Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Black Holes and Higgs Dark Energy

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

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

Pith's one-line read A collapsing star's core can trap Higgs dark energy inside the black hole it forms, in a 2-to-1 ratio with matter.

desk verdict The Higgs-field dark-energy-in-black-holes idea is genuinely new, but the paper's headline 2:1 ratio is an input condition presented as a calculation, and the abstract oversells what the text itself concedes is shaky. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05361 v1 pith:HGU4H5OW submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.CO

Steve P. Ahlen , James W. Rohlf , Gregory Tarlé This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords blackholesdarkenergyHiggsfieldelectroweakphasetransitioncosmologicallycoupledOppenheimer-Snydercollapsepotentialcosmicacceleration
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 the dark energy driving cosmic acceleration may be locked inside black holes, placed there by the electroweak phase transition of the Higgs field during stellar collapse. Using the Oppenheimer-Snyder model, the authors find that at the moment collapse begins the interior must hold matter and Higgs dark energy in a 2-to-1 ratio, with the entire collapse following a cycloid that ends in about 57 microseconds. If black holes are cosmologically coupled—growing in mass as the universe expands—this trapped Higgs energy can account for both the present amount of dark energy and the evidence from baryon-acoustic-oscillation and supernova data that dark energy evolves with time. The paper makes the case that the only late-universe setting where the early universe's symmetry-restoring expansion runs in reverse is the formation of a black hole, so Higgs dark energy inside black holes is a natural rather than exotic possibility.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the temperature-dependent Higgs potential $V = \lambda[(\Phi^2 - \nu^2/2)^2 + \nu^2\Phi^2(T/T_c)^3]$, evaluated inside a collapsing stellar core. Above the critical temperature $kT_c \approx 160$ GeV the field sits near $\Phi = 0$, and particle rest masses are converted into this potential energy. The argument is carried by the Oppenheimer-Snyder model of pressureless collapse, whose interior Robertson-Walker metric has positive spatial curvature; the Friedmann equation with matter and Higgs densities both scaling as $a^{-3}$ yields a cycloid $a = (1+\cos\psi)/2$ with $\tau = (\psi + \sin\psi)/2$ and a collapse time of 57 $\mu$s. The 2-to-1 ratio comes from the acceleration equation $\ddot a/a = -(4\pi G/3c^2)(\rho_m - 2\rho_H)$, which requires $\rho_m \ge 2\rho_H$ if the collapse is not to accelerate outward at $t = 0$.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to measure the redshift evolution of the stellar-mass black-hole mass function: if average black-hole mass does not grow with the scale factor as predicted by cosmological coupling, the trapped Higgs energy is not sensed by the universe and the dark-energy conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that black holes are not empty or purely geometric; they contain a substantial reservoir of Higgs-field energy because the collapse of a stellar core passes through the electroweak phase transition. At high temperature the Higgs field's vacuum expectation value is driven toward zero, and the energy that ordinarily appears as particle rest mass is converted into the temperature-dependent Higgs potential. Once the horizon forms, that potential energy is trapped. The quantitative result is a 2-to-1 ratio of matter energy density to Higgs dark energy density at the start of collapse, enforced by the Friedmann acceleration equation, which would otherwise give the collapsing object a positive acceleration. The interior solution is a positively curved Robertson-Walker metric whose scale factor is a cycloid with a collapse time of 57 $\mu$s for a three-solar-mass object. If such Higgs compact objects are cosmologically coupled, their growth with the scale factor supplies the evolving dark energy suggested by recent cosmological data.

