Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Cosmic inflation in an extended non-commutative foliated quantum gravity: the wave function of the universe

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A non-commutative deformation of spacetime's symplectic structure, not fine-tuned initial conditions, is claimed to drive cosmic inflation.

desk verdict A speculative extension of the authors' BCQG framework with a genuinely new three-field wave-function setup, but the central claim of non-commutative-driven inflation rides on unvalidated approximate solutions and free coefficients. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09756 v1 pith:YP4KAX4Z submitted 2024-11-14 gr-qc hep-th

César A. Zen Vasconcellos , Peter O. Hess , José de Freitas Pacheco , Fridolin Weber , Benno Bodmann , Dimiter Hadjimichef , Geovane Naysinger , Rodrigo Fraga
show 3 more authors
João G.G. Gimenez Marcelo Netz-Marzola Moisés Razeira
This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th PACS 04.60.-m98.80.Qc
keywords non-commutativegeometrycosmicinflationwavefunctionoftheuniversebranch-cutquantumgravitysymplecticdeformationmirrorcosmologyscalefactor
topics Quantum Gravity
open problems Quantum Gravity
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 tries to establish that a non-commutative deformation of spacetime's symplectic structure is enough to drive the universe's inflationary expansion, without the fine-tuned initial conditions required by standard inflation. It extends a prior two-field branch-cut quantum gravity model to a triad of canonically conjugate complex fields, solves the resulting wave equations for the universe's wave function, and finds that the amplitudes of $\Psi(\eta)$ and $\Psi(\varphi)$ grow while Planck-time intervals shrink. The result matters because it turns inflation into a structural consequence of quantum gravity rather than a separate mechanism attached to the Big Bang. It also predicts a mirror universe in the negative sector of thermal time, contracting and heating while our branch expands and cools.

What carries the argument

The central object is a deformed Poisson algebra in which the scale-factor variable, its dual fluid variable, and the inflaton-type field obey non-commutative brackets characterized by parameters $\gamma,\chi,\delta,\alpha,\beta,\varsigma$. The argument runs through a reverse symplectic quantization step: the non-commutative momenta are re-expressed in terms of commutative variables in a way that keeps the Hamiltonian's functional structure intact, then canonical quantization turns the separated equations into wave equations for $\Psi(\eta)$, $\Psi(\xi)$, and $\Psi(\varphi)$. The load-bearing piece is the successive-approximation solution, which combines Bessel functions with power series truncated at order $\eta^{13}$ and hand-matched boundary coefficients, producing the growing-amplitude wave functions interpreted as inflationary acceleration. The branch-cut scale factor is analytically continued through a complex logarithm, replacing the Big Bang singularity with a branch cut.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate equations (44) and (46) with the stated boundary conditions and without truncating the series, and check whether the exact wave-function amplitude still grows while oscillation intervals shrink; if it does not, the growing-amplitude signature is an artifact of the $\eta^{13}$ truncation and the hand-matched coefficients.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that accelerated expansion of the early universe can emerge from the algebraic structure of spacetime itself. Starting from the branch-cut quantum gravity action, the authors deform the Poisson brackets of three conjugate cosmic variables—the scale-factor variable, its fluid dual, and a scalar inflaton-type field—into a non-commutative symplectic algebra. After a canonical transformation the super-Hamiltonian separates into three wave equations, and the approximate solutions for the scale-factor wave function $\Psi(\eta)$ and the inflaton-sector wave function $\Psi(\varphi)$ show amplitudes that grow in time while the oscillation intervals shrink, which the paper reads as a universe in accelerated expansion. On this view, non-commutativity replaces the ad hoc, fine-tuned initial patch of standard inflation: the reconfiguration of matter, energy, and spacetime scales is generated by the deformed algebra rather than imposed. The same complex structure yields a contracting mirror universe in the negative sector of thermal time, connected to our branch through the branch cut.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim rests on approximate solutions of the wave equations: Bessel functions are combined with a power series truncated at order $\eta^{13}$, and the coefficients are matched by hand at the boundaries. If a more reliable solution of the same equations does not show the same growing amplitudes, the inference of non-commutative-driven acceleration collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inflation in this picture no longer requires a tiny, fine-tuned patch: the non-commutative algebraic structure itself reconfigures matter and energy and drives the scale factor and wave function into accelerated growth.
  • The analytically continued Friedmann-type equations place a mirror universe in the negative sector of thermal time, contracting and heating while our branch expands and cools.
  • The inflaton-type field acquires a wave function with growth behavior parallel to that of the scale factor, so inflation becomes part of the quantum-gravity wave equation rather than an external mechanism.
  • The same non-commutative structure produces ultraviolet/infrared mixing, which the paper connects to scale-invariant primordial density perturbations and to speculative spacetime shortcuts whose gravitational-wave signals might in principle be observable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is right, the non-commutativity parameters should map onto measurable cosmological observables such as the spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio; the paper does not carry out that mapping.
  • The mirror-universe contraction branch suggests looking for time-asymmetric signatures in the cosmic microwave background, for example enhanced or suppressed correlations on large angular scales, though the paper itself proposes no such test.
  • The convergence of the successive-approximation solutions could be checked by extending the truncation beyond order $\eta^{13}$; the paper gives no convergence proof, so the persistence of the growing-amplitude behavior across orders remains an open 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.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the branch-cut quantum gravity (BCQG) framework to a non-commutative symplectic structure with three fields (u, v, ϕ). It derives a Wheeler-DeWitt-type equation via canonical quantization, then claims to reduce it to a system of ordinary differential equations and presents approximate solutions for the wave-function components Ψ(η), Ψ(ξ), Ψ(φ). On the basis of the growing amplitude of these solutions, it argues that the non-commutative symplectic structure induces accelerated cosmic expansion without fine-tuned initial conditions, and it interprets negative-sector solutions as describing a mirror universe. The main technical results are Eqs. (49)-(52) and the corresponding figures, from which the paper infers an inflationary, accelerating phase.

