GetWiki
General relativity
ARTICLE SUBJECTS
being →
database →
ethics →
fiction →
history →
internet →
language →
linux →
logic →
method →
news →
policy →
purpose →
religion →
science →
software →
truth →
unix →
wiki →
ARTICLE TYPES
essay →
feed →
help →
system →
wiki →
ARTICLE ORIGINS
critical →
forked →
imported →
original →
General relativity
please note:
 the content below is remote from Wikipedia
 it has been imported raw for GetWiki
{{Forthe graduate textbook by Robert WaldGeneral Relativity (book)}}{{short descriptionEinstein's theory of gravitation as curved spacetime}}{{see introduction}}
 the content below is remote from Wikipedia
 it has been imported raw for GetWiki
History
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 eightyear 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.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 20150204. 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.{{HarvnbPais1982loc=ch. 9 to 15}}, {{HarvnbJanssen2005}}; an uptodate collection of current research, including reprints of many of the original articles, is {{HarvnbRenn2007}}; an accessible overview can be found in {{HarvnbRenn2005pp=110ff}}. Einstein's original papers are found in Digital Einstein, volumes 4 and 6. An early key article is {{HarvnbEinstein1907}}, cf. {{HarvnbPais1982loc=ch. 9}}. The publication featuring the field equations is {{HarvnbEinstein1915}}, cf. {{HarvnbPais1982loc=ch. 11â€“15}} The 19th century mathematician Bernhard Riemann's nonEuclidean geometry, called Riemannian Geometry, provided the key mathematical framework which Einstein fit his physical ideas of gravity on, and enabled him to develop general relativity.Moshe Carmeli (2008).Relativity: Modern LargeScale Structures of the Cosmos. pp.92, 93.World Scientific PublishingThe 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 nontrivial 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 Reissnerâ€“NordstrÃ¶m solution, now associated with electrically charged black holes.{{HarvnbSchwarzschild1916a}}, {{HarvnbSchwarzschild1916b}} and {{HarvnbReissner1916}} (later complemented in {{HarvnbNordstrÃ¶m1918}}) 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 equationsâ€”the cosmological constantâ€”to match that observational presumption.{{HarvnbEinstein1917}}, cf. {{HarvnbPais1982loc=ch. 15e}} 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. LemaÃ®tre 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.Hubble's original article is {{HarvnbHubble1929}}; an accessible overview is given in {{HarvnbSingh2004loc=ch. 2â€“4}} Einstein later declared the cosmological constant the biggest blunder of his life.As reported in {{HarvnbGamow1970}}. Einstein's condemnation would prove to be premature, cf. the section Cosmology, belowDuring 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 ("(wikt:fudge factorfudge factors)").{{HarvnbPais1982pp=253â€“254}} 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,{{HarvnbKennefick2005}}, {{HarvnbKennefick2007}} making Einstein instantly famous.{{HarvnbPais1982loc=ch. 16}} 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.BOOK, The future of theoretical physics and cosmology: celebrating Stephen Hawking's 60th birthday, Kip, Thorne, Cambridge University Press, 2003, 9780521820813, 74,weblink harv, Extract of page 74 Physicists began to understand the concept of a black hole, and to identify quasars as one of these objects' astrophysical manifestations.{{HarvnbIsrael1987loc=ch. 7.8â€“7.10}}, {{HarvnbThorne1994loc=ch. 3â€“9}} Ever more precise solar system tests confirmed the theory's predictive power,Sections Orbital effects and the relativity of direction, Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift and Light deflection and gravitational time delay, and references therein and relativistic cosmology, too, became amenable to direct observational tests.Section Cosmology and references therein; the historical development is in {{HarvnbOverbye1999}}Over the years, general relativity has acquired a reputation as a theory of extraordinary beauty.{{HarvnbLandauLifshitz1975loc=p. 228}} "...the general theory of relativity...was established by Einstein, and represents probably the most beautiful of all existing physical theories."{{HarvnbWald1984loc=p. 3}}{{HarvnbRovelli2015loc=pp. 1â€“6}} "General relativity is not just an extraordinarily beautiful physical theory providing the best description of the gravitational interaction we have so far. It is more." Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar has noted that at multiple levels, general relativity exhibits what Francis Bacon has termed, a "strangeness in the proportion" (i.e. elements that excite wonderment and surprise). It juxtaposes fundamental concepts (space and time versus matter and motion) which had previously been considered as entirely independent. Chandrasekhar also noted that Einstein's only guides in his search for an exact theory were the principle of equivalence and his sense that a proper description of gravity should be geometrical at its basis, so that there was an "element of revelation" in the manner in which Einstein arrived at his theory.{{HarvnbChandrasekhar1984loc=p. 6}} Other elements of beauty associated with the general theory of relativity are its simplicity, symmetry, the manner in which it incorporates invariance and unification, and its perfect logical consistency.{{HarvnbEngler2002}}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.The following exposition retraces that of {{HarvnbEhlers1973loc=sec. 1}}Geometry of Newtonian gravity
(File:Elevator gravity.svgthumbAccording 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.{{HarvnbArnold1989loc=ch. 1}} 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.{{HarvnbEhlers1973pp=5f}}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 EÃ¶tvÃ¶s and its successors (see EÃ¶tvÃ¶s experiment), there is a universality of free fall (also known as the weak equivalence principle, or the universal equality of inertial and passivegravitational 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.{{HarvnbWill1993loc=sec. 2.4}}, {{HarvnbWill2006loc=sec. 2}} 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.{{HarvnbWheeler1990loc=ch. 2}}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 timeâ€”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 freefall trajectories of different test particles, the result of transporting spacetime vectors that can denote a particle's velocity (timelike 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 Newtonâ€“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.{{HarvnbEhlers1973loc=sec. 1.2}}, {{HarvnbHavas1964}}, {{HarvnbKÃ¼nzle1972}}. The simple thought experiment in question was first described in {{HarvnbHeckmannSchÃ¼cking1959}} In this geometric description, tidal effectsâ€”the relative acceleration of bodies in free fallâ€”are related to the derivative of the connection, showing how the modified geometry is caused by the presence of mass.{{HarvnbEhlers1973pp=10f}}Relativistic generalization
File:Light cone.svgthumbleftuprightLight coneLight coneAs intriguing as geometric Newtonian gravity may be, its basis, classical mechanics, is merely a limiting case of (special) relativistic mechanics.Good introductions are, in order of increasing presupposed knowledge of mathematics, {{HarvnbGiulini2005}}, {{HarvnbMermin2005}}, and {{HarvnbRindler1991}}; for accounts of precision experiments, cf. part IV of {{HarvnbEhlersLÃ¤mmerzahl2006}} 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 PoincarÃ© 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 highenergy phenomena.An indepth comparison between the two symmetry groups can be found in {{HarvnbGiulini2006}}With Lorentz symmetry, additional structures come into play. They are defined by the set of light cones (see image). The lightcones define a causal structure: for each event {{mathA}}, there is a set of events that can, in principle, either influence or be influenced by {{mathA}} via signals or interactions that do not need to travel faster than light (such as event {{mathB}} in the image), and a set of events for which such an influence is impossible (such as event {{mathC}} in the image). These sets are observerindependent.{{HarvnbRindler1991loc=sec. 22}}, {{HarvnbSynge1972loc=ch. 1 and 2}} In conjunction with the worldlines of freely falling particles, the lightcones can be used to reconstruct the spaceâ€“time's semiRiemannian metric, at least up to a positive scalar factor. In mathematical terms, this defines a conformal structure{{HarvnbEhlers1973loc=sec. 2.3}} 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 timelike lines that define a gravityfree 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.{{HarvnbEhlers1973loc=sec. 1.4}}, {{HarvnbSchutz1985loc=sec. 5.1}}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 holdâ€”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 specialrelativistic frames (such as their being earthfixed, 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 freefalling frames are the ones in which light propagates as it does in special relativity.{{HarvnbEhlers1973pp=17ff}}; a derivation can be found in {{HarvnbMermin2005loc=ch. 12}}. For the experimental evidence, cf. the section Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift, below The generalization of this statement, namely that the laws of special relativity hold to good approximation in freely falling (and nonrotating) reference frames, is known as the Einstein equivalence principle, a crucial guiding principle for generalizing specialrelativistic physics to include gravity.{{HarvnbRindler2001loc=sec. 1.13}}; for an elementary account, see {{HarvnbWheeler1990loc=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. {{HarvnbNorton1985}}The same experimental data shows that time as measured by clocks in a gravitational fieldâ€”proper time, to give the technical termâ€”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 geometryâ€”in particular, how lengths and angles are measuredâ€”is not the Minkowski metric of special relativity, it is a generalization known as a semi or pseudoRiemannian metric. Furthermore, each Riemannian metric is naturally associated with one particular kind of connection, the LeviCivita 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).{{HarvnbEhlers1973loc=sec. 1.4}} for the experimental evidence, see once more section Gravitational time dilation and frequency shift. Choosing a different connection with nonzero torsion leads to a modified theory known as Einsteinâ€“Cartan theoryEinstein'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 energyâ€“momentum tensor, which includes both energy and momentum densities as well as stress: pressure and shear.{{HarvnbEhlers1973p=16}}, {{HarvnbKenyon1990loc=sec. 7.2}}, {{HarvnbWeinberg1972loc=sec. 2.8}} Using the equivalence principle, this tensor is readily generalized to curved spacetime. 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 energyâ€“momentum corresponds to the statement that the energyâ€“momentum tensor is divergencefree. This formula, too, is readily generalized to curved spacetime by replacing partial derivatives with their curvedmanifold counterparts, covariant derivatives studied in differential geometry. With this additional conditionâ€”the covariant divergence of the energyâ€“momentum tensor, and hence of whatever is on the other side of the equation, is zeroâ€” the simplest set of equations are what are called Einstein's (field) equations:{{Equation box 1indent=:title=Einstein's field equationsequation=G_{munu}equiv R_{munu}  {textstyle 1 over 2}R,g_{munu} = {8 pi G over c^4} T_{munu},cellpaddingborderborder colour = #50C878background colour = #ECFCF4}}On the lefthand side is the Einstein tensor, a specific divergencefree combination of the Ricci tensor R_{munu} and the metric. Where G_{munu} is symmetric. In particular,
R=g^{munu}R_{munu},
is the curvature scalar. The Ricci tensor itself is related to the more general Riemann curvature tensor as
R_{munu}={R^alpha}_{mualphanu}.,
On the righthand side, T_{munu} is the energyâ€“momentum tensor. All tensors are written in abstract index notation.{{HarvnbEhlers1973pp=19â€“22}}; for similar derivations, see sections 1 and 2 of ch. 7 in {{HarvnbWeinberg1972}}. The Einstein tensor is the only divergencefree 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. {{HarvnbLovelock1972}}. The tensors on both side are of second rank, that is, they can each be thought of as 4Ã—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. {{HarvnbSchutz1985loc=sec. 8.3}} Matching the theory's prediction to observational results for planetary orbits or, equivalently, assuring that the weakgravity, lowspeed limit is Newtonian mechanics, the proportionality constant can be fixed as kappa = frac{8pi G}{c^4}, where G is the gravitational constant and c the speed of light in vacuum.{{HarvnbKenyon1990loc=sec. 7.4}} When there is no matter present, so that the energyâ€“momentum tensor vanishes, the results are the vacuum Einstein equations,
R_{munu}=0.,
In general relativity, the world line of a particle free from all external, nongravitational force is a particular type of geodesic in curved spacetime. In other words, a freely moving or falling particle always moves along a geodesic.The geodesic equation is:
{d^2 x^mu over ds^2}+Gamma^mu {}_{alpha beta}{d x^alpha over ds}{d x^beta over ds}=0,
where s is a scalar parameter of motion (e.g. the proper time), and Gamma^mu {}_{alpha beta} are Christoffel symbols (sometimes called the affine connection coefficients or LeviCivita connection coefficients) which is symmetric in the two lower indices. Greek indices may take the values: 0, 1, 2, 3 and the summation convention is used for repeated indices alpha and beta. The quantity on the lefthandside of this equation is the acceleration of a particle, and so this equation is analogous to Newton's laws of motion which likewise provide formulae for the acceleration of a particle. This equation of motion employs the Einstein notation, meaning that repeated indices are summed (i.e. from zero to three). The Christoffel symbols are functions of the four spacetime coordinates, and so are independent of the velocity or acceleration or other characteristics of a test particle whose motion is described by the geodesic equation.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 Whitehead's theory, Bransâ€“Dicke theory, teleparallelism, f(R) gravity and Einsteinâ€“Cartan theory.{{HarvnbBransDicke1961}}, {{HarvnbWeinberg1972loc=sec. 3 in ch. 7}}, {{HarvnbGoenner2004loc=sec. 7.2}}, and {{HarvnbTrautman2006}}, respectivelyDefinition and basic applications
{{See alsoMathematics of general relativityPhysical theories modified by general relativity}}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 modelbuilding.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 fourdimensional pseudoRiemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the energyâ€“momentum contained in that spacetime.{{HarvnbWald1984loc=ch. 4}},{{HarvnbWeinberg1972loc=ch. 7}} or, in fact, any other textbook on general relativity Phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to the action of the force of gravity (such as freefall, 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 straightestpossible paths that objects will naturally follow.At least approximately, cf. {{HarvnbPoisson2004}} The curvature is, in turn, caused by the energyâ€“momentum of matter. Paraphrasing the relativist John Archibald Wheeler, spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.{{HarvnbWheeler1990p=xi}}While general relativity replaces the scalar gravitational potential of classical physics by a symmetric ranktwo 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.{{HarvnbWald1984loc=sec. 4.4}}As it is constructed using tensors, general relativity exhibits general covariance: its lawsâ€”and further laws formulated within the general relativistic frameworkâ€”take on the same form in all coordinate systems.{{HarvnbWald1984loc=sec. 4.1}} 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.For the (conceptual and historical) difficulties in defining a general principle of relativity and separating it from the notion of general covariance, see {{HarvnbGiulini2007}} Locally, as expressed in the equivalence principle, spacetime is Minkowskian, and the laws of physics exhibit local Lorentz invariance.section 5 in ch. 12 of {{HarvnbWeinberg1972}}Modelbuilding
The core concept of generalrelativistic modelbuilding 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 semiRiemannian 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 energyâ€“momentum tensor must be divergencefree. 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.Introductory chapters of {{HarvnbStephaniKramerMacCallumHoenselaers2003}}Einstein's equations are nonlinear partial differential equations and, as such, difficult to solve exactly.A review showing Einstein's equation in the broader context of other PDEs with physical significance is {{HarvnbGeroch1996}} Nevertheless, a number of exact solutions are known, although only a few have direct physical applications.For background information and a list of solutions, cf. {{HarvnbStephaniKramerMacCallumHoenselaers2003}}; a more recent review can be found in {{HarvnbMacCallum2006}} The bestknown exact solutions, and also those most interesting from a physics point of view, are the Schwarzschild solution, the Reissnerâ€“NordstrÃ¶m solution and the Kerr metric, each corresponding to a certain type of black hole in an otherwise empty universe,{{HarvnbChandrasekhar1983loc=ch. 3,5,6}} and the Friedmannâ€“LemaÃ®treâ€“Robertsonâ€“Walker and de Sitter universes, each describing an expanding cosmos.{{HarvnbNarlikar1993loc=ch. 4, sec. 3.3}} Exact solutions of great theoretical interest include the GÃ¶del universe (which opens up the intriguing possibility of time travel in curved spacetimes), the TaubNUT solution (a model universe that is homogeneous, but anisotropic), and antide Sitter space (which has recently come to prominence in the context of what is called the Maldacena conjecture).Brief descriptions of these and further interesting solutions can be found in {{HarvnbHawkingEllis1973loc=ch. 5}}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.{{HarvnbLehner2002}} 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 gravityFor instance {{HarvnbWald1984loc=sec. 4.4}} and its generalization, the postNewtonian 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.{{HarvnbWill1993loc=sec. 4.1 and 4.2}} An extension of this expansion is the parametrized postNewtonian (PPN) formalism, which allows quantitative comparisons between the predictions of general relativity and alternative theories.{{HarvnbWill2006loc=sec. 3.2}}, {{HarvnbWill1993loc=ch. 4}}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
(File:Gravitational redshifting.pngthumbSchematic representation of the gravitational redshift of a light wave escaping from the surface of a massive body)Assuming that the equivalence principle holds,{{HarvnbRindler2001pp=24â€“26 vs. pp. 236â€“237}} and {{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994pp=164â€“172}}. Einstein derived these effects using the equivalence principle as early as 1907, cf. {{HarvnbEinstein1907}} and the description in {{HarvnbPais1982pp=196â€“198}} 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.{{HarvnbRindler2001pp=24â€“26}}; {{HarvnbMisnerThorneWheeler1973 loc=Â§ 38.5}}Gravitational redshift has been measured in the laboratoryPoundâ€“Rebka experiment, see {{HarvnbPoundRebka1959}}, {{HarvnbPoundRebka1960}}; {{HarvnbPoundSnider1964}}; a list of further experiments is given in {{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994loc=table 4.1 on p. 186}} and using astronomical observations.{{HarvnbGreensteinOkeShipman1971}}; the most recent and most accurate Sirius B measurements are published in {{HarvnbBarstow, Bond et al.2005}}. Gravitational time dilation in the Earth's gravitational field has been measured numerous times using atomic clocks,Starting with the Hafeleâ€“Keating experiment, {{HarvnbHafeleKeating1972a}} and {{HarvnbHafeleKeating1972b}}, and culminating in the Gravity Probe A experiment; an overview of experiments can be found in {{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994loc=table 4.1 on p. 186}} while ongoing validation is provided as a side effect of the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS).GPS is continually tested by comparing atomic clocks on the ground and aboard orbiting satellites; for an account of relativistic effects, see {{HarvnbAshby2002}} and {{HarvnbAshby2003}} Tests in stronger gravitational fields are provided by the observation of binary pulsars.{{HarvnbStairs2003}} and {{HarvnbKramer2004}} All results are in agreement with general relativity.General overviews can be found in section 2.1. of Will 2006; Will 2003, pp. 32â€“36; {{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994loc=sec. 4.2}} However, at the current level of accuracy, these observations cannot distinguish between general relativity and other theories in which the equivalence principle is valid.{{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994pp=164â€“172}}Light deflection and gravitational time delay
(File:Light deflection.pngthumbleftuprightDeflection 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 will follow the curvature of spacetime as it passes near a star. This effect was initially confirmed by observing the light of stars or distant quasars being deflected as it passes the Sun.Cf. {{HarvnbKennefick2005}} for the classic early measurements by Arthur Eddington's expeditions. For an overview of more recent measurements, see {{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994loc=ch. 4.3}}. For the most precise direct modern observations using quasars, cf. {{HarvnbShapiroDavisLebachGregory2004}}This and related predictions follow from the fact that light follows what is called a lightlike or null geodesicâ€”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.This is not an independent axiom; it can be derived from Einstein's equations and the Maxwell Lagrangian using a WKB approximation, cf. {{HarvnbEhlers1973loc=sec. 5}} As one examines suitable model spacetimes (either the exterior Schwarzschild solution or, for more than a single mass, the postNewtonian expansion),{{HarvnbBlanchet2006loc=sec. 1.3}} 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,{{HarvnbRindler2001loc=sec. 1.16}}; for the historical examples, {{HarvnbIsrael1987pp=202â€“204}}; in fact, Einstein published one such derivation as {{HarvnbEinstein1907}}. Such calculations tacitly assume that the geometry of space is Euclidean, cf. {{HarvnbEhlersRindler1997}} the angle of deflection resulting from such calculations is only half the value given by general relativity.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. {{HarvnbRindler2001loc=sec. 11.11}}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.For the Sun's gravitational field using radar signals reflected from planets such as Venus and Mercury, cf. {{HarvnbShapiro1964}}, {{HarvnbWeinberg1972loc=ch. 8, sec. 7}}; for signals actively sent back by space probes (transponder measurements), cf. {{HarvnbBertottiIessTortora2003}}; for an overview, see {{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994loc=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. {{HarvnbStairs2003loc=sec. 4.4}} In the parameterized postNewtonian formalism (PPN), measurements of both the deflection of light and the gravitational time delay determine a parameter called Î³, which encodes the influence of gravity on the geometry of space.{{HarvnbWill1993loc=sec. 7.1 and 7.2}}{{clear}}Gravitational waves
(File:Gravwav.gifthumbRing of test particles deformed by a passing (linearized, amplified for better visibility) gravitational wave)Predicted in 1916JOURNAL, Einstein, A, NÃ¤herungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, June 1916,weblink Prussian Academy of Sciences, Sitzungsberichte der KÃ¶niglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin, part 1, 688â€“696, 1916SPAW.......688E, JOURNAL, Einstein, A, Ãœber Gravitationswellen, 1918,weblink Sitzungsberichte der KÃ¶niglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin, part 1, 154â€“167, 1918SPAW.......154E, 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 weakfield 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.JOURNAL, Einstein's gravitational waves found at last, Nature News,weblink February 11, 2016, Castelvecchi, Davide, Witze, Witze, 10.1038/nature.2016.19361, 20160211, JOURNAL, Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, B. P. Abbott, LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Physical Review Letters, 2016, 116, 6, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102, 26918975, 061102, 1602.03837, 2016PhRvL.116f1102A, WEB, Gravitational waves detected 100 years after Einstein's prediction, NSF  National Science Foundation,weblink 11 February 2016, 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).Most advanced textbooks on general relativity contain a description of these properties, e.g. {{HarvnbSchutz1985loc=ch. 9}} Since Einstein's equations are nonlinear, 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 faroff cosmic events, which typically result in relative distances increasing and decreasing by 10^{21} or less. Data analysis methods routinely make use of the fact that these linearized waves can be Fourier decomposed.For example {{HarvnbJaranowskiKrÃ³lak2005}}Some exact solutions describe gravitational waves without any approximation, e.g., a wave train traveling through empty space{{HarvnbRindler2001loc=ch. 13}} or Gowdy universes, varieties of an expanding cosmos filled with gravitational waves.{{HarvnbGowdy1971}}, {{HarvnbGowdy1974}} 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.See {{HarvnbLehner2002}} for a brief introduction to the methods of numerical relativity, and {{HarvnbSeidel1998}} for the connection with gravitational wave astronomyOrbital 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
