Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Gauge vs (hidden) physical symmetries of FLRW cosmologies

T0 review · 2 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 Flat FLRW cosmologies with n free massless scalars carry a hidden conformal symmetry conf(n,1), while the Schrödinger algebra found in the harmonic gauge is a gauge artefact, not a physical symmetry.

desk verdict A clean and honest analysis showing that the physical symmetry algebra of FLRW with n massless scalars is conf(n,1) and that the Schrödinger enhancement from the Eisenhart–Duval lift is a gauge artifact except in the 2D single-field case; the one real soft spot is an asserted, not fully derived, classification in Appendix A. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27351 v1 pith:EYQD7EVG submitted 2026-07-29 gr-qc hep-th

Andrea Calcinari , Adrià Delhom , Federico Greco , Daniele Oriti , Néstor Rivero This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C4583F05 PACS 04.20.Fy04.60.-m98.80.-k
keywords FLRWcosmologyminisuperspaceDiracobservablesconformalalgebraEisenhart–DuvalliftSchrödingersymmetrygaugeinvariancerelationaldynamics
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 settle which symmetries of flat FLRW cosmologies with n free massless scalar fields are physical and which are artifacts of a time gauge. Working directly on minisuperspace, it shows that conformal Killing vectors of the supermetric generate conserved charges that are weak Dirac observables, and that these charges close into the maximal conformal algebra conf(n,1) ≈ so(n+1,2). Revisiting the Eisenhart–Duval lift over a family of lapses, it finds the manifest algebra is gauge dependent: generic gauges give only sl(2,R) ⊕ iso(n), while the harmonic gauge, where the gauge-fixed metric is flat, enlarges to a centrally extended Schrödinger algebra. Deparametrising the lifted charges shows they always land inside conf(n,1) and exhaust it only in the harmonic gauge. The upshot is that the Schrödinger algebra is a property of one gauge, not of the physical dynamics, which matters for any attempt to use symmetry to quantise cosmological models.

What carries the argument

The machinery has two parts. First, conformal Killing vectors (CKVs) of the minisuperspace supermetric: since classical trajectories are null geodesics, conformal transformations preserve them, and Noether's theorem associates to each CKV a conserved charge linear in momenta, a weak Dirac observable; in conformally flat coordinates X^μ = (−2/l_p ln z, χ^i) the CKVs are the standard conformal vector fields of flat space, whose charges close into conf(n,1). Second, the Eisenhart–Duval lift, which embeds the gauge-fixed system into a higher-dimensional Lorentzian metric whose null geodesics reproduce the dynamics; here the lapse family N=α z^β acts as a filter on the conformal algebra, keeping only those CKVs whose gauge-fixed conformal factor is constant. The harmonic gauge β=2 is the unique case (for n≥2) in which the gauge-fixed metric is flat, which is what admits the additional transverse time-dependent charges that complete the Schrödinger algebra.

