Embedding $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})/\mathbb{Z}_2$ in Complex Riemannian Geometry

Ethan. J. Thompson; John. W. Moffat

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Embedding $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})/\mathbb{Z}_2$ in Complex Riemannian Geometry

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 By complexifying spacetime, this paper derives the spin-Lorentz group and singularity-free black-hole spin connections from one geometric construction.

desk verdict Textbook spin-geometry factorization dressed up as a singularity-free spin connection whose contour regularization fails its own stated properties. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19158 v1 pith:WPLHA2M3 submitted 2025-06-23 hep-th math-phmath.MP

John. W. Moffat , Ethan. J. Thompson This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP

keywords complexRiemanniangeometryholomorphicmetricspinstructureSL(2C)doublecoverchiralitycontour-integrationregularizationSchwarzschildandKerrmetricsconnection

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 claims that the spin group $SL(2,\mathbb{C})/\mathbb{Z}_2$, the double cover used for half-integer spin particles, is not an extra input to Lorentzian gravity but appears automatically once the metric is promoted to a holomorphic tensor on a four-complex-dimensional manifold. On that manifold the frame bundle enlarges to $SO(4,\mathbb{C})$, whose spin double cover splits into two independent chiral $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ factors; restricting to the real slice selects the diagonal combination and recovers the familiar spin-Lorentz group. The same contour-integration method used earlier to remove Schwarzschild and Kerr curvature singularities is claimed to regulate the spin connection as well, so black-hole backgrounds carry globally smooth holomorphic spin bundles without exotic matter or changes to Einstein's equations. If correct, this gives chirality a geometric origin and provides a setting for holomorphic field theories and quantum-gravity instantons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the chiral factorization $\mathfrak{so}(4,\mathbb{C})\cong \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})_L\oplus \mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})_R$, integrated to $Spin(4,\mathbb{C})\cong (SL(2,\mathbb{C})_L\times SL(2,\mathbb{C})_R)/\mathbb{Z}_2$ through the self-dual and anti-self-dual generators $M^{(\pm)}_{AB}=\frac12(M_{AB}\pm \frac{i}{2}\varepsilon_{AB}^{\ \ CD}M_{CD})$. The second half of the machinery is the contour-integral radial coordinate $R(\zeta)=\oint_C d\zeta\,\sqrt{f(\zeta)}$ for Schwarzschild and its Kerr analogue $R(\zeta,\theta)=\oint_C d\zeta\,\sqrt{\Sigma(\zeta,\theta)/\Delta(\zeta)}$, which replaces singular radial variables by single-valued smooth functions and regulates the spin connection forms. These two pieces tie the algebraic factorization of the spin group to the geometric removal of black-hole singularities.

What would settle it

Compute the spin connection of the contour-regularized Kerr tetrad after substituting $R(\zeta,\theta)$ and evaluate a curvature invariant such as $R_{abcd}R^{abcd}$ on the real slice at $r=0$ and at the inner horizon; a divergent or multivalued result would show the regularized spin bundle is not globally smooth. A simpler test is whether the one-form $\Omega^1_{\ 2}$ remains single-valued after one full circuit of a contour around the roots of $\Delta(\zeta)=0$ for fixed $\theta$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that $SL(2,\mathbb{C})/\mathbb{Z}_2$ is canonically embedded in a four-dimensional complex Riemannian manifold. Promoting the metric to a holomorphic tensor $g_{\mu\nu}(z)$ on a complex 4-fold enlarges the orthonormal frame bundle from $SO(1,3)$ to $SO(4,\mathbb{C})$, and the spin double cover of $SO(4,\mathbb{C})$ factorizes as $(SL(2,\mathbb{C})_L\times SL(2,\mathbb{C})_R)/\mathbb{Z}_2$. Replacing the real radial coordinate by a contour-integral coordinate $R(\zeta)$ that encircles the branch points of $\sqrt{f(\zeta)}$ yields a single-valued, real analytic function on the real slice, and substituting this coordinate into the Schwarzschild and Kerr tetrads gives spin connections whose components are finite everywhere. The resulting real-slice connection satisfies the vacuum Einstein equations exactly, with no distributional source, and left- and right-handed Weyl spinors transform under the two independent chiral factors before the shared $\mathbb{Z}_2$ identification on the real slice.

Load-bearing premise

The paper rests on the premise, taken from its earlier work and not re-derived here, that the contour-integral radial coordinate $R(\zeta)$ is single-valued, real analytic, and removes all curvature singularities on the real slice, and that the same regularization extends to the Kerr spin connection; if that premise fails, the claimed singularity-free holomorphic spin bundle does not exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the construction is correct, the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics admit globally smooth spin connections on the real slice, with no curvature singularity at $r=0$ and no divergence across the would-be horizons.
Chiral Weyl spinors become holomorphic sections of the two $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ factor bundles over the complexified spacetime, and the standard Dirac spinor is recovered on the real slice by the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ identification.
The vacuum Einstein equations remain unmodified and require no exotic stress-energy, so singularity removal is a geometric feature of the complex extension rather than a new matter sector.
The Riemann curvature splits holomorphically into self-dual and anti-self-dual parts, allowing gravitational instanton and BPS-type solutions to be defined by setting one chiral curvature piece to zero.
The same complexification supports holomorphic field theories and gives nonperturbative saddle points in a quantum-gravity path integral defined by Picard-Lefschetz thimbles.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not say this, but if the spin bundle is globally holomorphic on the complex 4-fold, the real-slice spin-structure obstruction $w_2(M_R)=0$ is automatically satisfied, since the bundle is defined globally rather than patched locally on the real manifold.
A natural extension the authors do not explore is applying the same contour integral to Reissner-Nordström or Kerr-Newman backgrounds; if charge-dependent roots of the horizon polynomial create new branch cuts that cannot be encircled in the upper half-plane, the mechanism would be specific to vacuum black holes.
The geometric-origin-of-chirality claim can be stress-tested by computing the holomorphic Dirac operator away from the real slice: if $\gamma^5$ fails to anticommute with the regularized covariant derivative for $\Im z \neq 0$, then chirality is a real-slice phenomenon rather than a property of the complex bundle.
The paper describes the real-slice reality condition two ways, as automatic from setting $y^\mu=0$ in Section 4 and as imposed by hand in Section 6; clarifying whether the diagonal embedding is forced by the holomorphic structure or is an additional choice would settle how canonical the embedding is.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The algebraic core of this paper is standard textbook material, and the authors say so themselves: Spin(4,C) ≅ (SL(2,C)_L × SL(2,C)_R)/Z2 is a well-known factorization. Sections 2–4 give a clear, correct restatement of that material, including the chiral splitting of the spin connection. If the paper were just a pedagogical review of complexified spin geometry, it would be fine. But the advertised new result—a globally smooth, contour-regularized holomorphic spin connection in Schwarzschild and Kerr—does not survive contact with its own equations.

The load-bearing contour construction in Eq. (3) is internally inconsistent. A closed contour integral around branch points is a constant, not a function of ζ. What the paper writes in Eq. (4) is not that contour integral; it is an antiderivative of 1/√(1−2M/ζ). Taking the real part on ζ = r+i0+ gives R(r) = 0 for all 0 ≤ r ≤ 2M, and R(2M+) = 0 with dR/dr diverging. That directly contradicts the claim below Eq. (5) that R(r) is strictly positive and smooth on r ≥ 0. The stress-test note is correct: the horizon is mapped to R=0 and the new radial coordinate is not a valid coordinate at the horizon. Since Section 5's Kerr construction inherits the same contour integral, the claim of a singularity-free Kerr spin connection lacks a working foundation.

The paper also never displays the spin connection or its curvature in Kerr or Schwarzschild. Section 5 says they are 'computed' and then 'rewritten in terms of R', but the actual forms are absent. So there is no check of the central assertion. On top of that, the abstract and introduction call SL(2,C)/Z2 the spin double cover of the Lorentz group; the double cover is SL(2,C), and the quotient by Z2 is the Lorentz group itself. That is a terminological error, though it does not affect the well-known algebraic factorization.

The chirality claim is overblown. The decomposition into left and right Weyl factors is just the four-dimensional spinor structure; it does not explain why the weak interactions are chiral. That leap is not supported.

Who is this for? A reader who wants a clean summary of SO(4,C) spin geometry might find Sections 2–4 useful, but they can get the same from Eguchi–Gilkey–Hanson. The new physics is unverified and, as written, contradicted by the authors' own equations. I would not send this to peer review in its current form; the central construction is checkable and fails. A future version that replaces the contour integral with a well-defined regular coordinate, displays the spin connection, and corrects the group terminology could be reconsidered.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in a four-complex-dimensional manifold with a holomorphic metric, the frame bundle extends to SO(4,C) and its spin double cover factorizes as Spin(4,C) = (SL(2,C)_L x SL(2,C)_R)/Z2, and that restricting to a real slice recovers the Lorentz spin structure. It further claims that the authors' earlier contour-integration radial coordinate R(zeta) removes Schwarzschild and Kerr curvature singularities and that the same regularization yields globally smooth holomorphic spin connections, without exotic matter or modification of the Einstein equations. The algebraic factorization is standard textbook material, but the new physical claims are asserted rather than demonstrated.

Significance. If the claims were correct, the paper would offer a geometric origin of chirality from complexification and a globally regular holomorphic spin bundle, which would be of interest for complexified gravity and quantum-gravity models. Sections 2-3 correctly present the textbook facts so(4,C) = sl(2,C)_L + sl(2,C)_R and Spin(4,C) = (SL(2,C)_L x SL(2,C)_R)/Z2. The load-bearing parts, however, are not established: the paper misidentifies SL(2,C)/Z2 as the spin double cover of the Lorentz group, the contour-regularized radial coordinate fails its stated properties at the Schwarzschild horizon, and Section 5 contains no explicit spin-connection computation or Kerr verification. These issues undermine the central claims.

major comments (4)

[Title, Abstract, Section 1] The paper repeatedly calls SL(2,C)/Z2 the spin double cover of SO(1,3) (Abstract and first sentence of Section 1). This is incorrect: Spin(1,3) is isomorphic to SL(2,C), whereas SL(2,C)/Z2 is a complex model of the identity component of the Lorentz group SO(1,3) itself. Consequently the group the paper claims to embed does not carry the two-dimensional Weyl spinor representations, so the statement that Weyl spinors transform under the recovered SL(2,C)/Z2 on the real slice is not consistent. The factorization in Eq. (19) is correct for Spin(4,C), but the real-slice reduction in Section 4 would have to produce SL(2,C), not SL(2,C)/Z2.
[Section 2, Eqs. (3)-(7)] The contour-integral radial coordinate R(zeta) does not satisfy the properties claimed. For Schwarzschild, the antiderivative in Eq. (4) gives R(2M)=0 on the real slice zeta=r+i0+, so the assertion below Eq. (5) that R(r) is strictly positive for all r>=0 fails at the horizon. Moreover dR/dr behaves like 1/sqrt(r-2M) as r approaches 2M from above, so the metric component dR^2/(1-2M/R) is not smooth at the would-be horizon. Since Eq. (7) and Section 5 use this R as the smooth radial coordinate, the central claim of singularity removal is unsupported unless an explicit corrected R(zeta) with the advertised properties is supplied.
[Section 5, Eqs. (28)-(32)] The section states that the spin connection is computed, rewritten in terms of R(zeta), and found to be finite, but no explicit expression for Omega_AB, its curvature, or the verification of R_AB=0 is displayed. This absence is load-bearing because Section 3 explicitly identifies the globally smooth holomorphic spin connection in Kerr as the new contribution. For Kerr, Eq. (32) defines R(zeta,theta) as a contour integral over roots of Delta and Sigma, but no integral evaluation, no real-slice smoothness proof, and no demonstration that the theta-dependent radial redefinition preserves the Kerr metric form are given. The section is therefore a claim rather than a derivation.
[Section 4, Eqs. (24)-(25)] The real-slice identification is inconsistent. Eq. (24) sets S_R=(S_L)^{-1}, while the following sentence says one may instead impose S_L=S_R up to the Z2 identification; these are different subgroups. More importantly, the Lorentzian real form of Spin(4,C) is not a holomorphic diagonal subgroup of SL(2,C)_L x SL(2,C)_R; it is selected by an anti-holomorphic involution involving complex conjugation in the spinor representation. The claim that a single spin-Lorentz group appears canonically on the real slice is therefore not established.

