Equivalence principle

Last updated • 13 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

A falling object behaves exactly the same on a planet or in an equivalent accelerating frame of reference. Elevator gravity.svg
A falling object behaves exactly the same on a planet or in an equivalent accelerating frame of reference.

The equivalence principle is the hypothesis that the observed equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is a consequence of nature. The weak form, known for centuries, relates to masses of any composition in free fall taking the same trajectories and landing at identical times. The extended form by Albert Einstein requires special relativity to also hold in free fall and requires the weak equivalence to be valid everywhere. This form was a critical input for the development of the theory of general relativity. The strong form requires Einstein's form to work for stellar objects. Highly precise experimental tests of the principle limit possible deviations from equivalence to be very small.

Contents

Concept

In classical mechanics, Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, is:

inertial mass × acceleration = gravitational mass × intensity of the gravitational field

Careful experiments have shown that the inertial mass on the left side and gravitational mass on the right side are numerically equal and independent of the material composing the masses. The equivalence principle is the hypothesis that this numerical equality of inertial and gravitational mass is a consequence of their fundamental identity. [1] :32

The equivalence principle can be considered an extension of the principle of relativity, the principle that the laws of physics are invariant under uniform motion. An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g and the laws of physics are unable to distinguish these cases. [1] :33

History

By experimenting with the acceleration of different materials, Galileo determined that gravitation is independent of the amount of mass being accelerated. [2]

Newton, just 50 years after Galileo, investigated whether gravitational and inertial mass might be different concepts. He compared the periods of pendulums composed of different materials and found them to be identical. From this, he inferred that gravitational and inertial mass are the same thing. The form of this assertion, where the equivalence principle is taken to follow from empirical consistency, later became known as "weak equivalence". [2]

A version of the equivalence principle consistent with special relativity was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907, when he observed that identical physical laws are observed in two systems, one subject to a constant gravitational field causing acceleration and the other subject to constant acceleration, like a rocket far from any gravitational field. [3] :152 Since the physical laws are the same, Einstein assumed the gravitational field and the acceleration were "physically equivalent". Einstein stated this hypothesis by saying he would:

...assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.

Einstein, 1907 [4]

In 1911 Einstein demonstrated the power of the equivalence principle by using it to predict that clocks run at different rates in a gravitational potential, and light rays bend in a gravitational field. [3] :153 He connected the equivalence principle to his earlier principle of special relativity:

This assumption of exact physical equivalence makes it impossible for us to speak of the absolute acceleration of the system of reference, just as the usual theory of relativity forbids us to talk of the absolute velocity of a system; and it makes the equal falling of all bodies in a gravitational field seem a matter of course.

Einstein, 1911 [5]

Soon after completing work on his theory of gravity (known as general relativity) [6] :111 and then also in later years, Einstein recalled the importance of the equivalence principle to his work:

The breakthrough came suddenly one day. I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly a thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity.

Einstein, 1922 [7]

Einstein's development of general relativity necessitated some means of empirically discriminating the theory from other theories of gravity compatible with special relativity. Accordingly, Robert Dicke developed a test program incorporating two new principles—the § Einstein equivalence principle, and the § Strong equivalence principle—each of which assumes the weak equivalence principle as a starting point.

Definitions

During the Apollo 15 mission in 1971, astronaut David Scott showed that Galileo was right: acceleration is the same for all bodies subject to gravity on the Moon, even for a hammer and a feather.

Three main forms of the equivalence principle are in current use: weak (Galilean), Einsteinian, and strong. [8] :6 Some proposals also suggest finer divisions or minor alterations. [9] [10]

Weak equivalence principle

The weak equivalence principle, also known as the universality of free fall or the Galilean equivalence principle can be stated in many ways. The strong equivalence principle, a generalization of the weak equivalence principle, includes astronomic bodies with gravitational self-binding energy. [11] Instead, the weak equivalence principle assumes falling bodies are self-bound by non-gravitational forces only (e.g. a stone). Either way:

Uniformity of the gravitational field eliminates measurable tidal forces originating from a radial divergent gravitational field (e.g., the Earth) upon finite sized physical bodies.

Einstein equivalence principle

What is now called the "Einstein equivalence principle" states that the weak equivalence principle holds, and that:

the outcome of any local, non-gravitational test experiment is independent of the experimental apparatus' velocity relative to the gravitational field and is independent of where and when in the gravitational field the experiment is performed. [13]

Here local means that experimental setup must be small compared to variations in the gravitational field, called tidal forces. The test experiment must be small enough so that its gravitational potential does not alter the result.

The two additional constraints added to the weak principle to get the Einstein form − (1) the independence of the outcome on relative velocity (local Lorentz invariance) and (2) independence of "where" known as (local positional invariance) − have far reaching consequences. With these constraints alone Einstein was able to predict the gravitational redshift. [13] Theories of gravity that obey the Einstein equivalence principle must be "metric theories", meaning that trajectories of freely falling bodies are geodesics of symmetric metric. [14] :9

Around 1960 Leonard I. Schiff conjectured that any complete and consistent theory of gravity that embodies the weak equivalence principle implies the Einstein equivalence principle; the conjecture can't be proven but has several plausibility arguments in its favor. [14] :20 Nonetheless, the two principles are tested with very different kinds of experiments.

The Einstein equivalence principle has been criticized as imprecise, because there is no universally accepted way to distinguish gravitational from non-gravitational experiments (see for instance Hadley [15] and Durand [16] ).

Strong equivalence principle

The strong equivalence principle applies the same constraints as the Einstein equivalence principle, but allows the freely falling bodies to be massive gravitating objects as well as test particles. [8] Thus this is a version of the equivalence principle that applies to objects that exert a gravitational force on themselves, such as stars, planets, black holes or Cavendish experiments. It requires that the gravitational constant be the same everywhere in the universe [14] :49 and is incompatible with a fifth force. It is much more restrictive than the Einstein equivalence principle.

Like the Einstein equivalence principle, the strong equivalence principle requires gravity is geometrical by nature, but in addition it forbids any extra fields, so the metric alone determines all of the effects of gravity. If an observer measures a patch of space to be flat, then the strong equivalence principle suggests that it is absolutely equivalent to any other patch of flat space elsewhere in the universe. Einstein's theory of general relativity (including the cosmological constant) is thought to be the only theory of gravity that satisfies the strong equivalence principle. A number of alternative theories, such as Brans–Dicke theory and the Einstein-aether theory add additional fields. [8]

Active, passive, and inertial masses

Some of the tests of the equivalence principle use names for the different ways mass appears in physical formulae. In nonrelativistic physics three kinds of mass can be distinguished: [14]

  1. Inertial mass intrinsic to an object, the sum of all of its mass–energy.
  2. Passive mass, the response to gravity, the object's weight.
  3. Active mass, the mass that determines the objects gravitational effect.

By definition of active and passive gravitational mass, the force on due to the gravitational field of is: Likewise the force on a second object of arbitrary mass2 due to the gravitational field of mass0 is:

By definition of inertial mass:if and are the same distance from then, by the weak equivalence principle, they fall at the same rate (i.e. their accelerations are the same).

Hence:

Therefore:

In other words, passive gravitational mass must be proportional to inertial mass for objects, independent of their material composition if the weak equivalence principle is obeyed.

The dimensionless Eötvös-parameter or Eötvös ratio is the difference of the ratios of gravitational and inertial masses divided by their average for the two sets of test masses "A" and "B". Values of this parameter are used to compare tests of the equivalence principle. [14] :10

A similar parameter can be used to compare passive and active mass. By Newton's third law of motion: must be equal and opposite to

It follows that:

In words, passive gravitational mass must be proportional to active gravitational mass for all objects. The difference, is used to quantify differences between passive and active mass. [17]

Experimental tests

Tests of the weak equivalence principle

Tests of the weak equivalence principle are those that verify the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass. An obvious test is dropping different objects and verifying that they land at the same time. Historically this was the first approach—though probably not by Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment [18] :19–21 but instead earlier by Simon Stevin, [19] who dropped lead balls of different masses off the Delft churchtower and listened for the sound of them hitting a wooden plank.

Isaac Newton measured the period of pendulums made with different materials as an alternative test giving the first precision measurements. [2] Loránd Eötvös's approach in 1908 used a very sensitive torsion balance to give precision approaching 1 in a billion. Modern experiments have improved this by another factor of a million.

A popular exposition of this measurement was done on the Moon by David Scott in 1971. He dropped a falcon feather and a hammer at the same time, showing on video [20] that they landed at the same time.

Chronology of weak equivalence principles tests [21]
YearInvestigatorSensitivityMethod
500? John Philoponus [22] "small"Drop tower
1585 Simon Stevin [23] [19] 5×10−2Drop tower
1590? Galileo Galilei [24] [21] :912×10−3Pendulum, drop tower
1686 Isaac Newton [25] [21] :9110−3Pendulum
1832 Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel [26] [21] :912×10−5Pendulum
1908 (1922) Loránd Eötvös [27] [21] :922×10−9Torsion balance
1910Southerns [28] [21] :915×10−6Pendulum
1918Zeeman [29] [21] :913×10−8Torsion balance
1923Potter [30] [21] :913×10−6Pendulum
1935Renner [31] [21] :922×10−9Torsion balance
1964Roll, Krotkov, Dicke [32] 3×10−11Torsion balance
1972 Braginsky, Panov [33] [21] :9210−12Torsion balance
1976Shapiro, et al. [34] [21] :9210−12Lunar laser ranging
1979Keiser, Faller [35] [21] :934×10−11Fluid support
1987Niebauer, et al. [36] [21] :9510−10Drop tower
1989Stubbs, et al. [37] [21] :9310−11Torsion balance
1990Adelberger, Eric G.; et al. [38] [21] :9510−12Torsion balance
1999Baessler, et al. [39] [40] 5×10−14Torsion balance
2008Schlamminger, et al. [41] 10−13Torsion balance
2017 MICROSCOPE [42] [43] 10−15Earth orbit

Experiments are still being performed at the University of Washington which have placed limits on the differential acceleration of objects towards the Earth, the Sun and towards dark matter in the Galactic Center. [44] Future satellite experiments [45] Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle [46] and Galileo Galilei – will test the weak equivalence principle in space, to much higher accuracy. [47]

With the first successful production of antimatter, in particular anti-hydrogen, a new approach to test the weak equivalence principle has been proposed. Experiments to compare the gravitational behavior of matter and antimatter are currently being developed. [48]

Proposals that may lead to a quantum theory of gravity such as string theory and loop quantum gravity predict violations of the weak equivalence principle because they contain many light scalar fields with long Compton wavelengths, which should generate fifth forces and variation of the fundamental constants. Heuristic arguments suggest that the magnitude of these equivalence principle violations could be in the 10−13 to 10−18 range. [49]

Currently envisioned tests of the weak equivalence principle are approaching a degree of sensitivity such that non-discovery of a violation would be just as profound a result as discovery of a violation. Non-discovery of equivalence principle violation in this range would suggest that gravity is so fundamentally different from other forces as to require a major reevaluation of current attempts to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. A positive detection, on the other hand, would provide a major guidepost towards unification. [49]

Tests of the Einstein equivalence principle

In addition to the tests of the weak equivalence principle, the Einstein equivalence principle requires testing the local Lorentz invariance and local positional invariance conditions.

Testing local Lorentz invariance amounts to testing special relativity, a theory with vast number of existing tests. [14] :12 Nevertheless, attempts to look for quantum gravity require even more precise tests. The modern tests include looking for directional variations in the speed of light (called "clock anisotropy tests") and new forms of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The anisotropy measures less than one part in 10−20. [14] :14

Testing local positional invariance divides in to tests in space and in time. [14] :17 Space-based tests use measurements of the gravitational redshift, the classic is the Pound–Rebka experiment in the 1960s. The most precise measurement was done in 1976 by flying a hydrogen maser and comparing it to one on the ground. The Global positioning system requires compensation for this redshift to give accurate position values.

Time-based tests search for variation of dimensionless constants and mass ratios. [50] For example, Webb et al. [51] reported detection of variation (at the 10−5 level) of the fine-structure constant from measurements of distant quasars. Other researchers dispute these findings. [52]

The present best limits on the variation of the fundamental constants have mainly been set by studying the naturally occurring Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor, where nuclear reactions similar to ones we observe today have been shown to have occurred underground approximately two billion years ago. These reactions are extremely sensitive to the values of the fundamental constants.

Tests of changes in fundamental constants [14] :19
ConstantYearMethodLimit on fractional change per year
weak interaction constant1976Oklo10−11
fine-structure constant 1976Oklo10−16
electronproton mass ratio2002quasars10−15

Tests of the strong equivalence principle

The strong equivalence principle can be tested by 1) finding orbital variations in massive bodies (Sun-Earth-Moon), 2) variations in the gravitational constant (G) depending on nearby sources of gravity or on motion, or 3) searching for a variation of Newton's gravitational constant over the life of the universe [14] :47

Orbital variations due to gravitational self-energy should cause a "polarization" of solar system orbits called the Nordtvedt effect. This effect has been sensitively tested by the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. [53] [54] Up to the limit of one part in 1013 there is no Nordtvedt effect.

A tight bound on the effect of nearby gravitational fields on the strong equivalence principle comes from modeling the orbits of binary stars and comparing the results to pulsar timing data. [14] :49 In 2014, astronomers discovered a stellar triple system containing a millisecond pulsar PSR J0337+1715 and two white dwarfs orbiting it. The system provided them a chance to test the strong equivalence principle in a strong gravitational field with high accuracy. [55] [56] [57] [58]

Most alternative theories of gravity predict a change in the gravity constant over time. Studies of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, analysis of pulsars, and the lunar laser ranging data have shown that G cannot have varied by more than 10% since the creation of the universe. The best data comes from studies of the ephemeris of Mars, based on three successive NASA missions, Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. [14] :50

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gravitational redshift</span> Shift of wavelength of a photon to longer wavelength

