Renormalizable quantum field theory in curved spacetime with external two-form field

Ilya L. Shapiro; Ioseph L. Buchbinder; Thomas M. Sangy

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Renormalizable quantum field theory in curved spacetime with external two-form field

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A two-form background forces nonminimal scalar coupling for renormalizability

desk verdict A serious one-loop calculation that plausibly forces a new B^2 phi^2 nonminimal coupling, but the decisive trace is not shown—good enough to referee, not good enough to cite blind. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06916 v1 pith:7AXY43ZN submitted 2025-09-08 hep-th gr-qc

Ioseph L. Buchbinder , Thomas M. Sangy , Ilya L. Shapiro This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qc MSC 81T1081T1581T20

keywords renormalizationantisymmetrictensorfieldnonminimalcouplingcurvedspacetimeone-loopdivergencesgrouptraceanomalySU(2)gaugemodel

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a renormalizable interacting quantum field theory on a curved spacetime with an external antisymmetric two-form field B_mu_nu must include nonminimal interactions of that background with both fermions and scalars. The new requirement is a scalar term proportional to B^2 phi^2 with a coupling xi_2. Without it, a one-loop divergence proportional to the fermionic coupling eta and the Yukawa coupling h cannot be absorbed. The argument is confirmed by an explicit one-loop calculation in an SU(2) gauge model with scalars, fermions, and gauge fields. If correct, any renormalizable theory on such a background needs these extra couplings, and their renormalization-group running makes them stronger in the ultraviolet, paralleling the known torsion case.

What carries the argument

The one-loop calculation uses the background field method and the proper-time Schwinger-DeWitt technique. The central object is the second-order differential operator H H* = box + 2 h^alpha nabla_alpha + Pi, whose one-loop divergence is obtained from the trace of (1/2) P^2 + (1/12) S^2_rho_sigma. The nonminimal couplings eta B_mu_nu Sigma^mu_nu in the fermion sector and xi_2 B^2_mu_nu phi^2 in the scalar sector are the terms that make the divergences absorbable. The coefficient 32 s eta^2 h^2 multiplying B^2 phi^2 in the divergence is the load-bearing output of the calculation.

What would settle it

An independent one-loop computation of the B^2 phi^2 divergence in the same SU(2) model, for example by Feynman diagrams or a worldline method, that gives a coefficient different from 32 s eta^2 h^2, or zero, would falsify the claim that the scalar nonminimal coupling xi_2 is required for renormalizability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that multiplicative renormalizability of matter fields in curved spacetime with an external antisymmetric tensor B_mu_nu requires the nonminimal scalar interaction (1/2) xi_2 B^2_mu_nu phi^2 in addition to the already-known fermionic interaction eta B_mu_nu Sigma^mu_nu. The evidence is a one-loop divergence containing the B^2 phi^2 term with coefficient 32 s eta^2 h^2, which cannot be absorbed into any coupling already present unless xi_2 is included. The calculation also shows that no divergent B_mu_nu Sigma^mu_nu fermion term is generated, because of the gamma-matrix identity gamma^alpha Sigma^mu_nu gamma_alpha = 0, indicating that the renormalization structure

