2020/11/12 by Alice Bonino, A. Bonino, S. Camera +5
Physics and Astronomy · #Algorithm #Artificial intelligence #Black Holes and Theoretical Physics #Computer science #Cosmology and Gravitation Theories #Physics #Solar and Space Plasma Dynamics #gr-qc #hep-th
paper · pdf · doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00982-9
22 pages, 2 figures
arxiv created 2020/11/12 · openalex publication_date 2020/12/01 · openalex created_date 2020/12/21 · arxiv updated 2022/01/11 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
Abstract We compare Mercury’s precession test in standard general relativity, Brans–Dicke theories (BD), and Palatini f(\mathcal R) <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math> -theories. We avoid post-Newtonian approximation and compute exact precession in these theories. We show that the well-known mathematical equivalence between Palatini f(\mathcal R) <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math> -theories and a specific subset of BD theories does not extend to a really physical equivalence among theories since equivalent models still allow a different incompatible precession for Mercury depending on the solution one chooses. As a result one cannot use BD equivalence to rule out Palatini f(\mathcal R) <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math> -theories. On the contrary, we directly discuss that Palatini f(\mathcal R) <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math> -theories can (and specific models do) easily pass Solar System tests as Mercury’s precession.