Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

This paper argues that gravity is not a fundamental force but emerges from the quantum vacuum, with Newton's constant fixed by the universe's total mass-energy and size, and that this running constant removes the Big Bang singularity and ex

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A theoretical essay arguing gravity emerges from vacuum energy, with Newton's constant set by the universe's mass and radius and an assumed RG flow used to fit the Hubble tension and avoid the Big Bang singularity.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection An honest speculative essay whose central 'emergence of gravity' argument is circular, but the RG-flow cosmology is a concrete, testable model worth refereeing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02636 v4 pith:3RPOLYXH submitted 2025-09-01 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Quantum Vacuum energy as the origin of Gravity

Andr\'e LeClair This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qchep-ph
keywords quantum vacuum energygravitational Casimir effectNewton's constantFriedmann equationsHubble tensionrenormalization groupde Sitter entropycosmological singularity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 establish that gravity is not a fundamental interaction but an environmental effect of the quantum vacuum: the vacuum energy density of flat-space quantum field theory exerts a kind of Casimir pressure that, when matched to Friedmann's equations, fixes Newton's constant as G_N = c^2 R_infinity/(2 M_infinity), where R_infinity and M_infinity are the size and total mass-energy of the universe. If true, the numerical value of G_N stops being an unexplained input and becomes a derived, cosmic-scale quantity, and gravity may not need to be quantized at all. Building on a conjectured formula rho_vac ~ m_z^4/g, the paper derives an energy-dependent Newton's constant that weakens at high energies and vanishes at a minimum scale factor a_min, replacing the Big Bang singularity with a symmetric contraction-expansion 'swing.' The same running constant is then used to explain the Hubble tension, with the RG parameter bhat ~ 0.02 fixed by the mismatch between early- and late-universe measurements of H0.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that Einstein's field equations can be derived rather than postulated in the vacuum-dominated far future: a gravitational version of the Casimir effect, with no plates and no gravitons, yields the Friedmann equations with Newton's constant equal to c^2 R_infinity/(2 M_infinity). The vacuum energy density rho_vac is the only source, with M_infinity c^2 = rho_vac (4/3) pi R_infinity^3. The paper then assumes rho_vac = (3/4)(c^5/hbar^3) m_z^4/g and a one-loop beta function for g. This induces G(mu) = G_N (1 - bhat log(mu/mu_0)), so gravity weakens at high redshifts; G would vanish at a_min = e^{-1/bhat}, and the scale factor never reaches a=0 because i

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the identity G_N = c^2 R_infinity/(2 M_infinity), obtained by comparing a plate-less Casimir force, F = a^d (partial V_d/partial R) rho_vac / d, with the Friedmann equations in d spatial dimensions. The quantitative machinery is the vacuum-energy formula rho_vac = (3/4)(c^5/hbar^3) m_z^4/g together with the one-loop beta function (35); their combination produces a running Newton constant G(mu) = G_N (1 - bhat log(mu/mu_0)). The zero of this running coupling at a_min = e^{-1/bhat} is what converts de Sitter space into the inverted-gaussian solution and generates the time-reflection symmetry a(t) = a(-t + 2 t_min).

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative model rests on the still-conjectural vacuum-energy formula rho_vac = (3/4)(c^5/hbar^3) m_z^4/g, together with a one-loop beta function for g; if either is wrong, the bounce, the a_min value, and the Hubble-tension explanation collapse.

What would settle it

Precision torsion-balance measurements of G over a broad temperature range, especially at cryogenic reference temperatures: the model predicts a material-independent fractional decrease of about bhat/T per kelvin (roughly 6 x 10^-5 K^-1 near 300 K, larger at low T). Observing no temperature dependence, or a dependence that changes with the metal, would falsify the running-G_N mechanism; improved pulsar timing that excludes Gdot/G_N ~ 1.4 x 10^-12 per year would also do so.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Newton's constant becomes a derived, environmental quantity; the same relation applied to a black hole of mass M_• and radius R_• reproduces the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, with the entropy bits identified as quantized massless particles on the horizon rather than Planck-area pixels.
  • The cosmological singularity disappears: a(t) > a_min = e^{-1/bhat} for all times, with a(t) going to infinity as t goes to plus or minus infinity and a(t) = a(-t + 2 t_min); the universe's history is a pendulum-like swing, and its age is infinite.
  • The Hubble tension is explained as an energy-scale effect: at CMB redshifts z ~ 1100, G is smaller by sqrt(1 - bhat log(1+z)); using the two measured H0 values fixes bhat ~ 0.02, implying a_min ~ 2 x 10^-22 and z_max ~ 5 x 10^21.
  • The model predicts a fractional time variation of Newton's constant, Gdot/G_N = H bhat, which for bhat ~ 0.02 is about 1.4 x 10^-12 per year, close to the existing pulsar-timing bound and testable with improved timing.
  • Bench-top torsion-balance experiments at different temperatures should show a material-independent decrease of G with temperature, roughly bhat/T per kelvin, about 6 x 10^-5 K^-1 near room temperature and larger at lower temperatures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If gravity is genuinely induced by vacuum energy, the metric itself may not need quantization: gravitational waves would be classical vibrations of the vacuum medium, and graviton-based quantum gravity would be unnecessary; the paper raises this possibility but leaves it open.
  • The same running-G_N mechanism could be transplanted to black-hole interiors: because the singularity theorems assume a constant Newton's constant, a scale-dependent G_N may evade them and replace the central singularity with a minimum-radius bounce, directly analogous to a_min; the paper only hints at this extension.
  • Formula (2) would invert the usual cosmological-constant problem: rather than explaining why rho_vac is tiny, the universe's total mass-energy and radius would select G_N to match any rho_vac, so the measured G_N and cosmic size become the selection mechanism.
  • A sharper test than the current Hubble-tension fit would be a measurement of H(z) at intermediate redshifts z ~ 0.5-2: the model predicts a specific logarithmic suppression of the expansion rate relative to constant-G Lambda-CDM, which galaxy-redshift surveys could probe.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that quantum vacuum energy, computed in flat Minkowski space, is the ultimate origin of gravity. It introduces a 'gravitational Casimir effect' and argues that Einstein's field equations, in the form of the Friedmann equations, emerge from this effect. This leads to the formula G_N = c^2 R_∞/(2 M_∞), where M_∞ is the total vacuum energy of the universe and R_∞ is its Hubble radius. The paper further assumes a specific vacuum-energy formula ρ_vac = (3/4)(c^5/ℏ^3) m_z^4/g, introduces a renormalization-group flow for the coupling g, and thereby obtains a scale-dependent Newton's constant G(µ). This is used to construct cosmological solutions with a minimal scale factor a_min, avoiding the a=0 singularity, and to propose a resolution of the Hubble tension by attributing the discrepancy to different effective values of G at different epochs. The paper also interprets Gibbons-Hawking and Bekenstein-Hawking entropies in terms of massless quanta at the horizon.

