Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

This paper argues that a single varying-speed-of-light parameter b can raise the early-universe Hubble constant to about 73 km/s/Mpc while making supernova time dilation deviate from the standard (1+z) law as n=1-b/4.

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 ↗

The meVSL model's parameter b reduces the baryon drag sound horizon, raising inferred H0, and changes the cosmological time-dilation exponent to n=1-b/4; the paper forecasts SN sample sizes to detect this.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Same-parameter story is appealing, but the paper's own equations put z_drag above z_star for b>0, undercutting the headline H0≈73. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08840 v1 pith:JNX4A4KY submitted 2025-09-02 physics.gen-ph

Alleviating the Hubble Tension via Cosmological Time Dilation in the meVSL Model

Seokcheon Lee This is my paper
classification physics.gen-ph PACS 98.80.Es
keywords Hubble tensionvarying speed of lightmeVSLsound horizondrag epochcosmological time dilationtype Ia supernovaeFisher forecast
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 argues that one parameter in a minimally extended varying-speed-of-light model can ease the Hubble tension without new fields. The parameter b makes the effective speed of light scale as c = c0 a^(b/4), and it does two things at once: it shortens the sound horizon at the baryon drag epoch, which raises the CMB/BAO-inferred Hubble constant, and it changes the cosmological time-dilation law for distant transients from (1+z) to (1+z)^(1-b/4). For b=0.03 the drag redshift rises to about 1108, the sound horizon falls to about 135 Mpc, and the inferred H0 becomes roughly 73 km/s/Mpc. The Fisher forecasts show that a DES-like supernova survey can detect sub-percent deviations of the time-dilation exponent, so the same parameter is testable in the time domain. If the paper is right, a single measurement channel—supernova light-curve widths—can confirm or refute the mechanism that resolves the H0 discrepancy.

Core claim

The central claim, stated the way the author would state it, is that the meVSL parameter b is not an isolated tweak: the same index that rescales the apparent speed of light changes two independent observables in the same direction. It raises the drag redshift (z_drag about 1108 for b=0.03), lowers the drag-epoch sound horizon to about 135 Mpc, and thereby raises the early-universe H0 inferred from the nearly constant Planck product H0 times r_drag to about 73 km/s/Mpc. The same b lowers the cosmological time-dilation exponent from 1 to n=1-b/4, so supernova light curves stretch less than the standard (1+z) law as redshift grows. Using Fisher forecasts, the paper quantifies how many SNe Ia a

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the meVSL scaling index b, defined by c = c0 a^(b/4). Through modified Friedmann equations and a b-dependent Thomson scattering rate, b shifts photon decoupling downward and the baryon drag redshift upward, shortening the comoving sound horizon r_drag. The connection to H0 is made by the Planck-calibrated near-invariance of H0 times r_drag; the time-domain connection is n=1-b/4. The drag optical depth condition tau_drag(z)=1 selects z_drag(b), and the Fisher information from light-curve widths sets the detectability.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's headline H0 about 73 rests on assuming Planck's constraint on H0 times r_drag is unchanged in meVSL, so shrinking r_drag raises H0 without a full meVSL Boltzmann check of the rest of the CMB.

What would settle it

A full meVSL CMB spectrum calculation: if at b=0.03 the predicted TT/EE/TE spectra fit Planck significantly worse than LCDM, the assumed H0 times r_drag invariance fails and the headline H0 about 73 is falsified. Independently, a supernova survey measuring the time-dilation exponent with total uncertainty near 0.003 that returns n=1.000 plus or minus 0.003 would rule out b about 0.04 and above, since the model predicts n=1-b/4.

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

If this is right

  • A single positive b simultaneously raises H0 toward 73 km/s/Mpc and lowers the time-dilation exponent to n=1-b/4, making the two anomalies two faces of one parameter.
  • A 3-sigma detection of n=0.990 requires about 225 SNe with statistical errors only, and about 450 with a systematic floor of 0.05, within reach of current and upcoming surveys.
  • Detecting |n-1| of 0.001 at 3-sigma needs tens of thousands of SNe, marking the regime only next-generation surveys can access.
  • Joint fitting of r_drag from CMB/BAO and n from supernova durations provides a self-consistent cross-check of b, independent of distance-ladder systematics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Implicit in the paper but not developed: the same b rescales the redshift inferred from spectra, so existing CTD measurements that use the standard redshift mapping may be slightly biased; reanalyzing DES with the b-dependent redshift could shift the best-fit n.
  • The paper lists BBN and fine-structure constant as complementary probes but does not fold their limits into the allowed range of b; doing so would likely close off part of the parameter space and sharpen the prediction.
  • If a near-future survey measures n=1 with total error below 0.003 while independent late-time measurements keep H0 near 73, the dual-parameter link would be broken and the meVSL resolution of the Hubble tension would be disfavored even before a Boltzmann calculation.
  • The H0 about 73 number should be read as an illustrative mapping until a self-consistent meVSL recombination and CMB spectrum calculation is done; that calculation is the natural next step and would turn the claim into a full cosmological model test.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a single parameter b in the minimally extended varying-speed-of-light (meVSL) model can simultaneously reduce the baryon drag-epoch sound horizon and modify the cosmological time-dilation exponent, n = 1 - b/4. For b=0.03 it quotes z_drag ≈ 1108, r_drag ≈ 135 Mpc, and H0 ≈ 73 km/s/Mpc, thereby 'alleviating' the Hubble tension. It also presents Fisher forecasts for DES-like samples to estimate the number of SNe needed to detect n ≠ 1. The core sections (3.1.2-3.1.4) derive the b-dependence of z_star, z_drag, r_drag and map the latter to H0; Section 4 imports the CTD scaling and performs forecasting.

Significance. If the claimed relation between b, r_drag, and H0 were correct, the paper would provide a minimal, testable resolution of the Hubble tension with a distinct time-domain prediction. The Fisher-forecast framework is clearly laid out and easily reproducible, and the paper is candid about the need for a future Boltzmann calculation. However, the central illustration is internally inconsistent: the model's own approximate formulas violate the physical ordering of recombination and drag epoch for the parameter values used to claim H0 ≈ 73. Since the headline result depends on this ordering and on an imported ΛCDM relation that is not rederived in meVSL, the manuscript's central claims are not established as they stand.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1.2 and §3.1.3, Eqs. (18) and (21)] There is an internal inconsistency in the redshift evolution used to compute r_drag. Eq. (18) gives z_star(b) ≈ 1090 − 3808 b, so z_star decreases with b (e.g., z_star ≈ 1052 at b=0.01 and ≈ 976 at b=0.03). In contrast, Eq. (21) gives z_drag increasing with b: z_drag(0.01)=1095 and z_drag(0.03)=1106.7. Thus for any b ≳ 0.0075, z_drag > z_star, reversing the physical order in which recombination precedes baryon drag. The paper itself states in §3.1.3 that the z_star−z_drag offset 'should be recomputed rather than held fixed,' but the two approximations actually used produce a crossing. Consequently the r_drag values quoted in §3.1.4 and Fig. 2 are evaluated at a redshift that is not a physically meaningful drag epoch, and the resulting H0 ≈ 73 is unsupported.
  2. [§3.1.4, H0–r_drag mapping] The mapping from a reduced r_drag to H0 ≈ 73 assumes that the Planck constraint on H0 r_drag is unchanged in meVSL. This is an imported ΛCDM relation (Ref. [59]) applied to a model that modifies recombination (z_star, z_drag), the Thomson scattering rate, and the sound speed. The influence on CMB spectra, Silk damping, and the acoustic scale is not computed, and the paper explicitly defers a full Boltzmann calculation to future work. The linear scaling H0 ∝ 1/r_drag is therefore a conjecture, not a derived consequence. This is load-bearing for the paper's main claim, so the claim is not yet supported.
  3. [§4.2 and Eq. (25)] The paper cites the DES i-band time-dilation measurement n = 0.988 ± 0.008 as independent support for b ≈ 0.048. However, Eq. (25) states that for b ≠ 0 the redshift mapping itself changes, so a self-consistent CTD fit must use zeff(b), not the standard redshift. The quoted DES analysis uses standard redshifts; applying it to infer b without recomputing the redshift transformation is not independent. Moreover, b ≈ 0.048 combined with Eq. (18) gives z_star ≈ 907, while Eq. (21) extrapolates to z_drag ≈ 1110, again violating z_drag < z_star and underscoring that the model's internal consistency is broken for just the parameter values promoted as preferred.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3.1.3] The abstract quotes z_drag ≃ 1108 for b=0.03, while Eq. (21) lists (0.03, 1106.7). Please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [§4.3.3 / Fig. 5] The per-band forecast is not reproducible: the text does not specify the photometric error model or the redshift distribution used for the g, r, i, z bands, yet Figure 5 presents precise required-sample numbers. A brief table of assumed noise parameters would help.
  3. [Eq. (7) and notation] The notation H in Eq. (5) is defined as the standard GR Hubble parameter while the text also uses H for the physical expansion rate; this becomes confusing in Eqs. (17)-(20). Please use a distinct symbol (e.g., H_GR) or clarify consistently.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Partial circularity: the time-dilation probe n=1-b/4 is imported from the author's own prior papers and then used to claim independent support, while the sound-horizon and Fisher calculations are self-contained.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.1, Eq. (26); used in Abstract and Section 4.2]
    "In meVSL the scaling of c with a modifies the exponent to n = 1 − b/4 , (26) so that n ̸= 1 encodes an effective, observational rescaling of cosmic time rather than a violation of relativistic time dilation."

    The n-b relation is not derived in this paper; it is attributed to the same author's prior papers [16, 23-25]. It is load-bearing because Section 4.2 converts the DES measurement n=0.988±0.008 into b≈0.048 and calls this 'independently supported by supernova observations' for the b>0 that is claimed to alleviate the Hubble tension. Thus the time-domain check is calibrated by the self-cited framework it is supposed to test; within this paper the link is an input, not an independent prediction. The r_drag side is computed here, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

Most of the r_drag calculation is self-contained: Eqs. (8)-(10) define the sound horizon, Appendix A provides Xe templates, and Section 3.1.3 solves τ_drag=1 to obtain z_drag(b) and r_drag(b). The Fisher forecast is a well-posed calculation of required sample sizes, and b is used as an illustration rather than fitted to H0, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The H0≈73 statement is a forward application of the external Planck constraint H0 r_drag ≈ const, not a fit, and therefore is not circular, though it rests on the unverified assumption that this invariant survives in meVSL; the paper itself calls for 'self-consistent Boltzmann calculations' in the Conclusion. The moderate score comes from the n=1-b/4 relation: it is imported from the author's prior work and then used as the bridge from DES time-dilation data to b, making the CTD probe partly a self-citation chain rather than an independent derivation. A separate, non-circular correctness problem is flagged: Eq. (18) has z* decreasing with b while Eq. (21) has z_drag increasing, so for b>0 one gets z_drag > z*, reversing the physical recombination/drag ordering; this invalidates the r_drag values and the H0≈73 illustration, but it is an internal inconsistency rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the model's b-scaling postulates, on an imported Planck H0 * r_drag relation, and on an unmodified LCDM recombination history. The free parameters are the theory parameter b, the recombination template values, and the survey error model. No independent first-principles justification for the meVSL scaling is provided in this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • b = 0.016, 0.02, 0.03 (illustrations); 0.048 +/- 0.032 from DES i-band in Sec 4.2
    Single meVSL scaling parameter; chosen to illustrate H0 about 73; not derived from first principles.
  • tanh recombination template parameters = z_t about 1090, Delta z about 80-100, X_res about 2e-4 to 1e-3; z1 about 1090, Delta z1 about 90
    Hand-selected in Appendix A and used to compute X_e(z) in drag epoch integrals; no b-dependent recalibration despite its importance for r_drag.
  • sigma_0 = 0.05
    Assumed redshift-dependent light-curve width error in Eq. (28); drives the required supernova counts in the Fisher forecast.
  • sigma_sys = 0.01, 0.05
    Assumed systematic floors added in quadrature in Eq. (30); changes required supernova counts substantially near n=1.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper meVSL scaling relations: c=c0 a^{b/4}, G=G0 a^b, e=e0 a^{-b/4}, h=h0 a^{-b/4} (Table 1).
    Model postulate defining meVSL; all derived consequences (r_drag, n) inherit it. No independent derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Modified Friedmann equations Eqs. (2)-(6) with Bianchi conservation Eq. (4).
    Background equations of the model, summarized from prior work; basis for H_tilde and z_drag calculations.
  • domain assumption Thomson cross section scales as sigma_T = sigma_T0 (1+z)^{b/2} and baryon number density n_e is unchanged (Eqs. 11-16).
    Used to derive decoupling and drag redshifts; scaling is model-specific and imported from prior papers.
  • domain assumption Planck CMB data constrain H0 * r_drag to a nearly constant value (Section 3.1.4, citing [59]).
    External empirical benchmark imported unchanged; load-bearing for converting r_drag reduction into H0 about 73.
  • ad hoc to paper Standard LCDM recombination history X_e(z) from Eq. (37) is used for b != 0.
    The drag epoch integral uses unmodified recombination; the paper concedes a full Boltzmann treatment with updated X_e is still needed.
invented entities (1)
  • meVSL b-parameter effective rescaling of fundamental constants independent evidence
    purpose: Single knob that simultaneously shortens r_drag and sets n=1-b/4
    The model predicts n<1 and a higher z_drag for b>0, which are observable handles, but current DES full-sample data do not confirm them; the i-band subset gives a weak 1.5-sigma hint.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alleviating the Hubble Tension via Cosmological Time Dilation in the meVSL Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JNX4A4KY

@misc{pith2026250908840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alleviating the Hubble Tension via Cosmological Time Dilation in the meVSL Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JNX4A4KY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08840}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We show that a minimally extended varying-speed-of-light (meVSL) cosmology can alleviate the Hubble tension through a single parameter, b. This parameter both shortens the sound horizon at the drag epoch and modifies cosmological time dilation for transients, Delta_t_obs=(1+z)^n Delta_t_emit with n=1-b/4. The reduction in r_d raises the early-universe-inferred H_0 from CMB/BAO analyses, while departures of n from unity provide an independent, time-domain probe of b. Using Fisher forecasts for a DES-like survey, we estimate the supernova sample size required to detect sub-percent deviations in n under realistic statistical and systematic uncertainties. For illustration, b=0.03 yields z_drag = 1108 and r_d = 135 Mpc, consistent with H_0=~73 km/s/Mpc. We conclude that current and upcoming time-domain surveys can place competitive constraints on b and, jointly with CMB/BAO, provide a self-consistent observational test of meVSL's ability to alleviate the H_0 discrepancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08840 by Seokcheon Lee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Decoupling redshift z∗ versus the meVSL parameter b. As b increases, the modified condition Γ˜T = H˜ is met at lower redshift [cf. Eq. (15)–(17)]. Right: Drag–epoch sound horizon ˜rdrag versus b. The increase of zdrag with b Eqs. (19) and (20) leads to a reduced ˜rdrag, consistent with the BAO standard–ruler interpretation. 3.1.4 Alleviating Hubble tension BAO provide a standard ruler that depends on… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Model predictions for the drag–epoch sound horizon as a function of drag redshift in meVSL. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Required number of SNe Ia for detecting deviations from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as Figure 3, but including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimated SNe counts per filter needed to detect a 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Geometric Matching of Local Static Regions in Cosmological Spacetimes with an Evolving Lapse

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Embedding a static Schwarzschild interior into a GCT-FLRW exterior via Israel junction conditions produces a geometric consistency condition that coincides with the GCT background equations.

  2. 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

75 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 28 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Ryder, Introduction to General Relativity(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    L. Ryder, Introduction to General Relativity(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    J. N. Islam, An Introduction to Mathematical Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    J. V. Narlikar, An Introduction to Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, 3rd Ed 2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    M. P. Hobson, G. P. Efstathiou, and A. N. Lasenby, General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Roos, Introduction to Cosmology(John Wiley and Sons, 2015)

    M. Roos, Introduction to Cosmology(John Wiley and Sons, 2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659 [arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Abdalla, G

    E. Abdalla, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, D. Aloni, L. Amendola and L. A. Anchordoqui, et al. JHEAp 34, 49-211 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 [arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Di Valentino, J

    E. Di Valentino, J. Levi Said, A. Riess, A. Pollo, V. Poulin, A. G´ omez-Valent, A. Weltman, A. Palmese, C. D. Huang and C. van de Bruck, et al. [arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Efstathiou, [arXiv:2007.10716 [astro-ph.CO]]

    G. Efstathiou, [arXiv:2007.10716 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  10. [10]

    Bayesian distances for quantifying tensions in cosmological inference and the surprise statistic

    B. Schosser, P. R. Mello, M. Quartin and B. M. Schaefer, doi:10.33232/001c.129700 [arXiv:2402.19100 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Perivolaropoulos, Phys

    L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.12, 123518 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123518 [arXiv:2408.11031 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde and A. G. Riess, JCAP 10, 019 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/019 [arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Raveri, Phys

    M. Raveri, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.8, 083524 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083524 [arXiv:1902.01366 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.22, 221301 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.221301 [arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Jedamzik and L

    K. Jedamzik and L. Pogosian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, no.18, 181302 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.181302 [arXiv:2004.09487 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Lee, JCAP 08, 054 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/054 [arXiv:2011.09274 [astro-ph.CO]]

    S. Lee, JCAP 08, 054 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/054 [arXiv:2011.09274 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Lee, Phys

    S. Lee, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101286 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101286 [arXiv:2212.03728 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Constraining minimally extended varying speed of light by cosmological chronometers

    S. Lee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 522, no.3, 3248-3255 (2023) doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1190 [arXiv:2301.06947 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Lee, Mon

    S. Lee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, no.3, 4019-4023 (2023) doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2084 [arXiv:2302.09735 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Cosmography of the minimally extended Varying Speed of Light Model

    S. Lee, Astronomy 3, 100-113 (2024) doi:10.3390/astronomy3020007 [arXiv:2406.05990 [physics.gen- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Lee, Phys

    S. Lee, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101703 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101703 [arXiv:2407.09532 [physics.gen-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Lee, Found

    S. Lee, Found. Phys. 53, 40 (2023) doi:10.1007/s10701-023-00682-1 [arXiv:2303.13772 [physics.gen- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Review on the minimally extended varying speed of light model

    S. Lee, Particles 7, no.2, 309-326 (2024) doi:10.3390/particles7020019 [arXiv:2406.02556 [physics.gen-ph]]. 14

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Lee, Class

    S. Lee, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, no.2, 025026 (2025) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ada2d5 [arXiv:2412.19049 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Lee, Phys

    S. Lee, Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101947 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101947

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Time Dilation in the Light Curve of the Distant Type Ia Supernovae SN 1995K

    B. Leibundgut, Astrophys. J. Lett. 466, L21 (1996) doi:10.1086/310164 [arXiv:astro-ph/9605134 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  27. [27]

    A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team], Astron. J. 114, 722 (1997) doi:10.1086/118506 [arXiv:astro-ph/9707260 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  28. [28]

    R. J. Foley, A. V. Filippenko, D. C. Leonard, A. G. Riess, P. Nugent and S. Perlmutter, Astrophys. J. Lett. 626, L11-L14 (2005) doi:10.1086/431241 [arXiv:astro-ph/0504481 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [29]

    Blondin and J

    S. Blondin and J. L. Tonry, Astrophys. J. 666, 1024-1047 (2007) doi:10.1086/520494 [arXiv:0709.4488 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  30. [30]

    Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift

    S. Blondin, T. M. Davis, K. Krisciunas, B. P. Schmidt, J. Sollerman, W. M. Wood-Vasey, A. C. Becker, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti and G. Damke, et al. Astrophys. J. 682, 724-736 (2008) doi:10.1086/589568 [arXiv:0804.3595 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  31. [31]

    R. M. T. White et al. [DES], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533, no.3, 3365-3378 (2024) doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2008 [arXiv:2406.05050 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    An interpretation of cosmological model with variable light velocity,

    J. P. Petit, “An interpretation of cosmological model with variable light velocity,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A. 3, 1527–1532 (1988) doi:10.1142/S0217732388001823

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732388001823 1988

  33. [33]

    Cosmological model with variable light velocity: the interpretation of red shifts,

    J. P. Petit, “Cosmological model with variable light velocity: the interpretation of red shifts,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A. 3, 1733–1744 (1988) doi:10.1142/S0217732388002099

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732388002099 1988

  34. [34]

    Gauge cosmological model with variable light velocity. Comparizon with QSO observational data,

    J. P. Petit and M. Viton, “Gauge cosmological model with variable light velocity. Comparizon with QSO observational data,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A.4, 2201–2210 (1989) doi:10.1142/S0217732389002471

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732389002471 1989

  35. [35]

    Scale invariant cosmology,

    P. Midy and J P. Petit, “Scale invariant cosmology,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 8, 271–280 (1989)

    work page 1989

  36. [36]

    Cosmologies with Varying Light-Speed

    J. D. Barrow, “Cosmologies with varying light speed,” Phy. Rev. D. 59, 043515 (1988) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.043515 [arXiv:astro-ph/9811022 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1988

