Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

`Translation invariant' black hole: autoparallels and complete integrability

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read In a torsionful Schwarzschild black hole, autoparallel test bodies are repelled before the horizon unless their energy is negative.

desk verdict Sound integrability proof for a torsionful black hole, but the effective potential section is genuinely wrong and contradicts the paper's own radial infall result. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02301 v1 pith:SD5W7XR4 submitted 2025-06-02 gr-qc

Jens Boos This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783D0537J35 PACS 04.70.-s04.50.Kd
keywords PoincaregaugegravitytorsionautoparallelscompleteintegrabilitySchwarzschildblackholeautoparallelKillingvectorseffectivepotentialWeitzenbockgeometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies how particles fall in a black hole whose spacetime carries torsion, the post-Riemannian structure of Poincaré gauge gravity. It proves complete integrability of autoparallel motion for a wide class of static, spherically symmetric geometries with vanishing Riemann–Cartan curvature: four commuting autoparallel Killing vectors provide four conserved quantities that determine every orbit. Specializing to an exact Schwarzschild solution of quadratic Poincaré gauge gravity with torsion scaling as $GM/r^2$, the paper shows that autoparallels behave very differently from geodesics: positive-energy infall turns around outside $r=2GM$, while only particles with $E\le -1$ reach the horizon. The result matters because torsion grows faster than curvature near compact objects, so orbital motion is a potential window into post-Riemannian gravity.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the autoparallel equation $u^\alpha\nabla_\alpha u^\mu=0$, the straightest-path condition using the full torsionful connection, together with the autoparallel Killing equation $\nabla_{(\mu}K_{\nu)}=0$. A vector $K^\mu$ satisfying this equation gives a conserved quantity $Q=u^\mu K_\mu$ along autoparallel motion. Four independent such vectors, constructed for the off-shell class with $R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}=0$, generate the constants $E,P_1,P_2,P_3$ and enforce the flat-space-like dispersion relation $E^2=P_1^2+P_2^2+P_3^2-u^2$; their vanishing T-brackets make the symmetry group Abelian. This structure reduces the equations of motion to the first-order system (84)–(87) and produces the angle-dependent effective potential (101) that drives the repulsive dynamics.

