Cosmology with the matter component decaying faster than radiation

V. E. Kuzmichev; V. V. Kuzmichev (Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics)

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 15 references

Cosmology with the matter component decaying faster than radiation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a fast-decaying matter component with energy density $\rho_\mu = \mu/a^6$ makes the sign of $\mu$ the controlling factor for the early universe: positive $\mu$ suppresses expansion while negative $\mu$ drives…

desk verdict Clean reformulation of an imported FDM term, but the headline claim about accelerated expansion is an artifact of plotting dv/dT instead of d²a/dt². read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06455 v1 pith:I4WYU4RS submitted 2024-12-09 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

V. E. Kuzmichev , V. V. Kuzmichev (Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics) This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k98.80.Bp04.50.-h03.65.Sq

keywords fastdecayingmatterstiffspin-torsioncosmologyquantumcorrectionsearlyuniverseaccelerationcosmologicalsignHubbletensionhydrodynamic

topics The Hubble Tension

open problems 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

This paper tries to establish that a matter component whose energy density falls as $\mu/a^6$, faster than radiation, can govern the earliest phase of cosmic expansion. The sign of the single constant $\mu$ is the decisive feature: positive $\mu$ makes the early universe decelerate sharply, while negative $\mu$ produces a large positive acceleration that can drive accelerated expansion even when the ordinary matter components have positive pressure. If this is right, it offers a mechanism for an inflationary or Big-Bang-like accelerated phase without a cosmological constant or any other negative-pressure fluid, and the authors point to earlier work claiming the same component can remove the Hubble tension. The paper's own contribution is a hydrodynamic reformulation of the Hamiltonian dynamics and a two-surface plot showing how velocity and acceleration depend on scale factor and mass-energy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the FDM energy density $\rho_\mu(a)=\mu/a^6$, with $\mu$ a constant whose sign is left free. In the quantum-geometrodynamics branch, $\mu=2-\frac{9}{16}(1+w)(3-w)$ enters through a quantum potential $Q(a)=a^4\rho_\mu=\mu/a^2$; the same $a^{-6}$ scaling also represents stiff matter (positive $\mu$) and an unpolarized spinning fluid in spin-torsion gravity (negative $\mu$). The machinery is the Hamiltonian constraint written as a conservation law, $v^2+\kappa a^2-a^4\rho=0$, together with the hydrodynamic acceleration equation $dv/dT=-\kappa a+\frac{a^3}{2}(\rho-3p)$. Because the FDM contribution to $\rho-3p$ is proportional to $\mu/a^6$, flipping the sign of $\mu$ flips the early-time force and decides whether the universe stalls or accelerates.

What would settle it

A first-principles calculation of the coefficient $\mu$ for the actual content of the pre-radiation universe would settle the claim: the paper's own expression gives $\mu=0$ for radiation ($w=1/3$) and $\mu>0$ for dust ($w=0$), so showing that no era with $w>1/3$ can precede radiation, or computing $\mu\ge0$ from quantum geometrodynamics, rules out the negative-$\mu$ branch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that adding a fast-decaying matter (FDM) component with energy density $\rho_\mu = \mu/a^6$ to the standard cosmological energy budget changes the early-universe dynamics through the sign of $\mu$. From the Hamiltonian constraint $v^2 + \kappa a^2 - a^4\rho = 0$ and the acceleration equation $dv/dT = -\kappa a + \frac{a^3}{2}(\rho - 3p)$, the authors show that for $\mu>0$ the FDM term dominates at scales $a/a_r<1$ and produces a large negative acceleration that suppresses expansion, while for $\mu<0$ the acceleration is positive at all $a$ and becomes particularly large in the same region. Their stated conclusion is that 'by introducing an FDM component with $\mu<0$, accelerated expansion can be achieved even in the case of positive pressure,' and they associate this period with inflation or with the Big Bang itself ($a_r\sim1$). The same mechanism, via an earlier paper, is claimed to be capable in principle of eliminating the Hubble tension.

Load-bearing premise

The whole picture rests on the borrowed premise that the universe's energy density contains a piece proportional to $1/a^6$ whose coefficient $\mu$ can be negative; without that term, or if $\mu$ is always positive, the proposed early acceleration and the Hubble-tension fix disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a flat universe with no cosmological constant, $\mu>0$ yields a large negative acceleration at $a/a_r<1$, suppressing expansion, while $\mu<0$ yields a large positive acceleration there.
If the FDM component exists, its era of dominance must have preceded the radiation, dust, and dark-energy eras, placing it before inflation or at the Big Bang itself.
With $\mu<0$, accelerated expansion can occur without a cosmological constant or negative-pressure fluid, because the FDM term itself supplies a positive force in the acceleration equation.
The same negative-$\mu$ component is the basis of the authors' earlier argument that the Hubble tension can in principle be eliminated.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the paper's own formula $\mu=2-\frac{9}{16}(1+w)(3-w)$ implies $\mu<0$ only for $1/3<w<5/3$; a search for a pre-radiation epoch with a stiff or near-stiff equation of state would therefore be a direct observational test of the negative-$\mu$ branch.
Editorial extension: for $\mu<0$ the FDM energy density is negative, so in that epoch the null energy condition would be violated; one unexplored consequence is that the universe could bounce or cycle rather than pass through a singular Big Bang.
Editorial extension: treating the Hamiltonian constraint as a flow equation opens a natural next step, namely computing higher-order derivatives or perturbations of $v$ and $a$, which would turn the sign of $\mu$ into concrete predictions for primordial spectra rather than a kinematic classification.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Thanks for the report and the stress-test note. I think the stress-test is correct, and it puts the paper's central claim in serious trouble.

What the paper does well is the hydrodynamic-style repackaging: the transition from the Hamiltonian constraint to the Bernoulli-like Eq. (7) and the Euler-like Eq. (11) is clean, and the figures are faithful to the stated algebra. For a reader already working with a Q = µ/a² correction, this is a convenient notation.

The soft spot is not in the algebra but in the interpretation. The quantity plotted as 'acceleration' in Fig. 2 is dv/dT from Eq. (8), which is a minisuperspace force, not the cosmic acceleration d²a/dt². Because dt = a dT, the proper-time acceleration is d²a/dt² = (1/a²)dv/dT − v²/a³. The extra negative term changes the sign in exactly the regimes they discuss. For a dust-only universe, dv/dT > 0 but d²a/dt² < 0. For their µ<0 plus radiation case, one gets d²a/dt² = 2|µ|/a⁵ − E/a³, positive only for a² < 2|µ|/E, not 'for all values of a'. Section 4 explicitly invokes the second derivative with respect to proper time, so this is an internal gap, not an external complaint.

The other soft spot is the provenance of the FDM component. The µ/a⁶ term and the free sign of µ are imported from the authors' earlier papers; neither is derived here nor connected to any observable. The Hubble-tension claim is a citation to their own previous work. That makes the paper more of a reformulation than a new result, as the reader's report already notes.

Overall, I would not send this to peer review in its current form. The acceleration mismatch is load-bearing and would be caught by any competent referee; the paper would need either a corrected analysis of d²a/dt² or a change in language from 'acceleration' to 'minisuperspace force' before it can be evaluated. The intended audience is readers of the authors' specific quantum-geometrodynamics program, and they may find the hydrodynamic form convenient. For the broader cosmology community, there's no testable prediction here.

Recommendation: desk reject, or return for major revision with a request that the authors recompute the actual proper-time acceleration and clarify the physical status of the sign of µ. If they do, a short note could be salvageable.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a spatially flat homogeneous isotropic universe containing an additional 'fast decaying matter' (FDM) component whose energy density is assumed to scale as ρ_µ = µ/a^6. Working in a Hamiltonian minisuperspace framework, the authors derive first-order equations for v = da/dT and dv/dT, where T is defined by dT = N dη and dt = a dT. They then plot these quantities as functions of the scale factor and dust mass for µ = 1, 0, −1. On the basis of the plots and Eq. (8), they claim that for µ < 0 the expansion accelerates for all a, 'even in the case of positive pressure', and they mention that this FDM component may resolve the Hubble tension. The paper is a short research note whose central claim is the sign-dependent effect of the a^{-6} component.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a new early-universe mechanism for accelerated expansion from a component that decays faster than radiation, potentially relevant to inflationary scenarios and to the Hubble tension. The algebraic derivation from Eq. (3) to Eq. (9) is internally consistent and the figures faithfully represent the stated equations. However, the main physical conclusion is not currently supported, because the quantity plotted as 'acceleration' is not the second derivative of the scale factor with respect to cosmic proper time, and because the existence and sign freedom of the FDM term are imported from prior work rather than derived or tested here. These are load-bearing issues that need to be addressed before the paper's conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3, Fig. 2; Sec. 4] The quantity plotted and called 'acceleration' is dv/dT, not the second derivative of the scale factor with respect to cosmic proper time. Since dt = a dT and v = da/dT, one has d^2 a/dt^2 = (1/a^2) dv/dT - v^2/a^3. The additional negative term -v^2/a^3 means that dv/dT > 0 does not imply accelerated expansion. For example, for a flat dust universe (E = µ = Λ = 0 and M constant), Eq. (8) gives dv/dT = M > 0, while d^2 a/dt^2 = -M/a^2 < 0. Consequently, the statement in Sec. 3 that for µ < 0 'the acceleration is positive for all values of a' is not established for the physical acceleration. In the radiation-only case with µ = -|µ|, Eq. (8) and Eq. (7) give d^2 a/dt^2 = 2|µ|/a^5 - E/a^3, which is positive only for a^2 < 2|µ|/E. The authors should recompute the proper-time acceleration and state the conditions under which it is positive.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (2)] The central effect depends entirely on the assumed term Q(a) = µ/a^2, so that ρ_µ = µ/a^6, and on the admissibility of negative µ. The paper cites Refs. [7,11] for these inputs but does not reproduce or summarize the derivations, and the claimed 'prediction' of acceleration for µ < 0 is a direct restatement of Eq. (9), since the FDM contribution enters via (1/2) dQ/da. The authors should either present a self-contained derivation of the sign freedom or explicitly frame the result as conditional on an external assumption. They should also discuss whether negative energy density in this context is physically viable and consistent with observational constraints.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 2] The time variable T defined by dT = N dη is conformal time, since dt = a dT; the text should consistently call it conformal time rather than 'arc time' or simply 'time', to avoid confusion with proper time.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (13)] The conservation law in Eq. (13) is introduced without derivation; please state whether it follows from Eq. (7) or is an independent postulate of the hydrodynamic analogy.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (10)] For Q = µ/a², the expression for p_µ reduces to p_µ = ρ_µ, so for µ < 0 the FDM component itself carries negative pressure; this should be stated explicitly, as it is directly relevant to the discussion in Sec. 4.
[Sec. 3, Fig. 1] The caption should state that for µ < 0 the velocity v is real only for a² > |µ|/E (in the flat, Λ = 0 case), and that the imaginary region corresponds to Euclidean geometry, as noted in the text.
[Sec. 4] The sentence claiming that accelerated expansion can be achieved 'even in the case of positive pressure' is misleading, because the FDM pressure equals its energy density and is therefore negative for µ < 0; please rephrase to clarify that the FDM component itself has negative pressure while ordinary matter and radiation have positive pressure.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed μ<0 'accelerated expansion' is built into Eq. (8) by the definition Q=μ/a²; the plotted dv/dT is not the proper-time acceleration d²a/dt², and the FDM term itself is imported from the authors' prior work.

self definitional [Sec. 2, Eq. (8); Sec. 3, Fig. 2; Sec. 4]
"From Eq. (5) follows the equation for the evolution of velocity dv/dT = −κa + M + a dM/da + 2a³Λ/3 + 1/2 dQ/da . (8) ... In the case µ < 0, the acceleration is positive for all values of a, becoming particularly large in the region a/a_r < 1."

Equation (8) defines the plotted quantity: with Q=μ/a² (Sec. 2), (1/2)dQ/da = -μ/a³, so the sign of μ is inserted by construction into dv/dT. The statement that μ<0 makes the 'acceleration' positive is therefore a restatement of the sign convention, not a prediction. Moreover, cosmic proper-time acceleration is d²a/dt² = a⁻²dv/dT - v²a⁻³ (because dt=a dT and v=da/dT); the paper never evaluates this, so positive dv/dT does not establish accelerated expansion. The Sec. 4 conclusion 'accelerated expansion can be achieved even in the case of positive pressure' thus reduces to the chosen sign of the imported term.
self citation load bearing [Sec. 2, after Eq. (2); Sec. 4]
"The constant µ can be either positive (for stiff matter [2, 3] and for quantum effects under certain conditions [11]) or negative (for unpolarized spinning field [5, 6] and for quantum effects [7, 11]) when describing different physical processes. ... As shown in Ref. [11], taking an FDM component into account can, in principle, eliminate a discrepancy between the direct late time model-independent measurements of the Hubble constant and its indirect model dependent estimates known as “Hubble tension”."

The paper does not derive ρ_μ=μ/a⁶ or the allowed sign of μ here; it imports both from Refs. [7,11], the authors' own earlier papers, and the final Hubble-tension application is supported only by Ref. [11]. Thus the physical content that makes the sign choice meaningful rests on a self-citation chain, not on an independent derivation in this note. This is load-bearing because without the prior permission to choose μ<0 the paper's central acceleration claim disappears.

full rationale

The Hamiltonian-to-hydrodynamic derivation (Eqs. (1)-(8), (13)) is internally consistent and not itself circular. The circularity lies in the interpretation of the result: the plotted dv/dT is defined by Eq. (8) to contain +(1/2)dQ/da, and with Q=μ/a² this is exactly -μ/a³, so the sign of the plotted 'acceleration' is the sign of μ by construction. The paper never computes the proper-time second derivative d²a/dt², which includes an additional -v²/a³ term; positive dv/dT therefore does not establish accelerated expansion. The FDM term itself, including the freedom to take μ<0, is taken from the authors' prior Refs. [7,11], and the Hubble-tension application is assigned to Ref. [11], making the central physical premise a self-citation chain. On the circularity scale, the core claim reduces by construction to the sign of an imported parameter, although the Hamiltonian formalism is not itself circular; hence a score of 6 rather than 8-10.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a single free parameter µ whose sign is chosen to produce the desired dynamics, plus a set of modeling assumptions inherited from the authors' earlier papers. No independent evidence is provided for the existence or sign of the FDM component.

free parameters (1)

mu (energy-density coefficient of FDM) = not determined; sign chosen
The constant µ in ρ_µ = µ/a^6 is introduced as an input. Its sign determines whether the FDM component suppresses or accelerates expansion; no data or independent theory fixes its value or sign in this paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The homogeneous isotropic universe is described by the minisuperspace Hamiltonian (1) with a lapse function and Planck units.
This sets the framework; standard in quantum cosmology but not derived in the paper.
domain assumption The total energy density decomposes as ρ = ρ_m + ρ_γ + ρ_Λ + ρ_µ with ρ_µ = µ/a^6.
Eq. (2) assumes averaging over fields and the existence of the FDM component.
ad hoc to paper The quantum correction takes the form Q(a) = µ/a^2, so ρ_µ = µ/a^6.
Imported from the authors' previous papers (Refs [7,8,9,10,11]); not derived in this note. The sign of µ is left free.
ad hoc to paper Negative energy density (µ < 0) is physically admissible for the FDM component.
This is the premise that makes accelerated expansion possible; no independent observational or theoretical evidence is given here.

invented entities (1)

Fast decaying matter (FDM) component with energy density µ/a^6
purpose: Explains early-universe acceleration and, via Ref [11], the Hubble tension, by adding a component that decays faster than radiation.
The component is a postulated addition to the energy budget; no direct detection or independent constraint is offered in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmology with the matter component decaying faster than radiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I4WYU4RS

@misc{pith2026241206455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmology with the matter component decaying faster than radiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I4WYU4RS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06455}
}

read the original abstract

The impact of a fast decaying component of mass-energy, that decreases faster than radiation with the increase of the scale factor, on the evolution of the universe is studied using a hydrodynamic approach. Proceeding from the Hamiltonian formalism, the hydrodynamic-like equations for the velocity and acceleration of the expansion of the universe as a function of conformal time are obtained. The influence of a fast decaying component on the dynamics of the expansion of the universe is determined by the sign of its contribution to the total energy density of the system. The effects of this component are illustrated by figures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06455 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The velocity v as a function on a and M at E = 1 with µ = 1 (upper surface), µ = 0 (middle surface) and µ = −1 (lower surface). All units are rescaled by ar. 3 Illustrations As an illustration of the influence of the FDM component, which decreases faster than radiation with the increase of the scale factor a, we consider the simplest case of a spatially flat universe (κ = 0) without a cosmological constant (Λ = 0) … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The acceleration dv dT as a function on a and M at µ = 1 (lower surface), µ = 0 (middle surface) and µ = −1 (upper surface). All units are rescaled by ar. condition of positivity of the second derivative of the scale factor with respect to proper time implies the appearance of a negative effective pressure. In models without unpolarized spinning fluid or quantum corrections this can only be achieved with a dominant … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

Landau, E.M

L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields. Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 2(Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam, 1975)

work page 1975
[2]

Zel’dovich, The equation of state at ultrahigh densities and its relativistic limi- tations

Ya.B. Zel’dovich, The equation of state at ultrahigh densities and its relativistic limi- tations. Sov. Phys. JETP 14, 1143 (1962)

1962
[3]

Zel’dovich, A hypothesis, unifying the structure and the entropy of the Universe

Ya.B. Zel’dovich, A hypothesis, unifying the structure and the entropy of the Universe. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 160, 1 (1972)

1972
[4]

F.W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G.D. Kerlick, J.M. Nester, General relativity with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects. Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 393 (1976) 5

work page 1976
[5]

Nurgaliev, W.N

I.S. Nurgaliev, W.N. Ponomariev, The earliest evolutionary stages of the universe and space-time torsion. Phys. Lett. 130B, 378 (1983)

work page 1983
[6]

Gasperini, Spin-dominated inflation in the Einstein-Cartan theory, Phys

M. Gasperini, Spin-dominated inflation in the Einstein-Cartan theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2873 (1986)

1986
[7]

Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, Quantum corrections to the dynamics of the ex- panding universe

V.E. Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, Quantum corrections to the dynamics of the ex- panding universe. Acta Phys. Pol. B 44, 2051 (2013), arXiv:1307.2383

arXiv 2013
[8]

Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, Properties of the quantum universe in quasista- tionary states and cosmological puzzles

V.E. Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, Properties of the quantum universe in quasista- tionary states and cosmological puzzles. Eur. J. Phys. C 23, 337 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0111438

work page arXiv 2002

Show all 15 references

[9]

Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, The Big Bang quantum cosmology: The matter- energy production epoch

V.E. Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, The Big Bang quantum cosmology: The matter- energy production epoch. Acta Phys. Pol. B 39, 979 (2008), arXiv:0712.0464

2008 arXiv
[10]

Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, The matter-energy intensity distribution in a quan- tum gravitational system

V.E. Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, The matter-energy intensity distribution in a quan- tum gravitational system. Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 5(2), 245 (2018)

2018
[11]

Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, The Hubble tension from the standpoint of quantum cosmology

V.E. Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, The Hubble tension from the standpoint of quantum cosmology. Eur. J. Phys. C 84, 121 (2024), arXiv:2211.16394

2024 arXiv
[12]

Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, Semi-classical universe near initial singularity

V.E. Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, Semi-classical universe near initial singularity. Acta Phys. Pol. B 40, 2877 (2009), arXiv:0905.4142

2009 arXiv
[13]

Hartle, S.W

J.B. Hartle, S.W. Hawking, Wave function of the Universe. Phys. Rev. D28, 2960 (1983)

1983
[14]

Hawking, R

S. Hawking, R. Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time(Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 2000)

2000
[15]

Abbott, M.B

L.F. Abbott, M.B. Wise, Constraints on generalized inflationary cosmologies. Nucl. Phys. B244, 541 (1984). 6

1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Landau, E.M

L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields. Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 2(Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam, 1975)

work page 1975

[2] [2]

Zel’dovich, The equation of state at ultrahigh densities and its relativistic limi- tations

Ya.B. Zel’dovich, The equation of state at ultrahigh densities and its relativistic limi- tations. Sov. Phys. JETP 14, 1143 (1962)

1962

[3] [3]

Zel’dovich, A hypothesis, unifying the structure and the entropy of the Universe

Ya.B. Zel’dovich, A hypothesis, unifying the structure and the entropy of the Universe. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 160, 1 (1972)

1972

[4] [4]

F.W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G.D. Kerlick, J.M. Nester, General relativity with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects. Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 393 (1976) 5

work page 1976

[5] [5]

Nurgaliev, W.N

I.S. Nurgaliev, W.N. Ponomariev, The earliest evolutionary stages of the universe and space-time torsion. Phys. Lett. 130B, 378 (1983)

work page 1983

[6] [6]

Gasperini, Spin-dominated inflation in the Einstein-Cartan theory, Phys

M. Gasperini, Spin-dominated inflation in the Einstein-Cartan theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2873 (1986)

1986

[7] [7]

Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, Quantum corrections to the dynamics of the ex- panding universe

V.E. Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, Quantum corrections to the dynamics of the ex- panding universe. Acta Phys. Pol. B 44, 2051 (2013), arXiv:1307.2383

arXiv 2013

[8] [8]

Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, Properties of the quantum universe in quasista- tionary states and cosmological puzzles

V.E. Kuzmichev, V.V Kuzmichev, Properties of the quantum universe in quasista- tionary states and cosmological puzzles. Eur. J. Phys. C 23, 337 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0111438

work page arXiv 2002