Cosmographic constraints on a G\"odel-type rotating universe

Anshul Verma; David F. Mota; Pavan K. Aluri; Yuri N. Obukhov

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 92 references

Cosmographic constraints on a G\"odel-type rotating universe

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Gödel-type rotating universe, fit to 1,491 low-redshift Type Ia supernovae, shows a mild but consistent preference for cosmic rotation with $\Omega_0 = 0.29^{+0.21}_{-0.15}$ at $Z \le 0.2$ and a stable axis at $(243^\circ,-49^\circ)$.

desk verdict A clean, honest cosmographic test of a rotating Gödel-type universe against Pantheon+; the new result is a ~2σ dipole that is plausibly an artifact of first-order truncation, so the abstract overstates the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00860 v1 pith:BK2MSE4S submitted 2025-06-01 astro-ph.CO

Anshul Verma , Pavan K. Aluri , David F. Mota , Yuri N. Obukhov This is my paper

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords cosmicrotationGödel-typeuniversecosmographyTypeIasupernovaePantheon+anisotropyaxisAkaikeInformationCriterionrotatingcosmology

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether the universe rotates on cosmological scales and answers with a mild yes from Type Ia supernovae. It fits a Gödel-type spacetime that expands and rotates without shear to 1,491 low-redshift Pantheon+ supernovae, using a magnitude–redshift relation expanded to first order in redshift $Z$. The central result is a consistent preference for a nonzero rotation parameter, peaking at $\Omega_0 = 0.29^{+0.21}_{-0.15}$ for $Z \le 0.2$, along with a stable anisotropy axis near $(243^\circ, -49^\circ)$ in equatorial coordinates. The Hubble constant stays at $h_0 \approx 0.73$ in every redshift bin, and AIC comparison favors the rotating model over flat $\Lambda$CDM by factors of roughly 3–10 at intermediate redshifts. If the preference is physical, the local expansion of the universe is direction-dependent and standard isotropic cosmology omits a small but measurable kinematic term.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the expanding Gödel-type line element $$$ds^{2}$ = $dt^{2}$ - 2\sqrt{\$\sigma$} R(t) $e^{{mx}}$ dt\,dy - $R^{2}$(t)\left($dx^{2}$ + k $e^{{2mx}}$ $dy^{2}$ + $dz^{2}$\right),$$ with $k>0$ excluding closed timelike curves; the rotation rate $\omega = \frac{m}{2R}\sqrt{\sigma/(k+\sigma)}$ decays as the universe expands and defines the anisotropy axis. From the Kristian–Sachs expansion of area distance in powers of redshift, the paper uses the first-order apparent magnitude–redshift relation (its Eq. 9), which adds to the usual Hubble and deceleration terms a directional dipole controlled by $\Omega_0/h_0$ and by $\tilde{\rho} = \sqrt{\sigma/(k+\sigma)}$. This equation is what converts a hypothetical cosmic rotation into a redshift- and direction-dependent brightness offset, and the MCMC fit of its parameters to the Pantheon+ data is the core of the analysis.

What would settle it

Refit the same Pantheon+ data after adding the explicit $O(Z^2)$ Kristian–Sachs terms (jerk and second-order rotation contributions) to Eq. (9); if $\Omega_0$ drops below about 0.1 in all bins, or if a model with an arbitrary dipole direction but no Gödel rotation fits equally well, the reported rotation preference is a truncation artifact rather than evidence for a rotating spacetime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the directional terms in the Gödel-type magnitude–redshift relation are preferred by the data: the dimensionless rotation parameter $\Omega_0$ is nonzero out to about $2\sigma$ at $Z \le 0.2$, and the inferred rotation axis $(R_a, D_a) \approx (243^\circ, -49^\circ)$ is consistent across all five redshift cutoffs. The same fit gives a stable $h_0 \approx 0.73$ and a deceleration parameter $q_0$ that moves from near zero to mildly negative values with increasing redshift. The paper reads this not as a detection but as a consistent mild preference, strong enough that a rotating, shear-free Gödel-type cosmology is statistically competitive with, or favored over, flat $\Lambda$CDM at intermediate redshifts and deserves a test beyond the first-order cosmographic expansion.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the first-order Taylor expansion of the Gödel-type magnitude–redshift relation is accurate for redshifts up to $Z=0.5$; if the omitted second-order terms are not negligible, the fitted rotation parameter can absorb them and mimic a rotation signal that is not in the metric.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the preference is physical, the local expansion rate is direction-dependent at the level $\Omega_0/h_0 \approx 0.40$ in the $Z\le0.2$ bin, largest for sources near the inferred rotation axis.
The steady decline of $\Omega_0$ and $\Omega_0/h_0$ with increasing redshift cutoff means rotation, if present, is a relatively local effect that fades as more distant supernovae enter the sample.
A rotation axis stable near $(243^\circ, -49^\circ)$ across all bins predicts a specific sky direction for other anisotropy probes, close to axes previously reported from radio polarization and other data.
The stable $h_0 \approx 0.73$ implies that allowing for rotation does not wash out the local Hubble rate, while $q_0$ becomes less negative than in a no-rotation fit at the same redshift cuts.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the fit uses only the first-order expansion, the reported $\Omega_0$ could be absorbing neglected $O(Z^2)$ terms such as the jerk and second-order rotation corrections; a concrete next step is to compute those terms from the Kristian–Sachs series and see whether the dipole survives.
If the rotation signal is real, it may be relevant to the Hubble tension: a direction-dependent expansion changes how local distance-ladder measurements and early-universe anchors are compared, since they effectively average over different sky directions.
The closeness of the inferred axis to other reported cosmic dipoles suggests a joint test: fitting the rotation axis together with CMB, radio, and fine-structure dipole data in one model would reveal whether these are the same underlying anisotropy or unrelated alignments.
Future low-redshift supernova samples could distinguish the Gödel-type model from a generic dipole by checking the predicted redshift dependence $\omega \propto 1/R$: rotation should weaken with distance in a specific way.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this paper does something genuinely new—fits the full rotation term of an expanding Gödel-type model to the Pantheon+ sample—and the basic analysis is competently done. But the claim of a “statistically significant preference” for rotation is weaker than the abstract suggests, and the signal could easily be a truncation artifact. Worth a serious referee, not because the detection is solid, but because the test is clean and the caveats are instructive.

What’s new: earlier work (Jain et al. 2007 and references therein) used small, old supernova samples and dropped the Ω0 term in Eq. (9). Here they use ~1500 SNe up to z=0.5, include the full dipole term, fit the axis and rotation amplitude with a standard MCMC, use the full Pantheon+ covariance, and anchor with Cepheid distances. The equations look right to me, and the likelihood treatment is textbook. They also compare against a similarly truncated ΛCDM model, which is the correct control.

Soft spots: the load-bearing issue is the linear-order truncation. Eq. (9) is O(Z), but they fit to z=0.5. The omitted O(Z^2) terms—jerk and angular counterparts—are not negligible there, roughly a few tenths of a magnitude, the same order as the claimed rotation dipole. In the z≤0.1 bin, where the expansion is safest, Ω0=0.24±0.46, fully consistent with zero. The signal appears only in the z≤0.2 bin (0.29+0.21−0.15) and then declines. That is the pattern you’d expect from truncation bias, and the paper provides no estimate of it. Second, the abstract’s “statistically significant preference” is overstated: ΔA=−4.6 gives P≈10, moderate evidence at best, and the text’s own AIC thresholds are stated in a confused way. Third, the five redshift cuts are nested, so the apparent consistency of the axis across bins is less meaningful than it looks; no look-elsewhere correction is attempted, and the axis uncertainties are large enough that “broadly aligned” is doing a lot of work.

None of this makes the paper silly. The authors honestly hedge in the conclusions, and the model-comparison design is fair. Strengthening it is straightforward: add the second-order term or restrict to z≤0.2 with truncation error quantified, correct the AIC language, and release the chains.

This paper is for people working on isotropy tests and rotating cosmologies. It deserves peer review, not desk rejection, because the referee can push on the truncation and force the authors to do the extra work. I’d bring it to a reading group as a cautionary example of how a valid likelihood analysis can still be hostage to the order of a Taylor expansion.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper constrains a Gödel-type rotating universe model using the Pantheon+ Type Ia supernova sample. The authors use a magnitude-redshift relation derived via the Kristian-Sachs formalism (Eq. 9), truncated at first order in redshift Z, and fit model parameters with MCMC in five cumulative redshift cutoffs from Z≤0.1 to Z≤0.5. They report a stable h0≈0.73, a deceleration parameter q0 near zero, a rotation parameter Ω0 peaking at 0.29^{+0.21}_{-0.15} in the Z≤0.2 bin, a preferred anisotropy axis around (243°,−49°), and an AIC-based preference for the rotating model over flat ΛCDM. The abstract concludes a 'mild but consistent preference for cosmic rotation'.

Significance. If the rotation signal were robust, it would be a noteworthy indication of anisotropy in the late-time expansion history. The paper benefits from using the public Pantheon+ data with its full covariance matrix, including Cepheid anchors that break the h0–M0 degeneracy, and from following a standard MCMC likelihood procedure with a clear model-comparison framework. The main weakness is that the statistical evidence is marginal: the most favorable bin shows Ω0 only about 2σ from zero, and the analysis relies on a first-order cosmographic expansion at redshifts where neglected higher-order terms are expected to be appreciable. The significance of the claimed preference is also overstated relative to the reported AIC values. The paper is readable and reproduces standard pipelines, but the central claim is not yet firmly supported.

major comments (4)

[§2.2, Eq. (9)] The magnitude-redshift relation is truncated to first order in Z, yet the fits extend to Z=0.5. In a standard cosmographic expansion, the neglected O(Z^2) contribution to the distance modulus is non-negligible at Z=0.5, typically of order −0.1 to −0.3 mag for ΛCDM-like parameters, which is comparable to the rotation dipole term (about 0.2 mag for Ω0/h0≈0.4). Since Ω0 is consistent with zero in the Z≤0.1 bin (0.24±0.46) and peaks only in the Z≤0.2 bin (0.29^{+0.21}_{-0.15}), the apparent signal coincides with the redshift range where truncation effects become important. The paper provides no estimate of this truncation error, such as a jerk term or a residual test, so the inferred Ω0 and axis may be biased by the neglected higher-order terms.
[§4, Model comparison through AIC and Table 1] The abstract states that the AIC indicates a 'statistically significant preference' for the rotating model, but the reported ΔA values (−0.15, −2.23, −4.60, −3.12, −3.87) correspond to model probabilities of only about 1, 3, 10, 4.8, and 6.9 times, which by standard AIC thresholds (e.g., Burnham & Anderson) is at most moderate evidence. In addition, the text's threshold description ('ΔA ≤2 representing strong support, values in the range 4≤ΔA≤7 suggesting moderate to weak support, and ΔA ≥10 indicating no support') is ill-defined because ΔA is negative, and it does not match the standard interpretation. The 'statistically significant preference' claim in the abstract is therefore not supported by the reported numbers.
[§4, Table 1 and Fig. 5] The claimed consistency of the anisotropy axis across redshift bins is weakened by the use of cumulative (nested) redshift cuts. Each bin contains all the supernovae from the lower bins, so the axis measurements are strongly correlated; the apparent agreement across bins is therefore not an independent confirmation. Moreover, the declination uncertainties are very large (roughly ±20°–30°), so the axis is only loosely constrained. The authors should either use disjoint redshift bins or explicitly account for the correlation of the axis estimates before claiming a 'broadly aligned' or 'consistent' axis.
[§4, Table 1] The evidence for non-zero rotation is marginal even in the most favorable bin. For Z≤0.2, Ω0 = 0.29^{+0.21}_{-0.15}, which is only about 1.6–2σ from zero, and for Z≤0.1, Ω0 = 0.24±0.46, fully consistent with zero. The abstract's phrase 'mild but consistent preference' overstates the strength of the signal; the paper should emphasize that the detection is tentative and significance depends on the choice of redshift cutoff.

minor comments (6)

[§2.2] The conversion from the fitted equatorial coordinates (Ra, Da) to the angles (θ, φ) that appear in Eq. (9) is not explicitly described; please state the convention used to compute θ and φ for each supernova given a trial axis.
[§4, Model comparison through AIC] The probabilities P_i = exp(−ΔA_i/2) are not posterior probabilities but relative likelihood ratios; the text should use the term 'relative likelihood' rather than 'probable' to avoid misinterpretation.
[Abstract] The abstract's 'statistically significant preference' should be softened to something like 'weak to moderate preference' in light of the ΔA values reported in Table 1.
[§4, Fig. 5] Only 1σ contours are shown for the fitted axes; plotting 2σ contours would better illustrate the large declination uncertainty and the degree of overlap between bins.
[§4] The text states that q0 'approaches the standard ΛCDM expectation' at higher redshifts, but the fitted ΛCDM q0 values (−0.07 to −0.22) are far from the canonical value q0≈−0.55; please clarify that this is a cosmographic, low-redshift estimate rather than the full-sample ΛCDM constraint.
[Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'G¨odel' in the title, 'Panthoen+SH0ES' in §4, and inconsistent use of 'effect' vs. 'affect' in the text; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (9) is a parameter-free derived expansion from prior work, and all rotation parameters are fitted constraints rather than out-of-sample predictions.

full rationale

The paper's chain is a standard parameter estimation: Eq. (9) is imported from the authors' earlier papers [63,64], but it is a Taylor-expanded, parameter-free m–Z relation derived from the Gödel-type metric via the Kristian-Sachs formalism, whose stated assumptions do not include Ω0>0; the model can and does return Ω0 consistent with zero in the Z≤0.1 bin (0.24±0.46), so the self-citation is not a forced input. The rotation parameter and axis are fitted to the same Pantheon+ data and are reported as posterior constraints, not as independent predictions, so there is no fitted-quantity-renamed-as-prediction step. No equation is defined in terms of the data being fitted, and the AIC comparison is an ordinary likelihood-based model comparison. The O(Z^2) truncation at Z≤0.5 is a possible systematics/bias concern, not a circularity, and the paper itself cautions that the cosmographic expansion and potential systematics could affect the result; similarly, the nested redshift bins make the 'consistent axis' partly correlated, but that is a statistical correlation rather than a definitional equivalence. The one notable self-citation is the un-reproduced derivation of Eq. (9) in Sec. 2.2, but because that formula is parameter-free, externally checkable, and falsifiable by the data, it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is a parameter estimation in a fixed, previously known spacetime model. All cosmological parameters are fitted to the supernova data; no new particles, forces, or matter components are invoked. The main modeling assumptions are the Gödel-type metric itself, the first-order cosmographic expansion, and the standard treatment of SNIa systematics.

