Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Cubic gravity gives a sixth-order Wheeler-DeWitt equation whose solutions still recover classical FRW expansion with a β-dependent scale.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 15:48 UTC pith:PMKMH35Z

load-bearing objection Solid first WDW treatment of FRW CECG; the sixth-order equation is real but rests on an ordering choice that multiplies away the non-local factor, so the solutions are not yet fully secured. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.29304 v1 pith:PMKMH35Z submitted 2026-03-31 gr-qc

Quantum Einsteinian Cubic Cosmology

Nephtal\'i Eliceo Mart\'inez P\'erez , Cupatitzio Ram\'irez Romero This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.60.Ds98.80.Qc04.50.Kd
keywords quantum cosmologyWheeler-DeWitt equationEinsteinian cubic gravityminisuperspacecanonical transformationshigher-curvature gravityinflationary wave functions
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.

Cosmological Einsteinian Cubic Gravity adds special cubic curvature terms that leave the classical FRW equations second-order while rescaling the effective cosmological constant. The paper shows that the same theory, once reduced to minisuperspace, produces a non-standard Hamiltonian whose conjugate momentum is a fifth-degree polynomial in the expansion rate. After a canonical change of variables that makes the constraint explicit, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation becomes sixth-order. Exact exponential solutions exist for flat space and WKB solutions for closed space; both reduce to ordinary FRW wave functions when the cubic coupling vanishes, yet they carry wavelengths and a Euclidean-Lorentzian barrier that depend on that coupling. Adding a homogeneous inflaton yields WKB states that enforce strong coordinate-momentum correlations along classical inflationary trajectories. A reader who cares about higher-curvature quantum cosmology therefore obtains concrete wave functions that already encode the cubic correction without introducing extra classical degrees of freedom.

Core claim

Although FRW Cosmological Einsteinian Cubic Gravity has no extra classical degree of freedom beyond the scale factor, its non-standard Hamiltonian produces a higher-derivative (sixth-order) Wheeler-DeWitt equation. After suitable canonical transformations the equation admits exact solutions for the flat case and WKB solutions for the closed case; both recover ordinary FRW forms when the cubic coupling vanishes, but with wavelengths and barrier scale controlled by that coupling.

What carries the argument

Canonical transformations (a,p_a)→(A,P) or (X,Π) that invert the fifth-degree momentum relation, converting the Hamiltonian constraint into an explicit (though non-polynomial) function whose quantization yields a sixth-order differential operator whose roots encode the cubic-corrected Hubble scale.

Load-bearing premise

The operator-ordering choice that multiplies the classical constraint by a factor depending on the cubic coupling so that an otherwise integro-differential equation collapses to an ordinary sixth-order differential equation, together with boundary conditions that make the inverse operator well-defined.

What would settle it

Construct the unitary operator (if it exists) that implements the nonlinear canonical map and check whether the sixth-order solutions remain eigenfunctions of the original Wheeler-DeWitt operator; any mismatch would falsify the claimed equivalence of the two quantizations.

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

If this is right

  • Cubic corrections appear as a rescaled wavelength of the flat-space wave function and a shifted Euclidean-Lorentzian barrier for closed models.
  • WKB phases still generate classical de Sitter or power-law expansion, now with an effective cosmological constant fixed by the cubic coupling.
  • When a slowly rolling inflaton is added, the same WKB states enforce the classical Friedmann relation with a φ-dependent barrier, furnishing a quantum origin for inflationary trajectories.
  • The counting of classical degrees of freedom remains identical to ordinary FRW, so the higher-order quantum equation is not an artifact of extra ghosts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same canonical-map technique should apply to the infinite-tower geometric-inflation models, potentially producing infinite-order WDW operators whose leading roots still track classical geometric inflation.
  • Boundary conditions that fix the kernel of the inverse operator may select Hartle-Hawking or tunneling states differently once cubic terms are present, offering a concrete test of no-boundary proposals in higher-curvature gravity.
  • The deformed Dirac bracket between scale factor and expansion rate supplies a natural minimal-length deformation that could be compared with generalized-uncertainty-principle cosmologies.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper quantizes the FRW minisuperspace of Cosmological Einsteinian Cubic Gravity (CECG). After an Ostrogradski–Dirac Hamiltonian analysis of the higher-derivative FRW action and of the equivalent second-order Lagrangian, the authors introduce canonical transformations (a,p_a) o(A,P) and (X,Π) that make the Hamiltonian constraint explicit despite the quintic relation between p_a and ȧ. Canonical quantization of the flat model yields a sixth-order Wheeler–DeWitt equation (under a specific operator ordering that multiplies by the factor D=1+3βκ^{10}P^{4}), with exact exponential and Bessel solutions; WKB solutions are obtained for the closed model and for a Starobinsky scalar field. The main claim is that, although FRW CECG has no extra classical degree of freedom, its non-standard Hamiltonian produces a higher-derivative WDW equation whose solutions reduce to ordinary FRW forms when β=0 but carry β-dependent wavelengths and barrier scale X̄.

Significance. If the quantum analysis holds under a controlled operator ordering, the work supplies a concrete minisuperspace realization of how cubic curvature that preserves second-order classical FRW dynamics can still generate a higher-order WDW equation and new complex exponential modes. The classical Hamiltonian sector is carefully executed (primary/secondary constraints, first/second-class split, Dirac brackets recovering the known modified Friedmann equations, and Poisson-bracket verification of the canonical maps). Exact flat solutions and WKB closed/inflationary wave functions that track ordinary FRW structure while encoding β are a useful benchmark for geometric-inflation models. The paper is self-contained and does not fit parameters to data; free parameters remain β, Λ and the Starobinsky mass M.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (39)–(41)] §IV, Eqs. (39)–(41): The higher-derivative WDW equation that underpins the central claim is obtained only after the classical constraint is multiplied by D=(1+3βκ^{10}P^{4}) and the resulting sixth-order ODE (40)/(41) is solved. The text asserts that any solution of (40) satisfies the ordered constraint (39) once Ker(D̂)={0}, and constructs one Green’s function (38) that forces the kernel to vanish under a particular set of boundary conditions. It is not shown that those BCs are compatible with the physical domain A≥0 (hard-wall or normalizability at A=0, self-adjointness of P̂^{2}, or the sign restriction of the Hessian for β<0). If a nontrivial kernel element survives, the exponential/Bessel solutions of (40) need not annihilate the true constraint operator. Either prove that the chosen BCs make D̂ invertible on the physical domain and that the listed solutions of (40) solve (39), or r
  2. [Sections III–IV and VII] §III–IV and conclusions: The highly nonlinear maps (31)/(34) and (53)/(54) are verified classically by Poisson brackets, but the paper correctly notes the Groenewold–Van Hove obstruction and that a unitary lift is not guaranteed. Because the entire quantum analysis is performed in the (A,P) or (X,Π) charts, the claim that the sixth-order WDW equation is the quantum signature of FRW CECG (rather than of a particular chart) needs a short, explicit discussion of what is chart-dependent versus invariant (e.g., classical H-J recovery of the de Sitter roots α, the β-dependent wavelength, and the barrier X̄). Without that, the reduction to ordinary FRW when β=0 is reassuring but does not fully establish that the higher-derivative structure survives a change of polarization or a different ordering of the original (a,p_a) variables.
  3. [Sections V–VI, Eqs. (56)–(68)] §V–VI, Eqs. (56)–(58) and (71)–(73): For the closed and inflationary models the inverse a(X,Π) is treated either as a β-series or by summing β-terms order-by-order in ħ inside the WKB expansion. The resulting S₀ and S₁ recover the expected Euclidean–Lorentzian transition at X̄(β) and the classical correlations (74), but the linearization of the non-standard Hamiltonian about (X̄,Π=0) that produces the Airy matching (67)–(68) is stated without an estimate of the neglected higher powers of (X−X̄) and Π. A brief error estimate or a numerical check that the matched WKB form remains accurate away from X̄ would strengthen the claim that the β-dependent barrier is under control.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 caption refers to the left-hand side of (11) but the plotted quantity is the polynomial in α from (13); align caption and equation numbers.
  2. [Section IV] Notation switches between ħ-explicit and ħ=1 units (e.g., (41) vs. later WKB formulae); state the convention once and keep it consistent.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (54)] In (54) the branches of a^{2}(X,Π) are said to allow both roots (15b); a short remark on which branch is selected by the Hessian sign (Fig. 3) would help the reader.
  4. [Throughout] Typos: “¤𝑎”, “¥𝑎” and similar encoding artifacts appear in several places (e.g., around (4)–(9)); clean for production. Also “H 0” vs. “H0” and “˜𝐻” spacing.
  5. [Section VI] The path-integral / no-boundary discussion in §VI is deferred; a one-sentence pointer that the Hartle–Hawking choice d(ϕ)=∓2X̄(ϕ)/(3ħ) is only a heuristic matching, not a derived path-integral result, would avoid over-reading Fig. 10.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Self-contained theoretical derivation from CECG action through Dirac analysis and canonical maps to WDW solutions; no circular reduction of claims to inputs.

full rationale

The paper starts from the published CECG action (external ref. [1]), constructs the FRW minisuperspace Lagrangian, applies Ostrogradski/Dirac constrained Hamiltonian analysis, introduces canonical transformations (A,P) and (X,Π) to make the constraint explicit, and quantizes with stated operator-ordering choices. Exact flat solutions and WKB closed/inflationary wave functions follow from those equations; when β=0 they recover ordinary FRW forms, as expected. β and Λ are free theory parameters, not fitted. Self-citations (e.g. authors’ prior supersymmetric QC work) are background, not load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz theorems that force the present results. The ordering that multiplies by D so that (39) reduces to the sixth-order ODE (40), and the assumption Ker(D̂)={0}, are explicit technical assumptions (correctness risk), not circular definitions of the claimed solutions. No step reduces a prediction or first-principles claim to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper inherits the CECG action and classical FRW reduction from prior work, then layers standard quantum-geometrodynamics assumptions (Dirac quantization of first-class constraints, minisuperspace truncation, WKB semiclassics). Free parameters are the theory couplings and the Starobinsky mass scale; no new particles or forces are postulated. The main paper-specific modeling choices are the operator ordering that multiplies by D and the particular canonical pairs chosen to invert the quintic.

free parameters (3)
  • β (cubic coupling)
    Dimensionful coupling of the cubic densities; free sign and magnitude (subject to β≥β_min for real α when β<0). Controls effective Λ_β and the barrier scale X̄; not fitted to data in this paper.
  • Λ (bare cosmological constant)
    Input vacuum energy in the pure-gravity sectors; replaced by κ²V(ϕ) when a scalar is added.
  • M (Starobinsky mass scale)
    Fixed by hand to the conventional ~10^13 GeV value when the inflaton is introduced; not derived.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Dirac quantization of first-class constraints: physical states annihilated by Ĥ_0 (Wheeler–DeWitt).
    Standard quantum geometrodynamics assumption used throughout Sec. IV–VI.
  • domain assumption Minisuperspace truncation: only FRW scale factor (and homogeneous ϕ) retained before quantization.
    Stated in the introduction; all results are conditional on this symmetry reduction.
  • ad hoc to paper Operator ordering that replaces the non-local D^{-1} constraint by the sixth-order local equation (40), assuming Ker(D̂)={0}.
    Chosen for solvability in Sec. IV; not uniquely fixed by the classical theory.
  • domain assumption WKB expansion and neglect of scalar kinetic term in a slowly varying potential region.
    Used for closed and inflationary sectors (Sec. V–VI); standard but approximate.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of a Green’s function / boundary conditions making D̂ invertible on the half-line A≥0.
    Invoked to justify that applying D̂ recovers the original constraint; only one example Green’s function is constructed.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22651 in / 3212 out tokens · 29974 ms · 2026-07-13T15:48:08.853556+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study Cosmological Einsteinian Cubic Gravity (CECG) arXiv:1810.08166v3 in the context of minisuperspace quantum cosmology. CECG is a modification of Einstein's gravity by cubic curvature terms that yield a nontrivial contribution to the dynamics of FRW backgrounds while keeping the Friedmann equations at second order. First, we study the Hamiltonian formulation of the effective one-dimensional FRW CECG action using Ostrogradski's canonical variables and Dirac's algorithm for constrained systems. Since the momentum $p_a$ conjugate to the scale factor is a polynomial of degree five in $\dot{a}$, we implement canonical transformations $(a,p_a)\to (A,P)$ that enable us to write the Hamiltonian constraint explicitly. Second, we perform the Wheeler-DeWitt quantization using the new canonical variables. Although FRW CECG has no extra degree of freedom besides the scale factor, its non-standard Hamiltonian yields a higher-derivative Wheeler-DeWitt equation. We obtain exact solutions for the spatially flat case, and WKB-type solutions for the spatially closed case. Finally, we consider a homogeneous scalar field $\phi$ with inflationary potential and obtain WKB wave functions leading to strong correlations between coordinates and momenta.

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

49 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Arciniega, J

    G. Arciniega, J. D. Edelstein, and L. G. Jaime, Towards geo- metric inflation: The cubic case, Physics Letters B802, 135272 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, and V. Oikonomou, Modified gravity theories on a nutshell: Inflation, bounce and late-time evolution, Physics Reports692, 1 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni,𝑓(𝑅)theories of gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    De Felice and S

    A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa,𝑓(𝑅)theories, Living Reviews in Relativity13, 10.12942/lrr-2010-3 (2010)

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2010-3 2010

  5. [5]

    K. S. Stelle, Renormalization of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. D16, 953 (1977)

    1977

  6. [6]

    Kuntz, Exorcising ghosts in quantum gravity, The European Physical Journal Plus135, 859 (2020)

    I. Kuntz, Exorcising ghosts in quantum gravity, The European Physical Journal Plus135, 859 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    K. S. Stelle, Classical gravity with higher derivatives, General Relativity and Gravitation9, 353 (1978)

    1978

  8. [8]

    Woodard, Avoiding Dark Energy with 1/𝑅Modifications of Gravity, inThe Invisible Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007) pp

    R. Woodard, Avoiding Dark Energy with 1/𝑅Modifications of Gravity, inThe Invisible Universe: Dark Matter and Dark Energy(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007) pp. 403–433

    2007

  9. [9]

    Padmanabhan and D

    T. Padmanabhan and D. Kothawala, Lanczos–Lovelock models of gravity, Physics Reports531, 115 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Oliva and S

    J. Oliva and S. Ray, Classification of six derivative Lagrangians of gravity and static spherically symmetric solutions, Phys. Rev. 13 D82, 124030 (2010)

    2010

  11. [11]

    Oliva and S

    J. Oliva and S. Ray, A new cubic theory of gravity in five dimensions: black hole, Birkhoff’s theorem and C-function, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 225002 (2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    R. C. Myers and B. Robinson, Black holes in quasi-topological gravity, Journal of High Energy Physics2010, 67 (2010)

    2010

  13. [13]

    Bueno and P

    P. Bueno and P. A. Cano, Einsteinian cubic gravity, Phys. Rev. D94, 104005 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    R. A. Hennigar, D. Kubiz ˇn´ak, and R. B. Mann, Generalized quasitopological gravity, Phys. Rev. D95, 104042 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

    Bueno, P

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, J. Moreno, and A. Murcia, All higher- curvature gravities as Generalized quasi-topological gravities, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 62 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Bueno, P

    P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, and R. A. Hennigar, (generalized) quasi- topological gravities at all orders, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity37, 015002 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Cisterna, N

    A. Cisterna, N. Grandi, and J. Oliva, On four-dimensional Ein- steinian gravity, quasitopological gravity, cosmology and black holes, Physics Letters B805, 135435 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Dengiz, Cosmological Weyl-Einsteinian-Cubic Gravity as a gauge theory of gravity, The European Physical Journal C85, 928 (2025)

    S. Dengiz, Cosmological Weyl-Einsteinian-Cubic Gravity as a gauge theory of gravity, The European Physical Journal C85, 928 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Arciniega, P

    G. Arciniega, P. Bueno, P. A. Cano, J. D. Edelstein, R. A. Hennigar, and L. G. Jaime, Geometric inflation, Physics Letters B802, 135242 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Arciniega, L

    G. Arciniega, L. G. Jaime, S. J. Landau, and M. Leizerovich, On Geometric Cosmology (2025), arXiv:2504.00124 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Erices, E

    C. Erices, E. Papantonopoulos, and E. N. Saridakis, Cosmology in cubic and𝑓(𝑃)gravity, Phys. Rev. D99, 123527 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Marciu, Tachyonic cosmology with cubic contractions of the Riemann tensor, The European Physical Journal C82, 1069 (2022)

    M. Marciu, Tachyonic cosmology with cubic contractions of the Riemann tensor, The European Physical Journal C82, 1069 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    D. L. Wiltshire, An introduction to quantum cosmology (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0101003 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  24. [24]

    J. J. Halliwell, Introductory lectures on Quantum Cosmology, in Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes. Proceedings of the 7th Jerusalem Winter School for Theoretical Physics, Jerusalem, Israel(World Scientific, 1991) pp. 159–243

    1991

  25. [25]

    Vargas Moniz,Quantum Cosmology - The Supersymmetric Perspective: Vol

    P. Vargas Moniz,Quantum Cosmology - The Supersymmetric Perspective: Vol. 1: Fundamentals, Lect.Notes Phys (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    Baumann, TASI Lectures on Inflation (2012), arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

    D. Baumann, TASI Lectures on Inflation (2012), arXiv:0907.5424 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  27. [27]

    Miji ´c, M

    B. Miji ´c, M. Morris, M. S., and S. Wai-Mo, Initial conditions for𝑅+𝜖 𝑅 2 cosmology, Phys. Rev. D.39, 1496 (1989)

    1989

  28. [28]

    N. E. Mart ´ınez-P´erez and C. Ram´ırez, Supersymmetric higher- derivative models in quantum cosmology, The European Physi- cal Journal C83, 998 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Bojowald, Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity, in Canonical Gravity and Applications: Cosmology, Black Holes, and Quantum Gravity(Cambridge University Press, 2010) p

    M. Bojowald, Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity, in Canonical Gravity and Applications: Cosmology, Black Holes, and Quantum Gravity(Cambridge University Press, 2010) p. 113–183

    2010

  30. [30]

    G. F. R. Ellis, R. Maartens, and M. A. H. MacCallum,Rel- ativistic Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012)

    2012

  31. [31]

    Kiefer,Quantum gravity, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Vol

    C. Kiefer,Quantum gravity, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Vol. 124 (Oxford University Press, New York, 2012)

    2012

  32. [32]

    Linton,Quintic Equations and How to Solve Them (Birkh¨auser Cham, Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzer- land, 2025)

    C. Linton,Quintic Equations and How to Solve Them (Birkh¨auser Cham, Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzer- land, 2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    R. S. Palais, The principle of symmetric criticality, Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics69, 19 (1979)

    1979

  34. [34]

    Deser and B

    S. Deser and B. Tekin, Shortcuts to high symmetry solutions in gravitational theories, Classical and Quantum Gravity20, 4877 (2003)

    2003

  35. [35]

    Sundermeyer, Classical mechanics, inSymmetries in Funda- mental Physics(Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014) pp

    K. Sundermeyer, Classical mechanics, inSymmetries in Funda- mental Physics(Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014) pp. 19–68

    2014

  36. [36]

    F. C. S´anchez, A. A. Roque, and J. Chagoya, Signatures of cubic gravity in the strong regime, Phys. Rev. D112, 024050 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    E. W. Weisstein, Cubic Formula. From MathWorld–A Wolfram Resource, https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicFormula.html

  38. [38]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim,Quantization of Gauge Systems (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994)

    1994

  39. [39]

    Teitelboim and J

    C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Dimensionally continued topo- logical gravitation theory in Hamiltonian form, Classical and Quantum Gravity4, L125 (1987)

    1987

  40. [40]

    Bagchi, A

    B. Bagchi, A. Ghosh, and M. Znojil, A Reappraisal of Lagrangians with Non-Quadratic Velocity Dependence and Branched Hamiltonians, Symmetry16, 860 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    G. F. Torres del Castillo,An Introduction to Hamiltonian Me- chanics, 1st ed. (Birkh¨auser, Switzerland, 2018)

    2018

  42. [42]

    M. J. Gotay, On the Groenewold–Van Hove problem for𝑅 2𝑛, Journal of Mathematical Physics40, 2107 (1999)

    1999

  43. [43]

    Teschl,Mathematical Methods in Quantum Mechanics: With Applications to Schr ¨odinger Operators(American Mathemati- cal Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2009)

    G. Teschl,Mathematical Methods in Quantum Mechanics: With Applications to Schr ¨odinger Operators(American Mathemati- cal Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2009)

    2009

  44. [44]

    K. V. KUCHA ˇR, Time and interpretations of quantum grav- ity, International Journal of Modern Physics D20, 3 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271811019347

    doi:10.1142/s0218271811019347 2011

  45. [45]

    Ram ´ırez and V

    C. Ram ´ırez and V. V ´azquez-B´aez, Quantum supersymmetric frw cosmology with a scalar field, Phys. Rev. D93, 043505 (2016)

    2016

  46. [46]

    R. L. Liboff,Introductory Quantum Mechanics(Addison- Wesley, 1980)

    1980

  47. [47]

    S. V. Ketov, On Legacy of Starobinsky Inflation (2025), arXiv:2501.06451 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Bosso, Rigorous Hamiltonian and Lagrangian analysis of classical and quantum theories with minimal length, Phys

    P. Bosso, Rigorous Hamiltonian and Lagrangian analysis of classical and quantum theories with minimal length, Phys. Rev. D97, 126010 (2018)

    2018

  49. [49]

    Abdelkhalek, W

    K. Abdelkhalek, W. Chemissany, L. Fiedler, G. Mangano, and R. Schwonnek, Optimal uncertainty relations in a modified Heisenberg algebra, Phys. Rev. D94, 123505 (2016)

    2016