Pith. sign in

REVIEW

On Rastall gravity formulation as a f(R,mathcal{L}_m) and a f(R,T) theory

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2011.10503 v3 pith:K4ROSBYD submitted 2020-11-20 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

On Rastall gravity formulation as a $f(R,\mathcal{L}_m)$ and a $f(R,T)$ theory

classification gr-qc astro-ph.CO
keywords rastallequationsfieldactiondirectlygravitymathcalparticular
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Rastall introduced a stress-energy tensor whose divergence is proportional to the gradient of the Ricci scalar. This proposal leads to a change in the form of the field equations of General Relativity, but it preserves the number of degrees of freedom. Rastall's field equations can be either interpreted as GR with a redefined SET, or it can imply different physical consequences inside the matter sector. We investigate limits under which the Rastall field equations can be directly derived from an action, in particular from two $f(R)$-gravity extensions: $f(R,\mathcal L_m)$ and $f(R,T)$. We show that there are similarities between these theories, but the Rastall SET cannot be fully recovered from them, apart from certain particular cases here discussed. It is remarkable that a simple, covariant and invertible redefinition of the SET, as the one proposed by Rastall, is hard to be directly implemented in the action.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.