Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

A Geometric Derivation of the Einstein Equations from the Causal Action Principle

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper aims to establish that the causal action principle for causal fermion systems implies the Einstein equations of general relativity, with the gravitational coupling constant emerging as the square of the regularization length.

desk verdict The paper gives a genuine geometric derivation of Einstein equations from the causal action, but the headline theorem rests on an unproven tangency assumption that the authors themselves expect to fail in general. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13871 v1 pith:DRHBNCAA submitted 2026-07-15 math-ph gr-qcmath.DGmath.MP

Felix Finster , Christoph Krpoun This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phgr-qcmath.DGmath.MP MSC 83C0553C5049Q2058E30
keywords causalfermionsystemsactionprincipleEinsteinequationsosculatingvacuaL-geometryLorentzianmetricregularizationlengthvariationalprinciples
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 aims to establish that classical general relativity is not an extra input but a consequence of the causal action principle, the variational principle that defines causal fermion systems. It attaches to each point of the interacting spacetime an 'osculating vacuum' and uses integrals of the Lagrangian to define a connection, a Riemannian metric, and then a Lorentzian metric. The main claim is that the Euler-Lagrange equations force the Ricci tensor of this induced metric to satisfy the Einstein equations, with the energy-momentum tensor being a systematic expansion whose leading term is of order δ², the square of the regularization length. If right, this explains the smallness of the gravitational coupling and gives a calculable template for corrections.

What carries the argument

Osculating vacua: at each point p of the interacting spacetime, one chooses a vacuum spacetime M_p that approximates the interacting spacetime, selected by minimizing the Hessian of the Euler-Lagrange function. Assuming these are 'optimal' in the sense that M_p is tangential to the interacting spacetime at p, integrals of the short-range Lagrangian define L-induced charts, the connection ∇^L, the Riemannian metric g, and the alignment vector field. The derivation then uses the Euler-Lagrange equations to show that the divergence parts of the Ricci tensor collapse to O(δ²) terms, while the regularizing vector field u flips the Riemannian metric into a Lorentzian metric η.

What would settle it

Construct or identify a minimizing measure where at some point the osculating vacuum is not tangential to the interacting spacetime, or where the residual in the osculation equations is of order δ rather than δ². In that case the Ricci-tensor expansions in Lemmas 5.7 and 5.8 acquire extra leading contributions and the conclusion T = O(δ²) fails. Concretely, compute D²ℓ̃|_{M_p}(p) for a perturbed vacuum; if it is nonzero at leading order in δ, the premise of Theorem 6.8 is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 6.8 is the central statement: for a four-dimensional smooth interacting spacetime within a causal fermion system, the Lorentzian metric η induced by the Lagrangian and the regularizing vector field satisfies R^η_il − ½ R^η η_il = T_il, where T is symmetric, divergence-free with respect to η, and of order δ². In the Riemannian setting the same conclusion holds in any dimension k > 2 (Theorem 6.1). The energy-momentum tensor is obtained from an explicit series in the regularization length δ, which means the Einstein equations acquire a definite matter source and a definite gravitational constant from the microscopic structure.

Load-bearing premise

The entire derivation assumes that for every point p the osculating vacuum M_p is exactly tangential to the interacting spacetime at p (Definition 3.8); Appendix C only constructs osculations up to residual errors, so this exact condition is not proven to hold for general minimizers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central theorem is correct, the gravitational coupling constant is literally the square of the regularization length, explaining its smallness from the microscopic scale.
  • The Einstein tensor equals a calculable energy-momentum tensor built from Lagrangian integrals, so matter is not an external input but emerges from the same variational principle.
  • The cosmological term is absorbed into the energy-momentum tensor rather than appearing as an independent constant, so its value must be computed from the expansion terms.
  • The contracted Bianchi identities automatically imply energy-momentum conservation, since the metric is the Levi-Civita connection of η.
  • The method yields a systematic δ-expansion, giving explicit correction terms beyond the leading Einstein equations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not evaluate the leading energy-momentum tensor in explicit vacuum models; a concrete test of the framework would be to compute T for the regularized Dirac sea vacuum and see whether it resembles a perfect fluid, dark energy, or a known matter source.
  • The near-parallel regularizing vector field selects a distinguished time direction; if this persists in more general solutions, it would impose a global congruence of observers on any admissible spacetime geometry.
  • Because only almost-optimal osculations are explicitly constructed, a weaker form of tangentiality may be enough; a plausible extension is to reformulate the derivation with control terms in the osculation equations and absorb them into the energy-momentum tensor.
  • The torsion appearing for non-optimal osculations suggests a broader class of spacetimes with torsion-induced corrections; these might connect to Einstein-Cartan type geometries, though the paper only sketches the mechanism.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an 'L-geometry' on the support M̃ of a minimizing measure of a causal variational principle, assuming M̃ is a smooth manifold and that at each p ∈ M̃ there is an optimal osculating vacuum M_p with T_p M̃ = M_p (Definition 3.8). In this setting it derives local expansions (Lemmas 4.6, 5.4), uses them with the Euler-Lagrange equations to expand the Ricci tensor, and obtains Riemannian Einstein equations (Theorem 6.1). For causal fermion systems in dimension four, a regularizing vector field and a Lorentzian flip metric η = 4ω⊗ω − g are introduced (Definition 6.4), and Theorem 6.8 asserts that η satisfies R^η_il − ½ R^η η_il = T_il with the explicit O(δ²) energy-momentum tensor (6.15)–(6.18); δ² is identified as the gravitational coupling constant. The abstract's central claim is thus conditional on the existence of exact tangential optimal osculations and on formal δ-expansions.

