Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Re-parameterization Invariance of FRW Model: Supervariable and BRST Approaches

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The (0+1)-dimensional FRW cosmological model admits off-shell nilpotent BRST-anti-BRST symmetries only when the Curci-Ferrari-type restriction $B+\bar{B}+\dot{\bar{C}}C-\bar{C}\dot{C}=0$ is imposed.

desk verdict A correct but incremental application of the authors' own supervariable BRST machinery to the FRW mini-superspace; the central algebra checks out, the novelty is thin, and an appendix has a real convention mismatch. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19704 v4 pith:J37WVYFT submitted 2024-12-27 hep-th

B. Chauhan , R. Tripathi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th PACS 04.60.Kz03.70.+k11.15.-q
keywords BRSTquantizationFRWcosmologicalmodelre-parameterizationinvarianceCurci-FerrarirestrictionsupervariableapproachhorizontalityconditionnilpotentBRST-anti-BRSTsymmetriesmini-superspace
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

This paper aims to carry out BRST quantization of the simplest cosmological model, the (0+1)-dimensional Friedmann-Robertson-Walker mini-superspace, whose dynamical content is the scale factor, the lapse function, and their conjugate momenta. It claims that the classical reparameterization symmetry of this model can be lifted to nilpotent BRST and anti-BRST symmetries acting on every variable, provided one imposes a single consistency condition of the Curci-Ferrari type: $B+\bar{B}+\dot{\bar{C}}C-\bar{C}\dot{C}=0$. The condition is derived in two different supervariable formalisms, and the paper argues that the same condition appears in any reparameterization-invariant model, making it universal. If right, this gives a consistent quantum treatment of the FRW mini-superspace with the same algebraic structure already used for relativistic particles and strings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified Bonora-Tonin supervariable approach (MBTSA): the one-dimensional diffeomorphism parameter is replaced by $\tilde{g}(t,\vartheta,\bar{\vartheta})=t-\vartheta\bar{C}-\bar{\vartheta}C+\vartheta\bar{\vartheta}h(t)$ on a $(1,2)$-dimensional supermanifold, and the horizontality condition $\tilde{A}=a(t)$, $\tilde{P}_a=p_a(t)$ fixes the derived variables in the super expansions. Comparison of two ways of evaluating the double symmetry then yields the CF-type restriction $B+\bar{B}+\dot{\bar{C}}C-\bar{C}\dot{C}=0$. A second mechanism, the (anti-)chiral supervariable approach (ACSA), derives the remaining symmetries from quantum gauge-invariant restrictions on supervariables expanded along only one Grassmann direction, and it realizes the same CF-type restriction as the condition under which the coupled Lagrangians are mutually invariant and the conserved charges anticommute.

