Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

General relativity is the no-work limit of a spacetime heat engine; adding work terms gives a new theory with matter creation and cosmic acceleration.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 19:49 UTC pith:NNJAVLLJ

load-bearing objection The Otto-cycle construction is genuinely new and the paper is honest, but the central non-conservation equation has a factor-of-3/5 slip and the key efficiency law is assumed rather than derived; fixable, but it needs refereeing before publication. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.22221 v2 pith:NNJAVLLJ submitted 2025-11-27 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th

Lorentz Violation in Emergent Gravity and Its Cosmological Consequences

Raymond Isichei , Joao Magueijo This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th
keywords emergent gravityspacetime thermodynamicsOtto cycleLorentz violationenergy-momentum nonconservationlate-time accelerationcosmological constant problemmatter creation
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 paper argues that general relativity and other geometric gravity theories are really a degenerate thermodynamic cycle: only heat flows in and out of a small causal diamond, and no work is done. It then shows that if microscopic spacetime structures carry a conserved number with an associated chemical potential, work can be done, and the resulting equations differ from Einstein's by a trace-free condition and a failure of energy-momentum conservation. Applied to a homogeneous universe, these equations produce matter creation and late-time acceleration, with a specific solution a(t) ∝ t^(2/3) exp(t/3L2). The same framework dissolves the cosmological constant problem because vacuum energy does not gravitate, and it predicts small Lorentz violations and equivalence-principle violations with observable consequences. A sympathetic reader should care because this is a concrete, testable way in which the thermodynamic emergence of gravity could leave cosmological and local fingerprints.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Einstein field equations (and their geometric relatives) are not the end of the story of emergent gravity; they are the iso-N, no-work limit of an Otto cycle whose other legs involve the number and chemical potential of microscopic spacetime elements. Opening those work legs produces a definite modification of gravity: the trace-free (unimodular) Einstein equations supplemented by the non-conservation equation n^μ ∇_ν T^{μν} = −(1/L2)(T^{μν} n_μ n_ν + (1/3) h^{μν} T_{μν}). In an FRW universe these equations imply matter creation and, for positive L2, an accelerating solution a(t) = a_* t^(2/3) exp(t/3L2). The paper stresses that the microscopically prefe

What carries the argument

A causal diamond of affine size ℓ encloses the thermodynamic system; its null boundaries carry entropy and heat fluxes, and the interior is subject to an infinitesimal Otto cycle in the (T, S) and (μ, N) planes. The engine's efficiency is taken to scale linearly with diamond size, η ≡ W/δQ1 = (2/15) ℓ/L2, which decouples the emergent macroscopic theory from the microscopic details and introduces the second length scale L2. Combining Stokes' theorem on the diamond with light-cone averaging ⟨k^μ k^ν X_{μν}⟩_{l.c.} = X_{μν} n^μ n^ν + (1/3) h^{μν} X_{μν} converts the cycle identity into the non-conservation equation (16).

Load-bearing premise

The entire new physics rests on the imposed efficiency law η = (2/15) ℓ/L2 (Eq. 14); if the cycle efficiency does not scale exactly linearly with the diamond size with that coefficient, the clean non-conservation equation and the predicted late-time acceleration do not follow.

What would settle it

Precision monitoring of the solar mass via planetary ephemerides: the minimal model predicts a secular increase ṁ/m ≈ c/L2 ~ 10^−10 yr^−1 for L2 ~ 10^10 ly and an anomalous drag δa/a ~ v/(c L2 a); no such drift detected at that level would falsify the minimal model's cosmological value of L2.

