Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 142 references

A pre-BBN expansion slower than radiation can hide relic gravitons at aHz, boost them to detectable MHz–THz levels, and still seed large-scale magnetic fields.

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 16:12 UTC pith:REQ2Q22N

load-bearing objection Solid joint-constraint paper with a real internal boundary problem: the slow-stage νmax formula pushes past the paper's own THz cap, so the compatibility plots need re-masking. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.14307 v1 pith:REQ2Q22N submitted 2025-12-16 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Invisible gravitons and large-scale magnetism

Massimo Giovannini This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords relic gravitonstensor-to-scalar ratiomagnetogenesispostinflationary timelinegravitational wave backgroundhypermagnetic fieldsprimordial magnetic fieldscosmic magnetism
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 tries to establish that the unobservable expansion history between the end of inflation and big-bang nucleosynthesis—if it included a stage expanding slower than radiation—can simultaneously explain three observations: the extreme smallness of the tensor-to-scalar ratio at aHz frequencies, a potentially detectable relic graviton background at MHz–THz or audio frequencies, and the existence of seed magnetic fields on megaparsec scales. This is significant because it would resolve a tension: the non-observation of primordial gravitational waves in the CMB does not mean they are absent; they may simply be shifted to unexplored high frequencies. The same timeline that suppresses r_T also boosts the high-frequency graviton energy density and enhances late-time magnetic spectra, linking three seemingly unrelated problems into a single picture. A sympathetic reader would care because this yields concrete, testable predictions across widely separated frequency bands.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a modified postinflationary timeline—specifically a decelerated stage expanding slower than radiation (δ < 1) before the standard radiation epoch—increases the number of e-folds N_ν elapsed since the pivot scale left the horizon, which suppresses the tensor-to-scalar ratio r_T in the aHz band below current limits, even well below 0.03. This same timeline weights the spectral energy density of relic gravitons at higher frequencies, so that h0^2 Ωgw can be as large as 10^-10 to 10^-6 between 0.1 kHz and the THz, in contrast to the concordance paradigm's ~10^-17. The paper also shows that the late-time hypermagnetic power spectra—fixed by the hyperelectric fiel

What carries the argument

The central object is the parameter α(δ) = (δ − 1)/[2(δ + 1)], which relates the expansion rate δ of a postinflationary stage to the shift in the total number of e-folds, N_ν = N_ν + α(δ) ln(H_r/H_ν). This single factor controls both the suppression of r_T at aHz and the amplification of Ωgw at high frequencies. For the gauge sector, the key mechanism is the continuous evolution of the hypercharge gauge coupling (Eqs. 3.7–3.8): during inflation the coupling grows as (−τ/τ1)^{−γ}, then flattens out after inflation; the late-time magnetic spectra are then determined by the hyperelectric mode functions at the end of inflation, not by the inflationary magnetic fields.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the seed field required for galactic magnetism is at least about 10^-11 nG at megaparsec scales (or 10^-16 nG with perfect dynamo action); this threshold is an order-of-magnitude convention, not a measured requirement, so the claimed compatibility windows shift if the true amplification is weaker or the required seed is different.

What would settle it

A future measurement that simultaneously gives r_T < 0.03 at aHz and h0^2 Ωgw < 10^-12 in the MHz–THz band would directly contradict the paper's central claim for the single-stage timeline, since the paper requires a high-frequency boost whenever r_T is suppressed in this way.

