Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

First Law of Thermodynamics and Emergence of Cosmic Space in a Non-Flat Universe

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a non-flat universe, the first law of thermodynamics works only with the areal horizon volume.

desk verdict The no-go for invariant volume is real under the paper's E=ρV assumption, but that assumption is doing the work; 'demands' overstates what is shown. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03349 v2 pith:OBC72COP submitted 2019-08-09 gr-qc

Hareesh T , P.B. Krishna , Titus K Mathew This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 98.80.-k
keywords firstlawofthermodynamicsemergentcosmologyapparenthorizonnon-flatFriedmannuniversearealvolumeproperinvariantPadmanabhanemergenceholographicequipartition
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 asks whether the first law of thermodynamics can coexist with Padmanabhan's emergence of cosmic space when the universe is not spatially flat. It claims that using the proper invariant volume inside the apparent horizon makes the unified first law $dE=T\,dS+W\,dV$ fail for $k=\pm1$, and also makes the energy flux across the horizon disagree with the energy change inside it. The paper traces both failures to a single volume choice and concludes that both standard forms of the first law are consistent only when the horizon volume is taken to be the areal volume $\bar V_k=4\pi r_A^3/3$. If correct, the result resolves the volume-choice ambiguity in emergent cosmology and suggests that the apparent flatness of the universe may itself be a thermodynamic consistency condition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the choice of volume inside the apparent horizon: the areal volume $\bar V_k=4\pi r_A^3/3$, which is the Euclidean spherical volume, versus the proper invariant volume $V_k=4\pi a^3\int_0^{r_A/a} r^2/\sqrt{1-kr^2}\,dr$, which is the metric volume for curvature $k$. The argument runs by inserting the infinitesimal change $dV_k=(3V_kH-4\pi r_A^2)\,dt+4\pi r_A \dot r_A H^{-1}\,dr_A$ into the unified first law together with the continuity equation and the Friedmann equations, and comparing the result with $T\,dS$ for the horizon temperature and entropy. The extra term that prevents equality is proportional to $V_k/(2\bar V_k)-1/(2Hr_A)$; it vanishes exactly in flat space, which is why the same calculation is unproblematic for $k=0$.

