Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 47 references

The arrow of time is set by the expansion of extra dimensions, this paper argues.

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 09:19 UTC pith:PWUCWHUM

load-bearing objection A transparent but ultimately circular proposal: the arrow of time is loaded into the Postulate of Causality and the inaccessible entropy of causally disconnected patches, so the title's claim of a derived multidimensional arrow doesn't hold. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.14134 v2 pith:PWUCWHUM submitted 2026-01-20 gr-qc hep-th

Multidimensional arrow of time

Sergey G. Rubin This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th MSC 83E1583F05
keywords arrow of timeextra dimensionsWald entropyBekenstein-Hawking entropyde Sitter spacef(R) gravitybrane-worldPast Hypothesis
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.

This paper argues that the reason time flows in one direction is not the entropy of matter but the steady growth of the volume of higher-dimensional space. In a universe with extra dimensions, each causally disconnected region carries its own horizon entropy, and the total entropy climbs exponentially as the bulk expands. The paper shows that this geometric entropy dwarfs all four-dimensional entropy sources, so the arrow of time survives even in a vacuum and even during a local Big Crunch. A single causality postulate then converts that monotonic growth into a direction for time.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the monotonic growth of the (D−1)-dimensional spatial volume of the bulk fixes a global time direction. Using Wald entropy for f(R) gravity in D=4+n de Sitter space, the total entropy S_total^{(D)}(t) scales as N_D(t) ∝ V_{D−1}/H^{D−1} ∝ e^{(D−1)Ht}, so the time coordinate is given by t ∝ ln S_total^{(D)}. Because this geometric entropy is enormous compared with baryon or radiation entropy, the arrow of time is a persistent and stable feature for a four-dimensional observer even in empty space, and it dominates any local fluctuations.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Postulate of Causality — a directed chain of transitions between macro-states in which each step increases entropy — combined with Bekenstein-Hawking-Wald entropy assigned to causally disconnected de Sitter horizon patches. The paper establishes a formal relation between the statistical weight of the multidimensional manifold and the multiplicity of such patches, making total entropy additive: S_total ≈ N_D S_Wald. The exponential growth of N_D with the bulk volume yields the relation t ∝ ln S_total, which converts entropy growth into a time direction.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the total entropy of the universe is the sum of the entropies of all causally disconnected de Sitter patches, so that a single observer's constant horizon entropy can be multiplied by the number of patches; if this additive counting is wrong, the exponential entropy growth and the t ∝ ln S_total relation fail.

What would settle it

A concrete check: compute the entanglement or gravitational entropy of a quantum state that includes many causally disconnected de Sitter patches and see whether it actually scales with the number of patches. If state counting does not multiply across disconnected regions, the central relation S_total ∝ e^{(D−1)Ht} fails; alternatively, finding a cosmological solution of the f(R) equations with growing extra dimensions but non-monotonic total Wald entropy would contradict the claim.

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

If this is right

  • Time's direction is global: it is fixed by the bulk and inherited by any brane observer, so it does not depend on local matter distribution.
  • The arrow persists in the vacuum limit; even a universe with no matter would still display a thermodynamic arrow.
  • A local Big Crunch or heat-death-like equilibrium on the brane cannot reverse the overall arrow, because the bulk entropy reservoir keeps increasing.
  • The Past Hypothesis is effectively explained without fine-tuning: the ratio of present to initial geometric entropy is enormous, e.g. about 10^1055 in the paper's six-dimensional estimate.
  • Higher-dimensional entropy production dominates four-dimensional entropy production by a factor e^{nHt}, making the multidimensional mechanism the leading contributor to time's arrow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the additivity of entropy over causally disconnected patches fails — for instance, if state counting does not multiply across unobservable regions — the exponential growth and t ∝ ln S_total would collapse; the paper does not justify that choice.
  • The mechanism suggests that any theory with exponentially growing extra dimensions will automatically come with a strong arrow of time, so constraints on time's arrow could indirectly constrain higher-dimensional cosmology.
  • A testable extension would be to check whether static or shrinking extra dimensions generically weaken or reverse the thermodynamic arrow in f(R) gravity; the paper's argument predicts they would.
  • The scale separation between bulk entropy and brane entropy could help distinguish this model from 4D-only explanations: an observation that the arrow is slightly less robust in near-empty regions would count against it.

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 proposes that the arrow of time is explained by the exponential growth of the volume of a D-dimensional de Sitter bulk, with entropy identified via the Wald (Noether charge) formula. In the model, a 4D brane observer experiences a persistent time direction even in vacuum because the total geometric entropy S_total^(D) = sum over causally disconnected patches grows as e^{(D-1)Ht}, so that t ∝ ln S_total. The author argues that this global entropy reservoir dominates all 4D entropy sources and fixes the arrow of time. The paper uses f(R) gravity, assumes H_e = H, and applies the 'Postulate of Causality' to convert entropy growth into a temporal direction.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the result would be conceptually striking: a purely geometric, vacuum-stable origin for the arrow of time, independent of matter content and robust against local fluctuations. The manuscript correctly uses standard Wald entropy for f(R) gravity and the exponential volume scaling of de Sitter space; the algebra from Eq. (8) to Eq. (15) is internally consistent. However, the central derivation is not new or self-contained: the arrow is loaded into the Postulate of Causality, and Eq. (16) is simply the inverse of Eq. (15). The paper itself acknowledges this circularity in §2.1 and resolves it by fiat ('entropy does not increase with time, but rather grows along the causal chain of transitions by definition'). Moreover, the exponential entropy growth in Eq. (15) rests on summing over causally disconnected patches, which a brane observer can never access. The McVittie argument in §4 shows only that a coordinate ratio dτ/dt is positive, not that bulk entropy growth is transmitted to the brane. Thus, the paper's central claim is an assertion rather than a derivation; the stress-test concern that Eq. (14) is load-bearing and unsupported is confirmed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1 and §3, Eqs. (15)–(16)] The central relation t ∝ ln S_total^(D) is the logarithmic inverse of the definitional relation S_total^(D) ∝ e^{(D-1)Ht}: substituting (15) into (16) returns t ∝ t. No independent physical content is added. The directionality is instead placed in the Postulate of Causality, which asserts that each transition A ≺ B leads to a successor with larger entropy. The paper states this explicitly: 'entropy does not increase with time, but rather grows along the causal chain of transitions by definition.' This is not a derivation of the arrow of time; it is an axiom that already contains the arrow. The claim in the abstract that the model 'demonstrates' or 'explains' the arrow is therefore not supported by the derivation as written.
  2. [§3, Eq. (14)] Eq. (14) defines the total entropy as the sum of Wald entropies over causally disconnected de Sitter patches: S_total = Σ_i S_Wald,i ≈ N_D · S_Wald. This additivity is load-bearing: it is what converts the constant horizon entropy into the exponentially growing S_total. A brane observer, however, lives inside a single causal patch; the entropy accessible to her is the Noether charge on her own horizon, which the paper itself notes remains nearly constant. Spacelike-separated patches cannot influence her light cone. Without a physical justification for treating causally disconnected regions as parts of one thermodynamic system whose state count multiplies, Eq. (15) — and with it the central mechanism — collapses. The manuscript offers no such justification.
  3. [§4, McVittie argument and brane coupling] The McVittie analysis does not close the gap between global bulk entropy growth and the local arrow. Eq. (21) merely shows that if dt > 0 then dτ > 0 for a metric coefficient; monotonicity of coordinate time is not a physical mechanism. The paper admits that the brane and bulk metrics are not smoothly matched ('at the cost of losing a smooth transition between the two regimes') and does not specify any coupling through which the entropy of inaccessible patches drives local brane processes. The conclusion that 'the established arrow of time is maintained on the brane despite its local stability' is therefore an assertion, not a consequence of the equations presented.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract and introduction use 'demonstrate' and 'explain' for a result that relies on an explicit postulate. Consider rephrasing to 'propose' or 'argue' to reflect the deductive status of the derivation.
  2. [§4, last paragraph] The phrase 'geometric nucleation' at scales much smaller than 10^{-27} cm is introduced without definition or derivation, and the multiverse discussion is not connected to the preceding equations. Either develop it or cut it.
  3. [General] There are several typographical and formatting issues (e.g., 'Cortˆ es' in the references, missing punctuation after Eq. (9), inconsistent use of 'D=4+n' vs. 'D'). A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

The central arrow relation t ∝ ln S_total is the log-inverse of Eq. (15), where S_total was defined as a patch count over an assumed e^{(D-1)Ht} volume; entropy growth is imposed by definition, not derived.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§3, Eqs. (14)-(15)]
    "The total entropy of the system is the sum of the entropies of all such regions. Therefore, even if the entropy within a single horizon remains nearly constant, the total entropy S_total grows proportionally to the number of these regions ... S(D) total(t) = Σ_i S_Wald,i ≈ N_D(t)· f_R(R) A_{D-2}/4 L_D^{D-2} (14) ... S(D) total(t) ∝ N_D(t) ≃ V_{D-1}/H^{D-1} ∝ e^{(D-1)Ht} (15)"

    S_total is not computed from an independent entropy law; it is defined as N_D(t) times a constant Wald entropy per horizon, and N_D(t) is defined as V_{D-1}/H^{D-1}, where V_{D-1} ∝ e^{(D-1)Ht} is read off from the assumed de Sitter metric (11). Thus Eq. (15) merely restates the assumed volume growth as 'entropy growth.' The exponential is built in by the choice of metric and by the additivity convention for causally disconnected patches.

  2. self definitional [§3, Eq. (16)]
    "This formulation provides the thermodynamic justification for the arrow of time, as the temporal coordinate t increases monotonically with the Wald entropy t ∝ ln S(D) total (16) providing the physical basis for the Postulate of Causality."

    Substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (16) gives t ∝ ln[S_0 e^{(D-1)Ht}] = ln S_0 + (D-1)Ht, i.e. an identity. The statement that t increases with entropy is the log-inverse of the entropy function that was already defined to be e^{(D-1)Ht}. The only non-tautological content is the sign choice H > 0 in the metric ansatz; the 'derivation' does not supply an independent arrow.

  3. self definitional [§2.1, Postulate of Causality]
    "Note that entropy does not ”increase with time,” but rather grows along the causal chain of transitions by definition."

