Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Non-singular bouncing cosmology in $f(T, \mathcal{T})$ gravity with energy condition violations

T0 review · 4 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 central claim is that two $f(T,\mathcal{T})$ gravity models, built on the scale factor $a(t)=\sqrt{a_0^2+\gamma^2 t^2}$, give a non-singular bounce at $t=0$ in which the Hubble parameter changes sign.

desk verdict Linear model is a clean, checkable bounce; non-linear model doesn't hold up as printed, and the DEC claim is wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18670 v1 pith:UCCFMWNA submitted 2025-07-24 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

A. Zhadyranova , M. Koussour , V. Zhumabekova , N. Zhusupova , S. Muminov , J. Rayimbaev This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO MSC 83F0583D05 PACS 04.50.Kd98.80.-k
keywords bouncingcosmologyf(TT)gravityteleparallelnon-singularbounceenergyconditionsphantomequationofstatenullconditionscalefactorparametrization
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 aims to establish that bouncing cosmology—a universe that contracts, rebounds without a singularity, and expands—can be realized in $f(T,\mathcal{T})$ gravity, a torsion-based extension of general relativity. It studies a linear model and a square-root model of the free function, both combined with the scale factor $a(t)=\sqrt{a_0^2+\gamma^2 t^2}$, which enforces $\dot a=0$ and $H=0$ at $t=0$. The authors derive energy density, pressure, and equation-of-state parameter from the reduced Friedmann equations and report that the null and strong energy conditions are violated near the bounce, pushing the equation of state into the phantom regime $\omega<-1$. If correct, this would give a singularity-free early-universe alternative to inflation within a second-order, torsion-based theory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parameterized scale factor $a(t)=\sqrt{a_0^2+\gamma^2 t^2}$, whose Hubble parameter $H=\gamma^2 t/(a_0^2+\gamma^2 t^2)$ is negative before $t=0$, zero at the bounce, and positive afterward. The torsion scalar $T=-6H^2$ follows from the flat FLRW vierbein, and inserting each model into the reduced Friedmann equations turns the bounce ansatz into closed-form expressions for $\rho$, $p$, and $\omega$. The non-linear model has the coupling $f_T=-\alpha/(2\sqrt{-T})$, which diverges as $H\to 0$, so the machinery only works if the singular terms cancel in the full field equations at the bounce.

What would settle it

Substitute the ansatz into the full field equations and evaluate at $t=0$: if the $f_T\propto(-T)^{-1/2}$ term does not cancel against the matter side, the square-root model is not a genuine bounce solution. For the DEC claim, use the paper's own definitions: since DEC requires $\rho+p\ge 0$ and the displayed NEC combination is negative for $\gamma^2t^2<1$, the DEC is violated near the bounce even though the plotted $\rho-p$ is positive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that both $f(T,\mathcal{T})=\alpha T+\beta\mathcal{T}$ and $f(T,\mathcal{T})=\alpha\sqrt{-T}+\beta\mathcal{T}$ produce a non-singular bounce when the scale factor is $a(t)=\sqrt{a_0^2+\gamma^2 t^2}$. At the bounce instant the Hubble parameter passes through zero, the energy density reaches its maximum, the pressure is negative throughout, and the equation-of-state parameter crosses $\omega=-1$ on both sides, so the model enters the phantom region. The paper identifies the violation of the null and strong energy conditions as the mechanism that makes the transition from contraction to expansion possible, and it reports that the dominant energy condition is satisfied. In the authors' telling, the square-root model gives a softer bounce than the linear model, and the second-order torsion-based equations avoid the higher-derivative instability issues they associate with curvature-based $f(R)$ bounces.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-chosen scale factor $a(t)=\sqrt{a_0^2+\gamma^2 t^2}$ is an actual solution of the full $f(T,\mathcal{T})$ field equations at every instant, including $t=0$ where $H=0$ and the square-root model's coupling $f_T$ diverges; the paper derives $\rho$ and $p$ only from the reduced Friedmann equations and does not show that the singular terms cancel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, a universe can pass through $H=0$ at finite scale factor, replacing the initial singularity with a smooth contraction-to-expansion transition.
  • The equation-of-state parameter crosses $\omega=-1$ before and after the bounce, so the effective fluid spends time in the phantom region, which is what permits the null energy condition to be violated.
  • Because $f(T,\mathcal{T})$ gravity retains second-order field equations, the bounce construction sidesteps the higher-derivative instabilities that the paper attributes to $f(R)$ bouncing models.
  • The explicit $\rho(t)$ and $p(t)$ profiles provide concrete input for a future perturbation analysis that could connect these bounces to CMB observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper posits the scale factor by hand rather than deriving it from the field equations, so a natural next step is to solve for $a(t)$ dynamically and check whether the bounce is reached from generic initial conditions and is stable under perturbations.
  • Because the same symmetric scale-factor ansatz has been used in other modified-gravity bounce studies, the qualitative signatures reported here—density peaking at the bounce, phantom crossing, NEC violation—may be largely kinematic consequences of the ansatz rather than fingerprints of the specific $f(T,\mathcal{T})$ form; distinguishing theories would require perturbation spectra.
  • A check of the paper's own definitions shows that the DEC cannot hold wherever the NEC fails, since DEC includes $\rho+p\ge 0$; the region $\gamma^2t^2<1$ where the paper's NEC expression is negative therefore also violates the DEC, independent of the plotted $\rho-p$.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies non-singular bouncing cosmologies in f(T, T) gravity using the parametrized scale factor a(t)=sqrt(a0^2+gamma^2 t^2). It analyzes two models, a linear model f(T,T)=alpha T+beta T and a nonlinear model f(T,T)=alpha sqrt(-T)+beta T, derives the energy density, pressure, and equation-of-state parameter, and examines the null, weak, dominant, and strong energy conditions. The central claims are that both models produce a non-singular bounce at t=0, with NEC and SEC violations near the bounce, phantom-region crossing of the equation of state, and a satisfied DEC that ensures a consistent matter distribution.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide simple analytic examples of non-singular bounces in f(T,T) gravity, complementing existing matter-bounce and f(T) studies. A strength is that all expressions for rho, p, and the energy conditions are given explicitly and are therefore checkable by direct substitution. However, the paper's main conclusions are undermined by internal inconsistencies: the claimed DEC satisfaction is incompatible with the NEC violation that the paper itself reports, and the nonlinear Model II is not actually derived from the stated field equations. As it stands, the results for Model II and the DEC claims cannot be accepted without substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.B, Eqs. (35)-(37)] The energy-condition formulas for Model II are not consequences of the model's own rho and p expressions. Equations (22)-(26) contain no alpha, so the linear combinations rho+p, rho-p, and rho+3p must also be alpha-independent; yet Eqs. (35)-(37) reintroduce a factor (alpha+1) that is identical to the Model I results. For the plotted choice alpha=1 this overestimates the energy conditions by a factor of two, and for general alpha the discrepancy is arbitrary. The Model II energy-condition analysis in Section IV.B and Fig. 5 is therefore quantitatively incorrect as printed.
  2. [III.B and Section II, Eqs. (7), (11)-(12)] The Model II solution is not shown to satisfy the full field equations through the bounce. Equation (7) contains an explicit (1+f_T) prefactor, but the reduced equation (11) used in the derivation does not. For f(T,T)=alpha sqrt(-T)+beta T, f_T=-alpha/(2 sqrt(-T)) diverges at T=0. Although the combinations f+12H^2 f_T and f_T-12H^2 f_TT cancel pointwise away from H=0, the paper never explains the fate of the (1+f_T) factor or of the singular terms at H=0, nor does it provide a limiting argument. The fact that the printed rho and p in Eqs. (22)-(26) are independent of alpha is a symptom of this problem: a genuine solution of Eq. (7) should depend on alpha through (1+f_T). Without a careful derivation, the existence of the Model II bounce is unestablished.
  3. [Abstract, Section V, Eq. (30)] The claim that the DEC is satisfied is contradicted by the paper's own definition of the DEC. Equation (30) defines the DEC as rho >= 0 and |p| <= rho, which requires rho+p >= 0. Since the NEC, rho+p >= 0, is violated near the bounce (Eqs. (32) and (35), Figs. 4a and 5a), the DEC is necessarily violated in exactly the same region. The figures labeled 'DEC' plot only rho-p; they omit the rho+p half of the DEC condition. The abstract and conclusion should state that the DEC is violated near the bounce, not satisfied.
  4. [III.A, Eqs. (11)-(20)] The linear-model derivation is also not consistent with the printed reduced equations. Substituting f(T,T)=alpha T+beta T into Eq. (11) gives no alpha dependence in f+12H^2 f_T, yet Eqs. (16)-(17) contain (alpha+1) in the numerator. The (alpha+1) factor must originate from the (1+f_T) term in Eq. (7), which is absent from Eq. (11). The authors should state the correct reduced Friedmann equations and use the same equations for both models; the current text appears to switch between two different forms of the field equations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (7), (11)-(12)] The same symbol f_T is used for both the torsion-scalar derivative and the matter-trace derivative, making the equations ambiguous. The paper should adopt a clear notation, for example f_T and f_{\mathcal{T}}, throughout.
  2. [Section III.B, Figs. 2 and 3] In the Model II discussion, the text refers to 'Fig. 2b' and 'Fig. 2c' when describing the pressure and equation-of-state plots, but the Model II plots are in Fig. 3. These cross-references should be corrected.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (19)-(20) and (25)-(26)] All displayed formulas for rho and p use denominators of the form (gamma^2 t^2 + 1)^2, which corresponds to the choice a0=1. Since the scale factor is introduced with a general a0, the general-a0 expressions should either be written out or the normalization a0=1 should be stated before the formulas are used.
  4. [Section IV.B, Fig. 5] The caption text says 'DEC remains satisfied, as seen in Fig. 5c,' but Fig. 5c shows the SEC, not the DEC. The figure reference should be to Fig. 5b.
  5. [Section V] The concluding comparison with f(R) and loop-quantum-cosmology bounces is qualitative and not supported by any perturbation or stability analysis; the paper should either soften this comparison or add the relevant analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the bounce is an explicit ansatz, energy conditions are computed consequences, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is explicit: Eq. (13) introduces a(t)=sqrt(a0^2+gamma^2 t^2) as a parameterization ('we assume'), not as a prediction of f(T,T); Eqs. (11)-(12) are the quoted field equations; Eqs. (16)-(27) are algebraic solutions for rho, p, omega; Eqs. (32)-(37) are then formed from those solutions. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and later called a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The NEC/SEC violations and phantom crossing are consequences of the chosen ansatz and the field equations; the paper does not use those consequences as inputs to construct the solutions, although the bounce conditions in Sec. III already state that Hdot>0 (and hence, in GR, NEC violation) is required for a bounce. Because the scale factor is admittedly an ansatz, this is model-building rather than a hidden reduction. Self-citations [48]-[50] are contextual examples of bouncing cosmologies and do not carry the derivation. The closing caveat that perturbation analysis is left for future work is a limitation, not a circular step. Separate internal consistency errors (Model II rho,p contain no alpha, while Eqs. (35)-(37) restore (alpha+1); the DEC claim is inconsistent with Eq. (23)) are correctness issues, not circularity, and do not change the circularity verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on the chosen f(T,𝒯) models, the ad hoc bounce ansatz, and the effective-fluid interpretation of energy conditions. No new entities are postulated. The free parameters α, β, γ, a0 are chosen by hand for illustration, not fitted to data.

free parameters (4)
  • α = 1
    Coupling constant in f(T,𝒯) models, set to 1 in all plots without observational constraint.
  • β = 0.2 (Model I), 0.3 (Model II)
    Coupling constant chosen by hand; affects magnitudes of energy conditions and EoS.
  • γ = 0.6, 0.7, 0.8
    Bounce time-scale parameter, varied to show qualitative behavior; not fitted.
  • a0 = 1
    Initial scale factor at bounce, normalized to 1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric and diagonal vierbein remain valid throughout the bounce.
    Assumed in Section II to write the modified Friedmann equations.
  • domain assumption The matter content is a perfect fluid with T_μν = (ρ+p)u_μu_ν - p g_μν.
    Used to define 𝒯 = ρ - 3p in Section II.
  • domain assumption The f(T,𝒯) field equations of Harko et al. [35] are correct and applicable.
    Basis of Eqs. (11)-(12), taken from the cited literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The scale factor a(t)=sqrt(a0²+γ²t²) satisfies the field equations for the chosen models.
    The bounce is inserted by hand; ρ and p are then solved for, not derived from dynamics.
  • domain assumption Energy conditions can be evaluated on the effective ρ and p obtained from the modified Friedmann equations.
    Standard practice in modified-gravity cosmology but representation-dependent; not discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-singular bouncing cosmology in $f(T, \mathcal{T})$ gravity with energy condition violations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UCCFMWNA

@misc{pith2026250718670,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-singular bouncing cosmology in $f(T, \mathcalT)$ gravity with energy condition violations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UCCFMWNA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18670}
}
abstract

The singularity and inflationary problems have posed significant challenges for understanding the universe's origin and evolution. Bouncing cosmology has emerged as a promising alternative to standard cosmological models, offering a non-singular approach to early universe dynamics by facilitating a "bounce" rather than a singular beginning. In this study, we explore the feasibility of modeling specific bouncing scenarios within the framework of $ f(T, \mathcal{T}) $ gravity, allowing for a comprehensive coupling between the torsion scalar $T$ and the trace of the energy-momentum tensor $\mathcal{T}$. We analyze two $f(T, \mathcal{T})$ models: a linear model $f(T, \mathcal{T}) = \alpha T + \beta \mathcal{T}$ and a non-linear model $f(T, \mathcal{T}) = \alpha \sqrt{-T} + \beta \mathcal{T}$, with a parameterized scale factor $a(t) = \sqrt{a_0^2 + \gamma^2 t^2}$ to capture the bounce behavior. The analysis confirms a cosmic bounce at $t = 0 $, where the Hubble parameter $H = 0$ signals a transition from contraction to expansion. A crucial condition for achieving the bounce is the violation of the null energy condition (NEC) near the bounce, enabling the equation of state (EoS) parameter to enter the phantom region ($\omega < -1$). Both models exhibit an increase in energy density as the universe approaches the bounce, peaking at the bounce epoch and then decreasing post-bounce. Pressure remains negative throughout, with the EoS parameter crossing into the phantom region near the bounce in both positive and negative time zones. Our findings show that NEC and strong energy condition (SEC) violations are essential for the non-singular bounce, while the dominant energy condition (DEC) is satisfied, ensuring a consistent matter distribution...

