Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Fractional Einstein field equations in $2+1$ dimensional spacetime

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that inserting the static BTZ metric into fractional Einstein equations yields, near fractional parameters equal to one, an effective matter sector identical to a charged BTZ black hole with anisotropic cosmological…

desk verdict The paper has a useful weighted-fractional idea and a concrete 2+1 toy model, but the operator used in the main calculation is not the one that kills constants, so the charged-BTZ result is unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13121 v1 pith:LNUBUP7Q submitted 2025-05-19 gr-qc

E. Contreras , A. Di Teodoro , M. Mena This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 26A3383C1583C57
keywords fractionalEinsteinequationsweightedRiemann-LiouvillederivativeBTZblackhole2+1dimensionalgravitycalculusanisotropiccosmologicalconstanteffectivechargenon-locality
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

This paper constructs fractional Einstein field equations in 2+1 spacetime by replacing ordinary derivatives with a newly defined weighted Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative. The new operator is designed so that the derivative of a constant vanishes, which removes both the divergence that appears with the Caputo derivative in the Christoffel symbols and the unwanted terms produced by the Riemann-Liouville derivative. Rather than solving the resulting integro-differential system, the paper inserts the static BTZ (Bañados-Teitelboim-Zanelli) black hole metric and reads off the required matter sector. For fractional parameters close to one, that sector matches a charged BTZ solution with an anisotropic cosmological constant, with effective charge $Q^2=2M(\gamma-1)/(\eta-1)$. The result matters because it gives a concrete way that non-locality could masquerade as electric charge in a classical limit.

What carries the argument

The central object is a q-weighted Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative, defined for $0<\eta<1$ by $${}^q D_{a+}^\eta h(x)=q_1(x,\eta)\frac{d}{dx}\left[q_2(x,\eta)\, I_{a+}^{1-\eta}h(x)\right],$$ where $I_{a+}^{1-\eta}$ is the Riemann-Liouville fractional integral and the weights are chosen as reciprocal powers of $(x-a)$ so that ${}^q D_{a+}^\eta 1=0$ and the Caputo divergence is avoided. The argument is carried by applying this operator to the radial metric functions: the identity ${}^q D_{0+}^\gamma(r^{-2}\,{}^q D_{0+}^\eta r^2)=-4r^{-\gamma-\eta}\gamma\Gamma(1-\eta)/[\Gamma(4-\eta)\Gamma(2-\eta-\gamma)]$ regularizes the nested derivative that made the Caputo construction fail. The machinery also encodes the paper's limiting procedure, since the ordinary derivative is recovered only when $\gamma\to 1$ is taken before $\eta\to 1$.

What would settle it

Recompute the expansion of equations (III.2)-(III.4) for the BTZ metric along a different limiting path, for example setting $\eta=\gamma$ or letting $\eta\to1$ first. If the coefficient of $r^{-2}$ in the effective matter sector changes sign, vanishes, or no longer matches the charged-BTZ form, the claim that fractional non-locality produces an effective charge is an artefact of the path.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fractional corrections to Einstein gravity do not leave the vacuum intact: when the static BTZ metric is substituted into the fractional field equations (III.2)-(III.4) and expanded around $\eta,\gamma\to 1$, the effective energy-momentum tensor takes the charged-BTZ form shown in (III.9)-(III.11), together with an anisotropic cosmological constant. Comparing these expressions with the matter sector of the charged BTZ solution fixes the effective charge as $Q^2=2M(\gamma-1)/(\eta-1)$. The paper therefore argues that the non-locality introduced by the fractional derivative leaves a trace in the classical regime, producing an effective electric charge and an anisotropy in the cosmological constant, a mechanism the authors compare to Kaluza-Klein compactification with non-locality playing the role of the extra dimension.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two fractional parameters $\gamma$ and $\eta$ approach 1 in a fixed order, $\gamma$ first; the ratio $(\gamma-1)/(\eta-1)$ that sets the effective charge is a free choice of the limiting path, and the paper gives no physical reason for that ordering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The static BTZ metric is not a vacuum solution of the fractional Einstein equations; a non-trivial effective matter sector is required to support it.
  • Near the classical limit, fractional corrections reproduce the charged BTZ matter sector, with effective charge $Q^2=2M(\gamma-1)/(\eta-1)$ and an anisotropic cosmological constant.
  • The new weighted derivative makes the fractional Einstein equations well-posed for static, circularly symmetric 2+1 metrics, avoiding both the Caputo divergence and the Riemann-Liouville spurious constants.
  • The physical predictions of the model depend on a hierarchy of fractional parameters, because the classical limit is recovered only when $\gamma\to1$ precedes $\eta\to1$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: if the ratio $(\gamma-1)/(\eta-1)$ is a universal constant rather than a path-dependent choice, the model predicts a fixed charge-to-mass relation for BTZ-like black holes that could be checked against observations or simulations of charged black holes.
  • The same mechanism might appear in 3+1 spherical symmetry: fractional corrections to Schwarzschild-like metrics could induce effective anisotropic pressures and a $1/r^2$ term mimicking charge, though the polar-angle fractional derivatives would need additional regularization.
  • A testable extension is to let $\gamma$ and $\eta$ depend on radial scale; the effective charge would then run with $r$, producing a measurable deviation from the constant-charge charged BTZ solution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a 'q-weighted' Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative intended to vanish on constants while avoiding the divergences of the Caputo construction. Using this derivative, the authors define fractional Christoffel symbols, curvature tensors, and Einstein field equations for a static, circularly symmetric 2+1-dimensional spacetime. They then assume the standard BTZ vacuum metric as a solution and, expanding the resulting effective matter sector for fractional orders close to 1, interpret the result as a charged BTZ solution with an anisotropic cosmological constant. The central result is the identification Q^2 = 2M(γ−1)/(η−1) between an effective charge and the ratio of the two fractional parameters.

Significance. The motivation is genuine and the paper is transparent about several limitations: it states the need for a hierarchy in the classical limit, acknowledges the narrow scope, and provides an appendix with fractional derivatives of power functions. If the central derivation were sound, the work would constitute a proof of concept for fractional Einstein equations and would support the interesting idea that nonlocality can mimic an effective charge. However, the main technical innovation is internally inconsistent: the operator actually used in the calculation does not have the advertised property of vanishing on constants, so the field equations (III.2)-(III.4) and the subsequent charged-BTZ identification are not supported by the current text. The central claim therefore cannot be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Definition II.8 and Eq. (II.18)] The operator used in the main calculation is not the operator that satisfies property (II.13). Definition II.8 first chooses q2(x,η)=(x−a)^{η−1}, which indeed makes qD^η_{a+}1=0. However, Eq. (II.18) then sets q2(x,η)=1/q1(x,η)=(x−a)^{1−η}. Direct evaluation with this choice gives qD^η_{0+}1 = (2−2η)(x−a)^{−η}/Γ(2−η), which is nonzero for all 0<η<1 and x>a. As a result, the Christoffel symbols constructed with this operator acquire spurious contributions from derivatives of constants, and the field equations (III.2)-(III.4) do not follow from the definition that was motivated in the text. This is a load-bearing inconsistency that must be resolved before the central result can be assessed.
  2. [Section III, after Eq. (III.8)] The classical limit is not unique: the text requires γ→1 before η→1, and the effective charge Q^2=2M(γ−1)/(η−1) depends on the arbitrary path in the (η,γ) plane. Since the ratio (γ−1)/(η−1) is a free parameter of the limiting procedure rather than a quantity fixed by the theory, the claimed identification with the charged-BTZ matter sector in Eqs. (III.9)-(III.11) is not a robust prediction. Approaching the classical limit along different paths gives different effective charges, or no charged-BTZ form at all, and the paper provides no physical justification for the required hierarchy.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (III.9)-(III.11)] Even setting aside the operator inconsistency, the conclusion that the effective matter sector 'corresponds to a charged BTZ solution' is an overstatement. The paper only compares the components of the effective matter sector obtained from the uncharged BTZ metric with the matter sector of the charged BTZ metric given in Eqs. (III.13)-(III.15). It does not demonstrate that the full charged BTZ metric (III.12) satisfies the fractional field equations, nor does it show that the effective charge arises dynamically from the fractional equations. The identification is therefore a formal analogy between matter sectors, not a solution of the fractional theory.
  4. [Section III, Eqs. (III.9)-(III.11)] The exact expressions behind the claimed series expansion are omitted ('not included here due to their length'), and the series itself contains the non-uniform term (γ−1)/(η−1), which is not small as η→1 independently of γ. Because the charged-BTZ interpretation rests entirely on this expansion, the authors should either include the exact hypergeometric expressions in an appendix or provide a reproducible derivation of the expansion. Without this, the central result cannot be independently verified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, after Eq. (II.12)] There is a typo: 'diffficult' should be 'difficult'.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (II.18)] The function q1 is not explicitly defined before writing q2=1/q1=(x−a)^{1−η}; the intended choice q1=(x−a)^{η−1} should be stated explicitly to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (III.9)-(III.11)] The notation O(η−1,γ−1) is misleading because the leading correction contains the ratio (γ−1)/(η−1), which is not uniformly small in the limit η→1. The order of the expansion should be specified with respect to both parameters in a way that makes this non-uniformity explicit.
  4. [Abstract and Section II] The abstract and conclusions state that the new derivative has the property that the derivative of a constant is zero, but this is only true for the first choice q2=(x−a)^{η−1} and is false for the choice adopted in Eq. (II.18). The paper should either qualify this statement or correct the choice of weights.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effective-matter calculation is a direct Einstein-tensor computation, and the charged-BTZ identification is coefficient matching, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not exhibit a circular derivation. The fractional Einstein equations (III.2)-(III.4) are obtained by substituting the proposed q-weighted fractional derivative into the standard definitions (I.1)-(I.6), which are adopted from independent references and not derived from the target result. Inserting the classical BTZ metric (III.8) and expanding near eta, gamma close to one yields the matter-sector components (III.9)-(III.11); comparing these with the known charged-BTZ stress tensor (III.13)-(III.15) is a coefficient-matching exercise, not a fit of a parameter to the output, since the ratio (gamma-1)/(eta-1) is a free expansion-path parameter and Q^2 is defined by the comparison. The phrase "effective matter sector" does denote the fractional Einstein tensor of the assumed metric by construction, but that is the standard inverse-problem structure of such calculations and does not make the charged-BTZ identification tautological. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations; the cited fractional-gravity formalism [10] is used as an explicit starting point rather than invoked to force the result. The internal inconsistency between (II.13) and (II.18), where the chosen q2=(x-a)^{1-eta} makes the q-weighted derivative of a constant nonzero, and the limit-path dependence of the apparent charge are correctness and interpretation concerns, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is established and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central derivation rests on several assumptions that are not independently tested: the fractional Einstein equations are posited, the weight functions are chosen by hand to remove divergences, and the classical limit is recovered through a hand-picked order of limits. These are the true price of the paper's result.

free parameters (4)
  • Fractional order eta for Christoffel symbols
    Free parameter 0 < eta < 1 used in the fractional derivative for Christoffel symbols (Sec. II); no physical determination.
  • Fractional order gamma for curvature
    Free parameter 0 < gamma < 1 used in the Riemann tensor (Eq. I.4); must approach 1 before eta for the classical limit.
  • Weight functions q1 and q2 = q1 = (x-a)^(1-eta), q2 = (x-a)^(eta-1)
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (II.18) to make the fractional derivative of a constant vanish and to cancel the Caputo divergence; the choice is the main ad hoc input.
  • Dimensional conversion constants Xi_i = unspecified
    Introduced in Eqs. (III.5)-(III.7) to restore length^-2 dimensions to rho, p_r, p_t; not fixed by the theory.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The fractional Einstein equations G_mu_nu = kappa^2 T_mu_nu with fractional derivatives are posited as the field equations.
    Eq. (I.10); the paper explicitly does not derive them from the Einstein-Hilbert action because boundary terms do not vanish (Eq. I.9).
  • domain assumption The fractional connection is metric-compatible and the Riemann tensor is defined by Eq. (I.4) with fractional derivatives.
    Assumed following Ref. [10]; no proof that the new q-weighted derivative preserves metric compatibility or the Bianchi identity.
  • ad hoc to paper The BTZ vacuum metric of standard GR is assumed as a solution to the fractional equations.
    Section III: 'we assume (III.8) as a solution to the fractional equations' to read off the effective matter sector.
  • ad hoc to paper The classical limit is recovered by taking gamma to 1 before eta to 1.
    Section III: 'it is essential that gamma approaches 1 prior to eta'; without this hierarchy the limit diverges, so the result is path-dependent.
  • standard math Standard fractional calculus identities, such as the semigroup property under zero boundary conditions and the fractional Leibniz rule, are valid as cited.
    Lemmas II.5 and II.9 rely on results from Podlubny, Kilbas, and Samko [24-26].
  • domain assumption The spacetime is static, circularly symmetric, and 2+1 dimensional with metric (III.1).
    A toy-model restriction, acknowledged in the paper.
invented entities (2)
  • q-weighted Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative
    purpose: Replace ordinary derivatives in Christoffel symbols and curvature to define fractional Einstein equations; vanishes on constants and avoids the Caputo divergence.
    Defined in Def. II.8; no external falsifiable prediction is associated with the operator itself.
  • Effective electric charge Q
    purpose: Interpret the r^-2 term in the effective matter sector as a charged BTZ solution.
    Q^2 = 2M(gamma-1)/(eta-1) in Section III; depends on free fractional parameters and the limiting path, so it has no independent predictive power.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractional Einstein field equations in $2+1$ dimensional spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LNUBUP7Q

@misc{pith2026250513121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractional Einstein field equations in $2+1$ dimensional spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LNUBUP7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13121}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we introduce a new fractional derivative that modifies the conventional Riemann-Liouville operator to obtain a set of fractional Einstein field equations within a 2+1 dimensional spacetime by assuming a static and circularly symmetric metric. The main reason for introducing this new derivative stems from addressing the divergence encountered during the construction of Christoffel symbols when using the Caputo operator and the appearance of unwanted terms when using the Riemann-Liouville derivative because of the well-known fact that its action on constants does not vanish, as expected. The key innovation of the new operator ensures that the derivative of a constant is zero. As a particular application, we explore whether the Ba\~nados-Teitelboim-Zanelli black hole metric is a solution to fractional Einstein equations. Our results reveal that for values of the fractional parameter close to one, the effective matter sector corresponds to a charged BTZ solution with an anisotropic cosmological constant.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Provide an equation of state relatingρandp r and a suitable anisotropic function

    work page

  2. [2]

    Consider a matter sector based on fundamental fields

    work page

  3. [3]

    Provide some geometric restrictions

    work page

  4. [4]

    Consider a vacuum solution. Regarding the last point, the only non-trivial vacuum solution for the standard 2 + 1 Einstein field equations with a negative cosmological constant was found in [28, 29] whose metric, in the static and circularly symmetric regime, reads F= 1 G =−M+ r2 ℓ2,(III.8) 10 which corresponds to the static BTZ black hole with event hori...

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Riemann-Liouville Fractional Derivative The left-sided Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative with 0<η <1 is defined as: Dη a+xn = 1 Γ(1−η) d dx Z x a (x−t) −ηtndt.(VI.1) Solving the integral by substitution and beta function: I 1−η a+ xn = Γ(n+ 1) Γ(n+ 2−η) xn+1−η.(VI.2) Applying the derivative: Dη a+xn = Γ(n+ 1) Γ(n+ 1−η) xn−η.(VI.3)

    work page

  6. [6]

    Caputo Fractional Derivative The Caputo derivative is defined as: Dη a+xn = 1 Γ(1−η) Z x a (x−t) −η d dt(tn)dt.(VI.4) Computing the derivative inside the integral: Dη a+xn = n Γ(1−η) Z x a (x−t) −ηtn−1dt.(VI.5) Using the fractional integral identity: Dη a+xn = nΓ(n) Γ(n+ 1−η) xn−η.(VI.6)

    work page

  7. [7]

    Modified Fractional Derivative Using the modified definition: (qDη a+xn) =q 1(x,η) d dx h q2(x,η)I 1−η a+ xn i .(VI.7) Computing the fractional integral: I 1−η a+ xn = Γ(n+ 1) Γ(n+ 2−η) xn+1−η.(VI.8) 13 Applying the weighted derivative: (qDη a+xn) =q 1(x,η) d dx q2(x,η) Γ(n+ 1) Γ(n+ 2−η) xn+1−η .(VI.9) Expanding the derivative: (qDη a+xn) =q 1(x,η) q2(x,η...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Green, J.H

    M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz and E. Witten, Superstring theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (1987)

    work page 1987

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Polchinski, String theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K

    J. Polchinski, String theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    Becker, M

    K. Becker, M. Becker and J.H. Schwarz, String theory and M-theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Zwiebach, A first course in string theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K

    B. Zwiebach, A first course in string theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Rovelli, Quantum gravity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K

    C. Rovelli, Quantum gravity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Perez, The spin-foam approach to quantum gravity, Living Rev

    A. Perez, The spin-foam approach to quantum gravity, Living Rev. Rel. 16 (2013) 3

    2013

  6. [14]

    Calcagni, Geometry of fractional spaces, Adv

    G. Calcagni, Geometry of fractional spaces, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.16, 549-644 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Calcagni, Multifractional theories: an unconventional review, JHEP 1703 (2017) 138 [arXiv:1612.05632]

    G. Calcagni, Multifractional theories: an unconventional review, JHEP 1703 (2017) 138 [arXiv:1612.05632]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Calcagni, Multifractional theories: an updated review, Mod

    G. Calcagni, Multifractional theories: an updated review, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36 (2021) 2140006 [arXiv:2103.06557]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Calcagni, Classical and quantum gravity with fractional operators, Class

    G. Calcagni, Classical and quantum gravity with fractional operators, Class. Quantum Gravity 38 (2021) 165005 [Erratum ibid. 38 (2021) 169601] [arXiv:2106.15430]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Calcagni, L

    G. Calcagni, L. Rachwa l JCAP 09(2023)003

    2023

  11. [19]

    Munkhammar, arXiv:1003.4981 [physics.gen-ph]

    J. Munkhammar, arXiv:1003.4981 [physics.gen-ph]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Vacaru, Int

    S.I. Vacaru, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 51, 1338–1359 (2012). https://doi. org/10.1007/s10773-011-1010-9. arXiv:1004.0628 [math- ph]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Roberts, S.O.P

    M.D. Roberts, S.O.P. Trans, Theor. Phys. 1, 310 (2014). arXiv:0909.1171 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Tarasov, Chaos 16(3), 033108 (2006)

    V. Tarasov, Chaos 16(3), 033108 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Tarasov, Ann

    V. Tarasov, Ann. Phys. 323(11), 2756–2778 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Tarasov, Fractional dynamics: applications of fractional calculus to dynamics of particles, fields and media

    V. Tarasov, Fractional dynamics: applications of fractional calculus to dynamics of particles, fields and media. Springer Science & Business Media (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Tarasov, Commun

    Vasily E. Tarasov, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 18(11), 2945– 2948 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    M. A. Garc´ ıa-Aspeitia, G. Fernandez-Anaya, A. Hern´ andez-Almada, G. Leon and J. Maga˜ na, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517(2022) no.4, 4813-4826 doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3006 [arXiv:2207.00878 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gonz´ alez, G

    E. Gonz´ alez, G. Leon and G. Fernandez-Anaya, Fractal Fract.7(2023), 368 https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7050368 [arXiv:2303.16409 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Challenging Routes in Quantum Cosmology,

    S. Jalalzadeh and P. Vargas Moniz, “Challenging Routes in Quantum Cosmology,” World Scientific, 2022, ISBN 978-981- 4415-06-4 doi:10.1142/8540

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    From Fractional Quantum Mechanics to Quantum Cosmology: An Overture,

    P. V. Moniz and S. Jalalzadeh, “From Fractional Quantum Mechanics to Quantum Cosmology: An Overture,” Mathematics 8(2020) no.3, 313 doi:10.3390/math8030313 [arXiv:2003.01070 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    de Sitter fractional quantum cosmology,

    S. Jalalzadeh, E. W. O. Costa and P. V. Moniz, “de Sitter fractional quantum cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no.12, L121901 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L121901 [arXiv:2206.07818 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    North-Holland Mathematics Studies vol

    Kilbas, A.A., Srivastava, H.M., Trujillo, J.J.: Theory and applications of fractional differential equations. North-Holland Mathematics Studies vol. 204, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    An introduction to fractional derivatives, fractional differential equations, to methods of their solution and some of their applications

    Podlubny, I.: Fractional differential equations. An introduction to fractional derivatives, fractional differential equations, to methods of their solution and some of their applications. Mathematics in Science and Engineering. Academic Press, San Diego (1999)

    1999

  25. [33]

    Gordon and Breach, New York (1993)

    Samko, S.G., Kilbas, A.A., Marichev, O,I.: Fractional integrals and derivatives: theory and applications. Gordon and Breach, New York (1993)

    1993

  26. [34]

    M. N. L. Narasimhan,Principles of Continuum Mechanics, John Wiley, New York, 1993

    1993

  27. [35]

    Ba˜ nados, C

    M. Ba˜ nados, C. Teitelboim, and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1849 (1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    Ba˜ nados, M

    M. Ba˜ nados, M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D 48, 1506 (1993)

    1993

  29. [37]

    Mart´ ınez, C

    C. Mart´ ınez, C. Teitelboim, J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D,61, 1040130 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    J. M. Overduin and P. S. Wesson, Phys. Rept.283(1997), 303-380 doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(96)00046-4 [arXiv:gr- qc/9805018 [gr-qc]]

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.