Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 55 references

The paper argues that static, spherically symmetric traversable wormholes cannot be sourced by physically realistic classical Dirac fields in Einstein-Dirac theory.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:32 UTC pith:A23FUEUG

load-bearing objection A careful numerical no-go that advances the Einstein-Dirac wormhole debate, but the universal conclusion rests on finite scans and should not be cited as a proven obstruction. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28738 v1 pith:A23FUEUG submitted 2026-07-30 gr-qc

Obstructions to Traversable Wormholes in Einstein-Dirac Theory

Robert J. Weinbaum This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.20.-q04.40.-b
keywords traversable wormholesEinstein-Dirac theoryaveraged null energy conditionDirac fieldpositive-frequency modeswormhole throatsphere-parityasymptotically flat spacetimes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to settle whether a classical Dirac field—fermionic matter that can in principle violate the energy conditions needed for a wormhole—can actually hold a traversable wormhole open. The author argues that the only Dirac solutions with a valid single-particle interpretation are normalizable, positive-frequency solutions of the free (neutral) Dirac equation, which rules out earlier charged Einstein-Dirac-Maxwell wormhole claims. Under that restriction, the full Einstein-Dirac system can form a one-sided 'partial wormhole'—a regular throat with correct asymptotics at one end—but the throat-forming sphere-parity at one asymptotic end is the opposite of that at the other end, so a definite-parity solution cannot be continued to a second flat end. In the reflection-symmetric case, a separate extensive scan shows that the spinor conditions required at the throat are never approached. If correct, the conclusion is that no static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat traversable wormhole exists in classical Einstein-Dirac theory, so fermionic matter alone cannot open a two-universe throat.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a no-go: after imposing that the Dirac field be a normalized, positive-frequency solution of the free Dirac equation (the semiclassical description of a single particle), the Einstein-Dirac system admits only 'partial-wormhole solutions' that connect a regular throat to one asymptotically flat end. A definite-parity solution cannot reach a second flat end because the sphere-parity that permits a throat from one end is forbidden from the other. For reflection-symmetric geometries, where mixed-parity bound states are allowed, an extensive scan of asymptotic initial data shows that the throat conditions are never approached, with the objective function

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the radial Dirac equation on a static, spherically symmetric wormhole, decomposed into two decoupled sphere-parity sectors using spin-weighted spherical harmonics. The sign-indefinite Dirac bilinears D and P in the stress-energy determine which parity can drive the partial null-energy violation needed to form a throat; for ℓ=1/2 the even parity works from the left end while the odd parity works from the right (and the assignment flips with ℓ). The final obstruction uses a scalar Q that must equal ±1 at a reflection-symmetric throat; the numerical scan shows Q² stays far below 1.

Load-bearing premise

The no-go depends on the assumption that the numerical scans over the bounded asymptotic parameter space (frequency, mass, spinor amplitude, and parity angle, for ℓ=1/2 and 3/2 with a coarser ℓ=5/2 scan) exhaust all possibilities for forming a throat, so that no missed narrow band of parameters could produce the required throat conditions.

What would settle it

A concrete refutation would be a numerical solution of the full Einstein-Dirac equations that connects two asymptotically flat ends with a regular throat—for instance, initial data outside the scanned ranges (larger dimensionless frequency beyond about 0.52, other ℓ, or reflection-symmetric data where Q² at the throat approaches 1). If any such two-ended solution exists with a positive-frequency, normalizable Dirac field, the paper's central claim is wrong.

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

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, no static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat traversable wormhole can be built from a single classical Dirac field that has a legitimate single-particle interpretation; earlier Einstein-Dirac-Maxwell wormhole solutions are either not genuine solutions or not physically admissible states.
  • The obstruction is not the energy conditions: test Dirac fields on fixed wormhole backgrounds can violate both the pointwise and averaged null energy conditions, so the no-go must come from the backreaction consistency between the spinor and the geometry.
  • The positive-mass result means that such wormholes would appear 'heavy' from both ends (ADM mass at least half the throat radius), ruling out any construction relying on a negative-mass end.
  • If traversable wormholes exist in nature, their matter sector must involve vacuum stress-energy contributions, bosonic fields, or interacting quantum-field-theoretic effects beyond the single-particle classical description.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The parity-flip obstruction suggests a generic mechanism: a two-ended wormhole imposes opposite sphere-parity requirements on the Dirac bound state at its two ends, and because parity is a global label, any spin-1/2 matter with similar chiral structure may face the same block—this could extend beyond the specific numerical scans.
  • The scan leaves open the possibility of a narrow throat-forming band at larger frequency, at ℓ>3/2, or in less symmetric geometries; a targeted search around the maximum-frequency boundary and at ℓ=5/2 with finer resolution would directly test the universality claim.
  • The Q²≈1.4×10⁻⁴ bound in the reflection-symmetric case is so far from unity that one might attempt an analytic proof that Q²<1 for all data, turning a numerical obstruction into a theorem—and conversely, finding any data with Q²→1 would immediately signal a candidate wormhole.
  • Because the paper restricts to neutral single-particle states, the no-go does not address wormholes sourced by charged Dirac fields in a consistent interacting quantum treatment (e.g., with radiative dressing); such cases remain open.

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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that classical Einstein-Dirac theory, with the Dirac field restricted to physically meaningful positive-frequency, normalizable single-particle states, admits no static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat traversable wormhole solutions. It first gives a semiclassical justification for treating such states as solutions of the free, neutral Dirac equation, thereby challenging earlier Einstein-Dirac-Maxwell wormhole claims [11,13,14]. It then exhibits fixed-background examples in which Dirac fields violate the pointwise null energy condition and, via a conformal-rescaling construction, the averaged null energy condition; a massive numerical example is also provided. Turning to backreaction, the paper derives the Einstein-Dirac equations in wormhole coordinates, proves a positive-mass theorem (Thm V.1), sets up asymptotic initial data, and performs numerical evolutions. It finds 'partial-wormhole solutions' but, on the basis of finite scans, concludes that definite-parity solutions cannot connect two asymptotically flat ends and that reflection-symmetric mixed-parity solutions fail to meet the required throat conditions. The abstract states that these results 'strongly support' the no-go claim.

Significance. The paper contains a clear positive-mass theorem (Thm V.1), a coherent parity-mismatch argument for definite-parity bound states, and useful formalism for Dirac fields in wormhole geometries. The explicit construction of fixed-background ANEC violations is a valuable contribution, and the numerical evidence for partial wormhole solutions is consistent with the paper's general picture. However, the central no-go is an extrapolation from finite numerical scans without shipped code or data, and the massive-field ANEC construction rests on an unproved high-frequency approximation. If the main claim were established rigorously, this would be an important result; as presented, it is strong numerical evidence rather than a complete obstruction.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III C, Eq. (84)–(113)] The ANEC-violation construction for massive fields is not established. The conformal-rescaling argument applies only to massless fields. For µ≠0, the text asserts that solutions with µ≪ω/f 'behave as massless fields to a good approximation,' but no error bound or rigorous limiting argument is given. This approximation is load-bearing because it supports the paper's positive claim that Dirac fields can violate ANEC on wormhole backgrounds. Provide a quantitative estimate or explicitly present the massive case as heuristic.
  2. [§V D, Fig. 5 and surrounding text] The claimed parity obstruction is extrapolated from finite scans. The scan covers ℓ=1/2,3/2 (plus a coarse ℓ=5/2 scan), Ω up to about 0.52, M̃ over six logarithmic values, and 100 values of I. Nothing in the paper rules out a throat-forming band at Ω>0.52, at ℓ≥5/2, or narrower than the grid spacing. The statement that 'wormhole throats were not found with Ω≳0.52' is a numerical observation, not an upper bound. Since this scan underpins the definite-parity no-go, either prove the needed bound or reframe the conclusion as limited numerical evidence.
  3. [§V C, footnote 24] The numerical starting point X=−0.999 is justified by citing a later result: 'We will find in §V D that no solutions can be obtained where this length scale exceeds |X|≈0.66.' This is circular: if a throat-forming solution at larger Ω existed, the asymptotic series used to initialize the integration could be invalid, and the integrator would miss it. The choice of initial point needs independent validation, for example by varying X_start and demonstrating convergence, rather than relying on the very no-throat result being established.
  4. [§IV C and §V D] The no-go argument relies on a genericity assumption: accidental degeneracy of even- and odd-parity bound states is claimed to be 'highly exceptional.' However, a traversable wormhole solution, if it existed, would itself be a nongeneric configuration. Therefore the generic absence of definite-parity bound states does not logically exclude a nongeneric wormhole. The reflection-symmetric case is treated separately in §V E, but non-reflection-symmetric accidental degeneracies remain outside both arguments. The conclusion should be weakened to apply only under the stated genericity assumption or the exceptional cases must be analyzed.
  5. [§V E, Eq. (153)] The reported bound Q_t^2 ≤ 1.4×10^{-4} is the maximum over a discretely sampled parameter set: six values of M̃, two values of ℓ, twenty values of ρ, ten values of Ω, and a bisection search over I. It is not a proven upper bound. The conclusion that 'the conditions necessary for a reflection-symmetric wormhole throat cannot be obtained' overstates what a finite scan can show. Please either prove a rigorous bound or state explicitly that the claim is limited to the scanned region, and make the scan reproducible by shipping code and data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (69) and Eq. (129)] The asymptotic exponential factors are displayed ambiguously, with what appear to be missing parentheses in the exponents. Please rewrite these equations in unambiguous form.
  2. [Fig. 5] The coarse ℓ=5/2 scan is described in the text but does not appear in the figure. Either include it in the plot or clarify in the caption that Fig. 5 shows only ℓ=1/2 and 3/2.
  3. [§V E, Eq. (153)] The symbol Q_t is used before it is defined; state explicitly that Q_t denotes the value of Q at the wormhole throat at first use.
  4. [References] Reference [12], a self-citation, is used to dismiss the earlier claimed solution in [11]. This is legitimate, but the strength of the dismissal should be softened in the introduction to avoid relying solely on a paper that is itself under discussion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No substantive circularity: the central no-go is supported by independent numerical scans. Only a minor self-referential numerical validation and a non-load-bearing self-citation are flagged.

specific steps
  1. other [§V C, footnote 24; reaffirmed in §V D (after Fig. 6)]
    "The choice X=−0.999 could be concerning if we wanted to consider solutions where the length scale associated with the exponential falloff (eq. (142)) were very large, in which case the asymptotic series solution would not be valid even at X=−0.999. We will find in §V D that no solutions can be obtained where this length scale exceeds |X|≈0.66 (|x|≈1.2), so the choice X=−0.999 is exceedingly safe."

    This is a bootstrap rather than an independent validation: the safety of the integrator start is justified by the later no-throat result, and §V D then uses the absence of throats at Ω≳0.52 to defend the same start. If high-Ω throats were missed because X=−0.999 lay outside the asymptotic series' validity, the no-go and its numerical justification would fail together. It does not reduce the main conclusion to an input, since the definite-parity parity mismatch and the reflection-symmetric Q_t scan are separate, and the asymptotic-series error could in principle be checked by restarting at smaller |X|.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—no traversable, static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat Einstein-Dirac wormholes for positive-frequency, normalized Dirac fields—is not fitted into existence. The semiclassical identification (§II C) is derived from field-operator expansions, not from the target result. The ANEC counterexamples on fixed wormhole backgrounds (§III C) are constructed explicitly (e.g., eqs. (67)–(68), the conformal-rescaling argument). The definite-parity obstruction (§V D) is a numerical scan: throats are found for one sphere parity from each end, with opposite parities favored, and the parity mismatch is then invoked as a global-label argument; this is evidence, not a redefinition. The reflection-symmetric search (§V E) maximizes Q_t^2 over an independent parameter scan and reports a maximum ≈1.4×10^-4, far from the derived necessary value 1; this is an upper bound on a sampled set, not the conclusion written into the equations. The self-citation [12] (which includes the present author) is used to dismiss an earlier Einstein-Dirac-Maxwell solution, but that is a separate published refutation and the present no-go is supported by new scans, so it is not load-bearing. The main caveats—finite scan ranges, coarse ℓ=5/2 coverage, the genericity assumption about accidental parity degeneracy, and the high-Ω region—are completeness/robustness limitations, not constructional circularity. The only self-referential element found is the footnote-24 bootstrap described above, which justifies the integrator start by the same no-throat conclusion; this is flagged and weighed, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Overall score 2.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the metric ansatz, a semiclassical interpretation of classical Dirac fields, a genericity assumption about parity degeneracy, an unproved massive-field approximation, and the exhaustiveness of numerical scans. These are named below; none are machine-checked or independently calibrated against external data.

free parameters (3)
  • ANEC-example potential scale A=300 = 300
    Introduced by hand in eq. (112) to stretch the metric profile so the sharp r-peak is numerically resolvable; not part of the no-go.
  • ANEC-example potential depth/width (0.8, 300, 3) = 0.8, 300, 3
    Tuned in eq. (112) so the bound state's D-terms dominate the partial ANEC integral; illustrative counterexample only.
  • Throat-scan parameter ranges (Ω, M̃, I, ρ) = Ω∈[1e-6,0.8], M̃∈[1e-3,1e3], I∈[1e-10,1e10], ρ∈[0,π/2]
    The central no-go is inferred from scans over these asymptotic initial-data parameters; the chosen bounds and cutoffs bound the claim and are a free choice.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Static spherically symmetric wormhole metric ansatz ds²=f²dt² - dx²/f² - r² dΩ² with f>0 and two asymptotically flat ends.
    Used throughout §III-V; restricts the no-go to this symmetry class and coordinate gauge. Any traversable wormhole outside this ansatz is not covered.
  • domain assumption Normalized positive-frequency classical Dirac solutions correspond to single-particle states; charged self-interactions are excluded because free and Maxwell stress-energy are not jointly conserved.
    §II B-C. If this correspondence is rejected, the restriction to neutral free fields falls, and the no-go does not apply to charged Einstein-Dirac-Maxwell systems.
  • domain assumption Generic wormhole geometries have no accidental degeneracy between sphere-parity even and odd bound states at fixed ω.
    §IV C and §V D. The definite-parity obstruction relies on this genericity; accidental degeneracy is called exceptional but not excluded for the existence question.
  • ad hoc to paper Massive high-frequency Dirac fields behave as massless fields for the ANEC-violation construction.
    §III C. The paper states 'we expect solutions with µ≪ω/f everywhere to behave as massless fields to a good approximation'; no bound or proof is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite numerical scans are exhaustive enough to detect all throat-forming parameter regions.
    §V D-E. The no-go extrapolates from finite grids over (Ω, M̃, I, ρ) and ℓ∈{1/2,3/2,5/2}; this is a numerical assumption, not a mathematical guarantee.
  • standard math Standard analytic toolkit: Raychaudhuri equation, spin-weighted spherical harmonics identities, ODE existence/uniqueness, pseudospectral differentiation, and Wigner's single-particle classification.
    Used throughout as unproved background; these are standard results in GR and QFT.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 45903 in / 19440 out tokens · 205250 ms · 2026-08-03T00:32:16.917237+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Traversable wormholes are among the most striking hypothetical solutions of general relativity, but every such geometry requires matter that violates the averaged null energy condition (ANEC). A possible candidate for such matter is the Dirac field. Several recent works have claimed traversable wormhole solutions of the classical Einstein-Dirac-Maxwell system, but these works did not properly take into account that single-particle states do not self-interact electromagnetically and that the mode functions of single-particle states are of positive frequency. In this paper, we show that classical, positive-frequency Dirac fields on certain fixed wormhole geometries can violate ANEC, so they are indeed candidates for sourcing traversable wormholes. We then numerically search for static, spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat traversable wormhole geometries sourced by Dirac fields of a definite frequency $\omega>0$, angular momentum quantum number $\ell$, and definite parity. We find "partial-wormhole solutions," describing a regular wormhole throat with correct asymptotics at one end of the wormhole, but we find that these solutions cannot be continued to a second asymptotically flat end. In the case of reflection-symmetric wormholes, we perform an additional search where we do not assume that the Dirac solution has a definite parity. In this case, after an extensive scan of throat-forming asymptotic data, we find that the conditions necessary for a reflection-symmetric wormhole throat cannot be obtained. Taken together, these results strongly support that the Einstein-Dirac system does not admit traversable wormhole solutions when sourced by a physically meaningful Dirac field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28738 by Robert J. Weinbaum.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Equatorial slice of a static embedding diagram for a traversable wormhole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: A depiction of a radial congruence of null geodesics on an embedding diagram of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Metric profile for eq. (112), for which violations of the averaged null energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: A partial-wormhole solution is presented, connecting a throat to an asymptotically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Scan depicting, for each Ω and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Maximum allowed Ω as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    For a givenℓ∈N+ 1 2 ,prescribe asymptotic initial data atx→ −∞in the form of (Ω, ˜M , I, ρ)

