The cosmological constant problem: from Newtonian cosmology to the greatest puzzle of modern theoretical cosmology

Federico Scali

The cosmological constant problem: from Newtonian cosmology to the greatest puzzle of modern theoretical cosmology

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum fields predict a cosmological vacuum energy 56 orders of magnitude off the observed value, and the gap is a naturalness problem.

desk verdict A solid, standard review of the cosmological constant problem; the central naturalness claim survives the scheme-dependence caveat, and the quark-counting slip is minor. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15358 v1 pith:ANZ7X6RB submitted 2025-04-21 gr-qc hep-th

Federico Scali This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83F0583C4781T20 PACS 04.62.+v98.80.-k

keywords cosmologicalconstantproblemvacuumenergyquantumfieldtheorysemiclassicalgravityrenormalizationFLRWcosmologyNewtoniannaturalness

topics Dark Energy

open problems Dark Energy

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 review argues that the cosmological constant problem is best sharpened as a numerical clash with two numbers at its center: quantum field theory's renormalized vacuum energy in a cosmological setting, about $-2\times 10^{9}\,\mathrm{GeV}^4$, and the observed energy density of the cosmological constant, about $10^{-47}\,\mathrm{GeV}^4$. The author traces the conceptual route from Newtonian cosmology and the modified Poisson equation, through general relativity and the $\Lambda$-CDM model, to the semiclassical Einstein equations in which vacuum fluctuations act exactly like a cosmological term. The paper's central contention is that the resulting 56-order discrepancy is not a mere calculational nuisance: it marks a naturalness failure, because no known symmetry protects the small observed value of $\Lambda$ from the enormous vacuum contributions of the standard model fields. The author also emphasizes that the precise numerical prediction depends on a renormalization convention, while the need for extreme fine-tuning survives any convention choice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the renormalized vacuum energy density of the standard model fields, obtained from the divergent zero-point integral by dimensional regularization and by subtracting the pole together with the $\mu$-independent finite terms. The result, $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{ren}} = \sum_i n_i (m_i^4/64\pi^2)\ln(m_i^2/4\pi\mu^2)$, converts the unphysical bare integral into a finite, scale-dependent prediction. The cosmological renormalization scale $\mu_* = \sqrt{E_\gamma E_{\mathrm{grav}}} \simeq 3\times 10^{-25}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ is the additional ingredient that produces the numerical value compared with observation. The semiclassical Einstein equations, together with the identity $\langle \hat{T}_{\mu\nu}\rangle = -\rho_{\mathrm{vac}}g_{\mu\nu}$, are what make vacuum energy gravitate precisely as a cosmological term.

