Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 103 references

Nontrivial constitutive laws and unified structures in constrained BF theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A nontrivial gravitational constitutive law does not force any modification of the internal gauge-theory constitutive law; in constrained BF theory the two sectors are independent unless a cross-sector map is added by hand.

desk verdict The no-canonical-constitutive-law claim is correct only in the trivially broken direct-product phase; a useful conceptual clarification, not a general theorem, and the paper's own Plebanski example undercuts the broader phrasing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14062 v2 pith:UYK6GXHJ submitted 2025-04-18 hep-th gr-qc

Priidik Gallagher This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords BFtheoryconstitutivelawgauge-gravityunificationpremetricelectrodynamicsPlebanskiKhronongravitydifferentialformsspontaneoussymmetrybreaking
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 asks whether changing the gravitational side of a unified BF theory—say, replacing the usual tetrad excitation with a nonstandard one such as $*(D\tau^a\wedge D\tau^b)$—would force a corresponding change in the gauge-theory side. It answers no: because the two sectors live in different Lie algebras, there is no canonical map from one excitation to the other, so any cross-sector relation has to be added by hand. The paper formalizes this with a 'constitutive diagram' whose arrows are underdetermined, and shows that in the trivially broken phase the BF action splits into independent gravity and internal-gauge pieces. It also argues that a would-be spontaneous breaking of the B-field into the physical constitutive law fails because of back-reaction. The lesson for a sympathetic reader is that gauge-gravity unification is inherently model-dependent, not a consequence of BF structure alone.

What carries the argument

The constitutive diagram: a square of maps among the spaces $\Omega^{n-2}(\mathfrak{g})$, $\Omega^{n-2}(\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{int}})$, and $\Omega^{n-2}(\mathfrak{g}_{\mathrm{ext}})$, with vertices at the untruncated excitation $B$, the internal physical excitation $*F$, and the gravitational hypersurface basis $*(e^a\wedge e^b)$. These maps, called constitutive mappings, make precise that the individual sections are connected by many arbitrary extensions, so no canonical arrow exists; any unification of the constitutive laws must specify the maps by hand. The other load-bearing mechanism is the BF splitting itself: tracelessness of the generators forces cross-terms like $\mathrm{Tr}(B_{\mathrm{ext}}\wedge F[A_{\mathrm{int}}])$ to vanish, so the action and the constraint problem decouple into independent sectors.

