Les Houches on Dark Universe 2025: Elements of cosmology beyond FLRW

Pierre Fleury

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Les Houches on Dark Universe 2025: Elements of cosmology beyond FLRW

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lumpy cosmic structure does not change the expansion rate or bias average distance measurements, so the smooth FLRW model stays accurate if the cosmological principle holds.

desk verdict A solid, well-crafted lecture review of backreaction and fitting; the only shaky step is the CMB beam-cutoff estimate, and even that may not sink the main conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01320 v2 pith:AQBE5MAO submitted 2025-09-01 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Pierre Fleury This is my paper

classification astro-ph.COgr-qc PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Es

keywords backreactionfittingproblemcosmologicalprincipleFLRWmodeldistance-redshiftrelationgravitationallensingfinite-beamaveragingdarkenergy

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 lecture-notes review defends the backbone of standard cosmology: it argues that the clumpiness of the real Universe neither feeds back onto the average expansion rate nor biases the distance–redshift relation used to extract cosmological parameters. On the backreaction side — whether structure growth alters the expansion dynamics — the volume-averaged Friedmann equation exposes an extra term that could in principle mimic dark energy, but Newtonian boundary-term arguments, the post-Newtonian patchwork, an effective-field-theory treatment, and a fully relativistic N-body simulation all indicate the effect is practically negligible in general relativity. On the fitting side — whether the smooth distance–redshift law is the right tool for interpreting observations — the focusing and magnification theorems imply average distances are biased only at second order in perturbations, around 10^-3 at z ≈ 1, and the apparent 5% bias on the distance to the cosmic microwave background disappears once the finite angular size of the relevant light beams is included. The conditional bottom line: if the cosmological principle is correct, the FLRW background accurately describes both cosmic expansion and the interpretation of observations.

What carries the argument

Three pieces of machinery carry the argument. (1) The volume-average effective Friedmann equation, whose backreaction term B = (2/3)(⟨θ²⟩_D − ⟨θ⟩_D²) − 2⟨σ²⟩_D pits the variance of the local expansion rate against the mean-square shear. (2) The null focusing (Raychaudhuri) equation dΘ/dλ = −Θ²/2 − 2Σ² − 8πG(1+z)²ρ, whose shear term Σ² is the mechanism by which matter lumps compensate the loss of focusing along empty beams, restoring the smooth-universe distance on average. (3) The magnification theorems ⟨μ⟩_s = 1 = ⟨μ⁻¹⟩_o, which convert into the second-order distance bias ⟨DA⟩_s ≈ D̄A(1 + 1.5⟨κ²⟩), together with the finite-beam cutoff ℓ* = π/θ* ≈ 300 that removes the apparent 5% CMB bias.

What would settle it

Ray-trace finite beams of aperture θ* ≈ 0.6° through a high-resolution N-body simulation out to z = 1090 and measure the source-averaged angular-diameter distance: a departure from the FLRW prediction above ~10^-3 would overturn the fitting-problem conclusion, while a ~5% departure would confirm the original CMB-distance claim. On the dynamics side, a fully nonlinear relativistic simulation with realistic matter whose emergent expansion deviates from the Friedmann rate by more than the quoted 10^-4 would refute the backreaction conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the backreaction problem, the volume-averaged Raychaudhuri equation yields an effective Friedmann equation with an extra term B that could in principle mimic dark energy; but Newtonian boundary-term arguments, the post-Newtonian patchwork, an effective-field-theory treatment, and a relativistic N-body simulation all indicate the effect is practically negligible in general relativity. In the fitting problem, the magnification theorems imply source-averaged distances are biased only at second order, ⟨DA⟩_s ≈ D̄A(1 + 1.5⟨κ²⟩): about 10^-3 at z ≈ 1, but 5% at the CMB. The lecture argues the 5% is an artefact of counting lensing modes below the sound-horizon scale θ* ≈ 0.6°; cutting the varian

Load-bearing premise

The dismissal of the 5% CMB distance bias hinges on assuming the relevant light beams have the angular width of the sound horizon, θ* ≈ 0.6°, so lensing fluctuations below that scale are smoothed out and the variance sum is cut at ℓ ≈ 300; if the effective beams are narrower than assumed, the 5% bias stands and the fitting problem for the CMB is not negligible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Cosmological parameter estimates from supernova Hubble diagrams, baryon acoustic oscillations, and the CMB are safe from inhomogeneity corrections at the ~10^-3 level; current error budgets need no rescaling.
Backreaction cannot act as a geometric stand-in for dark energy in general relativity, so the inference of cosmic acceleration from the Friedmann equations stands.
The distance to the CMB is not biased at the claimed 5% level, so standard CMB analyses, which already include lensing, remain valid.
Average observables stay on the FLRW prediction, so deviations from smooth cosmology should be sought in individual lines of sight (lensing dispersion, magnification bias) rather than in the average distance law.
The accuracy of FLRW is conditional on the cosmological principle, so the priority becomes testing that principle itself, for instance through kinematic-dipole and large-scale-anisotropy measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

If the finite-aperture logic is right, the lensing bias on any distance measurement should shrink as its angular resolution widens; point-like supernovae and wide-aperture BAO distance estimators should differ by a small but in principle measurable ~10^-3 bias, a testable cross-check of the fitting-problem conclusion.
The same ℓ* ≈ 300 cutoff predicts that resolved high-redshift sources with angular sizes comparable to or larger than θ* should show systematically smaller lensing dispersion than point sources, an observation that could confirm the beam-smoothing mechanism directly.
If the large-patch CMB anisotropy or the quasar-dipole anomaly survives further scrutiny, the paper's own conditional conclusion implies the failure would sit with the cosmological principle itself, not with the perturbative corrections reviewed here; attention would shift to alternative background geometries rather than to backreaction.
A first-principles derivation of the aperture cutoff from the full nonlinear light-propagation equations would upgrade the dismissal of the 5% CMB bias from a physically plausible heuristic into a proven result; until then, the size of that bias remains the lecture's main residual uncertainty.

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

Dear colleague,

This is a lecture-notes paper, not a research claim. It walks through the backreaction problem and the fitting problem and argues, with reference to existing literature, that both effects are negligible if the cosmological principle is right. Nothing here is new in the sense of a new derivation or measurement; the value is pedagogical synthesis. In that role it works well. The Buchert formalism, the post-Newtonian patchwork, Green-Wald, GEVOLUTION, and the optics section are presented accurately and with explicit caveats. The author is good at saying where the approximations bite, e.g., the non-closure of Buchert's averaging and the first-order nature of Weinberg's argument.

The real soft spot is in Section 3.4. To dismiss the 5% source-averaged distance bias to the CMB, the author invokes a finite-beam cutoff at l* ~ 300, citing his own earlier work. The cutoff is a heuristic: a real beam has a smooth window function, not a sharp top-hat, and the claim that the relevant aperture is theta* is an assumption. The stress-test note is right that this is the least secure step. But I would not call it a load-bearing flaw, because the paper gives two other independent reasons why the CMB analysis is not threatened: the CMB power spectrum uses directional rather than source averaging, and second-order lensing is already modeled in CMB lensing analyses. Even if the 5% source-averaged bias stands, the conclusion that FLRW is accurate for interpreting observations would need to be softened for source-averaged distance measures, not overturned.

The citation pattern is heavy on the author's own work, but those are the relevant papers and the review is explicit about where each result comes from. No sign of fitting results to a conclusion.

Bottom line: this is a worthwhile, accurate review for its intended audience. It deserves peer review, and a referee should push on Section 3.4 to either justify the cutoff or qualify the claim. I would probably cite it as a reference for lectures or a review section. Bring it to a reading group if someone wants to discuss the CMB distance controversy.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. This lecture note reviews two ways in which inhomogeneities could invalidate the standard FLRW description of the Universe: the backreaction problem for the expansion dynamics (Sec. 2) and the fitting problem for the distance–redshift relation (Sec. 3). It derives Buchert's scalar average formalism, surveys the post-Newtonian, Green–Wald, and GEVOLUTION approaches to backreaction, and then develops the Sachs equation, empty-beam and Dyer–Roeder approximations, magnification theorems, and the source-average bias on angular-diameter distance. The final conclusion is that, in general relativity, the backreaction of inhomogeneities on the expansion is practically negligible and that inhomogeneities have a negligible impact on the average distance–redshift relation, so that a model built on an FLRW background should be accurate if the cosmological principle holds.

