Science Advisor
- 13,423
- 4,244
Here's something for the phone book's fans to chew on:
Surprisingly, on page #1278, in the index entry "Torsion", the 3 authors claim that "(torsion) not present in affine connection if equivalence principle is valid" and hint further to page #250 where they don't debate on it.
However, this assertion is terribly wrong, as Milutin Blagoevic' quoting [1] on page #66 of his book ("Gravitation and gauge symmetries") states after proving.
Surely, they wrote the book 3 years before the proof, but anyways, how could they do that ? They were already aware of both Cartan's theory (GR with torsion) and Lorentz gauge theory pioneered by Utiyama in his groundbreaking article in 1956 and refined by Sciama & Kibble.
Daniel.
[1]P von der Heyde [1975] "The equivalence principle in the [itex]U_{4}[/itex] theory of gravity", Nuovo Cim. Lett. 14, 250.
Surprisingly, on page #1278, in the index entry "Torsion", the 3 authors claim that "(torsion) not present in affine connection if equivalence principle is valid" and hint further to page #250 where they don't debate on it.
However, this assertion is terribly wrong, as Milutin Blagoevic' quoting [1] on page #66 of his book ("Gravitation and gauge symmetries") states after proving.
Surely, they wrote the book 3 years before the proof, but anyways, how could they do that ? They were already aware of both Cartan's theory (GR with torsion) and Lorentz gauge theory pioneered by Utiyama in his groundbreaking article in 1956 and refined by Sciama & Kibble.
Daniel.
[1]P von der Heyde [1975] "The equivalence principle in the [itex]U_{4}[/itex] theory of gravity", Nuovo Cim. Lett. 14, 250.