Mathematical Equivalence vs. Physical Equivalence between Extended Theories of Gravitations
read the original abstract
We shall show that although Palatini f(R)-theories are equivalent to Brans-Dicke theories, still the first pass the Mercury precession of perihelia test, while the second do not. We argue that the two models are not physically equivalent due to a different assumptions about free fall. We shall also go through perihelia test without fixing a conformal gauge (clocks or rulers) in order to highlight what can be measured in a conformal invariant way and what cannot. We shall argue that the conformal gauge is broken by choosing a definition of clock, rulers or, equivalently, of masses.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Unknown Face of Scalar-Tensor Gravitational Theories
The conformal frame problem in scalar-tensor theories stems from incomplete transformation rules for parameters and overlooked Ward identities; active conformal transformations provide the suitable framework while pas...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.