Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Soft quantum back reaction to the Hubble tension: a smeared-out early time cosmological energy density

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a quantum smearing of the early universe's energy density, generated by a sinusoidal Wigner phase-space state, produces an effective Hubble constant that interpolates between the early-universe value near 67 and the l

desk verdict New Wigner-phase-space gadget, but the Hubble-tension application is unsupported by the equations and by the missing r_s/D_A calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10598 v1 pith:CQTMOB6T submitted 2025-09-12 physics.gen-ph

Alex E. Bernardini This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.gen-ph MSC 83F0583C4581S30 PACS 98.80.Qc98.80.Es03.65.-w
keywords HubbletensionWignerfunctionphase-spacequantummechanicscosmologyFriedmannequationback-reactionconstantminisuperspace
topics The Hubble Tension
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

The paper aims to explain the Hubble tension—the discrepancy between early- and late-universe measurements of the present expansion rate—without adding new fields or adjusting data analysis. It argues that a quantum back-reaction described by phase-space quantum mechanics reshapes the effective potential in the early universe, smearing out the energy density that enters the Friedmann equation. The modification depends on one free parameter, µ, and on the choice of lapse function σ, and the paper shows that with µ = σ = 1 the same model yields an effective H0 near 67 km/s/Mpc at early times and near 73 km/s/Mpc today. A sympathetic reader would care because the mechanism is parameter-light and makes no use of observational fitting—if right, it would dissolve a central cosmological puzzle from quantum cosmology itself.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sinusoidal Wigner function W(x,k;τ)=g(x;τ)cos(µkx), a phase-space quasi-probability distribution (the phase-space image of the quantum state of the universe). Inserting this ansatz into the Wigner-current equations turns the infinite series of quantum corrections to the classical force into a geometric series, so every coefficient a_κ of a potential term x^{-κ} is replaced by b_κ(µ)=2κ a_κ µ^{-κ}[(2−µ)^{-κ} − (2+µ)^{-κ}]. This coefficient-rescaling identity is what carries the argument: it converts the classical Friedmann potential into an effective quantum potential U(x), and the ratio V/U sets the redshift-dependent effective Hubble parameter h_tilde(x).

What would settle it

Derive the Wigner function from an exact solution of the canonical quantum-cosmology equation for the same matter content: unless it equals g(x)cos(µkx) (or a superposition that yields the same rescaling), the proposed potential is not realized. Observationally, evaluate the sound-horizon angle using h_tilde(x) from the modified potential: if the resulting acoustic-peak multipoles move outside the CMB's measured error bars, the claimed interpolation is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that replacing the classical potential of the minisuperspace Friedmann model by a quantum-corrected effective potential U(x) obtained from a sinusoidal Wigner distribution W(x,k)=g(x)cos(µkx) rescales each term x^{-κ} of the classical potential by a factor b_κ(µ)/a_κ = 2κ µ^{-κ}[(2−µ)^{-κ} − (2+µ)^{-κ}]. Applied to the cosmological potential V(x), this produces an effective expansion rate h_tilde(x)=h_LT√(V/U), which is close to the late-time value 0.732 at x≈1 and asymptotes to about 0.673 for small scale factors (early times). The paper shows that the constraint µ=σ=1, with lapse-function parameter σ=1, satisfies the phenomenological anchors within errors, and stresses th

Load-bearing premise

The entire mechanism rests on assuming the universe's quantum state has a phase-space Wigner distribution of the sinusoidal form g(x)cos(µkx); if the true quantum state differs, the coefficient rescaling and the H0 interpolation do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mechanism is correct, the Hubble tension can be resolved without extra relativistic species, early dark energy, or modified late-time gravity; a single quantum back-reaction parameter does the work.
  • The same equations yield h_tilde ≈ 0.673 at recombination and h_tilde ≈ 0.732 today when µ=σ=1, so both anchor values emerge from one model rather than two competing fits.
  • The quantum smearing is confined to early times: it is constructed to be suppressed at x≈1, leaving local distance-ladder measurements and the present critical density essentially unchanged.
  • The σ–µ relation in the paper provides a consistency test: only a restricted family of lapse choices and phase-space parameters reproduces the observed 67/73 split.
  • Because the correction enters H(z) in the sound-horizon integral, the model makes concrete predictions for the CMB acoustic-peak scale at z≈1080, which can be compared with observed anisotropy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete way to test the mechanism is to complete the sound-horizon computation with the modified h_tilde(z); the resulting acoustic-peak shifts would distinguish this quantum-smearing mechanism from early dark energy in future data.
  • Because the Wigner ansatz is asserted rather than derived from the quantum wave equation of the universe, an exact solution for realistic matter would either produce a sinusoidal phase-space state—supporting the mechanism—or generate a different W, which would sever the link between the rescaling identity and the Hubble tension.
  • The single parameter µ could be marginalized over in a joint CMB+BAO+supernovae analysis; a best-fit µ outside (−2,2) or inconsistent with σ would falsify the interpolation rather than adjust it.
  • The same coefficient-rescaling identity applies to any potential of the form Σ a_κ x^{-κ}, so the mechanism is not cosmologically unique; it could be tested in analogous laboratory or condensed-matter phase-space systems where Wigner functions are measured directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims to resolve the Hubble tension by computing a Weyl-Wigner phase-space quantum back-reaction in a minisuperspace cosmological model. It assumes a sinusoidal Wigner function W(x,k;τ)=g(x;τ) Sn(μkx), derives an effective potential U(x) whose coefficients b_κ(μ) are rescaled relative to the classical potential, and plots h̃(x)=h_LT(V/U)^{1/2}. For the parameter choice μ=σ=1, the figures show plateaus near h̃≈0.673 at early times and h̃≈0.732 at late times, which the paper interprets as a smooth interpolation between the Planck and SH0ES values and hence a resolution of the tension.

