General relativity

General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915[2] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton’s law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data. However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.

Einstein’s theory has important astrophysical implications. For example, it implies the existence of black holes—regions of space in which space and time are distorted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can escape—as an end-state for massive stars. There is ample evidence that the intense radiation emitted by certain kinds of astronomical objects is due to black holes; for example, microquasars and active galactic nuclei result from the presence of stellar black holes and supermassive black holes, respectively. The bending of light by gravity can lead to the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, in which multiple images of the same distant astronomical object are visible in the sky. General relativity also predicts the existence of gravitational waves, which have since been observed directly by physics collaboration LIGO. In addition, general relativity is the basis of current cosmological models of a consistently expanding universe.



  • 1History
  • 2From classical mechanics to general relativity
    • 2.1Geometry of Newtonian gravity
    • 2.2Relativistic generalization
    • 2.3Einstein’s equations
    • 2.4Alternatives to general relativity
  • 3Definition and basic applications
    • 3.1Definition and basic properties
    • 3.2Model-building
  • 4Consequences of Einstein’s theory
    • 4.1Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift
    • 4.2Light deflection and gravitational time delay
    • 4.3Gravitational waves
    • 4.4Orbital effects and the relativity of direction
  • 5Astrophysical applications
    • 5.1Gravitational lensing
    • 5.2Gravitational wave astronomy
    • 5.3Black holes and other compact objects
    • 5.4Cosmology
    • 5.5Time travel
  • 6Advanced concepts
    • 6.1Causal structure and global geometry
    • 6.2Horizons
    • 6.3Singularities
    • 6.4Evolution equations
    • 6.5Global and quasi-local quantities
  • 7Relationship with quantum theory
    • 7.1Quantum field theory in curved spacetime
    • 7.2Quantum gravity
  • 8Current status
  • 9See also
  • 10Notes
  • 11References
  • 12Further reading
    • 12.1Popular books
    • 12.2Beginning undergraduate textbooks
    • 12.3Advanced undergraduate textbooks
    • 12.4Graduate-level textbooks
  • 13External links


Soon after publishing the special theory of relativity in 1905, Einstein started thinking about how to incorporate gravity into his new relativistic framework. In 1907, beginning with a simple thought experiment involving an observer in free fall, he embarked on what would be an eight-year search for a relativistic theory of gravity. After numerous detours and false starts, his work culminated in the presentation to the Prussian Academy of Science in November 1915 of what are now known as the Einstein field equations. These equations specify how the geometry of space and time is influenced by whatever matter and radiation are present, and form the core of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.[3]

The Einstein field equations are nonlinear and very difficult to solve. Einstein used approximation methods in working out initial predictions of the theory. But as early as 1916, the astrophysicist Karl Schwarzschild found the first non-trivial exact solution to the Einstein field equations, the Schwarzschild metric. This solution laid the groundwork for the description of the final stages of gravitational collapse, and the objects known today as black holes. In the same year, the first steps towards generalizing Schwarzschild’s solution to electrically charged objects were taken, which eventually resulted in the Reissner–Nordström solution, now associated with electrically charged black holes.[4] In 1917, Einstein applied his theory to the universe as a whole, initiating the field of relativistic cosmology. In line with contemporary thinking, he assumed a static universe, adding a new parameter to his original field equations—the cosmological constant—to match that observational presumption.[5] By 1929, however, the work of Hubble and others had shown that our universe is expanding. This is readily described by the expanding cosmological solutions found by Friedmann in 1922, which do not require a cosmological constant. Lemaître used these solutions to formulate the earliest version of the Big Bang models, in which our universe has evolved from an extremely hot and dense earlier state.[6]Einstein later declared the cosmological constant the biggest blunder of his life.[7]

During that period, general relativity remained something of a curiosity among physical theories. It was clearly superior to Newtonian gravity, being consistent with special relativity and accounting for several effects unexplained by the Newtonian theory. Einstein himself had shown in 1915 how his theory explained the anomalous perihelion advance of the planet Mercury without any arbitrary parameters (“fudge factors”).[8] Similarly, a 1919 expedition led by Eddington confirmed general relativity’s prediction for the deflection of starlight by the Sun during the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919,[9] making Einstein instantly famous.[10] Yet the theory entered the mainstream of theoretical physics and astrophysics only with the developments between approximately 1960 and 1975, now known as the golden age of general relativity.[11] Physicists began to understand the concept of a black hole, and to identify quasars as one of these objects’ astrophysical manifestations.[12] Ever more precise solar system tests confirmed the theory’s predictive power,[13] and relativistic cosmology, too, became amenable to direct observational tests.[14]

From classical mechanics to general relativity

General relativity can be understood by examining its similarities with and departures from classical physics. The first step is the realization that classical mechanics and Newton’s law of gravity admit a geometric description. The combination of this description with the laws of special relativity results in a heuristic derivation of general relativity.[15]

Geometry of Newtonian gravity

According to general relativity, objects in a gravitational field behave similarly to objects within an accelerating enclosure. For example, an observer will see a ball fall the same way in a rocket (left) as it does on Earth (right), provided that the acceleration of the rocket is equal to 9.8 m/s2 (the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth).

At the base of classical mechanics is the notion that a body’s motion can be described as a combination of free (or inertial) motion, and deviations from this free motion. Such deviations are caused by external forces acting on a body in accordance with Newton’s second law of motion, which states that the net force acting on a body is equal to that body’s (inertial) mass multiplied by its acceleration.[16] The preferred inertial motions are related to the geometry of space and time: in the standard reference frames of classical mechanics, objects in free motion move along straight lines at constant speed. In modern parlance, their paths are geodesics, straight world lines in curved spacetime.[17]

Conversely, one might expect that inertial motions, once identified by observing the actual motions of bodies and making allowances for the external forces (such as electromagnetism or friction), can be used to define the geometry of space, as well as a time coordinate. However, there is an ambiguity once gravity comes into play. According to Newton’s law of gravity, and independently verified by experiments such as that of Eötvös and its successors (see Eötvös experiment), there is a universality of free fall (also known as the weak equivalence principle, or the universal equality of inertial and passive-gravitational mass): the trajectory of a test body in free fall depends only on its position and initial speed, but not on any of its material properties.[18] A simplified version of this is embodied in Einstein’s elevator experiment, illustrated in the figure on the right: for an observer in a small enclosed room, it is impossible to decide, by mapping the trajectory of bodies such as a dropped ball, whether the room is at rest in a gravitational field, or in free space aboard a rocket that is accelerating at a rate equal to that of the gravitational field.[19]

Given the universality of free fall, there is no observable distinction between inertial motion and motion under the influence of the gravitational force. This suggests the definition of a new class of inertial motion, namely that of objects in free fall under the influence of gravity. This new class of preferred motions, too, defines a geometry of space and time—in mathematical terms, it is the geodesic motion associated with a specific connection which depends on the gradient of the gravitational potential. Space, in this construction, still has the ordinary Euclidean geometry. However, spacetime as a whole is more complicated. As can be shown using simple thought experiments following the free-fall trajectories of different test particles, the result of transporting spacetime vectors that can denote a particle’s velocity (time-like vectors) will vary with the particle’s trajectory; mathematically speaking, the Newtonian connection is not integrable. From this, one can deduce that spacetime is curved. The resulting Newton–Cartan theory is a geometric formulation of Newtonian gravity using only covariant concepts, i.e. a description which is valid in any desired coordinate system.[20] In this geometric description, tidal effects—the relative acceleration of bodies in free fall—are related to the derivative of the connection, showing how the modified geometry is caused by the presence of mass.[21]

Relativistic generalization

Light cone

As intriguing as geometric Newtonian gravity may be, its basis, classical mechanics, is merely a limiting case of (special) relativistic mechanics.[22]In the language of symmetry: where gravity can be neglected, physics is Lorentz invariant as in special relativity rather than Galilei invariant as in classical mechanics. (The defining symmetry of special relativity is the Poincaré group, which includes translations, rotations and boosts.) The differences between the two become significant when dealing with speeds approaching the speed of light, and with high-energy phenomena.[23]

With Lorentz symmetry, additional structures come into play. They are defined by the set of light cones (see image). The light-cones define a causal structure: for each event A, there is a set of events that can, in principle, either influence or be influenced by A via signals or interactions that do not need to travel faster than light (such as event B in the image), and a set of events for which such an influence is impossible (such as event C in the image). These sets are observer-independent.[24] In conjunction with the world-lines of freely falling particles, the light-cones can be used to reconstruct the space–time’s semi-Riemannian metric, at least up to a positive scalar factor. In mathematical terms, this defines a Conformal structure[25] or conformal geometry.

Special relativity is defined in the absence of gravity, so for practical applications, it is a suitable model whenever gravity can be neglected. Bringing gravity into play, and assuming the universality of free fall, an analogous reasoning as in the previous section applies: there are no global inertial frames. Instead there are approximate inertial frames moving alongside freely falling particles. Translated into the language of spacetime: the straight time-like lines that define a gravity-free inertial frame are deformed to lines that are curved relative to each other, suggesting that the inclusion of gravity necessitates a change in spacetime geometry.[26]

A priori, it is not clear whether the new local frames in free fall coincide with the reference frames in which the laws of special relativity hold—that theory is based on the propagation of light, and thus on electromagnetism, which could have a different set of preferred frames. But using different assumptions about the special-relativistic frames (such as their being earth-fixed, or in free fall), one can derive different predictions for the gravitational redshift, that is, the way in which the frequency of light shifts as the light propagates through a gravitational field (cf. below). The actual measurements show that free-falling frames are the ones in which light propagates as it does in special relativity.[27] The generalization of this statement, namely that the laws of special relativity hold to good approximation in freely falling (and non-rotating) reference frames, is known as the Einstein equivalence principle, a crucial guiding principle for generalizing special-relativistic physics to include gravity.[28]

The same experimental data shows that time as measured by clocks in a gravitational field—proper time, to give the technical term—does not follow the rules of special relativity. In the language of spacetime geometry, it is not measured by the Minkowski metric. As in the Newtonian case, this is suggestive of a more general geometry. At small scales, all reference frames that are in free fall are equivalent, and approximately Minkowskian. Consequently, we are now dealing with a curved generalization of Minkowski space. The metric tensor that defines the geometry—in particular, how lengths and angles are measured—is not the Minkowski metric of special relativity, it is a generalization known as a semi- or pseudo-Riemannian metric. Furthermore, each Riemannian metric is naturally associated with one particular kind of connection, the Levi-Civita connection, and this is, in fact, the connection that satisfies the equivalence principle and makes space locally Minkowskian (that is, in suitable locally inertial coordinates, the metric is Minkowskian, and its first partial derivatives and the connection coefficients vanish).[29]

Einstein’s equations

Having formulated the relativistic, geometric version of the effects of gravity, the question of gravity’s source remains. In Newtonian gravity, the source is mass. In special relativity, mass turns out to be part of a more general quantity called the energy–momentum tensor, which includes both energy and momentum densities as well as stress (that is, pressure and shear).[30] Using the equivalence principle, this tensor is readily generalized to curved space-time. Drawing further upon the analogy with geometric Newtonian gravity, it is natural to assume that the field equation for gravity relates this tensor and the Ricci tensor, which describes a particular class of tidal effects: the change in volume for a small cloud of test particles that are initially at rest, and then fall freely. In special relativity, conservation of energy–momentum corresponds to the statement that the energy–momentum tensor is divergence-free. This formula, too, is readily generalized to curved spacetime by replacing partial derivatives with their curved-manifold counterparts, covariant derivatives studied in differential geometry. With this additional condition—the covariant divergence of the energy–momentum tensor, and hence of whatever is on the other side of the equation, is zero— the simplest set of equations are what are called Einstein’s (field) equations:

Einstein’s field equationsG_{\mu \nu }\equiv R_{\mu \nu }-{\textstyle 1 \over 2}R\,g_{\mu \nu }={8\pi G \over c^{4}}T_{\mu \nu }\,

On the left-hand side is the Einstein tensor, a specific divergence-free combination of the Ricci tensor R_{\mu \nu } and the metric. Where G_{\mu \nu } is symmetric. In particular,

R=g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }\,

is the curvature scalar. The Ricci tensor itself is related to the more general Riemann curvature tensor as

R_{\mu \nu }={R^{\alpha }}_{\mu \alpha \nu }.\,

On the right-hand side, {\displaystyle T_{\mu \nu }}T_{\mu \nu } is the energy–momentum tensor. All tensors are written in abstract index notation.[31] Matching the theory’s prediction to observational results for planetary orbits (or, equivalently, assuring that the weak-gravity, low-speed limit is Newtonian mechanics), the proportionality constant can be fixed as κ = 8πG/c4, with G the gravitational constant and c the speed of light.[32] When there is no matter present, so that the energy–momentum tensor vanishes, the results are the vacuum Einstein equations,

R_{\mu \nu }=0.\,

Alternatives to general relativity

There are alternatives to general relativity built upon the same premises, which include additional rules and/or constraints, leading to different field equations. Examples are Brans–Dicke theory, teleparallelism, f(R) gravity and Einstein–Cartan theory.[33]

Definition and basic applications

The derivation outlined in the previous section contains all the information needed to define general relativity, describe its key properties, and address a question of crucial importance in physics, namely how the theory can be used for model-building.

Definition and basic properties

General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation. At its core are Einstein’s equations, which describe the relation between the geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the energy–momentum contained in that spacetime.[34] Phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion, and spacecraft trajectories), correspond to inertial motion within a curved geometry of spacetime in general relativity; there is no gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight paths. Instead, gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and time, which in turn changes the straightest-possible paths that objects will naturally follow.[35] The curvature is, in turn, caused by the energy–momentum of matter. Paraphrasing the relativist John Archibald Wheeler, spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.[36]

While general relativity replaces the scalar gravitational potential of classical physics by a symmetric rank-two tensor, the latter reduces to the former in certain limiting cases. For weak gravitational fields and slow speed relative to the speed of light, the theory’s predictions converge on those of Newton’s law of universal gravitation.[37]

As it is constructed using tensors, general relativity exhibits general covariance: its laws—and further laws formulated within the general relativistic framework—take on the same form in all coordinate systems.[38] Furthermore, the theory does not contain any invariant geometric background structures, i.e. it is background independent. It thus satisfies a more stringent general principle of relativity, namely that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.[39] Locally, as expressed in the equivalence principle, spacetime is Minkowskian, and the laws of physics exhibit local Lorentz invariance.[40]


The core concept of general-relativistic model-building is that of a solution of Einstein’s equations. Given both Einstein’s equations and suitable equations for the properties of matter, such a solution consists of a specific semi-Riemannian manifold (usually defined by giving the metric in specific coordinates), and specific matter fields defined on that manifold. Matter and geometry must satisfy Einstein’s equations, so in particular, the matter’s energy–momentum tensor must be divergence-free. The matter must, of course, also satisfy whatever additional equations were imposed on its properties. In short, such a solution is a model universe that satisfies the laws of general relativity, and possibly additional laws governing whatever matter might be present.[41]

Einstein’s equations are nonlinear partial differential equations and, as such, difficult to solve exactly.[42] Nevertheless, a number of exact solutions are known, although only a few have direct physical applications.[43] The best-known exact solutions, and also those most interesting from a physics point of view, are the Schwarzschild solution, the Reissner–Nordström solution and the Kerr metric, each corresponding to a certain type of black hole in an otherwise empty universe,[44] and the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker and de Sitter universes, each describing an expanding cosmos.[45] Exact solutions of great theoretical interest include the Gödel universe (which opens up the intriguing possibility of time travel in curved spacetimes), the Taub-NUT solution (a model universe that is homogeneous, but anisotropic), and anti-de Sitter space (which has recently come to prominence in the context of what is called the Maldacena conjecture).[46]

Given the difficulty of finding exact solutions, Einstein’s field equations are also solved frequently by numerical integration on a computer, or by considering small perturbations of exact solutions. In the field of numerical relativity, powerful computers are employed to simulate the geometry of spacetime and to solve Einstein’s equations for interesting situations such as two colliding black holes.[47] In principle, such methods may be applied to any system, given sufficient computer resources, and may address fundamental questions such as naked singularities. Approximate solutions may also be found by perturbation theories such as linearized gravity[48] and its generalization, the post-Newtonian expansion, both of which were developed by Einstein. The latter provides a systematic approach to solving for the geometry of a spacetime that contains a distribution of matter that moves slowly compared with the speed of light. The expansion involves a series of terms; the first terms represent Newtonian gravity, whereas the later terms represent ever smaller corrections to Newton’s theory due to general relativity.[49] An extension of this expansion is the parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism, which allows quantitative comparisons between the predictions of general relativity and alternative theories.[50]

Consequences of Einstein’s theory

General relativity has a number of physical consequences. Some follow directly from the theory’s axioms, whereas others have become clear only in the course of many years of research that followed Einstein’s initial publication.

Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift

Schematic representation of the gravitational redshift of a light wave escaping from the surface of a massive body

Assuming that the equivalence principle holds,[51] gravity influences the passage of time. Light sent down into a gravity well is blueshifted, whereas light sent in the opposite direction (i.e., climbing out of the gravity well) is redshifted; collectively, these two effects are known as the gravitational frequency shift. More generally, processes close to a massive body run more slowly when compared with processes taking place farther away; this effect is known as gravitational time dilation.[52]

Gravitational redshift has been measured in the laboratory[53] and using astronomical observations.[54] Gravitational time dilation in the Earth’s gravitational field has been measured numerous times using atomic clocks,[55] while ongoing validation is provided as a side effect of the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS).[56] Tests in stronger gravitational fields are provided by the observation of binary pulsars.[57] All results are in agreement with general relativity.[58] However, at the current level of accuracy, these observations cannot distinguish between general relativity and other theories in which the equivalence principle is valid.[59]

Light deflection and gravitational time delay

Deflection of light (sent out from the location shown in blue) near a compact body (shown in gray)

General relativity predicts that the path of light is bent in a gravitational field; light passing a massive body is deflected towards that body. This effect has been confirmed by observing the light of stars or distant quasars being deflected as it passes the Sun.[60]

This and related predictions follow from the fact that light follows what is called a light-like or null geodesic—a generalization of the straight lines along which light travels in classical physics. Such geodesics are the generalization of the invariance of lightspeed in special relativity.[61] As one examines suitable model spacetimes (either the exterior Schwarzschild solution or, for more than a single mass, the post-Newtonian expansion),[62] several effects of gravity on light propagation emerge. Although the bending of light can also be derived by extending the universality of free fall to light,[63] the angle of deflection resulting from such calculations is only half the value given by general relativity.[64]

Closely related to light deflection is the gravitational time delay (or Shapiro delay), the phenomenon that light signals take longer to move through a gravitational field than they would in the absence of that field. There have been numerous successful tests of this prediction.[65] In the parameterized post-Newtonian formalism (PPN), measurements of both the deflection of light and the gravitational time delay determine a parameter called γ, which encodes the influence of gravity on the geometry of space.[66]

Gravitational waves

Ring of test particles deformed by a passing (linearized, amplified for better visibility) gravitational wave

Predicted in 1916[67][68] by Albert Einstein, there are gravitational waves: ripples in the metric of spacetime that propagate at the speed of light. These are one of several analogies between weak-field gravity and electromagnetism in that, they are analogous to electromagnetic waves. On February 11, 2016, the Advanced LIGO team announced that they had directly detected gravitational waves from a pair of black holes merging.[69][70][71]

The simplest type of such a wave can be visualized by its action on a ring of freely floating particles. A sine wave propagating through such a ring towards the reader distorts the ring in a characteristic, rhythmic fashion (animated image to the right).[72] Since Einstein’s equations are non-linear, arbitrarily strong gravitational waves do not obey linear superposition, making their description difficult. However, for weak fields, a linear approximation can be made. Such linearized gravitational waves are sufficiently accurate to describe the exceedingly weak waves that are expected to arrive here on Earth from far-off cosmic events, which typically result in relative distances increasing and decreasing by {\displaystyle 10^{-21}}10^{-21} or less. Data analysis methods routinely make use of the fact that these linearized waves can be Fourier decomposed.[73]

Some exact solutions describe gravitational waves without any approximation, e.g., a wave train traveling through empty space[74] or Gowdy universes, varieties of an expanding cosmos filled with gravitational waves.[75] But for gravitational waves produced in astrophysically relevant situations, such as the merger of two black holes, numerical methods are presently the only way to construct appropriate models.[76]

Orbital effects and the relativity of direction

General relativity differs from classical mechanics in a number of predictions concerning orbiting bodies. It predicts an overall rotation (precession) of planetary orbits, as well as orbital decay caused by the emission of gravitational waves and effects related to the relativity of direction.

Precession of apsides

Newtonian (red) vs. Einsteinian orbit (blue) of a lone planet orbiting a star

In general relativity, the apsides of any orbit (the point of the orbiting body’s closest approach to the system’s center of mass) will precess—the orbit is not an ellipse, but akin to an ellipse that rotates on its focus, resulting in a rose curve-like shape (see image). Einstein first derived this result by using an approximate metric representing the Newtonian limit and treating the orbiting body as a test particle. For him, the fact that his theory gave a straightforward explanation of the anomalous perihelion shift of the planet Mercury, discovered earlier by Urbain Le Verrier in 1859, was important evidence that he had at last identified the correct form of the gravitational field equations.[77]

The effect can also be derived by using either the exact Schwarzschild metric (describing spacetime around a spherical mass)[78] or the much more general post-Newtonian formalism.[79] It is due to the influence of gravity on the geometry of space and to the contribution of self-energy to a body’s gravity (encoded in the nonlinearity of Einstein’s equations).[80] Relativistic precession has been observed for all planets that allow for accurate precession measurements (Mercury, Venus, and Earth),[81] as well as in binary pulsar systems, where it is larger by five orders of magnitude.[82]

In general relativity the perihelion shift σ, expressed in radians per revolution, is approximately given by:[83]

{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {24\pi ^{3}L^{2}}{T^{2}c^{2}(1-e^{2})}}\ ,}

where L is the semi-major axis, T is the orbital period, c is the speed of light, and e is the orbital eccentricity.

Orbital decay

Orbital decay for PSR1913+16: time shift in seconds, tracked over three decades.

According to general relativity, a binary system will emit gravitational waves, thereby losing energy. Due to this loss, the distance between the two orbiting bodies decreases, and so does their orbital period. Within the Solar System or for ordinary double stars, the effect is too small to be observable. This is not the case for a close binary pulsar, a system of two orbiting neutron stars, one of which is a pulsar: from the pulsar, observers on Earth receive a regular series of radio pulses that can serve as a highly accurate clock, which allows precise measurements of the orbital period. Because neutron stars are immensely compact, significant amounts of energy are emitted in the form of gravitational radiation.[85]

The first observation of a decrease in orbital period due to the emission of gravitational waves was made by Hulse and Taylor, using the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 they had discovered in 1974. This was the first detection of gravitational waves, albeit indirect, for which they were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics.[86] Since then, several other binary pulsars have been found, in particular the double pulsar PSR J0737-3039, in which both stars are pulsars.[87]

Geodetic precession and frame-dragging

Several relativistic effects are directly related to the relativity of direction.[88] One is geodetic precession: the axis direction of a gyroscope in free fall in curved spacetime will change when compared, for instance, with the direction of light received from distant stars—even though such a gyroscope represents the way of keeping a direction as stable as possible (“parallel transport”).[89] For the Moon–Earth system, this effect has been measured with the help of lunar laser ranging.[90] More recently, it has been measured for test masses aboard the satellite Gravity Probe B to a precision of better than 0.3%.[91][92]

Near a rotating mass, there are gravitomagnetic or frame-dragging effects. A distant observer will determine that objects close to the mass get “dragged around”. This is most extreme for rotating black holes where, for any object entering a zone known as the ergosphere, rotation is inevitable.[93] Such effects can again be tested through their influence on the orientation of gyroscopes in free fall.[94] Somewhat controversial tests have been performed using the LAGEOS satellites, confirming the relativistic prediction.[95] Also the Mars Global Surveyor probe around Mars has been used.[96][97]

Astrophysical applications

Gravitational lensing

Einstein cross: four images of the same astronomical object, produced by a gravitational lens

The deflection of light by gravity is responsible for a new class of astronomical phenomena. If a massive object is situated between the astronomer and a distant target object with appropriate mass and relative distances, the astronomer will see multiple distorted images of the target. Such effects are known as gravitational lensing.[98] Depending on the configuration, scale, and mass distribution, there can be two or more images, a bright ring known as an Einstein ring, or partial rings called arcs.[99] The earliest example was discovered in 1979;[100] since then, more than a hundred gravitational lenses have been observed.[101] Even if the multiple images are too close to each other to be resolved, the effect can still be measured, e.g., as an overall brightening of the target object; a number of such “microlensing events” have been observed.[102]

Gravitational lensing has developed into a tool of observational astronomy. It is used to detect the presence and distribution of dark matter, provide a “natural telescope” for observing distant galaxies, and to obtain an independent estimate of the Hubble constant. Statistical evaluations of lensing data provide valuable insight into the structural evolution of galaxies.[103]

Gravitational wave astronomy

Artist’s impression of the space-borne gravitational wave detector LISA

Observations of binary pulsars provide strong indirect evidence for the existence of gravitational waves (see Orbital decay, above). Detection of these waves is a major goal of current relativity-related research.[104] Several land-based gravitational wave detectors are currently in operation, most notably the interferometric detectors GEO 600, LIGO (two detectors), TAMA 300 and VIRGO.[105] Various pulsar timing arrays are using millisecond pulsars to detect gravitational waves in the 10−9 to 10−6 Hertz frequency range, which originate from binary supermassive blackholes.[106] A European space-based detector, eLISA / NGO, is currently under development,[107] with a precursor mission (LISA Pathfinder) having launched in December 2015.[108]

Observations of gravitational waves promise to complement observations in the electromagnetic spectrum.[109] They are expected to yield information about black holes and other dense objects such as neutron stars and white dwarfs, about certain kinds of supernova implosions, and about processes in the very early universe, including the signature of certain types of hypothetical cosmic string.[110] In February 2016, the Advanced LIGO team announced that they had detected gravitational waves from a black hole merger.[69][70][111]

Black holes and other compact objects

Whenever the ratio of an object’s mass to its radius becomes sufficiently large, general relativity predicts the formation of a black hole, a region of space from which nothing, not even light, can escape. In the currently accepted models of stellar evolution, neutron stars of around 1.4 solar masses, and stellar black holes with a few to a few dozen solar masses, are thought to be the final state for the evolution of massive stars.[112] Usually a galaxy has one supermassive black hole with a few million to a few billion solar masses in its center,[113] and its presence is thought to have played an important role in the formation of the galaxy and larger cosmic structures.[114]

Simulation based on the equations of general relativity: a star collapsing to form a black hole while emitting gravitational waves

Astronomically, the most important property of compact objects is that they provide a supremely efficient mechanism for converting gravitational energy into electromagnetic radiation.[115] Accretion, the falling of dust or gaseous matter onto stellar or supermassive black holes, is thought to be responsible for some spectacularly luminous astronomical objects, notably diverse kinds of active galactic nuclei on galactic scales and stellar-size objects such as microquasars.[116] In particular, accretion can lead to relativistic jets, focused beams of highly energetic particles that are being flung into space at almost light speed.[117] General relativity plays a central role in modelling all these phenomena,[118] and observations provide strong evidence for the existence of black holes with the properties predicted by the theory.[119]

Black holes are also sought-after targets in the search for gravitational waves (cf. Gravitational waves, above). Merging black hole binaries should lead to some of the strongest gravitational wave signals reaching detectors here on Earth, and the phase directly before the merger (“chirp”) could be used as a “standard candle” to deduce the distance to the merger events–and hence serve as a probe of cosmic expansion at large distances.[120] The gravitational waves produced as a stellar black hole plunges into a supermassive one should provide direct information about the supermassive black hole’s geometry.[121]


This blue horseshoe is a distant galaxy that has been magnified and warped into a nearly complete ring by the strong gravitational pull of the massive foreground luminous red galaxy.

Main article: Physical cosmology

The current models of cosmology are based on Einstein’s field equations, which include the cosmological constant Λ since it has important influence on the large-scale dynamics of the cosmos,

R_{\mu \nu }-{\textstyle 1 \over 2}R\,g_{\mu \nu }+\Lambda \ g_{\mu \nu }={\frac {8\pi G}{c^{4}}}\,T_{\mu \nu }

where {\displaystyle g_{\mu \nu }}g_{\mu \nu } is the spacetime metric.[122] Isotropic and homogeneous solutions of these enhanced equations, the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker solutions,[123] allow physicists to model a universe that has evolved over the past 14 billion years from a hot, early Big Bang phase.[124] Once a small number of parameters (for example the universe’s mean matter density) have been fixed by astronomical observation,[125] further observational data can be used to put the models to the test.[126] Predictions, all successful, include the initial abundance of chemical elements formed in a period of primordial nucleosynthesis,[127] the large-scale structure of the universe,[128] and the existence and properties of a “thermal echo” from the early cosmos, the cosmic background radiation.[129]

Astronomical observations of the cosmological expansion rate allow the total amount of matter in the universe to be estimated, although the nature of that matter remains mysterious in part. About 90% of all matter appears to be dark matter, which has mass (or, equivalently, gravitational influence), but does not interact electromagnetically and, hence, cannot be observed directly.[130] There is no generally accepted description of this new kind of matter, within the framework of known particle physics[131] or otherwise.[132] Observational evidence from redshift surveys of distant supernovae and measurements of the cosmic background radiation also show that the evolution of our universe is significantly influenced by a cosmological constant resulting in an acceleration of cosmic expansion or, equivalently, by a form of energy with an unusual equation of state, known as dark energy, the nature of which remains unclear.[133]

An inflationary phase,[134] an additional phase of strongly accelerated expansion at cosmic times of around 10−33 seconds, was hypothesized in 1980 to account for several puzzling observations that were unexplained by classical cosmological models, such as the nearly perfect homogeneity of the cosmic background radiation.[135] Recent measurements of the cosmic background radiation have resulted in the first evidence for this scenario.[136] However, there is a bewildering variety of possible inflationary scenarios, which cannot be restricted by current observations.[137] An even larger question is the physics of the earliest universe, prior to the inflationary phase and close to where the classical models predict the big bang singularity. An authoritative answer would require a complete theory of quantum gravity, which has not yet been developed[138](cf. the section on quantum gravity, below).

Time travel

Kurt Gödel showed[139] that solutions to Einstein’s equations exist that contain closed timelike curves (CTCs), which allow for loops in time. The solutions require extreme physical conditions unlikely ever to occur in practice, and it remains an open question whether further laws of physics will eliminate them completely. Since then other—similarly impractical—GR solutions containing CTCs have been found, such as the Tipler cylinder and traversable wormholes.

Advanced concepts

Causal structure and global geometry

Main article: Causal structure

Penrose–Carter diagram of an infinite Minkowski universe

In general relativity, no material body can catch up with or overtake a light pulse. No influence from an event A can reach any other location X before light sent out at A to X. In consequence, an exploration of all light worldlines (null geodesics) yields key information about the spacetime’s causal structure. This structure can be displayed using Penrose–Carter diagrams in which infinitely large regions of space and infinite time intervals are shrunk (“compactified”) so as to fit onto a finite map, while light still travels along diagonals as in standard spacetime diagrams.[140]

Aware of the importance of causal structure, Roger Penrose and others developed what is known as global geometry. In global geometry, the object of study is not one particular solution (or family of solutions) to Einstein’s equations. Rather, relations that hold true for all geodesics, such as the Raychaudhuri equation, and additional non-specific assumptions about the nature of matter (usually in the form of energy conditions) are used to derive general results.[141]


Main articles: Horizon (general relativity), No hair theorem, and Black hole mechanics

Using global geometry, some spacetimes can be shown to contain boundaries called horizons, which demarcate one region from the rest of spacetime. The best-known examples are black holes: if mass is compressed into a sufficiently compact region of space (as specified in the hoop conjecture, the relevant length scale is the Schwarzschild radius[142]), no light from inside can escape to the outside. Since no object can overtake a light pulse, all interior matter is imprisoned as well. Passage from the exterior to the interior is still possible, showing that the boundary, the black hole’s horizon, is not a physical barrier.[143]

The ergosphere of a rotating black hole, which plays a key role when it comes to extracting energy from such a black hole

Early studies of black holes relied on explicit solutions of Einstein’s equations, notably the spherically symmetric Schwarzschild solution (used to describe a static black hole) and the axisymmetric Kerr solution (used to describe a rotating, stationary black hole, and introducing interesting features such as the ergosphere). Using global geometry, later studies have revealed more general properties of black holes. In the long run, they are rather simple objects characterized by eleven parameters specifying energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, location at a specified time and electric charge. This is stated by the black hole uniqueness theorems: “black holes have no hair”, that is, no distinguishing marks like the hairstyles of humans. Irrespective of the complexity of a gravitating object collapsing to form a black hole, the object that results (having emitted gravitational waves) is very simple.[144]

Even more remarkably, there is a general set of laws known as black hole mechanics, which is analogous to the laws of thermodynamics. For instance, by the second law of black hole mechanics, the area of the event horizon of a general black hole will never decrease with time, analogous to the entropy of a thermodynamic system. This limits the energy that can be extracted by classical means from a rotating black hole (e.g. by the Penrose process).[145] There is strong evidence that the laws of black hole mechanics are, in fact, a subset of the laws of thermodynamics, and that the black hole area is proportional to its entropy.[146] This leads to a modification of the original laws of black hole mechanics: for instance, as the second law of black hole mechanics becomes part of the second law of thermodynamics, it is possible for black hole area to decrease—as long as other processes ensure that, overall, entropy increases. As thermodynamical objects with non-zero temperature, black holes should emit thermal radiation. Semi-classical calculations indicate that indeed they do, with the surface gravity playing the role of temperature in Planck’s law. This radiation is known as Hawking radiation (cf. the quantum theory section, below).[147]

There are other types of horizons. In an expanding universe, an observer may find that some regions of the past cannot be observed (“particle horizon”), and some regions of the future cannot be influenced (event horizon).[148] Even in flat Minkowski space, when described by an accelerated observer (Rindler space), there will be horizons associated with a semi-classical radiation known as Unruh radiation.[149]


Main article: Spacetime singularity

Another general feature of general relativity is the appearance of spacetime boundaries known as singularities. Spacetime can be explored by following up on timelike and lightlike geodesics—all possible ways that light and particles in free fall can travel. But some solutions of Einstein’s equations have “ragged edges”—regions known as spacetime singularities, where the paths of light and falling particles come to an abrupt end, and geometry becomes ill-defined. In the more interesting cases, these are “curvature singularities”, where geometrical quantities characterizing spacetime curvature, such as the Ricci scalar, take on infinite values.[150] Well-known examples of spacetimes with future singularities—where worldlines end—are the Schwarzschild solution, which describes a singularity inside an eternal static black hole,[151] or the Kerr solution with its ring-shaped singularity inside an eternal rotating black hole.[152] The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker solutions and other spacetimes describing universes have past singularities on which worldlines begin, namely Big Bang singularities, and some have future singularities (Big Crunch) as well.[153]

Given that these examples are all highly symmetric—and thus simplified—it is tempting to conclude that the occurrence of singularities is an artifact of idealization.[154] The famous singularity theorems, proved using the methods of global geometry, say otherwise: singularities are a generic feature of general relativity, and unavoidable once the collapse of an object with realistic matter properties has proceeded beyond a certain stage[155] and also at the beginning of a wide class of expanding universes.[156] However, the theorems say little about the properties of singularities, and much of current research is devoted to characterizing these entities’ generic structure (hypothesized e.g. by the BKL conjecture).[157] The cosmic censorship hypothesis states that all realistic future singularities (no perfect symmetries, matter with realistic properties) are safely hidden away behind a horizon, and thus invisible to all distant observers. While no formal proof yet exists, numerical simulations offer supporting evidence of its validity.[158]

Evolution equations

Main article: Initial value formulation (general relativity)

Each solution of Einstein’s equation encompasses the whole history of a universe — it is not just some snapshot of how things are, but a whole, possibly matter-filled, spacetime. It describes the state of matter and geometry everywhere and at every moment in that particular universe. Due to its general covariance, Einstein’s theory is not sufficient by itself to determine the time evolution of the metric tensor. It must be combined with a coordinate condition, which is analogous to gauge fixing in other field theories.[159]

To understand Einstein’s equations as partial differential equations, it is helpful to formulate them in a way that describes the evolution of the universe over time. This is done in “3+1” formulations, where spacetime is split into three space dimensions and one time dimension. The best-known example is the ADM formalism.[160] These decompositions show that the spacetime evolution equations of general relativity are well-behaved: solutions always exist, and are uniquely defined, once suitable initial conditions have been specified.[161] Such formulations of Einstein’s field equations are the basis of numerical relativity.[162]

Global and quasi-local quantities

Main article: Mass in general relativity

The notion of evolution equations is intimately tied in with another aspect of general relativistic physics. In Einstein’s theory, it turns out to be impossible to find a general definition for a seemingly simple property such as a system’s total mass (or energy). The main reason is that the gravitational field—like any physical field—must be ascribed a certain energy, but that it proves to be fundamentally impossible to localize that energy.[163]

Nevertheless, there are possibilities to define a system’s total mass, either using a hypothetical “infinitely distant observer” (ADM mass)[164] or suitable symmetries (Komar mass).[165] If one excludes from the system’s total mass the energy being carried away to infinity by gravitational waves, the result is the Bondi mass at null infinity.[166] Just as in classical physics, it can be shown that these masses are positive.[167] Corresponding global definitions exist for momentum and angular momentum.[168] There have also been a number of attempts to define quasi-local quantities, such as the mass of an isolated system formulated using only quantities defined within a finite region of space containing that system. The hope is to obtain a quantity useful for general statements about isolated systems, such as a more precise formulation of the hoop conjecture.[169]

Relationship with quantum theory

If general relativity were considered to be one of the two pillars of modern physics, then quantum theory, the basis of understanding matter from elementary particles to solid state physics, would be the other.[170] However, how to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity is still an open question.

Quantum field theory in curved spacetime

Main article: Quantum field theory in curved spacetime

Ordinary quantum field theories, which form the basis of modern elementary particle physics, are defined in flat Minkowski space, which is an excellent approximation when it comes to describing the behavior of microscopic particles in weak gravitational fields like those found on Earth.[171] In order to describe situations in which gravity is strong enough to influence (quantum) matter, yet not strong enough to require quantization itself, physicists have formulated quantum field theories in curved spacetime. These theories rely on general relativity to describe a curved background spacetime, and define a generalized quantum field theory to describe the behavior of quantum matter within that spacetime.[172] Using this formalism, it can be shown that black holes emit a blackbody spectrum of particles known as Hawking radiation, leading to the possibility that they evaporate over time.[173] As briefly mentioned above, this radiation plays an important role for the thermodynamics of black holes.[174]

Quantum gravity

Main article: Quantum gravity
See also: String theory, Canonical general relativity, Loop quantum gravity, Causal Dynamical Triangulations, and Causal sets

The demand for consistency between a quantum description of matter and a geometric description of spacetime,[175] as well as the appearance of singularities (where curvature length scales become microscopic), indicate the need for a full theory of quantum gravity: for an adequate description of the interior of black holes, and of the very early universe, a theory is required in which gravity and the associated geometry of spacetime are described in the language of quantum physics.[176] Despite major efforts, no complete and consistent theory of quantum gravity is currently known, even though a number of promising candidates exist.[177][178]

Projection of a Calabi–Yau manifold, one of the ways of compactifying the extra dimensions posited by string theory

Attempts to generalize ordinary quantum field theories, used in elementary particle physics to describe fundamental interactions, so as to include gravity have led to serious problems.[179] Some have argued that at low energies, this approach proves successful, in that it results in an acceptable effective (quantum) field theory of gravity.[180] At very high energies, however, the perturbative results are badly divergent and lead to models devoid of predictive power (“perturbative non-renormalizability”).[181]

Simple spin network of the type used in loop quantum gravity

One attempt to overcome these limitations is string theory, a quantum theory not of point particles, but of minute one-dimensional extended objects.[182] The theory promises to be a unified description of all particles and interactions, including gravity;[183] the price to pay is unusual features such as six extra dimensions of space in addition to the usual three.[184] In what is called the second superstring revolution, it was conjectured that both string theory and a unification of general relativity and supersymmetry known as supergravity[185] form part of a hypothesized eleven-dimensional model known as M-theory, which would constitute a uniquely defined and consistent theory of quantum gravity.[186]

Another approach starts with the canonical quantization procedures of quantum theory. Using the initial-value-formulation of general relativity (cf. evolution equations above), the result is the Wheeler–deWitt equation (an analogue of the Schrödinger equation) which, regrettably, turns out to be ill-defined without a proper ultraviolet (lattice) cutoff.[187] However, with the introduction of what are now known as Ashtekar variables,[188] this leads to a promising model known as loop quantum gravity. Space is represented by a web-like structure called a spin network, evolving over time in discrete steps.[189]

Depending on which features of general relativity and quantum theory are accepted unchanged, and on what level changes are introduced,[190] there are numerous other attempts to arrive at a viable theory of quantum gravity, some examples being the lattice theory of gravity based on the Feynman Path Integral approach and Regge Calculus,[177] dynamical triangulations,[191] causal sets,[192] twistor models[193] or the path-integral based models of quantum cosmology.[194]

All candidate theories still have major formal and conceptual problems to overcome. They also face the common problem that, as yet, there is no way to put quantum gravity predictions to experimental tests (and thus to decide between the candidates where their predictions vary), although there is hope for this to change as future data from cosmological observations and particle physics experiments becomes available.[195]

Current status

Observation of gravitational waves from binary black hole merger GW150914.

General relativity has emerged as a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology, which has so far passed many unambiguous observational and experimental tests. However, there are strong indications the theory is incomplete.[196] The problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of spacetime singularities remain open.[197] Observational data that is taken as evidence for dark energy and dark matter could indicate the need for new physics.[198] Even taken as is, general relativity is rich with possibilities for further exploration. Mathematical relativists seek to understand the nature of singularities and the fundamental properties of Einstein’s equations,[199] while numerical relativists run increasingly powerful computer simulations (such as those describing merging black holes).[200] In February 2016, it was announced that the existence of gravitational waves was directly detected by the Advanced LIGO team on September 14, 2015.[71][201][202] A century after its introduction, general relativity remains a highly active area of research.[203]


  1. Jump up^ “GW150914: LIGO Detects Gravitational Waves”. Retrieved 18 April 2016.
  2. Jump up^ O’Connor, J.J. and Robertson, E.F. (1996), General relativity. Mathematical Physics index, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. Retrieved 2015-02-04.
  3. Jump up^ Pais 1982, ch. 9 to 15, Janssen 2005; an up-to-date collection of current research, including reprints of many of the original articles, is Renn 2007; an accessible overview can be found in Renn 2005, pp. 110ff. Einstein’s original papers are found in Digital Einstein, volumes 4 and 6. An early key article is Einstein 1907, cf. Pais 1982, ch. 9. The publication featuring the field equations is Einstein 1915, cf. Pais 1982, ch. 11–15
  4. Jump up^ Schwarzschild 1916a, Schwarzschild 1916b and Reissner 1916 (later complemented in Nordström 1918)
  5. Jump up^ Einstein 1917, cf. Pais 1982, ch. 15e
  6. Jump up^ Hubble’s original article is Hubble 1929; an accessible overview is given in Singh 2004, ch. 2–4
  7. Jump up^ As reported in Gamow 1970. Einstein’s condemnation would prove to be premature, cf. the section Cosmology, below
  8. Jump up^ Pais 1982, pp. 253–254
  9. Jump up^ Kennefick 2005, Kennefick 2007
  10. Jump up^ Pais 1982, ch. 16
  11. Jump up^ Thorne, Kip (2003). The future of theoretical physics and cosmology: celebrating Stephen Hawking’s 60th birthday. Cambridge University Press. p. 74. ISBN 0-521-82081-2. Extract of page 74
  12. Jump up^ Israel 1987, ch. 7.8–7.10, Thorne 1994, ch. 3–9
  13. Jump up^ Sections Orbital effects and the relativity of direction, Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift and Light deflection and gravitational time delay, and references therein
  14. Jump up^ Section Cosmology and references therein; the historical development is in Overbye 1999
  15. Jump up^ The following exposition re-traces that of Ehlers 1973, sec. 1
  16. Jump up^ Arnold 1989, ch. 1
  17. Jump up^ Ehlers 1973, pp. 5f
  18. Jump up^ Will 1993, sec. 2.4, Will 2006, sec. 2
  19. Jump up^ Wheeler 1990, ch. 2
  20. Jump up^ Ehlers 1973, sec. 1.2, Havas 1964, Künzle 1972. The simple thought experiment in question was first described in Heckmann & Schücking 1959
  21. Jump up^ Ehlers 1973, pp. 10f
  22. Jump up^ Good introductions are, in order of increasing presupposed knowledge of mathematics, Giulini 2005, Mermin 2005, and Rindler 1991; for accounts of precision experiments, cf. part IV of Ehlers & Lämmerzahl 2006
  23. Jump up^ An in-depth comparison between the two symmetry groups can be found in Giulini 2006a
  24. Jump up^ Rindler 1991, sec. 22, Synge 1972, ch. 1 and 2
  25. Jump up^ Ehlers 1973, sec. 2.3
  26. Jump up^ Ehlers 1973, sec. 1.4, Schutz 1985, sec. 5.1
  27. Jump up^ Ehlers 1973, pp. 17ff; a derivation can be found in Mermin 2005, ch. 12. For the experimental evidence, cf. the section Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift, below
  28. Jump up^ Rindler 2001, sec. 1.13; for an elementary account, see Wheeler 1990, ch. 2; there are, however, some differences between the modern version and Einstein’s original concept used in the historical derivation of general relativity, cf. Norton 1985
  29. Jump up^ Ehlers 1973, sec. 1.4 for the experimental evidence, see once more section Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift. Choosing a different connection with non-zero torsion leads to a modified theory known as Einstein–Cartan theory
  30. Jump up^ Ehlers 1973, p. 16, Kenyon 1990, sec. 7.2, Weinberg 1972, sec. 2.8
  31. Jump up^ Ehlers 1973, pp. 19–22; for similar derivations, see sections 1 and 2 of ch. 7 in Weinberg 1972. The Einstein tensor is the only divergence-free tensor that is a function of the metric coefficients, their first and second derivatives at most, and allows the spacetime of special relativity as a solution in the absence of sources of gravity, cf. Lovelock 1972. The tensors on both side are of second rank, that is, they can each be thought of as 4×4 matrices, each of which contains ten independent terms; hence, the above represents ten coupled equations. The fact that, as a consequence of geometric relations known as Bianchi identities, the Einstein tensor satisfies a further four identities reduces these to six independent equations, e.g. Schutz 1985, sec. 8.3
  32. Jump up^ Kenyon 1990, sec. 7.4
  33. Jump up^ Brans & Dicke 1961, Weinberg 1972, sec. 3 in ch. 7, Goenner 2004, sec. 7.2, and Trautman 2006, respectively
  34. Jump up^ Wald 1984, ch. 4, Weinberg 1972, ch. 7 or, in fact, any other textbook on general relativity
  35. Jump up^ At least approximately, cf. Poisson 2004
  36. Jump up^ Wheeler 1990, p. xi
  37. Jump up^ Wald 1984, sec. 4.4
  38. Jump up^ Wald 1984, sec. 4.1
  39. Jump up^ For the (conceptual and historical) difficulties in defining a general principle of relativity and separating it from the notion of general covariance, see Giulini 2006b
  40. Jump up^ section 5 in ch. 12 of Weinberg 1972
  41. Jump up^ Introductory chapters of Stephani et al. 2003
  42. Jump up^ A review showing Einstein’s equation in the broader context of other PDEs with physical significance is Geroch 1996
  43. Jump up^ For background information and a list of solutions, cf. Stephani et al. 2003; a more recent review can be found in MacCallum 2006
  44. Jump up^ Chandrasekhar 1983, ch. 3,5,6
  45. Jump up^ Narlikar 1993, ch. 4, sec. 3.3
  46. Jump up^ Brief descriptions of these and further interesting solutions can be found in Hawking & Ellis 1973, ch. 5
  47. Jump up^ Lehner 2002
  48. Jump up^ For instance Wald 1984, sec. 4.4
  49. Jump up^ Will 1993, sec. 4.1 and 4.2
  50. Jump up^ Will 2006, sec. 3.2, Will 1993, ch. 4
  51. Jump up^ Rindler 2001, pp. 24–26 vs. pp. 236–237 and Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, pp. 164–172. Einstein derived these effects using the equivalence principle as early as 1907, cf. Einstein 1907 and the description in Pais 1982, pp. 196–198
  52. Jump up^ Rindler 2001, pp. 24–26; Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, § 38.5
  53. Jump up^ Pound–Rebka experiment, see Pound & Rebka 1959, Pound & Rebka 1960; Pound & Snider 1964; a list of further experiments is given in Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, table 4.1 on p. 186
  54. Jump up^ Greenstein, Oke & Shipman 1971; the most recent and most accurate Sirius B measurements are published in Barstow, Bond et al. 2005.
  55. Jump up^ Starting with the Hafele–Keating experiment, Hafele & Keating 1972a and Hafele & Keating 1972b, and culminating in the Gravity Probe A experiment; an overview of experiments can be found in Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, table 4.1 on p. 186
  56. Jump up^ GPS is continually tested by comparing atomic clocks on the ground and aboard orbiting satellites; for an account of relativistic effects, see Ashby 2002 and Ashby 2003
  57. Jump up^ Stairs 2003 and Kramer 2004
  58. Jump up^ General overviews can be found in section 2.1. of Will 2006; Will 2003, pp. 32–36; Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, sec. 4.2
  59. Jump up^ Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, pp. 164–172
  60. Jump up^ Cf. Kennefick 2005 for the classic early measurements by the Eddington expeditions; for an overview of more recent measurements, see Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, ch. 4.3. For the most precise direct modern observations using quasars, cf. Shapiro et al. 2004
  61. Jump up^ This is not an independent axiom; it can be derived from Einstein’s equations and the Maxwell Lagrangian using a WKB approximation, cf. Ehlers 1973, sec. 5
  62. Jump up^ Blanchet 2006, sec. 1.3
  63. Jump up^ Rindler 2001, sec. 1.16; for the historical examples, Israel 1987, pp. 202–204; in fact, Einstein published one such derivation as Einstein 1907. Such calculations tacitly assume that the geometry of space is Euclidean, cf. Ehlers & Rindler 1997
  64. Jump up^ From the standpoint of Einstein’s theory, these derivations take into account the effect of gravity on time, but not its consequences for the warping of space, cf. Rindler 2001, sec. 11.11
  65. Jump up^ For the Sun’s gravitational field using radar signals reflected from planets such as Venus and Mercury, cf. Shapiro 1964, Weinberg 1972, ch. 8, sec. 7; for signals actively sent back by space probes (transponder measurements), cf. Bertotti, Iess & Tortora 2003; for an overview, see Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, table 4.4 on p. 200; for more recent measurements using signals received from a pulsar that is part of a binary system, the gravitational field causing the time delay being that of the other pulsar, cf. Stairs 2003, sec. 4.4
  66. Jump up^ Will 1993, sec. 7.1 and 7.2
  67. Jump up^ Einstein, A (June 1916). “Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation”. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin. part 1: 688–696.
  68. Jump up^ Einstein, A (1918). “Über Gravitationswellen”. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin. part 1: 154–167.
  69. ^ Jump up to:a b Castelvecchi, Davide; Witze, Witze (February 11, 2016). “Einstein’s gravitational waves found at last”. Nature News. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.19361. Retrieved 2016-02-11.
  70. ^ Jump up to:a b B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) (2016). “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger”. Physical Review Letters. 116 (6): 061102. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102. PMID 26918975.
  71. ^ Jump up to:a b “Gravitational waves detected 100 years after Einstein’s prediction | NSF – National Science Foundation”. Retrieved 2016-02-11.
  72. Jump up^ Most advanced textbooks on general relativity contain a description of these properties, e.g. Schutz 1985, ch. 9
  73. Jump up^ For example Jaranowski & Królak 2005
  74. Jump up^ Rindler 2001, ch. 13
  75. Jump up^ Gowdy 1971, Gowdy 1974
  76. Jump up^ See Lehner 2002 for a brief introduction to the methods of numerical relativity, and Seidel 1998 for the connection with gravitational wave astronomy
  77. Jump up^ Schutz 2003, pp. 48–49, Pais 1982, pp. 253–254
  78. Jump up^ Rindler 2001, sec. 11.9
  79. Jump up^ Will 1993, pp. 177–181
  80. Jump up^ In consequence, in the parameterized post-Newtonian formalism (PPN), measurements of this effect determine a linear combination of the terms β and γ, cf. Will 2006, sec. 3.5 and Will 1993, sec. 7.3
  81. Jump up^ The most precise measurements are VLBI measurements of planetary positions; see Will 1993, ch. 5, Will 2006, sec. 3.5, Anderson et al. 1992; for an overview, Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, pp. 406–407
  82. Jump up^ Kramer et al. 2006
  83. Jump up^ Dediu, Adrian-Horia; Magdalena, Luis; Martín-Vide, Carlos (2015). Theory and Practice of Natural Computing: Fourth International Conference, TPNC 2015, Mieres, Spain, December 15-16, 2015. Proceedings (illustrated ed.). Springer. p. 141. ISBN 978-3-319-26841-5.Extract of page 141
  84. Jump up^ A figure that includes error bars is fig. 7 in Will 2006, sec. 5.1
  85. Jump up^ Stairs 2003, Schutz 2003, pp. 317–321, Bartusiak 2000, pp. 70–86
  86. Jump up^ Weisberg & Taylor 2003; for the pulsar discovery, see Hulse & Taylor 1975; for the initial evidence for gravitational radiation, see Taylor 1994
  87. Jump up^ Kramer 2004
  88. Jump up^ Penrose 2004, §14.5, Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, §11.4
  89. Jump up^ Weinberg 1972, sec. 9.6, Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, sec. 7.8
  90. Jump up^ Bertotti, Ciufolini & Bender 1987, Nordtvedt 2003
  91. Jump up^ Kahn 2007
  92. Jump up^ A mission description can be found in Everitt et al. 2001; a first post-flight evaluation is given in Everitt, Parkinson & Kahn 2007; further updates will be available on the mission website Kahn 1996–2012.
  93. Jump up^ Townsend 1997, sec. 4.2.1, Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, pp. 469–471
  94. Jump up^ Ohanian & Ruffini 1994, sec. 4.7, Weinberg 1972, sec. 9.7; for a more recent review, see Schäfer 2004
  95. Jump up^ Ciufolini & Pavlis 2004, Ciufolini, Pavlis & Peron 2006, Iorio 2009
  96. Jump up^ Iorio L. (August 2006), “COMMENTS, REPLIES AND NOTES: A note on the evidence of the gravitomagnetic field of Mars”, Classical Quantum Gravity, 23 (17): 5451–5454, arXiv:gr-qc/0606092Freely accessible, Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.5451I, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/17/N01
  97. Jump up^ Iorio L. (June 2010), “On the Lense–Thirring test with the Mars Global Surveyor in the gravitational field of Mars”, Central European Journal of Physics, 8 (3): 509–513, arXiv:gr-qc/0701146Freely accessible, Bibcode:2010CEJPh…8..509I, doi:10.2478/s11534-009-0117-6
  98. Jump up^ For overviews of gravitational lensing and its applications, see Ehlers, Falco & Schneider 1992 and Wambsganss 1998
  99. Jump up^ For a simple derivation, see Schutz 2003, ch. 23; cf. Narayan & Bartelmann 1997, sec. 3
  100. Jump up^ Walsh, Carswell & Weymann 1979
  101. Jump up^ Images of all the known lenses can be found on the pages of the CASTLES project, Kochanek et al. 2007
  102. Jump up^ Roulet & Mollerach 1997
  103. Jump up^ Narayan & Bartelmann 1997, sec. 3.7
  104. Jump up^ Barish 2005, Bartusiak 2000, Blair & McNamara 1997
  105. Jump up^ Hough & Rowan 2000
  106. Jump up^ Hobbs, George; Archibald, A.; Arzoumanian, Z.; Backer, D.; Bailes, M.; Bhat, N. D. R.; Burgay, M.; Burke-Spolaor, S.; et al. (2010), “The international pulsar timing array project: using pulsars as a gravitational wave detector”, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27 (8): 084013, arXiv:0911.5206Freely accessible, Bibcode:2010CQGra..27h4013H, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084013
  107. Jump up^ Danzmann & Rüdiger 2003
  108. Jump up^ “LISA pathfinder overview”. ESA. Retrieved 2012-04-23.
  109. Jump up^ Thorne 1995
  110. Jump up^ Cutler & Thorne 2002
  111. Jump up^ “Gravitational waves detected 100 years after Einstein’s prediction | NSF – National Science Foundation”. Retrieved 2016-02-11.
  112. Jump up^ Miller 2002, lectures 19 and 21
  113. Jump up^ Celotti, Miller & Sciama 1999, sec. 3
  114. Jump up^ Springel et al. 2005 and the accompanying summary Gnedin 2005
  115. Jump up^ Blandford 1987, sec. 8.2.4
  116. Jump up^ For the basic mechanism, see Carroll & Ostlie 1996, sec. 17.2; for more about the different types of astronomical objects associated with this, cf. Robson 1996
  117. Jump up^ For a review, see Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1984. To a distant observer, some of these jets even appear to move faster than light; this, however, can be explained as an optical illusion that does not violate the tenets of relativity, see Rees 1966
  118. Jump up^ For stellar end states, cf. Oppenheimer & Snyder 1939 or, for more recent numerical work, Font 2003, sec. 4.1; for supernovae, there are still major problems to be solved, cf. Buras et al. 2003; for simulating accretion and the formation of jets, cf. Font 2003, sec. 4.2. Also, relativistic lensing effects are thought to play a role for the signals received from X-ray pulsars, cf. Kraus 1998
  119. Jump up^ The evidence includes limits on compactness from the observation of accretion-driven phenomena (“Eddington luminosity”), see Celotti, Miller & Sciama 1999, observations of stellar dynamics in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, cf. Schödel et al. 2003, and indications that at least some of the compact objects in question appear to have no solid surface, which can be deduced from the examination of X-ray bursts for which the central compact object is either a neutron star or a black hole; cf. Remillard et al. 2006 for an overview, Narayan 2006, sec. 5. Observations of the “shadow” of the Milky Way galaxy’s central black hole horizon are eagerly sought for, cf. Falcke, Melia & Agol 2000
  120. Jump up^ Dalal et al. 2006
  121. Jump up^ Barack & Cutler 2004
  122. Jump up^ Originally Einstein 1917; cf. Pais 1982, pp. 285–288
  123. Jump up^ Carroll 2001, ch. 2
  124. Jump up^ Bergström & Goobar 2003, ch. 9–11; use of these models is justified by the fact that, at large scales of around hundred million light-years and more, our own universe indeed appears to be isotropic and homogeneous, cf. Peebles et al. 1991
  125. Jump up^ E.g. with WMAP data, see Spergel et al. 2003
  126. Jump up^ These tests involve the separate observations detailed further on, see, e.g., fig. 2 in Bridle et al. 2003
  127. Jump up^ Peebles 1966; for a recent account of predictions, see Coc, Vangioni‐Flam et al. 2004; an accessible account can be found in Weiss 2006; compare with the observations in Olive & Skillman 2004, Bania, Rood & Balser 2002, O’Meara et al. 2001, and Charbonnel & Primas 2005
  128. Jump up^ Lahav & Suto 2004, Bertschinger 1998, Springel et al. 2005
  129. Jump up^ Alpher & Herman 1948, for a pedagogical introduction, see Bergström & Goobar 2003, ch. 11; for the initial detection, see Penzias & Wilson 1965 and, for precision measurements by satellite observatories, Mather et al. 1994 (COBE) and Bennett et al. 2003 (WMAP). Future measurements could also reveal evidence about gravitational waves in the early universe; this additional information is contained in the background radiation’s polarization, cf. Kamionkowski, Kosowsky & Stebbins 1997 and Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1997
  130. Jump up^ Evidence for this comes from the determination of cosmological parameters and additional observations involving the dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters cf. Peebles 1993, ch. 18, evidence from gravitational lensing, cf. Peacock 1999, sec. 4.6, and simulations of large-scale structure formation, see Springel et al. 2005
  131. Jump up^ Peacock 1999, ch. 12, Peskin 2007; in particular, observations indicate that all but a negligible portion of that matter is not in the form of the usual elementary particles (“non-baryonic matter”), cf. Peacock 1999, ch. 12
  132. Jump up^ Namely, some physicists have questioned whether or not the evidence for dark matter is, in fact, evidence for deviations from the Einsteinian (and the Newtonian) description of gravity cf. the overview in Mannheim 2006, sec. 9
  133. Jump up^ Carroll 2001; an accessible overview is given in Caldwell 2004. Here, too, scientists have argued that the evidence indicates not a new form of energy, but the need for modifications in our cosmological models, cf. Mannheim 2006, sec. 10; aforementioned modifications need not be modifications of general relativity, they could, for example, be modifications in the way we treat the inhomogeneities in the universe, cf. Buchert 2007
  134. Jump up^ A good introduction is Linde 1990; for a more recent review, see Linde 2005
  135. Jump up^ More precisely, these are the flatness problem, the horizon problem, and the monopole problem; a pedagogical introduction can be found in Narlikar 1993, sec. 6.4, see also Börner 1993, sec. 9.1
  136. Jump up^ Spergel et al. 2007, sec. 5,6
  137. Jump up^ More concretely, the potential function that is crucial to determining the dynamics of the inflaton is simply postulated, but not derived from an underlying physical theory
  138. Jump up^ Brandenberger 2007, sec. 2
  139. Jump up^ Gödel 1949
  140. Jump up^ Frauendiener 2004, Wald 1984, sec. 11.1, Hawking & Ellis 1973, sec. 6.8, 6.9
  141. Jump up^ Wald 1984, sec. 9.2–9.4 and Hawking & Ellis 1973, ch. 6
  142. Jump up^ Thorne 1972; for more recent numerical studies, see Berger 2002, sec. 2.1
  143. Jump up^ Israel 1987. A more exact mathematical description distinguishes several kinds of horizon, notably event horizons and apparent horizons cf. Hawking & Ellis 1973, pp. 312–320 or Wald 1984, sec. 12.2; there are also more intuitive definitions for isolated systems that do not require knowledge of spacetime properties at infinity, cf. Ashtekar & Krishnan 2004
  144. Jump up^ For first steps, cf. Israel 1971; see Hawking & Ellis 1973, sec. 9.3 or Heusler 1996, ch. 9 and 10 for a derivation, and Heusler 1998 as well as Beig & Chruściel 2006 as overviews of more recent results
  145. Jump up^ The laws of black hole mechanics were first described in Bardeen, Carter & Hawking 1973; a more pedagogical presentation can be found in Carter 1979; for a more recent review, see Wald 2001, ch. 2. A thorough, book-length introduction including an introduction to the necessary mathematics Poisson 2004. For the Penrose process, see Penrose 1969
  146. Jump up^ Bekenstein 1973, Bekenstein 1974
  147. Jump up^ The fact that black holes radiate, quantum mechanically, was first derived in Hawking 1975; a more thorough derivation can be found in Wald 1975. A review is given in Wald 2001, ch. 3
  148. Jump up^ Narlikar 1993, sec. 4.4.4, 4.4.5
  149. Jump up^ Horizons: cf. Rindler 2001, sec. 12.4. Unruh effect: Unruh 1976, cf. Wald 2001, ch. 3
  150. Jump up^ Hawking & Ellis 1973, sec. 8.1, Wald 1984, sec. 9.1
  151. Jump up^ Townsend 1997, ch. 2; a more extensive treatment of this solution can be found in Chandrasekhar 1983, ch. 3
  152. Jump up^ Townsend 1997, ch. 4; for a more extensive treatment, cf. Chandrasekhar 1983, ch. 6
  153. Jump up^ Ellis & Van Elst 1999; a closer look at the singularity itself is taken in Börner 1993, sec. 1.2
  154. Jump up^ Here one should remind to the well-known fact that the important “quasi-optical” singularities of the so-called eikonal approximations of many wave-equations, namely the “caustics”, are resolved into finite peaks beyond that approximation.
  155. Jump up^ Namely when there are trapped null surfaces, cf. Penrose 1965
  156. Jump up^ Hawking 1966
  157. Jump up^ The conjecture was made in Belinskii, Khalatnikov & Lifschitz 1971; for a more recent review, see Berger 2002. An accessible exposition is given by Garfinkle 2007
  158. Jump up^ The restriction to future singularities naturally excludes initial singularities such as the big bang singularity, which in principle be visible to observers at later cosmic time. The cosmic censorship conjecture was first presented in Penrose 1969; a textbook-level account is given in Wald 1984, pp. 302–305. For numerical results, see the review Berger 2002, sec. 2.1
  159. Jump up^ Hawking & Ellis 1973, sec. 7.1
  160. Jump up^ Arnowitt, Deser & Misner 1962; for a pedagogical introduction, see Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, §21.4–§21.7
  161. Jump up^ Fourès-Bruhat 1952 and Bruhat 1962; for a pedagogical introduction, see Wald 1984, ch. 10; an online review can be found in Reula 1998
  162. Jump up^ Gourgoulhon 2007; for a review of the basics of numerical relativity, including the problems arising from the peculiarities of Einstein’s equations, see Lehner 2001
  163. Jump up^ Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, §20.4
  164. Jump up^ Arnowitt, Deser & Misner 1962
  165. Jump up^ Komar 1959; for a pedagogical introduction, see Wald 1984, sec. 11.2; although defined in a totally different way, it can be shown to be equivalent to the ADM mass for stationary spacetimes, cf. Ashtekar & Magnon-Ashtekar 1979
  166. Jump up^ For a pedagogical introduction, see Wald 1984, sec. 11.2
  167. Jump up^ Wald 1984, p. 295 and refs therein; this is important for questions of stability—if there were negative mass states, then flat, empty Minkowski space, which has mass zero, could evolve into these states
  168. Jump up^ Townsend 1997, ch. 5
  169. Jump up^ Such quasi-local mass–energy definitions are the Hawking energy, Geroch energy, or Penrose’s quasi-local energy–momentum based on twistor methods; cf. the review article Szabados 2004
  170. Jump up^ An overview of quantum theory can be found in standard textbooks such as Messiah 1999; a more elementary account is given in Hey & Walters 2003
  171. Jump up^ Ramond 1990, Weinberg 1995, Peskin & Schroeder 1995; a more accessible overview is Auyang 1995
  172. Jump up^ Wald 1994, Birrell & Davies 1984
  173. Jump up^ For Hawking radiation Hawking 1975, Wald 1975; an accessible introduction to black hole evaporation can be found in Traschen 2000
  174. Jump up^ Wald 2001, ch. 3
  175. Jump up^ Put simply, matter is the source of spacetime curvature, and once matter has quantum properties, we can expect spacetime to have them as well. Cf. Carlip 2001, sec. 2
  176. Jump up^ Schutz 2003, p. 407
  177. ^ Jump up to:a b Hamber 2009
  178. Jump up^ A timeline and overview can be found in Rovelli 2000
  179. Jump up^ ‘t Hooft & Veltman 1974
  180. Jump up^ Donoghue 1995
  181. Jump up^ In particular, a perturbative technique known as renormalization, an integral part of deriving predictions which take into account higher-energy contributions, cf. Weinberg 1996, ch. 17, 18, fails in this case; cf. Veltman 1975, Goroff & Sagnotti 1985; for a recent comprehensive review of the failure of perturbative renormalizability for quantum gravity see Hamber 2009
  182. Jump up^ An accessible introduction at the undergraduate level can be found in Zwiebach 2004; more complete overviews can be found in Polchinski 1998a and Polchinski 1998b
  183. Jump up^ At the energies reached in current experiments, these strings are indistinguishable from point-like particles, but, crucially, different modes of oscillation of one and the same type of fundamental string appear as particles with different (electric and other) charges, e.g. Ibanez 2000. The theory is successful in that one mode will always correspond to a graviton, the messenger particle of gravity, e.g. Green, Schwarz & Witten 1987, sec. 2.3, 5.3
  184. Jump up^ Green, Schwarz & Witten 1987, sec. 4.2
  185. Jump up^ Weinberg 2000, ch. 31
  186. Jump up^ Townsend 1996, Duff 1996
  187. Jump up^ Kuchař 1973, sec. 3
  188. Jump up^ These variables represent geometric gravity using mathematical analogues of electric and magnetic fields; cf. Ashtekar 1986, Ashtekar 1987
  189. Jump up^ For a review, see Thiemann 2006; more extensive accounts can be found in Rovelli 1998, Ashtekar & Lewandowski 2004 as well as in the lecture notes Thiemann 2003
  190. Jump up^ Isham 1994, Sorkin 1997
  191. Jump up^ Loll 1998
  192. Jump up^ Sorkin 2005
  193. Jump up^ Penrose 2004, ch. 33 and refs therein
  194. Jump up^ Hawking 1987
  195. Jump up^ Ashtekar 2007, Schwarz 2007
  196. Jump up^ Maddox 1998, pp. 52–59, 98–122; Penrose 2004, sec. 34.1, ch. 30
  197. Jump up^ section Quantum gravity, above
  198. Jump up^ section Cosmology, above
  199. Jump up^ Friedrich 2005
  200. Jump up^ A review of the various problems and the techniques being developed to overcome them, see Lehner 2002
  201. Jump up^ See Bartusiak 2000 for an account up to that year; up-to-date news can be found on the websites of major detector collaborations such as GEO 600 and LIGO
  202. Jump up^ For the most recent papers on gravitational wave polarizations of inspiralling compact binaries, see Blanchet et al. 2008, and Arun et al. 2007; for a review of work on compact binaries, see Blanchet 2006 and Futamase & Itoh 2006; for a general review of experimental tests of general relativity, see Will 2006
  203. Jump up^ See, e.g., the electronic review journal Living Reviews in Relativity


  • Alpher, R. A.; Herman, R. C. (1948), “Evolution of the universe”, Nature, 162 (4124): 774–775, Bibcode:1948Natur.162..774A, doi:10.1038/162774b0
  • Anderson, J. D.; Campbell, J. K.; Jurgens, R. F.; Lau, E. L. (1992), “Recent developments in solar-system tests of general relativity”, in Sato, H.; Nakamura, T., Proceedings of the Sixth Marcel Großmann Meeting on General Relativity, World Scientific, pp. 353–355, ISBN 981-02-0950-9
  • Arnold, V. I. (1989), Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer, ISBN 3-540-96890-3
  • Arnowitt, Richard; Deser, Stanley; Misner, Charles W. (1962), “The dynamics of general relativity”, in Witten, Louis, Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research, Wiley, pp. 227–265
  • Arun, K.G.; Blanchet, L.; Iyer, B. R.; Qusailah, M. S. S. (2007), “Inspiralling compact binaries in quasi-elliptical orbits: The complete 3PN energy flux”, Physical Review D, 77 (6), arXiv:0711.0302Freely accessible, Bibcode:2008PhRvD..77f4035A, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.064035
  • Ashby, Neil (2002), “Relativity and the Global Positioning System” (PDF), Physics Today, 55 (5): 41–47, Bibcode:2002PhT….55e..41A, doi:10.1063/1.1485583
  • Ashby, Neil (2003), “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 6, Bibcode:2003LRR…..6….1A, doi:10.12942/lrr-2003-1, retrieved 2007-07-06
  • Ashtekar, Abhay (1986), “New variables for classical and quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 57 (18): 2244–2247, Bibcode:1986PhRvL..57.2244A, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2244, PMID 10033673
  • Ashtekar, Abhay (1987), “New Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity”, Phys. Rev., D36 (6): 1587–1602, Bibcode:1987PhRvD..36.1587A, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.36.1587
  • Ashtekar, Abhay (2007), “LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY: FOUR RECENT ADVANCES AND A DOZEN FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS”, The Eleventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting – on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories – Proceedings of the MG11 Meeting on General Relativity, p. 126, arXiv:0705.2222Freely accessible, Bibcode:2008mgm..conf..126A, doi:10.1142/9789812834300_0008, ISBN 978-981-283-426-3
  • Ashtekar, Abhay; Krishnan, Badri (2004), “Isolated and Dynamical Horizons and Their Applications”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 7, arXiv:gr-qc/0407042Freely accessible, Bibcode:2004LRR…..7…10A, doi:10.12942/lrr-2004-10, retrieved 2007-08-28
  • Ashtekar, Abhay; Lewandowski, Jerzy (2004), “Background Independent Quantum Gravity: A Status Report”, Class. Quant. Grav., 21 (15): R53–R152, arXiv:gr-qc/0404018Freely accessible, Bibcode:2004CQGra..21R..53A, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/15/R01
  • Ashtekar, Abhay; Magnon-Ashtekar, Anne (1979), “On conserved quantities in general relativity”, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 20 (5): 793–800, Bibcode:1979JMP….20..793A, doi:10.1063/1.524151
  • Auyang, Sunny Y. (1995), How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-509345-3
  • Bania, T. M.; Rood, R. T.; Balser, D. S. (2002), “The cosmological density of baryons from observations of 3He+ in the Milky Way”, Nature, 415 (6867): 54–57, Bibcode:2002Natur.415…54B, doi:10.1038/415054a, PMID 11780112
  • Barack, Leor; Cutler, Curt (2004), “LISA Capture Sources: Approximate Waveforms, Signal-to-Noise Ratios, and Parameter Estimation Accuracy”, Phys. Rev., D69 (8): 082005, arXiv:gr-qc/0310125Freely accessible, Bibcode:2004PhRvD..69h2005B, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.082005
  • Bardeen, J. M.; Carter, B.; Hawking, S. W. (1973), “The Four Laws of Black Hole Mechanics”, Comm. Math. Phys., 31 (2): 161–170, Bibcode:1973CMaPh..31..161B, doi:10.1007/BF01645742
  • Barish, Barry (2005), “Towards detection of gravitational waves”, in Florides, P.; Nolan, B.; Ottewil, A., General Relativity and Gravitation. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference, World Scientific, pp. 24–34, ISBN 981-256-424-1
  • Barstow, M; Bond, Howard E.; Holberg, J. B.; Burleigh, M. R.; Hubeny, I.; Koester, D. (2005), “Hubble Space Telescope Spectroscopy of the Balmer lines in Sirius B”, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 362 (4): 1134–1142, arXiv:astro-ph/0506600Freely accessible, Bibcode:2005MNRAS.362.1134B, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09359.x
  • Bartusiak, Marcia (2000), Einstein’s Unfinished Symphony: Listening to the Sounds of Space-Time, Berkley, ISBN 978-0-425-18620-6
  • Begelman, Mitchell C.; Blandford, Roger D.; Rees, Martin J. (1984), “Theory of extragalactic radio sources”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 56 (2): 255–351, Bibcode:1984RvMP…56..255B, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.56.255
  • Beig, Robert; Chruściel, Piotr T. (2006), “Stationary black holes”, in Françoise, J.-P.; Naber, G.; Tsou, T.S., Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, Volume 2, Elsevier, p. 2041, arXiv:gr-qc/0502041Freely accessible, Bibcode:2005gr.qc…..2041B, ISBN 0-12-512660-3
  • Bekenstein, Jacob D. (1973), “Black Holes and Entropy”, Phys. Rev., D7 (8): 2333–2346, Bibcode:1973PhRvD…7.2333B, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333
  • Bekenstein, Jacob D. (1974), “Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics in Black-Hole Physics”, Phys. Rev., D9 (12): 3292–3300, Bibcode:1974PhRvD…9.3292B, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3292
  • Belinskii, V. A.; Khalatnikov, I. M.; Lifschitz, E. M. (1971), “Oscillatory approach to the singular point in relativistic cosmology”, Advances in Physics, 19 (80): 525–573, Bibcode:1970AdPhy..19..525B, doi:10.1080/00018737000101171; original paper in Russian: Belinsky, V. A.; Lifshits, I. M.; Khalatnikov, E. M. (1970), “Колебательный Режим Приближения К Особой Точке В Релятивистской Космологии”, Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk (Успехи Физических Наук), 102: 463–500, Bibcode:1970UsFiN.102..463B, doi:10.3367/ufnr.0102.197011d.0463
  • Bennett, C. L.; Halpern, M.; Hinshaw, G.; Jarosik, N.; Kogut, A.; Limon, M.; Meyer, S. S.; Page, L.; et al. (2003), “First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results”, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 148 (1): 1–27, arXiv:astro-ph/0302207Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003ApJS..148….1B, doi:10.1086/377253
  • Berger, Beverly K. (2002), “Numerical Approaches to Spacetime Singularities”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 5, arXiv:gr-qc/0201056Freely accessible, Bibcode:2002LRR…..5….1B, doi:10.12942/lrr-2002-1, retrieved 2007-08-04
  • Bergström, Lars; Goobar, Ariel (2003), Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics (2nd ed.), Wiley & Sons, ISBN 3-540-43128-4
  • Bertotti, Bruno; Ciufolini, Ignazio; Bender, Peter L. (1987), “New test of general relativity: Measurement of de Sitter geodetic precession rate for lunar perigee”, Physical Review Letters, 58 (11): 1062–1065, Bibcode:1987PhRvL..58.1062B, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1062, PMID 10034329
  • Bertotti, Bruno; Iess, L.; Tortora, P. (2003), “A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft”, Nature, 425 (6956): 374–376, Bibcode:2003Natur.425..374B, doi:10.1038/nature01997, PMID 14508481
  • Bertschinger, Edmund (1998), “Simulations of structure formation in the universe”, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 36 (1): 599–654, Bibcode:1998ARA&A..36..599B, doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.36.1.599
  • Birrell, N. D.; Davies, P. C. (1984), Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-27858-9
  • Blair, David; McNamara, Geoff (1997), Ripples on a Cosmic Sea. The Search for Gravitational Waves, Perseus, ISBN 0-7382-0137-5
  • Blanchet, L.; Faye, G.; Iyer, B. R.; Sinha, S. (2008), “The third post-Newtonian gravitational wave polarisations and associated spherical harmonic modes for inspiralling compact binaries in quasi-circular orbits”, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25 (16): 165003, arXiv:0802.1249Freely accessible, Bibcode:2008CQGra..25p5003B, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/16/165003
  • Blanchet, Luc (2006), “Gravitational Radiation from Post-Newtonian Sources and Inspiralling Compact Binaries”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 9, Bibcode:2006LRR…..9….4B, doi:10.12942/lrr-2006-4, retrieved 2007-08-07
  • Blandford, R. D. (1987), “Astrophysical Black Holes”, in Hawking, Stephen W.; Israel, Werner, 300 Years of Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, pp. 277–329, ISBN 0-521-37976-8
  • Börner, Gerhard (1993), The Early Universe. Facts and Fiction, Springer, ISBN 0-387-56729-1
  • Brandenberger, Robert H. (2007), “Conceptual Problems of Inflationary Cosmology and a New Approach to Cosmological Structure Formation”, Inflationary Cosmology, Lecture Notes in Physics, 738, pp. 393–424, arXiv:hep-th/0701111Freely accessible, Bibcode:2008LNP…738..393B, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74353-8_11, ISBN 978-3-540-74352-1
  • Brans, C. H.; Dicke, R. H. (1961), “Mach’s Principle and a Relativistic Theory of Gravitation”, Physical Review, 124 (3): 925–935, Bibcode:1961PhRv..124..925B, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.124.925
  • Bridle, Sarah L.; Lahav, Ofer; Ostriker, Jeremiah P.; Steinhardt, Paul J. (2003), “Precision Cosmology? Not Just Yet”, Science, 299 (5612): 1532–1533, arXiv:astro-ph/0303180Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003Sci…299.1532B, doi:10.1126/science.1082158, PMID 12624255
  • Bruhat, Yvonne (1962), “The Cauchy Problem”, in Witten, Louis, Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research, Wiley, p. 130, ISBN 978-1-114-29166-9
  • Buchert, Thomas (2007), “Dark Energy from Structure—A Status Report”, General Relativity and Gravitation, 40 (2–3): 467–527, arXiv:0707.2153Freely accessible, Bibcode:2008GReGr..40..467B, doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0554-8
  • Buras, R.; Rampp, M.; Janka, H.-Th.; Kifonidis, K. (2003), “Improved Models of Stellar Core Collapse and Still no Explosions: What is Missing?”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90 (24): 241101, arXiv:astro-ph/0303171Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003PhRvL..90x1101B, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.241101, PMID 12857181
  • Caldwell, Robert R. (2004), “Dark Energy”, Physics World, 17 (5): 37–42
  • Carlip, Steven (2001), “Quantum Gravity: a Progress Report”, Rept. Prog. Phys., 64 (8): 885–942, arXiv:gr-qc/0108040Freely accessible, Bibcode:2001RPPh…64..885C, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/64/8/301
  • Carroll, Bradley W.; Ostlie, Dale A. (1996), An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-54730-9
  • Carroll, Sean M. (2001), “The Cosmological Constant”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 4, arXiv:astro-ph/0004075Freely accessible, Bibcode:2001LRR…..4….1C, doi:10.12942/lrr-2001-1, retrieved 2007-07-21
  • Carter, Brandon (1979), “The general theory of the mechanical, electromagnetic and thermodynamic properties of black holes”, in Hawking, S. W.; Israel, W., General Relativity, an Einstein Centenary Survey, Cambridge University Press, pp. 294–369 and 860–863, ISBN 0-521-29928-4
  • Celotti, Annalisa; Miller, John C.; Sciama, Dennis W. (1999), “Astrophysical evidence for the existence of black holes”, Class. Quant. Grav., 16 (12A): A3–A21, arXiv:astro-ph/9912186Freely accessible, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/16/12A/301
  • Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (1983), The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-850370-9
  • Charbonnel, C.; Primas, F. (2005), “The Lithium Content of the Galactic Halo Stars”, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 442 (3): 961–992, arXiv:astro-ph/0505247Freely accessible, Bibcode:2005A&A…442..961C, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042491
  • Ciufolini, Ignazio; Pavlis, Erricos C. (2004), “A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the Lense-Thirring effect”, Nature, 431 (7011): 958–960, Bibcode:2004Natur.431..958C, doi:10.1038/nature03007, PMID 15496915
  • Ciufolini, Ignazio; Pavlis, Erricos C.; Peron, R. (2006), “Determination of frame-dragging using Earth gravity models from CHAMP and GRACE”, New Astron., 11 (8): 527–550, Bibcode:2006NewA…11..527C, doi:10.1016/j.newast.2006.02.001
  • Coc, A.; Vangioni‐Flam, Elisabeth; Descouvemont, Pierre; Adahchour, Abderrahim; Angulo, Carmen (2004), “Updated Big Bang Nucleosynthesis confronted to WMAP observations and to the Abundance of Light Elements”, Astrophysical Journal, 600 (2): 544–552, arXiv:astro-ph/0309480Freely accessible, Bibcode:2004ApJ…600..544C, doi:10.1086/380121
  • Cutler, Curt; Thorne, Kip S. (2002), “An overview of gravitational wave sources”, in Bishop, Nigel; Maharaj, Sunil D., Proceedings of 16th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation (GR16), World Scientific, p. 4090, arXiv:gr-qc/0204090Freely accessible, Bibcode:2002gr.qc…..4090C, ISBN 981-238-171-6
  • Dalal, Neal; Holz, Daniel E.; Hughes, Scott A.; Jain, Bhuvnesh (2006), “Short GRB and binary black hole standard sirens as a probe of dark energy”, Phys.Rev., D74 (6): 063006, arXiv:astro-ph/0601275Freely accessible, Bibcode:2006PhRvD..74f3006D, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.063006
  • Danzmann, Karsten; Rüdiger, Albrecht (2003), “LISA Technology—Concepts, Status, Prospects” (PDF), Class. Quant. Grav., 20 (10): S1–S9, Bibcode:2003CQGra..20S…1D, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/10/301
  • Dirac, Paul (1996), General Theory of Relativity, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-01146-X
  • Donoghue, John F. (1995), “Introduction to the Effective Field Theory Description of Gravity”, in Cornet, Fernando, Effective Theories: Proceedings of the Advanced School, Almunecar, Spain, 26 June–1 July 1995, Singapore: World Scientific, p. 12024, arXiv:gr-qc/9512024Freely accessible, Bibcode:1995gr.qc….12024D, ISBN 981-02-2908-9
  • Duff, Michael (1996), “M-Theory (the Theory Formerly Known as Strings)”, Int. J. Mod. Phys., A11 (32): 5623–5641, arXiv:hep-th/9608117Freely accessible, Bibcode:1996IJMPA..11.5623D, doi:10.1142/S0217751X96002583
  • Ehlers, Jürgen (1973), “Survey of general relativity theory”, in Israel, Werner, Relativity, Astrophysics and Cosmology, D. Reidel, pp. 1–125, ISBN 90-277-0369-8
  • Ehlers, Jürgen; Falco, Emilio E.; Schneider, Peter (1992), Gravitational lenses, Springer, ISBN 3-540-66506-4
  • Ehlers, Jürgen; Lämmerzahl, Claus, eds. (2006), Special Relativity—Will it Survive the Next 101 Years?, Springer, ISBN 3-540-34522-1
  • Ehlers, Jürgen; Rindler, Wolfgang (1997), “Local and Global Light Bending in Einstein’s and other Gravitational Theories”, General Relativity and Gravitation, 29 (4): 519–529, Bibcode:1997GReGr..29..519E, doi:10.1023/A:1018843001842
  • Einstein, Albert (1907), “Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogene Folgerungen” (PDF), Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4: 411, retrieved 2008-05-05
  • Einstein, Albert (1915), “Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation”, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin: 844–847, retrieved 2006-09-12
  • Einstein, Albert (1916), “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”, Annalen der Physik, 49: 769–822, Bibcode:1916AnP…354..769E, doi:10.1002/andp.19163540702, archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-08-29, retrieved 2016-02-14
  • Einstein, Albert (1917), “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”, Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 142
  • Ellis, George F R; Van Elst, Henk (1999), Lachièze-Rey, Marc, ed., “Theoretical and Observational Cosmology: Cosmological models (Cargèse lectures 1998)”, Theoretical and observational cosmology : proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, Kluwer: 1–116, arXiv:gr-qc/9812046Freely accessible, Bibcode:1999toc..conf….1E, doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4455-1_1, ISBN 978-0-7923-5946-3
  • Everitt, C. W. F.; Buchman, S.; DeBra, D. B.; Keiser, G. M. (2001), “Gravity Probe B: Countdown to launch”, in Lämmerzahl, C.; Everitt, C. W. F.; Hehl, F. W., Gyros, Clocks, and Interferometers: Testing Relativistic Gravity in Space (Lecture Notes in Physics 562), Springer, pp. 52–82, ISBN 3-540-41236-0
  • Everitt, C. W. F.; Parkinson, Bradford; Kahn, Bob (2007), The Gravity Probe B experiment. Post Flight Analysis—Final Report (Preface and Executive Summary)(PDF), Project Report: NASA, Stanford University and Lockheed Martin, retrieved 2007-08-05
  • Falcke, Heino; Melia, Fulvio; Agol, Eric (2000), “Viewing the Shadow of the Black Hole at the Galactic Center”, Astrophysical Journal, 528 (1): L13–L16, arXiv:astro-ph/9912263Freely accessible, Bibcode:2000ApJ…528L..13F, doi:10.1086/312423, PMID 10587484
  • Flanagan, Éanna É.; Hughes, Scott A. (2005), “The basics of gravitational wave theory”, New J.Phys., 7: 204, arXiv:gr-qc/0501041Freely accessible, Bibcode:2005NJPh….7..204F, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/204
  • Font, José A. (2003), “Numerical Hydrodynamics in General Relativity”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 6, doi:10.12942/lrr-2003-4, retrieved 2007-08-19
  • Fourès-Bruhat, Yvonne (1952), “Théoréme d’existence pour certains systémes d’équations aux derivées partielles non linéaires”, Acta Mathematica, 88 (1): 141–225, Bibcode:1952AcM….88..141F, doi:10.1007/BF02392131
  • Frauendiener, Jörg (2004), “Conformal Infinity”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 7, Bibcode:2004LRR…..7….1F, doi:10.12942/lrr-2004-1, retrieved 2007-07-21
  • Friedrich, Helmut (2005), “Is general relativity ‘essentially understood’?”, Annalen der Physik, 15 (1–2): 84–108, arXiv:gr-qc/0508016Freely accessible, Bibcode:2006AnP…518…84F, doi:10.1002/andp.200510173
  • Futamase, T.; Itoh, Y. (2006), “The Post-Newtonian Approximation for Relativistic Compact Binaries”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 10, doi:10.12942/lrr-2007-2, retrieved 2008-02-29
  • Gamow, George (1970), My World Line, Viking Press, ISBN 0-670-50376-2
  • Garfinkle, David (2007), “Of singularities and breadmaking”, Einstein Online, retrieved 2007-08-03
  • Geroch, Robert (1996). “Partial Differential Equations of Physics”. arXiv:gr-qc/9602055Freely accessible [gr-qc].
  • Giulini, Domenico (2005), Special Relativity: A First Encounter, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-856746-4
  • Giulini, Domenico (2006a), “Algebraic and Geometric Structures in Special Relativity”, in Ehlers, Jürgen; Lämmerzahl, Claus, Special Relativity—Will it Survive the Next 101 Years?, Springer, pp. 45–111, arXiv:math-ph/0602018Freely accessible,…2018G, doi:10.1007/3-540-34523-X_4, ISBN 3-540-34522-1
  • Giulini, Domenico (2006b), Stamatescu, I. O., ed., “An assessment of current paradigms in the physics of fundamental interactions: Some remarks on the notions of general covariance and background independence”, Approaches to Fundamental Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, 721: 105–120, arXiv:gr-qc/0603087Freely accessible, Bibcode:2007LNP…721..105G, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71117-9_6, ISBN 978-3-540-71115-5
  • Gnedin, Nickolay Y. (2005), “Digitizing the Universe”, Nature, 435 (7042): 572–573, Bibcode:2005Natur.435..572G, doi:10.1038/435572a, PMID 15931201
  • Goenner, Hubert F. M. (2004), “On the History of Unified Field Theories”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 7, Bibcode:2004LRR…..7….2G, doi:10.12942/lrr-2004-2, retrieved 2008-02-28
  • Goroff, Marc H.; Sagnotti, Augusto (1985), “Quantum gravity at two loops”, Phys. Lett., 160B (1–3): 81–86, Bibcode:1985PhLB..160…81G, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)91470-4
  • Gourgoulhon, Eric (2007). “3+1 Formalism and Bases of Numerical Relativity”. arXiv:gr-qc/0703035Freely accessible [gr-qc].
  • Gowdy, Robert H. (1971), “Gravitational Waves in Closed Universes”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 27 (12): 826–829, Bibcode:1971PhRvL..27..826G, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.27.826
  • Gowdy, Robert H. (1974), “Vacuum spacetimes with two-parameter spacelike isometry groups and compact invariant hypersurfaces: Topologies and boundary conditions”, Annals of Physics, 83 (1): 203–241, Bibcode:1974AnPhy..83..203G, doi:10.1016/0003-4916(74)90384-4
  • Green, M. B.; Schwarz, J. H.; Witten, E. (1987), Superstring theory. Volume 1: Introduction, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-35752-7
  • Greenstein, J. L.; Oke, J. B.; Shipman, H. L. (1971), “Effective Temperature, Radius, and Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B”, Astrophysical Journal, 169: 563, Bibcode:1971ApJ…169..563G, doi:10.1086/151174
  • Hamber, Herbert W. (2009), Quantum Gravitation – The Feynman Path Integral Approach, Springer Publishing, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85293-3, ISBN 978-3-540-85292-6
  • Gödel, Kurt (1949). “An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solution of Einstein’s Field Equations of Gravitation”. Rev. Mod. Phys. 21 (3): 447–450. Bibcode:1949RvMP…21..447G. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.21.447.
  • Hafele, J. C.; Keating, R. E. (July 14, 1972). “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains”. Science. 177 (4044): 166–168. Bibcode:1972Sci…177..166H. doi:10.1126/science.177.4044.166. PMID 17779917.
  • Hafele, J. C.; Keating, R. E. (July 14, 1972). “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains”. Science. 177 (4044): 168–170. Bibcode:1972Sci…177..168H. doi:10.1126/science.177.4044.168. PMID 17779918.
  • Havas, P. (1964), “Four-Dimensional Formulation of Newtonian Mechanics and Their Relation to the Special and the General Theory of Relativity”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 36 (4): 938–965, Bibcode:1964RvMP…36..938H, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.36.938
  • Hawking, Stephen W. (1966), “The occurrence of singularities in cosmology”, Proceedings of the Royal Society, A294 (1439): 511–521, Bibcode:1966RSPSA.294..511H, doi:10.1098/rspa.1966.0221, JSTOR 2415489
  • Hawking, S. W. (1975), “Particle Creation by Black Holes”, Communications in Mathematical Physics, 43 (3): 199–220, Bibcode:1975CMaPh..43..199H, doi:10.1007/BF02345020
  • Hawking, Stephen W. (1987), “Quantum cosmology”, in Hawking, Stephen W.; Israel, Werner, 300 Years of Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, pp. 631–651, ISBN 0-521-37976-8
  • Hawking, Stephen W.; Ellis, George F. R. (1973), The large scale structure of space-time, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-09906-4
  • Heckmann, O. H. L.; Schücking, E. (1959), “Newtonsche und Einsteinsche Kosmologie”, in Flügge, S., Encyclopedia of Physics, 53, p. 489
  • Heusler, Markus (1998), “Stationary Black Holes: Uniqueness and Beyond”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 1, doi:10.12942/lrr-1998-6, retrieved 2007-08-04
  • Heusler, Markus (1996), Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-56735-1
  • Hey, Tony; Walters, Patrick (2003), The new quantum universe, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-56457-3
  • Hough, Jim; Rowan, Sheila (2000), “Gravitational Wave Detection by Interferometry (Ground and Space)”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 3, retrieved 2007-07-21
  • Hubble, Edwin (1929), “A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae” (PDF), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 15 (3): 168–173, Bibcode:1929PNAS…15..168H, doi:10.1073/pnas.15.3.168, PMC 522427Freely accessible, PMID 16577160
  • Hulse, Russell A.; Taylor, Joseph H. (1975), “Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system”, Astrophys. J., 195: L51–L55, Bibcode:1975ApJ…195L..51H, doi:10.1086/181708
  • Ibanez, L. E. (2000), “The second string (phenomenology) revolution”, Class. Quant. Grav., 17 (5): 1117–1128, arXiv:hep-ph/9911499Freely accessible, Bibcode:2000CQGra..17.1117I, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/5/321
  • Iorio, L. (2009), “An Assessment of the Systematic Uncertainty in Present and Future Tests of the Lense-Thirring Effect with Satellite Laser Ranging”, Space Sci. Rev., 148 (1–4): 363–381, arXiv:0809.1373Freely accessible, Bibcode:2009SSRv..148..363I, doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9478-1
  • Isham, Christopher J. (1994), “Prima facie questions in quantum gravity”, in Ehlers, Jürgen; Friedrich, Helmut, Canonical Gravity: From Classical to Quantum, Springer, ISBN 3-540-58339-4
  • Israel, Werner (1971), “Event Horizons and Gravitational Collapse”, General Relativity and Gravitation, 2 (1): 53–59, Bibcode:1971GReGr…2…53I, doi:10.1007/BF02450518
  • Israel, Werner (1987), “Dark stars: the evolution of an idea”, in Hawking, Stephen W.; Israel, Werner, 300 Years of Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, pp. 199–276, ISBN 0-521-37976-8
  • Janssen, Michel (2005), “Of pots and holes: Einstein’s bumpy road to general relativity” (PDF), Annalen der Physik, 14 (S1): 58–85, Bibcode:2005AnP…517S..58J, doi:10.1002/andp.200410130
  • Jaranowski, Piotr; Królak, Andrzej (2005), “Gravitational-Wave Data Analysis. Formalism and Sample Applications: The Gaussian Case”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 8, doi:10.12942/lrr-2005-3, retrieved 2007-07-30
  • Kahn, Bob (1996–2012), Gravity Probe B Website, Stanford University, retrieved 2012-04-20
  • Kahn, Bob (April 14, 2007), Was Einstein right? Scientists provide first public peek at Gravity Probe B results (Stanford University Press Release) (PDF), Stanford University News Service
  • Kamionkowski, Marc; Kosowsky, Arthur; Stebbins, Albert (1997), “Statistics of Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization”, Phys. Rev., D55 (12): 7368–7388, arXiv:astro-ph/9611125Freely accessible, Bibcode:1997PhRvD..55.7368K, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.7368
  • Kennefick, Daniel (2005), “Astronomers Test General Relativity: Light-bending and the Solar Redshift”, in Renn, Jürgen, One hundred authors for Einstein, Wiley-VCH, pp. 178–181, ISBN 3-527-40574-7
  • Kennefick, Daniel (2007), “Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition”, Proceedings of the 7th Conference on the History of General Relativity, Tenerife, 2005, 0709, p. 685, arXiv:0709.0685Freely accessible, Bibcode:2007arXiv0709.0685K
  • Kenyon, I. R. (1990), General Relativity, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-851996-6
  • Kochanek, C.S.; Falco, E.E.; Impey, C.; Lehar, J. (2007), CASTLES Survey Website, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, retrieved 2007-08-21
  • Komar, Arthur (1959), “Covariant Conservation Laws in General Relativity”, Phys. Rev., 113 (3): 934–936, Bibcode:1959PhRv..113..934K, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.113.934
  • Kramer, Michael (2004), Karshenboim, S. G.; Peik, E., eds., “Astrophysics, Clocks and Fundamental Constants: Millisecond Pulsars as Tools of Fundamental Physics”, Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, 648: 33–54, arXiv:astro-ph/0405178Freely accessible, Bibcode:2004LNP…648…33K, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-40991-5_3, ISBN 978-3-540-21967-5
  • Kramer, M.; Stairs, I. H.; Manchester, R. N.; McLaughlin, M. A.; Lyne, A. G.; Ferdman, R. D.; Burgay, M.; Lorimer, D. R.; et al. (2006), “Tests of general relativity from timing the double pulsar”, Science, 314 (5796): 97–102, arXiv:astro-ph/0609417Freely accessible, Bibcode:2006Sci…314…97K, doi:10.1126/science.1132305, PMID 16973838
  • Kraus, Ute (1998), “Light Deflection Near Neutron Stars”, Relativistic Astrophysics, Vieweg, pp. 66–81, ISBN 3-528-06909-0
  • Kuchař, Karel (1973), “Canonical Quantization of Gravity”, in Israel, Werner, Relativity, Astrophysics and Cosmology, D. Reidel, pp. 237–288, ISBN 90-277-0369-8
  • Künzle, H. P. (1972), “Galilei and Lorentz Structures on spacetime: comparison of the corresponding geometry and physics”, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré A, 17: 337–362
  • Lahav, Ofer; Suto, Yasushi (2004), “Measuring our Universe from Galaxy Redshift Surveys”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 7, arXiv:astro-ph/0310642Freely accessible, Bibcode:2004LRR…..7….8L, doi:10.12942/lrr-2004-8, retrieved 2007-08-19
  • Landgraf, M.; Hechler, M.; Kemble, S. (2005), “Mission design for LISA Pathfinder”, Class. Quant. Grav., 22 (10): S487–S492, arXiv:gr-qc/0411071Freely accessible, Bibcode:2005CQGra..22S.487L, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/048
  • Lehner, Luis (2001), “Numerical Relativity: A review”, Class. Quant. Grav., 18 (17): R25–R86, arXiv:gr-qc/0106072Freely accessible, Bibcode:2001CQGra..18R..25L, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/18/17/202
  • Lehner, Luis (2002), “NUMERICAL RELATIVITY: STATUS AND PROSPECTS”, General Relativity and Gravitation – Proceedings of the 16th International Conference, p. 210, arXiv:gr-qc/0202055Freely accessible, Bibcode:2002grg..conf..210L, doi:10.1142/9789812776556_0010, ISBN 978-981-238-171-2
  • Linde, Andrei (1990), Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology, Harwood, p. 3203, arXiv:hep-th/0503203Freely accessible,….3203L, ISBN 3-7186-0489-2
  • Linde, Andrei (2005), “Towards inflation in string theory”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 24: 151–160, arXiv:hep-th/0503195Freely accessible, Bibcode:2005JPhCS..24..151L, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/24/1/018
  • Loll, Renate (1998), “Discrete Approaches to Quantum Gravity in Four Dimensions”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 1, arXiv:gr-qc/9805049Freely accessible, Bibcode:1998LRR…..1…13L, doi:10.12942/lrr-1998-13, retrieved 2008-03-09
  • Lovelock, David (1972), “The Four-Dimensionality of Space and the Einstein Tensor”, J. Math. Phys., 13 (6): 874–876, Bibcode:1972JMP….13..874L, doi:10.1063/1.1666069
  • Ludyk, Günter (2013). Einstein in Matrix Form (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-35797-8.
  • MacCallum, M. (2006), “Finding and using exact solutions of the Einstein equations”, in Mornas, L.; Alonso, J. D., AIP Conference Proceedings (A Century of Relativity Physics: ERE05, the XXVIII Spanish Relativity Meeting), 841, American Institute of Physics, p. 129, arXiv:gr-qc/0601102Freely accessible, Bibcode:2006AIPC..841..129M, doi:10.1063/1.2218172
  • Maddox, John (1998), What Remains To Be Discovered, Macmillan, ISBN 0-684-82292-X
  • Mannheim, Philip D. (2006), “Alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 56 (2): 340–445, arXiv:astro-ph/0505266Freely accessible, Bibcode:2006PrPNP..56..340M, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.08.001
  • Mather, J. C.; Cheng, E. S.; Cottingham, D. A.; Eplee, R. E.; Fixsen, D. J.; Hewagama, T.; Isaacman, R. B.; Jensen, K. A.; et al. (1994), “Measurement of the cosmic microwave spectrum by the COBE FIRAS instrument”, Astrophysical Journal, 420: 439–444, Bibcode:1994ApJ…420..439M, doi:10.1086/173574
  • Mermin, N. David (2005), It’s About Time. Understanding Einstein’s Relativity, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-12201-6
  • Messiah, Albert (1999), Quantum Mechanics, Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-40924-4
  • Miller, Cole (2002), Stellar Structure and Evolution (Lecture notes for Astronomy 606), University of Maryland, retrieved 2007-07-25
  • Misner, Charles W.; Thorne, Kip. S.; Wheeler, John A. (1973), Gravitation, W. H. Freeman, ISBN 0-7167-0344-0
  • Møller, Christian (1952), The Theory of Relativity (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press
  • Narayan, Ramesh (2006), “Black holes in astrophysics”, New Journal of Physics, 7: 199, arXiv:gr-qc/0506078Freely accessible, Bibcode:2005NJPh….7..199N, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/7/1/199
  • Narayan, Ramesh; Bartelmann, Matthias (1997). “Lectures on Gravitational Lensing”. arXiv:astro-ph/9606001Freely accessible [astro-ph].
  • Narlikar, Jayant V. (1993), Introduction to Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-41250-1
  • Nieto, Michael Martin (2006), “The quest to understand the Pioneer anomaly” (PDF), EurophysicsNews, 37 (6): 30–34, Bibcode:2006ENews..37…30N, doi:10.1051/epn:2006604
  • Nordström, Gunnar (1918), “On the Energy of the Gravitational Field in Einstein’s Theory”, Verhandl. Koninkl. Ned. Akad. Wetenschap., 26: 1238–1245
  • Nordtvedt, Kenneth (2003). “Lunar Laser Ranging—a comprehensive probe of post-Newtonian gravity”. arXiv:gr-qc/0301024Freely accessible[gr-qc].
  • Norton, John D. (1985), “What was Einstein’s principle of equivalence?”(PDF), Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16 (3): 203–246, doi:10.1016/0039-3681(85)90002-0, retrieved 2007-06-11
  • Ohanian, Hans C.; Ruffini, Remo (1994), Gravitation and Spacetime, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-96501-5
  • Olive, K. A.; Skillman, E. A. (2004), “A Realistic Determination of the Error on the Primordial Helium Abundance”, Astrophysical Journal, 617 (1): 29–49, arXiv:astro-ph/0405588Freely accessible, Bibcode:2004ApJ…617…29O, doi:10.1086/425170
  • O’Meara, John M.; Tytler, David; Kirkman, David; Suzuki, Nao; Prochaska, Jason X.; Lubin, Dan; Wolfe, Arthur M. (2001), “The Deuterium to Hydrogen Abundance Ratio Towards a Fourth QSO: HS0105+1619”, Astrophysical Journal, 552 (2): 718–730, arXiv:astro-ph/0011179Freely accessible, Bibcode:2001ApJ…552..718O, doi:10.1086/320579
  • Oppenheimer, J. Robert; Snyder, H. (1939), “On continued gravitational contraction”, Physical Review, 56 (5): 455–459, Bibcode:1939PhRv…56..455O, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.56.455
  • Overbye, Dennis (1999), Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos: the story of the scientific quest for the secret of the Universe, Back Bay, ISBN 0-316-64896-5
  • Pais, Abraham (1982), ‘Subtle is the Lord …’ The Science and life of Albert Einstein, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-853907-X
  • Peacock, John A. (1999), Cosmological Physics, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-41072-X
  • Peebles, P. J. E. (1966), “Primordial Helium abundance and primordial fireball II”, Astrophysical Journal, 146: 542–552, Bibcode:1966ApJ…146..542P, doi:10.1086/148918
  • Peebles, P. J. E. (1993), Principles of physical cosmology, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-01933-9
  • Peebles, P.J.E.; Schramm, D.N.; Turner, E.L.; Kron, R.G. (1991), “The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology”, Nature, 352 (6338): 769–776, Bibcode:1991Natur.352..769P, doi:10.1038/352769a0
  • Penrose, Roger (1965), “Gravitational collapse and spacetime singularities”, Physical Review Letters, 14 (3): 57–59, Bibcode:1965PhRvL..14…57P, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57
  • Penrose, Roger (1969), “Gravitational collapse: the role of general relativity”, Rivista del Nuovo Cimento, 1: 252–276, Bibcode:1969NCimR…1..252P
  • Penrose, Roger (2004), The Road to Reality, A. A. Knopf, ISBN 0-679-45443-8
  • Penzias, A. A.; Wilson, R. W. (1965), “A measurement of excess antenna temperature at 4080 Mc/s”, Astrophysical Journal, 142: 419–421, Bibcode:1965ApJ…142..419P, doi:10.1086/148307
  • Peskin, Michael E.; Schroeder, Daniel V. (1995), An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-50397-2
  • Peskin, Michael E. (2007), “Dark Matter and Particle Physics”, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 76 (11): 111017, arXiv:0707.1536Freely accessible, Bibcode:2007JPSJ…76k1017P, doi:10.1143/JPSJ.76.111017
  • Poisson, Eric (2004), “The Motion of Point Particles in Curved Spacetime”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 7, doi:10.12942/lrr-2004-6, retrieved 2007-06-13
  • Poisson, Eric (2004), A Relativist’s Toolkit. The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-83091-5
  • Polchinski, Joseph (1998a), String Theory Vol. I: An Introduction to the Bosonic String, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-63303-6
  • Polchinski, Joseph (1998b), String Theory Vol. II: Superstring Theory and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-63304-4
  • Pound, R. V.; Rebka, G. A. (1959), “Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance”, Physical Review Letters, 3 (9): 439–441, Bibcode:1959PhRvL…3..439P, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439
  • Pound, R. V.; Rebka, G. A. (1960), “Apparent weight of photons”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 4 (7): 337–341, Bibcode:1960PhRvL…4..337P, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337
  • Pound, R. V.; Snider, J. L. (1964), “Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 13 (18): 539–540, Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..539P, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.539
  • Ramond, Pierre (1990), Field Theory: A Modern Primer, Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-54611-6
  • Rees, Martin (1966), “Appearance of Relativistically Expanding Radio Sources”, Nature, 211 (5048): 468–470, Bibcode:1966Natur.211..468R, doi:10.1038/211468a0
  • Reissner, H. (1916), “Über die Eigengravitation des elektrischen Feldes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie”, Annalen der Physik, 355 (9): 106–120, Bibcode:1916AnP…355..106R, doi:10.1002/andp.19163550905
  • Remillard, Ronald A.; Lin, Dacheng; Cooper, Randall L.; Narayan, Ramesh (2006), “The Rates of Type I X-Ray Bursts from Transients Observed with RXTE: Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons”, Astrophysical Journal, 646 (1): 407–419, arXiv:astro-ph/0509758Freely accessible, Bibcode:2006ApJ…646..407R, doi:10.1086/504862
  • Renn, Jürgen, ed. (2007), The Genesis of General Relativity (4 Volumes), Dordrecht: Springer, ISBN 1-4020-3999-9
  • Renn, Jürgen, ed. (2005), Albert Einstein—Chief Engineer of the Universe: Einstein’s Life and Work in Context, Berlin: Wiley-VCH, ISBN 3-527-40571-2
  • Reula, Oscar A. (1998), “Hyperbolic Methods for Einstein’s Equations”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 1, Bibcode:1998LRR…..1….3R, doi:10.12942/lrr-1998-3, retrieved 2007-08-29
  • Rindler, Wolfgang (2001), Relativity. Special, General and Cosmological, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-850836-0
  • Rindler, Wolfgang (1991), Introduction to Special Relativity, Clarendon Press, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-853952-5
  • Robson, Ian (1996), Active galactic nuclei, John Wiley, ISBN 0-471-95853-0
  • Roulet, E.; Mollerach, S. (1997), “Microlensing”, Physics Reports, 279 (2): 67–118, arXiv:astro-ph/9603119Freely accessible, Bibcode:1997PhR…279…67R, doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(96)00020-8
  • Rovelli, Carlo (2000). “Notes for a brief history of quantum gravity”. arXiv:gr-qc/0006061Freely accessible [gr-qc].
  • Rovelli, Carlo (1998), “Loop Quantum Gravity”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 1, doi:10.12942/lrr-1998-1, retrieved 2008-03-13
  • Schäfer, Gerhard (2004), “Gravitomagnetic Effects”, General Relativity and Gravitation, 36 (10): 2223–2235, arXiv:gr-qc/0407116Freely accessible, Bibcode:2004GReGr..36.2223S, doi:10.1023/B:GERG.0000046180.97877.32
  • Schödel, R.; Ott, T.; Genzel, R.; Eckart, A.; Mouawad, N.; Alexander, T. (2003), “Stellar Dynamics in the Central Arcsecond of Our Galaxy”, Astrophysical Journal, 596 (2): 1015–1034, arXiv:astro-ph/0306214Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003ApJ…596.1015S, doi:10.1086/378122
  • Schutz, Bernard F. (1985), A first course in general relativity, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-27703-5
  • Schutz, Bernard F. (2001), “Gravitational radiation”, in Murdin, Paul, Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Grove’s Dictionaries, ISBN 1-56159-268-4
  • Schutz, Bernard F. (2003), Gravity from the ground up, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-45506-5
  • Schwarz, John H. (2007), “String Theory: Progress and Problems”, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 170: 214–226, arXiv:hep-th/0702219Freely accessible, Bibcode:2007PThPS.170..214S, doi:10.1143/PTPS.170.214
  • Schwarzschild, Karl (1916a), “Über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie”, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. D. Wiss.: 189–196
  • Schwarzschild, Karl (1916b), “Über das Gravitationsfeld einer Kugel aus inkompressibler Flüssigkeit nach der Einsteinschen Theorie”, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. D. Wiss.: 424–434
  • Seidel, Edward (1998), “Numerical Relativity: Towards Simulations of 3D Black Hole Coalescence”, in Narlikar, J. V.; Dadhich, N., Gravitation and Relativity: At the turn of the millennium (Proceedings of the GR-15 Conference, held at IUCAA, Pune, India, December 16–21, 1997), IUCAA, p. 6088, arXiv:gr-qc/9806088Freely accessible, Bibcode:1998gr.qc…..6088S, ISBN 81-900378-3-8
  • Seljak, Uros̆; Zaldarriaga, Matias (1997), “Signature of Gravity Waves in the Polarization of the Microwave Background”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78 (11): 2054–2057, arXiv:astro-ph/9609169Freely accessible, Bibcode:1997PhRvL..78.2054S, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2054
  • Shapiro, S. S.; Davis, J. L.; Lebach, D. E.; Gregory, J. S. (2004), “Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using geodetic very-long-baseline interferometry data, 1979–1999”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92 (12): 121101, Bibcode:2004PhRvL..92l1101S, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.121101, PMID 15089661
  • Shapiro, Irwin I. (1964), “Fourth test of general relativity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 13 (26): 789–791, Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..789S, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.789
  • Shapiro, I. I.; Pettengill, Gordon; Ash, Michael; Stone, Melvin; Smith, William; Ingalls, Richard; Brockelman, Richard (1968), “Fourth test of general relativity: preliminary results”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 20 (22): 1265–1269, Bibcode:1968PhRvL..20.1265S, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.20.1265
  • Singh, Simon (2004), Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe, Fourth Estate, ISBN 0-00-715251-5
  • Sorkin, Rafael D. (2005), “Causal Sets: Discrete Gravity”, in Gomberoff, Andres; Marolf, Donald, Lectures on Quantum Gravity, Springer, p. 9009, arXiv:gr-qc/0309009Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003gr.qc…..9009S, ISBN 0-387-23995-2
  • Sorkin, Rafael D. (1997), “Forks in the Road, on the Way to Quantum Gravity”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 36 (12): 2759–2781, arXiv:gr-qc/9706002Freely accessible, Bibcode:1997IJTP…36.2759S, doi:10.1007/BF02435709
  • Spergel, D. N.; Verde, L.; Peiris, H. V.; Komatsu, E.; Nolta, M. R.; Bennett, C. L.; Halpern, M.; Hinshaw, G.; et al. (2003), “First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters”, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 148 (1): 175–194, arXiv:astro-ph/0302209Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003ApJS..148..175S, doi:10.1086/377226
  • Spergel, D. N.; Bean, R.; Doré, O.; Nolta, M. R.; Bennett, C. L.; Dunkley, J.; Hinshaw, G.; Jarosik, N.; et al. (2007), “Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology”, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 170 (2): 377–408, arXiv:astro-ph/0603449Freely accessible, Bibcode:2007ApJS..170..377S, doi:10.1086/513700
  • Springel, Volker; White, Simon D. M.; Jenkins, Adrian; Frenk, Carlos S.; Yoshida, Naoki; Gao, Liang; Navarro, Julio; Thacker, Robert; et al. (2005), “Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars”, Nature, 435 (7042): 629–636, arXiv:astro-ph/0504097Freely accessible, Bibcode:2005Natur.435..629S, doi:10.1038/nature03597, PMID 15931216
  • Stairs, Ingrid H. (2003), “Testing General Relativity with Pulsar Timing”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 6, arXiv:astro-ph/0307536Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003LRR…..6….5S, doi:10.12942/lrr-2003-5, retrieved 2007-07-21
  • Stephani, H.; Kramer, D.; MacCallum, M.; Hoenselaers, C.; Herlt, E. (2003), Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations (2 ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-46136-7
  • Synge, J. L. (1972), Relativity: The Special Theory, North-Holland Publishing Company, ISBN 0-7204-0064-3
  • Szabados, László B. (2004), “Quasi-Local Energy-Momentum and Angular Momentum in GR”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 7, doi:10.12942/lrr-2004-4, retrieved 2007-08-23
  • Taylor, Joseph H. (1994), “Binary pulsars and relativistic gravity”, Rev. Mod. Phys., 66 (3): 711–719, Bibcode:1994RvMP…66..711T, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.66.711
  • Thiemann, Thomas (2006), “Approaches to Fundamental Physics: Loop Quantum Gravity: An Inside View”, Lecture Notes in Physics, 721: 185–263, arXiv:hep-th/0608210Freely accessible, Bibcode:2007LNP…721..185T, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71117-9_10, ISBN 978-3-540-71115-5
  • Thiemann, Thomas (2003), “Lectures on Loop Quantum Gravity”, Lecture Notes in Physics, 631: 41–135, arXiv:gr-qc/0210094Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003LNP…631…41T, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45230-0_3, ISBN 978-3-540-40810-9
  • ‘t Hooft, Gerard; Veltman, Martinus (1974), “One Loop Divergencies in the Theory of Gravitation”, Ann. Inst. Poincare, 20: 69
  • Thorne, Kip S. (1972), “Nonspherical Gravitational Collapse—A Short Review”, in Klauder, J., Magic without Magic, W. H. Freeman, pp. 231–258
  • Thorne, Kip S. (1994), Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, W W Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-31276-3
  • Thorne, Kip S. (1995), “Gravitational radiation”, Particle and Nuclear Astrophysics and Cosmology in the Next Millenium: 160, arXiv:gr-qc/9506086Freely accessible, Bibcode:1995pnac.conf..160T, ISBN 0-521-36853-7
  • Townsend, Paul K. (1997). “Black Holes (Lecture notes)”. arXiv:gr-qc/9707012Freely accessible [gr-qc].
  • Townsend, Paul K. (1996). “Four Lectures on M-Theory”. arXiv:hep-th/9612121Freely accessible [hep-th].
  • Traschen, Jenny (2000), Bytsenko, A.; Williams, F., eds., “An Introduction to Black Hole Evaporation”, Mathematical Methods of Physics (Proceedings of the 1999 Londrina Winter School), World Scientific: 180, arXiv:gr-qc/0010055Freely accessible, Bibcode:2000mmp..conf..180T
  • Trautman, Andrzej (2006), “Einstein–Cartan theory”, in Françoise, J.-P.; Naber, G. L.; Tsou, S. T., Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 2, Elsevier, pp. 189–195, arXiv:gr-qc/0606062Freely accessible, Bibcode:2006gr.qc…..6062T
  • Unruh, W. G. (1976), “Notes on Black Hole Evaporation”, Phys. Rev. D, 14 (4): 870–892, Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14..870U, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.870
  • Valtonen, M. J.; Lehto, H. J.; Nilsson, K.; Heidt, J.; Takalo, L. O.; Sillanpää, A.; Villforth, C.; Kidger, M.; et al. (2008), “A massive binary black-hole system in OJ 287 and a test of general relativity”, Nature, 452 (7189): 851–853, arXiv:0809.1280Freely accessible, Bibcode:2008Natur.452..851V, doi:10.1038/nature06896, PMID 18421348
  • Veltman, Martinus (1975), “Quantum Theory of Gravitation”, in Balian, Roger; Zinn-Justin, Jean, Methods in Field Theory – Les Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics., 77, North Holland
  • Wald, Robert M. (1975), “On Particle Creation by Black Holes”, Commun. Math. Phys., 45 (3): 9–34, Bibcode:1975CMaPh..45….9W, doi:10.1007/BF01609863
  • Wald, Robert M. (1984), General Relativity, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-87033-2
  • Wald, Robert M. (1994), Quantum field theory in curved spacetime and black hole thermodynamics, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-87027-8
  • Wald, Robert M. (2001), “The Thermodynamics of Black Holes”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 4, Bibcode:2001LRR…..4….6W, doi:10.12942/lrr-2001-6, retrieved 2007-08-08
  • Walsh, D.; Carswell, R. F.; Weymann, R. J. (1979), “0957 + 561 A, B: twin quasistellar objects or gravitational lens?”, Nature, 279 (5712): 381–4, Bibcode:1979Natur.279..381W, doi:10.1038/279381a0, PMID 16068158
  • Wambsganss, Joachim (1998), “Gravitational Lensing in Astronomy”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 1, arXiv:astro-ph/9812021Freely accessible, Bibcode:1998LRR…..1…12W, doi:10.12942/lrr-1998-12, retrieved 2007-07-20
  • Weinberg, Steven (1972), Gravitation and Cosmology, John Wiley, ISBN 0-471-92567-5
  • Weinberg, Steven (1995), The Quantum Theory of Fields I: Foundations, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-55001-7
  • Weinberg, Steven (1996), The Quantum Theory of Fields II: Modern Applications, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-55002-5
  • Weinberg, Steven (2000), The Quantum Theory of Fields III: Supersymmetry, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-66000-9
  • Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), “The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16″”, in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of “Radio Pulsars,” Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series
  • Weiss, Achim (2006), “Elements of the past: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and observation”, Einstein Online, Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, retrieved 2007-02-24
  • Wheeler, John A. (1990), A Journey Into Gravity and Spacetime, Scientific American Library, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, ISBN 0-7167-6034-7
  • Will, Clifford M. (1993), Theory and experiment in gravitational physics, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-43973-6
  • Will, Clifford M. (2006), “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment”, Living Reviews in Relativity, 9, arXiv:gr-qc/0510072Freely accessible, Bibcode:2006LRR…..9….3W, doi:10.12942/lrr-2006-3, retrieved 2007-06-12
  • Zwiebach, Barton (2004), A First Course in String Theory, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-83143-1

Wikipedia and

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

By Trinh Manh Do

%d bloggers like this: