Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevailing cosmological consensus supports an accelerating universe driven by dark energy, typically modeled as a cosmological constant. However, ongoing observational tensions—such as the Hubble constant discrepancy—and theoretical inconsistencies, including the cosmological constant problem, call for a fresh conceptual approach. This work introduces a new framework grounded in two core hypotheses: (1) that the Hubble parameter evolves inversely with the age of the universe, and (2) that dark energy dynamically balances gravitational attraction in accordance with Newton’s third law. Under this model, the universe expands at a constant rate (zero acceleration), supported by a continuous inflow of vacuum energy characterized by a universal constant energy rate (ER). The framework reproduces energy density values consistent with quantum field theory at Planck scales and offers a potential resolution to both the cosmological constant and Hubble tension problems. Further analysis shows that the energy rate (ER) can be parameterized using Planck units, naturally leading to quantized interpretations of time and energy. This supports a view of spacetime underpinned by discrete Planck-scale structures and aligns with emerging perspectives from quantum gravity. Preliminary comparisons with observational H(z) data show promising alignment, supporting further investigation into the framework's validity and implications for cosmological theory.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".