Hubble Tension

[Gibsense]

We know the difference between the calculated methods to determine the Hubble Constant is called the Hubble Tension.

The Hubble Tension implies that our current models of the universe might be incomplete. It could indicate new physics beyond the standard model of cosmology, necessitate a reevaluation of dark energy or dark matter, or require adjustments to our understanding of the early universe’s physics. Resolving this tension is crucial for a more accurate model of the universe’s expansion and history.

The two values are approximate:

1. From Cosmic Background Data: about 67 km/second/megaparsec
2. From 1a Supernova data: around 73 km/second/megaparsec

I have, in other posts proposed that "time" should be considered a process of expanding the universe by increasing the radius of our observable universe (or possibly the whole universe, or both). In my most favoured model, the Big Bang lies at the centre of a Hyperball and not on the Hypersphere of our universe.

The Hubble Constant is defined by how much the universe expands - in kilometres - for each passing second, for each megaparsec of distance.
An important factor is to decide how big the universe is. In determining the total expansion of the universe in one second we have to compare that with the size of the universe. A variation in size will vary the Hubble Constant value.

My calculations suggest a value for size approaching 87 billion light years. The standard theory calculated is 93 billion light years. This is a clue to consider.
I will take you through the arithmetic below to enable you to check my assertion. Appreciate that 1 second and 299792.5 kilometres are interchangeable units of measure on a cosmic scale. The meter is defined as the distance light in a vacuum will travel in one second. This is solid physics.

The arithmetic:
The assumption is that the universe is an n-sphere. The distance of the circumference of the n-sphere is the usual C= 2 (Pi)r.

• 1 second = 299792.5km = the increase of the radius (time) of the universe in one second= 1884409.736km/second
• Age of the universe, say, 13.8 billion years. Using Light years for distance the radius is 13.8 billion light years
• The circumference was then calculated at 86,742,857,142 lightyears.
• A megaparsec is 3,261,563.8 light-years
• The Circumference is 26595.5 megaparsecs (86742857142 / 326563.8)
• The universe then, expands by1884409.736km per second distributed over 26595.5 megaparsecs
• The Hubble Constant then, is1884409.736km per second divided by 26595 megaparsecs
• 70.854 km per second per mega parsec
• Hubble Constant 71

The above value of 71 arises from a circumference of some 87 billion light years.
It is asserted that the diameter of the universe is 93 billion light-years. This is if you can see across the universe. However, this is the 'killer remark', if the universe is a hypersphere rather than a Euclidian space then to be able to see as far as possible you would look around the circumference. It would not be possible to look across the hypersphere diameter as that is outside our universe.

So to decide the Hubble Constant if our universe was a hypersphere with a circumference of 93 billion light years we derive a Hubble Constant of 66.09 which is close to the Hubble for data from the Cmb (67). Data from 1a supernova gives the HC at 73 ish (Close to our 71).

The crucial difference is that the intervening data from 1a supernova is stars have a speed in space. The CMB is free of any dilation effects consistent with Special Relativity. I rely here on the notion that there can be considered an "Absolute Stationary" simply by averaging the movement of all stars/mass. Or perhaps in a thought experiment that since the Big Bang a star marker never experienced any for acting to produce a speed through space.

It would appear then that the correct Hubble Constant is 67.

 

[Atlan0001]

Gibsense,
You still appear to be equating a boundless hypersphere to a bounded sphere. Though the same appearing shape, they don't actually equate . . . the set to the constituency of the set. "The map is not the territory!"

How many dead center points of radius are there to a hypersphere?! Infinities! Thus how many spheres?! Infinities! Thus what is the overall circumference of the hypersphere?! Infinity! Radius?! Eternal "accelerating expansionism!"

 

[Gibsense]

Gibsense,
You still appear to be equating a boundless hypersphere to a bounded sphere. Though the same appearing shape, they don't actually equate . . . the set to the constituency of the set. "The map is not the territory!"

How many dead center points of radius are there to a hypersphere?! Infinities! Thus how many spheres?! Infinities! Thus what is the overall circumference of the hypersphere?! Infinity! Radius?! Eternal "accelerating expansionism!"