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

If this is right

  • If the single-stage slower-than-radiation timeline is correct, the relic graviton background should appear in the MHz–THz band with h0^2 Ωgw between about 10^-10 and 10^-6, while r_T stays below 0.03 at aHz.
  • The same timeline predicts large-scale magnetic fields at Mpc scales of order 10^-16–10^-11 nG, meeting the paper's reference magnetogenesis threshold when dynamo amplification is efficient.
  • A two-stage timeline (faster-then-slower than radiation) puts a spectral maximum in the audio band, where the paper shows the interferometer bounds (h0^2 Ωgw < 10^-9) can be satisfied while producing field strengths as high as ~10^-2 nG.
  • The framework implies a strict anti-correlation: if r_T is found to be below ~0.03 and no high-frequency or audio-band graviton excess is seen, the modified timeline would be contradicted, favoring the concordance radiation-only history.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The magnetogenesis threshold of Eq. (5.13) is a working convention; if the compressional/dynamo chain is less efficient than assumed, the compatibility windows shrink, so the paper's 'successful magnetogenesis' should be read as conditional on that amplification efficiency.
  • The same formulas suggest that any other vector fields with a time-varying coupling would inherit similar spectral distortions; one could look for correlated signatures in, e.g., dark-photon or axion-like-particle backgrounds.
  • If future high-frequency detectors (or a CMB-S4 style r_T measurement) find the predicted anti-correlation, this would indirectly measure the postinflationary equation-of-state parameter δ, effectively turning the unobservable pre-BBN timeline into an observable quantity.
  • The two-stage scenario provides a concrete target for next-generation interferometers: a spectral break at a specific frequency ν_2, whose location encodes the ratio of expansion rates ξ_1.

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 studies postinflationary decelerated stages with expansion rate δ≠1 before BBN. It shows that δ<1 increases the number of e-folds, suppresses r_T at aHz, and can produce high-frequency spikes in h²Ωgw up to 10^-6. It couples this to hypermagnetic field generation from a running gauge coupling; after inflation the coupling flattens and late-time magnetic spectra are computed. The main claims are: (i) single-stage slower-than-radiation timelines can make gravitons invisible at aHz while giving h²Ωgw=10^-10–10^-6 at MHz–THz, consistent with seed fields 10^-16–10^-11 nG; (ii) a two-stage timeline with δ1>1 followed by δ2<1 can place a GW maximum in the audio band and allow fields up to 10^-2 nG. The analysis is analytic with parameter scans in Figs. 4–13.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a concrete, model-independent link between a suppressed tensor-to-scalar ratio at aHz and detectable relic-graviton backgrounds at MHz–THz or audio frequencies, mediated by the postinflationary expansion history. It also connects these gravitational-wave windows to seed magnetic fields on protogalactic scales. The main strengths are the transparent parameter scan, the explicit analytic formulas, and the absence of parameter fitting to the target result. The main weaknesses are the reliance on an order-of-magnitude seed-field threshold and on mode-matching formulas imported from prior work, and an internal inconsistency in the single-stage branch where the plotted parameter space extends beyond the paper's own THz frequency cap and BBN bound.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV A, Eq. (4.10); Figs. 4–9] The stress-test concern is confirmed. Eq. (4.5) asserts an absolute upper bound νmax < O(THz), but for the single-stage branch with δ<1, α(δ)<0, so Eq. (4.10) gives νmax = ξ^α νmax. With r_T=0.03, νmax≈228 MHz and δ=1/2 gives νmax≈2.3×10^13 Hz for logξ=−30, tens of THz above the cap. Figures 4–9 scan to logξ=−30 and do not mask this region. For a steeply rising spectrum (m_T≈1 at δ=1/2), h²Ωgw(νmax)≈10^-5 violates Eq. (4.2) by roughly an order of magnitude for ΔNν=0.2. The claimed MHz–THz compatibility is therefore partly populated by parameter points outside the stated domain of the formulas. Please restrict the parameter space with the cap and the integrated BBN bound, or justify why the cap does not apply.
  2. [§V A, Eq. (5.13); Figs. 5–13] The magnetogenesis target is an adopted convention, not a measured requirement. Eq. (5.13) sets sqrt(PB(νg,τ0)) ≥ 10^-11 nG, relaxed to 10^-16 nG with 'perfect dynamo efficiency'; the paper itself calls it a conventional reference value. All compatibility contours use this threshold, so the central statement that magnetogenesis constraints are satisfied is conditional on compressional amplification and dynamo conversion factors that are not observationally calibrated. The text should either treat PB(νg,τ0) as a free parameter in the conclusions, or present the allowed windows as functions of the required seed field. This is not a circularity charge—the scan is transparent—but it is load-bearing for the summary claim.
  3. [§III E, Eqs. (3.18)–(3.20), (3.31)–(3.32)] The late-time hypermagnetic spectra depend on the mode-matching coefficients Afg, Agg and on the flattening ansatz (3.7)–(3.8) with 0≤ζ≪γ. These are imported from previous work [98,99] without derivation in this paper. The non-obvious result that the late-time hypermagnetic spectrum is fixed by the hyperelectric field at the end of inflation is central to Sec. V. Please state more explicitly what is assumed from prior derivations and, if possible, provide a short validation or a reference with the explicit calculation; otherwise the product depends on formulas the reader cannot verify from the present text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II D] The sentence 'In we illustrate again The maximal excursion...' appears corrupted; missing text or a figure reference seems to have been lost.
  2. [Notation throughout] The barred and unbarred νmax are visually nearly identical in the text and equations. Please use clearly distinct symbols (e.g. ν_max and ν̄_max) and define them in a table.
  3. [Various] Typos: 'hyeprelectric' (Sec. III A), 'spehrical' (Sec. II B), 'intersting' (Sec. VI), and duplicated reference [91]/[118].
  4. [§II D] Eq. (2.19) is referenced before it is introduced; the ordering should be adjusted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the compatibility claim is a parameter scan against an external magnetogenesis threshold, not a self-fulfilling construction.

full rationale

The central claim is not circular. The magnetogenesis requirement Eq. (5.13) is an external order-of-magnitude benchmark; the magnetic power spectra Eqs. (5.15)–(5.16) and the graviton spectra Eqs. (4.8)–(4.17) are computed from the same timeline parameters (δ, ξ, r_T, γ, g_1) and then compared, not fitted, to that benchmark. No parameter is adjusted to reproduce Eq. (5.13). The high-frequency graviton multiplicity Eq. (4.6) is taken from the author's prior work [110,111], but it is a parameter-free published formula with stated assumptions, and the THz cap Eq. (4.5) is rederived in the text from Eqs. (4.1)–(4.4); per the review rules this counts as independent evidence rather than load-bearing circularity. The gauge-coupling evolution Eqs. (3.7)–(3.8) is an explicit ansatz justified by continuity and is not a restatement of the magnetic-field target. The audio-band maximum is not predicted from data but is a chosen scenario (ν2 = ν_au via Eq. (5.19)) and is presented as such. Therefore no 'prediction' is forced by construction. A separate internal-consistency concern exists but is not circular: for δ < 1 Eq. (4.10) gives νmax = ξ^{α(δ)} νmax with α(δ) < 0, so at δ = 0.5 and log ξ = −30 the nominal peak reaches ~27 THz, above the stated THz cap of Eq. (4.5); this affects the validity of the plotted regions but does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its central claim adds no new entities; it combines existing fields (relic gravitons and hypercharge fields) with a set of free parameters (γ, g1, ζ, δ, ξ, r_T) and domain assumptions about the postinflationary timeline and the magnetogenesis threshold.

free parameters (6)
  • γ (inflationary gauge-coupling growth exponent) = 1.5 (fiducial); scanned over 1 < γ ≤ 2
    Controls the slope and amplitude of the hypermagnetic spectrum; values are chosen to satisfy magnetogenesis and subcriticality, not fixed by data.
  • g1 (gauge coupling at end of inflation) = 10^-2 (maximum allowed); scanned
    Sets the amplitude of the magnetic power spectra; required to be perturbative but otherwise a free input.
  • ζ (postinflationary flattening exponent of the gauge coupling) = ζ ≪ γ, effectively 0 in the plots
    Controls how quickly the gauge coupling relaxes after inflation; affects the spectral slope nB and is chosen small.
  • δ (decelerated expansion rate) or q (potential oscillation parameter) = δ = 1/2 or q ≥ 5 in fiducial plots
    Determines the number of e-folds, r_T suppression, and the high-frequency graviton boost; scanned over the physically allowed range.
  • ξ = H_r/H_1 (duration of the postinflationary stage) = 10^-20 to 10^-38 in the plots
    Scanned to produce the desired timeline; its lower bound is set by BBN (H_r ≥ 10^-44 MP).
  • r_T (tensor-to-scalar ratio) = 0.03 fiducial; varied from 10^-6 to 0.03
    Assumed input rather than derived; varying it is part of the parameter exploration.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The gauge coupling evolves as g_y ∝ (-τ)^{-γ} during inflation and flattens continuously afterwards (Eqs. 3.7–3.8).
    Determines the entire late-time hypermagnetic spectrum; no first-principles justification is given beyond continuity and perturbativity.
  • domain assumption Protogalactic magnetogenesis requires sqrt(PB(νg,τ0)) ≥ 10^-11 nG, or ≥ 10^-16 nG with efficient dynamo action (Eq. 5.13).
    An order-of-magnitude benchmark based on compressional and dynamo amplification, not a direct observational measurement.
  • domain assumption The postinflationary universe can be modeled by one or two barotropic decelerated stages with rates δ before radiation dominance.
    Enter at Eqs. (2.11)–(2.15); no direct tests prior to BBN, so this parametrization is assumed.
  • standard math Standard BBN bound H_r ≥ 10^-44 MP and the inflationary slow-roll consistency relations hold.
    Used to bound ξ and to connect r_T, n_T, and the Hubble scale; standard results.
  • standard math Bessel mode-function matching with Wronskian normalization determines the late-time spectra (Eqs. 3.16–3.20).
    Technical derivation inherited from prior work; relies on standard Bessel asymptotics and continuity requirements.
  • domain assumption After reentry, finite conductivity suppresses the electric fields and leaves the magnetic fields frozen (Eqs. 5.7–5.12).
    Standard hydromagnetic evolution in a good conductor; used to evaluate the magnetic power spectrum at late times.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40633 in / 20527 out tokens · 158001 ms · 2026-08-03T16:12:26.644739+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The large-scale limits on the relic signals of gravitational radiation complement the bounds coming from the interferometric detectors (in the audio band) and from the pulsar timing arrays (in the nHz range). Within this inclusive perspective the spectral energy density of the gravitons is sharply suppressed in the aHz region even though the high frequency signal can be comparatively much larger both in the kHz and GHz domains. For there are no direct tests on the expansion rate prior to the formation of the light nuclei, a modified postinflationary timeline affects the total number of $e$-folds and additionally suppresses the tensor to scalar ratio by making the relic signals effectively invisible in the aHz range. The expansion rate prior to nucleosynthesis is further bounded by the evolution of the hypercharge field and the large-scale magnetism also constrains the decelerated expansion rate. The magnetogenesis requirements are compatible with a potentially detectable spectral energy density of the relic gravitons between the MHz and the THz while the tensor to scalar ratio remains suppressed in the aHz region. A maximum of the spectral energy density of the gravitons in the audio domain leads instead to a larger magnetic field when the scale of the gravitational collapse of the protogalaxy (of the order of the Mpc) gets comparable with the Hubble radius before equality. Along a converse viewpoint the results obtained here imply that a long decelerated stage expanding faster than radiation does not affect the high frequency range but reduces the effective number of $e$-folds by so enhancing the tensor to scalar ratio, possibly beyond its observational limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14307 by Massimo Giovannini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The common logarithm of the (comoving) expansion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The parameters of a single postinflationary stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: As in Fig. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The common logarithm of g1 is reported on the horizontal axis while, on the vertical axis, the value γ is il￾lustrated. The magnetogenesis constraints are satisfied when p PB(νg, τ0) > 10−11nG. This demand can also be relaxed to p PB(νg, τ0) > 10−16nG in the presence of an efficient dy￾namo action. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The plane (γ, δ) is illustrated for a fixed dura￾tion of the decelerated stage of expansion prior to radiation (i.e. ξ → 10−20, the same value already assumed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The parameter space is illustrated in the plane de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The parameter space is examined in the plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The plane (ξ1, δ1) is analyzed when a dou￾ble decelerated stage precedes radiation dominance. The various parameters have been fixed to their fiducial val￾ues as illustrated in the plot and the dashed region cor￾responds to the constraints coming from the audio band (i.e. 10−16 < h2 0Ωgw(ν2, τ0) < O(10−9 )). We also re￾quire that h 2 0Ωgw(νmax, τ0) < O(10−6 ); as before the labels on the various contours … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The parameter space is further illustrated in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    (3.31)–(3.32) imply that the phys- ical power spectrum of the hypermagnetic fields follows from Eq

    Prior to reentry (τ≤τ ν ) The results of Eqs. (3.31)–(3.32) imply that the phys- ical power spectrum of the hypermagnetic fields follows from Eq. (3.15) PB(ν, τ) =g 2 y H 4 1 D(γ+ 1/2) (ν/ν max)nB ×(a 1/a)4 FB(τ /τν).(5.4) wheren B = 5− |2γ−1| −2ζ. In the limitτ < τ ν the functionF B(τ /τν) does not oscillate; furthermore, as mentioned after Eqs. (3.31)–(...

  2. [2]

    While there are different ways of accounting of this effect, probably the simplest approximation is given by [99] g′ k =−k 2fk −σ c gk, f ′ k =g k.(5.7) To solve Eq

    After reentry (τ≥τ ν ) Forτ≥τ ν the evolution equations of the mode func- tions are modified by the presence of the conductivity and as soon asτ=O(τ ν) their evolution must incorpo- rate the finite value of the conductivityσ c. While there are different ways of accounting of this effect, probably the simplest approximation is given by [99] g′ k =−k 2fk −σ...

  3. [3]

    Finally, in subsection V C the concurrent constraints are finally scrutinized in an extended phenomenological study

    With this logic in mind the subsection V A focuses on the large-scale magnetism while the subsection V B is devoted to the graviton spectra. Finally, in subsection V C the concurrent constraints are finally scrutinized in an extended phenomenological study. A. Constraints from large-scale magnetism Since the bunch of wavenumbers associated with the protog...

  4. [4]

    Single postinflationary stage of expansion Since radiation becomes dominant atH r, the condition Hr ≥H bbn must always be enforced so that the plasma will be dominated by radiation prior to BBN. This re- quirement complies with the limits coming from CMB physics [4–13] since the initial conditions of the tempera- ture and polarization anisotropies are sen...

  5. [5]

    The most interesting physical situation coincides with the possibil- ity that this maximum falls exactly in the audio band

    Double decelerated stage of expansion If an initial decelerated stage expanding faster than ra- diation38 (i.e.δ 1 >1) is followed by a phase with rate slower than radiation (i.e.δ 2 <1)h 2 0Ωgw(ν, τ0) devel- ops a maximum at intermediate frequencies. The most interesting physical situation coincides with the possibil- ity that this maximum falls exactly ...

  6. [6]

    P. J. E. Peebles and J. T. Yu, Astrophys. J.162815 (1970)

    1970

  7. [7]

    P. J. E. Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1993)

    1993

  8. [8]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D67, 123504 (2003)

    2003

  9. [9]

    D. N. Spergelet al.[WMAP collaboration], Astrophys. J. Suppl.148, 175 (2003)

    2003

  10. [10]

    Kogutet al.[WMAP], Astrophys

    A. Kogutet al.[WMAP], Astrophys. J. Suppl.148, 161 (2003)

    2003

  11. [11]

    D. N. Spergelet al.[WMAP], Astrophys. J. Suppl.170, 377 (2007)

    2007

  12. [12]

    Pageet al.[WMAP], Astrophys

    L. Pageet al.[WMAP], Astrophys. J. Suppl.170, 335 (2007)

    2007

  13. [13]

    Hinshawet al.[WMAP], Astrophys

    G. Hinshawet al.[WMAP], Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 19 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    Akramiet al.[Planck Collaboration], Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.[Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astro- phys.641, A10 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    Aiolaet al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope], JCAP 12, 047 (2020)

    S. Aiolaet al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope], JCAP 12, 047 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck Collaboration], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck Collaboration], Astron. As- trophys.641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    Adeet al.[BICEP and Keck], Phys

    P. Adeet al.[BICEP and Keck], Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151301 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    Calabreseet al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope], 25 [arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]]

    E. Calabreseet al.[Atacama Cosmology Telescope], 25 [arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Cosmology

    S. Weinberg,“Cosmology”, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008)

    2008

  20. [20]

    A. D. Sakharov, Sov. Phys. JETP22, 241 (1966) [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.49, 345 (1965)]

    1966

  21. [21]

    Parker, Phys

    L. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett.21, 562 (1968)

    1968

  22. [22]

    Parker, Phys

    L. Parker, Phys. Rev.183, 1057 (1969)

    1969

  23. [23]

    L. P. Grishchuk, Sov. Phys. JETP40, 409 (1975) [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.67, 825 (1974)]

    1975

  24. [24]

    L. P. Grishchuk, Annals N. Y. Acad. Sci.302, 439 (1977)

    1977

  25. [25]

    L. H. Ford and L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D16, 245 (1977)

    1977

  26. [26]

    B. L. Hu and L. Parker, Phys. Lett. A63, 217 (1977)

    1977

  27. [27]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett.30, 682 (1979) [Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.30, 719 (1979)]

    1979

  28. [28]

    V. A. Rubakov, M. V. Sazhin, and A. V. Veryaskin, Phys. Lett. B115, 189 (1982)

    1982

  29. [29]

    L. F. Abbott and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B244, 541 (1984)

    1984

  30. [30]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett.150B, 339 (1985)

    1985

  31. [31]

    Abbottet al.[LIGO Collaboration], Phys

    B. Abbottet al.[LIGO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 69, 122004 (2004); Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 221101 (2005)

    2004

  32. [32]

    Aasiet al.[LIGO/Virgo Collaboration], Phys

    J. Aasiet al.[LIGO/Virgo Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 231101 (2014); Phys. Rev. D91, 022003 (2015)

    2014

  33. [33]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO/Virgo Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 121101 (2017) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 029901 (2017)]

    2017

  34. [34]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO/Virgo Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D100, 061101(R) (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    Abbottet al.[KAGRA, Virgo and LIGO Scientific], Phys

    R. Abbottet al.[KAGRA, Virgo and LIGO Scientific], Phys. Rev. D104, 022004 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D108, 123508 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    L. Dai, M. Kamionkowski, J. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 041302 (2014)

    2014

  38. [38]

    J. B. Munoz and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D91, 043521 (2015)

    2015

  39. [39]

    J. L. Cook, E. Dimastrogiovanni, D. A. Easson and L. M. Krauss, JCAP04, 047 (2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    Boubekeur and D

    L. Boubekeur and D. H. Lyth, JCAP07, 010 (2005)

    2005

  41. [41]

    Easther, B

    R. Easther, B. Bahr-Kalus, and D. Parkinson, Phys. Rev. D106, L061301 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    N. K. Stein and W. H. Kinney, JCAP03, 027 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    W. J. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D110, 043521 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D58, 083504 (1998)

    1998

  45. [45]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D60, 123511 (1999)

    1999

  46. [46]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Lett. B668, 44 (2008); Class. Quant. Grav.26, 045004 (2009)

    2008

  47. [47]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (BICEP2 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 241101 (2014)

    2014

  48. [50]

    M. P. Ryan and L. C. ShepleyHomogeneous Relativis- tic Cosmologies(Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1975)

    1975

  49. [51]

    Lichnerowicz,Magnetohydrodynamics: waves and shock waves in curved space-time, (Kluwer academic publisher, Dordrecht, 1994)

    A. Lichnerowicz,Magnetohydrodynamics: waves and shock waves in curved space-time, (Kluwer academic publisher, Dordrecht, 1994)

    1994

  50. [52]

    Parker and D

    L. Parker and D. Toms,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime, (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK, 2009)

    2009

  51. [53]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum fields in curved space, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982)

    1982

  52. [54]

    Deser and C

    S. Deser and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Rev. D13, 1592 (1976)

    1976

  53. [55]

    Deser, J

    S. Deser, J. Phys. A15, 1053 (1982)

    1982

  54. [56]

    Giovannini, JCAP04, 003 (2010)

    M. Giovannini, JCAP04, 003 (2010)

    2010

  55. [58]

    La structure et l’evolution de l’Univers

    F. Hoyle, Proc. of Solvay Conference“La structure et l’evolution de l’Univers”, (ed. by R. Stoop, Brussels) p. 59 (1958)

    1958

  56. [59]

    Fermi, Phys

    E. Fermi, Phys. Rev.75, 1169 (1949)

    1949

  57. [60]

    J. M. Girart, M. T. Beltran, Q. Zhang, R. Rao, and R. Estalella Science324, 1408 (2009)

    2009

  58. [61]

    R. Rao, J. M. Girart, S. P. Lai, and D. P. Marrone, Ap. J. Lett.780, L6 (2014)

    2014

  59. [62]

    J. L. Han, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.55, 111 (2017)

    2017

  60. [63]

    Beck, Space Sci

    R. Beck, Space Sci. Rev.99, 243 (2001); Astron. Astro- phys. Rev.24, 4 (2016)

    2001

  61. [64]

    L. M. Widrow, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 775 (2002)

    2002

  62. [65]

    Giovannini, Int

    M. Giovannini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13, 391 (2004)

    2004

  63. [66]

    M. A. Brentjens, A. G. de Bruyn Astron. Astrophys. 441, 1217 (2005)

    2005

  64. [67]

    Carilli and G

    C. Carilli and G. Taylor Ann.Rev.Astron.Astrophys. 40, 319 (2002)

    2002

  65. [68]

    Clarke, P.P

    T.E. Clarke, P.P. Kronberg and H. B¨ ohringer, Astro- phys. J.547, L111 (2001)

    2001

  66. [69]

    Boehringer, G

    H. Boehringer, G. Chon, and P. P. Kronberg, Astron. Astrophys.596, A22 (2016)

    2016

  67. [70]

    P. P. Kronberg, R. Kothes, C. J. Salter and P. Perillat, Astrophys. J.659, 267 (2007)

    2007

  68. [71]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D61, 063004 (2000)

    2000

  69. [72]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D64, 061301 (2001)

    2001

  70. [73]

    Carroll, G

    S. Carroll, G. Field and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D41, 1231 (1990)

    1990

  71. [74]

    W. D. Garretson, G. Field and S. Carroll, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5346 (1992)

    1992

  72. [75]

    Field and S

    G. Field and S. Carroll Phys. Rev. D,62, 103008 (2000)

    2000

  73. [76]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  74. [77]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  75. [78]

    Kim, Phys

    J. Kim, Phys. Rep.150, 1 (1987)

    1987

  76. [79]

    Ratra, Astrophys

    B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett.391, L1 (1992)

    1992

  77. [80]

    Gasperini, M

    M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3796 (1995)

    1995

  78. [81]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D56, 631 (1997)

    1997

  79. [82]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Lett. B659, 661 (2008)

    2008

  80. [83]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D77, 123541 (2008)

    2008

Showing first 80 references.