Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Gravitational Bounce from the Quantum Exclusion Principle

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 A finite collapsing cloud that reaches a quantum ground state bounces at radius R_B and then inflates, with inflation and dark energy sharing one mechanism.

desk verdict A clear, speculative bounce scenario whose central radius formula has a missing factor; the quantum ground state is unproven, but the paper is repairable and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23877 v1 pith:FTXAEUQ7 submitted 2025-05-29 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Enrique Gaztanaga , K. Sravan Kumar , Swaraj Pradhan , Michael Gabler This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO MSC 83F0583C7583C57 PACS 04.20.-q04.70.-s98.80.-k
keywords gravitationalcollapsebouncecosmologyquantumexclusionprincipledegeneracypressurecosmicinflationdarkenergyspatialcurvatureblackholeuniverse
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 tries to show that the end state of gravitational collapse need not be a singularity: if a finite, closed cloud of matter obeys an equation of state that asymptotically reaches a quantum ground state of constant density $\rho_G$ with pressure $P = -\rho_G$, the collapse stops and reverses at radius $R_B = (8\pi G\rho_G/3)^{-1/2}$. The rebound is followed by exponential expansion that behaves like cosmic inflation, and the same construction identifies the observed cosmological constant with the cloud's gravitational radius. That would mean inflation, dark energy, and black-hole interiors are phases of one classical-GR process driven by the quantum exclusion principle, with no modified gravity and no new scalar field. The paper's sharp observable prediction is a small non-zero closed spatial curvature, $-0.07 \pm 0.02 \le \Omega_k < 0$, tied to a finite comoving cutoff that also addresses the cosmic microwave background low-quadrupole anomaly.

What carries the argument

The central object is the finite closed FLRW cloud: a pressure-supported fluid ball of constant comoving radius $\chi_*$ with spatial curvature $k = 1/\chi_k^2 > 0$, matched continuously to a Schwarzschild exterior. The load-bearing identity is the bounce radius $R_B = \sqrt{R_G^3/r_S} = \sqrt{3/(8\pi G\rho_G)}$, where $R_G$ is the cloud radius at ground-state density and $r_S = 2Gm$ is its Schwarzschild radius; the exact trajectory is $a = a_B \cosh(\Delta\tau/R_B)$. The ground-state equation of state $\rho = \rho_G$, $P = -\rho_G$ acts as the repulsive core that enforces $\dot{\rho} = 0$, and $k > 0$ supplies the turnaround that an infinite or flat cloud cannot have.

What would settle it

A combined analysis of CMB, baryon-acoustic-oscillation, and distance-ladder data that bounds the spatial curvature to $|\Omega_k| < 0.02$ at 95 percent confidence would rule out the paper's predicted range $-0.07 \pm 0.02 \le \Omega_k < 0$; alternatively, a first-principles calculation showing that no quantum ground state with $P = -\rho_G$ can exist for masses far above the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit would remove the bounce mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in classical general relativity, the paper considers a uniform spherical cloud, a finite closed Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker patch of mass $m$, embedded in empty space so that an exterior observer sees a Schwarzschild black hole of radius $r_S = 2Gm$. The fluid starts as pressureless dust, but as density rises its equation of state transitions to a ground state with $\rho = \rho_G$ and $P = -\rho_G$, motivated by the quantum exclusion principle. In that state the Friedmann-like acceleration equation flips sign, producing a minimum scale factor $a_B = \sqrt{R_G^3/(\chi_k^2 r_S)}$ and a bounce radius $R_B = a_B\chi_* = \sqrt{R_G^3/r_S} = \sqrt{3/(8\pi G\rho_G)}$, with exact solution $a(\tau) = a_B \cosh(\Delta\tau/R_B)$. The bounce is possible only for positive spatial curvature $k > 0$ and finite mass; after it, the expansion is exponential and quasi-de Sitter, acting as inflation with about 57 e-folds matched to the measured scalar spectral index. The paper further identifies the current dark-energy scale with $\Lambda = 3/r_S^2$, so the present accelerated expansion is the same ground-state mechanism operating at the cloud's horizon.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a universal quantum ground state of constant density $\rho_G$ with $P = -\rho_G$ exists for masses up to the observable Universe, a claim the paper justifies by analogy with neutron degeneracy rather than by derivation from quantum mechanics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Black-hole collapse is not singular: the cloud reaches a minimum radius $R_B \simeq \sqrt{3/(8\pi G\rho_G)}$ and rebounds, while an exterior observer still sees a Schwarzschild black hole of radius $r_S = 2Gm$.
  • The post-bounce exponential phase supplies the roughly 57 e-folds of inflation needed to solve the horizon and flatness problems, with the ground-state density playing the role of the inflaton potential.
  • The observed cosmological constant is reinterpreted as $\Lambda = 3/r_S^2$, determined by the total mass of the finite cloud, which explains why $\Lambda$ is small but nonzero.
  • The finite comoving size of the cloud cuts off super-horizon perturbations, explaining the CMB large-angle anomalies, including the low quadrupole and the homogeneity scale at about 66 degrees.
  • The model predicts a small closed spatial curvature $-0.07 \pm 0.02 \le \Omega_k < 0$, measurable by upcoming surveys and already hinted by recent CMB and large-scale-structure data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is right, the ground-state density $\rho_G$ should be derivable from quantum mechanics or particle physics; deriving its value would convert the paper's analogy with neutron degeneracy into a quantitative prediction for the inflationary energy scale and the bounce radius.
  • The identification $\Lambda = 3/r_S^2$ makes $\Lambda$ time-dependent if the cloud accretes or loses mass, so hints of slowly evolving dark energy at low redshift would be a natural consequence of the model rather than a modification to it.
  • Compact remnants formed from pre-bounce overdensities could populate the interior as dark-matter candidates, a channel that gravitational-wave or microlensing searches for heavy black holes could test.
  • The most checkable technical step is the continuous matching of a pressurized FLRW interior to Schwarzschild; a complete junction-condition calculation with a time-dependent boundary would either confirm the absence of a surface layer or expose a thin-shell stress-energy that the paper does not include.
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 considers a finite, closed FLRW cloud of uniform matter whose equation of state transitions from dust to P = -rho at a postulated ground-state density rho_G. It claims that such a cloud undergoes a nonsingular gravitational bounce at radius R_B = (8 pi G rho_G / 3)^(-1/2), followed by exponential expansion, and that the same mechanism explains inflation, the observed cosmological constant, and a small positive spatial curvature whose lower bound is Omega_k >= -0.07 +/- 0.02. The analysis is based on the Friedmann equations with k > 0, together with a matching to a Schwarzschild exterior borrowed from earlier work by the first author.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the model would offer a unified, singularity-free scenario connecting collapse, bounce, inflation, and late-time acceleration, with a falsifiable curvature prediction. The paper is clearly written, and the Friedmann-level calculations are transparent; the numerical comparison with an earlier Newtonian collapse study is a useful check. However, the quantitative centerpiece is invalid as stated, the key ground state is postulated rather than derived, and the curvature 'prediction' is a reparametrization of the input homogeneity scale. These issues substantially reduce the significance below what the abstract claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [Bouncing Solution (Eqs. 21 and 23)] Equations (21) and (23) are inconsistent. From Eq. (20) with k = 1/chi_k^2, the bounce scale factor satisfies a_B^2 = R_G^3 / (chi_k^2 r_S). The physical radius is R_B = a_B chi_*, hence R_B^2 = (R_G^3 / r_S) (chi_*/chi_k)^2 = [3/(8 pi G rho_G)] (chi_*/chi_k)^2. Equation (23), and the abstract's R_B = (8 pi G rho_G/3)^(-1/2), hold only in the special case chi_* = chi_k. The paper explicitly requires chi_k > chi_* (section 'Gauss Curvature Scale') and uses chi_k > chi_* for the curvature prediction, so the displayed formula is wrong by the factor (chi_*/chi_k)^2. This is not a presentation issue: the claimed independence of the bounce radius from the cloud boundary and the identification of R_B with the ground-state gravitational radius do not follow from the equations.
  2. [Degeneracy Pressure] The existence of the constant-density ground state rho_G with P = -rho_G is assumed, not derived. The text states that such a state 'could also emerge' if electrons and quarks are not fundamental, and appeals to an analogy with neutron degeneracy. No quantum-mechanical or particle-physics mechanism is given that would produce this state for a mass of order 10^22 M_sun, many orders of magnitude above the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit. Since every subsequent result, including the bounce, inflation, and the curvature prediction, depends on this state, the paper demonstrates a conditional statement rather than the claimed analytical demonstration that the exclusion principle prevents singular collapse.
  3. [Gauss Curvature Scale (Eqs. 24-27)] Equation (27) is not an independent prediction. Inserting the measured homogeneity angle theta_cut (Eqs. 24-26) into Omega_k = -(0.07 +/- 0.02)(chi_*/chi_k)^2 yields a range that is a rewriting of the input cutoff, with chi_k remaining free. The claimed lower bound -0.07 +/- 0.02 <= Omega_k < 0 follows from chi_k >= chi_*, but for any larger chi_k the bound is trivially weaker; the model does not predict a specific value of Omega_k. The abstract's 'testable prediction' is therefore a reparametrization of the CMB cutoff that was put in by hand.
  4. [Cosmic Acceleration (Eqs. 33-34)] The identification Lambda = 3/r_S^2 is definitional, not derived: it follows from setting R_Lambda = r_S in Eq. (33). The statement that the measurement of Lambda is a measurement of the total mass of the finite cloud is an interpretive assumption, and the unification of dark energy with the bounce mechanism rests on this identification. Similarly, the inflationary phase is modeled by the ansatz in Eq. (28), with a_G tuned to reproduce Planck's n_s; the resulting P_* = -rho_*^2 is a fit, not a prediction of the model.
  5. [Spherical Collapse P=0 (matching to Schwarzschild)] The smooth matching of a pressure-filled FLRW interior to a Schwarzschild exterior is asserted on the basis of Ref. [11] by the same first author, but no derivation is given here. This is a contested point in the literature, and the paper's exterior-black-hole interpretation and the Lambda identification depend on it. A referee cannot verify the central geometric claim from this manuscript alone; at minimum the matching conditions should be reproduced or derived.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The notation 'FLR W' appears throughout the text; it should be 'FLRW'.
  2. [Figure 2 caption and surrounding text] The figure caption refers to 'the numerical solution of Eq. 29' and then to 'Eq. 30', but the equation numbering in that passage is confusing: Eq. (29) is the numerical equation of motion, while the EoS P_* = -rho_*^2 is introduced as Eq. (30) only in the main text. Please clarify which equation is being solved and where the fit is defined.
  3. [References] References [21] and [22] appear to be the same work (Nojiri, Odintsov, and Oikonomou 2017); one duplicate should be removed.
  4. [Bouncing Solution] The quantity R_B is defined in Eq. (23) but used implicitly in the phrase 'happens to be the gravitational radius of the ground state'; in view of the factor (chi_*/chi_k)^2 issue, this phrase should be removed or carefully qualified.
  5. [Cosmic Acceleration] The paper states that 'the measurement of a Lambda can be interpreted as a measurement of m'; this is only true under the identification R_Lambda = r_S, and the sentence should be framed as an assumption rather than a conclusion.

