Modeling a Non-Singular Universe with Late-Time Acceleration through a Novel Inhomogeneous Barotropic Equation of State

Kalyan Bhuyan; Mrinnoy M. Gohain; Rajdeep Mazumdar

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 131 references

Modeling a Non-Singular Universe with Late-Time Acceleration through a Novel Inhomogeneous Barotropic Equation of State

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One modified barotropic fluid, $p=\zeta_0\rho+\zeta_1\rho(t-t_0)^{-2n}$, is claimed to unify a non-singular bounce, inflation, and late-time acceleration in general relativity while fitting current DESI, BAO, and Pantheon+SH0ES data…

desk verdict The model's claimed observational edge over ΛCDM rests on an invalid integration, and the energy density contradicts the Friedmann constraint; the exact solution is a routine special case, so the paper should be rejected as it stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16826 v2 pith:DOUKMQVC submitted 2025-04-23 gr-qc

Rajdeep Mazumdar , Mrinnoy M. Gohain , Kalyan Bhuyan This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc

keywords bouncingcosmologynon-singularuniverseinhomogeneousbarotropicequationofstatelate-timeaccelerationdarkenergyinflationHubbleparameterAICandBICmodelcomparison

topics Dark Energy

open problems Dark Energy

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 proposes a barotropic fluid—pressure as a function of energy density—with the equation of state $p=\zeta_0\rho+\zeta_1\rho(t-t_0)^{-2n}$ and solves the Friedmann equations in general relativity exactly for it. The central claim is that these solutions are flexible enough to describe a non-singular bouncing universe, an inflationary phase, and late-time accelerated expansion, so that one time-dependent fluid replaces the usual patchwork of separate cosmic eras. The authors further report that the model fits DESI, BAO, and Pantheon+SH0ES data with lower $\chi^2_{\rm min}$, AIC, and BIC than $\Lambda$CDM, and that scalar perturbations decay over time. A reader should care because a single fluid that removes the initial singularity while matching late-time observations would address an open cosmological puzzle without adding new fields or modified gravity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-dependent barotropic equation of state $p=\zeta_0\rho+\zeta_1\rho(t-t_0)^{-2n}$, whose $(t-t_0)^{-2n}$ term acts as a transient switch: near $t=t_0$ it dominates and forces the Hubble parameter through zero, producing the bounce, while far from $t_0$ the fluid relaxes toward the constant-$w$ form $p=\zeta_0\rho$. The closed-form scale factor $a(t)=a_0(n\alpha)^{-1/(2n\beta)}\left[n\left(\alpha+\beta(2n-1)(t-t_0)^{2n}\right)\right]^{1/(2n\beta)}$, with $\alpha=-3\zeta_1/2$ and $\beta=3(1+\zeta_0)/2$, carries the whole cosmic-history claim; every subsequent observable, including $H(z)$ and the deceleration parameter, is derived from it.

What would settle it

Recompute $H(z)$ by inverting the exact scale factor $a(t)$ from Eq. (9) with $a=(1+z)^{-1}$ and using the exact $H(t)$ from Eq. (10), so that no step treats the time-dependent term as constant, then rerun the same MCMC likelihoods against the DESI, BAO, and Pantheon+SH0ES data; if the AIC and BIC advantages over $\Lambda$CDM shrink or vanish, the model's observational claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery claim is that the modified barotropic equation of state $p=\zeta_0\rho+\zeta_1\rho(t-t_0)^{-2n}$, with constant $\zeta_0$, $\zeta_1$, $t_0$, and $n$, yields exact Friedmann solutions in which the universe contracts, bounces at a finite scale factor with $a(t_0)\neq 0$ and $H(t_0)=0$, and then expands. Around the bounce the null and strong energy conditions are violated while the dominant energy condition is preserved, which the authors present as the mechanism that makes the bounce non-singular. At late times the statefinder diagnostics approach the $\Lambda$CDM point, and the model reproduces the dark-energy phase; in the early expanding phase the Hubble-flow parameters satisfy the condition $\epsilon_1\ll 1$ needed for inflation. The paper also claims that perturbations decay to zero with time, indicating stability, and that its $H(z)$, distance modulus, and Hubble-distance predictions fit the DESI, BAO, and Pantheon+SH0ES datasets with better statistical scores than $\Lambda$CDM.

Load-bearing premise

The data-fit comparison depends on treating the time-dependent factor $(t-t_0)^{-2n}$ as constant when converting the model from cosmic time to redshift; the paper does not justify this step, and the reported AIC and BIC advantages over $\Lambda$CDM presuppose it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim is right, the initial singularity is replaced by a bounce at a finite scale factor, so the early universe can be studied with general relativity alone at the background level.
A single fluid with $\zeta_0$, $\zeta_1$, $t_0$, and $n$ would cover contraction, bounce, inflation and exit, matter-dominated deceleration, and late-time dark-energy acceleration, removing the need to glue separate epochs or add a cosmological constant.
The reported AIC and BIC values favouring the model over $\Lambda$CDM would mean current background data do not discriminate against a non-singular, single-fluid history.
The statefinder trajectories ending at the $\Lambda$CDM point imply the model is observationally close to $\Lambda$CDM at late times yet distinguishable during the bounce epoch by energy-condition violations.
The vanishing of scalar perturbations after the bounce would make the model a stable background for studying the growth of structure.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension the paper leaves open is computing the scalar spectral index $n_s$ and tensor-to-scalar ratio $r$ from the Hubble-flow parameters $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$, which would connect the bounce to CMB observables.
Coupling the same equation of state to bulk viscosity or modified gravity, as the paper suggests for future work, would change the bounce conditions and could produce distinct gravitational-wave signatures.
The time-dependent term could be interpreted as an effective viscosity, bridging this model to the wider viscous-fluid bounce literature.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know about this paper. First, the main observational claims are built on a bad integration: Eq. (35) treats α(t−t0)^(−2n) as constant when going from d ln H/d ln a to H(a), which is not legitimate because t is a function of a. The resulting H(z) is not a solution of Eq. (6). Second, Eq. (11) for the energy density does not satisfy ρ = 3H² from Eq. (10); for n=1, ζ0=0.5, ζ1=−0.5, t−t0=1 it gives ρ=4/3 instead of 1/3. Both errors are load-bearing: the energy condition analysis uses the wrong ρ, and every MCMC fit in Sec. VII uses the wrong H(z). The reported ΔAIC/ΔBIC values are not evidence for the model. A concrete symptom is that the best fits give a0≈2, while a(t) ≥ a0 on the expanding branch, so a=1 today would put us on the contracting branch with negative H0.

