Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

The Scalar Mach-Sciama Theory of Gravitation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that inertia can be a causally retarded effect of cosmic matter, realized by a scalar-tensor theory with no free scalar modes.

desk verdict A clean frame-invariant restatement of Sciama's causal postulate, but the Machian scaling rests on unvalidated regime assumptions and an abstract that oversells. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.07904 v1 pith:IY2JGQX3 submitted 2026-01-12 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Velásquez-Toribio , A. M This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO MSC 83D0583F05
keywords Mach'sprinciplescalar-tensorgravityBergmann-WagonertheoryretardedGreenfunctionframeinvarianceFLRWcosmologyequivalenceinertialmass
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 tries to show that Sciama's Machian idea—inertia fixed by the total matter distribution—can be implemented in a covariant scalar-tensor theory without changing local dynamics. It writes the Bergmann-Wagoner class in frame-invariant variables, then imposes a selection rule: the scalar field that calibrates inertial mass must be the retarded response to matter in the causal past, with source-free modes removed. On a flat expanding background, under a light, slowly varying scalar regime, this rule becomes a temporal kernel that makes the scalar respond to the matter content of the Hubble region, giving the M_H/R_H scaling Sciama sought. The theory preserves the weak equivalence principle for structureless bodies, with departures possible only through self-gravity (Nordtvedt effect). A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a concrete, covariant home for Mach's principle in a testable scalar-tensor class.

What carries the argument

The frame-invariant set {I1,I2,I3, ĝ_μν}, built from the Bergmann-Wagoner functions A(Φ),B(Φ),U(Φ),α(Φ), carries the argument: statements about Machian causality become representation-independent. The selection rule is enforced by demanding no source-free mode in the linearized invariant scalar equation (δI3_free=0), which turns the retarded Green function into the physical propagator; on FLRW this collapses to the temporal kernel K(t,t')=a³(t') ∫_{t'}^t dt''/a³(t''). The kernel is the mechanism that converts the matter history inside the causal past into the inertial normalization √I1.

What would settle it

Construct an explicit Bergmann-Wagoner model (specific A,B,U,α) that satisfies |(A/2)dI2/dI3| << H²|Ī3| and |Ȧ/A| << H, and verify that the sourced solution itself keeps Ȧ/A negligible; alternatively, compute the Green function of the full massive operator in a model with a Hubble-mass scalar and show the response no longer scales as ρ_m H^{-2}/A. Either calculation would settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Sciama's causal postulate can be imposed as a solution-selection rule, not a modification of the local field equations: at linear order, set δI3_free = 0 so δI3 = δI3_ret, the retarded Green-function response to matter. In a spatially flat FLRW universe with dust, and assuming |(A/2)dI2/dI3| << H²|Ī3| and |Ȧ/A| << H, the scalar equation reduces to a Hubble-damped oscillator, whose no-past-data solution is Ī3(t) = ∫ K(t,t')S(t')dt' with K(t,t') = a³(t')∫_{t'}^{t} dt''/a³(t''). This yields ΔĪ3 ~ ρ_m H^{-2}/A ~ M_H/R_H, the FLRW analogue of Sciama's cosmic potential. Because matter couples universally to one physical metric, structureless test bodies have identical acc

Load-bearing premise

The whole Machian kernel and scaling rest on the light, slowly varying regime: the scalar's effective mass is negligible on Hubble scales and the fractional time-variation of the coupling A is much smaller than H; these inequalities are assumed, not derived from a concrete choice of the free functions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, local inertial mass is not an intrinsic constant but is set by the cosmological matter history, with the background value √Ī1 fixed by the retarded integral of ρ_m.
  • The theory passes standard weak-field tests while giving a concrete causal content to Mach's principle in scalar-tensor gravity.
  • Universality of free fall for structureless bodies is protected by construction: η=0 at leading order, and any residual EP violation is confined to the Nordtvedt self-gravity channel.
  • The explicit kernels for radiation, matter, and de Sitter eras (Eqs. 57–58) make the Machian scaling testable: the response accumulates over a Hubble time, Δt ~ H^{-1}.
  • The frame-invariant formulation means the retarded selection rule is not an artifact of a conformal frame choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The light-field regime (Eq. 53) is imposed, not derived; the paper does not exhibit a concrete choice of A,B,U that realizes it. If the scalar is massive on Hubble scales, the kernel changes and the M_H/R_H scaling breaks—a direct extension would compute the massive Green function.
  • The Introduction promises an induced-gravity branch that would justify the regime and exclude de Sitter inertial vacua, but that section does not appear in the body; closing this gap is needed to make the regime internally consistent.
  • One testable extension is to compare the predicted spatial variation of inertial mass (via δI3 from inhomogeneous matter) with equivalence-principle and local gravity experiments, since the fifth-force term ∂_i ln m_I is universal but source-dependent.
  • If the selection rule is taken literally, any homogeneous scalar mode—including inflationary or vacuum fluctuations—must be absent; this could have observable consequences for primordial perturbations that the paper does not explore.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scalar realization of Sciama's Mach principle inside the Bergmann–Wagoner class of scalar–tensor theories. After reformulating the action in the Järv–Kuusk–Saal–Vilson invariants {I1, I2, I3, ĝ}, the author imposes a causal selection rule: the admissible scalar perturbation is the retarded response to matter, with δI3^free = 0 (Eq. 34). On a spatially flat FLRW background, under the 'light, slowly varying' conditions of Eq. (53), the scalar equation reduces to a Hubble-damped oscillator, yielding a temporal kernel (Eq. 56) and the scaling ΔĪ3 ~ ρ_m H^{-2}/A ~ M_H/R_H (Eqs. 59–61). The paper then derives the Eötvös parameter for structureless test bodies, claims it vanishes, and argues that only a Nordtvedt self-gravity channel can produce η ≠ 0. The conclusion is that the theory implements a causal Machian determination of the inertial scale while remaining consistent with weak-field tests.

Significance. If the central derivation were completed, the paper would provide a covariant, frame-invariant implementation of Sciama's programme in a broad scalar–tensor class, with an explicit retarded kernel in FLRW and a transparent M_H/R_H scaling. The invariant formulation is elegant, and the WEP argument for universal coupling (Eqs. 68–72) is correct and clearly presented. The paper also explicitly identifies the selection rule as a postulate rather than a modification of local dynamics, which is methodologically clean. However, the main result is conditional on an assumed regime (Eq. 53) with no constructed theory realizing it, and the 'explicit' kernel is in fact a nonlinear integral equation whose self-consistency is not checked. These are load-bearing gaps that currently prevent the paper from establishing its advertised claims.

major comments (4)
  1. The reduction of Eq. (52) to Eq. (54) rests entirely on the two inequalities of Eq. (53): |(A/2)dI2/dI3| ≪ H^2|Ī3| and |Ȧ/A| ≪ H. These regime conditions are imposed, not derived. The Introduction (p. 2) promises an induced-gravity section (Sec. IV) that would justify the light-field regime and exclude de Sitter inertial vacua; no such section appears, and the actual Sec. IV is the WEP discussion. Moreover, the paper never checks that the sourced solution is consistent with the second inequality. From Ī3 ~ ρ_m/(A H^2) one estimates Ȧ/A ~ (dlnA/dI3)^2 ρ_m/(A H), so |Ȧ/A| ≪ H becomes (dlnA/dI3)^2 ρ_m/(A H^2) ≪ 1, i.e., Ī3 (dlnA/dI3)^2 ≪ 1. No bound of this kind is proven. If it fails, the retained Ȧ/A friction term modifies the kernel, and the M_H/R_H scaling is no longer an exact consequence of Eq. (52).
  2. [§III, Eq. (56)] Equation (56) is called an explicit retarded integral solution, but it is not explicit: S(t) in Eq. (54) depends on Ī3 through A(Ī3) and (dlnA/dI3)(Ī3). Thus Eq. (56) is a Volterra integral equation for Ī3, not a closed-form solution. The scaling estimate in Eq. (59) is dimensional and unverified for the actual solution of that equation. To support the central claim, the author must either display a concrete choice of A, B, U, α for which the integral equation is solvable and satisfies Eq. (53), or prove bounds on the solution that justify the scaling.
  3. [§III, Eqs. (34), (55)–(56)] The causal selection rule is stated for the perturbation δI3: δI3^free = 0 in Eq. (34). Yet in Eqs. (55)–(56) the same condition is applied to the homogeneous background Ī3 by imposing vanishing past data at t*. This is a nontrivial extension of the postulate: the background is supposed to be fixed by the cosmological matter source anyway, and the distinction between 'background' and 'perturbation' in the selection rule is not discussed. If the retarded rule is meant to apply to the full scalar field at all wavelengths, this should be stated and justified; otherwise the derivation of the kernel for Ī3 is an additional assumption, not a consequence of Eq. (34).
  4. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract claims the theory 'remains consistent with standard weak-field tests.' The only weak-field statement in the paper is the vanishing Eötvös parameter for structureless bodies (Eqs. 70–72). No post-Newtonian parameters, light-deflection, Shapiro-delay, or fifth-force constraints are derived, and no bound is placed on the coupling strength dlnA/dI3 or on the potential I2. Since generic scalar-tensor theories with a nonminimal coupling A(Φ) and matter coupling I1 have well-known solar-system deviations, this claim is unsupported and should be withdrawn or substantiated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [p. 2, Introduction outline] The outline promises a Section IV on induced gravity and a Section V on the equivalence principle, but the actual Section IV is the WEP discussion and no induced-gravity section is present. Update the outline or restore the section.
  2. [Near Eq. (37)] The phrase 'which makes explicit that the scalar dependence enters only through the invariant factor √I1' is repeated twice in consecutive sentences; one instance should be removed.
  3. [References [16], [18]] Reference [16] is malformed: it contains 'Licata2014, Kragh2012' within the Barbour 2010 entry. Reference [18] begins with 'Fay2024Sciama' before the quoted title. These entries should be cleaned.
  4. [Eq. (53)] The notation |Ī3| is used in the first inequality, but it is not specified whether Ī3 can change sign during the cosmological evolution; if so, the regime condition should be stated in a way that is invariant under this possibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The M_H/R_H scaling is the retarded-selection postulate restated under the imposed slow-roll inequalities; the Eötvös and kernel computations are real but do not make the Machian claim independent.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III, Eqs. (34), (56)-(61)]
    "Sciama’s causal (Machian) selection rule is the additional physical requirement that the configuration relevant for inertial calibration contains no independent free component. In the present linearized setting this is implemented by imposing δI3^free(x)=0, ⇒ δI3(x)=δI3^ret(x). ... Therefore, in homogeneous FLRW the causal sourcing implies that ¯I3 ... responds to a quantity proportional to M_H/R_H, which is the natural FLRW analogue of Sciama’s heuristic “cosmic potential” scaling."

    Eq. (34) makes the admissible perturbation equal to the retarded particular integral by definition; Eq. (56) is just that integral in homogeneous FLRW after imposing the inequalities (53). The M_H/R_H scaling (59)-(61) is then a dimensional consequence of the assumed Hubble-damped oscillator (54). The Machian content is placed in the selection rule before the calculation; the 'prediction' that inertia tracks the matter in the Hubble region is a restatement of the input, not an independent test. The kernel computation itself is real, but it does not make the headline result independent of the postulate.

full rationale

The paper contains no self-citation chain and no fitted-parameter circularity: the invariant equations are standard scalar-tensor rewritings, and the Eötvös derivation follows from universal conformal coupling in a direct, independent way. The central weakness is structural: the Machian scaling is the imposed retarded-selection rule plus the assumed light/slowly-varying regime (53), so the claimed 'reproduction' of M_H/R_H is largely by construction. Two additional gaps are non-circular: the Introduction promises an induced-gravity Section IV that is absent, and no concrete choice of A(I3) realizing (53) is given, nor is the self-consistency of the sourced solution checked. These support gaps lower confidence but do not themselves constitute circularity; the score reflects the partially self-definitional character of the central result.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

