In the presence of torsion, is it correct to say that the metric doesn't give rise to a unique connection? So, if we were using, say ECKS theory, which unlike GR includes torsion, in order to find the connection, we'd need not only the metric, but a specification of the torsion.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

My thinking is that the metric gives the symmetric part of the Christoffel symbols of the second kind, but in the presence of torsion, there is also an asymmetric part for these symbols which is given by the torsion. However, I could use a sanity check here.

A related question: if we define a geodesic by saying that it parallel transports its own tangent vector, is the geodesic equation unaffected by the presence of the torsion? So the metric still gives us the geodesic equation, the unspecified torsion terms don't matter?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# A Connection, Metric and Torsion

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - Connection Metric Torsion | Date |
---|---|

Riemannian Geometry , Levi-Civita connection, metric form q | Jan 16, 2015 |

Physical reasons for having a metric-compatible affine connection? | Jul 14, 2014 |

Levi-Civita connection and pseudoRiemannian metric | Mar 4, 2014 |

How can a metric connection have torsion? | Oct 13, 2011 |

Why torsion free metric compatible connection ? | Nov 20, 2007 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**