Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Tilted anisotropic universes can't easily explain the quasar dipole: three of four source mechanisms fail current constraints, leaving only the Khronon field unresolved.

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 18:40 UTC pith:A55F5QTF

load-bearing objection A clean, useful no-go paper: three of four tilted Bianchi mechanisms for the quasar dipole are robustly ruled out by ancillary constraints, and only the Khronon case remains plausibly alive, though with a few presentation gaps.

arxiv 2512.03867 v1 pith:A55F5QTF submitted 2025-12-03 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

The Cosmological Dipole in Tilted Anisotropic Universes

Alicia Mart\'in , Constantinos Skordis , Deaglan J. Bartlett , Harry Desmond , Pedro G. Ferreira , Tariq Yasin This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords quasar dipole anomalytilted Bianchi Vcosmological shearspatial curvatureheat flowelectromagnetic fieldsKhronon fieldkinematic dipole
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 targets the quasar dipole anomaly: an apparent ~10^-3 relative velocity between the rest frame of distant quasars and the CMB frame, inferred from source count asymmetries. It asks whether the simplest homogeneous extensions of standard cosmology — tilted, anisotropic Bianchi V universes — can host such a dipole. The authors derive explicit formulas tying the dipole to four candidate sources: spatial curvature, cosmic heat flow, large-scale electromagnetic fields, and a Khronon scalar field. Confronting each formula with current bounds on shear, curvature, temperature gradients, and magnetic fields, they find that three mechanisms are ruled out by many orders of magnitude, while the Khronon case remains plausibly close and requires a more detailed perturbative analysis. The broader point is that a dipole is never an isolated parameter: it is locked to other observables that can test the idea.

Core claim

In a tilted Bianchi V universe, the matter boost β is tied to the background shear σ and to whatever source maintains it, through the off-diagonal Einstein equation. For curvature, the dipole today is β ≈ (2/3)(1/(1+w)) Ω_k^{1/2} σ0/H0; using the standard curvature bound |Ω_k| ≲ 10^-3 and shear bound σ0/H0 ≲ 10^-12 yields β ≲ 10^-13, about ten orders below the observed value. Heat flow demands a temperature gradient along the dipole axis; the required transport coefficient would have to exceed that of any known material by roughly 18 orders of magnitude to hide the gradient from CMB limits. Electromagnetic fields require both E and B components with E = ±B; ordinary conductivity suppresses t

What carries the argument

The central object is the tilted Bianchi V metric, the simplest spatially open, homogeneous but anisotropic space-time with a shear σ and a constant curvature parameter α, in which the matter fluid is boosted by a small velocity β along the anisotropic axis. The identity that carries the argument is the off-diagonal (03) Einstein equation, 2ασ ≃ -κ[T03 - a e^{2b}(ρ+P)β], which forces any nonzero dipole to be accompanied by curvature, shear, and/or a source flux. From this and the shear evolution equation, the paper derives closed-form relations between β and observable companions — curvature, temperature gradient, electromagnetic field strengths, or Khronon density contrast — and then evalua

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the assumption that the extremely tight bounds on shear and spatial curvature measured in the standard isotropic universe apply almost unchanged to the tilted, anisotropic backgrounds, so that the tilt modifies them only at the percent level rather than renormalizing or evading them.

What would settle it

A full computation of the CMB anisotropies in a tilted Bianchi V universe with shear and curvature would show whether the shear bound σ0/H0 ≲ 10^-12 is relaxed or tightened by the tilt; if it relaxed by about ten orders of magnitude, the curvature dipole could match β ~ 10^-3. Alternatively, a measurement of a large-scale temperature gradient along the dipole axis of a few kelvins over gigaparsec scales would test the heat-flow mechanism directly.

