Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

How to make a Universe

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that matter creation in the early universe is driven by evolution in the constants of nature, with the rate set by a cross-Poisson bracket between matter and gravity.

desk verdict Real generalization of the earlier formula, but the 'general condition' claim overreaches: it depends on an assumed local conservation law, and the absorbing state is an input rather than a prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00081 v1 pith:FNQAY46R submitted 2025-01-31 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Paolo M Bassani , Joao Magueijo This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO
keywords mattercreationconstantsofnaturevariationunimodulargravityenergyconservationviolationabsorbingMarkovchaincosmologicalnaturalselectiontime-dependentfundamental
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 sets out to prove a precise link between variability in the laws of physics and the creation or destruction of matter. In its Hamiltonian framework, the would-be constants of nature are global variables, each paired with a conjugate clock variable; energy conservation holds exactly when no matter parameter depends on a gravity clock and no gravity parameter depends on a matter clock. When such a dependence exists, the paper derives a master formula, Eq. (53), giving the rate of matter production as a product of a variability factor and a mass-production matrix built from the non-local Poisson bracket between matter and gravity Hamiltonians. The same deterministic machinery is then embedded in a random process, an absorbing Markov chain (a random process with a state that, once entered, cannot be left), in which random mutations in the constants either create or destroy matter; the paper argues that only universes that settle into the absorbing state, fixed constants and restored local diffeomorphism invariance, keep their gains. The payoff is a calculable scenario in which order, near-constant laws, and matter all emerge from a chaotic start rather than being postulated.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-local Poisson bracket $\{f,g\}_{NL} = \frac{1}{V_\infty}\sum_{(\alpha,T_\alpha)} \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial\alpha}\frac{\partial g}{\partial T_\alpha} - \frac{\partial f}{\partial T_\alpha}\frac{\partial g}{\partial\alpha}\right)$, defined over the global variables only. It isolates all evolution in the constants: the full Poisson bracket splits into local and non-local parts, and the non-local cross term between matter and gravity Hamiltonians becomes the source of matter production. The identity $\dot M = \frac{\partial\beta_K}{\partial T_{\alpha_I}} M_{IK}$, with $M_{IK}$ built from $\{H_M,H_G\}_{NL}$, is the master equation carrying the argument. The paper also interprets the dual clocks physically: $T_\alpha$ flows at a rate given by the chemical potential $\mu_\alpha = \frac{1}{V_c}\frac{\partial H}{\partial\alpha}$ of the constant, in analogy with fluid clocks.

What would settle it

Take a concrete Hamiltonian of the form (1) with one global pair $(\alpha,T_\alpha)$ and a target constant $\beta$ independent of $T_\alpha$, so $\partial\beta/\partial T_\alpha=0$, but relax assumption (31) so the matter energy-momentum tensor is not locally conserved. If the full equations of motion (6)-(9) produce a nonzero $\dot M$ while Eq. (53) predicts zero, the claim that evolution of constants is the general condition for matter creation is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that violations of energy conservation are controlled by the cross-coupling between matter and gravity at the level of global variables. With a preferred foliation $\Sigma_t$, local variables $\{q(x),p(x)\}$ and global variables $\{\alpha,T_\alpha\}$ (a constant and its dual clock), the paper obtains, after assuming local energy-momentum conservation (Eq. 31), the integrated identity $-\int_{\Sigma_t} d^3x\,\sqrt{h}\,n_\mu\nabla_\nu T^{\mu\nu}_M = \frac{1}{N(t)}\{H_M,H_G\}_{NL}$, where $\{,\}_{NL}$ is the non-local Poisson bracket over the global variables. Splitting the target constants into $\alpha$ (clock generators) and potentials $\beta=\beta(T_\alpha)$, this becomes $\dot M = \frac{\partial\beta_K}{\partial T_{\alpha_I}} M_{IK}$ (Eq. 53), with $M$ the mass on the leaf and $M_{IK}$ a mass-production matrix. The authors state this as the general condition: energy is not conserved exactly when a matter parameter evolves as a function of a gravity clock, or vice versa.

Load-bearing premise

The central formula assumes that, once the global variables are held fixed, matter's energy-momentum is conserved locally all by itself; if that is false, matter could be created even when no constant of nature is evolving.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any theory admitting a matter/gravity split and global clocks dual to constants, energy conservation is violated whenever a matter parameter depends on a gravity clock or a gravity parameter depends on a matter clock.
  • The production rate is fixed by Eq. (53), so the mechanism is quantitative: different choices of the potentials $\beta(T_\alpha)$ give different amounts of matter, including negative amounts.
  • The result extends the earlier FRW-specific formula to arbitrary foliations, so it applies during an inhomogeneous, non-isotropic chaotic phase.
  • Because the absorbing state has fixed constants and local diffeomorphism invariance, the model predicts that the observed near-constancy of the constants and near-diffeomorphism symmetry are evolutionary outcomes rather than input assumptions.
  • Without an absorbing state, random evolution has no net bias and would ultimately erase any gains, so a successful universe must reach the fixed-point state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that Eq. (53) could serve as a consistency test for varying-constant theories: observational limits on, say, the fine-structure constant or gravitational constant could be converted into limits on anomalous matter creation in the early universe.
  • The fractal peak structure of the mass distribution appears only for small state spaces and disappears in the continuous limit, so a cautious reading treats it as a discretization artifact rather than a cosmological prediction.
  • A testable extension would be to couple Eq. (53) to a baryon-number-violating sector and check whether the usual out-of-equilibrium conditions for baryogenesis can be bypassed, a question the paper's conclusion explicitly leaves open.
  • The measure $S_{MG}=\{H_M,H_G\}_{NL}$ could be computed in explicit toy models, for example a scalar field with a time-dependent mass, to produce a concrete prediction for the sign and magnitude of matter creation before the Markov-chain layer is added.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Hamiltonian framework, inspired by unimodular gravity, in which constants of nature α are canonically dual to global times T_α. Assuming a preferred foliation, a split between matter and gravity, local energy-momentum conservation at fixed global variables (Eq. 31), and vanishing of the non-local momentum anomaly (RHS of Eq. 47), the authors derive Eq. (53), which relates the rate of matter creation M to the evolution of matter parameters β as functions of gravity clocks T_α. The deterministic part is then coupled to an absorbing Markov chain model of random mutations of the constants, with the absorbing state placed at fixed constants and diffeomorphism invariance, and the mass outcome is studied via Monte Carlo simulation. The paper concludes that natural selection among universes favours near-diffeomorphism-invariant, nearly immutable laws with matter production switched off after the chaotic phase.

Significance. If the derivation of Eq. (53) is sound under its stated assumptions, the paper meaningfully generalizes the FRW-specific result of Ref. [4] to an arbitrary foliation and offers a concrete canonical language for 'evolution of constants'. The absorbing Markov chain treatment, while explicitly illustrative, gives a transparent toy model of the natural-selection idea, and the Monte Carlo simulations are reproducible. The main value is conceptual and formal rather than observational: no new falsifiable predictions are derived, and the central formula is conditional on assumptions that the paper itself labels as such. The paper would be significantly strengthened by a careful statement of the scope of the result and by checking the omitted technical steps.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (31); Abstract; Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions state that 'the general condition for violations of energy conservation is then that a matter parameter evolves as a function of a gravity clock or vice-versa', but this condition is derived only under the explicit assumption (31) that the matter energy-momentum tensor is locally conserved at fixed global variables, together with the additional assumption that the RHS of (47) vanishes. If (31) fails, integrated matter energy can be non-conserved even when β is constant, so the condition in Eq. (53) is not necessary. The paper should either prove (31) from the stated principles or systematically qualify the abstract, Eq. (53), and the conclusions as applying only to the restricted class of theories satisfying (31) and (47).
  2. [Section V, Eqs. (50)-(53)] The transition from Eq. (50) to Eq. (53) is not fully specified. The lapse factor 1/N(t) present in (50) disappears without comment, and the mass M and the matrix M_IK are not explicitly defined. As written, the reader cannot verify whether M is a coordinate-time derivative, a proper-time derivative, or a derivative with respect to a global clock, nor how the Poisson bracket in (50) is identified with M_IK. Please provide explicit definitions of M and M_IK in terms of T^{μν}_M and the phase-space variables, and state where the lapse factor is absorbed.
  3. [Section VII, Figs. 1-3] The Markov-chain simulations select the modulating function f(k) by hand (Eqs. 58-59), choose k0 arbitrarily, and place the absorbing state at zero by construction. The qualitative claims that 'universes with negative masses would go extinct' and that the process converges to our universe therefore reflect the chosen priors rather than consequences of Eq. (53). The paper should state more prominently that these simulations are illustrative, and should discuss how the conclusions would change under different choices of f(k), k0, and absorbing-state structure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] There are several typos: 'diffeormorphism' should be 'diffeomorphism', 'predection' should be 'prediction', and the phrase 'can be interpret as' should be 'can be interpreted as'.
  2. [Section IV heading] The heading 'IMPLICA TINS OF DIFFEOMORPHISM INVARIANCE' contains a typo: 'IMPLICA TINS' should be 'IMPLICATIONS'.
  3. [Section IIB] The phrase 'The Hamilton equatio for Θ i' should read 'The Hamilton equation for Θ_i'; this typo appears near Eq. (16).
  4. [References] References [37] and [38] list the same arXiv identifier (2401.00888) with the same title; one of them appears to be a duplicate or a mis-citation.
  5. [Section II, Eq. (1) and Eq. (24)] The notation for the Hamiltonian is confusing: H_E is used both as a density in Eq. (23) and as an integrated quantity in Eq. (24). Please distinguish the density from the integrated Hamiltonian consistently.
  6. [Section VIII, Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains the phrase 'sharpen the bean', which appears to be a typo for 'sharpen the beam' or 'sharpen the bin'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Hamiltonian matter-creation formula is independent, but the model's 'prediction' of fixed laws and diffeomorphism invariance is placed into the Markov absorbing state by hand.

  1. self definitional [Section VII.A (Markov model) and Section IX (Conclusions)]
    "To avoid biases towards more positively or negatively valued steps overall, the absorbing state is moved to the center of the matrix ... the absorbing state not only is the median value S(n+1)/2, but also coincides with the value 0, avoiding any biases towards positive or negative steps. ... Therefore, latter day space-time diffeomorphism symmetry (exact or very nearly realized) is a prediction of this model of cosmogenesis."

    The Markov chain is constructed so that the absorbing state is beta = 0, identified with fixed constants and the end of evolution; convergence to that state is then reported as the model's prediction of diffeomorphism invariance and immutable laws. The outcome is therefore defined into the transition matrix rather than derived from the Hamiltonian or the mass-production formula. The paper partially concedes this by saying the fixed-constant state 'should be' the absorbing state and that the model 'is predicated on breaking this symmetry', but the conclusion's word 'prediction' overstates a construction. The central Eq. (53) is not circular; it is a conditional Hamiltonian result. This step is limited to the statistical overlay.

full rationale

The derivation of Eqs. (50)-(53) is a self-contained Hamiltonian calculation under the explicitly stated assumption (31) that local matter energy-momentum is conserved at fixed global variables. That assumption is load-bearing: without it the abstract's 'general condition' that violations of energy conservation require an evolving constant would not be necessary. However, this is a scope limitation, not a circular step; the paper explicitly labels (31) as an assumption. The central formula (53) is a rewriting of the non-local Poisson bracket between matter and gravity Hamiltonians and does not reduce to a fit or to a self-citation chain. The main circular element is in the statistical overlay: the absorbing state of the Markov chain is deliberately set at beta = 0 / fixed constants to avoid sign bias, and the conclusion then calls space-time diffeomorphism symmetry 'a prediction'. Since the outcome is an input of the transition matrix, that specific claim is self-definitional. The paper partly concedes this ('should be the absorbing state', 'model is predicated on breaking this symmetry'), so the circularity is localized and does not infect the Hamiltonian derivation. No load-bearing self-citation is present: refs [22,23] are prior work by the same author but concern standard Hamiltonian gravity results (also citing Brown-Kuchar [32]) and are not used as an unverified uniqueness theorem.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The global variables (α, T_α) are a mathematical framework from unimodular gravity, not independently evidenced entities. The load-bearing content comes from domain assumptions about foliation, conservation, and the design of the absorbing Markov state.

free parameters (2)
  • k0 (modulation parameter) = 15 and 70 used in simulations
    Chosen by hand in f(k)=k0/(k0+k) and f(k)=k0 k; controls how quickly mass increments decay or grow. The qualitative results (sign separation vs oscillation) depend on whether f increases or decreases, not on k0's precise value.
  • Number of Markov states n = 11 and 1001
    Chosen for illustration; the 'fractal' peak structure is an artifact of small n and disappears for 1001 states.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption A preferred foliation Σ_t exists, with local variables q(x),p(x) and global variables α,T_α satisfying the action (1).
    This is the foundational structure that makes constants canonically dual to clocks; if no such foliation exists, the whole framework collapses.
  • domain assumption The local theory (at fixed global variables) conserves matter energy-momentum: ∇_ν T^{μν}_M |_L = 0 (Eq. 31).
    Isolates non-conservation to non-local terms; necessary for Eq. (50)-(53).
  • ad hoc to paper Non-local interactions produce energy but not momentum: the RHS of Eq. (47) is assumed zero.
    Authors state this assumption explicitly; it restricts the formalism to energy production, which is needed for the mass formula.
  • ad hoc to paper The absorbing Markov state is placed at the center of the state space, identified with fixed constants and diffeomorphism invariance (Eq. 56).
    The 'prediction' of immutable laws is an input: the absorbing state is chosen to be the no-change state, not derived from physics.
  • ad hoc to paper The modulating function f(k) takes the illustrative forms (58) or (59).
    The qualitative conclusions (early-dominated vs late-dominated mass) depend on this choice; no principle selects it.
  • domain assumption Random steps in β have no sign bias; positive and negative steps are equally likely.
    The authors argue this is the natural unbiased starting point, but it is a philosophical assumption that drives the symmetry of outcomes.
  • domain assumption Diffeomorphism-invariant theories are included in the space of possible Hamiltonians and can be conditionalized upon.
    Natural selection requires that the absorbing state (fixed constants, near-diffeomorphism invariance) exists in the theory space; the paper assumes this rather than proving it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How to make a Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNQAY46R

@misc{pith2026250200081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How to make a Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNQAY46R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00081}
}
read the original abstract

We establish the general conditions under which evolution in the laws of physics and matter creation or destruction are closely intertwined. They make use of global time variables canonically dual to the constants of Nature. Such times flow at a rate determined by what can be interpret as the chemical potential of the fundamental constants (in analogy with phenomenological clocks based on isentropic fluids). The general condition for violations of energy conservation is then that a matter parameter evolves as a function of a gravity clock or vice-versa. This framework can be envisaged as the environment within which a natural selection scenario operates, powered by random mutations in the values of the constants of nature (or indeed any other variability in the laws in terms of the times defined above). The prize function is the creation of matter, followed by its preservation. This can be accomplished in an environment where diffeomorphism invariance is among the possible theories, with mutations modelled, for example, on the absorbing Markov chain. In such a set-up the diffeormorphism invariant state with fixed constants (or any nearby state) should be the absorbing state. John Wheeler's ``higgledy-piggledy'' chaotic cosmic start therefore finds a realization in this model, where its own demise and the establishment of order and seemingly immutable laws is also a predection of the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00081 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The cosmic mass as it evolves in 15 realizations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The cosmic mass as it evolves in 15 realizations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The cosmic mass as it evolves in 25 realizations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms of the mass accrued by the time the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms of the mass accrued by the time the ab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Probability of the final mass for a linearly increas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    John Wheeler, in ’The Computer and the Universe’, In- ternational Journal of Theoretical Physics (1982), 21, 565

    work page 1982

  2. [1]

    1, should the function f (k) be decreasing

    Decreasing modulating functions f (k) Within this framework, equation (57) combined with function (58) generates typical realizations as depicted in Fig. 1, should the function f (k) be decreasing. Each line follows the mass of the Universe as it evolves along a possible Markov chain, in a process where the transi- tion probabilities to the absorbing stat...

    work page

  3. [2]

    cosmic selection

    Increasing modulating function f (k) Qualitatively different results are obtained if f (k) in- creases. Then, in contrast with the last examples, the last steps before hitting the absorbing state dominate and there are frequent swaps in the sign of the mass along the chain. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. If there were no absorbing state the fluctuations i...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Hesiod; intro- duction, translation, and notes

    Hesiod, Theogony (e.g. N. Athanassakis, “ Hesiod; intro- duction, translation, and notes”, Baltimore: John Hop- kins University Press, 1983. ISBN 0-8018-2998-4)

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    Paul Davis, https://metanexus.net/large-cosmic-lessons- physics/

    work page

  6. [6]

    Evolving laws and cosmological energy

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.10, 103514 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103514 [arXiv:2306.08390 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    The cosmological con- stant and general covariance,

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “The cosmological con- stant and general covariance,” Phys. Lett. B222 (1989), 195–199

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Does an unspecified cosmological con- stant solve the problem of time in quantum gravity?,

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D40, 1048 (1989); K. V. Kuchaˇ r, “Does an unspecified cosmological con- stant solve the problem of time in quantum gravity?,” Phys. Rev. D43 (1991), 3332–3344

    work page 1989

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Quantization of unimodular gravity and the cosmological constant problems,

    L. Smolin, “Quantization of unimodular gravity and the cosmological constant problems,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009), 084003, arXive: 0904.4841

    2009 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Instantons and unitarity in quantum cosmology with fixed four- volume,

    A. Daughton, J. Louko, and R. D. Sorkin, “Instantons and unitarity in quantum cosmology with fixed four- volume,” Phys. Rev. D58, 084008 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    Initial condi- tions and unitarity in unimodular quantum cosmology,

    A. Daughton, J. Louko, and R. D. Sorkin, “Initial condi- tions and unitarity in unimodular quantum cosmology,” [gr-qc/9305016]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Role of time in the sum-over-histories framework for gravity,

    R. D. Sorkin, “Role of time in the sum-over-histories framework for gravity,” Int J Theor Phys 33, 523–534 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00670514

    1994 doi

  5. [13]

    Forks in the road, on the way to quan- tum gravity,

    R. D. Sorkin, “Forks in the road, on the way to quan- tum gravity,” Int J Theor Phys 36, 2759–2781 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02435709

    1997 doi

  6. [14]

    Bombelli, W

    L. Bombelli, W. E. Couch and R. J. Torrence, Phys. Rev. D 44, 2589-2592 (1991) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.44.2589

    1991 doi

  7. [15]

    Smolin, Phys

    L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044047 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.044047 [arXiv:1008.1759 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136487 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136487 [arXiv:2104.11529 [gr-qc]]

    2021

  9. [17]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.8, 084021 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.084021 [arXiv:2110.05920 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kaloper and A

    N. Kaloper and A. Padilla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, no.9, 091304 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Kaloper, A

    N. Kaloper, A. Padilla, D. Stefanyszyn and G. Za- hariade, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.5, 051302 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.051302 [arXiv:1505.01492 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lombriser, Phys

    L. Lombriser, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134804 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Jirouˇ sek, K

    P. Jirouˇ sek, K. Shimada, A. Vikman and M. Yamaguchi, JCAP 04, 028 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Vikman, [arXiv:2107.09601 [gr-qc]]

    A. Vikman, [arXiv:2107.09601 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hammer, P

    K. Hammer, P. Jirousek and A. Vikman, [arXiv:2001.03169 [gr-qc]]

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.12, 124026 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.124026 [arXiv:2404.15809 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.8, 084050 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.084050 [arXiv:2406.17428 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.4, 044034 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.044034 [arXiv:2310.11929 12 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Magueijo, Phys

    J. Magueijo, Phys. Lett. B 858, 139001 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139001 [arXiv:2312.07597 [hep-th]]

    2024

  20. [28]

    Albrecht and J

    A. Albrecht and J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 59, 043516 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.043516 [arXiv:astro- ph/9811018 [astro-ph]]

    1999

  21. [29]

    C. J. Isham, NATO Sci. Ser. C 409, 157-287 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9210011 [gr-qc]]

    1993 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Husain and T

    V. Husain and T. Pawlowski, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 225014 (2011) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/22/225014 [arXiv:1108.1147 [gr-qc]]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gielen and L

    S. Gielen and L. Men´ endez-Pidal, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, no.20, 205018 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Gielen and L

    S. Gielen and L. Men´ endez-Pidal, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, no.7, 075011 (2022) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac504f [arXiv:2109.02660 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. D. Brown, Class. Quant. Grav. 10, 1579-1606 (1993) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/10/8/017 [arXiv:gr-qc/9304026 [gr-qc]]

    1993 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. D. Brown and K. V. Kuchar, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5600- 5629 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.5600 [arXiv:gr- qc/9409001 [gr-qc]]

    1995

  27. [35]

    Y. W. Teh, Encyclopedia of machine learning 1063, 280- 287 (2010) Citeseer

    2010

  28. [36]

    D. W. Stroock, An introduction to Markov processes 230 (2013) Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  29. [37]

    Bassani and J

    P. Bassani and J. Magueijo, in preparation

  30. [38]

    M. T. Murphy, J. K. Webb and V. V. Flambaum, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 345, 609 (2003) doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06970.x [arXiv:astro- ph/0306483 [astro-ph]]

    2003

  31. [40]

    J. K. Webb, C. C. Lee, D. Milakovic, V. V. Flambum, V. A. Dzuba and J. Magueijo, [arXiv:2401.00888 [astro- ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  32. [41]

    P. M. Bassani, J. Magueijo and S. Mukohyama, [arXiv:2408.03793 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.