Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Can Non-Relativistic Strings Propagate Without Geometric Baggage?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper argues that standard Newton-Cartan geometry is sufficient for consistent non-relativistic string dynamics, making gauged-algebra extension fields redundant.

desk verdict Good question, plausible idea, but the central action and constraint algebra are ill-defined as printed; the conclusion is unsupported, though the paper deserves a referee's look. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12506 v3 pith:YC7QW36R submitted 2025-06-14 hep-th gr-qc

Partha Nandi , Sk. Moinuddin , Abdus Sattar This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qc MSC 81T3070H4583E30 PACS 11.25.-w11.10.Ef
keywords non-relativisticstringtheoryNewton-CartangeometryDiracconstraintanalysisfirst-classconstraintsworldsheetdiffeomorphismsPolyakovactiongaugingthealgebraNambu-Goto
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 asks whether a non-relativistic bosonic string can propagate through a curved background using only standard Newton-Cartan geometry, without the additional gauge fields that symmetry-based 'gauging the algebra' constructions impose. The authors argue that it can: from a reparametrization-invariant Nambu-Goto-type action they derive the full Hamiltonian constraint structure, find first-class constraints that generate worldsheet diffeomorphisms, and recast the model as a Polyakov-type action via an interpolating Lagrangian. If this is right, non-relativistic strings need no geometric 'baggage' beyond what non-relativistic point particles already require, which would simplify the foundations of non-relativistic string theory and its holographic applications.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-relativistic Nambu-Goto-type action for a string in Newton-Cartan geometry, Eq. (2.8), where the factor $(\epsilon^{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\alpha X^\mu \partial_\beta X^\nu)^{-1}$ plays the role of the induced-metric determinant and $\Lambda^a_l$ are transverse vielbeins. Newton-Cartan geometry, the non-relativistic spacetime structure with a clock one-form and a degenerate spatial metric, supplies the only background data used. The argument is carried by Dirac's constrained-Hamiltonian algorithm: the two first-class constraints $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$, together with the interpolating Lagrangian that maps the Nambu-Goto form to a Polyakov-type action with an ADM-like worldsheet metric $H^{ij}$, are what turn the action into a dynamics in which gauge symmetries and the transverse degree-of-freedom count come out correctly.