Load-bearing premise

The cosmological conclusion collapses if the exterior universe cannot sense and spatially average the internal equation of state of a black hole; without that coupling, the trapped Higgs energy is causally inaccessible and cannot accelerate cosmic expansion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mechanism is right, every stellar-mass black hole formed from a collapsing core contains dark energy making up roughly one-third of its mass, so black holes are reservoirs of dark energy rather than empty regions.
  • The 2-to-1 ratio is a testable prediction of the model: a core-collapse simulation with a full equation of state should find the Higgs energy fraction at horizon formation at or below one-third.
  • Cosmologically coupled black holes that grow in mass with the scale factor would naturally produce a time-evolving dark energy, in the direction suggested by recent baryon-acoustic-oscillation data.
  • The 57 $\mu$s cycloid collapse time makes the interior phase transition fast compared with the Hubble time, so the trapped Higgs energy is established promptly at black hole formation and can then evolve only through cosmological coupling.
  • If the exterior universe can sense the interior equation of state, the population of Higgs compact objects contributes a dark-energy component whose abundance tracks the star-formation history, the cosmic dawn-to-noon period when most stellar-mass black holes formed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper does not draw is that the same mechanism, if it bypasses causal disconnection, could apply to primordial black holes and extend dark-energy production to epochs before star formation.
  • One way the argument could be pressed further is to compute the gravitational-wave mass-spin imprint of the trapped Higgs reservoir; the 2-to-1 ratio itself has no direct observable beyond the cosmological growth of black hole masses.
  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is to fit the dark-energy equation of state directly to measured black-hole mass growth; if the two are independent, the Higgs-reservoir origin would be disfavored.
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 paper proposes that the electroweak phase transition during stellar collapse traps Higgs-field energy inside the resulting black hole, forming 'Higgs compact objects' (HCOs) that act as dark energy. Using the Oppenheimer–Snyder (OS) collapse model together with a temperature-dependent Higgs potential, the authors claim to calculate a 2:1 ratio of matter to Higgs dark energy density at the start of collapse, a cycloid scale factor with collapse time 57 microseconds, and specific values rho0 ≈ 0.003 GeV^4 and c0 ≈ 0.006 GeV^4. They then argue that cosmologically coupled black holes carrying this Higgs energy can account for the time-evolving dark energy suggested by DESI data.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the paper would supply a microphysical mechanism connecting the Higgs sector to dark energy and to the observed cosmological coupling of black holes, thereby providing a particle-physics foundation for the CCBH/DESI interpretation. The authors are transparent about several approximations and cite relevant prior work, including the Farrah and Croker papers. However, the central quantitative claim—the 2:1 ratio—is not actually derived from the collapse dynamics; it is imposed through the choice of initial condition, and the calculation contains inconsistencies that undermine the claimed result. The paper does not provide a machine-checked derivation, error bars, or a sensitivity analysis, so the headline numbers are not supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (4.1)] The 2:1 matter-to-dark-energy ratio advertised in the abstract is an input, not an output. Eq. (4.1) only imposes the inequality rho_m >= 2 rho_H, and the text states that the initial temperature is chosen 'to maximize the Higgs potential energy ... without violating' this inequality. The subsequent values rho0 and c0 in Eqs. (5.1)-(5.2) follow from this chosen split combined with M = 3 M_sun in Eq. (4.9). Thus the claim 'we calculate ... the ratio of 2 to 1' is circular: the maximum allowed by the inequality is selected as the result.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (4.2) and Section 1, Eqs. (1.1)-(1.2)] There is an inconsistency in the equation of state assumed for the Higgs energy density. Section 1 states that the kinetic term is small and that w = P/rho = -1, which implies rho_H is constant under adiabatic evolution. However, Eq. (4.2) uses rho_H = rho0/a^3, which corresponds to w = 0. The cycloid solution and the collapse time 57 microseconds depend on this a^-3 scaling, so the inconsistency directly affects the quantitative results.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (3.3)] The finite-temperature Higgs potential is modified by hand from the standard (T/Tc)^2 to (T/Tc)^3. The justification given is the smoothness of the cumulative particle spectrum (Figure 3), but no physical derivation or error estimate is provided. This modification changes the temperature at which the symmetry-restoring potential becomes important, and hence the Higgs energy fraction and the values of rho0 and c0. The authors themselves note that the potential is an overestimate, yet they proceed without quantifying the uncertainty.
  4. [Section 5, final paragraph] The cosmological conclusion depends on the assumption that the exterior universe can sense and spatially average the equation of state of black hole interiors. The paper acknowledges this requirement ('Of course, this requires ...') but provides no mechanism or justification. If trapped regions are causally disconnected from the exterior, the interior Higgs energy cannot accelerate cosmic expansion, and the DESI interpretation fails regardless of the interior calculation. This assumption is load-bearing for the paper's central astrophysical claim.
  5. [Section 4, initial conditions] The initial conditions a(0)=1 and adot(0)=0 at the Schwarzschild radius are not justified. The collapse is supposed to begin from a neutron-star configuration at radius about 10 km, which is larger than the Schwarzschild radius for 3 M_sun (~9 km), and the mapping between the dust-ball scale factor and the physical radius is not established. The value of the collapse time and the normalization of rho0 and c0 depend on these conditions, so the 57 microseconds and the density values are not robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The name 'Friedmann' is misspelled as 'Friedman' in several places, for example in the caption to Figure 5 and in the phrase 'Friedman acceleration equation' in Section 4.
  2. [Abstract and keywords] The keyword list contains the misspelling 'phase transtion'; it should be 'phase transition'. The list is also excessively long and includes phrases such as 'high energy' that are not standard keywords.
  3. [Figure 4] The caption says the dashed line indicates 'the threshold below which the Higgs fraction must exist', while the text refers to the 2:1 ratio; the relationship between these two statements should be clarified for the reader.
  4. [References] Reference [63] is incomplete: it gives no journal or volume/page information and the arXiv identifier is missing. Reference [47] should be checked for spelling ('Mboyne' appears to be 'Mbonye').
  5. [Section 4, Eq. (4.2)] The notation is confusing because c0 and rho0 are introduced with units of GeV^4 as energy densities (with factors of c^2), but the text refers to them as 'matter density coefficient' and 'Higgs energy density coefficient'. The definitions should be stated explicitly with their dimensions.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The advertised 2:1 matter-to-dark-energy ratio is not calculated from collapse: it is the saturation point of the inequality in Eq. (4.1) chosen by the authors, and ρ0, c0, and the 1/3 dark-energy fraction in Section 5 simply restate that choice.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 4, Eq. (4.1); Section 5, Eqs. (5.1)-(5.2)]
    "We choose the initial temperature of the collapse to maximize the Higgs potential energy of the HCO without violating the second Friedmann equation (the so-called acceleration equation), ... This seems to require that the matter density be at least twice the DE density to avoid having a positive acceleration of the HCO at the initial time of collapse (t = 0). ... If we assume that the Higgs field is equal to its vacuum expectation value, the above results give ρ0 ≈ 0.003 GeV4 and c0 ≈ 0.006 GeV4 ... with dark energy comprising about 1/3 of the mass of the HCO."

    In Eq. (4.1), ä/a ∝ -(ρm - 2ρH), so 'at least twice' is only an inequality. The instruction to 'maximize the Higgs potential energy ... without violating' it selects the boundary ρm = 2ρH, i.e., a one-third Higgs fraction. Eq. (4.9), M = (4πr_s³/3)(c0+ρ0), with M = 3M_sun fixes only the sum c0+ρ0; the individual values 0.006 and 0.003 GeV4 and the '1/3 of the mass' statement simply restate the chosen boundary. Eq. (1.3) for Φ is never integrated, so the fraction is not obtained from collapse dynamics.

  2. other [Section 3, after Eq. (3.2), where (T/Tc)^2 is replaced by (T/Tc)^3]
    "Taking advantage of this feature, we insert another power of T /Tc to obtain an approximate expression for V , V = λ[(Φ2 − ν2/2)2 + ν2Φ2(T /Tc)3]."

    The standard finite-temperature term is (T/Tc)^2, which at the VEV gives V ∝ a^-2. Inserting (T/Tc)^3 makes V ∝ a^-3, the same scaling as the pressureless matter assumed in Section 4. This ad hoc exponent is what allows the Friedmann equation to close to the cycloid solution and keeps the chosen 2:1 split constant throughout collapse. The desired dust-like scaling of the Higgs energy is therefore inserted by hand rather than derived, so the cycloid solution and the constant ratio rest on this tuned input.

full rationale

The paper largely consists of standard Oppenheimer-Snyder dust collapse: the cycloid solution (Eqs. 4.5-4.8) is textbook, and the 57 μs collapse time is a legitimate consequence of the chosen total density c0+ρ0 fixed by M=3M_sun via Eq. (4.9). What is advertised as the central quantitative result is the 2:1 matter-to-Higgs-dark-energy ratio. That ratio is not obtained by integrating the Higgs field equation of motion (Eq. 1.3) or by solving the coupled collapse; it is chosen. Eq. (4.1) yields only an inequality ρm ≥ 2ρH, and the text selects the boundary by instructing that the initial temperature be chosen to maximize Higgs energy 'without violating' the inequality. The subsequent numbers ρ0≈0.003 GeV4, c0≈0.006 GeV4 and the '1/3 of the mass' statement then follow algebraically from Eq. (4.9), not from any calculation of the phase transition. The ad hoc replacement of (T/Tc)^2 by (T/Tc)^3 in Section 3 is similarly an input chosen to make the Higgs energy scale as a^-3, which is exactly what allows the 2:1 split to be constant in the dust cycloid. The paper itself admits the inequality 'may not actually apply' and that the cosmological conclusion requires the exterior universe to sense the interior equation of state. The CCBH premise is taken from the authors' own prior work [45,46], but since that premise is conditional and is supported by published observational analyses, I do not treat it as load-bearing circularity. On balance, the headline ratio and the associated density values are input restated as output, so the circularity score is 7 rather than 0, but the standard OS/cycloid machinery keeps it from being a fully circular paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central numbers are set by the chosen initial temperature, the imposed 2:1 inequality, and the black hole mass relation. The ledger shows these choices rather than independent first-principles inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial collapse temperature = kT ≈ 37 MeV (a=1 at Schwarzschild radius for M=3 solar masses; text also mentions ~30 MeV)
    Chosen to maximize Higgs potential energy without violating Eq (4.1); it drives all density numbers.
  • c0 (matter density coefficient) = ≈ 0.006 GeV^4
    From Eq (4.9) with M=3 solar masses and the 2:1 ratio; not derived from microphysics.
  • rho0 (Higgs energy density coefficient) = ≈ 0.003 GeV^4
    Set by the 2:1 constraint and the black hole mass relation; loosely matched to the finite-temperature Higgs potential.
  • Matter-to-Higgs density ratio = 2:1
    Imposed by Eq (4.1) to avoid positive acceleration; later reported as a calculated result.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Pressureless dust equation of state with matter density proportional to a^-3 holds through collapse.
    Section 4 says 'Since we neglect pressure, the baryon energy density scales as 1/a^3'; the authors admit this is an approximation for kT = 37 MeV, where radiation pressure should be significant.
  • ad hoc to paper Higgs energy density also scales as a^-3 with equation of state w = -1.
    Eq (4.2) sets rho_H = rho0/a^3 without deriving this from scalar field dynamics; a dynamical Higgs field would not follow a simple dust-like scaling.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite-temperature Higgs potential is approximated by inserting (T/Tc)^3 instead of the standard (T/Tc)^2.
    Eq (3.3) is introduced to reduce an 'overestimation' of V at low temperature; no QFT calculation justifies the modified exponent.
  • domain assumption The universe outside black holes can sense and spatially average the interior equation of state of black holes.
    Section 5: 'Of course, this requires that the Universe outside the HCOs can sense and do a spatial average of the equation of state for the internal composition of the HCOs.' This is needed to convert interior Higgs energy into cosmic acceleration.
  • domain assumption Black holes are cosmologically coupled and grow in mass as the universe expands.
    Borrowed from Farrah et al. and Croker et al.; the paper treats this as input for its dark-energy accounting, not as something it establishes.
  • ad hoc to paper Collapse starts at the Schwarzschild radius with a(0)=1 and time derivative of a equal to zero at t=0.
    Section 4 sets initial conditions at r_s; a star at its own Schwarzschild radius is not a static initial state, and Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse crosses the horizon with nonzero velocity.
invented entities (1)
  • Higgs compact object (HCO)
    purpose: A black hole whose mass includes a significant component of Higgs-field potential energy acting as dark energy.
    The paper introduces HCOs as the carriers of the trapped dark energy; no direct observational handle is provided beyond the inherited, contested cosmological coupling signature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black Holes and Higgs Dark Energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HGU4H5OW

@misc{pith2026250205361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black Holes and Higgs Dark Energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HGU4H5OW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05361}
}
read the original abstract

Black holes, dark energy, and the Higgs field are all currently established, exciting, and mysterious, each in its own way. Cosmological data show that dark energy may evolve with time. The electroweak phase transition during stellar collapse can provide a mechanism via the Higgs field for dark energy to be trapped inside black holes at the time of their formation. Using the Oppenheimer-Snyder model of collapse, we calculate the total matter and dark energy densities in a black hole, to be in the ratio of 2 to 1 at the start of collapse. The solution for the scale factor a(t) is a cycloid with a collapse time of 57 \mu s. If black holes are cosmologically coupled and grow in mass as the universe expands, they can account for the evolution and quantity of the dark energy of the universe.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Evaporating cosmologically coupled black holes

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    If a black hole's mass grows with cosmic expansion, Hawking evaporation is slowed or reversed, weakening gamma-ray bounds on primordial black holes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Black holes

    A. Nelson, “Black holes” in space , Science News Letter (1964)

    work page 1964

  2. [2]

    Siegfried, 50 years later, it’s hard to say who named black holes , Science News (2013)

    T. Siegfried, 50 years later, it’s hard to say who named black holes , Science News (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Schwarzschild, On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein ’s theory , Sitzungsber

    K. Schwarzschild, On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein ’s theory , Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) 1916 (1916) 189 [ physics/9905030]

    arXiv 1916

  4. [4]

    Oppenheimer and H

    J.R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, On continued gravitational contraction, Phys. Rev. 56 (1939) 455

    work page 1939

  5. [5]

    Einstein, The field equations of gravitation , Sitzungsberichte 46 (1915) 799

    A. Einstein, The field equations of gravitation , Sitzungsberichte 46 (1915) 799

    work page 1915

  6. [6]

    Einstein, The foundation of the general theory of relativity

    A. Einstein, The foundation of the general theory of relativity. , Annalen Phys. 49 (1916) 769

    work page 1916

  7. [7]

    Colgate and M.H

    S.A. Colgate and M.H. Johnson, Hydrodynamic origin of cosmic rays , Phys. Rev. Lett. 5 (1960) 235

    work page 1960

  8. [8]

    Webster and P

    B.L. Webster and P. Murdin, Cygnus X-1-a Spectroscopic Binary with a Heavy Companion ? , Nature 235 (1972) 37

    work page 1972

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Shojai, A

    F. Shojai, A. Sadeghi and R. Hassannejad, Generalized oppenheimer–snyder gravitational collapse into regular black holes , Classical and Quantum Gravity 39 (2022) 085003

    2022

  2. [10]

    Turner, Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe , in The Third Stromlo Symposium: The Galactic Halo , B.K

    M.S. Turner, Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe , in The Third Stromlo Symposium: The Galactic Halo , B.K. Gibson, R.S. Axelrod and M.E. Putman, eds., vol. 165 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series , p. 431, Jan., 1999, DOI [ astro-ph/9811454]

    1999 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Riess et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, AJ 116 (1998) 1009

    A.G. Riess et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, AJ 116 (1998) 1009

    1998

  4. [12]

    Perlmutter et al., Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae , ApJ 517 (1999) 565

    S. Perlmutter et al., Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae , ApJ 517 (1999) 565

    1999

  5. [13]

    Blinnikov and A.D

    S.I. Blinnikov and A.D. Dolgov, Cosmological acceleration, Physics-Uspekhi 62 (2019) 529

    2019

  6. [14]

    Higgs, Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields , Phys

    P.W. Higgs, Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields , Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132

    1964

  7. [15]

    Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons , Phys

    P.W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508

    1964

  8. [16]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321

    1964

  9. [17]

    Guralnik, C.R

    G.S. Guralnik, C.R. Hagen and T.W.B. Kibble, Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585

    1964

  10. [18]

    Anderson, Higgs, Anderson and all that , Nature Physics (2015) 1745

    P.W. Anderson, Higgs, Anderson and all that , Nature Physics (2015) 1745

    2015

  11. [19]

    ATLAS collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [ 1207.7214]. – 10 –

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    CMS collaboration, Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [ 1207.7235]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    UA1 collaboration, Experimental Observation of Isolated Large Transverse Energy Electrons with Associated Missing Energy at √s = 540 GeV, Phys. Lett. B 122 (1983) 103

    1983

  14. [22]

    UA1 collaboration, Experimental Observation of Lepton Pairs of Invariant Mass Around 95-GeV/c2 at the CERN SPS Collider , Phys. Lett. B 126 (1983) 398

    1983

  15. [23]

    Rohlf, Recent physics results from the CERN pp collider , 12th International Conference on High-Energy Accelerators Conf

    J. Rohlf, Recent physics results from the CERN pp collider , 12th International Conference on High-Energy Accelerators Conf. Proc. C 830811(1984) 619

    1984

  16. [24]

    Rohlf, Physics reach with CMS at high and super-high luminosities , Eur

    J.W. Rohlf, Physics reach with CMS at high and super-high luminosities , Eur. Phys. J. C 34 (2004) S221

    2004

  17. [25]

    CMS collaboration, The phase-2 upgrade of the CMS tracker, CERN-LHCC-2017-009, CMS-TDR-014, CERN-LHCC-2017-009, CMS-TDR-014 ,

    2017

  18. [26]

    ATLAS collaboration, Technical design report for the Phase-II upgrade of the ATLAS TDAQ system, CERN-LHCC-2017-020, ATLAS-TDR-029 ,

    2017

  19. [27]

    CMS collaboration, A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery., Nature 607 (2022) 60 [ 2207.00043]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    ATLAS collaboration, A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery , Nature 607 (2022) 52 [ 2207.00092]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    FCC collaboration, FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 1, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 474

    2019

  22. [30]

    Accettura et al., Towards a muon collider , Eur

    C. Accettura et al., Towards a muon collider , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 864 [ 2303.08533]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    CMS collaboration, Measurements of the Higgs boson production cross section and couplings in the W boson pair decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 667 [ 2206.09466]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys

    A.H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 347

    1981

  25. [33]

    Linde, Chaotic inflation , Phys

    A. Linde, Chaotic inflation , Phys. Lett. B 129 (1983) 177

    1983

  26. [34]

    CMS collaboration, Search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons A and H in the t¯tZ channel in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV , 2412.00570

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    ATLAS collaboration, A search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying into vector bosons in same-sign two-lepton final states in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 07 (2023) 200 [ 2211.02617]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bezrukov and M

    F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, The standard model higgs boson as the inflaton , Phys. Let. B 659 (2008) 703

    2008

  29. [37]

    Rinaldi, Higgs Dark Energy , Class

    M. Rinaldi, Higgs Dark Energy , Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015) 045002 [ 1404.0532]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Usman and A

    M. Usman and A. Qadir, Dark energy from nondegenerate Higgs-vacuum , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) 2040008 [ 2407.09840]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    DESI Collaboration,, A. G. Adame et al., Desi 2024 VI: Cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations ,

    2024

  32. [40]

    et al., Planck 2018 results - vi

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N. et al., Planck 2018 results - vi. cosmological parameters , A&A 641 (2020) A6

    2020

  33. [41]

    Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravitational lensing , A&A 641 (2020) A8 [ 1807.06210]. – 11 –

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Rubin, G

    D. Rubin, G. Aldering, M. Betoule, A. Fruchter, X. Huang, A.G. Kim et al., Union Through UNITY: Cosmology with 2,000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework , arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2311.12098 [ 2311.12098]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Abbott, M

    DES Collaboration, T.M.C. Abbott, M. Acevedo, M. Aguena, A. Alarcon, S. Allam et al., The dark energy survey: Cosmology results with 1500 new high-redshift type ia supernovae using the full 5-year dataset , 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Brout, D

    D. Brout, D. Scolnic, B. Popovic, A.G. Riess, A. Carr, J. Zuntz et al., The pantheon+ analysis: Cosmological constraints, The Astrophysical Journal 938 (2022) 110

    2022

  37. [45]

    Croker, G

    K.S. Croker, G. Tarl´ e, S.P. Ahlen et al.,DESI dark energy time evolution is recovered by cosmologically coupled black holes , JCAP 10 (2024) 094 [ 2405.12282]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Farrah, K.S

    D. Farrah, K.S. Croker, M. Zevin, G. Tarl´ e et al., Observational evidence for cosmological coupling of black holes and its implications for an astrophysical source of dark energy , ApJL 944 (2023) L31

    2023

  39. [47]

    Mbonye and D

    M.R. Mbonye and D. Kazanas, A Non-singular black hole model as a possible end-product of gravitational collapse, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 024016 [ gr-qc/0506111]

    2005 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles , Wiley-VCH, 2 nd revised ed

    D. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles , Wiley-VCH, 2 nd revised ed. (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Zee, Quantum field theory in a nutshell , Princeton University Press (2010)

    A. Zee, Quantum field theory in a nutshell , Princeton University Press (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Kane, Modern Elementary Particle Physics , Addison-Wesley (1987)

    G. Kane, Modern Elementary Particle Physics , Addison-Wesley (1987)

    1987

  43. [51]

    Murayama, Origin of neutrino mass , Prog

    H. Murayama, Origin of neutrino mass , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57 (2006) 3

    2006

  44. [52]

    Huang, A superfluid universe , World Scientific, Singapore (2017)

    K. Huang, A superfluid universe , World Scientific, Singapore (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Carroll, W.H

    S.M. Carroll, W.H. Press and E.L. Turner, The cosmological constant, A&A 30 (1992) 499

    1992

  46. [54]

    Rugh and H

    S. Rugh and H. Zinkernagel, The quantum vacuum and the cosmological constant problem , Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (2002) 663

    2002

  47. [55]

    Tolman, Static Solutions of Einstein ’s Field Equations for Spheres of Fluid , Phys

    R.C. Tolman, Static Solutions of Einstein ’s Field Equations for Spheres of Fluid , Phys. Rev. 55 (1939) 364

    1939

  48. [56]

    Oppenheimer and G.M

    J.R. Oppenheimer and G.M. Volkoff, On Massive Neutron Cores , Phys. Rev. 55 (1939) 374

    1939

  49. [57]

    Rezzolla, E.R

    L. Rezzolla, E.R. Most and L.R. Weih, Using gravitational-wave observations and quasi-universal relations to constrain the maximum mass of neutron stars , ApJL 852 (2018) L25

    2018

  50. [58]

    Weinberg, Graviation and cosmology, Wiley, NY (1972)

    S. Weinberg, Graviation and cosmology, Wiley, NY (1972)

    1972

  51. [59]

    Melo, Higgs potential and fundamental physics , Eur

    I. Melo, Higgs potential and fundamental physics , Eur. J. Phys. 38 (2017) 065404

    2017

  52. [60]

    Chaudhuri and A

    A. Chaudhuri and A. Dolgov, Electroweak phase transition and entropy release in the early universe, JCAP 2018 (2018) 032

    2018

  53. [61]

    Lattimer, Introduction to neutron stars , AIP Conference Proceedings 1645 (2015) 61 [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/1645/1/61/11550923/61 1 online.pdf]

    J.M. Lattimer, Introduction to neutron stars , AIP Conference Proceedings 1645 (2015) 61 [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/1645/1/61/11550923/61 1 online.pdf]

    2015

  54. [62]

    Sumiyoshi, T

    K. Sumiyoshi, T. Kojo and S. Furusawa, Equation of state in neutron stars and supernovae , Handbook of Nuclear Physics, Springer, Singapore (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Nasser Tawfik and I

    A. Nasser Tawfik and I. Mishustin, Equation of state for cosmological matter at and beyond qcd and electroweak eras, arXiv e-prints (2019) arXiv

    2019

  56. [64]

    Huang and S

    K. Huang and S. Weinberg, Ultimate temperature and the early universe , Phys. Rev. Lett. 25 (1970) 895. – 12 –

    1970

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.