free parameters (7)

h0 = 0.73
Dimensionless Hubble constant; constrained using Cepheid anchors.
q0 = 0.01 to -0.089
Deceleration parameter; varies across redshift bins.
Ω0 = 0.29 (Z≤0.2 bin)
Dimensionless rotation parameter; the key parameter for the rotation claim.
ρ̃ = sqrt(σ/(k+σ)) = 0.0181 to 0.0098
Metric parameter tied to rotation strength.
(Ra, Da) = (243°, -49°) mean
Equatorial coordinates of the rotation axis; fitted per bin.
M0 = -19.2 mag
Absolute magnitude of SNIa; degenerate with h0 unless Cepheid anchors are used.
α, β, γ = not quoted numerically
Coefficients for SN light-curve stretch, color, and host mass corrections; fitted jointly with the cosmology.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Gödel-type metric (Eq. 2) with m, σ, k > 0 and k > 0 to avoid closed timelike curves describes a viable expanding and rotating spacetime.
This is the model being tested, not derived in the paper. It is acceptable as a test model.
domain assumption The Kristian-Sachs expansion truncated to first order in redshift Z (Eq. 9) accurately describes the distance modulus-redshift relation for the data up to Z=0.5.
The paper relies on this truncation; no estimate of higher-order terms is provided.
domain assumption Type Ia supernovae after stretch, color, and host-mass corrections are standardizable candles, with the Pantheon+ covariance matrix capturing all statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Standard assumption of SNIa cosmology; the paper adopts the Pantheon+ catalog and covariance.
domain assumption In this model the CMB remains isotropic, so CMB observations do not provide additional constraints on the rotation parameter.
Stated in Sec. 2.1; this is a property of the homogeneous Gödel-type spacetime, but it is central to why a large rotation is not already excluded by Planck data.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmographic constraints on a G\"odel-type rotating universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BK2MSE4S

@misc{pith2026250600860,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmographic constraints on a G\"odel-type rotating universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BK2MSE4S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00860}
}

abstract

We investigate the possibility of global cosmic rotation using a G\"odel-type rotating cosmological model, constrained through a cosmographic analysis of Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) from the Pantheon+ dataset. Employing a Taylor-expanded apparent magnitude--redshift relation derived via the Kristian-Sachs formalism, we analyze low-redshift SNIa data across five redshift bins (up to $Z \leq 0.5$). Our results reveal a mild but consistent preference for cosmic rotation, with the dimensionless rotation parameter $\Omega_0$ peaking at $0.29^{+0.21}_{-0.15}$ for $Z \leq 0.2$, and a broadly aligned anisotropy axis centered around equatorial coordinates $(243^\circ, -49^\circ)$. The inferred Hubble constant $h_0 \approx 0.73$ remains stable across all bins, while the deceleration parameter $q_0$ trends from near-zero to mildly negative values with increasing redshift. Model comparison using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) indicates a statistically significant preference for the rotating model over the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology at intermediate redshifts. These findings suggest that cosmic rotation, if present, may influence the late-time expansion history of the universe and warrants further investigation beyond the cosmographic regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00860 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left : Number count histogram of SNIa in Pantheon+ data with respect to redshift in 50 bins. The vertical dashed line indicated the maximum redshift Z ≤ 0.5 of SNe Ia objects considered in our cosmographic study. Right : Sky distribution of Pantheon+ SNIe in galactic coordinates. SNe Ia with Z ≤ 0.5 are denoted by a ⋆ and those beyond that redshift are denoted by ◦. where ‘Z ∗ ’ is the redshift of an SNIa, ξ = {h0, … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** 2D contour plots of cosmological parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** 2D contour plots of cosmological parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Top: 1D posterior distribution of the nuisance parameters α, β and γ related to SNIa light curve fitting that are fit along with the cosmological model parameters. Bottom: The 1D posterior distribution of SNIa absolute magnitude ‘M0’ (left), and the cosmological parame…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Mollweide projection of the cosmic preferred axis underlying the G¨odel-type rotating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

[1]

Whittaker

E.T. Whittaker. Spin in the Universe.Yearbook of Royal Society, Edinburgh:513, 1945

1945
[2]

