Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 103 references

Atomic clock drift comparisons can be turned into a direct bound on the dark energy equation of state, forcing any locally coupled scalar dark energy to look almost exactly like a cosmological constant today.

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

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

Locally coupled scalar dark energy is forced into ultra-slow roll (1+w₀ ≲ 10⁻⁴-10⁻⁵) by atomic clock drift limits plus lunar laser ranging — but only under an assumed 10⁻⁵ scalar-matter coupling, and the core relation is prior work the paper cites.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection The algebra is right but the headline constraint is a conditional forecast on an unmeasured coupling, not a measurement—still worth refereeing as a programmatic analysis. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.16804 v1 pith:K4WVNC7Y submitted 2025-12-18 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Future Dark Energy Constraints from Atomic Clocks

Oem Trivedi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th PACS 95.36.+x04.50.Kd
keywords dark energyatomic clocksscalar-tensor theoriesequation of stateLunar Laser Rangingslow rollfundamental constantsfifth force
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the tiny frequency drift measured when comparing two atomic clocks can be translated, through a simple identity, into a direct constraint on the equation of state of dark energy today. The master relation ties the differential clock drift to the scalar field's present-day velocity, and hence to 1+w0 via the scalar kinetic energy. With a plausible but unmeasured sensitivity difference between clock transitions, the bound reaches 1+w0 ≲ 10^-4–10^-5, far tighter than cosmological constraints. Combined with the Lunar Laser Ranging limit on the running Planck mass, this forces any scalar field that both drives cosmic acceleration and couples to local matter or gravity to roll extremely slowly at z=0, effectively indistinguishable from a cosmological constant. The conclusion is structural: it holds independent of potential shape or kinetic structure, ruling out broad classes of canonical and non-canonical scalar-tensor dark energy models.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a direct, model-independent mapping between a local clock observable and the cosmological dark energy equation of state. Writing the transition frequency of clock i as ν_i(φ) with a dimensionless sensitivity k_i, the differential drift D = d/dt ln(ν2/ν1) equals (k2-k1) φ̇0/M_Pl. Equating this to the scalar kinetic energy required by the Friedmann background yields 1+w0 = D^2 / [3 Ω_DE,0 (k2-k1)^2 H0^2]. Under an adopted sensitivity difference |k2-k1| ~ 10^-5 and current clock bounds |D| ≲ 10^-17 yr^-1, this gives 1+w0 ≲ 10^-4–10^-5, corresponding to φ̇0/(M_Pl H0) ~ 10^-2. The paper maintains that this constraint is independent of potential s

What carries the argument

The central object is the master identity connecting atomic clock drift to the dark energy equation of state: 1+w0 = D^2_obs / [3 Ω_DE,0 (k2-k1)^2 H0^2], where D is the fractional frequency drift between two clocks, k_i are their scalar-sensitivity coefficients, and the denominator encodes the scalar kinetic energy. This identity converts a local, laboratory-scale measurement into a cosmological constraint, and it is complemented by the LLR relation ˙G/G = -α_M,0 H0 linking the running Planck mass to the same scalar dynamics. The argument's power is that these two local relations jointly bound both the field velocity and the Planck-mass variation, forcing ultra-slow roll.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument rests on the assumed differential scalar sensitivity |k2-k1| ~ 10^-5 — a value the paper adopts as illustrative rather than measured — and on the assumption that local clock drifts faithfully track the homogeneous cosmological background.

What would settle it

Measure the actual differential scalar sensitivity (k2-k1) for a realistic pair of optical clock transitions; if it is below 10^-6, the derived 1+w0 bound weakens to ~10^-2, eliminating the claimed exclusions. Alternatively, place two clocks with known sensitivity difference in the same gravitational environment and search for a differential drift; a drift below the predicted D = (k2-k1) φ̇0/M_Pl with φ̇0 from (8) would falsify the ultra-slow-roll conclusion.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, any scalar-tensor dark energy model with non-zero matter coupling must satisfy 1+w0 ≲ 10^-5 today, implying an ultra-slow-roll field excursion of at most ~10^-2 M_Pl per Hubble time.
  • Broad classes of canonical models — Horndeski, f(R), Brans-Dicke, non-minimally coupled quintessence — are excluded as distinguishable dark energy scenarios at the present epoch, since their phenomenology requires |α_M,0| or φ̇0 larger than the Solar System bounds allow.
  • Non-canonical models such as dynamical k-essence, DBI, tachyonic and kinetically braided dark energy are likewise ruled out unless they sit exactly at a condensate point or are decoupled from local matter.
  • The surviving candidates are a pure cosmological constant and minimally coupled scalar fields with negligible local coupling, so the paper concludes that modified-gravity explanations of the Hubble tension or growth anomalies would have to operate without any local scalar signature.
  • Existing Lunar Laser Ranging data alone already bound the running Planck mass to |α_M,0| ≲ 10^-2, consistent with the PPN constraints from light deflection and Shapiro delay, so the clock-derived bound is the dominant new constraining power.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the headline bound scales as (k2-k1)^-2, a measured sensitivity difference ten times smaller (10^-6) would dilute the constraint to 1+w0 ≲ 10^-2, erasing most of the claimed exclusion; the paper treats (k2-k1) as an illustrative placeholder rather than a measured quantity.
  • The derivation assumes the local clock drift tracks the homogeneous cosmological background; in screened or chameleon theories the local scalar excursion can be suppressed, so the bound applies only to unscreened, locally coupled scalars — a caveat the paper acknowledges once.
  • A natural extension would apply the same master relation to pulsar timing arrays or space-based clock networks, where longer baselines and higher stability could push |D| below 10^-18 yr^-1 and sharpen the EOS constraint without needing a larger sensitivity difference.
  • If future atomic-structure calculations yield a reliable (k2-k1) for a specific clock pair, the same identity becomes a direct measurement of 1+w0 rather than a bound, turning the Solar System into a dark-energy detector.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives a relation between differential atomic-clock frequency drifts and the present-day dark-energy equation of state in scalar–tensor theories. Starting from a Jordan-frame action and the standard relation 1+w0 = φ̇0²/(3Ω_DE,0 M_Pl² H0²), the author uses Eq. (19)–(22) to relate the clock observable D to φ̇0/(k2−k1)M_Pl, obtaining Eq. (27), 1+w0 = D_obs²/[3Ω_DE,0(k2−k1)²H0²], and a non-canonical generalization Eq. (41). Combined with an LLR bound on α_M,0 (Eq. (16)), the paper claims that atomic clocks provide the strongest local bound on 1+w0, at the 10⁻⁴–10⁻⁵ level, and rule out broad classes of canonical and non-canonical scalar dark-energy models unless they are nearly Λ or fully decoupled. The algebra and conditional chain are internally consistent; the central difficulty is that the quoted numerical bound requires an assumed, unmeasured value of |k2−k1|.

Significance. If the underlying assumptions were empirically established, the paper would provide a conceptually clean and potentially powerful Solar-System probe of the dark-energy scalar's kinetic energy at z = 0. The derivation from first principles is transparent, the scaling relations are clearly exhibited, and the translation between clock drifts and 1+w0 is a useful contribution. The paper also explicitly acknowledges in §6 that (k2−k1) is not currently constrained and is illustrative. However, the headline claims in the abstract and §4–5 go beyond what the assumptions can support: the 10⁻⁴–10⁻⁵ numbers are imposed by a hand-chosen parameter, and the local-background identification fails for screened theories. The value of the paper is therefore primarily as a forecast or as a conditional statement, not as an existing direct constraint.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eq. (27) and Eq. (31)] The headline bound 1+w0 ∼ 10⁻⁴–10⁻⁵ is not an empirical constraint: Eq. (27) contains the unmeasured differential sensitivity (k2−k1), and Eq. (31) shows that 1+w0 ∝ (k2−k1)⁻². The value |k2−k1| = 10⁻⁵ is adopted in §4 without a measurement. The cited Rosenband et al. [82] constrains the Al+/Hg+ frequency ratio's sensitivity to variations of the fine-structure constant, which is a different quantity from the scalar–matter coupling k_i appearing in Eq. (19). Since k_i depends on the unknown coupling of the dark-energy scalar to the relevant sectors, the claimed 'constraint' is not data-driven. This is acknowledged in §6, but the abstract and §§4–5 present it as an actual bound. The paper should be reframed as a forecast or explicitly derive constraints on (k2−k1) for a given 1+w0.
  2. [§3, Eqs. (19)–(22)] The derivation assumes that the local scalar field value and its time derivative in the laboratory/clock environment equal the homogeneous cosmological background values φ0(t) and φ̇0(t). This identification is invalid for screened scalar-tensor theories (chameleon, symmetron, dilaton with environmental couplings), where the local field is pinned by ambient density and does not track the cosmological rolling solution. The manuscript only mentions 'unless screened' once, in §6. Consequently the claim that broad classes are 'ruled out' applies only to unscreened, locally coupled scalars. This scope restriction should appear wherever the constraint is stated, and the abstract should not imply that screened models are excluded.
  3. [§4, Horndeski/f(R)/Brans–Dicke discussion] The statements that LLR plus clocks 'rule out' Horndeski dark energy, f(R) gravity, Brans–Dicke dark energy, non-minimally coupled quintessence, phantom models, and varying-α dark energy are too strong. The bounds on α_M,0 and 1+w0 constrain only the present-day values of the field velocity and Planck-mass running in an unscreened local environment. Many of these model classes contain screening mechanisms or have parameter regions where local observables are suppressed even though cosmological behavior is non-trivial. The text should state which subclasses are excluded (unscreened, locally coupled models with the assumed background identification) rather than claiming exclusion of the classes as a whole.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §1] Several typos and grammatical errors: 'clock measurements provides', 'with pushing 1 + w0 ≲ 10⁻⁵', 'we seeing', 'strengthen our the depth', 'FLR W' instead of 'FLRW'. These should be corrected.
  2. [References] References [22] and [23] are duplicates, as are [74] and [77]. Several arXiv preprints are cited without journal information where published versions may exist. Please unify and verify the bibliography.
  3. [§3, Eq. (26)] The line break after 'H0√1+w0' in Eq. (26) is awkward; the equation should be typeset cleanly. Also clarify that the sign of D_obs is not observable if only a bound is used.
  4. [§4, Eq. (33)] The statement 'Note again that this depends crucially on the estimate of the order of (k2−k1)' is important but is buried in a parenthesis. This caveat belongs in the main derivation and in the abstract.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The headline 1+w0≲10^-5 bound is set by the assumed, unmeasured differential clock sensitivity |k2−k1|=10^-5, not by the data; §6 concedes this, so the central claim reduces by construction to an input choice.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [§4 (Eqs. 27–32) and §6; abstract]
    "We further take ΩDE,0 ≃ 0.69 and an illustrative scalar sensitivity difference |k 2 −k 1| ∼10−5 ... Substituting these values into the main relation (27) one finds 1 +w0 ∼10 −4 ... In generic scalar-tensor theories admitting unsuppressed scalar couplings to atomic transitions, one therefore obtains a purely Solar System based bound 1 +w0 ≲10 −4-10−5 ... there are currently no conclusive, direct, model independent experimental constraints on the scalar sensitivity difference (k 2 −k 1) itself, and the value adopted in this work should be understood as an illustrative order of magnitude estimate"

    The claimed bound on 1+w0 is not obtained from measured data alone. Eq. (27) has (k2−k1)^2 in the denominator, and the paper inserts an 'illustrative' |k2−k1|∼10^-5 to evaluate it. Since the paper itself states that |k2−k1| is unmeasured, the headline 1+w0≲10^-4–10^-5 is fixed by the assumed input value, not by the clock observations. The observable actually constrains the product (k2−k1)^2(1+w0); repackaging it as a direct bound on 1+w0 reduces the result to the normalization choice. Varying |k2−k1| over the range 10^-6–10^-4 quoted by the paper changes 1+w0 by four orders of magnitude, so the 'strongest bounds' claim is not independent of the input.

full rationale

The algebraic derivation connecting clock drifts, scalar velocity, and 1+w0 (Eqs. 19–27) is internally consistent and is not circular in itself: it correctly relates D_obs to dotφ0 via the assumed sensitivity Δk and then to the cosmological equation of state via the canonical kinetic relation. However, the central quantitative result, the 'purely Solar System based bound' 1+w0≲10^-4–10^-5, is obtained only after inserting an unmeasured 'illustrative' value |k2−k1|∼10^-5. The paper explicitly concedes in §6 that no direct constraints exist on |k2−k1| and that the value is an illustrative estimate; the abstract and §§4–5 nonetheless present the resulting number as the strongest bound and as ruling out broad model classes. This is a partial circularity in the sense that the headline prediction is forced by the input normalization rather than by the data. The additional premise that local clock drifts track the homogeneous cosmological scalar velocity also holds only for unscreened fields; the paper acknowledges this only with 'unless screened' in §6. These are scope/correctness limitations as much as circularity, but they strengthen the concern that the headline constraint is materially weaker than presented. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found; self-citations in the introduction are not central.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one hand-picked, unmeasured parameter (k₂−k₁ = 10⁻⁵) whose value fixes the quoted bound, plus three domain assumptions about background dominance and the absence of screening. No invented entities. This is a low-cost ledger — but the single free parameter is the entire strength of the headline.

free parameters (1)
  • |k₂ − k₁| (differential scalar coupling of the two clock transitions) = 10⁻⁵ (assumed)
    Eqs. (19)-(27): the headline bound 1+w₀ = D²_obs/(3Ω_DE(k₂−k₁)²H₀²) scales as (k₂−k₁)⁻². The value is unmeasured and chosen in §4 to be 'small enough to evade equivalence principle and fifth force constraints while remaining phenomenologically relevant'; its stated justification (ref [82], atomic-structure sensitivities 10⁻⁶-10⁻⁴) concerns response of transitions to variations of constants, not th
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Linear coupling ansatz νᵢ(φ) = νᵢ⁽⁰⁾(1 + kᵢ(φ−φ₀)/M_Pl) (Eq. 19)
    Invoked in §3 to convert clock drifts into ˙φ₀; carries all the physics of the scalar-matter coupling, whose size is the free parameter above.
  • domain assumption Nonminimal F(ϕ) contributions to ρ_φ and p_φ are subdominant, so ρ_φ ≈ ½˙φ² + V and 1+w₀ = ˙φ²₀/ρ_DE,0 (Eqs. 5-8)
    Used in §2 to connect LLR/clock observables to 1+w₀; marginal when α_M is at the ~10⁻² bound the paper itself derives.
  • domain assumption Local observables track the homogeneous cosmological background: (˙G/G)₀ = −α_M,0 H₀ and ˙φ_local = ˙φ_cosmological (Eqs. 14, 22-23)
    Load-bearing for both the LLR and clock constraints; fails for screened (chameleon/symmetron) theories, which the paper acknowledges only as 'unless screened' (§6).
  • standard math Standard Friedmann identities: ρ_crit = 3M_Pl²H², ρ_DE,0 = 3Ω_DE,0 M_Pl²H₀²
    Background normalization used throughout Eqs. (7)-(8) and (24)-(27).

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Future Dark Energy Constraints from Atomic Clocks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K4WVNC7Y

@misc{pith2026251216804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Future Dark Energy Constraints from Atomic Clocks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K4WVNC7Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.16804}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We show that atomic clock measurements provides an exceptionally sensitive Solar System probe of scalar tensor dark energy. By connecting variations in Newton's constant and differential clock drifts to the dynamics of a single dark energy scalar, we derive a direct constraint on the present day equation of state and our results force any locally coupled scalar dark energy into a very slowly rolling regime, giving the strongest bounds on the equation of state parameter. This is independent of potential shape or kinetic structure and rules out broad classes of canonical and non canonical models, leaving only near Lambda CDM behavior or fully decoupled fields as viable late time scalar dark energy, thereby leaving cosmological constant and minimally coupled scalar field models as the most consistent dark energy regimes. We also use results from Lunar Laser Ranging and photon trajectories to further strengthen our the depth of our constraints.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Riess et al

    Adam G. Riess et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant.Astron. J., 116:1009–1038, 1998

    1998

  2. [2]

    Dark Energy: A Brief Review.Front

    Miao Li, Xiao-Dong Li, Shuang Wang, and Yi Wang. Dark Energy: A Brief Review.Front. Phys. (Beijing), 8:828–846, 2013

    2013

  3. [3]

    Dark Energy.Commun

    Miao Li, Xiao-Dong Li, Shuang Wang, and Yi Wang. Dark Energy.Commun. Theor. Phys., 56:525–604, 2011

    2011

  4. [4]

    Mortonson, David H

    Michael J. Mortonson, David H. Weinberg, and Martin White. Dark Energy: A Short Review. 12 2013

    2013

  5. [5]

    Effective field theory of dark energy: A review.Phys

    Noemi Frusciante and Louis Perenon. Effective field theory of dark energy: A review.Phys. Rept., 857:1–63, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Dark energy two decades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests

    Dragan Huterer and Daniel L Shafer. Dark energy two decades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests. Rept. Prog. Phys., 81(1):016901, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Direct detection of dark energy: The XENON1T excess and future prospects.Phys

    Sunny Vagnozzi, Luca Visinelli, Philippe Brax, Anne-Christine Davis, and Jeremy Sakstein. Direct detection of dark energy: The XENON1T excess and future prospects.Phys. Rev. D, 104(6):063023, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Adil, Upala Mukhopadhyay, Anjan A

    Shahnawaz A. Adil, Upala Mukhopadhyay, Anjan A. Sen, and Sunny Vagnozzi. Dark energy in light of the early JWST observations: case for a negative cosmological constant?JCAP, 10:072, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    Imprints of screened dark energy on non-local quantum correlations

    Fabiano Feleppa, Gaetano Lambiase, and Sunny Vagnozzi. Imprints of screened dark energy on non-local quantum correlations. 8 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Soundness of Dark Energy properties

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Stefano Gariazzo, Olga Mena, and Sunny Vagnozzi. Soundness of Dark Energy properties. JCAP, 07(07):045, 2020

    2020

  11. [11]

    Odintsov

    Shin’ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: from F(R) theory to Lorentz non-invariant models.Phys. Rept., 505:59–144, 2011

    2011

  12. [12]

    Odintsov

    Shin’ichi Nojiri and Sergei D. Odintsov. Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for dark energy.eConf, C0602061:06, 2006

    2006

  13. [13]

    Recent Advances in Cosmological Singularities.Symmetry, 16(3):298, 2024

    Oem Trivedi. Recent Advances in Cosmological Singularities.Symmetry, 16(3):298, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    Singularity formation in asymptotically safe cosmology with inhomogeneous equation of state.JCAP, 11:007, 2022

    Oem Trivedi and Maxim Khlopov. Singularity formation in asymptotically safe cosmology with inhomogeneous equation of state.JCAP, 11:007, 2022

    2022

  15. [15]

    Fractional holographic dark energy.Phys

    Oem Trivedi, Ayush Bidlan, and Paulo Moniz. Fractional holographic dark energy.Phys. Lett. B, 858:139074, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Scherrer

    Oem Trivedi and Robert J. Scherrer. New perspectives on future rip scenarios with holographic dark energy. Phys. Rev. D, 110(2):023521, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Mota, Adam G

    Eleonora Di Valentino, Olga Mena, Supriya Pan, Luca Visinelli, Weiqiang Yang, Alessandro Melchiorri, David F. Mota, Adam G. Riess, and Joseph Silk. In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions.Class. Quant. Grav., 38(15):153001, 2021. 10

    2021

  18. [18]

    A radical solution to the Hubble tension problem.JCAP, 08:052, 2024

    Timothy Clifton and Neil Hyatt. A radical solution to the Hubble tension problem.JCAP, 08:052, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Evolution of the fσ8 tension with the planck 15/λcdm determination and implications for modified gravity theories.Physical Review D, 97(10):103503, 2018

    Lavrentios Kazantzidis and Leandros Perivolaropoulos. Evolution of the fσ8 tension with the planck 15/λcdm determination and implications for modified gravity theories.Physical Review D, 97(10):103503, 2018

    2018

  20. [20]

    A non-linear solution to the s 8 tension?Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516(4):5355–5366, 2022

    Alexandra Amon and George Efstathiou. A non-linear solution to the s 8 tension?Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516(4):5355–5366, 2022

    2022

  21. [21]

    Sigma-8 tension is a drag.Physical Review D, 107(12):123538, 2023

    Vivian Poulin, Jos´ e Luis Bernal, Ely D Kovetz, and Marc Kamionkowski. Sigma-8 tension is a drag.Physical Review D, 107(12):123538, 2023

    2023

  22. [23]

    Elisa G. M. Ferreira, Evan McDonough, Lennart Balkenhol, Renata Kallosh, Lloyd Knox, and Andrei Linde. The BAO-CMB Tension and Implications for Inflation. 7 2025

    2025

  23. [24]

    Next generation lsst science.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.08945, 2019

    Saurabh W Jha, Federica Bianco, W Niel Brandt, Gaspar Galaz, Eric Gawiser, John Gizis, Ren´ ee Hloˇ zek, Sugata Kaviraj, Jeffrey A Newman, Aprajita Verma, et al. Next generation lsst science.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.08945, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  24. [25]

    Shanks et al

    T. Shanks et al. The VLT Survey Telescope ATLAS.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 451(4):4238–4252, 2015

    2015

  25. [26]

    Nsf-doe vera c

    Colin Orion Chandler, Pedro H Bernardinelli, Mario Juri´ c, Devanshi Singh, Henry H Hsieh, Ian Sullivan, R Lynne Jones, Jacob A Kurlander, Dmitrii Vavilov, Siegfried Eggl, et al. Nsf-doe vera c. rubin observatory observations of interstellar comet 3i/atlas (c/2025 n1).arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13409, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    Mellier et al

    Y. Mellier et al. Euclid. I. Overview of the Euclid mission.Astron. Astrophys., 697:A1, 2025

    2025

  27. [28]

    The Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope (WST) Science White Paper

    Vincenzo Mainieri et al. The Wide-field Spectroscopic Telescope (WST) Science White Paper. 3 2024

    2024

  28. [29]

    The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics.Phys

    Eleonora Di Valentino et al. The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics.Phys. Dark Univ., 49:101965, 2025

    2025

  29. [30]

    Promise of Future Searches for Cosmic Topology.Phys

    Yashar Akrami et al. Promise of Future Searches for Cosmic Topology.Phys. Rev. Lett., 132(17):171501, 2024

    2024

  30. [31]

    Rotation of the andromeda nebula from a spectroscopic survey of emission regions.Astrophysical Journal, vol

    Vera C Rubin and W Kent Ford Jr. Rotation of the andromeda nebula from a spectroscopic survey of emission regions.Astrophysical Journal, vol. 159, p. 379, 159:379, 1970

    1970

  31. [32]

    Dark Matter

    Marco Cirelli, Alessandro Strumia, and Jure Zupan. Dark Matter. 6 2024

    2024

  32. [33]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi. Dark matter and the early Universe: a review.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 119:103865, 2021

    2021

  33. [34]

    A Primer on Dark Matter

    Csaba Balazs, Torsten Bringmann, Felix Kahlhoefer, and Martin White. A Primer on Dark Matter. 11 2024

    2024

  34. [35]

    Andrew Eberhardt and Elisa G. M. Ferreira. Ultralight fuzzy dark matter review. 7 2025

    2025

  35. [36]

    Cline, David Curtin, David McKeen, David E

    Nassim Bozorgnia, Joseph Bramante, James M. Cline, David Curtin, David McKeen, David E. Morrissey, Adam Ritz, Simon Viel, Aaron C. Vincent, and Yue Zhang. Dark Matter Candidates and Searches. 9 2024

    2024

  36. [37]

    Direct Detection of Dark Matter: A Critical Review.Symmetry, 16(2):201, 2024

    Marcin Misiaszek and Nicola Rossi. Direct Detection of Dark Matter: A Critical Review.Symmetry, 16(2):201, 2024

    2024

  37. [38]

    Ciaran A. J. O’Hare. Cosmology of axion dark matter.PoS, COSMICWISPers:040, 2024

    2024

  38. [39]

    Astrophysical Tests of Dark Matter Self-Interactions

    Susmita Adhikari et al. Astrophysical Tests of Dark Matter Self-Interactions. 7 2022

    2022

  39. [40]

    Andrew L. Miller. Gravitational wave probes of particle dark matter: a review. 3 2025

    2025

  40. [41]

    Could planck star remnants be dark matter?Phys

    Oem Trivedi and Abraham Loeb. Could planck star remnants be dark matter?Phys. Dark Univ., 49:102003, 2025

    2025

  41. [42]

    Probing Quadratically Coupled Ultralight Dark Matter with Pulsar Timing Arrays

    Xucheng Gan, Hyungjin Kim, and Andrea Mitridate. Probing Quadratically Coupled Ultralight Dark Matter with Pulsar Timing Arrays. 10 2025

    2025

  42. [43]

    Urban, and Ely D

    Caner Unal, Federico R. Urban, and Ely D. Kovetz. Probing ultralight scalar, vector and tensor dark matter with pulsar timing arrays.Phys. Lett. B, 855:138830, 2024. 11

    2024

  43. [44]

    Harikrishnan Ramani, Tanner Trickle, and Kathryn M. Zurek. Observability of Dark Matter Substructure with Pulsar Timing Correlations.JCAP, 12:033, 2020

    2020

  44. [45]

    Williams, Slava G

    James G. Williams, Slava G. Turyshev, and Dale H. Boggs. Progress in lunar laser ranging tests of relativistic gravity.Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:261101, 2004

    2004

  45. [46]

    Williams, Slava G

    James G. Williams, Slava G. Turyshev, Dale H. Boggs, and J. Todd Ratcliff. Lunar laser ranging science: Gravitational physics and lunar interior and geodesy.Adv. Space Res., 37:67–71, 2006

    2006

  46. [47]

    Merkowitz

    Stephen M. Merkowitz. Tests of Gravity Using Lunar Laser Ranging.Living Rev. Rel., 13:7, 2010

    2010

  47. [48]

    Variations of the gravitational constant from lunar laser ranging data

    Jurgen Muller and Liliane Biskupek. Variations of the gravitational constant from lunar laser ranging data. Class. Quant. Grav., 24:4533–4538, 2007

    2007

  48. [49]

    Lunar laser ranging in infrared at the grasse laser station.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 602:A90, 2017

    C Courde, JM Torre, E Samain, G Martinot-Lagarde, M Aimar, D Albanese, P Exertier, A Fienga, H Mariey, Gilles M´ etris, et al. Lunar laser ranging in infrared at the grasse laser station.Astronomy & Astrophysics, 602:A90, 2017

    2017

  49. [50]

    Lunar Laser Ranging constraints on nonminimally coupled dark energy and standard sirens

    Shinji Tsujikawa. Lunar Laser Ranging constraints on nonminimally coupled dark energy and standard sirens. Phys. Rev. D, 100(4):043510, 2019

    2019

  50. [51]

    Constraining the cosmological evolution of scalar-tensor theories with local measurements of the time variation of G.JCAP, 07:060, 2020

    Clare Burrage and Johannes Dombrowski. Constraining the cosmological evolution of scalar-tensor theories with local measurements of the time variation of G.JCAP, 07:060, 2020

    2020

  51. [52]

    Constraining a possible variation of G with Type Ia supernovae.Publ

    Jeremy Mould and Syed Uddin. Constraining a possible variation of G with Type Ia supernovae.Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral., 31:15, 2014

    2014

  52. [53]

    An Updated Constraint on the Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy.Res

    Chi Zheng, Wei Liu, Zonghao Zhan, and Wenjuan Fang. An Updated Constraint on the Effective Field Theory of Dark Energy.Res. Astron. Astrophys., 25(12):125015, 2025

    2025

  53. [54]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astron. Astrophys., 641:A6, 2020. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2018

  54. [55]

    Riess et al

    Adam G. Riess et al. A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team.Astrophys. J. Lett., 934(1):L7, 2022

    2022

  55. [56]

    Clifford M. Will. The Confrontation between general relativity and experiment.Living Rev. Rel., 9:3, 2006

    2006

  56. [57]

    V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and A. J. Mansour. Constraints on the variation of physical constants, equivalence principle violation, and a fifth force from atomic experiments.Phys. Rev. D, 110(5):055022, 2024

    2024

  57. [58]

    Competing bounds on the present-day time variation of fundamental constants.Phys

    Thomas Dent, Steffen Stern, and Christof Wetterich. Competing bounds on the present-day time variation of fundamental constants.Phys. Rev. D, 79:083533, 2009

    2009

  58. [59]

    Constraints on Horndeski Theory Using the Observations of Nordtvedt Effect, Shapiro Time Delay and Binary Pulsars.Eur

    Shaoqi Hou and Yungui Gong. Constraints on Horndeski Theory Using the Observations of Nordtvedt Effect, Shapiro Time Delay and Binary Pulsars.Eur. Phys. J. C, 78(3):247, 2018

    2018

  59. [60]

    Constraining the attractive fifth force in the general free scalar–tensor gravity with solar system experiments.Eur

    Xing Zhang, Bo Wang, and Rui Niu. Constraining the attractive fifth force in the general free scalar–tensor gravity with solar system experiments.Eur. Phys. J. C, 84(4):381, 2024

    2024

  60. [61]

    PPN meets EFT of dark energy: post-Newtonian approxima- tion in higher-order scalar-tensor theories.JCAP, 06:040, 2024

    Jin Saito, Zhibang Yao, and Tsutomu Kobayashi. PPN meets EFT of dark energy: post-Newtonian approxima- tion in higher-order scalar-tensor theories.JCAP, 06:040, 2024

    2024

  61. [62]

    Richarte and J´ unior D

    Mart ´ ın G. Richarte and J´ unior D. Toniato. In-depth analysis of violations of the strong equivalence principle in scalarized Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theories.Phys. Rev. D, 112(8):084058, 2025

    2025

  62. [63]

    Tensor multiscalar theories of gravitation.Class

    Thibault Damour and Gilles Esposito-Farese. Tensor multiscalar theories of gravitation.Class. Quant. Grav., 9:2093–2176, 1992

    2093

  63. [64]

    Testing scalar-tensor theories and parametrized post-Newtonian parameters in Earth orbit.Phys

    Andreas Sch¨ arer, Raymond Ang´ elil, Ruxandra Bondarescu, Philippe Jetzer, and Andrew Lundgren. Testing scalar-tensor theories and parametrized post-Newtonian parameters in Earth orbit.Phys. Rev. D, 90(12):123005, 2014

    2014

  64. [65]

    Testing General Relativity and Alternative Theories of Gravity with Space-based Atomic Clocks and Atom Interferometers.EPJ Web Conf., 95:02002, 2015

    Ruxandra Bondarescu, Andreas Sch¨ arer, Philippe Jetzer, Raymond Ang´ elil, Prasenjit Saha, and Andrew Lund- gren. Testing General Relativity and Alternative Theories of Gravity with Space-based Atomic Clocks and Atom Interferometers.EPJ Web Conf., 95:02002, 2015. 12

    2015

  65. [66]

    Theodore Anton, Timothy Clifton, and Daniel B. Thomas. Gravitational slip in the parameterized post- Newtonian cosmology.Class. Quant. Grav., 42(19):195018, 2025

    2025

  66. [67]

    Marion et al

    H. Marion et al. A Search for variations of fundamental constants using atomic fountain clocks.Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:150801, 2003

    2003

  67. [68]

    Barontini et al

    G. Barontini et al. Measuring the stability of fundamental constants with a network of clocks.EPJ Quant. Technol., 9(1):12, 2022

    2022

  68. [70]

    V. V. Flambaum. Variation of fundamental constants: Theory and observations.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 22:4937– 4950, 2007

    2007

  69. [71]

    Frequency ratio of two optical clock transitions in yb+ 171 and constraints on the time variation of fundamental constants.Physical review letters, 113(21):210801, 2014

    RM Godun, PBR Nisbet-Jones, JM Jones, SA King, LAM Johnson, HS Margolis, K Szymaniec, SN Lea, K Bongs, and P Gill. Frequency ratio of two optical clock transitions in yb+ 171 and constraints on the time variation of fundamental constants.Physical review letters, 113(21):210801, 2014

    2014

  70. [72]

    Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology.Living Rev

    Jean-Philippe Uzan. Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology.Living Rev. Rel., 28(1):6, 2025

    2025

  71. [73]

    Searching for a fifth force with atomic and nuclear clocks.Phys

    Dawid Brzeminski, Zackaria Chacko, Abhish Dev, Ina Flood, and Anson Hook. Searching for a fifth force with atomic and nuclear clocks.Phys. Rev. D, 106(9):095031, 2022

    2022

  72. [75]

    Stern, and C

    Thomas Dent, S. Stern, and C. Wetterich. Time variation of fundamental couplings and dynamical dark energy. JCAP, 01:038, 2009

    2009

  73. [76]

    Analysis of atomic-clock data to constrain variations of fundamental constants.New J

    Nathaniel Sherrill et al. Analysis of atomic-clock data to constrain variations of fundamental constants.New J. Phys., 25(9):093012, 2023

    2023

  74. [77]

    Testing screened scalar-tensor theories of gravity with atomic clocks.Phys

    Hugo L´ evy and Jean-Philippe Uzan. Testing screened scalar-tensor theories of gravity with atomic clocks.Phys. Rev. D, 111(6):064012, 2025

    2025

  75. [78]

    Benjamin Elder, Giorgio Mentasti, Elizabeth Pasatembou, Charles F. A. Baynham, Oliver Buchmueller, Carlo R. Contaldi, Claudia de Rham, Richard Hobson, and Andrew J. Tolley. Prospects for detecting new dark physics with the next generation of atomic clocks.Phys. Rev. D, 112(4):044053, 2025

    2025

  76. [79]

    Searching for dilaton dark matter with atomic clocks

    Asimina Arvanitaki, Junwu Huang, and Ken Van Tilburg. Searching for dilaton dark matter with atomic clocks. Phys. Rev. D, 91(1):015015, 2015

    2015

  77. [80]

    Kennedy, Eric Oelker, John M

    Colin J. Kennedy, Eric Oelker, John M. Robinson, Tobias Bothwell, Dhruv Kedar, William R. Milner, G. Ed- ward Marti, Andrei Derevianko, and Jun Ye. Precision Metrology Meets Cosmology: Improved Constraints on Ultralight Dark Matter from Atom-Cavity Frequency Comparisons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 125(20):201302, 2020

    2020

  78. [81]

    Olive, and Jean-Philippe Uzan

    Feng Luo, Keith A. Olive, and Jean-Philippe Uzan. Gyromagnetic Factors and Atomic Clock Constraints on the Variation of Fundamental Constants.Phys. Rev. D, 84:096004, 2011

    2011

  79. [82]

    Frequency ratio of al+ and hg+ single-ion optical clocks; metrology at the 17th decimal place.Science, 319(5871):1808–1812, 2008

    Till Rosenband, DB Hume, PO Schmidt, Chin-Wen Chou, Anders Brusch, Luca Lorini, WH Oskay, Robert E Drullinger, Tara M Fortier, Jason E Stalnaker, et al. Frequency ratio of al+ and hg+ single-ion optical clocks; metrology at the 17th decimal place.Science, 319(5871):1808–1812, 2008

    2008

  80. [83]

    Dark energy in Horndeski theories after GW170817: A review.Int

    Ryotaro Kase and Shinji Tsujikawa. Dark energy in Horndeski theories after GW170817: A review.Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 28(05):1942005, 2019

    2019

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.