelerations.
  • domain assumption The scalar dark matter coupling model of Eq. (2.5) and the constraints in Figs. 2-3, taken from prior literature, correctly describe possible EEP violations.
    Used to argue that a 10^-17 test improves constraints by 3-4 orders of magnitude; model is borrowed, not derived here.
  • domain assumption Published limits from MICROSCOPE [1] and torsion-balance experiments [57] accurately represent current UFF constraints.
    The claimed two-order-of-magnitude improvement and the scalar-field constraint plots are benchmarked against these published results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Foundations of the Universe with Space Tests of the Equivalence Principle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQEYMIXM

@misc{pith2026190811785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Foundations of the Universe with Space Tests of the Equivalence Principle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQEYMIXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11785}
}
abstract

We present the scientific motivation for future space tests of the equivalence principle, and in particular the universality of free fall, at the $10^{-17}$ level or better. Two possible mission scenarios, one based on quantum technologies, the other on electrostatic accelerometers, that could reach that goal are briefly discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11785 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Constraints for scalar DM, linear coupling. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Noise of the MICROSCOPE instrument with keys to improvement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Drawing of the 3 concentric test-masses (in grey) surrounded by the electrode of control (coloured parts). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

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. Probing Weak-Force Corrections to Black Hole Geometry via Long Range Potentials: Feinberg-Sucher and Ferrer-Nowakowski Potentials

    gr-qc 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A heuristic model claims neutrino- and boson-mediated forces would shift black hole photon spheres and shadows, with attractive forces enlarging and repulsive forces shrinking them.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    They are exactly the same, except for the use of different materials for the test-masses

    Description of the experiment T-SAGE [130] is composed of two parallel similar differential accelerometer instruments, each one with two con- centric hollow cylindrical test-masses. They are exactly the same, except for the use of different materials for the test-masses. In one instrument (SUREF) the two test-masses have the same composition, and are made f...

  2. [2]

    The longest sessions (up to 120 orbital periods, i.e

    First results The MICROSCOPE measurements were organised in successive sessions having different goals. The longest sessions (up to 120 orbital periods, i.e. more than 700 000 s) were dedicated to the EP test. Other shorter sessions (typically 5 orbits) aimed to calibrate or control some characteristics of the experiment. Most of the time the two sensors, ...

    2017

  3. [3]

    The test of the Lorentz symmetry could be notably improved as it was already done with MICROSCOPE [71]

    Advanced MICROSCOPE additional science to be tested The science to be tested is mainly the test of the Equivalence Principle. The test of the Lorentz symmetry could be notably improved as it was already done with MICROSCOPE [71]. The study of a Chameleon fifth force is under evaluation in MICROSCOPE but should lead into recommendation to improve the sensit...

  4. [4]

    In the paper [1], the measurement of the acceleration difference shows a noise of 0.5×10−10 m s−2 Hz−1/2 atfEP =3×10−3 Hz

    Drivers from MICROSCOPE experience The accelerometers of MICROSCOPE are processed by pair in order to extract the eventual EP violation in the difference of acceleration of two test-masses (section V A). In the paper [1], the measurement of the acceleration difference shows a noise of 0.5×10−10 m s−2 Hz−1/2 atfEP =3×10−3 Hz. The other pair of test-masses (P...

  5. [5]

    The core of the instrument could comprise 3 concentric test-masses as depicted on Fig

    New concept for an advanced MICROSCOPE mission In order to improve the performance, some parameters of the instrument have to be changed as listed in the previous paragraph. The core of the instrument could comprise 3 concentric test-masses as depicted on Fig. 5. The choice of the materials has to be established in relation to theoretical considerations [...