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the one-loop trace calculation in Sec. 3.2 and Appendices A-B is correct: specifically, that the B^2 phi^2 divergence has coefficient 32 s eta^2 h^2 and cannot be absorbed by any other counterterm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any renormalizable model with fermions coupled to a two-form background and with Yukawa interactions must include the scalar nonminimal term xi_2 B^2 phi^2; otherwise ultraviolet divergences cannot be renormalized away.
Even if xi_2 is set to zero at some reference scale, renormalization-group running generates a nonzero xi_2 whenever the fermionic coupling eta is nonzero.
Both nonminimal couplings eta and xi_2 grow in the ultraviolet, so a background two-form field would interact more strongly at high energies and could be naturally hard to see in low-energy experiments.
The absence of a divergent B_mu_nu Sigma^mu_nu fermion term is due to a gamma-matrix identity and is expected to hold for any gauge group or matter representation.
The trace anomaly and anomaly-induced effective action give logarithmic quantum corrections to the classical potentials of the scalar and two-form fields, providing a route to phenomenological predictions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the central claim is right, phenomenological models that place an antisymmetric tensor background in curved spacetime but omit the xi_2 B^2 phi^2 term are not renormalizable at one loop and should be amended.
The decisive coefficient 32 s eta^2 h^2 is presented without the intermediate trace algebra; an independent verification by standard Feynman diagrams or a worldline method would settle the claim directly.
The ambiguity in total-derivative terms in the trace anomaly means the logarithmic arguments in the induced effective potential may change if the calculation is done in another scheme; physical predictions should be built from scheme-independent combinations.
The ultraviolet growth of eta and xi_2 suggests that the one-loop approximation breaks down at some high scale; whether higher loops tame or accelerate that growth is a natural next question.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Take this one: the paper's reason for existing is the B^2 phi^2 divergence at one loop. If that divergence is real, the nonminimal scalar coupling xi_2 B^2 phi^2 is not optional—it is forced by renormalizability. The authors support it with a full one-loop calculation in an SU(2) model and, as consistency checks, they reproduce the known limits. The problem is that the decisive trace algebra is not shown: the coefficient 32 s eta^2 h^2 emerges from Appendix A without intermediate steps. The stress-test note is right that this is load-bearing. But I'd push back on making it a deal-breaker: the argument only needs the coefficient to be nonzero, and the two doubling schemes in Appendices A and B agree, which is a meaningful cross-check. This is a place where a referee has real work to do, not a reason to reject.

What is genuinely new: the scalar nonminimal coupling xi_2 B^2 phi^2, its one-loop derivation, and the RG/anomaly-induced effective potential in the mixed scalar-B sector. That's a solid increment over the fermion-only treatments. The model is small, but the limits and conformal checks give the calculation credibility. Self-citations are appropriate here; [11-13] are the ground the paper builds on.

Soft spots, in order of severity. First, the footnote 6 claim that the [14] theorem on conformality of one-loop divergences extends to B-field backgrounds is asserted without proof; if that fails, the vacuum divergence structure in Sec. 3 loses part of its rationale. Second, Sec. 5 uses conflicting beta notations, including two quantities both written beta_tau with and without tildes, and the signs around Eqs. (64-67) need cleanup. Third, the Conclusions make universality claims—'does not depend on the gauge group' and 'expected to hold in any interacting theory'—that go beyond the SU(2) calculation. They are plausible, not demonstrated.

None of these kill the paper. The central scenario is coherent, the calculation is reproducible in structure if not in full detail, and the conclusion—nonminimal coupling required by renormalizability—matches the general expectation from torsion. I'd send it to a serious referee, asking specifically for a check of Eq. (26). The audience is people working on external-field renormalization in semiclassical gravity; they'll get value. I would put it on my reading list and, after verifying the central coefficient, would cite it. The question is worth engaging.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies one-loop renormalizability of an interacting SU(2) gauge model, with s Dirac fermion copies and one real scalar in the adjoint representation, on a curved spacetime endowed with an external antisymmetric two-form field B_{\mu\nu}. Its central claim is that multiplicative renormalizability forces a nonminimal scalar interaction of the form \xi_2 B^2_{\mu\nu}\varphi^2 in addition to the previously studied nonminimal fermion interaction \eta B_{\mu\nu}\Sigma^{\mu\nu}. The one-loop divergence in Eq. (26) contains a B^2\varphi^2 pole whose coefficient includes 32s\eta^2h^2; the paper argues that, if \xi_2 were absent from the classical action, this pole could not be absorbed, and hence \xi_2 is mandatory. The authors derive renormalization-group equations for \eta and \xi_2, find that |\xi_2| diverges in the UV, and use the trace anomaly to construct an anomaly-induced action and a low-energy effective potential. Consistency checks are provided: the divergences reduce to those of Ref. [15] when B_{\mu\nu}=0, and to three times the pure-fermion result of Ref. [12] when h=f=0 and s=1. Two different fermion-doubling schemes are reported to give the same divergences.