What would settle it

Take a non-flat FRW model with $k=\pm1$ and use the same horizon temperature and entropy, but replace $E=\rho V$ by the Misner-Sharp energy $E_{\rm MS}=r_A/(2l_p^2)$; if the unified first law then holds with the proper invariant volume, the paper's conclusion is an artefact of its energy assignment. Observationally, one can compute $dE-W\,dV_k-T\,dS$ from measured $H(z)$ and $\Omega_k$; a $k\neq0$ model whose violation is comparable to the flat-space residual would falsify the claim that the failure is tied to non-flatness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the claim is that the unification of horizon thermodynamics with the emergence of cosmic space in a non-flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe is possible only with the areal volume $\bar V_k=4\pi r_A^3/3$, not with the proper invariant volume $V_k=4\pi a^3\int_0^{r_A/a} r^2(1-kr^2)^{-1/2}\,dr$. Starting from the apparent-horizon radius $r_A^2=(H^2+k/a^2)^{-1}$, the standard horizon temperature and area entropy, and $E=\rho V$, the paper derives that $dE-W\,dV_k$ acquires an extra term proportional to $V_k/(2\bar V_k)-1/(2Hr_A)$ and therefore does not reduce to $T\,dS$ unless $k=0$. In the complementary formulation $-d\bar E=\bar T\,dS$, the horizon flux equals the internal energy change only when the volume is areal. The final conclusion is that the two first-law formulations are mutually consistent exactly for the areal volume, and that no time-dependent Planck length can rescue the invariant-volume version.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's negative result assumes that the horizon keeps its standard temperature and area entropy no matter which volume is used, and that the energy inside the horizon is simply the matter energy density times the chosen volume; if a volume-adapted temperature or a different energy definition is the right choice, the inconsistency would disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The unified first law $dE=T\,dS+W\,dV$ and the energy-flux first law $-d\bar E=\bar T\,dS$ can be stated together only with areal volume; with proper invariant volume at least one of them fails for $k=\pm1$.
  • Sheykhi's expansion law for non-flat universes, which uses areal volume, is recovered from the $-d\bar E=\bar T\,dS$ form in Einstein, Gauss-Bonnet, and Lovelock gravity, reinforcing the first law as the thermodynamic backbone of the emergence law.
  • A time-dependent effective Planck length, the device used to keep the invariant-volume expansion law viable, does not restore the unified first law for invariant volume.
  • If areal volume is the unique thermodynamically consistent choice, the present-day near-flatness of the universe is not an accident but a requirement for the two first-law forms to coexist.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The failure term in Eq. (21) is an explicit, testable function of $H$, $\dot r_A$, and $V_k$; one could evaluate its magnitude with observed $H(z)$ and curvature data to see how strongly non-flat geometries violate the unified first law in the past.
  • The paper does not consider a volume-adapted horizon temperature; if such a temperature existed, the invariant volume could be reinstated, so the claim's scope is a conditional no-go: with the standard temperature and area entropy, invariant volume fails.
  • Since the argument uses only area-proportional entropy, the same volume sensitivity is likely to appear in any emergent-gravity scheme whose degrees of freedom scale with horizon area, though modified-gravity entropy corrections could shift the exact extra terms.
  • A cosmological model with $k=\pm1$ and a history that passes near the locus where the extra term vanishes would temporarily satisfy the invariant-volume first law; identifying such epochs could provide an observational window on the volume ambiguity.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the status of two forms of the first law of thermodynamics at the apparent horizon of a non-flat FRW universe when the proper invariant volume is used instead of the areal volume. In Section III the authors show, under the identification E = ρV with V the invariant volume and with the standard areal-radius temperature and entropy, that the unified first law dE = TdS + WdV acquires extra terms (Eq. 21) that vanish only for flat space. In Section IV they show that the energy flux across the horizon, dE = -A(ρ+p)H r_A dt, equals the change of energy inside the horizon, dE_v = -3V(ρ+p)H dt, only when V is the areal volume. They conclude that a consistent formulation of the two forms of the first law demands the use of areal volume, and they extend the derivation of the expansion law from the form -dE = TdS to higher-dimensional Einstein, Gauss-Bonnet, and Lovelock gravities with areal volume.

