Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Anisotropic quantum universe in Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In Hořava-Lifshitz gravity, the quantum wave function of a tiny anisotropic universe splits into harmonic-oscillator factors for the anisotropies, yielding a finite initial anisotropy scale that general relativity cannot provide.

desk verdict Solid HL quantum cosmology with a genuinely new UV harmonic-oscillator result, but the headline anisotropy prediction is for the quadratic-truncated model and needs a truncation check before it carries the weight the paper puts on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16266 v1 pith:FAU4HGXY submitted 2025-05-22 gr-qc hep-th

Vikramaditya Mondal , Shinji Mukohyama This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th PACS 04.60.-m98.80.Qc
keywords Hořava-LifshitzgravityquantumcosmologyWheeler-DeWittequationBianchiIXuniverseanisotropyinitialconditionsWKBapproximationDeboundaryconditionharmonicoscillator
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

Quantum cosmology usually cannot say how anisotropic the universe was at its beginning: in general relativity the wave function of a Bianchi IX universe — a closed, homogeneous but possibly anisotropic space — spreads without bound as the scale factor goes to zero. This paper argues that Hořava-Lifshitz gravity, a candidate quantum gravity whose higher-derivative terms make it renormalizable, changes that. In the small-universe limit the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (the quantum equation the universe's wave function must satisfy) separates into a scale-factor part and two harmonic-oscillator equations for the anisotropy variables $\beta_{\pm}$, and the ground-state wave function is a Gaussian whose width is set by the coupling combination $g_B$. The theory therefore predicts the universe started with anisotropy of characteristic scale $\beta_{\rm cl} = \sqrt{\hbar}/(2\sqrt{3\pi}(-6g_B)^{1/4})$, and normalizability of the wave function forces $g_B < 0$. In the opposite, large-universe limit, the Hořava-Lifshitz wave function reproduces the no-boundary wave function of general relativity when $\lambda = 1$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the small-anisotropy truncation of the Bianchi IX potential combined with the UV dominance of the higher-curvature terms in the Hořava-Lifshitz action. In the anisotropy variables $(\beta_+, \beta_-)$ the anisotropic part of the effective potential is $U_{\rm ani}(a) = \tfrac{3}{8}a^2 - \tfrac{3}{2}\kappa^2 g_A - \tfrac{9\kappa^4}{2a^2}g_B$, and for $a \to 0$ the last term dominates. That $a^{-2}$ growth is what makes the Wheeler-DeWitt equation separable: the anisotropy equation becomes a harmonic oscillator with frequency $\omega = 6\sqrt{6}\,\pi^2\sqrt{-g_B}$ (Eqs. (88)–(91)), and the scale-factor equation becomes a power-law equation whose solutions satisfy the DeWitt criterion under the condition of Eq. (95). The separation constants $E_+ + E_-$ act as backreaction of the anisotropies on the isotropic sector. The same truncated potential underlies the WKB analysis in the IR limit and the numerical solution of the Riccati equation for $\Omega(a)$ across the four regions separated by the three turning points of the isotropic potential.

What would settle it

Solve the full Wheeler-DeWitt equation (Eq. (41)) with the untruncated Bianchi IX potential and check whether the anisotropy wave function at $a \to 0$ is a Gaussian harmonic-oscillator ground state with width $\sqrt{\hbar}/(2\sqrt{3\pi}(-6g_B)^{1/4})$; a different shape or a divergence at $a = 0$ would show that the predicted initial anisotropy scale does not follow from the theory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the limit $a \to 0$ the anisotropic part of the effective potential in Hořava-Lifshitz gravity behaves as $U_{\rm ani} \approx -(9\kappa^4/2a^2)\,g_B$, so the anisotropies decouple from the scale factor and the Wheeler-DeWitt equation separates exactly, $\Psi = \Phi(a)\,\xi_+(\beta_+)\,\xi_-(\beta_-)$. Each $\xi_\pm$ obeys a quantum harmonic-oscillator equation with frequency $\omega = 6\sqrt{6}\,\pi^2\sqrt{-g_B}$, while $\Phi(a)$ is a power law that, under stated conditions on the couplings and the operator-ordering parameter $p$, vanishes at $a = 0$ and hence satisfies the DeWitt criterion. Normalizability of the $\xi_\pm$ requires $g_B < 0$, which the paper presents as a quantum-gravitational bound on the higher-curvature couplings of the theory. The ground state has $\langle \hat{\beta}_{\pm}^2 \rangle_{\rm UV} = \hbar/(12\sqrt{6}\,\pi^2\sqrt{-g_B})$, giving the predicted initial anisotropy scale $\beta_{\rm cl} = \sqrt{\hbar}/(2\sqrt{3\pi}(-6g_B)^{1/4})$ — a finite, computable initial condition, in contrast to general relativity, where the Gaussian anisotropy wave functions become infinitely broad as $a \to 0$. The paper also establishes that in the large-universe (IR) limit the WKB wave function reduces to the no-boundary wave function of general relativity, $\Psi^{\rm WKB}_{\rm HL}(a \gg 1, \beta)|_{\lambda=1} = \alpha\,\Psi_{\rm GR}^{(\rm HH)}(a,\beta)$, so the two theories agree on the late-time quantum state.

Load-bearing premise

The small-anisotropy expansion of the Bianchi IX potential is assumed to remain valid all the way down to scale factor $a = 0$; if higher-order terms in $\beta_+$ and $\beta_-$ become important near the singularity, the harmonic-oscillator separation fails and the predicted initial anisotropy scale does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The quantum state of a small Bianchi IX universe in Hořava-Lifshitz gravity is normalizable at $a = 0$ and satisfies the DeWitt criterion, so the initial singularity is resolved in the wave-function sense — a property general relativity's anisotropic wave functions lack.
  • The quantum prediction for the initial condition is $\langle \beta_\pm \rangle = 0$ with fluctuations of characteristic size $\beta_{\rm cl} = \sqrt{\hbar}/(2\sqrt{3\pi}(-6g_B)^{1/4})$, so the early universe emerges nearly isotropic unless $|g_B|$ is tuned close to zero.
  • The anisotropic shear falls as $a^{-6}$ in the UV regime and as $a^{-4}$ in the IR regime, so Hořava-Lifshitz gravity modifies the early-time dilution law for anisotropy relative to general relativity.
  • In the large-universe limit with $\lambda = 1$, the Hořava-Lifshitz WKB wave function coincides with the no-boundary wave function of general relativity up to an overall factor, so the two theories agree on the quantum state of a large universe.
  • Normalizability of the anisotropy wave functions imposes the coupling bound $g_B < 0$, a testable restriction on the coefficients of the higher-curvature operators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted initial anisotropy scale is right, then a measurement of primordial shear — for instance through its imprint on cosmological perturbations — would directly determine the coupling combination $g_B$, turning a quantum-gravity parameter into an observable.
  • The harmonic-oscillator structure near $a = 0$ suggests anisotropies behave like a trapped quantum field at the would-be singularity; the same mechanism, with gap $\Delta E_\pm = \hbar\omega(3\lambda-1)/2$ and $\lambda \gg 1$ in the UV, may generalize to inhomogeneous modes and help explain the observed isotropy more broadly.
  • The paper notes that the UV exact solution and the IR WKB wave function cannot be matched because their regimes of validity do not overlap; a full numerical solution of the PDE in Eq. (41) would test whether the Gaussian ground state connects smoothly to the no-boundary branch.
  • The prediction depends on the small-anisotropy expansion holding at $a \to 0$; checking the radius of convergence of the $\beta$-expansion in the full Bianchi IX potential, or solving the untruncated problem numerically, is the most direct robustness test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper quantizes a Bianchi IX minisuperspace in projectable Horava-Lifshitz gravity in the small-anisotropy limit, with the 'dark matter as integration constant' set to zero by assuming one connected spatial piece. It constructs WKB solutions order by order in both ℏ and the anisotropies, identifies the stable branches, performs a numerical Riccati integration across the four classically allowed/forbidden regions, and estimates a tunneling probability for the emergence of an expanding universe. In the large-scale-factor limit the HL wave function with λ = 1 is mapped to the Hartle-Hawking wave function of General Relativity. In the small-universe limit the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is separated into an isotropic part and two harmonic oscillators for β±, leading to a normalizability bound gB < 0 and a characteristic initial anisotropy scale β_cl in Eq. (99). The paper also computes expectation values of squared anisotropies and anisotropic shear in both the UV and IR limits.

