Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 79 references

The old problem of the cosmological constant solved?

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The ring paradigm treats gravitons as phonons on a universal crystal of Hopf-linked rings and claims this dissolves the cosmological constant problem by giving early and late constants separate origins.

desk verdict Speculative essay that restates the authors' earlier ring paradigm and asserts a solution to the cosmological constant problem without the needed mechanism; not worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22553 v1 pith:HQOXD6A2 submitted 2025-05-28 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Jan Novák , Oem Trivedi This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th
keywords ringparadigmcosmologicalconstantproblemquantumgravityphonongravitonphantomfielddarkenergysuperluminalLorentzviolation
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 proposes a quantum-gravity framework called the ring paradigm and argues that it dissolves the old cosmological constant problem. In this picture, gravity is carried superluminally by a grid of Hopf-linked rings whose longitudinal vibrations are gravitons, and the early-universe effective cosmological constant $\Lambda_r$ comes from the false vacuum of this ring crystal, while the late-time constant $\Lambda$ arises from the decay of the rings into a phantom field. Because the two constants have different physical origins, the paper claims, the enormous $10^{120}$ hierarchy between them is natural rather than a fine-tuning problem. A sympathetic reader would care because a resolution of this hierarchy would remove one of the deepest unexplained numbers in physics without introducing a single tuned constant.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the grid of Hopf-linked rings in $\mathbb{R}^3$, a "crystal" whose longitudinal vibrations are quantized as graviton-phonons; Standard Model particles are attached to the endpoints where rings link. The argument runs through this lattice: it is prepared every Planck time, mediates gravity at a superluminal velocity $c_g$ of at least $10^{70}\,\mathrm{m/s}$, destabilizes into the ordinary metric and a phantom field about a Planck time after inflation begins, and supplies the false-vacuum energy $\Lambda_r$ that dwarfs the late-time $\Lambda$. All of the paper's cosmological claims follow from the different origins assigned to these two constants within this single mechanism.

What would settle it

A future measurement showing that gravitational waves travel at a speed different from the speed of light, or detection of a preferred rest frame in gravitational propagation, would contradict the paper's claim that graviton-phonons move at $c$ while underlying rings mediate faster. A determination of the effective cosmological constant at inflation-era energies that does not exceed the late-time value by roughly $10^{120}$ would also conflict with the proposed resolution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cosmological constant problem disappears once the graviton is treated as a phonon on a universal crystal. The crystal is a grid of Hopf-linked rings in $\mathbb{R}^3$, with all Standard Model particles attached to ring endpoints, and it is created anew every Planck time. During inflation the effective constant $\Lambda_r$ is the false-vacuum energy of the pure ring crystal, roughly $10^{120}$ times larger than the late-time constant $\Lambda$, which is a manifestation of the limit of the firmness of the dark-energy material through the phantom field into which the rings decay. Since $\Lambda_r$ and $\Lambda$ are not the same physical quantity, the paper argues, their mismatch needs no explanation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a grid of interlocking rings physically exists in space, is recreated every Planck time, and decays into a phantom field; without that lattice the framework and its cosmological conclusion collapse, and the paper offers no independent evidence for it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ring paradigm is right, the cosmological constant is not a single constant to be tuned; the early-universe and late-time accelerations are separate phenomena with separate sources.
  • Gravity becomes an emergent, superluminal interaction at the fundamental level, while the observed gravitational-wave speed $c_{gw}$ equals $c$, so existing constraints from events like GW170817 are automatically satisfied.
  • Lorentz invariance is broken in the gravity sector, so the no-go theorems of Coleman-Mandula and Haag-Łopuszański-Sohnius would need generalization to the algebras of this theory.
  • The decay of the gravitational ring into a phantom field gives a new source of dark energy and connects the ring paradigm to existing phantom cosmology models.
  • Because the lattice is recreated each Planck time, the model predicts a minimal speed for information transfer of about $10^{70}\,\mathrm{m/s}$ across the observable universe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper asserts the $10^{120}$ ratio but does not derive it from the ring model's parameters; a quantitative derivation from the lattice properties would turn the claim from a structural argument into a predictive one.
  • A natural extension would be to model the ring crystal's "yield point" in condensed-matter terms and predict a characteristic intergalactic separation at which the dark-energy equation of state changes; that would be testable with future surveys.
  • The phonon-graviton correspondence suggests laboratory analogues: ultracold atom or mechanical lattice experiments that mimic phonon-mediated interactions could probe qualitative features of the proposed non-locality.
  • If a preferred frame for gravitational propagation were ever detected at high precision, the ring paradigm's specific assumption of $c_{gw}=c$ would distinguish it from other Lorentz-breaking gravity theories.
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

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a 'ring paradigm' in which spacetime is an elastic crystal of Hopf-linked rings in R^3. Gravitons are treated as longitudinal phonons on this lattice, gravity is claimed to propagate superluminally with a velocity c_g >> c, and the gravitational ring is said to decay into a phantom field. The paper asserts that this framework solves the cosmological constant problem because the early-universe effective constant Λ_r is about 10^120 times larger than the late-time cosmological constant Λ, and the two have different physical origins. It also claims renormalizability, a generalization of the Haag-Łopuszański-Sohnius theorem, and applications to dark energy and phantom cosmology.

Significance. If the central claim were established, dissolving the cosmological constant problem into two constants of different origin would be a significant result. However, the manuscript provides no derivation of its field equations, no dynamical mechanism connecting Λ_r to Λ, and no falsifiable predictions. Its strengths are candor and an explicit acknowledgment of the radical assumptions: it openly states that superluminal propagation will not be experimentally disprovable in the near future, and it flags the tension with Lorentz invariance and no-go theorems. Those strengths do not compensate for the absence of a calculational core, so the proposed solution cannot currently be regarded as a viable resolution of the cosmological constant problem.

major comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (2)–(5) and surrounding text] The central claim, that the hierarchy Λ_r ~ 10^120 Λ is explained by the different origins of the two constants, restates the cosmological constant problem rather than solving it. No calculation fixes either value: Λ_r is said to have 'exactly the value that we obtain in high energy physics' without a computation, and Λ is attributed to a phantom field with no specified potential V(φ) or dynamics. Equations (2), (3), and (5) are three independent field equations; without a dynamical transition or a cancellation mechanism connecting them, the hierarchy is an input assumption, not a prediction.
  2. [Text following Eq. (3)] The decay of the metric G_μν to g_μν and the decay of the gravitational ring to a phantom field are load-bearing dynamical claims, but the paper never writes down a decay rate, a coupling, an effective potential, or a timescale. The assertion that the transition happens 'Planck time later' is unsupported by any equation, so the connection between the phantom-field equations (3) and the late-time equations (5) is not demonstrated.
  3. [Bound c_g ≥ 10^70 m/s, page 4] The bound c_g ≥ 10^70 m/s is derived from two unstated assumptions: that the rings are prepared within one Planck time, and that the observable universe has diameter 94.109 pc. The latter value is not the diameter of the observable universe (approximately 28 Gpc), and the Planck-time preparation is an ad hoc postulate. The numerical result is therefore unsupported, and the apparent typo in the diameter (likely 94.109 billion light-years) affects the claimed bound.
  4. [Text on gravitational wave speed, page 8] The claim that gravitational waves travel at exactly c appears to conflict with the central postulate that information and gravity propagate at c_g >> c. The sentence 'The reason could be seen from the Newtonian limit of RP' is not a derivation; moreover, inserting c_g >> c into Eq. (1) would suppress the gravitational source term by (c/c_g)^4, implying an effective Newton constant far smaller than measured. No Newtonian-limit calculation is given to resolve this apparent contradiction.
  5. [Text on renormalizability, page 5] The claim of perturbative renormalizability is supported only by analogy with a condensed-matter example (Feynman, Statistical Mechanics, paragraph 6.10) and the assertion 'We obtain no infinities.' The actual graviton-phonon interaction, the loop structure, and the counterterms are not examined. Borrowing an electron-phonon calculation does not establish renormalizability of a superluminal gravitational theory, and the paper's own statement that the modeling 'will be doable' falls short of a demonstration.
  6. [Phonon-graviton identification, page 5] The equivalence between the phonon picture and the graviton picture is the link between Eqs. (2) and (3), but the promised identification is only announced: 'We do it by the modeling of gravitons as in string theory.' No matching of momenta, dispersion relations, or propagation speeds is shown, so the claimed equivalence of the two theories is not established. The paper itself states that the superluminal propagation 'will not be disprovable by any experiment in the near future,' and no other falsifiable prediction is offered.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Author affiliation, page 1] There are several typos in the author affiliation: 'Deparment' should be 'Department', and 'C zech Technical University' should be 'Czech Technical University'.
  2. [Page 4, bound on c_g] The diameter of the observable universe is given as '94.109 pc'; this should presumably be '94.109 billion light-years' or '28.5 Gpc'.
  3. [References] References [19], [50], and [61] are cited as 'In preparation' or 'Prepared for publication' and cannot be checked; reference [19] is used to support the main assertion that dark energy is a quantum gravity phenomenon, which is problematic.
  4. [Figure reference at the end] The note 'This figure "frog.jpg" is available...' appears irrelevant to the scientific content and should be removed.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The claimed solution of the cosmological constant problem is a relabeling of the known 120-order discrepancy as two constants with different origins; the bridging decay is never derived, and the Lorentz-violation defense rests on the authors' own unpublished citations.

  1. renaming known result [Unnumbered section 'But what is hard to believe...' near Eqs. (2), (3), and (5)]
    "The cosmological constant Λ r has exactly the value, that we obtain in high energy physics, and it is roughly 10^120 orders bigger than the effective cosmological constant term, Λ , which appeared approximately 8 billion years after the Big Bang due to the QG phenomenon via the phantom field: ... It is not surprising that the value of the effective cosmological constant from the cosmological inflation, Λ r, possesses many orders of magnitude difference from the value of the constant responsible for the late-time cosmic acceleration, because they have a different origin."

    The cosmological constant problem is precisely the unexplained factor of about 10^120 between the QFT vacuum energy and the observed late-time Λ. The paper assigns the known QFT value to Λ_r in Eq. (2), assigns the observed value to Λ in Eq. (5), and then declares the hierarchy resolved by saying the two constants have different origins. No equation, decay rate, coupling, or potential V(φ) connects Eqs. (2), (3), and (5); the 10^120 ratio is an input of the problem, not a derived output of the model. The solution is therefore the renaming of the discrepancy itself.

  2. self citation load bearing [Unnumbered section on Lorentz invariance, paragraph beginning 'Both of these objections can be answered inside RP']
    "Both of these objections can be answered inside RP, [19, 60, 61]. ... So, for the velocities v, c < v < c g, have the transformations, under which is RP invariant, a similar shape as the standard Lorentz transformations with just replacing c with cg, [19, 60, 61]."

    The paper's central premise is that superluminal gravity with broken Lorentz invariance is viable despite all experimental bounds. The only support offered for this premise is a chain of citations [19, 60, 61], which are the authors' own works: [19] is 'In preparation', [61] is 'Prepared for publication', and [60] is the same author's own generalization of the Coleman-Mandula theorem. No independent derivation or external theorem is given in this essay. Thus the load-bearing viability argument reduces to an unverified self-citation chain rather than to an external mathematical or experimental result.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Unnumbered section after Eq. (3), paragraph beginning 'We would now need to provide the identification...']
    "We would now need to provide the identification of the theory with field equations (2) with the theory with the field equations (3). For this it is necessary to equate the impulse of the phonon with the impulse of graviton obtained from the modified theory of gravity with the field equations (3). We do it by the modeling of gravitons as in string theory."

    The bridge that allows Λ_r in Eq. (2) to decay into the phantom-field description of Eq. (3) is the equality between phonon momentum and graviton momentum. But 'graviton as a phonon on the grid of matter' was already adopted as the defining postulate of the ring paradigm earlier in the paper. The identification is therefore not derived; it is true by construction of the model. The promised string-theory modeling is announced but never exhibited, so the two theories are asserted to be the same rather than shown to be the same.