To give credit where it is due: the time-domain integration of the Friedmann equations for the EoS p=ζ0ρ+ζ1ρ(t−t0)^(−2n) is correctly done in Eqs. (7)–(10), and the bounce behavior is transparent from those expressions. The EoS is a minor variant of the inhomogeneous barotropic class already covered in Refs. [72, 89, 90, 93], so the novelty is a new analytic example, not a new framework. The authors also run a standard suite of diagnostics—deceleration parameter, energy conditions, Hubble flow parameters, statefinders, stability—and present them thoroughly.

That said, the two errors above cannot be patched by rewriting a line or two. The H(z) used for the data comparison is simply not a solution of the model, and the ρ inconsistency invalidates the energy condition plots. No code or MCMC details are provided, so the statistical analysis is not reproducible either. The paper is for a reader who wants an explicit analytic bounce solution for a time-dependent barotropic fluid; that part is fine as a toy model. But the claims of agreement with DESI, BAO, and Pantheon+SH0ES, and the implied challenge to ΛCDM, should be withdrawn.

I would recommend rejection, but with a referee report that names these specific problems rather than a desk rejection. If the authors fix the integration and the energy density, a corrected version might be publishable as a short paper on the exact solution. I would not cite it in its present form.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a modified inhomogeneous barotropic equation of state, p = ζ0 ρ + ζ1 ρ (t − t0)^(−2n), solves the flat FLRW Friedmann equations in general relativity, and claims that the resulting exact solution describes a non-singular bounce, an inflationary era, and late-time accelerated expansion. It further claims stability under perturbations and reports fits to DESI, BAO, and Pantheon+SH0ES data with lower AIC and BIC values than ΛCDM. The central claim is that a single GR fluid can unify these phases and survive background-data comparisons.

Significance. If the claims were correct, the model would be a notable phenomenological unification of a bounce, inflation, and dark energy in a single fluid, and the reported AIC/BIC improvements would be of interest to the community. The analytical integration leading to a(t) in Sec. II (Eqs. 7–10) is a genuine derivation and is a useful starting point. However, the paper does not supply reproducible code or machine-checked derivations, and the main observational and physical claims rest on several algebraic errors: the energy density in Eq. (11) does not satisfy ρ = 3H², the deceleration parameter is inconsistent between Eq. (13) and Eq. (33), and the Hubble parameter used for all data fits is obtained through an invalid integration. As a result, the reported evidence for the model is not valid as it stands.

major comments (5)

[§III.A, Eq. (11)] The energy density is not consistent with the Friedmann equation. With 8πG = 1, Eqs. (3) and (10) require ρ = 3H², but Eq. (11) is a different expression. For n = 1, ζ0 = 0.5, ζ1 = −0.5, t0 = 0 and t = 1, Eq. (10) gives H = 1/3, so ρ = 1/3, while Eq. (11) gives ρ = 4/3. For the same parameter choices Eq. (11) diverges at t = t0 even though H → 0, contradicting the claimed non-singular bounce. Since Eqs. (14)–(17) and the energy-condition analysis of Sec. III.C are built on this expression, those results are unsupported.
[§VII.A, Eqs. (35)–(38)] The integration leading to Eq. (35) is invalid. From Eq. (6), d ln H/d ln a = α(t − t0)^(−2n) − β, and (t − t0) is a function of a through Eq. (9). The text integrates as if the time-dependent coefficient were constant, producing H = (a/C3)^(...); differentiating this power law shows that it does not satisfy Eq. (6) unless (t − t0)^(−2n) is constant. The correct expression is an integral over ln a′ of the time-dependent coefficient. Consequently, Eq. (38) is not a solution of the model, and every MCMC fit in Sec. VII compares the data with a different function; the ΔAIC and ΔBIC values in Tables V, VII and IX are not evidence for the model.
[§VII, Tables VI and X] The best-fit values a0 ≈ 1.9–2.3 are incompatible with the redshift normalization a = 1/(1 + z) used in Eq. (38). For the fitted parameter ranges with α > 0 and β > 0, Eq. (9) gives a(t) ≥ a0 on the real post-bounce branch, so the present epoch a = 1 lies outside the model's spacetime for these fits. This is a concrete symptom that Eq. (38) is not the correct H(a) for the model.
[§III.B and §VI, Eqs. (13) and (33)] The deceleration parameter is internally inconsistent, and Eq. (13) contains a sign error. From q = −1 − Ḣ/H² and Eq. (6), one obtains q = (1/2)(1 + 3ζ0 + 3ζ1(t − t0)^(−2n)), which is the form given later in Eq. (33). Eq. (13) has a minus sign in front of the ζ1 term. For the negative ζ1 values used throughout the paper, this changes the sign of q and therefore the claimed sequence of deceleration and acceleration phases; the statefinder expression s in Eq. (34) inherits the same error.
[§IV, Eq. (21)] The linearized continuity equation is missing the perturbation of H in the term 3H(ρ + p). Linearizing Eq. (20) gives δ̇m + 3H(1 + ζ0 + ζ1(t − t0)^(−2n))(δ + δm) = 0, not δ̇m + 3H(1 + ζ0 + ζ1(t − t0)^(−2n))δ = 0. With δm = 2δ, the correct equation becomes δ̇m + (9/2)H(1 + ζ0 + ζ1(t − t0)^(−2n))δm = 0, which changes the decay rate of the perturbations and the solution (23)–(24). The stability claim of Sec. IV is therefore not established.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors, including 'cosmologiy', 'including as', and 'its its'; the manuscript needs a careful editorial pass.
[Sec. II, Eq. (5)] The dimensional assignment for ζ1 is not justified consistently with the stated units in which 8πG = 1; the dimensional analysis should be rechecked.
[Sec. III, Eq. (14)] The pressure expression in Eq. (14) should be verified against the defining EoS p = ρ[ζ0 + ζ1(t − t0)^(−2n)] using the corrected energy density, since the printed expression appears not to follow from Eq. (11).
[Sec. VII] The AIC and BIC calculations do not state the number of free parameters k or the sample sizes N used, which is required for reproducibility of the reported model-selection statistics.
[Fig. 3 caption] The text refers to a 'parameter ω' in the first panel, while the panel labels and text indicate ζ1; the axis label should be corrected.
[Sec. VII.B, Eq. (42)] In the definition of χ²_SN, the text says 'Hobs represents the observed value' where it should refer to the observed distance modulus µobs; this typo should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Friedmann solutions follow genuinely from the assumed EoS; the Sec VII integration error is a correctness problem, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain from the assumed EoS p=ζ0ρ+ζ1ρ(t−t0)^(−2n) through Eqs. (6)–(10) and (15)–(17), the bounce, NEC violation, and late-time acceleration are explicit consequences of the chosen time-dependent barotropic form, not restatements of a fitted output; the parameter t0 is interpreted as the bounce time after the solution is obtained. The observational section fits H0, a0, n, and ζ0 to DESI, BAO, and Pantheon+SH0ES data, and no out-of-sample prediction is claimed, so the AIC/BIC comparisons are not circular. The self-citations ([36], [40], [97]) are contextual references to prior bounce work and do not supply any load-bearing reduction or uniqueness argument. The important caveat is mathematical, not circular: Eq. (35) integrates d ln H/d ln a as if α(t−t0)^(−2n)−β were constant although t is a function of a through Eq. (9), which invalidates the H(z) comparison, but an invalid integration is not equivalence by construction. The paper also explicitly limits its inflationary claim by stating that tensor-to-scalar ratio and spectral index are outside the scope.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model rests on a four-parameter EoS plus boundary values a0 and H0, and on the assumption that the same fluid can drive the entire cosmic history. The exact Friedmann integration is straightforward, but the paper adds an ad hoc choice C1=t0β to close the scale factor, and the data comparison treats the model's own fitted parameters as evidence. No independent constraint on ζ1 is given, and the 'non-singular' claim requires an n-range restriction that is not stated.

free parameters (7)

ζ0 = -0.48 to -0.44 in the different fits
Constant term in the EoS; varied by hand in plots and fitted by MCMC; controls the late-time effective equation of state.
ζ1 = not directly fitted; plot values such as -0.5; absorbed into H0 in the H(z) expression
Coefficient of the time-dependent term; needed for the bounce, but absent from the MCMC parameter tables.
n = 0.85 to 1.03 in the fits
Exponent of (t-t0)^-2n; fitted to data.
t0 = set to 0 in plots
Time of the bounce; a free constant of the EoS.
a0 = 1.9 to 2.3 in the fits
Scale factor at the bounce; fitted and appears in the redshift-space H(z) formula.
H0 = about 67 to 78 km/s/Mpc depending on dataset
Present Hubble constant; fitted and used in the distance-modulus normalization.
C1 = set to t0 β
Integration constant chosen ad hoc to close the scale-factor expression; dimensionally inconsistent as written.

assumptions (4)

standard math Flat, homogeneous, isotropic FLRW metric with 8πG=1
Used in Eqs (2)-(4); standard cosmological background but a modeling choice.
standard math Perfect-fluid energy-momentum tensor with four-velocity u^μ=(-1,0,0,0)
Standard fluid description used to derive the Friedmann equations.
ad hoc to paper The modified EoS p=ζ0ρ+ζ1ρ(t-t0)^-2n describes the cosmic fluid
Postulated to obtain a bounce; no microphysical derivation or independent constraint is given.
domain assumption The DESI, P-BAO, and Pantheon+SH0ES datasets can be modeled with the background H(z) without additional systematics
Sec VII assumes these datasets constrain the background expansion; the analysis does not discuss covariance or systematic-error modeling.

invented entities (1)

Inhomogeneous barotropic fluid with p=ρ[ζ0+ζ1(t-t0)^-2n]
purpose: To produce a non-singular bounce, inflation, and late-time acceleration in GR
It is the central new ingredient; the only support is the model's own fit to data, and the fit parameters are not fixed beforehand.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling a Non-Singular Universe with Late-Time Acceleration through a Novel Inhomogeneous Barotropic Equation of State." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DOUKMQVC

@misc{pith2026250416826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling a Non-Singular Universe with Late-Time Acceleration through a Novel Inhomogeneous Barotropic Equation of State},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DOUKMQVC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16826}
}

