Manifestation of Quantum Forces in Spacetime: Towards a General Theory of Quantum Forces

Raheem Adom

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Manifestation of Quantum Forces in Spacetime: Towards a General Theory of Quantum Forces

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The quantum force wave equation redefines all quantum forces—electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational—as emergent effects of wavefunctions interacting with curved spacetime and gauge fields.

desk verdict The quantum force wave equation is circular and the scalar derivation is algebraically wrong, so the unification claim is unsupported; desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07332 v1 pith:5ZAUIJRD submitted 2025-07-09 physics.gen-ph

Raheem Adom This is my paper

classification physics.gen-ph

keywords quantumforceswavefunctionspacetimecurvatureunifiedtheorygaugebackreactiongravityspinconnection

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 aims to establish a “quantum force wave equation” (QFWE) that treats all quantum forces—electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational—as emergent effects of a particle’s wavefunction interacting with curved spacetime and gauge fields. The author argues that a single equation, $F_{\mu}\Psi = i\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2\pi m}R_{\mu}\Psi$ (Eq. 43), captures these interactions, and that embedding it in Einstein’s field equations yields a backreaction mechanism by which quantum fields reshape spacetime. If correct, this would give a unified framework for quantum dynamics near black holes, in the early universe, and in high-energy processes, where spacetime curvature is fundamental. The paper itself notes the framework is semi-classical—the metric is not quantized—and states that the detailed study of the backreaction equation’s solutions is left to future work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the path-ordered exponential $\psi = P\exp(i\int_{C}c_{\mu}dx^{\mu})$ that defines the wavefunction’s phase, together with the field-coupling vector $c_{\mu}$ that assembles all interactions into a single covariant-vector object. The crucial mechanism is the assumed covariant-derivative rule $\nabla_{\mu}\psi = ic_{\mu}\psi + z_{\mu}\psi$, where $z_{\mu}$ is an infinite series of path-ordered nested commutators of $c_{\mu}$; this rule is what generates the General Quantum Manipulator (GQM), the operator $R_{\mu}$ that collects every third-order covariant-derivative term in the expanded expression for $c_{\nu}c^{\nu}c_{\mu}\Psi$. Because the GQM is defined by rearranging the same expansion that produces the equation, the entire non-local and multi-field content of the QFWE resides in the unproven $z_{\mu}$ correction.

What would settle it

Compute $\nabla_{\mu}\psi$ directly from the definition of the path-ordered exponential for an Abelian or non-Abelian connection $c_{\mu}$ using the standard rules of gauge theory: the result is $\nabla_{\mu}\psi = ic_{\mu}\psi$ with no $z_{\mu}$ term. If this standard calculation holds, the non-local terms in Eq. 41 vanish, $R_{\mu}$ collapses to the local terms, and Eq. 43 becomes an identity defining $R_{\mu}$ rather than a physical law—settling the paper’s central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper’s central claim is that quantum forces—electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational—are all manifestations of one equation, the quantum force wave equation $F_{\mu}\Psi = i\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2\pi m}R_{\mu}\Psi$ (Eq. 43), in which the wavefunction $\Psi$ is a path-ordered exponential built from a field-coupling vector $c_{\mu}=k_{\mu}+g_{a}A^{a}_{\mu}T^{a}+\omega^{ab}_{\mu}J_{ab}$ that bundles the wave vector, gauge fields, and the gravitational spin connection. The author derives the equation by covariantizing the quantum form of Newton’s second law, $F=\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2\pi m}k^{3}$, replacing wave vectors by $c_{\mu}$, and then using an assumed derivative rule $\nabla_{\mu}\psi = ic_{\mu}\psi + z_{\mu}\psi$ for the path-ordered exponential, with $z_{\mu}$ an infinite series of nested commutators. Substituting this rule into the third covariant derivative of the full wavefunction and rearranging yields $c_{\nu}c^{\nu}c_{\mu}\Psi = iR_{\mu}\Psi$, which defines the operator $R_{\mu}$; combining this with the covariant force expression produces Eq. 43. The same structure is then coupled to Einstein’s field equations through a quantum action built from the loop-quantum-gravity area eigenvalue $\langle A\rangle = 8\pi\gamma l_{\text{Planck}}^{2}\sqrt{j(j+1)}$, yielding the modified field equation $G_{\mu\nu}\Psi = i\frac{\hbar}{2\pi mc\langle q\rangle}M_{\mu\nu}\Psi$ (Eq. 54), which the author presents as the solution to the backreaction problem: spacetime curvature responds dynamically and in quantized steps to the quantum state.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation hinges on the assumption in Eq. 6 that the covariant derivative of the path-ordered exponential is $\nabla_{\mu}\psi = ic_{\mu}\psi + z_{\mu}\psi$ with an infinite series of nested commutators $z_{\mu}$; for a standard Wilson line the derivative is just $\nabla_{\mu}\psi = ic_{\mu}\psi$, so the extra term is asserted, not derived, and without it the GQM expansion (Eq. 41) that produces Eq. 43 has no basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single wave equation, the QFWE, would describe electromagnetic, weak, strong, and gravitational interactions on the same footing through the field-coupling vector $c_{\mu}$.
The modified Einstein equation (Eq. 54) implies that quantum fields actively reshape spacetime, with curvature responding in quantized steps through the SU(2) area factor $\langle q\rangle$ and oscillatory behavior from the imaginary unit.
The energy-dependent force component $F_{0} = E^{2}/(hc)$ predicts that quantum forces strengthen with particle energy, making the framework relevant for black-hole, early-universe, and high-energy regimes.
In flat spacetime, the framework is claimed to reduce to standard quantum mechanics, providing a consistency check for the new equation.

Reading between the lines

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

A reader who wants to test the framework quickly should compute the leading $z_{\mu}$ term for a simple SU(2) loop; if it vanishes, the claimed non-local quantum forces disappear and Eq. 43 reduces to a definition.
The backreaction equation (Eq. 54) is written but never solved; deriving a spherically symmetric or cosmological solution would reveal whether the oscillatory factor produces Planck-scale curvature oscillations with observable imprints, a concrete extension the paper leaves open.
The paper lists a wide range of experimental platforms but derives no numerical predictions; deriving a phase-shift or frequency-shift estimate for a cold-atom or optomechanical geometry would turn the QFWE into a quantitatively testable theory.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Thanks for the stress-test bundle. I read the paper alongside it, and the concerns land. The central problem: Eq. 43 is not a dynamical law, it's a definition. R_μ is introduced in Eq. 40 as the leftover terms after isolating c_ν c^ν c_μ in the expansion of ∇_ν∇^ν∇_μ Ψ. Combine that with Eq. 20 and you get Eq. 43 by construction. No physics has been added. Your point on the Newtonian precursor is also exactly right: after setting ω = 2π/t, Eq. 12's derivative treats Ek/ω as constant, and the announced result F = Ek/2π is dimensionally inconsistent. The later F = ℏ²k³/(2πm) is built on that error.

The paper is not without virtues. It is clearly organized, the author has read a reasonable slice of the literature, and the conclusion is transparent that the metric is not quantized. The speculative applications section is honest about the lack of near-term tests. But those virtues don't carry the load. The extra z_μ term in Eq. 6 is asserted without proof—for a standard Wilson line, ∇_μψ = i c_μψ, so the GQM expansion relies on an unproven addition. And the backreaction equation, Eq. 54, defines M_μν rather than deriving it; it's a placeholder.

There are no testable predictions, no comparison with known results in QFT in curved spacetime, and no demonstration that the equation reduces to anything familiar. As a referee, I would have to rebuild the derivation from scratch, and the paper gives no reason to think that would succeed. I'd desk reject this and suggest the author first work through the dimensional analysis and compare with standard theory before resubmitting. The core claim is unsupported, and the writing, though earnest, doesn't rescue it.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the 'quantum force wave equation' (QFWE), Eq. (43), as a general unified theory of quantum forces. The author attempts to derive a quantum version of Newton's second law from the de Broglie relations (Eqs. 10-18), generalizes it by replacing the wave vector with a field-coupling vector c_μ (Eq. 20), and then defines an operator R_μ (Eq. 41) so that Eq. (43) holds. Section 3.2 uses a variational principle to couple this to gravity, yielding Eq. (54), which is claimed to describe the backreaction of quantum fields on spacetime. Sections 4-6 discuss interpretations and speculative applications to black holes, quantum information, and high-energy physics.

Significance. If the central equation were a genuine, independently derived dynamical law, the framework could in principle unify gauge and gravitational interactions at the quantum level and open a new route to quantum gravity. However, the derivation is definitional: R_μ is constructed so that Eq. (43) is true by definition, and the motivating calculation (Eqs. 10-18) contains internal inconsistencies. The paper provides no concrete predictions, no reduction to known limits, and no study of the solutions of Eq. (54); the author explicitly states that such a study is beyond the scope. The formal apparatus therefore does not support the claimed significance.

major comments (5)

[3.1, Eqs. (40)-(43)] The central equation, Eq. (43), is an identity rather than a derived dynamical law. R_μ is defined in Eq. (41) as the entire bracketed expression left after isolating c_ν c^ν c_μ Ψ in Eq. (38); therefore Eq. (40), c_ν c^ν c_μ Ψ = i R_μ Ψ, holds by construction. Substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (40) then yields Eq. (43) without introducing any new physics. The physical content rests entirely on Eq. (20), which is the ad hoc replacement of k_μ by c_μ in Eq. (19), and on the unsupported form of ∇_μ ψ in Eq. (6). The claim that Eq. (43) is a 'general theory of quantum forces' is therefore unsupported.
[3.1, Eqs. (10)-(18)] The derivation of Eq. (18) is internally inconsistent. Eq. (11) states that the mechanical energy E is time-independent, but the subsequent identification E = ℏω with ω = 2π/t in Eq. (12) makes E time-dependent. If E is taken time-independent and k is constant, then the derivative in Eq. (12) gives F = Ek/2π; if instead one uses E = ℏω, the same expression gives F = d(ℏk)/dt = 0 for constant k. Additionally, the substitution ω/k = v in Eq. (15)--(16) identifies the phase velocity with the particle velocity v = p/m, which is not generally valid for massive matter waves and is inconsistent with the Schrödinger dispersion E = ℏ²k²/2m + V used in Eq. (11). Thus Eq. (18) is not established.
[2, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The assumed covariant derivative of the path-ordered exponential, ∇_μ ψ = i c_μ ψ + z_μ ψ, is asserted without proof. For a non-Abelian Wilson line, the covariant derivative is not simply i c_μ ψ; it involves the connection at the endpoint and path-ordered integrals of field strengths. The infinite nested-commutator series in Eq. (7) is not derived from path-ordering and is introduced as an ad hoc correction. Since every subsequent expansion in Eqs. (29)--(41) relies on this form, the resulting R_μ in Eq. (41) is not trustworthy.
[3.2, Eqs. (47)-(50)] The variation of S_QF is not correctly performed. The force F^μ in the Lagrangian is not an independent field; it is defined via Eq. (20) in terms of c_μ, which includes the gauge fields and spin connection, both of which depend on the metric (or on the connection). The variation in Eq. (48)--(49) treats F_ν as metric-independent except through the contraction F^μ = F_ν g^{μν}, which is incomplete. Consequently Eq. (49) is not a valid field equation, and the backreaction equation Eq. (54), whose M_μν is merely an abbreviation for the bracketed terms, inherits the identity status of Eq. (43).
[4.4 and Section 5] The interpretive and application sections do not follow from the derived equations. Section 4.4 makes sweeping claims about oscillatory curvature and spacetime as a 'quantum medium' without any solution or stability analysis of Eq. (54); the author acknowledges in the same section that 'a detailed study of the solutions and viability of the equation is beyond the scope of this study.' Section 5 offers only qualitative suggestions for black hole physics, quantum information, and quantum materials, with no observable predictions computed from Eq. (43) or Eq. (54). Thus the paper does not provide falsifiable predictions, and the claimed applicability is not demonstrated.

minor comments (5)

[3.1, Eq. (10)] The sentence 'Substituting this equation into Eq. 10 yields' should refer to Eq. (9), since Eq. (10) is the equation being substituted into; the derivation would also benefit from an explicit statement that k is assumed constant in time.
[2, Eq. (7)] The notation in Eq. (7), with repeated 'dx^ν1_1, dx^ν2_2', is confusing; the multiple integrals should be written with an explicit product measure and clearer index conventions.
[4.7] The four 'elemental forces' F^(1)_μ--F^(4)_μ are arbitrary groupings of terms from R_μ; without a physical criterion that distinguishes them or predicts different observables, the taxonomy does not add content.
[References] Several references are cited for statements that are only tangential to their content (e.g., [3], [4], [5], [9], [32], [33]); the bibliography would need to be carefully aligned with the specific claims it is meant to support.
[4.4] The interpretive statement that spacetime 'may oscillate dynamically' is presented as a consequence of Eq. (54), but since no time-dependent solutions are constructed, the claim is a speculation rather than a derivation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 10.0 of 10

The QFWE is an identity: Eq. 43 restates the assumed Eq. 20 because Rμ is defined as the remaining terms in Eq. 40; the backreaction Eq. 54 inherits the same definitional status.

self definitional [Section 3.1, Eqs. (38)-(43)]
"Let us compact the terms in parentheses of Eq. 38 to yield; cνcνcµΨα1,...,αn = iRµΨα1,...,αn. (40)... Multiplying Eq. 20 by Ψ α1,...,αn gives; FµΨα1,...,αn = ℏ2 2πm cνcνcµΨα1,...,αn . (42) Substituting Eq. 40 into Eq. 41 yields; FµΨα1,...,αn = i ℏ2 2πm RµΨα1,...,αn (43)"

Eq. 40 does not derive Rμ; it defines RμΨ as the entire collection of terms left after moving cνcνcμΨ to one side of the algebraic identity in Eq. 38. Eq. 41 simply lists those terms. Eq. 42 is just the assumed covariant force law Eq. 20 multiplied by Ψ. Therefore substituting Eq. 40 into Eq. 42 yields Eq. 43 identically, with Rμ ≡ −i cνcνcμ by construction. The 'quantum force wave equation' is a relabeling of the input Fμ = (ℏ²/2πm)cνcνcμ, not a derived dynamical law.
self definitional [Section 3.2, Eq. (54)]
"We rewrite and substitute the area operator eigenvalues as ⟨A⟩ = 8πl2 P lanck⟨q⟩ where ⟨q⟩ = γ p j(j + 1). We also replace the terms in the bracket by Mµν to obtain GµνΨα1,...,αn = i ℏ 2πmc⟨q⟩ MµνΨα1,...,αn . (54)"

Mμν is introduced by the phrase 'replace the terms in the bracket by Mμν', so Eq. 54 is a notational compression of Eq. 53, not an independent result. Eq. 53 itself is obtained by substituting Eq. 43 into the modified Einstein equation, so the backreaction claim inherits the definitional character of Eq. 43. No separate content for Mμν is computed or constrained.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain reduces by definition. The only substantive physical input is Eq. 20, Fμ = (ℏ²/2πm)cνcνcμ, which is itself introduced as a 'covariant extension' after an inconsistent scalar derivation: with ω = 2π/t and E = ℏω, E in Eq. 12 is time-dependent, so treating Ek/2π as constant in Eq. 13 is not valid; direct differentiation gives ℏk/2π, not Ek/2π. The subsequent construction of the QFWE adds no new content: Eq. 6 assumes a nonstandard covariant derivative for the path-ordered exponential, and Eq. 40 defines Rμ as the algebraic remainder in Eq. 38, so Eq. 43 is true by construction. The GQM classification in Section 4.7 is a taxonomy of terms already present in Rμ, and the backreaction equation Eq. 54 is obtained by replacing a bracket with the symbol Mμν, making it a relabeling as well. The paper provides no external benchmark, no independent derivation, and no constraint that fixes Rμ or Mμν. Because the principal claimed equation is equivalent to its input by definition, the circularity score is at the maximum.

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

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters, but it relies on several ad hoc functional ansätze: the time-independent energy with ω=2π/t, the unproven z_μ series in the covariant derivative, the specific L_QF Lagrangian, and the metric-dependence split during variation. The invented GQM operator is a mathematical device rather than a physical entity. These ledger entries show that the central claims are not derived from independent physical principles.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper The mechanical energy E in the force derivation is time-independent, while the frequency ω is set to 2π/t with t the coordinate time.
Eqs. 11-12; this inconsistent choice creates the constant force F=Ek/2π and contradicts the constancy of p=ℏk.
domain assumption The field-coupling vector c_μ is defined as k_μ + g_a A^a_μ T^a + ω^{ab}_μ J_{ab}, and all terms have dimension L⁻¹.
Eq. 4; standard in gauge theory, though the gravitational spin connection term is not fully justified.
ad hoc to paper The covariant derivative of the path-ordered exponential is ∇_μ ψ = i c_μ ψ + z_μ ψ, with z_μ an infinite nonlocal series.
Eq. 6; standard Wilson lines have ∇_μ ψ = i A_μ ψ without z_μ; the extra series is introduced without derivation.
ad hoc to paper The Lagrangian L_QF = (1/<A>) u^μ F_μ is chosen, with <A> the LQG area eigenvalue.
Eq. 46; no physical derivation, the form is motivated by inverse area scaling.
ad hoc to paper In varying the action, F_μ depends on the metric via F_μ = F_ν g^{μν}, while u and <A> are metric-independent.
Eq. 49; this split is not justified and leads to the modified Einstein equation.

invented entities (1)

General Quantum Manipulator (GQM) R_μ
purpose: To absorb all terms except the leading c^ν c_ν c_μ term in the expansion, so that Eq. 43 holds by definition.
Introduced in Eq. 41; it is a mathematical operator defined to make the QFWE an identity, not a new physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Manifestation of Quantum Forces in Spacetime: Towards a General Theory of Quantum Forces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ZAUIJRD

@misc{pith2026250707332,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Manifestation of Quantum Forces in Spacetime: Towards a General Theory of Quantum Forces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ZAUIJRD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07332}
}

read the original abstract

This study introduces the quantum force wave equation (QFWE) as a general theory of quantum forces, a novel framework that redefines quantum forces as emergent phenomena arising from the interaction between quantum particles and curved spacetime. By coupling wavefunctions to spacetime curvature and gauge fields, the theory establishes a dynamic, bidirectional relationship between quantum states and spacetime geometry. This approach provides a unified description of quantum forces in highly curved and dynamic gravitational fields, extending beyond the limitations of existing theories. The theory offers fresh insights into quantum gravity, quantum field theory in curved spacetime, and particle physics in extreme conditions, serving as a versatile tool for exploring the interplay between quantum mechanics and spacetime structure. This work lays the foundation for the advancement of high-energy physics and cosmology in regimes where spacetime curvature is fundamental.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

[1]

Schr\"odinger's Cheshire Cat: A tabletop experiment to measure the Di\'osi-Penrose collapse time and demonstrate Objective Reduction (OR)

J. Tagg, W. Reid, and D. Carlin, “Schr¨ odinger’s Cheshire Cat: A tabletop exper- iment to measure the Di` osi-Penrose collapse time and demonstrate Objective Reduction (OR),” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2402.02618, 2024. 28

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[2]

A mechanism to generate varying speed of light via Higgs-dilaton coupling: Theory and cosmological applications

H. K. Nguyen, “Generating variable ℏ and c via Fujii-Wetterich model in curved spacetimes,” arXiv, arXiv:2408.02583, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[3]

Cluster reducibility of multiquark operators,

W. Lucha, D. Melikhov, and H. Sazdjian, “Cluster reducibility of multiquark operators,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 100, no. 9, p. 094017, PhysRevD:100.094017, Nov. 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Exact volume-law entangled zero-energy eigenstates in a large class of spin models

S. Mohapatra, S. Moudgalya, and A. C. Balram, “Exact volume-law entangled eigenstates in a large class of spin models,” arXiv preprint , arXiv:2410.22773, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[5]

Gravitational focusing and horizon entropy for higher-spin fields,

Z. Yan, “Gravitational focusing and horizon entropy for higher-spin fields,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.07107, 2024

arXiv 2024
[6]

Cosmology from pregeometry,

C. Wetterich, “Cosmology from pregeometry,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 104, no. 10, p. 104040, PhysRevD:104.104040, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Local Lorentz invariance and a new theory of gravitation equivalent to general relativity,

C. Wiesendanger, “Local Lorentz invariance and a new theory of gravitation equivalent to general relativity,” Class. Quantum Grav., vol. 36, no. 6, p. 065015, CQG:36.065015, 2019

work page 2019
[8]

Non-Abelian black holes in conformal gravity,

D. Flores-Alfonso, “Non-Abelian black holes in conformal gravity,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.08734, 2024

arXiv 2024

Show all 62 references

[9]

The Bethe Ansatz for the superconformal index with unequal angular momenta,

O. Aharony, O. Mamroud, S. Nowik, and M. Weissman, “The Bethe Ansatz for the superconformal index with unequal angular momenta,” arXiv preprint , arXiv:2402.03977, 2024

2024 arXiv
[10]

Leading singularities in higher-derivative Yang–Mills theory and quadratic gravity,

G. Menezes, “Leading singularities in higher-derivative Yang–Mills theory and quadratic gravity,” Universe, vol. 8, no. 6, p. 326, universe8060326, 2022

2022
[11]

The Unbearable Indefiniteness of Spacetime,

E. Cinti, C. Mariani, and M. Sanchioni, “The Unbearable Indefiniteness of Spacetime,” Found. Phys., vol. 55, p. 14, FoundPhys:55.14, 2025

2025
[12]

Universal structure of spherically symmetric astrophysical objects in f (R) gravity,

V. I. Zhdanov, “Universal structure of spherically symmetric astrophysical objects in f (R) gravity,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.03759, 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

Effect of torsion on neutron star structure in Einstein-Cartan gravity,

C. Jockel and L. Menger, “Effect of torsion on neutron star structure in Einstein-Cartan gravity,” Physical Review D , vol. 110, no. 10, p. 104022, PhysRevD:110.104022, 2024

2024
[14]

Information measures for fermion localization in f (T, B) gravity with non-minimal couplings,

A. R. P. Moreira, S.-H. Dong, and E. N. Saridakis, “Information measures for fermion localization in f (T, B) gravity with non-minimal couplings,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2407.15190, 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

General- ized teleparallel de Sitter geometries,

A. A. Coley, A. Landry, R. J. van den Hoogen, and D. D. McNutt, “General- ized teleparallel de Sitter geometries,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 83, no. 10, p. 12150, EPJC:83.12150, 2023. 29

2023
[16]

The weak gravity conjecture and scalar fields,

E. Palti, “The weak gravity conjecture and scalar fields,” J. High Energy Phys. , vol. 2017, no. 8, p. 034, JHEP08(2017)034, 2017

2017
[17]

Dressing vs. fixing: On how to extract and interpret gauge-invariant content,

P. Berghofer and J. Fran¸ cois, “Dressing vs. fixing: On how to extract and interpret gauge-invariant content,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2404.18582, 2024

2024 arXiv
[18]

Acceleration of a polarized neutron by its weak nuclear self- interaction,

M. Donaire, “Acceleration of a polarized neutron by its weak nuclear self- interaction,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2309.02293, 2023

2023 arXiv
[19]

The London–Anderson–Englert–Brout–Higgs–Guralnik–Hagen–Kibble–Weinberg mechanism and Higgs boson reveal the unity and future excitement of physics,

R. E. Allen, “The London–Anderson–Englert–Brout–Higgs–Guralnik–Hagen–Kibble–Weinberg mechanism and Higgs boson reveal the unity and future excitement of physics,” Journal of Modern Optics , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 09500340.2013.818170, 2013

2013
[20]

Phase of confined electroweak force in the early Universe,

J. Berger, A. J. Long, and J. Turner, “Phase of confined electroweak force in the early Universe,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 100, no. 5, p. 055005, PhysRevD:100.055005, 2019

2019
[21]

Some solutions for SU(3) gauge fields,

D. Ray, “Some solutions for SU(3) gauge fields,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 2100–2101, PhysRevD:22.2100, Oct. 1980

1980
[22]

Lorentz conserving noncommutative stan- dard model,

M. M. Ettefaghi and M. Haghighat, “Lorentz conserving noncommutative stan- dard model,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 75, no. 12, p. 125002, PhysRevD:75.125002, 2007

2007
[23]

Liouville Field Theory and Dark Matter,

D. N. Vollick, “Liouville Field Theory and Dark Matter,” arxiv preprint , arXiv:0205207, 2002

2002
[24]

Emergence of a dark force in corpuscular gravity,

M. Cadoni, R. Casadio, A. Giusti, and M. Tuveri, “Emergence of a dark force in corpuscular gravity,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 97, no. 4, p. 044047, PhysRevD:97.044047, 2018

2018
[25]

Tests of fundamental quantum mechanics and dark interactions with low-energy neu- trons,

S. Sponar, R. I. P. Sedmik, M. Pitschmann, H. Abele, and Y. Hasegawa, “Tests of fundamental quantum mechanics and dark interactions with low-energy neu- trons,” Nature Reviews Physics , vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 309–327, s42254-021-00298-2, 2021

2021
[26]

The binding of cosmological structures by massless topological defects,

R. Lieu, “The binding of cosmological structures by massless topological defects,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 531, no. 1, pp. 1630–1636, mnras/stae1258, 2024

2024
[27]

Classical observables using exponentiated spin factors: electromagnetic scattering,

S. Akhtar, A. Manna, and A. Manu, “Classical observables using exponentiated spin factors: electromagnetic scattering,” J. of High Energy Phys., vol. 2024, no. 5, p. 148, JHEP05(2024)148, 2024

2024
[28]

AdS/CFT Correspondence in Hyperbolic Lattices,

J. Chen, F. Chen, L. Yang, Y. Yang, Z. Chen, Y. Wu, Y. Meng, B. Yan, X. Xi, Z. Zhu, M. Cheng, G.-G. Liu, P. P. Shum, H. Chen, R.-G. Cai, R.-Q. Yang, Y. Yang, and Z. Gao, “AdS/CFT Correspondence in Hyperbolic Lattices,” arXiv, 30 eprint 2305.04862, arxiv:2305.04862, 2024

2024 arXiv
[29]

Loop quantum gravity and the cyclic universe,

M. Bojowald, R. Maartens, and P. Singh, “Loop quantum gravity and the cyclic universe,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 70, no. 8, p. 083517, PhysRevD:70.083517, 2004

2004
[30]

Geometry of loop quantum gravity on a graph,

C. Rovelli and S. Speziale, “Geometry of loop quantum gravity on a graph,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 82, no. 4, p. 044018, PhysRevD:82.044018, 2010

2010
[31]

Entanglement entropy in loop quantum gravity,

W. Donnelly, “Entanglement entropy in loop quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 77, no. 10, p. 104006, PhysRevD:77.104006, 2008

2008
[32]

Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen steering paradox ‘2=1’ for N qubits,

Z.-J. Liu, J. Zhou, H.-X. Meng, X.-Y. Fan, M. Xie, F.-L. Zhang, and J.-L. Chen, “Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen steering paradox ‘2=1’ for N qubits,”Mod. Phys. Lett. A, vol. 39, no. 09, p. 2450030, S0217732324500305, Mar. 2024

2024
[33]

Black hole entropy for M-theory on the quintic threefold via F-theoretic strings,

I. Halder, C. Vafa, and K. Xu, “Black hole entropy for M-theory on the quintic threefold via F-theoretic strings,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2404.01380, 2024

2024 arXiv
[34]

Black hole based tests of general relativity,

K. Yagi and L. C. Stein, “Black hole based tests of general relativity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity , vol. 33, no. 5, p. 054001, 0264-9381/33/5/054001, 2016

2016
[36]

V. P. Frolov and A. Zelnikov, Introduction to Black Hole Physics , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018

2018
[37]

Absorption, Scat- tering, Geodesics, Shadows and Lensing Phenomena of Black Holes in Effective Quantum Gravity,

N. Heidari, A. A. Ara´ ujo Filho, R. C. Pantig, and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, “Absorption, Scat- tering, Geodesics, Shadows and Lensing Phenomena of Black Holes in Effective Quantum Gravity,” arXiv preprint, arxiv:2410.08246, 2024

2024 arXiv
[38]

Soft hair on black holes,

S. W. Hawking, M. J. Perry, and A. Strominger, “Soft hair on black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 116, no. 23, p. 231301, PhysRevLett:116.231301, 2016

2016
[39]

Quantum compositeness of gravity: black holes, AdS and inflation,

G. Dvali and C. Gomez, “Quantum compositeness of gravity: black holes, AdS and inflation,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. , vol. 2014, no. 01, p. 023, 1475-7516/2014/01/023, 2014

2014
[40]

Black hole thermodynamics from Euclidean horizon constraints,

S. Carlip, “Black hole thermodynamics from Euclidean horizon constraints,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 99, no. 2, p. 021301, PhysRevLett:99.021301, 2007

2007
[41]

Thermodynamics of horizons: de Sitter black holes and reentrant phase transitions,

D. Kubizˇ n´ ak and F. Simovic, “Thermodynamics of horizons: de Sitter black holes and reentrant phase transitions,”Class. Quantum Grav., vol. 33, no. 24, p. 245001, 0264-9381/33/24/245001, 2016

2016
[42]

From Horndeski action to the Callan-Giddings-Harvey-Strominger model and beyond,

S. Mandal, T. Parvez, and S. Shankaranarayanan, “From Horndeski action to the Callan-Giddings-Harvey-Strominger model and beyond,” arXiv preprint , 31 arXiv:2311.07921, 2024

2024 arXiv
[43]

Reflected entropy in an evaporating black hole through non-isometric map,

B. Chen and Z.-J. Yin, “Reflected entropy in an evaporating black hole through non-isometric map,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2410.14392, 2024

2024 arXiv
[44]

Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state,

T. Jacobson, “Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 75, no. 7, pp. 1260–1263, PhysRevLett:75.1260, 1995

1995
[45]

Unveiling the anisotropy of linear and nonlinear charge-spin conversion in Weyl semimetal TaIrTe4,

T. Tang, M. Li, B. Lao, X. Zheng, W. Zhou, X. Xu, J. Pang, Y.-G. Shi, R.- W. Li, and Z. Wang, “Unveiling the anisotropy of linear and nonlinear charge-spin conversion in Weyl semimetal TaIrTe4,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2411.19062, 2024

2024 arXiv
[46]

Coexistence of chiral Majorana edge states and Bogoliubov Fermi surfaces in two-dimensional nonsymmorphic Dirac semimetal/superconductor heterostructures,

Y. Mo, X. Wang, Z.-Y. Zhuang, and Z. Yan, “Coexistence of chiral Majorana edge states and Bogoliubov Fermi surfaces in two-dimensional nonsymmorphic Dirac semimetal/superconductor heterostructures,” arXiv preprint , arXiv:2411.10851, 2024

2024 arXiv
[47]

Tabletop experiments for quan- tum gravity: a user’s manual,

D. Carney, P. C. E. Stamp, and J. M. Taylor, “Tabletop experiments for quan- tum gravity: a user’s manual,” Classical and Quantum Gravity , vol. 36, no. 3, p. 034001, 1361-6382/aaf9ca, 2019

2019
[48]

Microwave-optics entanglement via coupled opto- and magnomechanical microspheres,

H.-T. Li, Z.-Y. Fan, H.-B. Zhu, S. Groeblacher, and J. Li, “Microwave-optics entanglement via coupled opto- and magnomechanical microspheres,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2408.03791, 2024

2024 arXiv
[49]

Optically Levitated Nanodumbbell Torsion Balance and GHz Nanomechanical Rotor,

J. Ahn, Z. Xu, J. Bang, Y.-H. Deng, T. M. Hoang, Q. Han, R.-M. Ma, and T. Li, “Optically Levitated Nanodumbbell Torsion Balance and GHz Nanomechanical Rotor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 121, no. 3, p. 033603, PhysRevLett:121.033603, 2018

2018
[50]

Nanomechanically induced transparency in PT - symmetric optical cavities,

S. Shah, A. Amjad, and H. Ali, “Nanomechanically induced transparency in PT - symmetric optical cavities,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2405.09845, 2024

2024 arXiv
[51]

Tests for the existence of black holes through gravitational wave echoes,

V. Cardoso and P. Pani, “Tests for the existence of black holes through gravitational wave echoes,” Nature Astronomy , vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 586–591, s41550-017-0225-y, 2017

2017
[52]

Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,

T. Kobayashi, “Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,” Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 82, no. 8, p. 086901, 1361-6633/ab2429, 2019

2019
[53]

Minkowski functionals of large-scale structure as a probe of modified gravity,

A. Jiang, W. Liu, W. Fang, B. Li, C. Barrera-Hinojosa, and Y. Zhang, “Minkowski functionals of large-scale structure as a probe of modified gravity,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 109, no. 8, p. 083537, PhysRevD:109.083537, 2024

2024
[54]

Event Horizon Telescope observations as probes for quantum structure of astrophysical black holes,

S. B. Giddings and D. Psaltis, “Event Horizon Telescope observations as probes for quantum structure of astrophysical black holes,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 97, no. 8, p. 084035, PhysRevD:97.084035, 2018. 32

2018
[55]

Internal structure of black holes,

E. Poisson and W. Israel, “Internal structure of black holes,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1796–1809, PhysRevD:41.1796, 1990

1990
[56]

Testing general relativity with the Event Horizon Telescope,

D. Psaltis, “Testing general relativity with the Event Horizon Telescope,”General Relativity and Gravitation , vol. 51, no. 10, s10714-019-2611-5, 2019

2019
[57]

Scintillation bandwidth measurements from 23 pulsars from the AO327 survey,

S. Z. Sheikh et al. , “Scintillation bandwidth measurements from 23 pulsars from the AO327 survey,”Astrophys. J., vol. 976, no. 2, p. 225, 1538-4357/ad8659, 2024

2024
[58]

Constraining string cosmology with the gravitational- wave background using the NANOGrav 15-year data set,

Q. Tan, Y. Wu, and L. Liu, “Constraining string cosmology with the gravitational- wave background using the NANOGrav 15-year data set,” arXiv preprint , arXiv:2409.17846, 2024

2024 arXiv
[59]

Testing gravity with cosmic variance-limited pulsar timing array correlations,

R. C. Bernardo and K.-W. Ng, “Testing gravity with cosmic variance-limited pulsar timing array correlations,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 109, no. 10, p. L101502, PhysRevD:109.L101502, 2024

2024
[60]

Sliding Fric- tion and Superlubricity of Colloidal AFM Probes Coated by Tribo-Induced Graphitic Transfer Layers,

R. Buzio, A. Gerbi, C. Bernini, L. Repetto, and A. Vanossi, “Sliding Fric- tion and Superlubricity of Colloidal AFM Probes Coated by Tribo-Induced Graphitic Transfer Layers,” Langmuir, vol. 38, no. 41, pp. 12570–12580, acs.langmuir.2c02030, 2022

2022
[61]

Enhancing sensitivity in atomic force microscopy for planar tip-on-chip probes,

H. T. C ¸ ift¸ ci, M. Verhage, T. Cromwijk, L. Pham Van, B. Koopmans, K. Flipse, and O. Kurnosikov, “Enhancing sensitivity in atomic force microscopy for planar tip-on-chip probes,” Microsystems & Nanoengineering, vol. 8, no. 1, s41378-022- 00379-x, 2022

2022
[62]

Stable Per- ovskite Solar Cells via exfoliated graphite as an ion diffusion-blocking layer,

A. S. Alharbi, M. S. Albishi, T. Maksudov, T. F. Alhuwaymel, C. Aivalioti, K. S. AlShebl, N. R. Alshamrani, F. H. Isikgor, M. Aldosari, M. M. Aljomah, K. Petridis, T. D. Anthopoulos, G. Kakavelakis, and E. A. Alharbi, “Stable Per- ovskite Solar Cells via exfoliated graphite as...

2024 arXiv
[63]

Introduction to atomic clocks,

P. Banerjee and D. Matsakis, “Introduction to atomic clocks,” in An Introduc- tion to Modern Timekeeping and Time Transfer , Springer Series in Measurement Science and Technology, Springer, Cham, 2023. 33

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Schr\"odinger's Cheshire Cat: A tabletop experiment to measure the Di\'osi-Penrose collapse time and demonstrate Objective Reduction (OR)

J. Tagg, W. Reid, and D. Carlin, “Schr¨ odinger’s Cheshire Cat: A tabletop exper- iment to measure the Di` osi-Penrose collapse time and demonstrate Objective Reduction (OR),” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2402.02618, 2024. 28

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

A mechanism to generate varying speed of light via Higgs-dilaton coupling: Theory and cosmological applications

H. K. Nguyen, “Generating variable ℏ and c via Fujii-Wetterich model in curved spacetimes,” arXiv, arXiv:2408.02583, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

Cluster reducibility of multiquark operators,

W. Lucha, D. Melikhov, and H. Sazdjian, “Cluster reducibility of multiquark operators,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 100, no. 9, p. 094017, PhysRevD:100.094017, Nov. 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Exact volume-law entangled zero-energy eigenstates in a large class of spin models

S. Mohapatra, S. Moudgalya, and A. C. Balram, “Exact volume-law entangled eigenstates in a large class of spin models,” arXiv preprint , arXiv:2410.22773, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Gravitational focusing and horizon entropy for higher-spin fields,

Z. Yan, “Gravitational focusing and horizon entropy for higher-spin fields,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.07107, 2024

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Cosmology from pregeometry,

C. Wetterich, “Cosmology from pregeometry,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 104, no. 10, p. 104040, PhysRevD:104.104040, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Local Lorentz invariance and a new theory of gravitation equivalent to general relativity,

C. Wiesendanger, “Local Lorentz invariance and a new theory of gravitation equivalent to general relativity,” Class. Quantum Grav., vol. 36, no. 6, p. 065015, CQG:36.065015, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Non-Abelian black holes in conformal gravity,

D. Flores-Alfonso, “Non-Abelian black holes in conformal gravity,” arXiv preprint, arXiv:2412.08734, 2024

arXiv 2024