Significance. The paper would be significant if it established that areal volume is thermodynamically privileged in non-flat emergent cosmology, because it would resolve the volume-choice debate in the literature. The explicit algebraic comparisons and the generalization of the Cai-Kim-type derivation to Gauss-Bonnet and Lovelock theories are useful. However, the central no-go is conditional: it follows only after fixing E = ρV_k and the areal-radius T and S, and it does not test the Misner-Sharp energy or a volume-adapted temperature. The areal-volume conclusion in Section IV is close to a geometric identity. Hence the result is a consistency check rather than a fundamental demand.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (21)] The no-go result is derived by setting E = ρV_k while keeping the temperature and entropy of Eq. (14), which are standard for the areal radius. For areal volume, E = ρVbar_k is precisely the Misner-Sharp energy, the variable on which the unified first law is normally based; choosing V_k in E = ρV changes the energy content of the system. The extra term in Eq. (21) is therefore a statement about this modified energy assignment, not a demonstration that invariant volume is thermodynamically inconsistent. The conclusion that it is 'impossible' to formulate the unified first law with invariant volume outruns the assumptions tested; the correct claim is that the law fails under the particular E, T, S identifications used here.
  2. [Section IV, Eqs. (24) and (54)] The energy flux formula in Eq. (24) is derived for the areal-radius frame, and equating it with the internal energy change in Eq. (54) reduces to V = A r_A/3, the Euclidean relation between enclosed volume and surface area. This equality is a geometric identity for the areal radius rather than an independent thermodynamic requirement. Because the flux formula already encodes the areal volume, the conclusion that consistency 'demands' areal volume is circular in this part of the argument.
  3. [Abstract and Section V] The central claim that a consistent formulation of the two forms of the first law demands the use of areal volume overreaches the analysis. The paper does not test whether a covariant invariant-volume formulation based on the Misner-Sharp energy or a volume-adapted temperature restores the first law, as suggested by the literature. The conclusions should be tempered to conditional statements, and the alternatives should be discussed or ruled out, before the paper can justify its title.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (16)] The coefficient of dr_A in Eq. (16) appears to contain a typo: it should be 4π r_A/H, not 4π r_A dot_r_A/H. The subsequent algebra in Eq. (17) is consistent with the corrected expression, so the typo is not propagated.
  2. [Eq. (17)] There is an unbalanced parenthesis in Eq. (17); the bracket after H dt is not closed.
  3. [Section III] The paper should state explicitly that E = ρV with invariant volume is not the Misner-Sharp energy and that the latter is the energy variable used in the standard unified first law.
  4. [Section IV] The notation E_check for the energy flux is introduced only after it is used; define it earlier or in Eq. (24).
  5. [Section IV] The derivation from Eq. (31) to Eq. (32) is compressed; adding one intermediate line would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central no-go result is direct algebra from stated thermodynamic identifications, not a restatement of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's key claims are obtained by explicit substitutions. In Section III, dE - WdV_k is computed from E = ρV, W = (ρ - p)/2, the continuity equation (18), and the Friedmann identity (20), yielding Eq. (21), which fails to reduce to TdS unless the invariant volume coincides with the areal volume (the flat case). In Section IV, the equality between the flux dE = -A(ρ + p)r_A H dt and the energy change dE_v = V dρ reduces to V = 4πr_A^3/3, again by direct algebra. These are independent derivations under the stated assignments of E, T, and S; they do not fit a parameter to data or assume the conclusion. The choice E = ρV and the standard horizon temperature and entropy are assumptions, not outputs, and the paper does not smuggle the areal volume into those definitions. The self-citations ([1], [25]-[27], [31]) are motivational and are corroborated by an external derivation [35] for the first-law/expansion-law connection; the no-go result does not rest on those citations. Whether a different energy variable or a volume-adapted temperature could restore the first law is a robustness/correctness question, not circularity. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The central claim rests on standard FRW background assumptions, the apparent-horizon thermodynamic identifications (Eq. 14, E = ρV), and the entropy formulas for higher-curvature gravities. The paper does not introduce new entities.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The FRW line element and the apparent horizon are the correct thermodynamic boundary.
    Section II, Eqs. (1)-(2); the entire analysis assumes homogeneity, isotropy, and that the apparent horizon is the relevant surface.
  • domain assumption Horizon entropy and temperature are S = A/4l_p^2 and T = -(1/2πr_A)(1 - dot r_A/(2H r_A)).
    Eq. (14), assumed to hold for the apparent horizon in non-flat FRW; not derived. If a volume-adapted temperature were used, the conclusion could change.
  • domain assumption The unified first law holds as dE = TdS + WdV with E = ρV and W = (ρ - p)/2.
    Taken from Ref. [2] and applied with V chosen as the volume variable; the paper does not justify E = ρV for invariant volume.
  • standard math The continuity equation dρ = -3H(ρ + p)dt holds.
    Used in Eqs. (18)-(19); standard consequence of energy-momentum conservation in FRW cosmology.
  • standard math The Friedmann equations and the apparent horizon radius r_A^2 = 1/(H^2 + k/a^2) hold.
    Used throughout Sections II-IV; standard background equations for the assumed FRW geometry.
  • domain assumption The degree-of-freedom counts N_sur and N_bulk are given by Eqs. (3), (28), (41), and (51).
    Padmanabhan-Sheykhi definitions extended by hand to Gauss-Bonnet and Lovelock gravity; central to the expansion-law derivations.
  • domain assumption The entropy relations for Gauss-Bonnet and Lovelock horizons, Eqs. (35) and (44), apply to the apparent horizon.
    The paper states this assumption explicitly in Section IV; if these entropy formulas are wrong for the apparent horizon, the derived expansion laws would fail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First Law of Thermodynamics and Emergence of Cosmic Space in a Non-Flat Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OBC72COP

@misc{pith2026190803349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First Law of Thermodynamics and Emergence of Cosmic Space in a Non-Flat Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OBC72COP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03349}
}
abstract

The emergence of cosmic space as cosmic time progresses is an exciting idea advanced by Padmanabhan to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. The generalization of Padmanabhan's conjecture to the non-flat universe has resulted in scepticism about the choice of volume such that the law of emergence can not be appropriately formulated if one uses proper invariant volume. The deep connection between the first law of thermodynamics and the law of emergence \cite{mahith}, motivate us to explore the status of the first law in a non-flat universe when one uses proper invariant volume. We have shown that the first law of thermodynamics, $dE = TdS +WdV$ cannot be formulated properly for a non-flat universe using proper invariant volume. We have also investigated the status of the first law of the form $-dE = TdS$ in a non-flat universe. We have shown that the energy change dE within the horizon and the outward energy flux are not equivalent to each other in a non-flat universe when we use the proper invariant volume. We have further shown that the consistency between the above two forms of the first law claimed in Ref. \cite{caiakb} will hold only with the use of the areal volume of the horizon. Thus, a consistent formulation of the above two forms of the first law of thermodynamics demands the use of areal volume.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Expansion Law From First Law of Thermodynamics

    M. Mahith, P. B. Krishna, and T. K. Mathew, JCAP 1812, 042 (2018) , arXiv:1808.00393 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Akbar and R.-G

    M. Akbar and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084003 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, Communications in Mathematical Physics 31, 161 (1973)

    1973

  4. [4]

    S. W. Hawking, Euclidean quantum gravity , Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975) , [,167(1975)]

    work page 1975

  5. [5]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  6. [6]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995) , arXiv:gr-qc/9504004 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 1995

  7. [7]

    A Physical Interpretation of Gravitational Field Equations

    T. Padmanabhan, Proceedings, International Conference on Invisible Universe: Paris, France, June 29-July 3, 2009 , AIP Conf. Proc. 1241, 93 (2010) , arXiv:0911.1403 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Paranjape, S

    A. Paranjape, S. Sarkar, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D74, 104015 (2006) , arXiv:hep-th/0607240 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2006

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Padmanabhan, Gen

    T. Padmanabhan, Gen. Rel. Grav. 46, 1673 (2014) , arXiv:1312.3253 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Eling, R

    C. Eling, R. Guedens, and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 121301 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Padmanabhan, Curr

    T. Padmanabhan, Curr. Sci. 109, 2236 (2015) , arXiv:1512.06546 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Padmanabhan, Reports on Progress in Physics 73, 046901 (2010)

    T. Padmanabhan, Reports on Progress in Physics 73, 046901 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Padmanabhan, Comptes Rendus Physique 18, 275 (2017) , arXiv:1611.03505 [gr-qc]

    T. Padmanabhan, Comptes Rendus Physique 18, 275 (2017) , arXiv:1611.03505 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Padmanabhan, Mod

    T. Padmanabhan, Mod. Phys. Lett. A30, 1540007 (2015) , arXiv:1410.6285 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    N. S. Linnemann and M. R. Visser, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. B64, 1 (2018) , arXiv:1711.10503 [physics.hist-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    H. S. Yang and M. Sivakumar, Phys. Rev. D82, 045004 (2010) , arXiv:0908.2809 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sindoni, SIGMA 8, 027 (2012) , arXiv:1110.0686 [gr-qc]

    L. Sindoni, SIGMA 8, 027 (2012) , arXiv:1110.0686 [gr-qc] . 15

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Verlinde, Journal of High Energy Physics 2011, 29 (2011)

    E. Verlinde, Journal of High Energy Physics 2011, 29 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Padmanabhan, Mod

    T. Padmanabhan, Mod. Phys. Lett. A25, 1129 (2010) , arXiv:0912.3165 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Padmanabhan, Class

    T. Padmanabhan, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 4485 (2004) , arXiv:gr-qc/0308070 [gr-qc]

    2004 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Padmanabhan, (2012), arXiv:1206.4916 [hep-th]

    T. Padmanabhan, (2012), arXiv:1206.4916 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Chakraborty, Journal of High Energy Physics 2015, 29 (2015)

    S. Chakraborty, Journal of High Energy Physics 2015, 29 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Chakraborty and T

    S. Chakraborty and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124017 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    and Eq.( 44) as 1 ln− 1 p drA dt Σ m i=1 ( i ˆcir2− 2i A ) = 8πr 3 A(ρ + p)H n − 1 . (47) Using the Eq.( 2) and the Friedmann equation in Lovelock gravity given by [ 46] Σ m i=1 ˆci ( H 2 + k a2 ) i = 16πln− 1 p n(n − 1)ρ, (48) one can rewrite Eq.( 48) as 1 ln− 1 p drA dt Σ m ...

  17. [25]

    P. B. Krishna and T. K. Mathew, Phys. Rev. D 96, 063513 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Chakraborty and T

    S. Chakraborty and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D 90, 084021 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    P. B and T. K. Mathew, (2019), arXiv:1905.03529 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    P. B. Krishna and T. K. Mathew, Phys. Rev. D99, 023535 (2019) , arXiv:1805.01705 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Zhang and X.-M

    W. Zhang and X.-M. Kuang, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018, 6758078 (2018) , arXiv:1712.04362 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Komatsu, Phys

    N. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. D 96, 103507 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    H. B. V. T., K. P. B., and T. K. Mathew, (2019), arXiv:1905.03552 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Tu, Y.-X

    F.-Q. Tu, Y.-X. Chen, B. Sun, and Y.-C. Yang, Phys. Lett. B784, 411 (2018) , arXiv:1707.06461 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sheykhi, Phys

    A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D 87, 061501 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Cai, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012, 16 (2012)

    R.-G. Cai, Journal of High Energy Physics 2012, 16 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    furnish the substantial shreds of evidence to consider the first law of thermodynamics as the backbone of expansion law. In this context, the previously n oted challenges faced by the expansion law proposed with invariant volume motivate us to susp ect the feasibility of formul...

  28. [36]

    Eune and W

    M. Eune and W. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 88, 067303 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    F. L. Dezaki and B. Mirza, Gen. Rel. Grav. 47, 67 (2015) , arXiv:1406.3712 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cai and L.-M

    R.-G. Cai and L.-M. Cao, Phys. Rev. D75, 064008 (2007) , arXiv:gr-qc/0611071 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gong and A

    Y. Gong and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 211301 (2007) , arXiv:0704.0793 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ge, Phys

    X.-H. Ge, Phys. Lett. B651, 49 (2007) , arXiv:hep-th/0703253 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cai and L.-M

    R.-G. Cai and L.-M. Cao, Nucl. Phys. B785, 135 (2007) , arXiv:hep-th/0612144 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sheykhi, Eur

    A. Sheykhi, Eur. Phys. J. C69, 265 (2010) , arXiv:1012.0383 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Sheykhi, Phys

    A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D87, 024022 (2013) , arXiv:1301.3776 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. A. Hayward, Classical and Quantum Gravity 15, 3147 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    Yang, Y.-X

    K. Yang, Y.-X. Liu, and Y.-Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D86, 104013 (2012) , arXiv:1207.3515 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [46]

    W.-Y. Ai, H. Chen, X.-R. Hu, and J.-B. Deng, Gen. Rel. Grav. 46, 1680 (2014) , arXiv:1309.1857 [gr-qc] . 16

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Chang-Young and D

    E. Chang-Young and D. Lee, JHEP 04, 125 (2014) , arXiv:1309.3084 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Cai and S

    R.-G. Cai and S. P. Kim, JHEP 02, 050 (2005) , arXiv:hep-th/0501055 [hep-th] . 17

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.