Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

In a flat FLRW universe quantized with loop quantum cosmology, electromagnetic back-reaction makes photon group velocity mode-dependent and strictly subluminal at every energy scale.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 06:08 UTC pith:YQIAV2LI

load-bearing objection A promising framework for EM backreaction in LQC, but Eq. (10) as written would make the prism effect vanish; needs a fix before I'd trust it. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13012 v2 pith:YQIAV2LI submitted 2026-07-14 gr-qc

Prism Effect in Quantum Gravity

Aliasghar Parvizi , Tomasz Paw{\l}owski This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords loop quantum cosmologydispersion relationBorn-Oppenheimer approximationphoton group velocityquantum gravity phenomenologydressed metricback-reactionprism effect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper constructs a general framework for how a quantum spacetime back-reacts on electromagnetic waves, using a Born–Oppenheimer separation of light from geometry and a dust field that provides the time parameter. In a flat FLRW universe quantized with loop quantum cosmology, each photon mode sees a different effective ('dressed') metric built from expectation values of volume operators; the resulting group velocity is mode-dependent and strictly subluminal at every energy scale. The deviation is largest near the bounce and decreases monotonically with mode number, so the quantum geometry acts like a prism. The framework remains valid beyond the semi-classical limit and reproduces standard Lorentz-invariant dispersion in the low-energy limit. A careful reader would find this significant because it derives a concrete, bounded, causal departure from classical light propagation from a quantized geometry rather than postulating it.

Core claim

The central claim is that in a canonically quantized flat FLRW universe with dust as internal time, the back-reaction of each electromagnetic mode on the quantum geometry produces a mode-dependent dispersion relation whose photon group velocity is always less than one. Concretely, the modified dispersion is determined by a factor F(k,T) = [⟨V^{-1}⟩_k ⟨V^{1/3}⟩_k / (⟨V^{-1}⟩_o ⟨V^{1/3}⟩_o)]^{1/2} multiplying the standard frequency, and the measured 3-velocity is V = F (1 - E d/dE log F). The authors show analytically and numerically that for LQC, F < 1 and V < 1 for all accessible times and momenta, with V → 1 - 2ε as k → 0 (ε ∝ ℏ k / p_T), and ∂V/∂k < 0, meaning bluer modes travel slower. In

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the extended Born–Oppenheimer approximation combined with a dressed-metric construction. The BO approximation factorizes the total state into a heavy gravitational part and a light EM part, with geometry variables acting as multiplication operators; this lets one solve the EM eigenvalue problem for each fixed geometry and generates an effective potential e_n(k;q) that feeds back into the gravity equation. The dressed-metric step then asks what classical metric would reproduce the EM Hamiltonian's dependence on the geometric expectation values, yielding mode-dependent lapse and scale factor Ñ and ã from powers of ⟨V^{-1}⟩ and ⟨V^{1/3}⟩. This machinery is what turns t

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the Born–Oppenheimer adiabatic separation—that the electromagnetic mode gaps |e_n - e_m| vastly exceed the gravitational level spacings |E_μ - E_ν| and that the geometry variables act as multiplication operators on the EM wavefunction; near the bounce or at very high k this separation of scales is not obviously maintained, and if it fails the dressed metric and the predicted subluminal dispersion do not follow.

