Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 86 references

Physical geometry of the quasispherical Szekeres models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adjacent shells in a quasispherical Szekeres model are not only shifted but rotated, and the two effects together exactly rebuild the metric in spherical coordinates.

desk verdict Shell-rotation geometry is a genuine clarification, but Eq. (45) contradicts Appendix C and reverses the recommended tracking rotation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02697 v3 pith:2UGPXSA3 submitted 2019-08-07 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Robert G. Buckley , Eric M. Schlegel This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO PACS 04.20.Jb98.80.-k
keywords quasisphericalSzekeresmodelsshellrotationshiftingdipolefunctionsLTexactinhomogeneouscosmologystereographicprojectionHaantjestransformations
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

The paper aims to fix how researchers picture quasispherical Szekeres spacetimes, exact inhomogeneous cosmological solutions made of nested spherical dust shells. It claims that adjacent shells are not only displaced, making them non-concentric, but also rotated relative to one another: shell $r+dr$ is rotated by $dr\,P'/S$ about the local minus-$y$ axis and by $dr\,Q'/S$ about the local $x$ axis, where $P$, $Q$, and $S$ are the dipole functions. Adding exactly this rotation to the known shell-shifting effect transforms the spherically symmetric LT metric into the Szekeres metric in spherical coordinates, term by term. If correct, this gives a complete geometric dictionary between the model's functions and the actual layout, shapes, and apparent straightness of light paths in the model. It also clarifies why only some dipole configurations are symmetric, and provides practical tools for building and plotting multi-structure models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dipole function $E(r,p,q) = ((p-P)^2+(q-Q)^2+S^2)/(2S)$, or equivalently its logarithmic derivative $E'/E$, which in spherical coordinates is a dipole with amplitude $\sqrt{P'^2+Q'^2+S'^2}/S$. The rotation part of the machinery is the map that advances one shell to the next: first rotate the local frame by $P'/S\,dr$ about the $-y$ axis and by $Q'/S\,dr$ about the $x$ axis, then shift the shell center by $(R P'/S,\,R Q'/S,\,R S'/S)\,dr/\sqrt{1-k}$. Applied to the LT metric, this map reproduces the Szekeres metric's $rr$, $r\theta$, and $r\varphi$ components exactly, which is the demonstration that the ansatz is complete. The machinery also includes the $4\times 4$ rotation-tilt matrix used for embedding a constant-time slice in a four-dimensional background, whose induced metric matches the Szekeres metric.

What would settle it

Take a model with nonzero $P'/S$ and $Q'/S$, numerically integrate a null geodesic, and plot it using the paper's mapping that includes shell rotation; the paper predicts the geodesic is nearly straight. If a correct geodesic plot still shows substantial curvature after applying the prescribed shifts and rotations, the rotation magnitudes are incomplete. More directly, compute the induced metric of the four-dimensional embedding surface built from the stated shifts, rotations, and tilts for a non-axisymmetric model and compare all components with Eq. (13); any mismatch in $g_{r\theta}$ or $g_{r\varphi}$ would falsify the completeness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a shell rotation effect: in the quasispherical subclass of Szekeres models, each constant-$(t,r)$ shell has its spherical coordinate frame rotated relative to the previous shell by $P'/S\,dr$ around the shell's local $-y$ axis and by $Q'/S\,dr$ around its local $x$ axis. These angles are time-independent, unlike the shell shifting, which grows with the areal radius $R$. The paper demonstrates in Appendix C that applying this rotation together with the shell shifting to the LT metric gives every component of the Szekeres metric in spherical coordinates, including the off-diagonal $dr\,d\theta$ and $dr\,d\varphi$ terms. It therefore concludes that no other geometric effect is needed: the dipole functions act on shells exactly through shifting, rotation, and the associated matter redistribution, and the rotation explains the long-noted rotation of orthonormal tetrads along spatial paths.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the entire difference between the Szekeres and LT metrics can be accounted for by two geometric operations, shell shifting and shell rotation, whose magnitudes are read directly from the metric; the four-dimensional embedding is a consistency check of that ansatz, not an independent proof that no other effect hides in the metric.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ignoring shell rotation in plots makes void-and-wall structures appear wider than they are and makes null geodesics look artificially curved; including it yields nearly straight light paths.
  • Models with only $P'$ nonzero, or only $Q'$ nonzero, are not axially symmetric, because the shell rotation smears the dipole direction across shells; axial symmetry requires $P'=Q'=0$ or an equivalent compensating alignment.
  • Shell rotation is independent of cosmic time, whereas shell shifting grows with $R$, so the relative orientation of structure axes remains fixed even as the shells expand.
  • The exact match in Appendix C means the two operations form a complete dictionary between projective and spherical coordinate descriptions of the same physical layout.
  • The listed coordinate transformations, including inversion and Haantjes transformations, preserve the metric form and can be combined to build piecewise models containing many individually symmetric structures with random orientations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the shell rotation is physical, then any visualization that plots Szekeres shells as concentric, aligned spheres systematically distorts structure: wall widths are overstated and density peaks appear smeared, which could bias qualitative inferences drawn from such plots.
  • Because rotation is time-independent while shifting grows as $R(t,r)$, the relative importance of rotation increases as shells expand; at late times, misalignment of shell frames may dominate apparent structure shapes even when dipole derivatives are modest.
  • The paper's piecewise Haantjes-transformation recipe suggests a way to build multi-structure Szekeres models with no preferred orientation; these could serve as exact-GR testbeds for how coherent wall and void geometry affects distance-redshift relations, a calculation the paper itself does not carry out.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper is an expository and technical study of the quasispherical Szekeres models, aimed at making the physical geometry of these exact inhomogeneous cosmologies explicit. The main new claim is that, relative to a reference shell, a neighboring shell is not only shifted but also rotated: by δr P'/S about the local -y axis and δr Q'/S about the local +x axis (Section V-B). Appendix C presents an algebraic demonstration that this shift-plus-rotation ansatz, together with the standard stereographic transformation, reproduces the Szekeres metric in spherical coordinates. The paper also derives coordinate transformations, symmetry conditions, geodesic equations, plotting tools, and a 4-dimensional embedding construction, and it concludes that these effects account for the full geometry with no further hidden effects.

Significance. If the sign inconsistencies identified below are corrected, this would be a genuinely useful reference for the Szekeres-model community. Its strengths are the explicit, self-contained derivation in Appendix C, the absence of fitted parameters, and the concrete numerical and coordinate tools it provides (tracking shell orientations, generating plots, integrating null geodesics, and constructing randomized structures). The paper also makes a conceptual point that has been under-appreciated: the relative orientation of quasispherical shells is nontrivial and affects how density plots and geodesic paths should be interpreted. However, the current text contains mutually incompatible sign conventions in core equations, including the recommended tracking algorithm, so the paper cannot be used reliably as a recipe without substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eqs. (6) and (15)] The signs of the P' and Q' terms in Eqs. (6) and (15) are opposite to what follows from direct differentiation of Eq. (2). Differentiating E = [(p−P)^2+(q−Q)^2+S^2]/(2S) gives E'/E = [−2P'(p−P)−2Q'(q−Q)+2SS']/[(p−P)^2+(q−Q)^2+S^2] − S'/S, which in spherical coordinates is E'/E = −[S' cosθ + (P' cosφ+Q' sinφ) sinθ]/S. The printed Eqs. (6) and (15) have plus signs on the P' and Q' terms. This is not a cosmetic issue: Eq. (18) and Appendix C implicitly use the correct sign, while the interpretive sentence after Eq. (15) and the statement identifying (x,y,z)_max with (P',Q',S')/norm use the opposite sign. Since the directions of shell shifting, shell rotation, and density extrema all follow from E'/E, the sign error propagates into the physical interpretation and the plotting tools.
  2. [§VII-A, Eq. (45)] The update rule A(r+δr) = Ry(P'/S δr) Rx(−Q'/S δr) A(r) has a first-order generator Ω = −(Q'/S)J_x + (P'/S)J_y, i.e. rotation vector (−Q'/S, +P'/S, 0). Section V-B and Appendix C use the opposite rotation vector, (+Q'/S, −P'/S, 0); for example, the transverse displacement in Eq. (C5) equals ω×n dr with ω = (+Q'/S, −P'/S, 0). Thus a reader implementing the recommended tracking algorithm will produce the inverse smearing direction and will not reproduce the geometry shown in Fig. 6(c). The same sign pattern appears in the spatial block of Eq. (83), so the embedding construction should be re-checked and made consistent with the Appendix C convention.
  3. [§IX, Discussion] The concluding claim that the embedding 'confirms that the effects we have described tell the whole story' and that 'there are no other hidden geometric effects waiting to be discovered' goes beyond what is actually shown. Section VIII builds the hypersurface from the same shift, rotation, and tilt operations whose completeness is at issue, and then checks that the induced metric matches; this is a consistency check, not a proof of uniqueness. The authors should either weaken the conclusion to state that these operations reproduce the metric exactly within the adopted construction, or supply an argument that any shell-to-shell displacement can be uniquely decomposed into a shift plus a rotation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V-B] The phrase 'about the point (π/2,−π/2)' is imprecise; a rotation is about an axis, not a point. Please write 'about the local −y axis' consistently with the surrounding text.
  2. [§VII-A, Eq. (48)] The notation AT(r) in Eq. (48) should be defined more explicitly: it is the transpose of the orientation matrix A(r), and its action on the column vector (P'/S, Q'/S, S'/S) should be spelled out so that readers do not confuse the order of rotations and shifts.
  3. [§VII-B, Fig. 6 caption] The term 'naïve coordinates' in panel (a) is not defined. Please state explicitly that this is the LT-like concentric-shell mapping with no shell shifting or rotation included.
  4. [§D, Eq. (D5)] The initial tangent vector in Eq. (D5b) is typeset in a way that is easy to misread; adding explicit vector brackets or commas would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Central shell-rotation derivation is algebraically self-contained; only the Section IX 'no hidden effects' confirmation is a self-referential consistency check.

  1. other [Section VIII (Eqs. 83-85) and Section IX (Discussion)]
    "Because the metric on this surface fully matches the Szekeres metric, this confirms that the effects we have described tell the whole story. That is, the shell rotation effect is real, and there are no other hidden geometric effects waiting to be discovered."

    The embedding is constructed from the very shift+rotation+tilt ansatz whose completeness is being asserted. Eq. (83) prescribes A'(r) using P'/S and Q'/S rotation entries, Eq. (85) prescribes the shift vector using the same dipole derivatives, and Eq. (84) defines the hypersurface from these operators. Checking that this constructed surface induces the Szekeres metric is therefore a consistency check of the ansatz, not an independent test that no other geometric operations exist. The conclusion 'no other hidden geometric effects' is the ansatz-completeness assumption restated as a confirmed result rather than derived from the metric match.

full rationale

The main derivation is not circular: Appendix C starts from the LT metric, adds the shell-shifting transverse displacements (Eqs. C2-C3) and the shell-rotation displacement (Eq. C5) that follows from the rotation vector ω=(Q'/S,-P'/S,0) dictated by the requirement that θ=0 remain the shortest connecting line, and verifies algebraically that the resulting metric equals the known Szekeres spherical metric, Eq. (13). The rotation magnitudes P'/S and Q'/S are not fitted to the target; they are independent geometric inputs and the metric match is a genuine check. Self-citations to the authors' prior work ([44]) are not load-bearing; that paper is cited only for having briefly noted the effects, not as the source of the derivation. The one self-referential element is the Section IX completeness assertion: the Section VIII embedding is built from the same shift/rotation/tilt ansatz (Eqs. 83-85), so its induced-metric match confirms sufficiency, not uniqueness; 'no other hidden geometric effects' is an overreach from a consistency check. This is a circularity of confirmation rather than of prediction. A separate correctness issue, the sign mismatch between Eq. (45) and Appendix C's rotation convention, is an internal inconsistency that would reverse the smearing direction if implemented literally, but it is not itself a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters enter the shell-rotation derivation; the example model parameters in Appendix D affect only the illustrative figures. The axioms are standard background results or geometric assumptions about locality and embedding.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The quasispherical Szekeres metric (1) with E defined by (2) is an exact solution of Einstein's equations for pressureless dust in comoving coordinates.
    The paper adopts this as its starting point in Section II, citing Szekeres (1975).
  • domain assumption On sufficiently small scales the spatial geometry can be treated as approximately Euclidean when separating distance components.
    Used in Appendix C to combine the shell shift and rotation contributions into metric components; exact only in the infinitesimal limit used for derivatives.
  • domain assumption A constant-time slice can be embedded as a hypersurface in a 4-dimensional flat or constant-negative-curvature background depending on the sign of k.
    The embedding construction in Section VIII assumes such a background manifold exists with curvature chosen more negative than the model's k.
  • standard math The coordinate transformations listed in Section VII preserve the form of the metric, including the Haantjes transformation.
    Taken from Plebanski and Krasinski references and treated as known background results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physical geometry of the quasispherical Szekeres models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UGPXSA3

@misc{pith2026190802697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physical geometry of the quasispherical Szekeres models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UGPXSA3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02697}
}
read the original abstract

The quasispherical Szekeres metric is an exact solution to Einstein's equations describing an inhomogeneous and anisotropic cosmology. Though its governing equations are well-known, there are subtle, often-overlooked details in how the model's functions relate to its physical layout, including the shapes and relative positions of structures. We present an illustrated overview of the quasispherical Szekeres models and show exactly how the model functions relate to the physical shape and distribution of matter. In particular, we describe a shell rotation effect that has not previously been fully understood. We show how this effect relates to other known properties, and lay out some mathematical tools useful for constructing models and picturing them accurately.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An illustration of a non-simultaneous Big Bang, show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a): How a great circle on the sphere appears in the pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. A simple illustration of how the dipole functions dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. An example of shell crossing in a Szekeres model. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Three ways of plotting a cross-section of a void+wall Szekeres model, to illustrate the effects of the dipole functions on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Expansion rates and density profile in a one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. A 2-dimensional illustration explaining how the rota [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. An illustration of how [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. A side view of the situation described in the text, regarding the symmetry plane’s compensating response to shell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Visualization of a series of coordinate transformations. Colors indicate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. An example of a model constructed through random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The approach for determining the orientation of each shell is similar to the one presented in section VII-A, with the addition of another dimension. We define a 4 × 4 matrix A(r) that relates a shell’s LRF axes to the axes of the background manifold (with rows 1–4 giv…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The total square separation is simply the sum of the squares of the components in these orthogonal direc￾tions (because space is approximately Euclidean on suf￾ficiently small scales). This would give ds 2 = −dt 2 + " (R0 − R E 0 E ) 2 1 − k + R 2  P 0 S cos θ cos φ …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The separation between nearby points on different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The density (a), curvature (b), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Calculate a new axis matrix A(r +δr) =Ry (P′ S δr ) Rx ( −Q′ S δr ) A(r), (45) whereRx and Ry are rotation matrices about the 14 LRF’sx andy axes,9 defined as Rx(ψ) =   1 0 0 0 cos ψ − sinψ 0 sin ψ cosψ  , (46) Ry(ψ) =   cosψ 0 sin ψ 0 1 0 − sinψ 0 cos ψ  . (47)

  2. [2]

    Calculate new shifts according to 10 ∆(t,r +δr) = ∆(t,r ) + R(t,r )√ 1−k(r) AT (r)   P′/S Q′/S S′/S   (r). (48)

  3. [3]

    When finished, the array will hold all of the information about the displacement and orientation of shells up to rmax

    Append the new shift value and axis matrix to an array, to keep track of both at each step inr. When finished, the array will hold all of the information about the displacement and orientation of shells up to rmax. Note that the shifts calculated by this procedure are only valid at a single time slice. To plot at a different time, the shifts must be re-cal...

