Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Wheeler-DeWitt equation and Bondi-Metzner-Sachs (BMS) symmetry

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read BRST construction puts BMS symmetry on Wheeler-DeWitt states

desk verdict A plausible formal construction of BRST-invariant BMS generators and their projected kernels, but the key surface-term and nilpotency steps are asserted rather than proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02240 v1 pith:WDVLOM66 submitted 2025-06-02 hep-th gr-qc

Marc Henneaux This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords BMSsymmetryWheeler-DeWittequationBRSTquantizationcanonicalquantumgravityasymptoticsymmetriesatspatialinfinityprojectedkernelconstraintgaugeinvariance
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 aims to show that the Bondi-Metzner-Sachs (BMS) asymptotic symmetry group acts in a well-defined way on solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, the central equation of canonical quantum gravity. The route is BRST quantization: the author constructs BRST-invariant extensions of the classical BMS generators and shows they form a BRST extension of the BMS algebra. The paper then derives an explicit operator expression for matrix elements of BMS operators between physical states, given as a projected kernel. If correct, this gives a flat-space counterpart of recent connections between the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and holography in anti-de Sitter space.

What carries the argument

The central object is the BRST-invariant BMS generator $P_{\xi_\perp,\xi_k}$ of Eq. (7): the classical BMS generator plus ghost-dependent bulk terms $\Delta_\perp$, $\Delta_k$, keeping the same surface integrals, so that it is BRST-closed but not BRST-exact, reflecting the improper (large) gauge symmetry. The supporting machinery is the BRST charge for gravity (4), which is nilpotent because gravity is of rank one, together with the non-minimal sector and the gauge-fixing fermion $K$ that yields the projected kernel (16).

What would settle it

Explicitly compute $\{P_{\xi_\perp,\xi_k}, \Omega_{\mathrm{Min}}\}$ for a vector field with the BMS asymptotic form, retaining all boundary terms at spatial infinity, and check whether the result vanishes identically. If any boundary term survives, the proposed BRST-invariant extension must be modified. A separate check is the verification of nilpotency of the quantum BRST operator for gravity in a given regulator scheme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The BRST-invariant extensions of the BMS generators, written in Eq. (7), are BRST-closed and their graded Poisson brackets reproduce the BMS algebra up to BRST-trivial terms, so they define a BRST extension of the BMS algebra. Their matrix elements between physical states, identified with Wheeler-DeWitt states through the quotient by BRST-exact states, are given by the projected-kernel expression of Eq. (16). The paper states that consequently the BMS group has a unitary action on solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, with gauge-fixing-independent matrix elements.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that all surface terms in the graded Poisson bracket computation vanish once the ghosts vanish, so the BRST invariance of the generators survives when the vector fields acquire BMS asymptotic behavior; it also assumes the quantum BRST charge is nilpotent, i.e., no gauge anomaly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The BMS group acquires a unitary action on the physical Hilbert space defined by BRST cohomology at ghost number zero, so BMS charges become genuine observables of canonical quantum gravity.
  • The projected kernel provides a constructive method for producing solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, even when the inserted observable is the identity.
  • For the Poincaré subgroup the kernel reproduces Teitelboim's earlier expression, showing consistency with known flat-space results.
  • The construction generalizes group-averaging (refined algebraic quantization) from Lie-algebra constraints to the BMS algebra with structure functions.
  • It opens a concrete path toward flat-space holography by allowing BMS charges to be evaluated between Wheeler-DeWitt states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct check of the surface-term cancellation with non-compact test vector fields would settle the pivotal technical assumption; if surface terms survive, Eq. (7) would need ghost corrections at the boundary.
  • The same projected-kernel technology could extend to logarithmic supertranslations, which the paper notes are needed for a canonical description of BMS Goldstone fields.
  • One could test the framework by computing BMS charge expectation values in a semiclassical state and comparing with soft-graviton theorems in the flat-space limit.
  • If quantum nilpotency fails, the BRST cohomology at ghost number zero may be empty or anomalous, and the unitary-action claim would need modification.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a BRST formulation of the action of BMS symmetry on solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Starting from the classical Hamiltonian BMS generators (Eq. (3)), it constructs BRST-invariant extensions P_ξ (Eq. (7)) by adding ghost-dependent terms Δ^⊥, Δ^k, and claims that these are BRST-closed even when the vector fields are extended from compact support to the BMS asymptotic fall-offs, because all surface terms vanish when the ghosts vanish at infinity. The paper then adopts the Henneaux–Teitelboim BRST quantization scheme with a non-minimal sector, defines physical states by the BRST conditions supplemented by ghost conditions (Eq. (10)), and derives projected-kernel expressions for matrix elements of BMS operators (Eq. (14)) and of BMS group elements (Eq. (16)). The central results are formal operator expressions; the paper explicitly leaves a rigorous definition of the measures and perturbative control for future work.

