A Coupling torsion to electromagnetism and torsion tensor decomposition

nicopa
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Reason why the traceless part of the torsion tensor is usually set to zero in theories that extend general relativity to include electromagnetism?
When extending general relativity to include electromagnetism, several authors (e.g. Novello, Sabbata ecc.) assume that the traceless part of the torsion tensor vanishes or is deliberately set to zero. Then, either the trace or axial part of the torsion is used in association with the electromagnetic potential (coupling). Is there any reason why, besides mathematical convenience, the leftover part of the torsion is set to zero?
Is it related to gauge invariance?

Furthermore, is it correct to consider the decomposition of the torsion tensor into three components - i.e., trace part, axial part, and traceless part - as the most general one?
The decomposition I'm referring to is the following: $$T^λ_{μν} = \bar{T}^λ_{μν}+\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{λμνρ}V^ρ+\frac{1}{3}(g_{λν}T_μ − g_{λμ}T_ν)$$ where ##\bar{T}^λ_{μν}## is the traceless part of torsion, ##V^ρ## is the axial torsion vector or "pseudo-trace" and ##T_μ## is the torsion trace vector. This is found for example in Sur and Bhatia (Appendix, A-7 to A-10).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is there anyone who can answer? Does the question need clarification?
 
nicopa said:
several authors (e.g. Novello, Sabbata ecc.)
Do you have any specific references?
 
nicopa said:
is it correct to consider the decomposition of the torsion tensor into three components - i.e., trace part, axial part, and traceless part - as the most general one?
What do you mean by "most general"?
 
PeterDonis said:
What do you mean by "most general"?
I mean that it doesn't require any assumptions as to a specific form of the torsion tensor, e.g. with vanishing traceless part. In other words, that the above mentioned decomposition of the torsion tensor doesn't imply any geometrical constraints on its components.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top