What would settle it

One concrete check is to allow a Grassmann correction in the promoted scale factor, $\tilde{A}=a(t)+\vartheta\bar{\vartheta}\lambda(t)$ with $\lambda\neq 0$, and see whether any choice of $\lambda$ can keep the transformations off-shell nilpotent and absolutely anticommuting. If none exists, the horizontality condition is forced; if one does, the claim that it is the only possible starting point would be weakened. A second check is to apply the same construction to a reparameterization-invariant model whose target variable is not a scalar, such as a 1D gauge connection, and compare the resulting anticommutativity condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the scale factor $a(t)$ and its momentum $p_a(t)$ of the FRW model, together with the lapse $N(t)$, the Faddeev-Popov ghosts $C(t),\bar{C}(t)$, and the auxiliary fields $B(t),\bar{B}(t)$, admit off-shell nilpotent BRST-anti-BRST transformations (squaring to zero without using equations of motion) whose absolute anticommutativity holds exactly on the submanifold $B+\bar{B}+\dot{\bar{C}}C-\bar{C}\dot{C}=0$. To get the transformations for the scale factor and momentum, the paper promotes the time reparameterization $t\to t-\epsilon(t)$ to a superdiffeomorphism on a $(1,2)$-dimensional supermanifold and imposes a horizontality condition requiring that the promoted variables equal the ordinary scalars with no Grassmann corrections; this directly fixes $s_b a=C\dot{a}$, $s_{ab}a=\bar{C}\dot{a}$, and the corresponding momentum transformations, and it forces the Curci-Ferrari-type restriction. The remaining variable transformations are obtained from the (anti-)chiral supervariable approach, which uses only one Grassmann direction. The paper then proves that the coupled Lagrangians $L_B$ and $L_{\bar{B}}$ are equivalent, and that the conserved BRST and anti-BRST charges anticommute, if and only if the same restriction holds. It concludes that the restriction is universal for reparameterization-invariant models in any dimension.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the horizontality condition that the promoted scale factor and momentum are exactly the ordinary functions, with no Grassmann-valued corrections; if quantum corrections forced nonzero Grassmann components for these target-space variables, the derived symmetries and the Curci-Ferrari-type restriction would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is correct, the FRW mini-superspace can be BRST-quantized with off-shell nilpotent symmetries, making the BRST cohomology methods used for particles and strings available for this cosmological model.
  • Imposing $B+\bar{B}+\dot{\bar{C}}C-\bar{C}\dot{C}=0$ is necessary for the two coupled Lagrangians to be equivalent under both symmetries, which fixes a consistency condition any quantization of this model must respect.
  • The conserved BRST and anti-BRST charges are nilpotent and absolutely anticommuting exactly on the CF-type submanifold, making the restriction a requirement for a consistent physical-state space.
  • Because the same CF-type restriction arises in prior 1D reparameterization-invariant particle models and in the 2D bosonic string, the paper claims it will appear in every reparameterization-invariant BRST construction.
  • Within the (anti-)chiral supervariable approach, absolute anticommutativity of the charges is traced to the nilpotency of Grassmann translations along the chiral sub-manifolds, giving a geometric reading of the restriction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the universality claim is correct, the same supervariable machinery should produce the identical CF-type restriction in higher-dimensional diffeomorphism-invariant theories such as gravity, offering a concrete route to test the claim.
  • The paper leaves the physical meaning of the CF-type restriction for the spacetime geometry open; a natural next step is to check whether it selects a particular time gauge in canonical quantum cosmology.
  • One testable extension is to compute the BRST-cohomology physical states of the FRW model and ask whether the CF-type restriction is what guarantees unitarity of the mini-superspace Hilbert space.
  • The distinction the paper draws between chiral and anti-chiral sub-manifolds suggests that the two Grassmann directions play different roles in proving anticommutativity, which could matter when coupling the model to matter fields.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs BRST-anti-BRST quantization of the (0+1)-dimensional FRW minisuperspace model. Using a modified Bonora-Tonin supervariable approach and the (anti-)chiral supervariable approach, it derives nilpotent BRST and anti-BRST transformations for the scale factor, its momentum, the lapse function, the ghosts, and the auxiliary fields. The central result is the Curci-Ferrari-type restriction B + \bar{B} + \dot{\bar{C}}C - \bar{C}\dot{C} = 0, which is shown to be equivalent to absolute anti-commutativity of the symmetries and to the equivalence of the two coupled Lagrangians. Conserved BRST and anti-BRST charges are constructed and their nilpotency and anti-commutativity are discussed. I specifically checked the ghost-sector anticommutator that is easiest to mis-evaluate: with \bar{B} treated as a bosonic auxiliary field, {s_b, s_ab}C = 0 follows from the same graded Leibniz rule used in Eq. (22), so the sign inconsistency suggested in the stress-test note does not actually arise.

Significance. If the remaining issues are fixed, the paper provides an explicit, checkable example of the supervariable BRST-anti-BRST formalism applied to a cosmological minisuperspace model. Its strengths are the explicit off-shell nilpotent transformations, the construction of two equivalent coupled Lagrangians, and the derivation of conserved charges with no free parameters. The central algebra of Sections 3-5 is coherent and machine-checkable. The significance is incremental rather than groundbreaking: it extends the authors' previous studies of 1D reparameterization-invariant particle systems to the FRW model, but it does not supply a new general proof of the claimed D-dimensional universality of the CF-type restriction.

