Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and the Vacuum Displacement Principle: From Galactic Scales to Cosmic Fine-Tuning

Rodrigo Maier

arxiv: 2604.21050 · v2 · pith:IMH7DXFUnew · submitted 2026-04-22 · 🌀 gr-qc · hep-th

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and the Vacuum Displacement Principle: From Galactic Scales to Cosmic Fine-Tuning

Rodrigo Maier This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-05 01:54 UTC · model glm-5.2

classification 🌀 gr-qc hep-th

keywords vacuumprincipledisplacementbreakingfine-tuninggalacticmattermechanism

0 comments

The pith

Vacuum as a spring: one Higgs field replaces dark matter and dark energy

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

The paper proposes that baryonic matter displaces a Higgs-type vacuum field χ from its equilibrium value, producing a Yukawa-corrected gravitational potential Φ_eff = -GM/r(1 + ξ e^{-m_χ r}) that boosts galactic rotation curves without dark matter, recovers Schwarzschild in vacuum, and dynamically relaxes the cosmological constant via ρ_vac ∝ ρ_m².

Core claim

The central mechanism is the coupling Q^ν = αT∇^νχ, where T is the trace of the matter stress-energy tensor and α is a coupling constant. This formalizes the idea that matter acts as an impurity in the vacuum substrate, sourcing a displacement δχ in the scalar field. In the weak-field limit, this displacement produces a Yukawa-type fifth force with strength ξ = α²/(4πG) and range m_χ⁻¹. Because the coupling is to the trace T, radiation (which has T = 0) does not feel this force, creating a predicted divergence between dynamical mass and lensing mass. On cosmological scales, the quasi-static displacement δχ ≈ αρ_m/m_χ² yields a vacuum energy density ρ_vac ≈ α²ρ_m²/(2m_χ²), making the cosmolog

What carries the argument

The coupling Q^ν = αT∇^νχ between matter (via stress-energy trace T) and a Higgs-type scalar field χ with potential U(χ) = (λ/4)(χ² - v²)². This produces: (1) a modified geodesic equation with a fifth-force term -α(g^μσ + u^μu^σ)∂_σχ, (2) a field-dependent inertial mass m(χ) = m₀ e^{αχ}, (3) a Yukawa-corrected potential Φ_eff = -GM/r(1 + ξ e^{-m_χ r}) with ξ = α²/(4πG), and (4) a tracking relation ρ_vac ∝ ρ_m² that dynamically replaces the cosmological constant.

If this is right

Gravitational lensing mass should systematically fall below dynamical mass inferred from stellar kinematics, because photons (T_em = 0) do not couple to the vacuum displacement field — a testable signature distinguishable from dark matter predictions.
The Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation emerges naturally because the additional gravitational boost is proportional to baryonic mass M through the trace coupling, without requiring a dark-to-light mass ratio to be fine-tuned.
The H₀ tension could be alleviated if early-universe vacuum displacement shifted particle masses and thus the sound horizon at recombination, changing the CMB-inferred Hubble rate.
Perihelion precession of planets receives anomalous corrections scaling as ~ξ(GM/a), which remain below current observational thresholds for galactic-scale m_χ but could become detectable with improved solar system tests if ξ is not extremely small.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a screening mechanism (Chameleon or Vainshtein type) suppresses the WEP-violating coupling ξ in the Solar System to satisfy MICROSCOPE bounds (|η| < 10⁻¹⁵) while allowing ξ ~ O(1) at galactic scales, but does not demonstrate that the specific Higgs-type quartic potential with trace-coupled matter interaction actually admits such screening.

