A question mark on the equivalence of Einstein and Jordan frames

2016/01/18 by Narayan Banerjee, Barun Majumder · 1 citation
Physics and Astronomy · #Advanced Differential Geometry Research #Black Holes and Theoretical Physics #Brans–Dicke theory #Classical mechanics #Computer science #Cosmology #Cosmology and Gravitation Theories #Einstein #Equivalence (formal languages) #Equivalence principle (geometric) #Frame (networking) #Linguistics #Mathematical physics #Philosophy #Physics #Quantum #Quantum cosmology #Quantum gravity #Quantum mechanics #Reference frame #Theoretical physics #gr-qc #hep-th

paper · pdf · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.01.022

6 pages, 4 figures. Online in Phys Lett B

openalex publication_date 2016/01/18 · arxiv created 2016/01/21 · arxiv updated 2016/01/25 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/06

Abstract

With an explicit example, we show that Jordan frame and the conformally transformed Einstein frames clearly lead to different physics for a non-minimally coupled theory of gravity, namely Brans–Dicke theory, at least at the quantum level. The example taken up is the spatially flat Friedmann cosmology in Brans–Dicke theory.

Citations

• Perfect Fluids in General Relativity: Velocity Potentials and a Variational Principle
• Mach's Principle and a Relativistic Theory of Gravitation
• Quadratic quantum cosmology with Schutz' perfect fluid
• Quantum Cosmology. I
• Quantum Theory of Gravity. I. The Canonical Theory
• (Pseudo)issue of the conformal frame revisited

Cited by

• Why scalar–tensor equivalent theories are not physically equivalent?