Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Junction Conditions for General Gravitational Theories

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the general junction conditions for any metric theory of gravity whose Lagrangian is built from the Riemann tensor and its covariant derivatives, and shows that thin shells, gravitational double layers, and impulsive wave

desk verdict Section 4 understates the derivative order for nonlinear curvature-derivative Lagrangians, so the claimed general junction conditions are not established; the m=0 results are solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.04645 v3 pith:47J6VJ26 submitted 2026-03-04 gr-qc hep-th

José M. M. Senovilla This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C0583C4053C50
keywords junctionconditionsthinshellsdistributionalformalismgravitationaldoublelayersF(R)gravityquadraticIsraelequationscurvatureinvariants
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 establishes that in any metric theory of gravity with a Lagrangian depending arbitrarily on the Riemann tensor and up to m of its covariant derivatives, a well-defined matching across a timelike hypersurface forces the second fundamental form to be continuous ([K]=0) and the Riemann tensor to be continuous up to its m-th covariant derivative. Thin shells appear precisely when the (m+1)-th derivative jumps, and the paper gives a general formula for the shell energy-momentum tensor together with generalized Israel equations. A proper junction without a shell requires the (m+1)-th derivative to be continuous as well. Within this class, GR and F(R) theories are singled out as the only ones permitting jumps of the second fundamental form—hence impulsive curvature waves—while purely quadratic theories are the only ones permitting gravitational double layers. For every proper junction, the continuity of n^α[T_{αβ}] across the hypersurface is proven as a theory-independent necessary condition.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the distributional calculus for tensor fields on a Lorentzian manifold, using a step function across the matching hypersurface and the jump-bracket formalism. Key identities express the Riemann tensor distribution and its covariant derivatives in terms of jumps [K] and [∇^i R], identifying the singular parts that would produce ill-defined δΣδΣ products. The decisive condition is [K]=0, which makes the Riemann tensor locally integrable; the paper also defines a tensor S (or its higher-derivative analog) that isolates the terms generating the shell stress-energy tensor.

What would settle it

Compute the junction conditions for a concrete higher-order theory, e.g. F = R + c R^3, using a variational principle with the appropriate boundary term and compare with the distributional result: if that route yields a consistent matching with [K] ≠ 0 (or a double layer in a non-quadratic theory), the paper's necessity claims would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a set of necessary and sufficient junction conditions valid for the whole class of theories, derived from the single demand that the field equations be meaningful as distributions, meaning free of ill-defined products of delta functions. In the generic case, this demand forces the second fundamental form to have no jump ([K]=0) and the Riemann tensor to have no jump in any covariant derivative up to order m. A jump at order m+1 produces a thin shell whose energy-momentum is tangent to the hypersurface and obeys generalized Israel equations. For a proper junction without a shell, one needs in addition the (m+1)-th derivative to be continuous. The universality of n^α[T_{αβ

Load-bearing premise

The central results rest on the premise that the correct junction conditions are exactly those that make the field equations well-defined in the ordinary linear distributional sense, free of products of delta distributions; the paper itself notes this choice is open to doubt because a boundary-term approach can yield different conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any theory beyond GR and F(R), gluing two regions requires a continuous extrinsic curvature, so impulsive gravitational waves (curvature shells) cannot be supported on a matching hypersurface.
  • Purely quadratic curvature theories are the unique ones in which the Riemann tensor may jump, giving rise to thin shells and gravitational double layers.
  • A proper junction without a shell must satisfy the universal normal matching condition n^α[T_{αβ}]=0, meaning vacuum junctions require zero normal pressure on the matching surface.
  • The generalized Israel equations hold for all theories in the class, with the shell energy-momentum tensor fixed by the Lagrangian's dependence on the (m+1)-th derivative discontinuity.
  • For Lagrangians containing derivatives of the Riemann tensor up to order m, the first allowed discontinuity shifts to the (m+1)-th derivative, so higher-derivative theories demand increasingly smooth curvature for any junction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's classification suggests an observational fingerprint: a confirmed gravitational double layer would rule out almost all modified-gravity models, while a confirmed impulsive curvature wave would rule out all but F(R)-like theories.
  • Because the universal n^α[T]=0 condition follows from conservation alone, it can be used as a quick check of any proposed matching even before writing down field equations; this is a testable prediction for astrophysical thin-shell models.
  • The author's caution about boundary-term methods leaves open a possible reformulation: if a variational boundary-term approach is amended to handle the double-layer sector, some of the paper's uniqueness claims for quadratic theories may need modification.
  • The analysis assumes minimal coupling; extending it to non-minimal couplings would likely introduce extra terms in the shell energy-momentum tensor, but the same distributional logic should apply.
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 paper derives junction conditions for gravitational theories whose Lagrangian is an arbitrary function of the metric, the Riemann tensor, and covariant derivatives of the Riemann tensor, using linear distribution theory. The guiding criterion is that the field equations must be well defined in the distributional sense, i.e. free of products of Dirac deltas. For theories with m=0, the paper obtains [K_ab]=0, generically [Riemann]=0, a shell stress-energy tensor, generalized Israel equations, and the condition n^α[T_{αβ}]=0 for proper junctions. It also identifies quadratic curvature theories as the exceptional case allowing Riemann-tensor discontinuities and gravitational double layers, and GR/F(R) as the cases admitting curvature shells. For theories with derivatives of the Riemann tensor up to order m, it claims that [∇^i R]=0 for i=0,...,m is necessary for a shell, with the shell arising from a jump of ∇^{m+1}R, and that a proper junction requires [∇^{m+1}R]=0 as well.

Significance. If correct, the m=0 part would provide a unified distributional treatment of matching in a broad class of metric theories, including a concrete shell stress-energy formula and a universal necessary condition on the matter stress tensor. The paper is carefully organized, self-contained in its main distributional identities, and honest about the chosen criterion: linear distributional well-definedness. The identification of quadratic theories as allowing double layers and GR/F(R) as allowing curvature shells is a striking and useful result. However, the correctness of the announced general derivative-dependent case is essential to the title and abstract, and it is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (27)] The central claim about the derivative order in the field equations is internally inconsistent for the announced class. With m=1, take F_hat = (∇_λ R_{αβγδ})(∇^λ R^{αβγδ}). Then ∂F_hat/∂(∇_σ R_{αβμν}) = 2∇^σ R^{αβμν}, so the i=1 contribution to P_hat is −2 □ R^{αβμν}. Hence ∇_ρ ∇_γ P_hat contains a term ∇_ρ ∇_γ □ R^{αργβ}, i.e. fourth covariant derivatives of the Riemann tensor. Equation (27) instead asserts that only derivatives up to order m+2=3 appear, with at most one ∇ acting on a ∇^{m}R factor. More generally, for F_hat = |∇^m R|^2, the highest derivative order in the field equations is 2m+2, not m+2. Therefore the statement that the (m+2)-th derivative terms come exclusively from ∇_ρ∇_γ P_hat is false for nonlinear F_hat, and the subsequent derivation of (25), (28), and (29) does not cover the general class announced in Section 4. A jump of ∇^{m+1}R can generate derivatives of δ_Σ
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (24)-(29)] Even if Eq. (27) were replaced by a corrected derivative-order statement, the paper does not prove that the terms in E_{αβ} in (24) contain derivatives only up to order m. For nonlinear Lagrangian densities depending on ∇^m R, the Euler-Lagrange equations generically contain double variations of the Lagrangian with respect to ∇^i R and ∇^j R, which produce derivatives of order up to 2m. The quoted references [36,37] may contain such expressions, but the manuscript asserts a stronger and apparently false bound. Consequently, the necessary and sufficient nature of conditions (25) and (29) is not established. A revision should either prove the claimed bound for the specific class considered, or restrict the class to Lagrangians for which it is true (e.g. those at most linear in the highest derivative), and adjust the title, abstract, and conclusions accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (8)-(16)] The derivation of the universal property (16) assumes that the matter stress tensor is covariantly conserved and that the gravitational side of the field equations can be written as a well-defined distribution. For the m=0 generic case this is reasonable once (5) and (6) are imposed. However, the paper's wording 'independently of the field equations' in the abstract and Section 5 is stronger than what is actually shown: the argument uses the field equations to identify T^{αβ} with the gravitational side, so (16) is independent of the specific gravitational Lagrangian but not of the assumption that the field equations hold distributionally. This should be stated more carefully.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (10)] In Eq. (10), the symbol ρ_{δν} appears where the surrounding notation uses ρ_{βν}; check index matching and consistency with the definition of ρ_{βν} below Eq. (7).
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (26)] The displayed formula for ∇_{α1}...∇_{αm+1}R is incomplete: it omits the θ and (1−θ) factors on the two bulk terms, although the following line for the (m+2) derivative includes them. This is a typesetting issue but makes the equation hard to read.
  3. [Section 1 and Abstract] The abstract and introduction state the results for 'arbitrary functions of curvature scalar invariants (including differential invariants)' without mentioning the important caveat that the whole discussion is restricted to timelike matching hypersurfaces and minimal matter coupling; Section 5 does mention these restrictions, but they should be flagged earlier and more prominently.
  4. [General] There are several small grammatical issues, e.g. 'the m-th-covariant derivative' in the abstract, and inconsistent use of the underlined notation for distributions introduced in the Appendix. A technical language edit would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the junction conditions are derived from distributional well-definedness, not from their own conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained within an explicitly stated formalism: junction conditions are defined as the requirements that make the field equations well-defined in the linear distributional sense. The key conditions [K]=0 (Eq. 5), [R]=0 (Eq. 6), and [∇^i R]=0 for i≤m (Eq. 25) are consequences of avoiding δΣδΣ products, and the shell stress-energy (Eqs. 28, 10) and proper-matching condition (Eq. 29) follow from the distributional derivative formulas in the Appendix. These are derived consequences, not assumed conclusions. The 'universal' normal-component continuity n^α[T_{αβ}]=0 (Eq. 16) follows from covariant conservation and geometric identities, not from the target junction conditions. Self-citations to [28,42,44-47] supply geometric lemmas and explicit formulas for special cases (quadratic double layers, F(R) shells); the general claims are argued in the text and do not reduce to those citations. The acknowledged limitation that the boundary-term approach [8-11,41] may yield different conditions is a scope caveat, not a circular step. One serious concern is that Eq. (27) may understate the derivative order for nonlinear F̂: since P̂ contains ∇^i(∂F̂/∂∇^i R), terms of order 2m+2 can appear, so (25)/(28)/(29) may not be established for the announced general class. That is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction, and is not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All results are derived within the author's distributional framework; the main external inputs are the variational field equations (cited to literature) and the choice to forbid products of δ distributions. No free parameters are fitted, no new entities are invented.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Field equations (3) for F(Riemann) theories and (24) for theories with covariant derivatives of Riemann hold as stated.
    Equations (3) and (24) are quoted from the literature (Refs [34,35,12,5,7] and [36,37,21]) and are the starting point for the distributional analysis; if they were incorrect, the junction conditions would change.
  • domain assumption Products of distributions with intersecting singular supports are undefined, so physical field equations must be free of δΣ δΣ products.
    This is the guiding principle (Sections 1 and 3.1); it is a choice of the linear distributional framework, explicitly acknowledged in the Discussion, and is contested by generalized-function and boundary-term approaches.
  • domain assumption The metric is continuous across Σ, i.e., the first fundamental forms agree (Eq (1)).
    Standard prerequisite for a well-defined spacetime matching; used throughout.
  • standard math The covariant derivative formula for tensors with a jump (Eq (37)) and the derivative formula for distributional δΣ terms (Eq (56)) are correct.
    These are structural results of the distributional formalism, referred to [28,42]; they underlie Eqs (7), (14), (26).
  • domain assumption The matter action is diffeomorphism invariant, so ∇_α T^{αβ}=0 distributionally.
    Used to derive the generalized Israel equations (14) and the universal continuity (16).
  • domain assumption The maximum derivative order m in the Lagrangian is finite.
    Section 4 assumes a finite m; infinite-derivative theories are excluded (Discussion).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Junction Conditions for General Gravitational Theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/47J6VJ26

@misc{pith2026260304645,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Junction Conditions for General Gravitational Theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/47J6VJ26}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.04645}
}
abstract

The junction conditions for general theories of gravity based on actions that depend on arbitrary functions of the curvature scalar invariants (including differential invariants) are obtained using the distributional formalism. In case of the existence of thin shells, a general expression for the shell energy-momentum tensor is presented. Generalized Israel equations are also obtained. The conditions for a proper matching, without shells, are derived. The main results are: (i) shells arise if the $m$th-covariant derivative of the Riemann tensor is continuous at the matching hypersurface, where $m$ is the maximum order of differentiation appearing in the Lagrangian density; (ii) a proper junction without thin shells requires further that the $(m+1)$-th derivative be also continuous, (iii) theories with $m=0$ that are quadratic in the scalar curvature invariants are special and unique for they allow for discontinuities of the Riemann tensor resulting in the existence of thin shells and {\em gravitational double layers} and (iv) General Relativity and $F(R)$ theories are extraordinary theories that admit shells of curvature (i.e. impulsive gravitational waves) because other theories require the absence of jumps of the second fundamental form across the matching hypersurface. For proper junctions, the continuity across the matching hypersurface of the normal components of the energy-momentum tensor is proven to be a {\em universal} property, independently of the field equations, thereby providing important necessary conditions for any matching in any gravitational theory. All results are derived for a minimal coupling with the matter, but the strategy would be analogous for more general couplings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Mart ´ ınez, Junction conditions in scalar-tensor theories, Class

    Avil´ es L., Maeda H., and C. Mart ´ ınez, Junction conditions in scalar-tensor theories, Class. Quantum Grav.37(2020) 075022

    2020

  2. [2]

    and Hogan, P.A., Lightlike signals in general relativity and cosmology,Phys

    Barrab` es, C. and Hogan, P.A., Lightlike signals in general relativity and cosmology,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 044013

    1998

  3. [3]

    and Hogan, P.A., Singular null hypersurfaces in general relativity, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003)

    Barrab` es, C. and Hogan, P.A., Singular null hypersurfaces in general relativity, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003). 15

    2003

  4. [4]

    and Israel,W., Thin shells in general relativity and cosmology: the lightlike limit.Phys

    Barrab` es, C. and Israel,W., Thin shells in general relativity and cosmology: the lightlike limit.Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 1129–1142

    1991

  5. [5]

    Quantum Grav.37(2020) 015002

    Bueno P., Cano P.A., and Hennigar R.A., (Generalized) quasi-topological gravities at all orders,Class. Quantum Grav.37(2020) 015002

    2020

  6. [6]

    Lett.B861(2025) 139260

    Bueno P., Cano P.A., and Hennigar R.A., Regular Black Holes From Pure Gravity,Phys. Lett.B861(2025) 139260

    2025

  7. [7]

    Quantum Grav.40(2023) 015004

    Bueno P., Cano P.A., Hennigar R.A., Lu M.,and Moreno J., Generalized quasi-topological gravities: the whole shebang,Class. Quantum Grav.40(2023) 015004

    2023

  8. [8]

    Rev.D111(2025) 104009

    Bueno P., Cano P.A., Hennigar R.A., and Murcia ´A, Regular black holes from thin-shell collapse,Phys. Rev.D111(2025) 104009

    2025

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Bueno P., Cano P.A., Hennigar R.A., and Murcia ´A, Dynamical Formation of Regular Black Holes,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 181401

    2025

  2. [10]

    Rev.D113(2026) 024019

    Bueno P., Cano P.A., Hennigar R.A., and Murcia ´A, Regular black hole formation in four-dimensional non-polynomial gravities,Phys. Rev.D113(2026) 024019

    2026

  3. [11]

    Rev.D112(2025) 064039

    Bueno P., Cano P.A., Hennigar R.A., Murcia ´A, and Vicente-Cano A., Regular black holes from Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse,Phys. Rev.D112(2025) 064039

    2025

  4. [12]

    Bueno P., Cano P.A., Moreno J., and Murcia ´A, All higher-curvature gravities as Gen- eralized quasi-topological gravities,JHEP11(2019) 062

    2019

  5. [13]

    and Tan H.S., Generalized Darmois-Israel junction conditions,Universe8(5) (2022) 25

    Chu C-S. and Tan H.S., Generalized Darmois-Israel junction conditions,Universe8(5) (2022) 25

    2022

  6. [14]

    and Dray T, Junction conditions for null hypersurfaces,Class

    Clarke C.J.S. and Dray T, Junction conditions for null hypersurfaces,Class. Quantum Grav.4(1987) 265

    1987

  7. [15]

    and Rodr ´ ıguez, D.V

    Edelstein, J.D., S´ anchez, A.R. and Rodr ´ ıguez, D.V. Are there Einsteinian gravities in- volving covariant derivatives of the Riemann tensor?. JHEP11(2022) 077

    2022

  8. [16]

    Rev.D95(2017) 124021

    Eiroa E.F., Figueroa-Aguirre G., and Senovilla J.M.M., Pure double-layer bubbles in quadratic F(R) gravity,Phys. Rev.D95(2017) 124021

    2017

  9. [17]

    Quantum Grav

    Feinstein A., MacCallum M.A.H., and Senovilla J.M.M., On the ambiguous evolution and the production of matter in spacetimes with colliding waves,Class. Quantum Grav. 6(1989) L217

    1989

  10. [18]

    Geroch R., and Traschen J, Strings and other distributional sources in general relativity, Physical Review D36(1987) 1017–1031

    1987

  11. [19]

    and Steinbauer R., Geometric Theory of Generalized Functions with Applications to General Relativity, Mathematics and Its Applications series, volume 537, (Springer 2001)

    Grosser M., Kunzinger M., Oberguggenberger M. and Steinbauer R., Geometric Theory of Generalized Functions with Applications to General Relativity, Mathematics and Its Applications series, volume 537, (Springer 2001). 16

    2001

  12. [20]

    Israel, W., Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity,Nuovo Cimento 44(1966) 1; erratum49(1967) 463

    1966

  13. [21]

    D50(1994) 846-864

    Iyer V., and Wald R.M., Some Properties of Noether Charge and a Proposal for Dynam- ical Black Hole Entropy,Phys.Rev. D50(1994) 846-864

    1994

  14. [22]

    Rev.D103(2021) 064078

    Kol´ aˇ r I., Torralba F.J.M., and Mazumdar A., Junction conditions in infinite derivative gravity,Phys. Rev.D103(2021) 064078

    2021

  15. [23]

    Lanczos, K., Bemerkungen zur de Sitterschen Welt.Physikalische Zeitschrift23, (1922) 539–547

    1922

  16. [24]

    Lanczos, K.,Fl¨ achenhafte verteiliung der Materie in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheo- rie,Annalen der Physik(Leipzig)74(1924) 518–540

    1924

  17. [25]

    Lichnerowicz A.,Th´ eories Relativistes de la Gravitation et de l’Electromagn´ etisme(Mas- son, Paris, 1955)

    1955

  18. [26]

    Sur les ondes de choc gravitationnelles,C

    Lichnerowicz A. Sur les ondes de choc gravitationnelles,C. R. Acad. Sci.273(1971) 528-532

    1971

  19. [27]

    and Koyama, K., Brane-World gravity,Living Rev

    Maartens, R. and Koyama, K., Brane-World gravity,Living Rev. Relativ.(2010)13: 5. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2010-5

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    Quantum Grav.10(1993) 1865–1897

    Mars, M., and Senovilla, J.M.M., Geometry of general hypersurfaces in spacetime: Junc- tion conditions.Class. Quantum Grav.10(1993) 1865–1897

    1993

  21. [29]

    Mars M, Senovilla J.M.M., and Vera R, Signature change on the brane,Phys. Rev. Lett 86(2001) 4219–22

    2001

  22. [30]

    Mars M, Senovilla J.M.M., and Vera R, Lorentzian and signature changing branesPhys. Rev. D76(2007) 044029

    2007

  23. [31]

    Mars M, Senovilla J.M.M., and Vera R, Is the accelerated expansion evidence of a forth- coming change of signature on the brane?,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 027501

    2008

  24. [32]

    Rev.D108(2023) 044016

    Moreno J., and Murcia ´A, On the classification of Generalized Quasitopological Gravities, Phys. Rev.D108(2023) 044016

    2023

  25. [33]

    and Rubiera-Garc ´ ıa, D

    Olmo G. and Rubiera-Garc ´ ıa, D. Junction conditions in Palatinif(R) gravity,Class. Quantum Grav.37(2020) 215002

    2020

  26. [34]

    Rev.D84(2011) 124041

    Padmanaban T., Some aspects of field equations in generalized theories of gravity,Phys. Rev.D84(2011) 124041

    2011

  27. [35]

    and Kothawala D., Lanczos-Lovelock models of gravity,Phys

    Padmanabhan T. and Kothawala D., Lanczos-Lovelock models of gravity,Phys. Rep. 531(2013) 115-171

    2013

  28. [36]

    Scr.99 (2024) 105229 17

    Peng J.-J., A note on field equations in generalized theories of gravity,Phys. Scr.99 (2024) 105229 17

    2024

  29. [37]

    and Li H., The trace of field equations for higher-derivative grav- ity and an equality associating the Lagrangian density with a divergence term, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13549

    Peng J.-J. and Li H., The trace of field equations for higher-derivative grav- ity and an equality associating the Lagrangian density with a divergence term, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13549

  30. [38]

    The geometry of impulsive gravitational waves, inGeneral Relativity, Papers in Honour of J

    Penrose, R. The geometry of impulsive gravitational waves, inGeneral Relativity, Papers in Honour of J. L. Synge(Clarendon, Oxford, 1972) p. 101

    1972

  31. [39]

    Press, 2009)

    Poisson E., A relativist’s toolkit, (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Quantum Grav.41(2024) 015020

    Racsk´ o B., Junction conditions in a general field theory,Class. Quantum Grav.41(2024) 015020

    2024

  33. [41]

    and Mart ´ ınez C., Junction conditions for higher order gravity theories from a Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term,Phys

    Ram ´ ırez M.A. and Mart ´ ınez C., Junction conditions for higher order gravity theories from a Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term,Phys. Rev.D112(2025) 024007

    2025

  34. [42]

    Quantum Grav.33(2016) 105008

    Reina B., Senovilla, J.M.M., and Vera R., Junction conditions in quadratic gravity: thin shells and double layers,Class. Quantum Grav.33(2016) 105008

    2016

  35. [43]

    Rev.D109(2024) 064018

    Rosa J.L., Junction conditions in gravity theories with extra scalar degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev.D109(2024) 064018

    2024

  36. [44]

    Senovilla, J M M, Junction conditions forF(R) gravity and their consequences,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 064015

    2013

  37. [45]

    Quantum Grav.31(2014) 072002

    Senovilla, J.M.M., Gravitational double layers,Class. Quantum Grav.31(2014) 072002

    2014

  38. [46]

    Senovilla, J M M, Double layers in gravity theories,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.600(2015) 012004

    2015

  39. [47]

    Senovilla, J M M , Equations for general shells,JHEP(2018) 134

    2018

  40. [48]

    Quantum Grav.23(2006) R91

    Steinbauer R., and Vickers J.A., The use of generalized functions and distributions in general relativity,Class. Quantum Grav.23(2006) R91

    2006

  41. [49]

    Taub A.H., Space-times with distribution-valued curvature tensors,J. Math. Phys.21 (1980) 1423. 18

    1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.