Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,852 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Why is Einstein gravity not renormalizable at two loops or more?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
172 views

(I found this related Phys.SE post: Why is GR renormalizable to one loop?)

I want to know explicitly how it comes that Einstein-Hilbert action in 3+1 dimensions is not renormalizable at two loops or more from a QFT point of view, i.e., by counting the power of perturbation terms. I tried to find notes on this, but yet not anything constructive. Could anybody give an explanation with some details, or a link to some paper or notes on it?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-15 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user Simon
asked Apr 15, 2013 in Theoretical Physics by Simon (325 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 15, 2014

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

you're quite right that Einstein gravity is not renormalizable by powercounting. Be careful though, this is not a rigorous proof, it's a mere estimation. In fact there is not proof to this date which once and for all proves that gravity is really not renormalizable. If you think in terms of Feynman diagrams (which are a nightmare for Einstein gravity), there might be non-trivial cancellations hidden within the sum of graph which tame divergences. It might also be that the potential counterterms are related by some non-obvious symmetry, so that in the end only a finite number of field redefinitions is necessary to get rid of the divergences -- or in other words that a sensible implementation of renormalization is possible. In fact, the question about UV finiteness is currently being addressed by Zvi Bern and friends who could show using sophisticated techniques that maximally supersymmetric quantum gravity is much less divergent than one would naively think. The buzzwords here are color-kinematics duality and the double copy construction which basically says that a gravity scattering amplitude is in some sense the square of a gauge theory amplitude. Check the arxiv, there's a plethora about this.

Now, regarding powercounting the reasoning is roughly as follows: the EH action is basically $$\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\kappa} \int d^4x \sqrt{-g}R $$ with $g$ the determinant of the spacetime metric $g^{\mu\nu}$. The mass dimension of the Ricci scalar $R$ is $[m^2]$, that of the integral measure $[m^{-4}]$, i.e.in order for the whole expression to be dimensionless $\kappa$ has to have mass dimension $[m^{-2}]$. If you now do a perturbative expansion around a flat background of the metric, you'll encounter at each step more and more powers of one over $\kappa$. Graphically, this expansion is an expansion in numbers of loops in Feynman diagrams. At each step, i.e. at each loop level the whole expression should be dimensionless, i.e. at each step you need more and more powers of loop momentum (at each loop level two more powers, to be precise), s.t. in the end your expressions become the more divergent the higher you go in the perturtabive expansion. In order to cancel these ever sickening divergences you'd have to introduce an infinite number of counterterms which -- in terms of renormalization -- makes no sense, hence this theory is by powercouting non-renormalizable.

There are nice lecture notes about this, cf http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2703 (Notes by Lance Dixon about supergravity but the introductory bit is quite general).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-15 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user A friendly helper
answered Apr 15, 2013 by A friendly helper (320 points) [ no revision ]
You mention " there is not proof to this date which once and for all proves that gravity is really not renormalizable". Was this not proved by Goroff and Sagnotti? or is it the case that some miracle might happen beyond two loops?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-15 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user twistor59
@twistor59: Thanks for mentioning the paper. They say in their conclusions that they don't expect any more cancellations for Einstein gravity beyond one loop based on a 2-loop computation. While I believe this is true and don't think that Einstein gravity is renormalizable, what I don't like about their argument is that it is not an all-loop proof but just a 2-loop computation. I might be too strict here in my sense of proof but I would really like to see an all-loop proof...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-15 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user A friendly helper
...given the magic happening in amplitude computations, why not expect a miracle beyond two loops? It happened in supergravities as well. Again, I don't see how this could happen though :)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-15 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user A friendly helper
I wouldn't disagree. Don't you just hate perturbation theory? +1 btw

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-15 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user twistor59
@twistor59: I sure do :).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-15 16:38 (UCT), posted by SE-user A friendly helper

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...