Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 32 references

White dwarfs in minimal dilatonic gravity

T0 review · 0 major / 4 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 Every white dwarf in minimal dilatonic gravity stays below the Chandrasekhar limit, regardless of the dilaton's Compton length.

desk verdict Careful numerical work that closes the white-dwarf window for minimal dilatonic gravity; the main sub-Chandrasekhar claim holds, with one overstated verification check. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13236 v1 pith:CKKCNVXN submitted 2026-08-13 gr-qc

Denitsa Staicova This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords whitedwarfsminimaldilatonicgravityBrans-DicketheoryChandrasekharlimitscalar-tensordilatonComptonlengthmass-radiusrelationfree-boundarycollocation
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

Minimal dilatonic gravity (MDG) is a one-parameter scalar-tensor theory: a Brans-Dicke-like dilaton with fixed coupling $\alpha^2=1/3$ and a free Compton length $\lambda_\Phi$. This paper solves the full relativistic stellar-structure equations for white dwarfs in MDG and finds that the maximum mass is always lower than in general relativity, strictly sub-Chandrasekhar for every $\lambda_\Phi$. The maximum drops from $1.425\,M_\odot$ in GR to $1.27\,M_\odot$ at $\lambda_\Phi=200$ km and $1.09\,M_\odot$ at 500 km, and the suppression ratio is almost independent of the equation of state. Because the most massive observed white dwarfs sit near the GR limit, the paper derives upper bounds $\lambda_\Phi \lesssim 300$ km including rotation, and $\lambda_\Phi \lesssim 720$ km from the gravitational-redshift mass-radius relation. A new free-boundary collocation method with a linearized-exterior Robin condition makes the screened regime computable in double precision; the same parameter predicts a percent-level altitude dependence of the Kepler-inferred $GM_\oplus$, connecting white dwarfs to Earth-orbit tests.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the set of relativistic structure equations for a static, spherically symmetric star in MDG, with the Brans-Dicke coupling fixed to $\omega=0$ (scalar coupling $\alpha^2=1/3$) and a one-parameter 'withholding' potential whose curvature at its minimum sets the dilaton mass $m_\Phi=\lambda_\Phi^{-1}$. The second essential piece is the new free-boundary collocation scheme: the exterior dilaton solution is linearized to a single decaying Yukawa mode and condensed into a Robin boundary condition $p_\Phi(r_*)=\Delta_*/(4\pi r_*^2)(1/\lambda_\Phi+1/r_*)(\Phi_*-1)$ at the stellar surface. This eliminates the $e^{R_*/\lambda_\Phi}$ amplification that makes shooting methods fail beyond $R_*/\lambda_\Phi\simeq 20$, so the screened regime, where deviations from GR are exponentially small, can be computed in double precision up to $R_*/\lambda_\Phi\simeq 35$ and continued analytically beyond. An analytic control is the in-matter equilibrium $\Phi_{\rm eq}=[1-q]^{-1/2}$ with $q=16\pi(\epsilon-3p)\lambda_\Phi^2/3$, which the deep-screening solutions approach as expected.

