Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Viscosity in Isotropic Cosmological Backgrounds in General Relativity and Starobinsky Gravity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that shear viscosity does not enter the background dynamics of isotropic, comoving cosmological spacetimes in either General Relativity or Starobinsky gravity.

desk verdict The no-go on shear viscosity in isotropic backgrounds is clean; the attack on a published paper is load-bearing and not actually shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05180 v2 pith:52DA32D3 submitted 2025-06-05 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Eliseo Pavone , Luigi Tedesco This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th PACS 04.20.-q04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords shearviscosityisotropiccosmologyStarobinskygravityf(R)luminositydistancecontinuityequationbulkGeneralizedSecondLaw
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to prove a no-go statement: in isotropic cosmological spacetimes, shear viscosity cannot affect the background expansion as long as the fluid is comoving with the geometry. The argument starts from a general isotropic metric that is not assumed homogeneous and shows that the shear tensor of a comoving geodesic observer vanishes identically, so the term $-2\eta\sigma^2$ drops out of the projected continuity equation. Because the Hubble parameter and null geodesics are then independent of $\eta$, the electromagnetic luminosity distance is unaffected by shear viscosity in both General Relativity and Starobinsky $f(R)$ gravity. The paper applies this result to re-examine recent parameter constraints that claimed a shear-viscous modification of the Hubble law, and shows those constraints can only be interpreted as an effective bulk viscosity, with a sign that conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics in comoving volumes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the shear tensor of the fluid's four-velocity field, $\sigma_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_{(\mu}u_{\nu)}-u_{(\mu}u^\alpha\nabla_\alpha u_{\nu)}-\tfrac13 h_{\mu\nu}\nabla_\lambda u^\lambda$, evaluated for the isotropic metric of Eq. (2.9). For a comoving observer, $\sigma_{ij}$ vanishes because the connection components are isotropic, $\Gamma^i_{j0}=-H(t,r)\delta^i_j$, so the anisotropic-stress term $-2\eta\sigma^2$ in the projected divergence disappears. Conformal rescaling preserves this behavior because conformal transformations are angle-preserving and volume-changing, and the transformed shear is proportional to the original one, so if it vanishes in one frame it vanishes in the other.

What would settle it

Exhibit an exact solution of Einstein or Starobinsky equations with an isotropic, comoving, shear-viscous fluid on the metric of Eq. (2.9) in which the projected continuity equation contains a nonzero $-2\eta\sigma^2$ term, or in which $H(z)$ changes when $\eta$ is varied at fixed matter content; alternatively, measure a change in $d_L^{EM}(z)$ that can only be attributed to shear viscosity in a comoving FLRW background.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $u_\mu\nabla_\nu T^{\mu\nu}$, the energy continuity equation obtained by projecting the divergence of the stress-energy tensor onto the fluid four-velocity, receives a shear-viscosity term only through $-2\eta\sigma^2$, where $\sigma^2=\sigma_{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\mu\nu}$. For the isotropic but not necessarily homogeneous metric $ds^2=dt^2-e^{2\lambda(t,r)}(A(r)^2dr^2+B(r)^2d\Omega_2^2)$ with a comoving four-velocity $u^\mu=(1,0,0,0)$, the Christoffel symbols give $\Gamma^i_{j0}=-H(t,r)\delta^i_j$ and $\Gamma^\lambda_{0\lambda}=3H(t,r)$, which make $\sigma_{ij}=0$ and hence $\sigma^2=0$. The result is theory-independent: it holds in General Relativity and in Starobinsky gravity, and survives conformal rescaling to the Einstein frame, where the additional terms couple to the conformal scalar field but not to the shear tensor. Consequently the background expansion history and the electromagnetic luminosity distance $d_L^{EM}=(1+z)\int_0^z dz'/H(z')$ are independent of shear viscosity for comoving fluids.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the fluid being comoving with a geodesic observer, $u^\mu=(1,0,0,0)$, in the isotropic background of Eq. (2.9); if the dark-matter fluid had a nonzero peculiar velocity relative to the cosmic rest frame, the shear tensor of the velocity field would not vanish and shear viscosity could enter the effective background equations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Hubble parameter $H(z)$ and the electromagnetic luminosity distance $d_L^{EM}(z)$ in comoving isotropic backgrounds are identical to their inviscid values in both General Relativity and Starobinsky gravity; shear viscosity changes neither.
  • The continuity equation $\dot\rho_{vdm}+3H(\rho_{vdm}+2\eta H)=0$ used in the parameter estimation the paper examines is inconsistent with covariant conservation of the stress-energy tensor; at best it describes bulk viscosity under the formal identification $2\eta\to -3\zeta$.
  • Interpreting the fitted positive shear viscosity as bulk viscosity gives $\zeta<0$, which makes $T\dot S/V=-6\eta H^2\le0$ in a comoving volume and violates the second law of thermodynamics.
  • The Generalized Second Law is always satisfied for positive $H$ in the GR case and perturbatively in Starobinsky gravity, so GSL arguments cannot rule out or validate these viscous modifications; matter entropy in a Hubble volume decreases even for perfect dust during accelerated expansion.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the comoving assumption is relaxed, the shear-tensor argument fails at the level of the velocity field: a tilted FLRW model with a small peculiar velocity should produce a nonzero $\sigma^2$ and could re-introduce $\eta$ into the effective expansion at some order; working out that order is a direct testable extension.
  • Because background distance measures only the combination that mimics bulk viscosity, future analyses could impose the physical prior $\zeta\ge0$ and re-fit the same supernova, cosmic chronometer, and gamma-ray-burst data; a shift or tension in the best fit would reveal whether the reported effect is an artifact of the sign inconsistency.
  • The same geometric reasoning likely extends to any metric theory whose matter sector is covariantly conserved and whose cosmological background is isotropic and comoving, so claims of shear-viscosity-modified background dynamics in such theories face the same objection unless the fluid is tilted or the matter sector is non-conserved.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper argues that shear viscosity cannot affect the background dynamics of isotropic cosmological spacetimes when the fluid is comoving. The central derivation in Section 2 uses the isotropic, synchronous-gauge metric (2.9); for a comoving observer u^μ=(1,0,0,0), the shear tensor vanishes identically (Eqs. 2.10–2.11), so the term −2ησ² drops out of the projected continuity equation (2.8). The paper then analyzes conformal transformations in Section 3, showing that shear terms remain absent in the Einstein frame when they are absent in the Jordan frame, for both geodesic-fluid choices. The results are applied to critique a recent paper [16], which had included a shear-viscosity term in the FLRW continuity equation; the authors show that Eq. (1.1) can only be reproduced as an effective bulk viscosity with the formal identification 2η→−3ζ, and they discuss second-law and generalized-second-law implications in GR and Starobinsky gravity. The paper also asserts, in Section 4.4, that some Friedmann solutions of [16] are inconsistent with the Friedmann equations.

Significance. If the central result stands, it is a clean, parameter-free geometric statement: in isotropic backgrounds with a comoving fluid, shear viscosity is invisible to the background expansion and hence to the electromagnetic luminosity distance, in both GR and f(R) gravity. This is a useful clarification that exposes an inconsistency in a recent published parameter-estimation analysis. The conformal-frame discussion is standard but carefully executed, and the paper correctly acknowledges that shear viscosity can still affect perturbations, e.g., tensor modes. The thermodynamic section is more heuristic but does identify a real interpretive problem with treating the [16] equation as a physical viscous correction. The main weakness is that one of the paper's strongest claims against [16] — the alleged inconsistency of Eqs. (42), (50), and (51) with the Friedmann equations — is asserted but not demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.4 (after Eq. 4.19)] The statement that Eqs. (42), (50), and (51) of [16] are "not consistent with the Friedmann equations" is load-bearing for the conclusion that the parameter estimation of [16] is unreliable, but it is made without reproducing those equations or showing the step-by-step comparison. Please display the relevant expressions from [16], state the effective continuity equation they imply, and demonstrate the mismatch explicitly; alternatively, remove this assertion and rely on the independent continuity-equation argument of Section 2, which already invalidates Eq. (1.1).
  2. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 4.2] The sign convention for [16]'s best-fit viscosity is used inconsistently. The abstract and Section 2 state that the fit yields η>0, which under the identification 2η→−3ζ implies a negative bulk viscosity, but Section 4.2 quotes η_v ≈ −5.7×10^{-6} and η_v ≈ −5.8×10^{-6}, which would correspond to negative shear viscosity and positive ζ_v, while the figure captions use negative ζ_v. Since the second-law argument in Eq. (4.2) depends directly on the sign of η (T\dot S/V = −6ηH²), please specify [16]'s parameter convention, make the mapping 2η_v→−3ζ_v unambiguous, and restate the thermodynamic conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (3.20)–(3.23)] The symbol H is used for the Hubble parameter without specifying whether it is the Jordan-frame or Einstein-frame quantity; since the two frames differ by ψ-dependent terms, please define H explicitly in each equation.
  2. [Sec. 4.4, Eq. (4.19)] The displayed expression for H^(1) contains an undefined symbol q and appears to have unbalanced brackets around the term "−12ζ_v Ω_Λ0 q"; please correct the formula, as this equation is used for the comparison with [16].
  3. [Sec. 2, footnote 2] The footnote about "a trivial heat flux" in GR appears garbled; presumably it should refer to a non-trivial heat flux or to the condition q_1 ≠ 0 that forces separability in the α=0 case.
  4. [Sec. 2, metric (2.9)] The paper calls (2.9) a general class of isotropic but non-homogeneous metrics, but it is a restricted subclass of spherically symmetric metrics in which the areal radius factorizes as e^{λ(t,r)}B(r). More general spherically symmetric metrics (e.g., LTB models with a non-factorized areal radius) can have nonzero shear for a comoving fluid. Please clarify the scope of the no-go theorem: it covers the class (2.9), which includes FLRW, rather than all spherically symmetric geometries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central no-go result is derived from the isotropic metric and the comoving condition, not from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained. The shear tensor vanishes because, for the isotropic synchronous metric (2.9) with a comoving geodesic four-velocity u^μ = (1,0,0,0), Eq. (2.11) gives σ_ij = 0, so σ² = 0; the projected continuity equation (2.8) then reduces to Eq. (2.15) with no shear-viscosity term. No parameter is fitted to data and later renamed as a prediction, and the concluding independence of H and d_L^EM from shear viscosity is a direct consequence of this derivation, not an input. Citations to the authors' prior work [17,18,19] provide background identities (for example, the luminosity-distance formula and Bianchi-identity conservation) and motivation, but the decisive equation (2.15) is re-derived from first principles in Section 2, so these self-citations are not load-bearing. The formal identification 2η → −3ζ in Section 2 is an algebraic observation about the structure of [16]'s Eq. (1.1), not a constructed equivalence within the present derivation. One flagged gap is a correctness risk rather than circularity: in Section 4.4, after Eq. (4.19), the authors assert that eqs. (42), (50), and (51) of [16] are "not consistent with the Friedmann equations" without displaying the comparison step by step; this omitted proof weakens that specific criticism but does not affect the independence of the paper's own geometrical result. The analysis is also explicitly limited to comoving fluids in isotropic backgrounds, and the authors acknowledge that perturbed or tensor-mode settings may still be sensitive to shear viscosity, which further delimits the claim rather than hiding an assumption.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. Its central derivation is parameter-free, with all assumptions being standard symmetry, fluid-dynamics, and thermodynamic premises. The numbers used in figures (α, ζv, H0, Ωvdm) come from the fitted values of the criticized paper [16] and from the literature, not from new fits in this work.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The background metric is isotropic and of the form (2.9), and the fluid is comoving with a geodesic 4-velocity u^μ = (1,0,0,0).
    This is the structural premise of the no-go result, declared in Section 2 around Eq. (2.9) and the paragraph after it. It makes the shear tensor vanish identically.
  • domain assumption The dissipative fluid is described by the Eckart frame with constitutive relations Π = -ζΘ and π^{μν} = 2ησ^{μν}.
    Standard first-order viscous hydrodynamics; the paper uses this decomposition for T^{μν} in Eqs. (2.3)-(2.5).
  • domain assumption The matter stress-energy tensor is covariantly conserved in the Jordan frame, including for f(R) gravity.
    Needed for the continuity equations; follows from diffeomorphism invariance of the total action, cited to [18] before Eq. (2.15).
  • domain assumption Apparent-horizon entropy is S_H = A f'(R)/(4G) and the total entropy variation for f(R) gravity is given by Eq. (4.9).
    Taken from the literature [38]; used in Section 4 for the GSL analysis, not re-derived here.
  • standard math The first law for a comoving volume, T dS = dE + p dV, with V ∝ a³.
    Used in Section 4.1 to relate the continuity equation to entropy production.
  • domain assumption The perturbative expansion H = H^(0) + α H^(1) is valid for f(R) = R + αR².
    Used in Sections 4.3-4.5 to isolate Starobinsky corrections; the paper argues the expansion breaks down at high redshift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Viscosity in Isotropic Cosmological Backgrounds in General Relativity and Starobinsky Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/52DA32D3

@misc{pith2026250605180,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Viscosity in Isotropic Cosmological Backgrounds in General Relativity and Starobinsky Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/52DA32D3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05180}
}
abstract

We present a general analysis of the role of shear viscosity in cosmological backgrounds, focusing on isotropic space-time in both Einstein and $f(R)$ gravity. By computing the divergence of the stress-energy tensor in a general class of isotropic (but not necessarily homogeneous) geometries, we show that shear viscosity does not contribute to the background dynamics when the fluid is comoving. This result holds in both the Jordan and Einstein frames, and implies that shear viscosity cannot affect the electromagnetic luminosity distance which is determined by the background light-like geodesics. As an application of our results, we critically examine recent claims that shear viscosity can alter the Hubble evolution and the electromagnetic luminosity distance in Starobinsky gravity. We demonstrate that the continuity equation used in that work is at odds both with the covariant conservation of the stress-energy tensor and the local second law of thermodynamics. We further show that even in models where such modifications could mimic bulk viscosity, the resulting entropy evolution is inconsistent with standard thermodynamic expectations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    J. Chi, Y. Wu, Y. Sang et al., Gravitational wave luminosity distance for starobinsky gravity in viscous cosmological models, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) 22

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Belgacem, Y

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa and M. Maggiore, Gravitational-wave luminosity distance in modified gravity theories, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 104066 [1712.08108]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology, Oxford University Press (3, 2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Belgacem, Y

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa and M. Maggiore, Modified gravitational-wave propagation and standard sirens, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 023510 [1805.08731]. – 20 –

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    LISA Cosmology Working Groupcollaboration, Testing modified gravity at cosmological distances with LISA standard sirens, JCAP 07 (2019) 024 [1906.01593]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    Mukherjee, B.D

    S. Mukherjee, B.D. Wandelt and J. Silk, Testing the general theory of relativity using gravitational wave propagation from dark standard sirens, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 502 (2021) 1136 [ 2012.15316]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Begnoni, L

    A. Begnoni, L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, D. Bertacca and A. Raccanelli, Gravitational wave luminosity distance-weighted anisotropies, JCAP 10 (2024) 087 [ 2404.12351]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Pantiri, M

    M. Pantiri, M. Foglieni, E. Di Dio and E. Castorina, The power spectrum of luminosity distance fluctuations in General Relativity, JCAP 11 (2024) 021 [2407.01486]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Fonseca, S

    J. Fonseca, S. Zazzera, T. Baker and C. Clarkson, The observed number counts in luminosity distance space, JCAP 08 (2023) 050 [ 2304.14253]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Lizardo, J

    A. Lizardo, J. Chagoya and C. Ortiz, On phenomenological parametrizations for the luminosity distance of gravitational waves, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31 (2022) 2250109 [ 2107.09143]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Garc ´ ıa, C

    C. Garc ´ ıa, C. Santa and A.E. Romano, Deep learning reconstruction of the large-scale structure of the Universe from luminosity distance, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 518 (2022) 2241 [ 2107.05771]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Calcagni, S

    G. Calcagni, S. Kuroyanagi, S. Marsat, M. Sakellariadou, N. Tamanini and G. Tasinato, Gravitational-wave luminosity distance in quantum gravity, Phys. Lett. B 798 (2019) 135000 [1904.00384]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Bertacca, A

    D. Bertacca, A. Raccanelli, N. Bartolo and S. Matarrese, Cosmological perturbation effects on gravitational-wave luminosity distance estimates, Phys. Dark Univ. 20 (2018) 32 [ 1702.01750]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Yoo and F

    J. Yoo and F. Scaccabarozzi, Unified Treatment of the Luminosity Distance in Cosmology, JCAP 09 (2016) 046 [ 1606.08453]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Deffayet and K

    C. Deffayet and K. Menou, Probing Gravity with Spacetime Sirens, Astrophys. J. Lett. 668 (2007) L143 [0709.0003]

    2007 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Saltas, I

    I.D. Saltas, I. Sawicki, L. Amendola and M. Kunz, Anisotropic Stress as a Signature of Nonstandard Propagation of Gravitational Waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 191101 [ 1406.7139]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fanizza, E

    G. Fanizza, E. Pavone and L. Tedesco, Gravitational wave luminosity distance in viscous cosmological models, JCAP 08 (2022) 064

    2022

  10. [18]

    Fanizza, G

    G. Fanizza, G. Franchini, M. Gasperini and L. Tedesco, Comparing the luminosity distance for gravitational waves and electromagnetic signals in a simple model of quadratic gravity, Gen. Rel. Grav. 52 (2020) 111 [ 2010.06569]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fanizza, M

    G. Fanizza, M. Gasperini, E. Pavone and L. Tedesco, Linearized propagation equations for metric fluctuations in a general (non-vacuum) background geometry, JCAP 07 (2021) 021 [ 2105.13041]. – 21 –

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Starobinsky, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity, Phys

    A. Starobinsky, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity, Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99

    1980

  13. [21]

    Nojiri and S.D

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from f(r) theory to lorentz non-invariant models, Phys. Rept. 505 (2011) 59 [ 1011.0544]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and V.K. Oikonomou, Modified gravity theories on a nutshell: Inflation, bounce and late-time evolution, Phys. Rept. 692 (2017) 1 [ 1705.11098]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cognola, E

    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and S. Zerbini, One-loop f(r) gravity in de sitter universe, JCAP 0502 (2005) 010 [ hep-th/0501096]

    2005 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bahamonde, S.D

    S. Bahamonde, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou and M. Wright, Correspondence of f(r) gravity singularities in jordan and einstein frames, Annals Phys. 373 (2016) 96 [ 1603.05113]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bahamonde, S.D

    S. Bahamonde, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou and P.V. Tretyakov, Deceleration versus acceleration universe in different frames of f (r) gravity, Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 225 [ 1701.02381]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, Dark energy: The equation of state description versus scalar-tensor or modified gravity, Phys. Lett. B 634 (2006) 93 [ hep-th/0512118]

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Odintsov and V.K

    S.D. Odintsov and V.K. Oikonomou, Generalized rp-attractor cosmology in the jordan and einstein frames: New type of attractors and revisiting standard jordan frame rp inflation, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 32 (2023) 2250135 [ 2210.11351]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaborationcollaboration, GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 161101

    2017

  21. [29]

    Cantiello et al., A Precise Distance to the Host Galaxy of the Binary Neutron Star Merger GW170817 Using Surface Brightness Fluctuations, Astrophys

    M. Cantiello et al., A Precise Distance to the Host Galaxy of the Binary Neutron Star Merger GW170817 Using Surface Brightness Fluctuations, Astrophys. J. Lett. 854 (2018) L31 [ 1801.06080]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Muronga, Causal theories of dissipative relativistic fluid dynamics for nuclear collisions, Phys

    A. Muronga, Causal theories of dissipative relativistic fluid dynamics for nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 034903 [ nucl-th/0309055]

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Deruelle and M

    N. Deruelle and M. Sasaki, Conformal equivalence in classical gravity: the example of ’veiled’ General Relativity, in Springer Proceedings in Physics, vol. 137, pp. 247–260, Springer, 2011 [ 1007.3563]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chiba and M

    T. Chiba and M. Yamaguchi, Conformal-frame (in)dependence of cosmological observations in scalar-tensor theory, JCAP 10 (2013) 040 [1308.1142]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Rondeau and B

    F. Rondeau and B. Li, Conformal frame dependence of inflation, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 124009 [1709.07087]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Paul, Origin of bulk viscosity in cosmology and its thermodynamic implications, Phys

    T. Paul, Origin of bulk viscosity in cosmology and its thermodynamic implications, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 083540 [ 2504.00422]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Odintsov, T

    S.D. Odintsov, T. Paul and S. SenGupta, Natural validation of the second law of thermodynamics in cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 043544 [2409.05009]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nojiri, S.D

    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, T. Paul and S. SenGupta, Modified gravity as entropic cosmology, 2503.19056

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Eling, R

    C. Eling, R. Guedens and T. Jacobson, Non-equilibrium thermodynamics of spacetime, Physical Review Letters 96 (2006) 121301. – 22 –

    2006

  30. [38]

    Karami, M.S

    K. Karami, M.S. Khaledian and N. Abdollahi, The generalized second law of gravitational thermodynamics on the apparent horizon in f(r)-gravity, Europhysics Letters 98 (2012) 30010

    2012

  31. [39]

    Wu, Y.-Y

    Y.-B. Wu, Y.-Y. Zhao, R.-G. Cai, J.-B. Lu, J.-W. Lu and X.-J. Gao, Thermodynamic laws for generalized f(r) gravity with curvature-matter coupling, Physics Letters B 717 (2012) 323

    2012

  32. [40]

    Cai and L.-M

    R.-G. Cai and L.-M. Cao, Unified first law and thermodynamics of apparent horizon in frw universe, Physical Review D 75 (2007) 064008

    2007

  33. [41]

    Cognola and S

    G. Cognola and S. Zerbini, One-loop F(R,P,Q) gravity in de Sitter universe, J. Phys. A 45 (2012) 374014 [1203.5032]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Wald, Black hole entropy is the noether charge, Phys

    R.M. Wald, Black hole entropy is the noether charge, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) R3427

    1993

  35. [43]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gasperini and G

    M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Pre - big bang in string cosmology, Astropart. Phys. 1 (1993) 317 [hep-th/9211021]

    1993 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gasperini and G

    M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, The pre - big bang scenario in string cosmology, Phys. Rept. 373 (2003) 1 [ hep-th/0207130]

    2003 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gasperini, Elements of String Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    M. Gasperini, Elements of String Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Veneziano, A Model for the big bounce, JCAP 03 (2004) 004 [ hep-th/0312182]

    G. Veneziano, A Model for the big bounce, JCAP 03 (2004) 004 [ hep-th/0312182]

    2004 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ganguly and J

    C. Ganguly and J. Quintin, Microphysical manifestations of viscosity and consequences for anisotropies in the very early universe, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 023532

    2022

  41. [49]

    Bitnaya, P

    D. Bitnaya, P. Conzinu and G. Marozzi, On the stability of string-hole gas, JCAP 01 (2024) 025 [2308.16764]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Conzinu, G

    P. Conzinu, G. Fanizza, M. Gasperini, E. Pavone, L. Tedesco and G. Veneziano, Constraints on the Pre-Big Bang scenario from a cosmological interpretation of the NANOGrav data, JCAP 02 (2025) 039 [ 2412.01734]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ben-Dayan, G

    I. Ben-Dayan, G. Calcagni, M. Gasperini, A. Mazumdar, E. Pavone, U. Thattarampilly et al., Gravitational-wave background in bouncing models from semi-classical, quantum and string gravity, JCAP 09 (2024) 058 [ 2406.13521]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Conzinu, M

    P. Conzinu, M. Gasperini and E. Pavone, A simple example of ”non-minimal” Pre-Big Bang scenario, 2506.00995

  45. [53]

    Conzinu, M

    P. Conzinu, M. Gasperini and G. Marozzi, Primordial Black Holes from Pre-Big Bang inflation, JCAP 08 (2020) 031 [ 2004.08111]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Conzinu and G

    P. Conzinu and G. Marozzi, Primordial black holes formation in an early matter dominated era from the pre-big-bang scenario, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 043533 [ 2305.01430]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Gasperini and G

    M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Non-singular pre-big bang scenarios from all-order α’ corrections, JHEP 07 (2023) 144 [ 2305.00222]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Conzinu, G

    P. Conzinu, G. Fanizza, M. Gasperini, E. Pavone, L. Tedesco and G. Veneziano, From the string vacuum to FLR W or de Sitter via α’ corrections, JCAP 12 (2023) 019 [ 2308.16076]. – 23 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.