  2. [2]

    Using the asymptotic form of the metric and the asymptotic series solution to the Dirac equation, propagate the initial data to finiteX=−0.999

  3. [3]

    Use an adaptive Runge-Kutta method to evolve the Einstein-Dirac system in terms of the asymptotic spinor components Ξ i until we have reached a point on the order of the exponential length scale

  4. [4]

    Switch from the asymptotic spinor components Ξ i to the ordinary spinor components ψi, and continue evolving using an adaptive Runge-Kutta method

  5. [5]

    sphere-parity even

    Stop evolution at a predetermined point beyond the wormhole throat, or when the evolution breaks down due to singular behavior. D. Obstructions to T raversable W ormhole Solutions with Definite Sphere-Parity Recall from§IV C that in a generic wormhole geometry (without additional symmetries beyond being static and spherically symmetric), a bound-state sol...

  6. [6]

    Let (M, g) be a spacetime which admits a spin structure

    General Discussion of the Action of Discrete Symmetries on Dirac Fields Spinor fields in curved spacetime are defined using principal and associated fiber bundles [44]. Let (M, g) be a spacetime which admits a spin structure. 27 Start by considering the principal bundle OLM+ of spatially- and temporally-oriented orthonormal frames onM, on which the proper...

  7. [7]

    First, we address antipodal symmetry, which is a symmetry of any spherically symmetric spacetime

    Antipodal Symmetry We now turn to the explicit implementation of these symmetries in both the 2-spinor and 4-component Dirac spinor notations, specializing to our geometry and components. First, we address antipodal symmetry, which is a symmetry of any spherically symmetric spacetime. Indeed, Υ∗gab =g ab in our case, where Υ is defined in eq. (B1). This a...

  8. [8]

    For the static spacetimes we are considering here, we have thatT, defined in eq

    Time-Reversal Symmetry Next, we consider time-reversal symmetry. For the static spacetimes we are considering here, we have thatT, defined in eq. (B1), is an isometryT ∗gab =g ab, and therefore is a 69 discrete symmetry of our spacetime. The coordinate differentials satisfy T ∗(dt) =−dt, T ∗(dx) = dx, T ∗(dθ) = dθ, T ∗(dφ) = dφ. (B11) When acting on spino...

  9. [9]

    (B1), and hence the reflectionx→ −xis a spacetime symmetry

    Reflection Symmetry In situations where our spacetime metric has a reflection symmetry aboutx= 0, we have thatZ ∗gab =g ab, whereZis defined by eq. (B1), and hence the reflectionx→ −xis a spacetime symmetry. This is useful when considering a wormhole in which the geometry on both sides of the throat is identical, and we can redefine the coordinatexby a tr...

