The Astrophysical Journal, 829:47 (9pp), 2016 September 20 doi:10.

3847/0004-637X/829/1/47
© 2016. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.

EINSTEIN–CARTAN GRAVITY WITH TORSION FIELD SERVING AS AN ORIGIN

FOR THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT OR DARK ENERGY DENSITY
A. N. Ivanov1 and M. Wellenzohn1,2
1
Atominstitut, Technische Universität Wien, Stadionallee 2, A-1020 Wien, Austria; [email protected], [email protected]
2
FH Campus Wien, University of Applied Sciences, Favoritenstraße 226, A-1100 Wien, Austria
Received 2016 July 2; revised 2016 July 10; accepted 2016 July 12; published 2016 September 21

ABSTRACT
We analyse the Einstein–Cartan gravity in its standard form  = R + 2 , where  and R are the Ricci scalar
curvatures in the Einstein–Cartan and Einstein gravity, respectively, and 2 is the quadratic contribution of torsion
in terms of the contorsion tensor  . We treat torsion as an external (or background) field and show that its
contribution to the Einstein equations can be interpreted in terms of the torsion energy–momentum tensor, local
conservation of which in a curved spacetime with an arbitrary metric or an arbitrary gravitational field demands a
proportionality of the torsion energy–momentum tensor to a metric tensor, a covariant derivative of which vanishes
owing to the metricity condition. This allows us to claim that torsion can serve as an origin for the vacuum energy
density, given by the cosmological constant or dark energy density in the universe. This is a model-independent
result that may explain the small value of the cosmological constant, which is a long-standing problem in
cosmology. We show that the obtained result is valid also in the Poincaré gauge gravitational theory of Kibble,
where the Einstein–Hilbert action can be represented in the same form:  = R + 2 .
Key words: cosmology: theory – dark energy – large-scale structure of universe

1. INTRODUCTION & Wellenzohn 2015b). The presence of phenomenological

coupling constants screens real values of the torsion vector m
Torsion is a natural geometrical quantity additional to a
and tensor smn components. Nevertheless, an observation of
metric tensor. It is accepted (Hehl et al. 1976; Hammond 2002;
these non-minimal torsion–fermion interactions should testify
Shapiro 2002; Kostelecky 2004; Hehl & Obukhov 2007; Ni
2010; Hehl 2012; Blagojević & Hehl 2013) that torsion to the existence of torsion and correctness of Einstein–Cartan
characterizes spacetime geometry through spin–matter interac- gravitational theory. It should be emphasized that, as has been
tions, which allow us to probe the rotational degrees of freedom shown in Ivanov & Wellenzohn (2015b) some effective low-
of spacetime in terrestrial laboratories (Rumpf 1979; Lämmer- energy interactions of torsion 4-vector m = ( 0, – ) and
zahl 1997; Kostelecky et al. 2008; Lehnert et al. 2014, 2015; tensor smn components, caused by non-minimal torsion–
Obukhov et al. 2014; Ivanov & Wellenzohn 2015a, 2015b, fermion couplings, do not depend on a fermion spin. Then, as
2015c, 2016a). However, as has been shown recently (Ivanov shown in Ivanov & Wellenzohn (2015c,2016a), torsion vector
& Wellenzohn 2016a), the requirement of linking torsion and and tensor components can be probed in terrestrial laboratories
fermion spin through torsion–fermion minimal couplings is through torsion–fermion minimal couplings in spacetimes with
violated in the low-energy approximation in curved spacetimes rotation (Hehl & Ni 1990; Landau & Lifschitz 2008; Obukhov
with rotation (see Equation (22) of Ivanov & et al. 2009, 2011). Some steps toward the creation of such
Wellenzohn 2016a). The latter allows us to admit the existence spacetimes in terrestrial laboratories have been made by
of torsion even without spinning matter. In such an approach Atwood et al. (1984) and Mashhoon (1988), who used rotating
torsion can be treated as an external (or background) field, neutron interferometers. Estimates of constant torsion, coupled
defined by a third-order tensor  smn , antisymmetric with respect to Dirac fermions, have been carried out by Lämmerzahl
to indices μ and ν, i.e.,  smn = – snm (Shapiro 2002; (1997), Kostelecky et al. (2008) and Obukhov et al. (2014) and
Kostelecky et al. 2008; Lehnert et al. 2014, 2015; Ivanov & discussed by Ivanov & Wellenzohn (2015b). Recently, Lehnert
Wellenzohn 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2016a), which can be et al. (2014) have measured in liquid a rotation angle f PV of the
introduced into the Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory as neutron spin about a neutron 3-momentum p per unit length
an antisymmetric part of the affine connection through df PV dL . Using the results obtained by Kostelecky et al.
the metricity condition (Rebhan 2012). Such a torsion tensor (2008), Lehnert et al. (2014) found that df PV dL = 2z . The
field possesses 24 independent components, which can be parameter ζ is a superposition of the scalar T0 ~  0 and
decomposed into 4-vector m = ( 0, – ), 4-axial-vector pseudoscalar A0 ~  torsion components equal to
m = ( , – ) and 16-tensor smn components (Shapiro 2002; z = (2 mx (85) - x (24) ) T0 + (2 mx (95) - x (44) ) A0 , where m is the
Kostelecky et al. 2008; see also Ivanov & Wellenzohn 2015b). neutron mass and x (85), x (24), x (95) and x (44) are phenomenological
As has been shown in Ivanov & Wellenzohn (2015b), only constants introduced by Kostelecky et al. (2008). The
torsion axial-vector m components are present in the torsion– experiment by Lehnert et al. (2014) is based on the
fermion minimal couplings in curved spacetimes with metric phenomenon of neutron optical activity, related to a rotation
tensors, providing vanishing time–space (spacetime) compo- of the plane of polarization of a transversely polarized slow-
nents of the vierbein fields. The torsion vector m and tensor neutron beam moving through matter. As has been reported by
smn components, coupled to Dirac fermions, appear through Lehnert et al. (2014), ζ is restricted from above by
torsion–fermion non-minimal couplings with phenomenologi- ∣z ∣ < 9.1 ´ 10-14 eV at 68% of C.L. Such an estimate is by
cal coupling constants (Kostelecky et al. 2008; see also Ivanov a factor 105 larger than the upper bound ∣z ∣ < 10-18 eV,

1
The Astrophysical Journal, 829:47 (9pp), 2016 September 20 Ivanov & Wellenzohn

calculated by Ivanov & Wellenzohn (2015b) using the 2008; Obukhov et al. 2014; Ivanov & Wellenzohn
estimates of Kostelecky et al. (2008). 2015b, 2015c, 2016a) and it is not governed by any equation
In this paper we analyse Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory of motion or boundary conditions, such a local conservation
without fermions. The aim is to show that torsion as a can be fulfilled if and only if the torsion energy–momentum
geometrical characteristic of a curved spacetime additional to a tensor is proportional to a metric tensor Tmn (tors)
~ gmn , whose
metric tensor can exist independently of spinning matter covariant derivative vanishes owing to the metricity condition
and play an important role in the evolution of the universe. gmn ; r = 0 (Hehl et al. 1976; Kostelecky 2004; Rebhan 2012).
Torsion in such an approach is treated as an external (or As a result, the torsion energy–momentum tensor becomes
background) field (Shapiro 2002; Kostelecky et al. 2008; equivalent to the vacuum energy–momentum tensor, the
Lehnert et al. 2014; Obukhov et al. 2014; Ivanov & contribution of which can be described in terms of the
Wellenzohn 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2016a). In Section 2 we cosmological constant (Rebhan 2012) or dark energy density
show that the gravity-torsion part of the Einstein–Hilbert action (Peebles & Ratra 2003; Copeland et al. 2006). This gives the
of Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory can be given in the relation  = gmn mn = gmn (j am anj - aaj j nm) = -2LC
additive form ò d 4x -g = ò d 4x -g R +ò d 4x -g  , (see Equation (25)). We would like to emphasize that the
where  = gmn mn and R = gmn Rmn are scalar curvatures identification of the contribution of torsion to the Einstein–
in the Einstein–Cartan and Einstein gravity, respectively, Hilbert action and to the Einstein equations with the
with the Ricci tensor Rmn defined in terms of the metric contribution of cosmological constant is model-independent
tensor gmn only (Rebhan 2012). Then,  = gmn mn = due to the requirement of local conservation in a spacetime
gmn (j am anj - aaj j nm) is defined by torsion in terms with an arbitrary metric tensor. We may also argue that the
1
of the contorsion tensor smn = 2 ( smn +  msn +  nsm) constraint gmn (j am anj - aaj j nm) = -2LC admits var-
(Kostelecky 2004), and g = det {gmn }. The raising and low- iations of the torsion tensor field as an external field in
ering of indices are performed with metric tensors gmn and gmn , sufficiently broad limits of its components. Indeed, such a
respectively. In Section 3, for a curved spacetime with an constraint looks like a surface in the space of 24 torsion-
arbitrary metric tensor, we derive the Einstein equations in independent components. Thus, such a torsion-induced cosmo-
Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory with a chameleon (quin- logical constant is able to explain the small value of the
tessence) field and matter, defined in the cold dark matter cosmological constant, which is a long-standing problem in
(CDM) model (Olive et al. 2014) in terms of a matter density r cosmology (Weinberg 1989; see also Peebles & Ratra 2003).
in the Einstein frame (Brax et al. 2004; Khoury & Weltman Of course, probing the torsion tensor field components can be
2004a, 2004b; Mota & Shaw 2007a, 2007b; Ivanov & possible only through interactions with spin particles, in
Wellenzohn 2016b). The contribution of the chameleon field particular with Dirac fermions (Rumpf 1979; Lämmer-
(Khoury & Weltman 2004a, 2004b; Mota & Shaw 2007a, zahl 1997; Kostelecky 2004; Kostelecky et al. 2008; Lehnert
2007b) is justified by its properties (i) to be responsible for the et al. 2014, 2015; Obukhov et al. 2014; Ivanov & Wellenzohn
late-time acceleration of the universe expansion (Brax 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2016a). Nevertheless, we emphasize that
et al. 2004; Ivanov & Wellenzohn 2016b) and (ii) to have a not all of torsion–fermion interactions are defined by a fermion
locally conserved energy–momentum tensor in a curved spin. As has been shown in Ivanov & Wellenzohn (2016a) in
spacetime with an arbitrary metric tensor (see Appendix A). curved spacetimes with rotation, torsion scalar and tensor
We show that (i) torsion does not couple to spinless matter and components couple to massive Dirac fermions through low-
(ii) the contribution of torsion to the Einstein equations can be energy non-spin interactions, caused by minimal torsion–
interpreted in terms of the torsion energy–momentum tensor fermion couplings. In Section 4 we discuss the obtained results
. Since the Einstein tensor G mn = Rmn - 2 gmn R , where
(tors) 1 and the equivalence between Einstein–Cartan gravitational
Tmn
R = gmn Rmn is the scalar curvature, obeys the Bianchi identity theory, analyzed in this paper, and Poincaré gauge gravitational
G mn ; m = 0 , where G mn ; m is a covariant divergence, in a curved theory (Kibble 1961; see also Utiyama 1956; Sciama 1961;
spacetime with an arbitrary metric tensor gmn or an arbitrary Sciama 1964; Blagojević 2001; Hehl et al. 1976; Hehl &
gravitational field (Rebhan 2012), the total energy–momentum Obukhov 2007; Hehl 2012; Blagojević & Hehl 2013; Obukhov
tensor of the system, including torsion, the chameleon field and et al. 2014) without spinning matter. In Appendix A we
matter, should be also locally conserved. We show (see calculate the covariant divergence of the energy–momentum
Appendix A) that the energy–momentum tensor of the tensor of the chameleon (quintessence) field and show that it
chameleon field has a vanishing covariant divergence, i.e., vanishes in a curved spacetime with an arbitrary metric tensor.
locally conserved in a curved spacetime with an arbitrary In Appendix B we analyse the results obtained from Poincaré
metric tensor (or an arbitrary gravitational field). Then we show gauge gravitational theory. We show that the integrand of the
that the matter energy–momentum tensor, defined in the CDM Einstein–Hilbert action e  = e em a en b mn ab of Poincaré
model, obeys in a curved spacetime with an arbitrary metric gauge gravitational theory, where e = -g and mn ab is its
tensor the evolution equation, which reduces in the Friedmann gravitational field strength tensor defined in terms of the
flat spacetime to the evolution equation, derived in Ivanov & vierbein fields em a and en b and torsion can be represented in
Wellenzohn (2016b). Because of the Bianchi identity for the the additive form e (R + ), where R = em a en b Rmn ab and Rmn ab
Einstein tensor G mn and local conservation of matter and is the gravitational field strength tensor defined only in terms of
chameleon field energy–momentum tensors in curved space- vierbein fields, and  = j am amj - aaj jm m . This allows
times with arbitrary metric tensors, the torsion energy– us to determine the contribution of torsion to the Einstein
momentum tensor also has to be locally conserved under the equations through the torsion energy–momentum tensor, local
same conditions. Since in our approach torsion is an external conservation of which demands its proportionality to a metric
(or background) field (Lämmerzahl 1997; Kostelecky et al. tensor.

2
The Astrophysical Journal, 829:47 (9pp), 2016 September 20 Ivanov & Wellenzohn

2. EINSTEIN–HILBERT ACTION IN EINSTEIN–CARTAN 3. EINSTEIN’S EQUATIONS IN EINSTEIN–CARTAN

GRAVITY WITH TORSION AND WITHOUT A GRAVITY WITH A CHAMELEON FIELD
CHAMELEON FIELD AND SPINLESS MATTER
We take the Einstein–Hilbert action SEH of Einstein–Cartan 3.1. Einstein’s Equations and the Torsion Energy–Momentum
gravity with torsion in the standard model-independent form Tensor
1 2 Using Equation (7) we take the action of the Einstein–Cartan
SEH =
2
MPl ò d 4x -g , (1 )
gravity with torsion and chameleon fields coupled to spinless
matter in the form
where MPl = 1 8pGN = 2.435 ´ 10 27 eV is the reduced
Planck mass, GN is the Newtonian gravitational constant (Olive 1 2 1 2
et al. 2014), and g is the determinant of the metric tensor gmn . SEH =
2
MPl ò d 4x -g R +
2
MPl ò d 4x -g 
The scalar curvature  is defined by (Kostelecky 2004)
= gmn a mn a
man = g (¶n G am - ¶a Ga nm + Ga nj Gj am
+ ò d 4x - g  [f ] + ò d 4x - g˜ m [g˜] , (8 )

a j mn
- G aj G nm ) = g mn , (2 ) where  [f] is the Lagrangian of the chameleon field
a
where mbn and mn are the Riemann and Ricci tensors in the 1 mn
Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory, respectively, and Ga mn is  [f ] = g ¶m f¶n f - V (f) , (9 )
2
the affine connection
Ga mn = {a mn} + a mn = {a mn} + gas smn . (3 ) where V (f ) is the potential of the chameleon self-interaction.
Spinless matter is described by the Lagrangian m [g˜mn ]. The
Here { a mn} are the Christoffel symbols (Rebhan 2012) interaction of spinless matter with the chameleon field runs
1 al through the metric tensor g˜mn in the Jordan frame (Khoury &
{a mn} = g (¶n glm + ¶m gln - ¶l gmn ) (4 )
2 Weltman 2004a, 2004b; Mota & Shaw 2007a, 2007b;
and smn is the contorsion tensor, related to torsion  smn by Dicke 1962), which is conformally related to the Einstein–
frame metric tensor gmn by g˜mn = f 2 gmn (or g˜ mn = f -2 gmn ) and
smn = 2 ( smn +  msn +  nsm) and  a mn = Ga mn - Ganm
1
-g˜ = f 4 -g with f = e bf MPl , where β is the chameleon–
(Kostelecky 2004). In the case of zero torsion the Riemann and
matter coupling constant (Khoury & Weltman 2004a, 2004b;
Ricci tensors reduce to their standard form (Rebhan 2012). The
Mota & Shaw 2007a, 2007b). The factor f = e bf MPl can be
integrand of the Einstein–Hilbert action, Equation (1), can be
interpreted also as a conformal coupling to matter (Dicke 1962;
represented in the following form:
see also Khoury & Weltman 2004a, 2004b; Mota & Shaw
- g  = -g R + -g  2007a, 2007b; Ivanov & Wellenzohn 2015a). Varying the
+ ¶m ( - g aam) - - g gmn action Equation (8) with respect to the metric tensor dgmn (see,
⎛ 1 ⎞ for example, Rebhan 2012) we arrive at the Einstein equations,
´⎜ ¶a ( - g  anm) - {j am} anj - {anj} j am⎟ , modified by the contribution of the chameleon field and torsion
⎝ -g ⎠
1 1
(5 ) Rmn - gmn R = - 2 Tmn , (10)
2 MPl
where we have denoted
 = gmn mn = gmn (j am anj - aaj j nm) . (6 ) where the Ricci tensor Rmn and the scalar curvature R are
expressed in terms of the Christoffel symbols only { a mn} and
In Equation (5), removing the total derivatives and integrating the metric tensor gmn in the Einstein frame (Rebhan 2012).
by parts, we may delete the third term and transcribe the fourth
Then, Tmn is the tensor
term into the form -g gmn ; a anm , where gmn ; a is the
covariant derivative of the metric tensor gmn , vanishing because (f)
Tmn = Tmn + f Tmn
(m )
+ Tmn
(tors)
, (11)
of the metricity condition gmn ; a = 0 . Thus, Equation (1) with
the scalar curvature Equation (2) can be represented in the which can be identified as the energy–momentum tensor of the
following additive form: torsion–chameleon–matter system, where Tmn (f )
and Tmn (m )
are the
1 2 1 2 chameleon field and matter (dark and baryon matter) energy–
SEH =
2
MPl ò d 4x -g R +
2
MPl ò d 4x -g . (7 )
momentum tensors. As has been shown by Ivanov &
Wellenzohn (2016b), the matter energy–momentum tensor
Below we use the Einstein–Hilbert action, Equation (7) for the
derivation of the Einstein equations in Einstein–Cartan
(m )
Tmn appears in the right-hand side (rhs) of the Einstein
gravitational theory with a chameleon (quintessence) field, equations multiplied by the conformal factor f. In the CDM
spinless matter and torsion as an external (or background) field model, accepted for the description of spinless matter in our
(Rumpf 1979; Lämmerzahl 1997; Shapiro 2002; Kostelecky analysis of Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory, the energy–
(m )
2004; Kostelecky et al. 2008; Lehnert et al. 2014, 2015; momentum tensor Tmn has only a time–time component
Obukhov et al. 2014; Ivanov & Wellenzohn 2015a, T00 = r , where ρ is the spinless matter density in the Einstein
(m )
(f )
2015b, 2015c, 2016a). frame. In turn, the energy–momentum tensor Tmn of the scalar

3
The Astrophysical Journal, 829:47 (9pp), 2016 September 20 Ivanov & Wellenzohn

field is defined by the matter energy–momentum tensor Q(m) mn should fulfil the
constraints
(f) 2 d
Tmn = ( - g  [f])
- g dgmn T (tors) mn ; m =
1
¶m ( - g T (tors) mn ) + {n ml} T (tors) ml = 0,
⎛1 ⎞ -g
= ¶m f¶n f - gmn ⎜ glr ¶l f ¶r f - V (f)⎟ . (12)
⎝2 ⎠ Q(m) mn ; m =
1
¶m ( - g Q(m) mn ) + {n ml} Q(m) ml = 0
(tors) -g
Then, the tensor Tmn arises from the contribution of the
torsion field and is defined by (18)

MPl2 d independently of each other. As has been shown by Ivanov &

(tors)
Tmn = ( - g ) . (13) Wellenzohn (2016b), local conservation of the matter energy–
- g dgmn
momentum tensor leads to the evolution equation for the matter
We identify this tensor as the torsion energy–momentum tensor density. Since in the CDM model, which we accept here for the
and investigate its properties below. Now we would like to description of matter, the matter energy–momentum tensor
rewrite the energy–momentum tensor of the scalar field in Q(m) mn is equal to
terms of the energy momentum tensor of the chameleon field. Q(m) mn = f r gm 0gn 0 - r ( f - 1) gmn , (19)
For this we have to take into account the equation of motion for
the chameleon field (Ivanov & Wellenzohn 2015a) the evolution equation for the matter density ρ in a curved
spacetime with an arbitrary metric gmn is
1 ¶Veff (f)
¶m ( - g ¶mf) + = 0, (14) 1
-g ¶f ¶m ( - g fr gm 0gn 0)
-g
where Veff (f ) is the effective potential for the chameleon field
given by (Khoury & Weltman 2004a, 2004b; Mota & Shaw + {n ml} fr gm 0gl0 = gmn ¶m (r ( f - 1)) , (20)
2007a, 2007b; Ivanov & Wellenzohn 2016b) where we have used the metricity condition gmn ; m = 0 .
Veff (f) = V (f) + r ( f (f) - 1) , (15) Then, Equation (20) can be rewritten in the more convenient
form
and to replace in Equation (12) the potential V (f ) of self-
interaction of the scalar (chameleon) field by the effective ⎛ 1
potential V (f ) = Veff (f ) - r ( f (f ) - 1). As a result, the first ¶n r + (gn 0¶ 0 ( fr ) - ¶n ( fr )) + ⎜ ¶m ( - g gm 0gn 0)
⎝ - g
two terms in the total energy–momentum tensor (Equation
(11)) are represented in the following form: + {n ml} gm 0gl0)( fr ) = 0.
(f) (21)
Tmn + f Tmn
(m )
= Tmn
(ch)
+ Q(mn
m)
, (16)
(ch)
In the Friedmann flat spacetime the evolution equation
where Tmn is the energy–momentum tensor of the chameleon Equation (21) reduces to the form (Ivanov &
field. It is defined by Equation (12) with the replacement Wellenzohn 2016b)
V (f )  Veff (f ). Then, Q(mn
m)
is the modified matter energy–
momentum tensor, given by r˙ + 3 H rf = 0, (22)
where H = a˙ a is the Hubble rate. Now we may proceed to the
Q(mn
m)
= f Tmn
(m )
- gmn r ( f - 1) . (17)
analysis of local conservation of the torsion energy–momentum
Now we may proceed to the analysis of local properties of the tensor T (tors)mn .
1
Einstein equations, i.e., the Einstein tensor Gmn = Rmn - 2 gmn R,
3.3. Local Conservation of the Torsion
and the total energy–momentum tensor Tmn = Tmn
(ch)
+ Energy–Momentum Tensor
Q(mn
m)
+ Tmn
(tors)
, respectively.
Since torsion is an external field, which does not obey any
equation of motion or boundary conditions, the requirement of
3.2. Bianchi Identity and Local Conservation of the Total
local conservation of the torsion energy–momentum tensor in a
Energy–Momentum Tensor
curved spacetime with an arbitrary metric tensor can be fulfilled
The important property of the left-hand side (lhs) of the if and only if the torsion energy–momentum tensor is
Einstein equations is that the Einstein tensor proportional to a metric tensor T (tors) mn ~ gmn . In this case
G mn = Rmn - 2 gmn R obeys the Bianchi identity G mn ; m = 0
1
local conservation of the torsion energy–momentum tensor
in a curved spacetime with an arbitrary metric gmn T;(mtors) mn = 0 arises from the metricity condition gmn ; l = 0
(Rebhan 2012). This implies that the rhs of the Einstein (Rebhan 2012), which is valid in the Einstein–Cartan
equations, i.e., the total energy–momentum tensor T mn , should gravitational theory under consideration (Hehl et al. 1976).
also possess a vanishing covariant divergence, i.e., T mn ; m = 0 . Thus, we may set the torsion energy–momentum tensor equal
As we show in Appendix A, the energy–momentum tensor of to
the chameleon field T (ch)mn possesses a vanishing covariant (tors)
Tmn = LC MPl2 gmn = - ptors gmn , (23)
divergence T;(mch) mn = 0 in a curved spacetime with an arbitrary
metric gmn . Since torsion is independent of the chameleon field where LC is the cosmological constant and ptors = -LC MPl2
and matter, the torsion energy–momentum tensor T (tors)mn and can be interpreted as torsion pressure. According to the

4
The Astrophysical Journal, 829:47 (9pp), 2016 September 20 Ivanov & Wellenzohn

standard definition of the “matter” energy–momentum tensor equation testifies to the important role of the chameleon
(Rebhan 2012), if the torsion energy–momentum tensor is field in matter evolution in the universe during its
defined by Equation (23), torsion obeys the equation of state expansion. The traces of this influence may be found in the
rtors = -ptors, where rtors is torsion density, in agreement with Cosmological Microwave Background (CMB) (Ivanov &
the properties of dark energy (Peebles & Ratra 2003; Copeland Wellenzohn 2016b). The local properties of the energy–
et al. 2006). This gives the following equation for  : momentum tensors of the chameleon field and spinless matter
imply that the torsion energy–momentum tensor T (tors)mn
MPl2 d should also possess a vanishing covariant divergence
( - g ) = LC MPl2 gmn . (24) T (tors) mn ; m = 0. Moreover, such a covariant divergence should
- g dgmn
vanish in a curved spacetime with an arbitrary metric tensor.
Solving this equation we obtain Since torsion does not obey any equation of motion or
 = gmn mn = gmn (j am anj - aaj j nm) boundary conditions, the only one possibility to fulfil the
constraint T (tors) mn ; m = 0 is to set T (tors) mn ~ gmn . In this case
= -2 LC , (25) the constraint T (tors) mn ; m = 0 is fulfilled identically because of
where we have used Equation (6). The cosmological the metricity condition gmn ; l = 0 (Hehl et al. 1976; Kost-
constant LC is related to the relative dark energy density elecky 2004; Rebhan 2012). Setting Tmn (tors)
= LC MPl2 gmn ,
at the present time as follows: LC = 3H02 WL , where H0 = leading to Equation (25), one may argue that torsion, serving
1.437 (26) ´ 10-33 eV and WL  0.685 are the Hubble con- as an origin of the cosmological constant LC , may explain the
stant and the relative dark energy density at the present time latter’s small value, which is a long-standing problem in
(Olive et al. 2014). cosmology (Weinberg 1989; Peebles & Ratra 2003).
Equation (25) can be treated as a surface in the 24- Equation (25) can be interpreted as a surface in the 24-
dimensional space of torsion tensor field  smn components, dimensional space of torsion components. It is obvious that the
where the raising and lowering of indices are performed with constraint Equation (25) is not very stringent and allows
the metric tensors gmn and gmn , respectively. variations of torsion components in sufficiently broad limits. Of
course, any measurement of torsion components is possible
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS only through their interactions with spin particles, for example,
Dirac fermions (Lämmerzahl 1997; Kostelecky et al. 2008;
We have analyzed Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory in Obukhov et al. 2014; Ivanov & Wellenzohn 2015b, 2015c,
the standard model-independent form  = R + 2 , where 2016a). As has been shown by Ivanov & Wellenzohn (2016a),
R and 2 are the contributions of Einstein gravity and torsion, in curved spacetimes with rotation one may, in principle,
respectively. We have also extended the Einstein–Cartan observe all torsion components through low-energy torsion–
gravity by the contribution of a chameleon (quintessence) field fermion effective potentials. However, some low-energy
and spinless matter (dark and baryon matter), described in the torsion–fermion interactions are not defined by torsion–spin–
CDM model in terms of a matter density ρ in the Einstein fermion couplings (see Equation (22) of Ivanov &
frame. We have added the chameleon field and spinless matter Wellenzohn 2016a). As has been shown by Lehnert et al.
because of their important role in the evolution of the universe (2014), cold neutrons can be a good tool for measurements of
(Brax et al. 2004; Ivanov & Wellenzohn 2016b). We have torsion–spin–fermion interactions. As also discussed by Ivanov
shown that (i) torsion does not couple to spinless matter and ii) & Wellenzohn (2015c, 2016a), qBounce experiments can
one may interpret the contribution of torsion to the Einstein provide a precision analysis of all torsion–neutron low-energy
equations in terms of the torsion energy–momentum tensor as a interactions at the level of sensitivity DE ~ (10-17–10-21) eV
part of the total energy–momentum tensor (Abele et al. 2010).
T mn = T (ch) mn + Q(m) mn + T (tors) mn of the system, including According to Kostelecky (2004), torsion, treated as an
the chameleon field T (ch)mn , spinless matter Q(m) mn and torsion external (or background) field, should be responsible for
T (tors)mn . The important property of the total energy–momentum violation of local Lorentz invariance or CPT invariance
tensor is its local conservation, which is equivalent to a (Colladay & Kostelecky 1997, 1998; Kostelecky & Pot-
vanishing covariant divergence T mn ; m = 0 as a consequence of ting 2009). A proportionality of the torsion energy–momentum
the Bianchi identity G mn ; m = 0 for the Einstein tensor tensor to a metric tensor, required by local conservation in a
G mn = Rmn - 2 gmn R . Since the Bianchi identity G mn ; m = 0
1
curved spacetime with an arbitrary metric tensor, should be of
is valid in a curved spacetime with an arbitrary metric tensor use to avoid a no-go issue with the Bianchi identities
gmn or an arbitrary gravitational field (Rebhan 2012), the total discovered by Kostelecky (2004). In effect, fixing torsion to
energy–momentum tensor T mn should fulfil the constraint a background value may mean that torsion tensor components
T mn ; m = 0 also in a curved spacetime with an arbitrary metric should behave like Standard Model extension coefficients for
tensor. We show (see Appendix A) that the energy–momentum Lorentz violation, so their couplings to any matter or forces are
tensor of the chameleon field fulfils the constraint T (ch) mn ; m = 0 constrained by the various searches for Lorentz violation
identically for an arbitrary metric. Then, the constraint reported by Kostelecky & Mewes (2016).
Q(m) mn ; m = 0 is equivalent to the evolution equation of matter. An attempt to relate the cosmological constant to torsion has
In the CDM model and in the Friedmann flat spacetime, such been undertaken by Popławski (2011, 2013). In Einstein–
an evolution equation reduces to the evolution equation of a Cartan gravitational theory with Dirac–quark fields Popławski
pressureless matter density ṙ + 3 H r f = 0 , which has has varied the Einstein–Hilbert action with respect to the
been recently derived and analyzed by Ivanov & Wellenzohn contorsion tensor and replaced the torsion–Dirac–quark inter-
(2016b), where H is the Hubble rate. As discussed in that actions by the four-quark axial-vector–axial-vector interaction,
paper, the presence of the conformal factor f in the evolution which he has equated with the cosmological constant.

5
The Astrophysical Journal, 829:47 (9pp), 2016 September 20 Ivanov & Wellenzohn

According to Popławski (2011), the vacuum expectation value covariant divergence

of such a four-quark interaction should correspond to the
cosmological constant, whereas spacetime fluctuations of the 1 ¶
T (ch) mn ; m = ( - g T (ch) rn )
quark fields should describe its spacetime dependence. - g ¶x r
However, as has been pointed out by Popławski (2013), the + {n mr} T (ch) mr = 0. (28)
value of the cosmological constant, defined by the quark
condensate (Popławski 2011), is a factor of 8 larger than the Using the equation of motion for the chameleon field
observable one (Olive et al. 2014). Thus, in comparison with
1 ¶ ⎛ ¶f ⎞ ¶Veff (f)
our result the analysis of the torsion-induced cosmological ⎜ - g g mn ⎟ + =0 (29)
constant, proposed by Popławski (2011), seems to be model- - g ¶x m ⎝ ¶x n ⎠ ¶f
dependent, which does not reproduce the observable value of
the cosmological constant. One may find references to other the calculation of the covariant divergence runs as follows:

¶ ⎛ ⎛ ¶f ¶f ⎞
dynamical approaches for the description of cosmological
1
constant in the papers by Popławski (2011, 2013). The T (ch) mn ; m = ⎜⎜ - g ⎜ - g rn (ch) [f ]⎟
- g ¶x r ⎝
eff
discussion of these approaches goes beyond the scope of our ⎝ ¶xr ¶xn ⎠
paper. ⎛ ¶f ¶f ⎞
Finally we would like to discuss the results given in + {n mr} ⎜ - gmr (eff
ch)
[f ]⎟
Appendix B, where we have analyzed the Poincaré gauge ⎝ ¶xm ¶xr ⎠
gravitational theory (Kibble 1961; see also Utiyama 1956;
1 ¶ ⎛ ⎛ ¶f ⎞ ¶f ¶f ¶2f
Sciama 1961; Sciama 1964; Blagojević 2001; Hehl et al. 1976; = ⎜⎜ - g ⎜ ⎟ +
- g ¶x ⎝ r ¶xr ¶x r¶xn
Hehl & Obukhov 2007; Hehl 2012; Blagojević & Hehl 2013; ⎝ ¶xr ⎠ ¶xn
Obukhov et al. 2014). We have shown that the integrand of the
Einstein–Hilbert action e  = e em a en b mn ab of Poincaré 1 ¶ rn ) (ch) [f ] - g rn
¶(eff
ch)
[f ]
- r
( - g g eff r
gauge gravitational theory, where e = -g and mn ab is its - g ¶x ¶x
gravitational field strength tensor defined in terms of the ¶ f ¶f 1 ¶
vierbein fields em a and en b and torsion can be represented in the - {n mr} gmr  [f] + {n mr} =
¶xm ¶xr - g ¶x r
additive form e (R + ), where R = em a en b Rmn ab and Rmn ab is
its gravitational field strength tensor defined only in terms of ⎛ ⎛ ¶f ⎞ ¶f ¶f ¶2f
vierbein fields, and  = j am jam - aaj jm m . This allows ´ ⎜⎜ - g ⎜ ⎟ +
⎝ ⎝ ¶xr ⎠ ¶xn ¶xr ¶x r¶xn
us to get the contribution of torsion to the Einstein equations in
the form of the torsion energy–momentum. A requirement of 1 ¶
local conservation of the torsion energy–momentum imposes - ( - g grn ) (effch)
[f ]
- g ¶x r
its proportionality to a metric tensor in complete agreement
with the result obtained in Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory ¶ ⎛1 ¶f ¶f ⎞
- ⎜ gmr ⎟
discussed in this paper. ¶xn ⎝ 2 ¶xm ¶xr ⎠
¶Veff (f) ¶f
We thank Hartmut Abele for interest in our work. We are +
grateful to Friedrich Hehl for interesting discussions and ¶f ¶xn
critical comments and to Alan Kostelecky for fruitful and 1 ¶
encouraging discussions. This work was supported by the + ( - g grn ) (effch)
[f ]
- g ¶x r
Austrian “Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen For-
schung” (FWF) under the contracts I689-N16, I862-N20 and ¶f ¶f
+ {n mr} ,
P26781-N20. ¶xm ¶xr
(30)
APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OF LOCAL CONSERVATION OF THE where we have used the relation (Rebhan 2012)
ENERGY–MOMENTUM TENSOR OF THE SCALAR
1 ¶
FIELD gmn {j mn} = - ( - g gjl) . (31)
- g ¶x l
In this appendix we calculate the covariant divergence of the
mn
energy–momentum tensor of the chameleon field T (ch) , Cancelling like terms and using Equation (29) we arrive at the
defined by expression
¶f ¶f ¶f ¶2f ¶ ⎛ 1 ¶f ¶f ⎞
T (ch) mn = - gmn (eff
ch)
[f ] , (26) T (ch) mn ; m = - ⎜ ⎟
¶xm ¶xn r
¶xr ¶x ¶xn ¶xn ⎝ 2 ¶x r ¶xr ⎠
¶f ¶f
where we have denoted + {n mr} . (32)
¶xm ¶xr
1 ab ¶f ¶f
ch)
(eff [f ] = g - Veff (f) . (27) Because of the relation (Rebhan 2012)
2 ¶x a ¶x b
¶f ¶f ⎛ ¶f ⎞ ¶f ¶2f ¶f
The requirement of local conservation of the energy–momen- {n mr} =⎜ ⎟ - (33)
¶xm ¶xr ⎝ ¶xn ⎠; r ¶xr ¶x r¶xn ¶xr
tum tensor of the chameleon field demands a vanishing

6
The Astrophysical Journal, 829:47 (9pp), 2016 September 20 Ivanov & Wellenzohn

we may transcribe the rhs of Equation (32) into the form Plugging Equation (38) into Equation (36) we arrive at the
expression
⎛ ¶f ⎞ ¶f ¶ ⎛ 1 ¶f ¶f ⎞
T (ch) mn ; m = ⎜ ⎟ - ⎜ ⎟ mn ab = -¶n (¶m el a el b) + ¶n (ea a el b) Ga ml
⎝ ¶xn ⎠; r ¶xr ¶xn ⎝ 2 ¶x r ¶xr ⎠
+ ea a el b ¶n Ga ml ,
⎛ ¶f ⎞ ¶f ⎛ ¶f ⎞; n ¶f
=⎜ ⎟ - ⎜ r⎟ + ¶m (¶n el a el b) - ¶m (ea a el b) Ganl
⎝ ¶xn ⎠; r ¶xr ⎝ ¶x ⎠ ¶xr
- ea a el b ¶m Ganl ,
⎧ ⎛ ¶f ⎞ ⎛ ¶f ⎞ ⎫ ¶f
⎪

= gnl ⎨ ⎜ l ⎟ - ⎜ r ⎟ ⎬ ,
⎪

(34) + [¶n er a er c - Gb nr eb a er c][¶m el c el b

⎩ ⎝ ¶x ⎠; r ⎝ ¶x ⎠; l ⎭ ¶xr
⎪ ⎪

- Ga mk ea c ek b]

where we have used the relation (Rebhan 2012) - [¶m er a er c - Gb mr eb a er c][¶n el c el b

- Gank ea c ek b] (39)
;n
¶ ⎛ 1 ¶f ¶f ⎞ ⎛ 1 ¶f ¶f ⎞ ⎛ ¶f ⎞; n ¶f
⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ . (35) Using the properties of the vierbein fields (Ivanov &
¶xn ⎝ 2 ¶x r ¶xr ⎠ ⎝ 2 ¶x r ¶xr ⎠ ⎝ ¶x r ⎠ ¶xr
Wellenzohn 2015b) we get mn ab = ea a e bb a bmn + Omn ab ,
where Omn ab is defined by
Since the covariant derivatives (¶l f ); r and (¶r f ); l are equal,
i.e., (¶l f ); r = (¶r f ); l , we get T (ch) mn ; m = 0 . This confirms Omn ab = -(¶n el a)(¶m e lb) - (¶m ea a) e lb Ganl
local conservation of the energy–momentum tensor of the - ea b (¶m e lb) Ganl
chameleon field in a curved spacetime with an arbitrary metric
- (¶m el a)(¶n e lb) + (¶n ea a) e lb Ga ml
tensor.
+ ea b (¶n e lb) Ga ml
APPENDIX B - (¶m er a) er c (¶n el c) e lb + ea a er c (¶n el c) e lb Ga mr
EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN EINSTEIN–CARTAN
GRAVITATIONAL THEORY, CONSIDERED IN THIS + (¶m er a) er c ea c e kb Gank
PAPER, AND POINCARÉ GAUGE GRAVITATIONAL + (¶n er a) er c (¶m el c) e lb - ea a er c (¶m el c)
THEORY
e lb Ganr - (¶n er a) er c ea c e kb Ga mk .
In this appendix we show that the Poincaré gauge
(40)
gravitational theory field strength tensor mn ab , expressed in
terms of the spin connection wm ab (or local Lorentz connection) Using the relations er
c (¶a el = -(¶a c ) el
c) er
and c
(Kibble 1961; see also Kostelecky 2004) el c e lb = h cb one may show that Omn ab º 0. This gives

mn ab = ¶n wm ab - ¶m wn ab mn ab = ea a ebb a bmn , a bmn = ea a ebb mn ab. (41)

+ wn a
c wm - wm
cb a
c wn cb (36) Thus, we have confirmed the relations between the Riemannian
curvature tensor a bmn and the Poincaré gauge gravitational
is related to the Riemannian curvature tensor a bmn of field strength tensor mn ab , proposed for the first time by
Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory as Kibble (1961; see also Kostelecky 2004). Equation (10)
testifies to the equivalence between Einstein–Cartan gravita-
a bmn = ¶n Ga mb - ¶m Ganb
tional theory with the Riemannian curvature tensor,
+ Ganj Gj mb - Ga mj Gj nb (37) Equation (37), defined in terms of the affine connection,
Equation (3), and Poincaré gauge gravitational theory (Kib-
by the relation mn ab = ea a e bb a bmn , where ea a and e bb are ble 1961; see also Hehl et al. 1976; Blagojević & Hehl 2013;
the vierbein fields. The indices a = 0, 1, 2, 3 are in Min- Obukhov et al. 2014) with the Poincaré gauge gravitational
kowski spacetime. The lowering and raising of the indices a are field strength tensor, Equation (36), defined in terms of the spin
performed with the Minkowski metric tensors hab and h ab , (or local Lorentz) connection wm ab and the vierbein field
respectively. In turn, the indices m = 0, 1, 2, 3 are in a curved em a and em a . Indeed, the Einstein–Hilbert action, Equation (1),
spacetime and the lowering and raising of the indices μ are can be written as follows (Kostelecky 2004)
performed with the metric tensors gmn and gmn , respectively.
1 2
For the derivation of the relation mn ab = ea a e bb a bmn we
define the spin affine connection as (Kostelecky 2004; see also
SEH =
2 ò
MPl d 4x - g 
1
Ivanov & Wellenzohn 2015b) = MPl2
2 ò
d 4x e em a en b mn ab, (42)

wm ab = -¶m el a el b + Ga ml ea a el b , where the Poincaré gauge gravitational field strength tensor

wn ab = -¶n el a el b + Ganl ea a el b , mn ab is given by Equation (36) as a functional of the spin
wn a c = -¶n er a er c + Gb nr eb a er c , connection wm ab and the vierbein fields em a and em a , respec-
wm cb = -¶m el c el b + Ga mk ea c ek b . (38) tively. Then, e is the determinant e = det {em a}, i.e.,
-g = -det {gmn } = -det {hab em aen b} = e. Now we

7
The Astrophysical Journal, 829:47 (9pp), 2016 September 20 Ivanov & Wellenzohn

may show that the Einstein–Hilbert action, Equation (42), can Calculating the first-order derivatives we get
be represented in an additive form analogous to Equation (7). 1
To this end we define the spin affine connection wm ab as S¯EH = MPl2
2 ò
d 4x ( - m ab em a ¶n (e en b)
follows:
- m ab e en b ¶n em a + n ab en b ¶m (e em a)
wm ab = Em ab + m ab, (43)
+ n ab e em a ¶m en b
where Em ab and m ab are given by (Kostelecky 2004) + e em a en b En a c m cb + e em a en b Em cb n a c
1 na 1
e (¶m en b - ¶n em b) - enb (¶m en a - ¶n em a)
Em ab = - e em a en b Em a c n cb - e em a en b En cb m a c) , (50)
2 2
1 a a bb c where we may combine some terms into the covariant
- e e em (¶a ebc - ¶b eac) , divergences of the vierbein fields
2
m = amb eaa ebb .
ab 1
(44)
S¯EH = MPl2
2 ò
d 4x ( - m ab em a e en b; n + n ab en b e em a; m

- m ab e en b ¶n em a + n ab e em a ¶m en b
Plugging Equation (44) into Equation (42) we arrive at the
Einstein–Hilbert action + e em a en b En a c m cb + e em a en b Em cb n a c) .
(51)
1 2
SEH =
2
MPl ò d 4x e em a en b mn ab
Since en b; n = em a; m = 0 , we get
1 1
= MPl2
2 ò d 4x e R + 2 MPl2 ò d 4x e  + S¯EH, (45) 1
S¯EH = MPl2
2 ò
d 4x ( - m ab e en b ¶n em a

em en
where R = a b Rmn is the functional of Em . It is defined
ab ab
+ n ab e em a ¶m en b + e em a en b En a c m cb
only in terms of the vierbein fields and corresponds to the + e em a en b Em cb n a c) . (52)
contribution of the scalar curvature in the Einstein gravity,
whereas  is given by  = j am amj - aaj jm m and We rewrite the integrand of Equation (52) as follows:
corresponds to the contribution of torsion (see Equation (6)). 1
Then, the term S̄EH is equal to S¯EH = MPl2
2 ò
d 4x ( - m ab e en b (¶n em a + Ena c em c)
1 + n ab e em a (¶m en b + Embc en c))
S¯EH = MPl2
2 ò
d 4x e em a en b (¶n m ab

- ¶m n ab + En a cm cb
= MPl2 ò d 4x m ab e en b {m rn} er a
+ Em cb En a c - Em a c n cb - En cb Em a c) . (46) = MPl2 ò d 4x e  r m n { m rn} = 0. (53)
Below we show that S¯EH = 0 . The first step is to define the
Thus, we have shown that S¯EH º 0 . This means that the
Christoffel symbols in terms of the vierbein fields. We get
Einstein–Hilbert action, Equation (42), can be written in the
1 a 1 additive form
{a mn} = e a (¶m en a + ¶n em a) + ea a eba
2 2 1 2
´ (emb ¶n eb b + enb ¶m eb b) SEH =
2
MPl ò d 4x e em a en b mn ab
1 1 1
- ea a eba (emb ¶b en b + emb ¶b em b) .
2
(47) = MPl2
2 ò d 4x e R + 2 MPl2 ò d 4x e , (54)

Then, using the definitions for Em ab and { a mn}, given by where R = em a en b Rmn ab is defined only in terms of the
Equations (44) and (47), respectively, one may show that the vierbein fields and corresponds to the contribution of the scalar
covariant derivative of the vierbein field en a ; m and en a; m , curvature in Einstein gravity, whereas  is given by
defined by (Sciama 1961; Sciama 1964; Kostelecky 2004)  = j am amj - aaj jm m and corresponds to the contrib-
en a ; m = ¶m en a - {a mn} ea a + Em ab en b , ution of torsion (see Equation (6)). For the derivation of
Equation (54) we have used the definition of the covariant
en a; m = ¶m en a + {n rm} er a + Ema b en b , (48) derivatives of the vierbein fields, Equation (48), and the
properties of the contorsion tensor m ab = -m ba and
are equal to zero, i.e., en ;am = 0 and en a; m = 0 . Integrating by
amb = -bma (Kostelecky 2004).
parts in Equation (46) we arrive at the expression
The obtained result, Equation (54), confirms a complete
1 equivalence between Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory,
S¯EH = MPl2
2 ò
d 4x ( - m ab¶n (e em a en b)
analyzed in this paper, and Poincaré gauge gravitational theory
+ n ab¶m (e em a en b) + e em a en b En a c m cb by Kibble (1961) (see also Utiyama 1956; Sciama 1961;
Sciama 1964; Blagojević 2001; Hehl et al. 1976; Hehl &
+ e em a en b Em cb  n a c Obukhov 2007; Hehl 2012; Blagojević & Hehl 2013; Obukhov
- e em a en b Em a c n cb - e em a en b En cb  ma c) . (49) et al. 2014). This also confirms the identification of the torsion
contribution to the Einstein equations with the torsion energy–

8
The Astrophysical Journal, 829:47 (9pp), 2016 September 20 Ivanov & Wellenzohn

momentum tensor, Equation (23), local conservation of which Khoury, J., & Weltman, A. 2004a, PhRvL, 93, 171104
can be attained only through Equation (24), allowing us to set Khoury, J., & Weltman, A. 2004b, PhRvD, 69, 044026
 = -2LC (see Equation (25)). Kibble, T. W. B. 1961, JMP, 2, 212
Kostelecky, V. A. 2004, PhRvD, 69, 105009
Kostelecky, V. A., & Mewes, M. 2016, Astrophysical Tests of Lorentz and
CPT Violation with Photons, arXiv:0809.2846v9 [astro-ph]
REFERENCES Kostelecky, V. A., & Potting, R. 2009, PhRvD, 79, 065018
Kostelecky, V. Alan., Russell, N., & Tasson, J. D. 2008, PhRvL, 100, 111102
Abele, H., Jenke, T., Leeb, H., & Schmiedmayer, J. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 065019 Lämmerzahl, C. 1997, PhLA, 228, 223
Atwood, D. K., Horne, M. A., Shull, C. G., & Arthur, J. 1984, PhRvL, Landau, L. D., & Lifschitz, E. M. 2008, Lehrbuch Der Theoretischen Physik,
52, 1673 Klassische Feldtheorie Bund II (Frankfurt am Main: Harri Deutsch)
Blagojević, M. 2001, in Gravitation and Gauge Symmetries, ed. B. Foster et al. Lehnert, R., Snow, W. M., & Yan, H. 2014, PhLB, 730, 353
(Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing) Lehnert, R., Snow, W. M., & Yan, H. 2015, PhLB, 744, 415
Blagojević, M., & Hehl, F. W. 2013, Gauge Theories of Gravitation (London: Mashhoon, B. 1988, PhRvL, 61, 2639
Imperial College Press) Mota, D. F., & Shaw, D. J. 2007a, PhRvL, 97, 151102
Brax, Ph., van de Bruck, C., Devis, A.-Ch., Khoury, J., & Weltman, A. 2004, Mota, D. F., & Shaw, D. J. 2007b, PhRvD, 75, 063501
PhRvD, 70, 123518 Ni, W.-T. 2010, RPPh, 73, 056901
Colladay, D., & Kostelecky, V. A. 1997, PhRvD, 55, 6760 Obukhov, Yu. N., Silenko, A. J., & Teryaev, O. V. 2009, PhRvD, 80, 064044
Colladay, D., & Kostelecky, V. A. 1998, PhRvD, 58, 116002 Obukhov, Yu. N., Silenko, A. J., & Teryaev, O. V. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 024045
Copeland, E. J., Sami, M., & Tsujikawa, S. 2006, IJMPD, 15, 1753 Obukhov, Yu. N., Silenko, A. J., & Teryaev, O. V. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 124068
Dicke, R. H. 1962, PhRv, 125, 2163 Olive, K. A., Agashe, A., Amsler, C., et al. (Particle Data Group) 2014, Chin.
Hammond, R. T. 2002, RPPh, 65, 599 Phys. A, 38, 9
Hehl, F. W. 2012, Gauge Theories of Gravity and Spacetime, arXiv:1204. Peebles, P. J. E., & Ratra, Bh. 2003, RvMP, 75, 559
3672v2 [gr-qc] Popławski, N. J. 2011, AnP, 523, 291
Hehl, F. W., & Ni, W.-T. 1990, PhRvD, 42, 2045 Popławski, N. J. 2013, AstRv, 8, 108
Hehl, F. W., & Obukhov, Yu. N. 2007, AFLB, 32, 157 Rebhan, E. 2012, Theoretische Physik: Relativitätstheorie und Kosmologie
Hehl, F. W., van der Heyde, P., Kerlick, G. D., & Nester, J. M. 1976, RvMP, (Berlin: Springer)
48, 393 Rumpf, H. 1979, in Cosmology and Gravitation: Spin, Torsion, Rotation, and
Ivanov, A. N., & Wellenzohn, M. 2015a, PhRvD, 91, 085025 Supergravity, ed. P. G. Bergmann & V. De Sabbata, 93
Ivanov, A. N., & Wellenzohn, M. 2015b, PhRvD, 92, 065006 Sciama, D. W. 1961, JMP, 2, 472
Ivanov, A. N., & Wellenzohn, M. 2015c, PhRvD, 92, 125004 Sciama, D. W. 1964, RvMP, 36, 463
Ivanov, A. N., & Wellenzohn, M. 2016a, PhRvD, 93, 045031 Shapiro, I. L. 2002, PhR, 357, 113
Ivanov, A. N., & Wellenzohn, M. 2016b, Can Chameleon Field be identified Utiyama, R. 1956, PhRv, 101, 1597
with Quintessence?, arXiv:1607.00884 [gr-qc] Weinberg, S. 1989, RvMP, 61, 1