What would settle it

The cleanest check is to solve the full quantum dynamics for a single EM mode coupled to the LQC geometry without the Born–Oppenheimer factorization—for instance, by direct numerical integration in a joint Hilbert space—and compute the exact photon group velocity. If the exact V exceeds 1 at any energy, or if V is not strictly decreasing in k, the central claim is falsified. A less direct observational falsifier: a gamma-ray burst showing a superluminal energy-dependent time delay (earlier arrival at higher energy) would contradict the strictly subluminal prediction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Photons of different wavelengths will arrive at different times: a quantum-gravity 'prism effect' that imprints an energy-dependent time delay Δt ∝ ∫ (1 - V(E,T)) dT on cosmological signals like gamma-ray bursts.
  • The standard Lorentz-invariant dispersion relation is recovered exactly in the low-energy limit (V → 1 - 2ε with ε → 0 as k/p_T → 0), so the model is compatible with all current low-energy observations.
  • The group-velocity correction is strictly negative (∂V/∂k < 0), so the effect is always subluminal, preserving causality across all energy regimes.
  • In the LQC model the dispersion modifications are bounded throughout cosmic evolution and smaller than in the WDW model, meaning the loop quantization softens the effect relative to geometrodynamics.
  • The framework is quantization-scheme independent in principle; the same Born–Oppenheimer/dressed-metric procedure can be exported to other quantum-gravity approaches, though the high-energy behavior will differ by scheme.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper notes the high-energy behavior depends on the quantization scheme, the strict subluminal bound and the boundedness of the deviation are likely not universal quantum-gravity predictions but artifacts of the loop representation; a different quantization could yield superluminal or unbounded corrections.
  • The intensity-dependence of the effect via the occupation number β suggests a self-interaction: a bright pulse would slow down more than a faint one. This could be tested in principle by comparing time delays across pulses of different fluence from the same source, though the magnitude is far below observable thresholds.
  • The BO approximation's validity is least secure near the bounce, where geometry and matter are strongly coupled; if the BO ansatz breaks, the dressed-metric prediction might be modified precisely in the regime where the effect is largest, so the quantitative bound V < 1 might not survive an exact treatment.
  • The framework's analogy to nonlinear optics suggests that higher-order (in EM field strength) corrections would generate amplitude-dependent dispersion, potentially a four-wave-mixing-like signal in strong astrophysical EM sources—no current experiment can reach this, but it provides a concrete target for future quantum-gravity phenomenology.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Born–Oppenheimer framework for electromagnetic modes on a quantum FLRW geometry, deriving an effective 'dressed metric' and computing the dispersion-relation modification factor F(k,T) and the photon group velocity V(k,T). The authors apply the framework to a flat FLRW model quantized with LQC, compare four implementation levels (genuine quantum, hybrid, effective LQC, and Wheeler–DeWitt/geometrodynamics), and report that the back-reaction makes the group velocity strictly subluminal and mode-dependent, with the LQC deviation bounded and smaller than the WDW one. Low-energy restoration of the standard dispersion relation is also claimed.

Significance. If established, the result would be a concrete, falsifiable prediction of quantum-gravity-induced chromatic dispersion that goes beyond the usual LIV power-law parameterization, and the BO/dressed-metric construction could be exported to other quantum-gravity schemes. The paper's strengths are its explicit numerical comparison across four regimes, the attempt to go beyond the semiclassical limit, and the clear statement of falsifiable consequences (strictly subluminal, mode-dependent velocity). However, the central derivation contains a load-bearing operator/expectation-value inconsistency that must be resolved before the numerical claims can be trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (10)–(15)] There is a serious conflation of operators and expectation values. Eq. (10) defines H_k with c-number coefficients ⟨V^{-1}⟩_k and ⟨V^{1/3}⟩_k. The text immediately states e_n(k;V) = (n+1/2)ℏ k ℓ^{-2}⟨V^{-1/3}⟩_k. This is not the eigenvalue of the oscillator in (10); the correct eigenvalue is (n+1/2)ℏ k ℓ^{-2}√(⟨V^{-1}⟩_k⟨V^{1/3}⟩_k). Moreover, if e_n is to enter Eq. (7) as a potential e_n(k;q̂) that modifies the geometry Hamiltonian, it must be an operator-valued function of V̂, not a c-number expectation value. If (10) is literal, the back-reaction term in (7) is a constant, the geometry state is unchanged, and F(k,T)≡1, so no prism effect follows. If (10) is shorthand for an operator Hamiltonian, the stated eigenvalue is wrong. The self-consistent definition of the back-reaction used in the numerics therefore needs clarification and correction.
  2. [Eqs. (17)–(18)] The analytic expressions for F_WDW and V_WDW are stated without derivation. These formulas anchor the low-energy limit V≈1−2ε and the bound V_WDW<1, both central to the paper's conclusions. The authors should provide a derivation (or a detailed sketch) starting from Eq. (16) with α_o=0 and Eq. (14), and show how ε = ℓ^{-2}βℏ k x/p_T appears. Without this, the analytic claims cannot be verified independently of the numerics.
  3. [END MATTER, Eq. (EM.3)] The genuine-quantum LQC results were obtained only on a restricted volume domain; the low-energy behavior (x→0) in Fig. 1b is inferred by extrapolating the trend of δF. The text states that the shape 'strongly indicates' boundedness, but this is not a quantitative guarantee. Please provide a convergence test, error bars, or a rigorous bound, or restrict the low-energy claims to the hybrid/effective frameworks where the approximation is explicitly controlled.
  4. [Section 'Analysis of the system'] The Born–Oppenheimer approximation requires |e_n−e_m|≫|E_μ−E_ν| and a representation in which geometry variables act as multiplication operators. The paper does not verify this separation for the states used near the bounce, where the geometry spectrum can become dense and high-k modes may violate adiabaticity. Please provide explicit estimates or checks for the numerical states, or state clearly that the BO ansatz is an unvalidated assumption in the high-curvature regime.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General / typesetting] The manuscript text contains numerous rendering artifacts (e.g., 'Rdenotes', 'where,Rdenotes', stray carets and OCR-like spacing). These should be cleaned before submission.
  2. [Notation, Eq. (16) and around] The parameter β is introduced as β=(1/2+n) in Eq. (16), but in the text it is sometimes referred to as the particle number. To avoid confusion, use β consistently and define it at first use.
  3. [Fig. 1] The variable x=V^{-1/3} is used throughout Fig. 1 but is not defined in the main text before Eq. (17). Please define it explicitly when it first appears.
  4. [Eq. (11)] The dressed-metric components are obtained by comparing Eq. (10) with the classical EM Hamiltonian, but the consistency of the resulting overdetermined system (four equations for Ṽ and ã) is not discussed. Please confirm that Eq. (11) is an exact consequence or state the approximation used.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard canonical quantum gravity assumptions (dust deparametrization, LQC polymerization), the BO adiabatic approximation, and the dressed-metric matching. The free parameters are state/mode labels rather than fitted constants. The main ad hoc choices are the effective ⟨V^n⟩≈⟨V⟩^n approximation and the restricted class of semiclassical states.

free parameters (4)
  • EM mode occupation number n (β = n + 1/2) = 1–10 in simulations
    Sets the backreaction amplitude; a state parameter chosen by hand for numerical evaluation, not fitted to data.
  • Mode momentum k = 25–125; 10–10^4 in Fig. 1c
    Fourier mode index; a state parameter scanned across the population, not fitted.
  • Peak dust momentum p_T of the semiclassical state = 500–5000 ℏ/√G
    Labels the quantum state of geometry; results are claimed common to the whole population.
  • Relative variance Δp_T/p_T = 0.05–0.1
    Width of the semiclassical Gaussian state; chosen for numerical stability, not fitted to any observable.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The canonical algebra (4) admits a proper representation on a Hilbert space and a well-defined quantum theory exists for gravity+dust+EM sectors.
    Postulated near Eq. (4) in 'Analysis of the system'; without it the operator formalism and deparametrization have no meaning.
  • domain assumption Born–Oppenheimer separation: |e_n−e_m| ≫ |E_μ−E_ν| and geometry variables q are quantized as multiplication operators.
    Explicitly assumed in 'Analysis of the system'; underpins the factorized ansatz Ψ=ψ⊗φ and the dressed-metric construction.
  • domain assumption EM field on flat FLRW decouples into independent harmonic oscillators with Hamiltonian (10), with mode-dependent expectation values ⟨V^{-1}⟩_k and ⟨V^{1/3}⟩_k.
    Adopted from [14,15]; central to the dressed-metric assignment and to the backreaction term e_n(k;V).
  • ad hoc to paper Comparing (10) with the classical EM Hamiltonian uniquely fixes the dressed metric components (11).
    The matching is stated without derivation; non-uniqueness and validity of the effective-metric interpretation are not discussed.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective dynamics: Ehrenfest theorem relates operator expectation values to classical variables and ⟨V^n⟩≈⟨V⟩^n in regimes (ii)-(iv).
    Used to obtain the modified Friedmann equation (16) and the analytic WDW solutions; the approximation is not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper Highly peaked semiclassical Gaussian states with Δp_T/p_T∈[0.05,0.1] adequately represent the universe's quantum state.
    Chosen for numerical evaluation; results are claimed to be common to the entire population, but only representative cases are shown.
invented entities (1)
  • Mode-dependent dressed metric g̃_ab no independent evidence
    purpose: Effective classical spacetime for each EM mode reproducing the quantum evolution (6) in the BO approximation.
    Introduced by matching the EM Hamiltonian (11); no direct observational handle, but its consequences—F(k,T) and V(k,T)—are in principle falsifiable.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11834 in / 19218 out tokens · 174991 ms · 2026-08-02T06:08:12.066802+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Modifications to the dispersion relation of electromagnetic (EM) waves are a central probe in the search for quantum gravitational effects. In this work, we construct a general framework for the interaction between the EM field and a quantum background geometry, employing an extended Born-Oppenheimer approximation. This leads to a quasi-phenomenological model for EM wave propagation in curved spacetime. Unlike previous semi-classical approaches for mode-dependent dispersion relations, our framework naturally reproduces chromatic dispersion effects analogous to those observed in light-matter interactions in nonlinear optics. As a concrete application, we analyze EM wave propagation on a flat quantum Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) background, combining analytical techniques with numerical simulations to extract observable signatures of the prism-like behavior induced by quantum light-geometry interactions. Crucially, it remains valid across all energy regimes, enabling access to quantum gravitational corrections beyond the semi-classical limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13012 by Aliasghar Parvizi, Tomasz Paw{\l}owski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Dispersion relation coe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ). Furthermore, the shape of δF in the probed region strongly indicates that it will remain bounded also in the low energy limit (x → 0). This includes the regime x ∈ [0, 0.01] shown in Fig. 1b, which supports the reliability of the results for V in the effective dynamics. This means FIG. 2: Relative difference for coefficient F determined via genuine (i) and hybrid method (ii) within LQC framework evaluat… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    1a and 1b (see also END MATTER for the relative difference between the gen- uine quantum (i) and hybrid approach (ii))

    The results from the genuine quantum regime (i), FFull LQC , and the effective regime (iii),F eff.LQC , ex- hibit close agreement in Figs. 1a and 1b (see also END MATTER for the relative difference between the gen- uine quantum (i) and hybrid approach (ii))

  2. [2]

    1 demonstrates that the coefficientFand veloc- ityVsatisfy the boundsF WDW <F LQC <1 and VWDW<V LQC <1 for all methods (i)–(iv) within their respective domains of applicability

    Fig. 1 demonstrates that the coefficientFand veloc- ityVsatisfy the boundsF WDW <F LQC <1 and VWDW<V LQC <1 for all methods (i)–(iv) within their respective domains of applicability

  3. [3]

    As demonstrated in Figure 1d and 1e, contrary to the behavior ofV WDW, the deviations ofV LQC from unity do not attain a maximum at the bounce point. 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 Dust Time T 0.9970 0.9975 0.9980 0.9985 0.9990 0.9995 1.0000 1.0005Modification factor (k, T) Dispersion Modification vs Time (K=100.0) FWDW (Numeric) FFull LQC (Numeric) Feff. LQC (Numeric) F...

    2000

  4. [4]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, and D. V . Nanopoulos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A12, 607 (1997), arXiv:hep- th/9605211

    arXiv 1997

  5. [5]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 190403 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0112090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Amelino-Camelia, Int

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11, 35 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0012051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  7. [8]

    Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev. Rel.16, 5 (2013), arXiv:0806.0339 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [9]

    Gambini and J

    R. Gambini and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D59, 124021 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9809038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  9. [10]

    Alfaro, H

    J. Alfaro, H. A. Morales-Tecotl, and L. F. Urrutia, Phys. Rev. D65, 103509 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0108061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  10. [11]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 1725 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0305055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  11. [12]

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

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

    2007

  12. [13]

    Rovelli,Quantum gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Math- ematical Physics (Univ

    C. Rovelli,Quantum gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Math- ematical Physics (Univ. Pr., Cambridge, UK, 2004)

    2004

  13. [14]

    Ashtekar and P

    A. Ashtekar and P. Singh, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 213001 (2011), arXiv:1108.0893 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  14. [15]

    Ashtekar, T

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 141301 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0602086 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  15. [16]

    Ashtekar, W

    A. Ashtekar, W. Kaminski, and J. Lewandowski, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064030 (2009), arXiv:0901.0933 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [17]

    Lewandowski, M

    J. Lewandowski, M. Nouri-Zonoz, A. Parvizi, and Y . Tavakoli, Phys. Rev.D96, 106007 (2017), arXiv:1709.04730 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [18]

    Parvizi, T

    A. Parvizi, T. Pawłowski, Y . Tavakoli, and J. Lewandowski, Phys. Rev. D105, 086002 (2022), arXiv:2110.03069 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [19]

    R. W. Boyd,Nonlinear Optics(Academic Press, Burlington, MA, 2008)

    2008

  19. [20]

    Husain and T

    V . Husain and T. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 141301 (2012), arXiv:1108.1145 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [21]

    J. D. Brown and K. V . Kuchar, Phys. Rev.D51, 5600 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9409001 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  21. [22]

    Giesel, S

    K. Giesel, S. Hofmann, T. Thiemann, and O. Winkler, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 055005 (2010), arXiv:0711.0115 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [23]

    Kiefer,Quantum gravity, V ol

    C. Kiefer,Quantum gravity, V ol. 124 (Clarendon, Oxford, 2004)

    2004

  23. [24]

    Giesel, J

    K. Giesel, J. Tambornino, and T. Thiemann, (2009), arXiv:0911.5331 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [25]

    Dapor, J

    A. Dapor, J. Lewandowski, and Y . Tavakoli, Phys. Rev.D86, 064013 (2012), arXiv:1207.0671 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [26]

    Dapor, J

    A. Dapor, J. Lewandowski, and J. Puchta, Phys. Rev. D87, 104038 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 87, 129904 (2013)], arXiv:1302.3038 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [27]

    Ashtekar, M

    A. Ashtekar, M. Bojowald, and J. Lewandowski, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.7, 233 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0304074 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  27. [28]

    Ashtekar, T

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D74, 084003 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0607039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [29]

    Elizaga Navascu ´es, M

    B. Elizaga Navascu ´es, M. Mart ´ın-Benito, and G. A. Mena Marug ´an, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D25, 1642007 (2016), arXiv:1608.05947 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [30]

    Elizaga Navascu ´es and G

    B. Elizaga Navascu ´es and G. A. M. Marug ´an, Front. Astron. Space Sci.8, 81 (2021), arXiv:2011.04559 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [31]

    Parvizi and T

    A. Parvizi and T. Pawłowski, (2024), arXiv:2407.05500 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [32]

    Mirshekari, N

    S. Mirshekari, N. Yunes, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D85, 024041 (2012), arXiv:1110.2720 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [33]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V . Nanopoulos, and S. Sarkar, Nature393, 763 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9712103 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  33. [34]

    M. G. Bernardiniet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.446, 1129 (2015), arXiv:1410.5216 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [35]

    Yi, E.-W

    T.-F. Yi, E.-W. Liang, Y .-P. Qin, and R.-J. Lu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.367, 1751 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512270

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  35. [36]

    Piron, Comptes Rendus Physique17, 617 (2016), arXiv:1512.04241 [astro-ph.HE]

    F. Piron, Comptes Rendus Physique17, 617 (2016), arXiv:1512.04241 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [37]

    Ackermannet al.(Fermi GBM/LAT), Nature462, 331 (2009), arXiv:0908.1832 [astro-ph.HE]

    M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi GBM/LAT), Nature462, 331 (2009), arXiv:0908.1832 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  37. [38]

    Husain and T

    V . Husain and T. Pawlowski, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 225014 (2011), arXiv:1108.1147 [gr-qc] . 7 END MA TTER Gravitational Hamiltonian— By imposing the canonical time gauge fixing condition, i.e.,N(t)=1, the gravitational Hamiltonian for homogeneous and isotropic spacetimeds 2 = −N2(t)dt2 +a 2(t)dx2, reads [15] Hgr = Z d3xHgr = 3πG 2αo b2|v|,(EM.1) where th...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011