Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Elucidating the Dark Energy and Dark Matter Phenomena Within the Scale-Invariant Vacuum (SIV) Paradigm

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that one conformal scale factor λ(t)=t0/t fixes both the cosmological constant and the galactic acceleration scale, tracing dark energy and dark matter to a single origin.

desk verdict A readable SIV review, but the ΛE value is a dimensional consistency check and the MOND derivation fails at the vector level. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02282 v1 pith:SNCQYAIE submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

Vesselin G. Gueorguiev , Andre Maeder This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th
keywords darkenergymatterscale-invariantvacuumMONDcosmologicalconstantearlyHubbletensioncosmology
topics Dark EnergyThe Hubble TensionDark Matter
open problems Dark EnergyThe Hubble Tension
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 sets out to show that dark energy and dark matter are not separate substances but two faces of one assumption: that the empty, homogeneous universe is scale-invariant. Within the Scale-Invariant Vacuum (SIV) paradigm, the scale factor $\lambda(t)$ is fixed by the condition $\Lambda = 3(\dot{\lambda}/\lambda)^2$, forcing $\lambda = t_0/t$ and making the cosmological constant a true constant $\Lambda_E = 3/(c\tau_0)^2 \approx 1.8 \times 10^{-52}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$ set by the age of the universe. The same $\kappa = -\dot{\lambda}/\lambda$ enters the scale-covariant equation of motion as a velocity-dependent term, producing the MOND-like scaling $g \sim \sqrt{a_0\,g_N}$ with $a_0 \approx \kappa^2 c/H_0 \approx 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}$. A residual tensor $\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu} \sim \kappa H$ acts as early dark energy. If the argument holds, the two long-standing puzzles reduce to a choice of time parametrization, with both observed constants derived rather than fitted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the SIV scale factor $\lambda(t)$, fixed by the gauge condition $\Lambda = 3(\dot{\lambda}/\lambda)^2$ (equivalently $\dot{\kappa} = -\kappa^2$, $\kappa = -\dot{\lambda}/\lambda$), which forces $\lambda \propto 1/t$. A conformal rescaling $g'_{\mu\nu} = \lambda^2 g_{\mu\nu}$ absorbs the cosmological term into the geometry, leaving field equations without $\Lambda_E$ plus a residual tensor $\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu} \sim \kappa H$ that acts as early dark energy. The same $\kappa$ reappears in the scale-covariant equation of motion as a velocity-dependent acceleration $\kappa\,d\vec{r}/dt$; the ratio $x = \kappa v r^2/(GM)$ separates the regime where this term dominates, and using $v^2/r = GM/r^2$ turns the dynamics into $g \sim \sqrt{a_0\,g_N}$ with $a_0 \approx \kappa^2 r$, evaluated at $r = c/H_0$.

