Response to Comment on "Reexamining $f(R,T)$ Gravity''

Abstract

Harko and Moraes claim that in $f(R,T)$ gravity with $f(R,T)=f_1(R)+f_2(T)$, the term $f_2(T)$ cannot be incorporated in the matter Lagrangian ${\mathcal{L}}_m$. A careful examination of their Comment finds that they have made several dubious assumptions without indicating any errors in our work. Most notably, they have unjustifiably claimed that the two terms ${\mathcal{L}}_m$ and $f_2(T)$ are of ``different origin,'' and their inference that only the first contributes to the energy momentum tensor is arbitrary. Also significant, their derivation of equations of motion from a Lagrangian formulation, imposing conservation constraints {\it ad hoc} rather than via Lagrange multipliers, leads to inconsistent conclusions.

References in corpus (1)

• f(R,T) gravity

Cited by in corpus (9)

• Cosmological Inflation in f(Q, T) Gravity
• To conserve, or not to conserve: A review of nonconservative theories of gravity
• Fully conservative $f(R,T)$ gravity and Solar System constraints
• Perturbation Spectra of Warm Inflation in $f(Q,T)$ Gravity
• NEC violation in $f(\bar{R},\bar{T})$ gravity in the context of a non-canonical theory via modified Raychaudhuri equation
• Modified $f(R,T)$ theory in light of gravitational wave standard sirens
• Thermodynamics of a Non-canonical $f(\bar{R},\bar{T})$ gravity
• Gravitation with modified fluid Lagrangian: Variational principle and an early dark energy model
• Charged anisotropic white dwarfs in $f\left(R,T\right)$ gravity