major comments (4)
  1. [7, Eq. (55)] As printed, the super Lagrangian \tilde{L}_B^{(ac)} in Eq. (55) contains the classical first-order terms, the \kappa term, and the ghost kinetic terms, but it does not contain the terms -B(N\dot{N}+2\dot{\bar{C}}C+\bar{C}\dot{C}) - B^2/2 that appear in the ordinary Lagrangian L_B in Eq. (39). With these terms absent, the claimed equality \partial_{\bar{\vartheta}} \tilde{L}_B^{(ac)} = s_b L_B in Eq. (56) cannot hold, and the ACSA proof of the CF-type restriction in Section 7 is incomplete as written. The same issue affects Eq. (57) for \tilde{L}_{\bar{B}}^{(c)}. Please correct the expressions or clarify how the auxiliary-field terms are represented.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (68)] The transformations listed in Eq. (68) are claimed to be nilpotent and absolutely anticommuting, but they do not satisfy absolute anti-commutativity. In particular, with s_ab C = B and s_b B = 0, one obtains {s_b, s_ab}C = s_b(s_ab C) + s_ab(s_b C) = 0 + s_ab(C\dot{C}) = B\dot{C} - C\dot{B}, which is not identically zero for a nonzero bosonic auxiliary field B. The statement immediately below Eq. (68) that these transformations anti-commute is therefore false. The appendix should either be reconciled with the main algebra in Eq. (41), where s_ab C = \bar{B}, or the anti-commutativity claim should be removed.
  3. [Abstract and Section 8] The abstract and Section 8 state that the CF-type restriction is universal for re-parameterization invariant models in general D-dimensional spacetime. This claim is not proven in the present manuscript; the evidence cited is the 1D models of Refs. [36-40] and the 2D string model of Ref. [40]. Please either provide the general argument or qualify the statement as an extrapolation from known examples, rather than a result established here.
  4. [4, Eq. (28)] The third BRST-invariant restriction listed in Eq. (28), namely s_b(\dot{\bar{B}}C - \bar{B}\dot{C}) = 0, is equivalent to the formula s_b \bar{B} = \dot{\bar{B}}C - \bar{B}\dot{C} that it is later used to derive. If this transformation is imported from Eq. (26), that should be stated explicitly; otherwise the ACSA derivation of s_b \bar{B} in Eq. (34) is circular. Please clarify the logical order of the derivation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2, Eq. (4)] The second Euler-Lagrange equation in Eq. (4) appears to have two typographical errors: the last term should be -a\dot{a}\dot{N}/N rather than -a\dot{a}/N, and the second term should be +(1/2)kN^2 rather than +kN^2. The standard derivation from L_s in Eq. (2) gives a\ddot{a} + (1/2)\dot{a}^2 - a\dot{a}\dot{N}/N + (1/2)kN^2 = 0.
  2. [7, Eqs. (55) and (57)] The parameter in the super Lagrangian expressions is written as \kappa, whereas the curvature parameter throughout the paper is k. Please use k consistently.
  3. [5, Eqs. (45) and (46)] The bracket placement in the expressions for Q_b^{(2)} and Q_{ab}^{(2)} is inconsistent with the stated exact forms s_{ab}(N^2 C\dot{C}) and s_b(N^2 \dot{\bar{C}}\bar{C}). For example, Q_b^{(2)} should be N^2(\bar{B}\dot{C} - \dot{\bar{B}}C) + 2N\dot{N}\bar{C}C\dot{C} + 2N^2\dot{\bar{C}}C\dot{C} (or an equivalent corrected form matching the exact expression). Please fix the parentheses and factors.
  4. [4, Eq. (24)] The anti-chiral super expansion of \bar{C}, i.e., \bar{F}^{(b)}(t,\bar{\vartheta}), is used in the super Lagrangians of Section 7 but is not explicitly defined in Eq. (24) or Eq. (27). Please define it before it is used.
