- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Letters

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Testing Local Lorentz Invariance with Laser Tracking of the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II Satellites

David Lucchesi1,2,3,*, Massimo Visco1,2, Roberto Peron1,2, José C. Rodriguez4, Massimo Bassan5,2, Giuseppe Pucacco5,2, Luciano Anselmo3, Graham Appleby6, Marco Cinelli1,2 et al. (SaToR-G Collaboration)

Marco Cinelli1,2, Alessandro Di Marco1,2, Marco Lucente1,2, Carmelo Magnafico1,2, Carmen Pardini3, and Feliciana Sapio1,2 (SaToR-G Collaboration)

  • *Contact author: david.lucchesi@inaf.it
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 137, 051401 – Published 27 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/v88p-965w

Abstract

Violations of Lorentz invariance, a cornerstone of modern physics, are predicted by theories of quantum gravity and by extensions of general relativity involving new vector or tensor fields. In the weak-field limit, such a violation would primarily manifest as a nonzero value for the post-Newtonian parameter α1, which is identically zero in general relativity. We present a new test of local Lorentz invariance by searching for this signature in the orbits of the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites. By applying a phase sensitive detection technique to the mean argument of latitude, derived from about 30 years of satellite laser ranging data, we isolate the periodic signal potentially induced by a preferred reference frame aligned with the cosmic microwave background. Our analysis yields a new constraint |α1|∼2×10−5. This result improves upon the previous best limit from lunar laser ranging and provides the most stringent constraint to date on preferred-frame effects in Earth’s gravity.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

See Also

Local Lorentz invariance test with the LAGEOS satellites

David Lucchesi, Massimo Visco, Roberto Peron, José C. Rodriguez, Giuseppe Pucacco, Luciano Anselmo, Massimo Bassan, Graham Appleby, Marco Cinelli, Alessandro Di Marco, Marco Lucente, Carmelo Magnafico, Carmen Pardini, and Feliciana Sapio (SaToR-G Collaboration)
Phys. Rev. D 114, 024072 (2026)

Article Text

References (49)

  1. A. Einstein, Die grundlage der allgemeinen relativitätstheorie, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 354, 769 (1916).
  2. C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2018).
  3. T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Tensor-multi-scalar theories of gravitation, Classical Quantum Gravity 9, 2093 (1992).
  4. K. Nordtvedt, Equivalence principle for massive bodies. II. Theory, Phys. Rev. 169, 1017 (1968).
  5. C. M. Will, Theoretical frameworks for testing relativistic gravity. II. Parametrized post-Newtonian hydrodynamics, and the Nordtvedt effect, Astrophys. J. 163, 611 (1971).
  6. J. K. Nordtvedt and C. M. Will, Conservation laws and preferred frames in relativistic gravity. II. Experimental evidence to rule out preferred-frame theories of gravity, Astrophys. J. 177, 775 (1972).
  7. C. M. Will and J. K. Nordtvedt, Conservation laws and preferred frames in relativistic gravity. I. Preferred-frame theories and an extended PPN formalism, Astrophys. J. 177, 757 (1972).
  8. D. Mattingly, Modern tests of Lorentz invariance, Living Rev. Relativity 8, 5 (2005).
  9. S. Liberati, Tests of Lorentz invariance: A 2013 update, Classical Quantum Gravity 30, 133001 (2013).
  10. J. Müller, K. Nordtvedt, and D. Vokrouhlický, Improved constraint on the α1 PPN parameter from lunar motion, Phys. Rev. D 54, R5927 (1996).
  11. J. Müller, J. G. Williams, and S. G. Turyshev, Lunar Laser Ranging Contributions to Relativity and Geodesy, in Lasers, Clocks and Drag-Free Control: Exploration of Relativistic Gravity in Space, edited by H. Dittus, C. Lammerzahl, and S. G. Turyshev (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008), pp. 457–472.
  12. P. L. Bender, D. G. Currie, R. H. Dicke, D. H. Eckhardt, J. E. Faller, W. M. Kaula, J. D. Mulholland, H. H. Plotkin, S. K. Poultney, E. C. Silverberg, D. T. Wilkinson, J. G. Williams, and C. O. Alley, The lunar laser ranging experiment, Science 182, 229 (1973).
  13. K. Nordtvedt, Probing gravity to the second post-Newtonian order and to one part in 107 using the spin axis of the sun, Astrophys. J. 320, 871 (1987).
  14. M. R. Pearlman, J. J. Degnan, and J. M. Bosworth, The international laser ranging service, Adv. Space Res. 30, 135 (2002).
  15. M. R. Pearlman, C. E. Noll, E. C. Pavlis, F. G. Lemoine, L. Combrink, J. J. Degnan, G. Kirchner, and U. Schreiber, The ILRS: Approaching 20 years and planning for the future, J. Geodes. 93, 2161 (2019).
  16. D. M. Lucchesi et al., companion paper, Local Lorentz invariance test with the LAGEOS satellites, Phys. Rev. D 114, 024072 (2026).
  17. T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farèse, Testing for preferred-frame effects in gravity with artificial Earth satellites, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1693 (1994).
  18. C. W. Johnson, C. A. Lundquist, and J. L. Zurasky, Anaheim International Astronautical Federation Congress (1976).
  19. NASA, LAGEOS Phase B Technical Report, NASA Technical Memorandum X-64915, Technical Report TMX-64915 (Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama 35812, 1975) february 1975.
  20. S. C. Cohen and D. E. Smith, Lageos scientific results—Introduction, J. Geophys. Res. 90, 9217 (1985).
  21. F. Fontana, Physical properties of LAGEOS II satellite, Technical Report LG-TN-AI-037 (Aeritalia, 1989).

  22. Of course, it is necessary to develop a dynamic model for the orbit of these satellites that is equally reliable and accurate [23, 24, 25, 26].

  23. D. Lucchesi, L. Anselmo, M. Bassan, C. Pardini, R. Peron, G. Pucacco, and M. Visco, Testing the gravitational interaction in the field of the Earth via satellite laser ranging and the Laser Ranged Satellites Experiment (LARASE), Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 155012 (2015).
  24. D. M. Lucchesi, L. Anselmo, M. Bassan, C. Magnafico, C. Pardini, R. Peron, G. Pucacco, and M. Visco, General relativity measurements in the field of Earth with laser-ranged satellites: State of the art and perspectives, Universe 5, 141 (2019).
  25. M. Visco and D. M. Lucchesi, Review and critical analysis of mass and moments of inertia of the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites for the LARASE program, Adv. Space Res. 57, 1928 (2016).
  26. M. Visco and D. M. Lucchesi, Comprehensive model for the spin evolution of the LAGEOS and LARES satellites, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044034 (2018).
  27. I. Ciufolini, D. Lucchesi, F. Vespe, and A. Mandiello, Measurement of dragging of inertial frames and gravitomagnetic field using laser-ranged satellites, Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. 109A, 575 (1996).
  28. I. Ciufolini and E. C. Pavlis, A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the Lense-Thirring effect, Nature (London) 431, 958 (2004).
  29. D. M. Lucchesi, The Lense-Thirring effect derivation and the LAGEOS satellites orbit analysis with the new gravity field solution from CHAMP, in 35th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, COSPAR Meeting, edited by J.-P. Paillé (2004), Vol. 35, p. 232, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004cosp...35..232L/abstract.
  30. D. M. Lucchesi and R. Peron, Accurate measurement in the field of the Earth of the general-relativistic precession of the LAGEOS II Pericenter and new constraints on non-Newtonian gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 231103 (2010).
  31. D. M. Lucchesi and R. Peron, LAGEOS II pericenter general relativistic precession (1993-2005): Error budget and constraints in gravitational physics, Phys. Rev. D 89, 082002 (2014).
  32. D. M. Lucchesi, M. Visco, R. Peron, M. Bassan, G. Pucacco, C. Pardini, L. Anselmo, and C. Magnafico, An improved measurement of the Lense-Thirring precession on the orbits of laser-ranged satellites with an accuracy approaching the 1% level, arXiv:1910.01941.
  33. I. Ciufolini, A. Paolozzi, E. C. Pavlis, G. Sindoni, J. Ries, R. Matzner, R. Koenig, C. Paris, V. Gurzadyan, and R. Penrose, An improved test of the general relativistic effect of frame-dragging using the LARES and LAGEOS satellites, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 872 (2019).
  34. D. Lucchesi, M. Visco, R. Peron, M. Bassan, G. Pucacco, C. Pardini, L. Anselmo, and C. Magnafico, A 1% Measurement of the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth with laser-tracked satellites, Universe 6, 139 (2020).
  35. D. Lucchesi, L. Anselmo, M. Bassan, M. Lucente, C. Magnafico, C. Pardini, R. Peron, G. Pucacco, and M. Visco, Testing gravitational theories in the field of the Earth with the SaToR-G experiment, Universe 7, 192 (2021).

  36. This is the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector that identifies the satellite pericenter direction: A constant of motion in the ideal case of the 2-body Newtonian problem.

  37. To compute the variation of the orbital elements, a linear perturbation approach is sufficient in which the right-hand sides of the above perturbing equations are evaluated by keeping constant, to their (mean) nominal values, the semi-major axis a, the eccentricity e, the inclination i, and the mean motion n=GNm⊕/a3.

  38. This is also true in the case of some relativistic effects, such as Schwarzschild precession [39].

  39. M. H. Soffel and W.-B. Han, Applied General Relativity (Springer, Cham, 2019).
  40. D. E. Pavlis et al., geodyn ii Operations Manual, NASA GSFC (1998).
  41. A. T. Sinclair and G. M. Appleby, satan: Programs for the determination and analysis of satellite orbits for SLR data, Technical Report, 1988.

  42. These residuals were obtained by adding the residuals in the rate of the argument of pericenter and in the rate of the mean anomaly of LAGEOS (see Fig. 1 in [16]), after removing, on the basis of the rates reported in Table IV of the same paper, the total relativistic precession predicted by GR (not modeled in the POD) on the rates of the argument of pericenter and of the mean anomaly.

  43. The overall period of our analysis has been divided into seven-day arcs not causally connected to each other, and the initial state vector for each arc has been adjusted in the POD procedure to best fit the tracking data.

  44. Y. Kozai, The motion of a close Earth satellite, Astron. J. 64, 367 (1959).

  45. The periodic signal that we wish to detect, after the homodyne detection, splits into a DC component and a periodic component with a frequency double that of the initial one, and both components with an amplitude half of the initial one. This signal is low-pass filtered for the final analysis and measurement.

  46. T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Einstein-aether waves, Phys. Rev. D 70, 024003 (2004).

  47. We note that Einstein-aether theory can be regarded as the low-energy limit of Hořava-Lifshitz gravity [48].

  48. P. Hořava, Spectral dimension of the universe in quantum gravity at a Lifshitz point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 161301 (2009).
  49. https://zenodo.org/records/18441938.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 137, 051401– Published 27 July, 2026
  • Received 28 November 2024
  • Revised 20 March 2026
  • Accepted 25 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation