2010/10/31 by Jean Alexandre, Pavlos Pasipoularides, P. Pasipoularides · 2 citations
Mathematics · Physics and Astronomy · #Advanced Differential Geometry Research #Black Holes and Theoretical Physics #Classical mechanics #Cosmology and Gravitation Theories #Covariant transformation #Curvature #Field (mathematics) #Function (biology) #Geometry #Limit (mathematics) #Mathematical analysis #Mathematical physics #Mathematics #Physics #Pure mathematics #Quantum mechanics #Spacetime #gr-qc #hep-ph #hep-th
paper · pdf · doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.084030
published as Phys.Rev.D83:084030,2011 · 29 pages, comments and figure added
arxiv created 2011/03/25 · openalex publication_date 2011/04/15 · arxiv updated 2011/04/29 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
We study the most general case of spherically symmetric vacuum solutions in the framework of the covariant Horava-Lifshitz gravity, for an action that includes all possible higher order terms in curvature which are compatible with power-counting normalizability requirement. We find that solutions can be separated into two main classes: (i) solutions with nonzero radial shift function, and (ii) solutions with zero radial shift function. In the case (ii), spherically symmetric solutions are consistent with observations if we adopt the view of Horava and Melby-Tomson [P. Horava and C. M. Melby-Thompson, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064027 (2010).], according to which the auxiliary field A can be considered as a part of an effective general relativistic metric, which is valid only in the IR limit. On the other hand, in the case (i), consistency with observations implies that the field A should be independent of the spacetime geometry, as the Newtonian potential arises from the nonzero radial shift function. Also, our aim in this paper is to discuss and compare these two alternative but different assumptions for the auxiliary field A.