Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 81 references

With the de Sitter radius promoted to a local field l(x), the paper argues that the unified gauge current vanishes in vacuum, driving the cosmological term to zero and the background to Minkowski spacetime, while a varying Λ is rendered con

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

2026-08-01 09:39 UTC pith:DXLMDTP7

load-bearing objection The first-order dS gauge formalism is reasonably clean, but the advertised variable-Lambda mechanism is not derived: l(x) is never varied, and the torsion-Lambda 'buffer' contradicts the paper's own torsion field equation. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20687 v1 pith:DXLMDTP7 submitted 2026-07-22 gr-qc

A First-Order Gauge Approach to de Sitter General Relativity

P. Salgado This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83D0583C4083F05 PACS 04.20.Cv04.50.Kd95.36.+x
keywords first-order gauge gravityde Sitter relativityvariable cosmological constanttorsionStrong Equivalence PrincipleNoether conservation lawconformal matter currentvacuum energy
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 proposes a first-order gauge formulation of de Sitter relativity in which the de Sitter pseudo-radius l is promoted to a spacetime field l(x), locally breaking the SO(4,1) symmetry of the tangent space to SO(3,1). The promotion modifies the Strong Equivalence Principle: the local vacuum tracks the matter distribution instead of being a fixed Minkowski arena, while the propagating degrees of freedom of General Relativity are left unchanged. The central physical claim is that the generalized Noether conservation law produces a unified current that vanishes identically in vacuum, so the local cosmological term Λ(x)=3/l²(x), sourced by the trace of the conformal current of matter, decays to zero and spacetime asymptotically flattens. The variability of Λ is then absorbed by torsion: the gauge Bianchi identity shows d(1/l²) acts as a source of the torsion tensor, restoring conservation without new fields. The cosmological constant problem is thereby recast as a dynamical question about how matter sets l(x), not numerically solved.

Core claim

The load-bearing assertion is that promoting l to a local field yields a unified conserved current Π^μα = T^μα − K^μα/(4l²(x)); in vacuum this current vanishes identically, so Λ(x) has no source, decays, and the local background becomes Minkowski. Consistency for a variable Λ is restored by the gauge Bianchi identity, which shows that d(1/l²) generates a kinematic torsion that compensates the non-conservation of the translational current. Independent variations of the vierbein and the connection yield the de Sitter-Palatini field equations and a de Sitter-Cartan torsion equation, and the paper proves algebraically that the first-order equations map exactly onto the tensorial splitting G(T) −

What carries the argument

A first-order gauge action for the SO(4,1) connection A = ½ω^ab L_ab + (1/l(x)) e^a π_a, whose curvature splits into a dynamic Riemann sector F^ab = R^ab − (1/l²(x)) e^a∧e^b and a torsional sector F^a = (1/l(x))(T^a − (1/l(x)) dl∧e^a). The term dl(x) is exactly the Jacobian of the local Weyl rescaling that connects the variable-l action to the fixed-length construction, and is interpreted as the order parameter of the symmetry breaking. The same gradient appears in the 4-form conservation law (6.3) as the geometric source of torsion, which is the mechanism that keeps a varying Λ consistent.

Load-bearing premise

The construction never varies l(x) in the action and supplies no field equation or initial condition for its profile; the vacuum-extinction conclusion assumes that l(x) is driven by the matter distribution and stabilizes in empty space, behavior that is asserted rather than derived.

What would settle it

The field equations with l(x) fixed admit the standard vacuum solutions of Einstein gravity with a constant cosmological constant Λ=3/l0² — de Sitter space — which satisfy all stated equations with Π=0. If such constant-l vacua are genuine solutions, the claimed asymptotic extinction to Minkowski does not follow from the equations alone; a reader could settle the question by checking whether the stated field equations (4.3)-(4.5) and (5.4) exclude constant nonzero l in vacuum, and by attempting to derive an evolution equation for l from the action (3.5) — no such equation exists, since l is ne