What would settle it

Directly evaluate the denominator $\epsilon^{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\alpha X^\mu \partial_\beta X^\nu$ of Eq. (2.8) for generic embedding fields $X^0(\tau,\sigma), X^1(\tau,\sigma)$: because $\sigma^{\alpha\beta}$ is symmetric and $\epsilon^{\mu\nu}$ antisymmetric, it is zero on every configuration, which settles whether the printed action is defined. Repairing that factor and rerunning Dirac's algorithm would then decide the paper's claim: the claim survives only if the corrected constraints remain first-class and still generate worldsheet diffeomorphisms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that consistent classical dynamics of a non-relativistic bosonic string in a curved Newton-Cartan background is already fully supported by the minimal geometric data of that background. Starting from the reparametrization-invariant action (2.8), the authors perform a Dirac constraint analysis and find two primary constraints, $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$, whose Poisson algebra closes; the gauge generator built from them is equivalent to worldsheet diffeomorphisms. Fixing a gauge removes $X^0$ and $X^1$ and leaves $D-1$ transverse canonical pairs, with a positive-definite physical Hamiltonian. Using an interpolating Lagrangian, the authors derive a Polyakov-type action and compare it with gauged-algebra (GTA) constructions; they conclude that the extension gauge fields $m^A_\mu$ and the related curvature conditions are dynamically redundant, so the standard Newton-Cartan geometry is sufficient.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the action in Eq. (2.8) is a valid, well-defined starting point; as written, its denominator factor $\epsilon^{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\alpha\beta}\partial_\alpha X^\mu \partial_\beta X^\nu$ vanishes identically, so that input must be repaired and re-derived before the constraint analysis can support the paper's conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A non-relativistic string can be coupled to the same Newton-Cartan geometry as a point particle, with no stringy extension fields required in the classical sector.
  • The first-class constraint algebra yields worldsheet diffeomorphisms, so the model is internally gauge-consistent as a constrained Hamiltonian system.
  • Gauge fixing leaves exactly $D-1$ transverse physical degrees of freedom, the expected count for a string.
  • The Polyakov-type action reduces smoothly to the flat-space non-relativistic string, supporting the curved-background extension.
  • GTA curvature constraints and auxiliary fields should be relaxed or reinterpreted, since dynamics rather than symmetry closure determines the consistent geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If one repairs the degenerate denominator of Eq. (2.8), the natural next check is whether the Dirac algebra remains first-class; the paper's minimality claim stands or falls on that check.
  • If the auxiliary fields truly are redundant, the same interpolating-Lagrangian route could be extended to dynamical Newton-Cartan gravity, giving a path from string constraints to background backreaction.
  • The comparison with GTA models suggests that the extra fields required by algebraic closure may be gauge artifacts; checking whether the GTA and minimal Polyakov actions are related by field redefinitions would settle that.
  • Because the paper restricts to the free classical sector, the interesting open question is whether Kalb-Ramond and dilaton couplings force auxiliary fields back in; the present analysis does not cover that case.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a minimal non-relativistic bosonic string action on a Newton-Cartan background, performs a Hamiltonian Dirac constraint analysis, and claims that the resulting constraints are first-class and generate worldsheet diffeomorphisms. It then uses an interpolating Lagrangian to derive a Polyakov-type action and compares it with gauging-the-algebra (GTA) constructions, concluding that standard Newton-Cartan geometry is sufficient and that GTA extension fields such as m^A_mu are classically unnecessary.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a conceptually useful simplification of non-relativistic string backgrounds and a dynamical criterion for when GTA extensions are redundant. The paper is clearly organized and makes a concrete comparison with the GTA action of [49], and it explicitly computes a reduced physical Hamiltonian in a gauge-fixed setting. However, the two load-bearing technical steps, namely the action in Eq. (2.8) and the constraint algebra in Eq. (3.7), are, as printed, not valid. Because these steps underlie the advertised conclusion, the significance cannot be assessed until they are repaired.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (2.8), and §3.1, Eq. (3.1)] The denominator D = epsilon^{mu nu} sigma^{alpha beta} partial_alpha X^mu partial_beta X^nu, with sigma^{01}=sigma^{10}=1 and epsilon^{mu nu} antisymmetric, vanishes identically for all field configurations. The reason is that epsilon^{mu nu} partial_alpha X^mu partial_beta X^nu is antisymmetric in alpha,beta while sigma^{alpha beta} is symmetric, so their contraction is zero. The Lagrangian in Eq. (2.8) is therefore ill-defined. The canonical momenta in Eqs. (3.2)-(3.4) use a different denominator, epsilon^{mu nu} dot{X}^mu X'{}^nu, so they are not the Legendre transform of the printed action. This is not a cosmetic typo: the entire Hamiltonian analysis in Section 3 starts from this expression. The action must be corrected, or the notation for sigma clarified, and all subsequent computations rederived.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (3.7)] The displayed constraint algebra cannot be the Poisson algebra of the constraints in Eq. (3.5). Because Omega_1 contains X'{}^rho, the bracket {Omega_1(sigma), Omega_1(sigma')} necessarily involves a derivative of the delta function; no delta' term appears in Eq. (3.7). More decisively, the smeared algebra fails the Jacobi identity. Defining T(f)=int dsigma f(sigma)Omega_1(sigma) and U(g)=int dsigma g(sigma)Omega_2(sigma), the brackets in Eq. (3.7) imply {T(f),T(h)}=T(2fh), {T(f),U(g)}=U(2fg), and {U(g),U(h)}=T(2gh). The Jacobi identity for (T(f),T(h),U(k)) then evaluates to -4U(fhk), which is not zero for generic f,h,k. Hence Eq. (3.7) is not a Lie/Poisson algebra and cannot be the bracket algebra of any phase-space functions. The conclusion that Omega_1 and Omega_2 are first-class constraints generating worldsheet diffeomorphisms is therefore unsupported; a corrected constraint basis or corrected algebra is needed.
  3. [§2.2, §5, and Table 1] The paper's advertised result that 'all necessary geometric data are derived dynamically' from the string evolution is not demonstrated. The action (2.8), the vielbein Lambda, and the Newton-Cartan data (h, tau) are imported from the earlier reference [31] and are treated as fixed background fields; the Hamiltonian analysis varies only the embedding coordinates X^mu. No equations of motion or constraints on Lambda or on the Newton-Cartan background are derived from the string dynamics in this paper. The central conceptual claim must be reformulated, or the background dynamics explicitly included, before it can be evaluated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4, Eq. (4.11)] Equation (4.11) defines sigma^{alpha beta} as the symmetric matrix with sigma^{01}=sigma^{10}=1, but Eq. (2.8) uses the same symbol sigma^{alpha beta} in the denominator. If this is the intended matrix, the denominator vanishes as noted in the major comments; if not, the notation must be changed consistently.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (2.8) to Eq. (2.3)] The flat-space reduction of Eq. (2.8) to Eq. (2.3) is asserted in Section 2.2, but with sigma^{01}=sigma^{10}=1 the printed action cannot reproduce Eq. (2.3). This check should be redone after the action is corrected.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (3.17)] The Dirac bracket matrix in Eq. (3.17) is presented without an explicit derivation, and the footnote to Eq. (3.18) states that 'all relevant Poisson brackets have already been evaluated' even though the computation is not shown. Given the issues with Eq. (3.7), this part of the analysis should be revisited.
  4. [References] The reference list contains corrupted or missing accented characters and spacing, for example 'É. Cartan' and 'Schrödinger'; the manuscript should be proofread before resubmission.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The no-extension conclusion is already contained in the action imported from the authors' prior paper [31]; the diffeomorphism interpretation is likewise delegated to [31].

