Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Curved spacetimes from quantum mechanics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum distance observables recover the local metric of any curved spacetime.

desk verdict A careful representability theorem that extends the flat-spacetime result to local curved geometries, but the abstract overstates 'derived' and the classical limit is differentiated without proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07668 v1 pith:B2KAC56H submitted 2025-02-11 gr-qc quant-ph

László B. Szabados This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcquant-ph MSC 53C5083C9981R05
keywords curvedLorentziangeometriessectionalcurvatureempiricaldistanceclassicallimitPoincaré-invariantelementaryquantumsystemsconvexnormalneighbourhoodsspingeometrytheorem
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 claims that the local geometry of any curved Lorentzian spacetime with $C^2$ metric can be recovered from quantum mechanics alone, without assuming spacetime as a background. It extends an earlier flat-spacetime result: six Poincaré-invariant elementary quantum systems, prepared in a two-parameter family of pure tensor-product states, have "empirical distance" observables whose classical limit equals the side lengths of a small geodesic triangle in the spacetime. The curvature component at the triangle's vertex appears as the second-order correction to these lengths, and 20 spacelike measurements determine the full Riemann tensor; the metric on a convex normal neighbourhood then follows up to third-order terms. If correct, this completes the first stage of the spin-geometry programme by showing that curved spacetime geometry can be defined by, rather than assumed by, quantum observables.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the empirical distance $d_{ij}$, a quantum observable built from centre-of-mass operators, four-momenta, and spin vectors of two subsystems; in the classical limit it reduces to the Lorentzian distance between the corresponding timelike worldlines. The localization mechanism is the exponential map: curved geometry is pulled back to the tangent space at $q$, where a flat-spacetime construction applies, and a spacetime point is represented by a pair of timelike geodesics whose empirical distance vanishes. The load-bearing identity is Lemma 2.2.1, which converts sectional curvature into the length of the geodesic chord of a small triangle, and the states in (4.8) implement this identity by inserting curvature-dependent translation parameters into otherwise flat states. In this scheme the Poincaré symmetry is a symmetry of the observable algebra, not of a pre-existing spacetime.

What would settle it

Take a non-flat exact solution of curved Lorentzian geometry, choose a point $q$ and a spacelike 2-plane, and compute the six-system empirical distances in the states (4.8) using the exact curvature. If the $k \to \infty$ limits fail to match the values in (4.10)–(4.13) to the stated order in $t$ and $w$, or if the derivative in (3.14) returns a different curvature component, then Theorem 4.2.1 is false. A direct check of the unproved interchange of the classical limit with derivatives in $t$ and $w$ would also settle the matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Riemann tensor at a point of any $C^2$ Lorentzian 4-manifold is a classical limit of quantum mechanical distances. For orthonormal spacelike vectors $X^a$, $Y^a$ at $q$, the paper constructs geodesics $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_w$ and the chord $\chi$ between $\exp_q(tX)$ and $\exp_q(tX(w))$; Lemma 2.2.1 shows that the chord length is $t w (1 - t^2 R_{abcd} X^a Y^b X^c Y^d / 6 + O(t^3) + O(w))$, so derivatives of this length at $t = w = 0$ isolate the sectional curvature. The quantum construction uses six Poincaré-invariant elementary systems in states whose translation parameters are curvature-corrected position vectors; Theorem 4.2.1 proves that their empirical distances tend to the geodesic lengths with asymptotically vanishing uncertainty in the large-spin limit. Differentiating the recovered distances yields the curvature component, and the appendix shows that 20 spacelike sectional curvatures determine all curvature components without any timelike 2-planes. Since the curvature at $q$ fixes the $C^2$ metric on a convex normal neighbourhood $U$ up to third-order corrections, the local metric of any curved Lorentzian spacetime is recovered from abstract Poincaré-invariant quantum systems.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the target curvature may be put into the quantum states before it is recovered: the translation parameters in the states (4.8) contain $R^e{}_{bcd} X^b X^c Y^d$, so the geometry being derived is an input to the derivation; a secondary technical assumption is that the classical limit $k \to \infty$ can be differentiated with respect to $t$ and $w$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The metric structure of any $C^2$ Lorentzian 4-manifold can be defined, locally, by the classical limit of quantum mechanical distance observables rather than by an independent classical geometry.
  • All 20 independent components of the Riemann tensor at a point can be recovered from spacelike geodesic lengths, because 20 spacelike sectional curvatures determine the full curvature tensor.
  • Spacetime points emerge operationally as pairs of timelike geodesics with vanishing empirical distance, so the notion of a point is derived from distances rather than assumed.
  • The recovery uses pure tensor-product states, so entanglement between subsystems is not needed; the correlations that carry geometry live in the observables.
  • The classical limit is controlled by large spin, with rest mass growing proportionally to spin, making the curved metric a large-spin limit of the quantum systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The states used in Theorem 4.2.1 are built with the target curvature tensor as an input; turning the formal recovery into a prediction would require a rule that produces those states from the quantum data alone.
  • The geodesic-triangle construction suggests a local, background-free definition of spacetime points as zero-distance coincidences of timelike worldlines, which could support diffeomorphism-invariant observables built from distance coincidences rather than coordinates.
  • Because the recovery uses only spacelike sectional curvatures and pure product states, a natural test is whether the same construction works with fewer than six subsystems or with one sextet reused for many directions through the linear identities among sectional curvatures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims to extend Penrose's Spin Geometry Theorem by showing that the local geometry of any C^2 Lorentzian 4-manifold can be derived in the classical limit from abstract Poincaré-invariant elementary quantum mechanical systems. The strategy is to represent spacetime points as pairs of timelike geodesics, use a previously defined 'empirical distance' between quantum systems, and construct, for any point q and curvature tensor there, six quantum systems in tensor-product states whose empirical distances reproduce the lengths of spacelike geodesic segments in a convex normal neighbourhood. Differentiating these distances in the classical limit is claimed to yield the sectional curvature components, and hence all components of the Riemann tensor and the local metric. The paper includes a differential-geometric lemma relating curvature to geodesic triangle lengths, a quantum-mechanical construction of the states, and an appendix showing that all curvature components are determined by spacelike sectional curvatures.

Significance. The differential-geometric part of the paper (Lemma 2.2.1 and the appendix on spacelike sectional curvatures) is nontrivial and appears internally consistent; the paper is also commendably explicit about its 'formal' scope in Section 1. However, the main advertised result is not a derivation of curved geometry from quantum mechanics in any predictive sense. The states used to recover the curvature are constructed by inserting the target curvature tensor into the translation parameters, so the recovery at (3.14) outputs precisely the input. The paper's own Section 1 concedes that the origin of the states is left to a separate project and that the recovery is only 'formal'. The abstract and Section 5 nevertheless state that the local metric structure 'can be derived' or 'determined' from quantum mechanics. If reframed as a representability theorem---for any prescribed C^2 Lorentzian geometry there exist tuned states reproducing its geodesic lengths---the result has some interest, but that is a substantially weaker claim than the one advertised.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 3.2.1 and 4.2, Eqs. (3.9)-(3.10), (4.7)-(4.8), (3.13)-(3.14)] The recovery of the curvature is circular. The shifted position vectors ξ^a_1 and ξ^a_2 in (3.9)-(3.10) are defined with an explicit term containing the target curvature R^a_{bcd} X^b X^c Y^d, and (4.7)-(4.8) insert these same vectors into the translation parameters of the quantum states. The subsequent differentiation of the Minkowski norm of ξ^a_2−ξ^a_1 in (3.14) returns exactly this inserted curvature. Theorem 4.2.1 therefore establishes a representability statement: for any prescribed C^2 Lorentzian geometry one can tune states so that empirical distances match the geodesic lengths of that geometry. It does not show that the geometry is derived from quantum mechanical data alone. The paper's Section 1 explicitly restricts the project to 'formally' recovering known structures and defers the source of the states to a separate project; the abstract and Section 5 do not respect this restriction when they claim the metric structure 'can be derived' from quantum mechanics.
  2. [Section 4.2, Theorem 4.2.1 and Eqs. (3.13)-(3.14)] The passage from the quantum limit to the curvature is missing a uniformity argument. Theorem 4.2.1 asserts convergence of the empirical distances for each fixed (t,w), with error terms such as O(t^4)O(w^2) and O(t^2)O(w^3). The curvature extraction in (3.13)-(3.14) requires taking derivatives with respect to t and w at t=w=0 after the classical limit k→∞. This is legitimate only if the convergence is sufficiently uniform in (t,w) near (0,0) so that the limit commutes with differentiation. No such uniformity estimate is stated or proved; in particular, the higher-order error terms in (4.11)-(4.13) may acquire nonvanishing derivatives at t=w=0, which would spoil the recovered value of R. The proof as written is therefore incomplete at a load-bearing step.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The central claim as advertised is not supported by the proof. The abstract states that the local geometry 'can be derived in the classical limit' and Section 5 states that the metric structure 'can be derived from quantum mechanics'. The actual theorem proves only that if one is given the full classical spacetime geometry and its curvature, then one can construct states whose empirical distances reproduce that geometry. Because the construction uses the target curvature and the classical geodesic data (t,w,X,Y) as inputs, the result is an encoding or representation theorem rather than a derivation. The paper's own caveat in Section 1 ('we search only for the quantum states ... by means of which the known local geometric structures ... can formally be recovered') is accurate, but it contradicts the stronger language used elsewhere. This discrepancy is central to the paper's significance and cannot be fixed by local editing; the main claim would need to be substantially reformulated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2.1)] The definition of η_ab has a typo: it reads 'diag(1, −1, −1 − 1)' and should be 'diag(1, −1, −1, −1)'.
  2. [Section 3.2.2] In the sentence 'not parallel with any of p^α_01, p^α_01, p^α_21 and p^α_22', the vector p^α_01 is repeated; one of them should be p^α_02.
  3. [Section 4.1] The parenthetical reference 'in (the first footnote in subsection 1.2 of) [8]' is confusing because the present paper has no subsection 1.2; the reference should be to the specific location in [8].
  4. [Section 5, final paragraph] The sentence 'the whole C^2 metric on U is determined by the curvature' is stronger than what is proved and than what the abstract states. The curvature at q determines the metric on U only up to third-order corrections; the wording should be corrected to avoid this overstatement.
  5. [Abstract] There is a typo in the first line: 'i s given' should be 'is given'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

States in (4.8) are built with the target curvature R, so Theorem 4.2.1's 'recovery' of R is an encoding, not a derivation from quantum mechanics.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2.1, Eqs. (3.9)-(3.10) and (3.14)]
    "ξa1 := tX^d(−w/2)(δa_d − t^2/6 R^a_{bcd} X^b X^c) = t(cos(w/2)X^a − sin(w/2)(Y^a − t^2/6 R^a_{bcd} X^b X^c Y^d)), (3.9); ξa2 := tX^d(w/2)(δa_d − t^2/6 R^a_{bcd} X^b X^c) = t(cos(w/2)X^a + sin(w/2)(Y^a − t^2/6 R^a_{bcd} X^b X^c Y^d)), (3.10)."

    The position vectors whose Minkowski norm is differentiated are defined using the very curvature component R_{abcd}X^aY^bX^cY^d that (3.14) then 'recovers' by differentiation: 1/16(∂6/∂t4∂w2(ηab(ξa2−ξa1)(ξb2−ξb1))) at t=w=0 equals R_{abcd}X^aY^bX^cY^d. The derivative formula is an identity satisfied by these ξ's by construction, not an independent determination of the geometry: the target curvature is an input to the definition of the object being measured.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.7)-(4.8), Theorem 4.2.1 and following text]
    "Choosing the vectors ξa11 and ξa12 in (4.5) to be ξa11 := ξa01 + ξa1, ξa21 := ξa01 + ξa2, (4.7) where the vectors ξa1 and ξa2 are the shifted relative position vectors given by (3.9) and (3.10), respectively, we obtain a two-parameter family of tensor product states, viz. |φ(t,w)⟩ = exp( i/ℏ(p01e+p02e)ξe01 + i/ℏ(p11e+p12e)(ξe01+tX^e(−w/2)+sin(w/2)t^3/6 R^e_{bcd}X^bX^cY^d) + ... )|χ⟩, (4.8)."

    The quantum state parameters are explicitly built from the target R via (3.9)-(3.10). The theorem then asserts existence of states such that the empirical distances tend to the values (4.10)-(4.13); and (4.10)-(4.13) with (3.13)-(3.14) are exactly the geodesic lengths determined by that same R. The curvature 'recovered' after Theorem 4.2.1 is the curvature inserted by hand into the state construction, so the central advertised result—deriving curved geometry from Poincaré-invariant QM—is an encoding or representability result, not a derivation in which quantum mechanics determines the geometry.

full rationale

The differential-geometric parts are largely self-contained: Lemma 2.2.1 and the Appendix genuinely show that sectional curvatures, and hence all components of the Riemann tensor at q, are determined by lengths of spacelike geodesic segments, and the recovery of the C^2 metric from the curvature via (2.1)-(2.2) is standard. The empirical-distance formalism is imported from the author's prior paper [8], but [8] is an independent, self-contained derivation for Minkowski space, so citing it is not itself circular. The circularity is in the central step connecting the two: the states |φ(t,w)⟩ of (4.8) are defined with translation parameters containing the target curvature R via (3.9)-(3.10), and then Theorem 4.2.1 'recovers' that same R from the empirical distances by the derivative identities (3.13)-(3.14). The target geometry is therefore an input to the construction, not an output of the quantum theory. The Introduction explicitly concedes this limitation: it seeks states 'by means of which the known local geometric structures ... can formally be recovered' and leaves the 'source' of the states to a separate project. This makes the advertised 'derivation' an encoding/representability theorem for prescribed geometries. A separate technical gap, not itself circularity, is that (4.10)-(4.13) are established for fixed t,w after k→∞, while (3.13)-(3.14) require differentiating at t=w=0, which needs uniformity of the classical-limit error terms in t,w; no such uniformity is proved.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows the construction is not self-contained: the target curvature is used to define the states, the flat-spacetime recovery theorem is imported from [8], and the limit-derivative interchange is assumed. No new particles, fields, or forces are postulated; the empirical distance and the state families are constructions from known observables.

free parameters (3)
  • Target curvature tensor R_abcd at q (as state-defining input) = arbitrary C^2-metric curvature, e.g. R_abcd X^a Y^b X^c Y^d
    The translation parameters of the states in (4.8) are constructed using the very curvature that (3.13)-(3.14) later recover. This is the central circular input.
  • Six Lorentz boosts Lambda^a_i0 (i = 01,...,22) = not specified numerically; constrained by orthogonality (3.4)
    The boosts are chosen by hand so that the classical limits of the four cross-distances coincide; no physical mechanism selects them.
  • Coefficients alpha, beta, gamma, delta defining auxiliary basis vector E_4 in Appendix = e.g. beta = gamma = delta with 1/3 < beta^2 < 1/2, alpha = sqrt(3 beta^2 - 1)
    Chosen ad hoc to make 21 sectional-curvature 2-planes spacelike; the recovered components are basis-dependent.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Sectional curvatures determine the full Riemann tensor, and formula (A.2) expresses arbitrary curvature contractions through sectional curvatures.
    Standard pseudo-Riemannian geometry, cited to [18,19,20]; used in the Appendix.
  • standard math Convex normal neighbourhood and exponential map diffeomorphism exist for C^2 metrics, with expansions (2.1)-(2.3).
    Standard differential geometry; used throughout Section 2.
  • domain assumption Theorem 3.1.1 and the special co-moving centre-of-mass states |psi_i> from [8], including mu_i = O(s_i) and the classical limit s_i to infinity, are assumed.
    The present proof imports the flat-spacetime empirical-distance recovery as a black box; this is the author's prior result, not re-proven here.
  • ad hoc to paper The k to infinity classical limit commutes with the derivatives partial/partial t and partial/partial w used to extract R in (3.13)-(3.14), and the uncertainty of the quotient observable vanishes uniformly in (t,w).
    Not proven; Theorem 4.2.1 only establishes convergence for fixed (t,w), yet R is obtained by differentiating the limiting expression.
  • standard math Six future-directed timelike vectors can be chosen with the required orthogonality and non-parallelism because dim M = 4.
    Elementary linear algebra in T_qM; used in Section 3.2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Curved spacetimes from quantum mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2KAC56H

@misc{pith2026250207668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Curved spacetimes from quantum mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2KAC56H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07668}
}
abstract