Significance. If the central derivation were sound, the paper would constitute a radical reframing of gravity as an emergent phenomenon of quantum vacuum energy, with potentially testable consequences: a temperature-dependent Newton's constant in Cavendish-type experiments, a time-varying G_N constrained by pulsar timing, and modifications to CMB acoustic peaks. The manuscript is unusually transparent about its own limitations: it labels the central derivation 'a tautology' (Section II), calls the vacuum-energy formula 'well-motivated but still conjectural' (Introduction), and acknowledges that the 4-dimensional formula has not been rigorously proven. These admissions are commendable but they also pinpoint why the paper, in its current form, does not establish its central claim. The quantitative predictions, including the avoidance of the big-bang singularity and the Hubble-tension fit, rest on unproven inputs and on a parameter b̂ that is fit to the very data it purports to explain. The paper is best read as a speculative essay with some interesting phenomenological observations, not as a supported derivation of gravity from vacuum energy.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eqs. (21), (26)] The central derivation of Eq. (2) is a matching condition, not an emergent prediction. Equations (14)-(15) are heuristic force-balance equations with free quantities R and M. G_d is then defined by requiring these equations to coincide with the standard Friedmann equations (19)-(20). With R=R_H=c/H and M defined by ρ_vac V_d(R_H)=Mc^2 (Eq. 23), Eq. (20) reduces to the identity ρ_vac V_d(R_H)=Mc^2. The manuscript itself states 'at this stage this is a tautology' (Section II). Hence Eq. (2) is a restatement of the Friedmann relation under a particular definition of M, and the claim that Einstein's equations 'emerge' from the gravitational Casimir effect is not established. This is load-bearing, because the entire 'origin of gravity' claim rests on it.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (50)] The extension to matter and radiation simply assumes the standard Friedmann equation (50) with ρ_total replacing ρ_vac and with an energy-dependent G(µ). No derivation of this equation from the Casimir picture is provided; it is posited. The statement that 'Newton's universal law ... is subsumed as a consequence' is therefore unsupported. The paper may be read as a proposal for a scale-dependent G_N within standard GR, but not as an independent derivation of gravity from vacuum energy.
  3. [§III, Eqs. (35), (39), (43), (53)] All quantitative predictions — the minimal scale factor a_min, z_max, and the Hubble-tension fit — are downstream of unproven inputs: the conjectural vacuum-energy formula (3) (admitted in the Introduction), the 1-loop beta function (35) for a marginally irrelevant coupling, the identification µ/µ0=1+z in (42), and the value b̂≈0.02 fit to the Hubble-tension ratio in (53). Since b̂ is fit to data and then used to compute a_min≈2×10^{-22} and z_max≈5×10^{21} in (54), those numbers are not independent predictions. The no-singularity conclusion is also built into the chosen Landau-pole form: G_N=0 at a=a_min by definition in (43), so a(t) never reaches zero by construction.
  4. [§III B, Eq. (49)] The symmetry a(t)=a(-t+2t_min) and the extension to t→±∞ are consequences of the explicit Gaussian solution (45) and of the convention that the minus sign is used for t<t_min. They are properties of the chosen solution, not a derivation of a past-eternal universe. The claim 'there is no Big Bang' therefore depends entirely on the assumed RG-flow ansatz; if the beta function (35) or the µ–a relation (42) were modified, the bouncing behavior would disappear.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Footnote 4] The paraphrase 'If you look deeply enough into the Void, it eventually looks back at you' is incongruous and unrelated to the technical content; it should be removed or replaced with a relevant reference.
  2. [Abstract and §III] The notation 'bb' for the parameter b̂ is nonstandard and appears inconsistently (e.g., the abstract uses 'bb' where the body uses 'bb' in Eq. (36) and later 'b̂' in the reader's summary). A single, clearly defined symbol would improve readability.
  3. [Introduction, Eq. (3)] The paper rightly flags Eq. (3) as 'well-motivated but still conjectural.' Given how much of the later argument depends on this formula, it would be helpful to collect all assumptions and their status in a dedicated assumptions/limitations subsection.
  4. [§IV, Eq. (54)] The numerical value z_eq≈3400 is quoted without a citation; a reference for the matter-radiation equality redshift would be appropriate.
  5. [§II, Eq. (21)] The d-dimensional prefactor is correct but the derivation would be easier to follow if the matching between Eq. (14) and Eq. (19) were shown explicitly, including the factor (d-1)π^{(d-2)/2}/8Γ(d/2).

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

Section II's 'emergence' of Einstein's equations is a matching exercise: G_N is set so the Casimir equation reproduces the already-assumed Friedmann equations, and the paper itself calls the relation a tautology. Downstream results depend on a conjectural self-cited ρ_vac formula and on b̂ fit to the Hubble tension.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section II, after Eq. (26), paragraph beginning 'Let us for the moment express (26) as...']
    "G_N can be identified by comparing with Einstein's field equations for this particular metric."

    The derivation starts from the Einstein-Hilbert action (17) and the standard Friedmann equations (19)–(20), then fixes G_d in Eq. (21) so that the heuristic Casimir equation (14)–(15) coincides with those Friedmann equations. With R=R_H=c/H and M defined by ρ_vac V=M c^2 (Eq. 23), Friedmann's vacuum equation (20) is algebraically identical to G_N=c^2 R/(2M). Thus Eq. (2) is the input Friedmann relation rewritten, not an emergent prediction. The paper later admits: 'it should be realized that at this stage this is a tautology since analysis of the cosmological data depends on G_N.'