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18670 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The evolution of the scale factor, Hubble parameter, and deceleration parameter as functions of cosmic time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The evolution of the energy density, pressure, and EoS parameter as functions of cosmic time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The evolution of the energy density, pressure, and EoS parameter as functions of cosmic time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The evolution of the energy conditions as functions of cosmic time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The evolution of the energy conditions as functions of cosmic time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The scale factor must be finite and non- vanishing at the bouncing epoch, thus resolving the initial singularity problem

    Scale factor evolution: In the contracting phase (before the bounce), the scale factor a(t) must decrease ( ˙a < 0), while in the expanding phase (after the bounce), it must increase ( ˙a > 0). The scale factor must be finite and non- vanishing at the bouncing epoch, thus resolving the initial singularity problem. Specifically, at the bounce, ˙a = 0

    work page

  2. [2]

    For a successful bounce scenario, a rapid violation of the Null Energy Condition (NEC) must occur in the vicinity of the bounce

    Hubble parameter behavior : The Hubble parameter H(t) must transition from negative values before the bounce ( H(t) < 0) to positive values after the bounce ( H(t) > 0), with H = 0 exactly at the bounce point. For a successful bounce scenario, a rapid violation of the Null Energy Condition (NEC) must occur in the vicinity of the bounce. To achieve this, ˙...

    work page

  3. [3]

    EoS Behavior: The EoS parameter ω must cross the phantom divide line ω = −1 during the bounce, transition- ing from quintessence-like behavior (with ω > −1) to phantom-like behavior (with ω < −1) and back. Together, these conditions ensure a successful bouncing scenario in cosmological models, resolving the issue of singularities and allowing for a smooth...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Riess, et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron

    A.G. Riess, et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009–1038, https://doi.org/10.1086/300499

    doi:10.1086/300499 1998

  5. [5]

    Perlmutter, et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae, Astrophys

    S. Perlmutter, et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565-586, http: //dx.doi.org/10.1086/307221

    doi:10.1086/307221 1999

  6. [6]

    Eisenstein, et al., Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies, Astrophys

    D.J. Eisenstein, et al., Detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the large-scale correlation function of SDSS luminous red galaxies, Astrophys. J. 633 (2005) 560–574, https://doi.org/10.1086/466512

    doi:10.1086/466512 2005

  7. [7]

    Percival, et al., Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxy sample, Mon

    W.J. Percival, et al., Baryon acoustic oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 galaxy sample, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 401 (2010) 2148–2168, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15812.x

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Spergel, et al., First-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmologi- cal parameters, Astrophys

    D.N. Spergel, et al., First-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmologi- cal parameters, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 175–194, https://doi.org/10.1086/377226

    doi:10.1086/377226 2003

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Komatsu, et al., First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Tests ofGaussianity, Astro- phys

    E. Komatsu, et al., First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Tests ofGaussianity, Astro- phys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 119–134, https://doi.org/10.1086/377220

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    R. R. Caldwell and M. Doran, Cosmic microwave background and supernova constraints on quintessence: Concordance regions and target models, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 103517, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.103517

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    Dalal, et al., Testing the cosmic coincidence problem and the nature of dark energy, Phys

    N. Dalal, et al., Testing the cosmic coincidence problem and the nature of dark energy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 141302, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.141302

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    Weinberg, The cosmological constant, Rev

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

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    L. Wang, R. R. Caldwell, J. P . Ostriker, and P . J. Steinhardt, Cosmic concordance and quintessence, Astrophys. J. 530 (2000) 17, https://doi.org/10.1086/308331

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    Tsujikawa, Quintessence: A review, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Quintessence: A review, Class. Quantum Grav. 30 (2013) 214003,https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/ 30/21/214003

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Caldwell, A phantom menace? Cosmological consequences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state, Phys

    R.R. Caldwell, A phantom menace? Cosmological consequences of a dark energy component with super-negative equation of state, Phys. Lett. B 545 (2002) 23–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02589-3

    2002 doi

  8. [16]

    Saridakis, et al., Modified gravity and cosmology, arXiv:2105.12582 [gr-qc], Springer International Publishing (2021), 10.1007/978-3-030-83715-0

    E.N. Saridakis, et al., Modified gravity and cosmology, arXiv:2105.12582 [gr-qc], Springer International Publishing (2021), 10.1007/978-3-030-83715-0

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Disappearing cosmological constant in f (R) gravity, JETP Lett. 86 (2007) 157–163, https://doi.org/ 10.1134/S0021364007150027

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmological theory, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 150 (1970) 1–8, https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/150.1.1

    1970 doi

  11. [19]

    De Martino, et al., Constraining f (R) gravity with Planck data on galaxy cluster profiles, Mon

    I. De Martino, et al., Constraining f (R) gravity with Planck data on galaxy cluster profiles, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442 (2014) 921–928, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu903

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Harko, et al., f (R, T) gravity, Phys

    T. Harko, et al., f (R, T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 024020,https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024020

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    Moraes and P .K

    P .H.R.S. Moraes and P .K. Sahoo, Modeling wormholes in f (R, T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 044038, https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.044038. 12

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Harko, Thermodynamic interpretation of the generalized gravity models with geometry-matter coupling, Phys

    T. Harko, Thermodynamic interpretation of the generalized gravity models with geometry-matter coupling, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 044067, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.044067

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Malik, et al., Development of local density perturbation technique to identify cracking points in f (R, T) gravity, Eur

    A. Malik, et al., Development of local density perturbation technique to identify cracking points in f (R, T) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 845, https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11996-9

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Elizalde, et al., ΛCDM epoch reconstruction from F(R, G) and modified Gauss–Bonnet gravities, Class

    E. Elizalde, et al., ΛCDM epoch reconstruction from F(R, G) and modified Gauss–Bonnet gravities, Class. Quantum Grav. 27 (2010) 095007, https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/9/095007

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    Bamba, S

    K. Bamba, S. D. Odintsov, L. Sebastiani, and S. Zerbini, Finite-time future singularities in modified Gauss–Bonnet and F (R, G) gravity and singularity avoidance, Eur. Phys. J. C 67 (2010) 295–310, https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-010-1292-8

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    Weitzenb ¨ock, Invariantentheorie (Noordhoff, Groningen, 1923)

    R. Weitzenb ¨ock, Invariantentheorie (Noordhoff, Groningen, 1923)

    1923

  19. [27]

    Einstein and W

    A. Einstein and W. Mayer, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phys.-math. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 217 (1928)

    1928

  20. [28]

    M ¨oller, Mat

    C. M ¨oller, Mat. Fys. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 1 (1961) 10

    1961

  21. [29]

    Pellegrini and J

    C. Pellegrini and J. Plebanski, Tetrad fields and gravitational fields, Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab, Mat. Fys. Skrifter 2 (1963) 4, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4688687

    1963

  22. [30]

    Hayashi and T

    K. Hayashi and T. Shirafuji, New general relativity, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 3524, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 19.3524

    1979 doi

  23. [31]

    Ferraro and F

    R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Modified teleparallel gravity: Inflation without an inflaton, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 084031, https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.084031

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    Ferraro and F

    R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Born-Infeld gravity in Weitzenb¨ock spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 124019, https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.124019

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    G. R. Bengochea and R. Ferraro, Dark torsion as the cosmic speed-up, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 124019, https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.124019

    2009 doi

  26. [34]

    E. V . Linder, Einstein’s other gravity and the acceleration of the universe,Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 127301, https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.127301

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, and F. S. Lobo, Wormhole geometries in modified teleparallel gravity and the energy conditions, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 044033, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.044033

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Koussour, et al., Exploring cosmological evolution and constraints in f (T) teleparallel gravity, Phys

    M. Koussour, et al., Exploring cosmological evolution and constraints in f (T) teleparallel gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 46 (2024) 101664, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2024.101664

    2024

  29. [37]

    Koussour and M

    M. Koussour and M. Bennai, Stability analysis of anisotropic Bianchi type-I cosmological model in teleparallel gravity, Class. Quantum Grav. 39 (2022) 105001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac61ad

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    Harko, F

    T. Harko, F. S. Lobo, G. Otalora, and E. N. Saridakis, f (T, T ) gravity and cosmology, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2014) 021, https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2014/12/021

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Junior, et al., Reconstruction, thermodynamics and stability of theΛCDM model in f (T, T ) gravity, Class

    E.L. Junior, et al., Reconstruction, thermodynamics and stability of theΛCDM model in f (T, T ) gravity, Class. Quantum Grav. 33 (2016) 125006, https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/12/125006

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Harko, et al., Nonminimal torsion-matter coupling extension of f (T) gravity, Phys

    T. Harko, et al., Nonminimal torsion-matter coupling extension of f (T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 124036, https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.124036

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    Momeni and R

    D. Momeni and R. Myrzakulov, Cosmological reconstruction of f (T, T ) gravity, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 11 (2014) 1450077, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887814500777

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    Farrugia and J

    G. Farrugia and J. L. Said, Growth factor in f (T, T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 124004, https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.94.124004

    2016

  35. [43]

    Pace and J

    M. Pace and J. L. Said, A perturbative approach to neutron stars in f (T, T) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 1-7, https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4838-1

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    I. Bars, S. H. Chen, and N. Turok, Geodesically complete analytic solutions for a cyclic universe,Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 083513, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.083513

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    R. H. Brandenberger, The matter bounce alternative to inflationary cosmology, arXiv:1206.4196, https://arxiv.org/ abs/1206.4196

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    de Haro and Y

    J. de Haro and Y. F. Cai, An extended matter bounce scenario: current status and challenges,Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 47 (2015) 95, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-015-1936-y

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Kobayashi, Generic instabilities of nonsingular cosmologies in Horndeski theory: A no-go theorem, Phys

    T. Kobayashi, Generic instabilities of nonsingular cosmologies in Horndeski theory: A no-go theorem, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 043511, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.043511

    2016 doi

  40. [49]

    Bhattacharjee and P

    S. Bhattacharjee and P . K. Sahoo, Comprehensive analysis of a non-singular bounce in f (R, T) gravitation, Phys. Dark Univ. 28 (2020) 100537, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2020.100537

    2020

  41. [50]

    Yousaf, et al., Non-singular bouncing model in energy momentum squared gravity, Phys

    Z. Yousaf, et al., Non-singular bouncing model in energy momentum squared gravity, Phys. Scr. 98 (2023) 035002, https: //doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/acb14a. 13

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    Koussour and N

    M. Koussour and N. Myrzakulov, Bouncing cosmologies and stability analysis in symmetric teleparallel f (Q) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139 (2024) 799, https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05574-5

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    Zhadyranova, M

    A. Zhadyranova, M. Koussour, and S. Bekkhozhayev, The dynamics of matter bounce cosmology in Weyl-type f (Q, T) gravity, Chin. J. Phys. 89 (2024) 1483–1492, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjph.2024.04.023

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    Koussour, et al., Bouncing behavior in f (R, Lm) gravity: Phantom crossing and energy conditions, Int

    M. Koussour, et al., Bouncing behavior in f (R, Lm) gravity: Phantom crossing and energy conditions, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. (2024), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219887824501846

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    Y. F. Cai, et al., Matter bounce cosmology with the f (T) gravity, Class. Quantum Grav. 28 (2011) 215011, https://doi. org/10.1088/0264-9381/28/21/215011

    2011 doi

  46. [55]

    M. E. Rodrigues and E. L. Junior, Black-bounce in f (T) gravity, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 55 (2023) 8, https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10714-022-03048-6

    2023

  47. [56]

    Amor ´os, J

    J. Amor ´os, J. de Haro, and S. D. Odintsov, Bouncing loop quantum cosmology from F(T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 104037, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.104037

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    M. A. Skugoreva and A. V . Toporensky, Bouncing solutions in f (T) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1050, https://doi. org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08638-9

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    Martin and R.H

    J. Martin and R.H. Brandenberger, Trans-Planckian problem of inflationary cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 123501,https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.63.123501

    2001 doi

  50. [59]

    Bojowald, Absence of a singularity in loop quantum cosmology, Phys

    M. Bojowald, Absence of a singularity in loop quantum cosmology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 5227,https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.86.5227

    2001

  51. [60]

    H. I. Arcos and J. G. Pereira, Torsion gravity: a reappraisal, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13 (2004) 2193–2240, https://doi.org/ 10.1142/S0218271804006462

    2004 doi

  52. [61]

    J. W. Maluf, The teleparallel equivalent of general relativity, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 525 (2013) 339–357, https://doi.org/ 10.1002/andp.201200272

    2013 doi

  53. [62]

    Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology (Addison Wesley, San Francisco, USA, 2003)

    B. Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology (Addison Wesley, San Francisco, USA, 2003)

    2003

  54. [63]

    Y. F. Cai, T. Qiu, X. Zhang, Y. S. Piao, and M. Li, Bouncing universe with quintom matter, J. High Energy Phys. 2007 (2007) 071, https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/071

    2007 doi

  55. [64]

    Zubair and M

    M. Zubair and M. Farooq, Bouncing behaviours in four dimensional Einstein Gauss-Bonnet gravity with cosmography and observational constraints, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138 (2023) 173, https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-03772-1

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    Shabani and A

    H. Shabani and A. H. Ziaie, Bouncing cosmological solutions from f (R, T) gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 1-24, https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5886-x

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    Wu and H

    P . Wu and H. Yu, Observational constraints onf (T) theory, Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010) 415-420,https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.physletb.2010.08.073

    2010

  58. [67]

    G. R. Bengochea, Observational information for f (T) theories and Dark Torsion, Phys. Lett. B 695 (2011) 405-411, https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2010.11.064

    2011 doi

  59. [68]

    Basilakos, Linear growth in power law f (T) gravity, Phys

    S. Basilakos, Linear growth in power law f (T) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 083007, https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.93.083007

    2016

  60. [69]

    Agrawal, et al., Matter bounce scenario and the dynamical aspects in f (Q, T) gravity, Phys

    A.S. Agrawal, et al., Matter bounce scenario and the dynamical aspects in f (Q, T) gravity, Phys. Dark Univ. 33 (2021) 100863, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2021.100863

    2021

  61. [70]

    Solanki, A

    R. Solanki, A. Bhat, and P . K. Sahoo, Bulk viscous cosmological model inf (T, T) modified gravity, Astropart. Phys. 163 (2024) 103013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.103013

    2024

  62. [71]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. Ellis, The large scale structure of space-time, Cambridge University Press (2023)

    2023

  63. [72]

    R. M. Wald, General relativity, University of Chicago Press (1984)

    1984

  64. [73]

    Santos, J

    J. Santos, J. S. Alcaniz, M. J. Reboucas, and F. C. Carvalho, Energy conditions in f (R) gravity, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 083513, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.083513

    2007 doi

  65. [74]

    Visser and C

    M. Visser and C. Barcelo, Energy conditions and their cosmological implications, in 3rd International Conference on Particle Physics and the Early Universe (2000) 98-112, https://doi.org/10.1142/4550

    2000 doi

  66. [75]

    Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking (Woodbury, 1995), https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ abs/1995lwet.book.....V/abstract

    M. Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking (Woodbury, 1995), https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/ abs/1995lwet.book.....V/abstract

    1995

  67. [76]

    Bamba, et al., Bounce cosmology from F(R) gravity and F(R) bigravity, J

    K. Bamba, et al., Bounce cosmology from F(R) gravity and F(R) bigravity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2014) 008, https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5227

    2014 doi

  68. [77]

    Cai, et al., Quintom cosmology: theoretical implications and observations, Phys

    Y.F. Cai, et al., Quintom cosmology: theoretical implications and observations, Phys. Rept. 493 (2010) 1-60, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.physrep.2010.04.001

    2010 doi

Pith tools

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