Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Lifespan of our Universe

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The universe may end in a big crunch roughly 20 billion years from now.

desk verdict A clean forward-integration estimate of the universe's lifespan from the aDE model, but the headline number inherits the model's degenerate and contested best fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.24011 v2 pith:QSWER5C4 submitted 2025-06-30 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Hoang Nhan Luu , Yu-Cheng Qiu , S. -H. Henry Tye This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords axiondarkenergynegativecosmologicalconstantbigcrunchuniverselifespanequationofstateultralightDESIDES
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the universe has a finite lifespan because the same ultralight-axion dark energy model that fits recent dark-energy survey data requires a negative cosmological constant. Using the best-fit parameters, the expansion stops when the universe reaches about 1.69 times its current size, the Hubble parameter turns negative, and the universe contracts to a big crunch. The numerically computed lifespan is about 33.3 billion years, meaning the crunch occurs roughly 20 billion years from now. The paper presents this as a quantitative prediction testable as dark-energy observations improve.

What carries the argument

The central object is the axion dark energy (aDE) model: an ultralight axion with potential $V(\theta) = m_\phi^2 f^2 [1 - \cos\theta]$ plus a cosmological constant $\Lambda$. The axion contributes so much dark-energy density today ($\Omega_{\phi,0} = 2.33$) that, with total dark energy $\Omega_{\rm DE,0} = 0.72$, the cosmological constant must be negative ($\Omega_\Lambda = -1.61$). A negative $\Lambda$ removes the stable de Sitter fixed point of the Hubble flow: once the Hubble parameter reaches zero, its derivative is negative, so expansion turns into contraction. The coupled equations (2.6) and (4.7) carry the argument.

What would settle it

A high-precision measurement of the dark-energy equation of state at $z \approx 0$ returning $w_0 = -1$ within, say, 0.05 would rule out the negative-$\Lambda$ branch and with it the predicted big crunch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Given the best-fit aDE parameters ($m_\phi = 2.93 \times 10^{-33}$ eV, $\theta_i = 0.82\pi$, $\Omega_\Lambda = -1.61$, $\Omega_m = 0.28$, $H_0 = 67.46$ km/s/Mpc), the paper evolves the coupled Friedmann and axion field equations forward from today. The scale factor reaches a maximum $a_{\max} \simeq 1.69$ at $H_0 t \simeq 1.71$, after which the Hubble parameter becomes negative and the universe contracts; the numerical evolution terminates at $H_0 t \simeq 2.29$. This yields a lifespan $T \simeq 33.3$ Gyr, with the crunching phase occupying about 25% of the total lifespan.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the homogeneous axion-plus-Lambda model with a single ultralight axion that is still rolling toward its minimum for the first time remains valid all the way through the future contraction, and that the best-fit parameters from today's data are the right ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The universe will stop expanding and start contracting in about 11 billion years, at roughly 1.69 times today's scale factor.
  • If the model is right, the standard picture of eternal accelerated expansion is replaced by a finite lifespan of about 33.3 billion years.
  • The model's dark-energy equation of state stays at $w = -1$ for $a < 0.23$, while a popular $w_0$-$w_a$ parametrization predicts $w \lesssim -1.3$ there, so future BAO and supernova measurements can distinguish them.
  • Using mean rather than best-fit parameters lengthens the lifespan to about 40.3 billion years, so the prediction depends on where in the parameter degeneracy the true values lie.
  • During collapse matter is compressed, plausibly enhancing black-hole formation and mergers before the crunch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the axion has already passed its first roll or if a second ultralight axion contributes, the crunch time—and even the existence of a crunch—would change, a sensitivity the paper acknowledges qualitatively.
  • The calculation assumes a homogeneous background throughout the contraction; structure formation and backreaction during collapse could alter the contraction rate and the estimated lifespan.
  • A near-future measurement of the dark-energy equation of state at $z \simeq 0$ with precision below roughly 0.1 could distinguish the negative-$\Lambda$ branch from a pure cosmological constant well before the predicted crunch.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers the axion dark energy (aDE) model, which adds an ultralight axion to a cosmological constant Λ, and applies it to recent DES/DESI data. Using the best-fit parameters of a previous analysis, the authors find ΩΛ ≈ −1.61, so that the universe is dominated by a negative cosmological constant at late times. They first develop an analytic approximation treating the axion as matter after today, obtaining an approximate lifespan T ≈ 30.9 Gyr, and then solve the full axion–Friedmann system numerically. With the adopted first-roll branch for the axion field (π > θ_i > θ_0 > 0, θ′_0 < 0), they find the scale factor reaches a maximum a_max ≈ 1.69 at H_0 t ≈ 1.71 and the universe collapses to a small scale factor at H_0 t ≈ 2.29, giving T ≈ 33.3 Gyr. The paper emphasizes that the lifespan depends on the validity of the aDE model and on the confirmation of w ≠ −1, and it also quotes a longer mean lifespan ⟨T⟩ = 40.3 Gyr obtained from the posterior mean parameters.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a quantitative, testable prediction for the finite future lifetime of the universe, which is certainly of broad interest. The strengths of the paper are its transparency: the analytic approximation is clearly stated, the numerical integration is described, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the large degeneracy in the fit and quote both best-fit and mean values. The paper also discusses several caveats (Hubble tension, additional ultralight axions, curvature) that could affect the lifespan. However, the headline number T ≈ 33.3 Gyr is based on the best-fit point of a highly degenerate posterior, is not accompanied by an uncertainty, and relies on an unverified phase-space branch assumption for the axion field. These issues are load-bearing because they directly change the predicted crunch time, so the significance of the result as a robust prediction is currently limited.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.6) and following] The choice of the axion branch is an assumption, not a derived consequence of the fit. In Eq. (4.6) the magnitude of θ′_0 is fixed by Ω_m, Ω_Λ, and w_0, but the sign and the oscillation number are imposed by the verbal statement that 'the axion in our scenario is still rolling down towards its minimum for the first time' (π > θ_i > θ_0 > 0, θ′_0 < 0). The same Ω_DE,0 and w_0 can also be represented by θ′_0 > 0 (the field moving away from the minimum) or by a field that has already crossed θ = 0 and is on a later oscillation cycle. The authors do not verify the first-roll branch by integrating the equations backward from a = 1 to check consistency with the fitted value θ_i = 0.82π, nor do they propagate the branch ambiguity into T. Because the subsequent turnaround time and crunch time depend on which branch is realized, this is a load-bearing gap: the predicted lifespan could differ substantially from 33.3 Gyr even within the same homogeneous aDE model. I request that the authors either demonstrate that the first-roll branch is the only one consistent with the fitted θ_i, or present the lifespan for the alternative allowed branches.
  2. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 5, Eqs. (3.1), (5.1), (5.2)] The headline lifespan T ≈ 33.3 Gyr is quoted with no uncertainty. The paper itself notes in Sec. 5 that Ω_Λ = −1.61 is 'way outside the 1σ range' of the mean value ⟨Ω_Λ⟩ = −0.69^{+0.70}_{−0.20}, and the mean parameters give ⟨T⟩ = 40.3 Gyr. This large spread implies that the best-fit point is not representative of the posterior, and a reader cannot judge whether a 33 Gyr or a 40 Gyr (or a much longer) lifetime is actually favored. Figure 4 shows contours of T in the m_ϕ–Ω_Λ plane but does not overlay posterior probability density, so it does not provide the needed uncertainty on T. The absence of a credible interval for T, or at least a statement of the full posterior range, is a major omission for a paper whose central claim is a specific finite value of the universe's lifespan.
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 1 and text] The claim that the AdS (Ω_Λ ≤ 0) branch is 'more preferred' than the dS (Ω_Λ > 0) branch is not supported by a quantitative model comparison. The two branches are fit separately, and the paper states only that the maximum likelihood of the AdS best fit is 'noticeably higher' than that of the dS fit. No difference in χ², AIC, BIC, or Bayesian evidence is given, and the MCMC samplers are run separately with a hard split at Ω_Λ = 0, so the relative posterior probability of the two branches is not defined. Since the entire paper's prediction of a big crunch rests on the assumption that the negative-Λ branch is the correct one, this comparison is load-bearing. The authors should provide a proper model-selection statistic or, failing that, explicitly state that the choice between branches is an assumption rather than a data-driven conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] Typo: 'Firedmann equation' should be 'Friedmann equation'.
  2. [Sec. 5] Typo: 'analaysis' should be 'analysis'.
  3. [Contents] In the contents listing, '4 T owards the future' should read '4 Towards the future'.
  4. [Fig. 4] The caption says 'The gray-shaded region is not allowed by the aDE model' but does not explain how this region is determined; please add a one-sentence justification.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 4.2] The abstract states '33 billion years' while the text quotes T ≃ 33.3 Gyr; please make the numbers consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 33.3 Gyr lifespan is a forward extrapolation from the fitted aDE parameters, not a restatement of the fit itself.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) the aDE model is fitted to DES/DESI and other public data in prior work [24], yielding the benchmark parameters (3.1); (ii) these parameters are used as initial conditions to integrate the coupled Friedmann and axion equations (2.6), (4.7) into the future; (iii) the lifespan is read off when a reaches a numerical floor. The future crunch time is not an observable used in the fit; it is a consequence of the fitted negative cosmological constant and the model dynamics. The analytic formula (4.5) is explicitly an approximation, and the numerical result (4.8) is a genuine ODE evolution. The reliance on [24] for the best-fit values is a normal scientific dependency, and that prior fit is externally falsifiable by the same public data and by future DESI data; the paper itself notes this in footnote 4. The choice of the first-roll branch (π>θi>θ0>0, θ0'<0) is an untested physical assumption, not a circular one: it is consistent with the fitted θi=0.82π and is not used to define the output T. Thus no step reduces, by construction or by definition, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on five fitted cosmological parameters from the authors' prior MCMC analysis (ref [24]), on the observational claim that w is not -1, and on several modeling choices for the future evolution. No new entity is introduced. The lifespan number is therefore a function of fitted values plus forward-integration assumptions.