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

If this is right

  • In any region free of matter, the unified Noether current vanishes, so the local cosmological term Λ(x) would decay to zero and the background would become flat; a fixed vacuum-energy density would not persist in empty space.
  • A space- or time-dependent Λ no longer violates the Bianchi identity: d(1/l²) generates torsion that absorbs the variation, removing the standard rigidity ∂_μΛ=0.
  • The source of the local cosmological term is the trace of the proper conformal current of matter, not the energy-momentum tensor itself.
  • The propagating degrees of freedom of General Relativity are unchanged; the Einstein equations are recovered in the l→∞ limit, so the modification is kinematic only.
  • The algebraic equivalence between the first-order field equations and the tensorial splitting G(T) − Λg shows the subtraction is a gauge-structure consequence, not an ad hoc arrangement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a future, fully dynamical treatment of l confirms the vacuum-extinction mechanism, the cosmological constant problem would be reduced to fixing the profile of l(x) from cosmic initial conditions; the present paper leaves that decay-profile computation open, so the quantitative resolution is a gap rather than a result.
  • The torsion-Λ coupling implies that any cosmological evolution of Λ in this theory must be accompanied by torsion sourced by d(1/l²) even in the absence of spin — a feature absent from standard FLRW cosmology that could, in principle, be probed through its imprint on early-universe dynamics; the paper does not pursue this observational angle.
  • Promoting l(x) to an independent dynamical field would introduce a new field equation and could change the conclusions; the paper fixes l by hand, so its central prediction is conditional on an unspecified mechanism.
  • The l→0 contraction to a conformal phase is suggestive of a mechanism by which the theory becomes scale-invariant near the Planck scale, but the paper explicitly refrains from claiming singularity avoidance; a curvature-invariant analysis across that transition would be the natural next step.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a first-order gauge formulation of de Sitter relativity in which the de Sitter pseudo-radius l is promoted to a spacetime-dependent field l(x). The action is a modified MacDowell-Mansouri form S_g = -(1/2κ²)∫ε_{abcd} F^{ab}∧e^c∧e^d with F^{ab}=R^{ab}-l^{-2}(x)e^a∧e^b. The author claims that the variable cosmological parameter Λ(x)=3/l²(x) emerges from the gauge structure; that the generalized Noether theorem yields a unified matter current Π^a = T^a - K^a/(4l²); that in vacuum this current vanishes and Λ decays to zero, so spacetime becomes Minkowskian; and that gauge Bianchi identities make d(1/l²) a source of torsion, allowing a variable Λ without inconsistency. The paper also claims algebraic equivalence of the first-order equations with the tensorial splitting G_(T)-G_(K).

Significance. If valid, the framework would offer an original route to a variable cosmological term within a first-order gauge formulation and would give a concrete geometric meaning to Λ as a symmetry-breaking order parameter. The paper is clearly written in parts and is honest in declaring that no quantitative decay profile or singularity resolution is provided. However, the advertised physical mechanism is not a consequence of the stated action: l(x) is a fixed background, the torsion-buffer scenario is contradicted by the derived torsion equation, and the Λ-K relation is circular. The formal material retained in the paper is largely a review/reformulation of earlier Aldrovandi-Pereira and MacDowell-Mansouri constructions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §4.1] The action (3.5) is varied only with respect to the vierbein e^a and the Lorentz connection ω^{ab}; §4.1 states explicitly that l(x) is held fixed during the variation. No equation of motion, kinetic term, potential, or boundary condition for l(x) is introduced (indeed §3.3 says that no potential V(l) is posited). Therefore Λ(x)=3/l²(x) is an arbitrary background function, and the claims of §6–7 — that Λ is sourced by the trace K^μ_μ, that it stabilizes away from matter, and that it decays to zero in vacuum — are assumptions about the profile of l(x), not consequences of the action. In particular the 'vacuum extinction' would require l(x)→∞, which is never derived.
  2. [§5–6] This is the most serious internal inconsistency. The ω-variation gives the Einstein-Cartan equation (5.4), T^λ_{μν} ∝ S^λ_{[μν]}+..., with no l-dependent term; hence in spinless vacuum S=0 implies T^a=0. Inserting T^a=0 and Π^a=0 into the Bianchi identity (6.3) yields ε_{abcd} d(1/l²)∧e^b∧e^c∧e^d=0, i.e. d(1/l²)=0. Thus the same equations of motion admit only a constant l(x) in vacuum. The statement in §6 that 'd(1/l²) acts as a geometric source that generates torsion' inverts the logic: (6.3) is a differential identity and cannot overcome (5.4). The asymptotic bullets in §6 also assume d(1/l²)=0 without deriving l→∞, so Λ need not vanish.
  3. [§2.2, Appendix B] The relation Λ ∝ K^μ_μ / l², Eq. (B.9), is circular and built on a false premise. It uses the constant-curvature identity G_(K)=Λg and R_(K)=-4Λ (Eq. (B.8)), which holds only for a genuine de Sitter space with constant l; applying it to a point-dependent l(x) is unjustified. Moreover, K^{μν}≡T^{μα}ϑ^ν_α is defined algebraically from T, so 'matter sources Λ' is an input of the definition, not a dynamical result; Eq. (4.2) similarly posits the Π^a current rather than deriving it from a Noether variation. Since (B.9) also conflicts with Λ=3/l², the claim that K→0 drives Λ→0 is not a consequence of the framework.
  4. [§4.2, Eq. (4.7)] There is an overall sign inconsistency between the tensorial field equations. Eq. (2.7) and Eq. (B.10) have RHS + (8πG/c^4)(T^{μα} - K^{μα}/4l²), while Eq. (4.7), which is presented as the equivalent tensor form of the derived first-order equation (4.3), has RHS -(8πG/c^4)(T^{μν} - K^{μν}/4l²). Because G_(K)=Λg, the left-hand sides coincide, so at least one of these equations is wrong. This blocks the claimed equivalence of §4.2 and must be corrected before the rest can be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / §2.2] The abstract and §2.2 state that 'varying l(x) destroys covariance', but l(x) is never varied in the paper; this phrasing suggests a variational equation for l that is not present. Please rephrase.
  2. [Eq. (6.4)] The displayed chain in Eq. (6.4) is garbled: the arrows and index placements are incomplete and the substitution of (5.4) into (6.3) is hard to follow. Please rewrite.
  3. [Eq. (4.5)] The mapping from the 3-form with one free tangent index to the two-index tensor g^{μν}√-g is not shown; the contraction with the vierbein should be made explicit.
  4. [§3.3] The discussion correctly notes (Eq. (3.17)) that S_g is not the pullback of the rigid SO(4,1)-invariant action; this caveat is important enough to be stated in the main derivation, not only as a retroactive qualification.
  5. [References / typos] There are typographical issues: 'by constrast' (§2.2), the notation 'l− →∞' is awkwardly rendered, and the signs in Eq. (2.3) vs Eq. (A.6) agree only after substituting ε=-1; please clarify.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Vacuum-Λ decay and torsion-Λ coupling reduce to imported/definitional inputs; l(x) is a fixed background in the action.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract; Section 7 ('The conformal origin of Λ(x) and the asymptotic vacuum'); Appendix B, Eq. (B.9)]
    "The generalized Noether theorem gives a unified energy-momentum current coupling the standard tensor to the proper conformal matter current. It vanishes identically without matter, causing the asymptotic extinction of local vacuum energy and the decay of the background to Minkowski spacetime."

    Π is defined, Eqs. (2.4)-(2.5), as T−K/(4l²) with K=Tϑ, so T=0 makes Π=0 tautologically. The further step Λ→0 is not present in the action's field equation: (4.7) with T=K=0 reads G_(T)−Λg=0, which allows any Λ. The 'Λ is governed by K' step is Eq. (B.9), Λ ∝ K^μ_μ/l², imported from the fixed-l metric split of Refs. [61]-[72] by identifying G_(K)=Λg. Since §4.1 varies (3.5) only w.r.t. e^a and ω^ab holding l(x) fixed, there is no equation of motion for l(x); the vacuum decay is an imported, definitional renaming rather than a consequence of the proposed action.