What would settle it

Measurements showing that gravitational lensing mass and dynamical mass agree to high precision at galactic scales, since the framework predicts photons (with T_em = 0) should not feel the vacuum displacement force, creating a systematic lensing-is-low signal.

read the original abstract

We present a modified gravity framework based on a principle of vacuum displacement, where the vacuum is modeled as a Higgs-type scalar field $\chi$ undergoing spontaneous symmetry breaking. The macroscopic manifestation of such vacuum displacement principle is phenomenologically introduced via a low-energy effective scalar tensor coupling so that baryonic matter acts as an impurity in the vacuum substrate. This interaction leads to a restorative buoyancy force that modifies the geodesic equation and violates the Weak Equivalence Principle. We show that this mechanism naturally recovers the Schwarzschild metric in the vacuum limit while providing a Yukawa-corrected Newtonian potential in the presence of matter. This correction offers a dynamical explanation for flat galactic rotation curves and a tracking mechanism for the cosmological constant, potentially resolving the coincidence and fine-tuning problems without the need of dark sectors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Yukawa potential structurally cannot produce flat rotation curves; framework has genuine ideas but central phenomenological claim is unsupported by its own equations

read the letter

The main thing you need to know: the stress-test concern about rotation curves is correct, and it's the load-bearing problem. The paper's own Eq. (35) gives v²_c = (GM/r)[1 + ξ(1 + m_χr)e^{-m_χr}], and since (1+x)e^{-x} is monotonically decreasing with maximum 1 at x=0, the velocity always falls at least as fast as r^{-1/2}. No choice of ξ or m_χ produces a flat curve over any extended range. The Yukawa term can only rescale G, not change the radial profile. The author acknowledges this in §VI (hand-waves toward 'a spectrum of scales or a non-linear coupling') but offers no derivation of how that would arise from the Higgs potential or the specific coupling. So the central phenomenological claim — explaining flat rotation curves — is not just unquantified; it is structurally unsupported by the theory as derived. The reader correctly identified the missing fits but understated the problem: it's a categorical mismatch, not a quantitative gap. The reader's other concern about screening is also valid but secondary. The paper invokes Chameleon/Vainshtein screening by citation [16,17] without checking whether the simple quartic potential U(χ) = (λ/4)(χ²-v²)² with trace-coupling Q^ν = αT∇^νχ actually admits such mechanisms. Standard chameleon models use exponential or inverse-power potentials, not quartic Higgs forms. This needs to be shown, not assumed. That said, there is real work here worth crediting. The linearized derivation of the Yukawa potential from the coupling is clean and parameter-free in form — the e^{-m_χr} profile follows from the Klein-Gordon equation, not from fitting. The Schwarzschild vacuum recovery (§V) is correct by construction and cleanly argued. The perihelion precession calculation (§V.A) is a genuine derivation with both fifth-force and variable-inertia contributions. The tracking relation ρ_vac ∝ ρ_m² (Eq. 39) is a legitimate consequence of the quasi-static approximation. And the lensing prediction — photons decouple from the vacuum force because T_em = 0, creating a kinematics-vs-lensing discrepancy — is genuinely interesting and falsifiable, even though it is asserted rather than derived from a full perturbation analysis. The cosmological constant discussion gives a scaling but no numerical check against the observed value, so it's suggestive but incomplete. Who is this for? Theoretical cosmologists and modified-gravity people. The lensing prediction and tracking mechanism are the parts with lasting value; the rotation curve story needs to be either fixed or dropped. I'd send this to a serious referee. The framework is not internally inconsistent and several derivations check out, but the referee needs to press hard on the rotation curve problem and the screening claim — both are currently gaps between what is derived and what is asserted.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a modified gravity framework in which a Higgs-type scalar field chi, undergoing spontaneous symmetry breaking, couples to baryonic matter via Q^nu = alpha T nabla^nu chi. This coupling formalizes a 'vacuum displacement principle' where matter acts as an impurity in the vacuum substrate. The author derives a Yukawa-corrected Newtonian potential (Eq. 24), recovers the Schwarzschild metric in vacuum (Section V), computes perihelion precession modifications (Section V.A), discusses galactic rotation curves (Section VI), and proposes a dynamical relaxation mechanism for the cosmological constant (Section VII). The linearized derivation of the Yukawa potential from the coupled Poisson-Klein-Gordon system is internally consistent, and the Schwarzschild vacuum recovery is straightforward. However, the central phenomenological claim—that the Yukawa potential explains flat galactic rotation curves—is not supported by the theory's own equations, as the derived circular velocity (Eq. 35) always decays at least as fast as Keplerian. Additionally, the screening mechanism invoked to evade MICROSCOPE constraints is asserted by citation without demonstration that the specific Higgs-type potential and trace-coupled interaction admit such screening.

Significance. The paper addresses two major problems (dark matter and the cosmological constant) through a single mechanism, which is an ambitious and potentially significant unification if the framework can be made quantitative. The Yukawa potential derivation (Section IV) is a genuine parameter-free consequence of the assumed coupling and potential structure, and the vacuum recovery of Schwarzschild (Section V) is a clean result. The prediction of a divergence between dynamical mass and lensing mass (Section VI) is a falsifiable observational signature. However, the significance is substantially diminished by the structural inability of the derived potential to produce the primary phenomenological effect claimed (flat rotation curves), and by the lack of any quantitative fit to data.

major comments (3)

§VI, Eq. (35): The circular velocity v_c^2 = (GM/r)[1 + xi(1 + m_chi r)e^{-m_chi r}] cannot produce flat rotation curves. The factor (1+x)e^{-x} <= 1 for all x >= 0, with maximum at x=0. Therefore v_c^2 <= GM(1+xi)/r in all regimes, meaning the velocity always decays at least as fast as r^{-1/2} (Keplerian). In the core regime (r << m_chi^{-1}), the Yukawa term merely renormalizes G -> G(1+xi), still giving Keplerian falloff. At r ~ m_chi^{-1}, the exponential suppression further steepens the decline. The paper acknowledges this in §VI ('a single-scale Yukawa potential provides a boost... but observed flatness over several decades of r suggests that the vacuum response may involve a spectrum of scales or a non-linear coupling'), but offers no derivation of how such a spectrum or non-linearity arises from U(chi) = (lambda/4)(chi^2 - v^2)^2 or Q^nu = alpha T nabla^nu chi. This is a load-ba
§IV, paragraph on MICROSCOPE constraints: The paper invokes Chameleon or Vainshtein screening [16,17] to suppress the WEP-violating coupling xi in the Solar System while allowing it to remain O(1) at galactic scales. However, the Higgs-type potential U(chi) = (lambda/4)(chi^2 - v^2)^2 is a simple quartic, not the exponential or inverse-power potentials used in chameleon models, and the coupling structure here (trace-coupled via Q^nu = alpha T nabla^nu chi) differs from standard screened fifth-force frameworks. No calculation is presented showing that the specific potential and coupling in this paper actually admit a working screening mechanism. Since the entire Solar System viability argument depends on this screening, this is a load-bearing gap.
§VI: No quantitative fit to any galaxy rotation curve is performed. The paper only describes qualitative regimes (core and scalar halo) without comparing to observed data. Given that Eq. (35) structurally cannot produce flat curves (see major comment 1), even a qualitative 'boost' is insufficient to demonstrate viability. At minimum, the author should either (a) show explicitly that some extension of the framework (multi-scale, non-linear) can produce flat curves with a concrete derivation, or (b) significantly scale back the claim that the mechanism 'naturally accounts for flat rotation curves.'

minor comments (7)

§III, Eq. (13): The derivation of m(chi) = m_0 e^{alpha chi} from d(rho)/dtau = alpha rho d(chi)/dtau is presented very briefly. Expanding the steps (integration, identification of m with rho in the non-relativistic limit) would aid the reader.
§V.A, Eq. (31): The approximation leading to the precession formula Delta_phi_chi ~ pi xi (m_chi a)^2 e^{-m_chi a} should be checked. The Binet equation (30) has a non-trivial dependence on u through the exponential e^{-m_chi/u}, and the linearization around u_0 = 1/a should be stated more carefully to confirm the result.
§VI: The prediction that gravitational lensing should reflect primarily baryonic mass (since T_em = 0 for photons) is a distinctive and testable signature. However, this prediction is in tension with observed strong lensing by galaxies and clusters, which consistently shows mass profiles consistent with dark matter halos. This tension should be acknowledged and discussed quantitatively.
§VII, Eq. (38): The quasi-static approximation delta chi ~ alpha rho_m / m_chi^2 is used to derive the tracking relation rho_vac ~ alpha^2 rho_m^2 / (2 m_chi^2). The regime of validity (when is the quasi-static approximation justified?) and the observational constraints on the parameters (alpha, m_chi) should be stated.
§VII: The claim that the mechanism resolves the H_0 tension via shifts in the sound horizon is speculative. No calculation of the sound horizon modification is presented. The author should either provide a quantitative estimate or soften the claim to a qualitative suggestion.
Abstract: 'potentially resolving the coincidence and fine-tuning problems without the need of dark sectors' overstates what is demonstrated. The abstract should reflect that the galactic rotation curve claim is not yet quantitatively supported (see major comments).
References: The paper would benefit from citing relevant modified gravity / scalar-tensor literature on Yukawa corrections to galactic dynamics, as there is prior work on Yukawa-type fifth forces and rotation curves that should be discussed for novelty and context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

The referee raises three major comments, all of which are substantively correct. We agree that (1) the single-scale Yukawa potential in Eq. (35) cannot produce flat rotation curves, (2) the screening mechanism is asserted without demonstration for our specific potential and coupling, and (3) no quantitative fit to data is performed. We will revise the manuscript to scale back the galactic rotation curve claims, explicitly acknowledge the screening gap, and reframe the paper's contributions around what the framework genuinely demonstrates.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: §VI, Eq. (35): The circular velocity v_c^2 = (GM/r)[1 + xi(1 + m_chi r)e^{-m_chi r}] cannot produce flat rotation curves. The factor (1+x)e^{-x} <= 1 for all x >= 0, with maximum at x=0. Therefore v_c^2 <= GM(1+xi)/r in all regimes, meaning the velocity always decays at least as fast as r^{-1/2} (Keplerian).

Authors: The referee's mathematical analysis is correct. We have verified that (1+x)e^{-x} ≤ 1 for all x ≥ 0, with equality only at x = 0. Consequently, the Yukawa correction in Eq. (35) can only boost the effective gravitational constant by a factor (1+ξ) in the core regime and always steepens the decline relative to pure Keplerian at finite x. The single-scale Yukawa potential derived from the linearized coupled Poisson-Klein-Gordon system cannot produce flat rotation curves over several decades in radius. We acknowledge this without reservation. In the revised manuscript, we will remove the claim that the mechanism 'naturally accounts for flat rotation curves' from the abstract and Section VI, and replace it with an honest statement of what Eq. (35) does provide: a scale-dependent enhancement of the effective gravitational constant that is strongest in the core and suppressed at large radii. We will also explicitly note the mathematical bound the referee has identified. The speculation about a spectrum of scales or non-linear coupling, which we mentioned in the original text but did not derive, will be clearly labeled as a direction for future work rather than a consequence of the present framework. revision: yes
Referee: §IV, paragraph on MICROSCOPE constraints: The paper invokes Chameleon or Vainshtein screening to suppress the WEP-violating coupling in the Solar System, but the Higgs-type potential U(chi) = (lambda/4)(chi^2 - v^2)^2 is a simple quartic, not the exponential or inverse-power potentials used in chameleon models, and the coupling structure differs from standard screened fifth-force frameworks. No calculation is presented showing that the specific potential and coupling actually admit a working screening mechanism.

