Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

What is / are the primary criticism(s) against Einstein-Cartan-Evans (ECE) field theory?

On Wikipedia the references provided were: arXiv:physics/0607186, MR2372785 (2008j:83049b), MR2218579 (2007a:83003), MR1832162 (2002d:78002).

I'm searching for an undergraduate-level* explanation of the criticisms / details.

(The first link is openly accessible [i.e. arXiv], but the others are from MathSciNet; (as I don't have access to MathSciNet, I'm wondering if someone with access may provide their take on the contents.))

(*To be specific, I have background in the following courses: Physics: First-year Mechanics, Basic E&M (but not electrodynamics); Math: Calculus I, Linear Algebra, some Differential Equations.)

share|cite|improve this question

Evan's work is not worth reading. The easy crticism is that the theory is not Lorentz invariant, which is in the paper you linked. To understand this, it is enough to see that the E and B field together form an antisymmetric tensor in relativity (this is the F tensor discussed in Volume 2 of the Feynman Lectures, if you need a good source). Adding a new component to B, without doing anything to E, violates this principle.

But the real problem here is that Evans is introducing a new component of B without giving any procedure to detect or measure this new field. It is important when defining a field to give a positivistic formulatin, to tell someone how to detect it. In this case Evans is simply postulating a field so that he can rotate B fields into each other with ordinary rotations.

The theory is either vacuous or wrong, depending on interpretaiton.

share|cite|improve this answer
I like this answer but concerning the second paragraph, I`m wondering if all theories intruducing new fields of some kind deliver them together with an "instruction" how to detect them... ;-P ? – Dilaton Nov 2 '11 at 11:48
@Dilaton: they do when there is controversy about how to detect it. For example in Brans-Dicke theory, they spend a lot of time on signatures. I think this is a somewhat ironic example, considering your handle. – Ron Maimon Nov 2 '11 at 17:37
Ha ha Yes, maybe I should have written that comment with my other handle ;-) ... I just felt too cheerful and for some reason could not hold back teasing You a little bit (without wanting to seriously troll against anything). Cheers – Dilaton Nov 2 '11 at 18:15

I asked Dr. Evans for his remarks on this topic, particularly the singular answer that was posted so far. I wanted to share his input simply for the sake of your own reference and understanding:

This kind of nonscientific activity has been answered thoroughly many times for almost fourteen years, for example UFT89.

The first remark is a famous epitaph "Evans' work is not worth reading". It is read by tens of millions. The second remark shows that this vessel of profound wisdom knows nothing about covariance. ECE is based directly on Cartan geometry, which is generally covariant, so it is automatically Lorentz covariant. So I stopped reading at that point.

He expounded further, but I felt that it was on a more personal note and I did not feel it appropriate to share.

He did note that:

I now expect people to apply ECE themselves to a problem of interest, then send me their paper. This is what was expected of me as a graduate student. The AIAS Fellows are able to do this because they all have an understanding of ECE theory. By monitoring the scientometrics it can be seen that these pseudocriticisms have come to a halt. By extrapolating the scientometrics, it is seen that ECE is going to be read by the best in the world for the indefinite future.

He also notes how critical it is for people who are sincerely interested to actually invest the resources to read and understand the source papers.

share|cite|improve this answer

The ECE theory is a breakthrough that can be improved in certain ways. The criticisms in wikipedia and in the papers published are just B.S. Carrying out certain experiments, we reach the conclusion that the extra term is correct and experiments match the results of ECE better than the classical one. We will work on that, but convince others is not our primary goal at the moment. What mattered is that ECE helped to understand certain experimental facts that the classical theory fails.

share|cite|improve this answer
You have a golden opportunity to flesh out your answer with more on the experiments etc. As it stands, this is mainly a comment. – Jon Custer Apr 23 at 1:28

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.