REVIEW 2 cited by
Do We Really Understand the Cosmos?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Our knowledge about the universe has increased tremendously in the last three decades or so --- thanks to the progress in observations --- but our understanding has improved very little. There are several fundamental questions about our universe for which we have no answers within the current, operationally very successful, approach to cosmology. Worse still, we do not even know how to address some of these issues within the conventional approach to cosmology. This fact suggests that we are missing some important theoretical ingredients in the overall description of the cosmos. I will argue that these issues --- some of which are not fully appreciated or emphasized in the literature --- demand a paradigm shift: We should not think of the universe as described by a specific solution to the gravitational field equations; instead, it should be treated as a special physical system governed by a different mathematical description, rooted in the quantum description of spacetime. I will outline how this can possibly be done.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
First Law of Thermodynamics and Emergence of Cosmic Space in a Non-Flat Universe
In a non-flat Friedmann universe, the unified first law dE = TdS + WdV and the energy-flux form -dE = TdS are consistent only when the horizon volume is taken as the areal volume, not the proper invariant volume.
-
Gravity and Quantum Theory: Domains of Conflict and Contact
A review that uses horizon thermality and invariance under vacuum-energy shifts to argue that gravity is thermodynamic, with a predicted cosmological constant.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.