Significance. If the mechanism were established, it would offer a genuinely new quantum-origin resolution of the Hubble tension, distinct from early dark energy or modified gravity proposals. The phase-space/Wigner approach and the explicit resummation of the quantum back-reaction are of interest. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the printed equations: for the highlighted parameter point, the stated formula for b_κ gives a late-time quantum correction that is not suppressed, and the paper explicitly defers the computation of the sound horizon and angular-diameter distance, which are the actual observables in the tension. The early-time value is also obtained by parameter fitting rather than by an independent prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (19) and Fig. 2] The closed form for b_κ is not valid for the integer κ values used in the claimed solution. For μ=σ=1, the dark-energy term in Eq. (30) corresponds to κ=σ-4=-3. Direct evaluation of Eq. (19) gives b_{-3}=156; the finite series in Eq. (17) gives 1+μ^2/12=13/12. Either way, the condition b_{σ-4}=1 used to suppress quantum corrections at late times is not satisfied, and U/V at x≈1 is not close to 1. In addition, the matter term for σ=1 has κ=0, where Eq. (19) is singular and gives 0 instead of b_0=2 arctanh(μ/2)/μ≈1.10. Thus the plotted h̃ plateau at 0.732 is not a consequence of the printed equations; the central result is internally inconsistent.
  2. [Section VI, first paragraph] The paper explicitly states that the computation of the angular-diameter distance D_A and the comoving sound horizon r_s is 'the next step.' But the Hubble tension is quantified through θ_s=r_s/D_A, and Eqs. (1)-(7) are never applied. Showing that h̃(x) has plateaus does not by itself demonstrate that the modified expansion history reproduces the observed acoustic scale. Therefore the advertised 'resolution' of the Hubble tension is not established by the analysis in the manuscript.
  3. [Section V, parameter choices and Fig. 2] The early-time value h̃≈0.673 is not an independent prediction. The input h=0.732 is taken from SH0ES, b_{σ-4}=1 is imposed so that U=V at late times, and μ and σ are then chosen (μ=σ=1) to position the early plateau at the Planck value. This is parameter fitting rather than a parameter-free derivation, contrary to the abstract's claim of a 'single parameter' correction 'free of data analysis.' The number of effective tunings (μ, σ, and the b normalization) undermines the predictive claim.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (15) and Section VI] The sinusoidal Wigner ansatz W=g(x;τ)cos(μkx) is not derived from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation or from a known solution of the Wigner-Moyal equation. The paper concedes that 'more specified models for which exact solutions of the WDW equation' are needed. Since the entire back-reaction and the resulting Hubble-parameter interpolation rest on this ansatz, the physical status of the mechanism remains conjectural rather than explanatory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, text near Eq. (1)] The relation ℓ_s ≃ 2/θ_s is incorrect for the first acoustic peak; the standard relation is ℓ_s ≈ π/θ_s ≈ 300 for θ_s≈1.04×10^{-2}. This should be corrected.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (20)] The normalized Wigner function in Eq. (8) is not obviously consistent with the step-function form W=θ(k-k0)θ(k+k0)g(x;τ)cos(μkx) in Eq. (20). The normalization of g(x;τ) and the relation between k0 and μ should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says plots are for |σ|=0,1,2,4 and 'red lines are for σ≥0 and black lines for σ≤0,' but the figure labels show values of σ that are not always integers. Please clarify the exact σ values and line styles for each panel.
  4. [Equations (29)-(30)] The notation b_{σ-4}, b_σ, b_{σ-1} in Eq. (30) is introduced without explicitly stating the correspondence to κ. Defining κ=σ-4, σ, σ-1 at first use would avoid confusion.
  5. [Section V, Eq. (30)] The phrase 'Since the quantum effects are assumed to be suppressed at very late times ... the coefficient b_{σ-4}(μ) is set equal to unity' is an assumption, not a derived result. Please state this as an input condition rather than an outcome of the formalism.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Both H0 values in the claimed interpolation are imposed by fitting sigma and mu; the 'prediction' reduces to a two-parameter fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Fig. 2 caption/text (after Eq. (30))]
    "As depicted in Fig. 2, parameters σ and μ can be constrained one to each other as to return the phenomenologically consistent results for the Hubble parameter at early and late times, i.e. h~^2(x≲1) = 0.732±0.013 and h~^2(x≪1) = 0.673±0.006."

    The two free parameters σ and μ are adjusted after the fact to reproduce the very numbers the model is claimed to predict. No independent principle fixes μ=σ=1; the paper scans the parameter plane and selects values that give the SH0ES and Planck plateaus. The resulting h~(x) curve is therefore a two-parameter interpolation through the two target values, not a derivation of them. The advertised 'single-parameter' nature is also contradicted by the need to fit both σ and μ.

  2. self definitional [Section V, paragraph before Fig. 1 and setting b_{σ−4}=1]
    "Expecting fixed output values at z=0, h~(a0=1)=h_LT=0.732, one could read the results from quantum corrections, Eq. (30), as U(x)=(h~/h_LT)^{-2}V(x) ... Since the quantum effects are assumed to be suppressed at very late times (x≲1) ... the coefficient b_{σ−4}(μ) is set equal to unity."

    Here h_LT=0.732 is an input, not an output. The quantum-corrected potential U is defined through the ratio h~/h_LT, and the coefficient b_{σ−4} is imposed to be unity so that U→V at x≈1. With h~≡h_LT(V/U)^{1/2}, the late-time plateau h~=h_LT is then true by construction. This is the same as fitting a parameter to the datum and reporting the datum as a prediction.

full rationale

The algebraic chain from the Wigner formalism to Eq. (19) is explicit and not itself circular; the sinusoidal Wigner ansatz is stated as a proposal rather than imported by self-citation, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is invoked. Circularity enters only at the confrontation with H0. The paper fixes h=0.732 as an input, then constrains σ and μ 'one to each other as to return the phenomenologically consistent results' for both early and late plateaus. Thus the claimed outputs 0.732 and 0.673 are imposed rather than predicted, and no independent observable (θ_s, r_s, D_A) is computed, as the conclusion concedes. There is also an internal arithmetic tension: for the highlighted μ=σ=1 case, Eq. (19) gives b_{-3}=156 rather than 1, so the plotted late-time plateau does not follow from the stated equations; this is a correctness defect, recorded only as supporting context, not as the primary circularity. The central 'resolution' of the Hubble tension is therefore a two-parameter fit dressed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of modeling choices: a sinusoidal Wigner ansatz not derived from the WDW equation, a hand-set normalization to suppress late-time quantum effects, and a choice of mu and sigma that forces the two H0 plateaus. The effective quantum potential is not a new physical entity, but the framework introduces a parameterized rescaling of known densities, which is effectively a new effective theory with tuned parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • mu = 1 (for main claim)
    Parameter of the sinusoidal Wigner ansatz; tuned together with sigma to reproduce the observed H0 plateaus at 67.3 and 73.2. No derivation from a WDW solution is given.
  • sigma = 1 (for main claim)
    Lapse function parameter in N = -a^{1-sigma}; chosen by hand along with mu to make the effective Hubble rate plateau at the two target values. The paper states that 'simultaneous integer values of mu = sigma = 1' yield the desired phenomenology.
  • b_{sigma-4} normalization = 1
    Imposed condition that the late-time (dark-energy-like) coefficient in the quantum potential is unchanged, justified by 'quantum effects are assumed to be suppressed at late times'. This constraint fixes a relation between mu and sigma and is essential to keep the late-time Hubble rate at 0.732.
  • h (input late-time Hubble constant) = 0.732
    Late-Universe Hubble parameter used as the classical input; the model does not derive the overall scale, only the ratio between early and late plateaus.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Wigner phase-space formulation with Wigner currents is a valid description of minisuperspace quantum cosmology.
    The entire framework in Section III depends on this, referencing the author's prior works [28-32].
  • ad hoc to paper The wave function of the universe is represented by a sinusoidal Wigner distribution, W(x,k;tau) = g(x;tau) Sn(mu kx).
    Introduced in Section IV as a 'test' function; not derived from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, and the conclusion admits exact WDW solutions are needed.
  • ad hoc to paper Identification V(x) = -x^{-sigma} V_{Omega_C -> 0}(a) connecting the minisuperspace potential to the Friedmann energy densities.
    Equation (29); this mapping is the bridge between quantum potential coefficients and cosmological densities, and its sign and exponent are not derived in detail.
  • ad hoc to paper Quantum effects are suppressed at late times, so b_{sigma-4}(mu) is set to 1.
    Section V: 'the coefficient b_{sigma-4}(mu) is set equal to unity' to preserve the late-time critical density; this is a phenomenological input rather than a consequence of the dynamics.
  • domain assumption The local value of h-tilde(x) at a given scale factor corresponds to the H0 inferred from CMB at that epoch, without recomputing theta_s = r_s/D_A.
    The paper displays plateaus of h-tilde(x) but defers the computation of D_A and r_s; the connection between the plateaus and the observed Hubble tension is therefore assumed rather than shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soft quantum back reaction to the Hubble tension: a smeared-out early time cosmological energy density." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQTMOB6T

@misc{pith2026250910598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soft quantum back reaction to the Hubble tension: a smeared-out early time cosmological energy density},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQTMOB6T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10598}
}
abstract

A theoretical explanation for the so-called Hubble tension is provided within the framework of phase-space quantum mechanics extended to (quantum) cosmology. Following a description of the overall nature of this tension, with due attention to recent observational developments, a quantum cosmology framework based on the Weyl-Wigner phase-space quantum approach is presented. This circumvents the discrepancy between early- and late-time Universe predictions for the Hubble constant, $H_0$. The emergence of quantum-origin corrections dependent on a single parameter -- mediated by (generic) localized phase-space quantum states free of data analysis -- yields predictions for $H_0$ that smoothly interpolate between early- and late-time phenomenological values, thereby joining the plethora of solutions for the Hubble tension.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. depicts the results for h˜2 → h˜2 (x) = h 2 LT (V(x)/U(x)) for several choices of the lapse function parameter, σ, and of the wave function parameter, µ. The parameters were ��-� ��-� ���� � ���� ���� ���� ���� �≡�  � ( � ) ��-� ��-� ���� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �≡�  � ( � ) ��-� ��-� ���� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �≡�  � ( � ) ��-� ��-� ���� � ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� �≡�  � ( � ) FIG. 1: (Color o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aghanimet al.,Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6, (2020) [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2018

  2. [2]

    Riess, S

    A. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. Bowers, L. Macri, J.Zinn, J. & D. Scolnic,Cosmic 13 Distances Calibrated to1%Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension withΛCDM, Astrophys. J. Lett.908, L6 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Sch¨ oneberg, J

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, J. Lesgourgues, J. & D. Hooper,The BAO+BBN take on the Hubble tension, JCAP2019, e029 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Addison, G

    G. Addison, G. Hinshaw & M. Halpern,Cosmological constraints from baryon acoustic oscil- lations and clustering of large-scale structure, MNRAS436, 1674 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Aubourget al.& BOSS Collaboration,Cosmological implications of baryon acoustic oscil- lation measurements, Phys

    ´E. Aubourget al.& BOSS Collaboration,Cosmological implications of baryon acoustic oscil- lation measurements, Phys. Rev. D92, e123516 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Blomqvistet al.,Baryon acoustic oscillations from the cross-correlation of Ly absorption and quasars in eBOSS DR14, Astron

    M. Blomqvistet al.,Baryon acoustic oscillations from the cross-correlation of Ly absorption and quasars in eBOSS DR14, Astron. Astrophys.629, A86 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Cuceu, J

    A. Cuceu, J. Farr, P. Lemos & A. Font-Ribera,Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and the Hubble constant: past, present and future, JCAP2019, e044 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Verde, J

    L. Verde, J. Bernal, A. Heavens & R. Jimenez,The length of the low-redshift standard ruler, MNRAS467, 731 (2017)

    2017

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Bernal, L.Verde, R

    J. Bernal, L.Verde, R. Jimenez, M. Kamionkowski, D. Valcin & B. Wandelt,Trouble beyond H and the new cosmic triangles, Phys. Rev. D103, e103533 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. F. Abell´ an, A. P. S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin & J. Lesgourgues,The H0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models, Physics Reports984, 1-55 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Freedmanet al.,The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program

