Talk:Cartan formalism (physics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Relativity  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Relativity Taskforce.

I fail to see how this article pertains to cartan connections. It might be better off in moving frame, or other such place. It is nearly the standard connection form formalism (not Cartan), presenting the exterior covariant derivative as the centerpiece, but with a lot of fanfare and excessive bold type. I'll see what I can do with it later, but I have my hands full now. Silly rabbit 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article has very little to do with Cartan connections and should be renamed. There is a link, but it is somewhat indirect. This article is connected with the Einstein-Cartan theory of gravity, which is an extension of Einstein's theory of general relativity in which the Levi-Civita connection of the metric is replaced by a metric connection with torsion. This torsion is supposed to describe the coupling of spin to gravity. Underlying Cartan's idea, however, is the philosophy that one should not be working with an O(3,1) connection on the orthonormal frame bundle (equivalently, a metric linear connection), but a Cartan connection for the Poincare group. The torsion then appears as the translational component of the curvature of this connection. Unfortunately, the Einstein-Cartan article doesn't bring this out (indeed it seems to be mostly written by someone wishing to promote the theory to experts in general relativity rather than describe and explain it to a wider audience). Geometry guy 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I found it useful under the current title - I think it's a physicist's angle on the subject rather than a mathematician's, and as such probably either belongs here or indeed in the cartan connections article itself. --Strange but untrue 21:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to be told why we want to use this formalism, since tensors seem to be equivalent and are more familiar. Give the uninitiated guy a break, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article has nothing to do with Cartan connections. The last three sentences in the section on relativity are total gibberish. And the same crap is here:, and here:

Enough! Please consider deleting rather than moving. Mjmarkowitz (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)