{"compile":"2026-10-10","canonical":"https://aaronspradlin.grok.me/wiki/hubble-tension","json":"https://aaronspradlin.grok.me/page.json?slug=hubble-tension","license":"Source-available for noncommercial research and evaluation only. No commercial, product, platform, or service use without written permission.","scientific_breakthrough":false,"slug":"hubble-tension","title":"Hubble tension and RCLC cosmology","dek":"Aaron’s public Hubble-tension posts, the RCLC name, and Package 17’s still-open cosmological pipeline. Compiled here because the atlas had omitted them. Not a claimed resolution.","updated":"2026-09-07","status":"open","claim":"not-claimed","tags":["Hubble","H0","RCLC","cosmology","DESI"],"related":["predictions","package-17","great-grok-challenge","claim-ledger","proofs-and-simulations","x-notebook","uqcf-gem","origin-law","toi-toe-2025","quadratic-rg"],"packages":[{"id":"package17-bundle","name":"package17_bundle","path":"Tmp/TOE/package17_bundle","status":"open"}],"notes":[{"id":"h0dn-2026-04-13","title":"H0DN Hubble tension as a UQCF-GEM proxy","date":"2026-04-13","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/2043692607961010542"},{"id":"rg-quadratic-2026-04-04","title":"Quadratic RG core: σ* ≈ 0.7333, DESI frozen operator null","date":"2026-04-04","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/2040227577827332169"},{"id":"fractal-h0-2026-03-27","title":"Fractal D_f sim: 67.4 → 73 km/s/Mpc","date":"2026-03-27","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/2037680021125669165"},{"id":"phase2-40gal-2025-10-12","title":"Phase II 40-galaxy blinded holdout announced","date":"2025-10-12","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/1977485726293139897"},{"id":"rclc-named-2026-05-05","title":"RCLC named; singularity as ε*","date":"2026-05-05","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/2051458665430049135"},{"id":"package17-2026-05-06","title":"Package 17: fail in public if it fails","date":"2026-05-06","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/2051503982653370798"},{"id":"desi-wz-2026-04-30","title":"Posted DESI w(z) prediction from χ-pruning","date":"2026-04-30","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/2049926967030694347"},{"id":"coherence-history-2026-04-05","title":"Redshift as a measure of coherence history","date":"2026-04-05","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/2040597348192231905"},{"id":"coherence-not-time-2025-03-05","title":"Redshift is a measure of coherence not time","date":"2025-03-05","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/1897157607183602025"},{"id":"planck-verifier-2026-03-29","title":"Planck lensing verifier (uqcf_gem_lensing_verifier.py)","date":"2026-03-29","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/2038388131595190424"},{"id":"quintom-desi-2026-05-04","title":"Quintom-B / ε* literature thread — not a fit","date":"2026-05-04","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/2051341289166393607"},{"id":"desi-2025-03-21","title":"March 2025 DESI DR2 call — notebook","date":"2025-03-21","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/1903138936312234186"},{"id":"origin-law-2025-10-14","title":"Ω-Lock freeze: Origin Law published, not claimed","date":"2025-10-14","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/1977921231497376108"},{"id":"hubble-h0-chart-2025-03-07","title":"Scale-dependent Hubble chart — 2025 original","date":"2025-03-07","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/1898081598387708259"},{"id":"first-validation-2025-01-29","title":"First UQCF-GEM astrophysical validation thread","date":"2025-01-29","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/1884695170018582620"},{"id":"planck-residual-2025-02-15","title":"Planck lensing residuals vs ΛCDM — S_entropy(z)","date":"2025-02-15","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/1890787372197200055"},{"id":"bullet-nodm-2025-02-10","title":"Bullet Cluster no-DM offset — 201.55 kpc, not