Circularity Check

5 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Several headline results are repackaged inputs: R_B assumes χ_*=χ_k, the inflationary EoS is fit from a_G, Ω_k restates a fitted χ_*, and Λ=3/r_S^2 is an identification; the pressure-matching premise rests on a same-author citation.

  1. self definitional [Bouncing solution, Eqs. (20)-(23), and abstract]
    "aB = s R3 G χ2 k rS orR 2 B =R 3 G/rS . ... RB ≡a Bχ∗ = q R3 G/rS = r 3 8πGρG , (23)"

    Using k=1/χ_k^2 in Eq. (20), the condition H=0 gives a_B^2=R_G^3/(r_S χ_k^2). Since the physical cloud radius is R_B=a_B χ_*, one obtains R_B^2=(R_G^3/r_S)(χ_*/χ_k)^2. Eq. (23) sets this equal to R_G^3/r_S, which is true only if χ_*=χ_k, while the paper explicitly requires χ_k>χ_* (Eq. 8 and the abstract). The stated R_B is therefore the de Sitter length of the input density ρ_G via Eq. (16), not the radius at which the finite cloud actually bounces; the headline result is imposed by an unstated equality of the two scales.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Cosmic Inflation, Eqs. (28)-(30)]
    "As an example, we can take the following toy ansatz to interpolate from ρ ≃ ρG(a/aG)^(−3) to ρ ≃ ρG: ρ∗ ≡ ρ/ρG = 1/[1 + ((a−aB)/aG)^3] ... This solution corresponds to aG ≃ 5.69×10^24 aB ... The corresponding EoS follows: P/ρG = −(ρ/ρG)^2"

    a_G is a free parameter in the interpolation ansatz (28). It is tuned until the numerical solution produces the desired N_e ≈ 57 (i.e., the Planck value of n_s), and then Eq. (15) is used to convert the chosen scale-factor history into P(ρ). The resulting EoS P_*=-ρ_*^2 is a functional consequence of the assumed ansatz and the chosen a_G, not a derivation from the exclusion principle or from GR. The inflationary equation of state is thus the fitted input renamed as an output.

3 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Gauss Curvature Scale, Eqs. (24)-(27)]
    "θcut = χ∗/χCMB ... Reference [56] estimated the homogeneity scale to be θcut ≃65.9±9.2 degrees ... χ∗ ≃15.93±2.22 Gpc ... Ωk ≡ −k(1/H0)^2 = −(0.07±0.02)(χ∗/χk)^2"

    The central value -(0.07±0.02) is just -(χ_*H0)^(-2) evaluated with χ_* taken from the observed homogeneity-angle estimate [56]; the remaining factor (χ_*/χ_k)^2 is a free parameter constrained only by χ_k≥χ_*. Eq. (27) is therefore a reparametrization of an observational input into a curvature variable, not a first-principles prediction. No value of χ_k is derived from the bounce model, so the advertised lower bound is a restatement of the fitted χ_*.

  2. self definitional [Cosmic Acceleration, Eqs. (31)-(34)]
    "RΛ = sqrt(3/Λ) ... For consistency, we need to identify RΛ with the Schwarzschild radius: RΛ = rS = 2Gm. as both quantities are constant. This immediately provides a physical interpretation of Λ: Λ = 3/rS^2."

    Eq. (31) defines R_Λ by Λ=3/R_Λ^2, so postulating R_Λ=r_S is equivalent to postulating Λ=3/r_S^2. The paper presents this as the physical interpretation and origin of dark energy, but it is a definitional identification of two length scales, not a derivation from the bounce or from the mass. The advertised unification is obtained by choosing the identification.

  3. self citation load bearing [Introduction, paragraph on pressure matching]
    "In the presence of pressure (P̸= 0), the radius of the junction is no longer a fixed comoving radial coordinate but evolves dynamically, i.e., χ∗ =χ∗(τ), as shown explicitly in [11]. In this case, a smooth matching of the FLRW and Schwarzschild metrics is still possible without introducing any discontinuity or requiring a surface layer with additional energy-momentum content."

    The viability of a pressure-filled FLRW cloud matched to a Schwarzschild exterior is load-bearing for the whole construction, and the only reference given for the non-geodesic, pressure-dependent junction is [11], a paper by the same first author. No independent derivation appears in this manuscript, so this central premise rests on a same-author citation rather than on a machine-checked or externally reproduced result.

full rationale

The bounce as a mathematical consequence of P=-ρ and k>0 is internally consistent: Eq. (20) has a minimum at a_B and Eq. (22) is a valid solution of that Friedmann equation for the scale factor. The circularity is in the quantitative packaging. The advertised bounce radius R_B=(8πGρ_G/3)^(-1/2) is the de Sitter scale of the input density ρ_G and coincides with the actual cloud bounce radius only after setting χ_*=χ_k, contradicting the paper's own χ_k>χ_* requirement. The inflationary EoS P_*=-ρ_*^2 is read off from a toy ansatz after a_G has been tuned to reproduce the observed e-fold count, so it is a fit rather than a prediction. The curvature prediction Ω_k=-(0.07±0.02)(χ_*/χ_k)^2 restates an observationally fitted χ_* with a free χ_k factor, and the dark-energy claim Λ=3/r_S^2 follows from the imposed identification R_Λ=r_S, not from a derivation. The pressure-matching premise needed for the pressure-filled cloud is also sourced to a same-author paper. These are specific reductions of claimed outputs to inputs. Separately, the existence of a quantum ground state with P=-ρ at ρ_G above the TOV limit is an unproven hypothesis, which is a physical gap rather than a circular step. Because several advertised 'predictions' reduce to fitted or definitional inputs, the central claims are substantially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the postulate of a maximum-density ground state with P = -rho, plus standard FLRW equations and a matching condition cited from the same first author. The observational 'predictions' are mostly rearrangements of input parameters such as theta_cut and a_G.

free parameters (4)
  • rho_G
    Introduced as the maximum density of a hypothetical ground state; the bounce radius and all timescales depend on it. The paper gives only a lower bound from nuclear saturation.
  • a_G = 5.69e24 a_B
    Scale in the toy interpolation Eq. 28; chosen so the numerical solution gives N_e around 57, matching Planck's spectral index n_s. The inferred EoS P = -rho^2 is therefore a consequence of this choice, not a prediction.
  • chi_* = 15.93 +/- 2.22 Gpc
    Initial comoving radius of the cloud, adopted from the CMB homogeneity-scale estimate of [56]; used in Eq. 27 to set the curvature prediction.
  • chi_k = chi_k >= chi_*
    Spatial curvature scale, free in the model. The prediction |Omega_k| <= 0.07 +/- 0.02 depends on the assumed lower bound chi_k >= chi_*.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard Friedmann equations of general relativity for FLRW metrics.
    Used throughout the paper as the dynamical framework for the collapsing cloud.
  • ad hoc to paper The fluid equation of state transitions from dust to P = -rho at a ground-state density rho_G.
    No derivation is given from particle physics or quantum mechanics; it is motivated by analogy with neutron star degeneracy and 'could emerge' from a new ground state.
  • domain assumption The collapsing cloud is uniform and pressure is approximately uniform near the bounce.
    The paper justifies this by citing hydrodynamical simulations in [1]; if inhomogeneities grow, the uniform FLRW treatment fails.
  • domain assumption A pressure-filled FLRW interior can be matched to a Schwarzschild exterior with no thin shell or surface layer.
    Taken from the same first author's prior paper [11]; if wrong, the black-hole exterior interpretation of the BHU fails.
  • ad hoc to paper The CMB low-multipole / homogeneity scale theta_cut is caused by the finite comoving cutoff chi_* of the cloud.
    Used in Eqs. 24 to 27 to convert the CMB anomaly into a curvature prediction; the authors acknowledge that a different origin for the anomaly would weaken the prediction.
invented entities (1)
  • Quantum ground state at maximum energy density rho_G with P = -rho_G
    purpose: Halts gravitational collapse, produces a bounce, and drives the subsequent inflationary expansion.
    Postulated based on a presumed generalization of the exclusion principle; no microphysical derivation or independent detection. The paper only gives a lower bound from nuclear saturation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Bounce from the Quantum Exclusion Principle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTXAEUQ7

@misc{pith2026250523877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Bounce from the Quantum Exclusion Principle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTXAEUQ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23877}
}
abstract

We investigate the fully relativistic spherical collapse model of a uniform distribution of mass $M$ with initial comoving radius $\chi_*$ and spatial curvature $k \equiv 1/\chi_k^2 \le 1/\chi_*^2$ representing an over-density or bounded perturbation within a larger background. Our model incorporates a perfect fluid with an evolving equation of state, $P = P(\rho)$, which asymptotically transitions from pressureless dust ($P = 0$) to a ground state characterized by a uniform, time-independent energy density $\rho_{\rm G}$. This transition is motivated by the quantum exclusion principle, which prevents singular collapse, as observed in supernova core-collapse explosions. We analytically demonstrate that this transition induces a gravitational bounce at a radius $R_{\rm B} = (8 \pi G \rho_{\rm G}/3)^{-1/2}$. The bounce leads to an exponential expansion phase, where $P(\rho)$ behaves effectively as an inflation potential. This model provides novel insights into black hole interiors and, when extended to a cosmological setting, predicts a small but non-zero closed spatial curvature: $ -0.07 \pm 0.02 \le \Omega_k < 0$. This lower bound follows from the requirement of $\chi_k \ge \chi_* \simeq 15.9$ Gpc to address the cosmic microwave background low quadrupole anomaly. The bounce remains confined within the initial gravitational radius $r_{\rm S} = 2GM$, which effectively acts as a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ inside $r_{\rm S}=\sqrt{3/\Lambda}$ while still appearing as a Schwarzschild black hole from an external perspective. This framework unifies the origin of inflation and dark energy, with its key observational signature being the presence of small but nonzero spatial curvature, a testable prediction for upcoming cosmological surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23877 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Graphical representation of the spherical collapse. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left: EoS ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time evolution in the radius of the FLRW cloud [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Gazta˜ naga, Symmetry14, 1849 (2022)

    E. Gazta˜ naga, Symmetry14, 1849 (2022)

    2022

  2. [1]

    Gravitational Bounce from the Quantum Exclusion Principle

    Both conditions sidestep the singularity GR theorems proposed by [2], allowing us to formulate a novel solution to a pivotal issue in cosmological theory. arXiv:2505.23877v1 [gr-qc] 29 May 2025 2 The bouncing scenario we formulate naturally extends to the subsequent stage of inflationary expansion when spatial curvature effects become negligible, resultin...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    S. W. Hawking, R. Penrose, and H. Bondi, Proc. of the Royal Society of London314, 529 (1970)

    1970

  4. [3]

    What Moves the Heavens Above?

    E. Gazta˜ naga and B. Camacho-Quevedo, Physics Letters B835, 137468 (2022), arXiv:2204.10728 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    Y. B. Zel’Dovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics16, 732 (1963)

    1963

  6. [5]

    Pradhan, M

    S. Pradhan, M. Gabler, and E. Gazta˜ naga, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society537, 1232 (2025), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/537/2/1232/61382516/staf019.pdf

    2025

  7. [6]

    Faraoni and F

    V. Faraoni and F. Atieh, Phys. Rev. D102, 044020 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    I. H. Thompson and G. J. Whitrow, MNRAS139, 499 (1968)

    1968

Show all 91 references
  1. [8]

    Bondi, MNRAS142, 333 (1969)

    H. Bondi, MNRAS142, 333 (1969)

    1969

  2. [9]

    S. R. Geller, J. K. Bloomfield, and A. H. Guth, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1801.02249 (2018), arXiv:1801.02249 [gr- qc]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, Physical Review56, 455 (1939)

    1939

  4. [12]

    P. F. Gonzalez-Diaz, Nuovo Cimento Lettere32, 161 (1981)

    1981

  5. [13]

    Smoller and B

    J. Smoller and B. Temple, Poceedings of the NAS100, 11216 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210105 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Grøn and H

    Ø. Grøn and H. H. Soleng, Physics Letters A138, 89 (1989)

    1989

  7. [15]

    V. P. Frolov, M. A. Markov, and V. F. Mukhanov, Phys Let B216, 272 (1989)

    1989

  8. [16]

    Aguirre and M

    A. Aguirre and M. C. Johnson, PRD72, 103525 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    S. K. Blau, E. I. Guendelman, and A. H. Guth, PRD35, 1747 (1987)

    1987

  10. [18]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 215024 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    A. A. Starobinskii, Pisma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal4, 155 (1978)

    1978

  12. [20]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Physics Letters B91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  13. [21]

    Kusenko, M

    A. Kusenko, M. Sasaki, S. Sugiyama, M. Takada, V. Takhistov, and E. Vitagliano, PRL125, 181304 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, PhysRep 692, 1 (2017), arXiv:1705.11098 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, F. P. Fronimos, and K. V. Fasoulakos, Phys. Rev. D102, 104042 (2020), arXiv:2010.13580 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kiefer and H

    C. Kiefer and H. Mohaddes, General Relativity and Grav- itation57, 26 (2025)

    2025

  17. [26]

    Bojowald, Living Rev

    M. Bojowald, Living Rev. Relativ.11, 4 (2008)

    2008

  18. [27]

    Brandenberger and P

    R. Brandenberger and P. Peter, Foundations of Physics 47, 797 (2017), arXiv:1603.05834 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Y.-F. Cai, T. Qiu, R. Brandenberger, Y.-S. Piao, and X. Zhang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2011(03), 003, arXiv:1101.0822 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  20. [30]

    K. S. Kumar, S. Maheshwari, A. Mazumdar, and J. Peng, Phys. Rev. D102, 024080 (2020)

    2020

  21. [31]

    Gasperini and G

    M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rept.373, 1 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0207130

    2003 arXiv

  22. [32]

    J. D. Barrow and S. Cotsakis, Physics Letters B214, 515 (1988)

    1988

  23. [33]

    Biswas, A

    T. Biswas, A. Mazumdar, and W. Siegel, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2006(03), 009

  24. [34]

    Cesar e Silva and I

    W. Cesar e Silva and I. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D110, 043540 (2024), arXiv:2402.18785 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Cesar e Silva, S

    W. Cesar e Silva, S. W. P. Oliveira, and I. L. Shapiro (2025) arXiv:2502.02281 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [36]

    I. L. Shapiro, Class. Quant. Grav.25, 103001 (2008), arXiv:0801.0216 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [37]

    K. S. Kumar, S. Maheshwari, A. Mazumdar, and J. Peng, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021 (07), 025

  28. [38]

    Buoninfante and etal, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.08696 (2024)

    L. Buoninfante and etal, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.08696 (2024)

    2024

  29. [39]

    Buoninfante and K

    L. Buoninfante and K. S. Kumar, Nuovo Cim. C45, 25 (2022)

    2022

  30. [40]

    K. S. Kumar and J. Marto, Symmetry17, 29 (2025), arXiv:2305.06046 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [41]

    R. Loll, G. Fabiano, D. Frattulillo, and F. Wagner, PoS CORFU2021, 316 (2022), arXiv:2206.06762 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [42]

    Gazta˜ naga, K

    E. Gazta˜ naga, K. Sravan Kumar, and J. Marto, preprint.org , 202410.0190 (2024)

    2024

  33. [43]

    C. W. Misner, Phys. Rev.186, 1328 (1969)

    1969

  34. [44]

    Gazta˜ naga, Universe8, 257 (2022), arXiv:2204.11608 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Gazta˜ naga, Universe8, 257 (2022), arXiv:2204.11608 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [45]

    K. S. Kumar and J. Marto, PTEP2024, 123E01 (2024), arXiv:2307.10345 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [46]

    confined

    ‘atom universe’ and is known today as the Lemaitre- Tolman-Bondi (LTB) model. The most general spheri- cally symmetric metric in the comoving frame (i.e., mov- ing with the fluid) is: ds2 =g µνdxµdxν =−dτ 2+ ∂r ∂χ 2 dχ2 F 2(χ) +r2dΩ2,(1) whereF(χ) is an arbitrary function ofχ....

  37. [47]

    C. W. Misner and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev.136, B571 (1964)

    1964

  38. [48]

    Faraoni, General Relativity and Gravitation47, 84 (2015), arXiv:1506.06358 [gr-qc]

    V. Faraoni, General Relativity and Gravitation47, 84 (2015), arXiv:1506.06358 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Gazta˜ naga, MNRAS521, L59 (2023)

    E. Gazta˜ naga, MNRAS521, L59 (2023). 12

    2023

  40. [50]

    Lemaitre, Annales Soc

    G. Lemaitre, Annales Soc. Sci. Bruxelles A53, 51 (1933)

    1933

  41. [51]

    initial condition

    and in§12.5.1 in [52]. Such matching solution is what we call the FLR W cloud, which has the FLR W metric in- sideχ < χ∗ and the Schwarzschild metric outsideχ∗ ([11] also presented the casek= 0 and Λ = 0 for timelike and null junctions). The relativistic spherical collapse can...

    1933

  42. [52]

    Padmanabhan,Gravitation, Cambridge Univ

    T. Padmanabhan,Gravitation, Cambridge Univ. Press (2010)

    2010

  43. [53]

    P. J. E. Peebles,The large-scale structure of the universe (Princeton University Press, 1980)

    1980

  44. [54]

    Gazta˜ naga, Symmetry16, 1141 (2024)

    E. Gazta˜ naga, Symmetry16, 1141 (2024)

    2024

  45. [55]

    W. M. Stuckey, American Journal of Physics62, 788 (1994), https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article- pdf/62/9/788/12077534/788 1 online.pdf

    1994

  46. [56]

    Camacho-Quevedo and E

    B. Camacho-Quevedo and E. Gazta˜ naga, JCAP2022 (04), 044

  47. [57]

    Hinshaw and etal, ApJl464, L25 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9601061 [astro-ph]

    G. Hinshaw and etal, ApJl464, L25 (1996), arXiv:astro- ph/9601061 [astro-ph]

    1996

  48. [58]

    D. N. Spergel and etal, ApJs148, 175 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302209 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  49. [59]

    Planck Collaboration, A&A641, A7 (2020), arXiv:1906.02552 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Galloni, N

    G. Galloni, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, M. Migliac- cio, A. Ricciardone, and N. Vittorio, JCAP04, 062, arXiv:2208.00188 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  51. [61]

    Di Valentino, A

    E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Nature As- tronomy4, 196 (2020), arXiv:1911.02087 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [62]

    Efstathiou, MNRAS343, L95 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0303127 [astro-ph]

    G. Efstathiou, MNRAS343, L95 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0303127 [astro-ph]

    2003

  53. [63]

    Planck Collaboration, A&A571, A22 (2014), arXiv:1303.5082 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [64]

    A. G. Riess and etal, AJ116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9805201 [astro-ph]

    1998

  55. [65]

    Multam¨ aki, M

    T. Multam¨ aki, M. Manera, and E. Gazta˜ naga, Phys. Rev. D69, 023004 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0307533 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  56. [66]

    Gazta˜ naga and K

    E. Gazta˜ naga and K. Sravan Kumar, JCAP2024(6), 001, arXiv:2401.08288 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  57. [67]

    Steigman, ARNPS57, 463 (2007)

    G. Steigman, ARNPS57, 463 (2007)

    2007

  58. [68]

    D. J. Eisenstein and etal, The Astrophysical Journal633, 560 (2005)

    2005

  59. [69]

    B. P. Schmidt and etal, The Astrophysical Journal507, 46 (1998)

    1998

  60. [70]

    Perlmutter and etal, The Astrophysical Journal517, 565 (1999)

    S. Perlmutter and etal, The Astrophysical Journal517, 565 (1999)

    1999

  61. [71]

    Fosalba, E

    P. Fosalba, E. Gazta˜ naga, and F. J. Castander, ApJL 597, L89 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0307249 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Burrows, J

    A. Burrows, J. Hayes, and B. A. Fryxell, Astrophys. J. 450, 830 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9506061 [astro-ph]

    1995 arXiv

  63. [73]

    and etal, A&A568, A22 (2014)

    Betoule, M. and etal, A&A568, A22 (2014)

    2014

  64. [74]

    DESI Collaboration and etal, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2404.03002 (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [75]

    H. A. Bethe, Reviews of Modern Physics62, 801 (1990)

    1990

  66. [76]

    Y. B. Zel’Dovich, AAP500, 13 (1970)

    1970

  67. [77]

    Hebeler, J

    K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, ApJ773, 11 (2013)

    2013

  68. [78]

    Janka, F

    H.-T. Janka, F. Hanke, L. H¨ udepohl, A. Marek, B. M¨ uller, and M. Obergaulinger, Progress of Theoret- ical and Experimental Physics2012, 01A309 (2012), arXiv:1211.1378 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [79]

    E. R. Harrison, PRD1, 2726 (1970)

    1970

  70. [80]

    Fosalba and E

    P. Fosalba and E. Gazta˜ naga, MNRAS504, 5840–5862 (2021)

    2021

  71. [81]

    P. J. E. Peebles and J. T. Yu, ApJ162, 815 (1970)

    1970

  72. [82]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, PhysRep442, 109 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0612440 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  73. [83]

    A. A. Starobinskii, ZhETF Pisma Redaktsiiu30, 719 (1979)

    1979

  74. [84]

    9), although the current uncertain- ties remain too large to decisively rule out a flat universe

    similarly suggest a slight preference for positive cur- vature (see their Fig. 9), although the current uncertain- ties remain too large to decisively rule out a flat universe. The latest DESI data [85] echo this trend, also hinting at a mild preference for positive curvature....

    2019

  75. [85]

    Gazta˜ naga and K

    E. Gazta˜ naga and K. Sravan Kumar, arXiv , arXiv:2403.05587 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  76. [86]

    Gazta˜ naga, Symmetry14, 1984 (2022)

    E. Gazta˜ naga, Symmetry14, 1984 (2022)

    2022

  77. [87]

    Planck Collaboration, A&A641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [88]

    ACT Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14452 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  79. [89]

    DESI Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.14738 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [90]

    S. W. Hawking, Communications in Mathematical Physics43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  81. [91]

    Weinberg,Cosmology, Oxford University Press(2008)

    S. Weinberg,Cosmology, Oxford University Press(2008)

    2008

  82. [92]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [93]

    Kehagias, A

    A. Kehagias, A. Moradinezhad Dizgah, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D89, 043527 (2014). Appendix A: Analogy with Scalar Field We can model the quantum ground state of nuclear saturation by introducing a scalar degree of freedom ψ=ψ(x α). Consider the Einstein-Hilbert action with mi...

    2014

Pith tools

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