Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Seesaw relation between the cosmological constant and the Higgs mass

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that the Higgs mass scale is the geometric mean of the dark energy scale and the inflaton scale.

desk verdict A well-read speculative numerology paper whose advertised 'perfect match' is built from heuristic choices rather than derived; worth a look as a curiosity, not as a result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06851 v1 pith:GDFY5R2G submitted 2024-12-08 gr-qc hep-ph

R.J. Cossins This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-ph
keywords seesawrelationgeometricmeancosmologicalconstantHiggsmassholographicdarkenergyinflatonscalehierarchyproblemUV-IRmixing
topics Dark EnergyQuantum GravityThe Hierarchy Problem
open problems Dark EnergyQuantum Gravity
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

The paper proposes that the mass scale of the Higgs boson, $M^*_{\mathrm{Higgs}}$, is the geometric mean of the dark energy scale $M_{\Lambda}$ and the inflaton scale $M_{I}$: $M^*_{\mathrm{Higgs}}=\sqrt{M_{\Lambda}M_{I}}$. Inserting the measured cosmological constant scale $M_{\Lambda}\approx 2.345\times10^{-12}$ GeV and the measured Higgs mass $\approx125.20$ GeV fixes the inflaton scale at $M_{I}\approx6.69\times10^{15}$ GeV. The paper then proposes a second geometric mean for $M_{I}$ itself, between the energy scale at the start of inflation and the quasi-de Sitter energy during inflation, and derives an inflation energy density $\rho_{\mathrm{inf}}^{1/4}\approx1.2\times10^{15}$ GeV that it argues matches the unified holographic constant-roll inflation scenario. If the chain holds, a single seesaw mechanism connects the smallest observed cosmic energy scale to the electroweak scale and to inflation.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the seesaw, or geometric-mean, identity: a small mass scale is expressed as the square root of the product of a very small and a very large scale. It appears twice: $M^*_{\mathrm{Higgs}}=\sqrt{M_{\Lambda}M_{I}}$, and, proposed without derivation, $M_{I}=\sqrt{\tilde{\rho}^{1/4}\rho_{\mathrm{inf}}^{1/4}}$. The second relation is the bridge to the holographic constant-roll scenario: $\tilde{\rho}^{1/4}$ is fixed by the reduced Planck scale together with a locality factor and a net cloning-fidelity factor, giving $3.73\times10^{16}$ GeV, and $\rho_{\mathrm{inf}}^{1/4}$ then follows as $\approx1.2\times10^{15}$ GeV. This two-step geometric mean is what converts measured low-energy values into a concrete claim about the inflationary epoch.

What would settle it

A decisive check is a precise measurement of the inflationary tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ and scalar amplitude $A_s$: the paper's chain implies $\rho_{\mathrm{inf}}^{1/4}\approx1.2\times10^{15}$ GeV, which through $8\pi G\rho_{\mathrm{inf}}=3H_I^2\approx(3/2)\pi^2 r A_s M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^4$ predicts a specific combination of $r$ and $A_s$. If a future B-mode measurement drives $r$ to its current upper bound, the inferred energy density either lands near $(1.2\times10^{15}$ GeV$)^4$ or rules the relation out; a reheating-scale measurement incompatible with $\tilde{\rho}^{1/4}=3.73\times10^{16}$ GeV would falsify the bridge to inflation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the effective Higgs mass is a seesaw, geometric-mean combination of the dark energy scale and the inflaton scale, rather than an independent Standard Model parameter. With the local dark energy density fixing $M_{\Lambda}\approx2.345\times10^{-12}$ GeV and the measured Higgs mass $m_{\mathrm{Higgs}}\approx125.20$ GeV, Eq. (10) requires $M_{I}\approx6.69\times10^{15}$ GeV. The paper argues that the Planck scale cannot serve as the inflaton scale, because it would make the inflation energy density too high and violate the tensor-to-scalar bound; instead it identifies $M_{I}$ as the geometric mean of the pre-inflation energy scale $\tilde{\rho}^{1/4}$ and the quasi-de Sitter inflation scale $\rho_{\mathrm{inf}}^{1/4}$. Combining a quantum-gravity Hagedorn temperature (the maximum temperature of a thermal state, set here by the reduced Planck mass) with a locality factor of one half and a horizon cloning-fidelity factor of one sixth gives $\tilde{\rho}^{1/4}=3.73\times10^{16}$ GeV and hence $\rho_{\mathrm{inf}}^{1/4}\approx1.2\times10^{15}$ GeV, which the paper takes to match the initial conditions of unified holographic constant-roll inflation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the second geometric mean, Eq. (13), which declares the inflaton scale to be the geometric mean of the energy scale at the start of inflation and the quasi-de Sitter energy scale during inflation; the paper introduces this ansatz as a proposal rather than a derivation, and the pre-inflation scale itself depends on guessed quantum-gravity, locality, and cloning-fidelity factors. If this premise fails, the agreement with the unified holographic model becomes a numerical coincidence rather than a consequence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. (10) is right, the measured Higgs mass and cosmological constant together fix the inflaton scale near $6.69\times10^{15}$ GeV, well below the Planck scale, so inflation need not be a Planck-scale process.
  • The derived inflation energy density $\rho_{\mathrm{inf}}^{1/4}\approx1.2\times10^{15}$ GeV matches the $\rho_{\mathrm{inf}}\sim10^{61}$ GeV$^4$ initial condition of the unified holographic constant-roll scenario, placing the seesaw in that model.
  • The horizon entropy $S_{QG}=6\pi^2\approx59$ fixes the number of e-folds during inflation, and including reheating gives $N_t\approx69.5$, consistent with the roughly 60 e-folds required to solve the horizon and flatness problems.
  • The same seesaw logic recovers the known dark-energy relation $M_{\Lambda}\sim\sqrt{M_p M_s}$ and, through Eq. (15), the present-day acceleration scale $a_{ef,0}\approx1.2\times10^{-10}$ m s$^{-2}$, suggesting the mechanism recurs across cosmic scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the chain is not coincidental, the electroweak scale is an emergent quantity set by UV-IR mixing between the vacuum energy and the inflationary scale; one testable consequence is that a revision of $H_0$ that changes $M_{\Lambda}$ would shift the predicted inflaton scale.
  • The least constrained input is the cloning-fidelity factor of one sixth in Eq. (16); an independent derivation of that factor from quantum information theory would either strengthen the chain or break it.
  • The geometric-mean template could be tested further by applying it to other Standard Model masses, which would tie the quark and lepton mass hierarchies to the same infrared scale; the paper does not attempt this.
  • If the unified holographic scenario is correct, 'almost constant' dark energy conceals a small time variation tied to horizon complexity, which precision baryon-acoustic-oscillation measurements could in principle detect; the paper does not quantify that variation.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the geometric-mean relation M_Higgs^* = sqrt(M_Lambda M_I), where M_Lambda is a mass scale associated with the cosmological constant and M_I is an inflaton mass scale. Using the measured Higgs mass and a dark-energy scale derived from the local Hubble constant, the paper infers M_I ≈ 6.69 × 10^15 GeV. It then introduces a second geometric-mean ansatz between the energy scale at the start of inflation and the quasi-de Sitter scale during inflation, and, with a quantum-gravity temperature and several heuristic order-one factors, obtains rho_inf^(1/4) ≈ 1.2 × 10^15 GeV. This is claimed to match the initial conditions of the unified holographic constant-roll inflation scenario of Ref. [27]. The paper also discusses implications for entropy, e-fold numbers, and an information bound.