Significance. The idea that spacetime non-commutativity might replace fine-tuning in inflation is timely, and the connection to Faddeev-Jackiw quantization and branch-cut cosmology is original. If the derivation were rigorous and the solutions validated, the paper would offer a speculative but interesting alternative to standard inflationary scenarios. However, the central contribution is not established: the key canonical reduction and the approximate solutions are not demonstrated, and the physical inference from wave-function amplitude to cosmic acceleration is not justified. The paper also does not provide machine-checked computations, reproducible data, or code; the plotted 'sample solutions' are presented without the details needed to verify them. For these reasons the significance of the work, as it stands, is limited.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (37)] The reduction of the PDE (36) to the separated form (37) is asserted rather than demonstrated. Appendix B argues that at a point ψ0 the quadratic form (B.3) can be reduced to canonical form by a linear transformation, and then identifies the new variables yi with global variables η, ξ, φ. It neither constructs the transformation for the specific coefficients C1...C6 of Table B1 nor shows that the transformation diagonalizes the second-order part globally while also separating the first-order derivative terms and the u-dependent potential. For a generic non-diagonal matrix with off-diagonal entries, such a transformation will mix the three equations, and the separation into (40)-(42) is therefore not a consequence of the argument given. This gap is load-bearing because all subsequent results rest on Eqs. (40)-(42).
  2. [§5.4.1, Eqs. (49)-(50)] The variable x in the Bessel-function arguments of Eqs. (49)-(50) is never defined; unless x is a function of η, the expression is not a function of η and cannot satisfy the ODE (44) or (46). The matching conditions are also inconsistent as stated: a1 and a2 are constants multiplying fixed basis functions, yet they are assigned different limits at η→0 and at η→∞, with no interpolation or matched-asymptotics construction. In addition, the limits of the coefficients bn as η→∞ are left unspecified, even though the polynomial terms containing bn dominate the growing-amplitude behavior shown in Figs. 3-4.
  3. [§5.4.1, Figs. 3-4] The polynomial part of (49)-(50) contains free coefficients b1, b2, and bn (n=6,...,12), and no convergence proof, remainder bound, or numerical check of the ODE is provided. The growth used to infer accelerated expansion may therefore be an artifact of the truncation and the chosen coefficients rather than a property of the differential equation with the naturalness parameters. Additionally, the boundary conditions in §5.3 are imposed at η=±1, while the matching conditions in (49)-(50) are at η→0 and η→∞; the paper does not explain how these two sets of conditions are connected, so it is unclear which boundary conditions the plotted curves actually satisfy.
  4. [§5.4.1] The physical interpretation is not justified: Ψ(η) is a wave function over the variable η (the scale-factor variable), and its growth as a function of η does not by itself imply accelerated expansion of the universe. To infer cosmic acceleration one would need to extract a dynamical scale factor, for instance via an expectation value ⟨η⟩ or by solving the corresponding Hamilton-Jacobi equation; the paper does not provide such a step. The repeated statement that increasing wave-function amplitudes 'characterize a universe in accelerated expansion' is therefore an unsupported leap from a property of a solution of the ODE to a cosmological conclusion.
