AG-2026.01-473·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: gr-qchep-phhep-th
Hubble Tension as an Effect of Horizon Entanglement Nonequilibrium
Authors
- Alexander S. Sakharov
- Rostislav Konoplich
- Merab Gogberashvili
- Jack Simoni
Abstract
We propose an infrared mechanism for alleviating the Hubble constant tension, based on a small departure from entanglement equilibrium at the cosmological apparent horizon. If the horizon entanglement entropy falls slightly below the Bekenstein-Hawking value, we parametrize the shortfall by a fractional deficit $δ(a)$ evolving with the FLRW scale factor $a$. The associated equipartition deficit at the Gibbons-Hawking temperature then sources a smooth, homogeneous component whose density scales as $H^{2}/G$, with a dimensionless coefficient $c_{e}^{2}(a)$ of order unity times $δ(a)$. Because this component tracks $H^{2}$, it is negligible at early times but can activate at redshifts $z\lesssim 1$, raising the late time expansion rate by a few percent without affecting recombination or the sound horizon. We present a minimal three parameter activation model for $c_{e}^{2}(a)$ and derive its impact on the background expansion, effective equation of state, and linear growth for a smooth entanglement sector. The framework predicts a small boost in $H(z)$, a mild suppression of $fσ_{8}(z)$, and a corresponding modification of the low-$z$ distance-redshift relation. We test these predictions against current low-redshift data sets, including SN~Ia distance moduli, baryon acoustic oscillation distance measurements, cosmic chronometer $H(z)$ data, and redshift space distortion constraints, and discuss whether the $H_0$ tension can be consistently interpreted as a late-time, horizon-scale information deficit rather than an early universe modification.
Submitted
25 January 20263 months ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2601.17938
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.