minor comments (4)

[References [3], [4]] References [3] and [4] list the same arXiv identifier 2501.03356; this is presumably a citation error and should be corrected.
[Section 6, Eq. (34)] Eq. (34) uses the symbol sigma_A for both the Pauli matrices (1,sigma) and (1,-sigma); these are distinct objects and should be denoted sigma_A and bar-sigma_A as in Eq. (20).
[Section 2, paragraph after Eq. (5)] The claim that any two homotopic loops in the upper half-plane give identical values of R(zeta) is not compatible with Eq. (3) 'winding once around zeta=0 and zeta=2M', since such a loop is not contractible in the domain that excludes those branch points; the intended domain and cycle should be specified precisely.
[Section 7, Eq. (35)] The path integral (35) over a complex manifold with d^4z and sqrt(-g) is not a well-defined formal expression; even as a heuristic, the relation between the contour-regularized real slice and the Lefschetz-thimble integral is not described.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The algebraic SL(2,C)/Z2 embedding is textbook material, but the paper's singularity-free spin-connection claim is imported from the authors' own prior contour-regularization papers [3,4] without independent verification.

self citation load bearing [Abstract / Section 1 (p.1-2)]
"In particular, the same contour-integration techniques that yield singularity-free Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions via a holomorphic radial coordinate also furnish a holomorphic spin bundle... The contour deformations originally used to remove Schwarzschild–Kerr singularities ([3, 4]) also regulate the corresponding spin connection forms in the complex domain."

The paper's central physical claim is that the contour-regularized Schwarzschild and Kerr backgrounds support a globally smooth holomorphic spin connection. That regularization is not re-derived here; it is taken as given from the authors' own references [3,4]. The new spin-connection result therefore inherits its entire load-bearing premise from a self-cited construction. If the R(zeta) contour integral in Eqs. (3)/(36) is not actually single-valued and singularity-removing, the claimed holomorphic spin bundle collapses. No independent derivation, code verification, or external check is supplied for this premise.
self citation load bearing [Section 5, Eq. (31)-(32) and text after Eq. (32)]
"Again, vacuum field equations RAB = 0 hold with no need for exotic stress–energy [3]. ... define R(zeta,theta)= contour integral ... which is analytic in Im zeta > 0. ... Restricting to zeta = r + i kappa, kappa -> 0+ produces a smooth real spin connection omega_AB(x) on the Kerr background, singularity-free at r = 0 and across the would-be inner/outer horizons."

The Kerr spin connection is asserted to be smooth because the Kerr metric is taken to be regularized by the same contour method from [3]. The paper does not calculate the Kerr contour integral or demonstrate the regularity of the resulting R(zeta,theta); it simply states that the connection becomes finite after rewriting in terms of R and cites [3] for the vacuum equations. Thus the key output of Section 5 -- a singularity-free holomorphic spin connection on Kerr -- is a consequence of assuming the self-cited regularization rather than an independently established result. This is application-by-citation rather than derivation.

full rationale

The group-theoretic content -- so(4,C) ≅ sl(2,C)_L ⊕ sl(2,C)_R and Spin(4,C) ≅ (SL(2,C)_L × SL(2,C)_R)/Z2 -- is standard textbook material, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the algebraic factorization is well known. That part is not circular. No numerical fitting or parameter extraction occurs, so the fitted-input-as-prediction pattern does not apply. The circularity concern is concentrated in the physical payload: the claim that the contour-regularized Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics yield globally smooth, singularity-free spin connections. That regularization is introduced in Eqs. (3)-(5) and (36), asserted to be single-valued, real-analytic, and singularity-eliminating, and then reused for the spin connection in Section 5 without re-derivation. The only external support cited for the Kerr regularity and vacuum equations is the authors' own prior work [3,4]. While citing one's own prior work is not per se circular, here the prior work supplies the foundational premise on which the paper's new result entirely rests, and that premise is not independently verified in the present manuscript. The algebraic embedding retains independent content, so a score of 4 is appropriate rather than 6 or higher; but the central singularity-free spin-connection claim should not be treated as a self-contained derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algebraic embedding is textbook and adds no free parameters. The novel physical content rests on an unproven contour-regularization construction inherited from the authors' previous papers, plus a topological assumption w2=0. No explicit Kerr spin connection is shown, so the central claim depends on premises the reader cannot verify from this preprint.

