Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 64 references

In a spatially closed universe, scalar field fluctuations alone can drive accelerated expansion—provided the field's Compton wavelength exceeds the scale factor—without any specially designed potential.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 01:13 UTC pith:BG5JTB5H

load-bearing objection A clean flat-space no-go and a plausible closed-universe mechanism, but the mass range is only proven in a zero-mode-dominated limit, not for the full backreaction. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.10223 v2 pith:BG5JTB5H submitted 2026-02-10 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th

Accelerated expansion of the universe purely driven by scalar field fluctuations

Daniel Jim\'enez-Aguilar This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th MSC 83F0583C47 PACS 98.80.-k04.62.+v
keywords scalar field fluctuationscosmic accelerationclosed FLRW universeequation of statedark energyinflationtopological vacuum pressure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper aims to show that cosmic acceleration does not require a carefully engineered scalar potential or a cosmological constant: a gas of ordinary scalar-field fluctuations about a minimum of the potential can do it by itself. The effect depends on spatial topology. In a flat universe the same fluctuation state always has positive enough pressure to forbid acceleration, for any curvature coupling and any power spectrum. In a closed universe the discrete mode spectrum adds Casimir-like corrections, and when the zero-mode frequency is small enough—equivalently, when the scalar mass M lies between 0 and 1/a_i—the averaged pressure becomes negative enough to drive ⟨ρ_i⟩+3⟨p_i⟩<0. The author works out explicit thermal examples and limiting cases, including a state with equation-of-state parameter −0.61 and a bounce-like limit with w=−1.

Core claim

The central claim is that the initial ensemble-averaged energy-momentum tensor of scalar fluctuations in a closed FLRW universe can violate the strong energy condition even when the field is minimally coupled to gravity and sits at the minimum of its potential. The key result is a mass window: acceleration occurs for M∈(0,1/a_i), and the initial Hubble rate, equation-of-state parameter, and required mass are all expressed as functions of a single dimensionless parameter x=2πIG(1−6ξ). For minimal coupling, x>3/2 gives acceleration; x→∞ yields the static-universe limit w→−1/3, and x→3/2 yields w→−1 with H_i→0, a state that subsequently inflates. The paper also proves the flat-universe counterp

What carries the argument

The central object is the mode expansion of the rescaled scalar field ψ=aϕ in hyperspherical harmonics on the closed spatial section, with discrete frequencies ω_n² = n(n+2)+a_i² M_eff²(η_i). The dimensionless combination x=2πIG(1−6ξ), built from the spectral integral I, controls everything: the averaged density and pressure are rational functions of x, and the acceleration window is x>3/2 for ξ=0. The smallness of the zero-mode frequency ω0 (equivalently, the smallness of the bare mass relative to 1/a_i) makes I large, which turns the topology-induced boundary-analogue term into negative pressure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spectral integrals ρ0, p0, and I can be treated as fixed when solving for the averaged density and pressure, even though the mode frequencies depend on the Ricci scalar R_i; the paper only checks this self-consistency in the zero-mode-dominated limit and defers renormalization of the divergent vacuum sums.

What would settle it

Solve the thermal example fully self-consistently: for a_i=100 L_P, T̃=0.1 and a candidate bare mass M in (0,1/a_i), impose R_i=8πG(⟨ρ_i⟩−3⟨p_i⟩) and ω0²=a_i²(M²−R_i/6+1/a_i²) simultaneously with (46)-(47); if no solution gives ⟨ρ_i⟩+3⟨p_i⟩<0 and real H_i, the claimed mass window collapses. Likewise, a ζ-function-regularized evaluation of the vacuum sums that yields non-negative pressure would falsify the mechanism.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Flat-universe no-go: scalar fluctuations about a minimum cannot drive acceleration in k=0 FLRW for any ξ or power spectrum.
  • Closed-universe window: for M ∈ (0,1/a_i), with minimal coupling, the fluctuations yield w<−1/3 and real H_i; masses above 1/a_i do not accelerate.
  • Example: with a_i=100 L_P, T̃=0.1 and ω_0=0.0012, the state has w_i≈−0.61 and H_i≈±0.0039 M_P.
  • Limiting behavior: x→∞ gives a static-universe-like limit (H_i→0, w_i→−1/3); x→3/2 gives H_i→0, w_i=−1, a state that will subsequently inflate.
  • Maximum expansion: at a_i M=3^{-1/4}≈0.76, the Hubble rate peaks at H≈0.52M and w≈−0.58.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism holds, a gas of light bosons in a closed universe could supply a unified, potential-free source for both inflation and dark energy; the obvious next computation is the full time evolution to see whether the accelerated phase lasts long enough to match observed expansion history.
  • The flat-universe no-go strongly suggests the sign of the topological pressure tracks the spatial curvature sign; an open universe (k=−1) should also fail to accelerate, though the paper does not treat it.
  • The implicit dependence of ω0 on R_i could be tested numerically for the thermal example: solving the coupled system (46)-(47), (62), (63) for each M in the claimed window would either confirm the mass range or reveal that self-consistency narrows it.
  • Because renormalization is deferred, a natural stress test is to repeat the vacuum-fluctuation calculation with ζ-function regularization or a physical cutoff; if the renormalized pressure loses its negative sign, the effect may be an artifact of the unregulated sums.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether a scalar field sitting at the minimum of a quadratic potential, with fluctuations treated as a stochastic ensemble, can generate an FLRW universe undergoing accelerated expansion. For spatially flat sections the author proves a no-go result: for any curvature coupling ξ and any positive spectrum, the conditions ⟨ρ_i⟩>0 and ⟨ρ_i⟩+3⟨p_i⟩<0 are incompatible, so acceleration is impossible. For spatially closed sections, he derives ensemble-averaged energy density and pressure and shows, in the zero-mode-dominated limit for minimal coupling, that ⟨ρ_i⟩+3⟨p_i⟩<0 can be satisfied whenever the bare mass lies in the range M∈(0,1/a_i). A thermal example with a_i=100 L_P and T̃=0.1 yields w_i≈−0.61 and H_i≈±0.0039 M_P. The effect is interpreted as a cosmological Casimir-type contribution due to the compact topology.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the idea that a gas of light bosons in a closed universe can source acceleration without a slow-roll potential or cosmological constant is novel and potentially relevant to inflation and dark energy. The spatially flat proof is clean and, being framed entirely in terms of positive integrals, does not depend on the details of the spectrum; it is a genuine no-go theorem. The paper also gives explicit algebraic formulas for the closed case and a concrete, reproducible thermal example. The link to Hawking–Ellis's strong-energy-condition discussion for scalar fields with Compton wavelength larger than the curvature radius provides a clear physical principle. However, the existence argument for the closed case is confined to a specific dominance limit, and the derivation of the mass range relies on an approximation whose domain of validity is not fully characterized; the renormalization of divergent vacuum sums is also deferred. These gaps limit the strength of the general claims but do not invalidate the existence of a concrete example.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eqs. (54)–(55), (62), (70)] The central claim M∈(0,1/a_i) rests on Eqs. (54)–(55), which are not explicit solutions. The quantities ρ0, p0, I (Eqs. (50)–(52)) are defined as sums over ω_n, and ω_n depends on M_eff(η_i) (Eq. (45)), which depends on R_i=8πG(ρ_i−3p_i) (Eqs. (62)–(63)). Therefore (54)–(55) are a fixed-point system. The paper solves this system only in the limit Ĩ≫ρ̃0,p̃0, ω0≪1, where it obtains Eq. (70) by imposing M_eff≈0. This yields a continuum of configurations, but it does not prove that a self-consistent solution exists for every M∈(0,1/a_i) outside that limit. The thermal example with a_i=100, T̃=0.1, ω0=0.0012 is a successful check in one regime, but the abstract and conclusions state the mass range as a general result. Please either provide an existence proof (e.g., by continuity or a numerical scan of the full system) or explicitly qualify the result as a sufficient condition in the zero-mod
  2. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (70)] Equation (70) is derived under the assumption ω0≪1. For a thermal spectrum, the endpoint x→3/2 of the claimed mass range corresponds to ω0=Ω0=[2T̃/(3π a_i^2)]^{1/2}, which is not zero. Thus the statement that M→1/a_i at x→3/2 is only valid if Ω0≪1 (e.g., T̃≪a_i^2). The paper does not state this condition, and the abstract/conclusion present M∈(0,1/a_i) as unconditional. Please state the domain of validity of the small-ω0 approximation or prove the endpoint relation without it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] Typos: 'cosnideration' in Sec. I; 'Proceding' in Sec. IV; 'Sp a tially' in the Sec. IV heading.
  2. [Sec. IV B] In the example, H_i≈±0.0039 M_P: the negative branch is the time-reversed solution; the physical initial condition should select the positive branch.
  3. [Sec. IV B] At x→3/2, the statement 'will subsequently inflate' is an extrapolation, since time evolution is not computed; please soften to 'may subsequently inflate'.
  4. [Sec. V] The Conclusions state that the results are robust even for vacuum fluctuations because the spectrum may incorporate UV regularization; since no renormalization procedure is given, please clarify that the rigorous example is the convergent thermal case and that vacuum fluctuations are a conjecture.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the central mass range is derived and the self-consistency loop is explicitly closed.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central claim—that acceleration occurs in a closed FLRW universe for scalar masses M in (0,1/a_i)—is obtained by solving the backreaction equations, not by assuming the target result. The closed-universe equations (46)–(47) are solved algebraically for ⟨ρ_i⟩ and ⟨p_i⟩ in terms of ρ0, p0, I, and the subsequent condition (58) is a derived inequality. The paper explicitly acknowledges that ω0 and T are not independent because ω0 depends on R_i, which depends on ⟨ρ_i⟩ and ⟨p_i⟩; it closes this loop in the dominant zero-mode limit by using Eqs. (64)–(65) to derive the mass formula (70) and the range M∈(0,1/a_i). This is a legitimate construction of self-consistent solutions, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The comparison to Hawking and Ellis is an independent external consistency check, not a load-bearing self-citation. The deferred renormalization discussion is a stated limitation about divergent vacuum sums, but the thermal example is convergent and the sign of the pressure is not assumed via renormalization. The only substantive caveat is that full existence and uniqueness of self-consistent solutions for every M in the range is only demonstrated in the zero-mode-dominated limit; this is a completeness/correctness gap, not a circular reduction. No load-bearing self-citations or ansatz-smuggling through citations were found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The free parameters are ordinary model/state parameters (mass, temperature, scale factor, mode frequency) chosen inside a derived window; the central claim is a parameter-range statement. The main implicit assumptions are semiclassical backreaction, the Gaussian initial state, convergence/renormalizability of the mode sums, and zero bare vacuum energy.

free parameters (4)
  • Scalar field mass M = M ≈ 0.008 M_P in the worked example (within M ∈ (0, 1/a_i))
    The mass is a Lagrangian parameter, but the paper tunes it (through ω_0) to make the zero-mode frequency small and thus satisfy the acceleration condition. This is the key knob that turns on the effect.
  • Initial scale factor a_i = a_i = 100 L_P in the worked example
    The initial curvature radius is chosen to be 100 Planck lengths. It sets the scale of the mode spacing and the Hubble rate.
  • Thermal temperature T̃ = T̃ = 0.1 (T = 10^-3 M_P)
    The thermal spectrum's shape and occupation numbers depend on this dimensionless temperature; the example chooses it to make the zero-mode occupation large.
  • Zero-mode frequency ω_0 = ω_0 = 0.0012 in the worked example
    Although derived from M, R_i, and a_i, ω_0 is effectively the free parameter that is dialed into the accelerating band (0, Ω_0). The paper adjusts M to realize a given ω_0.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Semiclassical gravity: the ensemble-averaged FLRW metric is sourced by ⟨T_μν⟩, and the metric remains exactly FLRW despite the scalar fluctuations.
    Introduced in Section II ('the ensemble-averaged FLRW metric directly generated by them'). Fluctuations with nonzero anisotropic stress could break FLRW; the paper assumes isotropy on average.
  • standard math The initial state is Gaussian: the real and imaginary parts of the α coefficients are independent random variables with zero mean and variance ⟨|α|²⟩/2.
    This is the standard second-quantized initial state ansatz (Section III and Appendix A). It allows all ensemble averages to be expressed via ⟨|α|²⟩.
  • domain assumption The mode sums converge, or equivalently ⟨|α_n|²⟩ is an effective renormalized spectrum incorporating a physical cutoff.
    Stated in Section IV.B: for vacuum fluctuations the sums diverge, and the paper interprets the spectrum as already regularized. The claim of robustness for vacuum fluctuations relies on this unresolved renormalization.
  • domain assumption The potential minimum has exactly zero vacuum energy (V(0) = 0), so there is no bare cosmological constant.
    Section II sets V(ϕ) = ½ M² ϕ² with minimum at ϕ = 0. If a bare Λ existed, the acceleration could be trivially cosmological-constant driven.
  • domain assumption In the accelerating regime, the n=0 (spatially constant) mode dominates the spectral sums: Î ≫ ρ̃0, p̃0.
    Section IV.B assumes this to derive the approximate energy density, pressure, and mass range (Eqs. 64–71). It is satisfied by the thermal example because the zero-mode occupation is much larger than high-n modes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15088 in / 24531 out tokens · 235783 ms · 2026-08-03T01:13:59.349551+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We show that scalar field fluctuations alone can drive cosmic acceleration, provided the universe is spatially closed and the Compton wavelength of the field exceeds the radius of curvature. This mechanism may open new perspectives on inflation and dark energy, which could arise from a gas of sufficiently light bosons in a closed universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.10223 by Daniel Jim\'enez-Aguilar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Thermal energy density (left), pressure (center) and equation of state parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Hubble rate (left) and equation of state parameter (right) corresponding to the different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A. G. Riesset al.(Supernova Search Team), Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9805201. 16

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae, Astrophys

    S. Perlmutteret al.(Supernova Cosmology Project), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae, Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  4. [4]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), DESI 2024 VI: cosmological constraints from the measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 results

    M. Abdul Karimet al.(DESI), DESI DR2 results. II. Measurements of baryon acoustic os- cillations and cosmological constraints, Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025), arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    G. Ye, M. Martinelli, B. Hu, and A. Silvestri, Hints of Nonminimally Coupled Gravity in DESI 2024 Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 181002 (2025), arXiv:2407.15832 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Scant evidence for thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D110, 083528 (2024), arXiv:2408.17318 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    W. J. Wolf, P. G. Ferreira, and C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, Matching current observational constraints with nonminimally coupled dark energy, Phys. Rev. D111, L041303 (2025), arXiv:2409.17019 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, T. Anton, and P. G. Ferreira, Assessing Cosmological Evidence for Nonminimal Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 081001 (2025), arXiv:2504.07679 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Bayat and M

    Z. Bayat and M. P. Hertzberg, Examining quintessence models with DESI data, JCAP08, 065, arXiv:2505.18937 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, M. Vasar, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Quintessence and phantoms in light of DESI 2025, Phys. Rev. D112, 063551 (2025), arXiv:2506.21542 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    H. Adam, M. P. Hertzberg, D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar, and I. Khan, Comparing Minimal and Non- Minimal Quintessence Models to 2025 DESI Data, (2025), arXiv:2509.13302 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela, and D. Pav´ on, Further understanding the interac- tion between dark energy and dark matter: current status and future directions, Rept. Prog. Phys.87, 036901 (2024), arXiv:2402.00819 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Li, P.-J

    T.-N. Li, P.-J. Wu, G.-H. Du, S.-J. Jin, H.-L. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Constraints on Interacting Dark Energy Models from the DESI Baryon Acoustic Oscillation and DES Supernovae Data, Astrophys. J.976, 1 (2024), arXiv:2407.14934 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Chakraborty, P

    A. Chakraborty, P. K. Chanda, S. Das, and K. Dutta, DESI results: hint towards coupled dark matter and dark energy, JCAP11, 047, arXiv:2503.10806 [astro-ph.CO]. 17

    arXiv

  16. [16]

    Khoury, M.-X

    J. Khoury, M.-X. Lin, and M. Trodden, Apparent w<-1 and a Lower S8 from Dark Axion and Dark Baryons Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181001 (2025), arXiv:2503.16415 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    S. L. Guedezounme, B. R. Dinda, and R. Maartens, Phantom crossing or dark interaction?, JCAP01, 062, arXiv:2507.18274 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  18. [18]

    A. H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  19. [19]

    A. D. Linde, A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems, Phys. Lett. B108, 389 (1982)

    1982

  20. [20]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1220 (1982)

    1982

  21. [21]

    Tegmarket al.(SDSS), Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP, Phys

    M. Tegmarket al.(SDSS), Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP, Phys. Rev. D 69, 103501 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310723

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  22. [22]

    A. H. Guth and D. I. Kaiser, Inflationary cosmology: Exploring the Universe from the smallest to the largest scales, Science307, 884 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0502328

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  23. [23]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    P. J. Steinhardt, The inflation debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?, Sci. Am.304N4, 18 (2011)

    2011

  25. [25]

    Ijjas, P

    A. Ijjas, P. J. Steinhardt, D. Garfinkle, and W. G. Cook, Smoothing and flattening the universe through slow contraction versus inflation, JCAP07, 077, arXiv:2404.00867 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, and E. A. Lim, Cosmology using numerical relativity, Living Rev. Rel.28, 5 (2025), arXiv:2409.01939 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    M. P. Hertzberg and D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar, Probability of the initial conditions for inflation and slow contraction, Phys. Rev. D112, 043519 (2025), arXiv:2505.22763 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    H. B. G. Casimir, On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates, Indag. Math. 10, 261 (1948)

    1948

  29. [29]

    S. G. Mamaev and N. N. Trunov, DEPENDENCE OF THE V ACUUM EXPECTATION V AL- UES OF THE ENERGY MOMENTUM TENSOR ON THE GEOMETRY AND TOPOLOGY OF THE MANIFOLD, Theor. Math. Phys.38, 228 (1979)

    1979

  30. [30]

    S. G. Mamaev and N. N. Trunov, V ACUUM A VERAGES OF THE ENERGY MOMENTUM TENSOR OF QUANTIZED FIELDS ON MANIFOLDS OF V ARIOUS TOPOLOGY AND GEOMETRY. II, Sov. Phys. J.22, 966 (1979). 18

    1979

  31. [31]

    Y. B. Zeldovich and A. A. Starobinsky, Quantum creation of a universe in a nontrivial topol- ogy, Sov. Astron. Lett.10, 135 (1984)

    1984

  32. [32]

    A. H. Guth and A. Vilenkin, On quantum creation of a toroidal universe (2025) arXiv:2508.08747 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Parker and S

    L. Parker and S. A. Fulling, Adiabatic regularization of the energy-momentum tensor of a quantized field in homogeneous spaces, Phys. Rev. D9, 341 (1974)

    1974

  34. [34]

    Streeruwitz, Vacuum fluctuations of a scalar field in an Einstein universe, Phys

    E. Streeruwitz, Vacuum fluctuations of a scalar field in an Einstein universe, Phys. Lett. B 55, 93 (1975)

    1975

  35. [35]

    Streeruwitz, Vacuum Fluctuations of a Quantized Scalar Field in a Robertson-Walker Universe, Phys

    E. Streeruwitz, Vacuum Fluctuations of a Quantized Scalar Field in a Robertson-Walker Universe, Phys. Lett. B56, 66 (1975)

    1975

  36. [36]

    L. H. Ford, Quantum Vacuum Energy in General Relativity, Phys. Rev. D11, 3370 (1975)

    1975

  37. [37]

    S. G. Mamaev, V. M. Mostepanenko, and A. A. Starobinsky, Particle creation from the vacuum near a homogeneous isotropic singularity, Sov. Phys. JETP43, 823 (1976)

    1976

  38. [38]

    L. H. Ford, Quantum Vacuum Energy in a Closed Universe, Phys. Rev. D14, 3304 (1976)

    1976

  39. [39]

    J. S. Dowker and R. Critchley, Vacuum Stress Tensor in an Einstein Universe. Finite Tem- perature Effects, Phys. Rev. D15, 1484 (1977)

    1977

  40. [40]

    J. S. Dowker and B. M. Altaie, Spinor Fields in an Einstein Universe. The Vacuum Averaged Stress Energy Tensor, Phys. Rev. D17, 417 (1978)

    1978

  41. [41]

    I. H. Russell and D. J. Toms, Vacuum Energy for Massive Forms in R(m) X S(N), Class. Quant. Grav.4, 1357 (1987)

    1987

  42. [42]

    V. M. Mostepanenko and N. N. Trunov,The Casimir effect and its applications(Clarendon Press, Oxford, New York, 1997)

    1997

  43. [43]

    M. J. Krech, The casimir effect in critical systems (1994)

    1994

  44. [44]

    Zhuk and H

    A. Zhuk and H. Kleinert, Casimir effect at nonzero temperatures in a closed Friedmann uni- verse, Theor. Math. Phys.109, 1483 (1996)

    1996

  45. [45]

    Elizalde and A

    E. Elizalde and A. C. Tort, A Note on the Casimir energy of a massive scalar field in positive curvature space, Mod. Phys. Lett. A19, 111 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0306049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  46. [46]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro and M. Sampaio, Casimir energy and a cosmological bounce, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 473 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0510052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  47. [47]

    Szydlowski and W

    M. Szydlowski and W. Godlowski, Acceleration of the universe driven by the Casimir force, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D17, 343 (2008), arXiv:0705.1772 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  48. [48]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro, R. H. Ribeiro, and M. Sampaio, Repulsive gravity and the Casimir effect on spherical universes, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 1821 (2009)

    2009

  49. [49]

    A. A. Saharian and A. L. Mkhitaryan, Vacuum fluctuations and topological Casimir effect in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmologies with compact dimensions, Eur. Phys. J. C66, 295 19 (2010), arXiv:0908.3291 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  50. [50]

    V. B. Bezerra, G. L. Klimchitskaya, V. M. Mostepanenko, and C. Romero, Thermal casimir effect in closed friedmann universe revisited, Phys. Rev. D83, 104042 (2011)

    2011

  51. [51]

    V. B. Bezerra, V. M. Mostepanenko, H. F. Mota, and C. Romero, Thermal Casimir effect for neutrino and electromagnetic fields in closed Friedmann cosmological model, Phys. Rev. D 84, 104025 (2011), arXiv:1110.4504 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  52. [52]

    E. R. Bezerra de Mello, A. A. Saharian, and M. R. Setare, The Casimir effect for parallel plates in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe, Phys. Rev. D95, 065024 (2017), arXiv:1701.05026 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    V. B. Bezerra, H. F. Mota, and C. R. Muniz, Casimir Effect in the Rainbow Einstein’s Uni- verse, EPL120, 10005 (2017), arXiv:1708.02627 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Cho, J.-T

    H.-T. Cho, J.-T. Hsiang, and B.-L. Hu, Quantum Capacity and Vacuum Compressibility of Spacetime: Thermal Fields, Universe8, 291 (2022), arXiv:2204.08634 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Xie, J.-T

    Y.-C. Xie, J.-T. Hsiang, and B.-L. Hu, Dynamical vacuum compressibility of space, Phys. Rev. D109, 065027 (2024), arXiv:2312.09047 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Hsiang, Y.-C

    J.-T. Hsiang, Y.-C. Xie, and B.-L. Hu, Heat capacity and quantum compressibility of dynamical spacetimes with thermal particle creation, Phys. Rev. D110, 063504 (2024), arXiv:2405.00360 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    V. B. Bezerra, H. F. Santana Mota, A. P. C. M. Lima, G. Alencar, and C. R. Muniz, The Casimir Effect in Finite-Temperature and Gravitational Scenarios, MDPI Physics6, 1046 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    E. S. Moreira and J. P. A. Paula, Thermodynamic stability in an Einstein universe, (2025), arXiv:2512.23838 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Bordag, U

    M. Bordag, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepanenko, New developments in the Casimir effect, Phys. Rept.353, 1 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0106045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  60. [60]

    Mukhanov and S

    V. Mukhanov and S. Winitzki,Introduction to quantum effects in gravity(Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2007)

    2007

  61. [61]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982)

    1982

  62. [62]

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Wave Function of the Universe, Phys. Rev. D28, 2960 (1983)

    1983

  63. [63]

    Vilenkin, Quantum Creation of Universes, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Quantum Creation of Universes, Phys. Rev. D30, 509 (1984)

    1984

  64. [64]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis,The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2023). 20 Appendix A: Computation of ensemble averages In this appendix, we will give the necessary details to derive the ensemble averages (19)- (22), corresponding to a spatially flat universe. In the case o...

    2023