Lemˆ aıtre

G. Lemˆ aıtre. L’hypoth` ese de l’atome primitif.Acta Pontifica Acad. Sci., 12:25–40, 1948. 2https://cobaya.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ 3https://getdist.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ 4https://scipy.org/ 5https://numpy.org/ 6http://www.astropy.org 7https://matplotlib.org/ 15

1948
[3]

K. Lanczos. ¨Uber eine station¨ are Kosmologie im Sinne der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheo- rie.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 21:73–110, 1924. [English translation: On a Stationary cosmology in the sense of Einstein’s theory of gravitation, Gen. Rel. Grav. 29 (1997) 361-399]

1997
[4]

G. Gamow. Rotating universe?Nature, 158:549, 1946

1946
[5]

K. G¨ odel. An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation.Reviews of Modern Physics, 21:447–450, 1949

1949
[6]

van Stockum

W.J. van Stockum. Gravitational field of a rotating mass as an example of algebraically special metrics.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 57:135–154, 1936/37

1936
[7]

K. G¨ odel. Rotating universes in general relativity theory. InProceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, volume 1, pages 175–181, Cambridge, USA, 1952

1952
[8]

S. Maitra. Some solutions of Einstein’s field equations.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 7:1025, 1966

1966

Show all 92 references

[9]

Ozsvath and E

I. Ozsvath and E. Sch¨ ucking. An anti-Mach metric.Annals of Physics, 55:166, 1969

1969
[10]

Bedran, V

M. Bedran, V. Vaidya, and M. Som. Stationary cosmological solutions with torsion.Nuovo Cimento B, 87:101–108, 1985

1985
[11]

L.L. Smalley. G¨ odel cosmology in Riemann-Cartan space-time with spin density.Physical Review D, 32:3124–3127, 1985

1985
[12]

L.L. Smalley. Self-consistent G¨ odel cosmology with spin density in Riemann-Cartan space- time.Physics Letters A, 113:463–466, 1986

1986
[13]

Duarte de Oliveira, A.F.F

J. Duarte de Oliveira, A.F.F. Teixeira, and J. Tiomno. Homogeneous cosmos of Weyssenhoff fluid in Einstein-Cartan space.Physical Review D, 34:3661–3665, 1986

1986
[14]

Obukhov and V.A

Yu.N. Obukhov and V.A. Korotky. The Weyssenhoff fluid in Einstein-Cartan theory.Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity, 4:1633–1657, 1987

1987
[15]

Pavelkin and V.F

V.N. Pavelkin and V.F. Panov. A study of rotation in cosmology.Sov. Phys. J., 31:541–544, 1989

1989
[16]

Korotky and Yu.N

V.A. Korotky and Yu.N. Obukhov. Rotating and expanding cosmology in ECSK-theory. Astrophysics and Space Science, 198:1–12, 1992

1992
[17]

D. Palle. Imperfect fluid in the Einstein-Cartan gravity.Preprint Dept. Theor. Phys., R. Boskovic Inst., 1995. 6 p

1995
[18]

D. Palle. On certain relationships between cosmological observables in the Einstein-Cartan gravity.Nuovo Cimento B, 111:671–675, 1996

1996
[19]

˚Aman, J.B

J.E. ˚Aman, J.B. Fonseca-Neto, M.A.H. MacCallum, and M.J. Rebou¸ cas. Riemann-Cartan space-times of G¨ odel type.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 15:1089–1101, 1998

1998
[20]

G. F. R. Ellis and M. A. H. MacCallum. A class of homogeneous cosmological models. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 12(2):108–141, June 1969

1969
[21]

M. A. H. MacCallum and G. F. R. Ellis. A class of homogeneous cosmological models: II. Observations.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 19(1):31–64, March 1970

1970
[22]

M. A. H. MacCallum. A class of homogeneous cosmological models III: Asymptotic be- haviour.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 20(1):57–84, March 1971. 16

1971
[23]

Barrow, R

J.D. Barrow, R. Juszkiewicz, and D.H. Sonoda. Structure of the cosmic microwave back- ground.Nature, 305:397–402, 1983

1983
[24]

Barrow, R

J.D. Barrow, R. Juszkiewicz, and D.H. Sonoda. Universal rotation: how large can it be? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 213:917–943, 1985

1985
[25]

S.W. Hawking. On the rotation of the universe.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 142:129–141, 1969

1969
[26]

Collins and S.W

C.B. Collins and S.W. Hawking. The rotation and distortion of the universe.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 162:307–320, 1973

1973
[27]

Kogut, G

A. Kogut, G. Hinshaw, and A.J. Banday. Limits to global rotation and shear from the COBE DMR four year sky maps.Physical Review D, 55:1901–1905, 1997

1901
[28]

A.M. Wolfe. New limits on the shear and rotation of the universe from the X-ray back- ground.Astrophysical Journal, 159:L61–L67, 1970

1970
[29]

Yuri N. Obukhov. Gauge Theories of Fundamental Interactions: Proceedings of the XXXII Semester of the S. Banach International Mathematical Center. In M. Pawlowski and R. Raczka, editors,Proceedings of the XXXII Semester of the S. Banach Internat. Math. Center, Warsaw, Poland, ...

1988
[30]

Yu. N. Obukhov. Rotation in cosmology.General Relativity and Gravitation, 24(2):121–128, February 1992

1992
[31]

P. Birch. Is the Universe rotating? Nature, 298(5873):451–454, July 1982

1982
[32]

P. Birch. Is there evidence for universal rotation? Birch replies.Nature, 301:736, 1982

1982
[33]

Conway, P

R.G. Conway, P. Birch, R.J. Davis, L.R. Jones, A.J. Kerr, and D. Stannard. Multi-frequency observations of linear polarization in 94 sources from the 3CR catalogue. I. Observations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 202:813–823, 1983

1983
[34]

Clowes, Damien Hutsem´ ekers, Joby P

Pavan Kumar Aluri, Paolo Cea, Pravabati Chingangbam, Ming-Chung Chu, Roger G. Clowes, Damien Hutsem´ ekers, Joby P. Kochappan, Alexia M. Lopez, Lang Liu, Niels C. M. Martens, C. J. A. P. Martins, Konstantinos Migkas, Eoin ´O Colg´ ain, Pratyush Pranav, Lior Shamir, Ashok K. Si...

2023
[35]

C. L. Bennett, R. S. Hill, G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, K. M. Smith, J. Dunkley, B. Gold, M. Halpern, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, E. Komatsu, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, M. R. Nolta, N. Odegard, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, and E. L. Wright. Seven-year Wilki...

2011
[36]

C. L. Bennett, D. Larson, J. L. Weiland, N. Jarosik, G. Hinshaw, N. Odegard, K. M. Smith, R. S. Hill, B. Gold, M. Halpern, E. Komatsu, M. R. Nolta, L. Page, D. N. Spergel, E. Wollack, J. Dunkley, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, G. S. Tucker, and E. L. Wright. Nine-year Wilkin...

2013
[37]

P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck 2013 results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB.Astron. Astrophys., 571:A23, 2014. 17

2013
[38]

P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck 2015 results. XVI. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB.Astron. Astrophys., 594:A16, 2016

2015
[39]

Akrami et al

Y. Akrami et al. Planck 2018 results. VII. Isotropy and Statistics of the CMB.Astron. Astrophys., 641:A7, 2020

2018
[40]

Ralston and Pankaj Jain

John P. Ralston and Pankaj Jain. The Virgo Alignment Puzzle in Propagation of Radia- tion on Cosmological Scales.International Journal of Modern Physics D, 13(9):1857–1877, January 2004

2004
[41]

Beyond Λ CDM: Problems, solutions, and the road ahead.Phys

Philip Bull et al. Beyond Λ CDM: Problems, solutions, and the road ahead.Phys. Dark Univ., 12:56–99, 2016

2016
[42]

Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies.JHEAp, 34:49–211, 2022

Elcio Abdalla et al. Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies.JHEAp, 34:49–211, 2022

2022
[43]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara. Challenges for ΛCDM: An update.New Astron. Rev., 95:101659, December 2022

2022
[44]

Efstathiou

G. Efstathiou. A Lockdown Perspective on the Hubble Tension (with comments from the SH0ES team).arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2007.10716, July 2020

2007 arXiv
[45]

Mota, Adam G

Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri, David F. Mota, Adam G. Riess, and Joseph Silk. In the realm of the Hubble tension-a review of solutions.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38(15):153001, July 2021

2021
[46]

Freedman

Wendy L. Freedman. Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective. ApJ, 919(1):16, September 2021

2021
[47]

Marc Kamionkowski and Adam G. Riess. The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 73:153–180, September 2023

2023
[48]

Neyrinck, Yan-Chuan Cai, and Miguel A

Qianli Xia, Mark C. Neyrinck, Yan-Chuan Cai, and Miguel A. Arag´ on-Calvo. Intergalactic filaments spin. MNRAS, 506(1):1059–1072, September 2021

2021
[49]

Stephon Alexander, Christian Capanelli, Elisa G. M. Ferreira, and Evan McDonough. Cos- mic filament spin from dark matter vortices.Physics Letters B, 833:137298, October 2022

2022
[50]

Handedness asymmetry of spiral galaxies withz <0.3 shows cosmic parity violation and a dipole axis.Physics Letters B, 715(1):25–29, August 2012

Lior Shamir. Handedness asymmetry of spiral galaxies withz <0.3 shows cosmic parity violation and a dipole axis.Physics Letters B, 715(1):25–29, August 2012

2012
[51]

Large-scale asymmetry between clockwise and counterclockwise galaxies re- visited.Astronomische Nachrichten, 341(3):324–330, March 2020

Lior Shamir. Large-scale asymmetry between clockwise and counterclockwise galaxies re- visited.Astronomische Nachrichten, 341(3):324–330, March 2020

2020
[52]

Large-Scale Asymmetry in the Distribution of Galaxy Spin Direc- tions—Analysis and Reproduction.Symmetry, 15(9):1704, September 2023

Lior Shamir. Large-Scale Asymmetry in the Distribution of Galaxy Spin Direc- tions—Analysis and Reproduction.Symmetry, 15(9):1704, September 2023

2023
[53]

Galaxy Rotation Coherent with the Motions of Neighbors: Discovery of Observational Evidence

Joon Hyeop Lee, Mina Pak, Hye-Ran Lee, and Hyunmi Song. Galaxy Rotation Coherent with the Motions of Neighbors: Discovery of Observational Evidence. ApJ, 872(1):78, February 2019

2019
[54]

Mysterious Coherence in Several-megaparsec Scales between Galaxy Rotation and Neighbor Motion

Joon Hyeop Lee, Mina Pak, Hyunmi Song, Hye-Ran Lee, Suk Kim, and Hyunjin Jeong. Mysterious Coherence in Several-megaparsec Scales between Galaxy Rotation and Neighbor Motion. ApJ, 884(2):104, October 2019

2019
[55]

Primordial Turbulence and the FORMAT10N of Galaxies

Joseph Silk and Susan Ames. Primordial Turbulence and the FORMAT10N of Galaxies. ApJ, 178:77–94, November 1972. 18

1972
[56]

Arthur D. Chernin. Shocks and vorticity in cosmic hydrodynamics.Vistas in Astronomy, 40(2):257–301, January 1996

1996
[57]

Rogues’ gallery: The full freedom of the Bianchi CMB anomalies

Andrew Pontzen. Rogues’ gallery: The full freedom of the Bianchi CMB anomalies. Phys. Rev. D, 79(10):103518, May 2009

2009
[58]

Temperature and polarization patterns in anisotropic cos- mologies

Rockhee Sung and Peter Coles. Temperature and polarization patterns in anisotropic cos- mologies. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2011(6):036, June 2011

2011
[59]

T. R. Jaffe, A. J. Banday, H. K. Eriksen, K. M. G´ orski, and F. K. Hansen. Evidence of Vor- ticity and Shear at Large Angular Scales in the WMAP Data: A Violation of Cosmological Isotropy? ApJ, 629(1):L1–L4, August 2005

2005
[60]

T. R. Jaffe, S. Hervik, A. J. Banday, and K. M. G´ orski. On the Viability of Bianchi Type VIIh Models with Dark Energy. ApJ, 644(2):701–708, June 2006

2006
[61]

Feeney, Andrew Pontzen, Hiranya V

Daniela Saadeh, Stephen M. Feeney, Andrew Pontzen, Hiranya V. Peiris, and Jason D. McEwen. A framework for testing isotropy with the cosmic microwave background. MN- RAS, 462(2):1802–1811, October 2016

2016
[62]

V. A. Korotkij and Yu. N. Obukhov. Kinematic analysis of cosmological models with rotation.Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 72(1):11–15, January
[63]

Korotky and Yuri N

Vladimir A. Korotky and Yuri N. Obukhov. On Cosmic Rotation. In P. Pronin and G. Sardanashvily, editors,Gravity Particles and Space-time, pages 421–439. World Scien- tific, Singapore, January 1996

1996
[64]

Yuri N. Obukhov. On physical foundations and observational effects of cosmic rotation. In M. Scherfner, T. Chrobok, and M. Shefaat, editors,Colloquium on Cosmic Rotation, page 23. Wissenschaft und Technik Verlag, Berlin, January 2000

2000
[65]

Kristian and R

J. Kristian and R. K. Sachs. Observations in Cosmology. ApJ, 143:379, February 1966

1966
[66]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release

Dan Scolnic et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release. Astrophys. J., 938(2):113, 2022

2022
[67]

Henrietta S. Leavitt. 1777 variables in the Magellanic Clouds.Harvard Obs. Annals, 60:87– 108, 1908

1908
[68]

Leavitt and Edward C

Henrietta S. Leavitt and Edward C. Pickering. Periods of 25 Variable Stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud.Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173:1–3, March 1912

1912
[69]

Riess et al

Adam G. Riess et al. A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team.Astrophys. J. Lett., 934(1):L7, 2022

2022
[70]

The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints.Astrophys

Dillon Brout et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints.Astrophys. J., 938(2):110, 2022

2022
[71]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck. Astron. Astrophys., 641:A1, 2020

2018
[72]

Akrami, Y

Y. Akrami, Y. Fantaye, A. Shafieloo, H. K. Eriksen, F. K. Hansen, A. J. Banday, and K. M. G´ orski. Power Asymmetry in WMAP and Planck Temperature Sky Maps as Measured by a Local Variance Estimator. ApJ, 784(2):L42, April 2014. 19

2014
[73]

Carlos A. P. Bengaly, Roy Maartens, and Mario G. Santos. Probing the Cosmological Principle in the counts of radio galaxies at different frequencies. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2018(4):031, April 2018

2018
[74]

Antoniou and L

I. Antoniou and L. Perivolaropoulos. Searching for a cosmological preferred axis: Union2 data analysis and comparison with other probes. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2010(12):012, December 2010

2010
[75]

Is there correlation between fine structure and dark energy cosmic dipoles? Phys

Antonio Mariano and Leandros Perivolaropoulos. Is there correlation between fine structure and dark energy cosmic dipoles? Phys. Rev. D, 86(8):083517, October 2012

2012
[76]

D. G. Kendall and G. A. Young. Indirectional statistics and the significance of an asymmetry discovered by Birch. MNRAS, 207:637–647, April 1984

1984
[77]

R. R. Andreasyan. The problem of the existence of large-scale anisotropy in metagalactic space.Astrophysics, 24(2):213–220, March 1986

1986
[78]

Modgil, and John P

Pankaj Jain, Moninder S. Modgil, and John P. Ralston. Search for Global Metric Anisotropy in Type 1a Supernova Data.Modern Physics Letters A, 22(16):1153–1165, January 2007

2007
[79]

Riess et al

Adam G. Riess et al. Type Ia Supernova Discoveries atz >1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution. ApJ, 607(2):665–687, June 2004

2004
[80]

H. Akaike. A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19:716–723, January 1974

1974
[81]

K. P. Burnham and D. R. Anderson. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection.Sociological Methods and Research, 33(2):261–304, November 2004

2004
[82]

Mellier et al

Y. Mellier et al. Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission.Astron. Astrophys., 697:A1, 2025

2025
[83]

Gardner et al

Jonathan P. Gardner et al. The James Webb Space Telescope Mission. PASP, 135(1048):068001, June 2023

2023
[84]

Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical phys- ical models

Jes´ us Torrado and Antony Lewis. Cobaya: code for Bayesian analysis of hierarchical phys- ical models. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2021(5):057, May 2021

2021
[85]

GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1910.13970, October 2019

Antony Lewis. GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1910.13970, October 2019

1910 arXiv
[86]

SciPy 1.0–Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python.Nature Meth., 17:261, 2020

Pauli Virtanen et al. SciPy 1.0–Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python.Nature Meth., 17:261, 2020

2020
[87]

Harris et al

Charles R. Harris et al. Array programming with NumPy.Nature, 585(7825):357–362, 2020

2020
[88]

Robitaille et al

Thomas P. Robitaille et al. Astropy: A Community Python Package for Astronomy.Astron. Astrophys., 558:A33, 2013

2013
[89]

A. M. Price-Whelan et al. The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package.Astron. J., 156(3):123, 2018

2018
[90]

Price-Whelan et al

Adrian M. Price-Whelan et al. The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community- oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package*. Astrophys. J., 935(2):167, 2022. 20

2022
[91]

J. D. Hunter. Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment.Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3):90–95, 2007. 21

2007
[1991]

[ZhETF 99 (1991) 22, in Russian]

1991

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Whittaker

E.T. Whittaker. Spin in the Universe.Yearbook of Royal Society, Edinburgh:513, 1945

1945

[2] [2]

Lemˆ aıtre

G. Lemˆ aıtre. L’hypoth` ese de l’atome primitif.Acta Pontifica Acad. Sci., 12:25–40, 1948. 2https://cobaya.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ 3https://getdist.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ 4https://scipy.org/ 5https://numpy.org/ 6http://www.astropy.org 7https://matplotlib.org/ 15

1948

[3] [3]

K. Lanczos. ¨Uber eine station¨ are Kosmologie im Sinne der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheo- rie.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 21:73–110, 1924. [English translation: On a Stationary cosmology in the sense of Einstein’s theory of gravitation, Gen. Rel. Grav. 29 (1997) 361-399]

1997

[4] [4]

G. Gamow. Rotating universe?Nature, 158:549, 1946

1946

[5] [5]

K. G¨ odel. An example of a new type of cosmological solutions of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation.Reviews of Modern Physics, 21:447–450, 1949

1949

[6] [6]

van Stockum

W.J. van Stockum. Gravitational field of a rotating mass as an example of algebraically special metrics.Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 57:135–154, 1936/37

1936

[7] [7]

K. G¨ odel. Rotating universes in general relativity theory. InProceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, volume 1, pages 175–181, Cambridge, USA, 1952

1952

[8] [8]

S. Maitra. Some solutions of Einstein’s field equations.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 7:1025, 1966

1966