Carroll membranes

Dibakar Roychowdhury

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Carroll membranes

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the Carroll limit of M-theory membranes, transverse coordinates freeze while transverse momenta carry the dynamics set by the background 3-form flux, and the Nambu-Goto and Hamiltonian world-volume descriptions become equivalent.

desk verdict Plausible extension of Carroll limits to M2/M3 branes, but the advertised 3-form coupling drops out of the final dynamics; the paper needs a reframing and some loose ends tightened. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07280 v2 pith:H7N3ECPM submitted 2019-08-20 hep-th

Dibakar Roychowdhury This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords Carrollsymmetryultra-relativisticlimitM2braneM311DsupergravityNambu-GotoactionWess-Zuminotermtachyonvacuum

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 works out what happens to membranes of M-theory when the world-volume is taken to an ultra-relativistic (Carroll) limit, the limit in which the effective speed of light goes to zero. It shows that in this limit an M2 brane's transverse spatial coordinates freeze, while its transverse momenta obey nontrivial equations that still feel the eleven-dimensional background 3-form gauge field. It then proves that two standard ways of writing the M2 brane action — the Hamiltonian form and the Nambu-Goto action — reduce to the same world-volume description in this limit, after a field redefinition and constraints. The construction is extended to generic Mp branes and to unstable M3 branes, where the tachyon vacuum yields an effective Carroll membrane action. If the limit is the right one, Carroll membranes provide a tractable ultra-relativistic sector of M-theory dynamics.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a velocity-dominated scaling of the world-volume data. One sends $\omega\to\infty$ with the first two (stringy Carroll) or first three (membrane Carroll) target-space coordinates replaced by $x^\mu/\omega$ and the conjugate momenta replaced by $\omega\pi^\mu$; all other coordinates and momenta stay fixed, while the Lagrange multipliers and the membrane tension are rescaled as $\lambda_0 = \tilde\lambda_0/\omega^2$, $\lambda_i = \tilde\lambda_i/\omega$, $T_2 = \omega\tilde{T}_2$. Substituting into the first-order Hamiltonian action yields the primary Hamiltonian constraint (13), whose key structural pieces are the transverse induced metric determinant $\det\gamma_{ij}$ and the longitudinal momentum square $\pi_\mu\pi_\nu g^{\mu\nu}$; the constraint forces $\partial_0 x^I = 0$. The equivalence between world-volume formulations is carried by the field redefinition (78), which subtracts the Wess-Zumino contribution from the transverse momentum and, together with the constraints (80), maps the Nambu-Goto description onto the Hamiltonian one.

What would settle it

Compute the Carroll limit of the M2 brane with the background 3-form scaled as $\omega^{0}$ or $\omega^{-2}$ instead of $\omega^{-1}$; if the Wess-Zumino term then diverges or vanishes, or if $\partial_0 x^I$ no longer vanishes, the claimed equivalence between the Nambu-Goto and Hamiltonian descriptions would be specific to the chosen scaling rather than a property of the Carroll limit. Alternatively, derive the scaling by taking an explicit ultra-relativistic contraction of the full M2 action and compare with (10)-(11).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Carroll limit of an M2 brane in eleven-dimensional supergravity is governed by a primary Hamiltonian constraint, $H_P = \tilde\lambda_0 \tilde{T}_2^2/2 \det \gamma_{ij} - \tilde\lambda_i \tilde\lambda_j/(4\tilde\lambda_0) \partial_i x^I \partial_j x^J g_{IJ} + \tilde\zeta \pi_\mu \pi_\nu g^{\mu\nu} \approx 0$, from which the equations of motion $\partial_0 x^\mu = 2 \tilde{N} \tilde\zeta \pi_\nu g^{\mu\nu}$, $\partial_0 \pi_\mu = 0$, and $\partial_0 x^I = 0$ follow: the membrane's transverse coordinates are frozen, and only longitudinal motion survives, with the transverse momenta determined by a first-order equation that couples to the induced metric. The paper also claims that the Nambu-Goto action, after the field redefinition $\tilde\pi_I = \tilde{\tilde\pi}_I - (\tilde\tau_2/2!) \varepsilon^{jk} \tilde{C}_{IJK} \partial_j x^J \partial_k x^K$ and the constraints $\tilde{\tilde\pi}_\mu \partial_i x^\mu \approx 0$, $\upsilon_I \partial_i x^I \approx 0$, reproduces the same Carroll action, establishing equivalence of the world-volume descriptions. For unstable M3 branes in the stringy Carroll limit, the constraint structure reduces at the tachyon vacuum to a Carroll membrane action with vanishing tachyon momentum.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the Carroll and stringy Carroll scalings for membranes, including the $\omega^{-1}$ scaling of the background 3-form, are the correct limits to take; these scalings are borrowed from strings and Dp-branes rather than derived for membranes, so if a different scaling is the physically correct one, the frozen transverse coordinates and the equivalence of world-volume descriptions would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the membrane Carroll limit the M2 brane's transverse coordinates are frozen, so the brane cannot move in the transverse directions of eleven-dimensional spacetime.
Transverse momenta still evolve through a nontrivial first-order equation that involves the induced metric and the embedding, so the 3-form background is not washed out by the limit.
The Hamiltonian and Nambu-Goto formulations of the M2 brane give the same Carroll world-volume theory after a field redefinition, so the equivalence is established at the level of actions and constraints.
The same construction applies to generic Mp branes, whose stringy Carroll action acquires a universal form independent of the Chern-Simons coupling.
For unstable M3 branes, the tachyon vacuum of the Carroll dynamics is a Carroll membrane-like world-volume theory with vanishing tachyon momentum, which would describe the decay product of the unstable brane.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension would be to derive the membrane Carroll scaling from an explicit ultra-relativistic contraction of the full M2 action; if that derivation selects a different scaling for the 3-form than $\omega^{-1}$, the claimed equivalence between Nambu-Goto and Hamiltonian descriptions would need revisiting.
The frozen-transverse-coordinate result suggests Carroll membranes are effectively non-propagating in the transverse directions; one might expect this to persist in a back-reacting supergravity setting, where the membrane's transverse stress-energy would be static, though the paper does not address back-reaction.
Because the paper shows the two standard M2 formulations coincide in the Carroll limit, one could conjecture that the equivalence extends to brane actions with higher-derivative corrections, for which the present constraint analysis would need modification.
The $\omega^{-1}$ scaling of the 3-form is chosen so the Wess-Zumino term survives; an alternative scaling would produce a different Carroll regime, so the uniqueness of the limit is an open question.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper convincingly extends the Carroll limiting procedure from strings and Dp-branes to M2 and M3 branes, and the Hamiltonian and Nambu-Goto computations largely hang together. What it does not do is deliver the advertised effect of the 11D 3-form background. In the Hamiltonian treatment the Wess-Zumino term vanishes in the limit under the chosen scalings, so (13) and (14)-(15) contain no C_{MNP}. In the Nambu-Goto treatment the C-dependence is canceled by the shift (78) plus the imposed constraint (80), leaving (79) again C-free. The abstract and introduction promise that background gauge fields unveil non-trivial dynamics, but the actual result is that the 3-form decouples. That is a legitimate finding, but it is not what the paper claims as its motivation, and the reader's strongest claim as stated is unsupported.

What is genuinely new and useful: the Carroll limit for M2 branes with a curved target, explicit equations for two embeddings, the Polyakov/NG equivalence in the Carroll limit, and the tachyonic M3 discussion. The generic Mp extension is a nice closing remark. These are worth having in the literature, and the derivations are plausible enough to take seriously.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the 3-form decoupling is not flagged as a result; it is buried and contradicted by the framing. Second, the equivalence proof in Section 3 imposes constraints (80) that are not derived from the original action, and the identification of Lagrange multipliers is hand-wavy. Third, the "solutions" to Hamilton's equations are integrals with undetermined functions and constants; they are reductions to quadrature, not actual solutions, and the paper should say so. Fourth, the paper does not compare with Clark and ter Veldhuis [15] on AdS-Carroll branes, which appears directly relevant; even a brief comparison would clarify what is new. There are also multiple typos and sign inconsistencies (e.g., between (23) and (25)).

