AG-2024.01-282·gr-qc·cross-listed: astro-ph.CO
Response to a critique of "Cotton Gravity"
Authors
- Roberto A Sussman
- Carlo Alberto Mantica
- Luca Guido Molinari
- Sebastián Nájera
Abstract
We address in this article the criticism in a recently submitted article by Clement and Noiucer (arXiv:2312.17662 [gr-qc]) on "Cotton Gravity" (CG), a gravity theory alternative to General Relativity. These authors claim that CG is "not predictive" for producing "too many" spherically symmetric vacuum solutions, while taking the Bianchi I vacuum as test case they argue that geometric constraint on the Cotton tensor lead to an undetermined problem, concluding in the end that CG "is not a physical theory". We provide arguments showing that this critique is incorrect and misrepresents the theory.
Submitted
19 January 20242 years ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2401.10479
Summary
The authors defend Cotton Gravity, an alternative to Einstein's theory, against claims that it's unpredictive because it allows too many solutions—arguing the critique misunderstands how the theory's constraints actually work.
- Cotton Gravity uses a different geometric object (the Cotton tensor) instead of Einstein's curvature to describe gravity, and critics say this produces too many valid solutions to be physically meaningful.
- The defense argues that the critics misapplied the theory's constraints, particularly when analyzing spherically symmetric and Bianchi I (anisotropic cosmological) spacetimes.
- This is part of a broader debate about whether alternative gravity theories can make unique predictions—a key requirement for any theory to be considered 'physical' rather than just mathematical.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.