The Geometrical Trinity of Gravity

arXiv:1903.06830v1 [hep-th] 15 Mar 2019

Jose Beltrán Jiméneza , Lavinia Heisenbergb and Tomi S. Koivistoc,d

a
Departamento de Fı́sica Fundamental, Universidad de Salamanca, E-37008 Salamanca,
Spain.
b
Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Zurich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 27, 8093, Zurich,
Switzerland
c
Nordita, KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University, Roslagstullsbacken
23, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
d
National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Rävala pst. 10, 10143 Tallinn,
Estonia
E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. The geometrical nature of gravity emerges from the universality dictated by the
equivalence principle. In the usual formulation of General Relativity, the geometrisation of
the gravitational interaction is performed in terms of the spacetime curvature, which is now
the standard interpretation of gravity. However, this is not the only possibility. In these
notes we discuss two alternative, though equivalent, formulations of General Relativity in flat
spacetimes, in which gravity is fully ascribed either to torsion or to non-metricity, thus putting
forward the existence of three seemingly unrelated representations of the same underlying
theory. Based on these three alternative formulations of General Relativity, we then discuss
some extensions.
Contents
1 Introduction 1

2 General Relativity 4

3 Metric teleparallelism 5
3.1 Vierbein formulation 6
3.2 Alternative theories 7

4 Symmetric Teleparallelisms 8
4.1 Symmetric Teleparallel Equivalent of GR: Coincident GR 8
4.2 General quadratic theory 10
4.3 f (Q̊) extensions 11

5 Matter couplings 14
5.1 General Relativity 15
5.2 Metric teleparallelism 16
5.3 Symmetric Teleparallelisms 17

6 Conclusions 18

1 Introduction
Gravity and geometry have accompanied each other from the very conception of General Rel-
ativity (GR) brilliantly formulated by Einstein in terms of the spacetime curvature. This
inception of identifying gravity with the curvature has since grown so efficiently that it is
now a common practice to recognise the gravitational phenomena as a manifestation of hav-
ing a curved spacetime. As Einstein ingeniously envisioned, the existence of a geometrical
formulation of gravity is granted by the equivalence principle that renders the gravitational
interaction oblivious to the specific type of matter and hints towards an intriguing relation of
gravity with inertia. Thus, the motion of particles can be naturally associated to the geomet-
rical properties of spacetime. If we embrace the geometrical character of gravity advocated by
the equivalence principle, it is pertinent to explore in which equivalent manners gravity can
be geometrised. It is then convenient to recall at this point that a spacetime can be endowed
with a metric and an affine structure [1] determined by a metric tensor gµν and a connection
Γα µν , respectively. These two structures, although completely independent, enable the defini-
tion of geometrical objects that allow to conveniently classify geometries. The failure of the

–1–
connection to be metric is encoded in the non-metricity

Qαµν ≡ ∇α gµν , (1.1)

while its antisymmetric part defines the torsion

T α µν ≡ 2Γα [µν] . (1.2)

Among all possible connections that can be defined on a spacetime, the Levi-Civita connection
is the unique connection that is symmetric and metric-compatible. These two conditions fix
the Levi-Civita connection to be given by the Christoffel symbols of the metric
α 1

µν = g αλ gλν,µ + gµλ,ν − gµν,λ . (1.3)
2
The corresponding covariant derivative will be denoted by D so that we will have Dα gµν = 0.
A general connection Γα µν then admits the following convenient decomposition:
α
Γαµν = µν + K αµν + Lαµν (1.4)

with
1 1 α
K αµν = T αµν + T(µ αν) , Lαµν = Qαµν − Q(µ ν) (1.5)
2 2
the contortion and the disformation pieces, respectively. Notice that, while the Levi-Civita
part is non-tensorial, the contortion and the disformation have tensorial transformation prop-
erties under changes of coordinates.
The curvature is determined by the usual Riemann tensor

Rα βµν (Γ) = ∂µ Γα νβ − ∂ν Γα µβ + Γα µλ Γλ νβ − Γα νλ Γλ µβ . (1.6)

A relation that will be useful later on is how the Riemann tensor transforms under a shift of
the connection Γ̂αµν = Γαµν + Ωαµν , with Ωα µν an arbitrary tensor. Under such a shift, the
Riemann tensor becomes

R̂αβµν = Rαβµν + T λµν Ωαλβ + 2∇[µ Ωαν]β + 2Ωα[µ|λ| Ωλν]β . (1.7)

where R̂αβµν and Rαβµν are the Riemann tensors of Γ̂ and Γ respectively and ∇ is the covariant
derivative associated to Γ.
After gathering the relevant geometrical objects, we can use them to characterise a space-
time as follows:

• Metric: the connection is metric-compatible, Qαµν (Γ, g) = 0. Non-metricity measures

how much the length of vectors change as we parallel transport them, so in metric spaces
the length of vectors is conserved.

–2–
 • Torsionless: the connection is symmetric, T α µν (Γ) = 0. Torsion gives a measure of
the non-closure of the parallelogram formed when two infinitesimal vectors are parallel
transported along each other. For this reason it is usually said that parallelograms do
not close in the presence of torsion.

• Flat: the connection is not curved, Rα βµν (Γ) = 0. Curvature measures the rotation
experienced by a vector when it is parallel transported along a closed curve. This
represents an obstacle to compare vectors defined at different spacetime points. In flat
spaces however vectors do not rotate as they are transported so that there is a better
notion of parallelism at a distance. This is the reason why theories formulated in these
spaces are referred to as teleparallel.

R↵
<latexit sha1_base64="A1amIO0uD0DNOn5MDArmRpv2YCE=">AAACAXicbZDLSsNAFIYnXmu9Rd0IboJFcFUSN3ZZcOOyir1AE8PJdNIOnZmEmYlQQtz4Km5cKOLWt3Dn2zhts9DWHwY+/nMOZ84fpYwq7brf1srq2vrGZmWrur2zu7dvHxx2VJJJTNo4YYnsRaAIo4K0NdWM9FJJgEeMdKPx1bTefSBS0UTc6UlKAg5DQWOKQRsrtI9v731g6QjyIsz9iGjweeaLrAjtmlt3Z3KWwSuhhkq1QvvLHyQ440RozECpvuemOshBaooZKap+pkgKeAxD0jcogBMV5LMLCufMOAMnTqR5Qjsz9/dEDlypCY9MJwc9Uou1qflfrZ/puBHkVKSZJgLPF8UZc3TiTONwBlQSrNnEAGBJzV8dPAIJWJvQqiYEb/HkZehc1D3DN26t2SjjqKATdIrOkYcuURNdoxZqI4we0TN6RW/Wk/VivVsf89YVq5w5Qn9kff4ATv6XYw==</latexit>
sha1_base64="CqV+YJPFD8d1m9RFvs3Z5tf60po=">AAACAXicbZC7SgNBFIbPxluMt1UbIc1iEKzCro0pgzaWUcwFsnE5O5kkQ2Znl5lZISyx8VVsLBSx9S3sfA2fwMml0MQfBj7+cw5nzh8mnCntul9WbmV1bX0jv1nY2t7Z3bP3DxoqTiWhdRLzWLZCVJQzQeuaaU5biaQYhZw2w+HlpN68p1KxWNzqUUI7EfYF6zGC2liBfXRz5yNPBpiNg8wPqUY/Sn2RjgO75JbdqZxl8OZQqha/L8CoFtiffjcmaUSFJhyVantuojsZSs0Ip+OCnyqaIBlin7YNCoyo6mTTC8bOiXG6Ti+W5gntTN3fExlGSo2i0HRGqAdqsTYx/6u1U92rdDImklRTQWaLeil3dOxM4nC6TFKi+cgAEsnMXx0yQIlEm9AKJgRv8eRlaJyVPcPXJo0KzJSHIhzDKXhwDlW4ghrUgcADPMELvFqP1rP1Zr3PWnPWfOYQ/sj6+AFqu5jy</latexit>
sha1_base64="Hsm3FgnhxdM4cVy4Jfbjgo28q8g=">AAACAXicbZC7TsMwFIadcmlpuQRYkLpEVEhMVcJCxwoWxoLoRWpCdOI6rVXHiWwHqYrKwspjsDCAECtvwcZrMDPgXgZo+SVLn/5zjo7PHySMSmXbn0ZuZXVtPV/YKJY2t7Z3zN29loxTgUkTxywWnQAkYZSTpqKKkU4iCEQBI+1geD6pt2+JkDTm12qUEC+CPqchxaC05ZsHVzcusGQA2djP3IAocKPU5enYNyt21Z7KWgZnDpV6+essX3r4bvjmh9uLcRoRrjADKbuOnSgvA6EoZmRcdFNJEsBD6JOuRg4RkV42vWBsHWmnZ4Wx0I8ra+r+nsggknIUBbozAjWQi7WJ+V+tm6qw5mWUJ6kiHM8WhSmzVGxN4rB6VBCs2EgDYEH1Xy08AAFY6dCKOgRn8eRlaJ1UHc2XOo0amqmAyugQHSMHnaI6ukAN1EQY3aFH9IxejHvjyXg13matOWM+s4/+yHj/AY2ymow=</latexit>
µ⌫
{ <latexit
sha1_base64="4sa38vp5FivRDlzeHtx9MlG34s8=">AAAB6XicbZA9SwNBEIbn4leMX1EbwWYxCFbhzsaUARvLKOYDkiPsbfaSJXt7x+6cEI/8AxsLRWz9R3aCP8bNJYUmvrDw8M4MO/MGiRQGXffLKaytb2xuFbdLO7t7+wflw6OWiVPNeJPFMtadgBouheJNFCh5J9GcRoHk7WB8Pau3H7g2Ilb3OEm4H9GhEqFgFK1118v65YpbdXORVfAWUKmfPH6DVaNf/uwNYpZGXCGT1Jiu5yboZ1SjYJJPS73U8ISyMR3yrkVFI278LN90Ss6tMyBhrO1TSHL390RGI2MmUWA7I4ojs1ybmf/VuimGNT8TKkmRKzb/KEwlwZjMziYDoTlDObFAmRZ2V8JGVFOGNpySDcFbPnkVWpdVz/KtTaMGcxXhFM7gAjy4gjrcQAOawCCEJ3iBV2fsPDtvzvu8teAsZo7hj5yPH9xKjwU=</latexit>
sha1_base64="/Qc/70FUMVg/W6zRp2zmxqTMW5U=">AAAB6XicbZC7SgNBFIbPxlsSb1EbwWYwCFZh18aUQRvLKOYCSQizk9lkyOzsMnNWiEvAB7CxUMTWN/BR7AQfxsml0MQfBj7+cw5zzu/HUhh03S8ns7K6tr6RzeU3t7Z3dgt7+3UTJZrxGotkpJs+NVwKxWsoUPJmrDkNfckb/vByUm/ccW1EpG5xFPNOSPtKBIJRtNZNO+0Wim7JnYosgzeHYuXw/jv38HFR7RY+272IJSFXyCQ1puW5MXZSqlEwycf5dmJ4TNmQ9nnLoqIhN510uumYnFinR4JI26eQTN3fEykNjRmFvu0MKQ7MYm1i/ldrJRiUO6lQcYJcsdlHQSIJRmRyNukJzRnKkQXKtLC7EjagmjK04eRtCN7iyctQPyt5lq9tGmWYKQtHcAyn4ME5VOAKqlADBgE8wjO8OEPnyXl13matGWc+cwB/5Lz/ANm2kII=</latexit>
sha1_base64="IrIdRjEzrr2stwBoUp/Vrm0Z2Us=">AAAB6XicbZBNSwMxEIYnftb6VfXoJVgET2XXiz0WvHisYj+gXUo2nW1Ds9klyQpl6T/w4kERr/4jb/4b03YP2vpC4OGdGTLzhqkUxnreN9nY3Nre2S3tlfcPDo+OKyenbZNkmmOLJzLR3ZAZlEJhyworsZtqZHEosRNObuf1zhNqIxL1aKcpBjEbKREJzqyzHvr5oFL1at5CdB38AqpQqDmofPWHCc9iVJZLZkzP91Ib5ExbwSXOyv3MYMr4hI2w51CxGE2QLzad0UvnDGmUaPeUpQv390TOYmOmceg6Y2bHZrU2N/+r9TIb1YNcqDSzqPjyoyiT1CZ0fjYdCo3cyqkDxrVwu1I+Zppx68IpuxD81ZPXoX1d8x3fe9VGvYijBOdwAVfgww004A6a0AIOETzDK7yRCXkh7+Rj2bpBipkz+CPy+QOXRI1X</latexit>

The rotation of a vector transported along a closed

curve is given by the curvature: General Relativity.

{sha1_base64="/Qc/70FUMVg/W6zRp2zmxqTMW5U=">AAAB6XicbZC7SgNBFIbPxlsSb1EbwWYwCFZh18aUQRvLKOYCSQizk9lkyOzsMnNWiEvAB7CxUMTWN/BR7AQfxsml0MQfBj7+cw5zzu/HUhh03S8ns7K6tr6RzeU3t7Z3dgt7+3UTJZrxGotkpJs+NVwKxWsoUPJmrDkNfckb/vByUm/ccW1EpG5xFPNOSPtKBIJRtNZNO+0Wim7JnYosgzeHYuXw/jv38HFR7RY+272IJSFXyCQ1puW5MXZSqlEwycf5dmJ4TNmQ9nnLoqIhN510uumYnFinR4JI26eQTN3fEykNjRmFvu0MKQ7MYm1i/ldrJRiUO6lQcYJcsdlHQSIJRmRyNukJzRnKkQXKtLC7EjagmjK04eRtCN7iyctQPyt5lq9tGmWYKQtHcAyn4ME5VOAKqlADBgE8wjO8OEPnyXl13matGWc+cwB/5Lz/ANm2kII=</latexit>
sha1_base64="4sa38vp5FivRDlzeHtx9MlG34s8=">AAAB6XicbZA9SwNBEIbn4leMX1EbwWYxCFbhzsaUARvLKOYDkiPsbfaSJXt7x+6cEI/8AxsLRWz9R3aCP8bNJYUmvrDw8M4MO/MGiRQGXffLKaytb2xuFbdLO7t7+wflw6OWiVPNeJPFMtadgBouheJNFCh5J9GcRoHk7WB8Pau3H7g2Ilb3OEm4H9GhEqFgFK1118v65YpbdXORVfAWUKmfPH6DVaNf/uwNYpZGXCGT1Jiu5yboZ1SjYJJPS73U8ISyMR3yrkVFI278LN90Ss6tMyBhrO1TSHL390RGI2MmUWA7I4ojs1ybmf/VuimGNT8TKkmRKzb/KEwlwZjMziYDoTlDObFAmRZ2V8JGVFOGNpySDcFbPnkVWpdVz/KtTaMGcxXhFM7gAjy4gjrcQAOawCCEJ3iBV2fsPDtvzvu8teAsZo7hj5yPH9xKjwU=</latexit>
sha1_base64="IrIdRjEzrr2stwBoUp/Vrm0Z2Us=">AAAB6XicbZBNSwMxEIYnftb6VfXoJVgET2XXiz0WvHisYj+gXUo2nW1Ds9klyQpl6T/w4kERr/4jb/4b03YP2vpC4OGdGTLzhqkUxnreN9nY3Nre2S3tlfcPDo+OKyenbZNkmmOLJzLR3ZAZlEJhyworsZtqZHEosRNObuf1zhNqIxL1aKcpBjEbKREJzqyzHvr5oFL1at5CdB38AqpQqDmofPWHCc9iVJZLZkzP91Ib5ExbwSXOyv3MYMr4hI2w51CxGE2QLzad0UvnDGmUaPeUpQv390TOYmOmceg6Y2bHZrU2N/+r9TIb1YNcqDSzqPjyoyiT1CZ0fjYdCo3cyqkDxrVwu1I+Zppx68IpuxD81ZPXoX1d8x3fe9VGvYijBOdwAVfgww004A6a0AIOETzDK7yRCXkh7+Rj2bpBipkz+CPy+QOXRI1X</latexit>
<latexit

T ↵ µ⌫
<latexit sha1_base64="aBnpep71x3u69omzkphqF60iv3w=">AAAB/HicbZDLSsNAFIYn9VbrLdqlm8EiuCqJG7ssuHFZoTdoaphMJ+3QmUmYixBCfBU3LhRx64O4822ctllo6w8DH/85h3Pmj1JGlfa8b6eytb2zu1fdrx0cHh2fuKdnfZUYiUkPJyyRwwgpwqggPU01I8NUEsQjRgbR/HZRHzwSqWgiujpLyZijqaAxxUhbK3Tr3YcAsXSG8iLMA24CYYrQbXhNbym4CX4JDVCqE7pfwSTBhhOhMUNKjXwv1eMcSU0xI0UtMIqkCM/RlIwsCsSJGufL4wt4aZ0JjBNpn9Bw6f6eyBFXKuOR7eRIz9R6bWH+VxsZHbfGORWp0UTg1aLYMKgTuEgCTqgkWLPMAsKS2lshniGJsLZ51WwI/vqXN6F/3fQt33uNdquMowrOwQW4Aj64AW1wBzqgBzDIwDN4BW/Ok/PivDsfq9aKU87UwR85nz9yJ5U7</latexit>
sha1_base64="W2fsD3CPYtV6zCTPVzCqsZAvnMc=">AAAB/HicbZDLSsNAFIZPvNZ6i3bZTbAIrkrixi6LblxW6A2aGibTSTt0MglzEUKIr+LGhSJufRB3voZP4PSy0NYfBj7+cw7nzB+mjErlul/WxubW9s5uaa+8f3B4dGyfnHZlogUmHZywRPRDJAmjnHQUVYz0U0FQHDLSC6c3s3rvgQhJE95WWUqGMRpzGlGMlLECu9K+9xFLJygvgtyPtc91Edg1t+7O5ayDt4Ras/p9DUatwP70RwnWMeEKMyTlwHNTNcyRUBQzUpR9LUmK8BSNycAgRzGRw3x+fOGcG2fkRIkwjytn7v6eyFEsZRaHpjNGaiJXazPzv9pAq6gxzClPtSIcLxZFmjkqcWZJOCMqCFYsM4CwoOZWB0+QQFiZvMomBG/1y+vQvax7hu9MGg1YqARVOIML8OAKmnALLegAhgye4AVerUfr2Xqz3hetG9ZypgJ/ZH38AI3klso=</latexit>
sha1_base64="yYzZpDlYszgZpvtd4UBvZSxF1EE=">AAAB/HicbZC7TsMwFIYdbi0tl0DHLhYVElOVsNCxgoWxSL1JTYkc12mtOk7kC1IUhSfgHVgYQIiVB2HjNZgZcC8DtPySpU//OUfn+A8SRqVynE9rY3Nre6dQ3C2V9/YPDu2j466MtcCkg2MWi36AJGGUk46iipF+IgiKAkZ6wfRqVu/dESFpzNsqTcgwQmNOQ4qRMpZvV9q3HmLJBGW5n3mR9rjOfbvm1J254Dq4S6g1q1+XhfLDd8u3P7xRjHVEuMIMSTlwnUQNMyQUxYzkJU9LkiA8RWMyMMhRROQwmx+fw1PjjGAYC/O4gnP390SGIinTKDCdEVITuVqbmf/VBlqFjWFGeaIV4XixKNQMqhjOkoAjKghWLDWAsKDmVognSCCsTF4lE4K7+uV16J7XXcM3Jo0GWKgIquAEnAEXXIAmuAYt0AEYpOARPIMX6956sl6tt0XrhrWcqYA/st5/ALDbmGQ=</latexit>

{ sha1_base64="/Qc/70FUMVg/W6zRp2zmxqTMW5U=">AAAB6XicbZC7SgNBFIbPxlsSb1EbwWYwCFZh18aUQRvLKOYCSQizk9lkyOzsMnNWiEvAB7CxUMTWN/BR7AQfxsml0MQfBj7+cw5zzu/HUhh03S8ns7K6tr6RzeU3t7Z3dgt7+3UTJZrxGotkpJs+NVwKxWsoUPJmrDkNfckb/vByUm/ccW1EpG5xFPNOSPtKBIJRtNZNO+0Wim7JnYosgzeHYuXw/jv38HFR7RY+272IJSFXyCQ1puW5MXZSqlEwycf5dmJ4TNmQ9nnLoqIhN510uumYnFinR4JI26eQTN3fEykNjRmFvu0MKQ7MYm1i/ldrJRiUO6lQcYJcsdlHQSIJRmRyNukJzRnKkQXKtLC7EjagmjK04eRtCN7iyctQPyt5lq9tGmWYKQtHcAyn4ME5VOAKqlADBgE8wjO8OEPnyXl13matGWc+cwB/5Lz/ANm2kII=</latexit>
sha1_base64="4sa38vp5FivRDlzeHtx9MlG34s8=">AAAB6XicbZA9SwNBEIbn4leMX1EbwWYxCFbhzsaUARvLKOYDkiPsbfaSJXt7x+6cEI/8AxsLRWz9R3aCP8bNJYUmvrDw8M4MO/MGiRQGXffLKaytb2xuFbdLO7t7+wflw6OWiVPNeJPFMtadgBouheJNFCh5J9GcRoHk7WB8Pau3H7g2Ilb3OEm4H9GhEqFgFK1118v65YpbdXORVfAWUKmfPH6DVaNf/uwNYpZGXCGT1Jiu5yboZ1SjYJJPS73U8ISyMR3yrkVFI278LN90Ss6tMyBhrO1TSHL390RGI2MmUWA7I4ojs1ybmf/VuimGNT8TKkmRKzb/KEwlwZjMziYDoTlDObFAmRZ2V8JGVFOGNpySDcFbPnkVWpdVz/KtTaMGcxXhFM7gAjy4gjrcQAOawCCEJ3iBV2fsPDtvzvu8teAsZo7hj5yPH9xKjwU=</latexit>
<latexit sha1_base64="IrIdRjEzrr2stwBoUp/Vrm0Z2Us=">AAAB6XicbZBNSwMxEIYnftb6VfXoJVgET2XXiz0WvHisYj+gXUo2nW1Ds9klyQpl6T/w4kERr/4jb/4b03YP2vpC4OGdGTLzhqkUxnreN9nY3Nre2S3tlfcPDo+OKyenbZNkmmOLJzLR3ZAZlEJhyworsZtqZHEosRNObuf1zhNqIxL1aKcpBjEbKREJzqyzHvr5oFL1at5CdB38AqpQqDmofPWHCc9iVJZLZkzP91Ib5ExbwSXOyv3MYMr4hI2w51CxGE2QLzad0UvnDGmUaPeUpQv390TOYmOmceg6Y2bHZrU2N/+r9TIb1YNcqDSzqPjyoyiT1CZ0fjYdCo3cyqkDxrVwu1I+Zppx68IpuxD81ZPXoX1d8x3fe9VGvYijBOdwAVfgww004A6a0AIOETzDK7yRCXkh7+Rj2bpBipkz+CPy+QOXRI1X</latexit>

Q↵µ⌫
<latexit sha1_base64="zxivJV/TQzIzjEFzW8xhe8B4ynI=">AAAB+XicbZDLSsNAFIYn9VbrLerSTbAIrkrixi4Lbly2YC/QhHAynbRDZyZhLoUS+iZuXCji1jdx59s4bbPQ1h8GPv5zDufMn+SMKu37305lZ3dv/6B6WDs6Pjk9c88veiozEpMuzlgmBwkowqggXU01I4NcEuAJI/1k+rCs92dEKpqJJz3PScRhLGhKMWhrxa7biYsQWD6BkJtQmEXs1v2Gv5K3DUEJdVSqHbtf4SjDhhOhMQOlhoGf66gAqSlmZFELjSI54CmMydCiAE5UVKwuX3g31hl5aSbtE9pbub8nCuBKzXliOznoidqsLc3/akOj02ZUUJEbTQReL0oN83TmLWPwRlQSrNncAmBJ7a0enoAErG1YNRtCsPnlbejdNQLLHb/eapZxVNEVuka3KED3qIUeURt1EUYz9Ixe0ZtTOC/Ou/Oxbq045cwl+iPn8wfip5PE</latexit>
sha1_base64="wA12DGG6tKFwb+i2mpiYowHhlOM=">AAAB+XicbZDLSsNAFIZP6q3WW9RlN8EiuCqJG7ssunHZgm2FJoTJdNIOnZmEuRRK6Ju4caGIW9/Ena/hEzi9LLT1h4GP/5zDOfMnOaNK+/6XU9ra3tndK+9XDg6Pjk/c07OuyozEpIMzlsnHBCnCqCAdTTUjj7kkiCeM9JLx3bzemxCpaCYe9DQnEUdDQVOKkbZW7LrtuAgRy0co5CYUZha7Nb/uL+RtQrCCWrP6fQtWrdj9DAcZNpwIjRlSqh/4uY4KJDXFjMwqoVEkR3iMhqRvUSBOVFQsLp95l9YZeGkm7RPaW7i/JwrElZryxHZypEdqvTY3/6v1jU4bUUFFbjQReLkoNczTmTePwRtQSbBmUwsIS2pv9fAISYS1DatiQwjWv7wJ3et6YLlt02jAUmWowgVcQQA30IR7aEEHMEzgCV7g1SmcZ+fNeV+2lpzVzDn8kfPxA/5klVM=</latexit>
sha1_base64="tilJTb6GJO7/we5CaCe0amjx6Y4=">AAAB+XicbZC7SgNBFIZnvSUmXlYt0wwGwSrs2pgyaGOZgLlAdllmJ7PJkJnZZS6BsOQNfAQbC0VsfRM7X8Pawsml0MQfBj7+cw7nzB9njCrteZ/O1vbO7l6huF8qHxweHbsnpx2VGolJG6cslb0YKcKoIG1NNSO9TBLEY0a68fh2Xu9OiFQ0Ffd6mpGQo6GgCcVIWyty3VaUB4hlIxRwEwgzi9yqV/MWgpvgr6DaqHzdFMoP383I/QgGKTacCI0ZUqrve5kOcyQ1xYzMSoFRJEN4jIakb1EgTlSYLy6fwQvrDGCSSvuEhgv390SOuFJTHttOjvRIrdfm5n+1vtFJPcypyIwmAi8XJYZBncJ5DHBAJcGaTS0gLKm9FeIRkghrG1bJhuCvf3kTOlc133LLplEHSxVBBZyDS+CDa9AAd6AJ2gCDCXgEz+DFyZ0n59V5W7ZuOauZM/BHzvsPIWqW7Q==</latexit>

The non-closure of parallelograms formed when two The variation of the length of a vector as it is
vectors are transported along each other is given by the transported is given by the non-metricity:
torsion: Teleparallel Equivalent of General Relativity. Symmetric Teleparallel Equivalent of General Relativity.

Figure 1. This figure illustrates the geometrical meaning of the curvature, the torsion and the non-
metricity when the remaining objects vanish. We should emphasise that when a vector is transported
along a closed curve in a general geometry, it will acquire a rotation determined by R[αβ]µν and a
length variation given by R(αβ)µν . It should be compared to Fig. 2 where it is summarised how
General Relativity admits equivalent representations in terms of these three geometrical objects.