What would settle it

Measure a white dwarf's dynamical mass above the maximum that the same equation of state allows in general relativity, about 1.43 solar masses for the ideal Chandrasekhar EOS; unless differential rotation, which the paper does not model, is responsible, the strict sub-Chandrasekhar prediction would be falsified. A cleaner laboratory check is to compare two independent satellite geodesy determinations of $GM_\oplus$ at different altitudes: if they agree to better than $10^{-3}$ for $\lambda_\Phi \gtrsim 300$ km, the predicted percent-level altitude dependence is excluded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no choice of the dilaton Compton length $\lambda_\Phi$ yields a super-Chandrasekhar white dwarf in MDG. Over the full central-density range, the mass-radius curve sits below the general-relativistic one, with the suppression growing from 3.1% at $\lambda_\Phi=500$ km to 18.9% at 1500 km, and the maximum stellar mass falling monotonically from $1.425\,M_\odot$ in GR to $1.268\,M_\odot$ at 200 km and $1.090\,M_\odot$ at 500 km. Part of the deficit is stored in the exterior dilaton field, the 'disphere': $m_{\rm tot}$ includes this gravitating but non-baryonic component, and for large $\lambda_\Phi$ the disphere can hold about 20% of the total mass, though only a sub-percent fraction near the observationally allowed window. The suppression factor is nearly independent of the equation of state (a 0.2% difference between the ideal Chandrasekhar and Coulomb-corrected cases), so the derived bounds on $\lambda_\Phi$ are not microphysics artifacts. With rigid rotation near mass shedding adding only 4% to 6%, the paper concludes that consistency with the most massive known white dwarf requires $\lambda_\Phi \lesssim 300$ km, and the gravitational-redshift test requires $\lambda_\Phi \lesssim 720$ km.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that just outside the star's surface the dilaton field is always close enough to its general-relativistic value that the exterior can be replaced by a single decaying Yukawa mode and a linearized Robin condition; the computed masses, the stellar-versus-disphere split, and the deep-screening results all depend on that approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No value of $\lambda_\Phi$ produces a super-Chandrasekhar branch; the maximum mass is monotonically suppressed as $\lambda_\Phi$ grows, so MDG cannot explain super-luminous Type Ia supernovae through massive progenitors.
  • The most massive observed white dwarfs, which sit near the GR limit, restrict $\lambda_\Phi$ to roughly 100 to 170 km in the non-rotating case and to $\lesssim 300$ km once rigid rotation near mass shedding is allowed.
  • The population-level gravitational-redshift test, which constrains $m_*/R_*$, yields the independent bound $\lambda_\Phi \lesssim 720$ km, corresponding to $m_\Phi \gtrsim 2.7\times 10^{-13}$ eV/$c^2$, and at $2\sigma$ the bound is $\lambda_\Phi \lesssim 1100$ km.
  • At the same Compton lengths the Kepler-inferred $GM_\oplus$ becomes altitude-dependent: two satellite geodesy determinations at different altitudes would disagree by $3.5\times 10^{-5}$ at $\lambda_\Phi=100$ km, $2.9\times 10^{-3}$ at 300 km, and $1.8\times 10^{-2}$ at 700 km.
  • The suppression ratio is insensitive to the equation of state, with a 0.2% difference between ideal and Coulomb-corrected models, so the $\lambda_\Phi$ bounds transfer to white-dwarf compositions beyond those explicitly modeled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the white-dwarf bound and the Earth-orbit signal are two windows on the same scale: a future null result in cross-mission $GM_\oplus$ comparisons at the $10^{-3}$ level would close the astrophysically interesting $\lambda_\Phi$ window, while a positive signal would predict a specific 3% to 11% suppression of the most massive white dwarfs.
  • A consequence the author leaves implicit is that the linearized-exterior collocation method, if stable as described, should transfer to any massive scalar-tensor theory whose exterior is approximately Yukawa; a natural test is to apply it to chameleon or $f(R)$ white dwarfs and check where the single-mode Robin condition breaks.
  • Because the dilaton mass is density-independent, the theory's astrophysical window is in tension with local inverse-square-law experiments, which already require $\lambda_\Phi\lesssim 10^{-4}$ m; the paper suggests that a density-dependent scalar mass would resolve this, and I infer that such a resolution would remove the strict sub-Chandrasekhar prediction as a sharp test.
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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies static, spherically symmetric white dwarfs in minimal dilatonic gravity (MDG), a Brans–Dicke theory with ω=0, fixed coupling α^2=1/3, and a free Compton length λΦ. It solves the relativistic structure equations with two independent numerical methods (a shooting method and a new free-boundary collocation method with a linearized-exterior Robin condition), using polytropic, Chandrasekhar, and Salpeter-corrected equations of state. The central finding is that MDG white dwarfs are strictly sub-Chandrasekhar for all λΦ, with the maximum mass decreasing from 1.425 M⊙ in GR to 1.27 M⊙ at λΦ=200 km and 1.09 M⊙ at 500 km, and with the suppression ratio nearly independent of the equation of state. Including rigid rotation near mass shedding, the most massive observed white dwarfs bound λΦ ≲300 km; a gravitational-redshift mass–radius test gives λΦ ≲720 km. The paper also predicts an altitude-dependent Kepler-inferred GM⊕ from the Earth-orbit dilaton field and introduces the distinction between the stellar mass m* and the total gravitating mass m_tot that includes the exterior dilaton 'disphere.'

