Francoise J.-P., Naber G.L., Tsun T.S. (editors) Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

The power of this construction comes from the

fact that even if M is just flat quaternionic space,

one can obtain highly nontrivial quotients by

suitable choice of group G (e.g., the asymptotically

locally Euclidean four-dimensional examples of

Kronheimer, which include as a subcase the multi-

instanton metrics of Gibbons and Hawking).

Many examples of interest in mathematical

physics may be obtained by taking hyper-Ka¨ hler

quotients of an infinite-dimensional space of con-

nections and Higgs fields (Hitchin 1987). Examples

include moduli spaces of instantons over a hyper-

Ka¨ hler base, moduli spaces of monopoles on R

and moduli spaces of Higgs pairs over a Riemann

surface.

The hyper-Ka¨ hler manifolds produced so far by

the quotient construction have all been noncompact.

Examples of compact hyper-Ka¨ hler manifolds are

rarer but some are known. Beauville has produced

examples in all dimensions as desingularizations of

symmetric products of the basic four-dimensional

compact examples (K3 and the 4-torus).

Further material for this section may be found, for

example, in Hitchin (1992) and in the chapter by the

author on hyper-Ka¨ hler manifolds in LeBrun and

Wang (1999).

Quaternionic Ka¨ hler Manifolds (Holonomy Sp(n/4))

Sp(1))

These are always Einstein with nonzero Einstein

constant. Instead of globally defined parallel com-

plex structures as in the hyper-Ka¨hler case, we have

a sub-bundle G of End(TM) with fiber isomorphic to

the imaginary quaternions, parallel with respect to

the Levi-Civita connection. Thus, we have locally

defined almost-complex structures I, J, K, satisfying

the quaternionic multiplication relations, such that

covariant differentiation of one of I, J, K gives a

linear combination of the other two. In particular,

note that quaternionic Ka¨ hler manifolds are not

Ka¨ hler.

If the Einstein constant  is positive, the only

known complete examples are symmetric, the so-

called compact Wolf spaces, which are in one-to-one

correspondence with the compact simple Lie groups.

It is conjectured that these are the only examples

with  > 0, and some results in this direction have

been established (e.g., it is known if dim M  12). It

is also known that for fixed dimension, there are

only finitely many types of compact quaternionic

Ka¨ hler manifold with  > 0.

Many orbifold examples, however, are known to

exist, for example, via the Galicki–Lawson quater-

nionic Ka¨hler quotient construction.

If  < 0, more complete examples are known. In

addition to the noncompact duals of the Wolf

spaces, there are homogeneous, nonsymmetric

examples due to Alekseevski, and infinite-dimen-

sional families of inhomogeneous examples con-

structed via twistor methods by LeBrun (see also

Biquard (2000)).

Exceptional Holonomy (G

or Spin(7))

Such metrics exist in dimension 7 or 8, respectively.

They are always Ricci-flat and admit a parallel

spinor. Local examples were constructed by Bryant

using Cartan–Ka¨ hler theory, and some explicit

complete noncompact examples were produced by

Salamon and Bryant using a cohomogeneity-1

construction. More complicated explicit noncom-

pact examples have recently been produced by

several authors (see Cvetic

et al. (2003) for a

survey). Compact examples were produced using

analytical methods by Joyce, and later by Kovalev.

Joyce starts with a flat singular metric on quotients

of the seven- or eight-dimensional torus and con-

structs an approximate solution to the special

holonomy condition on a resolution of this singular

space. Then an analytic argument is used to show

that an exact nearby solution exists.

For further reading, consult Joyce (2000) as well

as the article by Joyce in LeBrun and Wang

(1999).

There are also some interesting examples of

Einstein metrics which, although not of special

holonomy themselves, are closely related to special

holonomy geometries. In recent years, these have

yielded many new examples of compact Einstein

manifolds in the work of Boyer, Mann, Galicki,

Kollar, Rees, Piccinni, and Nakamaye.

Einstein–Sasaki Structures

There are several different ways of defining these,

but the simplest is to say that (M, g) is Einstein–

Sasaki if the cone (R  M,dt

þ t

g) is Ricci-flat

Ka¨ hler. Also, an Einstein–Sasaki manifold has a

circle action with quotient a Ka¨ hler–Einstein orbi-

fold. Existence theorems for such orbifold metrics

have led to many examples of Einstein–Sasaki

metrics, including families on odd-dimensional

spheres.

3-Sasakian Structures

Again, we can define these in terms of cones; (M, g)

has a 3-Sasakian structure if the cone over it is

hyper-Ka¨hler. The basic example is S

4nþ3

with

associated cone H

 {0}. A 3-Sasakian manifold is

always Einstein with positive Einstein constant.

186 Einstein Manifolds

The hyper-Ka¨ hler quotient construction induces

a 3-Sasakian quotient, and many examples of

compact 3-Sasakian manifolds have been produced

as 3-Sasakian quotients of S

4nþ3

. In particular, there

are examples in dimension 7 with arbitrarily large

second Betti number, showing that one cannot, in

general, expect compactness/finiteness results for

Einstein moduli spaces without further assumptions.

Homogeneous Examples

Another strategy to study the Einstein equations is

to reduce the difficulty of the problem by imposing

symmetries. More precisely, we consider Einstein

manifolds (M, g) with an isometric action of a Lie

group G. In general, the Einstein equations with this

symmetry will now involve r independent variables

where r is the dimension of the stratified space

M=G. We call r the cohomogeneity of the manifold.

In this section, we consider the situation where

(M, g)ishomogeneous, that is, when the action of G

is transitive so r = 0. The Einstein equations now

reduce to a system of algebraic equations.

We may now write M = G=K, where K is the

stabilizer of a point of M. We choose an Ad

invariant vector space complement p to k in g, and

identify p with the tangent space to G=K at the

identity coset. The key point is that G-invariant

metrics on M = G=K may now be identified with

-invariant inner products on p, which may, in

turn, be studied by looking at the decomposition of

p into irreducible representations of K.

In the special case when G=K is isotropy irredu-

cible (i.e., p is an irreducible representation of K),

both the metric g and its Ricci tensor are propor-

tional by Schur’s lemma, and hence g is automati-

cally Einstein. Isotropy-irreducible homogeneous

spaces have been classified by Kramer, Manturov,

Wolf, and Wang–Ziller.

In the general case, the Einstein equations become

a system of polynomial equations. Determining

whether this system has a real positive solution is,

in general, a highly nontrivial problem. However,

the situation of homogeneous metrics is one area in

which the variational formulation of the Einstein

equations has proved highly successful.

We are now considering the scalar curvature

functional on the finite-dimensional space of unit

G-invariant metrics on G=K. The behavior of the

scalar curvature functional is related to the structure

of the lattice of intermediate subalgebras between

the Lie algebras of K and G.

An early result along these lines (Wang and Ziller

1986) is that if K is maximal in G (compact), then

G=K admits a G-invariant Einstein metric. The idea

of the proof is to show that maximality of K forces

the scalar curvature functional on the space of

volume-1 homogeneous metrics to be both bounded

above and proper, and therefore to have a

maximum.

These ideas have been greatly extended by Bo¨ hm,

Wang, and Ziller. Given a compact connected

homogeneous space G=K, they define a graph

whose vertices are Ad(K)-invariant subalgebras

strictly intermediate between g and k. The edges

correspond to inclusions between subalgebras.

A component of the graph is called toral if all

subalgebras h in this component are such that the

identity component of H=K is abelian. They now

show that if the graph has at least two nontoral

components, then G=K admits a G-invariant Einstein

metric. The Einstein metrics in the theorem are

produced by a mountain pass argument and may

have co-index 1, contrasting with the maxima of the

earlier theorem.

Further advances in this direction have recently

been made by Bo¨ hm. He associates to G=K a

simplicial complex, and shows that nonzero homo-

logy groups of the complex imply the existence of

higher co-index Einstein metrics.

One can also study homogeneous noncompact

Einstein spaces with  < 0. It is conjectured by

Alekseevski that for all such examples K is a

maximal compact subgroup of G. The reader is

referred to Heber (1998) for further information on

the noncompact case.

The above results give some powerful existence

results for Einstein metrics. However, there are

examples known of homogeneous spaces G=K

which admit no G-invariant Einstein metric (Wang

and Ziller 1986). One such example is SU(4)=SU(2),

where SU(2) is a maximal subgroup of

Sp(2)  SU(4).

Techniques similar to those in the homogeneous

case have been used to construct Einstein metrics on

total spaces of certain bundles, via Riemannian

submersions. Some highlights are Jensen’s exotic

Einstein metrics on (4n þ 3)-dimensional spheres,

and the Wang–Ziller metrics on total spaces of torus

bundles over products of Ka¨hler–Einstein manifolds.

The latter construction gives examples of spaces

admitting volume-1 Einstein metrics with infinitely

many Einstein constants .

Examples of Higher Cohomogeneity

One can also look for Einstein metrics of higher

cohomogeneity. Most progress has been made in the

cohomogeneity-1 case, that is, where the principal

orbit G=K of the action has real codimension one in

Einstein Manifolds 187

M (see Eschenburg and Wang (2000) for back-

ground on such metrics). On the open dense set in M

which is the union of the principal orbits, we may

write the metric as

þ g

where g

is a t -dependent homogeneous metric on

G=K. The Einstein equations are now a system of

ordinary differential equations in t.

One may also add a special orbit G=H at one or

both ends of the interval over which t ranges. This

will impose boundary conditions on the ODEs. For

the manifold structure to extend smoothly over the

special orbit, H=K must be a sphere. Notice that if

 > 0, then to obtain a complete metric M must be

compact, so we must add two special orbits. If   0

and the metric is irreducible, then a Bochner

argument tells us that M is noncompact. In the Ricci-

flat case, the Cheeger–Gromoll theorem tells us that to

obtain a complete irreducible metric, we must have

exactly one special orbit, so M is topologically the

total space of a vector bundle over the special orbit.

In fact, most of the known examples even with  < 0

have a special orbit too.

The system of ODEs we obtain is still highly

nonlinear and difficult to analyze in general. How-

ever, there are certain situations in which the

equations, or a subsystem, can be solved in closed

form. If we take G=K to be a principal circle bundle

over a Hermitian symmetric space, Be´rard Bergery

(1982) showed that the resulting Einstein equations

are solvable. (His work was inspired by the earlier

example of Page, which corresponds to the case

when G=K = U(2)=U(1), a circle bundle over CP

In fact, Be´rard Bergery’s construction works in

greater generality as we obtain the same equations

if G=K is replaced by any Riemannian submersion

with circle fibers over a positive Ka¨hler–Einstein

space. This illustrates a general principle that

systems arising as cohomogeneity-1 Einstein equa-

tions also typically arise from certain bundle ansa¨ tze

without homogeneity assumptions.

Wang and Wang generalized this construction to

be the case when the hypersurface in M is a

Riemannian submersion with circle fibers over a

product of an arbitrary number of Ka¨ hler–Einstein

factors. Other solvable Einstein systems have been

studied by, for example, Wang and Dancer.

It may also be possible in certain situations to get

existence results without an explicit solution. This

observation underlies the important work of Bo¨hm

(1998). He constructs cohomogeneity-1 Einstein

metrics on certain manifolds with dimension

between 5 and 9, including all the spheres in this

range of dimensions. The equations are not now

solved in closed form, but it is possible to get a

qualitative understanding of the flow and to show

that certain trajectories will give metrics on the

desired compact manifolds.

Bo¨ hm has also shown, in an analogous result to

the homogeneous case, that there are examples of

manifolds with a cohomogeneity-1 G-action which

do not support any G-invariant Einstein metric.

So far, not much is known about Einstein metrics

of higher cohomogeneity. An exception is the

situation of self-dual Einstein metrics in dimension

4, where the self-dual condition greatly simplifies

the resulting equations. Calderbank, Pedersen, and

Singer have achieved a good understanding of such

metrics with T

symmetry, including construction of

such metrics on Hirzebruch–Jung resolutions of

cyclic quotient singularities.

Analytical Methods

So far there is no really general analytical method

for proving existence of global Riemannian Einstein

metrics (although, of course, such techniques do exist

in more restrictive situations of special holonomy).

Although the Einstein equations admit a variational

formulation, this has (except for homogeneous metrics)

not yielded general existence results. Note that the

Wang–Ziller torus bundle examples at the end of the

section‘‘Homogeneousexamples’’showthatthe

Palais–Smale condition does not hold in full generality.

One early suggestion was to adopt a minimax

procedure. In each conformal class [g], one looks for

a minimizer of the volume-normalized scalar curva-

ture. Such a minimizer always exists. One then takes

the supremum over all conformal classes. The

resulting supremum of the functional is called the

Yamabe invariant Y(M) of the manifold M.Ifa

maximizer g exists, and Y(M)  0, then g is Einstein.

However, striking work of Petean shows that this

procedure must fail to produce an Einstein metric in

many cases. He proves that if dim M  5andM is

simply connected, then the Yamabe invariant is non-

negative. So, for such an M, any Einstein metric

produced will have   0, and we know that this

puts constraints on the topology of M.

Another possible technique is to use the Hamilton

Ricci flow. If this converges as t !1, the limiting

metric is Einstein. However, it seems hard in higher

dimensions to get control over the flow. In parti-

cular, the Wang–Ziller example in the section

‘‘Homogeneousexamples’’ofahomogeneousspace

with no invariant Einstein metric shows that the

flow may fail to converge (the Hamilton flow

preserves the property of G-invariance).

188 Einstein Manifolds

Graham–Lee and Biquard have used analytical

methods to produce Einstein deformations of hyper-

bolic space (real, complex, quaternionic, or Cayley).

The idea is to show that a sufficiently small deforma-

tion of the conformal infinity of hyperbolic space can

be extended to a deformation of the hyperbolic metric.

Recently, Anderson has shown the existence of

Einstein metrics with  < 0 on a large class of

manifolds obtained by Dehn filling from hyperbolic

manifolds with toral ends. The strategy is to glue on

to the hyperbolic metric copies of a simple explicit

asymptotically hyperbolic metric, and to show that

the resulting metric can be perturbed to an exact

solution of the Einstein equations.

See also: Einstein Equations: Exact Solutions; Einstein

Equations: Initial Value Formulation; Hamiltonian

Reduction of Einstein’s Equations; Several Complex

Variables: Compact Manifolds; Singularities of the Ricci

Flow.

Further Reading

Be´rard Bergery L (1982) Sur des nouvelles varie´te´s riemanniennes

d’Einstein. Publications de l’Institut Elie Cartan (Nancy),

vol. 6, pp. 1–60.

Besse A (1987) Einstein Manifolds. Berlin: Springer.

Biquard O (2000) Me´triques d’Einstein asymptotiquement syme´-

triques. Aste´risque 265.

Bo¨ hm C (1998) Inhomogeneous Einstein manifolds on low-

dimensional spheres and other low-dimensional spaces. Inven-

tiones Mathematicae 134: 145–176.

Cvetic

M, Gibbons GW, Lu¨ H, and Pope CN (2003) Special

holonomy spaces and M-theory. In: Unity from Duality,

Gravity, Gauge Theory and Strings (Les Houches, 2001),

523–545. NATO Advanced Study Institute, EDP Sci, Les Ulis.

Eschenburg J and Wang M (2000) The initial value problem for

cohomogeneity one Einstein metrics. Journal of Geometrical

Analysis 10: 109–137.

Hawking SW and Ellis GFR (1973) The Large-Scale Structure of

Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heber J (1998) Noncompact homogeneous Einstein spaces.

Inventiones Mathematicae 133: 279–352.

Hitchin NJ (1974) Compact four-dimensional Einstein manifolds.

Journal of Differential Geometry 9: 435–441.

Hitchin NJ (1987) Monopoles, Minimal Surfaces and Algebraic

Curves. Les presses de l’Universite´ de Montreal.

Hitchin NJ (1992) Hyper-Ka¨ hler manifolds. Asterisque

206: 137–166.

Hitchin NJ, Karlhede A, Lindstro¨ m U, and Roc

ek M (1987)

Hyper-Ka¨hler metrics and supersymmetry. Communications in

Mathematical Physics 108: 535–589.

Joyce D (2000) Compact Manifolds with Special Holonomy.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LeBrun C (2003) Einstein metrics, four-manifolds and differential

topology. In: Yau S-T (ed.) Surveys in Differential Geometry,

vol. VIII, pp. 235–255. Somerville, MA: International Press.

LeBrun C and Wang M (eds.) (1999) Essays on Einstein

Manifolds, vol. VI, Surveys in Differential Geometry. Boston,

MA: International Press.

Page D (1979) A compact rotating gravitational instanton.

Physics Letters 79B: 235–238.

Tian G (2000) Canonical Metrics in Ka¨ hler Geometry, Lectures in

Mathematics, ETH Zurich. Birkha¨user.

Wang M and Ziller W (1986) Existence and nonexistence of

homogeneous Einstein metrics. Invent. Math 84: 177–194.

Wang M and Ziller W (1990) Einstein metrics on principal torus

bundles. Journal of Differential Geometry 31: 215–248.

Yau S-T (1978) On the Ricci curvature of a compact Ka¨hler

manifold and the complex Monge–Ampere equations I.

Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics

31: 339–411.

Einstein–Cartan Theory

A Trautman, Warsaw University, Warsaw, Poland

Introduction

Notation

Standard notation and terminology of differential

geometry and general relativity are used in this

article. All considerations are local, so that the four-

dimensional spacetime M is assumed to be a smooth

manifold diffeomorphic to R

. It is endowed with

a metric tensor g of signature (1, 3) and a linear

connection defining the covariant differentiation of

tensor fields. Greek indices range from 0 to 3 and

refer to spacetime. Given a field of frames (e



)onM,

and the dual field of coframes (



), one can write the

metric tensor as g = g











, where g



= g(e



, e



)

and Einstein’s summation convention is assumed to

hold. Tensor indices are lowered with g



and raised

with its inverse g



. General-relativistic units are

used, so that both Newton’s constant of gravitation

and the speed of light are 1. This implies h = l

where l  10

33

cm is the Planck length. Both mass

and energy are measured in centimeters.

Historical Remarks

The Einstein–Cartan theory (ECT) of gravity is a

modification of general relativity theory (GRT),

allowing spacetime to have torsion, in addition to

curvature, and relating torsion to the density of

intrinsic angular momentum. This modification

was put forward in 1922 by E

lie Cartan,

before the discovery of spin. Cartan was influenced

by the work of the Cosserat brothers (1909), who

considered besides an (asymmetric) force stress

tensor also a moments stress tensor in a suitably

Einstein–Cartan Theory 189

generalized continuous medium. Work done in the

1950s by physicists (Kondo, Bilby, Kro¨ ner, and

other authors) established the role played by torsion

in the continuum theory of crystal dislocations. A

recent review (Ruggiero and Tartaglia 2003)

describes the links between ECT and the classical

theory of defects in an elastic medium.

Cartan assumed the linear connection to be metric

and derived, from a variational principle, a set of

gravitational field equations. He required, without

justification, that the covariant divergence of the

energy–momentum tensor be zero; this led to an

algebraic constraint equation, bilinear in curvature

and torsion, severely restricting the geometry. This

misguided observation has probably discouraged

Cartan from pursuing his theory. It is now known

that conservation laws in relativistic theories of

gravitation follow from the Bianchi identities and, in

the presence of torsion, the divergence of the

energy–momentum tensor need not vanish. Torsion

is implicit in the 1928 Einstein theory of gravitation

with teleparallelism. For a long time, Cartan’s

modified theory of gravity, presented in his rather

abstruse notation, unfamiliar to physicists, did not

attract any attention. In the late 1950s, the theory of

gravitation with spin and torsion was independently

rediscovered by Sciama and Kibble. The role of

Cartan was recognized soon afterward and ECT

became the subject of much research; see Hehl et al.

(1976) for a review and an extensive bibliography.

In the 1970s, it was recognized that ECT can be

incorporated within supergravity. In fact, simple

supergravity is equivalent to ECT with a massless,

anticommuting Rarita–Schwinger field as the source.

Choquet–Bruhat considered a generalization of ECT

to higher dimensions and showed that the Cauchy

problem for the coupled system of Einstein–Cartan

and Dirac equations is well posed. Penrose (1982)

has shown that torsion appears in a natural way

when spinors are allowed to be rescaled by a

complex conformal factor. ECT has been general-

ized by allowing nonmetric linear connections and

additional currents, associated with dilation and

shear, as sources of such a ‘‘metric-affine theory of

gravity’’ (Hehl et al. 1995).

Physical Motivation

Recall that, in special relativity theory (SRT), the

underlying Minkowski spacetime admits, as its

group of automorphisms, the full Poincare´ group,

consisting of translations and Lorentz transforma-

tions. It follows from the first Noether theorem

that classical, special-relativistic field equations,

derived from a variational principle, give rise to

conservation laws of energy–momentum and angu-

lar momentum. Using Cartesian coordinates (x



abbreviating @’=@x



to ’

,

and denoting by t



and



= s



the tensors of energy–momentum and

of intrinsic angular momentum (spin), respectively,

one can write the conservation laws in the form



;

¼ 0 ½1

and

ðx





 x





þ s



;

¼ 0 ½2

In the presence of spin, the tensor t



need not be

symmetric,



 t



¼ s



;

Belinfante and Rosenfeld have shown that the tensor



¼ t



ðs



þ s



þ s



;

is symmetric and its divergence vanishes.

In quantum theory, the irreducible, unitary repre-

sentations of the Poincare´ group correspond to

elementary systems such as stable particles; these

representations are labeled by the mass and spin.

In Einstein’s GRT, the spacetime M is curved; the

Lorentz group – but not the Poincare´group–appears

as the structure group acting on orthonormal frames

in the tangent spaces of M. The energy–momentum

tensor T appearing on the right-hand side of the

Einstein equation is necessarily symmetric. In GRT

there is no room for translations and the tensors t

and s.

By introducing torsion and relating it to s, Cartan

restored the role of the Poincare´ group in relativistic

gravity: this group acts on the affine frames in the

tangent spaces of M. Curvature and torsion are the

surface densities of Lorentz transformations and

translations, respectively. In a space with torsion,

the Ricci tensor need not be symmetric so that an

asymmetric energy–momentum tensor can appear

on the right-hand side of the Einstein equation.

Geometric Preliminaries

Tensor-Valued Differential Forms

It is convenient to follow Cartan in describing

geometric objects as tensor-valued differential

forms. To define them, consider a homomorphism

 :GL

(R) ! GL

(R) and an element A = (A





)

of End R

, the Lie algebra of GL

(R). The derived

representation of Lie algebras is given by

ðexp AtÞj

t¼0

¼ 







190 Einstein–Cartan Theory

If (e

) is a frame in R

, then 





) = 

b

a

, where

a, b = 1, ...,N.

A map a = (a





):M ! GL

(R) transforms fields

of frames so that



¼ e





and 



¼ a







0

½3

A differential form ’ on M, with values in R

, is said

to be of type  if, under changes of frames, it

transforms so that ’

= (a

1

)’. For example,  = (



)

is a 1-form of type id. If now A = (A





):M ! End R

then one puts a(t) = exp tA : M ! GL

(R)and

defines the variations induced by an infinitesimal

change of frames,

 ¼

ðaðtÞ

1

Þj

t¼0

¼A

’ ¼

ððaðtÞ

1

Þ’Þj

t¼0

¼







’

½4

Hodge Duals

Since M is diffeomorphic to R

, one can choose an

orientation on M and restrict the frames to agree

with that orientation so that only transformations

with values in GL

(R) are allowed. The metric then

defines the Hodge dual of differential forms. Put





= g







. The forms , 



, 



, 



, and 



are

defined to be the duals of 1, 



, 



^ 



, 



^ 



^ 



and 



^ 



^ 



^ 



, respectively. The 4-form  is

the volume element; for a holonomic coframe





= dx



, it is given by

ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

det (g



)

^ dx

. In SRT, in Cartesian coordinates, one

can define the tensor-valued 3-forms



¼ t







and s



¼ s







½5

so that eqns [1] and [2] become



¼ 0 and dj



¼ 0

where



¼ x





 x





þ s



½6

For an isolated system, the 3-forms t



and j



integrated over the 3-space x

= const., give the

system’s total energy–momentum vector and angular

momentum bivector, respectively.

Linear Connection, Its Curvature and Torsion

A linear connection on M is represented, with

respect to the field of frames, by the field of 1-forms





¼ 









so that the covariant derivative of e



in the direction

of e



is r





=







. Under a change of frames [3],

the connection forms transform as follows:





0



¼ !







þ da





If ’ = ’

is a k-form of type , then its covariant

exterior derivative

D’

¼ d’

þ 

a

b





^ ’

is a (k þ 1)-form of the same type. For a 0-form one

has D’

= 



’

. The infinitesimal change of !,

defined similarly as in [4],is!





= DA





. The 2-form

of curvature =(





), where







¼ d!





þ !





^ !





is of type ad: it transforms with the adjoint

representation of GL

(R) in End R

. The 2-form of

torsion =(



), where





¼ d



þ !





^ 



is of type id. These forms satisfy the Bianchi

identities

D





¼ 0 and D



¼ 





^ 



For a differential form ’ of type , the following

identity holds:

’

¼ 

a

b







^ ’

½7

The tensors of curvature and torsion are given by















^ 



and











^ 



respectively. With respect to a holonomic frame,

d



= 0, one has





¼ 





 





In SRT, the Cartesian coordinates define a radius-vector

field X



= x



, pointing towards the origin of the

coordinate system. The differential equation it satisfies

generalizes to a manifold with a linear connection:



þ 



¼ 0 ½8

By virtue of [7], the integrability condition of [8] is







þ 



¼ 0

Integration of [8] along a curve defines the Cartan

displacement of X; if this is done along a small

closed circuit spanned by the bivector f , then the

radius vector changes by about

X



ðR







þ Q





Þf



Einstein–Cartan Theory 191

This holonomy theorem – rather imprecisely for-

mulated here – shows that torsion bears to transla-

tions a relation similar to that of curvature to linear

homogeneous transformations.

In a space with torsion, it matters whether one

considers the potential of the electromagnetic field to be

a scalar-valued 1-form ’ or a covector-valued 0-form

(’



). The first choice leads to a field d’ that is invariant

with respect to the gauge transformation ’ 7!’ þ d.

The second gives



’



r



’



)



^ 



= (D’



) ^





= d’  ’







, a gauge-dependent field.

Metric-Affine Geometry

A metric-affine space (M, g, !) is defined to have a

metric and a linear connection that need not depend on

each other. The metric alone determines the torsion-

free Levi-Civita connection !



characterized by

d



þ !







^ 



¼ 0 and D





¼ 0

Its curvature is







¼ d!







þ !







^ !





The 1-form of type ad,







¼ !





 !







½9

determines the torsion of ! and the covariant

derivative of g,





¼ 





^ 



; Dg



¼



 



The curvature of ! can be written as







¼ 







þ D









þ 





^ 





½10

The transposed connection

! is defined by





¼ !





þ Q









so that, with respect to a holonomic frame, one has







=





. The torsion of

! is opposed to that of !.

Riemann–Cartan Geometry

A Riemann–Cartan space is a metric-affine space

with a connection that is metric,



¼ 0 ½11

The metricity condition implies that 



þ 



= 0

and 



þ 



= 0. In a Riemann–Cartan space, the

connection is determined by its torsion Q and the

metric tensor. Let Q



= g







; then





ðQ



þ Q



þ Q



Þ



½12

The transposed connection of a Riemann–Cartan

space is metric if and only if the tensor Q



completely antisymmetric. Let

r denote the

covariant derivative with respect to

!. By definition,

a symmetry of a Riemann–Cartan space is a

diffeomorphism of M preserving both g and !. The

one-parameter group of local transformations of M,

generated by the vector field v, consists of symme-

tries of (M, g, !) if and only if







¼ 0 ½13

and





þ R











¼ 0 ½14

In a Riemannian space, the connections ! and

coincide and [14] is a consequence of the Killing

equation [13]. The metricity condition implies

D



¼ 





½15

The Einstein–Cartan Theory of

Gravitation

An Identity Resulting from Local Invariance

Let (M, g, !) be a metric-affine spacetime. Consider a

Lagrangian L which is an invariant 4-form on M;it

depends on g,  , !, ’, and the first derivatives of

’ = ’

. The general variation of the Lagrangian is

L ¼L

^ ’





g



þ 



^ t





!





^ s





þ an exact form ½16

so that L

= 0 is the Euler–Lagrange equation for ’.

If the changes of the functions g, , !, and ’ are

induced by an infinitesimal change of the frames [4],

then L = 0and[16] gives the identity







 



^ t







 

b

a

^ ’

¼ 0

It follows from the identity that the two sets of

Euler–Lagrange equations obtained by varying L

with respect to the triples (’, , !) and (’, g, !) are

equivalent. In the sequel, the first triple is chosen to

derive the field equations.

Projective Transformations and the Metricity

Condition

Still under the assumption that (M, g, !) is a metric-

affine spacetime, consider the 4-form

8K ¼







^ 





½17

which is equal to R,whereR = g



is the Ricci

scalar; the Ricci tensor R



= R





is, in general,

asymmetric. The form [17] is invariant with

192 Einstein–Cartan Theory

respect to projective transformations of the

connection,





7! !





þ 





 ½18

where  is an arbitrary 1-form. Projectively related

connections have the same (unparametrized) geode-

sics. If the total Lagrangian for gravitation interact-

ing with the matter field ’ is K þ L, then the field

equations, obtained by varying it with respect to

’, , and ! are: L

= 0,







^ 





¼8t



½19

and

Dðg







Þ¼8s





½20

respectively. Put s



= g







.If



þ s



¼ 0 ½21

then s



= 0 and L is also invariant with respect to

[18]. One shows that, if [21] holds, then, among the

projectively related connections satisfying [20], there

is precisely one that is metric. To implement

properly the metricity condition in the variational

principle, one can use the Palatini approach with

constraints (Kopczyn

ski 1975). Alternatively, fol-

lowing Hehl, one can use [9] and [12] to eliminate !

and obtain a Lagrangian depending on ’, , and the

tensor of torsion.

The Sciama–Kibble Field Equations

From now on the metricity condition [11] is

assumed, so that [21] holds and the Cartan field

equation [20] is





^ 



¼ 8s



½22

Introducing the asymmetric energy–momentum ten-

sor t



and the spin density tensor s



= g







similarly as in [5], one can write the Einstein–Cartan

equations [19] and [22] in the form given by Sciama

and Kibble,







R ¼ 8t



½23





þ 









 









¼ 8s





½24

Equation [24] can be solved to give





¼ 8ðs

























Þ½25

Therefore, torsion vanishes in the absence of spin

and then [23] is the classical Einstein field

equation. In particular, there is no difference

between the Einstein and Einstein–Cartan theories

in empty space. Since practically all tests of

relativistic gravity are based on consideration of

Einstein’s equations in empty space, there is no

difference, in this respect, between the Einstein

and the Einstein–Cartan theories: the latter is as

viable as the former.

In any case, the consideration of torsion amounts

to a slight change of the energy–momentum tensor

that can be also obtained by the introduction of a new

term in the Lagrangian. This observation was made in

1950 by Weyl in the context of the Dirac equation.

In Einstein’s theory, one can also satisfactorily

describe spinning matter without introducing tor-

sion (Bailey and Israel 1975).

Consequences of the Bianchi Identities:

Conservation Laws

Computing the covariant exterior derivatives of

both sides of the Einstein–Cartan equations, using

[15] and the Bianchi identities, one obtains

8Dt











^ 



½26

and

8Ds



¼ 



^ 





 



^ 





½27

Cartan required the right-hand side of [26] to

vanish. If, instead, one uses the field equations [19]

and [22] to evaluate the right-hand sides of [26] and

[27], one obtains



¼ Q









^ t













^ s





½28

and



¼ 



^ t



 



^ t



½29

Let v be a vector field generating a group of

symmetries of the Riemann–Cartan space (M, g, !)

so that eqns [13] and [14] hold. Equations [28] and

[29] then imply that the 3-form

j ¼ v









is closed, dj = 0. In particular, in the limit of SRT, in

Cartesian coordinates x



, to a constant vector field v

there corresponds the projection, onto v, of the

energy–momentum density. If A



is a constant

bivector, then v



= A





gives j = j



, where j



is as in [6].

Spinning Fluid and the Generalized Mathisson–

Papapetrou Equation of Motion

As in classical general relativity, the right-hand sides

of the Einstein–Cartan equations need not necessa-

rily be derived from a variational principle; they

may be determined by phenomenological

Einstein–Cartan Theory 193

considerations. For example, following Weyssenh-

off, consider a spinning fluid characterized by



¼ P





and s



¼ S





where S



þ S



= 0 and u is the unit, timelike

velocity field. Let U = u







so that



¼ P



U and s



¼ S



Define the particle derivative of a tensor field ’

the direction of u by

’

 ¼ Dð’

UÞ

For a scalar field ’, the equation

’ = 0 is equivalent

to the conservation law d(’U) = 0. Define

 = g







, then [29] gives an equation of motion

of spin



¼ u





 u





so that



¼ u







From [28] one obtains the equation of translatory

motion,



¼ðQ















Þu



which is a generalization to the ECT of the

Mathisson–Papapetrou equation for point particles

with an intrinsic angular momentum.

From ECT to GRT: The Effective

Energy–Momentum Tensor

Inside spinning matter, one can use [12] and [25] to

eliminate torsion and replace the Sciama–Kibble

system by a single Einstein equation with an

effective energy–momentum tensor on the right-

hand side. Using the split [10], one can write [23] as











¼ 8T

eff



½30

Here R





and R



are, respectively, the Ricci tensor

and scalar formed from g. The term in [10] that is

quadratic in  contributes to T

eff

an expression

quadratic in the components of the tensor s



that, neglecting indices, one can symbolically write

eff

¼ T þ s

½31

The symmetric tensor T is the sum of t and a term

coming from D









in [10]:



¼ t





ðs



þ s



þ s



Þ½32

It is remarkable that the Belinfante–Rosenfeld

symmetrization of the canonical energy–momentum

tensor appears as a natural consequence of ECT.

From the physical point of view, the second term on

the right-hand side of [31], can be thought of as

providing a spin–spin contact interaction, reminis-

cent of the one appearing in the Fermi theory of

weak interactions.

It is clear from eqns [30]–[32] that whenever

terms quadratic in spin can be neglected – in

particular, in the linear approximation – ECT is

equivalent to GRT. To obtain essentially new

effects, the density of spin squared should be

comparable to the density of mass. For example, to

achieve this, a nucleon of mass m should be

squeezed so that its radius r

Cart

be such that

Cart



Cart

Introducing the Compton wavelength r

Compt

= l

=m 

13

cm, one can write

Cart

ðl

Compt

1=3

The ‘‘Cartan radius’’ of the nucleon, r

Cart



26

cm, so small when compared to its physical

radius under normal conditions, is much larger than

the Planck length. Curiously enough, the energy

Cart

is of the order of the energy at which,

according to some estimates, the grand unification

of interactions is presumed to occur.

Cosmology with Spin and Torsion

In the presence of spinning matter, T

eff

need not

satisfy the positive-energy conditions, even if T does.

Therefore, the classical singularity theorems of

Penrose and Hawking can be overcome here.

In ECT, there are simple cosmological solutions

without singularities. The simplest such solution,

found in 1973 by Kopczyn

ski, is as follows. Consider

a universe filled with a spinning dust such that



= u



= 



= ,andS



=0for þ 6¼5,

and both  and  are functions of t = x

alone.

These assumptions are compatible with the

Robertson–Walker line element dt

R(t)

(dx

þdz

), where (x,y,z)=(x

) and torsion is

determined from [25]. The Einstein equation [23]

reduces to the modified Friedmann equation,

 MR

1

4

¼ 0 ½33

supplemented by the conservation laws of mass

and spin,

M ¼

R

¼ const:; S ¼

R

¼ const:

The last term on the left-hand side of [33] plays the

role of a repulsive potential, effective at small values of

R; it prevents the solution from vanishing. It should be

194 Einstein–Cartan Theory

noted, however, that even a very small amount of

shear in u results in a term counteracting the repulsive

potential due to spin. Neglecting shear and making the

(unrealistic) assumption that matter in the universe at

t = 0 consists of 10

nucleons of mass m with

aligned spins, one obtains the estimate R(0)  1cm

and a density of the order of m

, very large, but

much smaller than the Planck density 1=l

Tafel (1975) found large classes of cosmological

solutions with a spinning fluid, admitting a group of

symmetries transitive on the hypersurfaces of constant

time. The models corresponding to symmetries of

Bianchi types I, VII

, and V are nonsingular, provided

that the influence of spin exceeds that of shear.

Summary

ECT is a viable theory of gravitation that differs

very slightly from the Einstein theory; the effects of

spin and torsion can be significant only at densities

of matter that are very high, but nevertheless much

smaller than the Planck density at which quantum

gravitational effects are believed to dominate. It is

possible that ECT will prove to be a better classical

limit of a future quantum theory of gravitation than

the theory without torsion.

See also: Cosmology: Mathematical Aspects; General

Relativity: Overview.