pith. sign in

arxiv: 2503.12826 · v5 · submitted 2025-03-17 · 🌀 gr-qc

The Unknown Face of Scalar-Tensor Gravitational Theories

Israel Quiros , Amit Kumar Rao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 23:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords scalar-tensor gravityconformal transformationsBrans-Dicke theoryJordan frameEinstein frameWard identityconformal invarianceactive transformations
0
0 comments X

The pith

The conformal frame ambiguity in scalar-tensor gravity is an artifact of omitting the transformation of the coupling function ω(φ) and using an incorrect scalar-field equation that ignores the matter Ward identity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that scalar-tensor theories in the Jordan frame remain form-invariant under conformal transformations once the field-dependent coupling ω(φ) is transformed along with the metric and scalar. When matter fields couple to gravity and their masses scale as the inverse conformal factor, the matter Lagrangian density stays form-invariant, which enforces a Ward identity that corrects the Klein-Gordon equation for the Brans-Dicke field. Treating conformal maps as active coordinate transformations in the configuration space spanned by the metric, scalar, and matter fields demonstrates that passive transformations cannot be used to extract physical predictions, while active ones can.

Core claim

The conformal frame issue arises because prior work omitted the required transformation of field-dependent parameters such as ω=ω(φ) and ignored the Ward identity that follows from the conformal form-invariance of the matter Lagrangian; once both are included, and conformal transformations are viewed as active coordinate changes in the space of generalized coordinates (gμν, φ, χ), the Jordan and Einstein frames become physically equivalent under the active map.

What carries the argument

Active conformal transformations viewed as coordinate transformations in configuration space of the metric, Brans-Dicke scalar, and N matter fields, together with the Ward identity enforced by matter Lagrangian form-invariance.

If this is right

  • The correct equation of motion for the Brans-Dicke scalar must contain the source term generated by the matter Ward identity.
  • Passive conformal transformations cannot be used to compare physical observables between frames.
  • The Jordan-frame and Einstein-frame formulations yield identical physical predictions once ω(φ) is transformed and the Ward identity is respected.
  • Any apparent frame dependence in predictions is an artifact of incomplete transformation rules rather than a physical distinction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Literature that claims inequivalence between conformal frames should be rechecked for whether the coupling-function transformation and Ward identity were both applied.
  • Active transformations supply a consistent way to move between frames when deriving observable quantities such as cosmological perturbations or black-hole solutions.
  • The same logic may apply to other field-dependent parameters beyond ω(φ) that appear in extended scalar-tensor models.

Load-bearing premise

The Lagrangian density of fundamental matter fields and perfect fluids remains form-invariant when point-dependent masses transform as m to the inverse conformal factor.

What would settle it

An explicit derivation of the Brans-Dicke scalar equation in one frame that fails to match the actively transformed equation from the other frame when the Ward identity term is omitted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.12826 by Amit Kumar Rao, Israel Quiros.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Drawings of the configuration space manifold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

It has long been demonstrated that the vacuum scalar-tensor theory in the Jordan-frame Brans-Dicke parametrization is form-invariant under conformal transformations, provided that a suitable transformation of the coupling parameter $\omega$ is applied. Here, we generalize this framework to include the coupling of matter fields to gravity. We take into consideration the recent result that, for point-dependent masses transforming as $m\rightarrow\Omega^{-1}m$ under the conformal transformations, the Lagrangian density of fundamental matter fields and perfect fluids is conformal form-invariant. We demonstrate that the conformal frame issue, that arises in the context of scalar-tensor gravity theories, is a consequence of two factors: i) the omission of the transformation of field-dependent parameters, such as the coupling function $\omega=\omega(\phi)$, under the conformal transformation of the fields, and ii) the ignorance of the Ward identity due to conformal form-invariance of the Lagrangian density of matter, which leads to an incorrect Klein-Gordon-type equation of motion for the Brans-Dicke field. By considering the conformal transformations as coordinate transformations in the configuration space, where the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, the Brans-Dicke scalar $\phi$, and $N$ matter fields $\chi=\{\chi_1,\chi_2,...,\chi_N\}$, which are coupled to gravity, are assumed as ``generalized coordinates,'' we introduce the notion of active and passive conformal transformations. We demonstrate that passive conformal transformations do not represent a suitable framework for exploring the physical consequences of conformal symmetry; in contrast, active conformal transformations do.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the long-standing conformal-frame issue in scalar-tensor theories (including Brans-Dicke) stems from two omissions: (i) failure to transform field-dependent parameters such as the coupling function ω(φ) under conformal rescalings, and (ii) neglect of a Ward identity that follows from the conformal form-invariance of the matter Lagrangian density when point-dependent masses transform as m→Ω^{-1}m. It generalizes the known vacuum form-invariance result to include matter couplings, treats conformal transformations as coordinate transformations in configuration space with g_μν, φ and matter fields χ as generalized coordinates, introduces the notions of active versus passive conformal transformations, and concludes that only active transformations provide a suitable framework for physical consequences.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would supply a consistent treatment of conformal transformations in the presence of matter that corrects the scalar-field equation of motion via a Ward identity and clarifies why passive transformations are inadequate. This could resolve frame ambiguities that have persisted in the scalar-tensor literature for decades. The manuscript does not supply machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, but it does attempt a parameter-free generalization of an existing invariance result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / matter Lagrangian discussion] Abstract and the paragraph invoking the 'recent result': the derivation of the Ward identity and the claimed correction to the Klein-Gordon-type equation for the Brans-Dicke field rests entirely on the un-rederived assertion that the matter Lagrangian density remains form-invariant under m→Ω^{-1}m for fundamental fields and perfect fluids. No explicit check or independent derivation is supplied for the specific Lagrangians employed; if the invariance fails for any sector considered, both the Ward identity and the corrected scalar equation are lost.
  2. [Active/passive transformation definitions] Section introducing active and passive conformal transformations: the distinction is introduced by treating conformal transformations as coordinate transformations in configuration space (with g_μν, φ and χ as generalized coordinates) without reference to an external benchmark or standard definition in the literature. This creates a moderate risk that the active/passive notions are defined internally to support the desired physical conclusion rather than being independently motivated.
  3. [Physical consequences paragraph] The central claim that passive transformations are unsuitable for physical consequences while active ones are: this conclusion follows directly from the configuration-space coordinate interpretation, but the manuscript provides no concrete physical observable or observable consequence that differs between the two once the Ward identity is imposed, leaving the physical distinction under-supported.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Configuration-space paragraph] Notation for the set of matter fields χ={χ1,…χN} is introduced without specifying the range of N or the explicit form of the matter action used in the subsequent derivations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating revisions where appropriate to strengthen the presentation while preserving the core claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / matter Lagrangian discussion] Abstract and the paragraph invoking the 'recent result': the derivation of the Ward identity and the claimed correction to the Klein-Gordon-type equation for the Brans-Dicke field rests entirely on the un-rederived assertion that the matter Lagrangian density remains form-invariant under m→Ω^{-1}m for fundamental fields and perfect fluids. No explicit check or independent derivation is supplied for the specific Lagrangians employed; if the invariance fails for any sector considered, both the Ward identity and the corrected scalar equation are lost.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification would improve clarity and self-containment. The invariance statement is drawn from the cited recent result, but we will add a short appendix deriving the conformal form-invariance explicitly for the scalar field Lagrangian, Dirac field, and perfect fluid stress-energy tensor under the mass rescaling m→Ω^{-1}m. This will make the Ward identity derivation fully traceable within the manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Active/passive transformation definitions] Section introducing active and passive conformal transformations: the distinction is introduced by treating conformal transformations as coordinate transformations in configuration space (with g_μν, φ and χ as generalized coordinates) without reference to an external benchmark or standard definition in the literature. This creates a moderate risk that the active/passive notions are defined internally to support the desired physical conclusion rather than being independently motivated.

    Authors: The active/passive distinction is indeed introduced here as part of the configuration-space coordinate interpretation, which is novel in this context. It is directly analogous to the standard active versus passive diffeomorphism distinction in general relativity (where active transformations move the fields while passive ones relabel coordinates). We will insert a brief paragraph with references to this GR analogy to provide external motivation without altering the definitions. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Physical consequences paragraph] The central claim that passive transformations are unsuitable for physical consequences while active ones are: this conclusion follows directly from the configuration-space coordinate interpretation, but the manuscript provides no concrete physical observable or observable consequence that differs between the two once the Ward identity is imposed, leaving the physical distinction under-supported.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the physical distinction would benefit from an explicit example. In the revised manuscript we will add a short subsection illustrating a concrete difference: for a static spherically symmetric solution with a test particle, the active transformation (with Ward identity) preserves the geodesic equation in the new frame, while the passive transformation without the identity produces an inconsistent effective mass term that alters the predicted orbital frequency, which is in principle observable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on cited external result without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper's central argument identifies two omissions in prior treatments of the conformal frame issue and invokes a cited recent result on matter Lagrangian form-invariance (under m→Ω^{-1}m) to derive a Ward identity and corrected Brans-Dicke equation. This result is presented as an external input rather than derived or redefined within the paper. The introduction of active versus passive conformal transformations is framed as a conceptual distinction applied to the configuration space, with no equations or definitions shown to reduce the claimed resolution (or the suitability of active transformations) to the paper's own outputs by construction. No fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations that collapse the claims appear in the provided text. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of its conclusions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on an external recent result about matter Lagrangian invariance under a specific mass rescaling and on the ad-hoc reinterpretation of conformal transformations as coordinate changes in an enlarged configuration space; no free parameters are mentioned and no new physical entities with independent evidence are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Lagrangian density of fundamental matter fields and perfect fluids is conformal form-invariant for masses transforming as m→Ω^{-1}m
    Invoked to obtain the Ward identity and the correct scalar equation of motion.
  • ad hoc to paper Conformal transformations can be treated as coordinate transformations in configuration space where g_μν, φ and matter fields χ are generalized coordinates
    Used to define and distinguish active versus passive transformations.
invented entities (2)
  • Active conformal transformation no independent evidence
    purpose: Framework suitable for exploring physical consequences of conformal symmetry
    New notion introduced to resolve the frame issue; no independent falsifiable evidence supplied.
  • Passive conformal transformation no independent evidence
    purpose: Contrast case shown to be unsuitable for physical consequences
    Defined within the paper to highlight the distinction; no independent evidence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5808 in / 1581 out tokens · 47721 ms · 2026-05-22T23:51:22.668982+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Conformal form-invariant parametrization of scalar-tensor gravity theories: A critical analysis

    gr-qc 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A critical review of conformal form-invariant parametrization in scalar-tensor theories, testing its novelty relative to existing frames and the universality of frame-invariant physical predictions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 108 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 51 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Dicke, Phys

    R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.125(1962) 2163-2167

    work page 1962

  2. [2]

    Morganstern, Phys

    R.E. Morganstern, Phys. Rev. D1(1970) 2969-2971

    work page 1970

  3. [3]

    Anderson, Phys

    J.L. Anderson, Phys. Rev. D3(1971) 1689-1691

    work page 1971

  4. [4]

    Bekenstein, A

    J.D. Bekenstein, A. Meisels, Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 1313

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    The Relation between Physical and Gravitational Geometry

    J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 3641-3647 [e-Print: gr-qc/9211017]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  6. [6]

    Cotsakis, Phys

    S. Cotsakis, Phys. Rev. D47(1993) 1437-1439

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    On Physical Equivalence between Nonlinear Gravity Theories

    G. Magnano and L.M. Sokolowski, Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 5039-5059 [e-Print: gr-qc/9312008]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  8. [8]

    Some aspects of the cosmological conformal equivalence between ``Jordan Frame'' and ``Einstein Frame''

    S. Capozziello, R. de Ritis and A.A. Marino, Class. Quant. Grav.14(1997) 3243-3258 [e-Print: gr-qc/9612053]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  9. [9]

    Singularities In Scalar-Tensor Cosmologies

    N. Kaloper, K.A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 811-822 [e-Print: hep-th/9708008]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  10. [10]

    Conformal transformations in classical gravitational theories and in cosmology

    V. Faraoni, E. Gunzig and P. Nardone, Fund. Cosmic Phys.20(1999) 121 [e-Print: gr-qc/9811047]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  11. [11]

    Einstein frame or Jordan frame ?

    V. Faraoni and E. Gunzig, Int. J. Theor. Phys.38(1999) 217-225 [e-Print: astro-ph/9910176]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  12. [12]

    Dual geometries and spacetime singularities

    I. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 124026 [e-Print: gr-qc/9905071] 28

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  13. [13]

    Fabris and R

    J.C. Fabris and R. de Sa Ribeiro, Gen. Rel. Grav.32(2000) 2141-2158

    work page 2000

  14. [14]

    On boundary terms and conformal transformations in curved space-times

    R. Casadio and A. Gruppuso, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11(2002) 703-714 [e-Print: gr-qc/0107077]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  15. [15]

    Are the String and Einstein Frames Equivalent

    E. Alvarez and J. Conde, Mod. Phys. Lett. A17(2002) 413-420 [e-Print: gr-qc/0111031]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  16. [16]

    The conformal frame freedom in theories of gravitation

    E.E. Flanagan, Class. Quant. Grav.21(2004) 3817-3829 [e-Print: gr-qc/0403063]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  17. [17]

    Brans-Dicke theory: Jordan vs Einstein Frame

    A. Bhadra, K. Sarkar, D.P. Datta and K.K. Nandi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A22(2007) 367-376 [e-Print: gr-qc/0605109]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  18. [18]

    Phantom Field from Conformal Invariance

    M. Hassaine, Mod. Phys. Lett. A22(2007) 307-316 [e-Print: hep-th/0511278]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [19]

    Conformal transformation in the scalar-tensor theory applied to the accelerating universe

    Y. Fujii, Prog. Theor. Phys.118(2007) 983-1018 [e-Print: 0712.1881]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    The (pseudo)issue of the conformal frame revisited

    V. Faraoni and S. Nadeau, Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 023501 [e-Print: gr-qc/0612075]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  21. [21]

    Einstein and Jordan frames reconciled: a frame-invariant approach to scalar-tensor cosmology

    R. Catena, M. Pietroni, L. Scarabello, Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 084039 [e-Print: astro-ph/0604492]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Theory of gravitation theories: a no-progress report

    T.P. Sotiriou, V. Faraoni and S. Liberati, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D17(2008) 399-423 [e-Print: 0707.2748]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  23. [23]

    Reconstructing the universe history, from inflation to acceleration, with phantom and canonical scalar fields

    E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, D. Saez-Gomez, V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 106005 [e-Print: 0803.1311]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  24. [24]

    Conformal Transformations in Cosmology of Modified Gravity: the Covariant Approach Perspective

    S. Carloni, E. Elizalde and S. Odintsov, Gen. Rel. Grav.42(2010) 1667-1705 [e-Print: 0907.3941]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    Conformal equivalence in classical gravity: the example of "veiled" General Relativity

    N. Deruelle and M. Sasaki, Springer Proc. Phys.137(2011) 247-260 [e-Print: 1007.3563]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    Equivalence of the Hawking temperature in conformal frames

    G. Tadaiesky-Marques, M.E. Rodrigues, Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1891 [e-Print: 1110.0079]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [27]

    Conformal-Frame (In)dependence of Cosmological Observations in Scalar-Tensor Theory

    T. Chiba and M. Yamaguchi, JCAP10(2013) 040 [e-Print: 1308.1142]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [28]

    Conformal Transformations and Weak Field Limit of Scalar-Tensor Gravity

    A. Stabile, An. Stabile and S. Capozziello, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 124011 [e-Print: 1310.7097]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    The conformal transformation's controversy: what are we missing?

    I. Quiros, R. Garcia-Salcedo, J.E. Madriz Aguilar and T. Matos, Gen. Rel. Grav.45(2013) 489-518 [e-Print: 1108.5857]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Consistency of equations of motion in conformal frames

    J.R. Morris, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 107501 [e-Print: 1411.1311]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    Conformal frames in cosmology

    G. Dom` enech, M. Sasaki, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D25(2016) 1645006 [e-Print: 1602.06332]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    A question mark on the equivalence of Einstein and Jordan frames

    N. Banerjee and B. Majumder, Phys. Lett. B754(2016) 129-134 [e-Print: 1601.06152]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Equivalence of Jordan and Einstein frames at the quantum level

    S. Pandey and N. Banerjee, Eur. Phys. J. Plus132(2017) 107 [e-Print: 1610.00584]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Are there really conformal frames? Uniqueness of affine inflation

    H. Azri, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D27(2018) 1830006 [e-Print: 1802.01247]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    On the equivalence of Jordan and Einstein frames in scale-invariant gravity

    M. Rinaldi, Eur. Phys. J. Plus133(2018) 408 [e-Print: 1808.08154]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Dynamical equivalence of $f(R)$ gravity in Jordan and Einstein frames

    S. Chakraborty, S. Pal, A. Saa, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 024020 [e-Print: 1812.01694]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Bhattacharya, B.R

    K. Bhattacharya, B.R. Majhi, D. Singleton, JHEP 07 (2020) 018 [e-Print: 2002.04743]

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Quiros, R

    I. Quiros, R. De Arcia, R. Garcia-Salcedo, T. Gonzalez and F.A. Horta-Rangel, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29(2020) 2050047 [e-Print: 1905.08177]

    work page arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Gionti, Phys

    G. Gionti, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 024022 [e-Print: 2003.04304]

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Shaikh and T

    Kunal Pal, Kuntal Pal, R. Shaikh and T. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. B829(2022) 137109 [e-Print: 2110.13723]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Bamber, Phys

    J. Bamber, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 024013 [e-Print: 2210.06396]

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Moinuddin, P

    Sk. Moinuddin, P. Mukherjee, A. Saha and A.S. Roy, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 446 [e-Print: 2109.14258]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Mukherjee and H.S

    D. Mukherjee and H.S. Sahota, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 803 [e-Print: 2305.19106]

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Mazumdar and R. Pradhan, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) L121505 [e-Print: 2310.06899]

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Bhattacharya, K

    K. Bhattacharya, K. Bamba, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 064026 [e-Print: 2307.06674]

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Gionti and M

    G. Gionti and M. Galaverni, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 265 [e-Print: 2310.09539]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Paliathanasis, Eur

    A. Paliathanasis, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 125 [e-Print: 2310.16357]

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Mandal, Commun

    S. Mandal, Commun. Theor. Phys.76(2024) 095406 [e-Print: 2406.10482]

    work page arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Dahal, S

    P.K. Dahal, S. Maharana, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 783 [e-Print: 2401.03655]

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Brans and R.H

    C. Brans and R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.124(1961) 925-935

    work page 1961

  51. [51]

    Bergmann, Int

    P.G. Bergmann, Int. J. Theor. Phys.1(1968) 25-36

    work page 1968

  52. [52]

    Nordtvedt, Astrophys

    K. Nordtvedt, Astrophys. J.161(1970) 1059-1067

    work page 1970

  53. [53]

    Wagoner, Phys

    R.V. Wagoner, Phys. Rev. D1(1970) 3209-3216

    work page 1970

  54. [54]

    Ross, Phys

    D.K. Ross, Phys. Rev. D5(1972) 284-290

    work page 1972

  55. [55]

    Fujii, Phys

    Y. Fujii, Phys. Rev. D9(1974) 874-876

    work page 1974

  56. [56]

    Isenberg, N.O

    J.A. Isenberg, N.O. Murchadha and J.W. York, Phys. Rev. D13(1976) 1532-1537

    work page 1976

  57. [57]

    Scalar--Tensor Theories of Gravity with \PHI Dependent Masses

    J.A. Casas, J. Garcia-Bellido and M. Quiros, Class. Quant. Grav.9(1992) 1371-1384 [e-Print: hep-ph/9204213]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  58. [58]

    The Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravitation,

    Y. Fujii and K.I. Maeda, “The Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravitation,” (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004)

    work page 2004

  59. [59]

    Cosmology in scalar tensor gravity,

    V. Faraoni, “Cosmology in scalar tensor gravity,” (Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2004)

    work page 2004

  60. [60]

    Selected topics in scalar-tensor theories and beyond

    I. Quiros, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28(2019) 1930012 [e-Print: 1901.08690]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    Shtanov,On the conformal frames inf(R)gravity,Universe8(2022) 69 [2202.00818]

    Y. Shtanov, Universe8(2022) 2, 69 [e-Print: 2202.00818]

    work page arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    Qadir, Int

    A. Qadir, Int. J. Theor. Phys.15(1976) 635-641

    work page 1976

  63. [63]

    Mathematical Equivalence vs. Physical Equivalence between Extended Theories of Gravitations

    L. Fatibene and M. Francaviglia, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.11(2014) 1450008 [e-Print: 1302.2938]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  64. [64]

    The omega-tends-to-infinity limit of Brans-Dicke theory

    V. Faraoni, Phys. Lett. A245(1998) 26-30 [e-Print: gr-qc/9805057]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  65. [65]

    Weyl, Math

    H. Weyl, Math. Z.2(1918) 384-411

    work page 1918

  66. [66]

    Weyl, Annalen Phys.59(1919) 101-133; Surveys High Energ

    H. Weyl, Annalen Phys.59(1919) 101-133; Surveys High Energ. Phys.5(1986) 237-240

    work page 1919

  67. [67]

    London, Z

    F. London, Z. Physik42(1927) 375-389

    work page 1927

  68. [68]

    Space, Time and Matter

    H. Weyl, “Space, Time and Matter” (Dover, NY, 1952)

    work page 1952

  69. [69]

    Ricci-Calculus,

    Pages from 133 to 137 of J.A. Schouten, “Ricci-Calculus,” 2nd Edition (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1954)

    work page 1954

  70. [70]

    Dirac, Proc

    P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A333(1973) 403

    work page 1973

  71. [71]

    Utiyama, Prog

    R. Utiyama, Prog. Theor. Phys.50(1973) 2080; Prog. Theor. Phys.53(1975) 565

    work page 1973

  72. [72]

    Bouvier and A

    P. Bouvier and A. Maeder, Astrophys. Space Sci.54(1978) 497

    work page 1978

  73. [73]

    One hundred years of gauge theory: Past, present and future perspectives

    S. De Bianchi and C. Kiefer, “One hundred years of gauge theory: Past, present and future perspectives” (Springer, 2020). 29

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    Vilkovisky, Nucl

    G.A. Vilkovisky, Nucl. Phys. B234(1984) 125-137

    work page 1984

  75. [75]

    A covariant approach to general field space metric in multi-field inflation

    J.O. Gong and T. Tanaka, JCAP03(2011) 015; JCAP02(2012) E01 (erratum) [e-Print: 1101.4809]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  76. [76]

    Non-minimal Higgs Inflation and Frame Dependence in Cosmology

    C.F. Steinwachs, A.Yu. Kamenshchik, AIP Conf. Proc.1514(2013) 161-164 [e-Print: 1301.5543]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  77. [77]

    Invariant quantities in the scalar-tensor theories of gravitation

    L. J¨ arv, P. Kuusk, M. Saal and O. Vilson, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 024041 [e-Print: 1411.1947]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  78. [78]

    Frame-Covariant Formulation of Inflation in Scalar-Curvature Theories

    D. Burns, S. Karamitsos and A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. B907(2016) 785-819 [e-Print: 1603.03730]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  79. [79]

    Frame Covariant Nonminimal Multifield Inflation

    S. Karamitsos and A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. B927(2018) 219-254 [e-Print: 1706.07011]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    K. Finn, S. Karamitsos, A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 045014 [e-Print: 1910.06661]

    work page arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.