Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2105.05176 v2 pith:OL7PMT4Z submitted 2021-05-11 gr-qc hep-th

Renormalizability of alternative theories of gravity: differences between power counting and entropy argument

classification gr-qc hep-th
keywords argumentgravityentropytheoriesalternativeasymptoticcountingextensions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

It is well known that General Relativity cannot be considered under the standard of a perturbatively renormalizable quantum field theory, but asymptotic safety is taken into account as a possibility for the formulation of gravity as a non-perturbative renormalizable theory. Recently, the entropy argument has however stepped into the discussion claiming for a "no-go" to the asymptotic safety argument. In this paper, we present simple counter-examples, considering alternative theories of gravity, to the entropy argument as further indications, among others, on the possible flows in the assumptions on which the latter is based on. We consider different theories, namely curvature based extensions of General Relativity as $f(R)$, $f(\mathcal{G})$, extensions of Teleparallel Gravity as $f(T)$, and Horava-Lifshitz gravity, working out the explicit spherically symmetric solutions in order to make a comparison between power counting and the entropy argument. Even in these cases, inconsistencies are found.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.