  37. [37]

    Superluminary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Initial Value Problem in Cosmology

    J. W. Moffat, “Superluminary universe: A Possible solution to the initial value problem in cosmol- ogy,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2, 351-366 (1993) doi:10.1142/S0218271893000246 [arXiv:gr-qc/9211020 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  38. [38]

    Twin Universe Cosmology,

    J. P. Petit, “Twin Universe Cosmology,” Astrophys. Sp. Science. 226, 273 (1995) Bib- code:1995Ap&SS.226..273P. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.692.7762. doi:10.1007/bf00627375

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00627375 1995

  39. [39]

    A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles

    A. Albrecht and J. Magueijo, “A Time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles,” Phys. Rev. D 59, 043516 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.043516 [arXiv:astro-ph/9811018 [astro- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  40. [40]

    Solutions to the Quasi-flatness and Quasi-lambda Problems

    J. D. Barrow and J. Magueijo, “Solutions to the quasi-flatness and quasi lambda problems,” Phys. Lett. B 447, 246 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00008-8 [arXiv:astro-ph/9811073 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  41. [41]

    Dynamical Mechanism for Varying Light Velocity as a Solution to Cosmological Problems

    M. A. Clayton and J. W. Moffat, “Dynamical mechanism for varying light velocity as a solution to cosmological problems,” Phys. Lett. B 460, 263-270 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00774-1 [arXiv:astro-ph/9812481 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  42. [42]

    Solving the Flatness and Quasi-flatness Problems in Brans-Dicke Cosmologies with a Varying Light Speed

    J. D. Barrow and J. Magueijo, “Solving the flatness and quasiflatness problems in Brans-Dicke cosmologies with a varying light speed,” Class. Quant. Grav.16, 1435-1454 (1999) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/16/4/030 [arXiv:astro-ph/9901049 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  43. [43]

    Scalar-Tensor Gravity Theory For Dynamical Light Velocity

    M. A. Clayton and J. W. Moffat, “Scalar tensor gravity theory for dynamical light velocity,” Phys. Lett. B 477, 269-275 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00192-1 [arXiv:gr-qc/9910112 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  44. [44]

    Imaginative Cosmology

    R. H. Brandenberger and J. Magueijo, “Imaginative cosmology,” [arXiv:hep-ph/9912247 [hep-ph]]. 15

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Geometrodynamics of variable speed of light cosmologies,

    B. A. Bassett, S. Liberati, C. Molina-Paris and M. Visser, “Geometrodynamics of variable speed of light cosmologies,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 103518 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.103518 [arXiv:astro- ph/0001441 [astro-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2000

  46. [46]

    Solutions to Cosmological Problems with Energy Conservation and Varying c, G and Lambda

    P. Gopakumar and G. V. Vijayagovindan, “Solutions to cosmological problems with en- ergy conservation and varying c, G and Lambda,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 957-962 (2001) doi:10.1142/S0217732301004042 [arXiv:gr-qc/0003098 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  47. [47]

    Covariant and locally Lorentz-invariant varying speed of light theories

    J. Magueijo, “Covariant and locally Lorentz invariant varying speed of light theories,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 103521 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.103521 [arXiv:gr-qc/0007036 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  48. [48]

    Stars and black holes in varying speed of light theories

    J. Magueijo, “Stars and black holes in varying speed of light theories,” Phys. Rev. D 63, 043502 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.043502 [arXiv:astro-ph/0010591 [astro-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  49. [49]

    New varying speed of light theories,

    J. Magueijo, “New varying speed of light theories,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 66, 2025 (2003) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/66/11/R04 [arXiv:astro-ph/0305457 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Comments on "Note on varying speed of light theories"

    J. Magueijo and J. W. Moffat, “Comments on ’Note on varying speed of light theories’,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 1797-1806 (2008) doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0568-2 [arXiv:0705.4507 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  51. [51]

    Bigravity: a bimetric model of the Universe with variable constants, inluding VSL (variable speed of light)

    J. P. Petit and G. d’Agostini, “Bigravity: A Bimetric model of the Universe with variable constants, inluding VSL (variable speed of light),” [arXiv:0803.1362 [math-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    Cosmological solutions of time varying speed of light theories

    M. Roshan, M. Nouri and F. Shojai, “Cosmological solutions of time varying speed of light theories,” Phys. Lett. B 672, 197-202 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.01.042 [arXiv:0901.3191 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  53. [53]

    Empirical evidences in favor of a varying-speed-of-light

    Y. H. Sanejouand, “About some possible empirical evidences in favor of a cosmological time variation of the speed of light.,” Europhys. Lett. 88, 59002 (2009) [arXiv:0908.0249]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  54. [54]

    Variation of the speed of light with temperature of the expanding universe

    C. Nassif and A. C. Amaro de Faria, “Variation of the speed of light with temperature of the expand- ing universe,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 027703 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.027703 [arXiv:1205.2298 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  55. [55]

    Variable Speed of Light Cosmology, Primordial Fluctuations and Gravitational Waves

    J. W. Moffat, “Variable Speed of Light Cosmology, Primordial Fluctuations and Gravitational Waves,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no.3, 130 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3971-6 [arXiv:1404.5567 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    Normal DGP in varying speed of light cosmology

    A. Ravanpak, H. Farajollahi and G. F. Fadakar, “Normal DGP in varying speed of light cosmology,” Res. Astron. Astrophys. 17, no.3, 26 (2017) doi:10.1088/1674-4527/17/3/26 [arXiv:1703.09811 [gr- qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Covariant c-flation: a variational approach

    R. Costa, R. R. Cuzinatto, E. M. G. Ferreira and G. Franzmann, “Covariant c-flation: a varia- tional approach,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, no.09, 1950119 (2019) doi:10.1142/S0218271819501190 [arXiv:1705.03461 [gr-qc]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Variation of the speed of light and a minimum speed in the scenario of an inflationary universe with accelerated expansion

    C. Nassif and F. A. Silva, “Variation of the speed of light and a minimum speed in the sce- nario of an inflationary universe with accelerated expansion,” Phys. Dark Universe, 22, 127 (2018) [arXiv:2009.05397 [physics.gen-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Evslin, A

    J. Evslin, A. A. Sen and Ruchika, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.10, 103511 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103511 [arXiv:1711.01051 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    C. T. Chiang and A. Slosar, [arXiv:1811.03624 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  61. [61]

    Aylor, M

    K. Aylor, M. Joy, L. Knox, M. Millea, S. Raghunathan and W. L. K. Wu, Astrophys. J. 874, no.1, 4 (2019) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0898 [arXiv:1811.00537 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    Agrawal, F

    P. Agrawal, F. Y. Cyr-Racine, D. Pinner and L. Randall, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101347 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101347 [arXiv:1904.01016 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Knox and M

    L. Knox and M. Millea, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.4, 043533 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043533 [arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    Sekiguchi and T

    T. Sekiguchi and T. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.8, 083507 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083507 [arXiv:2007.03381 [astro-ph.CO]]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    N. Lee, Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, N. Sch¨ oneberg and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.16, 161003 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.161003 [arXiv:2212.04494 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Sch¨ oneberg and L

    N. Sch¨ oneberg and L. Vacher, JCAP 03, 004 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/004 [arXiv:2407.16845 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Chatrchyan, F

    A. Chatrchyan, F. Niedermann, V. Poulin and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.4, 043536 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043536 [arXiv:2408.14537 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    S. H. Mirpoorian, K. Jedamzik and L. Pogosian, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.8, 083519 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083519 [arXiv:2411.16678 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    T. L. Smith and N. Sch¨ oneberg, [arXiv:2503.20002 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  70. [70]

    Lee, Phys

    S. Lee, Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 101984 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101984

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    D. W. Hogg, [arXiv:astro-ph/9905116 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [73]

    D. J. Eisenstein, H. j. Seo, E. Sirko and D. Spergel, Astrophys. J. 664, 675-679 (2007) doi:10.1086/518712 [arXiv:astro-ph/0604362 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  74. [74]

    Blake, E

    C. Blake, E. Kazin, F. Beutler, T. Davis, D. Parkinson, S. Brough, M. Colless, C. Contr- eras, W. Couch and S. Croom, et al. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 418, 1707-1724 (2011) doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19592.x [arXiv:1108.2635 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2011

  75. [75]

    Anderson et al

    L. Anderson et al. [BOSS], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 441, no.1, 24-62 (2014) doi:10.1093/mnras/stu523 [arXiv:1312.4877 [astro-ph.CO]]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

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