free parameters (1)

Imaginary shift kappa = unspecified (kappa > 0, limit kappa -> 0+)
Introduced in Eqs. (2)-(5) to move the radial coordinate into the upper half-plane so contours avoid branch points; the paper claims results are independent of kappa but provides no numerical value or convergence proof.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption w2(MR)=0 and the SO(4,C) frame bundle on MC is trivializable
Required for a global spin bundle (Eq. 11 and Section 2); stated to hold for physically relevant Schwarzschild and Kerr extensions but not proved for the regularized manifolds.
ad hoc to paper The contour integral R(zeta) in Eq. (3) is single-valued and yields an everywhere smooth, singularity-free real metric
This is the regularization premise taken from refs [3,4]; it is the foundation for the spin connection claims and is not independently established in this paper.
domain assumption The holomorphic metric g_mu_nu(z) is nondegenerate on MC and restricts to Lorentzian signature on the real slice
Assumed in Eq. (1) and Section 2; needed for the SO(4,C) frame bundle construction and for recovering SO(1,3) on the real slice.
standard math Gamma-matrix and duality conventions fix the chiral decomposition of so(4,C)
Used in Eqs. (13)-(22); standard, but the signature and epsilon conventions must be consistent for the real-slice Dirac operator to be anti-Hermitian.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Embedding $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})/\mathbb{Z}_2$ in Complex Riemannian Geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WPLHA2M3

@misc{pith2026250619158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Embedding $\mathrmSL(2,\mathbbC)/\mathbbZ_2$ in Complex Riemannian Geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WPLHA2M3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19158}
}

read the original abstract

We present a unified framework demonstrating how the spinor complex Lorentz group SL(2,C)/Z\_2 is realized as a canonical subgroup within a four-dimensional complex Riemannian manifold. Building on the complex, holomorphic metric extension and contour-integration regularization of classical singularities, we show that promoting the metric to a complex-valued tensor on a complex 4-fold enlarges the frame bundle to SO(4,C). Its spin double cover factorizes as a product of two independent SL(2,C) factors modulo a shared Z\_2, and selecting one Weyl factor recovers the familiar SL(2,C)/Z\_2 spin cover of the Lorentz group. By explicitly extending metric components and connection forms into the complex domain, using contour deformations to avoid coordinate-singular loci, we exhibit how left- and right-handed Weyl spinors transform under separate SL(2,C) factors, and how modding out a common Z\_2 reproduces the standard spin-Lorentz structure. In particular, the same contour-integration techniques that yield singularity-free Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions via a holomorphic radial coordinate also furnish a holomorphic spin bundle in which chiral spin representations live without imposing exotic matter or modifying the Einstein equations. This embedding clarifies the geometric origin of chirality, enables holomorphic factorization of curvature and connection forms, and provides a foundation for constructing holomorphic field theories and complexified gravity backgrounds. Our results indicate that extending the Lorentz group into a complex Riemannian setting not only recovers SL(2,C)/Z\_2 in a canonical fashion, but also establishes a geometric arena for studying chiral fermions, Bogomol'nyi-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) instantons, and potential quantum-gravity corrections within a rigorously defined complex manifold.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

On Gauge-Invariant Entire-Function Regulators and UV Finiteness in NonLocal Quantum Field Theory
hep-th 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

In flat space, an entire-function regulator F(□/M^2) acts as the multiplicative Euclidean form factor e^{-p_E^2/M^2} on plane waves, yielding exponential UV damping; this known nonlocal-QFT result is re-derived and discussed.
On Recent measurements of Toponium Threshold Enhancement in Entire-Function-Regulated Nonlocal Quantum Field Theory
physics.gen-ph 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Threshold excess in toponium production is accommodated in an entire-function-regulated nonlocal QFT by a data-driven cutoff parameter and small RG effects while preserving global QCD tests.
De Sitter Cores from Nonlocal Quantum Field Theories
physics.gen-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

An exponential nonlocal regulator maps a point mass to a Gaussian density whose Einstein solution has a de Sitter core, reproducing (with new labeling) the known Gaussian-sourced regular black hole.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 1: Foundations , Cambridge University Press (1995)

