Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 55 references

In four dimensions, topological variations leave the Einstein-Hilbert action without critical points, while in higher dimensions the obstruction vanishes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-02 22:31 UTC pith:HICYTNUH

load-bearing objection A rigorous and original framework for topological variations; the n=4 obstruction is real, but the 'no critical points' conclusion needs a sign analysis. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.16457 v3 pith:HICYTNUH submitted 2026-02-18 math.DG gr-qcmath-phmath.MP

A topology-changing variational framework for the Einstein-Hilbert functional

Miltiadis Paschalis This is my paper
classification math.DG gr-qcmath-phmath.MP MSC 49S0558E3057R6549Q1283C99
keywords topological variationsEinstein-Hilbert actiontopological functional derivativefinal topologyspacetime foambaby universessurgerycritical dimension
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper takes the old idea that spacetime topology itself can vary — adding disconnected components ('baby universes') or performing small surgeries ('wormholes') — and turns it into a rigorous variational calculus. It encodes admissible variations in a final topology on a space of Sobolev metrics, then computes one-sided topological functional derivatives of the Einstein-Hilbert action. The central result is a dimensional obstruction: in n=4 spacetime dimensions the derivative is generically non-zero, so the extended action admits no critical points and the classical variational principle breaks down; for n>4 the derivative is identically zero and Einstein manifolds remain stationary. The paper also shows that adding quadratic curvature terms shifts these thresholds, and that a simpler 'punctured space' version of the variation has a different critical dimension.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the Einstein-Hilbert action, extended to allow compactly supported topological variations, is continuous and one-sided differentiable only under certain dimensional conditions. In dimension n=4, the disconnected topological functional derivative is lim_{ε→0+} (S(ε)-S(0))/ε = ∫_{M'} L[g'], and the connected analogue is a generically non-zero quantity κ; consequently there are no critical points in the extended variational framework. In dimensions n>4 the derivative vanishes identically, so the variational principle is consistent. In dimensions n<4 the action is not differentiable at all along such variations. This is the paper's main claim, stated as Theorems 4.12 a

What carries the argument

The framework builds a final (inductive limit) topology on the space of variational configurations (M, g; Ω), generated by deformation maps that permit the manifold itself to change. Disconnected variations scale a new component's metric as εg′; connected variations glue a manifold-with-boundary with metric εg̃ into a shrinking geodesic ball of radius √ε, using a bump function to transition between the scaled interior and the pullback of the background metric. The engine of the dimensional analysis is the scaling identity L[εg] = ε^{(n-2)/2}L[g] for the Lagrangian density, combined with the Lebesgue differentiation theorem to control the O(ε^{n/2}) contribution of the removed ball; the balan

Load-bearing premise

The connected-surgery construction assumes the piecewise-defined metric built with a bump function lies in the Sobolev class W^{2,p}, but the paper does not require the cutoff to have vanishing normal derivatives at the interfaces, so jumps in first metric derivatives may push the deformed configuration outside the admissible domain and invalidate Theorems 5.7 and 5.10.

