Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Finite Nonlocal Holomorphic Unified Quantum Field Theory

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 paper claims that a single entire-function regulator inserted in every kinetic term of a holomorphic unified action makes gravity, gauge fields and matter perturbatively finite at all loop orders, while preserving BRST invariance…

desk verdict A novel combination of nonlocal regulators and the holomorphic unified action, but the central finiteness proof rests on a false inequality and inconsistent Feynman rules. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14203 v1 pith:J5GSZX2I submitted 2025-07-14 physics.gen-ph hep-th

J. W. Moffat , E. J. Thompson This is my paper
classification physics.gen-phhep-th PACS 04.60.-m11.10.-z11.15.-q12.10.-g
keywords nonlocalquantumgravityholomorphicunifiedfieldtheoryentire-functionregulatorUVfinitenessBRSTinvariancemicrocausalityblackholesingularityregularizationgaugecouplingunification
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 claims that a single exponential regulator, $F(\Box)=\exp(\Box/M_*^2)$, inserted into every kinetic term of a holomorphic unified action produces a four-dimensional quantum field theory of gravity, gauge fields and matter that is ultraviolet finite at every loop order while keeping BRST symmetry, holomorphic gauge symmetry and unitarity intact. The starting point is the Complex non-Riemannian Holomorphic Unified Field Theory, in which one Hermitian metric and one holomorphic connection encode Einstein gravity, Yang–Mills fields, chiral fermions and Higgs/Yukawa terms on the real slice. The authors place the regulator between the metric and curvature and inside every gauge, fermion and Higgs kinetic term, arguing that each internal vertex acquires a factor $F(-p^2/M_*^2)$ while propagators stay local. A one-loop heat-kernel computation on a complexified background is presented as evidence that no new counterterms appear, and the infrared limit is claimed to recover general relativity coupled to the Standard Model fields. If correct, the construction would be an explicit UV-complete, unitary quantization of a unified geometric theory in four dimensions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the entire-function regulator $F(\zeta)=\exp(\zeta)$, a holomorphic function of order $\gamma>1/2$ with no zeros or poles in the finite plane, promoted to an operator $F(\Box/M_*^2)$ acting on the holomorphic d'Alembertian $\Box=g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_\mu\nabla_\nu$. In the proposed Feynman rules each internal vertex carries a factor $F(-p^2/M_*^2)=\exp(-p^2/M_*^2)$ while propagators remain the local ones. The one-loop argument instead works with the regulated Laplace-type operator $\Delta_{\rm reg}=F(\Box/M_*^2)\Delta^{(0)}$ and a proper-time heat-kernel expansion on the complexified manifold, with contour-regularized metric backgrounds used to resolve classical singularities. The claimed effect is that every loop integration gains exponential damping, so no ultraviolet poles survive, while the analyticity of $F$ prevents new physical poles.

What would settle it

Derive the Feynman rules directly from the regulated action (71): expand $g=g_{\rm cl}+h$ and compute the interaction vertices coming from $F(\Box/M_*^2)$ acting on $g^{\mu\nu}R_{\mu\nu}$. If the resulting vertex factors are not simply $\exp(-p^2/M_*^2)$ on each external leg, or if a two-loop computation using $\Delta_{\rm reg}=F\Delta^{(0)}$ yields a nonzero $\ln\Lambda$ coefficient in the proper-time integral, the advertised all-order finiteness is false. A simpler concrete check is the one-loop scalar self-energy computed with the regulator on the vertex versus on the propagator: equal results would support the equivalence, unequal results would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the regulated holomorphic action (71) is perturbatively UV-finite to all orders, unitary and gauge invariant, and reduces to the classical holomorphic unified theory in the infrared. Because $F(\zeta)=\exp(\zeta)$ is entire and pole-free, the authors argue that no new degrees of freedom or ghosts are introduced; because every loop integral is exponentially damped by at least one factor $\exp(-p^2/M_*^2)$, all ultraviolet divergences vanish; and because $F(\Box/M_*^2)$ commutes with diffeomorphisms and gauge transformations, BRST invariance is preserved. The one-loop effective action is written in proper-time form, and with the regulator inside the kinetic operator $\Delta_{\rm reg}=F(\Box/M_*^2)\Delta^{(0)}$, the small-$s$ heat-kernel expansion is found to contain no poles. The paper further claims that contour regularisation of Schwarzschild and Kerr line elements resolves the $r=0$ and ring singularities while keeping the horizons fixed, and that Hawking spectra acquire finite non-thermal corrections. Companion claims include the freeze-out of gauge and gravitational couplings above $M_*\simeq 2.5\times 10^{18}\,{\rm GeV}$ and a quantum-level equivalence-principle violation with a vacuum suppression scale $\Lambda_{\rm vac}^{G}\gtrsim 10^{-3}\,{\rm eV}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that inserting $F(\Box/M_*^2)$ into each kinetic term is exactly equivalent to multiplying every interaction vertex by $\exp(-p^2/M_*^2)$ while leaving propagators local, an equivalence the paper states but never derives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every graviton, gauge and matter loop receives exponential damping, so the perturbative expansion is claimed to be divergence-free at all loop orders.
  • On-shell tree amplitudes are claimed to be identical to the local Einstein–Yang–Mills–Dirac theory, so low-energy scattering is unchanged.
  • In the limit $\Box\ll M_*^2$ the regulator tends to unity and the field equations reduce to general relativity coupled to Standard Model fields.
  • Unitarity and BRST invariance survive because $F$ introduces no new poles and commutes with the gauge and diffeomorphism symmetries.
  • Observational consequences include finite non-thermal corrections to Hawking spectra, gravitational-wave phase shifts, and a quantum-level equivalence-principle violation with $\Lambda_{\rm vac}^{G}\gtrsim 10^{-3}\,{\rm eV}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper never derives the advertised vertex-multiplication rule from the kinetic-operator insertion; the one-loop calculation uses the alternative prescription $\Delta_{\rm reg}=F\Delta^{(0)}$. A direct derivation of that equivalence, or a two-loop check, would settle whether the all-order claim holds.
  • Because the regulator commutes with covariant derivatives, the same finiteness mechanism would apply to any infinite-derivative gravity action, so the specific holomorphic unification is not essential to the divergence cancellation itself.
  • The contour-regularized Schwarzschild and Kerr geometries replace physical curvature quantities with Cauchy prescription values; whether this changes geodesic structure or observable shadow images is left open.
  • The claimed equivalence-principle violation at a scale of $10^{-3}$ eV is sharp enough that future atomic interferometry or torsion-balance experiments could confirm or exclude the mechanism even if the UV regime remains untested.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a nonlocal extension of the 'Holomorphic Unified Field Theory' by inserting entire-function regulators F(□)=exp(□/M_*^2) into the kinetic terms of the holomorphic Einstein–Hilbert action. The authors claim perturbative UV finiteness at all loop orders, preservation of BRST invariance and holomorphic gauge symmetry, microcausality, one-loop finiteness with no new counterterms, singularity removal for Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes via contour regularization, and several phenomenological predictions. The central technical device is the assertion that the Feynman rules reduce to local propagators with exponentially damped vertices.

Significance. If the construction worked, it would be a remarkable result: a UV-finite, unitary four-dimensional quantum gravity theory without ghosts, combined with a unique geometric unification of gravity and the Standard Model. The manuscript does attempt explicit derivations, including a one-loop effective action, contour-regularized black-hole metrics, and coupling-constant matching, and it is commendable that the authors try to make these computations concrete. However, the core claims are undermined by a direct inconsistency between the action and the asserted Feynman rules, an erroneous heat-kernel integration, and a discontinuous regulated metric. As a result, the central claims are not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sections 2, 4, and 8] Equations (26) and (71) modify the quadratic action by inserting F(□/M_*^2) between fields; for example, the gauge kinetic term in (71) is proportional to F^A_{ρσ} F(□/M_*^2) F^{B ρσ}. Expanding around flat space, the quadratic operator for the gauge field is F(-p^2/M_*^2) p^2, giving a propagator D(p^2)= i exp(+p^2/M_*^2)/p^2. This is not the local propagator D(p^2)=i/p^2 stated in Eq. (7), and it grows exponentially with p^2. The vertex-insertion prescription of Section 2 is therefore incompatible with the action used in Sections 4 and 8. Section 6 uses a different regularization, Δ_reg = F(□/M_*^2) Δ^(0) (Eq. 50), which changes the propagator once more; with F=exp, the heat kernel is exp[-s p^2 e^{-p^2/M_*^2}], and large-momentum modes are not suppressed because the exponent tends to 0 as p^2→∞. Consequently, the all-loop UV-finiteness claim rests on two mutually inconsistent sets of Feynman rules.
  2. [Section 6, Eq. (59)] Equation (59) claims that ∫_0^ε ds s^{n/2-3} e^{-s} is finite for n≤4. For n=4, the integrand near s=0 is s^{-1} e^{-s}, which diverges logarithmically; the e^{-s} factor is regular at s=0 and does not cure the divergence. Therefore the one-loop effective action (60) is not finite: the n=4 heat-kernel coefficient a_2 produces a logarithmic divergence. Moreover, the small-s expansion (58) is not justified for the operator F(□/M_*^2)Δ^(0), which is not of Laplace type. The statement that 'there are no poles in Γ^(1) as s→0' is false.
  3. [Section 7, Eq. (63)] Equation (63) defines the regulated areal radius R(r+i0) as πGM for 0<r<2GM and r√(1-2GM/r) for r>2GM. At r=2GM, the right-hand branch gives 0 while the left-hand branch gives πGM; R is discontinuous at the horizon. This contradicts the claim that R(ζ) is a smooth, strictly positive function for all r≥0. Since the metric (65) is built from R(ζ), the 'singularity-free' geometry is not regular at r=2GM. The subsequent claims about a finite Kretschmann scalar and finite Hawking spectra are therefore unsupported.
  4. [Section 9, Eq. (84)] In Section 9, the authors impose M_* = √α_GUT M_Pl to make α_G(M_*) equal to α_GUT. This is a choice of parameter, not a prediction. The beta functions β_i(μ) = β_i^(SM)(g) exp(-μ^2/M_*^2) are introduced ad hoc and are not derived from the nonlocal action (71). Consequently, the statement that the theory achieves gauge coupling unification is circular: unification is put in by hand.
  5. [Sections 4 and 6] The all-loop finiteness is not demonstrated in this manuscript; Sections 4 and 6 delegate the proof to references [1,7,20], all by the same research group. Given that the one-loop computation fails, the central claim of perturbative UV finiteness lacks support in this paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5] The claim that F(□)=exp(□) is a properly supported pseudodifferential operator of order -∞ is questionable; exp(□) is an infinite-order operator and not a standard pseudodifferential operator. The microlocal argument needs justification.
  2. [References] Reference [6] is cited as arXiv:2506.12345, which is not a valid identifier; reference [24] contains 'arXiv:1006.XXXX'.
  3. [Sections 3 and 4] The notation is inconsistent: both g_μν and g_(μν) are used, and the determinant in (15) is written as √-det g_(μν), but the complex integration measure d^4z is not defined for a four-complex-dimensional manifold (which has eight real dimensions).
  4. [Section 6, Eqs. (51)-(53)] The 'stripping propagator' is introduced so that F~(p)F(-p^2/Λ_G^2)=1, but at p^2=0 the regulator equals 1, so no stripping is needed for on-shell external legs; the purpose is unclear.
  5. [Section 10, Eq. (91)] Equation (91) gives Δφ ~ ⟨F²⟩ω²/M_Pl² ≤ 10^{-40} for ω∼10^3 Hz, but the scale M_Pl is used inconsistently with M_*; the numerical bounds need clarification.
  6. [Throughout] The paper contains numerous typos and formatting issues, e.g., 'as well while preserving' in the Introduction, 'farlacked' in Section 1, and the broken equation in Eq. (1).

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Central all-loop UV-finiteness claim is delegated to same-author citations and depends on an assumed vertex-regulator Feynman-rule prescription; the reported coupling unification is fixed by construction via the choice of M*.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 9, Eqs. (81)-(84)]
    "To force αG(M∗) = αGUT, one must choose M2∗ = αGUT/G = αGUT M2P, =⇒ M∗ ≈ √αGUT MP ∼ 1018.8 GeV. With this choice, all four couplings meet numerically and then remain equal in the deep UV: αG(µ) = α1(µ) = α2(µ) = α3(µ) = αGUT, µ ≳ M∗."

    M* is not predicted; it is chosen by imposing αG(M*)=αGUT. The β-functions are also posited to vanish above M* by multiplying the SM ones by exp(−μ²/M*²). Therefore, the statement that all four couplings 'meet numerically and then remain equal' is the input condition restated as an output. The unification result is a consistency condition, not a derived prediction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 6, closing paragraph; Section 4, 'see [1, 7] for full proofs']
    "The same entire-function regulators have been shown to render two-loop and higher-loop amplitudes finite [1, 7, 20]."

    The abstract and Sections 1, 4, and 8 make perturbative UV finiteness at all loop orders the central claim. The paper's only new calculation is the one-loop estimate in Section 6, which does not cover higher loops. The all-loop statement is imported from Refs. [1], [7], and [20], all of which involve the present author Moffat. These works are not machine-checked, code-reproduced, or externally benchmarked in this paper, so the citation chain supplies the conclusion rather than providing independent evidence.

1 more flagged steps
  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 4, after Eq. (30); contrast Section 2 Eq. (7) and Section 6 Eq. (50)]
    "By expanding the action in perturbation theory one finds that each internal vertex acquires a factor F (−p2/M2∗), while propagators remain those of the local theory. ... every loop integral picks up at least one exponential suppression factor, exp(−p2/M2∗), ensuring convergence to all orders, see [1, 7] for full proofs."

    The regulated action in Eq. (71) and Eq. (26) inserts F(□/M*²) into kinetic terms, which would produce a propagator F^{-1}/p² = e^{+p²/M*²}/p², not the local D(p²) of Eq. (7). Section 6 instead defines Δ_reg = F(□/M*²)Δ^(0), a different convention. The 'vertex factor F, local propagator' Feynman-rule prescription is therefore an unproven ansatz imported from the authors' earlier nonlocal program. The advertised exponential loop suppression is exactly that ansatz restated as a derivation, not a consequence of the written action.

full rationale

The paper contains two clear by-construction moves. First, the claimed unification of couplings above M* is not a prediction: M* is fixed by imposing αG(M*)=αGUT, and the β-functions are posited to freeze via exp(−μ²/M*²), so the equality of all four couplings at M* is simply the definition of M*. Second, the central all-loop finiteness claim is not proven in this paper; the one-loop estimate in Section 6 is the only new calculation, and the text explicitly delegates two-loop and higher-loop finiteness to Refs. [1], [7], and [20], all of which involve the same author. Those references are not independently verified here, so the central claim is carried by self-citation. In addition, the Feynman-rule prescription used to argue for loop suppression—local propagators plus vertex factor F—is asserted rather than derived from the regulated action; Eq. (71) puts F on kinetic terms, which would give a growing e^{+p²/M*²}/p² propagator, and Section 6 uses yet another convention Δ_reg=FΔ0. Thus the exponential suppression at every loop is an ansatz inherited from prior work rather than a consequence of the written action. There are also apparent technical errors, such as the small-s heat-kernel estimate in Eq. (59), which is not made convergent by an inserted e^{-s} factor; these are correctness concerns rather than circularity and do not lower the circularity score. Because the paper's headline result—all-loop UV finiteness—reduces to a self-citation chain plus an assumed vertex-regulator rule, and the coupling-unification claim is imposed by construction, a score of 8 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central construction depends on several imported results from the authors' own prior papers, on an unproven equivalence between kinetic-term regulators and vertex regulators, and on an ad hoc contour regularization that introduces a discontinuity at the horizon. The free parameters M_*, Λ_vac^G and Λ_mat^G are chosen to produce the desired phenomenological features. These burdens explain the low soundness and high circularity scores.

free parameters (2)
  • M_* (nonlocal regulator scale) = ≈ 2.5×10^18 GeV (set by α_G(M_*)=α_GUT)
    Introduced in Sections 2 and 4 as the cutoff scale of exp(□/M_*^2); in Section 9 it is fixed by demanding gravitational coupling unification, making it a fitted consistency parameter.
  • Λ_vac^G and Λ_mat^G (environment-dependent suppression scales) = Λ_vac^G ≳ 10^-3 eV (constraint), Λ_mat^G unspecified
    Section 10 introduces two different scales to generate equivalence-principle violations; the split is chosen by hand, and only a lower bound on Λ_vac^G is quoted from atomic physics.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption An entire-function regulator F(ζ)=exp(ζ) of order γ>1/2 with no zeros or poles makes all loop integrals exponentially damped and UV finite while preserving unitarity.
    This is the foundation of the paper's finiteness claims, but it is taken from the authors' earlier papers [1,7,20] and not reproven here. It is invoked in Sections 2, 4, 6 and 8.
  • domain assumption The holomorphic unified action on M^4_C, restricted to the real slice y=0, yields exactly the Einstein, Yang-Mills, Dirac, Higgs and Yukawa equations.
    Invoked in Section 3 and used to claim the regulated action (71) recovers the same low-energy theory; this result is imported from the authors' companion paper [6].
  • domain assumption F(□/M_*^2) commutes with diffeomorphisms and preserves BRST and holomorphic gauge invariance.
    Used in Sections 4 and 8 to argue that the regulated action is gauge invariant. The proof is not given and the dependence of □ on the dynamical metric makes this nontrivial.
  • ad hoc to paper The contour-regularized areal radius R(ζ) in Section 7 gives a smooth, strictly positive replacement for the Schwarzschild and Kerr radial coordinates and removes singularities while preserving horizons.
    This regulator is introduced specifically for this paper. The paper's own Eq. (63) gives R=πGM inside the horizon and R→0 at the horizon from outside, so the 'smooth, strictly positive' claim is false.
  • domain assumption The standard model gauge couplings meet at M_GUT≈2.3×10^16 GeV with α^{-1}_GUT≈24.4, and the regulated beta functions β_i=β_i^SM exp(-μ^2/M_*^2) and β_G=2α_G exp(-μ^2/M_*^2) are correct.
    Section 9 uses these as inputs to fix M_*; the beta-function formulas are asserted without a derivation.
  • standard math Hörmander's theorem on properly-supported pseudodifferential operators and the microlocal spectrum condition imply microcausality for F(□)φ.
    Invoked in Section 5; the application to the regulated operators is not fully justified because F(□) with an exponentially growing symbol may not be a properly-supported pseudodifferential operator of order -∞.
invented entities (2)
  • Auxiliary scalar field χ
    purpose: To produce environment-dependent regulator scales so that the gravitational coupling to vacuum fluctuations differs from the coupling to matter, leading to apparent weak equivalence principle violations.
    Section 10 introduces χ with a two-minimum potential and couplings χR/Λ^2_vac and χL_mat/Λ^2_mat. No independent evidence is provided and the scale split Λ_vac^G ≪ Λ_mat^G is chosen by hand.
  • Complexified manifold M^4_C
    purpose: Provides a holomorphic setting where the Hermitian metric and holomorphic gauge connection unify all fields; the regulator F(□/M_*^2) is defined on this manifold.
    The manifold is posited in Section 3; while the real-slice restriction is claimed to reproduce known physics, there is no independent falsifiable handle on the complex extension itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite Nonlocal Holomorphic Unified Quantum Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5GSZX2I

@misc{pith2026250714203,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite Nonlocal Holomorphic Unified Quantum Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5GSZX2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14203}
}
abstract

In this paper the non-local finite quantum-gravity framework is incorporated into the Complex non-Riemannian Holomorphic Unified Field Theory formulated on a complexified four-dimensional manifold. By introducing entire-function regulators $F(\Box) = \exp\!\bigl(\Box / M_*^2\bigr)$ into the holomorphic Einstein-Hilbert action, we achieve perturbative UV finiteness at all loop orders, while preserving BRST invariance and holomorphic gauge symmetry. We derive the modified gauge-gravity coupling sector, perform a one-loop effective-action computation in a contour-regularized metric background, and demonstrate the absence of new counterterms and problematic complex-pole structures. Extending the construction to nontrivial curved backgrounds, we verify infrared recovery of General Relativity and full holomorphic gauge invariance. Finally, we explore phenomenological consequences, including corrected graviton and gauge-boson scattering amplitudes in self-dual backgrounds, finite Hawking spectra for regularized Schwarzschild and Kerr geometries, and proposed tests of the equivalence principle. This work lays the foundation for a self-consistent, unitary four-dimensional quantum-gravity and Holomorphic Unified Field Theory framework.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. On Gauge-Invariant Entire-Function Regulators and UV Finiteness in NonLocal Quantum Field Theory

    hep-th 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    In flat space, an entire-function regulator F(□/M^2) acts as the multiplicative Euclidean form factor e^{-p_E^2/M^2} on plane waves, yielding exponential UV damping; this known nonlocal-QFT result is re-derived and discussed.

  2. On Recent measurements of Toponium Threshold Enhancement in Entire-Function-Regulated Nonlocal Quantum Field Theory

    physics.gen-ph 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Threshold excess in toponium production is accommodated in an entire-function-regulated nonlocal QFT by a data-driven cutoff parameter and small RG effects while preserving global QCD tests.

  3. De Sitter Cores from Nonlocal Quantum Field Theories

    physics.gen-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    An exponential nonlocal regulator maps a point mass to a Gaussian density whose Einstein solution has a de Sitter core, reproducing (with new labeling) the known Gaussian-sourced regular black hole.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [6]

    J. W. Moffat and E. J. Thompson, Holomorphic Unified Field Theory of Gravity and the Standard Model, arXiv:2506.12345 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [24]

    Nonthermal Deviations from the Hawking Radiation Spec- trum,

    I. Agullo, J. Navarro-Salas and L. Parker, “Nonthermal Deviations from the Hawking Radiation Spec- trum,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 064017 (2010) [arXiv:1006.XXXX [gr-qc]]

    work page 2010

  3. [1]

    J. W. Moffat, Nonlocal Quantum Gravity and the Cosmological Constant Problem, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1177 (1990)

    work page 1990

  4. [2]

    G. V. Efimov, Non-local Quantum Theory of the Scalar Field, Commun. Math. Phys. 5, 42 (1967)

    work page 1967

  5. [3]

    Alebastrov and G

    V. Alebastrov and G. V. Efimov, A Proof of the Unitarity of the S-matrix in a Nonlocal Quantum Field Theory, Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 1 (1973)

    work page 1973

  6. [4]

    N. V. Krasnikov, Nonlocal Gauge Theories, Theor. Math. Phys. 73, 1184 (1987); Teor. Mat. Fiz. 73, 235 (1987)

    work page 1987

  7. [5]

    J. W. Moffat, Ultraviolet Complete Quantum Gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 175 (2015), arXiv:1412.5424 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [7]

    Evens, J

    D. Evens, J. W. Moffat, G. Kleppe, and R. P. Woodard, Nonlocal regularizations of gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 43, 499–519 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    Evens, J

    D. Evens, J. W. Moffat, G. Kleppe, and R. P. Woodard, Nonlocal Regularization of Gauge and Gravi- tational Field Theories, Phys. Rev. D 43, 499–519 (1991)

    1991

  2. [9]

    Biswas, E

    T. Biswas, E. Gerwick, T. Koivisto, and A. Mazumdar, Towards singularity- and ghost-free theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 031101 (2012), arXiv:1110.5249 [gr-qc]. 15

    2012 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Talaganis, A

    A. Talaganis, A. Mazumdar, and L. Modesto, Towards understanding the ultraviolet behavior of quantum loops in infinite-derivative theories of gravity, Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 215017 (2015), arXiv:1412.7351 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Buoninfante, On the contour prescriptions in string-inspired nonlocal field theories, Phys

    L. Buoninfante, On the contour prescriptions in string-inspired nonlocal field theories, Phys. Rev. D 106, 126028 (2022), arXiv:2205.15348v2 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Landry and J

    R. Landry and J. W. Moffat, Nonlocal Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Entanglement, arXiv:2309.06576 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    Shoshichi Kobayashi and Katsumi Nomizu, Foundations of Differential Geometry, Volume I, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1963

    1963

  7. [14]

    Shoshichi Kobayashi and Katsumi Nomizu, Foundations of Differential Geometry, Volume II , John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1969

    1969

  8. [16]

    J. W. Moffat, Complex Riemannian Spacetime: Removal of Black Hole Singularities and Black Hole Paradoxes, Axioms 14(6), 440 (2025). arXiv 2501.03356 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. W. Moffat, Ultraviolet Complete Quantum Field Theory and Particle Model, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, 443 (2019), doi:10.1140/epjp/i2019-12973-6, arXiv:1812.01986 [physics.gen-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. W. Moffat, Model of Boson and Fermion Particle Masses, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 601 (2021), arXiv:2009.10145 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. B. Gilkey, Invariance Theory, the Heat Equation, and the Atiyah–Singer Index Theorem , 2nd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton (1995)

    1995

  12. [20]

    J. W. Moffat, Finite Nonlocal Quantum Gravity at Higher Loops,Phys. Rev. D (2024), arXiv:2401.01234 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    H¨ ormander, The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators I , Grundlehren der Mathema- tischen Wissenschaften, vol

    L. H¨ ormander, The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators I , Grundlehren der Mathema- tischen Wissenschaften, vol. 256, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1983. See Chapter 8 on pseudodifferential operators and wave-front sets

    1983

  14. [22]

    Modesto and G

    L. Modesto and G. Calcagni, Tree-level scattering amplitudes in nonlocal field theories, J. High Energ. Phys. 2021, 169 (2021), arXiv:2210.04914v2 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Particle Creation by Black Holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes,” Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  16. [25]

    Torsion Balance Experiments: A Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,

    E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, S. Hoedl and S. Schlamminger, “Torsion Balance Experiments: A Low-Energy Frontier of Particle Physics,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 62, 102 (2009) [arXiv:0902.4759 [hep-ex]]

    2009 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Search for New Physics with Atoms and Molecules,

    M. S. Safronova et al. , “Search for New Physics with Atoms and Molecules,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018) [arXiv:1710.00821 [physics.atom-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Testing the No-Hair Theorem with Black-Hole Ringdown Signals,

    M. Isi, M. Giesler, W. M. Farr, M. A. Scheel and S. A. Teukolsky, “Testing the No-Hair Theorem with Black-Hole Ringdown Signals,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 111102 (2019) [arXiv:1905.00869 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Is the Gravitational-Wave Ringdown a Probe of the Event Hori- zon?

    V. Cardoso, E. Franzin and P. Pani, “Is the Gravitational-Wave Ringdown a Probe of the Event Hori- zon?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 171101 (2016) [arXiv:1602.07309 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Finite Quantum Field Theory and Renormalization Group,

    M. A. Green and J. W. Moffat, “Finite Quantum Field Theory and Renormalization Group,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 919 (2021) 10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-01908-3 [arXiv:2012.04487 [physics.gen-ph]]. 16

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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