    This sentence concedes that the monotonicity at the heart of the paper is put in by hand. The later derivation t ∝ ln S_total re-states this postulate after the states and their entropies have been chosen so that S_total(t) ∝ e^{(D-1)Ht}; it is not an independent consequence of Wald entropy or of the field equations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim reduces by construction. Eq. (15) defines the total entropy as a count of de Sitter patches times a per-horizon Wald entropy that is itself constant, with the patch count N_D(t) ∝ V_{D-1}/H^{D-1} taken from the metric ansatz (11). Eq. (16) then inverts Eq. (15), so t ∝ ln S_total is an identity, not a prediction. The paper explicitly acknowledges the bootstrap and resolves it by fiat: entropy does not increase with time but grows along the causal chain by definition. The later brane/McVittie discussion only transmits the already-assumed coordinate direction; it notes the metrics are not smoothly matched and the local proper time is a monotonic function of the assumed global t, which presupposes the arrow. I did not find a load-bearing self-citation chain: references to the author's earlier work supply the f(R) solution and brane solutions, but the circularity is definitional, not citational. The accessible single-horizon entropy is constant by the paper's own statement, so the exponential growth rests on the additivity assumption for causally disconnected regions; that assumption and H>0 are the inputs, and the arrow is their renaming. Score 8: the result is forced by definition, though the paper contains independent (if uncontroversial) material on Wald entropy and f(R) brane solutions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper's mechanism rests on very few external inputs: the Wald entropy formula and the f(R) de Sitter condition are imported from prior literature, but the direction of time itself is loaded into a new postulate, the exponential entropy growth is a definitional counting choice, and the expanding branch (H>0, H_e=H) is assumed rather than derived. The numerical estimate further depends on choosing D=6 and an inflationary H. Two invented notions (bulk-to-brane entropy flow, geometric nucleation) carry the robustness claims without defined mechanisms or independent evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • Hubble parameter H of the D-dim de Sitter bulk = H ~ 10^14 GeV (~10^38 s^{-1})
    Chosen as the inflation scale for the numerical estimate ξ ~ 10^1055 (Eq. 23). The volume and entropy growth depend exponentially on H; it also sets the horizon radius and Wald entropy scale.
  • Extra-dimension expansion rate H_e = H_e = H (assumed)
    §3: 'we assume H_e = H'. The parallel growth of the extra sphere is an input choice, not derived from the field equations; it is not matched to the brane Hubble rate H_b in (18).
  • Number of extra dimensions n (D = 4 + n) = n = 2 (D = 6)
    §4–5: the dominance ratio e^{nHt} and the ξ estimate depend on D; D=6 is chosen for the numerical comparison with no selection principle given.
  • Gravitational action f(R) = arbitrary function with f_R > 0, f_RR > 0
    §3, Eq. (8): the whole setup is for an unspecified f(R). The de Sitter condition fixes H in terms of f, but the functional form is left open and the brane solutions are borrowed from [41] 'for the same f(R)' without exhibiting that function.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Postulate of Causality: there is a directed causal chain A≺B≺C... and each transition leads to a successor state with larger entropy
    §2.1. This is the paper's own foundational axiom. All time-asymmetry is placed here; the paper says entropy grows along the causal chain by definition. It is assumed, not derived.
  • domain assumption The universe is on the expanding branch of a D-dim de Sitter solution with H > 0
    §3, metric (11) and V_{D−1} ∝ e^{(D−1)Ht}. The field equations (9) are time-reversal symmetric, so the contracting branch is equally a solution; the arrow enters via this choice, not from the dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper Additivity of entropy over causally disconnected regions: S_total = Σ_i S_Wald,i ≈ N_D·S_Wald
    §3, Eqs. (14)–(15). Treats each Hubble patch as an independent subsystem whose state count multiplies. This is the load-bearing counting assumption; the paper gives no justification for treating causally disconnected patches as parts of one statistical system.
  • standard math Wald entropy formula S_Wald = f_R A/(4G_D) applies to the f(R) horizon
    §3, Eq. (12), citing [31–33]. Prior-literature result used as input.
  • domain assumption The brane (18) and the bulk (11) share the same time coordinate and both solve (9) for the same f(R)
    §4. The paper states the two regimes have been studied separately and that a smooth transition is lost; the joint existence of the combined solution is assumed for the brane-observer claim.
  • domain assumption Standard Model fields are confined to the 3-brane (brane-world scenario)
    §4, citing [34]. Needed for the conclusion that an observer sees 3D physics while the bulk expands unobserved.
invented entities (2)
  • Bulk-to-brane 'entropy flow' carrying the arrow to local observers no independent evidence
    purpose: Transmits the global bulk entropy growth to a brane-localized observer so that local processes inherit the time direction.
    §4–5. No local entropy current, coupling, or interaction term is defined; the transmission is asserted. Causally disconnected regions cannot influence the brane, so the mechanism is unspecified.
  • Geometric nucleation of pocket universes at scales much smaller than 10^{-27} cm no independent evidence
    purpose: Ensures the multiverse never reaches equilibrium, so the arrow of time is robust even against a Big Crunch in our pocket universe.
    §5. Introduced without derivation, timescale justification, or observable consequences; it is used to support the robustness claim.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10470 in / 24053 out tokens · 234181 ms · 2026-08-03T09:19:28.816490+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the influence of extra dimensions on the nature of the arrow of time. We demonstrate that the observed arrow of time can be explained by the monotonic growth of the multidimensional manifold's volume. Unlike traditional cosmological approaches based on the entropy of matter or radiation, our model identifies the primary temporal direction with the Bekenstein-Hawking-Wald entropy of the geometric background. By establishing a formal relation between the statistical weight of the multidimensional manifold and the multiplicity of causally disconnected regions, we reveal that time's directionality is driven by dominant entropy production in the higher-dimensional bulk. A key consequence of this approach is that the arrow of time remains a persistent feature for a 4D observer even in the vacuum limit. This global geometric evolution suppresses local statistical fluctuations and ensures a robust and stable entropy flow throughout the manifold.

