AG-2024.11-413·gr-qc·cross-listed: hep-thmath-phphysics.hist-ph
Is there any Trinity of Gravity, to start with?
Authors
- Alexey Golovnev
Abstract
In recent years, it has been rather fashionable to talk about geometric trinity of gravity. The main idea is that one can formally present the gravity equations in different terms, those of either torsion or nonmetricity instead of curvature. It starts from a very erroneous claim that the Levi-Civita connection, and therefore the (pseudo-)Riemannian geometry itself, are nothing but an arbitrary choice. The point is that, as long as we admit the need of having a metric for describing gravity, the standard approach does not involve any additional independent geometric structures on top of that. At the same time, any other metric-affine model does go for genuinely new stuff. In particular, the celebrated teleparallel framework introduces a notion of yet another parallel transport which is flat. It gives us curious new ways of modifying gravity, even though very often quite problematic. However, in GR-equivalent models, we only get a new language for describing the same physics, in terms of absolutely unobservable and unpredictable geometrical inventions. For sure, one can always safely create novel constructions which do not influence the physical equations of motion, but in itself it does not make much sense and blatantly goes against the Occam's razor.
Submitted
21 November 20241 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2411.14089
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.