In physics and general relativity, gravitational redshift is the phenomenon that electromagnetic waves or photons travelling out of a gravitational well lose energy. This loss of energy corresponds to a decrease in the wave frequency and increase in the wavelength, known more generally as a redshift. The opposite effect, in which photons gain energy when travelling into a gravitational well, is known as a gravitational blueshift. The effect was first described by Einstein in 1907, eight years before his publication of the full theory of relativity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">General relativity</span> Theory of gravitation as curved spacetime

General relativity, also known as the general theory of relativity, and as Einstein's theory of gravity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and is the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or four-dimensional spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever present matter and radiation. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of second-order partial differential equations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mass</span> Amount of matter present in an object

Mass is an intrinsic property of a body. It was traditionally believed to be related to the quantity of matter in a body, until the discovery of the atom and particle physics. It was found that different atoms and different elementary particles, theoretically with the same amount of matter, have nonetheless different masses. Mass in modern physics has multiple definitions which are conceptually distinct, but physically equivalent. Mass can be experimentally defined as a measure of the body's inertia, meaning the resistance to acceleration when a net force is applied. The object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies.

In theoretical physics, negative mass is a hypothetical type of exotic matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of normal matter, e.g. −1 kg. Such matter would violate one or more energy conditions and exhibit strange properties such as the oppositely oriented acceleration for an applied force orientation. It is used in certain speculative hypothetical technologies such as time travel to the past and future, construction of traversable artificial wormholes, which may also allow for time travel, Krasnikov tubes, the Alcubierre drive, and potentially other types of faster-than-light warp drives. Currently, the closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect.

The Kerr metric or Kerr geometry describes the geometry of empty spacetime around a rotating uncharged axially symmetric black hole with a quasispherical event horizon. The Kerr metric is an exact solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity; these equations are highly non-linear, which makes exact solutions very difficult to find.

In theoretical physics, the Einstein–Cartan theory, also known as the Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble theory, is a classical theory of gravitation, one of several alternatives to general relativity. The theory was first proposed by Élie Cartan in 1922.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hierarchy problem</span> Unsolved problem in physics

In theoretical physics, the hierarchy problem is the problem concerning the large discrepancy between aspects of the weak force and gravity. There is no scientific consensus on why, for example, the weak force is 1024 times stronger than gravity.

In physics, the Brans–Dicke theory of gravitation is a competitor to Einstein's general theory of relativity. It is an example of a scalar–tensor theory, a gravitational theory in which the gravitational interaction is mediated by a scalar field as well as the tensor field of general relativity. The gravitational constant is not presumed to be constant but instead is replaced by a scalar field which can vary from place to place and with time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Curved spacetime</span> Mathematical theory of the geometry of space and time

In physics, curved spacetime is the mathematical model in which, with Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity naturally arises, as opposed to being described as a fundamental force in Newton's static Euclidean reference frame. Objects move along geodesics—curved paths determined by the local geometry of spacetime—rather than being influenced directly by distant bodies. This framework led to two fundamental principles: coordinate independence, which asserts that the laws of physics are the same regardless of the coordinate system used, and the equivalence principle, which states that the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from those of acceleration in sufficiently small regions of space. These principles laid the groundwork for a deeper understanding of gravity through the geometry of spacetime, as formalized in Einstein's field equations.

The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic Solar System tests of general relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present. The time delay is caused by time dilation, which increases the time it takes light to travel a given distance from the perspective of an outside observer. In a 1964 article entitled Fourth Test of General Relativity, Irwin Shapiro wrote:

Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path, these time delays should thereby be increased by almost 2×10−4 sec when the radar pulses pass near the sun. Such a change, equivalent to 60 km in distance, could now be measured over the required path length to within about 5 to 10% with presently obtainable equipment.

Tests of general relativity serve to establish observational evidence for the theory of general relativity. The first three tests, proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915, concerned the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the bending of light in gravitational fields, and the gravitational redshift. The precession of Mercury was already known; experiments showing light bending in accordance with the predictions of general relativity were performed in 1919, with increasingly precise measurements made in subsequent tests; and scientists claimed to have measured the gravitational redshift in 1925, although measurements sensitive enough to actually confirm the theory were not made until 1954. A more accurate program starting in 1959 tested general relativity in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.

Scalar theories of gravitation are field theories of gravitation in which the gravitational field is described using a scalar field, which is required to satisfy some field equation.

In theoretical physics, a scalar–tensor theory is a field theory that includes both a scalar field and a tensor field to represent a certain interaction. For example, the Brans–Dicke theory of gravitation uses both a scalar field and a tensor field to mediate the gravitational interaction.

Scalar–tensor–vector gravity (STVG) is a modified theory of gravity developed by John Moffat, a researcher at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario. The theory is also often referred to by the acronym MOG.