Yes, lots of 3D spheres (ALL the 3D spheres are cut through pieces of the 4D hypersphere) in a hypersphere. Cross-sections (exact halves) have the same circumference though. Why do you say a hypersphere is boundless? Yes, given endless or progressive time it is boundless in size. For a given time (radius) it is NOT boundless in time; it has a specific size.
Maybe by boundless you mean you can go around and around its circumference (given the time to do it). Yes, that may be so; you would spiral outwards.
The fact is there is only one centre to a hyperball that defines a hypersphere. So the centre of a hypersphere is just like all other spheres - It has an origin from which multi-radii define the hypersphere. Nothing mysterious about it (the BB) except that it does not exist on the hypersphere- only in the hyperball the only exception being when the BB started (it was the origin)

A 2-sphere is your common football/a balloon/an orange. It has a 2D surface.
A 1-sphere is a circle consisting of 1 Dimension
A 3-sphere is a hypersphere having a 3D surface
A 4-sphere has a 4D surface
A N-sphere has a N+1 D surface

 

[externo]

I agree, the universe is a hypersphere as you mention. Exactly, it is a quaternionic hypersphere with time as the scalar dimension. Its radius is cosmic time, but be careful, the visible universe is only one hemisphere of the sphere. In mainstream physics the 92 light years correspond to the visible universe while the 88 light years of the hypersphere correspond to the entire perimeter, therefore the visible universe if only 44 l.y..

 

[Gibsense]

I agree, the universe is a hypersphere as you mention. Exactly, it is a quaternionic hypersphere with time as the scalar dimension. Its radius is cosmic time, but be careful, the visible universe is only one hemisphere of the sphere. In mainstream physics the 92 light years correspond to the visible universe while the 88 light years of the hypersphere correspond to the entire perimeter, therefore the visible universe if only 44 l.y..

I agree with all the points you have made and have covered in the last few months or so here. Not sure about 44 (I got it to 43) . But yes its great someone agrees a nd understands - even if we are wrong! I am short on time at the moment - need to finish Hubble Tension with a Black hole transition diagramatically.
Have you seen the posts re 'opposite hemisphere' where time runs opposite direction?

 

[externo]

Yes, time flows in the opposite direction in the other hemisphere.
This universe is of the type Rh = ct, that is to say, it grows at the speed of light, which is a type of universe that is currently being studied by some scientists as an alternative to the standard model. Nevertheless, these scientists think that this universe is flat because k, the curvature of space, is measured to be zero. I think this comes from a misinterpretation of the GR equations. Scientists consider that light does not accelerate in a gravitational field and have a model of a 4-dimensional curved manifold. In reality, in the gravitational field, time changes orientation with space, as from the point of view of the Painlevé metric. The spherical universe is in fact a direct consequence of the GR equations and the expansion of the universe.
From the point of view of an object in free fall from infinity, light accelerates with it and remains isotropic in relation to it, which causes the light cone to tilt as it falls into the gravitational field, as in this video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZ3R81iyE0

except that in reality the angle of space varies between 0 and 90° and not between 0 and 45°.

This image represents the expansion of the universe, but from the flat point of view.

https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/omega0.gif

The light cones on the central worldline are straight, on the right and left they are tilted. If the light cones are tilted, this means that the lines of simultaneity are also tilted. So the further we look into the universe, the more curved space is.
The real universe is like this:

https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/omega_2.gif

From the FLRW metric for k = 0 we find the equation of the sphere :
dS² = dT² - a²(T)dx²
a²(T)dt² = dT² - a²(T)dx²
a²(T)dt² + a²(T)dx² = dT²
dT² = a²(T) (dt² + dr²),
dt is comoving time and a(t)dt is proper time.

 

[Helio]

We understand that DE is the label used to present the energy responsible for the acceleration of space.

Therefore, a slower expansion rate in the past would be necessary, IMO. Lemaitre’s 1927 paper included acceleration. Others, including Lemaitre, never dropped the cosmological constant. It can be found in mainstream’s FLRW BB model.

Thus, “What good is acceleration if you never go faster?”

 

[Atlan0001]

Sigh!
From observer out into light-speed-time SPACETIME "observable universe" point plus the additional separate space and time to the entangled concurrent REALTIME NOW (t=0) "unobservable universe" point:

Triangulation of observer and tenses, apparently straight line to past observable, curving to unobserved future from past and observer . . . accelerated expansion of triangulation:
1. From observer, 1-light second (1-second past tense) plus 1-second future tense = (t=0).
2. From observer,1-light year (1- year past tense) plus 1-year future tense = (t=0).
3. From observer, 10-light years (10-years past tense) plus 10-years future tense = (t=0).
4. From observer, 100-light years (100-years past tense) plus 100-years future tense = (t=0).
5. From observer, 1,000-light years (1,000-years past tense) plus 1,000 years future tense = (t=0).
6. From observer, 1,000,000-light years (1,000,000-years past tense) plus 1,000,000 years future tense = (t=0).
7. from obs., 1,000,000,000-light years (1,000,000,000-years past tense) plus 1,000,000,000 years future tense = (t=0).
8. From observer, 10,000,000,000-light years.... = (t=0).