  5. [§5.2, §5.4] The robustness of the claimed effect is not tested. The naturalness condition is used to normalize all running couplings to unity, the non-commutative parameters are set to |γ|=|ς|=1, and the boundary conditions are chosen to yield expansion. The paper presents no sensitivity analysis showing that the growing-amplitude behavior is a generic consequence of non-commutativity rather than of these specific choices. Since the paper's stated goal is to replace fine-tuned initial conditions with a non-commutative mechanism, this missing robustness check is directly relevant to the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.3] There is a typo in the Bekenstein bound formula: 'SB = 2π/ℏc ER' should presumably read 'SB = 2π R E /(ℏc)'; the current expression is ambiguous.
  2. [Throughout] There are multiple typographical errors: 'ans' for 'and' in §5, 'T able 1' in the caption of Table 1, and 'BCGQ'/'BCQC' for 'BCQG' in a few places. The spelling 'Ho˘rava' is also inconsistent.
  3. [§5.4.1] The phrase 'by mean of the successive approximation method' should be 'by means of', and the method itself is not described; a citation to a standard reference or a brief description of the iteration would help the reader follow the derivation.
  4. [Figs. 4-7] The figures are described as 'sample solutions' but no numerical values, initial conditions, or integration ranges are specified; the figure captions should state the parameter values and boundary conditions used for each curve, and ideally provide the data or code used to produce them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained; the unvalidated approximate solutions are a correctness risk, not a reduction to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the non-commutative symplectic structure induces accelerated growth of the wave function—is derived through an explicit chain: a commutative BCQG action, a three-field Faddeev–Jackiw deformation, canonical quantization, variable separation, and solutions of the resulting ODEs (Eqs. (40)–(47)). The non-commutative parameters enter the ODEs as first-derivative terms, and the growth in the plotted solutions is attributed to those terms. This is a model calculation, not a definitional equivalence: the paper does not define the non-commutative parameters in terms of the accelerated expansion, nor does it fit the parameters to the inflationary outcome; the naturalness condition (all couplings set to unity) and the choices |γ| = |ς| = 1 are stated assumptions. The paper repeatedly cites the authors' prior work [1] for the BCQG framework and for the assertion that non-commutativity captures small and large scales, but the load-bearing derivation of the wave-function equations and their interpretation is performed in this paper; the self-citations supply the setup, not the result. The serious weaknesses identified by a skeptical reader—the undefined variable x in Eqs. (49)–(50), the asymptotic conditions on coefficients that appear to vary with η, the undetermined bn coefficients, and the absence of a convergence proof for the 'successive approximation method'—are validity and reproducibility gaps. If the approximate solutions do not actually solve the ODEs, the central claim collapses, but that would be a mathematical error, not circularity: the paper does not demonstrate that the growing amplitude is manufactured by fitting free coefficients to the desired conclusion; it merely asserts a solution without adequate justification. Under the stated rules, an unsupported derivation is a correctness concern, not a self-referential reduction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The model rests on the prior BCQG framework and on parameter choices (the naturalness condition, |γ| = |ς| = 1, and specific boundary conditions) that directly shape the accelerating solutions. The 'prediction' of inflation is therefore largely an output of the chosen input parameters rather than a robust consequence of an externally constrained formalism.

free parameters (5)
  • Non-commutative coupling parameters γ and ς = |γ| = 1, |ς| = 1 in figures; naturalness condition
    The sign and magnitude of these couplings determine whether the wave equation takes the form (44) or (46), and whether the solution grows or contracts. The paper sets them to ±1 without independent input.
  • Poisson-deformation parameters β, χ, δ, ζ = Not fixed; enter coefficients C1..C6 in Table 1
    These encode the non-commutative algebra. Their values are constrained only by the 'gauge' conditions (i)-(iv) in §4.1 and by the choices |γ| = |ς| = 1 in the plots.
  • Alpha and omega equation-of-state parameters = α = 1/3, ω = 1/3 (radiation, ideal fluid)
    Chosen to make the separation of variables in Eq. (37) produce Eqs. (40)-(42). Different choices would change the ODEs entirely.
  • Running couplings gr, gm, gk, gq, gLambda, gs = Set to 1 by naturalness (§5.2)
    These define the potential V(η) in Eq. (43). The accelerating solutions are computed with all couplings at unity; no variation or data comparison is shown.
  • Series coefficients a1, a2, b1, b2, bn = Limiting conditions as η→0 and η→∞
    The approximate solutions (49)-(50) depend on matching coefficients between Bessel functions and two truncated polynomials; the matching is not derived.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BCQG framework and branch-cut scale factor ln^{-1}[β(t)] from the authors' prior CQG paper [1]
    The entire construction assumes that the branch-cut foliation replaces the singularity and that the scale factor is ln^{-1}[β(t)]; this is cited from [1] and not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper Faddeev-Jackiw symplectic deformation with reverse transformation gives the non-commutative Hamiltonian
    The 'reverse logic' in §4.1 is an unorthodox procedure; the matrix M_ij is fixed by gauge-style conditions (i)-(iv) chosen so that the two-field algebra is recovered and the Hamiltonian structure is preserved.
  • ad hoc to paper Naturalness principle justifies normalizing all coupling constants to unity
    §5.2 invokes Weinberg naturalness to set couplings to 1. This is a modeling choice, not an empirical constraint.
  • domain assumption Bekenstein bound justifies the specific boundary conditions Ψ(±1) and Ψ'(±1)
    §5.3 uses the Bekenstein entropy bound to motivate boundary conditions on the wave function at η=±1. The connection between the bound and the chosen values of Ψ and its derivative is heuristic.
  • standard math Canonical form reduction via linear transformation (Appendix B, citing [48]) eliminates all cross-derivative terms
    The reduction of the second-order operator in Eq. (36) to the separated form Eq. (37) relies on a theorem from Polyanin and Manzhirov [48]; the explicit transformation variables are not constructed.
invented entities (3)
  • Mirror universe in the negative sector of cosmological thermal time
    purpose: Appears as the complex-conjugate solution of the Friedmann-type equation, contracting with rising temperature before the transition to the expanding universe
    The mirror universe is inferred from analytic continuation of the scale factor; no observational handle is proposed.
  • Topological quantum leap / foliated wormhole-like shortcut between mirror and present universe
    purpose: Replaces the primordial singularity and connects contraction to expansion phases
    Speculative mechanism described in §5.4.3; the authors conjecture homodyne detection of a 'tiny correction' but give no amplitude or signal model.
  • Complex scalar inflaton-type field φ with dual complementary identity
    purpose: Carries the inflaton sector within the non-commutative algebra; its wave function is solved in §5.4.3
    This field is a complexified version of the standard inflaton, not the standard one; it is defined by the model and has no externally verified properties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmic inflation in an extended non-commutative foliated quantum gravity: the wave function of the universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YP4KAX4Z