Alternatives to general relativity are physical theories that attempt to describe the phenomenon of gravitation in competition with Einstein's theory of general relativity. There have been many different attempts at constructing an ideal theory of gravity.

Newton–Cartan theory is a geometrical re-formulation, as well as a generalization, of Newtonian gravity first introduced by Élie Cartan and Kurt Friedrichs and later developed by G. Dautcourt, W. G. Dixon, P. Havas, H. Künzle, Andrzej Trautman, and others. In this re-formulation, the structural similarities between Newton's theory and Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity are readily seen, and it has been used by Cartan and Friedrichs to give a rigorous formulation of the way in which Newtonian gravity can be seen as a specific limit of general relativity, and by Jürgen Ehlers to extend this correspondence to specific solutions of general relativity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gravitoelectromagnetism</span> Analogies between Maxwells and Einsteins field equations

Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM, refers to a set of formal analogies between the equations for electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation; specifically: between Maxwell's field equations and an approximation, valid under certain conditions, to the Einstein field equations for general relativity. Gravitomagnetism is a widely used term referring specifically to the kinetic effects of gravity, in analogy to the magnetic effects of moving electric charge. The most common version of GEM is valid only far from isolated sources, and for slowly moving test particles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Entropic gravity</span> Theory in modern physics that describes gravity as an entropic force

Entropic gravity, also known as emergent gravity, is a theory in modern physics that describes gravity as an entropic force—a force with macro-scale homogeneity but which is subject to quantum-level disorder—and not a fundamental interaction. The theory, based on string theory, black hole physics, and quantum information theory, describes gravity as an emergent phenomenon that springs from the quantum entanglement of small bits of spacetime information. As such, entropic gravity is said to abide by the second law of thermodynamics under which the entropy of a physical system tends to increase over time.

Frame-dragging is an effect on spacetime, predicted by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, that is due to non-static stationary distributions of mass–energy. A stationary field is one that is in a steady state, but the masses causing that field may be non-static ⁠— rotating, for instance. More generally, the subject that deals with the effects caused by mass–energy currents is known as gravitoelectromagnetism, which is analogous to the magnetism of classical electromagnetism.

Bimetric gravity or bigravity refers to two different classes of theories. The first class of theories relies on modified mathematical theories of gravity in which two metric tensors are used instead of one. The second metric may be introduced at high energies, with the implication that the speed of light could be energy-dependent, enabling models with a variable speed of light.

References

  1. 1 2 Einstein, Albert (2003). The Meaning of Relativity . Routledge. p.  59. ISBN   9781134449798.
  2. 1 2 3 Everitt, C.W.F.; Damour, T.; Nordtvedt, K.; Reinhard, R. (October 2003). "Historical perspective on testing the Equivalence Principle". Advances in Space Research. 32 (7): 1297–1300. Bibcode:2003AdSpR..32.1297E. doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(03)90335-8.
  3. 1 2 Whittaker, Sir Edmund (1 January 1989). A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Vol. 2. Courier Dover Publications. ISBN   0-486-26126-3.
  4. Einstein, Albert. "On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it." Jahrb Radioaktivitat Elektronik 4 (1907): 411–462.
  5. Einstein, Albert. "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light." Annalen der Physik 35.898–908 (1911): 906.
  6. Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon, et al. The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity. United Kingdom, Dover Publications, 1923.
  7. Einstein, Albert, How I Constructed the Theory of Relativity, translated by Masahiro Morikawa from the text recorded in Japanese by Jun Ishiwara, Association of Asia Pacific Physical Societies (AAPPS) Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 17–19, April 2005. Einstein recalls events of 1907 in a talk in Japan on 14 December 1922.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Clifton, Timothy; Ferreira, Pedro G.; Padilla, Antonio; Skordis, Constantinos (March 2012). "Modified gravity and cosmology". Physics Reports. 513 (1–3): 1–189. arXiv: 1106.2476 . Bibcode:2012PhR...513....1C. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.001.
  9. Di Casola, Eolo; Liberati, Stefano; Sonego, Sebastiano (1 January 2015). "Nonequivalence of equivalence principles". American Journal of Physics. 83 (1): 39–46. arXiv: 1310.7426 . Bibcode:2015AmJPh..83...39D. doi:10.1119/1.4895342. ISSN   0002-9505. S2CID   119110646. We have seen that the various formulations of the equivalence principle form hierarchy (or rather, a nested sequence of statements narrowing down the type of gravitational theory),
  10. Ghins, Michel; Budden, Tim (March 2001). "The Principle of Equivalence". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 32 (1): 33–51. Bibcode:2001SHPMP..32...33G. doi:10.1016/S1355-2198(00)00038-1.
  11. 1 2 Wagner, Todd A.; Schlamminger, Stephan; Gundlach, Jens H.; Adelberger, Eric G. (2012). "Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 29 (18): 184002. arXiv: 1207.2442 . Bibcode:2012CQGra..29r4002W. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/184002. S2CID   59141292.
  12. Wesson, Paul S. (2006). Five-dimensional Physics. World Scientific. p. 82. ISBN   978-981-256-661-4.
  13. 1 2 Haugen, Mark P.; Lämmerzahl, Claus (2001). "Principles of Equivalence: Their Role in Gravitation Physics and Experiments That Test Them.". Gyros, Clocks, Interferometers...: Testing Relativistic Gravity in Space. Lecture Notes in Physics. Vol. 562. pp. 195–212. arXiv: gr-qc/0103067 . Bibcode:2001LNP...562..195H. doi:10.1007/3-540-40988-2_10. ISBN   978-3-540-41236-6. S2CID   15430387.{{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Will, Clifford M. (December 2014). "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment". Living Reviews in Relativity. 17 (1): 4. arXiv: 1403.7377 . Bibcode:2014LRR....17....4W. doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-4 . ISSN   2367-3613. PMC   5255900 . PMID   28179848.
  15. Hadley, Mark J. (1997). "The Logic of Quantum Mechanics Derived from Classical General Relativity". Foundations of Physics Letters. 10 (1): 43–60. arXiv: quant-ph/9706018 . Bibcode:1997FoPhL..10...43H. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.252.6335 . doi:10.1007/BF02764119. S2CID   15007947.
  16. Durand, Stéphane (2002). "An amusing analogy: modelling quantum-type behaviours with wormhole-based time travel". Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics. 4 (4): S351–S357. Bibcode:2002JOptB...4S.351D. doi:10.1088/1464-4266/4/4/319.
  17. Singh, Vishwa Vijay; Müller, Jürgen; Biskupek, Liliane; Hackmann, Eva; Lämmerzahl, Claus (13 July 2023). "Equivalence of Active and Passive Gravitational Mass Tested with Lunar Laser Ranging". Physical Review Letters. 131 (2): 021401. arXiv: 2212.09407 . Bibcode:2023PhRvL.131b1401S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.021401. ISSN   0031-9007. PMID   37505941.
  18. Drake, Stillman (2003). Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography (Facsim. ed.). Mineola (N.Y.): Dover publ. ISBN   9780486495422.
  19. 1 2 Devreese, Jozef T.; Vanden Berghe, Guido (2008). 'Magic Is No Magic': The Wonderful World of Simon Stevin. WIT Press. p. 154. ISBN   9781845643911.
  20. "Weak Equivalence Principle test on the moon". YouTube . 18 May 2007. Archived from the original on 21 December 2021.
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ciufolini, Ignazio; Wheeler, John A.; Gravitation and Inertia, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 117–119
  22. Philoponus, John; "Corollaries on Place and Void", translated by David Furley, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1987
  23. Stevin, Simon; De Beghinselen der Weeghconst ["Principles of the Art of Weighing"], Leyden, 1586; Dijksterhuis, Eduard J.; "The Principal Works of Simon Stevin", Amsterdam, 1955
  24. Galilei, Galileo; "Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche Intorno a Due Nuove Scienze", Leida: Appresso gli Elsevirii, 1638; "Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Concerning Two New Sciences", Leiden: Elsevier Press, 1638
  25. Newton, Isaac; "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" [Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System of the World], translated by Andrew Motte, revised by Florian Cajori, Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1934; Newton, Isaac; "The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", translated by I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, with the assistance of Julia Budenz, Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1999
  26. Bessel, Friedrich W.; "Versuche Uber die Kraft, mit welcher die Erde Körper von verschiedner Beschaffenhelt anzieht", Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Berlin: J. Ch. Poggendorff, 25 401–408 (1832)
  27. R. v. Eötvös 1890 Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Berichte aus Ungarn, 8, 65; Annalen der Physik (Leipzig) 68 11 (1922); Smith, G. L.; Hoyle, C. D.; Gundlach, J. H.; Adelberger, E. G.; Heckel, B. R.; Swanson, H. E. (1999). "Short-range tests of the equivalence principle". Physical Review D. 61 (2): 022001. arXiv: 2405.10982 . Bibcode:1999PhRvD..61b2001S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.022001.
  28. Southerns, Leonard (1910). "A Determination of the Ratio of Mass to Weight for a Radioactive Substance". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 84 (571): 325–344. Bibcode:1910RSPSA..84..325S. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1910.0078 .
  29. Zeeman, Pieter (1918) "Some experiments on gravitation: The ratio of mass to weight for crystals and radioactive substances", Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam 20(4) 542–553
  30. Potter, Harold H. (1923). "Some Experiments on the Proportionality of Mass and Weight". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 104 (728): 588–610. Bibcode:1923RSPSA.104..588P. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1923.0130 .
  31. Renner, János (1935). "Kísérleti vizsgálatok a tömegvonzás és tehetetlenség arányosságáról". Mathematikai és Természettudományi Értesítő. 53: 569.
  32. Roll, Peter G.; Krotkov, Robert; Dicke, Robert H.; The equivalence of inertial and passive gravitational mass, Annals of Physics, Volume 26, Issue 3, 20 February 1964, pp. 442–517
  33. Braginski, Vladimir Borisovich; Panov, Vladimir Ivanovich (1971). "Журнал Экспериментальной и Теоретической Физики". (Zhurnal Éksperimental'noĭ I Teoreticheskoĭ Fiziki, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics). 61: 873.
  34. Shapiro, Irwin I.; Counselman, III; Charles, C.; King, Robert W. (1976). "Verification of the principle of equivalence for massive bodies". Physical Review Letters. 36 (11): 555–558. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..36..555S. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.36.555. Archived from the original on 22 January 2014.
  35. Keiser, George M.; Faller, James E. (1979). "New approach to the Eötvös experiment". Bulletin of the American Physical Society. 24: 579.
  36. Niebauer, Timothy M.; McHugh, Martin P.; Faller, James E. (1987). "Galilean test for the fifth force". Physical Review Letters (Submitted manuscript). 59 (6): 609–612. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..59..609N. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.609. PMID   10035824.
  37. Stubbs, Christopher W.; Adelberger, Eric G.; Heckel, Blayne R.; Rogers, Warren F.; Swanson, H. Erik; Watanabe, R.; Gundlach, Jens H.; Raab, Frederick J. (1989). "Limits on Composition-Dependent Interactions Using a Laboratory Source: Is There a "Fifth Force" Coupled to Isospin?". Physical Review Letters. 62 (6): 609–612. Bibcode:1989PhRvL..62..609S. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.62.609. PMID   10040283.
  38. Adelberger, Eric G.; Stubbs, Christopher W.; Heckel, Blayne R.; Su, Y.; Swanson, H. Erik; Smith, G. L.; Gundlach, Jens H.; Rogers, Warren F. (1990). "Testing the equivalence principle in the field of the Earth: Particle physics at masses below 1 μeV?". Physical Review D. 42 (10): 3267–3292. Bibcode:1990PhRvD..42.3267A. doi:10.1103/physrevd.42.3267. PMID   10012726.
  39. Baeßler, Stefan; et al. (2001). "Remarks by Heinrich Hertz (1857–94) on the equivalence principle". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 18 (13): 2393. Bibcode:2001CQGra..18.2393B. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/18/13/301. S2CID   250758089.
  40. Baeßler, Stefan; Heckel, Blayne R.; Adelberger, Eric G.; Gundlach, Jens H.; Schmidt, Ulrich; Swanson, H. Erik (1999). "Improved Test of the Equivalence Principle for Gravitational Self-Energy". Physical Review Letters. 83 (18): 3585. Bibcode:1999PhRvL..83.3585B. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.3585.
  41. Schlamminger, Stephan; Choi, Ki-Young; Wagner, Todd A.; Gundlach, Jens H.; Adelberger, Eric G. (2008). "Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Rotating Torsion Balance". Physical Review Letters. 100 (4): 041101. arXiv: 0712.0607 . Bibcode:2008PhRvL.100d1101S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.041101. PMID   18352252. S2CID   18653407.
