Space Sci Rev (2009) 148: 501522

DOI 10.1007/s11214-009-9559-9
What Determines the Nature of Gravity?
A Phenomenological Approach
Claus Lmmerzahl
Received: 27 March 2009 / Accepted: 24 June 2009 / Published online: 16 July 2009
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract The gravitational eld can only be explored through the motion of test objects. To
achieve this one rst has to set up the correct equations of motion. Initially these equations
are based on Newtons laws. Corresponding experiments that support Newtons laws are
described. Furthermore, the basic characteristics of the motion of test objects in gravitational
elds are described. This leads to the notion of Einsteins Equivalence Principle which has
as consequence a metric theory of gravity. One particular metric theory is General Relativity
based on Einsteins eld equations with its particular predictions for effects like periastron
advance, light deection, etc. An overview over the experimental conrmation of General
Relativity, in particular those presented at this workshop, is given. This workshop summary
ends with open problems. We also describe some of the strategies for the experimental search
for a quantum gravity theory.
Keywords General relativity Special relativity Newtons axioms Experimental
relativity Equivalence principle Solar system tests Quantum gravity phenomenology
1 Introduction
In this article we present a general frame of how to dene and explore the nature of gravity as
well as the mathematical formalism and the equations that represent gravitational phenom-
ena. In principle there are two ways to state physical equations: The rst waya topdown
schemeis to postulate the equations. For General Relativity (GR), for example, one may
postulate a Lorentzian spacetime manifold, the Einstein eld equations and the geodesic
equations for point-like masses and light, as well as the observables of the theory. All ob-
servable consequences will follow from these statements. A second waycorresponding to
a bottomup approachis to base the physical laws on a few basic observations and to build
up the theory in a constructive manner. Here we like to proceed along the second way as far
as possible.
C. Lmmerzahl ()
ZARM, University of Bremen, Am Fallturm, 28359 Bremen, Germany
e-mail: laemmerzahl@zarm.uni-bremen.de
502 C. Lmmerzahl
The advantages of the second way are: (i) a physical understanding of mathematical
schemes, (ii) each mathematical structure is directly related to an observable phenomenon
and, thus, is immediately physically interpretable, and (iii) if generalizations are necessary
(like those expected from quantum gravity) natural generalizations are offered through this
way.
In what follows we can only give a very rough, short and incomplete description of the
scheme. However, we hope to show all the ingredients and what in principle has to be taken
into account in order to reach a certain stage of complete mathematical description of the
nature of gravity. At many instances we refer to other contributions to this workshop which
expand several short remarks given here.
2 How to Explore Gravity
The gravitational eld and its properties can only be explored through the observation of the
dynamics of test objects: point particles, light rays or quantum elds (Ehlers 2006). Their
dynamics is governed by equations of motion. The simplest such equations are Newtons
laws. Much more complicated laws are feasible: one may consider dynamical equations
with higher order time derivative (Lmmerzahl and Rademaker 2009), for example.
After we setting the main structure of equations of motion for test objects we ask for
characteristic features of the interaction of these objects with the gravitational eld. These
are governed by the Einstein Equivalence Principle. From that we conclude that gravity is
a metric theory. Each of these theories shows the typical effects like perihelion shift, light
deection, time delay, LenseThirring and Schiff effects, etc. Only for certain values of
these effects gravity is described by the Einstein eld equations. These eld equations are
then extrapolated to the strong eld regime and can be confronted with observations of
binary systems and black holes.
We always consider fundamental equations only. Effective equations for the motion of
test objects with largely different features may come out from complicated calculations that
take, for example, radiation reaction into account.
3 The Structure of Dynamics
The notion of an inertial system, of the inertial law and the law of reciprocal actions
(actio =reactio) is assumed in all equations of motion, either non-relativistic or relativistic.
Any test or exploration of the gravitational interaction has to account for the structure of the
equations of motion which are used to measure gravitational effects.
In many instances we have equations of motion which are more general than those related
to Newtons axioms. Examples are the equations taking into account radiation reaction, or
dynamics with memory. However, these are effective equations of motion. In our bottom
up approach we are interested in the fundamental equations of motion only.
3.1 Existence of Inertial Frames
A condition for the existence of inertial frames is content of the rst of Newtons laws. In an
intuitive sense an inertial frame is a local reference frame where all freely falling particles
What Determines the Nature of Gravity? A Phenomenological Approach 503
move uniformly along straight lines. Here we already have to put in an intuitive understand-
ing of free motion. Though it is not clear of how to characterize a force-free motion (non-
gravitational forces) uniquely in an experimental way, Finsler spacetime (Lmmerzahl and
Perlick 2009) provides a model for the non-existence of inertial frames.
1
An indenite Finslerian geometry is given by the line element
ds
2
=F(x, dx) with F(x, dx) =
2
F(x, dx), (1)
for all R and where F is a function homogeneous of degree two. Then
ds
2
=g

(x, dx)dx

dx

with g

(x, y) =

2
F(x, y)
y

, (2)
where g

(x, dx) is a Finslerian metric which, however, depends on the vector it is acting
on. The motion of light rays and point particles is given by the action principle 0 =
_
ds
2
and leads to the equation of motion
d
2
x

ds
2
=
_

_
(x, x)
dx

ds
dx

ds
. (3)
Since the FinslerChristoffel connection
_

_
(x, x) =
1
2
g

(x, x)
_

(x, x) +

(x, x)

(x, x)
_
(4)
(here g

(x, x) is the inverse of g

(x, x) dened through g

(x, x)g

(x, x) =

) depends
on the velocity x

, it cannot be transformed away. As a consequence, there is no frame in

which all particles move uniformly along straight lines. We always have accelerated parti-
cles. This provides a model for that gravity cannot be transformed away and, thus, for the
non-existence of inertial systems. This is true for all equations of motion with a non-linear
connection of the form (3). Another consequence of a Finslerian metric is the anisotropy of,
e.g., light propagation violating Lorentz invariance (see below and Lmmerzahl et al. 2009).
Free fall experiments and orbits of planets and satellites yield that the order of magnitude
of any hypothetical Finslerian deviation from ordinary Riemannian spacetimes should be
smaller than 10
9
m/s
2
(Lmmerzahl and Perlick 2009).
3.2 The Inertial Law
The inertial law
p =m x =F (5)
is characterized by its order of differentiation and the linear relation between force and
acceleration. We highlight both properties. Any change in these characteristic features of
the inertial law dramatically inuences the interpretation of, e.g., orbits of satellites, planets
or stars.
1
We leave out BerwaldFinsler spacetimes where the spacetime metric depends on the connecting vector
while the equation of motion still is the ordinary Riemannian geodesics.
504 C. Lmmerzahl
3.2.1 Order of Equations of Motion
Newtons second law (5) with p =m
i
v where m
i
is the inertial mass implies an equation of
motion of second order for the position. The relation between momentum and velocity has
the structure of a constitutive law and, thus, may be generalized to p = p(m, v, v, v, . . .).
This implies higher-order equations of motion. Higher-order equations of motion may also
come from metrical uctuations with a certain time correlation. Here we are concerned only
with fundamental equations: In the contrary effective equations of motion in general contain
higher order derivatives from radiation reaction.
The most simple model for a higher order dynamics is based on a second order La-
grangian L =L(t, x, x, x). This gives an equation of motion of fourth order. With a small
additional term of appropriate sign (see Lmmerzahl and Rademaker 2009 for more details)
the solution of this fourth order equation gives the standard solution of the usual second
order equation together with a kind of zitterbewegung. Therefore, the usual second order
equations of motion seem to be rather robust against small higher-order additions. In order
to be consistent we introduce interactions with external elds through a gauge principle.
Such higher order gauge principles result in novel gauge elds.
As we expect from this approach only a small zitterbewegung, an experimental detection
of such a phenomenon is rather difcult. One potentially feasible idea is to look for funda-
mental noise in electronic devices with characteristics differing from the standard Nyquist
or 1/f noise. Corresponding proposals will be worked out.
3.2.2 Linearity
Newtons inertial law (5) is a denition of the force F. Measuring the path of a test object
and knowing its characteristic parameters determines the force.
Theories modifying this relation by introducing a function f (a) on the left hand side,
mf (a) = F(x), as MOND does, (Milgrom 2002), are equivalent to a theory of modied
gravity provided the function f possesses an inverse. Then ma =mf
1
(F(x)/m), and this
is a mere redenition of the force equivalent to a modication of the gravitational inuence.
This modied Newtonian dynamics or modied gravity is rather successful in modeling
galactic rotations curves. The function f (a) is mainly determined by a characteristic accel-
eration scale a
0
of the order 10
10
ms
2
.
Though the inertial law denes the force, there is one aspect which may be subject to
experimental proof: If the force acting on a body is given by a gravitating mass, F =mU
with U = G
_
(x

)/|x x

|dV

(G is Newtons graviational constant and the mass

density), then one may ask the question whether the acceleration decreases linearly with
decreasing gravitating mass which can be measured through its weight. If the gravitating
mass M is spherically symmetric, U = GM/r, then the question is whether x x for
M M, in particular in the case of small M. This is an operationally well dened ques-
tion which is worth to be explored experimentally.
A recent laboratory experiment performed tests of the linearity between force and accel-
eration in the extremely weak force regime, (Gundlach et al. 2007). No deviation from New-
tons inertial law has been found for accelerations down to 5 10
14
ms
2
. This experiment,
however, does not test MOND. Within MOND it is required that the full acceleration has
to be smaller than approx 10
10
ms
2
while in the above experiment only two components
of the acceleration were small while the acceleration due to the Earth attraction was still
present. Therefore such tests of MOND have to be performed in space (for the constraints of
tests on Earth, see Ignatiev 2007). An earlier test (Abramovici and Vager 1986) went down
What Determines the Nature of Gravity? A Phenomenological Approach 505
to accelerations of 3 10
11
ms
2
. In both cases the applied force was nongravitational. It
might be speculated whether the MOND ansatz applies to all forces or to the gravitational
force only.
It has also been speculated whether the MOND ansatz can describe the Pioneer anomaly
(Milgrom 2002; Anderson et al. 2002) but this has not been convincingly conrmed. In any
case, it is a very remarkable coincidence that the Pioneer acceleration, the MOND charac-
teristic acceleration a
0
as well as the cosmological acceleration are all of the same order of
magnitude, a
Pioneer
a
0
cH, where H is the Hubble constant.
3.3 Law of Reciprocal Action
A key model for the violation of the law of reciprocal action is a difference in active and
passive gravitational masses. The notion of active and passive masses and their possible non-
equality has rst been introduced and discussed by (Bondi 1957). The active mass m
a
is the
source of the gravitational eld (here we restrict to the Newtonian case with the gravitational
potential U) U =4m
a
(x), whereas the passive mass m
p
reacts to it
m
i
x =m
p
U(x). (6)
Here, m
i
is the inertial mass and x the position of the particle. The equations of motion for
a gravitationally bound twobody system then are
m
1i
x
1
=Gm
1p
m
2a
x
2
x
1
|x
2
x
1
|
3
, m
2i
x
2
=Gm
2p
m
1a
x
1
x
2
|x
1
x
2
|
3
, (7)
where 1, 2 refer to the two particles and G is the gravitational constant. For the equation of
motion of the center of mass X, we nd

X =G
m
1p
m
2p
M
i
C
21
x
|x|
3
with C
21
=
m
2a
m
2p

m
1a
m
1p
(8)
where M
i
=m
1i
+m
2i
and x is the relative coordinate. Thus, if C
21
=0 then active and pas-
sive masses are different and the center of mass shows a self-acceleration along the direction
of x. This is a violation of Newtons actio equals reactio. A limit has been derived by Lunar
Laser Ranging (LLR): no self-acceleration of the moon has been observed yielding a limit
of |

C
AlFe
| 7 10
13
(Bartlett and van Buren 1986).
The dynamics of the relative coordinate
x =G
m
1p
m
2p
m
1i
m
2i
_
m
1
m
1a
m
1p
+m
2
m
2a
m
2p
_
x
|x|
3
(9)
has been probed in the laboratory by (Kreuzer 1968) with the result |C
21
| 5 10
5
.
Similar considerations have been made for active and passive charges or for magnetic
moments (Lmmerzahl et al. 2007a).
4 The Structure of Gravity
After having set up the fundamental equations of motion for test objects one can start to
explore the structure of interactions. The gravitational interaction is rst characterized by a
number of universality principles put together in the Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP).
506 C. Lmmerzahl
It consists of (i) the Universality of Free Fall (UFF), (ii) the Universality of the Gravitational
Redshift (UGR), and (iii) Local Lorentz Invariance (LLI), see Will (1993). These principles
further constrain the structure of the equations of motion of test objects: The EEP leaves
only freedom for a symmetric second rank tensor eld to couple to the equation of motion
of test objects. As a consequence one arrives at a metric theory of gravity.
Any metric theory of gravity shows the standard Solar system effects like perihelion
shift, light deection, gravitational time delay, and the LenseThirring and Schiff effect.
Only for GR given by the Einstein eld equations these effects attain certain values. There
is no constructive way to derive these Einstein equations. However, the Parametrized Post
Newtonian formalism (PPN), Will (1993), with approximate 10 undetermined parameters
(the number of parameters depends on the chosen version) provides a very powerful method
of parameterizing deviations from GR. For GR these parameters attain certain values. The
PPN formalism gives a theoretical frame within which by means of a nite number of ob-
servations and experiments it is possible to single out GR from other theories of gravity.
In the following two sections we describe the experiments and observations rst leading
to a metric theory of gravity and second singling out GR from all other metric theories (see
also the contribution of C. Will).
5 The Foundations of Metric Gravity
5.1 Universality of Free Fall
The UFF states that all neutral pointlike particles move in a gravitational eld in the same
way: The path of these bodies is independent of the composition of the body. The corre-
sponding tests are described in terms of the acceleration of these particles in the reference
frame of the gravitating body: the Etvs factor compares the normalized accelerations of
two bodies =
a
2
a
1
1
2
(a
2
+a
1
)
in the same gravitational eld. In the frame of Newtons theory this
can be expressed as =

2

1
1
2
(
2
+
1
)
, where = m
g
/m
i
is the ratio of the (passive) gravita-
tional and inertial mass.
There are two principal schemes to perform tests of UFF. The rst scheme uses the free
fall of bodies. In this case the full gravitational attraction towards the Earth can be exploited.
However, these experiments suffer from the fact that the time-of-ight is limited to roughly
1 s and that a repetition needs new adjustment. The other scheme uses a restricted motion
conned to one dimension only, namely a pendulum or a torsion balance. The big advan-
tage is the periodicity of the motion which by far outweights the disadvantage that only a
fraction of the gravitational attraction is used. In fact, the best test today of the UFF uses
a torsion pendulum and conrms it to the order of 2 10
13
. Altogether we then have the
amazing equality m
i
=m
g
=m
a
=m
p
. New proposed tests in space, the approved mission
MICROSCOPE, (Touboul 2001 and the contribution of P. Touboul), and the proposal STEP,
(Lockerbie et al. 2001), will combine the advantages of free fall and periodicity (see also
the contributions by J. Mester and T. Sumner).
There are hints from quantum gravity inspired scenarios that the UFF might be violated
below the 10
13
level, Damour et al. (2002a, 2002b) and the contribution of T. Damour. Also
from cosmology with a dynamical vacuum energy (quintessence) one can derive a violation
of UFF at the 10
14
level (Wetterich 2003). The validity of the UFF has also been used for
setting bounds on the time variability of various constants such as the ne structure constant
and the electron-to-proton mass ratio (Dent 2006).
What Determines the Nature of Gravity? A Phenomenological Approach 507
According to GR, spinning particles couple to the spacetime curvature (Hehl 1971;
Audretsch 1981) and, thus, violate the UFF. However, the effect is far beyond any experi-
mental detectability. Therefore testing the UFF for spinning matter amounts to a search for
an anomalous coupling of spin to gravity. Motivations for anomalous spin couplings came
from the search for the axion, a candidate for the dark matter in the universe which also can
resolve the strong PC puzzle in Quantum Chromodynamics (Moody and Wilczek 1984). In
these models spin may couple to the gradient of the gravitational potential or to gravitational
elds generated by the spin of the gravitating body. The rst case can easily be tested by
weighting polarized bodies what showed that for polarized matter the UFF is valid up to the
order of 10
8
(Hsieh et al. 1989).
Also charged particles do couple to the spacetime curvature (DeWitt and Brehme 1960)
but this effect is again too small to be detectable. Further, it is possible to introduce a charge-
dependent violation of the UFF by assuming a charge-dependent anomalous inertial and/or
gravitational mass. It is also possible to choose the model such that for a neutral atom UFF
is fullled exactly while it is violated for isolated charges (Dittus et al. 2004). It has been
suggested to carry out a corresponding experiment in space (Dittus et al. 2004).
5.2 Universality of Gravitational Redshift
A test of the universal inuence of the gravitational eld on clocks based on different
physical principles requires clock comparison during their common transport through dif-
ferent gravitational potentials. There is a large variety of clocks which can be compared:
(i) light clocks (optical resonators), (ii) various atomic clocks, (iii) various molecular clocks,
(iv) gravitational clocks based on the revolution of planets or binary systems, (v) the rotation
of the Earth, (vi) pulsar clocks based on the spin of stars, and (vii) clocks based on particle
decay.
On a phenomenological level the comparison of two collocated clocks is given by