  6. [6]

    Aguilera D. et al. , Cassical and Quantum Gravity 31, 115010 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Touboul et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 231101 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Sumner T. J., et al. , Advs. Space Res., 39, 254-258 (2007)

    2007

Show all 143 references
  1. [9]

    Nobili A. M,. et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 184011 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    D., Class

    Reasenberg, R. D., Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 175013 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Amelino-Camelia G. et al. , Experimental Astronomy, 23, 549-572, (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    and Bouyer P., Nat

    Geiger R., M´ enoret V., Stern G., Zahzam N., Cheinet P., Battelier B., Villing A., Moron F., Lours M., Bidel Y., Bresson A., Landragin A. and Bouyer P., Nat. Comm. 2, 474 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Altschul, B. et al. , Advances in Space Research 55, 501 - 524, (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Armano, M. et al. , Physical Review Letters 120, 061101, (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Armano, M. et al. , Phys. Rev. D 99, 082001, (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    M¨ untinga H.et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 093602 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Becker D. et al. , Nature 562, 391 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Schiff L., Am. J. Phys. 28, 340 (1960)

    1960

  11. [19]

    Roura A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 160401 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    and Kasevich M.A., Phys

    Overstreet C., Asenbaum P., Kovachy T., Notermans R., Hogan J.M. and Kasevich M.A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 183604 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    and Tino G., Phys

    D’Amico G., Rosi G., Zhan S., Cacciapuoti L., Fattori M. and Tino G., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 253201 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    and Salomon, C., Eur

    Cacciapuoti, L. and Salomon, C., Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics, 172, 57-68, (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Ade P. et al. , The Planck Collaboration, arXiv: 1303.5076 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Amsler et al

    Damour T., in C. Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B 667, 1 (2008), 2010 update

    2008

  17. [25]

    Dicke R.H., The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1964

    1964

  18. [26]

    and Lightman A.P., Phys

    Thorne K.S., Lee D.L. and Lightman A.P., Phys. Rev. D 7, 3563 (1973)

    1973

  19. [27]

    Press (2018)

    Will C.M., Theory and experiment in gravitational physics, 2nd edition , Cambridge U. Press (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Jordan P., Nature 164, 637 (1946)

    1946

  21. [29]

    and Dicke R., Phys

    Brans C. and Dicke R., Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961)

    1961

  22. [30]

    Rubakov V.A., Phys. Usp. 44, 871 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    Hees, A.; Minazzoli, O.; Savalle, E.; Stadnik, Y. V. and Wolf, P. Phys. Rev. D 98, 064051 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    and Veneziano G., Phys

    Taylor T.R. and Veneziano G., Phys. Lett. B 213, 450 (1988)

    1988

  25. [33]

    and Polyakov A.M., Nucl

    Damour T. and Polyakov A.M., Nucl. Phys. B 423, 532 (1994)

    1994

  26. [34]

    and Giudice G., Phys

    Dimopoulos S. and Giudice G., Phys. Lett. B 379, 105 (1996)

    1996

  27. [35]

    and Dvali G., Nucl

    Antoniadis I., Dimopoulos S. and Dvali G., Nucl. Phys. B 516, 70 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    Fayet P., Phys. Rev. D 97, 055039, (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    and Koyama K., Living Rev

    Maartens R. and Koyama K., Living Rev. Relativity 13, 5 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    and Nelson A.E., Ann

    Adelberger E.G., Heckel B.R. and Nelson A.E., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53, 77 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    and Sobolev Yu., C

    Antoniadis I., Baessler S., B¨ uchner M., Fedorov V.V., Hoedl S., Lambrecht A., Nesvizhevsky V.V., Pignol G., Protasov K.V., Reynaud S. and Sobolev Yu., C. R. Physique 12, 755 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    and Weltman A., Phys

    Khoury J. and Weltman A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004)

    2004

  33. [41]

    and Weltman A., Phys

    Khoury J. and Weltman A., Phys. Rev. D 69, 044026 (2004)

    2004

  34. [42]

    and Yamaguchi M., Phys

    Chiba T., Okabe T. and Yamaguchi M., Phys. Rev. D 62, 023511 (2000)

    2000

  35. [43]

    Fayet P., Phys. Rev. D 99, 055043, (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Wetterich C., Nucl. Phys. B 302, 668 (1988)

    1988

  37. [45]

    and Peebles J., Phys

    Ratra B. and Peebles J., Phys. Rev. D 37, 321 (1988)