  42. Touboul, Pierre; Métris, Gilles; Rodrigues, Manuel; André, Yves; Baghi, Quentin; Bergé, Joël; Boulanger, Damien; Bremer, Stefanie; Carle, Patrice; Chhun, Ratana; Christophe, Bruno; Cipolla, Valerio; Damour, Thibault; Danto, Pascale; Dittus, Hansjoerg; Fayet, Pierre; Foulon, Bernard; Gageant, Claude; Guidotti, Pierre-Yves; Hagedorn, Daniel; Hardy, Emilie; Huynh, Phuong-Anh; Inchauspe, Henri; Kayser, Patrick; Lala, Stéphanie; Lämmerzahl, Claus; Lebat, Vincent; Leseur, Pierre; Liorzou, Françoise; et al. (2017). "MICROSCOPE Mission: First Results of a Space Test of the Equivalence Principle". Physical Review Letters. 119 (23): 231101. arXiv: 1712.01176 . Bibcode:2017PhRvL.119w1101T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.231101. PMID   29286705. S2CID   6211162.
  43. Touboul, P., Métris, G., Rodrigues, M., Bergé, J., Robert, A., Baghi, Q., André, Y., Bedouet, J., Boulanger, D., Bremer, S. and Carle, P. (2022). "MICROSCOPE Mission: Final Results of the Test of the Equivalence Principle". Physical Review Letters. 129 (12): 121102. arXiv: 2209.15487 . Bibcode:2022PhRvL.129l1102T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.121102. PMID   36179190. S2CID   252468544.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  44. "The Eöt-Wash Group | Laboratory Tests of Gravitational and sub-Gravitational Physics". www.npl.washington.edu.
  45. Dittus, Hansjörg; Lāmmerzahl, Claus (2005). Experimental Tests of the Equivalence Principle and Newton's Law in Space (PDF). Gravitation and Cosmology: 2nd Mexican Meeting on Mathematical and Experimental Physics, AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 758. p. 95. Bibcode:2005AIPC..758...95D. doi:10.1063/1.1900510. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008.
  46. "S T e P".
  47. ""GALILEO GALILEI" GG Small Mission Project".
  48. Kimura, M.; Aghion, S.; Amsler, C.; Ariga, A.; Ariga, T.; Belov, A.; Bonomi, G.; Bräunig, P.; Bremer, J.; Brusa, R. S.; Cabaret, L.; Caccia, M.; Caravita, R.; Castelli, F.; Cerchiari, G.; Chlouba, K.; Cialdi, S.; Comparat, D.; Consolati, G.; Demetrio, A.; Derking, H.; Di Noto, L.; Doser, M.; Dudarev, A.; Ereditato, A.; Ferragut, R.; Fontana, A.; Gerber, S.; Giammarchi, M.; et al. (2015). "Testing the Weak Equivalence Principle with an antimatter beam at CERN". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 631 (1): 012047. Bibcode:2015JPhCS.631a2047K. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/631/1/012047 . hdl: 2434/457743 .
  49. 1 2 Overduin, James; Everitt, Francis; Mester, John; Worden, Paul (2009). "The Science Case for STEP". Advances in Space Research. 43 (10): 1532–1537. arXiv: 0902.2247 . Bibcode:2009AdSpR..43.1532O. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2009.02.012. S2CID   8019480.
  50. Uzan, Jean-Philippe (7 April 2003). "The fundamental constants and their variation: observational and theoretical status". Reviews of Modern Physics. 75 (2): 403–455. arXiv: hep-ph/0205340 . Bibcode:2003RvMP...75..403U. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.403. ISSN   0034-6861. S2CID   118684485.
  51. Webb, John K.; Murphy, Michael T.; Flambaum, Victor V.; Dzuba, Vladimir A.; Barrow, John D.; Churchill, Chris W.; Prochaska, Jason X.; Wolfe, Arthur M. (2001). "Further Evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant". Physical Review Letters. 87 (9): 091301. arXiv: astro-ph/0012539 . Bibcode:2001PhRvL..87i1301W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.091301. PMID   11531558. S2CID   40461557.
  52. Rocha, G; Trotta, R; Martins, C.J.A.P; Melchiorri, A; Avelino, P.P; Viana, P.T.P (November 2003). "New constraints on varying α". New Astronomy Reviews. 47 (8–10): 863–869. arXiv: astro-ph/0309205 . Bibcode:2003NewAR..47..863R. doi:10.1016/j.newar.2003.07.018. S2CID   9280269.
  53. "Fundamental Physics of Space – Technical Details". Archived from the original on 28 November 2016. Retrieved 7 May 2005.
  54. Viswanathan, V; Fienga, A; Minazzoli, O; Bernus, L; Laskar, J; Gastineau, M (May 2018). "The new lunar ephemeris INPOP17a and its application to fundamental physics". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 476 (2): 1877–1888. arXiv: 1710.09167 . Bibcode:2018MNRAS.476.1877V. doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty096 . S2CID   119454879.
  55. Ransom, Scott M.; et al. (2014). "A millisecond pulsar in a stellar triple system". Nature. 505 (7484): 520–524. arXiv: 1401.0535 . Bibcode:2014Natur.505..520R. doi:10.1038/nature12917. PMID   24390352. S2CID   4468698.
  56. Anne M. Archibald; et al. (4 July 2018). "Universality of free fall from the orbital motion of a pulsar in a stellar triple system". Nature. 559 (7712): 73–76. arXiv: 1807.02059 . Bibcode:2018Natur.559...73A. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0265-1. PMID   29973733. S2CID   49578025.
  57. "Even Phenomenally Dense Neutron Stars Fall like a Feather – Einstein Gets It Right Again". Charles Blue, Paul Vosteen. NRAO. 4 July 2018.
  58. Voisin, G.; Cognard, I.; Freire, P. C. C.; Wex, N.; Guillemot, L.; Desvignes, G.; Kramer, M.; Theureau, G. (1 June 2020). "An improved test of the strong equivalence principle with the pulsar in a triple star system". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 638: A24. arXiv: 2005.01388 . Bibcode:2020A&A...638A..24V. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038104. ISSN   0004-6361. S2CID   218486794.

Further reading