  5. [3, Eq. (26)] The derivation of s_b \bar{B} and s_{ab}B from absolute anti-commutativity depends on the chosen graded Leibniz convention. Please state that convention explicitly, since the signs in Eq. (26) are otherwise easy to misread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MBTSA/ACSA construction is a standard BRST derivation with the input assumptions stated explicitly.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce a prediction to an input. The MBTSA horizontality condition (Eq. 16) is an explicit ansatz that encodes the scalar nature of a(t) and p_a(t); reading off s_b a = C\dot a and s_ab a = \bar C\dot a from it is the standard BRST construction, not a disguised fit. The CF-type restriction B + \bar B + \dot{\bar C}C - \bar C\dot C = 0 (Eq. 23) is obtained by imposing absolute anti-commutativity {s_b, s_ab} a = 0 on the algebra derived from that ansatz, and the same restriction is then used consistently to establish anticommutativity of the remaining variables and equivalence of the coupled Lagrangians (Eqs. 42-44). The ACSA steps solve for the ghost and auxiliary transformations from BRST/anti-BRST invariant restrictions (Eqs. 28-37); these are algebraic constraints, not fitted quantities. The standard identifications s_ab C = \bar B and s_b \bar C = B are explicitly stated assumptions, not results claimed to be predicted. Self-citations [36-40] are used only to frame the approach and to assert universality of the CF restriction; the FRW derivation itself does not depend on those papers. The apparent ghost-sector sign issue raised in the skeptic note is a graded-Leibniz bookkeeping question and, under the paper's sign conventions, the anticommutators in Eq. (42) close; in any event it is a correctness concern rather than a circularity. No load-bearing step is equivalent to its input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. All inputs are the standard FRW mini-superspace action (Sec. 2) and the supervariable BRST methodology, MBTSA and ACSA, inherited from the authors' prior papers and the Bonora-Tonin line of work. The central algebraic content, the CF-type restriction, is derived from consistency of these inputs, so the ledger is light: the contributions are analytic derivations, not new physical postulates.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The FRW mini-superspace Lagrangian L_s = -(1/2)a\dot{a}^2/N + (1/2)kNa (Eq. 2) is the correct classical starting point.
    Sec. 2 takes this standard ADM reduction of the FRW metric (1) as given; no derivation of the reduction or discussion of its quantization regime is provided.
  • domain assumption The classical reparameterization transformations (Eq. 9) are the complete gauge symmetry of L_f.
    Sec. 2 derives these from the first-class constraints; the analysis assumes no further gauge freedom.
  • domain assumption Super-diffeomorphism extension (Eq. 11) with (anti-)ghost fields as Grassmann coefficients is the correct embedding of the 1D diffeomorphism.
    Sec. 3; this is the MBTSA ansatz adopted from the authors' prior works [36-40] and Bonora [34, 35].
  • domain assumption Horizontality condition (Eq. 16): \tilde{A} = a(t), \tilde{P}_a = p_a(t) for the super-extended target variables.
    Sec. 3; the assumption that a(t) and p_a(t) are scalars under the quantum reparameterization is the load-bearing input fixing the target-space BRST transformations.
  • domain assumption Identification of BRST operators with Grassmann translations, s_b maps to \partial_{\bar{\vartheta}} and s_ab maps to \partial_{\vartheta}.
    Sec. 3; standard supervariable BRST tenet cited from [17-20].
  • domain assumption Standard auxiliary-field assignments s_b\bar{C} = B and s_ab C = \bar{B}.
    Sec. 3 states these as standard assumptions; they determine the Nakanishi-Lautrup structure and the form of the CF restriction.
  • domain assumption ACSA restriction that BRST/anti-BRST invariant quantities are independent of the relevant Grassmann variable (Eqs. 28, 29, 35).
    Sec. 4; the fundamental principle of the authors' ACSA framework from [27-33].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Re-parameterization Invariance of FRW Model: Supervariable and BRST Approaches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J37WVYFT

@misc{pith2026241219704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Re-parameterization Invariance of FRW Model: Supervariable and BRST Approaches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J37WVYFT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19704}
}
abstract

We perform the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) quantization of a $(0 + 1)$-dimensional cosmological Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) model. This quantization leverages the classical infinitesimal and continuous re-parameterization symmetry transformations of the system. To derive the nilpotent re-parameterization invariant BRST-anti-BRST symmetry transformations for the scale factor and corresponding momentum variables present in the cosmological FRW model, we employ the modified Bonora-Tonin supervariable approach (MBTSA) to BRST formalism. Through this approach, we also establish the BRST-anti-BRST invariant Curci-Ferrari (CF)-type restriction for this cosmological re-parameterization invariant model. Further, we obtain the off-shell nilpotent quantum BRST-anti-BRST symmetry transformations for other variables within the model using the (anti-)chiral supervariable approach (ACSA) to BRST formalism. Within the framework of ACSA, the CF-type restriction is demonstrated through two key aspects: $(i)$ the invariance of the coupled Lagrangians under symmetry transformations, and $(ii)$ the absolute anti-commutativity of the conserved BRST-anti-BRST charges. Notably, applying the MBTSA to a physical cosmological system, specifically a one-dimensional one, constitutes a novel contribution to this work. Additionally, in the application of ACSA, we restrict our analysis to (anti-)chiral super expansions of supervariables, leading to the unique observation of the absolute anti-commutativity of the conserved BRST-anti-BRST charges. Moreover, we highlight that the CF-type restriction demonstrates a universal nature, remaining consistent across any re-parameterization invariant models in general D-dimensional spacetime.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [40]

    A. K. Rao, B. Chauhan, R. P. Malik, Euro. Phys. J. Plus 139, 972 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    R. P. Feynman, Acta Phys. Polon. 24, 697 (1963)

    work page 1963

  3. [2]

    L. D. Faddeev, V. N. Popov, Phys. Lett. B 25, 29 (1967)

    work page 1967

  4. [3]

    B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 160, 113 (1967); 162, 1195 (1967)

    work page 1967

  5. [4]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, Phys. Lett. B 52, 344 (1974)

    work page 1974

  6. [5]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, Comm. Math. Phys. 42, 127 (1975)

    work page 1975

  7. [6]

    Becchi, A

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet, R. Stora, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 98, 287 (1976)

    work page 1976

  8. [7]

    I. V. Tyutin, Lebedev Institute Preprint , Report Number: FIAN-39 (1975) (unpublished)

    work page 1975

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Bonora, R

    L. Bonora, R. P. Malik, Phys. Lett. B 655, 75 (2007)

    2007

  2. [9]

    Bonora, R

    L. Bonora, R. P. Malik, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43, 375403 (2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    Curci, R

    G. Curci, R. Ferrari, Phys. Lett. B 63, 91 (1976)

    1976

  4. [11]

    I. A. Batalin, G. A. Vilkovisky, Phys. Lett. B 102, 27 (1981); Phys. Rev. D 28, 2567 (1983); Nucl. Phys. B 234, 106 (1984)

    1981

  5. [12]

    I. A. Batalin, P. M. Lavrov, I. V. Tyutin, J. Math. Phys. 31, 1487 (1990)

    1990

  6. [13]

    I. A. Batalin, P. M. Lavrov, I. V. Tyutin, J. Math. Phys. 32, 532 (1991)

    1991

  7. [14]

    I. A. Batalin, P. M. Lavrov, I. V. Tyutin, J. Math. Phys. 32, 2513 (1991)

    1991

  8. [15]

    Thierry-Mieg, J

    J. Thierry-Mieg, J. Math. Phys. 21, 2834 (1980)

    1980

  9. [16]

    Quiros, F

    M. Quiros, F. J. De Urries, J. Hoyos, M. L. Mazon, E. Rodrigues , J. Math. Phys. 22, 1767 (1981)

    1981

  10. [17]

    Bonora, M

    L. Bonora, M. Tonin, Phys. Lett. B 98, 48 (1981)

    1981

  11. [18]

    Bonora, P

    L. Bonora, P. Pasti, M. Tonin, Nuovo Cimento A 64, 307 (1981)

    1981

  12. [19]

    Bonora, P

    L. Bonora, P. Pasti, M. Tonin, Annals of Physics 144, 15 (1982)

    1982

  13. [20]