Significance. If the central result holds, it is significant: it rules out super-Chandrasekhar white-dwarf branches in this one-parameter theory and turns the observed massive white-dwarf population into a direct constraint on λΦ. The paper's strengths are substantial: two independent solvers agree to 1e-6–1e-4 along mass–radius sequences; the GR limit recovers exact Lane–Emden polytropes; the analytic λΦ→∞ limit (G_eff=4G/3, mass ratio 0.6495) is matched to 0.06%; and the EOS dependence of the suppression ratio is small (at most 0.26 percentage points between Chandrasekhar and Salpeter). The free-boundary collocation method is a useful technical contribution that removes the exponential stiffness of shooting methods. The potential weakness concerning the linearized-exterior Robin condition in Eq. (9) does not, on close reading, endanger the maximum-mass claim, because the maximum-mass configurations lie in the regime where the shooting method is valid and the two methods agree; the deep-screening regime where only collocation operates concerns low-density stars, not the mass limit.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, paragraph (ii)] The verification statement that "the central field remains about 1 (|Φ_c−1| ≲ 10^-4) throughout" is contradicted by the high-density rows of Table 4: for λΦ=1500 km and ρ_c=3.2×10^10 g cm^-3, the compactness GM/(Rc^2) is about 10^-3, implying |Φ_c−1| ∼ 10^-3. The linearization underlying the Robin condition remains valid at the 10^-3 level because nonlinear corrections are much smaller, but the sentence should be corrected or explicitly restricted to the low-density models.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption and Sec. 5.4] The caption of the middle panel states that I(λΦ) is shown for ρ_c=10^7 g cm^-3, while the text reports the sequence I/I_GR = 0.959, 0.865, 0.666, 0.584 for "the ρ_c=10^9 g cm^-3 star." One of these density values should be corrected so that the figure and text agree.
  3. [Sec. 5.2] The sentence "the light-field limit is therefore the strong-coupling limit of the theory" is confusing as written: λΦ→∞ makes the dilaton field unscreened and hence effectively strongly coupled to matter, but calling this the "light-field limit" while also calling it the "strong-coupling limit" in the same sentence could mislead readers. Please rephrase to distinguish the field mass (small, hence light) from the effective gravitational coupling (large, 4G/3).
  4. [Sec. 6] The text contains a garbled rendering of "Eöt-Wash" ("E¨ ot-Wash"). In addition, the quoted inverse-square-law bound λΦ ≲ 10^-4 m from Ref. [32] should be stated more precisely, since it depends on the assumed coupling strength α^2=1/3 used throughout the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sub-Chandrasekhar result is a parameter-sweep prediction checked against independent analytic limits.