–3–
 Einstein’s original formulation founded GR on a metric and torsionless spacetime and
imputed gravity to the curvature. It is however natural to explore, as did also Einstein later,
if gravity can instead be ascribed to the remaining attributes that a spacetime can have, i.e.,
to the torsion and to the non-metricity. In these notes, we will confirm that the very same
underlying theory, i.e., GR, can be equivalently described in terms of these three seemingly
unrelated elements, knocking into shape a geometrical trinity of gravity. We will nonetheless
illustrate some subtle, conceptual and practical, differences among them.

2 General Relativity
Before delving into its alternative representations, let us start with the best-known formulation
of GR where gravity is identified with the curvature of spacetime and the dynamics is described
by the Hilbert action Z
1 √
SGR(2) = d4 x −g R(g) (2.1)
16πG
with R = g µν Rµν ({}) the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection (1.3). The fundamental
object here is the metric with its ten components, but the four-parameter Diffs (diffeomor-
phisms) gauge symmetry reduces them to only two dynamical degrees of freedom (dof), as it
corresponds to a massless spin 2 particle. At a more technical level, the constraints on the
connection being symmetric and torsion-free should more properly be incorporated by adding
suitable Lagrange multiplier fields enforcing such constraints
Z √ 
4 −g µν µν α α µν
SGR(1) = d x g Rµν (Γ) + λα T µν + λ̂ µν Qα , (2.2)
16πG

where the R is now the scalar of the curvature (1.6). Being the two constraints imposed
on the connection integrable and holonomic, we can simply solve them, insert back into the
action (2.2) and obtain the second order action for the metric (2.1). There is however a very
remarkable property of the Hilbert action that makes it special. When considered in the
metric-affine formalism, i.e., with a completely general connection not fixed a priori nor by
means of Lagrange multipliers, the first term in the action (2.2) alone gives rise to equations for
the connection that fix it to be precisely the Levi-Civita connection of the spacetime metric
gµν . A subtlety of this result is related to the existence of a projective symmetry for the
Hilbert action. In fact, under a projective transformation of the connection δζ Γαµβ = ζµ δ α β ,
the Riemann tensor changes as δζ Rα βµν = 2δ α β ∂[µ ζν] so that the Ricci scalar R is invariant.
As a consequence, the projective mode is left undetermined by the field equations as a gauge
mode which can then be fixed by simply making a projective gauge choice (see e.g. [2] and
references therein for more details).

–4–
 This formulation has some inherent difficulties owed to working in a curved spacetime.
Among others, the Hilbert action (2.1) contains second derivatives of the metric so the varia-
tional principle is not well-posed in the usual sense since one is led to fix normal derivatives of
the metric on the boundary, which further hinders a composition law for the path integral. As
it is well-known, these formal issues are solved by the Gibbons-Hawking-York (GHY) bound-
ary term [3], whose physical importance is prominently reflected by the fact that it entirely
determines the black hole entropy.

3 Metric teleparallelism
An alternative geometrical framework, attributing gravity to the torsion, is defined by its
flatness and metric compatibility. These properties conform to the Weitzenböck connection
characteristics. As the natural starting point to construct the theories, we will consider the
most general even-parity second order quadratic form that can be built with the torsion and
which is given by the three-parameter combination
c1 c2
T≡− Tαµν T αµν − Tαµν T µαν + c3 Tα T α , (3.1)
4 2
where c1 , c2 , c3 are some free parameters and Tµ = T α µα is the trace of the torsion. At the level
of the action, the constraints will be enforced by introducing suitable Lagrange multipliers so
that the general quadratic action is given by
Z  
1 √
ST = − d x 4
−g T + λα R βµν + λ̂ µν ∇α g
βµν α α µν
. (3.2)
16πG
µ[βν]
Notice that the Lagrange multipliers have the obvious symmetries λαµβν = λα , λ̂αµν =
λ̂α(µν) , and that we have defined them as tensorial densities of weight −1 for convenience.
We will start by solving the constraints. Since the curvature is the field strength of the
connection, its vanishing implies that the connection must be a pure gauge field or, in other
words, the connection is purely inertial. It can then be parameterised by an element Λα µ of
the general linear group GL(4, R) as

Γα µν = (Λ−1 )α λ ∂µ Λλ ν . (3.3)

The metric constraint further restricts Λα β and the metric to satisfy the following relation1 :

2(Λ−1 )λ κ ∂α Λκ (µ gν)λ = ∂α gµν . (3.4)

This equation determines the metric in terms of the connection, i.e., given a solution for Λα µ ,
the above relation will determine the corresponding metric. This is analogous to a vierbein
1
Let us note here the typo in the corresponding Eq.(50) in Ref. [6] where the inverse was misplaced.

–5–
determining the metric, as will be shortly clarified in Sec. 3.1. These are all the required
elements to formulate gravity in terms of the torsion, given thus by

T α µν = 2(Λ−1 )α λ ∂[µ Λλ ν] . (3.5)

We now proceed to explore if GR can be recovered by a suitable choice of parameters.

This is in fact possible in a simple manner by noticing that, when non-metricity vanishes, we
can use (1.7) to express the Ricci scalar as

R = R(g) + T̊ + 2Dα T α , (3.6)

where T̊ is nothing but T setting c1 = c2 = c3 = 1 in Eq.(3.1). The flatness condition R = 0

then tells us that the Ricci scalar R of the Levi-Civita connection differs from T̊ by a total
derivative. We can thus conclude that the dynamics of GR is identically recovered by
Z
1 √
STEGR = − d4 x −g T̊(g, Λ) . (3.7)
16πG

The resulting theory is the well-known Teleparallel Equivalent of GR (TEGR). The usual
formulation of TEGR makes fundamental use of the tetrad fields, which requires additional
geometrical structure to introduce the frame bundle and the corresponding soldering form [4].
Here, instead, the same theory results from a manifestly covariant approach.

3.1 Vierbein formulation

For comparison, we can briefly review the vierbein formulation of GR and TEGR. The vier-
bein is introduced as a set of covectors @a = @a µ ∂µ that are orthonormal with respect to the
Minkowski metric in the sense that ηab ea µ eb ν = gµν , where the set of 1-forms ea = ea µ dxµ is the
inverse vierbein. These objects naturally live in the Lorentz frame bundle which is endowed
with the usual spin connection ω a b = ω a µb dxµ . The vierbein is related to the translation gauge
potential B a = B a µ dxµ as ea = B a + Dξ a , where D is the covariant exterior derivative with re-
spect to the spin connection. It is necessary to introduce the field ξ a , which can be interpreted
as the tangent space coordinate [4], since the vierbein has the covariant transformation law,
but B a transforms as a connection. The field strength of translations, DB a , coincides with
the torsion two-form, T a = Dea = dea + ω a b ∧ eb , if there is no curvature. The curvature is, as
usual, Ra b = Dω a b = dω a b + ω a c ∧ ω c b , and it can be understood as the field strength of the
Lorentz rotations. An important relation is that between the affine connection and the spin
connection, Γα µν = @a α Dµ ea ν = −ea ν Dµ @a α . Taking this into account, the spacetime tensors
are related to the field strength two-forms simply as Rα βµν = @a α Ra bµν eb β and T α µν = @a α T a µν .
We have now all the ingredients to rewrite our actions for GR and TEGR in the vierbein
formalism. To obtain the second order vierbein formulation of the Hilbert action, we would
simply insert the definition of the metric into (2.1), and write R(@a ) instead of R(g), and

–6–
 √
employ the determinant @ which is the same as −g. The proper first order formulation
of GR would be obtained instead by doing the corresponding replacements in (2.2) (where
the last constraint is unnecessary in the Lorentz bundle, but would be needed in the general
linear bundle). Solving the spin connection from the constraint of vanishing torsion, we would
obtain the non-trivial expression for the ω a b that boils down to the Eq.(1.3), when rewritten
for the spacetime affine connection.
In the teleparallel formulation, in contrast, there exists a solution with ω a b = 0. Again,
we may begin with the action (3.2) with the respective replacements such that the torsion
is understood as a function T(@, ω). The flatness condition can be solved and it determines
the spin connection to be ω a b = (Λ−1 )a c dΛc b , in analogy with (3.3). When plugged back
into the action and choose the TEGR parameter combination c1 = c2 = c3 = 1, we obtain
(3.7), wherein now T̊ = T̊(@a , Λa b ). This formulation was introduced in [8] and the physical
interpretation of the purely inertial spin connection determined by the matrix Λa b was clarified
in the recent review [9]. Here instead, we would like to only make the further remark on
the relation to the formulation in terms of the affine connection. If we choose the solution
ω a b = 0, which could be called the Weitzenböck gauge, the torsion is then determined by the
vierbein as T a µν = ∂[µ ea ν] and we can project it with the vierbein to obtain T α µν = @α a ∂[µ ea ν] .
Comparing with our (3.5) in the metric-affine formalism, it is interesting to see that the gauge
transformation of the vanishing affine connection had essentially generated the vierbein in the
Weitzenböck gauge.
One can identify the TEGR as a special case among the family of quadratic theories
described by T because it features an additional local Lorentz symmetry: we may transform
only the vierbein and neglect the spin connection. This local symmetry is only realised up
to a total derivative, what has some important consequences which were reviewed in Ref.
[9]. Consequently, out of the 16 components of the vierbein, or of the Λα µ in the covariant
formulation, 8 are non-dynamical due to Diffs, while 6 more simply reflect the freedom in
performing a Lorentz transformation, leaving thus the 2 dynamical dof’s of GR.

