Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Rainbow McVittie Horizons in an Expanding Universe

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A consistent rainbow-deformed McVittie spacetime is the standard McVittie metric in disguised variables, so one energy history carries no new horizon physics.

desk verdict The exact reduction of single-history rainbow McVittie to standard McVittie is the real result and it is correct; the epsilon constraint is a benchmark on a generic Taylor coefficient, not on rainbow physics. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12417 v1 pith:K4WLQB64 submitted 2026-08-12 gr-qc

Amani Ashour , Ahmed Farag Ali This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords McVittiespacetimeGravity'sRainbowapparenthorizonshorizonthermodynamicsFriedmannequationscosmicchronometerssupernovacosmologyHubbleconstant
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 non-accreting rainbow-deformed McVittie spacetime—a black hole in an expanding universe with energy-dependent metric functions—is exactly the standard McVittie metric once time and scale factor are reparametrized as $d\tau=dt/f$ and $b=a/g$. All curvature scalars, trapping horizons, and perfect-fluid Friedmann equations then coincide with the ordinary McVittie results for one prescribed energy history, and a direct rainbow ansatz with time-dependent $g$ fails because it sources a radial momentum density. The same construction gives a closed apparent-horizon thermodynamics in which the unified first law, surface gravity, Misner–Sharp energy, entropy, and Clausius relation reproduce the Friedmann dynamics. As a separate phenomenological step, a one-parameter low-energy closure $H_{\rm RG}=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+1-\Omega_m}\,(1+\epsilon z)$ is fitted to 32 cosmic-chronometer ages, roughly 1580 supernova light curves, and an early-universe matter-density prior, yielding $\epsilon=0.0106\pm0.0231$ and a general-relativistic limit inside the 68\% region.

What carries the argument

The central object is the consistent rainbow-parametrized McVittie metric of Eq.~(3.6), written with $b=a(t)/g(t)$ and $d\tau=dt/f(t)$; in those variables it is exactly the standard McVittie metric, which removes the radial momentum source of the naive ansatz and makes the effective Hubble rate $\mathcal{H}=f(H-\dot g/g)$ carry all dynamics. The thermodynamic reconstruction is carried by the Misner–Sharp energy, energy-supply one-form, work density, and the unified first law projected along the trapping horizon.

What would settle it

Take the same 1580 supernovae with the released covariance and fit $H_{\rm RG}$ with the $n=2$ form of Eq.~(6.5). If the best-fit second-order coefficient is inconsistent with the linear-slope prediction, or if cosmic-chronometer and supernova data separately give values of $\epsilon$ that differ by more than the quoted error, then the one-parameter closure—and the quoted bound—fails. A direct check of the Etherington distance-duality relation using the same sample would also break the closure if the distance modulus is not related to $H_{\rm RG}$ by the standard integral with unity duality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For one fixed energy history, the rainbow functions do not create new physics: the consistent metric is standard McVittie in the variables $b=a/g$ and $\tau=\int dt/f$, so invariants depend only on $b(\tau)$ and the constant mass $m$. Inserting $f^{-2}$ and $g^{-2}$ directly into the lapse and spatial part instead produces an explicit radial momentum-constraint source through the factor $(1+\mu)/(1-\mu)$, forcing radial energy transport whenever $m\dot g\neq0$. On either nondegenerate trapping horizon, projecting the unified first law gives the Clausius relation exactly when the horizon Friedmann equation $\mathcal{H}'=-4\pi(\rho+p)\bar\chi$ holds; the other factor is a zero-temperature, zero-heat-flux degeneracy. The fitted linear closure places the nested $\epsilon=0$ limit inside the one-standard-deviation region, with $H_0=68.75\pm2.63\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ and $\Omega_m=0.3157\pm0.0070$.

Load-bearing premise

The bound on $\epsilon$ assumes that the entire low-energy rainbow response, for both cosmic-chronometer ages and supernova distances, is captured by one analytic factor $(1+\epsilon z)$ multiplying the $\Lambda$CDM expansion rate; that closure is imposed by hand, not derived from $f(E/E_P)$ and $g(E/E_P)$, and it requires untested assumptions about energy evolution, chromatic propagation, and distance duality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a single prescribed energy history, $f(t)$ and $g(t)$ cannot be separately recovered from homogeneous expansion or horizon thermodynamics; only $b(\tau)$ and $m$ are observable.
  • Any non-accreting rainbow McVittie model must use the reparametrized form; the naive ansatz with $m\dot g\neq0$ is inconsistent with a perfect fluid and requires radial energy transport.
  • The apparent-horizon thermodynamics is closed: surface gravity, entropy, Misner–Sharp energy, the unified first law, and the Clausius relation reconstruct the Friedmann equation, with an additive vacuum-energy constant fixed by branch selection.
  • The fitted amplitude $\epsilon=0.0106^{+0.0234}_{-0.0231}$ is statistically aligned with zero, and AIC with the approximate BIC favor the nested $\epsilon=0$ (standard $\Lambda$CDM) closure.
  • Because the same $\epsilon$ shifts the deceleration parameter by $(1+z)\epsilon/(1+\epsilon z)$, the model predicts a small, testable displacement of the acceleration-transition redshift: $z_t\simeq0.604$ versus $0.628$ for the best-fit $\Lambda$CDM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Fitting the $n>1$ forms of Eq.~(6.5) to the same supernova sample would test whether the linear slope is the true response or only a local tangent; a significant second-order coefficient would mean the quoted $\epsilon$ bound does not constrain the underlying rainbow functions.
  • Because only the combination $\alpha_n+n\beta_n$ enters at leading order, the constraint cannot separate $f(E/E_P)$ from $g(E/E_P)$; identifying $\epsilon$ with rainbow physics requires an independent prescription for probe-energy evolution and chromatic propagation.
  • The background fit leaves the McVittie mass $m$ unconstrained, so local observables—lensing, time delays, turnaround scales, and energy-resolved strong-field propagation—are the natural arena for $m$-dependent rainbow tests.
  • A split analysis that fits $\epsilon$ separately to cosmic chronometers and supernova distances would provide a direct consistency check; disagreement between the two probes would falsify the one-parameter closure even if each probe fits alone.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a McVittie spacetime in Gravity's Rainbow. It first shows that the direct ansatz with f(t) and g(t) factors in the metric requires a radial momentum source, and then constructs a consistent non-accreting perfect-fluid sector by defining b = a/g and dτ = dt/f, in which the metric is exactly the standard McVittie metric in the barred variables. On this geometry it derives the apparent-horizon condition, surface gravity, Misner–Sharp energy, unified first law, and Clausius relation, and shows that the horizon projection reconstructs the Friedmann dynamics up to a vacuum-energy constant. The paper then introduces a one-parameter phenomenological closure H_RG(z) = H0 sqrt(Ωm(1+z)^3 + 1 − Ωm)(1 + εz), fits it to 32 cosmic chronometers and 1580 Pantheon+ supernovae with the full covariance matrix and a Planck Ωm prior, and reports ε = 0.0106 ± 0.0231, concluding that small late-time rainbow corrections are observationally viable.

Significance. The geometric part of the paper is a clean and useful result: a single prescribed rainbow energy history in the consistent sector is an exact reparametrization of standard McVittie, so the functions f and g are individually unidentifiable from one-history invariants. This identifiability statement is important for the rainbow-gravity literature and is supported by explicit algebra. The thermodynamic reconstruction is internally consistent, and the paper is unusually transparent about the auxiliary nature of its observational closure. The observational constraint, however, is not a constraint on rainbow functions f and g; it is a constraint on a generic linear redshift response. The paper's own Section 6 states this, but the abstract and conclusion phrase the result as constraints on 'rainbow corrections,' which overstates the connection. The strengths of the manuscript are its exact derivation, the explicit momentum-constraint calculation for the direct ansatz, the closed thermodynamic system, and the reproducible numerical scripts.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.1–6.3, Eq. (6.2), Eq. (6.6)] The fitted parameter ε is introduced as the linear Taylor coefficient of Ξ(z) = H_op/H_ΛCDM, not derived from f(E/EP), g(E/EP), or from any energy history. Because the exact reduction of §3 shows that one energy history is standard McVittie in the barred variables, the 68% interval on ε constrains only this auxiliary closure. The abstract's claim that the results 'establish the observational viability of small late-time rainbow corrections' is therefore not supported. The manuscript should either remove the word 'rainbow' from the observational conclusion or supply a concrete microscopic map that ties ε to specific f and g, including probe-energy evolution and propagation assumptions.
  2. [§6.2 and §7, Eq. (6.5) and Eq. (7.6)] For the leading microscopic order n > 1, the linear closure (6.2) is only the tangent at z = 0, while the full shape is Ξ_n(z) − 1 ∝ (1+z)^n − 1. The paper acknowledges this in Section 7 and states that future analyses should fit Eq. (6.5), yet it still reports a single ε over the full redshift range as the 'low-energy rainbow deformation.' If the claim is to be limited to the local slope, the text should say so explicitly; if the claim covers the supernova range, the fit should use Eq. (6.5) with n as a parameter or restrict the analysis to n = 1.
  3. [§6.4] The cosmic-chronometer covariance is described as a reconstruction that combines published diagonal uncertainties with correlated IMF and SPS contributions from Ref. [30]. The precise formula for this covariance matrix is not given, and it is not clear whether the resulting matrix is guaranteed to be positive definite or whether the reconstruction is applied to all 32 points or only a subset. Since the quoted uncertainty on ε depends on this covariance, the construction should be specified in enough detail for reproduction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (2.1)] The notation 'a(t) 2' in the spatial part of the metric is a formatting error; it should read a(t)^2.
  2. [§2.1] The condition '0 < 3√3mH < 1' is ambiguous on first reading; it should be written as 0 < (3√3)mH < 1 or 0 < 3√3 m H < 1.
  3. [§6.6] The Planck Ωm prior is taken from the base-ΛCDM analysis and applied to a model with an additional parameter ε; the paper notes this is conditional, but the abstract should also state that the quoted H0 and Ωm values assume the Planck prior and are not direct low-redshift measurements.
  4. [§6.8] The statement that archival release of the chronometer covariance matrix, likelihood implementation, optimizer settings, and profiling grid will convert the result into a fully executable analysis indicates that the current reproducibility claim is incomplete; this should be stated more directly in the text, perhaps in a data-availability statement.
  5. [§7] The sentence 'The current single-slope fit can therefore be translated into Eq. (6.6) only after the leading microscopic order is fixed' is a key limitation and should appear in the abstract or introduction, not only in the diagnostics section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the geometric reduction is an explicit equivalence, and the observational epsilon is an openly fitted closure, not a hidden prediction.

full rationale

The central geometric claim is the exact statement that Eq. (3.6) is the standard McVittie metric under dtau = dt/f and b = a/g (Eq. 3.7). This is a reparametrization, not a circular inference: the paper explicitly derives it from the Einstein equations and the momentum constraint, and it does not use the target result as an input. The later horizon thermodynamics and unified-first-law reconstruction are standard McVittie dynamics evaluated in (tau, b); they rely on external gravitational identities and are not defined in terms of the quantities they are claimed to reproduce. The observational section is a free one-parameter fit: epsilon is introduced in Eq. (6.2) as the linear coefficient of Xi(z), fit to chronometers and Pantheon+, and reported as a constraint on that fitted closure. The paper repeatedly states that without a microscopic map epsilon leaves f and g unidentified and that the likelihood tests only the closure itself (Secs. 3, 6.1, 6.3, 8). Fitting a parameter and quoting its posterior is not circularity; the identifiability limitation is an honest caveat, not a disguised input. No self-citation carries a load-bearing role: the rainbow ansatz is traced to the standard Magueijo-Smolin framework, and the McVittie/thermodynamics results are derived from the stated metric and Einstein equations. Therefore score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The exact geometric derivation uses standard Hayward formalism and the McVittie perfect-fluid ansatz. The only fitted constants are cosmological parameters and the ad hoc epsilon; no new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. This ledger reflects that most model structure is imported from earlier rainbow-gravity and McVittie literature rather than derived in this paper.

free parameters (3)
  • epsilon = 0.0106 (+0.0234, -0.0231) at 68%
    It is the coefficient of the linear redshift response in Eq. (6.2), fitted jointly to cosmic chronometers and Pantheon+ with the Planck prior.
  • H0 = 68.75 +/- 2.63 km/s/Mpc
    Hubble constant in the joint fit; it is a free parameter weakly determined by chronometers and the supernova shape.
  • Omega_m = 0.3157 +/- 0.0070
    Matter density in the joint fit; it is dominated by the Planck base-Lambda-CDM prior in Eq. (6.13).
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Gravity's Rainbow metric prescription: the effective metric depends on energy through functions f(E/E_P) and g(E/E_P).
    Inherited from Magueijo-Smolin [9]; the entire geometric section uses this framework.
  • domain assumption Non-accreting McVittie perfect-fluid matter sector: homogeneous density, inhomogeneous pressure, comoving four-velocity.
    Required to select the consistent parametrization Eq. (3.6); the direct ansatz violates the momentum constraint.
  • standard math Hayward trapping-horizon and unified-first-law formalism.
    Used without proof for apparent horizon, surface gravity, Misner-Sharp energy, and Clausius relation, per references [25,26].
  • domain assumption Area-law horizon entropy S_A = pi R_A^2 with a constant Newton coupling.
    Sec. 4, Eq. (4.5); a rainbow G(E) would change the entropy and thermodynamic equations.
  • ad hoc to paper The observable expansion rate is represented by H_RG(z) = H0 sqrt(Omega_m(1+z)^3 + 1 - Omega_m)(1 + epsilon z).
    Introduced in Sec. 6.1, Eq. (6.2), as the minimal observational closure; it is not derived from the rainbow metric.
  • ad hoc to paper Analyticity of Xi(z) = H_op/H_LambdaCDM around z = 0 and truncation at the linear term epsilon z.
    Sec. 6.1: the fit uses only the leading term and assumes 1 + epsilon z > 0.
  • domain assumption Operational assumptions: catalog redshifts keep standard meaning, Etherington distance duality holds, and one common epsilon applies to both chronometer and supernova sectors.
    Sec. 6.3; a chromatic model would need separate responses and derived distance relations.
  • domain assumption Planck 2018 base-Lambda-CDM matter-density prior remains valid conditionally for the late-time response model.
    Sec. 6.6, Eq. (6.13); the fit is conditional on this prior.
  • domain assumption Standard probe-energy redshift law E(z) = E0(1+z) for the microscopic map.
    Sec. 6.2, used only for the interpretation Eq. (6.6), not for the numerical fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rainbow McVittie Horizons in an Expanding Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K4WLQB64

@misc{pith2026260812417,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rainbow McVittie Horizons in an Expanding Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K4WLQB64}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12417}
}
abstract

We derive the Friedmann dynamics and apparent-horizon thermodynamics of a spatially flat McVittie spacetime in Gravity's Rainbow and construct a consistent non-accreting perfect-fluid sector with an effective rainbow Hubble rate. The Einstein equations, trapping horizon, surface gravity, Misner--Sharp energy, unified first law, and Clausius relation form a closed thermodynamic system reproducing the Friedmann dynamics. We then introduce a low-energy rainbow deformation and constrain it using 32 cosmic-chronometer measurements and 1580 Pantheon+ light curves with the full covariance matrix. Combined with the Planck matter-density prior, the fit gives $H_0=68.75\pm2.63~\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, $\Omega_m=0.3157\pm0.0070$, and $\epsilon=0.0106^{+0.0234}_{-0.0231}$. The resulting constraints establish the observational viability of small late-time rainbow corrections and place the general-relativistic limit within the preferred parameter region.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Setting the Stage for Cosmic Chronometers. II. Impact of Stellar Population Synthesis Models Systematics and Full Covariance Matrix,

    M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, A. Cimatti, and L. Pozzetti, “Setting the Stage for Cosmic Chronometers. II. Impact of Stellar Population Synthesis Models Systematics and Full Covariance Matrix,” Astrophys. J.898, 82 (2020), arXiv:2003.07362, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9eb0. – 21 –

    arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    Uber die Krummung des Raumes,