What would settle it

A decisive check is a numerical integration of the torsionful Mathisson–Papapetrou–Dixon equations for a small spinning body in the Baekler geometry: if the radial velocity never changes sign at the predicted $r_*$ or if the conserved quantities $E,P_i$ drift, the autoparallel description is not the physical one. Alternatively, constructing another exact static spherically symmetric vacuum solution of the same theory with a different torsion profile and showing that its autoparallels are attractive would demonstrate that the repulsion is tied to the $GM/r^2$ ansatz rather than to torsion itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proves that for any static, spherically symmetric metric of the form (27) whose torsion satisfies the constraints $T_1=-f'/(2f)$, $T_2=-f'/2$, $T_3=(1-f)/(2r)$, $T_4=(f-1)/(2rf)$—equivalently vanishing Riemann–Cartan curvature, $R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}=0$—the four vector fields (28) are autoparallel Killing vectors. They commute under the torsion-modified bracket and reduce to translation generators in the flat limit, which is why the geometries are called “translation invariant.” Along autoparallel motion they yield constants $E,P_1,P_2,P_3$ obeying $E^2=P_1^2+P_2^2+P_3^2-u^2$, making the motion completely integrable off-shell. Invoking the quadratic Poincaré gauge gravity field equations re-derives the Baekler solution: the Schwarzschild metric $f=1-2GM/r$ with torsion $T_1=T_4=-GM/(r^2 f)$ and $T_2=-T_3=-GM/r^2$, whose axial torsion piece vanishes. For this geometry, radial autoparallel infall with positive energy reaches a turning point $r_*>2GM$ and cannot enter the black hole; continuous infall requires $E\le -1$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that physical test bodies move on autoparallels of the torsionful connection; the paper itself notes it is not yet established that Poincaré gauge gravity yields the autoparallel equation from a point-particle limit, so if real bodies follow geodesics or the torsionful Mathisson–Papapetrou–Dixon equations, the repulsion and integrability results would not describe actual motion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every autoparallel orbit in the off-shell class with $R=0$ is fixed by four constants $E,P_1,P_2,P_3$ together with $E^2=P_1^2+P_2^2+P_3^2-u^2$, so no further integration is needed.
  • For the on-shell Schwarzschild solution with torsion $GM/r^2$, positive-energy massive and null autoparallels are repelled: radial infall turns around at $r_*>2GM$, and only $E\le -1$ reaches the horizon.
  • Because the axial, totally antisymmetric torsion piece vanishes for this solution, it evades the strongest current torsion constraints from spinor couplings and Hughes–Drever-type experiments.
  • Angular momentum is not conserved along autoparallels, and the effective potential is angle-dependent, so the notion of bound orbits differs from the familiar Schwarzschild geodesic case.
  • Geodesic and autoparallel motion differ substantially in the same spacetime, giving a way to distinguish Levi-Civita parallel transport from torsionful parallel transport observationally.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the autoparallel equation is the correct physical law of motion, the repulsion provides a macroscopic strong-field signature that could distinguish Poincaré gauge gravity from general relativity in orbital data; if not, the integrability result remains a mathematical property of a model trajectory.
  • The flat dispersion relation $E^2=P_1^2+P_2^2+P_3^2-u^2$ suggests that torsion effectively transmutes the $SO(3)$ isometry of Schwarzschild spacetime into an Abelian translation group, a feature the paper notes is not expected to hold for all Poincaré gauge black holes.
  • A testable extension is to search for exact vacuum solutions of the same field equations with exponentially decaying torsion; if such profiles exist, the anti-gravitational effect would shrink and autoparallel orbits could resemble geodesic ones, separating the role of the $GM/r^2$ profile from torsion itself.
  • The off-shell integrability theorem applies to every static, spherically symmetric Weitzenböck-type geometry with vanishing Riemann–Cartan curvature, so the same four-constant scheme could serve as a model-independent diagnostic for exotic compact objects in any theory of that class.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies autoparallel motion of test bodies in static, spherically symmetric spacetimes with torsion in the context of Poincaré gauge gravity. It constructs four explicitly given vector fields ξ and ρ_I which, for geometries with vanishing Riemann–Cartan curvature, satisfy ∇_ν K^μ = 0 and give rise to four conserved quantities E, P1, P2, P3 for autoparallel motion. The paper re-derives the Baekler black hole solution with torsion scaling as GM/r^2, restricts to the asymptotically flat case, and analyzes radial infall and equatorial motion. The central dynamical claims are that massive positive-energy autoparallels cannot reach the horizon and are instead turned back at r_* > 2GM, whereas continuous infall requires E ≤ -1, and that this is the first complete-integrability result for autoparallels in this class of torsionful geometries.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper gives an explicit, closed-form family of torsionful black-hole geometries in which autoparallel motion is reduced to a first-order linear system with four constants, and it makes a sharp, falsifiable dynamical prediction: positive-energy test autoparallels are repelled from the Baekler black hole, in contrast to geodesic motion. This is a genuinely useful stepping stone for studying test-body motion in Poincaré gauge gravity, and the derivation is largely self-contained: the conserved quantities are computed from explicit vector fields, and the black-hole solution is re-derived from the field equations rather than assumed. At the same time, the physical interpretation is explicitly conditional, as the paper itself concedes in Sec. V that the autoparallel equation of motion is on less established footing than the geodesic equation; that caveat is appropriate and should be retained.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (92)] Eq. (92) states E^2 - P1^2 - P2^2 = -1 for massive particles, but this contradicts Eq. (82) together with the massive normalization u^μ u_μ = -1 used already in Eq. (74). The correct relation is E^2 - P1^2 - P2^2 = +1. This is load-bearing: the radial-infall analysis in Sec. IV.C uses P1 = -sqrt(E^2 - 1) in Eq. (96), which is the plus-sign relation. If Eq. (92) were taken literally, Eq. (96) would instead be P1 = -sqrt(E^2 + 1), and for E = 3/2 the resulting Eq. (98) is negative at r = 2GM, so no turning point before the horizon would occur. The paper must correct Eq. (92) and state explicitly that the massive normalization is u^μ u_μ = -1.
  2. [Sec. IV.D, Eq. (101)] The effective potential as printed is not consistent with Eqs. (89)-(91). Direct use of the metric and the expansion u = E ξ + P_1 ρ_1 + P_2 ρ_2 gives dot r^2 = [E(1-GM/r) + (GM/r)(P1 cosφ + P2 sinφ)]^2 - (1-2GM/r)[1 + (P2 cosφ - P1 sinφ)^2], so the coefficient of the bracket containing P2 cosφ - P1 sinφ should be (1-2GM/r), not 1. For the paper's own example E = 3/2, P1 = -sqrt(5/4), P2 = 0, φ = 0, at r = 2GM the printed Eq. (101) gives V_eff - E^2 = 1 - [3/4 - sqrt(5)/4]^2 ≈ 0.96 > 0, hence dot r^2 < 0, while Eq. (90) gives dot r ≈ 0.191 and dot r^2 ≈ 0.036. The asserted property 'V_eff < E^2 for all allowed values ... and r > 2GM' is therefore false for the printed formula. With the missing factor (1-2GM/r) restored, the effective-potential description is consistent with the radial-infall turning point, and the inequality should be re-proved and stated as non-negativity of dot r^2, with equality at the turning point.
  3. [Sec. IV.B and Sec. V] The claim of 'complete integrability' is used without a precise definition or a proof of the integrability criterion. The paper shows that four conserved quantities and the normalization reduce autoparallel motion to the explicitly given first-order system (84)-(87), which is a strong and useful solvability statement. However, the phrase 'complete integrability' is not a standard term of art for this non-Hamiltonian setting, and the paper should either define the sense in which the system is completely integrable (for example, that all trajectories are obtained by integrating an explicitly given vector field with four constants) or avoid the terminology. This matters because the title and the abstract present complete integrability as the main result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.F, Eq. (67)] The index structure in Eq. (67) appears garbled: ~ρ_I uses epsilon with I, J, K but no free K appears and the index J is repeated in ρ_α J and ρ_β J; the intended expression likely involves ρ_J and ρ_K with antisymmetrization.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Sec. III.B, Sec. III.C] There are several small presentation typos: 'Highes–Drever' should be 'Hughes–Drever', 'as it turns our' should be 'as it turns out', and 'in der von der Heyde model' should be 'in the von der Heyde model'.
  3. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (82)] Eq. (82) is phrased as the norm of the 4-momentum, but the object u^μ is the 4-velocity; either define p^μ = m u^μ or call u^μ the 4-velocity throughout.
  4. [Sec. IV.D, Fig. 1] The figure is helpful, but the caption does not specify the integration method or the initial conditions used to generate the orbits; a brief statement of these choices would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: conserved quantities and black hole solution are derived in-paper from explicit vector fields and the field equations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The conserved quantities E, P1, P2, P3 are computed as explicit dot products between the four-velocity and the vector fields in Eq. (28), and the autoparallel Killing property ∇_(μ K_ν)=0 is verified in Eq. (36) under the torsion constraints (32) obtained from R_μνρσ=0. The Schwarzschild-type geometry is obtained by substituting the static spherically symmetric ansatz (27) into the vacuum field equations of Poincaré gauge gravity (22), not assumed as an input. The citation [41] to the author's prior work provides only terminology and a standard conservation statement; the substantive construction, verification, and integration are carried out in the present paper. No parameters are fitted and no prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. The apparent sign discrepancy between Eqs. (82) and (92) is an internal consistency issue that affects the physical conclusions, but it is not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the PGG framework and field equations taken from the literature, the off-shell condition R=0, the four-function spherically symmetric torsion ansatz, and the physical assumption that test bodies follow autoparallels. One set of coupling constants is chosen by hand to make the effective cosmological constant vanish. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved entities are introduced beyond the vector fields inherited from the geometry.

free parameters (1)
  • PGG coupling constants (a0, a1, a2, a3, Lambda) = a0=1, a1=-1, a2=2, a3=-1, Lambda=0
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (57) to set the effective cosmological constant to zero and make the Baekler solution satisfy R=0. This is a theory-parameter choice, not derived from data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Test bodies follow the autoparallel equation u^alpha grad_alpha u^mu = 0
    The paper's central results are about autoparallels. The physical status is explicitly acknowledged as unclear in Sec. V.
  • domain assumption The Riemann-Cartan curvature vanishes, R_mu nu rho sigma = 0, for the class of geometries considered
    Imposed off-shell in Sec. III.B. This condition is needed for the four vectors in Eq. (28) to be autoparallel Killing vectors and for the Baekler solution under the chosen couplings.
  • domain assumption The static spherically symmetric torsion ansatz with four functions T1..T4 captures the relevant solutions
    Sec. III.A assumes SO(3)-symmetric torsion with reflection symmetry; the paper notes other authors use six functions in Ref. [39] versus four in Ref. [40].
  • domain assumption The Poincare gauge gravity field equations (22) derived from Lagrangian (21) are accepted as the dynamical equations
    Sec. II.C takes the field equations from Ref. [8]; the paper does not re-derive them from the Lagrangian.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of `Translation invariant' black hole: autoparallels and complete integrability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SD5W7XR4

@misc{pith2026250602301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: `Translation invariant' black hole: autoparallels and complete integrability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SD5W7XR4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02301}
}
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 Poincar\'e 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).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Visualization of positive energy (right side) and nega [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    General relativity Settinga I =b I = Λ = 0 and only keepinga 0 ̸= 0, the field equations for (27) immediately imply (for anya 0) T1 =T 2 =T 3 =T 4 = 0, f= 1− 2GM r ,(43) which is the Schwarzschild solution of general relativity

    work page

  2. [2]

    This remains true in this framework: setting only Λ = 0 we still find a solution provided T1 =T 2 =T 3 =T 4 = 0, f= 1− 2GM r ,(44)

    Quadratic torsion-free gravity As is well known, the Schwarzschild metric is also a solution of quadratic gravity in vacuum. This remains true in this framework: setting only Λ = 0 we still find a solution provided T1 =T 2 =T 3 =T 4 = 0, f= 1− 2GM r ,(44)

    work page

  3. [3]

    confinement potential

    Generic Poincar´ e gauge gravity Allowing now the torsion to be non-zero, let us now de- scribe an explicit solution of the field equation first found by Baekler [44]. To understand this solution better, let us first abandon the curvature constraintR µνρσ = 0. We will see in a few moments how it emerges naturally and even allows for a physical interpretat...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Progress toward a theory of supergravity,

    D. Z. Freedman, P. van Nieuwenhuizen and S. Ferrara, “Progress toward a theory of supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D13, 3214 (1976),

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    Measuring distance and properties of the Milky Way’s central supermassive black hole with stellar orbits,

    A. M. Ghez, S. Salim, N. N. Weinberg, J. R. Lu, T. Do, J. K. Dunn, K. Matthews, M. Morris, S. Yelda and E. E. Becklin,et al., “Measuring distance and properties of the Milky Way’s central supermassive black hole with stellar orbits,” Astrophys. J.689, 1044 (2008), 0808.2870 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Monitoring stellar or- bits around the massive black hole in the galactic center,

    S. Gillessen, F. Eisenhauer, S. Trippe, T. Alexander, R. Genzel, F. Martins and T. Ott, “Monitoring stellar or- bits around the massive black hole in the galactic center,” Astrophys. J.692, 1075 (2009), 0810.4674 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Hidden symmetries of higher-dimensional rotating black holes,

    D. Kubiznak, “Hidden symmetries of higher-dimensional rotating black holes,” 0809.2452 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Poincar\'e gauge gravity primer

    Y. N. Obukhov, “Poincar´ e gauge gravity primer,” Lect. Notes Phys.1017, 105 (2023), 2206.05205 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Supergravity,

    P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, “Supergravity,” Phys. Rept.68, 189 (1981)

