Last decades we hear the term "Hubble tension", which implies the inconsistency between local measurements of the current expansion rate of the universe, for example, based on supernovae as standard candles, giving around 73 (km s^–1 Mpc^–1). Using The ΛCDM model measuring the cosmic microwave background (CMB) value of the Hubble constant appears around 67( km s^–1 Mpc^–1), and the discrepancy with local measurements is around 10%! Do we need further experiments if the Hubble tension already makes the ΛCDM model inconsistent? What is your guess for correct H_0?
I do think that there is a problem with the ΛCDM model and this should force a fundamental rethink of the assumptions underlying the Big Bang model.
I have looked at three assumptions which I think are unproven and suspect:
1) The cosmological principle
2) The assumption that all matter formed at the same time
3) The assumption regarding the cause of the cosmic microwave background
If you discard these assumptions and go back to first principles you get a very different model of the evolution of the universe. In this model the universe is finite with a boundary and the unexpected recession velocity of distant galaxies is caused by gravitational acceleration towards the centre of the finite universe.
Conference Paper The Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Richard
HI Alex, a lot of supernovae have been reported so far and the distances are well defined. My report on Researchgate shows a new calculation method. Now distances based on luminance and z measurements match perfectly.
It is assumed that the assumed Hubble constant remains constant with distance. maybe you are interested
Many greetings, Knut
@Stefan Rüster Thank you for the reference to https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.10100.pdf. It is almost the best answer (I would wait for other opinions also before marking it as the best). The authors of the paper give a reasonable and clear explanation of the Hubble tension paradox. Importantly, they provide such reference to the Λ-gravity approach that helps to build a logical bridge.
1) Though, in https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.10100.pdf, it is a bit clumsy how they derive H_0 (4-5) from the SdS metric (1) adding some dark energy Λ, which apriori exists. Definition of Λ (3) is self-made.
2) Equation (5) has a mistake with physical dimensionality [last term a, k- are the dimensionless, dimension of H^2 is not c^2].
Absolutely agree with you: "It makes absolutely no sense to relate the cosmological constant to the vacuum energy density, since the latter one occurs only in quantum theories." Though, there are a lot of alternative ways to explain the cosmological term
Preprint Gravitation with Cosmological Term, Expansion of the Univers...
Thanks, I will read with interest your article as well.
Yes, @Stefan Rüster it's a known fact that the matter in our universe is homogeneously distributed at large scales, and I do not see that this topic is relevant here.
I would like to return to the original question. Any other professional views on the Hubble tension - disagreement of the measured values?
Dear Stefan Bernhard Rüster,
thank you for your reply. Good point. Just to clarify: do you assume the wrong Hubble value, which is measured locally (i.e. 72-74), and the correct Hubble constant value is then given by CMB measurement?
- Badges
- Science topic