Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Scalar kicks and memory

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The central claim is that disformal scalar couplings leave no trace in linear memory or zero-frequency power, while conformal couplings change both, so kicks are the only disformal messenger.

desk verdict A clean separation between conformal memory and disformal kicks, but the kick formula has a factor-of-2 error that needs fixing before the numbers are trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17938 v2 pith:WTOI7O4A submitted 2024-12-23 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Philippe Brax , Danièle A. Steer This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO MSC 83C3583C2583C1083D05 PACS 04.30.-w04.25.Nx04.50.Kd
keywords linearmemoryeffectscalarkicksdisformalcouplingconformalhyperbolicbinariesscalar-tensorgravitycentre-of-massrecoilzero-frequencypowerspectrum
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

The paper studies what a massless scalar field with two different couplings to matter, conformal and disformal, does to the gravitational-wave observables of a compact binary on a hyperbolic scattering orbit. It claims that the disformal coupling is invisible in the permanent change of the metric, the linear memory effect, and in the emitted power spectrum at zero frequency, while the conformal coupling corrects both and thereby breaks General Relativity's memory-power-spectrum relation. The same disformal coupling, however, controls a scalar contribution to the centre-of-mass kick velocity of the binary. If all three quantities could be measured, memory and low-frequency power would pin down the conformal coupling $\beta$, and the kick would pin down the disformal suppression scale $\Lambda$, separating two effects that otherwise look similar.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the long-wavelength effective action for the radiative fields, $S_{\rm eff} = S_0 + S_1 + S_2 + S_{\rm NL}$, in which the binary is collapsed to multipole moments of an effective source $J = J_{\rm con} + J_{\rm dis}$. From these moments one builds the scalar wave's effective charge $Q(t_R) = I_\phi + N_i \dot I^i_\phi + \tfrac12 N_i N_j \ddot I^{ij}_\phi$, whose monopole, dipole and quadrupole moments drive the scalar field at large distance. The memory is computed through the Jacobi equation in the Jordan metric, where the scalar contributes a conformal linear term, a disformal non-linear term quadratic in $\phi$, and the direct Jordan displacement; the disformal terms cancel after the two time integrations. The key structural fact is that the disformal source moment is proportional to $d^2/dt^2(1/r)$, whose Fourier transform behaves logarithmically near $\omega = 0$ and therefore drops out of the zero-frequency limits that define memory and power, while it survives in the momentum flux that produces kicks.

What would settle it

Extend the effective action to order $\Lambda^{-4}$, including the scalar dipole moment $I^i_\phi$ that was dropped, and recompute the double-time-integrated Jordan displacement and the limit $\omega^3 \tilde I^{ij}_\phi(\omega)$ as $\omega \to 0$; if either receives a non-vanishing contribution proportional to $1/\Lambda^4$, the disformal memory is not exactly zero. Observationally, a hyperbolic compact-binary event in which the inferred memory amplitude depends on the disformal scale $\Lambda$, or in which the measured kick is inconsistent with $\Delta V^y_\phi = v_{\rm cm} \epsilon_\Lambda f^y_\phi(e)$, would also falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central result is that in a scalar-tensor theory whose Jordan metric is $g^J_{\mu\nu} = A^2(\phi) g_{\mu\nu} + 2 \Lambda^{-2} m_{\rm Pl}^{-2} \partial_\mu\phi \partial_\nu\phi$, the scalar linear memory of a hyperbolic binary receives contributions from conformal and disformal terms that exactly cancel in the disformal channel: the total scalar displacement is $\delta = 2 G_N \beta (1 - (\vec N \cdot \hat\ell)^2)/R \, [Q(+\infty) - Q(-\infty)]$, with the disformal pieces of the Jordan displacement and of the non-linear memory cancelling each other. Equivalently, the scalar power spectrum at zero frequency receives only a conformal quadrupole contribution, giving $P^{(Q)}_\phi(0) = (\beta^2/3) P_{\rm GW}(0)$, while the monopole vanishes at $\omega = 0$ and the disformal quadrupole term vanishes logarithmically. By contrast, the recoil of the centre of mass is set by the combination $\epsilon_\Lambda = \beta^2 G_N m/(\Lambda^2 p^3)$, giving $\Delta V^y_\phi = v_{\rm cm} \epsilon_\Lambda f^y_\phi(e)$, where $f^y_\phi$ grows as $e^8$ at large eccentricity. The paper therefore claims that disformal couplings are observable through kicks, not through memory, making the two couplings experimentally separable.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the derivative expansion of the scalar effective action can be cut at second order and at leading order in the disformal coupling $1/\Lambda^2$, and that scalar dipole radiation at order $1/\Lambda^4$ is negligible in the zero-frequency limits that define memory and power.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measurement of scalar linear memory in a hyperbolic binary fixes the conformal coupling $\beta$, independent of the disformal scale $\Lambda$.
  • A measurement of the scalar kick fixes the dimensionless combination $\epsilon_\Lambda = \beta^2 G_N m/(\Lambda^2 p^3)$, so combining memory and kick data separates $\beta$ from $\Lambda$.
  • The low-frequency scalar power spectrum carries the same conformal information as memory, so comparing $P_\phi(0)$ with the GR spectrum tests whether a scalar is present.
  • In a conformal-only theory the GR memory-power relation is modified by the factor $\beta^2$, so detecting a deviation from the GR relation is an indicator of conformal scalar radiation.
  • Because the scalar kick grows as $e^8$ while the GR kick grows as $e^4$ in eccentricity, highly eccentric hyperbolic encounters are the best place to look for disformal effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cancellation that makes disformal memory vanish may be an accident of the leading-order derivative expansion; testing whether it persists at order $\Lambda^{-4}$ would reveal whether the conformal/disformal separation is exact or approximate.
  • If white-dwarf environments indeed allow a lighter $\Lambda$ than neutron stars, hyperbolic white-dwarf binaries become a natural laboratory: memory would provide $\beta$ and the kick would provide $\Lambda$ from the same source class.
  • The result suggests a selection rule worth checking: zero-frequency radiation observables such as memory and $P(0)$ may be blind to derivative couplings whose source terms are total time derivatives falling faster than $1/t$, while momentum-flux observables remain sensitive to them.
  • Extending the calculation to bound orbits or eccentric inspirals, where kicks and memory accumulate over many cycles, could make the $e^8$ eccentricity enhancement even more pronounced.
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. This paper studies scalar-tensor theories in which a massless scalar couples conformally (β) and disformally (Λ) to matter, focusing on hyperbolic binary orbits. It derives the 1PN conservative dynamics and the resulting precession, then turns to radiative effects: the scalar contribution to the linear memory effect (through the Jordan metric and the Jacobi equation) and the scalar contribution to the centre-of-mass kick. The central claims are that the disformal interaction cancels in the scalar memory and in the zero-frequency emitted power spectrum, that the conformal interaction modifies the GR linear memory and the quadrupole power spectrum at zero frequency (thereby breaking the GR memory-power spectrum relation), and that disformal interactions produce a centre-of-mass kick proportional to ϵ_Λ = β²G_N m/(Λ²p³). The paper also gives order-of-magnitude estimates for detectability, arguing that combined measurements of memory and kicks could disentangle β and Λ.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a concrete observational strategy for separating conformal and disformal couplings of light scalars using gravitational-wave memory and recoil measurements on hyperbolic binaries. The zero-frequency power spectrum is derived twice, once from the memory formula and once from Hankel-function asymptotics in Appendix C, and the two agree; this is a strong internal consistency check. The manuscript also contains explicit closed-form expressions for the memory and kick as functions of eccentricity, which is valuable for future data-analysis applications. However, the central quantitative kick prediction contains an algebraic factor-of-two error in the dipole-quadrupole contribution, and the memory cancellation is only demonstrated at leading order in the EFT expansion; both points need attention before the claims are accepted at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [V A, Eq. (155)] The dipole-quadrupole contribution to dP^i/dt carries a spurious factor of 2. From Eq. (102), \dot Q = \dot I_φ + N_i \ddot I^i_φ + (1/2)N_j N_k \dddot I^{jk}_φ, so the 2BC cross term in (\dot Q)^2 is N_j N_k N_l \ddot I^j_φ \dddot I^{kl}_φ with coefficient unity, not 2. Using ∫ dΩ N^i N^j N^k N^l = (4π/15)(δ^{ij}δ^{kl}+δ^{ik}δ^{jl}+δ^{il}δ^{jk}) and tracelessness of \dddot I^{kl}_φ gives ∫ dΩ N^i (\dot Q)^2 ⊃ (8π/15) \ddot I^j_φ \dddot I^{ij}_φ, which with the prefactor in Eq. (154) yields −4G_N/15, not −8G_N/15. This factor propagates into Eq. (157), Eq. (D12), and the final kick function f^y_φ(e) in Eq. (D18), changing the numerical prediction for ΔV^y_φ. The memory result is unaffected, but the quantitative kick prediction must be corrected by re-deriving the coefficients in Appendix D.
  2. [IV A-C, Eq. (132)] The abstract and conclusions state that 'the disformal interaction does not contribute to the memory effect', but the calculation demonstrates this only at leading order in the disformal expansion and at second order in derivatives. The source moments in Eqs. (95)-(99), the Jordan metric in Eq. (104), and the effective charge in Eq. (102) are all truncated at O(1/Λ²), and the cancellation between Eqs. (123) and (131) uses exactly these leading-order pieces. The manuscript itself notes after Eq. (137) that the scalar dipole appears at 1/Λ⁴ and is neglected, so the result does not exclude 1/Λ⁴ or higher-derivative disformal contributions to the double-time-integrated displacement. Please either prove the cancellation beyond leading order or qualify the central claim as holding at leading order in the EFT expansion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV B, Eq. (122)] In Eq. (122), the second term on the right-hand side is written with ∂_i ¯φ ∂_i ¯φ (both indices i), but to match the left-hand side h^φ_{ij} and the preceding Eq. (107) it should be ∂_i ¯φ ∂_j ¯φ.
  2. [Introduction] In the first paragraph, 'Hornesdki' should be 'Horndeski'.
  3. [Appendix D, Eq. (D4)] The notation '− 2 4G_N/15' in Eq. (D4) is ambiguous; it should be written with parentheses, e.g., −(8G_N/15) \ddot I^j_φ \dddot I^{ij}_φ.
  4. [Fig. 2] The axis labels and caption of Figure 2 appear corrupted in the source text (unresolved unicode tokens such as '˜/uni03C9'); the published figure should be regenerated with proper notation.
  5. [IV D, Eq. (145)] In Eq. (145), the ratio \bar P^{(M)}_φ / P_GW(0) compares the monopole normalization at ω ≪ Λ with the quadrupole zero-frequency spectrum; please state explicitly that this is a comparison of normalization factors rather than of the full frequency-dependent spectra, and define r_min in the denominator.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the memory and kick results are new integrals over the same scalar charge Q, not restatements of its definition.

full rationale

The central memory result (Eq. 132) is obtained by adding three explicitly computed contributions: the Jordan displacement (Eq. 123), the linear conformal memory (Eq. 129), and the non-linear disformal memory (Eq. 131). The disformal pieces in Eqs. (123) and (131) are opposite in sign and cancel; the surviving term is proportional to beta [Q(+infinity)-Q(-infinity)]. This is an algebraic cancellation, not an input assumption. The kick result (Eq. 160) follows from a separate momentum-flux integral (Eqs. 152-155) evaluated in Appendix D; the proportionality to epsilon_Lambda is a consequence of the 1/Lambda^2 source moments, and the eccentricity function f^y_phi(e) is a new calculation rather than a fitted parameter. The 1PN Fock action (Eq. 65) and the scalar source moments (Eqs. 95-99) are taken from earlier work [7, 50, 55], but they are parameter-free starting inputs with stated ordering assumptions (1PN, leading order in Lambda^-2 and in derivatives), and neither contains the memory or kick formulas. No parameter is fitted to data and renamed a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to force a choice; and the disformal precession comparison in Sec. III D explicitly corrects earlier results [13, 52] rather than relying on them as black boxes. The truncation at second order in derivatives and the neglect of the 1/Lambda^4 dipole force are acknowledged assumptions (Sec. IV A, after Eq. 137); they limit the regime of validity but do not make the derivation circular. A possible arithmetic factor in Eq. (155) would affect the quantitative kick prediction but is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue.

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

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the scalar, conformal coupling beta, and disformal scale Lambda are existing EFT inputs. The free parameters are the two unknown coupling constants of the model; they are not fitted here, but all predictions scale with them.

free parameters (2)
  • beta (conformal coupling)
    Dimensionless strength of the conformal coupling A(phi) = exp(beta phi/m_Pl), Eq. (45). It sets the memory amplitude and the scalar quadrupole power; not measured or fitted here.
  • Lambda (disformal suppression scale)
    Inverse-length scale in the Jordan metric derivative term, Eq. (45). It controls the kick through epsilon_Lambda = beta^2 G_N m/(Lambda^2 p^3), Eq. (1); no value is fixed in this paper, and detectability is scanned in Sec. V B.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The scalar field is massless and its equation of motion is linear, sourced only by matter T_mu_nu (Eq. 47).
    This is the theory's defining input; it rules out scalar self-interactions and a scalar nonlinear memory, and structures the ladder expansion (49)-(52).
  • domain assumption Matter is universally coupled to the Jordan metric gJ_mu_nu = A^2(phi)g_mu_nu + 2/(Lambda^2 m_Pl^2) partial_mu phi partial_nu phi (Eq. 45), and detectors respond to this Jordan frame metric in the Jacobi equation (105).
    All memory calculations use the Jordan frame; if matter coupled differently the formulas for delta would not apply.
  • standard math The 1PN Fock/EIH action, Eq. (65), and the radiation source multipoles I_phi, I^i_phi, I^ij_phi, Eqs. (95)-(99), are taken from the authors' prior work [7,50,55].
    These are unproved background results in this paper; the new memory and kick conclusions inherit their validity. Because the references overlap with the present authors, the circularity burden is raised.
  • domain assumption The binary is in a weak-field 1PN regime with hyperbolicity e > 1, no spins, and closest approach large enough for PN methods (Secs. II C and III).
    The equations (75), (84), and kick integration assume point particles and PN validity; near-merger strong-field corrections are excluded.
  • standard math Standard Hankel integral representations and recursion relations used in Appendices B and C are correct.
    The zero-frequency spectrum check depends on them; the paper verifies the result against the memory formula, an internal cross-check.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalar kicks and memory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WTOI7O4A

@misc{pith2026241217938,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalar kicks and memory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WTOI7O4A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17938}
}
read the original abstract

A scalar field coupled conformally and disformally to matter affects both the linear memory effect for binary systems on hyperbolic orbits, as well as the kick velocity for binaries on bound or unbound orbits. We study these corrections in detail, their order of magnitude, and discuss their detectability. In particular, we find that the disformal interaction does not contribute to the memory effect and the emitted power spectrum at zero frequency. The conformal interaction corrects the GR linear memory and the quadrupole emitted power at zero frequency resulting in a breaking of the GR memory-power spectrum relationship. On the other hand, disformal interactions give rise to a change of momentum for the centre of mass. Hence, measuring both the linear memory effect and the kicks for hyperbolic orbits would give access to the conformal and disformal couplings of nearly massless scalars to matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17938 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The energy spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The scalar energy spectrum of the monopole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In the quadrupole approximation (see e.g

    Linear memory and energy spectrum The linear memory effect is a non-zero change in the 3D transverse and traceless (TT) metric perturbation between t = ±∞, and leads to a permanent displacement δL/L in the arm lengths of a GW interferometer. In the quadrupole approximation (see e.g. [33]) hij(t, ⃗R) = 2GN c4R Λij,kℓ( ⃗N ) ¨I kℓ(tR) (13) where R is the dis...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Linear memory effects for hyperbolic orbits We now focus on binary system whose orbits are hyperbolic. Calculation of PGW(ω) (see below) shows that a short GW burst of characteristic frequency ωmax ∼ 6 s GN m r3 min √e − 1 e + 1 is emitted near rmin with a corresponding linear memory effect ∆ hij ̸= 0. Depending on m, eand rmin ≫ rs ≡ 2Gm, this characteri...

    work page

  3. [3]

    quasi-Newtonian

    should also couple to matter 1. These couplings are problematic in the solar system where tests of gravitational interactions are very precise, ranging from the Cassini probe of the Shapiro delay [4] to the Microscope test of the equivalence principle [5, 6]. They could also be a blessing as they could open a wealth of new phenomena to observations, for i...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Bertotti, L

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, Nature 425, 374 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    (113) 16 There is a linear scalar memory effect (denoted by L) δξ i L = − β mPl ∂i∂j Z t −∞ dτ Z τ −∞ dτ ′ ¯ϕ(x, τ′) ξj 0 (114) which depends on the conformal coupling β as well as a non-linear scalar memory effect (denoted by NL) depending quadratically on the history of the scalar field δξ i N L= − Z t −∞ dτ Z τ −∞ dτ ′ 1 m2 PlΛ2 2(∂i∂j ¯ϕ)(∂2 0 ¯ϕ) + ∂...

    work page

  6. [6]

    (115) These are particular to the presence of couplings between matter and the scalar field. Notice that this non-linear effect comes from the disformal coupling which is quadratic in the scalar field and differs from a potential non-linear effect of the scalar in the scalar field equation. As already mentioned, only the matter energy-momentum tensor acts...

    work page

  7. [7]

    17 a small contribution as β2 <∼ 2.1 · 10−5

    When solar system tests are considered, the Cassini bound leads to 10 Non-linear effects in the scalar field equation would appear if the scalar has self-interactions which are not taken into account here. 17 a small contribution as β2 <∼ 2.1 · 10−5. On the other hand in the vicinity of compact objects, scalarisation could take place with β = O(1). The di...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Appendix D: Calculation of the Scalar momentum force The following identities will be useful

    See section II B 2 for further discussion. Appendix D: Calculation of the Scalar momentum force The following identities will be useful. From Newton’s law to lowest order ⃗ a= −Geff N mr−3⃗ r, one has d2 dt2 1 r = 3 r5 (⃗ r· ⃗ v)2 − v2 r3 + Geff N m r4 (D1) d3 dt3 1 r = − 15 r7 (⃗ r· ⃗ v)3 + 9 r5 (⃗ r· ⃗ v)v2 − 8Geff N m r6 (⃗ r· ⃗ v) (D2) d4 dt4 1 r = 75...

    work page 2016

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Hui, Ann

    L. Hui, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 59, 247 (2021), 2101.11735

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006), hep-th/0603057

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    P. Brax, S. Casas, H. Desmond, and B. Elder, Universe 8, 11 (2021), 2201.10817

    2021 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Berg´ e, P

    J. Berg´ e, P. Brax, G. M´ etris, M. Pernot-Borr` as, P. Touboul, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 141101 (2018), 1712.00483

    2018 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Touboul et al

    P. Touboul et al. (MICROSCOPE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 121102 (2022), 2209.15487

    2022 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, and A. Kuntz, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124034 (2019), 1903.03842

    2019 arXiv

  7. [16]

    C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014), 1403.7377

    2014 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Bettoni and S

    D. Bettoni and S. Liberati, Phys. Rev. D 88, 084020 (2013), 1306.6724. 27

    2013 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Sakstein and S

    J. Sakstein and S. Verner, Phys. Rev. D 92, 123005 (2015), 1509.05679

    2015 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Kobayashi, Rept

    T. Kobayashi, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82, 086901 (2019), 1901.07183

    2019 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Mukhopadhyay, C

    M. Mukhopadhyay, C. Cardona, and C. Lunardini, JCAP 07, 055 (2021), 2105.05862

    2021 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, S. Melville, and L. K. Wong, JCAP 03, 001 (2021), 2011.01213

    2021 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 900, L13 (2020), 2009.01190

    2020

  14. [24]

    Ranjan, K

    S. Ranjan, K. Jani, A. H. Nitz, K. Holley-Bockelmann, and C. Cutler (2024), 2406.11926

    2024 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Healy, F

    J. Healy, F. Herrmann, I. Hinder, D. M. Shoemaker, P. Laguna, and R. A. Matzner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 041101 (2009), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.041101

    2009 doi

  16. [26]

    Brax and C

    P. Brax and C. Burrage, Phys. Rev. D 90, 104009 (2014), 1407.1861

    2014 arXiv

  17. [27]

    P. Brax, C. Burrage, and C. Englert, Phys. Rev. D 92, 044036 (2015), 1506.04057

    2015 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Seraj, JHEP 05, 283 (2021), 2103.12185

    A. Seraj, JHEP 05, 283 (2021), 2103.12185

    2021 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. 963, 61 (2024), 2307.13797

    2024 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Inchausp´ e, S

    H. Inchausp´ e, S. Gasparotto, D. Blas, L. Heisenberg, J. Zosso, and S. Tiwari (2024), 2406.09228

    2024 arXiv

  21. [31]

    Goncharov, L

    B. Goncharov, L. Donnay, and J. Harms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 241401 (2024), 2310.10718

    2024 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Gasparotto, R

    S. Gasparotto, R. Vicente, D. Blas, A. C. Jenkins, and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. D 107, 124033 (2023), 2301.13228

    2023 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Heisenberg, N

    L. Heisenberg, N. Yunes, and J. Zosso, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024010 (2023), 2303.02021

    2023 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Tahura, D

    S. Tahura, D. A. Nichols, A. Saffer, L. C. Stein, and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104026 (2021), 2007.13799

    2021 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Hou, Astron

    S. Hou, Astron. Nachr. 342, 96 (2021), 2011.02087

    2021 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Kerachian, S

    M. Kerachian, S. Mukherjee, G. Lukes-Gerakopoulos, and S. Mitra, Astron. Astrophys. 684, A17 (2024), 2311.16634

    2024 arXiv

  27. [37]

    V. B. Braginsky and K. S. Thorne, Nature (London) 327, 123 (1987)

    1987

  28. [38]

    Poisson and C

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

    2014

  29. [39]

    Damour and N

    T. Damour and N. Deruelle, Annales de l’I.H.P. Physique th´ eorique 43, 107 (1985), URL http://eudml.org/doc/76291

    1985

  30. [40]

    Caldarola, S

    M. Caldarola, S. Kuroyanagi, S. Nesseris, and J. Garcia-Bellido (2023), 2307.00915

    2023 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments (Oxford University Press, 2007), ISBN 978-0-19- 171766-6, 978-0-19-852074-0

    2007

  32. [42]

    S. Bini, S. Tiwari, Y. Xu, L. Smith, M. Ebersold, G. Principe, M. Haney, P. Jetzer, and G. A. Prodi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 042009 (2024), 2311.06630

    2024 arXiv

  33. [43]

    Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, S

    J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, S. Jaraba, and S. Kuroyanagi, Phys. Dark Univ.36, 101009 (2022), 2109.11376

    2022 arXiv

  34. [44]

    Blanchet, Living Rev

    L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 2 (2014), 1310.1528

    2014 arXiv

  35. [45]

    A. Hait, S. Mohanty, and S. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084037 (2024), 2211.13120

    2024 arXiv

  36. [46]

    Gr¨ obner, P

    M. Gr¨ obner, P. Jetzer, M. Haney, S. Tiwari, and W. Ishibashi, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 067002 (2020), 2001.05187

    2020 arXiv

  37. [47]

    Blanchet and G

    L. Blanchet and G. Sch¨ afer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 239, 845 (1989), ISSN 0035-8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/239/3/845/18194791/mnras239-0845.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/239.3.845

    1989

  38. [48]

    De Vittori, P

    L. De Vittori, P. Jetzer, and A. Klein, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044017 (2012), 1207.5359

    2012 arXiv

  39. [49]

    I. S. Gradshteyn, I. M. Ryzhik, D. Zwillinger, and V. Moll, Table of integrals, series, and products; 8th ed. (Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2015)

    2015

  40. [50]

    Merritt, M

    D. Merritt, M. Milosavljevic, M. Favata, S. A. Hughes, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J. Lett. 607, L9 (2004), astro- ph/0402057

    2004

  41. [51]

    M. J. Fitchett, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 203, 1049 (1983), ISSN 0035- 8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/203/4/1049/18223796/mnras203-1049.pdf, URL https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/203.4.1049

    1983 doi

  42. [52]

    by first considering ϕ(0) = − β mPl □−1T (49) where the retarded Green’s function is selected. The disformal interaction is taken into account in a ladder expansion ϕ = ϕ(0) + δϕ where δϕ = ∞X n=0 δϕ(n) (50) with □δϕ(0) = 2 Λ2m2 Pl (Dµ∂νϕ(0))T µν (51) □δϕ(n+1) = 2 Λ2m2 Pl (Dµ∂...

  43. [53]

    J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, J. R. van Meter, and M. C. Miller, Astrophys. J. Lett. 653, L93 (2006), astro-ph/0603204

    2006 arXiv

  44. [54]

    J. D. Schnittman and A. Buonanno, The Astrophysical Journal 662, L63 (2007), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ 519309

    2007

  45. [55]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Class. Quant. Grav. 9, 2093 (1992)

    1992

  46. [56]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3641 (1993), gr-qc/9211017

    1993 arXiv

  47. [57]

    Kaloper, Phys

    N. Kaloper, Phys. Lett. B 583, 1 (2004), hep-ph/0312002

    2004 arXiv

  48. [59]

    Deffayet, X

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer, and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064039 (2011), 1103.3260

    2011 arXiv

  49. [60]

    Brax and A.-C

    P. Brax and A.-C. Davis, Phys. Rev. D 98, 063531 (2018), 1809.09844

    2018 arXiv

  50. [61]

    D. L. Richardson and T. J. Kelly, in Long Term Evolution of Planetary Systems , edited by R. Dvorak and J. Henrard (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1988), pp. 193–210, ISBN 978-94-009-2285-3

    1988

  51. [62]

    Benisty, P

    D. Benisty, P. Brax, and A.-C. Davis, Phys. Rev. D 107, 064049 (2023), 2212.03098

    2023 arXiv

  52. [63]

    Kuntz, F

    A. Kuntz, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, JCAP 05, 052 (2019), 1902.04941

    2019 arXiv

  53. [64]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D 73, 104029 (2006), hep-th/0409156

    2006 arXiv

  54. [65]

    R. A. Porto, Phys. Rept. 633, 1 (2016), 1601.04914

    2016 arXiv

  55. [66]

    Heisenberg, G

    L. Heisenberg, G. Xu, and J. Zosso, JCAP 05, 119 (2024), 2401.05936

    2024 arXiv

  56. [67]

    Ross, Phys

    A. Ross, Phys. Rev. D 85, 125033 (2012), 1202.4750

    2012 arXiv

  57. [68]

    F. M. Ramazano˘ glu and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064005 (2016), 1601.07475

    2016 arXiv

  58. [69]

    Ashtekar, T

    A. Ashtekar, T. De Lorenzo, and N. Khera, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044005 (2020), 1910.02907

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.