What if modified gravity itself introduces new tensions elsewhere in the standard model predictions?

Your question touches on a genuine tension in theoretical cosmology: *can* modified gravity fix the problems in standard cosmology without creating new ones elsewhere?

The short answer is: it's hard, and many attempts do introduce fresh tensions.

The Problem Modified Gravity Tries to Solve

The standard ΛCDM model has several cracks [AG-2024.04-393]. The Hubble constant measured from the early universe (via the cosmic microwave background) disagrees with local measurements by about 10%—the "Hubble tension." There are also discrepancies in how fast cosmic structures grow. These gaps hint that General Relativity, or our assumptions about dark energy, may need revision [AG-2024.04-393].

Modified Gravity Proposals — and Their New Tensions

Several modified gravity theories have been proposed as fixes:

Finite-range gravity [AG-2024.07-441] suggests gravity weakens over cosmic distances, potentially explaining why the Hubble constant differs at different epochs. Teleparallel f(T) gravity [AG-2026.01-598] modifies gravity's geometry using torsion instead of curvature. Some versions do shift the inferred Hubble constant *toward* local measurements, but [AG-2026.01-598] found that these minimal extensions "are not favoured over ΛCDM by the combined data"—meaning they don't clearly win when tested against observations.

The core tension: when you modify gravity to fix cosmology at large scales, you often break *local* tests. A striking example appears in teleparallel and symmetric teleparallel theories [AG-2025.11-174]. These models can replicate cosmic acceleration successfully, but "they often fail to meet Solar System observational bounds, particularly through deviations in the predicted Eddington parameter"—a precision measurement of how light bends around the Sun. In other words, what works for the cosmos fails for our neighborhood.

Why This Happens

Modified gravity theories have many free parameters. You can tune them to match distant observations (CMB, supernovae, galaxy growth), but General Relativity is *extraordinarily* well-tested locally—GPS satellites depend on it; we measure gravitational effects to parts per billion. Any deviation shows up immediately. [AG-2025.11-174] emphasizes the need for "a unified approach that tests modified gravity theories across both cosmological and local scales."

Interestingly, even very conservative modifications—ones that preserve General Relativity's large-scale equations and only add small scale-dependent corrections—don't help much. A renormalization-group-inspired model [AG-2024.11-359] fits CMB and distance data as well as ΛCDM does, but offers "no advantage for resolving current tensions" and only "slightly increase uncertainties."

The Unresolved Question

One alternative worth noting: the Lambda-CDM-NG model [AG-2024.04-387] uses *only* conventional General Relativity—no speculative new physics—and claims the Hubble tension disappears if you reconsider how matter couples to the gravitational potential. It suggests the issue may be conceptual rather than physical. This approach avoids introducing new tensions, but it's still speculative.

Bottom line: Modified gravity can ease *some* tensions, but it tends to create others—especially tensions with precision Solar System tests. The real prize would be a theory that works at all scales simultaneously, which remains elusive.