Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Investigates the cosmic acceleration scale in galaxies, suggesting new cosmological insights.
The empirical acceleration scale that normalises the radial acceleration relation (RAR) is conventionally written as a_0 ≈ 1.20 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s². It marks the scale at which the Newtonian acceleration inferred from the baryonic mass distribution no longer closes the observed galactic acceleration budget. It has long been noted that a_0 lies close to c·H_0/(2π), although the uncorrected Hubble-temperature scale undershoots the empirical value by about 13%. Working within a two-scale de Sitter cosmological background, we define a cosmic mean acceleration scale ā_∂Λ := c · ΘH_0 · (V_Λ / V_H)^(1/4) = c · H_0 / [ 2π · Ω_Λ^(3/8) ], where V_H is the present Hubble volume, V_Λ the asymptotic de Sitter comparison volume, and ΘH_0 = H_0/(2π) = k_B · TH_0 / ℏ the Gibbons–Hawking-type Hubble-temperature frequency scale of the present Hubble horizon. Evaluated at Planck 2018 central values, ā_∂Λ = 1.2006 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s², in 10⁻³-level agreement with the conventional RAR/Milgrom central normalisation, with no galaxy-level fit parameter. We present this relation as an empirical cosmological identity and test its forward and inverse consistency, including a direct SPARC RAR validation with the cosmological value held fixed (Δχ² ≈ +0.08 against the free-a_0 optimum; the bare c·H_0/(2π) scale is disfavoured by Δχ² ≈ +5440 under the same diagnostic). Several equivalent forms expose complementary readings, including a baryon-Hubble form ā_∂Λ ≈ 0.83 · c · H_b and a Friedmann-sum rewriting in which the baryonic, dark-matter, and dark-energy rates together with ā_∂Λ enter a single dimensionless relation. Within the present ansatz, a finite positive Ω_Λ is required to define the de Sitter comparison horizon: the identity is therefore not a MOND-style replacement of dark energy, and galactic regime closure is tied to the late-time cosmological background within this construction. The identity is offered as a phenomenological cosmological ansatz; the microscopic boundary derivation is reserved for a companion paper.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yunbeom Yi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: