See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225549761

Spin and torsion in general relativity: I. Foundations

Article  in  General Relativity and Gravitation · July 1973

DOI: 10.1007/BF00759853

CITATIONS READS

233 308

1 author:

Friedrich W. Hehl
University of Cologne
272 PUBLICATIONS   10,675 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Friedrich W. Hehl on 29 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GRG Vo!.4, No.4 (1973). pp. 333- 349.

REVIEW ARTICLE

SPIN A N D T O R S I O N IN GENERAL RELATIVITY: I. F O U N D A T I O N S

F.W. HEHL
Institut f~r Theoretische Physik der Technischen Universit~v
Clausthal, D-3392 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, W. Germany
Received 5 June 1972

ABSTRACT
From physical arguments space-time is assumed to possess

ij is Christoffel's symbol built up from the metric gij

and already appearing in General Relativity (GR). Cartan~s
torsion tensor Sij ~ = 89 - F~i) and the contortion
tensor Ki'kr
] in contrast to theJtheory presented here,
both vanish identically in conventional GR.
Using the connection introduced above in this series
of articlest we will discuss the consequences for GR in
the framework of a consistent formalism. There emerges
a theory describing, in a unified way, gravitation and a
very weak spin-spin contact interaction.
In section 1 we start with the well-known dynamical
definition o f the energy-momentum tensor dl] ~ 6~/6gi 4 ,
where ~ represents the L a g r a n ~ a n density o f matter (sec-
J
tion i.i). In sections 1.2,3 we will show that due to
geometrical reasons, the connection assumed above leads
to a dynamical definition of the spin-angular momentum
tensor according to Tkji ~ ~ / 6 K i j k. In section 1.4, by
an ideal experiment, it will become clear that spin pro-
hibits the introduction of an instantaneous rest system
and thereby o f a geodesic coordinate system. Among other
things in section 1.5 there are some remarks about the
r61e torsion played in former physical theories.
In section 2 we sketch the content o f the t.heory. As
in GR, the action function is the sum o f the material and
the field action function (sections 2.1,2). The extension
Copyright 9 1973 Plenum Publishing Company Limited. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photo-copying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission
of Plenum Publishing Company Limited.
334 F.W. HEHL
of GR consists in the introduction of torsion Sijk as a
new field. By variation of the action function with re-
spect to metric and torsion we obtain the field equations
in a general form (section 2.3). They are also valid
for matter described by spinets; in this case, however,
one has to introduce tetrads as anholonomic coordinates
and slightly to generalize the dynamical definition of
energy-momentum (sections 2.4,5).

Das Wirkliche zieht in den Raum nicht ein wie in eine recht-
winklig-gleichf~rmige Mietskaserne, an welcher all sein wechselvol-
les Kr~ftespiel spurlos vor~bergeht, sondern wie die Schnecke baut
und gestaltet die Materie selbst sich dies ihr Haus.
Hermann Weyl

w INTRODUCTION. PHYSICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE THEORY

In this article matter is described by a classical field ~; hence
we neglect the quantum properties of matter.

i.I En~gy-Momentum and Metric

In General Relativity Theory (GR) matter appears only as a car-
tier of energy-momentum. All other characteristics of matter do
not enter. As GR has shown, this gross phenomenological descrip-
tion of matter is sufficient for the computation of gravitational
properties of macroscopic objects.
To be more detailed: matter enters GR via the metric energy-
momentum tensor ~ij (i,j = 0,1,2,3), which is symmetric. From a
field theoretical point of view ~ij describes the dynamical proper-
ties of matter with respect to translations in space-time. This
can be seen in the context of Special Relativity, where the invari-
ance of the action function of matter with respect to translations
in space and time leads, although not uniquely, to ~ij (kinematical
definition of the energy-momentum tensor).
Let T(x i) be a tensorial matter field (for a spinor field see
sections 2.4,5). Then the action function of matter W~ will depend
on ~ and on the metric gij of the Riemannian space-time, if we now
turn to GR:

if
w~ = -~ d ~ ( ~ , ~ , g , ~ g ) . (i.i)

In the material Lagrangian density ~, ~ and g should occur with no

higher than first derivatives (c = vacuum velocity of light, d~ =
4-dimensional volume element). Varying the metric, according to
Hilbert [35], leads to the dynamical definition of the energy-
SPZN AND TORSZON ZN GZNZRAL RZLATZVZTY 335

momentum tensor:

e~ij de~--!2 ~Z [1.2)

s@ij

d l
(e def (det(_gij))2; for the exact definition of the variational
derivative see (3.7) of Part If). (1.2) should be regarded as the
proper definition of oij, because in the aforementioned kinematical
definition homogeneity of space-time is assumed --furthermore, one
is not led to a unique localisation of energy-momentum. Such a
localisation of energy-momentum is given by (1.2), however. Hence
by (1.2), from the infinite number of kinematically defined energy-
momentum tensors, one is selected as the proper one.
Also from (1.2) it is clear that dij has to do with translations,
because the variation of the metric means a small change of the
mutual distance between the points of space-time. Hence gij is of
the type of a strain tensor.

i. 2 Spin Angular Momentum

One is led to a slightly more refined description of matter
within the framework of GR by introducing spin angular momentum as
an additional dynamical property of matter. This is the subject
of our article.
It is plausible to try this for spin angular momentum, since it
is associated with rotations analogously as energy-momentum is as-
sociated with translations; and one would like to treat translations
and rotations, as the two fundamental motions, on an equal footing.
If one demands invariance of the matter action function with
respect to rotations in the framework of Special Relativity, one
obtains the sum of spin and orbital angular momentum as the con-
served quantity. This leads, again not uniquely, to the kinemat-
ical definition of a spin angular momentum tensor Tick , antisymmet-
tic in i and j. The orbital angular momentum can be represented
as a cross product of the radius vector and the energy-momentum
tensor. Hence in field theory only spin angular momentum ~ij k with
its 24 independent components arises as a new mechanical quantity
in connection with rotations. In the framework of Special Relativ-
ity T~ kis thus connected in a similar way with rotations as aij is
with translations.
It seems reasonable to require this similarity also in the frame-
work of GR, i.e. we also demand a dynamical definition for spin
angular momentumt. This idea was clearly spelled out and realized
by Sciama [58] for the first time.

% Lur~at [45] made an attempt to give spin a dynamical significance

even in the context of special relativistic quantum field theory.
Usually, he argues in his introduction, "we let the mass play a
dynamical role, but we forbid this to spin".
336 F.W. HEHL
The special relativistic definition of Yij k supposes isotropy
of space, inter alia, furthermore it does not lead to a localiza-
tion of spin angular momentum. In order to allow for a definition
of the kind (1.2) ~ should additionally depend, in a manner to be
determined, on a new geometrical quantity Kijk:

Z = Z(~,~,g,~g,K,~K). (1.3)r
Then the dynamical definition of spin angular momentum would read

eTkj i def 6Z
BKij k . (1.4)

It also would select the proper spin angular momentum tensor from
the variety of kinematically defined spin tensors.
Just as the variation of the metric in (1.2) represents a small
deformation of space-time by displacements, the variation of Kij k
in (1.4) should cause a small deformation of space-time by contor-
tions independent of the displacements. Hence the hypothesis (1.4)
demands a non-Riemannian geometry for space-time characterized,
apart from the metric gij, by a contortion tensor Kij k. Due to
(1.4) Kij k should be antisymmetric in j and k and should have the
dimension (length) -I .

1.3 Contortion
The affine connection of the geometry looked for in this context
was given explicitly and discussed extensively for the first time
by KrGner and the author [34,28]. One is led to it, without diffi-
culties, by the following heuristic line of reasoning:
First let us introduce the postulate about parallel displace-
ment of vectors. Let C3 by a contravariant vector. Assuming lin-
earity in the infinitesimal we get for its change under parallel
displacement by the coordinate differential dx I ('affinity postu-
late')

dC~ = - r ~ j c J ~ i, (1.s)

F~ being the affine connection of space-time. As soon as r~j is

given82 one is able to differentiate covariantly, provided (1.5)

% In the framework of the theory to be developed deductively in

section 2, the formulae of this section remain valid and will play
an important r61e in the theory. Only (1.1,3) are dropped and the
definitions (1.2,4) are to be understood with respect to the in-
tegrand of the right hand side of (2.3).
82 Aside from (1.51 o~e could define a second parallel displace2aent
according to -F~iC3dm I with the same connection. But how should a
physical field know which of the two parallel displacement laws it
should obey? Nevertheless, such attempts have some attractiveness,
compare Finkelstein [23,24], for instance.
SPIN AND TORSION IN GENERAL RELATIVITY 337
is generalized in the well-known way for tensors of arbitrary val-
ence and index position.
The symmetric part of the connection transforms as a connection,
whereas its antisymmetric part, the so-called Caftan torsion,

sijk d------
e f 89 k
- ~ji) s F~ij], (1.6)

possesses tensor character. It has 24 independent components.

Space-time should have such a geometry that measurements of length
and time are possible (i.e. a Finslerian geometry). Furthermore,
we assume that this geometry should allow for free rotations of
sufficiently small rigid bodies (of the vector spaces spanned in
each point). This implies, as a well-known consequence, the exist-
ence of a metric gij(xk), which permits the measurement of dist-
ances and angles.
According to experiment, the units of length and time do not
seem to change under parallel displacements. Thus teletransfer of
these units is apparently possible. Hence under parallel displace-
ment the metric should pass into itself 4'metric postulate'):

Vkgij = O, (1.7)

Vk denoting the covariant derivative with respect to the connec-

tion Fij. The exact form of this derivative will be given in sec-
tion 3.2 of Part II. We solve (1.7) with respect to the connec-
tion and obtain

k} _ Kijk ' 41 .s)

r~j : ij
with

Kijk def - Sij k + sjki - skij = - Kikj, (i .9)

where the indices, if necessary, have been raised and lowered with
the help of gij or its reciprocal. {k} is Christoffel's symbol
of the second kind with respect to the metric gij" A 4-dimensional
space with the connection (1.8) will be called a U4.
One arrives at conventional GR, if additionally to postulates
41.5,7) one requires the symmetry of the connection Sij k = 0 in ac-
cordance with Euclidean geometry. Then 41.9) vanishes and the con-
nection has a Riemannian form. We will drop this additional assump-
tion, however, since it does net seem plausible when spin is present
(see section 1.4). Thus we get a Riemann-Cartan geometry with the
connection 41.8). In comparison with Riemannian geometry it is
distinguished, say, by a new tensor Kij k with 24 independent com-
ponents and the dimension (length) -1.
In order to understand the geometrical meaning of Kij k, one can
introduce in a continuous way a tetrad at each world polnt. Due
338 F.W. HEHL
to the existence of a metric we will choose the tetrads to be ortho-
normal.
In (3.56,61) of Part II we will show the following: If one trans-
fers parallelly an orthonormal tetrad with the help of the connec-
tion (1.8) from one world point to an infinitesimally neighboring
point, the tetrad will rotate. The rotation consists of two parts.
One part, the Riemannian part, depends only on the choice of the
tetrad field --in special cases it can vanish --whereas the other
part of the rotation is proportional to Kij k. A variation of Xij k,
which is at the same time a variation of the connection (1.8) of
space-time, leads to a small rotation of the parallelly transferred
tetrad. Consequently one can claim that a space-time with the con-
nection (1.8) possesses rotational degrees of freedom which are
described
9
by Ki~k.
3
Hence Kij k is called the contorsion tensor
Thls tensor has the properties required by (1.4), which we expres-
sed previously by the same notation9 Thereby our problem has been
solved.
Taking mainly (1.2,4,8) as ingredients, one is able to develop
a formalism with reference to GR with the help of a variational
principle, which demonstrates the feasibility of the program stated
up to this point.

1.4 A P r i o r i Evidence
The extension of GR treated here is not founded on a principle
as obvious as the equivalence principle used to derive conventional
GR. Rather one starts from the somewhat formal requirement that
space-time should carry an image of spin, i.e. the 'aether' should
possess independent rotational degrees of freedom. In GR one recog-
nizes gravitation a p ~ o ~ as the interaction which leads to a geo-
metrization of energy-momentum, whereas for spin angular momentum
regarded here the relevant (very weak spin-spin contact) inter-
action only emerges after the completion of the theory. Because
of (1.4) one merely knows that the Kijk-field has spin angular mom-
entum as its source.
There are phenomenological hints, nevertheless, which make it
rather plausible to describe space-time by a U4. Take for instance
a piece of matter, the spins of which are parallelly oriented within
a macroscopic domain, say a ferromagnet. In the rest system of the
magnet there is no macroscopic motion. Still, at least from a clas-
sical point of view --and we are always using classical field theory
here-- one has to imagine an internal ordered motion of the matter
as sketched in figure i. The Einstein-deHaas experiment can be
referred to as confirmation of this conception.
In the case of a ferromagnet this spin motion originates from
fermions ('spinor matter'). Hence it is not possible to eliminate
this motion through transition to a suitable rotating frame of ref-
erence. Also in the case of bosons ('tensor matter') not much is
changed. Imagine a Proca field the spins of which are ordered ac-
cording to figure I, and change over to a suitable rotating frame
of references as outlined in figure i. Depending on the microscopic
SPIN AND TORSION IN GENERAL RELATIVITY 339

I
Figure i - View on the cross-section of a ferromagnetic bar.
The small vortices represent the imagined spin motion.

model we assume for spin motion, we are able to eliminate this

motion in at most one single point. (Regarded physically, such a
'point' should presumably have as diameter the Compton wavelength
of the spinning object). Already in infinitesimally neighboring
points matter would execute a finite spin motion. We could also
argue that spin is macroscopically described by a tensor field;
its rank is irrelevant in this connection. Across the ferromagnet
this tensor field is constant and non-vanishing. According to the
linear and homogeneous transformation law of tensors there is no
coordinate system in which spin vanishes. We thus conclude:
Ordered spin motoin macroscopically cannot be transformed away.
Considering our example it is immediately clear that our argu-
ments are only conclusive for matter with non-vanishing rest mass
('substance'), because only then a rest system in the conventional
sense is available. Hence 'radiation' (vanishing rest mass) is
expected to play a singular rSle in the context of the proposed
theory.
In Special Relativity, according to an axiom due to Minkowski
[46], it should always be possible to transform substance to rest%.
Consider a ferromagnet in an inertial frame of reference. If we
take seriously our interpretation of spin as an internal motion,
this axiom breaks down for spin motion. Then already the propor-
tionality of four-momentum and four-velocity is no longer valid,
as was repeatedly stressed by Costa de Beauregard and others (see
e.g. [5?]). Hence one should expect a modification of Special Rel-
ativity. Of course this also automatically would lead to a corres-
ponding modification of GR. This modification should be of such a
kind that for vanishing spin one falls back to conventional GR.
Now we consider again the ferromagnet, this time in a freely
falling and non-rotating laboratory. If we take the affine connec-
tion of space-time (1.8), in the case of vanishing contortion
we are able to choose geodesic coordinates for the laboratory and

% Let us cite Minkowski's fundamental axiom: ,.Die in einem belie-

bigen Weltpunkte vorhandene Substanz kann stets bei geeigneter
Festsetzung yon Raum und Zeit als ruhend aufgefa~t werden".
340 F.W. HEHL
Relativity should be valid in accordance with the (strong) equival-
ence principle. But for a non-vanishing contortion tensor geodesic
coordinates cannot be introduced any longer, and for that reason
Special Relativity is modified. This is the case of the ferromagnet
with its intrinsic spin motion. Then a Cslight) violation of the
equivalence principle is to be expected. Morgan and Peres [49],
inter alia, have shown that such a possibility is not as yet ruled
out experimentally for test bodies with aligned spins. Since for
vanishing spin conventional GR should result, spin should depend
algebraically (and not via a differential equation) on the contor-
tion of space-time.
It is now obvious that for gross pieces of matter, where spin
normally averages out, conventional GR is sufficient. As soon as
we penetrate into microscopic domains, however, spin becomes more
and more important and has to be taken into account, especially if
spin appears ordered.

1.5 Historical and Oth~r Remarks

As the background for our work we take chapters i0,ii of Landau
and Lifschitz [44] and section 19 of Corson [13]. The differential
geometry used is mainly contained in chapter 3 of Schouten [56].
Our understanding of differential geometry was strongly influenced
by Schr~dinger [52].
Let us briefly sketch the history of spin and torsion in GR.
The differential geometric quantity 'torsion' was introduced by E.
Cartan [8,9] in the context of GR. He was aware of the fact that
torsion in GR should have something to do with what we today call
spin. Furthermore, he deduced that the torsion of space-time
should vanish in the matter-free region. But Caftan only started
a physical theory of spin and torsion in GR in its rudiments, prob-
ably because his work was premature, for the modern concept of spin
saw its break-through not before Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit [67,68].
In the different attempts at a unified field theory, torsion was
used several times. Compare the survey articles of Einstein ([22]
appendix 2), Schr6dinger [52], and Tonne!at [63,64], for instance.
Strangely enough, in spite of the proposal of Caftan, torsion was
not connected with spin, but rather with the electromagnetic field.
The reason for this could be that, in the spirit of unified field
theory, one only looked for homogeneous field equations; moreover,
the work of Caftan apparently was largely unknown.
After certain preparatory investigations, mainly by Costa de
Beauregard [15,1@,12], Papapetrou [52], and Weyl [71J--for a more
extensive bibliography compare [28] --Sciama [58] took a decisive
step. He demanded a dynamical definition of spin in the framework
of GR and proposed a corresponding theory. Compare also Sciama
[59,60], and Kibble [36], who extended an earlier paper by Utiyama
[69]. Sciama [58] used for his theory a tetrad formalism developed
by Weyl [70] combining it with a variational procedure of Palatini
[51]. His formalism is a priori appropriate both for spinor and
tensor fields. In our opinion it is not clear, however, whether
SPIN AND TORSION IN GENERAL RELATIVITY 341
the introduction of tetrads is essential and whether the Palatini
technique is necessary at all. The answer to such questions and
the explicit representation of the affine connection looked for,
was given by KrSner and the author [34,28,30], proceeding from dif-
ferent ideas, related to the work of Kondo [37] and Bilby et al. [5].
They discovered that the dislocations appearing in crystal phys-
ics can be described with the aid of differential geometry by Car-
tan's torsion. This concept was further developed by KrSner (cf.
e.g. [39]). For review articles of the respective authors compare
[4,38,41]. GNnther [26] recognized that a continuum with disloca-
tions is a realization of a Cosserat continuum [14] generalized in
a certain mannert. A Cosserat continuum (for details compare the
conference report [42]) possesses, in addition to translational
degrees, independent rotational degrees of freedom. Hence in a
crystal with dislocations (with 'torsion') regarded as a general-
ized Cosserat continuum, macroscopically there should occur, aside
from the usual force stresses, also moment stresses [35,40]. Con-
sequently a 3-dimensional continuum containing torsion (disloca-
tions) responds with moment stresses; space-time as a 4-dimensional
continuum accordingly should respond, in the event that it contains
torsion, with 4-dimensional moment stresses. 4-dimensional moment
stresses are recognized without difficulties as a synon~n for spin
angular momentum, just like 4-dimensional force stresses are synon-
ymous to energy-momentum. Considerations of this type led to the
above-mentioned articles about spin in GR [34,28,29~30].
In the meantime Kuchaf [43] and B i ~ k [3] successfully carried
through the Rainich geometrization of spinor and vector fields
within the framework of the Sciama-Kibble formalism. Datta and
the author [30,32], having generalized a paper of Rodichev [54],
discussed the Dirac equation in a U4; for an extensive bibliography
see [32]. Compare also DNrr [21] and Hayashi [27]. Starting from
the energy-momentum theorem the author derived the equation of
motion for a spinning particle in a U4 [30,31], see also Ponomariev
[53], and rhorne and Will [62]82 Datta [19,20] has shown in two
interesting articles that the formalism of [34,28,30] can alterna-
tively be expressed in 2-component spinors, compare also Datta [!8].
A fine presentation of the underlying idea of the U4-theory was re-
cently given by Trautman [66].
There are some newer considerations about space-times with tor-
sion, which have no connection with our theory, however. See Fin-
kelstein [25], Moffat and Moen [47,48]~ and Murashkin [50]. Compare

t Interestingly enough, in 'inventing' his torsion Cartan was

influenced by the work of the Cosserats, as can be seen from [8].
82Torsion vanishes in vacuum. Consequently the results of the
gravitational redshift experiments do not exclude the existence
of torsion.
w In the theory of ~ f f a t and Moen there mainly enters the follow-
ing formula for the divergence of a vector density:?ivi = (~i -
2S~kk)~ i. Thereby the torsion sijk is coupled to the weak current
~l.
342 F.W. HEHL
also Clerc [10,11,12] who has developed a unified field theory for-
mally resembling the U4-theory presented here.
Note added in proof: In a new paper of Trautman [75] an analysis
of the structure of U4-theory is given. Kopczyfiski [24] presented
a cosmological solution of the field equations for a spherical sym-
metric and somewhat unphysical distribution of spinning dust. The
work of DUrr [21] has found its continuation in [72]. For a recent
report on U4-theory see the article of v o n d e r Heyde and the author
[73].

w SKETCH OF THE THEORY

Using the concepts described in section 1 we shall develop a
Lagrangian formalism closely following conventional GR.

2.1 Action Function of Matter and Minimal Coupling

One usuallx starts with the special relativistic material action
function in Cartesian coordinates:

7 ($,~$)da. (2.1)

But all events should take place in a U4, that is a (3 + l)-dimen-

sional space-time with the connection (1.8). Hence (2.1) has to
be formulated covariantly with respect to general coordinate trans-
formations. We must, in particular, replace the partial derivatives
with covariantones, i.e. we couple the material tensor field mini-
mally to the metric and torsion field, respectively:

~i § Vi. (2.2)

(For fields with vanishing rest mass see the discussion in section
4.7 of Part If). In the Riemannian space V 4 of GR the substitution
(2.2) can be looked upon as if one were going over to curvilinear
coordinates. Not so in a U4: In this case in general there enter
explicitly torsion dependent terms, as expected according to the
discussion of section 1.4.
In conventional GR the minimal coupling principle of gravitationf
is an expression of the equivalence principle; like this, it is of
a heuristic nature, as statements about flat space like (2.1), can
never lead unequivocally to statements about curved space. Experi-
ments could force us to introduce terms of the Pauli-type without
altering the theory too much--a situation which is similar both for
a V 4 and a U4 theory. Thus we obtain for the action function

% This principle had already been used implicitly for some time,
compare e.g. Rosenfeld [$5]. It was explicitly formulated and dis-
cussed by Sciama [58]. The criticism in [65] seems unjustified to
us, because the prescription (2.2), according to the minimal coupl-
ing principle, is applied only in the Lagrangian density.
SPIN AND TORSION IN GENERAL RELATIVITY 343
minimally coupled to the U4, with the help of (1.8,9), (2.],2)

Wm c c

In the following, the definitions (1.2,4) are to be understood with

respect to the integrand of the right-hand side of (2.3). In (1.2)
we vary with respect to the metric: hence it is adequate to take
torsion as a new geometrical variable%, since it does not depend
on the metric a priori, whereas the contortion is a function of the
metric K = K(g,S).

2,2 Total Action Function

In conformity with GR~ the action function of the field, i.e.
that of the space-time continuum, is assumed to be an integral
over a field Lagrangian density:

Wf = ~ ~(g,~g,S,SS)d~. (2.4)

In o r d e r t o come b a c k to GR f o r v a n i s h i n g s p i n , k must be e x p r e s -
sed t h r o u g h N e w t o n ' s g r a v i t a t i o n a l c o n s t a n t y i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way:

k = o ~ Y z 2x10 -48 dyn - 1 (2.5)

Since, as in conventional GR, ? should possess the dimension

(length) -2, no additional universal constant is necessary in order
to be able to introduce S into ~.
Hence the total action function is the sum of (2.3) and <2.4):

W =c (t,at,g,ag,S) + V(g,ag,S,aS)]de. (2.6)

2.3 V a ~ a t i o n a l P r i n c i p l e and Field Equations

We have seen in section 1.3 that S in a U 4 is a new independent
geometrical variable. According to (1.8,9) the geometry in a U 4
is described by the ( i 0 , 2 4 ) independent variables g and S. Hence
9, g, and S are independent variables in the action function (2.6).
Hamilton's principle requires that

6w = o . (2.73

By (2.6) this yields the matter equations

~g

+ Note that 6Z(*,9~,g,gg,K)/~gij % ~(...S)/6gij!

844 F.W. HEHL
and the two field equations

6~ l ~V 6Z 1 6~
(2.9,10)
69i j 2k 69ij ' 6Sij k 2k 6sijk "

Due to (1.2), the left-hand side of (2.9) is essentially the energy-

momentum tensor. The left-hand side of (2.10) represents what we
will call the pseudo-spin tensor u, which is defined according to

9 " de____f .... ~ Z

ePk ]l - - 6Sij ~ " (2.11)

We would like to introduce the spin T into (2.10). ~ in (2.11) is

equivalent to the spin, as can be derived with the help of (1.4,9),
(2.3) and the chain ruler:

~ijk = _ Tijk + Tjki _ Tkij, (2.12)

Tijk = ~[ji]k. (2.13)

Thus the field equations (2.9,10) can be rewritten with (1.2),

(2.11,13) according to

i ~ = koij ' (2.14)

e 6gij

1 @s ~V = kT ijk. (2.15)
2e 6Sj]k s

0nly the quantity ~ has now to be specified (which will be done in

section 3.8 of Part II), and the theory will be comple~,~-at least
in principle. Everything else will follow deductively from the con-
siderations developed so far.
In the special case of vanishing torsion, (2.15) vanishes iden-
tically, implying a vanishing spin. Then ~ depends only on g.
Vanishing spin, on the other hand, leads to an 2 independent of S.
But then there is no apparent reason why ~ should be a function
of S (in general, however, it could he S-dependent 82 Thus (2.14)

% This special linear combination of spin is well known from the

symmetrization procedure for the canonical energy-momentum tensor
as developed by Belinfante [~] and Rosenfeld [55]. We do not know
any theory other than the one described here, which reproduces
this expression in so natural a way. It is remarkable that the
definition of ~ (in contrast to T) does not require a metric.
Therefore p presumably should have a deeper significance than the
spin T
82 One possibility, and probably the only one which meets the
requirements formulated in (2.4) (no coupling constant except k,
no higher than first derivatives of g and S), would be to choose
SPIN AND TORSION IN GENERAL RELATIVITY 345
in both cases leads back to Einstein's field equation, if one takes
for ~ the curvature density of the Riemannian space V%. Accordingly,
the experience entering into conventional GR is also contained in
the theory presented here, a requirement to be put on each sensible
generalization of GR.
For the completion of the theory we will now treat the spinor
fields.

2.4 Tensor and Spinor Mattert

Let us start with a 4-dimensional differentiable manifold X~.
Quantities like a connection or a metric are not yet imprinted on
it. The points of an X 4 are characterized by coordinates x k or,
equivalently, by transformed coordinates xi'(mk).
In a well-known way one is able to define tensors of arbitrary
rank and index position with respect to the group of general coord-
inate transformations. Hence tensors are connected by definition
with general coordinate transformations. One is able to operate
with tensors and material tensor fields, respectively, as soon as
an X4 is given.
The r61e of spinors is completely different. They are connected
with the homogeneous Lorentz group, i.e. with transformations of a
rotational type. For rotations, Cartesian coordinates have a pre-
ferred status, therefore the same is true for spinors.
It is not possible to define spinors by considering a general
X4, because a quantity like the metric is missing, which would
only allow us to speak of rotations. In this sense tensors are
more general objects than spinors. It is, incidentally, for the
same reason that spin angular momentum can only be constituted in
metric spaces.

2.5 Tetd~ads
As long as one treats material tensor fields, both in the con-
text of the theory described here and in conventional GR, a general
covariant representation in usual (holonomic) coordinates is appro-
priate. Introducing material spinor fields, however, it is appro-
priate, for reasons of clarity, to express everything in (anholo-
nomic) Cartesian coordinates, due to the preference of Cartesian
coordinates in connection with spinors. Therefore a tetrad formal-
ism has the same position in a U4-theory as in conventional GR (in
contrast to what is often stated in the literature).

for ~ the curvature density of the Uq. As will be seen in (4.4)

of Part II, however, this also leads to vanishing torsion.
The content of this and the next subsection concerning tensors
and spinors is known in principle. However, from quite a number
of articles about covariant differentiation of spinors one gets
the impression that eovariant differentiation of spinors is a pro-
cess of the same kind as covariant differentiation of tensors.
The point of view taken here can be found more or less in Cap et
al. [7] and Anderson [2], e.g.. Compare also some relevant remarks
in the articles of B~rner and D~rr [6] and Smrz [61].
346 F.W. HEHL

Let us consider a (pseudo-)orthonormal tetrad e~ i as an anholo-

nomic coordinate system attached in a continuous way to each point
of the U4, ~ = 0,1,2,3 numbering the different 'legs'. If e~j
labels the reciprocal tetrad, the following relations are valid%

ealeaj = 6~-, eaieB i = 8~, (2.16)

and

+l 0 0 0
0 -i 0 0
gij = eaie6jg~B with g~B =
(2.17)
o 0 -i o
o o o -i

We shall find in section 3.7 of Part II that the covariant deriv-

ative of a Dirac s~inor ~ together with ~ and 3i$ depends only on
eai, akeai and Sij ~, i.e. on the tetrads, their derivatives, and
the torsion. If in (2.1) a spinor enters accordingly, a substitu-
tion of the kind (2.2) does not lead to (2.3) but to

Wm = ~ (~,V~,gij)da = ~ ~(~,~i$,eai,~ke~i,sijk)da. (2.18)

since the metric is expressible in tetrads.

Hence in the total action function (2.6) only the first term is
modified according to (2.18); the second term remains unchanged in
accordance with the unchanged connection; only the metric is to be
imagined as a function of the tetrads82 As an independent variable
in the action function the tetrad takes the place of the metric.
Hence by varying we get, instead of (2.9),

6s i ~V ~ ~V 6gk~
- - - - (2.19)
~e~ i 2k 6ea i 2k 6gk~ 6ea i

With Rosenfeld [55] we generalize the dynamical definition of the

energy-momentum (1.2) according to

eaiJ def eai - -~ (2.20)

6e~j

Because of the relation (where A(ij) def 89 + Aji) )

~gks = 2 i (2.21)
~e~ i e~(k6Z)'

Compare e.g. Weyl [70] or Schouten [56].

82 This is valid only because we have regarded, in the material
part, as the independent variable the torsion Si~ k in holonomic
coordinates, and not the anholonomic S~SX = eale~3eYkSi~
k ~-
, - which
would also be possible, but only with considerable complication
of the formalism.
SPIN AND TORSION IN GENERAL RELATIVITY 347
following from (2.17), (2.20) reduces to (1.2) if ~ depends on the
tetrads only via the metric, i.e. in the case of tensor fields. In
section 4.6 of Part II it will be seen that the energy-momentum
tensor (2.20), because of (2.8), is still symmetrical in i and j.
For this reason we have used the same symbol as in (1.2)
If one inserts the definition (2.20) (multiplied by eaj) into
(2.19), due to (2.21) one again obtains the field equation (2.14).
This is a well-expected consequence: Also in the presence of
spinor matter, space-time should be a U4, because both spinor and
tensor matter can influence the geometry of space-time only via
energy-momentum and spin angular momentum. Hence the new energy-
momentum definition (the spin definition can be maintained) ac-
counts for spinor matter.
So our considerations lead to the following result: In the case
of spinor matter energy-momentum has to be redefined with the help
of tetrads according to (2.20), the field equations (2.14,15)
remain the same.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For support and discussions the author would like to thank Dr.
B,K. Datta Gairola, Prof. Dr. H.D. Doebner, Dr. Th. Engel~ Prof.
Dr. E. KrOner, Dr. W. L~cke, and Dr. P. Rosenthal.

REFERENCES
1. Anderson, J.L. (1967). Principles of Relativity Physics,
(Academic Press, New York).
2. Belinfante, F.J. (1939). Physica, 6, 887.
3. Bi~&k, J. (1966). Czech. J. Phys., B]6, 95.
4. BilLy, B.A. (1960). Progr. Solid Mech. ~mst.), 1, 331.
5. Bilby, B.A., Bullough, R. and Smith, E. (1955). Proc. Roy.
SOC., A231, 263.
6. B~rner, G. and D~rr, H.P. (1969). Nuovo Cimento, A64, 669.
7. Cap, F., Majerotto, W., Raab, W. and Unteregger, P. (1966).
Fortschr. Phys., 14, 205.
8. Caftan, E. (1922). C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 174, 593.
9. Caftan, E. (1923). Ann. Ec. Norm. Sup. (3), 40, 325; (1924).
Ann. Ec. Norm. Sup. (3), 41, i; (1925). Ann. Ec. Norm. Sup. (3),
42, 17.
10. Clerc, R.-L. (1971). C~ Acad. Sci. Paris, A272, 1145.
11. Clere, R.-L. (1971). C~ Acad. Sci. Paris, A272, 1760.
12. Clerc, R.-L. (1972). C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, A274, 525.
13. Corson, E.M. (1953). Introduction to Tensors, Spinors, and
Relativistic Wave-Equations, (Blackie, London).
14. Cosserat, E. et s (1909). Th~orie des corps d#formables,
(Hermann, Paris).
15. Costa de Beauregard, O. (1942). C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 214, 904.
16. Costa de Beauregard, O. (1943). J. Math. Pures Appl., 22, 85.
17. Costa de Beauregard, O. (1963). Phys. Rev., 129, 466.
18. Datta, B.K. (1971). NuoVo Cime~to, 33, 171.
348 F.W. HEHL
19. Datta, B.K. (1971). Nuovo Cimento, B6, i.
20. Datta, B.K. (1971). Nuovo Cimento, B6, 16.
21. D~rr, H.P. (1971). Nuovo Cimento, A4, 187.
22. Einstein, A. (1960). Grundz~ge der Relativit~tstheorie, (2nd
edn.), (Vieweg, Braunschweig).
23. Finkelstein, R. (1960).J. Math. Phys., 1, 440.
24. Finkelstein, R. (1961). Ann. Phys. (N.Y.), 12, 200.
25. Finkelstein, R. (1966). J. Math. Phys., 7, 1632.
26. GUnther, W. (1958). Abh. Braunschweig. Wiss. Ges., 10, 195.
27. Hayashi, K. (1973). Gen. Rel. Gray., 4, i.
28. Hehl, F. (1966). Abh. Brauschweig. Wiss. Ges., 18, 98.
29. Hehl, F. (1968). In Mechanics of Generalized Continua (IUTAM-
Symposium), (ed. KrOner, E.), (Springer, Berlin), see p. 347.
30. Hehl, F.W. (1970). Spin und Torsion in der allgemeinen Relativ-
it~tstheorie oder die Riemann-Cartansche Geometrie der Welt,
(Habilitation thesis, Technische Universit~t Clausthal).
31. Hehl, F.W. (1971). Phys. Lett., A36, 225.
32. Hehl, F. and KrOner, E. (1965). Z. Naturforsch., 20a, 236.
33. Hehl, F. and KrOner, E. (1965). Z. Phys., 187, 478.
34. Hehl, F.W. and KrOner, E. (1965). Z. Phys., 187, 478.
35. Hilbert, D. (1915). Nachr. Ges. Wiss. C~ttingen, math.-phys. K1.,
p. 395.
36. Kibble, T.W.B. (1961). J. Math. Phys., 2, 212.
37. Kondo, K. (1952). Proceedings of the 2nd Japan National Congress
for Applied Mechanics, p. 41.
38. Kondo, K. (ed.) (1955,58,62,68). RAAG Memoirs of The Unifying
Study of Basic Problems in Engineering and Physical Sciences
by Means of Geometry, Vols 1,2,3,4, (Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyu-
Kai, Tokyo).
39. KrOner, E. (1960). Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 4, 273.
40. Kr@ner, E. (1963). Int. J. Eng. Sci., ], 261.
41. Kr6ner, E. (1963). Plastizit[t und Versetzungen, in Sommerfeld,
A. (1963). Vorlesungen ~ber theoretische Physik, Vol. 2, (6th
edn.), (Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig), Chapter 9.
42. KrOner, E. (ed.) (1968). Mechanics of Generalized Continua
(IUTAM-Symposium), (Springer, Berlin).
43. Kucha9, K. (1965). Acta Phys. Polon., ZS, 695.
44. Landau, L.D. und Lifsehitz, E.M. (1963). Feldtheorie, (ikademie-
Verlag, Berlin), (translated from the Russian).
45. Lur~at, F. (1964). Physics, ], 95.
46. Minkowski, H. (1958). Raum und Zeit, in Lorentz, H.A. (1958).
das Relativit~tsprinzip, (6th edn.), (Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft, Darmstadt), p. 54.
47. Moen, I.O. and Moffat, J.W. (1969). Phys. Rev., 179, 1233.
48. Moffat, J.W. (1968). Lectures in Theoretical High Energy
Physics, (ed. Aly, H.H.), (Wiley, London and New York), p. 423.
49. Morgan, T.A. and Peres, A. (1962). Phys. Rev. Lett., 9, 79.
50. Muraskin, M. (1968). J. Math. Phys., 9, 2056.
51. Palatini, A. (1919). Rend. Circ. Matem. Palermo, 43, 203.
52. Papapetrou, A. (1949). Phil. Mag. (7), 40, 937.
53. Ponomariev, V.N. (1971). Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci., S~r. sci.
math~ astron, et phys., 19, 545.
 SPIN AND TORSION IN GENERAL RELATIVITY 349
54. Rodichev, V.I. (1961). SoY. Phys. JETP, ]3, 1029.
55. Rosenfeld, L. (1940). M~m. icad. Roy. Belg., C1. Sc.~ ]8,
fasc. 6.
56. Schouten, J.i. (1954). Ricci-Calculus, (2nd edn.), (Springer~
Berlin).
57. Schr~dinger~, E. (1960). Space-Time Structure, (Cambridge Univer-
sity Press), (reprinted with corrections).
58. Sciama, D.W. (1962). In Recent Developments in General Rela-
tivity, (Pergamon Press, Oxford), p. 415.
59. Sciama, D.W. (1961). J. Math. Phys., Z, 472.
60. Sciama, D.W. (1964). Rev. Mod. Phys., 36, 463.
61. Smrz, P. (1970). Nuovo Cimento, B65, 147.
62. Thorne, K.S. and Will, C.M. (1971). Astrophys. J., 163, 595.
83. Tonnelat, M.-A. (1955). La th~orie du champ unifid drEinstein
et quelques-uns de ses dCveloppements, (Gauthier-Villars, Paris).
64. Tonnelat, M.-A. (1965). Les thdories unitaires de l'dlectro-
magnetisme et de la gravitation, (Gauthier-Villars, Paris).
65. Trautman, A. (1965). Lectures on General Relativity, in Bro~d-
eis Sumner Institute in Theoretical Physics 1964, Vol. 2,
(Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey), p. 1.
66. Trautman, A. (1972). Gen. Rel. Gray., 3, 167.
67. Uhlenbeck, G.E. and Goudsmit, S. (1925). Naturwiss., 13, 953.
68. Uhlenbeck, G.E. and Goudsmit, S. (1926). Nature, 117, 264.
69. Utiyama, R. (1956). Phys. Rev., 101, 1597.
70. Weyl, H. (1929). Z. Phys., ~6, 330.
71. Weyl, H. (1950). Phys. Rev., 77, 699.
72. Duff, H.P. (1973). Gen. Rel. Gray., 4, 29.
73. Hehl, P.W. and yon der Heyde, P. (1973/4). Ann. Inst. Henri
Poincar@, 19, No.2, (in press).
74. Kopczy~ski, W. (1972). Phys. Lett., A$9, 219. See also [75].
75. Trautman, A. (1972). On The Structure of The Einstein-Cartan
Equations, (Preprint, Warsaw University), (based on a Report
for the 'Convegno di Relativita T, held in Rome).

View publication stats