p-brane Newton--Cartan Geometry

David Pere\~niguez

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

p-brane Newton--Cartan Geometry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a p-brane Newton–Cartan structure admits torsion-free affine connections compatible with its metric data exactly when it is Augustinian, and that the space of such connections is a vector space whose origin is a…

desk verdict The main theorem is probably right, but the proof assumes what it needs to show. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04801 v2 pith:76XIYNMD submitted 2019-08-13 hep-th gr-qcmath-phmath.MP

David Pereñiguez This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qcmath-phmath.MP

keywords p-braneNewton-Cartangeometrynon-relativisticgravitytorsion-freecompatibleconnectionsequivalenceproblemAugustinianstructuresAristoteliangravitationalfieldstrengthslongitudinalframes

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 sets up a formal foundation for p-brane Newton–Cartan (pNC) geometry, the non-relativistic geometry that describes gravity coupled to p-branes. Its central claim is that a pNC structure admits torsion-free affine connections compatible with both of its metric tensors if and only if the structure is Augustinian, meaning the exterior derivative of the longitudinal coframe vanishes on transverse vectors and a related mixed condition holds. For such structures, the paper determines the entire space of torsion-free compatible connections: it is a vector space, and each choice of longitudinal frame selects a unique torsion-free special connection that serves as the origin. This matters because it settles the equivalence problem for pNC geometry, giving precise control over the degrees of freedom in the connection and generalizing the classical results for Newton–Cartan and Lorentzian geometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the longitudinal frame $\tau_A$, a local section of the bundle of Lorentz-orthonormal frames inside the longitudinal part of the pNC structure, together with the projector it defines onto the transverse distribution. From these the paper builds the inverse metric pieces ${}^\tau\tau^{ab}$ and ${}^\tau h^{ab}$, and then the gravitational field strength ${}^\tau F_A$, a 2-form valued in a $(p+1)$-dimensional space, defined up to a gauge ambiguity ${}^\tau K_A$. The central isomorphism sends a field strength $[F_A]$ to the tensor $\tau^A_{(b}F_{|A|c)d}h^{ad}$, which parametrizes the difference between two compatible connections; the torsion-free special connection is the kernel of the affine map ${}^\tau\Theta(\nabla)=[2{}^\tau h_{c[b}\nabla_{a]}\tau^c_A]$. This map turns the a priori affine space of connections into a vector space with a canonical origin relative to the chosen frame.

What would settle it

Take a pNC spacetime whose transverse directions are non-integrable, so that $\mathrm{d}\tau^A(V,W)\neq 0$ for some transverse vector fields $V,W$; the theorem says no torsion-free connection with $\nabla\tau=0$ and $\nabla h=0$ exists. Producing one such connection would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Choosing a longitudinal frame $\tau_A$ on an Augustinian pNC structure $(M,\tau,h)$, the paper proves (Theorem 3.1) that the space $D_0(M,\tau,h)$ of torsion-free connections compatible with $\tau$ and $h$ is a vector space whose origin is the torsion-free special connection ${}^\tau\nabla$, and that $D_0$ is naturally isomorphic to the space ${}^\tau\mathcal{F}$ of gravitational field strengths relative to $\tau_A$. Every such connection has the explicit form $\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}={}^\tau\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}+\tau^A_{(\mu}\,{}^\tau F_{|A|\nu)\rho}h^{\lambda\rho}$, where ${}^\tau\Gamma$ is given by a Christoffel-like formula built from the inverse longitudinal and transverse metrics. The Augustinian conditions, $\mathrm{d}\tau^A(V,W)=0$ and $\eta_{A(B}\,\mathrm{d}\tau^A(\tau_C),V)=0$ for transverse $V,W$, are shown to be necessary and sufficient for any torsion-free compatible connection to exist.

Load-bearing premise

The whole characterization rests on the paper's definition of compatibility as $\nabla\tau=0$ and $\nabla h=0$; if a physical problem calls for a different compatibility notion, the Augustinian conditions and Theorem 3.1 need not describe the relevant connection space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any Augustinian pNC structure, a longitudinal frame fixes one distinguished torsion-free compatible connection, and all other compatible torsion-free connections are obtained by adding a gravitational field strength.
The space of torsion-free compatible connections is a vector space isomorphic to the space of gravitational field strengths, so the connection's propagating degrees of freedom are exactly captured by those field strengths.
The Augustinian conditions are necessary and sufficient for the existence of any torsion-free compatible connection, giving a concrete criterion that can be checked from the metric data alone.
Setting $p=0$ recovers the Newton–Cartan/Leibnizian results, and setting $p=d-1$ makes the torsion-free special connection the Levi–Civita connection; the theorem therefore interpolates between the two classical cases.
In the stringy case $p=1$, the conventional curvature constraints previously used imply the Augustinian conditions, and the new analysis shows the field-strength ambiguity is larger than previously noticed: the mixed components obey the antisymmetry condition ${}^\tau K_A(\tau_B,V)=-{}^\tau K_B(\tau_A,V)$.

Reading between the lines

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

If the dependence of the special connection on the longitudinal frame is pure gauge, then the canonical object is the quotient space $\mathcal{F}(M,\tau,h)$ of gravitational field strengths, not any individual frame-dependent connection.
The enlarged ambiguity found in the field strengths suggests that the conventional curvature constraints used to build stringy Newton–Cartan geometry could be relaxed without losing torsion-free compatible connections; counting the degrees of freedom after relaxing them would test this.
A natural next step, left open by the paper, is to characterize the subset of connections whose field strengths are closed or exact; that would give the pNC analogue of the classical closure condition selecting Galilean connections in Newton–Cartan gravity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Short version: this paper gives the first formal treatment of the equivalence problem for p-brane Newton-Cartan geometry, and I think the main theorem is true. But the written proof does not quite deliver the existence half, and a referee needs to push on that.

What's new: the paper defines pNC structures in the Bekaert-Morand style, derives necessary conditions for the existence of torsion-free compatible connections (the Augustinian conditions), and determines the moduli space of such connections as an affine space. It recovers the Leibnizian and Lorentzian cases at p=0 and p=d-1. It also catches an ambiguity in the gravitational field strength that [5] missed: the kernel of the parametrization includes mixed longitudinal-transverse components, not just longitudinal ones. That is a real correction.

Where it works: the construction of bundles, torsors, projectors, and inverse metrics is careful and self-contained. The necessary conditions in Prop 3.2 are clean. The algebra in Prop 3.8 is long but the logic is clear.

The soft spot: the sufficiency proof. Prop 3.3 asserts that D0 is an affine space modelled on V. That assertion already carries existence: an affine space has to have at least one point. Then Lemma 3.1 is used to define tau-nabla as the zero of an affine map, which again presupposes D0 is non-empty. So the proof that every Augustinian structure admits a torsion-free compatible connection is circular as written. Prop 3.7 only derives the coordinate formula (97) under the assumption that tau-nabla exists. It never checks that the right-hand side of (97) actually satisfies ∇τ=0 and ∇h=0 and is torsion-free. Because τ and h are degenerate, that is not a formality. The same gap hits the gluing between charts: (97) uses a longitudinal frame, which generally exists only locally, and no argument shows the local expressions patch.

I want to be clear: this looks fixable. The Augustinian conditions seem exactly crafted to make (97) work, and I expect a direct verification will go through. But as submitted, the central theorem is not proven. This is a load-bearing gap, not a typo.

Who should read this: anyone working on non-relativistic gravity, SNC geometry, or Newton-Cartan foundations. The conceptual contribution is solid.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but insist that the referee ask for a proof that (97) defines a compatible torsion-free connection, plus a global gluing argument. If the author supplies that, the paper is very acceptable.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper provides a formal, coordinate-free definition of p-brane Newton--Cartan (pNC) geometry and studies the existence and classification of torsion-free affine connections compatible with the pNC structure. The author constructs the relevant symmetry group Gp and the associated tensors (τ, h), defines Aristotelian and Augustinian pNC structures, and claims that the Augustinian conditions are necessary and sufficient for the existence of torsion-free compatible connections. The main theorem (Theorem 3.1) asserts that, given a longitudinal frame, the space D0 of such connections is a vector space whose origin is an explicitly constructed 'torsion-free special connection', and that D0 is isomorphic to a space of gravitational field strengths. The paper also discusses the relation of its results to earlier work on stringy Newton--Cartan geometry and shows that p = 0 and p = d − 1 recover known Leibnizian and Lorentzian results.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is a valuable foundational contribution to non-relativistic geometry. The paper gives a precise classification of when torsion-free compatible connections exist, determines the space of such connections, and identifies a larger ambiguity in the gravitational field strengths than was previously recognized in the gauge-theoretic literature. The work is self-contained, derives its conditions from the definitions rather than assuming them, and explicitly shows how the general framework reduces to known Newton--Cartan and pseudo-Riemannian cases. The presentation is generally clear and the algebraic setup is sound in outline. However, as detailed below, the proof of the existence half of the main theorem is incomplete, and the global patching of the locally constructed connections is not addressed; these gaps must be fixed before the central claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, Proposition 3.7 and Theorem 3.1] The proof of Proposition 3.7 does not establish the existence of the torsion-free special connection τ∇. The argument assumes τ∇ ∈ D0(M, τ, h) with vanishing field strength, then derives equations (100)–(101) and consequently the component expression (97). This is only a necessary condition: it shows that any connection satisfying the stated properties must have those components, but it never verifies that the right-hand side of (97) actually satisfies ∇μτνρ = 0, ∇μhνρ = 0, and vanishing torsion. The alternative uniqueness argument via the bijection τΘ of Lemma 3.1 presupposes Proposition 3.3, which asserts that D0(M, τ, h) is an affine space but does not prove that D0 is non-empty. Since the Augustinian conditions are claimed to be sufficient for existence, the proof must be completed either by directly verifying that (97) defines a torsion-free compatible connection, or by providing an independent existence argument.
[Section 3.2, equations (97) and (105), and Definition 3.5] The paper does not address local-to-global gluing of the connections defined via longitudinal frames. The formula (97) and the parametrization (105) require a longitudinal frame τA, but the paper itself notes (after Definition 2.5) that the bundle of longitudinal frames Lfp(M, τ) need not admit global smooth sections. Consequently, Theorem 3.1 as stated only applies when a global longitudinal frame exists, and the paper gives no argument that the locally defined special connections patch to a global connection on the whole manifold. The purported canonical bijection (117) uses an orbit space F(M, τ, h) constructed from global longitudinal frames and global LGp-valued transformations; without a patching or partition-of-unity argument, its validity for general Augustinian pNC structures is not established. The authors should either restrict the theorem to manifolds with a global longitudinal frame or supply the missing global argument.
[Section 3.2, Proposition 3.3] The affine-space structure of D0(M, τ, h) is stated without proof. The conditions defining V(M, τ, h) — S^a_[bc] = 0, S^d_{a(b}τ_{c)d} = 0, and h_{d(c}S^b_{a)d} = 0 — are plausible, but the proof that any two torsion-free compatible connections differ by exactly such an S, and that every such S can be added to a compatible connection to obtain another compatible connection, is omitted. Since Proposition 3.3 underlies the application of Lemma 3.1 and hence both the uniqueness and the claimed vector-space structure, this proof should be included or supplied from a cited reference.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.2, equation (94)] The notation τϕ^{-1}(∇ − ∇')Aab is confusing: the argument of τϕ^{-1} is a tensor, not a pair of connections. Consider writing τϕ^{-1}(∇ − ∇') explicitly as τϕ^{-1}(S) for S = ∇ − ∇', with the understanding that S is the difference tensor.
[Section 3.2, Proposition 3.6 title] The word 'strenghts' in the title of Proposition 3.6 is a typo and should be 'strengths'.
[References [21] and [26]] References [21] and [26] are both listed as 'Work in progress' by the same group. If these works are not publicly available, the claims about alternative compatibility conditions and covariant expansions should either be stated more explicitly or cited as private communications, so that the reader can assess the dependence of the main results on the chosen compatibility condition.
[Section 4, discussion of [5]] The comparison with the results of [5] would be easier to follow if the equations from [5] were cited by number in the text, particularly where the author states that the conventional curvature constraints imply the Augustinian conditions and that the field strengths are fixed as τF Aμν = 2D[μ mν]A.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 3.1 is derived from the definitions, with no fitted inputs, no predictions, and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 3.1, is a purely mathematical classification result. Definition 3.2 introduces Augustinian pNC structures via the conditions dτ^A(V,W)=0 and η_{A(B}dτ^A(τ_C),V)=0, and Proposition 3.2 derives from the compatibility equations and the definition of torsion that any torsion-free compatible connection must satisfy exactly those conditions; this is a derived necessity, not a definitional equivalence. The sufficiency direction is attempted by explicitly solving the connection-compatibility and torsion-free equations, leading to the component expression (97), and the affine-space structure is obtained through the linear model space V(M,τ,h) and the map τφ, with the origin τ∇ defined as the kernel of the affine map τΘ. No parameter is fitted to the target result, no quantity called a prediction is constructed from the data it is supposed to predict, and the self-references [21] and [26] are only to alternative compatibility conditions and a covariant expansion, neither of which supplies the content of Theorem 3.1. The skeptical concern that Proposition 3.7 does not verify that the right-hand side of (97) actually satisfies ∇τ=0 and ∇h=0 is a proof-completeness or correctness issue, not a circularity issue, and therefore does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem rests on the definitions of pNC structures and of compatibility, plus standard differential geometry. No free parameters are fitted. No new physical entities are postulated; the gravitational field strength is a derived mathematical object constructed from the structure and the connection.

assumptions (3)

standard math M is a smooth manifold and all fields, connections, and operations are smooth, with standard differential geometry and affine spaces used freely.
The paper relies throughout on smooth tensor calculus, Frobenius theorem, principal bundles, and affine space facts.
domain assumption A pNC structure is a triplet (M,τ,h) with τ a rank p+1 Lorentzian-signature symmetric tensor and h a rank d-p-1 Riemannian-signature symmetric tensor satisfying h^{ab}τ_{bc}=0.
Definition 2.4 fixes the object of study; the main theorem concerns these structures exclusively.
domain assumption Compatibility of a connection with the pNC structure means ∇τ=0 and ∇h=0 simultaneously.
Section 3 defines D(M,τ,h) by eq. (57) with this compatibility notion; alternative compatibility choices are mentioned in [21].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of p-brane Newton--Cartan Geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/76XIYNMD

@misc{pith2026190804801,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: p-brane Newton--Cartan Geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/76XIYNMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04801}
}

read the original abstract

We provide a formal definition of p-brane Newton--Cartan (pNC) geometry and establish some foundational results. Our approach is the same followed in the literature for foundations of Newton--Cartan Gravity. Our results provide control of aspects of pNC geometry that are otherwise unclear when using the usual gauge language of non-relativistic theories of gravity. In particular, we obtain a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that a pNC structure must satisfy in order to admit torsion-free, compatible affine connections, and determine the space formed by the latter. Since pNC structures interpolate between Leibnizian structures for p=0 and Lorentzian structures for p=d-1 (with d the dimension of the spacetime manifold), the present work also constitutes a generalisation of results of Newton--Cartan and (pseudo-) Riemannian geometry.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

On the Underlying Nonrelativistic Nature of Relativistic Holography
hep-th 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Standard AdS/CFT duality is reinterpreted as D-brane/black-brane duality in nonrelativistic D3-brane theory, with AdS5×S5 as a relativistic bubble in flat 3-Newton-Cartan geometry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[5]

Andringa, E

R. Andringa, E. Bergshoeﬀ, J. Gomis and M. de Roo, Class. Q uant. Grav. 29 (2012) 235020 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/23/235020 [arXiv:1206.5176 [ hep-th]]

arXiv 2012
[1]

E.Cartan, ’Sur les variétés à connexion aﬃne et la théori e de la relativité généralisée (première partie),’Ann. Sc. École Norm. Sup. 40 (1923) 325 [in French]

work page 1923
[2]

Bekaert and K

X. Bekaert and K. Morand, J. Math. Phys. 57 (2016) no.2, 022507 doi:10.1063/1.4937445 [arXiv:1412.8212 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2016
[3]

D. B. Malament, Topics in the Foundations of General Relativity and Newtoni an Gravitation Theory (University of Chicago, 2012)

work page 2012
[4]

Gomis and H

J. Gomis and H. Ooguri, J. Math. Phys. 42 (2001) 3127 doi:10.1063/1.1372697 [hep-th/0009181]

arXiv 2001
[6]

Bergshoeﬀ, J

E. Bergshoeﬀ, J. Gomis and Z. Yan, JHEP 1811 (2018) 133 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)133 [arXiv:1806.06071 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2018
[7]

Probing tachyon kinks in Newton-Cartan background

D. Roychowdhury, Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 225 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.031 [arXiv:1903.05890 [hep-th]]. – 28 –

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[8]

M. H. Christensen, J. Hartong, N. A. Obers and B. Rollier, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 061901 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.061901 [arXiv:1311.4794 [hep- th]]

arXiv 2014

Show all 36 references

[9]

M. H. Christensen, J. Hartong, N. A. Obers and B. Rollier, JHEP 1401 (2014) 057 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)057 [arXiv:1311.6471 [hep-th] ]

2014 arXiv
[10]

Hartong and N

J. Hartong and N. A. Obers, JHEP 1507 (2015) 155 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2015)155 [arXiv:1504.07461 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[11]

Harmark, J

T. Harmark, J. Hartong and N. A. Obers, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.8, 086019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.086019 [arXiv:1705.03535 [hep -th]]

2017 arXiv
[12]

Harmark, J

T. Harmark, J. Hartong, L. Menculini, N. A. Obers and Z. Y an, JHEP 1811 (2018) 190 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)190 [arXiv:1810.05560 [hep-th ]]

2018 arXiv
[13]

Harmark, J

T. Harmark, J. Hartong, L. Menculini, N. A. Obers and G. O ling, arXiv:1907.01663 [hep-th]

1907 arXiv
[14]

Andringa, E

R. Andringa, E. Bergshoeﬀ, S. Panda and M. de Roo, Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011) 105011 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/10/105011 [arXiv:1011.1145 [ hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[15]

Banerjee and P

R. Banerjee and P. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.12, 124021 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.124021 [arXiv:1810.03902 [gr- qc]]

2018 arXiv
[16]

Hansen, J

D. Hansen, J. Hartong and N. A. Obers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) no.6, 061106 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061106 [arXiv:1807.04765 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Hansen, J

D. Hansen, J. Hartong and N. A. Obers, arXiv:1904.05706 [gr-qc]

1904 arXiv
[18]

Bergshoeﬀ, J

E. Bergshoeﬀ, J. M. Izquierdo, T. Ortín and L. Romano, ar Xiv:1904.08304 [hep-th]

1904 arXiv
[19]

Hoyos and D

C. Hoyos and D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 066805 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.066805 [arXiv:1109.2651 [ cond-mat.mes-hall]]

2012 arXiv
[20]

D. T. Son, arXiv:1306.0638 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

arXiv
[22]

A. N. Bernal and M. Sanchez, J. Math. Phys. 44 (2003) 1129 doi:10.1063/1.1541120 [gr-qc/0211030]

2003 arXiv
[23]

H. P. Künzle, ’Galilei and Lorentz structures on space- time: comparison of the corresponding geometry and physics,’ Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré A 17 (1972) 337. – 29 –

1972
[24]

H. P. Künzle, ’Covariant Newtonian limit of Lorentz spa ce-times,’ Gen. Relat. Gravit. 7 (1976) 445

1976
[25]