What would settle it

Construct an explicit BF-type unified model satisfying the paper's assumptions—$G=SO(1,3)\times G_{\mathrm{int}}$ with commuting generators—and show from the equations of motion alone, without adding any cross-sector map or constraint, that a nonstandard gravitational constitutive law such as $B_{\mathrm{ext}}=*(D\tau^a\wedge D\tau^b)$ forces the internal excitation to deviate from $B_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{1}{2g^2}*F$; if such a derivation exists, the paper's central negative claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a negative structural result in constrained BF theory: the constitutive law of gravity and that of internal gauge theory are independent data. In the broken phase $P_{\mathrm{total}}=F(M)\oplus P_{\mathrm{int}}$ with $G=SO(1,3)\times G_{\mathrm{int}}$, the BF action $S=\int \mathrm{Tr}_G(B\wedge F)$ splits into $\frac{1}{2g^2}\mathrm{Tr}_{SO}(B_{\mathrm{ext}}\wedge R)+\frac{1}{2g^2}\mathrm{Tr}_{G_{\mathrm{int}}}(B_{\mathrm{int}}\wedge F[A_{\mathrm{int}}])$ because generators of different factors commute and are traceless. Hence $B_{\mathrm{ext}}$ and $B_{\mathrm{int}}$ are separately constrained, and no relation like $B_{\mathrm{ext}}=*(D\tau^a\wedge D\tau^b)$ in a modified gravity theory implies a particular $B_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{1}{2g^2}*F$. The constitutive diagram's maps $C_{\mathrm{int}}, C_{\mathrm{ext}}, \phi_{i-e}, \phi_{e-i}$ are underdefined off-shell; they are fixed only on the sections $B$, $*F$, and $*(e^a\wedge e^b)$. The paper also shows that polynomial B-potentials cannot produce a spontaneous choice of constitutive law, because the field-strength back-reaction turns the would-be minimum into a constraint on $F$.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes the two sectors sit in a direct-product bundle with commuting generators, so that the BF action splits cleanly; if a genuine unified phase mixes frame and internal directions, the independence claim is not proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any unified BF model with commuting $SO(1,3)$ and internal factors, the gravity and gauge constitutive laws can be chosen independently; modifying one does not mathematically force modification of the other.
  • To build a unified model with a nontrivial gravitational constitutive law, one must add an explicit simplicity-type constraint or a cross-sector map; that map is new physical input, not something the BF action provides.
  • Spontaneous constitutive-law breaking through polynomial B-potentials is not viable, so constraints must be imposed by other field content or by a different constraint structure.
  • The constitutive mappings form an independent object; promoting them to dynamical fields merely redefines field content and does not produce new phenomenology.
  • If the observer-state argument is taken literally, a nontrivial unified phase cannot be treated as an ordinary 4-manifold with a clean internal/external tangent split, so the manifold topology itself becomes part of the model choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not prove that the independence survives in a genuinely mixed unified phase, but if it does, then any scheme that derives gravity from gauge theory must include an independent postulate explaining why $B_{\mathrm{ext}}\sim *(e\wedge e)$ and $B_{\mathrm{int}}\sim *F$ align; the alignment is not emergent from BF dynamics.
  • A direct test of the paper's claim would be to write down a modified-gravity BF model with $B_{\mathrm{ext}}=*(D\tau\wedge D\tau)$ and a standard internal sector and check whether any mixing term appears from the equations of motion; the paper predicts none will.
  • The failure of polynomial B-potentials suggests that constitutive-law degeneracy, if it is to arise spontaneously at all, would need non-polynomial or higher-form structures; studying those could reveal whether the no-go is fundamental or an artifact of polynomiality.
  • The signal-topology discussion points toward causal or graph-based backgrounds as an alternative to manifold topology, but this is a speculative extension of the paper's own cautious remarks.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies constrained BF theory as a common premetric framework for gravity and internal gauge theory. It asks whether a nontrivial gravitational constitutive law, such as the Khronon excitation *(Dτ^a∧Dτ^b) of Eq. (77), forces a modified internal constitutive law B_gauge = (1/2g^2)*F. The answer is claimed to be negative because there is no canonical mapping between differential forms valued in distinct Lie algebras. The paper introduces a "constitutive diagram" in Eq. (78) to describe maps between the spaces of n−2 forms, analyzes the trivially broken phase G = SO(1,3) × G_int in Eqs. (25)–(34), attempts a spontaneous breaking mechanism through degenerate B-potentials in Eqs. (61)–(76), and concludes that this mechanism is not viable. It also offers a heuristic observer-based argument for a geometric obstruction in nontrivial unified phases in Eqs. (21)–(24). The paper explicitly restricts itself to the trivially broken phase P_total = F(M) ⊕ P_int.

Significance. If read as a structural clarification, the paper is useful. It makes explicit the independence of constitutive laws in the direct-product broken phase and gives a clean framework for discussing cross-sector maps; the Khronon/Plebanski example in Eqs. (84)–(89) is instructive and well connected to existing literature. The honest statements of model-dependence are a strength, and the constitutive diagram is a useful conceptual device. However, the central claim is conditional on the direct-product gauge group and is partly definitional, and the polynomial no-go argument is a sketch rather than a proof. The paper is therefore best regarded as a conceptual contribution to the structural understanding of BF-type unification rather than as a proof of a general no-go theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §III.A, Eqs. (25)–(34); §IV] The negative answer to the title question is proven only in the trivially broken phase G = SO(1,3) × G_int with commuting generators (31) and traceless semisimple generators forcing the action to split (34). The introduction states this restriction explicitly, but the abstract and Section IV present the result without it. The restriction is not innocuous: in a unified model with a simple gauge group, for example the Plebanski action (84), a single adjoint-valued B and the potential term (1/2)φ_AB B^A∧B^B couple the gravitational and internal constitutive equations, and imposing the Khronon ansatz (87) on the Lorentz components does not decouple the internal equations of motion. The paper should therefore state in the abstract and conclusion that the no-canonical-map result applies to the direct-product broken phase, or it should extend the argument to simple-group unified models.
  2. [§III.B, Eqs. (66)–(72)] The claim that spontaneous breaking into the physical constitutive law via a B-potential is not viable is presented as a short argument, but it is not a proof. Equation (69) assumes a polynomial constitutive law with constant coefficients, and the substitution leading to Eq. (70) shows at most that such a relation would impose a polynomial constraint on the field strength. The matrix-polynomial factorization in Eqs. (71)–(72) is invoked pointwise without specifying the algebraic setting (e.g., whether the identity must hold for all field configurations or only on shell, and over what field), and the index placement in Eq. (72) is inconsistent. This analysis does not exclude non-polynomial potentials, potentials with derivative or connection dependence, or constrained potentials; the renormalizability objection is a physical prior rather than a no-go statement. Since the inviability of this mechanism is one of the paper's stated results, either provide a precise theorem with hypotheses and proof, or explicitly label the discussion as heuristic.
  3. [§III.C, Eqs. (78)–(80)] The constitutive diagram is defined by specifying the maps C_int, C_ext, φ_i-e and φ_e-i only on the three sections B, *F and *(e∧e), leaving the off-shell action arbitrary. The resulting underdetermination is therefore a consequence of the definitions rather than a derived fact, and the statement that no canonical cross-sector map exists is close to the premise that the two sectors are independent fields valued in distinct Lie algebras. This is acceptable as a clarification of the structural situation, and the paper partly acknowledges it ('another phrasing of the constitutive issue'), but the text should not present it as a geometric obstruction. In particular, Section II.B itself characterizes its observer argument as an 'almost-trivial contradiction' and 'highly model-dependent', so the abstract's 'simple geometric obstruction' overstates the status of that argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§I] The first paragraph contains a duplicated article: 'a modification in the the constitutive law' should read 'a modification in the constitutive law'.
  2. [Ref. [12]] The author name of reference [12] is corrupted ('T. Z/suppress lo´ snik'); the citation should be corrected to the proper rendering of the author's name.
  3. [Eq. (72)] The index structure in Eq. (72) is inconsistent: the first factor is written as (F_{a1}^{i} − r1 δ_i^{a1}), which mixes upper and lower indices in a way that makes the matrix product ill-defined. Please rewrite with uniform index placement.
  4. [Eq. (41)] The symbol B′ is introduced as a redefinition B′ ≡ ∗B but is never used afterward; either retain it for clarity in the subsequent discussion or remove the definition.
  5. [Eq. (63)] The second solution in Eq. (63) is written as b∧∗b = −∗(μ1/(2μ2)); since the right-hand side is a top form constructed from a constant, the sign and normalization conventions for the Hodge star should be stated explicitly, otherwise the reader cannot check the algebra.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The no-canonical-mapping conclusion is partly built into the constitutive diagram's definition, though Eq. (34) supplies independent support.

  1. self definitional [Section III.C, Eqs. (78)-(80)]
    "The mappings are between bundles of differential forms, but they are underdefined, as only the restrictions to the sections B,∗F and∗(ea∧eb) are determined. For example, Cext is arbitrary as long as Cext(Bfull) =∗(ea∧eb). ... But off-shell, the sections are arbitrary, and Cext,Cint,ϕi-e,ϕe-i hold any meaning only as mappings between functional expressions ... Otherwise, the off-shell sections are entirely arbitrary."

    The constitutive mappings are introduced as arbitrary maps fixed at only three sections; the conclusion that no canonical Bext↔Bint map exists is then read off from this underdetermination. That is true by construction: if the arrows are defined to be arbitrary off-shell, no canonical arrow can emerge. The physical independence of the sectors does follow independently from the split action in Eq. (34), but the constitutive-diagram argument itself does not derive the no-canonical-map claim; it builds it into the definition of the diagram.

  2. renaming known result [Section III.C after Eq. (80); Conclusion]
    "This is a more category-theoretic description of the simple truth that gravitational and internal gauge interactions are (apparently, and in the standard description) independent and define independent degrees of freedom."

    The paper itself identifies the constitutive diagram as a re-description of the already-assumed independence of the sectors, and the Conclusion restates the result as 'due to the simple fact that the interactions are independent.' Thus the central negative answer is presented as a formalized restatement of its own input premise rather than as a new derivation; the new element is only the diagrammatic language.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine independent computation: in the trivially broken phase G=SO(1,3)×Gint with commuting generators and traceless semisimple generators, the BF action splits into separate gravitational and internal terms (Eq. (34)), and cross-terms vanish (Eq. (52)); this supports the sector independence and the conditional negative answer. The polynomial-potential no-go argument (Section III.B) and the Plebanski/Khronon comparison (Eqs. (84)-(89)) are also concrete and not circular. However, the paper's headline claim is in part a restatement of the premise 'there is no canonical mapping between differential forms valued in distinct Lie algebras' (Abstract), and the constitutive diagram in Section III.C is set up so that its arrows are arbitrary off-shell, making the absence of a canonical map true by definition. The paper acknowledges the trivially-broken-phase restriction ('Only the trivially broken phase will be considered'), so the negative conclusion is conditional; this is a scope limitation rather than circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the Khronon example [12] is external, Coleman-Mandula [33] and Krasnov-Percacci [34] are independent references, and no author-overlap uniqueness theorem is invoked. Overall, the central claim has independent content but is partially circular in its formalization, giving a moderate score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

No empirical parameters are fitted. The formal results rest on standard differential-geometric background, the direct-product split of the structure group, the standard constitutive laws, and the asserted non-existence of canonical maps between distinct Lie-algebra-valued forms. The constitutive diagram is the paper's own formal object.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Structure group is a direct product G = SO(1,3) × G_int with commuting generators and traceless generators forcing the BF action to split.
    Section III.A, Eqs. (25)-(34). The paper explicitly restricts to the trivially broken phase P_total = F(M) ⊕ P_int; the negative conclusion is framed inside this phase.
  • domain assumption The physical B-field values are B_gauge = (1/2g^2)*F and B_gravity = (1/2κ)*(e^a∧e^b).
    Section II.A, Eqs. (18)-(19). These are the constitutive laws whose interrelation is the subject of the paper.
  • domain assumption There is no canonical mapping between differential forms valued in distinct Lie algebras.
    Abstract and Section III.C. This premise is asserted rather than proved and directly yields the negative answer.
  • standard math Constraints are imposed by Lagrange multipliers and eliminated by delta functions in the path integral.
    Section III.B, Eqs. (43)-(56). Standard treatment of constrained BF-type theories; used to discuss quantum equivalence.
  • standard math For polynomial constitutive laws, pointwise matrix polynomials factor over eigenvalues.
    Section III.B, Eq. (71). Used to show non-linear polynomial potentials constrain the eigenvalues of F.
  • standard math Coleman-Mandula theorem applies to the trivially broken phase with nondegenerate vacuum metric.
    Section II.B, cited as [33]; used to justify the direct-product structure in standard scattering theory.
invented entities (2)
  • Constitutive mappings {C_int, C_ext, φ_i-e, φ_e-i} and the constitutive diagram
    purpose: To formalize the relation or absence of relation between the on-shell excitations B_int = *F and B_ext = *(e^a∧e^b) of different interaction sectors.
    Introduced in Section III.C as a new conceptual object; it is not a physical field or a measurement prediction, and it is defined so that off-shell sections are arbitrary, so it cannot be independently tested.
  • Observer triple o = (τ, v, ρ) as a primitive spacetime point
    purpose: Used in Section II.B to argue that a nontrivial unified phase conflicts with manifold tangent structure if observer state space is conflated with tangent space.
    Proposed as a model of observers as points; the paper itself notes the conclusion is contingent on a change in interpretation and is an almost-trivial contradiction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nontrivial constitutive laws and unified structures in constrained BF theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UYK6GXHJ

@misc{pith2026250414062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nontrivial constitutive laws and unified structures in constrained BF theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UYK6GXHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14062}
}
read the original abstract

Does a nontrivial gravitational excitation require a modified internal gauge theory constitutive law? As there is no canonical mapping between differential forms valued in distinct Lie algebras, the answer is negative, and entirely dependent on the specific unification scheme. A structural formulation in BF theory in terms of a constitutive diagram between the excitations of different interaction sectors is provided, alongside a discussion of the structure of the broken phase. As a nontrivial option, a "spontaneous" breaking into the physical constraint is attempted, however it is shown that basic B-potentials alone would not be viable. A heuristic discussion of internal gauge theory and gravity is provided, and by conflating the observer's internal and external state with the spacetime tangent structure, it is argued that there is a simple geometric obstruction to a nontrivially unified phase. A more ad hoc treatment of gauge theory and gravitational structure remains as the clear path forward, while observer, signal and causal considerations would suggest studying alternative backgrounds to the manifold topology.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The connection ωab on the frame bundle F (M), adapted to an inner product η,

  2. [2]

    These are essentially requirements that all gravitational quantities are immediately related to spacetime or the un- derlying manifold

    The excitation B, reduced to the coframe (hyper)surface basis ∗(ea∧eb). These are essentially requirements that all gravitational quantities are immediately related to spacetime or the un- derlying manifold. The physically relevant case works around G = SO(1, 3), but generally, any other G-subbundle defines a gravitational theory with a different sense of...

  3. [3]

    The connection A on a separate principal bundle B,

  4. [4]

    gauge theory

    The excitation B, reduced to dual field strength ∗F . The physically relevant structure group is the Standard Model gauge group, but arbitrary (even non-compact) Lie groups can be considered. Note that the distinction between (internal) gauge theory and gravity has a fundamentally geometric component as the theories apply to different sectors, and is not ...

  5. [5]

    E. W. Mielke, Geometrodynamics of Gauge Fields. On the Geometry of Yang-Mills and Gravitational Gauge Theories , Mathematical Physics Studies (Springer, 2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    H. B. Lawson and M.-L. Michelsohn, Spin Geometry, Princeton Mathematical series (Princeton University Press, 1989)

    1989

  7. [7]

    Birmingham, M

    D. Birmingham, M. Blau, M. Rakowski, and G. Thompson, Physics Reports 209, 129 (1991)

    1991

  8. [8]

    Witten, Nuclear Physics B 311, 46 (1988)

    E. Witten, Nuclear Physics B 311, 46 (1988)

    1988

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Carlip, Quantum gravity in 2+1 dimensions , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

    S. Carlip, Quantum gravity in 2+1 dimensions , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    F. W. Hehl and Y. N. Obukhov, Foundations of Classical Electryodynamics (Birkh¨ auser, 2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    E. R. Livine and S. Speziale, EPL 81, 50004 (2008), arXiv:0708.1915 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    E. R. Livine, in Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics (Second Edition) , edited by R. Szabo and M. Bojowald (Academic Press, Oxford, 2025) second edition ed., pp. 507–519

    2025

  5. [13]

    J. O. Weatherall, Synthese 193, 10.1007/s11229-015-0849-3 (2016)

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    March and J

    E. March and J. O. Weatherall, A puzzle about general covariance and gauge (2024), arXiv:2405.03906 [physics.hist-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gomes, Gauge theory is about the geometry of internal spaces (2024), arXiv:2404.10461 [hep-th]

    H. Gomes, Gauge theory is about the geometry of internal spaces (2024), arXiv:2404.10461 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Z/suppress lo´ snik, F

    T. Z/suppress lo´ snik, F. Urban, L. Marzola, and T. Koivisto, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 235003 (2018), arXiv:1807.01100 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. J. Beekman, L. Rademaker, and J. van Wezel, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 11, 1 (2019), arXiv:1909.01820 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    D. P. George, A. Ram, J. E. Thompson, and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 87, 105009 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Elliott and O

    C. Elliott and O. Gwilliam, Journal of Geometry and Physics 162, 104096 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, JHEP 02 (172), arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. F. Pleba´ nski, Journal of Mathematical Physics18, 2511 (1977). 18

    1977

  14. [22]

    Krasnov, Gen

    K. Krasnov, Gen. Rel. Grav. 43, 1 (2011), arXiv:0904.0423 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Krasnov, Classical and Quantum Gravity 26, 055002 (2009)

    K. Krasnov, Classical and Quantum Gravity 26, 055002 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Hohmann, L

    M. Hohmann, L. J¨ arv, M. Krˇ sˇ s´ ak, and C. Pfeifer, Phys. Rev. D97, 104042 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Y. Itin, Y. N. Obukhov, J. Boos, and F. W. Hehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 907 (2018), arXiv:1808.08048 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y. N. Obukhov, in 15th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics, and Relativistic Field Theories (2019) arXiv:1904.00180 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Puetzfeld, Y

    D. Puetzfeld, Y. N. Obukhov, and F. W. Hehl, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104013 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Koivisto, M

    T. Koivisto, M. Hohmann, and L. Marzola, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064041 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Floreanini and R

    R. Floreanini and R. Percacci, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 5, 2247 (1990)

    1990

  22. [30]

    Akama and I

    K. Akama and I. Oda, Phys. Lett. B 259, 431 (1991)

    1991

  23. [31]

    Antonsen, in 2nd Alexander Friedmann International Seminar on Gravitation and Cosmology (1994) pp

    F. Antonsen, in 2nd Alexander Friedmann International Seminar on Gravitation and Cosmology (1994) pp. 287–304

    1994

  24. [32]

    Anselmi, P

    D. Anselmi, P. Fre, L. Girardello, and P. Soriani, Phys. Lett. B 335, 416 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9405174

    1994 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Anselmi, Classical and Quantum Gravity 14, 1 (1997)

    D. Anselmi, Classical and Quantum Gravity 14, 1 (1997)

    1997

  26. [34]

    A. S. Cattaneo, P. Cotta-Ramusino, F. Fucito, M. Martellini, M. Rinaldi, A. Tanzini, and M. Zeni, Commun. Math. Phys. 197, 571 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9705123

    1998 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Oda, Int

    I. Oda, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1750023 (2016), arXiv:1603.00112 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    A. S. Cattaneo, L. Menger, and M. Schiavina, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 155001 (2024), arXiv:2310.01877 [math-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Coleman and J

    S. Coleman and J. Mandula, Phys. Rev. 159, 1251 (1967)

    1967

  30. [38]

    Krasnov and R

    K. Krasnov and R. Percacci, Classical and Quantum Gravity 35, 143001 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    R. P. Geroch, J. Math. Phys. 9, 1739 (1968)

    1968

  32. [40]

    Penrose, Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1972)

    R. Penrose, Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1972)

    1972

  33. [41]

    Papadopoulos and F

    K. Papadopoulos and F. Scardigli, Spacetimes as topological spaces, and the need to take methods of general topology more seriously., in Current Trends in Mathematical Analysis and Its Interdisciplinary Applications (Birkh¨ auser Cham, 2019) pp. 185–196, arXiv:1804.05419 [math-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Wu and J

    J. Wu and J. O. Weatherall, Between a Stone and a Hausdorff Space (2023), arXiv:2305.03871 [physics.hist-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gielen and D

    S. Gielen and D. K. Wise, Journal of Mathematical Physics 54, 052501 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Hohmann, Journal of Mathematical Physics 57, 082502 (2016)

    M. Hohmann, Journal of Mathematical Physics 57, 082502 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Krasnov, Formulations of General Relativity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    K. Krasnov, Formulations of General Relativity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

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

    1973

  39. [47]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity (Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984)

    1984

  41. [49]

    W. A. R. Jr, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie 32, 425 (2007), arXiv:0712.3067 [math-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hamilton, J

    M. Hamilton, J. D., Mathematical Gauge Theory: With Applications to the Standard Model of Particle Physics, Universitext (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Nakahara, Geometry, Topology and Physics (Institute of Physics Publishing, 2003)

    M. Nakahara, Geometry, Topology and Physics (Institute of Physics Publishing, 2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    R. F. P´ erez and J. M. Masque, Monatshefte f¨ ur Mathematik155, 67 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    Capriotti, Journal of Mathematical Physics 55, 012902 (2014)

    S. Capriotti, Journal of Mathematical Physics 55, 012902 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Capriotti, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 15, 1850044 (2018)

    S. Capriotti, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 15, 1850044 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Lachieze-Rey, Connections and frame bundle reductions (2020), arXiv:2002.01410 [math-ph]

    M. Lachieze-Rey, Connections and frame bundle reductions (2020), arXiv:2002.01410 [math-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    P. W. Michor, Topics in Differential Geometry (American Mathematical Society, 2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    Cahill and S

    K. Cahill and S. m. c. ¨Ozenli, Phys. Rev. D 27, 1396 (1983)

    1983

  50. [58]

    A. E. Margolin and V. I. Strazhev, Phys. Lett. B 249, 438 (1990)

    1990

  51. [59]

    A. E. Margolin and V. I. Strazhev, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 7, 2747 (1992)

    1992

  52. [60]

    Alexander and T

    S. Alexander and T. Manton, Phys. Rev. D 107, 064065 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    K. C. H. Mackenzie, General Theory of Lie Groupoids and Lie Algebroids, second edition ed., London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  54. [62]

    Catren, Int

    G. Catren, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 12, 1530002 (2015), arXiv:1407.7814 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    H´ elein, Manifolds obtained by soldering together points, lines, etc., in Geometry, topology, quantum field theory & cosmology, edited by J

    F. H´ elein, Manifolds obtained by soldering together points, lines, etc., in Geometry, topology, quantum field theory & cosmology, edited by J. Kouneiher, C. Barbachoux, and F. H´ elein (Hermann Glassin, 2009) Chap. 2, pp. 23–44

    2009

  56. [64]

    Minguzzi, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 11, 1460025 (2014)

    E. Minguzzi, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 11, 1460025 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    Vey, Class

    D. Vey, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 095005 (2015), arXiv:1404.3546 [math-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Krasnov, Phys

    K. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 251103 (2011)

    2011

  59. [67]

    Delfino, K

    G. Delfino, K. Krasnov, and C. Scarinci, JHEP 03 (118), 118, arXiv:1205.7045 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Gronwald and F

    F. Gronwald and F. W. Hehl, in International School of Cosmology and Gravitation: 14th Course: Quantum Gravity (1995) pp. 148–198, arXiv:gr-qc/9602013

    1995 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Weinstein, Philosophy of Science 66, 155 (1999)

    S. Weinstein, Philosophy of Science 66, 155 (1999)

    1999

  62. [70]

    Blagojevi´ c, F

    M. Blagojevi´ c, F. W. Hehl, and T. W. B. Kibble, Gauge Theories of Gravitation (Imperial College Press, 2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    Y. N. Obukhov, Lect. Notes Phys. 1017, 105 (2023), arXiv:2206.05205 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    F. W. Hehl, Y. Itin, and Y. N. Obukhov, in 3rd Summer School in Modern Mathematical Physics (2005) pp. 375–408

    2005

  65. [73]

    Trautman, in Geometrical and Topological Methods in Gauge Theories, edited by J

    A. Trautman, in Geometrical and Topological Methods in Gauge Theories, edited by J. P. Harnad and S. Shnider (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1980) pp. 114–120. 19

    1980

  66. [74]

    Trautman, in Geometric Techniques in Gauge Theories , edited by R

    A. Trautman, in Geometric Techniques in Gauge Theories , edited by R. Martini and E. M. de Jager (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1982) pp. 179–189

    1982

  67. [75]

    Capovilla, T

    R. Capovilla, T. Jacobson, and J. Dell, Class. Quant. Grav. 8, 59 (1991)

    1991

  68. [76]

    Capovilla, M

    R. Capovilla, M. Montesinos, V. A. Prieto, and E. Rojas, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, L49 (2001), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 18, 1157 (2001)], arXiv:gr-qc/0102073

    2001 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Finster, in The Sixteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting (World Scientific, 2023) p

    F. Finster, in The Sixteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting (World Scientific, 2023) p. 661–678

    2023

  70. [78]

    L. B. Szabados, Found. Phys. 55, 33 (2025), arXiv:2502.07668 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    A. S. Cattaneo, P. Cotta-Ramusino, J. Fr¨ ohlich, and M. Martellini, Journal of Mathematical Physics 36, 6137 (1995)

    1995

  72. [80]

    Evnin, E

    O. Evnin, E. Joung, and K. Mkrtchyan, Phys. Rev. D 109, 066003 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    D. J. Rezende and A. Perez, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064026 (2009), arXiv:0902.3416 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  74. [82]

    J. C. M. Hughes and F. V. Kusmartsev, Connecting 2-forms, conformal transformations, curvature invariants and topo- logical classes in einstein spacetimes (2024), arXiv:2403.11527 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Bott and L

    R. Bott and L. W. Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology (Springer, 1982)

    1982

  76. [84]

    Krasnov, International Journal of Modern Physics A 24, 2776 (2009)

    K. Krasnov, International Journal of Modern Physics A 24, 2776 (2009)

    2009

  77. [85]

    Celada, D

    M. Celada, D. Gonz´ alez, and M. Montesinos, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 213001 (2016)

    2016

  78. [86]

    Kodama, Phys

    H. Kodama, Phys. Rev. D 42, 2548 (1990)

    1990

  79. [87]

    J. a. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 104, 026002 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    Alexander, T

    S. Alexander, T. Daniel, and J. Magueijo, The ashtekar variables and a varying cosmological constant from dynamical chern-simons gravity (2024), arXiv:2207.08885 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ponce De Leon, Mod

    J. Ponce De Leon, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 2291 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0111011

    2001 arXiv

  82. [90]

    P. M. Lavrov, Physics Letters B 816, 136182 (2021)

    2021

  83. [91]

    Armoni, Phys

    A. Armoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 141601 (2023), arXiv:2212.00513 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Voicu and D

    N. Voicu and D. Krupka, Journal of Mathematical Physics 56, 043507 (2015)

    2015

  85. [93]

    T. S. Koivisto and L. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 111, 064008 (2025)

    2025

  86. [94]

    Giulini, in Canonical Gravity: From Classical to Quantum , edited by J

    D. Giulini, in Canonical Gravity: From Classical to Quantum , edited by J. Ehlers and H. Friedrich (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1994) pp. 81–112

    1994

  87. [95]

    H. F. Westman and T. G. Zlosnik, Annals Phys. 334, 157 (2013), arXiv:1209.5358 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  88. [96]

    H. F. Westman and T. G. Zlosnik, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 095004 (2014), arXiv:1302.1103 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  89. [97]

    H. F. Westman and T. G. Zlosnik, Annals Phys. 361, 330 (2015), arXiv:1411.1679 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Harlow and J.-Q

    D. Harlow and J.-Q. Wu, JHEP 10 (146), 146, arXiv:1906.08616 [hep-th]

    1906 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Smolin, Phys

    L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124017 (2009)

    2009

  92. [100]

    Freidel and A

    L. Freidel and A. Starodubtsev, Quantum gravity in terms of topological observables (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0501191 [hep-th]

    2005 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Borde, Topology change in classical general relativity (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9406053 [gr-qc]

    A. Borde, Topology change in classical general relativity (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9406053 [gr-qc]

    1994 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Papadopoulos, Natural vs

    K. Papadopoulos, Natural vs. artificial topologies on a relativistic spacetime., in Nonlinear Analysis and Global Optimiza- tion (Springer Cham, 2021) pp. 389–401, arXiv:2107.06646 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Markopoulou, J

    F. Markopoulou, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 67, 012019 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0703027

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.