    1988

  38. [46]

    M., Phys

    Carroll S. M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3067 (1998)

    1998

  39. [47]

    and Weltman A., Phys

    Brax P., van de Bruck C., Davis A.-C., Khoury J. and Weltman A., Phys. Rev. D 70, 123518 (2004)

    2004

  40. [48]

    and Sen A.A., Phys

    Bento M.C., Bertolami O. and Sen A.A., Phys. Rev. D 66, 043507 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    and Steinhardt P.J., Phys

    Armendariz-Picon C., Mukhanov V. and Steinhardt P.J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4438 (2000)

    2000

  42. [50]

    and Steinhardt P.J., Phys

    Armendariz-Picon C., Mukhanov V. and Steinhardt P.J., Phys. Rev. D 63, 103510 (2001)

    2001

  43. [51]

    and Porrati M., Phys

    Dvali G.R., Gabadadze G. and Porrati M., Phys. Lett. B 485, 208 (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

    and Pasquier V., Phys

    Kamenshchik A.Y., Moschella U. and Pasquier V., Phys. Lett. B 511, 265 (2001)

    2001

  45. [53]

    and Viollier R.D., Phys

    Bilic N., Tupper G.B. and Viollier R.D., Phys. Lett. B 535, 17 (2002)

    2002

  46. [54]

    and Chu S., Nature463, 926 (2010)

    M¨ uller H., Peters A. and Chu S., Nature463, 926 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    and De Laurentis M., Phys

    Capozziello S. and De Laurentis M., Phys. Reps. 509, 167 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    and Odintsov S.D., Int

    Nojiri S. and Odintsov S.D., Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 4, 115 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    game changing

    but are ultimately limited by the effect of local gravity gradients. In space the recent CNES/ESA MICROSCOPE mission uses the former and improves on ground experiments by an order of magnitude [1], with another factor 10 improvement expected in the near future, when all data is...

    2017

  50. [58]

    Caldwell R.R, Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    Weinberg S., Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  52. [60]

    Damour T., arXiv:1202.6311 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  53. [61]

    and Cohen-Tannoudji C., Class

    Wolf P., Blanchet L., Bord´ e Ch.J., Reynaud S., Salomon C. and Cohen-Tannoudji C., Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 145017 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    345, Finster F

    Giulini D., in Quantum Field Theory and Gravity, p. 345, Finster F. et al. Eds., Springer (2012)

    2012

  55. [63]

    and Adelberger E., Phys

    Schlamminger S., Choi K.-Y., Wagner T., Gundlach J. and Adelberger E., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 (2008). 24

    2008

  56. [64]

    Kostelecky, V. A. and Tasson, J. D., Phys. Rev. D, 83, 016013, (2011)

    2011

  57. [65]

    Peters, A.; Chung, K. Y. and Chu, Metrologia 38, 25, (2001)

    2001

  58. [66]

    Merlet, S.; Bodart, Q.; Malossi, N.; Landragin, A.; Santos, F. P. D.; Gitlein, O. and Timmen, L., Metrologia 47, L9-L11, (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    Schlippert D., Hartwig J., Albers H., Richardson L.L., Schubert C., Roura A., Schleich W.P., Ertmer W., and Rasel E.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 203002 (2014)

    2014

  60. [68]

    Tarallo M.G., Mazzoni T., Poli N., Sutyrin D.V., Zhang X., and Tino G.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 023005, (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    and Zhan, M., Phys

    Zhou, L.; Long, S.; Tang, B.; Chen, X.; Gao, F.; Peng, W.; Duan, W.; Zhong, J.; Xiong, Z.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y. and Zhan, M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 013004, (2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    Overstreet, C.; Asenbaum, P.; Kovachy, T.; Notermans, R.; Hogan, J. M. and Kasevich, M. A., Physical Review Letters 120, 183604, (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    and Rasel, E

    Hartwig, J.; Abend, S.; Schubert, C.; Schlippert, D.; Ahlers, H.; Posso-Trujillo, K.; Gaaloul, N.; Ertmer, W. and Rasel, E. M., New Journal of Physics 17, 035011, (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    Phys.: Conf

    Doser M., J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 199, 012009 (2010)

    2010

  65. [73]

    and Sacquin Y., Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 184008 (2012)

    Perez P. and Sacquin Y., Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 184008 (2012)

    2012

  66. [74]

    and Donoghue J.F., Phys

    Damour T. and Donoghue J.F., Phys. Rev. D 82, 084033 (2010)

    2010

  67. [75]

    and Van Tilburg, K., Phys

    Arvanitaki, A.; Huang, J. and Van Tilburg, K., Phys. Rev. D 91, 015015, (2015)

    2015

  68. [76]

    Stadnik, Y. V. and Flambaum, V. V., 115, 201301, (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    Pihan-Le Bars H. et al. , arXiv:1705.11015 [gr-qc] (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Pihan-Le Bars H. et al. , to be published

  71. [79]

    Space-Time Explorer and QUantum Equivalence Space Test, Yellow Book of STE-QUEST, ESA/SRE 6 (2013)

    2013

  72. [80]

    and Blanchet, L., Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 035012, (2016)

    Wolf, P. and Blanchet, L., Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 035012, (2016)

    2016

  73. [81]

    Savalle, E., Guerlin, C., Delva, P., Meynadier, F., Le Poncin-Lafitte, C., and Wolf, P., Class. Quant. Grav., submitted, (2019), arXiv:1907.12320

    2019 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Origlia, S. et al. , Phys. Rev. A 98, 053443 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    Bongs K. et al. , C. R. Phys. 16, 553–564 (2015)

    2015

  76. [84]

    Schiller, S. and Cacciapuoti, L., I-SOC Scientific Requirements, European Space Agency, document SCI-ESA-HRE-ESR- ISOC, http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/PDF/SCI-ESA-HRE-ESR-ISOC Iss.1.1-Approved.pdf

  77. [85]

    & Wolf, P., Classical and Quantum Gravity 35, 035018, (2018)

    Meynadier, F.; Delva, P.; le Poncin-Lafitte, C.; Guerlin, C. & Wolf, P., Classical and Quantum Gravity 35, 035018, (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Panek, I

    P. Panek, I. Prochazka and J. Kodet, Metrologia 47, L13-L16 (2010)

    2010

  79. [87]

    Prochazka, J

    I. Prochazka, J. Kodet and J. Blazej, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84, 046107 (2013)

    2013

  80. [88]

    D., Bettadpur, S., Watkins, M., and Reigber, C., Geophys

    Tapley, B. D., Bettadpur, S., Watkins, M., and Reigber, C., Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L09607, (2004)

    2004

  81. [89]

    and Tapley B.D., Adv

    Flury J., Bettadpur S. and Tapley B.D., Adv. Space Res. 42, 1414–1423 (2008)

    2008

  82. [90]

    et al., J

    Bock, H., J¨ aggi, A., Meyer, U. et al., J. Geod 85, 807, (2011)

    2011

  83. [91]

    Abich et al

    K. Abich et al. , Physical Review Letters 123, 031101, (2019)

    2019

  84. [92]

    Bonvalot, S.; Narteau, C.; Remy, D

    Panet, I. ; Bonvalot, S.; Narteau, C.; Remy, D. & Lemoine, J.-M., Nature geoscience 11, 367-373, (2018)

    2018

  85. [93]

    & Delva, P., Journal of Geodesy, 91, 597, (2017)

    Lion, G.; Panet, I.; Wolf, P.; Guerlin, C.; Bize, S. & Delva, P., Journal of Geodesy, 91, 597, (2017)

    2017

  86. [94]

    S.; Delva, P.; Wolf, P

    Denker, H.; Timmen, L.; Voigt, C.; Weyers, S.; Peik, E.; Margolis, H. S.; Delva, P.; Wolf, P. & Petit, G., Journal of Geodesy 92, 487, (2017)

    2017

  87. [95]

