Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in High Energy Physics
Volume 2015, Article ID 821519, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/821519
Research Article

Spherically Symmetric Geometries in and Gravitational Theories

1Centre for Theoretical Physics, The British University in Egypt, P.O. Box 43, Sherouk City 11837, Egypt
2Egyptian Relativity Group (ERG), Mathematics Department, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11566, Egypt

Received 3 April 2015; Revised 5 May 2015; Accepted 5 May 2015

Academic Editor: Rong-Gen Cai

Copyright © 2015 Gamal G. L. Nashed. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The publication of this article was funded by SCOAP3.

Abstract

Using the well know relation between Ricci scalar, , and torsion scalar, , that is, , we show that, for any spherically symmetric spacetime whose (i) scalar torsion vanishing, that is, or (ii) total derivative term, that is, with is the contraction of the torsion, vanishing, or (iii) the combination of scalar torsion and total derivative term vanishing, could be solution for and gravitational theories.

1. Introduction

In the last few decades many theories of modified gravity have been constructed concerning different physical goals. In the 60s, Brans and Dicke coupled a scalar field to the metric to obatin a variable effective gravitational constant [1, 2]. In Brans-Dicke theory, the scalar field is a new degree of freedom of the gravitational field, which is not directly coupled to the matter, but it brings influence by getting in the dynamical equations that govern the spacetime geometry.

Also in the 60s, Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian has been added with quadratic terms in the curvature to overcome the renormalization of the theory [3]. In 1971, Lovelock [4] examined terms of higher order in the curvature as well; but he was motivated by another motivation. While this kind of Lagrangians leads, generally, to fourth-order dynamical equations because they involve second-order derivatives, Lovelock derived a general Lagrangian polynomic in curvature that leads to conserved second-order equations for metric spacetime. Lovelock has shown that the bigger the spacetime dimension is, the bigger the number of terms these Lagrangians can contain is.

In the 70s, Buchdahl and Astron aimed at replacing the Einstein-Hilbert scalar Lagrangian with a function of the scalar curvature and studied its cosmological consequences [5]. This kind of amended gravity is for time being called theory. In 1983, Milgrom [6] thought that the galactic rotation curves were a guidance of the fail of Newtonian gravity to describe gravitation in the weak field regime. According to Milgrom, no dark matter was able to explain the data but a theory of amended gravity. In this regard, Milgrom built amended newtonian dynamics theory. In the last decade, Bekenstein [7] developed a relativistic theory of gravity named tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) because it mixes the metric tensor, a vector field, and a scalar field. TeVeS involves Milgrom’s weakening of Newtonian gravity in the weak field regime and has also effects for lensing phenomena, cosmology, and so forth.

String theory has been a source of detection for theories of amended gravity. For example, Dvali, Gabadaze, and Poratti (DGP) gravity [8] describes the 4-dimensional universe as being immersed in a 5-dimensional manifold. Therefore, a “normal” 5D gravity can effect large scale effects in 4D as an accelerated expansion with no need of dark energy. These 4D consequences are driven by a scalar field named galileon due to its symmetries it obeys [9, 10].

For the present accelerating era of our universe, shown by the recent observations of type Ia supernovae [1113], general relativity (GR) can only describe the dynamics of the universe through an exotic fluid, which is called dark energy (DE), that has a negative pressure. Therefore, this phenomena divide researchers into two groups. The first group has been trying to explain the late-time acceleration in the frame work of standard cosmology, supplying the existence of DE. However, till now, the nature of DE is still unknown and is not an easy task in modern physics [1417]. The various cosmological observational data support the cold dark matter (CDM) model. At the present epoch, the CDM model seems to be a standard cosmological model. However, the theoretical root of the cosmological constant has not been fully catched. A number of models for DE to explain the late-time cosmic acceleration without the cosmological constant have been proposed (for more details of this topic readers are advised to return to the review [18] and references therein).

theories have been proposed in the last few years as an alternative to modified gravity [19, 20] and they constitute a very promising research area as is witnessed by the increasing interest in this field [2130]. The dynamical object in theories is the field of frames (vierbeins or tetrads), which involve the basis of the tangent space and its respective cobasis . The Lagrangian density of this theory is built with the product of the determinant of the covariant form of the tetrad times a function of the scalar , which is quadratic in the set of 2-form , where measures the basis departing from a coordinate basis. actions are preserved only under global Lorentz transformations but not preserved under local Lorentz transformation. Therefore, theories are dynamical theories not only for the metric but also for the entire tetrad. As will be mentioned later, only in the special case of the so-called teleparallel equivalent of general relativity (TEGR) does the theory acquire invariance under local Lorentz transformations, thus becoming a dynamical theory just for the metric. In general, it could be said that theory provides the spacetime not only with a metric but also with an absolute parallelization [3145]. It is shown that, based on a special frame, some static solutions can be derived with spherical symmetry in gravity theories [46]. It is proved that Schwarzschild spacetime remains as solution to ultraviolet deformations of GR in the framework of gravitational theories [47]. The existence of circularly symmetric solutions was examined in three dimensions [48]. For a special form of , a spherically symmetric solution which depends on the parameter is derived [49].

Within gravitational theory there are many solutions, spherically symmetric [50, 51], spherically symmetric charged [52], homogenous anisotropic [53], and stability of Einstein universe [54]. Some cosmological features of CDM model in the framework of the are investigated [35]. It is the aim of this study to show that any spherically symmetric geometries are solutions to the modified gravitational theories and .

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, basic equations of gravity theory are presented. In Section 3, a tetrad field with spherical symmetry is given and application to the field equation of is provided. New analytic, vacuum, and nonvacuum solutions are derived in Section 3. Final section is devoted to the main results.

2. Basic Equations of Gravity

The mathematical concept of the gravity theory is based on the Weitzenböck geometry. Our convention and nomenclature are the following: the Latin indices describe the components of the tangent space to the manifold (spacetime), while the Greek ones describe the components of the spacetime. For a general spacetime metric, we write the line element as , where is the Minkowski metric. is the covariant vector fields and its inverse is the contravariant vector fields satisfying the orthogonality and unitary conditions and . In a spacetime with absolute parallelism, the parallel vector fields define the nonsymmetric affine connection (cf., [55]) , where . The curvature tensor defined by the Weitzenböck connection, , is identically vanishing. The torsion and the contortion components are defined as and .

The skew symmetric tensor has the form and the torsion scalar is given by . The action of theory is given bywhere , is the Lagrangian of matter field,  is the cosmological constant and are matter fields, and is the reduced Planck mass, which is related to the gravitational constant by . Similar to the theory, one can define the action of theory as a function of the tetrad fields and by putting the variation of the function with respect to the tetrad fields to be vanishing one can obtain the following equations of motion:whereand is the energy-momentum tensor.

Now we are going to rewrite the field equations (2) in another form. The field equations (2) are written in terms of the tetrad and its partial derivatives. These equations appear to be different from Einstein’s field equations. Following [19, 20, 56], one can obtain an equation relating the scalar torsion with the Ricci scalar . These will make the equivalence between teleparallel gravity and GR clear. On the other hand, the tetrad cannot be eliminated completely in favor of the metric in (2) because of the lack of local Lorentz symmetry but one can show that the latter can be brought in a form that closely resembles Einstein’s equation. This form is more suitable for constructing analytic solutions in the theory. To start writing the field equations in a covariant version, we must replace partial derivatives in the tensors by covariant derivatives compatible with the metric , that is, , where . Thus, the definition of the torsion tensor can be written asUsing (4) in the definition of contorsion and the skew symmetric tensor , one can obtain

On the other hand, from the relation between Weitzenböck connection and the Levi-Civita connection, one can write the Riemann tensor for the Levi-Civita connection, , in terms of the nonsymmetric connection, , in the formThe associated Ricci tensor can then be written asNow, by using the definition of the contorsion along with the relations and considering that , one has [24, 5765]Equation (8) implies that the torsion scalar, , and Ricci scalar, , differ only by a covariant divergence of a spacetime vector. Therefore, the Einstein-Hilbert action and the teleparallel action (i.e., ) will both lead to the same field equations and are dynamically equivalent theories. However, the divergence term is the main reason that makes the field equations of not invariant under local Lorentz transformation (LLT). Let us explain this for some specific form of . ConsiderThe last term in the R.H.S. of (9) is not a total derivative term and therefore it is responsible to make when written in terms of and not invariant under LLT in contrast to the linear case, that is, the form of (8). Same discussion can be applied to the general form of and which shows in general a difference between and gravitational theories. It is known that the field equations of are of fourth-order and invariant under LLT, while the field equations of are of second-order and not invariant under LLT. Therefore, if the divergence term is vanishing then and hence one can show that any solution in TEGR can be a solution to GR and for a general case one can also show that any solution of can be a solution to . The aim of this study is to show that in the spherically symmetric case any solution of whose divergence term is vanishing will also be a solution to theory.

By using the equations listed above and after some algebraic manipulations, one can getwhere is the Einstein tensor. Finally, by using (10), the field equations of gravity, (2), can be rewritten in the form

Equation (11) can be taken as the starting point of the modified gravity model and it has a structure similar to the field equations of gravity. Note that in the more general case with the field equations are in covariant form. Nevertheless, the theory is not local Lorentz invariant. In case of and constant torsion, , GR is recovered and field equations are covariant and the theory is Lorentz invariant.

3. Spherically Symmetric Solution in Gravity Theory

The spherically symmetric tetrad has the formwhere and are two unknown functions of the radial coordinate, . Tetrad field (12) is a solution to the field equations (11) when , that is, TEGR, and for Schwarzschild black hole or for Reissner Nordström black hole or for Reissner Nordström-dS black hole [66]. However, our aim is to find a solution to gravitational theory. Tetrad field (12) gives a nonvanishing value of the scalar torsion; that is, , which means that the extra term appears in the field equation (2); that is, will have a nonvanishing value. Therefore, tetrad (12) does not fit to be a solution for gravitational theories. For this purpose we use the following tetrad:where and are two unknown functions of the radial coordinate, , and . Tetrad (13)1 is a generalization of tetrad (12); that is, when we return to tetrad (12). Also we exclude the case in which to preserve the symmetry we assume, spherical symmetry. Using tetrad (13) we get the nonvanishing components of the torsion tensor and the skew symmetric tensor in the formwhere , , , , and .

Using (14) we get the scalar torsion in the formPutting the torsion scalar we get a solution for in the formwith being an arbitrary function of and . Solution (16) satisfied (11) under some constraints on the function and that leads to the vanishing of torsion scalar. We put the constraint to ensure that any solution of will be a solution to . Other constraints, in the spherically symmetric case, will not satisfy the equality of the two theories.

The other solution comes from the calculations of the total derivatives term, surface term. The nonvanishing components of the vector density of the torsion, that is, , have the form where , , and are defined after (14). Using (17) we get the divergence term in the formwhere , , and . Putting we get a solution for in the formwhere is an arbitrary function of and 2. Using (19) in the relation , gives ; that is, any solution in GR will also be a solution to TEGR and vice versa. In general, we can say that any spherically symmetric solution of theories will also be a solution to theories.

Finally, we are going to calculate the term which has the formEquation (20) does not show any dependence on the unknown which is consistent with the fact that and Ricci scalar does not have any dependence on the unknown . Therefore, this constraint, , tells us that we work on GR theory which means that any GR solution will be a solution to TEGR or gravitational theories.

4. Main Results and Discussion

In this study, we have addressed the problem of finding spherically symmetric solution in the framework of and gravitational theories. To achieve this goal, we begin with the relation between Ricci scalar and torsion scalar tensors. From this relation we have studied three different cases.

Case 1. In this case we have applied a special3 spherically symmetric tetrad field having three unknown functions; one of them is a function of , , and , . The other two functions are responsible for reproducing all the known spherically symmetric solutions. We have calculated the scalar torsion of this tetrad and got a differential equation. By solving this differential equation with respect to we derived a solution that made the scalar torsion vanishing. Using this solution on the identity we get .

Case 2. In this case we have calculated the total derivative term, , and solved the resulting differential equation with respect to . Using this solution on the identity we get .

Case 3. In this case we have evaluated the equation and showed that the resulting differential equation did not show any dependence on . This is acceptable because we have which has no dependence on ; more precisely we work within the domain of GR.

Case 2 above shows that any spherically symmetric solution of GR will also be a solution to TEGR and vise versa. This means that, for example, for Schwarzschild spacetime whose Ricci scalar is vanishing, this solution will also be a solution to gravity. Let us explain this. The field equation of gravity has the form [67]where and are the energy momentum tensor of matter. For Schwarzschild solution we have and the field equation of for this solution takes the formso if we take the constraints that we get a solution within gravitational theory. At the same time for gravitational theories we have the problem of local Lorentz transformation which comes from the total derivative term. Therefore, Case 2 above means that if one succeeds to find the condition which makes the total derivatives term vanishing then and will be equivalent for the spherically symmetric case only, more precisely for the case where the Ricci scalar torsion has a zero or constant value.

All the above cases are related to the spherically symmetric geometry in which Ricci scalar either has a vanishing value or constant one like de Sitter. For other symmetries these studies can not be applied science the identity will not be in general satisfied. For example, in FRW models in which their symmetries are homogenous and isotropic, we can not apply the above procedure. This is due to the fact that Ricci scalar in those models has a nonvanishing value. Therefore, if one applies the procedure of Case 1 we get which is a contradiction. This contradiction comes from the fact that Ricci scalar is invariant under local Lorentz transformation while the total derivative term is not.

Conflict of Interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgment

This work is partially supported by the Egyptian Ministry of Scientific Research under Project ID 24-2-12.

Endnotes

  1. Tetrad (13) is a combination of the diagonal tetrad and so (3), that is,wherewhere is the diagonal form of tetrad field (13).
  2. For the Schwarzschild solution in which , (18) takes the formand (19) takes the form
  3. Tetrad (13) is not the general spherically symmetric one. Same procedure done for tetrad field (13) can be followed for the general spherically symmetric tetrad field [66].

References

  1. C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, “Mach's principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation,” Physical Review, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 925–935, 1961. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. P. Jordan, “Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Diracschen kosmologischen Hypothesen,” Zeitschrift für Physik, vol. 157, no. 1, pp. 112–121, 1959. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. R. Utiyama and B. S. DeWitt, “Renormalization of a classical gravitational field interacting with quantized matter fields,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 3, pp. 608–618, 1962. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  4. D. Lovelock, “The Einstein tensor and its generalizations,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 12, pp. 498–501, 1971. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  5. H. A. Buchdahl and R. Astron, “Non-linear lagrangians and cosmological theory,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 150, pp. 1–8, 1970. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. M. Milgrom, “A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 270, pp. 365–370, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. J. D. Bekenstein, “Relativistic gravitation theory for the modified Newtonian dynamics paradigm,” Physical Review D, vol. 70, no. 8, Article ID 083509, 28 pages, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, and M. Porrati, “4D gravity on a brane in 5D MInkowski space,” Physics Letters B, vol. 485, no. 1–3, pp. 208–214, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  9. A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, and E. Trincherini, “Galileon as a local modification of gravity,” Physical Review D, vol. 79, no. 6, Article ID 064036, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  10. C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farèse, and A. Vikman, “Covariant galileon,” Physical Review D, vol. 79, no. 8, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis et al., “Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant,” The Astronomical Journal, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 1009–1038, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, M. della Valle et al., “Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the Universe,” Nature, vol. 391, no. 6662, pp. 51–54, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber et al., “Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 517, no. 2, pp. 565–586, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. T. Padmanabhan, “Cosmological constant—the weight of the vacuum,” Physics Reports, vol. 380, no. 5-6, pp. 235–320, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  15. P. J. Peebles and B. Ratra, “The cosmological constant and dark energy,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 559–606, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  16. C. G. Tsagas, A. Challinor, and R. Maartens, “Relativistic cosmology and large-scale structure,” Physics Reports A, vol. 465, no. 2-3, pp. 61–147, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  17. E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, “Dynamics of dark energy,” International Journal of Modern Physics D, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1753–1935, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  18. K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, “Dark energy cosmology: the equivalent description via different theoretical models and cosmography tests,” Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 342, no. 1, pp. 155–228, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. B. Li, T. P. Sotiriou, and J. D. Barrow, “fT gravity and local Lorentz invariance,” Physical Review D, vol. 83, Article ID 064035, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. T. P. Sotiriou, B. Li, and J. D. Barrow, “Generalizations of teleparallel gravity and local Lorentz symmetry,” Physical Review D, vol. 83, Article ID 104030, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. G. R. Bengochea and R. Ferraro, “Dark torsion as the cosmic speed-up,” Physical Review D, vol. 79, Article ID 124019, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. E. V. Linder, “Einstein's other gravity and the acceleration of the universe,” Physical Review D, vol. 81, Article ID 127301, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. R. Myrzakulov, “Accelerating universe from F(T) gravity,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 71, no. 9, article 1752, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. Y.-F. Cai, S.-H. Chen, J. B. Dent, S. Dutta, and E. N. Saridakis, “Matter bounce cosmology with the f(T) gravity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 28, no. 21, Article ID 215011, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  25. P. Wu and H. Yu, “fT models with phantom divide line crossing,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 71, article 1552, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. J. B. Dent, S. Dutta, and E. N. Saridakis, “fT gravity mimicking dynamical dark energy. Background and perturbation analysis,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2011, no. 1, article 9, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  27. K. Bamba, C.-Q. Geng, C.-C. Lee, and L.-W. Luo, “Equation of state for dark energy in f(T) gravity,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2011, no. 1, article 021, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. K. Bamba, R. Myrzakulov, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, “Reconstruction of f(T) gravity: rip cosmology, finite-time future singularities, and thermodynamics,” Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 85, no. 10, Article ID 104036, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. A. Aviles, A. Bravetti, S. Capozziello, and O. Luongo, “Cosmographic reconstruction of fT cosmology,” Physical Review D, vol. 87, Article ID 064025, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  30. M. Jamil, D. Momeni, and R. Myrzakulov, “Attractor solutions in f(T) cosmology,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 72, article 1959, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. M. Sharif and S. Rani, “Generalized teleparallel gravity via some scalar field dark energy models,” Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 345, no. 1, pp. 217–223, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  32. F. Fiorini and R. Ferraro, “Cosmological frames for theories with absolute parallelism,” International Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series, vol. 3, pp. 227–237, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, “Born-Infeld gravity in Weitzenböck spacetime,” Physical Review D, vol. 78, Article ID 124019, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. P. Wu and H. W. Yu, “Observational constraints on f(T) theory,” Physics Letters B, vol. 693, no. 4, pp. 415–420, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  35. I. G. Salako, M. E. Rodrigues, A. V. Kpadonou, M. J. S. Houndjo, and J. Tossa, “ΛCDM model in f(T) gravity: reconstruction, thermodynamics and stability,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2013, no. 11, article 060, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. M. H. Daouda, M. E. Rodrigues, and M. J. S. Houndjo, “New static solutions in f(T) theory,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 71, article 1817, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. Z. Haghani, T. Harko, H. R. Sepangi, and S. Shahidi, “Weyl-Cartan-Weitzenböck gravity as a generalization of teleparallel gravity,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2012, no. 10, article 061, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. Z. Haghani, T. Harko, H. R. Sepangi, and S. Shahidi, “Weyl-Cartan-Weitzenböck gravity through Lagrange multiplier,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 88, no. 4, Article ID 044024, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. M. E. Rodrigues, M. J. S. Houndjo, D. Sáez-Gómez, and F. Rahaman, “Anisotropic universe models in fT gravity,” Physical Review D, vol. 86, no. 10, Article ID 104059, 13 pages, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. K. Bamba, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, “Effective F(T) gravity from the higher-dimensional Kaluza-KLEin and Randall-Sundrum theories,” Physics Letters B, vol. 725, no. 4-5, pp. 368–371, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  41. K. Bamba, J. de Haro, and S. D. Odintsov, “Future singularities and teleparallelism in loop quantum cosmology,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2013, no. 2, article 008, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  42. K. Karami, A. Abdolmaleki, S. Asadzadeh, and Z. Safari, “QCD ghost f(T)-gravity model,” European Physical Journal C, vol. 73, no. 9, p. 2565, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. K. Karami and A. Abdolmaleki, “Generalized second law of thermodynamics in fT gravity,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2012, no. 4, article 7, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. K. Karami, S. Asadzadeh, A. Abdolmaleki, and Z. Safari, “Holographic f(T)-gravity model with power-law entropy correction,” Physical Review D, vol. 88, no. 8, Article ID 084034, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. K. Karami and A. Abdolmaleki, “f(T) modified teleparallel gravity as an alternative for holographic and new agegraphic dark energy models,” Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 757–771, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  46. T. Wang, “Static solutions with spherical symmetry in f(T) theories,” Physical Review D, vol. 84, Article ID 024042, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  47. R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, “Spherically symmetric static spacetimes in vacuum f(T) gravity,” Physical Review D, vol. 84, no. 8, Article ID 083518, 8 pages, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  48. P. A. González, N. Saridakis, and Y. Vásquez, “Circularly symmetric solutions in three-dimensional teleparallel, f(T) and Maxwell-f(T) gravity,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 1207, article 053, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  49. L. Iorio and E. N. Saridakis, “Solar system constraints on f(T) gravity,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 427, pp. 1555–1561, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  50. G. G. L. Nashed, “A special exact spherically symmetric solution in f(T) gravity theories,” General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 1887–1899, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  51. G. G. L. Nashed, “Stationary axisymmetric solutions and their energy contents in teleparallel equivalent of Einstein theory,” Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 330, no. 1-2, pp. 173–181, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. S. Capozziello, P. A. González, E. N. Saridakise, and Y. Vásquez, “Exact charged black-hole solutions in D-dimensional fT gravity: torsion vs curvature analysis,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2013, no. 2, article 39, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  53. M. E. Rodrigues, M. J. S. Houndjo, D. Sáez Gómez, and F. Rahaman, “Anisotropic universe models in f(T) gravity,” Physical Review D, vol. 86, Article ID 104059, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. J.-T. Li, C.-C. Lee, and C.-Q. Geng, “Einstein static universe in exponential fT gravity,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 73, article 2315, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  55. R. Weitzenbock, Invariance Theorie, Nordhoff, Groningen, The Netherlands, 1923.
  56. B. Li, T. P. Sotiriou, and J. D. Barrow, “f(T) gravity and local Lorentz invariance,” Physical Review D, vol. 83, no. 6, Article ID 064035, 5 pages, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  57. S. Capozziello, P. A. González, E. N. Saridakis, and Y. Vásquez, “Exact charged black-hole solutions in D-dimensional fT gravity: torsion vs curvature analysis,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2013, no. 2, article 39, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  58. J. B. Dent, S. Dutta, and E. N. Saridakis, “f(T) gravity mimicking dynamical dark energy. Background and perturbation analysis,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 1101, article 009, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  59. A. Einstein, “Riemanngeometrie mit aufrechterhaltung des begriffes des fern-parallelismus Riemannian,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Physikalisch-Mathematische Klasse, vol. 217, 1928. View at Google Scholar
  60. A. Einstein, “Zur theorie der Räume mit Riemann-Metrik und Fernparallelismus,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematische Klasse, vol. 24, pp. 401–402, 1930. View at Google Scholar
  61. R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, An Introduction to Teleparallel Gravity, Instituto de Fisica Teorica, UNSEP, São Paulo, Brazil, 2010, http://www.ift.unesp.br/gcg/tele.pdf.
  62. M. H. Daouda, M. E. Rodrigues, and M. J. S. Houndjo, “Static anisotropic solutions in f(T) theory,” European Physical Journal C, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. M. H. Daouda, M. E. Rodrigues, and M. J. S. Houndjo, “Anisotropic fluid for a set of non-diagonal tetrads in f(T) gravity,” Physics Letters B, vol. 715, no. 1–3, pp. 241–245, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. D. Liu and M. J. Reboucas, “Energy conditions bounds on fT gravity,” Physical Review D, vol. 86, Article ID 083515, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  65. K. Atazadeh and M. Mousavi, “Vacuum spherically symmetric solutions in fT gravity,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 73, no. 1, article 2272, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  66. T. Shirafuji, G. G. L. Nashed, and K. Hayashi, “Energy of general spherically symmetric solution in the tetrad theory of gravitation,” Progress of Theoretical Physics, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 665–678, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  67. K. Bamba, A. N. Makarenko, A. N. Myagky, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, “Bounce cosmology from F(R) gravity and F(R) bigravity,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2014, article 008, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus