Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the canonical quantization of d > 2-dimensional general relativity (GR) via the Dirac constraint formalism (also termed as ‘constraint quantization’), we propose the loss of covariance as a fundamental property of the theory. This breakdown occurs for the first-order Einstein–Hilbert action, whereby the loss of diffeomorphism invariance, besides first-class constraints, second-class constraints also exist leading to non-standard ghost fields that render the path integral non-covariant. We also attempt, for the first time, the canonical quantization via calculation of the path integral for the equivalent Hamiltonian formulation of GR, for which only first-class constraints exist. However, loss of covariance still occurs in this action due to loss of diffeomorphism invariance and structures arising from non-covariant constraints in the path integral. In contrast, we find that covariance as a symmetry is restored and quantization with perturbative calculations is possible in the weak limit of the gravitational field of these actions. Hence, we first establish, for the first time, that the breakdown in space–time is a property of GR itself as its limitation, indicating it to be an effective field theory (EFT). We further propose that the breakdown of space–time occurs as a non-perturbative feature of GR in the strong field limit of the theory. Besides GR, we also note that covariance is preserved when constraint quantization is conducted for non-Abelian gauge theories, such as the Yang–Mills theory. These findings are novel from a canonical gravity formalism and EFT approach, and are consistent with GR singularity theorems, yet are general and extend them, as the singularity theorems indicate breakdown at a strong field limit of GR in black holes. Our findings are in contrast to the asymptotic safety program. They support emergent theories of space–time and gravity, though are unique, as they do not require thermodynamics such as the entropic gravity program. From an EFT view, these indicate that new degrees of freedom and(or) principles in the non-perturbative sector of the full theory are a requirement, whereby covariance as a symmetry is broken in the high-energy (strong field) sector of GR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".