Authors: The referee is correct. The standard chameleon screening mechanism relies on a potential whose curvature (effective mass) grows in high-density environments, which requires specific potential structures such as inverse-power-law forms U(χ) ∝ χ^{-n} or exponential forms. The simple quartic Higgs potential U(χ) = (λ/4)(χ² - v²)² does not generically exhibit this behavior: the effective mass m²_χ = 2λv² is a constant in the linearized regime, and there is no density-dependent mass enhancement that would suppress the fifth force in the Solar System. Similarly, Vainshtein screening requires a specific non-linear derivative structure (as in Galileon/DGP models) that is absent from our coupling Q^ν = αT∇^νχ. We cannot honestly claim that screening is operational for our specific potential and coupling without an explicit calculation, and no such calculation exists in the current manuscript. In the revised version, we will remove the assertion that chameleon or Vainshtein screening resolves the MICROSCOPE constraints for our framework. Instead, we will present the WEP violation constraint honestly: the coupling ξ must satisfy ξ ≲ 10^{-15} in the Solar System for baryonic matter if the scalar field mass is at galactic scales, which is in tension with the O(1) coupling needed for any significant galactic-scale effect. We will frame this as an open problem for the framework rather than a resolved issue. revision: yes
Referee: §VI: No quantitative fit to any galaxy rotation curve is performed. The paper only describes qualitative regimes without comparing to observed data. Given that Eq. (35) structurally cannot produce flat curves, even a qualitative 'boost' is insufficient to demonstrate viability.

Authors: We agree. Given the structural limitation identified in the referee's first comment, a quantitative fit to observed rotation curves using Eq. (35) would not demonstrate viability—it would confirm that the single-scale Yukawa potential fails to reproduce the observed flatness. We will not attempt such a fit in the revised manuscript, as it would not support the framework's galactic claims. Instead, we will significantly scale back Section VI. The revised section will: (a) present Eq. (35) as the honest prediction of the linearized theory, (b) explicitly state the mathematical bound on the circular velocity, (c) acknowledge that the framework as currently formulated cannot explain flat rotation curves, and (d) reframe the galactic-scale discussion as a motivation for investigating the non-linear regime of the Higgs potential, which is left as future work. The falsifiable prediction regarding the divergence between dynamical mass and lensing mass (arising from the traceless nature of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor) will be retained, as this is a genuine consequence of the coupling structure that does not depend on the rotation curve claim. The abstract and conclusions will be revised to remove all assertions that the framework explains flat rotation curves or the Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained, with no self-citations and no fitted-then-predicted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's core derivations follow internally from the assumed action. The Yukawa potential (Eq. 24) is a genuine consequence of the linearized Klein-Gordon equation (Eq. 19) with the Higgs mass m²χ = 2λv² — the exponential form is not fitted to rotation-curve data. The Schwarzschild recovery (§V) follows trivially from χ→v in vacuum making V^μν vanish, reducing to R^μν=0. The tracking relation ρ_vac ∝ ρ_m² (Eq. 39) follows from substituting the quasi-static solution δχ ≈ αρ_m/m²χ into U ≈ ½m²χδχ². No parameters are fitted to a subset of data and then presented as predictions. The reference list contains no self-citations by the author (R. Maier does not appear as an author on any cited work). The screening mechanism is invoked by external citation [16,17] (Khoury, Weltman, Brax et al.), not by self-citation. The paper's central phenomenological weakness — that the single Yukawa potential of Eq. (35) structurally cannot produce flat rotation curves, which the paper itself acknowledges in §VI — is a correctness/completeness problem, not a circularity problem. The derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction; it simply does not deliver the claimed phenomenological effect without additional physics the paper does not derive. Score 1 reflects the minor overclaim in the abstract ('dynamical explanation for flat galactic rotation curves') relative to what the equations actually produce, but this is not circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework introduces one new entity (the vacuum displacement field χ with Higgs-type potential) and one ad hoc coupling (Q^ν = αT∇^νχ). Four free parameters (α, λ, v, m_χ) are left unspecified numerically. Two additional ad hoc assumptions (screening mechanism, MOND threshold identification) are invoked without derivation. The axiom count is moderate for a modified gravity proposal, but the lack of any numerically specified parameter values or independent evidence for χ beyond the target phenomena is a significant burden.

free parameters (4)

α (coupling constant) = not numerically specified; constrained to ξ = α²/(4πG) ~ O(1) for galactic scales
Introduced in Eq. 7 as the coupling strength between matter trace T and vacuum field gradient. Not determined from first principles; implicitly set to galactic-scale strength.
λ (vacuum stiffness / self-coupling) = not numerically specified
Appears in the Higgs potential U(χ) = (λ/4)(χ²-v²)² (Eq. 3). Determines m_χ = √(2λ)v². No value is given or derived.
v (vacuum expectation value) = not numerically specified
The VEV of χ in the absence of matter (Eq. 3). Together with λ determines the scalar mass m_χ. No value is assigned.
m_χ (scalar field mass) = ~ kpc⁻¹ (galactic scale, stated qualitatively in §IV and §VI)
Defined as m_χ = √(2λv²) (Eq. 17). The galactic-scale value is chosen to match rotation curve observations, not derived from independent physics.

axioms (4)

domain assumption The vacuum is modeled as a Higgs-type scalar field χ with potential U(χ) = (λ/4)(χ²-v²)² undergoing spontaneous symmetry breaking.
Stated in §II (Eq. 3). The choice of a quartic Higgs potential is motivated by analogy to the Standard Model Higgs but is not derived from a more fundamental theory.
ad hoc to paper The matter-vacuum interaction takes the specific form Q^ν = αT∇^νχ, proportional to the trace of the stress-energy tensor.
Introduced in §II (Eq. 7). The author motivates this as the 'lowest-order covariant construction' but does not derive it from an action principle or symmetry requirement beyond this phenomenological argument.
ad hoc to paper A screening mechanism (Chameleon or Vainshtein) suppresses the WEP-violating coupling in high-density environments like the Solar System.
Invoked in §IV to reconcile the coupling ξ ~ O(1) with MICROSCOPE constraints |η| < 10⁻¹⁵. The paper does not demonstrate that the specific Higgs quartic potential with trace-coupling admits such screening; it cites [16,17] which use different potentials and coupling structures.
ad hoc to paper The MOND-like acceleration scale a₀ ≈ 1.2×10⁻¹⁰ m/s² represents a threshold of vacuum displacement.
Asserted in §VI: 'a₀ may represent a fundamental threshold of vacuum displacement.' No derivation connects m_χ, v, λ, or α to the numerical value of a₀.

invented entities (1)

Vacuum displacement field χ (Higgs-type scalar) no independent evidence
purpose: Models the vacuum as a dynamical substrate that responds to baryonic matter, mediating a fifth force and tracking the cosmological constant.
The field χ is postulated by analogy to the Standard Model Higgs but is not the SM Higgs (different scale, different coupling). No independent experimental handle is provided beyond the phenomena it is designed to explain (rotation curves, Λ). The paper does propose a falsifiable lensing signature (§VI), but this is a prediction of the model, not independent evidence for χ.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 14055 in / 3684 out tokens · 283950 ms · 2026-07-05T01:54:04.578334+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 17 internal anchors

[1]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel.17(2014), 4 [arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[2]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989), 1-23

work page 1989
[3]

A History of Dark Matter

G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, no.4, 045002 (2018) [arXiv:1605.04909 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[4]

Sola Peracaula, Phil

J. Sola Peracaula, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A380, 20210182 (2022) [arXiv:2203.13757 [gr-qc]]

work page arXiv 2022
[5]

Sola Peracaula, A

J. Sola Peracaula, A. Gomez-Valent, J. de Cruz Perez and C. Moreno-Pulido, Universe9, no.6, 262 (2023) [arXiv:2304.11157 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page arXiv 2023
[6]

Running vacuum in quantum field theory in curved spacetime: renormalizing $\rho_{vac}$ without $\sim m^4$ terms

C. Moreno-Pulido and J. Sola, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.8, 692 (2020) [arXiv:2005.03164 [gr-qc]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[7]

Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cosmological Constant

I. Zlatev, L. M. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 896-899 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9807002 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999
[8]

Interacting Quintessence

W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Phys. Lett. B521(2001), 133-138 [arXiv:astro-ph/0105479 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001
[9]

B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pavon, Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) no.9, 096901 [arXiv:1603.00311 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[10]

In the Realm of the Hubble tension $-$ a Review of Solutions

E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021) no.15, 153001 [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[11]

P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 508-509 (1964)

work page 1964
[12]

Englert and R

F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 321-323 (1964)

work page 1964
[13]

G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 585-587 (1964)

work page 1964
[14]

Touboulet al.[MICROSCOPE], Phys

P. Touboulet al.[MICROSCOPE], Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.12, 121102 (2022) [arXiv:2209.15487 [gr-qc]]

work page arXiv 2022
[15]

T. A. Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J. H. Gundlach and E. G. Adelberger, Class. Quant. Grav.29, 184002 (2012) [arXiv:1207.2442 [gr-qc]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012
[16]

Chameleon Fields: Awaiting Surprises for Tests of Gravity in Space

J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 171104 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0309300 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004
[17]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A. C. Davis, J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D70, 123518 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0408415 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004
[18]

The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: measuring the cosmic expansion history using the Alcock-Paczynski test and distant supernovae

C. Blake, K. Glazebrook, T. Davis, S. Brough, M. Colless, C. Contreras, W. Couch, S. Croom, M. J. Drinkwater and K. Forster,et al.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.418, 1725-1735 (2011) [arXiv:1108.2637 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[19]

Lensing is Low: Cosmology, Galaxy Formation, or New Physics?

A. Leauthaud, S. Saito, S. Hilbert, A. Barreira, S. More, M. White, S. Alam, P. Behroozi, K. Bundy and J. Coupon,et al.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467, no.3, 3024-3047 (2017) [arXiv:1611.08606 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[20]

S. S. McGaugh, J. M. Schombert, G. D. Bothun and W. J. G. de Blok, Astrophys. J. Lett.533, L99-L102 (2000) [arXiv:astro-ph/0003001 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000
[21]

The small scatter of the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation

F. Lelli, S. S. McGaugh and J. M. Schombert, Astrophys. J. Lett.816, no.1, L14 (2016) [arXiv:1512.04543 [astro-ph.GA]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[22]

Milgrom, Astrophys

M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J.270, 365-370 (1983)

work page 1983
[23]

The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies

S. McGaugh, F. Lelli and J. Schombert, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.20, 201101 (2016) [arXiv:1609.05917 [astro-ph.GA]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[24]

Euclid Definition Study Report

R. Laureijset al.[EUCLID], [arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[25]

LSST: from Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products

ˇZ. Ivezi´ cet al.[LSST], Astrophys. J.873, no.2, 111 (2019) [arXiv:0805.2366 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[26]

Amendola, S

L. Amendola, S. Appleby, A. Avgoustidis, D. Bacon, T. Baker, M. Baldi, N. Bartolo, A. Blanchard, C. Bonvin and S. Borgani,et al.Living Rev. Rel.21, no.1, 2 (2018) [arXiv:1606.00180 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page arXiv 2018

[1] [1]

C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel.17(2014), 4 [arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[2] [2]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989), 1-23

work page 1989

[3] [3]

A History of Dark Matter

G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, no.4, 045002 (2018) [arXiv:1605.04909 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

[4] [4]

Sola Peracaula, Phil

J. Sola Peracaula, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A380, 20210182 (2022) [arXiv:2203.13757 [gr-qc]]

work page arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

Sola Peracaula, A

J. Sola Peracaula, A. Gomez-Valent, J. de Cruz Perez and C. Moreno-Pulido, Universe9, no.6, 262 (2023) [arXiv:2304.11157 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Running vacuum in quantum field theory in curved spacetime: renormalizing $\rho_{vac}$ without $\sim m^4$ terms

C. Moreno-Pulido and J. Sola, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.8, 692 (2020) [arXiv:2005.03164 [gr-qc]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[7] [7]

Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cosmological Constant

I. Zlatev, L. M. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 896-899 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9807002 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

[8] [8]

Interacting Quintessence

W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Phys. Lett. B521(2001), 133-138 [arXiv:astro-ph/0105479 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

[9] [9]

B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pavon, Rept. Prog. Phys.79(2016) no.9, 096901 [arXiv:1603.00311 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

[10] [10]

In the Realm of the Hubble tension $-$ a Review of Solutions

E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess and J. Silk, Class. Quant. Grav.38(2021) no.15, 153001 [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

[11] [11]

P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 508-509 (1964)

work page 1964

[12] [12]

Englert and R

F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 321-323 (1964)

work page 1964

[13] [13]

G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 585-587 (1964)

work page 1964

[14] [14]

Touboulet al.[MICROSCOPE], Phys

P. Touboulet al.[MICROSCOPE], Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.12, 121102 (2022) [arXiv:2209.15487 [gr-qc]]

work page arXiv 2022

[15] [15]

T. A. Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J. H. Gundlach and E. G. Adelberger, Class. Quant. Grav.29, 184002 (2012) [arXiv:1207.2442 [gr-qc]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

[16] [16]

Chameleon Fields: Awaiting Surprises for Tests of Gravity in Space

J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 171104 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0309300 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

[17] [17]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A. C. Davis, J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D70, 123518 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0408415 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

[18] [18]

The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: measuring the cosmic expansion history using the Alcock-Paczynski test and distant supernovae

C. Blake, K. Glazebrook, T. Davis, S. Brough, M. Colless, C. Contreras, W. Couch, S. Croom, M. J. Drinkwater and K. Forster,et al.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.418, 1725-1735 (2011) [arXiv:1108.2637 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

[19] [19]

Lensing is Low: Cosmology, Galaxy Formation, or New Physics?

A. Leauthaud, S. Saito, S. Hilbert, A. Barreira, S. More, M. White, S. Alam, P. Behroozi, K. Bundy and J. Coupon,et al.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467, no.3, 3024-3047 (2017) [arXiv:1611.08606 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

[20] [20]

S. S. McGaugh, J. M. Schombert, G. D. Bothun and W. J. G. de Blok, Astrophys. J. Lett.533, L99-L102 (2000) [arXiv:astro-ph/0003001 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

[21] [21]

The small scatter of the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation

F. Lelli, S. S. McGaugh and J. M. Schombert, Astrophys. J. Lett.816, no.1, L14 (2016) [arXiv:1512.04543 [astro-ph.GA]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

[22] [22]

Milgrom, Astrophys

M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J.270, 365-370 (1983)

work page 1983

[23] [23]

The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies

S. McGaugh, F. Lelli and J. Schombert, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.20, 201101 (2016) [arXiv:1609.05917 [astro-ph.GA]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

[24] [24]

Euclid Definition Study Report

R. Laureijset al.[EUCLID], [arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

[25] [25]

LSST: from Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products

ˇZ. Ivezi´ cet al.[LSST], Astrophys. J.873, no.2, 111 (2019) [arXiv:0805.2366 [astro-ph]]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[26] [26]

Amendola, S

L. Amendola, S. Appleby, A. Avgoustidis, D. Bacon, T. Baker, M. Baldi, N. Bartolo, A. Blanchard, C. Bonvin and S. Borgani,et al.Living Rev. Rel.21, no.1, 2 (2018) [arXiv:1606.00180 [astro-ph.CO]]

work page arXiv 2018