Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 26 references

Why Do We Want a Theory of Quantum Gravity?

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The search for quantum gravity is driven by theory and philosophy, not by unexplained observations, and its only required goal is describing Planck-scale domains where general relativity and quantum field theory both apply.

desk verdict A useful conceptual taxonomy and a clear case that quantization/unification are not automatic requirements, but the load-bearing Primary Motivation is admittedly imprecise, so the conclusion is programmatic rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04858 v1 pith:MXCG7BT2 submitted 2025-05-07 gr-qc physics.hist-ph

Karen Crowther This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcphysics.hist-ph
keywords quantumgravityphilosophyofphysicsmotivationsfortheorysearchgeneralrelativityfieldunificationquantizationblackholethermodynamics
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

Quantum gravity, the paper argues, is unusual among scientific searches: no set of unexplained empirical phenomena compels it. What compels it is a theoretical situation—general relativity and quantum field theory are each presumed universal, yet neither can describe regimes where both are needed, such as black-hole interiors, the big bang, and the first instants of cosmology. The paper's central move is to distinguish motivations from constraints: the only necessary requirement on any acceptable theory of quantum gravity, the 'Primary Motivation', is that it describe those domains while taking into account the lessons of both frameworks. Unification, quantization, UV-completeness, and singularity resolution are real motivations but are better treated as optional desiderata or heuristics, not as criteria of acceptance. If the paper is right, the question 'what is quantum gravity?' is reframed as 'what must the theory do?', and hybrid or emergent-gravity approaches remain live candidates rather than automatic failures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'Primary Motivation', a deliberately imprecise minimal definition of quantum gravity: a theory that describes the domains where both general relativity and quantum theory are necessary and that 'takes into account' the lessons of both frameworks. The argument is carried by a three-way taxonomy—motivations, constraints, and desiderata—together with the claim that a motivation may be translated into either a guiding heuristic or a criterion of acceptance. The paper applies this taxonomy repeatedly to show that unification, quantization, UV-completeness, and singularity resolution can occupy the desiderata role, so a theory that satisfies the Primary Motivation without these features would still count as quantum gravity.

What would settle it

A concrete counterexample would be a theory that the physics community accepts as quantum gravity while explicitly not describing black-hole interiors, the big bang, or other domains where general relativity and quantum field theory are both needed; that would show the Primary Motivation is not the minimal definition. Equally decisive would be evidence that every accepted approach treats quantization or unification as a hard requirement, which would make those features necessary in practice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the search for quantum gravity is primarily motivated, guided, and constrained by theoretical and philosophical considerations, not by anomalies in nature. It identifies the Primary Motivation—describing the overlapping domains of necessity of general relativity and quantum field theory while taking into account the lessons of both—as the minimal definition of quantum gravity. From this it follows that the standard goals of unification, quantization, UV-completeness, and singularity resolution are not necessary conditions but desiderata. The paper also argues that the problems of semiclassical and hybrid theories are damning only insofar as they prevent those theories from satisfying the Primary Motivation, and that quantum gravity need not be a final or unified theory. Black hole thermodynamics enters as a 'third pillar' that motivates the search and supplies possible constraints, though even its theoretical results should be used carefully in defining the theory sought.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the deliberately fuzzy 'Primary Motivation' is precise enough to delimit what counts as a theory of quantum gravity; if that definition is too vague, or if research communities impose additional necessary conditions, the paper's normative conclusions lose their target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hybrid theories and emergent-gravity programs are legitimate candidates for quantum gravity as long as they address the Primary Motivation, so their apparent failures are not automatically disqualifying.
  • A theory of quantum gravity need not be a unified theory of all forces, nor even a full unification of general relativity and quantum field theory in a strong sense.
  • UV-completeness should not be used as a universal criterion of acceptance; it is required only if quantum gravity is conceived as a final theory.
  • Singularity resolution is a guiding principle and a means of confirmation, not a blanket requirement, and different singularities warrant different attitudes.
  • The recovery of the black hole entropy formula by microstate counting can serve as a criterion of acceptance, but the information-loss paradox need not force new fundamental physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the taxonomy is applied consistently, a future program that treats thermodynamic entropy as primary rather than quantized fields could qualify as satisfying the Primary Motivation—a possibility the paper leaves open.
  • The paper's framing suggests a sociological prediction: as effective-field-theory methods mature, perturbative non-renormalizability may fade as a decisive objection to treating general relativity as a quantum effective theory.
  • The constraint/desideratum distinction becomes operational only if the community adopts explicit criteria for when a motivation has been promoted to a constraint; the paper sketches but does not supply those criteria.
  • One testable extension is to classify published quantum-gravity proposals by which motivations they treat as constraints, and check whether any widely pursued program omits the Primary Motivation altogether.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the search for a theory of quantum gravity (QG) is primarily driven by theoretical and philosophical concerns rather than by unexplained empirical phenomena. It proposes a 'Primary Motivation' as the minimal constraint on any acceptable theory of QG: to describe the domains where both general relativity (GR) and quantum field theory (QFT) are necessary, and to take into account the lessons of both frameworks. The main thesis is that unification, quantization, UV-completeness, and singularity resolution are not necessary conditions on QG but instead are desiderata or heuristics. The argument is developed through a taxonomy of motivations, constraints, and desiderata, and through detailed discussions of the relevant physics and philosophy of each motivation, including incompatibilities between GR and QFT, background independence, the problem of time, non-renormalizability, black hole thermodynamics, and the information loss paradox. The paper is an explicit introduction and synthesis, with conclusions labeled as provisional.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would provide a useful conceptual clarification of what is at stake in the search for QG, and it could open conceptual space for alternatives to quantization and unification that are currently marginalized. The paper is careful and hedged, extensively cites both physics and philosophy literatures, and explicitly acknowledges countervailing positions. Its main strengths are the explicit taxonomy of motivations and the insistence that each motivation be examined separately rather than bundled into a single 'problem of QG.' The paper also usefully highlights the role of empirical constraints and the underappreciated possibility that QG need not be a unified or quantized theory. However, the central normative conclusion depends on a definitional claim about the Primary Motivation that is admittedly imprecise, and this places a significant burden on the argument, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1, §3.5] The Primary Motivation is admitted to be 'very imprecisely defined as stated' (§1), yet it is used as the 'minimal definition of QG' to derive the central conclusion that quantization, unification, UV-completeness, and singularity resolution are non-necessary (§3.5). The elaborations in §3.1–§3.3 are permissive: 'domains' are fixed by 'the current paradigm', 'describes' can mean merely 'physically reasonable predictions', and 'takes into account' can be satisfied by principle-correspondence rather than shared formalism. As a result, almost any successor theory—including a modified classical gravity, which the paper itself allows as a possibility in §3.5 and §6.6—could be made to satisfy the Primary Motivation. The non-necessity conclusions therefore appear to follow largely from the stipulated definition rather than from independent argument. The paper needs either to precisify the Primary Motivation, or to provide independent grounds for why it is the unique minimal constraint that defines QG.
  2. [§3.5, §3.3, §5] The paper appeals to 'the current mainstream consensus' to justify the Primary Motivation as delimiting what counts as QG (§3.5), but it simultaneously states that the mainstream and dominant approach treats quantization as essential: §3.3 says the 'by-far dominant approach is (1), where not only is QG supposed to be a quantum theory, but one in which gravity is quantized,' and §5 says 'physicists—sharing the Standard Perspective—argue that quantization of GR is necessary.' If the Primary Motivation is taken to be defined by the current consensus, then the non-necessity of quantization cannot be defended by that consensus; if, instead, the Primary Motivation is a normative proposal, then its status as the minimal definition requires independent justification. The paper does not clearly separate these descriptive and normative levels, and this conflation is load-bearing for the central claim that quantization is a mere desideratum.
  3. [§5, §4] The argument that quantization and unification are non-necessary depends in part on the viability of hybrid theories and emergent gravity approaches, which the paper presents as genuine alternatives (e.g., §5.1). However, the paper itself notes that semiclassical gravity and other hybrid approaches are 'plagued with both conceptual and mathematical difficulties' (§5.1) and that the most familiar arguments for quantization, while heuristic rather than conclusive, are widely accepted (§5). The claim that these alternatives are not ruled out by logical argument is weaker than the claim that they are acceptable ways of satisfying the Primary Motivation. Since the Primary Motivation is left imprecise, the paper's positive case for the non-necessity of quantization and unification rests on the permissiveness of the definition as much as on the intrinsic viability of the alternatives. The argument would be strengthened by a more explicit account of what would count as a satisfactory way of taking into account both GR and QM.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§6 intro] Typo: 'Spacetime singularities are are thus taken' should read 'are thus taken.'
  2. [§2] Typo: 'gµν the the Lorentzian metric tensor' should read 'gµν is the Lorentzian metric tensor.'
  3. [§2.2] Typo: 'Hamilitonian' should be 'Hamiltonian.'
  4. [§5.1] Proper name typo: 'Sakarov' should be 'Sakharov.'
  5. [§7.3] Typo: 'Schwarszchild' should be 'Schwarzschild.'
  6. [§1.3] The parenthetical reference 'following (2019)' is incomplete; it does not indicate which author or work is intended.
  7. [§7] The claim that black hole thermodynamics is 'the most widely accepted, deeply trusted set of purely theoretical propositions in physics' would benefit from a citation or at least a more careful qualifier, given that this strong statement is used as a premise for the weight placed on BHT.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No predictive or fitted input is recycled; the argument is a transparent stipulative taxonomy, with only minor self-citations that do not carry the derivation.

full rationale

This is a philosophy-of-physics Element, not an empirical derivation chain: it fits no parameters, makes no predictions, and contains no equations whose outputs reproduce its inputs. The central device, the 'Primary Motivation', is introduced explicitly as an imprecise stipulation ('Let us call this the Primary Motivation upon any acceptable theory of QG (although it is very imprecisely defined as stated)'), and the paper repeatedly marks its conclusions as provisional ('my conclusions here are certainly more provisional than conclusive'). The demotion of unification, quantization, UV-completeness, and singularity resolution to desiderata is supported by substantive survey arguments—e.g., Section 5 reviews and rejects the case for quantization, and Section 3.3 distinguishes the Standard and New Framework readings of 'takes into account'—rather than by a hidden equation or fitted parameter. The paper cites the author's own prior work for some framing, most notably Crowther & Linnemann (2019) in Section 2.4 and Crowther & De Haro (2022) in Section 6, but in each case the present text restates the operative reasoning, so these are minor self-citations rather than load-bearing reductions. No specific circular step can be exhibited, hence the empty 'steps' list; the low nonzero score reflects the presence of those self-citations and the stipulative character of the core definition, not a demonstrated circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a conceptual essay, not a derivation. It introduces no free parameters or entities. Its conclusions rest on domain-level assumptions about the structure of fundamental physics and the methodology of theory assessment, listed above.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption General relativity and quantum field theory are the two fundamental frameworks whose reconciliation defines the problem of quantum gravity.
    Section 1 adopts the two-pillars picture; if this picture is wrong, the Primary Motivation itself would be misplaced.
  • domain assumption The Planck scale, from dimensional analysis, indicates the regime where a new theory of quantum gravity is needed.
    Section 3.1 uses the Planck scale to characterize the domains of necessity, while acknowledging that the dimensional analysis is heuristic.
  • domain assumption The Generalised Correspondence Principle, requiring the new theory to recover old theories in their domains of success, is a legitimate constraint on quantum gravity.
    Section 1.2 invokes this principle as an important constraint, but it is itself a methodology assumption that is not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Motivations for a theory can be neatly classified into constraints, which are necessary, and desiderata, which are non-necessary, with clear roles.
    The paper's framing in Section 1.1 depends on this taxonomy, which is proposed rather than established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Why Do We Want a Theory of Quantum Gravity?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXCG7BT2

@misc{pith2026250504858,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Why Do We Want a Theory of Quantum Gravity?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXCG7BT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04858}
}
read the original abstract

The search for a new scientific theory is typically prompted by an encounter with something in the world that cannot be explained by current theories. This is not the case for the search for a theory of quantum gravity, which has been primarily motivated by theoretical and philosophical concerns. This Element introduces some of the motivations for seeking a theory of quantum gravity, with the aim of instigating a more critical perspective on how they are used in defining and constraining the theory sought. These motivations include unification, incompatibilities between general relativity and quantum field theory, consistency, singularity resolution, and results from black hole thermodynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04858 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motivations, constraints, and desiderata: Motivations may be necessary (constraints), or non-necessary (desiderata). suggestive of the theory’s potential future success, if it were to be developed (‘pursued’). I believe this holds regardless of whether the principle has been used in the development of the theory, or whether the theory’s possession of the feature in question is unexpected (‘prediction’).3 Keep in min… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Various motivations as related to the Primary Motivation. Arrows represent ‘motivates’; unification and quantization are possible routes towards fulfilling the Pri￾mary Motivation, so can also be thought of as motivated by the Primary Motivation (as well as independently motivated). of these frameworks. GR and QFT are thus expected to be effective theories (or frameworks): valid as approximations to QG in the restri… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Options on the road towards higher-energy physics: Suppose we have a non￾unified set of theories ‘amalgam’ of QG and the Standard Model. It is possible that there is no deeper theory beyond, or that this amalgam emerges from a unified ‘final theory’, or that it emerges from another amalgam. This could happen at each ‘level’ of inquiry as we seek increasingly fundamental theories. 35If one includes the criterion that… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The ‘physicist’s tale’ of unification. Unification is a traditional guiding principle in physics, and is often viewed as means of producing successful theories. Familiar examples (representing various differ￾ent ideas, and degrees, of unification) include Maxwell’s the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Penrose diagram for the formation and evaporation of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Page curve: Schematic behaviour of the entropy of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Bousso’s light sheet construction, depicting four null hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adlam, E. (2022). Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity are also tests of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 52(115). Adlam, E. (2023). Are entropy bounds epistemic? arXiv:2303.10781v3 [physics.hist- ph]. Aharony, O., Marsano, J., Minwalla, S., Papadodimas, K., & Van Raamsdonk, M. (2004). The Hagedorn - deconfinement phase...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [6]

    Kent, A. (2018). Simple refutation of the Eppley–Hannah argument. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35(24), 245008. Kiefer, C. (2007a). Quantum Gravity (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiefer, C. (2007b). Why quantum gravity? In I.-O. Stamatescu & E. Seiler (Eds.), Approaches to Fundamental Physics , volume 721 of Lecture Notes in Physics (pp. 123...

    work page 2018

  3. [7]

    Bousso, R. (2002). The holographic principle. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 825–874. Brandenberger, R., Mukhanov, V., & Sornborger, A. (1993). Cosmological theory without singularities. Phys. Rev. D , 48, 1629–1642. Brown, H. (2005). Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Per- spective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, C. P. ...

    work page 2002

  4. [8]

    W., Ulbricht, H., Toroˇ s, M., Paternostro, M., Geraci, A

    Bose, S., Mazumdar, A., Morley, G. W., Ulbricht, H., Toroˇ s, M., Paternostro, M., Geraci, A. A., Barker, P. F., Kim, M. S., & Milburn, G. (2017). Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 240401. 74 Bousso, R. (1999). A covariant entropy conjecture. J. High Energy Phys. ,

    work page 2017

  5. [9]

    742–768)

    , (pp. 742–768). Rovelli, C. (2001). Quantum spacetime: What do we know? In C. Callender & N. Huggett (Eds.), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity (pp. 101–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rovelli, C. (2004). Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rovelli, C. (2020). Space and ...

    work page 2001

  6. [13]

    80 Loll, R. (1998). Discrete approaches to quantum gravity in four dimensions. Living Reviews in Relativity. Loll, R. (2019). Quantum gravity from causal dynamical triangulations: a review. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 37(1), 013002. Loll, R., Fabiano, G., Frattulillo, D., & Wagner, F. (2022). Quantum gravity in 30 questions. arXiv:2206.06762 [hep-th]....

    arXiv 1998

  7. [16]

    Visser, M., Barcel´ o, C., & Liberati, S. (2002). Analogue models of and for gravity. General Relativity and Gravitation, 34(10), 1719–1734. 3rd Australasian Conference on General Relativity and Graviation Jul 11-13, 2001 Perth, australia. Volovik, G. (2003). The Universe in a Helium Droplet . Oxford: Oxford University Press. 86 Wald, R. M. (1994). Quantu...

    work page 2002

  8. [20]

    (pp. 23–41). Cham: Springer. Salimkhani, K. (2021). Explaining unification in physics internally. Synthese, 198(6), 5861–5882. Schindler, S. (2018). Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality through The- ory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smeenk, C. (2013). Philosophy of cosmology. In R. Batterman (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of ...

    work page 2021

Show all 26 references
  1. [21]

    Wallace, D. (2006). In defence of naivete: The conceptual status of lagrangian quantum field theory. Synthese, 151(1),

    2006

  2. [23]

    Wall, A. C. (2009). Ten proofs of the generalized second law. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2009(06),

    2009

  3. [24]

    Doboszewski, J. (2020). Epistemic holes and determinism in classical general relativity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 71(3), 1093–1111. Donoghue, J. F. (2020). A critique of the asymptotic safety program. Frontiers in Physics, 8,

    2020

  4. [33]

    Wallace, D. (2011). Taking particle physics seriously: A critique of the algebraic approach to quantum field theory. Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42(2), 116–125. Wallace, D. (2018a). The case for black hole thermodynamics part i: Phenomenological thermo...

    2011 arXiv

  5. [38]

    Witten, E. (1998). Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , 2, 505–532. W¨ uthrich, C. (2005). To quantize or not to quantize: Fact and folklore in quantum gravity. Philosophy of Science , 72, 777–788. Zee, A....

    1998

  6. [40]

    Overhauser, A. W. & Colella, R. (1974). Experimental test of gravitationally induced quantum interference. Phys. Rev. Lett., 33, 1237–1239. Padmanabhan, T. (2004). Equipartition of energy in the horizon degrees of freedom and the emergence of gravity. Class. Quant. Grav. , 21,...

    1974

  7. [47]

    do gedankenexperiments compel quantization of gravity

    77 Ellis, G. F., Meissner, K., & Nicolai, H. (2018). The physics of infinity. Nature Physics, 14, 770–772. Eppley, K. & Hannah, E. (1977). The necessity of quantizing the gravitational field. Foundations of Physics, 7(1), 51–68. Fraser, D. (2011). How to take particle physics ...

    2018 arXiv

  8. [56]

    Dowker, F. (2020). Being and becoming on the road to quantum gravity: or, the birth of a baby is not a baby. In Beyond Spacetime: The Foundations of Quantum Gravity (pp. 133–142). Cambridge University Press. Dvali, G., Giudice, G. F., Gomez, C., & Kehagias, A. (2011). Uv-compl...

    2020

  9. [144]

    Maudlin, T. (2012). Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time . Princeton University Press. Maudlin, T. (2017). (information) paradox lost. Meissner, K. A. (2004). Black-hole entropy in loop quantum gravity. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 21(22), 5245–5251. Misner, C. (1969). Abso...

    2012

  10. [145]

    Curiel, E. (2023). Singularities and black holes. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/spacetime–singularities/. Dafermos, M. & Luk, J. (2017). The interior of dynamical vacuum black holes I: The c◦-stability of the Kerr Cau...

    2023

  11. [247]

    Smolin, L. (2006). The case for background independence. In D. Rickles, S. French, & J. Saatsi (Eds.), The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity (pp. 196–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smolin, L. (2013). Time Reborn: From the Crisis of Physics to the Future of the ...

    2006 arXiv

  12. [287]

    Bekenstein, J. D. (1972). Black holes and the second law. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento , 4, 737–740. Bekenstein, J. D. (1973). Black holes and entropy. Phys. Rev. D , 7(8), 2333–2346. Bekenstein, J. D. (1974). Generalized second law of thermodynamics in black-hole physics. Phys. R...

    1972

  13. [520]

    Cao, T. Y. & Schweber, S. S. (1993). The conceptual foundations and the philosophical aspects of renormalization theory. Synthese, 97(1), 33–108. Caravelli, F. & Markopoulou, F. (2011). Properties of quantum graphity at low tem- perature. Physical Review D, 84(2), 024002. Carl...

    1993

  14. [885]

    Chiribella, G. (2020). Quantum superpositions of causal structures. Critical Hermeneu- tics, 4(special II), 1–24. Colella, R., Overhauser, A. W., & Werner, S. A. (1975). Observation of gravitationally induced quantum interference. Phys. Rev. Lett., 34, 1472–1474. Cotler, J. & ...

    2020 arXiv

  15. [1344]

    Hawking, S. (1974). Black hole explosions? Nature, 248, 30–31. 78 Hawking, S. (1975). Particle creation by black holes. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 43, 199–220. Hawking, S., King, A., & McCarthy, P. (1976). A new topology for curved space- time which incorporates t...

    1974 arXiv

  16. [1919]

    Earman, J

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A , 220, 291–333. Earman, J. (1992). Cosmic censorship. PSA: Proceedings, 2, 171–180. Earman, J. (1995). Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. New York...

    1992

  17. [3746]

    Page, D. N. & Geilker, C. D. (1981). Indirect evidence for quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 47, 979–982. Penington, G., Shenker, S. H., Stanford, D., & Yang, Z. (2020). Replica wormholes and the black hole interior. Penrose, R. (1965). Gravitational collapse and space-time s...

    1981

  18. [6195]

    Rosenfeld, L. (1963). On quantization of fields. Nuclear Physics, 40, 353–356. Rovelli, C. (1996). Black hole entropy from loop quantum gravity. Physical Review Letters, 77(16), 3288–3291. Rovelli, C. (2000). Notes for a brief history of quantum gravity. In 9th Marcel Gross- m...

    1963

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.