abstract

In this study, we investigated the effects of incorporating barotropic fluids on cosmological solutions within the general relativity (GR) framework. We proposed a modified version of the barotropic fluid with the EoS, $p=\zeta _0 \rho +\zeta _1 \rho \left(t-t_0\right){}^{-2 n}$, where $\zeta_0$, $\zeta_1$, $t_0$ and $n$ are some constants. Our goal is to explore if this type of EoS might help explain the universe's development, concentrating on the scenario where the universe bounces instead of singularities. Interestingly the generic solutions derived from our model are sufficiently adaptable to illustrate the bounce scenario, cosmic inflation and late-time dark-energy behaviour. The parameters $\zeta_0$, $\zeta_1$, $t_0$, and $n$ define the universe's phase in this non-singular solution. We investigated several elements of cosmic development, including as the energy density, deceleration parameter, and energy conditions, in order to validate our model. Stability analysis showed that the perturbations approach to zero as the time evolves, indicating the model is stable under scalar perturbation. Additionally, we looked at the statefinder diagnostics and Hubble flow dynamics to get more understanding of the model's dark energy and inflationary behaviour, respectively. Additionally, we conducted a study of the models' relevance to the observational datasets from BAO, DESI and Pantheon+SH0ES.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16826 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Plot shows evolution of the Hubble parameter and Scale factor’s first-order time derivative with cosmic time for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Evolution with cosmic time in the scale factor, Hubble parameter, Hubble radius, and the scale factor’s first-order time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Plot of variation of the Scale factor with respect to different values of the model parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (13 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Plot of variation of the Scale factor with respect to different values of the model parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Variation of the energy density with cosmological time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Variation of the deceleration parameter with cosmological time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Evolution of the energy conditions with cosmological time. We have made the following assumptions for the plot: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Variation of the perturbation terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Plot of Hubble flow parameter with respect to cosmological time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Plot for the statefinder diagnostics in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. 2-d contour sub-plot for the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14. 2-d contour sub-plot for the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15. Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: FIG. 16. 2-d contour sub-plot for the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

G., & Taylor, A

Bean, R., Ferreira, P. G., & Taylor, A. (2011). The search for gravity beyond Einstein. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 369(1957), 4941–4960. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0294 23

arXiv 2011
[2]

Statefinder diagnostic values for different models

For our model, we have the values ofr, q and s as: Model (r, s) ΛCDM (1, 0) SCDM (1, 1) Quintessence (< 1,> 0) Chaplygin Gas (> 1,< 0) TABLE III. Statefinder diagnostic values for different models. r = 1 2 9ζ 2 0 + 9ζ0 + 9ζ 2 1(n− 1) (t−t0)−4n 2n− 1 + 9ζ1 (ζ0(n + 2) +n + 1) (t−t0)−2n + 2 , (32) q = 1 2 3ζ0 + 3ζ1 (t−t0)−2n + 1 , (33) s = 3 ζ 2 0 +ζ0 + ζ2 1...
[3]

(2014).Introduction to General Relativity, Black Holes, and Cosmology

Choquet-Bruhat, Y. (2014).Introduction to General Relativity, Black Holes, and Cosmology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199666454.001.0001

arXiv 2014
[4]

Einstein, A., & Rosen, N. (1935). The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity.Physical Review, 48(1), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73

doi:10.1103/physrev.48.73 1935
[5]

Kruskal, M. D. (1960). Maximal Extension of Schwarzschild Metric. Physical Review, 119(5), 1743–1745. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.119.1743

work page doi:10.1103/physrev.119.1743 1960
[6]

R., & Snyder, H

Oppenheimer, J. R., & Snyder, H. (1939). On Continued Gravitational Contraction.Physical Review, 56(5), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.56.455

doi:10.1103/physrev.56.455 1939
[7]

Kerr, R. P. (1963). Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics.Physical Review Letters, 11(5), 237–238. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.11.237

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.11.237 1963
[8]

Regge, T., & Wheeler, J. A. (1957). Stability of a Schwarzschild Singularity. Physical Review, 108(4), 1063–1069. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.108.1063

doi:10.1103/physrev.108.1063 1957

Show all 131 references

[9]

Raychaudhuri, A. (1955). Relativistic Cosmology. I. Physical Review , 98(4), 1123–1126. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.98.1123

1955 doi
[10]

Penrose, R. (1963). Asymptotic Properties of Fields and Space-Times. Physical Review Letters, 10(2), 66–68. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.66

1963 doi
[14]

Albrecht, A., & Steinhardt, P. J. (1982). Cosmology for grand unified theories with radiative corrections.Physical Review Letters, 48(23), 1220–1223. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1220

1982 doi
[15]

M., Steinhardt, P

Bardeen, J. M., Steinhardt, P. J., & Turner, M. S. (1983). Spontaneous creation of almost scale-free density perturbations in an inflationary universe.Physical Review D, 28(6), 679–693. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.679

1983 doi
[16]

Vessot, R. F. C., et al. (1980). Test of relativity using a space-borne clock.Physical Review Letters, 45(29), 2081–2084. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.2081

1980 doi
[17]

Schlamminger, S., et al. (2008). Test of the equivalence principle using a rotating torsion balance.Physical Review Letters, 100(4), 041101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.041101

2008 doi
[18]

G., Turyshev, S

Williams, J. G., Turyshev, S. G., & Boggs, D. H. (2004). Lunar laser ranging tests of the equivalence principle.Physical Review Letters, 93(26), 261101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.261101

2004 doi
[19]

Das, S., et al. (2011). Testing General Relativity with the Planck satellite.Physical Review Letters, 107(2), 021301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.021301

2011 doi
[21]

Sato, K. (1981). A cosmological model with a singularity-free inflationary universe.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 195(3), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/195.3.467

1981 doi
[22]

Linde, A. D. (1982). A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution to the horizon, flatness, homogeneity, and entropy problems.Physics Letters B, 108(4), 389–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9

1982 doi
[23]

W., & Penrose, R

Hawking, S. W., & Penrose, R. (1970). The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology.Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 314(1519), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021

1970
[24]

Penrose, R. (1965). Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities. Physical Review Letters, 14(3), 57–59. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57

1965 doi
[25]

Hawking, S. W. (1965). Particle creation by black holes. Physical Review Letters , 15(21), 689–692. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.15.689

1965 doi
[26]

Tipler, F. J. (1978). Singularities in cosmology: The role of the energy conditions.Journal of Differential Equations, 30(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0396(78)90125-6

1978 doi
[27]

Tipler, F. J. (1978). Energy conditions and singularities in general relativity.Physical Review D, 17(10), 2521–2526. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.17.2521

1978 doi
[28]

Borde, A. (1987). Inflationary universes: Singularities and cosmological models.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 4(3), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/4/3/006

1987 doi
[29]

Vilenkin, A. (1992). Creation of universes from nothing. Physical Review D , 46(6), 2355–2358. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.46.2355

1992 doi
[30]

Calcagni, G. (2017). Classical and Quantum Cosmology , Graduate Texts in Physics. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-50712-2 24

2017 doi
[31]

Trivedi, O. (2024). Recent advances in cosmological singularities. Symmetry, 16(3), 298. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16030298

2024 doi
[32]

Singal, A. K. (2024). Horizon, homogeneity and flatness problems: Do their resolutions really depend upon inflation? European Physical Journal C, 84(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12740-7

2024 doi
[33]

Guth, A. H. (1981). Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems.Physical Review D, 23(2), 347. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.347

1981 doi
[34]

Gasperini, M., & Veneziano, G. (2003). The pre-big bang scenario in string cosmology.Physics Reports, 373(1), 1–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00389-7

2003 doi
[35]

Ellis, G. F. R., & Maartens, R. (2003). The emergent universe: Inflationary cosmology with no singularity.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 21(1), 223. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/21/1/015

2003 doi
[36]

Ellis, G. F. R., Murugan, J., & Tsagas, C. G. (2003). The emergent universe: An explicit construction.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 21(1), 233. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/21/1/016

2003 doi
[37]

M., & Bhuyan, K

Gohain, M. M., & Bhuyan, K. (2024). Singularity free cosmological models in viscous symmetric teleparallel gravity. Physics of the Dark Universe, 43, 101424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2024.101424

2024
[38]

A., Steinhardt, P

Khoury, J., Ovrut, B. A., Steinhardt, P. J., & Turok, N. (2001). Ekpyrotic universe: Colliding branes and the origin of the hot big bang.Physical Review D, 64(12), 123522. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.123522

2001 doi
[39]

J., & Turok, N

Steinhardt, P. J., & Turok, N. (2002). A cyclic model of the universe. Science, 296(5572), 1436–1439. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1070462

2002 doi
[40]

N., Stavrinos, P

Minas, G., Saridakis, E. N., Stavrinos, P. C., & Triantafyllopoulos, A. (2019). Bounce cosmology in generalized modified gravities. Universe, 5(3), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe5030074

2019 doi
[42]

Tolman, R. C. (1931). On the theoretical requirements for a periodic behaviour of the universe.Physical Review, 38(9), 1758–1771. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.38.1758

1931 doi
[43]

Ijjas, A., & Steinhardt, P. J. (2018). Inflationary cosmology and the potential for a cyclic universe.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35(13), 135004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/aac460

2018 doi
[45]

Biswas, T., Mazumdar, A., & Siegel, W. (2006). Bouncing universes in string-inspired gravity.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 3, 009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2006/03/009

2006 doi
[46]

Cai, Y.-F., et al. (2007). A novel model of cyclic universe. Journal of High Energy Physics , 10, 071. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/071

2007 doi
[47]

F., et al

Cai, Y. F., et al. (2009). Modified gravity theories and cyclic cosmology. Physical Review D, 80(2), 023511. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.023511

2009 doi
[48]

A., & Brandenberger, R

Cai, Y.-F., Easson, D. A., & Brandenberger, R. (2012). Towards a nonsingular bouncing cosmology.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 08, 020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2012/08/020

2012 doi
[50]

D., & Paul, T

Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S. D., & Paul, T. (2022). Towards a smooth unification from an ekpyrotic bounce to the dark energy era. Phys. Dark Univ., 35, 100984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2022.100984 [arXiv:2202.02695 [gr-qc]]

2022
[51]

D., Paul, T., Banerjee, I., Myrzakulov, R., & SenGupta, S

Odintsov, S. D., Paul, T., Banerjee, I., Myrzakulov, R., & SenGupta, S. (2021). Unifying an asymmetric bounce to the dark energy in Chern–Simons F(R) gravity.Phys. Dark Univ., 33, 100864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2021.100864 [arXiv:2109.00345 [gr-qc]]

2021
[52]

D., Oikonomou, V

Odintsov, S. D., Oikonomou, V. K., & Paul, T. (2020). From a bounce to the dark energy era with F(R) gravity.Class. Quant. Grav., 37(23), 235005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/abbc47 [arXiv:2009.09947 [gr-qc]]

2020 arXiv
[53]

D., Oikonomou, V

Odintsov, S. D., Oikonomou, V. K., & Paul, T. (2020). Bottom-up reconstruction of non-singular bounce in F(R) gravity from observational indices.Nucl. Phys. B, 959, 115159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115159 [arXiv:2008.13201 [gr-qc]]

2020
[54]

D., Oikonomou, V

Elizalde, E., Odintsov, S. D., Oikonomou, V. K., & Paul, T. (2020). Extended matter bounce scenario in ghost free f(R,G )gravitycompatiblewithGW170817. Nucl. Phys. B,954, 114984.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.114984 [arXiv:2003.04264 [gr-qc]]

2020
[55]

D., & Paul, T

Odintsov, S. D., & Paul, T. (2022). Bounce universe with finite-time singularity. Universe, 8(5), 292. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe8050292 [arXiv:2205.09447 [gr-qc]]

2022 arXiv
[56]

Bamba, K., et al. (2014). Inflationary universe in modified gravity theories.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 1401, 008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2014/01/008

2014 doi
[57]

D., & Oikonomou, V

Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S. D., & Oikonomou, V. K. (2016). Modified gravity theories on a de Sitter background: Their impact on inflation and the bounce.Physical Review D, 93(8), 084050. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084050 25

2016 doi
[58]

Cai, Y.-F. (2014). Cosmology in modified gravity theories.Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 57(8),

2014
[59]

Oikonomou, V. K. (2015). Bounce cosmology in modified gravity theories.Astrophysics and Space Science, 359(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-015-2419-4

