QME Theory Universal Hubble Constant Ho = 67.76 (Km/S)/Mpc Allows Full Reconciliation of Space Telescopes with Satellites Results

QME Theory Universal Hubble Constant Ho = 67.76 (km/s)/Mpc Allows Full Reconciliation of Space Telescopes with Satellites Results

Imran M. Khan, B.S., M.S., Nuclear Physics, M.B.A., [email protected] Independent Researcher: Nuclear Physics, Astrophysics, Cosmology, & Geology (celestial sphere interiors) ORC id: https://ORCID.org/0000-0003-2369-6947

2.0 INTRODUCTION: ABSTRACT:

By applying the principles of Quantum Mass-Energy (QME) theory, the In this research paper, we first calculate a theoretical QME mass- energy Lamda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) parameters based Hubble vastly different Hubble constant (H O) values from various sources such as satellite measurements, space telescope observations, QME theory, constant of H O(QME) = 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc. We categorize Hubble LIGO, BOA, WMAP, and sky surveys are scientifically reconciled into a constant values from multiple sources into three main camps namely: (i) Quantum Mass-Energy (QME) theory HO calculations using Friedman single true universal value of H O(Universal)=67.76 (km/s)/Mpc. The various Hubble constant values are categorized into three main classes equations, (ii) satellite Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Big Bang radiation mass-energy based measurements and surveys, and (iii) namely: (i) QME Theory calculated H O(QME), (ii) Satellites’ space telescope Cepheid + SN-1a observations of Cepheid variable measurements derived HO(S), and (iii) Space Telescopes’ observations stars that pulsate radially with well defined diameter, temperature, based HO(ST). First a QME theoretical Hubble constant is calculated and luminosity variations. HO(QME) = 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc. This QME theoretical Hubble constant value is shown to closely match the latest Planck satellite 2018 CMB However, irrespective of the different approaches, all three measurements derived final value of HO(S)=67.66 (km/s)/Mpc. QME methodologies should independently converge on a single Hubble theory, is then applied to reconcile differences between the constant value with tight standard deviations. Based on the latest Hubble+Gaia space telescopes’ HO(ST)=73.52 (km/s)/Mpc observations 2018 published Hubble constant results, the delta between the (Cepheid+Super Nova-1a) results versus the Planck satellite HO(S) satellites and the space telescopes results instead of converging has measurements (CMB) derived results. Specifically, a QME space diverged further increasing the tension. The latest 2018 Hubble telescope’s Hubble constant transformation equation is developed that constant values from satellite (CMB mass-energy measurements) and includes QME theory non-linear mass-energy (β), and luminosity space telescopes (Cepheid observations) are 67.66 (km/s)/Mpc and source distance (δ) adjustment factors. The QME space telescope’s 73.52 (km/s)/Mpc respectively. This currently represents an transformation equation is applied to reconcile Hubble+Gaia space irreconcilable Hubble constant values’ difference of 7.97% between telescopes data with satellite measurements results which reduces the the space telescopes Cepheid variables versus the satellite CMB mean percent error from 7.97% to ≤ 0.03%. Overall, further calculations [8]. convergence and reconciliation is achieved amongst the three classes by deriving a single universal Hubble constant value with an average As stated above the satellite measurements and the space telescope observations based independent methods produce Hubble constant value of HO(Universal)=67.76 (km/s)/Mpc. This single universal Hubble constant value matches the QME theoretical value, satellites measured values that differ by as much as about 8%. This Hubble constant value average value, and space telescope observations based average value tension is resolved by developing and applying QME theory non-linear with deltas of 0.30%, 0.87%, and 0.03% respectively. mass-energy (β) plus Cepheid Solid Spherical Iron Core (SSIC) surface luminosity dispersion (δ) factors. Applying the two QME based Keywords : Quantum Mass-Energy (QME) theory, Solid Spherical Iron Core adjustment factors to the space telescope results matches and (SSIC), Reverse Path Gravity-scaling (RPG), Reverse Path Luminosity-scaling reconciles the tension between the satellite CMB measurement and (RPL), Cepheid variables, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation. space telescope Cepheid+SN-1a based Hubble constant values. Consequently, achieving QME theory based reconciliation between the 1.0 BACKGROUND: Hubble+Gaia space telescopes’ (Cepheid+SN-1a) observations and the Hubble constant is the single most important number in astrophysics Planck satellite (CMB) measurements based results leads to a mean that estimates the universe’s current rate of expansion. For the past 80 percent error of ≤ 0.03%. years, there has been little consensus or agreement on a single unified Finally, we collect pertinent Hubble constant historical values from final value for the Hubble constant (H O). Historically, Georges Lemaitre multiple sources and derive a single unified universal Hubble constant [1] was the first to provide a measurement based H = 625 (km/s)/Mpc O value of H O(Universal) = 67.76 (km/s)/Mpc. in 1927. Edwin Hubble in 1929, provided Ho = 500 (km/s)/Mpc based on Hooker telescope observations [2],[3],[4]. Both values were off by 3.0 METHODOLOGY: an order of magnitude. It was Allan Sandage in 1958, who was the first to estimate a realistic value of HO = 75 (km/s)/Mpc [5]. In 2012, the We apply the scientific research methodology as follows: WMAP (9 year study) published improved value of H = 69.32 ± 0.80 O 1. First, we calculate the theoretical Hubble constant applying (km/s)/Mpc[6]. Finally, the two latest Hubble constant values the QME theory mass-energy ΛCDM parameters. published in 2018 are H O = 73.52 ± 1.62 (km/s)/Mpc from Hubble+Gaia space telescopes teams [7],[8], and H O = 67.66 ± 0.42 (km/s)/Mpc the 2. Compare HO(QME) theoretically calculated Hubble constant final value from the Planck satellite team [9]. value with the satellite measured (CMB) and space telescope (Cepheid+SN-1a) based Hubble constant values.

3. Tabulate and compare the satellite HO(S) measured (CMB) (b) HO derivation using QME specific Cosmological constant and QME and space telescope HO(ST) observations (Cepheid+SN-1a) specific vacuum density method: based Hubble constant values. ρvac = universe vacuum density parameter -27 3 4. Apply the Reverse Path Luminosity-scaling (RPL) law of mass ρvac (QME) = 5.891x10 kg/m ; from QME calculations [10] energy that quantifies and accounts for the spherical ΩΛ-QME = QME theory calculated dark energy density parameter dispersion of luminosity emanating from the Cepheid Solid ΩΛ-QME = 0.6889 [12] Spherical Iron Core (SSIC) surface to the Cepheid external G = universal constant = 6.674x10 -11 m3/kg- s-2 [11] surface. c = speed of light = 2.998x10 8 m/s Mpc = 3.09x10 19 km 5. Develop and apply the QME theory non-linear mass-energy

(β) and the RPL adjustment (δ) factors to the space telescope First step is to calculate the QME specific cosmological constant which Cepheid based Hubble constant values. is given by: 6. Derive a universal space telescope transformation equation 2 Λ = [(8πG)/c ] *ρ (3) with adjustment factors that calculates the true Hubble QME vac -11 8 2 -27 constant values for all space telescope based Cepheid ΛQME = [(8π * 6.674x10 ) ÷ (2.998x10 ) ] * 5.891x10 observations. -52 -2 ΛQME = 1.099x10 m ; which compares well with Planck satellite -52 -2 7. Develop a unified single universal Hubble constant value (2015) measurement based Λ Planck = 1.11x10 m 4.0 ANALYSES: From Friedman equations [14] we have: 2 2 In our analyses of Hubble constant data we find two major categories ΩΛ = [(Λ * c ) ÷ (3 * H O )] (4) that are (i) space telescope observations based on Cepheid, 2 2 Ω = [(Λ * c ) ÷ (3 * H )] SuperNova-Ia and (ii) satellites measurements based on CMB radiation. Λ-QME QME 0 -52 -2 Results from these Hubble constant values show there are two For QME calculated: Λ ≡ Λ QME = 1.099x10 m historical trends in play namely: (1) improving precision of the Hubble H = [(Λ * c2 ) ÷ (3 * Ω )]1/2 * Mpc constant values over time, but (2) continued non-convergence of O QME Λ-QME -52 8 2 1/2 19 Hubble constant values between satellite measurements versus space HO = [(1.099x10 * (2.998x10 ) ) ÷ (3 * 0.6889)] * 3.09x10 telescope observations. HO (QME) = 67.55 (km/s)/Mpc (5) For example, by examining H historical data trends two insights are O Both QME specific inputs based methods provide matching theoretical evident namely: (1) the space telescope Cepheid based H O values tend HO values of 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc and 67.55 (km/s)/Mpc respectively. We to be ≥ 70.0 clustering around 73.0 (km/s)/Mpc, and (2) the satellite will apply the H O = 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc value in this paper. CMB based H O values tend to be ≤ 70.0 clustering around 67.0 (km/s)/Mpc. These two very different methodologies are due to space telescopes that observe Cepheid luminosity and its red shift variability, while the satellite measurement studies are based on the CMB and 4.2 Planck satellite CMB measurements based Hubble ΛCDM mass-energy composition critical density parameters. These Constant (H O) : differing values are examined below. The most recent final Hubble constant value reported by the Planck

mission team on June 18, 2018 is H O = 67.66 ± 0.42 [9]. 4.1 QME Theory Derived Hubble Constant (H ) : O The Planck satellite measurements are based on the CMB radiation

(a) HO derived using QME specific universe critical density method: and the ΛCDM model. As such, the Planck Hubble constant final value is already based on a non-linear mass-energy model and does not HO = Hubble constant require any further adjustments. ρc = universe critical density parameter -27 3 ρc (QME) = 8.551x10 kg/m ; from QME calculations [10]. G = universal constant = 6.674x10 -11 m3/kg- s-2 [11] Mpc = 3.09x10 19 km 4.3 Hubble+Gaia Space Telescopes Cepheid Observations based Hubble Constant (H O) : From Friedman equations [14] we have: 2 The most recent Hubble constant value reported by the Hubble+Gaia ρc = 3H O / 8πG (1) team on April 27, 2018 is H O = 73.52 ± 0.62 [7], [8]. 1/2 HO = (8πGρ c-QME ÷ 3.0) Comparing the 2018 Hubble+Gaia space telescopes based value HO(ST) -27 3 Applying QME calculated ρc (QME) = 8.551x10 kg/m [10] critical with the theoretical HO(QME) and the Planck satellite CMB based HO(S) density parameter for the universe we have: shows up to ~9% mismatch. This space telescope discrepancy with -11 -27 1/2 19 satellite CMB measurements increases tension to 3.86σ compared to H = [(8 * π * 6.674x10 * 8.551x10 ) ÷ 3)] * 3.09x10 O the previous result comparisons[7],[8]. The consistently higher space HO (QME) = 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc (2)

telescope H O(ST) values versus the satellite HO(S) values point towards 4.4 Reconciliation of Space Telescope Hubble Constant a fundamental shortfall that can be resolved by the QME theory. (H O) with QME Adjustment factors: To normalize space telescopes’ H (ST) with satellites’ H (S) values, two O O Space telescopes luminosity observations taken from the celestial dimensionless adjustment factors are developed and applied to the sphere external surface will introduce errors. After non-linear (β) space telescope (i) β = 0.9583 non-linear mass-energy & (ii) δ = 0.9581 adjustment, the lack of inverse squared distance adjustment to the Reverse Path Luminosity-scaling (RPL). Cepheid inner core surface, is the second reason for the space

telescopes’ H (ST) Cepheid observation results differing from the 4.3.1 Non-linear Mass-Energy Adjustment factor (β): O satellite CMB mass-energy measurements. The β adjustment factor is in addition to the k-correction; it accounts From Cepheid Iron Core surface to the Cepheid external surface the for relativistic, mass-energy, and non-linear curvature effects. For luminosity (L O) dispersion not fully observed by telescopes is given by: example, the Hubble time t H is defined as the inverse of Hubble constant or t H = 1/H O [32]. If the expansion of the universe had been From QME Reverse Path Gravity-scaling Laws [13][15] we have: linear the age of the universe comes out to be 14.4 billion years. R = 0.17 x R (7) However, from ΛCDM model we know that the expansion is non-linear C S and the correct age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. From the ratio To calculate Solid Spherical Iron Core (SSIC) surface gravity from the of universe age difference we can obtain a dimensionless mass-energy second QME/RPG law [13] we have : factor of (13.8/14.4) = 0.9583 or 0.96. This adjustment factor is 2 already part of the ΛCDM mass-energy model and will also be applied gC = g S * [(R S/R C) – 1] (8) to the space telescope Cepheid linear observations as gC = true core surface gravity flux generation point Non-linear mass-energy adjustment factor β = 0.96 (6) gS = observed gravity at celestial sphere external surface RC = SSIC 17% proportional iron core radius 4.3.2 Luminosity Source Distance Adjustment factor (δ): RS = celestial sphere radius from sphere center to external surface The QME theory [10],[13] states that every gravity generating celestial Inverse square law equally applies to gravity, luminosity, light, sphere has an embedded 17% proportional radius Solid Spherical Iron radiation, magnetism, electromagnetism, sound, and heat dispersion. Core (SSIC). These SSICs generate gravitation flux, radiation, heat, and Since Inverse Square Law equally applies to luminosity and per QME luminosity in stars from their inner core surfaces. This flux disperses theory luminosity disperses out from the Cepheid core surfaces the and depletes as a function of Inverse Square Law. The QME Reverse RPG equation can be translated as the Reverse Path Luminosity-scaling Path Gravity-scaling (RPG) methodology [13] accurately calculates the (RPL) equation as follows: true flux magnitude, by applying the Inverse Square Law starting from 2 LC = L S * [(R S/R C) – 1] (9) the celestial sphere external surface and then scaling back to the SSIC’s surface. Therefore, luminosity (L C) for stars such as the Cepheid stars LC = true core surface luminosity flux generation point starts at their inner SSIC surface and not at the their external surface. LS = observed luminosity from Cepheid external surface The effective distance between the SSIC surface to the celestial sphere Substitute from (7) above external surface is 4.88 times the proportional SSIC core radius. 2 2 Similarly, the difference between the luminosity or intensity of flux LC = LS * [(R S/0.17 x RS) – 1] = LS * [(1/0.17) – 1] between the celestial sphere SSIC surface and its external surface as 2 2 LC = LS * [(1/0.17) – 1] = LS * (4.88) = LS * 23.837 derived and explained in the next section is δ = 0.96 [10],[13]. Luminosity Source Distance RPL adjustment factor δ = 0.96 LC = LS * 23.837 (10)

From (10), strength of luminosity at core surface: LC = LS *23.837 Fraction of luminosity observed by the space telescope:

(LS / L C) = (1.0/23.837) = 0.0419 Normalizing for luminosity flux L C = 1.0 QME RPL adjustment factor: δ = (1 – 0.0419) = 0.9581

Luminosity source distance adjustment factor δ = 0.96 (11)

From Hubble Law we know v = H O D. However, if true D’ = D+d, that implies when velocity (v) is fixed and D’ increases then proportionality constant H O has to decrease to balance the equation. Also, from Inverse square law: gC ∝ L C ∝ (1/H O) or HO ≡ 1/ L C

Space Telescopes Hubble+Gaia H O Adjustments:

Figure-1: Shows Reverse Path Luminosity-scaling (RPL) expression to calculate the true In order to transform the Hubble+Gaia H O we will apply the two value of luminosity generated from the surface of the Cepheid inner core dimensionless factors form (6) and (11) to the latest 2018 Hubble+Gaia published value of HO(ST) = 73.52 (km/s)/Mpc [7],[8]

Step one, from (6) apply non-linear mass-energy factor: β = 0.96 Adjustments can be summarized as:

HO(ST) = 73.52 x 0.96 = 70.58 (km/s)/Mpc HO (adjusted ST) = β x δ x H O (ST) Step two, from (11)apply luminosity source distance adjustment factor Total HO adjustment factors = β * δ = 0.9583 x 0.9580 = 0.9181 = 0.92 δ = 0.96 HO(ST) = 70.58 x 0.96 = 67.76 (km/s)/Mpc In order to reduce the number of significant digits based minor round- off differences, we will use 0.92 as the adjustment factor coefficient for the space telescope transformation equation as follows:

β * δ HO (adjusted) = 0.92 x H O (Space Telescopes/Cepheid)

HO = 0.92 x H O (ST) (12)

After applying the QME mass-energy adjustments to the latest 2018

Hubble+Gaia space telescopes value of H O(ST) = 73.52 (km/s)/Mpc result, we obtain an adjusted H O(STc) = 67.64 (km/s)/Mpc.

The QME based H O(QME) = 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc result agrees with both the Planck satellite CMB H O(S) = 67.66 (km/s)/Mpc and the adjusted Hubble+Gaia space telescopes’ results H O(STc) = 67.64 (km/s)/Mpc with small mean errors of ≤ 0.15% and ≤ 0.27% respectively. A single consolidated universal Hubble constant value is established HO(Universal) = 67.76 (km/s)/Mpc. Analyses to obtain this universal H O value is shown in the results section. Adjustments are applied to all space telescopes, collect and average H O values from multiple research data sources namely: Planck 2018 CMB measurement, Hubble+Gaia Figure-2: Shows true luminosity being generated at the Cepheid inner core surface. 2018 Cepheid observations, various satellites, various space telescopes, Single universal Hubble constant value reconciliation between satellite measurements and BOA (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations), WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave space telescope observations is achieved by applying the non-linear(β)mass-energy and the Anisotropy Probe) 9 years study, LIGO (Laser Interferometer true source inverse square law distance (δ) adjustments. Gravitational-Wave Observatory), and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. credits: original wire sphere (unrelated) NASA, ESA, Fields/STScl, all QME overlays Ikhan.

5.0 RESULTS:

The Hubble constant (H O) quantifies the rate of universe expansion and is therefore the most critical scientific number that requires single value agreement from multiple independent sources. The scientific community is split around two main clusters of HO = 67.0 (km/s)/Mpc and H O = 73.0 (km/s)/Mpc [8]. The vastly different H O values published from measurements (i.e. satellites, LIGO), observations (i.e. Cepheid, Super Nova-1a), theory, and sky surveys (i.e. BOA) currently range between a low of HO = 65.0 (km/s)/Mpc to a high of HO = 75.0 (km/s)/Mpc. This large variation in the Hubble constant values has been a source of convergence tension between the various competing camps. Analyzing the various Hubble constant values shows obvious satellite measurements clustering around H O = 67.0 (km/s)/Mpc and space telescope Cepheid observations clustering around HO = 73.0 (km/s)/Mpc respectively. In the Tables below we provide results for theoretical H O(QME) comparisons with: (1) Satellite measurements H O(S), (2) Space Telescope observations H O(ST), and (3) Single unified value universal H O(Universal).

5.1 QME theoretical H O comparison with Satellites, Gravity Waves, and BAO measurement based Hubble constant: In order to fully reconcile these differing Hubble constant results we first calculate the QME theoretical Hubble constant H O(QME), and then we compare this theoretical HO(QME) value with widely published H O values. The QME theoretical Hubble constant calculated value of H O(QME) = 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc is shown to closely match the latest 2018 Planck satellite CMB measurements based final value of H O(S) = 67.66 (km/s)/Mpc. Table-1 shows the comparisons between the satellite CMB measurements versus the QME theory calculated value with a mean percent error of ≤ - 1.17%. Table-1 – QME theoretical H O comparison with Satellites, Gravity Waves, and BAO survey measurements :

Category Satellites Satellites Original QME Theory Satellites Original Satellites & Ho Ho values Measurements Ho (QME) versus Measurements Measurements Studies Publication Date Ho (km/s)/Mpc (km/s)/Mpc Ho(QME) Error (%) citation Satellite Planck Mission July 18, 2018 67.66 67.56 -0.0015 [9] Gravity waves LIGO October 16, 2017 70.00 67.56 -0.0361 [18] Survey SDSS-III BAO July 13, 2016 67.60 67.56 -0.0006 [20] Satellite Planck Mission February 28, 2015 67.74 67.56 -0.0027 [22], [23] Satellite Planck Mission March 21, 2013 67.80 67.56 -0.0036 [25],[26],[27],[28],[29] Satellite WMAP (9 years) December 20, 2012 69.32 67.56 -0.0261 [6] Mean Percent Error Theoretical Ho(QME) vs Satellite Measurements Ho (%) 68.35 67.56 -1.17%

5.2 QME theoretical H O comparison with Space Telescopes Cepheid+NS-1a observations based Hubble constant:

The space telescope Cepheid+NS-1a observations based Hubble constant values cluster around mid seventies. The latest 2018 Hubble+Gaia space telescope Hubble constant value is HO(ST) = 73.52 (km/s)/Mpc. When compared to the theoretical value of H O(QME) = 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc the difference is -8.82%. The average of all space telescope sources combined is HO(STavg) = 73.63 (km/s)/Mpc, giving a 8.98% difference when compared to the QME theoretical value. In order to reconcile this nearly 9% difference, the QME theory mass-energy non-linear adjustment factor

(β) and RPL luminosity dispersion correction factor (δ) are applied to all of the space telescope values. Applying the expression H O = 0.92 x H O(ST) to all of the space telescope values reconciles the nearly 9.0% difference with the satellite CMB measurement results. After applying the QME adjustments factors to all of the space telescopes, a reconciliation of results between Hubble+Gaia and combined average of all space telescopes is achieved with mean percent errors of ≤ 0.12% and ≤ 0.27% respectively. See Table-2 below for detailed results:

Table-2 – QME theoretical H O comparison with Space Telescopes observations based Hubble constant :

Category Space Telescopes Space Telescopes Original QME Theory Space Telescopes QME Adjusted Adjusted Original Space Ho Ho values Ho(ST) Ho (QME) versus Ho (ST) Ho(ST) vs Observations Telescopes (ST) Studies Publication Date (km/s)/Mpc (km/s)/Mpc Ho(QME) Error (%) Ho = 0.92 * Ho(ST) Ho(QME) Error (%) citation Space Telescopes Hubble + Gaia April 27, 2018 73.52 67.56 -0.0882 67.64 -0.0012 [7], [8] Space Telescope Hubble February 22, 2018 73.45 67.56 -0.0872 67.57 -0.0002 [16], [17] Space Telescope Hubble November 22, 2016 71.90 67.56 -0.0642 66.15 0.0209 [19] Space Telescope Hubble May 17, 2016 73.24 67.56 -0.0841 67.38 0.0027 [21] Studies compilation Cosmicflows-2 October 1, 2013 74.40 67.56 -0.1012 68.45 -0.0131 [24] Space Telescope Chandra X-ray August 6, 2006 76.90 67.56 -0.1382 70.75 -0.0472 [30] Space Telescope Hubble May 30, 2001 72.00 67.56 -0.0657 66.24 0.0195 [31] Mean Percent Error Space Telescopes Original Ho & QME Adjusted Ho (%) 73.63 67.56 -8.98% 67.74 -0.27%

5.3 QME theoretical H O comparison against all categories (Space Telescopes, Satellites, Gravity waves, BOA survey) :

In Table-1 above, Hubble constant result comparisons showed the theoretically calculated value of HO(QME) = 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc that matched closely with both the latest Planck satellite 2018 final CMB measured value of H O(Planck) = 67.66 (km/s)/Mpc with a difference of only 0.015%. This cumulative difference including all satellites, LIGO, and BOA sources was ≤ 1.17%. In Table-2, the difference between the QME Hubble constant value and the latest 2018 Hubble+Gaia space telescope was very wide at 8.82%. Similarly, the large difference between HO(QME) and the average of all space telescopes was 8.98%. However, applying the non-linear mass-energy and the QME RPL adjustments reduced these differences into very tight results agreement. For example, the difference between the QME Hubble constant value and the latest 2018 Hubble+Gaia space telescope adjusted value reduced from 8.82% down to only 0.12%. Similarly, the overall average difference from all space telescopes reduced down from 8.98% to only 0.27%. Therefore, by applying the two adjustments factors to all research space telescopes (Cepheid observations), the Hubble constant results of HO(ST AVG ) = 67.74 (km/s)/Mpc achieve across the board reconciliation with all research satellite (CMB measurements) Hubble constant results of H O(S AVG ) = 68.35 (km/s)/Mpc with mean percent error of ≤ 0.9%.

Having achieved Hubble constant value reconciliation between the space telescopes (Cepheid observations) and the satellite (CMB measurements), the next logical step is to derive and establish an overall single unified universal Hubble value. In this section, we will calculate a single universal Hubble constant value consolidated from all categories including satellites, space telescopes, QME theory, LIGO, BOA, and sky survey studies. As shown in Table-3 below, the single universal Hubble constant value of H O(Universal) = 67.76 (km/s)/Mpc is computed from all categories combined. The QME Hubble constant value HO(QME) = 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc compares very well with this single universal Hubble constant value of H O(Universal) = 67.76 (km/s)/Mpc with a small error of 0.29%. The single universal Hubble constant value of H O(Universal) = 67.76 (km/s)/Mpc from all sources including satellite measurements, space telescope observations, QME theory, LIGO measurements, BOA, and sky surveys also achieves the desired reconciliation between the satellites (CMB measurements) and the space telescopes (Cepheid+NS-1a observations). Complete detailed Hubble constant values’ comparisons between all categories, sources, and research data is provided in Appendix-A.

Table-3 – Single universal Hubble constant value consolidation from all categories (satellites, space telescopes & theory):

All Categories All Categories Category Types Consolidated QME Theory All Categories Theory, Satellites (CMB) Measurements, Universal Ho Ho (QME) versus Telescopes (Cepheid, SN Ia) Observations, & studies (km/s)/Mpc (km/s)/Mpc Ho(QME) Error (%) Theory QME (2015-2018) Calculations 67.56 67.56 0.0000 Satellite Planck Mission 2018 CMB Measurements 67.66 67.56 -0.0015 Space Telescope Hubble + Gaia 2018 Cepheid Observations* 67.64 67.56 -0.0012 Sky Surveys SDSS-III BAO Cepheid, SN Ia Studies 67.60 67.56 -0.0006 Measurements Avg. Sat, LIGO, BOA, WMAP CMB, SN-1a, Binary stars 68.35 67.56 -0.0117 Telescope Average Various Table-1 Cepheid Observations* 67.74 67.56 -0.0027 Mean Percent Error Theoretical QME-Ho versus Single Universal Ho (%) 67.76 67.56 -0.29% * Corrected Ho values by: Ho = 0.92 x Ho(ST)

6.0 CONCLUSION: 7.0 REFERENCES:

QME consolidates & derives a Single Unified Universal Hubble [1] Georges Lemaître, 'Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extra- constant value of H O = 67.76 (km/s)/Mpc: galactiques, Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, A47, p. 49-59, 1. The QME theory consolidates the three main Hubble constant 1927 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1927ASSB...47...49L

categories namely: (i) QME Theory calculated H O(QME), (ii) [2] John P. Huchra (2008). "The Hubble Constant ". Harvard Center for Satellite measurements H O(S), and (iii) Space Telescope observations H (ST) into a single universal Hubble constant Astrophysics. O value of H 0 = 67.76 (km/s)/Mpc with a small mean percent error [3] Edwin Hubble, A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among of ≤ 0.29%. Extra-Galactic Nebulae, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. QME Reconciles ~8% Hubble constant (2018) values difference 15, no. 3, pp. 168-173, March 1929 between Planck measurements and Hubble+Gaia observations: [4] "Hubble's Constant ". Skywise Unlimited - Western Washington University.

2. Once and for-all, QME/RPL theory transformation equation [5] Sandage, A. R. (1958). "Current problems in the extragalactic distance reconciles the 7.97% Hubble constant values’ difference scale". The Astrophysical Journal . 127 (3): 513–526. between the two competing methodologies. Applying the QME Bibcode :1958ApJ...127..513S . doi :10.1086/146483 . adjustment factors to Hubble+Gaia space telescopes gives H (ST) = 67.64 (km/s)/Mpc that closes the gap with the Planck [6] Bennett, C. L.; et al. (2013). "Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy O Probe (WMAP) observations: Final maps and results". The Astrophysical satellite H (S) = 67.66 (km/s)/Mpc result by substantially O Journal Supplement Series . 208 (2): 20. arXiv :1212.5225 reducing the mean percent error down to ≤ 0.03%. Bibcode :2013ApJS..208...20B . doi :10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20 .

QME Theory Hubble constant value of H O = 67.56 (km/s)/Mpc [7] Riess, Adam G.; Casertano, Stefano; Yuan, Wenlong; Macri, Lucas; closely matches the Planck 2018 final & consolidated values: Bucciarelli, Beatrice; Lattanzi, Mario G.; MacKenty, John W.; Bowers, J. Bradley; Zheng, WeiKang; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Huang, Caroline; Anderson, 3. QME theoretical Hubble constant value of H O(QME) = 67.56 Richard I. (2018). "Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic (km/s)/Mpc closely matches the latest 2018 Planck satellite Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant" . CMB measurements based final value of H O(S) = 67.66 The Astrophysical Journal. 861 (2): 126. arXiv :1804.10655 Bibcode :2018ApJ...861..126R . doi :10.3847/1538-4357/aac82e . ISSN 0004- (km/s)/Mpc and satellites average HO(SAVG ) = 68.35 (km/s)/Mpc with percent errors of ≤ 0.15% and ≤ 1.17% respectively. 637X . Retrieved 14 July 2018.

Space Telescope Cepheid Observations require QME [8] Devlin, Hannah (10 May 2018). "The answer to life, the universe and adjustments to normalize with satellite measured values: everything might be 73. Or 67" . the Guardian. Retrieved 13 May 2018.

4. Hubble constant value tension between satellite measurements [9] "Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters" . www.cosmos.esa.int. and space telescope observations is resolved by applying QME Retrieved 18 July 2018. theory non-linear relativistic mass-energy (β) plus Cepheid Solid Spherical Iron Core (SSIC) surface luminosity dispersion (δ) [10] Khan, Imran M., (2017), “Discovery of the true Source, Cause, and Nature of Gravity, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy by the Quantum Mass- adjustment factors. QME theory reconciliation between various Energy (QME) Theory.”, Dated 12/31/2017, GS Journal: 7205 space telescope (Cepheid+SN-1a) observations and various www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/7205 satellite (CMB) measurements’ results convergence is achieved with mean percent error reduction from 7.17% to ≤ 0.90%. [11] I. Newton (1687); Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Translated by F. Cajori), University of California Press, Berkeley (1964). QME Theory Establishes Non-Linear Cepheid+SN-1a Luminosity Adjustment Equation for Space Telescopes (ST): [12] Khan, Imran M., (2018), “Theoretical Solutions for Dark Matter and Dark Energy”. Dated 06/27/2018, GS Journal: 7390 5. The true total luminosity generated at the Cepheid+SN-1a core www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/7390

surfaces can be calculated from the expression: LC = L S * [(R S/R C) – 1] 2. Where L is true core luminosity, L is Cepheid external [13] Khan, Imran M., (2018), “ Gravity Generation by Solid Spherical Iron C S Cores (SSIC) Embedded inside Host Celestial Spheres”. Dated 03/24/2018, GS surface observable luminosity, R is core radius, and R is C S Journal: 7239 Cepheid external surface radius. www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/7239

QME Theory Establishes Hubble constant Transformation [14] Friedman A. (1922) “Uber die Krummung des Raumes” , Z Phys (German) Equation for Space Telescopes (ST): 377-386. English translation Friedman A. (1999) “On the Curvature of Space” , General Relativity and Gravitation.

6. To reconcile the Cepheid+SN-1a space telescope observations [15] Edmond A. Mathez, ed (2000), “Earth Inside and Out”, American based Hubble constant value tension with the satellite CMB Museum of Natural History Archived 2008-04-30 measurements, apply the QME universal transformation equation given by: H 0 = 0.92 x H 0 (ST)

[16] Riess, Adam G.; Casertano, Stefano; Yuan, Wenlong; Macri, Lucas; [24] Tully, R. Brent; Courtois, Helene M.; Dolphin, Andrew E.; Fisher, J. Anderson, Jay; MacKenty, John W.; Bowers, J. Bradley; Clubb, Kelsey I.; Richard; Heraudeau, Philippe; Jacobs, Bradley A.; Karachentsev, Igor D.; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Jones, David O.; Tucker, Brad E. (22 February 2018). Makarov, Dmitry; Makarova, Lidia; Mitronova, Sofia; Rizzi, Luca; Shaya, "New parallaxes of galactic Cepheids from spatially scanning the Hubble Edward J.; Sorce, Jenny G.; Wu, Po-Feng (5 September 2013). "Cosmicflows-2: Space Telescope: Implications for the Hubble constant" (PDF). The The Data". The Astronomical Journal. 146 (4): 86. arXiv :1307.7213 Astrophysical Journal (accepted for publication). Retrieved 23 February 2018. Bibcode :2013AJ....146...86T . doi :10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/86 . ISSN 0004- 6256 .

[17] Weaver, Donna; Villard, Ray; Hille, Karl (22 February 2018). "Improved [25] Bucher, P. A. R.; et al. ( Planck Collaboration ) (2013). "Planck 2013 results. Hubble Yardstick Gives Fresh Evidence for New Physics in the Universe" . NASA . I. Overview of products and scientific Results". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 571 : Retrieved 24 February 2018. A1. arXiv :1303.5062 [astro-ph.CO ]. Bibcode :2014A&A...571A...1P . doi :10.1051/0004-6361/201321529 . [18] The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and The Virgo Collaboration; The 1M2H Collaboration; The Dark Energy Camera GW-EM Collaboration and the [26] "Planck reveals an almost perfect universe" . ESA . 21 March 2013. DES Collaboration; The DLT40 Collaboration; The Las Cumbres Observatory Retrieved 2013-03-21. Collaboration; The VINROUGE Collaboration; The MASTER Collaboration (2017-10-16). "A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the [27] "Planck Mission Brings Universe Into Sharp Focus" . JPL . 21 March 2013. Hubble constant" . Nature. advance online publication. arXiv :1710.05835 Retrieved 2013-03-21. Bibcode :2017Natur.551...85A . doi :10.1038/nature24471 . ISSN 1476-4687 . [28] Overbye, D. (21 March 2013). "An infant universe, born before we knew" . [19] Bonvin, Vivien; Courbin, Frédéric; Suyu, Sherry H.; et al. (2016-11-22). New York Times . Retrieved 2013-03-21. "H0LiCOW – V. New COSMOGRAIL time delays of HE 0435−1223: H 0 to 3.8 per cent precision from strong lensing in a flat ΛCDM model". MNRAS . 465 (4): [29] Boyle, A. (21 March 2013). "Planck probe's cosmic 'baby picture' revises 4914–4930 . arXiv :1607.01790 Bibcode :2017MNRAS.465.4914B . universe's vital statistics" . NBC News . Retrieved 2013-03-21. ‘ doi :10.1093/mnras/stw3006 . [30] Bonamente, M.; Joy, M. K.; Laroque, S. J.; Carlstrom, J. E.; Reese, E. D.; [20] Grieb, Jan N.; Sánchez, Ariel G.; Salazar-Albornoz, Salvador (2016-07-13). Dawson, K. S. (2006). "Determination of the cosmic distance scale from "The clustering of galaxies in the completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect and Chandra X-ray measurements of high-redshift Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications of the Fourier space wedges galaxy clusters". The Astrophysical Journal . 647 : 25. arXiv :astro-ph/0512349 of the final sample". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Bibcode :2006ApJ...647...25B . doi :10.1086/505291 . stw3384. arXiv :1607.03143 Bibcode :2017MNRAS.467.2085G . doi :10.1093/mnras/stw3384 . [31] Freedman, W. L.; et al. (2001). "Final results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to measure the Hubble constant". The Astrophysical [21] Riess, Adam G.; Macri, Lucas M.; Hoffmann, Samantha L.; Scolnic, Dan; Journal . 553 (1): 47–72. arXiv :astro-ph/0012376 Bibcode :2001ApJ...553...47F . Casertano, Stefano; Filippenko, Alexei V.; Tucker, Brad E.; Reid, Mark J.; Jones, doi :10.1086/320638 . David O. (2016-04-05). "A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant". The Astrophysical Journal. 826 : 56. arXiv :1604.01424 [32] Hawley, John F.; Holcomb, Katherine A. (2005). Foundations of modern Bibcode :2016ApJ...826...56R . doi :10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/56 . cosmology (2 nd ed.). Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford University Press. P. 304. ISBN 0-19- 853096-X. [22] "Planck Publications: Planck 2015 Results" . European Space Agency. February 2015. Retrieved 9 February 2015.

[23] Cowen, Ron; Castelvecchi, Davide (2 December 2014). "European probe shoots down dark-matter claims" . Nature . doi :10.1038/nature.2014.16462 . Retrieved 6 December 2014.

APPENDIX - A

Satellites versus Space Telescopes: Comparisons Ho (km/s)/Mpc Delta (%) Planck satellite 2018 Ho(Planck) 67.66 Hubble+Gaia space telescopes 2018 (original data) Ho(H+G) 73.52 -7.97

Planck satellite 2018 Ho(Planck) 67.66 Hubble+Gaia space telescopes 2018 [QME Corrected] Ho(H+G) [c] 67.64 0.03

Average of various satellites Ho(S) 68.35 Average of various space telescopes (original data) Ho(ST) 73.63 -7.17

Average of various satellites Ho(S) 68.35 Average of various space telescopes [QME Corrected] Ho(ST) [c] 67.74 0.90

QME theory versus Satellites & Space Telescopes: Ho (km/s)/Mpc Delta (%) Average of various space telescopes (original data) Ho(ST) 73.63 QME Ho(QME) 67.56 8.98

Average of various space telescopes [QME Corrected] Ho(ST) [c] 67.74 QME Ho(QME) 67.56 0.27

Hubble+Gaia space telescopes 2018 (original data) Ho(H+G) 73.52 QME Ho(QME) 67.56 8.82

Hubble+Gaia space telescopes 2018 [QME Corrected] Ho(H+G) [c] 67.64 QME Ho(QME) 67.56 0.12

Planck satellite 2018 Ho(Planck) 67.66 QME Ho(QME) 67.56 0.15

Average of various satellites Ho(S) 68.35 QME Ho(QME) 67.56 1.17

Universal Hubble Constant vs. Space Telescopes, Satellites & QME: Ho (km/s)/Mpc Delta (%) Average of various space telescopes (original data) Ho(ST) 73.63 Universal single value Hubble constant Ho(Universal) 67.76 8.66

Average of various space telescopes [QME Corrected] Ho(ST) [c] 67.74 Universal single value Hubble constant Ho(Universal) 67.76 -0.03

Average of various satellites Ho(S) 68.35 Universal single value Hubble constant Ho(Universal) 67.76 0.87

QME Ho(QME) 67.56 Universal single value Hubble constant Ho(Universal) 67.76 -0.30

Planck satellite 2018 Ho(Planck) 67.66 Universal single value Hubble constant Ho(Universal) 67.76 -0.15

Hubble+Gaia space telescopes 2018 (original data) Ho(H+G) 73.52 Universal single value Hubble constant Ho(Universal) 67.76 8.50

Hubble+Gaia space telescopes 2018 [QME Corrected] Ho(H+G) [c] 67.64 Universal single value Hubble constant Ho(Universal) 67.76 -0.18

Note:- QME corrected ==> Ho = 0.92 x Ho (Space Telescope - Cepheid)