clock1
(x
1
)

clock2
(x
1
)
=
_
1 (
clock2

clock1
)
U(x
1
) U(x
0
)
c
2
_

clock1
(x
0
)

clock2
(x
0
)
(10)
where
clocki
are clock-dependent parameters. If this frequency ratio does not depend on
the gravitational potential then the gravitational redshift is universal. This is a null-test of

clock2

clock1
. It is obviously preferable to use large differences in the gravitational poten-
tial which clearly shows the need for space experiments. In experiments today the variation
of the gravitational eld is induced by the motion of the Earth around the Sun.
The best test up to date has been performed by comparing the frequency ratio of the 282
nm
199
Hg
+
optical clock transition to the ground state hyperne splitting in
133
Cs over 6
years. The result is |
Hg

Cs
| 5 10
6
(Ashby et al. 2007; Fortier et al. 2007). Other
tests compare Cs clocks with the hydrogen maser, Cs or electronic transitions in I
2
with op-
tical resonators. We are looking forward to ultrastable clocks on the ISS and on satellites in
Earth orbit or even in deep space as proposed by SPACETIME (Maleki 2001), OPTIS (Lm-
merzahl et al. 2004) and SAGAS (Wolf et al. 2008), which should considerably improve the
scientic results (see also the contribution by S. Reynaud).
So far there are no tests using anti clocks, that is, clocks made of anti-matter. However,
since the production of anti-hydrogen is a working technique today, there are attempts to
perform high-precision spectroscopy of anti-hydrogen. These measurements rst should test
special relativistic CPT invariance but, as a long-term goal, they could also be used to test
the Universality of the Gravitational Redshift for a clock based on anti-hydrogen.
508 C. Lmmerzahl
In many scenarios it is assumed that constants vary with (cosmological) time. Since dif-
ferent atomic or molecular states depend differently on these constants the question of th
constancy of constants is related to the UGR, cf. the contributions by J.-P. Uzan, N. Ko-
lachevsky, P. Petitjean, and E. Fischbach.
5.3 Local Lorentz Invariance
Lorentz invariance, the symmetry of Special Relativity (SR) which also holds locally in
GR, is based on the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity principle. For a recent
review, see Amelino-Camelia et al. (2005).
5.3.1 The Constancy of the Speed of Light
The constancy of the speed of light has many aspects:
1. The speed of light does not depend on the velocity of the source. Using the model
c

=c +v, where v is the velocity of the source and some parameter one gets from
astrophysical observations 10
11
(Brecher 1977).
2. The speed of light does not depend on the frequency and polarization. The best results
come from astrophysics. From radiation at frequencies 7.1 10
18
Hz and 4.8 10
19
Hz of
Gamma Ray Burst GRB930229 one obtains c/c 6.3 10
21
(Schaefer 1999). Analy-
sis of the polarization of light from distant galaxies yielded an estimate c/c 10
32
(Kostelecky and Mewes 2002).
3. The speed of light is universal. This means that the velocity of all other massless parti-
cles as well as the limiting maximum velocity of all massive particles coincides with
c. The maximum speed of electrons, neutrinos and muons has been shown in vari-
ous laboratory experiments to coincide with the velocity of light at a level (c
particle

c)/c 10
6
(Brown et al. 1973; Guiragossian et al. 1975; Alspector et al. 1976;
Kalbeisch et al. 1979). Astrophysical observations of radiation from the supernova
SN1987A yield for the comparison of photons and neutrinos an estimate which is two
orders of magnitude better (Stodolsky 1988; Longo 1987).
4. The speed of light does not depend on the velocity of the laboratory. This can be tested in
KennedyThorndike experiments which is a clockclock comparison experiment where
the laboratory moves with varying speed (e.g. a laboratory on the surface of the Earth
moves with a velocity consisting of the rotation around its own axis and its revolution
around the Sun). The two clocks can be either two light clocks (different resonators or a
Michelson-type interferometer with different arm lengths) or a light clock and an atomic
clock. The best comparison yields c/c 10
16
(Mller et al. 2007).
5. The speed of light depends not on the direction of propagation. This has been conrmed
by modern MichelsonMorley experiments using optical resonators to a relative accuracy
of c/c 10
16
(Mller et al. 2007).
6. A bit more involved is the combination of a nite velocity of signal propagation with
quantum systems and quantum measurements involving entanglement (spooky action
at a distance). Though quantum systems may be entangled over long distances and a
measurement of one part of the system has some inuence on the properties of the other
part of the quantum system it is not possible to communicate with velocities larger than
the velocity of light.
This altogether means that the velocity of light is a universal structure and, thus, can be
interpreted as part of a spacetime geometry.
What Determines the Nature of Gravity? A Phenomenological Approach 509
5.3.2 The Relativity Principle
The relativity principle states that the outcome of all experiments when performed iden-
tically within a laboratory without reference to the external word, is independent of the
orientation and the velocity of the laboratory. For the photon sector this can be tested with
MichelsonMorley and KennedyThorndike type experiments already discussed above. Re-
garding the matter sector the corresponding tests are HughesDrever type experiments. In
general, these are nuclear or electronic spectroscopy experiments. Such effects can be mod-
eled by an anomalous inertial mass tensor (Haugan 1979) of the corresponding particle. For
nuclei one then gets estimates of the order m/m 10
30
(Chupp et al. 1989). Also an
anomalous coupling of the spin to some given cosmological vector or tensor elds destroys
the Lorentz invariance. All anomalous spin couplings are absent to the order of 10
31
GeV,
see Walsworth (2006) for a review. Also higher-order derivatives in the Dirac and Maxwell
equations in general lead to anisotropy effects (Lorek and Lmmerzahl 2008).
A further aspect of anisotropy is that there might be some anisotropies in the Coulomb
or Newtonian potential (Kostelecky and Mewes 2002; Kostelecky 2004). Anisotropies in
the Coulomb potential may affect the length of, e.g., optical cavities which may inuence
the frequency of light in the cavity. However, it has been shown that the inuence of the
anisotropies of the Coulomb potential are smaller than the corresponding anisotropies in
the velocity of light (Mller et al. 2003). Anisotropies in the Newtonian potential of the
Earth has recently been looked for by means of atomic interferometry; these measurements
constrain the anisotropies to the 10
8
level (Mller et al. 2008).
Future spectroscopy of anti-hydrogen may yield further information about the validity of
the PCT symmetry.
5.4 The Consequence
The consequence of the validity of the EEP is that gravity is described by a Riemannian
metric g

, a symmetric second rank tensor dened on a differentiable manifold being the

collection of all possible physical events. The purpose of this metric is twofold: First, it
governs the rate of clocks, that is,
s =
_
ds, ds =
_
g

dx

dx

(11)
is the time shown by clocks where the integration is along the worldline of these clocks.
Second, the metric gives the equation of motion for massive point particles as well as for
light rays,
0 =
d
2
x

ds
2
+
_

_
dx

ds
dx

ds
(12)
where {

} =
1
2
g

) is the Christoffel symbol. Here x =x(s) is the

worldline of the particle parametrized by its proper time. It can be shown that the metric
also describes the propagation of, e.g, the spin vector, D
v
S =0, where S is a particle spin.
6 Motivating Einsteins Field Equations
There is no derivation of Einsteins eld equations from a few key observations. However,
a PPN formalism (Will 1993), makes it possible to parametrize in terms of ten or more
510 C. Lmmerzahl
parameters deviations of the metric from a metric following from Einsteins eld equations
R