full rationale

The central claim that the ring paradigm 'would ultimately solve the old problem of the cosmological constant' reduces, on inspection, to a relabeling of the standard hierarchy problem. Eq. (2) contains a QFT-scale Λ_r, Eq. (5) contains the observed small Λ, and the only connection offered is the verbal statement that the gravitational ring decays to a phantom field and that the two constants have different origins. No equation computes either constant or converts one into the other. The hierarchy is the known input of the cosmological constant problem, not an output of the model. The paper also defends its Lorentz-violating, superluminal framework by citing only the authors' own in-preparation or self-published works [19, 60, 61], and the phonon/graviton identification that would link the two sets of field equations is itself the paradigm's defining assumption. These are genuine circular or near-circular moves, not merely missing details: the 'prediction' of the 10^120 hierarchy is equivalent to the problem statement, and the viability of the framework is imported from self-citations. Some components, such as the lower bound on c_g from the Planck-time ring preparation, are independent dimensional estimates and are not circular, which prevents the score from reaching 9 or 10. Overall, score 7: the main cosmological conclusion is forced by definition and by the self-citation chain rather than by an independent derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The ring paradigm rests on a set of ad hoc postulates: a macroscopic lattice of linked rings in R3, identification of gravitons with phonons on this lattice, Planck-time preparation of the lattice, superluminal propagation at c_g >> c, and decay to a phantom field. None of these is derived from standard physics or supported by data, and the paper provides no observable consequences that could independently test the existence of the rings.

free parameters (1)
  • c_g = > 10^70 m/s (lower bound)
    Superluminal gravitational speed; the lower bound is estimated from the assumption that rings are created in Planck time across the observable Universe (Section 4). No constraint from experiment is provided.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper There exists a set of Hopf-linked rings in R3 forming a macroscopic grid (crystal) that underlies spacetime, with all Standard Model fields attached to ring endpoints.
    Postulated in Section 4 ('Let us consider the following toy-model...'). No independent evidence or derivation from known physics.
  • ad hoc to paper Gravitons are phonons on this ring lattice, and gravity is mediated superluminally with velocity c_g >> c.
    Stated in Section 4 and 5; central to the model, no derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The gravitational ring decays to a phantom scalar field on Planck timescales.
    Assumed in Section 6 (Eq. 3) to connect the ring paradigm to phantom cosmology.
  • ad hoc to paper The rings are prepared in one Planck time, leading to the bound c_g ≥ 10^70 m/s.
    Section 5: 'Because the rings are preparing in Planck time...'.
  • domain assumption Low-energy Lorentz invariance is preserved because ordinary matter travels at c on the rings, even though the rings themselves move at c_g.
    Response to Lorentz violation objections, Section 8; no formal proof.
  • domain assumption The theory is perturbatively renormalizable.
    Stated in Section 6: 'If RP should be a viable model of QG, it must lead to a perturbatively renormalizable theory.' No computation is shown.
invented entities (2)
  • Gravitational rings (RP rings)
    purpose: Constituents of the lattice whose phonons are claimed to be gravitons; also provide trajectories for particles and mediate superluminal gravity.
    No falsifiable prediction is provided; the paper admits it 'will not be disprovable by any experiment in the near future' (Section 5).
  • Phantom field (as decay product of gravitational ring)
    purpose: Provides the late-time dark energy; assumes the known phantom field concept from literature.
    The decay mechanism is asserted without derivation (Eq. 3). Phantom fields are known in cosmology, but here the specific decay is not evidenced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The old problem of the cosmological constant solved?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HQOXD6A2

@misc{pith2026250522553,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The old problem of the cosmological constant solved?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HQOXD6A2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22553}
}
read the original abstract

We formulate an approach to quantum gravity, called the ring paradigm. Gravity is mediated superluminally, and the graviton is described as a phonon on the grid of matter in the Universe. This theory has very interesting applications to cosmology and would ultimately solve the old problem of the cosmological constant. It further gives new impulses to the scalar field theories because the gravitational ring decays to some phantom field. As is obvious, we radically break the Lorentz invariance, which means that some generalization of the Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem in quantum field theory is possible.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Planck collaboration 2020 Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosm ological parameters A&A 641, A6 arXiv:1807.06209

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    J. Wess; B. Zumino. 1974. Supergauge transformations in four dimensions. Nuclear Physics B. 70 (1): 39–50

    work page 1974

  3. [3]

    Weinberg

    S. Weinberg. 1978. A New Light Boson?. Physical Review Le tters. 40 (4): 223–226

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    F. Wilczek. 1978. Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in t he Presence of Instantons. Physical Review Letters. 40 (5): 279–282

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    L. B. Okun. 2006. Mirror particles and mirror matter: 50 y ears of speculation and search. Phys. Usp. 50:380-389

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    On Dark Energy and Quantum Gravity

    P. Berglund, T. Hübsch, D. Minic. 2019. On dark energy and quantum gravity. Int. J. Mod. Physics D 28, 14, 1902003. arXiv:1905.09463

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Perez, D

    A. Perez, D. Sudarsky. 2019. Dark energy from quantum gra vity discreteness. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221302. arXiv:1711.05183

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Josset, A

    T. Josset, A. Perez, D. Sudarsky. 2017. Dark energy as the weight of violating energy conservation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 021102

    work page 2017

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    R. D. Sorkin. 1997. Forks in the road, on the way to quantum gravity. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 36, 2759–2781. arXiv:gr-qc/9706002. 10

    1997 arXiv

  2. [10]

    constant

    R. D. Sorkin. 2007. Is the cosmological "constant" a non local quantum residue of dis- creteness of the causal set type? AIP Conf. Proc. 957, 142-153. arXiv: 0710.1675

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Oriti, X

    D. Oriti, X. Pang. 2021. Phantom like dark energy from qu antum gravity. JCAP 12,

    2021

  4. [12]

    B. McInnes. 2002. The dS/CFT Correspondence and the Big Smash. JHEP 0208, 029. arXiv:hep-th/0112066

    2002 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. D. Trout. 2013. Dark Energy from Discrete Spacetime. PLoS ONE 8, 12, e80826

    2013

  6. [14]

    T. P. Singh. 2020. Dark energy as a large scale quantum gr avitational phenomenon. Modern Physics Letters A 35, 2050, 195. arXiv: 1911.02955

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. Li. 2004. Model of holographic dark energy. Phys.Let t.B 603, 1. arXiv:hep-th/0403127

    2004 arXiv

  8. [16]

    F. K. Anagnostopoulos, S. Basilakos, G. Kofinas, V. Zari kas. 2019. Constraining the Asymptotically Safe Cosmology: cosmic acceleration witho ut dark energy. JCAP 02,

    2019

  9. [17]

    F. K. Anagnostopoulos, G. Kofinas, V. Zarikas. 2019. IR q uantum gravity solves nat- urally cosmic acceleration and its coincidence problem. In t. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 14, 1944013. arXiv:2102.07578

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    E. P. Verlinde. 2016. Emergent Gravity and the Dark Univ erse. SciPost Phys. 2, 016. arXiv:1611.02269

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Novák, O

    J. Novák, O. Trivedi. 2025. Accelerated expansion of th e Universe as a quantum gravity phenomenon. In preparation

    2025

  12. [20]

    I. Newton. 1687. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Math ematica

  13. [21]

    J. de R. d’Alembert. 1743. Traité de dynamique. Publish er: J. B. Coignard. 11

  14. [22]

    J. L. Lagrange. 1788. Mécanique analytique. Published : Chez la veuve Desaint. Paris

  15. [23]

    W. R. Hamilton. 1833. On a general method of expressing t he paths of light, of the planets, by the coefficients of a characteristic function. Pu blisher: P. D. Hardy

  16. [24]

    M. Planck. 1901. Über das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspectrum. Annalen der Physik. 309 (3): 553–63

    1901

  17. [25]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. 1905. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper . Annalen der Physik 17 (10): 891–921

    1905

  18. [26]

    M. E. Peskin, D. V. Schroeder. 2019. An introduction to q uantum field theory. Taylor & Francis Ltd

    2019

  19. [27]

    Penrose, W

    R. Penrose, W. Rindler. 1984. Spinors and Spacetime-Ti me (Volume 1). Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics

    1984

  20. [28]

    Penrose, W

    R. Penrose, W. Rindler. 1988. Spinors and Spacetime-Ti me (Volume 2). Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics

    1988

  21. [29]

    R. Penrose. 1976. The non-linear graviton. Volume 7, pages 171–176

    1976

  22. [30]

    M. Atiyah. 1988. Topological quantum field theories. Pu blications Mathématiques de l’IHÉS. 68 (68): 175–186

    1988

  23. [31]

    Gukov, A

    S. Gukov, A. Kapustin. 2013. Topological Quantum Field Theory, Nonlocal Operators, and Gapped Phases of Gauge Theories. arXiv:1307.4793

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. Schwarz. 2000. Topological quantum field theories. a rXiv:hep-th/0011260

    2000 arXiv

  25. [33]

    E. Witten. 1988. Topological quantum field theory. Comm unications in Mathematical Physics. 117 (3): 353–386

    1988

  26. [34]

    A. Connes. 1995. Non-commutative geometry. Academic P ress. 12

    1995

  27. [35]

    Veneziano

    G. Veneziano. 1968. Construction of a crossing-simmet ric, Regge-behaved amplitude for linearly rising trajectories. Nuovo Cimento Della Societa Italiana Di Fisica A 57(1):190- 197

    1968

  28. [36]

    Randall, R

    L. Randall, R. Sundrum. 1999. A large mass hieararchy fr om small extra dimensions. Phys.Rev.Lett. 83:3370-3373

    1999

  29. [37]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. 1915. On the General Theory of Relativity. Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.), 778-786

    1915

  30. [38]

    S. Hawking. 1974. Black holes are not black. Gravity Res earch Foundation Essay on Gravitation

    1974

  31. [39]

    J. J. Preskill. 1993. Do black holes destroy informatio n? An international symposium on Black Holes, Membranes, Wormholes and Superstrings, Hou ston Advanced Research Center. Edited by S. Kalara and D. V. Nanopoulos. Singapore: World Scientific, p.22. arXiv:hep-th/9209058

    1993 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. D. Mathur. 2009. The Information paradox: A Pedagogi cal introduction. Class. Quan- tum Grav. 26, 224001. arXiv:0909.1038

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Calmet, S

    X. Calmet, S. D. H. Hsu. 2022. Quantum hair and black hole information. Physics Letters B 827, 136 995. arXiv:2112.05171

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Calmet, S

    X. Calmet, S. D. H. Hsu. 2022. A brief history of Hawking’ s information paradox. European Physics Letters 139, 49001. arXiv:2207.08671

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Calmet, F

    X. Calmet, F. Kuipers. 2022. Black holes in quantum grav ity. Nuovo Cim. C 45, 37. arXiv:2202.02584

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Polchinski

    J. Polchinski. 2016. The black hole information parado x. Presented at the 2014-15 Jerusalem Winter School and the 2015 TASI. arXiv:1609.0403 6. 13

    2016

  37. [45]

    A. G. Riess et al. 1998. Observational Evidence from Sup ernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. Astron.J. 116:1009-1038

    1998

  38. [46]

    Perlmutter

    S. Perlmutter. 1999. Measurements of Omega and Lambda f rom 42 High-Redshift Su- pernovae. Astrophys.J.517:565-586

    1999

  39. [47]

    R. Penrose. 2010. Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New V iew of the Universe. Pub. Bodley Head

    2010

  40. [48]

    Steinhardt, N

    P. Steinhardt, N. Turok. 2001. A cyclic model of the univ erse. arXiv:hep-th/0111030

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Felder, A

    G. Felder, A. Frolov, L. Kofman, A. Linde. 2002. Cosmolo gy with negative potentials. Phys.Rev.D 66:023507

    2002

  42. [50]

    J. Novák. 2025. Cosmological inflation inside the cycli c model. In preparation

    2025

  43. [51]

    Singh, M

    P. Singh, M. Sami, N. Dadhich. 2003. Cosmological dynam ics and phantom fields. Phys.Rev. D 68 023522

    2003

  44. [52]

    Bouhmadi-López, C

    M. Bouhmadi-López, C. Kiefer, P. Martín-Moruno. 2019. Phantom singularities and their quantum fate: general relativity and beyond. Gen. Rel ativ. Gravit. 51: 135

    2019

  45. [53]

    O. Trivedi. 2024. Recent advances in cosmological sing ularities. Symmetry 16 3, 298

    2024

  46. [54]

    J. U. Kang, V. Vanchurin, S. Winitzki. 2007. Attractor s cenarios and superluminal signals in k-essence cosmology. Physical Review D 76 (8), 083511

    2007

  47. [55]

    H. Müller. 2019. The Cosmological Significance of Super luminality. Progress in Physics 15 (1), 26–30

    2019

  48. [56]

    D.-C. Dai, D. Stojkovic. 2024. Superluminal propagati on along the brane in space with extra dimensions. The European Physical Journal C 84 (2), 175

    2024

  49. [57]

    S. W. Hawking, G. F. R. Ellis. 1994. The Large Scale Struc ture of Space Time. Cam- bridge University Press. 14

    1994

  50. [58]

    A. V. Astashenok, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, A. V. Yurov. 2012. Phantom Cosmology without Big Rip Singularity. Physics Letters B 709, 396–403. arXiv:1201.4056

    2012 arXiv

  51. [60]

    J. Novák. 2024. Generalization of the Coleman-Mandula theorem and ring paradigm. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2912 012016

    2024

  52. [61]

    J. Novák. 2025. Graviton as a phonon and dark energy prob lem. Prepared for publica- tion

    2025

  53. [62]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, E. Witten. 1988. Superstring theory Volume 1,2. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics

    1988

  54. [63]

    F. Dyson. 2013. Is graviton detectable? International Journal of Modern Physics A 28, 25, 1330041

    2013

  55. [64]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves, Volume 1, Theory and experiments

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves, Volume 1, Theory and experiments. Oxford Univer- sity Press. 2008. Ann. d. Physik 44, 117 -119

    2008

  56. [65]

    R. P. Feynman. 1972. Statistical Mechanics. Westview P ress

    1972

  57. [66]

    Padmanabhan

    T. Padmanabhan. 2002. Accelerated expansion of the uni verse driven by tachyonic dark matter. Phys.Rev.D 66:021301

    2002

  58. [67]

    Colloday, A

    D. Colloday, A. Kostelecký. 1998. Lorentz-Violating E xtension of the Standard Model. Phys.Rev.D58:116002

    1998

  59. [68]

    A. Wang. 2017. Hořava Gravity at a Lifshitz Point: A Prog ress Report. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1730014. arXiv:1701.06087. 15

    2017 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Collins, A

    J. Collins, A. Perez, D. Sudarsky, L. Urrutia, H. Vuceti ch. 2004. Lorentz invariance and quantum gravity: an additional fine-tuning problem? Phy s. Rev. Lett. 93, 191301. arXiv:gr-qc/0403053

    2004 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Coleman, J

    S. Coleman, J. Mandula. 1967. All Possible Symmetries o f the S Matrix. Physical Review 159, 1251–1256

    1967

  62. [71]

    R. Haag, J. T. Łopuszański, M. Sohnius. 1975. All possib le generators of supersymme- tries of the S-matrix Nuclear Physics B, Volume 88, Issue 2 257 - 274

    1975

  63. [72]

    Rausch de Trubenberg

    M. Rausch de Trubenberg. 2002. Talk given at GROUP24 in P aris. arXiv:hep-th/0209144

    2002 arXiv

  64. [73]

    N. Aizawa. 2017. Generalization of superalgebras to co lor superalgebras and their rep- resentations. Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 28, Issue 28

    2017

  65. [74]

    Campoamor-Stursberg, M

    R. Campoamor-Stursberg, M. Rausch de Traubenberg. 200 9. Color Lie algebras and Lie algebras of the order F. Journal of Generalized Lie Theory an d Applications 3, 113-130

  66. [75]

    D. Blas, M. M. Ivanov, I. Sawicky, S. Sibiryakov. 2016. O n constraining the speed of gravitational waves following GW150914. Pisma Zh. Eksp. Te or. Fiz. 103, 10, 708-710; JETP Lett. 103, 10, 624-626. arXiv:1602.04188v2

    2016 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, H. Johansson. 2010. Perturba tive Quantum Gravity as a Dou- ble Copy of Gauge Theory. Physical Review Letters 105 (6): 061602. arXiv:1004.0476

    2010 arXiv

  68. [77]

    A. Luna, R. Monteiro, I. Nicholson, D. O’Connell. 2019. Type D spacetimes and Weyl double copy. Class.Quant.Grav. 36, 065003

    2019

  69. [78]

    V. Faraoni. 2005. Phantom cosmology with general poten tials. Classical and Quantum Gravity 22, 3235–3246. arXiv:gr-qc/0506095. 16

    2005 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov. 2006. Unified phantom cosmology: Inflation, dark energy and dark matter under the same standard. Physics Letters B 632, 597–604. arXiv:hep-th/0507182

    2006 arXiv

  71. [80]

    frog.jpg

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov. 2006. Unifying phantom inflat ion with late-time acceleration: Scalar phantom-non-phantom transition model and generali zed holographic dark energy. General Relativity and Gravitation 38, 1285–1304. arXiv:hep-th/0506212. 17 This figure "frog.jpg" is a...

    2006 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.