full rationale

The central claim—that MDG white dwarfs are strictly sub-Chandrasekhar for every λΦ—is not obtained by fitting λΦ or any other parameter to the target result. λΦ is scanned over a wide range (Table 1: 100–1500 km; Table 4: 1500 and 5000 km), and the mass suppression is verified against three independent anchors: exact Lane–Emden polytropes, whose GR-limit masses match to ~10^-4 (Table 2); the analytic λΦ→∞ limit with G_eff = 4G_N/3, giving the homology ratio (4/3)^-3/2 = 0.6495, which the computed m_tot/m_GR = 0.6499 at λΦ = 10^5 km reproduces to 0.06%; and two independent numerical solvers (shooting and free-boundary collocation) agreeing to 10^-7–10^-4 along the sequence (Fig. 1). The linearized-exterior Robin condition (Eq. 9) is not load-bearing for the maximum-mass bound, because those configurations have R*/λΦ ≲ 5, where the shooting method—which does not use Eq. (9)—is valid and agrees with collocation; the deep-screening regime where only collocation works concerns low-density stars, not the maximum mass. The cited MDG structure equations [17] and withholding potential [16] are prior derivations from the action, not results equivalent to the white-dwarf prediction, and the cited [12] result is an external Newtonian screening analysis in the same direction, not the source of the claimed prediction. Observational comparisons (ZTF J1901+1458 and the gravitational-redshift mass–radius test) are used in the correct direction: they constrain λΦ after the model calculation rather than being fitted to produce it. One supporting verification statement is inaccurate—Sec. 5.1 says |Φc−1| ≲ 10^-4 “throughout,” while high-density models in Table 4 have compactness GM/(Rc^2) ~ 10^-3, implying |Φc−1| ~ 10^-3—but this concerns the verification narrative rather than the derivation, since the nonlinear corrections remain small. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central results rest on the MDG structure equations and withholding potential from prior Fiziev work, on the numerical linearization of the exterior dilaton, and on a surface-layer model for the Earth constraint. The only physical free parameter is λΦ, scanned over 100-1e5 km; no parameter is fitted to force the sub-Chandrasekhar result. The 'disphere' is a bookkeeping label for exterior dilaton energy, not a new field.

free parameters (3)
  • λΦ (dilaton Compton length) = constrained to ≲300 km (WD + rigid rotation), ≲720 km (gravitational redshift), ≲ few hundred km (Earth orbit); no…
    The single free parameter of MDG. Scanned over 100-1e5 km; the central mass suppression is monotonic in it. Not fitted to data; bounded by astrophysical and Solar-System comparisons.
  • surface pressure cut p_stop = 1e-10 pc (1e-14 for polytrope checks)
    Numerical choice defining the stellar surface; verified to change radius by ~1e-4 and mass by ~1e-6, so it does not affect the central ratios.
  • axis ratio q for rotating sequences = 0.7
    Chosen to approximate mass-shedding for rigid rotation; variations of 4-6% in maximum mass quoted at this q. Not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Structure equations (4)-(8) of MDG, including the withholding potential (2), are the correct field equations for the theory.
    Taken from Fiziev [16,17]; the paper does not rederive them from an action beyond quoting Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption The exterior dilaton satisfies the linearized Yukawa equation with only the decaying mode, justifying the Robin condition (9).
    Assumes |Φ*−1| ≪ 1 and ignores the growing mode; verified numerically for computed models (|Φc−1| ≲ 1e-4) but load-bearing for the screened regime.
  • domain assumption For Earth, R ≫ λΦ, the surface is locally flat and only a crust layer of thickness ~λΦ sources the exterior field, giving Eq. (12).
    Approximate model for the Earth-orbit constraint; no full multipole derivation is given.
  • standard math GR limit and Newtonian homology M ∝ G^(-3/2) for the n = 3 polytrope.
    Used to derive the saturated-limit ratio 0.6495 and to validate the codes.
invented entities (1)
  • disphere (exterior dilaton mass cloud)
    purpose: Accounts for the gravitating mass of the exterior dilaton field beyond the stellar surface, splitting total mass into m* and m_tot.
    Not a new field; the dilaton already exists in MDG. The disphere is a bookkeeping label for exterior field energy. It has no independent observational handle; its mass is inferred from the same model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of White dwarfs in minimal dilatonic gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CKKCNVXN

@misc{pith2026260813236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: White dwarfs in minimal dilatonic gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CKKCNVXN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13236}
}
abstract

We study static, spherically symmetric white dwarfs in minimal dilatonic gravity (MDG) -- a Brans-Dicke theory with fixed coupling $\alpha^2=1/3 $ and free Compton length $\lambda_{\Phi}$. Solving the full relativistic structure equations we find that MDG white dwarfs are strictly sub-Chandrasekhar for every $\lambda_{\Phi}$: the maximum mass falls from $1.425\,M_\odot$ in GR to $1.27\,M_\odot$ at $200$ km and $1.09\,M_\odot$ at $500$ km. The ratio by which MDG reduces the maximum mass is robust against the equation of state. Including rigid rotation near mass shedding, consistency with the most massive observed white dwarfs restricts $\lambda_{\Phi} \lesssim 300$ km. An independent gravitational-redshift bound gives $\lambda_{\Phi} \lesssim 720$ km. Because the dilaton mass is density-independent the same coupling produces a percent-level altitude dependence of the Kepler-inferred $ GM_\oplus$, constraining it from the Solar-System side. To tackle the problem, we introduce a free-boundary collocation method with a linearized-exterior Robin condition that eliminates the exponential stiffness of shooting methods and gives access to the screened regime in double precision.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. J. Eisenstein et al.,A Catalog of Spec- troscopically Confirmed White Dwarfs from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 4, Astrophys. J. Suppl.167, 40 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0606700]

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    Kilic et al.,The 100 pc White Dwarf Sample in the SDSS Footprint

    M. Kilic et al.,The 100 pc White Dwarf Sample in the SDSS Footprint. II. A New Look at the Spectral Evolution of White Dwarfs, Astrophys. J.979, 157 (2025) [arXiv:2412.04611]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Measuring The Mass-Radius Relation of White Dwarfs Using Wide Binaries

    S. Arseneau et al.,Measuring the Mass– Radius Relation of White Dwarfs Using Wide Binaries, Astrophys. J.963, 17 (2024) [arXiv:2310.19866]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Caiazzo et al.,A highly magnetised and rapidly rotating white dwarf as small as the Moon, Nature595, 39 (2021); erratum: Nature596, E15 (2021) [arXiv:2107.08458]

    I. Caiazzo et al.,A highly magnetised and rapidly rotating white dwarf as small as the Moon, Nature595, 39 (2021); erratum: Nature596, E15 (2021) [arXiv:2107.08458]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Madej, M

    J. Madej, M. Nale˙ zyty and L. G. Althaus, Mass–radius relations for white dwarf stars of different internal compositions, Astron. Astrophys.419, L5 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky,Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects(Wiley, 1983)

    work page 1983

  7. [7]

    Chandrasekhar,The Maximum Mass of Ideal White Dwarfs, Astrophys

    S. Chandrasekhar,The Maximum Mass of Ideal White Dwarfs, Astrophys. J.74, 81 (1931)

    work page 1931

  8. [8]

    Modified Einstein's gravity to probe the sub- and super-Chandrasekhar limiting mass white dwarfs: a new perspective to unify under- and over-luminous type Ia supernovae

    S. Kalita and B. Mukhopadhyay,Modified Einstein ’s gravity to probe the sub- and super- Chandrasekhar limiting mass white dwarfs: a new perspective to unify under- and over- luminous type Ia supernovae, JCAP09, 007 (2018) [arXiv:1805.12550]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Otoniel et al.,White dwarf structure inf(R, T, Lm)gravity: beyond the Chan- drasekhar mass limit, Phys

    E. Otoniel et al.,White dwarf structure inf(R, T, Lm)gravity: beyond the Chan- drasekhar mass limit, Phys. Lett. B875, 140323 (2026) [arXiv:2507.18745]

    2026

  2. [10]

    J. M. Z. Pretel et al.,White dwarfs in reg- ularized 4D Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity, Phys. Lett. B866, 139581 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Vidal, A

    S. Vidal, A. Wojnar, L. J¨ arv and D. Doneva, Crystallized white dwarf stars in scalar- tensor gravity, Phys. Rev. D111, 084075 (2025) [arXiv:2408.15937]. 13

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bachs-Esteban, I

    J. Bachs-Esteban, I. Lopes and J. Rubio, Screening Mechanisms on White Dwarfs: Symmetron and Dilaton, Universe11, 158 (2025) [arXiv:2505.05871]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    R. K. Jain, C. Kouvaris and N. G. Nielsen, White Dwarf Critical Tests for Modified Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 151103 (2016) [arXiv:1512.05946]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    O’Hanlon,Intermediate-Range Gravity: A Generally Covariant Model, Phys

    J. O’Hanlon,Intermediate-Range Gravity: A Generally Covariant Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 137 (1972)

    1972

  7. [15]

    P. P. Fiziev,A Minimal realistic model of dilatonic gravityMod. Phys. Lett. A15, 1977 (2000)

    2000

  8. [16]

    P. P. Fiziev,Withholding Potentials, Absence of Ghosts and Relationship between Minimal Dilatonic Gravity andf(R)Theories, Phys. Rev. D87, 044053 (2013) [arXiv:1209.2695]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [17]

    P. P. Fiziev,Compact static stars in mini- mal dilatonic gravity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A32, 1750141 (2017) [arXiv:1402.2813]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    P. P. Fiziev,The mass of dark scalar and phase space analysis of realistic models of static spherically symmetric objects, MG14 Proc.2, 1289–1294, 2017 arXiv:1512.03931

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. P. Fiziev and K. A. Marinov,Modeling of non-rotating neutron stars in minimal dila- tonic gravity, Astrophys. Space Sci.362, 1 (2017) arXiv:1608.06089

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Asadnezhad and M

    M. Asadnezhad and M. Bigdeli,Neutron stars in minimal dilatonic gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 13 (2026)

    2026

  13. [21]

    E. E. Salpeter,Energy and Pressure of a Zero-Temperature Plasma, Astrophys. J. 134, 669 (1961)

    1961

  14. [22]

    J. B. Hartle,Slowly Rotating Relativistic Stars. I. Equations of Structure, Astrophys. J.150, 1005 (1967)

    1967

  15. [23]

    Hachisu,A Versatile Method for Obtaining Structures of Rapidly Rotating Stars, Astro- phys

    I. Hachisu,A Versatile Method for Obtaining Structures of Rapidly Rotating Stars, Astro- phys. J. Suppl.61, 479 (1986)

    1986

  16. [24]

    K. V. Staykov, D. D. Doneva, S. S. Yazadjiev and K. D. Kokkotas,Slowly rotating neutron and strange stars inR 2 gravity, JCAP10, 006 (2014) [arXiv:1407.2180]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    G. J. Olmo,Post-Newtonian constraints on f(R)cosmologies in metric and Palatini for- malism, Phys. Rev. D72, 083505 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    Alsing, E

    J. Alsing, E. Berti, C. M. Will and H. Zaglauer,Gravitational radiation from compact binary systems in the massive Brans–Dicke theory, Phys. Rev. D85, 064041 (2012) [arXiv:1112.4903]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C. P. L. Berry and J. R. Gair,Linearizedf(R) gravity: Gravitational radiation and Solar System tests, Phys. Rev. D83, 104022 (2011); erratum: Phys. Rev. D85, 089906 (2012) [arXiv:1104.0819]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bertotti, L

    B. Bertotti, L. Iess and P. Tortora,A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft, Nature425, 374 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    Clifton,The parametrized post-Newtonian limit of fourth-order theories of gravity, Phys

    T. Clifton,The parametrized post-Newtonian limit of fourth-order theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D77, 024041 (2008) [arXiv:0801.0983]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    E. V. Pitjeva,EPM ephemerides and relativ- ity, inRelativity in Fundamental Astronomy, IAU Symposium 261, 170 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Ries et al.,The Development and Evalu- ation of the Global Gravity Model GGM05, CSR Report CSR-16-02, Center for Space Research, The University of Texas at Austin (2016)

    J. Ries et al.,The Development and Evalu- ation of the Global Gravity Model GGM05, CSR Report CSR-16-02, Center for Space Research, The University of Texas at Austin (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel and A. E. Nelson,Tests of the Gravitational Inverse- Square Law, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.53, 77 (2003). 14

    2003

Pith tools

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