1
2
Rg

=T

(13)
where R

and R are the Ricci tensor and scalar, respectively, T is the energy-momentum
tensor of the matter creating the gravitational eld, and the relativistic coupling constant.
In the case of the validity of Einsteins eld equations these parameters take specic values.
As a consequence the precise measurement of the effects described in the next section will
also give a justication of the validity of Einsteins eld equations.
While all this is going in the weakeld and low-velocity regime, one extrapolates the
eld equation (13) to the strong eld and large velocity regime. This extrapolation then can
be examined by observations of binary systems and effects near black holes where higher
order terms are needed for their correct description (Blanchet 2006).
One largely discussed generic deviation from GR is a modication of the Newtonian
1/r potential. Such deviations described by V(r) =
M
r
(1 +e
r/
) are parametrized by the
strength and range . Various experiments yield estimates for for a given range . The
high precision of LLR and ephemerides give very tight restrictions on for interplanetary
ranges. Higher-dimensional models predict deviations from the 1/r potential at short dis-
tances which motivated big experimental efforts in that direction, see e.g. the contribution
by R. Newman.
7 Proving Consequences of General Relativity
Gravity can be explored only through its action on test particles (or test elds). Accordingly
the gravitational interaction has been studied through the motion of stars, planets, satellites
and of light. There are only very few experiments which demonstrate the effects of gravity
on quantum elds.
There are two classes of tests: Weak gravity effects, mostly observed within the Solar
system, and strong gravity effects present in binary systems and near black holes.
7.1 Solar System Effects
For the calculation of the effects to be described one needs a solution of Einsteins eld
equations or an approximate solution in the frame of the PPN formalism.
7.1.1 The Gravitational Redshift
In a stationary gravitational eld the gravitational redshift between two positions with radial
coordinates r
1
and r
2
is given by

1
=
_
g
t t
(r
1
)
g
t t
(r
2
)
1
GM
c
2
_
1
r
1

1
r
2
_
, (14)
where r
1
and r
2
are the radial positions of the two observers. The right hand side of the
equation comes out if we assume the validity of Einstein theory of gravity. This effect has
best been observed in a space experiment where the time of a hydrogen maser in a rocket
has been compared with the time of an identical hydrogen maser on ground yielding a con-
formation of GR at the level of 1 part in 10
4
(Vessot et al. 1980).
What Determines the Nature of Gravity? A Phenomenological Approach 511
7.1.2 Light Deection
The deection of light was the rst prediction of Einsteins GR; it has been conrmed by ob-
servation four years after the theory has been completed. In the frame of the PPN formalism
we obtain
=
1
2
(1 + )
M
b
, (15)
where M is the mass of the Sun and b the impact parameter. Todays observations use Very
Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), and this has led to | 1| 10
4
(Shapiro et al.
2004).
7.1.3 Perihelion/Periastron Shift
Within the PPN formalism we obtain the perihelion shift
=
1
3
(2 +2 )
6M
a
2
(1 e
2
)
, (16)
where a is the semimajor axis and e the eccentricity of the orbit. Today this post-Newtonian
perihelion shift has been determined as 42

98 per century with an error of the order 10

4
(Pitjeva 2005). Recently a huge periastron shift of a candidate binary black hole in the quasar
OJ287 has been observed where one black hole is small compared to the other (Valtonen
et al. 2008). The observed perihelion shift is approximately 39

per revolution, which takes

12 years.
7.1.4 Gravitational Time Delay
In the vicinity of masses, electromagnetic signals move slower than in empty space, when
compared in a coordinate system attached to spatial innity. This is the gravitational time
delay. There are two ways to conrm this effect: (i) direct observation, that is, by comparing
the time of ight of light signals in two situations for xed sender and receiver, and (ii) by
observing the change in the frequency induced by this gravitational time delay.
Direct measurement The gravitational time delay for signals which pass through the vicin-
ity of a body of mass M is given by
t =2(1 + )
GM
c
3
ln
4x
Sat
x
Earth
b
2
, (17)
where x
Sat
and x
Earth
are the distances of the satellite and the Earth, respectively, from the
gravitating mass. If the gravitating body is the Sun and if we take b to be the radius of
the Sun then the effect would be of the order 10
4
s which is clearly measurable. This has
been measured using Mars ranging data of the Viking Mars mission giving | 1| 10
4
(Reasenberg et al. 1979).
Measurement of frequency change Though the time delay is comparatively small, the in-
duced modication of the received frequency can indeed be measured with higher precision.
The reason is that clocks are very precise and, thus, can resolve frequencies also very pre-
cisely.
512 C. Lmmerzahl
The corresponding change in the frequency is
y(t ) =

0

0
=2(1 + )
GM

c
3
1
b(t )
db(t )
dt
, (18)
where
0
is the emitted frequency. It is the time dependence of the impact parameter which
is responsible for the effect. This effect has been measured by the Cassini mission. One im-
portant issue in the actual measurement was that three different wavelengths for the signals
have been used. This made it possible to eliminate dispersion effects near the Sun and to
verify with this time delay GR with an accuracy of | 1| 2.5 10
5
(Bertotti et al. 2003).
7.1.5 LenseThirring Effect
For the Einstein eld equation as well as within the PPN formalism a rotating gravitating
body gives metric components J
i
dt dx
i
, where J is the angular momentum of the rotating
body. On the level of the equations of motion this results in a Lorentz type gravitational
force acting on bodies called gravitomagnetism, see also the contribution of G. Schfer. The
inuence of this eld on the trajectory of satellites results in a motion of the nodes, which
has been measured by observing the LAGEOS satellites via laser ranging. Together with
new data of the Earths gravitational eld obtained from the CHAMP and GRACE satellites
the conrmation recently reached the 10% level (Ciufolini 2004, see also the contribution of
I. Ciufolini for the LAGEOS results and the contribution of L. Stella for the LenseThirring
effect in astrophysics). In the meantime the LARES mission has been approved. This is
another satellite of the same tye as LAGEOS which orbit will have a different inclination
than LAGEOS. This makes is possible to eliminate multipole moments of the Earth from
the joint LAGEOS and LARES data. The launch is scheduled for early 2011.
This gravitomagnetic eld also inuences the proper time and, thus, the rate of clocks.
It can be shown that the difference of the proper time of two counterpropagating clocks is
s
+
s