    A. Friedmann, “Uber die Krummung des Raumes,” Z. Phys.10, 377–386 (1922)

    work page 1922

  3. [2]

    On the possibility of a world with constant negative curvature,

    A. Friedmann, “On the possibility of a world with constant negative curvature,” Z. Phys.21, 326–332 (1924)

    work page 1924

  4. [3]

    A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius,

    G. Lemaitre, “A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius,” Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles A47, 49–59 (1927)

    work page 1927

  5. [4]

    The mass-particle in an expanding universe,

    G. C. McVittie, “The mass-particle in an expanding universe,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.93, 325–339 (1933)

    work page 1933

  6. [5]

    A point mass in an isotropic universe: Existence, uniqueness, and basic properties,

    B. C. Nolan, “A point mass in an isotropic universe: Existence, uniqueness, and basic properties,” Phys. Rev. D58, 064006 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9805041

    arXiv 1998

  7. [6]

    McVittie’s legacy: Black holes in an expanding universe,

    N. Kaloper, M. Kleban, and D. Martin, “McVittie’s legacy: Black holes in an expanding universe,” Phys. Rev. D81, 104044 (2010), arXiv:1003.4777

    arXiv 2010

  8. [7]

    Making sense of the bizarre behaviour of horizons in the McVittie spacetime,

    V. Faraoni, A. F. Zambrano Moreno, and R. Nandra, “Making sense of the bizarre behaviour of horizons in the McVittie spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D85, 083526 (2012), arXiv:1202.0719

    arXiv 2012

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state,

    T. Jacobson, “Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260–1263 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9504004

    1995 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Gravity’s Rainbow,

    J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, “Gravity’s Rainbow,” Class. Quantum Grav.21, 1725–1736 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0305055, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/7/001

    2004 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Entropy and temperature of black holes in a gravity’s rainbow,

    P. Galan and G. A. Mena Marugan, “Entropy and temperature of black holes in a gravity’s rainbow,” Phys. Rev. D74, 044035 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0608061, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.044035

    2006 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Rainbow universe,

    Y. Ling, “Rainbow universe,” JCAP08(2007) 017, arXiv:gr-qc/0609129, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2007/08/017. – 20 –

    2007 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Thermodynamics of modified black holes from gravity’s rainbow,

    Y. Ling, X. Li, and H. Zhang, “Thermodynamics of modified black holes from gravity’s rainbow,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A22, 2749–2756 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0512084, doi:10.1142/S0217732307022931

    2007 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Nonsingular rainbow universes,

    A. Awad, A. F. Ali, and B. Majumder, “Nonsingular rainbow universes,” JCAP10(2013) 052, arXiv:1308.4343, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/10/052

    2013 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Rainbow gravity and scale-invariant fluctuations,

    G. Amelino-Camelia, M. Arzano, G. Gubitosi, and J. Magueijo, “Rainbow gravity and scale-invariant fluctuations,” Phys. Rev. D88, 041303(R) (2013), arXiv:1307.0745, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.041303

    2013 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Black hole remnant from gravity’s rainbow,

    A. F. Ali, “Black hole remnant from gravity’s rainbow,” Phys. Rev. D89, 104040 (2014), arXiv:1402.5320, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104040

    2014 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Remnants of black rings from gravity’s rainbow,

    A. F. Ali, M. Faizal, and M. M. Khalil, “Remnants of black rings from gravity’s rainbow,” JHEP 12(2014) 159, arXiv:1409.5745, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2014)159

    2014 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Remnant for all black objects due to gravity’s rainbow,

    A. F. Ali, M. Faizal, and M. M. Khalil, “Remnant for all black objects due to gravity’s rainbow,” Nucl. Phys. B894, 341–360 (2015), arXiv:1410.5706, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2015.03.014

    2015 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Absence of black holes at LHC due to gravity’s rainbow,

    A. F. Ali, M. Faizal, and M. M. Khalil, “Absence of black holes at LHC due to gravity’s rainbow,” Phys. Lett. B743, 295–300 (2015), arXiv:1410.4765, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.065

    2015 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Gravity’s Rainbow: a bridge towards Hoˇ rava–Lifshitz gravity,

    R. Garattini and E. N. Saridakis, “Gravity’s Rainbow: a bridge towards Hoˇ rava–Lifshitz gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C75, 343 (2015), arXiv:1411.7257, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3562-y

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Branes in Gravity’s Rainbow,

    A. Ashour, M. Faizal, A. F. Ali, and F. Hammad, “Branes in Gravity’s Rainbow,” Eur. Phys. J. C76, 264 (2016), arXiv:1602.04926, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4124-7

    2016 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Nonsingular universes in Gauss–Bonnet Gravity’s Rainbow,

    S. H. Hendi, M. Momennia, B. Eslam Panah, and M. Faizal, “Nonsingular universes in Gauss–Bonnet Gravity’s Rainbow,” Astrophys. J.827, 153 (2016), arXiv:1703.00480, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/153

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Modified TOV in gravity’s rainbow: properties of neutron stars and dynamical stability conditions,

    S. H. Hendi, G. H. Bordbar, B. Eslam Panah, and S. Panahiyan, “Modified TOV in gravity’s rainbow: properties of neutron stars and dynamical stability conditions,” JCAP09(2016) 013, arXiv:1509.05145, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/09/013

    2016 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Gravity’s rainbow: A bridge between LQC and DSR,

    M. A. Gorji, K. Nozari, and B. Vakili, “Gravity’s rainbow: A bridge between LQC and DSR,” Phys. Lett. B765, 113–119 (2017), arXiv:1606.00910, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.023

    2017 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Thermodynamic phase transition of a black hole in rainbow gravity,

    Z.-W. Feng and S.-Z. Yang, “Thermodynamic phase transition of a black hole in rainbow gravity,” Phys. Lett. B772, 737–742 (2017), arXiv:1708.06627, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.07.057

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Gravitational energy in spherical symmetry,

    S. A. Hayward, “Gravitational energy in spherical symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D53, 1938–1949 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9408002

    1996 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Unified first law of black-hole dynamics and relativistic thermodynamics,

    S. A. Hayward, “Unified first law of black-hole dynamics and relativistic thermodynamics,” Class. Quantum Grav.15, 3147–3162 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9710089

    1998 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Hawking radiation as tunneling and the unified first law of thermodynamics for a class of dynamical black holes,

    K.-X. Jiang, S.-M. Ke, and D.-T. Peng, “Hawking radiation as tunneling and the unified first law of thermodynamics for a class of dynamical black holes,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D18, 1707–1717 (2009), arXiv:1105.0595

    2009 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Thermodynamic analysis of cosmological black hole,

    M. Akbar, T. Brahimi, and S. M. Qaisar, “Thermodynamic analysis of cosmological black hole,” Commun. Theor. Phys.67, 47 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    The Hawking–Page-like phase transition from FRW spacetime to McVittie black hole,

    H. Abdusattar, S.-B. Kong, Y. Yin, and Y.-P. Hu, “The Hawking–Page-like phase transition from FRW spacetime to McVittie black hole,” JCAP08(2022) 060, arXiv:2203.10868

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cosmic chronometers to calibrate the ladders and measure the curvature of the Universe. A model-independent study,

    A. Favale, A. G´ omez-Valent, and M. Migliaccio, “Cosmic chronometers to calibrate the ladders and measure the curvature of the Universe. A model-independent study,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.523, 3406–3422 (2023), arXiv:2301.09591, doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1621

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,

    D. Scolnic et al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: The Full Data Set and Light-curve Release,” Astrophys. J.938, 113 (2022), arXiv:2112.03863, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b7a

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,

    D. Brout et al., “The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints,” Astrophys. J.938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    On the definition of distance in general relativity,

    I. M. H. Etherington, “On the definition of distance in general relativity,” Philos. Mag.15, 761–773 (1933); reprinted in Gen. Relativ. Gravit.39, 1055–1067 (2007), doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0447-x. – 22 –

    1933 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.