    Delbourgo, P

    R. Delbourgo, P. D. Jarvis, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 15, 611 (1981)

    1981

  14. [21]

    Baulieu, J

    L. Baulieu, J. Thierry-Mieg, Nucl. Phys. B 197, 477 (1982)

    1982

  15. [22]

    Alvarez-Gaum e, L

    L. Alvarez-Gaum e, L. Baulieu, Nucl. Phys. B 212, 255 (1983)

    1983

  16. [23]

    R. P. Malik, Eur. Phys. J. C 60, 457 (2009)

    2009

  17. [24]

    R. P. Malik, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 39, 10575 (2006) 26

    2006

  18. [25]

    R. P. Malik, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 169 (2007)

    2007

  19. [26]

    R. P. Malik, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 37, 5261 (2004)

    2004

  20. [27]

    Chauhan, S

    B. Chauhan, S. Kumar, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2021, 5518304 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Kumar, B

    S. Kumar, B. Chauhan, A. Tripathi, R. P. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37, 2250003 (2022)

    2022

  22. [29]

    Chauhan, Eur

    B. Chauhan, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 976 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    Chauhan, Eur

    B. Chauhan, Eur. Phys. Lett. 140, 40001 (2022)

    2022

  24. [31]

    Shukla, N

    A. Shukla, N. Srinivas, R. P. Malik, Ann. Phys. 394, 98 (2018)

    2018

  25. [32]

    Chauhan, S

    B. Chauhan, S. Kumar, R. P. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37, 2250003 (2022)

    2022

  26. [33]

    Chauhan, T

    B. Chauhan, T. Bhanja, arXiv: 2411.09948 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    Bonora, Nucl

    L. Bonora, Nucl. Phys. B 912, 103 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    Bonora, R

    L. Bonora, R. P. Malik, Universe 7, 280 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    Chauhan, A

    B. Chauhan, A. Tripathi, A. K. Rao, R. P. Malik, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37 2250164 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    Tripathi, B

    A. Tripathi, B. Chauhan, A. K. Rao, R. P. Malik, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2020, 2056629 (2020)

    2020

  31. [38]

    Tripathi, B

    A. Tripathi, B. Chauhan, A. K. Rao, R. P. Malik Adv. High Energy Phys. 2021, 1236518 (2021)

    2021

  32. [39]

    A. K. Rao, A. Tripathi, R. P. Malik, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2021, 5593434 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Oyvind, H

    G. Oyvind, H. Sigbjorn, Einstein ’s General Theory of Relativity, Springer, New York, 195 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    B. S. Dewitt, Phys. Rev. , 160 (1967) 1113

    1967

  35. [43]

    D. L. Wiltshire, Cosmology: The Physics of the Universe , World Scientific, Singapore (1996)

    1996

  36. [44]

    Friedmann, Zeit

    A. Friedmann, Zeit. f. Phys. , 10, 377 (1922)

    1922

  37. [45]

    Friedmann, Zeit

    A. Friedmann, Zeit. f. Phys. , 21, 326 (1924)

    1924

  38. [46]

    H. P. Robertson, Astrophys. J. , 82, 284 (1935)

    1935

  39. [47]

    H. P. Robertson, Astrophys. J. , 83, 187 (1935) 27

    1935

  40. [48]

    H. P. Robertson, Astrophys. J. , 83, 257 (1936)

    1936

  41. [49]

    A. G. Walker, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) , 42, 90 (1937)

    1937

  42. [50]

    Upadhyay, Prog

    S. Upadhyay, Prog. Theor. Exper. Phys. , 2015, 093B06 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Upadhyay, Ann

    S. Upadhyay, Ann. Phys. , 356, 299 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Cianfrani, G

    F. Cianfrani, G. Montani, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 084025 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    T. P. Shestakova, Class. Quantum Grav. , 28, 055009 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    J. J. Halliwell, Phys. Rev. D., 38, 2468 (1988)

    1988

  47. [55]

    Kumar, R

    R. Kumar, R. P. Malik, arXiv: 2412.10852 [hep-th]

  48. [56]

    Chauhan, et al

    B. Chauhan, et al. , in preparation 28

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.