= 4J/M. It should be remarked that this quantity does not depend on G and r.
This effect for clocks in satellites orbiting the Earth can be as large as 10
7
s per revolution
(Mashhoon et al. 2001).
7.1.6 Schiff Effect
The gravitational eld of a rotating gravitating body also inuences the rotation of gyro-
scopes. This effect is right now under consideration by the data analysis group of the GP-B
mission own in 2004. Data analysis is expected to be completed early 2010. Though the
mission met all requirements and, thus, was a big technological success it turned out after
the mission that contrary to all expectations and requirements the gyroscopes lost more en-
ergy than calculated. This requires the determination of further constants characterizing this
spinning down effect which effects the overall accuracy of the measurement of the Schiff ef-
fect which was expected to be of the order of 0.5%. Nevertheless, recent reports of the GP-B
data analysis group indicate that nally the error may go down to 1% (see the contribution
of F. Everitt and the GP-B team). For updates of the data analysis one may contact GP-Bs
website.
2
It should be noted that though both effects within GR are related to the gravitomagnetic
eld of a rotating gravitational source, the LenseThirring effect and the Schiff effect are
2
See http://einstein.stanford.edu/.
What Determines the Nature of Gravity? A Phenomenological Approach 513
conceptually different and measure different quantities and, thus, should be regarded as in-
dependent tests of GR. In a generalized theory of gravity spinning objects may couple to
different gravitational elds (like torsion) than the trajectory of orbiting satellites. Further-
more, the LenseThirring effect is a global effect related to the whole orbit while the Schiff
effect observes the Fermi-propagation, a characterization of a torque-free dynamics, of the
spin of the gyroscope.
7.1.7 The Strong Equivalence Principle
The gravitational eld of a body contains energy which adds to the rest mass of the grav-
itating body. The strong equivalence principle now states that EEP is valid also for self
gravitating systems, that is, that UFF is valid for the gravitational energy, too. This has been
conrmed by LLR with an accuracy of 10
3
(Will 1993), where the validity of UFF had to
be assumed. The latter has been tested separately for articial bodies of a composition simi-
lar to that of the Earth and the Moon yielding a conrmation with an accuracy of 1.4 10
13
(Baeler et al. 1999).
7.2 Strong Gravity Effects
While most of the observations and tests of gravity are being performed in weak elds: Solar
system tests, galaxies, galaxy clusters, recently it became possible to observe phenomena in
strong gravitational elds: in binary systems and in the vicinity of black holes.
The observation of stars in the vicinity of black holes (Schoedel et al. 2007) may in one
or two decades give new improved measurements of the perihelion shift or of the Lense
Thirring effect. Binary systems present an even better laboratory for observing strong eld
effects. See, e.g., the binary black hole candidate observed by (Valtonen et al. 2008).
The inspiral of binary systems which has been observed with very high precision can be
completely explained by the loss of energy through the radiation of gravitational waves as
calculated within GR (Blanchet 2006). The various data from such systems can be used to
constrain hypothetical deviations from GR. As an example, it can be used for a test of the
strong equivalence principle (Damour and Schfer 1991) and of preferred frame effects and
conservation laws Bell and Damour (1996) in the strong eld regime.
Recently, double pulsars have been detected and studied. These binary systems offer the
new possibility to analyze spin effects and, thus, open up a new domain of exploration of
gravity in the strong eld regime (Kramer et al. 2006a, 2006b). Accordingly, the dynamics
of spinning binary objects has been intensively analyzed recently (Faye et al. 2006; Blanchet
et al. 2006; Steinhoff et al. 2008).
Aconsequence of strong gravity is the emission of gravitational waves. At present ground
experiments are reaching their projected sensitivity and collect data. The space mission
LISA is sensitive to a lower frequency range more adapted to the long inspiral period of
binary systems and is a cornerstone mission of ESA/NASA. LISA is presently prepared
through the technologytesting LISAPathnder mission (see the contribution of S. Vitale).
8 Open ProblemsUnexplained Observations
There are several observations which have not yet found a convincing explanation. In most
cases there is no doubt concerning the data. The main problem is the interpretation of the
observations and measurements.
514 C. Lmmerzahl
8.1 Dark Matter
Dark matter is needed to describe the motion of galaxy clusters, as has been rst spec-
ulated by F. Zwicky (1933), and for stars in galaxies, and has been also conrmed with
gravitational lensing, see e.g. Sumner (2002). Also structure formation needs this dark
matter. However, until now there is no single observational hint at particles which could
make up this dark matter. As a consequence, there are attempts to describe the same ef-
fects by a modication of the gravitational eld equations, e.g., of Yukawa form (Sanders
1984), or nonlocal gravity (Hehl and Mashhoon 2008), or by a modication of the dy-
namics of particles, like the MOND ansatz (Milgrom 2002; Sanders and McGough 2002),
recently formulated in a relativistic frame (Bekenstein 2004). Due to the lack of direct
detection of Dark Matter particles, all those attempts are on the same footing. There
are suggestions that at least a considerable part of the observations which usually are
explained by dark matter can be related to a stronger gravitational eld which come
out while taking the full Einstein equations into account (Cooperstock and Tieu 2005;
Balasin and Grumiller 2006).
8.2 Dark Energy
Observations of type Ia supernovae, (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999), WMAP
measurements of the cosmic microwave background (Spergel et al. 2007), the galaxy power
spectrum and the Lymanalpha forest data lines (van de Bruck and Priester 1998; Overduin
and Priester 2001; Tegmark et al. 2004), indicate an accelerating expansion of the universe
and that 75% of the total energy density consist of a dark energy component with negative
pressure (Peebles and Ratra 2003).
Buchert and Ehlers (1997) have shown rst in a Newtonian framework that within a
spatial averaging of matter and the gravitational eld, rotation and shear of matter can
inuence the properties of the averaged gravitational eld which are described in effec-
tive Friedman equations. This also holds in the relativistic case (Buchert 2008). Therefore
it is an open question whether dark energy is just a result of a correct averaging proce-
dure. An inuence of the averaging has been found in existing data (Li and Schwarz 2007;
Li et al. 2008). These topics are illuminated in more detail in the contributions by Zakharov,
Lasenby, Caldwell, and Goobar.
8.3 Pioneer Anomaly
The Pioneer anomaly, an unexplained anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11
spacecraft of a
Pioneer
=(8.74 1.33) 10
10
m/s
2
toward the Sun, is discussed in Anderson
et al. (2002) and the contribution of S. Turyshev. This acceleration seemed to turn on after
the last yby at Jupiter and Saturn and stayed constant within a 3% range. Until now no con-
vincing explanation has been found. An anisotropy of the thermal radiation might explain
the acceleration. However, while the power provided by the plutonium decay decreases ex-
ponentially, the acceleration stays constant. Nevertheless, further work on a good thermal
modeling of the spacecraft is going on at ZARM (Rievers et al. 2008). Moreover, an analysis
of the early tracking data is on the way. Improvements of ephemerides also helps to rule out
various suggested explanations and theories (Standish 2008).
What Determines the Nature of Gravity? A Phenomenological Approach 515
8.4 Flyby Anomaly
It has been observed at various occasions that satellites having been subjected to an Earth
swing-by possess a signicant unexplained velocity increase by a few mm/s. This unex-
pected and still unexplained velocity increase is called the yby anomaly. For a summary of
recent investigations of this phenomenon, see Lmmerzahl et al. (2007b). Anderson et al.
(2008) have proposed the heuristic formula
v =v
R
c
2
(cos
in
cos
out
) (19)
which describes all ybys. Here R and are the radius and the angular velocity, respectively,
of the Earth, and
in
and
out
are the inclinations of the incoming and outgoing trajectory.
However, the recent observation of a Rosetta yby could not verify this empirical formula.
3
Until now no explanation has been found but, currently, it is expected that it is a mismod-
eling of either (i) the thermal inuence of the Earth and the Suns radiation on the satellite,
(ii) of reference systems (this is supported by the fact that all the ybys can be modeled
by (19), which contains geometrical terms only), (iii) of the yby since this takes place at an
accelerated body, or (vi) of the satellites body being described by a point mass. There was
an ISSI workshop on this topic in March 2009 (cf. footnote 3).
8.5 Increase of Astronomical Unit
From the analysis of radiometric measurements of distances between the Earth and the ma-
jor planets including observations from Martian orbiters and landers from 1961 to 2003
a secular increase of the Astronomical Unit of approximately 10 m per century has been
reported (Krasinsky and Brumberg 2004) (see also the article Standish 2005 and the discus-
sion therein). This increase cannot be explained by a time-dependent gravitational constant
G because the

