Journal of Modern Physics
Vol.07 No.07(2016), Article ID:66033,15 pages
10.4236/jmp.2016.77063
Zeeman-Like Topologies in Special and General Theory of Relativity
Ravindra Saraykar1, Sujatha Janardhan2
1Department of Mathematics, R T M Nagpur University, Nagpur, India
2Department of Mathematics, St. Francis De Sales College, Nagpur, India

Copyright © 2016 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/



Received 18 January 2016; accepted 25 April 2016; published 28 April 2016
ABSTRACT
This is a short review article in which we discuss and summarize the works of various researchers over past four decades on Zeeman topology and Zeeman-like topologies, which occur in special and general theory of relativity. We also discuss various properties and inter-relationship of these topologies.
Keywords:
Zeeman Topology, Fine Topologies on Minkowski Space, Zeeman-Like Topologies in General Relativity, Homeomorphism Group, Lorentz Group, Conformal Group, Topological Properties

1. Introduction
In special as well as general theory of relativity, space-time models are usually taken as differentiable manifolds. The main reason for representing a space-time as a topological space which is also a differentiable manifold is that we need space-time to have a well-defined topological dimension and we can talk about curves and their tangent vectors, and neighbourhoods to develop a causal theory of space-time. This is achieved by assuming a pseudo-metric structure on a space-time manifold which enables us to define time-like, null and space-like vectors and corresponding curves. In general theory of relativity, metric also determines the geometry and cur- vature of space-time which represents the gravitational field. In special theory of relativity, Minkowski space M is usually given the topology of real 4-dimensional Euclidean space.
According to Zeeman [1] , this topology is not physically reasonable for two reasons: first, the 4-dimensional Euclidean topology is locally homogeneous, whereas Minkowski space M is not, because to every point in M, there is an associated light cone which separates space-like vectors from time-like vectors. Secondly, the group of all homeomorphisms of 4-dimensional Euclidean space is vast and is of no physical significance. So, he proposed a new topology for Minkowski space, which is now well-known as Zeeman topology. This is defined as the finest topology on M which induces 3-dimensional Euclidean topology on every space axis and 1-dimen- sional Euclidean topology on every time axis. Zeeman proved that this topology has the following physically reasonable properties: Firstly, this topology is not locally homogeneous, and light cone through any point can be derived from the topology. Secondly, the group of all homeomorphisms of this topology is generated by the inhomogeneous Lorentz group and dilatations.
Zeeman also proved that the topology on a light ray induced from this fine topology is discrete. This means that every function on the light cone is continuous, as every function will be continuous if the domain space has discrete topology. In quantum field theory also, we face similar difficulties regarding “real” space-time topology, where we talk frequently about continuous wave functions and fields, but we really do not know the meaning of that because “real” topology of space-time is unknown. However, studies have been dedicated to the topological properties of function spaces, such as spaces of quantum fields, but the study of proper space-time topology which is the most important space of all Physics, remains incomplete. Here, we need a topology in which known quantum quantities such as classical paths on which integrations are to be performed in Feynman’s formalism, or Green’s functions are continuous. We note that if a function is continuous on a space with topology T, it will be continuous in any refinement of T.
We also note that Zeeman topology is a refinement of
with 4-dimensional Euclidean topology, but a function which is continuous in Zeeman topology could be discontinuous in the Euclidean topology. Thus, the procedures by which physical quantities such as Green’s functions and S-matrix elements, defined on space-time, are transformed by, say, analytic continuation into analogous quantities on
, will put constraints on possible topologies on space-time.
On mathematical side, M with Zeeman topology is not a normal topological space , as proved by Dossena [2] and hence it can not be a differentiable manifold, since, by definition, a differentiable manifold is Hausdorff and paracompact as a topological space, and hence normal.
After Zeeman published his paper in 1967, it attracted attention of some of the relativists cum mathematicians and they proved a number of results which are refinements over Zeeman’s work. Modified results about Zeeman- and Zeeman-like topologies were published in the context of both special as well as general theory of relativity. Most remarkable are the results by S. Nanda [3] - [5] , G. Williams [6] , R. Göbel [7] [8] , Hawking- King-McCarty [9] , Malament [10] and Lindstrom [11] proved in 1970’s. S.G. Popvassilev [12] generalized some of these results to
. Around 2005, researchers started gaining renewed interest in this field, and further interesting results were published by D.H. Kim [13] , G. Dossena [2] , G. Agrawal and S. Shrivastava [14] [15] , G. Agrawal and Soami P. Sinha [16] and R. Low [17] . In fact R. Low extended the results of G. Agrawal and S. Shrivastava [14] to any dimension and also to general curved space-times. He used simpler arguments which do not require the use of Zeno sequences. We reproduce this proof for the sake of completeness.
Since Zeeman topology and other fine topologies defined in special and general theory of relativity in above works have many interesting properties, we discuss these properties and also discuss inter-relationships among these topologies. Most important and remarkable of these results are the results proved by R. Göbel and G. Dossena. Göbel proved that the group of all homeomorphisms of a space-time of general relativity with Zeeman-like topology is the group of all homothetic transformations. And Dossena proved that the first homo- topy group of Zeeman topology for Minkowski space is non-trivial and contains uncountably many subgroups isomorphic to Z. In particular, this topology is not simply connected. Lindstrom generalized the results of Göbel and gave a sequence of Zeeman-like topologies which are in the ascending order of fineness.Thus, in Section 2, we describe Zeeman topology and other fine topologies on Minkowski space and discuss their properties. We also discuss t-topology, s-topology and A-topology introduced by Nanda [3] - [5] and studied in details by G. Agrawal and S. Shrivastava [14] [15] . In Section 3, we describe path topology of Hawking-King-McCarty (HKM topology), and improvements by Malament [10] , Fullwood [18] and D.H. Kim [13] . We also discuss properties of HKM topology proved recently by R. Low. In Section 4, we describe the work of Göbel on Zeeman-like topologies defined on space-time of general relativity and discuss the results proved by him. We also remark on the work of other researchers, especially that by Lindstrom [11] and Mashford [19] .
2. Zeeman- and Zeeman-Like Topologies on Minkowski Space
2.1. Zeeman Topology
We begin this section with definition of Zeeman topology as given in Dossena [2] . Let M denote 4-dimensional Minkowski space-time and
denote the associated 4-dimensional real vector space equipped with a non- degenerate symmetric bilinear form g of signature (−, +, +, +). In
, vector axes are either space-like hyperplanes passing through the origin or straight time-like lines passing through the origin. We denote by
the set of vector axes, and the set
with
and
, is an axis. We denote the set of axes by
. The Zeeman topology, denoted by Z, is by definition, the finest topology on M with the property that it induces the affine space natural topology on every axis. M endowed with Z is denoted by
.
A set U is open in
if and only if for every
is open in
. Here,
is the set A with natural topology i.e. Euclidean topology. As proved in Zeeman [1] and Dossena [2] , the homeomorphism group of 
Physically speaking, the Zeeman topology MZ is defined as the finest topology on a space-time such that its induced topology on world lines of freely falling test particles with positive rest mass, and on space-like hypersurfaces, is locally Euclidean. Zeeman topology is not as nice as manifold topology, e.g. it is not a normal topological space. On the other hand it has many physically interesting properties: The Zeeman topology does not provide any geometric information along a light ray. Mathematically the topology induced by the Zeeman topology on a light cone is discrete. Secondly, there are many unphysical world lines, e.g. bad trips (cf Penrose [20] ).
2.2. t-Topology, s-Topology and A-Topology
If we interpret continuity of a world line with respect to Zeeman topology, world lines are automatically phy- sically realistic, namely, piecewise geodesics which are future directed and time-like with finitely many edges. Hence a world line is the orbit of a freely falling test particle within the gravitational field with a finite number of collisions. This result is a well known basic assumption for a kinetic theory in general relativity (cf Ehlers [21] ).
Moreover if we allow the Zeeman topology to depend on a gravitational field as well as on the Maxwell field, it is possible to derive the corresponding result for charged particles as we discuss below.
In addition to above discussion, we also note that the group of all homeomorphisms of a space-time with its manifold topology is neither of interest for physics nor for mathematics since it is vast and it reflects no information of space-time. However, the group of all homeomorphisms of a space-time M with respect to its Zeeman topology 
After Zeeman published his paper in 1967, the first paper by other researcher on this topic was that of S. Nanda [3] in 1971 followed by another one in 1972 [4] . Nanda [3] proved one of the Zeeman’s conjecture that the group of homeomorphisms of the finest topology on Minkowski space which induces three dimensional Euclidean topology on every space-like plane is the group G. To prove this conjecture, Nanda, like Zeeman, studied chronology preserving and causality preserving mappings and used the notion of Zeno sequences. He defines two topologies, space topology and s-topology with a fine distinction that space topology is strictly finer than s-topology. We recall definitions of these topologies as it would facilitate us to understand other work on fine topologies and compare it with the work of Nanda and Zeeman. As noted above, the space topology on M is defined as the finest topology with respect to which the induced topology on every space-like hyperplane is Euclidean. Let 

Let 





Light cone or null cone at x :
Time-like cone at
Space-like cone at
Let
Furthermore, let 




Then the topology generated by the family 



Let
Then t-topology is defined as the topology which has the family 







Williams [6] studies other Zeeman-like topologies on the Minkowski space and derives homeomorphism groups for these topologies. We summarize below the results proved by Williams. It is interesting to note that 
Here 








Topology 




He further proves that the group of homeomorphisms of MF is the conformal group of Minkowski space. This is in fact the group generated by the Lorentz group, translations and dilatations, and thus, it is the same as G.
Williams further describes two more fine topologies for M and describes their homeomorphism groups. The first of these topologies is





Following the argument in Nanda [3] , though it can be proved that 
Second of these topologies is










Definition 2.1. A-topology: The A-topology on M is defined to be the finest topology on M with respect to which the induced topology on every time-like line and light-like line is one-dimensional Euclidean and the in- duced topology on every space-like hyperplane is three-dimensional Euclidean.
Thus A-topology is strictly finer than the Euclidean topology.
2.3. Williams MF Topology and Other Topologies
The topology 






Popvassilev [12] generalized the concept of Zeeman-like fine topologies to 
S. Nanda and H.K. Panda [25] define yet another topology on Minkowski space. This is a non-Euclidean topology, namely order topology generated by the positive cone at origin and its translates. They prove that it is non-compact, non-Hausdorff but path-wise connected. Moreover, it has the property that every loop based at a point is homotopic to the constant loop at that point. Thus, this topology is simply-connected. This is contrary to the non-simply connected nature of


2.4. Contributions by Dossena, Agrawal and Shrivastava
We now discuss the work of Dossena [2] and G. Agrawal and S. Shrivastava [14] [15] where many interesting topological properties of


As defined in the begining of this section, Dossena presents Zeeman topology 
For two dimensional Minkowski space with topologies 






Lemma 2.1. A compact subset of 

Lemma 2.2. Let X be a Hausdorff topological space and let 



Lemma 2.3. Every Zeno sequence admits a subsequence whose image is a non closed, discrete subset of

Theorem 2.4. A compact subset K of 
This is true for A-topology also, as proved by Nanda [5] .
Theorem 2.5. For a subset
1) K is compact in
2) K is compact in 
3) K is covered by a finite family 



We now discuss countability properties of
We choose an orthonormal frame of reference

dinates

Clearly 

Then we have the following proposition:
Proposition 2.6. For every orthonormal frame of reference, the above-mentioned set Q is also dense in

Corollary 2.7. The cardinality of the set 



Proposition 2.8. 
Zeeman [1] has sketched the proof of the result that 
Theorem 2.9. 
For a path-connected topological space X, 
Theorem 2.10. 

A topological study of the n-dimensional Minkowski space, 



t-topology for four dimensional Minkowski space has been defined above. Similar definition follows for 




It thus follows that 


dean topology, while 

basis for the t-topology and the t-topology is strictly finer than the Euclidean topology on M.
s-topology can be defined similarly on
Summarizing, we have the following:
The collection 
2.5. Other Works
Other works on Zeeman-like topologies include that of Struchiner and Rosa [26] and Domiaty [27] [28] :
Struchiner and Rosa [26] study Zeeman topology in Kaluza-Klein and Gauge theories. They generalize the notion of Zeeman topology by using the projection theorem of Kaluza-Klein theories, and this remains valid for any gauge fields. Here, the authors consider differential geometric frame work of fiber bundles and define Zee- man topology in the total space of fiber bundle. From this, they obtain a topology in the base manifold for which the continuous curves correspond to motions of charged particles in the base manifold. It would be interesting to see the generalizations of typical gauge theoretical ideas when the space-time has such a topology.
Domiaty [27] [28] considers yet another topology on Lorentz manifolds. This topology is in a certain sense the space-like version of an analogous result for the Hawking-King-McCarthy path topology which has been discussed below. The space topology is the finest topology on a Lorentz manifold, which induces the manifold topology on every space-like hypersurface. As proved in these papers, its geometric significance comes from the fact that its full homeomorphism group is the group of all conformal diffeomorphisms.
Finally, we remark that even though Zeeman topology on Minkowski space has several advantages over the standard topology, it has some drawbacks also. These are as follows:
1) A three dimensional section of simultaneity has no meaning in terms of physically possible experiments. Also, the use of straight time like lines in defining 

2) The isometry and conformal groups of 

3) The set of 
4) 
Keeping these drawbacks in mind, Hawking, King and Mc Carthy [9] defined another topology called path topology on a space-time of general relativity. We now discuss, below, this topology and its properties. We also discuss other related topologies as studied by Kim [13] and Low [17] and their inter-relationships with HKM topology.
3. Path Topology of Hawking, King and Mc Carthy (HKM) and Other Related Topologies
Here, we consider a space-time of general relativity which is assumed to be connected, Hausdorff, paracompact, 

The path topology 



Thus if a set 








HKM show that 


Let 











Proposition 3.1. Sets of the form 









Theorem 3.2. 

This property has no analogue in the finer topologies

Theorem 3.3. A path 

Theorem 3.4. 


Furthermore, HKM determine the group of 
To begin with, they prove the following:
Proposition 3.5. 
This has been proved for strongly causal space-times. It is done by singling out a subclass of 
After proving a series of results, HKM prove the following important theorem:
Theorem 3.6. A 

Theorem 3.7. The group of 
Finally, HKM give an example of a manifold for which the group of smooth conformal diffeomorphisms is strictly larger than the homothecy group. We note here that for Minkowski space, the two groups are equal.
For more details and proofs, we refer the reader to HKM [9] .
Malament [10] improved the results of [9] in the sense that the condition of strong causality is no longer necessary. We now discuss briefly the work of Malament [10] :
Main result of this paper is the following:
Suppose we consider two space-times 








Brief summary of the proof is as follows:
If f preserves all continuous curves, then f would be continuous. Given any sequence 







The idea to overcome this difficulty is as follows:
To show that f is continuous at p, one proves that one may assume that f is continuous over a `nice-looking’ region near p. Then one uses continuous null geodesic segments in this region to characterize the convergence of points to p. This then leads one to the required result because continuous null geodesics in this region are necessarily preserved by f. For technical details, we refer the reader to Malament [10] . HKM-topology is an improvement over Zeeman topologies in the sense that it removes many unpleasant features of those topologies.
Fullwood [18] modified the HKM topology and defined a new topology 






Then, define 

Now, let
Then, 

Fullwood proves that if the space-time V is future and past distinguishing, then the topology 

Theorem 3.8. The following three conditions are equivalent upon a space-time manifold:
1) 


Do-Hyung Kim [13] proved that the path topology of Hawking, King, and McCarthy can be extended to the causal completion of a globally hyperbolic Lorentzian manifold. The suggested topology 







Definition 3.1. 




Proposition 3.9. The above family of open sets define a new topology 

Proposition 3.10. The topology 



Since 




Corollary 3.11. 


The construction of 

Furthermore, Kim studies homeomorphisms with respect to topology


Definition 3.2. A bijection 










Proposition 3.12. If V and N are globally hyperbolic and 

Theorem 3.13. If 

Theorem 3.14. If 

Since 

Theorem 3.15. A 

Also if 




Such bijective mappings have also been studied by Domiaty [27] [28] . These mappings are defined in such a manner that they leave the class of space-like paths invariant. Homeomorphisms with respect to S-topology defined by Nanda [4] are called S-homeomorphisms. Domiaty proved that if 







More recently Huang [30] proved the result: Let 




The physical meaning of the condition used in this theorem is that images and pre-images of paths which photons travel between emission and absorption should again be such paths.
Coming to the topological properties of Zeeman-like topologies on Minkowski space M again, we note the Theorem proved by Dossena, namely, two dimensional Minkowski space is not simply connected. Its first homotopy group contains uncountably many subgroups isomorphic to Z.G. Agrawal and S. Shrivastava [13] proved similar result for t-topology. Both these proofs use the notion of Zeno sequences introduced by Zeeman. Robert Low [17] recently gave a proof for the same result for n-dimensional Minkowski space with Zeeman topology without using Zeno sequences. For the sake of completeness, we reproduce the proof of this important theorem below.
Theorem 3.16. A space-time V, equipped with the path topology is not simply connected or locally simply connected. Furthermore, no two closed continuous curves in V with distinct images are homotopic.
Proof: Let 






















Here, it will not be out of place to mention that Sorkin and Woolgar [32] introduced the concept of K- causality with the aim that it should be possible to derive the causal structure from order relation and topological structure. Some results in this direction were proved by S. Janardhan and R.V. Saraykar [33] . Later, after a good deal of efforts, Minguzzi [34] proved that Stable causality is equivalent to K-causality. In the description of path-topology above, if analogously, if we replace a time-like curve by a K-causal curve which is compact, connected and linearly ordered, then we can define K-causal topology on V , denoted by 
We specify closed sets of 









4. Zeeman-Like Topologies in General Relativity
In this section, we describe and discuss the work of Göbel [7] [8] , Lindstrom [11] and others on Zeeman-like topologies defined on a space-time of general relativity. In particular, Göbel [7] has proved the result that two space-times are homeomorphic with respect to its Zeeman topology if and only if they are isometric. This shows that it is possible to determine the metric of a space-time from its Zeeman topology.
We start with definitions of Zeeman topologies as given by Göbel [7] and discuss their main properties.
Let 

Let 







Then 





On Minkowski space this topology coincides with the topology Z defined by Zeeman mentioned above, for two specially chosen systems 



Further Göbel defines a Special system 






1) If
2) If 




3) If 


4) We have 



With this definition, the following results follow:
Proposition 4.1. Let 




(A curve f is called 


that if








Proposition 4.2. If 



This implies the following:
Proposition 4.3. For a manifold 
1) the curve f is a piecewise geodesic i.e. f is a broken geodesic line with a finite number of edges.
2) the 1-1 map 
Göbel then restricts Zeeman topology on a space-time and studies Zeeman topology by incorporating electromagnetic fields. To state the results proved by Göbel in this situation, we need to understand certain notations:
Let V denote a space-time for general relativity and F be a given electromagnetic field on V. An electric charge 





















Proposition 4.4. If V is a space-time with a given external electro-magnetic field F and a world line f, the following statements are equivalent:
1) f is continuous with respect to the Zeeman topology
2) f is a chain of finitely many connected world lines of freely falling charged test particles.
If F = 0, then Z-continuous world lines are future directed time-like piecewise geodesic lines. For simplicity, we denote 


A subset Y of V is open with respect to 


(I) U is an arbitrary closed space-like hypersurface contained in a simple region of V.
(II) U is the world line of an arbitrary charged test particle p freely falling in the gravitational and the electro- magnetic field within a simple region of V.
If Q = 0, then condition (II) is equivalent to
(II)’ U is an arbitrary time-like geodesic in a simple region of V.
If U is a simple neighbourhood of p then let
Lemma 4.5. The set 

Göbel then proves an important result that
Proposition 4.6. The topology induced by 
Thus we do not have any geometric information along a light ray.
The main theorem of Göbel [7] is the following (which he proves in the last section of his paper).
Theorem 4.7. Let h be a mapping from space-time V onto a space-time
1) h is a homeomorphism with respect to Zeeman topology Z.
2) h is a homothetic transformation.
Unusual property of Zeeman topology is that homeomorphism characteristic of h implies its differentiability as well as its “linearity”, since h is an isometric map “up to scaling”. Thus we can state this property in the following forms:
Theorem 4.8. The space-times V and 
Theorem 4.9. The group of all homeomorphisms with respect to the Zeeman topology coincides with the group of all homothetic transformations of space-time V onto itself.
Thus Zeeman topology contains all information about the metric.
We again note here that (locally) causal maps defined by Göbel [7] in Section 2 and described in Section 5 are similar to causal maps of García-Parrado and Senovilla [23] , and subsequently similar to K-causal maps des- cribed and studied by Sujatha Janardhan and R.V. Saraykar [31] .
As far as Minkowski space-time is concerned, Zeeman [1] has suggested other topologies on it. Göbel gene- ralized some of the results which hold for these topologies. Following remarks are in order about these topo- logies:
Remark 1. The topology 
Theorem 4.10. Let 





Further, this topology has a physically attractive feature as follows:
If 

Hawking, King and Mc Carthy [9] has defined Feynman path mathematically precisely as follows:
Let 







A locally one-one Feynman path is then a Feynman track mentioned above.
Let G denote the group of automorphisms of V given by
1) the Lorentz group of all linear maps leaving quadratic form Q invariant
2) translations and
3) dilatations.
Every element of G either preserves or reverses the partial ordering “<” mentioned above. These features have been studied in details by Nanda, Dossena and Kim.
Remark 2. The topology 
Remark 3. The topology 

1) It is not locally homogeneous and the light cone through any point can be deduced from it.
2) The group of all homeomorphisms with respect to 
3) It induces the 3-dimensional Euclidean topology on every space axis and the 1-dimensional Euclidean topology on every time axis.
For the proof of these properties, we refer the reader to Williams [6] and Zeeman [1] . However, this topology does not satisfy the theorem mentioned above. Nevertheless, the group of homeomorphisms of 

Ulf Lindstrom [11] re-examined the separating topology studied in earlier works. Using methods and ideas in papers by Göbel, Hawking, King and McCarthy, he introduced a new class of topologies









Finally, we add a comment about the work of Mashford [19] : As is well-known, a space-time in the general theory of relativity is a Lorentz manifold modeled on 4-dimensional Euclidean space, which is locally a Min- kowski space. Mashford [19] constructs a tangent bundle whose base space is not a Lorentz manifold, but is a set Y of events which is equipped with an acyclic signal relation 

5. Conclusions
In this article, we have given a short review of Zeeman- and Zeeman-like fine topologies on Minkowski space and space-time of general relativity. We have avoided giving detailed proofs of the results mentioned, otherwise the article would have become lengthy. To the best of our knowledge, we have reviewed most of the research work which appeared on this topic since the first paper was published by Zeeman in 1967. To get a consolidated view about definitions and the main properties of these topologies like their homeomorphism groups and topological properties, we give two tables summarizing definitions and their properties:
Definitions and properties of fine topologies on Minkowski space refer Table 1 and fine topologies on space-times of general relativity refer Table 2. Whereas fine topologies have interesting topological properties and their homeomorphism groups are physically useful, however it is true that manifold structure is not compatible with fine topologies. This is because, topologically, a manifold is second countable, Hausdorff and paracompact, and hence normal and metrizable, whereas fine topologies are not, in general, normal (and hence not metrizable). Moreover, it is also true that unless differential structure is there, we can not define notions of connection and curvature and hence fine topologies may not be useful in discussing Einstein field equations in general theory of relativity. Finally, we would like to refer to a paper by A. Heathcote [35] , where it has been argued that the suggestions for replacement of manifold topology with fine topology misrepresent the significance of the manifold topology and overstate the necessity for a finer topology. He claims to have given a
Table 1. Definitions and properties of fine topologies on Minkowski space.
Table 2. Fine topologies on space-times of general relativity.
realist view of space-time topology. Other philosophical issues about space-time have been discussed by D. Dieks and M. Redel in two volumes [36] [37] .
Cite this paper
Ravindra Saraykar,Sujatha Janardhan, (2016) Zeeman-Like Topologies in Special and General Theory of Relativity. Journal of Modern Physics,07,627-641. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2016.77063
References
- 1. Zeeman, E. (1967) Topology, 6, 161-170.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-9383(67)90033-X - 2. Dossena, G. (2007) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48, 113507.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2804758 - 3. Nanda, S. (1971) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 12, 394-401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1665602 - 4. Nanda, S. (1972) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 13, 12-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1665841 - 5. Nanda, S. (1979) Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, 21, 53-64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0334270000001910 - 6. Williams, G. (1974) Cambridge Philosophical Society, 76, 50-509.
- 7. Gobel, R. (1976) Communications in Mathematical Physics, 46, 289-307.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01609125 - 8. Gobel, R. (1976) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 17, 845-853.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.522984 - 9. Hawking, S., King, A. and McCarthy, P. (1986) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 17, 174-181.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.522874 - 10. Malament, D. (1977) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 18, 1399-1404.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.523436 - 11. Lindstrom, U. (1977) Further Considerations on the Separating Topology for the Space-Times of General Relativity. Technical Report, Stockholm University (Sweden) Institute of Physics, NTIS Issue Number 197905, 20 p.
- 12. Popvassilev, G. (1994) Mathematica Pannonica, 5, 105-110.
- 13. Kim, D. (2006) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 47, Article ID: 072503.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2218981 - 14. Agrawal, G. and Shrivastava, S. (2009) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 50, Article ID: 053515.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3129188 - 15. Agrawal, G. and Shrivastava, S. (2012) ISRN Mathematical Physics, 2012, Article ID: 896156.
- 16. Agrawal, G. and Sinha, S.P. (2014) Properties of A—Topology. Preprint.
- 17. Low, R. (2010) Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 107001.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/10/107001 - 18. Fullwood, D. (1992) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 33, 2232-2241.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.529644 - 19. Mashford, J. (1981) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 22, 1990-1993.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.525145 - 20. Penrose, R. (1972) Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity. SIAM, Philadelphia.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611970609 - 21. Ehlers, J. (1971) General Relativity and Kinetic Theory. In: Sachs, R.K., Ed., Relativita generale a cosmologia, Academic Press, New York, 1-70.
- 22. Joshi, P.S. (1993) Global Aspects in Gravitation and Cosmology. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
- 23. Garcia-Parrado, A. and Senovilla, J. (2003) Classical and Quantum Gravity, 20, 625-664.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/20/4/305 - 24. Janardhan, S. and Saraykar, R.V. (2013) Gravitation and Cosmology, 19, 42-53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0202289313010052 - 25. Nanda, S. and Panda, H.K. (1975) International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 12, 393-400.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01808166 - 26. Struchiner, I. and Rosa, M. (2005) On Zeeman Topology in Kaluza-Klein and Gauge Theories.
arXiv:math-ph/0504071v1 - 27. Domiaty, R. (1985) General Relativity and Gravitation, 17, 1165-1176.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00773622 - 28. Domiaty, R. (1985) Topology and Its Applications, 20, 39-46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0166-8641(85)90033-1 - 29. Budic, R. and Sachs, R.K. (1974) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 15, 1302-1309.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1666812 - 30. Huang, W. (1998) Journal of Mathematical Physics, 39, 1637-1641.
- 31. Peleska, J. (1984) Aequationes Mathematicae, 27, 20-31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02192656 - 32. Sorkin, R. and Woolgar, E. (1996) Classical and Quantum Gravity, 13, 1971-1994.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/13/7/023 - 33. Janardhan, S. and Saraykar, R.V. (2008) Pramana-Journal of Physics, 70, 587-601.
- 34. Minguzzi, E. (2009) Communications in Mathematical Physics, 290, 239-248.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-009-0794-4 - 35. Heathcote, A. (1988) British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 39, 247-261.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/39.2.247 - 36. Dieks, D. and Redei, M., Eds. (2006) The Ontology of Spacetime. In: Philosophy and Foundations of Physics Series, Vol. 1, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
- 37. Dieks, D. and Redei, M. (2008) The Ontology of Spacetime II. In: Philosophy and Foundations of Physics Series, Vol. 4, Elsevier, Amsterdam.



