A New Physics Would Explain What Looks Like an Irreconcilable Tension between the Values of Hubble Constants and Allows <i>H<sub>0</sub></i> to Be Calculated Theoretically Several Ways
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observing galaxies receding from each other, Hubble found the universe’s expansion in 1929. His law that gives the receding speed as a function of distance implies a factor called Hubble constant H0. We want to validate our theoretical value of H0 ≈ 72.09548580(32) km⋅s-1⋅MParsec-1 with a new cosmological model found in 2019. This model predicts what may look like two possible values of H0. According to this model, the correct equation of the apparent age of the universe gives ~ 14.14 billion years. In approximation, we get the well-known equation 1/H0 ≈ 13.56 billion years. When we force these ages to fit the 1/H0 formula, it gives two different Hubble constant values of ~69.2 and 72.1 km⋅s-1⋅sdot;MParsec-1. When we apply a theoretical correction factor of η ≈ 1.042516951 on the first value, both target the second one. We found 42 equations of H0 linking different physics constants. Some are used to measure H0 as a function of the average temperature T of the Cosmological Microwave Background and the universal gravitational constant G: H0 ≈ 72.06(90) km⋅s-1⋅MParsec-1 from T by Cobra probe & Equation (16) H0 ≈ 71.95(50) km⋅s-1⋅MParsec-1 from T by Partridge & Equation (16) H0 ≈ 72.086(36) km⋅s-1⋅MParsec-1 from G & Equation (34) H0 ≈ 72.105(36) km⋅s-1⋅MParsec-1 from G & Equations (74), (75), or (76). With 508 published values, H0 ≈ 72.0957 ± 0.33 km⋅s-1⋅MParsec-1 seems to be the “ideal” statistical result. It validates our model and our theoretical H0 value which are useful to find various interactions with the different constants. Our model also explains the ambiguity between the different universe’s age measurements and seems to unlock a tension between two H0 values.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it