G/G that would be needed is larger than the restrictions obtained from LLR.
Such an increase might be mimicked, e.g., by a long-term increase of the density of the Sun
plasma.
8.6 Quadrupole and Octupole Anomaly
Recently an anomalous behavior of the low-l contributions to the cosmic microwave back-
ground has been reported. It has been shown that (i) there exists an alignment between the
quadrupole and octupole with >99.87% C.L. (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2005), and (ii) that
the quadrupole and octupole are aligned to Solar system ecliptic to >99% C.L. (Schwarz
et al. 2004). No correlation with the galactic plane has been found.
The reason for this is totally unclear. One may speculate that an unknown gravitational
eld within the Solar system slightly redirects the incoming cosmic microwave radiation
(in the similar way as a motion with a certain velocity with respect to the rest frame of the
cosmological background redirects the cosmic background radiation and leads to modica-
tions of the dipole and quadrupole parts). Such a redirection should be more pronounced for
low-l components of the radiation. It should be possible to calculate the gravitational eld
needed for such a redirection and then to compare that with the observational data of the
Solar system and the other observed anomalies.
3
Team meeting Investigation of the yby anomaly, ISSI, Bern, March 26, 2009; http://www.issibern.ch/
teams/investyby/.
516 C. Lmmerzahl
9 The Search for Signals of Quantum Gravity
There are many experiments proving that matter has to be quantized and, in fact, all ex-
periments in the quantum domain are in full agreement with quantum theory with all its
somehow strange postulates and consequences. Consistency of the theory also requires that
the elds to which quantized matter eld couple has to be quantized, too. Therefore, also
the gravitational interaction has to be quantized. In particular, there is no meaning of the
Einstein equation if the right hand side consists of quantized matter while the left hand side
is purely classical. Also the semiclassical Einstein equation with an expectation value on the
right hand side has been shown to lead to unwanted effects like faster than light propagation.
However, though gravity is an interaction between particles it also deforms the underlying
geometry. This double-role of gravity seems to prevent all quantization schemes from being
successful in the gravitational domain.
The incompatibility of quantum mechanics and GR also shows up in the role of time
which plays a different role in quantum mechanics and in GR. Furthermore, it is expected
that a quantum theory of gravity would solve the problem of the singularities appearing
within GR. As a last issue, it is the wish that such a new theory also would lead to a true
unication of all interactions and, thus, to a better understanding of the physical world.
Any theory is characterized by their own set of constants. It is believed that the Planck
energy E
Pl
10
28
eV sets the scale of quantum gravity effects. As a consequence, all ex-
pected effects scale with this energy or the corresponding Planck length, Planck time, etc.
In string theory other scales inuence the modications (as is explained in the contributions
by T. Damour and by B. Schutz). The implications of deviations from the standard model of
cosmology is the subject of the article by S. Sarkar.
9.1 Theoretical Approaches
The low energy limit of string theory, a quasiclassical limit of loop quantum gravity as well
as results from noncommutative geometry suggest that many of the standard laws of physics
will suffer modications. At a basic level these modications show up in the equations of
the standard model and in Einsteins eld equations. These modications then result in
violation of Lorentz invariance
different limiting velocities of different particles
modied dispersion relation leading to birefringence in vacuum
modied dispersion relation leading to frequency-dependent velocity of light in vac-
uum
orientation and velocity dependence of effects
time and position-dependence of constants (varying , G, etc.)
modied Newton potential at short and large distances.
In recent years there have been increased activities to search for these possible effects. How-
ever, until now nothing has been found.
9.2 Experimental Approaches
The experimental search for signals of a new theory requires to measure effects which have
never been measured before. A strategy to nd new things is (i) to explore new parameter
regions in extreme situations, (ii) to use more precise devices, (iii) to use high-precision
methods for new tests, or (iv) to test or measure exotic things.
What Determines the Nature of Gravity? A Phenomenological Approach 517
9.2.1 Extreme Situations
Rather often some kind of new physics has been discovered when exploring new situa-
tions. We discuss various situations of this kind.
Extremely high energy One possibility to explore new physics is to probe the physical
processes at very high energies. One example is the LHC where in future energies of the
order of 10
13
eV should be achievable. It is the hope to nd signals of the Higgs particle and
of supersymmetry. However, this energy range is still far away from the quantum gravity
scale. The best what one can do is to observe high energy cosmic rays which have energies
of up to 10
21
eV. In fact, it has been speculated that the observations of high energy cosmic
rays which according to standard theories are forbidden owing to the GreisenZatsepin
Kuzmincutoff (Greisen 1966; Zatsepin and Kuzmin 1966) could indicate a modied dis-
persion relation.
Extremely low energy The other extreme, very low temperatures, might also be a tool to
investigate possible signals of quantum gravity. One may speculate that the inuence of
possible spacetime uctuations on the dynamics of quantum systems is more pronounced
for very low temperatures. One may even speculate that such spacetime uctuations may
give rise to a temperature threshold above the absolute zero.
Very low temperatures may be achievable in BoseEinstein condensates (BEC) during
long time of free evolution. Recently, at the Bremen drop tower, within the DLR-funded
QUANTUS project a freely falling BEC has been created and its free expansion of longer
than 1 s has been observed. These BECs then may be used for novel investigations, including
a search for deviations from standard predictions. The contributions of W. Schleich and M.
Kasevich explore the importance and use of ultracold atoms.
Large distances The unexplained phenomena, dark matter, dark energy, and the Pioneer
anomaly are related to large distances. This could indicate that the laws of gravity have to
be modied at large distances. Recently, some suggestions have been made:
It has been discussed whether a Yukawa modication of the Newtonian potential may
account for galactic rotations curves (Sanders 1984).
In the context of higher dimensional braneworld theories deviations from Newtons poten-
tial also occurs (Dvali et al. 2000). At large distances the potential behaves like 1/r
2
, as
one would expect from the Poisson equation in 5 dimensions. A comparison with cosmo-
logical and astrophysical observations has been reviewed by (Lue 2005).
From considering a running coupling constant it has been suggested that the spatial parts
of the spacetime metric posses a part which grows linearly with distance (Jaekel and
Reynaud 2005). This approach is in agreement with present solar system tests and also
describes the Pioneer anomaly (Jaekel and Reynaud 2007).
Weak accelerations An acceleration a, being of physical dimension ms
2
can be related
to a length scale l
0
=c
2
/a. Now, the largest length scale in our universe is the Hubble length
L
H
=c/H, where H is the Hubble constant. The corresponding acceleration is cH whose
order of magnitude remarkably coincides with the Pioneer acceleration and the MOND ac-
celeration scale. As a consequence, it seems mandatory to perform experiments to explore
the physics for such small accelerations, as discussed on page 504.
518 C. Lmmerzahl
Strong accelerations Analogously, since the smallest length scale is the Planck length l
Pl
,
the corresponding acceleration is a = 2 10
51
ms
2
which, however, is far out of experi-
mental reach. For smaller acceleration which might be reached by electrons in the elds of
strong lasers one might be able to detect Unruh radiation or to probe the physics near black
holes (Schfer and Sauerbrey 1998; Schtzhold et al. 2006, respectively).
Strong gravitational elds See discussion in Sect. 7.2.
9.2.2 Better Accuracy and Sensitivity
It is clear that for a search of tiny effects a better accuracy always is a good strategy. In fact, it
is amazing how the accuracy for testing Lorentz invariance, for example, has increased over
the last years. It took more than 20 years to improve the results of the experiment by (Brillet
and Hall 1979) and within a few years the accuracy improved by two orders of magnitude
better and is still improving further.
Similar developments can be observed in other areas of quantum optics. There are im-
provements in the performance of atomic interferometry which are expected to give an im-
provement of measuring the ne structure constant by one or two orders of magnitude.
New optical clocks will show an improvement in accuracy by three orders of magnitude.
A further improvement of experiments make use of atoms from ultracold BECs, which can
be created in free fall. Aparticular effort in this direction is made by the Center of Excellence
QUEST where new quantumoptical devices are being developed for novel spacetime re-
search.
4
9.2.3 New Tests Misusing High Precision Devices
It might also be of interest to identify devices which have, at least in principle, the sensitivity
to nd quantum gravity effects. One example for that are gravitational wave interferometers,
(Amelino-Camelia and Lmmerzahl 2004). Todays already running gravitational wave in-
terferometers have a strain sensitivity of 10
21
. With the advanced LIGO the sensitivity
will become 10
24
. Thus, for a continuous gravitational wave with a frequency in the max-
imum sensitivity range between 10 and 1000 Hz a continuous observation over one year
would reach a sensitivity of a bit less than 10
28
. This is the sensitivity needed for observing
Planck scale effects (10
28
eV) by optical laboratory devices (which have an energy scale of
1 eV). This sensitivity is just the sensitivity needed to detect Planck-scale modications
in the dispersion relation for photons (Amelino-Camelia and Lmmerzahl 2004).
Another example for that is to misuse stable devices in order to search for a fundamental
noise. Such fundamental noise scenarios with a power spectral density for the strain L/L,
the relative length uncertainty, of the form
S() =
L
c
_
L
Pl
L
_