  10. [10]

    Einstein and N

    A. Einstein and N. Rosen, The particle problem in the general theory of relativity, Phys. Rev. 48, 73 (1935)

    1935

  11. [11]

    M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Wormholes, time machines, and the weak energy condition, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1446 (1988)

    1988

  12. [12]

    Maldacena and L

    J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, Cool horizons for entangled black holes, Fortschr. Phys.61, 781 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    Sagan,Contact(Simon and Schuster, New York, 1985)

    C. Sagan,Contact(Simon and Schuster, New York, 1985)

    1985

  14. [14]

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

    1984

  15. [15]

    G. J. Galloway, On the topology of the domain of outer communication, Class. Quantum Grav. 12, L99 (1995)

    1995

  16. [16]

    Maldacena, A

    J. Maldacena, A. Milekhin, and F. Popov, Traversable wormholes in four dimensions, Class. Quantum Grav.40, 155016 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    H. G. Ellis, Ether flow through a drainhole: A particle model in general relativity, J. Math. Phys.14, 104 (1973)

    1973

  18. [18]

    M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity, Am. J. Phys.56, 395 (1988)

    1988

  19. [19]

    Visser, Traversable wormholes: Some simple examples, Phys

    M. Visser, Traversable wormholes: Some simple examples, Phys. Rev. D39, 3182 (1989)

    1989

  20. [20]

    J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, C. Knoll, and E. Radu, Traversable wormholes in Einstein-Dirac- Maxwell theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 101102 (2021), arXiv:2010.07317 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    D. L. Danielson, G. Satishchandran, R. M. Wald, and R. J. Weinbaum, Bl´ azquez-Salcedo– Knoll–Radu wormholes are not solutions to the Einstein-Dirac-Maxwell equations, Phys. Rev. D104, 124055 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Traversable wormholes in general relativity, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 091104 (2022), arXiv:2106.05034 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Kain, Einstein-Dirac-Maxwell wormholes in quantum field theory, Phys

    B. Kain, Einstein-Dirac-Maxwell wormholes in quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. D108, 084010 73 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Penrose and W

    R. Penrose and W. Rindler,Spinors and Space-Time, Vol. 1: Two-Spinor Calculus and Rela- tivistic Fields, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984)

    1984

  25. [25]

    Geroch, A

    R. Geroch, A. Held, and R. Penrose, A space-time calculus based on pairs of null directions, J. Math. Phys.14, 874 (1973)

    1973

  26. [26]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory(Addison- Wesley, Reading, MA, 1995) chap. 3, pp. 35–76

    1995

  27. [27]

    Collas and D

    P. Collas and D. Klein,The Dirac Equation in Curved Spacetime: A Guide for Calculations, SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer, Cham, 2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Sym- metries and Conserved Currents

    D. Tong, Quantum field theory, University of Cambridge lecture notes (2006), sec. 4.6, “Sym- metries and Conserved Currents”

    2006

  29. [29]

    Haag,Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras, 2nd ed., Theoretical and Math- ematical Physics (Springer, Berlin, 1996)

    R. Haag,Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras, 2nd ed., Theoretical and Math- ematical Physics (Springer, Berlin, 1996)

    1996

  30. [30]

    E. P. Wigner, On unitary representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group, Ann. Math. 40, 149 (1939)

    1939

  31. [31]

    R. M. Wald, D. L. Danielson, and G. Satishchandran, work in preparation

  32. [32]

    P. R. Auvil and L. M. Brown, The relativistic hydrogen atom: A simple solution, Am. J. Phys. 46, 679 (1978)

    1978

  33. [33]

    Bound States in External Fields

    S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. I: Foundations(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995) chap. 14, “Bound States in External Fields”

    1995

  34. [34]

    R. M. Wald,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics, Chicago Lectures in Physics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994)

    1994

  35. [35]