@misc{pith2026241109756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmic inflation in an extended non-commutative foliated quantum gravity: the wave function of the universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YP4KAX4Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09756}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a novel extension to the recently developed non-commutative Riemannian foliated branch-cut quantum gravity (BCQG). Based on an extended Faddeev-Jackiw symplectic deformation of the conventional Poisson algebra, we investigate non-commutativity effects on a symplectic topological manifold that provides a natural isomorphic setting composed by a triad of canonically conjugate scalar complex fields which comprise quantum complementary dualities. Based on a complementary analytically continued Friedmann-type equation, combined with a quantum approach based on the Ho\v{r}awa-Lifshitz quantum gravity, we describe the dynamic evolution of the universe's wave function, unfolding unprecedented predictions for the cosmic evolution and inflation. The non-commutative foliated quantum gravity approach offers a new perspective on explaining the accelerated cosmic expansion of the universe, strongly suggesting that non-commutative algebra induces the late accelerated growth of both the universe's wave function and the corresponding scale factor, along with their quantum counterparts. In contrast to the conventional inflationary model, where inflation requires a remarkably fine-tuned set of initial conditions in a patch of the universe, non-commutative foliated quantum gravity, analytically continued to the complex plane, captures short and long scales of spacetime, leading to an evolutionary cosmic dynamic through a topological reconfiguration of the primordial cosmic matter and energy content. This result introduces new speculative framework elements regarding the reconfiguration of matter and energy due to an underlying non-commutative spatio-temporal structure as a driver of spacetime cosmic acceleration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09756 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. On the left, the generic form of the potential for chaotic inflation [2] indicates a relatively smooth and gradual rise. On the right, the Fubini potential [34] for non-chaotic inflation shows a more intricate shape, suggesting that the scalar field dynamics in non-chaotic scenarios may involve more entangled and nonlinear behavior. In the following, we build a non-commutative three fields approach. 4. Extended BCQG… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. On the upper-left, an Argand-type diagram of the cut distribution of real and imaginary numerical sample family solutions of the wave equation (44) for the wave-function Ψ(η) assuming the naturalness condition for |γ| = 1. On the upper￾right and center-below plots of sample individual solutions. The upper-left image corresponds to sampling the boundary conditions Ψ(1) and Ψ′ (1). The upper-right image corresponds to… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sample solutions of the wave equation (46) for the wave-function Ψ(η) assuming γ = i|γ| and the naturalness condition. The left figure corresponds to |γ| = −1, while on the right |γ| = 1. images of Ψ(η) as a function of η. The figures exhibit a similar wave behavior, given the parametric choices, particularly concerning the lower central figure to the historical result obtained by J.B. Hartle and S.W. Hawking [57]. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample family solutions of equation (46) for the wave-function Ψ(η) assuming the naturalness condition. The upper-left and lower-left figures correspond respectively to the boundary conditions Ψ(−1) = 0 and Ψ(−1) = −1. The upper-right and lower-right figures correspond…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sample family solutions of the wave equation (41) for the wave-function Ψ(ξ), assuming the naturalness condition. The figure on the left shows an Argand-type plot of the cut distribution of real and imaginary numerical sample solutions of the wave-function Ψ(ξ). The fi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sample family solutions of the wave equation (45) for the wave-function Ψ(φ), assuming the naturalness condition. The figures show Argand-type plots of real and imaginary numerical sample solutions of the wave-function Ψ(φ). The figure on the left corresponds to chaoti…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sample family solutions of the wave equation (47) for the wave-function Ψ(φ), assuming the naturalness condition. The figure on the left corresponds to chaotic inflation while the figure on the right to non-chaotic inflation. 6. Final remarks and conclusion Quantum fie…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zen Vasconcellos C A, Hess P O, de Freitas Pacheco J, Weber F, Bodmann B, Hadjimichef D, Naysinger G, Netz-Marzola M and Razeira M 2024 Classical and Quantum Gravity 41 245004