  4. [4]

    (61) To maintain the form of the metric, we also transform the dipole functions, as (~P, ~Q,~S) = (P +p0,Q +q0,S )

    T ranslation The simplest transformation is a constant translation, (~p,~q) = (p +p0,p +q0). (61) To maintain the form of the metric, we also transform the dipole functions, as (~P, ~Q,~S) = (P +p0,Q +q0,S ). (62) This transformation only moves the origin point for the projective coordinate labeling; it does not affect the spherical coordinates

  5. [5]

    This is done by simply multiplying both projective co- ordinates and all three dipole functions by the same nonzero constant: (~p,~q) =µ(p,q ), (63) (~P, ~Q,~S) =µ(P,Q,S )

    Scaling It is also possible to perform a linear scaling trans- formation while maintaining the model’s physical form. This is done by simply multiplying both projective co- ordinates and all three dipole functions by the same nonzero constant: (~p,~q) =µ(p,q ), (63) (~P, ~Q,~S) =µ(P,Q,S ). (64) Again, this does not affect the spherical coordinates

  6. [6]

    (66) This does affect the spherical coordinates, by ~φ = φ +ψ—a simple rotation about θ = 0 (with θ = π also fixed)

    Polar rotation A third simple transformation consists of rotating the p andq coordinates: (~p,~q) = (p cosψ +q sinψ,−p sinψ +q cosψ), (65) (~P, ~Q,~S) = (P cosψ +Q sinψ,−P sinψ +Q cosψ,S ). (66) This does affect the spherical coordinates, by ~φ = φ +ψ—a simple rotation about θ = 0 (with θ = π also fixed). While this axis is not in general the same for shel...

  7. [7]

    (68) This amounts to a reflection across the φ = π/4 plane

    Swapping p andq We can easily see that the metric is invariant under the substitution (~p,~q) = (q,p ), (67) (~P, ~Q) = (Q,P ). (68) This amounts to a reflection across the φ = π/4 plane. Combined with polar rotations, this can reflect the coor- dinates across any polar plane

    work page

  8. [8]

    This can cause problems for numeri- cal calculations passing near this axis, even though there is nothing physically special happening there

    Inversion As we saw in section III, the projective coordinates di- verge whereθ = 0. This can cause problems for numeri- cal calculations passing near this axis, even though there is nothing physically special happening there. When this occurs, a translation or scaling transformation can- not remove the infinity, but we can invert the coor- dinates so that...

    work page

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    This kind of transformation is called a Haantjes transformation [70]

    Haantjes transformation A more general transformation allows us to rotate the coordinates about an arbitrary direction. This kind of transformation is called a Haantjes transformation [70]. In a quasispherical Szekeres model, a Haantjes trans- formation modifies the p and q coo...

  2. [10]

    We introduce axially symmetric Szek- eres anisotropies by making S a piecewise func- tion, withS′/S vanishing at allri (to ensure conti- nuity when we are done)

    First, we divide the model into separate intervals ofr, with boundariesri, withi = 0..n,r0 = 0, and ri+1 > ri. We introduce axially symmetric Szek- eres anisotropies by making S a piecewise func- tion, withS′/S vanishing at allri (to ensure conti- nuity when we are done)

  3. [11]

    To move the anisotropies to these randomly chosen angles, we apply the Haantjes transformation separately to each interval, using Eq

    Then, we generate a list of random angles (θi,φi), which will correspond to the directions of the maximum density contrast at the lower bound of each section. To move the anisotropies to these randomly chosen angles, we apply the Haantjes transformation separately to each inte...

  4. [12]

    To remedy this, we first address the discontinuities in S using a scaling transformation, Eq

    The dipole functions will now be discontinuous at each ri, creating shell crossing singularities. To remedy this, we first address the discontinuities in S using a scaling transformation, Eq. (64). One in- terval at a time, starting with i = 1 , we scale the dipole functions by...

  5. [13]

    near-parabolic

    The S function is now continuous, but theP andQ functions are not. This can be fixed similarly with a series of shifts, using Eq. (62). Again starting at i = 1, we shift thep coordinate byPi−1(ri)−Pi(ri), and likewise for q, and proceed through the re- maining intervals one at ...

  6. [14]

    Lema ˆıtre, Ann

    G. Lema ˆıtre, Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles A 53, 51 (1933); En- glish translation: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 29, 641 (1997)

    1933

  7. [15]

    R. C. Tolman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 20, 169 (1934), doi:10.1073/pnas.20.3.169; Reprinted in Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 29, 935 (1997)

    1934 doi

  8. [16]

    Bondi, Mon

    H. Bondi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 107, 410 (1947), doi:10.1093/mnras/107.5-6.410; Reprinted in Gen. Rela- tiv. Gravit. 31, 1783 (1999)

    1947 doi

  9. [17]

    Alnes, M

    H. Alnes, M. Amarzguioui, and Ø. Grøn, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083519 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.083519 [arXiv:astro-ph/0512006]

    2006 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Alnes and M

    H. Alnes and M. Amarzguioui, Phys. Rev. D 74, 103520 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.103520 [arXiv:astro- ph/0607334]

    2006

  11. [19]

    Biswas, R

    T. Biswas, R. Mansouri, and M. Notari, J. Cos- mol. Astropart. Phys. 12, 017 (2007), doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2007/12/017 [arXiv:astro-ph/0606703v2]

    2007 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bolejko, A

    K. Bolejko, A. Krasi ´nski, and C. Hellaby, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 362, 213 (2005), doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2005.09292.x [arXiv:gr-qc/0411126]

    2005

  13. [21]

    Bolejko, C

    K. Bolejko, C. Hellaby, and A. H. A. Alfedeel, J. Cos- mol. Astropart. Phys. 09, 011 (2011), doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2011/09/011 [arXiv:1102.3370]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bolejko and P

    K. Bolejko and P . G. Ferreira, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05, 003 (2012), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/05/003 [arXiv:1204.0909]

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    P . Bull, T. Clifton, and P . G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 85, 024002 (2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024002 [arXiv:1108.2222]

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    C ´el´erier, K

    M.-N. C ´el´erier, K. Bolejko, and A. Krasi ´nski, As- tron. Astrophys. 518, A21 (2010), doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/200913581 [arXiv:0906.0905]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Clarkson, T

    C. Clarkson, T. Clifton, and S. February, J. Cos- mol. Astropart. Phys. 06, 025 (2009), doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2009/06/025 [arXiv:0903.5040]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Enqvist and T

    K. Enqvist and T. Mattsson, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 019 (2007), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2007/02/019 [arXiv:astro-ph/0609120]

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Foreman, A

    S. Foreman, A. Moss, J. P . Zibin, and D. Scott, Phys. Rev. D 82, 103532 (2010), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.103532 [arXiv:1009.0273]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Garcia-Bellido and T

    J. Garcia-Bellido and T. Haugbølle, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04, 003 (2008), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/04/003 [arXiv:0802.1523]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Garcia-Bellido and T

    J. Garcia-Bellido and T. Haugbølle, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09, 016 (2008), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/09/016 [arXiv:0807.1326]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hellaby and K

    C. Hellaby and K. Lake, Astrophys. J. 290, 381 (1985), doi:10.1086/162995

    1985 doi

  23. [31]

    Hellaby and A

    C. Hellaby and A. Krasi ´nski, Phys. Rev. D 73, 023518 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023518 [arXiv:gr- qc/0510093]

    2006

  24. [32]

    Krasi ´nski and C

    A. Krasi ´nski and C. Hellaby, Phys. Rev. D 65, 023501 (2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.023501 [arXiv:gr- qc/0106096]

    2001

  25. [33]

    Krasi ´nski, Acta Phys

    A. Krasi ´nski, Acta Phys. Pol. B42, 2263 (2011), doi:10.5506/APhysPolB.42.2263 [arXiv:1110.1828]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lavinto and S

    M. Lavinto and S. R ¨as¨anen, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10, 057 (2015), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/10/057 [arXiv:1507.06590]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Marra, E

    V . Marra, E. W. Kolb, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D 76, 123004 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.123004 [arXiv:0708.3622]

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Marra, E

    V . Marra, E. W. Kolb, and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023003 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023003 [arXiv:0710.5505]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Marra and A

    V . Marra and A. Notari, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 164004 (2011), doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/16/164004 [arXiv:1102.1015]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. W. Moffat, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10, 012 26 (2005), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2005/10/012 [arXiv:astro- ph/0502110]

    2005

  31. [39]

    A. Moss, J. P . Zibin, D. Scott, Phys. Rev. D 83, 103515 (2011), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.103515 [arXiv:1007.3725]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mustapha, C

    N. Mustapha, C. Hellaby, and G. F. R. Ellis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 292, 817 (1997), doi:10.1093/mnras/292.4.817 [arXiv:gr-qc/9808079]

    1997 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Redlich, K

    M. Redlich, K. Bolejko, S. Meyer, G. F. Lewis, and M. Bartelmann, Astron. Astrophys. 570, A63 (2014), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424553 [arXiv:1408.1872]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    S. J. Szybka, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044011 (2011), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.044011 [arXiv:1012.5239]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Tokutake, K

    M. Tokutake, K. Ichiki, and C.-M. Yoo, J. Cos- mol. Astropart. Phys. 03, 033 (2018), doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2018/03/033 [arXiv:1712.04229]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Valkenburg, V

    W. Valkenburg, V . Marra, and C. Clarkson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 438, L6 (2014), doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt140 [arXiv:1209.4078]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    F. Y. Wang and Z. G. Dai, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 432, 3025 (2013) doi:10.1093/mnras/stt652 [arXiv:1304.4399]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Yoo, K.-i

    C.-M. Yoo, K.-i. Nakao, and M. Sasaki, J. Cos- mol. Astropart. Phys. 07, 012 (2010), doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2010/07/012 [arXiv:1005.0048]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. P . Zibin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 043504 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.043504 [arXiv:0804.1787]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. P . Zibin, Phys. Rev. D 84, 123508 (2011), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.123508 [arXiv:1108.3068]

    2011 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zumalacarregui, J

    M. Zumalacarregui, J. Garcia-Bellido, and P . Ruiz- Lapuente, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10, 009 (2012), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/009 [arXiv:1201.2790]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Szekeres, Phys

    P . Szekeres, Phys. Rev. D 12, 2941 (1975), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.2941; Commun. Math. Phys. 41, 55 (1975), doi:10.1007/BF01608547

    1975 doi

  43. [51]

    D. J. Shaw and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D 73, 123506 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.123506 [arXiv:gr- qc/0601056]

    2006

  44. [52]

    Bolejko, Phys

    K. Bolejko, Phys. Rev. D 75, 043508 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.043508 [arXiv:astro- ph/0610292]

    2007

  45. [53]

    Bolejko, Gen

    K. Bolejko, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 41, 1585 (2009), doi:10.1007/s10714-008-0727-0 [arXiv:0808.0376]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bolejko, Gen

    K. Bolejko, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 41, 1737 (2009), doi:10.1007/s10714-008-0746-x [arXiv:0804.1846]

    2009 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Bolejko and M.-N

    K. Bolejko and M.-N. C ´el´erier, Phys. Rev. D 82, 103510 (2010), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.103510 [arXiv:1005.2584]

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bolejko and R

    K. Bolejko and R. A. Sussman, Phys. Lett. B 697, 265 (2011), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.02.007 [arXiv:1008.3420]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    R. G. Buckley and E. M. Schlegel, Phys. Rev. D 87, 023524 (2013), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.023524 [arXiv:1907.08684]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    S. M. Koksbang and S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. D 92, 023532 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023532 [arXiv:1506.09127]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    S. M. Koksbang, Phys. Rev. D 95, 063532 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.063532 [arXiv:1703.03572]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mishra and M.-N

    P . Mishra and M.-N. C´el´erier (2014) [arXiv:1403.5229]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    A. Peel, M. A. Troxel, and M. Ishak, Phys. Rev. D 90, 123536 (2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.123536 [arXiv:1408.4390]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    M. A. Troxel, M. Ishak, and A. Peel, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03, 040 (2014), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/03/040 [arXiv:1311.5936]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Villani, J

    M. Villani, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06, 015 (2014), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/06/015 [arXiv:1401.4820]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    P . S. Apostolopoulos, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 095013 (2017), doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa66df [arXiv:1611.04569]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    J. D. Barrow and A. Paliathanasis, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 767 (2018), doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6245-7 [arXiv:1808.00173]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    B. K. Berger, D. M. Eardley, and D. W. Olson, Phys. Rev. D 16, 3086 (1977), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.3086

    1977 doi

  59. [67]

    W. B. Bonnor, Commun. Math. Phys. 51, 191 (1976), doi:10.1007/BF01617918

    1976 doi

  60. [68]

    W. B. Bonnor, A. H. Sulaiman, and N. Tomimura, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 8, 549 (1977), doi:10.1007/BF00756306

    1977 doi

  61. [69]

    M. M. de Souza, Revista Brasileira de F´ısica15, 379 (1985)

    1985

  62. [70]

    Georg and C

    I. Georg and C. Hellaby, Phys. Rev. D 95, 124016 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124016 [arXiv:1702.05347]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Hellaby, Class

    C. Hellaby, Class. Quant. Grav. 13, 2537 (1996), doi:10.1088/0264-9381/13/9/017

    1996 doi

  64. [72]

    Hellaby and A

    C. Hellaby and A. Krasi ´nski, Phys. Rev. D 66, 084011 (2002), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.084011 [arXiv:gr- qc/0206052]

    2002

  65. [73]

    Hellaby and A

    C. Hellaby and A. Krasinski, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023529 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.023529 [arXiv:0710.2171]

    2008 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Hellaby, in Proc

    C. Hellaby, in Proc. Sci. PoS(ISFTG), 005 (2009) [arXiv:0910.0350]

    2009 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Hellaby, Class

    C. Hellaby, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 145006 (2017), doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa76f8 [arXiv:1706.00622]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Walters and C

    A. Walters and C. Hellaby, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12, 001 (2012), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/12/001 [arXiv:1211.2110]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [77]

    J. S. Farnes, Astron. Astrophys. 620, A92 (2018), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832898 [arXiv:1712.07962]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    R. A. Sussman and I. Delgado Gaspar, Phys. Rev. D 92, 083533 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083533 [arXiv:1508.03127]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    B. C. Nolan and U. Debnath, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104046 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.104046 [arXiv:0709.3152]

    2007 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Krasi ´nski and K

    A. Krasi ´nski and K. Bolejko, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1330013 (2013), doi:10.1142/S0218271813300139 [arXiv:1212.4697]

    2013 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Bolejko, A

    K. Bolejko, A. Krasi ´nski, C. Hellaby, and M.-N. C ´el´erier, Structures in the Universe by Exact Methods: Formation, Evo- lution, Interactions, (Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 75–78

    2009

  74. [82]

    Nwankwo, M

    A. Nwankwo, M. Ishak, and J. Thompson, J. Cos- mol. Astropart. Phys. 05, 028 (2011), doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2011/05/028 [arXiv:1005.2989]

    2011 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Plebanski, On Conformally Equivalent Riemannian Spaces

    J. Plebanski, On Conformally Equivalent Riemannian Spaces. Xeroxed notes released by Centro de Investiga- cion y de Estudios Avanzados, Instituto Politecnico Na- cional, Mexico (1967)

    1967

  76. [84]

    Plebanski and A

    J. Plebanski and A. Krasinski, An introduction to general rel- ativity and cosmology, (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 92–93

    2006

  77. [85]

    Hamaus, P

    N. Hamaus, P . M. Sutter, and B. D. Wan- delt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 251302 (2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.251302 [arXiv:1403.5499]

    2014 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica, Version 10.3, Champaign, IL (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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