What question did this study set out to answer?

This note aims to correct claims regarding the COCM's explanation of the Hubble tension and provides new predictive insights.

May 15, 20260 citationsOpen Access

View Full Paper

COCM: correction of the Hubble tension claim, low-redshift oscillatory structure prediction, and robustness analyses

VLVázquez González José Luis

Key Points

This note aims to correct claims regarding the COCM's explanation of the Hubble tension and provides new predictive insights.
Corrected parameters in the COCM corpus (A0=0.091, φ=-0.956).
Derived falsifiable predictions based on new oscillatory structure crossings at specific redshifts (z=0.015, 0.156, and 0.296).
Conducted five robustness analyses including power spectral density and cosmic chronometer fits.
Original parameter claim of 87% Hubble tension resolution was corrected; COCM does not resolve this tension.
Predicted oscillatory structure crossing points verify with existing DESI BGS data, with amplitudes of ~3-5% at peaks.
Robustness analyses showed no significant peak at the specified frequency and minimal change in acoustic scale metrics.

Abstract

This technical note complements Vázquez González (2026e) (DOI: 10. 5281/zenodo. 20171261). (1) We correct an error in earlier versions of the COCM corpus: the claim that the oscillatory parametrisation explains ~87% of the Hubble tension was based on inflated parameters (A0=0. 177). With the correct DR1 best-fit (A0=0. 091, φ=-0. 956), the modulation at z=0 is -1. 52% and COCM does not resolve the Hubble tension. (2) We derive a new falsifiable prediction: the COCM oscillatory structure produces crossings HCOCM=H_ΛCDM at z=0. 015, 0. 156, and 0. 296, with amplitude ~3-5% at the peaks — testable with existing DESI BGS data. (3) We report five additional robustness analyses: power spectral density of residuals (no significant peak at ωᵦ with n=14), cosmic-chronometer-only fit (signal vanishes without BAO, Δχ²=0. 08, p=0. 96), BAO acoustic scale (rd unaffected, DH varies ±4. 5% point-by-point), large-scale structure (kCOCM≈0. 003 Mpc⁻¹, ℓCOCM≈46), and DR1 vs DR2 parameter comparison (phase differs by 106°, crossings shift). Related works: P1: DOI 10. 5281/zenodo. 19950582P2: DOI 10. 5281/zenodo. 19991607P3: DOI 10. 5281/zenodo. 20090596P4: DOI 10. 5281/zenodo. 20096465NT: DOI 10. 5281/zenodo. 20104113P5: DOI 10. 5281/zenodo. 20171261 (conceptual: 10. 5281/zenodo. 20123140)

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper

COCM: correction of the Hubble tension claim, low-redshift oscillatory structure prediction, and robustness analyses

Key Points

Abstract

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider