Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Newtonian Potential in Weyl Gravitoelectromagnetism

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a tensor field theory of gravity recovers Newton's inverse-square law and then screens it at high temperature.

desk verdict The zero-temperature part is essentially a normalization statement, and the finite-temperature screening result rests on an invalid static limit and a false propagator identity, so the headline claim is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04895 v1 pith:SD5N4XR3 submitted 2026-08-05 gr-qc hep-th

L. A. S. Evangelista , A. F. Santos This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C4781T2881T18 PACS 04.60.-m11.10.Wx
keywords WeylgravitoelectromagnetismNewtonianlimitBhabhascatteringThermoFieldDynamicsfinite-temperaturetheorythermalscreeninggravitonexchangeeffectivepotential
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

The paper argues that Weyl gravitoelectromagnetism—a weak-field gravitational theory built on a massless symmetric rank-2 tensor $A_{\mu\nu}$—can serve as a quantum-field-theoretic route to Newtonian gravity. From the $t$-channel Bhabha scattering amplitude in the nonrelativistic Born limit it derives the Newtonian potential $V(r)=-Gm^2/r$, with the GEM coupling fixed at $\kappa=\sqrt{4\pi G}$. Adding temperature through Thermo Field Dynamics, it claims a potential $V(r;\beta)=-\frac{Gm^2}{r}\tanh(\beta m/2)+\frac{8iGm^2}{\beta}\tanh^2(\beta m/2)$ whose real part reduces to Newton's law at low temperature and is progressively suppressed at high temperature, and whose imaginary part quantifies thermal dissipation. The intended payoff would be a tree-level thermal screening of gravitational attraction that requires no thermal mass for the mediator, obtained with ordinary Feynman-diagram technology.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on five linked objects: the Weyl GEM Lagrangian with field strength $F_{\mu\nu\alpha}=\partial_\mu A_{\nu\alpha}-\partial_\nu A_{\mu\alpha}$; the scalar-generated gauge symmetry $A_{\mu\nu}\to A_{\mu\nu}+\partial_\mu\partial_\nu\lambda$, which introduces but then neutralizes extra spin modes; the simple Feynman propagator $D_{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}(q)=\frac{1}{2q^2}(\eta_{\mu\rho}\eta_{\nu\sigma}+\eta_{\mu\sigma}\eta_{\nu\rho})$; the TFD doubling of the Hilbert space with the thermal propagator matrix of Eq. (49), whose entries carry the Bose–Einstein factor $n(\beta)$; and the integral identity of Eqs. (56)–(61) that converts the $\delta(q^2)$ contributions into the constant $1/(2\pi^2\beta)$. The thermal Boltzmann factors then assemble, through the fermionic Bogoliubov coefficients, into the hyperbolic factor $\tanh(\beta m/2)$ that controls the strength of the interaction.

What would settle it

Evaluate the integral in Eq. (56) for the static $t$-channel with $q_0=0$ imposed from the start: then $\delta(q^2)=\delta(-|\vec q|^2)$ has support only at $|\vec q|=0$, where the measure $4\pi|\vec q|^2\,d|\vec q|$ gives zero; the constant $1/(2\pi^2\beta)$ of Eq. (61) disappears and with it the imaginary part of Eq. (62). Repeating the reduction with the full thermal propagator matrix of Eq. (49), instead of assuming the tilde and non-tilde entries are negatives, would confirm whether any imaginary potential survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a two-part statement. At zero temperature, the Weyl GEM field $A_{\mu\nu}$, with the scalar-generated gauge symmetry and propagator $D_{\mu\nu,\rho\sigma}(q)=\frac{1}{2q^2}(\eta_{\mu\rho}\eta_{\nu\sigma}+\eta_{\mu\sigma}\eta_{\nu\rho})$, reproduces the Newtonian potential from $t$-channel Bhabha scattering once $\kappa=\sqrt{4\pi G}$. At finite temperature, the TFD-doubled amplitude collapses to $V(r;\beta)=-\frac{Gm^2}{r}\tanh(\beta m/2)+\frac{8iGm^2}{\beta}\tanh^2(\beta m/2)$, which the paper interprets as low-temperature recovery of Newtonian gravity, high-temperature screening of virtual graviton exchange, and a spatially uniform imaginary dissipation rate; it concludes that the thermal medium becomes opaque to gravitational interactions at tree level, without acquiring an effective mass.

Load-bearing premise

The finite-temperature potential stands on two unproved reductions: that the thermal propagator's tilde-sector entries are the negatives of their non-tilde partners, and that the energy-transfer limit can be taken after enforcing the delta-function constraints in the Bose–Einstein integrals; imposing the static-channel energy first would make those integrals vanish and remove the imaginary term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $T\to 0$, $\tanh(\beta m/2)\to 1$ and the imaginary term vanishes, so the finite-temperature formula reduces to the Newtonian potential and the low-temperature limit is internally consistent.
  • At high $T$, the real part of the potential vanishes, so gravitational attraction between fermions in a plasma is screened; because the mediator remains massless, this is not a Debye thermal-mass effect.
  • The imaginary part provides a spatially uniform damping of the evolving quantum state, which the paper identifies as thermal dissipation and effective opacity of the medium to virtual graviton exchange.
  • Since the effect comes from external-fermion thermal weights at tree level, its sign can depend on the scattering channel; the paper states that other GEM processes may show enhanced rather than suppressed interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the screening factor is controlled by the external fermions' thermal weights rather than by a medium-induced mass, so the same TFD construction applied to other processes, such as Compton-type GEM scattering, could produce enhancement instead of suppression; the paper itself flags this process dependence at the end.
  • Beyond the paper: if the tree-level screening were physical, it would enter any gravitational interaction in a hot plasma through a multiplicative factor of order $\tanh(m/2T)$, softening gravitational attraction at temperatures comparable to the fermion mass; the paper does not quantify astrophysical or cosmological consequences.
  • Beyond the paper: the zero-temperature matching is a normalization statement—setting $\kappa=\sqrt{4\pi G}$ is what manufactures Newton's potential—so the new content of the paper is the thermal structure rather than the zero-temperature recovery.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the Weyl gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) formalism, derives the zero-temperature Newtonian potential from the t-channel of Bhabha scattering mediated by the tensor field A_{\mu\nu}, and then extends the calculation to finite temperature using Thermo Field Dynamics (TFD). At zero temperature the paper obtains V(r) = -Gm^2/r after fixing the coupling κ = √(4πG); at finite temperature it claims V(r;β) = -Gm^2/r tanh(βm/2) + 8iGm^2/β tanh^2(βm/2), which it interprets as a restoration of Newtonian gravity at low temperature, a thermal screening at high temperature, and a dissipative imaginary part. The technical core is the construction of the thermal propagator, the reduction of the four-sector TFD amplitude to Eq. (55), and the evaluation of the Bose–Einstein delta-function integrals in Eqs. (56)–(61).

Significance. The zero-temperature calculation is explicit and the paper is transparent that the Newtonian potential is recovered only after choosing κ = √(4πG), and that the conclusions are stated to be process dependent. The thermal propagator in Eq. (49) is given in closed form and is checkable. However, the central finite-temperature claims rest on two steps that do not survive scrutiny: the reduction D^{(22)} = -D^{(11)} used in Eq. (55) is inconsistent with Eq. (49), and the q0 → 0 evaluation of the delta-function integral in Eqs. (56)–(61) is an invalid interchange of a distributional limit with a spatial integration. Because these steps are load-bearing for Eq. (62), the proposed thermal screening and dissipation phenomena are not established by this manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV, Eq. (55)] Equation (55) does not follow from the thermal propagator in Eq. (49). The reduction relies on D^{(22)}_{μν,ρσ}(q) = -D^{(11)}_{μν,ρσ}(q), but Eq. (49) gives D^{(22)}_{μν,ρσ} = -1/(q^2 - iη) - 2πi n(β)δ(q^2) times the polarization factor, whereas -D^{(11)}_{μν,ρσ} = -1/(q^2 + iη) + 2πi n(β)δ(q^2) times the same factor; these differ in the iη prescription and in the sign of the delta-function term. The four-sector TFD amplitude in Eq. (52) therefore cannot be collapsed to Eq. (55) as stated, and Eq. (62) lacks a valid starting point.
  2. [IV, Eqs. (56)–(61)] The evaluation of the thermal delta-function integral is an invalid interchange of limits. In the t-channel used for the potential, q0 = 0 exactly (Eq. (16)), so δ(q^2) = δ(-|α’q|^2) has support only at |α’q| = 0, where the measure d^3q ~ q^2 dq makes the integral vanish. The manuscript instead keeps q0 as a finite variable, integrates δ(q0^2 - |α’q|^2) over |α’q|, and only then sends q0 → 0; this produces the spurious I ≈ 1/(2π^2β) and hence the imaginary term in Eq. (62).
  3. [IV, Eq. (62)] The real-part suppression factor tanh(βm/2) in Eq. (62) originates from the external-fermion Bogoliubov weight U^4 - V^4 in Eq. (55), not from a property of the exchanged GEM field or of the thermal bath. The interpretation of this factor as thermal screening that renders the medium opaque to the exchange of virtual gravitons is therefore not supported: the thermal propagator of the mediator is not what produces the suppression.
  4. [IV, high-temperature limit] The high-temperature limit T ≫ m is outside the domain of the nonrelativistic approximation used to derive the potential. Equations (15)–(20) assume p0 ≈ m and |α’p| ≪ m, whereas for T ≫ m the bath momenta are of order T; the statement that the real part vanishes as tanh(βm/2) → 0 and that the gravitational interaction is completely screened in this regime is therefore unsupported by the calculation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and II B] The word “derived” overstates the zero-temperature result; Eq. (22) is obtained by fixing κ = √(4πG), as the text itself acknowledges. A phrase such as “reproduced after fixing the coupling to the Newtonian value” would be more accurate.
  2. [III B, Eq. (42)] The cutting rule should state the principal-value prescription explicitly; writing 1/(q^2 ± iη) = 1/q^2 ∓ iπδ(q^2) is only a meaningful distributional identity with PV understood.
  3. [IV, Eq. (55)] The notation D^{(11)}_{μν,ρσ}(q;β) is used for the thermal part of the (1,1) propagator, but this thermal part is defined only implicitly as the difference between the full D^{(11)} and the zero-temperature D^{(11)} from Eq. (49).
  4. [References] There are typographical errors in the bibliography: Ref. [18] has “Amsterdan” for “Amsterdam”, and Ref. [28] misspells “Malbouisson” and “Thermal”.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The advertised zero-temperature 'recovery' of the Newtonian potential is partly a normalization condition: the coupling κ=√(4πG) is chosen precisely to force V=-Gm²/r, while the finite-temperature suppression factors are computed rather than fitted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II B, after Eq. (22)]
    "It is important to note that the choice κ=√(4πG) is required to recover the Newtonian effective potential."

    The t-channel amplitude in the non-relativistic limit is M=-4κ²m⁴/|q|², so the Born potential is V(r)=-κ²m²/(4πr). Setting κ=√(4πG) then gives V=-Gm²/r by construction. The paper presents this as 'recovering' Newtonian gravity, but the coefficient G is not an output of the calculation; it is the normalization condition that defines κ. The 1/r shape is derived, but the Newtonian coefficient is imposed as input, so the central zero-temperature claim reduces to a parameter choice rather than an independent prediction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section II A, after Eq. (10), citing Ref. [14]]
    "For a detailed discussion of the choice of gauge symmetry for the Aμν field, the motivation for this particular construction, and the explicit derivation of the Feynman propagator, including the emergence of the additional spin modes, we refer the reader to Ref. [14]."

    The zero-temperature derivation of the Newtonian potential depends crucially on the propagator Eq. (10) and on the claim that only an effective spin-2 sector contributes to physical observables. That propagator and the associated gauge structure are not derived in the present paper; they are delegated to Ref. [14], whose authors overlap with the present paper. Although Sec. III B re-derives the tensor structure via polarization sums, the gauge-fixed field content and the specific normalization of the propagator are inherited from the authors' own prior work, making that prior result load-bearing rather than independent support.

full rationale

The thermal part of the paper is largely non-circular: the tanh(βm/2) suppression and the overall structure of V(r;β) are computed from the TFD thermal weights and the propagator, not fitted to a target answer. The main circularity is in the zero-temperature claim: the coefficient of the 1/r potential is fixed by the stated choice κ=√(4πG), so describing V=-Gm²/r as 'derived' conflates a normalization condition with a prediction. The reliance on Ref. [14] for the central propagator is a further load-bearing self-citation, though it is not by itself a full reduction of the result. The questionable q0→0 limit in the δ(q²) integrals raised by the reviewer is a correctness issue rather than a circularity issue, so it is not scored here. Overall, the finite-temperature screening mechanism retains independent computational content, warranting a moderate-to-high circularity score rather than the maximum.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ledger shows one free parameter (κ) used to force the Newtonian limit. Seven axioms are required: two standard distribution identities, three domain assumptions imported from Weyl GEM/TFD literature, and two ad hoc distributional claims (the q0→0 limit and D22=-D11) that are not justified and are in part incorrect. One invented entity, the extra spin-0 mode, is inherited from earlier work without independent evidence.

free parameters (1)
  • κ (GEM coupling constant) = sqrt(4*pi*G)
    Chosen, not derived, so that the zero-temperature potential equals -Gm²/r. The paper states after Eq. (22): the choice κ=√(4πG) is required to recover the Newtonian effective potential. This makes the zero-temperature recovery a normalization, not a prediction.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The Weyl GEM Lagrangian of Eq. (1) is a valid weak-field description of gravity and its coupling to fermions is Eq. (11).
    The entire calculation starts from this Lagrangian and vertex; no independent derivation or matching to GR is provided in this paper beyond the cited Weyl GEM program.
  • domain assumption The scalar-generated gauge symmetry from ref. [14] leaves only an effective spin-2 sector in physical observables, allowing the propagator in Eq. (10).
    Imported from the authors' own prior work [14]; not re-derived here and no independent falsifiable check is provided.
  • domain assumption The TFD physical amplitude is obtained by summing all four doubled-space sectors with the fermionic Bogoliubov weights as in Eqs. (52) to (55).
    This reduction determines the tanh(βm/2) suppression factor and is asserted without derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The thermal delta-function integrals can be evaluated by taking q0→0 after enforcing δ(q²), yielding I=1/(2π²β).
    For a static t-channel q0=0, δ(q²) has support only at |q|=0 where the measure suppresses the integral; the sequential limit is an ad hoc shortcut that produces the claimed imaginary term.
  • ad hoc to paper The relation D22 = -D11 holds for the thermal propagator.
    Used after Eq. (55) to simplify the amplitude, but it contradicts Eq. (49) because the iη prescriptions differ.
  • ad hoc to paper The nonrelativistic limit (p0≈m, |p|<<m) remains valid down to β→0.
    The high-temperature screening is obtained by letting tanh(βm/2)→0, but at T>>m the fermions are relativistic and the NR approximations in Eqs. (15) to (18) break down.
  • standard math Dirac delta identities such as 1/(q²±iη)=PV∓iπδ(q²) as used in Eq. (42).
    Standard distributional calculus needed to split the propagator into principal value and on-shell parts; this is background math, not a new assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • Additional spin-0 propagating mode in Weyl GEM
    purpose: Emerges from the scalar-generated gauge symmetry; claimed to be absent from physical observables but to modify the propagator normalization and justify the coupling choice.
    The mode is inherited from ref. [14] by the same authors; the paper provides no independent falsifiable handle, so the claimed cancellation of its effects is accepted on citation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Newtonian Potential in Weyl Gravitoelectromagnetism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SD5N4XR3

@misc{pith2026260804895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Newtonian Potential in Weyl Gravitoelectromagnetism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SD5N4XR3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04895}
}
abstract

The gauge structure of the Weyl Gravitoelectromagnetic (GEM) formalism has been investigated, showing that although the theory admits additional propagating modes, only an effective spin-2 sector contributes to physical observables. Building on this result, the formalism is applied to Bhabha scattering mediated by the tensor field $A_{\mu\nu}$, and the Newtonian gravitational potential is derived in the zero-temperature limit. Finite-temperature effects are incorporated through the Thermo Field Dynamics (TFD) formalism. While the Newtonian interaction is recovered at low temperatures, it becomes progressively suppressed in the high-temperature regime, revealing a thermal screening mechanism. The physical origin of this behavior and its possible dependence on the underlying scattering process are briefly discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Feynman diagrams contributing to Bhabha scattering. The diagram (a) corresponds to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Behavior of the finite-temperature effective potential in the Weyl GEM framework. The left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation

    A. Einstein, “Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation”, Sitzungsber. Königl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 688?696 (1916)

    1916

  2. [2]

    On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromag- netic field,

    M. Fierz and W. Pauli, “On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an electromag- netic field,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A173, 211–232 (1939)

    work page 1939

  3. [3]

    Lowest-order graviton interactions with a charged fermion and a photon,

    S. Y. Choi, J. Lee, J. S. Shim and H. S. Song, “Lowest-order graviton interactions with a charged fermion and a photon,” Phys. Rev. D48, 769 (1993)

    work page 1993

  4. [4]

    Derivation of the source-free Maxwell and gravitational radiation equations by group theoretical methods

    J. Ramos and R. Gilmore, “Derivation of the source-free Maxwell and gravitational radiation equations by group theoretical methods”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 505–519 (2006). 18

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Differential operators in terms of Clebsch-Gordon (CG) coefficients and the wave equation of massless tensor fields

    J. Ramos, “Differential operators in terms of Clebsch-Gordon (CG) coefficients and the wave equation of massless tensor fields”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.38, 773–783 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Weyl gravitoelectromagnetism

    J. Ramos, M. de Montigny and F. C. Khanna, “Weyl gravitoelectromagnetism”, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 50, 83 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Abelian and non-Abelian Weyl gravitoelectromag- netism

    J. Ramos, M. de Montigny and F. C. Khanna, “Abelian and non-Abelian Weyl gravitoelectromag- netism”, Ann. Phys.418, 168182 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Gravitation and the electron,

    H. Weyl, “Gravitation and the electron,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.15, 323–334 (1929)

    work page 1929

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Zum unit

    T. Kaluza, “Zum unit"atsproblem der physik,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1921, 966–972 (1921)

    1921

  2. [10]

    Quantentheorie und f

    O. Klein, “Quantentheorie und f"unfdimensionale Relativit"atstheorie,” Z. Phys.37, 895–906 (1926)

    1926

  3. [11]

    Gravitoelectromagnetism: a brief review,

    B. Mashhoon, “Gravitoelectromagnetism: a brief review,” arXiv:gr-qc/0311030 (2003)

    2003 arXiv

  4. [12]

    On a Lagrangian formulation of gravitoelectromag- netism,

    J. Ramos, M. de Montigny, and F. C. Khanna, “On a Lagrangian formulation of gravitoelectromag- netism,” Gen. Relativ. Gravit.42, 2403 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Gravitoelectromagnetic analogy based on tidal tensors

    L. Filipe O. Costa and Carlos A. R. Herdeiro, “Gravitoelectromagnetic analogy based on tidal tensors”, Phys. Rev. D78, 024021 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Diffeomorphism-Like Symmetry in Gravitoelectromagnetism

    L. A. S. Evangelista and A. F. Santos, “Diffeomorphism-Like Symmetry in Gravitoelectromagnetism”, arXiv:2605.27125 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A primer on unimodular gravity

    E. ’Alvarez and E. Velasco-Aja, “A primer on unimodular gravity”, In:Handbook of Quantum Gravity, pp. 477–519 (Springer, 2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    New relations for gauge-theory amplitudes

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco and H. Johansson, “New relations for gauge-theory amplitudes”, Phys. Rev. D78, 085011 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Thermo Field Dynamics

    Y. Takahashi and H. Umezawa, “Thermo Field Dynamics”, Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. B10, 1755 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    Takahashi, H

    Y. Takahashi, H. Umezawa and H. Matsumoto,Thermofield Dynamics and Condensed States, North- Holland, Amsterdan, (1982)

    1982

  11. [19]

    Geometric and Statistical Thermo Field Dynamics in de Sitter Spacetime

    D. S. Cabral, L. A. S. Evangelista, J. C. R. de Souza and A. F. Santos, “Geometric and Statistical Thermo Field Dynamics in de Sitter Spacetime”, arXiv:2606.23484 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Thermo-field dynamics of black holes

    W. Israel, “Thermo-field dynamics of black holes”, Phys. Lett. A57, 107–110 (1976)

    1976

  13. [21]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation, vol. 1, W. H. Freeman Company, San Francisco (1973)

    1973

  14. [22]

    Gravitoelectromagnetism: Basic principles, novel approaches and their application to Electromagnetism,

    A. Bakopoulos, “Gravitoelectromagnetism: Basic principles, novel approaches and their application to Electromagnetism,” arXiv:1610.08357 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gravitational Möller scattering, Lorentz violation and finite tempe- rature

    A. F. Santos and F. C. Khanna, “Gravitational Möller scattering, Lorentz violation and finite tempe- rature”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A35, 26 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Gravitational Lorentz-violatinge− +e + →ℓ − +ℓ + scattering,

    L. A. S. Evangelista and A. F. Santos, “Gravitational Lorentz-violatinge− +e + →ℓ − +ℓ + scattering,” Nucl. Phys. B, 117328 (2026)

    2026

  17. [25]

    Gravitational Bhabha scattering

    A. F. Santos and Faqir C. Khanna, “Gravitational Bhabha scattering”, Class. Quantum Grav.34, 205007 (2017). 19

    2017

  18. [26]

    Gravitational Casimir effect at finite temperature

    A. F. Santos and F. C. Khanna, “Gravitational Casimir effect at finite temperature”, Int. J. Theor. Phys.55, 5356 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    M. E. Peskin,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory(CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    F. C. Khanna, A. P. C. Malbouisson, J. M. C. Malboiusson and A. E. Santana,Themal quantum field theory: Algebraic aspects and applications, World Scientific, Singapore, (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Quantized gravitoelectromagnetism theory at finite temperature

    A. F. Santos and Faqir C. Khanna, “Quantized gravitoelectromagnetism theory at finite temperature”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Lett. A31, 1650122 (2016.)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Thermal quantum gravity in a general background gauge

    F. T. Brandt, J. Frenkel, D. G. C. McKeon and G. S. S. Sakoda, “Thermal quantum gravity in a general background gauge”, Phys. Rev. D107, 085020 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Gravitational Compton scattering at zero and finite tempera- ture,

    L. A. S. Evangelista and A. F. Santos, “Gravitational Compton scattering at zero and finite tempera- ture,” Ann. Phys.2025, 169966 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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