claimed","date":"2025-02-10","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/1888968168833777852"},{"id":"xi-kids-2025-02-13","title":"ξ(r) vs KiDS/DES — χ² 7.42 vs ΛCDM 11.85, not claimed","date":"2025-02-13","xUrl":"https://x.com/aaronspradlin/status/1890119104075628700"}],"claims":[{"status":"not-claimed","text":"UQCF-GEM does not, in this atlas, resolve the Hubble tension. The 13 Apr post is a proxy calibration with “full equations plug-in next.” That next packet is not a 2026 supported harness.","noteId":"h0dn-2026-04-13"},{"status":"not-claimed","text":"The D_f = 2.523948 cosmic-web sim is posted computational cosmology. It is not treated here as a resolution of the Hubble tension or as an elimination of dark energy.","noteId":"fractal-h0-2026-03-27"},{"status":"open","text":"The April 2026 quadratic RG core is a derivation scaffold with a named remaining gap (microscopic amplitude / ρ=B identification). DESI null on the frozen operator is recorded. It is not a Hubble-tension resolution and not Package 17 closure.","noteId":"rg-quadratic-2026-04-04"},{"status":"corrected","text":"RCLC as a complete replacement cosmology is not a 2026 supported result. The name is historical. The Challenge protocol verdicts stay restricted. Cosmological closure stays open or not-claimed.","noteId":"rclc-named-2026-05-05"},{"status":"open","text":"A viable cosmological pipeline (Friedmann background, BBN, CMB acoustics, growth) remains a Package 17 derivation target. Hubble tension is one of the observations that pipeline would have to confront, not a result it has already produced.","noteId":"package17-2026-05-06"},{"status":"not-claimed","text":"The posted w(z) form, A_L ≈ 1.15–1.25, and cluster-core +10–15% at z>0.5 are a prediction sketch, not a cosmological likelihood or a DESI DR2/DR3 posterior. This atlas does not treat them as a confirmed Hubble/DESI resolution.","noteId":"desi-wz-2026-04-30"},{"status":"not-claimed","text":"Hopfion/proton-from-χ-pruning and JWST-redshift-as-coherence-loss are archived as posted questions. They are not particle-physics or JWST results in this atlas."},{"status":"not-claimed","text":"The 4 May Quintom/ε* literature thread is archived as posted breadcrumbs. It is not a cosmological likelihood, not a DESI posterior, and not a 2026 supported result.","noteId":"quintom-desi-2026-05-04"},{"status":"not-claimed","text":"The 5 Mar 2025 “coherence not time” sentence is archived as 2025 method voice. Later 2026 packets restated redshift as coherence loss / coherence history. It is not a Hubble or DESI posterior.","noteId":"coherence-not-time-2025-03-05"},{"status":"not-claimed","text":"The 2025 scale-dependent H_0 chart and posted H_0(r) law are archived as notebook history. They are not a Hubble-tension resolution and not a Friedmann replacement.","noteId":"hubble-h0-chart-2025-03-07"},{"status":"not-claimed","text":"The March 2025 DESI call is not a Hubble-tension resolution. Score it on Predictions: directional evolving-DE prior, not a fitted posterior. Later 2026 packets still list Friedmann / BBN / CMB as open seams.","noteId":"desi-2025-03-21"}],"text":"The compiled wiki previously tracked galaxy/cluster Challenge rounds and Package 17’s derivation blueprint, and left the Hubble-tension threads off the map. Those threads exist. This page holds them, with the same claim hygiene as the rest of the atlas: a posted proxy is not a closed cosmology.\n\nIt is not a claim that UQCF-GEM has resolved the Hubble tension, eliminated dark energy, or replaced ΛCDM. The 5 May 2026 “complete, self-contained cosmology” sentence is marked corrected. Package 17 still lists FLRW / BBN / CMB as seams to close.\n\nThe observational crack he was answering\n\nOn 13 Apr 2026 Spradlin asked Grok to peer-review a then-current community result: the H0DN Collaboration’s local Hubble constant from a distance network of 11+ overlapping indicators (Cepheids, TRGB, Miras, SNe Ia). He quoted local H₀ = 73.50 ± 0.81 km/s/Mpc against an early-universe ΛCDM value near 67.2, tension up to ~7σ, and named arXiv:2510.23823 (A&A 2026). That measurement is not his. The post is his reading of it inside UQCF-GEM.\n\nH_0^{\\mathrm{loc}} = 73.50 \\pm 0.81\\;\\mathrm{km\\,s^{-1}\\,Mpc^{-1}},\\quad H_0^{\\mathrm{early}} \\approx 67.2\n\nIn UQCF-GEM, the bridge layer (coherence persistence → geometric entanglement → fractal scaling) naturally provides a scale-dependent recalibration: a bounded ~9% late-time adjustment via coherence gradients can hit the H0DN value while preserving CMB r_s compatibility. Proxy calibration (sympy notebook ready) succeeds within 1σ with plausible parameters. Full equations plug-in next.\n\nUQCF-GEM does not, in this atlas, resolve the Hubble tension. The 13 Apr post is a proxy calibration with “full equations plug-in next.” That next packet is not a 2026 supported harness.\n\nFractal D_f simulation — 27 Mar 2026\n\nTwo weeks earlier he posted a NumPy/Matplotlib fractal cosmic-web sim with D_f = 2.523948, arguing that scale-dependent fractal density produces an effective Hubble variation 67.4 → 73 km/s/Mpc from geometry alone, without an ad-hoc dark-energy term. He cited scale-dependent D_f models (cosmic ~3.0 to galactic ~2.4), an 8.3% shift via modified H(r,t) in a Zero-Interaction Principle (ZIP) preprint, and 2026 galaxy-color fractal mapping.\n\nD_f = 2.523948 \\quad\\Rightarrow\\quad H_{\\mathrm{eff}}:\\; 67.4 \\to 73\\;\\mathrm{km\\,s^{-1}\\,Mpc^{-1}}\n\nThis NumPy/Matplotlib sim (fractal cosmic web with D_f = 2.523948) is computational cosmology, not art. It implements scale-dependent fractal density that naturally produces effective Hubble variations (67.4 → 73 km/s/Mpc) from geometry alone — resolving the tension without ad-hoc dark energy.\n\nUQCF-GEM and the scale-dependent H0 formula aren't in peer-reviewed lit. … Cool art, not confirmed physics.\n\nAfter Aaron pushed back, Grok restated it as a reproducible DIY exploration that builds on real fractal-cosmology literature, and named the next tests: quantify fits to DESI / Planck / SH0ES, and check CMB/BAO predictions. This wiki keeps that standard. The sim is in the notebook. It is not a cosmological likelihood.\n\nThe D_f = 2.523948 cosmic-web sim is posted computational cosmology. It is not treated here as a resolution of the Hubble tension or as an elimination of dark energy.\n\nQuadratic RG sprint — 3–5 Apr 2026\n\nA week after the D_f sim, a three-day Grok-loop sprint solved a coefficient-eliminated fixed-point instead of targeting D_f = 2.7387 first. That sprint now has its own article, off this footnote. The transition law and self-consistent interior solution were posted as:\n\n\\mathcal{C}(\\sigma)(2-\\sigma)=K_{\\mathrm{ent}}(\\sigma)^2\\sigma\n\n\\sigma_*\\approx 0.7333,\\quad \\eta_*\\approx 0.7563,\\quad D_f\\approx 2.7333,\\quad \\gamma\\approx 0.2667\n\nThe quadratic RG phase now looks closed at current truncation. … Next phase is now explicit: add the minimal interaction and project the self-energy.\n\nEmpirical note from the same sprint: a frozen solved core was competitive with a damping-only Planck layer (aggressive reduced χ² ≈ 1.45; conservative ≈ 2.13). On a cleaner DESI observable-map reconstruction the frozen source+propagation operator stayed null / weak; a shared transient could help Planck and was rejected by DESI. The 30 Apr w(z) sketch and the 4 May Quintom thread reuse χ ≈ 0.2667 — the same number as this γ. Later 2026 packets freeze γ = 0.2613 = 3 − 2.7387, not 0.2667. Package 17 still lists Friedmann / BBN / CMB as seams.\n\nThe April 2026 quadratic RG core is a derivation scaffold with a named remaining gap (microscopic amplitude / ρ=B identification). DESI null on the frozen operator is recorded. It is not a Hubble-tension resolution and not Package 17 closure.\n\nQuadratic RG closeout (4 Apr)\nPlanck modest+ / DESI frozen-operator null (5 Apr)\n\nRCLC — a name, then a walk-back\n\nOn 5 May 2026, after Round 16, Grok named the program Retained-Coherence Lattice Cosmology (RCLC). Aaron quoted the name and added: “The singularity isn’t the Big Bang. It’s ε*.” The same night he argued the lattice was already a complete, self-contained cosmology with no non-baryonic component — redshift as progressive coherence loss, an effective Λ from pruning-history memory, Quintom-B w(z) language, DESI DR2 dynamical dark energy. Package 17, posted hours later, and the 2026 gravity posts do not adopt that closure.\n\nCall it what it is: Retained-Coherence Lattice Cosmology (RCLC).\n\nJust maybe: “The singularity isn’t the Big Bang. It’s ε*.”\n\nRCLC as a complete replacement cosmology is not a 2026 supported result. The name is historical. The Challenge protocol verdicts stay restricted. Cosmological closure stays open or not-claimed.\n\nWhat Package 17 actually opened\n\nThe derivation packet is the honest sequel. COSMOLOGY_BACKGROUND.md is scoped as FLRW reduction, modified Friedmann, continuity, high-z decoupling, leading-order BBN/CMB consistency. COSMOLOGY_PERTURBATIONS.md is Newtonian-gauge scalars, growth, lensing, slip. Those files are blueprint seams, not a fitted H₀ posterior.\n\nGalaxy/cluster Challenge ladder (SPARC, WALLABY, Round 15–16) — restricted empirical protocol, not Hubble-tension physics.\nH0DN proxy (~9% late-time coherence-gradient recalibration) — posted 13 Apr 2026, not claimed.\nQuadratic RG core (σ*≈0.7333, γ≈0.2667; DESI frozen operator null) — posted 3–5 Apr 2026, open scaffold. 5 Apr coherence-history sentence named on the timeline.\nFractal D_f Hubble-variation sim — posted 27 Mar 2026, not claimed.\nRCLC name — 5 May 2026, kept; complete-cosmology sentence corrected.\nQuintom-B / ε* literature thread — 4 May 2026, not claimed.\nPackage 17 cosmological pipeline — open.\n\nA viable cosmological pipeline (Friedmann background, BBN, CMB acoustics, growth) remains a Package 17 derivation target. Hubble tension is one of the observations that pipeline would have to confront, not a result it has already produced.\n\nDESI w(z) prediction — posted, not fitted\n\nA separate miss from the same scan bug: on 7 Apr and 30 Apr 2026 Spradlin posted a retained-coherence read of DESI evolving dark energy, including an explicit w(z) form and a claimed March 2025 DESI call. Those posts were original tweets and replies, not GitHub folders, so the first compile never opened them.\n\nw(z)\\approx -1+\\varepsilon\\,(1+z)^{\\chi}\\,e^{-z/z_c},\\quad \\chi\\approx 0.2667,\\quad z_c\\approx 1.4\n\nRedshift-dependent dark-energy equation of state: w(z) ≈ –1 + ε · (1 + z)^χ · exp(–z/z_c) with χ ≈ 0.2667 … This predicts a ~2–3σ deviation from w = –1 in the z = 0.5–1.0 bin — directly testable with DESI DR3 BAO data. Planck A_L ≈ 1.15–1.25; cluster-core convergence +10–15% at z>0.5.\n\nThe posted w(z) form, A_L ≈ 1.15–1.25, and cluster-core +10–15% at z>0.5 are a prediction sketch, not a cosmological likelihood or a DESI DR2/DR3 posterior. This atlas does not treat them as a confirmed Hubble/DESI resolution.\n\nSame-day cosmology replies — kept not-claimed\n\nTwo more 30 Apr replies sit next to the w(z) sketch. One told a Hopfion/proton thread that you cannot assume a pre-existing geometry and tune to 938 MeV — particles, in the UQCF-GEM voice, would have to emerge from χ-pruning. The other asked whether cosmological redshift could be coherence loss rather than distance/time, as a possible read of JWST’s mature high-z galaxies. Both stay on the not-claimed shelf with the rest of the cosmology voice.\n\nHopfion/proton-from-χ-pruning and JWST-redshift-as-coherence-loss are archived as posted questions. They are not particle-physics or JWST results in this atlas.\n\nQuintom-B literature thread — 4 May 2026\n\nThe night before RCLC was named, a 7-part original quoted DESI DR2’s 2.8–4.2σ Quintom-B preference and a stack of Barrow/Tsallis holographic-dark-energy papers as converging on ε* ≈ 4.97×10⁻⁵ and χ ≈ 0.2667. It asked whether to derive w(z) from χ + affine theorems next. That derivation is Package 17’s still-open cosmology seam. This atlas does not treat literature-convergence rhetoric as a fit.