A Coupling torsion to electromagnetism and torsion tensor decomposition

Click For Summary
In discussions on coupling torsion to electromagnetism within general relativity, several authors propose that the traceless part of the torsion tensor is either set to zero or assumed to vanish for mathematical convenience. This raises questions about the implications of this assumption, particularly regarding gauge invariance and whether the decomposition of the torsion tensor into trace, axial, and traceless components is indeed the most general form. The proposed decomposition includes a traceless part, an axial torsion vector, and a trace vector, as referenced in works by Sur and Bhatia. Clarification is sought on whether this decomposition imposes any geometrical constraints on the components of the torsion tensor. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of torsion's role in electromagnetism and its mathematical implications.
nicopa
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
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 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...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
6K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
6K