Background
Physicists have a "principle of general covariance" which basically states that physical laws (and in particular, physical quantities) can be stated in a form which is somehow coordinate-independent. The paradox is, such "coordinate-independent" quantities and equations are frequently stated in terms of (admittedly, arbitrary) coordinates! In particular, the classical characterisation of tensorial quantities goes something along the lines of "a tensor is an indexed quantity which obeys the tensor transformation law under a change of coordinates". For example, under this scheme, a vector field $V$ is something having components $V^\mu$ (w.r.t. the coordinate basis) in the coordinate system $x^\mu$ that will have components $\displaystyle V'^\nu = \frac{\partial x'^\nu}{\partial x^\mu} V^\mu$ (summing over repeated indicies; w.r.t. the coordinate basis) in the coordinate system $x'^\nu$.
Edit: It recently occurred to me that it's difficult to capture this particular form of the principle in the notation of differential geometryseems my question wasn't being read carefully, let alone to formaliseso I've rewritten it — when I tried to write down the corresponding equation in the language of charts and pushforwards, I got. I've also retagged the tautology $d\psi (V) = d(\psi \circ \phi^{-1}) \circ \phi \cdot d\phi (V)$, where $\psi$ and $\phi$ are charts with a common domainquestion.
- Let $M$ be a smooth (pseudo-)Riemannian manifold and let $T(M)$ be the smooth tensor bundle on it. Is there a subspace $S \subset T(M)$ closed under (possibly infinitely many) finitary (possibly partially-defined) algebraic operations and finitely generated containing exactly the tensor fields on $M$ which are diffeomorphism-invariant?
- If the above is an open question because e.g. the diffeomorphism-invariant tensor fields have not been classified, how about asking that $S$ contains only diffeomorphism-invariant tensor fields and in particular contains the metric tensor, inverse metric tensor, the Riemann tensor, the Ricci tensor, the Ricci scalar, and the torsion tensor?
- Suppose there is such an algebraic structure, and I adjoin an arbitrary tensor field to it. Will there be a non-trivial subgroup of $\mathrm{Diff}(M)$ under which the extended structure is invariant? Conversely, suppose I fix a non-trivial subgroup of $G < \mathrm{Diff}(M)$. Is there an algebraic structure of the same signature invariant under $G$ containing $S$?
ExamplesMotivation
Let $M$ be a smooth $n$-dimensional (pseudo-)Riemannian manifold with metric $g$. Let $e_1, \ldots, e_n$ be a family of vector fields on $M$ which are linearly independent at each pointWe can detect, using purely algebraic means in the manifold. Let $\epsilon^1, \ldots, \epsilon^n$ be the dual basis w.r.t. the metrica certain sense, satisfyingwhether an arbitrary complex number $\epsilon^\mu(V) = g(e_\mu, V)$ for every vector field V. Fix also$\alpha \in \mathbb{C}$ is an affine connectionalgebraic number: Look for the smallest subfield $\nabla$ on$\mathbb{Q}(\alpha) \le \mathbb{C}$ containing both $M$.
Now, let$\mathbb{Q}$ and $V$ be an arbitrary vector field$\alpha$. Because $\{ e_\mu \}$ forms a basis of each tangent space, thereIt is a family of scalar fields $V^1, \ldots V^n$ so that $V = V^\mu e_\mu$vector space over (summation convention). Conversely$\mathbb{Q}$, if I have an arbitrary family of scalar fieldsand $U^1, \ldots, U^n$, I can form the$\alpha$ is algebraic if and only if this vector field $U = U^\mu e_\mu$space is finite-dimensional. Moreover, assuming everything is nice enough, Iwe can define a family of scalar fields $\Gamma^\sigma_{\phantom{\sigma}\mu\nu}$ which satisfies the equationeven detect whether $\nabla_{e_\nu} e_\mu = \Gamma^\sigma_{\phantom{\sigma}\mu\nu} e_\sigma$. And I$\alpha$ can certainly definebe expressed in terms of radicals simply by examining the (1, 2)-tensorautomorphism group of the field extension $\Gamma = \Gamma^\sigma_{\phantom{\sigma}\mu\nu} e_\sigma \otimes \epsilon^\mu \otimes \epsilon^\nu$$\mathbb{Q}(\alpha) / \mathbb{Q}$.
Yet, it's quite clear intuitively that $V^\mu$Here, $U$ and $\Gamma$ are all somehowI'm interested in whether or not "genuine" scalar / vector /something similar can be done for tensor (resp.) fields — the definitions are "unnatural" and relied on a choice of basismanifold.
The problem
It seems to me that the problem arises because the principle of general covariance (as I understand it) The first question is formulated intensionally rather than extensionally. But this isn't necessarily aanalogous the inverse Galois problem — perhaps there'swe have a way to capture some form of it extensionallysymmetry group, just as the concept of natural transformations captures some essence of the notion of naturality. So my questionand we are looking for an algebraic structure which is: Given some arbitrary tensor field on a manifold, is there a way to extensionally test whether it is tensorial, in the physicists' sense?
Of course, one must first formalise what invariant under it means to be tensorial in the physicists' sense. One possibility, along the lines of algebra, is to say that a tensorial object is one built from other tensorial objects using legal operations. This coincides with the notion of "manifestly covariant". Following these linesHaving found such an algebraic structure, one couldwe can ask a preliminary question: Whatwhether or not there is an analogue of the minimal setfundamental theorem of admissible operations which will allow us to generateGalois theory, fromwhich establishes a reasonable choicebijective correspondence between subextensions of generators, a set of tensorial objects which includes all the intrinsic quantities we want, e.g. the metric tensor, the inverse metric tensor, the Riemann tensor, the Ricci tensor,Galois field extension and the torsion tensor, etcsubgroups of its automorphism group.? Is it possible to do this without also admitting arbitrary tensors as tensorial?
At this point I must confess that I don't know much about differential geometry or mathematical physics. I've read that the principleI'm aware of general covarianceat least one result in general relativity is best understoodthis area, broadly interpreted as a gauge symmetry with respectan algebraic approach to the diffeomorphism groupdifferential geometry — namely Lovelock's theorem, but the link between this andwhich classifies all the notion of manifest covariance is not obvious to me.symmetric divergence-free second-order natural (Then again0, who would have thought2)-tensors on a manifold. A corollary of this theorem, I'm told, tells us that the group of symmetries of polynomial roots have anything to do with solvability by radicals?Einstein field equations are essentially unique (in 4 dimensions).