Hubble Tension Explanation from This Cosmological Model AΛΩ (Slow Bang Model, SB)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we present a model of Hubble-Lemaître law using the notions of a transmitter (galaxy) and a receiver (MW) coupled to a model of the universe (Slow Bang Model, SB), based on a quantum approach of the evolution of space-time as well as an equation of state that retains all the infinitesimal terms. We find an explanation of the Hubble tension H0. Indeed, we have seen that this constant depends on the transceiver pair which can vary from the lowest observable value, from photons of the CMB (theoretical [km/s/Mpc]) to increasingly higher values depending on the earlier origin of the formation of the observed galaxy or cluster (ETG ~0.3 [Gy], ~74 [km/s/Mpc]). We have produced a theoretical table of the values of the constant according to the possible pairs of transmitter/receiver in the case where these galaxies follow the Hubble flow without large disturbance. The calculated theoretical values of the constant are in the order of magnitude of all values mentioned in past studies. Subsequently, we applied the models to 9 galaxies and COMA cluster and found that the models predict acceptable values of their distances and Hubble constant since these galaxies mainly follow the Hubble flow rather than the effects of a galaxy cluster or a group of clusters. In conclusion, we affirm that this Hubble tension does not really exist and it is rather the understanding of the meaning of this constant that is questioned.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".