AG-2025.06-221·gr-qc
`Translation invariant' black hole: autoparallels and complete integrability
Authors
- Jens Boos
Abstract
We consider the autoparallel motion of test bodies in static, spherically symmetric spacetimes with torsion. We prove complete integrability of such motion for a wide range of off-shell geometries via four commuting autoparallel Killing vectors. Since these vectors reduce to translation generators in a certain limit, we refer to these geometries as `translation invariant.' Invoking the field equations of quadratic Poincaré gauge gravity we re-derive an exact Schwarzschild black hole solution endowed with a non-trivial torsion field scaling as $GM/r^2$, where $M$ denotes the ADM mass of the black hole. Studying the qualitative orbital dynamics via effective potentials we find notable discrepancies between autoparallels (straightest possible paths) and geodesics (shortest possible paths).
Submitted
2 June 20251 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2506.02301
Summary
Researchers found that test particles follow completely predictable paths (autoparallels) around certain black holes that have torsion, and these paths differ surprisingly from the standard geodesics used in general relativity.
- Torsion—a twist in spacetime geometry—allows black holes to support a new kind of particle trajectory that is 'straightest' rather than 'shortest', making motion mathematically integrable and predictable.
- The authors derived an exact Schwarzschild black hole solution in a modified gravity theory where torsion falls off as 1/r², showing that torsion doesn't vanish at infinity and leaves observable traces.
- Comparing actual particle orbits in these torsion black holes versus standard general relativity reveals qualitative differences, potentially testable if such torsion exists in nature.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
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.