    E.; Grosche, G.; Lisdat, C.; Schmidt, P

    Mehlstubler, T. E.; Grosche, G.; Lisdat, C.; Schmidt, P. O. & Denker, H., Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 064401, (2018)

    2018

  88. [96]

    Biancale R. et al. , http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/div/meetings/vonft/pdf-files/talks/E- GRASP Eratosthenes Biancale

  89. [97]

    and Landragin A., Sci

    Savoie D., Altorio M., Fang B., Sidorenkov L.A., Geiger R. and Landragin A., Sci. Adv. 4, eaau7948 (2018)

    2018

  90. [98]

    and Peters A., J

    Freier C., Hauth M., Schkolnik V., Leykauf B., Schilling M., Wziontek H., Scherneck H.G., M¨ uller J. and Peters A., J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 723, 012050 (2016)

    2016

  91. [99]

    and Tino G.M., Nat

    Rosi G., D’Amico G., Cacciapuoti L., Sorrentino F., Prevedelli M., Zych M., Brukner C ¸ . and Tino G.M., Nat. Commun 8, 15529 (2017)

    2017

  92. [100]

    and M¨ uller H., Science 360, 191-195 (2018)

    Parker R.H., Yu C., Zhong W., Estey B. and M¨ uller H., Science 360, 191-195 (2018)

    2018

  93. [101]

    and Wiringa R.B., Phys

    Hohensee M.A., M¨ uller H. and Wiringa R.B., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 151102 (2013)

    2013

  94. [102]

    and Bouyer P., Nat

    Barrett B., Antoni-Micollier L., Chichet L., Battelier B., L´ ev` eque T., Landragin A. and Bouyer P., Nat. Commun. 7, 13786 (2016)

    2016

  95. [103]

    and M¨ uller H., New J

    Williams J., Chiow S.w., Yu N. and M¨ uller H., New J. Phys. 18, 025018 (2016)

    2016

  96. [104]

    Schubert C. et al. , arXiv:1312.5963 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Blaser J.P., Classical and Quantum Gravity 18, 2509–2514 (2001)

    2001

  98. [106]

    Nobili A.M., Phys. Rev. A 93, 023617 (2016)

    2016

  99. [107]

    and M¨ uller H., Phys

    Lan S.Y., Kuan P.C., Estey B., Haslinger P. and M¨ uller H., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 090402 (2012)

    2012

  100. [108]

    and Kasevich M.A., Phys

    Kovachy T., Hogan J.M., Sugarbaker A., Dickerson S.M., Donnelly C.A., Overstreet C. and Kasevich M.A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 143004 (2015)

    2015

  101. [109]

    Rudolph J., Matter-Wave Optics with Bose-Einstein Condensates in Microgravity , dissertation, Leibniz Universit¨ at Han- nover (2016)

    2016

  102. [110]

    and Landragin A., IEEE Trans

    Cheinet P., Canuel B., Pereira dos Santos F., Gauguet A., Yver-Leduc F. and Landragin A., IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 57, 1141–1148 (2008)

    2008

  103. [111]

    and Pereira dos Santos F., Phys

    Langlois M., Caldani R., Trimeche A., Merlet S. and Pereira dos Santos F., Phys. Rev. A 96, 053624 (2017). 25

    2017

  104. [112]

    Richardson L.L. et al. , arXiv:1902.02867 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  105. [113]

    and Pereira dos Santos F., The European Physical Journal D 44, 419–425 (2007)

    Gou¨ et J.L., Cheinet P., Kim J., Holleville D., Clairon A., Landragin A. and Pereira dos Santos F., The European Physical Journal D 44, 419–425 (2007)

    2007

  106. [114]

    and Pereira dos Santos F., New J

    Louchet-Chauvet A., Farah T., Bodart Q., Clairon A., Landragin A., Merlet S. and Pereira dos Santos F., New J. Phys. 13, 065025 (2011)

    2011

  107. [115]

    and Robins N.P., Phys

    Debs J.E., Altin P.A., Barter T.H., D¨ oring D., Dennis G.R., McDonald G., Anderson R.P., Close J.D. and Robins N.P., Phys. Rev. A 84, 033610 (2011)

    2011

  108. [116]

    and M¨ uller H., Nat

    Haslinger P., Jaffe M., Xu V., Schwartz O., Sonnleitner M., Ritsch-Marte M., Ritsch H. and M¨ uller H., Nat. Phys. 14, 257 (2018)

    2018

  109. [117]

    Nicholson T.L. et al. , Nat. Commun. 6, 6896 (2015)

    2015

  110. [118]

    and Inguscio M., Phys

    Thalhammer G., Barontini G., De Sarlo L., Catani J., Minardi F. and Inguscio M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 210402 (2008)

    2008

  111. [119]

    Ferrari G. et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 053202 (2002)

    2002

  112. [120]

    and Landragin A., Phys

    L´ ev` eque T., Gauguet A., Michaud F., Pereira dos Santos F. and Landragin A., Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 080405 (2009)

    2009

  113. [121]

    and Kasevich M.A., arXiv:0806.3261 (2008)

    Hogan J.M., Johnson D.M.S. and Kasevich M.A., arXiv:0806.3261 (2008)

    2008 arXiv

  114. [122]

    and Kasevich M.A., Appl

    Bongs K., Launay R. and Kasevich M.A., Appl. Phys. B 84, 599 (2006)

    2006

  115. [123]

    Bord´ e C., Gen. Relativ. Gravit.36, 475–502 (2004)

    2004

  116. [124]

    Schuldt T. et al. , Experimental Astronomy 39, 167–206 (2015)

    2015

  117. [125]

    Rudolph J. et al. , New J. Phys. 17, 065001 (2015)

    2015

  118. [126]

    Jentsch C. et al. , General Relativity and Gravitation 36, 2197 (2005)

    2005

  119. [127]

    Sorrentino F. et al. , Microgravity Sci. Technol. 22, 551–561 (2010)

    2010

  120. [128]

    M., Nuclear Physics B (Proc

    Tino G. M., Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.) 243, 203 (2013)

    2013

  121. [129]

    Trimeche A. et al. , arXiv:1903.09828 (2019)

    2019

  122. [130]

    Loriani S. et al. , New J. Phys. 21, 063030 (2019)

    2019

  123. [131]

    M. Tino G. et al. , arXiv:1907.03867 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  124. [132]

    and Landragin A., arXiv:1906.10063 (2019)

    Condon G., Rabault M., Barrett B., Chichet L., Arguel R., Eneriz-Imaz H., Naik D., Bertoldi A., Battelier B., Bouyer P. and Landragin A., arXiv:1906.10063 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  125. [133]

    van Zoest T. et al. , Science 328, 1540 (2010)

    2010

  126. [134]

    and Aveline D.C., npj Microgravity 4, 16 (2018)

    Elliott E.R., Krutzik M.C., Williams J.R., Thompson R.J. and Aveline D.C., npj Microgravity 4, 16 (2018)

    2018

  127. [135]

    Touboul P. et al. , Class. and Quant. Grav. 29, 184010 (2012)

    2012

  128. [136]

    Touboul P. et al. , Class. and Quant. Grav. 18, 2487-2498 (2001)

    2001

  129. [137]

    Hardy E. et al. , Adv. Space Res. 52, 1634 (2013)

    2013

  130. [138]

    Armano M. et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 231101 (2016)

    2016

  131. [139]

    and Quant

    Speak C., Class. and Quant. Grav. 13, 11A/039 (1999)

    1999

  132. [140]

    Marque J.P. et al. , ESA Living Planet Symposium, ESA Special Publication 686, 57 (2010)

    2010

  133. [141]

    Pernot-Borras M. et al. , in preparation (2019)

    2019

  134. [142]

    Lambrecht A. et al. , New Jour. of Phys. 8, 243 (2006)

    2006

  135. [143]

    Rosi G., J. Phys B. Mol. Opt. Phys. 49, 202002 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

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