Specially regarding the Sciama-Kibble take on the matter; I've come by this paper http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1703702 recently, and, though I haven't read it in its entirety, the reasonings it presents make a lot of physical sense to me.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm not terribly curious as to what happens if you use a more general affine connection than in GR (though, one will deal with this if one has to; remember that Einstein, for instance, assumed null torsion while deriving the EFE basically for mathematical simplicity - cf. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, VOL 6, DOC. 30, The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity); what holds sway on me is the close analogy with the YM gauge principle - and, of course, whether or not it can be quantized.

I understand that the EC-SK equations reduce to the EFE for null torsion (if not, they most certainly should!), so there wouldn't be no a priori reason to hope the gravitational field is renormalizable here. So here we are: does the introduction of torsion magically make the theory renormalizable (and 'therefore' quantizable)? If not, what specifically prevents it from being so? (this last question is more general in scope - what makes a theory renormalizable? -, if you'll care to develop; however, I should probably mention I'm still very green in this renormalization biz, and such a discussion can get potentially off-topic).

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Is the Einstein–Cartan theory renormalizable?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**