What would settle it

Measure $a_0$ from galaxy rotation curves at two redshifts where $\kappa^2$ changes by tens of percent: the SIV relation $a_0 \approx \kappa^2 c/H_0$ predicts $a_0$ tracks the epoch-dependent $\kappa$, while standard MOND has a constant $a_0$; a constant $a_0$ across epochs would falsify the derivation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cosmological constant and the galactic acceleration scale are determined by the same conformal factor $\lambda(t) = t_0/t$, so neither is a free parameter. Imposing the SIV gauge condition $\Lambda = 3(\dot{\lambda}/\lambda)^2$, equivalently $\dot{\kappa} = -\kappa^2$ with $\kappa = -\dot{\lambda}/\lambda$, makes $\Lambda/\lambda^2$ constant and forces $\lambda = t_0/t$; converting to physical units gives $\Lambda_E = 3/(c\tau_0)^2 \approx 1.8 \times 10^{-52}\,\mathrm{m}^{-2}$. In the same framework, the scale-covariant equation of motion contains an extra acceleration $\kappa(t)\,d\vec{r}/dt$, and balancing it against the Newtonian acceleration $g_N = GM/r^2$ gives $g \approx \kappa\sqrt{r\,g_N}$, i.e. the MOND-like law $g \sim \sqrt{a_0\,g_N}$ with $a_0 \approx \kappa^2 c/H_0 \approx 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}$ when evaluated at the Hubble radius. The paper further identifies a residual early-dark-energy tensor $\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu} \sim \kappa H$ that could bear on the Hubble tension.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the imposed SIV gauge choice $\lambda \propto 1/t$ (through $\Lambda = 3(\dot{\lambda}/\lambda)^2$); if that choice is not independently justified, the derived values of $\Lambda_E$ and $a_0$ are not genuine predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed value of $\Lambda_E$ stops being a vacuum-energy puzzle: it is fixed by the age of the universe, and quantum zero-point energy does not enter the stress-energy tensor.
  • The flat rotation curves of galaxies follow from a universal acceleration scale $a_0 \approx 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}$, with no dark-matter particle needed.
  • Because $a_0$ is built from $\kappa$ and $H$ at the epoch of the system, SIV predicts $a_0$ varies with redshift, giving a direct observational distinction from standard MOND.
  • The early-dark-energy term $\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu} \sim \kappa H$ is large when $H$ is large and fades later, providing a concrete mechanism to target the Hubble tension.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive check the paper leaves implicit: fit the SIV Friedmann equations to supernova and cosmic-microwave-background data with no $\Lambda$ term; if the apparent acceleration is fully reproduced by the $\lambda(t)$ parametrization, the dark-energy-as-artefact claim is confirmed, and if not, it is ruled out.
  • The same derivation should apply to galaxy clusters: if $a_0 \approx \kappa^2 c/H_0$ is universal, cluster velocity dispersions and weak-lensing profiles at low acceleration should follow the MOND-like scaling without dark matter, a test the paper mentions but does not quantify.
  • Because $\kappa(\tau) = (1 - \Omega_m^{1/3})/\tau_0$, the numerical match of $a_0$ depends on $\Omega_m$; determining $\Omega_m$ from the SIV consistency relation rather than from the standard cosmological model would sharpen the prediction and could be compared with kinematic cosmographic constraints.
  • The early-dark-energy term's redshift dependence could be inserted into standard cosmological perturbation codes; the resulting shift in the sound horizon would quantify whether SIV can resolve the Hubble tension.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that within the Scale-Invariant Vacuum (SIV) paradigm, based on Weyl integrable geometry and the gauge choice λ ∝ 1/t, the Einstein cosmological constant is not a vacuum energy density but a manifestation of time parametrization, with the numerical value ΛE = 3/(cτ0)^2 ≈ 1.8 × 10^-52 m^-2 (Eq. 18). It further claims that the scale-covariant equation of motion leads to a MOND-like relation g ∼ √(a0 gN), with a0 ≈ κ^2 c/H0 ≈ 10^-10 m/s^2 (Eq. 21), and it proposes a new early dark energy term T̃μν ∼ κH relevant to the Hubble tension. The paper contains no new observational data; it is a theoretical reinterpretation of dark energy and dark matter within the SIV framework.

Significance. If the derivations were sound, the paper would be significant because it would connect two major cosmological puzzles—dark energy and dark matter phenomenology—to a single symmetry principle, with concrete numerical values for ΛE and a0 and a qualitatively new early-dark-energy mechanism. I credit the authors for organizing the material clearly and for stating the gauge choice and the residual terms explicitly in Note 2. However, the central results are not established by the derivations as written: ΛE is not independently predicted, the MOND-like acceleration derivation is internally inconsistent at the vector level, and the numerical agreement for a0 is obtained by parameter adjustment. The early dark energy term remains a qualitative suggestion rather than a derived model. The paper is therefore best viewed as a consistency argument for the SIV paradigm, not as a derivation of the dark energy and dark matter phenomena.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (17)–(18)] The derivation of ΛE is not an independent prediction. The gauge condition (4) is imposed, and the normalization λ0√(ΛE/3) = 1/t0 is then used to define λ = λ0t0/t; inserting the observed τ0 = 13.8 Gyr into the resulting relation yields ΛE = 3/(cτ0)^2. Since τ0 is an observed input, Eq. (18) is a dimensional consistency check, not a derivation from first principles. Note 2 also concedes that Eq. (15) is only one possible condition and that residual Γ^0_μν κ0 terms can contribute to T̃μν, so the claimed uniqueness of the SIV gauge is not established.
  2. [Section 4.3, Eqs. (19)–(21)] The derivation of the MOND-like relation is internally inconsistent at the vector level. In Eq. (19), the extra term κ(t) dr/dt is tangent to a circular orbit, so it cannot alter the radial force balance; the radial equation remains v^2/r = GM/r^2. The scalar reduction in Eqs. (20)–(21) nevertheless treats κv as a radial acceleration and uses the Newtonian circular relation to eliminate v. In the deep-MOND regime x ≫ 1, this is the wrong limit: if κv is the dominant radial acceleration, consistency requires v ≈ κr, which gives g ≈ κ^2 r with no dependence on M, not g ∼ √(a0 gN). The claimed a0 relation therefore does not follow from Eq. (19).
  3. [Section 4.3, Eq. (21)] The numerical estimate a0 ≈ 10^-10 m/s^2 is obtained by inserting r = rH = c/H0 and then choosing Ωm = 23.6% through the relation H0τ0 ≈ 1. The manuscript gives no dynamical argument for why the Hubble radius is the relevant radius for galactic rotation curves; calling it an upper bound does not fix the scale. With Ωm = 5% the same formula gives a0 ≈ 2.75 × 10^-10 m/s^2, and with Ωm = 23.6% it gives ≈ 10^-10 m/s^2, so the agreement with the MOND value is an outcome of parameter adjustment rather than a parameter-free prediction.
  4. [Sections 3.3 and 5] The proposed early dark energy term T̃μν ∼ κH is asserted but not derived. Equation (14) defines T̃μν as the gauge-splitting residual, yet the paper never writes its explicit form, nor does it solve the background cosmology with this term. Note 2 states that additional metric-dependent terms (e.g., Γ^0_0i κ0) may contribute to T̃μν, which makes the specific κH coupling a conjecture rather than a derived result. Since this term is presented as relevant to the Hubble tension, this is a significant omission.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eq. (20)] The notation in Eq. (20) uses v and r without defining them as coordinate magnitudes, so the reader is left to infer that the scalar manipulations are meant to apply to a circular orbit.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (16)] The paper switches between natural units and SI units without a consistent convention; Eq. (16) has terms that are dimensionally mismatched unless c = 1 is understood, and the SI conversion is only introduced later in Eq. (18).
  3. [Sections 3.3 and 3.4] The text repeatedly refers to the 'Freedman equations'; these are the Friedmann equations.
  4. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'Since the FLRW scale factor at the current epoch is often chosen to be 1, this ambiguity in notation with the MOND acceleration a0 should presumably be absent' is incomplete and should be recast.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The two headline numbers (ΛE and a0) are fixed by the SIV gauge and by choosing the Hubble radius and age as inputs; the gauge uniqueness is imported from the authors' own prior papers, so the central derivation is largely circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, Eqs. (4), (17), (18); Section 3.4]
    "if one is to choose an λ that does not depend on the matter behavior explicitly, and by setting Λ = ΛEλ2, then one can obtain the following set of relationships given first in [13] and further re-derived from an action in [16] ... 3 λ˙2/λ2 = Λ ... By setting λ0√(ΛE/3) = 1/t0, we have λ = λ0t0/t ... In the usual SI units where the age of the Universe is τ0 = 13.8 billion years and the speed of light is c = 3 × 108 m/s, one obtains ΛE = 3/(cτ0)2 ≈ 1.8 × 10−52 m−2."

    The SIV gauge relation (4), Λ = 3(λ˙/λ)², is imposed, and the solution is normalized by setting λ0√(ΛE/3) = 1/t0, so t0 is an integration constant. The 'derivation' then identifies t0 with the observed age τ0 and inserts τ0 = 13.8 Gyr to obtain ΛE = 3/(cτ0)². The numerical value is therefore the inverse square of the input age, not an independent prediction of scale invariance. If the observed age were different, ΛE would rescale accordingly; the relation is a consistency normalization, not a derivation of the cosmological constant's value.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, Eqs. (20)–(21)]
    "x = κvr2/GM ... Next, we will use the relation given by the instantaneous radial acceleration v2/r = GM/r2 to eliminate the speed v ... g = gN + xgN ≈ xgN = κ√(rgN). Therefore, we have arrived at the DMOND-type relation g ∼ √(a0gN), from which we can deduce an expression for a0 within the SIV: a0 ≈ κ2r. The upper bound on a0 corresponds to utilizing the Hubble horizon r → rH = c/H0. Therefore, a0 ≈ κ2rH = κ2c/H0. (21)"

    The MOND-like form is obtained by defining x = κvr²/GM and then using the Newtonian circular relation v²/r = GM/r² to eliminate v; this makes g ≈ κ√(r gN) = √(κ²r gN), so a0 = κ²r is an algebraic rewrite of the ansatz, not a result forced by Eq. (19). The numerical scale is then set by choosing r = rH = c/H0 and κ ≈ 1/τ0, giving a0 ≈ cH0 up to factors of order unity. Thus the observed MOND acceleration is inserted through the chosen radius and the age/Hubble inputs, rather than predicted independently. (For circular orbits the κ dr/dt term in Eq. (19) is tangential and has no radial component, so the scalar reduction is also internally inconsistent.)

2 more flagged steps
  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Note 2 (Section 3.3), and Section 2 after Eq. (4)]
    "the SIV theory associated with the unique 'gauge' choice defined by Equation (4) and/or the equivalent set (5) is also supported by the unique scale-invariant action principle discussed recently in [16]."

    The gauge condition that drives both headline results, ΛE and a0, is justified by citing the authors' own prior work: [13] is Maeder 2017 and [16] is Maeder & Gueorguiev 2023. The 'unique scale-invariant action principle' is asserted from the same authors' paper without independent, machine-checked, or externally grounded proof. Since the uniqueness of the gauge is load-bearing for everything that follows, and the cited support is self-referential, this is a self-citation chain rather than an external mathematical constraint.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, final paragraph, Eqs. (21)–(22)]
    "For Ωm = 5%, this gives a0 ≈ 2.75 × 10−10 m/s2. Here, the estimate is based on the ΛCDM model; its fit to observational data results in Ωm = 5% for baryonic matter. Within the SIV, we do not have such parameter determination yet; however, a value of Ωm could be estimated based on the self-consistency requirement about the age of the Universe and the value of the Hubble constant. That is, assuming H0τ0 = ξ ≈ 1, one obtains 2(1 − Ω1/3m)/(1 − Ωm) ≈ 1, which gives Ωm ≈ 23.6% within the SIV. Thus, a0 ≈ 10−10 m/s2."

    The final numerical agreement a0 ≈ 10−10 m/s² is reached only after choosing Ωm either from ΛCDM's fit to observational data or from the self-consistency relation H0τ0 ≈ 1. In both branches, the target value is used to select or constrain the matter-density parameter, so the 'agreement' is a consistency/fitting statement rather than an independent prediction of the SIV framework. The abstract's claim that the obtained a0 aligns with the observed magnitude is therefore not a free output of the theory.

full rationale

The advertised derivations reduce to inputs in three places. First, ΛE: Eq. (4) is an imposed gauge choice, and the solution λ = t0/t is normalized by setting λ0√(ΛE/3) = 1/t0; Eq. (18) then inserts the observed age τ0, so ΛE = 3/(cτ0)² is a rewording of the chosen age, not a prediction. Second, a0: x is defined as κvr²/GM and the Newtonian circular relation v²/r = GM/r² is used to eliminate v, which makes g ∼ √(κ²r gN) an algebraic identity; the scale a0 ≈ κ²r is then set to κ²c/H0 by taking r = rH, and with κ ≈ 1/τ0 and H0τ0 ≈ 1 this is essentially cH0, i.e., the observed MOND scale is inserted through the chosen radius and age. Third, the numerical agreement is completed by borrowing Ωm = 5% from ΛCDM or by the self-consistency relation H0τ0 ≈ 1 that yields Ωm ≈ 23.6%. The uniqueness of the gauge that drives all of these results is asserted via the authors' own 'unique scale-invariant action principle' [16], a load-bearing self-citation. The paper therefore has genuine model-building content, but its central quantitative claims do not constitute independent first-principles predictions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The numerical estimates of ΛE and a0 are not derived from measurement-free quantities. They follow from the SIV gauge choice λ = t0/t (imposed in Section 3.3), the observed age τ0 (Eq. 18), the Hubble constant H0 (Eq. 21), and a matter density Ωm that is tuned to reproduce a0 ≈ 10^-10 m/s^2. The framework itself relies on domain assumptions inherited from the authors' prior work.

free parameters (3)
  • Age of the Universe τ0 = 13.8 Gyr
    Inserted in Eq. (18) to compute ΛE = 3/(cτ0)^2. The SIV framework does not predict τ0; it is taken from ΛCDM observations.
  • Matter density parameter Ωm = 0.05 then 0.236
    Section 4.3 first uses Ωm=0.05 (baryonic) giving a0≈2.75e-10, then adjusts Ωm≈0.236 via a self-consistency requirement to make a0≈1e-10, matching the MOND value.
  • Hubble constant H0 = 68 km/s/Mpc
    Used in Eq. (21) for a0 and in defining the Hubble radius; taken from observations, not derived within SIV.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Scale-Invariant Vacuum hypothesis: the macroscopic empty space is scale invariant, which fixes the gauge λ(t) through Λ = 3(λdot/λ)^2.
    Stated in Section 2 and 3.3 as the foundational SIV condition; it is the basis for λ = t0/t and for the removal of ΛE from the field equations.
  • domain assumption The scale-covariant geodesic equation (19) contains an extra velocity-dependent acceleration κ(t) dr/dt.
    Taken from Dirac's co-calculus and the authors' prior papers [16,18,19,37]; it is the mechanism that produces the MOND-like term in Section 4.3.
  • ad hoc to paper The relevant radius for the deep-MOND regime is the Hubble horizon r_H = c/H0.
    Section 4.3: 'The upper bound on a0 corresponds to utilizing the Hubble horizon r -> r_H = c/H0.' This choice is needed to convert κ^2 r into the observed magnitude.
  • domain assumption Homogeneity and isotropy allow λ to depend only on time.
    Section 3.4: 'we have settled that the time dependence of λ only is justifiable based on assumptions of homogeneous and isotropic space at cosmological scales.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Elucidating the Dark Energy and Dark Matter Phenomena Within the Scale-Invariant Vacuum (SIV) Paradigm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNCQYAIE

@misc{pith2026250202282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Elucidating the Dark Energy and Dark Matter Phenomena Within the Scale-Invariant Vacuum (SIV) Paradigm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNCQYAIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02282}
}
abstract

The enigmatic phenomenon of dark energy (DE) is regarded as the elusive entity driving the accelerated expansion of our Universe. A plausible candidate for DE is the non-zero Einstein Cosmological Constant $\Lambda_{E}$ manifested as a constant energy density of the vacuum, yet it seemingly defies gravitational effects. In this work, we interpret the non-zero $\Lambda_{E}$ through the lens of scale-invariant cosmology. We revisit the conformal scale factor $\lambda$ and its defining equations within the Scale-Invariant Vacuum (SIV) paradigm. Furthermore, we address the profound problem of the missing mass across galactic and extragalactic scales by deriving an MOND-like relation, $g \sim \sqrt{a_0\,g_N}$, within the SIV context. Remarkably, the values obtained for $\Lambda_{E}$ and the MOND fundamental acceleration, $a_0$, align with observed magnitudes, specifically, $a_0 \approx 10^{-10} \, \mathrm{m} \, \mathrm{s}^{-2}$ and $\Lambda_{E} \approx 1.8 \times 10^{-52} \, \mathrm{m}^{-2}$. Moreover, we propose a novel early dark energy term, $\tilde{T}_{\mu\nu} \sim \kappa H$, within the SIV paradigm, which holds potential relevance for addressing the Hubble tension. Keywords: cosmology; theory; dark energy; dark matter; MOND; Weyl integrable geometry.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ade, P .A.R. et al. [Planck Collaboration]. Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 2016, 594, A13, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201525830. Universe 2025, 1, 0 12 of 13

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2015

  2. [2]

    Dark energy and the accelerating universe

    Frieman, J.A.; Turner, M.S.; Huterer, D. Dark energy and the accelerating universe. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2008, 46, 385–432, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145243

    arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    Dark Energy .Commun

    Li, M.; Li, X.D.; Wang, S.; Wang, Y . Dark Energy .Commun. Theor. Phys.2011, 56, 525–604, https://doi.org/10.1088/0253-6102/56/3/24

    doi:10.1088/0253-6102/56/3/24 2011

  4. [4]

    Extended Theories of Gravity

    Capozziello, S.; de Laurentis, M. Extended Theories of Gravity. Phys. Rep. 2011, 509, 167–321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.09.003 2011

  5. [5]

    The many tensions with dark-matter based models and implications on the nature of the Universe

    Kroupa, P .; Gjergo, E.; Asencio, E.; Haslbauer, M.; Pflamm-Altenburg, J.; Wittenburg, N.; Samaras, N.; Thies, I.; Oehm, W. The many tensions with dark-matter based models and implications on the nature of the Universe. PoS 2023, 436, 231, (CORFU2022). https://doi.org/10.22323/1.436.0231

    work page doi:10.22323/1.436.0231 2023

  6. [6]

    Raum, Zeit, Materie

    Weyl, H. Raum, Zeit, Materie. Vorlesungen über allgemeine Relativitätstheorie.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1970

    work page 1970

  7. [7]

    Space-Time-Matter; E.P

    Weyl, H. Space-Time-Matter; E.P . Dutton and Company: London, UK, 1922

    work page 1922

  8. [8]

    Hermann Weyl: Gravitation und Elektrizität

    Einstein, A. Kommentar zu “Hermann Weyl: Gravitation und Elektrizität”. Sitzungsberichte Königlich Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berl. 1918, 44, 478

    work page 1918

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1923; p

    Eddington, A.S. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1923; p. 284

    1923

  2. [10]

    Long Range Forces and Broken Symmetries

    Dirac, P .A.M. Long Range Forces and Broken Symmetries. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 1973, 333, 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1973.0070

    1973

  3. [11]

    Scale-covariant theory of gravitation and astrophysical applications.Phys

    Canuto, V .; Adams, P .J.; Hsieh, S.H.; Tsiang, E. Scale-covariant theory of gravitation and astrophysical applications.Phys. Rev. D 1977, 16, 1643–1663. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1643

    1977 doi

  4. [12]

    Cosmological Models and the Large Numbers Hypothesis

    Dirac, P .A.M. Cosmological Models and the Large Numbers Hypothesis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 1974, 338, 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1974.0095

    1974

  5. [13]

    An Alternative to the ΛCDM Model: The Case of Scale Invariance

    Maeder, A. An Alternative to the ΛCDM Model: The Case of Scale Invariance. Astrophys. J. 2017, 834, 194, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/194

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    The Scale-Invariant Vacuum Paradigm: Main Results and Current Progress Review (Part II)

    Gueorguiev, V .G.; Maeder, A. The Scale-Invariant Vacuum Paradigm: Main Results and Current Progress Review (Part II). Symmetry 2024, 16, 657, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16060657

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Scale-invariant dynamics of galaxies, MOND, dark matter, and the dwarf spheroidals.Mon

    Maeder, A.; Gueorguiev, V .G. Scale-invariant dynamics of galaxies, MOND, dark matter, and the dwarf spheroidals.Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2020, 492, 2698–2708, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz3613

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Action Principle for Scale Invariance and Applications (Part I)

    Maeder, A.; Gueorguiev, V .G. Action Principle for Scale Invariance and Applications (Part I). Symmetry 2023, 15, 1966, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym15111966

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    The Scale-Invariant Vacuum (SIV) Theory: A Possible Origin of Dark Matter and Dark Energy

    Maeder, A.; Gueorguiev, V .G. The Scale-Invariant Vacuum (SIV) Theory: A Possible Origin of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Universe 2020, 6, 46, https://doi.org/10.3390/universe6030046

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Consistency of Weyl’s Geometry as a Framework for Gravitation.Astrophys

    Bouvier, P .; Maeder, A. Consistency of Weyl’s Geometry as a Framework for Gravitation.Astrophys. Space Sci. 1978, 54, 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00639452

    1978 doi

  11. [19]

    Scale invariance, metrical connection and the motions of astronomical bodies.Astron

    Maeder, A.; Bouvier, P . Scale invariance, metrical connection and the motions of astronomical bodies.Astron. Astrophys. 1979, 73, 82–89

    1979

  12. [20]

    Weyl geometry

    Wheeler, J.T. Weyl geometry. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 2018, 50, 80

    2018

  13. [21]

    Scale invariant gravity and black hole ringdown

    Ferreira, P .G.; Tattersall, O.J. Scale invariant gravity and black hole ringdown. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 101, 024011, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024011

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Conformal Energy-Momentum Tensor in Riemannian Space-Time

    Parker, L. Conformal Energy-Momentum Tensor in Riemannian Space-Time. Phys. Rev. D 1973, 7, 976–983. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.976

    1973 doi

  15. [23]

    The cosmological constant problem

    Weinberg, S. The cosmological constant problem. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1989, 61, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

    1989 doi

  16. [24]

    The cosmological constant

    Carroll, S.M.; Press, W.H.; Turner, E.L. The cosmological constant. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1992, 30, 499–542. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002435

    1992

  17. [25]

    Hinshaw, G. et al. [WMAP Colaboration]. Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2013, 19 , 208, https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Revisiting the Cosmological Constant Problem within Quantum Cosmology

    Gueorguiev, V .G.; Maeder, A. Revisiting the Cosmological Constant Problem within Quantum Cosmology. Universe 2020, 6, 108, https://doi.org/10.3390/universe6080108

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    The Universe as a Black Hole

    Pathria, R.K. The Universe as a Black Hole. Nature 1972, 240, 298–299. https://doi.org/10.1038/240298a0

    1972 doi

  20. [28]

    The Black Hole Universe, Part I

    Gaztanaga, E. The Black Hole Universe, Part I. Symmetry 2022, 14, 1849. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14091849

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Reparametrization Invariance and Some of the Key Properties of Physical Systems

    Gueorguiev, V .G.; Maeder, A. Reparametrization Invariance and Some of the Key Properties of Physical Systems. Symmetry 2021, 13, 522, https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13030522

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy

    Kamionkowski, M.; Riess, A.G. The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2023, 73, 153–180, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-111422-024107

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis

    Milgrom, M. A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. Astrophys. J. 1983, 270, 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1086/161130

    1983 doi

  24. [32]

    MOND laws of galactic dynamics

    Milgrom, M. MOND laws of galactic dynamics. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2014, 437, 2531–2541. Universe 2025, 1, 0 13 of 13

    2014

  25. [33]

    MOND as a peculiar case of the SIV theory

    Maeder, A. MOND as a peculiar case of the SIV theory. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 520, 1447–1455, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad078

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    History of dark matter.Rev

    Bertone, G.; Hooper, D. History of dark matter.Rev. Mod. Phys. 2018, 90, 045002, https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.045002

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    The Mond Limit from Spacetime Scale Invariance

    Milgrom, M. The Mond Limit from Spacetime Scale Invariance. Astrophys. J. 2009, 698, 1630–1638, https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1630

    2009 doi

  28. [36]

    Metrical connection in space-time, Newton’s and Hubble’s laws

    Maeder, A. Metrical connection in space-time, Newton’s and Hubble’s laws. Astron. Astrophys. 1978, 65, 337–343

    1978

  29. [37]

    Dynamical Effects of the Scale Invariance of the Empty Space: The Fall of Dark Matter? Astrophys

    Maeder, A. Dynamical Effects of the Scale Invariance of the Empty Space: The Fall of Dark Matter? Astrophys. J. 2017, 849, 158, https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa92cc

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Exact Solution for Flat Scale-Invariant Cosmology

    Jesus, J.F. Exact Solution for Flat Scale-Invariant Cosmology. Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis. 2019, 55, 17–19,

    2019

  31. [39]

    On the time dependency of a0

    Del Popolo, A.; Chan, M.H. On the time dependency of a0. Phys. Dark Universe 2024, 43, 101393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2023.101393

    2024

  32. [40]

    Model-independent cosmographic constraints from DESI 2024

    Luongo, O.; Muccino, M. Model-independent cosmographic constraints from DESI 2024. Astron. Astrophys. 2024, 690, A40, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202450512

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data? arXiv 2024, arXiv:2404.12068, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.12068

    Carloni, Y.; Luongo, O.; Muccino, M. Does dark energy really revive using DESI 2024 data? arXiv 2024, arXiv:2404.12068, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.12068. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of t...

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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