Significance. The paper is a well-structured and didactic review of topics that are frequently presented in a scattered or overly technical manner. Its strengths are the explicit derivations of the Buchert equations, the Sachs equation, and the magnification relations, together with honest caveats about the non-closure of the averaging formalism, the first-order nature of Weinberg's argument, and the existing debate around Green and Wald's results. The concrete numerical estimates from simulations (GEVOLUTION) and analytic models are useful. The main load-bearing step is the dismissal of the 5% CMB source-average distance bias in Sec. 3.4 via a finite-beam cutoff; this step is physically plausible but not derived, and it needs to be strengthened or more carefully conditioned if the paper's central conclusion is to be fully supported.

major comments (1)

[Sec. 3.4, Eqs. (29)–(30)] The dismissal of the 5% CMB source-average distance bias relies on cutting the ℓ-sum in Eq. (29) at ℓ*=π/θ*≈300, with the argument that finite CMB beams have aperture ~θ*. This cutoff is not derived; a finite aperture corresponds to a smooth window in ℓ, not a sharp top-hat, and the residual variance after such smoothing may differ substantially from 10^-3. Moreover, the identification of the 'beam' with the sound-horizon scale θ* is an assumption: the angular-diameter distance to last scattering is inferred from the acoustic peak structure, which involves many multipoles and is itself subject to lensing. If the cutoff is invalid, the 5% bias stands, directly undermining the conclusion that inhomogeneities have negligible impact on the average distance–redshift relation for CMB observations. Please provide a derivation or at least an estimate with a realistic smoothing window, and state

minor comments (3)

[Sec. 3.1, Eq. (13)] For K=0 the formula for the FLRW distance is singular as written; the limiting expression should be stated explicitly.
[Sec. 3.4] The phrase 'cut above ℓ*' is ambiguous; it should be 'restricted to ℓ≤ℓ*' or 'cut off at ℓ*'.
[Sec. 1] Typo: 'most the interesting physics' should read 'most of the interesting physics'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the lecture's conclusions are supported by external analytic and numerical results; the finite-beam cutoff is an assumption/correctness risk, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper is a review lecture, not a new derivation. It re-derives standard background equations and then relies on cited external works for the quantitative claims that backreaction is negligible and that inhomogeneities negligibly bias average distance–redshift relations. No parameter is fitted, and no conclusion is used as an input to itself. The most contestable step—the dismissal of the 5% CMB source-averaged distance bias via a finite-beam cutoff at ℓ*≈300—is attributed to the author's own ref. [32], but that reference is an externally published physical result, and the review gives two further independent reasons (directional averaging for CMB power spectra, standard CMB lensing corrections) for not applying the 5% bias to CMB analyses. Whether the sharp cutoff is justified is a scientific assumption that may be wrong, but it is not a circular reduction: the paper does not define the conclusion in terms of the cutoff, nor does it fit the cutoff to the desired answer. Self-citations are frequent but each cited result is an independent publication with stated physical assumptions, so they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The lecture introduces no new fitted cosmological parameters or physical entities. Its quantitative conclusions depend on standard assumptions from GR and cosmology plus one hand-chosen CMB beam cutoff; the remaining content is lifted from cited literature.

free parameters (1)

CMB beam cutoff ell* = about 300, from ell* = pi / theta*, with theta* about 0.6 degrees
Introduced in Sec. 3.4 to truncate the lensing convergence sum in Eq. (29), turning a 5 percent CMB distance bias into about 10^-3. The value is chosen by hand from the observed angular scale of the sound horizon, not derived from first principles.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Universe is statistically homogeneous and isotropic on large scales (statistical cosmological principle).
State in the abstract and Sec. 1; the entire assessment of FLRW is conditional on this premise, and the notes explicitly recommend testing it.
domain assumption General relativity with cosmological constant Lambda is the correct theory of gravity.
All backreaction and optics equations, including Raychaudhuri Eqs. (6) and (19), use Einstein's equations; Sec. 4 notes alternative theories could change the conclusion.
domain assumption Light propagates on null geodesics and photon number is conserved, so the distance-duality relation holds.
Invoked in Sec. 3.1 before defining angular-diameter and luminosity distances.
domain assumption Matter can be modeled as an irrotational, pressureless dust fluid for the averaging discussion.
Assumed in Sec. 2.2 for Buchert's formalism; this restricts the direct applicability of the averaging results.
ad hoc to paper Finite light beams smooth inhomogeneities smaller than the beam, justifying the ell* cutoff.
Sec. 3.4: 'finite light beams ... effectively smooth out inhomogeneities that are smaller than the beam's size'; used to reject the 5 percent CMB bias. Cites ref. [32] but the exact cutoff is a heuristic choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Les Houches on Dark Universe 2025: Elements of cosmology beyond FLRW." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AQBE5MAO

