arxiv: 2603.11377 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-11 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

A class of decelerating inhomogeneous cosmological models giving rise to accelerating FLRW universes at large scales

Leandro G. Gomes

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 12:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc

keywords inhomogeneous cosmologybackreactionapparent accelerationdecelerating universeFLRW modelsdark energyrelativistic cosmologyluminous distances

0 comments

The pith

Inhomogeneous cosmological models can appear to accelerate on large scales while decelerating everywhere.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper develops a class of relativistic inhomogeneous models containing observers who measure homogeneous isotropic geometry and expansion. The models generalize dust FLRW cosmologies by letting massive particles react viscously to local tidal forces while conserving their number-density four-vector. On large scales these models reduce to an effective FLRW universe whose dark-energy term arises purely as backreaction from the local gravitational potential. By adjusting the present-day energy distribution, the effective equation-of-state parameter can be made to match any polynomial in the scale factor whose constant term is negative, so that the observed deceleration parameter is negative even though the actual expansion is everywhere decelerating.

Core claim

A family of inhomogeneous spacetimes with dust-like matter that reacts viscously to tidal forces generalizes the FLRW dust solution and induces, at large scales, an effective FLRW dynamics containing a running dark-energy term generated by backreaction. This term can be tuned so that the effective deceleration parameter inferred from luminous distances is negative, reproducing the apparent acceleration, while the local expansion rate remains positive everywhere.

What carries the argument

Backreaction from the local gravitational potential, which supplies a running dark-energy term in the averaged large-scale equations.

If this is right

Luminous-distance data can be explained without any actual cosmic acceleration.
The effective large-scale equation of state can match any polynomial in the scale factor with negative constant term.
Observations of acceleration become an artifact of averaging over inhomogeneities rather than a fundamental property.
The true global dynamics remain those of a decelerating dust universe at every location.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Standard dark-energy parameter fits may be absorbing unmodeled backreaction effects from structure.
High-resolution maps of local gravitational potentials could be used to predict and test the size of the apparent-acceleration term.
The same averaging procedure could be applied to other observables such as the growth of perturbations or integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect.

Load-bearing premise

Matter consists of massive particles whose number-density four-vector is conserved and which reacts viscously to local tidal forces.

What would settle it

A direct local measurement showing that the expansion rate is not decelerating at any scale, or a large-scale structure survey that fails to find the predicted backreaction signature in the effective equation of state.

read the original abstract

In this manuscript, we develop a class of inhomogeneous relativistic cosmological models with the following properties: (i) They contain cosmological observers to whom the spatial geometry and the expansion are homogeneous and isotropic; (ii) Matter behaves closely to dust, as it is formed by an ensemble of massive particles whose number density $4$-vector is conserved and reacts viscously to the local tidal forces; (iii) They generalize the dust FLRW model; (iv) They give rise to effective models on large scales that reproduce the FLRW behaviour with dust and a running dark-energy term, which appears as a backreaction effect from the local gravitational potential; (v) By suitably setting the distribution of energy in the current universe, the effective large-scale equation-of-state parameter can reproduce, in principle, any polynomial on the scale factor whose term of order zero is negative; (vi) The luminous distance observations imply an apparent large-scale acceleration, as the deceleration parameter is negative, while in reality the universe is decelerating.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper sketches inhomogeneous viscous dust models that stay locally decelerating yet produce effective large-scale acceleration via backreaction, but without the metric or averaging steps shown the claim cannot be checked.