What would settle it

Solve the projectable Eisenhart–Duval conformal Killing equations for the family N=α z^β with n≥2 and β≠2 and find a single transverse, explicitly time-dependent solution beyond the sl(2,R) sector; equivalently, exhibit any curved conformally flat gauge-fixed metric of the form $e^{{2ω}}$η where the projectable sector contains Galilean-type charges. The paper's Appendix A asserts none exists but does not display the full derivation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for flat FLRW minisuperspace coupled to n free massless scalar fields, the full set of physically meaningful symmetries is the conformal algebra conf(n,1) ≃ so(n+1,2), realised by charges linear in momenta that Poisson-commute with the Hamiltonian constraint on the constraint surface. The paper derives the complete set of conformal Killing vectors of the supermetric, writes the resulting charges explicitly, and proves they close into this maximal algebra. It then shows that the Schrödinger algebra obtained from the Eisenhart–Duval lift appears only in the harmonic gauge β=2 of the lapse family N=αz^β, where the gauge-fixed metric becomes flat; in all other gauges the projectable symmetries reduce to sl(2,R) ⊕ iso(n). After deparametrisation with either a matter or a geometric clock, the lifted charges map onto the conformal charges of the first step, generating the entire conf(n,1) algebra by Poisson brackets. The single-field case n=1 is the two-dimensional exception: the gauge-fixed metric is flat in every gauge, so the Schrödinger enhancement there is an accident of dimension, not evidence of extra physical symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the Schrödinger algebra is confined to the harmonic gauge rests on the classification, stated from a component expansion of the lifted conformal Killing equations, that only a flat gauge-fixed metric admits transverse time-dependent lifted charges; if a curved gauge also admitted such charges, the central conclusion would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any number n of free massless scalars, the physical symmetry algebra is conf(n,1) ≃ so(n+1,2), realised by weak Dirac observables independent of time gauge.
  • Clock-reduced (deparametrised) descriptions see only the isometries of the reduced metric — iso(n−1,1) or iso(n) — and are structurally blind to the relationally time-dependent conformal charges; the lift plus deparametrisation recovers them.
  • The Schrödinger algebra reported for single-field minisuperspaces is not a physical symmetry: for n=1 it survives in every gauge only because two-dimensional conformally flat metrics are automatically flat, i.e. as an accident of dimension.
  • A Bianchi I universe, whose two anisotropies behave as two additional free massless scalars, inherits the symmetry algebra conf(n+2,1), so the vacuum case carries conf(2,1) ≃ so(3,2).
  • Quantisation guided by the classical symmetry should be based on the conformal algebra rather than the Schrödinger algebra, pointing to the conformal Laplacian ordering of the Wheeler–DeWitt operator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same gauge-versus-physical distinction likely applies to other minisuperspace results, such as the Schrödinger symmetry reported for black-hole-interior mechanics: one should check whether those enhancements also correspond to a flat gauge-fixed metric in a distinguished gauge.
  • The central charge cl_p^3/α = V_0/α of the Schrödinger algebra is the fiducial comoving volume in Planck units dressed by the gauge constant; after deparametrisation it is absorbed into the clock momentum, so it may carry no gauge-invariant physical meaning, a point the paper leaves implicit.
  • A testable extension: repeat the projectable-CKV analysis for the lapse family with β depending on weakly conserved quantities (as the paper notes is allowed); if the algebra changes discontinuously along a trajectory, the notion of 'gauge family' needs refinement in the presence of potentials.
  • The framework suggests a diagnostic recipe for any homogeneous cosmology: compute the conformal algebra of the supermetric when the potential vanishes, and treat any lift-enhanced symmetry as physical only if it survives deparametrisation with a generic clock.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies flat FLRW minisuperspace with n free massless scalar fields. It shows that the conformal Killing vectors (CKVs) of the conformally flat supermetric generate Noether charges that are weak Dirac observables and whose Poisson algebra is the maximal conformal algebra conf(n,1) ≅ so(n+1,2), extending earlier single-field results. It then applies the Eisenhart-Duval (ED) lift to a two-parameter family of lapses N = α z^β. For β ≠ 2 the projectable lifted charges close into sl(2,R) ⊕ iso(n); in the harmonic gauge β = 2, where the gauge-fixed metric is flat, the algebra enlarges to a centrally extended Schrödinger algebra ŝh(n,1). Deparametrising the lifted charges maps them to Dirac observables that always lie inside conf(n,1) and exhaust it only in the harmonic gauge. The single-field case n = 1 is identified as a two-dimensional exception. Appendices review the ED lift and show that the relational trajectories can be reconstructed algebraically from the conformal charges.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable and timely clarification: it separates gauge-dependent symmetries from physical Dirac-observable symmetries in a concrete minisuperspace model, and resolves an ambiguity left open by earlier fixed-gauge ED-lift constructions. The paper's strengths are its explicitness: the charges (3.16), the bracket algebra (3.22), the deparametrisation maps (4.15)–(4.16), and the rank counting in Appendix B are concrete and checkable. The conformal algebra is derived rather than assumed, so there is no circularity in the main construction. The main technical risk is the classification of projectable CKVs of the ED lift asserted in Appendix A, on which the gauge-artifact conclusion for the Schrödinger algebra rests; this classification is stated but not derived. That gap is load-bearing and should be closed before the general-n claim is accepted as fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A, paragraph following Eq. (A.10); used in Section 4.2] The conclusion that the Schrödinger enhancement is confined to the harmonic gauge for n ≥ 2 rests on the classification of projectable CKVs of the lifted metric. The text asserts that for vanishing potential the component equations force Ξ^u ∈ span{1,u,u^2} and that a transverse u-linear piece exists only when the gauge-fixed metric g̃ is flat, but the resolution of the mixed-component equations is not displayed and no external theorem is cited for the flatness dichotomy. Since a curved gauge admitting transverse time-dependent charges would break the uniqueness of the harmonic gauge and weaken the central gauge-artifact claim, this lemma needs a complete derivation (or a precise reference) before the general-n statement in Section 4.2 is fully supported. The authors themselves flag in Section 5 that the sl(2,R) bound 'uses the vanishing of the potential', confirming that this step is substantive rather than cosmetic.
  2. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (4.10)–(4.16)] The claim that deparametrised charges 'always realise a subalgebra of the conformal algebra and reproduce it in full in the harmonic gauge' depends on two ingredients: the assertion that every deparametrised image is contained in conf(n,1), and the assertion that the missing special conformal generators are non-projectable in every gauge. The first ingredient is stated without proof; it would follow from a one-line argument that any weak Dirac observable linear in the momenta is necessarily a CKV charge of the supermetric, but that argument is not given. The second is imported from the same unproven Appendix A dichotomy. Because the exhaustiveness of the harmonic-gauge recovery is a central claim of the paper, the dependence on these geometric statements should be made explicit and either proved or referenced.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.14)] The middle equality should be {Q_ξ, N h} = -N φ h (or, equivalently, L_ξ g^{ab} = -φ g^{ab}); the sign does not affect the weak equality, but as written the equation is inconsistent with the standard transformation of the inverse metric under a CKV.
  2. [Section 5, first paragraph] The conclusion that the physical dynamical symmetry 'is the conformal algebra conf(n,1)' drops the qualifier 'generated by charges linear in the momenta' used in the introduction; non-projectable CKVs of the ED lift generate higher-order charges and are outside the classification presented here.
  3. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (4.13) and (4.15)] The image of G_0 under deparametrisation is M_{n0} (lower indices), not M_n^0, with the standard convention; adjusting the index placement would remove an apparent sign confusion in the duplication statement.
  4. [Section 5, quantum-ordering paragraph] The statement that 'the conformal charges are only weak Dirac observables' is imprecise, since P_i and J_ij are strong Dirac observables; the sentence should say that some of the conformal charges are only weakly conserved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the conformal-algebra result and the gauge-dependence claim are obtained by explicit CKV integration, bracket computations, and deparametrisation, with self-citations only contextual.

full rationale

No load-bearing circular step was found. The conformal charges (3.16)-(3.22) are obtained by explicitly solving the CKV equations (3.12) for the FLRW supermetric (3.4) and computing the Poisson brackets; the conf(n,1)≃so(n+1,2) result is a derived consequence of that integration, not an assumed input. The ED-lift section similarly solves the lifted CKV equations (4.1) with the lapse family (4.2), derives the β≠2 algebra (4.6) and the harmonic-gauge Schrödinger algebra (4.8)-(4.9), and deparametrises by explicit substitution t=χ_n via (4.11), giving the images (4.15). The statement that K and G_μ are not Dirac observables is checked directly in Section 4.2, and the criterion "physical symmetry = weak Dirac observable" is a stated definitional choice applied consistently, not a way of pre-selecting the conclusion. Self-citations such as [10] are contextual comparisons or starting points; the n≥2 derivation is self-contained, and no uniqueness theorem or prior ansatz is imported as the load-bearing premise. The only flagged weakness is Appendix A's projectable-CKV dichotomy (Ξ^u∈span{1,u,u^2}, and transverse time-dependent charges only for flat g~), which is asserted from a component expansion of (A.10) rather than fully displayed; this is an omitted-detail and correctness caveat, not circularity, and the paper itself notes the reliance on V=0 and conformal flatness in Section 5. Under the hard rule that circularity must be exhibited as an equation-level reduction to inputs, no such step is present.

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

No free parameters fitted; the central results are parameter-free derivations given the model. The key structural ingredient is the restriction to charges linear in momenta (projectable sector of the ED lift), which is a stated and motivated assumption rather than a hidden one.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math For d at least 3, a manifold admits at most (d+1)(d+2)/2 independent CKVs, and the bound is saturated iff the manifold is conformally flat.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 to conclude the (n+2)(n+3)/2 charges are maximal for the conformally flat supermetric (3.18).
  • standard math Noether charges Q_xi = xi^a p_a built from CKVs are conserved on null geodesics with {Q_xi, N h} = N phi h approximately 0.
    Used at Eq. (3.14) to establish that the charges are weak Dirac observables.
  • domain assumption The physical content of a reparametrisation-invariant system is captured by weak Dirac observables, i.e., functions with {Q,h} approximately 0.
    This is the paper's operational definition of physical symmetry; stated in Section 2 and applied in Section 4.3 to discard the Schrödinger algebra.
  • domain assumption For the ED lift, only projectable CKVs preserving the Bargmann null direction are considered, which capture all conserved charges linear in the momenta.
    Used in Appendix A to classify the lifted symmetries; non-projectable CKVs give higher-order conserved quantities not analysed.
  • domain assumption The chosen clocks (chi_n and X^0) are good relational clocks with {T,h} not approximately 0 on the constraint surface.
    Needed for deparametrisation in Section 4.3; verified by the adapted lapse conditions (4.11) and the corresponding condition for the geometric clock.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gauge vs (hidden) physical symmetries of FLRW cosmologies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYQD7EVG

@misc{pith2026260727351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gauge vs (hidden) physical symmetries of FLRW cosmologies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYQD7EVG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27351}
}
abstract

In generally covariant theories evolution in coordinate time is a gauge transformation, so that a symmetry made manifest in a gauge-fixed description need not be a symmetry of the physical dynamics. Deparametrisation, in turn, removes gauge symmetries but may hide physical symmetries, in particular those dependent on the chosen physical clock. We study the relation between gauge and (hidden) physical symmetries in flat FLRW geometry coupled to an arbitrary number $n$ of free massless scalar fields. We show that conformal Killing vectors of the minisuperspace metric generate conserved charges which are Dirac observables--hence gauge-invariant--and whose Poisson algebra is the maximal conformal algebra $\mathfrak{conf}(n,1)\simeq\mathfrak{so}(n+1,2)$, extending previous single-field results to arbitrary $n$. We then revisit the Eisenhart-Duval lift in a family of gauges and show that the manifest symmetry algebra is gauge dependent, enlarging to the Schr\"odinger algebra (which is thus not a physical symmetry) in the distinguished harmonic gauge where the gauge-fixed minisuperspace metric becomes flat. Further, deparametrisation maps the lifted charges to gauge-invariant Dirac observables, which always realise a subalgebra of the conformal algebra and reproduce it in full in the harmonic gauge. These results establish a framework for separating gauge from physical symmetries in minisuperspace models, recovering charges to which reduced phase-space descriptions are structurally blind, and remaining applicable in the presence of potentials.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Ben Achour, E.R

    J. Ben Achour, E.R. Livine, D. Oriti and G. Piani,Schr¨ odinger Symmetry in Gravitational Mini-Superspaces,Universe9(2023) 503 [2207.07312]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Dirac,The Theory of gravitation in Hamiltonian form,Proc

    P.A.M. Dirac,The Theory of gravitation in Hamiltonian form,Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A246(1958) 333

    work page 1958

  3. [2]

    Arnowitt, S

    R.L. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C.W. Misner,Republication of: The dynamics of general relativity,Gen. Rel. Grav.40(2008) 1997 [gr-qc/0405109]

    arXiv 2008

  4. [5]

    Rovelli,Quantum Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    C. Rovelli,Quantum Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [6]

    Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    T. Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [7]

    Giulini,What is the geometry of superspace?,Phys

    D. Giulini,What is the geometry of superspace?,Phys. Rev. D51(1995) 5630

    work page 1995

  7. [8]

    Giulini,The Superspace of Geometrodynamics,Gen

    D. Giulini,The Superspace of Geometrodynamics,Gen. Rel. Grav.41(2009) 785 [0902.3923]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [9]

    Cosmology as a CFT$_1$

    J. Ben Achour and E.R. Livine,Cosmology as a CFT 1,JHEP12(2019) 031 [1909.13390]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 63 references
  1. [11]

    Chiba and T

    T. Chiba and T. Houri,Eisenhart lift for scalar fields in the FLRW universe,Class. Quant. Grav.42 (2025) 055003 [2409.16325]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [12]

    Chiba and T

    T. Chiba and T. Houri,Hidden symmetries of power-law inflation,Class. Quant. Grav.41(2024) 19LT01 [2404.19162]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [13]

    Sano and Y

    T. Sano and Y. Yokokura,Schr¨ odinger symmetry in spherically-symmetric static minisuperspaces with matter fields,Phys. Rev. D114(2026) 024055 [2512.13651]

    2026 arXiv

  4. [14]

    Ribisi and F

    S. Ribisi and F. Sartini,Phase spaces and symmetries of Vaidya superspace,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 104063 [2401.16036]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Geiller, E.R

    M. Geiller, E.R. Livine and F. Sartini,Symmetries of the black hole interior and singularity regularization,SciPost Phys.10(2021) 022 [2010.07059]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Geiller, E.R

    M. Geiller, E.R. Livine and F. Sartini,Dynamical symmetries of homogeneous minisuperspace models,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 064013 [2205.02615]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [17]

    Ben Achour and E.R

    J. Ben Achour and E.R. Livine,Conformal structure of FLRW cosmology: spinorial representation and theso(2, 3) algebra of observables,JHEP03(2020) 067 [2001.11807]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [18]

    Achour,Proper time reparametrization in cosmology: M¨ obius symmetry and Kodama charges, JCAP12(2021) 005 [2103.10700]

    J.B. Achour,Proper time reparametrization in cosmology: M¨ obius symmetry and Kodama charges, JCAP12(2021) 005 [2103.10700]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [19]

    Eisenhart,Dynamical trajectories and geodesics,Annals of Mathematics30(1928) 591

    L.P. Eisenhart,Dynamical trajectories and geodesics,Annals of Mathematics30(1928) 591

    1928

  10. [20]

    Cariglia and F.K

    M. Cariglia and F.K. Alves,The Eisenhart lift: a didactical introduction of modern geometrical concepts from Hamiltonian dynamics,Eur. J. Phys.36(2015) 025018 [1503.07802]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [21]

    Cariglia, G.W

    M. Cariglia, G.W. Gibbons, J.W. van Holten, P.A. Horvathy and P.M. Zhang,Conformal Killing tensors and covariant Hamiltonian dynamics,J. Math. Phys.55(2014) 122702 [1404.3422]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Cariglia, A

    M. Cariglia, A. Galajinsky, G.W. Gibbons and P.A. Horvathy,Cosmological aspects of the Eisenhart–Duval lift,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 314 [1802.03370]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [23]

    Chiba and T

    T. Chiba and T. Houri,Integrability of Conformal Killing Vectors in the Eisenhart Lift of Scalar-Field FLRW Cosmology, (2026) [2604.22247]

    2026 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Bojowald,Canonical Gravity and Applications: Cosmology, Black Holes, and Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    M. Bojowald,Canonical Gravity and Applications: Cosmology, Black Holes, and Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    2010

  15. [25]

    Dirac,Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Dover Publications, New York (1964)

    P.A.M. Dirac,Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Dover Publications, New York (1964)

    1964

  16. [26]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim,Quantization of Gauge Systems, Princeton University Press, Princeton (1992)

    1992

  17. [27]

    Dittrich,Partial and complete observables for Hamiltonian constrained systems,Gen

    B. Dittrich,Partial and complete observables for Hamiltonian constrained systems,Gen. Rel. Grav. 39(2007) 1891 [gr-qc/0411013]. – 31 –

    2007 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Giesel,Introduction to Dirac observables,Int

    K. Giesel,Introduction to Dirac observables,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23(2008) 1190

    2008

  19. [29]

    Wipf,Hamilton’s formalism for systems with constraints,Lect

    A.W. Wipf,Hamilton’s formalism for systems with constraints,Lect. Notes Phys.434(1994) 22 [hep-th/9312078]

    1994 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Kuchaˇ r,Time and interpretations of quantum gravity,Int

    K.V. Kuchaˇ r,Time and interpretations of quantum gravity,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D20(2011) 3

    2011

  21. [31]

    Isham,Canonical Quantum Gravity and the Problem of TimeinIntegrable Systems, Quantum Groups, and Quantum Field Theories., L.A

    C.J. Isham,Canonical Quantum Gravity and the Problem of TimeinIntegrable Systems, Quantum Groups, and Quantum Field Theories., L.A. Ibort and M.A. Rodriguez, eds., (Dordrecht), pp. 157–287, Springer (1993) [gr-qc/9210011]

    1993 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Tambornino,Relational Observables in Gravity: a Review,SIGMA8(2012) 017 [1109.0740]

    J. Tambornino,Relational Observables in Gravity: a Review,SIGMA8(2012) 017 [1109.0740]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Rovelli,Partial observables,Phys

    C. Rovelli,Partial observables,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 124013 [gr-qc/0110035]

    2002 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Dittrich,Partial and complete observables for canonical general relativity,Class

    B. Dittrich,Partial and complete observables for canonical general relativity,Class. Quant. Grav.23 (2006) 6155 [gr-qc/0507106]

    2006 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Rovelli,Quantum mechanics without time: A model,Phys

    C. Rovelli,Quantum mechanics without time: A model,Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 2638

    1990

  26. [36]

    Rovelli,Time in quantum gravity: An hypothesis,Phys

    C. Rovelli,Time in quantum gravity: An hypothesis,Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 442

    1991

  27. [37]

    Rovelli,What is observable in classical and quantum gravity?,Class

    C. Rovelli,What is observable in classical and quantum gravity?,Class. Quant. Grav.8(1991) 297

    1991

  28. [38]

    H¨ ohn, A.R.H

    P.A. H¨ ohn, A.R.H. Smith and M.P.E. Lock,Trinity of relational quantum dynamics,Phys. Rev. D 104(2021) 066001 [1912.00033]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [39]

    H¨ ohn, A.R.H

    P.A. H¨ ohn, A.R.H. Smith and M.P.E. Lock,Equivalence of Approaches to Relational Quantum Dynamics in Relativistic Settings,Front. in Phys.9(2021) 181 [2007.00580]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [40]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu and D. Senechal,Conformal Field Theory, Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York (1997)

    1997

  31. [41]

    Bargmann,On Unitary Ray Representations of Continuous Groups,Annals of Mathematics59 (1954) 1

    V. Bargmann,On Unitary Ray Representations of Continuous Groups,Annals of Mathematics59 (1954) 1

    1954

  32. [42]

    Niederer,The Maximal Kinematical Invariance Group of the Free Schr¨ odinger Equation.,Helv

    U. Niederer,The Maximal Kinematical Invariance Group of the Free Schr¨ odinger Equation.,Helv. Phys. Acta45(1972) 802

    1972

  33. [43]

    Hagen,Scale and Conformal Transformations in Galilean-Covariant Field Theory,Phys

    C.R. Hagen,Scale and Conformal Transformations in Galilean-Covariant Field Theory,Phys. Rev. D5(1972) 377

    1972

  34. [44]

    de Alfaro, S

    V. de Alfaro, S. Fubini and G. Furlan,Conformal invariance in quantum mechanics,Nuovo Cimento A34(1976) 569

    1976

  35. [45]

    Duval, G

    C. Duval, G. Burdet, H.P. K¨ unzle and M. Perrin,Bargmann structures and Newton–Cartan theory, Phys. Rev. D31(1985) 1841

    1985

  36. [46]

    Cariglia,Hidden symmetries of dynamics in classical and quantum physics,Rev

    M. Cariglia,Hidden symmetries of dynamics in classical and quantum physics,Rev. Mod. Phys.86 (2014) 1283 [1411.1262]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [47]

    Calcinari and S

    A. Calcinari and S. Gielen,Towards anisotropic cosmology in group field theory,Class. Quant. Grav. 40(2023) 085004 [2210.03149]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Calcinari,Relational and semiclassical aspects of group field theory: from quantum gravity to cosmology, Ph.D

    A. Calcinari,Relational and semiclassical aspects of group field theory: from quantum gravity to cosmology, Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield, (2024)

    2024

  39. [49]

    Oriti,Hydrodynamics on (Mini)superspace or a Non-linear Extension of Quantum Cosmology: An Effective Timeless Framework for Cosmology from Quantum Gravity,Fundam

