Last update: 18.08.2007

see also

**Evans' "3-index, totally antisymmetric unit tensor"**

(Comments in blue, quotes in black)

The terms "first and second Evans duality equations" firstly appear at [1, p.138] and
were not explained before. While Hodge duality in 4D is defined by means of the well-known
Levi-Civita Î_{abcd} tensor with *four* indices [4, p.16] [4a, p.24]
Evans defines his own *different* 4D "duality" by means of a 4D
"totally anti-symmetric *third* rank unit tensor"
Î_{abc}. However, in spite of his busy efforts in
[1, Chap.1 and App. A] he fails in defining such a tensor: As will be pointed out below,
the "Evans Î_{abc} tensor" given by the
definition [1, entry #25 of Table 1 on p.186] does not exist in the 4D case.
This shortcoming makes a lot of Evans' considerations in [1] useless as
will be listed below. In addition some other errors and fatal conclusions will be noticed.

The monita listed below apply also to some Evans articles that appeared in FoPL during the past years.

p.138, also [7]

In the condensed notation of differential geometry the first and second Maurer-Cartan structure relations are, respectively:

T^{a} = D Ù
q^{a},
(7.1)

R^{a}_{b} = D Ù
w^{a}_{b},
(7.2)

where R^{a}_{b} is the Riemann form and T^{a} the torsion form.
The first and second Bianchi identities are the homogeneous
field equations of unified field/matter theory and are, respectively:

D Ù
T^{a} := 0,
(Typo? Read:
... =
R^{a}_{b} Ù q^{b})
(7.3)

D Ù
R^{a}_{b} := 0.
(7.4)

The **first and second Evans duality equations** state that there
exist the Hodge duality relations

R^{a}_{b} = Î^{a}_{bc}
T^{c}
(7.5)

w^{a}_{b}
= Î^{a}_{bc} q^{c}
(7.6)

where Î^{a}_{bc} is the appropriate Levi-Civita
symbol in the well defined [4,5] orthonormal space of the tetrad.

**
However, a third rank tensor Î ^{a}_{bc} cannot
be defined in the 4D case.
In spite of a somewhat misleading remark in [4, p.20]:**

"Meanwhile, the three-dimensional Levi-Civita tensor
Î^{abc}
is defined just as the four-dimensional one, although with one fewer index."
**
**

**
But the indices are running over 1,2,3 only (3D case).
Besides, the above remark is missing in Carroll's book [4a].
**

**Evans has extended the 3D existence of third rank
Î tensors inadmissibly to four dimensions.
The entry #25 in [1, Table 1 on p.186] says
**

**
Î _{abc}
= 1 if (a,b,c) even /
= −1 if (a,b,c) odd /
= 0 otherwise
**

**That is NO DEFINITION in 4D, because (a,b,c) is no permutation of (0,1,2,3)
and hence the attributes
"odd" and "even" do not apply.
We could find only two spots in his book [1] where the third rank
Î tensor
is used correctly, that is entry #89 in Table 1 on p.190, and
Eq.(18.52) on p.338, both 3D cases.
**

**
The following example
**

cB^{k} = − ½ Î^{ijk} G^{ij} ,
E^{k} = − G^{0k},
(2.103)

. . .

where all quantities are generally covariant.

shows Evans' problems of handling tensor algebra correctly:
(We neglect the formally incorrect position of some indices.) The tensor G^{ij}
transforms covariantly in 4D. The indices of G^{ij}
are running over 0,1,2,3 while the indices of Î^{ijk}
are restricted to 1,2,3. So Eq. (2.103) is correct only if we restrict all indices to the values
1,2,3. It is no correct equation in 4D. On the other hand, we have to apply 4D tensor algebra, and that doesn't fit together.

The main topic of that chapter, the "Evans Lemma", is *wrong*
due to one of Evans' numerous flaws of thinking as was shown in [11].
Therefore it might appear superfluous to mention other errors of his. However, the
error type of "Evans duality" is remarkable since it appears at several spots of his book [1]
as listed below.
And perhaps he will respond in his unsurpassable manner as he once did replying to an email of mine
that had passed his blockade by chance:

*Well Gerhard you always say that any calculation is wrong.
So if you say . . . is wrong you are simply behaving in the same old way.
This is very boring. You have no credibility and so I request you not to send me any further
absurd e mail, or any e mail. ...
If you go on like this you will certainly get a haircut in the Tower. ...
... So why don't you do something useful and resign? British Civil List scientist.*

p.173, also [9]

The antisymmetric metric is defined in general by the wedge product of tetrads:

q^{c}_{μν}^{(A)}
= q^{a}_{μ} Ù q^{b}_{ν} ,
(9.9)

**
The definition of c = c(a,b) is missing. Probably (cf the remarks on p.480 (D.13) below) Evans assumes the "definition" by
**

**
q ^{c}_{μν}^{(A)} =
Î^{c}_{ab} q^{a}_{μ}
Ù
q^{b}_{ν}
(9.9')
**

**
which is invalid due to the non-existence of
Î^{c}_{ab}.
**

The invalidity of Eq.(9.9) means that no "antisymmetric metric"
with *covariant* transformation behavior can be defined by Evans' method.

p.177, also [9]

When one self-consistently includes the **torsion** tensor, electromagnetism
becomes a theory of general relativity defined essentially by the wedge product
of tetrads

T^{c} = R q^{a} Ù
q^{b}
(9.34)

**
The definition of c = c(a,b) is missing. Probably Evans assumes the "definition" by
**

**
T ^{c} =
R Î^{c}_{ab} q^{a}
Ù
q^{b}
(9.34')
**

**
which is invalid due to the non-existence of
Î^{c}_{ab}.**

Due to several reasons:

(i) No "appropriate third rank Î-tensor" exists in 4D.

(ii) No "antisymmetric metric" (9.9) exists.

(iii) No quantity R (as asserted by the wrong "Evans Lemma") exists.

and by the Evans lemma and wave equation. The same theory [3-7] also
describes gravitation, and the inter-relation between gravitation and electromagnetism.
It can be seen from Eq. (9.34) that the **torsion** is a vector
valued two form of differential geometry [2]. The fact that it is vector valued
means that the internal index c must have more than one **(???)** component, and this
means that electromagnetism cannot be a U(1) gauge field theory.

p.181, also [9]

− R q^{c}_{μν}^{(A)} = kT q^{a}_{μ}
Ù q^{b}_{ν} ,
(9.58)

**
The definition of c = c(a,b) is missing. Probably Evans assumes the "definition" by
**

**
− R q ^{c}_{μν}^{(A)} = kT
Î^{c}_{ab}
q^{a}_{μ} Ù q^{b}_{ν}
(9.58')
**

**
which is invalid due to the non-existence of
Î^{c}_{ab}.**

Besides, Eq.(9.58) is only the "index contracted Einstein equation" R = −kT multiplied by the

p.182, also [9]

The gauge invariant electromagnetic field is then

G^{a} = D Ù A^{a}
= g A^{b} Ù A^{c},
(9.62)

**
The definition of a = a(b,c) is missing. Probably Evans assumes the "definition" by
**

**
G ^{a} = D Ù A^{a}
= g
Î^{a}_{bc}
A^{b} Ù A^{c},
(9.62')
**

With that relation (9.62) Evans attempts to establish a connection between the electro-magnetic field tensor G and geometry, namely referring to his "antisymmetric metric" (the definition of which has failed as we saw above by the invalidity of Eq.(9.9)):

His axiom is
the proportionality of the electromagnetic potential 1-form A to the tetrad 1-form q^{a}.

A ~ q^{a}

Since the 1-form q^{a} is vector-valued, this assumption leads to the consequence
of the 1-form A being *vector-valued as well*. Hence the em field tensor G must be vector-valued
also, which means that instead of *one* electromagnetic field (E,B) the experimentalists
should be confronted with *four* fields (E^{a},B^{a})
(a=0,1,2,3) at once, this effect already observable under the conditions of *free spacetime*.

Here Evans' restriction of a = 1,2,3 must be remarked, since his method, his O(3) symmetry hypothesis, his "third rank" Î-tensor, does not admit the fourth index a=0.

Anyway, as we have seen above, Evans proposal fails due to formal reasons, and so there is no reason of getting upset. No experimentalist will need new measurement equipment due to Evans' findings:

p.182, also [9]

. . . the cyclically symmetric equation of differential geometry

D Ù q^{a} = κ
q^{b} Ù q^{c} , R = κ²,
(9.64)

**
The definition of a = a(b,c) is missing. Probably Evans assumes the "definition" by
**

**
D Ù q ^{a} =
κ
Î^{a}_{bc}
q^{b} Ù q^{c}
(9.64')
**

which generalizes the **B cyclic theorem of O(3) electrodynamics** [8-12].

As was proven in two different ways [12] [13] the "B cyclic theorem of O(3) electrodynamics" does not behave covariantly under Lorentz transforms. Here we see that also the generalization to a general theory is impossible.

D Ù T^{a} = 0
(Typo? Read:
... =
R^{a}_{b} Ù q^{b})
(9.66)
**. . . **

Poincaré lemma

D Ù D = 0
(9.68)

**Such a Poincaré lemma doesn't exist.** Eq.(9.68) is true only in flat spacetime [11].

p.183, also [9]

In the development of the Evans field theory, **novel and important
duality relations of differential geometry** have been discovered (9.1)
between the torsion **(T)** and Riemann forms **(R)**
**
**

**
As remarked above there are no "Evans duality" relations since being introduced by a non-existing
third rank Î tensor in 4D. In addition,
there is a serious confusion of notation: In Sect. 9.1 (p.172) the term T denotes the
"index contracted energy momentum tensor" while here (at p.183) T means the torsion.
Later on (Chap.18) Evans denotes the torsion by τ,
but without correcting the just mentioned error. **

and (9.2) between the spin connection **(ω)**
and tetrad **(q)**.
These are fundamental to differential geometry, to topology,
and to generally covariant physics. They are proven from the fact that the
tangent space is an orthonormal Euclidean space, so in this space there exists
the relation [2-7] between any axial vector V_{a} and its dual antisymmetric
tensor V_{κ}:

V_{a} = Î_{abc} V_{bc},
(9.73)

Typo: Read it as V_{a} = Î_{abc} V^{bc}
to be at least *formally* correct. **However, V ^{bc} cannot denote the Hodge dual of V_{a}
which must have 3 indices in 4D. So Eq.(9.73) is dubious at all.**

where Î_{abc} is the Levi Civita symbol
or three-dimensional totally antisymmetric unit tensor (see Table 1).

**
The entry #25 of Table 1 on p.186 does not apply for 4D.**

Raising one index gives

Î^{a}_{bc}
= η^{cd} Î_{dbc}
,
(9.74)

(Typo: Read it
Î^{a}_{bc}
= η^{ad} Î_{dbc}; but
Î_{dbc} undefined)

where η^{ad} = diag(−1, 1, 1, 1) is the metric of the orthonormal space.
The first
Evans duality equation of differential geometry is

R^{a}_{b} = κ
Î^{a}_{bc} T^{c},
(9.75)

**(???: Î ^{a}_{bc} undefined.
Factor κ? Compare with Eq.(7.5) quoted above)**

showing that the **spin connection** **(another confusion! meant is the torsion T;
see the introductory remarks on the top of this page)**
is dual to the Riemann form, and the
second Evans duality equation of differential geometry is

ω^{a}_{b}
= κ Î^{a}_{bc} q^{c}
(9.76)

**(???: Î ^{a}_{bc} undefined.
Factor κ? Compare with Eq.(7.6) quoted above)**

showing that the spin connection is dual to the tetrad. The duality equations define the symmetry of the Riemann form because they imply

R_{ab} = R Î_{abcd}
q^{c} Ù q^{d},
(9.77)

Of course, **dubious** as well: Evans combines here Eq. (9.34') (with lowered index a)
with Eq.(9.75) to obtain

R_{ab} = κ R Î_{abc}
Î^{c}_{de}
q^{d} Ù q^{e},

and assuming the "rule" Î_{abc}
Î^{c}_{de}
= Î_{abde}
we get Eq.(9.77) with exception of the *superfluous* factor κ. So κ must be
removed: No problem for Dr Evans: Use Eq.(7.5) instead of Eq.(9.75),
and now everything is fine: Complete confusion!

p.330 f.

. . . from which the unified field theory is developed are as follows:

D Ù
V^{a} := d Ù V^{a} + w^{a}_{b}
Ù
V^{b}
(18.2)

D q^{a} = 0
(18.3)

t^{c}
= D Ù q^{c}
(18.4)

R^{a}_{b} = D Ù
q^{a}_{b}.
(18.5)

These equations define the fundamental properties of any non-Euclidean spacetime with both curvature and torsion in terms of differential
forms.
Eqs. (18.4) and (18.5) are the first and second Maurer Cartan structure relations [2], defining respectively
the torsion
(t^{c}) and Riemann or curvature (R^{a}_{b}) forms
in terms of the tetrad and spin connection respectively. These four equations are inter-connected in
free space by the **recently inferred** **(WHERE?)**
and fundamental first and second **Evans duality** equations of differential
geometry [3]–[17]:

w^{a}_{b}
= −κ Î^{a}_{bc}
q^{c}
(18.6)
**(???: Î ^{a}_{bc} undefined)**

R^{a}_{b} = −κ
Î^{a}_{bc}
τ^{c}
(18.7)
**(???: Î ^{a}_{bc} undefined)**

where κ is the wave number.
The novel Evans duality equations were inferred in
free space from the fact that the torsion and Riemann forms are both antisymmetric
in their base manifold indices μ and ν, so that one must be the
dual of the other in the orthonormal space of the tetrad [2]

That's no sufficient argument!
:

R^{a}_{bμν} =
−κ Î^{a}_{bc}
τ^{c}_{μν}
(18.8)
**(???: Î ^{a}_{bc} undefined)**

where:

Î^{abc}
= η_{da} Î^{d}_{bc}.
(18.9)
**(a typo:
Meant is Î _{abc} = ...
but this tensor is undefined in 4D.)**

Here Î_{abc} is the Levi Civita symbol
(totally anti-symmetric third rank unit tensor) and
where η_{da} is the metric in this orthonormal (orthogonal and normalized [2]) space.
The torsion form, a vector valued two form with index c,
is therefore dual to the curvature or Riemann form, a tensor valued
two form anti-symmetric in its a, b indices [2].

p.309

A^{b}
=
− g A^{b} Ù
(A^{c} + g Î^{cde}
+ g² Î^{cfgh}
A^{f}A^{g}A^{h} + . . . )
(17.53)
(also formally incorrect)

p.334 (18.26)

p.335 (18.27-28)

p.346 (19.9)

p.347 (19.10)

p.401 (23.20)

p.438 (26.24)

p.449 f.

A particular solution of Eq.(27.27) is:

ω^{a}_{b} =
− κ Î^{a}_{bc}
Ù q^{c}
(27.28)

where Î^{a}_{bc}
is the Levi-Civita tensor in the flat tangent bundle spacetime.Being a flat spacetime,
Latin indices can be raised and lowered in contravariant
covariant notation and so we may rewrite Eq.(27.28) as:

ω_{ab} =
κ Î_{abc}
Ù q^{c}
(27.29)

p.466

1) Duality: τ^{c} =
Î_{a}^{cb} R^{c}_{b}_{(A)}

p.480

g^{c(A)} is the antisymmetric part of q^{ab(A)}:

g^{c(A)} = ½ Î^{abc} q^{ab(A)}
(D.13)

Typo? Formally incorrect. Read it as

g^{c(A)} = ½ Î_{ab}^{c} q^{ab(A)}
(D.13')

**However, no third rank LC-symbols exist in 4D,** cf the above remarks on entry 25 of
[1, Table 1 at p.186].

p.488 (F.10-11)

p.490 (F.32)

p.497 (G.23-24)

p.498 (G.26-29)

p.501 (H.7)

p.511 (J.6-7)

p.512

For O(3) electrodynamics we choose:

ω^{a}_{b} =
− ½ κ Î^{a}_{bc} q^{c}
(J.13)

in the structure relation

D Ù q^{a} =
d Ù q^{a} +
ω^{a}_{b} Ù q^{b}
(J.15)

Proof For a=1: . . .

The indices b=0 and c=0 occur at summation: What is e.g.
Î^{a}_{b0}?
And what about a=0???

p.517

The free space condition means that:

ω^{a}_{b} =
− κ Î^{a}_{bc} q^{c}
(K.16)

R^{a}_{b} =
− κ Î^{a}_{bc} T^{c}
(K.17)

1. M.W. Evans, GCUFT, Arima 2005

4. S. M. Carroll, Lecture Notes on General Relativity (University of California,

Santa Barbara, graduate course on arXiv:gr-qe / 9712019 v1 3 Dec, 1997).

4a. S. M. Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry, Addison Wesley 2004.

5. R. M. Wald, General Relativity (Chicago University Press, 1984).

7. M.W. Evans, Unification Of Gravitational And Strong Nuklear Fields, FoPL **17**
p.267 ff.

9. M.W. Evans, The Evans Lemma Of Differential Geometry, FoPL **17**
p.433 ff.

10. G.W. Bruhn, A Fatal Error in M.W. Evans' EVANS Lemma

11. G.W. Bruhn, Some further confusion in Evans' "Cartan geometry"

12. G.W. Bruhn, No Lorentz property of M W Evans' O(3)-symmetry law, Phys. Scr. 74 (2006) 537–538

13. G.W. Bruhn, No Lorentz Invariance of M.W. Evans' O(3)-Symmetry Law, http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0607186