The ultimate extension of Penrose's Spin Geometry Theorem is given. It is shown how the \emph{local} geometry of any \emph{curved} Lorentzian 4-manifold (with $C^2$ metric) can be derived in the classical limit using only the observables in the algebraic formulation of abstract Poincar\'e-invariant elementary quantum mechanical systems. In particular, for any point $q$ of the classical spacetime manifold and curvature tensor there, there exists a composite system built from finitely many Poincar\'e-invariant elementary quantum mechanical systems and a sequence of its states, defining the classical limit, such that, in this limit, the value of the distance observables in these states tends with asymptotically vanishing uncertainty to lengths of spacelike geodesic segments in a convex normal neighbourhood $U$ of $q$ that determine the components of the curvature tensor at $q$. Since the curvature at $q$ determines the metric on $U$ up to third order corrections, the metric structure of curved $C^2$ Lorentzian 4-manifolds is recovered from (or, alternatively, can be \emph{defined} by the observables of) abstract Poincar\'e-invariant quantum mechanical systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    L. B. Szabados, Minkowski space from quantum mechanics, F ound. Phys. 54 25 (2024), DOI: 10.1007/s10701-024-00753-x, arXiv: 2309.06150 [qua nt-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Ehlers, F

    J. Ehlers, F. A. E. Pirani, A. Schild, The geometry of free fall and light propaga- tion, in General Relativity , pp. 63-84, Ed. L. O’Raifeartaigh, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1972, ISBN: 0198511264; Republication in Gen. Rel. Grav. 44 1587-1609 (2012), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-012-1353-4

    doi:10.1007/s10714-012-1353-4 2012

  3. [2]

    R. F. Marzke, J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation as geometry–I: T he geometry of space-time and the geometrodynamical standard meter, in Gravitation and Relativity , pp. 40-64, Ed.: H. Y. Chiu and W. F. Hoffman, Benjamin, New York 1964, ASIN: B000P6E WPS

    work page 1964

  4. [3]

    Penrose, Combinatorial quantum theory and quantized directions, in Advances in Twistor Theory, Eds

    R. Penrose, Combinatorial quantum theory and quantized directions, in Advances in Twistor Theory, Eds. L. P. Houghston, R. S. Ward, Pitman Publishing Ltd, Lon don 1979, ISBN: 0-8224-8448-X

    work page 1979

  5. [4]

    Penrose, Theory of quantized directions, in Collected Works, vol 1, pp

    R. Penrose, Theory of quantized directions, in Collected Works, vol 1, pp. 769-800, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010, ISBN-13: 978-0199219445, IS BN-10: 0199219443 R. Penrose, Angular momentum: An approach to combinatorial spacetime, in Quantum Theory and Beyond , Ed. T. Bastin, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1971, ISBN 9780521115483 20 R. Penr...

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    J. P. Moussouris, Quantum Models of Spacetime Based on Recoupling Theory , PhD disser- tation, Oxford University, 1984 URL: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6ad25485-c6cb-4957-b129-5124bb2adc67

    work page 1984

  7. [6]

    L. B. Szabados, A note on Penrose’s Spin-Geometry Theorem and the geometry of ‘empir- ical quantum angles’, Found. Phys. 52 96 (2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701- 022-00616-3, arXiv: 2112.14538 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    L. B. Szabados, Three-space from quantum mechanics, Foun d. Phys. 52 102 (2022), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-022-00617-2, arXiv: 22 03.04827 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.1007/s10701-022-00617-2 2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    K. S. Thorne, John A. Wheeler, 1911-2008 , Biographical Memories, National Academy of Sciences 2008, URL: https://www.nasonline.org /publications/biographical- memoirs/memoir-pdfs/wheeler−john.pdf

    1911

  2. [10]

    N. M. J. Woodhouse, The differentiable and causal struct ure of spacetime, J. Math. Phys. 14 495-501 (1973), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1666344

    1973 doi

  3. [11]

    Perlick, Characterization of standard clocks by mea ns of light rays and freely falling particles, Gen

    V. Perlick, Characterization of standard clocks by mea ns of light rays and freely falling particles, Gen. Rel. Grav. 19 1059-1073 (1987), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF007591 42

    1987 doi

  4. [12]

    Linnemann, J

    N. Linnemann, J. Read, Constructive axiomatics in spac etime physics, Part I.: Walk- through to the Ehlers–Pirani–Schild axiomatisation, arXi v: 2112.14063 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Haag, Local Quantum Physics , Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1992, ISBN-10: 9783540610496, ISBN-13: 978-3540610496

    R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics , Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1992, ISBN-10: 9783540610496, ISBN-13: 978-3540610496

    1992

  6. [14]

    C. J. Fewster, K. Rejzner, Algebraic quantum field theor y – an introduction, in Progress and Visions in Quantum Theory in View of Gravity - Bridging Fo undations of Physics and Mathematics , Eds.: F. Finster, D. Giulini, J. Kleiner, J. Tolksdorf, arX iv: 1904.04051 [hep-th]

    1904 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Buchholz, K

    D. Buchholz, K. Fredenhagen, Algebraic quantum field the ory: objectives, methods and results, arXiv: 2305.12923 [math-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kobayashi, K

    S. Kobayashi, K. Nomizu, Foundations of Differential Geometry, Vol. 1 , John Wiley, New York 1963, ISBN-10 0471157333, ISBN-13 978-0471157335

    1963

  9. [17]

    N. J. Hicks, Notes on Differential Geometry , Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York 1965, ISBN-13 978-0442034108

    1965

  10. [18]

    Milnor, Morse Theory, Princeton University Press, 1969, ISBN-10 0691080089, ISBN -13 978-0691080086

    J. Milnor, Morse Theory, Princeton University Press, 1969, ISBN-10 0691080089, ISBN -13 978-0691080086

    1969

  11. [19]

    Spivak, A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry , vol 2, Publish or Per- ish, Inc, Houghston, 1999, ISBN-10 0914098713, ISBN-13 978-0 914098713

    M. Spivak, A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry , vol 2, Publish or Per- ish, Inc, Houghston, 1999, ISBN-10 0914098713, ISBN-13 978-0 914098713

    1999

  12. [20]

    O’Neill, Semi-Riemannian Geometry , Academic Press, New York 1983, ISBN-10 0125267401, ISBN-13 978-0125267403 21

    B. O’Neill, Semi-Riemannian Geometry , Academic Press, New York 1983, ISBN-10 0125267401, ISBN-13 978-0125267403 21

    1983

  13. [21]

    Regge, General relativity without coordinates, Il N uovo Cimento, 19 558-571 (1961), DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1007/BF02733251

    T. Regge, General relativity without coordinates, Il N uovo Cimento, 19 558-571 (1961), DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1007/BF02733251

    1961 doi

  14. [22]

    Penrose, M

    R. Penrose, M. A. H. MacCallum, Twistor theory: An appro ach to the quantisation of fields and spacetime, Phys. Rep. 6 241-316 (1972), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0370- 1573(73)90008-2

    1972 doi

  15. [23]

    S. A. Hugget, K. P. Tod, An Introduction to Twistor Theory , London Mathematical Society Student Texts 4, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, C ambridge 1994, ISBN-10: 0521456894, ISBN-13: 9780521456890

    1994

  16. [24]

    Penrose, W

    R. Penrose, W. Rindler, Spinors and Spacetime , vol 2, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge 1986, ISBN-10: 0521347866, ISBN-13: 978-052134786

    1986

  17. [25]

    Penrose, Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity , SIAM, Philadelphia 1972, ISBN-10 0898710057, ISBN-13 978-0898710052

    R. Penrose, Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity , SIAM, Philadelphia 1972, ISBN-10 0898710057, ISBN-13 978-0898710052

    1972

  18. [26]

    S. W. Hawking, G. F. R. Ellis, The large scale structure of spacetime , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1973, ISBN-10 0521099064, ISBN-13 978-0521 099066

    1973

  19. [27]

    T. D. Newton, E. P. Wigner, Localized states for element ary systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21 400-406 (1949), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhy s.21.400

    1949 doi

  20. [28]

    R. F. Streater, A. S. Wightman, PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All Thant , W. A. Benjamin, INC, New York 1964, ISBN-10: 0691070628, ISBN-13: 978-069107 0629

    1964

  21. [29]

    Matsuda, Quantum field theory on curved manifolds, ar Xiv:2501.09919 [hep-th] 22

    T. Matsuda, Quantum field theory on curved manifolds, ar Xiv:2501.09919 [hep-th] 22

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.