Significance. If the computation is correct, the paper establishes a new, concrete consequence of renormalizability in external-field quantum field theory: a background two-form field requires a nonminimal scalar coupling \xi_2 B^2\varphi^2, in close analogy with the torsion case. This is a genuinely useful result for semiclassical-gravity and external p-form calculations. The paper has real strengths: it works with an explicit gauge model, uses standard background-field/proper-time methods, gives specific and falsifiable one-loop coefficients, and passes three nontrivial consistency checks, including agreement between two independent doubling schemes. The main limitation is that the decisive algebraic step producing the 32s\eta^2h^2 coefficient in Eq. (26) is not displayed, so the central result cannot presently be checked without repeating a long trace computation.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.2 and Appendix A, Eq. (26)] The coefficient 32s\eta^2h^2 in the B^2\varphi^2 divergence is the sole direct evidence for the paper's main claim that \xi_2 is required for renormalizability. Appendices A and B give the operators \hat P and \hat S_{\alpha\beta}, but not the supertrace reduction that produces this coefficient. The two doubling schemes agree, but they do not constitute an independent verification of the trace algebra. Please display the relevant part of the calculation, at least for the \eta^2h^2 channel, or provide a supplementary file with the trace reduction. Without this, the central claim rests on a key step the reader cannot reproduce.
[Sec. 2, footnote 6] The statement that the one-loop conformal-invariance theorem of Ref. [14] 'can be extended to include B-field background' is an unproved assertion. This extension is used to restrict the one-loop vacuum divergences to conformal and total-derivative terms. Since the B-field modifies the curvature commutators and transforms nontrivially under the local conformal transformations (4), the extension is not automatic. Either provide a proof, show explicitly that the Sec. 3 calculation verifies the needed property, or weaken the general claim to the computed model.
[Sec. 5.1, Eqs. (43)-(46), (55), (66)] The symbol \beta_\tau is used for two different quantities: in Eq. (45) it denotes the scalar-field beta function (f+12g^2-12sh^2)/(18(4\pi)^2), while in Eq. (46) it denotes the vacuum W_4 beta function -4s\eta^2/(4\pi)^2. Equations (55) and (66) then become ambiguous, since both use \beta_\tau. In addition, Eq. (44) writes \beta_\lambda W_2 where Eq. (46) implies the coefficient should be \beta_{f_2}. These notational collisions should be fixed by renaming one set of beta functions (e.g., \beta_{\rm sc} and \beta_{W_4}) and correcting the W_2 term.

minor comments (4)

[General] There are several typographical errors and awkward phrases: 'action (10' at the end of Sec. 3.1, 'hear and later' in Eq. (16), 'the\xi_1,\xi_{1,2}' in Sec. 3.1, and 'negative value of A' in the text after Eq. (40), where A is never defined.
[Sec. 5.1] The notation B^2_{\mu\nu} is used in several places where the scalar quantity B_{\mu\nu}B^{\mu\nu} is meant. A brief definition at first use would improve clarity.
[Sec. 5.3, after Eq. (67)] The sentence beginning 'It is important to note that the form of the operators \hat P and \hat S_{\alpha\beta}...' is repeated verbatim from the discussion preceding Eq. (67). One copy should be deleted.
[Sec. 4, Eqs. (31)-(32)] The relation of the beta functions (31)-(32) to the counterterms in Appendix C is not explicitly spelled out. A short sentence connecting d\eta^2/dt and d\xi_2/dt to the renormalization constants (80) and (82) would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ξ₂ B²φ² coupling is genuinely forced by a computed one-loop divergence, and the UV-running 'predictions' follow from the beta functions, not from a fit.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that multiplicative renormalizability forces the scalar nonminimal term ξ₂B²_{μν}φ² once the fermion–B coupling η and Yukawa coupling h are present. This is not a circular reduction: the one-loop divergence in the B²φ² channel, Eq. (26), contains the term ½(32sη²h² − (5f/3)ξ₂ + 4ξ₂g²)B²_{μν}φ². The 32sη²h² part is independent of ξ₂ and arises from a fermion loop with two ηBΣ insertions and two hφψ̄ψ vertices; the renormalization transformation Eq. (82) then shows the required counterterm for ξ₂ is proportional to 32sη²h². That is exactly the standard 'coupling generated by loops must be included in the classical action' argument, not an assumption of what is being proved. The Schwinger–DeWitt computation is presented with explicit operator entries in Appendix A and an independent second doubling scheme in Appendix B, which yields the same divergences; the consistency checks in Sec. 3 (B=0 reduces to [15]; h=f=0, s=1 gives three times [12]; conformal limit works) anchor the calculation to external results. The UV-growth statements for η and ξ₂ are solutions (36) and (39) of the computed beta functions (31)–(32), so they are consequences, not fitted predictions. The self-citations [11]–[13] supply the previously established fermion–B coupling and pure-B vacuum sector; they are not the derivation of the new scalar coupling, and the model reproduces those prior results as limits. The paper itself flags scheme ambiguities in total-derivative/local anomaly terms and in log-argument identification (Secs. 5.2, 5.3), and the trace algebra behind Eq. (26) is not displayed in full; these are verifiability limitations, not circularity. Hence no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation introduces two new nonminimal couplings (η, ξ2) as free parameters, relies on standard power-counting and Schwinger-DeWitt machinery, and extends one theorem from metric to B-field backgrounds without proof. No new physical entities are postulated; the B field is taken from prior literature as an external background.

free parameters (5)

η
Dimensionless nonminimal fermion-B coupling in action (2); free parameter, no fitted value; central to the RG and divergence analysis.
ξ2
Dimensionless nonminimal scalar-B coupling in action (3); free parameter, no fitted value; the paper demonstrates it must be present for renormalizability.
ξ1
Standard nonminimal scalar-curvature coupling; set to 1/6 in the conformal case; not fitted.
τ, λ, f2, f3
Vacuum B-sector nonminimal parameters in (11); free, not fitted; appear in the effective potential (66).
M
Mass of the external B field in (11); free parameter, not fitted.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Admissible interactions are restricted to local, covariant terms with no inverse-mass-dimensional parameters (power counting).
Sec. 2; this limits nonminimal matter terms to ξ1 R φ^2, η B Σ, ξ2 B^2 φ^2 and excludes higher-dimension operators.
ad hoc to paper The one-loop conformal-invariance-of-divergences theorem of [14] extends to B-field backgrounds.
Footnote 6, p. 5; asserted, not proved; used to keep only conformal W_i and total-derivative N_i terms in the one-loop vacuum divergences.
standard math The Schwinger-DeWitt proper-time formula (20) and the fermion-doubling operator H* (17) yield the correct one-loop effective action for the first-order fermionic sector.
Sec. 3.2 and Appendix A; standard technique, but the trace evaluation is not shown in intermediate steps.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Renormalizable quantum field theory in curved spacetime with external two-form field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7AXY43ZN

@misc{pith2026250906916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Renormalizable quantum field theory in curved spacetime with external two-form field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7AXY43ZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06916}
}

abstract

We argue that the renormalizability of interacting quantum field theory on the curved-space background with an additional external antisymmetric tensor (two-form) field requires nonminimal interaction of the antisymmetric field with quantum fermions and scalars. The situation is qualitatively similar to the metric and torsion background. In both cases, one can explore the renormalization group running for the parameters of nonminimal interaction and see how this interaction behaves in the UV limit. General considerations are confirmed by the one-loop calculations in the well-known gauge model based on the $SU(2)$ gauge group.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[14]

Buchbinder,On renormalization group equations in curved space-time,Theor

I.L. Buchbinder,On renormalization group equations in curved space-time,Theor. Math. Phys.61(1984) 1215. 19

work page 1984
[15]

