Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 27 references

The paper claims that in a locally conformally symmetric version of the Standard Model plus gravity, the Higgs field turns black hole singularities into crossings into antigravity regions, making spacetime geodesically complete.

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

2026-08-04 23:05 UTC pith:YVS2D7JY

load-bearing objection Bars' antigravity-through-Higgs story is clearly told, but the central geodesic-completeness result is an ansatz resting on a future paper, not a derivation. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06800 v2 pith:YVS2D7JY submitted 2025-09-08 hep-th gr-qc

The Higgs Field Governs the Interior Spacetime of Black Holes

Itzhak Bars This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qc MSC 83C5783C75
keywords Higgs fieldblack hole singularitygeodesic completenessantigravitylocal conformal symmetryAdS interiorblack hole informationWeyl invariance
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 argues that the standard treatment of the Higgs field as a nearly constant vacuum value fails exactly where gravity is strongest, and that a locally scale-invariant version of the Standard Model plus gravity, i(SM+GR), changes the answer. The central claim is that near a black hole singularity the Higgs scalars vanish while their ratio approaches one, flipping the sign of the dynamical gravitational strength G(x). That sign flip turns gravity into antigravity and lets the spacetime metric be continued through r=0, producing a geodesically complete black hole with an anti-de Sitter antigravity interior. If this is right, infalling photons, gluons, and gravitons pass through the singularity, information flows into regions absent from ordinary GR, and the black hole information puzzle gains a classical answer: information goes into the antigravity patches. The paper presents the geometry, geodesics, Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, and Penrose diagram of this 'AdSSdS' black hole.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that geodesic completeness of black hole spacetimes is not something quantum gravity must supply; it is already present in a classically consistent, locally conformally symmetric SM+GR theory. The dynamical Newton-like coupling, (8 pi G(x))^{-1} = (1/6) phi^2(1-h^2), changes sign when the gauge-invariant Higgs ratio h=s/phi exceeds 1. The vacuum equations then admit two asymptotic patches: a positive-curvature de Sitter gravity patch matching our universe, and a negative-curvature anti-de Sitter antigravity patch with R_- = -36 lambda/(8 pi G~_N). Choosing the radial coordinate r = |r~| sign(1-h^2) makes r range over all real numbers, so the metric

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended radial coordinate and the AdSSdS metric A(r)=1-r0/r - Lambda(r) r^2/3 with -infinity<r<infinity, together with the identification r = |r~| sign(1-h^2). The sign of the scale-invariant Higgs ratio h=s/phi decides gravity versus antigravity; at r=0 the ratio is taken to approach |s/phi|=1 while phi,s -> 0 (Eq. 46), making the singularity a crossing point rather than an end. The Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates with Sign(r) and Sign(-rA(r)) insertions map the negative-r antigravity domain onto the previously excluded uv>1 regions of the (u,v) plane.

Load-bearing premise

The continuation through the singularity rests on an unproven behavior of the two Higgs scalars, imported from the forthcoming paper [8]: both phi and s vanish at r=0 while their ratio approaches 1. The paper does not solve the full coupled equations, so the geodesically complete metric used in the analysis is an ansatz; if the scalars do not realize this crossing, there is no antigravity patch and no geodesic completeness.

What would settle it

Solve the full i(SM+GR) equations of motion for the coupled fields phi(r), s(r), A(r) near r=0 with a specific strong-gravity potential v(h), and check whether |s/phi| -> 1 with phi,s -> 0. If the gradient flow gives a different ratio, or a barrier, the metric (28) is not a solution and radial null geodesics need not cross r=0; the claimed antigravity region and geodesic completeness would fail.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Radial massless geodesics r = pm E tau cross the black hole singularity without truncation, so photons, gluons, and gravitons can carry information from the gravity side into the antigravity interior.
  • The complete Penrose diagram assigns the antigravity regions to the formerly excluded uv>1 part of the Kruskal-Szekeres plane; geodesics reaching r=-infinity are reflected back and continue into a second gravity region.
  • Unitarity and the information puzzle are reframed: information is not lost, but becomes accessible to observers in causally connected interior and antigravity regions, so conservation holds on the global spacetime.
  • The antigravity patch is asymptotically anti-de Sitter, with curvature tied to the known Higgs quartic coupling and an unknown antigravity Newton constant; measuring one dimensionful quantity in that sector fixes all the others.
  • At the singularity the SU(2)xU(1) symmetry is restored because the Higgs scalar vanishes there, so all Standard Model masses vanish at r=0.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's geodesic analysis mostly uses the metric (28) as an ansatz; a fully convincing completion requires solving the coupled phi(r), s(r), A(r) equations with the strong-gravity potential v(h), a task deferred to [8]. If the scalar crossing condition fails, the antigravity patch disappears.
  • The claim that all Standard Model particles, not just massless ones, traverse the singularity is left conditional in the paper; a concrete test is to compute massive geodesics with the r-dependent mass m(r)=g s(r) once the full profiles are known.
  • The predicted curvature corrections outside the horizon suggest a phenomenological route: deviations in rotation curves or lensing that mimic or augment dark matter signals, which the paper flags but does not compute.
  • The same r = |r~| sign(1-h^2) mechanism, if applied in cosmology, would unify the big crunch/big bang transition with black hole interiors; the paper connects to earlier cyclic cosmology results, but the global web of antigravity interiors is left open.

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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a locally scale-invariant refinement of SM+GR, denoted i(SM+GR), yields a geodesically complete, continuous spacetime through black-hole singularities. The action (1) promotes the Newton constant to a dynamical field G(x) ∝ (φ² − s²)^{-1}, so antigravity appears wherever h² = s²/φ² > 1. The author solves the field equations only in asymptotic vacuum patches, obtaining a de Sitter gravity patch and an anti-de Sitter antigravity patch (17). He then joins these patches through the coordinate redefinition r = |r~| sign(1−h²) (27), writing the unified AdSSdS metric (28). Radial null geodesics are claimed to be r(τ) = ±Eτ (44), crossing r = 0 and entering the antigravity region, and the paper constructs KS and Penrose diagrams for this globally complete spacetime. The massive case is deferred to a forthcoming paper [8], from which Eq. (46) is imported.

Significance. If the central construction were sound, the paper would address a long-standing foundational problem—geodesic incompleteness at black-hole and cosmological singularities—within a classically consistent field-theoretic framework, and it would give concrete new causal structure and a potential account of information flow. The asymptotic computations in each patch are standard, and the paper is transparent about what is assumed and what is deferred to [8]. However, the advertised geodesic-complete spacetime is not derived from the i(SM+GR) field equations: the joined metric is an ansatz, the matching across r = 0 is internally inconsistent, and the decisive scalar-field behavior is imported from unpublished work. The paper therefore does not currently support its central claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV.A, Eq. (17) and Eq. (3)] The antigravity column of Eq. (17) lists φ_-^2 = 0 (or ≈ 0), s_-^2 = 6/(8πG~_N) ≠ 0, and h_-^2 = 1 (or ≈ 1). But h^2 is defined in Eq. (3) as s^2/φ^2. With φ_- = 0 and s_- nonzero, h_-^2 diverges; with φ_- = s_- = 0, h_-^2 is indeterminate, not 1. This is a direct algebraic inconsistency in the asymptotic solution that underpins the antigravity AdS patch and the parameter β in Eq. (19).
  2. [IV.B, Eq. (28)] The unified metric (28) is claimed to be continuous at r = 0, but A(r) = 1 − r0/r − Λ(r)r²/3 has limits A(r) → −∞ as r → 0+ and A(r) → +∞ as r → 0−. The coordinate redefinition (27) records the sign of 1−h² but does not remove the divergent mismatch. Thus Eq. (28) is not a continuous metric at the singularity, and Figs. 1–2 cannot describe a regular joining of the two patches.
  3. [IV.D.1, Eq. (44)] The geodesic-completeness proof for massless radial null geodesics uses V_eff = 0 and r(τ) = ±Eτ. But this result is obtained by multiplying the geodesic equation by A(r); that algebraic cancellation is not valid at r = 0, where A(r) has a pole with opposite signs on the two sides. The paper itself notes that V_eff = 0 for any A(r), which makes clear that the argument is formal and does not establish existence of a geodesic through r = 0 in the actual spacetime.
  4. [II.B and IV.D.2] The metric (28) is an ansatz, not a solution of the i(SM+GR) equations (12)–(13). The strong-gravity form of the Weyl potential v(h) is explicitly said to be ‘critical in a forthcoming study [8]’, and the required singular scalar behavior φ,s → 0 with |s/φ| → 1 is imported from Eq. (46) of [8]. Since G(x) diverges when h² = 1, the cancellation in T_μν that would make the matched metric a genuine solution is precisely the unproven ingredient. The central claim is therefore conditional on unpublished results, not derived in this manuscript.
  5. [VI, global AdS boundary] The completion of geodesics by reflection at the r = −∞ boundary is imported from global AdS boundary conditions rather than derived from the i(SM+GR) field equations. Within the ansatz (28), r = −∞ is an asymptotic boundary of a locally AdS region, but identifying it as a reflecting ‘box wall’ is an additional assumption. Since this reflection is used to show that the geodesic ‘does not end’, it is load-bearing for the geodesic-completeness claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (28)] The function Λ(r) is written with symbols resembling step functions, but the notation is not defined. Please define Λ(r) = Θ(r)Λ_+ + Θ(−r)Λ_- explicitly and specify the value at r = 0 if a continuous extension is intended.
  2. [VI, Fig. 11] There are inconsistent figure references: the text refers to ‘Fig. 5’ for the Penrose diagram even though Fig. 5 is the V_eff plot for massless zero-angular-momentum geodesics. Please renumber all figures.
  3. [Footnote 8] The reference marker appears as ‘[xxx].[22]’, with a stray ‘[xxx]’ placeholder. This should be cleaned.
  4. [Throughout] The notation alternates between φ and Φ, s and s, and ‘adSS’/‘AdSS’. A unified notation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Geodesic completeness is partly built into the r-coordinate definition and partly imported from the author's forthcoming [8]; the asymptotic AdSSdS algebra is independent but the central singularity-crossing claim is not derived.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Eqs. (27), (28), Section IV.B; Eq. (44), Section IV.D.1]
    "r ≡ |~r| sign(1−h^2(x)); −∞<r<∞. (27) This extended r range unifies notation covering regions on opposite sides of the singularity at r=0. ... For m=0 and L=0, the potential vanishes: V_eff(r)=0. Hence no turning points exist and Eq.(42) integrates directly: \dot r_{m=0}=±E, r_{m=0}(τ)=±Eτ. (44)"

    The antigravity patch is not derived from the field equations but inserted by defining r negative when 1−h^2<0, while Eq. (8) already defines antigravity as sign G = sign(1−h^2). Thus the existence of an antigravity region is equivalent to assuming h^2>1. The metric (28) is then the two constant-curvature patches written in one coordinate. Furthermore, the paper admits the radial null geodesic r=±Eτ is valid for any A(r), so the claimed passage through the singularity is a kinematic/coordinate fact, not a test of whether the patched metric satisfies the coupled equations (12)–(13).

  2. self citation load bearing [Section IV.D.2, Eq. (46); Section II.B]
    "As detailed in [8], beyond their asymptotic values in (17), continuous solutions φ(r),s(r),A(r) across −∞<r<∞ show that at the singularity both scalars vanish, while their ratio remains finite φ(r→0)=0; s(r→0)=0; |s(r→0)/φ(r→0)|=1. ... However the nature of v(h) will be critical in a forthcoming study [8]."

    The sole dynamical ingredient that would make h^2(r) cross 1 and both scalars vanish at r=0, thereby joining the asymptotic patches into a genuine solution, is Eq. (46), imported from the author's own forthcoming [8]. The strong-gravity form of v(h) is explicitly left unsolved here. Without Eq. (46), the metric (28) is not shown to satisfy the full i(SM+GR) scalar-plus-Einstein equations, and the geodesic-completeness claim rests on an unverified self-citation rather than a derivation in this paper.

full rationale

The paper contains independent algebraic content: an asymptotic vacuum analysis yielding a dS gravity patch and an AdS antigravity patch with one free parameter, plus a standard geodesic-equation formalism. However, the advertised central result—geodesic completeness through the black-hole singularity—does not follow from the i(SM+GR) equations as solved here. It is introduced by the coordinate identity r=|~r| sgn(1−h^2) and by the identity V_eff=0 for radial null geodesics, which the paper itself notes holds for any A(r). The missing dynamical ingredient that would make h^2 cross 1 and the scalars behave as needed at r=0 is Eq. (46), explicitly deferred to the author's forthcoming ref. [8]; the strong-gravity potential v(h) is likewise deferred. The paper even concedes in Sec. VII that once φ(r),s(r) are fully determined, the metric will deviate from Eq. (28), so the geodesic analysis is performed on a provisional ansatz. This is partial circularity: the asymptotic geometry has genuine independent content, but the central singularity-crossing prediction reduces partly to a coordinate definition and partly to a load-bearing self-citation. Score 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on an added scalar phi and a Weyl symmetry with a chosen sign structure, plus the deferred behavior of the Higgs ratio near the singularity. One free parameter beta (or G_tilde_N) controls the antigravity side, and the strong-gravity potential v(h) is left arbitrary. The invented entities have no independent evidence within this paper.

free parameters (2)
  • beta (antigravity strength parameter) = undetermined
    Eq. (19) introduces 0<beta<1 to parametrize G_tilde_N and the AdS curvature R_-; the paper states 'This beta is the only undetermined parameter in the asymptotic solution' (after Eq. 19). All antigravity predictions depend on it.
  • v(h) strong-gravity Weyl potential = unconstrained
    The potential V = phi^4 v(h) is an arbitrary function of h in strong gravity, only required to smoothly match V4 at small h (Eq. 11). The paper says its structure is not central but will be critical for the dynamics near the singularity, to be fixed in [8].
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Local scale (Weyl) invariance (2) is an exact symmetry of nature in the i(SM+GR) action
    The whole framework is built on this symmetry, derived from 2T-physics in refs [3,4]; the paper offers no direct empirical evidence for it beyond low-energy agreement.
  • ad hoc to paper The relative sign between phi and H couplings in (1), (3) is chosen so that (1-h^2) can change sign, producing gravity and antigravity patches
    Footnote 2 states the sign is indispensable to keep G positive in our region while allowing antigravity elsewhere; this sign choice is an input, not a consequence.
  • domain assumption The Standard Model sector LSM does not influence the vacuum geometry
    Section III: 'LSM is disregarded for the remainder of this paper, as its contribution... is assumed not to influence the subsequent analysis.'
  • ad hoc to paper Scalar fields vanish at the singularity with finite ratio |s/phi|=1 (Eq. 46)
    This is imported from the forthcoming paper [8] and is essential for the antigravity continuation and mass vanishing at r=0.
  • domain assumption The AdS boundary at r=-infinity acts as a reflecting mirror for geodesics
    Section VI: uses global AdS geometry [16] to reflect geodesics at I+/- boundaries, making them bounce back through the singularity; this boundary condition is not derived from i(SM+GR).
invented entities (2)
  • Singlet scalar field phi(x) no independent evidence
    purpose: Extends the SM Higgs sector to implement local scale invariance and produce the dynamical gravitational strength G(x) that can change sign (Eq. 3)
    phi is not observed; in the c-gauge it is fixed to phi_0 about 0.596x10^19 GeV and becomes non-dynamical, so its existence is not directly detectable in the low-energy limit.
  • Antigravity spacetime region (h^2>1, negative G) no independent evidence
    purpose: Completes geodesics beyond the singularity and resolves geodesic incompleteness
    The paper offers no independent observational handle; indirect effects on rotation curves are promised for a future paper [8] and not computed here.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Higgs Field Governs the Interior Spacetime of Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVS2D7JY

@misc{pith2026250906800,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Higgs Field Governs the Interior Spacetime of Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVS2D7JY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06800}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The Higgs field is conventionally treated as a small local perturbation atop a large, constant vacuum value that uniformly permeates the universe. I propose instead that in regions of extreme gravitational intensity -- such as near gravitational singularities -- the Higgs field behaves in a profoundly non-perturbative manner. In such environments, spacetime and the Higgs field engage in a dynamic interplay that extends spacetime beyond the singularity, achieving geodesic completeness. The continuation beyond the singularity is dominated by antigravity effects, reshaping the causal structure of spacetime and enabling novel flows of matter and information, including traversal through singularities. In its standard form, the combined framework of the Standard Model (SM) and General Relativity (GR), as well as most of its extensions, fails to capture these phenomena due to its geodesic incompleteness. By contrast, a refined, locally conformal-symmetric formulation -- denoted i(SM+GR) -- naturally incorporates these effects. GR is not an optional component of i(SM+GR) but an essential ingredient. This framework preserves the empirical success of SM+GR in the low-energy regime while predicting striking new phenomena in extreme gravitational settings, including within black holes (on both sides of the singularity) and in pre--Big Bang cosmology. At the classical field theory level, i(SM+GR) offers fresh perspectives on the black hole information puzzle and provides a platform for locally scale-invariant generalizations, such as geodesically complete quantum field theory, string theory, and unified models of fundamental interactions. This paper presents the detailed derivations and explanations that underlie a condensed letter version recently published in [1].

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

27 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    SUGRA was elevated to a W eyl-symmetric version that incorporates a complex super eld version of (x) [3]

    Previous SUGRA literature [6] xated solely on the positive G(x) spacetime patch, and constrained it to remain positive through a W eyl transformation to the Ein- stein frame, inadvertently resulting in geodesic incompleteness. SUGRA was elevated to a W eyl-symmetric version that incorporates a complex super eld version of (x) [3]. Hence, SUGRA is geodesic...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Meanwhile, the asymptotic constantR must be computed via the rst equation in (12) from a local metric g (x) and its derivatives

    + 0 2 = 0; s R 6 + (s2 2 2) = 0: (14) Although these ( ;s ) equations follow from (12), they equivalently extremize the e¤ ective potentialV 0 e¤, which includes not only V4 but also the curvature term V 0 ef f 1 12 2 s2 R + 4 s2 2 2 2 + 0 4 4; (15) where R is treated as a xed constant while varying and s. Meanwhile, the asymptotic constantR must be compu...

    work page

  3. [3]

    and ( h; c) noted in (29,30,35), no analogous approximations exist for the dimensionless quantities w ( ) and w ( ) and related quantities ( ); R ( ); ~GN ( ); all of which depend on a single un- known : However, the possible range of numerical values of these quantities can be plotted as the dimensionless (equivalently ~GN ) changes in the range 0 1. In ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Massless AdSSdS geodesics F orm = 0 and L = 0 , the potential vanishes: Ve¤(r) = 0 (Fig.5). Hence no turning points exist and Eq.(42) integrates directly: _rm=0 = E; r m=0 ( ) = E ; (44) with sign choice determined by the initial direction of the radial velocity _r, while E is positive/negative for particles/antiparticles respectively. F or example, rm=0 ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Classical trajectories bounce at these turning points and cannot classically penetrate into the antigravity sector

    Massive AdSSdS geodesics F orm2 6= 0 or L2 6= 0 , the e¤ ective potential introduces barriers at turning points, including at r = 0 (Figs.3&4). Classical trajectories bounce at these turning points and cannot classically penetrate into the antigravity sector. However, in quantum theory tun- neling occurs under barriers, thus connecting continuously the in...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Itzhak Bars, “Higgs eld as architect of a geodesically complete universe and agent for new physics in interiors of black holes,” ArXiv: 2509.07346.[hep-th]

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    C. V. Johnson, “Wigner meets ’ t Hooft near the black hole horizon,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31 (2022) 14, 2242003 [ ArXiv: 2206.03509 [hep-th] ], and references therein

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Itzhak Bars, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, “Local conformal symmetry in physics and cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 043515 [ArXiv: 1307.1848 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Locally Scale Invariant Chern-Simons Actions in 3+1 Dimensions and Their Emergence From 4+2 Dimensional 2T-Physics

    Itzhak Bars and Sophia D. Singh, “Locally scale invariant Chern-Simons actions in 3+1 di- mensions and their emergence from (4+2)-dimensional 2T physics,”Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 38 4, 045010 [ArXiv: 2405.05510 [hep-th] ]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Steinhardt and N

    Itzhak Bars, P. Steinhardt and N. Turok, “Dynamical string tension in string theory with spacetime Weyl invariance,” Fortsch. Phys. 62 (2014) 901 [ArXiv: 1407.0992 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , Volume III, Cambridge 2000

    See for example, S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , Volume III, Cambridge 2000

    work page 2000

  12. [12]

    Cyclic Cosmology, Conformal Symmetry and the Metastability of the Higgs

    Itzhak Bars, P. Steinhardt and N. Turok, “Cyclic Cosmology, Conformal Symmetry and the Metastability of the Higgs,” Phys.Lett. B 726 (2013) 50 [ArXiv: 1307.8106 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [13]

    Itzhak Bars, “The Higgs Field Meets the Black Hole with Exact Electroweak Symmetry,” in preparation

    work page

  14. [14]

    I. J. Araya, Itzhak Bars and A. James, “Journey Beyond the Schwarzschild Black Hole Sin- gularity,” [ArXiv: 1510.03396 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    C. H. Lineweaver and T. M. Davis, “Misconceptions about the Big Bang”Scienti c American Magazine Vol. 292 No. 3 (March 2005)

    work page 2005

  16. [16]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Cosmological event horizons, thermodynamics and particle creation,” Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2738

    work page 1977

  17. [17]

    Itzhak Bars, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, “Antigravity and the Big Crunch/Big Bang Transition,” Phys. Lett. B 715 (2012) 278 [ArXiv: 1112.2470 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    Sailing through the big crunch-big bang transition

    Itzhak Bars, P. Steinhardt and N. Turok, “Sailing through the big crunch-big bang transition,” Phys.Rev.D 89 (2014) 6, 061302 [ArXiv: 1312.0739 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    Misner, K

    C. Misner, K. Thorne, J. Wheeler, “ Gravitation,” see Figure 31.3. W.H.Freeman and Co. [1973]

    work page 1973

  20. [20]

    J. T. Wheeler, “Weyl Geometry,” Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 50 (2018) 80, [ArXiv1801:03178 [gr- qc]]

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    See Fig.39 on page 179, and related commentary, and Eqs.(4.23,4.25.4.27)

    David Tong, “Lectures on General Relativity,”http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/gr/gr.pdf. See Fig.39 on page 179, and related commentary, and Eqs.(4.23,4.25.4.27)

    work page

  22. [22]

    Maldacena and L

    J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, “Cool horizons for entangled black holes," Fortsch. Phys. 61 (2013) 781 [ArXiv: 1306.0533 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    Susskind, “ER=EPR, GHZ, and the consistency of quantum measurements,” [ArXiv: 1412.8483 [hep-th]]

    L. Susskind, “ER=EPR, GHZ, and the consistency of quantum measurements,” [ArXiv: 1412.8483 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    Maldacena, “The large N limit of superconformal eld theories and supergravity,” Adv

    J. Maldacena, “The large N limit of superconformal eld theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231 [e-print :hep-th/9711200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    Gubser, I

    S. Gubser, I. Klebanov, A. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” 39 Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 105 [e-print: hep-th/9802109]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  26. [26]

    Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,” Adv

    E. Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253 [e-print: hep-th/9802150]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  27. [27]

    Itzhak Bars, “Hidden Symmetries, AdS d Sn, and the lifting of one-time-physics to two-time- physics,” Phys. Rev. D 59 , (1999) 045019 [e-Print: hep-th/9810025v2]. 40

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.