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

47 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    George F. R. Ellis and Barbara Drossel. Emergence of time.Found. Phys., 50(3):161–190, 2020. arXiv:1911.04772,doi:10.1007/s10701-020-00331-x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Neither Presentism nor Eternalism.Found

    Carlo Rovelli. Neither Presentism nor Eternalism.Found. Phys., 49(12):1325–1335, 2019.arXiv: 1910.02474,doi:10.1007/s10701-019-00312-9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Ayala O˜ na, Darya P

    Roger I. Ayala O˜ na, Darya P. Kislyakova, and Tatyana P. Shestakova. On the Appearance of Time in the Classical Limit of Quantum Gravity.Universe, 9(2):85, 2023.arXiv:2302.12551, doi:10.3390/universe9020085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Donoghue and Gabriel Menezes

    John F. Donoghue and Gabriel Menezes. Quantum causality and the arrows of time and ther- modynamics.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 115:103812, 2020.arXiv:2003.09047,doi:10.1016/j. ppnp.2020.103812. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Christopher Zeeman

    E. Christopher Zeeman. Causality implies the lorentz group.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 5:490–493, 1964. URL:https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1704140

    doi:10.1063/1.1704140 1964

  6. [6]

    Space-Time as a Causal Set.Phys

    Luca Bombelli, Joohan Lee, David Meyer, and Rafael Sorkin. Space-Time as a Causal Set.Phys. Rev. Lett., 59:521–524, 1987.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.521

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.521 1987

  7. [7]

    Reversing the irreversible: from limit cycles to emergent time symmetry.Phys

    Marina Cortˆ es and Lee Smolin. Reversing the irreversible: from limit cycles to emergent time symmetry.Phys. Rev. D, 97(2):026004, 2018.arXiv:1703.09696,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97. 026004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Weyl Curvature Hypothesis in Light of Quantum Backreaction at Cosmologi- cal Singularities or Bounces.Universe, 7(11):424, 2021.arXiv:2110.01104,doi:10.3390/ universe7110424

    Bei-Lok Hu. Weyl Curvature Hypothesis in Light of Quantum Backreaction at Cosmologi- cal Singularities or Bounces.Universe, 7(11):424, 2021.arXiv:2110.01104,doi:10.3390/ universe7110424

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Maharaj, Sarbari Guha, and Rituparno Goswami

    Samarjit Chakraborty, Sunil D. Maharaj, Sarbari Guha, and Rituparno Goswami. Arrow of time and gravitational entropy in collapse.Class. Quant. Grav., 41(12):127003, 2024.arXiv: 2402.04188,doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad494c

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Timothy Clifton, George F. R. Ellis, and Reza Tavakol. A Gravitational Entropy Proposal.Class. Quant. Grav., 30:125009, 2013.arXiv:1303.5612,doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/12/125009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  11. [11]

    Singularities and time-asymmetry

    Roger Penrose. Singularities and time-asymmetry. In S. W. Hawking and W. Israel, editors,Gen- eral Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, chapter 12, pages 581–638. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979

    1979

  12. [12]

    Energetic Causal Sets.Phys

    Marina Cortˆ es and Lee Smolin. Energetic Causal Sets.Phys. Rev. D, 90:044035, Aug 2014. arXiv:1308.2206,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.044035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    The causal set approach to quantum gravity.Living Rev

    Sumati Surya. The causal set approach to quantum gravity.Living Rev. Rel., 22(1):5, 2019. arXiv:1903.11544,doi:10.1007/s41114-019-0023-1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Recovering General Relativity from a Planck scale discrete theory of quantum gravity

    Fay Dowker and Jeremy Butterfield. Recovering General Relativity from a Planck scale discrete theory of quantum gravity. 6 2021.arXiv:2106.01297

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Sorkin and Yasaman K

    Rafael D. Sorkin and Yasaman K. Yazdi. Entanglement Entropy in Causal Set Theory.Class. Quant. Grav., 35(7):074004, 2018.arXiv:1611.10281,doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aab06f

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Harvard University Press, 2003

    David Z Albert.Time and chance. Harvard University Press, 2003

    2003

  17. [17]

    Does time exist in quantum gravity?Einstein Stud., 13:287–295, 2017.arXiv: 0909.3767,doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3210-8_10

    Claus Kiefer. Does time exist in quantum gravity?Einstein Stud., 13:287–295, 2017.arXiv: 0909.3767,doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3210-8_10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    From configuration to dynamics: Emergence of Lorentz signature in classical field theory.Phys

    Shinji Mukohyama and Jean-Philippe Uzan. From configuration to dynamics: Emergence of Lorentz signature in classical field theory.Phys. Rev. D, 87(6):065020, 2013.arXiv:1301.1361, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.065020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Lieb and Jakob Yngvason

    Elliott H. Lieb and Jakob Yngvason. The physics and mathematics of the second law of ther- modynamics.Physics Reports, 310(1):1–96, March 1999. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0370-1573(98)00082-9,doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(98)00082-9

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(98)00082-9 1999

  20. [20]

    George F. R. Ellis. Physics in the real universe: Time and spacetime.Gen. Rel. Grav., 38:1797– 1824, 2006.arXiv:gr-qc/0605049,doi:10.1007/s10714-006-0332-z

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  21. [21]

    Bekenstein

    Jacob D. Bekenstein. Black holes and entropy.Phys. Rev. D, 7:2333–2346, 1973.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.7.2333

    1973

  22. [22]

    S. W. Hawking. Particle Creation by Black Holes.Commun. Math. Phys., 43:199–220, 1975. doi:10.1007/BF01608497

    doi:10.1007/bf01608497 1975

  23. [23]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking. Cosmological Event Horizons, Thermodynamics, and Particle Creation.Phys. Rev. D, 15:2738–2751, 1977.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2738

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.2738 1977

  24. [24]

    How to Count States in Gravity

    Vijay Balasubramanian and Tom Yildirim. How to Count States in Gravity. 6 2025.arXiv: 2506.15767. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Ochiai and K

    H. Ochiai and K. Sato. Dynamical Properties of Euclidian Solutions in a Multidimensional Cos- mological Model.Prog. Theor. Phys., 103:893–905, May 2000.arXiv:arXiv:gr-qc/0007059, doi:10.1143/PTP.103.893

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  26. [26]

    J. A. Nieto, M. P. Ryan, O. Velarde, and C. M. Yee. Duality symmetry in Kaluza-Klein (n + D + d)-dimensional cosmological model.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 19:2131–2148, 2004.arXiv: hep-th/0401145,doi:10.1142/S0217751X04018233

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Popov, and Sergey G

    Yana Lyakhova, Arkady A. Popov, and Sergey G. Rubin. Classical evolution of subspaces.Eur. Phys. J., C78(9):764, 2018.arXiv:1807.06235,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6251-9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Pavluchenko

    Sergey A. Pavluchenko. Exponential cosmological solutions in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with two subspaces: general approach. 4 2021.arXiv:2104.10423

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Anchordoqui and Ignatios Antoniadis

    Luis A. Anchordoqui and Ignatios Antoniadis. Large extra dimensions from higher-dimensional inflation.Phys. Rev. D, 109(10):103508, 2024.arXiv:2310.20282,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109. 103508

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Rubin, Arkadiy Popov, and Polina M

    Sergey G. Rubin, Arkadiy Popov, and Polina M. Petriakova. Gravity with Higher Derivatives in D-Dimensions.Universe, 6(10):187, 2020.arXiv:2011.03848,doi:10.3390/universe6100187

