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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Physical review. D 2020-05, Vol.101 (10), p.1, Article 108501
Hauptverfasser: Harko, Tiberiu, Moraes, Pedro H. R. S.
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