Significance. If the existence and error issues can be resolved, the result is a significant conceptual derivation of classical general relativity from the causal action principle, with a calculable matter tensor and no fitted gravitational constant. The paper is careful and largely self-contained; it does not fit parameters to the Einstein equations: τ=4 is fixed by matching the Minkowski causal structure in Appendix B, and T is produced by the EL equations rather than imposed. The construction of L-induced charts, connection and metric and the use of alignments are original and likely to be useful beyond this application. As it stands, however, the central theorems rest on an unproved existence/tangency hypothesis and on asymptotic expansions without remainder control, so the contribution is conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Definition 3.8; Appendix C] Definition 3.8 assumes T_p M̃ = M_p for every p, but no theorem establishes that minimizers of the causal action admit such osculating vacua. The text itself states in §3.3 that 'We cannot expect that optimal osculations exist in general.' Appendix C's Proposition C.1 constructs almost-optimal osculations only: equation (C.8) gives D²ℓ̃|_{M_p}(U0U^{-1})=0, but at the point U0U^{-1}, which differs from p by O(E∥p∥) per (C.6), and no tangency is achieved. These residual errors enter the expansion Lemma 4.6 via (4.17)–(4.18) and propagate through Lemma 5.1, Lemmas 5.7–5.8 and Theorem 6.8. Since no estimate shows that the residuals are higher order in δ than the leading O(δ²) Einstein tensor terms, the main theorem is not yet a derivation from the causal action principle; it is a theorem under an extra geometric hypothesis. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [§5.3–5.4, Lemmas 5.4–5.8] The expansions in Lemmas 5.4, 5.5, 5.7 and 5.8 are formal infinite Taylor series in ξ·∂. The statements that the r≥2 summands are of order O(δ²) (e.g. 'the summands in (5.13) are all of the order O(δ²)') are scaling heuristics: after integration by parts each factor of ξ may produce a factor δ, but no estimate controls the remainder of the Taylor expansion (5.11) or the infinite sums in (5.16)–(5.17), (5.24)–(5.25), (6.3)–(6.4). The quantitative assertion T=O(δ²) and the correction program in Section 7 require such bounds, or at least a precise statement that these are asymptotic expansions in a specified function space with explicit remainder estimates.
  3. [§6.2–6.3, Definition 6.4, Appendix B] The value τ=4 is fixed in Appendix B by matching the causal structure of the flip metric with that of Minkowski space. The proof of Lemma B.1 uses assumptions (B.1)–(B.2), and (B.2) is introduced as holding 'up to errors which we disregard.' No estimate is given for the deviation of the actual regularized Dirac sea Lagrangian from light-cone support. Since Definition 6.4 selects the physical Lorentzian metric using exactly this τ, an uncontrolled error here can change which metric satisfies the Einstein equations; the physical interpretation of Theorem 6.8 requires this matching step to be made rigorous or explicitly quantified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are several typos and grammatical slips: §3.1 'we we assume'; §3.2 'The there are' and 'will not used'; Proposition 3.4 proof 'non non-negative'; §4.4 refers to 'Appendix 5.3' where Section 5.3 is meant; Section 5 references 'the notation (5.1)' immediately before displaying (5.1).
  2. [Theorem 6.8 and Eq. (6.15)] The notation T^η appears in (6.15) before its trace T^η is defined. Please define T^η = η^{ab} T^η_{ab} (or g^{ab}T^η_{ab}) explicitly. Also, the claimed symmetry of the displayed expression (6.15)–(6.18) is stated without proof; since symmetry of the Einstein tensor is automatic only if the equation is taken as a definition, please provide the computation or clarify.
  3. [Definition 3.3 vs. Definition 3.8] The same term 'optimal osculation' is used both for S_p(U)=0 (Definition 3.3) and for the tangency condition (3.9) (Definition 3.8). This is confusing because Lemma 3.5 gives only one direction (tangency implies S_p=0). Consider using distinct terms, e.g. 'optimal osculation' and 'tangential osculation'.
  4. [Lemma B.1 and main text] Lemma B.1 proves τ=4 only under assumptions (B.1)–(B.2). The main text should state explicitly that η is defined with τ=4 based on this vacuum computation, and that deviations from (B.1)–(B.2) would require an error analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Einstein equations are derived from the Euler–Lagrange equations with the energy-momentum tensor defined as the computed residual, not fitted as an input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Riemannian metric g is introduced directly from the Lagrangian and the osculating vacuum measures in Eq. (4.6), the connection ∇^L is defined from L-induced charts in Eq. (4.5), and the curvature is computed from these objects without importing any target result. The Euler–Lagrange equations of the causal action principle are the substantive input: Lemmas 5.7 and 5.8 show that the x- and p-divergences in the Ricci tensor reduce to the listed O(δ^2) integrals, and the energy-momentum tensor is then defined as exactly those residual terms ('we define to be the energy-momentum tensor', p. 4). This is an equality derived from the EL equations, not a parameter fitted to make the Einstein equations true. The Lorentzian parameter τ is fixed in Appendix B by matching the causal structure of the Minkowski vacuum (Lemma B.1: 'coincides with that of Minkowski space if and only if τ=4'); this is a consistency check on the metric definition, not an input that forces the final field equations. The main limitation, explicit in the paper, is the assumption of exact optimal osculations (Definition 3.8: 'T_p M̃ = M_p'), which is not proved and is only approximated in Appendix C (Prop. C.1). This makes the theorem conditional on a strong geometric hypothesis, but that hypothesis does not contain the Einstein equations; it is a gap in justification, not circular reasoning. Self-citations, such as [20] for the alignment construction and [42] for unitary realization of symmetries, provide background and motivation but are not load-bearing for the derivation of the Einstein equations. Overall, no circular step of the kind defined in the seven patterns is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. Osculating vacua, L-geometry, alignments, and the regularizing vector field are mathematical constructions defined from the given Lagrangian, measure, and time-direction functional. The main free parameter is τ in the flip metric, fixed by an external consistency requirement.

free parameters (1)
  • τ = 4
    Parameter in the flip metric (6.10); fixed to τ=4 in Definition 6.4 by requiring causal structure to match the Minkowski vacuum (Appendix B). Not fitted to data, but a parameter in the metric construction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The support M̃ of the minimizing measure ρ̃ is a smooth embedded manifold.
    Stated in the introduction and Section 3.1; the whole L-geometry requires smooth charts and tangent spaces.
  • ad hoc to paper For every p∈M̃ there exists an exact optimal osculation with T_p M̃ = M_p.
    Definition 3.8; the main theorems are restricted to this case, but it is not proven to follow from the causal action principle; Appendix C gives only almost-optimal osculations.
  • domain assumption The vacuum is translation-invariant with Lebesgue measure, and the symmetry group acts transitively on M̃ (or point operators share eigenvalues).
    Sections 3.1–3.2; needed to define osculating vacua and L-induced charts.
  • domain assumption The Lagrangian is short-range with range δ, and expansions in powers of δ (with termwise differentiation/integration) are valid.
    Equation (2.4) and Section 5; used in Lemma 5.4, 5.5, 5.8; higher-order terms are not rigorously bounded.
  • standard math Minimizers satisfy the EL equations ℓ|_M ≡ inf_F ℓ = 0 with non-negative second derivatives.
    Cites [27,25]; used throughout, e.g. (2.3) and Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption The time-direction functional C gives a non-zero almost-parallel regularizing vector field u in the causal fermion system setting.
    Definition 6.2, Lemma 6.3, Appendix B; needed to build Lorentzian metric η; non-vanishing is checked only in regularized Minkowski vacuum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Geometric Derivation of the Einstein Equations from the Causal Action Principle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DRHBNCAA

@misc{pith2026260713871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Geometric Derivation of the Einstein Equations from the Causal Action Principle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DRHBNCAA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13871}
}
abstract

The causal action principle for causal fermion systems is analyzed for a minimizing measure whose support is assumed to have the structure of a smooth manifold $\tilde{M}$. The concept of osculating vacua is introduced. It is shown that the Lagrangian induces on $\tilde{M}$ a Lorentzian metric. Moreover, the Euler-Lagrange equations of the causal action imply that the Ricci tensor must satisfy the Einstein equations of general relativity for an energy momentum tensor given in terms of a power expansion in the regularization length. The gravitational coupling constant is found to be the square of the regularization length. Our methods provide a systematic procedure for deriving corrections to the Einstein equations. The paper includes a self-contained introduction to causal variational principles and the causal action principle. Most geometric structures (connection, Riemannian metric and curvature) are introduced and analyzed in the general setting of causal variational principles for an arbitrary dimension of $\tilde{M}$. The Lorentzian setting works only for causal fermion systems and is worked out only in four spacetime dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Osculating vacua. Given Φp ∈ Gp, we set ρp := (Φp)∗ρ and Mp := supp ρp . We refer to Φp as the osculation and ρp as the osculating vacuum at p ∈ M˜ . These notions are illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The connection ∇L. Lemma 4.1. The mapping ϕp has the properties ϕp(p) = 0p (4.3) Dx˜ϕp(˜x) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The osculation map Fp. Moreover, there is a unique number fp > 0 such that dρp = fp dx1 |p ∧ · · · ∧ dxk |p . (4.11) Finally, this number is related to the weight function f in (4.7) by fp = f(p) . (4.12) Proof. The first part follows immediately from the fact that an affine transformation is uniquely determined by its action on the origin and on the basis vectors. For the proof of (4.11) we note that the measure ρp… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Osculating vacua in a discrete space. which extent geometric constructions can be extended or generalized to non-smooth situations. A first step in this direction is made in the recent paper [23], where a differential calculus is developed in the non-smooth setting, ag…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A quantum spacetime. In the L-induced chart centered at q and using the osculation maps (as introduced in Section 4.4), the normality condition (A.1) can be written as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith

  1. [2]

    Ambjorn, A

    J. Ambjorn, A. G¨ orlich, J. Jurkiewicz, and R. Loll,Causal dynamical triangulations and the search for a theory of quantum gravity, arXiv:1305.6680 [gr-qc], Internat. J. Modern Phys. D22(2013), no. 9, 1330019, 18

    arXiv 2013

  2. [3]

    Beem, P.E

    J.K. Beem, P.E. Ehrlich, and K.L. Easley,Global Lorentzian Geometry, second ed., Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 202, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1996

    1996

  3. [4]

    Curiel, F

    E. Curiel, F. Finster, and J.M. Isidro,Two-dimensional area and matter flux in the theory of causal fermion systems, arXiv:1910.06161 [math-ph], Internat. J. Modern Phys. D29(2020), 2050098

    arXiv 1910

  4. [5]

    Dappiaggi, F

    C. Dappiaggi, F. Finster, N. Kamran, and M. Reintjes,The quantum field theory limit of causal fermion systems, in preparation

  5. [6]

    Henri Poincar´ e27(2026), no

    ,Holographic mixing and Fock space dynamics of causal fermion systems, arXiv:2410.18045 [math-ph], Ann. Henri Poincar´ e27(2026), no. 5, 1885–1969

    arXiv 2026

  6. [7]

    Finster,On the regularized fermionic projector of the vacuum, arXiv:math-ph/0612003, J

    F. Finster,On the regularized fermionic projector of the vacuum, arXiv:math-ph/0612003, J. Math. Phys.49(2008), no. 3, 032304, 60

    arXiv 2008

  7. [8]

    Reine Angew

    ,Causal variational principles on measure spaces, arXiv:0811.2666 [math-ph], J. Reine Angew. Math.646(2010), 141–194. DERIV ATION OF THE EINSTEIN EQUATIONS 43

    arXiv 2010

  8. [9]

    186, Springer, Cham, 2016

    ,The Continuum Limit of Causal Fermion Systems, arXiv:1605.04742 [math-ph], Funda- mental Theories of Physics, vol. 186, Springer, Cham, 2016

    arXiv 2016

Show all 47 references
  1. [10]

    Math.47(2019), 23–37

    ,Positive functionals induced by minimizers of causal variational principles, arXiv:1708.07817 [math-ph], Vietnam J. Math.47(2019), 23–37

    2019 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Finster and P

    F. Finster and P. Fischer,A canonical construction of the extended Hilbert space for causal fermion systems, arXiv:2504.18276 [math-ph], J. Math. Phys.67(2026), 032302

    2026

  3. [12]

    ,The continuum limit analysis of causal fermion systems for curved spacetimes, arXiv:2605.30199 [math-ph] (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Finster and A

    F. Finster and A. Grotz,A Lorentzian quantum geometry, arXiv:1107.2026 [math-ph], Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.16(2012), no. 4, 1197–1290

    2026 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Finster, E

    F. Finster, E. Guendelman, and C.F. Paganini,Modified measures as an effective theory for causal fermion systems, arXiv:2303.16566 [gr-qc], Class. Quant. Gravity41(2024), no. 3, 035007, 25

    2024 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Finster and J.M

    F. Finster and J.M. Isidro,A mechanism for dark matter and dark energy in the theory of causal fermion systems, arXiv:2209.02234, Class. Quant. Gravity40(2023), no. 1, 075017, 24

    2023 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Finster and M

    F. Finster and M. Jokel,Causal fermion systems: An elementary introduction to physical ideas and mathematical concepts, arXiv:1908.08451 [math-ph], Progress and Visions in Quantum Theory in View of Gravity (F. Finster, D. Giulini, J. Kleiner, and J. Tolksdorf, eds.), Birkh¨ au...

    1908 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Finster, M

    F. Finster, M. Jokel, and C.F. Paganini,A mechanism of baryogenesis for causal fermion systems, arXiv:2111.05556 [gr-qc], Class. Quant. Gravity39(2022), no. 16, 165005, 50

    2022 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Finster and N

    F. Finster and N. Kamran,Spinors on singular spaces and the topology of causal fermion systems, arXiv:1403.7885 [math-ph], Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.259(2019), no. 1251, v+83 pp

    2019 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Henri Poincar´ e23(2022), no

    ,Fermionic Fock spaces and quantum states for causal fermion systems, arXiv:2101.10793 [math-ph], Ann. Henri Poincar´ e23(2022), no. 4, 1359–1398

    2022 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Var.64(2025), no

    ,A positive quasilocal mass for causal variational principles, arXiv:2310.07544 [math-ph], Calc. Var.64(2025), no. 3, 91

    2025 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Finster, N

    F. Finster, N. Kamran, and M. Oppio,The linear dynamics of wave functions in causal fermion systems, arXiv:2101.08673 [math-ph], J. Differential Equations293(2021), 115–187

    2021 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Finster, N

    F. Finster, N. Kamran, and M. Reintjes,Entangled quantum states of causal fermion systems and unitary group integrals, arXiv:2207.13157 [math-ph], Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.27(2023), no. 5, 1463–1589

    2023 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Finster, N

    F. Finster, N. Kamran, and F. van der Top,TheL-calculus for causal variational principles: An exterior differential calculus on non-smooth spaces, in preparation

  15. [24]

    Finster and S

    F. Finster and S. Kindermann,A gauge fixing procedure for causal fermion systems, arXiv:1908.08445 [math-ph], J. Math. Phys.61(2020), no. 8, 082301

    1908 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Finster, S

    F. Finster, S. Kindermann, and J.-H. Treude,Causal Fermion Systems: An Introduction to Fun- damental Structures, Methods and Applications, arXiv:2411.06450 [math-ph], Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, 2025

    2025

  17. [26]

    Finster and J

    F. Finster and J. Kleiner,A Hamiltonian formulation of causal variational principles, arXiv:1612.07192 [math-ph], Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations56:73(2017), no. 3, 33

    2017 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Finster and C

    F. Finster and C. Langer,Causal variational principles in theσ-locally compact setting: Existence of minimizers, arXiv:2002.04412 [math-ph], Adv. Calc. Var.15(2022), no. 3, 551–575