Significance. If the central UV result holds, this is a valuable and concrete result: Horava-Lifshitz quantum cosmology predicts finite, small initial anisotropies set by the HL coupling parameters, whereas the corresponding General Relativity Bianchi IX wave functions are not normalizable at a → 0. The paper's strengths include a clean derivation of the UV separation from the stated leading a^{-2} terms of the HL potential, a careful WKB matching analysis with an explicit dictionary to the Hartle-Hawking wave function, numerical verification of the branch-stability choices, and falsifiable predictions such as the shear scalings ∼ a^{-6} in the UV and ∼ a^{-4} in the IR. The normalizability bound gB < 0 is a self-consistency condition rather than a fit to external data. The main weakness is the lack of quantitative control over the small-anisotropy truncation, without which Eq. (99) is a prediction of the truncated model rather than of the full Hořava-Lifshitz Bianchi IX theory.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (39a), (48b), (88), (99)] The UV harmonic-oscillator separation and the Gaussian width are derived from the quadratic truncation of V0, but the omitted quartic and higher terms of V0 are not negligible in the a → 0 limit. In the full Wheeler-DeWitt equation (41), V0 appears multiplied by κ^4/a^2; after multiplying by a^2 to obtain the separated oscillator equation, a quartic term in V0 from Eq. (34) produces an a-independent anharmonic potential, so it does not vanish relative to the quadratic term as a → 0. With the parameter set (64) the width from Eq. (98) is |β| ≈ 0.19, and the exponentials in Eq. (34), such as e^{12β+}cosh(12√3β−), produce quartic coefficients of order 10^3 times the g_i couplings. The paper provides no estimate of the radius of convergence of the β-expansion or of the a-range in which the quadratic truncation is valid. Until this is checked, Eq. (99) is a prediction of the truncated model rather than of Hořava-Lifshitz Bianchi IX quantum cosmology; the authors should either show that the anharmonic corrections are numerically negligible at the predicted width or extend the UV analysis to include them.
  2. [Section V, Eq. (99) vs Eq. (98)] Equation (99) does not follow from Eq. (98) as printed. Since Eq. (98) is the variance of a Gaussian with ξ± = (ω/(πℏ))^{1/4}e^{-ωβ^2/(2ℏ)} and ω = 6√6π^2√(-gB), the characteristic scale is β_cl± = √ℏ/(2√3·6^{1/4}π(-gB)^{1/4}), not √ℏ/(2√(3π)(-6gB)^{1/4}). The printed denominator differs by a factor √π, which changes the numerical value of the headline initial-anisotropy scale. The formula should be corrected, most likely to 2√3π(-6gB)^{1/4} in the denominator.
  3. [Section IV and Section VI] The solution called 'exact' in Section IV is exact only for the truncated equation with Uiso,small and Uani,small, not for the full Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The paper itself notes in the Conclusion that the regimes of validity of the WKB and UV wave functions do not overlap and that a full numerical solution of the PDE is left to future work. Consequently, using Eq. (99) as the initial condition for anisotropies presupposes that the UV Gaussian branch is the physically selected state and that matching to the tunneling/expanding branch does not alter the anisotropic state. This step should either be justified or explicitly stated as an additional assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV, Eq. (95)] The abstract states that the wave function of the scale factor satisfies the DeWitt criterion, but Eq. (95) makes this conditional on the parameters and operator ordering; the conditionality should be stated in the abstract or at least recalled in the conclusion.
  2. [Section III D, Eqs. (60a), (62)] The notation V_{s1}(a) introduced in Eq. (60a) is used inconsistently with the V_+(a), V_-(a) notation in Eq. (62); please align the notation.
  3. [Section III D, Eq. (55)] The WKB validity condition in Eq. (55) is written as a simple inequality, but the text says 'valid for certain choices of the parameter values'; using ≫ instead of > would better reflect the intended semi-classical ordering.
  4. [Section V heading] The heading 'INTIAL CONDITIONS AND ANISOTROPIC SHEAR' contains a typo; it should read 'INITIAL CONDITIONS AND ANISOTROPIC SHEAR'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the UV anisotropy prediction follows from the Hořava-Lifshitz action via the truncated Wheeler-DeWitt equation; the small-anisotropy approximation is a domain-of-validity concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central UV result (Eqs. (88)-(99)) is obtained by substituting the separated ansatz (87) into the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (41) with the small-universe potentials (48a)-(48b), which are derived by expanding the action's potential (34) to quadratic order in the anisotropies. No quantity in Eq. (99) is fitted to the quantity it predicts: g_B is a coupling parameter of the Hořava-Lifshitz action defined in Eq. (43), and β_cl is computed from the ground-state variance of the resulting harmonic oscillator, not imposed. The normalizability condition g_B < 0 (Eq. (51)) is a self-consistency requirement on the sign of the potential, not an input fitted to anisotropy data. The General Relativity section reproduces known results [23,24] as a check and establishes an IR dictionary, but the HL small-universe prediction does not rely on those known results. Self-citations [16,20,21,37,38] are used for background, motivation, and numerical technique; none of them is invoked to justify Eq. (88) or Eq. (99). The main legitimate concern is domain of validity: truncating V0 at quadratic order in β± and dropping the a^{-2}-suppressed terms assumes these corrections are negligible near a → 0, and the paper does not estimate the radius of convergence of the β-expansion or the size of quartic anharmonic terms at β_cl ≈ 0.19. That is an approximation-validity risk, not circularity, because for the truncated equation the harmonic-oscillator solution and Eq. (99) are exact and do not reduce to an input assumption of the same content.

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

The central UV prediction rests on the HL action (with coupling combinations g_r, g_s, g_A, g_B), the single-connected-space assumption, the quadratic small-anisotropy truncation, the leading a^{-2} UV approximation, the ground-state choice, and the operator ordering prescription. The numerical section additionally chooses a specific parameter set without a scan. These are inputs, not derived facts.

free parameters (8)
  • g_B = -0.01 (numerical example)
    Combination 9g5 - g6 - 3g7 - 4g9 of HL couplings; controls the UV anisotropic potential and the predicted initial anisotropy scale ⟨β^2⟩_UV ∝ 1/√(-gB). The paper derives g_B < 0 but does not fix its value.
  • g_s = -0.05 (numerical example)
    Combination 9g5 + 3g6 + g7; determines the UV isotropic potential and the requirement g_s < 0 for a real, under-barrier wave function.
  • g_r = 1.1 (numerical example)
    Combination 3g2 + g3; enters the intermediate isotropic potential U_iso and the numerical Riccati analysis; chosen to yield three turning points.
  • g_A = -0.04 (numerical example)
    Combination 3g2 - g3; enters the anisotropic potential at intermediate scales; chosen in the numerical example.
  • lambda = 1 (IR dictionary and numerical example)
    Horava-Lifshitz kinetic parameter; set to 1 for the GR dictionary and in numerics; the UV harmonic oscillator frequency depends on lambda through the prefactor (3λ-1)/2.
  • p = 1 (Laplace-Beltrami ordering example)
    Operator ordering parameter in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation; affects the DeWitt criterion condition and the small-a exponent; the paper shows a demonstration with p=1.
  • Lambda = 0.2 (numerical example)
    Positive cosmological constant; sets the IR turning point sqrt(3/Λ) and the large-a saturation value of ⟨β^2⟩; assumed >0 throughout.
  • m, n = 0 (ground state)
    Harmonic oscillator quantum numbers for the anisotropy wave functions; the initial condition prediction assumes the ground state m=n=0.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The spacetime is foliated by homogeneous, connected spatial hypersurfaces of topology S^3, so the projectable HL 'dark matter as integration constant' vanishes.
    Stated in the Introduction and Section III: 'we set the dark matter as integration constant to zero by assuming that the space consists of only one connected piece.' This excludes sectors with nonzero integration constant that would modify the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.
  • ad hoc to paper The Bianchi IX anisotropy potential is truncated at quadratic order in β+ and β- (small-anisotropy limit).
    Expansions in Eqs. (39a-c) and (12); this linearization is required for all the analytical solutions and for the harmonic-oscillator result. No bound on the validity range in β is given.
  • domain assumption In the small-universe limit the potential is dominated by the a^{-2} terms, giving U_iso,small and U_ani,small as in Eqs. (48a-b).
    This is the key approximation enabling the exact UV solution; the paper does not quantify the a-range for which the neglected terms are truly subdominant.
  • ad hoc to paper WKB ordering: anisotropies are treated as a small perturbation around the isotropic WKB solution, and only the stable branches (s1=+1 under barriers, s2=+1 for normalizability) are kept.
    Ansatz in Eq. (44) and branch choices in Sections III B-D; the discard of s1=-1 modes is justified numerically but not by a general argument.
  • domain assumption The isotropic superpotential has three distinct, real, positive turning points a1<a2<a3.
    Section III D and Fig. 1; this parameter-regime assumption is needed for the tunneling scenario, but the paper argues the qualitative conclusions are generic without a scan.
  • ad hoc to paper The anisotropies start in the ground state of the harmonic oscillator.
    Section V: 'It is reasonable to assume that the anisotropies in the beginning started in their ground state'; this is an input, not derived from the wave function, and it drives the predicted anisotropy scale.
  • domain assumption The DeWitt criterion (vanishing wave function at a=0) is the appropriate singularity-resolution condition.
    Section IV, Eq. (95); the paper checks consistency with this criterion but does not derive it.
  • domain assumption Canonical quantization: the Hamiltonian constraint is promoted to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation with a chosen operator ordering p.
    Standard minisuperspace quantum cosmology; the operator ordering ambiguity is parametrized by p and not resolved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic quantum universe in Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FAU4HGXY

@misc{pith2026250516266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic quantum universe in Ho\vrava-Lifshitz gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FAU4HGXY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16266}
}
read the original abstract

We quantize a Bianchi IX universe in Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz theory. For analytical tractability, we consider the small anisotropy limit of the Bianchi IX, that is, a perturbative anisotropic deformation of a closed, homogeneous and isotropic universe. In the case of the projectable theory we further set the ``dark matter as integration constant'' to zero by assuming that the space consists of only one connected piece. In that limit and under the assumption, we first study the semi-classical WKB solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. We find the wave function of the universe, up to an overall normalization, and estimate the semi-classical tunneling probability for the emergence of an expanding universe. We establish a dictionary of correspondence between the WKB wave functions in General Relativity and Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz theory in the large-scale factor (or IR) limit. For a small universe (UV limit), on the other hand, due to contributions from higher-dimensional operators, the anisotropies decouple from the scale factor, a behavior significantly different from General Relativity, and analytic solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation beyond the WKB approximation can be found. The wave function of the scale factor satisfies the DeWitt criterion, whereas the wave functions of anisotropies resemble those of quantum harmonic oscillators. The quantum prediction for the initial condition of anisotropies is obtained in terms of the coupling parameters of Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz theory. We find a bound on the coupling parameters from the normalizability of the wave functions of anisotropies. Further, we calculate the expectation values for squared anisotropic shear and squared anisotropies in both the large universe and small universe limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16266 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. We consider a scenario where the isotropic potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. We consider the numerical solutions for the Riccati equation ( ± [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. We plot the real part of the solutions to Riccati equations in the classically forbidden regions. In Region 1 the solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    dark matter as integration constant

    We can, then, canonically quantize the system by pro- moting the conjugate pairs to operators so that and the momenta take the form pa → −iℏ∂a and pβ± → −iℏ∂β± . The Wheeler-DeWitt equation can then be written as follows " κ4ℏ2 3π4 a−p ∂ ∂a ap ∂ ∂a − κ4ℏ2 3π4a2 ∂2 ∂β 2 + + ∂2 ∂β 2 − + Λ 4 a4 + 16VIX(β+, β−)a2 # ΨGR(a, β+, β−) = 0. (11) Here ΨGR(a, β+, β−)...

