Hubble Tension and the G-step Model: Re-examination of Recent Constraints on Modified Local Physics

Leandros Perivolaropoulos; Ruchika

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Hubble Tension and the G-step Model: Re-examination of Recent Constraints on Modified Local Physics

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 G-step model—a ~4% jump in gravity near redshift 0.01—still works as a resolution of the Hubble tension when realistic uncertainties are included.

desk verdict A useful compilation of constraints that does not survive its own solar-age and paleoclimate moves — the GSM viability claim is not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04395 v1 pith:NHIPN5L2 submitted 2025-08-06 astro-ph.CO

Leandros Perivolaropoulos , Ruchika This is my paper

classification astro-ph.CO

keywords HubbletensionG-stepmodeleffectivegravitationalconstantTypeIasupernovaluminositycosmicdistanceladderstellarscalingchronometersCMBconstraints

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 defends the G-step model (GSM) against a recent set of objections. The GSM explains the Hubble tension by a ~4 percent jump in the effective gravitational constant at redshift $z\approx0.01$, making Type Ia supernovae in the Hubble flow dimmer relative to locally calibrated ones. The authors re-examine each objection—solar luminosity, Earth's day/year record, paleoclimate, distance indicators, and cosmic chronometers—and argue that with realistic uncertainties none rules the model out. If they are right, the Hubble tension would be resolved by a recent local change in gravity rather than by new early-universe physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the step function $\mu_{G_{\rm eff}}(z)=G_{\rm eff}/G$: constant at $\mu_G$ for $z\le z_t$ and jumping by $\Delta\mu_G\approx0.04$ at $z_t\approx0.01$. Its observable handle is the SN Ia luminosity scaling $L/L_0\propto(G_{\rm eff}/G_0)^{1.46}$, which converts the step into the required change in standardized supernova brightness. The paper's viability check is a three-band overlap in the $L/L_0$--$G/G_0$ plane: the cosmological (CMB) band, the 'GSM requirement' band $(73/67.4)^2\approx1.17$, and the theoretical luminosity--$G$ band. A second mechanical element is the fluid-Earth scaling $T_{\rm day}\propto T_{\rm year}\propto G^{-2}$, which removes the geological

What would settle it

A precision asteroseismic measurement of the exponent $n$ in $L\propto G^n$ using solar-type stars in open clusters: if $n$ is 6 or larger, the predicted solar age exceeds the meteoritic age by more than a billion years with no plausible correction. A null result from a 40--60 Mpc supernova survey looking for a $\sim0.18$ mag step in absolute magnitude would settle the transition mechanism instead.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the G-step model is not ruled out by current data. Combining the $\sim2\%$ CMB+BAO constraint on $G/G_0$ with a conservative $\sim5\%$ uncertainty in the Type Ia supernova luminosity--$G$ relation, the GSM's required luminosity enhancement $(73/67.4)^2\approx1.17$ overlaps the allowed window at $2\sigma$, centred near $G/G_0\approx1.05$. The paper further argues that modern stellar modeling favours $L_\odot\propto G^4$ over the older $G^7$ estimate, so a 4% pre-transition increase in $G$ speeds up the Sun's apparent age by only about 0.8 Gyr; that the Earth 150 Myr ago behaved as a fluid, so $T_{\rm day}$ and $T_{\rm year}$ both scale as $G^{-2}$ and the day

Load-bearing premise

If a 4% step really forces the pre-transition Sun to be about 5.6 Gyr old, the model survives only by treating the 4.567 Gyr meteoritic age as a lower bound and absorbing the gap with screening or modeling effects that are not quantified; if the luminosity scaling is closer to $G^6$ or $G^7$, that gap grows and the model collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A step in $G$ at $z\approx0.01$ creates a $\sim-0.18$ mag offset in supernova absolute magnitude beyond $\sim50$ Mpc; a dedicated 40--60 Mpc supernova survey can confirm or kill the model.
If the effect is real, distance-ladder $H_0$ values are high because the ladder crosses a local gravity transition; the CMB value is the cosmological one, so no exotic early-universe physics is needed.
Cosmic-chronometer $H(z)$ measurements would need a $\sim16\%$ downward correction for $\Delta G/G=0.04$, which can move an apparent $H_0\approx73$ down toward the CMB value.
Cepheid and TRGB distances should disagree systematically across the transition because their luminosities respond oppositely to a change in $G$.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: if $L_\odot\propto G^4$ is right, open-cluster stars that lived through a higher-$G$ epoch should show systematically older asteroseismic ages than their isochrone ages; archived cluster data may already test this population-level offset.
Editorial extension: the fluid-Earth day/year argument applies to any rotating fluid body, so spin-orbit resonance records in exoplanet systems that straddle the transition epoch could in principle reveal the same step.
Editorial extension: the $\sim20\%$ allowed window from Cepheid--TRGB comparisons means stacking many galaxy distances could expose a coherent tilt in the local Hubble diagram at the transition scale, a test that existing catalogs could perform.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is my take. The paper is a defense of the G-step model (GSM), not a new computation. It collects the current constraints and shows, correctly, that a few of the flat rejections in the literature rest on nominal assumptions rather than hard limits. The CMB 2σ band, the SN Ia luminosity–G uncertainty discussion, and the distance-indicator allowance at the ~20% level are useful; the roadmap of future tests is concrete and sensible. That part is worth reading.

The problem is that the viability conclusion is bought with two moves that do not survive inspection. First, the solar-age estimate in Eq. (8) gives a helioseismic age of ~5.6 Gyr, a gigayear above the meteoritic age. The paper lists five possible escape routes, but none is quantified. The CAI 'gap' alone would need to be ~1 Gyr, while CAIs form within a few Myr of collapse. Also the factor 0.997 in that equation looks inconsistent with a transition 130 Myr ago. A crude scaling proxy is not a solar model; without a full evolutionary calculation with a G(t) history, the solar constraint remains a quantitative exclusion at the level of the paper's own numbers.

Second, the paleoclimate section fits the data. The T ∝ G^(5/4) scaling is asserted without derivation; from L ∝ G^4 blackbody equilibrium gives T ∝ G (or T ∝ G^(3/2) if you also let Earth's orbit respond). Choosing 5/4 lets a 20°C cooling imply a 5.9% G step, which is then called a 'remarkable' match to the model. That is not a prediction; it is a fit.

I also note that the 'evidence for transitions' in distance indicators is drawn largely from the authors' own earlier work, so it carries less weight as independent support.

So the paper is a useful critical review for anyone working on ultralate-time solutions, but it does not establish the GSM's viability. It deserves a serious referee because it is a serious position piece and the proposed tests are valuable; but the referee should send it back for a real solar-structure calculation and a derivation of the temperature scaling before accepting the central claim. My verdict: not a reject outright as a research contribution, but it is a long way from 'viable' as demonstrated.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper re-examines the G-step model (GSM), which proposes a ~4% step in the effective gravitational constant G_eff at z ≈ 0.01 to reconcile local (SH0ES) and early-universe (Planck) measurements of H0. The authors argue that recent criticisms based on stellar physics, Earth system dynamics, paleoclimate, distance indicators, and cosmic chronometers are not conclusive when realistic uncertainties are included. Their central quantitative claims are: L ∝ G^4 rather than G^7; a resulting T⊕ ∝ G^{5/4} scaling that matches ~20 °C Cenozoic cooling; preservation of the day/year ratio through a fluid-Earth response; compatibility of the required SN Ia luminosity shift with 2σ CMB constraints; and a possible 16% cosmic-chronometer correction. They conclude that the GSM remains a viable candidate for resolving the Hubble tension and propose future tests with JWST, TRGB, standard sirens, and asteroseismology.

Significance. If the GSM were established as viable, it would shift the Hubble-tension debate toward a late-time, local modification of gravity rather than early-universe physics or distance-ladder systematics. The paper is useful in assembling an uncertainty budget for several constraints and in identifying concrete, falsifiable follow-up observations, which is a genuine strength. However, the central viability conclusion is not supported by the paper's own quantitative analysis. The solar-age estimate in Eq. (8) yields a ~1 Gyr discrepancy that is hand-waved away with unquantified effects; the temperature scaling used in the paleoclimate section is asserted without a correct derivation; and the cosmic-chronometer correction is arithmetically inconsistent with the numbers quoted. These are load-bearing issues for the abstract's claim that the GSM 'remains a viable candidate.'

major comments (4)

[Quantitative Assessment of Solar Age Determinations, Eq. (8)] Eq. (8) gives Age_GSM_helio = 4.567 × (1 + 0.22 × 0.997) = 5.57 ± 0.12 Gyr. This is ~1 Gyr above both the meteoritic age (4.567 Gyr) and standard helioseismic ages (4.58 ± 0.06 Gyr), i.e., several σ by the paper's own uncertainty. The factor 0.997 is inconsistent with a transition 130 Myr ago; the fraction of the Sun's life before the transition should be ≈ 0.97, not 0.997. The listed mitigating factors (CAI gap, weaker L-G index, screening, stellar modeling, nonlinear reactions) are unquantified, and a ~1 Gyr CAI formation gap is not plausible. The paper needs a full stellar-evolution calculation with a G(t) history before claiming solar constraints do not exclude the GSM. As written, this section undermines the central viability claim.
[Climate Impact and Evidence for GSM] The scaling T⊕ ∝ G^{5/4} is asserted without derivation. From L⊙ ∝ G^4 and the standard blackbody relation T⊕ ∝ L^{1/4}, one obtains T⊕ ∝ G, not G^{5/4}. The subsequent inference that the observed ~20 °C cooling over 100 Myr implies G2/G1 = 0.941 attributes the entire climate trend to a change in G, ignoring known CO2, plate-tectonic, and other climate drivers. This is fitting the model to a single paleoclimate trend, not an independent consistency test. The section should be revised with a correct scaling and a treatment of non-G climate forcings.
[Statistical Significance Levels and Figure 1] The 'GSM requirement' band is defined by Eq. (2) as L/L0 = (H_SH0ES/H_Planck)^2, i.e., by the very tension the model is meant to explain. Showing overlap after broadening the CMB and SN Ia L-G uncertainties is a restatement of the requirement, not independent evidence. Moreover, with the nominal relation L ∝ G^{1.46} and G/G0 ≈ 1.05, one gets L/L0 ≈ 1.07, below the nominal required value of ≈ 1.17; the claimed overlap therefore depends entirely on the ad hoc broadening. The figure and the surrounding text need a clearer separation of model requirements from constraints.
[Cosmic Chronometers and the GSM, Eqs. (25)-(30)] The numerical 'reconciliation' is internally inconsistent. Eq. (30) states Htrue = Hmeasured/1.16; for Hmeasured = 73 km/s/Mpc this gives ≈ 63 km/s/Mpc, below the Planck value of 67.4, while Htrue = 67.4 would require Hmeasured ≈ 78. Thus the proposed 16% correction does not actually bring a SH0ES-like cosmic-chronometer measurement into agreement with Planck. The sign and magnitude of the chronometer correction cannot be used to support GSM viability without a self-consistent model of how stellar ages are inferred under a varying G.

minor comments (5)

[The G-step Model, Eq. (3)] The sentence defining µG is garbled: 'µG is distance moduli in standard gravitational constant G scenario' should be reworded to define whether µG is a distance modulus or a G-modulation parameter.
[Statistical Significance Levels] The paper repeatedly refers to a 'corrected Figure 1 of [36]' but does not show the original comparison; including the original panel would help the reader assess the correction.
[Uncertainties in Type Ia Supernovae Luminosity-G Relation] The calibration factor α in Eq. (7) is introduced but never estimated or used; the text should either quantify it or drop it.
[General] The manuscript uses 4% and 5% for the G-step amplitude interchangeably (e.g., abstract vs. solar-age section). Since Eq. (8) uses 5% while the model is defined with ΔG/G ≈ 0.04, the quantitative results should be given for the actual model value.
[References] Reference [82] (Adams) lacks a year; reference [45] appears twice with different years; please harmonize the bibliography.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No central circularity: the GSM viability argument is a consistency check against external constraints, not a self-derivation. A minor self-citation is presented as independent support.

self citation load bearing [Discussion and Conclusions, 'Model Viability Assessment'; also Section 'Evidence for Transitions in Distance Indicators']
"The evidence for transitions in distance indicators at characteristic scales provides intriguing support for the GSM framework. Independent analyses by [146] and [139] have identified potential transitions in various distance indicators at scales consistent with GSM predictions."

References [146] (Perivolaropoulos & Skara 2021, arXiv:2105.05208) and [139] (Alestas, Antoniou & Perivolaropoulos 2021) both share a co-author with the present paper. The claim of 'independent' support for GSM-predicted transitions therefore reduces to a self-citation chain rather than external convergence. This is not the central viability proof, which relies mainly on external constraints (CMB, stellar, distance-indicator), so the impact on the overall argument is minor.

full rationale

The central claim is that the GSM remains viable after re-examining constraints. The model's step size is indeed fixed by the Hubble-tension ratio (Eq. 2), but the paper does not present that calibration as a prediction; it then tests the resulting 4% G-step against external data: CMB constraints, solar/stellar evolution, paleoclimate, Earth rotation, and distance indicators. Those tests are not defined in terms of the H0 target, so the viability conclusion is a consistency check rather than a derivation from its own inputs. The most serious numerical weakness is Eq. (8), where the GSM helioseismic age is 5.57±0.12 Gyr versus the meteoritic 4.567 Gyr, with the paper dissolving the ~1 Gyr gap via five unquantified escape routes; that is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity. The genuine circularity-adjacent issue is the 'independent analyses' claim, which mislabels self-citations as independent, but the paper's central argument does not stand or fall on those transition hints. Hence a low score of 2.

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

The ledger shows that the paper's viability argument adds several hand-chosen numbers: a 4 percent step fitted to H0, a chosen luminosity exponent n=4, a chosen temperature exponent 5/4, a constructed 5 percent systematic, and a 2 sigma reinterpretation of CMB constraints. The physical mechanism for the step is an undeveloped phase-transition bubble scenario from the same group. The central claim therefore rests on several adjustable or unverified inputs rather than on a parameter-free, externally anchored derivation.

free parameters (5)

G-step amplitude Delta G/G = 0.04 (4%)
Set by the required luminosity enhancement (73/67.4)^2 approximately 1.17 needed to resolve the Hubble tension.
Stellar luminosity-G index n = 4 (range 4-7)
Adopted from Adams and Davis et al.; the paper uses n=4 to reduce solar-age tension while acknowledging a range up to 7.
Earth temperature-G exponent = 5/4
T proportional to G^(5/4) is asserted without derivation and appears chosen so that a 5.9 percent G decrease matches a 20 degree Celsius paleoclimatic cooling.
SN Ia luminosity-G systematic uncertainty = 5%
The authors construct this uncertainty budget to broaden the allowed band in Figure 1; it is a subjective estimate, not a measured quantity.
CMB constraint confidence level = 2 sigma, G/G0 in [0.976,1.064]
The paper argues 1 sigma is too strict and uses 2 sigma to widen compatibility with the GSM requirement.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Stellar luminosity scales as L proportional to G^n with n approximately 4
Invoked in sections on solar physics and cosmic chronometers; the paper accepts this scaling from Adams to soften stellar constraints, though the index is uncertain.
domain assumption Earth behaved as a fluid body in hydrostatic equilibrium at 150 Myr ago, so R proportional to G^-1, I proportional to G^-2, and omega proportional to G^2
Used in 'Orbital Dynamics and Earth Response' to argue that days per year remain constant; no rheological timescale or partial rigidity is modeled.
ad hoc to paper The G transition is an instantaneous step that does not itself perturb stellar structure or Earth rotation dynamics
The paper assumes the step is sharp and that observables adjust to new equilibrium scalings; this is what makes the day/year ratio argument work.
ad hoc to paper The 20 degree Celsius cooling over the past 100 million years is primarily due to a change in G rather than to CO2, plate tectonics, or other known climate drivers
This premise underlies the paleoclimate 'evidence' section; known geological climate forcings are listed as modulators but not quantitatively excluded.
ad hoc to paper CMB constraints should be interpreted with additional unmodeled systematics that broaden the allowed G/G0 range
The paper argues that foregrounds, instrumental effects, and correlated variations would broaden the Lamine et al. constraint, but no concrete calculation is provided.

invented entities (2)

Step transition in G_eff at z approximately 0.01
purpose: Resolve the Hubble tension by making Hubble-flow Type Ia supernovae luminous enough to raise the inferred H0 from the SH0ES ladder to the needed value.
The step is the model's central postulate; this paper defends its viability but provides no direct detection. It proposes future tests through Cepheids, TRGB, and standard sirens.
Gravitational bubbles from a first-order vacuum phase transition
purpose: Provide a physical mechanism for the G step, with an expected bubble radius of about 50 Mpc today.
Cited from Efstratiou and Perivolaropoulos, which shares the first author of this paper. The bubbles are not detected and the mechanism is speculative.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hubble Tension and the G-step Model: Re-examination of Recent Constraints on Modified Local Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NHIPN5L2

@misc{pith2026250804395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hubble Tension and the G-step Model: Re-examination of Recent Constraints on Modified Local Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NHIPN5L2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04395}
}

abstract

We critically examine recent claims challenging the viability of the G-step model (GSM) as a solution to the Hubble tension. The GSM proposes a $\sim$4 % increase in the effective gravitational constant $G_{\text{eff}}$ beyond $z \approx 0.01$ to reconcile local and early-universe measurements of the Hubble constant. Through detailed quantitative analysis, we demonstrate that many proposed constraints on the model require careful reconsideration. Key findings include: (1) Modern stellar modeling indicates a weaker $L \propto G^4$ scaling rather than the traditional $G^7$, significantly reducing tension with stellar evolution constraints; (2) The fluid-like behavior of Earth 150 Myr ago preserves the day/year ratio across any $G$ transition; (3) Paleoclimate data showing $\sim$20{\deg}C cooling over relevant timescales appears consistent with, rather than challenging, the GSM; (4) Distance indicator comparisons allow for $\Delta G/G$ variations up to $\sim$20 % at 2$\sigma$ when systematic uncertainties are properly included; (5) The discrete nature of the proposed $G$ transition preserves relative stellar population ages used in cosmic chronometry. When accounting for proper uncertainty levels in both observations and theoretical modeling, we find the GSM remains a viable candidate for resolving the Hubble tension. We identify specific observational tests with next-generation facilities that could definitively confirm or rule out the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.04395 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Global temperature variations over the past 500 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Evolution of day length throughout the Phanero [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Can Distance Duality Violation Save Late-time Solutions to the Hubble Tension?
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

For fixed sound-horizon and supernova calibrations, no late-time modification—even one violating cosmic distance duality—can resolve the Hubble tension, because the required ~8-10% CDDR violation is excluded by BAO, c...
The Hubble tension: A decade review
astro-ph.CO 2026-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

Pure early or late fixes to the Hubble tension are tightly constrained; remaining options are combined early-late interacting dark energy or new physics at the local-to-homogeneous transition.
The Hubble tension: A decade review
astro-ph.CO 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

A review summarizing the Hubble tension as a persistent crisis and discussing resolutions via interacting dark energy models that combine early-time and late-time modifications.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

173 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Single Parameter V ariation: The analysis as- sumes G is the only varying fundamental constant, while in realistic modified gravity theories, varia- tions in other fundamental constants may be cor- related with changes in G [2]
[2]

Recombination Physics: Standard recombina- tion calculations are used, but modified gravity could affect atomic physics during the recombina- tion epoch in ways not fully captured by current models [3]
[3]

BBN Effects: The simplified linear model used for BBN effects may not capture the full complexity of nuclear physics with varying G
[4]

Screening Mechanisms: No detailed treatment of possible screening mechanisms that could affect how G variations manifest at different scales is in- cluded in the analysis
[5]

Figure 1 of [36] attempts to demonstrate that the GSM requires a significantly larger change of G than allowed by current constraints

Spatial V ariations: The analysis assumes a uni- form value of G across all scales, while in the con- text of a late first-order phase transition as pro- posed in [5], spatial variations of G could exist, particularly at low redshifts ( z ≲ 0.01). Figure 1 of [36] attempts to demonstrate that the GSM requires a significantly larger change of G than allowe...

2018
[6]

Different theoretical treatments yield values ranging from approximately 4 to 7, in- troducing significant uncertainty in the predicted effects

Theoretical Uncertainty: The exact power-law index in the L-G relation remains subject to mod- eling assumptions. Different theoretical treatments yield values ranging from approximately 4 to 7, in- troducing significant uncertainty in the predicted effects
[7]

Stellar Model Parameters: The helioseismic age determination 4 .58 ± 0.06 Gyr [84] depends on assumptions about opacity, metallicity, and other stellar parameters that might need recalibration under modified gravity scenarios
[8]

The assumption of instan- taneous adjustment to the new equilibrium config- uration may not be valid

T ransition Physics:The detailed physics of how stellar structure would respond to a rapid change in G remains uncertain. The assumption of instan- taneous adjustment to the new equilibrium config- uration may not be valid

Show all 173 references

[9]

Using the more recent L⊙ ∝ G4 scaling, a 5% increase in G would result in an approximately 20% enhancement in solar luminosity, rather than the 40% predicted by the Teller relation

Environmental Effects: Local variations in G due to screening mechanisms could modify the im- pact on stellar evolution, particularly in dense stel- lar environments. Using the more recent L⊙ ∝ G4 scaling, a 5% increase in G would result in an approximately 20% enhancement in ...
[10]

The meteoritic age might underestimate the true solar age due to the gap between solar formation and CAI condensation
[11]

The L-G relationship might be weaker than cur- rently estimated
[12]

Environmental screening effects could modify the local value of G
[13]

Stellar modeling uncertainties might be larger un- der modified gravity
[14]

Non-linear response of nuclear reaction rates to changes in G The tension could be further reduced by considering: • A more moderate increase in pre-transition G (< 5%) • Additional systematic uncertainties in stellar mod- eling under modified gravity • Possible variations in ...
[15]

Braglia, W

M. Braglia, W. T. Emond, F. Finelli, A. E. Gum- rukcuoglu, and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083513 (2020), arXiv:2005.14053 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[16]

A reduction in the pulsation period scaling as P ∝ (Gρ)−1/2, leading to: ∆ logP = − 1 2 log(1 + ∆G/GN ) (18)
[17]

A potential increase in luminosity if the Cepheid’s core is unscreened For TRGB stars, stronger gravity reduces their lu- minosity since the hydrogen-burning shell becomes un- screened. The TRGB distance modification follows: Dtrue DGR = 1.021 1 − 0.04663 1 + ∆G GN 8.389!1/2 (...
[18]

Changes in fundamental constants affecting stellar physics
[19]

Environmental effects on distance indicators
[20]

Selection effects or observational biases
[21]

Under- standing their origin could provide insights into either fundamental physics or previously unknown systematic effects in distance measurements

Unrecognized calibration systematics Future observations will be crucial for testing these transition hypotheses: • More Cepheid-calibrated SNe Ia in the 40-60 Mpc range • Alternative distance indicators like TRGB stars at transition distances • Detailed studies of standardiza...
[22]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 93, 023513 (2016), arXiv:1509.07501 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[23]

Li and A

X. Li and A. Shafieloo, Astrophys. J. Lett. 883, L3 (2019), arXiv:1906.08275 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[24]

S. Pan, W. Yang, E. Di Valentino, A. Shafieloo, and S. Chakraborty, JCAP06, 062, arXiv:1907.12551 [astro- ph.CO]

1907 arXiv
[25]

Perivolaropoulos, Phys

L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123518 (2024), arXiv:2408.11031 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Abdalla et al

E. Abdalla et al. , JCAP 12, 048, arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[27]

Aghanim et al

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

2020 arXiv
[28]

A. G. Riess et al. , Astrophys. J. 934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[29]

Marra and L

V. Marra and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 104, L021303 (2021), arXiv:2102.06012 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[31]

Efstathiou, arxiv (2020), arXiv:2007.10716 [astro- ph.CO]

G. Efstathiou, arxiv (2020), arXiv:2007.10716 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[32]

Mortsell and S

E. Mortsell and S. Dhawan, JCAP 09, 025, arXiv:2105.05258 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[33]

Poulin, T

V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 221301 (2019), arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[34]

Kamionkowski and L

M. Kamionkowski and L. Verde, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 75 (2023), arXiv:2209.10328 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[35]

T. L. Smith, V. Poulin, J. L. Bernal, K. K. Boddy, M. Kamionkowski, and R. Murgia, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123542 (2021), arXiv:2009.10740 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[36]

not relevant for the GSM model. This conclusion is strongly supported by our current understanding of Earth’s thermal and mechanical evolution [110] and is consistent with the continuous evolution of days per year shown in Figure 3. EAR TH-MOON SYSTEM The tidal interaction bet...
[37]

Jedamzik, L

K. Jedamzik, L. Pogosian, and G.-B. Zhao, Commun. Phys. 4, 123 (2021), arXiv:2010.04158 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[38]

Vagnozzi, Phys

S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023518 (2020), arXiv:1907.07569 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Simon, P

T. Simon, P. Zhang, V. Poulin, and T. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063505 (2023), arXiv:2208.05930 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[40]

Niedermann and M

F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063527 (2020), arXiv:2006.06686 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[41]

Braglia, M

M. Braglia, M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043528 (2021), arXiv:2011.12934 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[42]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, S. Clesse, A.-C. Davis, and G. Sculthorpe, Phys. Rev. D 89, 123507 (2014), arXiv:1312.3361 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[43]

Adi and E

T. Adi and E. D. Kovetz, Phys. Rev. D 103, 023530 (2021), arXiv:2011.13853 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[44]

Clifton, P

T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Sko- rdis, Phys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.2476 [astro- ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[45]

M.-X. Lin, M. Raveri, and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 99, 043514 (2019), arXiv:1810.02333 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[46]

W. Zhao, B. S. Wright, and B. Li, JCAP 10, 052, arXiv:1804.03066 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[47]

Chandrasekhar, Astrophys

S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J. 140, 417 (1964)

1964
[48]

Boshkayev, J

K. Boshkayev, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and I. Siutsou, Astrophys. J. 762, 117 (2013), arXiv:1204.2070 [astro- ph.SR]

2013 arXiv
[49]

Panpanich, P

S. Panpanich, P. Burikham, S. Ponglertsakul, and L. Tannukij, Chin. Phys. C 45, 015108 (2021), arXiv:1908.03324 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[50]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Dark Univ. 30, 100666 (2020), arXiv:1908.04281 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[51]

Di Valentino, A

E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, O. Mena, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063502 (2020), arXiv:1910.09853 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[52]

Li and A

X. Li and A. Shafieloo, Astrophys. J. 902, 58 (2020), arXiv:2001.05103 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[53]

S. J. Clark, K. Vattis, and S. M. Koushiappas, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043014 (2021), arXiv:2006.03678 [astro- ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[54]

Di Valentino, E

E. Di Valentino, E. V. Linder, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Dark Univ. 30, 100733 (2020), arXiv:2006.16291 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[55]

Bousis and L

D. Bousis and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103546 (2024), arXiv:2405.07039 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[56]

A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), JCAP 02, 021, arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[57]

Alestas, L

G. Alestas, L. Kazantzidis, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083517 (2021), arXiv:2012.13932 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[58]

B. S. Wright and B. Li, Phys. Rev. D 97, 083505 (2018), arXiv:1710.07018 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[59]

Desmond and J

H. Desmond and J. Sakstein, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023007 (2020), arXiv:2003.12876 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[60]

Banik, H

I. Banik, H. Desmond, and N. Samaras, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 539, 1553 (2025), arXiv:2411.15301 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[61]

Perivolaropoulos, and A

Ruchika, L. Perivolaropoulos, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123526 (2025), arXiv:2408.03875 [astro- ph.CO]

2025
[62]

Rathore, S

Ruchika, H. Rathore, S. Roy Choudhury, and V. Rentala, JCAP 06, 056, arXiv:2306.05450 [astro- ph.CO]
[63]

Uzan, Living Rev

J.-P. Uzan, Living Rev. Rel. 14, 2 (2011), arXiv:1009.5514 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[64]

Galli, A

S. Galli, A. Melchiorri, G. F. Smoot, and O. Zahn, Phys. Rev. D 80, 023508 (2009)

2009
[65]

Lamine, Y

B. Lamine, Y. Ozdalkiran, L. Mirouze, F. Erdogan, S. Ilic, I. Tutusaus, R. Kou, and A. Blanchard, Astron. Astrophys. 697, A109 (2025), arXiv:2407.15553 [astro- ph.CO]

2025 arXiv
[66]

Carneiro and J

S. Carneiro and J. A. S. Lima, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 20, 2465 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0405141

2005 arXiv
[67]

Distance indicator comparisons provide another cru- cial test of the GSM

provides crucial systematic uncertainty estimates through empirical cross-validation studies. Distance indicator comparisons provide another cru- cial test of the GSM. Analyses by [129] demonstrate that current observations allow for variations in G at the level of ∆G/GN ∼ 0.2...
[68]

Ballardini, F

M. Ballardini, F. Finelli, and D. Sapone, JCAP 06 (06), 004, arXiv:2111.09168 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[69]

Gaztanaga, E

E. Gaztanaga, E. Garcia-Berro, J. Isern, E. Bravo, and I. Dominguez, Phys. Rev. D 65, 023506 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0109299

2002 arXiv
[70]

B. S. Wright and B. Li, Phys. Rev. D 97, 083505 (2017). 18

2017
[71]

F. X. Timmes and D. Arnett, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 125, 277 (1999)

1999
[72]

I. R. Seitenzahl, D. M. Townsley, F. Peng, and J. W. Truran, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 95, 96 (2009)

2009
[73]

Yoon and N

S.-C. Yoon and N. Langer, Astron. Astrophys. 419, 623 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402287

2004 arXiv
[74]

Das and B

U. Das and B. Mukhopadhyay, Astrophys. J. Lett. 791, L4 (2014), arXiv:1404.7627 [astro-ph.SR]

2014 arXiv
[75]

Jones, F

S. Jones, F. K. R¨ opke, R. Pakmor, I. R. Seitenzahl, S. T. Ohlmann, and P. V. F. Edelmann, Astron. Astrophys. 593, A72 (2016), arXiv:1602.05771 [astro-ph.SR]

2016 arXiv
[76]

Lee, Universe 10, 268 (2024), arXiv:2101.09862 [astro-ph.CO]

S. Lee, Universe 10, 268 (2024), arXiv:2101.09862 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[77]

Brachwitz, D

F. Brachwitz, D. J. Dean, W. R. Hix, K. Iwamoto, K. Langanke, G. Martinez-Pinedo, K. Nomoto, M. R. Strayer, F.-K. Thielemann, and H. Umeda, Astrophys. J. 536, 934 (2000)

2000
[78]

Parikh, J

A. Parikh, J. Jose, I. R. Seitenzahl, and F. K. Roepke, Astron. Astrophys. 557, A3 (2013), arXiv:1306.6007 [astro-ph.SR]

2013 arXiv
[79]

Langanke and G

K. Langanke and G. Martinez-Pinedo, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 819 (2003)

2003
[80]

M. R. Magee, S. A. Sim, R. Kotak, and W. E. Kerzendorf, Astron. Astrophys. 614, A115 (2018), arXiv:1803.04436 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[81]

I. R. Seitenzahl, F. Ciaraldi-Schoolmann, F. K. R¨ opke, M. Fink, W. Hillebrandt, M. Kromer, R. Pakmor, A. J. Ruiter, S. A. Sim, and S. Taubenberger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 429, 1156 (2013), arXiv:1211.3015 [astro- ph.SR]

2013 arXiv
[82]

S. A. Sim, I. R. Seitenzahl, M. Kromer, F. Ciaraldi- Schoolmann, F. K. R¨ opke, M. Fink, W. Hillebrandt, R. Pakmor, A. J. Ruiter, and S. Taubenberger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.436, 333 (2013), arXiv:1308.4833 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[83]

W. D. Arnett, Astrophys. J. 253, 785 (1982)

1982
[84]

U. M. Noebauer, M. Kromer, S. Taubenberger, P. Bak- lanov, S. Blinnikov, and E. Sorokina, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 472, 2787 (2017), arXiv:1706.03613 [astro- ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[85]

A. L. Piro and V. S. Morozova, Astrophys. J. 826, 96 (2016), arXiv:1512.03442 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[86]

D. J. Jeffery, astro-ph/9907015 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9907015

1999 arXiv
[87]

J. Guy, P. Astier, S. Baumont, D. Hardin, R. Pain, N. Regnault, S. Basa, R. G. Carlberg, A. Conley, S. Fabbro, et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 466, 11 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0701828

2007 arXiv
[88]

Betoule, R

M. Betoule, R. Kessler, J. Guy, J. Mosher, D. Hardin, R. Biswas, P. Astier, P. El-Hage, M. Konig, S. Kuhlmann, et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 568, A22 (2014), arXiv:1401.4064 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[89]

M. M. Phillips, Astrophys. J. Lett. 413, L105 (1993)

1993
[90]

Conley, M

A. Conley, M. Sullivan, E. Y. Hsiao, J. Guy, P. Astier, D. Pain, N. Regnault, et al. , Astrophys. J. 681, 482 (2008), arXiv:0803.3441 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[91]

D. M. Scolnic, D. O. Jones, A. Rest, Y. C. Pan, R. Chornock, R. J. Foley, M. E. Huber, R. Kessler, G. Narayan, A. G. Riess, et al. , Astrophys. J. 859, 101 (2018), arXiv:1710.00845 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[92]

Rubin, B

D. Rubin, B. Hayden, X. Huang, G. Aldering, P. An- tilogus, S. Bailey, C. Baltay, K. Barbary, S. Bon- gard, K. Boone, et al. , Astrophys. J. 820, 33 (2016), arXiv:1507.01602 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[93]

Lesaffre, Z

P. Lesaffre, Z. Han, C. A. Tout, P. Podsiadlowski, and R. G. Martin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 368, 187 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601443

2006 arXiv
[94]

Fisher and K

R. Fisher and K. Jumper, Astrophys. J. 805, 150 (2015), arXiv:1504.00014 [astro-ph.SR]

2015 arXiv
[95]

Hansen, M

J. Hansen, M. Sato, G. Russell, and P. Kharecha, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 371, 20120294 (2013)

2013
[96]

A. M. Jellinek and M. Manga, Reviews of Geophysics 42, RG3002 (2004)

2004
[97]

D. M. Townsley, A. P. Jackson, A. C. Calder, D. A. Chamulak, E. F. Brown, and F. X. Timmes, Astrophys. J. 701, 1582 (2009), arXiv:0906.4384 [astro-ph.SR]

2009 arXiv
[98]

Galli, A

S. Galli, A. Melchiorri, G. F. Smoot, and O. Zahn, Phys. Rev. D 80, 023508 (2009), arXiv:0905.1808 [astro- ph.CO]

2009 arXiv
[99]

Wang and L

K. Wang and L. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 570 (2020), arXiv:2004.13976 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[100]

Sakr and D

Z. Sakr and D. Sapone, JCAP 03 (03), 034, arXiv:2112.14173 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv
[101]

F. S. Accetta, L. M. Krauss, and P. Romanelli, Phys. Lett. B 248, 146 (1990)

1990
[102]

C. J. Copi, A. N. Davis, and L. M. Krauss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 171301 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0311334

2004 arXiv
[103]

R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, and E. Skill- man, Astropart. Phys. 23, 313 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0408033

2005
[104]

Alvey, N

J. Alvey, N. Sabti, M. Escudero, and M. Fairbairn, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 148 (2020), arXiv:1910.10730 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[105]

Teller, Physical Review 73, 801 (1948)

E. Teller, Physical Review 73, 801 (1948)

1948
[106]

F. C. Adams, JCAP 08, 010
[107]

Davis, E

A.-C. Davis, E. A. Lim, J. Sakstein, and D. J. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123006 (2012)

2012
[109]

J. N. Connelly, M. Bizzarro, A. N. Krot, A. Nord- lund, D. Wielandt, and M. A. Ivanova, Science 338, 651 (2012)

2012
[110]

G. J. MacPherson, Meteorites, Comets and Planets: Treatise on Geochemistry 1, 201 (2005)

2005
[111]

Kleine, M

T. Kleine, M. Touboul, B. Bourdon, F. Nimmo, K. Mezger, H. Palme, S. B. Jacobsen, Q.-Z. Yin, and A. N. Halliday, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73, 5150 (2009)

2009
[112]

Kleine and J

T. Kleine and J. F. Rudge, Elements 7, 41 (2011)

2011
[113]

A. N. Krot, Y. Amelin, P. Bland, F. J. Ciesla, J. Con- nelly, A. M. Davis, G. R. Huss, I. D. Hutcheon, K. Makide, K. Nagashima, L. E. Nyquist, S. S. Russell, E. R. D. Scott, K. Thrane, H. Yurimoto, and Q. Z. Yin, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73, 4963 (2009)

2009
[114]

Bonanno and H.-E

A. Bonanno and H.-E. Fr¨ ohlich, Astronomy &; Astro- physics 580, A130 (2015)

2015
[115]

W. A. Dziembowski, G. Fiorentini, B. Ricci, and R. Sienkiewicz, Astron. Astrophys. 343, 990 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9809361

1999 arXiv
[116]

Silva Aguirre, G

V. Silva Aguirre, G. R. Davies, S. Basu, J. Christensen- Dalsgaard, O. Creevey, T. S. Metcalfe, T. R. Bedding, L. Casagrande, R. Handberg, M. N. Lund, P. E. Nissen, W. J. Chaplin, D. Huber, A. M. Serenelli, D. Stello, V. Van Eylen, T. L. Campante, Y. Elsworth, R. L. Gilliland,...

2015
[117]

Scott and R

M. Scott and R. Lindsey, What’s the hottest Earth’s ever been? (2023), published November 22, 2023

2023
[118]

Zachos, M

J. Zachos, M. Pagani, L. Sloan, E. Thomas, and K. Billups, Science 292, 686 (2001)

2001
[119]

J. A. M. Green, M. Huber, D. Waltham, J. Buzan, and M. Wells, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 461, 46 (2017)

2017
[120]

Davies, Treatise on Geophysics 9, 197 (2007)

G. Davies, Treatise on Geophysics 9, 197 (2007)

2007
[121]

Feng and C

F. Feng and C. A. L. Bailer-Jones, Quaternary Science Reviews 122, 166 (2015)

2015
[122]

Rahmstorf, Nature 419, 207 (2002)

S. Rahmstorf, Nature 419, 207 (2002)

2002
[123]

R. T. Pierrehumbert, Principles of Planetary Climate (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010
[124]

E. J. Rohling, A. Sluijs, H. A. Dijkstra, and P. K¨ ohler, Nature 491, 683 (2012)

2012
[125]

Donohoe and D

A. Donohoe and D. S. Battisti, Journal of Climate 24, 4402 (2011)

2011
[126]

Ferrari and D

R. Ferrari and D. Ferreira, Ocean Modelling 38, 171 (2011)

2011
[127]

Knutti and G

R. Knutti and G. C. Hegerl, Nature Geoscience 1, 735 (2008)

2008
[128]

Korenaga, Reviews of Geophysics 46 (2008)

J. Korenaga, Reviews of Geophysics 46 (2008)

2008
[129]

Herzberg, K

C. Herzberg, K. Condie, and J. Korenaga, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 292, 79 (2010)

2010
[130]

Mitrovica and A

J. Mitrovica and A. Forte, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 225, 177 (2004)

2004
[131]

Chandrasekhar, Ellipsoidal Figures of Equilibrium (Dover Publications, New York, 1987)

S. Chandrasekhar, Ellipsoidal Figures of Equilibrium (Dover Publications, New York, 1987)

1987
[132]

D. L. Turcotte and G. Schubert, Geodynamics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002)

2002
[133]

Bercovici, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 205, 107 (2003)

D. Bercovici, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 205, 107 (2003)

2003
[134]

Theoretical work must advance in parallel with these observational capabilities

with detailed studies of stellar evolution under mod- ified gravity scenarios [143] provides a promising path forward. Theoretical work must advance in parallel with these observational capabilities. The development of more so- phisticated stellar evolution models incorporatin...
[135]

G. F. Davies, Mantle Convection for Geologists (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2011)

2011
[136]

Goldreich, Reviews of Geophysics 4, 411 (1966)

P. Goldreich, Reviews of Geophysics 4, 411 (1966)

1966
[137]

C. D. Murray and S. F. Dermott, Solar System Dy- namics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000)

2000
[138]

Bills and R

B. Bills and R. Ray, Geophysical Research Letters - GEOPHYS RES LETT 26, 3045 (1999)

1999
[139]

fine-tuned

have identified potential transitions in various dis- tance indicators at scales consistent with GSM predic- tions. These results align with detailed investigations of galaxy scaling relations [147] and the cosmic distance ladder [148]. The GSM offers several theoretical advan...
[140]

Lambeck, The Earth’s Variable Rotation: Geophys- ical Causes and Consequences (Cambridge University Press, 1980)

K. Lambeck, The Earth’s Variable Rotation: Geophys- ical Causes and Consequences (Cambridge University Press, 1980)

1980
[141]

G. E. Williams, Reviews of Geophysics 38, 37 (2000)

2000
[142]

N. J. de Winter, S. Goderis, S. J. M. Van Malderen, M. Sinnesael, S. Vansteenberge, C. Snoeck, J. Belza, F. Vanhaecke, and P. Claeys, Paleoceanography and Pa- leoclimatology 35, e2019PA003723 (2020)

2020
[143]

D. J. Webb, Geophysical Journal International 70, 261 (1982)

1982
[144]

Laskar, P

J. Laskar, P. Robutel, F. Joutel, M. Gastineau, A. C. M. Correia, and B. Levrard, Astronomy & Astrophysics 428, 261 (2004)

2004
[145]

J. W. Wells, Nature 197, 948 (1963)

1963
[146]

Pannella, Astrophysics and Space Science 16, 212 (1972)

G. Pannella, Astrophysics and Space Science 16, 212 (1972)

1972
[147]

D. S. Jones, American Scientist 71, 384 (1983)

1983
[148]

Sch¨ one, E

B. Sch¨ one, E. Dunca, J. Fiebig, and M. Pfeiffer, Palaeo- geography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 228, 149 (2005)

2005
[149]

W. B. N. Berry and R. M. Barker, Nature 217, 938 (1968)

1968
[150]

C. T. Scrutton, Tidal Friction and the Earth’s Rotation , 154 (1978)

1978
[151]

F. R. Stephenson, L. V. Morrison, and C. Y. Hohenkerk, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 472, 20160404 (2016)

2016
[152]

Morrison and F

L. Morrison and F. Stephenson, Journal for the History of Astronomy 35 (2004)

2004
[153]

Desmond and J

H. Desmond and J. Sakstein, Physical Review D 102, 023007 (2020)

2020
[154]

Romaniello, F

M. Romaniello, F. Primas, M. Mottini, S. Pedicelli, B. Lemasle, G. Bono, P. Fran¸ cois, M. Groenewegen, and C. Laney, A&A 488 (2008)

2008
[155]

W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, T. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. Beaton, M. G. Lee, A. Monson, J. Neeley, and J. Rich, The Astrophysical Journal 891, 10.3847/1538- 4357/ab7339 (2020), arXiv:2002.01550 [astro-ph.GA]

2020 arXiv
[156]

J. P. Blakeslee, Astrophysics and Space Science 341, 179–186 (2012)

2012
[157]

W. Yuan, A. G. Riess, L. M. Macri, S. Casertano, and D. M. Scolnic, The Astrophysical Journal 886, 61 (2019)

2019
[158]

A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, J. B. Bowers, L. Macri, J. C. Zinn, and D. Scolnic, ApJL 908, L6 (2021)

2021
[159]

Pietrzy´ nski, D

G. Pietrzy´ nski, D. Graczyk, A. Gallenne, W. Gieren, I. B. Thompson, B. Pilecki, P. Karczmarek, M. G´ orski, K. Suchomska, M. Taormina, et al. , Nature 567, 200 (2019)

2019
[160]

Desmond, B

H. Desmond, B. Jain, and J. Sakstein, Physical Review D 100, 043537 (2019)

2019
[161]

W. L. Freedman, B. F. Madore, D. Hatt, T. J. Hoyt, I. S. Jang, R. L. Beaton, C. R. Burns, M. G. Lee, A. J. Monson, J. R. Neeley, et al. , ApJ 882, 34 (2019)

2019
[162]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, Universe 8, 502 (2022), arXiv:2208.11169 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[163]

Alestas, I

G. Alestas, I. Antoniou, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Uni- verse 7, 366 (2021), arXiv:2104.14481 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[164]

Moresco, R

M. Moresco, R. Jimenez, L. Verde, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, and A. Citro, ApJ 868, 84 (2018), arXiv:1804.05864 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[165]

Uzan, Living Rev

J.-P. Uzan, Living Rev. Rel. 14, 2 (2011)

2011
[166]

J. Choi, A. Dotter, C. Conroy, M. Cantiello, B. Paxton, and B. D. Johnson, ApJ 823, 102 (2016)

2016
[167]

Sakstein, Phys

J. Sakstein, Phys. Rev. D 92, 124045 (2015)

2015
[168]

Burrage and J

C. Burrage and J. Sakstein, Living Rev. Rel. 21, 1 (2018)

2018
[169]

Capozziello and M

S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Phys. Rept. 509, 167 (2011)

2011
[170]

Perivolaropoulos and F

L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, arXiv e-prints (2021), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[171]

S. S. McGaugh, ApJ 901, 118 (2020)

2020
[172]

W. L. Freedman, ApJ 919, 16 (2021)

2021
[173]

M¨ ortsell and S

E. M¨ ortsell and S. Dhawan, JCAP09, 025
[174]

Verde, T

L. Verde, T. Treu, and A. G. Riess, Nature Astronomy 3, 891 (2019)

2019
[175]

Efstratiou and L

D. Efstratiou and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123546 (2025), arXiv:2503.11365 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Single Parameter V ariation: The analysis as- sumes G is the only varying fundamental constant, while in realistic modified gravity theories, varia- tions in other fundamental constants may be cor- related with changes in G [2]

[2] [2]

Recombination Physics: Standard recombina- tion calculations are used, but modified gravity could affect atomic physics during the recombina- tion epoch in ways not fully captured by current models [3]

[3] [3]

BBN Effects: The simplified linear model used for BBN effects may not capture the full complexity of nuclear physics with varying G

[4] [4]

Screening Mechanisms: No detailed treatment of possible screening mechanisms that could affect how G variations manifest at different scales is in- cluded in the analysis

[5] [5]

Figure 1 of [36] attempts to demonstrate that the GSM requires a significantly larger change of G than allowed by current constraints

Spatial V ariations: The analysis assumes a uni- form value of G across all scales, while in the con- text of a late first-order phase transition as pro- posed in [5], spatial variations of G could exist, particularly at low redshifts ( z ≲ 0.01). Figure 1 of [36] attempts to demonstrate that the GSM requires a significantly larger change of G than allowe...

2018

[6] [6]

Different theoretical treatments yield values ranging from approximately 4 to 7, in- troducing significant uncertainty in the predicted effects

Theoretical Uncertainty: The exact power-law index in the L-G relation remains subject to mod- eling assumptions. Different theoretical treatments yield values ranging from approximately 4 to 7, in- troducing significant uncertainty in the predicted effects

[7] [7]

Stellar Model Parameters: The helioseismic age determination 4 .58 ± 0.06 Gyr [84] depends on assumptions about opacity, metallicity, and other stellar parameters that might need recalibration under modified gravity scenarios

[8] [8]

The assumption of instan- taneous adjustment to the new equilibrium config- uration may not be valid

T ransition Physics:The detailed physics of how stellar structure would respond to a rapid change in G remains uncertain. The assumption of instan- taneous adjustment to the new equilibrium config- uration may not be valid