English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Canonically, `classic' tests of general relativity (GR) include perihelionprecession, the bending of light around stars, and gravitational redshift;`modern' tests have to do with, inter alia, relativistic time delay,equivalence principle tests, gravitational lensing, strong field gravity, andgravitational waves. The orthodoxy is that both classic and modern tests of GRafford experimental confirmation of that theory in particular. In this article,we question this orthodoxy, by showing there are classes of both relativistictheories (with spatiotemporal geometrical properties different from those ofGR) and non-relativistic theories (in which the lightcones of a relativisticspacetime are `widened') which would also pass such tests. Thus, (a) issues ofunderdetermination in the context of GR loom much larger than one might havethought, and (b) given this, one has to think more carefully about what exactlysuch tests in fact are testing.

Underdetermination in Classic and Modern Tests of General Relativity