Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 72 references

The new higher-order generalized uncertainty principle and primordial big bang nucleosynthesis

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By feeding a new higher-order generalized uncertainty principle into early-universe nucleosynthesis, this paper constrains the deformation parameter β0 to about ±10⁸⁴ from the freeze-out temperature and to tighter ranges near ±10⁸¹ from…

desk verdict The BBN abundance constraints do not follow from the paper's own equations; the freeze-out bound is plausible, but the central results are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11563 v2 pith:HYMTUQ6B submitted 2024-11-18 gr-qc

Song-Shan Luo , Zhong-Wen Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords generalizeduncertaintyprinciplebigbangnucleosynthesisprimordiallightelementabundancesmodifiedFriedmannequationsGUPparameterconstraintshelium-4abundancedeuteriumlithiumproblem
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 argues that a recently proposed higher-order generalized uncertainty principle (GUP) should leave an observable imprint on the early universe through big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). Starting from the GUP-corrected uncertainty relation, the authors correct the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and derive modified Friedmann equations with a correction term $\pm 4\beta_0 G H^4$. They then compare the resulting expansion history with the observed abundances of ⁴He, deuterium, and ⁷Li, and with the weak-interaction freeze-out temperature, obtaining bounds on the GUP deformation parameter $\beta_0$: about 10⁸⁴ in magnitude from freeze-out, and tighter ranges around 10⁸¹ from ⁴He and deuterium. The result matters because it turns measured primordial abundances into a direct probe of a quantum-gravity deformation parameter. The central novelty is that both positive and negative $\beta_0$ are compatible with BBN data, so quoting only an upper bound is incomplete.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the new higher-order GUP relation $\Delta x\Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}\frac{1}{1 \pm 16\beta_0 \ell_p^2 / \Delta x^2}$, converted into a modified entropy $S_{\mathrm{GUP}} = A/4G \pm 4\pi\beta_0\ell_p^2 \ln(A/G)$ through the identifications $dS/dA = 1/(8\tilde{\hbar}(\beta_0))$ and $\Delta x \approx 2r$ for the apparent horizon. This entropy correction produces the $\pm 4\beta_0 G H^4$ term in the Friedmann equations, which translates into the factor $Z_{\beta_0} = 1 \pm \frac{4}{45}g_* G^2\pi^3 T^4\beta_0$ that multiplies the Hubble rate during BBN. That factor is what changes the weak-interaction freeze-out temperature and the predicted light-element abundances, and hence is what the observational comparison constrains.

What would settle it

Two checks would settle the claim. Observationally, a primordial ⁴He measurement with uncertainty below $10^{-4}$ that returns $Y_p = 0.2485$ (the $Z=1$ value) at $\eta_{10}\approx 6$ would falsify the positive-$\beta_0$ branch, because the paper's constraint rests on the observed $0.2449$. Conceptually, an independent derivation of the horizon entropy from the same GUP, computing the logarithmic correction from the full uncertainty relation rather than the heuristic $dS/dA$ identification, would either reproduce the coefficient $4\pi\beta_0\ell_p^2$ or remove the basis for the modified Friedmann equations and therefore for all the $\beta_0$ bounds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the higher-order GUP relation $\Delta x\Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}\frac{1}{1 \pm 16\beta_0 \ell_p^2 / \Delta x^2}$ changes the Friedmann equations into $H^2 \pm 2 G H^4 \beta_0 = \frac{8\pi G\rho}{3}$, and that this modification shifts the BBN expansion rate by the factor $Z_{\beta_0} = 1 \pm \frac{4}{45}g_* G^2\pi^3 T^4 \beta_0$. Using the observed helium, deuterium, and lithium abundances, the authors derive constraints $-2.5\times10^{84} \lesssim \beta_0 \lesssim 2.5\times10^{84}$ from the freeze-out temperature, $-1.72\times10^{81} \lesssim \beta_0 \lesssim 1.72\times10^{81}$ from ⁴He, $-2.24\times10^{81} \lesssim \beta_0 \lesssim 2.24\times10^{81}$ from deuterium, and $-3.48\times10^{82} \lesssim \beta_0 \lesssim 3.48\times10^{82}$ from ⁷Li. The paper presents these as evidence that the GUP has a significant effect on BBN and that the deformation parameter can lie on either side of zero.

Load-bearing premise

Everything downstream depends on the identification $dS/dA = 1/(8\tilde{\hbar}(\beta_0))$ with $\Delta x \approx 2r$ for the apparent horizon; if the correct GUP-corrected entropy is not $S = A/4G \pm 4\pi\beta_0\ell_p^2 \ln(A/G)$, the modified Friedmann equations and all the $\beta_0$ bounds do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The GUP parameter $\beta_0$ is bounded on both sides: $-2.5\times10^{84} \lesssim \beta_0 \lesssim 2.5\times10^{84}$ from freeze-out, with tighter ⁴He and deuterium bounds near $\pm10^{81}$.
  • Negative values of $\beta_0$ are not excluded by BBN, so the deformation parameter of this GUP model can meaningfully take either sign.
  • The GUP-induced shift in the Hubble rate changes the weak-interaction freeze-out temperature by at most about $|\delta T_f/T_f| \approx 4.7\times10^{-4}$ relative to standard cosmology.
  • Choosing a suitable $\beta_0$, particularly in the negative branch, can bring the predicted ⁷Li abundance closer to the observed value, offering a potential angle on the lithium problem.
  • The BBN-derived bounds are comparable to earlier cosmological GUP constraints and are tighter than those from several quantum-gravity experiments cited in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The bounds quoted are far above the natural Planck-scale expectation for a dimensionless deformation parameter, so the practical content of the constraint is mostly that the correction must stay below order one at $T \approx 10$ MeV; the sign sensitivity is the more distinctive feature.
  • Because the ⁴He and deuterium ranges nearly overlap, a joint likelihood treatment of the two observables could compress the allowed interval to roughly $\pm2\times10^{81}$, slightly stronger than either element alone.
  • The same entropy-to-Friedmann machinery could be applied to the extended uncertainty principle mentioned in the paper, giving a natural test of large-scale quantum corrections through late-time cosmological data.
  • If the ⁷Li solution really required a $\beta_0$ near $-3.5\times10^{82}$, that value would be an order of magnitude outside the ⁴He and deuterium ranges, so a consistent resolution of the lithium problem would need element-dependent physics rather than a single shared $\beta_0$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript considers a higher-order generalized uncertainty principle (GUP) with deformation parameter β0, uses it to modify the entropy of the cosmological apparent horizon, and derives modified Friedmann equations (Eq. 9). It then studies the impact of the modification on big bang nucleosynthesis, first through the weak-interaction freeze-out temperature and then through the primordial abundances of 4He, D, and 7Li. By equating the GUP-modified Z-factor with values inferred from observed abundances, the paper claims constraints on β0 of order ±10^84 from the freeze-out temperature and ±10^81–10^82 from the individual light-element abundances, and concludes that β0 can be positive or negative and that the GUP has a significant effect on BBN.

Significance. The idea of using BBN abundances to constrain a higher-order GUP parameter is reasonable, and the paper is clearly organized, deriving its modified Friedmann equations from an entropy correction in a self-contained way. If the derivation and the arithmetic were correct, the claimed bounds would constitute a useful phenomenological constraint on a quantum-gravity deformation parameter. However, the central quantitative results do not follow from the paper's own equations: the Z-values extracted from the abundance fits in Section IV are algebraically wrong, the signs of the implied deviations are inconsistent with the quoted observational values, and the resulting β0 bounds are therefore unsupported. In addition, the claim that the GUP has a 'significant effect' is not a prediction, since the observed abundances are used to fix β0 rather than to test a pre-specified value; the derived bounds are inverse constraints, not falsifiable predictions. The paper therefore does not establish its headline claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV A, Eqs. (28)–(34)] The 4He analysis contains an arithmetic error that inverts the sign and changes the magnitude of the quoted bound. Eq. (28) gives Yp = 0.2485 + 0.0016[(η10−6) + 100(Z−1)], so with η10 = 6 the term is 0.16(Z−1). Eq. (30), however, uses 0.016[100(Z−1)], which is ten times larger. Solving Eq. (30) gives Z ≈ 0.9978, and solving Eq. (28) gives Z ≈ 0.9775; neither equals the quoted Z = 1.0475. Since the observed Yp = 0.2449 is below the standard 0.2485, δZ = Z−1 must be negative, not +0.0475. Consequently Eq. (32) and the bounds in Eqs. (33)–(34) do not follow, and the asserted positive β0 bound from 4He is not supported.
  2. [§IV B, Eqs. (35)–(38)] The deuterium constraint is also miscomputed. With η10 = 6, Eq. (35) reduces to yDp = 2.6[1 − 6(Z−1)]^2. Setting yDp = 2.55 gives 1 − 6(Z−1) = ±√(2.55/2.6) ≈ ±0.9903, hence Z ≈ 1.0016 (or the unphysical branch Z ≈ 1.33), not Z = 1.062. If one actually inserts Z = 1.062 into Eq. (35), the predicted abundance is yDp ≈ 1.03, far below the adopted observational value 2.55. Therefore the β0 bounds in Eqs. (37)–(38) are incorrect, and the statement that the D constraint 'partially overlaps' with the 4He constraint is based on erroneous Z-values.
  3. [§IV C, Eqs. (39)–(42)] The 7Li analysis contains a similar algebraic error. Eq. (39) with η10 = 6 gives yLi = 4.82[1 − (Z−1)/2]^2. Setting yLi = 1.6 yields [1 − (Z−1)/2]^2 = 1.6/4.82 ≈ 0.332, so on the physical branch 1 − (Z−1)/2 ≈ 0.576 and Z ≈ 1.848, not Z = 1.960025. The quoted δZ ≈ 0.960 and the resulting β0 bounds in Eqs. (41)–(42) are therefore not derived from the stated equation. The speculation that tuning β0 might help with the Li problem is not supported by the numbers presented.
  4. [§II, Eq. (9); §IV, overall method] The paper's central claim that the GUP has a significant effect on BBN is not established as a quantitative prediction. Even granting the heuristic identifications Δx ≈ 2r and dS/dA = 1/(8ℏ(β0)) used to pass from the uncertainty relation to the entropy correction, the subsequent analysis uses the observed abundances to solve for β0. Thus the large quoted values of β0 are a restatement of the fit, not an independent test of the GUP. The real content of the paper is an inverse bound on β0, and that content is currently compromised by the arithmetic errors in Section IV.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV A, Eq. (30)] The coefficient 0.016 in Eq. (30) is inconsistent with the 0.0016 appearing in Eq. (28); the bracketed term (η10−6) is also dropped without comment, although the text sets η10 = 6.
  2. [§IV B, Eq. (35)] The expression contains a potential ambiguity: the bracket is written as [6/η10 − 6(Z−1)]; the reader must infer whether the second '6' is a numerical coefficient or part of a fraction. The surrounding text would benefit from parentheses.
  3. [§III, after Eq. (17)] The text says primordial 4He formation occurs at T around 100 MeV, while the freeze-out analysis uses Tf ∼ 0.6 MeV; the relationship between these two temperatures should be stated more clearly.
  4. [Eqs. (34), (42)] The LaTeX expressions 'β0 /greaterorsimilar−1.72 × 10^81' and 'β0 /greaterorsimilar−3.48 × 10^82' appear corrupted; they should read β0 ≳ ... .
  5. [§IV, opening paragraph] The text lists '4He, D, and 4Li' but should say 7Li. Also, the conclusion's notation '−10^84 to 10^84' should be written as −10^84 to 10^84.
  6. [References] Several references have incomplete bibliographic information, e.g., Ref. [41] (missing journal/volume), Ref. [32], and Ref. [50]; these should be completed before submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Section IV is an honest parameter constraint, not a prediction; the arithmetic inconsistencies are correctness flaws, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: Du–Long GUP (Eq. 1) → entropy correction (Eqs. 6–7) → modified Friedmann equations (Eqs. 8–9) → modified Hubble Z-factor (Eq. 13) → BBN abundance shifts (Eqs. 28, 35, 39) → bounds on β0. Each step is explicit in the text, and the abundance constraints are inverse fits: observed Yp, yDp, and yLi are inserted into empirical fitting formulas to solve for Z and then for β0. That is parameter estimation, not a circular prediction of the same data. The same-author references [22, 29, 39] are background citations for the standard Friedmann-from-thermodynamics route, but the relevant equations are displayed and derived in the paper itself, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The numerical solution of Eq. (30) is internally inconsistent (the quoted Yp values imply Z ≈ 0.98, not 1.0475), and Eq. (35) gives Z ≈ 1.0016, not 1.062; similarly Eq. (39) does not yield Z = 1.960. These are arithmetic correctness flaws that invalidate the quoted β0 bounds, but they are not circularity. No step of the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a borrowed GUP input, a heuristic mapping from uncertainty to entropy, the standard first-law-of-thermodynamics derivation of Friedmann equations, and standard BBN abundance fits. The only parameter fitted to data is β0.

free parameters (1)
  • β0 (GUP deformation parameter) = magnitude around 10^81 to 10^84, both signs allowed
    The only free parameter of the model; constrained by the freeze-out temperature (Eq 24) and by fitting the Z-factor to observed 4He, D, and 7Li abundances (Eqs 33-34, 38, 41-42), not predicted independently.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The new higher-order GUP, Eq (1): ΔxΔp ≥ (ℏ/2)/(1 ± 16β0ℓp^2/Δx^2)
    Adopted from Du and Long, Ref [35]; the paper does not derive this starting relation.
  • domain assumption The area-entropy correspondence dS/dA = 1/(8~ℏ(β0)) with Δx ≈ 2r for the horizon
    Section II converts the GUP into an entropy correction via holographic arguments from Refs [7,36,37]; this heuristic is the bridge from the uncertainty relation to the Friedmann equations.
  • domain assumption The first law of thermodynamics on the apparent horizon yields the modified Friedmann equations, Eq (8)
    Section II invokes the established derivation of Refs [22,29,36,38,39] with the corrected entropy; the paper relies on this model-dependent step.
  • domain assumption BBN abundance fits (Eqs 28, 35, 39) describe any modified cosmology through a single Z-factor
    Section IV substitutes Z_β0 into fits originally designed for neutrino-count variations (Refs [46-48]); the transferability to a GUP-modified expansion is assumed.
  • standard math Weak interaction rate Λ(T) ≈ qT^5 and freeze-out condition Λ = H
    Section III uses the standard BBN weak rates from Bernstein et al. (Ref [34]) and the freeze-out criterion; this is accepted prior physics.
  • domain assumption Observational abundance values Yp=0.2449, yDp=2.55, yLi=1.6 with η10≈6
    Section IV adopts these values from Refs [41,52,53] without propagating uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The new higher-order generalized uncertainty principle and primordial big bang nucleosynthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYMTUQ6B

@misc{pith2026241111563,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The new higher-order generalized uncertainty principle and primordial big bang nucleosynthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYMTUQ6B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11563}
}
read the original abstract

As an important class of quantum gravity models, the generalized uncertainty principle (GUP) plays an important role in exploring the properties of cosmology and its related problems. In this paper, we explore the influence of the higher-order GUP on the primordial big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). Firstly, based on a new higher-order GUP, we derived the Friedmann equations influenced by quantum gravity and the corresponding thermodynamic properties of the universe. Then, according to these modifications, we investigate BBN within the framework of GUP. Finally, combining the observational bounds of the primordial light element abundances, we constrain the bounds on deformation parameters of the new higher-order GUP. The results show that GUP has a significant effect on the BBN of the universe. Moreover, due to the unique properties of the higher-order GUP, it is found that value of the deformation parameter can be both positive and negative, which is different from the classical case.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zeilinger, Rev

    A. Zeilinger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S288 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    +” indicates that the modi- fied Friedmann equations are affected the GUP of with β0 > 0, whereas “ −

    can be rewritten as ∆ A ≥ ∆ x∆ p, which implies that the min- imum increment of the area of the gravitational system is limited by the momentum uncertainty ∆ p and the po- sition uncertainty ∆ x of quantum mechanics. According Eq. ( 1), one can obtain the momentum uncertainty as follows ∆ p ≥ ℏ 2 1 ∆ x ± ( 16β0ℓ2 p / ∆ x ) . (3) For a static spherical gra...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Scardigli, Phys

    F. Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B 452, 39 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9904025

    arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    Maggiore, Phys

    M. Maggiore, Phys. Lett. B 319, 83 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9309034

    arXiv 1993

  5. [5]

    Next, we explore the impact of GUP on BBN

    as follows Hβ 0 = H0 + δH, (14) where δH = (Zβ 0 − 1) H0. Next, we explore the impact of GUP on BBN. Accord- ing to the standard BBN model, neutron n and protons p began to form only few thousandths of a second af- ter the Big Bang, when the temperature dropped low enough to reach the freeze-out temperature. The abun- dances of the initial very light atom...

    work page

  6. [6]

    L. J. Garay, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 145 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9403008

    arXiv 1995

  7. [7]

    C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Severe constraints on Loop-Quantum-Gravity energy-momentum dispersion relation from black-hole area-entropy law

    G. Amelino-Camelia, M. Arzano, and A. Procaccini, Phys. Rev. D 70, 107501 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0405084

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    to investigate how the effects of QG influence the BBN. III. BIG BANG NUCLEOSYNTHESIS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF GUP In this section, we attempt to investigate BBN in the framework of the higher-order GUP. According to the right hand side of modified Friedmann equation ( 9b), one has th...

  2. [10]

    Amelino-Camelia, Int

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11, 35 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0012051

    2002 arXiv

  3. [11]

    ( 13) takes the positive sign, while it takes the negative sign for β0 < 0

    can be rewritten as H0 = 2π3/ 2√g∗G 3 √ 5 T 2, (12) Zβ 0 = 1 ± 4 45 g∗G2π3T 4β0, (13) For β0 > 0, the Eq. ( 13) takes the positive sign, while it takes the negative sign for β0 < 0. More importantly, it can be considered as a specific expression for the modifi- cation of the ori...

  4. [12]

    A. J. M. Medved and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124021 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0411022

    2004 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Furthermore, for the convenience of the ensuing discus- sion, we rewrite Eq

    returns to the case of original standard cosmological model, that is Zβ 0 = 1. Furthermore, for the convenience of the ensuing discus- sion, we rewrite Eq. (

  6. [14]

    Khodadi, K

    M. Khodadi, K. Nozari, and A. Hajizadeh, Phys. Lett. B 770, 556 (2017), arXiv:1702.06357 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chemissany, S

    W. Chemissany, S. Das, A. F. Ali, and E. C. Vagenas, 7 JCAP 12, 017 (2011), arXiv:1111.7288

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. Chen, Y. C. Ong, and D.-h. Yeom, Phys. Rept. 603, 1 (2015), arXiv:1412.8366

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Moradpour, A

    H. Moradpour, A. H. Ziaie, S. Ghaffari, and F. Feleppa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 488, L69 (2019), arXiv:1907.12940

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Z. W. Feng, H. L. Li, X. T. Zu, and S. Z. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 212 (2016), arXiv:1604.04702

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Casadio and F

    R. Casadio and F. Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B 807, 135558 (2020), arXiv:2004.04076

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Iorio, G

    A. Iorio, G. Lambiase, P. Pais, and F. Scardigli, Phys. Rev. D 101, 105002 (2020), arXiv:1910.09019

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Park and E

    D. Park and E. Jung, Phys. Rev. D 101, 066007 (2020), arXiv:2001.02850

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Battista, S

    E. Battista, S. Capozziello, and A. Errehymy arXiv:2409.09750

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Xiang and X

    L. Xiang and X. Q. Wen, JHEP 10, 046 (2009), arXiv:0901.0603

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Nozari and S

    K. Nozari and S. Saghafi, JHEP 11, 005 (2012), arXiv:1206.5621

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    R. J. Adler, P. Chen, and D. I. Santiago, Gen. Rel. Grav. 33, 2101 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0106080

    2001 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Zhu, J.-R

    T. Zhu, J.-R. Ren, and M.-F. Li, Phys. Lett. B 674, 204 (2009), arXiv:0811.0212

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Z.-W. Feng, X. Zhou, and S.-Q. Zhou, JCAP 06, 022 (2022), arXiv:2203.11671

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. A. Anacleto, F. A. Brito, and E. Passos, Phys. Lett. B 749, 181 (2015), arXiv:1504.06295

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Awad and A

    A. Awad and A. F. Ali, JHEP 06, 093 (2014), arXiv:1404.7825

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Salah, F

    M. Salah, F. Hammad, M. Faizal, and A. F. Ali, JCAP 02, 035 (2017), arXiv:1608.00560

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Khodadi, K

    M. Khodadi, K. Nozari, and F. Hajkarim, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 716 (2018), arXiv:1808.08436

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Khodadi, K

    M. Khodadi, K. Nozari, H. Abedi, and S. Capozziello, Phys. Lett. B 783, 326 (2018), arXiv:1805.11310 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    ¨Okc¨ u, C

    O. ¨Okc¨ u, C. Corda, and E. Aydiner, EPL 129, 50002 (2020), arXiv:2003.11369

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Luo and Z.-W

    S.-S. Luo and Z.-W. Feng, Annals Phys. 458, 169449 (2023), arXiv:2306.10078

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    S. Das, M. Fridman, G. Lambiase, and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Lett. B 824, 136841 (2022), arXiv:2107.02077

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    G. G. Luciano, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1086 (2021), arXiv:2111.06000

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    ¨Okc¨ u(1 2024),arXiv:2401.09477 [gr-qc]

    O. ¨Okc¨ u(1 2024),arXiv:2401.09477 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Nature 294, 521 (1981)

    1981

  31. [39]

    Bernstein, L

    J. Bernstein, L. S. Brown, and G. Feinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 25 (1989)

    1989

  32. [40]

    Du and C.-Y

    X.-D. Du and C.-Y. Long, JHEP 10, 063 (2022), arXiv:2208.12918

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cai, L.-M

    R.-G. Cai, L.-M. Cao, and Y.-P. Hu, JHEP 08, 090 (2008), arXiv:0807.1232

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bargue˜ no and E

    P. Bargue˜ no and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Lett. B 742, 15 (2015), arXiv:1501.03256

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Sheykhi, Phys

    A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104011 (2010), arXiv:1004.0627

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Feng and S.-Z

    Z.-W. Feng and S.-Z. Yang, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018, 5968284 (2018), arXiv:1708.08324

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Suh and G

    I.-S. Suh and G. J. Mathews, Phys. Rev. D 59, 123002 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812185

    1999 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ghoshal and G

    A. Ghoshal and G. Lambiase(4 2021), arXiv:2104.11296

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Capozziello, G

    S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase, and E. N. Saridakis, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 576 (2017), arXiv:1702.07952

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Lambiase, JCAP 10, 028 (2012), arXiv:1208.5512

    G. Lambiase, JCAP 10, 028 (2012), arXiv:1208.5512

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    B. D. Fields, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 61, 47 (2011), arXiv:1203.3551

    2011 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Boran and E

    S. Boran and E. O. Kahya, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2014, 282675 (2014), arXiv:1310.6145

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    J. P. Kneller and G. Steigman, New J. Phys. 6, 117 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406320

    2004 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Steigman, Ann

    G. Steigman, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 463 (2007), arXiv:0712.1100

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Steigman, Adv

    G. Steigman, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2012, 268321 (2012), arXiv:1208.0032

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Simha and G

    V. Simha and G. Steigman, JCAP 06, 016 (2008), arXiv:0803.3465

    2008 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Sch¨ oneberg(1 2024), arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Sch¨ oneberg(1 2024), arXiv:2401.15054 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  48. [56]

    Komatsu et al

    E. Komatsu et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 18 (2011), arXiv:1001.4538 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T.-H. Yeh, and C. Young, JCAP 03, 010 (2020), [Erratum: JCAP 11, E02 (2020)], arXiv:1912.01132

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bhattacharjee and P

    S. Bhattacharjee and P. K. Sahoo, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 350 (2020), arXiv:2004.04684

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Kouwn, Phys

    S. Kouwn, Phys. Dark Univ. 21, 76 (2018), arXiv:1805.07278 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Giardino and V

    S. Giardino and V. Salzano, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 110 (2021), arXiv:2006.01580

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    G. G. Luciano, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 314 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Gin´ e and G

    J. Gin´ e and G. G. Luciano, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1039 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    A. F. Ali, S. Das, and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044013 (2011), arXiv:1107.3164 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Ghosh, Class

    S. Ghosh, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 025025 (2014), arXiv:1303.1256 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    P. A. Bushev, J. Bourhill, M. Goryachev, N. Kukharchyk, E. Ivanov, S. Galliou, M. E. To- bar, and S. Danilishin, Phys. Rev. D 100, 066020 (2019), arXiv:1903.03346 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Bambi and F

    C. Bambi and F. R. Urban, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 095006 (2008), arXiv:0709.1965

    2008 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1108 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9412167

    1995 arXiv

  60. [68]

    J. R. Mureika, Phys. Lett. B 789, 88 (2019), arXiv:1812.01999

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    ¨Okc¨ u and E

    O. ¨Okc¨ u and E. Aydiner, EPL 138, 39002 (2022), arXiv:2209.03170

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Moradpour, C

    H. Moradpour, C. Corda, A. H. Ziaie, and S. Ghaffari, EPL 127, 60006 (2019), arXiv:1902.01703

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    W. S. Chung and H. Hassanabadi, Phys. Lett. B 793, 451 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    M. P. Dabrowski and F. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 716 (2019), arXiv:1905.09713

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.