3.2 Alternative theories

The metric teleparallel reformulation of GR can be straightforwardly extended in two different
directions, both of which result in the loss of symmetries. The first modification consists in
leaving the three parameters in (3.1) free, which is known as New GR. In that case, the
extra local Lorentz symmetry disappears and this results in the appearance of additional
propagating fields. As a first check of the content of this extension, we can look at the
linearised theory around Minkowski. This has been performed in the formulation that makes
use of the vierbeins. It would be interesting to redo the analysis in the covariant formalism
presented here without resorting to the vierbein formalism. Of course, we expect to obtain the
same field content. The perturbed vierbein around Minkowski is simply ea µ = δ a µ + Aa µ . The

–7–
background configuration with δ a µ allows to construct2 Aµν ≡ δ a µ Aa ν . This perturbation can
then be decomposed into its symmetric hµν = 2A(µν) and antisymmetric bµν ≡ 2A[µν] pieces.
The quadratic action for these fields was given in Eq.(4.173) of Ref. [10], and a more general
case was studied in Ref. [11]. An essential piece in the action is the coupling of the two pieces
of perturbations,
1
Lh−b = − (c1 + c2 − 2c3 ) hµν ∂µ ∂ α bαν , (3.8)
16
which vanishes if c1 + c2 = 2c3 . The consistency of the theory requires this. Up to the
overall normalisation, imposing this condition leaves a one-parameter class of theories which
propagates, in addition to the graviton, a Kalb-Ramond field. The latter is removed if one
further imposes that c1 +2c3 = 3c2 , which leaves the special case of TEGR [10]. It is interesting
that the crucial constraint c1 + c2 = 2c3 is related to a symmetry which renders the inverse
vierbein equivalent to the translation gauge potential [11]. In the following Section we will
uncover another perspective, from symmetric teleparallelism, to the relevance of making the
theory oblivious to the ξ a .
Another straightforward modification is simply taking non-linear extensions of the TEGR
action, which results in the so-called f (T̊) theories. Since the local Lorentz symmetry is
realised up to a total derivative, these extensions also lose such a symmetry and additional
dofs are expected. On details of these theories, we refer the reader to [8, 9] and their references.

4 Symmetric Teleparallelisms
The advent of GR fully ascribed to the non-metricity is materialised in a flat and torsion
free geometry [5]. As we will see, the geometrical framework for this formulation of GR is
arguably the simplest among the three equivalent representations because there is no curvature
nor torsion and non-metricity is left as the fundamental geometrical object. Furthermore, the
connection can be globally3 completely removed by an appropriate choice of coordinates so
that the spacetime is trivially connected.

4.1 Symmetric Teleparallel Equivalent of GR: Coincident GR

Once we have described the coincident GR’s dwell, we will proceed as before considering the
most general even-parity second order quadratic form of the non-metricity [12]
c1 c2 c3 c5
Q = Qαβγ Qαβγ − Qαβγ Qβαγ − Qα Qα + (c4 − 1)Q̃α Q̃α + Qα Q̃α , (4.1)
4 2 4 2
where Qα = Qαλ λ and Q̃α = Qλ λα are the two independent traces of the non-metricity. The
general quadratic action including suitable Lagrange multipliers is then
Z  
1 √
SQ = − d x 4
−g Q + λα R βµν + λα T µν .
βµν α µν α
(4.2)
16πG
2
This simply means that we can identify the tangent space and the curved indices at first order.
3
Barring possible topological obstructions.

–8–
In this case we have a 5-parameter family of quadratic theories. We could now explore the
whole space of theories and check the existence of some particular case that gives rise to an
equivalent of GR. However, we can again show the existence of an equivalent to GR by using
(1.7) for a torsion-free connection, which gives

R = R(g) + Q̊ + Dα (Qα − Q̃α ) , (4.3)

where Q̊ is given by Q setting all ci = 1 so that, in a flat spacetime with R = 0, we find the
relation R(g) = −Q̊ − Dα (Qα − Q̃α ) and, consequently, the action
Z
1 √
SSTGR = − d4 x −g Q̊(g, ξ) , (4.4)
16πG
where STGR stands for Symmetric Teleparallel Equivalent of GR, differs from the Hilbert
action by a total derivative, thus reproducing the dynamics of GR. As in the TEGR, the
quadratic form Q̊ is special because it has an enhanced symmetry that is realised up to a total
derivative. This will become clearer in a moment, but now let us look at the affine structure
of this theory in more detail by solving the constraints. The flatness condition again restricts
the connection to be purely inertial so that it can be parameterised by a general element Λα β
of GL(4R). This form of the connection in combination with the absence of torsion leads
to the additional constraint ∂[µ Λα ν] = 0. The general element of GL(4, R) determining the
connection can thus be parameterised by a set of functions ξ λ so that4
∂xα
Γα µν = ∂µ ∂ν ξ λ . (4.5)
∂ξ λ
This seemingly innocent form of the connection hides however an outstanding property of the
non-metricity representation of GR, namely: the connection can be trivialised by a coordinate
transformation [7]. The gauge where the connection vanishes gives ξ α = xα , which can be
interpreted as the gauge where the origin of the tangent space parameterised by ξ α coincides
with the spacetime origin and for this property it is dubbed the coincident gauge5 .
An interesting form of writing the STEGR action is in terms of the disformation directly
as Z  
1 √
SSTEGR = d4 x −gg µν Lα βµ Lβ να − Lα βα Lβ µν . (4.6)
16πG
The interest of this expression is that, in the coincident gauge and recalling the decomposition
(1.4), the triviality of the connection directly gives the relation
α α
µν = −L µν . (4.7)
α λ
∂ξ
4
Of course, in this expression ∂x
∂ξ λ
should be interpreted as the inverse of the matrix ∂x α.
5 µ µ
This gauge is defined up to an affine transformation x → ax + b with a and b constants. Since this
residual global symmetry does not vanish at infinity, it might lead to interesting properties of the infrarred
structure of the theory.

–9–
It is then straightforward to verify that, in this coincident gauge, the action (4.4) can be
written as
Z 
1 4
√ µν α
β α β 
SCGR = SSTEGR [Γ = 0] = d x −gg βµ να − βα µν . (4.8)
16πG
We call this the action of Coincident GR. Remarkably, it reproduces the Einstein action for
GR consisting of the Hilbert action devoid of boundary terms. It has the advantage of only
involving first derivatives of the metric, thus leading to a well-posed variational principle
without any GHY boundary terms. However, Diff invariance is only realised up to a total
derivative which causes the action to depend on the chosen coordinates. It may look striking
that we refer to Diffs even though we have used them to fix the coincident gauge, but there
is no onus. The reason is that, similarly to the TEGR being special because it features
an additional symmetry, the theory (4.4) is special among the quadratic theories because it
enjoys an enhanced four-parameter gauge symmetry so the full theory actually has an eight-
parameter gauge symmetry. In the coincident gauge, the additional symmetry appears as
a Diff symmetry. Furthermore, unlike the TEGR where the metric and the connection are
related, in the non-metricity formulation of GR, the connection is fundamentally pure gauge
and all the dynamics can be encoded into the metric, now in a trivially connected spacetime.
In this respect, it is worth to point out that the fields ξ α that parameterise the connection
play in turn the role of Stückelberg fields associated to coordinates transformations invariance
and the coincident gauge is nothing but the corresponding unitary gauge.

4.2 General quadratic theory

As for the TEGR, there are two straightforward extensions that can be considered. The first
one corresponds to considering arbitrary parameters in the general quadratic action, in which
case the Diffs in the coincident gauge is lost, thus resulting in additional dofs. This family
of theories was dubbed Newer General Relativity. It is illustrative to look at the structure of
these theories around a Minkowski background with gµν = ηµν + hµν . Unlike in the TEGR,
there is no antisymmetric field and the whole dynamics is encapsulated into hµν . The quadratic
action then reads
c1 c  c3 c5
α µν 2
L = ∂α hµν ∂ h − + 1 − c4 ∂α hµν ∂ µ hαν − ∂α h∂ α h + ∂µ hµ ν ∂ ν h , (4.9)
4 2 4 2
where h = hµ µ . This is nothing but the general quadratic action for a spin-2 field. In this
theory there can be up to 10 propagating modes, but, as it is well-known, the theory must
enjoy some gauge symmetries in order to avoid ghostly dofs. Before proceeding to that, let us
notice that c2 and c4 appear degenerated, so that the linear order does not allow to completely
fix the theory from consistency arguments. Furthermore, the normalisation of hµν allows to
absorb one of the parameters (up to a sign). Irrespectively of the number of propagating
modes, they all trivially propagate on the light cone owed to the Lorentz invariance of the

– 10 –
background and the absence of any mass parameters. For Fourier modes of momentum k
it is convenient to decompose hµν into helicity modes with respect to k. Then, the helicity-
1 sector will contain a ghostly mode unless the gauge symmetry hµν → hµν + 2∂(µ ξν) with
∂µ ξ µ = 0 is imposed, what is called transverse diffeomorphisms or TDiffs. This symmetry
restricts the parameters in (4.9) to satisfy c2 − c1 = 2(c4 − 1), which is of course fulfilled by
the STEGR. In order to end up with two propagating dofs (as it corresponds to a massless
spin 2 field) we need to complete the TDiffs to a four-parameter gauge symmetry, what can
be achieved in two ways. The first possibility is to complete the symmetry to full linearised
diffeomorphisms (DiffsCG 6 ) hµν → hµν + 2∂(µ ξν) with no constraints on ξ µ . This leads to
additional constraints c5 = c3 = c1 , which indeed reproduce the values of the STEGR. The
second possibility is to impose an additional Weyl symmetry (WTDiffsCG ) hµν → hµν + φηµν
with φ an arbitrary scalar field. This symmetry further requires c3 = 3c1 /8 and c5 = c1 . This
is the linearised version of unimodular gravity, which differs from GR in the appearance of
a cosmological constant as an integration constant. The general quadratic theory within the
symmetric teleparallelism framework for this choice of parameters is yet to be analysed.
Let us remark that the above constraints are of paramount importance for the consistency
of the theory so that, theories that fail to satisfy them will be prone to ghost-like instabilities.
This is in fact a general result not only applicable to the quadratic theory but to a general
non-linear extension7 theory with Lagrangian L = f (Q1 , Q2 , Q3 , Q4 , Q5 ) with Qi the five inde-
pendent terms of the quadratic theory. Around a Minkowski background solution (provided
such a solution exists), the quadratic Lagrangian for the perturbations will take the same
form as (4.9), with ci given in terms of ∂f /∂Qi . Thus, all these theories will be constrained
by stability around Minkowski very much like the general quadratic theory. In particular,
this crucially impacts the number of possible stable propagating polarisations in a general
symmetric teleparallel theory. Moreover, even if the linear perturbations succeed in fulfilling
the stability conditions, the loss of gauge symmetries8 when considering interactions will likely
re-introduce ghostly degrees of freedom that were removed from the quadratic spectrum. This
is in fact a very strong constraint that must be carefully taken into account for the theories
to be consistent.

4.3 f (Q̊) extensions

A special case of a non-linear extension is given by L = f (Q̊), which trivially fulfils the
stability requirements around Minkowski because the only effect will be a re-scaling of the
6
We denote this symmetry DiffsCG as the Diffs symmetry that arises in the coincident gauge in order to
distinguish it from the original Diffs that in turn are used to go to the coincident gauge.
7
By non-linear extension we refer to the corresponding field equations not being linear in the non-metricity.
8
Let us stress that all these theories are Diffs invariant by construction and, consequently, the coinci-
dent/unitary gauge also exists for them. The gauge symmetries we refer to here are the DiffsCG that remain
in the coincident gauge and that ensure the absence of additional propagating dofs.

– 11 –
gravitational constant determined by f 0 . It is important to notice that, by virtue of (4.3),
even if LCGR = Q̊ is equivalent to LGR = R because they only differ by a total derivative,
precisely this boundary term makes f (R) and f (Q̊) completely different.
This specific non-linear extension, besides being a priori less prone to instabilities than the
general non-linear extensions, exhibits one of the crucial features of these extensions, namely,
since DiffsCG are only realised up to a total derivative in the STEGR, the f (Q̊) theories will
no longer realise this symmetry9 , with important consequences. In order to illustrate some of
these consequences and further motivate the special case represented by f (Q̊) among all the
theories based on f (Q1 , Q2 , Q3 , Q4 , Q5 ) we will consider a cosmological background described
by a FLRW metric with spatially flat sections

ds2 = −N 2 (t)dt2 + a2 (t)dx2 (4.10)

with N (t) and a(t) the lapse function and the scale factor, respectively. If we work in the
coincident gauge, then we have exhausted all the freedom in choosing the coordinates so that,
in principle, it is not legitimate to fix the lapse N (t) to any particular value by means of a
time reparameterisation, as it is usually done. However, the special case of f (Q̊) does permit
to fix the lapse because the background action in the minisuperspace
Z Z  
1 √ 1 6ȧ2
S=− d x −gf (Q̊) = −
4 3 3
d xdtN a f (4.11)
16πG 16πG a2 N 2

retains a time-reparameterisation invariance t → ζ(t), N (t) → N (t)/ζ̇(t) for an arbitrary

function ζ(t). The gravitational field equations for N = 1 and in the presence of a perfect
fluid with density ρ and pressure p then are given by
1
6f 0 H 2 − f = 8πGρ , (4.12)

2
12f 00 H 2 + f 0 Ḣ = −4πG (ρ + p) . (4.13)
q
A remarkable class of theories is given by f = Q̊ + Λ Q̊ with Λ some parameter. This family
is special because it gives exactly the same background evolution as GR irrespectively of Λ,
which will thus only affect the evolution of the perturbations. Since the background equations
of motion (4.12), (4.13) are the same as those of the f (T̊) theories, we will not go into more
details here, but obviously the same cosmological solutions will be possible. The differences
will arise in the perturbations. Going back to the existence of a time-reparameterisation
symmetry in this specific theory, there will be some associated Bianchi identities that applied
to (4.12), (4.13) give
ρ̇ + 3H(ρ + p) = 0 , (4.14)
9
It can happen that a subset of DiffsCG remain a symmetry. The conditions would be that such subset of
symmetries give rise to a trivial boundary term. We will see an explicit example of this below.

– 12 –
completely consistent with the continuity equation of the matter sector. In order to show that
this is a non-trivial result, we can consider the general quadratic theory, whose action in the
minisuperspace of a FLRW universe is given by
Z " #
1 3 a3
ȧ2
Ṅ 2
ȧṄ
S=− d xdt 3 c1 − 3c3 2 + c1 − 2c2 − c3 + 2c4 − 2 + 2c5 2 + 6 c5 − c3
16πG N a N aN
(4.15)
which clearly does not have the symmetry under time reparameterisations and the lapse is an
additional dynamical degree of freedom. Thus, fixing the lapse is not legitimate and can lead
to inconsistent equations of motion. More precisely, setting the lapse would be a selection
of some particular branches of solutions, which are not guaranteed to exist a priory. This is
related to the choice of good versus bad tetrads in the f (T̊) case, where it was noted that some
choices of tetrads led to inconsistent equations of motion, which is nothing but a reflection of
overfixing a gauge.
The cosmological perturbations of the f (Q̊) theories will give crucial signatures for the
discrimination of these theories. We will not go into the details of the perturbations equations,
but will simply point out an interesting general feature that, in turn, may point towards the
inviability of the whole family of theories. As we have repeatedly commented, we no longer
have the freedom to choose the coordinates once we work in the coincident gauge. At the
background level, time reparameterisations remains as a symmetry, but at the perturbative
level there are no remanent gauge symmetries in general so we have to work with all the metric
perturbations10 . We will focus here on the scalar sector, so the metric will be decomposed as
   
1 kl
2 2 2 2 i 2 k l
ds = −a(t) (1 + 2φ)dτ + 2a β,i dτ dx + a (1 − 2ψ)δij + 2 δi δj − δ δij σkl dxi dxj
2
(4.16)
with φ, ψ, β and σ the corresponding scalar potentials. As a remnant of the STEGR, the
potentials B and φ remain non-dynamical for the f (Q̊) theories and, therefore, they can be
integrated out. We are then left with two dynamical scalar potentials. A very interesting
feature of the perturbations that is worth mentioning here is their behaviour under a gauge
transformation. Since this is no longer a symmetry, obviously, under a gauge transformation
with parameters δxµ = (0 , δ ij ∂j ) of the scalar potentials

φ → φ − (0 )0 − H0 , (4.17)

0 0
β → β+ + , (4.18)
1
ϕ → ϕ − δ ij ,ij + H0 , (4.19)
3
σ → σ + , (4.20)
10
Another possibility would of course be to re-introduce the connection through ξ α and seek for a more
convenient gauge involving both metric and connection perturbations.

– 13 –
the equations will not be invariant. However, for the particular case of maximally symmet-
ric backgrounds, i.e., Minkowski, de Sitter and anti de Sitter, there is a residual symmetry
provided the gauge parameters satisfy ξ 0 + ξ 0 = 0. This means that these backgrounds will
exhibit one less propagating mode, as can be also directly seen from the fact that the Hessian
around these backgrounds becomes degenerate. This feature might however signal the poten-
tial presence of a strong coupling problem for these backgrounds, since this symmetry would
seem accidental and, in any case, these backgrounds would seem to present a discontinuity in
the number of propagating dofs. This strong coupling problem may represent a fatal flaw of
these theories since Minkowski and/or de Sitter are desirable stable background solutions.

