Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

This paper claims that gravity is emergent exactly when the spin-2 spectral density of the energy-momentum tensor commutator develops an isolated zero-momentum pole—and that if it does, Weinberg's low-energy theorem forces the low-energy th

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 10:14 UTC pith:UXQ2IG2O

load-bearing objection A serious, intelligently written emergent-gravity proposal whose conditional pole-to-Einstein-Hilbert chain is sound, but whose selection of the δ-pole is undermined by an internal sum-rule contradiction. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21621 v2 pith:UXQ2IG2O submitted 2026-06-24 hep-th gr-qc

A Spectral Criterion for Emergent Gravity

Jinku Guo This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc
keywords emergent gravityspectral functionenergy-momentum tensorspin-2 polecoarse-grainingWeinberg low-energy theoremcosmological constantrenormalization group
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish a specific, testable criterion for gravity to be emergent: the spin-2 spectral density of the energy-momentum tensor commutator must develop an isolated pole at zero momentum, ρ^(2)(μ²)=Zδ(μ²)+ρ_cont(μ²). If that pole exists, Weinberg's low-energy theorem locks the low-energy description to Einstein–Hilbert form, so general relativity, the equivalence principle, Newton's constant, and the cosmological constant become consequences of vacuum fluctuation statistics rather than inputs. The framework's internal logic forces any stationary spectral configuration to be nonsmooth, and among nonsmooth candidates compatible with positivity, locality, and the conservation-law sum rule, an isolated δ-function is the natural choice. A reader should care because the same mechanism would explain why gravity is so weak compared with particle physics scales and why the observed dark-energy density is tied to the Hubble scale instead of to vacuum-energy estimates that miss by many orders of magnitude.

Core claim

The central claim is that gravity is a statistical phase transition in the vacuum fluctuation spectrum of ordinary quantum fields, not a fundamental interaction. In the paper's own terms: the spin-2 channel of the energy-momentum tensor commutator is the only unsuppressed channel that can carry long-range correlations; coarse-graining the spectral density produces a flow whose only admissible stationary configurations are nonsmooth; the δ-function pole at zero momentum is the unique candidate consistent with unitarity, locality, and the Ward-identity sum rule; and if the pole forms, the massless spin-2 excitation is necessarily composite, with Weinberg's low-energy theorem fixing its self-co

What carries the argument

The machinery is the coarse-graining flow of the spin-2 spectral density, dρ/dσ = −μ²σρ + Δσ(μ²), combining dilution with an injection term from integrated fast modes. The decisive step is the contradiction argument: a smooth stationary point would require the O(μ^4) coefficient of Δσ to vanish, but conservation of the energy-momentum tensor forbids that, so any fixed point must be nonsmooth; positivity plus the superconvergence sum rule ∫dμ² μ² ρ^(2)(μ²)=0 then select an isolated δ-function at zero momentum. The zero-momentum ladder resummation, a geometric series 1/(1−λ_eff Π0(0)), is the microscopic mechanism that can produce the pole, and the pole residue Z sets Newton's constant.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction stands or falls on whether the real particle spectrum's vacuum fluctuations collectively reach a critical strength that creates a zero-momentum pole; the paper demonstrates that only in a simpler model with a conserved vector current, not for gravity's tensor case—and it also requires the spectral-weight injection to remain nonzero at every stationary scale.

What would settle it

Compute the transverse-traceless part of the energy-momentum tensor two-point function in a nonperturbative scheme such as lattice gauge theory. If the spin-2 spectral density shows no isolated pole at μ²=0 and no 1/p² term in the correlator, the criterion is falsified; equivalently, if the effective coupling never reaches 1/Π0(0), no pole forms and the framework is discarded by its own standard.