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

If this is right

  • General relativity and its geometric extensions are recovered as the degenerate zero-efficiency limit of the Otto cycle; the full theory reduces to them wherever L2 effects are negligible, so all standard gravity tests remain valid on short timescales.
  • In an FRW universe with pressureless dust, the scale factor grows as a(t) = a_* t^(2/3) exp(t/3L2), accelerating after t = (√6−2)L2, so the observed late-time acceleration could be explained by matter creation, with L2 ~ 10^10 ly required to fit the data, without invoking a cosmological constant.
  • Vacuum energy does not gravitate in this theory because the trace-free equations are insensitive to the trace of T_{μν}, offering a new perspective on the cosmological constant problem, reframed as the smallness of Lorentz-violating effects.
  • Local Lorentz invariance is broken by a preferred frame (the frame in which matter, but not momentum, is created), yet the violation is suppressed by the extreme inefficiency of the cycle; in the low-speed limit the theory predicts an anomalous acceleration δa = −(ṁ/m)v with ṁ/m ~ c/L2.
  • The framework opens up new cosmological model building with energy non-conservation for individual components, including a dark-matter model where one species absorbs all violations, and non-Kasner vacuum solutions in Bianchi I that can expand in all directions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this construction is correct, the dark sector may not require new particles: dark matter could be ordinary matter continuously created by the preferred-frame non-conservation term, and dark energy could be the accumulated effect of that same creation, unifying both under one thermodynamic mechanism.
  • The efficiency law η ∝ ℓ/L2, imposed ad hoc to decouple the thermodynamics, might itself be a signature of the dimensionality of the microstructural constituents (pointlike, string-like, or wall-like); measuring how L2 runs across cosmological epochs could test that conjecture.
  • The theory's prediction that cosmological perturbations depend on the choice of preferred frame n^μ beyond zeroth order is a sharp discriminator: next-generation large-scale-structure surveys could distinguish this scenario from standard interacting-dark-energy models by looking for frame-dependent non-Gaussianities.
  • The authors' own Solar System constraints imply L2b/L2DM < 10^-3 if the minimal diagonal model is to survive; a similar hierarchy between local and cosmological Lorentz-violation scales could be inferred from comparing laboratory Eötvös-type tests with cosmological probes, offering a practical falsification route.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an extension of Jacobson-style thermogravity by running an infinitesimal Otto cycle on a causal diamond, with a chemical-potential pair (N, μ) in addition to (S, T). It argues that GR and geometric extensions arise as the iso-N (no-work) limit, while a non-degenerate cycle gives the trace-free Einstein equations (5) plus a preferred-frame non-conservation equation (16), n^μ ∇_ν T^{μν} = -(1/L2)(T^{μν} n_μ n_ν + (1/3) h^{μν} T_{μν}). In FRW with n^μ the comoving frame this yields matter creation and late-time acceleration, with L2 ~ 10^10 ly for dust. The paper also sketches extensions, Stückelberg reconstruction, Bianchi I anisotropy, and Solar-System constraints.

Significance. The framework is imaginative and potentially important: it converts the standard thermogravity statement into a broader framework with falsifiable signatures (cosmic acceleration, matter creation, preferred-frame effects) and explicitly shows how unimodular gravity emerges from trace subtraction. Strengths include transparent appendices, an explicit causal-diamond integral calculation (Appendix B), a Stückelberg correspondence (Appendix C), and concrete FRW/Bianchi solutions. However, the main new equation follows from an assumed efficiency scaling rather than microphysics, and there is a numerical inconsistency in the derivation. If the inconsistency is repaired and the assumed nature of Eq. (14) is clearly stated, the letter would be a useful contribution; in its present form the central derivation does not close.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (14)–(16) and Appendix B] The derivation of Eq. (16) does not close numerically. From Eq. (15) (or B1), W = -(8π/45) κ ℓ^5 n^μ ∇_ν T^{μν}, and from Eq. (B3), δQ = (4π/5) κ ℓ^4 ⟨k^μ k^ν T_{μν}⟩. Therefore η = W/δQ = -(2/9) ℓ [n^μ ∇_ν T^{μν}]/⟨...⟩. Equating this to Eq. (14), η = (2/15)ℓ/L2, gives -n^μ ∇_ν T^{μν} = (3/5)(1/L2)(T^{μν} n_μ n_ν + (1/3)h^{μν} T_{μν}), with a factor 3/5 instead of 1. Alternatively, using χ in place of ζ for δQ changes δQ by 5/3 and restores Eq. (16), as Appendix B notes, but then the main text should say so explicitly. The coefficient enters Eq. (18), the solution Eq. (19), and the inferred L2; this is a load-bearing inconsistency, not a typographical nuisance.
  2. [Eq. (14) and its role] Equation (14) is an imposed scaling, not derived from the microscopic pair (N, μ) or from any specific model of spacetime atoms. Once Eq. (14) is assumed and L2 is a free parameter, Eq. (16) is algebraically equivalent to it; the late-time acceleration in Eq. (19) is therefore a restatement of the ansatz with L2 chosen to fit the data. This is a legitimate model-building strategy, but the abstract's phrasing 'including work-producing legs yields... late-time cosmological acceleration' should be tempered. The reader should be told explicitly that the only microphysical content of the cosmological prediction is the linear η ∝ ℓ assumption (plus the sign of the efficiency), and that no mechanism selects L2 ~ 10^10 ly.
  3. [FRW application, Eqs. (17)–(19)] The FRW equations are obtained by identifying n^μ with the cosmological rest frame. This is an additional assumption external to the thermodynamic derivation. It is natural for a homogeneous isotropic background, but the authors themselves note that beyond zeroth order n^μ 'could be anything' and that predictions for fluctuations depend on the gauge. For the central claim of late-time acceleration this is not fatal, but it does limit the phenomenological reach; the paper should clarify that the FRW result is conditional on this identification, not a consequence of Eq. (16) alone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (22)] The anomalous-acceleration estimate δa/a ∼ v/(c L2 a) appears dimensionally inconsistent. From \dot m/m ≃ c/L2 and δa = -(\dot m/m)v one obtains δa/a = -(c v)/(L2 a), not v/(c L2 a). Please check the factors of c and the definition of a.
  2. [Notation] The symbol L2 is used both as a length and, implicitly, through L2/c as a time; please make the units explicit at first use.
  3. [Eq. (5) discussion] The statement that Eq. (5) 'integrates to Einstein's equations with a cosmological constant' should spell out the additional assumption ∇_μ T^{μν} = 0 and the resulting integration constant; this is stated in words but would benefit from an equation.
  4. [References] Reference [12] is 'In preparation'; the main text relies on it for dropping the isochoric assumption. Please either include the substance or mark the dependence clearly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The central non-conservation equation is the assumed efficiency law rewritten; the claimed late-time acceleration is a consequence of that input.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Eqs. (14)–(16), main text (between Eq. (14) and Eq. (16))]
    "we will require that η scales linearly with ℓ, so that: η ≡ W/δQ1 = 2/15 ℓ/L2 ≈ −∆T/T (14) ... combining with (14) (containing the assumed scaling with ℓ) and (8) we finally get: −nµ∇νT µν = 1/L2 (Tµνnµnν + 1/3 hµνTµν) (16)."

    Equation (16) is obtained by substituting the integrals (15) and (B3) into the assumed efficiency law (14). The non-conservation form on the r.h.s. of (16) is therefore already present in the η ∝ ℓ ansatz; the 'derived' violation of energy-momentum conservation is the input assumption restated, and the later matter-creation/acceleration solution inherits that input. With the paper's stated numbers, matching (15) and (B3) to (14) actually gives a 3/5 factor, so Eq. (16) requires a coefficient adjusted in the ansatz—confirming that the equation is fixed by the efficiency law, not by independent physics.

full rationale

The chain from a U(S,N) internal energy to the Otto-cycle identities (11)–(13) is self-contained and not circular. The first genuinely new step, however, is Eq. (14), where an efficiency scaling is imposed rather than derived. Once Eq. (14) is accepted, Eq. (16) follows by replacing W and δQ with the computed integrals; no additional physical input selects the non-conservation term. Thus the paper's central phenomenological prediction—matter creation and late-time acceleration from non-conservation—is a repackaged form of the assumed η ∝ ℓ law, not an independent consequence of emergent gravity. I do not score it as fully circular (10) because the paper explicitly labels Eq. (14) as a requirement and does not use Eq. (16) to justify it; the mismatch between the stated (2/15) coefficient and the integrals is a separate internal-consistency/correctness problem, not the same as pointing to a hidden equivalence. No load-bearing self-citation was found; refs [12] and similar in-preparation notes are not used to derive Eq. (16). The later estimate L2 ∼ 10^10 ly is a parameter fit to cosmic acceleration data, not an independent prediction of the same data point.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on the thermogravity input (Jacobson), a postulated microstructure number N, and an assumed efficiency law η ∝ ℓ/L2. Only the efficiency law turns the cycle into a specific field theory, and L2 is free and later fitted. The trace-free Einstein part is standard unimodular gravity. No machine-checked artifacts are provided.