5 Matter couplings
Besides the purely gravitational sector, prescribing how matter couples is a foundational aspect
of gravity. The majority of the matter fields living on a manifold with a general connection
will be oblivious to the presence of the distortion. However, in order to rigorously investigate
the possible existence of subtleties, one has to be aware of the fact that

• generalized geometries give room for ambiguity in the matter coupling;

• crucial differences arise for bosonic and fermionic fields.

In consideration of the first point, let us remind ourselves that if one considers the action
R
of a point particle S = −mc2 dτ , this particle will only access the Levi-Civita part of
the connection. In GR this is equivalent to postulating that the point particle will follow the
2 µ ν dxα
geodesic equation ddτx2 +Γµ να dx
dτ dτ
= 0 with Γµ να = {µνα }. However, in generalized geometries
starting from the action or the postulated geodesic equation will not give rise to the same
conclusion and introduce ambiguities.
Concerning the second point, crucial differences arise for bosonic and fermionic fields
because bosons only couple to the metric, but fermions also couple to the connection. Already
within GR, it is necessary to introduce an additional structure in order to define spinors in
curved spacetimes: the tetrads. Another crucial point is whether one starts from the minimal
coupling procedure. Bosonic particles minimally coupled to gravity, with the prescription
ηµν → gµν , d → d, will only see the Levi-Civita part of the connection. Hence, they will
follow the above geodesic equation with Γµνα = {µνα }. Starting from the geodesic equation, it
is clear that the torsion does not contribute since the geodesic equation is symmetric under
the exchange of ν ↔ α. However, the minimal coupling prescription ηµν → gµν , d → D, the
latter implying that ∂µ → ∇µ , can already be problematical for bosonic fields of nonzero spin.
For example, the gauge invariance of the Maxwell field Aµ would need to be reconsidered in
TEGR due to the appearance of a non-gauge invariant coupling to torsion in Fµν = 2∇[µ Aν] .

– 14 –
 In general, fermions will be very sensitive to the presence of any distortion of the con-
nection. The TEGR encounters some difficulties in coupling gravity to fermions because the
natural coupling is to the Weitzenböck connection [13].
The STGR elegantly avoids this difficulty due to the absence of torsion and the fact that
the Dirac Lagrangian is blind to the non-metricity so that fermions are only concerned with
the usual Levi-Civita piece of the connection [6].
In all these formulations, the corresponding dynamics of the matter fields will non-
trivially depend on the assumed matter action and whether the minimal coupling prescription
is selected on purpose. This is also the case in the standard formulation of GR and the choice
has to be done based on the wanted physical effects.

5.1 General Relativity

When we write down the Hilbert action in the presence of the standard matter fields
Z
1 √
SGR(2) = d4 x −g R(g) + Smatter [gµν , φ] , (5.1)
16πG
there enter already non-trivial assumptions on the physical system at hand. Namely, one has
explicitly assumed that

• the matter fields do not couple do the connection, and

• the minimal coupling prescription ηµν → gµν , ∂µ → ∇µ with Γµ να = {µνα } is applied.

Therefore, only the variation with respect to the metric has to be performed, yielding
1 Tµν
Gµν = Rµν − Rgµν = 2 , (5.2)
2 MPl
with the stress energy tensor defined as
−2 δSmatter
Tµν = √ . (5.3)
−g δg µν
The Bianchi identities, i.e. the divergenceless nature of the Einstein tensor, enforces ∇µ Tµν = 0
upon the matter fields. This is directly related with the consistency of the matter fields
equations of motion. If one instead assumes the starting Lagrangian to be of the form
Z √ 
4 −g µν α α µν
SGR(1) = d x R(g, Γ) + λα T µν + λ̂ µν Qα + Smatter [gµν , Γα µν , φ] , (5.4)
16πG
with an explicit coupling of the matter field to the general connection, then the variation of
the action with respect to the connection yields
√  √  √  
∇ρ −gg µν − δρµ ∇α −gg αν = −g g µν Tαρ α
+ g αν Tρα
µ
− δρµ g βν Tαβ
α
+ ∆µν
ρ , (5.5)

– 15 –
with the hypermomentum of the matter fields defined as
2 δSmatter
∆µν
ρ = 2
, (5.6)
MPl δΓρ µν

which arises due to the coupling to the connection. Given the torsion-free and metric con-
straints enforced by the Lagrange multipliers, Eq. (5.5) would imply that the hypermomentum
must be identically zero, giving rise to non-trivial constraints for the matter fields, specially
fermions, which do carry hypermomentum due to their coupling to the axial torsion. Thus,
when including matter fields, we must either consider minimally coupled fields or formulate
the theory in an unconstrained metric-affine formalism for the consistency of the theory.
Already in the standard formulation of GR the presence of fermions requires the in-
troduction of a vielbein and the gravitational spin connection. The information about the
spacetime and the spin meets in the Clifford algebra with the Dirac matrices acting at each
spacetime point. Dirac’s equation in curved spacetime then naturally takes the form

iγ a @µa Dµ Ψ − mΨ = 0 (5.7)

with the Dirac matrices γ a and the covariant derivative Dµ = ∂µ − 4i wµab σab defined in terms
of the spin connection wµab and σab = 2i [γa , γb ]. This equation follows naturally from the
minimal coupling prescription discussed above11 . In this way, the vielbein approach supports a
local symmetry of Lorentz transformations in tangential space and diffeomorphism invariance.
Hence, already within GR, fermions need a special care and the introduction of an additional
structure.

5.2 Metric teleparallelism

It is possible to stipulate that for the bosonic fields, the minimal coupling is ∂µ → ∂µ , whilst
for the fermionic fields one sets ∂µ → ∇µ . This may seem arbitrary in view of that gravitation
is a universal force, under which also bosonic fields are “charged” in principle. However,
adopting the covariant prescription for bosons as well as fermions will lead to problems with
gauge fields in metric teleparallelism. To see this, consider the simplest example, the photon
Aµ , whose field strength in the absence of gravitation is Fµν = 2∂[µ Aν] , and would become
Fµν → 2∇[µ Aν] = 2∂[µ Aν] + T α µν Aα in the universal covariant prescription. In the case of
both GR and STGR nothing happens to the Maxwell field strength, since there is no torsion.
However, in the context of metric teleparallelism this is obviously not the case, and the photon
becomes non-minimally coupled to torsion. That spoils the U (1) invariance, at least in its
standard form.
11
It is worth stressing that the equation obtained from the covariantization of the Dirac Lagrangian does not
give the covariantized version of the Dirac equation in spaces with torsion and/or non-metricity. This subtlety
is irrelevant in the case of GR, but it is important when considering more generally connected spacetimes.

– 16 –
 The problem of coupling fermions in metric teleparallelism is seen easily from the defi-
nition of the spin connection given above, Dµ = ∂µ − 4i wµab σab . When wµab is the pure-gauge
connection that can be always be set to zero by a Lorentz rotation, the fermions are obviously
decoupled from the Levi-Civita connection (1.3). However, that coupling would be required
to ensure the usual energy-momentum conservation Dµ T µ ν . The problem can of course be
avoided by re-invoking the GR coupling ∂µ → Dµ now in metric teleparallelism. One at least
heuristic justification for such a prescription is that by writing the pure-gauge wµab in terms of
trivial tetrads and then promoting those to the full tetrads indeed would make the pure-gauge
spin connection become the metric spin connection of GR [4, 9]. However, this is not the
standard procedure in gauge theories. Thus, the conventional coupling principle ∂µ → ∇µ in
metric teleparallelism is not viable for either bosons or fermions.

5.3 Symmetric Teleparallelisms

The coupling to matter within the realm of symmetric teleparallel theories can be performed
following the usual minimal coupling prescription
Z  
1 √
SSTEGR = − d x 4
−g Q̊ + λα R βµν + λα T µν + Smatter [gµν , φ, ∇µ φ] . (5.8)
βµν α µν α
16πG
This theory is then equivalent to GR where the matter fields in Smatter follow the same physical
geodesic equations as in GR, since the couplings are exactly the same for the known fields
in the Standard Model. For bosonic fields, we will then have ∇µ φ → ∂µ φ as in the usual
formulation of GR. There is a subtle point concerning the general quadratic theory that is
worth explaining in detail. In that case, the connection field equations do not trivialise in the
coincident gauge (as they do for the Coincident GR). However, the corresponding equations
can be obtained by applying the Bianchi identities to the metric field equations and, thus,
they are redundant with them. Hence, the information in the connection field equations is of
course not lost when working in the coincident gauge in general theories.
In difference to the previous reformulation, in STGR fermions do not require any adjust-
ments to the minimal prescription. The standard derivative ∂α of the usual flatspace Dirac
Lagrangian is the same as ∇α (in the coincident gauge we simply have ∇α = ∂α ). In order to
appreciate this statement, bear in mind that even if the covariant derivative ∇α appears in the
action, only Dα survives in the equations of motion for the Dirac field due to the Hermitean
α
property of the Dirac action. Let us remind ourselves that Γα µν = µν + Lα µν = 0 in the
coincident gauge, from which the piece Lα µν is filtered out due to the Hermitean nature of
the action12 .
12
To see how this occurs, first generalise the Lorentz basis σab = 2i [γa , γb ] to the general linear basis,
i
2 γa γb = σab − iηab . Thus only the trace Qµ of non-metricity contributes to the covariant derivative of spinors
in the first place. Secondly, in the Dirac action this trace simply cancels due to the Hermiteanisation. As
the result, even though in the coincident gauge we have ∂µ → ∇µ = ∂µ in the action, effectively we recover
∂µ → Dµ in the equations of motion.