What would settle it

Evaluate the standard-model vacuum energy using the same field content but a different renormalization convention or scale, say the Planck scale or the Hubble scale, and check whether the discrepancy with $\rho_\Lambda$ changes by orders of magnitude; if some natural convention yields a value near $10^{-47}\,\mathrm{GeV}^4$ without fine-tuning, the paper's quantitative claim collapses. Alternatively, a laboratory or cosmological measurement that fixes the finite part of $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{ren}}$ would decide whether the 56-order gap is a physical fact or an artifact of the chosen $\mu_*$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the cosmological constant problem can be stated as a quantifiable mismatch between a theoretical and an observational number. Coupling quantum fields to gravity through the semiclassical Einstein equations gives an effective cosmological constant $\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}} = \Lambda + (8\pi G/c^4)\rho_{\mathrm{vac}}$, where Lorentz invariance forces $\langle \hat{T}_{\mu\nu}\rangle = -\rho_{\mathrm{vac}}g_{\mu\nu}$. Evaluating the vacuum energy of the standard model fields with a plausible cosmological renormalization scale $\mu_* \simeq 3\times 10^{-25}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ yields $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{ren}}(\mu_*) \simeq -2\times 10^9\,\mathrm{GeV}^4$, while supernova observations imply $\rho_\Lambda \simeq 10^{-47}\,\mathrm{GeV}^4$: apart from the sign, a gap of 56 orders of magnitude. The author argues that this gap constitutes the essence of the cosmological constant problem and that its resolution requires either a new symmetry, a modification of gravity, a breakdown of the cosmological principle through inhomogeneous averaging, or a deeper understanding of quantum fields on a dynamical background.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative 56-order discrepancy rests on the convention that subtracts the pole and the $\mu$-independent terms from the bare vacuum energy and then evaluates the result at $\mu_* \simeq 3\times 10^{-25}\,\mathrm{GeV}$; the paper itself concedes that finite renormalizations are not fixed by the theory, so this convention, rather than a measurement, sets the numerical side of the discrepancy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If quantum fields gravitate through their vacuum energy, the cosmological constant cannot be simply set to zero; it must absorb the renormalized vacuum contribution, turning $\Lambda$ into a counterterm rather than a free parameter.
The observed $\rho_\Lambda \simeq 10^{-47}\,\mathrm{GeV}^4$ lies far below every known particle mass contribution, so any complete theory must explain why the standard-model vacuum does not dominate cosmic expansion.
A symmetry relating bosons and fermions would cancel the leading vacuum contributions, but since such a symmetry is broken and no superpartners are observed, it does not naturally explain the smallness without additional tuning.
A no-go theorem under broad assumptions rules out simple self-adjusting mechanisms that drive $\Lambda$ to zero without fine-tuning, so proposed solutions must weaken one of those assumptions.
In inhomogeneous cosmological models, the renormalization conditions that define $\mu_*$ and the comparison value $\rho_\Lambda$ no longer apply, so even if these models explain the accelerated expansion they still leave the vacuum backreaction question open.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own caveat about finite renormalizations suggests that the 56-order figure is best read as a boundary-condition statement rather than a unique prediction; a different scheme or scale would change the number, though not the structural difficulty.
The Newtonian and quantum halves of the review share a formal point: both need an external choice—boundary conditions at infinity or a renormalization condition—to define the gravitational source, so the cosmological constant problem may ultimately be a question about what fixes that choice.
A future measurement that pinned the finite part of $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{ren}}$, for example through precision vacuum-energy probes or Casimir-type experiments in curved backgrounds, would turn the fine-tuning argument into a testable relation between particle masses and cosmic expansion.
The paper presents inhomogeneous averaging, modified gravity, and broken symmetry as alternatives; a discriminating test would be whether an observer inside a cosmic void still measures acceleration, which would favor intrinsic dynamics over apparent acceleration.

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

Short version: this is a review, not a research paper, and it is a good one. Scali walks from Newtonian cosmology through FLRW and Einstein's static universe to the QFT vacuum-energy calculation, ending with a survey of proposed solutions. The derivations in Sections 2 and 4 are standard and, as far as I can tell, accurately reproduced. The historical narrative is well sourced and the paper is honest about the assumptions behind Eq. (4.8): free fields, flat background, semiclassical backreaction. That honesty is a real strength; most accounts of the 120-orders discrepancy gloss over the renormalization choice.

The one quantitative centerpiece, Eq. (4.10) versus Eq. (4.11), is the 56-order discrepancy. The stress-test note is correct: that number is scheme- and scale-dependent. The paper defines rho_vac^ren by subtracting the pole plus mu-independent finite terms and picks mu* from supernova photon energy and H0. A different MS-bar convention or a different mu, such as the top mass, changes the numerical value and even which fields dominate. The paper partially acknowledges this in Sec. 4.2, but the phrase 'theoretical prediction' is stronger than the calculation warrants. Still, the broader claim holds: in any mass-independent scheme you need a counterterm that cancels loop contributions at (100 GeV)^4 or larger against 10^-47 GeV^4. The fine-tuning problem is real.

There is one genuine slip: the text assigns n_q = -4 to each quark flavor, but the quoted -2 x 10^9 GeV^4 follows from including the color factor (n_q = -12). With n_q = -4 the magnitude is about a factor 3 smaller, still a roughly 56-order discrepancy. Minor, but should be fixed before publication.

The final section is a tour of proposed solutions—supersymmetry, Weinberg's no-go, modified gravity, string-theory AdS/dS, inhomogeneous cosmologies. It is necessarily uncritical, but it is clearly labeled as perspectives and the references are appropriate. I see no citation problems and no circular reasoning: the observed rho_Lambda enters only as the comparison target.

Who is this for? A graduate student or a physicist from another field who wants the standard story in one place. It does not advance research, and the reader's novelty score of 0 is fair. But it is exactly the kind of review that deserves peer review in an appropriate venue, not desk rejection, provided the author fixes the quark-color slip and softens 'prediction' to 'estimate under a stated renormalization convention.' I would not cite it in my own research, but I would recommend it to students.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a review article that retraces the route to the cosmological constant problem, starting from Newtonian cosmology and the difficulties of an infinite static universe, continuing through general relativity and the standard Λ-CDM model, and ending with the quantum-field-theory formulation of the problem. The central quantitative claim is that a particular renormalized estimate of the Standard Model vacuum energy, Eq. (4.10), gives ρ_vac^ren(μ*) ≃ -2 × 10^9 GeV^4, which is compared with the observed ρ_Λ ≃ 10^-47 GeV^4 in Eq. (4.11) and quoted as a 56-order-of-magnitude discrepancy requiring extreme fine-tuning. The paper then discusses conceptual difficulties in the formulation and surveys proposed resolutions, including supersymmetry, adjusting mechanisms, modified gravity, string-theoretic de Sitter vacua, and inhomogeneous cosmologies.

Significance. As a pedagogical and conceptual review, the paper has real value: it collects the historical material of Secs. 2 and 3 into a coherent narrative, correctly identifies the semiclassical Einstein equation (4.1) and the effective cosmological constant (4.3), and is unusually honest about the assumptions behind the estimate, explicitly mentioning the free-field approximation, flat-spacetime computation, renormalization-scheme dependence, and the possible breakdown of perturbative backreaction. The central qualitative claim, that any mass-independent renormalization of Standard Model vacuum energy forces a counterterm fine-tuned against the observed ρ_Λ, is robust. The exact '56 orders' number, however, is not scheme-invariant; the strength of the paper lies in its clear framing of the naturalness problem rather than in a new quantitative prediction. For a review article, this is an appropriate and useful contribution, contingent on the presentation corrections listed below.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (4.7)-(4.10)] I would qualify Eq. (4.10) as an estimate in a particular renormalization scheme rather than 'the theoretical prediction': the displayed value depends on the choice to subtract the pole and all μ-independent finite terms in Eq. (4.5), and on the subsequent choice μ* = 3 × 10^-25 GeV in Eq. (4.9). The paper's own discussion of finite renormalizations in Sec. 4.2 already implies this, but making the qualification explicit at the point of the headline comparison would prevent a reader from taking the 56-order figure as scheme-invariant.
[Sec. 4.2, particle content] The text assigns n_q = -4 to each quark flavor, but the quoted result (4.10) follows from including the color factor, i.e. n_q = -12 per flavor; with n_q = -4 the magnitude of the top-quark contribution would be about three times smaller. Please correct the multiplicity and recheck the numerical value.
[Sec. 4.2, section numbering] There are two subsections both numbered 4.2, 'The cosmological constant problem' and 'Discussion'; the second should be renumbered (e.g. 4.3), with subsequent references adjusted.
[Sec. 4.2, after Eq. (4.5)] The sentence 'Removing the regulator corresponds to the limit D → 4, in which case Eq. (4.4) is recovered' is misleading: taking ε → 0 returns the divergent integral, not the finite equation (4.4). Please rephrase to say that the regulator removal exposes the divergence of the original integral.
[Throughout] There are several typographical issues that should be fixed: 'neutrinons' should be 'neutrinos', 'Plank' should be 'Planck', the reference 'Perivolaropoulos and Skar' should be corrected, and footnote 62 cites '(Pietronero et al.)' without a year.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The review's central comparison is scheme-dependent but not circular; the observed rho_Lambda enters only as the comparison target.

full rationale

The derivation chain from Eq. (4.5) to Eq. (4.10) is self-contained: Eq. (4.7) defines the renormalized vacuum energy by a stated subtraction rule, Eq. (4.8) sums standard-model degrees of freedom, and Eq. (4.9) sets the cosmological renormalization scale from the supernova photon energy and the Hubble scale. The observed value rho_Lambda ~ 10^-47 GeV^4 is introduced only at the comparison step, Eq. (4.11), and is not used to fix rho_vac^ren(mu*) or mu*. The paper explicitly acknowledges in the Discussion subsection of Sec. 4 that physical quantities are defined only up to finite renormalizations, so the numerical side of the 56-order gap is convention-dependent; that is a physical caveat, not a circularity, because the convention is stated rather than disguised as a measurement. There are no load-bearing self-citations by the author and no uniqueness claim imported from the author's own prior work; the cited sources (Martin 2012, Weinberg 1989, etc.) are external standard references. The historical and pedagogical material in Secs. 2-3 is standard textbook material with independent derivations. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central content of the review rests on standard background assumptions: the cosmological principle, semiclassical coupling of quantum fields to gravity, and a particular renormalization convention. No invented entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen scale is mu*, which sets the numerical value of the QFT estimate but not the qualitative conclusion.

free parameters (2)

Renormalization scale mu* = 3 x 10^-25 GeV
Chosen in Eq. (4.9) as sqrt(E_gamma E_grav) using supernova photon energy and H0. This hand-chosen scale enters the logarithm in Eq. (4.10); changing it by orders of magnitude would change the estimate but not the 56-order tension.
Finite renormalization counterterm in rho_vac^ren = not fixed; would need to be tuned to match Eq. (4.11)
The review emphasizes that physical quantities are defined only up to finite renormalizations; this is the freedom behind the fine-tuning problem. It is not fitted in the text, but it is a free choice that the central discrepancy depends on.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The universe is spatially homogeneous and isotropic on large scales (cosmological principle).
Assumed in Section 3.3 to derive the FLRW metric and Friedmann equations; the paper explicitly notes it is a philosophical postulate with caveats.
domain assumption Semiclassical Einstein equations with <T_mu_nu> as source are valid at energies relevant to vacuum energy.
Eq. (4.1) in Section 4.1; the paper states this as an operative posture and notes quantum gravity may alter it.
standard math The vacuum expectation value of T_mu_nu takes the form -rho_vac g_mu_nu due to local Lorentz invariance.
Eq. (4.2); standard consequence used to identify vacuum energy with a cosmological term.
domain assumption The renormalized vacuum energy is defined by subtracting the pole and mu-independent terms in Eq. (4.5), leaving Eq. (4.7).
This is a renormalization scheme choice; the paper acknowledges other finite subtractions are possible.
domain assumption Free fields on flat spacetime approximate the standard model contribution to vacuum energy.
Eq. (4.8); the paper concedes interacting fields and curved background would be needed, but argues the change is not radical.
domain assumption Physics at the Planck scale does not qualitatively affect the semiclassical calculation.
Section 4.1; the paper adopts this posture and notes it is open.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The cosmological constant problem: from Newtonian cosmology to the greatest puzzle of modern theoretical cosmology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANZ7X6RB

@misc{pith2026250415358,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The cosmological constant problem: from Newtonian cosmology to the greatest puzzle of modern theoretical cosmology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANZ7X6RB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15358}
}

read the original abstract

The cosmological constant problem is one of the greatest challenges in contemporary physics, since it is deeply rooted in the problematic interplay between quantum fields and gravity. The aim of this work is to review the key conceptual elements needed to formulate the problem and some ideas for a possible solution. I do so by weaving a fil rouge from Newtonian cosmology, through general relativity and the standard model of relativistic cosmology ({\Lambda}-CDM), up to the theory of quantum fields. In the first part, the issues with the application of Newtonian gravity to an infinite and static universe are addressed, observing how a cosmological term in the Poisson equation would stabilize a homogeneous matter distribution. A toy derivation of the Friedman equations using only Newtonian arguments is also shown. In the second part, the conceptual path leading to general relativity and the {\Lambda}-CDM model is laid down, with particular emphasis to the historical introduction of the cosmological constant and its new role after the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe. Finally, the problem is formulated within the framework of quantum field theory. Its many facets are discussed together with the criticalities in the formulation and some of the leading ideas for its solution are outlined.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

(2022) Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies

Abdalla E et al. (2022) Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies. Journal of High Energy Astrophysics

work page 2022
[4]