(File:Relativistic precession.svgthumbNewtonian (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 curvelike 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 Mercury's anomalous perihelion shift, 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.{{HarvnbSchutz2003pp=48â€“49}}, {{HarvnbPais1982pp=253â€“254}}The effect can also be derived by using either the exact Schwarzschild metric (describing spacetime around a spherical mass){{HarvnbRindler2001loc=sec. 11.9}} or the much more general postNewtonian formalism.{{HarvnbWill1993pp=177â€“181}} It is due to the influence of gravity on the geometry of space and to the contribution of selfenergy to a body's gravity (encoded in the nonlinearity of Einstein's equations).In consequence, in the parameterized postNewtonian formalism (PPN), measurements of this effect determine a linear combination of the terms Î² and Î³, cf. {{HarvnbWill2006loc=sec. 3.5}} and {{HarvnbWill1993loc=sec. 7.3}} Relativistic precession has been observed for all planets that allow for accurate precession measurements (Mercury, Venus, and Earth),The most precise measurements are VLBI measurements of planetary positions; see {{HarvnbWill1993loc=ch. 5}}, {{HarvnbWill2006loc=sec. 3.5}}, {{HarvnbAndersonCampbellJurgensLau1992}}; for an overview, {{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994pp=406â€“407}} as well as in binary pulsar systems, where it is larger by five orders of magnitude.{{HarvnbKramerStairsManchesterMcLaughlin2006}}In general relativity the perihelion shift sigma, expressed in radians per revolution, is approximately given byBOOK, Theory and Practice of Natural Computing: Fourth International Conference, TPNC 2015, Mieres, Spain, December 15â€“16, 2015. Proceedings, illustrated, AdrianHoria, Dediu, Luis, Magdalena, Carlos, MartÃnVide, Springer, 2015, 9783319268415, 141,weblink Extract of page 141
sigma=frac {24pi^3L^2} {T^2c^2(1e^2)} ,
where:  L is the semimajor axis
 T is the orbital period
 c is the speed of light in vacuum
 e is the orbital eccentricity
Orbital decay
(File:Psr1913+16weisberg en.pngthumbOrbital decay for PSR1913+16: time shift in seconds, tracked over three decades.A figure that includes error bars is fig. 7 in {{HarvnbWill2006loc=sec. 5.1}})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.{{HarvnbStairs2003}}, {{HarvnbSchutz2003pp=317â€“321}}, {{HarvnbBartusiak2000pp=70â€“86}}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.{{HarvnbWeisbergTaylor2003}}; for the pulsar discovery, see {{HarvnbHulseTaylor1975}}; for the initial evidence for gravitational radiation, see {{HarvnbTaylor1994}} Since then, several other binary pulsars have been found, in particular the double pulsar PSR J07373039, in which both stars are pulsars.{{HarvnbKramer2004}}Geodetic precession and framedragging
Several relativistic effects are directly related to the relativity of direction.{{HarvnbPenrose2004loc=Â§14.5}}, {{HarvnbMisnerThorneWheeler1973loc=Â§11.4}} 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 starsâ€”even though such a gyroscope represents the way of keeping a direction as stable as possible ("parallel transport").{{HarvnbWeinberg1972loc=sec. 9.6}}, {{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994loc=sec. 7.8}} For the Moonâ€“Earth system, this effect has been measured with the help of lunar laser ranging.{{HarvnbBertottiCiufoliniBender1987}}, {{HarvnbNordtvedt2003}} More recently, it has been measured for test masses aboard the satellite Gravity Probe B to a precision of better than 0.3%.{{HarvnbKahn2007}}A mission description can be found in {{HarvnbEverittBuchmanDeBraKeiser2001}}; a first postflight evaluation is given in {{HarvnbEverittParkinsonKahn2007}}; further updates will be available on the mission website {{HarvnbKahn1996â€“2012}}.Near a rotating mass, there are gravitomagnetic or framedragging 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.{{HarvnbTownsend1997loc=sec. 4.2.1}}, {{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994pp=469â€“471}} Such effects can again be tested through their influence on the orientation of gyroscopes in free fall.{{HarvnbOhanianRuffini1994loc=sec. 4.7}}, {{HarvnbWeinberg1972loc=sec. 9.7}}; for a more recent review, see {{HarvnbSchÃ¤fer2004}} Somewhat controversial tests have been performed using the LAGEOS satellites, confirming the relativistic prediction.{{HarvnbCiufoliniPavlis2004}}, {{HarvnbCiufoliniPavlisPeron2006}}, {{HarvnbIorio2009}} Also the Mars Global Surveyor probe around Mars has been used.{{Citation author=Iorio L.title=COMMENTS, REPLIES AND NOTES: A note on the evidence of the gravitomagnetic field of Mars date=August 2006 journal=Classical and Quantum Gravityvolume=23 issue=17 pages=5451â€“5454doi=10.1088/02649381/23/17/N01arxiv = grqc/0606092 bibcode = 2006CQGra..23.5451I }}{{Citation author=Iorio L.title=On the Lenseâ€“Thirring test with the Mars Global Surveyor in the gravitational field of Mars journal=Central European Journal of Physics date=June 2010 doi=10.2478/s1153400901176volume= 8 issue =3 pages= 509â€“513arxiv = grqc/0701146 bibcode = 2010CEJPh...8..509I }}Astrophysical applications
Gravitational lensing
File:Einstein cross.jpgthumb(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.For overviews of gravitational lensing and its applications, see {{HarvnbEhlersFalcoSchneider1992}} and {{HarvnbWambsganss1998}} 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.For a simple derivation, see {{HarvnbSchutz2003loc=ch. 23}}; cf. {{HarvnbNarayanBartelmann1997loc=sec. 3}}The earliest example was discovered in 1979;{{HarvnbWalshCarswellWeymann1979}} since then, more than a hundred gravitational lenses have been observed.Images of all the known lenses can be found on the pages of the CASTLES project, {{HarvnbKochanekFalcoImpeyLehar2007}} 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.{{HarvnbRouletMollerach1997}}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.{{HarvnbNarayanBartelmann1997loc=sec. 3.7}}Gravitational wave astronomy
File:LISA.jpgthumb180pxArtist's impression of the spaceborne 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 relativityrelated research.{{HarvnbBarish2005}}, {{HarvnbBartusiak2000}}, {{HarvnbBlairMcNamara1997}} Several landbased gravitational wave detectors are currently in operation, most notably the interferometric detectors GEO 600, LIGO (two detectors), TAMA 300 and VIRGO.{{HarvnbHoughRowan2000}} Various pulsar timing arrays are using millisecond pulsars to detect gravitational waves in the 10âˆ’9 to 10âˆ’6 Hertz frequency range, which originate from binary supermassive blackholes.{{Citation  last1=Hobbs  first1=George title=The international pulsar timing array project: using pulsars as a gravitational wave detector  last2=Archibald  first2=A.  last3=Arzoumanian  first3=Z.  last4=Backer  first4=D.  last5=Bailes  first5=M.  last6=Bhat  first6=N. D. R.  last7=Burgay  first7=M.  last8=BurkeSpolaor  first8=S.  last9=Champion  first9=D.  displayauthors = 8 doi=10.1088/02649381/27/8/084013  date=2010  journal=Classical and Quantum Gravity  volume=27  issue=8  page=084013 arxiv=0911.5206 bibcode = 2010CQGra..27h4013H }} A European spacebased detector, eLISA / NGO, is currently under development,{{HarvnbDanzmannRÃ¼diger2003}} with a precursor mission (LISA Pathfinder) having launched in December 2015.WEB,weblink LISA pathfinder overview, ESA, 20120423, Observations of gravitational waves promise to complement observations in the electromagnetic spectrum.{{HarvnbThorne1995}} 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.{{HarvnbCutlerThorne2002}} In February 2016, the Advanced LIGO team announced that they had detected gravitational waves from a black hole merger.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.{{HarvnbMiller2002loc=lectures 19 and 21}} Usually a galaxy has one supermassive black hole with a few million to a few billion solar masses in its center,{{HarvnbCelottiMillerSciama1999loc=sec. 3}} and its presence is thought to have played an important role in the formation of the galaxy and larger cosmic structures.{{HarvnbSpringelWhiteJenkinsFrenk2005}} and the accompanying summary {{HarvnbGnedin2005}}(File:Star collapse to black hole.pngthumbleftSimulation 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.{{HarvnbBlandford1987loc=sec. 8.2.4}} 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 stellarsize objects such as microquasars.For the basic mechanism, see {{HarvnbCarrollOstlie1996loc=sec. 17.2}}; for more about the different types of astronomical objects associated with this, cf. {{HarvnbRobson1996}} In particular, accretion can lead to relativistic jets, focused beams of highly energetic particles that are being flung into space at almost light speed.For a review, see {{HarvnbBegelmanBlandfordRees1984}}. 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 {{HarvnbRees1966}}General relativity plays a central role in modelling all these phenomena,For stellar end states, cf. {{HarvnbOppenheimerSnyder1939}} or, for more recent numerical work, {{HarvnbFont2003loc=sec. 4.1}}; for supernovae, there are still major problems to be solved, cf. {{HarvnbBurasRamppJankaKifonidis2003}}; for simulating accretion and the formation of jets, cf. {{HarvnbFont2003loc=sec. 4.2}}. Also, relativistic lensing effects are thought to play a role for the signals received from Xray pulsars, cf. {{HarvnbKraus1998}} and observations provide strong evidence for the existence of black holes with the properties predicted by the theory.The evidence includes limits on compactness from the observation of accretiondriven phenomena ("Eddington luminosity"), see {{HarvnbCelottiMillerSciama1999}}, observations of stellar dynamics in the center of our own Milky Way galaxy, cf. {{HarvnbSchÃ¶delOttGenzelEckart2003}}, 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 Xray bursts for which the central compact object is either a neutron star or a black hole; cf. {{HarvnbRemillardLinCooperNarayan2006}} for an overview, {{HarvnbNarayan2006loc=sec. 5}}. Observations of the "shadow" of the Milky Way galaxy's central black hole horizon are eagerly sought for, cf. {{HarvnbFalckeMeliaAgol2000}}Black holes are also soughtafter 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 eventsâ€“and hence serve as a probe of cosmic expansion at large distances.{{HarvnbDalalHolzHughesJain2006}} 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.{{HarvnbBarackCutler2004}}{{clear}}Cosmology
File:Lensshoe hubble.jpgthumbThis 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.]]The current models of cosmology are based on Einstein's field equations, which include the cosmological constant Lambda since it has important influence on the largescale dynamics of the cosmos,
R_{munu}  {textstyle 1 over 2}R,g_{munu} + Lambda g_{munu} = frac{8pi G}{c^{4}}, T_{munu}
where g_{munu} is the spacetime metric.Originally {{HarvnbEinstein1917}}; cf. {{HarvnbPais1982pp=285â€“288}} Isotropic and homogeneous solutions of these enhanced equations, the Friedmannâ€“LemaÃ®treâ€“Robertsonâ€“Walker solutions,{{HarvnbCarroll2001loc=ch. 2}} allow physicists to model a universe that has evolved over the past 14 billion years from a hot, early Big Bang phase.{{HarvnbBergstrÃ¶mGoobar2003loc=ch. 9â€“11}}; use of these models is justified by the fact that, at large scales of around hundred million lightyears and more, our own universe indeed appears to be isotropic and homogeneous, cf. {{HarvnbPeeblesSchrammTurnerKron1991}} Once a small number of parameters (for example the universe's mean matter density) have been fixed by astronomical observation,E.g. with WMAP data, see {{HarvnbSpergelVerdePeirisKomatsu2003}} further observational data can be used to put the models to the test.These tests involve the separate observations detailed further on, see, e.g., fig. 2 in {{HarvnbBridleLahavOstrikerSteinhardt2003}} Predictions, all successful, include the initial abundance of chemical elements formed in a period of primordial nucleosynthesis,{{HarvnbPeebles1966}}; for a recent account of predictions, see {{HarvnbCoc, Vangioniâ€Flam et al.2004}}; an accessible account can be found in {{HarvnbWeiss2006}}; compare with the observations in {{HarvnbOliveSkillman2004}}, {{HarvnbBaniaRoodBalser2002}}, {{HarvnbO'MearaTytlerKirkmanSuzuki2001}}, and {{HarvnbCharbonnelPrimas2005}} the largescale structure of the universe,{{HarvnbLahavSuto2004}}, {{HarvnbBertschinger1998}}, {{HarvnbSpringelWhiteJenkinsFrenk2005}} and the existence and properties of a "thermal echo" from the early cosmos, the cosmic background radiation.{{HarvnbAlpherHerman1948}}, for a pedagogical introduction, see {{HarvnbBergstrÃ¶mGoobar2003loc=ch. 11}}; for the initial detection, see {{HarvnbPenziasWilson1965}} and, for precision measurements by satellite observatories, {{HarvnbMatherChengCottinghamEplee1994}} (COBE) and {{HarvnbBennettHalpernHinshawJarosik2003}} (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. {{HarvnbKamionkowskiKosowskyStebbins1997}} and {{HarvnbSeljakZaldarriaga1997}}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.Evidence for this comes from the determination of cosmological parameters and additional observations involving the dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters cf. {{HarvnbPeebles1993loc=ch. 18}}, evidence from gravitational lensing, cf. {{HarvnbPeacock1999loc=sec. 4.6}}, and simulations of largescale structure formation, see {{HarvnbSpringelWhiteJenkinsFrenk2005}} There is no generally accepted description of this new kind of matter, within the framework of known particle physics{{HarvnbPeacock1999loc=ch. 12}}, {{HarvnbPeskin2007}}; in particular, observations indicate that all but a negligible portion of that matter is not in the form of the usual elementary particles ("nonbaryonic matter"), cf. {{HarvnbPeacock1999loc=ch. 12}} or otherwise.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 {{HarvnbMannheim2006loc=sec. 9}} 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.{{HarvnbCarroll2001}}; an accessible overview is given in {{HarvnbCaldwell2004}}. 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. {{HarvnbMannheim2006loc=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. {{HarvnbBuchert2008}}An inflationary phase,A good introduction is {{HarvnbLinde2005}}; for a more recent review, see {{HarvnbLinde2006}} an additional phase of strongly accelerated expansion at cosmic times of around 10âˆ’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.More precisely, these are the flatness problem, the horizon problem, and the monopole problem; a pedagogical introduction can be found in {{HarvnbNarlikar1993loc=sec. 6.4}}, see also {{HarvnbBÃ¶rner1993loc=sec. 9.1}} Recent measurements of the cosmic background radiation have resulted in the first evidence for this scenario.{{HarvnbSpergelBeanDorÃ©Nolta2007loc=sec. 5,6}} However, there is a bewildering variety of possible inflationary scenarios, which cannot be restricted by current observations.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 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{{HarvnbBrandenberger2008loc=sec. 2}} (cf. the section on quantum gravity, below).Time travel
Kurt GÃ¶del showed{{harvnbGÃ¶del1949}} 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, otherâ€”similarly impracticalâ€”GR solutions containing CTCs have been found, such as the Tipler cylinder and traversable wormholes.Advanced concepts
Causal structure and global geometry
File:Penrose.svgthumbPenroseâ€“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 Penroseâ€“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.{{HarvnbFrauendiener2004}}, {{HarvnbWald1984loc=sec. 11.1}}, {{HarvnbHawkingEllis1973loc=sec. 6.8, 6.9}}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 nonspecific assumptions about the nature of matter (usually in the form of energy conditions) are used to derive general results.{{HarvnbWald1984loc=sec. 9.2â€“9.4}} and {{HarvnbHawkingEllis1973loc=ch. 6}}Horizons
Using global geometry, some spacetimes can be shown to contain boundaries called horizons, which demarcate one region from the rest of spacetime. The bestknown 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{{HarvnbThorne1972}}; for more recent numerical studies, see {{HarvnbBerger2002loc=sec. 2.1}}), 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.{{HarvnbIsrael1987}}. A more exact mathematical description distinguishes several kinds of horizon, notably event horizons and apparent horizons cf. {{HarvnbHawkingEllis1973pp=312â€“320}} or {{HarvnbWald1984loc=sec. 12.2}}; there are also more intuitive definitions for isolated systems that do not require knowledge of spacetime properties at infinity, cf. {{HarvnbAshtekarKrishnan2004}}(File:Ergosphere.svgthumbleftThe 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. With time they become rather simple objects characterized by eleven parameters specifying: electric charge, massenergy, linear momentum, angular momentum, and location at a specified time. This is stated by the black hole uniqueness theorem: "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.For first steps, cf. {{HarvnbIsrael1971}}; see {{HarvnbHawkingEllis1973loc=sec. 9.3}} or {{HarvnbHeusler1996loc=ch. 9 and 10}} for a derivation, and {{HarvnbHeusler1998}} as well as {{HarvnbBeigChruÅ›ciel2006}} as overviews of more recent resultsEven 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).The laws of black hole mechanics were first described in {{HarvnbBardeenCarterHawking1973}}; a more pedagogical presentation can be found in {{HarvnbCarter1979}}; for a more recent review, see {{HarvnbWald2001loc=ch. 2}}. A thorough, booklength introduction including an introduction to the necessary mathematics {{HarvnbPoisson2004}}. For the Penrose process, see {{HarvnbPenrose1969}} 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.{{HarvnbBekenstein1973}}, {{HarvnbBekenstein1974}} 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 decreaseâ€”as long as other processes ensure that, overall, entropy increases. As thermodynamical objects with nonzero temperature, black holes should emit thermal radiation. Semiclassical 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).The fact that black holes radiate, quantum mechanically, was first derived in {{HarvnbHawking1975}}; a more thorough derivation can be found in {{HarvnbWald1975}}. A review is given in {{HarvnbWald2001loc=ch. 3}}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).{{HarvnbNarlikar1993loc=sec. 4.4.4, 4.4.5}} Even in flat Minkowski space, when described by an accelerated observer (Rindler space), there will be horizons associated with a semiclassical radiation known as Unruh radiation.Horizons: cf. {{HarvnbRindler2001loc=sec. 12.4}}. Unruh effect: {{HarvnbUnruh1976}}, cf. {{HarvnbWald2001loc=ch. 3}}Singularities
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 geodesicsâ€”all possible ways that light and particles in free fall can travel. But some solutions of Einstein's equations have "ragged edges"â€”regions known as spacetime singularities, where the paths of light and falling particles come to an abrupt end, and geometry becomes illdefined. In the more interesting cases, these are "curvature singularities", where geometrical quantities characterizing spacetime curvature, such as the Ricci scalar, take on infinite values.{{HarvnbHawkingEllis1973loc=sec. 8.1}}, {{HarvnbWald1984loc=sec. 9.1}} Wellknown examples of spacetimes with future singularitiesâ€”where worldlines endâ€”are the Schwarzschild solution, which describes a singularity inside an eternal static black hole,{{HarvnbTownsend1997loc=ch. 2}}; a more extensive treatment of this solution can be found in {{HarvnbChandrasekhar1983loc=ch. 3}} or the Kerr solution with its ringshaped singularity inside an eternal rotating black hole.{{HarvnbTownsend1997loc=ch. 4}}; for a more extensive treatment, cf. {{HarvnbChandrasekhar1983loc=ch. 6}} The Friedmannâ€“LemaÃ®treâ€“Robertsonâ€“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.{{HarvnbEllisVan Elst1999}}; a closer look at the singularity itself is taken in {{HarvnbBÃ¶rner1993loc=sec. 1.2}}Given that these examples are all highly symmetricâ€”and thus simplifiedâ€”it is tempting to conclude that the occurrence of singularities is an artifact of idealization.Here one should remind to the wellknown fact that the important "quasioptical" singularities of the socalled eikonal approximations of many waveequations, namely the "caustics", are resolved into finite peaks beyond that approximation. 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 stageNamely when there are trapped null surfaces, cf. {{HarvnbPenrose1965}} and also at the beginning of a wide class of expanding universes.{{HarvnbHawking1966}} 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).The conjecture was made in {{HarvnbBelinskiiKhalatnikovLifschitz1971}}; for a more recent review, see {{HarvnbBerger2002}}. An accessible exposition is given by {{HarvnbGarfinkle2007}} 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.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 {{HarvnbPenrose1969}}; a textbooklevel account is given in {{HarvnbWald1984pp=302â€“305}}. For numerical results, see the review {{HarvnbBerger2002loc=sec. 2.1}}Evolution equations
Each solution of Einstein's equation encompasses the whole history of a universe â€” it is not just some snapshot of how things are, but a whole, possibly matterfilled, 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.{{HarvnbHawkingEllis1973loc=sec. 7.1}}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 bestknown example is the ADM formalism.{{HarvnbArnowittDeserMisner1962}}; for a pedagogical introduction, see {{HarvnbMisnerThorneWheeler1973loc=Â§21.4â€“Â§21.7}} These decompositions show that the spacetime evolution equations of general relativity are wellbehaved: solutions always exist, and are uniquely defined, once suitable initial conditions have been specified.{{HarvnbFourÃ¨sBruhat1952}} and {{HarvnbBruhat1962}}; for a pedagogical introduction, see {{HarvnbWald1984loc=ch. 10}}; an online review can be found in {{HarvnbReula1998}} Such formulations of Einstein's field equations are the basis of numerical relativity.{{HarvnbGourgoulhon2007}}; for a review of the basics of numerical relativity, including the problems arising from the peculiarities of Einstein's equations, see {{HarvnbLehner2001}}Global and quasilocal quantities
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 fieldâ€”like any physical fieldâ€”must be ascribed a certain energy, but that it proves to be fundamentally impossible to localize that energy.{{HarvnbMisnerThorneWheeler1973loc=Â§20.4}}Nevertheless, there are possibilities to define a system's total mass, either using a hypothetical "infinitely distant observer" (ADM mass){{HarvnbArnowittDeserMisner1962}} or suitable symmetries (Komar mass).{{HarvnbKomar1959}}; for a pedagogical introduction, see {{HarvnbWald1984loc=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. {{HarvnbAshtekarMagnonAshtekar1979}} 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.For a pedagogical introduction, see {{HarvnbWald1984loc=sec. 11.2}} Just as in classical physics, it can be shown that these masses are positive.{{HarvnbWald1984p=295 and refs therein}}; this is important for questions of stabilityâ€”if there were negative mass states, then flat, empty Minkowski space, which has mass zero, could evolve into these states Corresponding global definitions exist for momentum and angular momentum.{{HarvnbTownsend1997loc=ch. 5}} There have also been a number of attempts to define quasilocal 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.Such quasilocal massâ€“energy definitions are the Hawking energy, Geroch energy, or Penrose's quasilocal energyâ€“momentum based on twistor methods; cf. the review article {{HarvnbSzabados2004}}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.An overview of quantum theory can be found in standard textbooks such as {{HarvnbMessiah1999}}; a more elementary account is given in {{HarvnbHeyWalters2003}} However, how to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity is still an open question.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.{{HarvnbRamond1990}}, {{HarvnbWeinberg1995}}, {{HarvnbPeskinSchroeder1995}}; a more accessible overview is {{HarvnbAuyang1995}} 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.{{HarvnbWald1994}}, {{HarvnbBirrellDavies1984}} 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.For Hawking radiation {{HarvnbHawking1975}}, {{HarvnbWald1975}}; an accessible introduction to black hole evaporation can be found in {{HarvnbTraschen2000}} As briefly mentioned above, this radiation plays an important role for the thermodynamics of black holes.{{HarvnbWald2001loc=ch. 3}}Quantum gravity
{{See alsoString theoryCanonical general relativityLoop quantum gravityCausal Dynamical TriangulationsCausal sets}}The demand for consistency between a quantum description of matter and a geometric description of spacetime,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. {{HarvnbCarlip2001loc=sec. 2}} 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.{{HarvnbSchutz2003p=407}} Despite major efforts, no complete and consistent theory of quantum gravity is currently known, even though a number of promising candidates exist.{{HarvnbHamber2009}}A timeline and overview can be found in {{HarvnbRovelli2000}}missing image!
 Calabi yau.jpg 
Projection of a Calabiâ€“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.{{Harvnb't HooftVeltman1974}} Some have argued that at low energies, this approach proves successful, in that it results in an acceptable effective (quantum) field theory of gravity.{{HarvnbDonoghue1995}} At very high energies, however, the perturbative results are badly divergent and lead to models devoid of predictive power ("perturbative nonrenormalizability").In particular, a perturbative technique known as renormalization, an integral part of deriving predictions which take into account higherenergy contributions, cf. {{HarvnbWeinberg1996loc=ch. 17, 18}}, fails in this case; cf. {{HarvnbVeltman1975}}, {{HarvnbGoroffSagnotti1985}}; for a recent comprehensive review of the failure of perturbative renormalizability for quantum gravity see {{HarvnbHamber2009}}File:Spin network.svgthumbSimple spin networkspin networkOne attempt to overcome these limitations is string theory, a quantum theory not of point particles, but of minute onedimensional extended objects.An accessible introduction at the undergraduate level can be found in {{HarvnbZwiebach2004}}; more complete overviews can be found in {{HarvnbPolchinski1998a}} and {{HarvnbPolchinski1998b}} The theory promises to be a unified description of all particles and interactions, including gravity;At the energies reached in current experiments, these strings are indistinguishable from pointlike 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. {{HarvnbIbanez2000}}. The theory is successful in that one mode will always correspond to a graviton, the messenger particle of gravity, e.g. {{HarvnbGreenSchwarzWitten1987loc=sec. 2.3, 5.3}} the price to pay is unusual features such as six extra dimensions of space in addition to the usual three.{{HarvnbGreenSchwarzWitten1987loc=sec. 4.2}} 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{{HarvnbWeinberg2000loc=ch. 31}} form part of a hypothesized elevendimensional model known as Mtheory, which would constitute a uniquely defined and consistent theory of quantum gravity.{{HarvnbTownsend1996}}, {{HarvnbDuff1996}}Another approach starts with the canonical quantization procedures of quantum theory. Using the initialvalueformulation of general relativity (cf. evolution equations above), the result is the Wheelerâ€“deWitt equation (an analogue of the SchrÃ¶dinger equation) which, regrettably, turns out to be illdefined without a proper ultraviolet (lattice) cutoff.{{HarvnbKuchaÅ™1973loc=sec. 3}} However, with the introduction of what are now known as Ashtekar variables,These variables represent geometric gravity using mathematical analogues of electric and magnetic fields; cf. {{HarvnbAshtekar1986}}, {{HarvnbAshtekar1987}} this leads to a promising model known as loop quantum gravity. Space is represented by a weblike structure called a spin network, evolving over time in discrete steps.For a review, see {{HarvnbThiemann2007}}; more extensive accounts can be found in {{HarvnbRovelli1998}}, {{HarvnbAshtekarLewandowski2004}} as well as in the lecture notes {{HarvnbThiemann2003}}Depending on which features of general relativity and quantum theory are accepted unchanged, and on what level changes are introduced,{{HarvnbIsham1994}}, {{HarvnbSorkin1997}} 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, dynamical triangulations,{{HarvnbLoll1998}} causal sets,{{HarvnbSorkin2005}} twistor models{{HarvnbPenrose2004loc=ch. 33 and refs therein}} or the path integral based models of quantum cosmology.{{HarvnbHawking1987}}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.{{HarvnbAshtekar2007}}, {{HarvnbSchwarz2007}} Calabi yau.jpg 
Projection of a Calabiâ€“Yau manifold, one of the ways of compactifying the extra dimensions posited by string theory
Current status
(file:LIGO measurement of gravitational waves.svgthumbObservation 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.{{HarvnbMaddox1998pp=52â€“59, 98â€“122}}; {{HarvnbPenrose2004loc=sec. 34.1, ch. 30}} The problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of spacetime singularities remain open.section Quantum gravity, above Observational data that is taken as evidence for dark energy and dark matter could indicate the need for new physics.section Cosmology, above 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,{{HarvnbFriedrich2005}} while numerical relativists run increasingly powerful computer simulations (such as those describing merging black holes).A review of the various problems and the techniques being developed to overcome them, see {{HarvnbLehner2002}} In February 2016, it was announced that the existence of gravitational waves was directly detected by the Advanced LIGO team on September 14, 2015.See {{HarvnbBartusiak2000}} for an account up to that year; uptodate news can be found on the websites of major detector collaborations such as GEO 600 {{webarchiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070218123705weblink date=20070218 }} and LIGOFor the most recent papers on gravitational wave polarizations of inspiralling compact binaries, see {{HarvnbBlanchetFayeIyerSinha2008}}, and {{HarvnbArunBlanchetIyerQusailah2008}}; for a review of work on compact binaries, see {{HarvnbBlanchet2006}} and {{HarvnbFutamaseItoh2006}}; for a general review of experimental tests of general relativity, see {{HarvnbWill2006}} A century after its introduction, general relativity remains a highly active area of research.See, e.g., the electronic review journal Living Reviews in Relativity{{clear}}See also
{{colscolwidth=16em}} Alcubierre drive (warp drive)
 Alternatives to general relativity
 Center of mass (relativistic)
 Contributors to general relativity
 Derivations of the Lorentz transformations
 Ehrenfest paradox
 Einsteinâ€“Hilbert action
 Einstein's thought experiments
 Introduction to the mathematics of general relativity
 Relativity priority dispute
 Ricci calculus
 Tests of general relativity
 Timeline of gravitational physics and relativity
 Twobody problem in general relativity
 Weak Gravity Conjecture
Notes
{{Reflist20em}}References
 {{Citationlast=Alpherfirst=R. A.authorlink=Ralph Asher Alpherlast2=Hermanfirst2=R. C.date=1948title=Evolution of the universejournal=Naturevolume=162issue=4124pages=774â€“775doi=10.1038/162774b0bibcode=1948Natur.162..774A
 {{Citationlast=Andersonfirst=J. D.first2=J. K.last2=Campbellfirst3=R. F.last3=Jurgenslast4=Laufirst4=E. L.date=1992contribution=Recent developments in solarsystem tests of general relativityeditorlast=Satoeditorfirst=H.editor2first=T.editor2last=Nakamuratitle=Proceedings of the Sixth Marcel GroÃŸmann Meeting on General Relativitypublisher=World Scientificisbn=9789810209506pages=353â€“355
 {{Citationlast=Arnoldfirst=V. I.authorlink=Vladimir Arnoldtitle=Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanicspublisher=Springerdate=1989isbn=9783540968900
}}
 {{Citationlast=Arnowittfirst=Richardauthorlink=Richard Arnowittfirst2=Stanleylast2=Deserauthor2link=Stanley Deserfirst3=Charles W.last3=Misnerauthor3link=Charles W. Misnerdate=1962contribution=The dynamics of general relativityeditorlast=Witteneditorfirst=Louistitle=Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Researchpublisher=Wileypages=227â€“265
 {{Citationlast=Arunfirst=K.G.last2=Blanchetfirst2=L.last3=Iyerfirst3=B. R.last4=Qusailahfirst4=M. S. S.year=2008title=Inspiralling compact binaries in quasielliptical orbits: The complete 3PN energy fluxarxiv=0711.0302
bibcode = 2008PhRvD..77f4035A doi = 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.064035journal=Physical Review Dvolume=77
pages=064035}}
 journal=Physics Todayvolume=55pages=41â€“47date=2002doi=10.1063/1.1485583
 bibcode = 2002PhT....55e..41A }}
last = Ashby
first = Neil title = Relativity in the Global Positioning System url =weblink journal = Living Reviews in Relativity volume = 6 issue = 1 pages = 1 date = 2003 accessdate = 20070706 doi = 10.12942/lrr20031 bibcode = 2003LRR.....6....1A deadurl = yes archiveurl =weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20070704102558weblink">weblink archivedate = 20070704 df =pmc= 5253894 pmid=28163638 }}
 doi = 10.1142/9789812834300_0008isbn=9789812834263page=126 }}
 bibcode = 2004LRR.....7...10A }}
bibcode = 1979JMP....20..793A }}
 Barstow, Bond et al.2005}}}}
bibcode = 1970AdPhy..19..525B }}; original paper in Russian: {{Citationlast=Belinskyfirst=V. A.last2=Lifshitsfirst2=I. M.last3=Khalatnikovfirst3=E. M.date= 1970title=ÐšÐ¾Ð»ÐµÐ±Ð°Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÑŒÐ½Ñ‹Ð¹ Ð ÐµÐ¶Ð¸Ð¼ ÐŸÑ€Ð¸Ð±Ð»Ð¸Ð¶ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ðš ÐžÑÐ¾Ð±Ð¾Ð¹ Ð¢Ð¾Ñ‡ÐºÐµ Ð’ Ð ÐµÐ»ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð¸ÑÑ‚ÑÐºÐ¾Ð¹ ÐšÐ¾ÑÐ¼Ð¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ð¸journal=Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk (Ð£ÑÐ¿ÐµÑ…Ð¸ Ð¤Ð¸Ð·Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ¸Ñ… ÐÐ°ÑƒÐº)
 issue=11pages=463â€“500bibcode = 1970UsFiN.102..463Bdoi=10.3367/ufnr.0102.197011d.0463}}
 first= C. L.date=2003last2=Halpernfirst2=M.last3=Hinshawfirst3=G.last4=Jarosikfirst4=N.last5=Kogutfirst5=A.last6=Limonfirst6=M.last7=Meyerfirst7=S. S.last8=Pagefirst8=L.last9=Spergel  displayauthors = 8title=First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Resultsjournal=Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.volume=148issue=1pages=1â€“27doi=10.1086/377253arxiv= astroph/0302207bibcode=2003ApJS..148....1B}}
 bibcode = 2002LRR.....5....1B }}
{edih}
bibcode = 2008CQGra..25p5003B doi = 10.1088/02649381/25/16/165003journal=Classical and Quantum Gravityvolume=25issue=16page=165003 }}
 doi = 10.1007/9783540743538_11series=Lecture Notes in Physicsisbn=9783540743521volume=738pages=393â€“424 }}
 bibcode = 2001LRR.....4....1C }}
bibcode= 1999CQGra..16A...3C
}}
title=The Lithium Content of the Galactic Halo Starsjournal= Astronomy & Astrophysicsvolume=442date=2005issue=3pages= 961â€“992doi=10.1051/00046361:20042491arxiv=astroph/0505247bibcode=2005A&A...442..961C
}}
bibcode = 2004Natur.431..958C }}
 Coc, Vangioniâ€Flam et al.2004}}}}
bibcode = 2002gr.qc.....4090Cpage=4090 }}
first=Neal
last=Dalal first2=Daniel E. last2=Holz first3=Scott A. last3=Hughes first4=Bhuvnesh last4=Jain title=Short GRB and binary black hole standard sirens as a probe of dark energy journal=Phys. Rev. D volume=74 issue=6 date=2006 page=063006 doi=10.1103/PhysRevD.74.063006 arxiv=astroph/0601275 bibcode = 2006PhRvD..74f3006D }}
first1 = Karsten
}} last1 = Danzmann first2 = Albrecht last2 = RÃ¼diger title = LISA Technologyâ€”Concepts, Status, Prospects journal = Class. Quantum Grav. volume = 20 issue = 10 date = 2003 pages = S1â€“S9 url =weblink doi = 10.1088/02649381/20/10/301 bibcode = 2003CQGra..20S...1D deadurl = yes archiveurl =weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20070926105922weblink">weblink archivedate = 20070926 df =
}}
{edih}
 bibcode = 1997GReGr..29..519E }}
last=Einsteinfirst=Albertauthorlink=Albert Einsteindate=1907title=Ãœber das RelativitÃ¤tsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogene Folgerungenjournal=Jahrbuch der RadioaktivitÃ¤t und Elektronikvolume=4page=411url=https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2doc/468}} See also English translation at Einstein Papers Project
url=https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6doc/272}} See also English translation at Einstein Papers Project
 issue=7  url=https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6doc/311doi=10.1002/andp.19163540702pages=769â€“822
bibcode = 1916AnP...354..769E }} See also English translation at Einstein Papers Project
 accessdate=20070805publisher=Project Report: NASA, Stanford University and Lockheed Martin
}}
bibcode = 2005NJPh....7..204F }}
 pmc=5256036
pmid=28179854
}}
 pmc=5256109
pmid=28179863
}}
, Robert
, Geroch , Robert Geroch , Partial Differential Equations of Physics , General Relativity , 19 , grqc/9602055 , 1996 , harv, 1996gere.conf...19G ,
 series=Lecture Notes in Physics}}
 pmc=5256024
pmid=28179864
}}
bibcode = 1975CMaPh..43..199H }}
 doi=10.1073/pnas.15.3.168pmid=16577160issue=3pmc=522427bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H
}}
 arxiv = 0809.1373 }}
format=PDF doi=10.1002/andp.200410130bibcode = 2005AnP...517S..58J }}
title=GravitationalWave Data Analysis. Formalism and Sample Applications: The Gaussian Casejournal=Living Reviews in Relativityvolume=8issue=1pages=3date=2005doi=10.12942/lrr20053pmid=28163647pmc=5253919bibcode = 2005LRR.....8....3J }}
 title=Was Einstein right? Scientists provide first public peek at Gravity Probe B results (Stanford University Press Release)publisher=Stanford University News Service
}}
 displayauthors = 8title=Tests of general relativity from timing the double pulsarjournal=Sciencevolume=314issue=5796pages=97â€“102arxiv=astroph/0609417doi=10.1126/science.1132305  bibcode = 2006Sci...314...97K }}
{edih}
 bibcode = 2004LRR.....7....8L }}
 doi = 10.1142/9789812776556_0010isbn=9789812381712page=210 }}
 bibcode = 1998LRR.....1...13L }}
bibcode = 1972JMP....13..874L }}
 doi = 10.1063/1.2218172volume=841pages=129â€“143}}
 displayauthors = 8title=Measurement of the cosmic microwave spectrum by the COBE FIRAS instrumentjournal=Astrophysical Journalvolume=420pages=439â€“444doi=10.1086/173574}}
}}
last=Narlikar
}} first=Jayant V. authorlink=Jayant Narlikar title=Introduction to Cosmology publisher=Cambridge University Press date=1993 isbn=9780521412506
 issue=6
 bibcode = 2006ENews..37f..30N arxiv=grqc/0702017}}
 doi=10.1016/00393681(85)900020
}}
last=Ohanian
}} first=Hans C. last2=Ruffini first2=Remo title=Gravitation and Spacetime date=1994 publisher=W. W. Norton & Company isbn=9780393965018
 first= John M.last2=Tytlerdate=2001first2=Davidlast3=Kirkmanfirst3=Davidlast4=Suzukifirst4=Naolast5=Prochaskafirst5=Jason X.last6=Lubinfirst6=Danlast7=Wolfefirst7=Arthur M.title=The Deuterium to Hydrogen Abundance Ratio Towards a Fourth QSO: HS0105+1619journal=Astrophysical Journalvolume=552issue=2pages=718â€“730arxiv=astroph/0011179doi=10.1086/320579bibcode=2001ApJ...552..718O}}
 doi = 10.1143/JPSJ.76.111017journal=Journal of the Physical Society of Japanvolume=76issue=11page=111017 }}
 bibcode = 2004LRR.....7....6P }}
last=Reissner
first=H.date=1916title=Ãœber die Eigengravitation des elektrischen Feldes nach der Einsteinschen Theoriejournal=Annalen der Physikvolume=355 issue=9pages=106â€“120doi=10.1002/andp.19163550905  url=https://zenodo.org/record/1447315}}
first= Oscar A.last=Reulatitle=Hyperbolic Methods for Einstein's Equationsjournal=Living Reviews in Relativityvolume=1issue=1pages=3date=1998doi= 10.12942/lrr19983
 pmc=5253804
pmid=28191833
}}
arxiv = astroph/9603119 bibcode = 1997PhR...279...67R }}
 bibcode = 1998LRR.....1....1R }}
 date=2003 first5=N. last6=Alexander first6=T.title=Stellar Dynamics in the Central Arcsecond of Our Galaxyjournal=Astrophysical Journalvolume=596 issue=2pages=1015â€“1034arxiv=astroph/0306214doi=10.1086/378122 bibcode=2003ApJ...596.1015S}}
}}
 doi = 10.1143/PTPS.170.214journal=Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplementvolume=170pages=214â€“226 }}
pages=189â€“196bibcode=1916SPAW.......189S
}}
last=Shapirofirst=S. S.
}} last2=Davisfirst2=J. L. last3=Lebachfirst3=D. E. last4=Gregoryfirst4=J. S.title=Measurement of the solar gravitational deflection of radio waves using geodetic verylongbaseline interferometry data, 1979â€“1999journal=Phys. Rev. Lett.volume=92page=121101date=2004doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.121101 pmid=15089661 issue=12bibcode=2004PhRvL..92l1101S
 first= I. I.first2=Gordondoi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.20.1265last3=Ashfirst3=Michaellast4=Stonefirst4=Melvinlast5=Smithfirst5=Williamlast6=Ingallsfirst6=Richardlast7=Brockelmanfirst7=Richardtitle=Fourth test of general relativity: preliminary resultsjournal=Phys. Rev. Lett.volume=20issue=22pages=1265â€“1269date=1968bibcode=1968PhRvL..20.1265S}}
 displayauthors = 8title=First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parametersjournal=Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.volume=148 issue=1pages=175â€“194arxiv=astroph/0302209doi=10.1086/377226 bibcode=2003ApJS..148..175S}}
 authorlink2=Rachel Beanfirst3=O.last3=DorÃ©first4=M. R. last5=Bennettlast4=Nolta first5=C. L. last6=Dunkley first6=J. last7=Hinshaw first7=G. last8=Jarosik first8=N. last9=Komatsu  displayauthors = 8title=Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmologyjournal=Astrophysical Journal Supplementvolume=170 issue=2pages=377â€“408doi=10.1086/513700date=2007arxiv=astroph/0603449 bibcode=2007ApJS..170..377S}}
 displayauthors = 8title=Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasarsjournal=Naturevolume=435pages=629â€“636doi=10.1038/nature03597  issue=7042  arxiv = astroph/0504097 }}
 bibcode = 2003LRR.....6....5S }}
isbn=9780521461368
}}
last=Szabados
first=LÃ¡szlÃ³ B. title=QuasiLocal EnergyMomentum and Angular Momentum in GR journal=Living Reviews in Relativity volume=7 issue=1 pages=4 date=2004 doi=10.12942/lrr20044 pmid=28179865 pmc=5255888 bibcode = 2004LRR.....7....4S }}
 bibcode=1974AIHPA..20...69T}}
 first= M. J.last2=Lehtofirst2=H. J.last3=Nilssonfirst3=K.last4=Heidtfirst4=J.last5=Takalofirst5=L. O.last6=SillanpÃ¤Ã¤first6=A.last7=Villforthfirst7=C.last8=Kidgerfirst8=M.last9=Poyner  displayauthors = 8title=A massive binary blackhole system in OJ 287 and a test of general relativityjournal=Naturevolume=452pages=851â€“853date=2008doi=10.1038/nature06896pmid=18421348issue=7189
bibcode = 2008Natur.452..851V arxiv = 0809.1280 }}
pmid=28163633pmc=5253844
 arxiv = grqc/9912119 }}
 bibcode = 1998LRR.....1...12W }}
last=Weinberg
first=Steven authorlink=Steven Weinberg title=Gravitation and Cosmology date=1972 publisher=John Wiley isbn=9780471925675 url=https://archive.org/details/gravitationcosmo00stev_0 }}
doi=10.12942/lrr20063pmid=28179873pmc=5256066volume=9issue=1pages=3
 bibcode = 2006LRR.....9....3W }}
Further readingPopular books
Beginning undergraduate textbooks
Advanced undergraduate textbooks
Graduate textbooks
Specialists' books
External links{{Commons category}}{{Wikiversity}}{{Wikisource portalRelativity}}{{WikisourceparRelativity: The Special and General Theory}}

 content above as imported from Wikipedia
 "General relativity" does not exist on GetWiki (yet)
 time: 2:42am EDT  Tue, Sep 17 2019
 "General relativity" does not exist on GetWiki (yet)
 time: 2:42am EDT  Tue, Sep 17 2019
[ this remote article is provided by Wikipedia ]
LATEST EDITS [ see all ]
GETWIKI 09 JUL 2019
Eastern Philosophy
History of Philosophy
History of Philosophy
GETWIKI 09 MAY 2016
GetMeta:About
GetWiki
GetWiki
GETWIKI 18 OCT 2015
M.R.M. Parrott
Biographies
Biographies
GETWIKI 20 AUG 2014
GetMeta:News
GetWiki
GetWiki
GETWIKI 19 AUG 2014
© 2019 M.R.M. PARROTT  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED