Probing the Universe's Topology through a Quantum System?

Evangelos Achilleas Paraskevas; Leandros Perivolaropoulos

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Probing the Universe's Topology through a Quantum System?

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that compact cosmic topologies imprint distinct exponentially small shifts on a quantum bound state, with coefficient $C_\Gamma=6$ for the 3-torus and $C_\Gamma=4$ for the half-turn space.

desk verdict The half-turn coefficient C_Gamma=4 is the right answer but the displayed derivation is inconsistent, and the result is tied to putting the delta on the half-turn axis; still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08603 v1 pith:OEWSAWS5 submitted 2025-05-13 quant-ph gr-qcmath-phmath.MP

Evangelos Achilleas Paraskevas , Leandros Perivolaropoulos This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phgr-qcmath-phmath.MP

keywords cosmictopology3-torushalf-turnspaceDiracdeltapotentialrenormalizationbound-stateenergyspectralshiftearlyuniverse

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 asks whether the global shape of space, not just its local curvature, can leave a measurable imprint on a quantum system. It works out the bound state of a particle trapped by a three-dimensional Dirac delta potential inside two compact flat topologies that cosmologists take seriously: the 3-torus ($E_1$), where opposite cube faces are identified by translations, and the half-turn space ($E_2$), where one pair of faces is identified after a 180-degree rotation. In both cases the compactification deepens the bound state relative to infinite flat space, and in the large-volume limit the shift takes a unified exponential form whose prefactor is 6 for the torus and 4 for the half-turn space. That topology-dependent coefficient is the paper's central discovery: a concrete place where global cosmic topology could, in principle, enter local quantum physics. The authors show the effect is astronomically small today but becomes percent-level when the horizon size is comparable to the system's own length scale, which happened around the electroweak epoch.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by $\Gamma$-periodic Fourier bases on the universal cover $\mathbb{R}^3$: eigenmodes of the Laplacian that are invariant under the holonomy group of the compact space, normalized over the fundamental cube. For the 3-torus these are plain plane waves $\xi_k(x) = L^{-3/2} e^{ik\cdot x}$; for the half-turn space they are symmetrized combinations $\xi_k(x) = L^{-3/2} e^{ik_z z}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(e^{i(k_x x + k_y y)} + (-1)^{n_z} e^{-i(k_x x + k_y y)}\right)$ for the $I$-modes and the plane wave for the $I_0$-modes. Plugging this basis into the Schr\"odinger equation with a delta potential turns the bound-state condition into a lattice sum over modes, Eq. (18); the divergent part of the sum is absorbed into a renormalized coupling $g_R$ exactly as in $\mathbb{R}^3$, and the finite remainder is evaluated by Poisson summation into the exponentials $e^{-n\sqrt{2|\tilde E|}L}/n$. In the large-$L$ limit only the nearest image modes ($n=1$) survive, and counting them yields the coefficients 6 and 4.

What would settle it

Compute the same bound-state equation with the delta potential placed at a generic point inside the fundamental cube of the half-turn space, not at its center. If the leading coefficient of the large-$L$ shift remains 4 at all positions, the paper's $C_\Gamma$ is robust; if it changes with position, then the quoted 4 is an artifact of the centered placement and the claim that each topology has a single characteristic coefficient fails. A complementary numerical check is to solve the full eigenvalue equations (29) and (45) at $L/g_R$ of order 1 to 10 and extract the coefficient from the slope of $\ln(\Delta|\tilde E|)$ versus $L/g_R$, confirming the values 6 and 4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the renormalized bound-state energy of a 3D Dirac delta potential is not a universal constant but carries a topology-dependent correction. Working at the center of a fundamental cube of side length $L$ in the flat compact topologies $E_1$ (3-torus) and $E_2$ (half-turn space), and renormalizing the delta coupling in the same way as in $\mathbb{R}^3$, the paper derives the large-$L$ asymptotic law $E \simeq -\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m g_R^2}\left(1 + C_\Gamma \frac{2 g_R}{L} e^{-L/g_R}\right)$, with $C_\Gamma = 6$ for the 3-torus and $C_\Gamma = 4$ for the half-turn space (Eq. (52), built from Eqs. (29) and (45)). In words: each compact topology makes the bound state deeper than the $\mathbb{R}^3$ result, by an exponentially small amount that depends on the ratio $L/g_R$, and the coefficient of that exponential encodes which topology is present. The same calculation yields exact eigenvalue equations, Eqs. (29) and (45), whose numerical solution confirms the ordering and shows the correction reaches the percent level as $L$ approaches $g_R$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation places the quantum system at the exact center of the fundamental cube, a special point in the half-turn space whose odd-$z$ modes vanish there; moving the system to a generic spot could change the predicted coefficient, and the paper does not analyze that dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Topology imprints a specific, exponentially small deepening of bound states: $E_1$ gives $C_\Gamma=6$ and $E_2$ gives $C_\Gamma=4$, so a precision measurement of the shift at known $L/g_R$ could in principle distinguish the two shapes.
At today's scale factor $a=1$, with $L$ identified with twice the particle horizon ($\sim 10^{26}$ m) and $g_R$ the Bohr radius ($\sim 5\times 10^{-11}$ m), the correction is suppressed far beyond any experiment, roughly as $(g_R/L)e^{-L/g_R}$.
The correction reaches the percent level when $L \sim g_R$, which in $\Lambda$CDM with Planck 2018 parameters corresponds to scale factors $a \lesssim 10^{-19}$, around the electroweak epoch; early-universe quantum phenomena are therefore the only plausible venue for observable topological signatures.
The derivation supplies a general workflow, topology-adapted Fourier basis, mode sum, renormalization, and Poisson summation, that can be applied to other flat compact topologies in the $E_n$ classification, each expected to yield its own $C_\Gamma$.
For both topologies the compactification deepens binding relative to $\mathbb{R}^3$, so topological boundary conditions act like an attractive correction to the effective potential in these toy systems.

Reading between the lines

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

If the $C_\Gamma$ coefficients are stable against moving the delta away from the cube center, they could be interpreted as a topological invariant of the spatial manifold; the paper does not demonstrate that stability, and the centered placement leaves room for position dependence.
The same mode-sum machinery, reinterpreted as a finite-volume correction, suggests that any compact topology will generically shift the energy of any localized quantum state, with the shift controlled by the ratio of system size to topology scale; hydrogen-like atoms are a natural next testbed, though the paper does not compute them.
One could read the exponential form $e^{-L/g_R}$ as a quantum analogue of Casimir geometry dependence: boundary conditions imposed by topology do physical work even when local curvature is flat, so future early-universe models may need to include such corrections as a matter of principle rather than of current observability.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things before you read it. The headline result—C_Gamma=6 for the 3-torus, C_Gamma=4 for the half-turn space—is mathematically right; I re-derived the half-turn eigenvalue equation from (18) and got the same final (45). But the displayed intermediate derivation in the half-turn section is internally inconsistent: Eqs. (36)-(39) mix weighted mode sums with unweighted additions, and as written they cannot produce (45). That's a presentation flaw, not a wrong final answer.

What's actually new: applying the renormalized 3D Dirac-delta bound-state formalism to the flat compact manifolds E1 and E2 and extracting the leading finite-volume spectral shift. The techniques—Poisson summation, cutoff renormalization—are standard, and the torus case is clean. The specific coefficients 6 and 4, and the unified large-L formula, are new as far as I know. The authors are also honest that the effect is exponentially suppressed at the current epoch and only becomes interesting when the horizon is comparable to the bound-state size.

Soft spots, in order of severity. First, the half-turn derivation needs rewriting. The stress-test note adds a more substantive concern: C_Gamma=4 is computed for a delta at the origin, which lies on the half-turn axis. At a generic point the odd-n_z modes contribute and the transverse-mode weights change; at x0=(L/4,0,0) the (1,0,0) mode has zero weight, so the leading coefficient would be different. The paper presents C_Gamma as a topological fingerprint, which oversells it. That's a limitation, not a fatal flaw, but it should be stated explicitly. Second, the identification L/2=l_p(a) is ad hoc; the paper does not explain why half the side length sets the cosmic scale. Third, the delta potential is a toy; the authors admit this, and the cosmological discussion is appropriately cautious.

This paper is for readers interested in finite-volume corrections to bound states and in cosmic topology as a formal exercise. Not for observers. It deserves a serious referee: the core result is correct, the flaws are repairable, and the new coefficients are worth having on record. I'd recommend accepting it to peer review with a request to clean up the half-turn section and qualify the position-dependence.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the bound-state energy of a 3D Dirac delta potential in two flat, compact, cosmologically motivated topologies: the 3-torus (E1) and the half-turn space (E2). The authors derive renormalized eigenvalue equations for each topology and claim that, in the large-volume limit L >> g_R, the bound-state energy takes the universal form E ≃ -(ℏ²/2mg_R²)(1 + C_Γ (2g_R/L)e^{-L/g_R}) with C_Γ = 6 for E1 and C_Γ = 4 for E2. They then estimate the resulting relative energy shift η at the present epoch and at earlier cosmic times, concluding that the effect is unobservable today but could become sizable when the particle-horizon scale is comparable to the atomic scale (a ≲ 10^{-19}). The torus derivation (Eqs. 27-30) is a clean application of Poisson summation and renormalization. However, the half-turn analysis contains a serious error in the mode set, an inconsistent intermediate derivation, and an unexamined position dependence of the claimed topological coefficient.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a concrete, analytically tractable example of how cosmic topology imprints on a quantum bound state, with a sharp quantitative prediction (C_Γ = 6 vs 4). The renormalization framework and the use of lattice-sum techniques are appropriate and the torus result is sound. The claimed distinction between E1 and E2 at leading exponential order is, however, the central physical message, and that distinction is shown below to rest on an incomplete mode set for the half-turn space. The early-universe application also relies on an ad hoc identification of the fundamental-domain size with the particle horizon, which is a limitation rather than a technical error. Overall, the significance of the paper for quantum-gravity or cosmology would be moderate if the leading-order topological discrimination survived scrutiny; as it stands, the main result for E2 is not established.

major comments (3)

[Section III.B.4, Eq. (35) and definition of I0] The mode set I0 = {(0,0,nz) : nz ∈ 2Z} is incorrect: it omits the axial modes with odd nz. For functions independent of x and y, the half-turn identification (33) reduces to Ψ(z-L/2)=Ψ(z+L/2), i.e., a pure translation by L, so the allowed wave numbers are kz = 2π nz/L for every integer nz, not only even nz. The modes with nz = ±1 are valid eigenmodes with |ξ(0)|² = 1/L³ and they contribute at leading order in the large-L expansion of Eq. (18). Including them in the renormalized equation (45) adds a leading term of order e^{-sL} from nz = ±1, changing the asymptotic coefficient in Eq. (52) from C_Γ = 4 to C_Γ = 6, identical to the torus result. The claimed topological distinction between E1 and E2 at leading order is therefore an artifact of the incomplete mode set.
[Section III.B.4, Eqs. (36)-(39)] The displayed derivation of the half-turn eigenvalue equation is internally inconsistent. The left-hand side of Eq. (36) equals 2∑_{n∈I*} 1/(n²+l), so Eq. (37) states ∑_{n∈I*} 1/(n²+l) = π²L/g. Eq. (38) then states ∑_{n∈I0} 1/(n²+l) = 2π²L/g, and Eq. (39) adds the two. However, the correct eigenvalue equation (18) gives ∑_{n∈I0} 1/(n²+l) + 2∑_{n∈I*} 1/(n²+l) = 2π²L/g, with weight 2 for the I* modes. Thus Eqs. (36)-(39) do not follow from Eq. (18), and the derivation of Eq. (45) from this inconsistent set is not justified.
[Section IV, Eq. (52)] For the half-turn space, the coefficient C_Γ is computed only for a delta potential placed at x = y = 0, the intersection of the half-turn axis with the fundamental cube. At a generic position x0, the mode weights in Eq. (18) become position-dependent: the even-nz transverse modes contribute ∝ cos²(kx x0 + ky y0), while the odd-nz (half-integer kz) transverse modes contribute ∝ sin²(kx x0 + ky y0). Consequently the leading large-L coefficient C_Γ varies with the position of the quantum system (for instance, a transverse mode with cos(kx x0)=0 contributes zero at that point). The abstract and conclusion present C_Γ as a universal fingerprint of the topology E2, but the paper does not analyze or even state this position dependence. The claim must be restricted to the special axis placement, or a full position-dependent analysis must be provided.

minor comments (3)

[Section III.B.4, Eqs. (33)-(34)] The boundary conditions (33) and (34) appear mutually inconsistent for the half-turn space: if both are imposed, the wavefunction must also be even under (x,y) → (-x,-y), which is an additional symmetry not present in E2. Please clarify which condition is actually being used.
[Section IV, Eq. (51)] The identification L/2 = lp(a) is an ad hoc choice. The fundamental domain of a compact flat topology need not have side length equal to the particle horizon, and the paper does not discuss the dependence of the results on this assumption.
[Figure 1] The numerical results are obtained with a mode cutoff |ni,max| = 20, but the sensitivity of the plotted η(a) curves to this cutoff is not discussed; an error estimate would strengthen the early-Universe part of the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the topology coefficients CΓ=6 and CΓ=4 emerge from Poisson-summed mode sums, and the self-citations only motivate the cosmological application.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Eq. (18) is obtained by inserting the delta potential into the Schrödinger equation and expanding in the topology's orthonormal modes; no parameter is fitted to the final shift. The renormalized coupling g_R is fixed once by the R3 bound-state condition (Eqs. (11)-(12)), and the topology enters only through the mode weights |ξ_k(0)|^2 and through the discrete sums over the holonomy images. For E1, Poisson summation converts the mode sum into the exponentially suppressed image sum of Eq. (29), whose large-L limit gives CΓ=6 from the six nearest neighbours. For E2, the corresponding Eq. (45) gives CΓ=4. The coefficient is not defined in terms of the final energy nor fitted to it, so there is no self-definitional or fitted-input-called-prediction structure. The self-citations [6,9] motivate the 'maximum measurable length' and early-universe relevance, but they are not used in deriving Eq. (52); hence they are not load-bearing. A separate correctness caveat is that Eqs. (37) and (38) are added in Eq. (39) with mismatched mode weights, and the CΓ=4 result is computed for the delta at the half-turn axis; these concern validity and robustness, not circularity. Overall, no significant circularity is present; the score reflects only the presence of motivational self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard mathematical tools (Poisson summation) and standard renormalization of the 3D delta potential, plus the paper's specific modeling choices: cubic fundamental domain, delta at the origin, and the identification of the topology scale with the particle horizon. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

g_R = 0.529 × 10^-10 m in the numerical estimates
The renormalized coupling length scale defining the infinite-volume bound-state energy. It is an input of the toy model, set equal to the Bohr radius for the cosmological estimates, not fitted to the topology-shift result.
mode cutoff |n_i,max| = 20
Numerical truncation used in solving Eqs. (20), (29), (45) for Figure 1; justified by exponential suppression of higher modes.

assumptions (5)

standard math Poisson summation formula (Lemma I, Eq. (28))
Used to convert lattice mode sums into infinite-volume integrals plus periodic image sums.
domain assumption Renormalization of the 3D Dirac delta potential via a running coupling g(Λ) with the same g_R as in R^3
Standard self-adjoint extension theory for the singular delta potential (refs. [32], [43]); assumes UV subtraction is topology-independent.
domain assumption The mode sets and basis functions for E1 and E2 from the classification of flat cosmic topologies (refs. [15], [31])
The eigenfunctions in Eqs. (26) and (35) are taken from the literature on Laplacian eigenmodes on compact flat manifolds.
ad hoc to paper Identification of the compactification scale with the particle horizon, L/2 = l_p(a) (Eq. (51))
The paper chooses the physical particle horizon as the maximum measurable length following [6]; this identification sets the cosmological time dependence of the topological effect.
ad hoc to paper Cubic fundamental domain with L1=L2=L3=L and delta placed at the center/origin
Simplifies the mode sums; the position dependence of the result is not explored.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Universe's Topology through a Quantum System?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OEWSAWS5

@misc{pith2026250508603,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Universe's Topology through a Quantum System?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OEWSAWS5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08603}
}

abstract

The global topology of the Universe could, in principle, affect quantum systems through boundary condition constraints. We investigate this connection by analyzing how compact, flat, cosmologically inspired topologies, specifically the $3-$Torus ($E_1$) and half turn space ($E_2$), influence the energy eigenvalues of a quantum particle in the bound state of a 3D Dirac delta potential. Using rigorous renormalization techniques, we derive the equations satisfied by the energy eigenvalues in each topology and develop a systematic method to compute spectral shifts. Our results reveal that each topology induces characteristic deviations in the energy spectrum. In the large$-L$ limit ($L >> g_R$), to leading order, the energy eigenvalues for both the $E_1$ and $E_2$ spaces can be written in the unified form $E\simeq -\frac{\hbar^2}{2mg_R^2}(1 + C_\Gamma\,\frac{2g_R}{L}\,e^{-L/g_R})$, where the topology dependent coefficient is $C_\Gamma = 6$ for the $E_1$ space and $C_\Gamma = 4$ for the $E_2$ space, $g_R$ is the characteristic length scale of the quantum system, and $L$ is the side physical length of the fundamental cubic region. Using the three dimensional Dirac potential as a toy model, we show that at the current cosmic epoch ($a=1$), these topological effects are exponentially suppressed, rendering direct observation infeasible. However, such effects may become measurable in the early Universe, when the physical size of the particle horizon is comparable to the characteristic scale of the quantum system. While immediate experimental verification remains impractical, our work offers theoretical insight into how global cosmic topology might manifest in quantum bound states and may inform future studies of early Universe quantum phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08603 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Orbital angular momentum can take non-integer values in a closed universe
quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

On a flat square torus, orbital angular momentum has spectrum ℏZ plus the continuous bands |λ|≥ℏ, independent of the torus size.
Static Dark Fluid Thin Shells in Schwarzschild-de Sitter Spacetimes: Stability and Black Hole Shadows
gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Stable static dark-fluid shells separating two Schwarzschild–de Sitter spacetimes exist only for m_+/m_->1 and arise at three scales, imprinting observable black-hole shadow deviations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Building upon these results, we develop a sys- tematic method to derive the energy eigenvalue equation for characteristic topologies starting from Eq

Systematic Approach to Derive the Equation for the Energy Eigenvalue The eigenmodes of the Laplacian and the classifica- tion of universe topologies corresponding to flat geome- tries are discussed in [15, 31], while lattice field theory techniques are applied to perform the necessary summa- tions [51]. Building upon these results, we develop a sys- temat...

work page
[2]

Additional gravitational signa- tures of nontrivial topology have been explored in [3–5]

propose local tests. Additional gravitational signa- tures of nontrivial topology have been explored in [3–5]. Moreover, Perivolaropoulos [6] argues that a maxi- mum measurable length—on the order of or exceeding the physical particle horizon ( ≳ 1026 m)—potentially arising from cosmic topology, alters quantum spectra via a Generalized Uncertainty Princip...

arXiv 2025
[3]

(19) We consider the potentialV (x) =−ϵδ(x), define the pos- itive parameter g≡ mϵ ℏ2 , and introduce the characteristic length scale α≡ 1/g

Validation of Our Approach: Dirac delta potential on the circle In one dimension, the time-independent Schr¨ odinger equation for a particle of mass m is given by − ℏ2 2m d2 dx2 Ψ(x) +V (x)Ψ(x) =EΨ(x). (19) We consider the potentialV (x) =−ϵδ(x), define the pos- itive parameter g≡ mϵ ℏ2 , and introduce the characteristic length scale α≡ 1/g. We analyze th...

work page
[4]

For example, the fundamental domain corresponds to the cubic region {(x,y,z )∈ R3|−L/2≤x,y,z ≤L/2} with the observer positioned at the cube’s center

Renormalized Bound State for a 3D Dirac Delta Potential in 3-Torus (E1) A simple example is the flat 3-Torus. For example, the fundamental domain corresponds to the cubic region {(x,y,z )∈ R3|−L/2≤x,y,z ≤L/2} with the observer positioned at the cube’s center. The repeated copies of this cube tile R3, inducing the torus’s flat geometry. Assume a particle c...

work page
[5]

The eigenfunctions are ob- tained as linear combinations of plane-wave solutions on the universal cover R3, carefully combined to ensure in- variance under the corresponding group

Renormalized Bound State for a 3D Dirac Delta Potential in Half-turn space (E2) The half-turn space is formed by taking a cube and identifying one pair of opposite faces (aligned with the z-axis) with a π-rotation, while the remaining pairs of opposite faces are identified directly, analogous to the construction of a 3-torus. The eigenfunctions are ob- ta...

work page 2018
[6]

This sets the characteristic length scale of the system to α≈ 0.529× 10−10 m

1D case As an example to develop intuition, let us examine the one-dimensional potentialV (x) =−ϵδ(x), where the cou- pling parameter is defined as g≡mϵ/ℏ2 > 0 (with units of inverse length). This sets the characteristic length scale of the system to α≈ 0.529× 10−10 m. To estimate the magnitude of corrections to a bound energy eigenvalue in the present er...

work page
[7]

We set the characteristic length scale as gR = 4πϵ0ℏ2 mee2 ≈ 0.529× 10−10 m

3D case In the large-L limit, and to leading order, the energy eigenvalues for the 3-Torus and Half-turn space can be expressed in a unified form: | ˜E|≃ 1 2g2 R 1 +CΓ 2gR L e−L/gR , (52) where CΓ is a topology-dependent coefficient: CΓ = 6 for the 3-Torus (E1) and CΓ = 4 for the Half-turn space (E2). We set the characteristic length scale as gR = 4πϵ0ℏ2 ...

work page 2018
[8]

E. G. Floratos and G. K. Leontaris, JCAP04, 024 (2012), arXiv:1202.6067 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 68 references

[9]

Iorio, Int

L. Iorio, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 21, 1250048 (2012), arXiv:1203.0675 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[10]

B. F. Roukema, S. Bajtlik, M. Biesiada, A. Szaniewska, and H. Jurkiewicz, Astron. Astrophys. 463, 861 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0602159

2007 arXiv
[11]

Vigneron, Class

Q. Vigneron, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 155006 (2022), arXiv:2201.02112 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[12]

Vigneron and B

Q. Vigneron and B. F. Roukema, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063545 (2023), arXiv:2201.09102 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Perivolaropoulos, Phys

L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 95, 103523 (2017), arXiv:1704.05681 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[14]

Maggiore, Phys

M. Maggiore, Phys. Lett. B 304, 65 (1993), arXiv:hep- th/9301067

1993
[15]

A. N. Tawfik and A. M. Diab, Rept. Prog. Phys. 78, 126001 (2015), arXiv:1509.02436 [physics.gen-ph]

2015 arXiv
[16]

Skara and L

F. Skara and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 100, 123527 (2019), arXiv:1907.12594 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[17]

D. D. Sokolov and V. F. Shvartsman, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 39, 196 (1974)

1974
[18]

L. Z. Fang and H. Sato, Communications in Theoretical Physics 2, 1055 (1983)

1983
[19]

Lachieze-Rey and J.-P

M. Lachieze-Rey and J.-P. Luminet, Phys. Rept. 254, 135 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9605010

1995 arXiv
[20]

Lehoucq, M

R. Lehoucq, M. Lachieze-Rey, and J. P. Luminet, As- tron. Astrophys. 313, 339 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9604050

1996 arXiv
[21]

Fujii and Y

H. Fujii and Y. Yoshii, Astron. Astrophys. 529, A121 (2011), arXiv:1103.1466 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[22]

Akrami et al

Y. Akrami et al. (COMPACT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 171501 (2024), arXiv:2210.11426 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[23]

J. J. Levin, Phys. Rept. 365, 251 (2002), arXiv:gr- qc/0108043

2002
[24]

Petersen et al

P. Petersen et al. (COMPACT), JCAP 01, 030 (2023), [Erratum: JCAP 04, E01 (2024)], arXiv:2211.02603 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[25]

J. R. Eskilt et al. (COMPACT), JCAP 03, 036 (2024), arXiv:2306.17112 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Samandar et al

A. Samandar et al. (COMPACT), JCAP 11, 020 (2024), arXiv:2407.09400 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[27]

Tamosiunas et al

A. Tamosiunas et al. (COMPACT), JCAP 09, 057 (2024), arXiv:2404.01236 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[28]

Saha et al

S. Saha et al. (COMPACT), JCAP 01, 004 (2025), arXiv:2409.02226 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[29]

Samandar et al

A. Samandar et al. (COMPACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.08671 [astro-ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[30]

N. J. Cornish, D. N. Spergel, and G. D. Starkman, (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9602039

1996 arXiv
[31]

Fabre, S

O. Fabre, S. Prunet, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D 92, 043003 (2015), arXiv:1311.3509 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[32]

A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. 57, 622 (1993), arXiv:gr- qc/9305019

1993
[33]

Stevens, D

D. Stevens, D. Scott, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 20 (1993)

1993
[34]

R. M. Wald, General Relativity (Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984)

1984
[35]

Dodelson, Modern Cosmology (Academic Press, Ams- terdam, 2003)

S. Dodelson, Modern Cosmology (Academic Press, Ams- terdam, 2003)

2003
[36]

M. P. Hobson, G. P. Efstathiou, and A. N. Lasenby, General relativity: An introduction for physicists (2006)

2006
[37]

Frankel, The geometry of physics: An introduction (1997)

T. Frankel, The geometry of physics: An introduction (1997)

1997
[38]

Riazuelo, J

A. Riazuelo, J. Weeks, J.-P. Uzan, R. Lehoucq, and J.-P. Luminet, Phys. Rev. D 69, 103518 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0311314

2004
[39]

R. M. Cavalcanti, Rev. Bras. Ens. Fis. 21, 336 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9801033

1999 arXiv
[40]

D. A. Atkinson and H. W. Crater, Am. J. Phys. 43/4, 301 (1975)

1975
[41]

Gosdzinsky and R

P. Gosdzinsky and R. Tarrach, Am. J. Phys. 59, 70 (1991)

1991
[42]

Manuel and R

C. Manuel and R. Tarrach, Phys. Lett. B328, 113 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9309013

1994 arXiv
[43]

R. J. Henderson and S. G. Rajeev, J. Math. Phys. 38, 2171 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9609109

1997 arXiv
[44]

S. K. Adhikari and A. Ghosh, J. Phys. A 30, 6553 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9706193

1997 arXiv
[45]

R. J. Henderson and S. G. Rajeev, J. Math. Phys. 39, 749 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9710061

1998 arXiv
[46]

D. R. Phillips, S. R. Beane, and T. D. Cohen, Annals of 12 Physics 263, 255 (1998)

1998
[47]

Mitra, A

I. Mitra, A. DasGupta, and B. Dutta-Roy, Am. J. Phys. 66, 1101 (1998)

1998
[48]

Ferkous, Phys

N. Ferkous, Phys. Rev. A 88, 064101 (2013)

2013
[49]

An Wong and S.-L

K. An Wong and S.-L. Nyeo, Chinese Journal of Physics 56, 2547 (2018)

2018
[50]

Altunkaynak, F

B. Altunkaynak, F. Erman, and O. Teoman Turgut, J. Math. Phys. 47, 082110 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0607126

2006 arXiv
[51]

Erman and O

F. Erman and O. T. Turgut, J. Phys. A 43, 37 (2010), arXiv:1008.0161 [math-ph]

2010 arXiv
[52]

K. G. Akba¸ s, F. Erman, and O. T. Turgut, Annals Phys. 458, 169468 (2023), arXiv:2304.01326 [math-ph]

2023 arXiv
[53]

Completeness Rela- tion in Renormalized Quantum Systems,

F. Erman and O. T. Turgut, “Completeness Rela- tion in Renormalized Quantum Systems,” (2024), arXiv:2409.05372 [quant-ph]

2024
[54]

Antonelli, A

V. Antonelli, A. Gall, J. Gasser, and A. Rusetsky, Annals Phys. 286, 108 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0003118

2001 arXiv
[55]

Bernard, M

V. Bernard, M. Lage, A. Rusetsky, and U. G. Meissner, Eur. Phys. J. A 35, 281 (2008)

2008
[56]

Bernard, M

V. Bernard, M. Lage, U. G. Meissner, and A. Rusetsky, JHEP 01, 019 (2011), arXiv:1010.6018 [hep-lat]

2011 arXiv
[57]

Hammer, J.-Y

H.-W. Hammer, J.-Y. Pang, and A. Rusetsky, JHEP 09, 109 (2017), arXiv:1706.07700 [hep-lat]

2017 arXiv
[58]

Romero-L´ opez, A

F. Romero-L´ opez, A. Rusetsky, and C. Urbach, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014503 (2018), arXiv:1802.03458 [hep-lat]

2018 arXiv
[59]

Romero-L´ opez, A

F. Romero-L´ opez, A. Rusetsky, N. Schlage, and C. Ur- bach, JHEP 02, 060 (2021), arXiv:2010.11715 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[60]

M¨ uller, T

F. M¨ uller, T. Yu, and A. Rusetsky, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054506 (2021), arXiv:2011.14178 [hep-lat]

2021
[61]

Garofalo, F

M. Garofalo, F. Romero-L´ opez, A. Rusetsky, and C. Ur- bach, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1034 (2021), arXiv:2107.04853 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[62]

Bubna, F

R. Bubna, F. M¨ uller, and A. Rusetsky, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014518 (2023), arXiv:2304.13635 [hep-lat]

2023
[63]

Meißner, G

U.-G. Meißner, G. R´ ıos, and A. Rusetsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 091602 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 117, 069902 (2016)], arXiv:1412.4969 [hep-lat]

2015 arXiv
[64]

J. S. Dowker, J. Phys. A 5, 936 (1972)

1972
[65]

B. C. Hall, Quantum Theory for Mathematicians (2013)

2013
[66]

Meißner and A

U.-G. Meißner and A. Rusetsky, Effective Field Theories (Cambridge University Press, 2022)

2022
[67]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[68]

B. Povh, K. Rith, C. Scholz, F. Zetsche, and W. Rodejo- hann, Particles and Nuclei. An Introduction to the Phys- ical Concepts, Graduate Texts in Physics (2015)

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Building upon these results, we develop a sys- tematic method to derive the energy eigenvalue equation for characteristic topologies starting from Eq

Systematic Approach to Derive the Equation for the Energy Eigenvalue The eigenmodes of the Laplacian and the classifica- tion of universe topologies corresponding to flat geome- tries are discussed in [15, 31], while lattice field theory techniques are applied to perform the necessary summa- tions [51]. Building upon these results, we develop a sys- temat...

work page

[2] [2]

Additional gravitational signa- tures of nontrivial topology have been explored in [3–5]

propose local tests. Additional gravitational signa- tures of nontrivial topology have been explored in [3–5]. Moreover, Perivolaropoulos [6] argues that a maxi- mum measurable length—on the order of or exceeding the physical particle horizon ( ≳ 1026 m)—potentially arising from cosmic topology, alters quantum spectra via a Generalized Uncertainty Princip...

arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

(19) We consider the potentialV (x) =−ϵδ(x), define the pos- itive parameter g≡ mϵ ℏ2 , and introduce the characteristic length scale α≡ 1/g

Validation of Our Approach: Dirac delta potential on the circle In one dimension, the time-independent Schr¨ odinger equation for a particle of mass m is given by − ℏ2 2m d2 dx2 Ψ(x) +V (x)Ψ(x) =EΨ(x). (19) We consider the potentialV (x) =−ϵδ(x), define the pos- itive parameter g≡ mϵ ℏ2 , and introduce the characteristic length scale α≡ 1/g. We analyze th...

work page

[4] [4]

For example, the fundamental domain corresponds to the cubic region {(x,y,z )∈ R3|−L/2≤x,y,z ≤L/2} with the observer positioned at the cube’s center

Renormalized Bound State for a 3D Dirac Delta Potential in 3-Torus (E1) A simple example is the flat 3-Torus. For example, the fundamental domain corresponds to the cubic region {(x,y,z )∈ R3|−L/2≤x,y,z ≤L/2} with the observer positioned at the cube’s center. The repeated copies of this cube tile R3, inducing the torus’s flat geometry. Assume a particle c...

work page

[5] [5]

The eigenfunctions are ob- tained as linear combinations of plane-wave solutions on the universal cover R3, carefully combined to ensure in- variance under the corresponding group

Renormalized Bound State for a 3D Dirac Delta Potential in Half-turn space (E2) The half-turn space is formed by taking a cube and identifying one pair of opposite faces (aligned with the z-axis) with a π-rotation, while the remaining pairs of opposite faces are identified directly, analogous to the construction of a 3-torus. The eigenfunctions are ob- ta...

work page 2018

[6] [6]

This sets the characteristic length scale of the system to α≈ 0.529× 10−10 m

1D case As an example to develop intuition, let us examine the one-dimensional potentialV (x) =−ϵδ(x), where the cou- pling parameter is defined as g≡mϵ/ℏ2 > 0 (with units of inverse length). This sets the characteristic length scale of the system to α≈ 0.529× 10−10 m. To estimate the magnitude of corrections to a bound energy eigenvalue in the present er...

work page

[7] [7]

We set the characteristic length scale as gR = 4πϵ0ℏ2 mee2 ≈ 0.529× 10−10 m

3D case In the large-L limit, and to leading order, the energy eigenvalues for the 3-Torus and Half-turn space can be expressed in a unified form: | ˜E|≃ 1 2g2 R 1 +CΓ 2gR L e−L/gR , (52) where CΓ is a topology-dependent coefficient: CΓ = 6 for the 3-Torus (E1) and CΓ = 4 for the Half-turn space (E2). We set the characteristic length scale as gR = 4πϵ0ℏ2 ...

work page 2018

[8] [8]

E. G. Floratos and G. K. Leontaris, JCAP04, 024 (2012), arXiv:1202.6067 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2012