Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Relativistic second gradient theory of continuous media

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read General covariance alone confines relativistic second-gradient elasticity to eight invariants.

desk verdict The second-order invariant reduction is real and the proof is sound, but the claimed derivation of classical second-gradient theory is only kinematic and should be reframed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13030 v1 pith:JK46KUTC submitted 2025-07-17 gr-qc

Mina Chapon (LMPS) , Lionel Darondeau (IMJ-PRG) , Rodrigue Desmorat (LMT , LMPS) , Clément Ecker (LMPS) , Boris Kolev (LMPS) This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 74B2083C5570G45
keywords RelativisticelasticitySecondgradienttheoryofcontinuousmediaVariationalRelativityGeneralcovarianceObjectivityConformationtensorGalileanlimitMatterrestframe
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

The paper extends the relativistic variational theory of hyperelasticity to second-gradient media by proving that general covariance restricts the Lagrangian density to a small catalogue of invariants. If the claim holds, any theory of second-gradient elasticity in general relativity is governed by the matter field itself, the conformation tensor, a material acceleration, a velocity gradient, a strain gradient, and three curvature-matter coupling tensors. The paper then computes the classical (infinite speed of light) limits of these invariants and finds that some converge to objective quantities of classical continuum mechanics while others do not. This provides a derivation of classical second-gradient theory from general relativity and clarifies the status of the objectivity principle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the matter rest frame, the coframe formed by the four one-forms given by minus the unit material velocity and the three differentials of the matter field's components, which the paper proves is general covariant. This frame converts all jet data into scalar components that are already diffeomorphism invariants. The second essential tool is a normalization theorem for Christoffel symbols that, using diffeomorphisms with trivial linear part, replaces the connection's first derivatives by components of the Riemann curvature tensor, so that no non-covariant derivative data remains in the Lagrangian density.

What would settle it

Take any perfect-fluid solution with non-zero Riemann curvature, compute the second-order jet components in the rest frame, and attempt to build a diffeomorphism-covariant Lagrangian density that depends on some combination of these components not expressible through K, A, L, H, M2, M3, and M4; discovering such a density would refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result, Theorem 3.3, states that a Lagrangian density depending on the second-order jets of the Lorentzian metric and of the matter field, and invariant under orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms, can be recast at each interior point of matter as a function of the metric and curvature components in the matter rest frame together with the Hessian of the matter field. Corollary 3.6 rewrites this as a function of eight vector-valued relativistic invariants: the matter field, the conformation K, the material relativistic acceleration A, the material relativistic velocity gradient L, the material relativistic strain gradient H, and three curvature tensors M2, M3, M4. These invariants are built from the rest frame, a diffeomorphism-covariant coframe determined by the matter field alone, and they reduce to the classical variables of second-gradient elasticity in the Galilean limit.

Load-bearing premise

The whole reduction rests on the assumption that the matter field is a submersion whose kernel is timelike, so that a rest frame exists; at vacuum points, boundaries, and for null or dust-like matter the theorem does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any relativistic second-gradient hyperelasticity theory that respects general covariance must have a Lagrangian density of the form L(Ψ, K, A, L, H, M2, M3, M4).
  • The classical second-gradient theory of finite strain elasticity, whose fundamental variable is F^{-1}∇F, is recovered as the c→∞ limit of the relativistic invariants.
  • The conformation K tends to the inverse of the right Cauchy–Green tensor, and the strain gradient H tends to the classical finite-strain second-gradient variable.
  • The acceleration A and velocity gradient L have non-objective classical limits, showing that general covariance alone does not enforce objectivity for time-derivative-type variables.
  • The new curvature-matter invariants M2, M3, M4 vanish in flat spacetime and may be relevant in strong-field settings such as neutron stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof strategy suggests that each additional jet order adds only finitely many new invariants, so a systematic hierarchy of higher-order relativistic gradient theories could be built along the same lines; the paper itself notes the method extends to higher orders.
  • Because the rest frame degenerates for null or dust-like matter and in vacuum, the theorem leaves those regimes unconstrained; a separate treatment would be needed for radiation fluids.
  • Computing the weak-field, non-relativistic limit of M2, M3, M4 would give a concrete prediction for how spacetime curvature couples to strain gradients in laboratory-scale experiments, which could be compared with existing gradient-elasticity models.
  • The split between objective spatial-gradient limits and non-objective time-derivative limits gives a relativistic selection rule: quantities that extend continuously to the degenerate Galilean metric inherit objectivity, while those that do not extend are the non-objective ones.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends Souriau's variational relativity to Lagrangians depending on second-order jets of the Lorentzian metric g and a matter field Psi. The main result (Theorem 3.3) asserts that a general-covariant second-order Lagrangian density reduces, on the matter world tube and for orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms, to a function of the components of g^{-1}, the Riemann tensor, Psi and the Hessian of Psi in the matter rest frame. Corollary 3.6 re-expresses this in terms of the invariants Psi, K, M2, M3, M4, A, L, H. The paper also computes the c->infinity limits of these invariants in Minkowski spacetime, recovering classical variables such as C^{-1}, F^{-1} nabla F and the velocity gradient, and discusses the relation between general covariance and objectivity.

Significance. The invariant reduction is the paper's core contribution. If correct, Theorem 3.3 gives a clean, parameter-free structural result: any relativistic second-gradient elastic theory obeying general covariance is governed by the listed invariants. The proof is self-contained and detailed, including a new normalization result for Christoffel symbols (Theorem A.7) and a new proof of Souriau's theorem. The paper is also transparent about the hypotheses: the reduction holds only on the world tube, for perfect matter with timelike kernel, and under orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms. However, the claimed derivation of classical second-gradient continuum mechanics is not established at the dynamical level; the paper demonstrates a kinematical correspondence between the relativistic invariants and classical objective variables. This gap limits the significance of Section 5 but not of the main theorem.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.1 and Section 6] The claim that the classical 3D second-gradient theory 'can be derived' from the relativistic theory is not supported by the analysis presented. The section computes pointwise limits of the invariant variables (K tending to C^{-1}, A tending to F^{-1} a, L tending to F^{-1}(nabla u) F, H tending to F^{-1} nabla F), but it never studies the limit of the Lagrangian density L(Psi,K,M2,M3,M4,A,L,H) or of the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations. Because L is an arbitrary function, there is no argument that terms such as c^2(K-C^{-1}) or contributions from M2,M3,M4 vanish or remain controlled as c tends to infinity. What is shown is a kinematical correspondence, not a derivation of the second-gradient balance laws with higher-order stresses. Please either provide the dynamical-limit argument or revise the abstract and Section 6 accordingly.
  2. [Section 5.2] The passage from general covariance to objectivity is demonstrated only for the specific invariants K and H, not for arbitrary general-covariant Lagrangians. An arbitrary Lagrangian may also depend on A and L, whose classical limits are non-objective; the paper does not show that these contributions disappear or are excluded in the classical limit. Thus the statement that the 3D Classical Continuum Mechanics second-gradient theory is derived, and the related claim about the status of objectivity, are stronger than what the limit computations establish. The authors should state precisely which class of Lagrangians is being claimed to limit to an objective second-gradient theory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 3.3] The statement contains a typo: 'Wold tube' should read 'world tube'.
  2. [Section 4.3] The notation g is used for the Lorentzian metric throughout the paper, but in Section 4.3 it is also used for the spatial Euclidean metric in eta = -c^2 dt^2 + g; this overload is confusing and should be changed, for instance by writing h or bar(g) for the spatial metric.
  3. [Section 5.2] The word 'Gallileomorphisms' appears to be a typographical variant of 'Galileomorphisms'; please standardize the spelling.
  4. [Corollary 3.6] The phrase 'vector valued relativistic invariants Psi, K, M2, M3, M4, A, L, H' is imprecise, since K, M2, M3, M4, L and H are tensor-valued rather than vector-valued; please rephrase.
  5. [Section 5.1] A summary table listing each invariant, its classical limit, and whether the limit is objective would greatly improve the readability of the classical-limit discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Self-contained covariance reduction; no fitted parameters or self-citation chain; Galilean-limit overclaim is a gap, not circularity.

full rationale

Score 0. The central reduction (Theorem 3.3, Corollary 3.6) is self-contained: assuming general covariance under orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms, the proof changes variables to (Psi, T Psi, Hess_g Psi, R_g), then uses the normalization Corollary A.8, which is proved in Appendix A.3, to absorb Gamma and partial Gamma into R_g, and finally writes all tensors in the rest frame and uses the transitive action of GL+(4,R) on oriented bases to eliminate the frame dependence. No equation used in this chain is assumed to equal the conclusion. The invariants K, A, L, H, M2, M3, M4 are defined as components of g^{-1}, Hess_g Psi, and R_g in the rest frame, not fitted to data; the factors of c in equation (3.2) are normalization conventions, not fitted parameters. The classical limits in Section 5 are computed limits of these defined invariants, for instance H converging to F^{-1} grad F in (4.5) and Section 5.1, so the correspondence is a kinematical computation rather than a prediction forced by construction. The self-citations [39,40] by Kolev and Desmorat are present but not load-bearing: the rest-frame covariance used here is proved in this paper (Theorem 2.6 and Lemma B.1), and the Christoffel normalization is proved in Corollary A.8. The paper's own stated limitation—interior solutions with a perfect matter field whose kernel is timelike, excluding vacuum, null matter, or boundaries—is an explicit scope condition, not circularity. A separate overclaim is present: the conclusion states that the 3D classical second-gradient theory 'can be derived' as a limiting case, while only pointwise limits of invariants are computed and no limit of an arbitrary general-covariant Lagrangian or of its Euler-Lagrange dynamics is shown. That is a completeness or correctness gap, not an input-output reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; c and the mass measure rho_0 are physical inputs, not tuned to match data. The axioms are standard geometric hypotheses plus the perfect-matter/interior restriction. The A, L, H, M2, M3, M4 tensors are not invented physical entities: they are components of the Hessian and curvature in a canonically constructed frame, with no new ontology.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The Universe is a 4-dimensional orientable manifold with a Lorentzian metric of signature (- + + +).
    Sets the spacetime setting in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The matter Lagrangian is general covariant under local diffeomorphisms (or, for Theorem 3.3, under orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms).
    The founding principle of the theory (Sections 2.1 and 3.2).
  • domain assumption Perfect matter: Psi: M -> R3 is a submersion on the world tube and ker T Psi is timelike.
    Needed to build the general covariant rest frame (Section 2.3, before Theorem 2.6); restricts results to interior solutions.
  • domain assumption The Lagrangian density depends only on second-order jets of g and Psi.
    Defines the theory being classified (Section 3.2).
  • standard math The Levi-Civita connection is used; it is torsion-free and metric-compatible.
    Standard in general relativity (Appendix A).
  • domain assumption Only orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms are considered for the second-order theorem.
    The volume form is a density under orientation reversal; the theorem is only stated for orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms (Remark 3.4).
  • domain assumption The classical limit is taken in Minkowski spacetime by letting c tend to infinity and keeping a Galilean structure.
    Used in Section 5; not part of the general theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic second gradient theory of continuous media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JK46KUTC

@misc{pith2026250713030,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic second gradient theory of continuous media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JK46KUTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13030}
}
abstract

Variational Relativity is a framework developed by Souriau in the sixties to better formulate General Relativity and its classical limit\,: Classical Continuum Mechanics. It has been used, for instance, to formulate Hyperelasticity in General Relativity. In that case, two primary variables are involved, the universe (Lorentzian) metric $g$ and the matter field $\Psi$. A Lagrangian density depending on the 1-jet of these variables is then introduced which must satisfy the principle of General Covariance. Souriau proved in 1958 that under these hypotheses, the Lagrangian density depends only on the punctual value of the matter field $\Psi$ and of a secondary variable $\mathbf{K}$, the conformation, an invariant of the diffeomorphism group, which is the Relativistic analog of the inverse of the right Cauchy--Green tensor. In the present work, an extension of Souriau's results to a second order gradient theory in General Relativity is presented. Accordingly, new higher order diffeomorphisms invariants are found. Their classical limits are calculated, showing that the 3-dimensional Continuum Mechanics second gradient theory can be derived from such a relativistic theory. Some of these invariants converge to objective quantities in the Galilean limit, others to non-objective quantities. The present work contributes thus to clarify the theoretical foundation of higher gradient Continuum Mechanics theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13030 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A change of coordinates (left), and a reparameterization at the source (right). M • m • ϕ(m) R 4 ϕ ξ • ¯ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A reparameterization (at the goal). Firstly, there is no canonical equivalence between changes of coordinates and reparameter￾izations: one needs to fix an arbitrary (local) diffeomorphism R 4 → ℳ. Secondly and more importantly, even after identification, the actions of the two diffeomorphism groups are different. Changes of coordinates are involved in the process of gluing local objects into global objects such as … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Geometric theory of generalised continua using moving frames

    math-ph 2026-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Gauge invariance under arbitrary choice of reference moving frames is shown to be equivalent to the standard micromorphic free energy, yielding a geometric classification of generalized continua.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    E. C. Aifantis. On the role of gradients in the localization of deformation and fracture. International Journal of Engineering Science, 30(10):1279–1299, Oct. 1992

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Altan and E

    B. Altan and E. Aifantis. On some aspects in the special theory of gradient elasticity. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials , 8(3):231–282, Sept. 1997

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner. The dynamics of general relativity. In Gravitation: An introduction to current research, pages 227–265. Wiley, New York, 1962

    work page 1962

  4. [4]

    Askes and E

    H. Askes and E. C. Aifantis. Gradient elasticity in statics and dynamics: An overview of formulations, length scale identification procedures, finite element implementations and new results. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 48(13):1962–1990, June 2011

    work page 1962

  5. [5]

    Astarita

    G. Astarita. Objective and generally applicable criteria for flow classification. Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, 6(1):69–76, 1979

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    Beig and B

    R. Beig and B. G. Schmidt. Relativistic elasticity. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 20(5):889–904, Feb. 2003

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    J.-F. Bennoun. ´Etude des milieux continus ´ elastiques et thermodynamiques en relativit´ e g´ en´ erale.Annales Institut Henri Poincar´ e, III(1):41–110, 1965

    work page 1965

  8. [8]

    A. Bertram. Elasticity and Plasticity of Large Deformations . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Bertram and S

    A. Bertram and S. Forest, editors. Mechanics of Strain Gradient Materials . Springer International Publishing, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Bleecker

    D. Bleecker. Gauge Theory and Variational Principles , volume 1 of Global Analysis Pure and Applied Series A. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass., 1981

    1981

  3. [11]

    J. D. Brown. Elasticity theory in general relativity. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 38(8):085017, Mar. 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Carter and H

    B. Carter and H. Quintana. Foundations of general relativistic high-pressure elasticity theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences , 331(1584):57–83, Nov. 1972

    1972

  5. [13]

    Cosserat and F

    E. Cosserat and F. Cosserat. Th´ eorie des corps d´ eformables. Librairie Scientifique A. Hermann et Fils, Paris, 1909

    1909

  6. [14]

    dell’Isola, G

    F. dell’Isola, G. Sciarra, and S. Vidoli. Generalized hooke’s law for isotropic second gradient materials. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 465(2107):2177–2196, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    dell’Isola, G

    F. dell’Isola, G. Sciarra, and S. Vidoli. Generalized hooke’s law for isotropic second gradient materials. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 465(2107):2177–2196, Apr. 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    B. S. DeWitt. The quantization of geometry. In Gravitation: An introduction to current research , pages 266–381. Wiley, New York, 1962

    1962

  9. [17]

    D. G. Edelen and J. A. McLennan. Material indifference: a principle or a convenience. International Journal of engineering Science, 11(8):813–817, 1973

    1973

  10. [18]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. The Meaning of Relativity . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1988. Reprint of the 1956 edition

    1988

  11. [19]

    Epstein, D

    M. Epstein, D. A. Burton, and R. Tucker. Relativistic anelasticity.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23(10):3545– 3571, Apr. 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    A. C. Eringen. Linear theory of micropolar elasticity. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics , pages 909–923, 1966

    1966

  13. [21]

    A. C. Eringen. On differential equations of nonlocal elasticity and solutions of screw dislocation and surface waves. Journal of Applied Physics , 54(9):4703–4710, Sept. 1983

    1983

  14. [22]

    A. C. Eringen. Microcontinuum Field Theories. Springer New York, New York, NY, 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    A. C. Eringen. Microcontinuum Field Theories: I. Foundations and Solids . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    S. Forest. Milieux continus g´ en´ eralis´ es et mat´ eriaux h´ et´ erog` enes. Mines de Paris, Paris, 2006. OCLC: 833434516

    2006

  17. [25]

    Forest and K

    S. Forest and K. Sab. Finite-deformation second-order micromorphic theory and its relations to strain and stress gradient models. Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids , 25(7):1429–1449, Aug. 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Forest and R

    S. Forest and R. Sievert. Elastoviscoplastic constitutive frameworks for generalized continua. Acta Mechanica, 160(1-2):71–111, Jan. 2003

    2003

  19. [27]

    Fried and M

    E. Fried and M. E. Gurtin. Tractions, balances, and boundary conditions for nonsimple materials with application to liquid flow at small-length scales. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 182(3):513–554, May 2006. 30 CHAPON, DARONDEAU, DESMORAT, ECKER, AND KOLEV

    2006

  20. [28]

    P. Germain. La m´ ethode des puissances virtuelles en m´ ecanique des milieux continus, premi` ere partie: Th´ eorie du second gradient. Journal de M´ ecanique, 12(2):235–274, 1973

    1973

  21. [29]

    P. Germain. The method of virtual power in continuum mechanics. part 2: Microstructure. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 25(3):556–575, Nov. 1973

    1973

  22. [30]

    H. Gouin. Symmetric forms for hyperbolic-parabolic systems of multi-gradient fluids. ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift f¨ ur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik , 99(7), Apr. 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Gourgoulhon

    E. Gourgoulhon. 3+1 Formalism in General Relativity . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    R. A. Grot and A. Eringen. Relativistic continuum mechanics part i—mechanics and thermodynamics. International Journal of Engineering Science , 4(6):611–638, Dec. 1966

    1966

  25. [33]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time . Cambridge University Press, Oct. 1973

    1973

  26. [34]

    Iglesias-Zemmour

    P. Iglesias-Zemmour. Diffeology, volume 185 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    Kijowski and G

    J. Kijowski and G. Magli. Relativistic elastomechanics as a Lagrangian field theory. Journal of Geometry and Physics, 9(3):207–223, July 1992

    1992

  28. [36]

    Kijowski and G

    J. Kijowski and G. Magli. Unconstrained variational principle and canonical structure for relativistic elasticity. Reports on Mathematical Physics , 39(1):99–112, Feb. 1997

    1997

  29. [37]

    Kijowski and K

    J. Kijowski and K. Senger. Covariant jets of a connection and higher order curvature tensors. Journal of Geometry and Physics , 163:104092, May 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    F. Klein. Le programme d’Erlangen. Gauthier-Villars ´ editeur, Paris-Brussels-Montreal, Que., 1974

    1974

  31. [39]

    Kolev and R

    B. Kolev and R. Desmorat. Souriau’s general covariant formulation of relativistic hyperelasticity revisited. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 181:105463, Dec. 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Kolev and R

    B. Kolev and R. Desmorat. Objective rates as covariant derivatives on the manifold of Riemannian metrics. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 248(4):66, Aug. 2024. arXiv:2106.01126 [physics]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lichnerowicz

    A. Lichnerowicz. Th´ eories relativistes de la gravitation et de l’´ electromagn´ etisme: relativit´ e g´ en´ erale et th´ eories unitaires. Collection d’ouvrages de math´ ematiques ` a l’usage des physiciens. Masson, 1955

    1955

  34. [42]

    G. A. Maugin. On the covariant equations of the relativistic electrodynamics of continua. II. fluids. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 19(5):1206–1211, May 1978

    1978

  35. [43]

    G. A. Maugin. On the covariant equations of the relativistic electrodynamics of continua. IV. media with spin. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 19(5):1220–1226, May 1978

    1978

  36. [44]

    G. A. Maugin and A. V. Metrikine, editors. Mechanics of Generalized Continua . Springer New York, 2010

    2010

  37. [45]

    G. W. Milton and J. R. Willis. On modifications of Newton’s second law and linear continuum elastodynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 463(2079):855–880, 2007

    2007

  38. [46]

    Mindlin and N

    R. Mindlin and N. Eshel. On first strain-gradient theories in linear elasticity. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 4(1):109–124, Jan. 1968

    1968

  39. [47]

    R. D. Mindlin. Micro-structure in linear elasticity. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 16(1):51–78, Jan. 1964

    1964

  40. [48]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler. Gravitation. W. H. Freeman and Company, 1973

    1973

  41. [49]

    M¨ uller and F

    T. M¨ uller and F. Grave. Catalogue of spacetimes. arXiv preprint arXiv:0904.4184 , 2009

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A. Murdoch. On material frame-indifference, intrinsic spin, and certain constitutive relations motivated by the kinetic theory of gases. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal, 83(2):183, 1983

