This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Hey y'all, I'm not the one to make the edits but this is a poor quality page on torsion fields as it pertains to physics. Most people mean "actual torsion fields", and you will see a reference on the Torsion disambiguation page to Einstein-Cartan theory, and a mention about alternative formulations of GR. So why is this nonsense the canonical article?
A non-vanishing torsion field term is one of the few ways in which the cosmological constant Λ can be predicted from first principles. What's interesting about this is that it fits the empirical Hubble Type Ia supernovae data, as well as the observations of Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect.
Students and researchers are directed to this page, which leads the novice to believe that "torsion fields are just a bunch of nonsense". The idea of twisted spacetime is an interesting research topic and has almost nothing to do with this article. Is there a better way to separate these topics so that the first page Googlers aren't misinformed?<~Evi~> (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]