My bottom line: the core construction is probably correct and the paper deserves a serious referee, but it needs major revision—either reframe as a decoupling result or explain why the 3-form still matters through initial conditions—and it needs to fill the gaps in the equivalence proof and clean up the presentation.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Carroll limits for M2 and M3 branes in 11D supergravity backgrounds. It first develops a Hamiltonian formulation of the M2 brane, introduces two Carroll limits (a 'membrane' Carroll limit and a 'stringy' Carroll limit), and gives formal solutions for two embeddings in AdS4×S7 and AdS7×S4. It then uses the Nambu-Goto form of the M2 action to argue that different world-volume descriptions become equivalent in the Carroll limit, and it extends the analysis to a generic Mp-brane action. Finally, it considers unstable M3 branes with a tachyon field, derives the Carroll Hamiltonian dynamics, and reduces to an effective action at the tachyon vacuum.

Significance. Carroll dynamics of extended objects is an active area, and a systematic treatment of membranes has been missing. The paper contains useful technical calculations: explicit Hamiltonian constraints, several embedding examples, and a careful treatment of the Nambu-Goto formulation. If the central derivations are correct, the paper would provide a useful reference for Carroll M-branes. However, the advertised connection to the 11D three-form background is not realized as written: the primary Hamiltonian in the membrane Carroll limit contains no C_{MNP}, and the apparent reason is an incorrect Legendre transform that drops the Wess-Zumino coupling. The equivalence proof in Section 3 and the M3 tachyon-vacuum reduction also contain gaps. These issues affect the paper's main claims and require substantial revision.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.1, Eqs. (6)-(8)] The primary Hamiltonian does not follow from the Wess-Zumino term in (2). The conjugate momentum (4) contains T2 C_{MNP} ∂_1 X^N ∂_2 X^P, so the inverse relation (5) and the Legendre transform must produce terms involving the shifted momentum Π_M - T2 C_{MPQ} ∂_1 X^P ∂_2 X^Q in the Hamiltonian and in the primary constraint. The C-free expressions in (6) and (8) are therefore not the Legendre transform of (2). The footnote on page 3, which notes that no explicit RR three-form appears in (6), indicates that the C-dependence has been dropped rather than eliminated. As a result, the Carroll Hamiltonian (13), the equations of motion (14)-(15), and all examples in Sections 2.2-2.3 describe a system without the background three-form, and the central claim announced in Section 1 is unsupported.
[Section 3, Eqs. (78)-(81)] The equivalence between (77) and (41) is asserted rather than demonstrated. The shift (78) and the constraints (80) are imposed by hand, the identification of the new Lagrange multipliers with the old ones is not carried out, and it is not shown that the constraints (80) are preserved by the equations of motion (82)-(85). To justify the claim that (79) is equivalent to (41), the full Dirac stability analysis of the constraints is required. Without this, the equivalence between the Polyakov-type and Nambu-Goto formulations in the Carroll limit remains an unproven assumption.
[Section 4, Eqs. (114)-(124)] The reduction to the tachyon-vacuum action is incomplete. Setting \barπ_t = 0 eliminates the tachyon momentum, but the terms in (114) involving ∂_0 x^I and ∂_0 t do not automatically vanish, and the constraints (122)-(123) are not reduced to the action (124) in a shown way. Moreover, the reference to 'constraints (80)' at this point refers to equations introduced for M2 branes in Section 3 and is not a valid constraint set for the M3 calculation. The resulting effective world-volume theory around the tachyon vacuum is therefore not established.
[Sections 2 and 3, scaling of C_{MNP}] The treatment of the background three-form scaling is inconsistent between the two formulations. Section 2 introduces no scaling for C_{MNP} in the membrane Carroll limit, while Section 3 introduces C_{MNP} = ω^{-1} \tilde C_{MNP} in (76) to make the Wess-Zumino term survive in the Nambu-Goto action. The presence or absence of background-coupling terms in the Carroll Hamiltonian depends on this choice, so a well-defined Carroll limit must specify how all background fields scale. Without such a specification, the difference between (13) and (79) is an artifact of an ad hoc choice rather than a derived result.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section 1] The abstract and the Introduction motivate the paper by the expectation that background gauge fields unveil nontrivial dynamics. In the current derivation, the three-form decouples (or is dropped), so the presentation should be revised to state clearly what the actual role of the background three-form is in the Carroll limit.
[Section 2.2.1, Eq. (24)] The solutions for the transverse momenta are formal integrals of the form π^I = ∫ F^I(ξ^2) dξ^0 + C. The integration 'constant' C should be a function of the remaining world-volume coordinates, and the arbitrary embedding functions ψ(ξ^2), α(ξ^2) are not determined by the equations. The paper should explain in what sense these expressions are solutions.
[Section 2.2, notation] The notation ψ'(ξ^2), α'(ξ^2), and similar expressions in equations (23), (35)-(37), (50)-(51), and (61)-(64) is not defined; it should be stated explicitly that primes denote derivatives with respect to the indicated world-volume coordinate.
[Section 3, 'Mp branes'] The phrase 'generic MP ( P > 2 or 5)' is ambiguous; it should read 'P > 2' or 'P > 5' consistently with the intended generalization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Carroll limits are direct limits of standard M2/M3 actions, and the NG/Hamiltonian equivalence is an explicit field-redefinition proof rather than a fit or self-citation.

full rationale

I find no circular step. The Carroll limits are obtained by substituting the explicit scalings (10)-(11), (40), (75)-(76), and (113) into the standard M2/M3 actions (1), (66), and (99), and then taking omega -> infinity. The resulting Hamiltonians (13), (42), and (114) are direct limits, not quantities fitted to reproduce themselves. The integration constants and Lambda coefficients in the examples are solutions of the stated equations of motion and constraints; they are not tuned to a target result. The potentially suspicious step is the claimed equivalence between the Nambu-Goto formulation (77) and the Hamiltonian formulation (41). That equivalence is established by an explicit field redefinition (78) and by imposed constraints (80)-(81), so the reduction is exhibited rather than assumed; even if the constraints are regarded as additional input, this makes the equivalence conditional, not circular. The observation that the 3-form coupling C_{MNP} drops out of (13) and is later eliminated from (79) is a physical decoupling and contradicts the paper's stated motivation, but that is a correctness or relevance concern, not a circularity: the statement that gauge fields produce nontrivial Carroll dynamics is unsupported, but it is not derived from itself. There is also no load-bearing self-citation: the cited Carroll-string work [11] and membrane-action work [25] are by other authors, and the present paper does not rely on an unverified theorem from its own author. Accordingly, the derivation is self-contained and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard M-brane actions and a chosen Carroll scaling; no new entities are introduced. The main ad hoc element is the imposition of constraints to prove world-volume equivalence, and the free parameters are the embedding coefficients and integration constants left undetermined.

free parameters (3)

embedding coefficients Λ^M_m = not fully fixed; constrained by Hamiltonian constraints (26), (39), (52), (65)
Chosen by hand in the ansätze (17)-(21), (28)-(33), (44)-(48), (54)-(59) to produce solvable Hamilton equations; the Hamiltonian constraints are stated but not solved, so the coefficients remain partially free.
integration constants C in π_I solutions = unspecified
Appears in (24) and (38); physical values are not determined and depend on initial conditions, leaving the 'solutions' incomplete.
tachyon potential V(T) = only V(0) ≈ τ3 is used
The M3 brane action (99)-(100) uses a generic V(T); the analysis only requires V(0) and does not fix the functional form, which is an input from prior literature.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption World-volume actions (2) and (66) are the correct M2 brane actions in 11D SUGRA backgrounds
Taken from [25] and used as the starting point for all derivations; the Carroll limit inherits any errors in these actions.
domain assumption Carroll limit is defined by the scaling (10)-(11) and (40) with ω→∞
The scaling is a choice that defines the membrane Carroll and stringy Carroll limits; different scalings could give different dynamics, and the paper does not derive uniqueness.
ad hoc to paper Equivalence proof may impose constraints (80) and field redefinitions (78)
The identification of the two world-volume descriptions requires imposing ~πμ∂ixμ≈0 and υI∂ixI≈0 and identifying Lagrange multipliers 'with proper signature and scaling', stated rather than derived.
domain assumption 11D background geometries (16), (27), (43), (53) are SUGRA solutions
Standard AdS4×S7 and AdS7×S4 backgrounds with specific subspaces are used; no verification is offered, but these are well-known solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Carroll membranes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H7N3ECPM

@misc{pith2026190807280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Carroll membranes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H7N3ECPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07280}
}

read the original abstract

We explore Carroll limit corresponding to M2 as well as M3 branes propagating over 11D supergravity backgrounds in M theory. In the first part of the analysis, we introduce the membrane Carroll limit associated to M2 branes propagating over M theory supergravity backgrounds. Considering two specific M2 brane embeddings, we further outline the solutions corresponding to the Hamilton's dynamical equations in the Carroll limit. We further consider the so called \textit{stringy} Carroll limit associated to M2 branes and outline the corresponding solutions to the underlying Hamilton's equations of motion by considering specific M2 brane embeddings over 11D target space geometry. As a further illustration of our analysis, considering the Nambu-Goto action, we show the equivalence between different world-volume descriptions in the Carroll limit of M2 branes. Finally, considering the \textit{stringy} Carroll limit, we explore the constraint structure as well as the Hamiltonian dynamics associated to unstable M3 branes in 11D supergravity and obtain the corresponding effective world-volume description around their respective tachyon vacua.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

From Galilei to Euclidean Carroll and the Alice Particle: The Times They Are a-Changin'
hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 7.5 of 10

Making time transversal turns p-brane Galilei limits into Euclidean p-brane Carroll limits, yielding for p=0 a centrally extended Alice algebra and Alice particle obtained from critical tachyon limits or two-time null...
Turbulent aspects of BMN membrane dynamics
hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The authors derive leading-order radial and angular stability spectra for two spherical BMN membrane configurations and demonstrate that next-to-leading-order couplings transfer dipole and quadrupole instabilities to ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[15]

AdS-Carroll Branes

T. E. Clark and T. ter Veldhuis, “AdS-Carroll Branes,” J. Math. Phys. 57, no. 11, 112303 (2016) doi:10.1063/1.4967969 [arXiv:1605.05484 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[1]

Levy-Leblond, Une nouvelle limite non-relativiste du group de Poincare, Ann

J.M. Levy-Leblond, Une nouvelle limite non-relativiste du group de Poincare, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare 3 (1965) 1

work page 1965
[2]

Sen Gupta, On an Analogue of the Galileo Group, Nuovo Cim

V.D. Sen Gupta, On an Analogue of the Galileo Group, Nuovo Cim. 54 (1966) 512

work page 1966
[3]

Possible kinematics,

H. Bacry and J. Levy-Leblond, “Possible kinematics,” J. Math. Phys. 9, 1605 (1968). doi:10.1063/1.1664490

doi:10.1063/1.1664490 1968
[4]

Conformal Carroll groups,

C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons and P. A. Horvathy, “Conformal Carroll groups,” J. Phys. A 47, no. 33, 335204 (2014) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/33/335204 [arXiv:1403.4213 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2014
[5]

Conformal Carroll groups and BMS symmetry,

C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons and P. A. Horvathy, “Conformal Carroll groups and BMS symmetry,” Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 092001 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/31/9/092001 [arXiv:1402.5894 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2014
[6]

Carroll versus Newton and Galilei: two dual non-Einsteinian concepts of time,

C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, P. A. Horvathy and P. M. Zhang, “Carroll versus Newton and Galilei: two dual non-Einsteinian concepts of time,” Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 085016 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/8/085016 [arXiv:1402.0657 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2014
[7]

Warped Conformal Field Theory as Lower Spin Gravity,

D. M. Hofman and B. Rollier, “Warped Conformal Field Theory as Lower Spin Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 897, 1 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.05.011 [arXiv:1411.0672 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2015

Show all 35 references

[8]

Dynamics of Carroll Particles,

E. Bergshoeﬀ, J. Gomis and G. Longhi, “Dynamics of Carroll Particles,” Class. Quant. Grav. 31, no. 20, 205009 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/20/205009 [arXiv:1405.2264 [hep-th]]. 15

2014 arXiv
[9]

The Symmetries of the Carroll Superpar- ticle,

E. Bergshoeﬀ, J. Gomis and L. Parra, “The Symmetries of the Carroll Superpar- ticle,” J. Phys. A 49, no. 18, 185402 (2016) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/49/18/185402 [arXiv:1503.06083 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[10]

Deformed Carroll particle from 2+1 gravity,

J. Kowalski-Glikman and T. Trzeniewski, “Deformed Carroll particle from 2+1 gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 737, 267 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.08.066 [arXiv:1408.0154 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[11]

Dynamics of Carroll Strings,

B. Cardona, J. Gomis and J. M. Pons, “Dynamics of Carroll Strings,” JHEP 1607, 050 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2016)050 [arXiv:1605.05483 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[12]

Gauging the Carroll Algebra and Ultra-Relativistic Gravity,

J. Hartong, “Gauging the Carroll Algebra and Ultra-Relativistic Gravity,” JHEP 1508, 069 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)069 [arXiv:1505.05011 [hep-th]]

2015 arXiv
[13]

Conﬁned dynamical systems with Carroll and Galilei symmetries,

A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni and J. Gomis, “Conﬁned dynamical systems with Carroll and Galilei symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 8, 085018 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.085018 [arXiv:1804.10495 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[14]

Vector SUSY models with Carroll or Galilei invariance,

A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni and J. Gomis, “Vector SUSY models with Carroll or Galilei invariance,” Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 4, 045016 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.045016 [arXiv:1811.12672 [hep-th]]

2019 arXiv
[16]

Carroll versus Galilei Gravity,

E. Bergshoeﬀ, J. Gomis, B. Rollier, J. Rosseel and T. ter Veldhuis, “Carroll versus Galilei Gravity,” JHEP 1703, 165 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)165 [arXiv:1701.06156 [hep-th]]

2017 arXiv
[17]

Carroll symme- try of plane gravitational waves,

C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, P. A. Horvathy and P.-M. Zhang, “Carroll symme- try of plane gravitational waves,” Class. Quant. Grav. 34, no. 17, 175003 (2017) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa7f62 [arXiv:1702.08284 [gr-qc]]

2017 arXiv
[18]

Covari- ant Galilean versus Carrollian hydrodynamics from relativistic ﬂuids,

L. Ciambelli, C. Marteau, A. C. Petkou, P. M. Petropoulos and K. Siampos, “Covari- ant Galilean versus Carrollian hydrodynamics from relativistic ﬂuids,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35, no. 16, 165001 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aacf1a [arXiv:1802.05286 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[19]

Dynamical structure of Carrollian Electrodynamics,

R. Basu and U. N. Chowdhury, “Dynamical structure of Carrollian Electrodynamics,” JHEP 1804, 111 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2018)111 [arXiv:1802.09366 [hep-th]]

2018 arXiv
[20]

Massless higher spins and holography,

E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, “Massless higher spins and holography,” Nucl. Phys. B 644, 303 (2002) Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. B 660, 403 (2003)] doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(02)00739-3, 10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00267-0 [hep-th/0205131]

2002 arXiv
[21]

Orbiting membranes in M theory on AdS(7) x S**4 background,

M. Alishahiha and M. Ghasemkhani, “Orbiting membranes in M theory on AdS(7) x S**4 background,” JHEP 0208, 046 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/08/046 [hep-th/0206237]

2002 arXiv
[22]

Circular semiclassical string solutions on conﬁning AdS / CFT backgrounds,

M. Alishahiha and A. E. Mosaﬀa, “Circular semiclassical string solutions on conﬁning AdS / CFT backgrounds,” JHEP 0210, 060 (2002) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2002/10/060 [hep-th/0210122]. 16

2002 arXiv
[23]

Non-perturbative states in type II super- string theory from classical spinning membranes,

J. Brugues, J. Rojo and J. G. Russo, “Non-perturbative states in type II super- string theory from classical spinning membranes,” Nucl. Phys. B 710, 117 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.01.019 [hep-th/0408174]

2005 arXiv
[24]

Rotating membranes on G(2) manifolds, logarithmic anomalous dimensions and N=1 duality,

S. A. Hartnoll and C. Nunez, “Rotating membranes on G(2) manifolds, logarithmic anomalous dimensions and N=1 duality,” JHEP 0302, 049 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2003/02/049 [hep-th/0210218]

2003 arXiv
[25]

Membrane solutions in M-theory,

P. Bozhilov, “Membrane solutions in M-theory,” JHEP 0508, 087 (2005) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/08/087 [hep-th/0507149]

2005 arXiv
[26]

Exact rotating membrane solutions on a G(2) manifold and their semi- classical limits,

P. Bozhilov, “Exact rotating membrane solutions on a G(2) manifold and their semi- classical limits,” JHEP 0603, 001 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/03/001 [hep- th/0511253]

2006
[27]

M2-brane solutions in AdS(7) x S**4,

P. Bozhilov, “M2-brane solutions in AdS(7) x S**4,” JHEP 0310, 032 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/10/032 [hep-th/0309215]

2003 arXiv
[28]

Magnon-like dispersion relation from M-theory,

P. Bozhilov and R. C. Rashkov, “Magnon-like dispersion relation from M-theory,” Nucl. Phys. B768, 193 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.01.004 [hep-th/0607116]

2007 arXiv
[29]

Rotating Membranes in AdS4xM 1,1,1,

J. Kim, N. Kim and J. Hun Lee, “Rotating Membranes in AdS4xM 1,1,1,” JHEP 1003, 122 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2010)122 [arXiv:1001.2902 [hep-th]]

2010 arXiv
[30]

Stringy Membranes in AdS/CFT,

M. Axenides, E. Floratos and G. Linardopoulos, “Stringy Membranes in AdS/CFT,” JHEP 1308, 089 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2013)089 [arXiv:1306.0220 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[31]

Comments on unstable branes,

K. A. Intriligator, M. Kleban and J. Kumar, “Comments on unstable branes,” JHEP 0102, 023 (2001) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/02/023 [hep-th/0101010]

2001 arXiv
[32]

Brane descent relations in M theory,

L. Houart and Y. Lozano, “Brane descent relations in M theory,” Phys. Lett. B 479, 299 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00317-8 [hep-th/0001170]

2000 arXiv
[33]

Note About Unstable M3-brane Action,

J. Kluson, “Note About Unstable M3-brane Action,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 026001 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.026001 [arXiv:0810.0585 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[34]

Supergravity Theory in Eleven-Dimensions,

E. Cremmer, B. Julia and J. Scherk, “Supergravity Theory in Eleven-Dimensions,” Phys. Lett. 76B, 409 (1978). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90894-8

1978 doi
[35]

Multiple Mem- branes in M-theory,

J. Bagger, N. Lambert, S. Mukhi and C. Papageorgakis, “Multiple Mem- branes in M-theory,” Phys. Rept. 527, 1 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.01.006 [arXiv:1203.3546 [hep-th]]. 17

2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

AdS-Carroll Branes

T. E. Clark and T. ter Veldhuis, “AdS-Carroll Branes,” J. Math. Phys. 57, no. 11, 112303 (2016) doi:10.1063/1.4967969 [arXiv:1605.05484 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[2] [1]

Levy-Leblond, Une nouvelle limite non-relativiste du group de Poincare, Ann

J.M. Levy-Leblond, Une nouvelle limite non-relativiste du group de Poincare, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincare 3 (1965) 1

work page 1965

[3] [2]

Sen Gupta, On an Analogue of the Galileo Group, Nuovo Cim

V.D. Sen Gupta, On an Analogue of the Galileo Group, Nuovo Cim. 54 (1966) 512

work page 1966

[4] [3]

Possible kinematics,

H. Bacry and J. Levy-Leblond, “Possible kinematics,” J. Math. Phys. 9, 1605 (1968). doi:10.1063/1.1664490

doi:10.1063/1.1664490 1968

[5] [4]

Conformal Carroll groups,

C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons and P. A. Horvathy, “Conformal Carroll groups,” J. Phys. A 47, no. 33, 335204 (2014) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/33/335204 [arXiv:1403.4213 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2014

[6] [5]

Conformal Carroll groups and BMS symmetry,

C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons and P. A. Horvathy, “Conformal Carroll groups and BMS symmetry,” Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 092001 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/31/9/092001 [arXiv:1402.5894 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2014

[7] [6]

Carroll versus Newton and Galilei: two dual non-Einsteinian concepts of time,

C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, P. A. Horvathy and P. M. Zhang, “Carroll versus Newton and Galilei: two dual non-Einsteinian concepts of time,” Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 085016 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/8/085016 [arXiv:1402.0657 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2014

[8] [7]

Warped Conformal Field Theory as Lower Spin Gravity,

D. M. Hofman and B. Rollier, “Warped Conformal Field Theory as Lower Spin Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 897, 1 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.05.011 [arXiv:1411.0672 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2015