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

If this is right

  • If the pole forms, the low-energy effective action is forced to Einstein–Hilbert form, and the equivalence principle becomes a derived fact rather than a postulate.
  • Newton's constant is fixed by the pole residue, G=1/(8πZ), so the weakness of gravity is traced to the smallness of the spectral residue.
  • The cosmological constant is set by the infrared fixed-point scale, Λ∼(H0/c)^2, and static vacuum energy is excluded by the commutator construction, sidestepping the vacuum-energy catastrophe.
  • The effective temperature of coarse-graining, k_B T_eff=ℏc/(2πσ), returns the Hawking temperature when σ is taken at a black-hole horizon, a consistency check rather than an input.
  • The criterion is falsifiable: a nonperturbative computation of the spin-2 spectral density either finds the pole or discards the framework.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: if the criterion is correct, the existence of gravity becomes a contingent fact about the particle spectrum; in a different spectrum where the ladder sum never reaches threshold, no long-range spin-2 force would emerge.
  • A concrete search suggested by this reading is to compute the transverse-traceless part of the energy-momentum tensor two-point function near zero momentum in strongly coupled gauge sectors; growing spectral weight as μ²→0 would be the precursor of the pole.
  • Because the emergence scale M_G is not fixed by the framework, combining the predicted G∼M_G²/N_eff with the measured value of G brackets that scale between the electroweak and Planck scales, giving a target for searches for new physics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a spectral criterion for emergent gravity: if the spin-2 spectral density of the Standard-Model energy–momentum tensor commutator develops an isolated zero-momentum pole under coarse-graining, then the Källén–Lehmann representation yields a massless spin-2 propagator and Weinberg's low-energy theorem fixes the low-energy effective action to Einstein–Hilbert form. The manuscript constructs a coarse-grained rank-2 field from the spectral density, promotes the coarse-graining scale to a dynamical order parameter, derives an effective temperature T_eff = ℏc/(2πσ) from FRG entropy/energy kernels, and identifies Planck and Hubble scales as repulsive and attractive fixed points. It argues that smooth spectral functions cannot be fixed points and that a δ-function is the natural nonsmooth candidate. Appendices provide a large-N analogue for the O(N) Noether current, a Feynman-diagram classification of the injection term, and explicit statements of the limitations of the construction.

Significance. The conditional chain—pole → massless spin-2 propagator → Weinberg theorem → Einstein–Hilbert action—is standard and is presented coherently. If a rigorous nonperturbative calculation established the pole, the framework would provide a concrete route to emergent gravity, would make the equivalence principle a derived consequence rather than a postulate, and would connect the cosmological constant structurally to the Hubble scale. The paper is notably explicit about its own open points: Appendix A.6 lists the approximations in the Langevin derivation, Appendix B.5 concedes that the spin-1 large-N result does not transfer automatically to spin-2, and Section 6 states that the criterion is falsifiable and that absence of the pole discards the framework. These virtues should be credited. However, the analytical motivation for expecting the pole to form rests on a superconvergence sum rule that is not derived and is contradicted elsewhere in the paper, and the only exact solvable demonstration is for a spin-1 current. The paper therefore establishes a conditional theorem more securely than it establishes the criterion itself.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3 and Appendix B.4] Eq. (4.5), ∫ dµ² µ² ρ^(2)(µ²)=0, is the linchpin of the δ-function selection, but it is asserted without derivation and is contradicted by the paper's own Appendix B.4, which states that the spin-2 sum rule has the weighted form ∫ ds s·ρ(s)=const rather than zero. Moreover, unitarity gives ρ^(2)(s)≥0, and in the free-field continuum ρ^(2)(s)∝s², so the integral ∫ ds s·s² diverges positively; it cannot vanish except by a formal subtraction convention. If (4.5) is meant only in dimensional regularization, it cannot exclude physically smooth spectra. Since §4.2 assumes the smooth ansatz starts at O(µ⁴), the claim that a smooth fixed point is excluded loses its basis.
  2. [§4.2 and Appendix E] The fixed-point contradiction requires the O(µ⁴) coefficient A₂ of the injection term Δσ(µ²) to be nonzero at any stationary scale. The two supporting arguments are assertions: the heat-kernel coefficient is said to be unprotected, and Appendix E classifies diagrams but does not compute A₂. The actual pole condition is the model-dependent threshold 1−λ_eff Π₀(0)=0 of Eq. (E.5), and E.6 explicitly concedes that whether λ_eff reaches threshold depends on coupling strengths, particle spectra, and the full resummation. Thus the negative result 'smooth spectral functions cannot be fixed points' is not established for the Standard Model.
  3. [Appendix B.5] The only exactly solvable demonstration of pole formation is for a spin-1 O(N) Noether current, not for the spin-2 energy–momentum tensor. Appendix B.5 states in item (1) that the transfer to the stronger transversality condition of spin-2 is unverified. The large-N model is therefore a heuristic analog, not a proof of the central mechanism for the theory whose spectral density is the subject of the paper. This should be stated in the main text as a limitation of the criterion, not merely in an appendix.
  4. [§5.3 and §3.1] Several advertised outputs are inputs or substitutions. Λ∼1/σ_c²=(H0/c)² follows because σ_c is defined as c/H0 in §3.1; the Hawking temperature is recovered by inserting σ∼2r_S into the already-derived T_eff=ℏc/(2πσ), which is a consistency check, not an independent prediction; and G=1/(8πZ) leaves the emergence scale M_G free, as §5.3 admits. The abstract's wording that Newton's constant and the cosmological constant are 'determined' by the framework therefore overstates the present status.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] The sentence 'Can it signal a composite collective excitation mode?' appears twice verbatim in the introductory discussion. The duplicate should be removed.
  2. [§2.4] There is a typographical corruption in 'Φ µu' where Φµν is meant. Also, the string 'K”all’en-Lehmann' appears with corrupted quotes/accents in several places.
  3. [§3.3 and §3.4] Equation numbering appears to skip from (3.17) to (3.30)–(3.31), and the text refers to equations out of sequence. Renumbering would improve readability.
  4. [§5.3] The sign of Λ is asserted to be positive because the infrared fixed point is an attractor; no argument is given for why the effective potential has a minimum at σ_c rather than a maximum. This claim needs at least a dimensional or stability justification.
  5. [References] Several cited items are 2026 preprints with arXiv numbers that should be checked for publication status and stable identifiers, particularly [32], [37], [40], and [41].