Significance. If the relation were derived from a concrete mechanism and independently predicted an inflationary scale, it would be a valuable UV-IR connection. The paper has some strengths: it is candid about its heuristic character, uses current PDG and SH0ES values, and engages with the holographic dark energy and inflation literature. However, as it stands the central relation is postdictive rather than predictive: Eq. (10) is invertible, and the bridge to the inflationary scenario rests on unproposed ansaetze with adjustable coefficients. No independent falsifiable prediction is demonstrated; the claimed match with Ref. [27] is a calibration of order-one choices. The significance is therefore low for a standard journal.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (10)] The relation M_Higgs^* = sqrt(M_Lambda M_I) is not tested by the data presented in this section. Since M_Lambda is obtained from H0 and Omega_Lambda,0 and m_Higgs is taken from the PDG, Eq. (10) is simply rearranged to define M_I = m_Higgs^2 / M_Lambda ≈ 6.69 × 10^15 GeV. The relation has one free parameter and can accommodate any chosen M_I; the agreement with the later inflation scales therefore depends entirely on the additional ansaetze introduced after Eq. (10), not on Eq. (10) itself.
  2. [§2, Eq. (13)] The geometric-mean proposal M_I = sqrt(rho_tilde^(1/4) rho_inf^(1/4)) is introduced with 'We propose' and is not derived from the inflaton action or from Ref. [27]'s holographic constant-roll model. This equation is the load-bearing bridge between the measured scales and the inflation scenario. Without independent justification, the agreement with Ref. [27] is a consequence of the ansatz rather than a confirmation of Eq. (10).
  3. [§2, Eqs. (14)–(16)] The inferred rho_tilde^(1/4) = 3.73 × 10^16 GeV is obtained by assuming N_QG = 2 in Eq. (14), a locality factor 1/2, and an interaction factor 1/6 based on cloning-fidelity and 'effective acceleration' arguments. These choices are not derived. Setting N_QG = 4, or replacing the 1/6 factor by 1/3, shifts rho_inf^(1/4) by factors of order 2–3 and removes the claimed match with Ref. [27]. The match is therefore a calibration of adjustable order-one factors, not an independent test.
  4. [§3, Figure 3 paragraph] The claimed 'very good' or 'perfect' match with Ref. [27] is only order of magnitude: this paper obtains rho_tilde ≈ 1.93 × 10^66 GeV^4 versus Ref. [27]'s ~10^66 GeV^4, and rho_inf ≈ 2.06 × 10^60 GeV^4 versus Ref. [27]'s ~10^61 GeV^4. The latter differs by a factor of roughly five, and no uncertainties are attached to either comparison. The abstract's statement that the relation 'perfectly matches observations' overstates the quantitative agreement.
  5. [§2, after Eq. (10)] The paper identifies M_I with 'the mass-energy of an inflaton' and treats it as the inflationary energy scale. In slow-roll inflation the inflaton mass parameter and the Hubble scale during inflation are different quantities, related by model-dependent slow-roll parameters. This identification needs justification before Eq. (10) can be interpreted as a statement about the inflation scale.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (15)] Equation (15) is typeset ambiguously: 'a/6 sqrt(Omega_Lambda,t)' should specify whether the factor sqrt(Omega_Lambda,t) is in the numerator or the denominator.
  2. [§2, after Eq. (11)] The statement that 'the melting point of quark-gluon plasma is the GUT scale' is incorrect; the quark-gluon crossover occurs at temperatures of order 150 MeV.
  3. [§2, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) is described as a new result, but as written it is a definition of N_QG; the paper should clarify what is actually being proposed beyond this definition.
  4. [§2, Eq. (10) and §3] The numerical results would benefit from error propagation. With H0 = 73.30 ± 1.04 km/s/Mpc and m_Higgs = 125.20 ± 0.11 GeV, the values of M_I and rho_inf^(1/4) should be quoted with uncertainties, and the sensitivity of the result to the Hubble-tension choice of H0 should be stated.
  5. [§2, paragraph after Eq. (14)] There is a typo: 'Hagerdorn' should be 'Hagedorn'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proposed relations are explicit assumptions checked against an external model, not inputs disguised as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central relation, Eq. (10), is explicitly proposed rather than derived, and M_I is inferred from the observed Higgs mass and M_Lambda; it is not presented as an independent prediction. The load-bearing bridge, Eq. (13), is introduced with the words 'We propose,' and Eq. (16) is described as 'a heuristic' based on locality and a cloning-fidelity factor, so these are stated assumptions rather than hidden inputs. The final value of rho_inf follows by substitution and is then compared with the unified holographic scenario of Ref. [27], which is used as an external benchmark, not as a source of the free factors. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no self-citation chain, and no equation that reduces to its own output by definition. The speculative character of Eqs. (13) and (16) is an evidence and robustness concern, not a circularity concern.

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

The central relation Eq. 10 is not a derivation; it is an ansatz that is inverted to define the inflaton scale from the measured Higgs mass. The subsequent relations (Eqs. 13 and 16) introduce additional unproven assumptions that force consistency with the holographic constant-roll model. The paper therefore contributes a speculative scaling ansatz rather than an independently grounded result.

free parameters (4)
  • N_QG (effective degrees of freedom at quantum-gravity scale) = 2
    Chosen so that M_QG = M_Planck / sqrt(2) = 3.44e18 GeV; used in Eq. 14 and in the computation of rho_tilde in Eq. 16. No independent determination is given.
  • Cloning-fidelity factor (1/6) = 1/6
    Derived from the difference (2/3 - 5/6) of purported clone and anti-clone fidelities at a horizon; used to convert T_QG/2 into rho_tilde^(1/4) in Eq. 16. This is a heuristic numerical factor without a tested derivation.
  • Omega_Lambda,I = 1
    Set to 1 during inflation in Eq. 16; standard but a choice that fixes rho_tilde^(1/4).
  • H0 (local Hubble constant) = 73.30 km/s/Mpc
    Selected from SH0ES (Ref. [10]) rather than the Planck value; enters M_Lambda in Eq. 4 and all derived scales. A lower H0 would shift M_Lambda and M_I by a few percent.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Event horizons are optimal universal quantum cloners with clone fidelity -5/6 and anti-clone fidelity 2/3 (Ref. [21])
    Used to obtain the effective acceleration -cH/6 (Eq. 15) and the one-sixth factor in Eq. 16.
  • ad hoc to paper The Universe before inflation can be described holographically as a thermal state of quantum fields, and the relevant quantum-gravity temperature is fixed by M_QG = M_Planck / sqrt(N_QG) with N_QG = 2
    Introduced in Section 2 to define rho_tilde via Eq. 16; the choice N_QG = 2 is a guess.
  • ad hoc to paper At the past boundary condition l_Lambda = 2 L_Planck, and the inflaton scale is the geometric mean of the start-of-inflation and during-inflation energy scales (Eq. 13)
    The relation M_I = sqrt(rho_tilde^(1/4) * rho_inf^(1/4)) is proposed without derivation and is the bridge connecting the Higgs relation to inflation.
  • domain assumption The de Sitter cosmic event horizon has an entropy S_dS, temperature T_dS, and can be treated as a closed system whose maximum entropy state is a gas of minimal-energy 'dark photons' (Eq. 1)
    Sets the energy scale M_s and the holographic setup in Section 2. These are standard semi-classical gravity assumptions but unproven in this context.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Seesaw relation between the cosmological constant and the Higgs mass." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GDFY5R2G

@misc{pith2026241206851,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Seesaw relation between the cosmological constant and the Higgs mass},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GDFY5R2G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06851}
}
abstract

We propose the relation $M^*_{Higgs} = ({M_{\Lambda} \ M_{I}})^{\frac{1}{2}}$ where $ M^*_{Higgs}, M_{\Lambda}$ and $M_{I}$ denote the mass scale associated with the Higgs boson, the cosmological constant and the inflaton respectively. We demonstrate how this seesaw-like (geometric mean) relation perfectly matches observations and the unified scenario of holographic constant roll inflation

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Physics Letters B 841, 137926 (2023)

    Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S.D., Paul, T.: Holographic realization of const ant roll inflation and dark energy: An unified scenario. Physics Letters B 841, 137926 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137926

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Par t B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33(4), 663–705 (2002)

    Rugh, S.E., Zinkernagel, H.: The quantum vacuum and the cosmolog ical constant problem. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Par t B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33(4), 663–705 (2002). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0012253

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/0012253 2002

  3. [2]

    Higgs-mass predictions

    Schucker, T.: Higgs-mass predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:0708 .3344 (2011). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0708.3344

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.0708.3344 2011

  4. [3]

    Modern Physics Letters A 20(35), 2699–2703 (2005)

    Hsu, S., Zee, A.: A speculative relation between the cosmological c onstant and the planck mass. Modern Physics Letters A 20(35), 2699–2703 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732305018839

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732305018839 2005

  5. [4]

    Physics Letters B 603(1-2), 1–5 (2004)

    Li, M.: A model of holographic dark energy. Physics Letters B 603(1-2), 1–5 (2004). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0403127

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.hep-th/0403127 2004

  6. [5]

    International Journal of Modern Physics D 32(09), 2330002 (2023)

    Berglund, P., H¨ ubsch, T., Minic, D.: On de sitter spacetime and string the- ory. International Journal of Modern Physics D 32(09), 2330002 (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.06086

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.06086 2023

  7. [6]

    Symmetry 15(9), 1660 (2023)

    Berglund, P., H¨ ubsch, T., Minic, D.: String theory bounds on the c os- mological constant, the higgs mass, and the quark and lepton mass es. Symmetry 15(9), 1660 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15091660

    work page doi:10.3390/sym15091660 2023

  8. [7]

    The Astrophysical Journal 710(2), 1825–1834 (2010)

    Egan, C.A., Lineweaver, C.H.: A larger estimate of the entropy of the universe. The Astrophysical Journal 710(2), 1825–1834 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1825

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/710/2/1825 2010

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Physics Letters B 696(3), 273–277 (2011)

    Easson, D.A., Frampton, P.H., Smoot, G.F.: Entropic accel- erating universe. Physics Letters B 696(3), 273–277 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2010.12.025

    2011 doi

  2. [9]

    arXiv preprint hep-t h/0205177 (2002)

    Bousso, R.: Adventures in de sitter space. arXiv preprint hep-t h/0205177 (2002). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0205177

    2002 doi

  3. [10]

    : A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the hubble const ant with 1 km s- 1 mpc- 1 uncertainty from the hubble space telescope and the sh0es team

    Riess, A.G., Yuan, W., Macri, L.M., Scolnic, D., Brout, D., Casertano , S., Jones, D.O., Murakami, Y., Anand, G.S., Breuval, L., et al. : A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the hubble const ant with 1 km s- 1 mpc- 1 uncertainty from the hubble space telescope an...

    2022 doi

  4. [11]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomica l Society 446(4), 3874–3877 (2014)

    Barrow, J.D., Gibbons, G.W.: Maximum tension: with and without a cosmological constant. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomica l Society 446(4), 3874–3877 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu2378 The cosmological constant and the Higgs mass 13

    2014 doi

  5. [12]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2005.09.071

    B¨ ohmer, C.G., Harko, T.: Does the cosmological constant imply t he exis- tence of a minimum mass? Physics Letters B 630(3–4), 73–77 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2005.09.071

    2005 doi

  6. [13]

    : Review of particle physics

    Navas, S., et al. : Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  7. [14]

    : Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using bicep and p lanck data

    Tristram, M., Banday, A.J., G´ orski, K.M., Keskitalo, R., Lawrence , C., Andersen, K.J., Barreiro, R.B., Borrill, J., Colombo, L., Erik- sen, H., et al. : Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using bicep and p lanck data. Physical Review D 105(8), 083524 (2022). http...

    2022 doi

  8. [15]

    : Planck 2018 results-x

    Akrami, Y., Arroja, F., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., B allar- dini, M., Banday, A.J., Barreiro, R., Bartolo, N., Basak, S., et al. : Planck 2018 results-x. constraints on inflation. Astronomy & Astrophys ics 641, 10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833887

    2020 doi

  9. [16]

    American Journal of Physics 91(10), 819–825 (2023)

    Lineweaver, C.H., Patel, V.M.: All objects and some ques- tions. American Journal of Physics 91(10), 819–825 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0150209

    2023 doi

  10. [17]

    Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Ph ysics 2021(03), 054 (2021)

    Ringwald, A., Sch¨ utte-Engel, J., Tamarit, C.: Gravitational wav es as a big bang thermometer. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Ph ysics 2021(03), 054 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/03/054

    2021 doi

  11. [18]

    The European Physical Journal C 75, 1–12 (2015)

    Antoniadis, I., Patil, S.P.: The effective planck mass and the scale of inflation. The European Physical Journal C 75, 1–12 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3411-z

    2015 doi

  12. [19]

    Classical and Quantum Gravity 34(19), 193001 (2017)

    Carlip, S.: Dimension and dimensional reduction in quantum gravity. Classical and Quantum Gravity 34(19), 193001 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aa8535

    2017 doi

  13. [20]

    Journal of High Energy Physics 2007(09), 120–120 (2007)

    Hayden, P., Preskill, J.: Black holes as mirrors: quantum informat ion in random subsystems. Journal of High Energy Physics 2007(09), 120–120 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/120

    2007 doi

  14. [21]

    Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48(23), 23–01 (2015)

    Adami, C., Steeg, G.V.: Black holes are almost optimal quantum clon ers. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48(23), 23–01 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/48/23/23ft01

    2015 doi

  15. [22]

    arxiv 2020

    Milgrom, M.: The a0—cosmology connection in mond. arxiv 2020. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09729 (2020). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.09729 14 The cosmological constant and the Higgs mass

    2020 doi arXiv

  16. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:0902.2600 (2 009)

    Bogan, J.R.: From the cosmological constant: Higgs boson, dar k mat- ter, and quantum gravity scales. arXiv preprint arXiv:0902.2600 (2 009). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0902.2600

    doi arXiv

  17. [24]

    ´O., Sheikh-Jabbari, M.: A critique of holographic dark energy

    Colg´ ain, E. ´O., Sheikh-Jabbari, M.: A critique of holographic dark energy. Classical and Quantum Gravity 38(17), 177001 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac1504

    2021 doi

  18. [25]

    : Planck 2018 results-vi

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M., Banday, A.J., Barreiro, R., Bartolo, N., Basak, S., et al. : Planck 2018 results-vi. cosmological parameters. Astronomy & As tro- physics 641, 6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  19. [26]

    https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.063533

    Malekjani, M., Rezaei, M., Akhlaghi, I.A.: Can holographic dark ener gy models fit the observational data? Physical Review D 98(6), 063533 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.063533

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Physique 18(3–4), 275–291 (2017)

    Padmanabhan, T.: Do we really understand the cos- mos? Comptes Rendus. Physique 18(3–4), 275–291 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2017.02.001

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    International Journal of Moder n Physics D 23(06), 1430011 (2014)

    Padmanabhan, T., Padmanabhan, H.: Cosmological constant fr om the emergent gravity perspective. International Journal of Moder n Physics D 23(06), 1430011 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218271814300110

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    Physical Review D 91(4) (2015)

    Phillips, D., Scacco, A., Albrecht, A.: Holographic bounds and finite inflation. Physical Review D 91(4) (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.91.043513

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    : Desi 2024 vi: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations

    Adame, A., Aguilar, J., Ahlen, S., Alam, S., Alexander, D., Alvarez, M., Alves, O., Anand, A., Andrade, U., Armengaud, E., et al. : Desi 2024 vi: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03002 (2024 ). https://do...

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Classical and Quantum Gravity 38(15), 153001 (2021)

    Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., Visinelli, L., Yang, W., Melchiorri, A., Mota, D.F., Riess, A.G., Silk, J.: In the realm of the hubble ten- sion—a review of solutions. Classical and Quantum Gravity 38(15), 153001 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.