Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Unifying Cosmic Epochs via Quantum-Corrected Expansion with Brane-World Parallels

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single analytic scale factor reproduces the universe's entire expansion history, from inflation to dark energy, without patched epochs.

desk verdict New smooth interpolation formula for the cosmic scale factor, but the central equation has a dimensional typo and the brane/quantum mapping is numerically inconsistent, so the unification claims don't hold as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24420 v2 pith:24Q5ZEYN submitted 2025-05-30 hep-th

Farzin Safarzadeh-Maleki This is my paper
classification hep-th PACS 98.80.-k11.25.-w
keywords cosmologyscalefactorbranecosmicepochsunifiedexpansionhistoryBose-Einsteincorrectionsinflationdarkenergy
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 claims that a single analytic formula for the cosmic scale factor, $a(t)=e^{H(t)}(1-e^{-k(t)t})^{b(t)}$, can describe the entire expansion history of the universe, from inflation through radiation and matter domination to the present accelerated phase, without patching together separate solutions. The three time-dependent parameters are chosen so that the formula reduces to the standard $e^{Ht}$, $t^{1/2}$, $t^{2/3}$, and late-time exponential behaviors in the right limits, with sigmoid functions smoothing the transitions. The derived Hubble parameter contains terms that look like a Bose-Einstein occupation number and a pressure term, which the author reads as quantum-statistical corrections to cosmic expansion. The paper also proposes that the dimensionless combination $k(t)t$ scales like $\rho(t)/\lambda(t)$, the energy density over an effective brane tension, connecting the ansatz to brane-world cosmology. If the claims hold, the model offers a parameterized, observationally viable interpolation of the full cosmic timeline and a phenomenological bridge between quantum statistics, brane physics, and late-time acceleration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unified scale factor $a(t)=e^{H(t)}(1-e^{-k(t)t})^{b(t)}$ together with its derived Hubble parameter $\mathcal{H}(t)=\dot a/a=H(t)+\dot H(t)t+\dot b(t)\ln(1-e^{-kt})+b(t)e^{-kt}(1-e^{-kt})^{-1}[k(t)+t\dot k(t)]$. The first two terms drive the exponential and late-time behavior; the logarithmic term is read as an entropy or thermal correction; the last term contains the factor $1/(e^{kt}-1)$, the Bose-Einstein occupation-number form, and carries the quantum-statistical and brane interpretations through the dictionary $k(t)t\sim\rho(t)/\lambda(t)$. Sigmoid functions $\sigma(t)$ make $H(t)$ and $k(t)$ continuous across the inflation-to-radiation, radiation-to-matter, and matter-to-dark-energy transitions.

What would settle it

Integrate the ansatz with the paper's stated parameter values to produce the predicted Hubble rate $H(z)$ and distance-redshift relations, then compare them against type Ia supernova distances, CMB acoustic-scale measurements, and BAO data. A statistically significant disagreement at any redshift would falsify the unified formula; an example would be data that exclude the predicted radiation-matter transition width of $\Delta_{\rm eq}\sim10^{11}$ s or the dark-energy onset time of $t_{\rm DE}\sim10^{17}$ s.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ansatz $a(t)=e^{H(t)}(1-e^{-k(t)t})^{b(t)}$ is an exact, non-singular interpolator of the four standard cosmic epochs. With $b(t)$ interpolating between $1/2$ and $2/3$ across radiation-matter equality, and with $H(t)$ and $k(t)$ switching between inflation, intermediate, and dark-energy values through sigmoid functions, the scale factor reproduces $a\propto e^{H_{\rm inf}t}$ during inflation, $a\propto t^{1/2}$ during radiation domination, $a\propto t^{2/3}$ during matter domination, and $a\propto e^{H_{\rm DE}t}$ at late times. The associated Hubble parameter acquires correction terms proportional to $\ln(1-e^{-kt})$ and $1/(e^{kt}-1)$, which the author identifies with Bose-Einstein-like occupation and pressure contributions, and the parameter combination $k(t)t$ is interpreted as $\rho(t)/\lambda(t)$, the ratio of energy density to brane tension. In that reading the same formula covers constant-tension and variable-tension brane regimes, with the non-monotonic evolution of $k(t)t$ selecting which regime dominates in each epoch.

Load-bearing premise

The physical interpretation of the model rests entirely on the dictionary $k(t)t\sim\rho(t)/\lambda(t)$ and on reading $1/(e^{kt}-1)$ as a genuine Bose-Einstein occupation number; if $k(t)$ is only a curve-fitting function and these identifications fail, the quantum and brane-world content of Section 4 has no independent support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same scale factor can replace piecewise epoch splicing in numerical and semi-analytic cosmology, giving a continuously differentiable expansion history from $t\sim10^{-35}$ s to the present.
  • The model's transition widths, set by the sigmoid parameters $\Delta_{\rm inf}\sim10^{-36}$ s, $\Delta_{\rm eq}\sim10^{11}$ s, and $\Delta_{\rm DE}\sim10^{16}$ s, become concrete predictions that can be tested against measurements of the expansion history.
  • If the Bose-Einstein-like corrections are taken literally, the model offers a phenomenological route by which quantum-statistical effects could enter the Friedmann equation without a fundamental quantum-gravity derivation.
  • In the brane-world dictionary, the same $k(t)t\sim\rho(t)/\lambda(t)$ scaling covers both constant-tension and variable-tension brane scenarios, linking the early-universe quadratic regime, the intermediate standard Friedmann regime, and late-time acceleration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, one could invert the ansatz to reconstruct $\rho(t)/\lambda(t)$ directly from a measured $H(z)$, turning the proposed dictionary from an assumption into a falsifiable relation.
  • The same functional form could also serve as a flexible prior for model-independent dark-energy reconstructions: with the sigmoid transition times and widths left free, the data would set actual bounds on how abruptly the universe can switch between epochs.
  • If the quantum-statistical reading is meant physically, the model predicts that late-time acceleration is a finite-width transition rather than a constant vacuum-energy term, a distinction that a high-redshift expansion-rate survey could probe.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a single phenomenological scale factor a(t)=e^{H(t)}(1-e^{-k(t)t})^{b(t)} intended to reproduce inflation, radiation domination, matter domination, and late-time acceleration without piecewise modeling. The functions H(t), k(t), and b(t) are defined piecewise in Eqs. (2)-(4) and then smoothed with sigmoid functions in Section 3. Section 4 interprets the resulting Hubble parameter (Eq. (10)) in terms of Bose-Einstein-like occupation numbers and identifies k(t)t with rho(t)/lambda(t) to draw parallels with RS-II and variable-tension brane cosmology. The paper claims qualitative agreement with supernova, CMB, and BAO observations and argues that the ansatz eliminates ad hoc epoch splicing.

Significance. If established, the construction would offer a compact analytic interpolation of the cosmic expansion history with possible phenomenological links to brane-world cosmology. The paper is commendably explicit about its heuristic character and presents its ansatz and numerical plots in a transparent way. However, the central claims are not currently supported: the epoch behavior is inserted by the definitions of H(t), k(t), and b(t); the alleged observational agreement is not quantified; and the brane/quantum dictionary is internally inconsistent with the paper's own inflationary constants. The manuscript therefore does not yet demonstrate that it is more than a sigmoid-smoothed curve fit.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (1)-(2), (10)] As printed, Eq. (1) is dimensionally inconsistent: H(t) is assigned units s^{-1} in Eq. (2), so e^{H(t)} is not a valid exponential. The derivative in Eq. (10) contains H(t)+Hdot(t)t, which corresponds to a scale factor e^{tH(t)}, not e^{H(t)}. This error is load-bearing because the exponential factor is what the paper uses to generate inflation and late-time acceleration; the ansatz should be stated with correct dimensions and a notation that distinguishes the input parameter from the derived Hubble parameter.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (2)-(4)] The recovery of a_RD proportional to t^{1/2} and a_MD proportional to t^{2/3} is a restatement of the input: Eq. (3) sets b(t) to 1/2 and 2/3, and Eq. (4) defines k_inter so that 1-e^{-kt} is approximately kt. The sigmoid interpolation in Eqs. (5)-(9) replaces the hard piecewise definitions with smooth ones but does not eliminate splicing; the abstract's claim to eliminate ad hoc Lambda-CDM epoch splicing is therefore not supported by the construction.
  3. [Section 2.1, displayed RD/MD scale factors] The expressions a_RD(t) = (2 sqrt(8 pi G / 3 rho_RD0 t))^{1/2} and a_MD(t) = (3/2 sqrt(8 pi G / 3 rho_MD0 t))^{2/3} scale as t^{1/4} and t^{1/3}, respectively, not as the claimed t^{1/2} and t^{2/3}. They also do not follow from Eq. (4), which gives prefactors of the form [(1/e) b sqrt(8 pi G rho_0 / 3) t]^b. This is an error in the derivation of the central intermediate-era behavior and must be corrected.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (4), (11)] The dictionary k(t)t ~ rho(t)/lambda(t) is contradicted by the paper's own numbers. For H_inf approximately 6.6 x 10^12 GeV, lambda ~ (10^16 GeV)^4, and M4 approximately 10^19 GeV, the text obtains rho approximately 10^64 GeV^4, so rho/lambda is of order 1. But Eq. (4) requires k_inf >= 10^39 s^{-1} over 10^{-36} s < t <= 10^{-32} s, giving k(t)t between 10^3 and 10^7. Thus the scaling relation fails in the very inflationary epoch where the RS-II high-energy regime is invoked, and the condition rho >> lambda for the rho^2 term in Eq. (11) is not met. The Bose-Einstein and epsilon/T to rho/lambda identifications are formal analogies with no independent derivation.
  5. [Section 3, Figs. 2-3] The claim of agreement with supernova, CMB, and BAO observations is qualitative and unsupported. No observational data are overlaid, no goodness-of-fit statistic or likelihood is reported, and no comparison with Lambda-CDM is presented. Since the model contains many free parameters (H_inf, H_DE, k_inf, k_DE, t_eq, sigmoid transition times and widths, and the rho_0 values), the statement that the curves align well with observations is not a quantitative test. The authors should either provide a full fit or explicitly withdraw the observational-agreement claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo ('effectes' for 'effects'), and the phrase 'dynamically constrained parameters' is misleading because Eqs. (2)-(4) impose the dynamics by hand rather than deriving them from an action or equations of motion.
  2. [Section 3, sigmoid definition] The general definition sigma(y) = 1/(1+e^y) with y = (t - t0)/10^x decreases from 1 to 0 as t increases, whereas the transition functions in Eqs. (5)-(7) use e^{-(t-t_T)/Delta_T} and increase from 0 to 1; the sign convention should be made consistent.
  3. [Eq. (9)] The subscript k_DM in Eq. (9) should presumably be k_DE, matching Eq. (4) and the dark-energy discussion.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (10)] The same symbol H(t) denotes both the input parameter in Eq. (2) and the derived physical Hubble parameter on the left of Eq. (10); renaming one of them would remove substantial confusion.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The epoch 'reproductions' are built into the piecewise definitions of H(t), k(t), and b(t); the Bose-Einstein and brane dictionaries are renamed algebraic identities or proposed mappings, not derived results.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2 and Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (1)-(4)]
    "During radiation-dominated era, t ≪ teq implies 1 + t/teq ≈ 1 in Eq. (3), thus, bRD(t) = 1/2. From Eqs. (1)–(4), the corresponding scale factor can be produced as aRD(t) = ... consistent with the standard Friedmann equation prediction for a radiation-dominated universe (aRD ∝ t1/2)."

    The scale factor's epoch behavior is not predicted from the ansatz; it is inserted through the parameter choices. Equations (2)-(4) define H(t) as Hinf, b(t)/t, or HDE, and k(t) from ρ_RD/MD so that kt≫1 in inflation, kt≪1 in radiation/matter, and e^{-kt}→0 at late times. Substituting these chosen inputs into Eq. (1) yields exactly e^{Ht}, t^{1/2}, t^{2/3}, and e^{H_DE t}. The claimed 'reproduces the observed sequence' and 'eliminating ad hoc splicing' is therefore the input restated; the later sigmoid interpolation merely smooths the same piecewise inputs.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 4, after Eq. (10)]
    "The factor e^{-k(t)t}/(1-e^{-k(t)t}) = 1/(e^{k(t)t}-1) resembles Bose-Einstein distribution, suggesting potential contributions from particle production or thermal effects that may directly influence cosmological expansion. ... via the scaling k(t)t ∼ ε/T."

    The factor 1/(e^{kt}-1) is an algebraic rearrangement of the derivative of the chosen modulator (1-e^{-kt})^b in Eq. (10); it was not obtained from any quantum-statistical calculation. Calling it a Bose-Einstein occupation number and setting kt∼ε/T is a renaming of the ansatz's structure, so the 'quantum-statistical corrections to the Hubble parameter' are not an independent physical result but an interpretation imposed after the fact.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Abstract and Sec. 4.1]
    "Abstract: 'The scaling relation ∼ ρ(t)/λ(t) emerges naturally.' Sec. 4.1: 'we propose the dimensionless scaling parameter k(t)t ∼ ρ(t)/λ(t), which can quantify the relative strength of brane corrections that governs the onset and suppression of brane-world cosmological corrections across all epochs.'"

    The brane-world interpretation is founded on a dictionary kt∼ρ/λ that is proposed ad hoc, not derived from the Friedmann equations, brane dynamics, or observations. The abstract then presents the same proposed mapping as if it 'emerges naturally,' and the subsequent RS-II/variable-tension consistency discussion uses this assumed dictionary as its evidential basis. Moreover, the paper's own inflation numbers give kt≥10^3-10^7 while ρ/λ∼1, so the mapping is not even numerically consistent in the very regime where it is invoked.

full rationale

The paper is appropriately transparent that it is a phenomenological ansatz and that 'agreement relies on the careful selection of key model parameters, H(t) and k(t).' There is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no imported uniqueness theorem; the derived Hubble parameter in Eq. (10) is just the logarithmic derivative of the stated ansatz. However, the central claim of a unified, splicing-free cosmic history reduces by construction: H(t), k(t), and b(t) are defined piecewise to reproduce exactly the standard epoch scale factors, and the sigmoid functions in Section 3 are used to stitch those piecewise definitions. Consequently, the 'prediction' of radiation, matter, and accelerated epochs is the input rewritten in a single formula. Similarly, the Bose-Einstein identification uses the algebraic identity 1/(e^{kt}-1) extracted from the derivative of the chosen factor, together with an assumed dictionary kt∼ε/T; the brane-world connection then rests on a proposed scaling kt∼ρ/λ that is asserted rather than derived. A separate dimensional inconsistency—Eq. (1) prints e^{H(t)} while Eq. (10) and the epoch asymptotics require e^{tH(t)}—is a correctness issue rather than circularity, but it reinforces that the epoch behavior is being fed in through the parameter functions. Overall, the derivation chain does not establish the quantum or brane content from first principles; the cosmic-epoch part is a fitted interpolation relabeled as a unified solution, giving partial circularity at score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by the parameter functions H(t), k(t), and b(t), whose values and transition scales are put in by hand to reproduce the standard cosmic timeline. The model contributes the specific smooth interpolation formula but no independent dynamical input.

free parameters (8)
  • H_inf = 10^37 s^-1
    Inflationary expansion rate inserted by hand in Eq. (2); not derived from the model.
  • H_DE = 2.2 x 10^-18 s^-1
    Late-time acceleration rate chosen from Planck/BAO values in Eq. (2).
  • k_inf = >= 10^39 (units not specified)
    Lower bound set to enforce kt >> 1 during inflation in Eq. (4).
  • k_DE = >= 10^-14 (units not specified)
    Lower bound set to suppress power-law factor at late times in Eq. (4).
  • t_eq = 10^12 s
    Radiation-matter equality time in Eq. (3).
  • rho_RD^0 and rho_MD^0 = 7.86e-31 and 2.68e-27 kg/m^3
    Today's radiation and matter densities inserted into k_inter in Eq. (4).
  • Sigmoid transition parameters = t_inf=1e-32 s, Delta_inf=1e-36 s; Delta_eq=1e11 s; t_DE=1e17 s, Delta_DE=1e16 s; x=-36.186
    Chosen to locate and smooth transitions, with inflation duration set to N about 60 e-folds in Section 3.
  • Brane tension lambda or lambda(t) = ~ (10^16 GeV)^4 for RS-II illustration; variable later
    Needed for the kt roughly rho/lambda mapping; its value or evolution is assumed, not derived.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FLRW geometry and the standard power-law and exponential epoch solutions are the correct targets for the ansatz.
    Section 2 uses a ~ t^{1/2}, a ~ t^{2/3}, and exponential forms as benchmarks from standard cosmology.
  • ad hoc to paper Sigmoid interpolation of piecewise parameters yields a physically valid expansion history.
    Section 3 replaces jumps with sigmoids but provides no dynamical justification that the interpolated H(t) and k(t) correspond to a viable stress-energy source.
  • ad hoc to paper The factor 1/(e^{kt}-1) can be interpreted as a Bose-Einstein occupation number and kt as epsilon/T.
    Section 4 maps the derivative of the ansatz to quantum-statistical formulas purely by formal resemblance.
  • ad hoc to paper k(t)t roughly rho(t)/lambda(t) is a valid scaling relation for brane-world cosmology.
    Section 4.1 proposes this mapping without derivation and uses it to reinterpret all epochs in brane language.
  • domain assumption RS-II brane-world Friedmann equation (Eq. 11) is the correct framework for the brane parallels.
    Section 4.1 invokes standard RS-II results from cited literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unifying Cosmic Epochs via Quantum-Corrected Expansion with Brane-World Parallels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24Q5ZEYN

@misc{pith2026250524420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unifying Cosmic Epochs via Quantum-Corrected Expansion with Brane-World Parallels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24Q5ZEYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24420}
}
abstract

We present an exact, non-perturbative and non-singular ansatz for the universe's expansion history through a novel analytic scale factor, $a(t)=e^{H(t)} { (1-e^{-k(t)t}) }^{b(t)}$, which reproduces the observed sequence of cosmic epochs and bridges inflation to late-time acceleration, as a unified solution, eliminating ad hoc $\Lambda$CDM epoch splicing. The model's dynamically constrained parameters $(H(t), k(t), b(t))$ ensure smooth phase transitions, as confirmed by analytical and numerical analysis of the expansion history. The derived Hubble parameter incorporates quantum-inspired corrections through its functional form, offering a phenomenological approach to integrate quantum effects into classical cosmic evolution. While not derived from fundamental theory, it provides a well motivated framework within brane inspired cosmology with structure exhibiting parallels to brane-world scenarios: the parameter $k(t)$ acts as an effective screening scale, and the non-monotonic $k(t)t$ implies epoch-dependent gravitational coupling. The scaling relation $\sim \rho(t)\lambda(t)$ emerges naturally, offering a unified description of constant and variable-tension brane-like behavior at the phenomenological level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24420 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the key parameters of the model during cosmic eras [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the scale factor in each epoch separately [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Integrating all above eras into a unified plot, spanning from inflation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dimopoulos, Konstantinos, and J. W. F. Valle. ”Modeling quintessential inflation.” As- troparticle Physics 18, no. 3 (2002): 287-306 [astro-ph/0111417] and references therein

    arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    Quintessential inflation on the brane and the relic gravity wave background,

    M. Sami and V. Sahni, “Quintessential inflation on the brane and the relic gravity wave background,” Phys. Rev. D 70, 083513 (2004) [hep-th/0402086]

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    ”Simple inflationary quintessential model.” Physical Review D 93, no

    de Haro, Jaume, Jaume Amor´ os, and Supriya Pan. ”Simple inflationary quintessential model.” Physical Review D 93, no. 8 (2016): 084018

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Noninteracting dark matter,

    P. J. E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, “Noninteracting dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 60,103506 (1999) [astro-ph/9904396]

    arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    Steep inflation: Ending brane world inflation by gravitational particle production,

    E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle and J. E. Lidsey, “Steep inflation: Ending brane world inflation by gravitational particle production,” Phys. Rev. D 64, 023509 (2001) [as tro- ph/0006421]

    work page arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    Myrzakulov, M

    Hossain, Md Wali, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami, and Emmanuel N. Saridakis. ”Unification of inflation and dark energy ` a la quintessential inflation.” International Journal of Modern Physics D 24, no. 05 (2015): 1530014 [gr-qc/1410.6100]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Odintsov

    Nojiri, Shin’ichi, and Sergei D. Odintsov. ”Modified gravity with negative and positive powers of curvature: Unification of inflation and cosmic acceleration.” physical Review D 68, no. 12 (2003) 123512 [hep-th/0307288]

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    Odintsov

    Nojiri, Shin’ichi, and Sergei D. Odintsov. ”Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F (R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models.” Physics Reports 505, no. 2-4 (2011): 59-144. 16

    work page 2011

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Nojiri, S. S. D. O., S. D. Odintsov, and VK3683913 Oikonomou. ”Modified gravity theories on a nutshell: Inflation, bounce and late-time evolution.” Physics Reports 692 (2017): 1-104. And references in it

    2017

  2. [10]

    Basaran- ¨Oz, T

    Aydiner, E., I. Basaran- ¨Oz, T. Dereli, and M. Sarisaman. ”Late time transition of Universe and the hybrid scale factor.” The European Physical Journal C 82, no. 1 (2022): 39

    2022

  3. [11]

    Singh, Ashutosh, and R. Chaubey. ”Unified and bouncing cosmologies with inhomoge- neous viscous fluid.” Astrophysics and Space Science 366, no. 1 (2021): 15

    2021

  4. [12]

    Sazhin, M. V., O. S. Sazhina, and U. Chadayammuri. ”The Scale Factor in the Universe with Dark Energy. arXiv: astro-ph.” CO 1109 (2011): v1

    2011

  5. [13]

    Weinberg

    S. Weinberg. Cosmology. OUP Oxford, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    Baumann, ”TASI lectures on inflation” (2009)

    D. Baumann, ”TASI lectures on inflation” (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Guth, Phys

    A. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981); A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982)

    1981

  8. [16]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys. 571, A22 (2014) [arXiv:1303.5082]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Cosmology of the Very Early Universe,

    R. H. Brandenberger, “Cosmology of the Very Early Universe,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1268, 3-70 (2010) [arXiv:1003.1745 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution To The Horizon And Flatness Problems

    Guth AH, “The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution To The Horizon And Flatness Problems”, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  11. [19]

    The Creation Of The Universe As A Quantum Phenomenon

    R. Brout, F. Englert and E. Gunzig, “The Creation Of The Universe As A Quantum Phenomenon”, Annals Phys. 115, 78 (1978)

    1978

  12. [20]

    A New Type Of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singular- ity,

    A. A. Starobinsky, “A New Type Of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singular- ity,” Phys. Lett.B 91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  13. [21]

    First Order Phase Transition Of A Vacuum And Expansion Of The Universe,

    K. Sato, “First Order Phase Transition Of A Vacuum And Expansion Of The Universe,” Mon. Not.Roy. Astron. Soc. 195, 467 (1981)

    1981

  14. [22]

    Quantum Fluctuation And Nonsingular Universe. (In Russian)

    Mukhanov, V. Physical Foundations of Cosmology, Cambridge University Press (2005); Mukhanov and G. Chibisov, “Quantum Fluctuation And Nonsingular Universe. (In Russian)”, JETP Lett. 33, 532 (1981) [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 33, 549 (1981)]. 17

    2005

  15. [23]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982); A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 49, 748 (1994) [astro-ph/9307002]

    1982 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Padmanabhan, ”Cosmological constant—the weight of the vacuum”, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, ”Cosmological constant—the weight of the vacuum”, Phys. Repts. 380 (2003)235

    2003

  17. [25]

    Sahni, ”5 dark matter and dark energy.” The Physics of the Early Universe (2004): 141-179

    V. Sahni, ”5 dark matter and dark energy.” The Physics of the Early Universe (2004): 141-179

    2004

  18. [26]

    Peebles P.J. E. and B. Ratra, The cosmological constant and dark energy, astro- ph/0207347

  19. [27]

    The Cosmological Constant

    Carroll, S.M. “The Cosmological Constant”, Living Rev. Relativity, 4, (2001),1, http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume4/2001-1carroll; Carroll, S.M., Press, W.H. and Turner, E.L. (1992) Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 30 499

    2001

  20. [28]

    Yin, Xinyou, J. A. N. Goudriaan, Egbert A. Lantinga, J. A. N. Vos, and Huub J. Spiertz. ”A flexible sigmoid function of determinate growth.” Annals of botany 91, no. 3 (2003): 361-371

    2003

  21. [29]

    Danca, M.-F.: Continuous approximations of a class of piecewise continuous sys- tems. Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 25(11), 1550146 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0218127415501461

    2015

  22. [30]

    ”Approximating piecewise nonlinearities in dynamic systems with sigmoid functions: advantages and limitations.” Nonlinear Dynamics 111, no

    Martinelli, Cristiano, Andrea Coraddu, and Andrea Cammarano. ”Approximating piecewise nonlinearities in dynamic systems with sigmoid functions: advantages and limitations.” Nonlinear Dynamics 111, no. 9 (2023): 8545-8569

    2023

  23. [31]

    Filippenko, Peter Challis, Alejandro Clocchiatti, Alan Dier- cks, Peter M

    Riess, Adam G., Alexei V. Filippenko, Peter Challis, Alejandro Clocchiatti, Alan Dier- cks, Peter M. Garnavich, Ron L. Gilliland et al. ”Observational evidence from super- novae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant.” The astronomical jour- nal 116, no. 3 (1...

    1998

  24. [32]

    Knop, Peter Nu- gent, Patricia G

    Perlmutter, Saul, Goldhaber Aldering, Gerson Goldhaber, Richard A. Knop, Peter Nu- gent, Patricia G. Castro, Susana Deustua et al. ”Measurements of ω and λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae.” The Astrophysical Journal 517, no. 2 (1999): 565

    1999

  25. [33]

    Larson, Eiichiro Komatsu, David N

    Hinshaw, Gary, D. Larson, Eiichiro Komatsu, David N. Spergel, CLaa Bennett, Joanna Dunkley, M. R. Nolta et al. ”Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe 18 (WMAP) observations: cosmological parameter results.” The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 208, no. 2 (2013): 19

    2013

  26. [34]

    ”Planck 2018 results

    Aghanim, N. ”Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.” Astron. Astrophys 641 (2020): A6

    2020

  27. [35]

    Hogg, Roman Scoccimarro, Michael R

    Eisenstein, Daniel J., Idit Zehavi, David W. Hogg, Roman Scoccimarro, Michael R. Blanton, Robert C. Nichol, Ryan Scranton et al. ”Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies.” The Astrophysical Journal 633, no. 2 ...

    2005

  28. [36]

    ”Dynamics of dark energy.” International Journal of Modern Physics D 15, no

    Copeland, Edmund J., Mohammad Sami, and Shinji Tsujikawa. ”Dynamics of dark energy.” International Journal of Modern Physics D 15, no. 11 (2006): 1753-1935

    2006

  29. [37]

    Lucchin and S

    F. Lucchin and S. Matarrese, Power-law inflation, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1316 (1985)

    1985

  30. [38]

    M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, and A. A. Sen, Generalized Chaplygin gas, accelerated expansion and dark energy-matter unification, Phys. Rev. D 66, 043507 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 213 (2001); E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 091301 (2003)

    2001

  32. [40]

    Novello and S

    M. Novello and S. E. P. Bergliaffa, Bouncing cosmologies, Phys. Rept. 463, 127 (2008); J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, P. J. Steinhardt, and N. Turok, The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding branes and the origin of the hot big bang, Phys. Rev. D 64, 123522 (2001)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Vakili, Babak, and Mohammad A. Gorji. ”Thermostatistics with minimal length un- certainty relation.” Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2012, no. 10 (2012): P10013; Jochim, Selim, Markus Bartenstein, Alexander Altmeyer, Gerhard Hendl, Stefan Riedl, Cheng C...

    2012

  34. [42]

    Odintsov, and Sachiko Ogushi

    Nojiri, Shin’ichi, Sergei D. Odintsov, and Sachiko Ogushi. ”Logarithmic corrections to the FR W brane cosmology from 5d Schwarzschild–de Sitter black hole.” International Journal of Modern Physics A 18, no. 19 (2003): 3395-3416

    2003

  35. [43]

    The AdS/CFT correspondence and logarithmic corrections to braneworld cosmology and the Cardy–Verlinde formula

    Lidsey, J.E., Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S.D., and Ogushi, S., “The AdS/CFT correspondence and logarithmic corrections to braneworld cosmology and the Cardy–Verlinde formula”, Phys. Lett. B, 544, 337–345, (2002). [hep-th/0207009] 19

    2002 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bose-Einstein condensate in cosmology,

    S. Das and R. K. Bhaduri, “Bose-Einstein condensate in cosmology,” arXiv:1808.10505 [gr-qc]; ”Dark matter and dark energy from a Bose–Einstein condensate.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, no. 10 (2015): 105003

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Koussour, M., N. S. Kavya, V. Venkatesha, and N. Myrzakulov. ”Cosmic expansion beyond ΛCDM: investigating power-law and logarithmic corrections.” The European Physical Journal Plus 139, no. 2 (2024): 1-13

    2024

  38. [46]

    A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999) [hep-ph/9905221], L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “An alternative to compactification”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999) [hep-th/9906064]

    1999 arXiv

  39. [47]

    ”Cosmology and brane worlds: a review.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 20, no

    Brax, Philippe, and Carsten van de Bruck. ”Cosmology and brane worlds: a review.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 20, no. 9 (2003): R201

    2003

  40. [48]

    ”Brane-world gravity.” Living Reviews in Rela- tivity 13 (2010): 1-124

    Maartens, Roy, and Kazuya Koyama. ”Brane-world gravity.” Living Reviews in Rela- tivity 13 (2010): 1-124

    2010

  41. [49]

    L. A. Gergely, E ¨otv¨os branes, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 086007 [arXiv: 0806.4006 [gr-qc]]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    ”Friedmann branes with variable tension.” Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 78, no

    Gergely, L´ aszl´ o´Arp´ ad. ”Friedmann branes with variable tension.” Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 78, no. 8 (2008): 084006 [arXiv: 0806.3857 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  43. [51]

    ”The relativistic gross-pitaevskii equa- tion and cosmological bose-einstein condensation: Quantum structure in the universe.” Progress of theoretical physics 115, no

    Fukuyama, Takeshi, and Masahiro Morikawa. ”The relativistic gross-pitaevskii equa- tion and cosmological bose-einstein condensation: Quantum structure in the universe.” Progress of theoretical physics 115, no. 6 (2006): 1047-1068; T. Fukuyama and M. Morikawa, Phys. Rev. D 80, ...

    2006

  44. [52]

    Wong, K. C., K. S. Cheng, and T. Harko. ”Inflation and late-time acceleration in braneworld cosmological models with varying brane tension.” The European Physical Journal C 68 (2010): 241-253

    2010

  45. [53]

    Hernandez-Almada, Juan Magana, Mario H

    Garcia-Aspeitia, Miguel A., A. Hernandez-Almada, Juan Magana, Mario H. Amante, V. Motta, and C. Mart ´ ınez-Robles. ”Brane with variable tension as a possible solution to the problem of the late cosmic acceleration.” Physical Review D 97, no. 10 (2018): 101301. 20

    2018

  46. [54]

    Langlois, D., ”Brane cosmology: an introduction.” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 148, 181 (2003). [arXiv:hep-th/0209261]

    2003 arXiv

  47. [55]

    ”Brane uni- verses tested against astronomical data.” International Journal of Modern Physics D 13, no

    Dabrowski, Mariusz P., W lodzimierz God lowski, and Marek Szyd lowski. ”Brane uni- verses tested against astronomical data.” International Journal of Modern Physics D 13, no. 08 (2004): 1669-1702

    2004

  48. [56]

    Binetruy et al., Nucl. Phys. B 565, 269 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9905012

    2000 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Planck Collaboration, A and A 641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Garcia-Aspeitia et al., JCAP 07, 034 (2016), arXiv:1609.08220. 21

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.