2023
DOI: 10.1103/physrevd.107.024044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Energy and entropy in the geometrical trinity of gravity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 155 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Firstly, it is consistent with the Noether theorems [17]. Secondly, it predicts the physical observables [18].…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 73%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Firstly, it is consistent with the Noether theorems [17]. Secondly, it predicts the physical observables [18].…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Physical observables are described as conserved charges, given by fluxes of field excitations on a closed surface (e.g. [18,[63][64][65][66][67]). This is the operational definition of an observable.…”
Section: Paragravitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…following any of the procedures outlined in the subsection above. Such a tensor can be consistently defined in the context of the geometrical trinity [22,26] which is outside the scope of this article, but otherwise it is known that there is no local definition of energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field in a diffeomorphism-invariant theory. Therefore, either we construct a non-gauge-invariant tensor (which would be hard to be given a clear physical meaning), or we construct a non-conserved quantity [27][28][29].…”
Section: Jcap12(2023)006mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, in some cases it is not a tensor, and it may not be gauge-invariant. It has been argued that the properly defined Noether current should be equivalent to the Hilbert energy-momentum tensor, and it is thus a somewhat misleading convention to call (2.1) "the canonical energy-momentum tensor"[22]. However, in this paper we stick to the conventional terminology.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%