Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

"Fields" in classical and quantum field theories

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Physical fields, classical and quantum alike, are functors from a probing groupoid into an internal quantum groupoid.

desk verdict Framework paper with a clean reconstruction theorem and a genuinely useful packaging of fields as functors, but the sheaf/topos section rests on a false lemma and the Yang-Mills identification is deferred; worth refereeing after repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15327 v1 pith:N4O7KF5T submitted 2025-06-18 math-ph math.DGmath.MP

Alberto Ibort , Arnau Mas , Luca Schiavone This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.DGmath.MP MSC 18B4022A2281T1318F20
keywords groupoidsfunctorfieldsquantummechanicsprobingsystemsgaugetransformationssheavesYang-Millstopos
topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap
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 proposes a single categorical definition of physical fields that covers both classical and quantum cases. A field is a functor $W$ from a 'probing' groupoid $P\Rightarrow M$, which encodes the test particles used to observe the system, to a groupoid $\Gamma\Rightarrow\Omega$, which encodes the system's internal quantum structure. When the probing groupoid is trivial (only spacetime points, no transitions), the functor reduces to a section of a bundle, the standard classical field. When the probing groupoid carries non-trivial transitions, the same definition yields genuinely quantum fields without any separate quantization step. Gauge transformations appear as natural transformations between functors, and Yang-Mills connections are recovered as smooth functor fields on the thin-homotopy groupoid of spacetime.

What carries the argument

The central object is the probing groupoid $P\Rightarrow M$, a groupoid whose objects model the readings of test particles and whose morphisms model the transitions those particles can undergo; the field itself is a functor $W:P\to\Gamma$ with values in an internal quantum groupoid $\Gamma\Rightarrow\Omega$. The load-bearing identity is the functoriality condition $W(\sigma\circ\rho)=W(\sigma)\circ W(\rho)$, which becomes the classical transformation law $\phi(\sigma(x))=W(\sigma)(\phi(x))$ when fields are written as sections. The reconstruction theorem carries the argument for gauge fields: from a group homomorphism $W_0$ on the isotropy group $P(x_0)$ it builds a principal $G$-bundle and a functor $W:P\to\mathrm{Aut}_G(\pi)$, establishing a one-to-one correspondence on each orbit. The sheaf point of view, fields as elements of the sheaf $[-, \Gamma]$ on the site of subgroupoids of $P$, supplies locality and glueing, and natural transformations supply gauge equivalence. A cited holonomy theorem connects the functor-field description of the thin-homotopy groupoid to Yang-Mills connections through the holonomy map $H([\gamma])=P\exp\int_\gamma A$.

What would settle it

A direct test of the Yang-Mills step is to compare the diffeological smoothness condition on the holonomy homomorphism $W_{x_0}$ with the technical regularity condition H3 used in the cited holonomy theorem; finding a homomorphism that is smooth in one sense but not the other, on the thin-homotopy groupoid of any manifold with a nontrivial loop space, would show that the functor-field description of Yang-Mills connections is not faithful.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Definition 2: a functor field (or simply a field) is a functor $W$ from the category determined by a probing groupoid $P\Rightarrow M$ into a groupoid $\Gamma\Rightarrow\Omega$. The objects of $P$ are the outcomes recorded by test particles, its morphisms are the transitions those particles can undergo, and $\Gamma$ describes the intrinsic quantum structure of the system being probed. The paper argues that this definition is not a new quantization scheme but a common root: if $P$ is the unit groupoid over spacetime, $W$ is exactly a classical field in the sense of a section $\phi:M\to\Omega$ with $\pi\circ\phi=\mathrm{id}_M$; if $P$ is non-classical, the functoriality condition $W(\sigma\circ\rho)=W(\sigma)\circ W(\rho)$ encodes quantum constraints. The paper further shows that local fields are sheaves on the site of subgroupoids of $P$, that invertible natural transformations between functor fields are gauge transformations, that a reconstruction theorem identifies functor fields on a connected probing groupoid with representations of its isotropy group, and that for the thin-homotopy groupoid this recovers Yang-Mills connections via holonomy. A horizontal composition of histories over Cauchy hypersurfaces promotes the category of local fields over a globally hyperbolic spacetime to a 2-category.

Load-bearing premise

The Yang-Mills example rests on the equivalence, deferred to later work, between diffeological smoothness of the holonomy homomorphism $W_{x_0}$ and the technical condition H3 of the cited holonomy theorem; if that equivalence fails, the central gauge-field example is not a faithful functor-field description.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the standard bundle picture of classical field theory needs no separate machinery: every section of a bundle over spacetime is a functor field on the unit groupoid.
  • Quantum fields become definable without a quantization step: any non-classical probing groupoid produces fields whose functoriality constraints are quantum constraints, and the paper claims the Streater-Wightman axiomatics can be recovered from representations of the theory.
  • Gauge symmetry is no longer an extra condition imposed on fields: two fields are gauge equivalent exactly when an invertible natural transformation links their functors, which for Yang-Mills reproduces the usual equivalence of connections.
  • Locality is built in: on a locally generated probing groupoid, functor fields form the sheaf $[-, \Gamma]$, so consistent local data on subgroupoids glue uniquely to a global field.
  • The space of fields over a globally hyperbolic spacetime carries a 2-category structure whose 1-cells are local histories over Cauchy hypersurfaces and whose 2-cells are natural transformations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the functor-field definition is taken as primary, the old opposition between fields as sections and fields as operators dissolves; what looks classical or quantum is a property of the probing groupoid, not of an added quantization rule.
  • Editorial inference: because the sheaf $[-, \Gamma]$ on the site of subgroupoids is a topos, the paper's framework invites topos-theoretic tools for locality; a natural next step it leaves open is a functorial assignment of amplitudes on the 2-category of fields, along the lines of the Feynman histories it composes.
  • Editorial inference: if the reconstruction theorem extends to diffeological groupoids as the paper claims, the same bundle reconstruction should work on arbitrary smooth sets, giving a uniform construction of moduli spaces of connections on generalized spacetimes; nothing in the paper verifies this explicitly.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. These notes propose replacing the notion of a physical field, classical or quantum, by that of a functor (groupoid homomorphism) W:P→Γ, where P⇒M is a 'probing groupoid' describing test particles and Γ⇒Ω is an 'internal quantum groupoid.' In the classical case P=1_M, functors are claimed to reduce to sections of a bundle π:Ω→M, and in the non-classical case the functoriality condition is claimed to encode quantum transitions without an ad hoc quantization procedure. The paper develops the representation-theoretic view (Theorem 1, reconstructing a principal bundle from a homomorphism of an isotropy group), identifies gauge transformations with natural transformations, and analyzes topological gauge fields and Yang–Mills fields via holonomy on the thin-homotopy groupoid. It then attempts to make locality precise by declaring local fields to be sheaves on the category of subgroupoids of P, and introduces a horizontal composition of histories over globally hyperbolic spacetimes that is claimed to make the category of functor fields into a 2-category.

Significance. If it were fully established, the framework would provide a genuinely categorical and intrinsically quantum notion of fields that unifies classical sections, Feynman histories, and gauge fields (including Yang–Mills connections) within one formalism, and would connect the groupoid picture of quantum mechanics with topos-theoretic field theory. The paper is useful as a conceptual blueprint; Theorem 1 is proved in detail and is a clean, standard reconstruction result, and the identification of gauge transformations with natural transformations is convincing. However, the manuscript explicitly defers two central technical ingredients to work in preparation ([Ib25a] for the diffeological-smoothness/Barrett equivalence, [Ib25b] for related imprimitivity), and one of the paper's principal new mathematical claims—the site structure on the category of subgroupoids—is false as stated. The program is promising and worth publishing after the load-bearing gaps are fixed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Lemma 1 and Definition 3(iii)] The proof of axiom (iii) in Definition 3 is incorrect. Let H be the pair groupoid on {1,2,3}, with U covered by U1={1,2} and U2={2,3}; then H_U1 and H_U2 generate H. Let K be the full subgroupoid on {1,3}. Then K∩H_U1 contains only the identity at 1 and K∩H_U2 contains only the identity at 3, so these intersections do not generate K. This is a concrete counterexample to the claim that H_Ui∩K = K_Ui generate K, and it shows that Definition 5 does not define a coverage satisfying Definition 3(iii). Consequently the statement that the category P of subgroupoids is a site is false, and Definition 6, as well as the sheaf/topos claims built on this site, are unsupported unless the coverage is repaired.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (17)] The identification of Yang–Mills connections with smooth functor fields on the thin-homotopy groupoid P(M) rests on the assertion that diffeological smoothness of the group homomorphism W_{x0} is equivalent to Barrett's technical condition H3. No proof or reference is given in the text; the reader is referred to the in-preparation item [Ib25a]. Since this equivalence is the bridge between the groupoid picture and standard principal connections, it is load-bearing for the Yang–Mills example. Please either prove the equivalence, state it explicitly as an assumption, or cite a publicly available source.
  3. [Section 3.1, Definition 6 and Section 3.2] The functor [−,Γ] is groupoid-valued: for each subgroupoid H, [H,Γ] is the category of groupoid homomorphisms. The text nonetheless speaks of 'elements of the sheaf [−,Γ]' and, in the introduction, of the category of sheaves on probing groupoids being a topos. A Grothendieck topos is the category of Set-valued sheaves on a site; for groupoid-valued stacks the analogous statement would concern a 2-topos. The relationship between these two notions, and the sense in which local quantum fields are 'elements' of [−,Γ], needs to be clarified before the topos claim can be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors and inconsistent spellings, including 'pincipal' (Section 3.3), 'Groethendiek' (Section 3.1), 'Barret' (references), 'compositon', and 'adquires'. A thorough proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Section 2.6 and Example 2] The notation Aut_G(M) is used where Aut_G(Ω) is intended: the bundle in question is Ω→M, not M itself. This appears both in the topological gauge-field discussion and in Example 2.
  3. [Theorem 1] The uniqueness half of the theorem is dismissed with the sentence 'The uniqueness follows from the construction.' Since the theorem is advertised as a one-to-one correspondence, a short written argument for uniqueness should be included.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (19)] The marked points x1 and x2 are used in the displayed formula for ēW31 but their definition is separated from the formula; it would improve readability to define them explicitly at the point of use.
  5. [Section 3.1, Definition 4] The statement that if M is compact, then P is locally generated is asserted without proof. A short justification, explaining how compactness yields a finite subcover compatible with a generating family, would be helpful, especially because the subsequent site construction depends on this notion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the classical-field recovery is a deliberate special case of the functor definition, and the main outstanding debt is a load-bearing self-citation for the Yang-Mills smoothness bridge rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central move is Definition 2: a field is a functor from a probing groupoid to an internal quantum groupoid. The claimed recovery of classical sections is the unit-groupoid specialization: 'If the probing groupoid P⇒ M is “classical,” meaning that it effectively reduces to the space of objects M ... then a functor W:P→Γ becomes a map from the spacetime M to the objects Ω of Γ' and 'We recover the notion of a classical field as a section φ:M→Ω where φ(x)=W(x), Eq. (1)'. This is not a derivation in which an output is secretly its own input; it is an explicit special case, and the paper labels it as such. Theorem 1 is proved in the text and gives a genuine bijection between isotropy-group homomorphisms and functors/principal bundles; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The topological gauge-field discussion rewrites the standard flat-connection holonomy correspondence in functor language, which is an organizational reformulation rather than a circular derivation. The only flagged dependency of this type is in Section 3.3: the identification of diffeological smoothness of the holonomy homomorphism with Barrett's condition H3 is asserted ('Such homomorphism is smooth in the diffeological sense, what is equivalent to the technical condition H3 in the theorem by Barret [Ba91]') and is deferred to the authors' own in-preparation reference [Ib25a]. That is a load-bearing self-citation for the Yang-Mills example, but it is an unproved bridge or omission, not a step in which a conclusion is equal by construction to its own input. Similarly, Lemma 1 in Section 3.1 is a mathematical-gap candidate (see the pullback counterexample noted by the reader), but a false lemma would be a correctness failure, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own premise, and no empirical prediction is fitted from data. The low nonzero score reflects only the in-preparation self-citation on which the Yang-Mills bridge currently rests.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The framework introduces no free parameters fitted to data. It does rest on several domain assumptions (the groupoid picture of quantum mechanics, the short-exact-sequence model of probing systems, globally hyperbolic spacetime) and on one deferred equivalence (Barrett H3) that is load-bearing for the Yang-Mills example.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The groupoid picture of quantum mechanics, where a quantum system is a groupoid and its algebra of observables is the associated von Neumann algebra, is adopted as the foundational input.
    Invoked in Section 2.1.1; the entire paper builds on this picture, which is developed in the authors' prior work (Ci19a, Ci24).
  • domain assumption Probing systems are formalized by a short exact sequence of groupoids with a splitting (Definition 1).
    Section 2.1.2; this is a modeling choice for what a test particle means, not derived from more basic principles.
  • standard math The category of subgroupoids of a locally generated groupoid is a site, with pullbacks given by intersections.
    Lemma 1 in Section 3.1; the proof is sketched and the pullback identification is asserted.
  • ad hoc to paper Diffeological smoothness of holonomy homomorphisms is equivalent to Barrett's technical condition H3.
    Section 3.3; no proof is given, deferred to the in-preparation reference [Ib25a].
  • domain assumption Spacetime is a globally hyperbolic Lorentzian manifold with Cauchy hypersurfaces for the horizontal composition construction.
    Section 4.1; needed to define blocks M21 and the gluing of histories.
invented entities (4)
  • Probing system
    purpose: Formalizes the notion of test particles and clocks as a groupoid P⇒Σ equipped with a detection functor, so that fields are functors defined on it.
    A new conceptual primitive; it has no falsifiable predictions outside the framework.
  • Functor field
    purpose: The central new notion: a field is a functor W:P→Γ from a probing groupoid to an internal quantum groupoid.
    A definition that reorganizes known objects; no new empirical handle.
  • Internal quantum groupoid
    purpose: The codomain groupoid describing the intrinsic structure of the system being probed.
    A relabeling of the target groupoid in the functor field definition.
  • Horizontal composition of fields
    purpose: A gluing operation on local histories over Cauchy hypersurfaces that promotes the category of fields to a 2-category.
    A mathematical structure; no direct experimental signature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "Fields" in classical and quantum field theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N4O7KF5T

@misc{pith2026250615327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "Fields" in classical and quantum field theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N4O7KF5T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15327}
}
read the original abstract

The challenges posed by the development of field theories, both classical and quantum, force us to question their most basic and foundational ideas like the role and origin of space-time, the meaning of physical states, etc. Among them the notion of ``field'' itself is notoriously difficult to address. These notes aim to analyze such notion from the perspective offered by the groupoid description of quantum mechanics inspired by Schwinger's picture of quantum mechanics. Then, a natural interpretation of the notion of physical fields as functors among appropriate groupoids will emerge. The domain of a field in this new picture is a groupoid that describes ``test particles'', and its codomain is a groupoid that describes the intrinsic nature of the system being probed. Such a space of functors carries some natural structures, which are best described in a categorical language. Some illustrative examples will be presented that could help clarify the various abstract notions discussed in the text.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. Artin. Groethendieck Topologies. Seminar notes, Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard Univ., (1962)

    work page 1962

  2. [2]

    Bacry, and J.-M

    H. Bacry, and J.-M. Levy-Leblond. Possible kinematics. Journal of Mathematical Physics 9 1605--1614 (1968)

    work page 1968

  3. [3]

    J.W. Barrett. Holonomy and path structures in general relativity and Yang - Mills theory . International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 30(9), 1171--1215 (1991)

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Blohmann

    C. Blohmann. Lagrangian Field Theory Diffeology, Variational Cohomology, Multisymplectic Geometry. Draft version 24.0 (February 2, 2024). https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/blohmann/LFT/

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Cari\ nena, M

    J.F. Cari\ nena, M. Crampin, A. Ibort. On the multisymplectic formalism for first order field theories. Differential Geom. Appl., 1(4):345--374 (1991)

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    Ciaglia; A

    F.M. Ciaglia; A. Ibort; G. Marmo. Schwinger's Picture of Quantum Mechanics I: Groupoids. Int. J. of Geom. Meth. in Modern Physics, 16 (8), 1950119 (31) (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Ciaglia; A

    F.M. Ciaglia; A. Ibort; G. Marmo. Schwinger's Picture of Quantum Mechanics II: Algebras and Observables. Int. J. of Geom. Meth. in Modern Physics. 16 (9), 1950136 (32) 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Ciaglia; A

    F.M. Ciaglia; A. Ibort; G. Marmo. Schwinger's Picture of Quantum Mechanics III: The Statistical Interpretation. Int. J. of Geom. Meth. in Modern Physics, 16 (9), 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Ciaglia; F

    F.M. Ciaglia; F. Di Cosmo; A. Ibort; G. Marmo. Schwinger's Picture of Quantum Mechanics IV: Composition and independence. Int. J. of Geom. Meth. in Modern Physics, 17 (4), 2050058 (34) (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Ciaglia; F

    F.M. Ciaglia; F. Di Cosmo; A. Ibort; G. Marmo. Schwinger's Picture of Quantum Mechanics. Int. J. of Geom. Meth. in Modern Physics. 17 (4), 2050054 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Ciaglia, F

    F. Ciaglia, F. di Cosmo, A. Ibort, G. Marmo. Evolution of Classical and Quantum states in the Groupoid Picture of Quantum Mechanics. Entropy 22, 1292 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Ciaglia, F

    F.M. Ciaglia, F. Di Cosmo, A. Ibort, G. Marmo, L. Schiavone, A. Zampini. Schwinger's picture of quantum mechanics: 2-groupoids and symmetries. J. Geometric Mechanics, 13 (3), 333--354 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Ciaglia, F

    F. Ciaglia, F. di Cosmo, A. Ibort, G. Marmo, L. Schiavone, A. Zampini. Feynman's propagator in Schwinger's Picture of Quantum Mechanics. Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 36 (26), 2150187 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    F. M. Ciaglia, F. di Cosmo, A. Ibort, G. Marmo. The groupoidal picture of Quantum Mechanics. J. Geom. Phys., 197, 105095 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Connes, M

    A. Connes, M. Marcolli. Noncommutative geometry, quantum fields and motives. Vol. 55. American Mathematical Soc., 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Deligne, D.S

    P. Deligne, D.S. Freed. Classical field theory. In Quantum fields and strings: a course for mathematicians, Vol. 1,2 (Princeton, NJ, 1996/1997), pages 137--225. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, (1999)

    1999

  9. [17]

    Facchi, S

    P. Facchi, S. Pascazio. Quantum Zeno dynamics: mathematical and physical aspects. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 41(49), 493001 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    R. P. Feynman. Feynman's Thesis: A New Approach to Quantum Theory. Editor L. M. Brown, World Scientific (2005). Reprinted from R. P. Feynman, The principle of least action in Quantum Mechanics

    2005

  11. [19]

    Fredenhagen, K

    K. Fredenhagen, K. Locally covariant quantum field theory. In XIVth International Congress on Mathematical Physics, pp. 29--37(2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Giachetta, G., Mangiarotti, L., Sardanashvily, G., Advanced Classical Field Theory, World Scientific (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    Giotopoulos, H

    G. Giotopoulos, H. Sati. Field Theory via Higher Geometry I: Smooth Sets of Fields. arXiv:2312.16301v1 [math-ph] (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Glimm, A

    J. Glimm, A. Jaffe. Quantum Physics: A functional integral point of view. Springer-Verlag (1987)

    1987

  15. [23]

    Gotay, J

    M.J. Gotay, J. Isenberg, J.E. Marsden, R. Montgomery. Momentum maps and classical relativistic fields. Part I: Covariant field theory. Preprint arXiv:physics/9801019 (2004)

    2004 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. Haag. Local quantum physics: Fields, particles, algebras. Springer Science & Business Media (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    U ber quantentheoretische umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer beziehungen. Zeitschrift f\

    W. Heisenberg. \" U ber quantentheoretische umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer beziehungen. Zeitschrift f\" u r Physik , 33:879 -- 893, 1925

    1925

  18. [26]

    Ibort, A

    A. Ibort, A. Spivak. Covariant Hamiltonian field theories on manifolds with boundary: Yang-Mills theories. Journal of Geometric Mechanics 9 (1), 47--82 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Ibort and M

    A. Ibort and M. A. Rodriguez. An introduction to the theory of groups, groupoids and their representations . CRC, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Ibort, G

    A. Ibort, G. Marmo. A Proposal for the Groupoidal Description of Classical and Quantum Fields. Particles, Fields and Topology. World Scientific (2023) 71-85

    2023

  21. [29]

    Ibort, M

    A. Ibort, M. Jim\'enez-V\'azquez. A Lagrangian path integral approach to the qubit. Eur. Phys. J. Plus. 139, 307 (16 pages) (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Ibort, A

    A. Ibort, A. Mas. Smooth sets of fields: a pedagogical introduction. In preparation (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Ibort, A

    A. Ibort, A. Mas, L. Schiavone. On the notion of elementary particles on curved space-times and the groupoid picture of Quantum Mechanics. In preparation (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Johnstone

    P. Johnstone. Sketches of an Elephant: A topos theory compendium. Vols. I,II. Oxford Univ. Press (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

    Kobayashi, K

    S. Kobayashi, K. Nomizu. Foundations of differential geometry, Vols. 1 & 2. John Wiley & Sons (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    Landsman

    N.P. Landsman. Lie groupoids and Lie algebroids in physics and noncommutative geometry. Journal of Geometry and Physics, 56(1), 24--54 (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    K. C. Mackenzie. General theory of Lie groupoids and Lie algebroids . Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    P. Ramond. Field Theory: A Modern Primer. Addison-Wesley, 2nd ed., Redwood City, California (1989)

    1989

  29. [37]

    H. Sati, U. Schreiber. Quantum Observables of Quantized Fluxes, Ann. Henri Poincar\'e (2024), [arXiv:2312.13037]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Schreiber, K

    U. Schreiber, K. Waldorf. Parallel transport and functors. J. Homotopy and Related Structures, 4(1), 187--24 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Schreiber

    U. Schreiber. Higher Topos Theory in Physics. Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics 2nd ed., Elsevier (2024). [arXiv:2311.11026]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Schwinger

    J. Schwinger. The Algebra of Microscopic Measurement . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 45(10):1542 -- 1553, 1959

    1959

  33. [41]

    Schwinger

    J. Schwinger. Quantum Kinematics and Dynamics. Advanced Book Classics, Frontiers in Physics Series. Perseus Books Group (1991)

    1991

  34. [42]

    Schwinger

    J. Schwinger. Particles, sources and fields, Vol. I.Advanced Book Classics, Perseus Books (1998)

    1998

  35. [43]

    Streater, A.S

    R.F. Streater, A.S. Wightman. PCT, spin and statistics, and all that. Vol. 30. Princeton University Press (2000)

    2000

  36. [44]

    Weinstein, Groupoids: unifying internal and external symmetry

    A. Weinstein, Groupoids: unifying internal and external symmetry. Notices of the AMS 43(7), 744--752 (1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    Weiss, On the Quantization of a Theory Arising from a Variational Principle for Multiple Integrals with Application to Born's Electrodynamics

    P. Weiss, On the Quantization of a Theory Arising from a Variational Principle for Multiple Integrals with Application to Born's Electrodynamics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 156, 192 (1936)

    1936

  38. [46]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mi...

  39. [47]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION add.period duplicate empty 'skip "." * add.blank if FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap dupl...

  40. [48]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION in...

  41. [49]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or...

  42. [50]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION in...

  43. [51]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or...

Pith tools

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