free parameters (6)
  • m_phi (axion mass) = 2.93e-33 eV
    Fitted in ref [24] to DES+BAO+SN+BBN+theta*+tU data; sets the rolling time of the axion and affects the future evolution.
  • phi_i (initial axion field value) = 6.28e18 GeV (theta_i=0.82 pi)
    Initial misalignment angle; controls the axion energy density today and the branch of the evolution.
  • Omega_m (matter density) = 0.28
    Matter density fitted in ref [24]; enters the Friedmann equation for the future.
  • Omega_Lambda (cosmological constant density) = -1.61
    The fitted cosmological constant; its negative sign causes the big crunch and its magnitude strongly sets the lifespan via Eq. (4.5).
  • H0 (Hubble constant) = 67.46 km/s/Mpc
    Fitted Hubble constant; sets the time scale H0^-1 = 14.5 Gyr used to convert H0 t to years.
  • w1 and a1 (EoS fit parameters) = w1=0.44, a1=0.23
    Parameters of the approximate wDE(a) formula (2.8) fitted to data; used for comparison, not directly in the future integration.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Friedmann equations, scalar field equation of motion, and FLRW geometry remain valid at all future times.
    The future is computed by integrating eqs. (2.2), (2.6), and (4.7); this assumes standard GR and homogeneity.
  • domain assumption The DES/DESI claim that w != -1 at 4.2 sigma is genuine, not a systematic.
    The motivation for the aDE model and the negative Lambda preference depends on this observational claim (Introduction, Section 5).
  • domain assumption The dark energy sector is exactly one ultralight axion with the potential of Eq. (2.1) plus a constant Lambda, with f = M_Pl.
    This is the model defined in Section 2; f = M_Pl is fixed in the fit from ref [24] and used in the numerical evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper The axion is on its first roll toward the minimum today, with pi > theta_i > theta_0 > 0 and theta_0' < 0.
    Taken in Section 4.2 before Eq. (4.6) to set the initial conditions; the branch choice affects the crunch time.
  • domain assumption Radiation and spatial curvature are negligible for the future; no other energy components appear.
    Section 5 states radiation makes little difference and negative curvature would shorten the lifespan; the benchmark uses Omega_m + Omega_phi + Omega_Lambda = 1.
  • domain assumption No new physics (additional ultralight axions, phase transitions, tunneling, quantum gravity) intervenes before the crunch.
    Sections 5 and 6 mention these possibilities would change the lifespan; the benchmark assumes they are absent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Lifespan of our Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QSWER5C4

@misc{pith2026250624011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Lifespan of our Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QSWER5C4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.24011}
}
abstract

The Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) measurements claim that the dark energy equation of state $w \ne -1$. This observation can be explained by the axion Dark Energy (aDE) model of an ultralight axion plus a cosmological constant $\Lambda$. Despite a relatively large degeneracy, there is a high probability that $\Lambda <0$. This negative $\Lambda$ leads the universe to end in a big crunch. Using the best-fit values of the model as a benchmark, we find the lifespan of our universe to be 33 billion years.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. ALAverse: A falsifiable anthropic model from the string landscape

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Anthropically selected string axion plus negative vacuum energy predicts a ~40% chance of the observed matter/dark-energy balance and an accelerating-thawing dark energy that current CMB+BAO+SN data prefer over ΛCDM at 2.7σ.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    H. N. Luu, Y.-C. Qiu and S. H. H. Tye, Dynamical dark energy from an ultralight axion , Phys. Rev. D 112 (2025) 023524 [ 2503.18120]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    DES collaboration, Dark Energy Survey: implications for cosmological expansion models from the final DES Baryon Acoustic Oscillation and Supernova data , 2503.06712

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    DESI collaboration, DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints, 2503.14738

    arXiv

  5. [4]

    J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins and I. Waga, Cosmology with ultralight pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 2077 [ astro-ph/9505060]

    arXiv 1995

  6. [5]

    New Constraints from High Redshift Supernovae and Lensing Statistics upon Scalar Field Cosmologies

    I. Waga and J. A. Frieman, New constraints from high redshift supernovae and lensing statistics upon scalar field cosmologies , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 043521 [ astro-ph/0001354]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  7. [6]

    S. C. C. Ng and D. L. Wiltshire, Properties of cosmologies with dynamical pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 023503 [ astro-ph/0004138]

    arXiv 2001

  8. [7]

    Kawasaki, T

    M. Kawasaki, T. Moroi and T. Takahashi, Cosmic microwave background anisotropy with cosine type quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 083009 [ astro-ph/0105161]

    arXiv 2001

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    R. R. Caldwell and E. V. Linder, The Limits of quintessence , Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 141301 [astro-ph/0505494]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    L. J. Hall, Y. Nomura and S. J. Oliver, Evolving dark energy with w deviating from -1 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 141302 [ astro-ph/0503706]

    2005 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper and J. March-Russell, String Axiverse , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 123530 [ 0905.4720]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Hlozek, D

    R. Hlozek, D. Grin, D. J. E. Marsh and P. G. Ferreira, A search for ultralight axions using precision cosmological data, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 103512 [ 1410.2896]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Smer-Barreto and A

    V. Smer-Barreto and A. R. Liddle, Planck Satellite Constraints on Pseudo-Nambu–Goldstone Boson Quintessence, JCAP 01 (2017) 023 [ 1503.06100]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    G. Choi, W. Lin, L. Visinelli and T. T. Yanagida, Cosmic birefringence and electroweak axion dark energy, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) L101302 [ 2106.12602]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bhattacharya, G

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala, Cosmological tests of quintessence in quantum gravity , JCAP 04 (2025) 086 [ 2410.21243]

    2025

  8. [15]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Quintessential interpretation of the evolving dark energy in light of DESI observations , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) L121305 [ 2404.05722]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Yin, Cosmic clues: DESI, dark energy, and the cosmological constant problem , JHEP 05 (2024) 327 [ 2404.06444]

    W. Yin, Cosmic clues: DESI, dark energy, and the cosmological constant problem , JHEP 05 (2024) 327 [ 2404.06444]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett and P. G. Ferreira,Scant evidence for thawing quintessence, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 083528 [ 2408.17318]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    M. L. Abreu and M. S. Turner, DESI dark secrets , 2502.08876

    arXiv

  12. [19]

    A. J. Shajib and J. A. Frieman, Evolving dark energy models: Current and forecast constraints , 2502.06929

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    L. A. Ure˜ na L´ opez et al.,Updated cosmological constraints on axion dark energy with DESI , 2503.20178

  14. [21]

    W. Lin, L. Visinelli and T. T. Yanagida, Testing Quintessence Axion Dark Energy with Recent Cosmological Results, 2504.17638

  15. [22]

    de Souza, G

    R. de Souza, G. Rodrigues and J. Alcaniz, Thawing quintessence and transient cosmic acceleration in light of DESI , 2504.16337. – 12 –

  16. [23]

    J. M. Cline and V. Muralidharan, Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations, 2506.13047

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cardenas, T

    R. Cardenas, T. Gonzalez, Y. Leiva, O. Martin and I. Quiros, A model of the universe including dark energy accounted for by both a quintessence field and a (negative) cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 083501 [ astro-ph/0206315]

    2003 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Dutta, Ruchika, A

    K. Dutta, Ruchika, A. Roy, A. A. Sen and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Beyond ΛCDM with low and high redshift data: implications for dark energy , Gen. Rel. Grav. 52 (2020) 15 [ 1808.06623]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Visinelli, S

    L. Visinelli, S. Vagnozzi and U. Danielsson, Revisiting a negative cosmological constant from low-redshift data, Symmetry 11 (2019) 1035 [ 1907.07953]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ruchika, S. A. Adil, K. Dutta, A. Mukherjee and A. A. Sen, Observational constraints on axion(s) dark energy with a cosmological constant , Phys. Dark Univ. 40 (2023) 101199 [2005.08813]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A. A. Sen, S. A. Adil and S. Sen, Do cosmological observations allow a negative Λ?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 518 (2022) 1098 [ 2112.10641]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Murai and F

    K. Murai and F. Takahashi, Why w ̸= −1? Anthropic Selection in a Λ + Axion Dark Energy Model, 2504.12852

  23. [31]

    Nakagawa, Y

    S. Nakagawa, Y. Nakai, Y.-C. Qiu and M. Yamada, Interpreting Cosmic Birefringence and DESI Data with Evolving Axion in ΛCDM, 2503.18924

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Calder´ on, R

    R. Calder´ on, R. Gannouji, B. L’Huillier and D. Polarski, Negative cosmological constant in the dark sector?, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 023526 [ 2008.10237]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. A. Adil, U. Mukhopadhyay, A. A. Sen and S. Vagnozzi, Dark energy in light of the early JWST observations: case for a negative cosmological constant? , JCAP 10 (2023) 072 [2307.12763]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Menci, S

    N. Menci, S. A. Adil, U. Mukhopadhyay, A. A. Sen and S. Vagnozzi, Negative cosmological constant in the dark energy sector: tests from JWST photometric and spectroscopic observations of high-redshift galaxies , JCAP 07 (2024) 072 [ 2401.12659]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    DESI collaboration, Extended Dark Energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements , 2503.14743

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, M. Vasar and H. Veerm¨ ae,Quintessence and phantoms in light of DESI 2025 , 2506.21542

    2025

  29. [37]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, Accelerating universes with scaling dark matter , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 10 (2001) 213 [ gr-qc/0009008]

    2001 arXiv

  30. [38]

    E. V. Linder, Exploring the expansion history of the universe , Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 091301 [astro-ph/0208512]

    2003 arXiv

  31. [39]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, T. Anton and P. G. Ferreira,Assessing cosmological evidence for non-minimal coupling, 2504.07679

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Gravitational Effects on and of Vacuum Decay , Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 3305

    1980

  33. [41]

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang and Q.-G. Huang, The Impact of the Hubble Tension on the Evidence for Dynamical Dark Energy , 2503.21600

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    L. W. H. Fung, L. Li, T. Liu, H. N. Luu, Y.-C. Qiu and S. H. H. Tye, Axi-Higgs cosmology, JCAP 08 (2021) 057 [ 2102.11257]. – 13 –

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    L. W. H. Fung, L. Li, T. Liu, H. N. Luu, Y.-C. Qiu and S. H. H. Tye, Hubble constant in the axi-Higgs universe , Phys. Rev. Res. 5 (2023) L022059 [ 2105.01631]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    U. H. Danielsson and T. Van Riet, What if string theory has no de Sitter vacua? , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27 (2018) 1830007 [ 1804.01120]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Obied, H

    G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko and C. Vafa, De Sitter Space and the Swampland , 1806.08362

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ooguri, E

    H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu and C. Vafa, Distance and de Sitter Conjectures on the Swampland, Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019) 180 [ 1810.05506]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Sumitomo, S

    Y. Sumitomo, S. H. H. Tye and S. S. C. Wong, Statistical Distribution of the Vacuum Energy Density in Racetrack K¨ ahler Uplift Models in String Theory, JHEP 07 (2013) 052 [ 1305.0753]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Qiu and S

    Y.-C. Qiu and S. H. H. Tye, Linking the Supersymmetric Standard Model to the Cosmological Constant, JHEP 01 (2021) 117 [ 2006.16620]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Demirtas, M

    M. Demirtas, M. Kim, L. McAllister, J. Moritz and A. Rios-Tascon, Exponentially Small Cosmological Constant in String Theory , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 011602 [ 2107.09065]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Demirtas, M

    M. Demirtas, M. Kim, L. McAllister, J. Moritz and A. Rios-Tascon, Small cosmological constants in string theory , JHEP 12 (2021) 136 [ 2107.09064]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, Axions In String Theory , JHEP 06 (2006) 051 [ hep-th/0605206]

    2006 arXiv

  44. [52]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine and E. Witten, Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 043541 [ 1610.08297]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana and A. Gruzinov, Cold and fuzzy dark matter , Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 1158 [astro-ph/0003365]

    2000 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Schive, T

    H.-Y. Schive, T. Chiueh and T. Broadhurst, Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Coherent Dark Wave , Nature Phys. 10 (2014) 496 [ 1406.6586]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    H. N. Luu, S. H. H. Tye and T. Broadhurst, Multiple Ultralight Axionic Wave Dark Matter and Astronomical Structures, Phys. Dark Univ. 30 (2020) 100636 [ 1811.03771]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 221301 [ 1811.04083]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Minami and E

    Y. Minami and E. Komatsu, New Extraction of the Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck 2018 Polarization Data , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 221301 [ 2011.11254]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Fujita, K

    T. Fujita, K. Murai, H. Nakatsuka and S. Tsujikawa, Detection of isotropic cosmic birefringence and its implications for axionlike particles including dark energy , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 043509 [ 2011.11894]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Cowen, Andromeda on collision course with the milky way , Astrophys

    R. Cowen, Andromeda on collision course with the milky way , Astrophys. J 1 (2012) 3

    2012

  52. [60]

    Sawala, J

    T. Sawala, J. Delhomelle, A. J. Deason, C. S. Frenk, J. H¨ akkinen, P. H. Johansson et al., No certainty of a milky way–andromeda collision , Nature Astronomy (2025) 1. – 14 –

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.