Talk:Hubble's law

frequency?

While frequency does have 1/s units, not everything with 1/s units is a frequency. Only periodic, or at least close to periodic, things have frequencies. Gah4 (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

What is this comment in reference to? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: My guess: The fact that the article refers to $H_{0}$ as a "frequency", without making it clear why that's a sensible thing to do. The only place in the article that mentions this is the last paragraph of the lede; it is not referred to again in the article body and that part doesn't have a citation. Our article frequency would indeed imply that it refers to a repeating event, and it is not self evident what is repeating at a frequency of $H_{0}$. Since it's not self evident, we need a reference (and I am tagging it as such). Renerpho (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok I boldly got rid of the frequency thing. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Consideration of 1.2 x 10^-13 m/s^2 residual acceleration data in Hubble Tension discussions

Hi. I am an independent researcher (Ale Gomez Bersano) and I have published a study on Zenodo regarding a constant residual acceleration of 1.2 x 10^-13 m/s^2, derived from an informational entropy framework (EMT).

Preliminary data suggests this specific value could be relevant for bridging the discrepancy between CMB and local supernovae measurements. I am sharing this here for the editors to consider it as a potential source or reference for the "Alternative explanations" or "Observational residuals" sections of this article.

Full paper and DOI details are available on Zenodo (linked in my profile/ORCID).

Best regards, Alejandro Oscar Gomez Bersano (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Alejandro Oscar Gomez Bersano: Thanks for posting here. Unfortunately, we can't use that as long as it's still a preprint. Please let us know once the paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Renerpho (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, @Renerpho. Ok, I understand Wikipedia's policy regarding preprints and peer-reviewed sources.

I will follow up once the formal review process is complete.

Best regards!! Alejandro Oscar Gomez Bersano (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't this article (or at least a section on Hubble tension) mention a Local Hole we live in?

. ~2026-10527-7 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

See Local Hole, it is just one of maybe a zillion claims for the Hubble tension. If you have a review source on Hubble tension that discusses Local Hole issues it can be added. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

"Gravitational lensing could break the Hubble tension"

"Reappearing flashes from deep space, lensed by gravity, could resolve a dispute over the speed of the expanding universe"

Science, Vol 392, Issue 6793. 2 Apr 2026. Open access via Wiki Science Library.

This is a progress report for ongoing work. It does seem to be a good possibility for resolving this long-standing Cosmology dispute. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Refsdal's proposal is discussed in the section "Other kinds of measurements". (Every single team working on this problem will claim "good possibility" for "could break Hubble tension".)

The section is otherwise horrible. It should have more technical depth and no dates. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

renaming the page to Hubble-Lemaitre Law

Since in 2018 the Law was OFFICIALLY renamed to Hubble-Lemaitre Law by the International Astronommical Union (google it if you missed it) Please consider renaming the page's name to Hubble-Lemaitre Law (official name of this Law now, many modern textbooks have already made corrections, see Google) ~2026-40696-63 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Moving this page is possible, but the argument that this is the official IAU name is unlikely to succeed on its own. This was discussed twice, last in 2023: Talk:Hubble's law/Archive 4#Requested move 1 January 2023, resulting in "not moved". I am quoting the closing comment from that discussion:

The result of the move request was: not moved. Numbers are moderately in favour of remaining in place (nb, two IP comments from very similar origin in Belgium were in support and counted as distinct). Support comments preferred to follow the IAU as authoritative, with expectation that WP:COMMONNAME would follow, while oppose comments held that the common name has not yet shifted, but may yet change in future.

My own vote in that discussion was "oppose for now". It is absolutely possible for the Wikipedia:Common name to have changed over the last 3½ years. I didn't check. If anybody believes that it has, the correct procedure is to start another WP:requested move discussion, with the argument that this is now the common name (and with numbers to support that claim and links to support the numbers). See WP:RSPM for how to do it. Renerpho (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

NGRAMS don't have much new information since. There was a trend, but whether it kept up or not is anyone's guess. On arxiv, I get 5 hits for HL Law and 186 for H Law. Which I highly suspect would result in the same "the common name clearly is Hubble Law and no one cared about what IAU had to say" Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Plus 3 additional hits on arxiv for HL Law with a simple i, rather than an i-circumflex; 17 for "Hubble-Lemaitre" (without "Law"); and 56 for just "Hubble-Lemaître". All those combined are unlikely to shift the discussion. Renerpho (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Using Google NGRAM for this is problematic, because the law is commonly abbreviated in the literature to just "Hubble-Lemaitre" or "Hubble-Lemaître"; compare this NGRAM search. Renerpho (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Which is why I put "law" in it, because Hubble's law is also commonly shortened to Hubble. And then you get this utter domination. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah... "Hubble" alone subsumes all kinds of uses that don't refer to his law. Those might be about the telescope, or the guy, or whatever. That's what makes a simple NGRAM search not very good at telling which of these is used more often. I can't prove it, but I believe "Hubble-Lemaître" (without "Law") is more common than "Hubble" (without "Law"). Maybe not in absolute numbers, but relative to the respective variants with "Law" included. Also, pity that NGRAMS ends in 2022 -- as you said, it's anybody's guess what happened since. Renerpho (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)