Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Wheeler-De Witt equation and the Canonical Construction of the Glauber-Sudarshan States in Quantum Gravity

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that back reactions from Glauber-Sudarshan states turn the ambient supersymmetric Minkowski background into a transient de Sitter phase, and that Borel-Écalle resummation gives a closed-form positive four-dimensional…

desk verdict Useful formal scaffolding around Glauber-Sudarshan states, but the headline de Sitter and cosmological-constant claim is a consistency check on an assumed metric, not a derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18689 v1 pith:P56OPDXQ submitted 2024-11-27 hep-th gr-qc

Keshav Dasgupta , Fang-Yi Guo , Bohdan Kulinich This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords Glauber-SudarshanstatesWheeler-DeWittequationbackreactiontransientdeSitterphasecosmologicalconstantBorel-ÉcalleresummationnodaldiagramsSchwinger-Dysonequations
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

Quantum gravity's Wheeler-De Witt equation makes the bulk Hamiltonian annihilate all states, so ordinary Hamiltonian time evolution and correlation functions appear impossible. This paper argues that Glauber-Sudarshan states—coherent states built from displacement operators defined at each instant of time—avoid that problem and define time evolution through a path-integral sum over histories. The paper's central claim is that the back reaction of these states on the background, computed via the Schwinger-Dyson equations, converts the ambient supersymmetric Minkowski vacuum into a transient, non-supersymmetric de Sitter phase. In a scalar toy model, Borel-Écalle resummation of the factorial growth of nodal diagrams gives a closed-form, positive four-dimensional cosmological constant. This matters because the cosmological constant would then be an emergent, non-perturbative effect invisible at any finite order in perturbation theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Glauber-Sudarshan state $|\sigma\rangle$, built as a product of displacement operators $D(\sigma,t)=\exp\left(\int d^n x\,\sqrt{-g}\,\sigma^{MN}g_{MN}\right)$ at every infinitesimal time step within the temporal domain $-1/\sqrt{\Lambda}\le t\le 0$. These operators shift the action without invoking the bulk Hamiltonian, which would annihilate all states. The source profile $\sigma(k)$ is controlled by the remnant Schwinger-Dyson equation $\delta\check{S}(\langle\Xi\rangle_\sigma)/\delta\langle\Xi\rangle_\sigma=0$, and the factorial growth of the resulting nodal diagrams is summed by Borel-Écalle resummation. The same resummation converts the divergent series into a closed form whose pole structure fixes the positive cosmological constant and simultaneously quantifies the back reaction. The paper also derives two Wheeler-De Witt equations: one at the warped-Minkowski level with Faddeev-Popov ghosts, and one at the emergent de Sitter level without them.

What would settle it

Solve the remnant Schwinger-Dyson equation for $\sigma(k)$ in the $\phi^4$ toy model without imposing the de Sitter one-point function, then compute $\langle g_{00}\rangle_\sigma$ after Borel-Écalle summation; if the result does not equal $(\Lambda t^2)^{-4/3}$ for some finite positive $\Lambda$, the central identification fails. A simpler check is to include the subdominant $j>0$ nodal diagrams and see whether the closed form still matches the flat-slicing de Sitter metric.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the quantum fluctuations defining a Glauber-Sudarshan state react back on the background, and those back reactions are in part responsible for converting the ambient supersymmetric Minkowski vacuum into a transient de Sitter phase. Because the bulk Hamiltonian annihilates all states, the displacement operators are defined at every instant of time and lifted to a path integral as a sum over histories, avoiding the Hamiltonian constraint. The source profile $\sigma(k)$ is fixed by the remnant Schwinger-Dyson equation, and the factorial growth of the resulting nodal diagrams is summed by Borel-Écalle resummation. Identifying the scalar one-point function with the $g_{00}$ component of a flat-slicing de Sitter metric then yields a closed-form, positive four-dimensional cosmological constant. The resulting de Sitter phase is transient and lies within the trans-Planckian bound, and the cosmological constant is invisible order by order in perturbation theory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scalar toy model's one-point function really is the $g_{00}$ component of a flat-slicing de Sitter metric, $\langle\phi\rangle_\sigma=(\Lambda t^2)^{-4/3}$, with the source profile $\sigma(k)$ chosen to reproduce that form; if this assumed form is not forced by the M-theory dynamics, the resulting $\Lambda$ is a definition rather than a prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quantum-gravity correlation functions can be defined without a bulk Hamiltonian: time evolution is carried by time-indexed displacement operators lifted to a path integral over histories.
  • The emergent de Sitter phase is transient, non-supersymmetric, and confined to the trans-Planckian bound, so it evades classical no-go results against de Sitter vacua.
  • The cosmological constant is an all-orders effect: it vanishes at every finite order of perturbation theory and appears only after non-perturbative Borel-Écalle summation.
  • The closed-form $\Lambda_{4d}$ is positive definite even when the Borel parameter $A$ has either sign, and its size can be reduced by including subdominant nodal-diagram sectors.
  • Consistency requires non-decoupling Faddeev-Popov ghosts, and in M-theory also ghosts of ghosts and additional ghost layers, because these ghost degrees of freedom carry the temporal dependence of the wavefunctional.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The decisive check is whether the de Sitter form of $\langle g_{00}\rangle_\sigma$ follows from the Schwinger-Dyson dynamics rather than being fed in; solving for $\sigma(k)$ without the ansatz would settle whether $\Lambda$ is predicted or parametrized.
  • The toy-model mechanism suggests a broader testable pattern: in supersymmetric Minkowski vacua whose fluctuation amplitudes grow factorially, Borel summation of one-point functions may generate a positive vacuum energy even when every perturbative order vanishes.
  • One could look for the same nodal-diagram factorial growth in $\phi^p$ models or in numerical path-integral evaluations with coherent sources; agreement with the resummed closed form would confirm the mechanism independently of the M-theory setting.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that Glauber-Sudarshan states can be canonically constructed in quantum gravity and M-theory despite the Wheeler-De Witt Hamiltonian constraint. It proposes that displacement operators defined at every instant, lifted to path integrals, play a role analogous to integrated vertex operators, and that the Faddeev-Popov and higher ghost structure organizes temporal evolution at the warped-Minkowski level. The central quantitative claim is in Section 2.5: backreaction from a Glauber-Sudarshan state, computed through Schwinger-Dyson equations and Borel-Écalle resummation of a scalar phi^4 toy model, converts the ambient supersymmetric Minkowski background to a transient de Sitter phase and yields a closed-form positive four-dimensional cosmological constant in Eq. (2.98). Sections 2.1-2.4 develop the formal WdW and ghost framework; Section 2.5 is the load-bearing quantitative derivation.

Significance. If the derivation were valid, the paper would be significant: it would offer a controlled construction of a transient de Sitter phase as a coherent state in an M-theory setting, with a positive cosmological constant emerging from nonperturbative resummation, and it contains a substantial formal discussion of the Wheeler-De Witt equation, ghost structure, and the path-integral uplift of canonical evolution. Credit is due for the transparent treatment of the Hamiltonian constraint and for the explicit statement of the toy-model limitations. However, the central backreaction calculation does not independently derive the de Sitter phase: the de Sitter one-point function is assumed, and the source profile is tuned to reproduce it. The resulting formula for Lambda is therefore a consistency relation rather than a prediction, and the significance of the paper as a resolution of the de Sitter or cosmological-constant problem is not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.5, Eq. (2.80)] The one-point function <phi>_sigma is set equal to (1/(Lambda t^2))^{4/3} by an 'expectation' or 'identification' with the g_00 component of a flat-slicing de Sitter metric. This is an ansatz, not a result derived from the M-theory dynamics of Sections 2.1-2.4. Since the paper's goal is to show that backreaction converts the supersymmetric Minkowski background into a de Sitter phase, assuming the de Sitter form of the one-point function is precisely the conclusion the calculation is supposed to establish. No independent equation forces this form, and no uniqueness argument is given.
  2. [Section 2.5, Eqs. (2.95)-(2.97)] The split sigma(k) = sigma_1(k_0,k) + sigma_2(k_0,k) and the choice of sigma_2 with a delta-function constraint on k and a Fourier model e^{-i k_0 t} are introduced so that the momentum integral reproduces t^{-8/3}. The remaining constant factor is then identified with Lambda^{-4/3}. Thus the time dependence and the numerical factor defining Lambda are imposed by construction. Eq. (2.98) is accordingly a definition of Lambda in terms of the free parameters g, alpha, A, and the cutoffs, not a prediction. In particular alpha is undetermined in 1 <= alpha <= 3, and A in Eq. (2.91) depends on sigma(k) itself.
  3. [Section 2.3 and Eq. (2.41)] The chain Stot -> S -> S(<Xi>_sigma) -> S-tilde(<Xi>_sigma) is asserted with reference to reference [1], but no explicit expression for S-tilde or for the renormalization prescription is given in this manuscript. Consequently Eq. (2.40) and its scalar reduction Eq. (2.96) cannot be checked from the material presented. Section 3 concedes that S-tilde is not Wilsonian and that the final step depends on solving the Wheeler-De Witt equation (2.77). This is an acknowledged gap in the load-bearing logic, and it prevents the paper from being self-contained.
  4. [Section 2.5, Eqs. (2.79)-(2.80)] The quantitative computation is for a single phi^4 scalar field with no ghosts, no non-local terms, and no M-theory fields. The identification of phi with the metric component g_00 is made by fiat. Section 3 explicitly acknowledges that the actual M-theory setting with 256 field components is 'a far cry' from the toy model. Unless the toy model is shown to arise as a controlled truncation of the on-shell degrees of freedom Xi introduced in Section 2.1, the result cannot support the abstract's claim about M-theory or about the four-dimensional cosmological constant.
  5. [Section 2.5, Eq. (2.98)] The statement that Lambda_4d is positive definite irrespective of the sign of A is not demonstrated. For A < 0 the integrand has no pole and positivity is plausible, but for A > 0 the denominator 1 - A S^alpha has a pole on the integration contour, and the principal value can change sign depending on A and alpha. A direct analysis of the principal value is required before the positivity claim can be accepted. This matters because positivity of Lambda is one of the two central advertised results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2.22)-(2.23)] The notation D(sigma,t) and D(sigma) is used interchangeably, and the complex-conjugation conventions for sigma_MN and g_MN are not fully specified; clarifying these would improve readability.
  2. [Section 2.5, Eq. (2.92)] The phrase 'after the dust settles' obscures a nontrivial Borel-Écalle resummation. Since the factorial growth exponent alpha and the constant A are only partially constrained, the derivation of the closed form would benefit from at least a sketch of the Borel transform and the Stokes-data analysis.
  3. [Section 2.4, Eqs. (2.65)-(2.68)] The decoupling conditions for the third ghosts and higher ghosts are stated abstractly; a concrete example illustrating how these conditions fail in the present M-theory setting would help the reader verify the claim that these ghosts cannot be ignored.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical inconsistencies, including 'Fadeev-Popov' for 'Faddeev-Popov' and the unnumbered 'eigenstates' in the abstract; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  5. [Section 3] The paper relies heavily on references [1]-[6] for essential definitions, including the nodal diagram rules, the Borel Box construction, and the renormalized action S-tilde; a self-contained summary of these ingredients would make the central claim independently verifiable.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The de Sitter one-point function is assumed in eq. (2.80), the source profile is split in (2.95) to reproduce it, and Λ is read off from that match in (2.97); the cosmological constant formula is therefore a fitted consistency relation, not a prediction.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.5, eq. (2.80)]
    "Moreover, if we ignore the tensor indices, φ is like one of the on-shell metric component, say g00. This means we can at least expect: ⟨φ⟩σ ≡ ⟨g00⟩σ = (1/Λt^2)^{4/3} = Λ^{-4/3}t^{-8/3} (2.80) where Λ is the four-dimensional cosmological constant."

    The flat-slicing de Sitter expectation value is assumed, not derived from the M-theory dynamics or from the Schwinger-Dyson equation; Λ is introduced as the parameter of that assumed metric. Every later equation inherits this input. The paper's own language ('we can at least expect') shows this is an ansatz, so the eventual formula for Λ is the value of the parameter put into the ansatz, not an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.5, eqs. (2.95)-(2.98)]
    "We want our final answer to look like (2.80)... To reproduce the result from (2.80), we can now split σ(k) into two pieces: σ(k) ≡ σ(k0,k) = σ1(k0,k)+σ2(k0,k), (2.95)... The important point is that the identifications in (2.97) not only fixes the form for σ(k) but also provides a closed form expression for the four-dimensional cosmological constant Λ4d ≡ M_p^2Λ!"

    The paper explicitly states that it wants the final answer to look like (2.80) and splits σ(k) in (2.95) to reproduce it. The second piece σ2 is chosen with a delta-function constraint on k and a Fourier model e^{-ik0t} to yield the t^{-8/3} time dependence; the remaining constant factor is then labeled Λ^{-4/3} in (2.97). Thus (2.97) is an equality imposed by construction: matching the computed one-point function to the assumed dS metric defines Λ in terms of g, A, α. Equation (2.98) is a consistency relation for the fitted coefficient, not a derivation of the cosmological constant from first principles.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.3, eq. (2.40); Discussion, section 3]
    "where ˇS(⟨Ξ⟩σ) differs from S(⟨Ξ⟩σ) by renormalization effects described in [1], compared to the standard classical SUGRA EOMs... Solving (2.40) precisely indicates how σMN should behave... The final step that converts S(⟨Ξ⟩σ) to ˇS(⟨Ξ⟩σ) relies on the renormalization technique that we pointed out in [1]."

    The quantum equation of motion controlling the Glauber-Sudarshan state, δSˇ(⟨Ξ⟩σ)/δ⟨Ξ⟩σ = 0, is imported from ref. [1] (Brahma, Dasgupta, Guo, Kulinich), which overlaps with the present authors; the present paper does not re-derive the renormalized action Sˇ. Since the transient-de Sitter claim rests on this 'exclusively quantum' equation, the framework is not self-contained at this step. This is secondary to the definitional circularity in (2.80)-(2.98), but it reinforces that the state and action are taken as inputs rather than derived here.

full rationale

The central quantitative result—that Glauber-Sudarshan backreaction converts supersymmetric Minkowski to a transient de Sitter phase with a closed-form positive cosmological constant—reduces by construction. Equation (2.80) simply declares that the scalar one-point function equals the g00 component of flat-slicing de Sitter space, introducing Λ as the parameter of the assumed metric. The computation that follows does not derive this form: σ(k) is split in (2.95) precisely 'to reproduce the result from (2.80)', σ2 is chosen with a delta constraint on k and a Fourier model e^{-ik0t} to yield t^{-8/3}, and the leftover Borel factor is then labeled Λ^{-4/3} in (2.97). The Schwinger-Dyson equation (2.96) is imposed as a consistency condition after the ansatz, not solved to determine ⟨φ⟩. Hence (2.98) is a definition of the parameter inserted in (2.80), not a first-principles prediction. Separately, the quantum equation of motion (2.40) and the renormalized action Sˇ on which it rests are imported from the authors' own ref. [1]; the present text does not re-derive them, and the paper itself states that determining the states requires solving (2.76) with a non-Wilsonian Sˇ. This makes the framework non-self-contained, although the formal path-integral/ghost analysis in Sections 2.2-2.4 has content independent of the Lambda formula. Overall, the headline Lambda value and the conversion to de Sitter are forced by the assumed one-point function and the fitting of σ; score 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on two ad hoc inputs: the assumed de Sitter ansatz (2.80) and the imported renormalized action S-tilde from [1]. The free parameters alpha, g, A, and the sigma(k) split are chosen by hand or by matching. No new physical entity is proposed with independent falsifiable evidence; the listed emergent degrees of freedom and ghost structures are formal constructs.

free parameters (5)
  • Gevrey exponent alpha = not fixed; 1 <= alpha <= 3
    The factorial growth of nodal amplitudes is written as (alpha*N)! with alpha bracketed between 1 and 3 (Section 2.5, after eq. 2.90). The final Lambda formula depends on alpha through g^{-3/(4*alpha)}.
  • renormalized phi^4 coupling g = chosen by hand as IR renormalized coupling
    Toy-model coupling in the action (2.79); the cosmological constant formula (2.98) is proportional to g^{-3/(4*alpha)} and no numerical value is fixed.
  • source profile sigma(k) = split as sigma1 + sigma2 to reproduce (2.80)
    In equations (2.95)-(2.97) sigma is chosen so that <phi>_sigma equals Lambda^{-4/3} t^{-8/3}; this is the key matching input for the backreaction and cosmological-constant result.
  • amplitude A(k_IR, mu) = depends on cutoffs and sigma(k), can be absorbed in g-hat
    Defined in eq. (2.91) as a product of integrals over sigma(k)/a(k); it enters the denominator of the Lambda formula through the Borel integral, with k_IR and mu chosen by hand.
  • IR and UV cutoffs k_IR, mu = not specified
    The momentum integrals in (2.91) and (2.97) run from k_IR to mu; the Lambda formula depends on these choices through A.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The M-theory effective action is a trans-series whose perturbative part is (2.6), with degrees of freedom split into on-shell Xi and ghosts Upsilon.
    Used in equations (2.5)-(2.7) and throughout; taken from references [1,2] without derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption There exists a supersymmetric warped-Minkowski minimum |0>_min1 in the M-theory landscape.
    Equation (2.26) and Figure 4 assume a stable Minkowski vacuum with no de Sitter minima, following the standard no-go theorems and prior work.
  • ad hoc to paper The renormalized action S-tilde(<Xi>_sigma) obtained from S(<Xi>_sigma) by renormalization effects in [1] is the correct action for the emergent background.
    Equations (2.40)-(2.41) and (2.62) depend on this map; the derivation is not reproduced here and is supplied by a self-cited companion paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar one-point function should be identified with the de Sitter metric component: <phi>_sigma = (1/(Lambda t^2))^{4/3}.
    Equation (2.80) is an assumed ansatz, not derived from the Schwinger-Dyson equations; it is the input that later fixes sigma(k).
  • standard math Gevrey-alpha divergent series can be summed by Borel-Ecalle resummation with a single pole on the positive Borel axis, giving a positive principal-value integral.
    Used to go from (2.92) to (2.98); assumes the asymptotic series is Borel summable and that the principal-value prescription produces the physical branch.
invented entities (2)
  • emergent ghost-free degrees of freedom <Xi>_sigma
    purpose: Support the emergent de Sitter Wheeler-De Witt equation (2.77) without Faddeev-Popov ghosts.
    Proposed in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 as the degrees of freedom of the transient de Sitter background; no independent falsifiable prediction is provided.
  • third ghosts and ghosts-of-ghosts
    purpose: Account for gauge fixings and p-form gauge transformations in the Faddeev-Popov procedure for M-theory with G-fluxes.
    Introduced in Section 2.4, equations (2.52)-(2.58); they are formal bookkeeping devices with no direct falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wheeler-De Witt equation and the Canonical Construction of the Glauber-Sudarshan States in Quantum Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P56OPDXQ

@misc{pith2026241118689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wheeler-De Witt equation and the Canonical Construction of the Glauber-Sudarshan States in Quantum Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P56OPDXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18689}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum gravity is fundamentally different from the non-gravitational quantum field theories in the sense that most of the techniques derived for the latter cannot be easily extended to the former. For example, correlation functions in quantum gravity become hard to define properly if the bulk Hamiltonian - as a consequence of the Wheeler-De Witt equation - itself annihilates the states thus rendering the evolution operators to identities. An even harder problem is the back reactions of the fluctuations on the background itself. We argue that the construction of the Glauber-Sudarshan states takes care of these two issues in rather interesting ways. For the former, the displacement operators are defined at every instant of time, without directly invoking the Hamiltonian, so that they naturally extend to the path-integral description as sum over histories. For the latter, the back reactions of the fluctuations are carefully accounted for by the Schwinger-Dyson equations. In fact these back reactions are in part responsible for converting the ambient supersymmetric Minkowski background to a transient de Sitter phase. Expectedly, this transient de Sitter phase is defined well within the validity regime of the trans-Planckian bound.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Glauber-Sudarshan States, Wave Functional of the Universe and the Wheeler-De Witt equation

    S. Brahma, K. Dasgupta, F. Guo and B. Kulinich, “Glauber-Sudarshan States, Wave Functional of the Universe and the Wheeler-De Witt equation,” JHEP10, 194 (2024) [arXiv:2409.03015 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    What if string theory has a de Sitter excited state?,

    J. Chakravarty and K. Dasgupta, “What if string theory has a de Sitter excited state?,” JHEP 10, 065 (2024) [arXiv:2404.11680 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    de Sitter Vacua in the String Landscape,

    K. Dasgupta, M. Emelin, M. M. Faruk and R. Tatar, “de Sitter Vacua in the String Landscape,” Nucl. Phys. B969, 115463 (2021) [arXiv:1908.05288 [hep-th]]; “How a four-dimensional de Sitter solution remains outside the swampland,” JHEP07, 109 (2021) [arXiv:1911.02604 [hep-th]]; “de Sitter Vacua in the String landscape: La Petite Version,” QTS2019 [arXiv:191...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Four-dimensional de Sitter space is a Glauber-Sudarshan state in string theory,

    S. Brahma, K. Dasgupta and R. Tatar, “Four-dimensional de Sitter space is a Glauber-Sudarshan state in string theory,” JHEP07, 114 (2021) [arXiv:2007.00786 [hep-th]]; “de Sitter Space as a Glauber-Sudarshan State,” JHEP02, 104 (2021) [arXiv:2007.11611 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Four-Dimensional Null Energy Condition as a Swampland Conjecture,

    H. Bernardo, S. Brahma, K. Dasgupta, M. M. Faruk and R. Tatar, “Four-Dimensional Null Energy Condition as a Swampland Conjecture,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, no.18, 181301 (2021) [arXiv:2107.06900 [hep-th]]; “de Sitter Space as a Glauber-Sudarshan State: II,” Fortsch. Phys. 69, no.11-12, 2100131 (2021) [arXiv:2108.08365 [hep-th]]; H. Bernardo, S. Brahma, K. Das...

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Resurgence of a de Sitter Glauber-Sudarshan State: Nodal Diagrams and Borel Resummation,

    S. Brahma, K. Dasgupta, M. M. Faruk, B. Kulinich, V. Meruliya, B. Pym and R. Tatar, “Resurgence of a de Sitter Glauber-Sudarshan State: Nodal Diagrams and Borel Resummation,” Fortsch. Phys.71, no.12, 2300136 (2023) [arXiv:2211.09181 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Gauge Algebra and Quantization,

    I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, “Gauge Algebra and Quantization,” Phys. Lett. B102, 27-31 (1981); “Quantization of Gauge Theories with Linearly Dependent Generators,” Phys. Rev. D 28, 2567-2582 (1983) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D30, 508 (1984)]

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    The Trans-Planckian problem of inflationary cosmology,

    J. Martin and R. H. Brandenberger, “The Trans-Planckian problem of inflationary cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D63, 123501 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0005209 [hep-th]]; A. Bedroya and C. Vafa, “Trans-Planckian Censorship and the Swampland,” JHEP09, 123 (2020) [arXiv:1909.11063 [hep-th]]; A. Bedroya, R. Brandenberger, M. Loverde and C. Vafa, “Trans-Planckian Censorship ...

    arXiv 2001

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 2: Modern applications,

    S. Weinberg, “The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 2: Modern applications,” Cambridge University Press, 2013, ISBN 978-1-139-63247-8, Section 15.8, page 41

    2013

  2. [10]

    Lectures on non-perturbative effects in largeN gauge theories, matrix models and strings,

    See M. Mariño, “Lectures on non-perturbative effects in largeN gauge theories, matrix models and strings,” Fortsch. Phys.62, 455-540 (2014) [arXiv:1206.6272 [hep-th]], and references therein; G. V. Dunne and M. Ünsal, “Resurgence and Trans-series in Quantum Field Theory: The C...

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Effective Theories as Truncated Trans-Series and Scale Separated Compactifications,

    M. Emelin, “Effective Theories as Truncated Trans-Series and Scale Separated Compactifications,” JHEP 11, 144 (2020) [arXiv:2005.11421 [hep-th]]; “Obstacles for dS in Supersymmetric Theories,” PoSCORFU2021, 187 (2022) [arXiv:2206.01603 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Quantization of gravity in the black hole background,

    R. Kallosh and A. A. Rahman, “Quantization of gravity in the black hole background,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.8, 086008 (2021) [arXiv:2106.01966 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Feynman integral for singular Lagrangians,

    L. D. Faddeev, “Feynman integral for singular Lagrangians,” Theor. Math. Phys.1, 1-13 (1969); L. D. Faddeev and V. N. Popov, “Covariant quantization of the gravitational field,” Usp. Fiz. Nauk 111, 427-450 (1973)

    1969

  6. [14]

    Role of Surface Integrals in the Hamiltonian Formulation of – 42 – General Relativity,

    T. Regge and C. Teitelboim, “Role of Surface Integrals in the Hamiltonian Formulation of – 42 – General Relativity,” Annals Phys.88, 286 (1974); S. Deser, J. H. Kay and K. S. Stelle, “Hamiltonian Formulation of Supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D16, 2448 (1977); S. Deser and C. Teitel...

    1974

  7. [15]

    Evolution without evolution: Dynamics described by stationary observables,

    D. N. Page and W. K. Wootters, “Evolution without evolution: Dynamics described by stationary observables,” Phys. Rev. D27, 2885 (1983)

    1983

  8. [16]

    Holography from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,

    C. Chowdhury, V. Godet, O. Papadoulaki and S. Raju, “Holography from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,” JHEP 03, 019 (2022) [arXiv:2107.14802 [hep-th]]; T. Chakraborty, J. Chakravarty, V. Godet, P. Paul and S. Raju, “The Hilbert space of de Sitter quantum gravity,” JHEP01, 132 (202...

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A background-independent algebra in quantum gravity,

    E. Witten, “A background-independent algebra in quantum gravity,” JHEP03, 077 (2024) [arXiv:2308.03663 [hep-th]]; C. H. Chen and G. Penington, “A clock is just a way to tell the time: gravitational algebras in cosmological spacetimes,” [arXiv:2406.02116 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mémoire sur les séries divergentes

    E. Borel, “Mémoire sur les séries divergentes", Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér., Series 3,16, 9–131 (1899)

  11. [19]

    Les fonctions resurgentes,

    J. Écalle, “Les fonctions resurgentes,"vol I - III , Publ. Math. Orsay (1981)

    1981

  12. [20]

    Role of conformal three geometry in the dynamics of gravitation,

    J. W. York, Jr., “Role of conformal three geometry in the dynamics of gravitation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1082-1085 (1972); G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Action Integrals and Partition Functions in Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D15, 2752-2756 (1977)

    1972

  13. [21]

    On the quantization of a theory arising from a variational principle for multiple integrals with application to Born’s electrodynamics,

    P. Weiss, “On the quantization of a theory arising from a variational principle for multiple integrals with application to Born’s electrodynamics,” Proc. R. Soc. A156, 192 (1936); A textbook treatment of Weiss variation appears in: N. Mukunda and E. C. G. Sudarshan, “Classical...

    1936

  14. [22]

    The Weiss Variation of the Gravitational Action,

    J. C. Feng and R. A. Matzner, “The Weiss Variation of the Gravitational Action,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 50, no.8, 99 (2018) [arXiv:1708.04489 [gr-qc]]; “From path integrals to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation: Time evolution in spacetimes with a spatial boundary,” Phys. Rev. D 96, no.10, ...

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Theory of longitudinal photons in quantum electrodynamics,

    S. N. Gupta, “Theory of longitudinal photons in quantum electrodynamics,” Proc. Phys. Soc. A 63, 681-691 (1950); K. Bleuler, “A New method of treatment of the longitudinal and scalar photons,” Helv. Phys. Acta23, 567-586 (1950)

    1950

  16. [24]

    Five-branes, membranes and nonperturbative string theory,

    K. Becker, M. Becker and A. Strominger, “Five-branes, membranes and nonperturbative string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B456, 130-152 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9507158 [hep-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  17. [25]

    String Field Theory: A Review,

    A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, “String Field Theory: A Review,” [arXiv:2405.19421 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    de Sitter and Quasi de Sitter States inSO(32) and E8 × E8 Heterotic String Theories,

    S. Brahma, K. Dasgupta, A. Maji, B. Kulinich, P. Ramadevi and R. Tatar, “de Sitter and Quasi de Sitter States inSO(32) and E8 × E8 Heterotic String Theories,”To Appear; S. Alexander, K. Dasgupta, A. Maji, P. Ramadevi and R. Tatar, “de Sitter State in Heterotic String Theory,” ...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Coherent states in M-theory: A brane scan using the Taub-NUT geometry,

    J. Chakravarty, K. Dasgupta, D. Jain, D. P. Jatkar, A. Maji and R. Tatar, “Coherent states in M-theory: A brane scan using the Taub-NUT geometry,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.8, L081902 (2023) [arXiv:2308.08613 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M theory on eight manifolds,

    K. Becker and M. Becker, “M theory on eight manifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B477, 155-167 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9605053 [hep-th]]; K. Dasgupta, G. Rajesh and S. Sethi, “M theory, orientifolds and G - flux,” JHEP08, 023 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9908088 [hep-th]]; K. Becker and K. Dasgupta, ...

    1996 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Wave Function of the Universe,

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, “Wave Function of the Universe,” Phys. Rev. D28, 2960-2975 (1983); S. W. Hawking, “The Quantum State of the Universe,” Nucl. Phys. B239, 257 (1984); A. Vilenkin, “Quantum Creation of Universes,” Phys. Rev. D30, 509-511 (1984); “Boundary Conditio...

    1983

  22. [30]

    Derivation of the Wheeler-De Witt Equation from a Path Integral for Minisuperspace Models,

    J. J. Halliwell, “Derivation of the Wheeler-De Witt Equation from a Path Integral for Minisuperspace Models,” Phys. Rev. D38, 2468 (1988); J. J. Halliwell and J. B. Hartle, “Wave functions constructed from an invariant sum over histories satisfy constraints,” Phys. Rev. D43, 1...

    1988

  23. [31]

    On the Back reaction problem for gravitational perturbations,

    V. F. Mukhanov, L. R. W. Abramo and R. H. Brandenberger, “On the Back reaction problem for gravitational perturbations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1624-1627 (1997) [arXiv:gr-qc/9609026 [gr-qc]]; R. H. Brandenberger, “Back reaction of cosmological perturbations and the cosmological c...

    1997 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Is the Superstring Weakly Coupled?,

    M. Dine and N. Seiberg, “Is the Superstring Weakly Coupled?,” Phys. Lett. B162, 299-302 (1985). – 44 –

    1985

  25. [33]

    Aspects of supergravity theories,

    G. W. Gibbons, “Aspects of supergravity theories,” print-85-0061 (Cambridge); J. M. Maldacena and C. Nunez, “Supergravity description of field theories on curved manifolds and a no go theorem,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16, 822-855 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0007018 [hep-th]]; G. W. Gibbo...

    2001 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sur la nature analytique des solutions des équations aux dérivées partielles. Premier mémoire

    M. Gevrey, “Sur la nature analytique des solutions des équations aux dérivées partielles. Premier mémoire", Annales scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure, 35, 129–190 (1918); G. Mittag-Leffler, “Sur la représentation arithmétique des fonctions analytiques d’une variable ...

    1918

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.