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

Advertised δ-pole selection and Λ reduce to inputs by construction; the conditional pole→Einstein–Hilbert chain itself is not circular.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§4.3, Eq. (4.5); cf. App. B.4]
    "Positivity and this sum rule restrict nonsmooth behaviours. ... Within the Källen–Lehmann framework, the isolated δ-function at µ²=0 is the natural candidate. [Eq. 4.5:] ∫ dµ² µ² ρ^(2)(µ²)=0."

    With unitarity positivity ρ≥0, the integrand µ²ρ(µ²) is nonnegative on µ²>0, so the zero sum rule forces ρ(µ²)=0 for every µ²>0. The only positive solution is ρ=Zδ(µ²); the 'δ-function as natural candidate' is therefore the sum rule rewritten, not a dynamical selection. The same section then writes ρ=Zδ+ρ_cont, which cannot satisfy (4.5) unless the positive continuum is absent, and App. B.4 gives the spin-2 sum rule as ∫ds s ρ=const, not 0. The asserted premise already contains the advertised conclusion.

  2. self definitional [§3.1 and §5.3, Eq. (5.7)]
    "This critical value is set by the largest distance of causal contact in the universe, namely the Hubble horizon c/H0. Hence σ_c ∼ c/H0 is the largest scale at which correlations can exist. ... At the infrared fixed point σ_c = c/H0, ... Λ∼1/σ_c² = (H0/c)² ∼10⁻⁵² m⁻²."

    The infrared fixed-point scale is defined to be c/H0 before any coarse-graining dynamics is solved. The advertised cosmological-constant 'prediction' Λ=(H0/c)² is just that definition substituted into Λ∼1/σ_c². The paper itself admits the ratio σ0/σc is an observed input, so the Λ result is the Hubble input re-labeled, not a consequence of the spectral-pole mechanism.

  3. renaming known result [§5.3, Eq. (5.8); Eq. (3.16)]
    "The effective temperature T_eff = ℏc/(2πσ) also provides a consistency check with known gravitational thermodynamics. ... Taking σ∼2r_S = 4GM/c² in the effective temperature formula (3.16) yields ... the standard Hawking temperature."

    T_eff(σ)=ℏc/(2πσ) is a one-parameter family. Choosing σ=2r_S is exactly the substitution needed to recover Hawking's formula; the horizon identification is posited, not derived. The check therefore has no independent confirmatory content: the known Hawking result is reproduced by inserting the scale that makes the formula match it.

full rationale

The conditional chain 'massless spin-2 pole ⇒ Weinberg low-energy theorem ⇒ Einstein–Hilbert effective action' is not circular: Weinberg's theorem is an external, standard result, and the FRG kernel calculation of T_eff is an explicit computation from a specified regulator. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain; the cited graviton-spectral-function works are by other authors, and the paper's own appendices repeatedly state that SM pole formation is unproven. However, two advertised outputs are constructed from inputs. The cosmological constant is obtained by defining the IR scale as c/H0 and then reporting Λ=(H0/c)²; the Hawking temperature is obtained by setting σ=2r_S in the independently derived T_eff formula, which is a substitution rather than a prediction. More seriously, the selection of the δ-pole in §4.3 rests on the superconvergence sum rule (4.5), which with positivity already forces a pure zero-momentum δ; the paper's 'natural candidate' is the premise restated, and the premise is internally contradicted by App. B.4's ∫ds s ρ=const. These are genuine construction-level equivalences. By contrast, Newton's constant is left genuinely undetermined because M_G is not fixed; that is an underdetermination, not a circularity. The unproven threshold condition in App. E and the spin-1 vs spin-2 gap are soundness gaps, not circularity. Overall the central theorem is not equivalent to its input, but the advertised pole-selection and Λ results reduce to inputs, so a partial-circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The framework deliberately avoids new fundamental particles, but its input ledger is not empty: the pole, the fixed-point topology, the non-vanishing injection coefficient, and the spin-1 to spin-2 transfer are all assumed or argued heuristically. The two headline outputs (Λ and Hawking temperature) are substitutions of observed scales into definitions, and G is parametric through M_G. The contribution is therefore a conditional criterion and a research program, not a closed derivation.

free parameters (5)
  • Emergence scale M_G (pole residue Z) = undetermined; constrained by observed G to lie between electroweak and Planck scales
    G=1/(8πZ) with Z∼N_eff/M_G^2 (§5.3); M_G is not fixed by the framework, so the claimed determination of G is parametric.
  • IR fixed-point scale σ_c = c/H0 ≈ 1.3×10^26 m
    σ_c is set as the Hubble horizon in §3.1; Λ∼1/σ_c²=(H0/c)² is then reported as a prediction, making Λ a restatement of observed H0 rather than an independent derivation.
  • UV fixed-point scale σ_0 = ℓ_P ≈ 1.6×10^-35 m
    Assumed lower bound for statistical description of fluctuation inhomogeneity; the paper states the ratio σ0/σc≈10^-61 comes from the observed ratio of Planck length to Hubble radius, not from the coarse-graining process.
  • Effective number of active degrees of freedom N_eff = ≈100
    Standard Model polarization count used in the order-of-magnitude estimate of G in §5.3; scheme- and scale-dependent.
  • Critical ladder coupling λ_eff = 1/Π0(0) (model-dependent)
    Threshold for the geometric-series pole in Appendix E; not computed for the Standard Model, so the central pole condition remains an open model-dependent quantity.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The T-commutator spin-2 spectral density has a positive Källén-Lehmann representation and obeys the superconvergence sum rule ∫ μ²ρ^(2)(μ²)dμ²=0.
    Used throughout §2.2 and §4.3; positivity and the unsubtracted sum rule are nontrivial for a conserved composite two-point function and are not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The coarse-graining flow has exactly two fixed points, σ0 repulsive and σc attractive.
    Postulated in §3.1; the shape of β(σ) is not computed and the sign conditions are imposed rather than derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The O(μ^4) coefficient A2 of the injection term Δσ(μ²) is nonzero at any putative stationary scale.
    This is the load-bearing step of the no-smooth-fixed-point contradiction in §4.2; supported by heat-kernel and Feynman-diagram counting arguments but not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper Spin-1 large-N pole formation transfers to the spin-2 energy-momentum tensor.
    Appendix B solves an O(N) scalar with a conserved O(N) Noether current; B.5 explicitly leaves the spin-2 case open and says stronger transversality may help or hinder.
  • domain assumption Weinberg's low-energy theorem applies to emergent/composite massless spin-2 modes without LSZ asymptotic states.
    §5.2 invokes effective-field-theory reasoning and Donoghue; reasonable but an interpretive assumption about applicability to composite modes.
  • domain assumption One-loop entanglement entropy production equals the FRG trace-density kernel IS.
    Used in §3.3 to define the entropy rate and hence T_eff; no multi-loop or non-Markovian justification is provided, and Appendix A concedes limitations.
invented entities (2)
  • Isolated zero-momentum pole in ρ^(2)(μ²) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the massless spin-2 propagator and triggers Weinberg's theorem; its existence is the central criterion.
    No observational handle independent of the framework; the paper calls for lattice or FRG tests to decide whether it exists.
  • Coarse-grained rank-2 field Φμν / emergent graviton hμν no independent evidence
    purpose: Macroscopic order parameter representing vacuum stress fluctuations whose transverse-traceless part becomes the metric perturbation.
    Constructed solely from the spectral density; its observational content is ordinary general relativity, so it carries no signal independent of the framework.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31352 in / 19062 out tokens · 203717 ms · 2026-08-02T10:14:00.559250+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper proposes that gravity emerges as a statistical phase transition in the spectral function of the energy-momentum tensor commutator. The Weinberg-Witten theorem forbids a fundamental massless spin-2 particle, yet the energy-momentum tensor of quantum field theory carries an unsuppressed spin-2 channel in its vacuum fluctuation spectrum. Any massless spin-2 excitation in this channel can only be a composite collective mode. Because the spectral function is defined from the commutator, static vacuum contributions are absent by construction. The cosmological constant problem is sidestepped at the structural level. Coarse-graining in momentum space constructs, at each scale, a macroscopic rank-2 tensor field. The irreversibility of this operation promotes the scale itself to a dynamical order parameter. Its Langevin dynamics is governed by two renormalization-group fixed points, an ultraviolet repellor at the Planck scale and an infrared attractor at the Hubble scale. Entropy production and energy transfer define an effective temperature, and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem closes the dynamics self-consistently. The criterion advanced in this paper is whether the spin-2 spectral density can develop an isolated zero-momentum pole, a nonperturbative effect absent in perturbation theory but required by unitarity and locality. Should such a pole emerge, Weinberg's low-energy theorem then fixes the effective action to Einstein-Hilbert form, with Newton's constant and the cosmological constant determined respectively by the pole residue and the infrared fixed point. The criterion is in principle testable. Lattice gauge theory or functional renormalization group methods can decide the question.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol

    S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995), 10.1017/CBO9781139644167

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139644167 1995

  2. [2]

    Streater and A.S

    R.F. Streater and A.S. Wightman,PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That, Benjamin, New York (1964)

    1964

  3. [3]

    Osborn and A

    H. Osborn and A. Petkou,Implications of conformal invariance in field theories for general dimensions,Ann. Phys.231(1994) 311

    1994

  4. [4]

    Casimir,On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates,Proc

    H.B.G. Casimir,On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates,Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet.51(1948) 793

    1948

  5. [5]

    Lifshitz,The theory of molecular attractive forces between solids,Sov

    E.M. Lifshitz,The theory of molecular attractive forces between solids,Sov. Phys. JETP2 (1956) 73. – 42 –

    1956

  6. [6]

    Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol

    S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 2: Modern Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996), 10.1017/CBO9781139644174

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781139644174 1996

  7. [7]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio,Dynamical model of elementary particles based on an analogy with superconductivity. I,Phys. Rev.122(1961) 345

    1961

  8. [8]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov,QCD and resonance physics: Theoretical foundations,Nucl. Phys. B147(1979) 385

    1979

  9. [9]

    Banks and A

    T. Banks and A. Casher,Chiral symmetry breaking in confining theories,Nucl. Phys. B169 (1980) 103

    1980

  10. [10]

    Hawking,Particle creation by black holes,Commun

    S.W. Hawking,Particle creation by black holes,Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199

    1975

  11. [11]

    Hawking,Black hole explosions?,Nature248(1974) 30

    S.W. Hawking,Black hole explosions?,Nature248(1974) 30

    1974

  12. [12]

    Schwinger,On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization,Phys

    J. Schwinger,On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization,Phys. Rev.82(1951) 664

    1951

  13. [13]

    Oliveira, P.J

    O. Oliveira, P.J. Silva, J.-I. Skullerud and A. Sternbeck,The lattice gluon propagator in Landau gauge: A study using anisotropic lattices,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 034514

    2014

  14. [14]

    Alkofer and L

    R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal,The infrared behavior of QCD Green ’s functions,Phys. Rept. 353(2001) 281

    2001

  15. [15]

    Weinberg and E

    S. Weinberg and E. Witten,Limits on massless particles,Phys. Lett. B96(1980) 59

    1980

  16. [16]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim,Quantization of Gauge Systems, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1992)

    1992

  17. [17]

    Einstein,Die Plancksche theorie der strahlung und die theorie der spezifischen W”arme, Ann

    A. Einstein,Die Plancksche theorie der strahlung und die theorie der spezifischen W”arme, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)327(1907) 180

    1907

  18. [18]

    Debye,Zur theorie der spezifischen W”armen,Ann

    P. Debye,Zur theorie der spezifischen W”armen,Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)344(1912) 789

    1912

  19. [19]