    W. Freedmanet al.,The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determi- nation of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch, Astrophys. J.882, e34 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Khetanet al.,A new measurement of the Hubble constant using Type Ia supernovae cali- brated with surface brightness fluctuations,Astron

    N. Khetanet al.,A new measurement of the Hubble constant using Type Ia supernovae cali- brated with surface brightness fluctuations,Astron. Astrophys.647, A72 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Huanget al.,Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Mira Variables in the SN Ia Host NGC 1559: An Alternative Candle to Measure the Hubble Constant, Astrophys

    C. Huanget al.,Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Mira Variables in the SN Ia Host NGC 1559: An Alternative Candle to Measure the Hubble Constant, Astrophys. J.889, e5 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Di Valentino, O

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess and J. Silk, Class. Quantum Grav.38, 153001 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Sch¨ oneberget al., Phys

    N. Sch¨ oneberget al., Phys. Rep.984, 1 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Kamionkowski and A

    M. Kamionkowski and A. G. Riess,The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy, 14 arXiv:2211.04492 [astro-ph.CO], invited for Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Alamet al.,Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmo- logical implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory

    S. Alamet al.,Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmo- logical implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory. Phys. Rev. D103(8),083533 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    T. M. C. Abbottet al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing.Phys. Rev. D105(2), 023520 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. 730, 119 (2011)[Erratum: Astrophys.J. 732, 129 (2011)]

    2011

  12. [20]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. 826(1), 56 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 934(1), L7 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Abdallaet al., J

    E. Abdallaet al., J. High En. Astrophys. 2204, 002 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Dodelson and M

    S. Dodelson and M. S. Turner, Phys.Rev. D46, 3372 (1992)

    1992

  16. [24]

    Wigner, Phys

    E. Wigner, Phys. Rev.40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  17. [25]

    L. E. Ballentine,Quantum Mechanics: a Modern Development(World Scientific Publ. Co, Singapore 1998)

    1998

  18. [26]

    W. B. Case, Am. J. Phys.76, 937 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Steuernagel, D

    O. Steuernagel, D. Kakofengitis and G. Ritter, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 030401 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    A. E. Bernardini and O. Bertolami, EPL120, 20002 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    A. E. Bernardini, Phys. Rev. A98, 052128 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    A. E. Bernardini and O. Bertolami, Phys. Rev. E106, 024202 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    A. E. Bernardini and O. Bertolami, Phys. Rev. A105, 032207 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    A. E. Bernardini and O. Bertolami, Phys. Rev. E107, 044201 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Belloni, M

    M. Belloni, M. A. Doncheski and R. W. Robinett, Am. J. Phys.72, 1183 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    Filinov and A

    V. Filinov and A. Larkin, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics7, 1997 (2019)

    1997

  27. [35]

    Sheng, Q

    Xin-L. Sheng, Q. Wang,1 and Xu-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D102, 025019 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Jager and R

    J. Jager and R. Barnett, Phys. Rev. Research3, 033212 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Takami, T

    A. Takami, T. Hashimoto, M. Horibe and A. Hayashi, Phys. Rev. A64, 032114 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Hinarejos, A

    M. Hinarejos, A. P´ erez and M. C. Banuls, New Journal of Physics14, 103009 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    N. M. Atakishiyev, S. M. Chumakov and K. B. Wolf, J. Math. Phys.39, 6247 (1998)

    1998

  32. [40]

    Bertolami and J

    O. Bertolami and J. M. Mour˜ ao, Class. Quantum Grav.8, 1271 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, inGravitation: an introduction to current research, Ed. L. Witten (Wiley, New York, 1962) – (cf. Chapter 7, pp. 227−264);The dynamics of 15 general relativity[arXiv:gr-qc/0405109]

    1962 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. E. Bernardini and O. Bertolami, Annals of Physics338, 1-20 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev.160, 1113 (1967)

    1967

  36. [44]

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D28, 2960 (1983)

    1983

  37. [45]

    A. D. Linde, Lett. Nuovo Cimento39, 401 (1984)

    1984

  38. [46]

    Kolb and M

    E. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe(Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York 1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    Di Valentinoet al.,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physicsarXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO] 16

    E. Di Valentinoet al.,The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physicsarXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO] 16

    arXiv

  40. [1080]

    = 0.673±0.006) as depicted in the second plot of Fig. 2. ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� � � � � � μ |σ| ��-� ��-� ���� � ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �≡� � (�) FIG. 2:(Color online) (First Plot)σandµconstraint such that ˜h(x∼1)→h= 0.732 and ˜h(10−4 ≲ x≲10 −1)∼0.673 (black thick li...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.