  2. self citation load bearing [Section I, item (i), around Eq. (3)]
    "Although one does not have the powerful simplifications of integrability in 4 dimensions, this formula was well motivated in [1, 2] and should not be viewed as an ad hoc assumption, although unlike in 2 dimensions it hasn’t yet been fully rigorously proven since the 1/g dependence indicates it is highly non-perturbative."

    The quantitative content of the paper — the induced RG flow for G(µ), the Landau pole, a_min, z_max, and the Hubble-tension fit — is driven by Eq. (3) for ρ_vac, which is imported from the author's own prior work [1,2]. The paper explicitly concedes that this formula is conjectural in 4D. Thus the central numerical model rests on a load-bearing self-citation that is neither machine-checked nor independently established; the cited prior work supplies the unproven input rather than providing independent evidence for it.

  3. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eqs. (52)–(54)]
    "H0;CMB/H0;SN ≈ q 1− bblog(1 +z), for z=z CMB = 1100. Based on the measured values in (52), the above leads to bb≈0.02."

    The parameter b̂ is fit to the Hubble-tension ratio itself via Eq. (53), yielding b̂≈0.02. The paper then presents a_min=exp(−1/b̂) and z_max=exp(1/b̂)−1 as predictions, but these are one-to-one functions of the fitted b̂; they carry no independent information and are statistically forced by the fit. The 'explanation' of the Hubble tension is the fit itself, not a prediction: b̂ was chosen to reproduce the tension, and the subsequent a_min/z_max claims are deterministic consequences of that fitted value.

full rationale

Section II's central equation (2) is not an emergent consequence of vacuum energy: after deriving a heuristic Casimir relation (14)–(15) that contains no Newton constant, the author adopts the Einstein-Hilbert action (17) and the standard Friedmann equations (19)–(20), then fixes G_d in (21) by demanding equality. With R_H=c/H and M defined by ρ_vac V=M c^2, Eq. (20) reduces algebraically to G_N=c^2 R/(2M), so Eq. (2) is the input Friedmann relation rewritten. The paper's own statement that this is 'a tautology' confirms the reduction. The subsequent quantitative claims are not independent: ρ_vac in Eq. (3) is imported from the author's conjectural prior work [1,2], the beta function (35) is assumed, and the parameter b̂ that sets a_min and z_max is fit to the Hubble-tension ratio in Eq. (53). Thus the 'predictions' a_min and z_max are deterministic functions of the fitted b̂. Because the central 'origin of gravity' claim reduces to an identity, and the numerical model rests on a self-citation chain plus a fit, the circularity burden is high (8/10).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model rests on a conjectural vacuum-energy formula and a fitted RG parameter; all quantitative outputs are downstream of these inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • b̂ (RG flow parameter) = ≈ 0.02
    Fitted to match the ratio H0;CMB/H0;SN in Eq. (53); controls a_min, z_max, and the time variation of G_N.
  • g0 (coupling at present scale) = not determined
    Related to b̂ and b via b̂ = b g0/(2π); m_z depends on g0 as m_z = 0.0024 g0^{1/4} eV.
  • b (1-loop beta coefficient) = unknown, assumed O(1)
    Appears in Eq. (35); degenerate with g0 in the combination b̂.
  • m_z (zeron mass) = ≈ 0.0024 g0^{1/4} eV
    Inferred from the observed dark-energy density (7) once Eq. (3) is assumed; the particle is not identified.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper ρ_vac is finite and well-defined in flat Minkowski space and obeys Eq. (3): ρ_vac = (3/4)(c^5/ℏ^3) m_z^4/g.
    Assumed from the author's own prior work [1,2]; the paper says 'we simply assume the well-motivated formula (3)'.
  • domain assumption The coupling g obeys the 1-loop beta function µ∂_µ g = (b/2π) g^2 (Eq. 35).
    Standard QFT form, but its applicability to the vacuum-energy coupling is assumed, not derived.
  • domain assumption The vacuum energy density is time-independent: ∂t ρ_vac = 0 (Section II, assumption ii).
    Needed to derive the Friedmann equations from the Casimir-force ansatz.
  • domain assumption There is no independent classical cosmological constant Λ (Section II, assumption iii).
    Chosen so that ρ_vac is the only dark-energy source.
  • domain assumption The RG energy scale is tied to temperature as µ/µ0 = 1+z (Eq. 42).
    Standard cosmological relation used to convert the RG flow into a time-dependent G_N.
  • ad hoc to paper The scale-factor solution is extended to t → ±∞ with a(t) = a(-t+2t_min) and the minus sign is chosen for t<t_min.
    A modeling choice that yields the bounce and the no-singularity claim.
invented entities (1)
  • the zeron no independent evidence
    purpose: A hypothetical lightest particle with mass m_z that determines the vacuum energy density ρ_vac in Eq. (3).
    The paper leaves the particle unidentified and fits m_z to the observed dark-energy density; no independent falsifiable prediction is offered.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Vacuum energy as the origin of Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3RPOLYXH