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.8)]
    "The action for a non-relativistic limit of bosonic string in a curved background then takes the form [31]: S_NG = −T∫dσdτ (ϵ^{μν}σ^{αβ} ∂X^μ/∂σ^α ∂X^ν/∂σ^β)^{−1} (ϵ^{αβ} ∂X^μ/∂σ^α DX^a/dσ^β)^2."

    Eq. (2.8) is the exact starting object of the constraint analysis, repeated as Eq. (3.1), and it is taken, together with the Newton-Cartan identifications (2.13)-(2.15), from the prior same-group paper [31]. The advertised conclusion that standard Newton-Cartan geometry suffices and that extension fields m^A_mu are unnecessary is already contained in [31], as the paper later states: 'Remarkably, our construction requires no such extensions [31].' The Hamiltonian analysis therefore verifies properties of an action whose geometric content was supplied by the authors' own earlier work, not independently derived here.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 3.1, after Eq. (3.12)]
    "In our earlier work [31], we showed that the gauge symmetries generated by G(τ ) are precisely equivalent to the worldsheet diffeomorphisms of the string model, under the parameter identification: α = ξ1 + κξ2, β = ζξ 2."

    The key structural conclusion—that the first-class constraints generate worldsheet diffeomorphisms, used to claim 'confirming the internal gauge consistency of the model'—is not demonstrated from the bracket computation (3.7) in this paper but is imported from [31]. The displayed algebra only asserts first-class closure; the physical interpretation as diffeomorphisms is a load-bearing self-citation. Combined with the imported action, the paper's central consistency claim reduces to a chain of assertions from the authors' prior work rather than to an independent derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that standard Newton-Cartan geometry is sufficient and that the extension fields of the GTA approach are unnecessary. That claim is effectively built into the starting action: Eq. (2.8) is imported from the same group's prior paper [31], already contains only Newton-Cartan data, and is followed by the statement 'our construction requires no such extensions [31].' The Hamiltonian analysis then re-derives consequences of that chosen ansatz, and the crucial interpretation of the constraints as worldsheet diffeomorphisms is explicitly delegated to the same self-citation. This is more than a minor self-reference: the load-bearing premise and the main conclusion both come from [31]. The comparison with the independent GTA action [49] provides an external anchor and shows that the paper is not purely self-referential, so a score of 8 or 10 would be too high. I do not count the possible algebraic defect in Eq. (3.7) as circularity; that is a correctness concern about whether the brackets form a consistent Poisson algebra, not a claim that an output equals an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction is built almost entirely on the authors' prior GGT and non-relativistic string work [30,31]: the action, the Newton-Cartan variables, and the gauge-symmetry identification are imported. This paper contributes a Hamiltonian re-analysis and a Polyakov-form derivation from that imported action, so the advertised 'dynamic derivation of geometry' is not actually carried out here.

free parameters (1)
  • Worldsheet sigma^{alpha beta} matrix = sigma^{01}=sigma^{10}=1, other components zero
    Introduced ad hoc for index contraction in Eqs (2.8) and (3.1). With this choice the denominator epsilon^{mu nu} sigma^{alpha beta} partial_alpha X^mu partial_beta X^nu vanishes identically, so the choice is load-bearing and appears inconsistent with the momenta computed in Eqs (3.2)-(3.4).
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The Nambu-Goto-like action Eq (2.8), taken from [31], is the correct reparametrization-invariant non-relativistic string action on curved Newton-Cartan geometry.
    The paper does not derive this action; it states that the action takes the form from reference [31] in Section 2.2, Eqs (2.8) and (2.16).
  • domain assumption The Newton-Cartan compatibility relations Eq (2.15) are valid inputs.
    Section 2.2 says 'As shown in [31], defining h^{rho sigma}, tau^rho, ... leads to the Newton-Cartan compatibility relations.'
  • domain assumption The Galilean Gauge Theory algorithm from references [34,35] reliably couples the flat action to curved geometry by replacing derivatives with covariant derivatives.
    Section 2.2 invokes the GGT algorithm as the systematic framework for constructing the curved action.
  • ad hoc to paper The mapping alpha = xi^1 + kappa xi^2 and beta = zeta xi^2 identifies the first-class constraints with worldsheet diffeomorphisms.
    Section 3.1 attributes this identification to the authors' earlier work [31], but does not reproduce the derivation.
  • standard math Dirac's constraint algorithm and the Maskawa-Nakajima theorem apply to this system and are used correctly.
    Sections 3 and 3.2 rely on standard constrained Hamiltonian machinery without giving a proof, which is acceptable background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Non-Relativistic Strings Propagate Without Geometric Baggage?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YC7QW36R

@misc{pith2026250612506,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Non-Relativistic Strings Propagate Without Geometric Baggage?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YC7QW36R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12506}
}
read the original abstract

We present a minimal and dynamically consistent formulation of non-relativistic bosonic string theory in a Newton-Cartan (NC) background. Starting from a reparametrization-invariant Nambu-Goto action, we develop the Hamiltonian framework and perform a complete Dirac constraint analysis. The resulting structure exhibits first-class constraints that generate worldsheet diffeomorphisms, confirming the internal gauge consistency of the model. Using an interpolating Lagrangian, we derive a Polyakov-type action that enables a direct comparison with symmetry-based constructions known as gauging the algebra (GTA) approaches, which promote non-relativistic symmetry algebras to local symmetries. In contrast to GTA formulations, which require additional background fields to achieve algebraic closure, our model derives all necessary geometric data dynamically from the string evolution itself. This establishes that standard Newton-Cartan geometry is sufficient to support consistent non-relativistic string dynamics. Our results provide a conceptually transparent and technically robust foundation for future studies of non-relativistic string theory in curved backgrounds.

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. An Introduction to String Newton-Cartan Holography and Integrability

    hep-th 2026-03 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    String Newton-Cartan holography, the non-relativistic limit of the AdS/CFT correspondence, is organized and reviewed around five consistency conditions, with its classical solutions, spectrum, and integrability structure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [31]

    Geometry of Nonrelativistic string

    S. Moinuddin and P. Mukherjee, Geometry of nonrelativistic string , Phys. Scripta 98 (2023) 015304 [2105.06218]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [49]

    Bagchi, A

    A. Bagchi, A. Banerjee, J. Hartong, E. Have, K.S. Kolekar and M. Mandlik, Strings near black holes are carrollian , Physical Review D 110 (2024) 086009 [ 2312.14240]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Oling and Z

    G. Oling and Z. Yan, Aspects of Nonrelativistic Strings , Front. in Phys. 10 (2022) 832271 [2202.12698]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [2]

    Knzle, Covariant newtonian limit of lorentz space-times , General Relativity and Gravitation 7 (1976) 445

    H.P. Knzle, Covariant newtonian limit of lorentz space-times , General Relativity and Gravitation 7 (1976) 445

    work page 1976

  5. [3]

    Flat space physics from holography

    R. Bousso, Flat space physics from holography , JHEP 05 (2004) 050 [ hep-th/0402058]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  6. [4]

    Strings in strongly correlated electron systems

    P. Fulde and F. Pollmann, Strings in strongly correlated electron systems , Annalen Phys. 17 (1997) 441 [ 0711.2129]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1997

  7. [5]

    Bergshoeff and J

    E.A. Bergshoeff and J. Rosseel, Non-Lorentzian Supergravity, (2023), DOI [ 2211.02604]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    Nandi and F.G

    P. Nandi and F.G. Scholtz, Quantum Geometric Phases as a New Window on Gravitational Waves, 2508.05881

    arXiv

Show all 56 references
  1. [7]

    Nandi and F.G

    P. Nandi and F.G. Scholtz, The hidden Lorentz covariance of quantum mechanics , Annals Phys. 464 (2024) 169643 [ 2312.15750]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Cartan, Sur les varits connexion affine et la thorie de la relativit gnralise (premire partie) , Ann. c. Norm. Sup. 40 (1923) 325

    1923

  3. [9]

    Cartan, Sur les varits connexion affine et la thorie de la relativit gnralise (suite) , Ann. c. Norm. Sup. 41 (1924) 1

    1924

  4. [10]

    Misner, K.S

    C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco (1973)

    1973

  5. [11]

    Mukherjee and A

    P. Mukherjee and A. Sattar, Constrained hamiltonian analysis of a nonrelativistic schrdinger field coupled with chern-simons gravity , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 084038 [ 1810.06244]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Fernandes and A

    K. Fernandes and A. Mitra, Gravitational anomalies on the newton-cartan background , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 085003 [ 1703.09162]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Muthukumar, U(1) gauge invariant noncommutative Schrodinger theory and gravity , Phys

    B. Muthukumar, U(1) gauge invariant noncommutative Schrodinger theory and gravity , Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 105007 [ hep-th/0412069]

    2005 arXiv

  8. [14]

    D. Bose, A. Chakraborty and B. Chakraborty, Fate of κ-Minkowski space-time in non-relativistic (Galilean) and ultra-relativistic (Carrollian) regimes , JHEP 02 (2025) 063 [2401.05769]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Banerjee and P

    R. Banerjee and P. Mukherjee, New approach to nonrelativistic diffeomorphism invariance and its applications , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 085020 [ 1509.05622]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Son, Newton-Cartan Geometry and the Quantum Hall Effect , 1306.0638

    D.T. Son, Newton-Cartan Geometry and the Quantum Hall Effect , 1306.0638

    arXiv

  11. [17]

    Banerjee and P

    R. Banerjee and P. Mukherjee, Non relativistic diffeomorphism and the geometry of the fractional quantum Hall effect , 1505.01967

    arXiv

  12. [18]

    Banerjee, A

    R. Banerjee, A. Mitra and P. Mukherjee, A new formulation of non-relativistic diffeomorphism invariance, Phys. Lett. B 737 (2014) 369 [ 1404.4491]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Banerjee, A

    R. Banerjee, A. Mitra and P. Mukherjee, General algorithm for nonrelativistic diffeomorphism invariance, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 084021 [ 1501.05468]. – 17 –

    2015 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Banerjee, Demystification of nonrelativistic theories in curved background , Int

    R. Banerjee, Demystification of nonrelativistic theories in curved background , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29 (2020) 2043015 [ 2008.05727]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Banerjee and P

    R. Banerjee and P. Mukherjee, Canonical formulation for a non-relativistic spinning particle coupled to gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 37 (2020) 235004 [ 2003.05693]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Fontanella and J.M

    A. Fontanella and J.M. Nieto Garc ´ ıa,Constructing nonrelativistic ads5/cft4 holography, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 026003

    2025

  17. [23]

    Karan and B.R

    S. Karan and B.R. Majhi, A time-like window into tensionless worldsheets , 2412.06387

    arXiv

  18. [24]

    Roychowdhury, Nonrelativistic strings on and integrable systems , Nucl

    D. Roychowdhury, Nonrelativistic strings on and integrable systems , Nucl. Phys. B 961 (2020) 115220 [ 2003.02613]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Roychowdhury, Nonrelativistic giant magnons from newton cartan strings , JHEP 02 (2020) 109 [ 2001.01061]

    D. Roychowdhury, Nonrelativistic giant magnons from newton cartan strings , JHEP 02 (2020) 109 [ 2001.01061]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Andringa, E

    R. Andringa, E. Bergshoeff, J. Gomis and M. de Roo, ’Stringy’ Newton-Cartan Gravity , Class. Quant. Grav. 29 (2012) 235020 [ 1206.5176]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Bergshoeff, J

    E. Bergshoeff, J. Rosseel and T. Zojer, Newtoncartan (super)gravity as a non-relativistic limit, Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015) 205003 [ 1505.02095]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Bergshoeff, J

    E.A. Bergshoeff, J. Gomis, J. Rosseel, C. Simsek and Z. Yan, String Theory and String Newton-Cartan Geometry, J. Phys. A 53 (2020) 014001 [ 1907.10668]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Pal and P

    S.K. Pal and P. Nandi, Symmetry harmonization: exploring deformed oscillators and dissipative dynamics through the glass of Newton–Hooke algebra , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 312 [2401.12957]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Banerjee, S

    R. Banerjee, S. Moinuddin and P. Mukherjee, New approach to the study of nonrelativistic bosonic string in flat spacetime , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 046020

    2021

  25. [32]

    Andringa, E

    R. Andringa, E. Bergshoeff, S. Panda and M. de Roo, Newtonian gravity and the bargmann algebra, Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011) 105011 [ 1011.1145]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Polchinski, String Theory, Volume I: An Introduction to the Bosonic String , vol

    J. Polchinski, String Theory, Volume I: An Introduction to the Bosonic String , vol. 1 of Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)

    1998

  27. [34]

    Banerjee and P

    R. Banerjee and P. Mukherjee, Galilean gauge theory from Poincare gauge theory , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 124021 [ 1810.03902]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Banerjee, S

    R. Banerjee, S. Chakraborty, A. Mitra and P. Mukherjee, Cosmological implications of shift symmetric Galileon field , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 064023 [ 1705.06941]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Bergshoeff, J

    E. Bergshoeff, J. Gomis and Z. Yan, Nonrelativistic String Theory and T-Duality , JHEP 11 (2018) 133 [ 1806.06071]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Gomis and H

    J. Gomis and H. Ooguri, Nonrelativistic closed string theory , Journal of Mathematical Physics 42 (2001) 3127 [ hep-th/0009181]

    2001 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics , Yeshiva University Press (1964)

    P.A.M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics , Yeshiva University Press (1964)

    1964

  32. [39]

    Hanson, T

    A. Hanson, T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, Constrained hamiltonian systems , Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome (1976) . – 18 –

    1976

  33. [40]

    Nandi, S

    P. Nandi, S. Kumar Pal and R. Verma, Particle dynamics and Lie-algebraic type of non-commutativity of space–time, Nucl. Phys. B 935 (2018) 183 [ 1807.05062]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Banerjee, H.J

    R. Banerjee, H.J. Rothe and K.D. Rothe, Hamiltonian approach to Lagrangian gauge symmetries, Phys. Lett. B 463 (1999) 248 [ hep-th/9906072]

    1999 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Banerjee, H.J

    R. Banerjee, H.J. Rothe and K.D. Rothe, Master equation for Lagrangian gauge symmetries , Phys. Lett. B 479 (2000) 429 [ hep-th/9907217]

    2000 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Maskawa and H

    T. Maskawa and H. Nakajima, Singular Lagrangian and Dirac-Faddeev Method: Existence Theorems of Constraints in Standard Forms , Prog. Theor. Phys. 56 (1976) 1295

    1976

  37. [44]

    Banerjee, P

    R. Banerjee, P. Mukherjee and A. Saha, Bosonic P-brane and arnowitt-deser-misner decomposition, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 066015

    2005

  38. [45]

    Banerjee, P

    R. Banerjee, P. Mukherjee and A. Saha, Interpolating action for strings and membranes: A study of symmetries in the constrained hamiltonian approach , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 026006

    2004

  39. [46]

    Banerjee, B

    R. Banerjee, B. Chakraborty and S. Ghosh, Noncommutativity in open string: A Gauge independent analysis, Phys. Lett. B 537 (2002) 340 [ hep-th/0203199]

    2002 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Banerjee, B

    R. Banerjee, B. Chakraborty and K. Kumar, Membrane and noncommutativity , Nucl. Phys. B 668 (2003) 179 [ hep-th/0306122]

    2003 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Bagchi, Tensionless strings and galilean conformal algebra , Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 (2013) 141 [ 1303.0291]

    A. Bagchi, Tensionless strings and galilean conformal algebra , Journal of High Energy Physics 2013 (2013) 141 [ 1303.0291]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gomis, J

    J. Gomis, J. Oh and Z. Yan, Nonrelativistic String Theory in Background Fields , JHEP 10 (2019) 101 [ 1905.07315]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, String theory and noncommutative geometry , Journal of High Energy Physics 1999 (1999) 032 [ hep-th/9908142]

    1999 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Deriglazov, C

    A.A. Deriglazov, C. Neves, W. Oliveira, E.M.C. Abreu, C. Wotzasek and C. Filgueiras, Open string with a background b field as the first order mechanics, noncommutativity, and soldering formalism , Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 064007

    2007

  45. [53]

    Le Bellac and J.M

    M. Le Bellac and J.M. L´ evy-Leblond, Galilean electromagnetism, Nuovo Cim. B 14 (1973) 217

    1973

  46. [54]

    Banerjee and S

    R. Banerjee and S. Bhattacharya, New formulation of Galilean relativistic Maxwell theory , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 105022 [ 2211.12023]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Fontanella and J.M

    A. Fontanella and J.M. Nieto Garc ´ ıa,Nonrelativistic holography from ads5/cft4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 151601

    2024

  48. [56]

    D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov, Models of non-relativistic quantum gravity: The Good, the bad and the healthy , JHEP 04 (2011) 018 [ 1007.3503]. – 19 –

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

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