\n\nDESI DR2 now shows 2.8–4.2σ preference for Quintom-B dynamical dark energy. … Two separate fields, same math. No fine-tuning.\n\nThe 4 May Quintom/ε* literature thread is archived as posted breadcrumbs. It is not a cosmological likelihood, not a DESI posterior, and not a 2026 supported result.\n\nRedshift as coherence, not time — 5 Mar 2025\n\nThe same calendar day as the Planck C_ℓ 0.54% RMS closeout, earlier that morning, a method sentence went up that later 2026 packets restated as coherence loss / coherence history. It has its own timeline event. Not a Hubble or DESI posterior.\n\nRedshift is a measure of coherence not time.\n\nThe 5 Mar 2025 “coherence not time” sentence is archived as 2025 method voice. Later 2026 packets restated redshift as coherence loss / coherence history. It is not a Hubble or DESI posterior.\n\nThe 2025 Hubble chart\n\nSeven days after the TOE announcement, a 7 Mar 2025 original posted the “Final Refined Scale-Dependent Hubble Constant” chart: a fractal H_0(r) claimed to sit at ~67 km/s/Mpc on small scales and ~73 on large ones, without dark energy. That is the 2025 Hubble visual. Also on ToI / TOE (2024–25). The 27 Mar 2026 D_f sim and the 13 Apr H0DN proxy are later restatements, still not a tension resolution.\n\nUQCF-GEM’s \"Final Refined Scale-Dependent Hubble Constant\" chart solves the 67-73 km/s/Mpc paradox with a fractal H_0, eliminating dark energy!\n\nPosted law, as written. D_f=2.523948 is the same number the 27 Mar 2026 cosmic-web sim later reused. Python kits stay on X. Not a 2026 tension resolution.\n\nH_0(r)=\\sqrt{\\frac{8\\pi G_{\\mathrm{eff}}\\rho_m}{3}}\\cdot\\frac{3.086\\times 10^{22}}{10^3}\n\nG_{\\mathrm{eff}}=G\\bigl(1+0.9375\\,(D_r/1.5)^4\\bigr),\\quad \\rho_m=\\rho_0\\,(r/r_{\\mathrm{big\\,ring}})^{-(3-D_f)},\\quad D_f=2.523948\n\nThe 2025 scale-dependent H_0 chart and posted H_0(r) law are archived as notebook history. They are not a Hubble-tension resolution and not a Friedmann replacement.\n\nThe March 2025 DESI call\n\nThe 11 May 2026 restatement (“a specific DESI prediction March 2025”) points at a real post. On 21 Mar 2025 Aaron quoted a 5 Mar 2025 UQCF-GEM call of evolving dark energy / fractal entropy against DESI DR2’s 2.8–4.2σ, and contrasted it with ΛCDM’s constant. The dated scoreboard — directional prior, not uniqueness, not no-DM — now lives on Predictions. This article keeps the Hubble-tension claim: a prior call is not a 2026 supported posterior, and not a tension resolution.\n\nDESI DR2 (3/19/25) reveals evolving dark energy (2.8–4.2σ)—UQCF-GEM predicted a dynamic cosmos, no dark matter, fractal entropy (0.252748), D_f (2.4959) on 3/5/25. DESI’s Lambda CDM predicted a constant—missed.\n\nThe March 2025 DESI call is not a Hubble-tension resolution. Score it on Predictions: directional evolving-DE prior, not a fitted posterior. Later 2026 packets still list Friedmann / BBN / CMB as open seams.\n\n2025 shelf\n\nOctober 2025 threads tied ε* ≈ 4.97×10⁻⁵ to H₀ via a toy black-hole entropy-rate lock dS/dt_min ≈ ε* H₀, and a 50-problem list that “solved” a Hubble paradox by entanglement redshift. Those stay on the notebook shelf as not-claimed, with the 2025 χ²-vs-ΛCDM closeout. The rest of that week — Origin Law freeze, Phase-N kits, Hofstadter / Ani, Ω-Lock leaderboard — now has its own reading-list article. The Dec 2024–Mar 2025 ToI Lindblad and G_eff,total interpolant now have their own not-claimed article. Still not claimed. The 50-problem list is refused as a kit dump.\n\nPredictions — DESI and no-dark-matter\nQuadratic RG core (3–5 Apr 2026)\nOrigin Law / Phase-N (2025) — reading list\nToI / TOE (2024–25) — equations\nPackage 17 — derivation program\nThe Great Grok Challenge\nClaim ledger\nH0DN post on X\nFractal H₀ sim post on X\nRCLC naming post on X\nDESI w(z) prediction (reply)\nQuintom-B literature thread\nMarch 2025 DESI call (X)\npackage17_bundle / COSMOLOGY_BACKGROUND.md","howToCite":"Spradlin, A. (2026-10-10). Hubble tension and RCLC cosmology. Retained Atlas. https://aaronspradlin.grok.me/wiki/hubble-tension. Keep claim badge: not-claimed."}