pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01285 · v1 · pith:Y37ZUXYEnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 🌀 gr-qc

Hypersurface Anchored Variational Principle for General Relativity

Prasanta Sahoo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 19:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords general relativityvariational principlehypersurfaceanchoring equationconstrained solutionscanonical formulationcosmological matching
0
0 comments X

The pith

Supplementing the Einstein-Hilbert action with a diffeomorphism-invariant hypersurface functional defines a constrained sector of General Relativity consisting of spacetimes that admit at least one anchoring hypersurface.

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

The paper constructs a variational extension of general relativity in which the Einstein-Hilbert action gains an additional term supported on an embedded spacelike hypersurface whose embedding is varied independently of the metric. This produces the usual Einstein equations with a distributional source at the surface together with an anchoring equation that selects admissible embeddings. A sympathetic reader would care because the construction carves out a genuine subset of classical GR solutions without adding new propagating degrees of freedom in the bulk or changing the second-order structure of the field equations away from the surface. The momentum constraints stay standard while the Hamiltonian constraint acquires a hypersurface term, and the smeared generators recover the Dirac algebra in the bulk with only localized surface deviations. In homogeneous cosmology the localized term produces matching conditions that permit finite jumps in the expansion rate across the surface while leaving evolution unchanged elsewhere.

Core claim

The construction defines a constrained sector of the classical solution space of General Relativity consisting of spacetimes that admit at least one embedded hypersurface satisfying the anchoring equation. The bulk field equations retain the standard second order principal structure away from the hypersurface and no additional propagating bulk gravitational degrees of freedom are introduced. Under ellipticity and invertibility assumptions, local persistence and linear stability of anchoring hypersurfaces follow from standard implicit function and elliptic estimates. The anchoring condition is generically inequivalent to local slicing gauge conditions and therefore defines a genuine variation

What carries the argument

The anchoring equation on the embedded spacelike hypersurface, which fixes admissible embeddings while the hypersurface functional is varied independently of the metric.

If this is right

  • The bulk Einstein equations hold with only a distributional contribution localized at the hypersurface.
  • No additional propagating bulk gravitational degrees of freedom appear.
  • In homogeneous cosmology the construction yields matching conditions that allow finite transitions in the expansion rate while standard evolution is preserved away from the surface.
  • The momentum constraints retain their standard form while the Hamiltonian constraint acquires a hypersurface-supported term.
  • The smeared generators close in the weak sense, recovering the Dirac algebra in the bulk with deviations confined to localized distributional surface contributions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The variational restriction may allow modeling of gravitational transitions or discontinuities without introducing singularities or altering bulk propagation.
  • Because the anchoring condition is inequivalent to a gauge choice, the construction could select physically distinct classes of spacetimes rather than merely relabeling coordinates.
  • The modified canonical structure with a surface term in the Hamiltonian constraint suggests possible implications for reduced phase-space quantization on the constrained sector.

Load-bearing premise

The hypersurface functionals must belong to the admissible diffeomorphism-invariant class and the anchoring equation must satisfy the ellipticity and invertibility conditions needed for the implicit-function and elliptic estimates to apply.

What would settle it

A spacetime solving the modified variational equations in which the bulk dynamics away from the hypersurface deviate from the second-order Einstein equations or in which new propagating gravitational degrees of freedom appear.

read the original abstract

A hypersurface anchored variational extension of General Relativity is formulated in which the Einstein-Hilbert action is supplemented by a diffeomorphism invariant functional supported on an embedded spacelike hypersurface whose embedding is varied independently of the spacetime metric. The resulting Euler-Lagrange system consists of the Einstein equations with a localized distributional contribution together with an anchoring equation determining admissible embeddings. For the admissible class of hypersurface functionals considered here, the bulk field equations retain the standard second order principal structure away from the hypersurface and no additional propagating bulk gravitational degrees of freedom are introduced. Under ellipticity and invertibility assumptions, local persistence and linear stability of anchoring hypersurfaces follow from standard implicit function and elliptic estimates. The anchoring condition is generically inequivalent to local slicing gauge conditions and therefore defines a genuine variational restriction rather than a coordinate choice. In the canonical formulation, the momentum constraints retain their standard form, whereas the Hamiltonian constraint acquires a hypersurface supported term. The corresponding smeared generators close in the weak sense: the Dirac algebra is recovered in the bulk, with deviations confined to localized distributional surface contributions. The construction therefore defines a constrained sector of the classical solution space of General Relativity consisting of spacetimes that admit at least one embedded hypersurface satisfying the anchoring equation. In homogeneous cosmology, the localized term induces matching conditions across the anchoring surface, allowing finite transitions in the expansion rate while preserving standard evolution away from the transition hypersurface.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper formulates a hypersurface-anchored variational extension of General Relativity by supplementing the Einstein-Hilbert action with a diffeomorphism-invariant functional supported on an embedded spacelike hypersurface whose embedding is varied independently. The resulting Euler-Lagrange system yields the Einstein equations with a localized distributional source together with an anchoring equation for admissible embeddings. The bulk field equations retain the standard second-order principal structure away from the hypersurface, introducing no additional propagating bulk gravitational degrees of freedom. Under ellipticity and invertibility assumptions, local persistence and linear stability of anchoring hypersurfaces follow from implicit-function and elliptic estimates. In the canonical formulation the momentum constraints remain standard while the Hamiltonian constraint acquires a hypersurface-supported term; the smeared generators reproduce the Dirac algebra in the bulk with deviations confined to localized distributional surface contributions. The construction therefore defines a constrained sector of classical GR solutions consisting of spacetimes that admit at least one such hypersurface, with an application to matching conditions across the surface in homogeneous cosmology.

Significance. If the central derivations hold, the work supplies a variational origin for a genuine restriction of the GR solution space to spacetimes possessing at least one anchored hypersurface, without altering the bulk principal symbol or introducing new propagating degrees of freedom. The preservation of the standard momentum constraints and the recovery of the Dirac algebra in the bulk (with only distributional deviations) is a notable technical strength, as is the explicit appeal to standard elliptic estimates for stability. The cosmological application to finite transitions in the expansion rate while preserving standard evolution away from the surface illustrates a concrete use case. The result is internally consistent with the stated assumptions and could be of interest for modeling hypersurface-dependent phenomena within classical GR.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract (and the variational principle section)] The central claim that the bulk equations retain the standard second-order principal structure and introduce no new propagating degrees of freedom rests on the explicit form of the supplemented action and the assumed diffeomorphism invariance of the hypersurface functional; however, the manuscript does not supply the explicit computation of the Euler-Lagrange equations or the principal symbol away from the hypersurface, making independent verification of the distributional source and anchoring equation impossible from the given text.
  2. [Abstract (stability paragraph)] The stability and persistence statements rely on ellipticity and invertibility of the anchoring operator, which are listed as assumptions without an explicit characterization of the admissible class of hypersurface functionals or a concrete example verifying that the operator satisfies the required estimates; this assumption is load-bearing for the claim that the construction defines a constrained but stable sector.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'the admissible class of hypersurface functionals considered here' without a forward reference to the section where this class is defined or delimited.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and positive evaluation of the work. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and verifiability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (and the variational principle section)] The central claim that the bulk equations retain the standard second-order principal structure and introduce no new propagating degrees of freedom rests on the explicit form of the supplemented action and the assumed diffeomorphism invariance of the hypersurface functional; however, the manuscript does not supply the explicit computation of the Euler-Lagrange equations or the principal symbol away from the hypersurface, making independent verification of the distributional source and anchoring equation impossible from the given text.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit step-by-step derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equations from the supplemented action, including the principal symbol of the bulk operator away from the hypersurface, is necessary for independent verification. The current text states the result but omits the intermediate variation. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (likely in Section 2) that computes the first variation of the hypersurface functional, isolates the distributional contributions supported on the surface, and confirms that the bulk principal symbol remains the standard Einstein operator with no additional propagating degrees of freedom. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract (stability paragraph)] The stability and persistence statements rely on ellipticity and invertibility of the anchoring operator, which are listed as assumptions without an explicit characterization of the admissible class of hypersurface functionals or a concrete example verifying that the operator satisfies the required estimates; this assumption is load-bearing for the claim that the construction defines a constrained but stable sector.

    Authors: The admissible class is defined in Section 3 via the requirement that the second variation of the hypersurface functional yields an elliptic operator on the embedding. However, the referee is correct that no concrete example is worked out to illustrate the ellipticity and invertibility conditions. We will add a new subsection providing an explicit example (e.g., a functional proportional to the integral of the mean curvature squared) and verify the required estimates using standard elliptic theory on compact hypersurfaces. This will make the stability claim fully self-contained. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained from the supplemented action

full rationale

The paper defines a new variational principle by adding a diffeomorphism-invariant hypersurface functional to the Einstein-Hilbert action and derives the Euler-Lagrange system (Einstein equations with distributional source plus anchoring equation), the unchanged bulk principal symbol, the modified Hamiltonian constraint, and the Dirac algebra closure directly from the variation and standard diffeomorphism properties. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or imported uniqueness theorem; the admissible class and ellipticity assumptions are stated as external conditions for the implicit-function analysis rather than being presupposed by the central result. The construction therefore stands as an independent extension whose consequences follow from the stated action without internal reduction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard general-relativity background plus two new assumptions introduced for the stability and persistence results; no free parameters or invented entities are stated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The hypersurface functional is diffeomorphism invariant
    Invoked to ensure the overall action remains diffeomorphism invariant.
  • ad hoc to paper Ellipticity and invertibility of the anchoring operator
    Required for the implicit-function-theorem argument that guarantees local persistence and linear stability of the hypersurface.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5775 in / 1283 out tokens · 24628 ms · 2026-07-03T19:48:26.559305+00:00 · methodology

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

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Field Equations of Gravitation.Sitzungsber

    Albert Einstein. The Field Equations of Gravitation.Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ), 1915:844–847, 1915

    work page 1915

  2. [2]

    Wald.General Relativity

    Robert M. Wald.General Relativity. Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    Carroll.Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity

    Sean M. Carroll.Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Will.Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic

    Eric Poisson and Clifford M. Will.Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Choquet-Bruhat and Robert P

    Y. Choquet-Bruhat and Robert P. Geroch. Global aspects of the Cauchy problem in general relativity. Commun. Math. Phys., 14:329–335, 1969

    work page 1969

  6. [6]

    European Mathematical Society, Z¨ urich, 2009

    Hans Ringstr¨ om.The Cauchy Problem in General Relativity. European Mathematical Society, Z¨ urich, 2009

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    On the hyperbolicity of Einstein’s and other gauge field equations.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 100(4):525–543, December 1985

    Helmut Friedrich. On the hyperbolicity of Einstein’s and other gauge field equations.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 100(4):525–543, December 1985

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    Penrose.SINGULARITIES AND TIME ASYMMETRY, pages 581–638

    R. Penrose.SINGULARITIES AND TIME ASYMMETRY, pages 581–638. 1980

    work page 1980

  9. [9]

    The cosmological constant problem.Reviews of Modern Physics, 61:1, 1989

    Steven Weinberg. The cosmological constant problem.Reviews of Modern Physics, 61:1, 1989

    work page 1989

  10. [10]

    Sean M. Carroll. The Cosmological constant.Living Rev. Rel., 4:1, 2001

    work page 2001

  11. [11]

    Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities.Phys

    Roger Penrose. Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities.Phys. Rev. Lett., 14:57–59, Jan 1965

    work page 1965

  12. [12]

    Boundary terms in the action principles of general relativity.Found

    James York. Boundary terms in the action principles of general relativity.Found. Phys., 16:249–257, 1986

    work page 1986

  13. [13]

    Barrabes and W

    C. Barrabes and W. Israel. Thin shells in general relativity and cosmology: The Lightlike limit.Phys. Rev. D, 43:1129–1142, 1991

    work page 1991

  14. [14]

    Marc Mars and Jose M. M. Senovilla. Geometry of general hypersurfaces in space-time: Junction condi- tions.Class. Quant. Grav., 10:1865–1897, 1993

    work page 1993

  15. [15]

    Robert C. Myers. Higher-derivative gravity, surface terms, and string theory.Phys. Rev. D, 36:392–396, Jul 1987

    work page 1987

  16. [16]

    Israel conditions for the Gauss-Bonnet theory and the Friedmann equation on the brane universe.Phys

    Elias Gravanis and Steven Willison. Israel conditions for the Gauss-Bonnet theory and the Friedmann equation on the brane universe.Phys. Lett. B, 562:118–126, 2003

    work page 2003

  17. [17]

    Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension.Phys

    Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum. Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension.Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:3370–3373, Oct 1999

    work page 1999

  18. [18]

    An alternative to compactification.Phys

    Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum. An alternative to compactification.Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:4690–4693, Dec 1999

    work page 1999

  19. [19]

    G. R. Dvali, Gregory Gabadadze, and Massimo Porrati. 4-D gravity on a brane in 5-D Minkowski space. Phys. Lett. B, 485:208–214, 2000

    work page 2000

  20. [20]

    General gauss–bonnet brane cosmology.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 19(18):4671, aug 2002

    Christos Charmousis and Jean-Fran¸ cois Dufaux. General gauss–bonnet brane cosmology.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 19(18):4671, aug 2002

    work page 2002

  21. [21]

    P. A. M. Dirac.Lectures on Quantum Mechanics. Yeshiva University, 1964

    work page 1964

  22. [22]

    Role of surface integrals in hamiltonian formulation of general relativity.Annals of Physics, 88:286–318, 1974