    1983

  43. [51]

    R. A. Nahas, M. Wang, B. Panicaud, E. Rouhaud, A. Charles, and R. Kerner. Covariant spacetime formalism for applications to thermo-hyperelasticity. Acta Mechanica, 233(6):2309–2334, May 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    W. Noll. The foundations of classical mechanics in the light of recent advances in continuum mechanics. Studies Logic Found. Math., Axiomatic Method, 266–281 (1959)., 1959

    1959

  45. [53]

    Nordstr¨ om

    G. Nordstr¨ om. De gravitatietheorie van Einstein en de mechanica van Herglotz.Kon. Akad. v. Wetensch. te Amsterdam. Wis- en Nat. kund. Afd. , 25:836–843, Nov. 1916

    1916

  46. [54]

    J. D. Norton. General covariance and the foundations of general relativity: eight decades of dispute. Reports on Progress in Physics , 56(7):791–858, July 1993

    1993

  47. [55]

    Panicaud and E

    B. Panicaud and E. Rouhaud. A frame-indifferent model for a thermo-elastic material beyond the three- dimensional Eulerian and Lagrangian descriptions. Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics , 26(1):79–93, Feb. 2013

    2013

  48. [56]

    Panicaud, E

    B. Panicaud, E. Rouhaud, G. Altmeyer, M. Wang, R. Kerner, A. Roos, and O. Ameline. Consistent hypo-elastic behavior using the four-dimensional formalism of differential geometry. Acta Mechanica, 227(3):651–675, Oct. 2015

    2015

  49. [57]

    Polizzotto

    C. Polizzotto. Stress gradient versus strain gradient constitutive models within elasticity. International Journal of Solids and Structures , 51(9):1809–1818, May 2014

    2014

  50. [58]

    C. B. Rayner. Elasticity in general relativity.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 272(1348):44–53, Feb. 1963

    1963

  51. [59]

    J.-M. Souriau. La relativit´ e variationnelle.Publ. Sci. Univ. Alger. S´ er. A, 5:103–170, 1958. RELATIVISTIC SECOND GRADIENT THEORY OF CONTINUOUS MEDIA 31

    1958

  52. [60]

    J.-M. Souriau. Mati` ere parfaite en relativit´ e g´ en´ erale. InS´ emin. M´ ecan. Anal. et M´ ecan. C´ eleste, volume 7 of 3𝑒𝑚𝑒 ann´ ee. Univ. de Paris, 1960

    1960

  53. [61]

    J.-M. Souriau. G´ eom´ etrie et relativit´ e. Enseignement des Sciences, VI. Hermann, Paris, 1964

    1964

  54. [62]

    J. M. Souriau. Groupes differentiels, pages 91–128. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1980

    1980

  55. [63]

    C. G. Speziale. A review of material frame-indifference in mechanics.Applied Mechanics Reviews, 51(8):489–504, 08 1998

    1998

  56. [64]

    Steinmann

    P. Steinmann. Geometrical Foundations of Continuum Mechanics . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2015

    2015

  57. [65]

    J. L. Synge. A theory of elasticity in general relativity. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 72(1):82–87, Dec. 1959

    1959

  58. [66]

    R. A. Toupin. Elastic materials with couple-stresses. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 11(1):385– 414, 1962

    1962

  59. [67]

    R. A. Toupin. Theories of elasticity with couple-stress. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 17(2):85– 112, Jan. 1964

    1964

  60. [68]

    Truesdell and W

    C. Truesdell and W. Noll. The Non-Linear Field Theories of Mechanics . Handbuch f¨ ur Physik III/3. Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1965

    1965

  61. [69]

    Westman and S

    H. Westman and S. Sonego. Coordinates, observables and symmetry in relativity. Annals of Physics , 324(8):1585–1611, Aug. 2009

    2009

  62. [70]

    J. W. York, Jr. Kinematics and dynamics of general relativity. In L. Smarr, editor, Sources of gravitational radiation, pages 83–126, Cambridge, 1979. Cambridge University Press. (Mina Chapon) Universit´e Paris-Saclay, ENS Paris-Saclay, CentraleSup ´elec, CNRS, LMPS - Laborato...

    1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.