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Robert M. Wald. Black hole entropy is the Noether charge.Phys. Rev. D, 48:3427–3431, 1993. arXiv:gr-qc/9307038,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.R3427

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  32. [32]

    Odintsov

    Shin’ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models.Phys. Rept., 505:59–144, 2011. Wald f(R).arXiv: 1011.0544,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [33]

    Grigory E. Volovik. Thermodynamics and Decay of de Sitter Vacuum.Symmetry, 16(6):763, 2024.doi:10.3390/sym16060763

    doi:10.3390/sym16060763 2024

  34. [34]

    V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov. Do We live inside a domain wall?Phys. Lett., 125B:136– 138, 1983.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)91253-4

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)91253-4 1983

  35. [35]

    Bassett, and Imogen Heard

    Roy Maartens, David Wands, Bruce A. Bassett, and Imogen Heard. Chaotic inflation on the brane. Phys. Rev. D, 62:041301, 2000.arXiv:hep-ph/9912464,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.041301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  36. [36]

    Marzieh Peyravi, Nematollah Riazi, and Francisco S. N. Lobo. Soliton models for thick branes. Eur. Phys. J., C76(5):247, 2016.arXiv:1504.04603,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4094-9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    Cosmology and brane worlds: A Review.Class

    Philippe Brax and Carsten van de Bruck. Cosmology and brane worlds: A Review.Class. Quant. Grav., 20:R201–R232, 2003.arXiv:hep-th/0303095,doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/9/202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  38. [38]

    Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay.Physical Review D, 21(10):3305–3315, May 1980

    Sidney Coleman and Frank De Luccia. Gravitational effects on and of vacuum decay.Physical Review D, 21(10):3305–3315, May 1980. bubbles.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.21.3305 1980

  39. [39]

    V. A. Berezin, V. A. Kuzmin, and I. I. Tkachev. Dynamics of bubbles in general relativity.Phys. Rev. D, 36:2919–2944, 1987.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.36.2919

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.36.2919 1987

  40. [40]

    C. P. Burgess, James M. Cline, Neil R. Constable, and Hassan Firouzjahi. Dynamical stability of six-dimensional warped brane worlds.JHEP, 01:014, 2002.arXiv:hep-th/0112047,doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/01/014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  41. [41]

    Bronnikov, Arkady A

    Kirill A. Bronnikov, Arkady A. Popov, and Sergey G. Rubin. Multi-scale hierarchy from multi- dimensional gravity.Phys. Dark Univ., 42:101378, 2023.arXiv:2307.03005,doi:10.1016/j. dark.2023.101378

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    S. G. Rubin. Formation of asymmetrical two-brane structure and its possible manifestation. Asymmetry, 2(2):0007, 2025. Copyright2025 by the authors. Published by ELSP.doi:10.55092/ asymmetry20250007

    2025

  43. [43]

    Popov and Sergey G

    Arkadiy A. Popov and Sergey G. Rubin. Spontaneous Brane Formation.Symmetry, 17(2):252, 2025.arXiv:2408.14692,doi:10.3390/sym17020252. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Pure geometric thick f(r)-branes: stability and localization of gravity.The European Physical Journal C, 76(6), Jun 2016

    Yuan Zhong and Yu-Xiao Liu. Pure geometric thick f(r)-branes: stability and localization of gravity.The European Physical Journal C, 76(6), Jun 2016. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10. 1140/epjc/s10052-016-4163-0,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4163-0

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4163-0 2016

  45. [45]

    Pure geometric f(R) branes.Phys

    Heng Guo, Cai-Ling Wang, Yong-Tao Lu, Yue Sun, and Lang-Lang Wang. Pure geometric f(R) branes.Phys. Lett. B, 868:139718, 2025.arXiv:2410.11310,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025. 139718

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Can the Arrow of Time be understood from Quantum Cosmology? 10 2009

    Claus Kiefer. Can the Arrow of Time be understood from Quantum Cosmology? 10 2009. arXiv:0910.5836

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    Sergey G. Rubin. Can a particle moves zigzag in time? 3 2022.arXiv:2203.04200. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022