Metric versus Tetrad formulation of relativity

In summary, the conversation covers the topic of using tetrad instead of metric formulations in relativity. While some view tetrad as more powerful and elegant, others argue that familiarity with metric formulations may make it difficult to switch to tetrad. However, tetrad is still relevant in areas such as string theory and should be introduced to those studying general relativity. It is also commonly used in problem-solving, with the help of computer programs.
  • #1
MeJennifer
2,008
6
Any opinions on the usage of tetrad instead of metric formulations of relativity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Personally, I haven't formed an opinion yet. The issue was raised at a recent AAPT Topical Conference on Teaching General Relativity to Undergraduates... but I don't think anything was written down on that issue.

This might be of interest:
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/gravity03/bardeen/ Tetrad Approaches to Numerical Relativity
 
  • #3
I only covered a little bit of vierbeins in a black holes course, relating to coupling spinors to relativity (positive energy theorem), and while they are extremely useful for that process, I'm not sure if I'd liked to have meet them sooner.

Part of the issue might be a common thing in physics (and any subject), familiarity with one method breeds dislike of other methods even if they are ultimately more powerful and elegant. Having spent time learning about metric formulations of GR, to flick to an entirely new system would be a pain.

Saying that, vierbeins come up in string theory too, since you have to couple spinors to GR again and play an important role in things like the selection of the compactified space due to holonomy so an increased understanding of such material wouldn't exactly hurt a great number of theoretical physicists. How relevant GR researchers think string theory is is another question entirely though.

They are definitely something anyone who does a decent quantity of GR should come across, even if it was as I did, a few lectures on how you'd couple matter to a GR-like theory and the relevence to some well known results. If someone knew they were going to go far into GR or to certain areas of string theory then meeting vierbeins sooner would be a definite plus but it's hard to say when you're only in your 2nd or 3rd year of university what you'll be doing 3 years down the line. Looking back with hindsight is always easier...
 
  • #4
I'd say that the tetrad approach is very useful, but more complex mathematically, so its usually introduced after one has become familiar with the metric approach.

I tend to use tetrad approaches (using the Newman-penrose formalism) in GRTensor a lot in working problems, but the computer does all the associated mathematical grunge work for me in that case.
 

Related to Metric versus Tetrad formulation of relativity

1. What is the difference between the metric and tetrad formulations of relativity?

The metric formulation of relativity uses a mathematical construct called the metric tensor to describe the curvature of space-time, while the tetrad formulation uses a set of four vectors to describe the geometry of space-time. The main difference between the two lies in their mathematical formalisms, but they both describe the same physical phenomenon.

2. Which formulation is more commonly used in physics?

The metric formulation is more commonly used in physics, as it is the more traditional and well-established approach. However, the tetrad formulation has also gained popularity in recent years, especially in areas such as quantum gravity and cosmology.

3. How do the metric and tetrad formulations relate to each other?

The two formulations are mathematically equivalent, meaning that they can both be used to describe the same physical phenomena. In fact, the tetrad formulation can be derived from the metric formulation by choosing a specific set of vectors that correspond to the metric tensor.

4. What are the advantages of using the tetrad formulation over the metric formulation?

The tetrad formulation allows for a more intuitive and geometric interpretation of relativity, making it easier to visualize and understand the effects of gravity and curvature. It also allows for a more straightforward incorporation of quantum effects into the theory.

5. Are there any limitations to the tetrad formulation?

The tetrad formulation is not as widely used as the metric formulation, so there is less research and literature available on the topic. It also requires a deeper understanding of differential geometry and mathematical formalisms, making it more challenging for some physicists to work with.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
468
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
4K
Back
Top