    Tamm,”Uber die Quantentheorie der molekularen Lichtzerstreuung in festen K”orpern,Z

    I. Tamm,”Uber die Quantentheorie der molekularen Lichtzerstreuung in festen K”orpern,Z. Phys.60(1930) 345

    1930

  20. [20]

    Ashcroft and N.D

    N.W. Ashcroft and N.D. Mermin,Solid State Physics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1976)

    1976

  21. [21]

    Unruh,Experimental black-hole evaporation?,Phys

    W.G. Unruh,Experimental black-hole evaporation?,Phys. Rev. Lett.46(1981) 1351

    1981

  22. [22]

    Barcel´ o, S

    C. Barcel´ o, S. Liberati and M. Visser,Analogue gravity,Living Rev. Relativ.14(2011) 3

    2011

  23. [23]

    Liberati, F

    S. Liberati, F. Girelli and L. Sindoni,Analogue gravity from a field theory perspective,Class. Quantum Gravity27(2010) 035006

    2010

  24. [24]

    Einstein,”Uber die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der W”arme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Fl”ussigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen,Ann

    A. Einstein,”Uber die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der W”arme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Fl”ussigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen,Ann. Phys. (Leipzig)322 (1905) 549

    1905

  25. [25]

    Hohenberg and B.I

    P.C. Hohenberg and B.I. Halperin,Theory of dynamic critical phenomena,Rev. Mod. Phys. 49(1977) 435

    1977

  26. [26]

    Feynman and J

    R.P. Feynman and J. F. L. Vernon,The theory of a general quantum system interacting with a linear dissipative system,Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)24(1963) 118

    1963

  27. [27]

    Weinberg,Photons and gravitons inS-matrix theory: Derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass,Phys

    S. Weinberg,Photons and gravitons inS-matrix theory: Derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass,Phys. Rev.135(1964) B1049

    1964

  28. [28]

    Sakharov,Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the theory of gravitation, Sov

    A.D. Sakharov,Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the theory of gravitation, Sov. Phys. Dokl.12(1968) 1040. – 43 –

    1968

  29. [29]

    Visser,Sakharov’s induced gravity: A modern perspective,Mod

    M. Visser,Sakharov’s induced gravity: A modern perspective,Mod. Phys. Lett. A17(2002) 977

    2002

  30. [30]

    Jacobson,Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state,Phys

    T. Jacobson,Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state,Phys. Rev. Lett. 75(1995) 1260

    1995

  31. [31]

    Verlinde,On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton,J

    E.P. Verlinde,On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton,J. High Energy Phys.2011 (2011) 029

    2011

  32. [32]

    Maitiniyazi and M

    Y. Maitiniyazi and M. Yamada,Emergence of dynamical tensor fields in composite models of gravity,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 084057

    2026

  33. [33]

    Itzykson and J.-B

    C. Itzykson and J.-B. Zuber,Quantum Field Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)

    1980

  34. [34]

    K¨ all´ en,On the definition of the renormalization constants in quantum electrodynamics, Helv

    G. K¨ all´ en,On the definition of the renormalization constants in quantum electrodynamics, Helv. Phys. Acta25(1952) 417

    1952

  35. [35]

    Caldeira and A.J

    A.O. Caldeira and A.J. Leggett,Path integral approach to quantum Brownian motion, Physica A (Amsterdam)121(1983) 587

    1983

  36. [36]

    Vassilevich,Heat kernel expansion: user’s manual,Phys

    D.V. Vassilevich,Heat kernel expansion: user’s manual,Phys. Rept.388(2003) 279

    2003

  37. [37]

    Pawlowski, M

    J.M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert and J. Wessely,Self-consistent graviton spectral function in Lorentzian quantum gravity,2507.22169

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Donoghue,General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections,Phys

    J.F. Donoghue,General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections,Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 3874 [gr-qc/9405057]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  39. [39]

    Fehre, D.F

    J. Fehre, D.F. Litim, J.M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert,Lorentzian quantum gravity and the graviton spectral function,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 081501

    2023

  40. [40]

    Knorr,The pole truth: An analytical graviton propagator from asymptotic safety, 2606.18343

    B. Knorr,The pole truth: An analytical graviton propagator from asymptotic safety, 2606.18343

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Y. Deng, Z. Hani and X. Ma,Hilbert’s sixth problem: Derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann’s kinetic theory,2503.01800. – 44 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv