Non-metric Compatible Connections: Physically Plausible?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ibix
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Connection
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of requiring metric compatibility in the context of covariant derivatives within general relativity (GR) and its potential extensions, particularly the Einstein-Cartan theory. Participants explore whether this requirement is essential for a physically plausible theory and how it relates to the equivalence principle and the presence of spin in matter.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that requiring metric compatibility leads to path independence in transporting the metric, which may be necessary for the equivalence principle to hold.
  • Others suggest that extending GR to Einstein-Cartan theory, which allows for torsion, could be a more appropriate framework given the existence of particles with spin.
  • A participant notes that varying the metric and connection independently can recover the Levi-Civita connection, but this changes with the introduction of matter fields with spin.
  • There is a discussion about the physical meaning of connections that are not metric compatible, with some suggesting that many manifolds used in physics do not have a natural metric representing something physical.
  • References to literature are provided, including Ramond's textbook and a classical review paper by Hehl et al., discussing the necessity of extending GR to accommodate spin.
  • Questions are raised about the relationship between Einstein-Cartan theory and the concept of metric compatibility with torsion, as well as the implications for supergravity theories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of metric compatibility and the implications of introducing torsion. There is no consensus on whether a theory without metric compatibility can be physically plausible, and multiple competing views remain regarding the extension of GR.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions touch on the limitations of current understanding regarding connections and their physical interpretations, as well as the need for additional models to determine torsion alongside the metric.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying general relativity, gauge theories, or the implications of spin in theoretical physics, particularly in the context of advanced gravitational theories.

Ibix
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2025 Award
Messages
13,661
Reaction score
16,361
TL;DR
What does a connection that isn't metric compatible mean?
Orodruin said:
- The connection should be metric compatible.
If this is opening a can of worms then please say so and I'll start a separate thread.

This constraint on the covariant derivative means that transporting the metric is, in fact, path independent. Is this actually a requirement for any physically plausible theory? If you don't impose it, doesn't it mean that a free-falling observer can measure the metric near some event (getting a local Minkowski frame) then find that the theory says that the "natural" transport of that is not a local Minkowski frame at some later event? That is, such a theory wouldn't respect the equivalence principle?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM and vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
It opens a can of worms, but in my opinion a very interesting one.

I think it's pretty likely that, given the fact that there are particles/matter with spin, GR should in fact be extended to Einstein-Cartan theory, i.e., the connection is not torsion-free anymore, and then even when the connection is metric compatible, it's not unique anymore. AFAIK you need a model to determine the torsion in addition to the metric, but for sure the GR experts can they something more definite about such extensions of GR.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
vanhees71 said:
It opens a can of worms, but in my opinion a very interesting one.

I think it's pretty likely that, given the fact that there are particles/matter with spin, GR should in fact be extended to Einstein-Cartan theory, i.e., the connection is not torsion-free anymore, and then even when the connection is metric compatible, it's not unique anymore. AFAIK you need a model to determine the torsion in addition to the metric, but for sure the GR experts can they something more definite about such extensions of GR.

I think it is indeed a can of juicy worms. If I do not misremember, if you vary the metric and connection independently, you actually regain the Levi-Civita connection from the Einstein-Hilbert action, but this indeed changes once you introduce matter fields with spin.

Perhaps we should move this to a separate thread though.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Ibix
In this thread I asked:
Requiring metric compatibility of the covariant derivative means that transporting the metric is, in fact, path independent. Is this actually a requirement for any physically plausible theory? If you don't impose it, doesn't it mean that a free-falling observer can measure the metric near some event (getting a local Minkowski frame) then find that the theory says that the "natural" transport of that is not a local Minkowski frame at some later event? That is, such a theory wouldn't respect the equivalence principle?
@Orodruin and @vanhees71 replied:
vanhees71 said:
I think it's pretty likely that, given the fact that there are particles/matter with spin, GR should in fact be extended to Einstein-Cartan theory, i.e., the connection is not torsion-free anymore, and then even when the connection is metric compatible, it's not unique anymore. AFAIK you need a model to determine the torsion in addition to the metric, but for sure the GR experts can they something more definite about such extensions of GR.
Orodruin said:
If I do not misremember, if you vary the metric and connection independently, you actually regain the Levi-Civita connection from the Einstein-Hilbert action, but this indeed changes once you introduce matter fields with spin.
I must admit I asked off the cuff, so haven't done any reading on connections other than the Levi-Civita connection, and I'm not sure where to start. But it does seem that my initial reaction ("they wouldn't make physical sense") was wrong. I'd be interested in pointers to appropriate reading material, as well as any commentary.
 
