Phenomenology of gravitational aether as a solution to the old cosmological constant problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the deepest and most long-standing mysteries in physics has been the huge discrepancy between the observed vacuum density and our expectations from theories of high energy physics, which has been dubbed the old cosmological constant problem. One proposal to address this puzzle at the semiclassical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from spacetime geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as gravitational aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from general relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity. In particular, the theory predicts that the gravitational constant for radiation is 33% larger than that of nonrelativistic matter, which is preferred by (most) cosmic microwave background (CMB), Ly-$\ensuremath{\alpha}$ forest, and $^{7}\mathrm{Li}$ primordial abundance observations, while being consistent with other cosmological tests at $\ensuremath{\sim}2\ensuremath{\sigma}$ level. It is further shown that all parametrized post-newtonian parameters have the standard GR values aside from the anomalous coupling to pressure ${\ensuremath{\zeta}}_{4}$, which has not been directly measured. A more subtle prediction of this model (assuming irrotational aether) is that the (intrinsic) gravitomagnetic effect is 33% larger than GR prediction. This is consistent with current limits from LAGEOS and Gravity Probe B at $\ensuremath{\sim}2\ensuremath{\sigma}$ level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".