    D. Oriti,Hydrodynamics on (Mini)superspace or a Non-linear Extension of Quantum Cosmology: An Effective Timeless Framework for Cosmology from Quantum Gravity,Fundam. Theor. Phys.216 (2024) 221 [2403.10741]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Ben Achour et al.,Quantum gravity, hydrodynamics and emergent cosmology: a collection of perspectives,Gen

    J. Ben Achour et al.,Quantum gravity, hydrodynamics and emergent cosmology: a collection of perspectives,Gen. Rel. Grav.57(2025) 2 [2411.12628]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Oriti,The universe as a quantum gravity condensate,C

    D. Oriti,The universe as a quantum gravity condensate,C. R. Phys.18(2017) 235 [1612.09521]. – 32 –

    2017 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Oriti,Group field theory as the microscopic description of the quantum spacetime fluid: a new perspective on the continuum in quantum gravity,PoSQG-PH(2007) 030 [0710.3276]

    D. Oriti,Group field theory as the microscopic description of the quantum spacetime fluid: a new perspective on the continuum in quantum gravity,PoSQG-PH(2007) 030 [0710.3276]

    2007 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Calcinari, A

    A. Calcinari, A. Delhom and D. Oriti,Collective excitations in quantum gravity condensates, (2026) [2605.18977]

    2026 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Lidsey,Cosmic dynamics of Bose-Einstein condensates,Class

    J.E. Lidsey,Cosmic dynamics of Bose-Einstein condensates,Class. Quant. Grav.21(2004) 777 [gr-qc/0307037]

    2004 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Lidsey,Scalar Field Cosmologies Hidden Within the Nonlinear Schr¨ odinger Equation, (2013) [1309.7181]

    J.E. Lidsey,Scalar Field Cosmologies Hidden Within the Nonlinear Schr¨ odinger Equation, (2013) [1309.7181]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [56]

    D’Ambroise and F.L

    J. D’Ambroise and F.L. Williams,A dynamic correspondence between Bose–Einstein condensates and Friedmann–Lemaˆ ıtre–Robertson–Walker and Bianchi I cosmology with a cosmological constan,J. Math. Phys.51(2010) 062501 [1007.4237]

    2010 arXiv

  47. [57]

    Gumjudpai,Scalar field exact solutions for non-flat FLRW cosmology: a technique from non-linear Schr¨ odinger-type formulation,Gen

    B. Gumjudpai,Scalar field exact solutions for non-flat FLRW cosmology: a technique from non-linear Schr¨ odinger-type formulation,Gen. Rel. Grav.41(2009) 249 [0710.3598]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [58]

    Phetnora, R

    T. Phetnora, R. Sooksan and B. Gumjudpai,Phantom expansion with non-linear Schr¨ odinger-type formulation of scalar field cosmology,Gen. Rel. Grav.42(2010) 225 [0805.3794]

    2010 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Rostami, S

    T. Rostami, S. Jalalzadeh and P.V. Moniz,Quantum cosmological intertwining: Factor ordering and boundary conditions from hidden symmetries,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 023526 [1507.04212]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [60]

    DeWitt,Quantum Theory of Gravity

    B.S. DeWitt,Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,Phys. Rev.160(1967) 1113

    1967

  51. [61]

    Giesel, S

    K. Giesel, S. Hofmann, T. Thiemann and O. Winkler,Manifestly Gauge-Invariant General Relativistic Perturbation Theory. I. Foundations,Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 055005 [0711.0115]

    2010 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Giesel, S

    K. Giesel, S. Hofmann, T. Thiemann and O. Winkler,Manifestly Gauge-invariant general relativistic perturbation theory. II. FRW background and first order,Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 055006 [0711.0117]

    2010 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Duval, G.W

    C. Duval, G.W. Gibbons and P. Horvathy,Celestial mechanics, conformal structures, and gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. D43(1991) 3907 [hep-th/0512188]

    1991 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Duval and P.A

    C. Duval and P.A. Horvathy,Non-relativistic conformal symmetries and Newton–Cartan structures, J. Phys. A42(2009) 465206 [0904.0531]

    2009 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Duval, M

    C. Duval, M. Henkel, P. Horvathy, S. Rouhani and P. Zhang,Schr¨ odinger Symmetry: A Historical Review,Int. J. Theor. Phys.63(2024) 184 [2403.20316]. – 33 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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