# What are some interesting f(R) models?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
186 views

$f(R)$ gravity is a class of gravitational theories similiar to General Relativity in that the Lagrangian is a function of the Ricci scalar. Standard General Relativity with a cosmological constant is a special case of $f(R)$ gravity where $f(R)=R+\Lambda$. Expanding a general $f(R)$ yields an expansion like $f(R)=\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty a_nR^n$ with the first term $a_0$ being the cosmological constant, and $a_1R$ is the standard term that is the basic Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian.

The Brans-Dicke theory with $\omega=-3/2$ was found to be an $f(R)$ theory with a connection-independent $\mathcal{L}_M$ term. What are some other interesting gravitational models that can be (unexpectedly) written as an $f(R)$ theory?

Of course, there are a number of other theories which can be written in an $f(R)$ form, if we do not restrict ourselves to scalar generalisations of General Relativity. For example, Gauss-Bonnet gravity and the effective gravitational action of standard string theories all contain terms like $R^{\mu\nu}R_{\mu\nu}$ and $R^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$).

Are there any theories of quantum gravity that predict a scalar generalisation of General Relativity?

edited Mar 28, 2015

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Drawing from my knowledge acquired mostly by reading the Living Review on this topic, it is obvious that many equivalences can be built via a conformal transformation. However, it should be noted that equivalences built by conformal transformation are only formal; mathematically, the field solutions of the theory will be the same, but the physical content of the theory becomes different. The non-equivalence can be easily seen e.g. through the change in behaviour of time-like geodesics under a conformal transform.

Furthermore, the theories will mostly not  be equivalent even in terms of mathematical form and solutions in the presence of matter because the coupling becomes non-minimal "$\mathcal{L}_m(g_{\mu \nu},...) \to \mathcal{L}_m(\Omega^{-2} g_{\mu \nu},...)$". The transformation to the Einstein frame is only a mathematical trick and a useful tool to compare the behaviour of the degrees of freedoms of different theories.

The only true equivalence seems to be acquired by the transform $f'(R) = \Phi$ (assuming $f'' \neq 0$) which yields the O'Hanlon action (not even general Brans-Dicke, only $\omega=0$!)

$$S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}\left( \frac{1}{2} \Phi R - V(\Phi) \right) + S_m$$

I.e. $f(R)$ theory seems to not be even equivalent to general dilatonic or Brans-Dicke theory.

For further references on what these theories might mean I recommend the paper by O'Hanlon and the previous works by him and Fujii referred therein. (I do not know any reference from the string-theoretical side.)

answered Mar 26, 2016 by (1,590 points)

Thank you, interesting.

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\varnothing$ysicsOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.