_

c/L
_

, (20)
have rst been discussed by Amelino-Camelia (2000) in relation to gravitational wave in-
terferometers like GEO600. Here L
Pl
is the Planck length, L a characteristic length of the
device, the frequency of the radiation involved (laser frequency in the gravitational wave
interferometer or in an optical cavity), and and are arbitrary exponents related to the
4
See http://www.questhannover.de.
What Determines the Nature of Gravity? A Phenomenological Approach 519
noise scenario (Amelino-Camelia 2000; Ng 2003). Perhaps more suited for the search for
such fundamental noise are ultrastable cavities. A rst experimental search using such de-
vices has been carried out by Schiller et al. (2004). Noise scenarios of this kind may also
inuence the dynamics of massive particles leading to an apparent violation of the UFF
measurable by atomic interferometry (Gkl and Lmmerzahl 2008).
Aparticular noise with the exponents =
1
2
and =0 is considered as holographic noise
related to the information stored on the surface of black holes. This case has been discussed
in Hogan (2008a, 2008b) with respect to its detectability in GEO600. The same scenario
may give a violation of the UFF of up to an order of 10
10
(Gkl and Lmmerzahl 2008).
10 The Need for Improved Tests
One may think that improved tests of the foundations and the predictions of SR and GR are
just the wish of some esoteric very specialized physicists. However, there are many aspects
and reasons for trying to improve experiments:
Physical reason. Fundamental theories always have to be tested as much and as far as pos-
sible.
Practical reason. Metrology is the denition, preparation and dissemination of physical
units like the second, the meter, the kilogram, etc. with the highest possible precision.
The denition of units in most cases depends on fundamental symmetries. The denition
of the meter, for example, depends on the constancy of the speed of light. The denition
of the international atomic time (TAI) depends on the special relativistic time dilation as
well as on the gravitational redshift. Therefore each high precision test also contributes to
metrology. This is also the reason why so many fundamental tests are carried through at
the national bureaus of standard like BIPM, NIST or PTB. It is also well known that the
Global Positioning Systems relies on SR and GR.
Theoretical reason. Since Quantum Gravity should show effectively some measurable de-
viations from standard physics, each high precision test of SR and GR can in principle, be
interpreted as a search for Quantum Gravity.
Acknowledgements I thank H. Dittus and V. Perlick for discussions. Financial support from the German
aerospace Center DLR and the German Research Foundation DFG is acknowledged.
References
A. Abramovici, Z. Vager, Phys. Rev. D 34, 3240 (1986)
J. Alspector, G. Kalbeisch, N. Baggett, E. Fowler, B. Barish, A. Bodek, D. Buchholz, F. Sciulli, E. Siskind,
L. Stutte, H. Fisk, G. Krafczyk, D. Nease, O. Fackler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 837 (1976)
G. Amelino-Camelia, Phys. Rev. D 62, 0240151 (2000)
G. Amelino-Camelia, C. Lmmerzahl, Class. Quantum Grav. 21, 899 (2004)
G. Amelino-Camelia, C. Lmmerzahl, A. Macias, H. Mller, In Gravitation and Cosmology, ed. by A. Ma-
cias, C. Lmmerzahl, D. Nunez. AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 758 (Melville, New York, 2005),
p. 30
J. Anderson, P. Laing, E. Lau, A. Liu, M. Nieto, S. Turyshev, Phys. Rev. D 65, 082004 (2002)
J. Anderson, J. Campbell, J. Ekelund, J. Ellis, J. Jordan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 091102 (2008)
N. Ashby, T. Heavner, T. Parker, A. Radnaev, Y. Dudin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070802 (2007)
J. Audretsch, J. Phys. A 14, 411 (1981)
S. Baeler, B. Heckel, E. Adelberger, J. Gundlach, U. Schmidt, H. Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3585 (1999)
H. Balasin, D. Grumiller, Signicant reduction of galactic dark matter by general relativity, 2006.
arXiv:astro-ph/0602519
520 C. Lmmerzahl
D. Bartlett, D. vanBuren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 21 (1986)
J. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 083509 (2004)
J. Bell, T. Damour, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 3121 (1996)
B. Bertotti, L. Iess, P. Tortora, Nature 425, 374 (2003)
L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Relativ. 9(4) (2006). http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-4
L. Blanchet, A. Buonanno, G. Faye, Higher-order spin effects in the dynamics of compact binaries II. Radia-
tion eld, 2006. arXiv:gr-qc/0605140
H. Bondi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 423 (1957)
K. Brecher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1051 (1977)
A. Brillet, J. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549 (1979)
B. Brown, G. Masek, T. Maung, E. Miller, H. Ruderman, W. Vernon, Phys. Rev. 30, 763 (1973)
T. Buchert, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 40, 467 (2008)
T. Buchert, J. Ehlers, Astron. Astrophys. 320, 1 (1997)
T. Chupp, R. Hoara, R. Loveman, E. Oteiza, J. Richardson, M. Wagshul, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1541 (1989)
I. Ciufolini, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 36, 2257 (2004)
F. Cooperstock, S. Tieu, General relativity resolves galactic rotation without exotic dark matter, 2005.
arXiv:astro-ph/0507619
T. Damour, G. Schfer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2549 (1991)
T. Damour, F. Piazza, G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 081601 (2002a)
T. Damour, F. Piazza, G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. D 66, 046007 (2002b)
A. de Oliveira-Costa, M. Tegmark, M. Devlin, L. Page, A. Miller, C. Nettereld, Y. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 71,
043004 (2005)
T. Dent, Varying constants in astrophysics and cosmology and ... in Proceedings of SUSY06 (2006, to
appear). arXiv:hep-ph/0610376
B. DeWitt, R. Brehme, Ann. Phys. (NY) 9, 220 (1960)
H. Dittus, C. Lmmerzahl, H. Selig, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 36, 571 (2004)
D. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B 485, 208 (2000)
J. Ehlers, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 38, 1059 (2006)
G. Faye, L. Blanchet, A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104033 (2006)
T.M. Fortier, N. Ashby, J. Bergquist, M. Delaney, S. Diddams, T. Heavner, L. Hollberg, W. Itano, S. Jefferts,
K. Kim, F. Levi, L. Lorini, W. Oskay, T. Parker, J. Shirley, J. Stalnaker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070801
(2007)
E. Gkl, C. Lmmerzahl, Class. Quantum Grav. 25, 105012 (2008)
Z. Guiragossian, G. Rothbart, M. Yearian, R. Gearhart, J. Murray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 335 (1975)
J. Gundlach, S. Schlamminger, C. Spitzer, K.Y. Choi, B. Woodahl, J. Coy, E. Fischbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98,
150801 (2007)
K. Greisen, End of the cosmic ray spectrum? Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748 (1966)
M. Haugan, Ann. Phys. 118, 156 (1979)
F. Hehl, Phys. Lett. A 36, 225 (1971)
F. Hehl, B. Mashhoon, (2008). arXiv:0812.1059v3[gr-qc]
C. Hogan, Phys. Rev. D 78, 087501 (2008a)
C. Hogan, Phys. Rev. D 77, 104031 (2008b)
C.H. Hsieh, P.Y. Jen, K.L. Ko, K.Y. Li, W.T. Ni, S.S. Pan, Y.H. Shih, R.J. Tyan, Mod. Phys. Lett. 4, 1597
(1989)
A. Ignatiev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 101101 (2007)
M.T. Jaekel, S. Reynaud, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 1047 (2005)
M.T. Jaekel, S. Reynaud, In Lasers, Clocks and Drag-Free, ed. by H. Dittus, C. Lmmerzahl, S. Turyshev
