[ExI] Planck vs Hubble

[Stuart LaForge]

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v11/40
https://astronomynow.com/2018/07/13/cosmic-mystery-deepens-with-conflicting-measurements-of-hubble-constant/
Excerpt:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Astronomers measuring how fast the cosmos is expanding in the wake of the
Big Bang are still confronted with a baffling conflict between the value
observed today and the value derived from observations of the extremely
early Universe. Taking dark energy and the acceleration of the cosmic
expansion into account, it would appear the modern Universe is flying
apart faster than would be expected based on how fast it was moving
shortly after the Big Bang.

Using the Hubble Space Telescope and the European Space Agency’s Gaia
observatory, researchers calculated a value for the Hubble constant, a
measure of the expansion rate of the Universe, of 73.5 kilometres (45.6
miles) per second per million parses. That means that for every 3.3
million light years – 1 million parsecs – farther away a galaxy might be,
it is moving away from us 73.5 kilometres per second faster.

The measurement is remarkably precise, with an uncertainty of just 2.2
percent.

But results from SA’s Planck spacecraft, based on observations of the
microwave background radiation, the residual heat left over after the Big
Bang, place the value of the Hubble constant at 67 kilometers per second
per megaparsec."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This discrepancy of 9% between two measurements of the Hubble constant by
two different methods, each claiming about 2% uncertainty is pretty crazy.

Why would our cosmological models of the CMB from the Planck satellite
predict such a smaller value for H than we observe using cephied variables
with the HST?

This would mean that our causal cell is smaller than it is supposed to be
according to our models and the universe is expanding faster than we would
predict using dark energy.

I had earlier predicted that the vacuum energy density of space was
constant through space but has varied over time since the big bang. I did
this to explain the discrepancy of 120 orders of magnitude between QFT
predicted vs observed values for the vacuum energy by predicting that the
vacuum energy density and consequently pressure was much higher in the
early universe than it is today. Furthermore that is what the Quantum guys
were calculating for the vaccuum energy instead of today's value.

Yet a cosmological time-dependent "field" instead of a cosmological
constant would explain this discrepancy of measurements for the Hubble
parameter as well. If the vaccuum energy density had once been higher than
it is today, then the expansion today would be faster than we would
predict using current values for the cosmological "constant".

Stuart LaForge