Annalen der Physik,

Einstein A (1911) On the influence of gravitation on the propagtion of light. Annalen der Physik,

work page 1911
[6]

Physics Letters B

Lüst D, Palti E, Vafa C (2019) AdS and the Swampland. Physics Letters B

work page 2019
[13]

Friedman A (1922) On the curvature of space

Annales de Chimie et de Physique. Friedman A (1922) On the curvature of space. Zeitschrift für Physik, 10:377–386. Giulini D J W, Kiefer C, Lämmerzahl C (2003) Quantum Gravity: from Theory to Experimental 34 Search. Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Green M B, Schwarz J H, Witten E (1987) Superstring theory, vol. 1 -2. Cambridge Univer...

work page 1922
[15]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 15(3):168–173

Hubble E (1929) A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 15(3):168–173. Hubble E (1934) The distribution of extra-galactic nebulae. The Astrophysical Journal, 79:8. Kachru S, Kallosh, R, Linde A, Trivedi S P (2003) de Sitter vacua in string theory. Physical Review D 68 (4...

work page 1929
[17]

Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität,

Einstein A (1907) On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it . Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität,

work page 1907
[21]

Cambridge University Press

Poisson E (2004) A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. Ribeiro (1992) On modeling a relativistic hierarchical (fractal) cosmology by Tolman’s spacetime. I. Theory. The Astrophysical Journal

work page 2004
[26]

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Bondi H, Gold T (1948) The Steady-State theory of the Expanding Universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

work page 1948

Show all 27 references

[28]

Cambridge University Press

Schwartz M D (2014) Quantum field theory and the standard model. Cambridge University Press. Seeliger H (1895) Ueber das Newton’sche Gravitationsgesetz. Astronomische Nachrichten,

2014
[32]

International Journal of Modern Physics D, 30 (11)

Cacciatori S L, Marrani A, Re F (2018) On generalized Lemaitre–Tolman–Bondi metric: Fractal matter at the end of matter–antimatter recombination. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 30 (11). Capozziello S, Faraoni V (2010) Beyond Einstein Gravity: A Survey of Gravitatio...

2018
[33]

Nato Science Series B, 59:135–157

’t Hooft G (1980) N aturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking . Nato Science Series B, 59:135–157. Hoyle F (1948) A New Model for the Expanding Universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

1980
[34]

Physical Review D 104(12)

Akarsu O, Kumar S, Ozulker E, Vazquez J A (2021) Relaxing cosmological tensions with a sign switching cosmological constant. Physical Review D 104(12). Alexandre B, Gielen S, Magueijo J (2024) Overall signature of the metric and the cosmological constant. Journal of Cosmology ...

2021
[40]

Annales scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure,

Cartan E (1924) Sur les variétés à connexion affine et la théorie de la relativité généralisée (suite). Annales scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure,

1924
[41]

In Oswalt T D, Keel W C Plantes, Stars and Stellar systems

Coil A L (2013) The Large Scale Structure of the Universe. In Oswalt T D, Keel W C Plantes, Stars and Stellar systems. Springer. Cottingham W N, Greenwood D A (2007) An introductio n to the standard model of particle physics. Cambridge University Press. Cosmai L, Fanizza G, Sy...

2013
[49]

Methuen & Co Ltd

Einstein A (1916b) Relativity: the special and the general theory. Methuen & Co Ltd. Einstein A (1917) Cosmological considerations on the general theory of relativity. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akadademie der Wissenschaften. Einstein A (1923) Letter to Herman Weyl, 23 May

1916
[51]

Oxford University Press

Maggiore M (2005) A Modern Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Oxford University Press. Mandelbrot B B (1983) The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W. H Freeman and Company. Martin J (2012) Everything you always wanted to know about the cosmological constant problem (but were afra...

2005 arXiv
[70]

Physical Review,

Schroedinger E (1926) An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules. Physical Review,

1926
[95]

The Astrophysical Journal, 517(2):565-586

Perlmutter S et al (1999) M easurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High -Redshift Supernovae. The Astrophysical Journal, 517(2):565-586. Peskin M E, Schroeder D V (1995) An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Peter P, Uzan J P (2009) Primo...

1999
[100]

Stephani H , Kramer D, Maccallum M, Hoenselaers C, Herlt E (2003) Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations

Springer. Stephani H , Kramer D, Maccallum M, Hoenselaers C, Herlt E (2003) Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations. Cambridge University Press. Thiemann T (2007) Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity. Oxford University Press. Tung W (1985) Group Theory in Physics....

2003
[108]

General Relativity and Gravitation

Buchert T (2000) On Average Properties of Inhomogeneous Fluids in General Relativity I: Dust Cosmologies. General Relativity and Gravitation

2000
[137]

In: Iyer B R and Bhawal B (eds) Black Holes, Gravitational Radiation and the Universe

Stachel J (1999) The Early History of Quantum Gravity (1916–1940). In: Iyer B R and Bhawal B (eds) Black Holes, Gravitational Radiation and the Universe. Fundamental Theories of Physics,

1999
[144]

Annalen der Physik,

Planck M (1901) On the law of distribution of energy in the normal spectrum. Annalen der Physik,

1901
[388]

The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 934(1)

Riess A G et al (2022) A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the Hubble constant with 1 kilometer per second per megaparsec uncertainty from the Hubble space telescope and the sh0es team. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 934(1). Ruede C, Straumann N (1997) On New...

2022
[797]

Open Court Publishing Co

Mach E (1893) The science of mechanics. Open Court Publishing Co. (2nd ed.). Macdonald A (1983) Clock synchronization, a universal light speed, and the terrestrial redshift experiment. American Journal of Physics,

1983
[855]

Physical Review D, 108(2)

Balkenhol L et al (2023) Measurement of the CMB temperature power spectrum and constraints on cosmology from the spt-3g 2018 tt-te-ee dataset. Physical Review D, 108(2). Bertone G, Hooper D (2018) History of dark matter. Reviews of Modern Physics, 90(4). Bettini M (2015) Il gr...

2023
[1923]

Ellis G F R (2007) Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology

From Princeton University website The Digital Einstein Papers (https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/). Ellis G F R (2007) Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology. In Butterfield J, Earman J Handbook of the philosophy of science: philosophy of physics. Elsevier. Fizeau M H ...

2007
[2013]

The quantum theory of fields, vol. 1-3. Cambridge University Press. Weinberg S (2008) Cosmology. Oxford University Press. 36 Wiltshire D L (2007) Cosmic clocks, cosmic v ariance and cosmic averages. New Journal of Physics 9 (10). Whittaker E (1989) A History of the Theories of...

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

(2022) Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies

Abdalla E et al. (2022) Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies. Journal of High Energy Astrophysics

work page 2022

[2] [4]

Annalen der Physik,

Einstein A (1911) On the influence of gravitation on the propagtion of light. Annalen der Physik,

work page 1911

[3] [6]

Physics Letters B

Lüst D, Palti E, Vafa C (2019) AdS and the Swampland. Physics Letters B

work page 2019

[4] [13]

Friedman A (1922) On the curvature of space

Annales de Chimie et de Physique. Friedman A (1922) On the curvature of space. Zeitschrift für Physik, 10:377–386. Giulini D J W, Kiefer C, Lämmerzahl C (2003) Quantum Gravity: from Theory to Experimental 34 Search. Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Green M B, Schwarz J H, Witten E (1987) Superstring theory, vol. 1 -2. Cambridge Univer...

work page 1922

[5] [15]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 15(3):168–173

Hubble E (1929) A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 15(3):168–173. Hubble E (1934) The distribution of extra-galactic nebulae. The Astrophysical Journal, 79:8. Kachru S, Kallosh, R, Linde A, Trivedi S P (2003) de Sitter vacua in string theory. Physical Review D 68 (4...

work page 1929

[6] [17]

Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität,

Einstein A (1907) On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it . Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität,

work page 1907

[7] [21]

Cambridge University Press

Poisson E (2004) A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. Ribeiro (1992) On modeling a relativistic hierarchical (fractal) cosmology by Tolman’s spacetime. I. Theory. The Astrophysical Journal

work page 2004

[8] [26]

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Bondi H, Gold T (1948) The Steady-State theory of the Expanding Universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

work page 1948