(Springer, Berlin, 2007), p. 193
G. Kalbeisch, N. Baggett, E. Fowler, J. Alspector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1361 (1979)
V. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. 69, 105009 (2004)
A. Kostelecky, M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 66, 056005 (2002)
M. Kramer, I. Stairs, R. Manchester, M. MacLaughlin, A. Lyre, R. Ferdman, M. Burgag, D. Lorimer, A.
Possenti, N. DAmico, J. Sarkission, B. Joshi, P. Freire, F. Camilo, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 15, 34 (2006a)
M. Kramer, I. Stairs, R. Manchester, M. MacLaughlin, A. Lyre, R. Ferdman, M. Burgag, D. Lorimer, A. Pos-
senti, N. DAmico, J. Sarkission, G. Hobbs, J. Reynolds, P. Freire, F. Camilo, Science 314, 97 (2006b)
G. Krasinsky, V. Brumberg, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 90, 267 (2004)
L. Kreuzer, Phys. Rev. 169, 1007 (1968)
C. Lmmerzahl, V. Perlick, Confronting Finsler gravity with experiment, 2009. Preprint Univ. Bremen
C. Lmmerzahl, P. Rademaker, Gravity, equivalence principle and clocks, 2009. arXiv:0904.4779 [gr-gc].
Preprint, University of Bremen
What Determines the Nature of Gravity? A Phenomenological Approach 521
C. Lmmerzahl, C. Ciufolini, H. Dittus, L. Iorio, H. Mller, A. Peters, E. Samain, S. Scheithauer, S. Schiller,
Gen. Relativ. Grav. 36, 2373 (2004)
C. Lmmerzahl, A. Macias, H. Mller, Phys. Rev. A 75, 052104 (2007a)
C. Lmmerzahl, O. Preuss, H. Dittus, in Lasers, Clocks, and Drag-Free Exploration of Relativistic Gravity in
Space, ed. by H. Dittus, C. Lmmerzahl, S. Turyshev (Springer, Berlin, 2007b), p. 75
C. Lmmerzahl, D. Lorek, H. Dittus, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 41 (2009)
N. Li, D. Schwarz (2007). arXiv:gr-gc/0702043v3 [gr-gc]
N. Li, M. Seikel, D.J. Schwarz, Is dark energy an effect of averaging? 2008. arXiv.org:0801.3420
N. Lockerbie, J. Mester, R. Torii, S. Vitale, P. Worden, In Gyros, Clocks, and Interferometers: Testing Rela-
tivistic Gravity in Space, ed. by C. Lmmerzahl, C. Everitt, F. Hehl (Springer, Berlin, 2001), p. 213
M. Longo, Phys. Rev. D 36, 3276 (1987)
D. Lorek, C. Lmmerzahl, In Proceedings of the 11th Marcel Grossmann Meeting, ed. by R. Jantzen, H.
Kleinert, R. Rufni (World Scientic, Singapore, 2008), p. 2618
A. Lue, Phys. Rep. 423, 1 (2005)
L. Maleki, SPACETIMEa midex proposal, 2001. JPL
B. Mashhoon, F. Gronwald, H. Lichtenegger, In Gyroscopes, Clock, Interferometers, ...: Testing Relativistic
Gravity in Space, ed. by C. Lmmerzahl, C. Everitt, F. Hehl. LNP, vol. 562 (Springer, Berlin, 2001), p.
83
M. Milgrom, New Astron. Rev. 46, 741 (2002)
J. Moody, F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 30, 130 (1984)
H. Mller, C. Braxmaier, S. Herrmann, A. Peters, C. Lmmerzahl, Phys. Rev. D 67, 056006 (2003)
H. Mller, P. Stanwix, M. Tobar, E. Ivanov, P. Wolf, S. Herrmann, A. Senger, E. Kovalchik, A. Peters, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 99, 050401 (2007)
H. Mller, S.W. Chiow, S. Herrmann, S. Chu, K.Y. Chung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 031101 (2008)
Y. Ng, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 18, 1073 (2003)
J. Overduin, W. Priester, Naturwiss 88, 229 (2001)
P. Peebles, B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003)
S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber et al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999)
E. Pitjeva, Astron. Lett. 31, 340 (2005)
R. Reasenberg, I. Shapiro, P. MacNeil, R. Goldstein, J. Breidenthal, J. Brenkle, D. Cain, T. Kaufman, T.
Komarek, A. Zygielbaum, Astrophys. J. Lett. 234, 219 (1979)
A. Riess, A. Filippenko, P. Challis, et al., Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)
B. Rievers, C. Lmmerzahl, M. List, S. Bremer (2008). Preprint, Univercity of Bremen
R. Sanders, Astron. Astrophys. 136, 21 (1984)
R. Sanders, S. McGough, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 40, 263 (2002)
B. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4964 (1999)
G. Schfer, R. Sauerbrey, Probing black-hole physics in the laboratory using high intensity femtosecond
lasers, 1998. arXiv:astro-ph/9805106
S. Schiller, C. Lmmerzahl, H. Mller, C. Braxmaier, S. Herrmann, A. Peters, Phys. Rev. D 69, 027504
(2004)
R. Schoedel, A. Eckart, T. Alexander, D. Merritt, R. Genzel, A. Sternberg, L. Meyer, F. Kul, J. Moultaka, T.
Ott, C. Straubmeier, Astron. Astroph. 469, 125 (2007)
R. Schtzhold, G. Schaller, D. Habs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 121302 (2006)
D. Schwarz, G. Starkman, D. Huterer, C. Copi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 221301 (2004)
S. Shapiro, J. Davis, D. Lebach, J. Gregory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 121101 (2004)
D.N. Spergel, R. Bean, O. Dore, M.R. Nolta, C.L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, E. Komatsu,
L. Page, H.V. Peiris, L. Verde, M. Halpern, R.S. Hill, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S.S. Meyer, N. Odegard,
G.S. Tucker, J.L. Weiland, E. Wollack, E.L. Wright, Astroph. J. 170, 377 (2007)
E. Standish, in Transits of Venus: New Views of the Solar System and Galaxy, Proceedings IAU Colloquium
No. 196, ed. by D. Kurtz (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005), p. 163
E. Standish, in Gravitation and Cosmology, ed. by A. Macias, C. Lmmerzahl, A. Camacho. AIP Conference
Proceedings, vol. 977 (Melville, New York, 2008), p. 254
J. Steinhoff, G. Schfer, S. Hergt, Phys. Rev. D 77, 104018 (2008)
L. Stodolsky, Phys. Lett. B 201, 353 (1988)
T. Sumner, Living Rev. Relativ. 5, 2002420112005 (2002)
M. Tegmark, et al., Phys. Rev. D 69, 103501 (2004)
P. Touboul, Comptes Rendus de lAcad. Sci. Srie IV: Phys. Astrophys. 2, 1271 (2001)
M.J. Valtonen, H.J. Lehto, K. Nilsson, J. Heidt, L. Takalo, A. Sillanp, C. Villforth, M. Kidger, G. Poyner,
T. Pursimo, S. Zola, J.H. Wu, X. Zhou, K. Sadakane, M. Drozdz, D. Koziel, D. Marchev, W. Ogloza, C.
Porowski, M. Siwak, G. Stachowski, M. Winiarski, V.P. Hentunen, M. Nissinen, A. Liakos, S. Dogru,
Nature 452, 851 (2008)
522 C. Lmmerzahl
C. van de Bruck, W. Priester, in Dark Matter in Astrophysics and Particle Physics 1998: Proceedings of
the Second International Conference on Dark Matter in Astrophysics and Particle, ed. by H. Klapdor-
Kleingrothaus (Inst. of Physics, London, 1998)
R. Vessot, M. Levine, E. Mattison, E. Blomberg, T. Hoffmann, G. Nystrom, B. Farrel, R. Decher, P. Eby, C.
Baughter, J. Watts, D. Teuber, F. Wills, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 2081 (1980)
R. Walsworth, in Special Relativity, ed. by J. Ehlers, C. Lmmerzahl (Springer, Berlin, 2006), p. 493
C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 561, 10 (2003)
C. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (revised edition) (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1993)
P. Wolf, C.J. Borde, A. Clairon, L. Duchayne, A. Landragin, P. Lemonde, G. Santarelli, W. Ertmer, E. Rasel,
F.S. Cataliotti, M. Inguscio, G.M. Tino, P. Gill, H. Klein, S. Reynaud, C. Salomon, E. Peik, O. Bertolami,
P. Gil, J. Paramos, C. Jentsch, U. Johann, A. Rathke, P. Bouyer, L. Cacciapuoti, D. Izzo, P. de Natale,
B. Christophe, P. Touboul, S.G. Turyshev, J.D. Anderson, M.E. Tobar, F. Schmidt-Kaler, J. Vigue, A.
Madej, L. Marmet, M.C. Angonin, P. Delva, P. Tourrenc, G. Metris, H. Muller, R. Walsworth, Z.H. Lu,
L. Wang, K. Bongs, A. Toncelli, M. Tonelli, H. Dittus, C. Lmmerzahl, G. Galzerano, P. Laporta, J.
Laskar, A. Fienga, F. Roques, K. Sengstock, Exp. Astron. 23 (2008)
G.T. Zatsepin, V.A. Kuzmin, Upper limit of the spectrum of cosmic rays. JETP Lett. 4, 78 (1966)
F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110 (1933)