Fully Self-Consistent Semiclassical Gravity

D. Sudarsky; E. Okon; M. Wiedemann; R. Muci\~no

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Fully Self-Consistent Semiclassical Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a fully self-consistent, empirically viable semiclassical gravity exists if the Einstein equations hold patchwise and the metric is allowed to be discontinuous along the future light cones of objective collapse…

desk verdict A genuinely new semiclassical-gravity construction with one clean experimental prediction, but the 'fully self-consistent' label outruns the math: the matter sector is undefined on the very spacetimes the framework requires. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17149 v1 pith:SGLQB4VL submitted 2025-06-20 gr-qc physics.hist-phquant-ph

R. Muciño , E. Okon , D. Sudarsky , M. Wiedemann This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcphysics.hist-phquant-ph

keywords semiclassicalgravityobjectivecollapsespontaneouslocalizationUniversepastnullconeenergy-momentumexpectationvaluegravitationallyinducedentanglementEinsteinequations

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 argues that the long-standing objections to semiclassical gravity—where a classical Einstein tensor is sourced by the expectation value of the quantum energy-momentum tensor—can be overcome by combining it with a relativistic objective collapse dynamics. The central construction is a Semiclassical Collapse Universe (SCU): the semiclassical Einstein equation holds on patches, and at each spontaneous collapse event the metric is allowed to be discontinuous along the event's future light cone, with the induced 3-metric continuous so the patches are glued uniquely. Because the source is defined as the expectation value on the past null cone of each point, the framework is Lorentz invariant and blocks superluminal signaling. If this works, semiclassical gravity becomes an internally consistent, empirically testable theory rather than a dead end, and the paper gives a concrete spherical example plus tabletop-experiment predictions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Semiclassical Collapse Universe (SCU): a manifold with a metric smooth in patches, a set of collapse points with associated random variables, collapse operators satisfying Lorentz-covariance conditions, and a state assigned to every spacelike hypersurface via the Tomonaga-Schwinger equation punctuated by spontaneous collapses. The two load-bearing identities are Eq. (12), $G_{ab}(x) = 8\pi G\,T_{ab}(x)$ on non-collapse patches, and the past-null-cone definition $T_{ab}(x) = \langle\psi|\hat{T}_{ab}|\psi\rangle_{\mathrm{Ren}}\big|_{\partial J^-(x)}$, which is Lorentz invariant and prevents superluminal signaling. The gluing mechanism is the continuity of the induced 3-metric on the future light cone of each collapse, which, through the characteristic initial-value problem, uniquely determines the metric in the future patch.

What would settle it

Observing gravitationally induced entanglement in a tabletop experiment of the type considered for spin-witness proposals would contradict the SCU prediction of no such entanglement. A more targeted check is to measure the predicted relative phase $\alpha = \frac{G m_1 m_2 \tau}{\hbar}\left(\frac{1}{d-\Delta x} - \frac{1}{d+\Delta x}\right)$ in a two-mass interferometer; a null result for that phase, or an entanglement signature, would force revision. Alternatively, a direct calculation showing that no consistent quantum field theory with objective collapse exists on a metric discontinuous along a future light cone would falsify the framework at its foundational level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that a fully self-consistent semiclassical gravity is possible if the Einstein equation $G_{ab} = 8\pi G\,T_{ab}$ holds everywhere except at collapse events and their future light cones, where the metric is discontinuous but the induced 3-metric remains continuous and the future patch is uniquely determined by the null-cone initial-value problem. Here $T_{ab}(x)$ is the renormalized expectation value of the energy-momentum operator evaluated on the state over the past null cone of $x$. The non-conservation of $T_{ab}$ caused by collapses is not a fatal inconsistency, because the equations simply stop holding on those seams. In a worked spherical example, a collapse that localizes all mass on a shell produces a metric that is different in the future of the collapse but has the same induced 3-metric on the seam, and independent tabletop predictions follow: no gravitationally mediated entanglement, but a measurable COW-like relative phase.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a relativistic quantum field theory with spontaneous collapses remains well defined on spacetimes whose metric is discontinuous across future light cones; the paper explicitly leaves the demonstration of this to future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Standard semiclassical gravity emerges as an approximate description away from collapse events, so most applications of the usual semiclassical equation remain valid in smooth regions.
No gravitationally mediated entanglement of two masses can arise, because a single classical metric sources the interaction; the two-particle setup yields a separable state with measurable relative phases.
The Page-Geilker type experiment no longer forces a choice between empirical inadequacy and inconsistency: the discontinuity in $\nabla_a T^{ab}$ is accommodated by the failure of Eq. (12) exactly on the collapse seam.
The framework supplies a concrete recipe for constructing a Semiclassical Collapse Universe in spherical symmetry, with a core-plus-shell example solved explicitly.
Because the collapse rate is a free parameter, the theory is testable: the collapse parameters and experimental geometries determine whether the predicted phase shift or an entanglement signal should appear.

Reading between the lines

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

An immediate extension the paper leaves implicit: if the collapse rate is low enough, the SCU's predictions in ordinary laboratory regimes coincide with standard semiclassical gravity, making the two hard to distinguish except in near-macroscopic-superposition experiments.
A testable corollary suggested but not developed: interpolating between the pre- and post-collapse metrics introduces a transient radial mass-energy current, $G_{tr} \neq 0$, which could carry an observable signature if collapse events are frequent.
The discontinuity of the metric could interact with the definition of particle states in curved spacetime; a sharper formulation might replace the future-light-cone seam by a thin transition layer whose width is set by the collapse smearing scale, potentially making the quantum field theory well-defined.
If gravitationally mediated entanglement is eventually observed, the SCU would be ruled out; conversely, null results in such experiments would support classical spacetime even if they do not single out this particular collapse model.

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

First thing to know: this is a serious attempt to make semiclassical gravity work by putting relativistic objective collapse at the center, and it ends with a genuinely testable prediction. Second thing: the central claim of full self-consistency is not established, and the authors quietly admit it in Sec. 4.3.

What's actually new is the SCU construction: the Einstein equation holds only in patches, the metric jumps on collapse points and their future light cones with a continuous induced 3-metric, and T_ab is defined via past-null-cone expectation values in a collapse theory. The combination of Bedingham's dynamics, the past null cone prescription, and the null characteristic initial value problem goes beyond the earlier SSC work. The spherically symmetric example is concrete enough to show the machinery runs.

The strongest section is the one on tabletop experiments. The framework predicts no gravitationally mediated entanglement but a measurable COW-type phase shift, Eq. (23). That is a clean empirical discriminator between this program and quantum-gravity-inspired entanglement witnesses, and it follows from the structure of the theory, not from fitted parameters.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The load-bearing one is exactly what your stress-test note flags: the matter sector—collapse operators, Tomonaga-Schwinger evolution, probabilities, renormalized T_ab—is under control only for smooth spacetimes, while the SCU needs it on spacetimes discontinuous along future light cones. Sec. 4.3 says, in effect, 'we leave this for future work.' That is honest, but it means the fully self-consistent SCU is not yet a theory; it is a research program with a clear checklist. Relatedly, uniqueness for the non-vacuum null characteristic initial value problem is assumed rather than proved; the paper says it is 'reasonable to assume,' which is fair but is not a theorem. There is also a mild self-referentiality in the collapse-point distribution being defined by a metric that depends on where the collapses are. These are real gaps, but they are sharply delimited and the authors flag the main one themselves.

Who this is for: people working on semiclassical gravity, collapse models, or tabletop tests of quantum gravity. The citation pattern leans on the authors' own prior work, but that is natural here since they are extending it. I would send this to referees: the gaps are structural, the very questions a referee would ask are the ones the paper leaves open, and the experimental prediction deserves scrutiny. My own verdict is conditional, not negative.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semiclassical gravity framework called Semiclassical Collapse Universes (SCUs), in which the metric satisfies G_ab = 8πG T_ab everywhere except on collapse points and their future light cones, where the metric is discontinuous but the induced 3-metric is continuous. The source T_ab is defined by Eq. (10) as the renormalized expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor on the past null cone of x, for a quantum field evolving under a relativistic objective collapse dynamics. The authors present a spherically symmetric example and argue that in tabletop experiments the framework predicts a phase shift rather than gravitationally mediated entanglement, in analogy with the COW experiment. The abstract and introduction claim that this constitutes a fully self-consistent and empirically viable semiclassical gravity theory.

Significance. If fully realized, the framework would provide a concrete, testable semiclassical alternative to quantized gravity, with a falsifiable tabletop prediction (a phase shift, Eq. (23)) that follows from the semiclassical coupling rather than from fitted parameters. The paper explicitly addresses the Bianchi-identity problem for semiclassical gravity with collapses and proposes a gluing construction to handle the discontinuities. The worked example and the connection to the COW experiment are useful. However, the central claim of full self-consistency is not established, because the quantum field theory is left undefined on the very spacetimes (discontinuous along collapse light cones) that the SCU construction generates, as the paper itself acknowledges in Sec. 4.3. Several other load-bearing assumptions (null-cone uniqueness with sources; well-definedness of the non-physical-state prescription for T_ab) are not proven.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.3, final paragraph] The paper explicitly states that "the whole construction of a quantum field theory is (reasonably) under control in smooth spacetimes, but the situation for discontinuous ones is much less clear. We leave this analysis for future work." This is a load-bearing gap: the SCU requires the quantum matter field to evolve on a spacetime whose metric is discontinuous along the future light cone of every collapse event, and the definitions of the collapse dynamics (Eqs. (4)-(6)) and of T_ab (Eq. (10)) presuppose a well-defined QFT on that background. Without such a QFT, the framework is not defined precisely where the future patch is assembled, so the abstract's claim of a "fully self-consistent" framework is unsupported.
[Section 4.3, near Eq. (13)] The gluing procedure relies on the uniqueness of the characteristic initial value problem on null cones for non-vacuum sources, but the cited reference [9] proves uniqueness only in the vacuum case. The paper asserts "it is reasonable to assume that, for sensible energy-momentum tensors, the solution should also be unique" without proof. This assumption is load-bearing because the recipe for determining the future metric from the continuous induced 3-metric depends on it.
[Section 3, around Eq. (10)] The definition of T_ab(x) invokes a "non-physical state" on a hypersurface through x constructed by ignoring collapses outside the causal past of x. The paper does not show that this prescription yields a unique, renormalized expectation value independent of the chosen auxiliary hypersurface, nor that the resulting T_ab is finite and compatible with the gluing conditions. Since T_ab sources Eq. (12), this is a load-bearing assumption.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] There is a missing space in the phrase "A successfulsemiclassical gravity model".
[Section 2.1] In the paragraph discussing [21], "in [21] to potential problems" should read "in [21] two potential problems".
[Section 6, Eq. (23)] The phase factors are placed on |L>_1 and |R>_2; since the setup is symmetric, the authors should justify this asymmetric placement or state a convention for which component acquires the phase.
[Section 4.2] The collapse-point distribution is defined as a constant mean number per unit 4-volume "of the metric g_ab(x)", but the metric is discontinuous on collapse light cones; it should be specified how the 4-volume element is defined in the patched spacetime.
[References] Reference [15] should be "B. A. Juárez-Aubry" (add a period after the initial A).
[Section 5] The example of a collapse at r=0, t=0 that localizes all mass on the shell is illustrative, but it would benefit from a comment on how such a change is compatible with the locality of the collapse operator, since the mass distribution over the entire shell is altered by an event at the center.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SCU equations and tabletop prediction are consequences of openly stated postulates, not of fitted parameters or self-cited uniqueness theorems.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters to data and does not rename an external benchmark as a new result. Eq. (10) defines T_ab through the past-null-cone expectation value, and Eq. (12) is posited as the SCU field equation; the later claim that no gravitationally mediated entanglement is generated (Eq. (23)) follows directly from the semiclassical coupling and the COW analogy, so it is an implication of the model rather than a circular reduction. The self-citations to Refs. [11], [15], [18], and [20] provide background and motivation, but the load-bearing gluing-uniqueness step is imported from an external source, Ref. [9], and the paper explicitly notes that uniqueness there is proven only in vacuum and is 'reasonable to assume' otherwise. The paper's own Sec. 4.3 flags the main open technical gap: QFT on discontinuous spacetimes 'is much less clear. We leave this analysis for future work.' That is an incompleteness in the central self-consistency claim, not a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction. Score 0.

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

The SCU framework rests on several unproven or borrowed assumptions: the uniqueness of null characteristic initial value problems with sources, the existence of QFT with objective collapse on discontinuous spacetimes, the consistency of Bedingham's relativistic collapse model, and the validity of defining states on non-Cauchy hypersurfaces via a non-physical state construction. The free parameters of the collapse model are not fitted here, but the framework's viability depends on them.

free parameters (2)