    1981

  2. [10]

    General relativity with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects,

    F. W. Hehl, P. Von Der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick and J. M. Nester, “General relativity with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects,” Rev. Mod. Phys.48, 393 11 (1976)

    1976

  3. [11]

    Metric affine gauge theory of gravity: Field equa- tions, Noether identities, world spinors, and breaking of dilation invariance,

    F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke and Y. Ne’eman, “Metric affine gauge theory of gravity: Field equa- tions, Noether identities, world spinors, and breaking of dilation invariance,” Phys. Rept.258, 1 (1995), gr- qc/9402012

    1995

  4. [12]

    The particle spectrum of parity- violating Poincar´ e gravitational theory,

    G. K. Karananas, “The particle spectrum of parity- violating Poincar´ e gravitational theory,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, 055012 (2015), 1411.5613 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    New ghost-free gravity Lagrangians with propagating torsion,

    E. Sezgin and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “New ghost-free gravity Lagrangians with propagating torsion,” Phys. Rev. D21, 3269 (1980)

    1980

  6. [14]

    Class of ghost-free gravity Lagrangians with massive or massless propagating torsion,

    E. Sezgin, “Class of ghost-free gravity Lagrangians with massive or massless propagating torsion,” Phys. Rev. D 24, 1677 (1981)

    1981

  7. [15]

    Propagating modes in gauge field theories of gravity,

    R. Kuhfuss and J. Nitsch, “Propagating modes in gauge field theories of gravity,” Gen. Rel. Grav.18, 1207 (1986)

    1986

  8. [16]

    Particle spectra of general Ricci-type Palatini or metric-affine theories,

    W. Barker and C. Marzo, “Particle spectra of general Ricci-type Palatini or metric-affine theories,” Phys. Rev. D109, 104017 (2024), 2402.07641 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gravity-induced four-fermion contact interaction implies gravitational intermediate W and Z type gauge bosons,

    J. Boos and F. W. Hehl, “Gravity-induced four-fermion contact interaction implies gravitational intermediate W and Z type gauge bosons,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.56, 751 (2017), 1606.09273 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    General Poincar´ e gauge theory: Hamiltonian structure and particle spec- trum,

    M. Blagojevi´ c and B. Cvetkovi´ c, “General Poincar´ e gauge theory: Hamiltonian structure and particle spec- trum,” Phys. Rev. D98, 024014 (2018), 1804.05556 [gr- qc]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    New class of ghost- and tachyon-free metric affine gravities,

    R. Percacci and E. Sezgin, “New class of ghost- and tachyon-free metric affine gravities,” Phys. Rev. D101, 084040 (2020), 1912.01023 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Con- straining torsion with Gravity Probe B,

    Y. Mao, M. Tegmark, A. H. Guth and S. Cabi, “Con- straining torsion with Gravity Probe B,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 104029 (2007), gr-qc/0608121

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Nonlinear spinor equa- tion and asymmetric connection in general relativity,

    F. W. Hehl and B. K. Datta, “Nonlinear spinor equa- tion and asymmetric connection in general relativity,” J. Math. Phys.12, 1334 (1971)

    1971

  14. [22]

    Physical aspects of the space-time tor- sion,

    I. L. Shapiro, “Physical aspects of the space-time tor- sion,” Phys. Rept.357, 113 (2002), hep-th/0103093

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Constraints on space-time torsion from Hughes-Drever experiments,

    C. Lammerzahl, “Constraints on space-time torsion from Hughes-Drever experiments,” Phys. Lett. A228, 223 (1997), gr-qc/9704047

    1997 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Neue Mechanik materieller Systeme,

    M. Mathisson, “Neue Mechanik materieller Systeme,” Acta Phys. Polon.6, 163-200 (1937)

    1937

  17. [25]

    Constraining spacetime torsion with the Moon and Mer- cury,

    R. March, G. Bellettini, R. Tauraso and S. Dell’Agnello, “Constraining spacetime torsion with the Moon and Mer- cury,” Phys. Rev. D83, 104008 (2011), 1101.2789 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Constraining spacetime torsion with LAGEOS,

    R. March, G. Bellettini, R. Tauraso and S. Dell’Agnello, “Constraining spacetime torsion with LAGEOS,” Gen. Rel. Grav.43, 3099 (2011), 1101.2791 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    On Poincar´ e gauge theory of gravity, its equations of mo- tion, and Gravity Probe B,

    F. W. Hehl, Y. N. Obukhov and D. Puetzfeld, “On Poincar´ e gauge theory of gravity, its equations of mo- tion, and Gravity Probe B,” Phys. Lett. A377, 1775 (2013), 1304.2769 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Unraveling gravity beyond Einstein with extended test bodies,

    D. Puetzfeld and Y. N. Obukhov, “Unraveling gravity beyond Einstein with extended test bodies,” Phys. Lett. A377, 2447 (2013), 1307.3933 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Spinning test particles in general rela- tivity. 1.,

    A. Papapetrou, “Spinning test particles in general rela- tivity. 1.,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A209, 248 (1951)

    1951

  22. [30]

    A covariant multipole formalism for ex- tended test bodies in general relativity,

    W. G. Dixon, “A covariant multipole formalism for ex- tended test bodies in general relativity,” Nuovo Cim.34, 317 (1964)

    1964

  23. [31]

    Motion of test particles in spacetimes with torsion and nonmetricity,

    D. Iosifidis and F. W. Hehl, “Motion of test particles in spacetimes with torsion and nonmetricity,” Phys. Lett. B850, 138498 (2024), 2310.15595 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Demystifying au- toparallels in alternative gravity,

    Y. N. Obukhov and D. Puetzfeld, “Demystifying au- toparallels in alternative gravity,” Phys. Rev. D104, 044031 (2021), 2105.08428 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Equations of motion in gravity theories with non-minimal coupling: a loophole to detect torsion macroscopically?,

    D. Puetzfeld and Y. N. Obukhov, “Equations of motion in gravity theories with non-minimal coupling: a loophole to detect torsion macroscopically?,” Phys. Rev. D88, 064025 (2013), 1308.3369 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Prospects of detecting spacetime torsion,

    D. Puetzfeld and Y. N. Obukhov, “Prospects of detecting spacetime torsion,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D23, 1442004 (2014)., 1405.4137 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Multipolar test body equations of motion in generalized gravity theories,

    Y. N. Obukhov and D. Puetzfeld, “Multipolar test body equations of motion in generalized gravity theories,” Fund. Theor. Phys.179, 67 (2015) 1505.01680 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Integrability conditions for Killing–Yano tensors and maximally symmetric spaces in the presence of torsion,

    C. Batista, “Integrability conditions for Killing–Yano tensors and maximally symmetric spaces in the presence of torsion,” Phys. Rev. D91, 084036 (2015), 1501.05029 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Sym- metries of the Dirac operator with skew-symmetric tor- sion,

    T. Houri, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, C. Warnick and Y. Yasui, “Sym- metries of the Dirac operator with skew-symmetric tor- sion,” Class. Quant. Grav.27, 185019 (2010), 1002.3616 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Local metrics admitting a principal Killing–Yano tensor with torsion,

    T. Houri, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, C. M. Warnick and Y. Yasui, “Local metrics admitting a principal Killing–Yano tensor with torsion,” Class. Quant. Grav.29, 165001 (2012), 1203.0393 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    autoparallel Killing equation

    as opposed to just four [40]. As it turns our, six non-vanishing coefficients are consistent with O(3)- symmetric; SO(3) symmetry then sets two additional co- efficients to zero. Since reflection symmetry is respected by ordinary, classical matter around a central object, we h...

