Oh yeah 😎
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXi...

Bonjour, savez-vous s'il est envisagé de mettre un mode de lecture audio sur l'application? Je suis abonné mais je ne lis essentiellement pas les articles par faute de temps. J'aurais le temps de les écouter à la place, par exemple en faisant à manger -- ce que je fais avec d'autres journaux.

non-significant Higgs peak (orange is the prediction, the data could agree with anything)

This #CMSPaper measures the Higgs boson when it has high momentum. This is important to test the standard model because deviations are more likely to show up there. But we don't really see the Higgs boson there yet. This result will help when combined with other results tho! arxiv.org/abs/2601.05362

What’s significant is that all but one of the models they consider are ruled out by experiment. I’ll let you guess which one.

What’s significant is that all but one of the models they consider are ruled out by experiment. I’ll let you guess which one.

Oh yeah 😎
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXi...

New preprint out! hal.science/hal-05573592

I’m quite happy about this one. The result really does not look like anything familiar, even though it builds on recent papers in PLB and CQG, and on a result I presented two years ago at #Moriond.

I find this a refreshing and interesting kind of phenomenology: theoretically informed, rather than based on ad hoc modifications of the Friedmann equations, as is often the case.

More generally, this framework cannot work with dark matter models for which Lm ≠ T. In that sense, according to this framework, dark matter cannot be made of free fermions.

That is because not all forms of matter in the Universe satisfy Lm = T on shell. For instance, this is not the case for non-relativistic neutrinos. Therefore, assuming dark matter is dust (e.g. primordial BHs), the theory should deviate from ΛCDM because of neutrinos.

In any case, the good thing is that this proposal can be tested. 👀👇

One may argue that the non-linear coupling is more involved than the Einstein-Hilbert linear one. But I would argue that our preference for linear functions is probably more a human bias, shaped by how we evolved as a species, than an unambiguous physical criterion.

Second, the theory has only one adimensional parameter, instead of two dimensional parameters in General Relativity with a cosmological constant. In that sense, it is actually more parsimonious than GR + Λ.

a cosmological attractor of this weird-looking non-linear theory. In other words, not only does the theory possess all the solutions of General Relativity with a positive cosmological constant when Lm = T on shell, but cosmic expansion also drives the theory toward that limit.

That means that if the Universe were made only of dust and EM radiation, the two theories would be indistinguishable, despite the much stranger-looking form of the former. But that is not all: assuming dark matter is essentially dust, then GR with a positive Λ is

First, as crazy as the theory may look, it possesses all the solutions of General Relativity with a positive (!) cosmological constant, provided that Lm = T on shell, which is the case for dust or EM radiation, for instance.

New preprint out! hal.science/hal-05573592

I’m quite happy about this one. The result really does not look like anything familiar, even though it builds on recent papers in PLB and CQG, and on a result I presented two years ago at #Moriond.

Merci à @lepoint.fr pour cet article.
Ces travaux sur la relativité intriquée sont le fruit de plus de dix années de recherche et de réflexion. C’est un plaisir de voir aujourd’hui cette aventure scientifique racontée au grand public.

😮

It’s not crap if it accelerates research.

Petite précision : la relativité intriquée vient d’une tentative de prendre au sérieux le principe de Mach formulé par Einstein : l’espace-temps ne devrait pas exister indépendamment de la matière. Le lien avec la gravitation quantique est venu après.
À écouter et repartager !

Petite précision : la relativité intriquée vient d’une tentative de prendre au sérieux le principe de Mach formulé par Einstein : l’espace-temps ne devrait pas exister indépendamment de la matière. Le lien avec la gravitation quantique est venu après.
À écouter et repartager !

Pourriez-vous m’indiquer les références qui vous font dire cela, je vous prie ? N’hésitez pas, par ailleurs, à encourager d’autres journaux à s’intéresser au sujet.

Bonjour et merci. La fascisation de la société est un problème que je crois réel et inquiétant. Je n’ai pas choisi ce journal : ce sont eux qui ont souhaité couvrir ces travaux. Il me semblait que Le Point était de centre droit, mais je n’ai pas suivi l’évolution de sa ligne éditoriale.

Merci à @lepoint.fr pour cet article.
Ces travaux sur la relativité intriquée sont le fruit de plus de dix années de recherche et de réflexion. C’est un plaisir de voir aujourd’hui cette aventure scientifique racontée au grand public.

La mécanique quantique peut-elle être déduite d'une modification de la théorie de la relativité générale ? Des propositions pour des alternatives à la théorie relativiste de la gravitation d'Einstein sont presque aussi vieilles qu'elle. Einstein y voyait même le début d'un chemin conduisa...

Article de @futurasciences.bsky.social, sous la plume de @laurents.bsky.social, autour de nos travaux sur la Relativité Intriquée.

Le titre est volontairement très accrocheur, mais le cœur de l’article reste fidèle à ce que la théorie explore réellement.

I’m currently planning a seminar tour to present these latest developments. If you’re interested in hosting a talk or discussing the theory, feel free to reach out. And if you find this interesting or worth debating, feel free to share or comment, I’d be happy to discuss.🔚

Variation of Planck’s quantum of action in Entangled Relativity Variation of Planck’s quantum of action in Entangled Relativity, Chehab, Thomas, Minazzoli, Olivier, Hees, Aurélien

Recent results include exact black-hole and wormhole solutions, and concrete predictions that ℏ and G may vary in ultra-dense environments such as neutron stars and white dwarfs, see iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1....

This does not mean Entangled Relativity is more “true” than GR. But it is a consistent, conservative extension that seems well worth studying, especially in regimes where matter is dense and strongly gravitating.

This includes familiar cases such as dust and electromagnetic radiation. Since our universe is well approximated by dust (cold dark matter, stars, planets, black holes) and radiation, this explains why GR emerges as an excellent approximation.