A framework paper: the freedom lives in four arbitrary functions A(Φ), B(Φ), U(Φ), α(Φ) and in two hand-chosen ingredients — the light-field regime (53) and the initial instant t⋆ of vanishing data. No numbers are fitted to data, but also nothing is predicted sharply: the amplitude of the Machian response and of the fifth force are set by unconstrained function values. No new entities (particles/forces/dimensions) are introduced; the scalar is pre-existing in the theory class.

free parameters (4)
  • Scalar potential-to-friction ratio (regime condition, Eq. 53a) = ≪ 1 (assumed)
    |(A/2) dI2/dI3| / (H²|Ī3|) ≪ 1 is imposed to drop the potential term from (52); it is the condition that makes the kernel (56) and the Machian scaling (59) hold. No explicit I2(I3) model satisfying it is constructed, and the promised induced-gravity branch is absent.
  • Coupling rate |Ȧ/A|/H (regime condition, Eq. 53b) = ≪ 1 (assumed)
    Dropping the extra friction (Ȧ/A)Ī̇3 from (52) is needed for the 'massless Hubble-damped' reduction; consistency with the sourced solution (which varies as S/H and thus feeds Ȧ/A) is never checked.
  • Initial time t⋆ for vanishing scalar data = unspecified
    The selection rule fixes δI3^free = 0, but the FLRW implementation (56) requires 'vanishing past data at t⋆'; the choice of initial hypersurface is free, but the resulting inertial normalization and secular drift of Ī3 depend on it.
  • Matter-frame coupling sensitivity (d ln A/dI3)|Ī3 = unconstrained
    This function sets the amplitude of S(t) in (54), of the scaling in (59), and of the fifth force in (69). Its smallness is required to pass solar-system fifth-force/PPN tests, but the paper neither fixes it nor derives a bound.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Bergmann-Wagoner action with universal conformal coupling (Eqs. 1-2)
    The whole framework lives in this class; universal coupling to a single physical metric g̃ is the premise that guarantees WEP at leading order. Entered in Sec. II, Eq. (2).
  • standard math Frame-invariant variables and invariant scalar equation (Eqs. 21-25) from Järv et al., Refs. [31,32]
    The identity (19) and Eq. (25) are quoted from prior work; the paper adds no derivation of these. Invoked throughout Sec. III.
  • standard math Well-posed Cauchy problem and existence of the retarded Green function on a globally hyperbolic background (Footnote 1, Eq. 31)
    The selection rule rests on identifying the retarded solution with the unique solution of vanishing past data; requires global hyperbolicity, assumed without discussion.
  • ad hoc to paper Light, slowly varying regime (Eq. 53): |(A/2) dI2/dI3| ≪ H²|Ī3| and |Ȧ/A| ≪ H
    This is the load-bearing approximation that converts (52) into the massless damped oscillator (54) and yields the kernel (56) and the scaling (59). It is stated, not derived, and no explicit choice of I1, I2 (i.e., A, B, U) realizing it is supplied.
  • domain assumption Power-law expansion a ∝ t^p (p = 1/2, 2/3) and dust matter for the explicit kernels (Eqs. 57-58)
    The illustration assumes the background is fixed to radiation or matter domination; the full Friedmann-constrained dynamics (which close the system with the scalar) are not solved.
  • ad hoc to paper Inertial mass is read from the v²-coefficient of the point-particle action (Eqs. 40-41); gradient terms in the equation of motion are ordered as in Eqs. (64)-(68)
    The identification m_I = m0 √I1 is standard, but the ordering that drops (∂_i m)Ψ̂ and (∂_i m)v² while retaining -∂_i ln m (Eq. 68) is a calculational choice; no error estimate is given for the Eötvös result beyond 'leading order'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Scalar Mach-Sciama Theory of Gravitation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IY2JGQX3

@misc{pith2026260107904,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Scalar Mach-Sciama Theory of Gravitation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IY2JGQX3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.07904}
}
abstract

We formulate a scalar realization of Sciama's Machian programme within the general Bergmann-Wagoner class of scalar--tensor gravity. Starting from a universally conformally coupled matter sector, we rewrite the field equations in terms of the invariant set $\{{\cal I}_1,{\cal I}_2,{\cal I}_3,\hat g_{\mu\nu}\}$, so that Machian requirements can be stated independently of conformal frame. Sciama's causal postulate is implemented not by modifying the local dynamics, but as a selection rule on the solution space of the invariant scalar equation: the admissible configuration is the retarded response to the matter distribution in the causal past, with any source-free contribution removed. In a spatially flat FLRW universe, and in the light, slowly varying regime, the prescription reduces to an explicit temporal kernel that links the background scalar evolution to the matter content within the Hubble region, reproducing the expected Machian scaling in an expanding background. Universal coupling to a single physical metric implies that structureless test bodies share the same acceleration in a given external configuration, so that the E\"otvs parameter vanishes at leading order. Nonuniversal effects can arise only when gravitational binding energy contributes appreciably to the total mass, as in strongly self-gravitating objects. Thus, the theory implements a causal Machian determination of the cosmological inertial scale while remaining consistent with standard weak-field tests.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. W. Leibniz and S. Clarke,The Leibniz–Clarke Correspondence, ed. H. G. Alexander (Manchester Univ. Press, Manch- ester, 1956)

    1956

  2. [2]

    Berkeley,De Motu(1721), inThe Works of George Berkeley, Vol

    G. Berkeley,De Motu(1721), inThe Works of George Berkeley, Vol. IV, ed. A. A. Luce (Nelson, London, 1948)

    1948

  3. [3]

    Berkeley,A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge(Dublin, 1710)

    G. Berkeley,A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge(Dublin, 1710)

  4. [4]

    Mach,Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt(F

    E. Mach,Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt(F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1883); English transl. The Science of Mechanics(Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1919)

    1919

  5. [5]

    Einstein, Ann

    A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Berlin)49, 769 (1916), doi:10.1002/andp.19163540702

    doi:10.1002/andp.19163540702 1916

  6. [6]

    Einstein, Phys

    A. Einstein, Phys. Z.17, 101 (1916)

    1916

  7. [7]

    Einstein, Ann

    A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. (Berlin)55, 241 (1918), doi:10.1002/andp.19183600402

    work page doi:10.1002/andp.19183600402 1918

  8. [8]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravitation(W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    The Lense–Thirring Effect and Mach’s Principle,

    H. Bondi and J. Samuel, “The Lense–Thirring Effect and Mach’s Principle,” Phys. Lett.13, 132–134 (1964)

    1964

  2. [10]

    D. J. Raine, Rep. Prog. Phys.44, 1151 (1981), doi:10.1088/0034-4885/44/11/001

    1981 doi

  3. [11]

    J. B. Barbour and B. Bertotti, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A382, 295 (1982), doi:10.1098/rspa.1982.0102

    1982

  4. [12]

    Barbour and H

    J. Barbour and H. Pfister (eds.),Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity, Einstein Studies, Vol. 6 (Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1995)

    1995

  5. [13]

    G. F. R. Ellis, New Astron. Rev.46, 645 (2002), doi:10.1016/S1387-6473(02)00234-8, arXiv:gr-qc/0102017. 11

    2002 arXiv

  6. [14]

    H. I. M. Lichtenegger and B. Mashhoon, inThe Measurement of Gravitomagnetism, ed. L. Iorioet al.(Nova Science, New York, 2004), arXiv:physics/0407078

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gin´ e, Int

    J. Gin´ e, Int. J. Theor. Phys.45, 457 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Barbour, Found

    J. Barbour, Found. Phys.40, 1263 (2010), doi:10.1007/s10701-010-9490-7. Licata2014, Kragh2012 ]

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    Licata and L

    I. Licata and L. Chiatti, Electron. J. Theor. Phys.11, 41 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Mach’s Principle and the Origin of General Relativity,

    H. Kragh,Fay2024Sciama “Mach’s Principle and the Origin of General Relativity,” inThe Genesis of General Relativity, Vol. 3, eds. J. Renn and M. Schemmel, Springer, Dordrecht (2012), pp. 319–345

    2012

  11. [19]

    Sultana and D

    N. Sultana and D. Kazanas, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D20, 1205 (2011), doi:10.1142/S0218271811019384, arXiv:1104.1306

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Fay, Stud

    J. Fay, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci.103, 58 (2024), doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2023.09.006

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.124, 925 (1961), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.124.925

    1961 doi

  14. [22]

    D. W. Sciama, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.113, 34 (1953), doi:10.1093/mnras/113.1.34

    1953 doi

  15. [23]

    D. W. Sciama,The Unity of the Universe(Faber and Faber, London, 1959)

    1959

  16. [24]

    D. W. Sciama, Rev. Mod. Phys.36, 463 (1964), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.36.463

    1964 doi

  17. [25]

    P. G. Bergmann, Int. J. Theor. Phys.1, 25 (1968), doi:10.1007/BF00668828

    1968 doi

  18. [26]

    R. V. Wagoner, Phys. Rev. D1, 3209 (1970), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.1.3209

    1970 doi

  19. [27]

    Faraoni,Cosmology in Scalar-Tensor Gravity(Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2004)

    V. Faraoni,Cosmology in Scalar-Tensor Gravity(Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Fujii and K

    Y. Fujii and K. Maeda,The Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravitation(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Far` ese, Phys. Rev. D54, 1474 (1996), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.1474, arXiv:gr-qc/9602056

    1996 arXiv

  22. [30]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)

    1984

  23. [31]

    J¨ arv, P

    L. J¨ arv, P. Kuusk, M. Saal, and O. Vilson, Phys. Rev. D91, 024041 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024041, arXiv:1411.1947

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J¨ arv, P

    L. J¨ arv, P. Kuusk, M. Saal, and O. Vilson, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 235013 (2015), doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/23/235013, arXiv:1504.02686

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Frame-invariant approach to higher-dimensional scalar-tensor gravity,

    A. Karam, A. Lykkas, and K. Tamvakis, “Frame-invariant approach to higher-dimensional scalar-tensor gravity,” Phys. Rev. D97, 124036 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124036

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Mach’s principle and invariance under transformation of units,

    R. H. Dicke, “Mach’s principle and invariance under transformation of units,” Phys. Rev.125, 2163–2167 (1962), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.125.2163

    1962 doi

  27. [35]

    Frame-invariant approach to inflation in scalar–tensor theories,

    A. Karam, A. Lykkas, and K. Tamvakis, “Frame-invariant approach to inflation in scalar–tensor theories,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 064029 (2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064029

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    C. M. Will, Living Rev. Relativ.17, 4 (2014), doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-4

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    Touboulet al., Phys

    P. Touboulet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 121102 (2022), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.121102

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Test of the Equivalence Principle for Superconductors,

    M. P. Ross, S. M. Fleischer, I. A. Paulson, P. Lamb, B. M. Iritani, E. G. Adelberger, C. A. Hagedorn, K. Venkateswara, C. Gettings, E. A. Shaw, S. K. Apple, and J. H. Gundlach, “Test of the Equivalence Principle for Superconductors,” Phys. Rev. D111, L021101 (2025), doi:10.110...

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle,

    T. A. Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J. H. Gundlach, and E. G. Adelberger, “Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle,” Class. Quant. Grav.29, 184002 (2012), doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/184002

    2012 doi

  32. [1716]

    Mach’s principle

    [1]. Berkeley further sharpened the operational critique of absolute space inDe Motu(1721) [2], and his dictum esse est percipi, ”to be is to be perceived”, captures the demand that fundamental notions be grounded in observables [3]. Mach recast these philosophical objections ...

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.