  32. [40]

    Cones of G manifolds and Killing spinors with skew torsion,

    I. Agricola and J. H¨ oll, “Cones of G manifolds and Killing spinors with skew torsion,” 1303.3601 [math.DG]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Affine Killing vector fields on homogeneous surfaces with tor- sion,

    D. D’Ascanio, P. B. Gilkey and P. Pisani, “Affine Killing vector fields on homogeneous surfaces with tor- sion,” Class. Quant. Grav.36, 145008 (2019), 1906.01694 [math.DG]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Principal tensor strikes again: Sep- arability of vector equations with torsion,

    R. Cayuso, F. Gray, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, A. Margalit, R. Gomes Souza and L. Thiele, “Principal tensor strikes again: Sep- arability of vector equations with torsion,” Phys. Lett. B 795, 650 (2019), 1906.10072 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Spherically symmetric solutions in torsion bigravity,

    T. Damour and V. Nikiforova, “Spherically symmetric solutions in torsion bigravity,” Phys. Rev. D100, 024065 (2019), 1906.11859 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Generalized Birkhoff theorem in the Poincar´ e gauge gravity theory,

    Y. N. Obukhov, “Generalized Birkhoff theorem in the Poincar´ e gauge gravity theory,” Phys. Rev. D102, 104059 (2020), 2009.00284 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Torsion in two dimensions: autoparallels, sym- metries, and applications to black holes,

    J. Boos, “Torsion in two dimensions: autoparallels, sym- metries, and applications to black holes,” 2504.06013 [gr- qc]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Teleparallel Killing vectors of spherically symmetric spacetimes,

    M. Sharif and B. Majeed, “Teleparallel Killing vectors of spherically symmetric spacetimes,” Commun. Theor. Phys.52, 435 (2009), 0905.3212 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Conserved quantities in the presence of torsion: A generalization of Killing’s theorem,

    C. Peterson and Y. Bonder, “Conserved quantities in the presence of torsion: A generalization of Killing’s theorem,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A35, 2050052 (2019), 1904.12913 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A spherically symmetric vacuum solution of the quadratic Poincar´ e gauge field theory of gravitation with Newtonian and confinement potentials,

    P. Baekler, “A spherically symmetric vacuum solution of the quadratic Poincar´ e gauge field theory of gravitation with Newtonian and confinement potentials,” Phys. Lett. B99, 329 (1981)

    1981

  41. [49]

    Short-range confining component in a quadratic Poincar´ e gauge theory of gravitation,

    F. W. Hehl, Y. Ne’eman, J. Nitsch and P. von der Heyde, “Short-range confining component in a quadratic Poincar´ e gauge theory of gravitation,” Phys. Lett. B78, 102 (1978)

    1978

  42. [50]

    Spherically symmetric solutions of the Poincar´ e gauge field theory,

    P. Baekler, “Spherically symmetric solutions of the Poincar´ e gauge field theory,” Phys. Lett. A96, 279 12 (1983)

    1983

  43. [51]

    A spherically symmetric electrovacuum so- lution of the Poincar´ e gauge field theory of gravitation

    C. H. Lee, “A spherically symmetric electrovacuum so- lution of the Poincar´ e gauge field theory of gravitation” Phys. Lett. B130, 257 (1983)

    1983

  44. [52]

    New torsion black hole solutions in Poincar´ e gauge theory,

    J. A. R. Cembranos and J. G. Valcarcel, “New torsion black hole solutions in Poincar´ e gauge theory,” JCAP 01, 014 (2017), 1608.00062 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Extended Reissner–Nordstr¨ om solutions sourced by dynamical tor- sion,

    J. A. R. Cembranos and J. Gigante Valcarcel, “Extended Reissner–Nordstr¨ om solutions sourced by dynamical tor- sion,” Phys. Lett. B779, 143 (2018), 1708.00374 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Exact solutions in Poincar´ e gauge grav- ity theory,

    Y. N. Obukhov, “Exact solutions in Poincar´ e gauge grav- ity theory,” Universe5, 127 (2019), 1905.11906 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Regular black hole from a confined spin con- nection in Poincar´ e gauge gravity,

    J. Boos, “Regular black hole from a confined spin con- nection in Poincar´ e gauge gravity,” Phys. Lett. B848, 138403 (2024), 2308.13017 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Is gravitation mediated by the torsion of spacetime?,

    P. von der Heyde, “Is gravitation mediated by the torsion of spacetime?,” Z. Naturforsch.31a, 1725 (1976)

    1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.