Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Testing the Generalized Second Law in $(2+1)$-Dimensional Cosmology: Holographic Entropy Bounds and Observational Constraints

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a contracting (2+1)-dimensional universe with negative cosmological constant, the Fischler–Susskind entropy bound cannot be reconciled with the generalized second law, while the Hubble entropy bound can.

desk verdict The paper's central 'regardless of curvature' claim is not supported by its own equations: for k=1 the exact GSL inequality allows p=ρ in contraction, so the main theorem fails as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13227 v1 pith:VIQQTEDN submitted 2025-08-17 gr-qc

Praveen Kumar Dhankar , Aritra Sanyal , Safiqul Islam , Farook Rahaman , Behnam Pourhassan This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords holographicprinciplegeneralizedsecondlawFischler–SusskindboundHubbleentropy2+1-dimensionalcosmologynegativecosmologicalconstantMarkovChainMonteCarloobservational
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 two holographic entropy bounds—limits on how much entropy can fit in a region of spacetime—remain compatible with the generalized second law of thermodynamics in a $(2+1)$-dimensional universe with a negative cosmological constant. The authors argue that the Fischler–Susskind bound is intrinsically incompatible with the generalized second law during contraction, no matter the curvature or matter content, and that quantum corrections do not repair the conflict. They further argue that the Hubble entropy bound is compatible in expanding universes classically and in some contracting scenarios once quantum corrections are included. If correct, the result would rule out the Fischler–Susskind bound as a holographic constraint in lower-dimensional contracting cosmologies and single out the Hubble-type bound as the viable one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the total entropy $S=(a|H|)^2|H|^\beta$ in a horizon-thermodynamics picture, where $\beta$ parameterizes the horizon entropy scaling $S_H=|H|^\beta$. The paper sets $\beta=-1$ on the assumption that geometric entropy dominates, which converts the GSL inequality $2H+(2+\beta)\dot{H}/H\ge0$ into the equation-of-state conditions $p\le\rho$ for expansion and $p>\rho$ for contraction. The Fischler–Susskind bound is treated as the statement $p\le\rho$, while the Hubble entropy bound is the inequality $S_H\le M_p^2|H|^{-1}$; the compatibility analysis reduces to comparing these two conditions with the GSL-derived sign of $p-\rho$. A quantum correction of the form $-\eta\,dN_H$ shifts the required ratio and is argued not to rescue the FS bound.

What would settle it

Recompute the contracting-case generalized-second-law inequality with the curvature terms kept, and ask whether a universe with $p\le\rho$ and $H<0$ can still satisfy $dS/dt\ge0$ for some curvature $k$ and density $\rho$; if it can, the claimed incompatibility 'regardless of curvature' is false. Alternatively, repeat the derivation with a different entropy scaling such as $\beta=0$ and check whether the FS-compatible condition $p\le\rho$ still forces $dS/dt<0$ when $H<0$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Fischler–Susskind bound is intrinsically incompatible with the generalized second law in a contracting $(2+1)$-dimensional universe with negative cosmological constant, independent of spatial curvature and matter content, and that quantum corrections do not remove the conflict. The argument runs through the entropy ansatz $S_H=|H|^\beta$ with $\beta=-1$, which turns the generalized second law inequality into the condition $p\le\rho$ for $H>0$ and $p>\rho$ for $H<0$. Since the Fischler–Susskind bound is read as requiring $p\le\rho$, the contracting phase violates it; the quantum-corrected version $p/\rho \ge S_H/(S_H-2\eta)$ remains outside the FS-allowed range. The Hubble entropy bound $S_H \le M_p^2|H|^{-1}$, by contrast, produces the GSL-compatible condition $p\le\rho$ in expansion and can be reconciled with contraction once quantum corrections make $S_H-\eta<0$.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the unproven assumptions that horizon entropy scales as $S_H=|H|^{-1}$ and that the Fischler–Susskind bound is equivalent to $p\le\rho$, while curvature terms are also dropped before the sign condition is derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the incompatibility is real, the Fischler–Susskind bound cannot be used as a holographic constraint on contracting phases of $(2+1)$-dimensional universes, even when exotic matter or quantum corrections are allowed.
  • The Hubble entropy bound becomes the preferred holographic constraint in lower-dimensional cosmology, since it satisfies the generalized second law in expansion and, with quantum effects, in some contracting scenarios.
  • The MCMC fits imply that the $(2+1)$-dimensional holographic model reproduces the observed Hubble parameter and distance modulus at a level comparable to the standard $\Lambda$CDM model, with the cosmological-constant parameter $\psi$ stable across BAO, CC, and Hubble datasets.
  • The theoretical asymmetry between the two bounds suggests that future high-precision cosmological data could be used to test whether a contracting-phase equation of state with $p>\rho$ is physically allowed.
  • The result also motivates extending the same FS-versus-HE comparison to other dimensions and to bouncing or cyclic cosmologies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper asserts the incompatibility holds regardless of spatial curvature, but the derivation drops the curvature terms before converting the GSL inequality into the equation-of-state condition, so the claim as written is strictly established only in the limit $a^2\rho \gg k$.
  • A testable extension would be to replace the assumed $S_H=|H|^{-1}$ scaling with a microscopic entropy computation in a BTZ-like black hole background and check whether a different $\beta$ restores FS/GSL compatibility during contraction.
  • If the FS bound is structurally incompatible with contraction, holographic entropy bounds may be phase-dependent rather than universal, which would matter for any bouncing or cyclic cosmology that passes through a contracting phase.
  • The dataset-dependent variation of the parameters $\alpha$ and $n$, in contrast to the stable $\psi$, suggests that only $\psi$ is a reliable discriminator for this model; the other parameters may be absorbing unmodeled physics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the Generalized Second Law (GSL) in a (2+1)-dimensional FRW cosmology with negative cosmological constant, comparing the Fischler–Susskind (FS) and Hubble Entropy (HE) bounds under classical and quantum-corrected entropy evolution, and then fits the model to BAO, CC, and Hubble data using MCMC. The central theoretical claim is that the FS bound is intrinsically incompatible with the GSL in contracting universes regardless of spatial curvature or matter content, while the HE bound remains viable. I find that this central claim is not supported by the paper's own equations: the exact GSL inequality for β=-1 contains a curvature term that cannot be neglected near the turning point, and the claimed 'regardless of curvature' result is false. In addition, the incompatibility conclusion depends on an assumed entropy scaling and on an unproved identification of the FS bound with the condition p≤ρ. The observational section is also insufficiently documented and the reported cross-dataset consistency is not supported by the numbers in Table 1.

Significance. If the main claim were correct, the paper would provide a sharp, dimensionality-dependent distinction between two holographic entropy bounds and would place an observational constraint on a (2+1)-dimensional holographic cosmology. That is a potentially interesting contribution to the holography/GSL literature. However, the significance is not realized because the central theorem is contradicted by the exact equations in Section 4 and is conditional on an assumed entropy functional rather than being an intrinsic property of the FS bound. The MCMC section is decoupled from the GSL analysis and contains parameters that are never defined. The paper does not provide machine-checkable proofs or reproducible code, so its value rests entirely on the analytic derivation, which is not sound as it stands.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.4)–(4.9)] The central incompatibility claim is contradicted by the exact equations. For β=-1 and H<0, multiplying the GSL condition (4.4) by H and substituting (4.5)–(4.7) gives p/ρ ≥ 1 - k/(2πG a²ρ), not p/ρ ≥ 2 as Eq. (4.9) implies for β=-1. The statement 'As a²ρ≫k, last terms can be neglected' is not valid near the turning point: from (4.5), 2πG a²ρ = H²a² + k when k=1, so the curvature term is 1/(1+H²a²), which tends to 1 as H→0. The exact inequality then becomes p/ρ ≥ H²a²/(1+H²a²) < 1, so p=ρ satisfies both the GSL and the paper's own identification of the FS bound in a closed contracting universe. Therefore the abstract's claim 'regardless of spatial curvature' is false within the paper's own framework, and the main theorem is curvature-dependent rather than universal.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.1)–(4.11)] The incompatibility result is not intrinsic to the FS bound but is an artifact of the assumed entropy functional. The paper sets total entropy S = (a|H|)^2 |H|^β and fixes β=-1 by asserting that the dominant entropy is geometric. No independent derivation or physical justification is given for this scaling. The subsequent GSL conditions p≤ρ and p>ρ are direct algebraic rearrangements of this ansatz. In addition, the identification of the FS bound with the condition p≤ρ is asserted without derivation; the Fischler–Susskind bound is an entropy-area bound on a causal region, and reducing it to an equation-of-state condition is a nontrivial step that the manuscript does not perform. Without these two derivations, the paper has not shown that the FS bound and the GSL are incompatible; it has shown only that one assumed entropy form is inconsistent with one assumed form of the FS condition.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.15)] The claim that the quantum-corrected condition is 'always incompatible' with the FS bound is not supported. From p/ρ ≥ S_H/(S_H - 2η), compatibility with p/ρ ≤ 1 depends on the sign and magnitude of η. If S_H - 2η < 0, the right-hand side is negative and p/ρ ≤ 1 is allowed; if η < 0, the right-hand side is less than 1, again allowing p≤ρ. Only for 0 < 2η < S_H does the right-hand side exceed 1. The paper imposes no constraint on η and does not justify choosing this particular range, so the persistence of the incompatibility under quantum corrections is not established.
  4. [Sec. 5 and Table 1] The observational section is disconnected from the theoretical analysis and the reported consistency is not borne out by the presented numbers. No explicit H(z) relation, likelihood function, or dataset list is given, and the parameters α and n appearing in Table 1 are never defined in the model. The best-fit parameters vary by more than an order of magnitude across datasets: G = 0.100±0.010 (BAO) versus 1.79±0.18 (CC); λ = 0.537±0.050 (Hubble) versus 1.500±0.050 (CC); α = 0.118±0.012 (CC) versus 5.00±0.50 (Hubble); n = 1.51±0.15 (CC) versus 3.17±0.32 (Hubble). Only ψ is stable. Thus the abstract's claim of good cross-dataset consistency and the conclusion's statement that the MCMC results provide empirical support are unsupported by the analysis as presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.5)] Equation (2.5) states ä/a = -2πGρ, but combining Eqs. (4.5) and (4.6) gives ä/a = Ḣ + H² = -2πGp. These two relations cannot both hold unless p=ρ. Since the later GSL derivation uses (4.5)–(4.7), the field-equation section should be corrected and reconciled with the rest of the paper.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.1)] The displayed definition of N_H does not match Eq. (4.3): Eq. (4.1) appears to define N_H = a²|H|^{-2}, while Eq. (4.3) implies N_H = (aH)². This should be corrected to remove the typographical inconsistency.
  3. [Secs. 3–4] Section 3 explicitly restricts the holographic analysis to k=0 ('For simplicity, we consider a flat universe'), while Section 4 claims results independent of k. This internal contradiction should be resolved by stating the actual assumptions under which each claim is derived.
  4. [Secs. 3–4] The symbol β is used both for the Euler beta function in Eq. (3.7) and for the entropy exponent in Section 4. This notation collision is confusing and should be avoided.
  5. [References and text] Reference [13] has an incomplete arXiv identifier, reference [29] misspells Bekenstein as 'Benkenstein', and Section 5 contains 'stranded error' instead of 'standard error'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central GSL/FS incompatibility is built from the assumed S_H=|H|^{-1} ansatz and the asserted FS=p≤ρ identification; the MCMC 'predictions' are refits of the same H(z) data.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, Eqs. (4.9)-(4.11) and the paragraph beginning 'Then for H > 0, GSL requires p≤ρ'.]
    "Assuming dominant entropy comes from geometry, one can obtain, S_H/G = |H|^{-1}G^{-1}, so β = -1. Then for H > 0, GSL requires p≤ρ (agreeing with FS bound), but for H < 0, GSL demands p > ρ, implying λ > 2, which is forbidden by FS bound. Thus, FS and GSL are incompatible in 3D contracting universes."

    With the curvature terms dropped, Eq. (4.9) for β=-1 is p/ρ ≥ 1, i.e. p>ρ. The paper's FS bound is invoked only as the condition p≤ρ. Both ingredients are assumed rather than derived: β=-1 is chosen by 'Assuming dominant entropy comes from geometry,' and the identification of the FS bound with p≤ρ is asserted without proof. The claimed incompatibility is therefore the logical negation of one assumed condition by another assumed condition; changing the entropy scaling or the FS identification removes the contradiction. The 'prediction' is equivalent to the input ansatz by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Fig. 3 caption and accompanying text after Eq. (5.1).]
    "Fig. 3 explores the ability of the (2+1)D holographic model to predict luminosity distances to cosmological objects by presenting the distance modulus µ(z) as a function of redshift. ... The figure exhibits both the model's central prediction for µ(z) and its 1σ uncertainty band, reflecting the propagation of parameter uncertainties through the observable calculation."

    The parameters are obtained by minimizing χ²_H against the 30 OHD points in Eq. (5.1). The distance modulus is then computed from the best-fit H(z) by integration, so the displayed μ(z) curve is not an independent prediction but a deterministic rearrangement of the same fitted function. Presenting this curve as a model 'prediction' and using its agreement with 'empirical expectations' as validation is the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern.

full rationale

The paper does not rely on load-bearing self-citations; the cited formalism [36] and Hubble-entropy argument [39] are external, and the MCMC fitting itself is standard practice. The main theoretical claim, however, is not independent of its inputs. Section 4 chooses β=-1 by fiat under 'Assuming dominant entropy comes from geometry,' substitutes this into Eq. (4.9), and obtains p>ρ; the FS bound is then used only as the condition p≤ρ, so the incompatibility is the negation of one assumed condition by another. Replacing β=-1 with another allowed value, or not identifying the FS bound with p≤ρ, eliminates the contradiction. The 'regardless of spatial curvature' version is obtained by dropping the k-term in Eq. (4.9) under a²ρ≫k, which is not guaranteed near turn-around; for k=1 the exact inequality can admit p=ρ, so the advertised universality is stronger than the derivation shows. That latter point is a correctness concern rather than a circularity, but it reinforces that the central theorem is not a first-principles result independent of the chosen ansatz. The observational section additionally labels distance-modulus curves computed from the same H(z) fit as 'predictions.' Overall score 6: one or more central 'predictions' reduce by construction to the assumed entropy functional and the asserted FS identification.

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

The central GSL claim depends on the entropy ansatz S_H = |H|^β with β fixed by hand and on a free quantum correction η. The observational claim depends on six fitted parameters, two of which (α and n) are never defined, and reporting identical ψ across three datasets suggests the fit is not reliably presented.

free parameters (8)
  • β = -1
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (4.11) to make the horizon entropy S_H = G^{-1}|H|^{-1}; the incompatibility conclusion depends on this value.
  • η = unspecified
    Quantum entropy correction strength in Eq. (4.12); free parameter, and the sign of S_H - 2η determines whether the quantum-corrected FS incompatibility claim holds.
  • G = 0.100 (BAO), 1.79 (CC), 0.150 (Hubble)
    Gravitational constant treated as a fit parameter in Table 1, rather than a fixed input from prior literature.
  • μ0 = 0.109 (BAO), 2.39 (CC), 0.319 (Hubble)
    Combination of reference density and scale factor, fitted to data in the MCMC analysis.
  • λ = 1.440 (BAO), 1.500 (CC), 0.537 (Hubble)
    Equation of state parameter, fitted to data; the Hubble best-fit 0.537 lies outside the theoretical range 1 < λ ≤ 2 assumed in Sec. 3.
  • ψ = 0.080+0.031-0.078 (all datasets)
    Negative cosmological constant parameter; identical best-fit value and error bars reported for BAO, CC, and Hubble, which is suspicious.
  • α = 2.27 (BAO), 0.118 (CC), 5.00 (Hubble)
    Never defined in the model; used only in the fit.
  • n = 1.57 (BAO), 1.51 (CC), 3.17 (Hubble)
    Never defined in the model; used only in the fit.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math FRW metric and Einstein equations in (2+1) dimensions with gravitational coupling 2πG (Eqs. 2.1 and 2.2).
    Background framework inherited from general relativity in lower dimensions; used to derive the Friedmann equations (2.4)-(2.7).
  • domain assumption Perfect fluid energy-momentum tensor with isotropic pressure (Eq. 2.3).
    Assumes the matter content is a perfect fluid, which restricts the class of exotic matter considered.
  • domain assumption Equation of state p = (λ - 1)ρ with constant λ (Eq. 3.1).
    The equation of state parameter λ is constant; the scale factor solution (3.6) depends on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Total entropy S = N_H S_H with S_H = |H|^β (Eqs. 4.1-4.3).
    The entropy functional is postulated, not derived; the GSL inequality (4.4) follows from this form.
  • ad hoc to paper Choice of β = -1 via geometric dominance (Eq. 4.11).
    The value β = -1 is chosen by hand so that S_H/G = |H|^{-1}G^{-1}; the p/ρ constraints in Eqs. (4.8) and (4.9) depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption First law TdS = dE + pdV applied to the horizon (Eq. 4.10).
    Standard horizon thermodynamics from [20]; used to obtain the temperature expression.
  • ad hoc to paper Fischler-Susskind bound identified with p ≤ ρ (Sec. 4).
    The paper equates the FS bound with the equation-of-state condition without deriving the bound in (2+1) dimensions.
  • ad hoc to paper Quantum entropy correction dS_Quan = -η dN_H (Eq. 4.12).
    A free parameter η is introduced following 4D quantum entropy definitions; no (2+1)-dimensional justification is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the Generalized Second Law in $(2+1)$-Dimensional Cosmology: Holographic Entropy Bounds and Observational Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VIQQTEDN

@misc{pith2026250813227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the Generalized Second Law in $(2+1)$-Dimensional Cosmology: Holographic Entropy Bounds and Observational Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VIQQTEDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13227}
}
abstract

We investigate the validity of the Generalized Second Law (GSL) of thermodynamics in a $(2+1)$-dimensional holographic cosmological model with a negative cosmological constant. Adopting a horizon thermodynamics framework, we examine two prominent entropy bounds, the Fischler--Susskind (FS) bound and the Hubble Entropy (HE) bound, in both expanding and contracting universes, including the effects of quantum entropy corrections. Our theoretical analysis shows that the FS bound is intrinsically incompatible with the GSL in contracting $(2+1)$-dimensional universes, regardless of spatial curvature or exotic matter content, and that this incompatibility persists even when quantum corrections are considered. In contrast, the HE bound is consistent with the GSL in expanding universes under classical conditions and can also be reconciled in certain contracting scenarios when quantum effects are included. To complement the theoretical study, we perform a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis using recent Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO), Cosmic Chronometer (CC), and Hubble parameter datasets to constrain the model parameters. The best-fit results reveal good cross-dataset consistency, with the cosmological constant parameter $\psi$ remaining stable across all probes. These findings identify the HE bound as a more robust candidate for holographic constraints in lower-dimensional cosmology, while demonstrating the limitations of the FS bound. Our results not only clarify the status of the GSL in $(2+1)$-dimensional settings but also provide a framework for testing entropy bounds with future high-precision cosmological data.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wang, B., Abdalla, E.: Holography in (2 + 1)-dimensional cosmological models. Phys. Lett. B 466, 122 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(11), pp.6377-6396 (1995)

    Susskind, L., The world as a hologram. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(11), pp.6377-6396 (1995)

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    and Linde, A.: Cosmology versus holography

    Kaloper, N. and Linde, A.: Cosmology versus holography. Physical Review D, 60(10), 103509 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    and Rey, S.J.: Cosmic holography+

    Bak, D. and Rey, S.J.: Cosmic holography+. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 17(15), L83 (2000)

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Holographic Cosmology and its Relevant Degrees of Freedom

    Dawid, R.: Holographic cosmology and its relevant degrees of freedom. arXiv preprint hep-th/9907115 ( 1999)

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    and Pradhan, R.K.: The holography hypothesis and pre-big bang cosmology

    Biswas, A.K., Maharana, J. and Pradhan, R.K.: The holography hypothesis and pre-big bang cosmology. Physics Letters B, 462(3-4), 243-248 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Physics Letters B, 457(4), 268-274 (1999)

    Rama, S.K.: Holographic principle in the closed universe: a resolution with negative pressure matter. Physics Letters B, 457(4), 268-274 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    and Abdalla, E.: Holography in (2+ 1)-dimensional cosmological models

    Wang, B. and Abdalla, E.: Holography in (2+ 1)-dimensional cosmological models. Physics Letters B, 466(2-4), 122-126 (1999)

    work page 1999

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    and Abdalla, E.: Holography and the generalized second law of thermodynamics in (2 + 1)-dimensional cosmology

    Wang, B. and Abdalla, E.: Holography and the generalized second law of thermodynamics in (2 + 1)-dimensional cosmology. Physics Letters B, 471(4), 346-351 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Holography

    Kaloper, N., Linde, A.: Cosmology vs. Holography. Phys. Rev. D 60, 103509 (1999)

    1999

  3. [11]

    Susskind, L.: The world as a hologram. J. Math. Phys. 36, 6377 (1995). – 14 –

    1995

  4. [12]

    Rama, S.K.: Holographic principle in the closed universe: a resolution with negative pressure matter.Phys. Lett. B 457, 268 (1999)

    1999

  5. [13]

    Bak, D., Rey, S.J.: Cosmic holography. Class. Quantum. Grav. 17, L83 (2000). arXiv:hep-th/981108

    2000

  6. [14]

    Biswas, A.K., Maharana, J., Pradhan, R.K.: The holography hypothesis and pre-big bang cosmology. Phys. Lett. B 462, 243 (1999). arXiv:hep-th/9811051

    1999 arXiv

  7. [15]

    D.: Black Holes and Entropy

    Bekenstein, J. D.: Black Holes and Entropy. Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  8. [16]

    Hawking, S. W. Particle creation by black holes. Commun.Math. Phys. 43, 199–220 (1975)

    1975

  9. [17]

    On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton

    Verlinde, E. On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. J. High Energ. Phys. 2011, 29 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    JHEP 9906, 028 (1999)

    Bousso, R.: Holography in general space. JHEP 9906, 028 (1999). arXiv:hep-th/9906022

    1999 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Black hole in three-dimensional spacetime

    Ba˜nados, M., Teitelboim, C., Zanelli, J. Black hole in three-dimensional spacetime. Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1849 (1992)

    1992

  12. [20]

    G., Kim, S

    Cai, R. G., Kim, S. P. First law of thermodynamics and Friedmann equations of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe. JHEP 02, 050 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Setare, M. R. Generalized second law of thermodynamics in quintom dominated universe. Physics Letters B 641(2), 130-133 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    arXiv:hep-th/9409089 (1998)

    Fischler, W., Susskind, L.: Holography and Cosmology. arXiv:hep-th/9409089 (1998)

    1998 arXiv

  15. [23]

    JHEP 9907, 004 (1999)

    Bousso, R.: A covariant entropy conjecture. JHEP 9907, 004 (1999). arXiv: hep-th/9905177

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    E., Rangamani, M

    Veronika, E., Hubeny, V. E., Rangamani, M. and Takayanagi, T. A covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal. JHEP 07, 062 (2007). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/07/062

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    and Lowe, D.: Holography, cosmology, and the second law of thermodynamics

    Easther, R. and Lowe, D.: Holography, cosmology, and the second law of thermodynamics. Physical Review Letters, 82(25), 4967 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint gr-qc/9904061 (1999)

    Brustein, R.: The generalized second law of thermodynamics in cosmology. arXiv preprint gr-qc/9904061 (1999)

    1999 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology

    Trotta, R. Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology. Contemporary Physics 49(2), 71–104 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/00107510802066753

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    Koussour, M., Myrzakulov, N., Alfedeel, A. H. A, Abebe, A. Constraining the cosmological model of modified f(Q) gravity: Phantom dark energy and observational insights. Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2023, 11, 113E01 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptad133

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Benkenstein, J. D. Black Holes and Entropy. Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333

    1973 doi

  22. [30]

    Hawking, S. W. Particle Creation by Black Holes. Commun.Math. Phys. 43, 199–220 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02345020

    1975 doi

  23. [31]

    Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstein Equation of State

    Jacobson, T. Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstein Equation of State. Math. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1260

    1995 doi

  24. [32]

    The holographic principle

    Bousso, R. The holographic principle. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 825 (2002). DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.825

    2002 doi

  25. [33]

    Wall, A. C. Ten Proofs of the Generalized Second Law. JHEP 06, 021 (2009). DOI: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/06/021

    2009 doi

  26. [34]

    H., Muzammil, M., Mapari, R

    Shekh, S. H., Muzammil, M., Mapari, R. V. and Khapekar, G. U. Holographic inflation in non-static plane symmetric space-time. arXiv:2304.09080

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    and Sturani, R.: Generalized second law in string cosmology

    Brustein, R., Foffa, S. and Sturani, R.: Generalized second law in string cosmology. Physics Letters B, 471(4), 352-357 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    Wang, B., Abdalla, E.: Holography and generalized second law of thermodynamics in – 15 – (2+1)-dimensional cosmology. Phys. Lett. B 471, 346 (2000)

    2000

  29. [37]

    and Islam, S.,: Modified Chaplygin gas with bulk viscous cosmology in FRW (2+ 1)-dimensional spacetime

    Khadekar, G.S., Kumar, P. and Islam, S.,: Modified Chaplygin gas with bulk viscous cosmology in FRW (2+ 1)-dimensional spacetime. Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 40(5), 40 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Cornish, N.J., Frankel, N.E.: Gravitation in (2 + 1)-dimensions. Phys. Rev. D 43, 2555 (2000)

    2000

  31. [39]

    Veneziano, G.: Entropy bounds and string cosmology. Phys. Lett. B 454, 22–26 (1999). arXiv:hep-th/9902126

    1999 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Astrophys

    Yu, H., Ratra, B., Wang, F.-Y.: Hubble parameter and baryon acoustic oscillation measurement constraints on the Hubble constant, the deviation from spatial flatness, and other cosmological parameters. Astrophys. J. 856, 3 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Moresco, M.: Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers at z ∼ 2. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 450, L16–L20 (2015). – 16 –

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.