REVIEW 1 cited by
Spacetimes as topological spaces, and the need to take methods of general topology more seriously
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Why is the manifold topology in a spacetime taken for granted? Why do we prefer to use Riemann open balls as basic-open sets, while there also exists a Lorentz metric? Which topology is a best candidate for a spacetime; a topology sufficient for the description of spacetime singularities or a topology which incorporates the causal structure? Or both? Is it more preferable to have a topology with as many physical properties as possible, whose description might be complicated and counterintuitive, or a topology which can be described via a countable basis but misses some important information? These are just a few from the questions that we ask in this Chapter, which serves as a critical review of the terrain and contains a survey with remarks, corrections and open questions.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Nontrivial constitutive laws and unified structures in constrained BF theory
Changing the gravitational constitutive law in BF theory does not force any change in the internal gauge-theory constitutive law, because no canonical map connects the two sectors.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.