Collapse rate (mean number of collapses per unit 4-volume)
Central parameter of the collapse dynamics; its value is not specified or fitted in this paper.
Collapse operator width sigma
Introduced in Eq. (9) as a new fundamental constant; not fitted or constrained by data here.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The characteristic initial value problem on a future null cone with non-vacuum energy-momentum has a unique solution.
Invoked in Section 4.3 to claim the gluing condition (continuity of induced 3-metric) fully determines the metric after a collapse. The cited work [9] only proves uniqueness for vacuum.
ad hoc to paper QFT with objective collapse can be consistently defined on spacetimes whose metric is discontinuous along the future light cones of collapse events.
The SCU definition in Section 4.2 requires matter fields and collapse dynamics on the patched spacetime; the paper states this is not under control and defers it.
domain assumption Bedingham's relativistic collapse dynamics (including the auxiliary field that restores commutativity) is a consistent, Lorentz-invariant quantum field dynamics.
The framework adopts this model in Section 3 as the matter sector; any inconsistency in it invalidates the SCU.
ad hoc to paper The expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor can be defined on the past null cone via a non-physical state that ignores collapses outside the causal past, and this yields a unique T_ab(x).
Introduced in Section 3 after Eq. (10) to handle the fact that the past null cone is not a Cauchy surface; well-definedness is not proven.

invented entities (2)

Auxiliary non-standard field (from Bedingham)
purpose: To maintain commutativity of the smeared collapse operators with the interaction Hamiltonian, preserving Lorentz invariance of the collapse dynamics.
The paper relies on this field in Section 3 but provides no empirical handle for it; it is a mathematical device.
Spontaneous collapse events
purpose: To induce definite outcomes without observers and to suppress macroscopic superpositions, giving a well-defined source for the semiclassical Einstein equation.
Adopted from objective collapse models; the paper does not provide independent evidence, though the collapse rate is in principle testable.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fully Self-Consistent Semiclassical Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SGLQB4VL

@misc{pith2026250617149,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fully Self-Consistent Semiclassical Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SGLQB4VL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17149}
}

read the original abstract

A theory of quantum gravity consists of a gravitational framework which, unlike general relativity, takes into account the quantum character of matter. In spite of impressive advances, no fully satisfactory, self-consistent and empirically viable theory with those characteristics has ever been constructed. A successful semiclassical gravity model, in which the classical Einstein tensor couples to the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor of quantum matter fields, would, at the very least, constitute a useful stepping stone towards quantum gravity. However, not only no empirically viable semiclassical theory has ever been proposed, but the self-consistency of semiclassical gravity itself has been called into question repeatedly over the years. Here, we put forward a fully self-consistent, empirically viable semiclassical gravity framework, in which the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor of a quantum field, evolving via a relativistic objective collapse dynamics, couples to a fully classical Einstein tensor. We present the general framework, a concrete example, and briefly explore possible empirical consequences of our model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17149 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A central massive core with radius RC and uniform density ρC, and a massive shell of inner radius RI , outer radius RE and uniform density ρS. Note that, since the induced 3-metric in our proposal comes from a physical metric, it is always admissible. Before moving on, we must mention that the fact that the metric of an SCU is discontinuous may bring with it technical issues that need to be looked at closely. In pa… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** An objective collapse occurring at r = 0 and t = 0 localizes all the mass on the shell. components of the Einstein tensor depend on the details of the interpolation; and without a well-defined recipe to construct it, this avenue for avoiding discontinuities remains, at best, tentative. 6 Tabletop experiments The SCU framework outlined in this work, as a semiclassical framework, should lead to empirical predictions m… 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

Recent developments in semiclassical gravity
gr-qc 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

A short survey of semiclassical gravity advances, with emphasis on the author's own results on the initial value problem and a conjecture that black hole information loss is avoided.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[9]

Choquet-Bruhat, P

Y. Choquet-Bruhat, P. T. Chrusciel, and J. M Martín-García. The Cauchy Problem on a Characteristic Cone for the Einstein Equations in Arbitrary Dimensions.Ann. Henri Poincaré, 12:419–482, 2011

work page 2011
[1]

Bahrami, A

M. Bahrami, A. Großardt, S. Donadi, and A. Bassi. The Schrödinger–Newton equation and its foundations.New Journal of Physics, 16(11):115007, 2014

work page 2014
[2]

Bedingham

D. Bedingham. Relativistic state reduction dynamics.Foundations of Physics, 41:686– 704, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Bedingham, D

D. Bedingham, D. Dürr, G. Ghirardi, S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì. Matter density and relativistic models of wave function collapse.Journal of Statistical Physics, 154:623–631, 2014

work page 2014
[4]

Bedingham, S

D. Bedingham, S. K. Modak, and D. Sudarsky. Relativistic collapse dynamics and black hole information loss.Phys. Rev. D, 94:045009, 2016. 21

work page 2016
[5]

J. S. Bell. Are there quantum jumps? In C. W. Kilmister (ed.), editor,Schrödinger - Centenary Celebration of a Polymath, pages 109–123. Cambridge University Press, 1987

work page 1987
[6]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn. Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity.Physical review letters, 119(24):240401, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

