Comment on “Reexamining f ( R , T ) gravity”
In a recent paper, "Reexamining f(R, T) gravity", by S. B. Fisher and E. D. Carlson [Phys. Rev. D 100, 064059 (2019), the authors claim that for the particular f(R, T) modified gravity model, with f(R, T) = f1(R) + f2(T), the term f2(T) must be included in the matter Lagrangian and therefo...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Physical review. D 2020-05, Vol.101 (10), p.1, Article 108501 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | Physical review. D |
container_volume | 101 |
creator | Harko, Tiberiu Moraes, Pedro H. R. S. |
description | In a recent paper, "Reexamining f(R, T) gravity", by S. B. Fisher and E. D. Carlson [Phys. Rev. D 100, 064059 (2019), the authors claim that for the particular f(R, T) modified gravity model, with f(R, T) = f1(R) + f2(T), the term f2(T) must be included in the matter Lagrangian and therefore it does not have any physical significance. We carefully reexamine the line of reasoning presented in the paper, and we show that there are several major conceptual problems related to the author's physical interpretations, as well as in the physical and mathematical approaches used to derive the energy-momentum tensor of the theory. These problems raise some serious concerns about the validity of most of the results presented in the paper. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.108501 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2415854025</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2415854025</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c277t-b2d829bc088db9d408ab31804c95d491ae897a9a77b9e9bd8c5b3c0969f63f623</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kF9LwzAUxYMoOOY-gS8BXxTsvDdpm-RR5l8YKGM-h6RNZ4dtZ9IN-7YPol9un8TK1IfDPRwO98CPkFOEMSLwq-fXLszc5maMgL1kAnhABiwWEAEwdfjvEY7JKIQl9DYFJRAHBCZNVbm6pU1Nd9vPmXMfpirrsl7Qgp7TGb2kc3pBF95syrbbbb9OyFFh3oIb_d4hebm7nU8eounT_ePkehplTIg2siyXTNkMpMytymOQxnKUEGcqyWOFxkkljDJCWOWUzWWWWJ6BSlWR8iJlfEjO9n9Xvnlfu9DqZbP2dT-pWYyJTGJgSd_i-1bmmxC8K_TKl5XxnUbQP3T0H50-QL2nw78BoYJX_g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2415854025</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comment on “Reexamining f ( R , T ) gravity”</title><source>American Physical Society Journals</source><creator>Harko, Tiberiu ; Moraes, Pedro H. R. S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Harko, Tiberiu ; Moraes, Pedro H. R. S.</creatorcontrib><description>In a recent paper, "Reexamining f(R, T) gravity", by S. B. Fisher and E. D. Carlson [Phys. Rev. D 100, 064059 (2019), the authors claim that for the particular f(R, T) modified gravity model, with f(R, T) = f1(R) + f2(T), the term f2(T) must be included in the matter Lagrangian and therefore it does not have any physical significance. We carefully reexamine the line of reasoning presented in the paper, and we show that there are several major conceptual problems related to the author's physical interpretations, as well as in the physical and mathematical approaches used to derive the energy-momentum tensor of the theory. These problems raise some serious concerns about the validity of most of the results presented in the paper.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2470-0010</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2470-0029</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.108501</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>College Park: American Physical Society</publisher><subject>Gravitation ; Gravity ; Tensors</subject><ispartof>Physical review. D, 2020-05, Vol.101 (10), p.1, Article 108501</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Physical Society May 15, 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c277t-b2d829bc088db9d408ab31804c95d491ae897a9a77b9e9bd8c5b3c0969f63f623</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c277t-b2d829bc088db9d408ab31804c95d491ae897a9a77b9e9bd8c5b3c0969f63f623</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1990-9172</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,2875,2876,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harko, Tiberiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moraes, Pedro H. R. S.</creatorcontrib><title>Comment on “Reexamining f ( R , T ) gravity”</title><title>Physical review. D</title><description>In a recent paper, "Reexamining f(R, T) gravity", by S. B. Fisher and E. D. Carlson [Phys. Rev. D 100, 064059 (2019), the authors claim that for the particular f(R, T) modified gravity model, with f(R, T) = f1(R) + f2(T), the term f2(T) must be included in the matter Lagrangian and therefore it does not have any physical significance. We carefully reexamine the line of reasoning presented in the paper, and we show that there are several major conceptual problems related to the author's physical interpretations, as well as in the physical and mathematical approaches used to derive the energy-momentum tensor of the theory. These problems raise some serious concerns about the validity of most of the results presented in the paper.</description><subject>Gravitation</subject><subject>Gravity</subject><subject>Tensors</subject><issn>2470-0010</issn><issn>2470-0029</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kF9LwzAUxYMoOOY-gS8BXxTsvDdpm-RR5l8YKGM-h6RNZ4dtZ9IN-7YPol9un8TK1IfDPRwO98CPkFOEMSLwq-fXLszc5maMgL1kAnhABiwWEAEwdfjvEY7JKIQl9DYFJRAHBCZNVbm6pU1Nd9vPmXMfpirrsl7Qgp7TGb2kc3pBF95syrbbbb9OyFFh3oIb_d4hebm7nU8eounT_ePkehplTIg2siyXTNkMpMytymOQxnKUEGcqyWOFxkkljDJCWOWUzWWWWJ6BSlWR8iJlfEjO9n9Xvnlfu9DqZbP2dT-pWYyJTGJgSd_i-1bmmxC8K_TKl5XxnUbQP3T0H50-QL2nw78BoYJX_g</recordid><startdate>20200515</startdate><enddate>20200515</enddate><creator>Harko, Tiberiu</creator><creator>Moraes, Pedro H. R. S.</creator><general>American Physical Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>L7M</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1990-9172</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200515</creationdate><title>Comment on “Reexamining f ( R , T ) gravity”</title><author>Harko, Tiberiu ; Moraes, Pedro H. R. S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c277t-b2d829bc088db9d408ab31804c95d491ae897a9a77b9e9bd8c5b3c0969f63f623</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Gravitation</topic><topic>Gravity</topic><topic>Tensors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harko, Tiberiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moraes, Pedro H. R. S.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Physical review. D</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harko, Tiberiu</au><au>Moraes, Pedro H. R. S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comment on “Reexamining f ( R , T ) gravity”</atitle><jtitle>Physical review. D</jtitle><date>2020-05-15</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>101</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1</spage><pages>1-</pages><artnum>108501</artnum><issn>2470-0010</issn><eissn>2470-0029</eissn><abstract>In a recent paper, "Reexamining f(R, T) gravity", by S. B. Fisher and E. D. Carlson [Phys. Rev. D 100, 064059 (2019), the authors claim that for the particular f(R, T) modified gravity model, with f(R, T) = f1(R) + f2(T), the term f2(T) must be included in the matter Lagrangian and therefore it does not have any physical significance. We carefully reexamine the line of reasoning presented in the paper, and we show that there are several major conceptual problems related to the author's physical interpretations, as well as in the physical and mathematical approaches used to derive the energy-momentum tensor of the theory. These problems raise some serious concerns about the validity of most of the results presented in the paper.</abstract><cop>College Park</cop><pub>American Physical Society</pub><doi>10.1103/PhysRevD.101.108501</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1990-9172</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2470-0010 |
ispartof | Physical review. D, 2020-05, Vol.101 (10), p.1, Article 108501 |
issn | 2470-0010 2470-0029 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2415854025 |
source | American Physical Society Journals |
subjects | Gravitation Gravity Tensors |
title | Comment on “Reexamining f ( R , T ) gravity” |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T16%3A41%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comment%20on%20%E2%80%9CReexamining%20f%20(%20R%20,%20T%20)%20gravity%E2%80%9D&rft.jtitle=Physical%20review.%20D&rft.au=Harko,%20Tiberiu&rft.date=2020-05-15&rft.volume=101&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1&rft.pages=1-&rft.artnum=108501&rft.issn=2470-0010&rft.eissn=2470-0029&rft_id=info:doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.108501&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2415854025%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2415854025&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |