Exact Solutions and Accelerating Universe in Modified Brans-Dicke Theories

Purba Mukherjee; Soumya Chakrabarti

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Exact Solutions and Accelerating Universe in Modified Brans-Dicke Theories

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Brans-Dicke model with a Higgs-like quintessence field reproduces the observed late-time acceleration transition from exact solutions of the field equations.

desk verdict The exact-solution work is real, but the central observational claim for Model III rests on a mis-normalized H(z) and an inconsistent ψ–a mapping; I agree with the reject verdict. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01564 v1 pith:TJEU4CHE submitted 2019-08-05 gr-qc

Purba Mukherjee , Soumya Chakrabarti This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc PACS 98.80.-k04.20.Jb04.50.Kd

keywords Brans-DicketheoryscalarfieldexactsolutionacceleratedexpansionparameterestimationHiggspotentialquintessenceanharmonicoscillator

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

This paper aims to establish that modified Brans-Dicke gravity, without exotic fluids or a cosmological constant, can reproduce the observed late-time acceleration of the universe by way of exact solutions. The authors apply an integrability criterion for anharmonic oscillator equations to the scalar-field equations of four Brans-Dicke-based models, obtaining scale factors and scalar-field evolutions without assuming a cosmic expansion history in advance. In the Brans-Dicke plus Higgs-like quintessence model, the exact solution yields a deceleration parameter $q(z)$ that changes from deceleration to acceleration at a transition redshift $z_t<1$, and the reconstructed Hubble, jerk, and effective equation-of-state parameters are consistent with supernova, Hubble-parameter, BAO, and CMB-shift data. The other models either have constant deceleration or fail to produce the sign flip. If the claim holds, a Higgs-type self-interaction for a quintessence field inside scalar-tensor gravity is a viable geometric route to dark energy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the integrability condition for a second-order anharmonic oscillator equation of the form $\ddot{\phi}+f_1(t)\dot{\phi}+f_2(t)\phi+f_3(t)\phi^n=0$, which can be point-transformed into an integrable form when $n\notin\{-3,-1,0,1\}$ and the coefficients satisfy a differential condition. Applying this criterion to the scalar-field equations turns the otherwise intractable nonlinear field equations into solvable forms and yields the exact scale factors and scalar fields. For the Higgs potential $V(\psi)=V_0+\frac12\mu^2\psi^2+\frac14\lambda_0\psi^4$, this produces the exact scale factor above, and its late-time limit supplies the Hubble rate used for parameter estimation and cosmological reconstruction.

What would settle it

Compute $H(0)$ from the exact scale factor for the best-fit parameters in Table 1 and check whether $H_0^2=\mu^2/2+\lambda_0$ holds; if it does not, redo the reconstruction with the normalization imposed and see whether the transition redshift remains below $1$ and the present jerk stays between $0.9$ and $1.3$. A second check is to compare the model's $H(z)$ against high-redshift Hubble-parameter measurements at $z>1$, where the paper already notes a discrepancy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the Brans-Dicke plus Higgs quintessence model (Model III) admits an exact scale factor $a(t)=\left(\frac{1}{2\mu^2}e^{\sqrt{2}\mu t}-\lambda_0 e^{-\sqrt{2}\mu t}\right)^{1/2}$, whose late-time limit leads to the fitted Hubble rate $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\lambda_0(1+z)^4+\mu^2/2}$. With the best-fit parameters from the combined MCMC analysis, the deceleration parameter $q(z)$ crosses from positive to negative at $z_t<1$, the present jerk parameter lies between $0.9$ and $1.3$, and the effective equation of state approaches $-1$ at $z=0$ while rising to a radiation-like constant at high redshift. The paper claims this model is well consistent with the observed evolution of cosmological quantities, in contrast to the power-law models (I and II), whose deceleration parameter is constant, and Model IV, which does not show the required sign flip.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Hubble-rate expression used in the fit, $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\lambda_0(1+z)^4+\mu^2/2}$, is the correct Hubble rate of the Higgs model even though fitting does not impose the present-epoch consistency condition $H_0^2=\mu^2/2+\lambda_0$; if the expression is not exact, the fitted parameters and all reconstructed cosmological quantities are invalid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The late-time expansion history of Model III is nearly $\Lambda$CDM-like: the effective equation of state sits close to $-1$ at $z=0$ and the present jerk parameter remains near the $\Lambda$CDM value of unity.
A transition redshift $z_t<1$ for the deceleration parameter places the onset of acceleration within the range inferred from direct observations, so the model is a candidate explanation of cosmic acceleration rather than a purely formal solution.
In the present epoch the Brans-Dicke scalar field $\phi$ is nearly constant, keeping the time variation of the effective gravitational constant within the observational bound $|\dot G/G|\lesssim 10^{-10}$ per year.
The general power-law combination in Model IV, with coefficients fixed to unity, cannot reproduce the observed sign flip and is ruled out by the same data, showing that not every admissible potential yields a viable cosmology.
The exact solutions are simple enough to support further study of the Brans-Dicke scalar field's evolution across redshifts, beyond the low-redshift regime where the reconstructed Hubble curve deviates from the data.

Reading between the lines

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

The fitted Hubble rate behaves as $(1+z)^4$ at high redshift, meaning the Higgs field acts like an extra radiation component in the early universe; since the model does not include standard radiation explicitly, this gives a testable prediction for early-universe observables such as big-bang nucleosynthesis or CMB anisotropies.
A direct consistency test of the fitting procedure would be to impose the present-epoch normalization $H_0^2=\mu^2/2+\lambda_0$ on the exact Hubble rate and repeat the MCMC analysis; the claimed $z_t<1$ and $j_0\in[0.9,1.3]$ would be expected to shift if the normalization is not satisfied.
The paper's suggested next step, replacing the constant Brans-Dicke parameter $\omega$ by a function of $\phi$, could unify early inflation and late acceleration; a testable extension would be to check whether the reconstructed $q(z)$ and $j(z)$ of Model III survive in that generalized theory.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The integrability method is applied cleanly, and the exact solutions for the chameleon BD action and the BD-plus-quintessence actions (Models I–IV) are genuinely new to the literature, as far as I can tell. The earlier sections, especially the derivation of a(t) and the consistency checks with one field equation, are competent and pedagogically useful. I want that on the record.

The problem is the observational analysis for Model III, and it is load-bearing. From the exact scale factor a^2 = (1/(2μ^2))e^{√2 μ t} − λ0 e^{−√2 μ t}, direct differentiation gives H^2 = λ0 a^{-4} + μ^2/2. With a0 = 1, the reduced Hubble parameter must be h(z) = sqrt((λ0(1+z)^4 + μ^2/2)/(λ0 + μ^2/2)). The paper instead takes H(z)_III = H0 sqrt(λ0(1+z)^4 + μ^2/2), which does not satisfy h(0)=1. Using the combined best fit (h0=0.719, λ0=0.042, μ=−1.517) gives h(0)=sqrt(0.042+1.1505)=1.092, a 9% deviation. The fitted H0 is therefore not the model's present Hubble parameter, and all the derived q(z), j(z), and w_eff curves are not consequences of the exact solution.

Two further inconsistencies reinforce this. First, Eq. (42) claims ψ = C a^{−μ}, but the asymptotic forms (Eqs. 39–40) give ψ ∝ e^{−t/√2} while a ∝ e^{μ t/√2}; compatibility requires μ^2=1, while the fits give |μ|≈1.5. Second, the fits give μ<0, but the late-time approximation in Eq. (39) assumes μ>0 (the e^{√2 μ t} term dominating). With μ<0 and λ0>0, the exact scale factor actually becomes imaginary at large t, so the fitted parameters lie outside the regime where the paper's approximate solution is valid at all.

The exact-solution portion of the paper is worth keeping, but the claimed observational consistency of Model III is not supported. This is the kind of error a careful referee would catch, so the paper deserves peer review rather than a desk reject; but as it stands, it should not be published without a major revision. I would not cite the observational results, though the integrability application itself is reasonable.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs exact FLRW solutions in modified Brans-Dicke theories by applying the Euler-Duarte-Moreira integrability criterion for anharmonic oscillator equations. It studies four models: a chameleon-type nonminimal matter coupling with power-law f(φ) (Model I), a BD-plus-quintessence theory with a power-law potential (Model II), a BD-plus-quintessence theory with a Higgs-like potential (Model III), and a BD-plus-quintessence theory with a general power-law combination (Model IV). For Models III and IV, parameters are estimated by MCMC using SNe, OHD, BAO, and CMB data, and the authors reconstruct H(z), q(z), j(z), and w_eff(z). The central claim is that Model III produces a signature flip of q(z) at redshift z_t<1 and is 'well consistent with the observed evolution of cosmological quantities'.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide exact late-time accelerating solutions in a scalar-tensor theory without imposing a cosmic expansion history by hand, and would connect those solutions to data through a multi-dataset MCMC analysis. The integrability reduction in Sections 2 through 4 is a useful and largely self-consistent piece of mathematical work, and the authors are appropriately transparent that Models I and II have constant deceleration parameters and are only toy models. However, the observational claims for Model III rest on several mutually inconsistent equations, so the advertised late-time-acceleration result is not currently established.

major comments (4)

[§5.1, Eq. (55) and Eq. (37)] The Hubble expression used for the MCMC fits is not normalized at z=0. From Eq. (37), a²=(1/(2μ²))e^{√2μt}−λ0 e^{−√2μt}, one obtains H²=λ0 a^{−4}+μ²/2. Setting a0=1 therefore requires H0²=λ0+μ²/2, so the reduced Hubble parameter is h(z)=√[(λ0(1+z)^4+μ²/2)/(λ0+μ²/2)]. The paper instead uses H(z)=H0√[λ0(1+z)^4+μ²/2], which gives h(0)=√(λ0+μ²/2); with the combined best-fit values in Table 1 this is 1.092, a 9% violation of the boundary condition used later in Eq. (48). Consequently the fitted h0, λ0, μ and the reconstructed quantities in Section 5.2 do not follow from the exact scale-factor solution.
[Eq. (42) with Eqs. (39)–(40)] The relation ψ=C a^{−μ} is inconsistent with the stated asymptotic solution. Equations (39) and (40) give a≃(1/√(2μ))e^{μt/√2} and ψ≃D1 e^{−t/√2}, so eliminating t gives ψ∝a^{−1/μ}; the two expressions are compatible only if μ²=1. The best-fit values in Table 1 have |μ|≈1.5, so the terms a^{−2μ} and a^{−4μ} in Eqs. (46)–(48) do not represent the energy density of the quintessence field in the exact solution.
[Eq. (37) and Table 1] The exact scale factor (37) cannot describe the claimed late-time expansion for the fitted parameters. For λ0>0 and μ<0, the term −λ0 e^{−√2μt} grows without bound and is negative, so a²(t) becomes negative at late times; the approximation a≃(1/√(2μ))e^{μt/√2} used in Eq. (39) is valid only for μ>0. All best-fit values of μ in Table 1 are negative (μ≈−1.5), so the model used in Section 5 is not the expanding solution constructed in Section 4.1.
[§5.2 and §6] The agreement of q(z), j(z), and w_eff with observations is presented after fitting the same parameters to the same datasets, and no predictive or holdout test is provided. This would not by itself be fatal, but combined with the normalization, ψ(a) mapping, and sign errors above, it means the statement in Section 6 that Model III is 'well consistent with the observed evolution of cosmological quantities' is unsupported.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (44)] The expression for ρψ is dimensionally inconsistent: the term 2μ² appears as a constant rather than as a mass term for ψ. The correct form following from ψ̇=−ψ/√2 is ρψ=V0+[(2μ²+1)/4]ψ²+(λ0/4)ψ⁴.
[Section 3.1, Eq. (20) citation] The consistency condition for ω in Model I is introduced with 'From Eq. (20)...', but Eq. (20) in the manuscript is the Model II action; the equation numbers need to be rechecked.
[Abstract and Introduction] Models II and III use standard Brans-Dicke gravity with an additional minimally coupled quintessence field, so describing both as 'modified Brans-Dicke theories' is imprecise and should be clarified.
[Figs. 7 and 8] The comparison of reconstructed H(z) with 'observed' points does not specify the binning of the OHD data or the treatment of covariances; these details should be given for reproducibility.
[Table 3] The relation between the reported 'Higgs' H0=72.34 and the fitted h0≈0.719 is unclear; with the unnormalized H(z) of Eq. (55), H(0)=100 h0 √(λ0+μ²/2) is about 78.5 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} for the combined fit, not 72.34.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: exact solutions follow from an external integrability theorem, and the observational comparison is a standard post-fit consistency check.

full rationale

The exact solutions are not circular: they are obtained by applying the external Euler-Duarte-Moreira integrability condition (Eq. 2) to the scalar-field equations, with the theorem itself cited to independent mathematical references [42-45]. The scale-factor solutions (Eqs. 18, 31, 37, 51) are then used to construct the Hubble parameter, and the parameter estimation in Sec. 5 is a standard fit of those model parameters to external SNe, OHD, BAO, and CMB data. The reconstructed q(z), j(z), and w_eff are derived from the fitted H(z) and are framed as consistency checks ('well consistent') rather than as out-of-sample predictions, so they do not constitute a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The self-citations [55-59] are prior applications of the same integrability method and are not load-bearing; the underlying theorem is external, not a self-citation. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is said to predict, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independent prediction. A separate correctness concern exists — Eq. (55) with Table 1 parameters gives h(0) = sqrt(lambda0 + mu^2/2) ~ 1.09, not 1, and Eq. (42) requires mu^2 = 1 while the fitted |mu| is about 1.5 — but this is an internal consistency error, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the integrability ansatz, the flat FLRW geometry, and a series of model-specific choices (power-law coupling, power-law potentials, late-time approximations, ε=0). The MCMC fit adds h0, λ0, μ and n as free parameters. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (4)

h0 = 0.719 to 0.720 (Model III and IV)
Present-day dimensionless Hubble parameter fitted via MCMC to the combined datasets.
λ0 = 0.034 to 0.089 (Model III)
Quartic self-coupling of the quintessence field in the Higgs potential, fitted to data.
μ = -1.43 to -1.52 (Model III)
Mass parameter in the Higgs potential; enters the Hubble expression through μ², but the negative fitted value conflicts with the reality of the scale factor Eq. (37) for λ0>0.
n = 0.326 (Model IV); n=650,750,1000 (Model I); n=-0.01,-0.2,-0.5 (Model II)
Exponent in power-law coupling or potential; chosen or fitted to make the solutions integrable and consistent with ω≈60,000 or with data.

assumptions (6)

standard math The Euler-Duarte-Moreira integrability condition Eq. (2) is a valid selection rule for the scalar field equation.
The theorem is from refs [42-45]; using it to choose the scale factor is the paper's main mathematical input.
domain assumption The spacetime is a spatially flat FLRW metric filled with pressureless dust.
Stated in Section 3, Eq. (6), and used for all models.
ad hoc to paper Power-law coupling f(φ)=φ^m and power-law potentials V(ψ)∝ψ^{n+1} are physically relevant choices.
Adopted to make the equations fit the anharmonic oscillator form; no independent motivation is given.
domain assumption Late-time asymptotic forms a≃e^{μt/√2}/√(2μ²) and ψ≃D1e^{-t/√2} in Model III.
Used in Section 4.1 to derive ρψ and the reduced Hubble parameter; only valid at late times.
domain assumption The BD scalar field is constant at the present epoch, ε=0.
Justified by the numerical plot in Fig. 5; this simplification is used to derive Eq. (47).
domain assumption The Brans-Dicke parameter is fixed at ω≈60,000.
Chosen to satisfy local astronomical constraints, used for numerical solutions and parameter choices.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exact Solutions and Accelerating Universe in Modified Brans-Dicke Theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TJEU4CHE

@misc{pith2026190801564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exact Solutions and Accelerating Universe in Modified Brans-Dicke Theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TJEU4CHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01564}
}

read the original abstract

Exact solutions are studied in the context of modified Brans-Dicke theory. The non-linearity of the modified Brans-Dicke field equations is treated with the Euler-Duarte-Moreira method of integrability of anharmonic oscillator equation. While some solutions show a forever accelerating nature, in some cases there is a signature flip in the evolution of deceleration parameter in recent past. Importance of these latter models are studied in the context of late-time acceleration of the universe. Constraints on the model parameters are obtained from Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis using the Supernova distance modulus data, observational measurements of Hubble parameter, Baryon acoustic oscillation data, and the CMB Shift parameter data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

[1]

Einstein, Sitzungsber Preuss

A. Einstein, Sitzungsber Preuss. Akad. Wiss. p. 778 (1915); p. 844 (1915)

work page 1915
[2]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 9, 3 (2005)

work page 2005
[3]

Eötvös et al., Ann

R. Eötvös et al., Ann. Phys. 68, 11 (1922)

work page 1922
[4]

Michelson and E

A. Michelson and E. Morley, Am. J. Science 34, 333 (1887)

work page
[5]

Brillet and J

A. Brillet and J. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 54 (1979)

work page 1979
[6]

Will, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993), 2nd edition

C. Will, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993), 2nd edition

work page 1993
[7]

Abbott et al., Phys

B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 166, 6 (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

1989

Show all 72 references

[9]

Ratra and P

B. Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D. 37, 3406 (1988)

1988
[10]

A. W. Brookﬁeld, C. van de Bruck, D. F. Mota and D. Tocchini-Valentini, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 061301 (2006)

2006
[11]

J. M. Overduin and F. I. Cooperstock, Phys. Rev. D. 58, 043506 (1998)

1998
[12]

M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D. 66, 043507 (2002)

2002
[13]

Nojiri and S

S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. 505, 59 (2011)

2011
[14]

Capozziello and M

S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509, 167 (2011)

2011
[15]

Faraoni and S

V . Faraoni and S. Capozziello, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 170, (2010)

2010
[16]

Bamba and S

K. Bamba and S. D. Odintsov, Symmetry 7, 220 (2015)

2015
[17]

Nojiri, S

S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and V . K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept. 692, 1 (2017)

2017
[18]

Brans and R

C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 3 (1961)

1961
[19]

Misner, K

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

1973
[20]

1972 Gravitation and Cosmology (New York: Wiley)

Weinberg S. 1972 Gravitation and Cosmology (New York: Wiley)

1972
[21]

Banerjee and S

N. Banerjee and S. Sen, Phys. Rev. D. 56, 1334 (1997)

1997
[22]

Faraoni, Phys

V . Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D.59, 084021 (1999)

1999
[23]

Guth, Phys

A. Guth, Phys. Rev. D. 23, 347 (1981)

1981
[24]

Mathiazhagan and V

C. Mathiazhagan and V . B. Johri, Class. Quant. Gravit. 1, L29 (1984)

1984
[25]

La and P

D. La and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 376 (1989)

1989
[26]

Banerjee and D

N. Banerjee and D. Pavon, Phys. Rev. D 63, 043504 (2001)

2001
[27]

Faraoni and E

V . Faraoni and E. Gunzig, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 217 (1999)

1999
[28]

Bertolami and P

O. Bertolami and P. J. Martins, Phys. Rev. D. 61, 064007 (2000)

2000
[29]

Banerjee and D

N. Banerjee and D. Pavon, Class. Quant. Gravit.18, 593 (2001)

2001
[30]

Sen and A

S. Sen and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D. 63, 124006 (2001)

2001
[31]

Das and N

S. Das and N. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D. 78, 043512 (2008)

2008
[32]

L. Jarv, P. Kuusk, M. Saal and O. Vilson, Phys. Rev. D. 91, 024041 (2015)

2015
[33]

G Bergmann, Int

P. G Bergmann, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1, 25 (1968)

1968
[34]

R. V . Wagoner, Phys. Rev. D.1, 3209 (1970)

1970
[35]

Nordtvedt (Jr), Astrophys

K. Nordtvedt (Jr), Astrophys. J. 161, 1059 (1970)

1970
[36]

B. M. Barker, Astrophys. J. 219, 5 (1978)

1978
[37]

Schwinger, Particles, Sources and Fields (Addison- Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1970)

J. Schwinger, Particles, Sources and Fields (Addison- Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1970)

1970
[38]

Van den Bergh, Gen

N. Van den Bergh, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 14, 17 (1982)

1982
[39]

Fujii and K

Y . Fujii and K. Maeda, The scalar-tensor theories of gravitation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

2004
[40]

Beyond Einstein’s Theory of Gravity

T. Sotiriou, Gravity and Scalar Fields, based on a lecture given at the Seventh Aegean Summer School “Beyond Einstein’s Theory of Gravity" (2014). 14

2014
[41]

Clifton and J

T. Clifton and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D. 73 : 104022, (2006)

2006
[42]

L. G. S. Duarte, I. C. Moreira, N. Euler and W. H. Steeb, Phys. Scr. 43, 449 (1991)

1991
[43]

Euler, W

N. Euler, W. H. Steeb and K. Cyrus, J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 22, L195 (1989)

1989
[44]

Euler, J

N. Euler, J. Nonlinear Math. Phys. 4, 310 (1997)

1997
[45]

Harko, F

T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo and M. K. Mak, J. Pure Appl. Math. Adv. Appl. 10(1), 115 (2013)

2013
[46]

Khoury and A

J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004)

2004
[47]

Khoury and A

J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D. 69, 044026 (2004)

2004
[48]

D. F. Mota and J. D. Barrow, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 349, 291, (2004)

2004
[49]

D. F. Mota and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B. 581, 141, 2004

2004
[50]

S. Das, P. S. Corasaniti and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. D.73, 083509 (2006)

2006
[51]

D. F. Mota and D. J. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D. 75, 063501 (2007)

2007
[52]

D. F. Mota and D. J. Shaw, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 151102, (2006)

2006
[53]

Perlmutter et al

S. Perlmutter et al. Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999); A. G. Riess et. al. Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998); P. M. Gar- navich et. al. Astrophys. J. 509, 74 (1998)

1999
[54]

Zlatev, L

I. Zlatev, L. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 896 (1999); P. J. Steinhardt, L. Wang and I. Zlatev Phys. Rev. D. 59, 123504 (1999)

1999
[55]

Chakrabarti and N

S. Chakrabarti and N. Banerjee, Eur. Phys. J. C.77 : 166 (2017)

2017
[56]

Banerjee and S

N. Banerjee and S. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rev. D. 95, 024015 (2017)

2017
[57]

Chakrabarti, Eur

S. Chakrabarti, Eur. Phys. J. C. 78 : 296 (2018)

2018
[58]

Chakrabarti, J

S. Chakrabarti, J. L. Said and G. Farrugia, Eur. Phys. J. C. 77 : 815 (2017)

2017
[59]

Chakrabarti, K

S. Chakrabarti, K. Bamba and J. L. Said, arXiv:1809.04955v1 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[60]

Ade et al., Astron

Planck collaboration, P.A.R. Ade et al., Astron. Astro- phys. 571, A16 (2014)

2014
[61]

A. G. Riess et al., ApJ. 855, 136 (2018)

2018
[62]

Betoule et al., Astron

M. Betoule et al., Astron. Astrophys. 568, A22 (2014)

2014
[63]

Simon, L

J. Simon, L. Verde and R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. D 71, 123001 (2005); D. Stern, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, M. Kamionkowski and S.A. Stanford, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys02(2010)008; C.-H. Chuang and Y . Wang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 435 255 (2013); M. Moresco, L. Verde, L. Pozzetti...

2005
[64]

Delubac et al., Astron

T. Delubac et al., Astron. Astrophys. 574 A59 (2015)

2015
[65]

Beutler et al., Mon

F. Beutler et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.416, 3017 (2011)

2011
[66]

Anderson et al., Mon

BOSS collaboration: L. Anderson et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 441, 24 (2012)

2012
[67]

Foreman-Mackey, D

D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013)

2013
[68]

A. G. Riess et al., ApJ. 607, 665 (2004)

2004
[69]

Farooq and B

O. Farooq and B. Ratra, ApJ. 766, L7 (2013)

2013
[70]

Mukherjee, Mon

A. Mukherjee, Mon. Notices Royal Astron. Soc 460, 273 (2016)

2016
[71]

et al., arXiv: astro- ph.CO/1907.05922 (2019)

Freedman, Wendy L. et al., arXiv: astro- ph.CO/1907.05922 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[72]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, D. Sáez-Gómez and V . Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D.77 : 106005, (2008)

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Einstein, Sitzungsber Preuss

A. Einstein, Sitzungsber Preuss. Akad. Wiss. p. 778 (1915); p. 844 (1915)

work page 1915

[2] [2]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 9, 3 (2005)

work page 2005

[3] [3]

Eötvös et al., Ann

R. Eötvös et al., Ann. Phys. 68, 11 (1922)

work page 1922

[4] [4]

Michelson and E

A. Michelson and E. Morley, Am. J. Science 34, 333 (1887)

work page

[5] [5]

Brillet and J

A. Brillet and J. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 54 (1979)

work page 1979

[6] [6]

Will, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993), 2nd edition

C. Will, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993), 2nd edition

work page 1993

[7] [7]

Abbott et al., Phys

B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 166, 6 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

1989