S. Carlip. Is quantum gravity necessary? Classical and Quantum Gravity , 25(15):154010, 2008

work page 2008

Show all 23 references

[8]

Choquet-Bruhat

Y. Choquet-Bruhat. General Relativity and the Einstein Equations. Oxford Science Publications, 2009

2009
[10]

Colella, A

R. Colella, A. W. Overhauser, and S. A. Werner. Observation of gravitationally induced quantum interference.Physical review letters, 34:1472–1474, 1975

1975
[11]

Diez-Tejedor and D

A. Diez-Tejedor and D. Sudarsky. Towards a formal description of the collapse approach to the inflationary origin of the seeds of cosmic structure.JCAP, 045:1207, 2012

2012
[12]

Eppley and E

K. Eppley and E. Hannah. The necessity of quantizing the gravitational field.Founda- tions of Physics, 7(1):51–68, 1977

1977
[13]

Ghirardi, A

G. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber. A Model for a Unified Quantum Description of Macroscopic and Microscopic Systems. In et al. (eds) L. Accardi, editor,Quantum Probability and Applications, pages 223–232. Springer, 1985

1985
[14]

Huggett and C

N. Huggett and C. Callender. Why quantize gravity (or any other field for that matter)? Philosophy of Science, 68(S3):S382–S394, 2001

2001
[15]

A Juárez-Aubry, B

B. A Juárez-Aubry, B. S. Kay, T. Miramontes, and D. Sudarsky. On the initial value problem for semiclassical gravity without and with quantum state collapses.JCAP, 01:040, 2023

2023
[16]

Marletto and V

C. Marletto and V. Vedral. Gravitationally Induced Entanglement between Two Mas- sive Particles is Sufficient Evidence of Quantum Effects in Gravity.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:240402, 2017. 22

2017
[17]

Mattingly

J. Mattingly. Is quantum gravity necessary? InThe universe of general relativity, pages 327–338. Springer, 2005

2005
[18]

Maudlin, E

T. Maudlin, E. Okon, and D. Sudarsky. On the status of conservation laws in physics: Implications for semiclassical gravity.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 69:67–81, 2020

2020
[19]

W. C. Myrvold. Relativistic Quantum Becoming.Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 54:475–500, 2003

2003
[20]

Okon and D

E. Okon and D. Sudarsky. Benefits of objective collapse models for cosmology and quantum gravity.Foundations of Physics, 44:114–143, 2014

2014
[21]

D. N. Page and C. D. Geilker. Indirect evidence for quantum gravity.Phys. Rev. Lett., 47, 1981

1981
[22]

P. Pearle. Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization. Physical Review A, 39:2277–2289, 1989

1989
[23]

R. Tumulka. On Spontaneous Wave Function Collapse and Quantum Field Theory. Proc. R. Soc. A, 462:1897–1908, 2006. 23

1908

Pith tools

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

[1] [9]

Choquet-Bruhat, P

Y. Choquet-Bruhat, P. T. Chrusciel, and J. M Martín-García. The Cauchy Problem on a Characteristic Cone for the Einstein Equations in Arbitrary Dimensions.Ann. Henri Poincaré, 12:419–482, 2011

work page 2011

[2] [1]

Bahrami, A

M. Bahrami, A. Großardt, S. Donadi, and A. Bassi. The Schrödinger–Newton equation and its foundations.New Journal of Physics, 16(11):115007, 2014

work page 2014

[3] [2]

Bedingham

D. Bedingham. Relativistic state reduction dynamics.Foundations of Physics, 41:686– 704, 2011

work page 2011

[4] [3]

Bedingham, D

D. Bedingham, D. Dürr, G. Ghirardi, S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka, and N. Zanghì. Matter density and relativistic models of wave function collapse.Journal of Statistical Physics, 154:623–631, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [4]

Bedingham, S

D. Bedingham, S. K. Modak, and D. Sudarsky. Relativistic collapse dynamics and black hole information loss.Phys. Rev. D, 94:045009, 2016. 21

work page 2016

[6] [5]

J. S. Bell. Are there quantum jumps? In C. W. Kilmister (ed.), editor,Schrödinger - Centenary Celebration of a Polymath, pages 109–123. Cambridge University Press, 1987

work page 1987

[7] [6]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn. Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity.Physical review letters, 119(24):240401, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [7]

S. Carlip. Is quantum gravity necessary? Classical and Quantum Gravity , 25(15):154010, 2008

work page 2008