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Guth A H 1981 Phys. Rev. D23 347–356

    work page 1981

  3. [3]

    2: Measuring and Modeling the Universe; W

    Guth A H 2004 Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 2: Measuring and Modeling the Universe; W. L. Freedman (ed.) (London, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Bodmann B, Zen Vasconcellos C A, Hess P O, de Freitas Pacheco J A, Hadjimichef D, Razeira M and Degrazia G A 2023 Universe 9 (6)278

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Bodmann B, Hadjimichef D, Hess P O, de Freitas Pacheco J, Weber F, Razeira M, Degrazia G A, Marzola M and Zen Vasconcellos C A 2023 Universe 9 (10)428

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    DeWitt B S 1967 Phys. Rev. 160 1113

    work page 1967

  7. [7]

    Hoˇ rava P 2009Phys. Rev. D 79 084008

    work page

  8. [8]

    Faddeev L D and Popov V 1967 Phys. Lett. B. 25 (1)29

    work page 1967

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Faddeev L D and Jackiw R 1988 Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (17)1692

    1988

  2. [10]

    Kontsevich M 1993 Formal (non)-commutative symplectic geometry, The Gelfand Mathematical Seminars, 1990-1992 (Germany: Birkh¨ auser Verlag)

    1993

  3. [11]

    da Silva A C 2001 Lectures on Symplectic Geometry: 1764 (Germany: Springer)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Kamber F W and Tondeur P 1984 Ast´ erisque116 108–116

    1984

  5. [13]

    Arnowitt R, Deser S and Misner C W 2008 General Relativity and Gravitation 40 1997–2027

    2008

  6. [14]

    Recognizing Outstanding Ph.D

    Platania A B 2018 Asymptotically Safe Gravity Springer Theses. Recognizing Outstanding Ph.D. Research (Cham, Switzerland: Springer)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Manders K 1989 J. Philos. 86 (10)553–562

    1989

  8. [16]

    Dirac P 1937 Proceedings of the Royal Society A 160 (900)48

    1937

  9. [17]

    Aharonov Y and Bohm D 1959 Phys. Rev. 115 (3)485–491

    1959

  10. [18]

    Wu K D, Kondra T, Rana S, Scandolo C, Xi-ang G Y, Li C F, Guo G C and Streltsov A 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (9)090401

    2021

  11. [19]

    Hess P O, Sch¨ afer M and Greiner W 2015 Pseudo-Complex General Relativity (Berlin, Germany: Springer)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Friedman A 1922 Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik10 377

    1922

  13. [21]

    Lema ˆ ıtre G 1927Annales de la Soci´ et´ e Scientifique de BruxellesA47 49

  14. [22]

    Robertson H P 1935 Astrophysical Journal 82 248–301

    1935

  15. [23]

    Walker A G 1937 Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 42 90

    1937

  16. [24]

    Zen Vasconcellos C A, Hadjimichef D, Razeira M, Volkmer G and Bodmann B 2019Astron. Nachr. 340 857–865 Non-commutative foliated quantum gravity and the wave function of the universe 33

  17. [25]

    Zen Vasconcellos C A, Hess P O, Hadjimichef D, Bodmann B, Razeira M and Volkmer G L 2021 Astron. Nachr. 342 (5)765–775

    2021

  18. [26]

    Zen Vasconcellos C A, Hess P O, Hadjimichef D, Bodmann B, Razeira M and Volkmer G L 2021 Astron. Nachr. 342 (5)776–787

    2021

  19. [27]

    D 52 1988

    Feinberg J and Peleg Y 1995 Phys.Rev. D 52 1988

    1995

  20. [28]

    Hess P O, Vasconcellos Z, de Freitas Pacheco J, Hadjimichef D and Bodmann B 2022 Astron. Nachr. e20220101

    2022

  21. [29]

    Bertolami O and Zarro C A D 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 044042

    2011

  22. [30]

    Maeda K I, Misonoh Y and Kobayashi T 2010 Phys. Rev. D 82 064024

    2010

  23. [31]

    Weyl H 1918 Math. Zeit. 2 384

    1918

  24. [32]

    Kiritsis E and Kofinas G 2009 Nucl. Phys. B 821 467

    2009

  25. [33]

    Tavakoli F, Vakili B and Ardehali H 2021 Advances in High Energy Physics 2021 Article ID 6617910

    2021

  26. [34]

    de Alfaro V, Fubini S and Furlan G 1976 Nuovo Cimento A 34 569

    1976

  27. [35]

    Dirac P 1964 Lectures Notes on Quantum Mechanics (New York, USA: eshiva University)

    1964

  28. [36]

    Jackiw R 1993 (constrained) quantization without tears arXiv:hep-th/9306075

    1993 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hilgevoord J 2005 Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36 (1)29–60

    2005

  30. [38]

    Zeh H 2008 Compendium of Quantum Physicis - Concepts, Experiments, History and Philosophy (Germany: Springer)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Rovelli C 2019 The Order of Time (New York, USA: Riverhead Books)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Pauli W 1933 Handbuch der Physik vol 24 (Springer, Berlin)

    1933

  33. [41]

    Hawking S W 1982 Pontif. Acad. Sci. Scr. Varia 48 563

    1982

  34. [42]

    Vilenkin A 1982 Phys. Lett. B 117 25

    1982

  35. [43]

    Vilenkin A 1989 Phys. Rev. D 39 (4)1116

    1989

  36. [44]

    Rovelli C 2004 Quantum Gravity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

    2004

  37. [45]

    Rovelli C and Smerlak M 2011 Classical and Quantum Gravity 28 075007

    2011

  38. [46]

    Quantum Grav

    Rovelli C 2015 Class. Quantum Grav. 32 124005

    2015

  39. [47]

    Hawking S W and Page D N 1986 Nucl. Phys. B 264 185

    1986

  40. [48]

    Polyanin A D and Manzhirov A V 2006 Handbook of Mathematics for Engineers and Scientists (London,UK: Chapman and Hall/CRC)

    2006

  41. [49]

    Hawking S W and Hertog T J 2018 High Energ. Phys. 04 147

    2018

  42. [50]

    Nettel F and Quevedo H 2005 Topological quantization of the harmonic oscillator math-ph/0612038

    2005 arXiv

  43. [51]

    UNSAAC, Cusco, Per´ u, 16-18 December 2021

    Zen Vasconcellos C A, Hadjimichef D, Hess P O, de Freitas Pacheco J A and Bodmann B 2022 Evidences for the branch-cut cosmology xXI Meeting of Physics. UNSAAC, Cusco, Per´ u, 16-18 December 2021. To be published by Journal of Physics: Conference Series

    2022

  44. [52]

    Zen Vasconcellos C A, Hess P O, de Freitas Pacheco J, Hadjimichef D and Bodmann B 2022 Astron. Nachr. e20220079

    2022

  45. [53]

    de Freitas Pacheco J A, Vasconcellos C A Z, Hadjimichef D, Hess P O and Bodmann B 2023 Branch- cut cosmology and the bekenstein criterion to be published by the Astronomische Nachrichten

    2023

  46. [54]

    Weinberg S 1972 Phys. Rev. Lett. 29 1698

    1972

  47. [55]

    Bekenstein J D 1981 Int. J. Theor. Phys. 28 967–989

    1981

  48. [56]

    Hawking S W 1985 Phys. Rev. D 32 2489

    1985

  49. [57]

    Hartle J and Hawking S 1983 Phys. Rev. D 28 (12)2960

    1983

  50. [58]

    Seiberg N and Witten E 1999 JHEP 09 032

    1999

  51. [59]

    Lust D and Palti E 2018 JHEP 1802 040

    2018

  52. [60]

    Craig N and Koren S 2020 JHEP 03 040

    2020

  53. [61]

    Minwalla S, Raamsdonk1 M V and Seiberg N 2000 JHEP 02 020

    2000

  54. [62]

    Guzm´ an W, Sabido M and Socorro J 2007 Phys. Rev. D 76 087302

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.