What would settle it

In a concrete n=4 example — for instance, a surgery on flat R⁴ with a handle whose transition metric uses a cutoff f with non-zero normal derivative at the interface — compute the difference quotient (S(ε)-S(0))/ε and check both that the glued metric belongs to W^{2,p} and that the limit equals κ from Eq. (128). A violation of either condition would falsify the connected-variation theorems.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • In n=4, admitting topology change renders the Einstein-Hilbert variational principle ill-posed: no critical points exist, so stationary-phase and semiclassical arguments for a path integral over topologies lose their classical limit.
  • In n>4 the extended action does have critical points and any Einstein manifold is stationary with respect to both geometric and topological variations.
  • Quadratic curvature terms (R², Ricci², Riemann²) shift the dimensional thresholds: continuity generically requires n>4 and differentiability requires n≥6 for disconnected variations.
  • The rigorous topological functional derivative provides a definition that previous heuristic treatments lacked, allowing a consistent account of infinitesimal topology change.
  • A simpler 'punctured space' version of the variation, where a ball is removed without gluing, has critical dimension n=2 instead of n=4, since the removed-ball term is O(ε^{n/2}).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The dimensional threshold suggests a possible dynamical selection mechanism: if topology change is physical, the classical variational principle favours dimensions other than 4, or forces extra compactified dimensions (the paper itself notes the Kaluza-Klein case).
  • One natural test is to compute κ for explicit n=4 surgeries (e.g. gluing a handle into flat R⁴) and check whether the limit in Eq. (127) is independent of the auxiliary choices (background metric, cutoff, collar), or whether it is genuinely moduli-dependent.
  • The framework might extend to matter-coupled actions, where the scaling behaviour of matter fields under ε could alter the critical dimension in a way that depends on spin.
  • Because the connected variation relies on Lebesgue points of scalar curvature, a closer study of the 'almost everywhere' caveat may reveal whether the non-existence of critical points in n=4 is a local pointwise phenomenon or an integrated one.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a variational framework for topological changes in general relativity. It defines a space of Sobolev variational configurations with a final topology, introduces two types of topological variations (disconnected components and connected surgeries), computes one-sided topological functional derivatives of the localized Einstein-Hilbert action, and identifies a critical dimension: for n=4 the derivative is generically nonzero, so the paper concludes that the extended action has no critical points; for n>4 the derivative vanishes. It also discusses quadratic curvature terms and a scalar-curvature blow-up example. The scaling computations are explicit, self-contained, and parameter-free.

Significance. If the central conclusion were fully supported, the paper would provide a rigorous formalization of Wheeler-Hawking topological variations and a concrete dimensional obstruction in n=4. The main strengths are the explicit scaling lemma (Lemma 4.8), the detailed derivative computations (Theorems 4.12 and 5.10), and the absence of fitted parameters. However, the headline claim about nonexistence of critical points depends on a nonstandard one-sided derivative and on a particular parametrization of the variation; as written, the physical interpretation is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Defs. 4.11, 5.9; Thms. 4.12, 5.10; Eqs. (50), (127)-(129)] The conclusion that the action admits no critical points in n=4 is inferred from a nonzero one-sided derivative at ε=0+. On a domain with boundary this is insufficient: f(x)=x on [0,1] has f'(0+)=1>0 and yet attains its minimum at 0. To rule out all stationary configurations, the paper must either declare 'critical point' to mean vanishing one-sided derivative (in which case the claim is true by definition) or must exhibit, for each base configuration, admissible variations with derivatives of both signs. It does neither; the statement 'the classical variational principle is meaningless' is therefore not supported as a statement about the absence of stationary configurations.
  2. [Thm. 5.10, Eq. (128)] For connected variations, Statement (2) says the derivative is 'not identically zero.' This is a statement over the set of all configurations and all templates; it does not imply that every base configuration (M,g;Ω) admits some template with κ(M,g;Ω,Θ,ˆg)≠0, which is what 'the action possesses no critical points' would require. The paragraph after Eq. (129) asserts generic nonvanishing without a proof. The disconnected case is fine, since one can choose M',g' with ∫ L[g'] ≠ 0; for connected variations the analogous universal quantification needs an explicit argument, or the conclusion must be weakened.
  3. [Defs. 4.4 and 5.5; Remark 5.12] The critical dimension is an artifact of the chosen scaling convention for the topological variation. Replacing the parameter ε in (37) or (77) by ε^a, a>0, changes the powers in (50) and (129) and therefore changes the critical dimension. The abstract and Section 4 present n=4 as a property of the Einstein-Hilbert action itself, but it is only a property of the particular family of deformation maps considered. Remark 5.12 acknowledges this for punctured-space variations, but the main claims should be explicitly qualified as framework-dependent.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (77)] A reviewer concern that the piecewise metric (77) may fail to be W^{2,p} across the interfaces is resolved: the cutoff f is smooth and constant on ̃U and on ̃B\W̃, so its normal derivatives vanish at both interfaces. The factors ψ*\bar g_ε and ε\tilde g are W^{2,p}, and smooth multiplication preserves W^{2,p}. Theorems 5.7 and 5.10 are not invalidated on this ground.
  2. [Prop. 4.10; Appendix A] Proposition 4.10 as stated is not established by the Appendix A example. The metrics (144) do not converge to the zero tensor in W^{2,p}(Sym M'), so they do not provide a net converging to the base configuration in τ0. If the proposition is retained, a different argument is needed; this does not affect the main τ1/τ2 critical-dimension computations.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'convinient' (p. 6), 'usefull' (p. 7), 'bellow' (pp. 5, 7, 12), 'later' for 'latter' (p. 8), and 'Storminger' in the discussion after Theorem 4.12. These do not affect the mathematics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the dimensional obstruction follows from an explicit and self-contained scaling computation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from first-principles calculations rather than from fitted parameters, self-citations, or definitional shortcuts. The key result for disconnected variations, Theorem 4.12, follows from Lemma 4.8, which is proved directly from the explicit form of scalar curvature and the volume transformation: under g -> εg, R[εg] = ε^{-1}R[g] and |det(εg)|^{1/2} = ε^{n/2}|det g|^{1/2}, so L[εg] = ε^{(n-2)/2} L[g]. Equation (50) then computes the one-sided difference quotient as ε^{(n-4)/2} ∫ L[g'], making the n=4/n>4 dichotomy an algebraic consequence. The connected variations in Theorem 5.10 are handled by the same scaling structure, with the coefficient κ defined from the leading-order terms (127)-(129); no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. There are no self-citations by the author, and the few cited results (e.g., the Chern-Gauss-Bonnet theorem, Sobolev embedding, Lebesgue differentiation theorem) are standard external mathematical facts used for justification, not load-bearing self-references. The reader's and skeptic's concerns about the one-sided derivative and W^{2,p} admissibility are potential mathematical-correctness issues in the interpretation or technical regularity of the argument, but they do not amount to circularity: the conclusions are obtained from the stated assumptions by computation, not by assuming what is to be proved. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated; the topological functional derivative and template data are mathematical constructions. The only free choices are auxiliary data (e.g., the auxiliary metric ĝ, templates) that enter the definitions of variations but do not affect the critical-dimension conclusion.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption p > n/2 so that the Morrey embedding W^{2,p}_{loc} embeds into C^{0,α}_{loc}
    Invoked in Section 2 to ensure inverse-metric boundedness and local integrability of the EH Lagrangian; all admissibility and continuity results depend on this regularity choice.
  • domain assumption Metrics belong to W^{2,p}_{loc}(Sgn M), i.e., Sobolev metrics of low regularity
    Defines the domain D_EH(M) in Eq. (7); Theorem 2.9 and all subsequent continuity results are relative to this space.
  • domain assumption Topological variations have compact support in the sense of an isometry on collar neighborhoods of the replaced region
    Section 3: this guarantees that junction conditions are automatically satisfied and avoids boundary-term complications.
  • ad hoc to paper The convex combination of indefinite-signature metrics in the transition region remains nondegenerate (signature preserving)
    Explicitly assumed in Section 5 before Lemma 5.2 and in Definition 5.4; necessary for the connected surgery metric to be an admissible metric of the same signature.
  • ad hoc to paper The piecewise metric (77) with smooth cutoff f belongs to W^{2,p} across the interfaces
    This is not proved; it requires f to be flat (all normal derivatives vanish) at the interfaces. The paper only assumes f smooth with f=0 on Ũ and f=1 on B̃\W̃.
  • standard math Standard theorems: dominated convergence, Lebesgue differentiation, Whitney embedding, Chern-Gauss-Bonnet
    Used in proofs of continuity, derivative computation, set-theoretic justification of the class of manifolds, and quadratic-curvature discussion.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A topology-changing variational framework for the Einstein-Hilbert functional." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HICYTNUH

@misc{pith2026260216457,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A topology-changing variational framework for the Einstein-Hilbert functional},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HICYTNUH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.16457}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Motivated by recent developments in the theory of gravitation, we revisit the idea of topological variations, originally introduced by Wheeler and Hawking, from a rigorous perspective. Starting from a localized version of the Einstein-Hilbert variational principle, we encode the key aspects of the variational procedure in the form of a topology on a suitable space of Sobolev variational configurations, which is the final topology generated by the admissible variational maps. This framework naturally lends itself to generalization, and we rigorously introduce two distinct types of topological variations, corresponding to the infinitesimal addition of disconnected components and to infinitesimal surgeries, both motivated by related physical concepts. Using tools from the theory of Sobolev spaces and precise asymptotics, we establish dimensional obstructions for the continuity and differentiability of the Einstein-Hilbert action with respect to these variations, and show that in the extended variational framework the action does not admit critical points in dimension $n=4$, while higher dimensions are free of this problem. We also discuss the deeper geometric issue of scalar curvature blow-up of degenerating metrics within the context of our framework, and finally demonstrate the non-trivial effect of added higher order curvature terms on the critical dimension.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.16457 by Miltiadis Paschalis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Graphic impression of the topological variation. A domain of variation Ω is replaced with a new one Ω with new topology and metric, and matching boundary. ˜ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Graphic impression of the disconnected topological variation. The topology of Ω remains unchanged, and a new disconnected component M′ is added. In the most general case, variation of the metric is permitted in Ω, to reproduce the effects of classical geometric variations. As mentioned in Section 2, given a local geometric variational principle such as Einstein-Hilbert, the admissible variations are encode… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Graphic impression of the connected topological variation. A ball of diameter √ ϵ in Ω is replaced with another manifold with matching boundary, whose diameter also scales as √ ϵ. Since the metric scales by ϵ, this is the topological equivalent of the geometric variation g → g + ϵh. Connected topological variations in flat space. Due to the technical difficulties involved in ensuring gluing conditions alon… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. A. Adams and J. J. Fournier,Sobolev Spaces, Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 140, 2nd ed., Academic Press (2003)

    2003

  2. [2]

    An introduction to the topological derivative

    S. Amstutz, “An introduction to the topological derivative”,Engineering Computations39(1) (2021), 3–33, doi:10.1108/EC- 07-2021-0433

    doi:10.1108/ec- 2021

  3. [3]

    I. M. Anderson,Introduction to the Variational Bicomplex, Contemporary Mathematics, Vol. 132, AMS (1992), 51–73

    1992

  4. [4]

    Recent Developments on Hamilton’s Ricci flow

    H.-D. Cao, B.-L. Chen, and X.-P. Zhu, “Recent Developments on Hamilton’s Ricci flow”,Surveys in Differential Geometry 12(1) (2007), 47–112

    2007

  5. [5]

    Cartan,Sur les ´ equations de la gravitation d’Einstein, Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, S´ erie 9, Tome 1 (1922), 141–203

    ´E. Cartan,Sur les ´ equations de la gravitation d’Einstein, Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, S´ erie 9, Tome 1 (1922), 141–203

    1922

  6. [6]

    First-order equivalent to Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian,

    M. Castrill´ on-L´ opez, J. Mu˜ noz-Masqu´ e, and M. E. Rosado, “First-order equivalent to Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian,” J. Math. Phys.55(2014), 082501. doi:10.1063/1.4890555

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4890555 2014

  7. [7]

    A Simple Intrinsic Proof of the Gauss–Bonnet Formula for Closed Riemannian Manifolds,

    S. S. Chern, “A Simple Intrinsic Proof of the Gauss–Bonnet Formula for Closed Riemannian Manifolds,” Annals Math.45 (1944), 747–752

    1944

  8. [8]

    Christodoulou,The Action Principle and Partial Differential Equations, Princeton University Press (2000)

    D. Christodoulou,The Action Principle and Partial Differential Equations, Princeton University Press (2000)

    2000

  9. [9]

    On the conformal scalar curvature equation and related problems

    S. Brendle, “On the conformal scalar curvature equation and related problems”,Surveys in Differential Geometry12(1) (2007), 1–20

    2007

  10. [10]

    Black holes as red herrings: Topological fluctuations and the loss of quantum coherence,

    S. Coleman, “Black holes as red herrings: Topological fluctuations and the loss of quantum coherence,” Nucl. Phys. B307 (1988), 867–882

    1988

  11. [11]

    Elliptic equations of Yamabe type

    O. Druet and E. Hebey, “Elliptic equations of Yamabe type”,International Mathematics Research Surveys2005(1) (2005), 1–113

    2005

  12. [12]

    D¨ utsch,From Classical Field Theory to Perturbative Quantum Field Theory, Progress in Mathematical Physics, vol

    M. D¨ utsch,From Classical Field Theory to Perturbative Quantum Field Theory, Progress in Mathematical Physics, vol. 74, Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    The manifold of Riemannian metrics,

    D. G. Ebin, “The manifold of Riemannian metrics,” inGlobal Analysis, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. Vol. 15, AMS (1970), 11–40

    1970

  14. [14]

    Einstein,Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1915), 844–847

    A. Einstein,Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1915), 844–847. TOPOLOGICAL V ARIATIONS IN GENERAL RELATIVITY: A RIGOROUS PERSPECTIVE 29

    1915

  15. [15]

    L. C. Evans,Partial Differential Equations, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 19, 2nd ed., American Mathematical Society (2010)

    2010

  16. [16]

    The Weiss Variation of the Gravitational Action,

    J. C. Feng and R. A. Matzner, “The Weiss Variation of the Gravitational Action,” Gen. Rel. Grav.50(2018), 99. arXiv:1708.04489

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    G. B. Folland,Quantum Field Theory: A Tourist Guide for Mathematicians, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 149, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2008)

    2008

  18. [18]

    I. M. Gelfand and S. V. Fomin,Calculus of Variations, Prentice-Hall (1963)

    1963

  19. [19]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking,Action integrals and partition functions in quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D15(1977), 2752–2756

    1977

  20. [20]

    Loss of incoherence and determination of coupling constants in quantum gravity,

    S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, “Loss of incoherence and determination of coupling constants in quantum gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B307(1988), 854–866

    1988

  21. [21]

    Gilbarg and N

    D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger,Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, Classics in Mathematics, Springer (2001)

    2001

  22. [22]

    Dynamical and Hamiltonian Formulation of General Relativity

    D. Giulini, “Dynamical and Hamiltonian Formulation of General Relativity”, inSpringer Handbook of Spacetime, A. Ashtekar and V. Petkov (eds.), Springer (2014), pp. 323–362

    2014

  23. [23]

    Quantum gravity at two loops,

    M. H. Goroff and A. Sagnotti, “Quantum gravity at two loops,” Nucl. Phys. B266(1986), 709–736

    1986

  24. [24]

    M. J. Gotay, J. Isenberg, and J. E. Marsden,Momentum Maps and Classical Relativistic Fields. Part I: Covariant Field Theory, arXiv:physics/9801019 (2004)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  25. [25]

    Space-time foam,

    S. W. Hawking, “Space-time foam,” Nucl. Phys. B144(1978), 349–362

    1978

  26. [26]

    The Unpredictability of Quantum Gravity,

    S. W. Hawking, “The Unpredictability of Quantum Gravity,” Commun. Math. Phys.87(1982), 395–415

    1982

  27. [27]

    Hebey,Sobolev Spaces on Riemannian Manifolds, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol

    E. Hebey,Sobolev Spaces on Riemannian Manifolds, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1635, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996

    1996

  28. [28]

    Hilbert,Die Grundlagen der Physik, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G¨ ottingen, Mathematisch- Physikalische Klasse (1915), 395–407

    D. Hilbert,Die Grundlagen der Physik, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G¨ ottingen, Mathematisch- Physikalische Klasse (1915), 395–407

    1915

  29. [29]

    M. W. Hirsch,Differential Topology, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer (1976)

    1976

  30. [30]

    Holst,Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a generalized Hilbert-Palatini action, Phys

    S. Holst,Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a generalized Hilbert-Palatini action, Phys. Rev. D53(1996), 5966–5969

    1996

  31. [31]

    Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity

    W. Israel, “Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity”, Nuovo Cimento B44B(1966), 1-14

    1966

  32. [32]

    Zum Unit¨ atsproblem der Physik,

    T. Kaluza, “Zum Unit¨ atsproblem der Physik,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin. (Math. Phys.) (1921), 966–972

    1921

  33. [33]

    Khakshournia and R

    S. Khakshournia and R. Mansouri,The Art of Gluing Space-Time Manifolds: Methods and Applications, SpringerBriefs in Physics (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Quantum theory and five-dimensional relativity,

    O. Klein, “Quantum theory and five-dimensional relativity,” Z. Phys.37(1926), 895–906. doi:10.1007/BF01397481

    doi:10.1007/bf01397481 1926

  35. [35]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,The Classical Theory of Fields, 4th ed., Pergamon Press (1971)

