Already in the 1970s there where attempts to present a set of ground rules, sometimes referred to as a theory of gravitation theories, which theories of gravity should satisfy in order to be considered viable in principle and, therefore, interesting enough to deserve further investigation. From this perspective, an alternative title of this paper could be "Why Are We Still Unable to Write a Guide on How to Propose Viable Alternatives to General Relativity?". Attempting to answer this question, it is argued here that earlier efforts to turn qualitative statements, such as the Einstein equivalence principle, into quantitative ones, such as the metric postulates, stand on rather shaky ground probably contrary to popular belief - as they appear to depend strongly on particular representations of the theory. This includes ambiguities in the identification of matter and gravitational fields, dependence of frequently used definitions ( such as those of the stress - energy tensor or classical vacuum) on the choice of variables, etc. Various examples are discussed and possible approaches to this problem are pointed out. In the course of this study, several common misconceptions related to the various forms of the equivalence principle, the use of conformal frames and equivalence between theories are clarified.

Theory of gravitation theories: A No-progress report / Sotiriou, T. P.; Liberati, S.; Faraoni, V.. - In: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODERN PHYSICS D. - ISSN 0218-2718. - 17:3-4(2008), pp. 399-423. [10.1142/S0218271808012097]

Theory of gravitation theories: A No-progress report

Liberati S.;
2008-01-01

Abstract

Already in the 1970s there where attempts to present a set of ground rules, sometimes referred to as a theory of gravitation theories, which theories of gravity should satisfy in order to be considered viable in principle and, therefore, interesting enough to deserve further investigation. From this perspective, an alternative title of this paper could be "Why Are We Still Unable to Write a Guide on How to Propose Viable Alternatives to General Relativity?". Attempting to answer this question, it is argued here that earlier efforts to turn qualitative statements, such as the Einstein equivalence principle, into quantitative ones, such as the metric postulates, stand on rather shaky ground probably contrary to popular belief - as they appear to depend strongly on particular representations of the theory. This includes ambiguities in the identification of matter and gravitational fields, dependence of frequently used definitions ( such as those of the stress - energy tensor or classical vacuum) on the choice of variables, etc. Various examples are discussed and possible approaches to this problem are pointed out. In the course of this study, several common misconceptions related to the various forms of the equivalence principle, the use of conformal frames and equivalence between theories are clarified.
2008
17
3-4
399
423
https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2748
Sotiriou, T. P.; Liberati, S.; Faraoni, V.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
S0218271808012097.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Non specificato
Dimensione 351.63 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
351.63 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11767/14029
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 85
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 84
social impact