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Akrami et al

    Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A7 (2020), arXiv:1906.02552 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    D. J. Fixsen, Astrophys. J. 707, 916 (2009), arXiv:0911.1955 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    V. A. Belinsky, I. M. Khalatnikov, and E. M. Lifshitz, Adv. Phys. 19, 525 (1970)

    work page 1970

  5. [5]

    B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 160, 1113 (1967)

    1967

  6. [6]

    R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 1997 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0405109

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Chakraborty, J

    T. Chakraborty, J. Chakravarty, V. Godet, P. Paul, and S. Raju, JHEP 01, 132 (2024), arXiv:2303.16315 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2960 (1983)

    1983

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Feldbrugge, J.-L

    J. Feldbrugge, J.-L. Lehners, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 95, 103508 (2017), arXiv:1703.02076 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Di Tucci and J.-L

    A. Di Tucci and J.-L. Lehners, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 201302 (2019), arXiv:1903.06757 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Di Tucci, J.-L

    A. Di Tucci, J.-L. Lehners, and L. Sberna, Physical Re- view D 100, 123543 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    J. J. Halliwell, Phys. Rev. D 38, 2468 (1988)

    1988

  5. [13]

    J. J. Halliwell and J. B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D 43, 1170 (1991)

    1991

  6. [14]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare A Phys. Theor. 20, 69 (1974)

    1974

  7. [15]

    M. H. Goroff and A. Sagnotti, Phys. Lett. B 160, 81 (1985)

    1985

  8. [16]

    Horava, Phys

    P. Horava, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084008 (2009), arXiv:0901.3775 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Mukohyama, Phys

    S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D 80, 064005 (2009), arXiv:0905.3563 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. O. Barvinsky, D. Blas, M. Herrero-Valea, S. M. Sibiryakov, and C. F. Steinwachs, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064022 (2016), arXiv:1512.02250 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. O. Barvinsky, A. V. Kurov, and S. M. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. D 108, L121503 (2023), arXiv:2310.07841 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mukohyama, JCAP 06, 001 (2009), arXiv:0904.2190 [hep-th]

    S. Mukohyama, JCAP 06, 001 (2009), arXiv:0904.2190 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Matsui, S

    H. Matsui, S. Mukohyama, and A. Naruko, Phys. Lett. B 833, 137340 (2022), arXiv:2111.00665 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Mukohyama, Class

    S. Mukohyama, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 223101 (2010), arXiv:1007.5199 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C. W. Misner, Phys. Rev. 186, 1319 (1969)

    1969

  16. [24]

    S. W. Hawking and J. C. Luttrell, Phys. Lett. B 143, 83 (1984)

    1984

  17. [25]

    del Campo and A

    S. del Campo and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. B 224, 45 (1989)

    1989

  18. [26]

    S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, Nucl. Phys. B 264, 185 (1986)

    1986

  19. [27]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 37, 888 (1988)

    1988

  20. [28]

    Kontoleon and D

    N. Kontoleon and D. L. Wiltshire, Phys. Rev. D 59, 063513 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9807075

    1999 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Mondal, H

    V. Mondal, H. S. Sahota, and K. Lochan, JHEP 05, 128 (2025), arXiv:2501.11680 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. P. de Alwis, Phys. Rev. D 100, 043544 (2019), arXiv:1811.12892 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    M. V. Berry and K. E. Mount, Rept. Prog. Phys. 35, 315 (1972)

    1972

  24. [32]

    Toma et al., Phys

    K. Toma et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 241104 (2012), arXiv:1208.5288 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bakas, F

    I. Bakas, F. Bourliot, D. Lust, and M. Petropoulos, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 045013 (2010), arXiv:0911.2665 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bakas, F

    I. Bakas, F. Bourliot, D. Lust, and M. Petropoulos, JHEP 04, 131 (2010), arXiv:1002.0062 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Misonoh, K.-i

    Y. Misonoh, K.-i. Maeda, and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064030 (2011), arXiv:1104.3978 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Maeda, Y

    K.-i. Maeda, Y. Misonoh, and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064024 (2010), arXiv:1006.2739 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bertolami and C

    O. Bertolami and C. A. D. Zarro, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044042 (2011), arXiv:1106.0126 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Martens, H

    P. Martens, H. Matsui, and S. Mukohyama, JCAP 11, 031 (2022), arXiv:2205.11746 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. E. Gumrukcuoglu and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D 83, 124033 (2011), arXiv:1104.2087 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 100, 083525 (2019), arXiv:1907.04029 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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