Fermionic Fields in Einstein Field Equations | Explained

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the treatment of fermionic fields within the framework of general relativity, particularly focusing on the implications of the Palatini formulation and Einstein-Cartan theory. Participants explore the mathematical and conceptual underpinnings necessary for incorporating fermionic matter fields with non-integral spin into the Einstein field equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express surprise that the Palatini formulation can accommodate fermionic matter fields, suggesting that Einstein-Cartan theory is necessary for treating spin.
  • Others argue that including fermionic matter requires a connection with non-zero torsion, which is a key assumption in Einstein-Cartan theory.
  • There is mention of the spin connection as a means to find the necessary connection in the Palatini formulation.
  • One participant notes their current learning level limits their ability to perform calculations but expresses interest in the elegance of the theory.
  • Another participant recommends resources like the Supergravity notes by Samtleben and the book by Freedman and Van Proeyen for their pedagogical approach.
  • Some participants challenge the completeness of the initial statement regarding the Palatini formulation, suggesting that the vielbein and spin connection are essential for describing fermionic fields in curved spacetime.
  • There is a request for recommendations on mathematical texts covering tetrads and Cartan's formalism, emphasizing a preference for learning in the appropriate context rather than through supergravity literature.
  • Participants provide a list of classical and physicist-oriented texts on differential geometry that may be useful for understanding the mathematical foundations relevant to the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the sufficiency of the Palatini formulation for including fermionic fields, with some asserting it is incomplete without considering Einstein-Cartan theory. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to incorporate fermionic matter into general relativity.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the initial statement regarding the Palatini formulation and its relation to the inclusion of fermionic fields, indicating a need for clarity on the roles of torsion, vielbeins, and the spin connection. There is also a recognition of the complexity involved in the mathematical formulations discussed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focused on general relativity, fermionic fields, and the mathematical frameworks that underpin these concepts.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
In the Einstein-Hilbert action wikipedia page, the following paragraph is written:
The Palatini formulation of general relativity assumes the metric and connection to be independent, and varies with respect to both independently, which makes it possible to include fermionic matter fields with non-integral spin.
I thought for treating spin, we need to consider Einstein-Cartan theory! This is really surprising to me. Can anyone suggest a paper or book that explains this in some detail?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The statement isn't complete.
In fact, when you include fermionic matter the connection needs to get a non-zero torsion.
This is exactly the main 'assumption' in Einstein-Cartan theory.

The Palatini formulation gives a way to find this connection. The connection is often called the spin connection.

If you like GR, do this stuff if you have time. It's pretty elegant in my opinion.
 
JorisL said:
The statement isn't complete.
In fact, when you include fermionic matter the connection needs to get a non-zero torsion.
This is exactly the main 'assumption' in Einstein-Cartan theory.

The Palatini formulation gives a way to find this connection. The connection is often called the spin connection.

If you like GR, do this stuff if you have time. It's pretty elegant in my opinion.
I do like GR and of course have time for such things but I'm at the level of learning that can only understand people's calculations but can't do such calculations myself!
 
Look e.g. at the Supergravity notes of Samtleben :) They are very pedagogical, and also treat this issue. I'd say to include fermionic fields, you need the spin-connection and vielbein, which means you write everything in terms of inertial coordinates (fermionic rep's are only describable in the tangent space!). This can be done without the Palatini formulation, so I'm not sure I understand the Wikiquote.
 
I'm using the Supergravity book by Freedman and Van Proeyen.
It's nicely written, exercises throughout the text when they are appropriate.
 
As said, the statement is inaccurate. The inclusion of spinor fields in curved spacetime (hence in the presence of gravity) needs gravity treated in the viel/vierbein-spin connection formulation which in turns comes nicely as the fiber bundle formulation of GR. The Palatini formulation is the first-order formulation of the H-E action. The connection is purely classical and no intepretation in terms of fiber bundles is made. It's not reformulated in terms of the viel/vierbein field. I think in order to reach supergravity, one needs Poincare gauge theory first.
 
Can someone suggest a good mathematical book covering tetrads(or more generally Cartan's formalism)?
You know, I'm a proponent of dexterciboy's signature!
Learn mathematics from books written by mathematicians

Also is there any book out of supergravity literature that focuses on this issue?
Because I'm afraid in such books, any other issue somehow gets "supergravitized"!
I think its better to learn something in the place it belongs to, not in the place where its used.(A natural generalization of dexterciboy's signature:D)

Thanks all
 
Last edited:
Every sugra book should focus on this issue. Van Proeyen's book or his online lecture notes are good. Samtleben's notes are the most basic ones. But both are physicists :P
 
Differential Geometry has its own classical books: Lee's books, Spivak's books, 2 vols of Kobayashi and Nomizu and last but not least Husemoller. Books written especially for physicists: T. Frenkel's , either edition of Nakahara or Aldrovandi & Pereira.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 186 ·
7
Replies
186
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
943
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K