Gomis, K

J. Gomis, K. Kamimura and P. K. Townsend, JHEP 0411 (2004) 051 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2004/11/051 [hep-th/0409219]

2004 arXiv
[26]

Ortín, D

T. Ortín, D. Pereñiguez, L. Romano, Work in progress
[27]

Van den Bleeken, Class

D. Van den Bleeken, Class. Quant. Grav. 34 (2017) no.18, 185004 doi:10.1088/1361- 6382/aa83d4 [arXiv:1703.03459 [gr-qc]]

2017 arXiv
[28]

Hansen, J

D. Hansen, J. Hartong and N. A. Obers, arXiv:1905.13723 [gr-qc]

1905 arXiv
[29]

B.Schutz, ’Geometrical methods of mathematical physics’ (Cambridge University Press, 1980) Chapter 4

1980
[30]

Duval, G

C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons and P. Horvathy, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 3907 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3907 [hep-th/0512188]

1991 arXiv
[31]

Morand, arXiv:1811.12681 [hep-th]

K. Morand, arXiv:1811.12681 [hep-th]

arXiv
[32]

Morand and J

K. Morand and J. H. Park, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.10, 685 Erratum: [Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.11, 901] doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5257-z, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6394-8 [arXiv:1707.03713 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[33]

Duval, G

C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, P. A. Horvathy and P. M. Zhang, Cl ass. Quant. Grav. 31 (2014) 085016 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/8/085016 [arXiv:1402. 0657 [gr-qc]]

2014 doi
[34]

Bekaert and K

X. Bekaert and K. Morand, J. Math. Phys. 59 (2018) no.7, 072503 doi:10.1063/1.5030328 [arXiv:1505.03739 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[35]

Hartong, JHEP 1508 (2015) 069 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)069 [arXiv:1505.050 11 [hep- th]]

J. Hartong, JHEP 1508 (2015) 069 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)069 [arXiv:1505.050 11 [hep- th]]

2015 doi
[36]

Cardona, J

B. Cardona, J. Gomis and J. M. Pons, JHEP 1607 (2016) 050 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2016)050 [arXiv:1605.05483 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[37]

Duval, H

C. Duval, H. P. Künzle, ’Sur les connexions newtonienne s et l’extension non triviale du groupe de Galilée,’ C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 285 (1977) 813 [in French]. – 30 –

1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Andringa, E

R. Andringa, E. Bergshoeﬀ, J. Gomis and M. de Roo, Class. Q uant. Grav. 29 (2012) 235020 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/23/235020 [arXiv:1206.5176 [ hep-th]]

arXiv 2012

[2] [1]

E.Cartan, ’Sur les variétés à connexion aﬃne et la théori e de la relativité généralisée (première partie),’Ann. Sc. École Norm. Sup. 40 (1923) 325 [in French]

work page 1923

[3] [2]

Bekaert and K

X. Bekaert and K. Morand, J. Math. Phys. 57 (2016) no.2, 022507 doi:10.1063/1.4937445 [arXiv:1412.8212 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2016

[4] [3]

D. B. Malament, Topics in the Foundations of General Relativity and Newtoni an Gravitation Theory (University of Chicago, 2012)

work page 2012

[5] [4]

Gomis and H

J. Gomis and H. Ooguri, J. Math. Phys. 42 (2001) 3127 doi:10.1063/1.1372697 [hep-th/0009181]

arXiv 2001

[6] [6]

Bergshoeﬀ, J

E. Bergshoeﬀ, J. Gomis and Z. Yan, JHEP 1811 (2018) 133 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)133 [arXiv:1806.06071 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

Probing tachyon kinks in Newton-Cartan background

D. Roychowdhury, Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 225 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.031 [arXiv:1903.05890 [hep-th]]. – 28 –

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

M. H. Christensen, J. Hartong, N. A. Obers and B. Rollier, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 061901 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.061901 [arXiv:1311.4794 [hep- th]]

arXiv 2014