    1971

  36. [36]

    J. M. Lee,Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, 2nd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 218, Springer (2013)

    2013

  37. [37]

    The Yamabe problem

    J. M. Lee and T. H. Parker, “The Yamabe problem”,Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (N.S.)17(1) (1987), 37–91

    1987

  38. [38]

    Gravitational action with null boundaries,

    L. Lehner, R. C. Myers, E. Poisson, and R. D. Sorkin, “Gravitational action with null boundaries,” Phys. Rev. D94(2016), 084046. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084046

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.084046 2016

  39. [39]

    Geometry of General Hypersurfaces in Spacetime: Junction Conditions

    M. Mars and J. M. M. Senovilla, “Geometry of General Hypersurfaces in Spacetime: Junction Conditions”, arXiv:gr- qc/0201054 (2002)

    arXiv 2002

  40. [40]

    Scalar curvature under the collapse of metric

    K. Nguyen, “Scalar curvature under the collapse of metric”,arXiv:2210.16163[math.DG] (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Kaluza–Klein gravity,

    J. M. Overduin and P. S. Wesson, “Kaluza–Klein gravity,” Phys. Rept.283(1997), 303–380. doi:10.1016/S0370- 1573(96)00046-4

    doi:10.1016/s0370- 1997

  42. [42]

    Palatini,Deduzione invariantiva delle equazioni gravitazionali dal principio di Hamilton, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo43(1919), 203–212

    A. Palatini,Deduzione invariantiva delle equazioni gravitazionali dal principio di Hamilton, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo43(1919), 203–212

    1919

  43. [43]

    A Boundary Term for the Gravitational Action with Null Boundaries,

    K. Parattu, S. Chakraborty, B. R. Majhi, and T. Padmanabhan, “A Boundary Term for the Gravitational Action with Null Boundaries,” Gen. Rel. Grav.48(2016), 94. arXiv:1501.01053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Simon,Functional Integration and Quantum Physics, Academic Press, New York (1974)

    B. Simon,Functional Integration and Quantum Physics, Academic Press, New York (1974). Reprinted in revised form by AMS Chelsea Publishing, 2005

    1974

  45. [45]

    P. C. Stavrinos and E. N. Saridakis (eds.),Modified Theories of Gravity and Cosmological Applications, MDPI Books (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    Classical Gravity with Higher Derivatives,

    K. S. Stelle, “Classical Gravity with Higher Derivatives,” Gen. Rel. Grav.9(1978), 353–371

    1978

  47. [47]

    One-loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation,

    G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, “One-loop divergencies in the theory of gravitation,” Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e A20(1974), 69–94

    1974

  48. [48]

    Topping,Lectures on the Ricci Flow, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series325, Cambridge University Press (2010)

    P. Topping,Lectures on the Ricci Flow, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series325, Cambridge University Press (2010)

    2010

  49. [49]

    Dark energy from topology change induced by microscopic Gauss-Bonnet wormholes,

    S. A. Tsilioukas, E. N. Saridakis, and C. Tzerefos, “Dark energy from topology change induced by microscopic Gauss-Bonnet wormholes,” Phys. Rev. D109(2024), 084010

    2024

  50. [50]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity, University of Chicago Press (1984)

    1984

  51. [51]

    Variation Problems of Higher Order with Variable End Points,

    G. Weiss, “Variation Problems of Higher Order with Variable End Points,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.39(1936), 447–472

    1936

  52. [52]

    On the Nature of Quantum Geometrodynamics,

    J. A. Wheeler, “On the Nature of Quantum Geometrodynamics,” Annals Phys.2(1957), 604–614

    1957

  53. [53]

    Differentiable manifolds,

    H. Whitney, “Differentiable manifolds,” Annals Math.37(1936), 645–680

    1936

  54. [54]

    Quantum gravity in de Sitter space,

    E. Witten, “Quantum gravity in de Sitter space,” arXiv:hep-th/0106109 (2001)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  55. [55]

    J. W. York,Role of conformal three-geometry in the dynamics of gravitation, Phys. Rev. Lett.28(1972), 1082–1085. Department of Mathematics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece Email address:mpaschal@math.uoa.gr

    1972

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.