    Kontou and K

    E.-A. Kontou and K. Sanders, Energy conditions in general relativity and quantum field theory, Class. Quantum Grav.37, 193001 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Graham and K

    N. Graham and K. D. Olum, Achronal averaged null energy condition, Phys. Rev. D76, 064001 (2007)

    2007

  37. [37]

    Visser, Gravitational vacuum polarization II: Energy conditions in the Boulware vacuum, Phys

    M. Visser, Gravitational vacuum polarization II: Energy conditions in the Boulware vacuum, Phys. Rev. D54, 5116 (1996)

    1996

  38. [38]

    R. M. Wald and U. Yurtsever, General proof of the averaged null energy condition for a massless scalar field in two-dimensional curved spacetime, Phys. Rev. D44, 403 (1991). 74

    1991

  39. [39]

    Visser, Scale anomalies imply violation of the averaged null energy condition, Phys

    M. Visser, Scale anomalies imply violation of the averaged null energy condition, Phys. Lett. B349, 443 (1995)

    1995

  40. [40]

    Spherically Symmetric Solutions

    M. Alcubierre, The Dirac equation in general relativity and the 3+1 formalism, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.57, 122 (2025), see Sec. 9.4, “Spherically Symmetric Solutions”

    2025

  41. [41]

    L. N. Trefethen,Spectral Methods in MATLAB, Software, Environments, and Tools (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 2000)

    2000

  42. [42]

    J. P. Boyd,Chebyshev and Fourier Spectral Methods, 2nd ed. (Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2001)

    2001

  43. [43]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon,Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics, Vol. IV: Analysis of Op- erators(Academic Press, New York, 1978)

    1978

  44. [44]

    Schoen and S.-T

    R. Schoen and S.-T. Yau, On the proof of the positive mass conjecture in general relativity, Commun. Math. Phys.65, 45 (1979)

    1979

  45. [45]

    Schoen and S.-T

    R. Schoen and S.-T. Yau, Proof of the positive mass theorem. II, Commun. Math. Phys.79, 231 (1981)

    1981

  46. [46]

    Witten, A new proof of the positive energy theorem, Commun

    E. Witten, A new proof of the positive energy theorem, Commun. Math. Phys.80, 381 (1981)

    1981

  47. [47]

    S. A. Hayward, Gravitational energy in spherical symmetry, Phys. Rev. D53, 1938 (1996)

    1938

  48. [48]

    SciPy Community,SciPy API reference:scipy.integrate.RK45, SciPy (2026), SciPy v1.18.0 manual (accessed June 7, 2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    J. R. Dormand and P. J. Prince, A family of embedded Runge–Kutta formulae, J. Comput. Appl. Math.6, 19 (1980)

    1980

  50. [50]

    SciPy Community,SciPy API reference:scipy.optimize.minimize scalar, SciPy (2026), SciPy v1.18.0 manual (accessed June 7, 2026)

    2026

  51. [51]

    Cartis, J

    C. Cartis, J. Fiala, B. Marteau, and L. Roberts, Improving the flexibility and robustness of model-based derivative-free optimization solvers, ACM Trans. Math. Softw.45, 32 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    J. N. Goldberg, A. J. Macfarlane, E. T. Newman, F. Rohrlich, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Spin-s spherical harmonics andk, J. Math. Phys.8, 2155 (1967)

    1967

  53. [53]

    F. P. Schuller, Application: Spin structures—lecture 27, Lecture 27 ofGeometrical Anatomy of Theoretical Physics, YouTube video (2015), published September 21, 2015

    2015

  54. [54]

    Geroch, Spinor structure of space-times in general relativity

    R. Geroch, Spinor structure of space-times in general relativity. I, J. Math. Phys.9, 1739 (1968)

    1968

  55. [55]

    M. Berg, C. DeWitt-Morette, S. Gwo, and E. Kramer, The Pin groups in physics:C,P, and 75 T, Rev. Math. Phys.13, 953 (2001), arXiv:math-ph/0012006 [math-ph]. 76

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001