In the 1998, based on Supernova Ia observation, scientists report the accelerating expansion of the universe and their determination of Hubble constant. In the 2013, Planck group reports their determined value of Hubble constant based on cosmic microwave radiation. Those two different determinations lead to the discrepancy in Hubble constant. In the 2016, scientists report that the acceleration of expansion could be accelerating, denote as jerking universe, which is in debate. In the 2017, the extended Hubble law is proposed. In this article, we show that the extended Hubble law offers a theoretical approach to test the 2016 observation. Moreover, based on the extended Hubble law, we proposed a redshift-distance-velocity-acceleration-jerk relation to take into account the effects of acceleration and jerk, and show that the measured value from Supernova Ia observation is actually the value of the effective Hubble constant that is greater than the value of the regular Hubble constant and, thus provides an explanation of the discrepancy in Hubble constant.
Keywords: Hubble constant, redshift, discrepancy, Supernova Ia, Cosmic microwave radiation, cosmology.
Peng, H. (2017). On Discrepancy in Hubble Constant. Open Science Repository Astronomy, Online(open-access), e45011863. http://doi.org/10.7392/OPENACCESS.45011863
Peng, Hui. “On Discrepancy in Hubble Constant.” Open Science Repository Astronomy Online.open-access (2017): e45011863.
Peng, Hui. “On Discrepancy in Hubble Constant.” Open Science Repository Astronomy Online, no. open-access (2017): e45011863. doi:10.7392/OPENACCESS.45011863.
Peng, H. (2017) ‘On Discrepancy in Hubble Constant’, Open Science Repository Astronomy. Open Science Repository, Online(open-access), p. e45011863. doi: 10.7392/OPENACCESS.45011863.
1. H. Peng, On Discrepancy in Hubble Constant, Open Sci. Repos. Astron. Online, e45011863 (2017).
1. Peng, H. On Discrepancy in Hubble Constant. Open Sci. Repos. Astron. Online, e45011863 (2017).
Research registered in the DOI resolution system as: 10.7392/openaccess.45011863.
Main criteria reviewers should evaluate are: originality, sound methodology and data, following of universal ethical principles, scientific relevance and clear description of problems, hypotheses and results.
Names, affiliations of reviewers and personal contacts should be included at the end of the text.
Maximum text length is 10000 characters. Only serious, consistent and original reviews are accepted.