Intervening changing spaces and times, changing masses and energies, changing positions and velocities, enormous macrocosmic changes (exponentially increasing -- accelerating expansion of -- a breadth and depth of curvatures and vortices' (a cauldron of pure vortex) chaos), equals the microcosmic model of sheer quantum chaos. It was never, is never, never will be, the smooth sailing through a seemingly orderly universe presented to us in the linear fragments of light's past-tense supposed light cone and timeline alone.
=======================

Editing in on the 24th of June!:

No one has apparently seen it, so I will add this in here! Hawking's realization of a universal contraction to '0'; To borrow and paraphrase what he said from his 'A Brief History of Time', "What's to worry about?! It is already there ('0'), has always been there ('0'), and will always be there ('0')." I didn't quite see the full scope of it myself ("Geez! Where did I take this?!") until just before this edit.
-----------------------

"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." -- Thomas S. Kuhn.

 

[Gibsense]

Yes, time flows in the opposite direction in the other hemisphere.
This universe is of the type Rh = ct, that is to say, it grows at the speed of light, which is a type of universe that is currently being studied by some scientists as an alternative to the standard model. Nevertheless, these scientists think that this universe is flat because k, the curvature of space, is measured to be zero. I think this comes from a misinterpretation of the GR equations. Scientists consider that light does not accelerate in a gravitational field and have a model of a 4-dimensional curved manifold. In reality, in the gravitational field, time changes orientation with space, as from the point of view of the Painlevé metric. The spherical universe is in fact a direct consequence of the GR equations and the expansion of the universe.
From the point of view of an object in free fall from infinity, light accelerates with it and remains isotropic in relation to it, which causes the light cone to tilt as it falls into the gravitational field, as in this video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQZ3R81iyE0

except that in reality the angle of space varies between 0 and 90° and not between 0 and 45°.

This image represents the expansion of the universe, but from the flat point of view.

https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/omega0.gif

The light cones on the central worldline are straight, on the right and left they are tilted. If the light cones are tilted, this means that the lines of simultaneity are also tilted. So the further we look into the universe, the more curved space is.
The real universe is like this:

https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/omega_2.gif

From the FLRW metric for k = 0 we find the equation of the sphere :
dS² = dT² - a²(T)dx²
a²(T)dt² = dT² - a²(T)dx²
a²(T)dt² + a²(T)dx² = dT²
dT² = a²(T) (dt² + dr²),
dt is comoving time and a(t)dt is proper time.

 

[Gibsense]

I do not agree that time and space swap in a black hole.
They are separate things i.e. time is a process in a spatial direction driven as per a white hole by the parent black hole continuing to feed, lol In My Opinion. In a black hole, the star is left behind (From our universe) as time slows to a near stop near the singularity and a repulsive force reverses time from compression to explosion.
JRG/24/6/2024
See my post in Gravity Wells, Time and Black Holes

 

[externo]

I looked at your post and I agree with the way time and space are represented in the diagrams. But everything must be explained by classical physics. The density of the ether increases around the masses which causes the round trip speed of light to decrease, and this decrease causes time to slow down because matter is made up of standing waves whose aging rate depends on the duration of a round trip of light. There is geometry, but more fundamentally there is wave mechanics which explains all the underlying physics. Gravitation is a phenomenon of refraction experienced by both matter and light.
In special relativity, an object experiences time dilation because the speed of light is no longer isotropic with respect to it and a round trip takes longer. Likewise in general relativity the modifications in the properties of the ether cause the speed of light to become radially anisotropic and the stationary objects in the field therefore undergo the same relativistic effects as in special relativity. The same effects produce the same causes.

I agree with this below and the GR equations when properly understood say exactly that. Time and space rotate because light accelerates as it falls into the gravitational field :

What you call radial time is cosmic time.

Cosmic time - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Atlan0001]

The apple is falling into an open / opening system accelerating in expansion, as observed from the perspective of the apple (until it runs smack into some barrier of quantum / classical physics!

The ship, the traveler, is racing at acceleration into an open / opening system accelerating in expansion, as observed from the perspective of the ship, traveler, until it, they, run, if they run, smack into some barrier of quantum / classical physics.

The light cone is expanding into an open / opening system at the ['linear'] constant of the speed of light ('c') accelerating in expansion (E=mc^2) of the forefront ring / sphere of cone....

