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

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

1 Answer 1

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

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.