@misc{pith2026250902636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Vacuum energy as the origin of Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3RPOLYXH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02636}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We explore the idea that quantum vacuum energy $\rho_{\rm vac} $ is at the origin of Gravity. We formulate a gravitational version of the electromagnetic Casimir effect, and provide an argument for how gravity can arise from $\rho_{\rm vac} $ by showing how Einstein's field equations emerge in the form of Friedmann's equations. This leads to the idea that Newton's constant $G_N$ is environmental, namely it depends on the total mass-energy of the Universe $M_\infty $ and its size $R_\infty $, with $G_N = c^2 R_\infty /2 M_\infty$. This leads to a new interpretation of the Gibbons-Hawking entropy of de Sitter space, and also the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy for black holes, wherein the quantum information bits are quantized massless particles at the horizon with wavelength $\lambda = 2 \pi R_\infty$. We assume a recently proposed formula for $\rho_{\rm vac} \sim m_z^4/\mathfrak{g}$, where $m_z$ is the mass of the lightest particle, and $\mathfrak{g}$ is a marginally irrelevant coupling. This leads to an effective, induced RG flow for Newton's constant $G_N$ as a function of an energy scale, which indicates that $G_N$ decreases at higher energies until it reaches a Landau pole at a minimal value of the cosmological scale factor $a(t) > a_{\rm min}$, thus avoiding the usual geometric singularity at $a=0$. The solution to the scale factor satisfies an interesting symmetry between the far past and far future due to $a(t) = a(-t + 2 t_{\rm min})$, where $a(t_{\rm min}) = a_{\rm min}$. We propose that this energy scale dependent $G_N$ can explain the Hubble tension and we thereby constrain the coupling constant $\mathfrak{g}$ and its renormalization group parameters. For the $\Lambda{\rm CDM}$ model we estimate $a_{\rm min} \approx e^{-1/\hat{b} }$ where $\hat{b} \approx 0.02$ based on the Hubble tension data.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Interpretation of the binned SNe Ia Master Sample data via a scalar quintessence component: phantom transition?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Viscous quintessence model fitted to binned SNe Ia data shows no phantom transition and lower transition redshift than DESI.

  2. Interpretation of the binned SNe Ia Master Sample data via a scalar quintessence component: phantom transition?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    Best-fit viscous quintessence to the SNe Ia Master Sample shows no DESI-like phantom transition; SNe alone do not indicate a change in dark-energy nature.

  3. QCD CP-violation scenario for a revised cosmological dynamics: analysis of the binned Pantheon Sample of Super Novae Ia

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 reject novelty 3.0

    The paper fits a dark-matter–dark-energy interaction model from a complex scalar field to binned Pantheon SNeIa data and claims to explain the redshift-running H0, but the derivation's equations are internally inconsistent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Thermodynamic formulation of vacuum energy density in flat spacetime and potential implications for the cosmological constant

    A. LeClair,Thermodynamic formulation of vacuum energy density in flat spacetime and potential implications for the cosmological constant, JHEP 2024, arXiv:2404.02350

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Vacuum energy density from the form factor bootstrap

    A. LeClair,Vacuum energy density from the form factor bootstrap, JHEP 2024, arXiv:2407.10692

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem,Rev

    S. Weinberg,The Cosmological Constant Problem,Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Montero, T

    M. Montero, T. Van Riet and G. Venken,Festina Lente: EFT Constraints from Charged Black Hole Evaporation,JHEP 2020.1: 1-50, arXiv:1910.01648 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Montero, C

    M. Montero, C. Vafa, T. Van Riet and G. Venken,The FL bound and its phenomenological implications,JHEP 10 (2021) 009, arXiv:2106.07650 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641, A6. (2020)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and Y. Nir, Neutrino masses and mixing: evidence and implications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 345, arXiv:hep-ph/0202058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten.Superstring theory, Cambridge university press (2012)

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    Verlinde,On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton, JHEP 2011(4), arXiv:1001.0785

    E. Verlinde,On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton, JHEP 2011(4), arXiv:1001.0785

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    H. B. G. Casimir,On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates,Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 51, 793–795 (1948)

    work page 1948

  11. [11]

    S. Chen, G. W. Gibbons, Y. Li and Y. Yang,Friedmann ’s equations in all dimensions and Chebyshev’s theorem,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (2014) 035

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Jackiw and C

    R. Jackiw and C. Teitelboim,Two-dimensional gravity and nonlinear gauge theory,In Quantum Theory of Gravity: Essays in Honor of the 60th Birthday of Bryce S. DeWitt (pp. 389–398). Adam Hilger. (1985)

    work page 1985

  13. [13]

    Comment on the cosmological constant for $\lambda \phi^4$ theory in $d$ spacetime dimensions

    A. LeClair,Comment on the cosmological constant forλϕ 4 theory inDspacetime dimensions,Universe (2023) 310 arXiv:2304.13075 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    A. G. Riess et al,A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with1%Precision from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 934(1) (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Verde, T

    L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess,Tensions in cosmology: A Nobel perspective on the Hubble constant,Nature Reviews Physics, 5, 391–404. (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    J. D. Bekenstein,Black Holes and Entropy,Physical Review D 7, 2333–2346 (1973). 16

    work page 1973

  17. [17]

    S. W. Hawking,Particle creation by black holes,Communications in Mathematical Physics, Volume 43, 199–220 (1975)

    work page 1975

  18. [18]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking,Cosmological Event Horizons, Thermodynamics, and Particle Creation,Physical Review D, 15(10), 2738–2751 (1977)

    work page 1977

  19. [19]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Addison-Wesley 1995

    work page 1995

  20. [20]

    Penrose,Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities.Physical Review Letters, 14(3), 57–59 (1965)

    R. Penrose,Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities.Physical Review Letters, 14(3), 57–59 (1965)

    work page 1965

  21. [21]

    S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose,The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 314(1519), 529–548 (1970)

    work page 1970

  22. [22]

    P. E. Shaw and N. Davy,The Effect of Temperature on Gravitative Attraction,Physical Review, 21(6), 680–681 (1923)

    work page 1923

  23. [23]

    A. L. Dmitriev, E. M. Nikushchenko, and V.S. Snegov,Influence of the Temperature of a Body on Its Weight,Measurement Techniques, 46(2), 115–120 (2003)

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    Liangzao, F

    F. Liangzao, F. Jinsong, and L. W. Qing,An Experimental Discovery about Gravitational Force Changes in Materials due to Temperature Variation,Engineering Sciences, 8(2), 9–11. (2010)

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    J. M. Weisberg and J. H. Taylor,The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16: Thirty Years of Observations and Analysis,, ASP Conference Series, vol. 328, pp. 25–31, 2005

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration),Tests of General Relativity with GW150914, Physical Review Letters, vol. 116, no. 22, 221101 (2016)

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Maiolino et al.A small and vigorous black hole in the early Universe,Nature, 627, 70059 (2024)

    R. Maiolino et al.A small and vigorous black hole in the early Universe,Nature, 627, 70059 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    G¨ ockeler, R

    M. G¨ ockeler, R. Horsley, V. Linke, P. Rakow, G. Schierholz and H. St¨ uben,Is there a Landau pole problem in QED?, Physical Review Letters 80, 4119 (1998)

    work page 1998

  29. [29]

    Gies and J

    H. Gies and J. Jaeckel,Renormalization flow of QED,Physical Review Letters 93 (2004) 110405

    work page 2004

  30. [30]

    S.-K. Jian, E. Barnes, and S. D. Sarma,Landau poles in condensed matter systems,Physical Review Research 2.2 (2020): 023310

    work page 2020

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.