Significance. If the technical steps are correct, the paper provides a conceptually clean and explicit framework for realizing BMS symmetry on Wheeler-DeWitt states, connecting the BRST quantization of gravity with the group-average method and with recent holographic interpretations of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. It gives concrete formal formulas (Eqs. (7), (14), (16)) that could serve as starting points for perturbative checks, and it builds directly on the author's prior rigorous results on the Hamiltonian formulation of BMS symmetry. The main value is programmatic: it identifies the correct objects (BRST-invariant improper generators) and the correct regularization of physical amplitudes, while honestly flagging the formal nature of the construction. However, the paper's central claim rests on several unproved technical assertions about surface terms and Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff manipulations, so the construction is not fully established as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [p.4, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The assertion that 'all surface terms involved in the computation that might invalidate it are equal to zero' once the ghosts vanish is the pivotal step that allows the vector fields (ζ^⊥, ζ^k) to be extended from compact support to the BMS asymptotic behavior without additional ghost corrections. The manuscript does not specify the fall-off conditions on the ghosts and their momenta, nor does it show the boundary terms in the graded bracket {A_ζ, Ω_Min} for the BMS fall-offs (ξ^⊥ = β^⊥_i x^i + T + O(1/r), ξ^k = β^k_i x^i + ∂^k(rW) + O(1/r)). Since the Δ^⊥ and Δ^k corrections contain derivatives of the ghosts, and the BMS vector fields grow linearly in r, the vanishing of the ghosts pointwise at infinity does not by itself guarantee the vanishing of surface terms. Without an explicit verification, the BRST-closedness of P_ξ in Eq. (7) is not established, and the subsequent matrix-element formulas (12)-(16) lose their foundation. The author should provide the fall-off specifications and the explicit surface-term computation, or state the needed fall-offs as an assumption and prove that the boundary terms vanish under those fall-offs.
  2. [p.9, Eq. (16)] The reduction of the product of exponentials to exp(∫ρ(N) + i/2 β_{μν} M^{μν} + i B^grav_{T,W} + ···) and the subsequent change of variables N^μ = λ^μ + ξ^μ rely on the claim that all higher Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff commutators contribute only trivial terms. The argument that these commutators 'involve at least one λ^μ or a ghost variable, which all vanish at infinity' is not sufficient, because the commutators also involve the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints H_μ and the ghost corrections Δ_μ, which contain derivatives of the metric and of the ghosts. Those derivatives can produce surface terms with the BMS boundary conditions, and the asymptotic behavior of λ^μ and the ghosts alone does not control such terms. This step is load-bearing for the projected kernel of the BMS group element, and the paper should provide an explicit argument (or a counterexample) showing that all higher-order contributions are indeed BRST-trivial.
  3. [p.5, quantum nilpotency] The paper assumes that the quantum BRST operator is nilpotent, i.e., that there is no gauge anomaly. While this is stated explicitly, it is a nontrivial assumption for gravity, where the BRST charge involves products of metric-dependent structure functions with ghost momenta and may suffer from operator-ordering anomalies. Nilpotency is essential for the definition of physical states by the BRST condition and for the invariance of the ghost conditions (10). The manuscript should either justify this assumption by a known argument (e.g., citing explicit results on the rank-one property or on anomaly cancellation) or clearly elevate it to a caveat in the abstract and conclusion, since the validity of the main formulas depends on it.
minor comments (3)
  1. [General] There are several typos and punctuation errors, including 'subsbspace' (p.6), 'byproducy' (Ref. [36]), and 'reprentation' (p.7). The sentence 'Because C k⊥⊥ involves the metric' is unclear and should be rewritten with the intended coefficient or derivative displayed explicitly.
  2. [p.8, displayed equation after (16)] The notation for the projected kernel of the BMS generator, typeset as '˚P P ξ⊥,ξk', is confusing; a clearer notation such as P^P_ξ or a superscript 'proj' would improve readability.
  3. [p.4, Eq. (6)] The manuscript does not state the assumed fall-off rates for the ghosts C^⊥, C^k and their momenta P^⊥, P^k. Since the surface-term argument in the major comment above depends on these rates, the paper should spell them out explicitly, even if only as a declared set of boundary conditions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BRST construction uses prior classical BMS generators and standard BRST theorems as input, and the central claims do not reduce to their own inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is linear rather than circular. The classical BMS generators in Eq. (3) are taken from the author's earlier work [16,19], and the paper explicitly presents that work as a prior solution. This is a self-citation, but it is not circular: the cited results are parameter-free classical Hamiltonian derivations with stated boundary conditions, and the target of the present paper—BRST-invariant extensions and their projected kernels—is not assumed in those references. The novel step, Eq. (7), rests on the claim that surface terms vanish in the graded Poisson bracket when ghosts vanish, so that the vector field can be extended to BMS asymptotics. This may be an unsupported technical assertion and a legitimate correctness concern, but it is not circular: it is a checkable identity that does not presuppose the BRST-closedness of P_ξ. The projected kernel expression (16) is derived by BCH rearrangement and a change of variables, with the stated caveat about multiple commutators contributing trivial terms; no fitted parameter or target result is fed back into the derivation. The paper also relies on standard BRST theorems (e.g., ghost-number-zero cohomology reproducing gauge-invariant functions, non-minimal sector triviality), which are external to the present claim. Overall, no step exhibits the pattern where an output equals an input by definition or where a fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The absence of a proof of the surface-term assertion is a rigorousness gap, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on imported classical BMS generator expressions, standard BRST quantization, and one paper-specific technical assertion about surface terms. There are no fitted parameters and no invented entities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gravity is a rank-one constrained system, so the minimal BRST charge ΩMin has no higher-order ghost terms (Eq. 4).
    The form of the BRST charge is central; the paper itself contrasts with the relativistic membrane to show why this is not automatic.
  • domain assumption The asymptotic boundary conditions of refs. [16,19] make the classical BMS generators finite, real, and first class (Eq. 3).
    The quantum construction starts from these surface integrals; if the boundary conditions are wrong, the BMS extension fails.
  • domain assumption The quantum BRST operator is nilpotent, i.e., there is no gauge anomaly.
    The paper assumes this explicitly before defining physical operators by BRST cohomology.
  • ad hoc to paper All surface terms that could spoil the BRST invariance of A_ζ vanish when the ghosts vanish at infinity, so (ζ⊥, ζk) can be extended to BMS asymptotics.
    This is the pivotal assertion in the paragraph after Eq. (6); it is stated without a detailed proof.
  • domain assumption The BRST scalar product with the gauge-fixing fermion K = ∫ λµ Pµ is equivalent to group averaging for constraint algebras that form a Lie algebra.
    Used to argue finiteness of scalar products and to connect to [35-40].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wheeler-DeWitt equation and Bondi-Metzner-Sachs (BMS) symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDVLOM66

@misc{pith2026250602240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wheeler-DeWitt equation and Bondi-Metzner-Sachs (BMS) symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDVLOM66}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02240}
}
read the original abstract

The Hamiltonian formulation of the BMS symmetry on spacelike hypersurfaces enables one to define its action on solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Using the BRST reformulation of the theory, we provide operator expressions for the matrix elements of the BMS operators between Wheeler-DeWitt states. To that end, we construct the BRST-invariant extensions of the BMS generators, which form a BRST-extension of the BMS algebra.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Supertranslations in the bulk of spacetime

    hep-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Supertranslations can be defined in the bulk as changes of null hypersurfaces, extending boundary symmetries into the interior and producing a curvature-dependent memory effect in Schwarzschild.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,

    B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,” Phys. Rev.160(1967), 1113-1148 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.160.1113

    doi:10.1103/physrev.160.1113 1967

  2. [2]

    Superspace and the Nature of Quantum Geometrody- namics,

    J. A. Wheeler, “Superspace and the Nature of Quantum Geometrody- namics,” Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol.3(1987), 27-92; also inBattelle 10 Rencontres,C.M. DeWitt, J. A. Wheeler, Eds.; Benjamin: New York, NY, USA, 1968; pp. 242–307

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    Wave Function of the Universe,

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, “Wave Function of the Universe,” Phys. Rev. D28(1983), 2960-2975 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.28.2960 1983

  4. [4]

    Is Holography Implicit in Canonical Gravity?,

    S. Raju, “Is Holography Implicit in Canonical Gravity?,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28(2019) no.14, 1944011 doi:10.1142/S0218271819440115 [arXiv:1903.11073 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Holog- raphy from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,

    C. Chowdhury, V. Godet, O. Papadoulaki and S. Raju, “Holog- raphy from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,” JHEP03(2022), 019 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2022)019 [arXiv:2107.14802 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Failure of the split property in gravity and the information paradox,

    S. Raju, “Failure of the split property in gravity and the information paradox,” Class. Quant. Grav.39(2022) no.6, 064002 doi:10.1088/1361- 6382/ac482b [arXiv:2110.05470 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    A note on the canonical formalism for gravity,

    E. Witten, “A note on the canonical formalism for gravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.27(2023) no.1, 311-380 doi:10.4310/ATMP.2023.v27.n1.a6 [arXiv:2212.08270 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    The Theory of gravitation in Hamiltonian form,

    P. A. M. Dirac, “The Theory of gravitation in Hamiltonian form,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A246(1958) 333

    work page 1958

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    The Dynamics of general relativity,

    R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, “The Dynamics of general relativity,” inGravitation: an introduction to current research, L. Wit- ten, ed. (Wiley, New York, 1962), Chapter 7, pp.227-264, reprinted in Gen. Rel. Grav.40(2008) 1997 [gr-qc/0405109]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Fixation of coordinates in the Hamilto- nian theory of gravitation,

    P. A. M. Dirac, “Fixation of coordinates in the Hamilto- nian theory of gravitation,” Phys. Rev.114(1959), 924-930 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.114.924

    1959 doi

  3. [11]

    Role of Surface Integrals in the Hamilto- nian Formulation of General Relativity,

    T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, “Role of Surface Integrals in the Hamilto- nian Formulation of General Relativity,” Annals Phys.88(1974) 286

    1974

  4. [12]

    Gravita- tional waves in general relativity. 7. Waves from axisymmetric isolated systems,

    H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg and A. W. K. Metzner, “Gravita- tional waves in general relativity. 7. Waves from axisymmetric isolated systems,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A269(1962) 21. 11

    1962

  5. [13]

    Gravitational waves in general relativity. 8. Waves in asymptotically flat space-times,

    R. K. Sachs, “Gravitational waves in general relativity. 8. Waves in asymptotically flat space-times,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A270(1962) 103

    1962

  6. [14]

    Asymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory,

    R. Sachs, “Asymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory,” Phys. Rev. 128(1962) 2851

    1962

  7. [15]

    Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory,

    A. Strominger, “Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory,” [arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hamiltonian structure and asymptotic symmetries of the Einstein-Maxwell system at spatial infinity,

    M. Henneaux and C. Troessaert, “Hamiltonian structure and asymptotic symmetries of the Einstein-Maxwell system at spatial infinity,” JHEP07 (2018), 171 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)171 [arXiv:1805.11288 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    magnetic mass

    Reference [16] on which the present work is based develops the theory with a definite set of boundary conditions for the gravitational field at spatial infinity. Different boundary conditions, also compatible with the BMS symmetry but excluding solutions with “magnetic mass”, ...

  10. [18]

    BMS Group at Spatial Infin- ity: the Hamiltonian (ADM) approach,

    M. Henneaux and C. Troessaert, “BMS Group at Spatial Infin- ity: the Hamiltonian (ADM) approach,” JHEP03(2018), 147 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)147 [arXiv:1801.03718 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The Asymptotic Structure of Grav- ity at Spatial Infinity in Four Spacetime Dimensions,

    M. Henneaux and C. Troessaert, “The Asymptotic Structure of Grav- ity at Spatial Infinity in Four Spacetime Dimensions,” Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.309(2020) no.1, 127-149 doi:10.1134/S0081543820030104 [arXiv:1904.04495 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Relativistic S Matrix of Dynamical Systems with Boson and Fermion Constraints,

    I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, “Relativistic S Matrix of Dynamical Systems with Boson and Fermion Constraints,” Phys. Lett. B69(1977), 309-312 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90553-6

    1977 doi

  13. [22]

    Quantization of Relativistic Systems with Boson and Fermion First and Second Class Constraints,

    E. S. Fradkin and T. E. Fradkina, “Quantization of Relativistic Systems with Boson and Fermion First and Second Class Constraints,” Phys. Lett. B72(1978), 343-348 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90135-1 12

    1978 doi

  14. [23]

    Hamiltonian Form of the Path Integral for Theories with a Gauge Freedom,

    M. Henneaux, “Hamiltonian Form of the Path Integral for Theories with a Gauge Freedom,” Phys. Rept.126(1985), 1-66 doi:10.1016/0370- 1573(85)90103-6

    1985 doi

  15. [24]

    Transition amplitude in the quantum theory of the relativistic membrane,

    M. Henneaux, “Transition amplitude in the quantum theory of the relativistic membrane,” Phys. Lett. B120(1983), 179-182 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90648-2

    1983 doi

  16. [25]

    BRST Cohomology in Clas- sical Mechanics,

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “BRST Cohomology in Clas- sical Mechanics,” Commun. Math. Phys.115(1988), 213-230 doi:10.1007/BF01466770

    1988 doi

  17. [26]

    Quantization of gauge systems,

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “Quantization of gauge systems,” Princeton University Press, 1992

    1992

  18. [27]

    Aspects of the Hamilto- nian Dynamics of Interacting Gravitational Gauge and Higgs Fields with Applications to Spherical Symmetry,

    R. Benguria, P. Cordero and C. Teitelboim, “Aspects of the Hamilto- nian Dynamics of Interacting Gravitational Gauge and Higgs Fields with Applications to Spherical Symmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B122(1977), 61-99 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90426-6

    1977 doi

  19. [28]

    Phase Space of General Relativity Revisited: A Canonical Choice of Time and Simplification of the Hamil- tonian,

    A. Ashtekar and G. T. Horowitz, “Phase Space of General Relativity Revisited: A Canonical Choice of Time and Simplification of the Hamil- tonian,” J. Math. Phys.25(1984), 1473 doi:10.1063/1.526317

    1984 doi

  20. [29]

    BRST extensions of a Lie group,

    M. Henneaux, “BRST extensions of a Lie group,” Nucl. Phys. B308 (1988), 619-628 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90580-9

    1988 doi

  21. [30]

    This is a consequence of the duality between the states|↑⟩and|↓⟩, and of the fact that (according to the rules of [26]), one must choose the wave functions Ψ[gij] multiplying|↑⟩to have finite (non-infinite) overlap with the wave functions Ξ[gij] multiplying|↓⟩– which have them...

  22. [31]

    An algebra of observables for de Sitter space,

    V. Chandrasekaran, R. Longo, G. Penington and E. Witten, “An algebra of observables for de Sitter space,” JHEP02(2023), 082 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2023)082 [arXiv:2206.10780 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [32]

    For this argument to work, it is necessary to haveC k |ψ⟩= 0 ifC ⊥ |ψ⟩=

  24. [33]

    One might consider a non-zero action by modifying (7) in a way that preserves the BRST-invariance condition, e.g., by adding the trivial term{ ´ d3x(P ⊥π⊥+P iπi),Ω}

    Note also that as defined by (7), the BMS generators do not act on the variables of the non-minimal sector. One might consider a non-zero action by modifying (7) in a way that preserves the BRST-invariance condition, e.g., by adding the trivial term{ ´ d3x(P ⊥π⊥+P iπi),Ω}. Thi...

  25. [34]

    BMS representations for generic supermo- mentum,

    X. Bekaert and Y. Herfray, “BMS representations for generic supermo- mentum,” [arXiv:2505.05368 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  26. [35]

    It has been shown in [26] to be equal to (12)

    The projected kernelA P 0 [g(2) ij , g(1) ij ] is formally defined to be equal toP α,β ψα[g(2) ij ](ψα|A0|ψβ)ψ∗ β[g(2) ij ] where the sum runs over a complete orthonormal set of solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in the physical (regularized) scalar product (ψ|χ) adapted...

  27. [36]

    The Proper Time Gauge in Quantum Theory of Gravi- tation,

    C. Teitelboim, “The Proper Time Gauge in Quantum Theory of Gravi- tation,” Phys. Rev. D28(1983), 297 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.297

    1983 doi

  28. [37]

    Explicit evaluation of the group invariant measure as byproducy of path integration over Yang-Mills fields,

    C. Teitelboim, “Explicit evaluation of the group invariant measure as byproducy of path integration over Yang-Mills fields,” J. Math. Phys. 25(1984), 1093 doi:10.1063/1.526252 14

    1984 doi

  29. [38]

    Quantum linearization instabilities of de Sitter space- time. 2,

    A. Higuchi, “Quantum linearization instabilities of de Sitter space- time. 2,” Class. Quant. Grav.8(1991), 1983-2004 doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/8/11/010

    1991 doi

  30. [39]

    Quantization of diffeomorphism invariant theories of connections with local degrees of freedom,

    A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski, D. Marolf, J. Mourao and T. Thie- mann, “Quantization of diffeomorphism invariant theories of connections with local degrees of freedom,” J. Math. Phys.36(1995), 6456-6493 doi:10.1063/1.531252 [arXiv:gr-qc/9504018 [gr-qc]]

    1995 arXiv

  31. [40]

    On the generality of refined algebraic quan- tization,

    D. Giulini and D. Marolf, “On the generality of refined algebraic quan- tization,” Class. Quant. Grav.16(1999), 2479-2488 doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/16/7/321 [arXiv:gr-qc/9812024 [gr-qc]]

    1999 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Group Averaging for de Sitter free fields,

    D. Marolf and I. A. Morrison, “Group Averaging for de Sitter free fields,” Class. Quant. Grav.26(2009), 235003 doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/26/23/235003 [arXiv:0810.5163 [gr-qc]]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [42]

    De Sitter quantum gravity and the emergence of local algebras,

    M. Kaplan, D. Marolf, X. Yu and Y. Zhao, “De Sitter quantum gravity and the emergence of local algebras,” JHEP04(2025), 171 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2025)171 [arXiv:2410.00111 [hep-th]]

    2025

  34. [43]

    Unitarity approach to quantum cosmology,

    A. O. Barvinsky, “Unitarity approach to quantum cosmology,” Phys. Rept.230(1993), 237-367 doi:10.1016/0370-1573(93)90032-9

    1993 doi

  35. [44]

    Solving general gauge theories on inner product spaces,

    I. Batalin and R. Marnelius, “Solving general gauge theories on inner product spaces,” Nucl. Phys. B442(1995), 669-696 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(95)00141-E [arXiv:hep-th/9501004 [hep-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  36. [45]

    On correspondence of BRST-BFV, Dirac and refined al- gebraic quantizations of constrained systems,

    O. Y. Shvedov, “On correspondence of BRST-BFV, Dirac and refined al- gebraic quantizations of constrained systems,” Annals Phys.302(2002), 2-21 doi:10.1006/aphy.2002.6305 [arXiv:hep-th/0111270 [hep-th]]

    2002

  37. [46]

    Quantum Mechanics of the Gravitational Field in Asymptotically Flat Space,

    C. Teitelboim, “Quantum Mechanics of the Gravitational Field in Asymptotically Flat Space,” Phys. Rev. D28(1983), 310 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.28.310

    1983 doi

  38. [47]

    Quantum Mechanics of the Gravitational Field,

    C. Teitelboim, “Quantum Mechanics of the Gravitational Field,” Phys. Rev. D25(1982), 3159 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.3159

    1982 doi

  39. [48]

    Unitarity and Holography in Gravitational Physics,

    D. Marolf, “Unitarity and Holography in Gravitational Physics,” Phys. Rev. D79(2009), 044010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.044010 [arXiv:0808.2842 [gr-qc]]. 15

    2009 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Diffeomorphism invariance and the black hole information paradox,

    T. Jacobson and P. Nguyen, “Diffeomorphism invariance and the black hole information paradox,” Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no.4, 046002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.046002 [arXiv:1904.04434 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Logarithmic super- translations and supertranslation-invariant Lorentz charges,

    O. Fuentealba, M. Henneaux and C. Troessaert, “Logarithmic super- translations and supertranslation-invariant Lorentz charges,” JHEP02 (2023), 248 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2023)248 [arXiv:2211.10941 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Asymptotic Symme- try Algebra of Einstein Gravity and Lorentz Generators,

    O. Fuentealba, M. Henneaux and C. Troessaert, “Asymptotic Symme- try Algebra of Einstein Gravity and Lorentz Generators,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) no.11, 111402 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.111402 [arXiv:2305.05436 [hep-th]]. 16

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.