– 17 –
 Therefore, the standard equation of motion in curved spacetime arises for the spinors,
α
which only involves the µν part. Hence, the Dirac fields are completely oblivious to any
disformation of geometry given by a general Qαµν .
Needless to say that if we consider couplings beyond the minimal coupling procedure
where for instance matter fields could directly explicitly couple to the connection, there will
be notable physical effects beyond GR due to the presence of the hypermomentum of the
matter fields.

6 Conclusions
The ternion of geometrical representations of GR offers useful complementary perspectives to
the theory of gravity. The non-trivial boundary terms that differentiate the three formulations
present a new tool to explore the holographic nature of GR. In these notes, we have reviewed
the formulation of GR in three classes of geometries, and wrote down the six actions indicated
below.
• Riemannian: in terms of the general (2.2) and the metric (2.1) connection.

• Metric teleparallel: in terms of the general (3.2) and the inertial (3.7) connection.

• Symmetric teleparallel: in terms of the general (4.2) and the inertial (4.4) connection.
The geometrical trinity that emerges is depicted in Figure 2. We also considered briefly the
perspective from the frame bundle in Section 3.1, and discussed some of the most straightfor-
ward generalisations of the two versions of teleparallel GR.
Symmetry is foundational to theoretical physics, but the geometry chosen for its illustra-
tion may be a matter of convention. From the perspective of gauge theory, we understand that
spin connection is the gauge potential of Lorentz rotation and the curvature is its gauge field
strength, whilst the tetrad is related to the gauge potential of translation and the torsion to
its gauge field strength. Gravitation can be geometrised in terms of either of these, and in fact
Einstein considered both of the corresponding mathematical formulations in time. However,
to him the main achievement of GR was never the geometrization of gravity per se but its
unification with inertia13 . It is the essence of this unification, as expressed in the equivalence
principle, that gravitation can always be locally eliminated by changing the coordinate sys-
tem. At the same time, it is a basic fact about gauge theories that a gauge field force can be
made to locally vanish if it has zero field strength. We may speculate14 that the coincident
GR, which purifies gravity from both torsion and curvature, would have been the “Einstein’s
third GR” had he lived long enough to witness the spectacular success of the gauge principle
in the theories of particle physics.
13
See Ref. [14] for an elaboration on this point and references.
14
Recall indeed from (4.6) that the theory is the minimal covariantization of the Einstein Lagrangian (1916).

– 18 –
 #dof’s=10 - 2x(4Diffs) = 2

GR
{R↵ ↵
µ⌫ , T µ⌫ , Q↵µ⌫ }

Z
1 p
S= d4 x gR
2

R
gµ⌫

In
=

at
e

R
.
↵

or
im

sio
+
↵T
et
+ ˚ spac

n-
Q
2D

fre
+
ric

es
+

D↵
et

pa
T
am

(Q

ce
t im ↵
↵
R
In

Massless spin-2 field

e
=

Q̃
R

)
TEGR STEGR
↵ ↵ Equivalence Principle ↵ ↵
{R µ⌫ , T µ⌫ , Q↵µ⌫ } {R µ⌫ , T µ⌫ , Q↵µ⌫ }
Z Z
1 p 1 p
S= d4 x g T̊ S= d4 x gQ
2 2
gµ⌫ ⇠
⇤↵
#dof’s=16 - 2x4Diffs - 6 (Local Lorentz) = 2 #dof’s=10+4 - 4Diffs (CG) - 2x 4Diffs’(bound.) = 2

Figure 2. This figure summarises the three alternative gravitational descriptions of gravity together
with its main properties. In the GR description, the fundamental object is the metric tensor gµν ,
the spacetime is curved, but metric-compatible and torsion-free and the 4 Diffs symmetry reduce the
dofs from 10 to 2. The TEGR has the inertial connection parameterised by Λα β ∈ GL(4, R) as its
fundamental object, which generates torsion, but the connection and the non-metricity are trivial.
Diffs plus the local Lorentz symmetry reduce the 16 independent components of Λα β to 2. Finally,
the STEGR contains the metric gµν and ξ α as fundamental elements. In this case, ξ α generates a
flat and torsion-free connection and only the non-metricity piece is left. Furthermore, ξ α can be
fully removed by a suitable choice of coordinates (the coincident gauge) leaving a trivial connection.
In that gauge, the presence of a second Diffs symmetry realised up to boundary terms reduce the
number of dofs to two. At the heart of these equivalences lyes the fact that gravity describes a theory
for an interacting massless spin-2 particle, whose consistency requires the equivalence principle and,
thus, the possibility of describing it in geometrical terms.

The coincident GR realises gravity as the gauge theory of the group of translations, which
is the natural interpretation for the universal interaction sourced by energy and momentum,
the conjugates of the time and space translations, respectively. The metric teleparallel torsion

– 19 –
theory also had been suggested as a gauge theory of the translation group [4]. From the
gravity side, this interpretation however fails in that the connection is not a translation but
a Lorentz rotation as clarified15 in Section 3; from the matter side, the interpretation fails
due to the inconsistency of the minimal coupling that was discussed in Section 5. A paradox
about the Diffs is that the consistent realisation of their underlying gauge theory does not
allow the corresponding gauge field strength to exist. This reflects the special property of the
gravitational interaction whose “external” gauge geometry describes the spacetime itself, the
arena for the compact, “internal” geometries that describe the interactions of matter fields in
the standard model of particle physics.
Nevertheless, all of the three representations of the geometrical trinity remain to be useful
and provide important complementary perspectives to the nature of gravity.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the 3rd José Plı́nio Baptista School on Cosmology held in Pedra Azul and
their participants for a magnificent atmosphere. JBJ acknowledges support from the Atracción
del Talento Cientı́fico en Salamanca programme and the MINECO’s projects FIS2014-52837-
P and FIS2016-78859-P (AEI/FEDER). LH is supported by funding from the European Re-
search Council (ERC) under the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme grant agreement No 801781 and by the Swiss National Science Foundation grant
179740.

References
[1] E. Schrödinger, Space-time Structure Cambridge University Press, 1950; G. J. Olmo, “Palatini
Approach to Modified Gravity: f(R) Theories and Beyond,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20, 413
(2011) [arXiv:1101.3864 [gr-qc]]; L. Heisenberg, “A systematic approach to generalisations of
General Relativity and their cosmological implications,” arXiv:1807.01725 [gr-qc].
[2] J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, G. J. Olmo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, “Born-Infeld inspired
modifications of gravity,” Phys. Rept. 727, 1 (2018) [arXiv:1704.03351 [gr-qc]].
[3] G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Action Integrals and Partition Functions in Quantum
Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 15, 2752 (1977).
[4] R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, “Teleparallel Gravity : An Introduction,” Fundam. Theor.
Phys. 173 (2013).
[5] J. M. Nester and H. J. Yo, “Symmetric teleparallel general relativity,” Chin. J. Phys. 37
(1999) 113 [gr-qc/9809049].
15
More precisely, the spin connection ω is an SO, the affine connection Γ is a GL transformation.

– 20 –
 [6] J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg and T. Koivisto, “Teleparallel Palatini theories,” JCAP
1808, no. 08, 039 (2018) arXiv:1803.10185 [gr-qc].
[7] J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg and T. Koivisto, “Coincident General Relativity,” Phys.
Rev. D 98, no. 4, 044048 (2018) arXiv:1710.03116 [gr-qc].
[8] A. Golovnev, T. Koivisto and M. Sandstad, “On the covariance of teleparallel gravity
theories,” Class. Quant. Grav. 34, no. 14, 145013 (2017) [arXiv:1701.06271 [gr-qc]].
[9] M. Krssak, R. J. Van Den Hoogen, J. G. Pereira, C. G. Boehmer and A. A. Coley,
“Teleparallel Theories of Gravity: Illuminating a Fully Invariant Approach,” arXiv:1810.12932
[gr-qc].
[10] T. Ortin, “Gravity and Strings,” doi:10.1017/CBO9781139019750
[11] T. Koivisto and G. Tsimperis, “The spectrum of teleparallel gravity,” arXiv:1810.11847 [gr-qc].
[12] It is noteworthy that Einstein considered these five non-metricity terms with a trivial
connection, which corresponds to our coincident gauge: A. Einstein, Plenary Session of Nov.
19, 1914-Comm. of the phys. math sec of Oct. 29, ”The Formal Foundation of the General
Theory of Relativity”.
[13] Y. N. Obukhov and J. G. Pereira, “Lessons of spin and torsion: Reply to ‘Consistent coupling
to Dirac fields in teleparallelism’,” Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 128502 [gr-qc/0406015].
[14] D. Lehmkuhl, “Why Einstein did not believe that general relativity geometrizes gravity,”
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of
Modern Physics 69 (2014) 316-326.

– 21 –