Experiments / V2.355
V2.355
Dynamical Selection COMPLETE

V2.355 - Hubble Tension Filter — What the Framework Says About H_0

V2.355: Hubble Tension Filter — What the Framework Says About H_0

Question

The Hubble tension (H₀ = 67.4 vs 73.0, 5σ) is the biggest crisis in cosmology. Dozens of solutions have been proposed. What does the entanglement framework say about which solutions are viable?

The Framework’s H_0 Prediction

The framework fixes Ω_Λ = 0.6858 ± 0.0015 (computed, V2.352). Combined with the CMB acoustic scale θ* (precisely measured), this determines:

H₀ = 67.5 ± 0.1 km/s/Mpc (framework) vs 67.36 ± 0.54 (Planck)

The shift from Planck is +0.10 km/s/Mpc — negligible. The framework is in 5.4σ tension with SH0ES (73.04 ± 1.04), just like Planck.

Three Exclusion Filters

The framework applies three independent constraints:

Filter 1: Species-dependence (V2.346)

“No extra light species beyond SM + graviton.” Each new field shifts Λ by a calculable amount. Even 1 extra vector is excluded at 3.7σ. Excludes 10/13 “new physics” solutions.

Filter 2: Equation of state

“Λ from entanglement → w = -1 exactly.” Entanglement entropy is a property of the vacuum state, not a dynamical field. Excludes 6/13 solutions.

Filter 3: Topological invariance

“δ and α are UV invariants — no temperature dependence.” Λ is constant through ALL cosmic history (V2.345).

Results: Solution Filtering

Of 19 proposed solutions to the Hubble tension:

CategoryTotalExcludedCompatible
Early universe752
Late universe550
Modified gravity330
Systematic errors404
Total1913 (68%)6 (32%)

Excluded Solutions (13)

SolutionCategoryWhy excluded
Extra radiation (ΔN_eff)EarlyNew species shift Λ
Early Dark Energy (EDE)EarlyNew scalar + w ≠ -1
New Early Dark EnergyEarlyTwo scalars + w ≠ -1
Interacting dark radiationEarlyExtra vector at 3.7σ
MajoronEarlyExtra scalar + ΔN_eff
Phantom DE (w < -1)Latew = -1 exactly
w₀wₐCDMLatew = -1 exactly
Late DE transitionLateScalar + w ≠ -1
Decaying dark matterLateNew decay products
Interacting DE-DMLateDynamical DE field
f(R) gravityModGravExtra scalaron DOF
Brans-DickeModGravExtra scalar (dilaton)
Massive gravityModGravChanges n_grav

Compatible Solutions (6)

SolutionCategory
Varying electron massEarly (no new species)
Primordial magnetic fieldsEarly (no new species)
Cepheid calibration systematicSystematic
SNe Ia standardizationSystematic
Local void / cosmic varianceSystematic
Photometric zero-point errorsSystematic

ALL compatible solutions are either systematics or exotic non-particle effects.

The Prediction

The framework makes a sharp, falsifiable prediction about the biggest open question in cosmology:

The Hubble tension is NOT caused by new particles, dynamical dark energy, or modified gravity. It must be resolved by systematic errors in the distance ladder or by subtle non-particle effects.

How to test this:

  • DESI/Euclid confirm w ≠ -1 → framework falsified
  • CMB-S4 finds ΔN_eff > 0.1 → framework falsified
  • New particle discovered at collider → must survive V2.346 species test
  • SH0ES systematic identified → framework confirmed

Comparison With Other Frameworks

FrameworkH_0Tension solutions allowed
ΛCDM67.4 (fit)All (Λ is free)
String landscapeany (10^500)All (no constraints)
LQGnoneAll (doesn’t predict Λ)
This framework67.5 (computed)Only systematics + non-particle

Critical Assessment

Strengths:

  • Only framework that excludes most H₀ solutions from first principles
  • Falsifiable: if a “new physics” solution is confirmed, framework fails
  • Connects particle physics constraints to cosmological puzzle

Weaknesses:

  • The framework doesn’t solve the Hubble tension — it predicts it’s a systematic
  • If the tension is real (new physics), the framework is in trouble
  • “Varying m_e” and “primordial magnetic fields” are themselves speculative

The bet: The framework stakes its credibility on the claim that no new light particles exist. This is the boldest possible position on the Hubble tension, and it is uniquely testable.

Files

  • src/hubble_tension.py — Solution catalog, H₀ prediction, N_eff scan
  • tests/test_hubble.py — 9 tests, all passing
  • run_experiment.py — Full analysis (7 sections)
  • results.json — Numerical output