S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 1: Foundations , Cambridge University Press (1995)

work page 1995
[2]

Penrose and W

R. Penrose and W. Rindler, Spinors and Space–Time, Volume 1: Two-Spinor Calculus and Relativistic Fields, Cambridge University Press (1984)

work page 1984
[4]

Complex Riemannian Spacetime: Removal of Black Hole Singularities and Black Hole Paradoxes,

J. W. Moffat, “Complex Riemannian Spacetime: Removal of Black Hole Singularities and Black Hole Paradoxes,” Axioms 14, 459 (2025); arXiv:2501.03356 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2025
[5]

Exact Classical Solution for the ’t Hooft Monopole and the Julia–Zee Dyon,

M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfield, “Exact Classical Solution for the ’t Hooft Monopole and the Julia–Zee Dyon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 760–762 (1975)

work page 1975
[6]

”The stability of classical solutions.” Sov

Bogomol’nyi, E B. ”The stability of classical solutions.” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. (Engl. Transl.); (United States), vol. 24:4, Oct. 1976

work page 1976
[7]

Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics,

R. P. Kerr, “Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237–238 (1963)

work page 1963
[8]

Richtungsfelder und Fernparallelismus in n-dimensionalen Mannigfaltigkeiten,

E. Stiefel, “Richtungsfelder und Fernparallelismus in n-dimensionalen Mannigfaltigkeiten,” Comment. Math. Helv. 8, 305–353 (1936)

work page 1936
[9]

The self-intersections of a smooth n-manifold in 2n-space,

H. Whitney, “The self-intersections of a smooth n-manifold in 2n-space,” Ann. Math. (2) 45, 220–246 (1944)

work page 1944

Show all 11 references

[10]

J. W. Milnor and J. D. Stasheff, Characteristic Classes, Princeton University Press (1974)

1974
[11]

Gravitation, Gauge Theories and Differential Geometry,

T. Eguchi, P. B. Gilkey, and A. J. Hanson, “Gravitation, Gauge Theories and Differential Geometry,” Phys. Rep. 66, 213–393 (1980)

1980
[12]

Brown, A

J. Brown, A. Cole, G. Shiu and W. Cottrell, Gravitational decoupling and the Picard–Lefschetz approach, Phys. Rev. D 97, 025002 (2018) [arXiv:1710.04737 [hep-th]]. 8

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 1: Foundations , Cambridge University Press (1995)

S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 1: Foundations , Cambridge University Press (1995)

work page 1995

[2] [2]

Penrose and W

R. Penrose and W. Rindler, Spinors and Space–Time, Volume 1: Two-Spinor Calculus and Relativistic Fields, Cambridge University Press (1984)

work page 1984

[3] [4]

Complex Riemannian Spacetime: Removal of Black Hole Singularities and Black Hole Paradoxes,

J. W. Moffat, “Complex Riemannian Spacetime: Removal of Black Hole Singularities and Black Hole Paradoxes,” Axioms 14, 459 (2025); arXiv:2501.03356 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2025

[4] [5]

Exact Classical Solution for the ’t Hooft Monopole and the Julia–Zee Dyon,

M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfield, “Exact Classical Solution for the ’t Hooft Monopole and the Julia–Zee Dyon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 760–762 (1975)

work page 1975

[5] [6]

”The stability of classical solutions.” Sov

Bogomol’nyi, E B. ”The stability of classical solutions.” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. (Engl. Transl.); (United States), vol. 24:4, Oct. 1976

work page 1976

[6] [7]

Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics,

R. P. Kerr, “Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237–238 (1963)

work page 1963

[7] [8]

Richtungsfelder und Fernparallelismus in n-dimensionalen Mannigfaltigkeiten,

E. Stiefel, “Richtungsfelder und Fernparallelismus in n-dimensionalen Mannigfaltigkeiten,” Comment. Math. Helv. 8, 305–353 (1936)

work page 1936

[8] [9]

The self-intersections of a smooth n-manifold in 2n-space,

H. Whitney, “The self-intersections of a smooth n-manifold in 2n-space,” Ann. Math. (2) 45, 220–246 (1944)

work page 1944