I Cartan's Understanding of Einstein Field Equation

Click For Summary
Cartan's geometric interpretation of the Einstein Field Equation suggests that the equation relates the sum of moments of rotation within a 3-cube to the energy-momentum contained in that space. This interpretation is primarily discussed in John Wheeler's works, particularly in "Gravitation" (MTW), while other popular texts like Wald do not cover it. Wheeler is credited with bringing Cartan's ideas to broader attention, highlighting the significance of his coordinate-free differential geometry. The lack of adoption of Cartan's viewpoint may stem from its complexity and the sophistication required to understand it. Overall, Cartan's insights offer a unique perspective on the relationship between geometry and physics in the context of general relativity.
dx
Homework Helper
Messages
2,143
Reaction score
52
TL;DR
Cartan and general relativity
About a week ago I was reading about Cartan's geometric interpretation of the Einstein Field Equation

Gij + Λgij = κTij

According to Cartan, this equation expresses the idea

(sum of moments of rotation for the faces of a little 3-cube) = 8π * (amount of energy-momentum within that 3-cube)

As far as I can tell, it is only in John Wheeler's various books (MTW, but also his other books) where this idea of Cartan is explained. None of the other popular books like Wald discuss this. Apparently, it was Wheeler who dug it out of Cartan's papers and made it widely known. If anyone on this forum has a good understanding of this, I would appreciate it if you can share/explain this. Also, why don't more people and books adopt this viewpoint? Is it because Cartan's coordinate free differential geometry is too sophisticated?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Frankly I don't know why...Btw MTW has also a section for the Cartan's geometric interpretation of Newton spacetime (basically the Poisson equation).
 

Thread 'Is using r as a coordinate in Birkhoff's theorem a limitation?'

In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...
View full post »

Similar threads

Einstein-Cartan Field Equations Derivation
Replies
2
Views
2K
Fermionic Fields in Einstein Field Equations | Explained
Replies
8
Views
2K
A Boundary conditions in ##\delta I=0## to derive Einstein's equations
Replies
8
Views
1K
I Einstein Field Eqns: East/West Coast Metrics
Replies
6
Views
2K
I How Do Physical Quantities Relate to Spacetime in Einstein's Field Equations?
Replies
8
Views
2K
A Einstein and Spacetime: Debunking the Myth of Rejecting Curvature
Replies
10
Views
3K
I What Does the Ricci Tensor Reveal About Einstein's Field Equations?
Replies
4
Views
2K
I Is there an analog to Einstein's field equations for 2D?
Replies
12
Views
3K
Understanding Einstein Field Equation & Metric Tensor
Replies
10
Views
3K
Derivations of Einstein field equations
Replies
3
Views
2K