Voronov and I.V

B.L. Voronov and I.V. Tyutin,Models of Asymptotically Free Massive Fields, Yad. Fiz.23 (1976) 664

work page 1976
[12]

Antisymmetric Tensor Field and Cheshire Cat Smile of the Local Conformal Symmetry

I.L. Shapiro,Antisymmetric tensor field and Cheshire Cat smile of the local conformal symmetry,Eur. Phys. J.C84(2024) 108, Erratum, ibid.C85(2025) 289, arXiv:2310.04131

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[1]

F.W. Hehl, P. Heide, G.D. Kerlick and J.M. Nester,General relativity with spin and torsion: foundations and prospects,Rev. Mod. Phys.48(1976) 393

work page 1976
[2]

Buchbinder and I.L

I.L. Buchbinder and I.L. Shapiro,On the renormalization of the models of quantum field theory in an external gravitational field with torsion,Phys. Lett.B151(1985) 263

work page 1985
[3]

Buchbinder and I.L

I.L. Buchbinder and I.L. Shapiro,On the renormalization group equations in curved space- time with torsion,Class. Quant. Grav.7(1990) 1197

work page 1990
[4]

Shapiro,Physical aspects of the space-time torsion,Phys

I.L. Shapiro,Physical aspects of the space-time torsion,Phys. Rept.357(2002) 113, hep- th/0103093

arXiv 2002
[5]

Kostelecky and N

V.A. Kostelecky and N. Russell,Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation,Rev. Mod. Phys.83(2011), 11, arXiv:0801.0287

arXiv 2011

Show all 30 references

[6]

Ogievetsky and I.V

V.I. Ogievetsky and I.V. Polubarinov,The notoph and its possible interactions,Yad. Fiz.4 (1966) 216. [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.4(1967) 156]

1966
[7]

Kalb and P

M. Kalb and P. Ramond,Classical direct interstring action,Phys. Rev.D9(1974) 2273

1974
[8]

Johnson,D-Branes, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)

C.V. Johnson,D-Branes, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)

2003
[9]

Ortin,Gravity and Strings, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

T. Ortin,Gravity and Strings, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

2004
[10]

Freedman, A

D.Z. Freedman, A. Van Proeyen,Supergravity, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012)

2012
[11]

Avdeev and M.V

L.V. Avdeev and M.V. Chizhov,Antisymmetric tensor matter fields: An Abelian model, Phys. Lett.B321(1994) 212, hep-th/9312062

1994 arXiv
[13]

Shapiro,Local conformal symmetry and anomalies with antisymmetric tensor field,Eur

I.L. Shapiro,Local conformal symmetry and anomalies with antisymmetric tensor field,Eur. Phys. J. Plus140(2025) 534, arXiv:2504.01340

2025 arXiv
[16]

Buchbinder and I.L

I.L. Buchbinder and I.L. Shapiro,Introduction to quantum field theory with applications to quantum gravity,(Oxford University Press, 2021)

2021
[17]

DeWitt,Dynamical theory of groups and fields,Gordon and Breach, 1965

B.S. DeWitt,Dynamical theory of groups and fields,Gordon and Breach, 1965

1965
[18]

Barvinsky and G.A

A.O. Barvinsky and G.A. Vilkovisky,The generalized Schwinger-Dewitt technique in gauge theories and quantum gravity, Phys. Repts,119(1985) 1

1985
[19]

Buchbinder, S.D

I.L. Buchbinder, S.D. Odintsov and I.L. Shapiro,Effective action in quantum gravity.(IOP Publishing, Bristol, 1992)

1992
[20]

Asorey, W

M. Asorey, W. Cesar de Silva, I.L. Shapiro, and P.R.B. do Vale,Trace anomaly and induced action for a metric-scalar background,Eur. Phys. J.C83(2023) 157, arXiv:2202.00154

2023 arXiv
[21]

Camargo and I.L

G.H.S. Camargo and I.L. Shapiro,Anomaly-induced vacuum effective action with torsion: covariant solution and ambiguities,Phys. Rev.D106(2022) 045004, arXiv:2206.02839

2022 arXiv
[22]

do Vale,Possibility of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Nambu-Jona- Lasinio model with torsion,Eur

P´ ublio R.B.R. do Vale,Possibility of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Nambu-Jona- Lasinio model with torsion,Eur. Phys. J. Plus139(2024) 1051, arXiv:2306.08699

2024 arXiv
[23]

Duff,Observations On Conformal Anomalies,Nucl.Phys.B125(1977) 334

M.J. Duff,Observations On Conformal Anomalies,Nucl.Phys.B125(1977) 334

1977
[24]

R.J.Riegert,A non-local action for the trace anomaly, Ph.Lett.B134(1984)56

1984
[25]

Fradkin and A.A

E.S. Fradkin and A.A. Tseytlin,Conformal anomaly in Weyl theory and anomaly free superconformal theories,Phys. Lett.B134(1984) 187

1984
[26]

Paneitz,A quartic conformally covariant differential operator for arbitrary pseudo- Riemannian manifolds,MIT preprint, 1983; SIGMA4(2008) 036, arXiv:0803.4331

S.M. Paneitz,A quartic conformally covariant differential operator for arbitrary pseudo- Riemannian manifolds,MIT preprint, 1983; SIGMA4(2008) 036, arXiv:0803.4331

1983 arXiv
[27]

Fradkin, and A.A

E.S. Fradkin, and A.A. Tseytlin,One-loop beta function in conformal supergravities,Nucl. Phys.B203(1982) 157

1982
[28]

Asorey, E.V

M. Asorey, E.V. Gorbar and I.L. Shapiro,Universality and ambiguities of the conformal anomaly,Class. Quant. Grav.21(2004) 163

2004
[29]

Nelson and P

B.L. Nelson and P. Panangaden,Scaling behavior of interacting quantum fields in curved space-time,Phys.Rev.D25(1982) 1019

1982
[30]

Assun¸ c˜ ao, T

J.F. Assun¸ c˜ ao, T. Mariz, J.R. Nascimento and A.Y. Petrov,Dynamical Lorentz symmetry breaking in a tensor bumblebee model,Phys. Rev.D100(2019) 085009, arXiv:1902.10592. 20

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Buchbinder,On renormalization group equations in curved space-time,Theor

I.L. Buchbinder,On renormalization group equations in curved space-time,Theor. Math. Phys.61(1984) 1215. 19

work page 1984

[2] [15]

Voronov and I.V

B.L. Voronov and I.V. Tyutin,Models of Asymptotically Free Massive Fields, Yad. Fiz.23 (1976) 664

work page 1976

[3] [12]

Antisymmetric Tensor Field and Cheshire Cat Smile of the Local Conformal Symmetry

I.L. Shapiro,Antisymmetric tensor field and Cheshire Cat smile of the local conformal symmetry,Eur. Phys. J.C84(2024) 108, Erratum, ibid.C85(2025) 289, arXiv:2310.04131

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [1]

F.W. Hehl, P. Heide, G.D. Kerlick and J.M. Nester,General relativity with spin and torsion: foundations and prospects,Rev. Mod. Phys.48(1976) 393

work page 1976

[5] [2]

Buchbinder and I.L

I.L. Buchbinder and I.L. Shapiro,On the renormalization of the models of quantum field theory in an external gravitational field with torsion,Phys. Lett.B151(1985) 263

work page 1985

[6] [3]

Buchbinder and I.L

I.L. Buchbinder and I.L. Shapiro,On the renormalization group equations in curved space- time with torsion,Class. Quant. Grav.7(1990) 1197

work page 1990

[7] [4]

Shapiro,Physical aspects of the space-time torsion,Phys

I.L. Shapiro,Physical aspects of the space-time torsion,Phys. Rept.357(2002) 113, hep- th/0103093

arXiv 2002

[8] [5]

Kostelecky and N

V.A. Kostelecky and N. Russell,Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation,Rev. Mod. Phys.83(2011), 11, arXiv:0801.0287

arXiv 2011