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

If this is right

  • The curvature-based dipole is capped at β ~ 10^-13 by combined curvature and shear bounds, roughly ten orders below the claimed observation, unless the boosted matter's equation of state is engineered to approach w = -1, which itself carries additional observational penalties.
  • The heat-flow mechanism would require thermal conductivities many orders of magnitude beyond any known material to produce the dipole without a detectable CMB temperature gradient, so standard-sector heat flow cannot work.
  • Large-scale electromagnetic fields cannot source the dipole in the standard model because the universe's conductivity forces the electric field to vanish; even with dark-sector fields, magnetic-field bounds restrict the dipole to β ~ 10^-8.
  • The Khronon mechanism is the only one that approaches the observed amplitude, but it requires Khronon density perturbations δ_K much larger than the ~10^-5 adiabatic value, which would likely violate shear or isocurvature constraints; a full linear-perturbation calculation is needed to settle it.
  • In every mechanism considered, the dipole is paired with anisotropic shear, so a confirmed quasar dipole would generically predict small but potentially measurable distortions of the CMB and of the expansion history.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the quasar dipole survives further scrutiny, the failure of the simplest homogeneous tilted models points toward mechanisms that do not respect the tight dipole-shear coupling, such as super-horizon perturbations or inhomogeneous void models, or towards early-universe physics that evades the usual inflationary suppression of anisotropy.
  • The same derivation can be repeated for other Bianchi types or for inhomogeneous spherically symmetric models; the dipole-shear relation will change with the background, so some of these alternatives may evade the bounds found here.
  • A decisive next step is a full numerical computation of the CMB temperature and polarization patterns in these tilted backgrounds, which would replace the imported isotropic constraints with self-consistent ones and directly test the weakest assumption.
  • The paper's formulas could be turned into a likelihood analysis: if one marginalizes over the source parameters with priors from the existing bounds, the posterior on β would quantify how strongly the data disfavor each mechanism.

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper examines four tilted-Bianchi mechanisms that could generate a matter–CMB velocity difference β ∼ 10^-3, as suggested by the quasar dipole anomaly: spatial curvature (Bianchi V), heat flow, electromagnetic fields, and a Khronon field. For each mechanism the authors derive, in a small-β expansion, an expression connecting β to another observable (shear and curvature, temperature gradient, electromagnetic field amplitudes, Khronon density perturbation), and then confront these relations with existing CMB and astrophysical constraints. They conclude that the curvature, heat-flow, and electromagnetic routes require ancillary effects excluded by current bounds, while the Khronon case is not definitively settled but may be close to viability. The paper is explicit about its simplifications: the observer's own boost is set aside, and Khronon shear constraints are left for future work.

Significance. If correct, the paper closes a significant class of simple homogeneous tilted-anisotropic explanations of the quasar dipole anomaly: three of four mechanisms are shown to be incompatible with independent observables. The derivations are transparent and mostly careful with order counting; a clear strength is that no parameter is fitted to the dipole — β is expressed in terms of independently constrained quantities, making the no-go statements falsifiable. The paper also appropriately hedges the Khronon case, flagging missing microphysics. The central no-go for curvature and electromagnetic mechanisms is robust to plausible relaxations of the imported CMB bounds.

minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV.C, Eq. (58)] The numerical bound does not follow from Eq. (57). With E0 = B0 and B0 < Ω0 10^-10 h^2, Eq. (57) gives β ≲ (15/h^2) Ω0^2 10^-20 h^4 /(1+w) ≈ 1.5×10^-19 Ω0^2 h^2 /(1+w), not Ω0/(1+w)×10^-8. Please correct the equation and the surrounding text. The qualitative EM conclusion is unaffected (it is strengthened), so this is a local error, but it should be fixed before publication.
  2. [§IV.D] The shear estimate σ ≃ 2δ_K H0 a^-7/2 is asserted without derivation. If δ_K is taken as the present density contrast, its time dependence (δ_K ∝ a^-2 from Eq. (48)) must be specified; the prefactor also needs checking. Because the paper explicitly defers a full Khronon analysis, either remove this quantitative statement or present it as a clearly labelled preliminary estimate with the required steps.
  3. [§IV.A] The transfer of FLRW curvature bounds to tilted Bianchi V is justified only by an order-of-magnitude 'percent level' expectation. A short quantitative argument, or a statement of a conservative bound sufficient even under larger corrections, would improve rigor. The no-go conclusion is robust even to shear limits several orders weaker than the quoted 10^-12, so this does not affect the central claim.
  4. [§I and §V] The paper sets aside the observer's own boost relative to both the matter and CMB frames. This is stated in the introduction, but the Discussion should revisit it explicitly as a limitation when comparing the model β to the observed quasar dipole amplitude.
  5. [Throughout] Typos and minor presentation issues: 'FLR W' should be 'FLRW' (multiple occurrences); 'miscalligned' → 'misaligned'; 'asssume' → 'assume'; 'egregious anomalous' in Section V is redundant. Reference [18] appears to lack a year/volume in the bibliography; please check the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the no-go argument is built from field-equation relations and external observational bounds, not from fitting the dipole.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a model-by-model no-go: for the curvature, heat-flow, and electromagnetic mechanisms, the dipole β is expressed through the off-diagonal Einstein equation and conservation/transport equations as a function of independently constrained quantities (σ0/H0, Ωk, kT', B0/E0), and only then compared with external bounds. β≈10^-3 is adopted as the target amplitude; it is not fitted, and no 'prediction' is constructed from it by definition. For example, Eq. (54) follows from solving Eq. (15) for β, and Eq. (57) follows from the 03 Einstein equation with the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor; neither equation defines its input observable in terms of the output dipole. The Khronon case is explicitly left open ('We leave a more detailed exploration of the role of shear in Khronon cosmologies for later work'), so no forced conclusion is drawn there. The cited constraints from Planck [47], CMB shear/vorticity [48], and magnetic-field shear [55] are published, externally measurable results; even where current co-authors appear among the original authors (e.g. [29,55-57]), they are not used as self-justifying uniqueness theorems or as ansatz-smuggling citations, and the central curvature no-go also relies on [48], which has no current co-author. Minor presentation/arithmetic issues (e.g. Eq. 58) do not amount to circularity. No claim in the paper reduces by construction to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

All four mechanisms rest on the same homogeneous anisotropic framework and on the Einstein field equations. The main load-bearing external inputs are the CMB shear bound, the Planck curvature bound, and the assumed linearized small-β approximation. No parameters are fitted to the dipole; instead, the dipole is expressed in terms of quantities with independent observational limits.

free parameters (6)
  • w (equation of state of tilted matter) = not fitted; w -> -1 explored
    Dipole amplitude scales as 1/(1+w) in eqs. (19), (33), (50); tuning w near -1 is the main lever and is constrained by distance measurements (§IV.A,D).
  • sigma0/H0 (normalized shear today) = bounded below few x 10^-12
    Integration constant C of the shear solutions (eqs. 21, 29, 35, 53); its smallness is what kills the dipole in the curvature and EM cases.
  • Omega_k (spatial curvature) = |Omega_k| ≲ few x 10^-3
    Curvature parameter in the Bianchi V metric (eq. 1); enters the dipole via eq. (19) and is taken from Planck/BAO bounds.
  • B0, E0 (large-scale electromagnetic field amplitudes) = B0 < Ω0 x 10^-10 h^2 (paper's bound); E0 = B0
    Field amplitudes in §III.C; their saturation is used to estimate the EM dipole in eq. (58).
  • k and ΔT/ΔL (heat conductivity and temperature gradient) = required k ~ 10^18 x 115 W cm^-1 K^-1 to reach observed β
    Transport coefficients in the Israel-Stewart heat-flow model (§III.B, IV.B); their required extreme size is the obstruction.
  • delta_K (Khronon density perturbation amplitude) = assumed ~10^-5 for adiabatic modes
    Determines the dipole via eqs. (50) and (59); also controls shear via σ ~ 2δK H0 a^-7/2 in §IV.D.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Einstein field equations applied to the Bianchi V metric (eq. 1)
    Basis of the entire formalism in §II; no modified gravity is assumed.
  • domain assumption Perfect fluid with P = wρ and small tilt β ≪ 1, so O(β^2) terms are dropped except where they source shear
    Used throughout §II–III; appropriate for β~10^-3 but still an approximation.
  • domain assumption CMB rest frame coincides with the Bianchi background frame, and the observer's own boost is ignored
    Stated in §I; the paper notes that relaxing this only makes matching observations harder.
  • domain assumption Existing FLRW/Planck constraints on Ωk and CMB shear bounds apply to tilted anisotropic models with percent-level corrections
    §IV.A imports |Ωk|≲few×10^-3 and σ0/H0<few×10^-12; the paper argues self-consistency but does not recompute them in the tilted model.
  • domain assumption Israel-Stewart heat transport in the Eckart frame, with heat flux qμ linearized and viscous stresses set to zero
    Needed to derive eq. (27) relating the dipole to a temperature gradient (§III.B).
  • domain assumption Khronon action F(X)=μ²(X−1)² with late-universe dust approximation; adiabatic initial conditions with δK ∼ δM
    The cubic solution and dipole relation in §III.D–IV.D depend on this choice; isocurvature is considered separately.
  • domain assumption Electromagnetic field configuration with E3=B3=0, E=±B, and no currents; B=B0/a³
    Derived from the metric ansatz and Maxwell equations in §III.C, but constrains the field configuration.
invented entities (1)
  • Khronon scalar field (from prior literature) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a preferred foliation that generates the tilt and dipole in §III.D
    Not invented by this paper, but used as the only mechanism that approaches the observed dipole; its density perturbation δK is not independently measurable beyond its gravitational effects, and the paper provides no new falsifiable prediction for it.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15484 in / 16574 out tokens · 144284 ms · 2026-08-03T18:40:48.929572+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

There is tentative evidence for a mismatch between the rest frames of matter and the cosmic microwave background, the "quasar dipole anomaly". We consider such a dipole in tilted anisotropic models, for a range of scenarios and sources: spatial curvature, cosmic heat flux, large scale electromagnetic fields and a Khronon field. Crucially, we determine the ancillary effects on other cosmological observables in each of these models and we show that, apart from the case of the Khronon field, it is unlikely that one can obtain a dipole with the amplitude that is being observed unless one considers additional exotica.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Ellis and Baldwin test of the Cosmic Dipole: Exploring the impact of multiple flux density cuts

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A multi-bin simultaneous dipole fitting method yields higher Bayes factors than single flux-cut approaches for non-power-law luminosity functions in cosmic dipole measurements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    dark gauge

    Another way of seeing this is that one can foliate the hyperbolic space in terms of flat 2-surfaces,R 2, leaving the additional dimension to soak up the curvature. While we could consider superpositions of these var- ious effects – curvature and the additional sources of anisotropy – we will now look at each one in turn. A. Curvature Consider a Bianchi V ...

    2018

  2. [2]

    Dodelson and F

    S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt,Modern Cosmology(Else- vier Science, 2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    G. F. R. Ellis and J. E. Baldwin, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society206, 377 (1984), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/206/2/377/18187025/mnras206-0377.pdf

    1984

  4. [4]

    N. J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mo- hayaee, S. Sarkar, and J. Colin, Astrophys. J. Lett.908, L51 (2021), arXiv:2009.14826 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    N. J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mo- hayaee, and S. Sarkar, Astrophys. J. Lett.937, L31 (2022), arXiv:2206.05624 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Blake and J

    C. Blake and J. Wall, Nature416, 150 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0203385 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    Secrest, S

    N. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, and S. Sarkar, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2505.23526 (2025), arXiv:2505.23526 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    L. Dam, G. F. Lewis, and B. J. Brewer, MNRAS525, 231 (2023), arXiv:2212.07733 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    B¨ ohme, D

    L. B¨ ohme, D. J. Schwarz, P. Tiwari, M. Pashapour- Ahmadabadi, B. Bahr-Kalus, M. Bilicki, C. L. Hale, C. S. Heneka, and T. M. Siewert, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 201001 (2025), arXiv:2509.16732 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Abghari, E

    A. Abghari, E. F. Bunn, L. T. Hergt, B. Li, D. Scott, R. M. Sullivan, and D. Wei, JCAP11, 067, arXiv:2405.09762 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    von Hausegger, N

    S. von Hausegger, N. Secrest, H. Desmond, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, and S. Sarkar, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.23769 (2025), arXiv:2510.23769 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [13]

    von Hausegger and C

    S. von Hausegger and C. Dalang, Phys. Rev. D111, 123547 (2025), arXiv:2412.13162 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [14]

    von Hausegger, MNRAS535, L49 (2024), arXiv:2404.07929 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. von Hausegger, MNRAS535, L49 (2024), arXiv:2404.07929 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [15]

    O. T. Oayda, V. Mittal, and G. F. Lewis, MNRAS537, 1 (2025), arXiv:2412.12600 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [16]

    Mittal, O

    V. Mittal, O. T. Oayda, and G. F. Lewis, The Open Journal of Astrophysics8, 143 (2025), arXiv:2509.20651 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [17]

    Land-Strykowski, G

    M. Land-Strykowski, G. F. Lewis, and T. Murphy, MN- RAS543, 3229 (2025), arXiv:2509.18689 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [18]

    Bashir, P

    M. Bashir, P. Chingangbam, and S. Appleby, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.00822 (2025), arXiv:2511.00822 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [19]

    Krishnan, R

    C. Krishnan, R. Mondol, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, JCAP07, 020, arXiv:2209.14918 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [20]

    Constantin, T

    A. Constantin, T. R. Harvey, S. von Hausegger, and A. Lukas, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 245015 (2023), arXiv:2212.03234 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [21]

    Kashyap, N

    G. Kashyap, N. K. Singh, and P. Jain, Phys. Rev. D112, 083524 (2025), arXiv:2504.14190 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [22]

    Dom` enech, R

    G. Dom` enech, R. Mohayaee, S. P. Patil, and S. Sarkar, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2022, 019 (2022), arXiv:2207.01569 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [23]

    M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D44, 3737 (1991)

    1991

  23. [24]

    Langlois and T

    D. Langlois and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D53, 2908 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9507094 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  24. [25]

    J. D. Wagenveld, S. von Hausegger, H.-R. Kl¨ ockner, and D. J. Schwarz, Astron. Astrophys.697, A112 (2025), arXiv:2503.02470 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [26]

    G. F. R. Ellis and M. A. H. MacCallum, Commun. Math. Phys.12, 108 (1969)

    1969

  26. [27]

    A. R. King and G. F. R. Ellis, Commun. Math. Phys.31, 209 (1973)

    1973

  27. [28]

    Ellis, R

    G. Ellis, R. Maartens, and M. MacCallum,Relativistic Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  28. [29]

    J. D. Barrow, R. Juszkiewicz, and D. H. Sonoda, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.213, 917 (1985)

    1985

  29. [30]

    E. F. Bunn, P. Ferreira, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 2883 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605123

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  30. [31]

    Eckart, Phys

    C. Eckart, Phys. Rev.58, 919 (1940)

    1940

  31. [32]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. . Lifshitz,Fluid Mechanics, 2nd ed., Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 6 (Pergamon, 1987)

    1987

  32. [33]

    W. A. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Annals Phys.151, 466 (1983)

    1983

  33. [34]

    J. M. Stewart, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences357, 59 (1977)

    1977

  34. [35]

    Israel and J

    W. Israel and J. M. Stewart, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A365, 43 (1979)

    1979

  35. [36]

    Israel and J

    W. Israel and J. M. Stewart, Annals Phys.118, 341 (1979)

    1979

  36. [37]

    Andersson and G

    N. Andersson and G. L. Comer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A466, 1373 (2010), arXiv:0908.1707 [physics.flu-dyn]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  37. [38]

    C. S. Lopez-Monsalvo and N. Andersson, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A467, 738 (2010), arXiv:1006.2978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [39]

    Andersson and G

    N. Andersson and G. L. Comer, Living Rev. Rel.10, 1 11 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0605010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  39. [40]

    M. Kopp, C. Skordis, and D. B. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 94, 043512 (2016), arXiv:1605.00649 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [41]

    K. A. Dunn and B. O. J. Tupper, ApJ235, 307 (1980)

    1980

  41. [42]

    Lorenz, Physics Letters A79, 19 (1980)

    D. Lorenz, Physics Letters A79, 19 (1980)

    1980

  42. [43]

    Lorenz, General Relativity and Gravitation13, 795 (1981)

    D. Lorenz, General Relativity and Gravitation13, 795 (1981)

    1981

  43. [44]

    Blanchet and C

    L. Blanchet and C. Skordis, JCAP11, 040, arXiv:2404.06584 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [45]

    R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 011301 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402316

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  45. [46]

    Arkani-Hamed, H.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, H.-C. Cheng, M. A. Luty, and S. Mukohyama, JHEP05, 074, arXiv:hep-th/0312099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [47]

    Furukawa, S

    T. Furukawa, S. Yokoyama, K. Ichiki, N. Sugiyama, and S. Mukohyama, JCAP05, 007, arXiv:1001.4634 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [48]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [49]

    Saadeh, S

    D. Saadeh, S. M. Feeney, A. Pontzen, H. V. Peiris, and J. D. McEwen, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 131302 (2016), arXiv:1605.07178 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  49. [50]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.(DES), Astrophys. J. Lett.973, L14 (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [51]

    Abdul Karimet al., Phys

    M. Abdul Karimet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [52]

    C. Y. Ho, R. W. Powell, and P. E. Liley, Journal of Phys- ical and Chemical Reference Data1, 279 (1972)

    1972

  52. [53]

    D. J. Fixsen, E. S. Cheng, J. M. Gales, J. C. Mather, R. A. Shafer, and E. L. Wright, ApJ473, 576 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605054 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  53. [54]

    Ackerman, M

    L. Ackerman, M. R. Buckley, S. M. Carroll, and M. Kamionkowski, Physical Review D79, 10.1103/phys- revd.79.023519 (2009)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2009

  54. [55]

    Caprini and P

    C. Caprini and P. G. Ferreira, JCAP02, 006, arXiv:hep- ph/0310066

    arXiv

  55. [56]

    J. D. Barrow, P. G. Ferreira, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3610 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9701063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  56. [57]

    Bucher, J

    M. Bucher, J. Dunkley, P. G. Ferreira, K. Moodley, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 081301 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0401417

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  57. [58]

    Dunkley, M

    J. Dunkley, M. Bucher, P. G. Ferreira, K. Moodley, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 261303 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507473

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  58. [59]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [60]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D28, 2118 (1983)

    1983

  60. [61]

    Lemaitre, Annales Soc

    G. Lemaitre, Annales Soc. Sci. Bruxelles A53, 51 (1933)

    1933

  61. [62]

    R. C. Tolman, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.20, 169 (1934)

    1934

  62. [63]

    Bondi, Mon

    H. Bondi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.107, 410 (1947)

    1947