Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

On the Possibility of Quantum Gravity Emerging from Geometry

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the gravitational generalized uncertainty principle—normally an added postulate—is the small-fluctuation expansion of a multifractal spacetime geometry, with its coefficient fixed by the variance of the local fractal d

desk verdict The paper assumes the GUP it claims to derive; the rest is a repackaging of the author's own preprint and standard results. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.16219 v2 pith:FRZG2AWG submitted 2026-02-18 gr-qc

Jaume Gine This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.60.-m04.70.Dy
keywords generalizeduncertaintyprincipleemergentquantumgravitymultifractalspacetimehorizonmicrostructureentropycorrectionsminimallengthnoncommutativegeometryasthermodynamics
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 gravitational generalized uncertainty principle (GUP)—usually added to quantum mechanics by hand—can be read as an effective kinematic consequence of spacetime geometry. Treating Planck-scale space as a random multifractal metric space with local Hausdorff dimensions D(q), the author shows that a small-deviation expansion of the scale-dependent resolution factor α(ℓ) around D=2 produces the standard GUP, with the free parameter β replaced by the variance γ=∫w(q)[D(q)−2]². The same γ then reappears in an effective commutator, a deformed wave equation with a fourth-derivative term, horizon entropy corrections, and a thermodynamic derivation of the gravitational field equations. If the picture is right, quantum uncertainty is not a fundamental law but a statistical trace of unresolved geometric microstructure, and an effective semiclassical quantum gravity can be built without quantizing gravity. The paper is explicit that this is a proof of concept, not a complete theory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the variance of the multifractal spectrum, γ=∫w(q)[D(q)−2]². Here D(q) is the local Hausdorff dimension of a spatial slice at Planckian resolution, weighted by w(q); classical spacetime has D(q)≡2. γ measures the variance, or roughness, of dimensional fluctuations. The paper's key move is a small-deviation expansion D(q)=2+Δ(q): the first moment ⟨Δ⟩ rescales the area and entropy and can be absorbed, while the second moment ⟨Δ²⟩=γ becomes the GUP coefficient. γ is scale-independent and universal once the geometry is fixed, determines the minimal length √γℓ_P, and connects the uncertainty relation, entropy corrections, modified dispersion, and the thermodynamic derivation

What would settle it

Compute the exact bound in Eq. (1) for a concrete multifractal measure with a known spectrum D(q) (for example a two-scale self-similar measure), without the small-variance expansion. If the minimum position uncertainty is not √γ ℓ_P, or if the effective GUP coefficient runs with the probe scale ℓ rather than staying fixed at γ, then the claimed universality of γ—and with it the geometric derivation—fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the gravitational generalized uncertainty principle is the expansion of a scale-dependent multifractal resolution factor around D=2, and that its coefficient is the variance γ=∫w(q)[D(q)−2]² of the local Hausdorff dimension. Starting from the assumed bound Δx ≳ ℏ/(2Δp)+α(ℓ)ℓ_P²/ℏ Δp, taking ℓ∼Δx∼1/Δp near the Planck scale, and expanding α(ℓ) gives the standard GUP with β=γ. From this the paper derives an effective commutator, a deformed nonrelativistic wave equation with a γℓ_P²∂⁴ term, modified semiclassical gravity and entropy corrections, and—via the heat-entropy relation and the null-conguence expansion equation—the gravitational field equations as an equation of st

