Cosmological Solutions in Scalar-Tensor theory via the Eisenhart-Duval lift

Andronikos Paliathanasis

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Cosmological Solutions in Scalar-Tensor theory via the Eisenhart-Duval lift

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Conformal flatness of the lifted minisuperspace linearizes scalar-tensor cosmology.

desk verdict Interesting application of the Eisenhart-Duval lift to scalar-tensor cosmology, but the central derivation is missing and the printed key condition is internally inconsistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09356 v2 pith:KFFYUKJG submitted 2025-01-16 gr-qc hep-phmath-phmath.MP

Andronikos Paliathanasis This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-phmath-phmath.MP

keywords scalar-tensorgravityEisenhart-DuvalliftminisuperspaceconformalflatnesscosmologicalsolutionsBrans-Dicketheoryf(R)hybridmetric-Palatini

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 show that scalar-tensor cosmological models become exactly solvable when their Eisenhart-Duval extension is conformally flat. The construction adds an extra degree of freedom so that the scalar-field potential is absorbed into the geometry, and the field equations become null geodesic equations of a three-dimensional extended minisuperspace. Imposing vanishing Cotton-York tensor constrains the coupling function $\omega(\varphi)$ and the potential $V(\varphi)$ to one of two families, and in those cases a point transformation brings the equations to $\ddot X=0$, $\ddot Y=0$, $\ddot Z=0$. The payoff is a uniform scheme for writing down analytic power-law cosmologies in Brans-Dicke, $f(R)$, and hybrid metric-Palatini $f(R)$ gravity, with new potentials (54) for the last of these. If the scheme is right, a hard nonlinear problem is traded for a geometric classification problem.

What carries the argument

The Eisenhart-Duval lift extends the two-dimensional minisuperspace of scalar-tensor cosmology by a coordinate $z$ whose metric coefficient $1/(a^3V(\varphi))$ turns the potential into geometry, so that the original Hamiltonian constraint becomes the null condition (21). The central criterion is the vanishing of the Cotton-York tensor (26) of this three-dimensional metric, equivalently conformal flatness. When the criterion is met, the coordinate transformation (32)-(33) brings the line element to the form (23), and the lift construction identifies the null geodesics with $\ddot X=0$, $\ddot Y=0$, $\ddot Z=0$. The same machine is then applied to the scalar-tensor representations of $f(R)$ gravity and hybrid metric-Palatini $f(R)$ gravity to produce analytic solutions.

What would settle it

Compute the Cotton-York tensor of the metric (20) for a generic smooth pair $(\omega,V)$ and check whether all zero loci are captured by (28) and (30); one extra case would show the classification is incomplete. In parallel, integrate the null-geodesic equations for the conformally flat metric (23) with a nonconstant $M(X,Y,Z)$: if the equations contain $M$-dependent terms, then (24) is not the correct linearization and the derived potentials lose their stated foundation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that global geometric linearization of scalar-tensor cosmology works exactly when the extended minisuperspace line element (20) is conformally flat. Under that condition, the null geodesic equations of the lifted metric are equivalent, after the point transformation (32)-(33), to the free-particle equations (24), with the Hamiltonian constraint becoming (25). Solving the conformal-flatness conditions gives two admissible cases: $V(\varphi)=V_0\varphi^2$ with arbitrary $\omega(\varphi)$, and the logarithmic/exponential family (30), which in the Brans-Dicke limit reduces to the power laws (31). Applying the same linearization to $f(R)$ gravity reproduces a known power-law solution, and applying it to hybrid metric-Palatini $f(R)$ gravity yields the new potentials (54)-(55). A direct corollary is that all these models share the same solution space, namely the geodesics of flat space, expressed in different coordinate systems.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that conformal flatness of the extended geometry automatically makes the motion equations the free-particle equations $\ddot X=0$, $\ddot Y=0$, $\ddot Z=0$, even when the metric's relation to flat space involves a spacetime-dependent factor; this step is adopted from earlier work rather than proven here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any scalar-tensor model whose potential and coupling satisfy (28) or (30), the FLRW field equations have the closed-form solution (37)-(38): the scale factor is a product of two power laws $(t-t_1)^A(t-t_2)^B$, and the scalar field follows a similar power law.
In $f(R)$ gravity the method gives the scale factor $a(t)=(a_0(t-t_0))^B$, matching a known power-law solution found earlier by symmetry methods, so the lift supplies a shorter derivation of the same cosmology.
For hybrid metric-Palatini $f(R)$ gravity, the potentials (54) and (55) are new integrable cases; as $\varphi$ grows, (54) approaches $V_0\varphi^2$, so the corresponding universe expands as a power law at late times.
The conservation law (22) ties the lifted system back to the original scalar-tensor system when $I_0=\sqrt{2}$, fixing the sector of null geodesics that represents the cosmological model.
Because conformal transformations map the solutions between frames, the same analytic solution serves for Brans-Dicke, $f(R)$, and hybrid $f(R)$ descriptions after the appropriate change of variables.

Reading between the lines

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

The Cotton-York test used here could be run on anisotropic minisuperspaces; any conformally flat extended metric there would yield new exact anisotropic cosmologies by the same free-particle reduction.
The electromagnetic reinterpretation (27) suggests the linearizable models describe a charged scalar field, so the resulting solutions could seed minisuperspace quantum-cosmology calculations in which the extra coordinate plays the role of a clock.
In the nonzero-curvature case the constraint (58)-(59) is a subcase of the flat classification with $\omega_0=-6$, which the paper leaves implicit: curvature alone does not enlarge the admissible family of potentials.
Since the conformal-equivalence section maps the two potentials to a cosmological constant and an exponential potential in the conformally related frame, observational constraints on one frame can be translated to the other.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

Claim #1: The paper's central claim is that global geometric linearization of scalar-tensor cosmology works exactly when the extended minisuperspace line element (20) is conformally flat. Under that condition, the null geodesic equations of the lifted metric are equivalent, after the point transformation (32)-(33), to the free-particle equations (24), with the Hamiltonian constraint becoming (25). Solving t

/-- @claim 1 The paper's central claim is that global geometric linearization of scalar-tensor cosmology works exactly when the extended minisuperspace line element (20) is conformally flat. Under that condition, the null geodesic equations of the lifted metric are equivalent, after the point transformation (32)-(33), to the free-particle equations (24), with the Hamiltonian constraint becoming (25). Solving t -/
def central_claim : Prop :=

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

Talked through the paper. The idea is a fresh application: mapping a scalar-tensor FLRW minisuperspace to a three-dimensional extended space and asking for conformal flatness to linearize the null-geodesic equations. That's a clean geometric criterion, and the paper gives explicit coordinate transformations and power-law solutions, including new-looking potentials for hybrid f(R) gravity. The f(R) example is honestly acknowledged as previously known from Noether analysis, so the engagement with the literature is there.

The problem is that the load-bearing step is not actually shown. The Cotton-York computation that yields the two families (28) and (29) is omitted, and the step from conformal flatness to ẍ=ÿ=ż=0 is asserted without the needed lapse reparametrization. More seriously, Eq. (29) is internally inconsistent as printed: it first states an explicit relation between ω and V and then says 'ω arbitrary,' and the advertised solution (30) does not solve (29). Differentiating (30) gives ω−3/2 = (ω0/4)(u−2)^2 with u=φ d ln V/dφ, which is not the rational combination printed in (29). That means the new potentials, including the hybrid f(R) potentials (54), rest on an unsupported bridge. This is not a minor typo; it is the heart of the claimed result.

The paper is not a mess otherwise. The extended-minisuperspace setup is clearly described, the coordinate maps are written out, and prior work is honestly cited. The sign issue ω0<0 is glossed, and the hybrid potentials are not compared with the author's own integrable models [87], but those are secondary.

Bottom line: the method is worth exploring, and a referee could give the author a chance to supply the missing computation and fix the inconsistency. But as it stands, the central theorem is unverified. I would not publish this version, and I would not cite it yet. If a referee can get the computation and the corrected condition, the paper might be a useful contribution to analytic cosmology.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to use the Eisenhart-Duval lift in scalar-tensor cosmology by introducing an auxiliary coordinate z so that the point-like Lagrangian of a spatially flat FLRW model is replaced by a singular Lagrangian for null geodesics in a three-dimensional extended minisuperspace. The central claim is that if this extended minisuperspace is conformally flat (Cotton-York tensor vanishes), then a point transformation brings the field equations to the linear form X¨=Y¨=Z¨=0, yielding analytic power-law solutions. The method is applied to scalar-tensor theory with general ω(φ) and V(φ), to f(R) gravity, and to hybrid metric-Palatini f(R) gravity, where new potentials are claimed. The paper also discusses the nonzero spatial curvature case and conformal transformations between equivalent theories.

Significance. If the central derivation were valid, the paper would provide a geometric criterion for integrability of scalar-tensor cosmologies and would produce new analytic potentials, notably Eq. (54) for hybrid metric-Palatini f(R) gravity, using a method that is complementary to Noether symmetry analysis. The explicit construction of the extended Lagrangian, the Noether conservation law (22), and the closed-form solutions for the Brans-Dicke case are useful elements. However, the main result is not established in the manuscript: the Cotton-York computation is omitted, the key linearization step from conformal flatness to free-particle equations is asserted without proof and is not generally valid, and one of the two central conditions, Eq. (29), is internally inconsistent and incompatible with its stated solution (30). The claimed new potentials therefore rest on an unsupported foundation.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1, Eqs. (28)-(30)] The conditions for conformal flatness are stated without showing the Cotton-York tensor computation. More seriously, Eq. (29) is internally inconsistent: it first gives ω(φ) as an explicit function of V and its derivative, then says 'ω(φ) arbitrary'. These statements cannot both hold. Furthermore, differentiating the proposed solution (30) leads, with u = φ d ln V/dφ, to the relation ω - 3/2 = (ω0/4)(u - 2)^2, which does not match the expression in Eq. (29) as printed. Since Eqs. (28)-(30) are the input for the Brans-Dicke potentials (31), the f(R) potentials (44), and the hybrid f(R) potentials (53)-(55), the central linearization claim is unsupported.
[Section 3, Eqs. (23)-(24)] The paper asserts that if the extended minisuperspace is conformally flat, then there exists a transformation such that the metric takes the form ds^2 = M(α1 dX^2 + α2 dY^2 + α3 dZ^2) and the null geodesics read X¨=Y¨=Z¨=0. This is not true in general for an arbitrary affine parameter: for a metric conformal to flat space, the geodesic equations contain first-derivative terms proportional to ∂ ln M, and only after a specific reparametrization of the time variable, which is not specified or justified, could they take the free-particle form. The citation to [76] does not replace the missing derivation, and this step is load-bearing for the entire method.
[Section 3.1, Eq. (34)] The canonical Lagrangian after the change of variables (32)-(33) is presented without derivation. Given that the preceding conditions (28)-(30) are already in question, an explicit verification that this transformation maps the extended minisuperspace (20) to the claimed conformally flat form (34) is necessary. As written, Eq. (34) is also unclear: despite being labeled L(N,x,x˙,y,y˙), it contains the coordinate z and the parameter λ without defining the relation between z and the original variables.

minor comments (5)

[Title and text] The spelling 'Einsenhart-Duval' appears in the title and in several places; the standard spelling is 'Eisenhart-Duval'.
[Eq. (29)] The notation (ln V),φ and φ(ln V),φ is not defined; it should be written as d ln V/dφ and φ d ln V/dφ to avoid ambiguity about differentiation with respect to φ.
[Section 5, Eqs. (58)-(59)] The condition for the nonzero spatial curvature case is also stated without the Cotton-York computation; since the same method is used, this condition requires the same verification as Eqs. (28)-(30).
[Eqs. (37)-(39)] The paper does not discuss the reality conditions for the Brans-Dicke solution; the square root sqrt(3 - 2ω_BD) requires ω_BD < 3/2 for real exponents, and this restriction should be stated explicitly.
[Section 4.2] The expression for the potential in Eq. (54) is very complicated and is not checked by substitution into the field equations; a consistency check or a simpler asymptotic verification beyond the large-φ limit would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the potentials are selected by the independent Cotton-York flatness criterion and explicit coordinate transformations are displayed; the self-citation [76] is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper does not exhibit any step where a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction or where the target result is used to define the selection criterion. The free functions V(phi) and omega(phi) are constrained by an independent geometric condition, Cijk=0 (Eq. 26), i.e., Cotton-York flatness of the extended minisuperspace (20); although the computation is not shown, solving that condition is a well-posed derivation, not a fit to the linear solutions (24)/(36). The Eisenhart-Duval extension (19) is an equivalent reformulation: with I0=sqrt(2) the constraint (21) reduces to the original Friedmann constraint (13), which is an equivalence, not a circular prediction. The linearization assertion following [76], that a conformally flat three-space admits coordinates where null geodesics read X-double-dot = Y-double-dot = Z-double-dot = 0, is standard conformal geometry, and the paper also gives the explicit coordinate transformations (32)-(33) and (45) and the transformed Lagrangian (34), so the self-citation is not the sole load-bearing support. The main concerns are correctness and omitted proof, not circularity: the Cotton-York computation is omitted, and Eq. (29) as printed, 'omega(phi)=3/2+omega0((phi(lnV),phi)^2+4(1-4(lnV),phi)), omega(phi) arbitrary', is internally inconsistent and does not visibly solve to (30); differentiating (30) gives omega-3/2=(omega0/4)(phi(lnV),phi-2)^2, not the displayed expression. These are mathematical gaps that should be checked, but they do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Eisenhart-Duval equivalence and on the unproved linearization assertion. Two free parameters (V0 and ω0) parameterize the family of potentials that make the construction work, and the auxiliary coordinate z is an invented mathematical entity. No external data or independent benchmarks are used.

free parameters (3)

V0
Amplitude of the scalar potential appearing in V=V0 φ^2 and V=V0 φ^μ; arbitrary constant not determined by the theory.
ω0 (or λ) = ω0<0, λ=2/√(-ω0)
Constant introduced in equation (29) relating ω(φ) and V(φ); it parameterizes the family of linearizable potentials and must be negative for real solutions in the f(R) case.
Integration constants t1, t2, x0, y0
Initial-condition constants in the analytic solutions (37)-(38); they are not fixed by the field equations.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The extended null-geodesic Lagrangian (19) is dynamically equivalent to the original scalar-tensor Lagrangian (9) under the constraint I0=√2.
Section 3 states the equivalence without proof; this is the basis of the Eisenhart-Duval lift.
standard math A three-dimensional metric is conformally flat iff its Cotton-York tensor vanishes.
Used in Section 3.1 to impose linearization; standard differential geometry result.
ad hoc to paper If the extended minisuperspace is conformally flat, the null geodesics take the linear form ẍ=0, ÿ=0, ż=0.
Asserted with reference to the author's own work [76]; generally not true for affine parametrization with a nonconstant conformal factor, and no proof is given in this paper.
domain assumption The FLRW background and scalar field φ=φ(t) inherit the spacetime symmetries.
Standard cosmological reduction used from Section 2.1 onward.

invented entities (2)

Auxiliary coordinate z(t) in the extended minisuperspace
purpose: Introduced in the Eisenhart-Duval lift to absorb the scalar field potential into the geometry, turning the field equations into null geodesic equations.
z is a mathematical device with no direct physical observable; the paper suggests an electromagnetic interpretation via action (27) but does not make testable predictions.
Electromagnetic coupling term -(1/V(φ))F_μν F^μν in action (27)
purpose: Offers a physical interpretation for the auxiliary coordinate z.
Introduced as an aside; no observational consequences are derived.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological Solutions in Scalar-Tensor theory via the Eisenhart-Duval lift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KFFYUKJG

@misc{pith2026250109356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological Solutions in Scalar-Tensor theory via the Eisenhart-Duval lift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KFFYUKJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09356}
}

abstract

We implement the Einsenhart-Duval lift in scalar-tensor gravity as a means to construct integrable cosmological models and analytic cosmological solutions. Specifically, we employ a geometric criterion to constrain the free functions of the scalar-tensor theory such that the field equations can be written in the equivalent form of linear equations. This geometric linearization is achieved by the introduction of an extended minisuperspace description. The results are applied to construct analytic solutions in modified theories of gravity such as the $f\left( R\right) $-theory and the hybrid metric-Palatini $f\left( \mathcal{R}\right) $-gravity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

[87]

Barrow, Nucl

J.D. Barrow, Nucl. Phys. B 296, 679 (1988)

work page 1988
[76]

K. Finn, S. Karamitsos and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D 103 , 065004 (2021)

work page 2021
[1]

INTRODUCTION Scalar ﬁelds play an important role in the description of cosmological o bservations [1–4]. The dynamical degrees of freedom described by the scalar ﬁelds ca n drive the dynamics to explain the dynamical behavior of the physical variables, conseque ntly aﬀecting the cosmo- logical evolution and history [5–11]. There is a plethora of scalar ﬁe...
[2]

In the case where ω (φ) = ω BD be a constant, the Brans-Dicke theory [32] is recovered

SCALAR-TENSOR GRA VITY We consider the generalized Brans-Dicke gravitational Action [38] S = ∫ dx4√−g [ 1 2φR − 1 2 ω (φ) φ gµνφ ;µφ ;ν −V (φ) ] , (1) whereω (φ) is a varying parameter and V (φ) is the scalar ﬁeld potential. In the case where ω (φ) = ω BD be a constant, the Brans-Dicke theory [32] is recovered. Variation of the Action Integral (1) with re...
[3]

Scalar z =z (t) has been introduced to attribute the conservative forces as part of the geometry [76], s uch that the ﬁeld equations to be described as a set of geodesic equations

EINSENHAR T-DUV AL LIFT IN SCALAR-TENSOR COSMOLOGY We introduce the new point-like Lagrangian function ˜L ( N,a, ˙a,φ, ˙φ,z, ˙z ) = 1 2N ( 6aφ ˙a2 + 6a2 ˙a ˙φ + ω (φ) φ a3 ˙φ 2 + 1 a3V (φ) ˙z2 ) (19) deﬁned in the extended space of variables {a,φ,z }. Scalar z =z (t) has been introduced to attribute the conservative forces as part of the geometry [76], s ...
[4]

Mathematically, the two dynamical systems share the same solution and the same algebraic properties

Thus, Lagrangian function (19) describes an equiv- alent dynamical system with the scalar-tensor Lagrangian due to t he constraint I0 = √ 2. Mathematically, the two dynamical systems share the same solution and the same algebraic properties. To perform the global geometric linearization of the ﬁeld equations, we follow the ap- proach described in [76]. In...
[5]

We make use of this equivalency in ord er to apply the results of the previous section and derive analytic solutions for mod iﬁed theories of gravity

MODIFIED THEORIES OF GRA VITY One of the main characteristics of scalar-tensor theories is that t he scalar ﬁeld can at- tribute the dynamical degrees of freedom introduced by the modiﬁ ed theories of gravity, making the theories equivalent. We make use of this equivalency in ord er to apply the results of the previous section and derive analytic solution...
[6]

NONZERO SP A TIAL CUR V A TURE We proceed our analysis by considering a nonzero spatial curvatur e for the FLR W line element, some integrable scalar tensor theories with spatial curva ture are presented in [88, 89]. For this cosmological model, the point-like Lagrangian (9) is modiﬁed a s follows LK ( N,a, ˙a,φ, ˙φ ) = 1 2N ( 6aφ ˙a2 + 6a2 ˙a ˙φ + ω (φ) ...

Show all 104 references

[7]

Speciﬁcally, conformal equivalent theories have common so lution but diﬀerent phys- ical properties

CONFORMAL TRANSFORMA TIONS It is well known that scalar tensor theories are related through co nformal transformations [90–95]. Speciﬁcally, conformal equivalent theories have common so lution but diﬀerent phys- ical properties. Observable quantities are not invariant under co...
[8]

In modern cosmology, closed-form solutions provide us with importa nt information regarding the cosmological history and viability of the given gravitational mode l

CONCLUSIONS The derivation of exact and analytic solutions in gravitational physic s is of special interest. In modern cosmology, closed-form solutions provide us with importa nt information regarding the cosmological history and viability of the given gravitational mode l. In...

2022
[9]

Tegmark et al., Astrophys

M. Tegmark et al., Astrophys. J. 606, 702 (2004)

2004
[10]

Kowalski et al., Astrophys

M. Kowalski et al., Astrophys. J. 686, 749 (2008)

2008
[11]

Komatsu et al., Astrophys

E. Komatsu et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 180, 330 (200 9)
[12]

Suzuki et

N. Suzuki et. al., Astrophys. J. 746, 85 (2012)

2012
[13]

Clifton, P.G

T. Clifton, P.G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, Phy s. Rept. 513, 1 (2012)

2012
[14]

Quiros, Int

I. Quiros, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, 1930012 (2019)

2019
[15]

Barrow and P

J.D. Barrow and P. Saich, Class. Quantum Grav. 10, 279 (19 93)
[16]

Ure˜ na-Lopez, J

L.A. Ure˜ na-Lopez, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 761, 012076 (201 6)
[17]

Smith, V

T.L. Smith, V. Poulin and M.A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D 101, 0635 23 (2020)

2020
[18]

Gang Liu, Zhihuan Zhou, Yuhao Mu and Lixin Xu, MNRAS 529, 1852 (2024)

2024
[19]

Paliathanasis, Eur

A. Paliathanasis, Eur. Phys. J. C 137, 165 (2022)

2022
[20]

Ratra and P.J.E

B. Ratra and P.J.E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988)

1988
[21]

Peebles and B

P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (200 3)
[22]

N. Roy, S. Goswami and S. Das, Phys. Dark Univ. 36, 10137 ( 2022)

2022
[23]

Armendariz-Picon, V.F

C. Armendariz-Picon, V.F. Mukhanov and P.J. Steinhard t, Phys. Rev. D 63, 103510 (2001)

2001
[24]

Nicolis, R

A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi and E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064036 (2009)

2009
[25]

Deﬀayet, G

C. Deﬀayet, G. Esposito-Farese and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084003 (2009)

2009
[26]

Hu, Phys

W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 71, 047301 (2005)

2005
[27]

Chervon, Russ

S.V. Chervon, Russ. Phys. J. 38, 539 (1995)

1995
[28]

Dimakis, A

N. Dimakis, A. Paliathanasis, P.A. Terzis and T. Christ odoulakis, 79, 618 (2019)

2019
[29]

Horndeski, Int

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

1974
[30]

O’Hanlon, Phys

J. O’Hanlon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29 137 (1972) 17

1972
[31]

Coley and R.J

A.A. Coley and R.J. van den Hoogen, Phys. Rev. D 023517 (2 000)
[32]

Salim and S.L Sautu, Class

J.M. Salim and S.L Sautu, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 353 (1 996)
[33]

Hohmann, Phys

M. Hohmann, Phys. Rev. D 98, 064004 (2018)

2018
[34]

Paliathanasis, G

A. Paliathanasis, G. Papagiannopoulos, S. Basilakos J .D. Barrow, Eur. J. Phys. C 79, 723 (2019)

2019
[35]

Gorini, A

V. Gorini, A. Yu. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasqu ier, Phys. Rev. D 69, 123512 (2004)

2004
[36]

Kamenshchik, A

A.Yu. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, S.Yu. Vern ov, Phys. Rev. D 87, 063503 (2013)

2013
[37]

Paliathanasis, Eur

A. Paliathanasis, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 125 (2024)

2024
[38]

Ivanov and S.Yu Vernov, New Integrable Chiral Cosm ological Models with Two Scalar Fields (2024) [arXiv:2407.12732]

V.R. Ivanov and S.Yu Vernov, New Integrable Chiral Cosm ological Models with Two Scalar Fields (2024) [arXiv:2407.12732]

2024 arXiv
[39]

J¨ arv, M

L. J¨ arv, M. R¨ unkla, M. Saal and O. Vilson, Phys. Rev. D 9 7, 124025 (2018)

2018
[40]

Brans and R.H

C. Brans and R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 195 (1961)

1961
[41]

Faraoni, Phys

V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 59, 084021, (1999)

1999
[42]

Jordan, Nature 164, 637 (1937) and Schwerkraft und Weltfall, 2nd ed

P. Jordan, Nature 164, 637 (1937) and Schwerkraft und Weltfall, 2nd ed. (Vieweg und Sohn, Braunschweig, 1955)

1937
[43]

Postma and M

M. Postma and M. Volponi, Phys. Rev. D 90, 103516 (2014)

2014
[44]

Faraoni and E

V. Faraoni and E. Gunzig, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 217 (19 99)
[45]

Quiros, R

I. Quiros, R. Garcia-Salcedo and J.E. Madria Aguilar, C onformal transformations and the conformal equivalence principle (2011) [arXiv:1108.2911 ]

2011 arXiv
[46]

Faraoni, Cosmology in Scalar-Tensor Gravity, Funda mental Theories of Physics vol

V. Faraoni, Cosmology in Scalar-Tensor Gravity, Funda mental Theories of Physics vol. 139, (Kluwer Academic Press: Netherlands, 2004)

2004
[47]

Sotiriou, Phys

T.P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 081103 (2012)

2012
[48]

Geng, H.-J Kuan and L.-W

C.-Q. Geng, H.-J Kuan and L.-W. Lao, Class. Quantum Grav . 37, 115001 (2020)

2020
[49]

Moﬀat and V

J.W. Moﬀat and V. Toth, Universe 7, 358 (2021)

2021
[50]

Ballardini and F

M. Ballardini and F. Finelli, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063531 (2 022)
[51]

Cuzinatto, R.P

R.R. Cuzinatto, R.P. Gupta and P.J. Pompeia, Symmetry 1 5, 709 (2023)

2023
[52]

Ballardini, A.G

M. Ballardini, A.G. Ferrari and F. Finelli, JCAP 04, 026 (2023)

2023
[53]

Hamidreza, Z

S. Hamidreza, Z. Wang and L. Pogosian, JCAP 07, 069 (2023 )

2023
[54]

Barros and C

A. Barros and C. Romero, Universe 9, 283 (2023)

2023
[55]

Avdeev and A.V

N.A. Avdeev and A.V. Toporensky, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett . 20, 486 (2023) 18

2023
[56]

Faraoni and C

V. Faraoni and C. Zeyn, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124002 (2024)

2024
[57]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, D. Saez-Gomez an d V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. D 77, 106005 (2008)

2008
[58]

Elizalde, S

E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 70 , 043539 (2004)

2004
[59]

Ryan and L.C

M.P. Ryan and L.C. Shepley, Homogeneous Relativistic C osmologies, Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton University Press (1975)

1975
[60]

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

1967
[61]

J. A. Wheeler, in Batelles Rencontres, edited by C. DeWi tt and J.A.Wheeler, Benjamin, New York (1968)

1968
[62]

J. D. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2960 (1983 )

1983
[63]

Halder, A

A.K. Halder, A. Paliathnasis and P.G.L. Leach, Symmetr y 10, 744 (2018)

2018
[64]

Dimakis, T

N. Dimakis, T. Christodoulakis and P.A. Terzis, J. Geom . Phys. 77, 97 (2012)

2012
[66]

Paliathanasis, M

A. Paliathanasis, M. Tsamparlis, S. Basilakos and S. Ca pozziello, Phys. Rev D 89, 063532 (2014)

2014
[67]

Tsamparlis and A

M. Tsamparlis and A. Paliathanasis, Symmetry 10, 233 (2 018)
[68]

Terzis, N

P.A. Terzis, N. Dimakis and T. Christodoulakis, Phys. R ev. D 90, 123543 (2014)

2014
[69]

Paliathanasis, Gen

A. Paliathanasis, Gen. Rel. Grav. 51, 101 (2019)

2019
[70]

Ribas, H.O

M.O. Ribas, H.O. Bonato, C.P. Constantinidis and F.P. D evecchi, Phys. Scripta 99, 085033 (2024)

2024
[71]

Eisenhart, Dynamical Trajectories and Geodesics , Annals

L.P. Eisenhart, Dynamical Trajectories and Geodesics , Annals. Math. 30, 591 (1928)

1928
[72]

Duval, G

C. Duval, G. Burdet, H.P. Kunzle and M. Perrin, Bargmann structures and Newton-Cartan theory, Phys. Rev. D 1841, 31 (1985)

1985
[73]

Kaluza, Zum unit¨ atsproblem der physik Itzungsber, Preuss

T. Kaluza, Zum unit¨ atsproblem der physik Itzungsber, Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 966 (1921)

1921
[74]

Klein, The atomicity of electricity as a quantum theo ry law, Nature 118, 516 (1926)

O. Klein, The atomicity of electricity as a quantum theo ry law, Nature 118, 516 (1926)

1926
[75]

K. Finn, S. Karamitsos and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D 98, 016015 (2018)

2018
[77]

N. Kan, T. Aoyama, T. Hasegawa and K. Shiraishi, Phys. Re v. D 104, 086001 (2021)

2021
[78]

Cariglia, A

M. Cariglia, A. Galajinsky, G.W. Gibbons and P.A. Horva thy, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 314 (2018)

2018
[79]

Paliathanasis, Phys

A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Dark Univ. 44, 101466 (2024)

2024
[80]

Paliathanasis, Cosmological Constant from Equival ent Transformation in Quantum Cos- 19 mology, (2024) [arXiv:2405.20683]

A. Paliathanasis, Cosmological Constant from Equival ent Transformation in Quantum Cos- 19 mology, (2024) [arXiv:2405.20683]

2024 arXiv
[81]

Achour, E.R

J.B. Achour, E.R. Livine and D. Oriti, Phys. Rev. D 108, 1 04028 (2023)

2023
[82]

Karananas, Marco Michel, Javier Rubio, Phy s.Lett.B 850, 138524 (2024)

Georgios K. Karananas, Marco Michel, Javier Rubio, Phy s.Lett.B 850, 138524 (2024)

2024
[83]

Paliathanasis, J

A. Paliathanasis, J. Geom. Phys. 206, 105338 (2024)

2024
[84]

Paliathanasis, Symmetry 16, 988 (2024)

A. Paliathanasis, Symmetry 16, 988 (2024)

2024
[85]

Buchdahl, Mon

H.A. Buchdahl, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 150, 1 (1970)

1970
[86]

Harko, T.S

T. Harko, T.S. Koivisto, F.S.N. Lobo and G.J. Olmo, Phys . Rev. D 85, 084016 (2012)

2012
[88]

Starobinsky, Phys

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

1980
[89]

Goheer, J

N. Goheer, J. Larena and P.K.S. Dunsby, Phys. Rev. D 80, 0 61301 (2009)

2009
[90]

Dyadina, S.P

P.I. Dyadina, S.P. Labazova and S.O. Alexeyev, JETP 156 , 905 (2019)

2019
[91]

Harko and F.S.N

T. Harko and F.S.N. Lobo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29, 2030008 (2020)

2020
[92]

Paliathanasis, M

A. Paliathanasis, M. Tsamparlis and S. Basilakos, Phys . Rev. D 84, 123514 (2011)

2011
[93]

Rosa, F.S.N

J.L. Rosa, F.S.N. Lobo and D. Rubiera-Garcia, JCAP 07, 0 09 (2021)

2021
[94]

Rosa, Eur

J.L. Rosa, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 985 (2024)

2024
[95]

Paliathanasis, Mod

A. Paliathanasis, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36, 2150100 (2021)

2021
[96]

Bars, S.H

I. Bars, S.H. Chen, P.J. Steinhardt and N. Turok, Phys. R ev. D 86, 083542 (2012)

2012
[97]

Fermi, M

D. Fermi, M. Gengo and L. Pizzocchero, Nucl. Phys. B 957, 115095 (2020)

2020
[98]

Faraoni, E

V. Faraoni, E. Gunzig and P. Nardone Fund. Cosmic Phys. 2 0, 121 (1999)

1999
[99]

Keiser, Phys

D. Keiser, Phys. Rev. D. 81, 084044 (2010)

2010
[100]

Tsamparlis, A

M. Tsamparlis, A. Paliathanasis, S. Basilakos and S. Ca pozziello, Gen. Rel. Gravit. 45, 2003 (2013)

2013
[101]

Bars and S.H

I. Bars and S.H. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 83, 043522 (2011)

2011
[102]

Kamenshchik, E.O.Pozdeeva, A.Tronconi, G.Ventu ri and S.Y

A.Y. Kamenshchik, E.O.Pozdeeva, A.Tronconi, G.Ventu ri and S.Y. Vernov, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 105003 (2014)

2014
[103]

Kamenshchik, E.O

A.Y. Kamenshchik, E.O. Pozdeeva, A. Tronconi, G. Ventu ri and S.Y. Vernov, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 015004 (2016)

2016
[104]

Banarjee and B

N. Banarjee and B. Majumber, Phys. Lett. B 754, 129 (2016 )

2016
[105]

Galaverni, Eur

G Gionti and M. Galaverni, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 265 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [87]

Barrow, Nucl

J.D. Barrow, Nucl. Phys. B 296, 679 (1988)

work page 1988

[2] [76]

K. Finn, S. Karamitsos and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D 103 , 065004 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [1]

INTRODUCTION Scalar ﬁelds play an important role in the description of cosmological o bservations [1–4]. The dynamical degrees of freedom described by the scalar ﬁelds ca n drive the dynamics to explain the dynamical behavior of the physical variables, conseque ntly aﬀecting the cosmo- logical evolution and history [5–11]. There is a plethora of scalar ﬁe...

[4] [2]

In the case where ω (φ) = ω BD be a constant, the Brans-Dicke theory [32] is recovered

SCALAR-TENSOR GRA VITY We consider the generalized Brans-Dicke gravitational Action [38] S = ∫ dx4√−g [ 1 2φR − 1 2 ω (φ) φ gµνφ ;µφ ;ν −V (φ) ] , (1) whereω (φ) is a varying parameter and V (φ) is the scalar ﬁeld potential. In the case where ω (φ) = ω BD be a constant, the Brans-Dicke theory [32] is recovered. Variation of the Action Integral (1) with re...

[5] [3]

Scalar z =z (t) has been introduced to attribute the conservative forces as part of the geometry [76], s uch that the ﬁeld equations to be described as a set of geodesic equations

EINSENHAR T-DUV AL LIFT IN SCALAR-TENSOR COSMOLOGY We introduce the new point-like Lagrangian function ˜L ( N,a, ˙a,φ, ˙φ,z, ˙z ) = 1 2N ( 6aφ ˙a2 + 6a2 ˙a ˙φ + ω (φ) φ a3 ˙φ 2 + 1 a3V (φ) ˙z2 ) (19) deﬁned in the extended space of variables {a,φ,z }. Scalar z =z (t) has been introduced to attribute the conservative forces as part of the geometry [76], s ...

[6] [4]

Mathematically, the two dynamical systems share the same solution and the same algebraic properties

Thus, Lagrangian function (19) describes an equiv- alent dynamical system with the scalar-tensor Lagrangian due to t he constraint I0 = √ 2. Mathematically, the two dynamical systems share the same solution and the same algebraic properties. To perform the global geometric linearization of the ﬁeld equations, we follow the ap- proach described in [76]. In...

[7] [5]

We make use of this equivalency in ord er to apply the results of the previous section and derive analytic solutions for mod iﬁed theories of gravity

MODIFIED THEORIES OF GRA VITY One of the main characteristics of scalar-tensor theories is that t he scalar ﬁeld can at- tribute the dynamical degrees of freedom introduced by the modiﬁ ed theories of gravity, making the theories equivalent. We make use of this equivalency in ord er to apply the results of the previous section and derive analytic solution...

[8] [6]

NONZERO SP A TIAL CUR V A TURE We proceed our analysis by considering a nonzero spatial curvatur e for the FLR W line element, some integrable scalar tensor theories with spatial curva ture are presented in [88, 89]. For this cosmological model, the point-like Lagrangian (9) is modiﬁed a s follows LK ( N,a, ˙a,φ, ˙φ ) = 1 2N ( 6aφ ˙a2 + 6a2 ˙a ˙φ + ω (φ) ...