@misc{pith2026250901320,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Les Houches on Dark Universe 2025: Elements of cosmology beyond FLRW},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AQBE5MAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01320}
}

read the original abstract

Modern cosmology is based on the cosmological principle, which states that the Universe is statistically homogeneous and isotropic. When applied in its strict -- rather than statistical -- sense, the cosmological principle leads to the Friedmann--Lema\^itre--Robertson--Walker (FLRW) model, which serves as background spacetime. This background is used to predict: (1) the dynamics of cosmic expansion; and (2) the kinematics of light propagation through the Universe, which dictates the interpretation of cosmological observations. In this lecture, we shall discuss the performance of the FLRW model for those purposes, and present some results on the so-called backreaction and fitting problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01320 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left: geometry of an irrotational congruence of timelike geodesics. Right: Post-Newtonian cosmological modelling (adapted from ref. [5]). and those structures, or inhomogeneities, may backreact on the expansion dynamics itself. The idea got some attention with the discovery of cosmic acceleration in the late 1990s and the coincidence argument: is it a coincidence that dark energy starts dominating the expansion dyna… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Left: Geometrical construction of the observational coordinates (t,λ,ϕ a ). Right: Overdense (underdense) lines of sight have positive (negative) convergence κ; in linear perturbation theory, one expect 〈κ〉 = 0. However, accounting for the small-scale lumpiness of the matter distribution suggests instead an emptybeam model, corresponding to light propagation in, e.g., a Swiss-cheese universe. In general, the dista… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Nonlinear Lattice Framework for Inflation: Bridging stochastic inflation and the $\delta{N}$ formalism
gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0 of 10

A shear-free lattice method bridges stochastic inflation and δN formalism by enabling fully nonlinear calculations of curvature perturbations in single-field models with ultra-slow-roll phases.
Nonlinear Lattice Framework for Inflation: Bridging stochastic inflation and the $\delta{N}$ formalism
gr-qc 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A shear-free locally FLRW lattice framework for single-field inflation captures spatially varying expansion, curvature corrections, and nonlinear δN observables at a fraction of the cost of full numerical relativity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Einstein, Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie , Sitzungs- berichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften pp

A. Einstein, Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie , Sitzungs- berichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 142–152 (1917)

work page 1917
[2]

G. F . R. Ellis,Relativistic Cosmology: Its Nature, Aims and Problems, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 9, 215 (1984), doi:10.1007 /978-94-009-6469-3_14

work page 1984
[3]

Clarkson, G

C. Clarkson, G. Ellis, J. Larena and O. Umeh, Does the growth of structure affect our dynamical models of the universe? The averaging, backreaction and fitting problems in cos- mology, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74, 112901 (2011), doi:10.1088/0034-4885/74/11/112901, 1109.2314

arXiv 2011
[4]

T . Buchert, On Average Properties of Inhomogeneous Fluids in General Rela- tivity: Dust Cosmologies , General Relativity and Gravitation 32, 105 (2000), doi:10.1023/A:1001800617177, gr-qc /9906015

doi:10.1023/a:1001800617177 2000
[5]

V . A. A. Sanghai and T . Clifton,Post-Newtonian Cosmological Modelling, Phys. Rev. D 91, 103532 (2015), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.93.089903, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 93, 089903 (2016)], 1503.08747

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[6]

E. R. Harrison, Cosmology. The science of the universe. (2000)

work page 2000
[7]

J. A. Peacock, A diatribe on expanding space (2008), 0809.4573

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[8]

Rasanen, Accelerated expansion from structure formation , JCAP 11, 003 (2006), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/11/003, astro-ph /0607626

S. Rasanen, Accelerated expansion from structure formation , JCAP 11, 003 (2006), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/11/003, astro-ph /0607626

doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/11/003 2006

Show all 38 references

[9]

Buchert and J

T . Buchert and J. Ehlers, Averaging inhomogeneous Newtonian cosmologies, Astron. As- trophys. 320, 1 (1997), astro-ph /9510056

1997
[10]

V . A. A. Sanghai and T . Clifton, Cosmological backreaction in the presence of radiation and a cosmological constant , Phys. Rev. D 94(2), 023505 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.023505, 1604.06345. 12 SciPost Physics Lecture Notes Submission

2016 arXiv
[11]

S. R. Green and R. M. Wald, A new framework for analyzing the effects of small scale inhomogeneities in cosmology , Phys. Rev. D 83, 084020 (2011), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.084020, 1011.4920

2011 arXiv
[12]

S. R. Green and R. M. Wald,How well is our universe described by an FLRW model?, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 234003 (2014), doi:10.1088 /0264-9381/31/23/234003, 1407.8084

2014 arXiv
[13]

Buchertet al., Is there proof that backreaction of inhomogeneities is irrelevant in cosmol- ogy?, Class

T . Buchertet al., Is there proof that backreaction of inhomogeneities is irrelevant in cosmol- ogy?, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 215021 (2015), doi:10.1088 /0264-9381/32/21/215021, 1505.07800

2015 arXiv
[14]

S. R. Green and R. M. Wald, Comments on Backreaction (2015), 1506.06452

2015 arXiv
[15]

Adamek, D

J. Adamek, D. Daverio, R. Durrer and M. Kunz, gevolution: a cosmological N- body code based on General Relativity , JCAP 07, 053 (2016), doi:10.1088 /1475- 7516/2016/07/053, 1604.06065

2016 arXiv
[16]

Adamek, C

J. Adamek, C. Clarkson, D. Daverio, R. Durrer and M. Kunz, Safely smoothing spacetime: backreaction in relativistic cosmological simulations , Class. Quant. Grav. 36(1), 014001 (2019), doi:10.1088 /1361-6382/aaeca5, 1706.09309

2019 arXiv
[17]

G. F . R. Ellis, S. D. Nel, R. Maartens, W . R. Stoeger and A. P . Whitman,Ideal observational cosmology., Phys. Rep.124(5), 315 (1985), doi:10.1016 /0370-1573(85)90030-4

1985
[18]

Y. B. Zel’dovich, Observations in a Universe Homogeneous in the Mean, Soviet Astronomy 8, 13 (1964)

1964
[19]

Fleury, Swiss-cheese models and the Dyer-Roeder approximation , JCAP 2014(6), 054 (2014), doi:10.1088 /1475-7516/2014/06/054, 1402.3123

P . Fleury, Swiss-cheese models and the Dyer-Roeder approximation , JCAP 2014(6), 054 (2014), doi:10.1088 /1475-7516/2014/06/054, 1402.3123

2014 arXiv
[20]

Einstein and E

A. Einstein and E. G. Straus, The Influence of the Expansion of Space on the Gravitation Fields Surrounding the Individual Stars, Reviews of Modern Physics17(2-3), 120 (1945), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.17.120

1945 doi
[21]

Kantowski, Corrections in the Luminosity-Redshift Relations of the Homogeneous Fried- Mann Models, ApJ155, 89 (1969), doi:10.1086 /149851

R. Kantowski, Corrections in the Luminosity-Redshift Relations of the Homogeneous Fried- Mann Models, ApJ155, 89 (1969), doi:10.1086 /149851

1969
[22]

C. C. Dyer and R. C. Roeder, Distance-Redshift Relations for Universes with Some Inter- galactic Medium, ApJL180, L31 (1973), doi:10.1086 /181146

1973
[23]

Fleury, H

P . Fleury, H. Dupuy and J.-P . Uzan,Interpretation of the Hubble diagram in a nonhomoge- neous universe, Phys. Rev. D87(12), 123526 (2013), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.123526, 1302.5308

2013 arXiv
[24]

V . A. A. Sanghai, P . Fleury and T . Clifton, Ray tracing and Hubble diagrams in post-Newtonian cosmology , JCAP 2017(7), 028 (2017), doi:10.1088 /1475- 7516/2017/07/028, 1705.02328

2017 arXiv
[25]

Fleury, J

P . Fleury, J. Larena and J.-P . Uzan, The theory of stochastic cosmological lensing , JCAP2015(11), 022 (2015), doi:10.1088 /1475-7516/2015/11/022, 1508.07903

2015 arXiv
[26]

Weinberg, Apparent luminosities in a locally inhomogeneous universe

S. Weinberg, Apparent luminosities in a locally inhomogeneous universe. , ApJL 208, L1 (1976), doi:10.1086 /182216

1976
[27]

Breton and P

M.-A. Breton and P . Fleury, Theoretical and numerical perspectives on cosmic distance averages, A&A655, A54 (2021), doi:10.1051 /0004-6361/202040140, 2012.07802. 13 SciPost Physics Lecture Notes Submission

2021 arXiv
[28]

Bonvin, C

C. Bonvin, C. Clarkson, R. Durrer, R. Maartens and O. Umeh, Cosmological ensemble and directional averages of observables , JCAP 2015(7), 040 (2015), doi:10.1088 /1475- 7516/2015/07/040, 1504.01676

2015 arXiv
[29]

Kaiser and J

N. Kaiser and J. A. Peacock,On the bias of the distance-redshift relation from gravitational lensing, MNRAS455(4), 4518 (2016), doi:10.1093 /mnras/stv2585, 1503.08506

2016 arXiv
[30]

Clarkson, O

C. Clarkson, O. Umeh, R. Maartens and R. Durrer, What is the distance to the CMB? , JCAP2014(11), 036 (2014), doi:10.1088 /1475-7516/2014/11/036, 1405.7860

2014 arXiv
[31]

Bonvin, C

C. Bonvin, C. Clarkson, R. Durrer, R. Maartens and O. Umeh, Do we care about the distance to the CMB? Clarifying the impact of second-order lensing , JCAP 2015(6), 050 (2015), doi:10.1088 /1475-7516/2015/06/050, 1503.07831

2015 arXiv
[32]

Fleury, J

P . Fleury, J. Larena and J.-P . Uzan,Weak Gravitational Lensing of Finite Beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.119(19), 191101 (2017), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.119.191101

2017
[33]

Lewis and A

A. Lewis and A. Challinor, Weak gravitational lensing of the CMB, Phys. Rep. 429(1), 1 (2006), doi:10.1016 /j.physrep.2006.03.002, astro-ph /0601594

2006
[34]

Fleury, Cosmic backreaction and Gauss’s law , Phys

P . Fleury, Cosmic backreaction and Gauss’s law , Phys. Rev. D 95(12), 124009 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124009, 1609.03724

2017 arXiv
[35]

Briddon, T

C. Briddon, T . Clifton and P . Fleury,Emergent cosmological expansion in scalar–tensor theo- ries of gravity, Classical and Quantum Gravity42(1), 015013 (2025), doi:10.1088/1361- 6382/ad9880, 2406.01397

2025
[36]

Fosalba and E

P . Fosalba and E. Gaztanaga, Explaining cosmological anisotropy: evidence for causal horizons from CMB data , Mon. Not. Roy . Astron. Soc. 504(4), 5840 (2021), doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1193, 2011.00910

2021 arXiv
[37]

G. F . R. Ellis and J. E. Baldwin, On the expected anisotropy of radio source counts , MN- RAS206, 377 (1984), doi:10.1093 /mnras/206.2.377

1984
[38]

N. J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar and J. Colin, A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908(2), L51 (2021), doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40, 2009.14826. 14

2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Einstein, Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie , Sitzungs- berichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften pp

A. Einstein, Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie , Sitzungs- berichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 142–152 (1917)

work page 1917

[2] [2]

G. F . R. Ellis,Relativistic Cosmology: Its Nature, Aims and Problems, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 9, 215 (1984), doi:10.1007 /978-94-009-6469-3_14

work page 1984

[3] [3]

Clarkson, G

C. Clarkson, G. Ellis, J. Larena and O. Umeh, Does the growth of structure affect our dynamical models of the universe? The averaging, backreaction and fitting problems in cos- mology, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74, 112901 (2011), doi:10.1088/0034-4885/74/11/112901, 1109.2314

arXiv 2011

[4] [4]

T . Buchert, On Average Properties of Inhomogeneous Fluids in General Rela- tivity: Dust Cosmologies , General Relativity and Gravitation 32, 105 (2000), doi:10.1023/A:1001800617177, gr-qc /9906015

doi:10.1023/a:1001800617177 2000

[5] [5]

V . A. A. Sanghai and T . Clifton,Post-Newtonian Cosmological Modelling, Phys. Rev. D 91, 103532 (2015), doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.93.089903, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 93, 089903 (2016)], 1503.08747

work page Pith review arXiv 2015

[6] [6]

E. R. Harrison, Cosmology. The science of the universe. (2000)

work page 2000

[7] [7]

J. A. Peacock, A diatribe on expanding space (2008), 0809.4573

work page Pith review arXiv 2008

[8] [8]

Rasanen, Accelerated expansion from structure formation , JCAP 11, 003 (2006), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/11/003, astro-ph /0607626

S. Rasanen, Accelerated expansion from structure formation , JCAP 11, 003 (2006), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/11/003, astro-ph /0607626

doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/11/003 2006