Ibix said:
Summary:: What does a connection that isn't metric compatible mean?

In this thread I asked:
Requiring metric compatibility of the covariant derivative means that transporting the metric is, in fact, path independent. Is this actually a requirement for any physically plausible theory? If you don't impose it, doesn't it mean that a free-falling observer can measure the metric near some event (getting a local Minkowski frame) then find that the theory says that the "natural" transport of that is not a local Minkowski frame at some later event? That is, such a theory wouldn't respect the equivalence principle?
@Orodruin and @vanhees71 replied:I must admit I asked off the cuff, so haven't done any reading on connections other than the Levi-Civita connection, and I'm not sure where to start. But it does seem that my initial reaction ("they wouldn't make physical sense") was wrong. I'd be interested in pointers to appropriate reading material, as well as any commentary.
It depends on what you mean by ”make physical sense”. Many manifolds that are used in physics do not even have a natural metric that represents something physical (just take phase space of Hamiltonian mechanics or state space of thermodynamics as examples).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
A very condensed review about the idea that one needs the extension of the pseudo-Riemannian spacetime of GR to an Einstein-Cartan manifold can be found in Ramond's QFT textbook, where he treats it from the point of view of gauge theories, i.e., using the Lorentz group of Minkowski spacetime as the local gauge group. It also turns out that one necessarily needs the extension when considering particles (media) with spin:

P. Ramond, Field Theory: A Modern Primer, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, Calif., 2 ed. (1989).

The classical review paper is by Hehl et al:

https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.48.393
 
vanhees71 said:
A very condensed review about the idea that one needs the extension of the pseudo-Riemannian spacetime of GR to an Einstein-Cartan manifold can be found in Ramond's QFT textbook, where he treats it from the point of view of gauge theories, i.e., using the Lorentz group of Minkowski spacetime as the local gauge group. It also turns out that one necessarily needs the extension when considering particles (media) with spin:

P. Ramond, Field Theory: A Modern Primer, Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, Calif., 2 ed. (1989).

The classical review paper is by Hehl et al:

https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.48.393

A couple of questions. Is this related to what Wiki calls "Einstein-Cartan theory"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Einstein–Cartan_theory&oldid=934447151

Secondly, would it be fair to say that ECKS theory still has a metric compatible connection, but drops the requirment that there be no torsion? Or is that wrong?
 
I think it's Einstein-Cartan theory, and indeed the connection is still metric compatible but with torsion and thus not unique. That's why you need additional equations for the torsion with the spin tensor as sources.
 
  • #10
Possibly useful reading (I haven't read them):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_connection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonmetricity_tensor
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103858479 (Comm. Math. Phys., Volume 29, Number 1 (1973), 55-59. "Conditions on a connection to be a metric connection", B. G. Schmidt)
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/...annian-metric-for-which-it-is-the-levi-civita
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/18/010/18010695.pdf?r=1&r=1
("Nonmetricity and torsion: Facts and fancies in gauge approaches to gravity", Baekler, P.; Hehl, F.W.; Mielke, E.W.)

https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/5/7/173 ( Universe 2019, 5(7), 173; https://doi.org/10.3390/universe5070173
"The Geometrical Trinity of Gravity" JB Jiménez, L Heisenberg, and TS Koivisto .
I'm not familiar with this journal but... https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe/editors and this special issue https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe/special_issues/feature_papers_2019 has some names I recognize. )
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

Undergrad How do non-diagonal indices of a metric allow for local flatness?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Undergrad Parallel transport general relativity
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
6K
Graduate What Does a Zero Metric Mean in the Context of Pre-Big Bang Physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad When will metric compatibility hold/not hold?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate Connection, Metric and Torsion
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Rods, Clocks & Free Fall: Metric & Connections in GR
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Graduate Index-Free Expressions & Unique Metric-Compatible Connections
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Is a Gravitational Field Real or Just a Coordinate Transformation Artifact?
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
Graduate What Are Null Basis Vectors and Metric Signatures in Kruskal Coordinates?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Does the EP imply that a free-falling observer follows a geodesic?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K