free parameters (3)
  • L2 (efficiency/energy-nonconservation length scale) = ~10^10 ly from cosmology; L2/c ≳ 10^13 yr from solar-system constraints (for baryons)
    Introduced in Eq. (14) to set the Otto-cycle efficiency; it determines the rate of matter creation and the onset of acceleration. No microscopic derivation is given; the value is inferred from cosmology.
  • L2b/L2DM (species-dependent efficiency-scale ratio) = constrained < 10^-3 for the diagonal model; not fixed
    Eq. (21) allows different L2 per species; this ratio is needed to reconcile cosmological and solar-system constraints, and is not predicted by the framework.
  • sign of (∂T/∂N)_S = (∂μ/∂S)_N = not fixed (positive in Fig. 1, negative in Fig. 2)
    The sign controls whether matter is created or destroyed and which cycle orientation gives W>0. The paper states this 'remains a microphysical mystery' (Appendix A).
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption δU = T δS applied to local causal/Rindler horizons yields the Einstein equation of state.
    Foundation of thermogravity; taken from Jacobson [1] and not re-derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption All entropy of the causal diamond resides on the null boundaries I±; energy flows only as heat across I±.
    Assumed in the diamond construction, stated on p.2: 'the essential feature of the diamond is that energy can only flow inward across I− and outward across I+...'
  • domain assumption Microstructure carries a conserved number N, giving U = U(S,N) with δU = T δS + μ δN.
    Postulated new thermodynamic pair; motivated by causal sets/LQG/DSR but no microscopic derivation is given.
  • standard math Maxwell relation (∂T/∂N)_S = (∂μ/∂S)_N.
    Standard thermodynamics identity used to relate ΔQ and W in Eq. (10).
  • ad hoc to paper Efficiency scales linearly with ℓ: η = (2/15)ℓ/L2.
    Imposed in Eq. (14) to 'ensure that the emergent theory decouples from the underlying thermodynamical set up'; not derived from microphysics.
  • domain assumption There exists a local Killing vector χ and ζ ∝ χ on I±.
    Technical assumption needed for Stokes' theorem and the heat-flux calculation, discussed around Eqs. (2)-(3).
  • ad hoc to paper The mirror's preferred frame n^μ is identified with the cosmological frame for FRW applications.
    Chosen in the cosmological application ('we have identified the mirror's rest frame with the cosmological frame'); beyond zeroth order n^μ is undetermined.
invented entities (3)
  • Microscopic conserved number N (spacetime atoms/sprinklings/spin-network nodes) no independent evidence
    purpose: Introduces chemical potential μ and work legs in the Otto cycle; source of Lorentz violation and matter creation.
    Motivated by causal set theory, LQG, and DSR, but no falsifiable handle is provided for N itself; it is a postulated internal degree of freedom.
  • Chemical potential μ no independent evidence
    purpose: Conjugate to N; controls work terms W and cycle efficiency.
    No independent measurement of μ is proposed; it is defined via U(S,N).
  • Preferred frame n^μ (mirror normal) no independent evidence
    purpose: Defines the direction of Lorentz violation and energy non-conservation; selects the light-cone averaging.
    The paper says n^μ 'could be anything' beyond zeroth order; no independent determination is given, although CMB dipole and solar-system tests could constrain it.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11423 in / 18107 out tokens · 155000 ms · 2026-08-03T19:49:44.499001+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We show that General Relativity and other geometrical theories can be viewed as a degenerate Otto cycle with only heat-exchange legs in emergent gravity. Including work-producing legs yields controlled violations of local Lorentz invariance and energy-momentum conservation, which produce late-time cosmological acceleration. Implications for the cosmological constant problem, structure formation and local observations are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.22221 by Joao Magueijo, Raymond Isichei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sketch of an infinitesimal Otto cycle in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Sketch of an infinitesimal Otto cycle in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.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. Microscopic entropy of de Sitter spacetime and entropic solution to the old cosmological constant problem

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Requiring the RG flow of the de Sitter entropy parameter α to increase monotonically toward the infrared yields a cosmological constant matching the observed value.

  2. Microscopic entropy of de Sitter spacetime and entropic solution to the old cosmological constant problem

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A coupling α is identified with de Sitter entropy via holography and RG flow; imposing monotonic infrared increase on α(k) yields the observed cosmological constant value.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    SinceUis an exact form, ∆Q+W= 0, consistent with (10)

    and ∆µ=δµ 1 ≈ |δµ3|. SinceUis an exact form, ∆Q+W= 0, consistent with (10). For an infinitesimal cycle, ∆Q≈δQ 1∆T /T(withT≈T 1 ≈T 2), so the cycle efficiency satisfies η= W δQ1 =− ∆Q δQ1 ≈ −∆T T ≈ δN T ∂T ∂N = δN T ∂µ ∂S .(13) In contrast with the conventional Otto cycle, the effi- ciency here depends on the shape of the cycle: the de- generate cycle (lea...

  2. [2]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1260 (1995), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1260

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.1260 1995

  3. [3]

    Eling, R

    C. Eling, R. Guedens and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 121301 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.121301 [arXiv:gr-qc/0602001 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    Paranjape, S

    A. Paranjape, S. Sarkar, and T. Padman- abhan, Phys. Rev. D74, 104015 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.104015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.104015 2006

  5. [5]

    Padmanabhan, Mod

    T. Padmanabhan, Mod. Phys. Lett. A25, 1129 (2010), doi:10.1142/S021773231003313X

    work page doi:10.1142/s021773231003313x 2010

  6. [6]

    Padmanabhan, Res

    T. Padmanabhan, Res. Astron. Astrophys.12, 891 (2012), doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/8/004

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/8/004 2012

  7. [7]

    Padmanabhan, Int

    T. Padmanabhan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D23, 1430011 (2014), doi:10.1142/S0218271814300110

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271814300110 2014

  8. [8]

    E. P. Verlinde, JHEP04, 029 (2011), doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029

    doi:10.1007/jhep04(2011)029 2011

  9. [9]

    E. P. Verlinde, SciPost Phys.2, 016 (2017), doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.2.3.016

    doi:10.21468/scipostphys.2.3.016 2017

  10. [10]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 201101 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.201101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.201101 2016

  11. [11]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.2333 1973

  12. [12]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975), doi:10.1007/BF02345020

    doi:10.1007/bf02345020 1975

  13. [13]

    C. V. Johnson, Class. Quant. Grav.31, 205002 (2014) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/20/205002 [arXiv:1404.5982 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    C. V. Johnson, Class. Quant. Grav.37, no.3, 034001 (2020) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab5ba9 [arXiv:1905.09399 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Lilani and M

    N. Lilani and M. R. Visser, [arXiv:2502.03363 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  16. [16]

    S. A. Hayward, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 3147-3162 (1998) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/15/10/017 [arXiv:gr-qc/9710089 6 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [17]

    R. G. Cai and L. M. Cao, Phys. Rev. D75, 064008 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.064008 [arXiv:gr-qc/0611071 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  18. [18]

    Bombelli, J

    L. Bombelli, J. Lee, D. Meyer, and R. D. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.59(1987) 521

    1987

  19. [19]

    R. D. Sorkin,Causal Sets: Discrete Gravity, inLec- tures on Quantum Gravity, edited by A. Gomberoff and D. Marolf, Springer, Boston (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0309009

    arXiv 2005

  20. [20]

    Surya, Living Rev

    S. Surya, Living Rev. Rel.22(2019) 5, arXiv:1903.11544

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Ashtekar and J

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Class. Quant. Grav.21 (2004) R53, arXiv:gr-qc/0404018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  22. [22]

    Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Rel- ativity, Cambridge University Press (2007)

    T. Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Rel- ativity, Cambridge University Press (2007)

    2007

  23. [23]

    Rovelli and F

    C. Rovelli and F. Vidotto,Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity: An Elementary Introduction to Quantum Grav- ity and Spinfoam Theory, Cambridge University Press (2014)

    2014

  24. [24]

    Perez,The Spin Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity, Living Rev

    A. Perez,The Spin Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity, Living Rev. Rel.16(2013) 3, arXiv:1205.2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    Amelino-Camelia, Int

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11(2002) 35, arXiv:gr-qc/0012051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  26. [26]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. Lett.88(2002) 190403, arXiv:hep-th/0112090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  27. [27]

    J. Kowalski-Glikman,Introduction to Doubly Special Rel- ativity, inPlanck Scale Effects in Astrophysics and Cos- mology, Lecture Notes in Physics669, Springer (2005) 131, arXiv:hep-th/0405273

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  28. [28]

    Therefore, if when we change the temperature at entry and exit of a causal diamond, we arenotclaiming that the surface gravity onI + and onI − are different at the same external time

  29. [29]

    [30–33])

    The theories we will develop have a passing resemblance to previous work on preferred frames, with or without violations of energy conservation (e.g. [30–33])

  30. [30]

    J. W. Moffat, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D2, 351-366 (1993)

    1993

  31. [31]

    Albrecht and J

    A. Albrecht and J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D59, 043516 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9811018]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  32. [32]

    Jacobson and D

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D64, 024028 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0007031]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [33]

    D. Blas, O. Pujol` as and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 181302 (2010) [arXiv:0909.3525 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  34. [34]

    We adopt the view that all entropy resides on the null surfaces

    Our argument should not be confused with that in [9], which focuses on the spatial Σ. We adopt the view that all entropy resides on the null surfaces

  35. [35]

    GR- like

    Dropping the isochoric assumption onI ± will be ex- amined in [12]. Note that even within the isochoric as- sumption one could make other choices for the relation between curvature and entropy, e.g. based on the Wald entropy functional, leading to theories considered “GR- like” in this Letter; see [3]

  36. [36]

    See Supplemental Material, Appendix A

  37. [37]

    The extra minus signs account forζ 0 <0 andn 0 <0

  38. [38]

    Jacobson and M

    T. Jacobson and M. R. Visser, SciPost Phys.15, no.1, 023 (2023) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.1.023 [arXiv:2212.10608 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    See Supplemental Material, Appendix B

  40. [40]

    A specie dependentL 2 makes sense because thermody- namics is generally non-linear, andUis a non-linear func- tion ofSjust asR µν is a non-linear function ofT µν

  41. [41]

    See Supplemental Material, Appendix C

  42. [42]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pav´ on, Rept. Prog. Phys.87, no.3, 036901 (2024) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad2527 [arXiv:2402.00819 [astro- ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Y. Zhai, M. de Cesare, C. van de Bruck, E. Di Valentino and E. Wilson-Ewing, [arXiv:2503.15659 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989). doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989

  45. [45]

    Lectures on the Cosmological Constant Problem,

    A. Padilla, “Lectures on the Cosmological Constant Problem,” arXiv:1502.05296 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    Y. J. Ng and H. van Dam, J. Math. Phys.32, 1337 (1991). doi:10.1063/1.529283

    work page doi:10.1063/1.529283 1991

  47. [47]

    Smolin, Phys

    L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. D80, 084003 (2009) [arXiv:0904.4841 [hep-th]]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    Padilla and I

    A. Padilla and I. D. Saltas, Eur. Phys. J. C75, no.11, 561 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3767-0 [arXiv:1409.3573 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 1725- 1736 (2004) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/7/001 [arXiv:gr- qc/0305055 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2004

  50. [50]

    See Supplemental Material, Appendix D

  51. [51]

    Bonder, J

    Y. Bonder, J. E. Herrera and A. M. Ru- biol, Phys. Rev. D107, no.8, 084032 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.084032 [arXiv:2211.06532 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Carrera and D

    M. Carrera and D. Giulini, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 169 (2010) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.169 [arXiv:0810.2712 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [53]

    Ann 98, 566 (1928)

    K.O.Friedrichs, Math. Ann 98, 566 (1928). 7 Appendix A: More on the Otto cycle and Fig.1 Unfortunately, the late-time acceleration requirement W >0 (and henceT 3 > T1) does not fix the sign of ∂T /∂N=∂µ/∂S. For definiteness, in Fig. 1 and in the main text we adopted the positive sign, butW >0 is equally possible (and the calculation proceeds with only obv...

    1928