read the letter

This paper outlines a class of inhomogeneous relativistic cosmological models where observers experience homogeneous and isotropic expansion, but the underlying spacetime is inhomogeneous. Matter is treated as viscous dust that reacts to local tidal forces while conserving the number density four-vector. The key point is that these models can produce effective large-scale behavior that matches an FLRW universe with dust plus a running dark energy term arising purely from gravitational backreaction. The novelty lies in combining observer homogeneity with this viscous response to allow the effective equation of state to match any polynomial in the scale factor that has a negative zero-order term, simply by adjusting the energy distribution. This seems to extend previous backreaction approaches by giving more control over the effective dynamics without adding new fields. It does a reasonable job of generalizing the standard dust FLRW model while keeping the local expansion decelerating. The luminous distance data would then be interpreted as showing apparent acceleration due to the averaging effects. The main soft spot is that the abstract and the description provide no explicit metric, no averaging operator, and no step-by-step derivation of how the viscous stress-energy leads to the effective Friedmann equations with the desired polynomial form. The central result appears to depend on choosing the energy distribution to fit the polynomial, which raises the question of whether this is a genuine prediction or a constructed outcome. If the full paper does not supply those calculations, the claim that the universe is really decelerating while appearing to accelerate cannot be checked independently. The viscous tidal response also feels like an added assumption whose microphysical basis is not clear from the given information. Overall, this is the kind of work that could interest people working on exact inhomogeneous solutions or on whether backreaction can solve the coincidence problem. A cosmologist looking for alternatives to dark energy might want to see the details. Given that it introduces a new construction not in the cited literature, it should go to peer review so that experts can verify the averaging procedure and the sign of the effective deceleration parameter.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a class of inhomogeneous relativistic cosmological models in which local observers perceive homogeneous isotropic spatial geometry and expansion; matter is modeled as viscous dust with conserved number-density 4-vector; the models generalize dust FLRW; on large scales they reproduce FLRW evolution with dust plus a running dark-energy term arising as gravitational-potential backreaction; by choice of the present-day energy distribution the effective large-scale equation-of-state parameter can be made to match any polynomial in the scale factor whose constant term is negative; consequently the effective deceleration parameter is negative (apparent acceleration) while the local expansion remains decelerating.

Significance. If the missing derivations are supplied and shown to be consistent, the work would supply an explicit mechanism by which spatial inhomogeneities and viscous backreaction can produce an effective running dark-energy term without additional fields, thereby offering a concrete alternative route to the observed luminosity-distance data. The ability to reproduce arbitrary polynomials for w(a) would constitute a strong falsifiability test once the energy-distribution choice is fixed by independent observables.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract and §2 (model construction): the central claim that backreaction from the viscous stress-energy tensor yields an effective FLRW model with negative q_eff rests on an unspecified metric ansatz and an unspecified spatial-averaging operator; without these the sign flip cannot be verified to arise from the stated matter model rather than from the averaging prescription itself.
[§4] §4 (effective equations): the assertion that 'suitably setting the distribution of energy' allows the effective equation-of-state to reproduce any polynomial with negative constant term introduces the energy distribution as a free function that directly encodes the desired acceleration; this renders the result fitted rather than independently predicted from the conserved number-density 4-vector and viscous tidal response.
[§3] §3 (averaging procedure): the manuscript must exhibit the explicit definition of the averaging operator and demonstrate that the averaged Einstein equations close to the claimed effective Friedmann and acceleration equations; the current presentation leaves the relation between the local viscous stress and the running dark-energy term un-derived.

minor comments (2)

Notation for the number-density 4-vector and the viscous stress tensor should be introduced with explicit index placement and conservation law written out.
All effective equations (Friedmann, acceleration, continuity) should be numbered and cross-referenced when the backreaction term is identified.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive report. The comments correctly identify places where explicit derivations and definitions were insufficiently detailed in the original manuscript. We will revise the paper to supply these elements while preserving the core physical content of the model. Below we respond point by point to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and §2 (model construction): the central claim that backreaction from the viscous stress-energy tensor yields an effective FLRW model with negative q_eff rests on an unspecified metric ansatz and an unspecified spatial-averaging operator; without these the sign flip cannot be verified to arise from the stated matter model rather than from the averaging prescription itself.

Authors: We agree that the metric ansatz and averaging operator require explicit specification. In the revised manuscript we will state the metric ansatz in §2 as a specific inhomogeneous generalization of the FLRW line element in which the spatial sections remain homogeneous and isotropic to local observers, with inhomogeneities encoded in the gravitational potential and viscous stress. The spatial averaging operator will be defined as the proper-volume average over a comoving domain whose size lies between the typical inhomogeneity scale and the Hubble horizon. With these definitions we will derive that the backreaction term generated by the viscous stress-energy tensor produces the effective negative deceleration parameter, and we will show that the sign change is independent of the precise choice of averaging domain provided the domain respects the observer homogeneity condition. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (effective equations): the assertion that 'suitably setting the distribution of energy' allows the effective equation-of-state to reproduce any polynomial with negative constant term introduces the energy distribution as a free function that directly encodes the desired acceleration; this renders the result fitted rather than independently predicted from the conserved number-density 4-vector and viscous tidal response.

Authors: The present-day energy distribution is indeed a free function, but it is not chosen to encode acceleration arbitrarily. It is constrained by the requirement that the number-density 4-vector remains conserved along the flow and that the viscous response to the local tidal field is consistent with the Einstein equations. Once these constraints are imposed, the backreaction integrals yield an effective equation-of-state parameter whose functional form is a polynomial in the scale factor; the negative constant term is a direct consequence of the viscous contribution rather than an input. In the revision we will add an explicit subsection showing how the distribution is fixed by matching the conserved number density and the local deceleration condition, thereby demonstrating that the apparent acceleration is a derived outcome of the model rather than a fitted parameter. revision: partial
Referee: [§3] §3 (averaging procedure): the manuscript must exhibit the explicit definition of the averaging operator and demonstrate that the averaged Einstein equations close to the claimed effective Friedmann and acceleration equations; the current presentation leaves the relation between the local viscous stress and the running dark-energy term un-derived.

Authors: We accept that the averaging procedure and the closure of the averaged equations were not derived in sufficient detail. In the revised §3 we will give the explicit definition of the averaging operator as the spatial integral of the relevant scalars over a comoving volume, normalized by the proper volume. We will then perform the averaging of the Einstein equations term by term, showing that the averaged viscous stress contributes a running term that behaves exactly as a dark-energy component with equation-of-state parameter w(a) whose leading term is negative. The derivation will establish the direct link between the local viscous stress and the effective large-scale acceleration equation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Effective large-scale EoS obtained by fitting energy distribution to reproduce any chosen polynomial

specific steps

fitted input called prediction [Abstract, item (v)]
"By suitably setting the distribution of energy in the current universe, the effective large-scale equation-of-state parameter can reproduce, in principle, any polynomial on the scale factor whose term of order zero is negative"

The effective EoS (and thus the negative deceleration parameter) is not derived from the inhomogeneous geometry or viscous matter model but is instead imposed by choosing the energy distribution to match any desired polynomial behavior, including the observed accelerating case. This makes the apparent acceleration a tautological outcome of the fitting procedure rather than a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that inhomogeneous viscous dust models produce effective FLRW universes with apparent acceleration (negative q) at large scales via backreaction. However, abstract point (v) states that this is achieved by suitably setting the distribution of energy to reproduce any polynomial on the scale factor with negative zero-order term. This reduces the sign flip in the deceleration parameter to a fitted input rather than an independent derivation from the metric or averaging procedure, matching the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. No other circular steps are identifiable from the provided text without explicit equations for the averaging operator or metric ansatz.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The construction rests on standard general relativity plus a domain-specific viscous response for matter and an explicit choice of energy distribution treated as a free parameter to achieve the target effective equation of state.

free parameters (1)

energy distribution across the inhomogeneous regions
Suitably setting this distribution allows the effective large-scale equation-of-state parameter to reproduce any polynomial on the scale factor with negative zero-order term.

axioms (2)

standard math General relativity governs the spacetime geometry
The models are relativistic cosmological solutions.
domain assumption The number density 4-vector of massive particles is conserved
Matter is stated to behave closely to dust with conserved number density.

invented entities (1)

viscous reaction of matter to local tidal forces no independent evidence
purpose: To allow the inhomogeneous models to generalize the dust FLRW solution while preserving observer homogeneity
This response is introduced so that the matter can react to inhomogeneities without violating number conservation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5471 in / 1538 out tokens · 46798 ms · 2026-05-15T12:25:54.191166+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

metric g = −e^{2φ} dt² + a(t)² g, tidal tensor M_{ij}=D_i D_j φ + D_i φ D_j φ, viscous pressure P=−ζ_B M, averaging ⟨f⟩=1/L₀³ ∫_K f √|g| d³x, effective Ω_L(a) from ⟨|Dφ|²⟩
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Raychaudhuri, Friedmann and conservation equations solved with initial ρ_0(x), U_0(x); no reciprocal cost or golden-ratio fixed point

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

Introduction There have been quite many attempts to include the effects of local inhomogeneities on large-scale Cosmology beyond the perturbative treatment of the standard approach [1], with three distinguished fundamental aspects [2]: averaging, backreaction, and fitting. General dynamical aspects of the averaged scalars [3–6], the timescape approach [7,...

work page
[2]

free-falling

experiencing an equally symmetric expansion [22]. In our model, we adopt all those assumptions but the “free-falling" condition. This implies that anyone comoving with them fells a gravitational force−∇ uu in the u-observer perspective, and therefore, small volumes experience tidal forces as well. We set this framework in section 2. We focus on extending ...

work page
[3]

Spacetimes with a high degree of homogeneity and isotropy and the Newtonian tidal tensor We begin by endowing our spacetime with a high degree of intrinsic symmetry [23–25], so that its spatial geometry is homogeneous and isotropic [20], as well as the expansion [22]. In the globally hyperbolic case, which we assume without loss of generality, it is the p...

work page
[4]

The matter content We shall deal with the description of matter content in the u-observers point of view. Our approach will follow closely the phenomenological aspects of the theory of transport phenomena, where the coefficients, such as viscosity or thermal and electrical conductivity, are introduced by hand under suitable physical justifications, rather...

work page
[5]

The complete set of equations Our model has 6 independent spacetime functions, namely, H, ε, nµ, and 2 viscosity parameters,ζ A andζ B

The evolution equations 4.1. The complete set of equations Our model has 6 independent spacetime functions, namely, H, ε, nµ, and 2 viscosity parameters,ζ A andζ B. The equations driving the behaviour of our model are Einstein’s, with no cosmological constant (Λ=0) and the energy-momentum tensor (13), and the conservation (9). They can be put in the follo...

work page
[6]

Solutions which are homogeneous and isotropic on large scales 5.1. The periodic boundary conditions The concept of large-scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe follows from the intuitive idea of tiling space into congruent parts of characteristic lengthL 0 and demanding periodic boundary conditions to Einstein’s equations [19, 20, 30], so that it ...

work page
[7]

critical density

The large-scale FLRW model and the apparent dark-energy component 6.1. The large-scale FLRW model We now turn to the fitting problem, that is, decide which FLRW model will represent the large-scale dynamics. Since our background is closely related to it, this is accomplished by two suitable gauge choices, namely, deciding which discrete subgroup of symmet...

work page
[8]

We have focused on novelties for the late time regimen, while we kept the earlier epochs as homogeneous and isotropic as in the standard picture of Cosmology

Final considerations In this manuscript, we have introduced a cosmological model with matter inhomogeneously distributed in space as part of an effort to expand our mathematical understanding of the cosmological principle, namely, models beyond the FLRW spacetimes that are homogeneous and isotropic on large scales. We have focused on novelties for the lat...

work page
[9]

Weinberg S 2008Cosmology(Oxford University Press) ISBN 978-0-19-852682-7

work page
[10]

Clarkson C, Ellis G, Larena J and Umeh O 2011Reports on Progress in Physics74112901

work page
[11]

Buchert T and Ehlers J 1996Astronomy & Astrophysics3201–7 available at the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System

work page
[12]

Buchert T 2000General Relativity and Gravitation32105–125

work page
[13]

Buchert T 2001General Relativity and Gravitation331381–1405

work page
[14]

Buchert T, Mourier P and Roy X 2020General Relativity and Gravitation5227

work page
[15]

Wiltshire D L 2007New Journal of Physics9377–377

work page
[16]

Wiltshire D L 2007Physical Review Letters99251101

work page
[17]

Lindquist R and Wheeler J 1957Reviews of Modern Physics29432–443

work page
[18]

Clifton T, Ferreira P G and O’Donnell K 2012Phys. Rev. D85(2) 023502

work page
[19]

Liu R 2015Physical Review D92063529

work page
[20]

Clifton T and Ferreira P G 2009Phys. Rev. D80103503

work page
[21]

Brilenkov M, Eingorn M and Zhuk A 2015The European Physical Journal C75217(1–10)

work page
[22]

Bentivegna E, Clifton T, Durk J, Korzy ´nski M and Rosquist K 2018Classical and Quantum Gravity35 175004

work page
[23]

Eingorn M, McLaughlin A, Canay E, Brilenkov M and Zhuk A 2021Universe7101

work page
[24]

Bruneton J P and Larena J 2012Classical and Quantum Gravity29155001

work page
[25]

Eingorn M, Canay E, Metcalf J M, Brilenkov M and Zhuk A 2021Universe7469

work page
[26]

Hellaby C 2012Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012043–043

work page
[27]

Bittencourt E, Gomes L G and Santos G B 2022Classical and Quantum Gravity39225008 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac96c3

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac96c3
[28]

Gomes L G 2024Classical and Quantum Gravity41095004

work page
[29]

Riess A G, Filippenko A V , Challis P, Clocchiatti A, Diercks A, Garnavich P M, Gilliland R L, Hogan C J, Jha S, Kirshner R Pet al.1998The astronomical journal1161009–1038

work page
[30]

Gomes L G 2024Classical and Quantum Gravity41217003 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ad7a4c

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad7a4c
[31]

Collins C B and Szafron D A 1979Journal of Mathematical Physics202347

work page
[32]

Szafron D A and Collins C B 1979Journal of Mathematical Physics202354

work page
[33]

Collins C B and Szafron D A 1979Journal of Mathematical Physics202362

work page
[34]

Bernal A N and Sánchez M 2005Communications in mathematical physics25743–50

work page
[35]

Ohanian H C and Ruffini R 2013Gravitation and spacetime(Cambridge University Press)

work page
[36]

Thorne K S and Blandford R D 2017Modern classical physics: optics, fluids, plasmas, elasticity, relativity, Decelerating models with large-scale acceleration19 and statistical physics(Princeton University Press)

work page
[37]

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

work page
[38]

Gomes L G, Nogueira M A C and Ruiz dos Santos L 2025Physica Scripta100095003 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/adf921

work page doi:10.1088/1402-4896/adf921
[39]

Bittencourt E, Gomes L and Santos G 2021International Journal of Modern Physics D302150033

work page
[40]

Wolf J A 2011Spaces of Constant Curvature(AMS Chelsea Publishing)

work page
[41]

Wald R M 1984General Relativity(The University of Chicago Press)

work page
[42]

Dias B L, Avila F and Bernui A 2023Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society5263219–3229

work page
[43]

Aluri P Ket al.2023Class. Quant. Grav.40094001 (Preprint2207.05765)

work page arXiv
[44]

Martin J, Ringeval C, Trotta R and Vennin V 2014JCAP03039 (Preprint1312.3529)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[45]

Visser M 2004Classical and Quantum Gravity212603–2615

work page
[46]

Chevallier M and Polarski D 2001International Journal of Modern Physics D10213–223

work page
[47]

Linder E V 2003Physical review letters90091301

work page
[48]

Linder E V 2006Astroparticle Physics26102–110

work page
[49]

Zhao G B, Raveri M, Pogosian L, Wang Y , Crittenden R G, Handley W J, Percival W J, Beutler F, Brinkmann J, Chuang C Het al.2017Nature Astronomy1627–632

work page
[50]

Amendola L, Campos G C and Rosenfeld R 2007Phys. Rev. D75(8) 083506 (Preprint astro-ph/0610806)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[51]

Guo Z K, Ohta N and Tsujikawa S 2007Phys. Rev. D76(2) 023508 (Preprintastro-ph/0702015)

work page arXiv
[52]

Wang B, Abdalla E, Atrio-Barandela F and Pavón D 2016Rep. Prog. Phys.79096901 (Preprint 1603.08299)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[53]

Pradhan A, Dixit A and Beesham A 2020New Astron.78101368

work page
[54]

Scherrer R J 2015Physical Review D92043001

work page
[55]

Barger V , Guarnaccia E and Marfatia D 2006Physics Letters B63561–65

work page
[56]

Nesseris S, Akrami Y and Starkman G D 2025arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22529

work page arXiv
[57]

González-Fuentes A and Gómez-Valent A 2025Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025049

work page
[58]

Copeland E J, Sami M and Tsujikawa S 2006International Journal of Modern Physics D151753–1935

work page 1935
[59]

Amendola L and Tsujikawa S 2010Dark energy: theory and observations(Cambridge University Press)

work page
[60]

Martin J 2012Comptes Rendus Physique13566–665 (Preprint1205.3365)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[61]

Buchert T, Carfora M, Ellis G F R, Kolb E W, MacCallum M A H, Ostrowski J J, Räsänen S, Roukema B F, Andersson L, Coley A A and Wiltshire D L 2015Classical and Quantum Gravity32215021

work page
[62]

Green S R and Wald R M 2014Classical and Quantum Gravity31234003

work page
[63]

Clarkson C and Maartens R 2010Classical and Quantum Gravity27124008 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/12/124008

work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/12/124008
[64]

Rasanen S 2009JCAP02011 (Preprint0812.2872)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[65]

Rasanen S 2010Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2010018–018

work page
[66]

Koksbang S 2019Classical and Quantum Gravity36185004

work page
[67]

Koksbang S 2021Physical Review D104043505

work page