Self-similar fractal zooms structure of universe. Inverse square law. Embedded time reversal. Newton's three laws of motion. Gravitational waving. Constant of "Big-'G'". Emergent SPACE (hyperspace; subspace; warp space; entangling, including quantum entangling, space ("wormhole" or "jump" space); soliton space....), entangling, including quantum entangling, concurrent REALTIME NOW instant (t=0).

Exceptions, (T=1)....

Strong interaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To be continued.

 

[Gibsense]

I looked at your post and I agree with the way time and space are represented in the diagrams. But everything must be explained by classical physics

Hi externo,
Well here is something I have to disagree with.
Time (what it is etc.) is carefully ignored as a concept too difficult to explain. It is described and wrestled with but not understood.
It is about time ( pun only recognised in hindsight!) theories were considered for testing to achieve understanding and progress. I read somewhere that mathematics and physics can provide accurate models for the universe to be described in terms of Earth being the unique central body but they are exceedingly complex and difficult.
The classical (?) physics requires a feasible description conceptually. So long as Time remains a mystery this cannot be achieved.

 

[externo]

Hi,
Time is the scalar dimension of space, the one that controls its density.
It is when space expands and contracts that time passes.
look at theses videos :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT_EFqmSisQ

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXDUItMVE4U

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KXpkUYvbGo&t=9s


Relativity and quatum mechanics explains by classical physics : https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4356

 

[Atlan0001]

Fractal zooms universe structure (self-similar universe structure (see "Mandelbrot set") is the gravitationally vectoring of an infinity of horizon universes (u) into an 'Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe (U)'. Gravity is "Vector." The force that bases the self-similar "set and reset to base" is the fundamental strong (nuclear) binding force (the fundamental force of '1' (unity (universe))). Aka, the "Big Crunch!" Universally asymptotic 'Black Hole' vortex of all black hole vortices! From non-local, non-relative, infinity (infinities), the 'Nothingness' of the 'Nowhereland' outside to any of an infinity of local-relative finites (times in spacetimes).

The fundamental force that times the universe with light's coordinate points SPACETIME past-futures histories ((t=+1) (t=-1)) is the fundamental electro-magnetic force. The instant of time, the eternal instant of time, is the entangling, including quantum entangling, concurrent REALTIME NOW instant (t=0).

The stress tensor / tension between monopole points, actually points within the same collapsed cosmological constant (/\) Planck (BB) 'Mirror Horizon' point-singularity of Universal Horizon (U) is T=1.

**((+1) (-1)) = 1/0**
**((W+) (W-)) = SF/EM(DQ)**

Once more into the breach:

Strong interaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Classical Motion]

I think time is a by product, an excretion, of motion. Motion consumes and leaves a residue and a ratio of length and time.

 

[Gibsense]

Time is the scalar dimension of space, the one that controls its density.
It is when space expands and contracts that time passes.

Yes, agree. I missed this comment. It is one step closer to understanding. The next step is 'what causes 'Dark Energy'?'.
A suggestion: black hole/white hole transition (avoiding a singularity). This allows the transfer of information (pressure) to a new universe. I tried to address this in a recent thread (with a grapefruit-size star transition involving time reversal in the detached star).

 

[externo]

Yes, agree. I missed this comment. It is one step closer to understanding. The next step is 'what causes 'Dark Energy'?'.
A suggestion: black hole/white hole transition (avoiding a singularity). This allows the transfer of information (pressure) to a new universe. I tried to address this in a recent thread (with a grapefruit-size star transition involving time reversal in the detached star).

I believe there is no dark energy, it is a measurement error that comes from cosmologists not using the right model of the spherical universe of time radius.

 

[Gibsense]

By my calculation, the latest Ho number (69.96 by JWT) would give an age of the universe of 13.975 billion years.
The calculation was made by the assumption that the 'age of the universe' is the radius of a ball whereby our space is the surface of a ball i.e. a sphere.
This conforms well with Standard theory it seems.

I am not aware of any recent comments as to why the CMB result for Ho is about 73 which gives a value of about 13.35 billion years. The difference between the two I had thought, might be the difference between 'first light' and the BB event but it seems the other way around - or is it?

 

[Atlan0001]

The edge of the "observable universe" is about 14-billion light years from Earth. Go 1-billion light years from Earth and the edge of the "observable universe" is about 14-billion light years from your position in the universe (the Milky Way galaxy then as it was 13-billion light years from the edge).

Go 10-billion light years from the Earth and the edge of the "observable universe" will be about 14-billion light years from your position in the universe (the Milky Way galaxy, if existent, then as it was 4-billion light years from the edge).

Go 14-billion light years from the Earth and the edge of the "observable universe" will be about 14-billion light years from your position in the universe . . . your position in it finding to be [always] quantum entangling in space and time with the beginning creation point (the beginning creation 'instant') of the universe (REALTIME NOW (t=0)).

 

[promytius]

I followed that for a while; no matter where the human observer is, they will have a 14 billion light year limit to their technology's sight, according to you.
Now, this last little bit is where I fell off the wagon:

"your position in it finding to be [always] quantum entangling in space and time with the beginning creation point (the beginning creation 'instant') of the universe (REALTIME NOW (t=0))."

I can't scan that sentence and make it logical. Entanglement, as I understand it, does not involve time; heat maybe, but not time. I think you're saying the observer's position is entangled with the center of the universe, your "creation point"? What examples can you offer? I find it impossible to conceive of a specific point in the universe being entangled with the creation point (I have no confidence that a creation point ever existed), because you could imagine being at any one of all the points in the universe, and that would mean everything is entangled to everything else, and that zeroes itself out of the equation.
I'm still not understanding t=0 either. Thanks for your post.

 

[Atlan0001]

I followed that for a while; no matter where the human observer is, they will have a 14 billion light year limit to their technology's sight, according to you.
Now, this last little bit is where I fell off the wagon:

"your position in it finding to be [always] quantum entangling in space and time with the beginning creation point (the beginning creation 'instant') of the universe (REALTIME NOW (t=0))."

I can't scan that sentence and make it logical. Entanglement, as I understand it, does not involve time; heat maybe, but not time. I think you're saying the observer's position is entangled with the center of the universe, your "creation point"? What examples can you offer? I find it impossible to conceive of a specific point in the universe being entangled with the creation point (I have no confidence that a creation point ever existed), because you could imagine being at any one of all the points in the universe, and that would mean everything is entangled to everything else, and that zeroes itself out of the equation.
I'm still not understanding t=0 either. Thanks for your post.

As the world turns. As time turns. As the universe turns (verse: turn: redundant) . . . ever constantly in creation (ever constantly in turnover). REALTIME NOW (t=0), our position, always quantum entangled (entangling) with the universal Planck Horizon of Creation, our own basement, so to speak.

 

[promytius]

(oh! well, of course, now it all becomes clear... it's a soap opera. )
I don't see how t=0, if t is what I think.
That's kind of a chunky, quasi-answer; more like an addendum, but maybe I'm just not used to this odd shorthand that some use, incomplete sentences and undefined terms, and for me, vague references. I'm sure you know what you're talking about.
What does time have to do with entanglement?
And as far as "us" being entangled with anything, is too far-fetched a notion for my brain; you can't entangle objects, macro objects, the "entanglement power" doesn't work on big stuff, as far as I know, that's gravity's super power. Whatever the Planck Horizon of Creation is, we're not entangled with it.
"ever constantly in creation" - what does that apply to? Rocks? Water? Sure, there's creation, but not everywhere all the time. I'm sorry, I just don't follow your connections. Thanks.

 

[Atlan0001]

As the world turns. As time turns. As the universe turns (verse: turn: redundant) . . . ever constantly in creation (ever constantly in turnover). REALTIME NOW (t=0), our position, always quantum entangled (entangling) with the universal Planck Horizon of Creation, our own basement, so to speak.

I wouldn't reply to myself if I hadn't felt I'd been insulted by someone who can't visualized things running together in the superpositions of the universe and doesn't go back over people's past posts to build context ("ever constantly in creation (ever constantly in turnover)"):

Klein bottle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[promytius]

Ahmed Farag Ali, Jonas Mureika, Elias C. Vagenas and Ibrahim Elmashad, in their paper, Bridging quantum mechanics and cosmology: The role of the generalized uncertainty principle, proposes a rethinking of the Plank Constant. I'm curious to know if this is significant to your ideas.

"As The World Turns" is one of the most successful TV soap operas of all time, sorry you missed the reference. I've written poems since I was 14, where esoteric phrasing is expected, yet I find your esoteric references unhelpful in this thread.
I'm extremely curious how you've concluded I am one "who can't visualized [sic] things running together in the superpositions of the universe." You have no access to anyone's mind, with all due respect, and as to why that particular accusation has any kind of relevance to that kind of judgement, or to this thread, is also beyond me.
I have indeed gone over your previous posts here, scanned them, and found the same impenetrable terms and phrases, with which I am unfamiliar.
I know what a Klein bottle is, thank you very much, however, as I understand them, a theoretical one is nothing like a physical one, and therefore hard for me to find applicable. I'm not giving up, just cannot find a door to open, so to speak. Thanks.