    Tullio Regge and Claudio Teitelboim. Role of surface integrals in hamiltonian formulation of general relativity.Annals of Physics, 88:286–318, 1974

    work page 1974

  23. [23]

    How commutators of constraints reflect the space-time structure.Annals Phys., 79:542–557, 1973

    Claudio Teitelboim. How commutators of constraints reflect the space-time structure.Annals Phys., 79:542–557, 1973

    work page 1973

  24. [24]

    K. Kuchar. Geometry of Hyperspace. 1.J. Math. Phys., 17:777–791, 1976. 17

    work page 1976

  25. [25]

    Isenberg

    James A. Isenberg. Constant mean curvature solutions of the einstein constraint equations on closed manifolds.Class. Quantum Grav., (12):2249–2274, 1995

    work page 1995

  26. [26]

    York, Jr

    James W. York, Jr. Kinematics and Dynamics of General Relativity. InWorkshop on Sources of Gravi- tational Radiation, pages 83–126, 1978

    work page 1978

  27. [27]

    Fischer and Jerrold E

    Arthur E. Fischer and Jerrold E. Marsden. The initial value problem and the dynamical formulation of general relativity. pages 138–211. Cambridge University Press, 1979

    work page 1979

  28. [28]

    The Constraint equations

    Robert Bartnik and Jim Isenberg. The Constraint equations. In50 Years of the Cauchy Problem in General Relativity: Summer School on Mathematical Relativity and Global Properties of Solutions of Einstein’s Equations, 2002

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989

    Roger Penrose.The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989

    work page 1989

  30. [30]

    Carroll and Jennifer Chen

    Sean M. Carroll and Jennifer Chen. Spontaneous inflation and the origin of the arrow of time. 10 2004

    work page 2004

  31. [31]

    Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model.Phys

    Austin Joyce, Bhuvnesh Jain, Justin Khoury, and Mark Trodden. Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model.Phys. Rept., 568:1–98, 2015

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Copeland, M

    Edmund J. Copeland, M. Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa. Dynamics of dark energy.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15:1753–1936, 2006

    work page 1936

  33. [33]

    Remmen and Sean M

    Grant N. Remmen and Sean M. Carroll. Attractor solutions in scalar-field cosmology.Phys. Rev. D, 88:083518, Oct 2013

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    Making predictions in the multiverse.Class

    Ben Freivogel. Making predictions in the multiverse.Class. Quant. Grav., 28:204007, 2011

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    Alan H. Guth. Eternal inflation and its implications.J. Phys. A, 40:6811–6826, 2007

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    George F. R. Ellis.Issues in the philosophy of cosmology, pages 1183–1285. 2006

    work page 2006

  37. [37]

    Robert P. Geroch. The domain of dependence.J. Math. Phys., 11:437–439, 1970

    work page 1970

  38. [38]

    Jos´ e M. M. Senovilla. Singularity Theorems and Their Consequences.Gen. Rel. Grav., 30:701, 1998

    work page 1998

  39. [39]

    Lebowitz

    Joel L. Lebowitz. Boltzmann’s entropy and time’s arrow.Physics Today, 46:32–38, 1993

    work page 1993

  40. [40]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010

    Craig Callender.The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010

    work page 2010

  41. [41]

    3+1 formalism and bases of numerical relativity

    Eric Gourgoulhon. 3+1 formalism and bases of numerical relativity. 3 2007

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    A relativist’s toolkit

    Eric Poisson. A relativist’s toolkit. 2004

    work page 2004

  43. [43]

    Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity.Il Nuovo Cimento B (1965-1970), 44:1–14, 1966

    Werner Israel. Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity.Il Nuovo Cimento B (1965-1970), 44:1–14, 1966

    work page 1965

  44. [44]

    David Brown and James W

    J. David Brown and James W. York. Quasilocal energy and conserved charges derived from the gravita- tional action.Phys. Rev. D, 47:1407–1419, Feb 1993

    work page 1993

  45. [45]

    Elliptic hyperbolic systems and the Einstein equations.Annales Henri Poincare, 4:1–34, 2003

    Lars Andersson and Vincent Moncrief. Elliptic hyperbolic systems and the Einstein equations.Annales Henri Poincare, 4:1–34, 2003

    work page 2003

  46. [46]

    Princeton University Press, 8 1994

    Marc Henneaux and Claudio Teitelboim.Quantization of Gauge Systems. Princeton University Press, 8 1994

    work page 1994

  47. [47]

    Strings and other distributional sources in general relativity.Phys

    Robert Geroch and Jennie Traschen. Strings and other distributional sources in general relativity.Phys. Rev. D, 36:1017–1031, Aug 1987

    work page 1987

  48. [48]

    Roland Steinbauer and James A. Vickers. The Use of generalised functions and distributions in general relativity.Class. Quant. Grav., 23:R91–R114, 2006

    work page 2006

  49. [49]

    Springer, New York, 1985

    Eberhard Zeidler.Nonlinear Functional Analysis and Its Applications I: Fixed-Point Theorems. Springer, New York, 1985

    work page 1985

  50. [50]

    Arnowitt, Stanley Deser, and Charles W

    Richard L. Arnowitt, Stanley Deser, and Charles W. Misner. The Dynamics of general relativity.Gen. Rel. Grav., 40:1997–2027, 2008

    work page 1997

  51. [51]

    C. J. Isham and K. V. Kuchar. Representations of Space-time Diffeomorphisms. 1. Canonical Parametrized Field Theories.Annals Phys., 164:288, 1985

    work page 1985

  52. [52]

    Trudinger

    David Gilbarg and Neil S. Trudinger. Elliptic partial differential equations of second order.Classics in mathematics, 2001

    work page 2001

  53. [53]

    Taylor.Partial Differential Equations I: Basic Theory

    Michael E. Taylor.Partial Differential Equations I: Basic Theory. Springer, New York, 2 edition, 2011

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    Choquet-Bruhat and James W

    Y. Choquet-Bruhat and James W. York, Jr.The Cauchy problem, pages 99–172. 1980

    work page 1980

  55. [55]

    Larry Smarr and James W. York. Kinematical conditions in the construction of spacetime.Phys. Rev. D, 17:2529–2551, May 1978

    work page 1978

  56. [56]

    V. A. Berezin, V. A. Kuzmin, and I. I. Tkachev. Dynamics of bubbles in general relativity.Phys. Rev. D, 36:2919–2944, Nov 1987

    work page 1987

  57. [57]

    Frolov, W

    Valeri P. Frolov, W. Israel, and W. G. Unruh. Gravitational Fields of Straight and Circular Cosmic Strings: Relation Between Gravitational Mass, Angular Deficit, and Internal Structure.Phys. Rev. D, 39:1084–1096, 1989

    work page 1989

  58. [58]

    Remarks on cosmological spacetimes and constant mean curvature surfaces.Commun

    Robert Bartnik. Remarks on cosmological spacetimes and constant mean curvature surfaces.Commun. Math. Phys., 117:615–624, 1988

    work page 1988

  59. [59]

    George F. R. Ellis, Roy Maartens, and Malcolm A. H. MacCallum.Relativistic Cosmology. 2012

    work page 2012

  60. [60]

    John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1972

    Steven Weinberg.Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of 18 Relativity. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1972

    work page 1972

  61. [61]

    David W. Hogg. Distance measures in cosmology. 5 1999

    work page 1999

  62. [62]

    North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2000

    Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat and C´ ecile DeWitt-Morette.Analysis, Manifolds and Physics. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2000

    work page 2000

  63. [63]

    Misner, Kip S

    Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, and John Archibald Wheeler.Gravitation. 1973

    work page 1973

  64. [64]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008

    Michele Maggiore.Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008

    work page 2008

  65. [65]

    O. A. Ladyzhenskaya and N. N. Uraltseva.Linear and Quasilinear Elliptic Equations. Academic Press, 1968

    work page 1968

  66. [66]

    Monge–Amp` ere Equations, volume 252

    Thierry Aubin.Nonlinear Analysis on Manifolds. Monge–Amp` ere Equations, volume 252. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982

    work page 1982

  67. [67]

    Evans.Partial Differential Equations

    Lawrence C. Evans.Partial Differential Equations. AMS, 2010

    work page 2010

  68. [68]

    Cambridge University Press

    William McLean.Strongly Elliptic Systems and Boundary Integral Equations. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    work page 2000

  69. [69]

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking. Wave function of the universe.Phys. Rev. D, 28:2960–2975, Dec 1983

    work page 1983

  70. [70]

    Halliwell

    Jonathan J. Halliwell. Introductory Lectures on Quantum Cosmology. 1989

    work page 1989

  71. [71]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking. Action Integrals and Partition Functions in Quantum Gravity.Phys. Rev. D, 15:2752–2756, 1977

    work page 1977

  72. [72]

    K. Kuchar. Canonical Methods of Quantization. InOxford Conference on Quantum Gravity, 1980

    work page 1980

  73. [73]

    Bryce S. DeWitt. Quantum theory of gravity. i. the canonical theory.Phys. Rev., 160:1113–1148, Aug 1967

    work page 1967