Principles for a Distinguished Global Vacuum: Entropy and the Vacuum State in Causal Set Theory

Joshua Y. L. Jones

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Principles for a Distinguished Global Vacuum: Entropy and the Vacuum State in Causal Set Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that entropic purity, together with a short list of natural axioms and the L2 field-space inner product, singles out the Sorkin-Johnston state as the only candidate global vacuum for a quasifree scalar field on a causal…

desk verdict The paper's uniqueness claim for the Sorkin-Johnston vacuum has a genuine commutativity gap: the proof that purity implies H^2=-Δ^2 fails, and a simple counterexample shows the stated axioms do not single out the SJ state. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07832 v1 pith:PYXLZI3Y submitted 2024-12-10 gr-qc cond-mat.stat-mechhep-thmath-phmath.MP

Joshua Y. L. Jones This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qccond-mat.stat-mechhep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 83C4781T2083C45 PACS 04.60.-m04.62.+v

keywords causalsettheorySorkin-JohnstonvacuumentropicpurityquasifreescalarfieldWightmanaxiomsglobalspectralentropy

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 asks what picks out a vacuum state for a real scalar quantum field when there is no time-translation symmetry to define positive frequency. Working on a causal set—a discrete ordered model of spacetime—the author shows that entropic purity plus a short list of natural conditions leaves exactly one candidate global vacuum, the Sorkin-Johnston state. The argument turns on a spectral entropy formula that assigns an entropy to any quasifree state; demanding zero entropy for the global vacuum forces the state to be the positive part of the commutator. If the argument holds, it supplies an entirely covariant criterion for vacuum selection in quantum field theory on discrete spacetime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spectral entropy formula $S(W)=\sum_{\zeta\in\mathrm{spec} Z}\zeta\ln|\zeta|$ with $Z=-i\Delta^{-1}W$, where the Wightman matrix is decomposed as $W=\tfrac12(H+i\Delta)$. This formula converts purity into a spectral projection condition: $S(W)=0$ iff the eigenvalues of $Z$ are 0 or 1, which gives the operator equation $W\Delta^{-1}W=iW$ and hence $H=\pm\sqrt{-\Delta^2}$. The Peierls relation $\Delta=\mathrm{G}_R-\mathrm{G}_A$ ties the commutator to the causal propagator, and the $L^2$ field-space inner product supplies the metric structure in which $\Delta$ is bounded and the entropy is evaluated. The result is that the distinguished vacuum is the positive spectral part of the causal propagator, $\operatorname{pos}(i(\mathrm{G}_R-\mathrm{G}_A))$.

What would settle it

Compute the entropy formula $S(W)$ in equation (7) using two different invariant inner products on the same globally hyperbolic causal set. If purity selects different states, or if some state has $S(W)=0$ under one inner product but not the other, the uniqueness claim in equation (11) fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the global vacuum is not an additional input but a consequence: with positive semidefiniteness (A1), hermiticity (A2), purity (A3), manifold symmetry realized as an invariant inner product (A4), global hyperbolicity, normal hyperbolicity, quasifreedom, and the Peierls relation, the Wightman matrix must take the form $W = \operatorname{pos}(i(\mathrm{G}_R-\mathrm{G}_A))$. The route is direct. Writing $W=\tfrac12(H+i\Delta)$, purity forces the operator $Z=-i\Delta^{-1}W$ to be a projection, so $H^2=-\Delta^2$; positive semidefiniteness then selects the positive square root, $W=\tfrac12(\sqrt{-\Delta^2}+i\Delta)$, which is the Sorkin-Johnston state. Thus positive frequency is replaced, covariantly, by the positive eigenspectrum of the causal propagator.

Load-bearing premise

The uniqueness result depends on choosing the L2 inner product on the field space: the paper says manifold symmetry requires an invariant inner product but does not fix it, and L2 is selected as the most natural rather than forced.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In any globally hyperbolic causal set admitting a quasifree real scalar field, accepting the seven conditions forces the Wightman function to be the Sorkin-Johnston state; no other candidate survives.
For static spacetimes of infinite timelike extent, the Sorkin-Johnston state coincides with the conventional positive-frequency vacuum, so the criterion does not discard known physics.
The cluster property and spacelike commutativity need not be imposed separately; they follow from the axioms and the causal support of the Green functions.
The construction is inherently non-local, because purity is judged using the whole spacetime inner product, and therefore it lies outside the reach of no-go results aimed at dynamically local vacuum choices.
If the vacuum is required to be pure, the Sorkin-Johnston prescription should be applied only to complete spacetimes, not to subregions where restrictions are generically mixed.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension: if a different invariant inner product satisfies A4, the argument would not go through unchanged, and testing whether any such inner product changes the purity-selected state on de Sitter or ultrastatic slabs would map the true scope of uniqueness.
Extension: the replacement of positive frequency by the positive spectrum of the commutator suggests a covariant definition of vacuum that could be exported beyond causal sets, for example to any spacetime where the causal propagator has a well-defined spectral decomposition.
Extension: the paper notes the construction should extend to fermions with a modified Peierls relation, so a concrete next step is to check whether a fermionic analogue preserves purity and selects a unique state.
Extension: the non-locality used to evade the no-go theorem may be testable if a dynamical spacetime setting allowed manipulation of the background, since the paper flags that such vacuum engineering could otherwise suggest faster-than-light influence.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper is a clean short summary of the Sorkin-Johnston vacuum and its entropic motivation, but the central uniqueness theorem has a real gap. The step in §4 where using A2 and the decoupled basis of (3) you conclude H and Δ commute is not justified. Williamson normal form uses a symplectic transformation that does not preserve the L2 inner product, so commutativity in that basis does not imply commutativity back in the original basis. Without it, purity does not force H^2=-Δ^2. A simple counterexample: Δ = [[0,-1],[1,0]], H = diag(a,a^{-1}) with a>0 and a≠1. Then W = ½(H+iΔ) is Hermitian and positive semidefinite, Z = -iΔ^{-1}W is a projection so S(W)=0, yet H^2 ≠ I = -Δ^2, so W ≠ pos(iΔ). This is not contrived: the O(4,1)-invariant α-vacua in de Sitter are pure quasifree states with the same Peierls commutator and generically not the SJ state, as the paper itself notes. So the axiom system in (11) does not single out the SJ state as claimed.

What is good: the paper collects the Sorkin-Johnston construction and the global entropy formula into a clear set of principles. The discussion of the Fewster-Verch no-go theorem and the non-locality of global vacuum assignments is thoughtful. The author is honest about the L2 field-space choice not being fully forced by the symmetry axiom, and about the open Hadamard issues in de Sitter. The writing is lucid.

The circularity concern is real but secondary: purity is defined through Z=-iΔ^{-1}W, the same spectral object used to construct the SJ state, so part of the conclusion is structurally presupposed. The immediate mathematical problem is the commutativity step. Adding [H,Δ]=0 as an explicit axiom would make the derivation go through, but that is a stronger condition than any of the stated principles, and it is not implied by the others.

Who is this for: people in causal set QFT who want a tidy statement of the SJ state's role. As a proceedings piece it is fine, but as a research claim it needs revision. I would send it to a referee because the gap is instructive and the topic is active, but a serious referee should catch the flaw and demand the argument be fixed or the claim weakened.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper argues that, for a real scalar field on a causal set, the Sorkin-Johnston (SJ) vacuum W_SJ = pos(iΔ) is the unique global vacuum compatible with a set of principles: positivity (A1), hermiticity (A2), purity as defined by a spectral entropy formula (A3), and invariance under manifold symmetries (A4), together with global hyperbolicity, normal hyperbolicity, quasifreedom, the Peierls relation, and the choice of the L2 field space. Section 3 reviews the global entropy formula S(W)=Σ ζ ln|ζ| with Z=-iΔ^{-1}W; Section 4 derives Eq. (10) by setting S=0 and then concludes Eq. (11). The paper closes with remarks on the Wightman axioms, non-locality, and open questions about the Hadamard property.

Significance. If valid, the result would give a covariant, entropy-based derivation of the SJ state as the preferred vacuum for causal-set QFT, and it would clarify why purity is the key selection principle. The paper is clearly written and appropriately flags the unresolved choice of field space and the unclear status of the SJ state in de Sitter space. However, the central derivation contains a specific algebraic gap: purity as defined by (7) does not force H and Δ to commute, and explicit non-SJ pure quasifree states satisfy all the state axioms. Since the uniqueness claim rests on this gap, the main theorem is not established in the present form.

major comments (3)

[§4, Eqs. (8)–(10)] The step leading to Eq. (10) is invalid. From S(W)=0 one obtains Z²=Z, i.e. WΔ^{-1}W=iW, equivalently HΔ^{-1}H=-Δ. The next sentence, "Using A2 and the decoupled basis of (3), we see H and Δ commute", does not follow: the symplectic transformation that puts H into Williamson normal form is not unitary in the L2 inner product, and commutativity in the transformed basis is not preserved by the inverse congruence back to the original basis. A counterexample is Δ = [[0,-1],[1,0]], H = diag(a,a^{-1}) with a>0, a≠1. Then W = 1/2(H+iΔ) is Hermitian and positive semidefinite, HΔ^{-1}H = -Δ, so S(W)=0 by (7), but H² ≠ -Δ² and hence W ≠ pos(iΔ). This is a squeezed pure quasifree state satisfying A1–A3. Thus Eq. (10) and the implication (11) are not established.
[§4, A3 and Eq. (11)] A3 does not select the SJ state. Formula (7) is constructed from the same spectral object Z=-iΔ^{-1}W that defines the SJ state, and S(W)=0 is satisfied by all pure quasifree states, not only by the SJ state. In the counterexample above the state is pure and has zero entropy, but a different choice of positive H solves the same equations. An additional condition such as [H,Δ]=0 would be needed; it is not among the axioms listed in Eq. (11). A4 cannot fill this gap because for causal sets with trivial automorphism group it is vacuous, and in de Sitter the α-vacua are invariant pure quasifree states, as the paper itself notes in §4.1.
[Sec. 4, field-space choice] The theorem is conditional on the L2 field space in a load-bearing way. The paper states that A4 requires an invariant inner product but "does not constrain the inner product entirely" and that L2 is chosen as "most natural" rather than forced. Since the entropy formula (7) and the spectral projector pos(iΔ) both depend on this inner product, a different invariant inner product can change the distinguished state. Consequently, the uniqueness claim in Eq. (11) is not a consequence of the physical principles alone; it includes an unproven modeling choice.

minor comments (5)

[Page 3, footnote f] The note that bilinear forms have not been distinguished from operators is not merely a notational remark; the proof uses both interpretations. Please define the field space and the inner product explicitly before Eq. (7).
[Page 4, Eq. (7)] The use of ζ ln|ζ| for negative eigenvalues should be justified, since it differs from the usual trace formula for von Neumann entropy in sign for each term.
[References [24] and [36]] The author listed as "N. X" appears to be a placeholder and should be corrected.
[Page 5] "Perscription" is a typo for "prescription"; please correct it.
[Sec. 4, non-locality paragraph] The phrase "We have spooky action at a distance" is informal; if the non-locality point is to be made, it should be stated as a precise technical limitation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SJ-state conclusion is not equivalent to the input axioms by construction; the derivation's gap is a missing commutativity justification, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed reduction from the axioms to W = pos(iDelta) is not circular in the sense defined here. Purity is imposed through the independent entropy functional (7), S(W) = sum zeta ln|zeta| with Z = -i Delta^{-1} W, and setting S(W)=0 makes Z a projection. This is a necessary condition for any pure quasifree state with the given Peierls commutator, not a definition of the Sorkin-Johnston state; non-commuting pure states (e.g., H = diag(a,a^{-1}), Delta = [[0,-1],[1,0]]) satisfy S=0 but have H^2 neq -Delta^2 and W neq pos(iDelta). The step that would force the SJ form is the assertion 'Using (A2) and the decoupled basis of (3), we see H and Delta commute,' which is a soundness gap: the Williamson decoupled basis is obtained by a symplectic congruence diagonalizing H, and commutativity in that basis does not transfer back to the original L2 operator basis unless the transformation is unitary. That is a missing mathematical justification, not an equivalence of the conclusion with the inputs. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation is used, and the L2 choice is explicitly acknowledged as 'the most natural' rather than forced, making the uniqueness claim conditional but not definitionally circular. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 11 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's derivation rests on the explicit principles A1-A4 plus background assumptions GH, NH, QF, P, the L2 field space, and the global entropy formula (7). None of these are derived within the paper; several are choices made to recover the known SJ state.

assumptions (11)

domain assumption A1: Positive semidefiniteness of W (W ≥ 0)
A standard physical requirement for a state's two-point function, listed as a principle in Section 4.
domain assumption A2: Hermiticity W = W†
Standard Wightman axiom required for real correlation functions.
domain assumption A3: Purity S(W) = 0
The vacuum is assumed pure, imposing zero global entropy. This is a physical principle rather than a derivation.
domain assumption A4: Manifold symmetry g ◦ W = W
Vacuum must inherit the spacetime symmetries, a curved-space generalization of Poincaré invariance.
domain assumption GH: Global hyperbolicity of the spacetime
Ensures existence and uniqueness of Green functions for the normally hyperbolic operator.
domain assumption NH: Normally hyperbolic equation of motion Kφ = 0
Restricts the field equation to the class for which retarded/advanced Green functions exist.
domain assumption QF: Quasifree (Gaussian) state
The two-point function determines all n-point functions, simplifying entropy computations.
domain assumption P: Peierls relation Δ = G (Pauli-Jordan = causal propagator)
Connects the quantum commutator to the classical causal propagator; used to define Δ in Eq (1).
ad hoc to paper L2 field space: L2 inner product on the space of fields
The paper chooses L2 as the 'most natural' field space, noting A4 does not fix the inner product uniquely. This choice is load-bearing for the entropy formula and for the uniqueness of SJ.
domain assumption Global entropy formula S(W) = Σ ζ ln|ζ| with Z=-iΔ^{-1}W
The paper adopts this formula from ref 7 to define entropy; purity S=0 is the key condition that forces the SJ state. If a different entropy functional were used, the conclusion could change.
standard math Williamson's theorem (symplectic diagonalization)
Used in Section 3 to decompose the two-point matrix into independent modes; standard result in symplectic linear algebra.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Principles for a Distinguished Global Vacuum: Entropy and the Vacuum State in Causal Set Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PYXLZI3Y

@misc{pith2026241207832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Principles for a Distinguished Global Vacuum: Entropy and the Vacuum State in Causal Set Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PYXLZI3Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07832}
}

read the original abstract

Using the framework of real scalar field theory on causal sets, the intimate relation of the Sorkin-Johnston vacuum to entropic purity is elucidated. It is shown that taking a set of sensible principles, and the most natural assumption on the space of fields, leaves the Sorkin-Johnston state as the only candidate for the global vacuum of a quasifree theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

S. W. Hawking, A. R. King and P. J. McCarthy, A new topology f or curved space–time which incorporates the causal, diﬀerential, and conformal structures, Journal of Math- ematical Physics 17, 174 (02 1976)

work page 1976
[2]

D. B. Malament, The class of continuous timelike curves de termines the topology of spacetime, Journal of Mathematical Physics 18, 1399 (07 1977)

work page 1977
[3]

Riemann, On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Bases of Geom etry, Nature 8, 14 (May 1873), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

B. Riemann, On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Bases of Geom etry, Nature 8, 14 (May 1873), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

work page
[4]

Bombelli, J

L. Bombelli, J. Lee, D. Meyer and R. D. Sorkin, Space-time a s a causal set, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 521 (Aug 1987)

work page 1987
[5]

Butterﬁeld and F

J. Butterﬁeld and F. Dowker, Recovering general relativi ty from a planck scale discrete theory of quantum gravity, Philosophy of Physics 2 (May 2024)

work page 2024
[6]

Surya, The causal set approach to quantum gravity, Living Rev

S. Surya, The causal set approach to quantum gravity, Living Rev. Rel. 22, p. 5 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

R. D. Sorkin, Expressing entropy globally in terms of (4d) ﬁeld-correlations, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 484, p. 012004 (mar 2014)

work page 2014
[8]

Johnston, Feynman propagator for a free scalar ﬁeld on a causal set, Phys

S. Johnston, Feynman propagator for a free scalar ﬁeld on a causal set, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, p. 180401 (Oct 2009)

work page 2009

Show all 36 references

[9]

R. D. Sorkin, Scalar ﬁeld theory on a causal set in historie s form, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 306, p. 012017 (jul 2011)

2011
[10]

Afshordi, S

N. Afshordi, S. Aslanbeigi and R. D. Sorkin, A Distinguis hed Vacuum State for a Quantum Field in a Curved Spacetime: Formalism, Features, a nd Cosmology, JHEP 08, p. 137 (2012)

2012
[11]

R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman, PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2001)

2001
[12]

Gel’fand and M

I. Gel’fand and M. Na ˘ ımark, On the imbedding of normed ri ngs into the ring of operators in Hilbert space, Mat. Sb., Nov. Ser. 12, 197 (1943)

1943
[13]

I. E. Segal, Irreducible representations of operator al gebras, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 53, 73 (1947)

1947
[14]

R. M. Wald, The Back Reaction Eﬀect in Particle Creation i n Curved Space-Time, Commun. Math. Phys. 54, 1 (1977)

1977
[15]

R. M. Wald, Trace anomaly of a conformally invariant quan tum ﬁeld in curved space- time, Phys. Rev. D 17, 1477 (Mar 1978)

1978
[16]

B. S. Kay and R. M. Wald, Theorems on the uniqueness and the rmal properties of stationary, nonsingular, quasifree states on spacetimes w ith a bifurcate killing horizon, Physics Reports 207, 49 (1991)

1991
[17]

M. J. Radzikowski, Micro-local approach to the Hadamard condition in quantum ﬁeld theory on curved space-time, Commun. Math. Phys. 179, 529 (1996)

1996
[18]

Brunetti, K

R. Brunetti, K. Fredenhagen and M. Kohler, The Microloca l spectrum condition and Wick polynomials of free ﬁelds on curved space-times, Commun. Math. Phys. 180, 633 (1996)

1996
[19]

Brunetti and K

R. Brunetti and K. Fredenhagen, Microlocal analysis and interacting quantum ﬁeld theories: Renormalization on physical backgrounds, Commun. Math. Phys. 208, 623 December 12, 2024 1:2 ws-procs961x669 WSPC Proceedings - 9. 61in x 6.69in MG17-Short page 8 8 (2000)

2000
[20]

C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, The necessity of the hadamard c ondition, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, p. 235027 (nov 2013)

2013
[21]

Hollands and R

S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, Axiomatic quantum ﬁeld theory in curved spacetime, Commun. Math. Phys. 293, 85 (2010)

2010
[22]

B¨ ar, N

C. B¨ ar, N. Ginoux and F. Pf¨ aﬄe,Wave Equations on Lorentzian Manifolds and Quan- tization (European Mathematical Society, Zurich, 2007)

2007
[23]

Johnston, Particle propagators on discrete spacetim e, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity 25, p

S. Johnston, Particle propagators on discrete spacetim e, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity 25, p. 202001 (sep 2008)

2008
[24]

N. X, F. Dowker and S. Surya, Scalar ﬁeld green functions o n causal sets, Classical and Quantum Gravity 34, p. 124002 (may 2017)

2017
[25]

R. E. Peierls, The commutation laws of relativistic ﬁeld theory, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physica l Sciences 214, 143 (1952)

1952
[26]

R. D. Sorkin, From green function to quantum ﬁeld, International Journal of Geo- metric Methods in Modern Physics 14, p. 1740007 (2017)

2017
[27]

R. D. Sorkin and Y. K. Yazdi, Entanglement entropy in caus al set theory, Classical and Quantum Gravity 35, p. 074004 (mar 2018)

2018
[28]

Brum and K

M. Brum and K. Fredenhagen, ‘vacuum-like’ hadamard stat es for quantum ﬁelds on curved spacetimes, Classical and Quantum Gravity 31, p. 025024 (dec 2013)

2013
[29]

Bombelli, R

L. Bombelli, R. K. Koul, J. Lee and R. D. Sorkin, Quantum so urce of entropy for black holes, Phys. Rev. D 34, 373 (Jul 1986)

1986
[30]

Srednicki, Entropy and area, Phys

M. Srednicki, Entropy and area, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 666 (Aug 1993)

1993
[31]

Keseman, H

T. Keseman, H. J. Muneesamy and Y. K. Yazdi, Insights on en tanglement entropy in 1 + 1 dimensional causal sets, Classical and Quantum Gravity 39, p. 245004 (nov 2022)

2022
[32]

C. F. Duﬀy, J. Y. L. Jones and Y. K. Yazdi, Entanglement ent ropy of disjoint space- time intervals in causal set theory, Classical and Quantum Gravity 39, p. 075017 (mar 2022)

2022
[33]

C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, On a recent construction of ‘va cuum-like’ quantum ﬁeld states in curved spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, p. 205017 (sep 2012)

2012
[34]

C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, Dynamical locality and covari ance: What makes a physical theory the same in all spacetimes?, Annales Henri Poincar´ e13, 1613 (2012)

2012
[35]

Aslanbeigi and M

S. Aslanbeigi and M. Buck, A preferred ground state for th e scalar ﬁeld in de Sitter space, JHEP 08, p. 039 (2013)

2013
[36]

Surya, N

S. Surya, N. X and Y. K. Yazdi, Studies on the SJ Vacuum in de Sitter Spacetime, JHEP 07, p. 009 (2019)

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S. W. Hawking, A. R. King and P. J. McCarthy, A new topology f or curved space–time which incorporates the causal, diﬀerential, and conformal structures, Journal of Math- ematical Physics 17, 174 (02 1976)

work page 1976

[2] [2]

D. B. Malament, The class of continuous timelike curves de termines the topology of spacetime, Journal of Mathematical Physics 18, 1399 (07 1977)

work page 1977

[3] [3]

Riemann, On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Bases of Geom etry, Nature 8, 14 (May 1873), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

B. Riemann, On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Bases of Geom etry, Nature 8, 14 (May 1873), Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

work page

[4] [4]

Bombelli, J

L. Bombelli, J. Lee, D. Meyer and R. D. Sorkin, Space-time a s a causal set, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 521 (Aug 1987)

work page 1987

[5] [5]

Butterﬁeld and F

J. Butterﬁeld and F. Dowker, Recovering general relativi ty from a planck scale discrete theory of quantum gravity, Philosophy of Physics 2 (May 2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Surya, The causal set approach to quantum gravity, Living Rev

S. Surya, The causal set approach to quantum gravity, Living Rev. Rel. 22, p. 5 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [7]

R. D. Sorkin, Expressing entropy globally in terms of (4d) ﬁeld-correlations, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 484, p. 012004 (mar 2014)

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Johnston, Feynman propagator for a free scalar ﬁeld on a causal set, Phys

S. Johnston, Feynman propagator for a free scalar ﬁeld on a causal set, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, p. 180401 (Oct 2009)

work page 2009