    2002 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Finster and M

    F. Finster and M. Lottner,Banach manifold structure and infinite-dimensional analysis for causal fermion systems, arXiv:2101.11908 [math-ph], Ann. Global Anal. Geom.60(2021), no. 2, 313–354

    2021 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Finster and A

    F. Finster and A. Platzer,A positive mass theorem for static causal fermion systems, arXiv:1912.12995 [math-ph], Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.25(2021), no. 7, 1735–1818

    1912 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Finster and M

    F. Finster and M. van den Beld-Serrano,Baryogenesis in conformally flat spacetimes, arXiv:2504.17434 [math-ph] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  22. [31]

    ,Baryogenesis in Minkowski spacetime, arXiv:2408.01189 [math-ph], J. Geom. Phys.207 (2025), no. 16, 105346, 29

    2025 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Hawking and G.F.R

    S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis,The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, London, 1973

    1973

  24. [33]

    Laugwitz,Differential and Riemannian Geometry, Academic Press, New York-London, 1965, Translated by F

    D. Laugwitz,Differential and Riemannian Geometry, Academic Press, New York-London, 1965, Translated by F. Steinhardt

    1965

  25. [34]

    Lee,Manifolds and Differential Geometry, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol

    J.M. Lee,Manifolds and Differential Geometry, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 107, Amer- ican Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2009. 44 F. FINSTER AND C. KRPOUN

    2009

  26. [35]

    Lichnerowicz,Elements of Tensor Calculus, Methuen & Co Ltd, John Wiley & Sons, London- New York, 1962, Translated by J.W

    A. Lichnerowicz,Elements of Tensor Calculus, Methuen & Co Ltd, John Wiley & Sons, London- New York, 1962, Translated by J.W. Leech

    1962

  27. [36]

    Misner, K.S

    C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler,Gravitation, W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Calif., 1973

    1973

  28. [37]

    Nakahara,Geometry, Topology and Physics, second ed., Graduate Student Series in Physics, Institute of Physics, Bristol, 2003

    M. Nakahara,Geometry, Topology and Physics, second ed., Graduate Student Series in Physics, Institute of Physics, Bristol, 2003

    2003

  29. [38]

    Olea,Canonical variation of a Lorentzian metric, arXiv:1509.00793 [math.DG], J

    B. Olea,Canonical variation of a Lorentzian metric, arXiv:1509.00793 [math.DG], J. Math. Anal. Appl.419(2014), no. 1, 156–171

    2014 arXiv

  30. [39]

    O’Neill,Semi-Riemannian Geometry, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol

    B. O’Neill,Semi-Riemannian Geometry, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 103, Academic Press, Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York, 1983

    1983

  31. [40]

    Oppio,On the mathematical foundations of causal fermion systems in Minkowski space, arXiv:1909.09229 [math-ph], Ann

    M. Oppio,On the mathematical foundations of causal fermion systems in Minkowski space, arXiv:1909.09229 [math-ph], Ann. Henri Poincar´ e22(2021), no. 3, 873–949

    1909 arXiv

  32. [41]

    ,H¨ older continuity of the integrated causal Lagrangian in Minkowski space, arXiv:2109.04728 [math-ph], Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.26(2022), no. 9, 3249–3318

    2022 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Paganini and S

    C.F. Paganini and S. Yadav,The preserver problem for causal fermion systems, in preparation

  34. [43]

    Reddy, R

    V.V. Reddy, R. Sharma, and S. Sivaramakrishnan,Lorentzian metric induced from a background Riemannian metric, Int. J. Pure Appl. Math.47(2008), no. 3, 343–351

    2008

  35. [44]

    Rovelli,Quantum Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2004

    C. Rovelli,Quantum Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2004

    2004

  36. [45]

    Straumann,General Relativity, Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004

    N. Straumann,General Relativity, Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004

    2004

  37. [46]

    Surya,The causal set approach to quantum gravity, arXiv:1903.11544 [gr-qc], Living Rev

    S. Surya,The causal set approach to quantum gravity, arXiv:1903.11544 [gr-qc], Living Rev. Rel- ativ.22(2019), no. 5, 75pp

    1903 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Cambridge Monographs on Math- ematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007

    T. Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Cambridge Monographs on Math- ematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007

    2007

  39. [48]

    Wald,General Relativity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1984

    R.M. Wald,General Relativity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1984. F akult¨at f¨ur Mathematik, Universit¨at Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany Email address:finster@ur.de, christoph.krpoun@ur.de

    1984

Pith tools

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