  2. renaming known result [Section 6, second bullet after Eq. (6.3)]
    "If the torsion were zero, the second term on the left-hand side of Eq. (6.3) would vanish, and the geometric gradient of the first term would break the conservation of matter-energy. To avoid this and preserve the gauge consistency of SO(4,1), the Bianchi identity requires a nonzero kinematic torsion field (T a ≠ 0)."

    Eq. (6.3) is obtained by exterior-differentiating the field equation (4.3) and regrouping terms; it is a differential identity satisfied by any solution, not an independent field equation. The independent torsion equation from δS/δω, Eq. (5.4), contains no l(x) and, for zero spin, forces T=0. Substituting T=0 and Π=0 into (6.3) gives ε_abcd d(1/l²) e^b e^c e^d = 0, hence d(1/l²)=0. Thus naming d(1/l²) a 'source' of torsion is a label on a term of a rearranged identity; the claimed d(1/l²)-generated torsion is not an output of the action and is contradicted on-shell in vacuum.

full rationale

The two headline predictions are not outputs of the first-order action. The asymptotic extinction of vacuum energy reduces to the definition of Π plus the imported split relation (B.9): since K is an algebraic contraction of T, Π=0 in vacuum is automatic, and Λ→0 follows only from the assumed Λ∝K^μ_μ/l², not from the action's field equation (4.7), which with T=K=0 is simply G_T−Λg=0. Moreover §4.1 explicitly keeps l(x) fixed, so no variational equation determines l(x); its stabilization/decay behavior is an input. The torsion-Λ mechanism is similarly presented by rearranging the Bianchi identity (6.3), but the actual torsion equation (5.4) is l-independent and sets T=0 for zero spin; on-shell (6.3) then forces d(1/l²)=0 in vacuum, contradicting the claimed torsion buffer. This is partial but central circularity: two flagship claims reduce to definitional/imported inputs. It is not a self-citation chain: the self-citations [32]-[60] are not load-bearing here, and the paper explicitly defers quantitative Λ(x) decay to future work, which is an honest limitation rather than itself a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on an un-varied background field l(x) and on constant-curvature de Sitter identities applied to a variable l(x). No parameters are fitted to data, but the freedom in l(x) and the undetermined coefficient β in Appendix C carry the physical content.

free parameters (2)
  • l(x): spacetime-dependent de Sitter pseudo-radius (background compensator field) = not determined; arbitrary function; only asymptotic l→∞ and l→0 limits are discussed
    l(x)=√(3/Λ(x)) is introduced as a local field but is never varied in the action; no equation fixes its spacetime profile. The vacuum-decay claim requires assuming l(x) responds to matter, an assumption not derived from the field equations.
  • β coefficient in the perturbative expansion e^a_μ = h^a_μ + β κ²/l²(x) + ... = order unity, unspecified
    Appears in Appendix C as an undetermined dimensionless coefficient; it controls the claimed Planckian separation of the physical vierbein and the translational gauge potential, but is not used in the main results.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The local tangent space is a de Sitter homogeneous space, not Minkowski; SO(4,1) is the local spacetime symmetry group.
    Section 1 and Eq. (2.1); this is the modified Strong Equivalence Principle the paper explores.
  • domain assumption Infinitesimally separated inertial frames are connected by x'^μ = x^μ + ε^ν(δ^μ_ν − (2x^μ x_ν − x²δ^μ_ν)/(4l²)) + λ^μ_ν x^ν, with x measured from a fixed origin.
    Eqs. (2.1)/(A.1) taken from [61–72]; the explicit x-dependence makes the formalism origin-dependent, a feature not discussed in the text.
  • ad hoc to paper The kinematic Einstein tensor of the de Sitter background equals Λg_μν, with R_(K)=−4Λ, even when l(x) varies.
    Eqs. (B.8)–(B.9): the identity is valid for constant-curvature de Sitter, but the paper applies it to variable l(x) to infer Λ∝K^μ_μ/l².
  • ad hoc to paper The modified MacDowell-Mansouri action S_g = −(1/2κ²)∫εF^ab e^c e^d with F^ab = R^ab − e^a e^b/l²(x) is the correct first-order gravitational action.
    Eq. (3.5): proposed without derivation or comparison with alternative first-order de Sitter actions.
  • ad hoc to paper l(x) is a pure compensator with no kinetic term, no potential, and no equation of motion; it is held fixed under field variations.
    Sections 3.3 and 4: variations are taken at fixed l(x); no functional variation with respect to l appears anywhere.
invented entities (1)
  • localized de Sitter pseudo-radius l(x) as a geometric compensator / order-parameter field no independent evidence
    purpose: Locally breaks SO(4,1)→SO(3,1), sets the local Λ(x)=3/l²(x), and sources spacetime torsion through its gradient in the Bianchi identity.
    No kinetic term, no potential, no equation of motion; no quantitative prediction for Λ(x) or an observable signature, so there is no falsifiable handle outside the framework.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20975 in / 17072 out tokens · 135962 ms · 2026-08-01T09:39:18.812326+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a first-order gauge formulation of de Sitter relativity in which the pseudo-radius l(x) is promoted to a spacetime field, locally breaking SO(4,1) to SO(3,1). Here, l(x) is a geometric compensator and dl(x) the associated order parameter. This modifies the Strong Equivalence Principle: the local vacuum follows the matter distribution instead of remaining fixed, while the propagating degrees of freedom of General Relativity are unchanged. At fixed l(x), the action is SO(3,1)-gauge invariant, but varying l(x) destroys covariance under the full translational sector of SO(4,1). Through the Inonu-Wigner contraction, abstract generators become explicit spacetime transformations, yielding nonlinear Killing vectors in both the macroscopic l tends to infinity and microscopic l tends to 0 limits. The generalized Noether theorem gives a unified energy-momentum current coupling the standard tensor to the proper conformal matter current. It vanishes identically without matter, causing the asymptotic extinction of local vacuum energy and the decay of the background to Minkowski spacetime. Independent variations yield the coupled de Sitter field equations, and we algebraically prove their equivalence to the tensorial splitting on the coordinate manifold. Gauge Bianchi identities further show that Lambda(x) is an intrinsic source of spacetime torsion, consistently identifying it with the local order parameter of the symmetry breaking. The cosmological constant problem is therefore recast, not numerically solved: deriving the decay of Lambda(x) from early-universe densities to its observed value remains future work.

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

81 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Aplications of General Relativity

    S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Aplications of General Relativity. John Wiley and Sons (1972)

    1972

  2. [2]

    Utiyama, Invariant Theoretical Interpretation of Interaction, Phys

    R. Utiyama, Invariant Theoretical Interpretation of Interaction, Phys. Rev. 101 (1956) 1597

    1956

  3. [3]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Lorentz Invariance and the Gravitational Field, J. Math. Phys. 2 (1961) 212

    1961

  4. [4]

    D. W. Sciama, The Physical Structure of General Relativity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36 (1964) 463

    1964

  5. [5]

    F. W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick and J. M. Nester, General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foundations and Prospects, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48 (1976) 393

    1976

  6. [6]

    Trautman, Einstein-Cartan Theory, in Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, eds

    A. Trautman, Einstein-Cartan Theory, in Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, eds. J.-P. Françoise, G. L. Naber and Tsou S. T. (Elsevier, Oxford, 2006), pp. 189-195

    2006

  7. [7]

    F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke and Y. Ne’eman, Metric-Affine Gauge Theory of Gravity: Field Equations, Noether Identities, World Spinors, and Breaking of Dilation Invariance, Phys. Rept. 258 (1995) 1

    1995

  8. [8]

    Blagojević, Gravitation and Gauge Symmetries (IOP, Bristol, 2002)

    M. Blagojević, Gravitation and Gauge Symmetries (IOP, Bristol, 2002)

    2002

  9. [9]

    Blagojević and F

    M. Blagojević and F. W. Hehl (eds.), Gauge Theories of Gravitation: A Reader with Commentaries (Imperial College Press, London, 2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Weinberg, Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant

    S. Weinberg, Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 2607

    1987

  11. [11]

    Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem

    S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem. Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1

    1989

  12. [12]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. Supernova Cosmology Project collaboration, Measurements ofΩandΛ from 42 high redshift supernovae, Astrophysical Journal 517 (1999) 565

    1999

  13. [13]

    A. G. Riess et al. Supernova Search Team collaboration, Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astronomical Journal 116 (1998) 1009

    1998

  14. [14]

    D. Farrah et al., Observational evidence for cosmological coupling of black holes and its implications for an astrophysical source of dark energy, Astrophysical Journal Letters 944 (2023) L31 (p. 24). – 16 –

    2023

  15. [15]

    K. S. Croker et al., DESI dark energy time evolution is recovered by cosmologically coupled black holes, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (JCAP) 10 (2024) 094

    2024

  16. [16]

    Padmanabhan, Limitations on the operational definitions of spacetime events and quantum gravity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 4 (1987) L107

    T. Padmanabhan, Limitations on the operational definitions of spacetime events and quantum gravity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 4 (1987) L107

    1987

  17. [17]

    Amelino-Camelia, Are we at the down of quantum gravity phenomenology?, Lecture Notes in Physics 541 (2000) 1

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Are we at the down of quantum gravity phenomenology?, Lecture Notes in Physics 541 (2000) 1

    2000

  18. [18]

    Magueijo and L

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, Lorentz Invariance with an Invariant Energy Scale, Physical Review Letters 88 (2002) 190403

    2002

  19. [19]

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Relativity in spacetimes with Short-Distance Structure Governed by an observer-independent (Planckian) Length Scale, International Journal of Modern Physics D 11 (2002) 35

    2002

  20. [20]

    Amelino-Camelia, Doubly-Special Relativity: Facts, Myths and Some Key Issues, Symmetry 2 (2010) 230

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Doubly-Special Relativity: Facts, Myths and Some Key Issues, Symmetry 2 (2010) 230

    2010

  21. [21]

    Linde, Inflationary Cosmology after Planck 2013, in 100e Ecole d’Ete de Physique: Post-Planck Cosmology

    A. Linde, Inflationary Cosmology after Planck 2013, in 100e Ecole d’Ete de Physique: Post-Planck Cosmology. Les Houches, France, July 8-August 2, 2013, pp. 231-316, 2015, 1402.0526

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    Martin, (2016)

    J. Martin, (2016). The Observational Status of Cosmic Inflation After Planck. In: Fabris, J., Piattella, O., Rodrigues, D., Velten, H., Zimdahl, W. (eds) The Cosmic Microwave Background. Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44769-8_2

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44769-8_2 2016

  23. [23]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. 1178, 25 (1982); Phys. Rev. D 30, 509 (1984); J. Hartle and S.W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2960 (1983)

    1982

  24. [24]

    A. D. Linde, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 39, 401 (1984)

    1984

  25. [25]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2848 (1983); Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 846; A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 175, 395 (1986)

    1983

  26. [26]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99

    1980

  27. [27]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett. 33, 532 (1981), [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.33,549(1981)]

    1981

  28. [28]

    Brans and R.H

    C. Brans and R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124 (1961) 925

    1961

  29. [29]

    G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10 (1974) 363

    1974

  30. [30]

    Ezquiaga, J

    J.M. Ezquiaga, J. García-Bellido, M. Zumalacárregui, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 024005

    2016

  31. [31]

    de Azcárraga, J.M

    J.A. de Azcárraga, J.M. Izquierdo, M. Picón, O. Varela, Nucl. Phys. B 662 (2003) 185

    2003

  32. [32]

    Izaurieta, E

    F. Izaurieta, E. Rodríguez, P. Salgado, J. Math. Phys. 47 (2006) 123512

    2006

  33. [33]

    Izaurieta, A

    F. Izaurieta, A. Pérez, E. Rodríguez and P. Salgado, J. Math. Phys. 50 (2009) 073511

    2009

  34. [34]

    Izaurieta, P

    F. Izaurieta, P. Minning, A. Perez, E. Rodríguez, P. Salgado, P. Salgado, Phys. Lett. B 678 (2009) 213

    2009

  35. [35]

    Salgado, S

    P. Salgado, S. Salgado, Phys. Lett. B 728 (2013) 5

    2013

  36. [36]

    Concha, D.M

    P.K. Concha, D.M. Peñafiel, E.K. Rodríguez, P. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2741

    2014

  37. [37]

    Concha, R

    P.K. Concha, R. Durka, N. Merino, E.K. Rodríguez, Phys. Lett. B (2016) 507

    2016

  38. [38]

    Gomis and A

    J. Gomis and A. Kleinschmidt, JHEP 07 (2017) 085

    2017

  39. [39]

    Gomis and A

    J. Gomis and A. Kleinschmidt, and J. Palmkvist, JHEP 09 (2019) 109

    2019

  40. [40]

    Concha, D.M

    P.K. Concha, D.M. Peñafiel, E.K. Rodríguez, P. Salgado, Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013) 419

    2013

  41. [41]

    Concha, D.M

    P.K. Concha, D.M. Peñafiel, E.K. Rodríguez, P. Salgado, Phys. Lett. B 742 (2015) 310. – 17 –

    2015

  42. [42]

    Gonzalez, P

    N. Gonzalez, P. Salgado, G. Rubio and S. Salgado, J. Geom. Phys. 86 (2014) 339

    2014

  43. [43]

    Durka, J

    R. Durka, J. Kowalski-Glikman, M. Szczachor, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 26 (2011) 2689

    2011

  44. [44]

    Concha, E.K

    P.K. Concha, E.K. Rodríguez, Nucl. Phys. B. 886 (2014) 1128

    2014

  45. [45]

    Concha, E.K

    P.K. Concha, E.K. Rodríguez, P. Salgado, JHEP 08 (2015) 009

    2015

  46. [46]

    J. D. Edelstein, M. Hassaine, R. Troncoso, J. Zanelli, Phys. Lett. B 640 (2006) 278

    2006

  47. [47]

    Izaurieta, E

    F. Izaurieta, E. Rodríguez, P. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C 54 (2008) 675

    2008

  48. [48]

    Izaurieta, E

    F. Izaurieta, E. Rodríguez, P. Salgado, Lett. Math. Phys. 80 (2007) 127

    2007

  49. [49]

    Lukierski, Proc

    J. Lukierski, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 272 (2011) 183, arXiv:1007.3405 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  50. [50]

    Merino, A

    N. Merino, A. Perez, P. Salgado, Phys.Lett.B 681 (2009) 85-88

    2009

  51. [51]

    Merino, A

    N. Merino, A. Perez, P. Salgado, O. Valdivia, Phys. Lett.B 693 (2010) 600-604

    2010

  52. [52]

    Concha, D.M

    P.K. Concha, D.M. Peñafiel, E.K. Rodríguez, P. Salgado, P, Phys.Lett.B 725 (2013) 419

    2013

  53. [53]

    Salgado, P

    P. Salgado, P. Salgado-Rebolledo, O. Valdivia, Phys.Lett.B 728 (2014) 99-104

    2014

  54. [54]

    de Azcárraga, K

    J.A. de Azcárraga, K. Kamimura and J. Lukierski, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 124036

    2011

  55. [55]

    de Azcarraga, K

    J.A. de Azcarraga, K. Kamimura and J. Lukierski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 23 (2013) 01160

    2013

  56. [56]

    Cardenas, J

    L. Cardenas, J. Diaz, P. Salgado, D. Salgado, Nucl.Phys.B 984 (2022) 115943

    2022

  57. [57]

    Cardenas, V.C

    L. Cardenas, V.C. Orozco, P. Salgado, D. Salgado, R. Salgado, Nucl.Phys.B 994 (2023) 116291

    2023

  58. [58]

    Gómez, S

    F. Gómez, S. Lepe, P. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 9

    2021

  59. [59]

    Gómez, S

    F. Gómez, S. Lepe, V.C. Orozco and P. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 906

    2022

  60. [60]

    Avilés, J

    L. Avilés, J. Diaz, D.M. Penafiel, V.C. Orozco, P. Salgado, JHEP 05 (2024) 160

    2024

  61. [61]

    Aldrovandi and J

    R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, De Sitter Relativity, A New Glimpse at Spatial Dynamics, Foundations of Physics 39 (2009)1

    2009

  62. [62]

    Aldrovandi and J

    R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, An Introduction to Geometrical Physics, 2nd edition, World Scientific, Singapore (2016)

    2016

  63. [63]

    D. F. López, S. Abarghouei Nejad, and J. G. Pereira, de Sitter-Invariant Black Holes, Universe 9 (2023) 333

    2023

  64. [64]

    A. V. Araujo, D. F. López, J. G. Pereira, and J. R. Salazar, De Sitter Gravitational Dynamics, arXiv:2203.04824 (gr-qc) (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    J. G. Pereira and D. F. López, An Improved Framework for Quantum Gravity, Universe 6 (2020) 243

    2020

  66. [66]

    Araujo, D

    A. Araujo, D. F. López, and J. G. Pereira, De Sitter invariant Special Relativity and Galaxy Curves, Gravitation and Cosmology 25 (2019) 157

    2019

  67. [67]

    Aldrovandi and J

    R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, Is Physics Asking for a New Kinematics?, International Journal of Modern Physics D 17 (2008) 2485

    2008

  68. [68]

    Aldrovandi, J

    R. Aldrovandi, J. P. Beltran Almeida, and J. G. Pereira, De Sitter special relativity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 24 (2007) 1385

    2007

  69. [69]

    Aldrovandi, J

    R. Aldrovandi, J. P. Beltrán Almeida, and J. G. Pereira, A singular conformal spacetime, Journal of Geometry and Physics 56 (2006) 1042

    2006

  70. [70]

    Araujo, H

    A. Araujo, H. Jennen, J. G. Pereira, A. C. Sampson, and L. L. Savi, De Sitter invariant special relativity and galaxy rotation curves, General Relativity and Gravitation 47 (2015) 151. – 18 –

    2015

  71. [71]

    Araujo, D

    A. Araujo, D. F. López, and J. G. Pereira, De Sitter-Invariant in special relativity and the dark energy problem, Classical and Quantum Gravity 34 (2017) 115014

    2017

  72. [72]

    J. P. Beltrán Almeida, C. S. O. Mayor, and J. Pereira, De Sitter relativity: a natural scenario for an evolvingΛ, Gravitation and Cosmology 18 (2012) 181

    2012

  73. [73]

    MacDowell and F

    S.W. MacDowell and F. Mansouri, Unified Geometric Theory of Gravity and Supergravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 739

    1977

  74. [74]

    D. K. Wise, MacDowell-Mansouri gravity and Cartan geometry, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27 (2010) 155010

    2010

  75. [75]

    Sharpe, Differential Geometry: Cartan’s Generalization of Klein’s Erlangen Program, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York (1997)

    R.W. Sharpe, Differential Geometry: Cartan’s Generalization of Klein’s Erlangen Program, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York (1997)

    1997

  76. [76]

    P. K. Townsend, Small-scale structure of spacetime as the origin of the gravitational constant, Physical Review D 15 (1977) 2795

    1977

  77. [77]

    Cartan, On Manifolds with an Affine Connection and the Theory of General Relativity, English translation by A

    É. Cartan, On Manifolds with an Affine Connection and the Theory of General Relativity, English translation by A. Magnon and A. Ashtekar (Bibliopolis, Napoli, 1986)

    1986

  78. [78]

    F. W. Hehl and Yu. N. Obukhov, Élie Cartan’s Torsion in Geometry and in Field Theory, an Essay, Ann. Fond. Louis de Broglie 32 (2007) 157

    2007

  79. [79]

    C. J. Isham, Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time, arXiv:gr-qc/9210011 (1992)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  80. [80]

    K. V. Kuchar, Time and interpretations of quantum gravity, in Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, World Scientific, Singapore (1991), reprinted in International Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series D 20 (2011) 3

    1991

Showing first 80 references.