2015 doi
[60]

A., & Ovrut, B

Koehn, J.-L., Lehners, B. A., & Ovrut, B. A. (2014). The ekpyrotic universe: A cyclic universe in string theory.Physical Review D, 90(2), 025005. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.025005

2014 doi
[61]

D., & Saez-Gomez, D

Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S. D., & Saez-Gomez, D. (2012). Modified gravity and cosmology: A review. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1458(1), 207. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4739209

2012 doi
[62]

J., & Sanchis-Alepuz, H

Barragan, C., Olmo, G. J., & Sanchis-Alepuz, H. (2009). Modified gravity theories with a nontrivial vacuum.Physical Review D, 80(2), 024016. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.024016

2009 doi
[63]

Cai, Y.-F., Gao, C., & Saridakis, E. N. (2012). Non-singular bouncing cosmologies in the f(R) gravity framework.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 1210(10), 048. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/048

2012 doi
[64]

Mukherji, S., & Peloso, M. (2002). Inflation in a bouncing universe. Physics Letters B , 547(3), 297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02792-6

2002 doi
[65]

Cai, Y.-F., et al. (2011). Cosmology of a bouncing universe in f(R) gravity.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28(21), 215011. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/28/21/215011

2011 doi
[66]

Novello, M., & Perez Bergliaffa, S. E. (2008). The physics of bouncing cosmologies. Physics Reports, 463(2), 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2008.03.002

2008 doi
[67]

Wilson-Ewing, E. (2013). The matter bounce scenario in loop quantum cosmology.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 1303, 026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2013/03/026

2013 doi
[68]

Cai, Y.-F., et al. (2009). A new cyclic universe in modified gravity theories.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 0905, 011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2009/05/011

2009 doi
[69]

https://doi.org/10.1086/300499

Riess, A.G., Filippenko, A.V., Challis, P., Clocchiatti, A., Diercks, A., Garnavich, P.M., ...Tonry, J.(1998).Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant.Astronomical Journal, 116(3), 1009. https://doi.org/10.1086/300499

1998 doi
[70]

R., Bennett, C

Komatsu, E., Dunkley, J., Nolta, M. R., Bennett, C. L., Gold, B., Hinshaw, G., ...Wright, E. L. (2009). Five-year Wilkin- son Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Cosmological interpretation.Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 180(2), 330. https://doi.org/10.10...

2009 doi
[71]

Nojiri, S., & Odintsov, S. D. (2011). Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: From F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models. Physics Reports, 505(2), 59–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.04.001

2011 doi
[72]

A., Nugent, P., Castro, P

Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., Knop, R. A., Nugent, P., Castro, P. G., ...The Supernova Cosmol- ogy Project. (1999). Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae.Astrophysical Journal, 517(2), 565. https://doi.org/10.1086/307221

1999 doi
[73]

Quercellini, C., Bruni, M., & Balbi, A. (2007). Affine equation of state from quintessence and k-essence fields.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 24(22), 5413. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/24/22/006

2007 doi
[74]

Babichev, E., Dokuchaev, V., & Eroshenko, Y. (2004). Dark energy cosmology with generalized linear equation of state. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 22(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/22/1/010

2004 doi
[75]

P., Lalke, A

Singh, G. P., Lalke, A. R., & Hulke, N. (2020). Study of particle creation with quadratic equation of state in higher derivative theory.Brazilian Journal of Physics, 50(6), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13538-020-00788-1

2020 doi
[76]

D., & Wanjari, R

Shelote, R. D., & Wanjari, R. (2021). Little rip phenomena from coupled dark energy with quadratic equation of state with time-dependent parameters.Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 42(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12036- 021-09767-7

2021 doi
[77]

Kamenshchik, A., Moschella, U., & Pasquier, V. (2001). An alternative to quintessence. Physics Letters B, 511(2), 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00571-8

2001 doi
[78]

Panotopoulos, G., Lopes, I., & Rincón, Á. (2021). Lagrangian formulation for an extended cosmological equation-of-state. Physics of the Dark Universe, 31, 100751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2020.100751

2021
[79]

Boshkayev, K., Konysbayev, T., Luongo, O., Muccino, M., & Pace, F. (2021). Testing generalized logotropic models with cosmic growth.Physical Review D, 104(2), 023520. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.023520

2021 doi
[80]

D., Oikonomou, V

Odintsov, S. D., Oikonomou, V. K., Timoshkin, A. V., Saridakis, E. N., & Myrzakulov, R. (2018). Cosmological fluids with logarithmic equation of state.Annals of Physics, 398, 238–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2018.09.015

2018 doi
[81]

S., & Uggla, C

Nilsson, U. S., & Uggla, C. (2000). General relativistic stars: Linear equations of state. Annals of Physics, 286(2), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.2000.6089

2000
[82]

Chavanis, P.-H. (2018). A simple model of universe with a polytropic equation of state.Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1030(1), 012009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1030/1/012009

2018 doi
[83]

F., Carloni, S., De Martino, S., Falanga, M., Troisi, A., & Bruni, M

Capozziello, S., Cardone, V. F., Carloni, S., De Martino, S., Falanga, M., Troisi, A., & Bruni, M. (2005). Constrain- ing Van der Waals quintessence with observations. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2005(04), 005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2005/04/005

2005 doi
[84]

Kremer, G. M. (2003). Cosmological models described by a mixture of van der Waals fluid and dark energy.Physical Review D, 68(12), 123507. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.68.123507 26

2003 doi
[85]

F., Elizalde, E., Nojiri, S., & Odintsov, S

Capozziello, S., Cardone, V. F., Elizalde, E., Nojiri, S., & Odintsov, S. D. (2006). Observational constraints on dark energy with generalized equations of state.Phys. Rev. D, 73, 043512. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.043512

2006 doi
[86]

Nojiri, S., & Odintsov, S. D. (2004). The Final state and thermodynamics of dark energy universe.Phys. Rev. D, 70, 103522. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.103522

2004 doi
[87]

D., & Timoshkin, A

Brevik, I., Elizalde, E., Odintsov, S. D., & Timoshkin, A. V. (2017). Inflationary universe in terms of a van der Waals viscous fluid.Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys., 14(12), 1750185. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887817501857

2017 doi
[88]

D., & Saridakis, E

Brevik, I., Grøn, Ø., de Haro, J., Odintsov, S. D., & Saridakis, E. N. (2017). Viscous Cosmology for Early- and Late-Time Universe. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 26(14), 1730024. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271817300245

2017 doi
[89]

D., & Tsujikawa, S

Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S. D., & Tsujikawa, S. (2005). Properties of singularities in the (phantom) dark energy universe. Physical Review D, 71(6), 063004. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.063004

2005 doi
[90]

D., Oikonomou, V

de Haro, J., Nojiri, S., Odintsov, S. D., Oikonomou, V. K., & Pan, S. (2023). Finite-time cosmological singularities and the possible fate of the Universe.Phys. Rept., 1034, 1–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2023.09.003

2023 doi
[91]

Grøn, Ø. (1990). Viscous inflationary universe models. Astrophysics and Space Science , 173(2), 191–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00643930

1990 doi
[92]

Nojiri, S., & Odintsov, S. D. (2005). Inhomogeneous equation of state of the universe: Phantom era, future singularity, and crossing the phantom barrier.Physical Review D, 72(2), 023003. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.023003

2005 doi
[93]

Brevik, I., & Timoshkin, A. (2015). Inhomogeneous Dark Fluid and Dark Matter, Leading to a Bounce Cosmology. Universe, 1(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe1010024

2015 doi
[94]

Bamba, K., Capozziello, S., Nojiri, S., et al. (2012). Dark energy cosmology: The equivalent description via different theoretical models and cosmography tests.Astrophysics and Space Science, 342, 155–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509- 012-1181-8

2012 doi
[95]

K., Mishra, B., Ray, S., & Sengupta, R

Tripathy, S. K., Mishra, B., Ray, S., & Sengupta, R. (2021).Chinese Journal of Physics, 71, 610

2021
[97]

M., & Bhuyan, K

Mazumdar, R., Gohain, M. M., & Bhuyan, K. (2024). Cosmological bounce scenario with a novel parametrization of bulk viscosity.International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics. https://doi.org/10.1142/s021988782450292x

2024 doi
[98]

V., Tello-Ortiz, F., Tripathy, S

Lohakare, S. V., Tello-Ortiz, F., Tripathy, S. K., & Mishra, B. (2021).Universe, 8, 636

2021
[99]

(2022).Physics Letters B, 832, 137229

Capozziello, S., & D’Agostino, R. (2022).Physics Letters B, 832, 137229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137229

2022
[100]

P., & Bishi, B

Singh, G. P., & Bishi, B. K. (2017).Advances in High Energy Physics

2017
[101]

Barceló, C., & Visser, M. (2002). International Journal of Modern Physics D , 11, 553. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271802002465

2002 doi
[102]

B., Heisenberg, L., & Koivisto, T

Jimenez, J. B., Heisenberg, L., & Koivisto, T. S. (2019).Universe, 5, 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe5050173

2019 doi
[103]

Md., & Ray, S

Mishra, B., Esmeili, F. Md., & Ray, S. (2021).Indian Journal of Physics, 95, 2245

2021
[104]

Moraes, P. H. R. S., & Sahoo, P. K. (2017).European Physical Journal C, 77, 1. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052- 017-4709-x

2017 doi
[105]

Bouncing cosmologies and stability analysis in symmetric teleparallelf(Q) gravity,

M. Koussour and N. Myrzakulov, “Bouncing cosmologies and stability analysis in symmetric teleparallelf(Q) gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 799 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05574-5

2024 doi
[106]

S., Tello-Ortiz, F., Mishra, B., & Tripathy, S

Agrawal, A. S., Tello-Ortiz, F., Mishra, B., & Tripathy, S. K. (2022). Fortschritte der Physik, 70, 2100065. https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.202100065

2022 doi
[107]

Coone, D., Roest, D., & Vennin, V. (2015). The Hubble flow of plateau inflation.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2015(11), 010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/010

2015 doi
[108]

Observational constraints off(Q) gravity,

L. Lazkoz, F. S. N. Lobo, M. Ortiz-Baños, and V. Salzano, “Observational constraints off(Q) gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 104027 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104027

2019 doi
[109]

Kinney, W. H. (2002). Inflation: Flow, fixed points, and observables to arbitrary order in slow roll.Physical Review D, 66(8), 083508. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.083508

2002 doi
[110]

B., & Turner, M

Hoffman, M. B., & Turner, M. S. (2001). Kinematic constraints to the key inflationary observables.Physical Review D, 64(2), 023506. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.023506

2001 doi
[111]

Saha, S., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2023). Realization of Bounce in a Modified Gravity Framework and Information Theoretic Approach to the Bouncing Point.Universe, 9(3), 136. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe9030136

2023 doi
[112]

Saha, S., Güdekli, E., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2023). A Study on the Various Aspects of Bounce Realisation for Some Choices of Scale Factors.Symmetry, 15(7), 1332. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15071332

2023 doi
[113]

Sahni, V., Shafieloo, A., & Starobinsky, A. A. (2008). Two new diagnostics of dark energy.Physical Review D, 78(10), 103502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.103502 27

2008 doi
[114]

Sahni, V. (2004). Dark Matter and Dark Energy. In The Physics of the Early Universe (pp. 125-162). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31535-3_5

2004 doi
[115]

Liddle, A. R. (2004). How many cosmological parameters?Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 351(3), L49–L53. astro-ph/0401198

2004 arXiv
[116]

P., & Anderson, D

Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2), 261–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644

2004 doi
[117]

G., et al

Adame, A. G., et al. (2024). DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscil- lations. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03002

2024 arXiv
[118]

Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics , 6(2), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136

1978
[119]

Oka, A., Saito, S., Nishimichi, T., Taruya, A., & Yamamoto, K. (2014). Simultaneous constraints on the growth of structure and cosmic expansion from the multipole power spectra of the SDSS DR7 LRG sample.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 2515–2530. arXiv:...

2014 arXiv
[120]

Gaztanaga, E., Cabre, A., & Hui, L. (2009). Clustering of Luminous Red Galaxies IV: Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Line- of-Sight Direction and a Direct Measurement of H(z).Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 1663–1680. arXiv:0807.3551

2009 arXiv
[121]

Chuang, C.-H., & Wang, Y. (2013). Modeling the Anisotropic Two-Point Galaxy Correlation Function on Small Scales and Improved Measurements of H(z), DA(z), andβ(z) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR7 Luminous Red Galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 43...

2013 arXiv
[122]

Wang, Y., et al. (2017). The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: tomographic BAO analysis of DR12 combined sample in configuration space.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469(3), 3762–3774. arXiv:1607.03154

2017 arXiv
[123]

Zhao, G.-B., et al. (2019). The clustering of the SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey DR14 quasar sample: a tomographic measurement of cosmic structure growth and expansion rate based on optimal redshift weights. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical S...

2019 arXiv
[124]

Anderson, L., et al. (2014). The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: baryon acoustic oscillations in the Data Releases 10 and 11 Galaxy samples.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 441(1), 24–62. arXiv:1312.4877

2014 arXiv
[125]

Font-Ribera, A., et al. (2014). Quasar-Lymanα Forest Cross-Correlation from BOSS DR11: Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2014(05), 027. arXiv:1311.1767

2014 arXiv
[126]

G., et al

Busca, N. G., et al. (2013). Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the Ly-α forest of BOSS quasars.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 552, A96. arXiv:1211.2616

2013 arXiv
[127]

Alam, S., et al. (2017). The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: cosmological analysis of the DR12 galaxy sample.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470(3), 2617–2652. arXiv:1607.03155

2017 arXiv
[128]

du Mas des Bourboux, H., et al. (2017). Baryon acoustic oscillations from the complete SDSS-III Lyα-quasar cross- correlation function at z = 2.4.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, A130. arXiv:1708.02225

2017 arXiv
[129]

Blake, C., et al. (2012). The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: Joint measurements of the expansion and growth history at z <1. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 405–414. arXiv:1204.3674

2012 arXiv
[130]

Chuang, C.-H., et al. (2013). The clustering of galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: single- probe measurements and the strong power of normalized growth rate on constraining dark energy.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 3559....

2013 arXiv
[131]

Brout, D., Scolnic, D., et al. (2022). The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints.The Astrophysical Journal, 938,

2022
[133]

G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., Scolnic, D., Brout, D., Casertano, S., Jones, D. O., Murakami, Y., Anand, G. S., Breuval, L., et al. (2022). A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 934, L7. arXiv:2112.04510

2022 arXiv
[134]

Scolnic, D., Brout, D., Carr, A., et al. (2022). The Pantheon+ Photometric Calibration.The Astrophysical Journal, 938,

2022
[135]

E., et al

Bautista, J. E., et al. (2020). Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,500, 736–762

2020
[136]

E., et al

Bautista, J. E., et al. (2017). Astronomy and Astrophysics,603, A12

2017
[137]

du Mas des Bourboux, H., et al. (2017). Astronomy and Astrophysics,608, A130

2017
[138]

Neveux, R., et al. (2020). Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,499, 210. arXiv:2007.08999

2020
[140]

Aghanim, N., et al. (2020). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6. arXiv:1807.06209 ‌

2020 arXiv
[1414]

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-014-5312-0

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

G., & Taylor, A

Bean, R., Ferreira, P. G., & Taylor, A. (2011). The search for gravity beyond Einstein. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 369(1957), 4941–4960. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2011.0294 23

arXiv 2011

[2] [2]

Statefinder diagnostic values for different models

For our model, we have the values ofr, q and s as: Model (r, s) ΛCDM (1, 0) SCDM (1, 1) Quintessence (< 1,> 0) Chaplygin Gas (> 1,< 0) TABLE III. Statefinder diagnostic values for different models. r = 1 2 9ζ 2 0 + 9ζ0 + 9ζ 2 1(n− 1) (t−t0)−4n 2n− 1 + 9ζ1 (ζ0(n + 2) +n + 1) (t−t0)−2n + 2 , (32) q = 1 2 3ζ0 + 3ζ1 (t−t0)−2n + 1 , (33) s = 3 ζ 2 0 +ζ0 + ζ2 1...

[3] [3]

(2014).Introduction to General Relativity, Black Holes, and Cosmology

Choquet-Bruhat, Y. (2014).Introduction to General Relativity, Black Holes, and Cosmology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199666454.001.0001

arXiv 2014

[4] [4]

Einstein, A., & Rosen, N. (1935). The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity.Physical Review, 48(1), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73

doi:10.1103/physrev.48.73 1935

[5] [5]

Kruskal, M. D. (1960). Maximal Extension of Schwarzschild Metric. Physical Review, 119(5), 1743–1745. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.119.1743

work page doi:10.1103/physrev.119.1743 1960

[6] [6]

R., & Snyder, H

Oppenheimer, J. R., & Snyder, H. (1939). On Continued Gravitational Contraction.Physical Review, 56(5), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.56.455

doi:10.1103/physrev.56.455 1939

[7] [7]

Kerr, R. P. (1963). Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics.Physical Review Letters, 11(5), 237–238. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.11.237

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.11.237 1963

[8] [8]

Regge, T., & Wheeler, J. A. (1957). Stability of a Schwarzschild Singularity. Physical Review, 108(4), 1063–1069. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.108.1063

doi:10.1103/physrev.108.1063 1957