Reply to "Comment on `Energy Conditions in $f(Q)$ gravity'"

TL;DR

This paper defends the original analysis of energy conditions in $f(Q)$ gravity against a comment, demonstrating that the additional terms proposed do not alter the original equations or constraints.

Contribution

The authors clarify that their original energy condition analysis remains valid despite alternative definitions of effective density and pressure.

Findings

Effective density and pressure yield the same Friedmann equations.

Extra terms are due to specific definitions, not new physics.

Original energy constraints remain unchanged.

Abstract

Recently, Avik De and L.T. How claim that we have not followed an effective theory approach for $f(Q)$ gravity, missing relevant terms to compute the energy conditions [Phys. Rev. D 102, 024057 (2020)]. They also state that we did not present how the pressure and energy density follow a set of energy condition criteria. In this reply we show how the effective density and effective pressure found in the comment yield to the same Fridmann Equations presented in our article. Therefore, we claim that the comment only introduces an equivalent path to derive the Friedmann Equations and that the extra terms found by Avik De and L.T. How are consequence of their specific definition for their effective density and effective pressure. However, such terms do not change the equations for $\rho$ and $p$. Consequently, these extra terms are not going to change the energy constraints presented by us in Phys. Rev. D 102, 024057 (2020).