• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Finite quantum gravity?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

I'm working through an article that has some questionable assertions. The article is by Frank Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers". (I'm going to ignore the fact that some of Tipler's ideas are appropriately, I think, labeled pseudoscience.) There's a (questionable, I think) claim that "requiring the joint mathematical consistency of the Standard Model of particle physics and the DeWittFeynmanWeinberg theory of quantum gravity can resolve the horizon, flatness and isotropy problems of cosmology." I'm not worried about that right now. (But I imagine that won't prevent folks from commenting.) My goal is less ambitious for now. I'll just analyze, with your help hopefully, whether the following claim is correct.

In section 5 of the Rept. Prog. Phys. article cited above, he claims (quoting verbatim):

So basic quantum field theory quickly forces upon us the general invariant action \begin{align} S &= \int d^4\!x\sqrt{-g}\Big[\Lambda+\frac{1}{8\pi G}R+c_1^2R^2+c_1^3R^3+\cdots+ \nonumber \\ &+c_2^2R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}+\cdots +c_1^3R_{\mu\nu;\alpha}R^{\mu\nu;\alpha}+\cdots \end{align}

This is the qualitatively unique gravitational Lagrangian picked out by quantum mechanics.

Physicists do not like it because (1) it has an infinite number of (renormalizable) constants $c_j$ , all of which must be determined by experiment and (2) it will it not yield second order differential equations which all physicists know and love. But the countable number of constants are in effect axioms of the theory, and I pointed out in an earlier section that the LowenheinSkolum theorem suggests there is no real difference between a theory with a countable number of axioms and a theory with a finite number of axioms. The finite case is just easier for humans to deal with, provided the finite number is a small number. Further, as Weinberg (1995, pp 499, 518519) has emphasized, this Lagranian generates a quantum theory of gravity that is just as renormalizable as QED and the SM.

The first thing I note is that, I think, the renormalization constants (we call them "low-energy constants" in hadron theory) should be different for each term. For example, as $\cdots + c_1R^2 + c_2 R^3 + \cdots$, etc.

The next thing I note and would like to focus on for this question is the claim that a countably infinite number renormalization constants, the $c_j$, isn't a problem. (I don't know what the LowenheinSkolum theorem is but I don't think it's crucial to this discussion.) The counterargument is that an infinite number of constants would require progressively more experimental observables to fix them as the energy scale of the probe increases. I believe that what saves the day in hadronic effective field theories is that there is a power-counting that orders the sizes of the terms in the Lagrangian density. And that this power-counting requires the determination of a finite number of low-energy constants.

Now the curvature scalar, $R = R_\mu^\mu$, is a sum of terms, the highest derivative order of which are second order in the derivatives of the metric, $g_{\mu\nu}$. And powers of $R$, say $R^n$ will have products of highest order that are $n$ factors of second derivatives of the metric. And the other terms, like $R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}$ just have higher order derivatives. Presumably, the same power-counting logic applied above can be applied to these terms.

I believe this argument indicates that the quantum theory of gravity is predictive when viewed as an effective field theory. So my questions are: 1) Have I made the correct argument regarding the power-counting of the theory? 2) Is this argument predictive?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-13 04:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user MarkWayne
asked Dec 19, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by MarkWayne (270 points) [ no revision ]
What theory is not renormalizable in the sense that you can define it using an infinite number of couplings?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-13 04:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jerry Schirmer
A no-go theorem for higher order derivatives theories: the energy for higher-order derivative theories become unbounded from below. For a great review of this theorem, see section 2 of arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601672

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-13 04:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user Alex Nelson
Thanks, Jerry. I guess you meant it rhetorically. But doesn't that perspective ignore the power-counting argument?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-13 04:44 (UCT), posted by SE-user MarkWayne

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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights