Phone Book's Fans: Shocking Claim on Torsion

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dextercioby
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Torsion
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a controversial claim made by the authors of the phone book regarding the absence of torsion in affine connections under the equivalence principle. Specifically, the assertion appears on page 1278, while Milutin Blagojević's work, "Gravitation and gauge symmetries," published after the phone book, contradicts this claim by affirming the presence of torsion. The authors, despite their expertise in General Relativity, seem to overlook established theories, including Cartan's theory and Lorentz gauge theory, which were known prior to their publication. This raises questions about the accuracy of their assertions and the division of authorship within the book.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of affine connections in differential geometry
  • Familiarity with General Relativity (GR) concepts
  • Knowledge of torsion in the context of gravitational theories
  • Awareness of historical developments in gauge theories, particularly Utiyama's work
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Milutin Blagojević's "Gravitation and gauge symmetries" for insights on torsion
  • Study Cartan's theory and its implications in modern physics
  • Examine Lorentz gauge theory and its historical context
  • Explore the authorship dynamics in collaborative scientific works
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, particularly those specializing in gravitational theories, as well as students and researchers interested in the nuances of General Relativity and torsion in modern physics.

dextercioby
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
13,409
Reaction score
4,201
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. :rolleyes:

Daniel.

[1]P von der Heyde [1975] "The equivalence principle in the [itex]U_{4}[/itex] theory of gravity", Nuovo Cim. Lett. 14, 250.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess MTW are humans too. Besides, they are experts for GR, but not for theories with torsion.
 
Different parts of the book were authored by the three coauthors, so one of them might have referred to material discussed in chapters written by another of the trio.

MTW has very, very few misstatements (I haven't tried to verify the claim that you uncovered one, but this is certainly possible).

Chris Hillman
 

Similar threads

Graduate Is there a quatum of torsion in Cartan Einstein Gravity? What is its spin?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 253)
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K