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that near a horizon the operational position uncertainty takes the assumed form Δx ≳ ℏ/(2Δp)+α(ℓ)ℓ_P²/ℏ Δp, with α(ℓ) fixed by the multifractal spectrum; without that input, the geometric factor never enters the uncertainty relation and the emergence claim reduces to relabelling the GUP coefficient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The GUP parameter is no longer a free constant: once the horizon microgeometry is specified, β is fixed as the variance γ of the local fractal dimension.
  • Modified commutators need not be assumed; the effective commutator [x,p]_eff = iℏ(1+γp²/m_P²+...) follows from the geometric uncertainty relation and coarse-graining.
  • Quantum wave dynamics on these backgrounds gains a Planck-suppressed fourth-derivative term γℓ_P²∂⁴, which also makes propagators mildly nonlocal and suppresses ultraviolet divergences.
  • The same γ controls horizon entropy corrections: a nonzero variance produces ln²(A/ℓ_P²) terms, while a nonzero mean dimension shift produces the usual ln(A/ℓ_P²) correction.
  • Gravitational field equations emerge as a thermodynamic equation of state from the heat-entropy relation applied to local horizons, with O(γ) corrections, and the inverse-square force law is recovered with fluctuation corrections.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference — because γ appears in the minimal length, the entropy correction, and the dispersion relation, measuring any one fixes the other two; this cross-check is left implicit in the paper.
  • Editorial inference — the input bound Δx ≳ ℏ/(2Δp)+α(ℓ)ℓ_P²/ℏ Δp is itself an uncertainty relation, so a fully emergent account would need to derive it from a measurement protocol on multifractal geometry; until then the argument reinterprets the GUP rather than eliminating it as an input.
  • Editorial inference — the picture predicts the GUP parameter is exactly scale-independent; data or models showing β running with energy would favor the scale-dependent α(ℓ) alternative and rule out the variance interpretation.
  • Editorial inference — the same geometric variance may govern stochastic noise in the emergent wave equation, suggesting a quantitative link between γ and diffusion constants that could be probed in condensed-matter or analogue systems.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the generalized uncertainty principle (GUP) can be derived as an emergent consequence of multifractal spacetime geometry at the Planck scale. It proposes a spacetime with local Hausdorff dimensions D(q), introduces a scale-dependent geometric factor α(ℓ), and argues that expanding near D=2 yields the standard gravitational GUP with coefficient γ = ∫dq w(q)(D(q)−2)^2. This GUP is then used to construct an effective commutator, a modified Schrödinger equation, and, via a Jacobson-type thermodynamic argument, Einstein equations with O(γ) corrections. The paper concludes that quantum uncertainty and gravity emerge from the statistical microstructure of spacetime, while acknowledging that this is not a complete theory of quantum gravity.

Significance. If substantiated, the claimed result would be of considerable interest: it would provide a geometric, non-quantized origin for the GUP, unify several quantum-gravity programs through the multifractal spectrum, and reinterpret quantum uncertainty and gravity as emergent phenomena. The paper is honest about its limitations and attempts to connect to existing frameworks. However, as detailed in the major comments, the central derivation is not actually carried out. The key equation (1) is assumed rather than derived, several operator and thermodynamic steps are unjustified or inconsistent, and the paper relies heavily on the author's own unpublished preprint [2]. The significance of the claimed result is therefore not realized in the current manuscript.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] The central relation Δx ≳ ℏ/(2Δp) + α(ℓ) ℓ_P²/ℏ Δp is assumed, not derived. The multifractal measure μ(B_r(x)) ∼ r^{D(q(x))} and the definition of α(ℓ) do not imply an additive linear-in-Δp correction to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. Expanding α(ℓ) near D=2 only re-labels the coefficient of an already postulated term. Thus the GUP is an input, not an output, making the claimed 'emergence' circular.
  2. [Section 2, log-expansion paragraph] The paper states ln(ℓ/ℓ_P)=O(1) because near the minimal length Δp∼1/ℓ_P. But if Δp∼1/ℓ_P, then Δx∼ℓ_P and the logarithm tends to zero, not O(1). The absorption of ln²(ℓ/ℓ_P) into γ is therefore unjustified, and the claimed scale-independence of γ is not established.
  3. [Section 3.3] The replacement Δ ln²(−Δ) ∼ ℓ_P² Δ² is asserted without justification. This step is required to obtain the γℓ_P²Δ² term in the effective kinetic operator. Moreover, the text derives Δ_MF = −Δ + γℓ_P²Δ² + O(ℓ_P⁴) but the subsequent Schrödinger equation uses (Δ − γℓ_P²Δ²), giving a kinetic term of the opposite sign relative to Δ_MF.
  4. [Section 3, variational principle] The constrained minimization δ(⟨p̂²⟩+λ(⟨x²⟩−fixed))=0 is stated but not solved. The resulting higher-derivative kinetic operator in Eq. (4) is asserted, not derived. No Euler–Lagrange equation is shown, so the claim that quantum dynamics 'emerges' from the GUP is not demonstrated.
  5. [Section 5.2–5.3] The Einstein equation is obtained only as T_μν k^μ k^ν ∝ R_μν k^μ k^ν [1+O(γ)] without specifying the O(γ) corrections or fixing the proportionality constant. In addition, the entropy correction in Eq. (6), γ/8 ln²(A/ℓ_P²), is not small for macroscopic horizons and is inconsistent with the earlier ln(A/ℓ_P) form, so treating it as Planck-suppressed is unjustified. The derivation of Einstein gravity as an equation of state is incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] Eqs. (1) and (2) are nearly identical; clarify whether Eq. (2) is intended as a consequence of Eq. (1) or a restatement with a different coefficient.
  2. [Section 3.3] The symbol Δ(q) is used for the dimensional fluctuation while Δ denotes the Laplacian; this notation is confusing and should be changed (e.g., use δ(q) for the fluctuation).
  3. [Section 3.2] Typo: 'he wavefunction' should be 'the wavefunction'.
  4. [Section 5] The entropy expansion in Eq. (6) uses ln(A/ℓ_P) while §5.2 uses ln²(A/ℓ_P²); make the argument of the logarithm consistent.
  5. [Conclusions] The compatibility claims with LQG, asymptotic safety, CDT, and Kaniadakis/Tsallis statistics are heuristic; they should be framed as analogies or motivations, not proven correspondences.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The GUP is assumed in Eq. (1), then re-expanded into Eq. (2); the claimed emergence is a coefficient re-labeling, with the input ansatz imported from the author's own preprint [2].

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 1 (Introduction), Eq. (1) and surrounding text]
    "Moreover we consider that there exists a minimal geometric resolution ℓ_P > 0 ... We assume, following [2], a scale-dependent effective geometry. Probing geometry at scale ℓ≥ℓ_P yields an effective area/volume renormalization α(ℓ) := ∫ dq w(q) (ℓ/ℓ_P)^{2−D(q)} ... Schematically, Δx ≳ ℏ/(2Δp) + α(ℓ) ℓ_P^2/ℏ Δp, (1) where the second term represents geometric backreaction."

    Eq. (1) is already the same GUP form that the paper claims to derive; it is not derived from the multifractal measure, but adopted 'following [2]'. The subsequent calculation only expands α(ℓ) and absorbs logarithms, so the 'emergent' GUP is an assumed ansatz carrying a geometric coefficient. The claim that the GUP is a consequence of geometry is therefore a restatement of the input, with the load-bearing premise located in the author's own preprint [2].

  2. self definitional [Section 2, Eq. (2) and derivation paragraph]
    "Hence from the multifractal GUP (1) we arrive to (2). In resume the logarithmic multifractal correction to the effective resolution, when expressed in terms of momentum uncertainty and expanded near the Planck scale, reduces to a polynomial correction proportional to (ℓ_P^2/ℏ) Δp, yielding the generalized uncertainty principle (2)."

    This is explicit: the output Eq. (2) is obtained from the input Eq. (1), which already has the GUP structure. The only new content is the coefficient γ = ∫ w(q)(D(q)−2)², obtained by Taylor-expanding the assumed α(ℓ) and replacing ln²(ℓ/ℓ_P) by O(1). Thus the 'derivation' is a re-parameterization of the assumed relation, not an emergence of quantum uncertainty from geometry.

2 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2, paragraph beginning 'However, in [2] a generalization...']
    "However, in [2] a generalization of Eq. (2) was obtained from the scale-dependent factor α(ℓ) given by α(ℓ)∼ ∫ dq w(q) (ℓ/ℓ_P)^{2−D(q)}. This α(ℓ) is a scale-dependent geometric factor that describes how horizon area or entropy scales when probed at resolution ℓ and is not a coupling constant, but it is a running function."

    The central input—the multifractal GUP and the scale-dependent factor α(ℓ)—is imported from reference [2], an unpublished preprint by the same author. No independent derivation or external check is supplied for this premise. The claimed geometric origin therefore rests on a self-citation chain rather than on premises established in the present paper.

  2. renaming known result [Section 2, paragraph on the standard gravitational GUP]
    "The standard gravitationally GUP motivated by the works of [17, 18, 19, 4] is Δx ≳ ℏ/(2Δp) + β G/c^3 Δp, can now be reinterpreted as β ≡ γ ∼ ⟨Δ²(q)⟩. More specifically, the previous results we obtain a geometric origin of standard gravitational GUP and parameter β satisfies β ∼ γ, that is the variance of the multifractal dimension, not an independent constant."

    This is the renaming move: a known GUP coefficient β is renamed γ and identified with the variance of D(q). The identification follows from the assumed Eq. (1), not from a derivation that eliminates the GUP ansatz. It makes the known GUP look geometric by notation, while the uncertainty-structure itself remains an input.

full rationale

Score 6. The paper's headline result is not independently derived. In Section 1 the GUP form is already written down as Eq. (1) with a geometric prefactor α(ℓ), and Section 2 explicitly obtains Eq. (2) from Eq. (1) by expanding α(ℓ)=∫w(q)(ℓ/ℓ_P)^{2−D(q)} and absorbing ln²(ℓ/ℓ_P) into the constant γ. Thus the central 'emergent GUP' reduces by construction to a re-labeling of the assumed GUP ansatz. The geometric input—multifractal dimensions and weights—enters only through the coefficient, not through the structure of the uncertainty relation; no argument shows that geometric statistics generate an additive linear-in-Δp term. The ansatz and the entropy formula are imported from the author's own unpublished preprint [2], which is load-bearing. The later modified commutator Eq. (3) is a standard transcription of the GUP and is presented as emergent without independent evidence. On the other hand, if one grants Eq. (1) and the α(ℓ) definition, then γ=Var[D(q)] is a valid coefficient computation, and the Jacobson/Verlinde parts are standard thermodynamic derivations; these give the paper some independent content. Hence 6, not 0 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on postulating a multifractal geometry with unconstrained weights, on assuming the GUP form with a geometric prefactor, and on importing Nelson's diffusion hypothesis and Jacobson's Clausius relation. The coefficient γ is not fixed by external data and absorbs an order-one ambiguity. The entropy formula is taken from the author's unpublished preprint [2].

free parameters (3)
  • D(q), w(q) (multifractal spectrum and weights) = None specified; free functions
    The multifractal spectrum and weights are unconstrained inputs; γ = ∫w (D−2)² is determined by them, so the GUP coefficient is not predicted.
  • γ (claimed GUP coefficient β) = Unspecified (order 1 presumed)
    The claimed GUP coefficient β = γ is a free parameter unless D(q), w(q) are fixed; the paper provides no independent determination.
  • Log-absorption constant = O(1), unspecified
    Section 2 absorbs ln²(ℓ/ℓ_P) into γ, changing the numerical meaning of γ by an order-unity factor; this ambiguity is not fixed.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Spacetime is a random multifractal metric space at Planckian resolution, with local Hausdorff dimension D(q) ∈ (0,3] and normalized weight w(q).
    Introduced without independent evidence; the entire framework depends on this structure. Introduction, first paragraph.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective position uncertainty near a horizon satisfies Δx ≳ ℏ/(2Δp) + α(ℓ)ℓ_P²/ℏ Δp, with α(ℓ) the averaged geometric scaling factor.
    Eq. (1) in Section 2; this is the GUP with a geometric prefactor, assumed rather than derived from a measurement model.
  • ad hoc to paper For Planck-scale modes, Δ ln²(−Δ) ∼ ℓ_P² Δ².
    Section 3.3; order-of-magnitude substitution used to obtain the deformed kinetic term, with no proof.
  • domain assumption Near a rough horizon, geodesics fluctuate stochastically with stationary, isotropic noise and diffusion constant D ∼ ℏ/(2m).
    Section 3.2; imported from Nelson's stochastic mechanics; the connection to multifractal geometry is not established.
  • standard math The Clausius relation δQ = T dS holds for every local Rindler horizon, with δQ the energy flux across the horizon.
    Section 5; follows Jacobson (1995), standard assumption in thermodynamic gravity.
  • domain assumption Classical spacetime is recovered when D(q) ≡ 2.
    Introduction; used to anchor the variance γ and to claim Einstein gravity is the smooth limit.
invented entities (1)
  • Multifractal microstructure of spacetime/horizons (local Hausdorff dimension spectrum D(q), weights w(q))
    purpose: To generate the GUP coefficient, entropy corrections, and scale-dependent geometry
    No falsifiable handle: the spectrum is unmeasured and unconstrained; no prediction of its value or of the resulting γ is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Possibility of Quantum Gravity Emerging from Geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FRZG2AWG

@misc{pith2026260216219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Possibility of Quantum Gravity Emerging from Geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FRZG2AWG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.16219}
}
read the original abstract

Can the generalized uncertainty principle (GUP) arise as an effective manifestation of spacetime geometry rather than as a fundamental postulate? More specifically, can the gravitational GUP be interpreted as an emergent uncertainty relation generated by the statistical microstructure of local horizons? Motivated by these questions, this work explores the broader possibility that selected features of quantum-gravitational behavior may originate from the geometric and thermodynamic properties of spacetime itself. We argue that, under suitable assumptions regarding the multifractal structure of microscopic horizons, an effective GUP can indeed be induced by geometry. This perspective suggests that quantum uncertainty may be viewed not as a fundamental ingredient of nature, but as an emergent consequence of the statistical organization of spacetime at the Planck scale. While the present framework does not constitute a complete theory of quantum gravity, nor does it derive the full formalism of quantum mechanics, it provides a proof of concept for a geometric origin of generalized uncertainty relations and establishes a thermodynamic route connecting horizon microstructure, entropy corrections, and effective quantum behavior. The resulting framework is compatible with several modern approaches to quantum gravity through the common notion of scale-dependent geometry, while yielding a unified geometric interpretation of generalized uncertainty relations.

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

  1. Quantum Gravity from Fractal Entanglement Geometry

    gr-qc 2026-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    An entanglement graph is posited to generate a fractal spacetime whose stochastic geodesics yield quantum mechanics and whose evolving metric yields gravity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Gin´ e, Fractal horizons beyond roughness: auto-affine and multifractal black hole geometry, preprint, Universitat de Lleida, 2026

    J. Gin´ e, Fractal horizons beyond roughness: auto-affine and multifractal black hole geometry, preprint, Universitat de Lleida, 2026

    2026

  2. [1]

    Gin´ e, G.G

    J. Gin´ e, G.G. Luciano, On the apparent discretization of spacetime and its connection with the cosmological constant,Universe10(2024), no. 3, 142

    2024

  3. [3]

    Barrow, The area of a rough black hole,Phys

    J.D. Barrow, The area of a rough black hole,Phys. Lett. B808(2020), 135643

    2020

  4. [4]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano, and R. B. Mann, Hilbert space representation of the minimal length uncertainty relation,Phys. Rev. D52 (1995), 1108

    1995

  5. [5]

    Snyder, Quantized space–time,Phys

    H.S. Snyder, Quantized space–time,Phys. Rev.71 (1947), 38

    1947

  6. [6]

    Rovelli, Black hole entropy from loop quantum gravity,Phys

    C. Rovelli, Black hole entropy from loop quantum gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.77 (1996) 3288

    1996

  7. [7]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi, and K. Krasnov, Quantum geometry and black hole entropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.80 (1998) 904

    1998

  8. [8]

    Ashtekar and J

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Background independent quantum gravity: a status report, Class. Quant. Grav.21 (2004), no 15, R53

    2004

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravityPhys

    M. Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravityPhys. Rev. D57 (1998) 971

    1998

  2. [10]

    Reuter and F

    M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, Quantum Einstein Gravity,New J. Phys.14 (2012), 055022. 10

    2012

  3. [11]

    Ambjørn, J

    J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz, R. Loll, Spectral dimension of the universe,Phys. Rev. Lett.95 (2005) 171301

    2005

  4. [12]

    Ambjørn, J

    J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz, R. Loll, Reconstructing the Universe,Phys. Rev. D72 (2005), 064014

    2005

  5. [13]

    Loll, Quantum gravity from Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review,Class

    R. Loll, Quantum gravity from Causal Dynamical Triangulations: A Review,Class. Quant. Grav.37 (2005) 013002

    2005

  6. [14]

    Kaniadakis, Statistical mechanics in the context of special relativity,Phys

    G. Kaniadakis, Statistical mechanics in the context of special relativity,Phys. Rev. E66 (2002), 056125

    2002

  7. [15]

    Tsallis, Possible generalization of Boltzmann–Gibbs statistics,J

    C. Tsallis, Possible generalization of Boltzmann–Gibbs statistics,J. Stat. Phys.52 (1988), 479

    1988

  8. [16]

    Verlinde, On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton, Journal of High Energy Physics, 4(2011), 29

    E.P. Verlinde, On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton, Journal of High Energy Physics, 4(2011), 29

    2011

  9. [17]

    Mead, Possible connection between gravitation and fundamental length,Phys

    C.A. Mead, Possible connection between gravitation and fundamental length,Phys. Rev.135 (1964), B849

    1964

  10. [18]

    R. J. Adler and D. I. Santiago, On gravity and the uncertainty principle,Mod. Phys. Lett.A 14 (1999), 1371

    1999

  11. [19]

    R. J. Adler, P. Chen, and D. I. Santiago, The generalized uncertainty principle and black hole remnants,Gen. Relativ. Gravit.33 (2001), 2101

    2001

  12. [20]

    Amelino-Camelia, Relativity in space-times with short-distance structure governed by an observer-independent length scale,Int

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Relativity in space-times with short-distance structure governed by an observer-independent length scale,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11 (2002), 35

    2002

  13. [21]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Lorentz invariance with an invariant energy scale,Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, (2002), 190403

    2002

  14. [22]

    Nelson, Derivation of the Schr¨ odinger equation from Newtonian mechanics,Phys

    E. Nelson, Derivation of the Schr¨ odinger equation from Newtonian mechanics,Phys. Rev.150 (1966) 1079

    1966

  15. [23]

    Nelson,Quantum fluctuations, Princeton Univ

    E. Nelson,Quantum fluctuations, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1966

    1966

  16. [24]

    Feynman, A.R

    R. Feynman, A.R. Hibbs,Quantum mechanics and path integrals, McGraw Hill, New York, 1965, D.F. Styer (ed.), 2005 edn

    1965

  17. [25]

    Schulman, Techniques and applications of path integration, Wiley, 1981

    L.S. Schulman, Techniques and applications of path integration, Wiley, 1981

    1981

  18. [26]

    Nottale, Fractal space-time and microphysics: towards a theory of scale relativity, World Scientific, 1993

    L. Nottale, Fractal space-time and microphysics: towards a theory of scale relativity, World Scientific, 1993

    1993

  19. [27]

    Nottale, Scale relativity and fractal space-time, World Scientific, 2011

    N. Nottale, Scale relativity and fractal space-time, World Scientific, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Jacobson, Thermodynamics of spacetime: the Einstein equation of state,Phys

    T. Jacobson, Thermodynamics of spacetime: the Einstein equation of state,Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995), 1260

    1995

  21. [29]

    Hawking and G

    S.W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The large scale structure of space-time, Cambridge University Press, 1973

    1973

  22. [30]

    Wald, General Relativity, University of Chicago Press, 1984

    R.M. Wald, General Relativity, University of Chicago Press, 1984. 11

    1984

  23. [31]

    Unruh, Notes on Black-Hole evaporation,Phys

    W.G. Unruh, Notes on Black-Hole evaporation,Phys. Rev. D14 (1976), 870

    1976

  24. [32]

    Eling, R

    C. Eling, R. Guedens, and T. Jacobson, Non-equilibrium thermodynamics of spacetime,Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (2006), 121301

    2006

  25. [33]

    Padmanabhan, Thermodynamical aspects of gravity: new insights,Rept

    T. Padmanabhan, Thermodynamical aspects of gravity: new insights,Rept. Prog. Phys.73 (2010), 046901

    2010

  26. [34]

    R. K. Kaul, P. Majumdar, Logarithmic correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,Phys. Rev. Lett.84 (2000) 5255

    2000

  27. [35]

    Bekenstein, Black holes and the second law, Lett

    J.D. Bekenstein, Black holes and the second law, Lett. Nuovo Cimento4(1972) 737

    1972

  28. [36]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Black holes and entropy,Phys. Rev. D7(1973), 2333–2346

    1973

  29. [37]

    Hawking, Gravitational radiation from colliding black holes, Phys

    S.W. Hawking, Gravitational radiation from colliding black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.26(1971) 1344

    1971

  30. [38]

    S. W. Hawking, Black holes in general relativity,Commun. Math. Phys.25(1972) 152. 12

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.